Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 5:27

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 5:27” utilice nuestra app.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery – See the notes at Mat 5:21. Our Saviour in these verses explains the seventh commandment. It is probable that the Pharisees had explained this commandment, as they had the sixth, as extending only to the external act; and that they regarded evil thoughts and a wanton imagination as of little consequence, or as not forbidden by the law. Our Saviour assures them that the commandment did not regard the external act merely, but the secrets of the heart, and the movements of the eye. He declares that they who indulge a wanton desire, that they who look on a woman to increase their lust, have already, in the sight of God, violated the commandment, and committed adultery in the heart. Such was the guilt of David, whose deep and awful crime fully shows the danger of indulging in evil desires, and in the rovings of a wanton eye. See 2 Sam. 11; Ps. 51. See also 2Pe 2:14. So exceeding strict and broad is the law of God! And so heinous in his sight axe thoughts and feelings which may be forever concealed from the world!

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Mat 5:27-28

In his heart.

The heart or will is, in man, the seat of virtue or vice.

I. Actions must be our invariable touchstone of truth whilst we sojourn in this state of imperfect knowledge and comparative obscurity, where expression is the only avenue to sentiment, and action the only publisher of intention.

II. Actions are the only public representatives of our private sentiments.

1. So many channels through which the heart discharges its flow of various passions.

2. So many mirrors by the reflection of which the internal dispositions of the soul become externally visible.

III. Actions viewed in a moral light are to the soul what

(1) streams are to the fountain;

(2) branches are to the root.

Branches have no existence but what they derive from the root. Streams have no existence but what they derive from the fountain. Actions have no moral existence but that which they derive from the heart.
When God judges man, the heart is the rule of judgment.

1. The heart, the source of these actions, is to Him uncovered

2. The heart, having the principle of religion so strong as to prevent an unlawful enjoyment, will likewise be sufficiently strong to prevent an unlawful resolution.

3. The depraved heart is before God of the same criminality as the depraved life, and exposes us to the same punishment from God. Let us therefore eternally renounce every inclination inconsistent with religion and reproachful to humanity. Let us cultivate purity of heart. (David Lamont, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 27. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old] By the ancients, , is omitted by nearly a hundred MSS., and some of them of the very greatest antiquity and authority; also by the Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, and Sclavonian versions; by four copies of the old Itala; and by Origen, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius, and Hilary. On this authority Wetstein and Griesbach have left it out of the text.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The scope of our Saviour in these verses is the very same as in the verses immediately preceding, viz. to correct the jejune interpretation which the Pharisees had put upon the Divine law, and to show that he, instead of coming to destroy the law, came to fulfil it, as other ways, so by giving a more strict and true interpretation of it; and whereas they interpreted it only as to overt acts, which disturb human society and break civil order, he showeth that it reacheth to the inward thoughts, and unlawful desires of the heart, and any means that have a tendency to such prohibited acts. It was said by God to those fathers of the Jews,

Thou shalt not commit adultery, Exo 20:14. This law (saith our Saviour) your doctors expound, You shall not carnally lie with a woman that is not your wife; but there is a great deal more in it than so, for he that but secretly in his heart desireth such a thing, or taketh pleasure in such thoughts, and casts his eyes upon a woman in order to such a thing, is in the sight of God an adulterer. Hence we read of eyes full of adultery, to avoid which Job made a covenant with his eyes, Job 31:1, and would not suffer his heart to walk after his eyes, Job 31:7. We must so interpret the commandments of God, as not to extend them only to forbid or command those acts which are plainly mentioned in them, but the inward pleasing of our hearts with such things as are forbidden, the desires of our hearts after them, or whatsoever is a probable means to give us that sinful pleasure of our thoughts, or further inflame such unlawful desires in our souls.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

27. Ye have heard that it wassaidThe words “by,” or “to them of old time,”in this verse are insufficiently supported, and probably were not inthe original text.

Thou shall not commitadulteryInterpreting this seventh, as they did the sixthcommandment, the traditional perverters of the law restricted thebreach of it to acts of criminal intercourse between, or with,married persons exclusively. Our Lord now dissipates such delusions.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Ye have heard that it was said,…. These forms of speech, as well as what follows,

by them of old time, have been explained, in ver. 21. The law here mentioned,

thou shalt not commit adultery, is recorded in Ex 20:14 and the meaning of our Lord is, not that the then present Jews had heard that such a law had been delivered “to the ancients”, their fathers, at Mount Sinai; for that they could read in their Bibles: but they had received it by tradition, that the sense of it, which had been given to their ancestors, by the ancient doctors of the church, was, that this law is to be taken strictly, as it lies, and only regards the sin of uncleanness in married persons; or, what was strictly adultery, and that actual; so that it had no respect to fornication, or unchaste thoughts, words, or actions, but that single act only.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The Sermon on the Mount.

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

We have here an exposition of the seventh commandment, given us by the same hand that made the law, and therefore was fittest to be the interpreter of it: it is the law against uncleanness, which fitly follows upon the former; that laid a restraint upon sinful passions, this upon sinful appetites, both which ought always to be under the government of reason and conscience, and if indulged, are equally pernicious.

I. The command is here laid down (v. 27), Thou shalt not commit adultery; which includes a prohibition of all other acts of uncleanness, and the desire of them: but the Pharisees, in their expositions of this command, made it to extend no further than the act of adultery, suggesting, that if the iniquity was only regarded in the heart, and went no further, God could not hear it, would not regard it (Ps. lxvi. 18), and therefore they thought it enough to be able to say that they were no adulterers, Luke xviii. 11.

II. It is here explained in the strictness of it, in three things, which would seem new and strange to those who had been always governed by the tradition of the elders, and took all for oracular that they taught.

1. We are here taught, that there is such a thing as heart-adultery, adulterous thoughts and dispositions, which never proceed to the act of adultery or fornication; and perhaps the defilement which these give to the soul, that is here so clearly asserted, was not only included in the seventh commandment, but was signified and intended in many of those ceremonial pollutions under the law, for which they were to wash their clothes, and bathe their flesh in water. Whosoever looketh on a woman (not only another man’s wife, as some would have it, but any woman), to lust after her, has committed adultery with her in his heart, v. 28. This command forbids not only the acts of fornication and adultery, but, (1.) All appetites to them, all lusting after the forbidden object; this is the beginning of the sin, lust conceiving (James i. 15); it is a bad step towards the sin; and where the lust is dwelt upon and approved, and the wanton desire is rolled under the tongue as a sweet morsel, it is the commission of sin, as far as the heart can do it; there wants nothing but convenient opportunity for the sin itself. Adultera mens est–The mind is debauched. Ovid. Lust is conscience baffled or biassed: biassed, if it say nothing against the sin; baffled, if it prevail not in what is says. (2.) All approaches toward them; feeding the eye with the sight of the forbidden fruit; not only looking for that end, that I may lust; but looking till I do lust, or looking to gratify the lust, where further satisfaction cannot be obtained. The eye is both the inlet and outlet of a great deal of wickedness of this kind, witness Joseph’s mistress (Gen. xxxix. 7), Samson (Judg. xvi. 1), David, 2 Sam. xi. 2. We read the eyes full of adultery, that cannot cease from sin, 2 Pet. ii. 14. What need have we, therefore, with holy Job, to make a covenant with our eyes, to make this bargain with them that they should have the pleasure of beholding the light of the sun and the works of God, provided they would never fasten or dwell upon any thing that might occasion impure imaginations or desires; and under this penalty, that if they did, they must smart for it in penitential tears! Job xxxi. 1. What have we the covering of the eyes for, but to restrain corrupt glances, and to keep out of their defiling impressions? This forbids also the using of any other of our senses to stir up lust. If ensnaring looks are forbidden fruit, much more unclean discourses, and wanton dalliances, the fuel and bellows of this hellish fire. These precepts are hedges about the law of heart-purity, v. 8. And if looking be lust, they who dress and deck, and expose themselves, with design to be looked at and lusted after (like Jezebel, that painted her face and tired her head, and looked out at the window) are no less guilty. Men sin, but devils tempt to sin.

2. That such looks and such dalliances are so very dangerous and destructive to the soul, that it is better to lose the eye and the hand that thus offend then to give way to the sin, and perish eternally in it. This lesson is here taught us, Mat 5:29; Mat 5:30. Corrupt nature would soon object against the prohibition of heart-adultery, that it is impossible to governed by it; “It is a hard saying, who can bear it? Flesh and blood cannot but look with pleasure upon a beautiful woman; and it is impossible to forbear lusting after and dallying with such an object.” Such pretences as these will scarcely be overcome by reason, and therefore must be argued against with the terrors of the Lord, and so they are here argued against.

(1.) It is a severe operation that is here prescribed for the preventing of these fleshly lusts. If thy right eye offend thee, or cause thee to offend, by wanton glances, or wanton gazings, upon forbidden objects; if thy right hand off end thee, or cause thee to offend, by wanton dalliances; and if it were indeed impossible, as is pretended, to govern the eye and the hand, and they have been so accustomed to these wicked practices, that they will not be withheld from them; if there be no other way to restrain them (which, blessed be God, through his grace, there is), it were better for us to pluck out the eye, and cut off the hand, though the right eye, and right hand, the more honourable and useful, than to indulge them in sin to the ruin of the soul. And if this must be submitted to, at the thought of which nature startles, much more must we resolve to keep under the body, and to bring it into subjection; to live a life of mortification and self-denial; to keep a constant watch over our own hearts, and to suppress the first rising of lust and corruption there; to avoid the occasions of sin, to resist the beginnings of it, and to decline the company of those who will be a snare to us, though ever so pleasing; to keep out of harm’s way, and abridge ourselves in the use of lawful things, when we find them temptations to us; and to seek unto God for his grace, and depend upon that grace daily, and so to walk in the Spirit, as that we may not fulfil the lusts of the flesh; and this will be as effectual as cutting off a right hand or pulling out a right eye; and perhaps as much against the grain to flesh and blood; it is the destruction of the old man.

