Down an Unfamiliar Road

While listening to the horrible news of the terrorist attacks in Paris last night, Shepard Smith, the news anchor on Fox News, made the statement: “Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the world, never!” I thought to myself that perhaps Shepard may not remember his studies of world history that are filled with stories of mass killings that certainly outnumber those who died in such attacks. For instance, on December 30, 1066, Muslim mobs stormed the royal palace where Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela had sought refuge and crucified him. In the ensuing massacre of the Jewish population, many of the Jews of Granada were murdered. The Jewish Encyclopedia tells us that more that 1500 Jewish families, numbering 4,000 persons, fell in one day. The massacre was apparently started by a rumor that Joseph was going to have the Muslim king assassinated. This rumor today is that ISIS is retaliating because of the drone attacks that have killed some of their most notorious savages and the hunt that is on for their leader.

But more than that, this idea of people being so spooked by the threat of terrorism that at the slightest boom or rumor they will run for cover. Listen to what it says in Isaiah that would be the case in the last days: “A thousand will run away at the threat of one; at the threat of five you all will run away.” (Isaiah 30:17). Then later on in Isaiah it talks about an incident referred to as “the day of great slaughter, when the towers fall.” (Ibid. 30:25). Notice, it says “towers.” How can one not think of the twin towers in New York that fell on September 11, 2001, when over 2600 died in the attack on the World Trade Center.

Even more interesting is the reason given in Isaiah for this sudden destruction. The LORD told Isaiah: “Look at my children. They don’t obey me. They make plans, but they don’t ask me to help them. They make agreements with other nations, but my Spirit does not want those agreements. These people are adding more and more sins to the ones they have already done.” (Ibid. 30:1). Yet all is not lost, because the LORD offers this word of hope: “Syria will be frightened by the Lord’s voice and the stick that will beat them. And as the Lord beats Assyria, His people will keep the rhythm with their drums and harps.” (Ibid. 30:31).

So what will it take for God to intervene, Isaiah has this to say: “The Lord is waiting to show His mercy to you. He wants to rise and comfort you. T he Lord is the God who does the right thing, so He will bless everyone who waits for His help.” (Ibid. 30:18). Yes, I know, this prophetic message was from God to the Jews living in Judea during that era, but the principle involved shows how God is anxious for His people to put Him first, to consult Him first, to be careful who they make alliances with before thinking it through. If it was true back then, why can we not accept it as true today. After all, we have a God who never changes.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER FIVE

Part VIII

DIVORCE: What is Jesus really saying? In order to understand what is happening, we have to see Jesus dealing with the conflict between the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai over the subject of divorce and remarriage. In one Jewish book we read that in the 1^st century AD, the schools of Shammai and Hillel took opposite views of the biblical text in Deuteronomy 24:1 which allowed a man to send his wife away if she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some “unseeming thing” in her. The phrase “unseeming thing” is literally the nakedness of a thing which the school of Shammai explained to mean that a man may not divorce his wife unless he discovered her to be unfaithful to him.¹ Hillel, on the other hand, declared he may divorce her even if she spoiled his cooking. From the words, “… if she find no favor in his eyes,” Rabbi Akiva argued that he may divorce her even if he found another woman more beautiful than she.² The more lenient opinion of Hillel was adopted as law so that in Jesus’ day a man could put away his wife even if he did not like her looks. Dr. Roy B. Blizzard in his book titled, “Mishnah and the Words of Jesus” says, Here we have an example of something Jesus taught when he talked about the scribes and the Pharisees teaching as a commandment the traditions of men. This was not a commandment. In Jesus’ day, Jewish law was very specific. There were reasons whereby a man could put away his wife and a wife could put away a husband. It was specific in law. Everybody knew it…in Jesus’ day there was a certain body of law that specified why a man or a woman would be justified in going to a rabbinic court and being granted a bill of divorcement. The School of Shammai said he could do so only for adultery, and Hillel said he could put away his wife for any reason. In the midst of this controversy, Jesus taught that a man is not to put away his wife for any reason except for the cause of fornication. What does he mean? Fornication is illicit sexual relations by those unmarried. In biblical times, virginity was held in high regard, and the marriage was arranged by the bridegroom and the father of the bride, and the contract, called a ketubah, was written and signed. In the contract, it specified, as many as four times, that the bridegroom was paying such-and-such a price for the virgin daughter of so-and-so in lieu of her virginity. The price was agreed upon. The amount was paid. When the ceremony took place, the bride and groom retired to a special place to consummate their marriage. The marriage would be consummated on a special sheet. The next morning, that sheet would be displayed publicly with blood on it to serve as a testimony to all the guests at the wedding feast that the woman had, indeed, been a virgin. That special sheet was known, from Deuteronomy, Chapter 22, as “the tokens of her virginity.” It would be kept with her for the rest of her life and, according to Jewish law, if at any time the husband accused his wife of not being a virgin when they married, all she had to do was bring out the “tokens of her virginity” and show it to a Rabbi (or his equivalent), and her husband could never divorce her for any reason because he had falsely accused her. Jesus enters into the midst of this argument and He says that the only reason whereby a man who is in a proper relationship with both God and his wife should ever put away his wife is if the marriage contract was falsified which would, in turn, render the union null and void, and that is all He has to say about it. He does not go into all of the exceptions because He does not have to. They are already specified by law. Jesus is not establishing a new law on His own. He is simply engaging in the controversy between the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai, and He enters into the controversy by explaining things according to His own unique, divine perspective.³

Verses 33-37: “You have heard that it was said to our people long ago, ‘When you make a vow, you must not break your promise. Keep the vows that you make to the Lord.’ But I tell you, when you make a promise, don’t try to make it stronger with a vow. Don’t make a vow using the name of heaven, because heaven is God’s throne. Don’t make a vow using the name of the earth, because the earth belongs to Him. Don’t make a vow using the name of Jerusalem, because it also belongs to Him, the great King. And don’t even say that your own head is proof that you will keep your promise. You cannot make one hair on your head white or black. Say only “yes” if you mean “yes,” and say only “no” if you mean “no.” If you say more than that, it is from the Evil One.’”

Since the marriage contract was in the form of a vow, our Lord now continues on the same subject of the vows and promises people make. This teaching covers not only taking an oath between individuals, but also incumbent upon those who may be called to witness in a court case. In His reference to what was said to the Jews long ago, Jesus is no doubt referring to the teachings of Moses who said: “If a man makes a special promise to the Lord or makes a promise with an oath, he must not break his promise. He must do everything he said he would do.”⁴ One venerable Jewish teacher points out that such vows are part of the free-willed offerings, they are not mandatory.⁵ While this is admirable, Jesus wants the crowd to know that the qualifier attached to that promise, or vow, must be acceptable to God. Therefore, it should not be predicated upon the virtue or reputation of something other than the person making the vow. It is not unusual to hear someone today saying, “I swear on my mother’s grave.” I’ve even heard some say, “I swear to God.” Jesus says here that this is not acceptable. The Jews knew this, because Moses taught⁶: “You must not use the name of the Lord your God to make empty promises. If you do, the Lord will not let you go unpunished.”⁷

