Matthew 5:43

We have here, lastly, an exposition of that great fundamental law of the second table, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, which was the fulfilling of the law.

I. See here how this law was corrupted by the comments of the Jewish teachers, Mat 5:43. God said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour; and by neighbour they understood those only of their own country, nation, and religion; and those only that they were pleased to look upon as their friends: yet this was not the worst; from this command, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, they were willing to infer what God never designed; Thou shalt hate thine enemy; and they looked upon whom they pleased as their enemies, thus making void the great command of God by their traditions, though there were express laws to the contrary, Exo 23:4, Exo 23:5; Deu 23:7. Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, nor an Egyptian, though these nations had been as much enemies to Israel as any whatsoever. It was true, God appointed them to destroy the seven devoted nations of Canaan, and not to make leagues with them; but there was a particular reason for it - to make room for Israel, and that they might not be snares to them; but it was very ill-natured from hence to infer, that they must hate all their enemies; yet the moral philosophy of the heathen then allowed this. It is Cicero's rule, Nemini nocere nisi prius lacessitum injuri - To injure no one, unless previously injured. De Offic. See how willing corrupt passions are to fetch countenance from the word of God, and to take occasion by the commandment to justify themselves.

II. See how it is cleared by the command of the Lord Jesus, who teaches us another lesson: "But I say unto you, I, who come to be the great Peace-Maker, the general Reconciler, who loved you when you were strangers and enemies, I say, Love your enemies," Mat 5:44. Though men are ever so bad themselves, and carry it ever so basely towards us, yet that does not discharge us from the great debt we owe them, of love to our kind, love to our kin. We cannot but find ourselves very prone to wish the hurt, or at least very coldly to desire the good, of those that hate us, and have been abusive to us; but that which is at the bottom hereof is a root of bitterness, which must be plucked up, and a remnant of corrupt nature which grace must conquer. Note, it is the great duty of Christians to love their enemies; we cannot have complacency in one that is openly wicked and profane, nor put a confidence in one that we know to be deceitful; nor are we to love all alike; but we must pay respect to the human nature, and so far honour all men: we must take notice, with pleasure, of that even in our enemies which is amiable and commendable; ingenuousness, good temper, learning, and moral virtue, kindness to others, profession of religion, etc., and love that, though they are our enemies. We must have a compassion for them, and a good will toward them. We are here told,

1. That we must speak well of them: Bless them that curse you. When we speak to them, we must answer their revilings with courteous and friendly words, and not render railing for railing; behind their backs we must commend that in them which is commendable, and when we have said all the good we can of them, not be forward to say any thing more. See Pe1 3:9. They, in whose tongues is the law of kindness, can give good words to those who give bad words to them.

2. That we must do well to them: "Do good to them that hate you, and that will be a better proof of love than good words. Be ready to do them all the real kindness that you can, and glad of an opportunity to do it, in their bodies, estates, names, families; and especially to do good to their souls." It was said of Archbishop Cranmer, that the way to make him a friend was to do him an ill turn; so many did he serve who had disobliged him.

3. We must pray for them: Pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you. Note, (1.) It is no new thing for the most excellent saints to be hated, and cursed, and persecuted, and despitefully used, by wicked people; Christ himself was so treated. (2.) That when at any time we meet with such usage, we have an opportunity of showing our conformity both to the precept and to the example of Christ, by praying for them who thus abuse us. If we cannot otherwise testify our love to them, yet this way we may without ostentation, and it is such a way as surely we durst not dissemble in. We must pray that God will forgive them, that they may never fare the worse for any thing they have done against us, and that he would make them to be at peace with us; and this is one way of making them so. Plutarch, in his Laconic Apophthegms, has this of Aristo; when one commended Cleomenes's saying, who, being asked what a good king should do, replied, Tous men philous euergetein̂ tous de echthrous kakōs poiein - Good turns to his friends, and evil to his enemies; he said, How much better is it tous men philous euergetein̂ tous de echthrous philous poiein - to do good to our friends, and make friends of our enemies. This is heaping coals of fire on their heads.

Two reasons are here given to enforce this command (which sounds so harsh) of loving our enemies. We must do it,

[1.] That we may be like God our Father; "that ye may be, may approve yourselves to be, the children of your Father which is in heaven." Can we write a better copy? It is a copy in which love to the worst of enemies is reconciled to, and consistent with, infinite purity and holiness. God maketh his sun to rise, and sendeth rain, on the just and the unjust, Mat 5:45. Note, First, Sunshine and rain are great blessings to the world, and they come from God. It is his sun that shines, and the rain is sent by him. They do not come of course, or by chance, but from God. Secondly, Common mercies must be valued as instances and proofs of the goodness of God, who in them shows himself a bountiful Benefactor to the world of mankind, who would be very miserable without these favours, and are utterly unworthy of the least of them. Thirdly, These gifts of common providence are dispensed indifferently to good and evil, just and unjust; so that we cannot know love and hatred by what is before us, but by what is within us; not by the shining of the sun on our heads, but by the rising of the Sun of Righteousness in our hearts. Fourthly, The worst of men partake of the comforts of this life in common with others, though they abuse them, and fight against God with his own weapons; which is an amazing instance of God's patience and bounty. It was but once that God forbade his sun to shine on the Egyptians, when the Israelites had light in their dwellings; God could make such a distinction every day. Fifthly, The gifts of God's bounty to wicked men that are in rebellion against him, teach us to do good to those that hate us; especially considering, that though there is in us a carnal mind which is enmity to God, yet we share in his bounty. Sixthly, Those only will be accepted as the children of God, who study to resemble him, particularly in his goodness.

[2.] That we may herein do more than others, Mat 5:46, Mat 5:47. First, Publicans love their friends. Nature inclines them to it; interest directs them to it. To do good to them who do good to us, is a common piece of humanity, which even those whom the Jews hated and despised could give as good proofs as of the best of them. The publicans were men of no good fame, yet they were grateful to such as had helped them to their places, and courteous to those they had a dependence upon; and shall we be no better than they? In doing this we serve ourselves and consult our own advantage; and what reward can we expect for that, unless a regard to God, and a sense of duty, carrying us further than our natural inclination and worldly interest? Secondly, We must therefore love our enemies, that we may exceed them. If we must go beyond scribes and Pharisees, much more beyond publicans. Note, Christianity is something more than humanity. It is a serious question, and which we should frequently put to ourselves, "What do we more than others? What excelling thing do we do? We know more than others; we talk more of the things of God than others; we profess, and have promised, more than others; God has done more for us, and therefore justly expects more from us than from others; the glory of God is more concerned in us than in others; but what do we more than others? Wherein do we live above the rate of the children of this world? Are we not carnal, and do we not walk as men, below the character of Christians? In this especially we must do more than others, that while every one will render good for good, we must render good for evil; and this will speak a nobler principle, and is consonant to a higher rule, than the most of men act by. Others salute their brethren, they embrace those of their own party, and way, and opinion; but we must not so confine our respect, but love our enemies, otherwise what reward have we? We cannot expect the reward of Christians, if we rise no higher than the virtue of publicans." Note, Those who promise themselves a reward above others must study to do more than others.

Lastly, Our Saviour concludes this subject with this exhortation (Mat 5:48), Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Which may be understood, 1. In general, including all those things wherein we must be followers of God as dear children. Note, It is the duty of Christians to desire, and aim at, and press toward a perfection in grace and holiness, Phi 3:12-14. And therein we must study to conform ourselves to the example of our heavenly Father, Pe1 1:15, Pe1 1:16. Or, 2. In this particular before mentioned, of doing good to our enemies; see Luk 6:36. It is God's perfection to forgive injuries and to entertain strangers, and to do good to the evil and unthankful, and it will be ours to be like him. We that owe so much, that owe our all, to the divine bounty, ought to copy it out as well as we can.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat_5:43

Love your enemies.

