Did Jesus contradict the Law in Matthew 5:21-22?

Eight times over does He say in this chapter, "I say to you," and on six of these occasions the words are preceded by the word, "But," throwing His statement into contrast with what the law had previously said. We may well ask, "Who is this that quotes the holy law of God, and then calmly says, "But I say to you" — so and so? He actually alters and enlarges the law, a thing that no prophet had ever dared to do! Does this not amount to terrible presumption, bordering on blasphemy?" Yes, indeed, and only one explanation will lift this charge from off Him. But that one explanation is true: here we have the original Lawgiver, who once spoke from Sinai. Now He has come forth in Manhood as Emmanuel. Emmanuel has gone up another mountain, and now speaks not to a nation but to His disciples. He has every right to enlarge or amend His own law.

The sermon on the Mount is in no way a spiritualising of the law. There are but two commandments one could say that allusion is made to; and even this is not true, for the Lord gives a teaching which does not agree with that which was current among the ancients, if He does not even contradict it; and never would He have spoken thus of the law of God. He says that every word of the law and of the prophets shall come to pass; He Himself came not to make void, but to fulfil. Moreover to "fulfil" has not at all the sense of obeying, but just simply what is said of giving the fulness. Disobedience of the law when it was in force was not the means of entering into the kingdom. The Lord, like the gospel, confirms fully the law as come from God. When it subsisted, to be obedient to it was the path of God; but here, while saying so, the Lord puts His teaching in contrast with the discourses of the times of the law. The narrow gate and the strait way characterised the walk of the disciples: their fruits would shew the true nature of those who sought to make them go out of it.

25 As to details. It is clear He was not, as Jehovah-Messiah, come to set aside His own law, and His own prophets. He came to fulfil them - not impose on others in continuance, but fulfil them. As I have said, of all the ceremonial part He was the substance and fulfilment. Then as to commandments, personally of course He fulfilled the Law. But even when He says: "But I say," He is not taking up the Law to spiritualise it. In two cases only, He takes up one of the Ten Commandments, murder and adultery, but only as essential parts of His own morality, and given as applying to the state of a man, not his acts, as all through, for this is His subject. And where He seems to change it, yet He fulfils it. Israel was divorced for their sins, yet He returns to God's original institution which was in the Law too, and will own Israel as Ish (man) and Hephzibah (beloved of God) making good God's own institution, when the governmental force of the Law has run its course, from Babylon till He takes His power and Israel has paid the last farthing. And breaking or annulling "one of the least commandments" is the same maintenance of the Law in all its integrity, and "least" is merely fully enforcing it, for if Christ came to fulfil it, he went against it, was going against Jehovah, and the very thing He came for. But the word "least" is merely to answer to "least," for either it gives a measure and he who taught against the least would get in, beyond that not - which is monstrous - or else he who annulled a greater would be less than he, still in the kingdom. But this is not the thought. "Least" echoes "least," and it is maintaining every jot and tittle of the Law, even the smallest, which I fully believe, but to be fulfilled by Christ, not carried on, though many things in it may abide, but it must (genetai) never be set aside, but fulfilled by Christ as God's own word. But to say 'Christ only brought out the true contents of the Law,' is simply ignorance of what Christianity is, for grace and truth came by Him. The Law, as a rule, is what man should be for God - Christianity is what God is for man, and God in Man, and that is our full pattern, and this in general character (not in redemption, and giving up self consequently man's part) - we have in the Sermon on the Mount, far away from Law; chap. 5:44-48. In this, Christ was in life before redemption. But for us the full character is also what He did in redemption; Ephesians 5:1.

The Sermon on the Mount (as Matt. 5 - 7 is called) does not suppose the Kingdom to be established. There is a tone of the rejection of Christ running through it all. See verses 10-12, as also Matthew 6 and many of the exhortations of Matthew 7 which would not apply to that time of blessing on the earth. But coming to verses 20 and following, it will be observed that it is not the spiritualising of the law as often expressed, but the contrast drawn between the mere outward observance of it in Pharisaical righteousness and an internal reality looked for by Christ, and this as characteristic in this present time of those who, when Christ sets up the Kingdom, should have entrance into it. Thus He takes up the two forms of human evil, violence and corruption (vers. 21, 27), and gives the law that forbids them a new force. He judges the feelings and state of the heart. It was not enough not to kill: to cherish anger or contempt was of the same character as murder in His sight; His judgment of it expressed in the terms of the judicial proceedings with which they were familiar in their local and superior courts. "The judgment" inflicted death by the sword; "the council" (Sanhedrim) by stoning; and "the Gehenna of fire" would intensify the horrors of it. (See Alford in loc.) In what follows we see the Lord in the way with the Jew to judgment; — "thine adversary," because of His rejection, — to come under His hand in governmental dealing till they had received double for all their sins as Isaiah 40:2 puts it, or to be reconciled with Him while it was yet possible, as Psalm 2:12 warned them.

