How to Apply the Law of Moses Properly—Matthew 5:15-48

General Principles

Matt 5:15-48, which we will study today, contains five examples given by Jesus to his disciples of how they should apply God's laws in the Old Testament properly to their own lives. 

Remember Jesus’ words in Mt 5:17-20. He does not intend to abolish the law but fulfill it. His words in what follows must never be read in a way that devalues or loosens the moral demands of the Old Testament. Nothing in these words or elsewhere in the gospels suggests that Jesus regarded anything commanded in the Old Testament as morally “primitive.” And only the sacrificial and dietary laws were fulfilled by his death and resurrection, so as to be no longer binding.


Jesus warns here that any disciple who nullifies (this is the true meaning of the word "breaks" here) one of the "least" of those commandments and teaches others to do so also, will be "least" in the kingdom of heaven (5:19).What do you think he means by "least"? And how does he illustrate such commands in what follows? It appears that he does not mean commands that God himself considers least important, nor does he mean the easiest ones to obey. Controlling lustful thoughts and even momentary anger are not trivial tasks! Instead, Jesus probably has in mind offenses that we might be inclined to view as less serious. For example, anger and insults are thought by most people to be less serious offenses than murder. Jesus does not claim that they are more serious, just equally important for disciples to avoid.

Elsewhere Jesus does attack the Pharisees and scribes. But here that matter is not in the forefront. The focus is more positive than negative. He acknowledges that there is a certain degree of real "righteousness" advocated and taught—but not always practiced (Mt 23:2-3)—by the Pharisees. That which was good in what they advocated was ultimately derived from scripture. Jesus here challenges all of us who claim to be his disciples to live lives that exceed the pharisaic standards, and he proceeds to give us illustrations of what he has in mind.

The term “antithesis” used by many to describe these five statements is somewhat misleading. The word translated “but” here (Greek de) is not the usual strong word for opposition (Greek alla), and some think it means “and,” indicating Jesus approval of the first proposition, but calling attention to how it must be amplified. The idea is more like “Yes, that’s right; but also …”

Do not be misled by the words “it was said” instead of “it is written.” In the speech of Jesus’ time, the scripture was often quoted in this way, as “it is/was said.” Jesus did not use that phrase in a demeaning or critical way.

That something was said “to those of ancient times” might be used today in the sense of something outmoded. In the culture and time of Jesus, the older something was, the more authoritative it was.

Jesus is speaking here of the ethical demands expected of his own disciples. Although much of the law of Moses in Jesus’ time was enforceable law that could come before courts, Jesus is here talking about God’s demands upon those committed to him, and which God will enforce himself: not in a human court but in the divine one. Again, Matthew will defer until later in a totally different context, the issue of when local bodies of believers must exercise discipline on public flaunting of these commands of Jesus by individual members (Mt 18:15-20). Both Matthew and Paul (1 Cor 5) have things to say about that subject. But it is not the focus here. 

Concerning Anger, 5:21-26

There are two references in Jesus’ quote in v 21. The first is to  Ex 20:13 and Deut 5:17.  The second is to a later interpretation, which added a jurisdiction (or court) to which the murderer was subject.  Jews in Jesus’ day were at liberty to challenge statements of the second type, just as you or I might politely argue with each other about the meaning of a passage of scripture. But one could not contest the first part—the scripture—without ceasing to be a Jew, a worshiper of the God of Israel. Jesus, therefore does three things in vv 22-26. (1) He expands the type of behavior described by “you shall not murder” to hateful speech, (2) he re-assesses the degree of punishment and makes God the court in all cases, and (3) he recommends alternative positive behavior in cases where one might be tempted to break this law: "Go, be reconciled to your brother."

Who is the “brother” here? Matthew uses this term only for fellow disciples.  Then who will enforce or judge this kind of case? A church court? The three levels in v 22 finish with the fiery hell, which is certainly beyond any human court to determine or apply, unless some sort of excommunication is in view.

