Mt Session 8

1.) In verses 21–22 and 27–28, Jesus equates internal emotions (anger, lust) with external sins (murder, adultery). Is he suggesting that the thought is just as harmful as the act, or is he redefined the "starting point" of morality?

2.) Jesus uses hyperbolic language in verses 29–30 (gouging out eyes and cutting off hands). What is the rhetorical purpose of using such violent imagery to describe spiritual discipline?

3.) When Jesus says, "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it," how do the specific examples in this passage (oaths, retaliation, divorce) illustrate a "fulfillment" rather than a "replacement"?

4.) In the context of "turning the other cheek" (v. 38–42), is this a mandate for total passivity, or is it a strategic form of non-violent resistance? How would this principle function in a modern legal or social system?

5.) Does the rejection of "an eye for an eye" (v. 38) undermine the concept of justice, or does it propose a higher form of communal restoration?

6.) Jesus argues against taking oaths, saying a simple "Yes" or "No" should suffice (v. 33–37). What does this suggest about the role of honesty and the degradation of truth in a society that requires "extra" promises?

7.) Jesus mentions that even "tax collectors" and "pagans" love those who love them (v. 46–47). What distinguishes "extraordinary" virtue from "common" social reciprocity according to this text?

As per usual, your agenda should be to fellowship, then pray, then read Matthew 5:1-20, then get into the discussion and see where it takes you. It is okay to skip over or even add questions, these questions are just a guideline. As always I have provided you some answers for these questions if people seem a bit stumped.

1. In verses 21–22 and 27–28, Jesus equates internal emotions (anger, lust) with external sins (murder, adultery). Is he suggesting that the thought is just as harmful as the act, or is he redefined the "starting point" of morality?

   • He’s making morality internal.

   • He’s cutting out the legalistic excuse. Toeing the line isn’t good enough, we need to be transformed inside out

2. Jesus uses hyperbolic language in verses 29–30 (gouging out eyes and cutting off hands). What is the rhetorical purpose of using such violent imagery to describe spiritual discipline?

   • We need to be willing to take drastic action to cut out sin from our hearts

   • This is what repentance looks like

3. When Jesus says, "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it," how do the specific examples in this passage (oaths, retaliation, divorce) illustrate a "fulfillment" rather than a "replacement"?

   • Jesus is not telling us to not follow the law, rather He is adding onto the law, and making it more internal, rebuking a legalistic reading of it.

4. In the context of "turning the other cheek" (v. 38–42), is this a mandate for total passivity, or is it a strategic form of non-violent resistance? How would this principle function in a modern legal or social system?

   • We are to submit and humbly accept ill-treatment from others. We are not to rally together and resist evil doers, but instead we must show grace and mercy just as God has shown us.

   • It is by this grace, this mercy, this love in the face of maltreatment that the gospel is communicated to even the hardest enemy of Christ.

   • This is meant to be a personal ethic, not a legal one. Governments are to maintain justice, we are to forgive.

5. Does the rejection of "an eye for an eye" (v. 38) undermine the concept of justice, or does it propose a higher form of communal restoration?

   • Eye for an Eye was meant to curtail revenge to begin with, and Christ here is taking it further. It’s easy to confuse revenge with justice. A thief paying fines or going to jail is justice. A thief being tortured to death is revenge. The punishment must fit the crime, it must be FAIR for it to be justice.

   • Furthermore we must not seek our own revenge. Not to eliminate justice, but this is a furthering of a theme in the old testament that is also echoed later in the New Testament: The Lord says "Vengeance is Mine and I will repay” which is mentioned various ways in Deut 32:35; Ps 94:1; 1 Thess 4:6; Heb 10:30; and famously in Rom 9:19.

   • This means that we are refusing to take vengeance because we are relying on the legal system of God. Similarly it is not on us to punish a thief, rather we take him to court because it is the government’s responsibility to establish order and uphold justice.

6. Jesus argues against taking oaths, saying a simple "Yes" or "No" should suffice (v. 33–37). What does this suggest about the role of honesty and the degradation of truth in a society that requires "extra" promises?

   • We should be people who are trustworthy in our words and actions. I should be genuine when I speak and be able to effectively communicate. If I do not intend to carry something through, then it is on me to communicate that. And if I do truly want to carry out something, I should be able to communicate that as well. I shouldn’t have to add on promises and oaths to try and convince others, it should be apparent by my previous actions.

7. Jesus mentions that even "tax collectors" and "pagans" love those who love them (v. 46–47). What distinguishes "extraordinary" virtue from "common" social reciprocity according to this text?