(2.) It is a startling argument that is made use of to enforce this prescription (v. 29), and it is repeated in the same words (v. 30), because we are loth to hear such rough things; Isa. xxx. 10. It is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, though it be an eye or a hand, which can be worse spared, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Note, [1.] It is not unbecoming a minister of the gospel to preach of hell and damnation; nay, he must do it, for Christ himself did it; and we are unfaithful to our trust, if we give not warning of the wrath to come. [2.] There are some sins from which we need to be saved with fear, particularly fleshly lusts, which are such natural brute beasts as cannot be checked, but by being frightened; cannot be kept from a forbidden tree, but by cherubim, with a flaming sword. [3.] When we are tempted to think it hard to deny ourselves, and to crucify fleshly lusts, we ought to consider how much harder it will be to lie for ever in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone; those do not know or do not believe what hell is, that will rather venture their eternal ruin in those flames, than deny themselves the gratification of a base and brutish lust. [4.] In hell there will be torments for the body; the whole body will be cast into hell, and there will be torment in every part of it; so that if we have a care of our own bodies, we shall possess them in sanctification and honour, and not in the lusts of uncleanness. [5.] Even those duties that are most unpleasant to flesh and blood, are profitable for us; and our Master requires nothing from us but what he knows to be for our advantage.

3. That men’s divorcing of their wives upon dislike, or for any other cause except adultery, however tolerated and practised among the Jews, was a violation of the seventh commandment, as it opened a door to adultery, Mat 5:31; Mat 5:32. Here observe,

(1.) How the matter now stood with reference to divorce. It hath been said (he does not say as before, It hath been said by them of old time, because this was not a precept, as those were, though the Pharisees were willing so to understand it, ch. xix. 7, but only a permission), “Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce; let him not think to do it by word of mouth, when he is in a passion; but let him do it deliberately, by a legal instrument in writing, attested by witnesses; if he will dissolve the matrimonial bond, let him do it solemnly.” Thus the law had prevented rash and hasty divorces; and perhaps at first, when writing was not so common among the Jews, that made divorces rare things; but in process of time it became very common, and this direction of how to do it, when there was just cause for it, was construed into a permission of it for any cause, ch. xix. 3.

(2.) How this matter was rectified and amended by our Saviour. He reduced the ordinance of marriage to its primitive institution: They two shall be one flesh, not to be easily separated, and therefore divorce is not to be allowed, except in case of adultery, which breaks the marriage covenant; but he that puts away his wife upon any other pretence, causeth her to commit adultery, and him also that shall marry her when she is thus divorced. Note, Those who lead others into temptation to sin, or leave them in it, or expose them to it, make themselves guilty of their sin, and will be accountable for it. This is one way of being partaker with adulterers Ps. l. 18.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Thou shalt not commit adultery ( ). These quotations (verses Matt 5:21; Matt 5:27; Matt 5:33) from the Decalogue (Ex 20 and De 5) are from the Septuagint and use and the future indicative (volitive future, common Greek idiom). In 5:43 the positive form, volitive future, occurs (). In 5:41 the third person () singular second aorist active imperative is used. In 5:38 no verb occurs.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,” (ekousate hote errethe) “you all heard,” as it has been passed on by tradition, and by word of mouth from most ancient days; “That it has been said to them,” applicable to them from ancient time, from early human history, especially included in the law of Moses.

2) “Thou shalt not commit adultery:” (ou moicheuseis) “That you shall not (anyone of you) commit adultery,” Exo 20:14. Traditional perverters of this seventh commandment restricted the meaning of it to acts of criminal intercourse between, or with, married persons exclusively, shielding for themselves a liberal privilege of concubinage and lusting or coveting after the wife of another, as also specifically excluded or forbidden in the tenth commandment, Exo 20:17.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

Mat 5:27

. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Christ proceeds with his subject, and shows, that the law of God not only has authority over the life, in a political view, to form the outward manners, but that it requires pure and holy affections of the heart. We must remember what I have already stated, that though Christ quotes the very words of the law, it is the gross and false meaning, which had been put upon it by dishonest interpreters, that he blames. He has already told us, that he did not come as a new Legislator, but as the faithful expounder of a law which had been already given. It might be objected that, through long practice, that interpretation had grown old. Christ expressly admits this, but meets it by saying, that the antiquity of an error ought not to be allowed to plead in its favor.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

C. THE RELATION OF THE WISE AND GODLY MAN TO THE LAW
3. HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD LUST.
TEXT: 5:27-32

27. Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28. but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29. And if thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and nor thy whole body be cast into hell.
30. And if thy right hand causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell.
31. It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32. But I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Is it possible for man to appraise and appreciate the physical and moral beauty of a woman without intent or desire to lust after her?

How do men of our generation rebel against Jesus judgments and make lust easier for others?

How does Jesus intend His striking imperatives, concerning tearing out the right eye and cutting off the right hand, to be understood and applied? How did the apostles teach and apply the same lesson?

How could divorcing ones wife, unless she has been unfaithful, make her an adulteress? (Mat. 5:32)

How does Jesus intend this whole teaching on the subject of adultery and divorce to be applied: as the law of the State? as the law of the Church? or merely as a principal of individual conduct?

How does Jesus intend the exception for unfaithfulness to be understood and applied? Is Jesus tacitly urging divorce upon one whose partner has proven unfaithful? Does adultery automatically break the marriage tie?

Since the usual punishment under the Mosaic law against adultery was the death of the adulterers, would a divorce be necessary after that sentence was carried out? What, if anything, does this fact suggest about the state of morality in that age to which Jesus addressed His dictum on divorce?

Is Jesus revoking (or setting aside) the Law on the question of what constitutes adultery when He condemns the sin of the heart?

How does purity of heart strengthen the home and human society?

In what way is divorce contrary to Gods plan for man?

What constitutes sincere repentance of the sin of adultery: (1) in the case of an undivorced, unfaithful married person? ( 2 ) in the case of a wrongly divorced person who has remarried? (that is, one who has remarried while his former mate is still living)

Is adultery, committed under any condition, the unforgiveable sin?

Does Jesus teaching on marriage, divorce, adultery and remarriage cover every possible human case? If so, how? If not, what are His disciples to do when they find a case not exactly dealt with in the NT? Are they to make rules where the Lord made none? How are they to apply the rules He did give? If you think that Jesus teaching does not cover every possible case, why, accordingly, did not Jesus intend to deal with every imaginable possibility?

If the marriage bond is broken (in the sight of God) by a divorce on the basis of unchastity, are the two individuals yet married in any sense? If they are no longer married in any sense, are they eligible as such to marry?

How does the rejection of unchanging standards erode morality, even if it does not openly encourage immorality?

How can one keep himself unspotted from the world (cf. Jas. 1:27), when there is so much that tempts all about him?

Why must Christians vigorously oppose immorality in all forms?

PARAPHRASE

You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that whomever looks at a woman with a desire for her has already committed adultery with her in his imagination.

If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away from you! It is better that you lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go to hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! It is better that you lose one member of your body than that your whole body go to hell.

It was also said, Whoever divorces his wife must give her a proper certificate of divorce. But I say to you that every man who divorces his wife, except on the ground of her unchastity, is making her to commit adultery. Whoever marries a woman thus divorced also commits adultery.

SUMMARY

Not merely the external act of adultery is condemned before God, but also the more far-reaching lust that smolders beneath an outward decency. Even the most precious and justifiable and useful habit, association or pleasure that carries with it a seduction threatening ones purity of heart, must be mercilessly excised from ones life. Unchastity is the only valid reason for divorce; any other excuse opens doors for adultery.

NOTES

I. A SEARCHING AND SOBER SEX STANDARD

Mat. 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said. Even though the phrase to them of old time does not appear, yet it may easily be added, inasmuch as the law against adultery was certainly known before the Mosaic Law (Cf. Gen. 39:9), and was merely codified by it as a moral principle against any act that destroys the sanctity of the marriage and family. The Law against adultery (Exo. 20:14; Deu. 5:18) only intended voluntary sexual intercourse by a married man with another than his wife, or by a married woman with another than her husband, while the commandment against coveting (Exo. 20:17) actually mentions a longing desire for thy neighbors wife. If Jesus were merely correcting false or inadequate interpretations of the Law, He could have simply cited the ignored tenth commandment. Yet the Law could punish only the act (Lev. 18:20; Lev. 20:10-20), being impotent to touch the sinful desire, However, the death penalty required for the punishment of adultery should cause one to reflect upon the terrible nature of this sin.

Mat. 5:28 But I say unto you, What Jesus is about to declare is a hard-won personal decision, not only the most searching judgment of God. Jesus had faced this question of personal desires under another form and conquered (Mat. 4:3-4) . Whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her: this is not a look of evaluation, admiration or affection, but of lusty desire. Both Job (Job. 24:15; Job. 31:1-4; Job. 31:9-11) and Solomon (Pro. 2:9; Pro. 2:16-19; Proverbs 5; Pro. 6:23 to Pro. 7:27; Pro. 23:26-28) saw the connection between the lust of the heart and eyes and the act of adultery. But only Jesus could declare and enforce a judgment unknown in the Mosaic Law: he has committed adultery with her already in his heart. By forbidding the lusting look, Jesus prevents the adulterous act. Here is the true cause of adultery: sexual desire that smolders beneath an outward decency, impure thoughts and lewd imaginations represent a subtle rebellion against Gods design for the purity of human love. Jesus attacks licentiousness and lust in the heart, because they represent the true, corrupt character of the man even though they have not yet come forth as actual deeds. Though such thoughts are safely hidden from human censure, they are glaringly obvious to the eye of God! Already in his heart: Jesus point is that the impure heart has already decided upon a course of action which the body would execute upon the first combination of favorable circumstances, Peter (2Pe. 2:14 a) describes this kind of person as having eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. Paul puts it (Tit. 1:15): To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. He who looks to lust is using just one means to stimulate his corrupt emotions, since pictures, books and filthy conversation arouse and feed lust just as much as the actual presence of the woman. The brazenly assured half-truth that nobody can be punished simply for desiring a woman with his eyes is severely condemned. What a man thinks he IS, and, on that basis, Jesus judges him!

