Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
( ) Adultery, 27 32.
28. to lust after her i. e. “with a view to lust after her.”
in his heart ] Contrast with the pure in heart, Mat 5:8.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 28. Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her] , earnestly to covet her. The verb, , is undoubtedly used here by our Lord, in the sense of coveting through the influence of impure desire. The word is used in precisely the same sense, on the same subject, by Herodotus, book the first, near the end. I will give the passage, but I dare not translate it. To the learned reader it will justify my translation, and the unlearned must take my word. , , Raphelius, on this verse, says, hoc loco, est turpi cupiditate mulieris potiundae flagrare. In all these eases, our blessed Lord points out the spirituality of the law; which was a matter to which the Jews paid very little attention. Indeed it is the property of a Pharisee to abstain only from the outward crime. Men are very often less inquisitive to know how far the will of God extends, that they may please him in performing it, than they are to know how far they may satisfy their lusts without destroying their bodies and souls, utterly, by an open violation of his law.
Hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.] It is the earnest wish or desire of the soul, which, in a variety of cases, constitutes the good or evil of an act. If a man earnestly wish to commit an evil, but cannot, because God puts time, place, and opportunity out of his power, he is fully chargeable with the iniquity of the act, by that God who searches and judges the heart. So, if a man earnestly wish to do some kindness, which it is out of his power to perform, the act is considered as his; because God, in this case, as in that above, takes the will for the deed. If voluntary and deliberate looks and desires make adulterers and adulteresses, how many persons are there whose whole life is one continued crime! whose eyes being full of adultery, they cannot cease from sin, 2Pe 2:14. Many would abhor to commit one external act before the eyes of men, in a temple of stone; and yet they are not afraid to commit a multitude of such acts in the temple of their hearts, and in the sight of God!
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
28. But I say unto you, Thatwhosoever looketh on a woman to lust after herwith the intentto do so, as the same expression is used in Mt6:1; or, with the full consent of his will, to feed thereby hisunholy desires.
hath committed adultery withher already in his heartWe are not to suppose, from the wordhere used”adultery”that our Lord means to restrictthe breach of this commandment to married persons, or to criminalintercourse with such. The expressions, “whosoeverlooketh,” and “looketh upon a woman,” seemclearly to extend the range of this commandment to all forms ofimpurity, and the counsels which followas they most certainly wereintended for all, whether married or unmarriedseem to confirmthis. As in dealing with the sixth commandment our Lord firstexpounds it, and then in the four following verses applies Hisexposition (Mt 5:21-25),so here He first expounds the seventh commandment, and then in thefour following verses applies His exposition (Mt5:28-32).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman,…. Many and severe are the prohibitions of the Jews, concerning looking upon a woman, which they aggravate as a very great sin: they say k, it is not lawful to look upon a beautiful woman, though unmarried; nor upon another man’s wife, though deformed; nor upon a woman’s coloured garments: they forbid l looking on a woman’s little finger, and say m, that he that tells money to a woman, out of his hand into her’s, that he may look upon her, though he is possessed of the law and good works, even as Moses, he shall not escape the damnation of hell: they affirm n, that he that looks upon a woman’s heel, his children shall not be virtuous; and that a man may not go after a woman in the way, no, not after his wife: should he meet her on a bridge, he must take her to the side of him; and whoever goes through a river after a woman, shall have no part in the world to o come: nay, they forbid p a man looking on the beauty of his own wife. Now these things were said by them, chiefly to cover themselves, and because they would be thought to be very chaste; when they were, as Christ calls them, an “adulterous generation” in a literal sense: they usually did what our Lord observes, “strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel”. We read in the Talmud q, of , a “foolish saint” and it is asked, who is he? and it is answered, one that sees a woman drowning in a river, and says it is not lawful for me , “to look” upon her, and deliver her. It was not any looking upon a woman, that is forbid by Christ as criminal; but so to look, as “to lust after her”; for such an one
hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. But these men, who forbad external looking upon a woman, generally speaking, had no notion of heart sins; and which was the prevailing opinion of the Pharisees, in Christ’s time.
