Matthew 5

v21

Starting right here with the word "murder" or "kill", from the Hebrew "ratsach" (because the first is a quote from Exodus, the 10 commandments in fact). From what I've read, "murder" is the more correct word to use here - it is a specific act, not an accident or something done in service to a cause.

v22

The real lesson is here: Jesus is equating anger, a simple rudeness and dismissal of another, will be held to the same standard. Imagine if you were taken to court for calling someone a fool - everyone in Australia would be in jail! Jesus even mentions hell!

I tell you, it's really interesting living in a country where, although people are not arrested for anger, it is taken very seriously for the damage it does to relationships. There are lots of things to get angry with here too - bureaucracy is so frustrating sometimes I feel like I might die - but showing even disappointment does not help your cause. This is one of those commands of Christ that we tend to undersell in the west I think, while we focus more heavily on sex.

v23

Not that you have something against them. This is you proactively taking the problem you've caused back to the person you wronged. We really do know that we've wronged people so often. Even in my marriage there are times I know I did the wrong thing, and stepping up to apologise can be very difficult.

v24

We don't view gifts the same way, and I'll bet many churches today would struggle to preach telling people not to give if they aren't right with others around them. But we have to remember that providing gifts to the temple was a much bigger deal, played a much bigger role in the culture of the time. Not doing it, waiting to do it, is a sacrifice that needs to be made. Not that I'm saying the more common application of "this is a religious thing that is before God so be right with people before you come to God" is wrong; we need to remember both.

v25

Long before official negotiations were a thing in the west, Jesus is here talking about settling matters outside of court. Again, relationship is the thing that is being protected. Or is it? Because the warning is not "you will ruin a relationship", but "you might lose and end up in prison". In fact, this could be a place where Jesus is bringing the mundane into the supernatural, talking about our relationship with God in heaven. After all, that's kind of the whole point of his sermon here: that we are to live the way God wants us. And God wants us to mend bridges with others as a reflection of the fact that he calls us to do the same thing before we end up in hell.

v26

Note here that either the assumption is that you are actually either owing something - so you are in the wrong - or that you aren't in the wrong but get found wanting by the judge anyway. I think the former makes more sense, anticipating that the listeners are in the wrong somewhere.

v27

Pretty straightforward. Or at least you'd think so...

v28

Does adultery require marriage in some part? Are two people who are not married having sex committing adultery? We would tend to treat it like that now, but I'm not sure if it's that then. Remember, adultery is punished by death - Jesus in fact stopped the stoning of a woman for adultery (where was the man? Nevermind, I'm not writing about John here). The idea that two young unmarrieds having sex would get stoned to death seems far-fetched. Certainly the Old Testament does not treat them that way (eg Exodus 22:16-17). But I'm honestly not sure. Certainly there's a good argument that the term "sexual immorality" in the New Testament refers to sex between unmarrieds among other things.

I'm quite happy with this passage being specific to adultery, given that contextually most people were married as a matter of cultural course, and even it this passage is exclusive to adultery, there are other passages elsewhere that talk about how marriage is a substitute for sexual immorality.

v29

The point this verse makes though is that this isn't really about adultery. It's about sin. It's about living a life that takes sin so seriously you'd be prepared to lose an eye if it meant stopping yourself from being sinful. God takes sin seriously. Sin's consequence is hell.

v30

Now of course we can't stop ourselves from going to hell, even if we cut all our bits off. So we do have to take these instructions with a grain of salt. Because if we could stop ourselves from sinning by cutting off legs and cutting out eyes, we wouldn't need Jesus' atoning sacrifice. But we do. So what then is the purpose of these passages? As I say: take sin seriously. Aim for a life that respects God and his ways, but don't lose sight of salvation coming from Christ alone.

I should address a common position that is stated amongst churchgoers when it comes to sin - particularly in sins involving young people. They will often take these verses and say, "If your music is a bad influence, you should cut it out of your life. If playing computer games distracts you from your homework, you should stop playing them altogether. After all, Jesus says "better to pluck out your eye than to sin". I feel I need to point out that Jesus says we should pluck out our eyes if they cause us to sin, but NO-ONE suggests that we should actually pluck out our eyes. While I have no problem with people suggesting that you should avoid temptation (there are great verses for this - 1 Cor 6:18 and 10:13 for instance; and all the verses about marriage being a foil to immorality too), this verse is not a pinch hitter for this idea (am I using that term right? I don't care). If it is, start removing your eyes, because I think if you start applying this verse selectively in that way, you're doing it a grave disservice. There really is only so much you can do to remove sinfulness from your life. If we aren't prepared to pluck out eyes, I think there are probably some other things that we don't need to remove either. Common sense and wisdom should probably prevail.