God adds His own prohibition to this: “You must not use my name to make false promises. If you do that, you will show that you don’t respect the name of your God. I am the Lord!”⁸ One should also not use heaven, because as God says: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is where I rest my feet.”⁹ Our Lord’s statement is in harmony with what was being taught in His day as verbal teachings. In the Mishnah we find the phrase: “By heaven and by earth.” The Rabbis also say that if anyone says: “By Alef-Daleth” (the first two letters of Adonai,” by Yod-He” (the first two letters of YHWH, the sacred name), or “by Shaddai” or “by Sabbath” or “by the Merciful and Gracious” or “by Him that is long-suffering and of great kindness,” or by any substituted name, they are liable.”¹⁰ These are all considered attributes of Almighty God. As the Rabbis taught: “One who curses his father or his mother is not punished unless he curses them by the Divine Name. If he cursed them by referring to an attribute of God such as the Merciful One, Rabbi Meir holds him liable.”¹¹

Also, in the writings of Hebrew philosopher Philo, in which he addresses the Third Commandment, it is clear that swearing at all is to be rejected, since a simple word should be enough, to swear by parents or heaven and the like is better than using God’s name, which many do recklessly. When swearing is necessary the oath must be performed, if it can be lawfully. To call God to witness a falsehood is profane.¹² And Maimonides states: “When a person takes an oath by the heaven and earth, by the sun, or the like, this is not an oath, even though his intent is He who created them. Similarly, one who takes an oath by one of the prophets or by one of the texts of the Holy Scriptures, this is not an oath, even if his intent is He who sent the prophet or gave the commandments in this text. Although these are not oaths, those who take them are subjected to a severe warning and we teach the people not to act frivolously in this manner. Indeed, we make it look as if these are oaths and give them an opening to ask for their absolution and absolve them.”¹³ Apparently this had become a custom and Jesus wanted to point out that a person’s word should be all that’s needed to instill trust and confidence in them.

Our Lord also speaks against the use of the name of Jerusalem because that’s the king’s throne and the King’s headquarters.¹⁴ In the Mishnah, using anything contained in the Temple, including the wood on the altar, the fire-offerings, the altar vessels etc. were not to be used when making a vow.¹⁵ Likewise in the Babylonian Talmud we read: “The whole Mishnah gives Rabbi Judah’s ruling, but this is what is stated: for Rabbi Judah said: ‘He who says Jerusalem has said nothing.’”¹⁶ And one final prohibition, that was not to swear on one’s own head. This too is covered in the Mishnah where we read: “If a man was under the obligation of an oath to his fellow and then this man says to him, ‘Swear to me on your life and I will pay you,’ and he swears, Rabbi Meir holds he may retract his pledge, but the Sages say, He cannot.”¹⁷ So as we can see, keeping one’s head was the same as keeping one’s life.

But Jesus adds a twist, by pointing out that man cannot even control the color of his hair, so why would having him swear on his head add any value to his oath. And we read where a Rabbi was traveling and wanted to stop and pray, so he stepped inside the ruins of a building in Jerusalem. After he finished praying, the spirit of Elijah spoke and asked him why he stopped in this ruin to pray. That he should have prayed out on the road, and then he must swear never to do it again by his life and by his head. That was because the Jews believed that God gets upset when they do so because during the night He sits by those ruins and roars like a lion saying: “Woe to the children, who because of their sins I destroyed My house and burned My Temple and sent them into exile among the nations of the world!”¹⁸

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER FIVE

Part VII (con’t)

Verses 31-32: “It was also said, ‘Any man who divorces his wife must give her a written notice of divorce.’ But I tell you that any man who divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual infidelity, is causing his wife to be guilty of adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman is guilty of adultery.”

Our Lord continues His discourse on adultery, now He points to the role it plays in divorce. But we must also consider what we learn when examining the original manuscript of Matthew’s Gospel in Hebrew. The complete text of Matthew in Hebrew is preserved in a lengthy polemical treatise composed in the 14^th century by Shem Tob ben Isaac (sometimes called Ibn Shaprut). These two verses are rendered as follows: “Again Jesus said to His disciples: You have heard what was said to those of long ago that everyone who leaves his wife and divorces her is to give her a bill of divorce. And I say to you that everyone who leaves his wife is to give her a bill of divorce. But concerning adultery, he is the one who commits adultery and he who takes her commits adultery.”¹ Here we see a different connotation. It suggests that if the woman is not issued the proper bill of divorce, then by not giving it to her the husband is complicit in any act of adultery, especially if she is taken by another man, because she does not possess a bill of divorce, then he becomes guilty of adultery by inaction. We see here that the burden is squarely on the husband.

No doubt Jesus had this teaching of Moses in mind: “A man might marry a woman, and then find some secret thing about her that he does not like. If that man is not pleased with her, he must write the divorce papers and give them to her. Then he must send her from his house. Once she leaves his house, then she is free to go and become another man’s wife.”² After mentioning what Moses said, Jesus then adds: “But I’m telling you.” This may well be what we call today: “Women’s Rights.” Jewish writings confirm this one-sided perk. It tells us, “Dissolution of marriage. The origin of the Jewish law of divorce is found in the constitution of the patriarchal family. The fundamental principle of its government was the absolute authority of the oldest male ascendant; hence the husband, as the head of the family, divorced the wife at his pleasure. The manner in which Hagar was dismissed by Abraham illustrates the exercise of this authority.”³ This reference seems to be quite out of place since Abraham was never formerly married to Hagar, therefore no bill of divorce was required. However, since she bore him a child, this then obligated him to provide child support for her and her child.⁴

Nevertheless, the Jewish teaching goes on: “This ancient right of the husband to divorce his wife at his pleasure is the central thought in the entire system of Jewish divorce law. It was not set aside by the Rabbis, though its severity was tempered by numerous restrictive measures. It was not until the eleventh century that the absolute right of the husband to divorce his wife at will was formally abolished”.⁵ It is obvious that Jesus was not claiming that divorce was impossible for believers, but that it must be based on reason and consideration for all involved. Civilization has tried to compensate the woman by decreeing alimony be paid to help her retain some of her status and rights. As a matter of fact, before the giving of the law to Moses, there existed a document that declared a man must provide sustenance to a woman who has borne him children, so that she can raise them. This law reads as follows: “If a man wishes to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct⁶ of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.”⁷

Professor Craig A. Evans points out something we’ve already mentioned: “When it comes to applying the divorce legislation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, the verbal teaching of Jesus stands in tension with rabbinic verbal teachings. Major rabbinic figures allowed a man to divorce his wife, if for no other reason than a tasteless dinner.⁸ Not only does Jesus’ stricter views on divorce stand in tension with the more lenient views of the Rabbis, his halakah⁹ in Greek seems even to stand in tension with written Torah itself. Not so in the Hebrew, however; for it reads differently in a very important way: “. “. . . But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife is to give her a certificate of divorce. But concerning adultery, he is the one who commits adultery . . .” The Hebrew version of Matthew makes it clear that the law of Moses is to be followed. Moreover, the absence of this exception clause¹⁰ which scholars suspect may have been a later gloss, may support the antiquity of the Hebrew version of Matthew.”¹¹ All Jewish authorities agreed, including a venerable Rabbi, who puts it very simply: “If her husband desires to divorce her, he must compose a “get” [a formal bill of divorce].”¹² He goes on to give an example of this “get.” This is how the text is supposed to read:

