Have you Heard?
Intro:
He comes “to fulfill” it, i.e., he will bring the law to its intended goal.
Christian discipleship requires a greater righteousness.
I think it is significant that these three sections of the sermon are increasingly personal. In the Beatitudes Christ speaks in the third person: “Blessed are the …” But in the final Beatitude and in the metaphors he switches to the second person: “Blessed are you … you are the salt … you are the light.” Then in the applications that follow, he switches to the first person: “But I tell you.… ” No scribe or rabbi had ever spoken like this. They typically spoke in the second or third person.
While their multiplicity of regulations could engender a “good” society, it domesticated the law and lost the radical demand for absolute holiness demanded by the Scriptures.
Verse 20 does not establish how the righteousness is to be gained, developed, or empowered; it simply lays out the demand. Messiah will develop a people who will be called “oaks of righteousness … for the display of [Yahweh’s] splendor” (Isa 61:3).
This long section is clearly designed to be read as a whole, consisting of six units of teaching each introduced by ‘You have heard that it was said … But I say to you …’, and rounded off with a summary of Jesus’ ethical demand in v. 48. It is neither a complete ethic, nor a theological statement of general ethical principles, but a series of varied examples of how Jesus’ principles, enunciated in vv. 17–20, work out in practice. And this practical outworking is set in explicit contrast with the ethical rules previously accepted: it is in each case more demanding, more far-reaching in its application, more at variance with the ethics of man without God; it concerns a man’s motives and attitudes more than his literal conformity to the rules. In this sense, it is radical.
But it was in His death and resurrection that Jesus especially fulfilled the Law. He bore the curse of the Law (Gal. 3:13). He fulfilled the Old Testament types and ceremonies so that they no longer are required of the people of God (see Heb. 9–10). He set aside the Old Covenant and brought in the New Covenant.
But how could anyone possibly surpass their righteousness? If the scribes and the Pharisees had not gained entrance, what hope was there for anyone else? Does this mean an intensification of a doctrine of salvation by works? Does this mean that one must exceed the scribes and the Pharisees in performing all the 613 commandments and do them one better? No, replies Jesus. His disciples are called to a different kind and quality of righteousness, not an increased quantity. As was recognized in both Jesus’ interaction with John the Baptist (3:15) and the statement of the Beatitudes (5:6), righteousness in the preaching of Jesus is not primarily a personal attainment of ethical purity. Righteousness belongs in the realm of grace. Jesus’ proclamation of good news is that the kingdom of heaven is now available to those who respond to him. God’s saving activity has arrived on the earthly scene to deliver his people, and this will produce a radical change in their lives.
God’s people knew that external acts of righteousness could not take away sin or gain favor with God unless they were preceded by a repentant heart. Psalm 51 is perhaps the archetype, where David seeks inner cleansing and purification of his heart after his dreadfully sinful affair with Bathsheba (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10). His understanding of the inside-out operation is explicit:
You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. (Ps. 51:16–17)
David did later offer sacrifices and offerings and he did receive God’s favor, but he knew they had to be preceded by inner repentance and God’s work of cleansing and purification.
Yet throughout Israel’s history there was a tendency to reverse the operation, as was the case with the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day. The assumption seemed to be that if one worked hard enough to clean up the outside, then the inside was automatically clean. Jesus later condemns this procedure explicitly when he says:
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. (Matt. 23:27–28).
Here Jesus brings to fulfillment all that the Old Testament had revealed about God’s will for humanity. (1) This means that Jesus’ life of perfect obedience to the will of God as revealed in the law enables him to be the perfect sacrifice for sins in his death. (2) Moreover, his obedience provides the means by which his disciples are able to live lives of obedience to God’s law, because Jesus will soon assist his followers in understanding and obeying God’s original intention of his law.
The pathway to greatness in the kingdom of heaven is through obeying and teaching his commands (5:19), which is an overarching characteristic of Great Commission disciples (28:19–20).
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. (Ezek. 36:25–27; cf. Jer. 31:31–34)
They gain entrance to the kingdom by repenting and confessing their sins (cf. 3:1–6; 4:17), which allows the Spirit to enter into their life to bring purification through applying Jesus’ atoning righteousness to their heart. In this way, Jesus’ disciples are more righteous than the scribes and the Pharisees, because they have received regeneration as they enter the kingdom.
The best interpretation of these difficult verses says that Jesus fulfills the Law and the Prophets in that they point to him, and he is their fulfillment. The antithesis is not between “abolish” and “keep” but between “abolish” and “fulfill.”
In short, Christian application of the Old Testament must always take into account both the continuities and the discontinuities with the New Testament.
He mentions the Pharisees and scribes precisely because they were a paradigm of the greatest righteousness imaginable within Judaism.
The righteousness they were currently seeking—that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law—was insufficient for entrance into the kingdom Jesus was offering. The righteousness He demanded was not merely external; it was a true inner righteousness based on faith in God’s Word (Rom. 3:21–22). This is clear from what follows.
