Matthew 5:20

DISCOURSE: 1299
EVANGELIC AND PHARISAIC RIGHTEOUSNESS COMPARED

Matthew 5:20. For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

IT would be a gratification to many to know the lowest degree of piety that would suffice for their admission into the kingdom of heaven. But to have such a line drawn for us, would be by no means profitable: for it may well be doubted, whether any, who under present circumstances are slothful in their pursuit of holiness, would be quickened by it; and there is reason to fear that the zeal of many would be damped. Information, however, of a nature not very dissimilar, is given us; and it will be found of the highest importance to every child of man. Our blessed Lord has marked out for us a line, that must be passed by all who would be numbered amongst his true disciples. There were certain characters, very numerous among the Jews, characters much contemplated and much admired; these, he tells us, must be surpassed. To equal the most exalted among them will not suffice: our righteousness must exceed theirs, if ever we would enter into the kingdom of heaven. The persons we refer to were the Scribes and Pharisees; the former of whom were the learned teachers and expositors of the law; the latter were a sect who affected peculiar sanctity, and were regarded by the people as the most distinguished patterns of piety and virtue. The two were generally associated together in the Scriptures; because the Scribes, though not necessarily, yet, for the most part, belonged to the sect of the Pharisees: and, so united, they were considered as having all the learning and piety of the nation concentred in them. But, notwithstanding the high estimation in which they were held, our Lord most solemnly affirmed that none of them could, in their present state, be admitted into heaven; and that all who would be counted worthy of that honour, must attain a higher righteousness than theirs.
This information, I say, is valuable; because, though it is not so definite as to encourage any to sit down contented with their attainments, it serves as a standard by which we may try our attainments, and a criterion whereby we may judge of our real state.

In investigating the subject, there are two things to be considered;

I. Wherein our righteousness must exceed theirs; and,

II.

Why it must exceed theirs.

I. To prepare the way for shewing wherein our righteousness is to exceed theirs, we must begin with stating, as clearly as we can, what righteousness they possessed. But in doing this, we shall be careful neither to exalt their character too much on the one hand, nor to depress it too much on the other. Indeed, precision in this part of our statement is of peculiar importance; for, as a comparison is instituted between their righteousness and ours, we are concerned to have the clearest knowledge of that by which our estimate must be formed. Their character was a mixture of good and evil. They had much which might be considered as righteousness; and at the same time they had great defects. Their righteousness, such as it was, was seen; their defects were unseen: their righteousness consisted in acts; their defects, in motives and principles: their righteousness was that which rendered them objects of admiration to men; their defects made them objects of abhorrence to God.

Let us begin with viewing the favourable side of their character. And here we cannot do better than refer to the account which the Pharisee gives of himself, when addressing the Most High God; and which our Lord particularly adverts to, as characterizing the more distinguished members of their community. After thanking God that he was “not as other men are,” he first tells us what he had not done: he was “not an extortioner,” nor could be accused by any man of demanding, on any account whatever, more than was his due. He was “not unjust” in any of his dealings, but, whether in commercial transactions, or in any other way, he had done to all as he would be done unto [Note: Such as “oppressing the hireling in his wages,” &c. The expression must of course be confined to acts of justice.]. “Nor was he an adulterer:” common as the crime of adultery was among the Jews, and great as his advantages had been for insinuating himself into the affections of others, he had never availed himself of any opportunity to seduce his neighbour’s wife. In short, he had avoided all those evils, which the generality of publicans and sinners committed without remorse.

He next proceeds to specify what he had done. He had “fasted twice every week,” in order to fulfil the duties of mortification and self-denial. He had been so scrupulously exact in paying his tithes, that not even “mint, or rue,” or the smallest herb in his garden, had been withheld from God: “he paid tithes of all that he possessed [Note: Luke 18:11.].”

From other parts of Scripture we learn, that the Pharisees were peculiarly jealous of the sacred rest of the Sabbath; insomuch that they were filled with indignation against any one, who, even by an act of the greatest necessity or mercy, should presume to violate it [Note: Mark 3:2; Mark 3:5.]. They prayed to God also, and that not in a mere cursory manner, hurrying over a form which they got through as quick as possible: no; “they made long prayers, as well in the corners of their streets, as in the midst of their synagogues [Note: Matthew 6:5; Matthew 23:14.]. As for the purifications appointed by the law, they were punctual in the observance of them: they even multiplied their lustrations far beyond what the law required; and were so partial to them, that they never came home from the market, or sat down to their meals, without washing their hands: they even wondered that any one who pretended to religion, could be so profane, as to eat without having first performed these important rites [Note: Mark 7:2.]. Nor must we forget to mention, that they abounded in almsgivings; regarding themselves not so much the owners, as the stewards, of the property they possessed [Note: Matthew 6:2.]. In a word, religion, in all its visible branches, was, in their eyes, honourable; and, in token of their high regard for it, they made their phylacteries broader than any other sect, and “enlarged the fringes of their garments;” thus displaying before all men their zealous attachment to the laws of God [Note: Matthew 23:5.]. Nor were they content with thus fulfilling their own duties: they were desirous that all should honour God in like manner: persuaded that they themselves were right, they strove to the uttermost to recommend their tenets and practices to others, and would even “compass sea and land to make one proselyte [Note: Matthew 23:15.].”

Of course, the attainments of all were not exactly alike: some would excel more in one branch of duty, and others in another branch. St. Paul himself was of that sect, as his parents also had been before him; and he was as fair a specimen of them, as any that can be found in all the records of antiquity. He was, “as touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the Church, (whom he considered as enemies to God;) and, as touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.”
Having thus ascertained what their righteousness was, we can now proceed to point out wherein ours must exceed it.
But here it will be proper to observe, that as all were not equally eminent in what may be called their righteousness, so, on the other hand, all were not equally faulty in the vicious part of their character. We must take the Pharisees as a body, (for it is in that view that our Saviour speaks of them in the text;) and must not be understood to impute to every individual the same precise degree either of praise or blame. Nor must we be considered as saying, that no one of that sect was ever saved: because, previous to the coming of our Lord, there doubtless were many who served God according to the light that they enjoyed: but this we must be understood distinctly to affirm, that no person who enjoys the clearer light of the Gospel, can be saved, unless he attain a better righteousness than the Scribes and Pharisees, as a body, ever did attain, or than any one of them, while he rejected the Gospel, could possibly attain.
I am well aware, that, when we consider their fastings, their prayers, their alms-deeds, their strict observances of all the ritual laws, together with their zeal in promoting the religion they professed; and take into the account also, that they were free from many of the more gross and common sins; we shall seem to have left no room for superiority in our obedience. But, whatever may be thought of their attainments, our righteousness must exceed theirs: it must exceed theirs, first, in the nature and extent of it; and next, in the principle and end of it.

First, In the nature and extent of it—
From what has been already spoken, it sufficiently appears, that the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees was for the most part external and ceremonial; or, where it seemed to partake of that which was internal and moral, it was merely of a negative kind, and extremely partial in its operation. Now the Christian’s righteousness must be totally different from this: it must be internal and spiritual: it must descend into the heart, and have respect to the whole of God’s revealed will. The true Christian will affix no limits to his exertions; he will set no bounds to his heavenly desires. He does not limit the commandments to their literal sense, but enters into their spiritual import, and considers a disposition to commit sin as nearly equivalent to the actual commission of it. He considers himself as accountable to God for every inclination, affection, appetite; and endeavours not only to have their general tendencies regulated according to his law, but to have “every thought brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” In a word, he aspires after perfection of every kind: he desires to love God, as much as to be saved by him; and to mortify sin, as much as to escape punishment. Could he have his heart’s desire, he would be “holy, as God himself is holy,” and “perfect, as God himself is perfect.”
Thus, in the nature and extent of the two kinds of righteousness, there is an immense difference: nor is there a less difference in their principle and end.

Would we know what was the principle from which the Pharisaic righteousness proceeded? We can assert, on the most unquestionable authority, even that of Christ himself, that “all their works they did to be seen of men [Note: Matthew 23:5.].” And St. Paul no less strongly marks the end, to which all their zeal was directed. He confesses that “they had a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge: for, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, they went about to establish their own righteousness, and would not submit themselves unto the righteousness of God [Note: Romans 10:2.].” In these respects then we must differ from them. We should shun ostentation and vain-glory, as much as we would the most enormous crimes. We should bear in mind, that any thing done with a view to man’s applause, is altogether worthless in the sight of God: whatever it be, we have in the applause of men the reward we seek after, and the only reward that we shall ever obtain. We should also dread self-righteousness, as utterly inconsistent with a Christian state. St. Paul assures us, that “the Jews, who sought after the law of righteousness, did not attain to [any justifying] righteousness, because they sought it not by faith, but, as it were, by the works of the law; for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone [Note: Romans 9:31.].” The making of our own works the foundation of our hope towards God, argues a contempt of that “foundation which God has laid in Zion:” it thrusts out from his office the Lord Jesus Christ, “who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness,” and who, from that very circumstance, is called, “The Lord our Righteousness.” A truly Christian spirit will lead us, even “after we have done all that is commanded us, to say, We are unprofitable servants, we have done that [only] which it was our duty to do.” See this exemplified in the Apostle Paul, than whom there never was but one brighter example of piety in the world: he, after all his eminent attainments, “desired to be found in Christ, not having his own righteousness which was of the law, but the righteousness which is of God by faith in Christ [Note: Philippians 3:9.].”

Now then, compare the righteousness of the two parties; the one, “cleansing carefully indeed and superstitiously, the outside of the cup and platter, whilst within they were full of many unsubdued lusts;” the other, allowing not so much as an evil thought, but “cleansing themselves from all filthiness both of flesh and spirit, and perfecting holiness in the fear of God:” the one filled with a high conceit of their own goodness, and claiming heaven itself on account of it, whilst they aimed at nothing but the applause of man; the other, in the midst of their most strenuous exertions to serve and honour God, renouncing all dependence on themselves, and “glorying only in the cross of Christ:” the one, a compound of pride, unbelief, and hypocrisy; the other, of humility, and faith, and heavenly- mindedness. Whatever may be thought by those who know not how to appreciate the motives and principles of men, we do not hesitate to apply to these parties the distinctive characters assigned them by Solomon, and to say, that “Wisdom excelleth folly, as much as light excelleth darkness [Note: Ecclesiastes 2:13.].”

II.

If now we proceed to the second point of our inquiry, and ask, Why our righteousness must exceed theirs? the text furnishes us with a sufficient answer: If we be no better than they, the Lord Jesus assures us, “that we shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Under the expression, “The kingdom of heaven,” both the kingdom of grace on earth, and the kingdom of glory in heaven, must be comprehended; for they are, in fact, the same kingdom; and the subjects in both are the same: only in the one, they are in an infantine and imperfect state, whereas, in the other, they have attained maturity and perfection: but from both shall we be alike excluded, if we possess not a better righteousness than theirs: the Lord Jesus will no more acknowledge us as his disciples here, than he will admit us into his beatific presence hereafter.

We cannot then without this be partakers of the kingdom of grace. The Lord Jesus Christ has told us plainly, that he does not regard those who merely “say unto him, Lord! Lord!” however clamorous they may be, or ostentatious of their zeal for him: he approves of those only “who do the will of his Father which is in heaven.” We may assume the name of his disciples, and be numbered amongst them by others; we may associate ourselves with them, as Judas did, and be as little suspected of hypocrisy as he; we may even deceive ourselves as well as others, and be as confident that we are Abraham’s children as ever the Pharisees of old were; we may, like them, be quite indignant to have our wisdom and goodness called in question; “Are we blind also?” “in so saying, thou condemnest us:” But all this will not make us Christians. A sepulchre may be whitened and rendered beautiful in its outward appearance; but it will be a sepulchre still; and its interior contents will be as lothesome as those of a common grave. It is to little purpose to “have the form of godliness, if we have not the power;” to “have a name to live, whilst yet we are really dead.” God will not judge of us by our profession, but our practice: “Then are ye my friends,” says our Lord, “if ye do whatsoever I command you.” To this effect is that declaration also of the Psalmist: having asked, “Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in his holy place?” he answers, “He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart.” The truth is, that those whom Christ will acknowledge as his disciples, have been “born again,” they are “renewed in the spirit of their minds,” “they are new creatures; old things are passed away, and all things are become new:” they have been taught the spirituality and extent of God’s law; to know, that an angry word is murder, and an impure desire adultery; and in that glass they have seen themselves guilty, polluted, and condemned sinners: they have been stirred up by this view of themselves to flee unto Christ for refuge, as to the hope set before them in the Gospel: having “found peace with God through the blood of his cross,” they devote themselves unfeignedly to his service, and strive to “glorify him with their bodies and their spirits, which are his.” Here is the true secret of their obedience; “The love of Christ constraineth them; because they thus judge, that, if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they who live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him that died for them and rose again.” This is conversion; this is regeneration; this is what every Scribe and Pharisee must be brought to: even Nicodemus, “a master in Israel,” must become a disciple of Christ in this way: for our Lord declared to him in the most solemn manner, that, “unless he should be [thus] born again, he could not enter into the kingdom of God.”

The same is true in relation to the kingdom of glory. Whilst we are in this world, the tares and the wheat, which grow together, may so resemble each other, that they cannot be separated by human sagacity. The Jewish tares (as I myself know by ocular inspection) cannot, even when full grown, be immediately distinguished from wheat by a common observer [Note: The learned are not agreed what the ζιζάνιαwere. Parkhurst’s account of them, in his Lexicon, is, that they were “a kind of plant, in appearance not unlike corn or wheat, having at first the same kind of stalk, and the same viridity; but bringing forth no fruit, at least none good.” Macknight is precisely of the same opinion. Linnζus, speaking of that very species which the author here refers to, designates them as the zizania. Later botanists deny that that plant grew in Judζa; and represent it as of American growth. Whether Linnaeus was right, is no part of the author’s intention to discuss. He merely mentions the fact, that he has seen (in a green-house at Bristol), and had in his own possession an ear of it for some months, till incredulous persons rubbed it to pieces, that plant, which Linnζus identifies with the zizania of Judζa; which in our Translation of the Bible, is called tares; and which, though to all appearance useless and unproductive, may easily be mistaken for wheat in full ear. In this view, whatever it be called, it illustrates his subject: and, if it be the zizanion, it reflects a beautiful light also upon the parable of the tares, Matthew 13. Some indeed think, that because the servants distinguished the zizania from the wheat, there was no resemblance between them. But that argument is by no means conclusive: for the servants who were constantly habituated to the sight of tares and wheat, might easily discern that they were mixed in the field, whilst yet the difference might not be so great, but that a number of persons employed to pull them all up, might make innumerable mistakes, and root up much of the corn with them. The parable indeed may be explained without supposing any resemblance between the two; but such an interpretation destroys, in the author’s apprehension, much of the force, and beauty, and importance of the parable.]: the difference, however, is soon found by rubbing the ears, which in the one are nearly empty, and in the other are full of grain. The same may be noticed also in the religious world. Not only common observers, but even those who have the deepest insight into characters, and the best discernment of spirits, may be deceived; but God can never be deceived: however specious we may be in our outward appearance, he will discern our character through the thickest veil; “he searcheth the hearts, and trieth the reins;” or, as it is yet more strongly expressed, “he weigheth the spirits:” he knows exactly the qualities of which every action is compounded, and can separate, with infallible certainty, its constituent parts: and, when we shall stand before him in judgment, he will distinguish the upright Christian from the hypocritical and specious Pharisee, as easily “as a man divideth his sheep from the goats.” Then shall the final separation take place; “the wheat shall be treasured up in the garner, and the tares shall be burnt with unquenchable fire.” Here then is a further reason for the assertion in our text. If an outside religion would suffice, we might rest satisfied with it: but if we have a Judge, “whose eyes are as a flame of fire,” to whom the most secret recesses of the heart are “naked and open,” just as the inwards of the sacrifices were to the priest appointed to examine them; and if, as he has told us, “he will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the heart;” then must we be, not specious Pharisees, but real Christians, even “Israelites indeed, and without guile:” we must not be contented “with being Jews outwardly, but must be Jews inwardly, and have, not the mere circumcision of the flesh, but the inward circumcision of the heart, whose praise is not of men, but of God [Note: Romans 2:28.].”

The peculiar importance of the subject, we hope, will plead our excuse, if we trespass somewhat longer than usual on your time. In our statement we have been as concise as would consist with a clear exposition of the truth. In our application of it we shall also study brevity, as far as the nature of the subject will admit. An audience habituated to reflection, like this, will never grudge a few additional moments for an investigation so solemn, so weighty, so interesting as the present.

1. The first description of persons, then, to whom our subject is peculiarly applicable, and for whose benefit we are desirous to improve it, is that class of hearers who come short of the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees.

Many there are, it is to be feared, who, so far from “not being as other men are,” cannot at all be distinguished from the generality of those around them: who, instead of “fasting twice a week,” have never fasted twice, nor even once, in their whole lives, for the purpose of devoting themselves more solemnly to God: who, instead of “making long prayers,” never pray at all, or only in so slight, cursory, and formal a manner, as to shew that they have no pleasure in that holy exercise. Instead of keeping holy the Sabbath-day, they “speak their own words, do their own work, and find their own pleasure,” almost as much as on other days; or if, for decency’s sake, they impose a little restraint upon themselves, they find it the most wearisome day of all the seven. Instead of paying tithes with scrupulous exactness, they will withhold the payment both of tithes and taxes, if they can do it without danger of detection; thus shewing, that they have not even a principle of honesty to “render unto Cζsar the things that are Cζsar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Perhaps they may now and then give away somewhat in charity; but they do not consecrate a portion of their income to God as a religious act, nor even account it their duty so to do, notwithstanding “every man” is expressly commanded to “lay by him in store for charitable uses, according as God has prospered him.” Instead of being able to appeal to God that they have never been guilty of whoredom or adultery, they stand condemned for one, or both, of these things in their own consciences; or, if they do not, their chastity has proceeded from other causes, than either the fear of God, or the hatred of sin. Instead of honouring religion in the world, they have been ashamed of it, yea perhaps despised it, and held up to scorn and ridicule those who were its most distinguished advocates: thus, so far from labouring to proselyte people to righteousness, they have used all their influence to deter men from it.

What shall we say then to these characters? Shall we encourage them with the hopes of heaven? Must we not rather adopt the Apostle’s reasoning, “If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” Yes; if the Pharisees, with all their righteousness, could not enter into heaven, how shall they come thither, who are destitute of their attainments? If every one must perish who does not exceed their righteousness, what must become of those who fall so short of it? O that this argument might have its proper weight amongst us! O that men would not trifle with their souls, on the very brink and precipice of eternity! “Consider, brethren, what I say; and the Lord give you understanding in all things!”

2. Next we would solicit the attention of those who are resting in a Pharisaic righteousness. This is the kind of religion which is held in esteem by mankind at large. An outward reverence for the ordinances of religion, together with habits of temperance, justice, chastity, and benevolence, constitute what the world considers a perfect character. The description which St. Paul gives of himself previous to his conversion, is so congenial with their sentiments of perfection, that they would not hesitate to rest the salvation of their souls on his attainments. But what said he of his state, when once he came to view it aright? “What things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ; yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.” He saw, that brokenness of heart for sin, a humble affiance in the Lord Jesus Christ, and an unreserved devotedness of heart to his service, were indispensable to the salvation of the soul. He saw, that, without these, no attainments would be of any avail; yea, that a man might have all the Biblical learning of the Scribes, and all the sanctified habits of the Pharisees, and yet never be approved of the Lord in this world, nor ever be accepted of him in the world to come. Is it not then desirable, that those who are in repute for wisdom and piety amongst us, should pause, and inquire, Whether their righteousness really exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees? Would they not do well to study the account which St. Paul gives of himself previous to his conversion, and to examine wherein they surpass him? Alas! alas! we are exceedingly averse to be undeceived; but I would entreat every one of my hearers to consider deeply what our blessed Lord has spoken of such characters: “Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God [Note: Luke 16:15.].”

3. Lastly, we would suggest some profitable considerations to those who profess to have attained that superior righteousness spoken of in our text.

You need not be told, that the examples of Christ and his Apostles, and indeed of all the primitive Christians, were offensive, rather than pleasing, to the Pharisees of old. The same disapprobation of real piety still lurks in the hearts of those who “occupy the seat of Moses [Note: By this expression is meant, Those who professing, like the Pharisees, to reverence the Scriptures as the word of God, expound them as they did, and make use of them to discourage, rather than promote, real piety. But it is not to be limited to any order of men whatever.]:” and you must not wonder if your contrition be called gloom; your faith in Christ, presumption; your delight in his ways, enthusiasm; and your devotion to his service, preciseness or hypocrisy. Well, if it must be so, console yourselves with this, that you share the fate of all the saints that have gone before you; and that your state, with all the obloquy that attends it, is infinitely better than that of your revilers and persecutors: you may well be content to be despised by men, whilst you are conscious of the favour and approbation of God.

But take care that “you give no just occasion to the enemy to speak reproachfully.” The world, and especially those who resemble the Scribes and Pharisees, will watch your conduct narrowly, just as their forefathers did that of our Lord himself; and happy will they be to find occasion against you. As for your secret walk with God, they know nothing about it: your hopes and fears, and joys and sorrows, are nothing to them: these are the things which they deride as airy visions and enthusiastic cant. They will inquire into those things which come more under their own observation, and on which they set an exclusive value: they will inquire how you demean yourselves in your several relations of life; whether you are temperate in your habits, modest in your demeanour, punctual in your dealings, true to your word, regular in your duties, and diligent in your studies. They will point to many of their own followers as highly exemplary in all these particulars; and if they find you inferior to them in any respect, they will cast all the blame upon religion, and take occasion from your misconduct to confirm themselves in their prejudices. Permit me, then, to say to all my younger brethren, and especially to all who shew any respect for religion, that religion, if true and scriptural, is uniformly and universally operative; and that it is a shame to a religious person to be surpassed by a Pharisee in any duty whatsoever. Though I would be far from encouraging any of you to boast, I would entreat all of you so to act, that you may, if compelled by calumnies, adopt the language of the Apostle; “Are they Hebrews? so am I: Are they Israelites? so am I: Are they of the seed of Abraham? so am I: Are they ministers of Christ? I speak as a fool; I am more; in labours more abundant.” Thus be ye also prepared to repel comparisons, or to turn them to your own advantage: and shew, that, in all the social and relative duties, and especially in those pertaining to you as students [Note: Preached before the University of Cambridge.], you are “not a whit behind the chiefest among them;” but even in the things wherein they most value themselves, “the righteous is more excellent than his neighbour [Note: Proverbs 12:26.].”