Jesus' Sermon on the Mount

True Righteousness

The Pharisees were mired in an external religion because they did not understand the moral law summarized in the Ten Commandments.

1 And God spake all these words, saying,

2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

13 Thou shalt not kill.

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

15 Thou shalt not steal.

16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Exodus 20:1–17

See also Deuteronomy 5:6–21. The Pharisees' conception of duty under the law was faulty in two respects.

1. They did not see how comprehensive this law was. They thought that it extended no farther than its specific requirements. They imagined that if they did not take the life of an enemy, they were satisfying the commandment against murder, the Sixth Commandment. But in their view, to curse an enemy was permissible. They honored the Fifth Commandment—"Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother"—by refraining from obvious disrespect. But they had no scruple against withholding financial help from needy parents. They justified their stinginess by declaring their own property "Corban"—that is, dedicated to the Lord (Mark 7:10-13). They preached against adultery, but they were notorious for repeatedly going through marriage and divorce.
        In essence, they did not grasp that each law was intended only to forbid the worst violation of a positive duty. We should not merely be faithful to a spouse. We should give that spouse our complete devotion. We should not merely refrain from dishonoring our parents. We should give them utmost gratitude and, until we attain maturity, our utmost obedience. We should not merely let an enemy live. We should do him good.
2. They did not grasp that the law sought inward righteousness as well as outward righteousness. For this blindness they had no excuse, since the tenth and final commandment—the commandment that serves as a synopsis of several preceding commandments—prohibits coveting. Coveting is, of course, a flaw in one's heart.

The Permanence of the Law

As Jesus continued the Sermon on the Mount, He reinterpreted several provisions of the law in such a way as to show us that the law has much greater reach than the Pharisees imagined.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:17–20

The Pharisees had accused Jesus of being a lawbreaker—in particular, of being a violator of the Sabbath law. So, lest anyone suppose that He meant to challenge the law, He opened His commentary on the Ten Commandments by stating clearly that His purpose in coming was not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. He meant that He, alone among all who have lived on the earth, would keep the law perfectly, and that by His spotless righteousness He would enable others to attain perfection also. They would become like Him as a result of receiving Him as their Savior from sin.

The claim that He came to fulfill the law contains a special message for those Pharisees who disliked His healings on the Sabbath. The Sabbath was given as a day of rest. Yet despite all their zeal to observe and protect the Sabbath, the Pharisees never found spiritual rest—that is, rest from their futile exertions to please God. A man never knows a truly satisfying and lasting rest until He finds it in Jesus. Jesus fulfilled the law of the Sabbath not as the Pharisees wanted, by keeping their man-made rules, but by being the rest-giver.

To show the indestructibility of the law, Jesus said that it would remain in force until heaven and earth passed away. They will indeed pass away, when God creates a new heaven and a new earth. Then, without sin and the curse, the law will be irrelevant. There will be no need to legislate against motives and conduct that will be impossible anyway.

As long as heaven and earth remain, the law would be preserved down to the last jot and tittle. "Jot" is the Greek form —iota—of the Hebrew letter jod. A jod was a small letter, though not necessarily the smallest. It was, however, the one most expendable in the spelling of many Hebrew words. To include it or not was a matter of personal preference. The term "tittle" refers to any of the small dots or lines used to distinguish one Hebrew letter from another. The jots and tittles in the original text of the law were therefore the elements most easily lost. Jesus assured us that even these elements would be preserved intact.

Commentators agree that by "the law," Jesus meant the whole body of divine revelation—the entirety of Scripture. But it has been much debated whether Jesus was saying that the entirety would always be true and binding, or that the entirety would always be available for man's instruction. In other words, was He affirming that the mind of God would never change, or that God would preserve a perfect text of His Word for every generation? The former must be the correct interpretation, for truth is an eternal constant, whereas many believers in many times and places have been deprived of a perfect Bible. Yet the doctrine of preservation is certainly true. The remarkable survival of the whole Bible from ancient times until our day proves that God has indeed prevented His Word from being lost to mankind.

"These commandments" in verse 19 is another synonym for the law and for Scripture in general. Jesus taught that our response to these commandments will determine our rank in heaven. There will be a ranking based on works. Failure to observe and teach even the least of these commandments will be considered grounds for demotion to a low rank. A high rank will be granted only to those who observe and teach all the commandments.

But lest we give works the wrong place in God's economy, Jesus immediately stated the counterbalancing truth—that admission into the Kingdom is not determined by works. He said that if we depend on our own righteousness to gain entrance to the kingdom, we will fail. No one is good enough to get in, not even the Pharisees, who carried human righteousness as far as it could go. When He said, "unless your righteousness exceeds theirs," He plainly intended to set an impossible condition apart from the free grace of God. Only by His grace can we achieve the righteousness of Christ.