Six times Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said.… But I tell you” (5:21–22, 27–28, 31–32, 33–34, 38–39, 43–44)
When Jesus says that he came to “fulfill” the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 5:17), he means that both the Law and the Prophets pointed forward to his teaching.
These four verses provide the key to interpreting the SM, but also in many ways the key to understanding Jesus’ inauguration of the kingdom, and by extension, the understanding of Matthew’s purpose for writing his Gospel.
The “Law” or “Torah” refers to the first five books of the Old Testament, called the Books of Moses or the Pentateuch. The “Prophets” includes the major and minor prophets of the Old Testament. The expression “the Law and the Prophets” (cf. 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Rom. 3:21) is a way of referring to the entire Hebrew Scriptures. This is similar to the expressions “the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44) or simply “the Law” (Matt. 5:18; 1 Cor. 14:21)
The idea of “fulfillment” is more than his obedience (i.e., keeping the law), although that is included. The context, especially as worked out in the “antitheses” to follow (5:21–48), indicates that Jesus not only fulfills certain anticipated roles, but also that his interpretation of the Scriptures completes and clarifies God’s intent and meaning through it.
Verses 21–48 show what Jesus’ demand for a “higher” righteousness involves.
The Mosaic law was intended to govern Israelite society during the time when it functioned as a nation-state. It had to include legislation for governing all those who lived within the boundaries of political Israel, whether their hearts had been transformed by God or not, and thus whether they were part of the people of God or not (vv. 21, 27, 31, 33, 38). So, for example, on the question of divorce, the Mosaic law had to make provision for people whose hearts were hard and who were unconcerned about God’s original purposes for marriage (19:8).
In contrast, the Sermon on the Mount shows what the eternal principles that undergird the Mosaic law look like in a society of people who have turned away from the attractions of sin and have decided to follow Jesus. The Sermon on the Mount, then, does not describe how governments should seek to establish a just society, but how believers in Jesus Christ should live within a sinful world.
Exceeding the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, then, is a matter of obeying God from a fundamentally changed heart. This is a heart that reaches beyond the legalistic boundaries of the law to its compassionate purposes, while simultaneously recognizing its own spiritual poverty apart from God’s mercy (5:3, 6–7).
Our Lord is here teaching the inspiration and immutability of the Old Testament. He is not only saying that the Old Testament contains the truth or that it becomes the truth, but that “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).
To the average man on the street, the Jews of Jesus’ day, this was absolutely shocking! The scribes and Pharisees made obedience to God’s Law the master passion of their lives. They calculated that the Law contained 248 commandments and 365 prohibitions, and they tried to keep them all. How could anyone surpass that? And how could such righteousness be made a condition to entering the kingdom? Jesus seemed to be saying, “Don’t think I have come to make things easier by reducing the demands of the Law. Far from it! In fact, if your righteousness does not exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you’ll never make it!”
Jesus closes this whole section by saying, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (v. 48).
Christ’s intransigence, his hard unbending words, were actually full of grace. When he said, “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven,” he was speaking as kindly as he ever spoke, for he was explaining in the most dramatic terms the impossibility of salvation apart from his grace. This takes us right back to ground zero of the first Beatitude: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God” (5:3). “Blessed are those who are spiritually bankrupt, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” “Blessed are those who realize they cannot make it on their own, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
Do you understand and acknowledge that there is no way but that of grace? If so, then also see that Jesus’ words in verse 17 are our hope: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” This is our hope because Christ did what we could never do—he fulfilled the Law. His righteousness exceeded that of the scribes and Pharisees. And because he fulfilled the Law, he can give us a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. He fulfilled the Law by leading a perfectly righteous life. He fulfilled its demands against us by dying for us.
Remarkably neither illustration deals with “your” anger but with “your” offense that has prompted the brother’s or the adversary’s rancor.
Thus if certain antitheses revoke at least the letter of the law (and they do: cf. Meier, Law, pp. 125ff.), they do so, not because they are thereby affirming the law’s true spirit, but because Jesus insists that his teaching on these matters is the direction in which the laws actually point.
Thus if certain antitheses revoke at least the letter of the law (and they do: cf. Meier, Law, pp. 125ff.), they do so, not because they are thereby affirming the law’s true spirit, but because Jesus insists that his teaching on these matters is the direction in which the laws actually point.
This long section is clearly designed to be read as a whole, consisting of six units of teaching each introduced by ‘You have heard that it was said … But I say to you …’, and rounded off with a summary of Jesus’ ethical demand in v. 48. It is neither a complete ethic, nor a theological statement of general ethical principles, but a series of varied examples of how Jesus’ principles, enunciated in vv. 17–20, work out in practice. And this practical outworking is set in explicit contrast with the ethical rules previously accepted: it is in each case more demanding, more far-reaching in its application, more at variance with the ethics of man without God; it concerns a man’s motives and attitudes more than his literal conformity to the rules. In this sense, it is radical.
