NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER FIVE

Part IX (con’t)

Verses 43-48: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies. Pray for those who treat you badly.”

Here our Lord mentions a verbal tradition that was well-known among those in His audience. The Jews have thousands of pages in hundreds of books filled with sayings passed down to them from ancient scholars, among them are those that promote loving one’s neighbor and hating one’s enemies. For instance, speaking about the 613 positive and negative laws, one Jewish commentator tells us that: “The Ten Commandments, commencing with this verse¹ are the summary of the entire Torah in capsule form. The source of this observation is found in commentary on Numbers² where it is pointed out that the number of letters in the Ten Commandments, commencing with the letter for “I AM” and concluding with the letter for “neighbor” is 613, corresponding to the number of commandments in the Torah.”³

In the collection of Rabbinical sayings, we find that when the LORD God said: “I am Adonai your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the bondage of slavery,”⁴ the Rabbis say: “These words are to be considered in the light of this verse” ‘God’s chariots are myriads, repeated thousands; ADONAI is among them as He was in Sinai, in His holiness. ⁵ This of course is a reference to God’s Shekinah glory in a pillar of fire guiding His people through the wilderness. But for the most part, the Israelites thought of the heathen nations around them as enemies, especially the Philistines, and later the Romans. So their words must be taken with this in mind. However, over time the term enemy took on a new nuance, and pointed to what we called today as antisemitism.

In His explanation, Jesus combines several verses from the Old Testament. First we find similar encouragement on loving once neighbor: “Forget about the wrong things people do to you. Don’t try to get even. Love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.”⁶ But we also find that hating one’s enemy was not forbidden. As one Jewish commentator put it: “One must strive to love his or her fellowman in such a manner that it shows he or she is taking into consideration their personal interests being just as dear to them as their own.”⁷ Nevertheless, the people of Israel were told: “You must never try to make peace with the Ammonites or Moabites. As long as you live, don’t be friendly to them.”⁸ But we find that David was caught up in such a love/hate relationship with friends who became enemies.⁹ Then again, David felt torn because he hates those who hate God.¹⁰ But knowing that he himself was not perfect, he asks God to examine his own heart to make sure he does not judge other people wrongly.¹¹ In looking for a good way to adopt this precept is first to get the wording right.

For the English reader, the word “enemy” more often than not conjures up the picture of a military combatant on the battlefield. But Jesus was not talking about the venue of physical war, but emotional, philosophical and psychological war. The Greek word used here for “enemy” is echthros. It points to someone who is unfriendly, hateful, and opposing. Just like one neighbor may like you because of who you are and what you stand for, another neighbor may have just the opposite opinion. But this did not fit well with some of the Jesus’ Jewish listeners as we can see by one polemic writer who calls it: Matthew’s imaginary commandment to hate your enemy.¹² But the Rabbi had no reason to say that Matthew had Jesus inventing a new saying.

When we examine the collection of the 613 laws called the “Taryag Mitzvot” we find numbers 237-243 of the positive laws all comment on the treatment of one’s neighbor.¹³ One should not withhold aide from a neighbor, not hate or despise your neighbor, rebuke your neighbor regardless of age, not shame your neighbor, not take vengeance on your neighbor, not bear a grudge against the sons of your neighbor, and finally, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” It is clear that the same love/hate relationship is seen here, just as Jesus said. Likewise, one venerable Rabbi commented: “The enemy mentioned in the Torah is not a Gentile, but rather a Jew. One might ask: How is it possible for one Jew to hate another? Is it not written: ‘Do not hate your brother in your heart’?¹⁴ Our Sages explained that this is referring to a person who while alone sees a colleague violate a transgression and rebukes him, but the colleague did not cease transgressing. In such an instance, it is a mitzvah to hate the person until he repents and abandons his wickedness.”¹⁵ It is clear that Jesus was taking this already established rule of loving one’s neighbor, and pressing His own followers to continue this virtue as believers.