   • It is normal to love those who love you, really they are quite easy to love. Thus there is no real show of love by doing this. If God only loved and saved those who were already perfect and faithful disciples then it wouldn’t mean nearly as much. The reality is that Christ came and died for people who actively hated Him. He died for people like the Romans who beat and crucified Him. He died for pharisees like Saul, who reveled over the killing of Jesus’ disciples. This is the kind of love we are meant to emulate as imitators of Christ. We are to love a world that hates us.

Introduction

This session we are continuing on with the sermon on the mount. Previously Jesus mentioned how He doesn’t intend to abolish the law, but instead He fulfills it. In this section he offers an interpretation of the law. This interpretation should be seen as the final say on these laws, not expertly interpreted, but divinely interpreted.

Law 1: Murder

Jesus starts off by quoting Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17 which are which are both exactly as Jesus quotes them: “you shall not commit murder.” Yet Jesus is clearly not content with the easily simplicity of this law. Instead, as Jesus often does, He makes it deeper and harder to follow.

Jesus equates anger and abusive language to murder here. He suggests that the actions leading to murder are just as morally reprehensible as the act it self. As it typical of Jesus, He rails against a legalistic interpretation of the law and gets to the heart of the law. A legalist could justify hatred and abusive speech, because by all means they haven’t killed anyone. Yet Jesus is telling his disciples that even just being angry is a cause for repentance and is a reality that needs to be immediately rectified.

Jesus then extends this out to not just your own anger, but the anger of others. He suggests in v. 23-24 that we shouldn’t bring forth our offerings (likely an animal sacrifice in this context) to the Lord if someone else is holding a grudge against us. Instead we are to go and reconcile with that person before worshiping the Lord. 

Jesus also mentions a legal case here as well. In the event of a lawsuit, Jesus is telling his disciples to try and settle out of court, to seek reconciliation on friendly terms. Yet just stopping at this interpretation of the passage is a mere surface level interpretation. Instead this might just be a parable of one before the judgement throne of God (France, 126; Turner, 89), which is much more fitting considering v. 26 which, if this parable is a correct reading of this passage, suggests that God’s judgement upon us will not spare a single detail.

Law 2: Adultery

Jesus next offers some interpretation of Ex 20:14 and Deut 5:18, which are both quoted as “you shall not commit adultery” in verse 27. Again, like before, Jesus takes this law and makes it deeper and harder to follow. He also rails against a legalistic reading of this law as well.

Jesus says for a man to look upon a woman with lust is already guilty of adultery. This sounds like a very straightforward ethic, but there is actually some contention here which impacts the specifics of this ethic. It all centers around the word translated as woman. This word is used interchangeably as woman or wife (Strong, 21), and so some interesting ideas come out of this as a result. 

For those who air on the side of a “woman” translation, it creates a general rule against looking at any woman with lust, and can run into the problem of seeking to stifle sexual desire of a woman. While in our more puritanical contexts, sexual desire is not an evil thing and has been encouraged as far back as Adam and Eve. A man is to desire his wife, and by extension a single man is to seek out a single woman whom he has this desire for to get married and then be fruitful and multiply as humanity was long ago commanded to do. 

For those who air on the side of a “wife” translation, it creates a more nuanced rule with heavy moral implications. No longer is it ‘don’t look at a woman,’ rather it’s ‘don’t look at someone else’s wife with sexual intent.’ I find this view to be far more fitting because it fits more clearly into both the immediate context and that of the bible as a whole. Let us not forget that Jesus is speaking directly about adultery here, so it should be assumed that the man is married, and likely so is the woman he’s looking at. Therefore this passage has little to say about the gaze of a single man, and in turn that of a single woman. 

Jesus then goes on to make a rather drastic example of how His disciples ought to deal with sin. He suggests body mutilation, not in a literal sense, but in a metaphorical ‘at all costs’ way that denotes what kind of mindset we need when tempted. Temptations will come, and we are to view them as something we want nothing to do with. We are to be repentant, which means casing temptation as far away from our person as possible, even if it means drastic steps like adjusting routines, severing relationships, or changing hobbies or even jobs. 

Law 3: Divorce

In verse 31, Jesus goes on to comment on Deut 24:1. It seems that in Jesus’ day, the legalists had reasoned that divorce for any reason was permitted by the law because of this verse (France, 127). Jesus takes exception to this and remarks that divorce and remarriage is the same as adultery. 

Now Jesus here does seem to give one justified reason for divorce: infidelity. Yet these may not have been Jesus’ initial words considering how He speaks in Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 where He suggests that there is no valid reason for divorce. This disparity may be attributed to Matthew adding in the small exception for divorce here beyond Jesus’ perfect ideal to account for the harsh realities of a fallen world. 

