31. It hath been said—This shortened form was perhaps intentional, to mark a transition from the commandments of the Decalogue to a civil enactment on the subject of divorce, quoted from De 24:1. The law of divorce—according to its strictness or laxity—has so intimate a bearing upon purity in the married life, that nothing could be more natural than to pass from the seventh commandment to the loose views on that subject then current.

Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement—a legal check upon reckless and tyrannical separation. The one legitimate ground of divorce allowed by the enactment just quoted was “some uncleanness”—in other words, conjugal infidelity. But while one school of interpreters (that of Shammai) explained this quite correctly, as prohibiting divorce in every case save that of adultery, another school (that of Hillel) stretched the expression so far as to include everything in the wife offensive or disagreeable to the husband—a view of the law too well fitted to minister to caprice and depraved inclination not to find extensive favor. And, indeed, to this day the Jews allow divorces on the most frivolous pretexts. It was to meet this that our Lord uttered what follows:

32. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery—that is, drives her into it in case she marries again.

and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced—for anything short of conjugal infidelity.

committeth adultery—for if the commandment is broken by the one party, it must be by the other also. But see on Mt 19:4–9. Whether the innocent party, after a just divorce, may lawfully marry again, is not treated of here. The Church of Rome says, No; but the Greek and Protestant Churches allow it.

Same Subject Illustrated from the Third Commandment (Mt 5:33–37).

33. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself—These are not the precise words of Ex 20:7; but they express all that it was currently understood to condemn, namely, false swearing (Le 19:12, &c.). This is plain from what follows.

But I say unto you, Swear not at all—That this was meant to condemn swearing of every kind and on every occasion—as the Society of Friends and some other ultra-moralists allege—is not for a moment to be thought. For even Jehovah is said once and again to have sworn by Himself; and our Lord certainly answered upon oath to a question put to Him by the high priest; and the apostle several times, and in the most solemn language, takes God to witness that he spoke and wrote the truth; and it is inconceivable that our Lord should here have quoted the precept about not forswearing ourselves, but performing to the Lord our oaths, only to give a precept of His own directly in the teeth of it. Evidently, it is swearing in common intercourse and on frivolous occasions that is here meant. Frivolous oaths were indeed severely condemned in the teaching of the times. But so narrow was the circle of them that a man might swear, says Lightfoot, a hundred thousand times and yet not be guilty of vain swearing. Hardly anything was regarded as an oath if only the name of God were not in it; just as among ourselves, as Trench well remarks, a certain lingering reverence for the name of God leads to cutting off portions of His name, or uttering sounds nearly resembling it, or substituting the name of some heathen deity, in profane exclamations or asseverations. Against all this our Lord now speaks decisively; teaching His audience that every oath carries an appeal to God, whether named or not.

neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne—(quoting Is 66:1);

35. Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool—(quoting Is 66:1);

neither by Jerusalem for it is the city of the great King—(quoting Ps 48:2).

36. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black—In the other oaths specified, God’s name was profaned quite as really as if His name had been uttered, because it was instantly suggested by the mention of His “throne,” His “footstool,” His “city.” But in swearing by our own head and the like, the objection lies in their being “beyond our control,” and therefore profanely assumed to have a stability which they have not.

37. But let your communication—“your word,” in ordinary intercourse, be,

Yea, yea; Nay, nay—Let a simple Yes and No suffice in affirming the truth or the untruth of anything. (See Jam 5:12; 2 Co 1:17, 18).

for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil—not “of the evil one”; though an equally correct rendering of the words, and one which some expositors prefer. It is true that all evil in our world is originally of the devil, that it forms a kingdom at the head of which he sits, and that, in every manifestation of it he has an active part. But any reference to this here seems unnatural, and the allusion to this passage in the Epistle of James (Jam 5:12) seems to show that this is not the sense of it: “Let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.” The untruthfulness of our corrupt nature shows itself not only in the tendency to deviate from the strict truth, but in the disposition to suspect others of doing the same; and as this is not diminished, but rather aggravated, by the habit of confirming what we say by an oath, we thus run the risk of having all reverence for God’s holy name, and even for strict truth, destroyed in our hearts, and so “fall into condemnation.” The practice of going beyond Yes and No in affirmations and denials—as if our word for it were not enough, and we expected others to question it—springs from that vicious root of untruthfulness which is only aggravated by the very effort to clear ourselves of the suspicion of it. And just as swearing to the truth of what we say begets the disposition it is designed to remove, so the love and reign of truth in the breasts of Christ’s disciples reveals itself so plainly even to those who themselves cannot be trusted, that their simple Yes and No come soon to be more relied on than the most solemn asseverations of others. Thus does the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, like a tree cast into the bitter waters of human corruption, heal and sweeten them.

Same Subject—Retaliation (Mt 5:38–42).We have here the converse of the preceding lessons. They were negative: these are positive.