We find that among the Essenes there was rules in the community that dealt with this teaching about hating one’s fellow believer. In the Rules of the Community we read: “Let no man address his companion with anger, or ill-temper, or obduracy, or with envy prompted by the spirit of wickedness. Let him not hate him because of his unsanctified heart, but let him rebuke him on the very same day lest he incur guilt because of him. And furthermore, let no man accuse his companion before the Congregation without having admonished him in the presence of witnesses.”¹⁶ And another rule reads this way: “Every one should rebuke his fellow in truth, and virtuous humility and with righteous intention in the Community of God. And whoever has erred when returning to the truth, they shall rebuke him according to their commandments. They shall rebuke him and have mercy on him if he transgresses. Let no man bear grudge against his fellow from one day to another. Let him not hate him in his heart so as not to bear guilt because of him.”¹⁷ We can clearly see that one’s neighbors and enemies are one and the same, except that as a good neighbor you are to love him, but do not be a rebellious and sinful neighbor and hate him until he repents. Jesus is teaching us that while the law may say one thing about who we should hate and despise, through grace we have options. However, one thing I’m sure of, Jesus hated Satan and we can do the same without any reprisals.

Now Jesus goes on to explain His reasons behind such teaching. “If you do this, you will be children who are truly like your Father in heaven. He lets the sun rise for all people, whether they are good or bad. He sends rain to those who do right and to those who do wrong.”

Here Jesus touches on actions that were well-known to the Jews. For instance, Moses taught on this principle and gives an illustration in verses 4-5, “If you see a lost bull or donkey, then you must return it to its owner – even if the owner is your enemy. If you see an animal that cannot walk because it has too much to carry, you must stop and help that animal. You must help that animal even if it belongs to one of your enemies.”¹⁸ Solomon also recommends being kind to one’s enemies so that it will have a positive residual effect.¹⁹ For our Lord, His Father in heaven sets the example by allowing the rain to fall on the fields of those who are fair and just as well as those who are evil and stingy. This Father in heaven concept was given greater meaning when God was telling Samuel about David: “I will be his father, and he will be my son.”²⁰ And we hear God say: My decree is: ‘You are leaders, sons of the Most High all of you.”²¹

This was taught in many synagogues by elite Rabbis. And some Rabbis asked: “Now, according to two great Rabbis, how do they interpret this verse, ‘You are sons of the Most High? – That is because it was always taught: ‘You are sons of the Lord your God’; when you behave as sons you are designated as sons.”²² And one Jewish commentator notes: “The approach of Pharaoh on the shores of the Red Sea prompted a hundred fast days and a hundred formal or ordinary prayers. It caused the Israelites to lift up their hearts and eyes in trust and sincerity to their heavenly Father, to whom they prayed and to whom they looked for help.”²³ But not every Jewish teacher saw it that way. For instance, another Rabbi points out that when the children of Israel stood at the foot of Mount Sinai and said: “All that the Lord has spoken, we will do, and obey,”²⁴ a part of the splendor of God’s presence was bestowed upon them.” But the Rabbi goes on to say that: “…when they turned from God and made the golden calf and declared it to be the God of Israel, the Holy One changed His intention toward them and concluded by saying, ‘Surely you shall died like men.’²⁵”²⁶ Perhaps this will help shed light on why when the disciples came to Jesus asking Him to help them in praying, He started out by saying, “Our Father who art in heaven.”

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER FIVE

Part IX

So what Jesus is saying is that when someone insults you, don’t fight back. You lack of aggression may make them so angry they will then slap you again out of frustration. When you still don’t respond in hateful words or hurtful acts, they will have been defeated and may even dissolve in tears at your willingness to suffer for the sake of love and truth. His Jewish listeners knew of this ethical response. Their verbal teachings put it this way: “If one makes a fist and boxes another man’s ear, he has to pay him on account of his humiliation a set fine for such humiliation. Rabbis say: if he slapped him, the Rabbis set a higher fine for greater shame and he has to pay him two hundred silver coins; if he did it with the back of his hand, he has to pay him four hundred silver coins.”¹ But Jesus says, don’t accept any payment, turn the other cheek. This suggestion by our Lord was not to encourage more humiliation, but that by turning the other cheek the believer would be saying, “Go ahead! I can take it! I can take all you’ve got and it will not humiliate me.” But we must remember, this commandment by our Lord makes sense when we are suffering for doing what’s right; for something we did in standing up for truth, integrity and righteousness. However, it also applies when we have committed something wrong that goes against the law and the code of conduct. In other words, accept your punishment with class, it will make you a better person both in your eyes but in the eyes of others.

