Matthew 5:21–5:48

Matthew 5:20-22 Matthew 5:20-22 20. For I say to you, That, unless your righteousness shall be more abundant [387] than that of the Scribes and the Pharisees, you shall not enter [388] into the kingdom of heaven. 21. You have heard that it was said to the ancients, [389] Thou shalt not kill: and he who shall kill shall be liable to judgment. [390] 22. But I say to you, That every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment: and he who shall say to his brother, Racha, shall be liable to the council: and he who shall say, Fool, shall be liable to the hell of fire. [391] Matthew 5:20 . Unless your righteousness shall be more abundant. He takes a passing notice of the Scribes, who were laboring to throw a stain on the doctrine of the Gospel, as if it were the ruin of the Law. True, he does not reason on this subject, but only points out briefly, that nothing has less influence over their minds than zeal for the law. "They pretend, that their hostility to me arises from their strong desire, that the law should not be violated. But their life makes it evident, how coldly they observe the law, -- nay more, how unconcerned they are about mocking God, [392] while they boast before men of an assumed and hypocritical righteousness." This is the view which the most of commentators give of the passage. But it deserves inquiry, whether he does not rather blame the corrupted manner of teaching, which the Pharisees and Scribes followed in instructing the people. By confining the law of God to outward duties only, they trained their disciples, like apes, to hypocrisy. [393] They lived, I readily admit, as ill as they taught, and even worse: and therefore, along with their corrupted doctrine, I willingly include their hypocritical parade of false righteousness. The principal charge brought by Christ against their doctrine may be easily learned from what follows in the discourse, where he removes from the law their false and wicked interpretations, and restores it to its purity. In short, the objection which, as we have already said, was unjustly brought against him by the Scribes, is powerfully thrown back on themselves. We must bear in mind, what we have mentioned elsewhere, that the Pharisees are added to the Scribes by way of enlarging on what he had said: for that sect had, above all others, obtained a reputation for sanctity. It is a mistake, however, to suppose, that they were called Pharisees on account of division, [394] because they separated themselves from the ordinary class, and claimed a rank peculiar to themselves. They were called phrvsym, that is, Expounders, [395] because they were not satisfied with the bare letter, but boasted of being in possession of a key to open up hidden meanings. Hence arose an immense mass of errors, when they assumed magisterial authority, and ventured, according to their wicked fancy and their equally wicked pride, to thrust forward their own inventions in place of Scripture. 21. You have heard that it was said. This sentence, and those which immediately follow, are connected with what we have just considered: for our Lord explains more fully, by minute instances, by what tortuous methods [396] the Pharisees debase the law, so that their righteousness is mere filth. It is a mistake, however, to suppose that this is an epanorthosis, or correction [397] of the Law, and that Christ raises his disciples to a higher degree of perfection, than Christ could raise a gross and carnal nation, which was scarcely able to learn first principles. It has been a prevailing opinion, that the beginning of righteousness was laid down in the ancient law, but that the perfection of it is pointed out in the Gospel. But nothing was farther from the design of Christ, than to alter or innovate any thing in the commandments of the law. There God has once fixed the rule of life which he will never retract. But as the law had been corrupted by false expositions, and turned to a profane meaning, Christ vindicates it against such corruptions, and points out its true meaning, from which the Jews had departed. That the doctrine of the law not only commences, but brings to perfection, a holy life, may be inferred from a single fact, that it requires a perfect love of God and of our neighbor, ( Deuteronomy 6:5 ; Leviticus 19:18 .) He who possesses such a love wants nothing of the highest perfection. So far as respects the rules of a holy life, the law conducts men to the goal, or farthest point, of