“On this ___ day of the week, on this ___ day of the month, in this ___ year from creation – or according to the chronology employed for legal documents (This refers to the years dating back to the beginning of Alexander the Great’s kingdom) – according to the reckoning that we keep here in [the name of the place where the get is being given], in the following way, I [the husband’s name], the son of [his father’s name], from [the name of his city], (The city in which he currently dwells, not the city in which he was born) or by whatever names or nicknames by which I, my father, my place or his place are called, desire out of independent will without anyone forcing me, to dismiss, to release, to divorce you, [the woman’s name], the daughter of [her father’s name], from [the name of her city], or by whatever names or nicknames you, your father, your place or his place is known. Although previously, you were my wife, now I am dismissing, releasing and divorcing you, so that you have the license and the authority to go and marry any man whom you desire. No one will protest your actions from the present day onward. You are free to marry any man. This will serve you as a bill of divorce, a get dismissing you, and a letter releasing you, from me, according to the faith of Moses and Israel.The witnesses sign below: [The witness’s name], the son of [his father’s name], a witness, [the witness’s name], the son of [his father’s name], a witness.”¹³

What Jesus is teaching here was already a part of Jewish custom on divorce. The Rabbis taught that: “The School Shammai says: ‘A man may not divorce his wife unless he found her guilty of an unseemly moral matter, for it is written: “And it will be that she does not find favor in his eyes because he discovers an unseemly, moral matter in her [- then he should write her a bill of divorce and place it in her hand, thereby sending her away from his household¹⁴.”¹⁵ In other words, immoral conduct of any kind was the only valid cause for divorce. Of course the school of Hillel is more liberal, as we see in this statement: “But School Hillel says: ‘Even if she burned his food.’”¹⁶ It is clear which school Jesus sides with on this topic. With that said, the rest of what Jesus explained must then be understood in that if a man divorces his wife for any other reason than immoral behavior, and does not give her a bill of divorce, if she goes ahead and marries another man and they become intimate, she is committing adultery. Not only that, but since she was previously married, the man that marries her is committing adultery, as well as the man who sent her away without a proper bill of divorcement. We must remember, Jesus was speaking to Jews and focusing on the laws as they existed in His day.

As we will see when our Lord continues, He is speaking about the fact that He had not come to do away with the Law, but was explaining how the Law was viewed under the new covenant. Often scholars have speculated that Jesus spent time with the Essenes, who were a very strict and conservative branch of the Pharisees. In the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the Qumran caves, in the Temple Scroll we find this law written for any new king: “He shall not marry as his wife any daughter of the Gentiles, but shall take a wife for himself from his father’s house, from his father’s family. He shall not take another wife in addition to her, for she alone shall be with him all the time of her life. But if she dies, he may marry another from his father’s house, from his family.”¹⁷ So by these teachings that were recognized in our Lord’s day, He was not being as overly strict as some may claim.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER FIVE

Part VII

Jesus was not introducing something new here, but he was transposing it from only being sinful when carried out to being sinful when thought about. Job made this confession: “I made an agreement with my eyes not to look at a young woman in a way that would make me want her.”¹ And in a document that Jews with an education had easy access to, we find this verse: “Turn away your eyes from a shapely woman, and do not gaze at beauty belonging to another; many have been seduced by a woman’s beauty, and by it passion is kindled like a fire.”² So what Jesus was saying here did not come as a shock to His listeners.

On another occasion Rabbis were discussing about when someone who sees a beautiful creature should say: “Blessed is He who has created such creatures in His universe.” But another Rabbi questions: “…is even merely looking permitted?” To this one Rabbi responds: “The following can surely be raised as an objection: ‘You should keep yourself from every evil thing,³ which implies that one should not look intently at a beautiful woman, even if she is unmarried, or at a married woman even if she is ugly, nor at a woman’s flashy garments.”⁴ As a matter of fact, the Rabbis go way beyond what Jesus was saying here, by claiming that: “if a man gazes at the little finger of a woman with obvious lust, it is as if he gazed at her private parts.”⁵ Not only that, but the Rabbis also taught: “If a man counts out money from his hand into the hand of a woman so as to have the opportunity of leering at her, even if he competes keeping the law and good deeds with Moses our teacher, he will not escape the punishment of Gehinnom, as it says ‘You can depend on it, he will not escape the punishment of Gehinnom,⁶.”⁷ Furthermore, teachers add: “…do not converse much with women, as this will ultimately lead you to unchastity. They also said: ‘He who gazes at a woman eventually comes to sin, and he who looks even at a woman’s heel will father illegitimate children.”⁸ The Rabbis, quoted in the earliest written version of verbal teachings, become more graphic, and one Rabbi named Samuel said: “Even hearing a woman’s voice is prohibited as indecent.”⁹

So as we can see, Jesus was not introducing something groundbreaking here, but He was emphasizing the sins committed in the heart with those committed in the flesh. The Jews only forbid the external looking at a woman so as not to lead them into temptation. As long as they did not give in they were safe. This is the same mindset of many Christians today. However, it does not excuse someone who does commit adultery and then says, “Well, I already did it in my heart so I might as well go ahead and do it in the flesh.” Even the Jews would not accept this premise, one Rabbi taught:¹⁰ “Even if one considers performing some act but is forcibly prevented from doing so, the Scriptures indicts him with doing it even though he was unable. Evil intention need not be combined with deed,¹¹ for it is said: ‘If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not hear me.¹² Then how do I interpret, behold, I will punish this people, even their impure thoughts?¹³ Intention which that brings about desire¹⁴ the Holy One, blessed be He, considers the same as the deed;¹⁵ Intention which does not bring about desire, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not consider as having been done.” But in the Jewish Commentary on Leviticus it states very clearly: “Adultery can be committed with the eyes.”¹⁶ At first glance it might appear that Jesus is focusing on intent as being equal to commission, but what He has to say next puts it more in context.

Verses 29-30: “If your right eye makes you sin, take it out and throw it away. It is better to lose one part of your body than to have your whole body thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into Gehenna.”

Now Jesus touches on one of the most debated and perhaps misunderstood subjects in His teaching. First and foremost, this teaching is connected with the subject of being tempted to commit adultery. Jesus warned that what is conceived in the mind is only one step away from being actualized in the body. However, what is only a sinful thought can become a sinful intent if it is not immediately rejected as sinful. So once that is recognized, then the person involved should do all they can to prevent it from happening. To show how serious this matter is, Jesus uses figurative language to point out the extremities to which a person should do to forestall or preclude it from taking place. The parts of the body He talks about, the eye and the hand, are all faculties that can be employed for sin to be committed, especially adultery. Jesus certainly spoke in harmony with what Solomon said: “Now, another man’s wife might be very charming, and the words from her lips so sweet and inviting. But in the end, she will bring only bitterness and pain. It will be like bitter poison and a sharp sword. She is on a path leading to death, and she will lead you straight to the grave. Don’t follow her. She has lost her way and does not even know it. Be careful. Stay on the road that leads to life.”¹⁷

Therefore, Jesus hit on a point that most Jewish teachers standing in the crowd would have agreed with, and that is, the eye can be the gateway for either good or bad to enter the mind and heart. In fact, one Rabbi notes that this can happen when a man stares at his own wife during her monthly period.¹⁸ And another Rabbi adds that when they speak of gazing at a woman’s heel, they are actually inferring that while the eye is focused on the heel, the mind leads the man’s thoughts to the opposite end of the heel on a woman’s leg.¹⁹ What Jesus is pointing out is that a person cannot afford to let their eyes fasten on to any bait that might lead the whole person into committing sin. But our Lord is not finished, he applies the same principle to the hand which can translate an unchaste look into an unchaste touch or embrace. Here again Jesus points to what His Jewish listeners would be well acquainted with. But to most western minds the use of the hand to commit evil infers stealing or murder, but to the eastern mind the subject has not changed from that of lust after a woman, especially one who is another man’s wife. However, as it relates to Jesus teaching here, most Christian scholars do not take Jesus’ words of gouging out the eye or amputation of the hand to be taken literally. Rather, He was setting the bar at a high level for His disciples to understand how important it was to keep a lustful eye from becoming the gateway for temptation and an uncontrolled hand from facilitating temptation that could lead to adultery. In other words, this was the act of last resort to prevent sin from occurring.

