> ‎Chapter 6‎ > ‎Chaper 7‎ > ‎Chapter 8‎ > ‎Chapter 9‎ > ‎Chapter 10‎ > ‎Chapter 11‎ > ‎Chapter 12‎ > ‎Chapter 13‎ > ‎Chapter 14‎ > ‎Chapter 15‎ > ‎Chapter 16‎ > ‎Chapter 17‎ > ‎Chapter 18‎ > ‎Chapter 19‎ > ‎Chapter 20‎ > ‎Chapter 21‎ > ‎Chapter 22‎ > ‎Chapter 23‎ > ‎Chapter 24‎ > ‎Chapter 25‎ > ‎Chapter 26-27:1-2‎ > ‎Chapter 27‎ > ‎Chapter 28‎ >  

 

 

Chapters 5-7: The Sermon on the Mount: The most usual view is that Matthew has gathered together things Jesus said on more than one occasion. Of course, He really did say these things even so. The sermon is the first of five major discourses in Matthew, each of which follows a block of narrative material.

St. Luke's Gospel has a similar sermon, called the Sermon on the Plain. We note especially the differences in the beatitudes between the two Gospels. The most likely explanation is this: there is no doubt that Jesus was a traveling speaker, and as such, He would doubtless say the same things in many places, with perhaps some variation in each place. Therefore Luke may be reporting a different sermon. Yet the differences may come from the editorial work of each Evangelist: Matthew 5:17-37 and 6:1-18 is material Matthew's Jewish readers might find specially interesting, while Luke wrote for a different audience. Again, Luke has some things Matthew does not have: compare Mt 5:12 with Lk 6:23-26 or Mt 5:47 with Lk 6:33-35.

5:1-12: The Beatitudes: Each beatitude pronounces certain persons makarioi, which seems to mean well-off, fortunate, both in this life and in the world to come.

First, the poor in spirit are blessed. Poverty then, and now, was often thought of as sheer misfortune. Jesus does not say that mere physical poverty is blessed. He speaks of poverty in the spirit, that is, in detachment from the things of the world, so one does not let them get a hold on him with their pulls. Above, in speaking of the austerity of the life of John the Baptist, we explained what this detachment meant, in the light of Mt. 6:21. Physical poverty does make easier this detachment. Yet if not taken patiently, it may be spiritually harmful. Hence the wisdom of Proverbs 30:8 prays that God may give him neither poverty nor riches. Physical poverty can tempt one to be too much interested in material things and even to complain against God; riches make it harder to be detached. Hence the famous saying of Jesus about the camel and the needle's eye.

The poor in spirit remind us of the Old Testament anawim, the people who realized their own frailness and dependence on God, who is their only help. Is 57:15 and 66:2 praise them. The precise words poor in spirit do not occur in the Old Testament, but are found in the War Scroll of Qumran.

Some commentators, not understanding this matter of detachment, have tried to say that Luke's presentation of the same beatitude in 6:20 refers only to material poverty. But Jesus would not call that blessed in itself. The original NAB version of Mt said "theirs is the reign of God." Hard to find any sense in it at all. Rather, it means that it is of such persons as the detached poor that the kingdom consists in this world, and they will inherit the kingdom in the world to come.

The second beatitude speaks of those who mourn as blessed. It is not mourning as such that makes one blessed, it is mourning over their own sins, and over the infidelity of Israel that makes it deserve God's punishment all the more since Israel sins in spite of His special favor. We could also see here a reversal of attitudes: commonly in the Old Testament evil was thought of as a punishment for sin - cf. the book of Job. But Jesus showed us the positive value of suffering as a means of likeness to Him: Rom 8:17-18.

God's response is found in Isaiah 40:1. Comfort, comfort, my people.

These first two beatitudes recall Is 61: 1-3 cited by Jesus in Lk 4:18-19.

The third beatitude declares the meek are blessed: they will inherit the land. The meek are those who are unassuming, considerate, and far from the spirit of revenge. The land originally would mean God's promise of the land to Abraham and his descendants. By the time of Jesus it had been reinterpreted to mean heaven. But even in this life, meekness often brings returns. Those who are at the top in their own field are often remarkably meek and humble.