(1) Jesus expands the category “murder” to include harmful actions resulting from anger, including speech acts. Three degrees are described: (a) simple anger, no matter how manifested, (b) verbal abuse (insults), and (c) drastic verbal abuse (“you fool”). Jesus doesn’t allow for exceptions in the case of “provoked” anger. 


This may be another example of Matthew's subtle allusions to events in the life of David, since Jesus is the better son of David. You recall how in 1 Sam 25 David overreacted to an insult from a man whose name (Nabal) means "fool" in Hebrew, and in a fit of anger swore to massacre every male in Nabal's family. It was only the calm and wise intervention of Nabal's wife Abigail that kept him from doing this hideous act of revenge for a mere insult. You might say that David was "provoked," but obviously God was not pleased with his initial intention, which he swore to do in the name of Yahweh (God)!


Jesus allows no excuse to justify anger or verbal abuse. This is in keeping with his teaching elsewhere about turning the other cheek. This, of course, raises questions for many of us about the legitimacy of anger at seeing someone abuse another person. But neither Jesus nor Matthew want to complicate the issue here with such “exceptions.” Once you start bringing in “exceptions,” you start looking for ways to circumvent Jesus’ demand for consistent love and forgiveness.

We live in an age when it is not only acceptable, but actually encouraged on all sides, to be easily irritated by the words and behavior of others. Often this is done by means of TV comedies, where we are supposed to laugh and be entertained by clever “put-downs.” I’m not suggesting that we never watch TV comedies. But I do suggest—quite seriously—that enjoying such behavior in others is the first step towards allowing it in ourselves. And such “clever” put-downs need not be real confrontations with the party we are ridiculing: it is enough to make fun of someone else behind his or her back to entertain and impress others. This is a favorite game we all are tempted at times to play. We do it in order to show how superior we are, and how clever in our choice of words of ridicule. But notice that:

(2) Jesus re-assesses the degree of punishment and makes God the court in all cases. We should think soberly about Jesus’ words here about our accountability to God. Even to the final one called “the fiery Hell.” It is implied that both the source of such behavior and the final destination of those who practice it is the same: a fiery hell! Being easily angered by others is literally “playing with fire.”  

(3) As in some of the other five examples, here Jesus recommends behavior to mend the damage caused by anger and insult: "go, be reconciled to your brother."  In contrast to the spirit of our age, which glorifies being super-sensitive to every slight or irritation in the actions of others, Jesus requires of his disciples that they become super-un-sensitive. Disciples of Jesus must develop a kind of callous that makes them shrug off and ignore words and actions that could offend them. This is not easy. Nor am I suggesting for a moment that I am able to do this all the time. I struggle with this sin. But neither I nor you must ever accept the easy status quo in my life and say to myself, "Well, I guess this is just Harry being Harry." My job is not just "being Harry": it is being Jesus.

Concerning Lust, 5:27-30

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:27-30 NIV)

We shall see in the following verses a number of places where Matthew pursues his practice of comparing Jesus to David by selecting from Jesus' teachings particular parts that exemplify how Jesus' own life and teachings mirror aspects of David's life—either David's consistent obedience or places where David failed God. We saw above that God through the intervention of Abigail barely kept David from murdering innocent men in the family of Nabal (1 Sam 25), and we also know that David ordered Joab to murder Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam 11). Here we encounter the second area where David failed God. He lusted for Uriah's wife Bathsheba and committed adultery with her, which became the reason for his subsequent murder to Uriah. These were two of very few instances where David did not serve as a model for consistent godly behavior.