A well-known Rabbi has this negative comment on how he saw Christians respond to what Jesus said: “Do they not glorify Him who said: ‘He who smites you on the right cheek, turn to him the left also; and he who takes away your coat, let him have your shirt also.’ He and His friends and followers, after hundreds of years of abuse, flogging and slaying us Jews, have attained their well-known success, and just in these things do they glorify. The nations boast of these virtues, but not these kings whose power and might are great, whose walls are strong, and whose chariots are terrible. Yet our relationship with God is a closer one than if we had reached greatness already on earth.”² This Rabbi is not the only one who saw in the church of his day inconsistencies in how they applied the teachings of Jesus in everyday life. Of course, he was speaking of the church as he saw it in Spain around 1140 AD. Also one polemic writer personalizes this teaching by our Lord that Christians were not abiding by this way: “If a Jew smites you on the cheek, offer him the other and do not smite him at all.”³ Apparently Christians of that day took whatever criticisms or disagreements they had with Jews as an insult that could not be tolerated, and therefore struck back.

But the Master is not finished. “If anyone wants to sue you in court and take your coat, let them have your shirt as well.”

While this guideline has no Old Testament precedent, it does continue the principle of showing love instead of hate when confronted with negative forces. What we don’t see here on the surface is a subliminal message. To the Jews, if someone caused another person to be stripped naked, either by accident or on purpose, it was considered an act of judiciary injustice. So our Lord is basically saying, if they take something you desperately need and no one can stop them, then show how completely unjust they are by giving them all you have. There have been instances in the American justice system when the accused who was found guilty of theft or damages, was invited by the plaintiff to join them in their endeavor in order to help rehabilitate them. It isn’t that Jesus was telling his adherents to wait until these exact circumstances occur before showing such tolerance, but keep the principle involved whenever and wherever it is appropriate.

Our Lord continues, “If someone forces you to walk with them one mile, go two.”

Roman soldiers had such authority as we see when they pressed Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus ) into helping Jesus carry His cross.⁴ It should be noted that Matthew makes sure the reader understands that this is not a friendly request by a fellow overburdened traveler. It is someone who is being compelled to do this because they have the authority to do so. Ancient documents reveal, this was usually done by order of a person wanting someone to carry items or doing other types of servile labor. But there is another twist to this principle that is not easily seen on the surface, and it involves taking responsibility for a breech of contract. We find this illustrated where Rabbis talk about someone renting a donkey for a trip up a mountain, but takes it into the desert instead, or vice versa, if the donkey is harmed or dies, they are liable for compensation to the owner because there are donkeys conditioned for mountains and others for deserts. The same goes with renting oxen with equipment for plowing.⁵ In other words, if someone confronts you over a misuse of something they own which was lent to you, not only should you pay them back for any damage, but go the second mile and pay them for the inconvenience they suffered. For example, if you borrow a lawn mower from a neighbor and damage it, don’t just pay for the repairs, buy them a new one instead.

One esteemed Rabbi makes some interesting observations on this idea of being compelled to doing something one is not used to. In one Jewish commentary it says: “When a person encounters a colleague who is on a journey and his animal has fallen under its load, he is commanded to unload the burden from it. This applies whether the animal was carrying a burden appropriate for it, or a burden greater than it could bear. This is a positive commandment, as states: ‘You shall certainly help him.’⁶”⁷ To which another Jewish commentator adds: “Here the Torah appeals to our sense of compassion to override other considerations like avoiding getting involved with people who hate us.”⁸ In other words, Jesus is saying don’t take such commands to help as negative, but a positive way of showing kindness and willingness to help someone in need.