Jesus has already provided the effective antidote for this temptation: Blessed are the PURE IN HEART . . . (See notes on Mat. 5:8 ) He would have us be completely sincere, so single of purpose, so unadulterated that we have no conflicting desires. We have no business harboring an emotion the conclusion of which we see to be sin! If we actually love every woman with that intelligent desire to do what is always in her best interest, how can we corrupt our heart with desires to sin against her?

II. A SEVERE, SWIFT SURGERY OF THE
SUGGESTIVE AND SINISTER

Mat. 5:29-30 And if thy right eye or thy right hand causeth thee to stumble. Jesus word is to be taken figuratively but seriously. If He be interpreted merely in a literal sense, sheer irrelevancy results. Jesus rejected a purely literal construction of phrase like this when He refused even to make His disciples wash their hands merely to remove ceremonial defilement (Mat. 15:20). Since a wicked heart produces sin, the purification must take place there. (Study Mat. 15:1-20 and Mar. 7:1-23 to appreciate this concept.) Anything as seemingly defensible, precious or useful to us as these parts of our body had better be surrendered than permit them to destroy our soul! Many good things can so often be the enemy of the best: for example, any habit which could be a seduction, any possession that could become an obsession, any association or any pleasure that could be the cause of sin is a mortal enemy of our soul. Pluck it out . . . cut it off and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish . . . How did the apostles understand and preach this impossible demand of Jesus? Paul (Col. 2:10-23) teaches that mere austerity is of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh, even though it seems to promote rigor of devotion, self-abasement and severity to the body. The reason offered is that not merely one portion of the M y is to be made to suffer, but rather the whole man must be crucified and buried! (Mat. 16:24-26; Rom. 6:3; Rom. 12:1; 1Co. 9:27; Gal. 5:24; 1Pe. 2:11) Only perfect self-denial can overcome the powerful insistence of a lusty imagination. No cost must be thought too high to pay to avoid the gratification of wicked passions. No restraint is too drastic nor self-discipline too severe to avoid using the body for sinful purposes. Better maimed than damned! But so to act is to expose oneself to the solicitous cries of well-meaning neighbors and to be thought a fool for so harshly limiting oneself.

Some assume that Jesus is responding here to an objector whose demurring from His harsh judgment (Mat. 5:28) might be stated, But, Jesus, where can you draw the line between looking at a woman to

appreciate her physical beauty and the place where that admiration becomes lust? If Jesus is responding to such a question, then His answer may be paraphrased thus: If your looking at a woman or touching her causes adulterous thoughts to rise in your heart, do not look at her! Take your hands off her! How intensely practical this word of Jesus! He knew how irresistible is that sexual tension when excited and tantalized by a look or a caress.

What can break the spell of this sensual enravishment and bring reality back into focus? Nothing less than the live possibility that thy whole body be cast into hell! Hell awaits the offender: what an incentive to immediate and uncompromising obedience! How this reality restores ones perspective! Later, Jesus also emphasizes the entrance into life, to stimulate a positive refusal to indulge ones desires, (Mat. 18:8-9; cf. Rom. 8:18) Fear is a proper motive. (Cf. Act. 24:25; Rom. 1:18; Rom. 11:20; Rom. 11:22; 2Co. 5:11; Gal. 6:7-8; Heb. 10:26-31) When tempted to shrink from the self-discipline demanded

by the Lord, think of the alternative!

What are some applications of Jesus judgments against immorality?

1. Young people who are not married are forbidden to act as if they were! lovers may not make their own rules, but must obey Jesus.

2. The Biblical view of purity contradicts the readily-accepted axiom of modern advertising: Sex sells, (Eph. 5:3-12) Though successful in selling, it has also succeeded in relaxing a proper sense of modesty and purity.

3. Dressing to arouse sexual appetite is forbidden, (Mat. 18:7-9; Rom. 14:13 to Rom. 15:3 a)

4. Those of seemingly irreproachable moral integrity who think nothing of seeking their erotic entertainment in socially-approved ways also should feel the Lords censure. Some socially acceptable means are risque comedy, licentious books, adults only movies. One must examine his motives for participation in such things: does he do it with an eye to criticize by Gods standards, or to satisfy an idle curiosity, or to indulge a secret sensuality?
5. Sophisticated sex, the view that the pleasures of sex are perfectly harmless, inconsequential and may be freely enjoyed outside marriage without any sense of sin or shame, is a false view of man. That sophistication which glorifies illicit relations associated with the new morality or free love is not harmless and morally unobjectionable, but is contemptible, damnable and worthy of the most vigorous opposition. While it may not be absolutely possible to prove such relations to be wrong by philosophical reasoning, the objective standard which damns this way of thinking stands upon the authoritative word of Jesus.

Can you think of other applications? Let us beware not to be hypocritical as we seek to apply Jesus word, as if we ourselves were not affected by those overpowering forces of our age which would portray so many forms of sexual perversion as exciting and entertaining. (1Co. 10:12; Gal. 6:1 b)

What can save us from the all-pervasive sexuality of this era?

Thorough knowledge of Gods Word regarding this problem, with a view to answering temptations that certainly will arise. (1Co. 6:9-20; 1Co. 10:1-13; 1 Corinthians 5; 1 Corinthians 7; 1Th. 4:3-8; Heb. 13:4) This constant reflection upon what God has provided to lead us into life and godliness as well as upon the attractions of His precious and very great promises, will show the way of escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion (2Pe. 1:3-4). This habitual choice of truth and righteousness reinforces the conscience, making the right decision easier when the temptations present themselves. ( Php. 4:8) Monasticism, or refusing to look upon a woman at any time, is no way to overcome the adulterous look, since refusal to think a b u t a forbidden desire is the best way to find the mind most securely fixed upon it. Only positive thought which fills the mind with the view-point of God can cast out adulterous sentiments.

The expulsive power of a new affection leaves no room for the lust of the eyes (1Jn. 2:15-16) which contradicts that new love. The intelligent choice to love one of the opposite sex, even as God has loved them, destroys the power of lust. This is true moral vision: the ability to see a man or woman, not as the means of satisfying ones lust, but as one whom we may love to the point of sacrificing ones self for their highest good.

The purifying power of hope, (Cf. 1Jn. 3:3) No sane man will risk his eternal security by momentarily dallying with a temptation when he knows that his salvation depends upon unwavering faithfulness.

Positive action helps to break the spell of some allurement, Sometimes flight is best. (Genesis 39; 2Ti. 2:22) Plunging into the service of others does not allow time for that idleness in which the self-indulgent imagination may seek satisfaction.

III. A SUBTLE AND SERIOUS SUBVERSION OF SOCIETY

Mat. 5:31 Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. (See also Mat. 19:1-9) In these few words Jesus practically cites all of the Mosaic legislation on the subject, (Deu. 24:1-4; Deu. 22:13-21) Observe that the only divine law that ever spoke on the subject of divorce did not command it. Divorce was merely tolerated as representing mens yet unconverted hearts (Mat. 19:8) and was regulated to prevent grosser inhumanities.

The reason Jesus connects His teaching about divorce with His instruction about adultery is that there is an unavoidable moral connection. When any society sinks to such a level that complete freedom of divorce for any excuse permits as many husbands or wives in quick succession as desire may crave, any command not to commit adultery becomes a farce.

God hates divorce (Mal. 2:13-16), because one thus deals treacherously with his companion, the wife of his youth; because one breaks the covenant he made with her before God; and because he thus shows his basic inhumanity by casting her out and compelling her to sob out her troubles alone at Gods altar. This heartbreak, loneliness, shame and often destitution caused by easy divorces caused God to reject the worship of the Jews (Mal. 2:13 b). Compare notes on Mat. 5:23. God also hates divorce because it goes against the nature both of the institution of marriage and of man himself (Mat. 19:1-9).

Mat. 5:32 But I say unto you. For the full Christian teaching, compare Mat. 19:1-9; Mar. 10:11-12; Luk. 16:18; Rom. 7:1-3; 1Co. 7:10-17. Were Jesus merely clearing the rubbish of human traditions from the ancient Law against adultery, as many assume, in order to show its deep and true spiritual meaning and restore the Seventh Commandment to its proper observance, then why does not Jesus restore also the death penalty for unchastity, rather than suggest that a woman divorced for any cause is made to be (or made to appear to be) an adulteress when she marries another? The OT Law against adultery was clear in its definition of the death penalty to the adulterers. (Cf. Deu. 22:22; Lev. 20:10) But He is not defending the Law, as misinterpreted by the scribes and Pharisees. Rather, He is picturing true righteousness which is always a greater standard than legal righteousness. Jesus here completely removes the necessity for the Law, by establishing a principle that thoroughly fulfils the intent of the Law.

The Law seemed to permit divorce for any cause. (Mat. 19:3) The rabbis could not agree upon the exact intent of the phrase: if the wife does not find favor in his eyes, because he has found in her something shameful. (Cf. Deu. 24:1) Hillls school interpreted it in the widest and most lax manner possible: literally for any cause. Shammai adhered more strictly to the spirit of the law, his interpretation being wantonness, lasciviousness, lewdness as the shameful things that the husband must find in his wife before he may divorce her, although he did not include actual adultery since that was punished by death. A rabbi Akiba even allowed the finding a more desirable woman as ample justification for divorcing the present wife. Such a lowering of the moral standards of marriage probably affected the question of unfaithfulness to the point that even adultery became so commonplace that it was regarded as an inconvenient and embarrassing social mistake, rather than high treason against the family. As a result, the ancient Law seemingly was not carried out, as many commentators suggest. (Cf. Hos. 4:14; Joh. 4:18; Luk. 7:36-50; Mat. 21:32) However, to assert that the Jews did not have the right to execute the death penalty proves nothing, since they exercised the penalty when their conscience was sufficiently aroused. (Cf. Joh. 18:31 with Act. 7:58-59; Act. 26:10; note Joh. 7:1; Joh. 7:19; Joh. 7:25; Joh. 8:59; Joh. 10:31-33) The story of the adulteress brought to Jesus (Joh. 7:53 to Joh. 8:11) is inadmissible as evidence because of the adequate manuscript testimony against it. (See Butler, John, Vol. II, p. 42 )

Every one that putteth away his wife . . . maketh her an adulteress. Here the principle is stated regarding only the man, but it is reversible (Mar. 10:12). Because Jesus made only one exception to the general rule, His rule may be stated as above: Anyone who divorces his wife for any other excuse makes her an adulteress. But questions immediately arise: how or in what sense does he make her an adulteress? Is she really considered by God to be an adulteress or is she only falsely stigmatized as such by those who know of her divorce? The phrase, translated by the ASV maketh her an adulteress, (poiei auten michheuthenai) is made difficult by the fact that the last word is a passive infinitive in form, The question for the translators is whether the infinitive must be translated passively or whether it is the usual Greek translation for an active Hebrew verb. The difference in meaning which results from the varying translation may be expressed as follows:

Actively: (he causes her) to commit adultery or to be an adulteress, Because a woman, divorced for just any excuse, is not really divorced in Gods view, her practical necessity to remarry in order to be supported would force her to commit adultery, since she was really ineligible to remarry. Is this practical necessity her personal responsibility?