The Jews had a greater tendency to lean toward harsh punitive measures. For instance, we read where it states that an unwashed hand to the eye, the nose, the mouth, the ear, etc., including one’s private parts, should be cut off.²⁰ I’m sure Jesus had no intention of prescribing such measures, but the Jews had strong feelings about this.²¹ We reach a critical point here in this narrative. Jesus began in verse 27 speaking about adultery and that letting one’s eye be the gateway to temptation, thereby committing adultery in ones heart. He then speaks about one’s hand being involved in shameful activity, and that it would be better to pluck out the eye and cut off the hand and go through life handicapped than to allow these bodily members to lead one astray and be in danger of Gehenna’s fire. What our Lord says next, will help establish whether or not He is still talking about adultery or has switched to some other subject. If he continues on His warning against the role of adultery, then the mention of the hand must be seen as taking part in that activity, and not an obscure reference to stealing or mischievous behavior. Theologian John Gill sees it this way: “A way of speaking, much like what our Lord here uses; and to the above orders and canons, he may be very well thought to allude: but he is not to be understood literally, as enjoining the cutting off of the right hand, as they did; but of men’s refraining from all such impure practices, either with themselves, or women, which are of a defiling nature; and endanger the salvation of them, body and soul.”²²

Although Jesus is talking about a subject that the Jews were very familiar with and on which Rabbis had established many ethical standards, our Master is reminding them of a principle that can be applied to any temptation to do what is wrong in the eyes of God. That is, as soon as you recognize it as wrong, reject it. Don’t see how far you can go before you finally say, No! The Master is pointing out that sin is a matter of the heart and mind, that’s where it begins. If it is not stopped there it will then surely be carried out by the body. So in that sense, it does not become sin only after it’s done, but it is sin if it is allowed to be considered as a possible act for the body to perform or engage in. The intent here of Jesus then becomes clearer, in that He wants His disciples to know that while forgiveness is available for sins committed, by keeping them from being committed it not only saves the sinner from punishment, it also saves them from all the guilt and pain that comes after committing sin.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER FIVE

Part VI (con’t)

This is a section in the Mishnah where it reads: “If one says: I will sin and Yom Kippur will atone for me, Yom Kippur does not atone for him. For those transgressions that are between a person and God, Yom Kippur only atones for those transgressions that are between man and his fellow man, Yom Kippur does not provide atonement until he reconciles with his fellowman.”¹ Maimonides joins in agreement when he says: “Repentance and Yom Kippur only atone for sins between man and God; for example, a person who ate a forbidden food or engaged in forbidden sexual relations, and the like. However, sins between man and man; for example, someone who injures a colleague, curses a colleague, steals from him, or the like will never be forgiven until he gives his colleague what he owes him and appeases him. It must be emphasized that even if a person restores the money that he owes the person he wronged, he must appease him and ask him to forgive him. Even if a person only upset a colleague by saying certain things, he must appease him and approach him repeatedly until he forgives him. If his colleague does not desire to forgive him, he should bring a group of three of his friends and approach him with them and request forgiveness. If the wronged party is not appeased, he should repeat the process a second and third time. If he still does not want to forgive him, he may let him alone and need not pursue the matter further. On the contrary, the person who refuses to grant forgiveness is the one considered as the sinner.”² These same teachings are echoed in verbal teachings where it emphasizes the reconciliation process between neighbors.³

Verses 25-26: “Agree with the one who is against you while you are negotiating together, or he might take you to court. The court will hand you over to an officer who will put you in prison. I assure you that you will not leave there until you have paid everything you owe.”

Here we find the antithesis for any Christian who falsely complains of religious persecution because the loan company forecloses on their home or the bank repossess their car due to lack of payments. As believers we are to accept responsibility for our commitments and obligations. After all, unless we can prove we were forced to buy a house or pressured into purchasing a car, we created the debt so we should pay the debt. There is an interesting story about how David protected the sheep and shepherds of a rich man named Nabal, but when David later sent some of his men to see if Nabal would be generous to his men in light of what they did for him, Nabal acted as if David were nothing more than a nomadic nobody. But when Nabal’s wife Abigail heard about it, she prepared 200 loaves of bread, two full wine bags, five cooked sheep, about a bushel of cooked oatmeal, about 2 quarts of raisins, and 200 cakes of pressed figs, and set out to bring them to David. Her act of kindness kept David from following through with this vow he made upon Nabal’s rejection of his request: “I protected Nabal’s property in the desert. I made sure not one of his sheep was missing. I did all that for nothing. I was good to him, but he was rude to me. I swear, I won’t let even one man in Nabal’s family live until tomorrow morning.”⁴ Her quick thinking prevented a disaster for both her, her family, and David. This may have inspired Solomon to give some wise advice for everyone when it came to indebtedness. He said it should be avoided like a deer running from a hunter, or a bird fleeing from a trap.⁵

But as we all know, sometimes indebtedness is a necessity, because if you tried to save up the amount you need to purchase a house, by the time you reached that sum the price of the house would have gone up even more. What Jesus is recommending here was already a part of Jewish tradition. Whenever the creditor and debtor would attempt to negotiate a settlement, it was always a personal thing. But when an impasse developed, the creditor had no choice but to take it to the next level. The Rabbis tell us: “In monetary cases where admissions of liability and testimony regarding loans are heard by three judges, this procedure goes back with each generation, all the way to Moses.”⁶ This procedure is mentioned a number of times in the book of verbal teachings.⁷ One astute Rabbi explains: “When two people are involved in a dispute concerning a judgment, one states: ‘Let us have the matter judged here,’ and the other says, ‘Let us ascend to the Supreme Court, lest these judges err and expropriate money contrary to the law,’ we compel the latter litigant to have the matter adjudicated locally.”⁸ In other words, agree with your creditor before you are taken to court. This makes sense because you can bargain with your creditor, but you cannot bargain with the court. Therefore, Jesus was not instituting some new legal procedure here, but simply reminding His listeners of already established law.

Also, the officials that Jesus speaks of here were established back in Moses’ day: “Choose men to be judges and officers in every town that the Lord your God gives you. Every tribe must do this. And these men must be fair in judging the people.”⁹ One highly esteemed Rabbi notes that this should read: “Give yourself judges and law enforcers.”¹⁰ He goes on to explain, “This was to remind each Israelite that in the first instance he is to judge himself. If someone is not prepared to be critical of himself, how could he possibly be qualified to sit in judgment of others?”¹¹ This premise is illustrated in a well-known Jewish story about Rabbi Jannai who owned a tree that overhung a stone fence onto a street that passed close by his property, that proved to be an inconvenient nuisance to travelers. It just so happened that another man in the same town had a similar problem with a tree on his property. So some passers-by complained to the local council about this man’s tree, and so Rabbi Jannai was appointed as judge to hear their case. But before the hearing took place, Jannai ordered his own tree to be cut down so as not to be unfair in his judgment. Scholars say that Rabbi Jannai did this so as to be in compliance with the wise saying of another Rabbi who said, “trim yourselves and then trim others.”¹²

With this understanding of Jewish verbal teachings, Jesus recommended that when the burden gets too heavy, speak to the one who loaned you the money and arrange for a solution. If not, court costs and being out of work because of being in jail, will only make matters worse. Isaiah saw this same principle in a spiritual light. He says: “So you should look for the Lord before it is too late. You should call to him now, while He is near.”¹³ It can certainly be applied to every believer spiritually. One should not sit in judgment of other believer’s who’ve made promises they were unable to keep or obligated themselves to perform certain duties they were unable to carry out themselves, until you have checked your own record of promises and obligations to God to see if you yourself are lacking. Then Jesus tackles another problem that was out of control in His day.

