Five Fuller Applications of the Law (5:21-43).
In order to bring home what His disciples' approach to the Law should be Jesus selects five pivotal aspects of the Law, and expands on them and explains them. Each example commences with ‘you have heard that it was said --.' He then draws attention to the fact that as a result of their literalist and hidebound interpretation the Jews have in many cases missed much of the significance of the Law.
So He draws attention to what others in the past have laid their emphasis on, and then brings forward what by their pedantic interpretation these others have missed. In doing so He at the same time deals with aspects of life that go to the very root of the personal attitude of people towards others. He describes how a man who is spiritually whole, and has the attitudes implanted in him described in the beatitudes, will behave with regard to them. Thus He deals with such things as: not being antagonistic towards and having contempt for others (they are rather to be poor in spirit, meek, peacemakers); having wrong attitudes with regard to marital and sexual relationships (they are to be pure in heart); having wrong attitudes towards honesty and truth (they are to be hungry after righteousness and truthful); the importance of not being vengeful (they are to be merciful); and finally He emphasises the overriding principle of love. It will be observed that all these facets of the Law cover different aspects of a person's personal relationships. The one who lives in accordance with them will have ‘life more abundantly' (John 10:10). For these are the personal attitudes that can make or mar a person's whole enjoyment of life (Leviticus 18:5).
He distinguishes the five as:
a The Law concerning murder, hatred and arrogance (Matthew 5:21-26).
b The Law concerning adultery, divorce, and sexual attitude and the need to be harsh with oneself about sin (Matthew 5:27-32).
c The Law concerning taking oaths, and absolute honesty (Matthew 5:33-37).
b The Law concerning showing a loving response and not being harsh to others about sin (Matthew 5:38-42).
a The Law concerning loving even one's enemies, in the same way as God does (Matthew 5:43-48).
It will be noted that in ‘a' the question of hatred is dealt with while in the parallel it is the question of love. In ‘b' the need to be harsh with oneself is emphasised, while in the parallel He stresses the need not to be harsh with others. Central in ‘c' is the requirement for total honesty.
It will further be noted that the section then ends with a contrast with the Gentiles, and a reference to ‘your Heavenly Father'. Thus they are to have the same attitude as He has towards all men, and not be just like the Gentiles, while they are to be like their Heavenly Father. These themes are also taken up in the next section. So in this section we learn some of the personal attitudes of heart towards others that must prevail under the Kingly Rule of God, as He brings out the full significance of what the Law intended.
There is also a further chiastic pattern to this section. He commences by dealing with anger (Matthew 5:22 a), and finishes by dealing with love (Matthew 5:44). He then moves on to men's insults (Matthew 5:22 b), which can be contrasted with how they are to respond to insults (Matthew 5:39-42). After that He deals with dishonesty in the sexual matters which lay at the very basis of their existence (Matthew 5:28-32), which can be contrasted with the total honesty that God requires in all things (Matthew 5:34-37). That is then followed by the divorce certificate which registers the breaking of a solemn agreement (Matthew 5:31-32), which can be contrasted with His words on oath-making (Matthew 5:33-35). All these things were important in maintaining harmony between people, and especially between ‘brethren' (Leviticus 19:16-19).
1). The Disciples' Attitude With Regard to The Commandment Concerning Murder And Attitudes of Hatred and Contempt Towards Others.
The first commandment Jesus draws attention to is that concerning murder, and He begins by pointing out how the ancients have looked at it. They have not said, ‘God hates murder, how then can we ensure that it never happens?' They have simply accepted it as a fact of life and have passed judgment on it. They have failed to look beneath the surface.
Murder, He accepts, was rightly looked on by them as a heinous crime. And that was proved by the fact that they passed judgment on it. But instead of them then going on to draw out the wider implications from this by asking how they could avoid murder, the ancients had been satisfied to stop with it as a fact of life and simply declare their judgment on it. They had totally failed to look beneath the surface of the commandment, and ask themselves what God was really wanting of them. They had not asked, how can we ensure that this never happens?
Jesus' point will be that had they genuinely been concerned about pleasing God they would have recognised that the ten commandments, which made up the essence of the covenant in Exodus 20:2-17 and revealed what God hated, were clearly intended to go deeper than being just prohibitions of particular basic crimes as though God was concerned only with those particular crimes. They had been intended to raise questions about how, in the light of them, they could please God by removing all the root causes which led up to such things. That had in fact been made clear by the fact that the tenth and final commandment had stressed the need to look at the motive lying behind the commandments. There He had condemned ‘coveting'. So that should have alerted them to the need to look behind the commandments to what caused the actual things that were condemned.
And their need to look behind them had also been indicated by the fact that the laws that followed the ten commandments, in for example Exodus 21-24, had amplified the original ten commandments, and had expanded their scope. That in itself had also demonstrated that they needed to be analysed and expanded on.
So it had been made apparent right from the beginning that the ten commandments were not to be seen just as ‘absolutes', banning one thing. It should rather have been recognised, as the forbidding of coveting and the later amplification of the law revealed, that God was concerned in them to cover a whole range of actions and attitudes that could be seen as lying behind these commandments. Thus the command not to murder had been intended to raise questions about all the basic instincts, feelings and attitudes that could lead to murder. The command not to commit adultery had been intended to make men ask, how can we avoid breaking up the fundamental relationships between men and women united by God? And so on. So each statement in those absolute commandments had in fact held within it the requirement to deal with the attitudes that lay at the root of them. They had been intended to lay down for ever the basis of all the relationships that people had with each other. And had they loved God that is how they would have treated them.
