The boldness of Jesus in thus essaying to make a distinction within Scripture itself, and to dis- criminate between the law of God and human accretions, is of great moment for us. He has re- course to a mode of criticism which might be called subjective, but which really merits the attribute prophetic. This 'Prophet,' hlled with Deity, this great religious Personality, ever di- rectly conscious of His nearness to God, does not shrink from giving judgment as to what is the actual purpose of the Most High. Just as He fervidly announces the royal benignity of God towards both the evil and the good, just as He confidently speaks to the contrite of the Divine forgiveness, and without misgiving assures the wretched of the Divine succour, so He also under- takes, in face of the \:iw of Moses, Mliut wliich was spoken to llie futli^T^," In m-i foifh a new law, in the ;;l,iil ruii\iriioii that lie i> ilius ex-
firessing the will of Cod. Hence il is a iiiisappre- lension of the tenor and scope of the ' antitheses ' in the Sermon on the Mount to imagine that in these Jesus is merely impugning the prevailing exegesis of tlie Law, or merely endeavouring to * See J. Weiss, op. cit. i. 1, p. 87.
bring to liglit the real design of its promulgator. No ; the rhythmical repetition of the phrase, ' But I say unto you,' makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is here reaching beyond Moses. And this undoubtedly corresponds to the historical situa- tion. Take, for instance, the first two enactments, viz. regarding murder and adultery ; it is clear that what Jesus means is that God asks more than mere abstention from these crimes : He demands perfect self-control and integrity of heart. The unheeded moments when the animal nature starts up in a fit of anger or of impure desire are griev- ously sinful in the eyes of God, as well as the actual misdeeds.
The religious-historical situation is as follows. The Jewish people were under a theocracy, and for them the Law of Moses was by no means restricted to religious or moral matters ; it was at once a civil and a penal code, an order of legal procedure and a manual for the priesthood. Now it is the bane of a theocratic constitution that the Divine law, ingrafted as it is upon common life, tends to lose its majesty and inviolability. It has to adapt itself to the varied facts of existence by means of saving clauses and casuistical methods ; and such a regime fosters above all the notion that the will and judgment of God reach no further than the arm of the civil magistrate, and that it is only the completed act, and not the intention, that God brings to judgment. Thus the moral relation of man to God sinks to the level of a legal one. Such a deterioration and externalizing of the re- ligious life must all but inevitably ensue «hen its regulation and guardianship are committed to priests and jurists. It is the ' Propliet,' however, who now takes up the word. With incisive force He makes it clear that God looks upon the heart, the thought, the secret motions of the soul, and brings these things before His judgment-seat, and that the sin of intention passes witli Him for no less than the overt act. To assert such equiva- lence of thought and deed may seem to us almost to overshoot the mark ; for we rightly place a high value upon the self-command which keeps desire from passing into action. But the apparently partial view is to be reganled as the natural reac- tion of the heart and the conscience against the legalistic ossification and externalization of re- ligion.
The verdict of Jesus upon divorce points in the same .lircctioii. 'I'li<- arumiient upon which He lin-r, 1 1 i^ ]ii(,liiliiii(iu ..t ill.' M|iaration permitted
\>\ Mo^c, \\\-. ..ur all. ■nil. III. The statute laid
ilo«M ill I'ara.li-e is to l.e preferred, as the law of God, not merely in virtue of its great antiquity, but also on intrinsic grounds. When a husband puts away his wife, he places her in a position of moral jeopardy ; for, should slie associate herself with another man, whether in a .second marriage or in a passing act of immorality, she thereby completes the dissolution of tlie first marriage, wliich hitherto was legally binding. The note- worthy element in this utterance is not that the ruptured matrimonial union is still binding, but in particular that the man is morally responsible for his wife, even after his dismissal of her ; he must bear the guilt of her sin. Such is the only judgment possible, if marriage is to be regarded not merely as a legal bond, under the control of the civil magistrate, but as a moral covenant, for whose inviolability men are responsible, not to one another, but to God. See Divorce.
The profoundly irreligious subtlety of the lawyers is also exposed in Jesus' prohibition of oaths. First of all He shows that the evasions and peri-
Shrases by which those who swear hope to escape the anger of profaningGod's holy name, are of no avail ; every oath is and remains an adjuration of God.
ETHICS
EUNUCH
But more : to the finer religious feelings, every oath is a gratuitous and irreverent bringing down of the Most High into the sordid and trivial con- cerns of the hour— tlie grossest case lieing tliat of theimpulsiveOrientnl wh.i puts his Ih'.uI in |iliMli;e, as if he had powri' i,\cr life iiml .h-jlli, f.n ^cll in- his complete depmiilcnre uik.ii ( ;.iil, .-ind tli:il lil'c and death proceed from Him iil(.n.\ I'lins .Icmi~ supersedes the scrupulous aiixii'ly .uhI (Ih' |ii'lt\ evasions of the Rabbis by a niucli .l.r|i,r i.^liuicn . motive: the oath, in truth, is l>nl an rlcniciil in :i world under the domination of sin and Satan (Ml 5^'), and he who feels God's majesty and purity in his inmost soul will have a sacred fear of bringing God upon such a scene, and will honour Him best