The people regarded the Pharisees as paragons of righteousness. But here in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus showed that the Pharisees were not seeking the kind of righteousness that could please God. So long as they were content with external piety and failed to cultivate the right motives and desires in their hearts, they had no chance of entering the kingdom of heaven.

This was the first time that Jesus was so outspoken in His criticism of the Pharisees. What He said was relatively mild. He merely issued a warning that Pharisaism was wrongheaded in its understanding of righteousness. But as His ministry wore on, His criticism of these prominent religious teachers grew in severity until at the end of His career He was pronouncing dire woes upon them.

The challenge to us is that we must see to it that we are not Pharisees. We too are Pharisees bound for damnation if we are playing at religion while cherishing secret sin, or if we are going through the motions of Christianity while remaining in the darkness of self-will and pride.

Jesus' Commentary on Specific Commandments

The Commandment against Murder

Now Jesus began to show what exactly is required by certain commandments within the whole set of Ten Commandments. The first five state obligations to God and family; the last five state obligations to fellow men. Those in the final group are simple extensions of an even more fundamental obligation stated in the law of Moses—to love your neighbor as yourself.

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 19:18

Jesus began by considering the Sixth Commandment, which forbids murder (Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17). To refrain from this kind of gross evil is one way of fulfilling our larger duty to defend and preserve all human life that has not been found guilty of a capital offense. Why then does the Sixth Commandment omit any mention of this larger duty and instead give us the specific prohibition, "Thou shalt not kill?" Jesus provided the answer.

21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 5:21–22

Jesus pointed out that the commandment was originally given as a basis for judgment. He was implying that the commandment limited the offense to murder (and, by extension, to violent acts that could cause injury and death) only because God wanted the commandment to be enforceable. In other words, this commandment represents the translation of a moral principle into a form useful for maintaining peace in society. We see here God's purpose in laying down the Ten Commandments. They were intended as an absolute framework for every legal code that man would devise and uphold through his systems of government.

Yet as we already pointed out, the moral principle underlying the Sixth Commandment is much more demanding than the commandment itself. Besides refraining from murder, we also have a wide-sweeping duty to defend and preserve human life. It follows that not only murder is wrong, but also anything that would lead to murder. The Bible teaches that one step leading to this horrible crime is hatred.

Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

1 John 3:15

There is a causal connection between hatred and murder. Hatred is the motive and murder is the outcome. Murder is the natural and even the inevitable consequence of hatred if all restraints are removed. Just because restraints exist and force us to hold our hand when we hate someone does not make us guiltless. We are guilty of whatever we would do if we did not fear getting caught and being punished.

Jesus singled out three particular expressions of hatred and described all three as offenses against a "brother." To whom was He referring? Who in fact is our brother? Very likely Jesus was reminding us that every human being is our brother or sister since we all come from the same parents, Adam and Eve.

The first of the three offenses that Jesus identified is anger, perhaps the most common motive for murder. He specifically condemned anger "without a cause." This phrase, omitted from the manuscripts favored by the modern critical text, is necessary for the sake of justice. It is right to be angry with a brother who has, for example, corrupted a child. There is such a thing as righteous anger distinct from reckless rage, although even righteous anger is wrong if it is not held in check by justice and mercy and if it is not capable of forgiveness.

The second offense is calling a brother "Raca," Aramaic for a worthless person. Regarding a person in this way is also a motive for murder. The aborted fetus is seen as worthless. The old person eliminated by euthanasia is seen as worthless. The Jew, the feeble-minded, and the insane that Hitler slew in his mad scheme to build a perfect race were seen as worthless.

The third offense is saying to a brother, "Thou fool." In general usage, the term "fool" is merely someone who is a bit silly or stupid. But Jesus gave the term a deeper meaning. He was implying that if we hurl it at someone else, we are claiming that just in ourselves, in our own character apart from God's grace, we are wiser or more righteous. Like the Pharisees, we are placing ourselves on a higher plane of humanity. To see a fellow human being as basically a fool can also serve as a motive for killing him. The murders done by rioters caught up in ethnic conflict or civil insurrection fall under this heading.

The three offenses are scaled from least to most serious. To be angry is bad, but to consider a brother as Raca is worse. It is an insult to his Creator.

Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

James 3:9

And to characterize another person as a fool is worst of all, because it expresses not only general pride, which is bad enough, but also moral pride, the specific outgrowth of general pride which can leave the blackest stain upon a human heart. It is failure to admit that apart from the grace of God, we are all stupid puppets of evil.

