Matthew 5:21

(a) Instances from the Decalogue, Mat_5:21-37. (a) Murder, Mat_5:21-26.

21. Ye have heard] Rather, ye heard either in the service of the synagogue or in the teaching of the scribes.

by them of old time] Better, to them of old time.

in danger of] Lit. bound by them, liable, exposed to.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_5:21-22

Angry with his brother.

-Thou shalt not kill. Are you sure you do not? How has Christ decided the point? He tells us plainly that if we have

(1) any malice;

(2) hatred;

(3) ill-will;

(4) scornful anger against our brother, we are guilty of a breach of this commandment.

(5) God will accept nothing at our hands; no worship, no service that we can pay Him, if we are not reconciled to, and at peace with all the world. Not outwardly only, but in heart and soul. (Thomas Adam.)

Unjustifiable anger

I. The sin which our Lord here condemns.

II. The guilt of this unjustifiable anger.

1. Causeless anger has in it the nature of murder.

2. Evident from the greatness of the punishment.

III. The duty of avoiding such anger.

1. In order that we may render acceptable service to God-If thou bring thy gift to the altar.

2. That we may avoid the doom of those who are implacable. We learn from this how spiritual is the law of God; also the utter worthlessness of human righteousness. (E. Balyley, M. A.)

Restraint of hasty temper possible

La Fontaine, chaplain of the Prussian army, once preached an earnest sermon on the sin and folly of yielding to a hasty temper. The next day a Major of the regiment accosted him in no very good humour, saying: Well, sir! I think you made use of the prerogative of your office to annoy me with some very sharp hits yesterday. I certainly thought of you while I was preparing the sermon, the chaplain answered, but I had no intention of being personal or sharp. Well, it is of no use, said the Major, I have a hasty temper, and I cannot help it. I cannot control it; the thing is impossible. The following Sunday La Fontaine preached on self-deception, and the vain excuses which men are accustomed to make. Why. said he, a man will declare it is impossible to control his temper, when he very well knows that were the same provocation to happen in the presence of his sovereign, he not only could, but would control himself entirely. And yet he dares to say that the continual presence of the King of kings imposes upon him neither restraint nor fear. The next day the preacher met the officer again, who said, humbly, You were right yesterday, chaplain. Hereafter, whenever you see me in the danger of falling, remind me of the King.

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 5:21-22. Ye have heard — Namely, from the scribes reciting the law, that it was said by them of old time, or to the ancients, as ερρεθη τιος αρχαιοις, might be properly rendered. Thou shalt not kill — Words which they interpreted barely of the outward act of murder; and whosoever shall kill — Or be guilty of that act, shall be in danger of, or, obnoxious to the judgment — To understand this, it is necessary to observe, that the Jews had, in every city, a common court of twenty-three men, which, before the Roman government was established in Judea, had the power of life and death, so far as its jurisdiction extended, and could punish criminals with strangling or beheading. This was called the judgment, and the meaning of the clause is, that such a criminal should be capitally punished in the common courts of judicature. But I say unto you — Which of the prophets ever spake thus? Their language was, Thus saith the Lord. Who hath authority to use this language, but the one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy? Whosoever is angry with his brother — With any child of man, for we are all brethren; without a cause — Or further than that cause warrants; shall be in danger of the judgment — Shall be liable to a worse punishment from God than any that your common courts of judicature can inflict. It must be observed, that the word εικη, here rendered without cause, and which might properly be translated rashly, or inconsiderately, is wanting in some old versions and manuscripts, and, it seems, ought not to be inserted, being “utterly foreign to the whole scope and tenor of our Lord’s discourse. For if he had only forbidden the being angry without a cause, there was no manner of need of that solemn declaration, I say unto you; for the scribes and Pharisees themselves said as much as this. Even they taught men ought not to be angry without a cause. So that this righteousness does not exceed theirs. But Christ teaches that we ought not, for any cause, to be so angry as to call any man raca, or fool. We ought not, for any cause, to be angry at the person of the sinner, but at his sin only. Happy world, were this plain and necessary distinction thoroughly understood, remembered, and practised.” — Wesley. Raca, means a silly man, or an empty, worthless fellow. Κενε, vain man, used Jas 2:20, seems to be a translation of it; for, as Jerome observes, it is derived from the Hebrew, rick, which signifies vain, or empty. Shall be in danger of the council — In the Greek, συνεδριον; “a word which the Jews adopted into their language, and giving it a Hebrew termination, sanhedrim, appropriated it to their supreme council, whose business was to judge in the most important affairs; for instance, in all matters relative to religion, as when any person pretended to be a prophet, or attempted to make innovations in the established worship. This court could, while the republic lasted, inflict the heaviest punishments; particularly stoning, or burning, with melted lead poured down the throat of the criminal, after he was half strangled.” — Macknight. Whosoever shall say, Thou fool — Or, Thou graceless, wicked villain: so the word fool generally signifies in Scripture: for as religion is the highest wisdom, vice must be accounted the extremest folly: the meaning here is, Whosoever shall break out into open revilings and reproaches against any man, shall be in danger of hell fire — Ενοχος εσται εις γεενναν του πυρος, shall be obnoxious to a gehenna of fire, that is, by a common figure of speech, “obnoxious to the fire of the valley of Hinnom,” obnoxious to a degree of future punishment, which may fitly be represented by that fire. Of the valley of Hinnom, called also Tophet, see notes on Lev 18:21; 2Ki 23:10; Isa 30:33. It was the scene of the detestable worship of Moloch, that horrid idol of the Ammonites, to which the Israelites burned their children alive as sacrifices. “In later times, continual fires were kept in this valley for burning the unburied carcasses and filth of the city, that, being thus polluted, it might be unfit for the like religious abominations. The Jews, from the perpetuity of these fires, and to express the utmost detestation of the sacrifices which were offered to Moloch in this valley, made use of its name to signify hell. Hence our translators have given Tophet, or gehenna, its metaphorical meaning in the present passage, whereas it ought rather to have had its literal signification. For our Lord, intending to show his hearers that the punishment of causeless anger, contemptuous speeches, and abusive names, shall, in the life to come, bear a proportion to the guilt that is in these sins; and finding no name in the language of men by which those different degrees of punishment could properly be expressed, he illustrated them by the punishments which the Jews were acquainted with.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

GENERAL REMARKS ON THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

The aim and contents of the “Sermon.”—No mere sermon is this, only distinguished from others of its class by its reach and sweep and power; it stands alone as the grand charter of the commonwealth of heaven; or, to keep the simple title the Evangelist himself suggests (Mat_4:23), it is “the gospel (or good news) of the kingdom.” To understand it aright we must keep this in mind, avoiding the easy method of treating it as a mere series of lessons on different subjects, and endeavouring to grasp the unity of thought and purpose which binds its different parts into one grand whole. It may help us to do this if we first ask ourselves what questions would naturally arise in the minds of the more thoughtful of the people, when they heard the announcement, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” It was evidently to such persons the Lord addressed Himself.… In their minds they would, in all probability, be revolving such questions as these:

1. “What is this kingdom, what advantages does it offer, and who are the people that belong to it?”

2. “What is required of those that belong to it? What are its laws and obligations?” And if these two questions were answered satisfactorily, a third would naturally follow.

3. “How may those who desire to share its privileges and assume its obligations become citizens of it?” These, accordingly, are the three great questions dealt with in succession (J. M. Gibson, D.D.).

The originality of the Sermon.—We are not careful to deny, we are eager to admit, that many even of the most admirable sayings in the Sermon on the Mount had been anticipated by heathen moralists and poets (S. Cox, D.D.). To affirm that Christ was not in the world, nor in the thoughts of men, until He took flesh and dwelt among us, is no more to honour Him than it is to affirm that, when He came into the world, He showed Himself to be no wiser than the men whose thoughts He had previously guided and inspired.… His teaching, we may be sure, will not be new in the sense of having no connection with the truths He had already taught by them; but it will be new in this sense, that it will perfect that which in them was imperfect; that it will gather up their scattered thoughts, free them from the errors with which they had blended them, and harmonise, develop, and complete them (S. Cox, D D.).

Is the Sermon on the Mount evangelical?—You have heard, as I have, that there is no “Cross” in this Sermon on the Mount; that we are at the foot of Sinai listening to Moses, and not at Calvary “beholding the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world.” Let us not be deceived. You might as well say there is no sun in a coal-pit or a geyser because you do not see his form there. Your British coalfields are as truly the-children of the sun as is the ray of light that last fell upon our eyes, and the high-pitched morality of this sermon is as really the offspring of the death and resurrection of Christ as the first pulse-beat of joy on the reception of the forgiveness of sins. Will you say that the writer of Todhunter’s Trigonometry is unfamiliar with the first four rules of arithmetic because he assumes instead of stating and proving them? No more should we conclude that salvation by the sacrifice of the Son of God for men is absent from the Sermon on the Mount, because it is not expressly stated and argued as it is in the third of the Romans. There is not a benediction that does not take us to Calvary. There is not a warning that may not urge us to Christ. There is not a mountain elevation of holiness that will not force from us the cry, “Lord, help me, or I perish.” The Sermon is full of the great principles we have to preach, and those principles are all embodied in the Speaker Himself. Teaching Him we teach the principles of this Sermon, and it is of little use teaching the ideas of this Sermon without also teaching Him (J. Clifford, D.D.). The Lord Jesus did not give the world His best wine in this cup, marvellous and precious though it be. The best thing in the Gospels is the gospel itself—that manifestation of the righteousness and love of God in the person, the life, and the death of His Son by which He wins our love and makes us righteous (S. Cox, D.D.).

The relation between the Sermon on the Mount as reported by St. Matthew and the account of it in St. Luke 6—Commentators are divided in opinion as to whether or not these are two versions of the same discourse. Augustine suggests a solution of the difficulty by saying that the two discourses are entirely distinct, though delivered on the same occasion—that reported by St. Matthew, on the mountain to the disciples; that of St. Luke, delivered on the plain just below to the multitude. Dean Vaughan concurs in this view, and says: “Men have doubted whether the discourse in St. Matthew is to be regarded as an ampler account of that which is reported by St. Luke. The general scope and purport is the same. Yet, as St. Matthew says expressly that Jesus spake ‘sitting on the mountain,’ and St. Luke says that He spake ‘standing on the plain,’ it seems not very unnatural to suppose that the one (that given by St. Matthew) was a discourse delivered, as it were, to the inner circle of His disciples, apart from the crowd outside; the other (preserved by St. Luke), a briefer and more popular rehearsal of the chief topics of the former, addressed, immediately afterwards, in descending the hill, to the promiscuous multitude.” Lange also favours this view. Carr (Cambridge Bible for Schools) states the arguments in favour of the identity of the “Sermon on the Mount” with the “Sermon on the Plain,” thus:

1. The beginning and end are identical as well as much of the intervening matter.

2. The portions omitted—a comparison between the old and the new legislation—are such as would be less adapted for St. Luke’s readers than for St. Matthew’s.

3. The “mount” and the “plain” are not necessarily distinct localities. The plain is more accurately translated “a level place,” a platform on the high land.

4. The place in the order of events differs in St. Luke, but it is probable that here as well as elsewhere St. Matthew does not observe the order of time.

Mat_5:21. Ye have heard.—It is as if the Saviour were referring to some specific discourse, which some Rabbi or other had recently been delivering to the people; and perhaps as a polemic against the doctrines and influence of Jesus. We need not doubt that there would be many such discussional discourses. And while the native majesty of our Lord would not suffer Him to descend into petty controversies, it is likely enough that several parts of the Sermon on the Mount owe their peculiar shaping to the peculiar nature of the representations made by his Rabbinical opponents (Morison). Whosoever shall kill, etc.—The fact that these words are not found in the Old Testament confirms the view that our Lord is speaking of the traditional comments on the law, and not of the law itself (Plumptre). In danger.—The phrase had a somewhat more technical sense in A.D. 1611 than it has now, and meant “legally liable to” (ibid.). The judgment.—That of the local courts of Deu_16:18. They had the power of capital punishment, though the special form of death by stoning was reserved for the Sanhedrin or Council (ibid.).

Mat_5:22. Without a cause.—Omitted in R. V. However we decide as to the text, we must restrict our interpretation to “causeless anger” (Brown). Raca = “thou good-for nothing” (Wendt). Thou fool = “thou godless one” (ibid.). The distinction between raca and thou fool is lost, and naturally, for they belong to that class of words, the meaning of which depends entirely on the usage of the day. There is, however, clearly a climax.

1. Feeling of anger without words.

2. Anger venting itself in words.

3. Insulting anger (Carr). Judgment … council … hell-fire.—There seems to be an incongruity in passing literally from the human events described by the “judgment” and the “council” to the divine sentence of the “Gehenna of fire.” The most natural interpretation seems to be to suppose that three degrees of human punishment are used to denote, by analogy, three corresponding degrees of the Divine sentence hereafter. The judgment, the council, the Gehenna of fire, will thus figuratively represent three degrees of the Divine vengeance against sin, corresponding to three degrees of temporal punishment under the Jewish law; death by the sword inflicted by the minor courts, death by stoning inflicted by the Sanhedrin, and finally, death with the body cast into the valley of Hinnom to be burned. It is not certain that this last punishment was ever actually inflicted under the Jewish law; it may be mentioned as an extreme case beyond the legal punishments, though, in one case, at least, as Tholuck observes, death by fire was ordained (see Lev_20:14), though no place of punishment is specified (cf. 1Ma_3:5) (Mansel).

Mat_5:25. Agree with thine adversary.—The Saviour here shifts His scene a little. He seizes, representatively, on such a specific manifestation of malevolence as leads the injured party to become an adversary, i.e. a prosecutor in a law-suit, who is determined to recover damages (Morison). The passion of which you have not repented, the wrong for which you have not atoned, will meet you as an adversary at the bar of God (Tholuck).

Mat_5:26. Farthing.—The Greek word is derived from the Latin quadrans, the fourth part of the Roman as, a small copper or bronze coin which had become common in Palestine. The “farthing” of Mat_10:29 is a different word, and was applied to the tenth part of the drachma (Plumptre).

Mat_5:28. To lust after her.—With the intent to do so, as the same expression is used in Mat_6:1; or, with the full consent of his will, to feed thereby his unholy desires (Brown).

Mat_5:31. Whosoever shall put away, etc.—The quotation is given as the popular Rabbinic explanation of Deu_24:1, which, as our Lord teaches in Mat_19:8, was given on account of the hardness of men’s hearts, to prevent yet greater evils. The stricter party of Shammai held that the “uncleanness” meant simply unchastity before or after marriage. The followers of Hillel held, on the other hand, that anything that made the company of the wife distasteful was a sufficient ground for repudiation (Plumptre).

Mat_5:33. Forswear thyself.—These are not the precise words of Exo_20:7, but they express all that it was currently understood to condemn, namely, false swearing (Lev_19:12, etc.). This is plain from what follows (Brown).

Mat_5:34. Swear not at all.—Viz. in the following ways (Morison).

Mat_5:37. Yea, yea; nay, nay. Let your affirmation and negation be in accordance with fact (Grotius).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_5:21-37

Root and branch.—The Saviour’s purpose here seems to be that of explaining what He has just before said. He has described His mission as being that of “fulfilling” God’s “law” (Mat_5:17). Amongst the ways in which He was to do this—to do this in connection with the “moral” part of that law—was the way of bringing it home. On what principles were its various precepts founded? How far, in consequence of this, do its various requirements extend? These are the questions which He here sets Himself to answer so far as they bear on three commandments out of the “Ten”—three commandments which seem selected as samples of all.