“A good thought, they r allow, is reckoned as if done; as it is said, Mal 3:16. Upon which it is asked, what is the meaning of that, and “that thought” upon “his name?” Says R. Ase, if a man thinks to do a good work, and is hindered, and does it not, the Scripture reckons it to him, as if he did it; but an evil thought, the holy blessed God does not account of it as if done, as is said,
Ps 66:18.”
Upon which words, a noted commentator s of their’s has this remark:
“Though I regard iniquity in my heart to do it, even in thought, yea, against God himself, as if I had expressed it with my lips, he does not hear it; that is,
, “he does not reckon it to me for sin”; because the holy blessed God does not account an evil thought for an action, to them that are in the faith of God, or of the true religion.”
For it seems, this is only true of the Israelites; it is just the reverse with the Gentiles, in whom God does not reckon of a good thought, as if it was done, but does of an evil one, as if it was in act t. It must be owned, that this is not the sense of them all; for some of them have gone so far as to say u, that
“the thoughts of sin are greater, or harder, than sin itself:”
by which they mean, that it is more difficult to subdue sinful lusts, than to refrain from the act of sin itself; and particularly, some of them say things which agree with, and come very near to what our Lord here says; as when they affirm w, that
“everyone that looks upon a woman , with intention, it is all one as if he lay with her.”
And that , “he that committeth adultery with his eyes, is called an adulterer” x. Yea, they also observe y, that a woman may commit adultery in her heart, as well as a man; but the Pharisees of Christ’s time were of another mind.
k T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 1, 2. l T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 24. 1. Sabbat. fol. 64. 2. m T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 61. 1. Eruvin, fol. 18. 2. n T. Bab. Nedarim, fol. 20. 1. T. Hieros. Challa, fol. 58. 3. Derech Eretz. c. 1. fol. 17. 3. o T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 61. 1. Eruvin, fol. 18. 2. p Zohar in Lev. fol. 34. 4. q T. Bab Sota, fol. 21. 2. r T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 40. 1. s R. David Kimchi, in Psal. lxvi. 18. t T. Hieros. Peah, fol. 16. 2. u T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 29. 1. w T. Hieros. Challa, fol. 58. 3. Massechet Calah, fol. 16. 4. Vid. Maimon. Issure Bia, c. 21. sect. 2. & Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora precept. neg. 126. x Vajikra Rabba, sect. 23. fol. 265. 1. y Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 9. fol. 196. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
In his heart ( ). Not just the centre of the blood circulation though it means that. Not just the emotional part of man’s nature, but here the inner man including the intellect, the affections, the will. This word is exceedingly common in the New Testament and repays careful study always. It is from a root that means to quiver or palpitate. Jesus locates adultery in the eye and heart before the outward act. Wunsche (Beitrage) quotes two pertinent rabbinical sayings as translated by Bruce: “The eye and the heart are the two brokers of sin.” “Passions lodge only in him who sees.” Hence the peril of lewd pictures and plays to the pure.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “But I say unto you,” (ego de lego humin) “Yet I tell you all;” Here Jesus returns His direct address to the body of His disciples.
2) “That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her,” (hoti pas ho blepon gunaika pros to eputhumesai auten) “That everyone who fixes his eyes on a woman or looks after her with a carnal, lustful desire,” as condemned or forbidden Exo 20:17, a thing that was winked at or looked upon lightly by the Jewish leaders of that day.
3) “Hath committed adultery with her,” (Hath committed adultery with her,” (ede ernoicheusen auten en te kardia autou) “Has already (at that time) of carnal lustful looking, committed adultery with her in his heart;” The eye, window of the soul, can lead to the sin of adultery, against which the Word warns, 1Jn 2:15-17; Job 3:11; Pro 6:25.
