Biblical commentary on the New Testament - The Christian ...

304 Matthew V. 19, 20.
their freedom, may have assailed the edifice of the old theocracy.
The passage has, at any rate, no reference to the Jewish doctors'
division of the law into great and small commandments, since such
a depreciation of the moral part (as the small commandments), and
over-estimation of the ceremonial j)art (as the great commandments),
being false pharisaical doctrine, necessarily excluded from the kingdom
of heaven. But the expressions : " to be least in the kingdom
of heaven," and " not to enter into the kingdom," cannot possibly
be synonymous. Our Lord speaks rather in general of a state cf
mind, controlled mainly by Christian princij)le, but in ^vhich man
proceeds without proper reverence for God's word, and teaches so to
proceed, and does away with many apparently non-essential ordinances
of the law. With st, false lihertij like this, a man may indeed
be of the kingdom of God in his inmost soul, but he does not belong
to it Avith all his powers ; and for that reason, too, he is unfit to
teach. The terms i^iyag, great, and eXdxtorog, least, denote, there-
fore, different grades of development in the principle of the Christian
life. The Scriptures often speak of different gradations like these,
especially under the names of " children," " young men," and " men."
(1 John ii. 13, 14 ; 1 Peter ii. 2 ; Ephes. iv. 13 ; Col. ii. 19.) The
whole passage is, therefore, a warning to the disciples not to damage
the cause of the kingdom of God and their own progress in it, by
premature interference.*
Ver. 20.—In what follows, Jesus contrasts with the arbitrary
subversion of the Old Testament the equally arbitrary retention of
it in its external form ; this was seen in the Pharisees, and totally
excluded them from the kingdom. In itself, indeed, wdiat belongs
to the Old Testament can never be zmchristian ; it is only ^rechristian,
and, as type, includes what is Christian. It may, however, be
represented as unchristian and antichristian, if it is retained in its
germ-like form, and its free development is impeded. Such was the
position of the Pharisees ; they restricted the commandments of the
Old Testament to their literal meaning, without penetrating to their
spiritual contents. They had, therefore, a righteousness, but it was
merely outward ; they seemed to keep the law, but this appearance
was only a means for them the more certainly to break it in its
most sacred forms. And as they had, too, the law written in their
hearts (Rom. ii. 15), they desecrated God's sanctuary within them,
* The Pharisaic mode of feehng (v. 20) is not contrasted (as Olshausen would have it)-
with the 7.VSLV, brcaJdng of tlfc law; but v. 20 rather attaches itself by the /or {yup) to v.
19 as an argument. Hence the ?.veLv v. 19, must represent the Pharisaical mode of deal-
ing with the law, and thus (unlike Kara avelv, v. \*l) must denote the mechanical breaking
up of a law into a multitude of casuistical and merely formal precepts in opposition to its
spiritual apprehension and fulfilment. This subtle casuistry is in the kingdom of God
valueless (shall be called least, etc., v. 19), and whoever reposes in it his hope of salvation
excludes himself from the kingdom of God.— [E.