Amo 3:3, Mat 12:34, Joh 6:60, Rom 8:7 | Barnes

Amos 3:3

Matthew 12:34

Verses 34,35. O generation of vipers. Christ here applies the argument which he had suggested in the previous verse. They were a wicked race; like poisonous reptiles, with a corrupt and evil nature. They could not be expected to speak good things--that is, to speak favourably of him and his works. As the bad fruit of a tree was the proper effect of its nature, so were their words about him and his works the proper effects of their nature. The abundance or fulness of the heart produced the words of the lips.

Vipers. These are a poisonous kind of serpents, not often a yard long, and about an inch thick, having a flat head. The males have two large teeth, through which a most deadly poison is thrown into the wound made by the bite. They are an emblem of malignity and mischief. These were strong expressions to be used by the meek and lowly Jesus; but they were not the effect of anger and malice; they were a declaration of the true character of the men with whom he was conversing--a declaration most justly deserved. Mt 3:7.

(f) "generation" Mt 3:17 (g) "out of the" Lk 6:45

John 6:60

Verse 60. Many of his disciples. The word disciple means learner. It was applied to the followers of Christ because they were taught by him. It does not imply, of necessity, that those to whom it was given were real Christians, but simply that they were under his teaching, and were professed learners in his school. See Mt 17:16; Mk 2:18, Jn 9:28, Mt 10:24. It is doubtless used in this sense here. It is, however, often applied to those who are real Christians.

This is an hard saying. The word hard here means offensive, disagreeable --that which they could not bear. Some have understood it to mean "difficult to be understood," but this meaning does not suit the connection. The doctrine which he delivered was opposed to their prejudices; it seemed to be absurd, and they therefore rejected it.

Saying. Rather doctrine or speech--Greek, logos. It does not refer to any particular part of the discourse, but includes the whole.

Who can hear it? That is, who can hear it patiently--who can stay and listen to such doctrine or believe it. The effect of this is stated in Jn 6:66. The doctrines which Jesus taught that were so offensive appear to have been,

1st. That he was superior to Moses.

2nd. That God would save all that he had chosen, and those only.

3rd. That he said he was the bread that came from heaven.

4th. That it was necessary to partake of that; or that it was necessary that an atonement should be made, and that they should be saved by that. These doctrines have always been among the most offensive that men have been called on to believe, and many, rather than trust in them, have chosen to draw back to perdition.

Romans 8:7

Verse 7. Because. This is given as a reason for what is said in Rom 8:6. In that verse the apostle had affirmed that to be carnally minded was death, but he had not stated why it was. He now explains it by saying that it is enmity against God, and thus involves a sinner in conflict with him, and exposes to his condemnation.

The carnal mind. This is the same expression as occurs in Rom 8:6, (τοφρονηματηςσαρκος). It does not mean the mind itself, the intellect, or the will; it does not suppose that the mind or soul is physically depraved, or opposed to God; but it means that the minding of the things of the flesh, giving to them supreme attention, is hostility against God; and involves the sinner in a controversy with him, and hence leads to death and woe. This passage should not he alleged in proof that the soul is physically depraved, but merely that where there is a supreme regard to the flesh there is hostility to God. It does not directly prove the doctrine of universal depravity; but it proves only that where such attention exists to the corrupt desires of the soul, there is hostility to God. It is indeed implied that that supreme regard to the flesh exists everywhere by nature, but this is not expressly affirmed; for the object of the apostle here is not to teach the doctrine of depravity, but to show that where such depravity in fact exists, it involves the sinner in a fearful controversy with God.

Is enmity. Hostility; hatred. It means, that such a regard to the flesh is in fact hostility to God, because it is opposed to his law, and to his plan for purifying the soul. Comp. Jas 4:4, 1Jn 2:15. The minding of the things of the flesh also leads to the hatred of God himself, because he is opposed to it, and has expressed his abhorrence of it.

Against God. Towards God; or in regard to him. It supposes hostility to him.

For it. The word "it" here refers to the minding of the things of the flesh. It does not mean that the soul itself is not subject to his law, but that the minding of those things is hostile to his law. The apostle does not express any opinion about the metaphysical ability of man, or discuss that question at all. The amount of his affirmation is, simply, that the minding of the flesh, the supreme attention to its dictates and desires, is not and cannot be subject to the law of God. They are wholly contradictory and irreconcilable, just as much as the love of falsehood is inconsistent with the laws of truth; as intemperance is inconsistent with the law of temperance; and as adultery is a violation of the seventh commandment. But whether the man himself might not obey the law--whether he has, or has not, ability to do it--is a question which the apostle does not touch, and on which this passage should not be adduced. For, whether the law of a particular sin is utterly irreconcilable with an opposite virtue, and whether the sinner is able to abandon that sin and pursue a different path, are very different inquiries.

Is not subject. It is not in subjection to the command of God. The minding of the flesh is opposed to that law, and thus shows that it is hostile to God.

Neither indeed can be. This is absolute and certain. It is impossible that it should be. There is the utmost inability in regard to it. The things are utterly irreconcilable. But the affirmation does not mean that the heart of the sinner might not be subject to God; or that his soul is so physically depraved that he cannot obey, or that he might not obey the law. On that the apostle here expresses no opinion. That is not the subject of the discussion. is simply that the supreme regard to the flesh, the minding of that is utterly irreconcilable with the law of God. They are different things and can never be made to harmonize; just as adultery cannot be chastity; falsehood cannot be truth; dishonesty cannot be honesty; hatred cannot be love. This passage, therefore, should not be adduced to prove the doctrine of man's inability to love God, for it does not refer to that; but it proves merely that a supreme regard to the things of the flesh is utterly inconsistent with the law of God-- can never be reconciled with it; and involves the sinner in hostility with his Creator.