This practice is even more clearly pointed out by Jewish historian Josephus when he recorded the words of Jonathan, the brother of King Alexander, saying: “I also make free all those Jews who have been made captives and slaves in my kingdom. I also give order that the beasts of the Jews be not pressed for our service; and let their Sabbaths, and all their festivals, and three days before each of them, be free from any imposition.”⁹ But some Jews later on took His teaching as being somewhat sarcastic. They said: “And now he exhorts and commands you no longer to abuse any of the Judeans; but if a Judean says to a Nazarene [meaning a Christian], ‘Go with me one mile,’ let him go with him two miles. And if a Judean strikes a Nazarene on his left cheek, let him turn the right also; that in this world they may have their reward, but in the world to come may be punished in hell. If you do these things, you shall be worthy to sit with him in his seats.”¹⁰ Here again we see where cultural bias overwhelms clear thinking. Their problem was not so much in what Jesus said, for who could argue with this, but the fact that many believed on Him as the Messiah.

To this Jesus adds: “Give to anyone who asks you for something. Don’t refuse to lend to anyone who wants to borrow from you.”

Here we have a double-edged command. It goes without saying that Jesus did not intend for this to be a blanket statement so that people could ask for things that made no sense. For instance, if someone says they want your car, or your house, you are supposed to give it to them. The caveat here is that whatever the person who suffered a terrible tragedy is asking for it something they desperately need, e.g., food if they are penniless, clothing if they are cold, etc. (Jesus points this out to His disciples later on in Chapter 25:35-37). But Jesus was constantly reminding His listeners of what was said in the past, and here we have a repeat of what Moses instructed the children of Israel: “When you are living in the land the Lord your God is giving you, there might be some poor people living among you. You must not be selfish. You must not refuse to give help to them. You must be willing to share with them. You must lend them whatever they need.”¹¹

I like the way one Jewish commentator translates this last phrase: “Do not harden your heart or make a fist out of your hand.”¹² The key word here is “need.”¹³ The same goes with those who need only to borrow for a short time, such as a tool, appliance or even money.¹⁴ As a matter of fact, Luke adds here that if they borrow something to use and then fail to bring it back, don’t ask them for it.¹⁵ As one Jewish scholar puts it: “If we needed further encouragement in this regard, we need only to think of Job who reminds us that we all started out in the world naked,¹⁶ without any assets, and that at the end of our life on earth we will again be naked and cannot take our wealth with us. In other words, at one time or another all of us have been in a situation similar to the destitute person asking our assistance.”¹⁷ Jewish literature tells us further that while lending was a part of Israeli culture, there were three Biblical passages which forbid the taking of interest in the case of “brothers,” but which permit, or seemingly enjoin it, when the borrower is a Gentile.¹⁸

But even in cases where money was loaned to Gentiles, usury was forbidden. In modern language, usury denotes a rate of interest greater than that which the law or public opinion permits; but the Biblical law, in all dealings among Israelites, forbids all “increase” of the debt by reason of lapse of time or forbearance, be the rate of interest high or low, while it does not impose any limit in dealings between Israelites and Gentiles. We see this practice used egregiously today by banks and credit card companies. For if you miss one payment, you are required to pay extra in the form of an added late fee.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER FIVE

Part VIII (con’t)

And in a small addendum to the Mishnah we find the story of a man who was the guest of another man who invited him to eat and drink. But the visitor said that he had taken an oath to fast. However, after much coaxing he ended up eating anyhow. As a result, his guest had him punished with 40 stripes. When the word got around, some Rabbis sent a messenger to find out what happened. The messenger found out what really happened, how the man disregarded his vow. So the messenger blessed the man who punished the violator who broke his vows by asking him to swear by his life and by his head that he would continue to do so to all who ignored their vows.¹ Therefore, Jesus is saying, be careful when you put your head on the line as collateral that you will fulfill your promises.

