Matthew 6:22-24

2). The Choice As To Where The Eye Will Be Fixed.

Jesus now takes a general illustration that He regularly uses (compare Luke 11:34) in order to apply it to this particular situation. Again there is no reason to doubt that Jesus, as all preachers do, used the same illustration on a number of occasions, and not always in the same context. The differences in Luke bring out that the source for it there is not the same. Both are words of Jesus preserved by ‘tradition' (1 Corinthians 11:2; 1Co 11:23; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Timothy 6:3; Revelation 1:2; Revelation 1:9; Revelation 12:17).

Analysis of Matthew 6:22.

a “The lamp of the body is the eye (Matthew 6:22 a).

b If therefore your eye is single, Your whole body will be full of light (Matthew 6:22 b).

b But if your eye is evil, your whole body will be full of darkness (Matthew 6:23).

a If therefore the light that is in you be darkness, how great is the darkness! (Matthew 6:24).

Note that in ‘a' the lamp of the body is the eye. It is through the eye that either light or darkness come to the body, depending on where the eye is fixed, whether towards God, (and therefore towards the light), or away from God, (and therefore away from the light). Thus in the parallel ‘a' the second attitude will result in darkness so appalling that it cannot be contemplated, for it will mean separation from God. In ‘b' we have the contrast between the two alternatives, an eye fixed on the light, and an eye fixed on darkness.

“The lamp of the body is the eye,

If therefore your eye is single, Your whole body will be full of light.

But if your eye is evil, your whole body will be full of darkness.

If therefore the light that is in you be darkness,

How great is the darkness!

The ‘eye' here is both the physical eye, which can look on physical things and be drawn by them, or gloat in them, and the spiritual eye which can be fixed on God, and on Heaven, and on the light that has come from Heaven (Matthew 4:16), whereby His disciples can therefore be drawn by Him and rejoice in Him. What Jesus is really talking about here is what takes up our attention because of the direction in which we fix our gaze both physically and spiritually, in other words it is dependent on where we set our hearts, whether on earthly things or on our heavenly Father. The ‘single' eye is the eye that is deliberately focused on one thing, and that is possible in this case because it is, at least partly, the spiritual eye. It has been opened to the light that has shone in the darkness (Matthew 4:16), and if it remains single it will continually receive that light. The word later came to indicate a ‘sound' eye, and if we take it in that way the principle is the same, the point then being made is that those with a sound eye would let in the light, whereas those whose eye was not sound would be left in darkness. But Jesus in this case clearly intends us to recognise that a disciple can humanly speaking choose whether his eye is sound or not.

The alternative to the single or sound eye is the ‘evil' (poneros) eye. This therefore links it immediately with the prayer ‘deliver us from evil' (Matthew 6:13). Those who pray the latter must ensure that their eye is not evil. But the idea of the ‘evil eye' occurs elsewhere. (It is not to be confused with the ‘evil eye' as used with regard to magic, which is not in mind). Compare, for example, Matthew 20:15. There the ‘eye which is evil' is the greedy and resentful eye which complains that it has not been fairly treated. The person in question has seen the master's behaviour towards others as compared with himself and considers it unfair, even though he had made an agreement and the master had not broken his agreement. There must be no such attitude in those who are under the Kingly Rule of God (Matthew 6:33). In Mark 7:22 the eye that is evil is one of the evidences of ‘evil things' that come from the human heart, and thus it connects with the ideas of lust, greed and pride. Thus Jesus clearly signifies by an ‘evil eye' an eye that causes men to do evil in one way or another.

The idea of the eye that is evil is soundly based in the Old Testament. Proverbs 28:22 is directly relevant here. The man whose eye is evil runs after wealth and riches (earthly treasures). They have become his ruling passion (even though he will end up in want). In Proverbs 23:6 the one who has an evil eye is the one who is hypocritical, devious and not to be trusted. His ‘heart is not with you'. In Deuteronomy 15:9 the one whose eye is evil withholds help from the poor. Thus in all cases it has reference to an eye that leads to sinfulness.