The fourth beatitude declares that those who hunger and thirst for righteousness will obtain all of it that they desire. Righteousness means all that the objective moral order calls for: sedaqah. God's supreme Holiness loves all that is right. By this beatitude a person imitates God in this respect.

The fifth beatitude promises that the merciful will obtain mercy. The merciful forgive those who offend against them, and help in all sort of need. God who loves all that is right, will do the same for them. But if one does not forgive, he will not be forgiven. Mt 7:2 adds: Whatever measure you use [in treating others] the same measure will be used on you. So we write our own ticket: if we demand the last cent of others, God will demand the same of us. We cannot afford that!

The sixth beatitude says that the pure in heart will see God. The purity here is not just sexual, but complete moral purity. We recall again the development of the thought of Mt 6:21 we saw above (in speaking of John the Baptist). Complete detachment makes one more capable of perceiving divine things even in this life.

The seventh beatitude declares blessed those who make peace: they will be called children of God. Hebrew shalom means not only peace in the narrow English sense, but well-being in general. Right after His resurrection, He greeted the Apostles with: Peace be to you. Those who work for this, cooperate in the work of Christ, and so are His brothers, children of the Father.

The last beatitude promises heaven to those who suffer persecution for what is right. The Church has always understood this to apply specially to the martyrs. While it was never official teaching, the belief was widespread in the Patristic age that only martyrs could reach the vision of God before the end of the world. We now know that belief was wrong, yet others may have debts to pay in purgatory.

Not only martyrs suffer persecution. 2 Timothy 3:12 adds that all who try to live a godly life will meet with persecution. Their very way of life is a living reproach to many others. And Romans 8:17 tells us that "we are heirs together with Christ, provided we suffer with Him, so we may also be glorified with Him."

Verse 11 continues the theme of verse 10 on persecution, changing to second person.

Some "beatitudes" have been found at Qumran (BAR November/Dec. 1992, pp. 53-55, 66. But the similarities to those of Jesus are only in form. The ones from Jesus announce reversals of what most people would think. Those at Qumran do not, e. g,"Blessed is he who speaks truth with a pure heart and who does not slander with his tongue." There is no reward promised, still less a reward that would be unexpected by many of that age.

5:13-16: Salt of earth, light of world: In ancient times, salt was used not only to flavor foods, but also as a preservative to slow decay. Actually, salt cannot lose its saltiness, for sodium chloride is a stable substance. But most salt then came from salt marshes or the like, and so had many impurities. The salt itself was more soluble, and so could be leached out. What was left was so diluted it was of little worth. The Greek for "loses its saltiness" is moranthe, which also means to make or become foolish. In the background may be an Aramaic play on words: tapel (foolish) and tabel (salted).

Many cities then were built of limestone, which would gleam in the sun, and so could not be easily hidden. The thought is that the Apostles are to give the light of sound doctrine and example to the world, and that light should not be hidden. Hence Jesus said that all should see their good deeds and so praise the Father.

Two points are needed here. First, good example is very powerful. St, Augustine reached a point when he admitted in his Confessions (8. 5), that he had no further intellectual difficulties against the Church. but his bad habits held him from entering. It was hearing of good examples that brought him over. Second, in 6:4 & 6, Jesus will say that when they give alms, it should be done in secret and when they pray, they should pray in secret. Those verses do not contradict our present passage. Rather we see a Semitic way of teaching: using seemingly opposite statements, enticing the listener to put them together. He meant that on the one hand, there is a real duty of giving good example, to help others, on the other hand, there should be no motive of pride and ostentation in doing so.

5. 17-20: Not to destroy but to fulfill: Jesus says He came not to destroy the law and the prophets -- the entire Old Testament - but to fulfill. This is true in that He Himself fulfilled all the messianic prophecies. He also came to perfect the law proper.

He did seem to break the law, but He did not break God's law, only the foolish or even immoral additions made by the Pharisees. We see a case of His objecting to immoral commands in Mark 7:11. God commanded all to honor father and mother. This meant not just obedience while a minor, but also and specially, support, financial and psychological, if parents need it in their old age. This is a sort of divine social security system: when we were young, they did everything for us; when they are old and in need, it is our turn. But the Pharisees taught a man might declare his goods "corban", dedicated to God. He would not necessarily give them to the temple nor was he prevented from using them for himself. It did mean the 4th commandment no longer held.

