The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 1 — Section 244

-of the soul which is directed only earthward. against the other, Notioe how our Lord To limit this, with Lightfoot(' Hor. Hebr.'), continues his plan of setting forth the moral to covetousness ( cf. also Hatch, • Essays,' effect of modes of thought or action upon p. Sl), is far too partial an interpretation. the agents themselves (of. Rom. vi. 16). For Such an earthward and selfish gaze of the either he will hate the one ( .-b11 ~11a), and ,soul may often issue in selfishness as regards love the other. Because human nature is money (cf. eh. xx. 15), but the full meaning such that it must attach itself to one of two -of the phrase includes very much more. principles. "Cor hominis neque ita vacuum Thy whole body shall be full of darkness, esse potest, ut non servie.t aut Deo aut What the heart craves to see it sees ; but creaturm: neque simul duo bus servire" in this case, not light makes its entrance, (Bengel). Or else he will hold to the one but darkness, which, as in the case of the (~ •vos ri.vS.!<Ta<), The Revised Version light, permeates the frame. If therefore the omits "the." The stress here is on" one- light that is in thee be darkness; rather, not both." HoT,d to; in steadfe.et applica- '8 d.arJ."11-Us ; the change here to the tion (cf. Ellicott, on Titus i. 9), Ye cannot indicative (el . . . l,r.-111) indicating that serve God and mammon; " Ye moon not the last preceding clause is assumed as fact. serve god and rioohesse" (Wickliffe). A The light that is in thee. Our Lord does not repetition of the statement of the impossi- 119.Y, "tbe light that comes through the eye," bility of serving two masters, but more than for he means more than this, viz. that the a repetition, for it is enforced by defining very information, so to speak, brought .first who the masters are. Mammon. The change by the outlook of the soul, comes into us in the Revised Version from e. capital to e. a.nd remains in ns. He assumes that this, small m has probably been made to prevent which ought to be light, is darkness. How "mammcin" being understood as the proper great is that darkness ! i.e. the darltness name of some god. The derivation -0f the {Revised Version) just spoken of, which word (,,.aµo111as, tuioo) is very doubtful. The comes through the eye. So, probably, Luke most probable suggestion is that it is formed xi. 35. If the gaze which should bring light from the stem of mo, and is equivalent to brings only darkness, how terrible in its that which is apportioned or counted (cf, .nature and effects must that darkness be I Levy, 'Neuheb. Worterb.,' 1.11.; Edersheim, n is, however, possible t.o understand our 'Life,' ii. p. 269), Hence its well-known Lord to refer in this verse to the natural meaning of property, wealth, especially -darkness of the soul before it looks out of money. Obsene that our Lord does not itself. In this case the thought is-you need here contra.et God e.nd Satan; he is empha- ,a fixed gaze heavenwards; if your gaze is sizing the thought which he has been -not heavenwards, it brings da.tlmees instead adducing since ver, 19, viz. tile relation that of light; how black, t11en, must be the his disciples must hold to things of earth, natural darkness I (cf. especially Trench, which are summed up by him under the • Sermon on the Mount'). It will be noticed term "mammon" as with us under tlae term that in these verses darkness, though scien- " wealth." Observe also. that it is not the ·ti..fically only negative-the absence of light possession of wee.Ith that he condemns, but -is here represented a.a positive, because the serving it, me.king it an object of -it is the symbol of sin and evil. thought and pursuit. Gathering it and Ver. 24.-No man can serve two masters, using it in the service of e.nd according to etc. In Luke xvi 13 the saying is found the will of God is not serving mammon (of. almost word for word immediately after the Weiss,• Matthaus-Ev.'), pa.re.ble of the unjust steward. As the word Vere. 25-34.-These verses, with the " mammon" comes twice in that parable, but nowhere else in the New Testament, it exception of the last, which should perhaps is probable that its occu~ence caused the hardly be included, a.re very similar to the insertion of this saying 1n that place (cf. parallel passage, Luke xii. 22-32. It seems ver. 22, note). No man oan ser11e two probable that in the differences Luke pre- '111,(lBter,. The thouglit is still of ee.mest- serves the more original form (cf. the notes net!S of purpose o.nd singleness of heart. -Our Lord here speaks of the impossibility on the separate verses, infra), What their of snch divided service as he bas been warn- original position was is another question. ing his disciples against attempting. No Their immediate sequence in Luke to the man oan give due service to two masters. para.hie of the rich fool is no doubt perfectly For, ape.rt from the extent of the claim of nature.I, and is accepted by most com- ea.eh master-total bond-service(8ouA.E1lu11)- mentators as original; but the connexion thorough service of two masters is incom- patiLle with the effects produced. upon the with the context here is so close that, t1erve.nt himself. The result of service is to especially with the probabilities of the oase -inclille h.im toward.a the one master and in vcrs. 22, 23, and ver. 24, St. Matthew OH. VL 1~ 34.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. 237