The important thing in all this is that the ‘eye' acts as the lamp to the body. It therefore either illuminates it or keeps it in darkness. For it is the source or otherwise of light coming to the inner being (compare Luke 11:34). If our minds are set on the light of God (Psalms 27:1; Isaiah 60:20; Mic 7:8; 1 Timothy 6:16; James 5:17; 1 John 1:5; 1 John 1:7) and on heavenly things (Colossians 1:1), including the way of life that Jesus has laid down from the Scriptures (compare Proverbs 6:23), and on the Heaven in which we have stored up all that we have (Matthew 6:20), and on the Scriptures themselves (Psalms 119:105; Proverbs 6:23; Psalms 119:18), and on the One Who has shone on us with His great light (Matthew 4:16; John 8:12) then our bodies will be filled with light. But if our minds are set on earthly things, and this will especially be determined by what we fix our gaze on, things such as earthly treasures, and mammon, then our bodies will be filled with darkness. They will be turned away from the light. Our eye will cause us to stumble (Matthew 5:29). And there is no darkness greater than for those who have turned away from light, and for whom their light is darkness (compare here John 3:19; Ephesians 4:18; Romans 11:10; John 12:35 and see John 9:41).

A similar contrast is found in John 9:39, where Jesus pointed out, ‘for judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see, may see, and so that those who do see may become blind'.

This thought of fixing the eye has already been considered in Matthew 5:28, which is one example of the eye bringing darkness into the heart, and in Matthew 5:8 which is an example of fixing the eye on God, thus bringing light into the heart. We can also compare Matthew 5:16 where the disciples are to be a light that shines in other's hearts so that they too might seek God, and themselves receive light. This idea of light shining into people's lives was very much therefore central to Jesus' teaching.

But the verse that follows will provide an added thought. That what we fix our eye on will determine whom we serve. The eye of a bondservant always had to be kept on his master ready at the instant to do his bidding, so that his master had only to look at him and give a slight sign, and he would know immediately what to do. He was expected to have a ‘single eye'. Thus the principle is that where a man's eye is fixed will reveal who or what man he really sees as his master.

It should be noted that Greek ideas about light flowing out through the eye, while interesting, are irrelevant here. Here the emphasis is on light flowing in, with the eye basically therefore acting as a ‘lamp' by bringing light to the body by the reception of light (or otherwise) from an external source. If light was flowing out through the eye there would hardly be darkness within.

3). The Choice As To Which Master will Be Served.

We can compare here Luke 16:13, another example of Jesus' continual use of similar illustrations in the normal way. ‘You cannot serve God and mammon' in the context of the use of wealth was clearly one of His watchwords.

Analysis.

a No man can serve two masters,

b For either he will hate the one, and love the other,

b Or else he will hold to one, and despise the other.

a You cannot serve God and mammon.

Note that in ‘a' two masters cannot both be served well, therefore in the parallel the choice must be made between God and Mammon. In ‘b two similar contrasts are paralleled.

a No man can serve two masters,

For either he will hate the one, and love the other,

Or else he will hold to one, and despise the other.

You cannot serve God and mammon.”

The principle here is that of conflict of interest. Even in earthly matters it is now regularly recognised that a reputable person should not act for two people where there may be a conflict of interest. For men in their wisdom recognise that it is totally impossible in such a case for someone to be sure that they are not being influenced one way or another. In heavenly affairs that is even moreso. Having earthly things as a master must mean being in conflict with heavenly things for they are direct rivals for the heart. Either we are totally given over to ‘divine service', that is, doing the will of God (Matthew 7:21), which is God's requirement for all who serve Him, or we are not. And if our minds are half on earthly things then we are not serving Him fully and truly. And this applied just as much to the farmer who ploughed his fields for God, and saw them as God's fields, and his produce as God's produce, as it did to the Apostles themselves. It applied to all ‘disciples' without distinction.

Jesus is not saying that no man can ever have two masters. He is simply saying that it is not an arrangement that can ever work well if the two master are opposed to each other, for in that case the bondservant will sometimes have to take sides, and that can only be detrimental for one of them. No doubt such arrangements may work well enough on earth where men are willing to compromise and fixed contracts can be written up. But God does not compromise. God expects total response. So in heavenly things the idea of two masters cannot work. We must love God ‘with all our heart, and with all our soul and with all our mind and with all our strength' (Matthew 22:37; Luke 10:27; Deuteronomy 6:5), or we must go away with nothing.

