Bible Commentaries

Matthew 5:21-26. First illustration of Christ’s ethical attitude, taken from the Sixth Commandment. In connection with this and the following exemplifications of Christ’s ethical method, the interpreter is embarrassed by the long-continued strifes of the theological schools, which have brought back the spirit of legalism, from which the great Teacher sought to deliver His disciples. It will be best to ignore these strifes and go steadily on our way.

Matthew 5:21. Ἠκούσατε. The common people knew the law by hearing it read in the synagogue, not by reading it themselves. The aorist expresses what they were accustomed to hear, an instance of the “gnomic” use. Tholuck thinks there may be an allusion to the tradition of the scribes, called Shema.—τοῖς ἀρχαίοις might mean: in ancient times, to the ancients, or by the ancients. The second is in accord with N. T. usage, and is adopted by Meyer, Weiss and Holtzmann (H. C.). How far back does Christ go in thought? To Moses or to Ezra? The expression is vague, and might cover the whole past, and perhaps is intended to do so. There is no reason à priori why the criticism should be restricted to the interpretation of the law by the scribes. Christ’s position as fulfiller entitled Him to point out the defects of the law itself, and we must be prepared to find Him doing so, and there is reason to believe that in the sequel He actually does (so Wendt, L. J., ii., 332).—Οὐ φονεύσεις … κρίσει. This is a correct statement, not only of the Pharisaic interpretation of the law, but of the law itself. As a law for the life of a nation, it could forbid and punish only the outward act. But just here lay its defect as a summary of human duty. It restrained the end not the beginning of transgression (Euthy. Zig.).—ἔνοχος = ἐνεχόμενος, with dative of the tribunal here.

Matthew 5:22. ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν. Christ supplies the defect, as a painter fills in a rude outline of a picture (σκιαγραφίαν), says Theophy. He goes back on the roots of crime in the feelings: anger, contempt, etc.—πᾶς … αὐτοῦ. Every one; universal interdict of angry passion.—ἀδελφῷ: not in blood (the classical meaning) or in faith, but by common humanity. The implied doctrine is that every man is my brother; companion doctrine to the universal Fatherhood of God (Matthew 5:45).—εἰκῆ is of course a gloss; qualification of the interdict against anger may be required, but it was not Christ’s habit to supply qualifications. His aim was to impress the main idea, anger a deadly sin.—κρίσει, here as in Matthew 5:21. The reference is to the provincial court of seven (Deuteronomy 16:18, 2 Chronicles 19:5, Joseph. Ant. iv. 8, 14) possessing power to punish capital offences by the sword. Christ’s words are of course not to be taken literally as if He were enacting that the angry man be tried as a criminal. So understood He would be simply introducing an extension of legalism. He deserves to go before the seven, He says, meaning he is as great an offender as the homicide who is actually tried by them.

Ῥακά: left untranslated in A. V[20] and R. V[21]; a word of little meaning, rendered by Jerome “inanis aut vacuus absque cerebro”. Augustine says a Jew told him it was not properly a word at all, but an interjection like Hem. Theophy. gives as an equivalent σὺ spoken by a Greek to a man whom he despised. And the man who commits this trivial offence (as it seems) must go before, not the provincial seven, but the supreme seventy, the Sanhedrim that tried the most heinous offences and sentenced to the severest penalties, e.g., death by stoning! Trivial in appearance, the offence is deadly in Christ’s eyes. It means contempt for a fellow-man, more inhuman than anger—a violent passion, prompting to words and acts often bitterly regretted when the hot temper cools down. Μωρέ, if a Greek word, the equivalent for נָבָל = fool, good for nothing, morally worthless. It may, as Paulus, and after him Nösgen, suggests, be a Hebrew word, מוֹרֶה (Numbers 20:24, Deuteronomy 21:18), a rebel against God or against parents, the most worthless of characters. Against this Field (Otium Norviccuse) remarks that it would be the only instance of a pure Hebrew word in the N. T. In either case the word expresses a more serious form of contempt than Raca. Raca expresses contempt for a man’s head = you stupid! More expresses contempt for his heart and character = you scoundrel. The reckless use of such opprobrious epithets Jesus regarded as the supreme offence against the law of humanity.—ἔνοχος … πυρός. He deserves to go, not to the seven or the seventy, but to hell, his sin altogether damnable. Kuinoel thinks the meaning is: He deserves to be burned alive in the valley of Hinnom: is dignus est qui in valle Hinnomi vivus comburatur. This interpretation finds little approval, but it is not so improbable when we remember what Christ said about the offender of the little ones (Matthew 18:6). Neither burning alive nor drowning was actually practised. In these words of Jesus against anger and contempt there is an aspect of exaggeration. They are the strong utterance of one in whom all forms of inhumanity roused feelings of passionate abhorrence. They are of the utmost value as a revelation of character.