Likewise, the consequences are graded from least to most severe. They are to place oneself in danger of judgment, council, or hell fire. No commentator knows exactly what these refer to. Likely they will exist during the Millennium, since nothing like them has so far appeared during the history of mankind. We cannot exactly foresee the judicial system that Jesus will introduce when He reigns, but the three consequences may show us a hierarchy of courts, "judgment" representing a court dealing with minor offenses, "council" naming a court with jurisdiction over more serious crimes, and "hell fire" signifying a court reserved for capital cases. Yet Jesus' teaching has application even to relationships between Christian brothers during the Church Age. Although the court system that He describes does not yet exist, His warning against name-calling leaves no doubt that anyone who gets caught up in factionalism or in-fighting within the church has entered very dangerous ground.

God does not tolerate hatred within the house of God because it drives brothers apart and creates division where God intended unity. To show how serious and damaging such division is, Jesus said that its removal should have top priority. A pious heart might be inclined to give first place to the faithful practice of worship, but Jesus rated reconciliation between estranged brothers as even more important than giving a gift to God.

23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Matthew 5:23–24

Our rituals and tokens of worship cannot please Him unless He sees us fulfilling "the royal law."

If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

James 2:8

The royal law is the second greatest commandment after the commandment to love God.

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Matthew 22:36–40

In his first epistle, John raises a penetrating question.

20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

1 John 4:20-21

When division arises within the church, how then should it be removed? Jesus placed the burden of reconciliation upon the offender. If you are a believer in Christ, you should hurry to satisfy any brother who "hath ought against thee," whether or not he is seeking satisfaction. In the spirit of forbearance, he may have decided to overlook the offense. Still, you should make things right.

The phrase "hath ought against thee" refers to offenses that are real. We cannot be responsible for an offense that exists only in a brother’s imagination. If he comes to us with a groundless accusation, we should do all in our power to correct the misunderstanding and assure him of our good will. If he still persists in falsely accusing us, he is the offender.

Also, if we have any adversary either inside or outside the church who raises a serious complaint against us, we must do everything we can to stop him from taking legal action.

25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Matthew 5:25–26

Before our adversary can move forward with any charge or lawsuit, we must strive for a settlement out of court. Otherwise, we may suffer more serious harm. It is evident that Jesus was not speaking about an adversary who is justly charging us with any sort of crime. If He were, He would be telling us to escape punishment by bribing a witness or victim. No, if we have committed a crime, we deserve to suffer the consequences. Rather, He was talking about an adversary who brings us a complaint outside the scope of criminal law. Perhaps it arises from our financial indebtedness; in other words, from the fact that we have borrowed money or property. If the lender objects to any more delay in repayment, even if he comes for it sooner than we expected, we must in some fashion quickly satisfy him, whether by giving him the full amount that we owe or by proposing a schedule of repayment that he will find more advantageous than taking us to court. Another complaint brought against us by an adversary might be that he has not received proper compensation for damages we accidentally inflicted on his property or for an injury we accidentally caused him or someone in his family to sustain. Here again, the strategy Jesus recommended is to achieve a settlement out of court as quickly as possible.

Yet Jesus' counsel in these verses also has a larger application. He wanted His followers to understand that they should never waste precious time and resources by chasing down any road of litigation which they have not, by prayer with a submissive heart, truly determined is God's will. Our chief mandate is to devote ourselves as much as possible to fulfilling our role as salt and light.

The Commandment against Adultery

The next commandment that Jesus discussed was the Seventh, which forbids adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). He taught that a man violates it not only if he has an adulterous affair with a woman, but even if he allows any thought within himself that could lead to this outward sin.

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew 5:27–30

Jesus said that a man is guilty of adultery even if he looks at a woman with lust in his heart.

Why did He treat lust as though it were only a male problem? Because women are inherently virtuous? No, the Bible is as scathing in its estimate of female virtue as in its estimate of male virtue.

Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

Proverbs 31:10

27 Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account:

28 Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found.

29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Ecclesiastes 7:27-29

Here, the one man in a thousand—a figure of speech signifying a man beyond compare—is Christ. If lust is a sin problem for both men and women, why in His Sermon on the Mount did Jesus treat it as though it were only a male problem? The answer is that He viewed men as primarily responsible for upholding virtue in society.

.

This is contrary to what society believed in days past. Women were thought to be the guardians of virtue. But God gave fathers leadership in the home.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Genesis 3:16

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Ephesians 5:22–23

God therefore entrusted a girl’s virtue to the safekeeping of her father and a woman’s virtue to the safekeeping of her husband. Behind every loose woman stands a father or husband who has failed to meet his responsibility.

Moreover, adultery can occur only by the consent of both a man and a woman, and according to Scripture, a man is the stronger vessel.

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

1 Peter 3:7

In discussing lust, Jesus therefore addresses men only, in recognition that they have the capacity to assume leadership in any relationship with a woman. They have not only a greater power to initiate a wrongful relationship, but also to prevent it.