4) “Already in his heart.” (ede en te kardia autou) “Already (at that moment) in his heart,” in the act of his lustful longing or coveting to have her, *Exo 20:17; Mat 15:18-19; Mr 7:21. It is a true axiom that “one may not keep birds from flying over his head, but he can keep them from nesting in his hair.” One must resist the tendency to lust after the opposite sex, apart from personal marital covenant with that one.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
28. Whoever shall look upon a woman. The design of Christ was to condemn generally the lust of the flesh. He says, that not only those who have seduced their neighbors’ wives, but those who have polluted their eyes by an immodest look, are adulterers before God. This is a synec-doche: (406) for not only the eyes, but even the concealed flames of the heart, render men guilty of adultery. Accordingly, Paul makes chastity (1Co 7:34) to consist both in body and in mind. But Christ reckoned it enough to refute the gross mistake which was prevalent: for they thought that it was only necessary to guard against outward adultery. As it is generally by the wantonness of the eyes that temptations are presented to the mind, and as lust enters, as it were, by that door, Christ used this mode of speaking, when he wished to condemn lust: which is evident from the expression, to lust after her. This teaches us also, that not only those who form a deliberate purpose of fornication, but those who admit any polluted thoughts, are reckoned adulterers before God. The hypocrisy of the Papists, therefore, is too gross and stupid, when they affirm that lust is not a sin, until it gain the full consent of the heart. But we need not wonder, that they make sin to be so small a matter: for those who ascribe righteousness to the merit of works must be very dull and stupid in judging of their sins.
(406) “ C’est une facon de parler qu’on appelle Synecdoche, quand on prend une artie our le tout.” — “It is a way of speaking which is called Synecdoche, when a part is taken for the whole.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(28) To lust after her.The intent is more strongly marked in the Greek than in the English. It is not the passing glance, not even the momentary impulse of desire, but the continued gaze by which the impulse is deliberately cherished till it becomes a passion. This noble and beautiful teaching, it has often been remarked, and by way of disparagement, is found elsewhere. Such disparagement is out of place. By the mercy of God the Light that lighteth every man has led men to recognise the truth thus asserted, and parallels to it may be found in the writings of Conlucius, Seneca, Epictetus, and even of the Jewish Rabbis themselves. The words of Juvenal closely express the general sentiment:
Scelus intra se tacitus qui cogitat ullum,
Facti crimen habet.
[Who in his breast a guilty thought doth cherish,
He bears the guilt of action.]
Our Lords words speak primarily of adultery, but are, of course, applicable to every form of sensual impurity.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
28. Looketh to lust Where the will consents, and the volition permits the sensual feeling. Yet not every glance of admiration or desire, cast upon the beauty of one of the opposite sex, is here condemned. Such affections are planted in our nature for pure and beneficial purposes. Not even the recognition of the superior attractions of another man’s wife, or another woman’s husband, is transgression. Indeed, the sentiment of pleasure arising from beauty of persons around us, may be as pure as the pleasure of surveying pictures. A sweet voice is justly pleasant to the ear, a graceful manner to the taste, a fair form or face to the eye. But when from a sentiment it becomes a sensation, the danger commences. If the sensation be volitionally permitted, there is guilt. If nothing but opportunity were wanting to the guilty act, the adultery of the heart is fully committed. God, who sees the heart, holds the hidden man guilty.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“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.”
Once again Jesus declares authoritatively, “I say to you.” Once He has spoken that settles the matter. The principle here is very clear. Even the desire for adultery in the heart, a desire which is encouraged in himself by a man, is the equivalent of adultery. The man who looks on a woman with the desire to break in on her purity, thus considering breaking the oneness between her and her husband, is actually to be seen as guilty of committing adultery. He is invading her purity, and in his mind appropriating her for himself, without having the intention of forming a permanent relationship with her as his one and only wife (which of course he could not have in the nature of the case). He is intending to cause a breakdown of the original purpose of God in creating man and woman. For it had been God’s purpose from the beginning that each man and each woman should have one partner to whom they would be insolubly bound until death broke the bond, looking only to them. The lustful look with intent at an unmarried woman, (unless with the genuine aim of marriage), or at a woman who was already bound to another, thus hit at the very purpose of God in creation. It indicated rebellion against God’s will. In God’s eyes it was therefore as much adultery on the person’s part as if he had actually had sexual relations with her. And he has thus by it broken God’s law.
Alternately we may translate this as, ‘every one who looks on a woman to cause her to lust’. (The wording is literally ‘for the lusting of/by her’). The idea then is that he has persuaded her to return his desires and there is therefore a very real case of adultery in their thoughts, brought about by his actions, but the final result is the same.
