Ye have heard that it has been said, Thou shalt not commit adultery.
The seventh commandment protected something God had guarded from the beginning, and under the law of Sinai it was enforced by the severest penalty. But the law reached only as far as the deed itself.
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 had always spoken as messengers. On the mountain someone speaks in His own name, and the crowds noticed the difference.
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.
Some have used this pattern — "you have heard... but I say to you" — as permission to replace old Scripture with newer ideas. Commentators reject that reading firmly.
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.
Another writer puts the same point positively: the law was upheld, not cancelled.
The law was content to forbid the actual act; the Lord went further, and forbade not only the outward act but the inward desire.
The next verse traces the sin back to its source. It also exposes what an honest person could only learn by trying and failing.
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 warning is precise. It is not aimed at every glance a person cannot help.
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.
Nor may single readers assume the subject passes them by: "the word 'adultery' shows that either the man or both are married. Nevertheless, no unmarried believer should think that these words of the Lord have nothing to say to him."
The remedy He urges is drastic, and it works on the heart rather than on the body.
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.
Outward respectability never reaches this standard.
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.
- Root — The law punished the act. Christ turns the searchlight on the nature that produces it.
- Authority — Prophets said "Thus says the Lord." Here One says "I say to you," speaking as the God who reads the heart.
- Exposure — The commandment restrains lust, but it also uncovers it. No honest person has the strength to keep it.
- Cost — The answer is not the excuse "I never did it." It is self-judgment that gives up whatever exposes the soul to the sin.
- Remedy — Only a new nature, given by grace, delights in holiness and grieves even over a wrong look.
But *I* say unto you, that every one who looks upon a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Jesus takes the command against adultery and pushes it past the act to the look, and past the look to the desire behind it. The question He raises is not "have I kept the rule?" but "what is in my heart when God looks at it?"
Because Jesus adds to what the law said, some conclude He was replacing it. One writer answers that objection using this very verse.
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.
The scribes and Pharisees — Israel's religious teachers — measured obedience by outward conduct. Against that background, the Lord's words did something no one had heard before.
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).
The verse describes a look with intent, and that distinction decides how the words apply day by day.
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.
The same writer knows the opposite danger — a conscience so tender it condemns itself for what it never chose.
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."
Advice to simply try harder fails at the exact point this verse targets.
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).
What does work is a changed nature, and it shows itself in how a person reacts to even a single wrong glance.
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.
The verses that follow name the eye and the hand, and commentators read them as a call to cut off whatever leads that way.
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.
- Source. Adultery does not begin in the act; the Lord points to the heart and shows that the sin has its source there.
- Standard. The law forbade the act, and He forbids the desire behind it — not setting the law aside but carrying it inward.
- Sin. Unavoidable sights are not the issue. A thought becomes sin when you turn toward it instead of away.
- Strength. Willpower can check a deed, but not the desire that filled the heart first. Only a new nature delights in holiness.
- Surgery. The right response is unsparing self-judgment — refusing the excuse "I never actually did it," and giving up whatever exposes you to it.
But if thy right eye be a snare to thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members perish, and not thy whole body be cast into hell.
Jesus has just said that a lustful look is already adultery in the heart, and now He says what to do about it. His words shock: does He want an eye torn out, and what loss is He weighing against what gain?
Would obeying this with a knife even work? One writer says no, and gives the reason.
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.
Refusing the literal reading does not soften the demand. The Lord blocks the excuse that sounds most reasonable — I can't do without this.
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.
Older translations say the eye "offends" you. The Greek word behind that comes from trapping.
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.
Why the right eye, and not just any eye? The choice raises the cost of obeying.
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!
The cutting reaches wider than the sin itself. It reaches whatever brings a person near it.
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.
One writer used this verse to counsel a man who could not master drink. Notice that he refuses to turn it into a rule for everybody.
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.
Jesus calls the loss better than the alternative. What is the alternative?
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.
- Trap. The word behind "causes you to sin" is the bait-stick of a snare — the eye is not the enemy, it is the trigger.
- Precious. He names the right eye because the thing that traps you is usually valuable, useful, and not wrong in itself.
- Knife. He means no literal blade; blind eyes leave the lust untouched. Cut the occasion instead, by honest self-judgment.
- Pretext. The Lord removes the excuse "I need it." Necessity is no reason to keep a constant provocation to sin.
- Profit. Weigh one part lost against the whole body in gehenna, where the conscience does not die and the fire is not quenched. That sum turns the loss into gain.
And if thy right hand be a snare to thee, cut it off and cast it from thee for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members perish, and not thy whole body be cast into hell.
Jesus has just said that a lustful look is already adultery in the heart. Now He makes the point a second time — first the eye, then the hand: lose a part, or lose everything.
The command sounds severe. But writers point out that the problem is not in the hand at all:
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.
Matthew names the right eye and the right hand. One commentator explains why the foot is left out:
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.
A hand is not evil. The Lord names something useful and dear, not something plainly sinful:
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!
A heart that obeys here refuses the excuse that no sin has happened yet:
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.
"I can't manage without it" is the standard reply. One writer answers it plainly:
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.
The whole calculation depends on what "hell" means here. The Greek word is Gehenna, taken from a valley outside Jerusalem — but the Lord is not talking about geography:
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.
Applied to daily life, the principle is to stay away from the situation you know you cannot win — and to do it freely, not as a rule imposed on others:
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.
- Cut, not maim. The hand is a picture. The real surgery is self-judgment: cutting off the limb would leave the desire untouched.
- Cut the useful. The right hand stands for what is precious and effective — a thing may be good in itself and still be dangerous to you.
- Cut the excuse. "I need it" is the plea the Lord refuses; necessity is no cover for a constant provocation to sin.
- Cut early. Avoid the temptation you know you cannot beat — by choice, not by vow.
- Or be cut off. The alternative is hell — not a place on the map but final judgment, with no relief and no end.