He does not say, “Hear what the Old Testament says”; rather, he says, “You have heard it said.” Jesus is not negating the Old Testament but the people’s understanding and application of it. He confronts faulty interpretation by giving his authoritative pronouncement, showing the original intention of the law. By living with proper intent and motive, those in the kingdom of heaven will live a righteousness that surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees (cf. 5:20).
A pattern emerges in the antitheses. (1) Jesus introduces an Old Testament passage with the distinctive expression, “You have heard that it was said [to the people long ago].” The passive verb “was said” is an example of a “divine passive,” implying that God is the One who spoke the command to the Old Testament author, who in turn gave it to the people.
(2) Then Jesus either cites (e.g., 5:43) or alludes to a current popular interpretation or traditional practice of the Old Testament passage he has quoted. That current understanding is causing the people to apply the law in a faulty manner.
(3) Next Jesus gives an authoritative pronouncement that takes his audience to the intended meaning and application of the Old Testament passage. He does not abrogate the law but brings it to fulfillment. This does not always mean something completely unexpected or unknown. We can indeed find persons within the Old Testament and Judaism who understood the intention of the law the same way Jesus does and were moving in that direction.
Although Hebrew possesses seven words for killing, the verb used in Exodus 20:13 makes “murder” (raṣaḥ) a more accurate rendering than “kill.” It denotes premeditation and deliberateness. This does not apply to killing animals (Gen. 9:3), defending one’s home (Ex. 22:2), accidental killings (Deut. 19:5), the execution of murderers by the state (Gen. 9:6), or involvement with one’s nation in certain types of war. It does apply, however, to self-murder (i.e., suicide), accessory to murder (2 Sam. 12:9), or those who have responsibility to punish known murderers but fail to do so (1 Kings 21:19)
Jesus here gets at the source of murder, which is anger (cf. 1 John 3:15). Anger alone is a violation of the law and was the original intent of the murder prohibition in the Old Testament. When we are inappropriately angry with people, we attempt to take their identity and value as God’s creature away from them, the ultimate form of which is the physical act of murder. The righteousness expected of God’s subjects is not only in avoiding murder but in eliminating anger from our relationships.
empty-headed.” This term of contempt was a personal, public affront. Name-calling was highly insulting in Jewish culture because a person’s identity was stripped away and an offensive identity substituted. The significance attached to one’s real name is removed from the person. The national “Sanhedrin” was the official adjudicating body of the Jews (similar to a supreme court), which the Roman authorities allowed to handle Jewish cases unless they impinged on Roman rule.
Here Ahaz and Manasseh sacrificed their sons to Molech, which caused Josiah to defile the place (2 Kings 23:10). Later the valley was used to burn refuse from Jerusalem, so the constant burning made the valley an appropriate reference to fires of punishment. Jewish apocalyptic writers began to call the Valley of Hinnom the entrance to hell, later hell itself (4 Ezra 7:36). By the time of Jesus the term was used to indicate the state of final punishment (cf. Matt. 18:9).
Jesus illustrates his declarative statement of the seriousness of anger and identity theft by focusing on the antidote, which is reconciliation with “your brother” (5:23–24) and “your adversary” (5:25–26). (1) In the first situation, the expected subject is reversed—the brother has something against you. Jesus is dealing with occasions when his disciples have offended another person, not when they have been offended. Reconciliation is the responsibility of the one who has wronged someone else, though a reciprocal attitude is understood (cf. 18:21–22; Mark 11:25). The expression “offering your gift at the altar” assumes a sacrifice being given in the temple at Jerusalem. To leave immediately indicates the importance of reconciliation, because Jesus’ audience was from Galilee and the effort to attend the temple sacrifice was significant.
Jesus’ listeners therefore urgently need to escape this judgment by dealing decisively with sin. Jesus drives home his point with two dramatic illustrations. First, he envisages a worshiper who is called to place interpersonal reconciliation above correct ritual. Of course, we cannot guarantee that another person will agree to be reconciled with us, but we should make every effort “as far as it depends on” us (Rom 12:18).
Murder” is the correct rendering since the underlying Hebrew (ratsach, sometimes translated “kill”) did not include killing in self-defense, wars ordered by Yahweh, capital punishment following due process of law, or accidental manslaughter.
murder. The sixth commandment (Exod 20:13) prohibits the taking of another human life. The verb refers to all killing except in war, capital punishment, or self-defense. Jesus’ assertion internalizes the command so that one who harbors rage or spews out spiteful words is also guilty of sin and its consequences (v. 22). The matter is so serious that one should leave a worship service, if necessary, to be “reconciled” (v. 24) to a fellow believer and “settle matters” (v. 25) out of court if at all possible to avoid any chance of conviction and imprisonment.
