Extra vol

2 arising in the OT period and bearing a somewhat technical meaning (see art. PooR in vol. iv.) It designated that class, generally in humble circum- stances, who lived the higher life, fixing their thought upon God and seeking His spiritual bless- ings, instead of living in a worldly way, to accumu- late property and to attain social distinction and political power ; they were in the world, but not of ib; they were the faithful and righteous ones whom God could approve and bless.

* ‘It seems probable, since Jesus in the Beatitudes has taken up many current Jewish phrases to put upon them His own interpretation, that He here used the phrase ‘the poor’ in the sense of, and with regard to, the current conception of it. In that case the words ‘in spirit,’ which in Matthew are associated with the phrase, but not in Luke, may be an expansion of the original utterance made in the Greek for the purpose of protecting Jesus’ words from a material misinterpretation.

t The 7g wvevuare would, then, although a later addition, preserve the original meaning of Jesus; as it stands, it limits of rrwyol (not paxdpiot) as a phrase of closer definition,t like ‘the pure in heart’ of Mt 58 and the ‘lowly in heart’ of Mt 11”; cf. also Mk 8, 1Co 7% It fixes the sphere in which the poverty is predicated.

Jesus means, not that spiritual poverty is in itself a good thing, but that the man who has a deep sense of his spiritual deficiency and dependence upon God will turn to Him, and will then receive the eS tet blessings which he needs. There- fore the phrase ‘the poor in spirit’ designates an internal rather than an external condition,a moral and spiritual rather than an economic status.§ other Gospels and the other books of the NT use 4 BeoAséa rod Geos.

Did Jesus use both phrases in their Aramaic equivalents? If so, did the two phrases mean different things? Or was only one of the phrases used by Jesus, the other being of a different origin? If so, which was Jesus’ phrase? These questions have been variously answered. The majority of scholars, however, are of the opinion that the two phrases are identical in meaning, that Jesus was accustomed to use both of them, and that His more frequent term was ‘the Kingdom of God.’ (See esp. O.

Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, pp. 124-126). The other phrase, ‘the Kingdom of Heaven,’ is to be explained as arising out of the fallacious reverence for the name of God which char- acterized the Jewish people and led them to use circum- locutions instead of speaking the name itself. Jesus, however, did not share this superstitious regard for the name of God ; on the contrary, he spoke of God constantly.

The First Gospel adopted the phrase, ‘the Kingdom of Heaven,’ which probably was in general use among Jewish Christians, in order to be more acceptable to the Jewish readers for whom it was intended. On the other hand, in the Second and Third Gospels, and elsewhere, the phrase ‘ the Kingdom of God’ occurs, since this universal use of terms was more acceptable to the great body of Gentile Christians for whom and among whom most of our NT. books were written. *So Ps 912.18 102.9.

12 126 4017 6929 722. 4.12 18 g924 gg] 10922 1187, Is 611 (cf. Lk 418) 662, See Achelis, Bergpredigt, p. 7 f.; Kabisch, SK, 1896; Klépper, Zeitachr. f. wiss. Theol. 1894; Wellhausen, Jsraelitische u. Jtidische Geschichte3, 1897, ch. 16 ; Rahlfs, °}7 und iy in den °salmen. 1892; J. Weiss, Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes2, 196, pp. ' 338-185; Driver, art. Poor in vol. iv.

, who argues for Runliz’ dist action between °3y (poor, needy) and 11 (humble towar‘s God) + It is obvious that when Jesus’ werls camo into the hands of the Gentiles, who were not “anslim "ith the history, litera- ture, ideas, and religious terminolog= >» the Jews, there would be great danger of His words being m'sinderstood.

The first Beatitude, for instance, was likely to be -risinterpreted, because the term ‘poor’ was used by the Genti'es only in a material sense, not with an ethico-religious context. It was therefore necessary to add the words ‘in spirit,’ '~ order that Jesus’ meaning might not be misunderstood. Modern English usage of the term ‘ poor’ is also economic instes1 of religious, and therefore we also need the words ‘in spii’t’ to guard against misinterpretation. ~So H. Holtzmann, Ibbeken, Kabisch, K!

*pper, Tholuck, B. Weiss. The zveijuzae71 does not refer to the Htly Spirit, as main- tained by Achelis (Bergpredigt, p. 5); so tha: the phrase ‘the poor in spirit’ does not mean ‘the poor trrough the Holy Spirit,’ nor ‘the poor by the Holy Spirit,’ ner ‘the poor in the possession of the Holy Spirit.’ Rather, tha «wimoss refers to the spiritual nature of the man himself. $So the best of the ancient commentators, Crycen, Chrysos tom, Augustine, Theophylact, and nearly all mo’s-~ schoiars.

Tholuck, Bergrede®, p. 63 f. (Eng. tr. p. 70£.): ‘s conciousness of poverty in the blessings of salvation... Tx6 ‘dva of 18 SERMON ON THE MOUNT This is in accordance with the tone of the whole group of Beatitudes, for they present an ideal of character and service in its essential elements ; while external conditions, the possession or lack of Property, are not essential.

The Beatitudes and oes, a8 given by Luke, speak only of material want and misery;* but that is a perversion of physical poverty is here carried over into the sphere of poverty of spirit, . . those poor are pronounced blessed who are sensible of their spiritual poverty.’ Kabisch, SK, 1896, says that the 7a xvtijjoers is added ‘in order to remove the poverty into the realm of the religious sense.’ Klépper, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol.

1894, holds that there is no reference in the Beatitude of Matthew to the poor in social position; rather they are the poor in spiritual things, those who in opposition to the wise and understanding (Mt 1125) are characterized as ‘babes’ or ‘little children’ (Mt 188); dissatisfied with the traditional wisdom of the scribes, they long for direct Divine instruction. J. Weiss, Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes2, 1900, pp. 130-182: ‘They are called “poor”...

not because they have no money, but because, as the INT DY, they have no religious, and therefore no social, stand- ng. They do not belong to the righteous, pious class, but are shunned by them like the lepers. .. They could not and would not conform to the conventional standard of piety. But what was to hinder them from pouring out their heart before their God in their inner chamber?

They live as children of God in a true simplicity, naive and unassuming, without great joy over their condition; because it has been so deeply im- pressed upon them that they never can attain the true righteous- ness according to the Pharisaic ideal. .

They do not realize that they already have, what is precious in God's sight, 7 rpaid zal tixiov «vive (1 P84), They do not see that God, in his mysterious wisdom, has chosen to pass by the wise and the learned in order to reveal salvation to just such v4: as they (cf. Lk 1021, Mt 1814).

’—It is true that a materialistic interpre- tation of the first Beatitude prevailed in the early and middle Christian centuries, whereby voluntary poverty was pro- nounced blessed ; and this view is still taken by Roman Catholic commentators, as Hugo Weiss, Bergpredigt, p. 10. The Lukan form of the Beatitudes arose out of and gave a foundation for this false attitude towards material things.

But the whole notion of asceticism is wrong: Jesus neither taught nor prac- tised it; He did not regard material poverty and physical misery as in themselves meritorious. It cannot be said that the poorer men are, the better they are; not even when the poverty is voluntary.

Jesus did not require the abandonment of wealth, except in specific cases where it formed an insuper- able obstacle to spiritual well-being ; what He did require was eo supremacy of the spiritual life and the right use of material ngs. *So O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, 1901, p. 186f. Similarly Plummer, Comm. on Luke, p.179: ‘In the four [Beatitudes] that Luke gives, the more spiritual words which occur in Matthew are omitted, and the blessings are assigned to more external conditions.

Actual poverty, sorrow, and hunger are declared to be blessed (as being opportunities for the exercise of internal virtues); and this doctrine is emphasized by the corresponding Woes pronounced upon wealth, jollity, and ful- ness of bread (as being sources of temptation).’?

Here the materialistic tone of the Lukan Beatitudes is recognized, but the writer has avoided the problem of adjusting the two accounts of the Beatitudes to each other by regarding them as two distinct utterances on different occasions; this is to ignore the facts and data of the Synoptic problem. Wendt, ehre Jesu, ii. 167 f.

, thinks that the economic poor are meant: ‘Because this salvation of eternal life offers an incomparably rich return for all troubles of the earthly life, Jesus can at the beginning of His discourse concerning the true righteousness prenaunce blessed the poor, the hungry, the mourning, the pesecented, because of their future participation in the heavenly leasedness of the Kingdom of God.

His meaning here is not that in earthly poverty and unhappiness as such lies the ground for their longing for the future salvation of the Kingdom of God ; still less in the following Woes against the rich, the satis- fied, the laughing, and the praised, does He present earthly happiness as in itself the ground for the future loss of salvation.

He intends only to affirm with the greatest emphasis that all future salvation is the single true and full salvation, in compari- son with which the earthly unhappiness is insignificant and earthly happiness is not really such. Consequently he declares that those very persons who from the world’s point of view are counted miserable are the truly happy ones because of the part which awaits them in that future salvation.

’ Wendt holds that the Lukan form of the Beatitudes, together with the Woes, is authentic as against the Matthew report, and can therefore give this interpretation ; but if the Beatitudes of Matthew are the more authentic report, then Jesus’ teaching at this point must be understood as presented by them—and they give a very different set of ideas. Kabisch, SK, 1896, interprets: ‘Blessed are those who have freed their minds from the earthly wealth: for theirs is instead the heavenly wealth. .

The absence of earthly goods and bape is placed in the foreground, here {in Matthew] as in Luke; but not as there that accidental poverty must be blessed, only that voluntary, quiet and meek poreny will be blessed. . I regard the Lukan form [of the it Beatitude] as the more original, but at the same time hold that the First Evangelist in his added phrase has come nearer to the actual meaning of Jesus than the Third Evangelist, who SERMON ON THE MOUNT Jesus’ teaching as recorded in Matthew.

It is intelligible how the more spiritual teaching might have been coarsened in transmission, under the influence of strongly held false theories concerning a man’s relation to the material world, to the form which Luke derived from his sources; but how could the reverse have happened? Who could subsequently have perfected Jesus’ teaching b creating the lofty spiritual conceptions contain in Mt 5*2?

* Jesus wished to establish, as the first principle of the better life, that true well-being is not reckoned in earthly goods, or obtained by them ; on the contrary, ideal manhood and womanhoo come through complete self-committal to God, drawing from Him our spiritual sustenance, mak- ing His will our will, and finding in His supreme purpose the only object of our lives. Of such men, and of such alone, can it be said that the Kingdom of God is theirs.

He would turn men away from the customary material standard of well-being to the pursuit of the highest good, where one’s ex- ternal conditions become a matter of comparative indifference. Those are blessed who, instead of being self-seeking and self-sufficient, strive ear- nestly for that communion and co-operation with God which will enable them to realize the highest type of character and to perform the highest kind of service.

The conditions of possessing the King- dom are not external but internal, not material but spiritual. Poor and rich may alike possess it. The poor have it, not as a reward or a recompense for their poverty, but because they set their hearts on things which are above; and the rich have the Kingdom for the same reason, inasmuch as they use their material possessions for the spread of right- eousness, truth, joy, and peace.

The second clauses of the Beatitudes respectively express the results of realizing the character or performing the service described in the first clauses. They are promised blessings which correspond to current longings, and are worded in the fixed phrases by which those longings had of old found expression.

These blessings, although varied in form, are kindred in meaning ; they promise not so much a number of different things, as they con- vey the idea in various ways that the entire good of which God is the creator and provider will come to those who sincerely seek it in the way He appoints.t ‘The Kingdom of God’ was a phrase which had long been used to express all conceiv- able good, to sum up the longings of the devout souls of Israel.

Jesus therefore tells them how they may obtain all their desire, And the pos- session of the Kingdom is not a thing of the far dis- tant future, but of the immediate present: ‘theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.’ The Kingdom of God, while it has its consummation in the future, was an existing reality when Jesus spoke; and its blessings were available at once for those who would comply with the conditions of receiving them.+ (2) ‘Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

’§ Here, also, Jesus has taken up an OT phrase, which may be seen in Is 617? (‘to with Ebionitic tendency has interpreted the words of the Lord which lent themselves to this apparent condemnation of all material possessions, as well as other words concerning the Kingdom, in a similar way.’ * Yet O. Holtzmann, re Jesu (1901), p. 1862, holds that lust this change was made. : t So Kabisch, SK, 1896 ; Ibbeken, Bergpredigt?, p.19, Tholuck, Bergrede®, p. 57 (Eng. tr. p.

64), says: ‘If we consider the sub- stance of the several promises, we shall find that they are all essentially identical, and that the difference is merely rhetorical ; formally, they correspond to the thing desired or possessed, but each of them really comprises all spiritual blessings.’ ° t Upon the meaning and use of the term ‘Kingdom of God in Jesus’ teaching, see esp. Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 293-328. & Mt 54 peoexes pron of revlovvees, Ort eedro?

ropaxanlncovres ; Lik 62lb morc pros ob xAciovees viv, oT yeAcosTs. The Lukan form is second- ary, and its harsh, superficial tone is unsatisfactory. Oompare with it Ja 49, SERMON ON THE MOUNT SERMON ON THE MOUNT 19 | comfort all that mourn,’ 0°53) and Ps 126°:6. The term ‘mourning’ (revfoivres) is so general a one that it is difficult to determine precisely its scope. The early commentators inclined to regard it as the sorrow of penitence for sin (cf.

2 Co 1‘ 72), while others think of it as the sorrow which comes from afflictions, adversities, and persecutions.* There seems no sufficient reason why the term should not be understood here in the inclusive sense, to designate all those experiences of life— internal or external, physical, mental, or spiritual, —which bring sadness and sorrow to men. The world is full of mourning; no one escapes the anguish of pain, disappointment, bereavement, and conflict with sin.

And men have always longed for a better day, when this mourning shall be no more. It was one element of the Messianic hope that with the advent of that glorious Divine King- dom complete comfort and consolation for the world’s sorrows would be given to God’s faithful ones, Is 617; cf. Lk 2% 418, Jesus gave the assur- ance that this hope would be realized.

The Apoca- lyptist has repeated with thrilling joy the promise : ‘And he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain any more: the first things are passed away’ (Rev 214). Although the promise of comfort is in the Beatitude expressed in the future tense, its bestow- ment is not to be regarded as exclusively eschato- logical.

As the Kingdom was present among men at the time when Jesus spoke these words, so the comfort of the Kingdom was already a present reality and available to all.

Not that all mourning was then to cease,—that stage belongs to the future consummation of the Kingdom,—but that Jesus brought a true consolation for all sorrow, in the knowledge that God is a loving Father who does all things well, and that all men, like the Son Himself, are perfected through suffering (He 5° 12°), Rest and peace came to the world in and through Christ (Mt 1178: 2°, Jn 141: 2” 16°8), (3) ‘ Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.’+ The idea is that of Ps 37!

‘the meek shall inherit the earth,’ + and the LXX renders ox mpaeis. Meekness is an OT ideal, and is closely related to that of the ‘poor,’ which Jesus had already taken up in the first Beatitude. This same Hebrew word is rendered in the English VSS now by ‘he one word, now by the other; also o'3"2x, com- monly translated ‘poor,’ is sometimes translated ‘meek’ (cf. is 611 in RV text and margin, and see Lk 438). In Is 66?

the term ‘sy is associated with Ade and 37-dy 729, where the three ideas seem closely akin: ‘To this man will I look, to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at my word.’ Cf. also Ps 25°, Pr 16% The OT conception of meekness seems therefore to concern a man’s attitude towards God rather than towards other men.

The opposite of this meekness is eo and arrogance towards God, and such men e will bring to nought, Ps 7547 947+, It is epee His attitude towards God which Jesus as in mind when He says, ‘Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in * For the former view, Clem. Alex., Chrysostom, Jerome, and recently Achelis ; for the latter view, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and recently Ibbeken. B.