righteousness. Accordingly, Paul declares the law to be weak, not in itself, but in our flesh, ( Romans 8:3 .) But if Moses had given nothing more than the first lessons of true righteousness, how ridiculous would have been that appeal! "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that ye may live," ( Deuteronomy 30:19 .) Again, "And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, and to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul?" ( Deuteronomy 10:12 .) Vain and deceitful, also, would have been that promise, "The man that doeth them shall live in them," ( Leviticus 18:5 ; Romans 10:5 ; Galatians 3:12 .) That Christ, on the other hand, intended to make no correction in the precepts of the law, is very clear from other passages: for to those who desire to enter into life by their good works, he gives no other injunction, than to, keep the commandments of the law, ( Matthew 19:17 .) From no other source do the Apostles, as well as Christ himself, draw the rules for a devout and holy life. It is doing a grievous injury to God, the author of the Law, to imagine that the eyes, and hands, and feet alone, are trained by it to a hypocritical appearance of good works, and that it is only in the Gospel that we are taught to love God with the heart. Away, then, with that error, "The deficiencies of the law are here supplied by Christ." We must not imagine Christ to be a new legislator, who adds any thing to the eternal righteousness of his Father. We must listen to him as a faithful expounder, that we may know what is the nature of the law, what is its object, and what is its extent. It now remains for us to see, what Christ condemns in the Pharisees, and in what respect his interpretation of it differs from their glosses. The amount of it is, that they had changed the doctrine of the law into a political order, and had made obedience to it to consist entirely in the performance of outward duties. Hence it came, that he who had not slain a man with his hand was pronounced to be free from the guilt of murder, and he who had not polluted his body by adultery was supposed to be pure and chaste before God. This was an intolerable profanation of the law: for it is certain, that Moses everywhere demands the spiritual worship of God. From the very nature of the law we must conclude, that God, who gave it by the hand of Moses, spoke to the hearts, as well as to the hands and to the eyes. True, our Lord quotes the very words of the law; but he does so in accommodation to the view which was generally taken of them by the people. "Till now, the scribes have given you a literal interpretation of the law, that it is enough, if a man keep his hands from murder and from acts of violence. But I warn you, that you must ascend much higher. Love is the fulfilling of the law, ( Romans 13:10 ;)and I say that your neighbor is injured, when you act towards him otherwise than as a friend." The latter clause which he quotes, he who kills shall be liable to the judgment, confirms what I said a little before, that Christ charges them with turning into a political scheme the law of God, which had been given for the government of the heart. 22. But I say to you His reply is not opposed to the command of Moses, ( Exodus 20:13 ; Leviticus 24:21 ; Numbers 35:16 ;) but to the interpretation usually put upon it by the scribes. Now, as the Pharisees boasted of antiquity, (for it is always the custom to plead the prescription of a long period in defense of errors,) [398] Christ reminds the people of his authority, to which all antiquity ought justly to give way. Hence we conclude, that truth is of greater weight than custom or the number of years. He who shall say to his brother Christ assigns three degrees of condemnation besides the violence of the hands; which implies, that this precept of the law restrains not only the hands, but all affections that are opposed to brotherly love. "Those who shall only be angry with their brethren, or treat them with haughty disdain, or injure them by any reproach, are murderers." Now, as it is certain that the word Racha occupies an intermediate place between anger and openly reproachful language, I have no doubt that it is an interjection of contempt or disdain. Though Christ adjudges to the hell of fire none but those who break out into open reproach, we must not suppose, that he declares anger to be free from a similar punishment; but, alluding to earthly judgments, he assures them that God will judge and