You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.

“Hence he says: for justice's sake, 1 Peter 3:14: "If you suffer anything..." Chrysostom: he does not say "by the pagans" and "according to the faith," but "for justice's sake," because martyrdom is not from just anyone or for just any cause, but for the father's justice — Ecclesiasticus 4:33: "Strive for justice." The prophets were killed not because they denied the faith but because they announced the truth; John the Baptist, because he announced the truth, was killed and was a martyr. And it should be noted that this beatitude is placed in the eighth position, just as circumcision was performed on the eighth day, in which a certain general circumcision of the martyrs is foretold. "For theirs is the kingdom." This appears to be the same as what is set down in the first beatitude; hence it is explained variously by the saints. For some say that this is the same as what is said: "Blessed are the poor, for theirs...," and this in order to designate the perfection of patience, James 1:4; for perfection is always designated by the fact that it returns to its own starting-point, as appears in a circle. Likewise, he who suffers persecution for justice's sake is poor, and all the other things are owed to him, since he is also meek and merciful, and so with all the rest; and therefore not only the first reward is owed to him but all the rewards. Others say that it is not the same; hence Ambrose says that the kingdom of heaven is set down here with respect to the glory of the soul and heart: for to the power of the soul the kingdom of heaven corresponds, but to martyrdom corresponds the beatitude which consists in the glorification of bodies, on account of the torments which they suffered. Or otherwise: the kingdom of heaven is promised to the poor in hope, because they do not fly away at once, but to the martyrs in reality, because they fly away at once. [87565] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 11: "Blessed are you." Here he touches upon the dignity of those who are to teach the very doctrine of the apostles. And it should be known that all the beatitudes pertain to three things, since the first three are for the removal of evil, namely: blessed are the poor, blessed are the meek, and blessed are they who mourn; the other four are for the working of good; and the last pertains to the patient endurance of evil. Now these three ought to be present by excellence in the teacher of sacred Scripture, because in enduring evils he ought not only to bear them patiently but ought to rejoice; likewise he ought to remove evils from others; and thirdly he ought to enlighten unto good. Hence in these three he commends the apostolic dignity in order, and he begins from persecution, because by this the perfection of all the others is designated, and it signifies that no one ought to take up the office of preaching unless he is perfect, Proverbs 19:11: "The teaching of a man is known by patience," Psalm 91:15 (Vulgate): "They shall be well patient." Concerning this, then, he does three things: first he enumerates the evils they were about to suffer; second he teaches the manner of suffering: "Rejoice and be glad"; third he assigns the reason: "for your reward." Now evils are either present or absent; and present evils come about by word and by deed: hence he sets down the whole. He says therefore: "Blessed are you." But here Augustine raises a question, because first he says "when they shall curse you," and afterward "and speak all evil," which seem to be the same. But it should be known that those curse who bear reproach to one's face, but those speak all evil who slander the absent. For they curse those to whom many reproaches are made, Jeremiah 15:10: "All curse me," 1 Peter 2:23: "who, when he was cursed..." Blessed, therefore, when they shall curse you, that is, when they shall offend you by word and by deed. Chrysostom: the merit of eternal life consists in two things: in doing good and in enduring evil, and just as any good deed, however small, is not without merit, so every injury has its reward. "And persecuted," that is, by expelling you from city to city, 1 Corinthians 4:12: "We are cursed, and we bless," and below, 23:34: "Behold I send to you prophets and scribes, and some of them you shall persecute from city to city." "And shall speak," that is, they shall pierce you and defame you with many evils, 2 Corinthians 6:8: "as seducers," 1 Peter 4:14: "If you be reproached for the name of Christ." But it should be known that not all of whom evils are spoken are blessed, but it is required, first, that it be spoken falsely, and second, that it be for Christ's sake; hence he says "lying, for my sake," and this "for my sake" refers to all the aforesaid. Likewise note that what he says, "for my sake," is the same as what was said above, "for Christ's sake." [87566] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 12: "Rejoice." Here he teaches the manner in which evils are to be endured. Above, when he was speaking of all in general, he said "blessed are they that suffer," that is, who are not indignant; but in the apostles this does not suffice — rather it is fitting that they should exult, James 1:2: "count it all joy," Acts 5:41: "the apostles went rejoicing." But against this, Augustine: "you command that these things be endured, not that they be loved." It must be said that one is not to rejoice over the tribulations themselves but over the hope which one has on account of enduring them, just as one who takes medicine does not rejoice over the bitterness of the medicine but over the hope of health. And he says "rejoice and be glad," where it should be known that to be delighted, to exult, to rejoice, and to be glad are the same thing in reality but differ in their notion. For delight properly arises from the conjunction with the very thing loved and fitting; joy consists not only in the conjunction but also in the apprehension of it; interior gladness and exultation are effects that follow upon joy and delight, because from these the heart is first dilated — hence "laetitia" (gladness) is as it were "latitia" (a widening); likewise, not only is the heart dilated within, but when it is expressed it appears outwardly, and then it is called exultation, as it were appearing outside. Now one must rejoice because it will be to the confusion of unbelievers and the joy of the faithful; thus blessed Lawrence rejoiced on the gridiron, as is read of him. And there is a twofold cause of joy: first, the reward, hence: "for your reward is abundant in heaven," namely in the Empyrean, hence 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (17): "so shall we always be with the Lord." Augustine: in saying "in heaven" he names both the object of beatitude and its substance, which will not be among bodily things but among spiritual things, namely in the enjoyment of God; and these spiritual goods are designated by the heavens on account of their solidity and firmness. And he says "abundant" on account of the superabundant reward of the apostles, Luke 6:38: "good measure," Genesis 15:1: "I am God, your reward." The second cause why one must rejoice is the example, hence: "for so." For it is a great consolation when some are likened to the great and preceding fathers, Acts 7:52: "Which of the prophets...," James 5:10: "Take, brethren, for an example..." And note that in this the dignity of Christ is designated, because he has his prophets suffering on his behalf just as in the Old Testament, and also the dignity of the apostles, who are likened to the prophets. [87567] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 13: "You are the salt." Above, the Lord showed the dignity of the apostles as regards the fact that in tribulations they ought to be not only patient but even rejoicing; now, however, he states their excellence as regards the fact that they ought to restrain others from evils, and therefore he compares them to salt: "You are..." And concerning this he does two things: first he determines their office as regards restraining others from evils; second he shows how they ought to restrain themselves from evils, at the place: "But if the salt lose its savor." He says, therefore: "You are the salt." He compares them to salt for four reasons. The first, on account of the generation of salt, which comes from water and wind and the heat of the sun: for spiritual generation is from the water of Baptism and by the power of the Holy Spirit, John 3:5: "Unless a man be born again...," and from the heat of the sun, that is, the fervor of love which is from the Holy Spirit, Romans 5:5: "the charity of God..." Second, on account of the useful properties of salt, of which the first is use, since all things are seasoned with salt; hence it signifies the wisdom which apostolic men ought to have, Ecclesiasticus 6:23 (37:23): "the wisdom of teaching," Colossians 4:5: "in wisdom towards those that are without." The second reason was Leviticus 2:13, that salt was to be added to every sacrifice, because apostolic teaching ought to shine forth in every work of ours. The third is that it consumes the excess of moisture and thereby preserves from putrefaction: thus the apostles by their teaching restrained carnal concupiscences, 1 Peter 4:3: "the time past is sufficient," Romans 13:13: "not in rioting." The fourth effect is that it renders the earth barren: hence it is said that certain victors sowed salt over the city they had captured so that nothing might spring up there; so also the evangelical teaching makes the earth barren, so that earthly works may not spring up in us, Ephesians 5:11: "Have no fellowship..." The apostles, therefore, are called