the Week of Proper 28 / Ordinary 33
Click here to learn more!
Read the Bible
Filipino Cebuano Bible
Mateo 6:24
Bible Study Resources
Concordances:
- Nave'sDictionaries:
- AmericanEncyclopedias:
- InternationalDevotionals:
- DailyBible Verse Review
from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge
serve: Matthew 4:10, Joshua 24:15, Joshua 24:19, Joshua 24:20, 1 Samuel 7:3, 1 Kings 18:21, 2 Kings 17:33, 2 Kings 17:34, 2 Kings 17:41, Ezekiel 20:39, Zephaniah 1:5, Luke 16:13, Romans 6:16-22, Galatians 1:10, 2 Timothy 4:10, James 4:4, 1 John 2:15, 1 John 2:16
mammon: Luke 16:9, Luke 16:11, Luke 16:13, 1 Timothy 6:9, 1 Timothy 6:10, 1 Timothy 6:17
Reciprocal: Genesis 29:30 - he loved Genesis 29:31 - was hated Genesis 47:17 - for horses Leviticus 11:20 - General Deuteronomy 22:9 - shalt not sow Joshua 22:5 - serve Judges 6:25 - even 2 Samuel 12:10 - because Psalms 119:10 - my whole Psalms 119:69 - with my whole Ecclesiastes 2:3 - and to lay Ecclesiastes 5:10 - He that Ezekiel 33:31 - but their Hosea 7:8 - a cake Hosea 10:2 - Their heart is divided Matthew 12:30 - that is Matthew 13:22 - the care Matthew 19:22 - for Luke 8:14 - and are Romans 1:25 - the creature Romans 16:18 - serve 1 Corinthians 10:21 - cannot drink 2 Corinthians 6:16 - what Ephesians 6:5 - be 1 Timothy 6:2 - let James 1:8 - General Revelation 3:15 - thou
Gill's Notes on the Bible
No man can serve two masters,.... Whose orders are directly contrary to one another: otherwise, if they were the same, or agreed, both might be served; but this is rarely the case, and seldom done. This is a proverbial expression, and is elsewhere used by Christ, Luke 16:13. The Jews have sayings pretty much like it, and of the same sense as when they say w,
"we have not found that כל אדם זוכה לשתי שולחנות, "any man is fit for two tables."''
And again x,
"that it is not proper for one man to have two governments:''
their meaning is, that two things cannot be done together:
for, either he will hate the one, and love the other; he will have less affection and regard to the one, than to the other; as the service or orders of the one, are less agreeable to him than the others;
or else he will hold to the one; hearken to his commands, obey his orders, and abide in his service;
and despise the other; show disrespect to his person, neglect his orders, and desert his service:
ye cannot serve God and mammon. The word "mammon" is a Syriac word, and signifies money, wealth, riches, substance, and everything that comes under the name of worldly goods. Jerom says, that riches, in the Syriac language, are called "mammon"; and so the word is often used in the above senses, in the Chaldee paraphrases y, and in the Talmudic writings; where z דיני ממונות, "pecuniary judgments", or causes relating to money affairs, in which were pecuniary mulcts, are opposed to דיני נפשות, "judgment of souls", or causes relating to life and death. The account and interpretation Irenaeus a gives of the word, is very wide and foreign; who says, that
"Mammon, according to the Jewish way of speaking, which the Samaritans used, is one that is greedy, and would have more than he ought; but, according to the Hebrew language, it is called adjectively Mam, and signifies one that is gluttonous; that is, who cannot refrain himself from gluttony.''
Whereas it is not an Hebrew word, nor an adjective, but a substantive, and signifies riches; which are opposed to God, being by some men loved, admired, trusted in, and worshipped, as if they were God; and which is incompatible with the service of the true God: for such persons, whose hearts go after their covetousness, and are set upon earthly riches, who give up themselves to them, are eagerly and anxiously pursuing after them, and place their confidence in them; whatever pretensions they may make to the service of God, as did the Scribes and Pharisees, who are particularly struck at by this expression, both here and elsewhere, they cannot truly and heartily serve the Lord. "Mammon" is the god they serve; which word may well be thought to answer to Pluto, the god of riches, among the Heathens. The Jews, in Christ's time, were notorious for the love of "mammon"; and they themselves own, that this was the cause of the destruction of the second temple: the character they give of those, who lived under the second temple, is this:
"we know that they laboured in the law, and took care of the commandments, and of the tithes, and that their whole conversation was good; only that they אוהבין את הממון, "loved the mammon", and hated one another without a cause b.''