Why was Jesus so stern to Pharisees? why did He say so many hard things about them? He was so wonderfully merciful to sinners in general, in fact His conduct to the woman taken in adultery shocked some of the Christians, with the result that that passage is missing from some of the best manuscripts.

The reason is simply pride, hypocritical pride. If one is proud, he takes to himself credit for what good he does. Really, 1 Cor 4:7 says: "What have you that you have not received?" That is: Any bit of good you are or have or do, is simply God's gift. But the proud man at least implicitly says he is good by his own power. Aristotle can help here. He noted that if I am at one place, and want to to travel to another, there must first be the capacity for the trip. He likes to call that capacity potency. If the trip happens, the capacity or potency is filled or fulfiiled. But the same pattern happens in any change: first the capacity, then the fulfillment. Now that capacity clearly involves some lack or emptiness that wants to be filled. If it is filled, where does the added being come from? It is created, made out of nothing by God Himself at that very moment. But to feel one does good by his own power is to claim, implicitly, the power of creation.

Further, much sin can cause blindness, in the way we pictured in explaining Mt 6:21 in Supplement 2. No sin blinds so fully, so readily as pride. This happened to the Pharisees. Hence even though God was willing to grant them grace, they were incapable of perceiving even that a grace was being offered.

There were many foolish commands of the Pharisees. Thus the schools of Hillel and Shammai debated: if a hen lays an egg on a feast day, is one permitted to eat it - thus getting the fruit of illicit work. Hillel said no, Shammai said one may eat it.

Again, a group of Essenes in Jerusalem at that time noted the command of Dt. 23:12-14 to build the latrine outside the camp. They said now the camp is Jerusalem. So they built the latrine outside the city, a distance of 3000 cubits, more than one was permitted to walk on the Sabbath! (Cf. BAR Sept-Oct. , 1984, p. 45).

A problem emerges: Jesus says He has come to fulfill the law; Paul says we are free from the law. We must remember first that Paul is hardly clear. The Second Epistle of Peter 3:15-16, speaking of Paul's Epistles warns that "there are in them many things hard to understand." We find a key to the present problem in 1 Cor 6:9-10. There Paul, after giving a list of the chief great sins and sinners, warns that they who do such things, "will not inherit the Kingdom of God." The word kleronomesousin, inherit, is to be taken in the strict sense. It is true, it can sometime mean merely to get, without the special color of inheriting. But Paul so often speaks of us as adopted children of the Father, who as such, can inherit: cf. Rom 8:17. Now when children inherit from their Father, it is obvious the children did not earn what they get - they get it because the Father is good, not because they are good. On the other hand, they could have earned to lose it, to be disinherited. To sum up, as to salvation: we do not earn it, but we could earn to lose it. This is specially explicit in Rom 6;23: "The wages of sin [what we earn is death, but the free gift of God [what we do not earn] is eternal life." So when Paul says we are free from the law, he merely means we do not have to earn heaven, we inherit it as children of the Father, as coheirs with Christ. He seems to have gotten into such language in reaction to the claims of the Judaizers, who were saying, in effect, that Christ is not enough: we must have the law too. Paul reacted: We are free from the law.

Now this same attitude shows abundantly in the Gospels, for Jesus constantly stresses God is our Father. So we inherit from Him, we do not earn heaven. Hence His strong words in Mt. 18:3: "Unless you change and become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

He adds that unless their righteousness is more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, they will not get into the kingdom of heaven at all. The trouble with the Scribes and Pharisees was externalism and depending on their own merits, in pride, as we explained above. On externalism, God warned many times through the prophets, e. g, Isa 19:13: "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." They were proud, and counted on their own merits from observing the law. They imposed heavy burdens on others, and did not really carry them themselves.