salt because they have a biting sharpness that draws men back from sins, Mark 9:49 (50): "Have salt in yourselves." But someone might say: it suffices that I have salt. No — rather it is necessary that the powers of salt preserve you from sin, and to this he adduces four reasons. The first is taken from incorrigibility, hence: "But if the salt lose its savor." Those things properly lose their savor which lose their own power: just as strong wine, when it loses its strength, so salt when it loses its bite, Mark 9:49 (50): "if the salt become unsavory, with what will you season it?" Hence someone loses his savor when he lies subject to sin, Romans 1:21: "they became vain in their thoughts." If, therefore, on account of tribulations or anything else you fall away from virtue, "with what will you be salted" — that is, with what other salt will it be salted? For if the common people sin they can be corrected, but if the prelate sins, no one can amend him, Hosea 8:5: "How long will they be unable..." And it should be noted that Luke 14:34 says: "But if the salt become tasteless" — for it is a great folly to give up eternal things for temporal ones. The second reason is taken from usefulness, hence: "good for nothing," and Luke 14:35 explains this: "neither for the land nor for the dunghill," because it makes the land barren and does not fertilize the dunghill. Thus spiritual men, when they sin, are worth nothing, because they are not fit even for secular affairs, as soldiers and the like are, Ezekiel 15:2: "Son of man, what shall be done to the wood of the vine?" etc., Psalm 13:3 (14:3): "They are all gone aside." The third reason is taken from the imminent danger and has two branches according to two dangers. The first is expulsion, hence: "except to be cast out," namely from the Church, Apocalypse 22:15: "Without are dogs..." Likewise, that the dignity of priestly teaching authority be taken from him, Hosea 4:6: "because you have rejected knowledge," below, 21:43: "the kingdom shall be taken from you," and this is: "except to be cast out." The second danger is degradation, because those who first live supernaturally and then fail become contemptible, and this is: "and to be trodden on," Luke 14:30: "This man began to build," Malachi 2:8: "You have departed out of the way, and have caused many to stumble at the law." And it should be noted, according to Augustine, that if certain holy men are held in contempt, as is said above (5:11): "and shall speak all evil," etc., they can nevertheless never be trodden underfoot, because they always have their heart in heaven, and it is properly those who are trodden underfoot who lie upon the earth. [87568] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 14: "You are the light." Here the third dignity of the apostles is set down. For just as they ought to restrain others from evils, so they ought also to enlighten. And concerning this he does two things: first he shows their dignity, second he removes faint-heartedness, at the place: "A city cannot..." He says, therefore: "You are the light of the world" — as if to say, not of Judea only, or Galilee, but of the whole world, Acts 13:47: "For so the Lord has commanded us: I have set you to be a light to the Gentiles." And this was a marvel, that he was scarcely known in his own land and yet he went forth into every land. But it is objected that this saying, "light," seems to belong to Christ alone, John 1:8: "He was not the light," and afterward: "that was the true light." It must be said that Christ alone is light essentially, but the apostles are called light illuminated, namely by participation, just as the eye is a light that illuminates and yet is itself illuminated. And note that these three sayings — namely, "Blessed are you when they shall curse you," and "You are the salt," and "You are the light" — seem to pertain to the three last beatitudes: the first to "Blessed are they that suffer persecution," the second to "Blessed are the peacemakers" (because they make peace in themselves and in others), the third to "Blessed are the clean of heart." For if the apostles were excellent in these last three, much more so in the higher ones. The Lord had said: "Blessed are you when they shall curse you" and "they that suffer persecution"; they might therefore say: we shall endure so many persecutions, therefore we wish to hide ourselves. And therefore the Lord next removes their faint-heartedness, hence: "A city cannot be hidden." And first he forbids hiding, second he shows the manner in which they ought to manifest themselves, at the place: "so let your light shine." That they ought not to hide themselves he proves by two reasons: first, because they could not even if they wished; second, because they ought not, and this is: "neither do men light..." "A city cannot..." The city was the congregation of the faithful, namely the very company of the apostles, Psalm 86:3 (87:3): "Glorious things are said of you." Now it was situated "upon a mountain," namely Christ, Micah 4:1: "the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be...," Daniel 2:34: "a stone cut out..." Or "upon a mountain," that is, upon the perfection of justice, Psalm 35:7 (36:6): "Your justice is like the mountains." Now a city situated upon a mountain cannot hide itself, and so it is with the apostles: Chrysostom. Men set in a lowly place, if they sin, can lie hidden; but if set upon the summit, they cannot, 3 Kings 1:20: "the eyes of all Israel are upon you." Hilary explains it differently, though the sense is nearly the same: the city upon the mountain is Christ, because on the part of the human nature by which he communicates with us, he is a city, Jeremiah 1:18: "I have made you this day into a fortified city"; he is upon a mountain because he is in the divinity which is the mountain, Psalm 67:16 (68:15): "the mountain of God, a fat mountain." And therefore Christ could not lie hidden; and therefore you, apostles, ought not to hide me. [87569] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 15. Second, at the place: "neither do men light...," as if to say: let us grant that it could lie hidden, still you ought not to hide it. For no one who receives a benefit ought to act against the intention of the giver. God gave you knowledge so that you might share it, 1 Peter 4:10: "as every man has received grace..." And this is: "neither do men light a lamp" — men, that is, or the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. By "lamp" can be understood, first, the evangelical teaching, Psalm 118:105 (119:105): "a lamp to my feet"; for a lamp has an incorporated light; the light of truth has been placed in sacred Scripture, and it has been lit by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Or by "lamp" can be understood the apostles, insofar as the light of grace has been placed within them, John 5:35: "he was a burning lamp," Psalm 130:17 (132:17): "I have prepared a lamp." Or by "lamp," Christ, because just as a lamp is light in an earthen vessel, so is divinity in humanity, 2 Kings 22:29: "You are my lamp." The lamp being understood in this way, by "bushel" we can understand three things. First, according to Augustine, bodily things, for two reasons: the first, because a bushel is a measure, Deuteronomy 25:15; but what we do in the body will be repaid to us, 2 Corinthians 5:10: "we must all appear..."; or because all bodily things are measured, but divine things are infinite, since they are beyond measure. Those, therefore, put the lamp under the bushel who refer their teaching to temporal advantage, since that is held more precious; against which the Apostle says, 1 Thessalonians 2:5: "For neither have we been..." In a second way, according to Chrysostom, worldly men are called the bushel, because they are empty above and solid below: for above they have unsoundness, since they perceive nothing of the Holy Spirit, 1 Corinthians 2:14: "the sensual man...," but below, that is, in secular affairs, they are wise, Luke 16:8: "the children of this world"; and this is the more literal exposition. Then, therefore, according to this, the lamp is put under the bushel when the teaching is hidden out of worldly fear, Isaiah 51:12: "Who are you, that you should be afraid of a man?," 2 Timothy 2:9: "I labor even unto bonds." But if by "lamp" is understood the evangelical teaching or Christ, then by "bushel" can be understood the synagogue: for Christ was not incarnate for this reason, that he might lie hidden beneath Judea, but that he might manifest himself to the whole world, Isaiah 49:6: "I have given you for a light." "But upon a candlestick." This can be explained in three ways, because by "candlestick" can be signified the body, and by "lamp," the evangelical teaching; hence "bushel" and "candlestick" mean the same thing, as if to say: the evangelical teaching ought not to be subjected to temporal things, but all things ought to be at its service; hence when you give up possessions, your body, and even your life unto death for the love of Christ, then you put the lamp upon the candlestick. Or by "candlestick" is understood the Church, because those who are the lamp are set in a higher place, Ecclesiasticus 26:22 (17): "a shining lamp." But if it is understood of Christ, then by "candlestick": the cross, Colossians 1:20: "through the blood of the cross." "That it may give light to all." This too is explained in three ways. By "house" the Church can be understood, 1 Timothy 3:15: "that you may know how you ought to behave..." Or the house is the whole world, Hebrews 3:4: "for every house is built by some man..." etc. [87570] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 16. Next is set down the manner in which they ought