38. Ye have heard that it hath been said—(Ex 21:23–25; Le 24:19, 20; De 19:21).

An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth—that is, whatever penalty was regarded as a proper equivalent for these. This law of retribution—designed to take vengeance out of the hands of private persons, and commit it to the magistrate—was abused in the opposite way to the commandments of the Decalogue. While they were reduced to the level of civil enactments, this judicial regulation was held to be a warrant for taking redress into their own hands, contrary to the injunctions of the Old Testament itself (Pr 20:22; 24:29).

39. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right check, turn to him the other also—Our Lord’s own meek, yet dignified bearing, when smitten rudely on the cheek (Jn 18:22, 23), and not literally presenting the other, is the best comment on these words. It is the preparedness, after one indignity, not to invite but to submit meekly to another, without retaliation, which this strong language is meant to convey.

40. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take way thy coat—the inner garment; in pledge for a debt (Ex 22:26, 27).

let him have thy cloak also—the outer and more costly garment. This overcoat was not allowed to be retained over night as a pledge from the poor because they used it for a bed covering.

41. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain—an allusion, probably, to the practice of the Romans and some Eastern nations, who, when government despatches had to be forwarded, obliged the people not only to furnish horses and carriages, but to give personal attendance, often at great inconvenience, when required. But the thing here demanded is a readiness to submit to unreasonable demands of whatever kind, rather than raise quarrels, with all the evils resulting from them. What follows is a beautiful extension of this precept.

42. Give to him that asketh thee—The sense of unreasonable asking is here implied (compare Lu 6:30).

and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away—Though the word signifies classically “to have money lent to one on security,” or “with interest,” yet as this was not the original sense of the word, and as usury was forbidden among the Jews (Ex 22:25, &c.), it is doubtless simple borrowing which our Lord here means, as indeed the whole strain of the exhortation implies. This shows that such counsels as “Owe no man anything” (Ro 13:8), are not to be taken absolutely; else the Scripture commendations of the righteous for “lending” to his necessitous brother (Ps 37:36; 112:5; Lu 6:37) would have no application.

turn not thou away—a graphic expression of unfeeling refusal to relieve a brother in extremity.

Same Subject—Love to Enemies (Mt 5:43–48).

43. Ye have heard that it hath been said—(Le 19:18).

Thou shalt love thy neighbour—To this the corrupt teachers added,

and hate thine enemy—as if the one were a legitimate inference from the other, instead of being a detestable gloss, as Bengel indignantly calls it. Lightfoot quotes some of the cursed maxims inculcated by those traditionists regarding the proper treatment of all Gentiles. No wonder that the Romans charged the Jews with hatred of the human race.

44. But I say unto you, Love your enemies—The word here used denotes moral love, as distinguished from the other word, which expresses personal affection. Usually, the former denotes “complacency in the character” of the person loved; but here it denotes the benignant, compassionate outgoings of desire for another’s good.

bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you—The best commentary on these matchless counsels is the bright example of Him who gave them. (See 1 Pe 2:21–24; and compare Ro 12:20, 21; 1 Co 4:12; 1 Pe 3:9). But though such precepts were never before expressed—perhaps not even conceived—with such breadth, precision, and sharpness as here, our Lord is here only the incomparable Interpreter of the law in force from the beginning; and this is the only satisfactory view of the entire strain of this discourse.

45. That ye may be the children—sons.

of your Father which is in heaven—The meaning is, “that ye may show yourselves to be such by resembling Him” (compare Mt 5:9; Eph 5:1).

for he maketh his sun—“your Father’s sun.” Well might Bengel exclaim, “Magnificent appellation!”

to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust—rather, (without the article) “on evil and good, and on just and unjust.” When we find God’s own procedure held up for imitation in the law, and much more in the prophets (Le 19:2; 20:26; and compare 1 Pe 1:15, 16), we may see that the principle of this surprising verse was nothing new: but the form of it certainly is that of One who spake as never man spake.

46. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?—The publicans, as collectors of taxes due to the Roman government, were ever on this account obnoxious to the Jews, who sat uneasy under a foreign yoke, and disliked whatever brought this unpleasantly before them. But the extortion practiced by this class made them hateful to the community, who in their current speech ranked them with “harlots.” Nor does our Lord scruple to speak of them as others did, which we may be sure He never would have done if it had been calumnious. The meaning, then, is, “In loving those who love you, there is no evidence of superior principle; the worst of men will do this: even a publican will go that length.”

47. And if ye salute your brethren only—of the same nation and religion with yourselves.

what do ye more than others?—what do ye uncommon or extraordinary? that is, wherein do ye excel?

do not even the publicans so?—The true reading here appears to be, “Do not even the heathens the same?” Compare Mt 18:17, where the excommunicated person is said to be “as an heathen man and a publican.”

48. Be ye therefore—rather, “Ye shall therefore be,” or “Ye are therefore to be,” as My disciples and in My kingdom.

perfect—or complete. Manifestly, our Lord here speaks, not of degrees of excellence, but of the kind of excellence which was to distinguish His disciples and characterize His kingdom. When therefore He adds,

even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect—He refers to that full-orbed glorious completeness which is in the great Divine Model, “their Father which is in heaven.”