Forgiveness of injuries

The duty of forgiveness does not forbid resentment, but the excess or abuse of it.

I. Such resentment in excess is wrong, for anger produces anger; revenge, malice, and that without limit: an aggravation of misery; and such resentment is a painful remedy to him who suffers from it, and, if not a remedy, it becomes an unmixed evil: the gratification of this passion is never innocent except when necessary.

II. Love to our enemies is a duty; for it is part of the law of general benevolence, which, however, admits resentment, though not the abuses of it. Resentment is consistent with good-will. To love our enemies is not rant, unless benevolence is so; but is as reasonable as the opposite ix mischievous.

III. Reflections adapted to beget and strengthen the temper. Self-love is apt to magnify things amiss in others and lessen them in ourselves. So is anger. Moderation, therefore, is only common sense, trying to ascertain the truth; and is perfectly reasonable. The origin of wrong done is not generally malice, but some passion in itself, and within proper limits, allowable. The object of our resentment is himself a sufferer, and therefore a fit object of compassion. We ourselves need forgiveness, and a forgiving disposition is essential to it. (Bishop Butler, D. C. L.)

Mans nature is to be judged, not as to whether it is best in the abstract, but on a comparison with his circumstances. Here we have to consider-

I. The nature of the emotion. Sudden and deliberate. Sudden anger is an instinct, excited by violence or harm, not necessarily a wrong, and the end of this passion is the resistance or prevention of violence. Deliberate anger, or resentment, is a passion, excited by wrong or injury undeserved. Hence called indignation, which is not malice, and is stronger the more nearly the injury affects ourselves. The sense of wrong is essential to it, as is plain from the circumstances which aggravate the feeling.

II. The end for which the emotion is implanted: to prevent or remedy injury.

III. The abuses of the emotion of resentment. Sudden: passion, peevishness. Deliberate: resentment against such as innocently injure us; obstinacy in resisting evidence of innocence. Though liable to abuse, the emotion is important, as a balance against the weakness of pity, and in punishing crime. Hence fresh proofs of the reality of virtue, which has certain emotions on its side, and of the wisdom and goodness of God, who makes an instance of them, even the emotion of resentment. (Bishop Butler, D. C. L.)

The Christians duty to prisoners

Never, perhaps, does guilty, suffering humanity assume a form more likely to be overlooked or despised by the world at large than in the person of the imprisoned convict. But Christians may be justly expected to regard him with pity-may be justly expected to make prompt and vigorous exertions to promote his welfare. This I argue:

I. From the character of Christians. Disinterested benevolence. Deep sense of personal guilt which they maintain. Efficacy of Divine grace to work a radical change.

II. From the means of usefulness they are able to employ.

III. The commands of Jesus Christ.

IV. The Providence of God. (Beriah Green.)

In what manner are you to repress the rising of improper

dispositions:-

1. Remember your own feelings.

2. The evil in the city is permitted by God.

3. Recollect the unwearied patience of God.

4. The treatment the Saviour endured.

5. This will not make a Christian mean-spirited; were there any in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar that showed such greatness of soul as Daniel? (E. Irving.)

1. The supreme art of life, above all other arts, is the art of living together justly and charitably.

2. To get on with men will constitute the most persistent aim within the Christian disposition. (H. W. Beecher.)

On forgiveness of injuries and against revenge

This law reasonable:

I. If we consider the nature of the act here required, which is to love-the most natural, easy, and delightful of all the affections; whereas ill-will and revenge are troublesome and vexatious passions. The devising of mischief, accomplishment of it, and reflection upon it are uneasy.

II. If we consider the qualification of the object-Our enemy. The two great foundations of love are relation and likeness. Men alike and related in essential nature. The hatred of an enemy, if we make a right use of it, may prove of greater advantage to us than the civilities of our best friend; is better and less dangerous than the flatterer. Reconciled enemies often prove our best friends.

III. If we consider the excellence and generosity of the thing itself. It is the most perfect act of the most perfect of all graces-in spite of provocation.

IV. The perfection and prevalency of the examples which the gospel proposeth to us to allure to this duty.

1. The example of God Himself.

2. The example of Jesus Christ.

It is objected that the bearing of injuries like this invites more.

1. Few so bad as to make so barbarous a return for generosity.

2. Christ never intended that our goodness should be void of all prudence.

Learn:

1. Let us be careful how we make enemies, if it be thus difficult to love them.

2. How great ought our kindness to be to others.

3. The excellence of Christian religion which hath carried our duty so high.

4. The humanity of the Christian religion. (T. Tillotson.)

Prayer for enemies

I wonder how many prayers you ever sent up for those that hate you? I think it did not take the top of one sheet in the angels record-book to put down all the prayers that you ever made for men that hate you. (Beecher.)

Difficult to forgive a sneaking enemy

When a large house-dog comes out with an announcement of himself, a man knows what he has got to meet: but when one of those little nasty Spitz dogs that dont bark at all, but run behind and nip, you dont know whether to run or to stand still, whether to fight or to give it up. An enemy that is an enemy outwardly and openly, and strikes fair blows, can be met; but whisperers, backbiters, mean folks that follow you, and nip you, and sneak in and out of the fence to save themselves, we do not know how to deal with; and yet we are commanded to pray for them. (Beecher.)

The marrow of the gospel

1. The teaching of the New Testament is that love is the only religion.

2. It teaches that love is a comprehensive disposition.

3. There is no worship of God which is an equivalent or substitute for love. If thou bring thy gift to the altar.

4. No man can love God except through the practice of loving men.

5. Love carries with it a double capacity, of perceiving an ideal excellence, and of loving men who represent the opposite. Love goes out to men, not according to their righteousness, but according to their needs.

6. True gospel love is a love that re-creates men. (Beecher.)

Love a universal disposition

A man does not love according to Scripture, simply because he can count well, and say, I love that person, that one. That is not it. What kind of a candle would that be which, being set on your table, only shone on particular things-on this book, on that vase, on that mirror, on that picture, and nowhere else. A candle is put upon a candlestick, that it may give light to all in the house. Love must leave nothing out. (Beecher.)

Love attracted by need rather than by character

Is your heart a physician to cure men that need curing, no matter who they may be? (Beecher.)

Love is sometimes severe in its methods

Love is like the old surgery, which took blood, that the fever might go, and that life might come. Love is no poor moonshiney, pale light, caring for nothing. Love is a revelator; it discriminates between right and wrong. It likes the right and hates the wrong, and helps men out of the wrong into the right. (Beecher.)

Love severe in order to salvation

The mother, under ordinary circumstances, is unwilling to singe the childs hair or scourge its skin, because she loves it so, yet, if there is some conflagration, and she sees that the way of life is through the flame, with wild strength she bears the child through in her bosom, though it be burned in every part. Such is her love for the child that she would rather see it wounded than see it perish. (Beecher.)

The enemies of Louis XII. of France

There is a story told of Louis XII. of France. He had many enemies; and when he succeeded to the throne, he caused a list of these to be drawn up, and marked against each of their names a large black cross. When this became known, the enemies of the king fled, because they thought it was a sign that he intended to punish them. The king, hearing of their alarm, recalled them, and gave them an assurance of his good will, saying that he had placed a cross beside their names to remind him of the Cross that brings pardon to all; and he urged them, by his own example, and especially by the example of Him who prayed for His enemies, to go and do likewise.