[20] Authorised Version.

[21] Revised Version.

Matthew 5:23-24. Holtzmann (H. C.) regards these verses, as well as the two following, as an addition by the evangelist. But the passage is at least in thorough harmony with what goes before, as well as with the whole discourse.—Ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς, if thou art in the very act of presenting thine offering (present tense) at the altar.—κἀκεῖ μνησθῇς … κατὰ σοῦ, and it suddenly flashes through thy mind there that thou hast done something to a brother man fitted to provoke angry feeling in him. What then? Get through with thy worship as fast as possible and go directly after and make peace with the offended? No, interrupt the religious action and go on that errand first.—ἄφες ἐκεῖ. Lay it down on the spur of the moment before the altar without handing it to the priest to be offered by him in thy stead.—καὶ ὕπαγε πρῶτον. The πρῶτον is to be joined to ὕπαγε, not to the following verb as in A. V[22] and R. V[23] (πρῶτον stands after the verb also in chaps. Matthew 6:33, Matthew 7:5). First go: remove thyself from the temple, break off thy worship, though it may seem profane to do so.—διαλλάγηθι … καὶ τότε … πρόσφερε: no contempt for religious service expressed or implied. Holtzmann (H. C.) asks, did Jesus offer sacrifice? and answers, hardly. In any case He respected the practice. But, reconciliation before sacrifice: morality before religion. Significant utterance, first announcement of a great principle often repeated, systematically neglected by the religion of the time. Placability before sacrifice, mercy before sacrifice, filial affection and duty before sacrifice; so always in Christ’s teaching (Matthew 9:13; Matthew 15:5). πρόσφερε: present; set about offering: plenty of time now for the sacred action.

[22] Authorised Version.

[23] Revised Version.

Matthew 5:25-26. There is much more reason for regarding this passage as an interpolation. It is connected only externally (by the references to courts of law) with what goes before, and it is out of keeping with the general drift of the teaching on the hill. It occurs in a different connection in Luke 12:58, there as a solemn warning to the Jewish people, on its way to judgment, to repent. Meyer pleads that the logion might be repeated. It might, but only on suitable occasions, and the teaching on the hill does not seem to offer such an occasion. Kuinoel, Bleek, Holtzmann, Weiss and others regard the words as foreign to the connection. Referring to the exposition in Luke, I offer here only a few verbal notes mainly on points in which Matthew differs from Luke.—ἴσθι εὐνοῶν, be in a conciliatory mood, ready to come to terms with your opponent in a legal process (ἀντίδικος). It is a case of debt, and the two, creditor and debtor, are on the way to the court where they must appear together (Deuteronomy 21:18; Deuteronomy 25:1). Matthew’s expression implies willingness to come to terms amicably on the creditor’s part, and the debtor is exhorted to meet him half way. Luke’s δὸς ἐργασίαν throws the willingness on the other side, or at least implies that the debtor will need to make an effort to bring the creditor to terms.—παραδῷ, a much milder word than Luke’s κατασύρῃ, which points to rough, rude handling, dragging an unwilling debtor along whither he would rather not go.—ὑπηρέτῃ, the officer of the court whose business it was to collect the debt and generally to carry out the decision of the judge; in Luke πράκτωρ.—κοδράντην = quadrans, less than a farthing. Luke has λεπτὸν, half the value of a κοδ., thereby strengthening the statement that the imprisoned debtor will not escape till he has paid all he owes.