punish even concealed anger. [399] But, as he who manifests his indignation by bitter language goes farther than this, Christ says, that that man will be held guilty by the whole heavenly council, that he may receive severer punishment. Those, again, who break out into reproaches are adjudged to the hell of fire: which implies, that hatred, and every thing that is contrary to love, is enough to expose them to eternal death, though they may have committed no acts of violence. Geenna (hell) is, beyond all question, a foreign word. gy' (Ge) is the Hebrew word for a valley. Now, "the valley of Hin-nom" was infamous for the detestable superstition which was committed in it, because there they sacrificed their children to idols, ( 2 Chronicles 33:6 .) The consequence was, that holy men, in order to excite stronger hatred of that wicked ungodliness, used it as the name for hell, that the very name might be dreaded by the people as shocking and alarming. It would appear that, in the time of Christ, this was a received way of speaking, and that hell was then called by no other name than gehenna, (geenna,) the word being slightly altered from the true pronunciation. Footnotes: [387] "Si votre justice n'outrepasse;" -- "if your righteousness does not go beyond." [388] "Vous n'entrerez nullement, ou, jamais;" -- "you shall not at all enter, or, you shall never enter." [389] "Aux anciens." [390] "Sera digne d'estre puni par jugement;" -- "shall be worthy of being punished by judgment." [391] "Sera digne d'estre puni par la gehenne du feu;" -- "shall be worthy of being punished by the gehenna of fire." [392] "Comme ils se moquent de Dieu sans en faire conscience." -- "How they mock God, without making conscience of it." [393] "Ils accoustumoyent leurs disc p es k ne hypocrisle, et en faisoyent des singes." -- "They accustomed their disciples to a hypocrisy, and made apes of them." [394] "De division, ou separation;" -- "of division, or separation." [395] Among a host of opinions as to the origin of the name Pharisees, there is room to doubt if Calvin has hit upon the true etymology. There are two roots: phrs (paras,) to spread out, with Sin for the final letter, -- and phrs (parash,). to explain, to separate, with Schin. Both have been pressed into the service. The former is chiefly quoted in support of an allusion to our Lord's description of them, that they make broad their phylacteries, ( Matthew 23:5 .) But the latter root has been more fertile in suggestions. John Alberti, no mean authority, in his Glossarium Grcecurn, (under Luke 11:38 ,) defines Pharisaios, to be diakechorismenos, separated, and quotes the Septuagint as employing that participle ( Ezekiel 34:12 ) for, nphrsvt the principhal participle of phrs, (parash.) From Hesychius he gives synonyms of like import, -- Pharisaios, aphorismenos, memerismenos, katharos As to the last of those terms, katharos, the learned Vitringa, to whom Alberti also refers, has copiously illustrated its meaning in a passage, which has been often quoted as embodying the proud challenge of the Pharisee, Stand by: for I am holier than thou, ( Isaiah 65:5 ) -- Suidas unhesitatingly defends the same idea of separation. His definition is as follows: Pharisaioi hoi hermeneuomenoi aphorismenoi, para to merizein kai aphorizein heautous ton allon hapanton, eis te to katharotaton tou biou, kai akribestaton, kai eis ta tou nomou entalmata. "Pharisees, -- which means separated, on account of their dividing and separating themselves from all others, to the greatest purity and strictness of life, and to the prescriptions of the law." -- Calvin's derivation is from the same root, and is certainly ingenious. That sect, we know, boasted of a rigid adherence to the law, though it may be questioned whether profound skill in exposition was claimed by all its members. Many of them might think that this belonged to the Scribes as a professional matter. -- Ed. [396] "Comment les Phariseens avoyent deprave la Loy par leurs expositions tortues;" -- "how the Pharisees had debased the law by their crooked expositions." [397] "Une correction ou amplification de la Loy;" -- "a correction or enlargement of the Law." [398] "Pour maintenir et defendre les erreurs ou abus en la matiere de la religion;" -- "to maintain and defend errors or abuses in matters of religion." [399] "L'indignation secrette qu'on aura eue en son coeur contre le frere;" --"the secret indignation which they shall have had in their heart against their brother."