I. The sixth commandment is the first “old-time” saying (Mat_5:21) which is dealt with in this way. Its actual language, as quoted here, is brief and simple enough. “Thou shalt not kill.” In dealing with this (Mat_5:21-26) our Saviour points us first, as we intimated just now, to its root. What is the root of the wicked action which this commandment forbids? It is to be found in the indulgence of the spirit of hate. If there were no hate, no desire to hurt, there would be no such endeavour, of course. It is with this root, therefore—this murder-germ—that the Saviour begins. He bids us understand that it is with this spirit of hate—this anger “without cause” (Mat_5:22)—that this commandment begins. In forbidding the action it forbids thereby its source. That is the first point to be noted. But that is not all. What we are to note next, is, that it forbids also all that follows from this. All that follows from indulgence in such a spirit, whatever its shape—all words of contempt even—all that is meant to degrade (Mat_5:22). All that follows from this, also, no matter what else in other directions we may think we have to rely on for acceptance with God. Not even the “worship” of our “gifts” on God’s own “altar” is acceptable to Him if we come in this spirit of hate (Mat_5:23-24, etc.; cf., in part, Gen_4:1-10). Not only so, it never can be acceptable so long as this enmity lasts. For what is it that such unrepented enmity does in effect? It turns your brother, as before God, into your “adversary at law”; and it is an indirect appeal to Him, therefore, to deal with you only as your merits deserve—a “process at law” which can only end in your irreversible death (Mat_5:25-26; also Psa_130:3; Psa_143:2; Rom_6:23). Understand, therefore, not only how far, but also how peremptorily, this commandment extends. The spirit of hate, indulged in, is the spirit of death!

II. The seventh commandment is next expounded, in like manner, by Christ. Here, also, the “old saying” was simple enough in its letter. But it was just as profound, also, and just as far-reaching—so the Saviour shows—in its spirit. For here, also, on the one hand, the commandment, in forbidding the action, forbids also the inward desire which gives it birth, as it were (Mat_5:28, cf. Jas_1:14-15). And here, also, on the other hand, it necessarily forbids also all those resulting evil indulgences and habits which so often become to men in consequence almost part of themselves. And it bids the sinner (which is more) wholly to part with them, even where that is the case; and warns him solemnly, also, that the only other alternative is that of destroying himself (Mat_5:29-30, Eph_5:3-6). All this that “old saying” taught in the “germ.” Further, on the important question of the dissolution of marriage (which is another branch of this subject) it did the same thing. The “old saying,” on this point, also, had been of a very definite kind. If you do dissolve this contract you must do so with as much formality as you entered on it at first (Mat_5:31). That restriction contained in it the seed of another. You must not dissolve it even in that way unless it has been dissolved in another way first (Mat_5:32). That is the “spirit,” and, therefore, those the results, of that “letter” of old.

III. The third commandment—possibly as being, unlike the previous two, a part of the First Table—is then taken up. To “take God’s name in vain” (Exo_20:7) is to invite His witness to that which is false. To forbid this, therefore (Mat_5:33), is to forbid, as before, that which lies at its root, viz. in this case, thinking lightly of God. And, therefore, as before, to forbid all that which branches therefrom—all language inconsistent with a proper recollection of the wide supremacy of His rule, whether in “heaven” above, or “earth” beneath, or in the midst of His church (Mat_5:34-35), or with a proper sense of our utter inability to alter or modify the most insignificant part of our frames (Mat_5:36). What it rather enjoins on us is a scrupulous anxiety to avoid any approach to these sins. Never call upon God as a witness unless in those cases in which you have His permission to do so. Even to wish this without adequate cause is of the nature of sin (Mat_5:37). So, of this commandment also, does the Saviour explain both its depth and its reach!

Declarations of this kind lend double value:—

1. To the mercy of the gospel.—When the Saviour undertakes to forgive sin, He is not speaking in the dark. He knows what He is doing, what sin is, what it involves, what it leads to, all that it means. Knowing the worst, He yet blots it all out.

2. To the offers of the gospel.—“Wilt thou be made whole?” This He says to those whose extremity is known to Him to the full (cf. Joh_5:6).

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat_5:21-24. Spiritual exposition of sixth commandment.—The keynote of the portion (Mat_5:20-26) is contained in Mat_5:20, and the meaning of that verse is set forth in six examples—murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, retaliation, love and hatred. Consider the Christian law concerning murder:—

I. In the letter.—Sixth commandment. We boast of progress, and of the march of civilisation. Our progress in material civilisation is indeed marvellous; but so long as the columns of our newspapers abound with reports of the most wilful and cold-blooded murders we have cause for “shame and confusion of face” rather than for vainglory.

II. In the spirit.—He who is “angry with his brother without a cause” commits murder in his heart. Anger is declared to be a work of the flesh (Gal_5:20); but it is often excused as an infirmity, rather than bewailed as a sin.

III. In the punishment.—The three degrees of punishment specified according to the degrees of guilt.

IV. In the application.—Our Lord being “a minister of the circumcision,” and the Jewish ritual being not yet abrogated, the language of the Mosaic ceremonial (“gift” and “altar”) is naturally employed. A pious Jew is supposed to be on his way to the temple, intending to offer to God on the altar his gift, eucharistic or sacrificial. Before reaching the altar, he recollects that his brother has some cause of offence against him—not that he has one against his brother, which is generally all we think of. Our Lord counsels him to “leave,” etc. To offer sacrifice or worship, before reconciliation has been effected, is but to mock the Searcher of hearts (Psa_66:18; Eph_4:26).—F. F. Goe, M.A.

Mat_5:21-22. Inward hatred.—I. The evil of this sort of anger.—

1. In our Saviour’s interpretation it is the first step towards the sin of murder.

2. It clouds the judgment with such thick fumes of passion that it is not capable of discerning truth from falsehood, or right from wrong, and gives a strong bias to the affections.

3. There is no passion more inconsistent with society and good government.

4. This anger is directly opposed to the love of our neighbours in general.

II. The means for preventing and removing it.—

1. Let us avoid a weak, peevish, waspish disposition.

2. Let us consider this world as a place full of trouble.

3. Let us accustom ourselves to overlook the immediate instruments of our troubles, and take them all as from the hands of God.

4. Let us avoid, as much as possible, all the usual causes or occasions of anger.

5. Let us consider how much self-denial is a principal duty of the Christian religion, and what noble promises are made to it.—Jas. Blair, M.A.

Mat_5:22. Slight affronting words.—To guard us against all disrespect and slight, or even incivility to our neighbour, there are a few things I would offer to your consideration.

I. That this slight and disrespect towards our neighbour proceeds commonly from bad causes; such as:

1. A pride and haughtiness in ourselves, and a conceitedness as to our own opinions and ways.

2. At least, a want of due consideration of our neighbour’s case; perhaps that which we are offended at in him is owing to the uneasiness of his circumstances; the pains and diseases of his body; the fatigue of business; the stiffness of his natural temper; or some little mistake or oversight such as are very incident to all mankind.

3. Or it is owing to our own hasty and impatient temper, which could not bear with the least provocation or contradiction.

II. Disrespect to our neighbour is attended with very bad consequences and effects.—There is no man so dull but he can apprehend the least disrespect put upon him. Disrespectful words begin to alienate our neighbour’s affection from us, as persons that are unjust to him, etc.

III. All slight and disrepect towards our neighbour is exceedingly inconsistent with the laws of Christianity, which require a spirit of love, charity, humility, meekness, and patience; that we should honour all men; that we should curb our tongues, and govern our passions; that we should be courteous and condescending, and become all things to all men, that by all means we may gain some.

IV. Consider the good consequences of the contrary virtue.—I mean, true love and respect to our neighbour, manifested by all expressions of Christian friendship and civility; how it smooths men’s tempers, calms their passions, disposes them for receiving any good impressions we would make upon them; how it contributes to keep up peace and good neighbourhood, and a spirit of love and friendship among men, than which there is nothing more necessary towards the happiness of the world.—Ibid.

Degrees of punishment in the other world—

I. What foundation there is for this doctrine from the text.—

1. From the whole scope and purport of this Sermon on the Mount it is evident our Saviour is not instructing magistrates, but private Christians; He is not prescribing laws of human policy, but directing the conscience, His kingdom not being of this world.

2. Our Saviour never took upon Him either to inflict or to prescribe human penalties; but thought fit to leave the governments of the world in the full possession of their jurisdiction; and therefore it is no way probable that He is here prescribing the penalties of human courts of judicature.

3. It is plain from the sins here described, they are such as fall not under the cognisance of human laws, the first of them being inward anger, which, till it breaks out into some outward words or actions, cannot be the subject of any rule, but of Him who alone is the Searcher of hearts. The punishments, then, here assigned must all relate to the other world. And if so, there being here several degrees of punishments assigned, it follows plainly that there are several degrees of punishments in the world to come.

II. Some other Scripture proofs of the same doctrine.—Psa_62:12; Pro_24:12; Mat_16:27; Luk_12:47-48; Mat_11:22; Mat_11:24.

III. What ground there is in the nature and reason of the thing for this doctrine.—

1. All wicked people are not wicked in the same degree.

2. Of those who go to the same degree and pitch of wickedness, the sin is not equal in them all. In some, perhaps, it is only a sin of ignorance, and the error of their education; in others, it is studied perverseness and wickedness. Some have been captains and ringleaders in vice, others have been but followers and accessories, etc.

IV. Inferences.—This doctrine may serve—

1. To vindicate the justice of God.

2. To deter even wicked men from several high degrees of wickedness.

3. To put us upon a trial of our own state.—Ibid.

Mat_5:23-24. Worship and reconciliation.—This passage may be understood as combining two lessons.

I. The most sacred of all occupations should not be an impediment to the duty of reconciliation.

II. The gift will not be acceptable to God while offered in enmity against a brother.—On this precept is founded the rule of the church requiring adversaries to be reconciled before partaking of the Holy Communion.—Dean Mansel.

Mat_5:25-26. Agreeing with one’s adversary.—

I. The duty enjoined.—

1. We are not to abandon the adversary’s company if it may be allowed us.

2. We are to leave no means untried with him that may tend to reconciliation. There should be

(1) Inward love;

(2) Outward expressions of courtesy and civility;

(3) Receding from our strict right for peace’s sake;

(4) Acts of beneficence and friendship;

(5) Prayer to God for him.

II. The evil consequences attending the neglect or delay of this duty.—There are three sorts of evil consequences to be considered.

1. The evil consequences in this world of letting differences run on so far as to come to the extremity of the law.

2. The other evil consequences in this world likewise, of other quarrels beside lawsuits, which, by a parity of reason, fall under the consideration of this advice of agreeing with the adversary (Jas_3:5-6).

3. The evil consequences in the great day of judgment of neglecting or delaying to make our peace with our adversary.—Jas. Blair, M.A.

Mat_5:26. (With Mar_2:10). Sin and forgiveness.—To the Christian doctrine of forgiveness men have offered a twofold objection—the objection of levity, and the objection of reason.

1. The first declares that sin is a mere trifle, if it is even as much as that, and that forgiveness is a simple process which can be magically and swiftly set at work.

2. To accept the objection of reason means despair. Reason says, “There can be no such thing as forgiveness of sins.” Science utterly slays the doctrine. All the forgiveness in the world is incapable of blotting out a man’s past. In nature there is no such doctrine, neither can there be in religion. Nature exacts her tribute to the full, and she says to us, “You shall not come out thence until you have paid the uttermost farthing.” Reason, however, under the guidance of God, will reach a much higher conclusion than the reason which is its own guide—a conclusion which is honourable and pacific and true to law.

I. The universal law of God is, “whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.”—Every violation of the moral law is followed by penalty. The Christian doctrine of forgiveness does not repeal that law. Whatever forgiveness does for a man, it does not sweep away from his life the consequences of past misdeeds. God forgave David’s great sin, but David had also to pay the bitter price of his wickedness, and the ages have been acquainted with the story.

II. What under such circumstances, can a man do?—There is at least a choice of two courses.

1. The first is to pay your own debt as best you can. This pseudo-courageousness has a fascination for some minds, but will you think what it really means? If you have a true conception of the extent of your liability, you will not so glibly talk about “paying like a man.”

2. The second course open to you is that in which God comes to us and makes us an offer by which the debt may be paid with honour to the law and with perfect deliverance to the sinner. This offer is known as the doctrine of forgiveness. Be careful to observe that the doctrine of forgiveness is a matter entirely of revelation. What then is forgiveness? It is the first medicine administered to us by the Great Physician with a view to our complete restoration to spiritual health.—F. C. Spurr.

Mat_5:27-32. The mastery of the body.—The two voices are again heard; the first “by them of old time,” the second that (apart from divinity) of a dogmatist—solemn, impressive, in His individuality. “But, I say,” etc. There is no division of responsibility, all rests upon that “Ἐγώ!”

1. All human impulses are to be held in perfect mastery.

2. There is a judgment upon the heart as well as upon the outer life.

3. When the bodily appetites and the spiritual nature come into collision, let the body suffer, not the soul. A whole body (a body wholly gratified) or a maimed soul—which?

4. There are bodily temptations as well as mental temptations. The mind has advantages in the probationary state which the body has not; death has yet to pass upon the body; the body is not to be wholly purified or transformed until the resurrection; the mind, on the contrary (except so far as modified by the body), may be “set on things above.”

5. Christ, in this paragraph, shows the bearing of His specific truths on the body and bodily relations:

(1) Personal mastery.

(2) Personal mastery may require the severest measures.

(3) Personal mastery required in the maintenance of the conjugal bond.—J. Parker, D.D.

Mat_5:28. Mental uncleanness.—

1. Begin at the root as our Saviour here advises, and restrain all mental impurities.

2. Carefully avoid all occasions of this sin, e.g. bad books, impure plays, lewd company, etc.

3. Keep the body under by labour and temperance.

4. Avoid idleness, and be prudent as to recreations.

5. When temptations are presented, do not argue or parley with them, do not lie still and muse upon them, but flee from them.

6. Keep yourselves in the love of God and contemplate the things of eternity.

7. Another remedy of lust prescribed by God Almighty is suitable marriage.—Jas. Blair, M.A.

Mat_5:29-30. Plucking out the eye and cutting off the hand.—

I. The supposition.—That the best members of the body, particularly the right eye and right hand, may lead us into very dangerous sins.

II. The duty of mortifying these members. This implies:

1. A serious and firm resolution of restraining the members and imagination from unlawful objects.

2. An avoiding all the occasions of sin.

3. The continual use of all those means whereby sin may be entirely subdued in us.

III. The danger of suffering our members to continue the instruments of sin.—Ibid.

Abandoning darling sins.—

I. The possibility of conquering darling sins.—If this were not possible God would never require it of us, and that under pain of damnation.

II. The difficulty and the causes of it.—

1. To make a darling sin, we must suppose a great propensity of corrupt nature, and to rectify nature is very difficult.

2. This propensity must be supposed to be confirmed by a vicious course or habit, and so to have become customary (Jer_13:23).

III. Some advices to facilitate this matter.—

1. Let us be fully persuaded of the necessity of parting with our beloved sins, under pain of our eternal and final destruction.

2. Let us believe that the longer we indulge in vicious practices, so much the harder it will be to get rid of them.

3. Let us firmly believe that there is no impossibility in overcoming our most favourite sins.

4. Our chief care must be to apply ourselves diligently to the use of all the means of grace.

5. We must not be discouraged if we obtain not the victory at first.—Ibid.

Mat_5:31-32. The Christian doctrine concerning divorces.—

I. Explication.—Our Saviour was not here treating of the impediments of marriage from the beginning, but only of the dissolution of lawful marriages; particularly He is here correcting the too great liberty the Jewish husbands took to put away their wives for slight causes. He seems to have determined as much in this case as was fit in prudence, viz. that the liberty of divorce for any lighter cause than the marriage infidelity should be prohibited; but that even in that case it should not be commanded, but left to the greater or lesser aggravation of the crime, from the various circumstances of it; and the consideration of the consequences of severity or indulgence, to himself, and his wife and children, and the world abroad. I speak cautiously on this difficult subject, because, as far as I can perceive, there never was, nor is any positive command for divorce.

