The danger of ending up on the broad way to destruction is not so great for the earnest well-intentioned disciple as for the heedless easygoing self-centred worldling. But this danger does exist-for a different reason. A man’s eagerness to ensure that he is following the way of truth may lead him to attach himself to any dogmatic teacher who recommends himself by his own self-assurance. Such have been known to appear among the faithful with all the trappings of dedicated zeal and specialised knowledge.

“Grievous wolves”

Paul foretold the phenomenon: “Grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise. speaking perverse things to draw away disciples offer them” (Acts. 20:29, 30). The apostle learned that term “wolves” from his Master. And the word he used for “grievous” suggests men who throw their weight about.

Jesus expressed the same idea when he bade his disicples “beware of false prophets”-men who rise up claiming falsely to speak with divine authority (cp. 1 Kgs. 13:11-32). He was to round off his ministry with a similar and even more pointed warning against these self-accredited teachers (Mt. 24:23-26).

Such men come “in sheep’s clothing”, soft and white-that is, with all the outward signs of being respectable and conformable members of the flock-but “inwardly they are ravening wolves”. But “sheep’s clothing” may mean more than “a sheep’s appearance”. Enduma means “a garment which is put on”. So it could be that this false prophet is pictured as a shepherd who fleeces or slays his sheep for his own comfort and well-being. The description: “ravening wolves” now follows very suitably. The picture could hardly be more accurate. When a wolf behaves as a wolf, it is not deliberately setting out to be fierce and predatory, it is simply behaving according to its nature. In the same way the false teacher leaves a trail of damage and ruin because this is his nature — his old nature, unchanged by the influence of Christ.

The figure (used again by Jesus in his parable of the Good Shepherd; Jn. 10:12) is drawn from one of Ezekiel’s searing censures of evil men in his own generation, but (like Ezekiel’s other prophecies) with prophetic reference to later days also. Prophets, priests and princes are all bitterly condemned for “ravening the prey like wolves” (22:25-27).

Paul passed on his Lord’s warning as one urgently needed in the early church: “Grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts. 20:29.) It was one of the apostle’s characteristic understatements. They did much worse than that.

This basic characteristic of an unchanged nature is stressed yet again: “Do men gather a grape (even a single grape?) of thorns, or figs of thistles?” The fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22, 23) do not grow on the least attractive of God’s plants.

Thorns and thistles, one of the curses of the Fall in Eden (Gen. 3:18), may still make their rank presence felt in the New Creation.

Needful Repetition

The principle that a leader in the church shall be judged by his fruits seems simple and obvious. Nevertheless the Lord’s insight into human nature led him to stress this truth again and again, both positively and negatively. It is as though he were teaching little children. Looking back over the years, who can say that the warning was unnecessary? To what extent has it been heeded? Perhaps there has been some uncertainty as to what Jesus meant by “their fruits”. The easy assumption that this describes a man’s personal righteousness is not adequate. The public act put on by the Pharisees had taken in an entire nation, and it would be strange indeed if there have not been more recent revivals of so successful a stage play.

Fruits – Judging Others

Yet in one respect this criterion is sound. In Luke’s gospel the advice to judge the quality of a tree by its fruits is closely linked with the beam and the mote – the denunciation of those who, heedless of their own short-comings, judge others with gusto. Faction leaders have ever shown a marked flair for disreputable activities of this kind.

Deceitful teachers may seek to add to this deceit by a show of good fruits. But the discerning will not be taken in. “A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit”. This is an achievement beyond the power of men. Only God can achieve it, and only in Messiah’s family, as the genealogy of Messiah’s family illustrates: “Coz begat Anub” – Thorn begat Grape (1 Chr. 4:8).

The apostle James appears to have given the Lord’s words the same sort of meaning. In a chapter which used the figure of the tongue for the influence of the teacher in the ecclesia he more than implies that a teacher who is capable of both “blessing and cursing…bitter envying and strife” (3:1 RV, 10, 14) is not fit to have disciples at all: “Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine figs?”. Does not each bear “offer his kind”? Yet, unwilling to lacerate his readers too much with the sharpness of his Lord’s figure, James seems deliberately to have modified the original saying.

Fruits-Disciples

Alternatively, it could be that the “fruits” Jesus alluded to are the actual teachings of these unworthy upstarts, but if so the figure loses some of its fitness, for fruits grow and ripen slowly. Again, and more probably, it is the quality of the disciples of these men to which the Lord pointed: ‘You can assess these prophets by the; kind of followers they gather round them’. In another place where the crop was recognized by its fruits-the parable of the tares – this seems; to be the main point: “When the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also” (Mt. 13:26). The sowing of the tares corresponds to the introduction of false teaching. The ripening in the ear suggests the kind of converts made by this introduction of error.

Fruits – Attitude to Christ

The Lord himself indicated yet another application of this mini-parable, in a later encounter with the Pharisees, when his wonderful miracles were being airily attributed to an alliance with the powers of evil, he bade these baneful adversaries apply his own simple test to himself: “Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit” (Mt. 12:33). But Jesus meant the test to be applied to these Pharisees also-and with what damning results?

So the Lord’s test of false prophets could have as its main point: “You are to judge these men by what they say about me”. (In Mt. the context has precisely this idea; see Study 75). All stand or fall by their attitude to Jesus Christ! This is the very test by which the apostle John proposed to sort out the true and the false among the crop of self-appointed teachers with which the early church found itself afflicted: “Many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God”. To this day there is no better single test of truth and error.

Judgment

And if the teacher be found wanting, if the tree bear evil fruit, what then? Christ answers bluntly: “It is hewn down, and cast into the fire”. This is also the fate of the tree which bears no fruit: “Cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?” (Lk. 13:7). Even in the present day such decisions are made by “the owner of the vineyard” through the Word that He has given to His servants. And so Paul excommunicated Hymenaeus and Alexander for the blasphemies of their erroneous teaching (1 Tim. 1:19-20); 2 Tim. 2:17, 18). If the mouths of harmful leaders cannot be stopped (Tit. 1:11), this is the only alternative.

Notes: Mt. 7:15-20

Luke 6:43-45

This very brief but vitally important section of the Sermon on the Mount presents a problem which is not easy to resolve – the question whether it is to be linked with what has gone before or be taken as introduction to the ensuing section about false prophets and false religion.

In favour of the former it can be urged that the definite article: “the strait gate”, often has a demonstrative sense in New Testament Greek: “this strait gate”. In which case reference would appear to be to the comprehensive but difficult precept which Jesus had just laid upon his disciples: “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”

Yet this is not free from difficulty. The picture presented to the mind is of a narrow gate giving access to a narrow way, with eternal life as its end. Such a mental picture does not seem appropriate to this principle of Christian graciousness. And, further, to apply it in this way would surely imply justification by one’s own good works. If indeed a man is to keep himself in the narrow way to life by observing the Golden Rule, then it must be admitted that a vast proportion of the Lord’s people, with the best will in the world, are frequently astray from it.

Again, the commentary: “few there be that find it” is hardly appropriate to the Golden Rule, which is easy enough to “find” but terribly difficult to maintain as a constant guiding influence in one’s life.

The words of Jesus here strongly suggest a faith which has to be sought out, and a personal decision and choice which have to be made. A man does not drift into the service of Christ. He becomes a disciple by making up his mind that this is the only loyalty he can accept, the only way of life for him to follow. This is the spirit of the appeal made to Israel by Moses, an appeal now reiterated by Jesus in even more challenging fashion: “I call heaven and earth to witness this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live” (Dt. 30:19).

It was a far-reaching claim that if a man would have eternal life he will find it in no other way than through the service of Christ himself: “I am the true and living way: no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (Jn. 14:6). “I am the door: by me if any man enter in he shall be saved” (Jn. 10:9). A man must give his own personal assent to these truths, and make his own personal decision in the light of them.

The only alternative is the wide gate and broad way by which the many follow the road to destruction. The teaching of Jesus here could hardly be more explicit. There are not many or even several ways a man may follow. There are only two, and every individual is in one or the other.

This “either – or” theme gets plenty of emphasis in the Bible-and needs it. Two ways (Jer. 21:8; Pr. 4:10-19); two trees (Ps. 1:6, 7; Jer. 17:5-8); two houses (Mt. 7:24-28). The Greek word for “narrow” is rather frightening. It means “squeezed up”; not “narrow”, but “made narrower”. Everywhere else in the New Testament it is associated with affliction, tribulation.

This narrow way in Christ has to be sought for: “Few there be that ffndit.” And since, only a short while before, Jesus had declared so unequivocally: “Seek, and ye shall find” (7:7), it follows logically that there are only few who seek! Experience underlines the truth of this. The vast majority, if not actually content with life as they find it, are so devoid of higher spiritual aspirations that they never seek anything different from what they naturally know. They do not have to “find” the way that leads to destruction. They are already in it, and are well content to make fast or slow progress there.

The teaching of Jesus here is eclecticism in its most rigorous form. In plain unvarnished fashion he made it perfectly clear that he expected no sweeping success in his preaching. The nation’s ultimate response to his appeal would be small. And in the wider field of Gentile evangelism also the same would be true.

