In His discussion of righteousness (character and conduct that conforms to the will of God), Jesus went back to the revelation of God's will, namely God's Word, the Old Testament.
It was natural for Jesus to explain His view of the Old Testament since He would shortly proceed to interpret it to His hearers.
5:17 Some of the Jews may have already concluded that Jesus was a radical who was discarding the teachings of the Old Testament, their law. Many others would begin to do so soon. Jesus prepared them for the incongruity between His teaching and their leaders' interpretations of the law by explaining His relationship to the Old Testament.
The terms "the Law"and "the Prophets"refer to two of the three major divisions of the Hebrew Bible, the third being "the Psalms"(Luke 24:44). "The Law and the Prophets"was evidently the most common way Jews referred to the Old Testament then (cf. 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 28:23; Rom. 3:21). Jesus' introduced the subject of Scripture interpretation in this verse with this phrase. In 7:12 He concluded the subject with the same phrase. Thus the phrase "the Law and the Prophets"forms another inclusiowithin the body of the Sermon on the Mount and identifies the main subject that it encloses.
Much debate has centered on what Jesus meant when He said He came to fulfill the Old Testament.260The first question is, Was Jesus referring to Himself when He said, "I came . . . to fulfill,"or was he referring to His teaching? Did He fulfill the law or did His teaching fulfill it? Since the contrast is "to abolish"the law, it seems probable that Jesus meant His teaching fulfilled the law. He did not intend that what He taught the people would replace the teaching of the Old Testament but fulfill (Gr. pleroo) or establish it completely. Of course, Jesus did fulfill Old Testament prophecy about Messiah, but that does not appear to be the primary subject in view here. The issue seems to be His teaching.
Some interpreters conclude Jesus meant that He came to fulfill the moral law (the Ten Commandments) but that He abolished Israel's civil and ceremonial laws.261However there is no basis for this distinction in this text nor in any other New Testament text. Others believe that He meant He came to fill out its meaning, to expound its full significance that until then remained obscure.262This view rests on an unusual meaning of pleroo, and it seems inconsistent with Jesus' comment about the jot and tittle in verse 18. Still others believe Jesus meant that He came to extend the demands of the Old Testament law to new lengths.263This interpretation is improbable because the extension of law does not involve its abolition.
Probably Jesus meant that He came to establish the Old Testament fully, to add His authoritative approval to it. This view harmonizes with Matthew's use of plerooelsewhere (cf. 2:15). This does not mean He taught that the Mosaic Law remained in force for His disciples. He taught that it did not (Mark 7:19). Rather here Jesus authenticated the Old Testament as the inspired Word of God.264He wanted His hearers to understand that what He taught them in no way contradicted Old Testament revelation.
"He disregarded the oral tradition, which they [the Pharisees] held to be equal in authority to the written Law; and He interpreted the written Law according to its spirit, and not, as they did, according to the rigid letter. He did not keep the weekly fasts, nor observe the elaborated distinctions between clean and unclean, and He consorted with outcasts and sinners. He neglected the traditional modes of teaching, and preached in a way of His own. Above all, He spoke as if He Himself were an authority, independent of the Law."265
5:18 The phrase "truly I say to you"(NASB) or "I tell you the truth"(NIV) indicates that what follows is extremely important. "Until heaven and earth pass away"is a vivid way of saying as long as this world lasts. The AV "jot,"also translated "smallest letter"(NASB, NIV), refers to yod, the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The "tittle"(AV) or "smallest stroke"(NASB) or "least stroke"(NIV) is not as easy to identify. The best possibility seems to be that it refers to a small stroke on one Hebrew letter that distinguished it from a similarly shaped letter.266In any case Jesus meant that He upheld the Old Testament down to the smallest features of the Hebrew letters that the writers used as they composed the original autographs.
This verse is a strong testimony to the verbal inspiration of Scripture. That is, divine inspiration extends to the words, even the letters, in the original texts. Verses 17-19 also argue for the plenary inspiration of Scripture, the view that inspiration extends to all parts of the Old Testament. God inspired all of it down to the very words the writers used. In verse 18 "the Law"refers to the whole Old Testament, not just the Mosaic Law or the Pentateuch (cf. v. 17). This is clear from the context.
God will preserve His Law until everything in it has happened as prophesied.