Yet men like to think of themselves as helpless victims of feminine wiles. They imagine that they fall into sin only because women lure them into it—that lust overpowers them only because women refuse to hide their beauty and charm. The remedy for lust in male-dominated Muslim countries is to make women cover up from head to toe. Do such measures in fact eliminate lust? Of course not. A man can be attracted to a woman just by her eyes, or by her gracefulness and fragility, which her robes cannot conceal. Modesty is certainly important—extremely important—as a means of restraining lust. But the place where lust begins and where it is best restrained is in a man's heart.

Jesus' teaching on lust raises another critical question. What did He mean by the term "lust"? To apply His teaching we need a clear definition, showing exactly what lust is and what it is not.

1. Lust is not noticing that a woman is attractive. A man cannot turn off the biological programming enabling him to recognize an attractive woman. Lust is not noticing the fact, but dwelling upon it and taking delight in it, particularly if that delight is linked to sexual pleasure.
2. Lust is not looking with interest at a prospect for marriage. How else can you find someone unless you look around?
3. Lust is not looking with love at someone you intend to marry, provided that you and the woman are both eligible and she is interested in you.
4. Lust is not looking with sexual desire at your wife. Some theologians and Bible teachers have, on the basis of Jesus' treating lust as equivalent to adultery, taught that it is possible to break the Seventh Commandment even within marriage. They are assuming that a man can lust after his wife. This misconception has been common among Catholics, but it is by no means restricted to them. Certainly, it is wrong to see a wife as merely a sex object. Yet the sin is this case is properly identified as lack of love rather than as lust. Those who ban lust from marriage generally mean that too much sexual desire is wrong. Of course, it is possible to overdo anything. Yet the Bible gives marriage as the solution for raging passion.

   But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

   1 Corinthians 7:9

   And it states that the marriage bed (a clear allusion to sex within marriage) is undefiled.

   Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

   Hebrews 13:4

   The entire Song of Solomon is a celebration of intimate romance within marriage.

We are now ready for a definition of lust. Lust is sexual desire for the wrong person, for someone who is not your wife or your promised wife. This definition is helpful, because it saves us from condemning ourselves for things innocent. Yet the greater danger in our day is that we will persist without guilt in things impure.

In the Sermon on the Mount, what does Jesus identify as the chief tools of lust? He said that the eye and the hand are the two portions of our bodies which are capable of compromising and destroying our sexual purity (Matthew 5:27-30, quoted above). We see here that Jesus' teaching truly comes from a divine source. Only God could devise language pointing so directly to needed truth and yet discrete enough that it can be spoken even in church without being inappropriate.

What did Jesus say would be the consequence of failure to control the eye and the hand? Such failure would lead to the whole body being cast into hell (Matt. 5:29, 30, quoted above). No sin so deadens the heart to doing right as sexual desire. It is totally enslaving, bringing even the mind and conscience under its control. A slave of lust is always satisfied with his excuses, hardly ever concerned about his victims, and blind to his destiny. But a life of lust is never the life of a true believer. Remember Paul's warning.

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9–10

There are many other passages that anyone tempted to lust would be wise to remember.

10 When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul;

11 Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee:

. . .

16 To deliver thee from the strange woman, even from the stranger which flattereth with her words;

17 Which forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the covenant of her God.

18 For her house inclineth unto death, and her paths unto the dead.

19 None that go unto her return again, neither take they hold of the paths of life.

Proverbs 2:10, 11, 16–19

3 For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil:

4 But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a twoedged sword.

5 Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell.

Proverbs 5:3–5

Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death.

Proverbs 7:27

Despite the peril to their souls, human beings find many excuses for their sin. The human mind is fertile ground for all the self-justification we need to escape from feelings of guilt. Let us consider some of the arguments that men use to deny their lust.