Sir Eardley Wilmots advice

A gentleman who had filled many high stations in public life, with the greatest honour to himself and advantage to the nation, once went to Sir Eardley Wilmot in great anger at a real injury he had received from a person high in the political world, which he was considering how to resent in the most effectual manner. After relating the particulars to Sir Eardley, he asked if he did not think it would be manly to resent it? Yes, said Sir Eardley, it would doubtless be manly to resent it, but it would be Godlike to forget it. This the gentleman declared had such an instantaneous effect upon him, that he came away quite another man, and in temper entirely altered from that in which he went.

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 5:43. Ye have heard that it hath been said — In this, as is in the former instances, our Lord, intending to comprehend not only the law itself, but the explications of it given by the Jewish doctors, and said to be derived by tradition from the mouth of Moses, does not say, Ye know, but, Ye have heard, that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy — God enjoined the former part of this precept, Lev 19:18, and the scribes added the latter, abusing, it seems, the commands for destroying the Canaanites, to countenance such an addition, though this was in direct contradiction to many other scriptures. See Exo 24:4-5; Lev 19:17; Pro 25:21. But I say unto you, Love your enemies — To the narrow charity of the Jews, confined to their own brethren and men of their own religion, Christ here opposes his admirable precept, enjoining us, if we would be his genuine disciples, to love even our enemies; and that, by showing a sincere affection and good will to them who bear enmity or ill will to us; by manifesting our beneficence to them who, by their actions, show their hatred to us; by doing good to them for evil; by blessing them who with their mouths curse us; and by praying for God’s blessing upon them who revile and persecute us, as his followers. And this love he recommends, 1st, from the manifest absurdity of the Jewish doctrine, which made them no better, in this respect, than those sinners, publicans, and heathen, whom they allowed themselves to hate, &c.; 2d, that they, who boasted of it as their peculiar glory that they were the sons of God, might show that they really were so by their imitating His goodness who is kind to the unthankful and evil; 3d, because this would render his followers complete in the great duty of love and mercy to others, as he adds in the last clause. The following paraphrase on the different clauses of the passage may, perhaps, give the reader a clearer and fuller view of its meaning. Explaining what he intends, when he says, Love your enemies, he adds, Bless them that curse you — Give them kind and friendly language who rail, act, or speak evil of you; say all the good you can to, and of them. Do good to them that hate you — Repay love in thought, word, and deed, to those who really bear ill will to you, and show it both in their words and actions; and embrace every opportunity of promoting their welfare, both temporal and spiritual. And pray for those which despitefully use you, &c. — Besides doing all in your own power to advance their happiness, endeavour, by your prayers, to engage God also to befriend and bless them. The expression επηρεαζοντων υμας, is by some rendered, who falsely accuse, or traduce you; but more properly by Dr. Doddridge, who insult over you. The word is plainly used by St. Peter, (1Pe 3:16, the only other place in Scripture where it occurs,) to express abusive language. Both it and the other terms here used express the highest degree of enmity, for what can be worse than cursing, and calumny, and insults, and persecutions; yet we are commanded to love, and bless, and do good to those who express their enmity to us even by these things; and this doctrine Christ enforces from the noblest of all considerations, that it renders men like God; for he adds, that ye may be the children of your Father — As if he had said, Being thus benevolent toward all the bad as well as the good, ye shall be like God, and so prove yourselves to be his genuine offspring; for he maketh his sun common to them who worship and them who contemn him; and lets his rain be useful both to the just and to the unjust; alluring the bad to repentance, and exciting the good to thankfulness, by this universal and indiscriminate benignity of his providence. For if ye love them which love you, &c., and salute your brethren only, &c. — These are common things, practised by people of the worst character; which therefore do not distinguish you from others, nor prove you to be of a truly pious and virtuous disposition, but as being only indued with the essential principles of human nature, so that no peculiar reward can await you for doing them. The phrase τι περισσον ποιειτε, rendered in our translation, What do ye more than others? but which Dr. Campbell renders, Wherein do you excel? is thought by him to refer to what our Lord had declared, Mat 5:20, concerning the necessity of our righteousness excelling, or abounding more than that of the scribes and Pharisees. Thus, he thinks, our Lord’s expostulation is rendered more energetical by the contrast; as if he had said, I told you your righteousness must excel that of the scribes and Pharisees, but if you do good to your friends only, it will not excel even that of the publicans and pagans. Perhaps, in the phrase, If ye salute your brethren only, our Lord might glance at those prejudices which different sects had against each other, and might intimate that he would not have his followers imbibe that narrow spirit. And “would to God,” says a pious divine, “that the hint had been more attended to, among the unhappy subdivisions into which his church has been crumbled; and that we might at least advance so far as cordially to embrace our brethren in Christ, of whatever party or denomination they are! Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father, &c. — Imitate especially the divine goodness, as it is promiscuous, and extends to the evil as well as the good. This seems to be chiefly what is here intended; the love to friends, brethren, and countrymen implying only a very imperfect imitation of God; we are to labour after a more complete resemblance to him, in loving enemies. Our Lord, therefore, afterward expressed himself in a parallel discourse on the same subject in a rather different manner, saying, Be ye merciful, as your Father also is merciful, Luk 6:36. But, it is probable, he used a greater latitude of expression here, to remind us of our obligations to imitate the blessed God in all his moral perfections. The exhortation undoubtedly refers to all that holiness which is described in the foregoing verses, which our Lord, in the beginning of the chapter, recommends as happiness, and in the close of it as perfection. And it must be observed, that the words in the original, εσεσθε ουν υμεις τελειοι, express a promise, rather than a precept: Ye shall therefore be perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. And how wise and gracious is this, to sum up, and, as it were, to seal all his commandments with a promise! even the proper promise of the gospel, that he will put those laws in our minds and write them in our hearts! He well knew how ready our unbelief would be to suggest, This is impossible! And therefore stakes upon it all the power, truth, and faithfulness of Him to whom all things are possible.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Matthew

THE LAW OF LOVE

Mat 5:43-48.

The last of the five instances of our Lord’s extending and deepening and spiritualising the old law is also the climax of them. We may either call it the highest or the deepest, according to our point of view. His transfiguring touch invests all the commandments with which He has been dealing with new inwardness, sweep, and spirituality, and finally He proclaims the supreme, all-including commandment of universal love. ‘It hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour’-that comes from Lev 19:18; but where does ‘and hate thine enemy’ come from? Not from Scripture, but in the passage in Leviticus ‘neighbour’ is co-extensive with ‘children of thy people,’ and the hatred and contempt of all men outside Israel which grew upon the Jews found a foothold there. ‘Who is my neighbour?’ was apparently a well-discussed question in the schools of the Rabbis, and, whether any of these teachers ever committed themselves to plainly formulating the principle or not, practically the duty of love was restricted to a narrow circle, and the rest of the wide world left out in the cold. But not only was the circumference of love’s circle drawn in, but to hate an enemy was elevated almost into a duty. It is the worst form of retaliation. ‘An eye for an eye’ is bad enough, but hate for hate plunges men far deeper in the devil’s mire. To flash back from the mirror of the heart the hostile looks which are flung at us, is our natural impulse; but why should we always leave it to the other man to pitch the keynote of our relations with him? Why should we echo only his tones? Cannot we leave his discord to die into silence and reply to it by something more musical? Two thunder-clouds may cast lightnings at each other, but they waste themselves in the process. Better to shine meekly and victoriously on as the moon does on piled masses of darkness till it silvers them with its quiet light. So Jesus bids us do. We are to suppress the natural inclination to pay back in the enemy’s own coin, to ‘give him as good as he gave us,’ to ‘show proper spirit,’ and all the other fine phrases with which the world whitewashes hatred and revenge. We are not only to allow no stirring of malice in our feelings, but we are to let kindly emotions bear fruit in words blessing the cursers, and in deeds of goodness, and, highest of all, in prayers for those whose hate is bitterest, being founded on religion, and who are carrying it into action in persecution. We cannot hate a man if we pray for him; we cannot pray for him if we hate him. Our weakness often feels it so hard not to hate our enemies, that our only way to get strength to keep this highest, hardest commandment is to begin by trying to pray for the foe, and then we gradually feel the infernal fires dying down in our temper, and come to be able to meet his evil with good, and his curses with blessings. It is a difficult lesson that Jesus sets us. It is a blessed possibility that Jesus opens for us, that our kindly emotions towards men need not be at the mercy of theirs to us. It is a fair ideal that He paints, which, if Christians deliberately and continuously took it for their aim to realise, would revolutionise society, and make the fellowship of man with man a continual joy. Think of what any community, great or small, would be, if enmity were met by love only and always. Its fire would die for want of fuel. If the hater found no answering hate increasing his hate, he would often come to answer love with love. There is an old legend spread through many lands, which tells how a princess who had been changed by enchantment into a loathly serpent, was set free by being thrice kissed by a knight, who thereby won a fair bride with whom he lived in love and joy. The only way to change the serpent of hate into the fair form of a friend is to kiss it out of its enchantment.