Weiss holds that it is impossible to tell whether the one or the other idea is intended or both. Tholuck, Bergrede5, p. 73 (Eng. tr. p. 79), says: ‘The mourning spoken of is the sorrow of penitence immediately flowing from @ felt poverty of spirit. . This penitential grief is not, how- ever, to be regarded as confined to the period of conversion, but ought to be viewed as a continuous condition of the soul.’ t Mt 55 paxépios of sputis, ors avrol xAnpovogoouriy wyy Yiv. Luke has no parallel.

$ Bacon, Sermon on the Mount, pp. 116, 127, holds that this . Beatitude was not given by Jesus, but ‘is a mere scribal gloss, @ marginal addition from Ps 3711, which has crept in after v.3 in some manuscripts, after v.4 in others.’ This is a possible, but not a likely, hypothesis.

heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls’ (Mt 11°), And the ‘meek’ who in the third Beatitude are pronounced blessed are those who live in trust- ful submission to God, seeking to know and to do His will; humility rather than self-assumption and pride characterizes them. Compare also the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, Lk 18°-!

4, They become a part of the great world, and are fellow-labourers with God in His great purposes, instead of being ends in themselves and isolated elements in the Divine system. They do not thereby lose their identity and their importance ; instead, by complete self-committal to God, they find the perfect realization of themselves, and achieve a personality of greatest influence in the universe.

A necessary outworking of this meekness to- wards God is a quality of gentleness, forgiveness, and self-abnegation in a man’s relations to his fellow-men. This is the conception which St. Paul seems to have had of the meekness of Jesus, 2 Co 10! (cf. also Eph 4’, Ja 31’, 1 P 3+); and it is the meaning which the earlier interpreters found in this Beatitude, since they paid more heed to the classical Greek usage of mpae?s than to the Hebrew conception of 3y.

‘The Greeks had scarcely an idea of that humility of man towards God which formed so true and striking an element in the religion of Israel. When Jesus promised that the meek ‘shall in- herit the earth,’ He adopted the popular phrase of the Hebrew covenant conception, which was then in use among the more Heeply religious as a sym- bolic expression to denote all those good things which were to come with the Messianic kingdom.

* The material and ephemeral elements of this hope Jesus passed by; but the spiritual content of it, the inspiring expectation that God would triumph over the world in the persons of His faithful and obedient servants among men, He reaffirmed.

Nor did Jesus conceive that this supremacy of the meek on the earth would be solely eschatological and catastrophic; quite the reverse, for the growth of the Kingdom was to be gradual (Mk 4”-), and the dominance of the world by meekness and humility is progressively realized. Men of such character become increasingly influential and successful ; the Divine ideal is making its way among men. Every passing year marks real advance towards the sup- remacy of the people of God.

t (4) ‘ Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.’t The * The phrase 7NJ"NN W! arose in a literal sense, with refer- ence to the inheritance of the Promised Land of Oanaan by tne Israelites ; cf. Gn 157, Dt 438, Jos 149.

After the Israelites had come into possession of Canaan, the conception was enlarged, and the phrase became figuratively used to designate an antici- pated material, moral and spiritual supremacy of the people of God on the earth, as in Ps 37, esp. vv.®-11, already quoted, and in Ps 259-13 ‘The meek will he guide in judgment, and the meek will he teach his way. . His soul shall dwell at ease, and his seed shall inherit the land.

’ See also Is 6021, Dn 727; and in the NT the idea can be seen in Mt 2534, Mk 127, Ro 413, Gal 318, Rev 59.10, + Tholuck, Bergrede, p. 78 (Eng. tr. p. 83): ‘In this promise humility and meekness are by him pronounced to be the truly world-conquering principle, with reference to their ultimate victory in the history of the future.’ B.

Weiss thinks this idea lies very remote from the passage, and describes the meek as ‘those quiet sufferers who, trusting in God, bear, without bitter- ness or a feeling of revenge, the abuse of those who afflict and persecute them. The painful consciousness of their own short- comings makes them humble when they are treated unjustly by others.’ Certainly this teaching is germane to Jesus (Mt 529) but it comes under the eighth Beatitude rather than under the third.

t Mt 58 pond pros of wuvavres wool Iopavess rhy ixcsocivnr, ors aire) xopraclicovres, Lk 6219 onc pos of xevavess vdv, OTs Nopror Shout. It may be that the original saying was shorter than that which appears in Matthew’s Greek form, the viv d:x%,. or even xa} dip. viv diz.

being possibly an expansion ; but it seems sufficiently clear that in any case the Matthew account pre- serves the true idea, and that the material tone of Luke's Beatitude (compare his corresponding Woe, 6) is a later per versior of Jesus’ utterance. 20 SERMON ON THE MOUNT SERMON ON THE MOUNT terms ‘hunger’ and ‘thirst,’ representing the fundamental physical necessities, had been of old used symbolically to denote intense spiritual long- ing, ctf.

Is 491° 551-2 6513, Am 8", Ps 34% 1° 491 (and in the NT see Jn 6” 77, Rev 22)+?) ; yoprdfouat also was used figuratively of spiritual supply, Ps 17% 107°. Of the meaning of this Beatitude there can be no doubt. The righteousness which men are to seek is that righteousness which the entire Sermon is designed to elucidate and to enjoin. Those who earnestly desire it are pronounced blessed, because it is theirs; every one who sincerely wills to have righteousness obtains it (Rev 221”).

Right- eousness was the technical Jewish term to connote that quality and quantity of character and con- duct which God requires of men, and which it is the one aim of life to attain. It was Jesus’ mission to correct and to perfect men’s conception of righteousness, and to inspire them to its actual realization.

In this Beatitude He speaks of the blessedness of those who long for righteousness, while in the other Beatitudes and throughout the discourse He shows them what true righteousness is, and how it is to be obtained. Since righteous- ness consists in right character and service, it cannot be exteinally bestowed,* but must be achieved, by each individual, with the help of God through Christ. And its achievement is a process of growth into the likeness of our Divine Example.

It is the glory of the Gospel that to every desirous soul is promised the attainment of God’s ideal for him and membership in the eternal Kingdom of the sons of God. (5) ‘Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

’+ It is probably by intention that this Beatitude stands immediately after the one concerning righteousness, for in both OT and NT the two ideas of righteousness and mercy are cor- relative:+ Mic 68‘ Hé hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?’ (cf. also Ps 1874-%6, Is 581-4) ; Mt 2375 ‘ Woe unto you, scribes and Phari- sees, hypocrites!

for ye tithe mint and anise and ‘cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, judgment [i.e. justice §], and mercy, and faith.’ There is no righteousness without mercy, whether of God or man. One of the most frequent OT ideas is that God is merciful towards men, and one of its most frequent injunc- tions is that men must be likewise merciful towards one another.

Jesus re-established both teachings, * Neither in this passage nor elsewhere does Jesus use the tern ‘righteousness’ in the forensic sense to which St. Paul gave currency. That God does, in His love and mercy, pardon and receive every man who in and through Christ sets him- self seriously towards the Divine ideal, is abundantly taught by Jesus; but He does not use this term to denote that idea. So nearly all commentators. Achelis, Bergpredigt, p.

22: ‘The words indicate that high degree of longing which rests upon the certainty that the object of the longing is essential to life, that without it life would become death. Righteousness is the object of such desire; what is meant by it is that moral con- dition which is in accordance with God’s will.’ B.

Weiss defines the righteousness here referred to as that ‘righteousness which corresponds to the norm of the Divine will, the highest good of every true Israelite, upon the possession of which depends the certainty of God’s good pleasure and the participation in all the promises. The Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus offers men this good in an abundance which will satisfy all long- ings, bring full contentment, and fill them with righteousness.

For in the Kingdom of God, and only there,—though there with the greatest of certainty,—will the ideal of righteousness be actually realized.’ t Mt 57 peaxc pros of tAshpeovas, Ors wdrol tAeyOhcovres, Luke has no parallel. t So closely connected are the two ideas that the Heb. 7213, which more commonly should be and is represented in the LXX by dizesorivn, is at times translated by iAemuortvy; cf.

Dt 625 2413, Ps 245 335 1036, Is 127, In the Sermon passage Mt 61 iempocivyy appears as a variant reading of dixasorivny; the former, however, is not strongly attested (EL against XBD), and is accepted by few scholars. § So H. Holtzmann, B. Weiss, Wendt; cf. Ps 335. and gave them great prominence in His irstrue tion.

Mercy is twofold: subjective and Ns haere Subjectively, mercy requires that a man shall be loving and forgiving towards all; not revengeful nor cherishing ill-will ; not thinking evil of others (Mt 182-85, 1 Go 137, Eph 4%), Objectively, merey requires that a man shall show deep, inexhaustible sympathy with all his fellows, manifesting itself in unremitting, helpful service, and in a loving considerateness towards all (Mt 54-4 910-18 12 25885 Wik 1075-87 160-8! Ro 12?

2iGaleoaee Gor 31-14, 1 Jn 34-18), It is striking that in the Beati- tudes no specific mention is made of love, although love (towards God and man) is proclaimed by Jesus as the sum of all duty (Mt 22%, cf. Ro 13%, Gal 54). And farther on in the Sermon, at Mt 5-8, the duty of love is ag eee taught. But the fact is, that although the term ‘love’ does not appear in the Beatitudes, yet the idea of love underlies every one of them.

Roughly grouped, the first four concern love ty God, the last four love tomen. All that the eight Beatitudes contain is but an application of the ae le of love to the most important aspects of life, formulating more specifically what love requires in the essential ex- perience and relations of human existence. The mercy of God precedes the mercy of men, and is its prototype. Inasmuch as God is merciful towards men, He rightly requires that men shall be merciful towards one another.

In the parable of the Unmerciful Servant this is most impressively taught, Mt 18"!-35, And as the last verse of the passage sets forth, unless men show mercy in their relations to each other, God cannot ultimatel deal mercifully with them; cf. also Mt 6", M 11%, Eph 4, Ja 24. This is not retaliation on God’s part. If it seems severe, it is yet a necessary provision to the end that love may triumph in Hig world.

If love is to transform all and to reign supreme, then what is unloving must disappear. (6) ‘Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.’* The phrase ‘ pure in heart’ occurs in Ps 73! (225 12, LXX rots evOéo. 7 xapdla) and in Ps 244 (ano 12, LXX xaapds 7H Kapdic); ef. also Ps 51%. In the NT the phrase is only twice used (1 Ti 1, 2 Ti 2”), although the thought is all-pervasive.

The term xapdla, corresponding to the Hebrew 3 and in the NT deriving its signification there- from, denotes the essential personality, the inner central self, where all feeling, thought, and action originate.t In its dative form here it indicates the sphere in which the purity is predicated, like 7@ mvevpare in the first Beatitude.

By ‘purity of heart’ is meant that profound sincerity and up- rightness of thought and feeling which produces an honest, clean, holy life in all its elements and relations. It does not need to be said that this condition of things can exist only where the indi- vidual is committed, body and soul, to the love and obedience of God, and regards all men as his brethren and himself as a sacred trust. Jesus has in mind the superficial standards of goodness which prevailed in His day.

The rich young man had kept all the commandments from his youth, and yet his heart was set upon his material possessions (Mk 10'7-*!); the Pharisees outwardly appeared righteous unto men, but within they were full of hypocrisy and iniquity (Mt 237%), Against such shallow, false conceptions of right living, Jesus most emphatically sets the duty of real righteousness, of purifying the fountain of a man’s life in order that what flows from it may indeed be pure.

That the ‘pure in heart’ ‘shall see God’ is an * Mt 58 oxé pros of xecDocpol rH xaepdi, Ors abrol ray Oedy onfovres Luke has no parallel. +See Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 116-121; Cremer, Bibl.-Theol Worterbuch 7 (1892), in loc.; art. HEART in vol. ii, SERMON ON THE MOUNT essential result of their character, not a mere un- related reward for their goodness.

Nor is this seeing of God a solely eschatological event; for, while the perfect vision of Him belongs to the future, there is a present vision which increases day by day with the growth of the pure in heart. Seeing God is, of course, not a physical process, but & spiritual one; it is to enter into full communion with Him, to be spiritually in His immediate pres- ence and to be at rest there, to share directly His favour, joy, and blessings.

The phrase to ‘see God’ arose in ancient Hebrew usage out of the fact that men counted it a supreme privilege to come into the presence of an earthly king (1 Ix 108, Est 14) ;* how much more would it mean to come into the presence of the King of kings!

The hope of such a vision of God grew with the development of the Hebrew religious conceptions, and became the rapturous aspiration of the OT saints (Ps 117 ‘the upright shall behold his face’; 17 ‘ As for me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy like- ness’). In the NT also the aspiration, now become & certainty, reappears (1 Jn 3?

‘we shall see him even as he is’; He 1214, Rev 224); the veil of the temple has been rent in twain (Mt 27°), for in and through Christ men have immediate access to God. This standing in the very presence of God, this direct communion with Him and direct re- pty to Him, is more than a theological theory—it is an actual and essential fact of thie utmost practical significance.

God is not an absentee ruler, who can be dealt with only through intermediaries; on the contrary, those who love Him live in His presence, rest in His care, receive His blessings, and participate in His : %7) ‘ Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.’+ The term elpnvoroads occurs in the LXX form of Pr 10", and the thought is present also in Pr 12. But ‘ peace’ was not so common an OT idea as those dealt with in the previous Beatitudes.

Some have maintained that the meaning of e/pyv. in this passage is exclusively passive, t.e. ‘peaceable.’ But the mass of inter- preters find a larger meaning, which includes this while containing also an active element—to make peace.t Certainly Jesus’ idea here is comprehen- sive ; He has in mind to commend and to inculcate the spread of peace—all kinds of peace—among men (ef. He 12, Ja 3!8).

In this He is the great leader and example, Mt 11%, Ju 14°7 (the paradox, Mt 10%), Eph 218, Col 12° 3"; for God is the God of Peace, Ro 15%, 2Co 13", Ph 47-9 1 Th 5%, He 13”, who sent peace to the eurth in Christ, Lk 233-14, Peace between (od and men was pro- claimed by Jesus, and peace between men and their fellow-men was enjoined. Teace therefore is the Christian ideal.

[ndividual composure and social harmony are to le brought about by the concentration of all interests and forces on the achievement of the individual and social ideal as taught by Christ, and by the realization, within one’s self and among all, of those Divine principles of concord and co-operation through which alone true peace can be obtained. The peacemakers ‘shall be called sons of God’ because in this essential characteristic they are like Him, the God of Peace.

The fact that the article does not accompany the viol signifies that *On the ‘vision of God’ as held by Philo, see Schiirer, Geschichte d. Jiidischen Volkes 3 (1898), vol. iii. p. 561. + Mt 59 pax pios of sipmvorosii, ors [wvrol] viel Usod xAnbicovras. Luke has no parallel. } For the passive sense only, Grotius, Socinus, Wetstein, and recently Ibbeken, Bergpredigt?, p. 43. For an active meaning also, Luther, Meyer, Tholuck, Bleek, Achelis, H. Holtzmann, B, Weiss, and the RV.

Others incorrectly regard the ‘ peace’ mentioned as that obtained by the atoning work of Christ; so Chrysostom, Stier. SERMON ON THE MOUNT 21 the designation is to be understood qualitatively. This idea of sonship as consisting in moral resem- blance is of Hebrew origin, and is found in both Testaments ; cf. esp.

Mt 5%, Rev 217, The expres- sion ‘ called’ sons of God is also a Hebraism, found frequently in the Book of Isaiah ; its special func- tion here seems to be to emphasize the fact of sonship (cf. Mt 5, 1 Jn 31) as something not only true, but recognized to be true. (8) ‘ Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are ye when men shall re- proach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.’* Although the essence and purpose of the gospel was peace, nevertheless those who enjoyed and endeavoured to spread this peace in the world would incur reproach and abuse from their fellow-men.

The OT does not supply passages similar in form to this Beatitude, but the Hebrews had no lack of experience in persecution for righteousness’ sake, and the conception is de- veloped with marvellous insight and feeling in Is 40-66. In the NT it is an ever-present idea —the sufferings of the OT saints are recalled (He 11°-4°), Jesus lives and dies a martyr to this principle, He predicted persecution for His fol- lowers (Mt 5!