{5} Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: (5) The true meaning of the first commandment.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old — Antiquity is venerable: and of witnesses, Aristotle witnesseth, that the more ancient they are, the more to be credited, as less corrupt. New things are vain things, saith the Greek proverb. And the historian condemneth his countrymen, as despisers of old customs, and carried after new. a But as old age is a crown, if it be found in the way of righteousness, Proverbs 16:31 , and not otherwise; so may it be said of these Kadmonim or the old Rabbis, later than Ezra, whom our Saviour here confuteth. Much might have been attributed to their authority, had they not rested upon the bare letter of the law, and wrested it sometimes to another meaning. Antiquity disjoined from verity is but filthy hoariness; and deserveth no more reverence than an old lecher, which is so much the more odious, because old. And as manna, the longer it was kept against the command of God the more it stank; so do errors and enormities. Laban pretendeth antiquity for his God, in his oath to Jacob: The God of Abraham, saith he, and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge between us, Genesis 31:53 . But Jacob swore by the fear of his father Isaac. He riseth not higher than his father, and yet doubts not but he worshipped God aright. εμοι αρχαια Ιησου ο Χριστος . (Ignat.) It is no good rule to say, We’ll be of the same religion with our forefathers, unless we can approve it right by the Holy Scriptures. Plus valet malum inolitum quam bonum insolitum: and that, Tyrannus, trium literatum mos, too often carries it against truth. The image that fell down from Jupiter (for which there was so much ado at Ephesus, του Διοπετους, Acts 19:35 ) is said by the town clerk to be such as could not be spoken against with any reason. And why? because it was wonderfully ancient (as Pliny telleth us). For whereas the temple of Diana had been seven different times rebuilt, this image was never changed; Virgineum fuit simulachrum longe antiquissimum, nunquam mutatum, septies restituto templo. and thence grew the so great superstition, by the covetousness of the priests. As likewise the Ancilia among the Romans; and Pessinuntium among the Asians. But what saith a noble writer, Antiquity must have no more authority than what it can maintain. Did not our predecessors hold the torrid zone uninhabitable? did they not confine the world in the ark of Europe, Asia, and Africa, till Noah’s dove, Columbus, discovered land? … Thou shalt not kill: and whosoever killeth shall be in danger of judgment — That is, it shall be questioned whether it be fit he be put to death or not. Thus as Eve dallied with the command, saying, Ye shall not eat thereof, lest ye die (when God had said, Ye shall surely die whensoever ye eat), and so fell into the devil’s danger; in like sort, these Jewish doctors had corrupted the very letter of the law, and made doubtful and questionable what God had plainly and peremptorily pronounced to be present death. Before the Flood, indeed, some do guess and gather out of Genesis 9:5-6 that the punishment of murder, and such like heinous offences, was only excommunication from the holy assemblies, and exclusion out of their fathers’ families, as Cain was cast out from the presence of the Lord; that is, from his father’s house, where God was sincerely served. Sure it is, that no sooner was the world repaired, than this law was established, "Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed;" and this reason is rendered, "for in the image of God made he him," Genesis 9:6 . That image (it is true) is by the Fall defaced and abolished; yet are there some relics thereof still abiding, which God will not have destroyed. If any object, Why then should the murderer be destroyed, since he also is made in the image of God? the answer is easy, because the murderer hath destroyed the image of God in his neighbour, and turned himself into the image of the devil. Besides, God hath indispensably and peremptorily commanded it: He that sheddeth the blood of any person, hasteneth to the grave, let no man hinder him, Proverbs 28:17 . Say he escape the stroke of human justice, yet the barbarians could say (as of Paul, whom they took for a murderer) that divine vengeance will not suffer him to live, Acts 28:4 ; "Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days," Psalms 55:23 . Usually either God executeth them with his own immediate hand, as it might be easy to instance in many bloody persecutors and others; or he maketh them their own deathsmen, as Pilate; or setteth some others to work to do it for them. As (among other examples of God’s dealings in this kind) A. D. 1586, Walsh, Bishop of Ossory, in Ireland, a man of honest life, with his two servants, were stabbed to death by one Dulland, an Irish old soldier, while he gravely admonished him of his foul adulteries; and the wicked murderer escaped away, who had now committed 45 murders with his own hand. At length revenge pursuing him, he was by another bloody fellow, Donald Spaman, shortly after slain himself, and his head presented to the Lord Deputy. Neither can I here omit (that which I had almost forgotten) the just hand of God upon that villanous parricide, Alphonsus Diazius, the Spaniard, who (after he had, like another Cain, 1 John 3:12 , killed his own natural brother, John Diazius, merely because he had renounced Popery and became a professor of the reformed religion, and was not only not punished, but highly commended of the Romanists for his heroic achievements) desperately hanged himself at Trent, upon the neck of his own mule, being haunted and hunted by the furies of his own conscience. Senarclaeus de morte Ioan. Diazii, A.D. 1551. Seipsum desperabundus Tridenti de collo mulae suae suspendit. a πιστοτατειοιπαλαιοι αδιαφθοροι γαρ . Rhet. lib. i. τα καινα κενα . Thucydides. Athenienses suos υπεροπτας των ειωθοτων, non sine probro appellitat. Cor Princorum fuit sicut porta porticus templi, at cor posterorum sicut forameniacus. Talmud Erublin. Papists boast much of antiquity, as once the Gibeonites did of old shoes and mouldy bread.