Here then Jesus is stressing that the thought is father of the deed (as with hatred and murder), and it is therefore something that His disciples must equally avoid because it attacks both the purity of the woman, and marriage itself, at their very heart. It is contrary to the sanctity of marriage. The idea that lustful thoughts were sinful was not new. In the Book of Jubilees Mat 20:3-4, written by a Pharisee in 2nd century BC the writer says, that we should keep ourselves from all fornication and uncleanness — let them not fornicate with her after their eyes and hearts.’ In the Testament of Isa 7:2 we read, ‘except for my wife I have not known any woman. I did not act in a sexually immoral way by lifting up my eyes.’ While in the Psalms of Solomon Mat 4:4 it was said of someone with disapproval, ‘his eyes are on every woman without distinction’. In Qumran also we read of the ‘fornication of the eyes’, while later the Rabbis would stress that a woman’s little finger, or her leg, or her voice, or her eye, could all lead on to impure thoughts in a man (such women would in general be well covered up and thus even a hint of sexuality would be enough). But while they were aware of the impropriety of such behaviour, none of them suggested on their own authority that this is precisely what God’s commandment was against. They disapproved, but they did not condemn. And yet this is what Jesus was saying.
“And if your right eye causes you to stumble,
Pluck it out, and cast it from you,
For it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish,
And not your whole body be cast into hell.”
And lest this be dismissed as just another example of theological hairsplitting Jesus rams home the seriousness of the matter. This is so important that if a man’s right eye cause his thought to roam in this direction, he should, as it were, pluck out his eye and hurl it from him, so concerned should he be not to sin in this way. For it would be better to lose an eye and be half blind, than for his whole body to perish in Gehenna. The eye is in fact regularly connected with sin (see Num 15:39; Pro 21:4; Eze 6:9; Eze 18:12; Eze 20:8) and clearly has a connection with a sin such as this.
There is no thought here that this mutilation should become a part of Jewish Law, or that this dismemberment should be carried out by others as a sentence on what he had done. For who would know of it? (Indeed were it so the vast majority of men would be half blind). It is a private and personal matter, and the choice is the man’s. It is a moral choice. Nor does Jesus intend it to be carried out literally. He is using exaggeration to enforce His argument, as He regularly does. What He is really saying is that a man should go to any extreme in order to prevent himself from sinning in this way. He should be prepared to take drastic action. And today we can add the rider that if a woman dresses in such a way as to attract the roving eye she too is equally guilty. She is persuading men to commit adultery with her in their hearts.
The mention of the ‘right’ eye suggests the most important eye. To have said both eyes would have resulted in total blindness. It was not the thought that the man make himself wholly blind. The thought was rather of getting rid of the offending member and paying any price to be rid of the sin. The picture is of the man recognising his sin, and immediately and violently responding by taking out his eye and throwing it from him because it had sinned. Mar 9:42-47, in another context, simply says ‘your eye’. This simply confirms that Jesus used similar illustrations and varied them. In fact, of course, this would not solve the problem, for it was not really the eye that had sinned, it was the whole person. Seeming to deal with the offending member would not really get to the root of the problem. Both eyes would need to be put out for it to be effective, and even then it would still not prevent evil thoughts. So to take it literally would be foolish. Nor would it be consistent with His rejection of mutilation in Mar 9:38-42. It is rather a stress on the need to take decisive action emphasised by exaggeration.
“And if your right hand causes you to stumble,
Cut it off, and cast it from you,
For it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish,
And not your whole body go into hell.”
Jesus now takes it one step further, moving from the initial eyeing of the woman to actual bodily contact. If a man allow his hand, (or any of his body parts), to stray in the woman’s direction, even if it be his vital right hand, then he must cut if off and hurl it from him. For that would be better for him than having his whole body perish in Gehenna. Again the severity of the proposed remedy stresses the seriousness of the sin, and the greatness of the effort that should be taken in order to avoid it. Jesus is clearly very much concerned about this type of sin.
We can compare for this violent action the words of Paul in Col 3:5, ‘Put to death, therefore, your members which are on the earth, fornication, uncleanness, passion –’. His words are just as violent as the words of Jesus but we do not see it as a suggestion that we commit suicide, for we relate it to the cross.
There is, however, a possibility that the ‘right hand’ here is a euphemism for the private parts. Such were often referred to euphemistically in the Old Testament by such means in order to avoid mentioning them directly (e.g. Isa 57:8).