Verses 27-28: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You must not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that if a man looks at a woman in lust and wants to sin sexually with her, he has already committed that sin with her in his mind. ”

Here Jesus again is speaking to a Jewish audience and refers to the Ten Commandments where He focuses on the 7^th commandment, the one following murder, which He dealt with previously. Jesus does not go into the punishment which was stoning to death. Rather, He points out the difference between the letter of the law or the intent of the law. In Jesus day, sexual relations between a married woman and any man not her husband was considered adultery. However, sexual relations between a married man and an unmarried woman was technically not adultery, but fornication. That’s why Jesus focused on the man in this discourse. Any man would certainly say, since I did not touch her or have any sexual relations with her, it was not adultery. But Jesus argued, the intent was there in the mind, therefore it was adultery of the mind, even though the body was not involved. While the act of adultery is clearly spelled out, the definition given here by Jesus is something that must be further explored.

As a matter of fact, God used this word to describe those Israelites who left Him to worship another god. In the Apocalypse of John we will see this word used extensively in regards to Babylon, the dragon, the beast and false prophet. In that sense, it means taking what belongs to God and using it to have social intercourse with sin and Satan. Some people today would like to add an addendum to this verse, to wit: “If you commit adultery in your heart you might as well go ahead and commit it physically since the sin has already been done and you stand guilty anyway, so the condemnation and punishment will be no worse.” We may conclude that no larger or more subtle trap has the devil ever set to snare God’s children. Committing adultery in one’s heart is a secret sin known only to the individual and God. Forgiveness can be obtained, and outside of you and God no one else needs to know. There is nothing in the scripture calling for restitution as a result of cardiac adultery. But once the physical act has been committed, though forgiveness may be obtained and restitution made, long will live the shame of the act because it is now shared by both the perpetrator and the willing recipient. Think twice, even a hundred times before converting a sinful thought into a sinful act. Solomon has a sobering warning: “A man who commits adultery is a fool. He brings about his own destruction. He will suffer disease and disgrace and never be free from the shame.”¹⁴

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER FIVE

Part VI

We also find this subject concerning the fiery place of torment in another Jewish commentary: “The notion of ‘Paradise’ itself, of which people often speak, is derived from the Torah, being the exalted abode which was intended for Adam. Had he not been disobedient, he would have remained in it for ever. Similarly ‘Gēhinnōm’ was nothing but a well-known place near the Holy House, a trench in which the fire was never extinguished, because unclean bones, dead bodies and other impurities used to be burned there. The word is a compound Hebrew one”¹ We must remember that Jesus was speaking to a Jewish audience, and spoke to their understanding of Gehenna. According to Jewish tradition, “The fire of the Gehenna was created on the eve of the Sabbath”² As a matter of fact, they go on to say that “Seven things were created before the world was created, and these are: The Torah,³ repentance,⁴ the Garden of Eden,⁵ (which one Jewish commentator suggests this to be a great compliment to man, the first human being, and suggest that the world had been created anew in an improved version, in order to become fit for such an advanced creature of God to live in),⁶ Gehenna,⁷ the Throne of Glory and the Temple,⁸ and the name of the Messiah”⁹

When reading in Jewish literature and listening to the ancient rabbis when they talk about Gehenna, we see that they are trying to answer this question: “What will happen to bad people in the afterlife?” They found part of the answer when they considered Gehenna as a place of punishment for those who lead an immoral life. But they considered it somewhat like a Jewish purgatory, only they likened it to the Valley of Baca, which means the “Vale of tears.” And just like purgatory, the stay is not permanent. The Rabbis taught: “Wrongdoers of Israel who sin with their body and wrongdoers of the Gentiles who sin with their body go down to Gehinnom and are punished there for twelve months. After twelve months their body is consumed and their soul is burnt and the wind scatters them under the soles of the feet of the righteous as it says, And ye shall tread down the wicked, and they shall be as ashes under the soles of your feet¹⁰.”¹¹ In fact, tradition teachings taught earlier: “There are five things that endure for twelve months: The judgment of the generation of the Flood; of Job; of the Egyptians; of Gog and Magog; and the judgment of the unrighteous in Gehenna.”¹²

Many rabbis believed that at the very Gates of Gehenna a person could still repent and avoid punishment, although some disagreed like Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish. Says Rabbi Lakish: “even the empty-headed ones (Raca) have some good in them.”¹³ After being punished in Gehenna a soul was considered pure enough to enter the Garden of Eden. For the most part the Rabbis did not believe souls would be condemned to eternal punishment.

There is another story where some Rabbis were discussing the Romans in Galilee and how they made streets, built bridges, erected baths and market places. They praised those who supported them, exiled those who said nothing good about Sepphoris, and executed those who spoke against them. One of those was Rabbi Simeon. So he and his son went to hide themselves in the city of Beth Hamidrash, but ended up in a cave where they kept themselves alive on carob beans and well-water. When they finally emerged they said that Elijah had visited them and told them that the Emperor was dead and his decree had been annulled. So they came out of the cave and began to persecute those who did not oppose the Romans. That’s when a voice came from heaven and said, “Have you emerged to destroy My world: Return to your cave!. So they went back in the cave and stayed there twelve months. This led to the saying, “The punishment of the wicked in Gehenna is [limited to] twelve months.” Yet there were transgressions that the Rabbis felt did merit eternal damnation. These included: heresy, publicly shaming someone, committing adultery with a married woman and rejecting the words of the Torah. However, because the Rabbis also believed that one could repent at any time, the belief in eternal damnation was not a predominant one.”¹⁴

In an apocryphal scroll available in Jesus’ day there is an interesting portrait of this punishment by fire: “And behold they were all bound, I saw, and they all stood before Him. And the judgment was held first over the stars, and they were judged and found guilty, and went to the place of condemnation, and they were cast into an abyss, full of fire and flaming, and full of pillars of fire.”¹⁵ In other Jewish apocalyptic writings we find similar descriptions, such as “The mouth of Gehenna, and the station of vengeance have the likeness of future torment.”¹⁶

Many Christians skip over this verse here in Matthew because they don’t feel that it pertains to them in today’s society. If we read this admonition in light of one’s Christian conduct toward another, it becomes a clear warning to seek reconciliation not retribution when offended by a brother or sister in Christ. The warning of hell’s fire at the end is used here as a figure of speech. In other words, we can see the progression of increased warning with each accumulated level of anger. First, a person may be called on to explain, then taken to court, and finally reaping a harsh punishment that is likened to the fire of Gehenna, which means being thrown on a garbage heap and left to burn. Unfortunately today, these actions and words are used imperviously and without fear. But Jesus said what He said, and it’s best to heed His warning. Beside that, what respect do Christians garner when they act in such a negative fashion as Jesus describes here?