to manifest themselves, and first he sets down the manner: that they ought to shine before men, by enlightening them, Ephesians 3:8: "To me, the least of all the saints..."; the order: "that they may see," James 2:18: "show me from your works"; the end, because it is not for their own glory, 2 Corinthians 2:17: "we are not as many...," and this is: "and may glorify"; for we ought to do good works for the glory of God, so that God may be glorified in our good life, 1 Corinthians 10:31: "whether you eat..." etc. [87571] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 17: "Do not think." Note here that the Lord fulfilled the law in five ways: first, because those things which had been prefigured he himself fulfilled in deed, Luke 22:37: "it is necessary that it be fulfilled"; second, by observing the precepts of the law, Galatians 4:4: "when the fullness of time had come"; third, by working through grace, namely in sanctifying through the Holy Spirit, which the law was not able to do, Romans 8:3: "for what was impossible..."; fourth, by making satisfaction for the sins by which we had been made transgressors of the law — hence, the transgression having been removed, he fulfilled the law, Romans 3:25: "whom God proposed as a propitiation"; fifth, by adding to the law certain perfections which either belonged to the understanding of the law, or were for the greater perfection of justice. Note that the law is broken in three ways: by denying it entirely, or by wrongly interpreting it, or by not fulfilling the moral precepts. "Do not think." The beatitude to which the teaching of Christ pertains having been set down, here he begins to promulgate his teaching, and first he lays open his intention, second he proposes the rule and precepts of his teaching, at the place: "But I say to you." Concerning the first he does two things: first he excludes the intention that was supposed, second he sets forth the true one, at the place: "I have not come." The Lord had said to the apostles (5:11): "Blessed shall you be when they shall curse you," etc.; hence the apostles might have suspected that such a teaching was about to be handed down, on account of which they would need to hide themselves, as if Christ were saying something against the law; and therefore the Lord excludes this, saying: "Do not," etc. And likewise, because it might be said that no other prophet, after Moses who gave the law, has broken the law, the Lord therefore says he will do something greater, hence: "but to fulfill"; for no one had fulfilled it. And note that this saying is very effective against those who condemn the law as if it were from the Devil, 1 John 3:8: "in this the Son of God appears"; but he himself confesses: "I have not come to destroy the law"; therefore it is not the work of the Devil. By this argument a certain man was converted to the faith and became a Friar Preacher. Hence the Manichees very much abhor this chapter; hence Faustus raises many objections, according to Augustine, and all the objections are reduced to three. First, from the authority of the law: for it is said, Deuteronomy 4:2: "you shall not add to the word which I speak to you, nor take away from it"; but Christ added; therefore he acted against the law. Likewise, Hebrews 8:13: "in saying a new one, he has made the former old"; but Christ said he was the founder of a new law, below 26:28: "this is my blood"; therefore he destroyed the old one. Third, John 13:15: "for I have given you an example"; every action of Christ, therefore, is a true instruction; if therefore he fulfilled it, we too ought to fulfill it: therefore we ought to be circumcised and observe all the legal precepts; and this objection is common also to the Nazarenes and the Manichees. Faustus said, therefore, either that Jesus did not say these words, but Matthew — who was not present at the discourse — said them, while John, who was present, did not say them; or that if Christ did say them and Matthew wrote them, the Gospel must be explained differently. For in sacred Scripture the law is explained in three ways: as the Mosaic law (Romans 7:6: "we are delivered from the law of death, in the law of God"); the law of nature (Romans 2:14: "for when the Gentiles, who have not the law..."); the law of truth (Romans 8:2: "the law of the spirit... has come"). Thus it is proved in three ways, therefore: of the old law, of the law of nature (Titus 1:12: "one of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, The Cretans..."), of truth (below 23:34: "behold I send..."). What he says here, therefore, "I have not come," etc., must be understood of the law of nature or of truth, which also comes to be in certain of the ancient fathers; and a sign of this is that the Lord, when he was speaking of the precepts, seemed to approve some and not others, namely those which are proper to the Mosaic law, such as "an eye for an eye" and the like. But against these things Augustine objects as follows. First, because whoever denies something of the Gospel will be able, by the same reasoning, to deny anything else whatsoever, and so annul Scripture; but the faithful man ought to believe whatever things are in Scripture. Likewise, what he says — that Christ speaks of another law and prophets — is false, because in the whole New Testament, wherever mention is made of the law, it is understood of the Mosaic law, Romans 9:4: "whose is the giving of the law"; therefore the Lord too speaks of these. Hence we must see first how Christ came to fulfill the law, and afterward we shall resolve the arguments. It must be known, then, that Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets in five ways. First, because those things which had been prefigured in the law and the prophets concerning Christ, he fulfilled in deed, Luke 24:44: "it is necessary that all things be fulfilled." Second, by observing the legal precepts to the letter, Galatians 4:4: "when the fullness of time came." Third, by working grace, which the law of nature was not able to do: for every law aims at this, that we be made just men; but Christ did this through the Holy Spirit, Romans 8:3: "for what was impossible to the law." Fourth, according to Augustine, by making satisfaction for the sins according to which we had been made transgressors of the law; hence, the transgression having been removed, he is said to have fulfilled the law, Romans 3:25: "whom God proposed as a propitiation," etc. Fifth, by adding to the law certain perfections which either belonged to the understanding of the law or were for the greater perfection of justice, Hebrews 7:19: "the law brought nothing to perfection"; and this appears to be Christ's intention, because when he has already made mention of all the legal precepts, he adds: "Be you therefore perfect," etc. (Matthew 5:48). Let us resolve, then, the arguments of Faustus as Augustine resolves them. To that saying (Deuteronomy 4:2), "you shall not add to the word," it must be said that Christ did not add but explained; for they understood "you shall not kill" of the act of homicide, whereas Christ explains that he also forbade hatred and anger. Likewise, to that saying (Hebrews 8:13), "the new has made the old obsolete," it must be said that this "new" is the same thing, because the old was the figure and the new is the fulfillment of the figures. To the point that we ought to observe it, it must be said that something can be signified by speech and by figure, and it makes no difference in whatever way it is signified. Before Christ was born, one could have said: Christ is to be born and to die; but now it is said: Christ has been born, and the like; and yet the thing is in agreement, because the same accomplished and future reality is pronounced in different words. Hence that which was signified by figures as future, when it has already passed, is signified as present through new figures, namely the sacraments of the new law. Hence, although Christ has fulfilled it, nevertheless, because the truth has now come, whoever would still fulfill it in the old way would do an injury to the truth. Thus, then, is "I have not come to destroy" to be understood. [87572] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 18: "For amen." Here is set down the reason for the fulfillment, and he seems to assign a threefold reason: the first from the immutability of the law, the second from the penalty of those who break it, the third from the reward of those who fulfill it; the second at the place: "shall break," the third at the place: "shall do and teach." He says, therefore, "amen," and it should be known that in the old law all the mysteries of Christ were prefigured, but, as is said in Amos 3:7, the Lord does nothing without revealing it; the mysteries of Christ, therefore, will endure to the very last end, below at the end (28:20): "behold I am with you." Hence not all the mysteries of the prophets were fulfilled at Christ's first coming; rather they will be fulfilled up to the end of the world. And what he has said cannot be changed, Numbers 23:19: "has the Lord said, and will he not do it?" If, therefore, the law foretold things that are future, it is also necessary that they come to pass of necessity. Hence he says: "amen I say," that is, all things will be fulfilled successively up to the end of the world. It should be known that "amen" is a Hebrew word, and no translator, out of reverence for this term — since the Lord frequently used it — has dared to change it; and it is taken sometimes in the force of a noun, whence "amen": true; sometimes it is an adverb, that is, truly, and it is taken in this way here; sometimes it stands for "let it be done," as in the Psalm (40:14 [41:13]) where what we render "let