Matthew 6:24

Mat_6:24

Serve two masters.

Neutrality in religion exposed

I. No man can serve two masters.

1. There are many who contrive to elude the force of this maxim, or make awful experiments to try the certainty of it.

2. Nor are these persons wanting in excuses to palliate, if not to justify their practice.

3. There are, however, four cases in which you may serve two masters, but the exceptions only render the general rule more remarkable.

(1) You may serve two masters successively.

(2) By serving one in reality and the other in pretence.

(3) You may serve two masters unequally.

(4) When they are on the same side and differ only in degree. You cannot serve God and mammon.

II. One of these you will unavoidably serve.

1. It is impossible for a man to be without some master.

2. The advocates of independence are greatest slaves.

3. The service of religion does not demand greater privations than that of sin.

III. You ought to serve God. Remind you-

1. Of His various and undeniable claims.

2. Of His designs in employing you in His service; our own good, not His need.

3. Make the right choice. (W. Jay.)

The impossibility of serving God and mammon

I. The meaning and truth of the maxim here laid down. The man who serves his master serves him with faithfulness and singleness of heart, with a mind wholly given to his service. It is impossible thus to serve two. He may appear to serve both: but let contrary interests arise and it will be seen to which he really belongs.

II. Our Lords application of this maxim. God and mammon are two masters: cannot serve both.

1. You must follow your worldly business from right motives.

2. You must follow it by right rules.

3. You must use your worldly gain in a right manner.

Two motives weigh with a man in selecting masters, interest or gratitude. On these grounds God claims your service above the world.

1. God can do more for you than mammon can do. God claims your service on the ground of what He has done for you. (E. Cooper.)

I. The necessity of decision in religion.

1. From the impracticability of uniting the two services.

2. From the misery which is an attendant on the attempt to unite these services.

3. The fatal consequences in another world.

4. The happy consequences from a uniform attachment to the right master.

(1) Faithfulness has its own reward;

(2) The path of decision is that of safety;

(3) In heaven.

II. Application of the subject.

1. Decision of character, it is evident, is totally distinct from party spirit.

2. We do not intend anything like indifference.

3. But are not some decided on the other side? (J. Fell.)

No man can serve two masters

1. It is a moral impossibility. He will love the one, etc. Men who love the world hate religion; and those who hate the world love Christ.

2. A divided service is making a divided life, the world comes into the religion, and religion comes into the world; both are spoilt.

3. The luxury, repose, and strength of a heart quite made up. (J. Vaughan, M. A.)

God and mammon

I. The service that cannot be divided.

II. Why cannot both be served.

1. Because God claims a whole service.

2. Because God claims a heart-service.

III. The grounds of a reasonable choice.

1. Justice-God claims our service as His due; not upon contract, but natural relationship.

2. Gratitude-God has redeemed us.

3. Interest. Here mammon rests his whole case. His claim is that he offers

(1) advantages suited to our nature.

(2) That they are present. Examine his claims. They are not adapted to our nature as it ought to be. Are there no present advantages in Gods service?

Concerning the advantages of mammon three inquiries have to be answered.

1. Are they certain?

2. Are they real?

3. Will they last? (T. M. Macdonald, M. A.)

The service of the heart supreme

When a statute was made in Queen Elizabeths reign that all should come to church, the Papists sent to Rome to know the Popes pleasure; he returned them this answer, it is said: Bid the Catholics in England give me their hearts, and let the Queen take the rest. (Gurnall.)

You cannot sail under two flags.

The impossibility of serving God and mammon, and the propriety of giving God the preference

I. The impossibility of serving both.

1. Because of their opposite interests.

2. From the different objects they have to advance.

3. From the nature of the flesh and the spirit.

II. The propriety of giving God the preference.

1. He has the first claim upon you. He your Creator.

2. Consider the relative character of the service. One your life and joy, the other servitude and death.

III. Improvement.

1. The infinite importance of having singleness of heart in matters of religion.

2. How necessary to examine our hearts that we may know whom we serve.

3. What an awful idea the subject gives us of worldly-minded possessors. (J. E. Good.)

The inconsistency of the love of God and love of the world

I. What is it to serve God?

1. A visible profession, a steady belief, and awful sentiments of a Supreme Being.

2. To ascribe that worship that is strictly due to Him, as an acknowledgment of His almighty power, and a testimony of our submission.

3. Regard to His sacred laws.

4. A ready and cheerful obedience to His will, and a resignation under afflictions.

II. What is it to serve mammon?

1. It implies a persuasion of mind that riches and grandeur are the true seat of human happiness.

2. It is to attribute that worship to the creature which is only due to the Creator.

3. It is to be so much devoted to the world, as to fret at every disappointment, and repine at the least obstruction to our growing rich.

III. To show wherein the service of God and mammon is inconsistent. Their commands are contrary and irreconcilable. God commands us to seek Him first; mammon tempts us with kingdoms. God asks for our time; mammon takes it.

2. Annex a consideration to enforce what has been said.

(1) The folly to saunter away this span of life in the fruitless pursuit of riches, since we cannot tell who shall gather them.

(2) Can all the kingdoms of the world give us any inducement to their pursuit: they are gilded toys.

(3) Riches make to themselves wings and fly away.

(4) From the impossibility of finding happiness in the love of the world, and its inconsistency with the love of God, we meet with an indispensable obligation of fixing our attention on greater objects. (W. Adey.)