°22, Jn 16%), and this persecution actually befell them (Jn 972, Ac 54 813, ] P 314 41416) The primitive Christians bravely endured and faithfully preached when they were despised, ostracized, punished, and maliciously slandered.t * Mt 510-12 prcerectpios of Sedseoypetvos tvaxay dixocsocbyys, Ors avTav iors 4 Baoiree Tay ovpuvdy. pooextd-piol bors Orav cvEdiowor dpess xed diakwow zoel eirwoiv raev rovnpov al vecdy spevddepesvos tvaxty Esco.

qaipers nol eyarrianole, Ors 0 pesobos dudy roads bv ToIs ovpavols* oiras yap tdimkav Tovs xpogyras tous mpd buav. Lk 622 23 axe piol tort orev pojowoiw vpLcs ob &vIpwros, xel OTAY aPopicwory Uuds xa) dvediawrw nel ixPcrwow +d dvoinm dudy ws movypoy ivexce Tov viov rod aviparov. xapuyts bv sxcivn 7H HUipe xal oxpricarts ov yap 6 probes tueay words bv TH olpavar nar Te aire yup izoiovy tois spogyrous of raripss evdtav.

With regard to these two reports of what must be regarded as a single utterance, two things are to be said; (1) the corresponding Lukan Beatitude 622. 23 is parallel not to Mt 510, but to Mt 611-12, It is suggested above that 510 and 511.12 may be duplicates, the one or the other passage appearing ae through the process of compilation.

Since one feature of the Beatitudes was their brief, striking form (like the Ten Commandments of the OT), the original eighth Beatitude must have contained few words, and 610 is closely parallel in form to the preceding seven Beatitudes; both of which things favour its originality. In Luke also the last Beatitude is very long compared with the others. Perhaps, therefore, Mt 511-12 and Lk 622.

23 are varying words from one historical saying, introduced here bya transmitting or editorial hand because of their close similarity in thought to that of the eighth Beatitude. Or another view would be that Mt 511.12 ig an expansion of the idea contained in Mt 519 by Jesus Himself (or possibly by some subsequent Christian teacher when the persecutions actually came upon the Christians); for the essential thought of the three verses is the same, the general conception of persecution in v.

10 being expanded in vv.11. 12 into the specific ideas of verbal abuse, hostile acts, and false reports. (2) The Lukan form of this Beatitude is in several respects secondary in character, i.e. it shows greater departure than Matthew’s from the probable original form of the utterance.

These modifications arose out of a freer handling in transmis sion, a partial conformity to the new Gentile field in which the material circulated, and a greater yielding to the influence of the actual events of poration in the Apostolic age. The term puchowow is used in a characteristic Lukan way, cf.

Lk 1426 1613 2117, The ixSdamci 70 dvoym vudv os wovnpov, as also the egapcev, refer to the excommunication of the Christians as heretics from the synagogues and other Jewish relationships— things which actually happened, but which the Matthwan pas- sage does not specifically predict. The évexsy éov of Matthew is more original than the tveze roi vied rod atenty of Luke. Lk 623, first clause, seems modified.

And Lk 6%, last clause, shows various secondary elements, due to the denationalizing of the material, These phenomena are constant throughout Luke’s Gospel as compared with Matthew’s. t+ The Wevdcuevas of Mt 54 is attested by NBCE and the majority of witnesses; it is omitted by D and certain other witnesses of the ‘Western’ text. The word is therefore com- monly accepted here.

But if the new claims for the ‘ Western type of text have good foundation, it is nol impossible that this Vevdowevos is, in the terminology of Westcott-Hort, a ‘ Western non-interpolation.

’ Jesus, of course, implied the thought whicb 22 SERMON ON THE MOUNT And in this conduct they were richly blessed— not by the persecutions, but through them; for Jesus, of course, did not mean that persecutions are essential to the development of the ideal life, but only that, where outward circumstances are such as to induce them, they are blessed who steadfastly and joyfully glorify the Gospel. The exey dixaro- avyns of Mt 5! and the évexey éuod of the following verse are synonymous.

The persecutions which would afilict Jesus’ disciples were to be met in carrying forward the work which He had begun ; if they lived as He lived, and taught as He taught, they would experience the same treatment as He had received (Jn 77 1518-19 174). Had He not been a true successor of the OT prophets in sufter- ing for righteousness’ sake (Mt 5! 23°89)?

With the advancing centuries the kind of persecution directed against Christianity has changed, and the amount has lessened; but Christian people can never expect to be free from misinterpretation, ridicule, and abuse until all men become devoted to the righteousness and truth for which Chris- tianity stands.

And this Beatitude promises the highest blessings to those who in trust, patience, and forgiveness uphold the Gospel, and allow the persecution to fulfil its own true mission in their lives and in the Church (He 125-14), These promised highest blessings are denoted here by the term ‘the Kingdom of Heaven,’ so that in the eighth Beatitude Jesus has returned to the promise which accompanied the first Beatitude.

This conception of the Kingdom of Heaven is the inclusive one, since it comprises all conceivable good and brings absolute well-being. The phrase “great is your reward in heaven,’ which appears in Mt 5¥=Lk 6%, is practically one in meaning with that of Mt 5” ‘for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

’* The term ‘reward’ (uc6és) was taken over into the Gospel from the commercial, quid pro quo terminology of legal Judaism ; its legalistic designation had therefore to disappear, and now it was a term to express those gracious spiritual blessings which are at hand and in store for the true children of God.

In this Beatitude, then, is promised ‘the Kingdom of Heaven’ and ‘great reward,’ but not the Kingdom of Heaven plus some additional reward, since the Kingdom itself contains all the good which men can receive. b. The World Mission.—Mt 5°! (ef. Lk 11% 14*4- 35).+ The connexion of these verses with those which precede is close.

Men of such char- acter and conduct as Mt 5°* has described will assuredly meet with opposition and calumny, Mt 510-12; but they must not on this account go into hiding—rather must they stand forth, endure per- secution, and uphold the Gospel standard in the world, Mt 51-6, Salt is a preservative element, light is a life-giving one; both were current it contains, but it was quite superfluous to express it, and its expression disturbs the proper emphasis in the saying.

The word is much more likely to have been added later (as a practically useful expansion) than to have been excluded, * On the NT term ‘reward’ see B. Weiss, Bibl. T'heologie des NTS (1895), § 82; Tholuck, Bergrede5, pp. 99-101 [Eng. tr. p. 101f.]; Achelis, Bergpredigt, pp. 52-55. t This section is regarded as not belonging to the original Sermon by Feine, H. Holtzmann, B. Weiss, Wendt, Bartlet, Bacon ; it is defended by Achelis, Meyer, Tholuck, and most eommentators.

If the theme of the discourse is comprehensive, as maintained above, these verses supply a logical and useful portion of the whole treatment given it. { The exact function of salt which Jesus had here in mind is somewhat uncertain : was it its quality to save from decay, as in 2 K 219. 20(so Meyer, B. Weiss), or its quality as a pleasing condiment, as in Job 65, Col 46 (so Bleek, H. Holtzmann), or its ritual function as developed in the ancient sacrificial system, cf.

Mk 949-50 (so Achelis, Keil, Tholuck, Bergrede5, pp. 102-106 [Eng. tr. pp. 105-109])? The second of these views is perhaps too shallow for this passage, and the third too complex, too erudite ; it seems a simpler and stronger utterance when the salt is conceived in its fundamental property of a preservative. The other metaphor, light, is one of the most common relizious expressions, cf. esp. Ig 426 496 601-2, Jn 14.5.9 812 1235.

46, ph 58, SERMON ON THE MOUNT figurative terms for spiritual realities. Men who appreciate the Divine ideal of life which Jesus has presented in the Beatitudes, and who strive to attain it, are God’s chosen instruments for the realization of His purpose in the world. They are to live and to mene among men, where their char- acter and their deeds may exert their full, true influence.

The Christian is not permitted either to withdraw himself from the world, or to live an isolated, unprofessed religious life in the world. He must not only himself be good and do good; he must also help others into the appreciation and the attainment of the same ideal. Salvation is not merely individual ; it is social as well.

Until Christians do the most and the best they can with themselves and for all others, they are not faithful to the mission which Jesus has laid upon all of His followers, and the consummation of God’s Kingdom is in so far delayed. c. Relation to the Old Testament.—Mt 5™-™ (cf. Lk 16”). The logical relation of these verses to what precedes is clear: Jesus has set forth the new Gospel norm of life (5°), and has enjoined His followers to live this life openly before the world (5'-!

6); now He proceeds to show the relation of this new Gospel norm to the Hebrew norm of life which in the OT had come down through the centuries and now held the field among His countrymen.

Since Jesus’ ideal dif- fered so much from the current scribal standard (as any one could see), the question easily arose —not only among His opponents, the religious leaders of the day, but also among those who ‘heard him gladly ’—whether this revelation of God’s will by Jesus was a wholly new revelation superseding that made by Moses and the Prophets. Jesus gave the answer to this question when He said, ‘ Think not that I came to destroy the law o Ee I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

Ph 215,1 Th 55, The phrase of v.16 76 gas judy, means either ‘the light which is intrusted to you,’ viz. the Gospel (so H, Holtzmann, B, Weiss), or ‘ the light which you are,’ as in v.14, *Mt 517 pen vopeionrs ors FAlov xaraAUous Tov vouoyv 4 ToUE mpoeyras’ ovx HAloy xurardou: &AA& xAvpdcos.

The customary phrase, 6 vésos xa} of xpogyroi, is a phrase which arises from the Jewish designation of the OT literature, the vosos designating the first five books, the rpogyres the remainder; while the whole phrase denotes the OT in its entirety and its unity. It is noticeable that in Mt 517 we have the disjunctive particle 4 instead of the usual z«/in this phrase.

The variation is prob- ably intentional, introduced in order to suggest that the Law and the Prophets were distinct portions of the OT, and that a different attitude might be assumed by the same person towards the two divisions—He might abrogate either one without the other, but He wishes to abrogate neither (so Tholuck, Meyer, Ibbeken, Bruce, Wendt, B. Weiss).

While Jesus mentions ‘the Prophets’ in 517, He does not again refer to them throughout the whole following section, 518-48, All that He goes on to say pertains to the Law; He does not present any similar illustrations of how the teaching of the Prophets is to be perfected. This silence concerning the Prophets is explained in different ways. Achelis Bergpredsy, p.

79) thinks that if what He said was true of the Law, that He came not to destroy but to fulfil, a fortiori it was true of the Prophets. The more common explanation is that He Pree by the Prophets in the remainder of His teaching at this point because He was much more in accord with them, and because the contemporaneous religious teachers paid so little attention to the Prophets that He did not come seriously into conflict with them concerning the prophetic teaching.

Recently Pro- fessor Briggs (Hapos. Times, viil. 398) has argued that Mt 517 as given by Jesus stood, ‘Think not that I came to destroy the law: I came not to destroy but to fulfil,’ for ‘the Evangelist added ‘‘ the Prophets” in order to make the stassment refer to the whole OT. This addition destroys the measure of the line, and has nothing in the context of this discourse or in the ex- perience of Jesus to justify it.

He was constantly charged with violating the Law, but nowhere with destroying the Prophets.’ Bacon takes a similar view (Sermon on the Mount, pp. 87, 176 This hypothesis is worthy of consideration.

The words 7 rovs xpoo7,7es might easily have been introduced subsequently toround out the original utterance of Jesus, for of course He did come to fulfil both Law and Prophets; even though on this historical occasion He had spoken only of the Law, His attitude towards which was liable to be misunderstood and needed careful ex- planation.

The material contained in the First Gospel has perhaps been retouched at several points to show Jesus as the fulfiller of the entire OT, and especially of the Prophets; the a i a i i SERMON ON THE MOUNT SERMON ON THE MOUNT 23 Jesus’ constant warfare during His ministry was not so much against the OT standard of life in itself as against the interpretation of the OT standard which was held and taught in His day.

For hundreds of years the priests and scribes had been busily engaged with the legal literature of their religion.

These labours had resulted in an elaboration and externalization of the Law; so that when Jesus came the current Jewish teaching was in some respects extremely perverse: (1) it largely ignored the Prophetic portion of the OT, which was the very soul of the Hebrew history and Bible ; (2) it exalted legalism until Judaism had become a system of precepts for the perform- ance of an innumerable series of great and small duties which few could know and none could fully obey ; (3) it so externalized the Law that religion came to consist chiefly in the observance of minute ceremonial performances, while the internal, spon- taneous, and genuinely spiritual elements of the Law were neglected or ignored.

Against this scribal abuse of the OT, Jesus had on man occasions to assert himself, and He did so wit vehemence. He would not keep their fasts (Mk 218); He would not observe the Sabbath according to their code (Mt 121-4, Mk 27-38, Jn 51618); He denounced, with a true prophetic insight and indignation, their whole legislation regarding the ceremonially clean and unclean (Mt 15!-°, Mk 72-23, ef.

Is 11°17, Mic 65) ; He continually associated with the sinful and the despised who did not keep the Law, in order to do them good (Mk 21-17), Such an attitude on Jesus’ part towards the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees was involved in His introduction of a higher standard. In this atti- tude He was not, in fact, opposing the OT ; rather, He was defending it against the false interpreta- tion which had become current.

Nevertheless, and quite naturally, the Jewish leaders identified their conception of the OT with the OT itself— how could they be mistaken about it? Therefore Jesus was a traitor to the religion, the history, and the literature of the race; He richly merited a traitor’s death. It seemed to them logical and conclusive, because in their bigotry they regarded their own ideas and interpretations as heaven- penetrating and infallible.

To be sure, Jesus’ teaching went much deeper than the mere removal of the rubbish which had accumulated about the OT during the preceding centuries ; His work did not consist solely in re-establishing the OT as it came from the hands of its makers.

But had the Jews been true to the OT in the breadth and height of its teaching, they would have welcomed Jesus instead of rejecting Him; they would have been prepared to appreciate and to receive the fuller revelation of God’s will which He brought into the world. That His Gospel was a fuller revelation, Jesus made abundantly plain. He did not re-enact the Ten Commandments, but only re-established the principles which underlay them (Mt 22%“).

He abrogated such provisions and implications of the Law as were adapted only to the earlier stages of civilization, thus: mere external conformity to statutes regarding moral conduct, Mt 571-74 27.28 ; divorce, 5%-®2; the use of oaths, 5-87; the practice of retaliation, 5-“; the pride of race, which made men despise other nations, 5-!8.

In these matters, which He dealt with as specimen cases, Jesus re- vealed an attitude, a method, and certain principles which He intended to be applied to the OT through- cori ‘the law and the prophets’ is a favourite one in atthew, compare 712 with Lk 631 ; 2240 with Mk 1231, Lk 1028, But to this argument it may be replied that the Gospels of Mark and Luke, being written for use among the Gentiles, incorporated tradition from which many of the distinctly Jewish elements and phrases actually employed by Jesus had been removed in the interest of a universal Gospel.

out.” He did not repudiate the past, He did not even break with the best which the past had pro- duced ; He only developed and perfected the high ideal of life which had found embodiment in the Hebrew Bible.

He did not set the seal of absolute duty and truth upon all that the lawgivers and prophets had taught, but He took up and reaffirmed the essential ethical principles and religious ideas which the Hebrew lawgivers had endeavoured to formulate and the Hebrew prophets had_en- deavoured to instil into the lives of men.

That Jesus regarded His own revelation of the will of God ag immeasurably superior to that contained in the OT is most strikingly expressed when He says, ‘ Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist; yet he that is but little in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he’ (Mt 11", cf.

also Mt 131”), To the same effect is Mk 271-22 “No man seweth a piece of undressed cloth on an old garment; else that which should fill it up taketh from it, the new from the old, and a worse rent is made. And no man putteth new wine into old wine-skins; else the wine will burst the skins, and the wine perisheth, and the skins.