Matthew 5:27-30. Second illustration, taken from the seventh commandment. A grand moral law, in brief lapidary style guarding the married relation and the sanctity of home. Of course the Hebrew legislator condemned lust after another man’s wife; it is expressly prohibited in the tenth commandment. But in practical working as a public law the statute laid main stress on the outward act, and it was the tendency of the scribes to give exclusive prominence to this. Therefore Christ brings to the front what both Moses and the scribes left in the background, the inward desire of which adultery is the fruit

Matthew 5:28.—ὁ βλέπων: the looker is supposed to be a husband who by his look wrongs his own wife.—γυναῖκα: married or unmarried.—πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι. he look is supposed to be not casual but persistent, the desire not involuntary or momentary, but cherished with longing. Augustine, a severe judge in such matters, defines the offence thus: “Qui hoc fine et hoc animo attenderit ut eam concupiscat; quod jam non est titillari delectatione carnis sed plene consentire libidini” (De ser. Domini). Chrysostom, the merciless scourge of the vices of Antioch, says: ὁ ἑαυτῷ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν συλλέγων, ὁ μηδενὸς ἀναγκάζοντος τὸ θηρίον ἐπεισάγων ἠρεμοῦντι τῷ λογισμῷ. Hom. xvii. The Rabbis also condemned unchaste looks, but in how coarse a style compared with Jesus let this quotation given by Fritzsche show: “Intuens vel in minimum digitum feminae est ac si intueretur in locum pudendum”. In better taste are these sayings quoted by Wünsche (Beiträge): “The eye and the heart are the two brokers of sin”; “Passions lodge only in him who sees”.—αὐτὴν (bracketed as doubtful by W. H[24]): the accusative after ἐπιθ. is rare and late.—We cannot but think of the personal relations to woman of One who understood so well the subtle sources of sexual sin. Shall we say that He was tempted in all points as we are, but desire was expelled by the mighty power of a pure love to which every woman was as a daughter, a sister, or a betrothed: a sacred object of tender respect?

[24] Westcott and Hort.

Matthew 5:29-30. Counsel to the tempted, expressing keen perception of the danger and strong recoil from a sin to be shunned at all hazards, even by excision, as it were, of offending members; two named, eye and hand, eye first as mentioned before.—ὁ ὀφ. ὁ δεξιὸς: the right eye deemed the more precious (1 Samuel 11:2, Zechariah 11:17). Similarly Matthew 5:30 the right hand, the most indispensable for work. Even these right members of the body must go. But as the remaining left eye and hand can still offend, it is obvious that these counsels are not meant to be taken literally, but symbolically, as expressing strenuous effort to master sexual passion (vide Grotius). Mutilation will not serve the purpose; it may prevent the outward act, but it will not extinguish desire.—σκανδαλίζει, cause to stumble; not found in Greek authors but in Sept[25] Sirach, and in N. T. in a tropical moral sense. The noun σκάνδαλον is also of frequent occurrence, a late form for σκανδάληθρον, a trap-stick with bait on it which being touched the trap springs. Hesychius gives as its equivalent ἐμποδισμός. It is used in a literal sense in Leviticus 19:14 (Sept[26]).—συμφέρει … ἵνα ἀπολ.: ἵνα with subjunctive instead of infinitive (vide on ch. Matthew 4:3). Meyer insists on ἵνα having here as always its telic sense and praises Fritzsche as alone interpreting the passage correctly. But, as Weiss observes, the mere destruction of the member is not the purpose of its excision. Note the impressive solemn repetition in Matthew 5:30 of the thought in Matthew 5:29, in identical terms save that for βληθῇ is substituted, in the true reading, ἀπέλθῃ. This logion occurs again in Matthew (Matthew 18:8-9). Weiss (Marc.-Evang., 326) thinks it is taken here from the Apostolic document, i.e., Matthew’s book of Logia, and there from Mark 9:43-47.