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

Mat 6:24. No man can serve two masters — Whose interests and commands are directly contrary to each other; for either he will hate the one and love the other — And therefore, while he employs himself in the service of the one, will, of course, neglect the interest of the other: or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other — That is, will adhere entirely to the love and service of the one, and quite abandon the other. Do not therefore impose upon yourselves so far as to imagine that your hearts can be equally divided between heaven and earth. Ye cannot serve God and mammon, that unworthy idol, to which many devote their hearts and their lives. “Mammon is a Syriac word for riches, which our Lord here beautifully represents as a person whom the folly of men had deified. It is well known that the Greeks had a fictitious god of wealth; but I cannot find,” says Dr. Doddridge, “that he was ever directly worshipped in Syria under the name of Mammon.” According to some, the term is derived from

אמן, amen, and signifies whatever one is apt to confide in. And, because men put their trust generally in external advantages, such as riches, authority, honour, power, &c., the word mammon is used to denote every thing of that kind, and particularly riches, by way of eminence. The word hate, in this verse, signifies, to have a less value for, and to love, is to have a greater regard for, as appears from the remaining part of the verse, and from Mat 10:37, compared with Luk 12:16. See Bishop Newton’s Notes on Paradise Lost, 1:620.

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

2. The world must not stand in competition with God, Mat_6:24-34.

24. Two masters — If the masters indeed agree perfectly, it is essentially one master. But here two signifies opposing. They are two, (as two masters ever will be,) not only in number, but in interest; and the poor slave or worshipper is under a conflicting jurisdiction, where one authority commands and another prohibits.

Mammon — There is no proof that Mammon was the name of a Syrian false god, or really an idol deity at all. Augustine says it is a Punic word signifying gain. The word was used in later and corrupt Hebrew for wealth. It is here personified by our Lord as the rival to the true God — an antigod of this world, He is the supreme Dollar of the day.

Hate… love — In the heart. Hold to… despise — In the external conduct. Either in heart, or in action, or both, one of the masters will be sole master. Serve — As a slave or a worshipper. You cannot serve both; but you may make God your Lord, and Mammon your servant.

But if God alone must be worshipped, and Mammon despised, what will become of our support for life?

Our Lord now meets the question. Be not anxious about the matter; the duty is your part, the care is God’s. He who has adjusted his providential care to the bird, (which, indeed, hunts his food, yet lives by faith,) and to the lily, (that, indeed, struggles to gather moisture, and yet depends on God to paint her texture,) will also adjust his care for you, his chosen servants. Perform, indeed, every duty in the world; then leave all the care to God, and rise to the true dignity of the true man of faith, who brings the world beneath his feet and sets God above all. This is the true place of human excellence and of divine repose.

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

6:24 The term for money (traditionally mammon) is an Aramaic term for profits or material possessions. Since God tolerates no rivals, Jesus repeatedly warns of the danger of accumulating riches (13:22; 19:16-30; 26:14-16; 27:3-10; 28:11-15), which can be an idol (see Eph 5:5; Col 3:5). We must trust God to meet our needs (Matt 4:3-4; 6:8, 11, 25-34; 7:7-11; 10:9-14; 14:15-21; 15:32-38), and the community of disciples is to be mutually supportive (6:2-4; 10:40-42; 19:21; 23:23-24; 25:31-46; 26:6-13; 27:57-61).

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

Mat 6:24. Κυρίοις, masters) God and Mammon in sooth act as master to their servants, but in different ways.—δουλεύειν, to serve) i.e.[278] to be a servant of.—ἢ γὰρ, for either) Each part of this disjunctive sentence has καὶ (and) with a consecutive force, viz. The heart of man cannot be so free as not to serve either God or a creature, nor can it serve them both at once;[279] for it either still remains in enmity with God or it takes God’s part. In the one case, then (καὶ) it cannot but love Mammon; in the other, then (καὶ) it cannot but despise Mammon. This statement may be inverted, so that the clause referring to the laudable state of mind may precede the other. Cf. Mat 6:22-23. Attachment and a desire to please are consequent upon either servitude. See Mat 6:21.—Θεῷ δουλεύειν, to serve God) Which is described in Luk 12:35-36.[280]—μαμωνᾷ, Mammon) Mammon does not only mean affluence, but external goods, however few. See Mat 6:25.[281] Augustine[282] tells us, that both in Phœnician and Chaldee mammon signifies gain.

[278] With one’s full powers.—V. g.

[279] Although very many think themselves thoroughly versed in this art of combining both.—V. g.

[280] The servants of Mammon, in obedience to their natural instincts, hate Him, who alone is good.—V. g.

[281] Yea, even the commonest necessaries of life. Comp. Mat 6:32. But if even such a service of Mammon, as affects the mere necessaries of life, is opposed to the service of GOD, what then are we to suppose it to be to serve GOD. It is this: to be borne towards Him with the full tide of love, and with uninterrupted regard.—V. g.

[282] AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS, one of the most celebrated fathers of the Western Church, was born at Tagasta, in Africa, in 354. His mother Monica was a holy Christian woman: his father a heathen, in which religion he was educated. His early career, though one of extreme brilliancy, was disfigured by profligacy. At length, however, he embraced Christianity; was baptized by St Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, in 387; ordained priest in 391; and consecrated in 395 Bishop of Hippo, where he died in 430.—(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_6:24. But certainly do not suppose that ye can combine the eager pursuit of wealth with striving after the kingdom of God! no, aut, aut!

δυσί] i.e. of course, two who are of opposite characters.

ἢ γὰρ … καταφρονήσει] he will either hate A and love B, or if not, vice versâ, he will cleave to A and despise B. In the second clause ἑνός is without the article, because the idea is somewhat different from that in the first, namely: or he will cleave to one (not both) and despise the other concerned.

μισεῖν and ἀγαπᾶν, like שָׂנֵא and אָהַב, are used neither here nor anywhere else (Gen_29:31; Mal_1:2-3; Luk_14:26; Luk_16:13; Joh_12:25; Rom_9:13) with a less forcible meaning (de Wette, Tholuck, Bleek), so as to be equivalent to posthabere and praeferre. See, on the other hand, note on Rom_9:12, also Fritzsche on this passage. The two masters are conceived of as being of such a nature that the one is loved, the other hated, and vice versâ,and that in a decided manner, without any intermediate attitude of indifference. Luther: although the world can do it skilfully; and as it is expressed in German, by carrying the tree on both shoulders. In the second alternative, then, the καταφρονεῖν corresponds to the μισεῖν as being the effect of the hatred, while to the ἀγαπᾶν corresponds the ἀντέχεσθαι as the effect of the love.