’ Full of a similar meaning, also, is Jesus’ parabolic statement in Mt 13° ‘Every scribe who hath been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.’ + When, therefore, Jesus says, ‘I came not to de- stroy, but to fulfil’ (Mt 5!

”), He places in our hands the key to His relation to the OT,+ and bids us see the continuity of God’s purpose among men, the eternity of right and truth, and the absolute cer- tainty that the Divine ideal is to develop and triumph in the world. In these words is comprised all that Jesus was, and did, and taught; they de- scribe His mission.

And He felt Himself competent to perform this mighty work, this manifestation of God to men, because ne knew Himself to be chosen by God and qualified by Him for the conveyance of this revelation. Since He was superior to all pre- vious revealers of God, He was capable of passin, judgment upon their teachings ; He was nooeiited to pronounce what elements in those teachings were of permanent and what of transient value.

And it was also His mission to unify, to perfect, and to establish the whole sum of religious and ethical ideas among men. For this service He had the * Jesus attacked existing ideas, practices, and institutions only to the extent absolutely necessary for the establishment of His gospel. Many of the evils and wrongs of society He did not attempt to correct, many of the current misconceptions He left for subsequent teachers to remove.

His purpose was to trans- form mankind, not to produce a social or political revolution, and He saw most truly that this transformation was a process for which abundant time must be allowed (Mt 1324-38, Mik 426-29), His work was not destructive but constructive, not negative but positive, as all true work for the world is.

Progress involves the putting aside of old bottles for new, the correction of false ideas and practices, the clearing away of spurious accretions, the defeat of those who counsel stagnation ; but no one who follows Jesus’ example in advancing the Kingdom will labour exclusively, or even primarily, to overthrow the false; rather will he lovingly and trustfully devote himself to the establish- ment of what is true.

There is a radical difference between a critical and a helpful attitude in one’s work for the world. + On the interpretation of Mt 1352 see particularly Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 349. ¢ St. Paul’s conception of the relation between the Law and the Gospel is the same as that of Jesus, as may be seen in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. In Ro 321 St. Paul claims not to annul but to establish the Law; not in form and letter, but in substance and spirit.

This is to acknowledge the great law of progress, or development, in the universe. An acorn fulfils its mission not by remaining an acorn, but by growing into an oak, A child fulfils its mission not by remaining a child, but by becominga man. So the OT Law was fulfilled and established not by continuing in literal force when men were ready for something better, but by becoming in due time through Christ a perfected revelation (cf. Gal 44.

5), adapted to the higher needs and possibilities of mankind. On the atti tude of Jesus and St. Paul towards the Law, see esp. art. Law IN THE NT in vol. iii. 24 SERMON ON THE MOUNT SERMON ON THE MOUNT Divine ideal within Himself, and needed no ex- ternal criterion. So that there seems no room for a difference of opinion as to what Jesus meant by saying that He came to ‘fulfil’ the Law and the Prophets.

He could not have meant that He would secure the literal accomplishment of everything hoped for and promised in the OT, as though the OT simply presented a programme which it was His mission to carry out. Nor could He have meant that He would secure the complete, literal observance and performance of all that is commanded in the Law and the Prophets. He neither did nor attempted to do the one thing or the other.

If His Jewish hearers might at first understand Him to promise that in ‘fulfilling’ the Law and the Prophets He would reaffirm their authority, and render and secure absolute obedience thereto, He yet ex- plicitly and emphatically provided against such a misconstruction of His words by what He immedi- ately adds in vv.'*, Jesus could only have meant that He came to ‘ fulfil’ the Law and the Prophets by first perfecting them and then accomplishing them.

In accordance with this view of Jesus’ thought in Mt 517 must be interpreted His words in Mt 518.19, The former, v.18, seems to say; I affirm most emphatically that to the end of timet the OT Law, and every portion of that Law, shall remain and shall be actually and completely realized. The latter, v.19, seems to say : The minute observance and inculcation of this OT Law, in every statute and in every detail, is literally and strictly re- quired of every member of the Kingdom of Heaven.

t Now * This is now the generally accepted interpretation. Tholuck, Bergrede5, pp, 124, 126 [Eng. tr. pp. 125, 127] : ‘So Christ has come to perfect, to fill up with religious knowledge and life, all that in the OT revelation existed only in outline. . That the ful- filling was merely an external supplementing or improvement of the Law cannot be admitted’ (see Tholuck’s entire discussion of Mt 517, pp. 113-131 [Eng. tr. pp. 115-131]). Bruce, Hxpositor’s Greek Testament, i.

104: ‘ He brings in a law of the spirit which cancels the law of the letter, a kingdom which realizes the pro- phetic ideals while setting aside the crude details of their conception of the Messianic time.’ B. Weiss, Meyer-Komm. ui. d. Mattevgm. p.102: ‘He comes not at all to undoor to abro- gate ; his mission is a positive one, to provide a new [revelation of the will of God], in which he will bring to perfection all God’s revelations and plans of salvation.’ Feine, Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol.

1885: ‘Thus he says that no essential difference exists between the OT revelation and his message of the Kingdom, but that there is aclose continuity between them ; true religion, presented as an ideal in the OT, is now realized, and the Gospel is the fulfilment of the OT prophecy.’ Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 838 f.: ‘He would say that he recognizes in the Law and the Prophets a true revelation of the will of God, and consequently he does not feel called upon to annul its value for others.

But at the same time he would affirm that he could not leave just as it stood the presentation given by the Law and the Prophets of this earlier revelation of God’s will, and that he would not ex- slain and confirm that revelation in the detailed manner of the scriba] teaching ; but that instead he would perfect that revela- tion, so that the OT presentation of the will of God would find its ideal expression’ (see Wendt’s entire discussion, pp. 333-351).

Similarly also Luther, Meyer, Hilgenfeld, Achelis, Bacon, and many others. H. Holtzmann, Comm. uw. d. Synoptiker, p. 104, says, concerning Mt 517: ‘It is open to question whether during the public life of Jesus so radical an interpretation of His mission could have been formulated, either in Bie positive sense (cf. Ro 104) or in the negative sense.

’ + The phrase tas dv sopiadn 6 odpavig xa) % 7% does not define a terminus ad quem, but means ‘for ever,’ in the sense that He has no pronouncement to make as to a time when the Law shall benolonger valid. So Luther, Calvin, Meyer, Tholuck, Ibbeken, Bruce, B. Weiss; a contrary opinion by Achelis, Bergpredigt, p. 84, and Lechler, SK 1854.

The former view is supported also by the parallel saying in Lk 1617 txordrepov 06 éotiv tov ebpavoy xad viv iv woperdciy % rod vouov plow xépaiay weoeiv (ON this passage and its relation to Mt 518 see esp. Feine, Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol. 1885, pp. 31-85). B. Weiss, Meyer-Komun. ii, d. Mattevgm. p. 104, says that in the phrase ‘ till heaven and earth pass away’ Jesus ‘does not indicate a point after which the Law shall no longer be in existence, but [this] is only a popular ex- pression (cf.

Job 1412) for the permanent authority of the Law. Since Jesus is speaking of what shall take place in the present world-era, he states that the Law can never passaway. But ofa continuation of the Law beyond the last world-catastrophe, as referred to in Mt 2485, nothing is here said.’ The second phrase tas &y wdvem yévnros is parallel to the tas &y xapialy 6 obpavos xat % 7%, and in meaning can only be synonymous with it.

} Concerning the interpretation of the phrase os tay ody Aton fiky tay ivroAay TobTay Tay tAnxiorwv, B. Weiss, Meyer-Komm., ti, d. Mattevgm. p. 105, says: ‘The phrase “‘ one of the least of these command nents” refers not to the Pharisaic distinction neither of these statements could have been made by Jesus; they are diametrically opposed to both His teaching and His practice. The OT Law, as a system and as a code, He distinctly set aside, to supersede it with a Gospel dispensation.

It was the spirit, not the letter, of the Law which Jesus approved and continued ; the high conceptions of God and man and the noble principles of moral obligation which are taught in the OT, Jesus reaffirmed as true and perpetuated for ever. Do these verses then contain some inconsistent elements, or can their apparent inconsistencies be explained away? ‘The commentators have commonly been satisfied with thinking that these difficult state- ments in vv.18.

19 could in some manner be harmonized with Jesus’ other teaching and His general attitude towards the OT.

Some have attempted to show how the Law in every branch and in all its minuti# was fulfilled in Christ;* others have main- tained that Jesus had reference to the Law only on its ethical side and in general, the ceremonial and predictive elements in the Law being passed over;t and still others, having regard to Jesus’ frequent use of hyperbolical language, have held that these verses contain hyperbolical statements, the hyperbole, being used not to deceive, but to impress the truth he wished to convey.

t But an increasing number of scholars have come between small and great commands; since Jesus has in v.18 denied that there was any such distinction in fact, the refer- ence can only be to such commands as seem less important to superficial observation. But these also stand in real organic union with the ideal contents of the whole.’ On the contrary, Achelis, Bergpredigt, p.

91: ‘It is Jesus himself who here makes the distinction between great and small commandments, and in so far he recognized the Pharisaic (later rabbinic) distinction which was the object of their ardent efforts in spite of their tendency to regard unessential things as essential.’ The difii- culty of regarding the words of this verse as coming from Jesus in just their present form is great. He did make a distinction in values and obligations, cf.

Mt 2323 ‘Woe unto you, ye scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, judgment, and mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone’; see also Mt 2287-40, * See particularly Tholuck, Bergrede 5, pp. 142-146 [Eng. tr. 141-144}, who holds that ‘ ore hae the moral ee oe here, as the expression lara tv } ie xspeie shows; while v.

19 indicates that the fulfilment here spoken of extends to all the évroawi. To limit the meaning of the verse to the ethical law is accordingly inadmissible. . The Redeemer can have ken of the necessity of a fulfilment of the ritual law onl ita pedagogical and typical symbolical character.’ This fulfilment was accomplished ‘in His own sacrificial death, in which the shadowy outline of the OT sacrifices was filled up, and their idea realized (He 10!)

’ Similarly, ‘the idea of the theocracy is realized in the Church; of the priesthood, in the Christian people; the passover, in the Lord's Supper; circumcision, in baptism ; the command to avoid the dead and the ceremonially unclean, in avoiding the morally dead and unclean,’ etc. t Achelis, Bergpredigt, p. 781. ; ‘The reference here is not to the Law in respect of its typical prophetic element (e.g.

the law of sacrifice), nor to the Prophets in respect of their predictions concerning the Messianic future; but to the Law and the Pro- phets in so far as they, corresponding to the new demands and promises of Jesus in the first section of the Sermon, embrace the codified demands and promises current in Israel.’ Ibbeken, Bergpredigt®, pp. 64, 56: ‘That he is thinking here (v.

18) especi- ally of the Ten Commandments, which in the Hebrew original had a very much shorter form than in the modern translations, is evident when he says that not a jot or tittle shall pass away ; of these short commands at least, not the smallest part could be taken away. . The whole difficulty which is felt in this verse (v.

19) arises from taking the expression “‘ the law and the prophets” too literally, as though Jesus had intended to say that not the slightest detail of the Mosaic law, including the ritual law, should pass away. If he meant this, then his later life and especially his attitude toward the Sabbath law were entirely inconsistent with his words.

But the phrase “the law and the prophets” is to be understood here in a much narrower sense, as signifying only the existing legal order of the common moral life, an interpretation which is placed beyond doubt by the re- petition of this phrase in Mt 712.

For if he can say, “‘ All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the pro- phets,” then it cannot be denied that in 518 he refers only to those commands of the law by means of which the legal order of the common society of men is maintained.’ Burton and Mathews, Constructive Studies in the Life of Christ, p. 101f.

: ‘It is evi- dently the moral teachings of both Law and Prophets that Jesus is speaking of, not the predictions. Jesus declares hig devotion to the Law, and its permanence in the new Kingdom, This Jesus could do, although he disregarded or disapproved certain statutes of the Law (for ares respertias fasting, Mk 219.

20; clean and unclean meats, 717-19; and divorce, Mt 197-9), because he identified the Law with its great principle of love (Mt 712 2237-40), This was to him the Law and the Pro- phets, and individual statutes were of value and of permanent authority only in so far as they embodied and expressed this central principle. This was just the opposite position from that which the Pharisees took. They gave all heed to the statutes as authoritative in themselves, and lost sight of the principles.

Hence the conflict between them and Jesus.’ t The figurative language should therefore be interpreted qualitatively, not quantitatively. So apparently, though not el a 4 SERMON ON THE MOUNT to question the precise authenticity of the utterances as they stand reported in Mt 518.19,* The wording of them presents the rabbinical conception of the Law as eternally and literally valid;t the formule used are those of the rabbinical phrase- ology.

The statements themselves are too likely to be mis- understood and to mislead the hearers. The hyperbole is too much in the direction of the literalism which He was strenu- ously opposing. It is not necessary to suppose, nor is it at all probable, that Mt 518-19 was a free composition of a subsequent period. The two verses seem to have a real nucleus of something said by Jesus on this occasion. But a certain Jewish-Christian colour- ing they may have received in transmission.

Jesus may well have used some strong expressions in this connexion, for the urpose of affirming the Divine character and the essential cor- rectness of the OT revelation, and of impressing the duty of members of the Kingdom which He was establishing to recognize and preserve the truth thus intrusted to them.

And these words of Jesus, already more conservative than He was accus- tomed to use in His general teaching, may, through the pro- cesses of transmission and translation, have taken on a still more conservative tone than He had given them.

When it is re- membered that for 15 or 20 years after Jesus’ death the primitive disciples had no other conception of the OT than that it was literally and completely in force, Jesus’ teaching being only supplementary thereto, it is not difficult to see how these words which dealt with that matter assumed a form and interpretation in accordance with the disciples’ conceptions of the relation of the New to the Old Dispensation.

Insuch a transformation of Jesus’ words and meaning there would be no intention to mis- represent Him, but rather a conscious purpose to make more definite what they at that time conceived Him to have meant by these utterances.

What these verses now say is inconsistent with Jesus’ other teaching and with His practice regarding the OT Law; but it is consistent with the primitive Apostolic teach- ing and practice of the Law, which maintained the former Jewish position, ignoring for a time that constant and signifi- cant portion of Jesus’ teaching and conduct which was against the literal authority and the permanent observance of the OT. In the following verse, Mt 5”, we are again on firm ground.

Jesus assures His hearers that the current conception and attainment of righteousness, as taught ud pipesed by the scribes and Phari- sees, was entirely insufficient—not enough to admit one to the Kingdom of Heaven.} Instead, therefore, of abrogating or diminishing religious require- ments, as they charged against Him, He was, in fact, demanding of men a great deal more than they demanded, with all their boasted devotion to the Law.

What the character of the Pharisees’ righteousness was can be seen in Mt 23), Lk clearly, B. Weiss, Meyer-Komm. t. d. Mattevgm. p. 104: the jot and tittle ‘signify in the concrete-plastic form of Jesus’ ex- preeion every part of the Law, however small. . That Jesus as in mind here only the moral law, not the ceremonial law, is an untenable view. He includes the whole Law, and contem- lates an antitypical fulfilment of the ceremonial element in it.’ ith Weiss agree Tholuck, Achelis, Feine, H.

Holtzmann, and others, that a distinction of moral and ceremonial portions in the Law, which could be separately and might be differently viewed, is an entirely modern one, unrecognized by Jesus and His contemporaries. *So Baur, Strauss, Keim, Wittichen, Késtlin, Weizsicker, Hilgenfeld, Feine, H. Holtzmann, Schmiedel. Holtzimann, ' Comm. ui. d. Synoptiker, p. 106, regards the three verses, vv.17-19, as an answer of the Evangelist to the Pauline anti-legalism. Feine, Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol.

1885, pp. 26-35, argues at length that vv.18-19 cannot be authentic, but must be Jewish-Christian additions. Bacon, Sermon on the Mount, pp. 133-138, rejects y.18, but thinks that v.19 can be explained here as it stands. + The Jews of Jesus’ day conceived the Law to be the Divinely revealed will of Jehovah, made known to Moses for the per- manent guidance of the people; it could not therefore change or pass away. So Tholuck, H. Holtzmann, B.

