Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Matthew 5:1 - 5:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(b) 5-7. Illustration of the Messiah’s teaching
From the Logia.2
Analysis—
A. Nine Beatitudes, 5:3-12.
B. Two metaphors of discipleship, 5:13-16.
C. Relation of the Christian character to the Law, 5:17-48
The Christian character is not released from the obligations of the Law. It is under still heavier responsibilities.
Christian “righteousness” is to be not less than that of the scribes, but greater, 17-20.
Five illustrations of the permanence of the Law and of this greater righteousness.
(1). Threefold interpretation of “do not kill,” 21-22.
Twofold application, 23-26.
(2). Interpretation of “do not commit adultery,” 27-28.
Twofold application, 29, 30.
Application of this to divorce, 31-32.
(3). Interpretation of “do not swear falsely,” 33-34a
Fourfold application, 34b-37.
(4). Interpretation of the lex talionis, 38-39a.
Fourfold application, 39b-42.
(5). Interpretation of “love thy neighbour,” 43-45.
Twofold illustration, 46-48.
D. Three illustrations of the way in which the Christian “righteousness” is to exceed that of the Pharisees, 6:1-18.
(1). Alms, 2-4.
(2). Prayer, 5-15.
(3). Fasting, 16-18.
E. Three Prohibitions, 6:19-7:6.
(1). μ θσυίεε 19-34.
(2). μ κίεε 7:1-5.
(3). μ δτ, 6.
F. Three Commands, 7-23.
(1). ατῖε 7-12.
(2). εσλαε 13-14.
(3). ποέεε 15-23.
G. Concluding Parable, 24-27.
(E) 1. And seeing the multitudes, He went up into the mountain: and having sat down, His disciples came to Him.] Luk_6:17 has: “And He came down with them, and stood upon a level place.”
τ ὄο] Cf. 14:23, 15:29. The article is less natural here than in these two places, where it may not unnaturally designate the hill country adjoining the lake. It suggests that the Sermon had long been traditionally connected with a mountain, and seems to mean the mountain upon which the Sermon was delivered.
κθσνο ατῦποῆθνατ] For the unclassical construction, see Blass, p. 251.
ποῆθνis a favourite word with Mt. It occurs 52 times, 6 in Mk., 10 in Lk., 1 in Ju.
ο μθτὶατῦ Since nothing has been told us apart from 4:18-22 of any disciples, their sudden appearance here is a hint that the Sermon is anticipated here from a later period.
2. And He opened His mouth and taught them, saying.] Lk. has: “And He lifted up His eyes upon His disciples, and said.”
ἀοξςτ σόαατῦAgain of Philip, Act_8:35; Peter, Act_10:34; Paul, Act_18:14; cf. Luk_1:64. It is a somewhat formal introductory clause; cf. Job_3:1.
(L) 3. Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.] Lk. has: “Blessed are ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.” μκρο in the LXX. is equivalent to אשְֵ. It describes a state not of inner feeling on the part of those to whom it is applied, but of blessedness from an ideal point of view in the judgement of others.
ο πωο τ πεμτ] Cf. κθρὶτ κρί v. 8; τπιοςτ πεμτ, Psa_33:19; ζω τ πεμτ, Act_18:25; ἁί τ πεμτ, 1Co_7:34. By analogy with these parallels the clause must mean “those whose spirit is poor.” The idea of poverty intended can best be reached through the corresponding Hebrew word עני for which πωό stands in the LXX. 38 times. The עיis the man who is poor in the sense of being needy. But the word frequently denotes the poor man who is oppressed by the rich and powerful. The word then attracts to itself the sense of poor, pious, religious people who are oppressed by the ungodly. They are therefore the objects of God’s favour. He does not forget them, Psa_9:13, but delivers them, Psa_34:10, and has compassion on them, Isa_49:13. On these lines πωο here will mean those who, because they endeavour to lead pious lives of obedience to God, are “poor,” i.e. are oppressed and downtrodden by ungodly people. They are “poor” as needing God’s help. The τ πεμτ serves to spiritualise the sense, and to lay the emphasis rather on the religious and moral than on the social condition of those referred to. Their spirit is “poor,” because they feel their need of God’s help, and are aware that it can come from Him alone. In their inner spiritual life they realise their need of God, and this conscious spiritual poverty constitutes their claim to the blessings promised in the next clause. The τ πεμτ here suggests that πωο in Luk_6:20 should be interpreted in the same sense and not of literal poverty. The editor of the First Gospel probably felt quite rightly that the simple πωο would be misinterpreted by Greek readers unacquainted with Semitic idiom. It compressed a complicated Hebrew train of thought in a Greek word which would be misunderstood if literally interpreted. See Zahn’s admirable note on the passage.
For theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.] On the meaning of this phrase, see Introduction, p. lxvii. It is clear that the meaning must be determined from a general survey of the sense which the phrase has throughout the Gospel. The ἐτνprobably was not represented in the Semitic original, and cannot be pressed. If the “kingdom” be a state or condition which is necessarily future, the ἐτνmust naturally be equivalent to ἔτι “The kingdom is theirs, i.e. will belong to them when it comes or is realised.” Or, “they will enter into it when it comes”; or, “the kingdom will consist of such as these.” The future tenses in the following verses suggest that the whole emphasis of the blessings lies upon a future condition which shall compensate for the unsatisfying present.
4, 5. The order of these two verses is uncertain. The arrangement πνονε—πᾳῖ is found in אB. C and most unc., in most curss. in S1 S3 S4 S5 b f q, Tert. Orig.1 On the other hand, the order πᾳῖ—πνονε occurs in D 33 a c ff1 g1 h k S2 Tat.2 That is to say, both arrangements were known in the second century. Zahn is probably right in saying that if vv. 3, 5 had originally stood together with their rhetorical antithesis of heaven and earth, it is unlikely that any copyist would have thrust v. 4 in between them. On the other hand, the Western scribes, who represent the order 5, 4, may have preferred this arrangement because it heightened the antithesis, or to draw together the closely allied πωο and πᾳῖ. Wellhausen, observing that the clause about the πᾳῖ is directly quoted from Psa_36:11, and that its position in this chapter varies in the manuscripts, condemns it as an interpolation. If πωο τ πεμτ in v. 3, and not rather πωο simply (= עים were original, there would be something to be said for this on the ground that πωο τ πεμτ and πᾳῖ are practically synonymous terms. πωο, as we have seen, corresponds in the LXX. to עים and implies not poverty alone or in the literal sense, but misery suffered at the hands of others because of godliness. πᾳῖ, on the other hand, corresponds to עום(8 times). This word emphasises not the social condition implied in עיםbut humbleness of mind. (See Driver, art. “Poor,” DB.) But by adding τ πεμτ the editor has obliterated the distinctive meaning of πωο as = עים and made it practically equivalent to πᾳῖ = עום But this identity belongs to the Greek forms of the sayings, not to their Semitic original. There the distinction would have been clear. The Lord singled out for His approval both the godly oppressed and the godly humble-minded. Of the former, He declared that when the kingdom came, they and, by implication, not their ungodly oppressors, should enter into it. Of the latter, He affirms that because they humbly submit themselves to God’s will, and look for His help, they shall, as the Psalmist said, “inherit the earth,” which, purged of the ungodly, will be coextensive with the kingdom. It seems best, therefore, to retain the usual order of verses, on the grounds (a) that it is best supported; (b) that it was more likely to be reversed than the rival order, which would at once suggest itself to scribes who would like to bring πωο and πᾳῖ into close connection, and to emphasise by close contact the antithesis between “heaven” and “earth.”
(L) 4. Blessed are those who mourn: because they shall be comforted.] Cf. Isa_61:2 πρκλσιπνα τῦ πνονα. The thought is of those who mourn for the sin in Israel, which checks and thwarts God’s purposes for His people, and delays the coming of the kingdom.
(L) 5. Blessed are “the humble-minded”: because “they shall inherit the earth”.] Quoted from Psa_36:11. See above.
(L) 6. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness: because they shall be filled.] Lk has: “Blessed are ye who mourn now: for ye shall be filled.” Cf. Jer_38:25 (LXX.) ὅιἐέυαπσνψχνδψσνκὶπσνψχνπιῶα ἐέλσ; Isa_55:1, Psa_106:9 (LXX.) ὅιἐότσνψχνκννκὶψχνπιῶα ἐέλσνἀαῶ.
The thought is of those who spend their lives in endeavours to fulfil the requirements of the law, and to obtain the “righteousness” which God demands. Such whole-hearted search will not fail.
χραθσνα] A coarse word softened down in Comedy and in colloquial use. Common in the LXX. and N.T. in the sense to feed. See Kennedy, Sources, 82.
(L) 7. Blessed are the merciful: because they shall obtain mercy.] i.e. in the day of judgement.
(L) 8. Blessed are the pure in heart: because they shall see God.]