5:19 The Jewish rabbis had graded the Old Testament commands according to which they believed were more authoritative and which less.267Jesus corrected this view. He taught that all were equally authoritative. He warned His hearers against following their leaders' practice. Greatness in His kingdom depended on maintaining a high view of Scripture. This verse distinguishes different ranks within the messianic kingdom. Some individuals will have a higher standing than others. Everyone will not be equal. Notice that there will be people in the kingdom whose view of Scripture will not be the same before they enter the kingdom. All will be righteous, but their obedience to and attitude toward Scripture will vary.
5:20 "I say to you"is a claim to having authority (cf. 7:29). The relativistic view of the scribes and Pharisees led them to accept some Scriptural injunctions and to reject others (cf. 15:5-6). This resulted in selective obedience that produced only superficial righteousness (only external conformity to the revealed will of God). That type of righteousness, Jesus declared, would not be adequate for admission into the kingdom.268Selective obedience does not demonstrate a proper faith attitude to God, the attitude John and Jesus called for when they said, "Repent."
Jesus proceeded to clarify exactly what the law did require in verses 21-48.269He selected six subjects. He was not contrasting His interpretation with Moses' teaching but with the interpretation of the scribes and Pharisees. He was expounding the meaning of the text that God originally intended. He was doing Bible exposition.
5:21 In each of these six cases Jesus first related the popular understanding of the Old Testament, the view advocated by the religious teachers of His day. In this verse He introduced it by saying, "You have heard that the ancients were told"(NASB). This was an expression that the rabbis of Jesus' day used when they referred to the teachings of the Old Testament.270
Jesus quoted the sixth commandment and combined it with Leviticus 19:17. The "court"in view was the civil court in Israel.
5:22 Jesus contrasted His correct interpretation with the false common understanding of this command. His, "But I say to you"(vv. 22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44) was not a common rabbinic saying, though it did have some parallels in rabbinic Judaism.271It expressed an authority that surprised His hearers (cf. 7:29). Thus Jesus "fulfilled"or established the meaning of the passages to which He referred (v. 17).272
"Jesus implicitly claimed deity in at least twelve ways. He claimed three divine rights: (1) to judge mankind, (2) to forgive sins, and (3) to grant eternal life. He declared that (4) his presence was God's presence as well as the presence of God's kingdom and that (5) the attitude people took toward him would determine their eternal destiny. He (6) identified his actions with God's actions, (7) taught the truth on his own authority, and (8) performed miracles on his own authority. He (9) appeared to receive worship or obeisance. He (10) assumed that his life was a pattern for others, a divinely authoritative form of life.' He (11) applied to himself OT texts that describe God and (12) in several parables indirectly indentified himself with a father or king who represents God."273
When God gave the sixth commandment, He did not just want people to refrain from murdering one another. He wanted them to refrain from the hatred that leads to murder. Murder is only the external manifestation of the internal problem. The scribes and Pharisees dealt only with the external act. Jesus showed that God's concern ran much deeper. Refraining from homicide does not constitute a person righteous in God's sight. Anger renders one subject to judgment at God's heavenly court "since no human court is competent to try a case of inward anger."274
Jesus often used the term "brother"in the sense of a brother disciple. The term usually occurs on Jesus' lips in the first Gospel, and Matthew recorded Him using it extensively. The relationship is an extension of the fact that God is the Father of believing disciples. Thus all believers are brothers in the spiritual sense. The early church's use of the term undoubtedly originated with Jesus.
"Raca"is the transliteration of the Aramaic reka. It means "imbecile,""numbskull,"or "blockhead."275The "supreme court"(NASB) or "Sanhedrin"(NIV; Gr. synedrion) probably refers to God's highest court in view of the context, not the Jewish Sanhedrin of Jesus' day. "Fool"(Gr. mores) is another similar term that a person who felt hatred for even his brother might use. He, too, would be in danger of divine judgment. Jesus said the offender is guilty enough to suffer eternal judgment, not that he will. Whether he will suffer eternal judgment or not depends on his relationship to God. There does not seem to be any gradation or progression in these three instances of anger. Jesus simply presented three possible instances with an assortment of terms and assured His hearers that in all cases there was violation of God's will that could incur severe divine torment (cf. 3:12).