it be" is in Hebrew "amen"; hence the verse is said: for "true," "truly"; for "let it be done," "amen" is said. Hence the Lord here rouses attention in his hearers. "Till it pass" — not according to substance, but according to disposition, 1 Corinthians 7:31: "the figure of this world passes away," 2 Peter 3:12: "the heavens being on fire." "Till," that is, up to the end of the world. "Jot." "Jot" among the Greeks is the letter which we call small I; among the Hebrews, however, it is called "yod"; and among the Greeks "iota" signifies the letter Y, and is a new letter (for all the letters signify some number), so it pertains to the completeness of the Decalogue, and perhaps for this reason he set down "iota" rather than "yod," according to what the saints say. The "point," or accent-mark, is placed above letters both in Hebrew and in Greek, but for different reasons in each: because among the Hebrews the aleph sometimes sounds as "a," sometimes as "e," and this is known by certain points, and those are called apices; likewise among the Greeks certain marks are placed above letters to distinguish breathings and accents, and these too are called apices among the Greeks. The Lord wishes to say, therefore, that nothing however small will fail to be fulfilled. [87573] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 19: "Whosoever therefore shall break." Here the second reason is set down, taken from the punishment of those who break the law, as if to say: whoever shall break it will be held guilty of punishment as a transgressor of the divine observance. Now the least commandments, according to Chrysostom, are the commandments of Christ; hence: "whosoever shall break one of these least commandments" which I am about to speak. And the continuity is thus: because the law cannot be broken, therefore, since I do not break it, whoever shall break it will be held guilty of punishment. And they are called least, first, on account of humility, just as he also calls himself a little one, below 18:3: "unless you become..."; or they are called least with respect to the transgression, because he sins less who breaks them; but greater are the things which Christ commanded with regard to observance, because the law commanded "you shall not kill," Christ, not even to be angry. Augustine and Jerome say it differently: he speaks to the letter of the least precepts which are in the law, because he said "jot and tittle"; and they are called least because the principal ones are: "you shall love the Lord your God" and "your neighbor"; hence certain observances are called the least precepts, such as the many that are in Leviticus 19. And he says this as a rebuke of the Pharisees, because the Pharisees, on account of their own observances, transgressed many things, below 15:6: "you have made void." Now the law is broken in three ways: first, by denying it entirely; second, by wrongly interpreting it; third, by not fulfilling the moral precepts. "And shall teach." He does evil who acts wrongly, but he does worse who teaches others to act wrongly, Apocalypse 2:14: "you have there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam"; and therefore he says: "whoever shall break and teach," namely, teach others to break the commandments. And according to this it seems that he who breaks them will be in the kingdom of heaven. But it should be known that, according to Augustine, the kingdom of heaven is here taken for eternal life, and the Lord wished to give us to understand that no one will be there who breaks and teaches, etc., because there will be no one there who is not great, Romans 8:30: "whom he justified," etc.; hence he who is too small will never enter. Second, according to Rabanus, thus: men seek fame among men, because it is a certain glory for a man to be reputed great in the kingdom of men; but whoever breaks the commandments will be reputed least in the kingdom of heaven, not existing there at all: for he is reputed small there who transgresses the commandments, and least who teaches others to transgress; and this explanation is good enough. Chrysostom explains it differently: Scripture sometimes calls the final judgment the kingdom of heaven, as the Psalm says (96:1 [97:1]): "the Lord has reigned"; and there there will be different ranks, but the least will be he who teaches men to transgress the commandments, because, according to this, even those who are in Hell belong to the kingdom of heaven. Gregory: on behalf of the Church, hence: he will be called least in the Church, because when a man's life is despised, it follows that his preaching too is held in contempt. "But he that shall do and teach." Great is he who does well, but greater is he who both does and teaches; hence he will have great glory, below 10:32: "whoever shall confess me," Wisdom 19:22 (19:20 Vulgate): "in all things you have magnified your people." [87574] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 20: "But I say to you, unless it abound." Above the Lord showed that it was not his intention to destroy the law but to fulfill it; hence here he begins to fulfill it. In the law there were four kinds of precepts: certain moral precepts, certain judicial ones, certain figural ones, and certain promises; three of these the Lord fulfills in words — namely the moral, the promissory, and the judicial, that is, he teaches how they are to be fulfilled; the figural ones, however, he fulfilled in deed, in his passion. Hence this part is divided into three: in the first he fulfills the law as regards the moral precepts, in the second as regards the promises, in the third as regards the judicial precepts; the moral precepts are of two kinds: some prohibitive, some permissive; first he fulfills the former, second the latter, at the place: "it was said" (5:31). Concerning the first he does two things: first he forbids homicide, second adultery, at the place (5:27): "You have heard," etc., "You shall not commit adultery." Concerning the first he does two things: first he sets down the necessity, second the fulfillment, at the place: "You have heard." He says, therefore: "But I say to you." Note that justice is taken in two ways: sometimes it is a certain particular virtue, one of the four cardinal virtues, and has a determined subject-matter, namely the exchangeable goods which come into the use of life; otherwise it is called the general virtue, which is the common virtue that the Philosopher calls legal justice, which pertains to the fulfilling of the law: and it is taken in this way here. "And more than that of the scribes." And he says: "of the scribes and Pharisees," because these were the more prominent in the justice of the law, since they even added certain further observances of their own; therefore, in order to designate the excellence of the New Testament, he shows that it surpasses even their justice. Hence it is said that whoever is less will be in the kingdom of heaven, that is, the Church is greater than that. The sense, therefore, is: "unless it abound," that is, unless your justice be more perfect than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter, etc. And it should be known that the state of the Gospel is a middle state between the state of the law and the state of glory, and this is clear because in Galatians 4:3 the Apostle compares the state of the law to a child, and the Gospel to a perfect age; hence he says: "as long as we were children," etc., and afterward (3:24): "the law was our pedagogue," etc., and 1 Corinthians 13:11: "when I was a child," etc.; it is, therefore, a middle state, and this is natural, because no one can arrive at one term unless he passes beyond another: for no one can arrive at old age unless he passes beyond childhood; thus the Lord says that one cannot arrive at the state of the kingdom of heaven unless one passes beyond, etc. Likewise, a greater reward is acquired for greater labor, 2 Corinthians 9:6: "he who sows sparingly..."; now in the law temporal and earthly things were promised, Isaiah 1:19: "if you be willing...," but here heavenly things are promised; therefore justice ought to abound in us, because a greater reward is expected. But it is objected against this saying of the Lord, "unless it abound," that the justice of the law consists in the fulfilling of the Decalogue; but he who fulfills the precepts of the Decalogue will have eternal life, below 19:17: "if you will enter into life..." And it is resolved thus: it is said universally, first, that the observers of the Decalogue were never able to enter except by faith and through the redemption of the blood of Christ (Galatians 2:21): "for if justice be by the law..." And therefore it must be said that the saying "if you will enter into life" is to be understood with faith presupposed; but the scribes and Pharisees did not have faith, Romans 9:31: "but Israel, by following after the law of justice, has not attained to the law of justice. Why? Because," etc.; and this is a solution good enough. Another is Augustine's, who says that all these fulfillments which Christ makes are all contained already in the old law, since there too anger is forbidden, Leviticus 19:17: "you shall not hate your brother." What, then, does the Lord add? It must be said that he adds with respect to the depraved understanding of those scribes and Pharisees, since they believed that in that precept, "you shall not kill," nothing was forbidden except from fear of the act, the act of homicide. Hence the Lord explained this, and therefore he does not simply say "unless your justice abound beyond the law," but "more than that of the scribes and Pharisees." There is also another solution, with Augustine: for Christ had said, "whoever shall do and