κθρὶτ κρί] Cf. Psa_23:4.—ὄοτι Cf. Psa_10:7. For the vision of God as the aim of the religious life, cf. Philo, De Vit. Contempl. ii. 473: The Therapeutæaim at vision τῦὌτς They persevere μχι ἂ τ πθύεο ἴωι. Leg. Alleg. i. 115: the wise man is θωί τνθίντεόεο. De Vit. Mos. ii. 106: Moses by his ascetic life entered into the darkness where God was, τ ἀέτ φσιθηῇκτνῶ. Cf. Friedlä Die Relig. Beweg. pp. 258 ff., from whom these references are taken. Cf. also Rev_22:4, 1Jn_3:2 ὀόεαατνκθςἐτν and Philo, de Abr. ii. 10: ὅῳδ ἐεέεομ μνντ ἄλ ὅαἐ τ φσιδʼἐιτμςκτλμάεν ἀλ κὶτνπτρ κὶπιτντνσμάτνὁᾶ, ἐʼἄρνεδιοίςἴτ πολλθς
(L) 9. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.] Cf. Secrets of Enoch 52:11 “Blessed is he who establishes peace and love”; Aboth 1:12 “Hillel said, Be ye of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace”; Ps.-Sol. 17:30 γώεα γρατὺ ὅιπνε υο θο ατνεσ; Aboth 3:18 “The Israelites are beloved, for they are called children of God.” Cf. Deu_14:1.
(L) 10. Blessed are they who have suffered persecution for righteousness’ sake: because theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.]
The preceding eight blessings seem to form a complete paragraph begun and ended with the same promise, “because theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.” It is clear that this phrase contains in itself all the blessings promised in the six intermediate clauses. It seems clear also that the kingdom is regarded as a condition of things still in the future. When it comes, those whose spirit is poor, i.e. those who humbly rely upon God, or, as originally spoken without τ πεμτ, those who are poor, i.e. the oppressed godly people, will be its citizens. Then those who mourn for the sin which now delays its coming, will receive consolation when they see righteousness triumphant. Then, too, the humble minded, i.e. those who feel their need of God, will inherit the earth. It seems best to suppose that this clause should be understood literally in spite of the fact that it is a quotation from the Psalter. The earth purified from sin and purged of the ungodly, who now oppress the “poor” and meek godly people, will then be coextensive with the kingdom. Then, too, those who hunger and thirst after the divine righteousness, will be satisfied when they find it to be the ruling principle in their own lives and in those of other people. The merciful, i.e. those who show mercy and compassion to be the ruling principle of their lives, will obtain mercy at the great day of judgement, which divides the present age from the establishment of the kingdom. The pure in heart will then see God. The peacemakers will be openly proclaimed as God’s sons. Those who have been persecuted for their devotion to religion will become its citizens.
(L) 11, 12. In the ninth blessing Christ addresses Himself directly to the disciples. S. Luke has the second person throughout.
Blessed are ye when they shall reproach you and persecute you, and speak all manner of evil against you for My sake. Rejoice and exult, Because your reward is great in the heavens. For so did they per secute the prophets who were before you.] Lk. has: “Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you, and reproach you, and cast out your name as evil for the sake of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven. For likewise did their fathers treat the prophets.”
μσό] The later Jewish theology is much coloured by ideas of reward and punishment. In Wis 2:22 we read of the “reward of holiness” μσό—ὁιττς Cf. Wis 5:15, 2 Es 7:35, 83, 98, Est_7:8:33, 39, 13:56. Occasionally, however, we find a protest against the idea of reward for goodness. “Be not,” saith Antigonus of Socho, “as slaves who minister to the Lord in order to receive recompense,” Aboth 1:3. Here the thought is not that of reward for piety, but of future recompense for a present condition of persecution and reproach. The number of the Beatitudes is much disputed. They can be reckoned as seven by disconnecting 11-12 from the preceding verses and uniting 8 and 10 as one (so Meyer), or by regarding v. 5 as a marginal gloss (so Bacon, Wellhausen); or they may be reckoned as eight by treating 10-12 as one beatitude (so Votaw), or by disconnecting 11-12 from the preceding (so Zahn). But it seems better to treat them as nine in number in spite of the fact that 11-12 only repeat and apply v. 10 to the disciples. In the Secrets of Enoch, two groups of Blessings occur, one (42:6-14) of nine, the other (52) of seven Beatitudes.
11. κθ ὐῶ] Add ψυόεο, אB. al. Om. D k S1. The word seems to have been added to limit a wide generalisation; cf. v. 22.
13-16. Not in Lk.’s sermon.
(EL) 13. Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have become insipid, wherewith shall it be salted? it is no longer of any use, except to be cast out, and trodden under foot of men.] Cf. Luk_14:34, Luk_14:35.
The idea underlying “salt” here is probably its use as a preservative. The disciples are the element in the world which keeps it wholesome, and delays the day of decay and of consequent judgment. But since salt may become useless for household purposes, and be thrown out of doors, so the disciples should beware lest they lose their essentially Christian character. The saying is probably proverbial, and it is needless to object that, properly speaking, salt cannot change its nature. It may become so soiled or mixed with dirt and other extraneous substances as to become practically useless.