ἀνθέξεται] he will hold to him, faithfully cleave to him. Plat. Rep. x. p. 600 D; Phil. p. 58 E; Ax. p. 369 E; Dem. 290. 9; 1Ma_15:34; Tit_1:9.

μαμωνᾶς] Chaldee מָמוֹנָא, Syr. ܡܡܘܢܐ, consequently it should be spelt with only one μ, and derived, not from אמן, but from טמן, so that its origin is to be traced to מַטְמוֹן, thesaurus (Gen_43:23). Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 552. It means riches, and, according to Augustine, is, in the Punic language, equivalent to lucrum. In this instance it is personified owing to its connection with δουλεύειν, and from its antithesis to θεῷ: wealth conceived of as an idol (Plutus). Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1217 f.

Moreover, the idea implied in the δουλεύειν prevents the possible abuse of the saying. Luther says well: To have money and property is not sinful; but what is meant is, that thou shouldst not allow them to be thy master, rather that thou shouldst make them serve thee, and that thou shouldest be their master. Comp. Chrysostom, who quotes the examples of Abraham and Job. According to the axiom in the text, Christ justly (see on Luk_16:9, the note) requires unfaithfulness in regard to mammon.

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 6:24 . Parable of the two masters . Οὐδεὶς : In the natural sphere it is impossible for a slave to serve two masters, for each claims him as his property, and the slave must respond to one or other of the claims with entire devotion, either from love or from interest. ἢ γὰρ … μισήσει … ἀγαπήσει : We may take this clause as referring to the case of honest preference. A slave has his likes and dislikes like other men. And he will not do things by halves. His preference will take the form of love, and his aversion that of hate. ἢ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται , etc.: this clause may be taken as referring to the case of interest. The slave may not in his heart care for either of the rival masters. But he must seem to care, and the relative power or temper of one as compared to the other, may be the ground of his decision. And having decided, he attaches himself, ἀνθέξεται , to the one, and ostentatiously disregards the other. In ordinary circumstances there would be no room for such a competition of masters. But a case might occur in time of war when the conquered were sold into slavery. οὐ δύνασθε , etc. Application of the parable to God and earthly possessions. μαμωνᾷ , wealth personified = Plutus, a Chaldee, Syriac, and Punic word (“lucrum punice mammon dicitur,” Aug. de S. D.) derived from טָמַן = to conceal or אָמֵן to trust ( vide Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. , p. 1217). The meaning is not, “ye cannot serve God and have riches,” but “ye cannot be faithful to God and make an idol of wealth”. “Non dixit, qui habet divitias, sed qui servit divitiis,” Jerome.

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

Which be at jar together, for if two agree, they are as one.

This word is a Syrian word, and signifieth all things that belong to money.

God will be worshipped of the whole man.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

No man can serve--The word means to "belong wholly and be entirely under command to."

two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other--Even if the two masters be of one character and have but one object, the servant must take law from one or the other: though he may do what is agreeable to both, he cannot, in the nature of the thing, be servant to more than one. Much less if, as in the present case, their interests are quite different, and even conflicting. In this case, if our affections be in the service of the one--if we "love the one"--we must of necessity "hate the other"; if we determine resolutely to "hold to the one," we must at the same time disregard, and (if he insist on his claims upon us) even "despise the other."

Ye cannot serve God and mammon--The word "mamon"--better written with one m--is a foreign one, whose precise derivation cannot certainly be determined, though the most probable one gives it the sense of "what one trusts in." Here, there can be no doubt it is used for riches, considered as an idol master, or god of the heart. The service of this god and the true God together is here, with a kind of indignant curtness, pronounced impossible. But since the teaching of the preceding verses might seem to endanger our falling short of what is requisite for the present life, and so being left destitute, our Lord now comes to speak to that point.

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 24. No man can serve two masters] The master of our heart may be fitly termed the love that reigns in it. We serve that only which we love supremely. A man cannot be in perfect indifference betwixt two objects which are incompatible: he is inclined to despise and hate whatever he does not love supremely, when the necessity of a choice presents itself.

He will hate the one and love the other.] The word hate has the same sense here as it has in many places of Scripture; it merely signifies to love less-so Jacob loved Rachel, but hated Leah; i.e. he loved Leah much less than he loved Rachel. God himself uses it precisely in the same sense: Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated; i.e. I have loved the posterity of Esau less than I have loved the posterity of Jacob: which means no more than that God, in the course of his providence, gave to the Jews greater earthly privileges than he gave to the Edomites, and chose to make them the progenitors of the Messiah, though they ultimately, through their own obstinacy, derived no more benefit from this privilege than the Edomites did. How strange is it, that with such evidence before their eyes, men will apply this loving and hating to degrees of inclusion and exclusion, in which neither the justice nor mercy of God are honoured!

Ye cannot serve God and mammon.] ממון mamon is used for money in the Targum of Onkelos, Ex 18:21; and in that of Jonathan, Jdg 5:19; 1Sa 8:3. The Syriac word ממונא mamona is used in the same sense, Ex 21:30. Dr. Castel deduces these words from the Hebrew אמן aman, to trust, confide; because men are apt to trust in riches. Mammon may therefore be considered any thing a man confides in. Augustine observes, "that mammon, in the Punic or Carthaginian language, signified gain." Lucrum Punicè mammon dicitur. The word plainly denotes riches, Lu 16:9; Lu 16:11, in which latter verse mention is made not only of the deceitful mammon, (τω αδικω), but also of the true (το αληθινον.) St. Luke's phrase, μαμωνα αδικιας, very exactly answers to the Chaldee ממון דשקר mamon dishekar, which is often used in the Targums. See more in Wetstein and Parkhurst.