“And it was said, Whoever shall put away his wife,
Let him give her a certificate 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,
And whoever shall marry her when she is put away,
Commits adultery.”
But the matter does not just stop there, for man in his ingenuity can find a way around this. He divorces his wife. And then he argues that he can be free to cast lustful eyes on another. Jesus declares that that is not so. Unless the wife has committed adultery the marriage is permanently binding and the man cannot free himself to marry another. Adultery is allowed as an exception because it will, of course, have broken the unity between the married couple because by her act of adultery the woman has bound herself to another man. The husband will therefore no longer be bound. Indeed if he followed Jewish custom he would feel himself bound to arrange a divorce (compare Mat 1:19). The woman will thus be living in sin but he will not. But apart from this exception he is bound to his wife as long as she lives, just as she is bound to him (Rom 7:1-3).
The case that ‘was said’ here was built on Deu 24:1-4. But that law was intended rather in order to prevent a woman who has been divorced for ‘uncleanness’ and has been married to another, from then returning to her first husband. That is forbidden. It is an abomination to God. The husband has rightly divorced her because she has united herself in some way to another man. Therefore he must never receive her back. Otherwise he too would be condoning sexual uncleanness. But this was not intended to encourage, or even indicate approval of divorce. It was catering for a situation where adultery, or similar, had already taken place.
It is difficult to see how Jesus could have laid a stronger emphasis on the sacredness and indissolubility of marriage. It is clear that in His view nothing was to be allowed to break the marriage bond. And the extremeness of His suggested remedies about plucking out and hurling away the eye and cutting off and throwing away the hand, together with His whole emphasis, brings out that God sees this matter as of vital importance. Woe betide, therefore, those who treat divorce lightly. That there is forgiveness even for the sin of adultery Joh 8:4; Joh 8:11 makes clear (and so does Psalms 51). But it was with the stern injunction that it must never happen again, while the divorced person goes on in adultery, as David did, and for him, although he was forgiven, the consequences of his sin also continued. We must not underestimate the mercy of God, but we must also beware of presumption. It should be noted, however, that Jesus did not suggest that those who had been divorced should get together again. Indeed that would be to go against Deu 24:1-4, and would be equally sinful if they had then married another.
‘And it was said.’ This falls short of the full ‘you have heard that it was said’ (Mat 5:21; Mat 5:27; Mat 5:33; Mat 5:38; Mat 5:43). It is therefore clearly an addendum to what has gone before and not the indication of the beginning of a new section.
‘Let him give her a writing of divorce.’ The Greek word for ‘of divorce’ means ‘of relinquishing rights to a property’. That was mainly how a Jew would see his wife. It was very different with Jesus. To Him she shared equality with the man, for they had both been made one. The certificate of divorce stated that the woman was free to marry again and had to be signed and verified in the presence of witnesses. It was based on Deu 24:1 and provided the woman with the means of proving that she was no longer bound to a husband. But Deu 24:1-4 was never intended to provide general grounds for divorce. It was to be used in cases where a woman was found guilty of ‘an indecent thing’. This might have included adultery which her husband did not wish to charge her with publicly (otherwise she would suffer the death penalty), suspected adultery which could not be sufficiently proved but of which the husband had little doubt, potential adultery, and so on. Often the woman’s family might come to some agreement about it in order to prevent the worst happening to their daughter. Rabbi Shammai saw ‘an indecent thing’ as indicating adultery, and Jesus basically agrees with him, but Rabbi Hillel argued that it could apply to any failure, such as burning the dinner. Not surprisingly, knowing the hearts of men, Hillel’s decision tended to be the most popular among the men, for they felt that it gave them divine authority to divorce their wives if they wished to. Divorce had thus become fairly commonplace. We can compare the Samaritan woman who had had five husbands under the same laws (Joh 4:18). We can also compare the attitude towards women in Sir 25:23-26 , ‘A woman who will not make her husband happy is as hands which hang down and as palsied knees — if she does not go as you would wish, cut her off from your flesh’. Jesus, however, makes clear that marriage was permanent in the eyes of God and that the only possible grounds for divorce was ‘fornication’, for that meant that the sin of adultery had already been committed, and the oneness with her husband had already been destroyed.