Passively: (he causes her) to be adulterated or defiled by her sexual contact with another, when she was not really (in Gods sight) divorced from her husband, even though this other be recognized by the society to be her new husband. The Law (Deu. 24:4) speaks of this second union as defilement. Another possible passive translation is offered by Lenshi: (he causes her) to be stigmatized as an adulteress when in fact she is not, her divorce being on quite other grounds, The mere fact that she was divorced might give rise to suspicion of adultery, even though the public reason was some triviality. Thus, she would bear the suspicion or stigma of having been an adulteress.

Thus it will be seen that neither construction necessarily views the woman as guilty. Both view her as the unfortunate victim of a vicious system which subjects her to the caprice of her husband. What is unequivocally clear is that the stigma of adultery is related to her remarriage.

In regard to the man who shall marry her when she is put away, the same translational difficulty exists due to another middle-passive Greek verb (moichatai), which carries with it the same difficulties of interpretation. Is he really an adulterer or only stigmatized as such? Yet, the fact that Matthew (Mat. 19:9 twice) and Mark (Mar. 10:11-12 twice) seem to use the verb with active force, while Lukes parallel (Luk. 16:18) uses an undoubted active verb (moicheuei), points to the conclusion that the man who marries an improperly divorced woman commits adultery and is personally guilty of sexual relations with a woman who, as God views the question, was the wife of another. Legal permission granted by a State for any cause other than unfaithfulness does not justify taking advantage of such permission.

Let us compare the various elements in Jesus teaching:

Mat. 5:32

Mat. 19:9

Mar. 10:11-12

but I say unto you that
(1) every one that putteth away his wife

And I say unto you,
(1) Whosoever shall put away his wife,

And he saith unto them,
(1) Whosoever shall put away his wife,

(2) saving for the cause of fornication,

(2) except for fornication,

(2)

(3) maketh her an adulteress

(3)

(4)

(4) and shall marry another, committeth adultery:

(4) and marry another, committeth adultery against her:

(5) and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.

(5) and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth
adultery.

(5)

(6)

(6) and if she herself put away her husband and marry another, she committeth adultery.

Luk. 16:18 merely repeats elements 1, 4, 5.

Obviously, the man who thus divorces his wife for relatively trivial reasons does so with a view of remarrying. According to element 4, he sins against his former wife, in that he was not really (in Gods sight) divorced from her and he sins against his new wife, since he was not eligible to marry her. Thus, he involves four people in adultery by his selfish divorce: his former wife, himself, his new wife, and his former wifes new husband.

The one exception to the general rules described above is clearly stated twice by Jesus (Mat. 5:32; Mat. 19:9): except for the cause of fornication. Fornication (porneia) is a general word used to mean any kind of unlawful sexual relations, whether prostitution, unchastity, whoredom or premarital intercourse, The Law (Deu. 22:20-21) assumed the possible case of premarital infidelity, but death. not divorce, resolved the question, as in the case of marital infidelity (Deu. 22:22), But Jesus unequivocally teaches that a person may divorce his mate because of their unfaithfulness, This, and only this, divorce is valid before God: such a couple is no longer married in any sense.

But is this exception offered as a recommendation that those whose mate betrays them SHOULD divorce them, or is it offered as a concession under intolerable conditions, so that those whose mate betrays them MAY divorce them? Since pardon and complete reconciliation are not inconceivable, Jesus exception is a concession, Although a partner who seeks sexual satisfaction outside his marriage has certainly sinned, his mate is not automatically exonerated for his conduct or attitudes that may have driven his formerly faithful mate to seek illicit satisfactions, In other words, is divorce, even for the cause of marital unfaithfulness, the best answer to the unfaithful consorts problem? The cause of the unfaithfulness may partially be found in the so-called innocent party, although, of course, not necessarily. The sin of adultery does break the marriage vow of the adulterer, but not of the other partner; hence, the marriage union is not yet severed. The union may only be ended by death or divorce, neither of which has yet occurred. The injured mate has the right but not the obligation to terminate the marriage in divorce. If he is satisfied with the genuineness of the adulterous partners repentance, the marriage may be continued. Forgiveness is not unlikely nor impossible.

Because of the heavy emphasis that Jesus gives to the idea that the remarriage of improperly divorced mates to others causes adultery, we are stimulated to ask, What of the person whose divorce from his mate is recognized by God as valid? May he remarry? For this question the Lord has left no answer. If we may be permitted to solve the problem by human reasoning, we would conclude: the couple in question are really divorced, hence, married in no sense and, therefore, eligible to marry. This conclusion is valid as much for the guilty as for the innocent, since there can be no sense in which one party is married while the other is not. Yet, this is a human conclusion: Jesus did not say so.

Jesus is revealing ideals which will render adultery and divorce impossible: remove lust from the heart and adultery becomes impossible; when adultery is eliminated, divorce becomes unnecessary. The Law did not nor could not take adequate account of the sin in the heart. Therefore it had to legislate against certain external acts in order to eliminate worse. The language of Jesus is as far from legal terminology as could be imagined especially in dealing with all sides of every case. This feature renders difficult a legalistic application of Jesus teaching, since He chose not to say more. Many questions are left to human wisdom:

What constitutes repentance in regard to the sin of adultery?

Divorcing ones wife who was not really divorced from her first husband? What about children of her second marriage?

Divorcing ones second wife, because not really divorced from the first? Must one return to the first wife?

Must the first wife divorce her second husband in order to return to her first? Would God approve of such a return, when He once called it an abomination? (Deu. 24:4)

Must unlawful (from Gods viewpoint) marriages be broken up as evidence of repentance?

Or, does repentance consist of refusing to commit further adultery (or refusal to divorce ones present mate) without changing the past mistakes?

Since God has revealed no specific means whereby repentance of adultery may be demonstrated, is the confession of this sin to God enough to assure ones conscience that God has forgiven the sin? Then, if God has truly forgiven the sin, how does He then regard the formerly illegitimate marriage? The marriage, presumably legal in the eyes of society, has continued perhaps for years until the individual was led to repentance. Does 1Co. 7:24 apply?

If an act of adultery causes divorce and the adulterer was later forgiven by God, would God permit him (or her) to remarry after that? Would one be truly penitent if he sought another mate?

The very complexity of such questions and the uncomplicated nature of the Lords revelation by which we are to decide these problems, should help us to see in what spirit He intends that we shall take His Word on the subject. He has revealed enough to keep us out of these entanglements; so little to get us out, And though His silence be regarded by the legalist as an inadequacy, yet the fact that Jesus did not go into great detail is most significant, In this problem, as in all other moral issues, He laid down broad guidelines within which His disciple must make his own moral judgments. He has not fettered His followers with multitudinous rules, details and cases, Instead, He provides in us the new nature that abhors all that is connected with adultery and divorce, Should we find ourselves involved in such a situation, however, we are left free to decide, in harmony with all His other principles, how best to arrive at the most equitable, most merciful solution for our given case, Thus, without detailed laws, He controls us by His Spirit which He puts in us.

Let it be closely observed that these controls will work only in him to whom Jesus addressed these words, that is, the disciple, They cannot be applied to society in general without the loss of that controlling, motivating moral vigor found only in faithful discipleship to Jesus.

FACT QUESTIONS

Where is the OT Law on divorce located? (give book, chapter, verse)

What was the common application of this law, as interpreted by the Jews?

What significant difference does Jesus instruction make in that law?

What is fornication? How does Jesus use that word in this context?

What is the difference between adultery and fornication usually noted in other contexts?

What was the OT penalty meted out against those guilty of adultery? Solve the discrepancy between this law and the situation to which Jesus aimed His judgment,

What are the great, abiding principles which underlie all that Jesus teaches concerning marriage, the family, divorce, and adultery?

List the other NT passages which give teaching or helpful information on the questions of marriage, divorce and adultery.

Explain how a man, who divorces his otherwise faithful wife, is condemned by Jesus, since he maketh her an adulteress (Mat. 5:32 ) . Is she really an adulteress, or merely and falsely stigmatized as such? Or both? Explain your answer. Does she become an adulteress by having to marry again in order to sustain her life?

10. On the basis of your answer to the previous question, explain how a man who marries the divorcee committeth adultery. (Mat. 5:32) Is he falsely stigmatized as an adulterer because he married a woman thought to be an adulteress (when in fact she was not), or, is he really an adulterer because he married a woman ineligible for marriage (since, in fact, her divorce for any cause from her former husband was no divorce at all) ?

11. What breaks the marriage bond?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(27) By them of old time.Omitted in the best MSS. If retained, translate as before, to them of old time. It was probably inserted for the sake of conformity with Mat. 5:21. Here the words are simply those of the divine commandment, but it is given as it was taught in the Rabbinic schools, simply in the narrowness of the letter, without any perception that here too the commandment was exceeding broad. It is with that teaching, as before, that our Lord contrasts His own.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

(2.) Christian law of sexual purity.