Some suppose there was an idol of this name, and Kircher mentions such a one in his OEdip. Egyptiacus. See Castel.

Our blessed Lord shows here the utter impossibility of loving the world and loving God at the same time; or, in other words, that a man of the world cannot be a truly religious character. He who gives his heart to the world robs God of it, and, in snatching at the shadow of earthly good, loses substantial and eternal blessedness. How dangerous is it to set our hearts upon riches, seeing it is so easy to make them our God!

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

(24) No man can serve two masters.—Literally, can be the slave of two masters. The clauses that follow describe two distinct results of the attempt to combine the two forms of service which are really incompatible. In most cases, there will be love for the one, and a real hatred for the other. The man who loves God cannot love the evil world, and, so far as it is evil, will learn to hate it. The man who loves the world will, even in the midst of lip-homage, hate the service of God in his inmost heart. But there are natures which seem hardly susceptible of such strong emotions as love or hatred. In that case there will be a like though not an identical, issue. The man’s will will drift in one direction or another. He will cleave to one with such affection as he is capable of, and will hold the other cheap. God or mammon, not both together, will be the ruling power with him.

Mammon.—The word means in Syriac “money” or “riches,” and is used in this sense in Luk_16:9. It occurs frequently in the Chaldee Targum, but no word resembling it is found in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. In the fourth century Jerome found it in use in Syria, and Augustine in the Punic dialect of his native country. There is no ground for believing that it ever became the name of any deity, who, like the Plutus of the Greeks, was worshipped as the god of wealth. Here, there is obviously an approach to a personification for the sake of contrasting the service or worship of money with that which is due to God. Milton’s description of Mammon among the fallen angels is a development of the same thought (Par. Lost, I. 678).

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

24. Another illustration of the singleness of the Christian character, “the simplicity that is in Christ” (2Co_11:3), drawn from the relation of master and slave.

serve two masters] Strictly, be a slave to two masters. The absolute subjection of the slave must be considered. The interests of the “two masters” are presupposed to be diverse.

mammon] A Syriac word meaning “wealth.” There is no proof that it was the name of a god. It stands here for all that mostly estranges men from God: cp. “covetousness, which is idolatry,” Col_3:5.

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.

Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life,.... Since ye cannot serve both God and "mammon", obey one, and neglect the other. Christ does not forbid labour to maintain, support, and preserve, this animal life; nor does he forbid all thought and care about it, but all anxious, immoderate, perplexing, and distressing thoughts and cares; such as arise from diffidence and unbelief, and tend to despair; which are dishonourable to God, as the God of nature and providence, and uncomfortable to men:

what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. The several and the only things, which are necessary for the support and comfort of human life, are mentioned; as meat, drink, and clothing; Eating and drinking are necessary to preserve life; and raiment, to cover and defend the body, from the injuries of the heavens: and having these, men have everything necessary, and ought herewith to be content; nor should they be anxiously thoughtful about these: for

is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? And yet, God has given these without man's thought: and since these are better, and much more excellent, than food and raiment, as all must and will acknowledge; and God has given these the greater gifts, it may be depended upon, that he will give the lesser; that he will give meat and drink; to uphold that valuable life, which he is the author of; and raiment to clothe that body, which he, with so much wisdom and power, has accurately and wonderfully made.