Verses 23-24: “So, what if you are offering your gift at the altar and remember that someone has something against you? Leave your gift there and go make peace with that person. Then come and offer your gift.”

Now our Lord moves on to the subject of reconciliation and forgiveness. Here He is speaking of the manner and custom of that day to take gifts, offerings, and sacrifices to the temple where they were placed on the altar in penance for sins committed and seeking to cover those sins so they would not be held against them later. Samuel had instructions on this: “Which pleases the LORD more: burnt offerings and sacrifices or obeying his commands? It is better to obey the LORD than to offer sacrifices to Him. It is better to listen to Him than to offer the fat from rams.”¹⁷ In other words, if God has told us to be reconciled with our neighbor, family member or friend before we bring any sacrifice to Him, Jesus is saying it’s better to be obedient than obstinate. Isaiah also had strong words from the Lord: “When you raise your arms to pray to me, I will refuse to look at you. You will say more and more prayers, but I will refuse to listen because your hands are covered with blood. Wash yourselves and make yourselves clean. Stop doing the evil things I see you do. Stop doing wrong. Learn to do good. Treat people fairly. Punish those who hurt others. Speak up for the widows and orphans. Argue their cases for them in court.”¹⁸ Amos gives a similar word from the Lord.¹⁹

We could say that applying the balm of God’s forgiveness to a believer’s heart that is carrying around unforgiven words or actions, either against them or against someone, is like pouring water on a duck’s feathers. It just rolls off. So why waste it? God does not want to throw away something for which Jesus paid the highest price. No wonder Solomon adds this caution when making reconciliation with someone, “If you want to discuss your problems with your neighbor, go ahead and do it. But then don’t go around discussing what they told you in private. Whoever hears you doing this will lose all respect for you and will never trust you again.”²⁰ That’s why Jesus said, “go to them and make it right.” This concept was already part of Jewish thinking. In the Babylonian Talmud we read that if a person brings a trespass offering and returns the stolen item before the evidence is presented in court of their wrong doing that is the right thing to do, but if they bring their trespass offering before they confess and return the stolen items, that is not right thing to do.²¹

The great Jewish teacher Maimonides addresses this same issue: “The guilt offering should not be sacrificed until the thief returns the principal to its owner, or to the priests if it was a convert without heirs who was robbed. If the robber gave the owner the principal but not the additional 20% interest and had the guilt offering sacrificed, he is granted atonement, for the additional 20% interest does not prevent atonement from being granted. He is, however, obligated to give the owner the additional 20% interest after receiving atonement.”²² Jesus wants his followers to practice this same ethic of making things right with one’s fellowman before making things right with God. Not only can you come to God with a clean conscience, but it will eliminate the temptation of not reconciling with your fellowman because you’ve already reconciled with God. Solomon puts an interesting way: “My son, don’t make yourself responsible for the debts of others. Don’t make such deals with friends or strangers. If you do, your words will trap you. You will be under the power of other people, so you must go and free yourself. Beg them to free you from that debt. Don’t wait to rest or sleep. Escape from that trap like a deer running from a hunter. Free yourself like a bird flying from a trap.”²³ It would not be out of context to believe that Jesus also saw the problem of letting indebtedness become a source of manipulation on the part of the debtee to use on the debtor.

Unfortunately for many evangelical Christians today, they believe that the main reason they were called by the Holy Spirit out of darkness into the marvelous light of accepting Jesus the Christ as their Lord and Savior, is to go to church, participate in praise and worship, pay their tithes, read their Bible, have mandatory prayer sessions at home, and participate in church ministries. If that were true, then it would be best if God were to simply remove each new born again believer from the earth to heaven where they could worship Him for eternity without having to worry about everyday cares and problems here on earth. But here’s the truth: We were called to be His children so that with His help we could live our lives before others in such a significant manner full of love, compassion, care and strength that all our family and friends would want to be just like us. Why? Because they would be seeing Jesus in us. And what better example for the world to see than Jesus, the Son of God living in us.

1 Kitab al Khazari (Kuzari) by Judah Halevi (Part One)

2 Babylonian Talmud, op. cit., Seder Mo’ed, Masekhet Pesachim, folio 54a

3 Proverbs 8:22

4 Psalm 90:2

5 Genesis 2:8

6 Tzror Hamor, op. cit., Parshat Bereshith, loc, cit., p. 60

7 Isaiah 30:33

8 Jeremiah 17:12

9 Psalm 72:17

10 Malachi 3:21

11 Babylonian Talmud, op. cit., Seder Mo’ed, Masekhet Rosh HaShana, folio 17a

12 Jerusalem Talmud, op. cit., See Isaiah 66:23

13 Babylonian Talmud, Seder, Mo’ed, Masekhet Erubin, folio 19a

14 Ibid., Masekhet Shabbath, folio 33b

15 Book of Enoch 90:23-25

16 Apocalypse of Baruch 59:10

17 I Samuel 15:22

18 Isaiah 1:15-17

19 Amos 5:21-14

20 Proverbs 25:9

21 Babylonian Talmud, op. cit., Seder Nezikin, Masekhet Baba Kama, folio 63b and 108b

22 Moses Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, op. cit., Sefer Nezikim, Tractate Gezelah va’Avedah, Ch. 8, Halacha 13

23 Proverbs 6:1-5

I once read this brain teaser that got me to thinking: “Before Mt. Everest was discovered, what was the highest mountain in the world?” My first thought was to look through the Almanac to see what was the second highest mountain and go with that. But what if that one hadn’t been discovered yet either? Then I guess I’d go to the third highest. You can imagine my surprise when the answer suddenly came to me. It’s like asking, was there a God before we found out about Him or did He only come into existence when we discovered there really was one. The same can be said for love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control and hope. So when someone tells you that God can heal, that Jesus can save you, and that the Holy Spirit can live in you to help motivate, guide, teach and guide you, just remember the answer to this brain teaser and it should give you enough reason to go on until all that God has for you becomes yours.

PS: Did you figure out the answer to the brain teaser?

Have you ever heard a pastor or a person say: “In the Bible it says, ‘God helps those who help themselves?’” Then next time you hear someone repeat that axiom, let them know it isn’t in the Bible, unless you call Benjamin Franklin’s 1736 Poor Richard’s Almanac the Bible. Not only that, but even good ole Ben was quoting Algernon Sidney, an English political theorist who originated that saying earlier in 1698 in an article titled Discourses Concerning Government. And it may be that Sir Algernon took his inspiration from one or two of Aesop’s Fables which come from ancient Greece. But in reality, we could say the opposite is true when we look in God’s Word. Here’s how God is described in Isaiah: “You have been a refuge for the poor, a refuge for the needy in their distress, a shelter from the storm and a shade from the heat.”¹ Also, the apostle Paul came to the same conclusion when he wrote: “Christ died for us when we were unable to help ourselves. We were living against God, but at just the right time Christ died for us.”² So in other words, when you hear a preacher say: “In the Bible it says, ‘God helps those who cannot help themselves,’” you can loudly say, “Amen!”

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER FIVE

Part V (con’t)

“But I tell you, don’t be angry with anyone. If you are angry with others, you will be judged.”