27. Not commit adultery The same principles are applied to the seventh commandment as are used in the preceding paragraph to elucidate and disencumber the sixth. Actual adultery is traced to the lust in the heart. The hidden crime is viewed as the essential crime of which the external act is the manifestation.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ ”

Jesus commences by citing the seventh commandment, and the first thing that will be noted is that He makes no reference to ‘those of old’. These words accompanied reference to the commandment about murder (Mat 5:21), and will accompany the one about the swearing of oaths (Mat 5:33). They do not, however, occur in Mat 5:38; Mat 5:42 which are similar to here. It may therefore simply be stylistic, or it may be that this commandment was not seen as having been added to by those of old. ‘It was said’ is neutral. It simply refers back to the past without necessarily passing a verdict on it. But once again He brings out that the commandment is speaking about more than might at first appear on the surface. He is bringing out that its concern is in the end for the purity of a man and a woman in a lifelong, indissoluble marriage, undisturbed by the effects of man’s sinfulness.

Thus He now speaks of anything that might result in adultery, whether through the wife’s unfaithfulness, a man’s wandering thoughts, or through divorce and remarriage, and warns against them all. To Jesus, anything that might interfere with a lifelong marriage, whether it be by attitude, by invasion by men’s thoughts or by the breakdown of the marriage, was to be abhorred, for it was attacking the God-ordained oneness between a husband and wife. For as He will say later, ‘from the beginning it was not so’ (Mat 19:8).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

2). God’s Concern About the Purity of Women: What The Disciples’ Attitude Is To Be Towards The Law Concerning Adultery, Divorce, and Sexual Attitude: The Need To Be Harsh with Themselves About Sin (5:27-32).

Continuing to deal with the commandments in the order given in Exodus 20 Jesus now takes up the question of the commandment about adultery, but it is should be noticed here that central to His concern is the permanence of marriage and the purity and oneness of a man and a woman within that marriage. That is why He is concerned about adultery and defines it so widely. And that is undoubtedly what He sees as central to this commandment (compare Mat 19:3-10). For the reason why the thoughts of the person described are seen by Him as so heinous is because they indicate a readiness to interfere in God’s purpose in creation, and the reason why divorce is seen as so heinous, unless there has first been adultery involved, is because it also equally interferes with God’s purpose in creation. While He is therefore certainly concerned to prevent the disciples from sinning, He is even more concerned to establish the permanence and sacredness of the marriage relationship as seen in God’s eyes, and to warn that it must not be broken.

Thus He describes two types of further ‘adultery’ on top of actual adultery, types which would not have been seen as such by the Jews, and warns His disciples against them, indicating by His words that God had both of these in mind when He gave His commandments. The first case that He takes up is that of the male with the wandering eye who deliberately seeks to have adultery with women in his heart, or alternatively seeks to entice women into lustful response with his eyes, and the second case is that of the husband who divorces his wife when she is still ‘pure’, that is, she has neither been unfaithful nor has degraded herself sexually. In both cases, says Jesus, their action leads to adultery, the one because the man’s thoughts have been with the intention of interfering in a marriage relationship, and have, as it were, intruded on the woman’s purity, thinking all the while in terms of trying to break her oneness with her husband, or have alternatively enticed the woman into herself engaging in impurity of thought, with a similar result, and the other because she will be left with little choice but to marry again, otherwise she would be found without protection or means of support. Thus she would have to have sexual relations with another man as a consequence, so breaking the God-ordained oneness between herself and her initial husband. It is with the intention of preventing these two types of adultery that He concentrates on what He deals with here. He is therefore concerned to look underneath the idea of a straightforward adulterous act that results in divorce and punishment, (in the same way as He looked underneath the commandment concerning murder), and consider the implications behind it. For what is wrong with adultery in His eyes is not just that it is a ‘sin’, but that it hits at the very root of God’s purpose of the making one of a man and a woman in marriage. While the Jews might see adultery as wrong because it might cast doubt on whether a child was really the true heir, to Jesus it was wrong because of its effects on the oneness of a pair united by God (thus He saw the man’s adultery as being as bad as the woman’s).

For as He will declare in Mat 19:4-6, when God created man and woman it was that they might become ‘one flesh’. ‘For this reason a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh’ (Gen 2:24, compare Mat 19:4-6). And Jesus adds in Mat 19:6, ‘what God has joined together let not man separate.’ This demonstrates that He considers that sexual relations are, for man, something very different than they are for animals. For man they are not just for rutting and producing offspring. They are intended to be a force that binds the man and woman together as one. (Thus the man who has sexual relations with a prostitute is made one body with the prostitute – 1Co 6:16). The importance that Jesus laid on this comes out here and in Mat 19:4-6. To Him and to God marriage was a sacred union that nothing must be allowed to defile, and it is noticeable that Jesus lays as great a stress on this for the man as for the woman. So a man who goes astray in his thoughts, or leads astray a married woman by them, is in his heart attacking the very principles on which creation stands, and the same is true if a man divorces his wife other than for unfaithfulness so that another marries her. For then she is being made into an adulteress by both men. It is they who are guilty in this case.

We should note here also that in His words all the emphasis is on the failure of the men. It is they who entice her with their eyes, it is they who by divorcing her are seen by Jesus as causing the woman to commit adultery. The general tendency in Judaism was in fact the opposite. They tended to see the women as the ones who were mainly guilty of adultery. The man could be forgiven for his adventures, the woman could not be forgiven for responding. This is not to deny the fact that a man caught committing adultery with a married woman was in Moses’ day sentenced to be stoned, and would be looked on at all times with great disapproval if he was found out, but simply to bring out that it was the woman who tended to carry the lion’s share of guilt in these matters. As long as he left married women alone a man might sow his wild oats without too much disapproval, but a woman involved in a sexual liaison would be heavily frowned on. An adulterous woman was seen as a shame and a scandal, while an adulterous man might be seen as an adventurer. But Jesus was aware where the blame very often lay, and took up a very different view.

It should be noted again that what concerns Him is anything that might have the intention of interfering with a woman’s purity and oneness with her husband. There is no suggestion that sexual activity is wrong in itself. Indeed within marriage it was actually God’s intention from the beginning. His command had been to ‘Go forth and multiply’. And it was to be the binding force that bound a man and a women together physically, for they were to be made ‘one flesh’. But what He clearly condemns is anything that aims to affect the purity of either a marriageable or a married woman, and thus her oneness or prospective oneness with her husband. We may see as being in mind here, ‘blessed are the pure in heart’. Those who would ‘see God’ must be faithful in maintaining the inviolability of the marriage bond. For to God permanent, lifelong marriage is seen as important. What Jesus is concerned about with adultery is thus its interference in God’s purpose for creation. He sees it as breaking up the harmony of creation, and thereby lying at the very heart of man’s rebellion against God. This idea of harmony is important all through this chapter.

It should be noticed that this was not a question of Jesus being influenced by Jewish opinion. Jewish opinion was in the main very different from this. The majority among the Jews would certainly have agreed that it was the woman’s responsibility to be pure and faithful to her husband, but in their view the man could divorce his wife if he wished to, and if he did so there was no harm done. To them he had a freedom with respect to sexual matters that she did not have. Jesus squashes that idea once and for all. To Jesus both were equally responsible to maintain a pure marriage, with both being required to be equally faithful. Thus the wayward thinker, and the casual husband were both guilty before God. This is the ‘new’ angle that Jesus introduced with regard to this Law. And yet He would have said that it was not new. In His eyes it had been intrinsic within the Law right from the beginning. It was only man’s subsequent perversity that made it seem new.

Note On The Jewish Attitude to Marriage and Sexual Behaviour.

In the time of Jesus the general view among the Jews was that a man could indulge in sex outside marriage as long as it was not with a married woman, for this latter would be to trespass on the rights of her husband. However, if her family knew anything about it and were in a position to do so they could then demand that he marry her. But either way no great shame was involved for him. A woman, however, who behaved in this way would be deeply shamed. The Law in fact demanded that he then marry her (Exo 22:16; Deu 22:28).

Furthermore in the eyes of most Jews a man could divorce his wife if he felt that he had some grounds for it, simply by giving her a certificate of divorce in the presence of witnesses and making clear his intention. But a woman could not divorce a man except by an appeal to a court. The court might in some circumstances require the husband to divorce her depending on the situation, but it was not something to be relied on. Normally therefore a woman was powerless to do much about her situation, and her only resort would be to her family.

But as we have seen Jesus indicates that God is far from agreeing with such ideas. He agreed with the requirement for women to be chaste and faithful, but demanded the same of men. And He further demanded that men should do nothing which might cause a woman to violate any vows made to her husband, whether she did it willingly or otherwise.

Furthermore, the Jews should have been aware of how seriously God treated divorce for no priest was to marry a divorced woman (Lev 21:14)

Respectable women were, of course, closely guarded in those days and would be required to be well covered up at all times. A respectable woman would not go out on her own, but would remain at home, and when she did go out she would be well covered up. And certainly in the Old Testament, while a betrothed woman might be found out alone in the countryside working, that would never be so of a married woman (compare Deu 22:22 with Mat 22:25-27). In such circumstances she would be under her husband’s eye. Thus there would not be as much temptation around for a man as there is today. The man who lusted after a married woman would therefore probably be going out of his way to do so. He would be deliberately out to attract a woman. Jesus, however made clear that that was totally unacceptable. No other Jew of Jesus’ day took up Jesus’ uncompromising position.

End of note.

It should be noted at this point that ‘and it was said’ in Mat 5:31 is adding on an addendum to 27-30, not commencing a new section. This is demanded by the grammar, the sense and the chiasmus. And it is confirmed by the fact that if it was not so it would also break the sequence of murder, adultery, false witness. Thus we should see five main headings and not six in the series.

Analysis of Mat 5:27-32 .

a “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’ ” (Mat 5:27).

b But I say to you, that every one who looks on a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart (Mat 5:28).

c And if your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from you (Mat 5:29 a).

d For it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish (Mat 5:29 b).

e And not your whole body be cast into hell (Mat 5:29 c).

c And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from you (Mat 5:30 a).

d For it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish (Mat 5:30 b).

e And not your whole body go into hell (Mat 5:30 c).

b It was said also, ‘Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce,’ but I say to you, that every one who puts away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her an adulteress (Mat 5:31).

a And whoever shall marry her when she is put away, commits adultery” (Mat 5:32).