It is difficult to teach this subject to an audience of men and women. Often men have trouble understanding the kinds of temptations that women may experience in the area of sex, and likewise women understanding the peculiar susceptibilities of men. As a man, therefore, let me apologize at the beginning to you women if I miss the mark with you. I sincerely want us as a family of disciples to understand and help each other to meet Jesus’ expectations for each of us. I think that we need each other’s help and—sometimes—advice, as awkward as that may be. Men who wish to remain pure must not be forced to only socialize with other men, nor should women be confined to the society of women. We are all fellow-heirs and equal in the family of God and should be able to socialize freely without putting any obstacle or stumbling block in the way of another.

When God created the first woman, he said he was going to make for the man a "helper that would complement him" (that is the meaning of "helper fit for" in Gen 2:18). Women complement men, and men women. This is the genius of God's design. We need each other. We should not be competing, but helping each other.

Non-Christians who are inclined to criticize Christians sometimes charge us with putting too much emphasis on sexual purity and not enough on social and economic “justice.” I don’t want to get sidetracked into political and economic philosophy here. The point of their criticism, if we really want to hear it fairly, is to ask us “How serious in comparison to neglecting the poor and oppressed is sexual immorality?”

This is a fair question and deserves a fair answer. Jesus certainly commanded that his disciples look after the poor in their number, including poor widows and orphans. But here we are in the very heart of his ethical teaching, the Sermon on the Mount, and what do we find? Teaching on anger, on lust, on marriage, and on truthfulness. To me that says something about the importance of such matters in the lives of disciples.

The starting point in Jesus’ teaching here—as with his preceding subject—is one of the Ten Commandments: “You shall not commit adultery.” As the other clauses in the Ten Commandments, this law is expressed negatively: not something you should do, but what you should not do. Yet just as the preceding command about murder was intended to protect innocent life, so this one was intended to protect family life. Adultery destroys marriages. And since God ordained marriage in the Garden of Eden, real disciples of Jesus must resist all attempts to “redefine” marriage today in such a way as to destroy the form in which God gave it—one man and one woman in a faithful and enduring relationship. Eve was created to be both an equal complement to Adam and a help to him. Of course, Adam was supposed also to help Eve. And I don’t think this just meant taking out the garbage! We help each other spiritually by praying for each other and by never doing anything that might cause the other to sin against God. Ultimately both Eve and Adam failed in that test in Gen 3. But this is God’s ideal. God wants strong, healthy, godly families, which grow out of strong, healthy and godly marriages.

As in the preceding sections, here too Jesus “builds a fence around the Torah,” expanding the narrower subject of adultery to include all forms of sexual behavior that could lead to overt sexual relations with someone not your spouse. That is what I believe Jesus means in verses 29-30, although he uses hyperbole in order to emphasize his point. That point is that we should deny ourselves anything that would lead us into sexual sins, just as we would into other sins. The hyperbole is that one would be willing to gouge out one’s eye, if it took that.

Here it appears that the men are addressed, not the women disciples. The men must take the initiative in keeping their eyes from straying and lingering, generating thoughts that are wrong.

Earlier generations of Christians spoke of the “custody of the eyes”—meaning guarding what you look at—and of the need not to look lingeringly at members of the opposite sex if you know that this triggers wrong thoughts. Job seems to allude to this when he said, “I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a young woman?” (Job 31:1). It may be that this is not a needed area for you. But my philosophy is that, if something works for you, use it.

Another word from my own experience: don’t be discouraged if you don’t always triumph over momentary wrong thoughts of this type. I think God wants us to keep our sights very high, but to rejoice positively in each small triumph. Each time you succeed in short-circuiting such thoughts you have taken one step closer to Jesus.

I once attended a Sunday Bible class in another church in which men and women were discussing this subject in a very helpful way. One man told how he at first tried to think of women in terms of being his daughters, but then felt that was too demeaning to them, putting them in an inferior position to himself, so he switched to thinking of them as his real sisters. This kept him thinking of them as other than sex objects and as social equals. This helped him.

A mental frame that I find helpful throughout the day is thinking of women whom I see or meet in casual social situations as Jesus himself sees them: either as either fellow disciples, trying to please Christ and needing my help to do so, or as needy lost individuals crying out for the gospel. This keeps me from thinking of them as objects to satisfy me.

