* With od govetoeis (v.21) compare LXX of Ex 2018, Dt 517. jzovcure (V.4) refers to the reading and exposition of the OT in the synagogues. ros dpyaios (v.21) is a dative of indirect object, as nearly all scholars (against Ewald, Keim) now hold= ‘to the ancients,’ z.e. to those who first received the Mosaic Law (so Bleek, Tholuck, Achelis), or to both those who first received it and also subsequent generations (so B. Weiss). zpices (v.71) refers to the official trial and condemnation of the murderer by the appropriate Jewish court; the punishment was death, Ex 2112, Ly 2417, Dt 17812, dpyiZéueves (v.22) does not include or deny ‘righteous indignation,’ which has its proper place, cf. Mt 37, Mk 35, Eph 426, iz, which is read in v.22 by Text. Recept., is not found in NB, and is rejected by modern editors and commentators as a superfluous and weaken- ing expansion. a0<A9@ (v.22) means any and every person, as in 524 73.4.5 1815.21, ‘The threefold characterization of hatred and punishment in v.22 seems to be cumulative: anger unex- pressed, anger expressing itself in contemptuous epithet (pane = Np’), and anger expressing itself in a term which implies at once lack of sense, character, and piety (uapé =533 1S 2525, Ps 141, or 771 Nu 2024, Dé 2118-21); while the zpioes refers to the local Jewish courts (Dt 1618, Mt 1017), the cuvedpiw to the supreme SANHEDRIN in Jerusalem, and the vy yéevveev rou wupos to the Divine judgment and its consequences. It is important to consider, however, that Jesus has used this triple, cumulative form of expression, not for the purpose of distinguishing grades of guilt in hatred, or of indicating how nicely punishment is meted out in accordance with desert, but to make as emphatic as possible His teaching that all hatred is sinfuland destructive, for which reason it can have no place among the members of God’s Kingdom, So that the detailed interpretation of Mt 522 is more a matter of historical interest than of practical im- portance. Bacon, Sermon on the Mount, pp. 88f., 139, 177, adopts the reconstruction of v.22 which was advocated by Peters (Journal of Bib. Lit. 1892), according to which he would read the passage: ‘Ye have heard that it was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not kill, and whosoever killeth shall be amenable to judgment. But I say unto you, Whosoever is angry with his brother shall be amenable to judgment. [Moreover, it was said,] Whosoever shall call his brother scoundrel shall be amenable to the court. [But I say unto you,] Whosoever calleth him simpleton shall be amenable to the hell of fire ’
SERMON ON THE MOUNT
they understood the offerings in the temple to be*), was acceptable to God when the formal worshipper cherished ill-will against any fellow- man. ‘The real brotherhood is a paramount re- ligious obligation.
It is doubtful whether vv.” 6 are original in this connexion.| Neither does the setting of the parallel passage in Lk 12°89 seem to be the his- torical one. ‘The saying is figurative, and may be interpreted in either of two ways: (1) it may teach that a man must put away all hatred of others, and be brotherly towards them, in order that he may be qualified to receive God’s forgive- ness, 80 Mit’? 612028 1 gabe” Tuk 79°50": or. (2) uments teach that such banishment of ill-will is a matter of common prudence, in order that a man may get on well in his social relations (this in addition to the truth already stated in vv.77-*4 that the putting away of hatred was also a Divine command to men).{ Hither interpretation contains truth, and has a general bearing upon the subject here under discussion in the Sermon.
The second illustration which Jesus uses, vv.2” 28, for inculcating true righteousness in human re- lations is the Seventh Commandment (Ex 204, Dt 548). This statute forbade the violation of the marriage union. It was supplemented by the Tenth Commandment (Ex 20, Dt 57), which forbade a man to desire another’s wife. The two commands together went far towards preserving the peace and purity of the home. Jesus, however, set His own teaching in sharp contrast with even this high teaching of the Seventh Commandment, forbidding a man to look with lustful eyes upon a woman. His demand exceeds that of the OT in two respects : (1) it insists not only upon abstention from the act, but upon the repression of all wrong thought and desire (in this going much deeper than even the Tenth Commandment) ; (2) it for- bids impure thoughts and desires on the part of any one. For while yuvatka and éuolxevoey (v.%8) might be taken in a limited sense as referring only to those who are married, it is inconceivable that Jesus could have given a different standard for the unmarried; and it is altogether probable that, in setting out the principle and ideal of social purity, He had in mind the whole society in which this principle and ideal must be realized. A narrow interpretation, which would limit His teaching exclusively to what would be wrong for a married man to do or think, would be contrary to Jesus’ method and intention. Social purity is an equal obligation of men and women, of married and un- married. And Jesus clearly had in mind to estab- lish by this teaching the absolute necessity for the Kingdom of pure social thought and conduct on the part of every member.§