II. Vindication.—

1. To some it may seem very hard that for no other fault but that of adultery, a man can put away his wife. There are many other things which make the married state very uneasy, and if some men had their will they would have it as easy a thing to put away a wife as to turn out a boarder. But:

(1) The great ends of marriage could never be attained, if marriage were to be dissolved upon every slight account. Consider what those ends are, and whether they are generally attainable any other way than by making marriage a mutual contract for life. (a) As to the procreation and education of children; could that be so well minded, if their mothers were to be turned off at pleasure, and they left to the care of any strange woman, who would look upon them as so many encumbrances upon the estate, and so many rivals of her own children? (b) As to the being a remedy of lust, which is another good end for the institution of matrimony; if marriage were an uncertain loose thing, subject to be dissolved upon every humour and caprice of the parties, and new wives as frequently brought in, this would be no confinement of lust at all; but loose men would change their wives as frequently as they do their mistresses, and marriage would be only a cloak for whoredom, under a more specious name. (c) If we consider married persons, as they are mutual helps to one another in managing a common estate for the benefit of themselves and their children, there is nothing can so well qualify them to answer that end as the being linked together by an inseparable bond, which joins their two interests in one. But now, upon a supposition of these frequent dissolutions of marriage, each party would have a different interest to carry on; the woman upon the prospect of parting, nay upon the bare supposition of the probability, or even possibility of it, would think it but prudence to provide for that time, and to feather her nest, by pilfering and purloining from her husband’s estate, as much as she could, while they are together. (d) Marriage was instituted for the mutual love and comfort of the parties, that such a sacred friendship might ease and sweeten the several troubles and uneasinesses of life. Now, its being a perpetual lasting bond of amity, contributes very much to this; they know now if they have any differences, their best way is to make them up.

(2) This discrediting and making light of marriage would be attended by other very great inconveniences. Particularly the weaker sex, after having left father and mother, after having been deprived of their portion and their honour, must be turned off to strive with solitude and discontent all the rest of their life.

2. As to the permitting of divorce in case of the breach of the marriage covenant; as in all covenants, when one of the parties breaks the fundamental articles, the other is absolved if he pleases, so it is very fit that it should be in this great marriage-covenant, especially considering what an intolerable hardship it would put on the innocent party to be obliged to love and trust one that betrays him, to maintain and provide for an adulterous brood, and to have his right made away to strangers.

III. Inferences.—

1. Our Saviour not only acts the part of a good interpreter of the law, but sometimes makes use of the authority of a legislator too.

2. We may observe how sacred and inviolable He would have the state of marriage to be. He makes it a covenant for life. Teaching

(1) With what deliberation, prudence, and circumspection we should enter into that lasting state.

(2) With what sweetness and friendliness of temper we ought to behave ourselves so as to make the journey of life pleasant, both to ourselves, and to this our inseparable companion.

(3) Since our Saviour has left such a blot on that sort of uncleanness committed by married persons, that on account thereof he permits the dissolution of the marriage, let this deter us from all approaches to those sins. Let husbands and wives beware of everything that may in the least create any dryness or alienation of affection from one another. Let them beware of those pretended friends, who bring oil to inflame, instead of water to quench, the fire of strife and contention, when it is kindled between them. Let every approach of criminal address, so soon as it is perceived, be rejected with abhorrence.—Jas. Blair, M.A.

Mat_5:32. The evil consequences of parting man and wife.—

I. A general lesson.—That whosoever commits any sin is answerable not only for the necessary, but for all the probable consequences of that sin.

II. A particular lesson.—That those quarrels of man and wife which are attended with parting, have very terrible consequences.

1. The dishonour and disgrace of it is apt to throw the wife into despair, that she does not care what becomes of her; and is consequently tempted to lay aside that guard she had formerly upon her honour.

2. The excess of injury is, perhaps, greater than any ordinary patience can bear.

3. The great want to which such an abandoned state exposes poor women, and the helplessness of their circumstances, often drives them upon ill courses.—Ibid.

Mat_5:33-37. Oaths.—In these words our Saviour gives another instance wherein the righteousness of Christians must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees.

I. What was good in the opinion of the Jewish doctors concerning the third commandment. They condemned perjury (Mat_5:33).

II. Wherein our Saviour finds it defective.—

1. In that they thought nothing else was prohibited in the third commandment, but the sin of perjury.

2. That they allowed of oaths by creatures, of which four are here mentioned, heaven, and earth, Jerusalem, and their head.

3. That they reckoned such oaths as were not by the name of God, not binding: whereas, though they were not in God’s name, yet they had so near a relation to Him, as having the formality of a promise upon oath, that on that account they ought to have been observed.

4. That they had brought in a practice of swearing in conversation, and so made way for rash, idle, customary oaths.

III. What further improvements He makes on this subject.—

1. He condemns all rash, customary swearing in conversation.

2. He disallows all swearing by the creatures.

3. He asserts the obligation of such oaths, as to men, though defective in point of duty to God.

4. He recommends such a veracity, honesty, and sincerity in speech, that we may be trusted upon our bare word, without an oath.—Ibid.

Mat_5:33. The great sin of perjury.—

I. Describe wherein perjury consists.—It is either swearing to a false thing at present; or afterwards, a voluntary breach of a lawful promise upon oath. Divines agree that the chief properties of an oath are those three mentioned by the prophet Jeremiah (ch. Mat_4:2), Thou shalt swear the Lord liveth in truth, judgment, and righteousness. The first condition “truth,” excludes not only all lying, but all trick, deceit, or equivocation. The second condition is “judgment”; it is not sufficient that what we swear be true, it must be a thing of weight and importance. The third condition is “righteousness”; it must be a just thing in itself. Perjury is, in general, the calling of God to be witness to a lie. This is done:

1. When we assert upon oath a thing to be true, which we know to be false.

2. When we assert upon oath a thing to be true, of the truth of which we are not fully assured. And this, though the thing should happen to be true.

3. When we declare upon oath such a thing to be our judgment, which really is not so.

4. When, in giving our testimony as to any matter of fact, we wilfully suppress some material part of the truth, and aggravate other parts of it, or endeavour so to disguise and change our account of facts, as that the judges and juries may not have a right notion of the matter in question.

5. They that promise upon oath what they do not intend to perform are, ipso facto, guilty of perjury, because they call God to witness a false thing, where the intention of their minds does not concur with the words and meaning of their oath.

6. They are likewise guilty of perjury, who, though they promise with a sincere intention to perform, do afterwards, of their own accord, fall off; when the thing they promised is both lawful and in their power to perform.

7. They are guilty of perjury, who make use of tricks and equivocations, and put forced senses on the words of an oath, or look for evasions, contrary to the plain and genuine sense of the words.

II. What it is that leads and tempts men to perjury.—Bribery, rashness, partiality, self-interest.

III. The heinousness of the sin of perjury.—

1. It is a great proof of a profane, atheistical mind.

2. It is highly injurious to mankind; for an oath being of so universal use among men, in transacting matters of the highest consequence, whosoever goes about to make it vile and cheap does what in him lies to destroy the highest bonds of faith and truth among men.

3. As no sin has a worse influence on all parts of our duty, whether to God or man, so there is no sin more expressly forbidden, or more grievously threatened in the law of God. It is observed that idolatry and perjury are the only two sins to which an express threatening is annexed in the Decalogue.

IV. What absolves us from perjury, though we cannot always perform our oaths.—

1. They who are under the command of a lawful superior, cannot execute an oath or a vow in anything to which his consent is required, if he expressly dissents from it. See Numbers 30. All our oaths and vows must be understood to be meant with this limitation, “as far as it is in my power.”

2. When the matter of the thing fails about which the oath was given, then the oath itself is no longer binding. A soldier that takes the military oath, when peace is made and he comes to be disbanded, he is likewise free from that oath.

3. When we give our oath to another and promise him something for his benefit, if he pleases to forgive that obligation in whole or in part, no doubt we are then absolved from our oath or such part of it, provided no harm be done to any other.

4. If the oath we take to another be, either expressly or in its own nature, conditional, that is, with a proviso that something be done of his part; then, upon his failing as to his part of the condition, we are likewise absolved from ours. But it is otherwise where both parties absolutely promise one another, and not conditionally, for there the failing of one, doth not absolve the other.

5. Whatever we promise, even upon oath, must be understood with a proviso that it be both possible and lawful for us, and that no unforeseen thing happen which may make our observing our oath an evil, or uncomely, dishonest action.—Jas. Blair, M.A.

Rash and superfluous oaths.—Though the words of the third commandment signify principally, thou shalt not swear falsely, they signify likewise, thou shalt not swear vainly or unnecessarily. So that all rash, trifling, superfluous oaths are forbidden as well as false ones.

I. The consideration of God should deter us from the common use of oaths; for He is not a common witness to be called in upon all trivial occasions.

II. The sacredness of oaths should deter us from making them cheap and common; for as in human judicatures for small matters there are inferior courts, and it is not allowed that the superior courts be troubled, except in cases of moment or difficulty, so God hath set such an honour upon an oath, which is an appeal to Himself, that it must be a matter of great consequence in which this last resort is allowed.

III. A due regard to our own dignity and reputation should make us abstain from unnecessary oaths; for he who has strictly kept up his honour and reputation will be believed upon his word without an oath.—Ibid.

Mat_5:37. Simplicity and veracity in conversation.—I. A precept.—“Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.” I take this to be a prohibition of:

1. A multiplicity of words.

2. A designed doubleness or equivocation in them.

3. Vain compliments and flattery.

4. Oaths and imprecations. And on the contrary, an injunction that our words be few, plain, sincere, and modest.

II. The reason of this precept.—“For whatsoever,” etc.

1. If we exceed the plainness and veracity of speech, this flows from some bad priciple or other.

2. Whenever our discourse exceeds the due bounds is simplicity and modesty, we are immediately to take the alarm, as beginning then to be under the temptation of the devil; and to what intemperance of language he may carry us, nobody can tell.—Ibid.

Mat_5:33-37.Christ’s teaching on oaths.—In order to avoid any conclusions drawn from this precept of Jesus, which are out of harmony alike with the general view of Jesus, elsewhere expressed in regard to the true righteousness, and with His own practice, we must fix our attention upon the purpose He had in view in thus prohibiting swearing. That purpose is plainly shown from the line of thought running throughout the discourse on righteousness. It was the inculcation of a righteousness having its root in the heart, and therefore requiring to be unconditionally observed in the simplest outward acts. An oath and solemn affirmation which a man may employ before his fellow-men, since, in their inability to read his inward truthfulness, they cannot put full confidence in his word if it be not solemnly asserted, are quite different in their nature and inward motive from the oath and protestation with which a man accompanies his word, because he would not feel absolutely pledged to truth and faithfulness by his simple word and promise. From the whole tenor of His teaching in regard to the righteousness of the kingdom of God, there is no reason to conclude that the members of the kingdom were forbidden the use of such confirmatory forms of speech towards others, or an appeal to God as witness to the truth of their words. Perhaps we cannot refer to the fact that Jesus Himself, at His trial before the high priest, answered by oath (according to the adjuration of the high priest), the question whether He were the Messiah, since, according to the original account in Mark (Mar_14:61), the high priest did not put his question in the form of an adjuration. Still, we can point to the fact that Jesus, according to the testimony of all our sources, frequently strengthened His statements by the addition of “verily,” in order to awaken a closer attention in His hearers, and greater trust in His word (e.g. Mat_5:18; Mar_3:28; Mar_8:12; Mar_9:1; Joh_3:3; Joh_5:19; Joh_5:24, etc.). When we consider the matter, it is certainly true in a certain sense that the absolute prohibition of oaths can only find its full realisation in the perfected kingdom of God, where the disciples have no longer dealings with men who mistrust them, and whom they must themselves mistrust. But, to my mind, we cannot say that Jesus consciously made this prohibition only for the future ideal state of the perfected kingdom, or only for His disciples in their intercourse with one another. For He addressed His precept to the then present hearers of His discourse, and that in regard to their speech in general, and not merely to their speech among other members of the kingdom. We must, however, bear in mind that principle which is so often to be observed in the discourses of Jesus, of aiming at the greatest clearness in the shortest compass. According to this principle, in order to make the meaning and scope of a rule as plain as possible, He abstracted from all the circumstances of ordinary life which tended in any way to obscure that meaning and scope, yet without really setting up an exception to the rule. According to the tenor of the discourse, the point intended here is to substitute, for the earlier command to be faithful and true in regard to oaths, the higher command to be true and faithful in regard to the smallest word. The prohibition of oaths and all confirmatory additions to the simple statement, is in this connection only meant to apply to the use of oaths and other protestations, as expressing the reservation that one is not pledged to truth and faithfulness by the simple and ordinary form of speech. Jesus sought with the greatest clearness to forbid, universally and unconditionally, such protestations made with this reservation, and so far as they arose out of a deceitful spirit.—H. H. Wendt, D.D

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

5:21-47 You have heard. . . . But I say: Jesus contrasts his own teaching to six misinterpretations of the law. Each antithesis provides an example of the surpassing righteousness of Jesus. Jesus reveals the will of God as it contrasts with traditions.

5:21 our ancestors were told: The expression refers to the traditional interpretation of the teachers of religious law and Pharisees. Though their traditions prohibited murder, they did not prohibit hatred. The surpassing righteousness of Jesus demands reconciliation (5:23-24); merely refraining from committing murder is not sufficient (5:22).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 5:21. Ἠκούσατε, ye have heard) From public readings, to which you have given your assent. In the New Testament the teachers are referred to their reading of the law, the people to their hearing of it. See Joh 12:34; Rom 2:13; Rom 2:18.—ὅτι ἐῤῥέθη, that it has been said) An impersonal form of speech, to which is elegantly opposed, I say. Moses said it truly; the interpreters of Moses said it with altered meaning: the hearers did not distinguish the meaning of Moses from that of his interpreters. The name of Moses occurs, but with a less forcible contrast, in ch. Mat 19:8-9, sc. Moses permitted, but [I] say unto you, where I is not expressed in the original, for there is no contention between Moses and Christ: the Jews had departed from both Moses and Christ. The language of Christ does not exceed the law of Moses (see ch. Mat 7:12); for concupiscence, proscribed in Mat 5:28, is also prohibited by the law: see Rom 7:7. He however restores the truths which the Scribes had taken from the law, and clears away the falsehoods which they had added; see Mat 5:43. The phrase, “But I say,” is an antithetic formula, by which Christ, as if Moses had never existed (for the servant gives place to his Lord), orders all things simply, not in the guise of a Legislator or Interpreter, but as the Son declaring the will of His Father: see ch. Mat 7:21, and cf. ch. Mat 3:17. The law is perfect: whatever the Saviour prohibits or commands in this passage, the law had previously prohibited or commanded: it judges the secrets of the heart (see Rom 7:14); but on account of the hard heart of the people, it more frequently expresses outward acts. Therefore the Lord says, “But I say unto you,” not, “Moses however said unto you.” The Jews were in many things otherwise circumstanced in the time of the Pharisees than in the time of Moses.—τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, to them of old time[197]) sc. the fathers in the time of Moses. The Scribes wished to appear to be in conformity with the ancient and primitive rule. Antiquity should be maintained, but it should be genuine antiquity.[198]—ὑμῖν, to you) This word is antithetic[199] to τοῖς ἀρχαιοῖς, from whence it is evident, that τοῖς ἀρχαίοις (antiquis) is not in the ablative, but in the dative case; and the construction is more easy if we render the passage thus, “it was said TO them of old time, than thus, “it was said BY them of old time.”—οὐ φονεύσεις, thou shalt not kill) Our Lord begins with the clearest precept.—τῇ κρίσει, to the judgment) The Hebrew דִּין, rendered κρίσις, was the inferior tribunal existing in the several towns, and consisted of twenty-three judges, who had the power of life and death. The dative, τῇ κρίσει, signifies, as far as belongs to[200] the judgment, or municipal tribunal: in like manner, in the next verse τῷ συνεδρίῳ signifies as far as belongs to the Sanhedrim: for ἔνοχος, criminal, is here used absolutely.

[197] E. V. by them of old time.—(I. B.)