The Greek word used here for anger implies letting oneself be provoked or allowing oneself to become so aggravated that you reach the point where you let their anger explode. We see what can happen in such cases when we look at the horrible incident with Cain and Abel,¹ and what took place when Joseph’s brothers could not control their tempers.² Not only that, but had David been intimidated and scared off by his oldest brother Eliab’s unkind words spoken in anger, “Why did you come here? Who did you leave those few sheep with in the desert? I know why you came down here. You didn’t want to do what you were told to do. You just wanted to come down here to watch the battle,”³ Goliath would have never been killed and Israel may have suffered a disgraceful defeat. Not only that, but David’s possibilities of becoming king may have been permanently jeopardized.

But that wasn’t David’s only brush with uncalled for anger, there was Saul’s jealous rage that almost got him killed.⁴ That may have influenced David to pen these words: “Don’t become so angry and upset that you, too, want to do evil”⁵ But anger is only the beginning of how ruthless and insulting a person can become. Jesus goes on to raise the stakes from anger to slander. “And if you insult your neighbor by calling him an idiot, you will be judged by the high court.” According Jewish Law, false and malicious defamation of another person’s reputation and character, tending to disgrace him in the eyes of the community is called slander. The spreading of evil reports in order to injure a reputable name is punishable by a fine and an assessment for damages.⁶ The Rabbis taught that there were different ways of insulting a person, and one of them was through “degradation,”⁷ as well as “indignity.”⁸

In another document the Jews added: “overreaching.”⁹ Today we would call it “verbal abuse.” Tradition says this was sent to a lower court, which usually consisted of 23 members to avoid a tied vote, and they were authorized to punish criminals by stoning. A medieval Jewish Philosopher and wise man made a point on the subject: “Who is a gossiper? One who collects information and goes from person to person, saying: ‘This is what so and so said;’ ‘This is what I heard about so and so.’ Even if the statements are true, they bring about the destruction of the world. There is a much more serious sin than gossip, which is also included in this prohibition: i.e., relating deprecating facts about a colleague, even if they are true. This does not refer to the invention of lies; that is referred to as defamation of character. Rather, one who speaks slander is someone who sits and relates: ‘This is what so and so has done;’ ‘His parents were such and such;’ ‘This is what I have heard about him,’ telling uncomplimentary things. Concerning this transgression, the scripture states: ‘May God cut off all cunning lips, the tongues which speak proud things¹⁰.’”¹¹ So by Jesus saying that a person could go to court for slander, this was already part of the law in His day. We are told that this court could conduct a trial both “within the Land of Israel or outside the Land of Israel.”¹² We are also reminded in Jewish writings that: “The great Sanhedrin consisted of 71 members and the small Sanhedrin of 23.”¹³ We also read that God told Moses to gather 70 men to stand with him, which of course would make 71.¹⁴ Then we are given the duties of the court of 23, as well as smaller courts.¹⁵ But simply standing before the Great Sanhedrin is only the start.

Our Lord then increases the importance by moving from slandering an individual to calling them an outright “fool.” “And if you call someone a fool, you will be in danger of the fire of Gehenna.” The KJV takes the Hebrew term Raca and translates it with the English word fool. The Jews considered it the ultimate word of contempt for someone they considered to be absent of any value. It is derived from a root meaning “to spit.” No doubt that is where we get the term, “spit in one’s face,” to show contempt. According to Jewish writings Raca is a noun formed from an adjective meaning empty, and when applied to a person without education and devoid of morals, it labels them as good for nothing.¹⁶ In Ecclesiastes we find this definition of a fool: “Fools show how foolish they are, just walking down the road. Their minds are empty, and everyone knows it.”¹⁷ The Hebrew word used here is, “cakal” which has the connotation of being “stupid or unwise.”¹⁸ But the term Raca occurs several times in Jewish tradition.

For instance, here’s a story about a Rabbi: “He happened to meet an exceedingly ugly man who greeted him, ‘Peace be upon you, Sir’. The Rabbi, however, did not return his salutation but instead said to him ‘Raca,’ you are so ugly.”¹⁹ In another place we read: “Once a man enticed a woman to commit an offense and she said to him: you Raca, you have forty se’ahs²⁰ to bathe in, and he immediately stopped.”²¹ Then in in another story, there was a man who abused a beautiful woman all night and in the morning dressed her like a slave and tried to sell her. A very ugly man came in and wanted to buy her after hearing that she was one of the most beautiful women he’d ever seen. But first the ugly man wanted to see how beautiful she was, so the abuser called him Raca because with him being so ugly had nothing to lose.²² Also we read this narrative: Once an esteemed Rabbi giving an exposition on how the Holy One, blessed is He, will in time come bringing large precious stones and pearls. One of the students sneered at him and said: “One cannot find jewels the size of a dove’s egg.” But later, this same student sailed out to sea and saw expert jewelers engaged in cutting precious stones and pearls which were the size of dove eggs. So when he came back and sat before this Rabbi once more, this he encouraged him saying, “Keep teaching, O my master, it is a compliment to hear you teach, because I have seen exactly what you were talking about.” But the Rabbi responded: “You Raca, had you not seen, would you have believed anyway? You are only sneering at the words of the Sages!”²³ But Scripture also has definitions to those that might be called Raca.²⁴

The inherent biases and disdain among Jews can be seen in several other stories found in their writings, as we see in the story of a Rabbi who left the house of another Rabbi and met a man along the way who was very deformed. So he said to him, “Raca, how many other deformed sons of Abraham our father are there?”²⁵ Another one is where a pious man was praying by the roadside when an officer came by and greeted him, but the man did not return his greeting. After finishing his prayer, the officer said to him, “Raca! Is it not written in your Law, Only look out for yourself and protect your soul with diligence,²⁶ and is it not also written, Take good care of your soul?²⁷ When I greeted you why did you not return my greeting?” The officer goes on to say that had he cut this pious man’s head off because of his disrespect, no one would have called for justice. The prayerful man then asks the officer for patience as he explained it to him. He says, “Had you been standing before an earthly king and a friend came by and greeted you, would you have returned it?” The officer said, “No.” Then the man asked, “Had you returned his greeting, what would the King’s men done to you?” The officers said, “They would have cut off my head with a sword.” The pious man then finishes his point, “Do we not have here then a fortiori²⁸ argument: If you would have behaved in this manner when standing before an earthly king who is here today and tomorrow in the grave, how much more so when standing before the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, who endures for all eternity?” The officer saw his mistake and gave an apology.

So we can see that Jesus was speaking about the Jews considered the ultimate insult, something that His audience was fully aware of. But the significant part of Jesus teaching is the punishment He describes for someone who calls another person an outright fool – hell’s fire. The scribe who wrote Matthew’s Hebrew text into Greek, uses the word “Gehenna of fire.” This then became “hell fire” in the King James Version. This was originally a valley belonging to Hinnom’s son, south of Jerusalem. We find this place described this way: “Topheth was a place in the Valley of Gehinnom where people killed their children and burned them on an altar to honor the false god Molech. Josiah tore down that place so that no one could use it again for sacrifices.”²⁹ It then became a garbage dump where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned. It became a fit symbol of the wicked and their future destruction. Therefore, the ultimate insult was destined to bring the ultimate punishment.