Another principle that underlies this commandment is the true purpose of gender complementing. Why did God create humans in two genders? The first reason is obvious: for marriage and children. But there were other reasons as well. Although these words were originally spoken of for marital partners, the fact that Eve was created to be “a helper to complement him” (Gen 2:18) is certainly significant also in non-marital interrelations. Neither men nor women are complete in themselves without the essential complement supplied by the opposite sex. Men can help women in certain ways, and women can help men in others. And I am not referring to a stereotyping view of one gender or the other, such as “the woman’s place is in the home” philosophy. As much as feminists and male chauvinists may say differently, there are helpful ways in which women view situations differently from men and vice versa. This is a positive thing. And we should try to mine this gender variety in wholesome ways in order to enrich the spiritual experience of all of Christ’s disciples. If each of us approached our relationships with disciples of the other sex with the attitude “what can you teach me that will help me to be a better disciple of my Lord?” we would not only have fewer cases of promiscuous sex: we would also have a dynamic Christian fellowship.

Women disciples must guard against flirting. Most of the time, a Christian woman will not do this in an obvious way, at least not in public. But you all know how it can be done in subtle ways. Dress also is important, although I am not saying that a Christian woman must dress dowdily. But she should not do so in a way as to encourage wrong thoughts about her sexuality. It isn’t for me to go further than these general suggestions. You Christian women know much better than I do what things you might be tempted to do, if you wanted to attract a man’s attention sexually without being too obvious. You know these things: I do not. So please use your own wisdom and experience to help your brothers in Christ, as they in turn will try to treat you with all honor and respect, and not as their own personal sex object.

Concerning Divorce, 5:31-32

“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for unchastity, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:31–32)

Jesus’ words on adultery, which is a prime cause of destroying families, leads naturally to the subject of divorce, which sometimes results from the discovery of adultery and which also contributes to the destruction of families.

Jesus’ statement on this subject is not only recorded here and in the parallel passage in Mk 10:2-12, but also in another part of Matthew (Mt 19:3-9). In order to draw any conclusion as to his view on that subject you have to study all three passages and deal with the apparent discrepancies between them, which may even be due to the context in which each was given. Jesus was probably asked his view on this subject several times during his ministry. And although he would not have “fudged,” it would have been quite legitimate, and indeed imperative, for him to tailor his answer to the situation.

It is no coincidence that broken marriages not only fragment families, but even have a destructive effect on the spiritual lives of individual members of those families. To say with the Bible that divorce is an evil to be avoided at all costs, is not to say that divorced Christians should be penalized or shunned by their fellow believers. Many divorced persons know better than any of the rest of us just how much they and their children have lost by the experience.

Instead of majoring on the negative side by penalizing the victims of divorce, we should focus on the positive side by encouraging a healthy view of courtship and marriage that will lead to healthy and happy Christian marriages, ones that will last.

The law that Jesus cited here is from Deut 24:1, a part of a longer case law, which reads—

Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house 2 and goes off to become another man’s wife. 3 Then suppose the second man dislikes her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house (or the second man who married her dies); 4 her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that would be abhorrent to the LORD, and you shall not bring guilt on the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a possession. (Deuteronomy 24:1-4 NRSV)

Divorce among Jews in Jesus’ time could be initiated by either spouse, although mostly it was initiated by the husband. Jewish teachers in Jesus’ day were of two minds regarding divorce. Some like Shammai were strict constructionists and insisted that a man’s “finding something objectionable” in the spouse had to be evidence of her premarital promiscuity, that is, no bleeding from a broken hymen on the wedding night. Others like Hillel claimed that any incompatibility (even burning his breakfast) was grounds for divorce. Hillel argued that God gave this law to give relief to bad marriages; Shammai wanted to prevent frivolous abandoning of the responsibility to correct incompatibilities and build a good relationship. Both sides could be seen as having a case.