‘Except for the cause of fornication.’ The word for ‘fornication’ can signify premarital sex, but it can also indicate general sexual misdemeanours, and adultery (compare also Mat 19:9). Thus here it refers to adultery. But it might have included other sexual misdemeanours. In other contexts Jesus does not add this reservation (Mar 10:12; Luk 16:18), but it was clearly necessary when speaking to Jews, for now that an adulterous woman was no longer necessarily stoned to death there had to be some means by which the husband could be set free from the wrecked marriage. And Jewish thinking required a man to divorce such a wife.
The differing verses are as follows: ‘Everyone who divorces his wife, except on the grounds of fornication, makes her an adulteress’ (Mat 5:32); ‘Whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, commits adultery (Mat 19:9); ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery’ (Mar 10:12); ‘Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery’ (Luk 16:18). It has therefore been suggested by some that Matthew is expanding Jesus’ words in order to reflect the position in his own day. But the more probable reason is that Mark and Luke are stating the accepted position held generally by Christian Gentiles, who did not consider it essential to divorce an adulteress, and were therefore simply abbreviating Jesus’ statement to agree with it, without introducing the added complication about fornication which applied more to a Jewish situation, while Matthew is providing the detail about the exception, because he is well aware, as Jesus also had been, that the Jews who read his words would insist that a man must divorce a wife caught in the act of adultery in accordance with Jewish tradition, in order to maintain the purity of Israel, and was confirming that Jesus was in agreement with that. Note that both Mark and Luke have ‘and marries another’ as an additional statement, stressing the fact that the man is choosing to commit adultery. They are more concerned with that than the exception. Thus all are indicating the aspects of what Jesus said which they wish to bring out.
Note on The Idea of Marriage and Adultery.
Scripture from beginning to end lays great stress on purity within marriage. It is stressed in Gen 2:24. It is stressed in the fact that the major reason for the physical destruction of the Canaanites was to be because of their defiling sexual practises when their ‘iniquity was full’. It is stressed in the various provisions in the Law where it is made clear that the actual physical act of sexual union is seen as binding a man and woman together as one. (Thus a man who has sexual union with an unmarried woman must marry her. If she is betrothed or married he must be put to death, and she also if she consented). It is stressed in the teaching of Jesus, as here (see also Mat 19:3-12). It is seen to lie at the very heart of creation. Scripture does not therefore treat the sexual act lightly. For even if a man has sexual relations with a prostitute, it makes him one with her and if he is a believer, defiles the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1Co 6:15-19). To have had sexual relations with someone who is not the sole living partner with whom those relations have first been enjoyed is therefore seen as a major sin. Such people bear the permanent stain of being ‘adulterers’ although the consequence for the forgiven adulterer is never spelled out. It is made clear, however, that they can never be restored to their original purity. They are for ever stained. We in the west tend to treat it lightly. Only eternity will reveal at what cost.
However, that there can be forgiveness for one who has committed adultery as long as there is genuine repentance comes out in Lev 19:20-22, in the only example where adulterers were not to be put to death (but see also Deu 21:14 which presumably allows the man and woman to marry again). The point in both these cases, however, is that they were not fully fledged members of the community. See also Joh 8:1-11. This must not, however, be seen as removing the seriousness of the sin. Murder too could be forgiven, but we do not therefore sympathise with murder.
End of note.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
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.