teach," etc., and "whoever shall break," etc.; but the Pharisees and scribes do not both do and teach, below chapter 23: "for they say," etc.; therefore "unless it abound," etc., means: that what you say, you also do. "You shall not enter," etc. But another question remains, because the Lord said, "whosoever therefore shall break" one of the least commandments "shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven," and yet he who does not abound shall not enter; therefore he who breaks the commandments will nonetheless be there. And Chrysostom resolves this by saying that to be in the kingdom is one thing and to enter it is another: for those properly enter who have a share in the dominion of the kingdom; those are said to be in it who simply dwell within it, wherever that may be — hence even those who are held in prison are said to be in the kingdom; so also it is with the kingdom of heaven, because those brought to punishment are in the kingdom but do not share in the kingdom. Augustine explains it differently, and says that from this we can understand that the kingdom of heaven is spoken of in two ways: one, which those who lack justice do not enter, and this is eternal life; the other, which those who break the commandments do enter, and this is the present Church. [87575] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 21: "You have heard." Here is set down the fulfillment of the precept, and concerning this he does three things: first he sets down the precepts, second he fulfills them, third he warns to the observance of the fulfillment; the second at the place: "but I say," the third at the place: "if therefore you offer." Concerning the first he does two things: first he sets down the precepts about the prohibition of homicide, second the penalty for homicide. He says, therefore: "you have heard" this, Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17, and he says "by them of old," because, according to Chrysostom, just as if a teacher says to one of his disciples: it is a long time since I taught you the elements, it is time that you learn greater things, so does the Lord, Hebrews 5:12: "for whereas for the time you ought to be masters," etc. And it should be noted that concerning this precept a threefold error arises. For some said that it was not lawful to kill even the small animals; but this is false, since it is not a sin to make use of those things which are subjected to man's power: for it is the natural order that plants be for the nourishment of animals, and certain animals for the nourishment of others; and all things are for man's nourishment, Genesis 9:3: "even as the green herbs." And the Philosopher too says in the Politics that hunting is like a just war. The second is the error of certain ones who said "you shall not kill" means a human being; hence they call all secular judges who condemn men according to certain laws murderers. Against this Augustine says that God did not take away from himself the power of killing, hence (Deuteronomy 32:39): "I will kill and I will make to live," etc.; therefore it is lawful for those to kill who do so by the command of God, because then it is God who acts. Now every law is a command of God, Proverbs 8:15: "by me kings reign," Romans 13:4: "for he beareth not the sword without cause"; therefore "you shall not kill" must be understood: on one's own authority. The third error is that some believed that "you shall not kill another" but that it is lawful to kill oneself, since this is found recorded of Samson and also of Cato and of certain virgins who threw themselves into the flames, according to what Augustine recounts. But Augustine replied that whoever kills himself kills a human being, since one ought not to kill another except by the authority of God, nor oneself either except by the will of God or the instinct of the Holy Spirit, and thus he excuses Samson. "But whosoever shall kill." Here the penalty is set down: "he shall be liable to judgment," that is, to the penalty which the law will adjudge, Exodus 21:12. [87576] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 22. There follows: "But I say to you," etc. The precept of the old law having been set down, here the Lord fulfills it, and this fulfillment does not empty out the law but rather makes for its greater fulfillment, because he who is angry is prone to homicide, though when he is angry he does not yet commit homicide. This is in a certain way contained already in that precept, because that law was given by God, and there is a difference between the law of man and the law of God, because man is the judge of external acts, but God of internal ones, 1 Kings 16:7: "man sees those things that appear"; hence in this "you shall not kill" the very movement toward killing is also included. But there is a twofold movement toward harming one's neighbor, namely of anger and of hatred; nor is hatred the same as inveterate anger, but it is spoken of by way of cause, since hatred arises out of inveterate anger. There is, then, a difference, because anger does not desire evil to one's neighbor except insofar as it wills vengeance — hence, once vengeance is exacted, it comes to rest; but in hatred the harm itself is willed for its own sake and the desire never comes to rest; therefore the movement of hatred is graver than that of anger. Now God forbids not only the movement of hatred but also that of anger, which is lighter, 1 John 2:11: "he that hates his brother." Now he sets down three degrees of anger: the first degree is of anger latent in the heart, the second of anger appearing outwardly, the third of anger bursting forth into harm. The first is at the place: "but I say to you," and Augustine says that the reading ought to be "without cause," since he who is angry without cause will be liable to judgment. Jerome, however, says that "without cause" does not belong to the text, because then a place would be left for anger; but the Lord leaves no place at all for anger. But is all anger contrary to virtue? It should be known that, as Augustine says, there were two opinions of the philosophers on this point: the Stoics said that no passion of the soul falls upon the wise man, indeed they wished true virtue to exclude passion altogether; the Peripatetics, however, said that anger does fall upon the wise man, but moderated, and this is the truer opinion; which is clear both by authority, because in the Gospels we find these passions in a certain way attributed to Christ, in whom was the fullness of wisdom; and by reason, because if all the passions were contrary to virtue, there would be certain powers of the soul that would serve only for harm, since they would have no fitting acts of their own, and then the irascible and concupiscible powers would have been given to man in vain. And therefore it must be said that anger is sometimes a virtue and sometimes not. Now anger is taken in three ways: first, as it lies in the judgment of reason alone, without any disturbance of the soul; and this is not called anger but judgment — thus the Lord, punishing the wicked, is described as appearing angry, Micah 7:9: "I will bear the wrath of the Lord." Second, it is taken as it is a passion, and this is in the sensitive appetite, and it is twofold, because sometimes it is ordered by reason and contained within the bounds of reason — namely when one is angry as much as one ought, at whom one ought, and the like — and then it is an act of virtue and is called anger through zeal. Hence the Philosopher too says that meekness does not consist in never being angry at all. And therefore Chrysostom says that if anger were entirely taken away, discipline too would be taken away, etc. This anger, therefore, is not a sin. There is a third anger which escapes the judgment of reason, and this is always a sin, but sometimes venial, sometimes mortal, and this will be said to arise from the very worst impulse. For something is a mortal or venial sin in two ways: from its kind, or from its circumstances, or in the act and by consent; for example, homicide is an act of mortal sin from its very kind, because it is directly contrary to the divine precept, and therefore consent to homicide is a mortal sin — because if the act is mortal, so too is the consent; likewise if it were a venial sin, so too would be the consent, and so on. Sometimes, however, a sin is mortal from its kind, but nevertheless the mere impulse is not a mortal sin because it lacks consent, as when the movement of concupiscence arises toward fornication: if it is not consented to, it is not mortal. Likewise, anger is a movement toward avenging an injury inflicted — for this is properly anger; if, then, this movement, for example in the matter of homicide, remains only in the passion, such that reason too is drawn along with it, then it is a mortal sin; but if reason is not perverted, then it is venial. But if the movement is not, from its kind, a mortal sin, then even if consent is given to it, it is not mortal. What the Lord says, then — "whosoever is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment" — must be understood of the movement tending toward harm, which movement is a mortal sin provided it is with consent, Ecclesiastes 12:14: "all things that are done, he will bring..." etc. And this is: "but I," etc. And note that no prophet, speaking of the law of Moses, spoke in this way, "but I say," etc., but they only led men to the observance of the law of Moses. From this it is clear that the Lord shows that he has authority and shows himself to be a lawgiver when he says "but I," etc. Next is set down the second degree of anger, namely when it appears outwardly without the infliction of harm. "Raca," according to