No doubt, partial anticipations of this precept may be found, buried under much ethical rubbish, elsewhere than in the Sermon on the Mount, and more plainly in Old Testament teaching, and in Rabbinical sayings; but Christ’s ‘originality’ as a moral teacher lies not so much in the absolute novelty of His commandments, as in the perspective in which He sets them, and in the motives on which He bases them, and most of all in His being more than a teacher, namely, the Giver of power to fulfil what He enjoins. Christian ethics not merely recognises the duty of love to men, but sets it as the foundation of all other duties. It is root and trunk, all others are but the branches into which it ramifies. Christian ethics not merely recognises the duty, but takes a man by the hand, leads him up to his Father God, and says: There, that is your pattern, and a child who loves his Father will try to copy his ways and be made like Him by his love. So Morality passes into Religion, and through the transition receives power beyond its own. The perfection of worship is imitation, and when men ‘call Him Father’ whom they adore, imitation becomes the natural action of a child who loves.

A dew-drop and a planet are both spheres, moulded by the same law of gravitation. The tiny round of our little drops of love may be not all unlike the colossal completeness of that Love, which owns the sun as ‘His sun,’ and rays down light and distils rain over the broad world. God loves all men apart altogether from any regard to character, therefore He gives to all men all the good gifts that they can receive apart from character, and if evil men do not get His best gifts, it is not because He withholds, but because they cannot take. There are human love-gifts which cannot be bestowed on enemies or evil persons. It is not possible, nor fit, that a Christian should feel to such as he does to those who share his faith and sympathies; but it is possible, and therefore incumbent, that he should not only negatively clear his heart of malice and hatred, but that he should positively exercise such active beneficence as they will receive. That is God’s way, and it should be His children’s.

The thought of the divine pattern naturally brings up the contrast between it and that which goes by the name of love among men. Just because Christians are to take God as their example of love, they must transcend human examples. Here again Jesus strikes the note with which He began His teaching of His disciples’ ‘righteousness’; but very significantly He does not now point to Pharisees, but to publicans, as those who were to be surpassed. The former, no doubt, were models of ‘righteousness’ after a rigid, whitewashed-sepulchre sort, but the latter had bigger hearts, and, bad as they were and were reputed to be, they loved better than the others. Jesus is glad to see and point to even imperfect sparks of goodness in a justly condemned class. No doubt, publicans in their own homes, with wife and children round them, let their hearts out, and could be tender and gentle, however gruff and harsh in public. When Jesus says ‘even the publicans,’ He is not speaking in contempt, but in recognition of the love that did find some soil to grow on, even in that rocky ground. But is not the bringing in of the ‘reward’ as a motive a woful downcome? and is love that loves for the sake of reward, love at all? The criticism and questions forget that the true motive has just been set forth, and that the thought of ‘reward’ comes in, only as secondary encouragement to a duty which is based upon another ground. To love because we shall gain something, either in this world or in the next, is not love but long-sighted selfishness; but to be helped in our endeavours to widen our love so as to take in all men, by the vision of the reward, is not selfishness but a legitimate strengthening of our weakness. Especially is that so, in view of the fact that ‘the reward’ contemplated is nothing else than the growth of likeness to the Father in heaven, and the increase of filial consciousness, and the clearer, deeper cry, ‘Abba, Father.’ If longing for, and having regard to, that ‘recompense of reward’ is selfishness, and if the teaching which permits it is immoral, may God send the world more of such selfishness and of teachers of it!

But the reference to the shrunken love-streams that flow among men passes again swiftly to the former thought of likeness to God as the great pattern. Like a bird glancing downwards for a moment to earth, and then up again and away into the blue, our Lord’s words re-soar, and settle at last by the throne of God. The command, ‘Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect,’ may be intended to refer only to the immediately preceding section, but one is inclined to regard it rather as the summing up of the whole of the preceding series of commandments from Mat 5:20 onwards. The sum of religion is to imitate the God whom we worship. The ideal which draws us to aim at its realisation must be absolutely perfect, however imperfect may be all our attempts to reproduce it. We sometimes hear it said that to set up perfection as our goal is to smite effort dead and to enthrone despair. But to set up an incomplete ideal is the surest way to take the heart out of effort after it. It is the Christian’s prerogative to have ever gleaming before him an unattained aim, to which he is progressively approximating, and which, unreached, beckons, feeds hope of endless approach, and guarantees immortality.

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5:43-47 hate your enemy: Jesus is opposing not the Old Testament, but a traditional, though mistaken (cp. Exod 23:4-5), interpretation of the Old Testament. The “hate” clause is not in the Old Testament (but see Ps 139:21-22).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 5:43. Τὸν πλησίον, Thy neighbour) Gataker[227] in his Adversaria miscellanea posthuma, ch. 10. f. 527, remarks, that in Sophocles and Aristotle, all men are indiscriminately called οἱ πέλας[228]—μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου,[229] thou shalt hate thine enemy) The Jews abused the precept which had been given in reference to certain accursed nations, as in Deu 23:7; for they had also been commanded to love even their enemies. Christopher Cartwright[230] cites decrees of the Jews concerning the hatred of enemies.—See Book 2; Mellif. Heb. ch. 1.

[227] Thomas Gataker was born in London 1574; became Preacher of Lincoln’s Inn in 1601, Rector of Rotherhithe 1611, and died 1654. He was one of the most learned theologians of his time. He subscribed the Covenant, but declared in favour of Episcopacy, and during the Commonwealth preferred the Presbyterians to the Independents. His works are many and various.—(I. B.)

[228] i.e. neighbours.—(I. B.)

[229] A most vile gloss.—B. G. V.

[230] Christopher Cartwright, a learned English divine; born 1602; died 1658. The work here cited is Mellificium Hebraicum, sive observationes ex Hebræorum antiquiorum monumentis desumptæ.—(I. B.)