Note that in ‘a’ the command is not to commit adultery, and in the parallel the one who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. In ‘b’ Jesus lays out a case and then says that it will result in adultery, and in the parallel He does the same. In ‘cde’ and its parallel Jesus outlines what men should do in order to prevent adultery.

We again remind ourselves that in Mat 5:27-32 we have the threefold activities related to adultery, firstly looking on a woman with lust in the heart (Mat 5:28), secondly cutting off eye and hand (two alternatives) in order not to sin (Mat 5:29-30), and thirdly the attempt to make an alternative attempt to commit adultery through unacceptable divorce (Mat 5:31-32)

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Teaches on Adultery – In Mat 5:27-32 Jesus teaches us the true meaning of the seventh commandment, which tells us not to commit adultery. In this passage Jesus explains how sin first proceeds from the heart and is later manifested by one’s actions.

Mat 5:31-32 Comments – Jesus Teaches on Divorce ( Mat 19:9 , Mar 10:11-12 , Luk 16:18 ) Mat 5:31-32 gives us the account of Jesus teaching on marriage and divorce in the Kingdom of God. John Nolland explains that many Jews of the first century were loose in their practice of divorce according to Deu 24:1, while some devout Jews were more rigid by limiting divorce only on the grounds of adultery. Although the man was allowed to divorce his wife under the Law with a bill of divorcement (Deu 24:1), Nolland says the Jewish woman could not legally initiate a divorce. [376] In the Kingdom of Heaven the rules are not as flexible as they were in this first century Jewish society. Jesus clarifies the rules of adultery in the Kingdom for the Pharisees following the stricter view, stating that putting away one’s wife and remarrying another, or marrying a wife who has been divorced, constituted adultery. In other words, Jesus made it clear to the Pharisees that the Law was still of utmost importance in the Kingdom of Heaven. However, it is important to note that in the Sermon on the Mount, when addressing the multitudes, Jesus allowed divorce on the unique grounds of adultery (Mat 5:31-32).

[376] John Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34 , in Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 35B (Dallas, Texas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), explanation on Luke 16:18.

Deu 24:1, “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”

Mat 5:31-32, “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

Scripture References – Note other passages on divorce:

Mal 2:14-16, “Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away : for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”

Mat 19:1-9.

Mar 10:11-12, “And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”

Luk 16:18, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”

1Co 7:1-40

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

A lesson from the Sixth Commandment:

v. 27. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery.

v. 28. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The Sixth Commandment had indeed been given to “them of old time,” Exo 20:14; Deu 5:18. But it was understood by the Jewish teachers of the sin in deed only, of the deliberate unfaithfulness of those joined in wedlock, or the carnal intercourse of the unmarried. Many rabbis expressly stated that the evil thought should not be regarded on a level with the sinful act. Christ’s explanation opens the deeper meaning of the commandment. He finds the beginning of adultery in the deliberate nourishing of the awakening lust of the heart. A woman may be seen, come within the range of vision of a man, and there is no wrong in the act. Ordinary human intercourse would be impossible without it. But when the look turned upon any woman, married or unmarried, is deliberate and intentional, conscious and persistent, as on a person of the opposite sex, and this is followed by an impure desire of coveting her for immoral purposes, then adultery has in fact been committed, although the sin is hidden deeply in the heart.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 5:27-28. Ye have heard, &c. What has been hitherto said refers to meekness; what now follows, to purity of heart. Dr. Lightfoot, to explain the opinion of the Jewish doctors, respecting the duty of this seventh commandment, cites the Targum upon Exodus 20 by which it appears, that they were very loose moralists indeed. In opposition therefore to them, our Lord declared, that whosoever looketh on a woman, &c. whosoever cherishes unchaste desires and intentions, or, as it is expressed in the tenth commandment, covets his neighbour’s wife, is really guilty of adultery, though he should never find the opportunity of committing the act with her; for which cause, all such use of our senses, as inflames the mind with lust, must be carefully avoided. See on the next verse, and Eccliasticus 9:5, &c.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 5:27 f. From Mat 5:28-30 it appears that the tradition of the Pharisees limited the prohibition in Exo 20:14 to adultery proper, and left out of consideration adulterous desires.

] he who holes upon a woman , opposed to the actual .

] woman in general, so that it may be a married (Erasmus, Grotius, Tholuck, de Wette, Bleek) or an unmarried one; for the is conceived of as a married man, as is clear from the signification of , which means adultery .

] not ita ut , etc., not even in accordance with (Weiss), but, agreeably to the constant usage of with the infinitive, to denote the telic reference (Mat 6:1 , Mat 26:12 , and elsewhere): in order to desire her . The , which terminates in lustful desire, which is kindled and felt to be strengthened by gazing on, is designated. , , Chrysostom. Comp. Augustine: “qui hoc fine et hoc animo attenderit, ut eam concupiscat, quod jam non est titillari delectatione carnis, sed plene consentire libidini.” He who looks upon a woman with such a feeling has already (jam eo ipso , Bengel), in virtue of the adulterous desire with which he does so, committed adultery with her in his heart , which is the seat of feeling and desire. Thus he is, as regards his moral constitution, although without the external act, already an adulterer . Similar proverbs from the Rabbinical writers in Lightfoot and Schoettgen; from the Greek and Roman writers, in Pricaeus. On with the accusative, comp. Plato, Rep . p. 360 B.

] with the accusative , is rare and late. Comp. Exo 20:17 ; Deu 5:20 ; Jdt 16:22 ; see Winer, p. 192 [E. T. 255]. Even if were spurious, it could not be explained with Fritzsche: “ut adsit mutua cupiditas .”

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

DISCOURSE: 1303
OUR LORDS EXPOSITION OF THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT

Mat 5:27-28. Ye have heard that it was said by [to] them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

THAT the Jews were unacquainted with the spiritual nature of their law, we do not wonder; because their authorized instructors were chiefly occupied in ceremonial observances; but that Christians should be ignorant of it, is astonishing, since the strongest light has been cast upon it in the New Testament, and every minister of Christ must make it known, in order to state with accuracy the scope and excellence of the Gospel. Yet it is certain that few Christians comparatively have just views of the law: and it is to be feared, that, in many instances, ministers themselves are not sufficiently aware of the importance of setting it before their people in all its spirituality and extent. The exposition of it which our Lord has given us in this sermon, precludes all possibility of doubt respecting its real import. In the words which we have now read, he interprets the seventh commandment: in discoursing upon which, it will be proper to consider,

Its true import

The Scribes and Pharisees imagined that the prohibition reached no further than to the actual commission of adultery; but our Lord shews that it extended,

To mental as well as bodily impurity

[The intent of Gods law is, to regulate our hearts. It can never be supposed that God should require us to cleanse the outside of the cup and platter, and leave us at liberty to retain all manner of uncleanness within. He surely will not be satisfied with seeing us like whited sepulchres. He forbids an evil desire no less than an evil act [Note: Rom 7:7.]: and especially in relation to the evil we are considering, he specifies every variety of it as alike hateful in his eyes: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, are all distinctly mentioned as works of the flesh, which equally exclude us from the kingdom of God [Note: Gal 5:19; Gal 5:21.]. Of course, the law does not condemn that attachment which is cherished in order to an honourable marriage; but all desires which have not respect to that, it does condemn.

We forbear to enlarge upon the subject, wishing rather to commend it to your consciences before God; but we entreat you all attentively to consider what have been the workings of your own hearts on different occasions, when perhaps you little thought what construction God put upon them, and in what light you were viewed by him [Note: On such a subject as this, the utmost possible delicacy must bo observed.].]

To the means and occasions of impurity, as well as to impurity itself

[It is needless to observe, that the eye and the ear are inlets to evil, and that they need to be subjected to continual restraints. Our blessed Lord declares, that even a look, when employed for the purpose of exciting an impure desire, or when productive of that effect, involves the soul in guilt, no less than adultery itself. And St. Peter speaks of persons having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin. If the eye then may bring so much defilement on the soul, what shall we say of frequenting those places of public amusement, where every thing that is seen and heard has a direct tendency to corrupt the mind? What shall we say of suffering our minds to be contaminated with light and frothy novels, with indecent pictures, with licentious conversation, or indeed with sensual thoughts? Can any one who allows himself in such liberties as these, acquit himself of the charge which is brought against him in the text? Nor are they less criminal, whose dress is framed for this unhallowed end, and who sacrifice both decency and health to the detested purpose of inflaming the appetites of men. It is obvious, that, whether we are the tempters, or the tempted, we are highly criminal: however the imagination becomes defiled, that defilement constitutes us guilty in the sight of God.]
Such being the view which our Lord himself gives us of the commandment, we proceed to consider,

II.

The effect which our Lords exposition of it should produce upon us

Were the commandment restricted to its literal meaning, we might find cause perhaps for self-complacency in relation to it. But when it is rightly interpreted, it affords to all of us abundant occasion for,

Humiliation

[Who will say, My heart is clean, I am pure from this sin? Who, if an adulteress were now to be stoned to death, would take up the first stone to cast at her? Who must not retire self-convicted, and self-condemned? If then we would know what ought to be our feelings before God, we have here an image whereby they may be illustrated in the clearest manner. Conceive a woman who has for many years maintained an honourable character, betrayed at last into a forgetfulness of her marriage vows, and exposed to all the shame which her misconduct has justly brought upon her: how degraded would she be in her own eyes! how ashamed would she be to appear in the presence of her injured husband! how would she even lothe her own existence, and hate the light which would expose her to public view! Such consciousness should we feel in the presence of our God, even when our conduct has been most blameless in the sight of men. We should take to ourselves our proper character; and, knowing what abominations the omniscient God has seen within us, we should humble ourselves before him, and lothe ourselves in dust and ashes. We should put our hands on our mouths, and our mouths in the dust, crying, Unclean, unclean!]