(EL) 14. Ye are the light of the world. A city set upon a hill cannot be hid.]
If salt designates the disciples as an element in the world, so light describes their attitude to it as one of aloofness and separation. But though separated from it they cannot but exercise an influence upon it, just as a city built on a hill is too conspicuous to remain unnoticed. For the light, cf. Test. Lev_14:3 “Ye are the lights of Israel”; 2 Es 12:42 “Thou only art left …as a lamp in a dark place”; Php_2:15. For κιέηof a city, cf. 2 Mac 4:33. For the city, cf. Logia Jesu 7: πλςᾠοοην ἐʼἄρνὄοςὑηο κὶἐτργέηοτ πσῖ δντιοτ κυῆα. For the combination of “light” and “city,” cf. Cicero, Catilin. iv. 6: “Videor enim mihi hanc urbem videre, lucem orbis terrarum atque arcem omnium gentium.”
(L) 15. Neither do they light a lamp, and place it under the bushel, but on the lampstand; and it lightens all who are in the house.] Cf. Luk_8:16, Luk_11:33, Mar_4:21.
(L) 16. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in the heavens.]
λχί] a word of the later Greek writers for the Attic λχίν It is used in the LXX., Joseph., Luc., Philo, Galen, but was an old vernacular word. Cf. Kennedy, Sources, 40.
16. τνπτρ ὑῶ τνἐ τῖ ορνῖ] The phrase is characteristic of Mt. See Introduction, p. lvi. It occurs besides only in Mar_11:25, cf. Luk_11:13. As early as the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus we find Israelites addressing God as “Father”; cf. Wis 2:16, 14:3, Ecclus 23:1. 4 “O Lord, Father and Master of my life”; and the idea of God as Father of the nation had been familiar from very primitive times. For examples from the later literature, cf. To 13:4 “our Father,” Jub 1:24 “their Father,” 3 Mac 5:7 “their merciful God and Father.” The term “Father in heaven” is not infrequent in the Rabbinical literature; cf. Mechilta (Ugol.) 397: “my Father who is in heaven”; 331: “their Father who is in heaven”; Siphri (Ugol.) 871: “his Father who is in heaven”; Aboth 5:22 “Jehuda ben Tema said, Be …strong as a lion to do the will of thy Father who is in heaven”; Sotah, ix. 15 (49b): “Upon whom shall we lean? Upon our Father who is in heaven”; Rosh ha-Shana, iii. 8 (29a): “As often as the Israelites directed their heart towards their Father who is in heaven they were strong”; Shabbath 116a, Joma, viii. 9 (85b), Pesikta (Wü pp. 228, 238; Vayyikra R. (Wü p. 222; Siphri (Ugol.) 593. These examples carry us back to the beginning of the second cent. a.d., for the speaker in the last case is Simeon ben Jochai, who lived c. 130 a.d.1 Cf. Bacher, Ag. d. Tann. ii. 70 ff. For the phrase in Jewish literature, see Dalm. Words, pp. 184 ff. Bousset, Rel. Jud. p. 357, sees in the phrase a possible influence of Christianity upon Judaism; cf. Bischoff, Jesu und die Rabbinen, p. 74. But it is not improbable that the phrase was already current in Palestine at the time of Christ.
13-16. Two of the verses in this section find parallels in Lk. V. 13 occurs in Luk_14:34, Luk_14:35 in a somewhat different form, akin partly to Mt., partly to Mar_9:50, where Lk. in his parallel passage omits it. Mt. also omits it in the parallel to Mk. V. 15 finds a parallel in Luk_8:16 = Mar_4:21, where Mt. omits it, and again in Luk_11:33. It is therefore probable that Lk. had not this section in his Sermon, and that the editor of Mt. has inserted it here; because it is more likely that Mt. should have inserted, in accordance with his general tendency to enlarge discourses, than that Lk should have omitted The setting of these sayings in Luk_14:34 and 11:33 is not internally probable, and it seems very unlikely that he would have omitted them from the Sermon in order to place them afterwards in such artificial connections. The clauses ὑεςἐτ τ ἅα τςγς ὑεςἐτ τ φςτῦκσο are very probably editorial additions to link together detached sayings.
(L) 17-20. Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one yō or one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all things come to pass. Whosoever therefore shall weaken one of these commandments (even) the least, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of the heavens: but whosoever shall do and teach (them), he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens. For I say to you, That except your righteousness shall exceed (that) of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens.] The meaning of the words is clear. Christ did not come to overthrow the authority of the Mosaic law, which was to be eternally binding upon the hearts and consciences of men. So long as the world lasted its authority was to be permanent. If any of His disciples taught men to disobey any of its commandments, he would be placed in an inferior position in the coming Kingdom. If he was a faithful servant of the law, and upheld its authority before men, he would receive high rank in the Kingdom.