See Poole on " Matthew 5:22 " .

Ye have heard,.... That is, from the Scriptures being read to them, and the explanations of the ancients, which were called "hearing", being read in the schools, and heard by the scholars (o); so that to "hear", was along with the recital of the text, to receive by tradition, the sense the elders had given of it: of this kind is the instance produced by Christ. Thus Onkelos, and Jonathan ben Uzziel, render the phrase, "him shall ye hear", in Deuteronomy 18:15 by , "from him shall ye receive"; so those phrases (p), , "they learn from hearing", or by report from others; and "they speak from hearing", or from what they have heard, are often used for receiving and reporting things as they have them by tradition. That "it was said", or "it hath been said"; this is also a Talmudic form of expression; often is this phrase to be met with in the Talmud, "it has been said" (q); that is, by the ancient doctors, as here, "by them of old time", or "to the ancients", so in Munster's Hebrew Gospel; not to the Israelites in the time of Moses, but to the ancestors of the Jews, since the times of Ezra; by the elders, who were contemporary with them; and who by their false glosses corrupted the law, when they recited any part of it to the people; or "by the ancients", the ancient doctors and commentators, which preceded the times of Christ, whom the Jews often call "our ancients" (r). Now, upon that law, "thou shalt not kill", they put this gloss, or added this by way of interpretation, and whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment; which they understood only of actual murder, either committed in their own persons, or by the means of others. Their rules for the judgment of such persons were these; "everyone that kills his neighbour with his hand; as if he strikes him with a sword, or with a stone that kills him; or strangles him till he die; or burns him in fire; seeing he kills him in any manner, in his own person, lo! such an one must be put to death , "by the house of judgment", or the sanhedrim (s).'' Not that which consisted of three persons only, but either that which consisted of twenty three, or the supreme one, which was made up of seventy one; which two last had only power of judging capital offences. Again, "if a man hires a murderer to kill his neighbour, or sends his servants, and they kill him, or binds him, and leaves him before a lion, or the like, and the beast kills him, everyone of these is a shedder of blood; and the sin of slaughter is in his hand; and he is guilty of death by the hand of heaven, i.e. God; but he is not to be put to death by the house of judgment, or the sanhedrim (t).'' A little after, it is said, "their judgment" is delivered to heaven, i.e. to God; and this seems to be the sense of the word "judgment" here, namely, the judgment of God, or death by the hand of God; since it is manifestly distinguished from the council, or sanhedrim, in the next "verse". The phrase, in danger of judgment, is the same with (u) , "guilty of judgment", or deserves condemnation. (o) Vid. Buxtorf. Lex. Rabbin, fol. 2453. (p) Maimon. Hilch. Issure Mizbeach, c. 1. sect. 2, 4, 5, 7, 10. & passim, & T. Bab. Sanhedrim, fol. 88. 1.((q) Vid. Edzardi Not. in Avoda Zara, c. 2. p. 284. (r) Vid. R. Aben Ezra in Exodus 21 .17. & in Isaiah 52 .13. & lxvi. 24. (s) Maimon. Hilch. Rotseach, c. 2. sect. 1.((t) Maimon. Hilch. Rotseach, c. 2. sect. 2.((u) In Targ. in 2 Chronicles 19 .10.

