Mat_5:27 f. From Mat_5:28-30 it appears that the tradition of the Pharisees limited the prohibition in Exo_20:14 to adultery proper, and left out of consideration adulterous desires.
βλέπων
] he who holes upon a woman, opposed to the actual
μοιχεύειν
.
γυναῖκα
] woman in general, so that it may be a married (Erasmus, Grotius, Tholuck, de Wette, Bleek) or an unmarried one; for the
βλέπων
is conceived of as a married man, as is clear from the signification of
οὐ
μοιχεύσεις
, which means adultery.
πρὸς
τὸ
ἐπιθυμῆσαι
αὐτήν
] not ita ut, etc., not even in accordance with (Weiss), but, agreeably to the constant usage of
πρός
with the infinitive, to denote the telic reference (Mat_6:1, Mat_26:12, and elsewhere): in order to desire her. The
βλέπειν
, which terminates in lustful desire, which is kindled and felt to be strengthened by gazing on, is designated.
Ὁ
γὰρ
σπουδάζων
ὁρᾶν
τὰς
εὐμόρφους
ὄψεις
,
αὐτὸς
μάλιστα
τὴν
κάμινον
ἀνάπτει
τοῦ
πάθους
, Chrysostom. Comp. Augustine: “qui hoc fine et hoc animo attenderit, ut eam concupiscat, quod jam non est titillari delectatione carnis, sed plene consentire libidini.” He who looks upon a woman with such a feeling has already (jam eo ipso, Bengel), in virtue of the adulterous desire with which he does so, committed adultery with her in his heart, which is the seat of feeling and desire. Thus he is, as regards his moral constitution, although without the external act, already an adulterer. Similar proverbs from the Rabbinical writers in Lightfoot and Schoettgen; from the Greek and Roman writers, in Pricaeus. On
μοιχεύειν
with the accusative, comp. Plato, Rep. p. 360 B.
ἐπιθυμεῖν
] with the accusative, is rare and late. Comp. Exo_20:17; Deu_5:20; Jdt_16:22; see Winer, p. 192 [E. T. 255]. Even if
αὐτήν
were spurious, it could not be explained with Fritzsche: “ut adsit mutua cupiditas.”