1. "It’s not lust unless I am looking at a real woman. A picture or a video isn't a real woman, so looking at it isn't bad." But it is a picture of what—a video of what? A real woman. Therefore, your gazing with desire is lust, a violation of God’s command. In some ways, looking at an indecent picture or video is worse than looking at a woman on the street. Why? Because in some fashion you are subsidizing the pornography. Either you buy it, or advertisers pay for it because they expect to have men like you in the audience. Either way, you are responsible for money going to the woman as wages for her indecency. What you are doing is essentially no different than hiring a prostitute. When you stand before God in judgment, you will be tried as one of her corrupters.
2. "What I am thinking doesn’t hurt anybody. How can there be a crime if there is no victim?" Two replies. First, Jesus is teaching that the relation between lust and adultery is like the relation between hate and murder. One leads to the other. If you are entertaining lust in your mind, its hold over you will grow stronger and stronger and will eventually produce immoral behavior. There is no stalemate in the war against sin. You are either winning or losing, and if you are finding excuses for lust, you are surely losing. So, the first person you are hurting is yourself. Second reply. If the woman you are thinking about is a good woman, and if she knew the seamy drift of your thoughts, she would surely feel victimized. So would her husband. And regardless of how they felt, your own wife, if she is a good woman, would surely feel victimized if she knew that you were indulging a desire for somebody else. So, your opinion that your lustful thoughts create no victims is pure self-deceit. It seems plausible to you only because the privacy of your thoughts keeps your victims from perceiving and protesting what is going on.
3. "Whatever I'm thinking, it can’t be lust, because I’m too old." But in God's sight, you dare not be dishonest. It is true that young girls may think a man becomes sexless when he reaches sixty or seventy. That is why they may be willing to give him a warm hug such as they would never give a man of thirty. But they are naïve, are they not? My late brother-in-law once said to me, "The funny thing about getting old is that it’s just your body, not your mind. Your mind can be always young." And I would add that lust belongs primarily to the mind and not to the body. But even the body never becomes wholly neutral. Men in their nineties have had children.
4. "I can’t help myself." Jesus anticipated this excuse. To answer those who claim that they cannot keep their hands or their eyes from sexual transgression, Jesus used a form of argument known as reductio ad absurdum.

   29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

   30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

   Matthew 5:29-30

   From the premises, "I cannot control myself," and, "If I do not control myself, I will go to hell as an unrepentant sinner," Jesus drew a logical but absurd conclusion—"I must pluck out my eye or cut off my hand"—showing that since the second premise is true, the first must be absurd like the conclusion.
        It is true that uncontrolled lust stands in the way of repentance and living for God, which are two clear marks of a man who is heaven-bound. It is true also that if we could not control ourselves, the only remedy would be to perform radical surgery on our bodies. But it is foolish to suppose that God requires us to dismember ourselves. Anyone who decided that he should pluck out his eye or cut off his hand in order to get to heaven would be drawing a logical but absurd conclusion from the premise that we cannot control our lust. So, that premise must be absurd also. To suppose that we cannot refrain from lust is a false and foolish idea. We cannot defeat lust by the power of the flesh, but we can by the power of the Spirit.

   This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

   Galatians 5:16

Jesus' Teaching on Divorce

The Pharisees imagined themselves righteous, but they tolerated divorce. Jesus exposed their hypocrisy by showing that divorce is a violation of the Seventh Commandment. In what way is it a violation? The answer He gave is that divorce leads to adulterous remarriages.

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 5:31–32

When Jesus provided further teaching on this issue later in His ministry, He gave us a similar rule that He wanted us to follow.

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Matthew 19:3–9

In his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul underscored the two moral standards taught by Jesus; first, that a husband should not divorce his wife; second, that a divorced wife should not commit adultery by marrying another man.

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

1 Corinthians 7:10–11

To draw useful applications in our day, we must start with some basic facts.

1. The clause "saving for the cause of fornication" in Matthew 5:32 is often called the exception clause. Does it truly describe one circumstance where divorce is permissible in God's sight? Is it indeed all right to break up your marriage to an unfaithful spouse? For a full perspective on this question, we must remember how the Jewish people had always viewed adultery. Mosaic law mandated,

   If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

   Deuteronomy 22:22

   The penalty for a wife unfaithful to her husband was not divorce. Rather, she as well as her lover were put to death. Who was the source of Old Testament law? It was God Himself, the same God who took human form in the person of Jesus. The severity of Old Testament law demonstrates that Jesus did not view divorce as an inappropriately harsh punishment for an adulterous wife. Allowing divorce rather than requiring death was a dramatic display of divine mercy.
2. Also, these standards leave no doubt that Jesus condoned remarriage after a man divorced an unfaithful wife. If this man were able to follow Old Testament law and have her executed, he would be free to remarry. Therefore, Jesus gave the same man permission to remarry if, instead of having her killed, he took the merciful path of merely divorcing her.
3. It is worthwhile to consider why Jesus' assessment of sexual immorality seems to be less severe than what we find in Mosaic law. We must remember that Mosaic law revealed God's will for His chosen people, the nation of Israel, who had no excuse for failure to live in sharp separation from all the pagan nations around them. Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, however, was intended as a moral guidebook for the church, which would be drawn from all nations of the world. Many brought into the church would be people recently immersed in a vile culture that left them with moral weaknesses that only time and mercy could overcome.
4. In Jesus' teaching on marriage, He does not speak directly to many problems that enter the lives of people today. He does not, for example, disapprove of a wife divorcing her husband. Why? Because He was speaking to Jews and, under Mosaic law, only men were entitled to get a divorce (Deut. 24:1–4). But in our day, divorce can be initiated by either a husband or a wife. Thus, to make proper applications of Jesus' teaching to the modern world, we must enlarge it to show what is right for married women as well as for married men. All other basic moral principles apply to both men and women since all human beings of both sexes are created in the image of God. Also, both husband and wife are responsible to maintain a wholesome environment for their children, and, in the modern world compared with the ancient world, more wives are as mature and well-educated as their husbands. Therefore, we may assume that God's will for wives who are now in difficult marriages is discoverable just by changing husband to wife in His key pronouncements on divorce. Then Matthew 5:32 says, "Whosoever shall put away her husband, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth him to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry him that is divorced committeth adultery." And Matthew 19:9 says, "Whosoever shall put away her husband, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth him which is put away doth commit adultery." In other words, just as a husband can divorce an unfaithful wife, so a wife can divorce an unfaithful husband.
        Our conclusion is ratified by instructions that Paul sent to believers, both Jews and gentiles, in the church at Corinth.