Was this all true, or was this a case of retrojection from a later period when Christians began to quarrel with Jews? There is such a thing as retrojection, reporting something as happening before the resurrection, which really happened after it. Provided that Jesus really said the things in question, this is not an illegitimate retrojection. But if He actually did not say such things as his strictures on the Pharisees, it would be fakery in the Gospels - which inspiration rules out. (It would also be an illegitimate retrojection if one pictured a prophecy as being made before the event happened, when it was really spoken after the event. )

E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, seems to say that Paul did not really know what Judaism was. This is outrageous: Paul was a Pharisee of the Pharisees. He surely knew what they meant. And we saw above some of the ridiculous things they did with the law. A large study, by A. Marmorstein, The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinical Literature (Ktav, 1968) documents the excesses of the ideas of Pharisees on merits. A recent discovery that the Damascus Document, once thought to be late, is really by the men of Qumran lets us see that the picture of Pharisees given in later writings is basically the correct one for the time of Christ : L. Schiffman, "New Light on the Pharisees - Insights from the Dead Sea Scrolls" in Bible Review, June 1992. We saw concrete examples above in commenting on Mt. 5:17-20. We can add that their esteem for the law was so extreme that the Palestinian Targum on Deuteronomy 32:4 says that God Himself divides His day into four parts. For three hours He works and is occupied in the study of the Torah. (Same in Talmud, Aboda Zara fol. 3. b).

5:21-30: Extensions of the Torah on anger and lust: The law already did condemn murder, Jesus goes to the root of it, which is anger. Anger in itself is a neutral things, neither good nor bad. It depends on what use one makes of it. If it is in proportion to what the case deserves, it is permitted, even good, as the case of Jesus driving the sellers out of the Temple.

There is a gradation in the sin and the punishment as Jesus tells us: 1) the internal sin, to be punished by the tribunal of twenty in each city; 2) an insult given to another such as saying "raca" an Aramaic word meaning fool, imbecile. This is to be punished by the supreme tribunal of Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin; 3) Charging another with impiety or atheism. The punishment for this is to come from God Himself, Gehenna or hell. (Gehenna was a valley south of Jerusalem where once the Jews offered human sacrifice to Moloch (2 Kings 23:10; Jer 7. 31). Later it turned into a burning dump. Often in the New Testament Gehenna seems to stand for hell.

Scripture even speaks at times of God Himself as being angry. There are two components in human anger: the bodily changes, mostly in biochemistry, and the mental interpretation. The chemistry for anger and fear is very similar. The difference lies in the mental interpretation. If I see before me something outrageous, I interpret it as anger; if I see something dangerous before me, the interpretation is fear. God Himself of course do not have the biochemistry, but He does have the mental interpretation. Sin calls for rectification of the objective moral order. He will provide for that at whatever time He wills.

To stress the importance of this fraternal harmony, Jesus says that even if one is ready to offer a gift at the altar, and recalls his brother has something against him, he should leave the gift without offering it, and go for reconciliation instead. The recalls the line of Hosea 6:6, (cited also by Jesus Himself at Mt 9:13 and 12:7): "I desire obedience to the covenant [hesed] more than sacrifice." In Hosea God was not rejecting sacrifices, but empty sacrifices, those made without the interior disposition of obedience to God in the heart. So too in this line Jesus wants not the external sacrifice alone, but the right disposition, which includes reconciliation. (The usual translations of Hoses 6:6 are poor, since they use "mercy" to render Hosea's Hebrew hesed. Greek had no word for hesed, obedience to the covenant, and so regularly used eleos, mercy. As to our version "more than," this reflects the proper sense of the Hebrew, which lacked the degrees of comparison, and so would commonly say: "I want one thing, not another," when the sense was really, "I want one thing more than another").

In the same vein, Jesus calls for reconciliation before coming to court. The court is that of God's judgment. In the world of His day, there was prison for debtors who could not or would not pay.

5:27-30: Internal adultery: The OT command against adultery in Ex 20:14 and Dt 5:18 was often thought by the Jews to be more directly a matter of stealing a wife, as some other one's possession, rather than a matter of purity. Jesus redirects it here, insists that if a man look at a married woman with a view of enticing her to sex, that is already adultery in the heart.

To avoid confusion here let us clarify. A thought comes to a man, or he sees a beautiful woman. This thought or look offers him a sexual pleasure. If he lets himself go and just enjoys it, that is mortal sin. But if he does not do that, but instead tries to get rid of the thought or mental image, even if it takes a dozen times before the incident is over, there is no mortal sin. More likely there is much merit. There is a confusing related pattern in addition. If one is busy doing something that holds attention partly, then a thought can crawl into the back of his head, can unroll itself almost like a movie, for some time, before there comes a sort of wake-up point at which he says to himself: I should not be having this! Then he gets busy against it. At most, there would be a little carelessness, not mortal sin, up to that point.