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

24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Ver. 24. No man can serve two masters, &c.] The mammonist’s mind must needs be full of darkness, because utterly destitute of the Father of lights, the sun of the soul: for ye cannot serve two masters, God and mammon. By mammon is meant earthly treasure, worldly wealth, outward abundance, especially when, gotten by evil arts, it cometh to be the gain of ungodliness, the wages of wickedness, riches of unrighteousness, filthy lucre. {a} When Joseph was cast into the pit by his bloody brethren, "What gain," saith Judah, "will it be if we kill him?" Gen 37:26. The Chaldee there hath it, what mammon shall it be? what can we make of it? what profit shall we reap or receive thereby? Now these two, God and mammon, as they are incompatible masters, so the variance between them is irreconcileable. "Amity with the world is enmity with the Lord," Jas 4:4. Enmity, I say, in a sense both active and passive, for it makes a man both to hate God and to be hated by God: so there is no love lost on either side. "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him," that is flat. But the deeper any one is drowned in the world, the more desperately he is divorced from God, who requireth to be served truly, that there be no halting; and totally, that there be no halving. Camden reports of Redwald, the first king of the East Saxons that was baptized, that he had in the same church one altar for Christian religion and another for sacrifice to devils. {b} And Callenucius telleth us of a nobleman of Naples, that was wont profanely to say that he had two souls in his body, one for God and another for whomsoever would have it. The Ebionites, saith Eusebius, would keep the sabbath with the Jews and the Lord’s day with the Christians, as if they were of both religions, when, in truth, they were of neither. So Ezekiel’s hearers sat devoutly before the Lord at his public ordinances, and with their mouth showed much love, but their heart, meanwhile, was on their half-penny, it went after their covetousness, Eze 33:31. So the Pharisees heard Christ’s sermon against the service of mammon, and derided him, Luk 16:13; and while their lips seemed to pray, they were but chewing of that murdering-morsel, those widows’ houses that their throats (as an open sepulchre) swallowed down soon after. Thus filled they up the measure of their fathers, those ancient idolaters in the wilderness, who set up a golden calf, and then caused it to be proclaimed, "To-morrow is a feast to Jehovah," Exo 32:5. And such is the dealing of every covetous Christian. St Paul calleth him an idolater, St James an adulterer, for he goeth a whoring after his gods of gold and silver; and although he bow not the knee to his mammon, yet with his heart he serveth it. Now "obedience is better than sacrifice;" and, "know ye not," saith the apostle, "that his servants ye are to whom ye obey?" &c., Rom 6:16. Inwardly he loves it, delights in it, trusts on it, secures himself by it from whatsoever calamities. Outwardly, he spends all his time upon this idol, in gathering, keeping, increasing, or honouring of it. Hence the jealous God hateth him, and smites his hands at him, Eze 22:13, and hath a special quarrel against those that bless the covetous, whom the Lord abhorreth, Psa 10:3. As for his servants, he strictly chargeth them to have their conversation without covetousness, Heb 13:5, yea, their communication, Eph 5:3, yea, their cogitation, 2Pe 2:14; branding them for cursed children that have so much as their thoughts exercised that way. He will not have his hasten to be rich, or labour after superfluities, no, nor anxiously after necessaries. For worldliness (I say not covetousness), when men oppress themselves with multiplicity of business, or suffer their thoughts and affections to be continually almost taken up with minding these things on earth, is a main hindrance from heaven; it fills the heart with cares, and so unfits and deads it to divine duties, {c} The thoughts as wings should carry us in worship even to the mansions of God, which being laden with thick clay, they so glue us to the earth that the loadstone of the word and ordinances cannot draw us one jot from it. The soul is also hereby made like a mill, where one cannot hear another, the noise is such as takes away all intercourse (οπου ουδεις ουδεν ουδενος ακουει). If conscience call to them to take heed of going out of God’s way, they are at as little leisure to listen as he that runs in a race; who many times runs with so much violence, that he cannot hear what is said unto him, be it never so good counsel. And having thus set their hearts and anchored their hopes upon earthly things, if ever they lose them, as it often falleth out, they are filled almost with unmedicinable sorrows, so as they will praise the dead above the living, and wish they had never been born, Ecc 4:1-3. Lo, this is the guise and guerdon of those inhabitants of the earth, those viri divitiarum, as the Psalmist styles them, those miserable muck-worms that prefer mammon before Messiah, gold before God, money before mercy, earth before heaven; as childish a weakness as that of Honorius the emperor, that preferred a hen before the city of Rome. Mammon, saith one, is a monster, whose head is as subtle as the serpent, whose mouth is wide as hell, eyes sharp as a lizard, scent quick as the vulture, hands fast as harpies, belly insatiable as a wolf, feet swift to shed blood, as a lioness robbed of her whelps. {d} Ahab will have Naboth’s vineyard, or he will have his blood. Judas was both covetous and a murderer, and therefore a murderer because covetous. He is called also a thief; and why a thief but because a mammonist? Covetousness draws a man from all the commandments, Psa 119:36. And there want not those that have drawn the covetous person through all the commandments, and proved him an atheist, a papist, a perjurer, a profaner of God’s sabbath, an iron bowelled wretch, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, a false witness, or whatsoever else the devil will. And can this man ever serve God acceptably? can he possibly please two so contrary masters? No; he may sooner reconcile fire and water, look with the one eye upward and with the other eye downward, bring heaven and earth together, and grip them both in a fist, as be habitually covetous and truly religious. These two are as inconcurrent as two parallel lines, and as incompatible as light and darkness. They who bowed down on their knees to drink of the waters were accounted unfit soldiers for Gideon; so are those for Christ, that stoop to the base love of the things of this life (Βιωτακα); they discredit both his work and his wages; which Abraham would not, that ancient and valiant soldier and servant of the most high God. For when Melchisedeck from God had made him heir of all things, and brought him bread and wine, that is, an earnest, a little for the whole, &c., he refused the riches that the king of Sodom offered him, because God was his shield and his exceeding great reward, Gen 14:18-19; Gen 14:23; Gen 15:1; his shield against any such enemies as Chedorlaomer and his complices had been unto him, and his exceeding great reward, for all his labour of love in that or any other service, though he received not of any man, from a thread to a shoelatchet.

{a} Magna est cognatio divitiis et vitiis.

{b} Unam Deo dicatam, alteram unicuique qui illam vellet.

{c} τον πολλα τεχνωμενον παντα ευ τεχνασθαι αδυνατον.

{d} Quorum charismata, numismata, scripturae, sculpturae, quibusque ο αργυρος το αιμα εστι και ψυχη, ut vulgo dici solet.

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.

No man can serve two masters ... - Christ proceeds to illustrate the necessity of laying up treasures in heaven from a well-known fact, that a servant cannot serve two masters at the same time. His affections and obedience would be divided, and he would fail altogether in his duty to one or the other. One he would love, the other he would hate. To the interests of the one he would adhere, the interests of the other he would neglect. This is a law of human nature. The supreme affections can be fixed on only one object. So, says Jesus, the servant of God cannot at the same time obey him. and be avaricious, or seek treasures supremely on earth. One interferes with the other, and one or the other will be, and must be, surrendered.

Mammon - Mammon is a Syriac word, a name given to an idol worshipped as the god of riches. It has the same meaning as Plutus among the Greeks. It is not known that the Jews ever formally worshipped this idol, but they used the word to denote wealth. The meaning is, ye cannot serve the true God, and at the same time be supremely engaged in obtaining the riches of this world. One must interfere with the other. See Luk 16:9-11.

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

Behold here a fresh motive to detach you from the love of riches, or mammon. We cannot both serve God and the world, the flesh and the spirit, justice and sin. The ultimate end of action must be one, either for this or for the next life. (Haydock)

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).

No man can serve two masters, that is, two masters that command contrary things each to other, for that is the present case of God and mammon. Or, No man with the like diligence, and alacrity, and faithfulness, can serve two masters. It is a proverbial speech, and in reason to be understood of contrary masters. He will either hate the one, or the first, and love the second, or else he will cleave to the first, and contemn the other, that is, so in his actions behave himself, that he will appear a true servant but to one of them, and despise or slight the other.