Commentators have exhausted their ingenuity in attempts to explain away this passage, but its meaning is too clear to be misunderstood. Christ is here represented as speaking in the spirit of Alexandrine and Rabbinical Judaism.
Cf. Philo, Vita Mos. ii. 136: “(The Laws of Moses) will, it may be hoped, remain to all eternity immortal so long as sun and moon and the whole heaven and world last.” Ass. Mos 1:12 “He has created the world for the sake of His law” (reading legem for plebem. See Bousset, Rel. Jud. p. 90). 2 Es 9:37 “The law perisheth not, but abideth in its honour.” Joseph. Contra Apion. ii. 277: “Our law remains immortal.” Bereshith R. x. 1 (Wü 39): “Everything has its end, the heaven and the earth have their end, only one thing is excepted which has no end, and that is the law.” Shemoth R. 6 (Wü 67): “Not a letter shall be abolished from the law for ever”; Midrash Koh 714 “The law shall remain in perpetuity for ever”;1 Aboth 1:2 “Upon three things is the world supported: on the Thorah,” etc. Shemoth R. 33 (Wü 261): “(The law) is an everlasting inheritance for Israel. Vayyikra R. 19 (Wü 123): “If all the peoples of the world came together to rend a single word from the law, they could not do it.”
The attitude to the law here described is inconsistent with the general tenor of the Sermon Vv. 21-48 are clearly intended to expain and illustrate the way in which Christ fulfilled the law. But they describe a fulfilment which consists in a penetrating insight into the true moral principles underlying the enactments of the Mosaic Code, and vv. 34, 39 directly traverse two propositions of the law. Fulfilment in this sense is something very different from the fulfilment which rests upon the idea of the permanent authority of the least commandment of the law (cf. v. 19). It seems probable, therefore, that vv. 18, 19 did not originally belong to the Sermon, but have been placed here by the editor, who has thus given to πηῶα (= to bring into clear light the ture scope and meaning) a sense (viz. to reaffirm and carry out in detail) which is foreign to the general tenor of the Sermon. V. 18 finds a parallel in an artificial context in Luk_16:17. It is therefore a well-authenticated traditional utterance of Christ. Both it and v. 19 may well have been spoken by Him on different occasions, and under circumstances which made His meaning clear, as hyperbolical expressions of respect for the authority of the general tenor and purport of the law.
17. For κτλενof overthrowing or destroying the authority of the law, cf. 2 Mac 2:22, Mal_2:4:11, Mal_2:4 Mac 5:33, 17:9.—τννμνἢτὺ ποήα] The reference to the prophets seems out of place. It is the law alone which is taken into consideration in the rest of the chapter. The editor has probably added ἢτὺ ποήα in view of the fact that, according to Christ’s teaching elsewhere, Prophets and Law alike (i.e. the whole O.T.) found their fulfilment in Him.
πηῶα] See above. The sentence finds a distorted reminiscence in the Bab. Tal. Shabb. 116b “I gospel came not to diminish the law of Moses, but to add to the law of Moses did I come.”
The verse as originally followed by v. 20 meant: “I did not come, as you might think, to overthrow the authority of the law of Moses. In its general scope and purport its authority as an expression of the divine will is permanent. I came to fulfil it by emphasising its true meaning, and as being the Messiah whom it dimly foreshadowed. So far from depreciating it, I tell you that your ‘righteousness’ must be more fundamental than the ‘righteousness’ of the scribes and Pharisees, based not upon external adherence to the letter of the law, but upon insight into the principles which underlie it.”
If Christ was from this point of view the fulfiller of the law, He was from another its “end”; cf. Rom_10:4.
As here expounded by the editor, the passage means: “I came to reaffirm the authority of the law of Moses, not to overthrow it. No particle of it shall lose its validity so long as the world lasts. Anyone who weakens the hold which the smallest commandment has over the minds of men will receive an inferior position in the coming Kingdom. He who obeys its precepts and teaches others to do so, will be ranked high in the Kingdom. For your ‘righteousness’ is to be not less, but more exacting than that of the scribes and Pharisees.”
ἦθν (cf. 9:13, 10:40: 11:10, 15:24) has behind it the thought of the divine sending.