Weiss (against Meyer, who on the basis of Jer 3131 thought that the Jews looked for a new law). See also Bar 41, To 16; Philo, Vita Mosis, ii. 656; Josephus, contra Apionem, ii. 38. Beréshith R. 10.1 reads: ‘ Everything has its end, the heaven and earth have their end; only one thing is excepted which has no end, and that is the Law.’ Shemoth R. 6: ‘Not a letter shall be abolished from the Law forever.’ Midrash Koheleth, 71. 4: * (The Law] shall remain in pepe for ever and ever.

’ t It is difficult to understand how the words of Mt 232-8 can be authentic just as they stand. How could Jesus command the people to render complete obedience to the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees (‘ All things whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe’)? Their teaching was certainly better than their practice, but both were essentially defective and Tverse. Save characterized the scribes and Pharisees as blind,’ Mt 1313 2317.

19; His whole mission was concerned with the establishment of an anti-Pharisaic ideal of belief and con- duct. So that we seem to have in Mt 232-3, asin Mt 518.19, a certain false colouring of Jesus’ language, the modification of His words in transmission to express an ultra, conservative Jewish-Christian conception. SERMON ON THE MOUNT 25 1197-82 1614. 15.

19-31 189-14: their painful shallowness and perversity, in comparison with what they would have been had they lived faithful to the OT teaching, need not here be described. In vy.17-19 Jesus has explained the relation of His Gospel norm to that of the Law and the Prophets, In y.*° He has contrasted His ideal standard of life with that of the Pharisees, And now in the verses which follow, vv.?!

-48, He illustrates how both the OT and the Pharisaic norms fall short of that Divine ideal for men which He has come to estab- lish in the world. As generally enumerated, these illustrations are six in number, concerning: (1) anger, vv.21-8 ; (2) social purity, vv.?7-® ; (3) divorce, vy.°1- 82; (4) oaths, vv.-7; (5) retaliation, vv5-” ; (6) love for all, vv.“*-#8.

They illuminate the field of social relations between men by showing what principles are to determine their feelings and their conduct towards one another. These principles we may for convenience designate as the principle of inner righteousness, the principle of unselfishness and forgiveness, and the principle of universal love; although the first comprises really the second and third also. d. Inner Righteousness.—Mt 571-*7 (ef.

Lk 1258: 59 168), The essential difference between the OT, system and the Gospel is that between an external code forced upon one from without and an internal life which first develops character and then mani- fests itself in conduct. The OT Law told what a man must do and must not do, mainly the latter ; ene it contemplated right motives, it did not generally formulate them or effect them.

A man might ‘keep all the commandments from his youth up,’ and yet lack some essential element of righteousness (Mk 10!

7-22), If it is true that for the childhood of the race an external system of conduct is alone suitable and possible, if a child must be dealt with on the basis of precepts until knowledge, judgment, and conscience qualify him for a basis of principles, the reason for the radical difference between the OT and the NT becomes clear: they belong to different stages of human development. And St. Paul isright in saying that ‘when the fulness of time came, God sent forth his Son’ (Gal 44).

The OT was really and pro- body superseded by the Gospel, which enjoined ife by principle, internal as well as external righteousness, true character as well as good con- duct, right thinking and right feeling as the source of all that one is and does. Consequently, Jesus in His teaching, recorded in these vv.

7-8, does not need to distinguish be- tween the OT and the scribal interpretation or elaboration of it, because His teaching supersedes both and furnishes the one true and sufiicient guide to life. The scribes and Pharisees, to be sure, misunderstood the Law and neglected the Prophets, whereby their religious ideas and prac- tices fell far short of the OT standard. Sometimes Jesus tried to make His contemporaries realize this; cf.

Mt 153°, Jn 5% But Jesus did not re- enact the Hebrew Bible, even though it was better than Pharisaism. It was His mission to perfect the Law and the Prophets. He therefore let the OT stand as a monument of previous Divine revelation and earlier human development, giving in its stead * This is the only possible view, notwithstanding Tholuck’s elaborate argument, Bergrede5, pp. 156-164 [Eng. tr. pp.

154- 159], to prove that Jesus did not offer any ‘correction of the Mosaic Law,’ as He taught only that ‘the righteousness of His disciples must go beyond—mnot the Mosaic Law, but the legal religion of its representatives’ (his italics).

That the right- eousness of His disciples must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus has distinctly said in Mt 520; but that their righteousness need not exceed that commanded by the Mosaic Law, is a statement which Jesus is not reported to have made. Nor could He have consistently so taught, since He came to fulfil the OT, not by ig pangy Sey but by en he is inter perfecting it—which is Tholuck’s own view wh preting Mt 517.

26 SERMON ON THE MOUNT a fuller and better revelation adapted to a higher stage of the world’s progress. Now and then Jesus had occasion to attest the absolute truth and permanent value of much which the OT con- tained ; but these things He regarded as true and valuable, not because He found them in the OT, but because He knew of Himself that they were so.

He set up an ideal of religious belief and conduct which was not put together out of the OT (however many resemblances there may have been), or dependent upon the OT for its truth and authority, but was His own creation, resting on the separate foundation of His own immediate perception of Divine truth and human duty. Jesus was not a mere restorer of a former revelation, but a new authority in the field of religion and ethics, the bearer of a new revelation of God to men.

Thisis the explanation of His words, ‘ But I say unto you’ (vv.?% 2%. 82 34. 89. 44)) And this is what the people recognized when they testified that ‘he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes’ (Mt 7”). Jesus’ ideal of human brotherhood is first illus- trated by an exposition of the principle which lay behind the Sixth Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill.

’ In this Commandment the act of murder was explicitly forbidden, and the Jews conscienti- ously abstained from murder ; they kept the letter of the precept. But there existed also the spirit of the Commandment, the principle on which it was founded, that brethren should not hate one another ; for it was out of hatred that murder came.

Since the Commandment did not explicitly forbid hatred, men had allowed themselves to cherish anger, hatred, and contempt against others without regarding themselves as disobedient to the Law. Jesus set over against this notion the emphatic teaching that all feelings of anger and hate are in themselves sinful, whether or not they take effect in acts of violence ; they fall under the condemnation and punishment of God, since His Kingdom cannot fully come until all men love one another.

And for that reason He adds in vv.” 4 that no act of worship, however sacred (such as With od gevaseus (v.21) compare LXX of Ex 2018, Dt 517, nxoboere (v.24) refers to the reading and exposition of the OT in the synagogues. ois dpyaios (v.21) is a dative of indirect object, as nearly all scholars (against Ewald, Keim) now hold= ‘to the ancients,’ t.e.

to those who first received the Mosaic Law (so Bleek, Tholuck, Achelis), or to both those who first received it and also subsequent generations (so B. Weiss). xpices (v.21) refers to the official trial and condemnation of the murderer by the appropriate Jewish court; the punishment was death, Ex 2112, Ly 2417, Dt 178-12, dpy:fouevos (v.22) does not include or deny ‘righteous indignation,’ which has its proper place, cf. Mt 37, Mk 35, Eph 428, sixy, which is read in v.22 by Text. Recept.

, is not found in xB, and is rejected by modern editors and commentators as a superfluous and weaken- ing expansion. 4&dӢ# (v.22) means any and every person, as in 524 73.4.5 1815.21, The threefold characterization of hatred and punishment in v.

22 seems to be cumulative : anger unex- pressed, anger expressing itself in contemptuous epithet (faze= 8)", and anger expressing itself in a term which implies at once lack of sense, character, and piety (uepi=52} 18 25%, Ps 141, or 7710 Nu 2024, Dt 2118-21); while the xpicu refers to the local Jewish courts (Dt 1618, Mt 1017), the cuvsdpiw to the supreme SANHEDRIN in Jerusalem, and the ry yétvyey rou updos to the Divine judgment and its consequences.

It is important to consider, however, that Jesus has used this triple, cumulative form of expression, not for the purpose of distinguishing grades of guilt in hatred, or of indicating how nicely punishment is meted out in accordance with desert, but to make as emphatic as possible His teaching that all hatred is sinfuland destructive, for which reason it can have no place among the members of God’s Kingdom.

So that the detailed interpretation of Mt 522 is more a matter of historical interest than of practical im- portance. Bacon, Sermon on the Mount, pp. 88f., 139, 177, adopts the reconstruction of v.22f which was advocated by Peters (Journal of Bib. Lit. 1892), according to which he would read the passage: ‘Ye have heard that it was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not kill, and whosoever killeth shal] he amenable to judgment.

But I say unto you, Whosoever is angry with his brother shall be amenable to judgment. [Moreover, it was said,] Whosoever shall call his brother scoundrel shall be amenable to the court. (But I say unto you,] Whosoever calleth him simpleton shall be amenable to the hell of fire.’ SERMON ON THE MOUNT they understood the offerings in the temple to be*), was acceptable to God when the formal worshipper cherished ill-will against any fellow- man.

‘The real brotherhood is a paramount re- ligious obligation. It is doubtful whether vv.%- 2 are original in this connexion.t Neither does the setting of the parallel passage in Lk 12°59 seem to be the his- torical one.

The saying is figurative, and may be interpreted in either of two ways: (1) it may teach that a man must put away all hatred of others, and be brotherly towards them, in order that he may be qualified to receive God’s forgive- ness, so Mt 57 614 15 1821-3, Lk 7%-50; or (2) it may teach that such banishment of ill-will is a matter of common prudence, in order that a man may get on well in his social relations (this in addition to the truth already stated in vv.?)

-4 that the putting away of hatred was also a Divine command to men).{ Either interpretation contains truth, and has a general bearing upon the subject here under discussion in the Sermon. The second illustration which Jesus uses, vv." %, for inculcating true righteousness in human re- lations is the Seventh Commandment (Ex 20%, Dt 58). This statute forbade the violation of the marriage union.

It was supplemented by the Tenth Commandment (Ex 20", Dt 5%), which forbade a man to desire another’s wife. The two commands together went far towards preserving the peace and purity of the home. Jesus, however, set His own teaching in sharp contrast with even this high teaching of the Seventh Commandment, forbidding a man to look with lustful eyes upon a woman.

His demand exceeds that of the Or in two respects : (1) it insists not only upon abstention from the act, but upon the repression of all wrong thought and desire (in this going much dee than even the Tenth Commandment) ; (2) it for- bids impure thoughts and desires on the part of any one. For while yuvatka and éyolxevcer (v.

3) might be taken in a limited sense as referring only to those who are married, it is inconceivable that Jesus could have given a different standard for the unmarried ; and it is altogether probable that, in setting out the principle and ideal of social purity, He had in aaa the whole society in which this principle and ideal must be realized.

A narrow interpretation, which would limit His teachin exclusively to what would be wrong for a marri man to do or think, would be contrary to Jesus’ method and intention. Social purity is an equal obligation of men and women, of married and un- married. And Jesus clearly had in mind to estab- lish by this teaching the absolute necessity for the Kingdom of pure social thought and conduct on the part of every member.§ * Jesus in speaking to Jews appealed, no doubt often (cf. Mt 65.

17 715 1041 1817), to their reverence for the temple with its sacrificial system, and to their many religious ideas and cus- toms. In doing so He did not signify that He shared all these ideas and practices with them. Jesus is not reported by the Gospels as ever offering a sacrifice or otherwise taking part in the customary temple worship (cf. Mt 126-7); He went to the temple, but only to teach.

Had the contrary been the case, the First Gospel could hardly have failed to tell of it, besause this Gospel is interested to show how close Jesus brought Him- self to the Jews of His day. t They are regarded as compiled material by Neander, Witti- chen, Feine, Godet, H. Holtzmann, Wendt, B. Weiss, Bacon; while all these scholars except Godet and Wendt regard vv.23- 24 as also extraneous to the Sermon.

t For the former view, Jerome, Calvin, Luther, Bengel, and others ; for the latter view, Chrysostom, Tholuck, Achelis, H. Holtzmann, B. Weiss, and others. § Jesus is not here attempting to define the relative sinful- ness of lust and the performance of lust ; it would be a perverse and false inference that the former is as bad as the latter, for the lustful look does not produce the fearful consequences which follow the lustful act.

What Jesus means is, that the entertaining of impure thought and desire is in itself a heinous aus quite as bad as men commonly supposed adultery itself to be. Lid SERMON ON THE MOUNT SERMON ON THE MOUNT 27 The logical relation of vv.- ° to the two pre- ceding verses is not close, which has led some scholars to regard them as extraneous matter in this discourse. There are parallel sayings in Mt 18° 9, Mk 9-47, but in both these places also the passage seems to be only partially relevant.

The words are figurative and hyperbolical: Jesus means to say with great emphasis that no effort and no sacrifice are to be considered too great for aman in his struggle to master his lower nature and to secure the supremacy of his higher, better self. Until a man brings his body into subjection to his spirit, he fails both individually and socially of what God requires of him (cf. 1 Co 61°, Gal 5!°-4), The teaching concerning divorce, contained in vy,*!

-82, appears also in connexion with a specific historical occasion in Mt 19?®=Mk 10!}%, while the Lukan parallel 16° is entirely unconnected.

Not a few modern scholars have come to regard the later Matthean setting as the original one, explaining 5 as an importation into the Sermon for the purpose of bringing Jesus’ teaching about divorce into immediate connexion with His general ethical discourse, and also to place side by side what He taught concerning the closely related subjects of adultery and divorce.

t This seems the more probable view, but the teaching is the same whether given in the Sermon on the Mount or under some other circumstances. Divorce was a subject of discussion in Jesus’ day.

The two rab- binical schools headed by Shammai and Hillel, in- terpreting Dt 24'-2,+ promulgated different opinions concerning the proper grounds of divorce: the former school was more strict, allowing divorce only in case of adultery and other serious moral offences; the latter school allowed divorce on almost any pretext which the husband might indicate. Remarriage after divorce was considered proper by both schools.

§ It was therefore a matter of lively interest what attitude towards divorce would be assumed by the new Teacher, who was independent of both Hillel and Shammai, and had had no rab- binical training. The Pharisees undertook to dis- cover Jesus’ position by their question: ‘Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?’ (so Mk 10?, while Mt 19° adds ‘for every cause’).

Jesus in reply (Mk 10*- 4) first directs their attention (if Mark’s order is to be followed instead of Matthew’s) to the OT teaching on the subject contained in Dt 241-2, where divorce and remarriage are allowed for good cause, the divorce being testified by a formal document.

But then He goes on to show (Mk 105) that this permission of divorce was only a concession to a low moral stage of the people, that the Divine ideal of marriage as revealed in Gn 2%-% was an inseparable union of man and wife, both spiritually and physically.|| This ideal *The words are not to be understood literally, as though Jesus enjoined the mutilation of the body. Lust would not be removed by the destruction of the physical eye or hand.

Nor do the eye and hand stand for specific kinds of evil desire. These concrete figurative utterances, as so frequently in Jesus’ teaching, have only a general purpose to fix and impress one idea of moral duty. f : +So Bleek, Olshausen, Késtlin, Godet, Feine, Ibbeken, H. Holtzmann. That the words belong to the Sermon is held by Meyer, Achelis, B. Weiss, Wendt, Bacon, and many others. {In Dt 241.

2 we read: ‘When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.’ § On the Jewish marriage laws and practice see Josephus, Ant. Iv. viii. 23; Vita, § 76. Also cf. Wiinsche, Hriduterung der Evangelien, pp.

52-57 ; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, i. 352-354, ii. 382-334 ; Tholuck, Bergrede5, pp. 227- 234 [Eng. tr. pp. 217-221]; and art. MaRRIAGE in vol. iii. || Tholuck, Bergrede5, p. 239 (Eng. tr. p. 225], thus states the biblical idea of marriage: ‘Marriage is a Divine institution, having for its aim to bring man and woman to an indissoluble unity of body and spirit, that they may thus mutually com- plement each other, and lay the foundation of a family.