Ver. 28. But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her ] Lusting is often the fruit of looking; as in Joseph’s mistress, who set her eyes upon Joseph; a and David, who saw Bathsheba bathing. Lust is quicksighted. How much better Job, who would not look, lest he should think upon a maid! and Nazianzen, who had learned (and he glories in it) to keep in his eyes front roving to wanton prospects! . And the like is reported of that heavenly spark, the young Lord Harrington; whereas those that have eyes full of adultery cannot cease to sin, saith St Peter. 2Pe 2:14 , , full of the whore, as if she sat in the adulterer’s eye. And facti crimina lumen habet, saith another. Samson’s eyes were the first offenders that betrayed him to lust, therefore are they first pulled out, and he led a blind captive to Gaza where before he had lustfully gazed on his Delilah. It is true, the blindness of his body opened the eyes of his mind. But how many thousands are there that die of the wound in the eye! Physicians reckon 200 diseases that belong to it; but none like this. For, by these loop-holes of lust and windows of wickedness, the devil windeth himself into the soul. Death entereth in by these windows, as the fathers apply that text in Jeremiah. The eye is the light of the body, saith our Saviour, and yet by our abuse, this most lightsome part of the body draweth many times the whole soul into utter darkness. Nothing, I dare say, so much enricheth hell as beautiful faces; while a man’s eye-beams, beating upon that beauty, reflect with anew heat upon himself. Ut vidi, ut perii! (Propert.) Looking and lusting differ (in Greek) but in one letter ( ). When one seemed to pity a one-eyed man, he told him he had lost one of his enemies, a very thief, that would have stolen away his heart. Democritus (but in that no wise man) pulled out his eyes; and the Pharisee (little wiser) would shut his eyes when he walked abroad, to avoid the sight of women; insomuch that he often dashed his head against the walls, that the blood gushed out, and was therefore called Pharisoeus impingens, b How much better, and with greater commendation had these men taken our Saviour’s counsel in the following verses!
a Coniecit in eum oculos, Gen. xxxix. Non dicit Moses, vidit, aspexit: sed hic fuit aspectus impudicus. Pareus.
b Democritus oculos sibi eruit, quod mulieres sine concupiscentia adspicere non possit. Sed nihil aliud fecit quam quod fatuitatem suam urbi manifestam fecit. Tertullian in Apologet. Voluptatem vicisse voluptas est maxima, nec ulla maior est victoria, quam ea quae a cupiditatibus refertur. Cypr. de Bon. Pud.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
28. ] The precise meaning should in this verse be kept in mind, as the neglect of it may lead into error. Our Lord is speaking of the sin of adultery , and therefore, however the saying may undoubtedly apply by implication to cases where this sin is out of the question e.g. to the impure beholding of an un married woman with a view to fornication (it being borne in mind that spiritually, and before God, all fornication is adultery, inasmuch as the unmarried person is bound in loyalty and chastity to Him . See Stier below) yet the direct assertion in this verse must be understood as applying to the cases where this sin is in question. And, again, the . must not be interpreted of the casual evil thought which is checked by holy watchfulness, but the gazing with a view to feed that desire (for so with an inf. must mean). And again, . . . ., whatever it may undoubtedly imply respecting the guilt incurred in God’s sight, does not directly state any thing; but, plainly understood, affirms that the man who can do this viz. ‘gaze with a view to feed unlawful desire’ has already in his heart passed the barrier of criminal intention; made up his mind, stifled his conscience; in thought, committed the deed. But perhaps there is justice in Stier’s remark, Reden Jesu, i. 129 (edn. 2), that our Lord speaks here after the O.T. usage, in which, both in the seventh commandment and elsewhere, adultery also includes fornication; for marriage is the becoming one flesh, and therefore every such union, except that after the manner and in the state appointed by God, is a violation and contempt of that holy ordinance.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 5:28 . : the looker is supposed to be a husband who by his look wrongs his own wife. : married or unmarried. . he look is supposed to be not casual but persistent, the desire not involuntary or momentary, but cherished with longing. Augustine, a severe judge in such matters, defines the offence thus: “Qui hoc fine et hoc animo attenderit ut eam concupiscat; quod jam non est titillari delectatione carnis sed plene consentire libidini” (De ser. Domini). Chrysostom, the merciless scourge of the vices of Antioch, says: , . Hom. xvii. The Rabbis also condemned unchaste looks, but in how coarse a style compared with Jesus let this quotation given by Fritzsche show: “Intuens vel in minimum digitum feminae est ac si intueretur in locum pudendum”. In better taste are these sayings quoted by Wnsche (Beitrge): “The eye and the heart are the two brokers of sin”; “Passions lodge only in him who sees”. (bracketed as doubtful by W. H [24] ): the accusative after . is rare and late. We cannot but think of the personal relations to woman of One who understood so well the subtle sources of sexual sin. Shall we say that He was tempted in all points as we are, but desire was expelled by the mighty power of a pure love to which every woman was as a daughter, a sister, or a betrothed: a sacred object of tender respect?