But how had men and women actually treated them? The ancients had rightly looked on murder as a heinous crime, and they had then added to the commandment their own comment on the judgment that it deserved. But that proved that they had simply taken it at face value without enquiring what lay behind it. That very fact revealed that in their moral immaturity they had missed the point. For having added their dictum they had been satisfied that that dealt with what the commandment was all about, the sacredness of human life. But what they had failed to see was that God wanted them also to be concerned with what lay at the root of murder. As the tenth commandment demonstrated He was concerned with what lay behind men's acts, such as for example the covetousness which often lay behind them, and now here in Matthew 5 the anger (also seen as important in the Law, compare Leviticus 19:17-18). The command against coveting in itself should have awoken them to the recognition of the fact that He was also concerned with all the factors that lay behind the commandments, factors such as hatred, contempt for others, and not having regard for other people's feelings.
But the truth was that when it came to the ‘lesser' crimes which stopped short of murder, such as crimes of violence and arrogance and false accusation, they had ignored them. Their concern had virtually ceased with murder. Why, even those responsible for justice had actually indulged in these ‘lesser crimes'. Thus calling for the striking of people who were not in a position to retaliate was a regular feature of life among those in authority, even among judges (compare John 18:22; Acts 23:2); while a severe beating at the hands of judges of common people held on remand, or who were witnesses, was also commonplace (see Acts 5:40; Acts 16:37); and it would appear that showing contempt for, and insulting people, which often lay at the root of murder, were hardly frowned on at all, except by those to whom the insults were addressed. So Jesus stresses that the commandments had been indicating that it was not only murder that was deserving of the judgment in God's eyes, but that all that lay behind murder, such as acting in anger, showing contempt for or ridiculing others, and so on, should equally have been seen as heinous. ‘You shall not murder' should have been seen as signifying ‘you shall not have the attitudes that lead up to murder'. All knew the kind of thing that led up to murder, such things as anger, that then led to violence, and that then resulted in murder, but they had done nothing about it. And they had failed to see that while contempt and ridicule may not kill, but might only murder a person's personality and reputation, they also were to be seen as sowing the seeds of murder, for that is what might finally result. In other words He is indicating that God's aim had been to get rid of all the sins of men that could lead up to murder, but that they had ignored the fact altogether. Furthermore they had by this ignored all the laws that had required the maintenance of harmony in Israel.
Having declared that He then goes on to point out what people who have offended their ‘brothers' in this regard should do about it. They should not just be satisfied with deciding to be different from then on. Rather, before they even considered coming to worship God again, they should first seek to restore the harmony among them and make things right with their fellowmen (compare Leviticus 19:17). Otherwise they would even then still be seen as guilty of encouraging murder.
His point here is not that the ancients were wrong to bring murderers to justice. Far from it. Where they went wrong was in concentrating on that and excluding the ideas that lay behind murder, treating the ultimate crime as so important that they overlooked what might be seen by them as lesser activities, but which were in fact almost as important, certainly to the victims, and far more commonplace. For if only those were properly dealt with the question of murder would not even arise.
Analysis of Matthew 5:21-26.
a You have heard that it was said to those of old time, “You shall not kill, and whoever will kill will be in danger of the judgment” (Matthew 5:21).
b But I say to you, that every one who is angry with his brother will be in danger of the judgment (Matthew 5:22 a).
b And whoever shall say to his brother, Raca, will be in danger of the council (Matthew 5:22 b).
b And whoever shall say, You fool, will be in danger of the hell of fire (Matthew 5:22 c).
c If therefore you are offering your gift at the altar (Matthew 5:23 a).
d And there remember that your brother has anything against you (Matthew 5:23 b).
e Leave there your gift before the altar (Matthew 5:24 a).
d And go your way, first be reconciled to your brother (Matthew 5:24 b).
c And then come and offer your gift (Matthew 5:24 c).
b Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are with him in the way (Matthew 5:25 a).
b Lest it happen that the adversary deliver you to the judge (Matthew 5:25 b).
b And the judge deliver you to the officer, and you be cast into prison (Matthew 5:25 c).
a Truly I say to you, you will by no means come out from there, until you have paid the last penny (Matthew 5:26).
Note that in ‘a' killers will be in danger of ‘the judgment' and its consequences and in the parallel those who do not agree with their adversaries are in danger of not leaving prison until they have paid their last penny. In ‘b' three alternative verdicts are issued against certain behaviour and in the parallel three alternatives are also suggested in respect of certain behaviour. In ‘c' reference is made to offering gifts at the altar and in the parallel the gift is offered, but only when all is well. In ‘d' reference is made to a brother having something against you, and in the parallel you have to be reconciled to your brother. Centrally in ‘e' is the urging that you do not offer your gift until you have first been reconciled to your brother.
We must also again remind ourselves that in Matthew 5:21-26 there is an overall threefold pattern which includes other threefold patterns. Thus we have firstly the warning concerning three different forms of prospective ‘murder' together with their threefold connected judgments (Matthew 5:22), secondly the need to be reconciled with one who has been offended, expressed in a threefold way as bringing his gift to the altar, leaving his gift before the altar, and offering his gift at the altar (Matthew 5:23-24), and thirdly the warning of the threefold consequence that may follow for those who are not willing to be reconciled, being brought before the judge, handed over to the police, and finally put in prison (Matthew 5:25-26).
Overall then these words are carefully constructed.