some, is not a word signifying any determinate concept but is an interjection of one who is angry. According to Augustine, it is like "alas," an interjection of one who grieves, and signifies a certain feeling; hence the anger already bursts forth outwardly, yet not into harm. According to Chrysostom, it is an interjection of one who holds another in contempt, and sounds a note of contempt. Now both of these are forbidden, namely both to show bitterness toward one's brother — the Apostle (Ephesians 4:31): "let all bitterness..." — and to despise him, Malachi 2:10: "why does he despise," etc. According to others it is a word signifying a determinate concept, and on this point there are two opinions: for, according to Augustine, it is the same as "ragged," from "rachos," and this opinion agrees with that of Chrysostom; according to Jerome, "raca" signifies "empty," hence "raca," as it were "without a brain," and this is a great injury — indeed it is done as an injury to the Holy Spirit when one calls a wise brother, full of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4: "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit"), empty, etc. But Chrysostom asks: if "empty" is the same as "foolish," why did the Lord afterward say, "but whosoever shall say, You fool"? And he answered that in every language there are words signifying injury, but the injury arises from usage and the custom of speaking: for "raca," although it is the same as "fool," is nevertheless not used in the same way, since "raca" is said familiarly; and it is a sin when it is said with anger. "He shall be liable to the council." Augustine: it is a greater thing before God to be liable to the council than to judgment, because judgment applies while the case of the accused is still being examined and it is doubtful whether he is guilty, 1 Timothy 5:21: "without... judgment"; but after he is convicted of the crime, no more is done with the accused, but the judges betake themselves to council concerning the penalty to be imposed. Hilary: he is liable to the council of the saints, because he who does injury to the Holy Spirit deserves to be condemned by the saints. Chrysostom says that the apostles explained it thus: liable to the council, that is, so that he is known to those who came together in council against Christ. "But whosoever shall say, You fool." Here is the third degree, which is when one inflicts harm by word. And just as he who says "raca" inflicts injury upon the Holy Spirit, so he who says "fool" inflicts it upon the Son of God, who was made unto us wisdom, 1 Corinthians 1:30. "He shall be liable to the fire of hell (Gehenna)." This is the first place where mention is made of Gehenna, such that no one had ever before used this word. Jeremiah 19: near Jerusalem there was a certain pleasant valley called the valley of Topheth, or of the sons of Ennon; in that valley the children of Israel worshipped idols, and God threatened them through Jeremiah that in that place their own corpses would be cast down, hence Jeremiah 19:6: "this place shall be called," etc. Gehenna, according to the Hebrews, is the same as the valley of Ennon. Because, then, many were cast down and slain in that valley by Nebuchadnezzar when they were coming down from Jerusalem, therefore the Lord calls Gehenna the place of Hell. For just as he changed the earthly promises which were in the old law into heavenly and eternal goods, so he changed the temporal punishments which the old law inflicted into eternal punishments. Now, just as the faults themselves stand in relation to one another — since it is a greater thing to show anger outwardly than to hold it within, and a still greater thing to inflict harm — so too, first there is judgment, second the council, third a determinate penalty; and all of these, namely judgment, council, Gehenna, signify the punishment of Hell. And he says "in many ways" because he shows thereby a diversity of punishments, since those who inflict harm will be punished more severely.”

“Christ having laid down these principles, that Moses and the prophets were still to be their rulers, but that the scribes and Pharisees were to be no longer their rulers, proceeds to expound the law in some particular instances, and to vindicate it from the corrupt glosses which those expositors had put upon it. He adds not any thing new, only limits and restrains some permissions which had been abused: and as to the precepts, shows the breadth, strictness, and spiritual nature of them, adding such explanatory statutes as made them more clear, and tended much toward the perfecting of our obedience to them. In these verses, he explains the law of the sixth commandment, according to the true intent and full extent of it. I. Here is the command itself laid down (Mat 5:12); We have heard it, and remember it; he speaks to them who know the law, who had Moses read to them in their synagogues every sabbath-day; you have heard that it was said by them, or rather as it is in the margin, to them of old time, to your forefathers the Jews, Thou shalt not kill. Note, The laws of God are not novel, upstart laws, but were delivered to them of old time; they are ancient laws, but of that nature as never to be antiquated nor grow obsolete. The moral law agrees with the law of nature, and the eternal rules and reasons of good and evil, that is, the rectitude of the eternal Mind. Killing is here forbidden, killing ourselves, killing any other, directly or indirectly, or being any way accessory to it. The law of God, the God of life, is a hedge of protection about our lives. It was one of the precepts of Noah, Gen 9:5, Gen 9:6. II. The exposition of this command which the Jewish teachers contended themselves with; their comment upon it was, Whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment. This was all they had to say upon it, that wilful murderers were liable to the sword of justice, and casual ones to the judgment of the city of refuge. The courts of judgment sat in the gate of their principal cities; the judges, ordinarily, were in number twenty-three; these tried, condemned, and executed murderers; so that whoever killed, was in danger of their judgment. Now this gloss of theirs upon this commandment was faulty, for it intimated, 1. That the law of the sixth commandment was only external, and forbade no more than the act of murder, and laid to restraint upon the inward lusts, from which wars and fightings come. This was indeed the prōton pseudos - the fundamental error of the Jewish teachers, that the divine law prohibited only the sinful act, not the sinful thought; they were disposed haerere in cortice - to rest in the letter of the law, and they never enquired into the spiritual meaning of it. Paul, while a Pharisee, did not, till, by the key of the tenth commandment, divine grace let him into the knowledge of the spiritual nature of all the rest, Rom 7:7, Rom 7:14. 2. Another mistake of theirs was, that this law was merely political and municipal, given for them, and intended as a directory for their courts, and no more; as if they only were the people, and the wisdom of the law must die with them. III. The exposition which Christ gave of this commandment; and we are sure that according to his exposition of it we must be judged hereafter, and therefore ought to be ruled now. The commandment is exceeding broad, and not to be limited by the will of the flesh, or the will of men. 1. Christ tells them that rash anger is heart-murder (Mat 5:22); Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, breaks the sixth commandment. By our brother here, we are to understand any person, though ever so much our inferior, as a child, a servant, for we are all made of one blood. Anger is a natural passion; there are cases in which it is lawful and laudable; but it is then sinful, when we are angry without cause. The word is eikē, which signifies, sine caus, sine effectu, et sine modo - without cause, without any good effect, without moderation; so that the anger is then sinful, (1.) When it is without any just provocation given; either for no cause, or no good cause, or no great and proportionable cause; when we are angry at children or servants for that which could not be helped, which was only a piece of forgetfulness or mistake, that we ourselves might easily have been guilty of, and for which we should not have been angry at ourselves; when we are angry upon groundless surmises, or for trivial affronts not worth speaking of. (2.) When it is without any good end aimed at, merely to show our authority, to gratify a brutish passion, to let people know our resentments, and excite ourselves to revenge, then it is in vain, it is to do hurt; whereas if we are at any time angry, it should be to awaken the offender to repentance, and prevent his doing so again; to clear ourselves (Co2 7:11), and to give warning to others. (3.) When it exceeds due bounds; when we are hardy and headstrong in our anger, violent and vehement, outrageous and mischievous, and when we seek the hurt of those we are displeased at. This is a breach of the sixth commandment, for he that is thus angry, would kill if he could and durst; he has taken the first step toward it; Cain's killing his brother began in anger; he is a murderer in the account of God, who knows his heart, whence murder proceeds, Mat 15:19. 