There is a holy anger against sin (Eph. 4:26), but Jesus talked about an unholy anger against people. The word He used in Matthew 5:22 means “a settled anger, malice that is nursed inwardly.” Jesus described a sinful experience that involved several stages. First there was causeless anger. This anger then exploded into words: “Raca—empty-headed person!” These words added fuel to the fire so that the person said, “You fool—rebel!”
However, we must not think that he forbids all anger with other people. Jesus himself was angry when he cleared the temple (John 2:13–22). He was angry with those who assailed him for healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:5 uses the word “anger”). And in Matthew 23:17 he called the Pharisees “blind fools.” So we conclude that there is a place for anger. Jesus was angry at sin and injustice, but he never became angry at personal insult or affront. Peter says that when Jesus was dying, “when they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23). But we see that there is a place for righteous anger. Such anger brings pleasure to God.
But in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus is speaking of unrighteous anger, and his words leave no doubt about what he means. We are quick to get angry at personal affront but slow to become angry with sin and injustice, and we need to take our Lord’s words to heart.
He says in essence, “You may think you are removed from murder morally. But you are wrong. Have you ever wished someone were dead? Then your heart has known murder!”
Christ was so concerned that believers not harbor evil thoughts toward one another that he gave two illustrations of the positive steps they should take.
How do we get victory? By purifying the desires of the heart (appetite leads to action) and disciplining the actions of the body. Obviously, our Lord is not talking about literal surgery; for this would not solve the problem in the heart. The eye and the hand are usually the two “culprits” when it comes to sexual sins, so they must be disciplined. Jesus said, “Deal immediately and decisively with sin! Don’t taper off—cut off!”
It is possible for a man to glance at a beautiful woman and know that she is beautiful, but not lust after her. The man Jesus described looked at the woman for the purpose of feeding his inner sensual appetites as a substitute for the act. It was not accidental; it was planned.
The radical treatment of parts of the body that cause one to sin (cf. Notes) has led some (notoriously Origen) to castrate themselves. But that is not radical enough, since lust is not thereby removed
Cutting off or gouging out the offending part is a way of saying that Jesus’ disciples must deal radically with sin. 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 Philippians 4:8). Not everyone reacts the same way to all objects. But if (Mt 5:28–29) your eye is causing you to sin, gouge it out; or at very least, don’t look (cf. the sane exposition of Stott, pp. 88–91)! The alternative is sin and hell, sin’s reward. The point is so fundamental that Jesus doubtless repeated it on numerous occasions (cf. 18:8–9).
The grammar of v. 28a leads to two possible translations. Jesus could be speaking of one who “looks at a woman with the intention of committing adultery” or to one who “looks at a woman for the purpose of getting her to lust after him.” Either way, the present tense participle blepōn refers to one who continues to look rather than just casting a passing glance, and in either case the mere viewing or mental imagining of a naked body is not under consideration. Instead Jesus is condemning lustful thoughts and actions—those involving an actual desire (the most literal translation of the verb epithymeō) to have sexual relations with someone other than one’s spouse.
Lust originates in the heart (15:19), which is the core of a person’s identity and will. Adultery, therefore, is not only physical sexual intercourse but also mentally engaging in such an act of unfaithfulness.
The Greek word here is the same as in the opening line of the tenth commandment in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament): “You shall not desire your neighbor’s wife” (Ex 20:17). The tenth commandment, against coveting, forces Jesus’ hearers to internalize Moses’ other commandments.
Jesus’ words recorded in Matthew 5:29–30 have often been misunderstood. Obviously Jesus was not teaching physical mutilation, for a blind man could have as much of a problem with lust as a sighted person, and a man with only one hand might use it also to sin. Jesus was advocating the removal of the inward cause of offense. Since a lustful heart would ultimately lead to adultery, one’s heart must be changed. Only by such a change of heart can one escape hell (“Gehenna”; cf. v. 22).
Rather, as is characteristic of Jesus’ figurative and hyperbolic style, he commands us to take drastic measures to avoid temptations to sexual sin—to remove from ourselves anyone or anything that could lead us into scandal (“causes you to sin”).
Early in church history, people such as Origen of Alexandria wrongly took the sayings here and in 19:12 literally. Jesus is not advocating physical self-mutilation, but through dramatic figures of speech indicates the kind of rigorous self-discipline that committed disciples will display. A person who intends to carry out God’s ordinance should be willing to go to any lengths to maintain the unity of the bond of marriage. Sin is essentially an inner issue and condemns the person who rests complacently on his or her external acts of righteousness.
If you wear a certain brand of cologne or drive a particular luxury car, you will suddenly attract a bevy of beautiful supermodels. Popular songs romanticize infidelity. The advent of home video has extended a river of filth into the homes of millions. In 1953 Kinsey’s famous report revealed that by age twenty-one, 23 percent of the female population had lost their virginity. In 1971 the figure was more than 46 percent. In 1970 there were 1,046,000 unmarried adults sharing living quarters with a person of the opposite sex. In 1977 the figure was more than 1,900,000.
How does one live in purity in an age of sensuality? Is that even possible? And if so, how?
The only criticism that one might venture is that it is only external, for it only mentions the outward act of adultery. It must be admitted, however, that the tenth commandment does allude to the internal aspect: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” (Exodus 20:17). However, for all practical purposes, Moses and the scribes did not emphasize the inward aspect of adultery as much as they did the outward manifestation.
“I haven’t committed that sin! Jesus is speaking to the rest of you sinners, not to me! Listen up, you reprobates!” But Jesus knows our hearts, and he is not buying it. Instead, he communicates a radically new standard of sexual purity. It is in continuity with the Old Testament, but it supersedes and completes it.
The realization of this ought to deliver us from all judgmentalism and pious condescension toward those who have fallen to adultery. And it should instill within us a poverty of spirit and a humility that realizes we are spiritually bankrupt and makes us amazed that God loves us as he does.
David’s look became a leer, and mental adultery ensued. And then he would not be denied, even when his servant meekly reminded him that she was the wife of Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 11:1–4). The fantasy preceded the act, and that is how it has always been.
Oswald Chambers said, “This line of discipline is the sternest one that ever struck mankind.”
What does this involve in practice? Let me elaborate and so interpret Jesus’ teaching: “If your eye causes you to sin because temptation comes to you through your eyes (objects you see), then pluck out your eyes. That is, don’t look! Behave as if you had actually plucked out your eyes and flung them away, and were now blind and so could not see the objects which previously caused you to sin. Again, if your hand or foot causes you to sin, because temptation comes to you through your hands (things you do) or your feet (places you visit), then cut them off. That is: don’t do it! Don’t go! Behave as if you had actually cut off your hands and feet, and had flung them away, and were now crippled and so could not do the things or visit the places which previously caused you to sin.” That is the meaning of “mortification.”
The passage, while on the surface concerned with oaths, is thus essentially on truthfulness, focusing on v. 37 rather than v. 34a (Jeremias, NTT, p. 220). As with divorce, the accommodating legislation, both in the Old Testament and in later Judaism, is bypassed to return to the ideal which makes it unnecessary.
Times have changed, have they not? It used to be that most people would go to extremes to hide their infidelity, but today many people are ashamed of their fidelity.
To understand our Lord’s statements on divorce, we must know something of the controversial social and theological context in which he made them. The controversy centered over the interpretation of a phrase in Deuteronomy 24:1, the stated ground of divorce: “If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce …”
In the first century two slightly older contemporaries of Jesus, the Pharisees Shammai and Hillel, vigorously debated the legitimate grounds for divorce. Hillel permitted a man to put away his wife for “any good cause” (which could be as minor an issue as frequently burning his food!), while Shammai limited it to “adultery” (m. Git. 9:10).
“Marital unfaithfulness” here translates porneia, a broader term for sexual sin of all kinds. Many have therefore attempted to distinguish it from adultery in this text on the grounds that Jesus would otherwise not differ from Shammai and because Matthew did not use one of the regular words for adultery (e.g., moicheia) as he did in translating Jesus’ words in vv. 27–28. Other alternatives have therefore become popular—most notably that Jesus was referring to the discovery of premarital unfaithfulness or prohibiting certain marriages among close relatives that would have been defined as incestuous. Others argue that “except” means except for a consideration of, so that Jesus is not ruling one way or the other on divorce for adultery. Many scholars attribute Matthew’s exception clause to a later redactional change. D. A. Carson gives a good, brief survey of the various exegetical options here and an excellent defense of the NIV rendering. Objections to that rendering overlook the point that Jewish law required divorce in the case of adultery (m. Yebam. 2:8; m. Soṭa 5:1), whereas Christianity never does. Even with the exception, Jesus is stricter than Shammai. Jesus never commands divorce but only permits it if all attempts at reconciliation have failed because he recognizes that the adultery has already undermined one of the most fundamental elements of a marriage—sexual exclusivity. Porneia (rather than moicheia) is used probably because it was the term more commonly used to describe female rather than male infidelity. Jesus follows social convention by phrasing his example from the perspective of the man who has been defrauded, but v. 32b makes plain that, in radical opposition to prevailing mores, he considers a man’s infidelity as equally grievous.
God intended marriage to be a permanent union of a man and woman into one (Gen. 2:24). God “hates” divorce, because it tears apart what should be considered a permanent union (cf. Mal. 2:16). Therefore, Jesus states categorically that divorce creates adultery, the despicable nature of which he has just declared (5:27–30), because an illicit divorce turns the woman into an adulteress when she remarries.
However, as did Moses, Jesus allows for an exception. Even though God sees marriage as permanent, sometimes the marriage bond has been violated to such a degree that a spouse has already torn apart the marriage union, namely, when a person has committed porneia, which the NIV appropriately renders “marital unfaithfulness.” Since “adultery” has already been specified by another word (moicheuo; 5:27–28), porneia must be something less specific than sexual infidelity but, following the Mosaic intention, more than something frivolous. Porneia includes any sinful activity that intentionally divides the marital relationship. Jesus states unequivocally the sacredness of the marital relationship but allows divorce to protect the nonoffending partner and to protect the institution of marriage from being a vulgar sham.
The OT passage to which Jesus refers (v. 31) is Deuteronomy 24:1–4, whose thrust is that if a man divorces his wife because of “something indecent” (not further defined) in her, he must give her a certificate of divorce, and if she then becomes another man’s wife and is divorced again, the first man cannot remarry her. This double restriction—the certificate and the prohibition of remarriage—discouraged hasty divorces. Here Jesus does not go into the force of “something indecent.” Instead he insists that the law was pointing to the sanctity of marriage.
The natural way to take the “except” clause is that divorce is wrong because it generates adultery except in the case of fornication. In that case, where sexual sin has already been committed, nothing is laid down, though it appears that divorce is then implicitly permitted, even if not mandated (cf. the paraphrase in Stonehouse, Witness of Matthew, p. 203).
The phrase “causes her to become an adulteress,” however, is misleading. The Greek does not use the noun “adulteress” but the verb makes her commit adultery. There is no indication here that a second marriage, even following an illegitimate divorce, is seen as permanently adulterous. Divorced Christians who have remarried should not commit the sin of a second divorce to try to resume relations with a previous spouse (see again Deut 24:1–4) but should begin afresh to observe God’s standards by remaining faithful to their current partners.
Under Jewish law, “adultery” referred only to the wife’s misbehavior, not the husband’s. Matthew does not agree with this view (5:28); but because his readers must obey the law of their communities, he deals only with the issue of the wife.
Some Pharisaic rabbis allowed divorce for almost anything (just as Roman law did); others allowed it only if the wife were unfaithful (see comment on 19:1–10; both Jewish and Roman law required divorce for adultery). Yet the stricter rabbis did not view more lenient divorces as invalid. Jesus thus goes beyond the stricter position: not only does he allow divorce only if one’s wife is unfaithful, but he regards divorce for any other reason as invalid, thus making remarriage in those cases adulterous. This seems, however, to be hyperbole (as in 5:29–30), a graphic way of forbidding divorce except when the other partner has already irreparably broken the marriage covenant.
Jesus is quite literally calling them to value relationships supremely and regard possessions as nothing. (The point is absolute unselfishness, motivated by love; cf. 5:43–44.)
The “exception clause,” except for marital unfaithfulness (porneias), is understood in several ways by Bible scholars. Four of these ways are: (a) a single act of adultery, (b) unfaithfulness during the period of betrothal (Matt. 1:19), (c) marriage between near relatives (Lev. 18:6–18), or (d) continued promiscuity. (See comments on Matt. 19:3–9.)
The blow on the right cheek was the most grievous insult possible in the ancient world (apart from inflicting serious physical harm), and in many cultures was listed alongside the “eye for an eye” laws; both Jewish and Roman law permitted prosecution for this offense. A prophet might endure such ill treatment (1 Kings 22:24; Is 50:6).
divorces. Deut 24:1, cited here, spawned a debate between the two main Pharisaic rabbis in Jesus’ day, Shammai and Hillel. Shammai required divorce (and permitted remarriage) only for sexual infidelity; Hillel permitted divorce for “any good cause.” Typically, only men could initiate divorce. Jesus is actually stricter than Shammai because he only permits divorce and remarriage; he does not require them, even for marital unfaithfulness (v. 32), as both Pharisaic positions did.
it is worth noting here that just as vv. 22 and 28 do not prohibit all forms of anger or sexual desire, and just as the exceptions to Jesus’ commands there are more implicit than explicit, so also v. 32 most likely does not reflect a consideration of every conceivable legitimate or illegitimate ground for divorce. Instead Jesus is responding to a specific debate in first-century Judaism. At least Paul seems to have recognized Jesus’ words as not comprehensive, since in 1 Cor 7:15 he introduces a second legitimate ground for divorce that Jesus never mentioned.
We should also be careful not to read into Jesus’ statement what he did not imply. He did not declare the exception of porneia to require divorce. Reconciliation and forgiveness are always the goal of any disruptions in the community of faith (cf. 18:15–35), including the biological community of faith. If all attempts at reconciliation fail, then divorce is possible; but it is not the first step, and it is not mandatory. Jesus also did not state that remarriage in the case of a legitimate divorce is invalid. Further, he did not state that illegitimate divorce and even illegitimate remarriage are unpardonable sins. While there are always consequences for going contrary to Jesus’ intentions for us, we must be careful not to create oppressive burdens that cancel out God’s grace and restoration. We will touch on this more fully in chapter 19.
We not only see this in the very first book of the Old Testament but also in the very last one:
“Why has God abandoned us?” you cry. I’ll tell you why; it is because the Lord has seen your treachery in divorcing your wives who have been faithful to you through the years, the companions you promised to care for and keep. You were united to your wife by the Lord. In God’s wise plan, when you married, the two of you became one person in his sight. And what does he want? Godly children from your union. Therefore guard your passions! Keep faith with the wife of your youth. For the Lord, the God of Israel, says he hates divorce.… (Malachi 2:14–16, TLB)
Note Jesus’ answer in verse 8: “Jesus replied, ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.’ ”
The Greek dictionaries tell us that porneia means unchastity, fornication, prostitution, or other kinds of unlawful intercourse. When porneia is applied to married persons, it means marital unfaithfulness, illicit intercourse that may involve adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, and the like. We should note (and this is very important!) that all these offenses were originally punished by death under Mosaic Law. These sins terminated marriage not by divorce but by death. However, by Jesus’ time the Roman occupation of the country and its legal system had made the death sentence very difficult to obtain. Jewish practice had therefore substituted divorce for death. Thus the rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shammai were not discussing whether divorce was permissible for adultery.
That is, divorce is allowed if your mate is guilty of marital unfaithfulness. But if you divorce for any other reason and remarry, it is you who commits adultery. This is likewise the meaning of Jesus’ similar statement in the Sermon on the Mount:
“But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress [if she remarries], and anyone who marries the divorced woman [a woman who has been divorced for something short of unchastity] commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:32)
The passage, while on the surface concerned with oaths, is thus essentially on truthfulness, focusing on v. 37 rather than v. 34a (Jeremias, NTT, p. 220). As with divorce, the accommodating legislation, both in the Old Testament and in later Judaism, is bypassed to return to the ideal which makes it unnecessary.
Many groups (e.g., Anabaptists, Jehovah’s Witnesses) have understood these verses absolutely literally and have therefore refused even to take court oaths. Their zeal to conform to Scripture is commendable, but they have probably not interpreted the text very well.
1. The contextual purpose of this passage is to stress the true direction in which the OT points—viz., the importance of truthfulness. Where oaths are not being used evasively and truthfulness is not being threatened, it is not immediately obvious that they require such unqualified abolition.
2. In the Scriptures God himself “swears” (e.g., Gen 9:9–11; Luke 1:68, 73; cf. Ps 16:10 and Acts 2:27–31), not because he sometimes lies, but in order to help men believe (Heb 6:17). The earliest Christians still took oaths, if we may judge from Paul’s example (Rom 1:9; 2 Cor 1:23; 1 Thess 2:5, 10; cf. Philippians 1:8), for much the same reason. Jesus himself testified under oath (Mt 26:63–64).
3. Again we need to remember the antithetical nature of Jesus’ preaching (see on 5:27–30; 6:5–8).
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.
But Jesus is not suggesting that all oaths are wrong. He himself testified under oath in his trial before the Sanhedrin (26:63–64). In a court of law a person is operating under the jurisdiction of governing authorities who are trying to establish human norms. To submit to taking an oath is complying with those norms and, by extension, is submitting to God (Rom. 13:1–7; cf. Heb. 6:16–18). For example, in the earlier days of the U.S. judicial system when a person gave an oath in court, such as, “So help me God,” it provided a standard of judgment. If a person lied under that oath before God, that person was liable to God’s judgment.
The situation described is one in which many Jews viewed swearing by “heaven,” “earth,” “Jerusalem,” or “one’s head” as less binding than swearing “by God.” Jesus stresses that each of these items belongs to God in an important way (cf. Isa 66:1) so that the conventional Jewish distinctions are spurious. Even one’s head, which might be thought to be uniquely under an individual’s control, has divinely predetermined features, such as hair coloring (temporary dyeing is not in view here!). Rather, Jesus’ followers should be people whose words are so characterized by integrity that others need no formal assurance of their truthfulness in order to trust them. On this topic cf. further the comments under 23:16–22.
5:34 do not swear at all. Cf. James 5:12. This should not be taken as a universal condemnation of oaths in all circumstances. God Himself confirmed a promise with an oath (Heb. 6:13–18; cf. Acts 2:30). Christ Himself spoke under oath (26:63, 64). And the law prescribed oaths in certain circumstances (e.g., Num. 5:19, 21; 30:2, 3). What Christ is forbidding here is the flippant, profane, or careless use of oaths in everyday speech. In that culture, such oaths were often employed for deceptive purposes. To make the person being victimized believe the truth was being told, the Jews would swear by “heaven,” “earth,” “Jerusalem,” or their own “heads” (vv. 34–36), not by God, hoping to avoid divine judgment for their lie. But it all was in God’s creation, so it drew Him in and produced guilt before Him, exactly as if the oath were made in His name. Jesus suggested that all our speech should be as if we were under an oath to tell the truth (v. 37).
The OT reference here resembles Lev 19:12. While the OT insisted that people must fulfill their vows, Jesus says not to take vows at all (vv. 34–37). He is particularly concerned about the Pharisaic practice of swearing by something other than God himself to create a lesser degree of accountability. Verses 34–35 give examples of how even lesser objects by which some swore were still closely related to God. The prohibition apparently does not rule out all solemn statements about the truth of a matter, since Paul assures his readers “before God” that he does not lie (Gal 1:20), and God himself confirms his promises with oaths (e.g., Heb 6:17). The problem here was that oaths were being used as occasions for deceitfulness, depending on by what they were sworn.
The context suggests Jesus is prohibiting retaliation for wrongs experienced. Jas 4:7 commands one to resist the devil, and Jesus and Paul both exorcise demons that possessed people. slaps you on the right cheek. A slap by a person presumed to be right-handed would be a backhanded cuff, a common Jewish insult by a superior to a subordinate, not an aggressor’s blow.
5:42 Give to the one who asks you. Jesus does not say what to give. Sometimes what a person really needs is not what they request. Positively, Jesus encourages a spirit of generosity.
5:41 compels. The word speaks of coercion or force. The NT picture of this is when Roman soldiers “compelled” Simon the Cyrene to carry Jesus’ cross (27:32).
Striking a person on the right cheek suggests a backhanded slap from a typically right-handed aggressor and was a characteristic Jewish form of insult. Jesus tells us not to trade such insults even if it means receiving more. In no sense does v. 39 require Christians to subject themselves or others to physical danger or abuse, nor does it bear directly on the pacifism-just war debate. Verse 40 is clearly limited to a legal context. One must be willing to give as collateral an outer garment—more than what the law could require, which was merely an inner garment (cf. Exod 22:26–27). Coat and shirt reflect contemporary parallels to “cloak” and “tunic,” though both of the latter looked more like long robes.
Each of these commands requires Jesus’ followers to act more generously than what the letter of the law demanded. “Going the extra mile” has rightly become a proverbial expression and captures the essence of all of Jesus’ illustrations. Not only must disciples reject all behavior motivated only by a desire for retaliation, but they also must positively work for the good of those with whom they would otherwise be at odds.
Jesus’ disciples are not to think first about retribution. Even when they are being abused, they must think of ways to advance the kingdom of heaven and its influence on this earth.
True disciples not only avoid murder but are transformed so that they do not strip away the personhood and identity of others through anger or defamation (5:21–23), and they continually produce reconciliation in offended relationships (5:23–26).
• True disciples not only shun physical acts of adultery but are so completely committed to God’s purpose for marriage that they have eyes and hands only for a spouse (5:27–28) and discipline every thought and action to be singly focused on the spouse (5:29–30).
• True disciples not only respect the purity of the marital relationship but have God’s values for the original design for marriage and are unreservedly committed to its permanence and sanctity (5:31–32).
• True disciples do not need to give oaths in order to confirm their trustworthiness, because their faithful lives repeatedly confirm the reliability of their words (5:33–37).
• True disciples are so secure in their transformed kingdom identity that when they are wronged, they do not merely adhere to legal retribution but use every opportunity to serve others, both good and evil people, so that the reality of God’s grace in their lives woos them to the kingdom of heaven (5:38–42).
• True disciples not only love what God loves and hate what God hates, but they have the renewed heart of God that enables them to love the world of sinners for whom Jesus will eventually give his life (5:43–48).
• Climactically, true disciples have experienced the powerfully life-changing presence of the kingdom of heaven in such a way that their progressive transformation into the image of Jesus, the Son of God, secures their progressive growth into the very perfection of God the Father (5:48).
But we may also see something of a goal and a promise in the future indicative. A present imperative, “keep being perfect” or “be continually perfect,” would place an impossible demand on Jesus’ disciples. Instead, the future tense holds out an emphatic goal that is to shape the disciples’ entire life—they are to set nothing less than the perfection of God as the ultimate objective of their behavior, thoughts, and will. Furthermore, the future tense also implies a promise, because the Father is not only the divine goal but also the divine enabler. “Jesus puts his command in such a way that disciples may look for divine help as they press toward God’s goal for them.”
So Jesus’ saying is a command, a promise, and a statement of hope. His disciples are engaged in the process of regeneration, now made objectively real in a revolutionary way with the arrival of the kingdom of heaven. The necessity of the new birth to enter the kingdom of heaven (cf. John 3:1–7) makes possible, and real, his disciples’ transformation into his image (Matt. 10:24–25; Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 3:18). Since Jesus is both the perfection of the image of God in humans as a full human being and the perfect image of the invisible God as the divine Son of God (Col. 1:15–20), he is the ultimate example for his disciples to follow as they hear the command, “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” That statement implies a realistically ideal goal that Jesus’ disciples are to pursue with restful dissatisfaction in this life until their final perfection in eternity.
If we focus solely on our positional perfection, we can become complacent about our present growth. If we focus solely on our experiential imperfection, we can become distraught over our present state.