Jesus underscores how grave the matter is by saying that even if someone's eye leads him into sin, he should pluck it out. He did not mean to physically gouge out an eye, or to cut off a right hand. No. This is just a dramatic way of saying that whatever actually proves to be a near occasion of sin for someone, he must get rid of it, even if it is as dear to him as an eye or a hand. A near occasion is any person, place, or thing such that one can say, from experience, that if he goes back to it a few more times, he will be very likely get into the same sin again.

5:31-32: divorce: Jesus is referring to Dt. 24:1-4 which allowed divorce for something displeasing (erwat dabar, "something indecent") in the wife. We must of course compare this passage with Mt 19:3-12 which says that if someone divorces her except for porneia (the Greek word in Matthew) he causes her to commit adultery, the assumption being that she will again attempt marriage. Porneia in Greek in general meant illicit sex. Both in ancient and in modern times this seeming exception has been much discussed. Perhaps the best view is to take it as meaning: "I say to you, whoever dismisses his wife - the provision of Dt 24:1 is not involved -- makes her to commit adultery." Then we could take the porneia to mean that the marriage was invalid in the first place, was mere concubinage, and so could be broken.

For certain the Catholic Church takes this to mean no divorce at all in a sacramental marriage is permitted unless the marriage was invalid in the first place. For the passages in Matthew of course must agree with Mc 10:11-12; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-11. Of course, Jesus took back the concession given in Dt. 24 in Mt 19. 8-9.

The Rabbis disrupted much about what reason was required. The school of Shammai at the time of Jesus said only adultery would suffice; the school of Hillel said just about anything would suffice, even badly preparing a meal. The historian Josephus (Life 76, 426) divorced his wife because he did not like her behavior, although she had already borne three children of his.

5:33-37: Oaths: Incredible casuistry was in vogue in the time of Jesus in regard to oaths. To swear by heaven and earth was not binding, nor was swearing by Jerusalem binding - but swearing toward Jerusalem was binding. A whole tractate in the Mishnah was given over to this sort of thing: Shebuoth. Because of such foolish things, Jesus said it would be better to abolish oaths than to go into such things. According to some rabbinic opinions, to double yes or no amounted to an oath.

The first Christians understood Jesus did not really mean to abolish all oaths, just to correct such foolish excesses. St. Paul took oaths: Rom 1:9; 2 Cor 1:23; 1 Thes 2:5 &10.

Some commentators assert that Jesus here goes against Dt 6:13:"By His name alone shall you swear" But the meaning is that if you swear, do not swear by any false gods, but only by the true God. And it does not command, merely permits that. Rightly understood, the words of Jesus do not forbid all oaths, as we have shown.

The lex talionis (like for like) is found in Ex. 21;24; Lev 24;19-20; and Dt 19:21. It is also found in the code of Hammurabi, king of Babylon in late 18th century BC (## 196-200). The purpose seems to have been to restrain vengeance, setting a limit, so someone would not demand 5 times as much as the offense. At the time of Christ, the courts seldom imposed this lex talionis Jesus of course, in line with His spirit, wants a spirit of mildness instead. He even says if someone strikes you on one cheek, turn the other. But it is clear this was meant to inculcate an attitude, rather than something to be taken to the letter. When a servant in the Jewish court struck Jesus Himself on the cheek, He did not turn the other cheek, but rebuked the servant (Jn 18:22-23). St. Thomas Aquinas (II-II. 40. 1 ad 2) quotes with approval the remark of St. Augustine: "These things are always to be observed in readiness of soul. But at other times, one must act differently, for the same of the common good, or to restrain evildoers." Thomas also quotes another text of Augustine: " Nothing is so unhappy as the happiness of evildoers in which lack of punishment for crimes is fostered, and an evil will. is nourished."