Notes: Mt. 7:13, 14

In the parable of the Sower, “the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches” (Mt. 13:22) are identified by Jesus as the influences most powerful in men’s lives to choke the growth or the new spiritual life. So, appropriately, the Sermon on the mount deals with these side by side.

It is well-known that when the Lord said: “Take no thought for your life”, he meant: “Do not be anxious”, or-a trifle more accurately-”Stop worrying!

Luke has also another somewhat unexpected word (12:29) translated rather doubtfully: “neither be ye of doubtful mind”. This reading leaves most students in doubtful mind as to its correctness. Six times the LXX has it in the sense of “uplifted”- “though thou exalt thyself as the eagle”(Obad. 4). In that case the Lord may be saying: ‘ In this matter of food and clothes, don’t try to keep up with the Joneses’ -a not unnecessary admonition for the moderns who are fashion and affluence conscious.

LXX also (four times) uses a very similar word for ocean billows, thus suggesting the meaning; ‘Cease to agitate yourself over these things like a wild sea with uplifted waves.’ This meaning has in its favour an interesting passage in James which in its context seems to look back to the Sermon on the mount: “But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed” (1:6).

In these days of the affluent society, the commandment: “Take no thought, saying, What shall we eat?” or “What shall we drink?” or, “Wherewithal shall we be clothed?” seems to be completely irrelevant except in a very different sense! Yet even today many in the family of God find that the provision of the basic necessities of living means an unremitting struggle. In the Palestine of our Lord’s day, with all its acute social inequality, there was much hard grinding poverty, so that for many parents how to clothe the children and how to fill their bellies next day, must have been problems rarely out of mind.

It has been suggested that this year of the ministry was a sabbath year, bringing special worries regarding food supply, but also giving people leisure from work so that they could flock to Jesus in crowds. The following passages may have a bearing on this thesis: Mt. 6:11, 12, 26; 9:38; 12:8; Lk. 4:19; Jn. 6:11, 12.

The warnings of Jesus regarding worry are just as needful today as ever they were. Human nature is more than capable of making itself miserable over aspects of life.

Young people worry about passing examinations, about their careers, and especially about their boy-girl friendships. The aged get anxious regarding their personal needs in declining days and who will care for them in protracted illness. Parents never cease to worry about their children — about their health, their progress at school, their friendships and moral outlook. And the middle-aged, who should have learned some degree of poise and maturity from their experience of life, are perhaps worst of all, if only because of the evident and inevitable signs of declining physical powers. And the number of those, of all ages, who have made life a burden to themselves and to many others through inability to accept a situation which they cannot mend, is positively countless. For all such the message of Jesus, based on the primitive example of food and clothes, can be a wonderful help. More than this, it can be a cure.

But the problem is an enormous one. Jesus did not underestimate it or treat it lightly as a trivial neurosis which a man can shrug off for himself.

So, contrary to his usual authoritarian style, Jesus proceeded to reason long and logically about this ingrained weakness so common in his followers. He catalogued nine separate reasons for a new and better outlook regarding the problems in life which steal a man’s sleep and give him ulcers.

Notes: Mt. 6:25-34

Lk. 12:32

The familiar Third Commandment forbad men use the name of God lightly. If there was one precept in all the Law of Moses which the Jews obsequiously honoured, it was this. To them the Covenant Name of God was so holy that it must not be spoken at all. In their synagogue Bible reading they brought in instead the indirect title Adonai-and still do. It is probably in accordance with well-established Jewish usage that Matthew uses the expression “kingdom of the heavens” for “kingdom of God”.

Yet Jesus saved his withering censure for the current habit of using holy things in the taking of oaths. The Law had plain reminders, reinforced by rabbinic instruction, that perjury was a sin, and that every vow sworn unto the Lord must be scrupulously honoured: “Ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God” (Lev. 19:12). The Almighty must be made no party either to deception or to blasphemous trifling.

Moses’ command: “Thou shalt…swear by His Name” (Dt. 10:20) was ruthlessly interpreted as meaning that any oath not addressed directly to the Almighty -“thine oaths unto the Lord” (v. 33) – need not be regarded as binding. It provided a splendid device for over-reaching or deceit in a business deal.

The answer to all this, supplied by Jesus, is a rigorous embargo on all misuse of holy language, and indeed on all forms of overemphasis in speech: “I say unto you, Swear not at all.”

At first sight, this seems like a plain annulment of the words of Moses by one who had just lately said: “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” This is not the case, for this commandment: “Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths” meant: “If an oath is needful, then no other God save Jehovah may be invoked, for there is no other God to swear by” (Dt. 10:20 and context).

Human Perversions

But the name of God must not be used either falsely or lightly (Lev. 19:12). So Jesus proceeded to denounce the way that men had -and have – of introducing a smokescreen of circumlocution into their emphatic speech. They avoided all direct use of the Divine Name, but in spirit it was defiled and profaned abominably by the thoughtless and frivolous substitution of holy things, they swore by heaven, but it was exactly as in the present day when people irreligiously ejaculate “Good heavens!” whilst really intending a blasphemous “Good God!” They turned in pseudo-solemnity towards Jerusalem (see RVm) to carry conviction with their assertions about the most mundane transactions in life. They stamped upon the earth with a violent heel, inviting the hearer to believe their declaration to be as immoveable and dependable as the ground beneath their feet. There was no limit to the variety and even ridiculousness of the protestations with which men dressed up their testimony to make it more credible to the hearer: “I assure you, as truly as there is a head upon my shoulders…” Even a writer like the foul-minded Martial complained about the way in which Jewish traders of the Dispersion glibly decorated their business talk with religious oaths. Jesus framed his protest (mete… mete...) in such a way as to imply that all these oaths were equally trivial. Away with the lot of them!

It was all part of a way of life which had become so familiar as to be taken for granted, sanctioned and even encouraged by the Pharisees (Mt. 23:16-22). Simple statement of truth was deemed inadequate. It must be reinforced with the strongest possible oath and with the most flamboyant language available. Thus they diluted the power of words and tampered with men’s sense of truthfulness.

Holiness in Speech

‘Stop all that’, Jesus bade his disciples, ‘bring into your lives a greater sense of the authority and nearness of God. Learn to live and speak as in His very Presence, and this over-emphasis will then get its needed discipline. When swearing by heaven you will recall that God is enthroned there. And the earth is the footstool of His feet.’ The Lord was making deliberate allusion to a familiar passage in Isaiah: “The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool…but to this man will I look, even to him that… trembleth at my word.” Men were so intent on using every means to impress others with their own words that they forgot altogether the God before whom their oaths were taken. But He did not forget them: “The Lord’s throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men” (Ps. 11:4).

And why drive home the advantage of a tawdry commercial bargain by turning in false reverence towards Jerusalem to help carry conviction? In their eagerness to squeeze another denarius of profit, did they forget whose city it was?

Or why should a dedicated Jew give a solemn undertaking swearing by the kaftan worn at his prayers or by the holy locks of hair which custom prescribed, when all these signs of youth or age, health or infirmity, were in the hand of God: “Thou canst not make one hair white or black.” Only God can do that. Or did the Lord mean: ‘These melodramatic oaths make not the slightest difference to what you really are-a sheep or a goat’ (Mt. 25:32).

Emphasis by Repetition

So Jesus bade his followers let go all this overstatement and striving after the sensational in current speech. “Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.” In other words, be content with plain simple truth. And if you must import emphasis, then say it twice. After all, this is God’s own method. Joseph explained the two dreams granted to Pharaoh in this way: “And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.” (Gen. 41:32) Also, as all Christ’s hearers would well know, it is the standard form of emphasis in Hebrew – “Thou shalt surely die” is expressed by: “Dying thou shalt die”.

Exaggeration

In every age and society this warning by Jesus against exaggeration of speech and extravagance of phrase has been necessary, but perhaps in none more than at the present day. Always there is straining for effect. If through some vagary of the central-heating the house temperature falls to 68, the room is “perishing cold”. A disappointing meal is “positively inedible, and the coffee poisonous”. If the rain is somewhat heavier than normal, it is “literally bucketing down”. New clothes are either “heavenly” or “perfectly ghastly”, according to taste.

These are trivial examples, but they serve to illustrate the constant danger of debauchery of language through attempts to make an impression. In more serious matters instead of cheap slangy hyperbole there is exaggeration, which is often downright misleading and such as ill becomes those who pride themselves on what they call The Truth. The comment passed on one raconteur was no compliment: “Everything in his experience is highly coloured.”

The Lord’s warning should not go unheeded: “Whatever is more than these cometh of evil.” The reading preferred by some modern versions: “cometh of the Evil One”, may be safely disregarded, not only because of the over-all teaching of the rest of Scripture but because of the context. Twenty words further on there comes the command: “Resist not evil.” The Greek here is just the same. Yet is it at all possible that Jesus said: “Resist not the Evil One”? Such would be difficult to reconcile with Peter’s unequivocal: “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.”