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_5:43. Τὸν πλησίον σου] In Lev_19:18, רֵעֲךָ denotes a member of the nation, whereby the proselyte also is included with others; hatred towards the heathen, however, is not conceived of by the legislator as an antithesis that follows of itself, and therefore we may all the less assume that Jesus Himself introduced into the law hatred of ones enemies, as an abstraction from the national exclusiveness, in which the law keeps Judaism towards heathenism, as if it commanded this hatred (Weiss, Bleek). The casuistic tradition of the Pharisees, however, explained Lev_19:18, as the antithetical τ. ἐχθρόν ς. shows, of a friend, and deduced therefrom (perhaps with the addition of passages like Deu_25:17-19, comp. Mal_1:3) the antithesis (which confessedly was also a principle of the common Hellenism), see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phil. 110, p. 154; Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p; Matthew 144: καὶ μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου, by which was meant not the national enemy (Keim), but the personal (σου) private enemy, in opposition to the law (Exo_23:4 f.; Lev_19:18) and to the pious spirit of the Old Covenant (Psa_7:5; Psa_35:13 f.; Job_31:29; Pro_24:17; Pro_24:29; Pro_25:21 f.; comp. Gen_45:1; 1Sa_24:7; 1Sa_18:5; 2Ki_6:22). Jesus Himself also may have understood the Pharisaic addition only to refer to private enemies, as is clear from His antithesis, Mat_5:44 ff.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 5:43-48 . Sixth and final illustration: from the Law of Love . To an old partial form of the law Jesus opposes a new universal one.

Mat 5:43 . ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη : said where, by whom, and about whom? The sentiment Jesus supposes His hearers to have heard is not found in so many words in the O. T. The first part, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour,” occurs in Lev 19:18 . The contrary of the second part is found in Exo 23:4 , where humanity towards the straying or overburdened beast of an enemy is enjoined. It is to be hoped that even the scribes did not in cold blood sin against the spirit of this precept by teaching men to love their private friends and hate their private enemies. Does πλησίον then mean an Israelite, and ἐχθρόν a Gentile, and was the fault of the traditional law of love that it confined obligation within national limits? The context in Lev 19:18 gives πλ . that sense: “Thou shalt not bear any grudge against the children of thy people”. On the other hand, the tendency of Israel’s election, and of certain texts ( vide Exo 23 , Deu 7 ), was to foster aversion to the outside nations, and from Ezra onwards the spirit of Judaism was one of increasing hostility towards the goyim vide Esther. The saying quoted by Jesus, if not an exact report of Rabbinical teaching, did no injustice to its general attitude. And the average Jew in this respect followed the guidance of his teachers, loving his own countrymen, regarding with racial and religious aversion those beyond the pale.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ye have heard that it hath been said-- (Lev 19:18).

Thou shalt love thy neighbour--To this the corrupt teachers added,

and hate thine enemy--as if the one were a legitimate inference from the other, instead of being a detestable gloss, as BENGEL indignantly calls it. LIGHTFOOT quotes some of the cursed maxims inculcated by those traditionists regarding the proper treatment of all Gentiles. No wonder that the Romans charged the Jews with hatred of the human race.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 43. Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.] Instead of πλησιαν neighbour, the Codex Graevii, a MS. of the eleventh century, reads φιλον friend. Thou shalt love thy friend, and hate thine enemy. This was certainly the meaning which the Jews put on it: for neighbour, with them, implied those of the Jewish race, and all others were, considered by them as natural enemies. Besides, it is evident that πλησιον, among the Hellenistic Jews, meant friend merely: Christ uses it precisely in this sense in Lu 10:36, in answer to the question asked by a certain lawyer, Mt 5:29. Who of the three was neighbour (πλησιον friend) to him who fell among the thieves? He who showed him mercy; i.e. he who acted the friendly part. In Hebrew, רע rea, signifies friend, which word is translated πλησιον by the LXX. in more than one hundred places. Among the Greeks it was a very comprehensive term, and signified every man, not even an enemy excepted, as Raphelius, on this verse, has shown from Polybius. The Jews thought themselves authorized to kill any Jew who apostatized; and, though they could not do injury to the Gentiles, in whose country they sojourned, yet they were bound to suffer them to perish, if they saw them in danger of death. Hear their own words: "A Jew sees a Gentile fall into the sea, let him by no means lift him out; for it is written, Thou shalt not rise up against the blood of thy neighbour: - but this is not thy neighbour." Maimon. This shows that by neighbour they understood a Jew; one who was of the same blood and religion with themselves.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(43) Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.—In form the latter clause was a Rabbinic addition to the former; and this is important as showing that our Lord deals throughout not with the Law as such, but with the scribes’ exposition of it. But it can hardly be said these words, as far as national enemies were concerned, were foreign to the spirit of the Law. The Israelites were practically commanded to hate the Canaanites and Amalekites, whom they were commissioned to destroy. The fault of the scribes was that they stereotyped the Law, which was in its nature transitory, and extended it in a wrong direction by making it the plea for indulgence in private enmities. Our Lord cancels the Rabbinic gloss as regards national and, à fortiori, private hatreds, and teaches us to strive after the ideal excellence which He realised, and to love, i.e., to seek the good of those who have shown us the most bitter hostility. So He taught men to find a neighbour even in a Samaritan, and so He prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(c) Love or Charity, 43–48.

43. Thou shalt love thy neighbour] Lev_19:18, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” The second clause does not occur in Levit., but was a Rabbinical inference. Enemies, all who are outside the chosen race, the etymological force of the Greek word. Heathen writers bear testimony to this unsocial characteristic of the Jews. Juvenal says it was their rule—

“Non monstrare vias eadem nisi sacra colenti,

Quaesitum ad fontem solos deducere verpos.”—Sat. xiv. 104.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ye have heard that it hath been said,.... By, or to them of old time. This law has been delivered to them,

thou shalt love thy neighbour, with this appendage to it, or false gloss upon it,

and hate thine enemy; for the first of these only is the law of Moses, Lev 19:18, the other is the addition, or wrong interpretation of the Scribes and Pharisees: wherefore the Jew (o) has no reason to charge Christ, or the Evangelist, with a false testimony, as he does, because the latter is no where written in the law, nor in the prophets: nor does Christ say it is; he only observes, that it had been traditionally handed down to them from the ancients, by the masters of the traditions of the elders, that the law of loving the neighbour was so to be understood as to allow, and even enjoin, hatred of enemies: in proof of which, take the following instances (p).

"When one man sins against another, he may not hate him in his heart, and be silent, as is said of the wicked; Absalom spoke not with Amnon: but it is commanded to make it known to him, and to say to him, why hast thou done to me so and so? As it is said, "rebuking, thou shalt rebuke thy neighbour"; and if he returns, and desires him to pardon him, he shall not be implacable and cruel; but if he reproves him many times, and he does not receive his reproof, nor turn from his sin, then , "it is lawful to hate him".''

Again, they say (q),

"Every disciple of a wise man, , "who does not revenge, and keep as a serpent"; that is, as the gloss explains it, "enmity in his heart", as a serpent, is no disciple of a wise man.''

And so Maimonides (r), one of their better sort of writers, says;

"A disciple of a wise man, or a scholar, whom a man despises and reproaches publicly, it is forbidden him to forgive him, because of his honour; and if he forgives him, he is to be punished, for this is a contempt of the law; but "he must revenge, and keep the thing as a serpent", until the other asks pardon of him, and then he may forgive him.''

Thus they bred their scholars in hatred and malice against their enemies. This arises from a mistaken sense of the word "neighbour", which they understood only of a friend; and concluded, that if a friend was to be loved, an enemy was to be hated; not the Gentiles only, but anyone, among themselves, which could come under that name.