There is an old phrase attributed to Miguel de Cervantes, a Spanish writer best known for his magnum opus “Don Quixote” which says: “An honest man’s word is as good as his bond.”² In the early days of the old west in America, it was also accepted that a man’s handshake was his signed contract. This led to a phrase which is even used to this day, “I’m as good as my word.” In Jesus’ mind, He saw no reason to give assurances beyond one’s own word as a temptation of the devil. This left the Jewish doctors of the law in the audience little room to object to or reject what Jesus was saying. In fact, one venerable Rabbi makes it quite clear: “A man wise in the law should conduct his business dealings with honesty and good faith. When his answer is ‘no,’ he is saying, ‘no;’ when his answer is ‘yes,’ he is saying, ‘yes.’”³

We also find in Jewish writings where the writer talks about Moses coming down off the mountain and told the children of Israel: “Be ready to accept the reign of heaven joyfully.” And then he instructed them, “Respond ‘yes’ to a positive commandment and ‘no’ to a negative commandment.” Says Rabbi Ishmael, since God spoke each commandment with one word then we should respond with only one word. He said, “This teaches that the people answered ‘yes’ to a positive commandment and ‘no’ to a negative commandment.”⁴ In other words, when the commandment says “do it,” the response should be “Yes,” meaning I will. When the commandment says “don’t do it,” the response should be, “No,” meaning I won’t.

Again our Lord leaves His Jewish listeners not only with an impressive knowledge of the Word, but also puts them in a position where they must agree with Him or otherwise they are going against their own teachings. The importance of these one word acknowledgments is pointed out by one Rabbi who said: “’No’ is an oath; ‘Yes’ is an oath.”⁵ When we know that a person stands by their word, then yes or no is all we need to trust them to do or not do what they’ve agreed to without further motivation. We can see why our Lord was instilling this in the hearts and minds of His followers. The last thing any one of God’s children wants to be known for is: “you can’t trust their word.” Rabbi Maimonides agrees with this interpretation: that the inspiration for this comes from God’s promise to Noah and his sons,⁶ which God reminds the people through the prophet Isaiah⁷.”⁸ But Jesus is not finished with His updating of these oral traditions that were such a part of Jewish life during His day.

Verses 38-42: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’”

Here Jesus’ references the Law of Moses.⁹ But He does so in order to point out the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Paying back can be both sweet and bitter. When bitter, it drives a stake in the heart of the one being paid back for some wrong or misconduct, therefore assuring them to be enemies for a lifetime. When sweet, it bathes the heart of the culprit in love thereby opening the possibility of obtaining a friend. And as we all have heard, an enemy won over as a friend, is a better friend than those gained by favors. But among the Jewish factions in those days, they took this law of retaliation seriously.

Jewish historian Josephus outlines it when he explains the predominant philosophy: “He who injures anyone, let them endure a similar injury, and be deprived of using the same part of the body of which he has deprived the other, unless he that is injured will accept payment instead. For the law allows the one who was injured to assess the damage, and permits him to estimate the cost, unless he overestimates it.”¹⁰ Also, a Jewish commentary explains this law of retaliation: “An eye for an eye: if a person blinds his neighbor’s eye, he must give him the value of his eye, which means, how much he will lose in wages as a result of losing the eye. So is the meaning of all the injuries enumerated in the following verses, but not the actual amputation of a limb, as our Rabbis interpreted it.”¹¹ Also, in the same commentary the author notes what the Rabbis have to say in their verbal teachings related to the law of retaliation: “Why pay compensation? Does the Divine Law not say ‘Eye for eye’?¹² Why not take this literally to mean putting out the eye of the offender? – Don’t let this enter your mind, since it has been taught: You might think that where as he put out his eye, the offender’s eye should also be put out…but that is not so, for it is laid down, He that injures any man will pay for it¹³). . .compensation is to be paid, but not as a form of retaliation.”¹⁴