The Oath in Court

There is a further problem. Do these words of Jesus prohibit the taking of the oath in a modern court of law? To some, there is only one answer: an obvious “Yes”. But further thought shows that the issue is not so uncomplicated as it may seem. At his trial Jesus suffered himself to be put on oath; indeed, it was only then that he broke his silence to answer the challenge of the high priest: “I adjure thee by the living God…” (Mt. 26:63). Time and again in his epistles the apostle Paul expressed himself by an oath of the most impassioned kind:

“I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 9:1).

“For God is my witness …that without i ceasing I make mention of you always in my | prayers” (Rom. 1:9).

“Moreover I call God for a witness upon my -j soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth” (2 Cor. 1:23).

“The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ... knoweth that I lie not” (2 Cor. 11:31).

“Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not” (Gal. 1:20).

It must be evident from examples such as these; that what Jesus would have his disciples avoid is the frivolous misuse of language or a straining; after sensationalism, neither of which are closely related to truth. He was not forbidding I solemn declarations which are a proper expression of deep emotion.

The oath in court is indeed outlawed for the disciple of the Lord, mainly because in these irreligious days it has lost its solemnity and sincerity. The form of words is gabbled off mostly with no thought to the weightiness of their meaning. It behoves the Lord’s servant to eschew all association with such an abuse, the more so since there is available the alternative of a solemn affirmation. It is a sad commentary on our times that the witness in court who for religious reasons chooses to affirm probably carries more weight in his testimony than the one who takes the oath.

Notes: Mt. 5:33-37

In sharp contrast with the patient sustained reasoning in his discourse about the sin of worry, Jesus became peremptory regarding the universal human foible of sitting in judgement (condemnation) on the actions and motives of others. This he curtly proscribed: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” The Greek imperative neatly implies: ‘You already have the bad habit (true of everybody!). You are to stop it!’

No word he spoke was more needed, or less heeded. To make censorious assessment of the character and behaviour and even the intentions of others is a human sin which is more often than not reckoned almost a virtue. Men-and, even more, women-pride themselves on being able to read character and discern motives. And always these demonic abilities contrive to minister to personal pride. For, behind every unspoken censure of one’s fellow is the tacit self-congratulation: “I thank thee, Lord, that I am not as he.” Yet at that very moment the Lord is probably grieving that the self-appointed judge is himself ripe for condemnation.

There is about this common critical spirit a rank unfairness which mostly goes unrecognized. Paul put it bluntly in his apostrophe to “whosoever thou are that judgest”: “Wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things…And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God” (Rom. 2:1, 3). Often enough – such being the power of the human mind for self-deceit-this is what happens.’’ *

Then does this mean that no reprobation of the actions of another should ever be spoken, or even thought? Are there not precepts enough in the New Testament bidding the Lord’s people assess and reject false teaching and evil ways of life?

Very true! But there is also, alas, the unattractive habit of passing censure on how other people behave. The principles of Christian living can often be interpreted or applied with different degrees of austerity or idealism, and then there is a temptation to write off the discipleship of others as paltry or lukewarm.

However, Paul insists that how believers express in practice their understanding of the Lord’s precepts rests between them and their Master: “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ…Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way” Rom. 14:4, 10, 13).

And again: “I know nothing by (RV: against) myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come” (1 Cor. 4:4, 5).

Yet in the next chapter (5:3, 11-13) Paul requires the strongest repudiation of one whose way of life was not open to anything but an evil interpretation. It was as blatant a case as could be imagined.

There is a difference, then, which calls for careful discrimination. If a thing said or done is plainly condemned by Scripture, then for certain it is not the individual who passes judgement, but God in His inspired Word. And indeed in such instances there can be no better way of rebuking the manifest evil than by means of the specific Bible passage relevant to the situation.

It becomes evident, then, that the kind of judging Jesus specially warns against is the passing of judgement on other peoples’ motives. In such an activity even an inspired Bible ceases to be an infallible guide. The words of Jesus are a warning that, almost always, a man’s actions may be susceptible of more than one interpretation. And those who look for mercy for themselves in the Day of Account will surely wish to extend the same to their fellows. “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Just as forgiving others is required as the needful accompaniment of one’s own forgiveness by God, so also in this matter of assessing and condemning the motives of others: “With what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged.” Lex Talionis once again!

“With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” The two parts of the Lord’s pronouncement do not carry exactly the same meaning. The first refers to the formation of an adverse opinion, the second to the action taken on the basis of it.

The Apostle James’ caustic comment on these nefarious activities was doubtless written with his Lord’s words in mind: “He shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy” (Jas. 2:13). And, alas, these unspoken verdicts on others are mostly without mercy just because they are unspoken!

Another reason why human beings indulge in this illicit activity is because they are persuaded that it does their fellows no harm The judgement is not uttered, so what damage can it possibly do? This assumption is false. Fellowship is seriously impeded. It is impossible to harbour a critical attitude towards one’s brother in Christ and at the same time express a true warmth of fellowship towards him. Maintaining a facade of fellowship may even bring in yet more hypocrisy. Without doubt, those who practise this kind of thing are themselves soiled by it. The corrosive influence of such a habit may be disastrous.

So, from every point of view, the wisdom of Christ should prevail, sweeping away all indulgence in this poisonous human penchant for passing judgement on the motives of others.

The hyperbole in the illustration used by Jesus the carpenter’s son deserves to be made more clear in translation than it has been. The “mote” is a tiny twig or splinter. In the only other occurrence of this Greek word it is used concerning the olive leaf in the beak of Noah’s dove (Gen. 8:11 LXX). And the “beam” is precisely what it is in modern building-a plank or baulk of timber. This word was used, for example, of the massive cedar pillars or boards in Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs. 6:15, 16).

Thus the grotesque picture conjured up by the Lord’s words is of a man vexed and irritated by some tiny foreign body in his eye; he is offered solicitous help by another who himself has a great plank of timber ruining his own vision. How is such a would-be “helper” in any position even to ascertain whether there is a mote in his brother’s eye? Much less is he able effectively to remove it!

The careful manner of the Lord’s rebuke is to be observed here. As was usual with him, it is couched in the form of a question: “Why beholdest thou…?” And if any man will stop to ask himself this question and supply an honest answer, there will be more ready recognition of how honest judgement can be clouded by self-esteem. David the wife-stealer could explode with righteous indignation against ruthless expropriation of a lamb until Nathan brought conscience back to life with his “Thou art the man!”(2 Sam. 12:5-7).

One searching question is followed by another: “How wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye…?” Again, the honest answer to this question will expose the pretence of good will and helpfulness. Here, in fact, is superior self-satisfaction and the indulgence of a love of exercising authority. Pride! Luke’s version (6:42) is specially telling with its palpably insincere: “Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye…”

Appropriately Jesus continued his exposure with the stinging rebuke: “Thou hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thine own eye” – and for this you will need your brother’s help! The incisive reproof is not to be gainsaid. Contemplation of this accurate diagnosis will make any honest disciple recoil from himself with shame.

And the obvious corollary is to leave all censure of others, which is not already pronounced by Holy Scripture, to the one who has neither beam nor mote in his own eye – Jesus, the one “without blemish and without spot”(cp. Jn. 8:7).

Rather unexpectedly, Luke introduces here the mini-parable about the blind leading the blind (6:39). This suggests the importance of self-criticism in one who is a leader in the ecclesia. If his own spiritual insight be impaired by a beam in the eye, or a mote, he will involve others in his own downfall. There have been sad examples of this.

This sustained and almost over-emphatic warning against judging others is followed immediately by a startling contrast — an instruction to be diligent in judging unworthy men, assessing their true character and dealing with them accordingly: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn again, and rend you” (7:6).

This warning can be applied only when a dog shows himself to be a dog, or a hog a hog, and not until. A careful weighing of a man’s behaviour is clearly necessary. So some attempt at “judging” him is implied. But this commandment does not concern one who is a “brother” (v. 3-5). It is about the one to whom you have something holy to offer which he has not had hitherto. The distinction is important. “He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame…Reprove not a scorner lest he hate thee…” (Pr. 9:7, 8). “Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words” (23:9).

The dogs Jesus alluded to were not the faithful domesticated family pets known to the modern western world, but the wild and savage ownerless beasts which roamed the streets of all eastern cities. “Giving that which is holy to dogs” was probably intended to conjure up the mental picture of a man throwing to these fierce uncontrollable animals the sacrifice which should have been offered up to God or shared with one’s brethren in a meal of holy fellowship before the Lord.

And the parallelism suggests that the “pearls” which Jesus pictured being cast to swine were not the lustrous jewels which women prize but the small pearl-like grains of manna (see Num. 11:7) which God provided for Israel in their wilderness journey.

A proper appreciation of the true force of these figures of speech helps towards a right and proper application of the principle enunciated here. To write a man off at first superficial acquaintance as “dog” or “swine” unworthy to hear the message of salvation in Christ is clearly not a right use of these words, but is more likely to be the refuge of a man of idle or timid spirit dodging his duty as a witness for the Truth.

Peter was not deterred from preaching the gospel on the Day of Pentecost because some said: “These men are full of new wine” (Acts 2:13). And when Paul stood before worldlings like Felix, Festus, and Agrippa, he was more concerned to ensure that even such as they should hear the gospel than he was about his own freedom.