Ye cannot serve God and mammon. It is not improbable that some of the ancients have thought, that amongst some of the heathen they had an idol called Mammon, which they made the god of money; thence mammon by a figure signifieth riches, as Luk 16:9. So as it is of an equivalent sense to, no man can serve God and Bacchus, or God and Venus; that is, none can be a drunkard, or an unclean person, and a true servant of God. So no man can serve God, and yet make the getting of riches, right or wrong, his study; hence the apostle calls covetousness idolatry, Col 3:5. So that by serving here must be understood a giving up of ourselves chiefly or wholly to the service of God, and to the business of getting the world; or, serving the latter, in what it tempteth or commandeth us to, contrary to the will of God.

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

No man can serve two masters, etc. In Luk_16:13 the saying is found almost word for word immediately after the parable of the unjust steward. As the word "mammon" comes twice in that parable, but nowhere else in the New Testament, it is probable that its occurrence caused the insertion of this saying in that place (cf. ver. 22, note). No man can serve two masters. The thought is still of earnestness of purpose and singleness of heart. Our Lord here speaks of the impossibility of such divided service as he has been warning his disciples against attempting. No man can give due service to two masters. For, apart from the extent of the claim of each master total bond-service (douleuein) thorough service of two masters is incompatible with the effects produced upon the servant himself. The result of service is to incline him towards the one master and against the other. Notice how our Lord continues his plan of setting forth the moral effect of modes of thought or action upon the agents themselves. (cf. Rom_6:16) For either he will hate the one (ton ena), and love the other. Because human nature is such that it must attach itself to one of two principles. "Cor hominis neque its vacuum esse potest, ut non serviat ant Dee aut creaturae: neque simul duobus servire" (Bengel). Or else he will hold to the one (hh enoxetai). The Revised Version omits "the." The stress here is on "one not both." Hold to; in steadfast application. (cf. Ellicott, on Tit_1:9) Ye cannot serve God and mammon; "Ye moun not serve god and ricchesse" (Wickliffe). A repetition of the statement of the impossibility of serving two masters, but more than a repetition, for it is enforced by defining who the masters are. Mammon. The change in the Revised Version from a capital to a small m has probably been made to prevent "mammon" being understood as the proper name of some god. The derivation of the word (mamwnav , anwmm) is very doubtful. The most probable suggestion is that it is formed from the stem of hnm, and is equivalent to that which is apportioned or counted (cf. Levy, "Neuheb. Worterb.," s.v.; Edersheim, "Life," 2. p. 269). Hence its well-known meaning of property, wealth, especially money. Observe that our Lord does not here contrast God and Satan; he is emphasizing the thought which he has been adducing since ver. 19, viz., the relation that his disciples must hold to things of earth, which are summed up by him under the term "mammon" as with us under the term "wealth." Observe also that it is not the possession of wealth that he condemns, but the serving it, making it an object of thought and pursuit. Gathering it and using it in the service of and according to the will of God is not serving mammon (cf. Weiss, "Matthaus-Ev.").

The two masters.

Christ here passes from the consideration of thoughts and desires to the large world of action. His rule of life touches us all round. It begins with the heart the inner chamber, the sanctuary. It also applies to the life, the work, the scenes of daily life in the world. Now, we are carried out to this busy world to consider the principles that rule our conduct there.

I WE MUST HAVE A MASTER. This is assumed. Christ considers two forms of service. He does not contemplate the absolute freedom in which we are our own masters. We profess to be free, and claim to rule our own conduct; but that is only because the chains are gilded, or because the silken threads are invisible, because our obedience to our chosen master has become a second nature, i.e. because we serve from love and not from constraint. But all true service is heart-service; it springs from love; it is given willingly; and therefore it does not perceive the yoke of servitude. Yet he who escapes from the service of God as an irksome burden, irksome because his heart is not in the service, will certainly fall into the clutches of some other master mammon, sin, evil habit, lust, fashion, etc. all of them being but representatives of the great usurper.

II WE HAVE A CHOICE OF TWO MASTERS.

1. God. It is not enough to think of God as our Benefactor; we must remember that he claims our service. This is implied by his Fatherhood, because a father expects obedience on the part of his children. Now, it is not to be denied that the service of God is a very difficult service. It involves the renunciation of sin and the practice of self-denial. It requires absolute submission of the will in interior desire as well as in visible work. In our own strength it is impossible. (Jos_24:19) But God gives strength equal to the task. The reward of his service is immeasurable, not only in subsequent wages, but in the present joy of serving so good a God, delighting to do his will. (Psa_40:8)

2. Mammon. One form of low service. The unworthy service may assume other forms. But this is most prevalent and tempting. It is seen in the race for wealth, in the greed of covetousness, in the slavery of material pleasures and earthly desires. It is degrading to the soul, and it ends in weariness, disgust, and bitter disappointment (ver. 19).

III WE CAN SERVE BUT ONE MASTER. This is not a question of simple inconsistency and incongruity; it is a matter of absolute impossibility. Christ does not say, "Ye ought not;" he says, "Ye cannot." There can be but one true service rendered by our real selves. Yet nothing is more common than the foolish attempt to achieve the impossible. The result is the miserable failure of a distracted life. The man who would serve two masters has no success or joy in either pursuit. When trying to serve mammon, he is haunted by a disturbing conscience that restrains him from going as far as he would, and vexes him with muttered reproaches. When endeavouring to serve God, he is invaded by a host of foolish fancies and worldly anxieties. He cannot give himself to the worship and service of God, and therefore these things are a weariness of the flesh. Thus he fails, and. is miserable whatever he does. The secret of happiness is wholeheartedness. There is no joy on earth like the deep and satisfying gladness of a complete surrender to God as our one Lord and Master. Happily the principle is a safeguard for the true servant of God. The service of God excludes the service of mammon, and so keeps us safe. W.F.A.