The word "hell"translates the Greek geenna, which is a transliteration of the Hebrew ge hinnomor "Valley of Hinnom."This was the valley south of Jerusalem where a fire burned continually consuming the city's refuse. This place became an illustration of the place where the wicked will suffer eternal torment.276Matthew recorded 11 references to it.
Jesus' demonstrations of anger were appropriate for Him since He was God, and God gets angry. His anger was always righteous unlike the anger that arises from unjustified hatred. It is possible for humans to be angry and not sin (Eph. 4:26). Here Jesus was addressing unjustifiable anger that can lead to murder (cf. Col. 3:8).
5:23-24 Jesus gave two illustrations of anger, one involving temple worship (vv. 23-24) and the other legal action (vv. 25-26). Both deal with situations in which the hearer is the cause of another person's anger rather than the offended party. Why did Jesus construct the illustrations this way? Perhaps He did so because we are more likely to remember situations in which we have had some grievance against another person than those in which we have offended another. Moreover Jesus' disciples should be as sensitive to making other people hate them as they are about hating others.
The offerer would present his offering at the brazen altar in the temple courtyard. It is more important to lift the load of hate from another brother's heart than to engage in a formal act of worship. Ritual worship was very important to the scribes and Pharisees, but Jesus put internal purity first, even the internal purity of another person.
5:25-26 The second illustration stresses the importance of making things right quickly. Two men walking together to the court where their disagreement would receive judicial arbitration should try to settle their grievance out of court. The offender should remove the occasion for the other man's anger and hatred quickly. Otherwise the judge might make things difficult for both of them. The mention of going from judge to officer to prison pictures the red tape and complications involved in not settling out of court. Likewise God will make it difficult for haters and those who provoke hate in others if they come before Him with unresolved interpersonal disagreements. Malicious anger is evil, and God's judgment is certain. Therefore disciples must do everything they can to end anger quickly (cf. Eph. 4:26).
5:27-28 Jesus proceeded to clarify God's intended meaning in the seventh commandment (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). The rabbis in Jesus' day tended to look at adultery as wrong because it involved stealing another man's wife. They viewed it as an external act.277Jesus, on the other hand, saw it as wrong because it made the lustful individual impure morally, an internal condition. The Greek word gyncan mean either wife of woman. Certainly the spirit of the command would prohibit lusting after any woman, not just a married woman. Fantisized immorality is just as sinful to God as physical immorality. The fact that fornication that takes place in the brain has fewer bad consequences than fornication that takes place on a bed does not mitigate this truth.
5:29-30 As before (vv. 23-26), two illustrations aid our understanding. The eye is the member of the body initially responsible for luring us into an immoral thought or deed (cf. Num. 15:39; Prov. 21:4; Ezek. 6:9; 18:12; 20:8). The right eye is the best eye, the common metaphorical use of the "right"anything. A literal interpretation of this verse would have Jesus crippling every member of the human race. Should not one pluck out his left eye as well? Furthermore disposing of the eye would not remove the real cause of the offense, a lustful heart. Clearly this is a hyperbolic statement designed to make a point by overstatement.278Jesus' point was that His disciples must deal radically with sin. We must avoid temptation at all costs.279
The reference to cutting off the "right hand"(v. 30) is also metaphorical, but how symbolic is it? Some take the "right hand"as a euphemism for the penis (cf. Isa. 57:8).280This view has the context in its favor. Others take the right hand literally and view it as the instrument of stealing another man's wife. "Hell"is Gehenna, the final place of punishment for all the wicked.281Its mention here does not imply that believers can go there. It represents the worst possible destiny.
"Imagination is a God-given gift; but if it is fed dirt by the eye, it will be dirty. All sin, not least sexual sin, begins with the imagination. Therefore what feeds the imagination is of maximum importance in the pursuit of kingdom righteousness (compare Phil 4:8). Not everyone reacts the same way to all objects. But if (vv. 28-29) your eye is causing you to sin, gouge it out; or at very least, don't look . . .!"282
Not only is lust the moral equivalent of adultery, but so is divorce. The connective de("and,"NASB) that begins verse 31 ties this section in very closely with the one that precedes (vv. 27-30). In Israel a man divorced his wife simply by giving her a written statement indicating that he divorced her (cf. Deut. 24:1-4). It was a domestic matter, not something that went through the courts, and it was quite common. In most cases a divorced woman would remarry another husband often for her own security. Jesus said that divorcing a woman virtually amounted to causing her to commit adultery since she would normally remarry. Likewise any man who married a divorced woman committed adultery with her because in God's eyes she was still married to her first husband. Jesus' explanation would have helped his hearers realize the ramifications of a decision that many of them viewed as insignificant.
". . . Jesus introduces the new and shocking idea that even properly divorced people who marry a second time may be thought of as committing adultery. The OT, allowing divorce, does not regard those who remarry as committing adultery. . . . Marriage was meant to establish a permanent relationship between a man and a woman, and divorce should therefore not be considered an option for the disciples of the kingdom."283
The exception clause in verse 32 seems to say that if the woman has committed fornication (Gr. porneia; any form of forbidden sexual sin) then her husband does not cause her to commit adultery when he divorces her. Evidently her fornication broke her marriage bond. Therefore remarriage to another man in this case does not break her marriage bond, and it does not constitute her an adulteress if she remarries. We could also add the exception clause in the last part of verse 32 since that seems to have been Jesus' intention. He probably did not repeat it because He did not want to stress the exceptional case but to focus on the seriousness of the husband's decision to divorce his wife.284Women did not have the right to divorce their husbands in ancient Israel.
5:33 Jesus next gave a condensation of several commands in the Old Testament that forbade taking an oath, invoking the Lord's name to guarantee the oath, and then breaking it (Exod. 20:7; Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Deut. 5:11; 6:3; 22:21-23). The rabbis had developed an elaborate stratification of oaths. They taught that swearing by God's name was binding, but swearing by heaven and earth was not binding. Swearing towardJerusalem was binding, but swearing byJerusalem was not. In some cases they even tried to deceive others by appealing to various authorities in their oaths.285
5:34-36 Jesus cut through all the casuistry by saying that if oaths that God intended to guarantee truthfulness in speech become the instruments of deceit, it is better to avoid oaths altogether. Again Jesus got below the external act to the real issue at stake that had been God's concern from the beginning. The way to dispense with false swearing is to avoid all swearing. Righteous people should not need to confirm their statements with an appeal to a higher authority. Their word should be enough (cf. James 5:2).
Jesus explained that whatever a person may appeal to in an oath has some connection with God. Therefore any oath is an appeal to God indirectly if not directly. To say that one could swear by one's own head, for example, and then break his vow, because he did not mention God's name, was shortsighted.
5:37 Jesus' "yes, yes,"and "no, no,"is not the exact terminology He wanted His disciple to use. If He meant that, He would be doing just what He was correcting the rabbis for doing. Rather it means a simple yes or no. The NIV translation gives the sense: "Simply let your Yes' be Yes,' and your No,' No.'"The "evil"at the end of the verse may either be a reference to the devil or it may mean that to go beyond Jesus' teaching on this point involves evil.
Some very conscientious believers have taken Jesus' words literally and have refused to take an oath of any kind even in court. However, Jesus' point was the importance of truthfulness. He probably would not have objected to the use of oaths as a formality in legal proceedings. The Bible records that God Himself swore, not because He sometimes lies but to impress His truthfulness on people (Gen. 9:9-11; Luke 1:68, 73). Jesus testified under oath (26:63-64) as did Paul (Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:23; 1 Thess. 2:5, 10).
"It must be frankly admitted that here Jesus formally contravenes OT law: what it permits or commands (Deut. 6:13), he forbids. But if his interpretation of the direction in which the law points is authoritative, then his teaching fulfills it."286
5:38 Retaliation was common in the ancient Near East. Frequently it led to vendettas in which escalating vengeance continued for generations. Israel's "law of retaliation"(Lat. lex talionis) limited retaliation to no more than equal compensation (Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:19-20; Deut. 19:21). The Jews tended to view the law of retaliation as God's permission to take vengeance. That was never God's intention (cf. Lev. 19:18). He simply wanted to protect them from excessive vengeance and to curb vendettas. In some situations the Jews could pay to avoid the vengeance of their brethren (Exod. 21:26-27). As God had permitted divorce because of the hardness of man's heart, so He permitted a certain amount of retaliation under the Mosaic Law. However, His intention was that His people would avoid divorce and retaliation entirely.
5:39a Jesus first expounded God's intention regarding retaliation. Essentially He said: When evil people do you wrong, do not resist them. "Resist"(Gr. anthistemi) means to defend oneself, not to take aggressive action against someone, as the following verses illustrate. When evil people do bad things to us, Jesus' disciples should accept the injustice without taking revenge.287Implicit in this view are Old Testament promises that God will take care of the righteous. Therefore to accept injustice without retaliating expresses trust that God will faithfully care for His own. The Old Testament taught that the Jews were to leave vengeance to God (Lev. 19:17-18; Deut. 32:35; Ps. 94:1; Prov. 20:22; 24:29). Discerning Jews realized this in Jesus' day.288Paul resisted (Gr. anthistemi) Peter (Gal. 2:11) out of love for the gospel and his fellow believers, not out of selfishness.
5:39b-42 Jesus gave four illustrations to clarify what He meant. In the first (v. 39b), a disciple suffers an unjustified physical attack on his or her person. What is that one to do? He or she should not injure the aggressor in return but should absorb the injury and the insult. He should even be ready to accept the same attack again. In Jesus' illustration the disciple gets slapped on the right cheek. Under normal conditions this would come from the back of a right-handed person's right hand. Such a slap was an insult more than an injury. However we should probably not make too much of that point.
Second, if someone wanted to extract as much as the disciple's undergarment for some real or imagined offense, the disciple was to part with it willingly (v. 40). The disciple should not resist the evil antagonist's action. Moreover he or she should be ready and willing to part with his or her outer garment as well. Under Mosaic Law, a person's outer cloak was something he or she had an almost inalienable right to retain (Exod. 22:26; Deut. 24:13). This is another example of hyperbole. Jesus did not intend His disciples to walk around naked.
The third illustration requires some background knowledge of customs in New Testament times to appreciate (v. 41). The Romans sometimes commandeered civilians to carry the luggage of military personnel, but the civilian did not have to carry the luggage for more than one Roman mile.289This imposition exasperated and infuriated many a proud Jew. Again the disciple is not only to refrain from retaliating but even to refrain from resisting this personal injustice. Jesus advocated going an extra mile. The disciple is to respond to unjustified demands by giving even more than the adversary asks, and he or she is to return good for evil.
Fourth, Jesus told His disciples to give what others request of them, assuming it is within their power to do so (v. 41). This applies to loans as well as gifts (cf. Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:37; Deut. 23:19). A willing and generous spirit is implicit in this command (cf. Deut. 15:7-11; Ps. 37:26; 112:5). This does not mean we should give all our money away to individuals and institutions that ask for our financial assistance (cf. Prov. 11:15; 17:18; 22:26). The scene in view in all these illustrations and in all of this teaching is one individual dealing with another individual. Personal wrongs are in view, not social or governmental crimes.290
". . . Jesus is here talking to his disciples, and speaking of personal relations: he is not laying down moral directives for states and nations, and such issues as the work of police or the question of a defensive war are simply not in his mind."291
There is a progression in these illustrations from simply not resisting to giving generously to those who make demands that tempt us to retaliate against them. Love must be the disciple's governing principle, not selfishness.292
Some conscientious believers have taken Jesus' instructions about resisting aggression literally and refuse to defend themselves in any situation either as pacifists or as advocates of non-resistance. However the spirit of the law, which Jesus clarified, did not advocate turning oneself into a doormat. It stressed meeting hatred with positive love rather than hatred. Though Jesus allowed His enemies to lead Him as a lamb to the slaughter, He did not cave in to every hostile attack from the scribes and Pharisees. Paul claimed his Roman citizenship rather than suffering prolonged attack by the Jews.
5:43 Jesus quoted the Old Testament again (Lev. 19:18), but this time He added a corollary that the rabbis, not Moses, provided. Nowhere does the Old Testament advocate hating one's enemies. However this seemed to many of the Jewish religious teachers to be the natural opposite of loving one's neighbors.293
5:44-47 Jesus answered the popular teaching by going back to the Old Testament that commanded love for enemies (Exod. 23:4-5). Love (Gr. agapao) here probably includes emotion as well as action.
"To love one's enemies, though it must result in doing them good (Luke 6:32-33) and praying for them (Matt. 5:44), cannot justly be restricted to activities devoid of any concern, sentiment, or emotion. Like the English verb to love,' agapaoranges widely from debased and selfish actions to generous, warm, costly self-sacrifice for another's good. There is no reason to think the verb here in Matthew does not include emotion as well as action."294
The word "enemies"also has a wide meaning and includes any individuals who elicit anger, hatred, and retaliation from the disciple.
Prayer is one specific manifestation of love.
"Jesus seems to have prayed for his tormentors actually while the iron spikes were being driven through his hands and feet; indeed the imperfect tense suggests that he kept praying, kept repeating his entreaty, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do' (Luke 23:34). If the cruel torture of crucifixion could not silence our Lord's prayer for his enemies, what pain, pride, prejudice or sloth could justify the silencing of ours?"295
Liberal interpreters have concluded that Jesus meant that we become God's sons by loving and praying for friend and foe alike. However, consistent with other Scriptural revelation, Jesus did not mean His disciples can earn their salvation (v. 45). Rather by loving and praying for our enemies we show that we are God's sons because we do what He does.
"They showtheir parentage by their moral resemblance to the God who is Love . . ."296
Theologians refer to the blessings God bestows on His enemies as well as on His children as common grace. Disciples, as their Father, should do good to all people as well as to their brethren (Gal. 6:10).
Loving one's enemies is something God will reward (v. 46). This should be an added inducement to love the antagonistic. Tax gatherers were local Jews who collected taxes from their countrymen for the Romans. The whole Roman system of collecting taxes was very corrupt, and strict Jews viewed these tax collectors as both traitorous and unclean because of their close association with Gentiles. They were among the most despised people in Palestine. However even they, Jesus said, loved those who loved them.
Proper salutations were an evidence of courtesy and respect.297However if Jesus' disciples only gave them to their brethren, they did no more than the Gentiles, most of whom were pagans.
This verse summarizes all of Jesus' teaching about the Old Testament's demands (vv. 21-47). "Therefore"identifies a conclusion.
"Perfect"(Gr. teleios) often occurs in a relative sense in the New Testament, and translators sometimes render it "mature"(e.g., 1 Cor. 14:20; Eph. 4:13; Heb. 5:14; 6:1). However it also means perfect. In this context it refers to perfect regarding conformity to God's requirements, which Jesus just clarified. He wanted His disciples to press on to perfect righteousness, a goal that no sinful human can attain but toward which all should move (cf. v. 3; 6:12). They should not view righteousness as simply external, as the scribes and Pharisees did, but they should pursue inner moral purity and love. This is only appropriate since their heavenly Father is indeed perfect.
"Perfection here refers to uprightness and sincerity of character with the thought of maturity in godliness or attaining the goal of conformity to the character of God. While sinless perfection is impossible, godliness, in its biblical concept, is attainable."298
Good children in the ancient East imitated their fathers. Jesus advocated the same of His disciples. In giving this summary command Jesus was alluding to Leviticus 19:2, which He modified slightly in view of Deuteronomy 18:13.
"In Jesus' perspective, the debates concerning law and tradition are all to be resolved by the proper application of one basic principle, or better, of a single attitude of the heart, namely, utter devotion to God and radical love of the neighbor (5:48; 22:37-40)."299
While we are to strive for perfection in our conformity to the will of God (cf. 1 Pet. 1:15-16), we must beware of the perils associated with perfectionism. Striving for an unattainable goal is difficult for anyone, but it is particularly frustrating for people with obsessive compulsive personalities, people who tend to be perfectionistic. In one sense a perfectionist is someone who strives for perfection, but in another sense it is someone who is obsessed with perfection. Such a person, for example, constantly cleans up his or her environment, straightens things that are not exactly straight, and corrects people for even minor mistakes. This type of striving for perfection is not godly. God does is not constantly "on the backs"of people who are less than perfect, and we should not be, either other people or ourselves. In fact, He gives us a great deal of "space"and is patient with us, allowing us to correct our own mistakes before He steps in to do so. It is possible for disciples of Jesus to become so obsessed with our own holiness that we shift our focus from Christ to ourselves. Rather we should keep our eyes on Him (Heb. 12:1-3) more than on ourselves and being perfect.