Jesus appears to have come down on the side of Shammai’s view, allowing only one reason. That reason is expressed by a term (Greek porneia), which can mean any kind of sexual promiscuity (hence, best translated as "unchastity" with the NRSV, and not necessarily on "marital unfaithfulness" as the NIV translation renders it), but also in a Jewish context sex or marriage between close relatives (what we call "incest"), such as was prohibited in the laws of Moses (see Lev 18:6-19; 20:11-21; Deut 23:1; 27:20, 22-23). So it may be that by this clause—which is not found in Luke’s version of Jesus’ words—refers to an unpermitted close degree of family relationship which made it an invalid marriage, and not that it gives either partner justification to dissolve a valid marriage simply on the basis of a single act of infidelity by the spouse.

It is outside our purview today to discuss the prickly issue of whether or not divorced persons are qualified to serve as elders or deacons in churches.

But whether Jesus was granting right of divorce in cases of marital infidelity or only in the case of an invalid marriage between close relatives, it was the positive lesson that he really wanted to convey. Jesus intended his words to be taken by his disciples not as an excuse to allow a marriage to fail, but as a mandate to preserve and strengthen the bonds of family love. He wanted them to apply his standards of love and forgiveness not only in broader social situations outside their families, but also in the most intimate circle of personal and family life, the husband-wife relationship. If we are to turn the other cheek outside of our marriages, should we not also do so inside them? But here I think we have to issue a strong caveat. Unlike the situations outside marriage, where Jesus urged unlimited forgiveness, the sacred bond of fidelity between spouses is too vital and fragile to allow an easy-going attitude. After the first instance of infidelity the other spouse must confront and issue a warning. No recurrences will be tolerated. The stakes are too high, including the detrimental effect on their children.

Concerning Oaths and Truthfulness, 5:33-37

“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ 34 But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. (Matthew 5:33-37 NIV)

Jesus uses this law from Lev 19:12 and Num 30:2 to reinforce the basic principle of keeping one’s promises whether or not a social situation requires a guarantee.

Here, once again, Jesus' example and teaching mirror aspects of the life of David. David repeatedly took oaths in the name of God to assure others to guarantee his future behavior or to his statements of fact. And in all cases he kept his word. David kept his promises, even though in accord with the custom of his day he did so by taking oaths. 

I remember a few years back reading about a company in Pine Castle, Florida, where my parents and I lived during the summers when I was a boy. It was a company that made speedboats. In some situation not its own fault it became liable for a huge payment that it could have avoided by declaring bankruptcy. The owner was a conscientious Christian who would not default on those to whom his company owed the payments. So they arranged to pay it all off over a very long period of time, at great financial sacrifice to the company owners. Unfortunately, this kind of integrity is all too rare. Today we all want to avail ourselves of every legal loophole, instead of thinking about the other parties whom our saving ourselves may hurt. I often think of these when I see those sleazy commercials on TV urging viewers to declare bankruptcy and leave their creditors without any compensation for their losses.

Here Jesus’ teaching does not exceed that of the Old Testament itself, which says in Psalm 15:

LORD, who may be welcome in your sanctuary? Who may live on your holy hill? 2 He whose conduct is blameless and who does what is right, who speaks the truth from his heart 3 and has no slander on his tongue, who does his neighbor no wrong and casts no slur on others, 4 who doesn’t emulate a dishonest person but honors those who fear the LORD, who keeps his oath even when it hurts, 5 who lends his money without usury and does not accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken. (Psalms 15:1-5)

Perhaps you know a fellow Christian, who—although he or she means well—tends to make easy promises and rarely can keep them. In time you simply no longer ask him or her to do anything, because you know they are undependable. That is a sad situation within the family of God. In view of the words of James, the Lord Jesus' brother, in James 4:13-15, I always think it wise to make promises conditioned by the words "if the Lord wills," since "you do not even know what tomorrow will bring." But I assure the other person that, barring some major surprise—an accident, a death in the family, I will not fail to keep my promises. 