[198] In fact, it was not in the time of Moses, and to the ancients [“to them of old time”], that the rather lax interpretation of the law was set forth, but in the time of the Scribes and Pharisees, and to the men of that age. The Scribes themselves were the persons who crusted over with the plea of antiquity their own innovations, as generally happens in religious controversies, or when morals are being corrupted.—Vers. Germ.

[199] See Explanation of technical terms in Appendix.—(I. B.)

[200] In the original, “quod ad judicium attinet,” where in the phrase, “quod attinet,” generally rendered “with respect to,” “as regards,” etc., attinet seems to have its own more peculiar and precise force of pertains;—and to signify, “is the province of,” “comes under the jurisdiction of;”—a meaning which appears to coincide with Bengel’s observations on the next verse.—(I. B.)

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_5:21. There now follow on to the end of the chapter sixneither five (Hilgenfeld) nor seven (Köstlin)antithetic examples of the fulfilling of the law of Jesus, not merely derived from the Decalogue, or from its second table (Keim), but from the Pentateuch generally; not, however, of an antinomian kind, consequently not in opposition to the divine law itself (Chrysostom and many Fathers, Maldonatus, Neander, Bleek, Socinians and Arminians), but opposed, indeed, to all the manifold limitations and one-sided apprehensions and applications of the same, as it was represented and followed out in life by the common traditional Judaism, and specially by the Pharisees, without insight into the deeper unity and the purely moral absolute meaning. Comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 599 f.; Harless, d. Ehescheidungsfrage, 1861, p. 7 f.; Weiss, Keim. That use of the law produced a false legalism, without sincerity and virtue, in opposition to which Jesus wishes to develope and assert the true and full righteous morality out of the divine law.

ἠκούσατε] from the law which is read before you (Joh_12:34; Rom_2:13; Gal_4:21; Act_15:21), and from the instruction which you have received regarding its exposition.

τοῖς ἀρχαίοις] may grammatically be taken not only as a dative (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Luther, Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Bengel, and many others; also Tholuck, Neander, de Wette, Ritschl, Bleek, Weizsäcker), but also as an ablative: by the ancients (see Kühner, II. 1, p. 368 f.; Winer, p. 206 [E. T. 277]); so Beza, Piscator, Schoettgen, Raphel, and many; also Paulus, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Olshausen, Baumgarten, Ewald, Lechler, Keim. On the first rendering, which most obviously suggests itself (Rom_9:12; Rom_9:26; Gal_3:16; Rev_6:11; Rev_9:4), the ancients are the Jewish generations of earlier times (before Christ), to which Moses and his followers (Mat_23:2 f.), the scribes, spoke (de Wette, Ritschl), not simply the Israelites in the time of Moses, to whom the latter spoke (Neander, Bleek); on the latter view it is Moses (who would not have to be excluded, as Keim maintains), and his ancient expositors learned in the Scripture; for there follow their sayings, which are partly without, partly accompanied with, additions proceeding from the scribes. The decision between these two views is given not merely by the constant usage of the N. T., which joins ἐῤῥέθη with the dative, but also by the antithesis ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, in which ἐγώ corresponds to the logical subject of ἐῤῥέθη, and ὑμῖν to τοῖς ἀρχαίοις; the latter consequently cannot itself be the subject. Luther therefore rightly renders: that it is said to them of old time.[406] Pointless objections are made by Keim, II. p. 248, who even finds in this view something opposed to the sense; because the people of the present day have not yet heard of that which was enjoined on them of old time, but of what has been enjoined upon themselves. On the other hand, it is to be recollected that it was precisely a peculiarity of the Jewish method of instruction, and still is so, to refer the present generation to those of old time, to inculcate upon the former the παράδοσις which had been common in ancient times, and had been already given to their forefathers. Thus the people of the present time have certainly heard in the synagogues what was said to them of old time. Comp., moreover, Diodorus Siculus xxii. 20 : καλῶς εἴρηται τοῖς παλαῖοις, ὅτι, κ.τ.λ.

οὐ φονεύσεις] Exo_20:12. The prohibition refers to the act, though not by itself, but as the effect of anger, of hostility, and so on; for there is also a putting to death which is permitted, nay, even commanded. The Pharisaic explanation and application of the legal saying was confined to the literal prohibition of the act; the fulfiller of the law lays open the whole disposition that deserves punishment, which, as the ethical condition of the act, was aimed at by the prohibition of the latter. The following words contain a traditional addition, although one not alien to the law, by the scribes, who interpreted that prohibition externally.

κρίσις, according to Mat_5:22, opposed to the Sanhedrin, is the local court, found, according to Deu_16:18, in every city of Palestine, to which it belonged to take cognizance of and to punish even murder (execution by the sword), 2Ch_19:5; Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 14. According to the Rabbins, it consisted of twenty-three members; according to Josephus, of seven. See generally, Tholuck, Keil, Arch. II. p. 250 ff. To the higher court of justice, the Sanhedrin, Mat_5:22, it belonged to take cognizance also of crimes punishable by stoning.

[406] Instead of ἐῤῥέθη, Lachmann and Tischendorf have, after B D E K V, the form ἐῤῥήθη. Both forms are found in Plato (see Heindorf, ad Gorg. p. 46), to whom, however, Schneider, ad Pol. V. p. 450 A, everywhere assigns the latter as the proper one. The first is the more common in the later Greek, and therefore to be preferred in the N. T. See in general, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 447. Comp. on Rom_9:12; Gal_3:16.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 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.

Mat 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.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The true meaning of the first commandment.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Christ having laid down these principles, that Moses and the prophets were still to be their rulers, but that the scribes and Pharisees were to be no longer their rulers, proceeds to expound the law in some particular instances, and to vindicate it from the corrupt glosses which those expositors had put upon it. He adds not any thing new, only limits and restrains some permissions which had been abused: and as to the precepts, shows the breadth, strictness, and spiritual nature of them, adding such explanatory statutes as made them more clear, and tended much toward the perfecting of our obedience to them. In these verses, he explains the law of the sixth commandment, according to the true intent and full extent of it.

I. Here is the command itself laid down (Mat 5:12); We have heard it, and remember it; he speaks to them who know the law, who had Moses read to them in their synagogues every sabbath-day; you have heard that it was said by them, or rather as it is in the margin, to them of old time, to your forefathers the Jews, Thou shalt not kill. Note, The laws of God are not novel, upstart laws, but were delivered to them of old time; they are ancient laws, but of that nature as never to be antiquated nor grow obsolete. The moral law agrees with the law of nature, and the eternal rules and reasons of good and evil, that is, the rectitude of the eternal Mind. Killing is here forbidden, killing ourselves, killing any other, directly or indirectly, or being any way accessory to it. The law of God, the God of life, is a hedge of protection about our lives. It was one of the precepts of Noah, Gen 9:5, Gen 9:6.

II. The exposition of this command which the Jewish teachers contended themselves with; their comment upon it was, Whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment. This was all they had to say upon it, that wilful murderers were liable to the sword of justice, and casual ones to the judgment of the city of refuge. The courts of judgment sat in the gate of their principal cities; the judges, ordinarily, were in number twenty-three; these tried, condemned, and executed murderers; so that whoever killed, was in danger of their judgment. Now this gloss of theirs upon this commandment was faulty, for it intimated, 1. That the law of the sixth commandment was only external, and forbade no more than the act of murder, and laid to restraint upon the inward lusts, from which wars and fightings come. This was indeed the prōton pseudos - the fundamental error of the Jewish teachers, that the divine law prohibited only the sinful act, not the sinful thought; they were disposed haerere in cortice - to rest in the letter of the law, and they never enquired into the spiritual meaning of it. Paul, while a Pharisee, did not, till, by the key of the tenth commandment, divine grace let him into the knowledge of the spiritual nature of all the rest, Rom 7:7, Rom 7:14. 2. Another mistake of theirs was, that this law was merely political and municipal, given for them, and intended as a directory for their courts, and no more; as if they only were the people, and the wisdom of the law must die with them.

III. The exposition which Christ gave of this commandment; and we are sure that according to his exposition of it we must be judged hereafter, and therefore ought to be ruled now. The commandment is exceeding broad, and not to be limited by the will of the flesh, or the will of men.

1. Christ tells them that rash anger is heart-murder (Mat 5:22); Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, breaks the sixth commandment. By our brother here, we are to understand any person, though ever so much our inferior, as a child, a servant, for we are all made of one blood. Anger is a natural passion; there are cases in which it is lawful and laudable; but it is then sinful, when we are angry without cause. The word is eikē, which signifies, sine caus, sine effectu, et sine modo - without cause, without any good effect, without moderation; so that the anger is then sinful, (1.) When it is without any just provocation given; either for no cause, or no good cause, or no great and proportionable cause; when we are angry at children or servants for that which could not be helped, which was only a piece of forgetfulness or mistake, that we ourselves might easily have been guilty of, and for which we should not have been angry at ourselves; when we are angry upon groundless surmises, or for trivial affronts not worth speaking of. (2.) When it is without any good end aimed at, merely to show our authority, to gratify a brutish passion, to let people know our resentments, and excite ourselves to revenge, then it is in vain, it is to do hurt; whereas if we are at any time angry, it should be to awaken the offender to repentance, and prevent his doing so again; to clear ourselves (Co2 7:11), and to give warning to others. (3.) When it exceeds due bounds; when we are hardy and headstrong in our anger, violent and vehement, outrageous and mischievous, and when we seek the hurt of those we are displeased at. This is a breach of the sixth commandment, for he that is thus angry, would kill if he could and durst; he has taken the first step toward it; Cain's killing his brother began in anger; he is a murderer in the account of God, who knows his heart, whence murder proceeds, Mat 15:19.

2. He tells them, that given opprobrious language to our brother is tongue-murder, calling him, Raca, and, Thou fool. When this is done with mildness and for a good end, to convince others of their vanity and folly, it is not sinful. Thus James says, O vain man; and Paul, Thou fool; and Christ himself, O fools, and slow of heart. But when it proceeds from anger and malice within, it is the smoke of that fire which is kindled from hell, and falls under the same character. (1.) Raca is a scornful word, and comes from pride, "Thou empty fellow;" it is the language of that which Solomon calls proud wrath (Pro 21:24), which tramples upon our brother - disdains to set him even with the dogs of our flock. This people who knoweth not the law, is cursed, is such language, Joh 7:49. (2.) Thou fool, is a spiteful word, and comes from hatred; looking upon him, not only as mean and not to be honoured, but as vile and not to be loved; "Thou wicked man, thou reprobate." The former speaks a man without sense, this (in scripture language) speaks a man without grace; the more the reproach touches his spiritual condition, the worse it is; the former is a haughty taunting of our brother, this is a malicious censuring and condemning of him, as abandoned of God. Now this is a breach of the sixth commandment; malicious slanders and censures are poison under the tongue, that kills secretly and slowly; bitter words are as arrows that would suddenly (Psa 64:3), or as a sword in the bones. The good name of our neighbour, which is better than life, is thereby stabbed and murdered; and it is an evidence of such an ill-will to our neighbour as would strike at his life, if it were in our power.

3. He tells them, that how light soever they made of these sins, they would certainly be reckoned for; he that is angry with is brother shall be in danger of the judgment and anger of God; he that calls him Raca, shall be in danger of the council, of being punished by the Sanhedrim for reviling an Israelite; but whosoever saith, Thou fool, thou profane person, thou child of hell, shall be in danger of hell-fire, to which he condemns his brother; so the learned Dr. Whitby. Some think, in allusion to the penalties used in the several courts of judgment among the Jews, Christ shows that the sin of rash anger exposes men to lower or higher punishments, according to the degrees of its proceeding. The Jews had three capital punishments, each worse than the other; beheading, which was inflicted by the judgment; stoning, by the council or chief Sanhedrim; and burning in the valley of the son of Hinnom, which was used only in extraordinary cases: it signifies, therefore, that rash anger and reproachful language are damning sins; but some are more sinful than others, and accordingly there is a greater damnation, and a sorer punishment reserved for them: Christ would thus show which sin was most sinful, by showing which it was the punishment whereof was most dreadful.

IV. From all this it is here inferred, that we ought carefully to preserve Christian love and peace with our brethren, and that if at any time a breach happens, we should labour for a reconciliation, by confessing our fault, humbling ourselves to our brother, begging his pardon, and making restitution, or offering satisfaction for wrong done in word or deed, according as the nature of the thing is; and that we should do this quickly for two reasons:

1. Because, till this be done, we are utterly unfit for communion with God in holy ordinances, Mat 5:23, Mat 5:24. The case supposed is, "That thy brother have somewhat against thee," that thou has injured and offended him, either really or in his apprehension; if thou are the party offended, there needs not this delay; if thou have aught against thy brother, make short work of it; no more is to be done but to forgive him (Mar 11:25), and forgive the injury; but if the quarrel began on thy side, and the fault was either at first or afterwards thine, so that thy brother has a controversy with thee, go and be reconciled to him before thou offer thy gift at the altar, before thou approach solemnly to God in the gospel-services of prayer and praise, hearing the word or the sacraments. Note, (1.) When we are addressing ourselves to any religious exercises, it is good for us to take that occasion of serious reflection and self-examination: there are many things to be remembered, when we bring our gift to the altar, and this among the rest, whether our brother hath aught against us; then, if ever, we are disposed to be serious, and therefore should then call ourselves to an account. (2.) Religious exercises are not acceptable to God, if they are performed when we are in wrath; envy, malice, and uncharitableness, are sins so displeasing to God, that nothing pleases him which comes from a heart wherein they are predominant, Ti1 2:8. Prayers made in wrath are written in gall, Isa 1:15; Isa 58:4. (3.) Love or charity is so much better than all burnt-offerings and sacrifice, that God will have reconciliation made with an offended brother before the gift be offered; he is content to stay for the gift, rather than have it offered while we are under guilt and engaged in a quarrel. (4.) Though we are unfitted for communion with God, by a continual quarrel with a brother, yet that can be no excuse for the omission or neglect of our duty: "Leave there thy gift before the altar, lest otherwise, when thou has gone away, thou be tempted not to come again." Many give this as a reason why they do not come to church or to the communion, because they are at variance with some neighbour; and whose fault is that? One sin will never excuse another, but will rather double the guilt. Want of charity cannot justify the want of piety. The difficulty is easily got over; those who have wronged us, we must forgive; and those whom we have wronged, we must make satisfaction to, or at least make a tender of it, and desire a renewal of the friendship, so that if reconciliation be not made, it may not be our fault; and then come, come and welcome, come and offer thy gift, and it shall be accepted. Therefore we must not let the sun go down upon our wrath any day, because we must go to prayer before we go to sleep; much less let the sun rise upon our wrath on a sabbath-day, because it is a day of prayer.

2. Because, till this be done, we lie exposed to much danger, Mat 5:25, Mat 5:26. It is at our peril if we do not labour after an agreement, and that quickly, upon two accounts:

(1.) Upon a temporal account. If the offence we have done to our brother, in his body, goods, or reputation, be such as will bear action, in which he may recover considerable damages, it is our wisdom, and it is our duty to our family, to prevent that by a humble submission and a just and peaceable satisfaction; lest otherwise he recover it by law, and put us to the extremity of a prison. In such a case it is better to compound and make the best terms we can, than to stand it out; for it is in vain to contend with the law, and there is danger of our being crushed by it. Many ruin their estates by an obstinate persisting in the offences they have given, which would soon have been pacified by a little yielding at first. Solomon's advice in case of suretyship is, Go, humble thyself, and so secure and deliver thyself, Pro 6:1-5. It is good to agree, for the law is costly. Though we must be merciful to those we have advantage against, yet we must be just to those that have advantage against us, as far as we are able. "Agree, and compound with thine adversary quickly, lest he be exasperated by thy stubbornness, and provoked to insist upon the utmost demand, and will not make thee the abatement which at first he would have made." A prison is an uncomfortable place to those who are brought to it by their own pride and prodigality, their own wilfulness and folly.

(2.) Upon a spiritual account. "Go, and be reconciled to thy brother, be just to him, be friendly with him, because while the quarrel continues, as thou art unfit to bring thy gift to the altar, unfit to come to the table of the Lord, so thou art unfit to die: if thou persist in this sin, there is danger lest thou be suddenly snatched away by the wrath of God, whose judgment thou canst not escape nor except against; and if that iniquity be laid to thy charge, thou art undone for ever." Hell is a prison for all that live and die in malice and uncharitableness, for all that are contentious (Rom 2:8), and out of that prison there is no rescue, no redemption, no escape, to eternity.

This is very applicable to the great business of our reconciliation to God through Christ; Agree with him quickly, whilst thou art in the way. Note, [1.] The great God is an Adversary to all sinners, antidikos - a law-adversary; he has a controversy with them, an action against them. [2.] It is our concern to agree with him, to acquaint ourselves with him, that we may be at peace, Job 22:21; Co2 5:20. [3.] It is our wisdom to do this quickly, while we are in the way. While we are alive, we are in the way; after death, it will be too late to do it; therefore give not sleep to thine eyes till it be done. [4.] They who continue in a state of enmity to God, are continually exposed to the arrests of his justice, and the most dreadful instances of his wrath. Christ is the Judge, to whom impenitent sinners will be delivered; for all judgment is committed to the Son; he that was rejected as a Saviour, cannot be escaped as a Judge, Rev 6:16, Rev 6:17. It is a fearful thing to be thus turned over to the Lord Jesus, when the Lamb shall become the Lion. Angels are the officers to whom Christ will deliver them (Mat 13:41, Mat 13:42); devils are so too, having the power of death as executioners to all unbelievers, Heb 2:14. Hell is the prison, into which those will be cast that continue in a state of enmity to God, Pe2 2:4. [5.] Damned sinners must remain in it to eternity; they shall not depart till they have paid the uttermost farthing, and that will not be to the utmost ages of eternity: divine justice will be for ever in the satisfying, but never satisfied.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time--or, as in the Margin, "to them of old time." Which of these translations is the right one has been much controverted. Either of them is grammatically defensible, though the latter--"to the ancients"--is more consistent with New Testament usage (see the Greek of Rom 9:12, Rom 9:26; Rev 6:11; Rev 9:4); and most critics decide in favor of it. But it is not a question of Greek only. Nearly all who would translate "to the ancients" take the speaker of the words quoted to be Moses in the law; "the ancients" to be the people to whom Moses gave the law; and the intention of our Lord here to be to contrast His own teaching, more or less, with that of Moses; either as opposed to it--as some go the length of affirming--or at least as modifying, enlarging, elevating it. But who can reasonably imagine such a thing, just after the most solemn and emphatic proclamation of the perpetuity of the law, and the honor and glory in which it was to be held under the new economy? To us it seems as plain as possible that our Lord's one object is to contrast the traditional perversions of the law with the true sense of it as expounded by Himself. A few of those who assent to this still think that "to the ancients" is the only legitimate translation of the words; understanding that our Lord is reporting what had been said to the ancients, not by Moses, but by the perverters of his law. We do not object to this; but we incline to think (with BEZA, and after him with FRITZSCHE, OLSHAUSEN, STIER, and BLOOMFIELD) that "by the ancients" must have been what our Lord meant here, referring to the corrupt teachers rather than the perverted people.

Thou shall not kill:--that is, This being all that the law requires, whosoever has imbrued his hands in his brother's blood, but he only, is guilty of a breach of this commandment.

and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment--liable to the judgment; that is, of the sentence of those inferior courts of judicature which were established in all the principal towns, in compliance with Deu 16:16. Thus was this commandment reduced, from a holy law of the heart-searching God, to a mere criminal statute, taking cognizance only of outward actions, such as that which we read in Exo 21:12; Lev 24:17.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 21. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time] τοις αρχαιοις, to or by the ancients. By the ancients, we may understand those who lived before the law, and those who lived under it; for murder was, in the most solemn manner, forbidden before, as well as under, the law, Ge 9:5-6.

But it is very likely that our Lord refers here merely to traditions and glosses relative to the ancient Mosaic ordinance; and such as, by their operation, rendered the primitive command of little or no effect. Murder from the beginning has been punished with death; and it is, probably, the only crime that should be punished with death. There is much reason to doubt, whether the punishment of death, inflicted for any other crime, is not in itself murder, whatever the authority may be that has instituted it. GOD, and the greatest legislators that have ever been in the universe, are of the same opinion. See Montesquieu, Blackstone, and the Marquis Beccaria, and the arguments and testimonies lately produced by Sir Samuel Romilly, in his motion for the amendment of the criminal laws of this kingdom. It is very remarkable, that the criminal code published by Joseph II., late emperor of Germany, though it consists of seventy-one capital crimes, has not death attached to any of them. Even murder, with all intention to rob, is punished only with "imprisonment for thirty years, to lie on the floor, to have no nourishment but bread and water, to be closely chained, and to be publicly whipped once a year, with less than one hundred lashes." See Colquhoun on the Police of the City of London, p. 272.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(21) By them of old time.—There is no reasonable doubt that the marginal reading, to them of old time, is right. The construction is identical with that of Rom_9:12; Rom_9:26; Gal_3:16; Rev_6:11; Rev_9:4. Two questions present themselves for answer: (1) Who were “they of old time”? (2) Who was the speaker of the words quoted? (1) The words are very general, and, as interpreted by the use of “old time” in Act_15:21, seem to point to the time when synagogues began to be established, i.e., after the return from Babylon. (2) The impersonal form, the contrast between “it was said,” and “I say unto you,” the tone of authority imposing a new law for that which it supersedes, seem conclusive against referring the words, even when they are found in the Law, to that Law as given by God through Moses. Stress is laid on the words “Ye heard that it was said.” “This was the report of the Law given you by your teachers in school and synagogue. I give you another and truer report. Not what you so heard, but what I now say unto you is the true completion of the Law and the Prophets, and therefore the abiding law of my kingdom.”

Whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.—The fact that these words are not found in the Old Testament confirms the view that our Lord is speaking of the traditional comments on the Law, and not of the Law itself. The phrase “in danger” had a somewhat more technical sense in A.D. 1611 than it has now, and meant “legally liable to.” The “judgment” spoken of was that of the local courts of Deu_16:18. They had the power of capital punishment, but the special form of death by stoning was reserved for the Sanhedrim, or Council.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ye have heard,.... That is, from the Scriptures being read to them, and the explanations of the ancients, which were called "hearing", being read in the schools, and heard by the scholars (o); so that to "hear", was along with the recital of the text, to receive by tradition, the sense the elders had given of it: of this kind is the instance produced by Christ. Thus Onkelos, and Jonathan ben Uzziel, render the phrase, "him shall ye hear", in Deu 18:15 by , "from him shall ye receive"; so those phrases (p), , "they learn from hearing", or by report from others; and "they speak from hearing", or from what they have heard, are often used for receiving and reporting things as they have them by tradition. That "it was said", or "it hath been said"; this is also a Talmudic form of expression; often is this phrase to be met with in the Talmud, "it has been said" (q); that is, by the ancient doctors, as here, "by them of old time", or "to the ancients", so in Munster's Hebrew Gospel; not to the Israelites in the time of Moses, but to the ancestors of the Jews, since the times of Ezra; by the elders, who were contemporary with them; and who by their false glosses corrupted the law, when they recited any part of it to the people; or "by the ancients", the ancient doctors and commentators, which preceded the times of Christ, whom the Jews often call "our ancients" (r). Now, upon that law, "thou shalt not kill", they put this gloss, or added this by way of interpretation,

and whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment; which they understood only of actual murder, either committed in their own persons, or by the means of others. Their rules for the judgment of such persons were these;

"everyone that kills his neighbour with his hand; as if he strikes him with a sword, or with a stone that kills him; or strangles him till he die; or burns him in fire; seeing he kills him in any manner, in his own person, lo! such an one must be put to death , "by the house of judgment", or the sanhedrim (s).''

Not that which consisted of three persons only, but either that which consisted of twenty three, or the supreme one, which was made up of seventy one; which two last had only power of judging capital offences. Again,

"if a man hires a murderer to kill his neighbour, or sends his servants, and they kill him, or binds him, and leaves him before a lion, or the like, and the beast kills him, everyone of these is a shedder of blood; and the sin of slaughter is in his hand; and he is guilty of death by the hand of heaven, i.e. God; but he is not to be put to death by the house of judgment, or the sanhedrim (t).''

A little after, it is said, "their judgment" is delivered to heaven, i.e. to God; and this seems to be the sense of the word "judgment" here, namely, the judgment of God, or death by the hand of God; since it is manifestly distinguished from the council, or sanhedrim, in the next "verse". The phrase,

in danger of judgment, is the same with (u) , "guilty of judgment", or deserves condemnation.

(o) Vid. Buxtorf. Lex. Rabbin, fol. 2453. (p) Maimon. Hilch. Issure Mizbeach, c. 1. sect. 2, 4, 5, 7, 10. & passim, & T. Bab. Sanhedrim, fol. 88. 1. (q) Vid. Edzardi Not. in Avoda Zara, c. 2. p. 284. (r) Vid. R. Aben Ezra in Exod. xxi. 17. & in Isa. lii. 13. & lxvi. 24. (s) Maimon. Hilch. Rotseach, c. 2. sect. 1. (t) Maimon. Hilch. Rotseach, c. 2. sect. 2. (u) In Targ. in 2 Chron. xix. 10.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

Ver. 21. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old] Antiquity is venerable: and of witnesses, Aristotle witnesseth, that the more ancient they are, the more to be credited, as less corrupt. New things are vain things, saith the Greek proverb. And the historian condemneth his countrymen, as despisers of old customs, and carried after new. {a} But as old age is a crown, if it be found in the way of righteousness, Pro 16:31, and not otherwise; so may it be said of these Kadmonim or the old Rabbis, later than Ezra, whom our Saviour here confuteth. Much might have been attributed to their authority, had they not rested upon the bare letter of the law, and wrested it sometimes to another meaning. Antiquity disjoined from verity is but filthy hoariness; and deserveth no more reverence than an old lecher, which is so much the more odious, because old. And as manna, the longer it was kept against the command of God the more it stank; so do errors and enormities. Laban pretendeth antiquity for his God, in his oath to Jacob: The God of Abraham, saith he, and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge between us, Gen 31:53. But Jacob swore by the fear of his father Isaac. He riseth not higher than his father, and yet doubts not but he worshipped God aright. εμοι αρχαια Ιησου ο Χριστος. (Ignat.) It is no good rule to say, We’ll be of the same religion with our forefathers, unless we can approve it right by the Holy Scriptures. Plus valet malum inolitum quam bonum insolitum: and that, Tyrannus, trium literatum mos, too often carries it against truth. The image that fell down from Jupiter (for which there was so much ado at Ephesus, του Διοπετους, Act 19:35) is said by the town clerk to be such as could not be spoken against with any reason. And why? because it was wonderfully ancient (as Pliny telleth us). For whereas the temple of Diana had been seven different times rebuilt, this image was never changed; {b} and thence grew the so great superstition, by the covetousness of the priests. As likewise the Ancilia among the Romans; and Pessinuntium among the Asians. But what saith a noble writer, Antiquity must have no more authority than what it can maintain. Did not our predecessors hold the torrid zone uninhabitable? did they not confine the world in the ark of Europe, Asia, and Africa, till Noah’s dove, Columbus, discovered land? &c.

Thou shalt not kill: and whosoever killeth shall be in danger of judgment] That is, it shall be questioned whether it be fit he be put to death or not. Thus as Eve dallied with the command, saying, Ye shall not eat thereof, lest ye die (when God had said, Ye shall surely die whensoever ye eat), and so fell into the devil’s danger; in like sort, these Jewish doctors had corrupted the very letter of the law, and made doubtful and questionable what God had plainly and peremptorily pronounced to be present death. Before the Flood, indeed, some do guess and gather out of Gen 9:5-6 that the punishment of murder, and such like heinous offences, was only excommunication from the holy assemblies, and exclusion out of their fathers’ families, as Cain was cast out from the presence of the Lord; that is, from his father’s house, where God was sincerely served. Sure it is, that no sooner was the world repaired, than this law was established, "Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed;" and this reason is rendered, "for in the image of God made he him," Gen 9:6. That image (it is true) is by the Fall defaced and abolished; yet are there some relics thereof still abiding, which God will not have destroyed. If any object, Why then should the murderer be destroyed, since he also is made in the image of God? the answer is easy, because the murderer hath destroyed the image of God in his neighbour, and turned himself into the image of the devil. Besides, God hath indispensably and peremptorily commanded it: He that sheddeth the blood of any person, hasteneth to the grave, let no man hinder him, Pro 28:17. Say he escape the stroke of human justice, yet the barbarians could say (as of Paul, whom they took for a murderer) that divine vengeance will not suffer him to live, Act 28:4; "Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days," Psa 55:23. Usually either God executeth them with his own immediate hand, as it might be easy to instance in many bloody persecutors and others; or he maketh them their own deathsmen, as Pilate; or setteth some others to work to do it for them. As (among other examples of God’s dealings in this kind) A. D. 1586, Walsh, Bishop of Ossory, in Ireland, a man of honest life, with his two servants, were stabbed to death by one Dulland, an Irish old soldier, while he gravely admonished him of his foul adulteries; and the wicked murderer escaped away, who had now committed 45 murders with his own hand. At length revenge pursuing him, he was by another bloody fellow, Donald Spaman, shortly after slain himself, and his head presented to the Lord Deputy. Neither can I here omit (that which I had almost forgotten) the just hand of God upon that villanous parricide, Alphonsus Diazius, the Spaniard, who (after he had, like another Cain, 1Jn 3:12, killed his own natural brother, John Diazius, merely because he had renounced Popery and became a professor of the reformed religion, and was not only not punished, but highly commended of the Romanists for his heroic achievements) desperately hanged himself at Trent, upon the neck of his own mule, being haunted and hunted by the furies of his own conscience. Senarclaeus de morte Ioan. Diazii, A.D. 1551. Seipsum desperabundus Tridenti de collo mulae suae suspendit.

{a} πιστοτατειοιπαλαιοι αδιαφθοροι γαρ. Rhet. lib. i. τα καινα κενα. Thucydides. Athenienses suos υπεροπτας των ειωθοτων, non sine probro appellitat. Cor Princorum fuit sicut porta porticus templi, at cor posterorum sicut forameniacus. Talmud Erublin. Papists boast much of antiquity, as once the Gibeonites did of old shoes and mouldy bread.

{b} Virgineum fuit simulachrum longe antiquissimum, nunquam mutatum, septies restituto templo.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ye have heard - Or, this is the common interpretation among the Jews. Jesus proceeds here to comment on some prevailing opinions among the Jews; to show that the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was defective; and that people needed a better righteousness, or they could not be saved. He illustrates what he meant by that better righteousness by showing that the common opinions of the scribes were erroneous.

By them of old time - This might be translated to the ancients, referring to Moses and the prophets. But it is more probable that Jesus here refers to the interpreters of the law and the prophets. He did not set himself against the law of Moses, but against the false and pernicious interpretations of the law prevalent in his time.

Thou shalt not kill - See Exo 20:13. This properly denotes taking the life of another with malice, or with an intention to murder him. The Jews understood it as meaning no more. The comment of our Saviour shows that it was spiritual, and was designed to extend to the thoughts and feelings as well as the external act.

Shall be in danger of - Shall be held guilty, and be punished by. The law of Moses declared that the murderer should be put to death, Lev 24:21; Num 35:16. It did not say, however, by whom this should be done, and it was left to the Jews to organize courts to have cognizance of such crimes, Deu 16:18.

The judgment - This was the tribunal that had cognizance of cases of murder, etc. It was a court that sat in each city or town, and consisted commonly of seven members. It was the lowest court among the Jews, and from it an appeal might be taken to the Sanhedrin.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Shall be liable to the judgment. That is, shall deserve to be punished by that lesser tribunal among the Jews, called the judgment, which took cognizance of such crimes. (Challoner) --- Among the Jews at the time of Christ, there were three sorts of tribunals: the first composed of three judges to try smaller causes, as theft; there was one in each town: the second of twenty-three judges, who judged criminal causes, and had the power of condemning to death. This was called the Little Sanhedrim, and of this it is supposed Jesus Christ speaks: the third, or Great Sanhedrim of seventy-two judges, who decided on the most momentous affairs, relating to religion, the king, the high priest, and the state in general. It is this last that is designated under the name of council in the next verse. (Haydock)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

The Pharisees, in their lectures upon the law, usually thus prefaced, It was said by them of old time; this, saith Christ,

ye have heard. Thou shalt not kill: this was spoken by God in Mount Sinai, it was the sixth of the ten words then spoke.

And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: this now was the Pharisees’ addition, for we read of no such addition to the law as delivered, Exo 20:13. Thus they mixed their traditions with the word of God, which possibly might be the reason of their saying rather, It was said by them of old time, than, "It was said by Moses," or, "It was said in the law of God"; for under that phrase, it was said by the ancients they both comprehended the law given by Moses to the ancient people of God, and also their own traditions and false glosses, which though not so ancient as the law, yet had obtained for some considerable time in the corrupt state of the Jews.

Shall be in danger of, or obnoxious unto, the judgment; not to the wrath and vengeance of God, of that they said nothing, but to those courts of judgment which sat amongst them, to administer justice in criminal causes. As if this law of God had been only intended to uphold peace, and to preserve human society and civil order.

Thou shalt not kill; that is, (as they interpreted), Thou shalt not, without a warrant from God, or from the law, actually take away the life of another. It appears by what followeth, that they extended not this law to unjustifiable passions in the heart, such as rash anger, malice, revengeful thoughts; nor to any opprobrious or revengeful words.

But I say unto you; I shall give you another sense of this law. The killing here forbidden is as well rash and causeless anger, and opprobrious, threatening speeches, as bloody actions.

Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment, &c. Our Saviour (as most interpreters judge) speaks this with allusion to the three courts amongst the Jews. The one was the court of three men, which only judged of smaller and lighter causes, not in capital causes. Another was their court of twenty-three men, which much answered our courts at Westminster. The third was their sanhedrim, consisting of seventy men, which answered our parliament. Some think that by the judgment is meant the first or second of the courts; by the council, the superior courts amongst the Jews. But the judgment of our reverend Dr. Lightfoot seemeth much more probable, that by the judgment is meant the judgment of God;

by the council and

hell fire, not only the judgment and vengeance of God, but the judgments and punishments that are inflicted in the courts of men, that are magistrates, and bear not the sword in vain: so as the sense is this: I say unto you, that if a man doth but in his heart nourish wrath and anger against another without a just cause, and lets it grow up into malice, and thoughts and desires of private revenge, though he be not by it obnoxious to courts of justice, who can only determine upon overt acts, yet he is accountable to God, and liable to his judgment: but if men suffer their passions to break out into reviling terms and language, such as

Raca, ( signifying a vain person), or, Thou fool, ( speaking this from anger or malice), they are not only liable to the eternal vengeance of God, compared to the fire of Gehenna, but ought to be subjected to the punishment of the civil magistrate. Every civil government being by the law of God, in order to the prevention of quarrels or bloodshed, (which often followeth revilings of each other), obliged to punish such offences, as being the beginnings of murder, provocations to it, and indications of murderous hearts, hearts full of that which in the eye of God is murder.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

21. Ye — The apostles primarily, the people inferentially. Have heard — Not ye have read in the law, but ye have heard from the elders. Our Saviour is not setting himself up as an opponent, though a superior, of Moses. He is only disburdening Moses of the load of long-standing misinterpretations, and bringing out the law in its own purity. By them of old time — By the founders of Rabbinical traditions, which the scribes and Pharisees are now inculcating, and by which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. Thou shalt not kill — The words Thou shalt not kill, are the words of Moses; and at first sight it might appear that our Lord was reproving Moses as being too lax. But this is a very mistaken view. Our Lord does not here so much quote the commandment in the decalogue, as the bald and verbal repetition of it by the rabbies of old, who recited its letter devoid of the spirit. (See note on Mat_5:31-32.) They confined the criminality to the external act, without tracing the act to the temper in the heart, and so condemning the evil in its root. Shall be in danger of the judgment — To the proper legal verdict and sentence in the case.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ver. 21 Mat_6:18(2) Their relation further defined.

Vers. 21-48. (a) Our Lord is still concerned with the relation of himself and his followers to the religion of the day, of which the Old Testament (ver. 17), and more especially the Law (ver. 18), was the accepted standard. But after having spoken of the need of careful attention to (vers. 17, 18), and observance of (ver. 19), even the least commands of.the Law, he goes on to point out the far-reaching character of these commands, whether they are such as we should call more (vers. 21, 27, 31) or less (vers. 33, 38, 43) impotent.

It is essential to notice that our Lord refers to these commands, not merely as statements contained in the Law, but as part of the religion of the day, and that he contrasts their true bearing on life and conduct with that false bearing on this which was commonly predicated of them. By this it is not meant that our Lord was only opposing such narrow glosses and interpretations as had arisen at various times during the centuries after the promulgation of the Law (for these were for the most part perfectly natural and legitimate developments of the earliest possible interpretations of it), still less that he was thinking only of the worst of the misrepresentations of its commands, comparatively recently made by the Pharisees; but that he was now going back, beyond this so far natural and normal development of the earliest interpretations, to the first principles underlying the revelation contained in the Law. While the Jews, not unnaturally, clung to the primary, but temporary, meaning of the Law as a revelation of God"s will for them as a nation, our Lord was now about to expound its commands as a revelation of God"s permanent will for them and all men as men. Our Lord was now, that is to say, wishing to do more than merely cut off the excrescences that, chiefly through the Pharisaic party, had grown up round the Law, but less than root up the Law itself. He rather cuts down the whole growth that had been, notwithstanding some mere excrescences, the right and proper outcome of the Law in its original environment, in order that, in fresh environment, which corresponded better to its nature, the Law might produce a growth still more right and proper.

Vers. 21-26. The sixth commandment.

Vers. 21-24. Matthew only; vers. 25, 26 have parts common to Luke.

Ye have heard (hkousate , frequentative aorist). Our Lord does not say, "ye have read", (cf. Mat_21:42) for he was not now speaking to the learned classes, but to a large audience many of whom were probably unable to read. "Ye have heard," i.e. from your teachers whose teaching claims to be the substance of the Law. So, probably, even in Joh_12:34, where the multitude say that they "have heard out of the Law that the Christ abideth for ever," which, since this is hardly expressed in so many words in the Old Testament, must mean that the instructions they have received on this subject truly represent the substance of its teaching. So here our Lord says, "You have heard from your teachers (cf. Rom_2:18) that the substance of the sixth commandment is so-and-so." It is thus quite intelligible that in some of these utterances there should be found added to (vers. 21, 43) or intermingled with (ver. 33) the words of a passage of Scripture, other words which are either taken from Scripture, but from another place in it (perhaps ver. 33), or do not occur in Scripture at all, but merely help to form a compendious statement of a definite interpretation (here and ver. 43). It must remain doubtful whether our Lord himself formulated these statements of the popular teaching, or quoted them verbally as current. If the latter, as is perhaps more likely, there remains the at present still more insoluble question whether they were only oral or (cf. the case of the "Didaehe") had already been committed to writing (cf. in this connexion Bishop Westcott, "Hebr.," p. 480). That it was said by them of old time (oti erreyh toiv arcaioiv). By; Revised Version, to. Similarly ver. 33. Although "by" may be defended (cf. Madvig, g), "to" (Wickliffe and Tyndale downwards) is certainly right, because

(a) it is the common usage with a passive verb;

(b) it is the constant usage with erreyh in the New Testament; (e.g. Rom_9:12, Rom_9:26)

(c) the parallelism with egw de k.t.l., is more exact;

(d) the popular teaching claimed to be, even in its strictest esoteric form of oral tradition, derived ultimately, not from the words of any human teachers, however primitive, but from the words of God spoken by him to them.

In the case before us our Lord accepts the popular teaching of the time as truly representing the Divine utterance in the giving of the Law, so far as that utterance was then intended to be understood. Them of old time. This can hardly be limited to "the original founders of the Jewish Commonwealth," to use Trench"s curiously unbiblical expression ("Syn.," It probably includes all who lived a generation or more before our Lord"s time (cf. Weiss). Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. The substance, according to the popular teaching, of the sixth commandment. (Exo_20:13 Deu_5:17) This the current form of it (based partly on Lev_24:21 Nu 35 Deu_19:12) was that murder was not to be committed, and that if it was committed the murderer was to be brought up for trial. Shall be in danger of (enocov estai); i.e. in legal danger legally guilty of a charge which involves the judgment. (cf. Mat_26:66) The judgment; i.e. the local Sanhedrin, (cf. Mat_10:17) of apparently seven men in a smaller, twenty-three in a larger, town (cf. Schurer, II 1. pp. 149-154). This answers to "the congregation," or "the elders" of the town to which the murderer belonged, before whom he was to be tried. (Num_35:12, Num_35:16, 24 Deu_19:12)

Vers. 21-26. The Christian type of a true fulfilling of the Law: Christ"s first illustration.

Had the scribes and Pharisees not adulterated in many ways the Law, their righteousness would still have been the observing of the letter of commandments of the old covenant. The greatness of the moral step in advance now promulgated by Christ is measured by the fact that he sets as a necessity before his freshest recruits, that they should see better and do better than the masters and veterans of that old covenant. This is, as St. Chrysostom says, the fit illustration of the "superior power of grace." Observe, then, how

I CHRIST TRACES TO ITS REAL GERM AND ORIGIN THE FOUL, OVERT CRIME OF MURDER. That is to say, it is:

1. Personal anger, i.e. anger with a person, that person necessarily a creature of God, and therefore one"s own brother. Anger with sin, anger with a man"s offence, and the mischief he and it may have done, and anger in the sense of self-defensive and instinctive momentary resentment, are not herein condemned.

2. Anger permitted to express itself in the shape of utter contempt for the person. Illustrate by comparison of contempt, disdain, mockery, and all this family, with sorrow, grief, pity, compassion.

3. Anger assuming energetic activity, neither suppressed and dying in its own ashes, nor (however mournful this) kept within the limits of a parched, arid atmosphere, where for less worthy reasons it nevertheless will extinguish itself; but finding fresh fuel and disastrous incentive in the shape of passion and passion"s vocabulary.

II CHRIST DIGNIFIES INFINITELY THE CONCORD OF BROTHERS ON EARTH BY LETTING US KNOW THAT HEAVEN TAKES SPECIAL NOTE RESPECTING IT, AND MAKES IT ITS OWN CAUSE. The gift to God cannot be laid on the altar, so that it shall be accepted, while upon that other altar, the altar of the offerer"s heart, false fire burns. It cannot escape notice that the loved and beloved disciple"s heart received this saying and treasured it to old age, and gave a most exemplary version of it, in its spirit, in his Epistle. (1Jn_2:9-11 1Jn_3:11, 1Jn_3:14, 15 4:20, 21 5:1, 2) How far, far away even the Christian elements and tributaries of human society and brotherhood are still from apprehending and practising what is here taught!

III CHRIST GIVES US THE SUREST GUIDE TO MORAL REFORM, ONCE SEEN AND ACKNOWLEDGED; IT IS FOUND IN PROMPTNESS. The most merciless adversary a man ever had, whether only most exacting as regards debts due to him, or revengeful as well as exacting, is not to compare for mercilessness and exactingness with that adversary which each and any man has within himself, and which consists of his own worse self! That worse and lower self is our worst adversary. He equivocates, he extenuates, he procrastinates; he is grievously self-indulgent, slow to awake from sleep or sloth, self-partial to a proverb, and blind to all his own higher self"s higher interest. Once let a just thought, a glimmering ray of light, a genuine conviction of duty, or an admonition from without, really heard, be his, and this is his hope, his safety, the earnest of his regeneration, that he "agree quickly. B.

Vers. 21-26. The stringency of the gospel Law.

"Ye have heard," etc. The people generally were acquainted with the Law chiefly through the teaching of the scribes; but the scribes so mixed the traditions of the elders with the Word of inspiration, that it was needful that the Source of inspiration should speak again. "I say unto you.

I HERE CHRIST OPENS THE SPIRITUALITY OF THE LAW.

1. He does not release us from the letter.

(1) The precept against murder was "of old time." It originated in the judgment of God upon the first murderer. It took more definite shape as one of the Noachian precepts. (Gen_9:5, Gen_9:6) It reappeared as the sixth commandment in the Decalogue. (Exo_20:13)

(2) This Law has never been repealed. For suppose, as some contend, that the Decalogue was repealed along with the Levitical ordinances, it would still bind as a patriarchal institution. The reason of its enactment as a Noachian precept still holds, viz. "For in the image of God made he man.

(3) Anyhow, it is here reimposed by the Lawgiver himself. (cf. Isa_2:3 Luk_24:47 Jam_2:8-13) Moses the "servant" yields to Christ the "Son". (Heb_3:5, Heb_3:6) "I say unto you" significantly contrasts with the impersonal "It was said." We are "under the Law to Christ.

2. He enjoins the Law is its spirit.

(1) The spirit of the old Law was ever in it. (Rom_7:7 Rom_13:9, Rom_13:10) But the traditions of the elders explained this away. Law is made void when its spirit is lost. (Mar_7:13)

(2) Anger is murder in the heart. The angry heart is as much in danger of the judgment of God as the murderous hand is of the municipal court. (cf. 1Jn_3:15) The murderer in the heart is a malignant anger.

(3) There is a generous anger of grief. This is a holy passion. It is a passion against sin. Our Lord himself felt it. (Mar_3:5)

(4) There is a murder in the tongue. The "raca" is the expression of a malignant heart. Such was the bitter sarcasm of Michal. (see 2Sa_6:20) So likewise is the angry condemnation of the expression, "Thou fool!

3. He arms the Law with formidable sanctions.

(1) Here is no weakening of the ancient sanctions. The "judgment," or senate of twenty-three persons, is referred to, whose death-punishment was by the towel and sword. The "council," the Sanhedrin, or national court of seventy-two judges, is also referred to, whose death-punishment was by the still more shocking mode of stoning.

(2) But here is mention also of the "much sorer punishment." Neither the municipal nor the national court of Israel could deal with the murderer in the heart. Yet is there a judgment and a council before which this criminal shall stand.

(3) The doom of the transgressor of the spirit of the Law is the fire of Gehenna. (see Isa_30:33 Jer_7:31, Jer_7:32) The venom of sin lies in its spirit. The heart is the character.

II BUT HIS SYSTEM AFFORDS SPACE FOR REPENTANCE.

1. There is the altar for the gift.

(1) The allusion here is to the altar of the ceremonial Law. Such an altar was that upon which the first family offered their gifts. (cf. Gen_4:3-5 Heb_11:4) Such that upon which the Israelite presented his offerings.

(2) Upon the great altar of Calvary God"s great Gift, his Son, was offered for us. This was to the end that we may offer the same great Gift to God by faith. This is the best we can possibly offer. It is evermore acceptable.

(3) But with this infinite burnt offering and sin sacrifice we must also offer ourselves. (see Rom_12:1) Personal sacrifice includes personal possessions and resources.

2. The offerer must be repentant.

(1) Reconciled to his injured brother. Injured through the murderous temper. Through the murderous speech. Reconciled by confession of the fault. By seeking his forgiveness.

(2) Reconciled to those who have injured him. God, in commanding us to love our enemies, forbids our hating even with cause for hatred. Resentful feeling must be banished.

(3) "Leave there thy gift." Do not expect mercy from God until the reconciliation with men be sought. Leave it there as a pledge. The delay necessary to the reconciliation must not become the occasion for relinquishing the suit. Leave it there, sacred as it is, for the necessity of reconciliation is urgent.

(4) "Then come," etc. Come with confidence. Christ will be accepted for your justification. You will be accepted for Christ"s sake, in adoption.

III HE WARNS THE SINNER AGAINST PROCRASTINATION.

1. By the uncertainty of life. "Agree with thine adversary quickly," for life is uncertain.

2. By the transiency of opportunity.

(1) The great opportunity is passing away. "Whilst thou art in the way with him," viz. to the judgment or council, for the plaintiff apprehended the defendant.

(2) So are the minor opportunities of incident transient.

3. By the certainty of judgment.

(1) Every one we have injured is an adversary to us before God. (cf. Deu_24:14, 15 Jam_5:4, Jam_5:5)

(2) The implacable heart is before God an adversary to him that nourishes it.

(3) The adversary brings the sinner to the bar. Our Judge surveys motives. He weighs evidence truly. His justice cannot be evaded.

4. By the severity of retribution.

(1) The judge delivers the culprit to the officer. As holy angels are the convoy to the spirits of the just, so are fallen angels the officers of doom to the condemned.

(2) The officer commits the criminal to the prison. (see Mat_25:41 Jud_1:6 Rev_20:15)

(3) The punishment is crushing. The endurance of Gehenna fire until the uttermost farthing is paid. When can a bankrupt pay all? "It" we pay no share of our debt of obedience here, while in the way of probation, how can we do so when our evils are confirmed by continual impenitence, and the life of them is become the very principle of our existence?" (Bruce). J.A.M.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ye have heard - From the scribes reciting the law; Thou shalt do no murder - And they interpreted this, as all the other commandments, barely of the outward act. The judgement - The Jews had in every city a court of twenty-three men, who could sentence a criminal to be strangled. But the sanhedrim only (the great council which sat at Jerusalem, consisting of seventy-two men, ) could sentence to the more terrible death of stoning. That was called the judgment, this the council. Exod. xx, 13.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Mat 15:21-28.

Jesus Withdraws To Phoenicia

The story of the Syro-Phoenician woman is found also in Mar 7:24-30, in the same connection as here. Luke hastens through this part of the history, omitting various things, and stating others very briefly.

The jealousy of Herod Mar 14:1 f.), the hostility of the Pharisees (Mat 12:14, Mat 15:1, Mat 15:12; also Mat 4:12 Joh 4:1-3), and the fanatical notions of the masses, (Joh 6:15) still required that Jesus should withdraw from Galilee, as heretofore in Mat 14:13 Thence, probably from Capernaum. He now set out in a different direction, towards the northwest, into Phoenicia, thus getting beyond the jurisdiction of Herod, as in Mat 14:13, and hereafter in Mat 15:29, and Mat 16:5. Departed, withdrew, same word as in Mat 2:12, Mat 2:22, Mat 4:12, Mat 12:15, Mat 14:13. Into the coasts (Rev. Ver. parts) of Tyre and Sidon, i.e., the parts of the country, the region, belonging to those cities; so the same word in Mat 2:22, Mat 16:13; Mar 8:10; Act 2:10, Act 19:1, Act 20:2. ’Coasts,’ i.e., borders (see on "Mat 2:16"), is here an utterly erroneous translation of Wyc., Tyn., and followers, due to the generally received notion that our Lord never went beyond the bounds of Palestine; the word ’parts’ never means ’borders.’ Still, the term looks indefinite, and Mar 7:24 says’ borders,’ as Matthew also does in Mat 15:22; so it might seem not certain that Jesus went farther than to the boundaries of Phoenicia. But while ’borders’ often denotes the territory includes thereby, ’parts’ cannot mean simply the boundary. And the question is settled by Mar 7:31 (correct text), ’And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee.’ (See below on "Mat 15:29".) It is then certain that our Lord went into the heathen country of Phoenicia, the nearest part of which was about thirty miles from Capernaum. This does not conflict with the fact that his mission was exclusively to the Jews (Mat 15:24, for he did not go there to exercise his ministry, (Mar 7:24) and as soon as he had been induced to work a miracle which would attract attention and gather crowds, he went away again. He entered into a house (Mark), and wished to stay there in seclusion, just as Elijah had done in the house of a widow at Zarephath, or Sarepta, in the same country of Phoenicia. (1Ki 17:9 ff; Luk 4:25) He probably also desired bodily and mental rest for the disciples and himself, as on the first withdrawal not long before. (Mar 7:31) As to Tyre and Sidon, see on "Mat 11:21". The two cities together denote the country of Phoenicia. He was probably at first in the southern part belonging to Tyre, and afterwards went northward through the Sidon district. (Mar 7:31) We learn from Mar 3:8 Luk 6:17, that multitudes from the region of Tyre and Sidon had attended on our Lord’s ministry at an early period. It was a refreshing change for him and his disciples, in the hot weather of April or May, to leave the deep basin of the lake, so far below the level of the Mediterranean, and visit the mountain region of Phoenicia. (Compare on Mat 14:13)

Mat 15:22 f. And behold, calling attention to what follows as remarkable. A woman of Canaan. In the earliest times the people of Phoenicia are spoken of as Canaanites, (Jdg 1:3 f.) i.e., as belonging to the great tribe which occupied all the low lands, and which afterwards gave its name of Canaan to the whole land. It is probable that the Jews continued to apply this name to all the inhabitants of Phoenicia, though many of the later inhabitants may have been of different origin. To Matthew’s Jewish readers this word would show that she was a Gentile. Mark, having Gentile readers mainly in view, says (Mar 7:26) that she was a Greek, i.e., a Gentile, and also that she was a Syrophoenician by race, a term probably used by way of distinction from the Libyphoenicians or Carthaginians. Came out of the same coasts, i.e., that region or territory, as in Mat 2:16, Mat 4:13, Mat 8:34.

This means that she came, not from Galilee, but from the country of Tyre, to the place where Jesus was. Many writers, even Weiss and Edersh., understand that she came out of Phoenicia into Galilee, which they suppose Jesus had not yet left; but this arises from the persistence of the old notion that he did not really enter Phoenicia. Edersheim imagines that Jesus kept the Passover here, consequently in a Jewish house; but his chronological scheme is at this and some other points quite forced. Cried unto him, saying, the correct text omits ’unto him.’ The word denotes loud crying. Crieth after us, Mat 15:23, i.e., behind us, implies that she was following them along as they walked. It is easy to suppose that while staying at the house, (Mar 7:24) Jesus and his disciples were one day taking a walk, and that she having heard about him, (Mar 7:25)

followed behind and cried aloud as they went on Tischendorf reads in Mark ’came in,’ but it is evidently an "Alexandrian" alteration by some early critics who thought the scene of the interview was the house, not having duly considered Matthew. Have mercy on me, the word including also the idea of pity, which is here the prominent idea (see on "Mat 9:27"). She makes her child’s case her own. Lord see on "Mat 8:2". It is not clear whether this was an expression of high respect, or possibly of worship. She believed him to be the Messiah, as shown by her calling him Son of David. (Compare on Mat 9:27) Though a heathen, and living in a heathen country, she was yet near the land of Israel, familiar with the true religion, and like the woman of Zarephath, a worshipper of the true God. Perhaps she may have previously gone, among the many from Tyre and Sidon, (Mar 3:8) and attended the ministry of Jesus in Galilee. My daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. ’Badly demonized’ would be a literal rendering, though the Com. Ver. gives a more familiar English expression. ’Devil,’ however, should be ’demon,’ see on "Mat 8:31": as to demoniacal possessions, see on "Mat 8:28". Mark (Mar 7:25. Rev. Ver) uses a diminutive term, meaning ’little daughter,’ which shows that she was a child.

Mat 15:23 f. Here is a strong contrast; she cries aloud, he is absolutely silent. His reason for not answering appears below. The effect was to develop, strengthen, and manifest her faith (compare on Mat 9:28). It is often so now; if with hearty confidence in the Lord’s wisdom and mercy we continue to ask, we shall at last receive whatever he sees best for us, and besides may be improved in piety by the delay. The hearer of prayer is not less designing our good when he withholds or defers than when he "hears while we are yet speaking." His disciples, probably the Twelve, did not understand the wisdom and love of this apparent neglect. They were probably half touched and half annoyed by her loud and persistent cries, and perhaps also were uneasy lest she should draw attention to them, when they were wishing to remain in perfect retirement. So they came, lit., came near to Jesus and begged him to send her away, because she crieth after us. Some have thought they wished him simply to order her off, as troublesome and likely to attract to them the attention of others. But they had never seen him dismiss a suppliant in any other way than by doing what was asked; and that they desired him to grant her request is made plain by his answer, which is a reason why he should not grant it. Observe that this was an answer to the disciples, and not addressed to the woman. It is not clear that she heard it; for the statement in Mat 15:25, ’came and worshipped him,’ Implies that she had been following at some little distance, as does also the loud crying of Mat 15:22 f. I am (or was) not sent (Rheims), like ’I came’ in Mat 5:17, referring indefinitely to the time when the Father sent him forth to his mission in the world; he had no commission to go to any others, even as he had given the disciples none. (Mat 10:6) Jesus here and elsewhere speaks of himself as subordinate to the Father, with reference to his official position and work as the God-man, the Mediator (compare on Mat 11:27); this does not conflict with the idea that as the Eternal Son he is very God, and equal with the Father. (Joh 1:1 Rom 9:5) But (or except) unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, see on "Mat 10:6". He doubtless healed Gentile sick when brought to him in the land of Israel (Mat 4:24 f.; Mat 15:30 f. certainly in Mat 8:5 ff.); but now he had gone into a Gentile country, and must avoid entering upon a general ministry there. His ministry in Israel prepared the way for a blessing to the Gentiles. (Rom 15:8-10.) When his work was finished, then the apostles would be his "witnesses, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." (Act 1:8) It would have conflicted with the nature and design of Christ’s mission, had he anticipated this work of the apostles, though he alluded to it as a part of his own work. (Joh 10:16) The Jewish mind required slow preparation (as the history in Acts plainly shows) for the idea that Gentiles were to share freely the benefits of the Messianic reign; and the Jews would have been irritated and utterly repelled (Lutteroth), if their Messiah had at once begun a great work among the Gentiles. Jesus was induced to make an exception to the rule by this woman’s great faith and humble importunity, as the prophets had sometimes done. (Luk 4:25-27) There is no objection to supposing him overcome by importunity. But, in fact, this was hardly an exception, for her great faith brought her in some sense within the limits of his mission. (Gal 3:7) Notice that Mat 15:23 f. is found in Matthew only, who wrote especially for Jews, and desired to show that Jesus was the Messiah. Mark’s Gentile readers would not at first have understood such a saying as Mat 15:24, and would have been repelled by it.

Mat 15:25-27. The woman herself now comes. Worshipped him, bowing before him, probably prostrating herself, but not probably as to a Deity (compare on Mat 2:2, Mat 8:2). The Greek imperfect tense (correct text) not only states that she did this, but describes her as so doing. Jesus puts before her the same idea he had just stated to the disciples, that the Messianic benefits were designed for the Jews, and purposely employs harsh expressions which will develop her faith and humility. He had produced a similar effect in the centurion by an opposite course. (Mat 8:7) The Jews looked upon themselves as God’s ’children’; and spoke contemptuously of the Gentiles as ’dogs,’ unclean and vile. (Compare on Mat 7:6) The Gentiles around were accustomed to this, and therefore the expression here was not altogether so offensive and painful as it would seem to us. So the Mohammedans call Christians infidel dogs. It is not meet, or good, proper (kalon), pleasing to the sense of propriety. Wyc., Rheims, Tyn., Gen., say ’good’; Cran. gave ’mete.’ The woman’s reply not only shows a high degree of faith and humility, but also does credit to her shrewdness and prompt intelligence—perhaps stimulated by maternal affection and solicitude—for she gives the harshly expressed refusal an admirable turn in her favour. Truth (or yes) Lord, yet (for) the dogs eat of the crumbs. She does not present an idea opposed to what he had said, as the incorrect rendering of Com. Ver., ’yet,’[1] would indicate, but a confirmation of it. Yes, Lord, it is not proper to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs, for the dogs too eat of the crumbs that fall from their master’s table; they also have their lowly place, ’under the table’ (Mark), and their lowly portion. The Jewish people, she is aware, have a special mission in the world, and special privileges; and of these they need not be deprived by her request, for a despised Gentile also may have a humble share of Messianic blessing. He is not now healing any in Israel, and the chosen people will lose no Messianic good by this one act of pity for her. (Compare Mald., Weiss.) Luther: "Was not that a master stroke? She snares Christ in his own words." In Mark, what our Lord had said to her is introduced by the words, ’Let the children first be filled;’ implying that afterwards the dogs might get something. This furnished all the more natural occasion for the turn she gave to her reply. The Greek term in Mat 15:26 f. and Mar 7:27 f. is a diminutive, and leads us to think of smaller dogs, allowed to run freely about the house and under the table. The diminutive must have been intentionally used here, for it is found nowhere else in the Greek Bible, while the common word occurs five times in New Testament, and thirty-three times in Sept. Everywhere in the Bible dogs are spoken of as objects of dislike. In Tob 5:16, a dog is a companion, a thing very rarely the case in the East, where dogs run wild. It is hardly proper to suppose that ’little dogs’ is here a term of affection; and Weiss’ notion of lap-dogs, the children’s pets, is a strange anachronism.—This heroine of faith is an example to all persons who are spiritually seeking Christ. Some after awhile grow despondent, and even fretful, as if badly treated, in that they do not succeed as others do. Let them learn from her humble perseverance.

[1] Wyc., Cran., Gen., have ’for,’ Rheims exactly ’for.. also.’ Tyn. gave ’nevertheless,’ and so Com. Ver. Peshito omit the ’for,’ apparently because the meaning ’yet.’ All. but Rheims overlook the ’also.’ B. and was not perceived. In Mar 7:28 it is also omitted by several other MSS. and versions, probably for the same mason. Why should it have been inserted if not originally present in either Gospel? How then should W. H. bracket ’for’ in Matt.? Yet it may be spurious in Mark. The Greek word means in English either ’also’ (too) or ’even,’ according to the connection.

Mat 15:28. O woman, more expressive than simply ’woman.’ Great is thy faith. The world is ever admiring and lauding greatness, but it is great intellect or imagination, great ambition or force of character, beauty or amiability, great learning or discoveries, possessions or conquests; here is the noblest praise for the truest greatness. The centurion’s faith likewise excited the wonder of Jesus (see on "Mat 8:10"), and he too was a heathen. Be it unto thee, or let it come to pass for thee; the same phrase as in Mat 8:18 and Mat 6:10. The expression in Mar 7:29 may have immediately followed that given in Matthew As thou wilt, Trench: "He who at first seemed as though he would have denied her the smallest boon, now opens to her the full treasure-house of his grace, and bids her to help herself, to carry away what she will. He had shown to her for awhile, like Joseph to his brethren, the aspect of severity; but, like Joseph, he could not maintain it long—or rather he would not maintain it an instant longer than was needful, and after that word of hers, that mighty word of an undoubting faith, it was needful no more." Our Lord does not speak of her humility, though so remarkable, for that was a result of her faith. Perhaps the earliest offspring of unbelief is pride, (1Ti 3:6) while faith at once gives birth to humility; and in both cases, the progeny reinforces the parent. So, too, her faith had led to perseverance—a perseverance which may be compared with that of Jacob, in wrestling with the same Eternal Word,(Gen 32:24) who was now permanently incarnate as Jesus. From that very hour, compare Mat 8:13, Mat 9:22.—The so-called Clementine homilies (end of second century), in telling this story, call the woman Justa, and her daughter Bernice, which names may have been either invented or traditional.