[24] Westcott and Hort.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
whosoever = every one that.
looketh = keeps looking See App-133.
a woman = a married woman.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
28. ] The precise meaning should in this verse be kept in mind, as the neglect of it may lead into error. Our Lord is speaking of the sin of adultery, and therefore, however the saying may undoubtedly apply by implication to cases where this sin is out of the question-e.g. to the impure beholding of an unmarried woman with a view to fornication (it being borne in mind that spiritually, and before God, all fornication is adultery, inasmuch as the unmarried person is bound in loyalty and chastity to Him. See Stier below)-yet the direct assertion in this verse must be understood as applying to the cases where this sin is in question. And, again, the . must not be interpreted of the casual evil thought which is checked by holy watchfulness, but the gazing with a view to feed that desire (for so with an inf. must mean). And again, . . . ., whatever it may undoubtedly imply respecting the guilt incurred in Gods sight, does not directly state any thing; but, plainly understood, affirms that the man who can do this-viz. gaze with a view to feed unlawful desire-has already in his heart passed the barrier of criminal intention; made up his mind, stifled his conscience; in thought, committed the deed. But perhaps there is justice in Stiers remark, Reden Jesu, i. 129 (edn. 2), that our Lord speaks here after the O.T. usage, in which, both in the seventh commandment and elsewhere, adultery also includes fornication; for marriage is the becoming one flesh,-and therefore every such union, except that after the manner and in the state appointed by God, is a violation and contempt of that holy ordinance.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 5:28. , that looketh) Refer to this expression the right eye mentioned in the next verse.-, to) This particle determines the character of the looking.-, already) by that very act.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
I say: Mat 5:22, Mat 5:39, Mat 7:28, Mat 7:29
That: Gen 34:2, Gen 39:7-23, Exo 20:17, 2Sa 11:2, Job 31:1, Job 31:9, Pro 6:25, Jam 1:14, Jam 1:15, 2Pe 2:14, 1Jo 2:16
hath: Psa 119:96, Rom 7:7, Rom 7:8, Rom 7:14
Reciprocal: Gen 3:6 – to the eyes Gen 12:14 – beheld Exo 20:14 – General Lev 18:20 – General Deu 5:18 – General Jos 7:21 – I saw Neh 8:8 – and gave the sense Psa 101:3 – set Psa 119:37 – Turn Pro 7:25 – thine Pro 23:31 – General Pro 24:9 – thought Ecc 11:9 – in the sight Jer 5:8 – every one Eze 18:6 – neither hath defiled Eze 22:11 – committed Eze 23:16 – as soon as she saw them with her eyes Zec 8:17 – let Mal 2:9 – but Mal 2:15 – take Mat 5:32 – I say Mat 7:24 – whosoever Mar 9:47 – thine 1Jo 3:15 – hateth
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5:28
This passage has been strained out of its true meaning. To say it means a man sins if he thinks of the subject of sex at all in connection with a woman would be to fly in the face of much scripture. In 1Co 7:2 Paul instructs a man to marry in order to “avoid fornication,” and yet he could not have been in any danger of that sin unless he had been mindful of the subject in connection with some woman. The apostle does not condemn him for the mere fact of that state of mind and hence we should not construe the teaching of Jesus to make it condemn him. The thought is of a man who has no intention of honorable marriage, but who indulges his mind with the subject and who cultivates an imagination on the subject in a case where he knows he could not carry out his inclinations without violating the moral law, either because he or the woman would not be free to consummate the union.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
[Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, etc.] “He that looketh upon a woman’s heel, is as if he looked upon her belly: and he that looks upon her belly, is as if he lay with her.” And yet, It was Rabban Gamaliel’s custom to look upon women. And in the other Talmud; “He that looks upon the little finger of a woman, is as if he looked upon her privy parts.” And yet “Rabh Gidal and R. Jochanan were wont to sit at the place of dipping, where the women were washed; and when they were admonished by some of the danger of lasciviousness, R. Jochanan answered, ‘I am of the seed of Joseph, over whom an evil affection could not rule.’ ”
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 5:28. Every one who, not seeth, but voluntarily looketh, with a view to lust after her. Our Lord declares, not that such an one shall be condemned, but that in his heart he has committed the sin. Adultery of the heart, and of the eye, desecrate the temple of the Holy Spirit; how much more adultery in deed.
A woman may mean a wife, but the widest sense is not inappropriate.