This isn’t to say that Jesus would have been upset with Matthew for this, rather this addition here has based in the same Genesis 2 idea that Jesus quotes in Mark 10:9-12. Sexual union meant the creation of a proper union, and therefore adultery would mark the end of a marriage because it marked a new union. Beyond this the exemption of divorce because of infidelity would have been assumed to Jesus’ Jewish audience (France, 127). 

Jesus in His original words likely just espoused His ideal for marriage as a “till death do we part” covenant. Yet it was most likely understood by Jesus’ audience that this ideal was marred and broken by infidelity. 

Law 4: Vows and Oaths

Next Jesus speaks on making vows and oaths. Jesus tells his disciple not to bother making oaths and vows. To vow on something means nothing, primarily because whatever we vow upon ends up being something we effectively have no control over. If I vow on heaven what does that truly mean? If I fail will heaven be destroyed? No, because I have no control over heaven. Similarly if I vow on my own life, even that is meaningless because I have no control over my life. I may be alive now, but could easily die in a million ways within the next few seconds. 

Simply put: Jesus wants us to be men and women of our words. Instead of having to swear by anything, we should just be honest people for whom our word is enough. If we say yes to something, we should adhere to it. If we cannot adhere to it, then we should just say no. If we are to be agents of God, then we also need to be harbingers of truth and our words and actions need to align to the will of God. I, as a Christian, am by nature devoted to care for the poor. Therefore I should be more than willing to say “yes” to helping the poor, and that should follow through in my actions as well. 

Law 5: Retribution

In verse 38 Jesus gets into the famous “eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” This is mentioned in Ex 21:24; Lev 24:20; and Deut 19:21. This is often taken as a means of revenge and retribution in our modern idea of this law, yet the opposite is true. In the days of Moses, and from even before Moses, particularly in the days of Hammurabi who is the first to codify a law of this nature (France, 128), revenge was a big issue. This law was meant to ensure that a punishment fits the crime. As people we tend to want the punishment to be as severe as possible, and thus laws like this do not allow disproportionate punishment. 

Jesus takes that restriction on revenge even further, suggesting that His disciples not seen revenge or retribution at all. Instead when we are struck, we are to allow the attacker to strike again instead of hitting them back. Instead of fighting back in a lawsuit, we should happily surrender what the person is after, plus some more.

What’s even more poignant here is that Jesus refers to walking a mile in verse 41, which is an overt reference to the practice of Roman soldiers. Jews were not big fans of their Roman oppressors, and by extension Jesus’ followers likely expected Him to overthrow Rome as the Messiah. Jesus seems to dash those hopes right here. He says that instead of fighting their oppressors, they should actually help them along.

This acceptance of ill-treatment may seem wild to us modern readers, but it is a pervasive theme throughout the bible. David was willing to undergo terrible treatment under King Saul. The prophets were willing to undergo persecution and execution under the rulers of Judah and Israel. Others like Daniel were also willing to suffer ill-treatment as well. This is only compounded with the new testament where we see all of the apostles suffering ill-treatment, all but one of them being downright executed. We should be no different, no matter how our pride feels on the matter.

Law 6: Love your neighbor

In verse 43 Jesus shifts to speak on loving your neighbor. Jesus tells his disciples that they are to not only love those who stand with them, but also those who stand opposed to them as well. In doing so we are actually being imitators of God.

God shows favor to all people, regardless of how they treat Him. Rain falls upon those who curse God and those who love God alike. God doesn’t remove the basic favors He showers us with from those who reject Him. Let we forget, even every breathe is from God. Your next breathe is not guaranteed, it is God who gives it to you. This is true of both the Christian and the Pagan. 

Likewise we are to show love to all, regardless of how they would treat us. Jesus compounds this by saying the unrighteous love their own, so how are we any different if we only every love our own? Instead we are love even our enemies, and by this love we will be known as imitators of God.

Conclusion

Jesus concludes with a very fitting phrase: “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt. 5:48).  This term perfect is likely derived from the septuagint for Duet 18:13 and the idea likely comes from Lev 19:2. The first speaks of being blameless before God, the second speaks of being holy because our God is holy. In essence we are to be imitators of God, taking on his wonderful characteristics. We do so by following Jesus’ ethics that we explored in this session and the last session as well. 

Bibliography

France, R. T. Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 1. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985.

Strong, James. A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and the Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009.

Turner, David L. Matthew. Cornerstone Bible Commentary 11. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2005.