(L) 18. Cf. Luk_16:17.—ἀή] For this word as characteristic of Christ’s diction, cf. Dalman, Words, 226 ff.—ἕςἂ πρλῃὁορνςκὶἡγ] a hyperbolical expression signifying “never”; cf. the passages from Philo and Bereshith R. quoted on v. 17; cf. also 24:35.—ἰτ] Yod = y, is the smallest letter to the Hebrew Square Alphabet. Bab. Sanh. 107a “If the yod which I took from Sarai (in changing it to Sarah) stood and complained many years until Joshua came and I added it to him,” etc. κρί] The κρῖιare presumably the small strokes that distinguish from one another otherwise similar letters of the Hebrew Alphabet. For examples of similar letters which may be confused and pervert the sense of a passage, see Vayyikra R. 19 (Wü 124).—ο μ πρλῃ For the construction, see Moulton, pp. 190-92. It is rare in the N.T. (except in words of Christ) and in the Papyri.
ἕςἂ πναγντι (1) Until all things (in the law) happen, i.e. receive their fulfilment”; (2) parallel to and synonymous with ἕςἂ πρλῃ κτλ “until the end of the world.” The similarity to Philo, Vit. Mos. ii. 136: ἕςἂ ἥιςκὶσλν κὶὁσμα ορνςτ κὶκσο ᾖ rather favours this meaning.
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.]
ἠοστ ὅιἐῥθ τῖ ἀχίι] 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 ἠοσμνἐ τῦνμυ Moreover, each word in the sentence is chosen in order to form a direct antithesis to ἐὼδ λγ ὑῖ. This partly accounts for ἠοστ rather than ἀέντ, and for ἐῥθ rather than γγατι 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. τῖ ἀχίι 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 ὑῖ. For the use of ἀχῖιas the men of a past age, cf. Aristoph. Eq. 507; Arist. Metaphys. xi. 1. 2, p. 240; and the phrases κτ τὺ ἀχίυ or κτ ἀχίυ quoted by Steph. Thes. 1. ii. 2098.—ο φνύες 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 τ κίε = the verdict of the judges, cf. Deu_17:8 ἐ κίε ἀὰμσναμ αμτςκὶἀὰμσνκίι κίες—ἔοο] is here apparently equivalent to the Rabbinic תיב= condemned, guilty. ἕοο τ κίε means guilty, and so condemned by the properly constituted authority. The phrase is therefore equivalent to “shall be put to death”; cf. 26:66 ἔοο θντυ= 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. τ σνδί, the Sanhedrin, i.e. the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, seems to presuppose the interpretation of τ κίε 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 τ κίε = the local court, must be understood in a sense different from that of τ κίε 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 κίε of v. 21 and κίε 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.”
Ῥκ] seems to be equivalent to the Aramaic ריק = empty. It was a term of contemptuous address; cf. Jam_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.
μρ] is the Greek word. It has quite unnecessarily been identified with the Hebrew מֶֹ Num_20:10 Since the Jews borrowed many foreign words, it is quite possible that μρςwas in use amongst the Aramaic-speaking population in Christ’s time. Or μρ may be a translation of Ῥκ. For examples of μρςin the Midrashim, cf. Levy, Neuheb. Wö and Pesikta, Rab. Kahana 14 (Wü p. 158), where it is used to explain Num_20:10.
γενντῦπρς נהםwas 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, Jü Theol 341 ff.; Volz, Jü Eschat. 288 ff.
τ ἀεφ ατῦ D al S1 S2 add εκ. 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.
23, 24. First application of the preceding.
(L) If therefore thou art offering thy gift upon the altar, and there shouldest remember that thy brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.]
ἔε τ κτ σῦ Cf. Bab. Joma 87a ההלחמלאל= he had something against. This section deals with the necessity of reconciliation with one’s neighbour before the day of Atonement. “Rabbi Isaac said, If a man vexes his neighbour, even if it be only by what he has said, he must be reconciled to him.”
25, 26. Second application. Cf. Luk_12:57-59.
(L) Be agreed with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou art with him on the way (to judgement); lest the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say to thee, Thou shalt not come out thence, until thou payest the last farthing.]