   12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

   13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

   14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

   15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

   1 Corinthians 7:12–15

   "Not under bondage" (v. 15) likely implies that a forsaken wife or husband was free to remarry. Paul's apparent permission of remarriage in such cases is consistent with the teaching of Jesus. Why? Paul's teaching was designed for believers immersed in a culture where it was very unlikely that anyone who deserted his or her spouse would remain sexually innocent. The pagan religion dominant in ancient Greece strongly encouraged immoral behavior. Prostitution was officially sponsored by temples to the gods because its proceeds helped to support them as places of worship.¹ Many men who went there engaged in immoral sex. Thus, a typical pagan husband was unfaithful to his wife even during marriage, and if he left her, it was extremely unlikely that he would refrain from adulterating his first marriage either by remarriage or by sex outside of marriage. Likewise, the moral rot pervasive in the same culture made it extremely unlikely that a woman who forsook her husband would remain sexually pure. For this reason, Paul permitted a believing wife or husband to start a new life and marriage if he or she was deserted by an unbelieving spouse, just as Jesus had permitted a man to remarry after he divorced an adulterous wife.
5. Yet Paul forbade a believing wife or husband to divorce an unbelieving spouse if they were still dwelling together (vv. 12, 13). Why? What Paul meant when he said that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse, with the result that their children are holy rather than unclean, is a difficult question. He seems to be saying that a child with mixed parentage will go to heaven if he dies provided that he has been living in the same home as his godly parent, even if the other parent has been there also. One sobering implication is that a child loses a holy standing before God whenever he or she takes residence in a home lacking a godly parent.
        Staying married to an unbeliever also has other advantages. It is good for children to live with two real parents, and it is good for the spouse who is still unsaved to live under the influence of his partner's daily witness for Christ.
6. So far in our discussion we have considered only one threat to marital happiness, the threat of infidelity. But an adequate treatment of marital problems requires us to recognize that many modern marriages break up not because of infidelity, but simply because one or both partners lack a strong desire for a lifelong relationship. Instead, they want to look around and find new friends, new lovers, new homes, new fun in new surroundings. Therefore, a couple of reminders might help any frivolous husband or wife recognize how fully he is obligated to keep the marriage vows spoken at the holy ceremony called a wedding.
   1. Divorce breaks a solemn covenant forged at this ceremony—a covenant including the promise to be faithful "for better, for worse . . . until death do us part." This wording sets aside any selfish grounds for breaking the promise in the future. "For worse" refers to the trials that may beset a marriage—financial struggles, sickness, troubles arising from wars or natural disasters. None of these attacks on health and prosperity should shake the bond between man and wife. "For better" refers to the temptations that come with a life of worldly success. A man of rising importance should not covet a more glamorous wife. A wife who is given some taste of wealth and prestige should not covet a husband who is higher on the social ladder.
   2. Divorce generally tramples on the rights of children. It is always best for them to live with their two natural parents, provided that they are both are trying to be good parents.
7. For a full perspective, we also need to emphasize that Jesus does not authorize divorce for any reason except for infidelity. If one spouse has a bad temper or a scornful mouth or a heart unwilling to give help or show kindness, the other spouse, if he or she wishes to please God, must tolerate the mistreatment and respond to nasty words with loving words. He or she must show the face of Christ to the abuser and pray diligently for his or her repentance. Divorce is not the solution in keeping with God's will. God desires the one abused to demonstrate a love for the unworthy spouse that is modeled after God's love for sinners, a group including the abused spouse as well as the abuser. Unfortunately, there are some homes where separation is advisable even though divorce is not an option granted by God. If a father physically injures his wife or children or if he exposes his children to gross pornography, the wife may have to separate from him and take the children with her. Separation may also be necessary if either parent has fallen prey to marijuana or any other recreational drug that is somehow made accessible to the children. Sexual abuse of any child is, of course, grounds for divorce.
8. We must also emphasize that God merely permits divorce from an unfaithful spouse. He does not mandate it. By no means. In such cases His perfect will may be for the betrayed spouse to respond with patience and mercy and love and with an unceasing effort to heal rather than break the marriage.