The attitude is to be encouraged in individuals. But a state may not turn the other cheek: It obliged to defend its citizens even at times by war. It is simply not true that all the Fathers were pacifists. Among those who were not are: St. Justin Martyr, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, Lactantius (one text), St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine. St. Augustine in Epistle 189 to a solider names Boniface tells him that when he puts on his armor he should remember that his strength is a gift of God. -- There are only 4 clear cases of pacifists, but all commit heresy: Marcion (who rejected the entire Old Testament, most of the new, Tatian, founder of the heresy of Encratites, Tertullian (after he became a heretical Montanist, Lactantius (Institutes 6. 28 where he rejects even capital punishment, contradicting St. Paul, Romans 13:4). Origen (Against Celsus 8. 73) is a special case. He says it is not fitting for Christians to be soldiers - does not say it is wrong. Similarly God told David in 1 Chron 22:8 that he should not build the temple because he had so much blood on his hands -even though God had commanded David's wars, and helped him - and in contrast in 1 Kings 14:8 God praises David as a perfect man, who always did God's will. So it is again a matter of fittingness, not of something morally wrong.

Under Mosaic law -- Ex 22:26-27 and Dt. 24:13 - the outer cloak was practically an inalienable possession. If the cloak was taken as a pledge, it had to be returned before night, so the poor man might have something to sleep in. Again, Jesus is teaching an attitude here.

Roman law had a practice of commandeering civilians (impressment) to carry military baggage. (Cf. the case of Simon the Cyrenian helping Jesus) But it was to be done for only one mile. Again, Jesus wants His followers to be twice as generous.

The next injunction calls for not only interest-free loans, but also a generous spirit of giving things outright.

However, it is also good to report precisely where the moral lines lie, since Jesus again is teaching an ideal attitude.

First about interest-free loans, we must notice that the Latin word usura, "usury", is very broad, and can mean anything from moderate to excessive interest. In some economies, money is not productive and so little could be morally asked for. In others, money is highly productive. The attitude of the Church appears in 1515 in the text of the Fifth Lateran Council: " This is the proper interpretation of (excessive) interest: when gain and increase is sought from the use of a thing that is nonproductive and with no labor, no expense, and no risk."(DS 1442). Deuteronomy 23:21 makes clear that not all interest is immoral: "You may lend at interest to a stranger, but not to a countryman." If all interest were wrong, it could not be permitted even in loans to strangers.

About almsgiving: Vatican II, Church in Modern World § 69 added a footnote 10, quoting a message of John XXIII (AAS 54. 682):"The obligation of every man, the urgent obligation of the Christian man, is to reckon what is superfluous by the needs of others...." The words of John XXIII seem to allude to the scale in common use among moral theologians:

1) Goods necessary for life are those without which life cannot be sustained. So goods superfluous to life are those left over after this.

2) Goods necessary to one's state in life are those without which that state cannot be maintained. Goods superfluous to one's state of life are all else.

3) Good necessary for fitting maintenance of one's state in life are those without which one's state, though it could be maintained, could not be maintained fittingly. Goods superfluous in the fullest sense are all else.

We have seen that there are three senses of the word superfluous. Similarly, there are three senses of the word necessary:

1) If neighbor is in extreme necessity, i.e., lacks the necessities of #1 above, we must come to the aid with things mentioned in ## 2 & 3 above. But we need not give up things necessary for our own life.

2)If neighbor is in grave necessity, but not lacking the essentials of life, we must help out of goods that are superfluous in #3 above.

3)If neighbor is in ordinary need, a lesser need, we must help some of the poor sometimes. We cannot determine the obligation precisely for any one individual, for there are many who can help, and the need is only ordinary.

We conclude that as far as strict obligation is concerned, Vatican II has this scale in mind, since in the next note on the above passage it says: "In extreme necessity, all goods are common, all goods are to be shared. On the other hand, for the order, extension, and manner by which the principle is applied in the proposed text, besides the modern authors, consult St. Thomas, Summa, II-II. 66. 7."

We have carefully drawn the above lines, not to suggest anyone hold down to a minimum, but to help understand that some statements we meet in the Fathers on giving to the poor are rhetorical. We still urge all to take on the wonderfully generous spirit pictured by Our Lord.

5:43-47: Hatred and love: Jesus says they have heard that one should love neighbor and hate enemies. He calls for love of even enemies. Further, the Jews of His time commonly understood neighbor to mean only fellow Jews. By the parable of the Good Samaritan He made clear that all are our neighbors.