ενενonly here in N.T. “Its regular meaning is ‘be well disposed to,’ ‘have goodwill to.’ ” Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, 1714. The ἀτδκςin this passage should be parallel to ἀεφςin the preceding verse. The brother who has been wronged must be appeased; and the adversary must be agreed with, in accordance with the principle that murder includes anger and all such turbulent passions of the soul.1 ἀτδκςin this connection should therefore mean “prosecutor”; cf. Luk_18:3. But with this meaning vv. 25b and 26 have no real point, and 23-24 and 25-26 are not in any true sense parallel. Vv. 23-24 apply the principle of v. 22. “Because anger is implied in the command ‘do not murder,’ therefore remove all cause for anger before coming before God with a gift.” That is an exhortation with an implicit warning. “God will not accept the gift of an offerer whose heart is stained with evil passion.” Vv. 25-26 suggest in the first few words that we have a second application: “For the same reason be reconciled with one who has legal claims against you” “but the following words carry us into a new atmosphere of thought: “Be reconciled” not “because God condemns anger,” but “lest you meet the due reward of your wrongdoing and languish in prison.” Of course it is possible to obtain some sort of connection between the verses by spiritualising the details of vv. 25-26. “On the road throught life be careful to settle your accounts with spiritual enemies,lest you come at last before God,the Judge of all, and by Him be cast into hell.“ But in this case the idea involved in ἀτδκςfalls into the background, and must remain in ambiguity as an unessential element in the saying, whereas its position shows that it is obviously as important as is ἀεφςin v. 23. There can be little doubt that the connection here is literary and artifical. The editor has appended to the saying about “the brother who has aught against thee” another about “thy adversary” i.e. “thy prosecutor,” in spite of the fact that as a whole the general purport of the sayings is quite different. Vv. 25-26 are clerly a warning against the risk of appearing before God at the judgement day unreconciled to Him. He is a like Prosecutor and Judge and executor of judgement. Lk (12:57-59) has the saying in a context to which this meaning is more applicable. For a somewhat similar legal smile of the relation of men to God, cf. Ab 320. “The office is open; and the broker gives credit; and the ledger is open; and the writes; and whosoever will, comes and borrows; and the bailiffs (גאן go round continually every day and exact from a man wherather he wills or not; and they have whereon to rest (i.e. the arm of the law), and the judgement is a judgement of truth.” For God as Judge and Prosecutor, cf. Ab 429 “He is Judge, and He is witness, and He is Plaintiff” (בלדן
27-28. Second illustration.
(L) Ye heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, That every one who looks upon a woman to dersire her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.]
ο μιεσι] Exo_20:13, Deu_5:17. The prohibition includes also lustful thoughts.—ὁβέω γνῖα Cf. Jer. Challah 583; Bab. Berakh 24a, quoted by Lightfoot; and Shabbath 64b.
ἐιυῆα ατν Unclassical; but cf. Exo_20:17, Deu_5:21 οκἐιυήεςτνγνῖατῦπηίνσυ cf. Blass, p. 102.
29. First applicatiion for this.
(L) And if thy right eye is causing thee to stumble(by inducing lustful thoughts), pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for its is better for thee that one of thy members perish, than that thy whole body be cast into Gehenna.]
δξό as applied to a hand seems to emphasise it as being the more valued of the two. It is here transferred to a eye by a natural assimilatiion of the two phrases.
σαδλζιoccurs outside the New Testament in LXX. Dan_11:41; in Aquila, Psa_63:9, Isa_40:30, Isa_63:13, Pro_4:12, Dan_11:41; in Ecclus 9:5, 23:8, 32:15; in Sym. Isa_8:21; in Ps.-Sol. 16:7, and in eccles. writers.
30. Second application.
(L) And if thy right hand is causing thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for is better for thee that one of thy members perish, than that thy whole body go away into Gehenna.]
For the hand as an instrument of lust, see Bab. Niddah 13, quoted by Lightfoot. For the greater value of the right hand cf. bab. Berakh 62a. Vv. 29, 30 occur again in substance in 18:8, 9; and it has been questioned whether their position here is not artifical v. 30 is omitted by D and S1. But they may well have been spoken in this connection. The lustful look, v. 28, suggests the thought that the offending member, the eye, should be plucked out; and this leads quite naturally to the thought of another member, the hand, which is a ready instrument wherewith to satisfy desire. Sight and contract which stimulate passion are alike to be avoided. For sight in this connection, cf. Job_31:1
30. Is omitted by S1. This and the previous verse have the same ending in S2, and the verse may have been passsed over for that reason by the ending scribe of S1.
31. Special applications to divorce.
(L) And it was said that, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give to her a bill of divercement.] Cf. Deu_24:1, Deu_24:3 γάε ατ ββίνἀοτσο. ἀοτσο occurs also in Isa_50:1, Jer_3:8 ἔωαατ ββίνἀοτσου
(L) 32. But I say to you, That every one who puts away his wife, except on account of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever marries her that has been put away commits adultery.] Cf. Luk_16:18.—πρκὸ λγυπρεα] λγυπρεα is probably equivalent to the Heb. דרעו= “something unchaste,” which the school of Shammai decreed to be the only ground of divorce; cf. Gittin 90 a1 “No one shall divorce his wife unless there be found in her something unchaste.” πρεαdefines the unchastity as illicit sexual intercourse. It is, however, open to question whether this exception is not an addition of the editor, representing no doubt two influences, viz. Jewish custom and tradition, and the exigencies of ethical necessity in the early Christian Church. A similar exception is made in 19:9, and it will there be seen that the clause is clearly an interpolation. There is, therefore, a presumption that it has also been interpolated here. Moreover, the teaching of Christ as recorded by S. Mark (10:11) seems to preclude any such exception. And S. Luke represents His teaching as a simple prohibition of divorce without reservation (16:18). The same may be said of S. Paul’s account of Christ’s teaching, 1Co_7:10, 1Co_7:11.—πιῖστνμιεθνι The clause implies the circumstance that after divorce the woman will be likely to marry again. In that case the divorce will have been the means of leading her to marry again; and so from Christ’s standpoint, though not legally, committing adultery, because according to His teaching the divorce was ideally wrong, and the first marriage was ideally still valid.—ὃ ἐν cf. Moulton, 42 ff.—μιᾶα] because she is ideally still the wife of the first husband. Christ’s teaching here therefore seems to admit of no exceptions. If a man divorces his wife, he causes her to commit adultery (it being presupposed that she will remarry), because ideally her first marriage still holds good. If a man marries such a divorced woman, he not only causes her to commit adultery, but himself does so, since he marries one who ideally is still the wife of her first husband. The interpolated clause confuses the issues. If a man divorced his wife for πρεα he would not then cause her to commit adultery, because she would already be guilty of this crime.