(o) R. Isaac Chizuk Emunah, par. 2. c. 11. p. 402. (p) Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora precept. neg. 5. Vid. Maimon. Hilchot Rotseach, c. 13. sect. 14. (q) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 22. 2. & 23. 1. (r) Maimon. Hilch. Talmud Tora, c. 7. sect. 13.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

Ver. 43. Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy] This latter they drew as an inference from the former, by the rule of contraries. But logic, being the rule of reason, which now is corrupt, is itself in some respects corrupt also. Sure we are, be it what logic it will, it is but carnal divinity. Suitable it is to our nature, but so much the more suspicious. The Pharisees taught it, and were applauded. The Papists also little better (for the Pharisees are fled and hid in the Papists, as one saith the ancient heretics are in the monks): they teach, that in two cases only we are bound to help our enemies-in the case of extremity and of scandal. For other things, to love them, to pray for them, or do them good in other cases, it is but a counsel our Saviour gives, and no commandment. If men can do it, it is well; but if they cannot, it is not required. Thus say they, but what saith Christ, the law maker, and so the truest interpreter thereof?

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy - The command to love our neighbor was a law of God, Lev 19:18. That we must therefore hate our enemy was an inference drawn from it by the Jews. They supposed that if we loved the one, we must of course hate the other. They were total strangers to that great, special law of religion which requires us to love both. A neighbor is literally one that lives near to us; then, one who is near to us by acts of kindness and friendship. This is its meaning here. See also Luk 10:36.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

And hate thy enemy. The words of the law (Leviticus xix. 18.) are only these: thou shalt love thy friend as thyself; but by a false gloss and inference, these words, and hate thy enemy, were added by the Jewish doctors. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, was the old law of God, Lev 19:18; the other part, and hate thine enemy, was the Pharisees’ addition, or rather their collection, because the law only commanded them to love their neighbour. υν signifies sometimes a friend, sometimes more largely any other person; they took it in the strict sense, yet they could not be so blind as not to extend it to all those of their own nation, for Mat 5:17 there are two words used, one signifying thy brother, the other thy countryman, whom they are commanded in that verse not to hate in their hearts. But it appeareth by Luk 10:29, that they did not very well know their neighbour. The lawyer asked, Who is my neighbour? Christ instructs him by the parable of him that was fallen among thieves, that they ought not to look upon those of their own country only as neighbours, for a Samaritan might deserve the name better than a priest or Levite. But they generally looked upon all the uncircumcised as not their neighbours, but their enemies, whom the precept did not oblige them to love.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(5.) Christian law of love.

43. Love… neighbour… hate… enemy — The command, Love thy neighbour, (Lev_19:18,) was interpreted by the rabbles to include Israelites only. To hate the rest of mankind was, therefore, they held, religiously right. Our Lord, however, extends our neighbourhood over all mankind. As immortal beings, all are entitled to a solemn respect; as children of the same Father, they are the proper objects of our wishes for their wellbeing. That they are our enemies is a good reason why we should ward off their attacks; but it is no reason why we should not wish their happiness. One of the best ways of showing our benevolence is to invent some method of removing their bad disposition and disarming their enmity.

Love your friends and hate your enemies is the law written by selfishness on the human heart. Its’ necessary effect is to divide mankind into clans maintaining perpetual feuds. The action and reaction of revenge, sustained by the point of honour, render the feud permanent and cruel. Such was eminently the state of society when our Lord was engaged in dispensing these truths to his Church. To end these feuds, the commencement must be made by the good man’s making the advances of patience, of adventurous suffering, of disarming enmity by magnanimous disregard of the standing feud, of the point of honour, and even, sometimes, of the possible law of self-preservation. Here is the finest field for the purest heroism and the noblest generosity. And, at the same time, there is the fullest room for all our tact and fertility of invention to make our generosity truly tell. By blunder, by misapplication, by ill-timed introduction, our magnanimity may wear the look of cowardice; and the enemy, instead of being conciliated, will think himself called upon to trample upon our meanness. Thereby we shall not heap coals of fire upon his head, but apply a coal of fire to inflame his heart.

And what a beautiful and masterly calmness does our Lord here prescribe to the Christian heart. He is to keep his own temper undisturbed, and while his enemy is raging with insane fury he is calmly to study by what skilful application of touching kindness he can transform the lion to a lamb. By so doing he attains a victory; but that is the smallest part of the matter. He has transformed an enemy to a friend; and what is better than either, he has, perhaps, converted a sinner from his error, and saved a soul from death.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 43-48. The treatment of those who injure us. (Cf. supra, ver. 38) Our Lord now turns from the reception of injuries to the treatment of those who injure us. We are not to injure them in return, nor merely to keep aloof from them, but to show them positive kindness. The Law, in the natural development of it current at the time, taught very differently.

Matthew only. Ye have heard (ver. 21, note). Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. The first clause is found in Lev_19:18, the second is the natural, and, from one point of view, legitimate, deduction from it. "The whole precept, as it stands, undoubtedly represents, and is a summary of, the sense of the Law" (Mozley, vide infra). The meaning of the words "neighbour" and "enemy" has been much discussed. In Leviticus, indeed, the meaning of "neighbour" is clear; it answers to "the children of thy people" in the preceding clause, i.e. it refers to members of the nation; all Israelites are termed "neighbours." The primary sense, therefore, of this whole precept is love to an Israelite, hatred to a non-Israelite. (cf. Deu_25:17-19) As such, the precept was of value in cementing the unity of the nation and preventing greater exposure to the evils, moral and religious, found outside it. But as quoted by our Lord, it has evidently a more private reference. He treats the precept as referring to personal friends (those who act in a neighbourly way) and enemies, and even this is, in some respects, a legitimate summary of the teaching of the Law, in so far as it forms another side of the law of retaliation. In days when public justice was weak much had to be left to the action of the individual, and he who was wronged was bid satisfy justice by retaliating on his enemy. That, however, it was not the only teaching of the Law is evident from Exo_23:4. (cf. Job_31:29) But as regards both aspects of the precept the time had come for a change. The Jews only too gladly showed obedience to the second part of the precept, making themselves proverbial (cf. Tacitus, "Hist.," 5:5. 2; Juvenal, "Sat.," 14:103) for their more than incivility to Gentiles, and they seem to have also zealously carried it out towards their personal enemies (cf. Psalm 109). On the whole subject, vide especially Mozley ("Ruling Ideas," pp. 188-200), who, however, hardly allows enough weight to passages like Exo_23:4.

Vers. 43-48. The perfect fulfilling of Law: Christ"s sixth illustration.

This last illustration makes two advances upon even those foregoing. From the negative course, of not resisting evil, Christ proceeds to teach the high and moral principle of doing good for evil, positively and practically. Further, this illustration moves in that highest sphere where law merges in love. It finds its material in that law of love which comprehends the perfect fulfilling of law. The words of Chrysostom are well worth recording: "Note through what steps we have now ascended hither, and how Christ has set us here on the very pinnacle of virtue. The first step is, not to begin to do wrong to any; the second, that in avenging a wrong done to us we be content with retaliating equal; the third, to return nothing of what we have suffered; the fourth, to offer one"s self to the endurance of evil; the fifth, to be ready to suffer even more evil than the oppressor desires to inflict; the sixth, not to hate him of whom we suffer such things; the seventh, to love him; the eighth, to do him good; the ninth, to pray for him. And because the command is great, the reward proposed is also great, namely, to be made like unto God." Consider in what is now enjoined by Christ.

I THE PRINCIPLE IN ITSELF.

1. How frankly it addresses itself to the facts of human life!

2. How undisguisedly it acknowledges the damage of human nature!

3. How irresistibly it persuades of the not irredeemably lost original! It is as though tidings of it, and a reviving message from it, not seen for so long a time.

II THE TYPE DISCARDED. The dead level of most ordinary human practice is all that can be said of it.