Whether someone who is divorced should remarry is a question that must be submitted to God. God will surely provide the right answer if the person without a partner has a heart that will accept God's direction. Perhaps the answer will not come immediately, but God may be trusted for guidance along the right path during each day of pilgrimage to the heavenly city.

One great problem in Christian ministry today is that we are trying to reach a society where many adults have tangled marital histories. What, if anything, should we require of divorced people who wish to join the church? With respect to this question, the Bible is absolutely silent. The reason, I believe, is that God's will in such matters must be determined on a case-by-case basis, relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The only right path for a new convert, a repentant backslider, or an applicant for church membership may be to rebuild a former marriage, especially if the former spouse has maintained a claim upon that marriage as his or her rightful possession. But sometimes this is not the right option. It is often true in life that we cannot revive who we were in the past, especially if we have traveled a long and hard road. It is unwise to rebuild a former marriage if, for example, either party is now married to someone else. A new divorce is not a good remedy for an old divorce. Two wrongs do not make a right. Yet simple justice may require a stronger effort to minimize any damage an old divorce may have done to someone's emotional or financial well-being.

In general, I recommend three steps for anyone who has committed sins leading to turmoil within a holy marriage or to its entire collapse, as well as for any divorced or divorced and remarried person who wants to be sure of God’s approval on his current family arrangements.

1. Accept God’s righteous standards and confess any sins that you have committed. It does no good to quarrel with God. It is hard to say that you have been wrong, but say it.
2. Seek through His Word and through wise counsel what God would have you do.
3. Once you have corrected your past mistakes as much as you can, start a new life. God has forgiven your sins. Forgive yourself and, except for healthy memories, forget your past. Set your gaze forward and rejoice that God wants to use you in His service.

The Commandments against Vain Swearing and False Witness

Next, Jesus took up the Third Commandment, which states, "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." (Exod. 20:7; Deut. 5:11). In Old Testament times it was permitted to certify words of promise or testimony by means of an oath. The primary meaning of the Third Commandment is that an oath in the name of the Lord must be kept. To break a solemn promise sealed with an oath or to give false testimony despite an oath is to take His name in vain.

On several occasions recorded in the writings of Moses, the people of Israel heard instruction reinforcing the Third Commandment.

And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 19:12

If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.

Numbers 30:2

When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee.

But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee.

That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the LORD thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth.

Deuteronomy 23:21–23

As in His treatment of the Sixth and Seventh Commandments, Jesus sought to illumine the moral principle underneath the Third.

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Matthew 5:33–37

The principle is that we should be honest through and through. What God wants, Jesus implied, is truthfulness deeply lodged in the heart. Every small word we utter should be gold-plated truth. As Jesus said, our "yes" should mean "yes" and nothing else, and our "no" should mean "no" and nothing else. If our claims and promises are well known to be absolutely dependable, an oath adds nothing to what we say. Indeed, an oath cannot give us credibility if we have a reputation for lying.

Lies fall in three categories.

1. Deliberate, premeditated lies. One kind that is especially offensive to God is prohibited in the Ninth Commandment. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" (Exod. 20:16; Deut. 5:20). The Ninth and Third Commandments are alike in prohibiting false statements: the Third, any false statement backed by an oath; the Ninth, any false statement made to harm another or promote oneself. They converge in condemning any witness brought by the prosecution in a formal judicial proceeding who tells lies after he has sworn to tell the truth. The fact that two of the Ten Commandments deal with truthfulness shows how important it is to God.
        Tellers of deliberate, premeditated lies are prominent in John's list of all those who will be denied entrance to the New Jerusalem, the eternal dwelling place of God's people.
   

