Matthew 5:21–26

The Lord Jesus begins the first of the six examples with the words, "You have heard that it was said to those of old." Those "of old" are not only the people of Moses' own day, because the words that follow add something to the original commandment. The crowd listening to the Lord Jesus had heard two things. First, God gave the commandment, "You shall not murder." Second, the scribes had probably added the rest of what they knew, "and whoever murders will be liable to judgment," some time after the exile in Babylon. "Judgment" here seems to mean the judges and officers named, for example, in Deuteronomy 16:18. Israel was to appoint them in every town.

He does not once say: "It is written," not even when He quotes a commandment of the Old Testament such as in verses 27 and 38. With His sixfold reply, "But I say to you," the Lord Jesus did not want to set aside the inspired commandments of God. He meant to expose and judge the false interpretations and distortions of the scribes, and "the tradition of the elders" (Mark 7:3), which they valued so highly.

He takes some of the commandments which He wrote on the second table of stone. He begins with this one: "You shall not murder." Murder was the first terrible fruit after the fall, and it sprang from envy in the heart. The penalty of murder is the judgment. This, then, is the letter of the law. It dealt with the outward deed, but the heart itself it did not touch.

Now He takes up the law in its various parts, at least what has to do with men. Here He does not deal with what touches God directly. He first takes up what flows from human violence, and after that the glaring example of human corruption. Violence and corruption are the two outstanding forms of human wickedness. Even before the flood this was the condition of men: "The earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence." Here, in verse 21, the light of the kingdom falls on the command against murder. The law took notice of this extreme form of violence. But our Lord gives it length, breadth, height, and depth.

Eight times in this chapter He says, "I say to you." Six of those times the word "But" comes first, setting His statement against what the law had said. We may well ask: who is this who quotes the holy law of God, and then calmly says, "But I say to you"? He alters and enlarges the law — a thing no prophet had ever dared to do! Is this not terrible presumption, close to blasphemy? Yes, indeed, and only one explanation lifts this charge from Him. But that one explanation is true: here we have the original Lawgiver, who once spoke from Sinai.

As to the two commandments He quoted, His teaching is plain. God looks not only at the outward act but also at the inward attitude of the heart. He forbids not just the act of murder or adultery, but the hatred and the lust that the act expresses. Judged by this standard, who is going to stand before the holy demands of Sinai? The "righteousness" of the scribe and Pharisee utterly collapses.

The Lord Jesus now sets His own words against this commandment and its human addition: "But I say to you." These words occur five times in this part of the fifth chapter. He speaks with the same authority as the One who had once given the law, for He is the Son of God. Yet His words do not set the law aside. They stretch it to reach the condition of man's heart.

The law and the prophets He had vindicated. All must come to pass. Yet the law made nothing perfect. He speaks Who is above the law and gave fulness to all on His own authority.

The law dealt with this extreme form of violence, but our Lord gives it length, breadth, height, and depth… He treats every kind of violence, feeling, and expression as now falling into the same class as murder in the sight of God. It covers anything of contempt and hatred, whatever expresses the ill feeling of the heart. It covers any putting down of another, the will to destroy others as far as their character or influence goes. All this is no better than murder in God's searching eye.

The one who called his brother "Raca" (Aramaic: "reka" — fool, lunatic) was liable to be called before the Sanhedrin (the supreme Jewish court at that time). Whoever said "fool" was liable to hell ("Gehenna"): eternal damnation. These three sins hardly differ from one another. If the last of them led to eternal damnation, then the others would do so as well. God does not look at the outward appearance but into our hearts.

He judges men's inner thoughts. But if someone put such thoughts into words of scorn, branding another as "Raca" (vain or empty), he was in danger of being rightly called before the Jewish council to answer this serious charge. Worse still, he might put those thoughts into words of hate, calling someone a fool. If so, he was in danger of hell fire. A character that is hateful at heart has no faith: "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him" (1 John 3:15).

It was not enough not to kill. To nurse anger or contempt was of the same character as murder in His sight. He expressed His judgment of it in the terms of the court proceedings they knew, in their local and higher courts. "The judgment" put men to death by the sword. "The council" (Sanhedrin) did it by stoning. And "the Gehenna of fire" would make the horror of it greater.

The source, motive, and aim decide. If of God and for Him by the Spirit, anger has His sanction; if for self, it is evil that exposes to judgment.

No doubt this will be so when the kingdom comes to the earth; swift judgment will overtake the offender. But the words lay bare the heart. They show that men cannot stand in their own righteousness before God, who judges the heart. The believer shares the divine nature, and so is righteous and loves his brother. Only receiving eternal life, which is Christ Himself, can produce righteousness and love.

We should remember that the Lord Jesus was speaking to His disciples, and the temple sacrifices were still in place. Still, His words have something to say to us too.

But it is a serious mistake to think this undeniable fact takes away the profit of a single word for the Christian, though we now stand in a position of grace that could not exist then. There is the richest moral instruction for everyone who honours Him who spoke as no man ever spoke.

A man brings a gift to honour God, and on the way up to the temple his conscience is at work. Then, at the altar, his conscience reminds him that his brother has something against him. We might have thought it must always be right to put God first: offer the gift, and then go and seek reconciliation with your brother. The Lord, who knows our hearts, shows that in these circumstances the gift is unacceptable.

In Matthew 18:15 the matter is what I have against my brother, because he has wronged me, and I should go and tell him his fault. But here I know that he has something against me. The case is reversed. Pride shows itself as much as anything in refusing to admit when we are wrong.

Perhaps it was only a misunderstanding, or I may have deliberately hurt a child of God, a brother or sister. Anyway, he or she has something against me. The Lord says in this case, "Go."

"The altar" does not mean the Lord's table. Still, we should examine ourselves before taking the Lord's Supper, and we shall have a far deeper sense of grace if we do. These were legal sacrifices. But for us the principle applies whenever we come to God — even in prayer. "If I hold on to sin in my heart, the Lord will not hear me."

If I wrong another person, that wrong will interfere with my communion with God. Only atonement can restore that communion. Paying the person back is not enough on its own. It might satisfy the injured man, but it could not be the basis of restored communion with God… Still, if the question is an injury done to my neighbour, then repayment must come first.

The Greek word for "be reconciled" here is di-allasso. It is never used for a man being reconciled to God; that is a different word, kat-allasso. Di-allasso means both sides giving ground after both have been hostile — an idea that is not in kat-allasso. It seems that when believers quarrel or misunderstand each other, the Lord sees that there is usually, if not always, fault on both sides. Both need to give ground.

Certainly you ought to go to him, if you have anything against him, and be reconciled to him. But instead of this you turn your back on the altar and stay away with your gift of thanks due to God. What blindness — sinning like this against God and against your brother!

The Lord spoke with an authority uniquely and emphatically His own. He was not content merely to condemn the hateful evil of anger in heart and word, even when it never becomes a violent deed. He goes on to carry out the revealed mind of God for the kingdom by requiring reconciliation if anyone has made his brother stumble. Throughout, disciples are in view, not mankind in general.

We are called to act, and to act as soon as we see there is a problem. A man brings a gift to honour God, and as he goes up to the temple his conscience is at work. Then, at the altar, he remembers that his brother has something against him. We might have thought it must always be right to put God first — to offer the gift first, and seek reconciliation with the brother afterwards. The Lord, who knows our hearts, shows that in these circumstances the gift is unacceptable.

The Greek word for "be reconciled" is di-allasso. Scripture never uses this word for a man being reconciled to God. For that it uses a different word, kat-allasso. Di-allasso means mutual concession after mutual hostility, an idea absent in kat-allasso... It seems that when believers have a quarrel or misunderstanding, the Lord sees fault on both sides, usually if not always. Both need to make concessions.

Our Father will not value our offerings, as His children and worshippers, unless we are growing in affection for our brothers... Our Father is working to fill a kingdom with children and with brothers. Its citizens will know Him as their Father and each other as brothers... He says, in effect, "You must come to Me in the path of brotherly love. Otherwise I cannot receive your gift. My altar is indeed among you, but I cannot receive your gift while you have no love for one another."

So you certainly ought to go to him, if you have anything against him, and be reconciled to him. But instead of this you turn your back on the altar and stay away with your gift of thanks due to God. What blindness — sinning in this way against God and against your brother!

Some have asked what this means for us. If someone comes to remember the Lord in the breaking of bread, and remembers that another has something against him, should he not break bread until the matter is settled? Scripture does not put it that way. It says instead, "Let a person examine (or judge) himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. 11:28).

What tenderness of conscience He looked for! Brotherly affection, humility, readiness to admit wrong, a desire to win back an offended brother... And the opposite was the case with the Jews. They were so absorbed in bringing their offering to the altar that they were blind to their wrong against Him who stooped to be their brother... They refused to be reconciled and kept on with their offering, however offensive to God. It was presumptuous sin, and high-handed self-will under a cloak of religion.

In the past it was common to keep a convicted debtor in prison until he had paid all his debts. The Lord speaks here in symbolic language: "There is an opportunity to make peace with the other side before it is too late, even though one might find this hard. But the time for reconciliation will cease. The one who is not prepared to act in this way will have to bear the consequences."

The awful truth is this: their stubborn disobedience and blind unbelief made an adversary of Jehovah-Messiah, the very One who loved Israel and would die for them. His presence, if received, would have been their salvation and best blessing. Instead, because they utterly rejected and hated Him, it had to bring on the crisis that could not be avoided.

The "adversary" — the law, "Moses, on whom you have set your hope" — was bringing them to the Ruler or Judge, God, the Judge of His people. John the Baptist, and our Lord Himself, had been preaching as the accuser of the people. They showed them their sins and called them to repentance. But while this was the case, Israel was only "on the way to the magistrate." There was still time to be reconciled — by repentance and by accepting Christ as Messiah. This they refused to do... So the Lord's prediction came true: they were delivered to the Judge, dealt with judicially by God, who handed them over to the "officer" — the executor of His will; in this case, the Gentiles.

So Jesus came, seeking an account of the fruit produced. "Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court." Christ was saying, I am still in the way with you. "Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation." The axe was laid to the root of the tree. So they had only one thing to do: agree with Him who had the right against them.

So the case was just about to come before the Judge. The Judge would hand the convicted man over to the official, and he must go to prison until he had paid the last penny. This is no question of eternal judgment, but of God's moral government on the earth... The guilty debtor still lies in that prison, until his heart turns to the One he despised. Then the word will go out, "Comfort, comfort my people, says your God... that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the LORD's hand double for all her sins."

Wrong spiritual applications of the last part of this example have led to much confusion. The doctrine of "purgatory" is probably the saddest proof of that. Scripture nowhere teaches that a man must suffer a temporal punishment from God after death to be eternally saved. No; once death has come, the soul's eternal destiny is settled: a person is either eternally and perfectly saved, or eternally lost!

They were like men in danger of being called before a court. They had no answer to give that could ward off the punishment they deserved. Their only hope lay in making peace with their accuser before they stood before the judge. Once they reached that stage, they could expect nothing but judgment... At the judgment seat, whether of man or of God, no one brought there as guilty can expect mercy. So while they still had the opportunity, let them use it.

In the past it was common to leave a convicted debtor in prison until all his debts were paid (compare Matt. 18:30, 34). The Lord says here in symbolic language: "You still have the chance to make peace with the other party before it is too late. You may find this hard. But the time for reconciliation will end. Whoever is not prepared to act this way will have to bear the consequences."

I believe that Israel were guilty of that very folly — Israel as a people — that they did not agree with the adversary quickly. There was the Messiah. Being His adversaries, they treated Him as their adversary and by their unbelief forced God to be against them... They did not agree with their adversary quickly. So the judge could only hand them over to the officer, and into prison they went. There they remain to this day. Because they rejected the Messiah, the Jewish nation has been shut out from all the promises of God. As a nation they were committed to prison, and there they must remain till the last penny is paid.

God is no adversary to man. For a poor sinner, it would be an entirely wrong thought that God needed to be reconciled... for the sinner is God's adversary... It is man who has made God a judge, not in His nature, but through man's sin. And here as to Israel, sin had made Him an adversary. They rejected Christ, and that rejection ended in the cross. Now they are cast out of their land — or, in the language of our chapter, "cast into prison."

This is no question of eternal judgment. It is God's moral government on the earth. Yet all of it is true of His people, found guilty and consigned to suffer long. In that prison still lies the guilty debtor, till his heart turns to the One he despised. Then the word shall go out: Comfort, comfort My people, says your God... that her iniquity is pardoned (Isa. 40:1-2).

The uttermost farthing of the great debt of the people must be paid, but nothing beyond this will be exacted from them.

Here the Catholics are inconsistent with themselves. If minor sins are forgiven in purgatory, this passage still speaks of the last penny being paid. Surely we cannot speak of a debt being forgiven and at the same time paid to the last penny.

Scripture nowhere teaches that a man must suffer a temporary punishment from God after his death to be eternally saved. No; once death has come, the soul's eternal destiny is decided. A person is either eternally and perfectly saved or eternally lost! This verse therefore can only refer to circumstances on earth.

Thus Jesus came, seeking an account of the fruit produced. "Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him." Christ was saying, I am still on the way with you. "Now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation."

Under law, payment must reach the last penny. For the believer, the cross of Christ has paid it... The majesty of the law was never so upheld as in the death of Christ. He kept it perfectly at every step of His life. He magnified it and made it honourable. Yet He bore the law's curse for those who had broken it.