The Jewish teachers had taught, that nothing except actual murder was forbidden by the sixth commandment. Thus they explained away its spiritual meaning. Christ showed the full meaning of this commandment; according to which we must be judged hereafter, and therefore ought to be ruled now. All rash anger is heart murder. By our brother, here, we are to understand any person, though ever so much below us, for we are all made of one blood. Raca, is a scornful word, and comes from pride: Thou fool, is a spiteful word, and comes from hatred. Malicious slanders and censures are poison that kills secretly and slowly. Christ told them that how light soever they made of these sins, they would certainly be called into judgment for them. We ought carefully to preserve Christian love and peace with all our brethren; and if at any time there is a quarrel, we should confess our fault, humble ourselves to our brother, making or offering satisfaction for wrong done in word or deed: and we should do this quickly; because, till this is done, we are unfit for communion with God in holy ordinances. And when we are preparing for any religious exercises, it is good for us to make that an occasion of serious reflection and self-examination. What is here said is very applicable to our being reconciled to God through Christ. While we are alive, we are in the way to his judgement-seat; after death, it will be too late. When we consider the importance of the case, and the uncertainty of life, how needful it is to seek peace with God, without delay!

21. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time—or, as in the Margin, "to them of old time." Which of these translations is the right one has been much controverted. Either of them is grammatically defensible, though the latter—"to the ancients"—is more consistent with New Testament usage (see the Greek of Ro 9:12, 26; Re 6:11; 9:4); and most critics decide in favor of it. But it is not a question of Greek only. Nearly all who would translate "to the ancients" take the speaker of the words quoted to be Moses in the law; "the ancients" to be the people to whom Moses gave the law; and the intention of our Lord here to be to contrast His own teaching, more or less, with that of Moses; either as opposed to it—as some go the length of affirming—or at least as modifying, enlarging, elevating it. But who can reasonably imagine such a thing, just after the most solemn and emphatic proclamation of the perpetuity of the law, and the honor and glory in which it was to be held under the new economy? To us it seems as plain as possible that our Lord's one object is to contrast the traditional perversions of the law with the true sense of it as expounded by Himself. A few of those who assent to this still think that "to the ancients" is the only legitimate translation of the words; understanding that our Lord is reporting what had been said to the ancients, not by Moses, but by the perverters of his law. We do not object to this; but we incline to think (with Beza, and after him with Fritzsche, Olshausen, Stier, and Bloomfield) that "by the ancients" must have been what our Lord meant here, referring to the corrupt teachers rather than the perverted people. Thou shall not kill:—that is, This being all that the law requires, whosoever has imbrued his hands in his brother's blood, but he only, is guilty of a breach of this commandment. and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment—liable to the judgment; that is, of the sentence of those inferior courts of judicature which were established in all the principal towns, in compliance with De 16:16. Thus was this commandment reduced, from a holy law of the heart-searching God, to a mere criminal statute, taking cognizance only of outward actions, such as that which we read in Ex 21:12; Le 24:17.

Ye have heard - Or, this is the common interpretation among the Jews. Jesus proceeds here to comment on some prevailing opinions among the Jews; to show that the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was defective; and that people needed a better righteousness, or they could not be saved. He illustrates what he meant by that better righteousness by showing that the common opinions of the scribes were erroneous. By them of old time - This might be translated to the ancients, referring to Moses and the prophets. But it is more probable that Jesus here refers to the interpreters of the law and the prophets. He did not set himself against the law of Moses, but against the false and pernicious interpretations of the law prevalent in his time. Thou shalt not kill - See Exodus 20:13 . This properly denotes taking the life of another with malice, or with an intention to murder him. The Jews understood it as meaning no more. The comment of our Saviour shows that it was spiritual, and was designed to extend to the thoughts and feelings as well as the external act. Shall be in danger of - Shall be held guilty, and be punished by. The law of Moses declared that the murderer should be put to death, Leviticus 24:21 ; Numbers 35:16 . It did not say, however, by whom this should be done, and it was left to the Jews to organize courts to have cognizance of such crimes, Deuteronomy 16:18 . The judgment - This was the tribunal that had cognizance of cases of murder, etc. It was a court that sat in each city or town, and consisted commonly of seven members. It was the lowest court among the Jews, and from it an appeal might be taken to the Sanhedrin.