III THE TYPE ADOPTED. It is the highest conceivable, and at the same time not discouraging in its tendency on that account, but most suggestive of gracious comfort for us, and of earnest effort on our part. It makes us children of "our Father who is in heaven." It looks like his perfectness, and leads onward and upward ever toward it. B.

Vers. 43-48. Loving one"s enemy.

This is another instance of the way in which Christian righteousness is to exceed the righteousness of scribes and Pharisees. Let us consider the duty and the motives that urge it.

I THE DUTY.

1. Positive. This carries us beyond patience under insult and nonresistance to injury. The previous passage insisted on those duties only. It was negative in character, forbidding a wrong course of conduct; therefore obedience to it would be purely passive. Now we come to a positive and active duty to love and aid.

2. Helpful. Love is a subjective sentiment, but it cannot confine itself to the breast of the person who cherishes it. It must flow out in deeds of kindness. Here is the key to the precept in the previous paragraph. By itself it seems to be impossible to carry out so extraordinary a rule; or, if it were put in practice, it looks as though it might be quite subversive of society. But it must be followed by the conduct now recommended. Bare nonresistance will not be successful. It will only end in the extinction of right and the triumph of aggressive evil. But non-resistance, sustained by active love to our enemies, will assume a very different character. Love is a more powerful weapon than the sword. We are to "overcome evil with good"; (Rom_12:21) to conquer our enemy by destroying his enmity, while we prove ourselves his friends.

3. Prayerful. Love is not sufficient to meet the hard heart of enmity. Only the gracious influences of the Spirit of God can do it. Therefore we are to pray for these. If we are wrongfully used, we may overcome our enemies by seeking for God to turn their hearts while we show them brotherly kindness.

II ITS REASONABLENESS. This duty is so contrary to the ways of the world that it seems to be quite unnatural and unreasonable. But Christ shows that he has good grounds for demanding it of us.

1. The example of our Father in heaven. God is not only kind to the good. First, he shows infinite patience and forbearance. Then he goes beyond these passive excellences and manifests active beneficence in sending sunshine and rain to all sorts and conditions of men. Thus he is impartial in his kindness. He does not regulate his favours by our deserts. The very constitution and course of nature reveal this large, indiscriminate beneficence of God. Yet God maintains order in the universe, and ultimately effects the triumph of the right. Therefore kindness to enemies is not unnatural; it is the very method of nature. It is not unreasonable; it accords with God"s wise way of governing the universe.

2. The obligations of Christianity. The law of resentment represents a low stage of moral development. If religious people follow this law, they are no better than the irreligious publicans;" if Christians follow it, they are no better than the heathen Gentiles;" i.e. Christian love as such only appears when we begin to love those whom we should not love if we were not following Christ. We prove our religion, not in those good things in which we agree with the irreligious, but in those by means of which we surpass them. Meanwhile no lower standard can be allowed to the Christian; he must aim at nothing less than the Divine example of perfection. W.F.A.

Vers. 43-48. Perfection.

Here is an attainable perfection, for it comes to us as a promise as well as a command. But what is it?

I IT CANNOT BE THE ABSOLUTE PERFECTION OF GOD.

1. There is an infinite difference between God and man in their being.

(1) Man is originated. He had a beginning. His immortality had a starting-point. God"s eternity had none.

(2) Man lives a moment at a time. His immortality is an interminable succession of points. God lives an eternity at a time. "His being no succession knows.

2. There is an infinite difference in their presence.

(1) The presence of man is limited. He occupies a few cubic feet of space. The presence of God is universal.

(2) The presence of man is localized. If he would be elsewhere he must vacate his present place. God is perfectly present everywhere. When we say he is in heaven, we mean that he is there in every perfection of his nature. When we say he is here, we mean precisely the same. So in respect to every conceivable point in immensity. In the infinitude of these conceivable points he is simultaneously perfectly present.

3. There is an infinite difference in their power.

(1) The power of man is limited. Circumscribed by the laws of God in nature. Circumscribed by the force of conflicting wills. The power of God is an irresistible will.

(2) The power of man is formative. He can mould, he can combine, he can disjoin. He cannot create. He cannot destroy, God can create. He can reverse the act of creation.

4. There is an infinite difference in their holiness.

(1) The holiness of God is necessary. It is simply the natural harmony of all his perfections. This harmony is the standard of holiness. Man has no natural holiness. His sinfulness is the discord of perverted attributes. His holiness is of grace, derived, dependent.

(2) So might we proceed with all the attributes of God and man, so far as the former are made known to us, and the conclusion must be evermore that for man to become absolutely perfect as God is quite out of the question.

II IF THE PERFECTION BE NOT ABSOLUTE, THEN IT MUST BE RELATIVE. As God is perfect in his relations to us, so must we be perfect in our corresponding relations to him.

1. Our Father is perfect in his relation to us as Creator.

(1) How admirably are we fenced with bones, arranged as levers, curiously fitted into sockets and hinges! How surprising is our muscular structure, our nervous system, our organs of sense! How noble are our intellectual endowments! How wonderful are our affections, appetites, and passions!

(2) As creatures do we render fully to God the homage of these powers? Has he our undivided hearts? Has he the best services of our brains? Has he the vigour of our nerve and muscle?

2. Our Father is perfect in his relation to its as King.

(1) His providence in nature is beneficent. "His sun," "his rain." All creatures are his. "He maketh his sun to shine;" "He sendeth his rain." The forces of nature act under his control. His Word lets us into the secrets of his providence.

(2) As subjects are we correspondingly perfect in relation to him? Do we see him as the First Cause, ever active behind all second causes? Do we never neglect to seek him in the revelations of his Word? Do we loyally serve him in the conduct of our lives?

3. Our Father is perfect in his relation to us as Saviour.

(1) He pitied us in our fall. "He maketh his sun to shine on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. " He stooped to lift us up. He comforts us with his favour. He cheers us with hopes of heaven.

(2) Have we repented of our sin? Accepted his mercy? Are we full of gratitude? Full of loving-kindness to our fellows? Full of the spirit of sacrifice?

III THE PERFECTION ENJOINED IS CHRISTIAN.

1. This is set forth in the term "your Father.

(1) Sehlom, in the Old Testament, do we find God spoken of under this endearing title. It is his most constant title in the New.

(2) There is a reason of fitness in this. The spirit of the Law was not that of a son, but of a servant. It was "the spirit of bondage to fear." The Law was given amid the roar of flame, the hissing of storms, the rattle and crash of thunder, the clang of the trumpet, and the shaking of the very earth.

(3) The gospel changes all this. (see Gal_4:1-7)

2. The standard of Christian perfection is higher.

(1) Superior relations bring loftier claims. Hence the gospel law is broader and deeper, more comprehensive, more spiritual.

(2) It shows:

(a) Murder in the heart and lip (vers. 21-26).

(b) Adultery in the heart and eye (vers. 27-32). Profanity in Pharisaic sophisms (vers. 33-37).

(c) Revenge in resistance (vers. 38-42).

(d) Heathenism in conventional Judaism (text).

3. Love is the badge of Christian discipleship.

(1) Discipleships in general have their distinguishing marks. Hindu spots and strings. Monkish tonsure. Opinions.

(2) So the Christian. (see Joh_13:34, Joh_13:35) The end of the commandment is love. Love is the means to the end.

(3) But in what sense is this commandment (Joh_13:34, Joh_13:35) new? It is not new in principle, for nature teaches it. It is distinctly taught in the Mosaic Law. (see Lev_19:18) It is new in its measure. Moses says we are to love our neighbour as ourselves. Jesus says we are to love our brother better than ourselves. So he loved us. J.A.M. (cf. Php_2:17 Col_1:24 1Jn_3:16)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Thou shalt love thy neighbour; And hate thy enemy - God spoke the former part; the scribes added the latter. Lev. xix, 18.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Final illustration, from the general law of love:

v. 43. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.