’ conception of marriage Jesus now solemnly re- altirms and promulgates as His own teaching. According to Mk 10!!? (cf. Mt 19% }2) Jesus subsequently spoke further on the subject in private to His disciples, forbidding remarriage after divorce. This would be a corollary of His previous statement, for separation might not pre- vent ultimate realization of the marriage ideal be- tween the husband and the wife, while remarriage would effectually prevent such a realization.

Much uncertainty, however, exists as to just what Jesus said about remarriage. The parallel passages to Mk 10", which appear in Mt 5? 19°, Lk 16", are in serious disagreement, and there is also difliculty in determining the best textual reading in some places. These variations indicate an agitation of the subject of divorce among the primitive Chris- tians, and an attempt to formulate Jesus’ ideal of marriage into practical rules of conduct for specific eases.

The words of Jesus on remarriage, so vari- ously reported, reflect the different views on the subject which were current among the Christians while our Gospels were in process of formation. The fact seems to be, that Jesus in His teaching concerning marriage is dealing with the principle and the ideal of marriage, rather than enacting legal statutes in regard to it.

The whole treat- ment of His words as marriage legislation, which began with His disciples and has continued to the present day, is a mistake, and has led to confusion, hardship, contradiction, and strife. Jesus here, as always, was setting forth the will of God for men in revealing the purpose and the Divine con- ception of the institution of marriage.

He there- fore establishes the ideal of marriage as a perfect, permanent union in body and spirit, and enjoins *In Mt 582 199 there is a poriking addition to the words of Jesus as recorded in Mk 1011, Lk 1618; cf. also 1 Co 710-1, This exceptive phrase rapexrés Acyou ropyeias OY yer tx} xopveg is taken to mean that in the case of adultery Jesus explicitly permitted the divorce and remarriage of the innocent party.

But this Matthzan addition falls under suspicion for four reasons : (1) the Matthean account 193-9, with which 5%1.

32 is probably to be associated, is distinctly secondary and divergent from that of Mk 101-12 ; (2) this exceptive phrase is significantly absent from the accounts in Mark, Luke, and Paul ; (3) the exception is of a statutory nature, while Jesus is establishing the principle and the ideal of marriage; (4) in accordance with Jesus’ general teaching, adultery is not in ttse/fa sufficient ground for divorce.

Consequently, the opinion is becoming strongly supported that these words of the Matthew passages are a mollifying interpre- tation put upon Jesus’ teaching by a generation or group of Christians who took His words as a new marriage legislation, and regarded the statute as intolerably severe (so Bleek, de Wette, Schneckenburger, Bruce, Heinrici, H. Weiss, H. Holtzmann, Wendt, Schmiedel, Bacon).

In this case Mark and Luke unite in preserving Jesus’ actual words, which laid down a principle and not a statute, leaving the application of this principle, as of others, to be worked out according to the possibilities of the circumstances in any abe instance (cf. Mal 21416), Similarly Bacon (Sermon on the Mount, BP. 117, 177 f.)

Other scholars hold that the exceptive phrase in Matthew is an interpolation, but only states explicitly what was already im- plied as true in the nature of the case, that the act of adultery actually destroys the marriage union and is the divorce, instead of being merely a proper ground of divorce (so Meyer, Tholuck, E. Haupt, B. Weiss ut adultery cannot be in itself a proper ground for divorce on Gospel principles.

In a case of adultery, divorce might be necessary if the offending party persisted in this evil conduct, wilfully regardless of all moral sense and duty. Suppose, however, that after the wrong had been done, the guilty po became truly repentant, and re- solved upon a right life henceforth? The Gospel requires mercy rather than justice, love rather than revenge; forgiveness, patience, and long-suffering.

The prophet Hosea, in his tryin; marriage relation, had discovered the Divine principle involv in such cases, and had recognized that in dealing lovingly and forgivingly with a wayward wife he was following Gods own method with His wayward children; cf. also Jer 31-15, Jesus most impressively taught that love, gentleness, and forgiveness were to characterize the true Christian, even in a case of adultery ; for He said to the adulteress: ‘ Neither do I condemn thee; go, sinno more.

’ Such teaching seemed to the early Church quite too lenient, so that this incident with its teachin failed to find a place in the Gospels until the 2nd cent., an then not a suitable one. Jesus’ treatment of this woman has been lost sight of in the interpretation of His words concerning divorce. The hard spirit of vengeance has ruled men’s thoughts rather than the forgiving spirit of love. 28 SERMON ON THE MOUNT all the married to strive for the attainment of this ideal.

He did not enter into the casuistry of the matter, but fixed the principle. How far in actual ecclesiastic or civic legislation, at any given period or place, the ideal can be ractically formulated and demanded, He left or the decision of those upon whom the ad- ministration of such matters devolved.

Marriave and divorce regulations, upon which the welfare of society so largely depends, must embody the Divine ideal to the fullest extent made possible by the stage of spiritual, moral, and social pro- gress concerned.

d Christian people must never fail to apply to themselves this Divine marriage ideal ; however low the current conception of mar- riage may be, or whatever laxity the civic laws may permit, the disciples of Christ can never con- duct themselves according to any standard but that set by Him.

Not that they must regard His teaching as statutory and divorce as never per- missible ; but that the act of divorce would be a confession of complete failure to attain His ideal, so that the highest degree of effort, patience, endurance, and self-sacrifice should be used in order to accomplish the permanence and the per- fection of a marriage union when undertaken.

In addition, Christian bee must uphold Jesus’ mar- riage ideal in the world, striving by every means to secure its increasing recognition and realization in society at large. For only in these ways can the Kingdom of God fully come. The next subject dealt with in the Sermon is the use of Oaths (Mt 5°*-87), The oath or vow was a frequent type of expression in all antiquity, and its use has diminished little with the passing of centuries.

In its origin the oath was a solemn religious act, in which God—or some object sacred to Him or through Him—was invoked as a witness of the truth of an utterance or the sincerity of a promise, and as an avenger of falsehood and of non-fulfilment of the promise. The use of the oath and vow is recognized and approved in the OT (cf. Ex 224, Dt 6 10%, Ps 634, Is 45%, Jer 4?, and He 61*-!

8), and the commands concerning them look towards the preservation of their religious character and solemn function. This was the intent of the Third Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain’ (Ex 207, Dt 5"), in which all misuse of the oath is forbidden, as where an oath is taken thoughtlessly or maliciously, or to cover falsehood.* In the same tenor are Ly 19” ‘ Ye shall not swear by my name falsely, so that thou profane the name of thy God,’ and Nu 30?

‘ When a man voweth a vow unto the Lord, or sweareth an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.’ + The form of Jesus’ expression in Mt 5** takes up the substance, though not the exact form, of these OT teachings.

The Jews of Jesus’ day made most extravagant use of the oath, both in frequency and in variety ; some oaths were regarded as binding and some as not binding, the difference of form being purely technical. Christ denounced this casuistry as perverse in the extreme (Mt 23'*?

2), And in this passage of the Sermon He has the intention of sweeping away the whole system of oaths as resting upon a false theory, namely, that a man might use two qualities of statement: one with the oath, which pledged him to truth or fulfilment; and one without the oath, which required neither truth nor fulfilment. As against this double-dealing and authorization * On the interpretation of the Third Commandment, see Coffin, Journal of Bib. Lit. 1900, pp. 166-188 ; art. DecaLOGuE in vol.

i. + See, further, Lv 54, Nu 301-16, Dt 2321-23, Jy 1129-39, Jer 79, Ezk 1718, Zec 53.4 817, Mal 35, {See Winsche, Erlduterung der Evangelien, pp. 57-60, 288- 202; Kdersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, ii, 17-21. SERMON ON THE MOUNT —— of falsehood, Jesus demands that a man shall speak only the truth, and implies that an oath is not only unnecessary, but harmful. This interpretation of Mt 5-7 is that of the early Fathers and of the majority of modern commentators.

We find the same teaching, with close similarity of words, in Ja 5 ‘But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment.’ That Jesus submitted to the high priest’s oath at His trial (Mt 26°: ), as a matter of the moment’s necessity, is in no way against this interpretation.

t Jesus forbids oaths not as statutory legislation, so that the taking of an oath is sinful; but in prin- ciple, on the ground that a man is accountable to God for every utterance (Mt 12***7), Hesets forth the ideal of truthfulness which is to be striven for and ultimately accomplished. A Christian can have no need of an oath.

If in the present stage of civilization oaths are still necessary for civic an oses, then Christians must seek to establish a igher standard of hone in y Set according to which a man’s simple word will be the best possible pieretyce of the truth and performance of what 1€ Says. e. Unselfishness and Forgiveness.—Mt 5°-“= Lk 6.

©, The OT Law did, in fact, provide that punish- ment should be in degree and kind, ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’; thus we read in Ex 21-25 «Thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe’; as also Lv 24!7-21, Dt 19'*).4 This lex talionis was understood to apply to all relations of men.

And not only that, for God Himself was believed to be retributive in His punishment, so that when men could not themselves execute the just penalty God could be appealed to for visiting retribution upon one’s enemies ; cf. Dt 23°-6 2517-1, Ps 351-8 4110-11 56-11 G81. 2 Gg22-28 '7g20. 21. 60-66 109-15, Jer 1738 18%, La 38-6, This epee ls conception and type of justice was probably required, at least in principle, by the conditions of the earliest civilization to which it ministered.

When the modes of punishment subsequently changed, and penalties were executed no longer in kind but in some suitable equivalent, it still remained true that the punishment was meant to be retributive and equal to the crime. It is only in modern times that there has come in a new conception of punishment, according to which society is to be eee not by avenging the wrong in kind or egree, but by reforming the evil-doer.

This higher type of justice, based upon the principle of forbearance and helpfulness, also found recognition in Israel. The deeply spiritual saw that God’s action was in love, mercy, and forgiveness, and they plead for a like principle of treatment among men ; so Ly 19!8 ‘ Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear ‘any grudge against the children of thy people’; Dt 32” ‘Vengeance is mine, and recompense,’ 1.¢.

God’s; Pr 20% ‘Say not, I will recompense evil: wait on the Lord, and he shall save thee’; cf. *So Justin, Ireneus, Clement Alex., Origen, Jerome, Augus- tine ; of our own day, Meyer, Achelis, Bruce, B, Weiss, H. Weisa, and others; see esp. Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 210-213 [Eng. tr. i, 269-273]. For the view that Jesus did not forbid all oat but only their misuse, thereby simply re-establishing the O teaching, may be cited Luther, Calvin, Bengel, Stier, Ewald Keim, Tholuck. H.

Holtzmann holds that Mt 639-87 is intended to forbid all oaths, but attributes this tone to the Essenic tendencies of the First Evangelist rather than to Jesus, whose purpose was only to rebuke the profusion and casuistry of the Pharisaic practice. + St.

Paul’s use of the oath, 2Co 123 1181, Ro 19, Gal 12, 1 Th 25, and elsewhere, is simply a continuation of the OT and Jewish custom in its best use; the primitive Christians in this, as in many other respects, failed to rise at once to the apprecia- tion and attainment of Jesus’ ideal. { Similarly the Hammurabi Code (¢, 2250 B.0.), Nos.

196, 200 “een Le Miel a we ee oF " es foe = ie (eae ee ee ek a SERMON ON THE MOUNT SERMON ON THE MOUNT 29 also 2 K 67-3, La 37-8, But the love of retalia- tion, the zeal for executing vengeance, and the assion for seeing strict justice done without delay, held the field in both OT and NT times. And consequently, when Jesus came, He found little of the true spirit and service of brotherhood.

Against this false and hateful temper of men Jesus set His principle of unselfishness and for- giveness, following out the higher conception pre- sented in the OT, and requiring that by this principle all men shall determine all their conduct towards one another. In order to make His meaning more explicit and clear, Jesus used four concrete illustrations (Mt 5°-), in them suggesting what kind of conduct would result from living by this principle.

The illustrations, of course, are figurative, and are to be interpreted not literally but in their main idea. A man is not to be thinking constantly of his own rights, as though the chief aim of his life was to avenge injustices and slights towards himself (v.*); he must be willing to endure wrongs, to sacrifice his feelings and his possessions, in order to avoid trouble with others (v.

°); he must be ready to labour freely and unselfishly for the good of others, without expecting recompense (v.“); he is not to be of a grasping, penurious disposition—rather he is to assist others in every reasonable way (v.?)+ In this principle of forgiving love and unselfish service lies the essence of Jesus’ ethical teaching ;t it has been well called ‘the secret of Jesus.’§ On * In Jn 1822.

23 it can be seen that Jesus did not have in mind literal non-resistance, since He did not Himself practise it. That certain individuals (most recently Tolstoi) and sects (Anabaptists, Mennonites, Quakers) have taken these sayings literally, as statutes to be obeyed, is not to the credit either of their knowledge of the teaching of Jesus or of their own common- sense.

Such literalism is the perversion of Jesus’ method and intent, and is one of the worst enemies of the Gospel, for it holds up the teaching of Jesus to the ridicule of all sane, thinking men. t In v.

89 the ra rovmpa cannot be the Evil One (as thought by Chrysostom and Theophylact), for Jesus would have him for ever resisted ; it might be regarded as a neuter noun, referring to evil in general (so Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Ewald, Achelis, Kiibel); but probably the evil man is meant who offers the Ao sghine and demands described ; cf. rovypous in v.49 and Lk 635.45 (so H. Holtzmann, Nésgen, B. Weiss).

The defidv cieyove of Mt 5%9 is altered in Lk 629 to simply rijv ciwyove, sinve the first blow would naturally be given by the right hand upon the left cheek. In v.40 zpifyy»es means to bring a legal action against one (cf. 1 Co 61), in order to secure property of some kind from him. The ysréy (n}n3) was the common Oriental under-garment worn next the body, while the iuécioy (abny, 733) was the more costly and elegant tunic or over-garment (cf. art.

Dress); that is, if a man attempts to get from you by law a little property, give him much in order to avoid quarrel and litigation with In the Luke parallel (629) the idea of a lawsuit is replaced by that of a personal assault, in which case the outer garment would first be taken, after which the inner garment was to be offered. In v.41 the dyyepsion (cf. B. Weiss, Meyer-Komm. u. d, Mattevgm. in loc.)

refers to official impressment for tem- porary service, a common practice in that day (Mt 2782); Jesus uses it as a figure to teach that men must assist others by generously given and willing service. Luke does not have this verse, perhaps because it was liable to be misunderstood as literally referring to legal requisitions instead of figuratively to all social relations. In v.

42 is added a fourth illustration which, because it is somewhat loosely joined to the preceding, and out of deference to the number 3, has been regarded by some scholars (Ewald, H. Holtzmann, Késtlin, Wittichen) as a re- maining fragment of a separate section of this discourse, treat- ing of the interpretation of the Eighth Commandment; they would therefore insert between v.41 and v.42 something like this, drawn from Ex 2015, Dt 519 2412.

13 prodcare, ors eppélne ov Atrpis, droddcus OF TO imdrioy TH TUNA: bye dt Abyw Buin Tw airovves, etc. This explanation of v.42 has not, however, found general acceptance, being specifically rejected by Tholuck, Meyer, Feine, B. Weiss, and others; Luke has the saying in the same connexion as Matthew, and it joins well enough, logically, to vv.

8841, The verse does not refer, at least directly, to the lending of money without requiring the payment of interest (so Feine, on the basis of Ex 2225-37, Ly 2587, Dt 157 2320, against Tholuck, B. Weiss). } See esp. Harnack, Das Wesen des Christentums, 1901, pp. 45-47 [Eng. tr. pp. 70-74). § Matt. Arnold, Literature and Dogma, p. 181f. Mt 2649-64, Mic 931-87, Lic 954.55, and cf. Is 50853112, St.

Paul also teaches with great emphasis the same forgiving and self- co principle of life (Ro 1217-21, 1 Co 61-8, 1 Th 515; cf. also See also this principle God acts towards men, and on this principle men must act towards one another. Jesus not only taught this standard of life, but He realized it in His ministry and in His death, thereby becoming the perfect example of human love and service. These are the qualities which make true brotherhood.

One cannot for a moment suppose that Jesus, in setting forth this principle as the supreme guide in men’s dealings with one another, had the intention of overthrowing the civic laws which society requires for its preserva- tion and welfare; any such interpretation would reduce His sayings to absurdity.

What He pur- posed was to make men recognize the wretchedness of a standard of conduct which rests upon the ideas of revenge and retaliation, of for ever insist- ing upon one’s rights and one’s dignity, of working only for one’s self and never for others, of getting as much and giving as little as possible. Civic laws and private practice must accept this teaching of Jesus and embody it, not necessarily in the same way, but to the same end. Similarly Bacon, Sermon on the Mount, pp.

109-114: ‘The Sermon is not legislative, as our First Re poe to regard it, but prophetic. It does not enact, but interprets. It does not lay down rules, but opens up principles, . . Matthew, as we have seen, is quite absorbed in the relation of the new Torah to the old.

So much so that he fails to appreciate that his material is not really a series of new enactments, but in reality, just as Luke perceives, a simple applicdtion to the situation of that one principle which Jesus elsewhere enunciates more briefly ; and not then as enacting something new, but as ex- plaining the old [Mt 223540],’ Mé 52148 gives ‘illustrations of the one principle which Jesus saw in ‘all the Law and the Prophets,” and saw as well in all nature and history, that the divine calling is to ministering love and service—that and that alone.

’ Thayer, Journal of Bibl. Lit. 1900, p. 149: ‘Jesus is not intent on giving precepts, but would lay emphasis on prin- ciples. The distinction between the two is most important. A precept is a direction respecting a given action; it is definite, precise, specific, fitting and belonging to particular cases. A principle, on the other hand, is comprehensive and fundamental ; it prescribes, not particular actions, but a course of conduct. ..

Aprecept bids him do, a principle trains him to be; and so begets that inwardness and continuity which are essential to character.’ B. Weiss, Meyer-Komm. ud, d. Mattevgm. in loc.: ‘Jesus explains that His will, as He would have it fulfilled in the Kingdom of God, demands the forbearing, self-forgetful love which renounces all standing on one’s rights and desire for retaliation.

Jesus illustrates the general principle by concrete examples, which are not to be understood as literal commands to be obeyed, but as eee forth a general standard according to the main idea contained in them.’ Tholuck, Bergrede5, p. 291 [Eng. tr. pp. 269, 270]: ‘The commands in vv.39-42 are to be regarded as only concrete illustrations of the state of mind and heart required. .

It is only the spirit of revenge that our Lord condemns, and therefore it is not inconsistent with His command to seek the protection of the law.’ Burton and Mathews, Constructive Studies in the Life of Christ, p. 105: ‘Some have undertaken to apply such sayings as “‘ Resist not him that is evil,” and ‘‘Give to him that asketh of thee,” literally as fixed rules. But this is utterly to misinterpret Jesus.

This whole discourse is a criticism of the Pharisees for making morality consist in a literal keeping of the rules of the OT. It is im- possible to suppose that it simply imposes a new set of rules. Others, feeling that a literal obedience to these rules is impos- sible, if not also harmful, give up all attempt to obey the teachings of this discourse. Both are wrong. [Jesus teaches here] the principle, which we ought always to strive to follow.

The single precepts are intended to correct the selfishness and narrowness that Jesus saw about Him, and to point out some of the ways in which the principle may be applied. They, too, are to be obeyed, always in spirit, and in letter when such an obedience is consistent with the principle. If a man would follow Jesus, he must not resist an enemy in a spirit of re- venge; nor should he refuse to give to a beggar from a selfish motive.

If he resist or withhold, he must do yo because love, regard for the highest well-being of society in general, requires it.’ Plummer, Comm, on Luke, p. 185: ‘The four precepts here given (629.30) are startling. It is impossible for either governments or individuals to keep them. A State which endeavoured to shape its policy in exact accordance with them would soon cease to exist; and if individuals acted in strict obedience to them, society would be reduced to anarchy.

Violence, robbery, and shameless exaction would be supreme. The inference is that they are not precepts, but illustrations of principles. They are in the form of rules; but as they cannot be kept as rules, we are compelled to look beyond the letter to the spirit which they embody. If Christ had given precepts which could be kept literally, we might easily have rested content with observing the letter, and have never pene- trated to the spirit. What is the spirit?

Among other things, this : that resistance of evil and refusal to part with our prone must never be a personal matter; so far as we are concern 30 SERMON ON THE MOUNT . Universal Love.—Mt 588= Lk 627: 28. 82-86, hen Jesus begins this sixth paragraph illustra- tive of His statements in Mt 51-9 with the words ‘Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy,’ He is not quoting precisely any OT or extra-biblical utter- ance on record (cf. Sir 181%).

The clause ‘ Thou shalt love thy neighbour ’ is found in Ly 19!8 ‘ Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’ But the further clause, ‘and hate thine enemy,’ while not appearing in that form, is really implied in the words ‘the children of thy people,’ which fixes a national limitation upon the teaching in the Leviticus passage.

There was on the part of the Hebrews a profound contempt and disregard of other nation- alities (ef. Dt 23° 2517-19, the Book of Jonah, esp. 30-40), So that the phrase ‘hate thine enemy’ justly characterized the prevailing OT conception of social duty (in spite of occasional efforts towards a larger idea, Ex 2345), the ‘enemy’ signifying any foreigner who did not enter into Hebrew prac- tices, and the ‘hatred’ signifying their superior disdain for other peoples.

The same hatred towards all Gentiles was felt by the stricter Jews of Jesus’ day; and the Pharisaic pride and exclusiveness went so far as to include in the sphere of their hatred the lower classes among the Jews them- selves who did not satisfactorily observe the Law (Jn 7 ‘This multitude which knoweth not the law are accursed’), When Jesus sets over-against this national bigo- we must be willing to suffer still more and to surrender still more.

It is right to withstand and even to punish those who injure us; but in order to correct them and to protect society, not because of any personal animus. It is right also to with- hold our possessions from, those who without good reason ask for them; but in order to check idleness and effrontery, not because we are too fond of our possessions to part with them.

So far as our personal feeling goes, we ought to be ready to offer the other cheek, and to give without desire of recovery what- ever is demanded or taken from us. Love knows no limits but those which love itself imposes. When love resists or refuses, it is because compliance would be a violation of love, not because it would involve loss or suffering.’ Gore, Sermon on the Mount, P: 103f.: ‘We may truly say that the Sermon gives us a social w for Christians.

That is true in this sense: the Sermon gives us principles of action which every Christian must apply and reapply in his social conduct. But just because it embodies motives and principles and does not give legal enactments, it must appeal in the first instance to the individual, to his heart and conscience ; and it is only as the character thus formed must set itself to remodel social life on a fresh basis, that the Sermon can become a social law for Christians.

You cannot take any one of its prescriptions and apply it as a social law at once. You cannot take the maxim, ‘‘If a man smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also,” or, ‘‘ If aman take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also,” and make it obligatory on Christians as a rule of external conduct, without upsetting the whole basis of society, and without ignoring a contrary maxim which our Lord gives us in another conmexion.

But each of the maxims can be taken to the heart and conscience of the individual, to become a principle of each man’s own char- acter and conduct, and then to reappear, retranslated into social action, according to the wisdom of the time, or the wisdom of the man, or the wisdom of the Church.’ It is difficult to understand how Dr. Sanday (art. JEsus Curist, vol. ii. p. 621) can say: ‘The ethical ideal of Christi- anity is the ideal of a Church.

It does not follow that it is also the ideal of the State. If we are to say the truth, we must admit that parts of it would become impracticable if they were transferred from the individual standing alone to governments or individuals representing society.’ A similar view was advo- cated by the Bishop of Peterborough inthe Fortnightly Review, Jan. 1890. This misconception of Jesus’ teaching seems to arise out of a confusion of principles with precepts.

Social ethics and individual ethics cannot rest upon different prin- ciples; but the principles of ethics will call for different out- workings in concrete cases of their application—and this will be as true for individuals as for society.

The people acting collec- tively through their governing officials (the State) are required to act according to precisely the same ethical standard as when they are acting individually; namely, they are bound to obey the principles of forgiving kindness to all (MI 521-24), of moral purity alle of protection of marriage (531f), of honesty in speech (5%3-37), of an absence of the revengeful spirit (539), of long-suffering (540), of helpfulness (541), of generosity (542), and of an all-embracing love (543-48), Can any one think that the _ Btate is not bound go to act?

SERMON ON THE MOUNT try and caste spirit His own teaching, Mt 5“ ‘ Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you,’ the term ‘ enemies’ is to be understood in the most comprehensive and general sense of all who do not feel and act lovingly towards one. It no longer means ‘ foreigners,’ for Jesus has removed all national barriers, making all men brethren (cf. Ac 17%).

To the primitive Christians the out- standing class of ‘enemies’ were those referred to by Jesus as their persecutors for the cause of Christ, as also in Mt 51%, Jesus wishes to establish the principle of a universal love which would unite all men in a complete human brotherhood.* Every man is to love every other man, and to servé him so far as it lies in his power, with reason- able regard to all his duties.

Barriers, castes, classes, distinctions of all kinds are removed, so that love and service are to be all-inclusive. When the scribe propounded to Jesus the question, ‘ Who is my neighbour?’ He replied with the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10°’), in which He set forth clearly and impressively that the ‘neighbour’ whom one is to love ‘as himself’ is any one and every one. And this love which Jesus enjoins is not to be of the self-seeking kind which is common in the world.

There may be no real love, He says, in the exchanges of attention and courtesy which men are accustomed to make with one another, for it may proceed on a commercial, guid pro fie basis. The Gospel demands a different icin d of relation between men which is not self-seeking, does not ask how much will be given in return, is bestowed freely without thought of recompense. And here appears the close logical relation between these verses and vv.***, for vv.

“ carry forward to complete expression the thought which underlies the previous words.t ; we This kind of love, all-embracing, unremitting, realizing itself in both feeling and conduct, has ite origin and _ perfect manifestation in God,t who cares for all men, however they treat Him. He sets the example of universal love and _ service, which Jesus reveals in His words and deeds.

And men by following this example in theirrelations to one another become the ‘sons’ of God (Mt 5®), because in essential respects they feel and act like Him. The sonship thus spoken of is a moral son- ship, which is attained by choosing to be and do what is right, rather than a genetic sonship, which is inherent because God has made men in His own * For the Biblical teaching concerning love, see esp. art. Lovz in vol. iii. t+ Lk 627. 28.

82-36 has a different order of the contents from that of Mt 543-48; if the Matthean material were arranged in the same order, the verses would stand : (43). 44 (39-42 712). 46. 47. 45, 48 5 and Lk 634. 350 ig an addition or expansion for which Matthew has no parallel. It is not easy to determine which order is the more likely to have been original.

The striking differences in the wording of the es, however, indicate beyond a doubt that Luke’s account is secondary, with much verbal modifica- tion : thus in vv.27. 28 expansions appear ; in v.52 ysis is found instead of piobés as in Mt 646, a manifest dropping of a Jewish for a Gentile or universal term (though Luke has sicfos at 635); in the same and following verses, and for the same reason, Luke twice has &epraaroi, once instead of of reAdves, once instead of of 2Ovxoi; in v.

83 Luke has &yaforojrs instead of Matthew's aoréonct, a Jewish custom; in v.35 Luke has vio) ‘Ypicrev instead of Matthew’s clearly more original uloi rod warps iuaw rod iv ovpavors; in the same verse Luke reduces the fine Jewish words about God’s making the sun rise and the rain fall to a commonplace Gentile phrase, xpnorés iotiv ia) robs dx upiorous x0 wovypois ; in v.

36 Luke changes the imperatival future form totes, common in the LXX through the influence of the Hebrew, and occasionally found in the NT (¢.g. Mt 549 65 2237-39), to a better Greek form, the imperative yivscGe; he has also the less Jewish and less lofty olxripyoves instead of Matthew’s significant zéasio:; and again he has only 6 rertp Judy instead of Matthew's 6 rarip Yusiv 6 odpéuos.

These numerous and important varia- tions in the two accounts of these verses leave no room for doubt that Matthew’s form is much nearer to the historical words spoken by Jesus, and that the Third Gospel contains material which had undergone wide verbal divergence, partly perhaps in Luke’s own hands, but mainly in the earlier Gentile transmission. t So in the Johannine writings frequently, Jn $16, 1 Jn 48.10.19. cf. also Ro 55-8, i SERMON ON THE MOUNT SERMON ON THE MOUNT 3] image (Gn 1*5).

Jesus therefore commands men to be perfect in love as God is perfect in love,t setting before them an absolute ideal of social alan ; not that the ideal is at once attainable, ut that towards its realization every man—and all men together—must strive, and in God’s provi- dence this striving will ultimately achieve success. g. Feeligious Worship.—Mt 6' '%-)8 (no parallel in Lk).

t The connexion of these verses with the historical Sermon cannot well be doubted; they follow in logical consecution upon the material contained in Mt 5%, illustrating the true right- eousness still further and on another side. The ideal life which was characterized in vv.-!", enjoined in vv.4°, and illustrated with regard to character and service in vv.?!-*, is further illustrated in these verses with regard to religious worship.

Alms- giving, prayer, and fasting were, in the estimation of the Jews, three of the chief elements of religion, and received a disproportionate attention; while the three performances, really so different in im- portance, were regarded as about equally necessary and useful.§ In v.!, which forms an introduction * On this sonship see Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 145f.

In using the term ‘Father’ for expressing most completely His con- ception of God, Jesus thinks of the family as most character- istic of the relation between God and men. In the family the sons may be either true or false to their relation to their father ; if they love, honour, and obey him they realize their sonship— they are sons indeed ; if they disrespect him, disgrace him, and disregard his will they are not sons in the moral sense, for they repudiate their sonship.

But the actual genetic sonship is none the less a fact, even if the sons will not acknowledge and exalt it. So in the relation of men to God; they do not in reality become His sons any more than He becomes their Father ; this mutual essential relation exists from the first, for all men are His sons, and He is the Father of all. But the NT use of the term ‘son’ is generally a moral one, and those only are designated ‘sons’ who honour and realize their sonship.

This does not deny the genetic, spiritual sonship, however, which the NT also teaches. +t The words of Jesus, ‘ ye shall be perfect,’ can have only the imperative force, as in Lk 636(so Meyer, H. Holtzmann, B. Weiss, A. Weiss, Wendt, Blass, and nearly all); cf. Burton, Moods and Tenses in NT Greek, § 67. The whole v.48 is made up from OT language; e.g. Lv 192 (LXX) reads, &ysos tvectlie, O71 ceyi0s eis hyd xipios 6 Oe0s beady; cf.

also Iv 1144,1P 115; and Dt 1814 (LXX) reads, réAgios ton tvevtioy xupiov tov Oeod cov. But the thought of these similar OT passages, as their contexts show, is of levitical purity and national separateness, and it is therefore superficial as compared with the deep meaning which Jesus puts into the words. In Mt 548 we have the closing verse of the short section vv.43-48 concerning universal love (so Achelis, Brice, Heinrici, H. Holtzmann, Tholuck, B.

Weiss), not a general summary con- clusion of the whole section vv,21-48 (so Burton, Ihbbeken, H. Weiss). The séasos refers only to perfection in love, not to the whole series of attributes which constitute the perfection of God in the theological sense, or to the comprehensive idea of human perfection.

This love which Jesus establishes as the principle of the ideal life, to be felt and acted upon by every man towards every other man, cannot be understood as condon- ing the sins or imperfections in the character and service of phere, but insists upon viewing men not as they are but as they may be and should be, and upon rendering them every assist- ance of sympathy, counsel, and help towards the attainment of the Divine ideal.

It is thus that God has dealt with men, and we are to do likewise for one another.

2 The account of the Sermon in Luke does not contain this section, probably for the same reason that no parallel appears for Mt 517-37, namely, because these passages are so saturated with Jewish phraseology, ideas, and customs as to be difficult of understanding for Gentile readers (so Feine, Wendt), Here also, as there, it is more likely that Luke’s sources did not contain these sections than that Luke himself excised them.