2. He tells them, that given opprobrious language to our brother is tongue-murder, calling him, Raca, and, Thou fool. When this is done with mildness and for a good end, to convince others of their vanity and folly, it is not sinful. Thus James says, O vain man; and Paul, Thou fool; and Christ himself, O fools, and slow of heart. But when it proceeds from anger and malice within, it is the smoke of that fire which is kindled from hell, and falls under the same character. (1.) Raca is a scornful word, and comes from pride, "Thou empty fellow;" it is the language of that which Solomon calls proud wrath (Pro 21:24), which tramples upon our brother - disdains to set him even with the dogs of our flock. This people who knoweth not the law, is cursed, is such language, Joh 7:49. (2.) Thou fool, is a spiteful word, and comes from hatred; looking upon him, not only as mean and not to be honoured, but as vile and not to be loved; "Thou wicked man, thou reprobate." The former speaks a man without sense, this (in scripture language) speaks a man without grace; the more the reproach touches his spiritual condition, the worse it is; the former is a haughty taunting of our brother, this is a malicious censuring and condemning of him, as abandoned of God. Now this is a breach of the sixth commandment; malicious slanders and censures are poison under the tongue, that kills secretly and slowly; bitter words are as arrows that would suddenly (Psa 64:3), or as a sword in the bones. The good name of our neighbour, which is better than life, is thereby stabbed and murdered; and it is an evidence of such an ill-will to our neighbour as would strike at his life, if it were in our power. 3. He tells them, that how light soever they made of these sins, they would certainly be reckoned for; he that is angry with is brother shall be in danger of the judgment and anger of God; he that calls him Raca, shall be in danger of the council, of being punished by the Sanhedrim for reviling an Israelite; but whosoever saith, Thou fool, thou profane person, thou child of hell, shall be in danger of hell-fire, to which he condemns his brother; so the learned Dr. Whitby. Some think, in allusion to the penalties used in the several courts of judgment among the Jews, Christ shows that the sin of rash anger exposes men to lower or higher punishments, according to the degrees of its proceeding. The Jews had three capital punishments, each worse than the other; beheading, which was inflicted by the judgment; stoning, by the council or chief Sanhedrim; and burning in the valley of the son of Hinnom, which was used only in extraordinary cases: it signifies, therefore, that rash anger and reproachful language are damning sins; but some are more sinful than others, and accordingly there is a greater damnation, and a sorer punishment reserved for them: Christ would thus show which sin was most sinful, by showing which it was the punishment whereof was most dreadful. IV. From all this it is here inferred, that we ought carefully to preserve Christian love and peace with our brethren, and that if at any time a breach happens, we should labour for a reconciliation, by confessing our fault, humbling ourselves to our brother, begging his pardon, and making restitution, or offering satisfaction for wrong done in word or deed, according as the nature of the thing is; and that we should do this quickly for two reasons: 1. Because, till this be done, we are utterly unfit for communion with God in holy ordinances, Mat 5:23, Mat 5:24. The case supposed is, "That thy brother have somewhat against thee," that thou has injured and offended him, either really or in his apprehension; if thou are the party offended, there needs not this delay; if thou have aught against thy brother, make short work of it; no more is to be done but to forgive him (Mar 11:25), and forgive the injury; but if the quarrel began on thy side, and the fault was either at first or afterwards thine, so that thy brother has a controversy with thee, go and be reconciled to him before thou offer thy gift at the altar, before thou approach solemnly to God in the gospel-services of prayer and praise, hearing the word or the sacraments. Note, (1.) When we are addressing ourselves to any religious exercises, it is good for us to take that occasion of serious reflection and self-examination: there are many things to be remembered, when we bring our gift to the altar, and this among the rest, whether our brother hath aught against us; then, if ever, we are disposed to be serious, and therefore should then call ourselves to an account. (2.) Religious exercises are not acceptable to God, if they are performed when we are in wrath; envy, malice, and uncharitableness, are sins so displeasing to God, that nothing pleases him which comes from a heart wherein they are predominant, Ti1 2:8. Prayers made in wrath are written in gall, Isa 1:15; Isa 58:4. (3.) Love or charity is so much better than all burnt-offerings and sacrifice, that God will have reconciliation made with an offended brother before the gift be offered; he is content to stay for the gift, rather than have it offered while we are under guilt and engaged in a quarrel. (4.) Though we are unfitted for communion with God, by a continual quarrel with a brother, yet that can be no excuse for the omission or neglect of our duty: "Leave there thy gift before the altar, lest otherwise, when thou has gone away, thou be tempted not to come again." Many give this as a reason why they do not come to church or to the communion, because they are at variance with some neighbour; and whose fault is that? One sin will never excuse another, but will rather double the guilt. Want of charity cannot justify the want of piety. The difficulty is easily got over; those who have wronged us, we must forgive; and those whom we have wronged, we must make satisfaction to, or at least make a tender of it, and desire a renewal of the friendship, so that if reconciliation be not made, it may not be our fault; and then come, come and welcome, come and offer thy gift, and it shall be accepted. Therefore we must not let the sun go down upon our wrath any day, because we must go to prayer before we go to sleep; much less let the sun rise upon our wrath on a sabbath-day, because it is a day of prayer. 2. Because, till this be done, we lie exposed to much danger, Mat 5:25, Mat 5:26. It is at our peril if we do not labour after an agreement, and that quickly, upon two accounts: (1.) Upon a temporal account. If the offence we have done to our brother, in his body, goods, or reputation, be such as will bear action, in which he may recover considerable damages, it is our wisdom, and it is our duty to our family, to prevent that by a humble submission and a just and peaceable satisfaction; lest otherwise he recover it by law, and put us to the extremity of a prison. In such a case it is better to compound and make the best terms we can, than to stand it out; for it is in vain to contend with the law, and there is danger of our being crushed by it. Many ruin their estates by an obstinate persisting in the offences they have given, which would soon have been pacified by a little yielding at first. Solomon's advice in case of suretyship is, Go, humble thyself, and so secure and deliver thyself, Pro 6:1-5. It is good to agree, for the law is costly. Though we must be merciful to those we have advantage against, yet we must be just to those that have advantage against us, as far as we are able. "Agree, and compound with thine adversary quickly, lest he be exasperated by thy stubbornness, and provoked to insist upon the utmost demand, and will not make thee the abatement which at first he would have made." A prison is an uncomfortable place to those who are brought to it by their own pride and prodigality, their own wilfulness and folly. (2.) Upon a spiritual account. "Go, and be reconciled to thy brother, be just to him, be friendly with him, because while the quarrel continues, as thou art unfit to bring thy gift to the altar, unfit to come to the table of the Lord, so thou art unfit to die: if thou persist in this sin, there is danger lest thou be suddenly snatched away by the wrath of God, whose judgment thou canst not escape nor except against; and if that iniquity be laid to thy charge, thou art undone for ever." Hell is a prison for all that live and die in malice and uncharitableness, for all that are contentious (Rom 2:8), and out of that prison there is no rescue, no redemption, no escape, to eternity. This is very applicable to the great business of our reconciliation to God through Christ; Agree with him quickly, whilst thou art in the way. Note, [1.] The great God is an Adversary to all sinners, antidikos - a law-adversary; he has a controversy with them, an action against them. [2.] It is our concern to agree with him, to acquaint ourselves with him, that we may be at peace, Job 22:21; Co2 5:20. [3.] It is our wisdom to do this quickly, while we are in the way. While we are alive, we are in the way; after death, it will be too late to do it; therefore give not sleep to thine eyes till it be done. [4.] They who continue in a state of enmity to God, are continually exposed to the arrests of his justice, and the most dreadful instances of his wrath. Christ is the Judge, to whom impenitent sinners will be delivered; for all judgment is committed to the Son; he that was rejected as a Saviour, cannot be escaped as a Judge, Rev 6:16, Rev 6:17. It is a fearful thing to be thus turned over to the Lord Jesus, when the Lamb shall become the Lion. Angels are the officers to whom Christ will deliver them (Mat 13:41, Mat 13:42); devils are so too, having the power of death as executioners to all unbelievers, Heb 2:14. Hell is the prison, into which those will be cast that continue in a state of enmity to God, Pe2 2:4. [5.] Damned sinners must remain in it to eternity; they shall not depart till they have paid the uttermost farthing, and that will not be to the utmost ages of eternity: divine justice will be for ever in the satisfying, but never satisfied.”