Homiletical And Practical

Mat 15:21. Jesus withdrawing. (1) From what? (a) From the jealousy of Herod. (b) From the machinations of the Jewish rulers. (c) From the fanatical designs of some who counted themselves his followers. (2) In what spirit? Personal prudence. Patient forbearance. (3) Still everywhere doing good, Mat 14:14, Mat 15:28-30, Mat 17:18. (4) At last, when his hour is come, he will withdraw no longer, Joh 12:23.

Joh 12:22-28. The Canaanitish woman. (1) Believes in the Jewish Messiah, Joh 12:22. (2) Humbly submits to be harshly spoken to by him, Joh 12:26. (3) Shrewdly converts refusal into a new plea, Joh 12:27. (4) Gains her cause, and wins the highest possible commendation. Joh 12:28.

Joh 12:28. Great faith. (1) Seen in a heathen; compare centurion. (Mat 8:10) (2) Attended by great humility, (compare Luk 18:18) and producing great perseverance. (Compare Luk 18:7) (3) Recognized and rewarded by him who knows the heart. Joh 2:24 f.

Mat 15:22. A mother making her child’s case her own.

Mat 15:23. Disciples seeming kinder than their Lord. Henry: "There may be love in Christ’s heart while there are frowns in his face."

Mat 15:24. Hall: "We need no other rule of life than the intention of our several stations; and if he that was God would take no further scope to himself than the limits of his commission, how much doth it concern us frail men to keep within compass."

Mat 15:25. Chrys.: "She was the more instant. But it is not so with us; rather, when we fail to obtain, we desist; whereas it ought to make us the more urgent." Theophyl.: "Consider that even if holy men pray for us, as the apostles did for her, yet we ourselves, praying for ourselves, accomplish more."

Mat 15:27. Maternal shrewdness turning the Saviour’s argument against him. Henry: "Unbelief is apt to draw dismal conclusions even from comfortable premises; (Jdg 13:22 f.) but faith can find encouragement even in that which is discouraging, and get nearer to God by taking hold on that hand which is stretched out to push it away."

Mat 15:23-28. Jesus glad to be overcome, by intercession, by personal entreaty, by argument.

John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Lord now proceeds to prove His condemning statement by expounding a few of the commandments of the Law according to their full spiritual significance:

v. 21. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill: and, Whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment.

They were accustomed to hear this in the regular synagogue services, where the reading of the Law was never omitted. It was said both to them of old time, Exo 20:13; Deu 5:17; Gen 9:5-6, and by them of old time, in the precepts delivered by tradition from father to son as well as by the teachers of the people, 2Ch 17:7-9, but the addition, fixing the penalty, was made in the interpretation of the rabbis. But by this explanation the meaning of "kill" was restricted to actual murder, and the commandment of God became a mere external legal enactment. The end of the transgression was penalized, but the beginning, in desires, in thoughts, in words, was not restrained. "Behold, that is the beautiful holiness of the Pharisees, which can cleanse itself, and remain pious, so long as it does not kill with the hand, though the heart be filled with anger, hatred, and envy, the tongue also with cursing and blaspheming."

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Here our blessed Saviour begins to expound the spiritual sense and meaning of the law, and to vindicate it from the corrupt grosses of the Pharisees:

Where observe, Christ doth not deliver a new law, but expounds the old; doth not injoin new duties, but inforces the old ones. The law of God was always perfect, requiring the sons of men to love God with all their hearts, and their neighbor as themselves.

In this exposition of the law, Christ begins with the sixth commandment, Thou shalt not kill; where he shews, that besides the actual taking away of life, a person may violate that command.

1. By rash anger.

2. By disgraceful and reviling words.

Thence learn, that every evil motion of our hearts consented to against our neighbour, all unjust anger towards him, all terms of contempt put upon him, are forbidden by the law of God, no less than the gross act of murder itself.

Learn, 2. That wrath and anger, without just cause, hath its degrees; and according to the degrees of the sin, will the degrees of punishment be proportionable in the next world.

Learn, 3. That self-murder is here forbidden, and in no case lawful, man having no more power over his own life than over another’s; though life be ever so miserable and painful, yet must we wait God’s time for our dismission and release.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

21. Ye have heard. Jesus now gives the law a new form to adapt it to his kingdom. It takes a new, a deeper, a more spiritual shape and meaning. By them of old time. In this case, Moses. See Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17. Thou shalt not kill. One of the ten commandments. Christ, the Divine Lawgiver, modifies it. In danger of the judgment. The civil courts. The law provided in every city a court of seven judges, who could sentence a criminal to death (Deut. 16:18).

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Jesus continues to teach about how he has come to fulfill the Old Testament law. Here he begins to speak about murder and anger.

General Information:

Jesus is talking to a group of people about what they as individuals should and should not do. The "you" is plural in "you have heard" and "I say to you." The understood "you" is singular in "Do not kill," but in some languages it may need to be plural. (See: Forms of You)

it was said to them in ancient times

This can be expressed with an active verb. AT: "God said to those who lived long ago" or "Moses said to your ancestors long ago" (See: Active or Passive)

Whoever kills will be in danger of the judgment

Here "the judgment" implies that a judge will condemn the person to die. AT: "A judge will condemn anyone who kills another person" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

kill ... kills

This word refers to murder, not to all forms of killing.

But I say

Jesus agrees with God and his word, but he does not agree with the way the religious leaders have applied God's word. The "I" is emphatic. This indicates that what Jesus says is equally important to the original commands from God. Try to translate this phrase in a way that shows that emphasis.

brother

This refers to a fellow believer, not to a literal brother or a neighbor.

will be in danger of the judgment

It seems here Jesus is not referring to a human judge but rather to God condemning the person who is angry with his brother. (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

worthless person ... fool

These are insults for people who cannot think correctly. "Worthless person" is close to "brainless," where "fool" adds the idea of disobedience to God.

council

This was likely a local council, not the main Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.

translationWords

judge

brother

worthy

council

fool

fire

hell

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

21. ἠκούσατε, ‘ye heard,’ a use of the Greek aorist to express frequentative action where in English it would be natural to use the present tense; ‘ye hear’ daily in the Synagogue the law as it was delivered to them of old time. See note ch. Mat 11:27.

τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, ‘to them of old time.’ This rendering is made almost certain by the datival force of ὑμῖν in the antithetic clause, Mat 5:22.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

21-48.] Six examples of the true fulfilment of the law by Jesus. First example. The law of murder. (For a very full discussion of the various points of Jewish and Christian law and morality occurring in this part of the sermon, consult throughout Tholuck’s elaborate commentary, 3rd edn.)

21. ἠκούσατε] viz. by the reading of the law in the synagogues, and the exposition of the Scribes.

τοῖς ἀρχαίοις] has been rendered, as in E. V., ‘by the ancients;’ in which case, Moses and his traditional expounders are classed together; or, ‘to the ancients,’—which last interpretation seems to me to be certainly the right one. Both constructions are found (see reff.); but every instance of the former is either (as ch. 6:1) resolvable into the latter, or ambiguous, and none can be produced with ἐῤῥήθη, whereas all the latter have this very word, which is never followed in the N.T. or LXX by any other substantive but that denoting the persons to whom the words are spoken. The omission of τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, vv. 27, 31, 38, 43, also favours the rendering to, which was the interpretation of the Greek fathers. Chrysostom expands it thus: τί οὖν αὐτός φησιν; ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐῤῥέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις Οὐ φονεύσεις· καίτοι ὁ καὶ ἐκεῖνα δοὺς αὐτός ἐστιν· ἀλλὰ τέως ἀπροσώπως αὐτὰ τίθησιν. εἴτε γὰρ εἶπεν ὅτι ἠκούσατε ὅτι εἶπον τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, δυσπαράδεκτος ὁ λόγος ἐγίνετο, καὶ πᾶσιν ἂν προσέστη τοῖς ἀκούουσιν· εἴτε αὖ πάλιν εἰπὼν ὅτι ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐῤῥέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου, ἐπήγαγεν Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω, μείζων ἂν ἒδοξεν εἶναι ὁ αὐθαδιασμός, Hom. xvi. 5, p. 210. Meyer (Exo_2) has well observed that ἐῤῥήθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις corresponds to λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, and the ἐγώ to the understood subject of ἐῤῥ. He has not, however, apprehended the deeper truth which underlies the omission of the subject of ἐῤῥ., that it was the same person who said both. It will be noticed that our Lord does not here speak against the abuse of the law by tradition, but that every instance here given is either from the law itself, or such traditional teaching as was in accordance with it (e.g. the latter part of this verse is only a formal expansion of the former). The contrasts here are not between the law misunderstood and the law rightly understood, but between the law and its ancient exposition, which in their letter, and as given, were κενά,—and the same as spiritualized, πεπληρωμένα, by Christ: not between two lawgivers, Moses and Christ, but between οἱ ἀρχαῖοι and ὑμεῖς; between (the idea is Chrysostom’s) the children, by the same husband, of the bondwoman and of the freewoman. The above remarks comprise a brief answer to the important but somewhat misapprehended question, whether our Lord impugned the Mosaic law itself, or only its inadequate interpretation by the Jewish teachers? See this treated at great length by Tholuck, Bergp. pp. 153-165, edn. 3. There is no inconsistency in the above view with the assertion in ver. 19: the just and holy and true law was necessarily restricted in meaning and degraded in position, until He came, whose office it was to fulfil and glorify it.

κρίσει] viz. the courts in every city, ordered Deu 16:18, and explained by Josephus Antt. iv. 8. 14 to consist of seven men, and to have the power of life and death. But τῇ κρίσει in the next verse (see note) is the court of judgment in the Messiah’s kingdom.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

21-26. First illustration of the fulfilment of the law.

(L) 21. Ye heard that it was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not commit murder; and whosoever commits murder is liable to the judgement.]

ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρῥέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις] We might have expected, “It is written in the law,” or “Ye have read in the law”; cf. 12:5, 21:16, 42, 22:31; but here the audience presupposed is one of unlearned people (cf. 7:28). For the “hearing,” compare the saying of the multitude in Joh 12:34 ἠκούσαμεν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου. Moreover, each word in the sentence is chosen in order to form a direct antithesis to ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν. This partly accounts for ἠκούσατε rather than ἀνέγνωτε, and for ἐρῥέθη rather than γέγραπται. Further, “it was said,” is the most frequent form of biblical citation in the Rabbinical writings; cf. Bacher, i. 6. For antithesis in this Gospel, cf. 15:2, 3 and 4, 5. τοῖς ἀρχαίοις is difficult to parallel; but desire for antithesis to “I say,” having produced “Ye heard that it was said,” it is not easy to see what other phrase could have been found as a contrast to ὑμῖν. For the use of ἀρχαῖοι as the men of a past age, cf. Aristoph. Eq. 507; Arist. Metaphys. xi. 1. 2, p. 240; and the phrases κατὰ τοὺς ἀρχαίους or κατʼ ἀρχαίους quoted by Steph. Thes. 1. ii. 2098.—οὐ φονεύσεις] is quoted from Exo 20:15, Deu 5:18 (LXX.). The following words are not a direct quotation, but a summary of the teaching of the law; cf. Exo 21:12. For τῇ κρίσει = the verdict of the judges, cf. Deu 17:8 ἐν κρίσει ἀνὰ μέσον αἶμα αἵματος καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον κρίσις κρίσεως.—ἔνοχος] is here apparently equivalent to the Rabbinic תַיָב = condemned, guilty. ἕνοχος τῇ κρίσει means guilty, and so condemned by the properly constituted authority. The phrase is therefore equivalent to “shall be put to death”; cf. 26:66 ἔνοχος θανάτου = He is guilty (and worthy) of death.

(L E?) 22. But I say to you, That every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to the judgement. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be liable to the Sanhedrin. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be liable to the Gehenna of fire.]

Not only will the external act receive due punishment at human tribunals, but the inner feeling that prompts it is liable to the verdict of condemnation which will be pronounced by God. In other words, both prohibition and penalty must be interpreted spiritually as well as literally. The addition of the last two clauses is unexpected and difficult. Nothing further seems wanted. The law said that murder should be punished by the proper authority. Christ says that the feeling of anger which prompts the crime will meet with the divine condemnation. In this way He fulfilled the law by drawing out the moral principles which underlay the enactment. But the next two clauses seem to create an artificial distinction between different grades of enmity and between the penalties to be assigned to them. τῷ συνεδρίῳ, the Sanhedrin, i.e. the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, seems to presuppose the interpretation of τῇ κρίσει as equivalent to “the local district court.” Thus we have a climax: the local court, the Sanhedrin, the final judgement of God. The corresponding sins are anger, contempt, and abuse. But, of course, only the last two of these would, in fact, lead to trial either before a local court or the Sanhedrin. Nor is there any distinction between them to justify the increasing severity of punishment.

Zahn thinks that Christ is here satirising by imitation the Scribal methods of exegesis; showing their futility by a reductio ad absurdum which at the same time serves to emphasise his main point, that sins of the inner life are as culpable as those of the external act. Others would reconstruct the passage. Prof. Richards suggests that 22b and c should follow v. 21. The three clauses would then form a Rabbinical comment and explanation of the text “Thou shalt not commit murder,” followed by Christ’s simple antithesis, “Whosoever is angry” is liable to the judgement. But in this case τῇ κρίσει = the local court, must be understood in a sense different from that of τῇ κρίσει in Christ’s answer where it = the judgement of God. For another rearrangement of the verses, see DB., art. “Sermon on the Mount,” 26. The fact that as the passage stands κρίσει of v. 21 and κρίσει of v. 22 must be taken in two different senses, suggests that 22b and c do not originally belong here. They may be duplicate versions of a saying which originally stood in some context similar to this, where a distinction was being drawn by Christ between moral disorder and external action. Or they may be current Scribal precepts added here by the editor in a manner which has led to their being understood as part of Christ’s words: “And (it was also said by the Scribes) whosoever,” etc. For parallels, cf: Kiddushin 28a “He that calleth his neighbour a slave, let him be excommunicated; he that calleth him a bastard, let him be punished with forty stripes”; Bab. Mes. 58b. Vv. 21 and 22 will then mean: “It was said in the law that the murderer should be subjected to the judgement of death. I say that anger is equally deserving of judgement.”

Ῥακά] seems to be equivalent to the Aramaic רֵיָקא = empty. It was a term of contemptuous address; cf. Jas 2:20. It is not infrequently used in Jewish writings; cf. Bab. Berakh 32b, where it is applied by a ruler to one who had not returned his salute, Mechilta (Ugol.), 389, Sanhedrin 100a.

μωρέ] is the Greek word. It has quite unnecessarily been identified with the Hebrew מוֹרֶח Num 20:10 Since the Jews borrowed many foreign words, it is quite possible that μωρός was in use amongst the Aramaic-speaking population in Christ’s time. Or μωρέ may be a translation of Ῥακά. For examples of μωρός in the Midrashim, cf. Levy, Neuheb. Wörterb., and Pesikta, Rab. Kahana 14 (Wünsche, p. 158), where it is used to explain Num 20:10.

γέενναν τοῦ πυρός] ניהנם was the name of a valley on the South-west of Jerusalem. In Jewish literature it became a name for the place of punishment of the godless. It occurs in Apoc. Bar 59:10 “the mouth of Gehenna”; 2 Es 7:36 “the furnace of Gehenna shall be revealed”; and Targ. Is 3314 “the wicked shall be given over to Gehenna, (to) burning of everlasting fire.” It occurs frequently in the later Rabbinical literature. It has three doors and seven names, Bab. Erubh 19a. Fire has 1/60th part of the heat of the fire of Gehenna, Bab. Berakh. 57b. “Those who are destined for Gehenna are called sons of Gehenna,” Rosh ha Sh 17a. It was one of seven things created before the world, Bab. Pes 54a Cf. Weber, Jüd. Theol 341 ff.; Volz, Jüd. Eschat. 288 ff.

τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ] D al S1 S2 add είκῆ. The word has strong second century attestation, but may perhaps more probably have been added as a limitation of a wide generalisation, than omitted as unnecessary; cf. on v. 11.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.