Gratitude

[Many instances there are of persons, who, in former times, have been as moral in their habits as any of us, who yet, through the violence of temptation, have fallen, and brought indelible disgrace upon their names and families. Whence is it, we would ask, that this has not been our lot? Is it that we have never found any disposition to commit the evils which have ruined them? Is it that we are not actually chargeable with those very evils in the sight of God, who identifies the desire with the act itself? Or rather, is it not owing to the kind providence of God, who has screened us from temptation, or interposed in some way to break its force and rescue us from its power? We may perhaps be ready to ascribe our safety to a good education, and other secondary causes: but, if the First Great Cause had not rendered them effectual, they would have been as unavailing for us, as they have been for thousands all around us. Doubtless we have reason to be thankful for the restraints of education, for a dread of public shame, yea even for the laws of the land also: all of these have had their weight, when perhaps other barriers might have been broken down: we have reason therefore to be thankful for them. But especially have we cause to bless our God for the checks of conscience, if at any time the progress of evil has been impeded by them. Whatever have been the means of preserving us from the actual commission of iniquity, the true source of our deliverance is the same: it must ultimately be traced to the providence or grace of God; and all the glory must be given to our heavenly Benefactor.]

Circumspection

[When we consider how many temptations to evil present themselves to us on every side, and what depraved appetites lurk within us, we shall see reason to maintain continual vigilance and circumspection. It was wise in Job, who made a covenant with his eyes, that he would not even look upon a maid [Note: Job 31:1.]. And Solomon has wisely cautioned us to let our eyes look strait forward [Note: Pro 4:25.]. If we regarded only the danger of falling into open sin, this advice would be good: but when we reflect on our Lords assertion, that an impure look will be considered by Amighty God as actual adultery, we had need to be on our guard against the very first assaults of evil: we should watch and pray, that we enter not into temptation: we should keep, not our feet only, but our hearts also, with all diligence; knowing that out of them are the issues of life. Remember then what we have already spoken respecting the means and occasions of impurity. Guard against the books, the places, the company, the conversation, that you have at any time perceived to be defiling to your souls. Be as careful of catching infection from those around you, as you would be if they were disordered with the plague. Go not into the world, without carrying with you, as an antidote, the fear of God. Come not from your intercourse with the world, without washing away your defilements in the fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness. Be on your guard also against your secret thoughts; remembering, that God is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of your hearts, and that he will bring every secret thing into judgment, whether it be good or evil. It is awful to reflect, what evils will be disclosed in the last day, and what fearful judgments will be denounced on many, who in this world were reputed chaste. May God enable us all to walk as in his immediate presence; and give us such a measure of his grace, as shall sanctify us wholly, and preserve us blameless unto his heavenly kingdom!]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

Reader! do not fail to observe the spiritual nature of the law of GOD. It is not limited to actions, but includes thoughts. The heart is the forge where all actions are worked. And whether they be brought forth into actual deeds or not, in the eye of the LORD the. intention is the same. Surely the whole earth is at once brought in guilty before God. It is the grossest mistake in the world for any man to take shelter from guilt, in a supposed exemption from this or that particular sin. The heart sin, the nature sin, the mother sin, it is this which gives birth to all. And that it doth not break out in all men alike, is not from any difference in nature, . for all are the same, but from certain restraints, particularly the restraints of grace. Read what the LORD said to Abimelech on this subject, which may serve to explain the cause to every man. Gen 20:6 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Ver. 27. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old, Thou shalt not commit adultery ] This they corruptly restrained to the gross act, and made nothing of contemplative filthiness, hearts full of harlotry, hot as an oven with scalding lusts, Hos 7:6 , very stews and brothel houses, cages of unclean birds; besides eyes full of adultery, hands defiled with dalliance, tongues taught to talk obscenities and ribaldries. Spurcitias Veneris eliminantes. But Seneca could say, Incesta est, et sine stupro, quae stuprum cupit: she is a whore that would be so had she but opportunity; and the Romans put to death a vestal virgin for singing this verse only.

” Faelices nuptae! moriar ni nubere dulce est. “

St Paul’s virgin is holy, not in body only, but in spirit also, 1Co 7:34 . Quae quia non licuit non facit, illa facit. a And for the avoiding of fornications, , 1Co 7:2 ; (in the plural number, inward burnings as well as outward pollutions), let every man have his own wife, &c. Fecit quisque quantam voluit, saith Seneca. Every one doeth as he desireth to do. And Polybius attributeth the death of Antiochus to sacrilege only in his purpose and will. Josephus indeed derideth Polybius for so saying; but with as little reason, as his countryman Kimchi (soured with the leaven of the Pharisees) sets this strange sense upon Psa 66:18 : If I regard iniquity only in my heart, so that it break not forth into outward act, the Lord will not hear me, that is (saith he) so as to impute it, or account it a sin.

a Has patitur poenas peccandi sola voluntas. Juv. Sat. 13.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

27 30. ] SECOND EXAMPLE. The law of adultery .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 5:27-30 . Second illustration , taken from the seventh commandment. A grand moral law, in brief lapidary style guarding the married relation and the sanctity of home. Of course the Hebrew legislator condemned lust after another man’s wife; it is expressly prohibited in the tenth commandment. But in practical working as a public law the statute laid main stress on the outward act, and it was the tendency of the scribes to give exclusive prominence to this. Therefore Christ brings to the front what both Moses and the scribes left in the background, the inward desire of which adultery is the fruit

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 5:27-30

27″You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.”

Mat 5:27 “adultery” Here the term is moichaomai. It is a quote from the Ten Commandments found in Exo 20:14 and Deu 5:18. The Greek term from the Septuagint is porneia. This word usually referred to extramarital intercourse, but it also had the added connotation of any improper extramarital sexual activity, such as homosexuality or bestiality. In the OT adultery was a sexual affair involving a married person. Jesus redefined sexual sin as an attitude of the heart. Sex is a gift of God, a good and wholesome thing. But God has also put boundaries on its expression for our well-being and long term enjoyment. Prideful, self-centered humans always want to go beyond the God-given bounds. These words of Jesus by inference would also refer to premarital sexual activity.

SPECIAL TOPIC: ADULTERY (Exo 20:14)

Mat 5:28 “heart” See Special Topic at Mat 5:8.

Mat 5:29-30 This is obviously hyperbolic for emotional impact! Sin is dangerous and its consequences eternal!

Mat 5:29 ” if” These are first class conditional sentences which were assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his literary purposes. Humans have been affected by Genesis 3. We are not what we were created to be.

NASB”makes you stumble”

NKJV, NRSV,

TEV”causes you to sin”

NJB”should be your downfall”

This term was used of the baited, triggering mechanism of an animal trap. See the parallel in Mar 9:43-48 and Jesus’ second mention of this subject in Mat 18:8-9. Since all humans are affected by sin (different ones for different individuals), we must take personal responsibility to remove ourselves from places/things/occasions of temptation (i.e., Proverbs 1-9; Eph 4:27; Eph 6:10-18; Jas 4:7; 1Pe 5:8-9). We will not be able to blame Satan, or heredity, or circumstances for our sins when we all stand before God and give an account of the gift of life (cf. Mat 25:31-46; Rev 20:11-15). We are free moral agents made in God’s image, accountable to Him for our lives!

” lose” This term is in both Mat 5:29-30. See Special Topic: Apollumi at Mat 2:13.

Mat 5:29-30 “hell” There is an eternal hell and sin is the ticket to get in! See Special Topic at Mat 5:22.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

THE LAW OF ADULTERY. Thou, &c. Quoted from Exo 20:14. Deu 5:18. App-117.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

27-30.] SECOND EXAMPLE. The law of adultery.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 5:27. , it has been said) Murder and adultery are equally sins against our neighbour, and so is revenge, and therefore the words, , to them of old time, are not expressed but understood in Mat 5:27; Mat 5:31; Mat 5:38; Mat 5:43, from Mat 5:21. They are, however, expressed in Mat 5:33, where our Lord treats of oaths, and, therefore, of our duty to God.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Mat 5:27-32

8. TEACHINGS AGAINST ADULTERY AND DIVORCE

Mat 5:27-32

27, 28 Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery.-This is the seventh commandment of the Decalogue. Exo 20:14 and Deu 5:18 record this commandment; the punishment fixed by the law of Moses for this crime was the death of both parties by stoning. (Lev 20:10; Deu 22:22-27.) If the woman were a slave, she was to be whipped, not put to death, and the man was to bring a trespass offering. (Lev 19:20-22.) In case of a wife who is suspected of adultery by her husband, a singular ordeal was provided for her trial, the only case of trial by ordeal known to the Jewish law. (Num 5:11-31.) The law punished the overt act of sin, and did not reach any further.

But I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.-Jesus puts emphasis on what he has to say; there is a contrast between what they “have heard” concerning the law and what Jesus says; he declares the sin to be in the heart and not in the external act merely; Jesus goes behind the act and legislates against the thoughts which precede the act. “Every one that looketh on a woman,” the one who gazeth on a woman, whether married or single, with impure desire, has committed the sin of adultery; this looking is “to lust after her”; it is a gazing with a view to feed a lustful desire; it refers to an intentional and conscious desire to gratify the lust. The lascivious look and the intending or enkindled passion constitute the roots of the sin of adultery;hence the teachings of Jesus plainly forbid such “looking” as enkindles lascivious passion;there the sin begins and takes its root, and it must be resisted at that point and ruled out of the life. The desire must not be developed into overt action. The Jews did not apply the commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” to anything but the overt act; it was not directly against the desire as well as the act. (Exo 20:14; Pro 6:25; 2 Pet. 2 14.) The thing which is condemned is not the look of admiration or affection, but the look of lust. As murder begins in the heart, so adultery begins in the heart. Jesus lays down a principle here which may be applied to both sexes.

[ Fornication is the lewdness of unmarried persons, adultery of married. The expression “looketh on a woman to lust after her” has the force of a cherished purpose. So the Bible goes behind the overt act, and characterizes the first formation of an evil purpose in the heart as the sin. It thus proposes to stifle the first emotions of sin and check the impulses that lead to it. The same manner of dealing with sin is manifest in the expression, “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.” The feeling of hatred in the heart is charged with the full guilt and condemnation of the accomplished sin to which it leads. The knowledge of this truth and the necessity to which it gives rise of repressing the first buddings of the emotion or propensity to sin constitute the only safeguard from sin.]