A more likely application of this teaching would be as a warning against opening up the inner riches of one’s faith to one who has already shown himself to be critical or hostile. Such an individual is not to be invited, for example, to the holiness of a Breaking of Bread service or a prayer meeting or a discussion on principles of fellowship. The tabernacle in the wilderness was shut off from the ordinary world by a wall of dazzling white linen to remind men of the holiness of the God they worshipped.

In another respect the Lord’s words have been misconstrued. The introversion in the structure of this precept is easily missed. “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs…lest they turn and rend you. Neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet.” Here is warning that evil men may not only do despite to the message of Christ but may also do incalculable harm to the believer himself. For example, a caustic critic of the Truth, set on doing damage, could sear for all time the memories of those who were exposed to his caricature of the sacrament he witnesses. There are times, though happily not often in these days, when a due caution is to be observed.

Luke’s version of this section of the Sermon on the Mount has some significant and valuable differences.

He links “And judge not…” (RV) with the preceding: “Be ye perfect, even as your Father…”, but here he substitutes “merciful” for “perfect” – a clear indication, surely, that Jesus taught on these lines more than once. The antithesis between

mercy and judging is very striking.

Then comes a warm assurance not found elsewhere:

“Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down,

shaken together, running over shall men give into your bosom.”

But this is palpably untrue. It is very much the exception rather than the rule that men reward generosity with a vastly greater generosity. The difficulty disappears when it is recognized that the word “men” is not in the original text (see RV). When the unspecified “they” is taken to mean the angels, no further explanation is needed. Here is an emphatic assurance that the selfless life of a true disciple does not go uncared for or unrewarded.

But via a mini-parable there is warning against being led away by teachers who should be shunned and not followed: “Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch?” Imagination supplies all the commentary that is needed. Then if a man choose to follow some human leader, how careful he should be to satisfy himself first that the true qualities of leadership are there, for “the disciple is not above his teacher.” Over the past century neglect of this simple admonition has led to not a few spiritual disasters. And so it continues.

If he is worth following, the teacher himself, like all other human beings, grows to a fulness of powers, a greater grasp of principles, a more balanced judgement, a keener insight, a more intense spiritual maturity. In these respects he will beneficently influence his disciples, so that in time disciple and teacher grow together to be brethren. How specially true of Christian discipleship!

There are, then, times when there must be pause to assess the quality of human leaders, but not so as to find satisfaction in censure.

Notes: Mt. 7:l-6

Lk. 6:36-42

There is no religious exercise which is more open to abuse than the practice of prayer. The Pharisees had brought their observance of this religious duty to a fine art. For them it must be yet another opportunity for self-glorification in the eyes of the common people who esteemed piety but thought its practice beyond their own capabilities.

It was normal among the Jews to pray standing. But these Pharisees struck an attitude (Lk. 18:11), to be seen and admired by others. Their posturing and open declamations in street and synagogue were all carefully contrived for the sake of effect on others. There were set times for daily prayer, and these hypocrites were even capable of timing their day’s activities so that at the hour of prayer, instead of being at home where petition could be offered privately with sincerity and concentration, they were abroad in the streets. There the ordinary folk would continue about their business, letting prayer go by default. But not so the Pharisee. This was the very opportunity for parading the piety which he revelled in.

On this Plummer has the discerning comment: “As in almsgiving, it is not the being seen, but the wish to be seen, and to be seen in order to be admired, that is condemned. Of all hypocrisies, that of pretending to have intercourse with God … is one of the worst.”

More than this, with shrewd incisiveness Jesus ‘exposed the calculating hypocrisy which could even cause these sham worshippers to be not only in the street but at the corner of the street when the call for prayer was heard, for then there was the advantage of admiring notice from passers-by in four directions and not just two.

“Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.” Both in its form and tense this verb “have” is specially to be noted. It was commonly used in commercial transactions for the receipting of a bill. Thus Jesus declared: They seek a particular reward — the esteem of lesser mortals than themselves-and they get it there and then; and that is the transaction closed. They need expect nothing from God, because in the first place they are not really interested in what God can do for them, nor do they deserve anything further.

Concentration and Sincerity

True prayer, Jesus went on, will seek the other extreme: “When thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father.” It may be that this counsel is couched in the words of an Isaiah passage (26:20) which has the Passover deliverance in Hezekiah’s reign as its background. God can see who are His and respond to their cry, without needing a flamboyant exhibition of piety. Prayer behind shut doors was Elisha’s way when there was special importunity to be made to God (2 Kgs. 4:33). Perhaps Jesus was referring to that, and thus, in effect, was saying: To raise a dead child calls for specially intense concentration in prayer; then let this be the spirit of all your prayer practice; you will achieve it best in complete privacy, not in public posturing.

In such circumstances a man’s mind is uncluttered by outer distractions or by insidious considerations of the effect on others. Then a man can give himself to real prayer which is altogether sincere and “energized” (to use the apostle James’ word; 5:16). The Lord neatly emphasizes essential sincerity by his phrase: “pray to thy Father.” A strong personal awareness that one’s prayer is addressed to the Guardian of one’s life can go a long way towards exorcising any spirit of vainglory.

“Much Speaking”

There is an evil of a different sort besetting the practice of prayer-to mistake quantity for quality. So the Lord’s next warning was: “When ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” Jesus built this warning on the Book of Proverbs (10:19 LXX): “In the multitude of words, much speaking (the only other occurrence of this Greek word), there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.” Evidently the Lord read this passage with special reference to prayer. “He who knows all things does not need detailed information bulletins” (Floyd Filson). But to much prayer-a very different commodity from much speaking — the Father’s ear is ever open (Lk. 18:1; 6:12).

In modern times the church of Rome and various eastern religions have provided trenchant demonstrations of the need for such admonition. The classic examples from the pages of Scripture are the priests of Baal, who spent six hours howling and capering before the altar of an unknowing god, and the leather-lunged devotees of Artemis who gave two hours’ non-stop vocal moral support to a goddess who could do nothing for herself.

There was, perhaps, some excuse for them. But for Pharisees who piled up phrase on phrase and prayer on prayer in the presence of the God of Glory there could be only censure. Thirtle has provided evidence that it was regarded as good form to repeat each petition twenty-two times, beginning in turn with each letter of the alphabet. (What a contrast the matchless conciseness of the Lord’s Prayer presents!). He has also suggested that this wearisome futile artificiality gave rise to the very word used by Jesus for “vain repetitions”-a far more likely explanation that the ususal one which derives it from the Greek word for “stammer”.

What irony, also, there was in the Lord’s words: “Use not vain repetitions as the heathen do”, for at the time he said this, none were better at it then these Jewish professional religionists. Their own Law had a pointed lesson for them, if only they chose to heed it. The smallest item in the equipment of the tabernacle was the altar of incense-one cubit square and two cubits high (Ex.30:2). And the incense itself was to be beaten “very small” (30:36). “God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few: (Ecc.5:2).

Unresolved Problem

The Lord’s own reason for simple unprolix prayer is a reminder of the obvious: “Your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.” To some this is a difficulty of no small magnitude. Let it be a divine paradox to be accepted whether understood or not. From one point of view to tell God what we want or what we need smacks of human presumption. Nevertheless, God seeks the prayers of His children. He wants them to pray to Him, and-somehow-takes account of what they ask for. So there need be no rationalistic inhibitions.

Modern Practice

This brief section of the Sermon on the Mount has important lessons for the Lord’s people in modern times. Especially is it true regarding the offering of prayer in the ecclesia. The temptation to pray so as to make an impression on the rest may prove too strong to be resisted. And, not infrequently, for reasons akin to this, prayers proliferate into long pointless repetitions, mere word-spinning.

It is a sad irony that those best qualified to use with understanding the short pattern prayer given by Jesus have come to avoid its use almost completely, out of respect for the Lord’s warning about “vain repetitions” and out of disgust for conventional abuse of these divine words glibly and regularly parrotted off with hardly a thought to their meaning.

And when thought is given to some of the alternatives- long repetitious platitudes and flat circumlocutions, punctuated by an over-frequent “Heavenly Father” – when consideration dwells on the uninspiring inadequacy of a big proportion of what passes for prayer in the average ecclesia, the irony becomes double-distilled. Assuredly the Lord’s people have much to learn in these exercises in godliness.

Notes: Mt. 6:5-8

Repeatedly the Law of Moses laid down the principle which was to govern wilful injury done by one man to another. Like the earlier precepts of the Law cited and re-applied by Jesus, this also was badly misconstrued by the scribes, some of them chose to read eye for eye and tooth for tooth as having a strictly literal intent. Yet applied in the letter it could produce palpably unjust decisions. If a one-eyed man was to destroy in a fit of temper an eye of his fellow, must he therefore lose his one eye and go miserably blind for the rest of his life?

A Legal Principle

But of course this was not a law of retribution but of compensation. A man was never at liberty to take vengeance according to this scale – eye for eye, tooth for tooth – on the basis of his own judgement. This was to be the principle guiding judges and magistrates. The invariable context in the Law makes this very clear: “And the judges shall make diligent inquisition, and behold, if the witness be a false witness… then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother” (Dt. 19:16-21). “And he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, etc.” (Ex. 21:22, 23).