We have here an example where the verb translated ‘hate' really means ‘love less' in contrast to the person's love for another. (Compare for example Jacob's love for Rachel and his ‘less love' for Leah (Genesis 29:30; Genesis 29:33. Compare also ‘Jacob have I loved and Esau have I loved less' - Romans 9:13). The point being made is that a bondservant with two masters will always love the one more than the other, and will therefore tend to serve him the better, sometimes even possibly to the detriment of the other. The guarantee of equality of love is impossible for anyone in such a situation, and we ourselves are the last who could possibly determine such a matter (and no one else could even try to do so except by interpreting the way that we live).

Thus Jesus is bringing out that what our eyes are fixed on will determine whom we serve. Those whose eyes are fixed on earthly things, and are thus turned away from God, are serving and worshipping Mammon, whatever their protestations, while those who would serve Him must turn their eyes on Him and on heavenly things, and turn away from all things on earth. For where their gaze is fixed, and what they treasure, demonstrates whom they serve. This does not necessarily mean monasticism or separateness from society, for that was not what Jesus required of many who were disciples but did not follow all the time. It meant being separate in heart, and having the mind fixed on heavenly things (compare Colossians 3:1).

‘Mammon.' The word includes not just riches but all that a man possesses. Jesus probably uses the term to indicate a kind of quasi-god. He is saying that those who allow their possessions to control their decisions and absorb their love are behaving just as idolatrously as those in the Old Testament who sought after idols (compare Ephesians 5:5).

EXCURSUS. Note On The Christian's Attitude To Wealth.

This is necessarily a difficult question to deal with in societies where most are comparatively ‘wealthy', (i.e. have a TV and a car and their own habitable apartment, and are not in rags, and have at least a staple diet), especially in view of starvation elsewhere, a problem which cannot, however, simply be dealt with by giving money, (although if it can be used wisely it unquestionably helps). The tendency therefore can be almost to dismiss the idea of a Christian giving away a large part of his wealth, and to assume that our fairly luxurious standard of living is acceptable. Certainly it is a matter of balance, but our tendency is ever to ensure that the balances are weighted in our favour.

On the one hand we have clear indications of Jesus' approval of those who gave away all that they possessed (Luke 12:33 which is to all disciples, not just the few; compare Matthew 19:21). This especially comes out in His approval of the poor widow who gave away all her living Mark 12:44; Luke 21:1). She was not called on to be a disciple (at least not immediately) and yet Jesus not only approved of her action but also indicated thereby that none of our giving is judged in terms of what we give,  but in terms of what we have left  (Mark 12:44). This last principle must always especially be kept in mind. The multi-billionaire who gives away a few billions will get much credit on earth, but little in Heaven, compared with those who are like that poor widow.

Jesus once said that for every idle word that a man should speak he would give account of it in the Day of Judgment (Matthew 12:36). We can equally be sure that that will also apply to very idle penny or cent that a man spends. Thus complacency can only be our enemy in eternal terms.

On the other hand certain things also have to be kept in mind. A man is expected to provide for his relatives and his children (1 Timothy 5:8), and Paul certainly expected that there would be wealthy Christians, but bade them ensure that they were humble and continued in generosity and in good works (1 Timothy 6:17). For those who would succeed in certain areas of life a certain standard of living is certainly required. And the giving away of all wealth could only lead in many cases to future poverty. But this must never be a reason for indulgence. Ministers especially have to remember the witness that they give. Men often think, for example, that a man can be judged by his car. God thinks the same. But the problem for us is that He has a different model in mind from man. He remembers the widow. How many of us really ask, which one would God be proud to see me in?

Furthermore it was expected that men and women would work hard in order to maintain their ability to achieve what has been described. Proverbs 6:6 emphasises the need for people to be able to maintain themselves. Paul declared that if a man does not work he should not eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10; compare Genesis 3:19); and should be loth to live on benefit (1 Thessalonians 4:11); and he himself maintained himself by his hard labour (1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8). Trusting God does not therefore mean that we can sit back and have an easy time.

Each of us must therefore recognise that all that we have comes from God and that we must hold it at His disposal. And then we must recognise that we are accountable for how we use it. It is doubtful whether there are too many (apart from those who have given the matter deep consideration) who can be comfortable if they think along those lines. As with so much our tendency is to excuse ourselves, while every second someone, somewhere, dies of starvation and disease, and the work of God goes lacking. This is unquestionably one of the most difficult continuing decisions that most Christians have to face. Ten per cent' is in most cases certainly not enough! Consider especially 1 Timothy 6:10; James 5:2.

End of Excursus.