Lev. 19:18 does call for love of neighbor. But it did not call for hatred of enemies. Of course it is not hard to believer such ideas were current then. The Qumran sectaries did require love of neighbor, but also called for hatred of enemies: cf. 1QS 1:4, 10; 2:4-9.

Love does not require, nor even essentially consist in feeling. If it did the commands of Jesus would be impossible, for we have only indirect control over our feelings. To love is an act of will, willing good to another for the other's sake. If we pray for others, we have a minimum degree of love. Love of God of course is different: we cannot will good to God, who is infinite Goodness. Rather, Scripture pictures Him as pleased when we obey, displeased when we do not. This is not that He gains anything from our obedience or "service" - they do Him no good. But since He is Goodness and Holiness, He loves all that is right and good: goodness says creatures should obey their Creator, children their Father. Further, He wants to give good to us: but that is in vain if we are not open to receive. Hence His commandments are really directions for how to be open to Him, so He may give, and simultaneously steer us away from the evils that lie in the very nature of things for sin, e.g., a hangover after a drunk, or a great danger of a loveless marriage after much premarital sex. So in practice, to love God is to obey Him. Hence 2 John 6: "This is love, that we walk according to His commandments." Cf. also John 14:21. Interestingly in the late second millennium Hittite vassal treaties the inferior king is ordered to "love" the great king.

Tax collectors or publicans were despised as agents of a foreign power oppressing their own people, and for contact with gentiles, which made them unclean. In many Roman provinces the system was tax farming. Publican companies ( groups of business men, different from the local publican collectors) would bid for the right to collect taxes for the coming year. The highest bidder got it, and paid that amount to the Roman treasury. He should be moderate, and the governor ought to hold down greed. But the governor came up the political ladder without pay, and still had no salary, only an expense account. No wonder there was corruption.

5:48: The command to be perfect: Jesus tells us to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect. Since His Holiness is infinite, it is evident no creature can ever attain that. So one can never say he has done enough, gone far enough. It means one must constantly strive and keep on moving.

In an Encyclical for the third centenary of St. Francis de Sales, Pius XI commented on this command of Our Lord: "Let no one think that this invitation is addressed to a small very select number and that all others are allowed to stay in a lower degree of virtue... this law obliges everyone, without exception." Paul VI, in an address to the 13th National Congress of the Italian Feminine Center in 1966 said: that marriage "is a long path toward sanctification." For explanation, cf. Wm. Most, Our Father's Plan, pp. 145-49.

We distinguish three kinds of perfect love of God. The first would love God as much as He deserves. No creature is capable of that. The second would love God with all its powers, constantly, at every moment, without any intermission or slackening. This is possible only in Heaven. The third kind is that which it possible on this earth: It is a love that puts our wills perfectly in harmony with His, so that it positively wills everything the soul knows He positively wills, and preserves a pliability for those things in which His will is not yet clear, or not entirely clear.

Imagine what this requirement meant in our Blessed Mother. At the time of her Son's death, she knew that it was the will of the Father that He die, die then, die so horribly. So she was called on to not just acquiesce, but to positively will it! And this in collision with her love which was so great even at the start of her life that Pius IX wrote (in Ineffabilis Deus, 1854), speaking of her holiness, (which in practice is the same as love): "none greater under God can be thought of, and only God can comprehend it." That meant strictly, literally incomprehensible suffering!

The will is the only free thing in us. If we could make it perfectly aligned with His, there would no more to be done. It excludes not only mortal and deliberate venial sin, but also every voluntary imperfection. In that condition, a soul will still commit some venial sins of frailty or surprise. Not all of these can be avoided in this life. But fully deliberate venial sins can be avoided, and definitely block progress. If a soul has an "affection" to venial sin, no further growth is possible. Affection means the soul's attitude if expressed completely, would be like this: I do not intend to commit any mortal sin, nor every venial sin that tempts me. But on the other hand, I do not plan to avoid every venial sin: sometimes it would be inconvenient to avoid lying, and it is good fellowship at times to join in a bit of uncharitable conversation. These are as it were gaps in the soul's purpose of amendment, they as it were put a clamp on one's heart, setting limits. Absolutely no further progress can be made as long as a soul harbors even one of these affections.