Nor was the injunction to be applied literally. It expressed in a figure the legal principle of financial compensation for damage done. The passage just cited indicates this. If an ox gored the slave of another man, the literal Lex Talionis (law of retaliation) would require that the first man’s slave should be gored also-a palpably silly legal decision. But Exodus 21:32 lays down the rate of monetary compensation in such a case. Similarly, if one man’s ox damaged the ox of another so that it had to be destroyed, the literal application of “an eye for an eye” would require that the other’s ox be destroyed also. But Moses laid down a different solution to the problem: compensation after the sale of the unmanageable ox. This, coming in the immediate context of “an eye for an eye” etc., shows very clearly that monetary compensation, and not strict literalism, is the basis of this legal principle; cp. also Lev.24:19, 21. Yet to this day Moses’ Law of the Talon (as it is frequently miscalled) is more often misunderstood than not.

It is simply a legal principle of compensation for damage done. In fact, it is the ordinary principle which governs such cases in practically every civilised country today. There are, indeed, few Bible passages about which such ignorant rubbish has been talked as about this.

Even with the interpretation just stated, this commandment was still not at all what Jesus wanted it to be. His re-statement of it sounds at first like a caricature: Whatever the penalty or hardship your adversary brings upon you, instead of seeking the equivalent compensation, add of your own free will a further contribution equivalent to what you have already lost. And he proceeded to illustrate the spirit of this Law of Gentle Retaliation as it might apply in private relationships, in a legal action, and in political oppressions — body, property, and freedom.

The Other Cheek

“I say unto you, that ye resist not evil (or, resist not the evil man): but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” It is a vivid picture of a blow delivered on the right cheek with the back of the right hand. In other words, insult rather than physical hurt. But turning the other cheek means that that right hand comes into action again, this time administering a hard painful slap with the open palm.

Here in a phrase is the final answer to all who would dragoon the servants of Christ into fighting the world’s wars. Non-resistance and counter-attack are as near opposites as can be. Even self-defence is incompatible with offering the other cheek. And lest there be any doubt as to whether this principle is to operate only between brethren, there is Paul’s explicit renunciation of this commandment with the widest possible scope: “See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men (1 Th. 5:15). And in an epistle which often looks back to the Sermon on the Mount Peter has an obvious reminiscence of the Lord’s words: “Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing; but contrariwise blessing (ie. forgiveness); knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing (forgiveness of your own sins)” (1 Pet. 3:9).

It is evident that this commandment of Christ is not intended to be taken with strict literality any more than the original words of Moses, for, when Jesus was struck by the high priest’s officer, he did not turn the other cheek, but quietly rebuked the cowardly act: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well, why smitestthou me?” (Jn. 18:23).

Similarly, when Ananias the high priest bade his men smite Paul across the face, the apostle solemnly pronounced God’s judgment against him. This declaration after the manner of an Old Testament prophet was an inspired utterance, for Jesus had promised: “When they deliver you up (to governors and kings)…it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak” (Mt. 10:18, 19).

With examples such as these, it becomes very necessary to beware of literalism or legalism. Rather should one seek to express as fully as possible the spirit of Christ himself in all situations where others show an attitude of hostility. Certainly, no revenge! On this the Old Testament was already explicit regarding a fellow-Israelite:

“Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Lev. 19:18).

“Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done tome”(Pr. 24:29).

“Say not thou, I will recompense evil; but wait on the Lord, and he shall save thee” (20:22).

Jesus has now broadened these precepts to cover all human dealings.

Coat and Cloak

A second illustration: “If a man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.” The words describe shirt or tunic, and long outer robe. In the twentieth century, Jesus would probably have said jacket and overcoat. In the parallel passage in Luke 6:29, the words are reversed. It is another clear warning against being over-literal in one’s application of this teaching.

The Law stipulated that if a creditor took a poor man’s garment as security against a debt, it must be returned to him to sleep in (Ex. 22:27, 26). But Jesus bade his disciples not insist on this right when they were being subject to the rigour of the law. Instead they were to show faith in God’s care, and give both garments. The unrestrained surprise of the other at receiving more than he had even thought of claiming, may be imagined. Such an experience would almost guarantee a complete change of attitude-and; of course, this aim is what lies behind the Lord’s precept. The loss of coat or cloak is unimportant compared with the establishing of good relations with one who is a declared enemy. Paul sums up splendidly: “Rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded” (1 Cor. 6:7).

Oppression by the State

But suppose-illustration number three-it is the state which is your adversary. Even in these days government often interferes with the freedom of the individual. In those days of absolute power, fair treatment of citizens was almost the last thing given any consideration. It was a normal thing for soldiers and officials to be empowered to press into service the goods or beasts or personal services of any civilian, and this without appeal or redress! It is not difficult to imagine the resentment which exercise of these powers invariably provoked. Nevertheless Jesus counselled, and still counsels, ungrudging submission to the demands and exactions of the state, however unfair they might be. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.” The only exception is when the higher law of Christ supervenes (Acts. 4:19).

The attitude counselled by Jesus was revolutionary, not in a bad political sense as by Barabbas, but in a good social sense: “Whosoever shall compel thee to go with him a mile, go with him twain”, making four extra miles altogether. And it is clear that the intended corollary to this was: ‘Do this in a good spirit. Even your parting shall not be with curses or grumbling.’

Motive

The aim and intention behind this unwonted demeanour is clearly the establishing of good personal relationships. To achieve this. Jesus counsels, a not inconsiderable sacrifice is well worth while. Not only is it a good personal discipline to have to endure an uncongenial experience of this kind, but also such a situation would be guaranteed to provide the Lord’s servant with excellent opportunities to exercise a good personal influence and a worthy witness to faith in Christ.

Both moral aspects of this situation are excellently worked out by L.G. Sargent (“The Teaching of the Master”, page 140): “The object which the Lord has in view in all these injunctions is to develop the character of the disciple into that of a citizen of the Kingdom. But this presents a peculiar difficulty. If the disciple fulfils the command with the same object-his own self-development-then the motive becomes self-regarding and defeats its own end. The man who receives a blow in silence in order that he may be the more a saint is in grave danger of becoming a prig, and prigs certainly do not belong to the class the Lord calls “blessed”. The Christ-like man suffers the blow so that perchance he may win the giver of the blow, and it maybe ‘save a soul from death’.”

Simon of Cyrene

The gospels have a most delightful illustration of how this commandment worked out unexpectedly in the experience of one who did not hear it spoken. Simon of Cyrene was pressed into service by Roman soldiers to help an exhausted Jesus with his cross. It was at most a mile to the place of crucifixion, probably a good deal less. But, having been compelled to help so far, he volunteered to serve yet further. From certain details dotted through the New Testament (Mk. 15:21; Rom. 16:13; Acts 13:1) it is possible to infer with high probability that his unwelcome experience that day meant sufficient contact with Jesus for him to determine that he must serve this “King of the Jews” for ever. This became his extra mile!

The Spirit of the Commandment

Today the principle still holds. In employment, service must not be niggardly but wholehearted, not begrudged but with faithful application and a willing spirit. This, even to a bad employer.

And how much more do these obligations operate in the service of Christ) The constraint of the gospel, willingly and even enthusiastically received at first, becomes to some a tax on personal time and effort which, judging by outward appearances, is almost begrudged. Where is the second mile, or the spirit of it? These proclaim their conviction that their Master is “an austere man” who “reaps what he does not sow”. Yet even if this assessment were truth, and not the slander which it palpably is, the commandment still stands: “Go with him twain” – and learn differently!

Practical Problems

In modern times probably the most difficult application of Christ’s inverted Lex Talionis – the heavenly hand in the human glove- is Example Four which he cited last of all: “Give to him that asketh thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.” In each of the illustrations already given, there is a certain element of self-interest involved, inasmuch as there is an antagonist or oppressor to be placated. But here there is only supplication and importunity and the uncomfortable contemplation of the need of another who is, maybe, not self-recommended by personal righteousness, for does not the psalmist declare unequivocally: “I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread” (Ps. 37:25)?

Yet the Law required this open-handed generosity from the conscientious Israelite: “If there be among you a poor man of thy brethren…thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother…Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him because that for this thing the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto” (Dt. 15:7, 8, 10). These are wonderful words possible of fulfilment only when there is a very real faith in the heavenly promise appended to them.

Unlike Moses, Jesus did not limit the scope of his commandment to “thy brother”. In Luke his words could not be more comprehensive: “Give to every man that asketh of thee;…do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again” (6:30, 35).

Too Idealistic?

It is here where the idealism of the teaching of Jesus seems to take leave of commonsense altogether. Even in a society where full-scale national welfare takes wide-ranging responsibility for coping with basic material needs, there is ample opportunity for observing how readily human nature presumes on the kindness of others, and battens on their often misplaced sympathy and generosity. The no-man’s land between deserving poverty and undeserved hardship on the one hand and culpable and fawning impecuniosity on the other is not a wide one, and before he knows what is become of him a man may drift from the one to the other. Christian charity can spoil as well as rescue.

Yet Jesus, knowing human nature through and through, added no qualifying clauses. Should it, then, be presumed that he intended none? Here is a practical problem of no small magnitude. If a man of means were to set himself to fulfil these instructions to the letter, it may be taken as certain that within a very short time he would be picked clean, reduced to beggary, and the characters of several of those presuming on his generosity would be ruined in the process. What is the answer?

Since it is impossible to believe that Jesus would readily see characters corrupted for the sake of an abstract principle, it could perhaps be inferred that a literal application of his teaching was not intended – just as neither he nor Paul turned the other cheek literally. The difficulty about this kind of solution is that once the scope of such a principle is left to human judgement, it somehow becomes remarkably narrow. Such is human nature. Reasons for saying: “Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled”, whilst refraining from giving those things which are needful, are always ready to hand.

The Lord’s own example

Is it casuistry to stress that Jesus did not command: “To him that asks give just what he asks”? In such situations it not infrequently happens that the one who is being asked knows better than the one who importunes what is good for him. So by all means give. The Lord requires that his disciples do this, but also that their giving be directed to fulfilling the good, rather than the gratification, of the one who asks.

“Lord, bid my brother that he divide the inheritance with me”, clamoured a disciple, and instead he got a blunt warning against his spirit of covetousness (Lk. 12:13-15).

Jesus provided an even better example of this principle in action both in the letter and in the spirit, by his own miracle of the feeding of the five thousand. In this instance the multitude did not need to ask Jesus to help them in their need. He saw this for himself and had compassion on their distress. They all ate and were satisfied. But the next day, in the synagogue at Capernaum, they clamoured for a regular performance of the same miracle: “What sign shewest thou then, that we may see and believe thee? …Our fathers did eat manna in the desert”-it was an open invitation to make the miracle a daily affair for their own ease and comfort. Jesus rebuked this attitude openly: “Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled.” And for them there was no repeat of the heaven-provided meal.

Here, then, is a clear indication that when help is sought but the attitude of mind is manifestly wrong, merely to respond to such a request is to do the individual more harm than good. In such a case it becomes a duty to speak a word of reproach or even of rebuke if the one who would abuse the charity of others is to be saved from becoming a parasite on society.

Such situations are never easy to deal with. When there is a suspicion that the request for help is an unhealthy one, springing partly, if not wholly, out of a wish to impose on the good nature of others, it is tempting to turn away with an excuse (which is not a reason) rather than speak the downright refusal, and the grounds for it, which the situation may call for.

Nevertheless, when faced with difficult decisions of this sort it is better always to err on the side of generosity of the undeserving rather than risk leaving unsatisfied a genuine and urgent need.

Another useful guiding principle comes in the context in Luke: “As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (6:31). Thus, when there are doubts about the wisdom of literal fulfilment of the Lord’s precept, mentally change places.

Where there is a manifest unwillingness to help oneself out of difficulties Paul’s principle governing such a situation is tersely stated: “If any will not work, neither shall he eat.” In such cases, to “give to him that asketh thee” when the request is repeated and blatant is to do more harm than good to the one who asks.

The right and proper application of these principles of Christian behaviour is no easy matter. “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” (Jas. 1:5). Here is both heavenly precept and heavenly example.

Notes: Mt.5:38-42

The Ten Commandments forbad adultery, and here again the rabbis were content to be strictly literal in their understanding and application of the precept. As one commentator has pithily expressed it: “Moses said it truly. The interpreters said it with altered meaning.” Yet it must have been evident to these acute minds that in this area of human sinfulness especially, the desire and intention are themselves guilt. But a court of law cannot sit in judgment on a man’s frame of mind, so they were quite content to stop at emphasis on the evil act itself. They could have gone further, and have bidden every man arraign himself before the bar of his own conscience, with his own God-given power of self-examination as chief prosecutor. But now in the time of Jesus these religious leaders were so many unjust stewards basely adulterating the principles of men’s obligation to God, all for the sake of their own standing before the people.

So Jesus bade his disciples cease concern with outward conformity to the law of God. Their target must be not a spiritual respectability in the sight of men but the peace of mind which only the satisfied scrutiny of an alert and educated conscience can impart.

The Modern Worship of Sex

“I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her (or, looketh on a man to provoke him!) hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” The words have wrung a cry of despair and almost of protest from the soul of many a sincere, well-intentioned disciple. Human nature being what it is-and with some more than others- how is guilt to be avoided? In a sex-ridden twentieth century there is a positive barrage of incitement (by book, newspaper, radio, television, advertisement, dress) to think in terms of sex almost every hour of the day and night. In such an environment what followers of the Lord with a normal equipment of human nature can feel anything but guilt and wretchedness? One would surely need to be literally without eyes and ears to avoid the bombardment of solicitation which today at every turn parades and screams the gospel of sensual self-indulgence. How the young people growing up in such an age are to be pitied’ But not the young people only. It is specially significant that the Lord used the word “adultery”, not “fornication”. So his warning was addressed to married people also, specially to them. The temptations of an earlier generation were bad enough, in all consicence. Then what is to be said about society not only permissive, but expressive, apparently set on making Sodom appear like kindergarten innocence?

Evil Thoughts made welcome

There is perhaps a crumb of comfort in the fact that the words of Jesus mean: “whosoever looks on a woman with intention to lust after her…” The alluring thought is not a sin in itself-else Jesus himself stands condemned for his state of temptation in the wilderness. It is the tempting thought given welcome and hospitality which is the fundamental sin, whether it matures into evil action or not. Paul infers the sinfulness of lustful thoughts from the Tenth Commandment: Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7)

But this is not to say that there is no essential distinction between the lustful desire, savoured illicitly in the imagination, and the active expression of such concupiscence. “Jesus is far too much of a realist not to know that there is a vital difference between the act contemplated and the act committed-just as there is a wide difference between hard words and murder. But that difference is in the injury suffered by the other person; and Jesus has in view the effect on the sinner rather than on the one sinned against. Not the man’s act but his state of mind erects a barrier between himself and God.”

The same writer (L.G. Sargent in “The Teaching of the Master”) very trenchantly adds: “This being so, what will the judgment of Christ be on a civilisation in which immense industries connected with publishing, the theatre and the screen, are so largely engaged in playing upon the weaknesses of human desire?” Those words, written in 1950, were a very restrained commentary on post-war society. Then with what shade of ink do they need to be re-written today?

Aids to Holiness

If ever there was a time in the history of God’s people when there was need for self-discipline in the use of the eyes and also of the imagination, the television screen of the mind, it is today. Yet in large degree this has been always true. Was there ever a time when men-and women-did not have “eyes full of adultery”? (cp. Job. 31:1).

Hence the wholesome wisdom of the Mosaic injunction that the people wear fringes or tassels of blue in the borders of their garments – “that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the lord, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring” (Num. 15:38, 39). This wearing of “the livery of heaven” was to be a constant reminder, to those who cared to be reminded, that they belonged to the Lord and must eschew all things incompatible with His holiness. The modern counterpart to this might be to inscribe on every Christadelphian television receiver: “Whatsoever things are true, honest, just, pure, lovely…think on these things: (Phil. 4:8). Or, if this is too long, “Holy to the Lord”.

Drastic Self-Discipline

In all the Sermon on the Mount there is only a handful of negative precepts. So the Lord’s warning here is all the more emphatic: “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” The figurative nature of this drastic precept is immediately obvious, for what a man can see with his two eyes he can see almost equally well with one. The evident meaning is that there must be no flinching from the severest se/r”-discipline, if such is needful, in order to avoid the overpowering temptation by which the fire of lust makes inevitable the fire of Gehenna.

There must be no half-measures about such self-discipline. To emphasize this the Lord’s instructions are dramatically pleonastic: “Pluck it out, and cost it from thee.” Once rooted out of its socket that eye is powerless for good or evil. So “cast it from thee” underlines the lesson-and how true it is!-that if a man would be rid of his lust he must want to be rid of it, nothing less.

Negative and Positive Action

The practical measures involved might mean a complete cessation of “looking” or “listening”, a clearing out of all books and journals which may be in a literary sense respectable, genius even, but which are spiritually unclean and defiling. The wisdom of Christ counsels a clean sweep. In issues of this kind it is certainly best to err on the side of severity. It was not for nothing that Paul counselled Timothy: “Flee also youthful lusts” (2 Tim. 2:22). In another place he was even more explicit: “Mortify (put to death) therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence…” (Col. 3:5).

All will be unavailing, however, except there be positive action to fill up one’s time and thought with better things. It was when David was loafing in his palace in Jerusalem instead of leading his army in the Ammonite campaign that he suffered the greatest defeat of his life. Accordingly Paul’s counsel to Timothy continues: “but follow after (pursue) righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.” Positive activities and wholesome association! And in Colossians: “Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.”

With all this good counsel it still remains true that the price of liberty from the thraldom of the flesh is eternal vigilance.

Notes: Matthew 5:27-30

It is necessary to begin a consideration of the next section or the Sermon on the Mount by suggesting that its scope has been much misunderstood. There is a sequence of four figures of speech-the salt of the earth, the light of the world, a city on a hill, a lamp on a lampstand. It has been customary to interpret these metaphors as vivid representations of the function of the Christian disciple in worldly society.

Allusions to Temple Service

However, a careful scrutiny will reveal that these four illustrations are bound together by a common idea — they all have to do with the temple; and this makes all the difference to the interpretation.

Jerusalem was pre-eminently the city set on a hill. The commentators talk airily about Safed in Galilee, but there is no little doubt as to whether that hill-top town even existed in the days of Jesus. On the other hand Jerusalem was known far and wide, and in a particular sense it was the light of the world. But the literal basis for this figure was the altar fire. It burned day and night, and at night-time especially the light of it would be visible for miles round. During the day the great column of sacrificial smoke ascending up to heaven would be just as visible.

The Seven-Branched Candlestick

The lamp and lampstand (5:15) immediately suggests the familiar equipment of the Holy Place. The “bushel” was, doubtless, the measure used for filling the lamps with oil (every reference in the Law to the candlestick mentions its “vessels”). To light the lamps in the Holy Place and then to invert the vessel over each of them would promptly put the lights out again.

Salt

Salt also was a regular feature of the temple service. No sacrifice was to be offered without salt (Lev.2:13). Hence “a covenant of salt” (2 Chr. 13:5) is a covenant ratified by sacrifice (as in Gen.15). Salt was used also as an essential element of the holy incense: “Thou shalt make a perfume, a confection after the art of the apothecary, seasoned with salt, pure and holy” (Ex. 30:35 RV; there is no doubt about this being the correct translation).

The salt in the temple service has been given a wide variety of symbolic meanings and spiritual applications, but the primary reason was probably to ensure that the altar and the priest’s censer would both burn with a distinctive bright golden flame-the divine fire. “Salt” which did not give this characteristic flame was not the true commodity, and was therefore unfit for holy use. But neither was it fit for agricultural use, for salt and similar minerals only make the land sterile (see Jud. 9:45). Nor could it be thrown on to the dung heap (Lk. 14:35), for then it would spoil what would otherwise be highly useful as manure. So, instead, it was used on the temple pavement made slippery with blood from the sacrifices. To be trodden under foot of men was its only usefulness.

Once this unifying idea is recognized-association with the temple-understanding of the spiritual principles involved in the Lord’s figures of speech comes much more easily.

But first, what of the seeming universality of the expressions used: “salt of the earth”, “light of the world”? It has often been pointed out that the words “earth” and “Land (of Israel)” are both represented in the New Testament by the same Greek word. Also, there can be little question that the word kosmos (world) is used in a number of places with the more limited meaning: “Jewish kosmos” (eg. Lk. 1:70; Rom. 4:13; 5:12; Jn. 12:19; 7:4; Study 14; 221 notes).

For Jewish disciples

Applying these ideas, it now becomes evident that Jesus spoke with primary reference to his immediate disciples in their Jewish environment. There is, of course, a further wider application but-like so many other features in the Sermon on the Mount-the immediate force of the language was for the benefit of his early Jewish believers. For instance: “ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time…”, “If thou bring thy gift to the altar…”, “Thou art in danger of Gehenna fire”, “Do not even the publicans the same”? “Swear not by Jerusalem… “, “After all these things do the Gentiles seek”, and so on. The Jewish aspect of the Lord’s teaching here should be constantly borne in mind.

It is now possible to re-examine this close-packed paragraph more carefully, and see its details as coherent elements of exhortation concerning one of the primary responsibilities of the Lord’s disciples in every age.

The Lessons

In this passage the uses of salt as a preservative, as a significant part of a covenant, as a familiar means of imparting flavour, are all beside the point. The essential fundamental idea is that no sacrifice is valid or acceptable before God without salt. Mk. 9:49, 50 is surely decisive on this point: “Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness…”

Paul’s use of the figure now helps the interpretation a step further forward: “Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, (that is) knowing how ye ought to answer every man” (Col. 4:6). Here “seasoned with salt” is interpreted by what follows. It means a proper understanding expressing itself in a worthy witness to the faith. As the salt in sacrifice or incense produced the unmistakable divine golden flame, so also is that divine characteristic to be plainly perceptible in the speech and manner of life of the disciple.

But if the salt have lost its savour, what then? The simple fact is that salt does not lose its saltness. It is one of the most stable commodities in the world of nature. The commentaries scratch around for known examples of salt becoming unsalty, but they do not make a convincing job of it. The effort is wasted.

Here, as in many another parable, Jesus is deliberately coming away from ordinary experience. True salt never loses its saltness; and what is not true salt has no saltness to lose. But in the world of spiritual experience that the Lord is speaking of, it is-alas!-only too true (and too often true) that what has been at one time true salt may become non-salt. Jesus did not say “lose its flavour”. His word means “made to be foolish”, which is precisely and exactly true about the disciple who loses his tangy grasp of Truth which makes the offering of his life to Christ acceptable.

In this way Jesus warns against the unhappy destiny of those who should be playing a worthwhile part in the service of the Lord’s House, but who through their own fault become unfit for their high responsibility. “Cast out, and trodden under foot of men”. It is a warning several times repeated to the early church: “It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit… if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance” (Heb. 6:4-6).

It could even be that, with a keen understanding of Old Testament prophecy, Jesus was saying: ‘This is what will happen to natural Israel. They will be cast out of God’s Land, and trodden under foot of men. You, my disciples, are the New Israel, and if you allow yourselves to be turned foolish by worldly or false religious ideas, you will have strength for nothing. You too will be cast out and trodden down.’

The Altar and Lampstand

Again, as the altar fire in Jerusalem was the divine light for all Israel, so the Lord’s followers also, especially after Jesus was taken away from them. And, in a broader sense, the ecclesia, wherever it is, is a witness to the world concerning the Truth simply by virtue of its sincere consecrated service to God. The holy city of God cannot be hid. Much of its function as a witness is fulfilled simply by being there in the midst of men-different, distinct, dedicated and devoted. Nor does it want to be hid. Let men see it as a holy city, that they may be drawn to its holy light. Is it coincidence that the people of Christ’s day used the phrase ner olahm, light of the world, to describe a rabbi of outstanding powers as a teacher?

The figure of lamp and lamp-stand belongs within the Sanctuary. Always, day and night, the Holy Place had its own source or illumination to “give light over against it” (peculiar phrase!) (Ex. 25:37). By its light the Bread and Wine could be seen, the golden altar of incense, the cherubim on the veil, its own glories also, and-not least-the way into the Holy of Holies. Thus it gave light to all who did service in the House of God.

Preaching by Good Works

Here Jesus was not content for the lesson of the similitude to be drawn by his hearers for themselves. He translated its meaning with simple directness: “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

From these words the almost invariable inference has been made that Christ would have his followers make converts to the faith through the attractiveness of their own Christ-like beneficence. Jesus went about “doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil”; in this way he showed men the gospel of the kingdom, and by this means converted some of them to it. Therefore, it is argued, let his disciples do a little less text-quoting, and turn from Bible-thumping to a loving ministration to men in need-feeding the hungry, bringing fellowship to the lonely, nursing the sick, and counselling the perplexed. This will prepare the minds of those who are succoured for the good seed of the gospel; they will ask for it, and receive it as a thirsty ground receives the blessed rain of heaven. So it is said.

In practice, there are a number of questions and difficulties. The disciples hardly have resources for practical ministration as effective as their Master’s. And the response does turn out to be as expected. So many (like nine lepers) are ready enough to accept material blessings, but feel no need for the regeneration of their souls. Biggest mystery of all – if this is the way of making known the gospel of salvation, how is it that this method of proclaiming Christ was not more obviously and more persistently followed by his apostles? And why is it that this passage – Matthew 5:16 – appears to be in flat contradiction to the Lord’s later commandment: “Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them?” (6:1). Indeed, the passage now under consideration is almost unique in its emphasis on conversion through good works. On the other hand the apostolic method and precept seems to have been uniformly by instruction concerning Christ from the Scriptures of Truth. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word (the spoken word: Gk.) of God…how shall they hear without a preacher?”

Yet it is unmistakably true that Peter, quoting, gives to his Lord’s words a strong “good works” emphasis: “…that whereas they speak against you as “evildoers, they may by your good works, which they behold, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Pet. 2:12). It needs to be observed that Peter’s quotation comes in a context of counsel concerning a time of persecution (see ch. 4, 5 especially), and in such a time a Christian’s “good works” consist almost entirely of witness for the Faith (the Greek word for “behold” implies official investigation). There is thus no discrepancy with the suggestion already made about “Let your light so shine…”

In the Ecclesia

The main scope of the Lord’s dictum about glorifying God through good works has been sadly misjudged. As the candlestick gave its light within the holy House, so also (if the figure is properly interpreted) the good works of the brethren who comprise the “lampstand” will be seen and appreciated in the Lord’s House, by the members of his ecclesia; it is they who will be constrained to glorify God for the illumination-the instruction and practical loving kindness – which they experience. This is the real scope ot Christ’s present precept. The evil sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2:17), and Malachi’s corrupt priesthood (2:8) provide excellent illustrations of this principle in reverse operation.

It would be a mistake to infer that the ecclesia is not required to show its Christian charity outside the community. The rest of the Sermon on the Mount takes care of that issue with no little emphasis. But here Jesus sets first the duty of the brethren to one another: “Let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10).