The first injunction is found in the Law, Lev 19:18. The second part of the sentence is an addition made by the rabbis. They understood the word "neighbor" of the members of their own nation only, arguing from the many passages of the Law in which God had commanded the children of Israel to destroy the heathen nations. But in all those instances the children of Israel were merely carrying out God’s penal justice. Their argument would therefore not stand, especially in view of Exo 22:21; Exo 23:9; Lev 19:33; Deu 10:18-19; Deu 24:17; Deu 27:19. Jesus insists that all hatred is contrary to humaneness, opposed to the spirit which He was striving to foster. His is a different law:

v. 44. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you.

The injunction receives its application at all times and in all places. The impressiveness of the passage is heightened by the contrast presented in each member of the saying. Cursing is met with blessing; hatred, which leads to injuries, with well-doing; and abuse of all kinds, culminating in persecution arising from religious hatred, with prayer and intercession. Whatever meanness the enemies may devise, love’s ingenuity will find a way of overwhelming them with goodness. For its object is always to find ways and

means of winning the adversary, and, above all, of gaining him for the Lord.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Another corrupt gloss which the Pharisees had put upon the law of God, our Saviour here takes notice of: the law said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, Lev 19:18. This they interpreted to relate only to their own countrymen, the Jews; concluding, that they might hate all the uncircumcised nations, as enemies; but, saith our Saviour, I require you to love all men; for if enemies must not be shut out of your love, none must.

Love your enemies: here the inward affection is required.

Bless them that curse you; there outward civility, and affability is required.

Do good to them that hate you; here real acts of our bitters and most malicious enemies.

Pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you: these are the highest expressions of enmity that can be, calumny and cruelty; yet are we commanded to pray for those that touch us in these two tenderest points, our reputation and sincere affection towards our most malicious enemies; to be ready upon all occasions to do good unto them, and pray for them.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

43. Thou shalt love thy neighbor. See Lev. 19:18. The Jews gave the command a very limited application. For Christ's application, see parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–37). It embraces any one so near us as to need and to receive our acts of kindness. Hate thine enemy. A Jewish perversion of the meaning of Deut. 23:6. It exhibits the spirit of the whole heathen world. Plato praises the Athenians because they hated the Persians more than any of the other Greeks.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Jesus continues to teach about how he has come to fulfill the Old Testament law. Here he begins to speak about loving enemies.

General Information:

Jesus is talking to a group of people about what they as individuals should and should not do. The "you" is plural in "you have heard" and "I say to you." The "you" and "your" are singular in "You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy," but in some languages they may need to be plural. All occurrences of "you" and "your" after that are plural. (See: Forms of You)

that it was said

This can be stated in active form. See how you translated this in Matthew 5:27. AT: "that God God said" or "that Moses said" (See: Active or Passive)

your neighbor

Here the word "neighbor" does not refer to a specific neighbor, but to any members of one's community or people group. These are people whom one usually desires to treat kindly or at least believes he ought to treat kindly. AT: "your countrymen" or "those who belong to your people group" (See: Generic Noun Phrases)

But I say

Jesus agrees with God and his word, but he does not agree with the way the religious leaders have applied God's word. The "I" is emphatic. This indicates that what Jesus says is equally important to the original commands from God. Try to translate this phrase in a way that shows that emphasis. See how you translated this in Matthew 5:22.

you may be sons of your Father

It is best to translate "sons" with the same word your language would naturally use to refer to human sons or children.

Father

This is an important title for God. (See: Translating Son and Father)

translationWords

neighbor

pray

persecute

son

God the Father

heaven

evil

good

righteous

just

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

43. ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου. Lev 19:18, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’ The second clause does not occur in Levit., but was a Rabbinical inference. ἐχθρούς, all who are outside the chosen race, the etymological force of the word. Heathen writers bear testimony to this unsocial characteristic of the Jews. Juvenal says it was their rule—

‘Non monstrare vias eadem nisi sacra colenti,

Quæsitum ad fontem solos deducere verpos.’—Sat. XIV. 104.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

43-48.] Sixth example. The law of love and hatred.

43.] The Jews called all Gentiles indiscriminately ‘enemies.’ In the Pharisaic interpretation therefore of the maxim (the latter part of which, although a gloss of the Rabbis, is a true representation of the spirit of the law, which was enacted for the Jews as a theocratic people), it would include the ‘odium humani generis’ with which the Jews were so often charged. But our Lord’s ‘fulfilment’ of neighbourly love extends it to all mankind—not only foreign nations, but even those who are actively employed in cursing, reviling, and persecuting us; and the hating of enemies is, in His fulfilment of it, no longer an individual or national aversion, but a coming out and being separate from all that rebel against God.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

43-48. Fifth illustration. Cf. Luk 6:27-36.

(L) Ye heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and shalt hate thy enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you; that you may be sons of your Father who is in the heavens: because He causes His sun to rise upon evil and good, and sends rain upon just and unjust. For if ye love those who love you, what reward have ye ? do not even the toll-gatherers do the same ? And if ye have saluted your brethren only, what more do ye (than they) ? do not even the Gentiles do the same ? Ye shall therefore be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.]

The first clause is found in Lev 19:18, the second is an inference from the distinction drawn in the Old Testament between conduct towards Israelites and conduct towards Gentiles. Christ here sweeps away all casuistical distinctions between neighbours and enemies, Jews and Gentiles. The neighbour of the Old Testament is to include the enemy. Love is to seek the good of all men alike, regardless of moral or racial distinctions. In this respect the Christian disciple is to be a son of the heavenly Father, i.e. like Him in moral character. For He bestows His blessing on all alike. Cf. Secrets of Enoch 50:4 “When you might have vengeance do not repay, either your neighbour or your enemy.” Buddhist and Christian Gospels, Edmunds, p. 82.

“Let one conquer wrath by absence of wrath,

Let one conquer wrong by goodness,

Let one conquer the mean man by a gift,

And a liar by the truth.”

For πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς, see on v. 16.—βρέχει] In this sense poetical and vernacular. See Kennedy, Sources, 39. It is common in LXX. and N.T. τελώνης here as in the Rabbinical literature, used as descriptive of a despised class of men; cf. Schürer, I. ii. 71. ἀσπάσησθε defines the practical method of the prayer of v. 44. The divine blessing is to be invoked on all, regardless of distinctions of race and religion, not only on brethren, i.e. Jews. ἐθνικοί is apparently equivalent to Gentiles, cf. 6:7, 18:17, and 3Jn 1:7. In Oxyrhynchus Papyri, i. 126, 13, a.d. 573, it seems to signify a collector of taxes.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Neighbor [τον πλησιον] . Another word to which the Gospel has imparted a broader and deeper sense. Literally it means the one near (so the Eng., neighbor = nigh - bor), indicating a mere outward nearness, proximity. Thus a neighbor might be an enemy. Socrates (Plato, "Republic," 2 373) shows how two adjoining states might come to want each a piece of its neighbor 's [των πλησιον] land, so that there would arise war between them; and again (Plato, "Theaetetus," 174) he says that a philosopher is wholly unacquainted with his next - door neighbor, and does not know whether he is a man or an animal. The Old Testament expands the meaning to cover national or tribal fellowship, and that is the sense in our Lord 's quotation here. The Christian sense is expounded by Jesus in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luk 10:29 sqq.), as including the whole brotherhood of man, and as founded in love for man, as man, everywhere.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.