We should not take this to be part of the new covenant theology. Jesus was only making a point by using the judicial system of His people so that He could go on to how important it was to recognize that bad behavior should expect bad consequences. Otherwise, why be obedient when being disobedient has no significance? If serving God does not result in any benefits, then why not serve oneself? In today’s preaching there is too much emphasis on what comes from doing right, but very little on what comes when doing wrong.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER FIVE

Part V

One esteemed Rabbi was commenting on how using God’s name in a greeting was not violating the commandment to not use God’s name in vain said: because greeting one another was something God wanted His people to do. The Rabbi says to God: “They have made void Your Torah because it is time to do the LORD’S will, that is, to use God’s Name in greeting, even though this may be mistaken for irreverence, still in this case, we have made void Your Torah, since this is the will of God.”¹ And finally, Rabbis say that if a Gentile persuades an Israelite to transgress any of the commandments mentioned in the law, except idolatry, adultery and murder, the Israelite may transgress with impunity, provided it is done privately.² All of this should help any reader see why Jesus had to express Himself the way He did because such diluting and corrupting of the law had become systemic among the Jews, and He refused to permit it among His followers.

In recent years we’ve seen similar cases where words from the Scripture have been interpreted as a valid reason to apply what has become a part of verbal tradition despite what the written Word has to say. For instance: such is the case with those who believe that in water baptism, one must be baptized while the name “Jesus” is being said, in order for it to be genuine. Jesus Himself said it should be done by the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There are other doctrines such as “predestination,” “once in grace, always in grace,” and so on. The LORD Himself expressed such frustration through the prophet Malachi: “You priests have stopped following me! You have used My teachings to make people do wrong. You have ruined the agreement I made with Levi.’ This is what the Lord All-Powerful said. ‘You don’t live the way I told you. You have not accepted my teachings. So I will cause people to despise you and consider you as worth nothing.’”³ This was the understanding people had in Jesus day concerning the importance of God’s Word being central to their faith. How much more now that the WORD Himself is central to our faith.

In the same light, Jesus echoed what Samuel told Eli about how his sons had corrupted the Word of God. This is what the prophet told the high priest in those days, “The Lord, the God of Israel, promised that your father’s family would serve Him forever. But now the Lord says, ‘That will never be! I will honor people who honor me, but bad things will happen to those who refuse to respect me.’”⁴ If anyone thinks that God sent His Son to the cross and that His Son was willing to die to pay the penalty for our sins, just to give us some guidelines to follow if we think they are worth our time and effort, they are wrong. It is by God’s Word that we live and move and have our being, and it will be by God’s Word that we are judged in the end. Our Lord did not want His followers to develop the same complacency that He saw among His own people concerning the written Word of God. So He has a challenge for His followers.

Verse 20: “I’m telling you, you must do better than the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. If you are not more pleasing to God than they are, you will never enter God’s kingdom.”

Because of the way so-called righteous things were being done in His day, this prompted Jesus to add a note to His teaching. We see this clearly spelled out in Chapter 23 where Jesus accuses the religious teachers and Pharisees of being dishonest. A real lesson can be learned here by simply observing the life of a Pharisee. They prayed regularly; attended all services and feasts; read the scriptures incessantly; tithed; gave offerings; obeyed the law; proselyted, were the first to correct those who erred when things weren’t done properly, and had great respect for their elders. These things are not an indictment against them, but it was their motivation and attitude that caused Jesus to point them out. Every believer should attempt to be equally as dedicated to God’s will, but they should be motivated by their love for God and not to heap glory upon themselves. For some this is as equally hard to do as the list of things the Pharisees did.

Then our Lord offers a comparison between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. To illustrate: once I bought a new computer monitor, and when I got it home and hooked it up, the display on the screen was two inches short on the edges and at the top and bottom. I tried everything I knew to do, and still it did not expand to the full screen. So I called the store where I bought it and they didn’t know what to tell me. I had purchased a USB cable that I didn’t need, so when I returned it I pointed to the monitor I bought and asked for them to demonstrate how I could get a full screen display. Three to four of the sales staff stood around pushing buttons and following the instructions on the menu, but to no avail. They finally told me to bring it back and they’d give me a new one. After I got home I decided to call the manufacturer of the monitor. They put me in touch with their technical support people, and the first young man I talked to was not surprised by my problem, and with a few quick clicks showed me how to fix it. I wanted to run back to the store and show these sales people what I had learned so they would be able to help others when they came in. How easy it would have been had they known what the instructions said. This same principle is what Jesus is implying here. He wanted His disciples and followers to know what they were talking about when they shared the Good News of God’s plan of salvation, so that when difficulties came they could tell their new converts what steps to take in making the proper adjustment.

Verses 21-22: “You have heard that it was said to our people long ago, ‘You must not murder anyone. Any person who commits murder will be taken to court.’”

When a speaker today begins with “you have heard,” it suggests that the audience is familiar with some saying, slogan or quote from the past. But to the Jewish ear it connotes a different resource. As one Jewish linguistic expert pointed out centuries ago: “For the Jew, ‘hearing’ points to the Scriptures being read to them in schools or synagogues by scribes and rabbis with commentary by the ancient writers.”⁵ Since Matthew wrote this in Hebrew, no doubt he followed the traditional form of expression as found in many Jewish teachings: “They have said…”⁶ or “It is written.”⁷ In this way our Lord is pointing out something that His listeners had been taught. I’m sure most in the crowd nodded their head in agreement when Jesus continued saying that if you murder someone you will be taken to court and judged. Here Jesus refers not only to the commandment: “Thou shalt not kill,” but gives the commentary provided by ancient scholars, “Any person who commits murder will be taken to court.” This echos the advice of Job, who was a contemporary of Abram, in telling the people to remember what was taught in the past.⁸ In doing so our Master recalls the sixth commandment as given by Moses,⁹ and the added punishment.¹⁰

But we know from Near East Documents that this law and its punishment was contained in the code of Hammurabi that was written in Abram’s home country of Chaldea some 300 years before the Ten Commandments were given to Moses. But even before Hammurabi, Noah offered the same demand for justice.¹¹ One Jewish commentator explains that even though Abraham established this prohibition against committing murder, that it still need to be part of the Ten Commandments, otherwise: “…we have a rule that unless a warning not to commit a specific offense is spelled out before the punishment for committing that offense, punishment for such a crime cannot be legally valid”.¹² Since Noah’s son Shem settled in this area of Chaldea, no doubt Hammurabi, and Ur-Nammu and those even before him passed it on. A venerable Jewish writer states emphatically that the person who kills another, “should be executed by the court.”¹³ This of course is taken from Jewish writings where it states that it takes 23 members of the Sanhedrin to carry out capital punishment.¹⁴ And it is also stated that there are four methods of execution which are listed in order of their severity: Stoning, burning, slaying by the sword and strangulation [by hanging].

We know that the judicial system for the people of Israel came into existence through the suggestion of Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses¹⁵.¹⁶ And the Rabbis also taught that the origin of capital punishment commenced with the hanging of the chiefs as outlined in this Scripture: “Adonai said to Moses, “Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them facing the sun before Adonai, so that the raging fury of Adonai will turn away from Isra’el¹⁷.”¹⁸ In other words, by sentencing those guilty of crimes deserving capital punishment, the Jews were preventing the anger of God from punishing everyone for one person’s crime. Such judicial execution should resemble the taking of life by God: as the body remains externally unchanged when God takes the life, so in judicial executions the body should not be destroyed or mutilated. And during a discussion about how Korah’s sons were devoured by fire because of their profaning of the altar, Rabbi’s say that such death is “the carrying out of God’s command.”¹⁹ One commentary made on this subject reads: “Aaron’s sons and the assembly of Korah were destroyed by God Himself personally.”²⁰ As far as Jesus was concerned, the principle involved when being judged for wrong doing, as in the case of murder, also applied to other wrong doings such as being angry for whatever reason.