w Praefat. Celi Jaker, fol. 3. 1. x Piske Tosephot Cetubot, art. 359. y Vid. Targum Onkelos & Jon. in Gen. xiii. 13. & in Jud. v. 19. & in Prov. iii. 9. & in Isa. xlv. 13. & passim. z Misn. Sanhed. c. 1. sect. 1. & c. 4. sect. 1. a Adv. Haeres. l. 3. c. 8. p. 249. b T. Hieros. Yoma, fol. 38. 3.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
No man can serve two masters ... - Christ proceeds to illustrate the necessity of laying up treasures in heaven from a well-known fact, that a servant cannot serve two masters at the same time. His affections and obedience would be divided, and he would fail altogether in his duty to one or the other. One he would love, the other he would hate. To the interests of the one he would adhere, the interests of the other he would neglect. This is a law of human nature. The supreme affections can be fixed on only one object. So, says Jesus, the servant of God cannot at the same time obey him. and be avaricious, or seek treasures supremely on earth. One interferes with the other, and one or the other will be, and must be, surrendered.
Mammon - Mammon is a Syriac word, a name given to an idol worshipped as the god of riches. It has the same meaning as Plutus among the Greeks. It is not known that the Jews ever formally worshipped this idol, but they used the word to denote wealth. The meaning is, ye cannot serve the true God, and at the same time be supremely engaged in obtaining the riches of this world. One must interfere with the other. See Luke 16:9-11.
Clarke's Notes on the Bible
Verse Matthew 6:24. No man can serve two masters — The master of our heart may be fitly termed the love that reigns in it. We serve that only which we love supremely. A man cannot be in perfect indifference betwixt two objects which are incompatible: he is inclined to despise and hate whatever he does not love supremely, when the necessity of a choice presents itself.
He will hate the one and love the other. — The word hate has the same sense here as it has in many places of Scripture; it merely signifies to love less-so Jacob loved Rachel, but hated Leah; i.e. he loved Leah much less than he loved Rachel. God himself uses it precisely in the same sense: Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated; i.e. I have loved the posterity of Esau less than I have loved the posterity of Jacob: which means no more than that God, in the course of his providence, gave to the Jews greater earthly privileges than he gave to the Edomites, and chose to make them the progenitors of the Messiah, though they ultimately, through their own obstinacy, derived no more benefit from this privilege than the Edomites did. How strange is it, that with such evidence before their eyes, men will apply this loving and hating to degrees of inclusion and exclusion, in which neither the justice nor mercy of God are honoured!
Ye cannot serve God and mammon. — ממון mamon is used for money in the Targum of Onkelos, Exodus 18:21; and in that of Jonathan, Judges 5:19; 1 Samuel 8:3. The Syriac word ממונא mamona is used in the same sense, Exodus 21:30. Dr. Castel deduces these words from the Hebrew אמן aman, to trust, confide; because men are apt to trust in riches. Mammon may therefore be considered any thing a man confides in. Augustine observes, "that mammon, in the Punic or Carthaginian language, signified gain." Lucrum Punicè mammon dicitur. The word plainly denotes riches, Luke 16:9; Luke 16:11, in which latter verse mention is made not only of the deceitful mammon, (τω αδικω), but also of the true (το αληθινον.) St. Luke's phrase, μαμωνα αδικιας, very exactly answers to the Chaldee ממון דשקר mamon dishekar, which is often used in the Targums. See more in Wetstein and Parkhurst.
Some suppose there was an idol of this name, and Kircher mentions such a one in his OEdip. Egyptiacus. See Castel.
Our blessed Lord shows here the utter impossibility of loving the world and loving God at the same time; or, in other words, that a man of the world cannot be a truly religious character. He who gives his heart to the world robs God of it, and, in snatching at the shadow of earthly good, loses substantial and eternal blessedness. How dangerous is it to set our hearts upon riches, seeing it is so easy to make them our God!