“Ye have heard,.... That is, from the Scriptures being read to them, and the explanations of the ancients, which were called "hearing", being read in the schools, and heard by the scholars (o); so that to "hear", was along with the recital of the text, to receive by tradition, the sense the elders had given of it: of this kind is the instance produced by Christ. Thus Onkelos, and Jonathan ben Uzziel, render the phrase, "him shall ye hear", in Deu 18:15 by , "from him shall ye receive"; so those phrases (p), , "they learn from hearing", or by report from others; and "they speak from hearing", or from what they have heard, are often used for receiving and reporting things as they have them by tradition. That "it was said", or "it hath been said"; this is also a Talmudic form of expression; often is this phrase to be met with in the Talmud, "it has been said" (q); that is, by the ancient doctors, as here, "by them of old time", or "to the ancients", so in Munster's Hebrew Gospel; not to the Israelites in the time of Moses, but to the ancestors of the Jews, since the times of Ezra; by the elders, who were contemporary with them; and who by their false glosses corrupted the law, when they recited any part of it to the people; or "by the ancients", the ancient doctors and commentators, which preceded the times of Christ, whom the Jews often call "our ancients" (r). Now, upon that law, "thou shalt not kill", they put this gloss, or added this by way of interpretation, and whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment; which they understood only of actual murder, either committed in their own persons, or by the means of others. Their rules for the judgment of such persons were these; "everyone that kills his neighbour with his hand; as if he strikes him with a sword, or with a stone that kills him; or strangles him till he die; or burns him in fire; seeing he kills him in any manner, in his own person, lo! such an one must be put to death , "by the house of judgment", or the sanhedrim (s).'' Not that which consisted of three persons only, but either that which consisted of twenty three, or the supreme one, which was made up of seventy one; which two last had only power of judging capital offences. Again, "if a man hires a murderer to kill his neighbour, or sends his servants, and they kill him, or binds him, and leaves him before a lion, or the like, and the beast kills him, everyone of these is a shedder of blood; and the sin of slaughter is in his hand; and he is guilty of death by the hand of heaven, i.e. God; but he is not to be put to death by the house of judgment, or the sanhedrim (t).'' A little after, it is said, "their judgment" is delivered to heaven, i.e. to God; and this seems to be the sense of the word "judgment" here, namely, the judgment of God, or death by the hand of God; since it is manifestly distinguished from the council, or sanhedrim, in the next "verse". The phrase, in danger of judgment, is the same with (u) , "guilty of judgment", or deserves condemnation. (o) Vid. Buxtorf. Lex. Rabbin, fol. 2453. (p) Maimon. Hilch. Issure Mizbeach, c. 1. sect. 2, 4, 5, 7, 10. & passim, & T. Bab. Sanhedrim, fol. 88. 1. (q) Vid. Edzardi Not. in Avoda Zara, c. 2. p. 284. (r) Vid. R. Aben Ezra in Exod. xxi. 17. & in Isa. lii. 13. & lxvi. 24. (s) Maimon. Hilch. Rotseach, c. 2. sect. 1. (t) Maimon. Hilch. Rotseach, c. 2. sect. 2. (u) In Targ. in 2 Chron. xix. 10.”

“Shall be liable to the judgment. That is, shall deserve to be punished by that lesser tribunal among the Jews, called the judgment, which took cognizance of such crimes. (Challoner) — Among the Jews at the time of Christ, there were three sorts of tribunals: the first composed of three judges to try smaller causes, as theft; there was one in each town: the second of twenty-three judges, who judged criminal causes, and had the power of condemning to death. This was called the Little Sanhedrim, and of this it is supposed Jesus Christ speaks: the third, or Great Sanhedrim of seventy-two judges, who decided on the most momentous affairs, relating to religion, the king, the high priest, and the state in general. It is this last that is designated under the name of council in the next verse. (Haydock)”

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time--or, as in the Margin, "to them of old time." Which of these translations is the right one has been much controverted. Either of them is grammatically defensible, though the latter--"to the ancients"--is more consistent with New Testament usage (see the Greek of Rom 9:12, Rom 9:26; Rev 6:11; Rev 9:4); and most critics decide in favor of it. But it is not a question of Greek only. Nearly all who would translate "to the ancients" take the speaker of the words quoted to be Moses in the law; "the ancients" to be the people to whom Moses gave the law; and the intention of our Lord here to be to contrast His own teaching, more or less, with that of Moses; either as opposed to it--as some go the length of affirming--or at least as modifying, enlarging, elevating it. But who can reasonably imagine such a thing, just after the most solemn and emphatic proclamation of the perpetuity of the law, and the honor and glory in which it was to be held under the new economy? To us it seems as plain as possible that our Lord's one object is to contrast the traditional perversions of the law with the true sense of it as expounded by Himself. A few of those who assent to this still think that "to the ancients" is the only legitimate translation of the words; understanding that our Lord is reporting what had been said to the ancients, not by Moses, but by the perverters of his law. We do not object to this; but we incline to think (with BEZA, and after him with FRITZSCHE, OLSHAUSEN, STIER, and BLOOMFIELD) that "by the ancients" must have been what our Lord meant here, referring to the corrupt teachers rather than the perverted people. Thou shall not kill:--that is, This being all that the law requires, whosoever has imbrued his hands in his brother's blood, but he only, is guilty of a breach of this commandment. and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment--liable to the judgment; that is, of the sentence of those inferior courts of judicature which were established in all the principal towns, in compliance with Deu 16:16. Thus was this commandment reduced, from a holy law of the heart-searching God, to a mere criminal statute, taking cognizance only of outward actions, such as that which we read in Exo 21:12; Lev 24:17.”