In His own authority the Lord Jesus contrasts the commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” with His words, “But I say unto you.” He does not speak against an interpretation which is more favourable to man and a weakening of the divine commandment, (unlike verse 22), and certainly not against the commandment itself, for He was not come to destroy but to fulfil.

In His own authority the Lord Jesus contrasts the commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," with His words, "But I say unto you." He does not speak against an interpretation which is more favourable to man and a weakening of the divine commandment, (unlike verse 22), and certainly not against the commandment itself, for He was not come to destroy but to fulfil.

The Lord Jesus now sets His own words over against this commandment with its human addition: “But I say unto 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 He does not set aside the law by His words but extends its application to man's condition of heart. Whilst the commandment only forbade the extreme manifestation of hatred, i.e. killing a person, the Lord shows that anger with a brother (which means the Jewish “brother” here) deserves the same punishment as killing itself.

If in the opinion of the Rabbis only the murderer was subject to this judgment, the Lord's words show that the one who was angry with his brother for no reason was subject to the same judgment. The one who called his brother “Raca” (Aramaic: “reka” — fool, lunatic) was subject to be called before the Sanhedrin (the supreme Jewish court at that time), and whosoever should say “fool” was to be subject to hell (“Gehenna”): eternal damnation. If the last of these three sins, which hardly differ from one another, led to eternal damnation, then the others would do so as well. God does not look at the outward appearance but into our hearts.

The Lord Jesus now sets His own words over against this commandment with its human addition: "But I say unto 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 He does not set aside the law by His words but extends its application to man's condition of heart. Whilst the commandment only forbade the extreme manifestation of hatred, i.e. killing a person, the Lord shows that anger with a brother (which means the Jewish "brother" here) deserves the same punishment as killing itself.

If in the opinion of the Rabbis only the murderer was subject to this judgment, the Lord's words show that the one who was angry with his brother for no reason was subject to the same judgment. The one who called his brother "Raca" (Aramaic: "reka"-fool, lunatic) was subject to be called before the Sanhedrin (the supreme Jewish court at that time), and whosoever should say "fool" was to be subject to hell ("Gehenna"): eternal damnation. If the last of these three sins, which hardly differ from one another, led to eternal damnation, then the others would do so as well. God does not look at the outward appearance but into our hearts.

Now He takes up the law in its various parts, at least what has to do with men. Here He does not enter into what touches God directly, but first of all takes up that which flows from human violence, and after this the great flagrant example of human corruption; for violence and corruption are the two outstanding forms of human iniquity. Before the flood even, such was the condition of men: "The earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence." Here, in verse 21, we have the light of the kingdom cast on the command, "Thou shalt not kill: and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment." The law took cognizance of this extreme form of violence; but our Lord gives length, breadth, height, and depth to it: "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (ver. 22). That is, our Lord treats as now coming under the same category with murder, in the sight of God, every kind of violence, and feeling, and expression; anything of contempt and hatred, whatever expresses the ill-feeling of the heart; any putting down of another, the will to annihilate others as far as character or influence is concerned: all this is no better than murder in God's searching eye. He is expanding the law; He is showing now One who looks at and judges the feeling of the heart. Therefore it is not at all a question merely of the consequences of violence to a man, for there might be no very bad effect produced by these words of anger, but they proved the state of the heart; and this is what the Lord is dealing with here. "Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way: first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift" (vers. 23, 24). He is not yet manifesting the Christian in his entire separation from the Jewish system. These words clearly show a connection with Israel — though the principle applies to a Christian; for the altar has no reference to the Lord's table.

The righteous need of the scribes and Pharisees was mere self-righteousness, an attempted cover-up of their true character. We must have a righteousness that exceeds this. This is not explained for us here, but Romans 4:5 makes this far more clear: "To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Without faith no-one could enter the kingdom of heaven in any vital way.

The remainder of the chapter shows that God accepts from man no righteousness apart from faith; for it will be seen that the Lord strikes not only at wrong actions, but at wrong motives. The law of Moses had said, "Thou shalt not kill." But Christ's authority is higher than that of Moses, and He affirms that causeless anger against one's brother puts him in the same danger of judgment as does murder. He judges men's inner thoughts; but if one expressed such thoughts despisingly toward another, branding him as "Raca" (vain or empty), he was in danger of being rightly called before the Jewish council to answer to this serious charge. Worse still, he might express those thoughts hatefully, calling one a fool: if so he was in danger of hell fire. A basically hateful character has no faith: "whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer both eternal life abiding in him" (1Jn.3:15).