And to this the venerable Maimonides adds: “What is meant by ‘the damages’? If a person cuts off the hand or the foot of a colleague, we theoretically consider the injured colleague as a servant being sold in the market place and evaluate his value before the injury and his value afterwards. The person who caused the injury must pay the depreciation in value. This is alluded to in Exodus 21:24: ‘An eye for an eye.’ The oral tradition interprets ‘for,’ as an indication that the verse requires financial recompense. The Torah’s statement: ‘Just as he caused an injury to his fellowman, so too, an injury should be caused to him,’ ¹⁵ should not be interpreted in a literal sense. It does not mean that the person who caused the injury should actually be subjected to a similar physical punishment. Instead, the intent is that he deserves to lose a limb or to be injured in the same manner as his colleague was, and therefore he should make financial restitution to him. This interpretation is supported by the verse, Numbers 35:31: ‘Do not accept a ransom for the soul of the murderer.’ Implied is that no ransom may be paid for a murderer alone, but a ransom may be paid for causing a loss of limb or other injuries.”¹⁶ In the Book of Jubilee we find an interesting exposition on what it means to get what one deserves: “At the close of this Jubilee Cain was killed after Abel in the same year; for his house fell upon him and he died in the midst of his house, and he was killed by its stones; for with a stone he had killed Abel, and by a stone was he killed in righteous judgment. For this reason it was ordained on the heavenly tablets: With the instrument with which a man kills his neighbor with the same shall he be killed; after the manner that he wounded him, in like manner shall they deal with him.”¹⁷

And in the Dead Sea Scrolls we find this practiced among the Essenes: “If a malicious witness comes forward against a man to testify against him in a case of a crime, both disputants shall stand before me and before the priests and the Levites and before the judges then in office, and the judges shall inquire, and if the witness is a false witness who has testified falsely against his brother, you shall do to him as he proposed to do to his brother. You shall rid yourselves of evil. The rest shall hear of it and shall be awe-stricken and never again shall such a thing be done in your midst. You shall have no mercy on him: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”¹⁸ We can see that Jesus in His teaching touches on a deep seeded belief in the Jewish community. That’s why Jesus was not out of line with His interpretation, but vocalized the main stream of Jewish intellectual thought. So much for those who considered Him nothing more than an uneducated itinerant prophet from the outback of Galilee.

So Jesus gives instructions on this new formula. “But I tell you, don’t fight back against someone who wants to do harm to you.” This ideal was expressed by Job when he said: “I have never been happy when my enemies were destroyed. I have never laughed at my enemies when bad things happened to them. I have never let my mouth sin by cursing my enemies and wishing for them to die.”¹⁹ We see a beautiful illustration of how this attitude is carried out when David confronted Saul and pointed out to him that when he hid in the cave and Saul came in to relieve himself, he could have killed him. And just to show the proof, David had a piece of cloth that came from Saul’s robe.²⁰ Being the son of David, Jesus was carrying out His royal ancestor’s sense of justice.

Now Jesus goes on. “If they hit you on the right cheek, let them hit the other cheek too.” We see an example of this when Zedekiah slapped Micaiah in the face for prophesying something he was against.²¹ Jesus would show that He practiced what He preached during His trial.²² But this command also contains an interesting play on words. Imagine that someone who is right-handed, slaps another person on the cheek out of frustration. That would mean that their right hand would hit the left cheek of the person facing them. By the same token, envision someone who wants to humiliate another person with an insulting act, they would take their right hand and backhand to person facing them on the left cheek.

After his science class, one young student asked another student he met in the hallway: “How much dirt is there in a hole that measures two feet wide, three feet long, and four feet deep?” The student who was asked said he’d figure it out and let him know the answer. However, that student never came back. Maybe you can figure it out. But the main point here is that what one conceives in their mind may not be what actually exists in reality. So often we make the same mistake with our idea of what should or should not be according to our calculations. Sometimes we may often be heard saying: “They should have more love,” or “They should have less fear and apprehension,” or “They should have more courage,” or “They should have less pride.” You see, just like the dirt in that hole, these are abstract things. According to the dictionary, they are described as: “Thoughts apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.” Also, the dictionary says that: “This is a way of expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, such as justice, poverty, and speed.” The things we face in life everyday are real and tangible, that’s why we must adapt and cope with them on a factual basis. Too often we are caught dreaming about what could have been, or should have been, instead of dealing with what is.

PS: Did you find the answer to the question?

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