32. πςὁἁούν So אB al ὃ ἄ ἀούῃhas strong second century attestation, D S1 S2 k. The first reading might be due to assimilation to vv. 22, 28, the second to assimilation to v. 31. But in a writer fond of sharp, antithesis, the second reading is more probable here, to contrast with v. 31 cf. Introduction, p. xxxi.—κὶὂ ἐνμιᾶα] Omit D a b k.
33-37. Third illustration.
(E L) Again, ye heard that it was said to the ancients, Thow shalt hot swear falsely, but shalt pay thy oaths to the Lord. But I say to you. Swear not at all; neither by the heaven, because it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, because it is the footstool of His feet; nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King. And swear not by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your speech be, Yea, yea, Nay, nay: and whatever gœ beyond these (comes) of what is evil.]
For the whole passage, cf. Secrets of Enoch 49:1: “For I swear to you, my children; but I will not swear by a single oath, neither by heaven, nor by earth, nor by any other creature which God made. God said, There is no swearing in Me, nor injustice, but truth. If there be no truth in men, let them swear by a word, yea, yea, or nay, nay,” and the passages from Philo cited in Charles’ note.
οκἐιρήες Cf. Lev_19:12.—ἀοώεςτὺ ὅκυ συ Cf. Deu_23:21, Psa_50:14, Num_30:3.—θόο] Cf. Isa_66:1.—ὑοόιν A late word found in Lucian, Athenæ LXX., Egyptian Papyri; cf. Deissm. Bib. Stud. 223. Cf. Isa_66:1, Lam_2:1.—Ἱρσλμ] Cf. on 2:1.—πλςἐτ τῦμγλυβσλω] Cf. Psa_47:3. ὀνενἐ is common in the LXX. For the interchange of εςand ἐ, cf. Blass, p. 123, and for swearing, cf. 23:16-22, Jam_5:12. In its present connection the sequence of thought is confused. “Thou shalt not swear falsely, but shalt pay to the Lord thy oaths,” must, as a reference to Num_30:3 shows, mean, “If you bind yourself by an oath, you must carry out your promise.” The emphasis is here clearly not on the way in which the promise is made, whether by an oath or otherwise, but on the necessity of fulfilling promises made to God. That is to say, the “swearing” is merely incidental. “Promise” or “pledge yourself” would be equally in point. But “swear not at all” lays all the emphasis on ἐιρήες and neglects altogether the second half of the clause. Again, it seems improbable that Christ should have found in the incidental references to swearing in connection with religious vows in the Old Testament, a text upon which to hang His “swear not at all”; because it is clear that His utterance has in view not the solemn use of oaths in religion, but the casuistical distinctions made by the Jews between different formulas in swearing. In other words, His teaching here is opposed to Jewish tradition, instead of being, as we should here expect, interpretative of Scripture. It seems probable that the editor has adapted words traditionally ascribed to Christ, vv. 34-37, to this context by providing for them an artifical antithesis from the Old Testament, v. 33. Leaving v. 33 out of consideration, the meaning will be that Christ’s disciples should avoid as far as possible the use of unnecessarily strong expressions of affirmation. The Jews avoided swearing by the divine name, and used equivalents for it. The Christian disciple should aviod these. For him Yes and No should be sufficient. His ungarnished statements should carry with them the authority of truthfulness. The necessity for supporting simple statements of fact by artifical formulas of swearing, arises from the evil in life which obscures truth. The Talmud Sanhed 36a discusses the question whether Yes and No are oaths, and decides that they are oaths if repeated twice. Here we should expect a simple νίand ο. They seem to be repeated to add emphasis. Jam_5:12 has the saying in a slightly different form: “Let your Yes be Yes.” that is, let