Singleness of service.

To the most suggestive instruction and warning respecting singleness of eye follows now the subject, an evident sequel, of singleness of devotion. The most perfect perception and intelligence are certainly no guarantee of devotion of service, loyal and unswerving; but if there be the ready mind and honest disposition to this, then the sight, clear and quick, and perception unerring, will be most tributary to that service. The vainest waste of effort, the most prodigal dissipation of energy, must be the reward of the man who does not see with a perfect sight this that he cannot "serve two masters." Lead in the great lessons belonging to this language of our Lord by generally and lightly dwelling upon the meditation of.

I HOW PERVADING AND PENETRATING A FACT OF HUMAN LIFE SERVICE IS; THAT IT VINDICATES ITSELF AS NOTHING LESS THAN A LAW OF HUMAN NATURE, INEVITABLE, USEFUL, HONOURABLE; AND THAT ITS VARIOUSNESS, DRAWING WITHIN ITS BENEFICENT RANGE EVERY AGE AND EVERY MANNER OF INTEREST, IS MOST NOTABLE.

II HOW SERVICE IS BOUND UP IN THE VERY NAME, THE NATURE, AND HIGHEST ASPECTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF WHAT MEN CALL RELIGION.

III HOW, THEN, IT MUST BE THE GREATEST OUTRAGE ON REASON, RIGHT, CONSCIENCE, AND THE SOUL SO TO SERVE AS TO UNDO WITH THE ONE HAND WHAT IS DONE WITH THE OTHER; AND THAT THIS IT IS, WITH THE MOST CHARITABLE CONSTRUCTION, TO ESSAY TO "SERVE TWO MASTERS.

IV BUT, LASTLY, HOW (WHEN A LITTLE MORE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED) THAT OUTRAGE IS ONE WHICH MEANS VERY TREASON IN THE HEART ITSELF. IT MEANS NOT WASTE ONLY NOR FOLLY ONLY, BUT INFIDELITY; AND THE SETTING AT NOUGHT OF ALL PROMISE AND ENGAGEMENT OF THE HEART TO THE "FIRST AND GREAT COMMANDMENT. B.

Competitive services.

After discoursing of our treasure (vers. 19-21), and of the motive that should influence conduct (vers. 22, 23), our Lord here indicates two competitive services, viz. the service of God and the service of mammon. We have submitted to our acceptance

I THE SERVICE OF GOD.

1. This implies trust in him.

(1) Trust in God, viz. for deliverance from the tyranny of sin. Ilia help is pledged in his holiness.

(2) Trust in God for his help against temptation. He urges us to resist the evil one. He expressly promises his aid.

(3) Trust in God for strength to obey him. We need this, for our nature is prone to evil His grace is sufficient.

2. It implies love to God.

(1) His Law surveys the motives of the heart. Love is the fulfilling of the Law.

(2) The spiritual Master cannot be served without love. Love is the master of the heart.

(3) God is infinitely lovable. Truth itself. Essential goodness. The eye will be to the Master"s hand. (Psa_123:1, Psa_123:2) The servants of God will not serve mammon.

3. It implies imitation of God.

(1) Imitation is the sincerest love.

(2) There are things of God which are inimitable, e.g. omnipotence, infallibility. To attempt to imitate these would be outrageous presumption.

(3) The imitable things of God are those qualities in which we were created after his image. Knowledge, righteousness, holiness.

(4) To aid us in this we have the Spirit of Christ, who is emphatically the Image of God.

II THE SERVICE OF MAMMON.

1. This is the service of sin.

(1) Mammon is a name for worldly riches. (cf. vers. 19-21 Jam_4:13)

(2) It is any illicit love anything of which money may be taken as the exponent. It may be appetite. (Php_3:19) It may be ease. It may be honour: Pharisees.

2. It is the service of Satan.

(1) Mammon is supposed to have been a Chaldean idol corresponding to the Greek Pluto. It is here put for Satan as opposed to God. Sinners do not sufficiently consider the kind of master they serve.

(2) Mammon has still his images. Sometimes they take the form of coin, of bonds, of scrip, of estates. Sometimes of furniture, equipages, dress, food.

III THESE SERVICES ARE IRRECONCILABLE,

1. God is an imperial Lord.

(1) He claims the complete homage of all our powers by his absolute right of creation. This high claim is consistent with all legitimate secondary claims.

(2) By his right of providence. By his providence our existence is every moment preserved.

(3) By his right of redemption. Service here is claimed as gratitude for love.

(4) Servitude to God is blessed slavery. It is such a slavery as brings perfect liberty. It is slavery to truth and love.

2. Satan is an imperious tyrant.

(1) Half-service will not satisfy him. Lucifer would be like the Most High.

(2) Where he cannot drive, he will lure his victims to destruction. His resources of ingenuity are vast. His persistency is unflagging.

(3) Slavery to Satan is drudgery to cruelty. Human nature is too willing to be ruined.

3. The masters are contrary.

(1) "God and mammon;" "light" and "darkness.

(2) The services are as the masters. The orders of the masters are contrary. A man of the world cannot be a religious character. The servants of mammon hate God in their hearts.

(3) The attempt to reconcile these services is folly. Those persons try to serve two masters who strain consistency to steer close to the vortex of worldliness. Those who try to make religion serve their secular interests. "The pretending mother was for dividing the child." The Samaritans found the attempt sorrowful to fear the Lord and serve other gods. (2Ki_17:33) It is but supposition that gain is godliness. J.A.M.

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

Mammon - Riches, money; any thing loved or sought, without reference to God. Luke xvi, 13.

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

Warning against Mammon:

v. 24. No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.