29, 30 If thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee.-Continuing the thought that sin originates in the heart, Jesus says “if thy right eye” is responsible for a sin, it must be plucked out. The “right eye” is considered more important of the two; it was considered more serviceable than the left, particularly in battle; if it is the cause of one’s stumbling, it must be destroyed. The orignal from which we get “causeth thee to stumble” carries with it the giving of offense or provoking; it also means a “snare,” “a stumblingblock” and the stick in a trap on which the bait is placed, and which springs up and shuts the trap at the touch of an animal. It is better to pluck the eye out and let one member of the body perish than to let that member involve the whole body. It is better for the one member to perish than that the “whole body be cast into hell.” “Hell” here means “Gehenna” where the whole body may be consumed. The Jews under the law condemned adultery and some other sins of the flesh by putting to death the guilty parties. At Jerusalem, the guilty party was taken by the chief witness to a spot overhanging Gehenna (valley of Hinnon) and cast down on a rock in the valley; the second witness hurled a great stone on his breast; if he survived this, the spectators stoned him till he died. Sometimes the body was burned to death in Gehenna. The indulgence of a sinful passion may afford temporary gratification, but as it entails the loss of the soul, it is emphatically expedient to forego such indulgence. (Rom 8:13; Gal 5:24; Col 3:5-8.)

If thy right hand causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee.-The eye and the hand are taken as examples for illustration of the principle which Jesus here teaches; he means that any organ of the body whatever which becomes a snare to sin must be subdued and brought under with unsparing rigor and resolute determination. Any one of the bodily organs, by ensnaring into sin, may work the ruin not of the whole body only, but of the soul as well. Jesus teaches the duty of keeping the whole body under subjection to the law of God and of purity, with special reference to the sin of adultery which he had just before condemned. The eye and the hand are used here by the way of illustration, but the principle is general and may be applied to any member of the body or may be used symbolically. The self-denial and seeming deprivation of enjoyment are really gains, for in the one case only one organ of life is lost for this world, while in the other the whole life is gained.

31, 32 It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.-The commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” is violated in spirit and literally often by the sin of divorce; Jesus here makes application of the principle to those who would violate the spirit of the command by divorcement. The law concerning divorce is found in Deu 24:1. Jesus does not here contrast the external law of Moses and the spirit of his teaching, but he gives this as a further illustration of the subject of adultery. The common divorces which existed among the Jews at the time that Jesus was on earth were the occasion, on a large scale, of the sin of adultery. The law of Moses required that if a man determined to put away his wife, he should give her a formal document to that effect. The Jews were divided on the question of divorcement; many of them held that it was lawful for a man to dismiss his wife “for every cause” (Mat 19:3), and that there was no restriction at all except that he must give her the required papers; hence divorces were very common with this class; another class of the Jews held that there was but one cause for separation, that being the sin of adultery. At this early stage in his public ministry Jesus deemed it important to declare his teaching on this sharply mooted question. At a later period (Mat 19:3-12; Mar 10:2-12; Luk 16:18) the question was pressed upon him by unfriendly critics in the hope of involving him in controversy with either one party or the other. The enemies of Jesus hoped to make trouble for him on this point. Jesus teaches clearly on this point; he cannot be misunderstood.

But I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress.-It seems that the law of Moses left the party at liberty to determine for himself what was a proper cause of divorce; Jesus does not repeal the law, but he authoritatively restricts its application, and thereby condemns all misapplications of the principle. He is clear on this point; he lays down his teaching here with entire precision; he admits but one valid ground for divorce, namely fornication. Whoever puts away his wife for any other reason than this causes her to commit adultery because he tempts her to marry again; Jesus assumes that the pretended divorce goes for nothing; that she is still his wife, and that marrying again involves adultery. Not only does she become an adulteress, but whoever shall marry her becomes an adulterer. A divorce for reasons other than the only legitimate one involves the sin of adultery in all the parties implicated-in the husband who puts his wife away, and in the wife herself, and in the man who marries her. Under the law of Moses a husband could divorce his wife, but the wife could not divorce the husband; hence Jesus in dealing with this principle uses the masculine gender; but the ethical principle is applicable to both sexes.

[The language of Jesus on the subject of adultery and divorce is plain. I see nothing difficult to understand in it; I cannot write a plainer sentence than the one that says, “That every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.” Every man and every woman that has separated from a husband or wife save for the cause of fornication, and is living with another, is living in adultery. The law is positive and clear; and no reasoning of man, whether preacher or not, can change it. I do not see what more can be said on that point.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Pure Eyes and Clean Speech

Mat 5:27-37

The legislation of the old time insisted that no member of the commonwealth should commit adultery, and enforced terrible penalties. See Deu 22:22-24. But the Divine Man, who reads the human heart with perfect accuracy, goes behind the deed to its premonitory stages, legislates about the look that may inflame passion, and condemns the soul that does not instantly turn the eye from that which allures it, to the All-Holy, asking to be cleansed not with tears only but with blood. The first act in the religious life is to detect right and wrong in the thought or intention. If the tempter is arrested there, He is powerless to hurt. Kill the snake in the egg!

The prohibition against swearing does not deal with taking an oath in the law court. During His trial by the high priest, our Lord did not resent being put on His oath. On rare and solemn occasions we may have to bare our heads before God and ask Him to corroborate our word. But how different is this from the frequent and flippant use of expletives and extravagances of speech.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Thou: Exo 20:14, Lev 20:10, Deu 5:18, Deu 22:22-24, Pro 6:32

Reciprocal: Lev 18:20 – General Neh 8:8 – and gave the sense Jer 5:8 – every one Eze 22:11 – committed Mal 2:9 – but Mat 5:21 – it Luk 7:6 – for

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

5:27

This verse introduces another place where Jesus shows that his laws will be stricter than the old ones. The law against adultery pertained to the physical act only as it was pronounced “by them of old time.”

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

[Ye have heard, that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery.] He citeth not the command or text of Moses, as barely delivered by Moses, but as deformed by those of old time with such a gloss as almost evacuated all the force of the command; for they interpreted it of the act of adultery only, and that with a married woman. So the enumeration of the six hundred and thirteen precepts of the law, and that, Exo 20:14; ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery,’ hath these words, “This is the thirty-fifth precept of the law, namely, That no man lie with another man’s wife.”

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Mat 5:27. The seventh commandment (Exo 20:14) is now cited, with an implied reference to the interpretation given by the scribes, namely, that adultery alone was forbidden.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Our Savior next proceeds to explain the seventh commandment, which forbids adultery; by which the Pharisees understood only the gross act of uncleanness, and carnal lying with a woman. But, says our Savior, Whosoever secretly in his heart desires such a thing, and casts his eyes upon a woman in order to such an act, entertaining only a thought of it with pleasure and delight, he is an adulterer in God’s account.

Learn, That such is the purity and spirituality of the law of God, that it condemns speculative wantonness, no less than practical uncleanness; and forbids not only the outward action, but the secret purpose and intention, and first out-goings of the soul after unlawful objects.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 5:27-28. Ye have heard, &c. Jesus now proceeds in his sermon to the seventh commandment, the true interpretation of which he gives us. Thou shalt not commit adultery This, as well as the sixth commandment, the scribes and Pharisees interpreted barely of the outward act. But I say unto you, &c. The command extends not only to unchaste actions and words, but even to looks, and the very thoughts of the heart: for whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her Whosoever cherishes or indulges unchaste imaginations, desires, and intentions, hath committed adultery with her, &c. Hath been guilty of a violation of this commandment, which was intended to forbid the corrupt inclinations of the heart, and all irregular desires, as well as the pollution of the body.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Mat 5:27 f. Adultery.Jesus again extends the scope of the prohibition from actions to thoughts. There is so mething more here than the seventh or even the tenth commandment, where the coveting is only a matter of property (cf. Job 31:1; Job 31:7-12). The papyri show that a married woman is probably meant in Mat 5:28.

Mat 5:29 f. The Right Eye and Hand (cf. Mat 18:8 f. Mar 9:43-47*).Right eye is an assimilation to right hand; the two eyes are really of equal value. The eye is the member that should keep a man from stumbling, instead of being a stumbling-block. To go into Gehenna implies the destruction of the material body; it is the opposite of entering the Kingdom, or life, or the joy of the Lord.

Mat 5:31 f. Divorce (Luk 16:18; cf. Mat 19:9, Mar 10:11 f.*).These passages should be considered together. In Mat 19:4-8 and Mar 10:5-9 the condemnation of divorce is emphasized by reference to Gods purpose in the Creation. The change in the formula (Mat 5:31) suggests that the passage was not originally part of the Sermon. On the strength of Deu 24:1-3 (really the restriction of a custom taken for granted, not a law prescribing divorce), divorce was practised on very trivial pretexts (cf. Mat 19:3; Mat 19:7). Jesus declares that, according to the true intention of God, divorce is sinful. The saving clause (except for fornication, i.e. unchastity) is absent from Mk. and Lk. (cf. Paul in 1Co 7:10 f.); probably it is due not to Jesus but to the early Churchs desire to meet a pressing ethical need which has not yet ceased. Jesus, in view of the near approach of the Kingdom laid down principles without reference to any limitations which the complexity of life now demands. It is taken for granted that the woman will re-marry, but since divorce is sinful and the first marriage still holds, the new marriage is sinful.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

5:27 {7} Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

(7) He is taken for an adulterer before God, whoever he is, that covets a woman: and therefore we must keep our eyes chaste, and all the members we have, yea and we must avoid all opportunities that might move us to evil, no matter what it costs us.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

God’s will concerning adultery 5:27-30

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Jesus proceeded to clarify God’s intended meaning in the seventh commandment (Exo 20:14; Deu 5:18). The rabbis in Jesus’ day tended to look at adultery as wrong because it involved stealing another man’s wife. They viewed it as an external act. [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 151.] Jesus, on the other hand, saw it as wrong because it made the lustful individual impure morally, an internal condition. The Greek word gyn can mean either wife or woman. Certainly the spirit of the command would prohibit lusting after any woman, not just a married woman. Fantasized immorality is just as sinful to God as physical immorality (cf. Exo 20:17). The fact that fornication that takes place in the brain has fewer bad consequences than fornication that takes place on a bed does not mitigate this truth.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles