Matthew 5:21–30

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.

In the Old Testament, adultery — being unfaithful to your husband or wife to satisfy lust — had to be treated with great severity. Under the law of Sinai this sin had to be punished with death (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-24). First of all, the law gave God's rules for the outward and social life of His earthly people. That is why it punished only the completed act, even though the tenth commandment forbade coveting the neighbour's wife (as well as all his possessions, Ex. 20:17). If a Jew kept the commandment not to commit adultery, he was acting according to God's will... But merely keeping this and all the other commandments on the outside could not justify him before God.

The prophets of old had come before the people with "Thus says the Lord" on their lips... but in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus stood up and said, "I SAY TO YOU." His teaching astonished those who heard Him, for He taught them as One having authority... He is able to look behind the profession and all that is outward, and read the heart, which none but God can do.

It is a scandalous and immoral procedure. He was shifting the searchlight from the outward actions to the unseen inner nature... the Lord went deeper. He dealt with the hidden desires of the heart, with the nature that lies at the root of every wrong act and from which all evil deeds spring. He declared that God required truth in the inward parts. In his great repentance David learned that his nature was more terrible than his deeds. The law taught Saul of Tarsus the same needed lesson (Romans 7). This did not make void the law; it established its use as a searching, convicting power.

The law was content to forbid the actual act; the Lord went further, and forbade not only the outward act but the inward desire.

Because of the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees, the Jews thought that simply keeping the law on the outside was the way to be justified before God. Here the Lord points to the human heart and shows that adultery has its source there. This is not a "spiritualisation of the law," as some say. For the first time He reveals something that every honest Israelite had to learn by experience. Everyone who tried to keep the commandment "You shall not commit adultery" had inside them the very lusts that led to the actions God forbade. They had no strength to overcome them. The commandment even stirred those lusts up: "...for I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet'" (Rom. 7:7-11).

The Lord is not speaking here about accidental, unplanned looks that a person can barely avoid. He means the deliberate look of lust... So the sinful thought in the heart comes before the deliberate look.

Anything in our walk, our ways, or our service that puts a soul in danger of giving in to these impure desires should never be spared. We must leave it at any cost... Cutting off these parts of the body pictures a heart fully exercised in self-judgment. Such a heart does not excuse itself by saying that it never committed the sin. It gives up whatever exposed it to that sin.

Avoiding the act itself might satisfy a Pharisee or scribe. But the Lord could not do without truth in the inward parts... it is not the outside only that God regards, but the heart above all. Only a new nature delights in holiness. The person who has it by grace answers to the will of God his Father. He hates himself if he slips even into a wrong look, as something unworthy of his calling and hateful to Him who loves him.

Take one example out of the seven times in that discourse when our Lord said, "I say to you." "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-28). Where is the setting aside of the law? No — He upheld it. The law was content to forbid the actual act; the Lord went further, and forbade not only the outward act but the inward desire.

Because of the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees, the Jews thought the mere outward keeping of the law was the way to be justified before God. Here the Lord points to the human heart and shows that adultery has its source there. He reveals for the first time something every honest Israelite had to learn by experience. Everyone who tried to keep the commandment "You shall not commit adultery" already had inside them the very lusts that led to the acts God forbade. And they had no strength to overcome them. The lusts were even stirred up by the commandment: "for I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet'" (Rom. 7:7-11).

This distinction is very important. Today we can hardly go anywhere without seeing the moral corruption of our time. We do not mean to see it, and it defiles us easily. The intentional covetous and sinful look is something completely different. No Christian can stop unclean thoughts rising in his mind. They become sin only when he turns toward them and gives himself to them instead of turning away. Covetous looks and unclean thoughts are sin. So it is also sin when believing women and girls stir them up by their dress and behaviour.

God-fearing Job said: "I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?" (Job 31:1). But some Christians are over-sensitive and over-anxious. Involuntary looks and thoughts weigh their consciences down. I would remind them of the well-known words Martin Luther wrote on this verse: "I cannot stop a bird flying over my head, but I can stop it building a nest in my hair or biting off my nose."

It is sometimes said that deliverance from sin is a matter of personal effort, and that evil habits can and should be overcome by one's own firm resolve and perseverance. But this advice overlooks one thing. Willpower alone may check the wicked deed, but the sinful desire has already filled the heart. And divine holiness uncovers the secret source of inward evil. In God's sight, a foolish thought is sin. Our Lord condemns the lustful look and the adulterous act alike (Matt. 5:28).

The avoidance of the extreme act might satisfy a Pharisee or a scribe; but the Lord had to have truth deep inside a person. Only a new nature delights in holiness. The one who has it by grace answers to the will of God his Father. If he slips even into a wrong look, he hates himself for it, as unworthy of his calling and hateful to Him who loves him.

Whatever in our walk, or in our ways, or in our service — whatever it might be that exposes a soul to the danger of yielding to these unholy feelings — should never be spared, but abandoned at any cost… The cutting off of these members pictures a heart thoroughly exercised in self-judgment; not excusing itself by saying that it had not actually committed the sin, but giving up whatever exposed it to that sin.

The Lord is not calling for self-mutilation or asceticism in these words. The Creator will never demand that His creature mutilate the body he has received from Himself. Even if someone plucked out both his eyes, the lust would still remain in his heart. Rather, the Lord here extends the teaching to the question of self-judgment.

Better to sacrifice what might seem most necessary than to give oneself up to the sure penalty of sin... Men excuse on the plea of necessity what they find to be a constant provocation to sin. God's law admits no pretext of the kind.

The Greek word translated "scandal" literally means the stick in a trap that holds the bait, and so it came to mean the trap or snare itself. Most translations render it "stumbling-block," which means much the same thing.

In the Bible the right eye is often described as something very precious. The right eye and the right hand are symbols of attitudes and actions, but at the same time also of the precious and important things in human life. If they trap us — that is, if they cause sin or stumbling — then we should not spare even the most precious and important things in our lives. We should judge ourselves honestly and strictly, and separate from them if we must. Even if they are not bad in themselves, this does not mean that they are not dangerous!

Anything in our walk, our ways, or our service that exposes a soul to the danger of yielding to these unholy feelings should never be spared. We must turn from it at any cost. There must be the cutting away of everything that is hurtful to the soul... Cutting off these parts pictures a heart thoroughly exercised in self-judgment. Such a heart does not excuse itself by saying it never committed the sin. Whatever exposed it to that sin must go.

If a man is in earnest, he will avoid the occasion of temptation where he feels he cannot overcome. I agree that we are not called upon to abstain as a law, and I object to vows or pledges. But if this man found it a means of avoiding sin, he would gladly act on the principle of total abstinence, so that he might not enter into temptation. We are to cut off a right hand or pluck out a right eye if it is a stumbling-block to us.

Hell is here "gehenna" or the lake of fire. The place where children were first offered to Moloch was called the valley of Hinnom, or Gehenna. People burned the city's rubbish there... It is "their worm" — a person's own conscience — that never dies. And the fire of God's judgment is never quenched. All this about the eye and the hand teaches us one thing: nothing, however valuable and useful, should keep us from self-judgment.

The Lord is not calling for self-mutilation or extreme self-denial in these words. The Creator will never demand that His creature mutilate the body he has received from Himself. Even if someone plucked out both his eyes, the lust would still remain in his heart. Rather, the Lord here extends the teaching to the question of self-judgment. The mention of the right hand points to this.

In Matthew 5 the Lord is stressing what lies behind the action. That is why He names the right eye and the right hand, but not the foot. The right side speaks of what is positive, the left of what is negative. So the right hand stands for positive works of faith. If a man's conscience convicts him of misusing it, let him cut off his hand — that is, judge the action without sparing himself. Refusing to judge yourself at all leads to the judgment of hell. The believer will judge himself; let him do it thoroughly.

The right eye and the right hand are symbols of attitudes and actions, but at the same time also of the precious and important things in human life. If they cause us to sin or stumble, we should not spare even the most precious and important things in our lives. We should judge ourselves honestly and strictly, and separate from them if we must. Even if they are not bad in themselves, this does not mean that they are not dangerous!

Anything in our walk, our ways, or our service that exposes a soul to the danger of yielding to these sinful desires should never be spared. We must leave it at any cost. Everything that harms the soul must be removed. Cutting off these members shows a heart deeply exercised in self-judgment. Such a heart does not excuse itself by saying it has not actually committed the sin. Whatever exposed it to sin must be given up.

Better sacrifice what might seem most necessary than give oneself up to the sure penalty of sin. Such an instruction clearly does not call for extreme self-denial or self-mutilation. But men plead necessity to excuse what they know keeps provoking them to sin. God's law admits no pretext of the kind.

In Matthew 5 the statement is general. The danger is hell-fire — your whole body cast into hell. The point is to sacrifice one member rather than sin. It is clearly not the valley of Hinnom. "Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (chapter 10:28). They do not put souls there. It is used as a picture of the place of final judgment and punishment… It is a judgment, a judicial punishment, for which there is no relief, of which there is no cessation.

If a man is in earnest, he will avoid the occasion of temptation where he feels he cannot overcome. I agree that we are not called to abstain as a law, and I object to vows or pledges. But if this man found total abstinence a means of avoiding sin, he would gladly act on it, so that he might not enter into temptation. We are to cut off a right hand or pluck out a right eye if it is a stumbling-block to us.