It is a general truth, commonly accepted: For a slave to serve two masters is impossible. True, undivided service presupposes love and attachment, or at least a strong interest. He will regard the one with devotion, the other with aversion; he will take the part of the one, or at least put up with him, the other he will disregard. The conclusion; It is impossible to be faithful to God and at the same time be a servant of riches, making an idol of them. Christ does not condemn the possession, but the service of riches. Man can have only one highest good and principle of life. The service of heaven cannot be combined with the earthly inclinations, the two cannot be reconciled. If he chooses filthy lucre as his highest good, the service of God is out of the question, and he loses substantial and eternal blessedness. The disciples of Christ will shun covetousness with all their hearts and give their life’s devotion to their God and Savior.

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

Observe here a two-fold master spoken of, God and the world. God is our master by creation, preservation, and redemption; he has appointed us our works, and secured us our wages. This world is our master by intrusion, usurpation, and a general estimation: too many esteeming it as their chief good, and delighting in it as their chief joy.

Observe, 2. That no man can serve these two masters, who are of contrary interests, and issue out contrary commands; when two masters are subordinate, and their commands subservient each to the other, the difficulty of serving both is not great; but where the commands interfere, and interests clash, it is impossible. No man can serve God and the world, but he may serve God with the world: no man can seek God and mammon both as his chief good and ultimate end; because no man can divide his heart betwixt God and the world.

Learn, That to love the world as our chief good, and to serve the world as our chief and sovereign commander, cannot stand with the love and service which we bear and owe to God. The world’s slaves, whilst such, can be none of God’s freemen.

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

24. No man can serve two masters. He cannot give his heart to two services at the same time. He cannot follow two callings successfully. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. This is the direct application. The Chaldee word “Mammon” means money or riches. It is here personified as an idol. “Mammon” originally meant “trust,” or confidence, and riches is the trust of worldly men. If God be not the object of supreme trust, something else will be, and it is most likely to be money.

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.

24. Another illustration of the singleness of the Christian character, ‘the simplicity that is in Christ’ (2Co 11:3), drawn from the relation of master and slave.

δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν. Strictly, be a slave to two masters. The absolute subjection of the slave must be considered. The interests of the ‘two masters’ are presupposed to be diverse.

δυσί, a form condemned by the Atticists (Lob. Phryn. p. 210). In Thuc. VIII. 101, δυσὶν ἡμέραις is read by some editors, see Arnold ad loc. He reads δυσῖν, observing that the words practically differ only in accent.

μαμωνᾷ. An Aramaic and a Punic word (see Wetstein) signifying ‘wealth,’ probably connected with Hebr. Aman. So that the literal meaning would be, ‘that in which one trusts’ (Wilkii Clavis). It is said, on hardly sufficient authority, to have been personified as a god. This would strengthen the antithesis. See Schleusner sub voc. It stands here for all that mostly estranges men from God: cp. τὴν πλεονεξίαν ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρεία, Col 3:5.

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.

24.] And this division in man’s being cannot take place—he is and must be one—light or dark—serving God or Mammon.

δουλεύειν] Not merely ‘serve,’ but in that closer sense in which he who serves is the δοῦλος of, i.e. belongs to, and obeys entirely, ὁ Ἰὼβ πλούσιος ἦν· ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐδούλευε τῷ μαμωνᾷ, ἀλλʼ εἶχεν αὐτὸς καὶ ἐκράτει, καὶ δεσπότης, οὐ δοῦλος ἦν. Chrysost. Hom. xxi. 1, p. 269. See Rom 6:16, Rom 6:17.

ἢ γαρ … ἢ … is not a repetition; but the suppositions are the reverse of one another: as Meyer expresses it, ‘He will either hate A and love B, or cleave to A and despise B:’ ὁ εἷς and ὁ ἕτερος keeping their individual reference in both members. μισεῖν and ἀγαπᾷν must be given their full meaning, or the depth of the saying is not reached: the sense ‘minus diligo, posthabeo’ (Bretschneider) for μισεῖν would not bring out the opposition and division of the nature of man by the attempt.

μαμωνᾷ] Chaldee, מָמוֹנָא, (from אָמַן, confisus est,) riches. ‘Congruit et Punicum nomen, nam lucrum Punice mammon dicitur.’ August, in loc. Mammon does not appear to have been the name of any Syrian deity, as Schleusner asserts. Tholuck has shewn that the idea rests only on the testimony of Papias, an obscure grammarian of the eleventh century. Schl. refers to Tertullian, who, however, says nothing of the kind (see adv. Marc. iv. 33, vol. ii. pp. 439 ff., which must be the place meant, but not specified by Schl.).

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

24. Moreover, you cannot have both the treasure upon earth and the treasure in heaven.

(L) No one can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will cleave to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.] So Luk 16:13 with οἰκείης after οὐδείς. Lk. has the saying in quite a different context. Mt. probably drew it from the Logia, where it need not have stood in this connection.

δυσί] See Blass, p. 35. For ὁ εἶς—ὁ ἕτερος, cf. Blass, p. 144.—μαμμωνᾶς] is derived by Dalm. Gram.2 p. 170, Anm. 1, from מַאְמוֹן = “deposited.” ממון and ממונא occur in the Talmuds, see Levy, and in the Targums.

25-33 occur in Luk 12:22-31. Mt. probably drew them from the Logia.

(L)

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

The other [ετερον] . Implying distinction in quality rather than numerical distinction [αλλος] . For example, " whoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other [την αλλην] ; i e., the other one of the two (Mt 5:39). At Pentecost, the disciples began to speak with other [ετεραις] tongues; i e., different from their native tongues. Here the word gives the idea of two master of distinct or opposite character and interests, like God and Mammon.

Hold to [ανθεξεται] . The preposition ajnti, against, indicates holding to the one master as against the other. He who is for God must be against Mammon.

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