The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 1 — Section 172

e,{ap). The future imlicative (still dependent an iclol, considering the beauty of it, saith on "lest") brings out the reality of the Maimonicles, is forbidden (Lev. xix. 4), an,I do.nger (cf. Bishop Lightfoot, on Col. ii. 8). not only the worship of it" (vide Maimoni- Ver. 26.-Thou she.It by no meo.ns, eto. des, 'Hilk. Ab. Zo.r.,' ii. 2, by whom, however, A solemn statement of the unrelenting cha- the thonght is, perhaps, ro.ther condemned racter of justice. '.rhe Romanists hold tho.t for what it leads to than per se; and simi- the verse implies (1) that if payment can be larly with Job x:xxi. 1 ; Prov. vi. 25). made, release follows ; (2) and that payment Whosoever ; Revised Version, e1Jery one who can be made. The first statement is pro- (ver. 22, note). Looketh . . . to 111st after bable; but as for the slightest hint of the (,rpbs Tb l,r,Bu/J.'i/rTa,). As ,rpbs -r& with the i,econd, it is wholly wanting. Christ affirms infinitive (e.g. eh. vi. I), primarily de- that non-reconciliation with a brother, if notes purpose; this may be equivalent to carried beyond that limit of time within "looketh in order that he may I ust, looketh which the quarrel can be made up, involves to stimulate his lust" (cf. Meyer, Trench); consequences in which the element of mercy but, as Weiss points out, this surely belongs will be entirely absent. The element of to the refinement, not to the beginning of sin. mercy can enter up to e. certain point of Hence Nosgen suggests "looketh ... lust- time, but after that only justice. (On" pay," fully" (cf. Jas. iv. 5). Probably this is one d,ro6,;s, see eh. vi. 4, note.) It will be of those cases where, as Ellicott says on observed that, in the above interpretation, 1 Cor. ix. 18, ,rpbs -r& with the infinitive has av-rl6,Kos has been consistently explained "a shade of meaning that seems to lie be- as e. human adversary, for this seems to be tween puryose and result, o.nd even some- the primary meaning I.Jere. But it should times to approx:imo.te to the latter." At all not be forgotten that, in the parallel passage events, it does not express, os ds -ro would in Luke, the reference is to God. Offences have expressed, the immediate purpose of o.gainst man are there represented in their the look (vide Ellicott, Zoe. cit.); cf. eh. vi. l. true character as offences o.gainst God, who Her (ab-r,!v, B, D, etc.); accusative with is therefore depicted o.s the ad verse.ry in e. l1r,eu,,.ew here only in the New Testament. lo.wsuit. Tho.t, from o.nother point_ of view, Perhaps the pronoun should be omitted. he is also the Judge, matters not. Both with t(. conceptions of him are true, o.nd co.n be kept Vers. 29, 30. -Also in oh. xvili. 8, 9 quite distinct. It mo.y be the case, indeed, (paro.llel passage, Mark ix. 43-47); the tho.t this reference of dnl61Kos to God was present to St. Matthew's mind also when he chief differences being (I) that they a.re recorded these words, and this would partly there adduced with reference to " offences" account for the terrible emphasis on var. 26, generally; (2) that the foot is mentioned, ai. the pendant to var. 22. But even if the re- well as the eye o.nd the hand. It seems ference to God were present to St. Matthew's not improbable tho.t this saying was spoken mind by way of application, it is not with him, as it is with St. Luke, the primary twic~. The reason why our Lord did not signification of the word. Farthing. The mention the foot here mo.y be either tho.t quadrans, the sm11llest Roman coin. that member is less immediately connected Vera. 27-30.-The seventh commandment. with sins of the flesh than the other two The verses ocour in this form only hero, (cf. Wetstein, in loo., "Averte oculum a. but vers. 29 o.nd 30 are found in oh. xviii. vultu illecebroso: o.rce maunm ab impudicia 8, 9 (p11ro.llel pnssage, Mark ix. 43-47), as contrectationibus "), or, as seems more pro- illustrations of another subject(vide infra), be.hie, tho.t the eye and the bo.nd represent the two sets of faculties receptive and Ver. 27.-By them ot old time. Omit, with the Revised Version (cf. var. 21, note). active, o.nd together express man's whole Thou ahalt not (Exod. x:x. 14; Deut. v. 18). nature. The insertion of the foot in eh. Ver. 28.-But I say (var. 22, note). The xviii. 8, 9, only mo.kea the illustration more bare command forbidding o.n external action definite. "The remo.rk in var. 29/ treo.ts of is insuffloient. It must extend to the what ia to be done by the subjects of the thought. Contrast Josephus (' Ant.,' xii. 9. 1), "The purposing to do a thing, with- kingdom when, in spite of themselves, evil out o.ctually doing it, is not worthy of desires are aroused" (Weiss, • Life,' ii. 149). punishment." Generally, however, the sin- Ver. 29.-Right. Not in eh. xviii. uml fulness of wrong thoughts must have been paro.llel po.ssage. Inserted to enh11nce the aoknow!edged ( of. Ps. Ii. 10, and the tenth preciousness of the mem hers spoken of ( c f. commandment; cf. late examples in Schott- Zeoh. xi. 17; of. ver. 39). Offend thea; gen). Ho.mmond (' Pr. C11t.,' in Ford) says, A utborized Version, do cause thee to offend; "In the Law, the fosteniug of the eyes on Revised Version, cause thee to stumble (rTKa.,,. lG-! THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S'J'. MATTHEW. [err. v. 1-48.