§ The giving of alms was held to be a primary duty and a means of salvation, as seen already in the Apocrypha, To 47-1 128-10 149-12, Sir 41.2710, cf, also Ps 411, Is 587-19, Dn 427; there are also many striking Rabbinic sayings concerning the merit of almsgiving (see art. ALMsaivine in vol. i.; Weber, Jiidische Theologie, pp. 285-288; Wiinsche, Erlduterung der Evangelien, on Mt 614), The Greek word in use for the alms is tAenorivy (the motive employed by metonomy for the thing), as here in v.

4, representing, perhaps, 727; since this Heb. word meant primarily ‘righteousness,’ it came about that dixciordvy might also have this special meaning, but that is not the sense in which 2., is used here in v.1 (the textual variant at this point, iAmpocivn, is improbable on both external and internal evidence). Prayer was offered by the Jews thrice daily, at 9 a.M., at 12 noon, and at 3 p.m. (cf. Ac3!), and on three days in the week the people went to the synagogue for prayer.

Liturgicai forms of prayer were in use (cf. Lk 112, and Mishna, tractate Berakhoth), and they were recited at the proper time wherever one might be.

Fasting was prescribed by the OT ‘or the Day of Atonement to the group, Jesus gives the key to the interpreta- tion of the whole: * He does not pronounce against the acts themselves, but against the spirit and purpose which too often animated the doing of them, Religious worship, such as almsgiving (which the Jews rightly considered an act of worship), prayer and fasting, must never be performed ostentatiously, with the intent of securing a reputa- tion for piety.

It was mainly the proud, hypo- critical Pharisees who were guilty of such motives in their worship; but the multitude of common people to whom Jesus was now speaking had been rought up to believe implicitly in the teaching and practice of the Pharisees, and were therefore in great danger of being corrupted by the Pharisaic example of ostentation, worldliness, and deceit.

Jesus will therefore warn them against these specific errors of their religious leaders, and in contrast exhibit the character of true religious worship. The three acts of almsgiving (vv.?‘), prayer (vv.° §), and fasting (vv.118) are treated in a parallel way, the same thing being said of each in almost the same language.

When they give money in the synagogues, or upon other occasions, for charitable objects, it is to be contributed solely for the benefit of others, with no purpose of obtain- ing a reputation of sone for themselves (cf. Ac 5'4}), Against almsgiving in itself He does not speak, but only of the motive behind it. The giving of money to assist others is, in fact, an act of worship to God, and a necessary element of all true righteousness.

But such giving must be uietly done, without providing or even wishing that others may know of the fact or the amount, in order that one may receive credit therefor.t So also when men pray, as pray they must, their prayers are to be a genuine communing with God, instead of being designed to win the praise of men for a superior piety.{ To counterfeit true spiritual communion with God is an intolerable profanation of religion.

Jesus, of course, has no thought of forbidding prayer in public, but He will have only sincere prayers made, whether in public or private. And if they fast, as they were accustomed to do regularly and often, they are to observe the fast as a simple humiliation before God, not forced upon others for the purpose of gaining credit for exceptional devoutness.

§ On another occasion (Ly 1629-34), and was practised on other occasions also (Ex 3428, 18 76, 2S 1216, Jer 369, Dn 103), The prophets sometimes spoke against it (Is 58%8, Jer 1412, Zec 75), but it was a prevailing usage throughout the Hebrew history, cf. Jth 68, To 128, In the NT also the Pharisee is represented as boasting in his prayer, ‘I fast twice in the week’ (Lk 1812), and the frequent fasts are mentioned in Mt 914 (cf. art. Fastine in vol. i.)

It is noticeable that Jesus has not joined with these three outstanding acts of Jewish worship the observance of the Sabbath, which stood in somewhat the same prominence; but elsewhere He dealt with that subject also (Mk 225-28), and on a similar principle. * dizesorivy is to be understood here in acomprehensive sense ; it is a repetition of the dix. of v.20, now to be illustrated in acts of religious worship, and embraces alike almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. t In v.

2 corrions is a figurative term signifying ostentation. Uxoxpitai refers to the Pharisees; they were hypocrites because they wore a mask of piety over their selfish lives; cf. also Mt 235-7, govevoryeis, puoss indicate that almsgiving was a part of the regular synagogue services, but that alms were also given upon the streets to those in need. The éuzyv Aéym duiv puts a special emphasis upon the fact that this almsgiving, when done out of vanity, had no real merit; cf. Lk 674. In v.

3 the phrase, ‘let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth,’ is quite surely a current Semitic proverb to express gecrecy. tIn v.5 gcecbe is an imperatival future, as in Mt 548; the parallel verb in v.2 is an imperatival subjunctive, and in v.6 an imperative, the meaning being quite the same in each. The yuvious Tav xrdkeresy were the four corners of street intersections, which were chosen as the most conspicuous place for the ostentatious prayers.

crass indicates that prayers were customarily offered in a standing posture. The raesiov, or, more frequently in the NT, Urepaov, was the upper room of an Oriental house used for guests or for retirement to pray; see Ac 113 937.89 208, With the language of v.64 compare 2 K 483, Is 2620, § In v.

16 cxv0pamroi and &puviCoucw ra xpocwra refer to neglect of the customary care for the head, the unwashed face and 82 SERMON ON THE MOUNT SERMON ON THE MOUNT Jesus removed all obligation from His followers to observe the Pharisaic system of fasts, or to practise fasting except as it was the personal and spon- taneous expression of inner feeling (cf. Mk 21°-?2), Here He teaches that when one fasts it must be a genuinely religious performance, free from all ostentation and selfish motives.

It is true, Jesus says, that those who turn these acts of religious worship to selfish account do secure their ubject ; ‘they have their reward’ in the false reputation for generosity and piety which for a time they can win. But they cannot win God’s approval, or secure any spiritual blessings.

These things, which alone are worth while, belong only to those whose worship is sincere, who give and pray and fast with pure unselfish motives, for the good they can do their fellow-men and for their own spiritual growth. And the principle which Jesus here sets forth for these three acts of religious worship is to apply to every kind of religious observance.

Sacred things are never to be turned to worldly account; everything we do in the name of religion, and for the sake of religion, must be untarnished by self-seeking ends and unholy purposes. * h. The Lord’s Prayer.—Mt 674=Lk 111-4.

No words of Jesus which have come down to us are of greater significance or usefulness to mankind than this Prayer, which He taught His disciples, in- dicating as it does the true foundation, the true spirit, and the true substance of all prayer, prayer being our communion with God.

A consideration of the Lord’s Prayer will involve the following oints: (1) the historical occasion on which the -rayer was given; (2) the original form of the Ahh as taught by Jesus ; (3) the genetic relations of this Prayer to the OT, to Jewish prayers, and to the life of Christ ; (4) the analysis and interpreta- tion of its contents ; (5) the right use of the Prayer. (1) There is no portion of the Sermon as given by Matthew (chs.

5-7) which is so obviously an addition to the historical discourse as the section 675 containing the Lord’s Prayer. That these verses are extraneous matter, introduced here by the process of compilation, is now maintained by many scholars.t This fact appears in several ways: (a) Lk 11!

explicitly states that Jesus gave the Prayer to His disciples in response to an ex- pressed wish on their part for a form of prayer, such as John the Baptist had given his disciples (the Jews were accustomed to many liturgical prayers). This statement, while it might be a mere literary setting of the Third Gospel, is prob- ably a historical datum; and if historical, it points to another occasion than the Sermon for the presentation of the Prayer.

(6) The precise time when the Prayer was given is not fixed by Luke, but it is assigned in a general way to the Perean eriod, after the close of the Galilean ministry. his is perhaps too late a position, since it was the dishevelled hair being an Oriental sign of grief and abasement, ef. 2 8 1220, Is 613, Dn 103, 1 Mac 347; that this is what is meant is seen in y.17f, where Jesus bids them give no external sign of their fasting.

* No one would seriously attempt to put these commands of Jesus into practice as precepts to be literally obeyed, so that all charity should be unorganized, and all prayers be absolutely private. Here, again, as in ch. 5, Jesus is dealing with prin- ciples only, and His illustrations are to be considered as illuminating the principles rather than as fixing statutes for literal observance.

+ So Calvin, Strauss, Neander, Schleiermacher, Bleek, de Wette, Olshausen, Ewald, Ebrard, Meyer, Hanne, Godet, Kamp- hausen, Page, Feine, Sieffert, Bruce, Chase, Ktibel, Weizsiicker, Wendt, H. Holtzmann, Bartlet, Heinrici, B. Weiss, Baljon, Nestle, Bacon. The Matthzan position of the Prayer is regarded as historical by Tholuck, Keil, Morison, Broadus, Achelis, Stein- meyer, H.

Weiss, Nédsgen, Plummer, Grawert, it being the opinion of most of them that the Lukan position is also his- torical, and therefore that the Prayer was given on two separate occasions by Jesus. Tnoluck is undecided whether to prefer Matthew’s position for the Prayer, or to hold that it was repeated.

example of John the Baptist’s disciples which led Jesus’ disciples to ask Him for a prayer; but this influence of John’s upon Jesus’ disciples is more likely to have been exercised before John’s death, which came during Jesus’ work in Galilee (Mk 644-9), If, then, the Lord’s Prayer was given earlier than the Sermon, it would not have been given again as new teaching in that discourse; and if]ater, then it can stand in the Sermon only as a result of sub- sequent compilation.

Whatseemsto have happened is, that the original occasion of the giving of the Prayer was remembered (Lk 114), but the exact time at which it was given was forgotten; con- sequently each Evangelist, or his source, intro- duced the Prayer into his narrative where it was deemed suitable. (c) The Prayer, where it stands in the Sermon, clearly interrupts the movement of the discourse, and destroys the unity of the section into which it has been inserted. This is true not only of the Prayer, vv.

°"8, but also of the two verses preceding, vv.”®, and of the two verses following, vv. 1%. The whole passage, vv."-"5, does not pertain directly to the subject which Jesus is presenting in vv.}-6 16-18 namely, the sin of ostenta- tion and hypocrisy in acts of religious worship ; and it mars the symmetry of Jesus’ three illustra- tions about almsgiving, vv.24; prayer, vv. ; and fasting, vv.'

518, Nevertheless, it is quite intel- ligible how these verses 7 were brought into this connexion by the compiling process. The Sermon was one of Jesus’ most important discourses, and during the Apostolic age it was everywhere in use as a practical digest of His teaching. As the Sermon already contained some instruction about prayer, and the teaching on the same subject in vv.’-5 was separated from its historical position, it came easily into association with vv.

>°, where— although it was an extraneous element—it added to the completeness of the prayer instruction. (2) It is in the highest degree improbable that the Lord’s Prayer was given on two separate occasions—once in the Sermon in the form which Matthew reports, and again under other circum- stances and in a different form as reported by Luke.* This would have been unnecessary ; but still more, each of the two Gospels ve hea that it reports the one and only giving of the Prayer.

On the theory of repetition, why did Jesus present the Prayer in two forms so very different from each other? Having once given it in the fuller, smoother form of Mt 6%!%, why should He sub- sequently repeat it in the shorter, cruder form of Lk 1174? The reason for the postulation of two deliveries of the Lord’s Prayer is the unwilling- ness of certain scholars to admit that Jesus’ words could be so variantly transmitted (see the two Greek forms of the Prayer quoted in parallel columns on p.

5). Certainly it is not to be thought that Luke, with the Matthzan form of the Prayer before him, deliberately cut it down and changed it to the form contained in his Gospel; or that Matthew, with the Lukan form of the Prayer before him, deliberately enlarged and altered it into the form which the First Gospel presents. But the two forms may well be the respective results of two independent lines and processes ox crans- mission.

The Prayer as given by Jesus in Aramaic was briefly worded, as we may assume from the nature of the language and the Jewish custom, as well as from the original Hebrew ‘Ten Words’ and the Beatitudes. It is therefore not unlikel that the form of the Prayer given by Matthew is somewhat longer than the historical Aramaic form, for the purpose of producing a more perfect Greek *Yet this is maintained Chase, Lord’s Prayer in the some others. Against this view, see Page, vol. vii. p, 433 ff.

by Achelis, Bergpredigt, p. 297° Early Church (1901), p-11, and by Expositor, 8rd ser, SERMON ON THE MOUNT SERMON ON THE MOUNT 33 translation. But in the main the differences which appear in the accounts of Matthew and Luke are due to the influences of independent translation from the Aramaic, and of handing down in prac- tical Church use through fifty years of time. Neither account can be supposed to furnish a literal equivalent of the Prayer precisely as worded by Christ for His disciples.

* Consequently it becomes a matter of importance to discover which of the two Gospel reports contains the more exact reproduction of the historical Prayer. The Church, with striking unanimity, from the Ist cent. to the present, has testified to the greater fidelity, dig- nity, and usableness of the recension in Mt 6°; and this choice, as respects both quantity and quality, has been confirmed by the great majority of scholars.

t In order to consider in detail the differences which exist between the two accounts of the Lord’s Prayer, it is necessary to make the com- parison on the basis of the modern critical texts of the NT, such as Tischendorf’s eighth edition and Westcott and Hort’s text (with which the RV closely agrees). One notices first the exclusion of the doxology to the Prayer contained in the TR at Mt 6% (and familiar to us through the AV): 67 cod éorw 7% Bacirela Kal 4 Sivams Kal H ddka els rods aldvas.

duhv. This ending of the Prayer is not iven in Luke, and the external evidence against its genuineness in Matthew is conclusive; so that its authenticity is no longer supposed.t It grew up gradually in the 2nd cent. as a product of the Jewish custom of doxologies and responses, con- tinued in the public services of the Christian Church ; see esp. 1 Ch 29-3. The earliest men- tion of the liturgical use of the Prayer is in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, viii.

3, where the repetition of it three times daily is enjoined; and there is abundant Patristic evidence that this liturgical use rapidly increased. Readily, there- fo1s, this doxology, which came to be used always at the close of the Prayer, found its way into the later exemplars of the NT text; and the fact that it appears in conjunction with Mt 6°! instead of Lk 11? shows that it was the Matthzean form of the Prayer which the early Church adopted for its liturgy.

The doxology is found in many of the zecondary uncials, but is absent from NBD, the earlier versions, and the Patristic witnesses of the 2nd and 3rd cents. generally. Again, in numerous secondary and late witnesses of the text the frag- mentary Lukan account of the Prayer is filled out and modified by the introduction of some or all of the elements peculiar to the Matthzean account ; but these are manifest assimilations, and therefore have no textual standing in the Third Gospel.

Taking Mt 6°18 and Lk 1174 thus according to the best Greek text, it appears that, after the ad- dress which is common to both, the Lukan account *It has been sufficiently argued above, under i. 3, that the entire phenomena of the primitive transmission of the Gospel material require us to recognize extensive verbal variation and occasional thought modification, such as appear in these parallel reports, throughout the narratives of the four Evangelists.

There is a striking similarity between the Matthzan and Lukan accounts of the Beatitudes and their two accounts of the Lord’s Prayer, and judgments arrived at concerning the features and merits of the one pair will be found to hold in general for the other pair also; the chief differences between the two forms of the Beatitudes and the two forms of the Lorw’s Prayer are due to similar causes operating on both. +t So Tholuck, Meyer, Feine, Bruce, H. Weiss, Plummer, B.

Weiss, and many others ; those also who think that Jesus gave the Prayer in two forms hold, almost without exception, that the form in Matthew is to be preferred. The modern scholars who regard the Lukan report as the more authentic (Bleek, Kamphausen, H. Holtzmann, Wendt, Bacon), seem to follow too rigid and exclusive a theory of literary criticism. t See Westcott and Hort, New Testament in Greek, vol. ii. Appendix; Scrivener, Introd. to the Criticism of the New Testament 4, vel. ii. pp.

323-825 ; Chase, Lord’s Prayer in the Early Church, pp. 168-176