   14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

   15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

   Revelation 22:14–15

   Here we have a list of sinners guilty of the most extreme violations of the Ten Commandments. Among them are those who not only tell lies, but love telling them. We think of the con artist who makes a career out of deceiving gullible people; of politicians who cynically season their speeches and platforms with promises they never intend to keep, and with nods of approval toward powerful men or popular ideas they secretly view with contempt. We think of preachers who hold on to their pulpits in prosperous churches by publicly professing their loyalty to orthodox doctrines that they privately forsook long ago. Such hypocrites will spend eternity in hell along with dogs and sorcerers. One kind of sinners that Jesus always denounced severely were hypocrites.
2. Impulsive lies. These are the falsehoods that slip out of your mouth before you have carefully considered what to say. The source is usually one of two motives. Either you want somebody’s approval and you make a silly boast rather far from the truth. Or you feel cornered by the danger that some transgression you committed will come to light, and you blurt out words of denial. Then you leave your conscience with double shame: the shame in what you are trying to hide, and the shame in your lie. In the second case, the only way to recover your integrity is to go to the person you have sought to deceive and confess both your sins, both your original wrongdoing and your false denial. To be wholly transparent in this way is exceedingly difficult. It takes a painful degree of humility. But you really have no choice. On the one hand, if you do right, chances are that you will regain the trust of those you offended, and exposing your sin is such a bitter fruit to taste that it is less likely you will lie again under the same circumstances. Lowering yourself through confession always has a good effect on your character. But on the other hand, if you maintain your lie, your conscience will corrode until finally it becomes indifferent to lying, and lying will become the theme of your mouth.
3. Unintentional falsehoods arising from distorted memory. This is a particular problem as we get older and suffer from fading memory. A well-established finding of psychology is that as our memories become more vague, we tend to distort facts in our favor. The moral lesson is that all of us who are getting older must watch what we say. If people catch us in obvious untruths or exaggerations, our word will be doubted even when we speak the truth. We must therefore guard our credibility by carefully avoiding exaggerated and highly colored accounts of the past. Preachers are not immune from the temptation to make stories better by embellishing them with details that exist only in their imagination. So, preachers too need to guard their credibility by limiting themselves to stories that are completely authentic and factual.

The way of truthfulness is often hard to follow, as it winds through many tricky dilemmas. For example, what if you give your word, then change your mind? To say one thing today and another tomorrow is a form of dishonesty, even though what you say today is sincere. To change your mind after giving your word turns your word into a lie. You should be willing to keep your word despite the cost.

1 LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?

. . . .

4 . . . . He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.

Psalm 15:1, 4

Are there circumstances permitting you to break a promise? Yes, if, for example, you learn that keeping the promise will require disobedience to God. But even then you avoid greater sin only by committing the lesser sin of reneging on your word. To protect yourself from any possibility of falsehood, you should never give a significant promise unless you add the qualification, "Lord willing."

13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:

14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.

James 4:13–15

Also, you should never give your word hastily. First, make sure that you will be willing and able to follow through.

Jesus did not teach that we should shun oaths as a matter of preference. Rather, He forbade them outright. He said, "Swear not at all" (Matt. 5:34). He prohibited all swearing for two reasons.

1. An oath in the form "by God" is presumptuous. It is essentially a plea that God will witness the oath and punish us if we do not keep our word. Children make the true meaning of their oaths explicit. They say, "Cross my heart and hope to die." But God does not want any man to ask for his own condemnation. We are to seek God's mercy. We must not allow the devil to trap us by getting us to make sworn promises that we cannot fulfill, thus earning God's wrath. That is why Jesus said that anything more than "yes" or "no" comes "of evil;" that is, from the evil one.
2. Jesus wanted us to distance ourselves from the Pharisees, who used oaths as a cover for lying. They taught that although failure to perform an oath in the name of God is a violation of the Third Commandment, disregarding an oath in the name of heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or one's head is not a violation (Matt. 5:34–36). Jesus pointed out that all these things belong to God and are subject to His control. Therefore, to call upon one of these lesser things to enforce an oath is to call upon God Himself.

Some Christians concerned to obey the prohibition against oath-taking have decided that in good conscience they cannot give pledges, such as the Scout pledge, the Pledge of Allegiance, or a pledge of marriage. But a pledge does not invoke the name of God. It is merely a solemn promise that we should not make unless we intend to keep it.

Even more Christians historically have refused to do the swearing required in certain legal ceremonies, such as the induction of a witness or juror to a trial proceeding, or the inauguration of a government official. But the traditional form of the oath taken on these occasions sets it apart from a real oath. It is not a promise "by God" but rather a solemn plea condensed into the few words, "so help me God." This is merely a prayer for God's assistance in performing the promise.

Application

With a few broad strokes in His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus created a complete psychology of sinful man. He showed that all sins named in the last five of the Ten Commandments—that is, all sins against our neighbor—come from a few root vices. The three in particular that He exposed were hatred, lust, and untruthfulness. He offered no commentary on the Eighth Commandment—"Thou shalt not steal"—because He did not need to reveal the root vice that propels men to this kind of sin. That vice is coveting, which the Tenth Commandment had already named and condemned.

Jesus' commentary on the law is a mirror enabling us to see into our hearts. It enables us to find tendencies that will lead to outward sin if we do not resist and defeat them by divine grace. Let us therefore put this commentary to its intended use. Let us learn it by heart and meditate upon it so that we will be alert to temptation and vigilant against sin—so that lust and hatred and lying will not gain any foothold within our souls.