Notes: Mt. 5:13-16

Jesus now proceeded to give six examples of what “fulfilling the law and the prophets” was to mean for his disciples.

Each of them is introduced in the same formal style: “Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time… but I say unto you… “ The translation here could read: “said to them of old time”. Which is correct? It seems possible that Jesus framed his words to suggest both. His first three re-enunciations of principle certainly start from the Ten Commandments (6, 10, 7). In that case, “said by” alludes to the way the Law was ministered through angels (the Greek word clearly implies a divine pronouncement; and the single word for “them of old time” echoes one of the New Testament words for angels).

On the other hand, “said to” seems right because of the Lord’s deliberate parallelism: “I say unto you”.

In each case which he cited Jesus made no change in the divine law, but the expanded scope of these precepts which he now laid on his disciples is positively frightening in its idealism.

The familiar and simple “Thou shalt not kill” had been traditionally interpreted as a condemnation of murder. Accordingly, the legal principle had been added that a murderer must be brought to trial: “Whosoever shall kill shall be liable to judgement” (Dt. 19:6).

Jesus insisted that this limitation of the commandment to literal killing was a purblind ignoring of a much wider field of human experience to which it was intended to apply: “I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.”

Is all anger wrong?

It has been much questioned whether the phrase: “without a cause” has a rightful place here. The weight of manuscript evidence is decidedly stronger in favour of its retention. But in any case this is plainly the Lord’s intention. It cannot be that he meant to censure all anger as damnable. Already in his own public work there had been open expressions of wrath in his cleansing of the temple (Jn. 2:13-17) and on the occasion of his healing of the man’s withered hand in the synagogue, “he looked round on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts” (Mk. 3:5). And at the end of his ministry there was to come that violent explosion of denunciation of Pharisaic hypocrisy which by no stretch of imagination can be read as a sorrowful head-shaking over the mistakes of misguided men.

So anger is not wrong in itself. Yet in all honesty the fact has to be faced that nearly all anger is evil. Jesus says it is so evil as deserving to be bracketed with murder. Many would agree readily enough that the intention, held back maybe only by fear of consequences, is like the act itself. But Jesus goes a good deal further that that. He declares the attitude of mind of the angry man to be one of murder. His word for “angry” (v. 22) implies personal involvement and a deliberate hostility, not a detached judicial anger (if there be such a thing). Men may choose to make a distinction between anger and murder, but he-Jesus-will have none ot this whittling down or limitation of the Sixth Commandment.

The apostle John got the message, and repeated it in plain style: “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him” (1 Jn. 3:15). But that withering apodosis is made easier to the soul by the context’s implication that the Love Feast John writes about changes a man’s status from “murderer” to forgiven sinner.

Deeper Principle

In the Beatitudes the way had already been prepared for a drastic switch of emphasis from concern with that which is outward and visible to that which has to do with disposition, attitude of mind, motive and intention. These, Jesus was to insist over and over again, are the realities of a man’s life, and it is these (and not the other) which God takes account of.

Essentially by his very attitude of mind the angry man is either displaying a serious lack of perspective as to what is and what is not important in life, or else he is choosing to anticipate the Day of Judgment, censuring the deeds and words of his fellows according to his own measure, as though-forsooth!-his assessment represents the ultimate moral standard.

The Law of Moses itself taught recognition that circumstances alter cases. A man may slay and yet be innocent: “If he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him anything without laying of wait, or with any stone wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm: then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the avenger of blood” (Num. 35:22-25). Here judges were bidden ascertain (as far as was humanly possible) a man’s motive and intention and to judge accordingly.

Suppose, then, that the intention is there in a man’s heart, but is not expressed in violent action. Jesus assesses such a man as guilty before God. A man’s violent expression of contempt, his bitter censure of the act or motive of his brother-these bring him under condemnation of an infallible heavenly tribunal. “He who searches the hearts” recognizes these symptoms of a nature which is still unregenerate, no matter what the formal protestations of godly zeal or single-mindedness.

The difficulty (v. 22) of progression in the threefold penalties-judgement, Sanhedrin, Gehenna fire-without any perceptible progression in the three charges: “anger…Raca…fool”, has long been recognized.

It seems possible that Matthew expected his readers to recognize an A-B-A-B structure of this passage, thus:

Whether or not this is the correct way of reading the words, there is no missing the intensely exacting standard of the Lord’s idealism here. Anger is not just a peccadillo; it is not a small, fairly respectable, fault; it is a serious evil.

In the example of opprobrium cited by Jesus, Raca means a bad character, recognized as such by all society. It means also a rebel against God (2 Chr. 13:7; Ps. 2:1). It was used by Michal, David’s wife, in biting sarcasm when she saw her husband wearing a priestly ephod and dancing blithely at the bringing of the ark to Zion (2 Sam. 6:20).

It is, of course, obvious that these are only examples of an attitude of mind which Jesus was holding up for reprobation. One is not at liberty to avoid these literal expressions, whilst at the same time indulging the same evil frame of mind by the choice of other epithets!

Anger against a Brother

It is to be observed, also, that what makes this censorious anger specially evil in the sight of God is that it should be expressed to a brother in Christ, one towards whom the bonds of the gospel should pre-dispose one’s sympathies and understanding, and not one’s animosity.

A simple logical consequence of this incisive and far-reaching dictum of Christ is this: the right and proper reaction to any manifestation of bad feeling from a brother in the Lord should not be an automatic response in kind such as is normal with human nature, but rather a sense of regret and pity that one knowing the mind and spirit of the Lord should choose to follow such unworthy standards and so store up judgment against himself in the Last Day.

Reconciliation

It follows therefore that when such an unhappy situation exists, in which one brother cherishes resentment or a grudge against another whether in any way justified or not, then he who is the object of this bad feeling should act with the utmost urgency and promptitude to restore harmony: “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” (v. 23, 24; cp. Mk. 11:25; Ps. 26:6).

The vividness of this illustration of brotherly concern in action is very striking. The Israelite has brought his sacrificial animal, “without blemish and without spot”, to the sanctuary for sacrifice. At the altar, as the priest is about to slay it, there is recollection of a brother’s soreness of spirit because of some serious difference of opinion. “Stay your hand”, he cries, and forthwith rushes out of the temple court in search of his brother and reconciliation. The priest is left there, knife in hand, wondering what has come over the man. A while later the offerer returns with a relaxed satisfied look on his face. The ceremony of sacrifice can now proceed.

By a picture of this kind the Lord taught vividly that where there is no will to put away anger between brethren, reconciliation with God is impossible. “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me” (Ps. 66:18). But just as it takes two to make a quarrel, so also it takes two to mend one. Therefore if all attempts to come to agreement are frustrated by one of the parties involved, then he must bear the responsibility before God. In such a case he-and not the one whose attempts at reconciliation are frustrated -is the one to be pitied. His spiritual condition is serious indeed. A

Worldly Adversary

But suppose the adversary be not a brother but a selfish unprincipled worldling! The terse phrases of Jesus picture two men on the way to court. The issue between them is the recovery of a debt. You can expect no leniency from a court which follows a rigid legal principle, Jesus reminds his disciples. So whilst the opportunity is there, use every possible effort by private persuasion to get the best terms you can. Once the court decision is taken the full process of law must be insisted on-and once you are consigned to prison how are you ever to be rid of the debt? Its consequences will be with you forever.

There is a practical common sense about these words for any comparable situation in life. Yet it may be taken as certain that Jesus was not setting out to school his disciples in worldly wisdom. Here in the Sermon on the Mount he is concerned with fundamentals of the spirit, so there is need to look further into his meaning.

A Parable

The context of the parallel passage in Luke 12:58, 59 is enlightening. Multitudes followed Jesus with not too serious intent, hearing his teaching and seeing his miracles. The Lord warned-thgm that it was high time they looked to themselves and made a shrewd appraisal of their spiritual standing. If they could judge the sign* of the sky and know what weather was impending, why were they so inept in the much more important issues concerning their relationship with God? By their holding off from personal involvement in active discipleship they had turned God into an Adversary, and-if only they would realise it-were even now being taken to court for a final decision. An adverse verdict was inevitable. The judge-Jesus-would pronounce against them. The angels of his power would execute the sentence, and from the oblivion of the prison-house of death there could never be any release, because no man is ever in a position to pay off the sin debt which he owes to God.

Transferring this idea back to its context in Matthew 5, the parable is now seen as a similar solemn warning addressed to the one who refuses conciliation, rejecting all attempts to reach amicable agreement. By adopting such an unforgiving attitude he makes God into his Adversary and stores up judgment for himself.

Thus, in two mini-parables, Jesus teaches the top-priority urgency of good relations between brethren. Whatever the issue between them, no effort must be spared, no time lost in bringing about mutual understanding and reconcilia tion. The spirit of Christ’s teaching here in the Sermon on the Mount will have nothing less than this.

The sorry contrast among the Lord’s twentieth-century disciples cries to high heaven. How much have they learned of the spirit of their Lord when they are willing to tolerate estrangements on a massive scale and make only the feeblest of efforts towards correction of a bad situation?

Notes: Mt. 5:21-26