[25] Septuagint.

[26] Septuagint.

Matthew 5:31-32. Third illustration, subordinate to the previous one, connected with the same general topic, sex relations, therefore introduced less formally with a simple ἐρρέθη δὲ. This instance is certainly directed against the scribes rather than Moses. The law (Deuteronomy 24:1) was meant to mitigate an existing usage, regarded as evil, in woman’s interest. The scribes busied themselves solely about getting the bill of separation into due legal form. They did nothing to restrain the unjust caprice of husbands; they rather opened a wider door to licence. The law contemplated as the ground of separation a strong loathing, probably of sexual origin. The Rabbis (the school of Shammai excepted) recognised whimsical dislikes, even a fancy for another fairer woman, as sufficient reasons. But they were zealous to have the bill in due form that the woman might be able to show she was free to marry again, and they probably flattered themselves they were defending the rights of women. Brave men! Jesus raised the previous question, and asserted a more radical right of woman—not to be put away, except when she put herself away by unfaithfulness. He raised anew the prophetic cry (Malachi 2:16), I hate putting away. It was an act of humanity of immense significance for civilisation, and of rare courage; for He was fighting single-handed against widely prevalent, long established opinion and custom.—ἀπολύσῃ: the corresponding word in Greek authors is ἀποπέμπειν.—ἀποστάσιον = βιβλίον ἀποστασίου in Deuteronomy 24. The husband is to give her her dismissal, with a bill stating that she is no longer his wife. The singular form in ιον is to be noted. The tendency in later Greek was to substitute ιον for ια, the plural ending. Vide Lobeck, Phryn., p. 517.—παρ. λ. πορνείας: a most important exception which has given rise to much controversy that will probably last till the world’s end. The first question is: Did Christ really say this, or is it not rather an explanatory gloss due to the evangelist, or to the tradition he followed? De Wette, Weiss, Holtzmann (H. C.) take the latter view. It would certainly be in accordance with Christ’s manner of teaching, using strong, brief, unqualified assertions to drive home unfamiliar or unwelcome truths, if the word as He spoke it took the form given in Luke 16:18 : “Every one putting away his wife and marrying another committeth adultery”. This was the fitting word to be spoken by one who hated putting away, in a time when it was common and sanctioned by the authorities. A second question is: What does πορνεία mean? Schanz, a master, as becomes a Catholic, in this class of questions, enumerates five senses, but decides that it means adultery committed by a married woman. Some, including Döllinger (Christenthum und Kirche: The First Age of Christianity and the Church, vol. ii., app. iii.), think it means fornication committed before marriage. The predominant opinion, both ancient and modern, is that adopted by Schanz. A third question is: Does Christ, assuming the words to have been spoken by Him, recognise adultery as a ground of absolute divorce, or only, as Catholics teach, of separation a toro et mensa? Is it possible to be quite sure as to this point? One thing is certain. Christ did not come to be a new legislator making laws for social life. He came to set up a high ethical ideal, and leave that to work on men’s minds. The tendency of His teaching is to create deep aversion to rupture of married relations. That aversion might even go the length of shrinking from severance of the tie even in the case of one who had forfeited all claims. The last clause is bracketed by W. H[27] as of doubtful genuineness. It states unqualifiedly that to marry a dismissed wife is adultery. Meyer thinks that the qualification “unjustly dismissed,” i.e., not for adultery, is understood. Weiss (Meyer) denies this.

[27] Westcott and Hort.