Do you want to enjoy constant fellowship with your Lord, be welcome always in his presence? Then you must conduct yourself like the person described in Psalm 15. If you commit to doing something, as long as there is no conflicting obligation that must be kept to another, so long as keeping the promise will only hurt you, then keep it. You honor Jesus by doing so.

Besides, if your non-Christian acquaintances see that you don’t keep your promises, how will they think that Jesus will keep his promises to them?

Concerning Retaliation, 5:38-42

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:38-42 NIV)

Verse 38 has a long history of misinterpretation by Western Christians. Today when we see TV clips of videoed scenes of Middle Eastern terrorists beheading someone, we immediately conclude that this sort of grisly “justice” was in the minds of the ancient Israelites when they wrote, read or repeated this verse. But there is good evidence—both from the Bible and from ancient Babylonian, Hittite and Egyptian legal texts—that this famous lex talionis was never intended to be applied literally, and that the rank and file ancient Middle Easterner understood that. There were fixed monetary penalties in law codes for injuries ot eye, tooth, nose and other vital body parts. The point of the biblical law, as with other texts that used this language was that penalties must always accord with the appropriate legal compensations.

Jesus too certainly knew that what the OT law referred to was legal action in court, seeking appropriate damages, not vigilante actions or “private justice”, and his comments on this law take the ancient intention into account, but transforms it from a civil law into a rule for behavior between disciples. It is important to assume that in at least the first two examples given by Jesus, the opponent is another believer. He is called an “evildoer” in verse 39 only from the standpoint of how the disciple being instructed here would see him. That is, from my viewpoint the fellow believer who insults me with a backhand slap on the right cheek, was totally unprovoked and wrong: he is therefore legally an evildoer. In other words, the primary relevance of this teaching is not how we must behave when confronted by a mugger on the street at night—although there too it might be wiser not to resist—but how we should behavior within the community of believers.

We have seen how many of Jesus' ethical standards for his disciples subtly invite comparison with David. How about this one? Did David retaliate against those who sought him harm. The prime example is King Saul, who pursued him to death. David twice had Saul at his mercy, and both times refused to lift a hand against him. And late in David's life, when his son drove him from the throne and sought to hunt him down and kill him, he gave instructions to his generals not to harm Absalom, if they captured him.

5:39 The first example Jesus gives is when you are insulted. The fact that the blow on the right cheek was merely a backhanded slap, delivered as an insult, not in order to seriously injure, means that we are being warned against getting even for an insult. The Greek word translated “do not resist” is a legal term that really means “do not take the matter to court.” Such a slap injures only our pride and doesn’t adversely affect others who might depend upon us. Jesus calls upon us not to take offense at the first chance, but always to seek to win back the person who has insulted us. Whether that is literally by inviting him to insult you again or rather by kind words, inquiring how we have made that person angry, our obligation is to seek to heal the relationship, not to vindicate our pride.

This requirement does not exclude the possibility appealing to our legal rights in some cases, and of asking an insulter why he has done this, and even to call in question his right to do it. The best examples are from Paul’s behavior in Acts 16:37; 22:25; and 25:8-12. But note that in all these cases Paul's rebukes were to non-believers and to persons who might be assumed to know that they had violated the law by their treatment of him.

This is a concrete example of what Jesus meant in the beatitudes by “peacemakers.” Whenever we perceive we have been wronged, we have a choice of responses: (1) hatred and getting even, or (2) love and healing the relationship. And since, as I believe, the beatitudes weren’t intended to describe only individual Christians who have different capacities, each with its own reward, but all of us who profess to be disciples, we can’t brush this task aside, saying, “That’s all very nice for some Christians, but I can’t do that.” We all must work toward being “peacemakers,” on the individual level without our own churches and circle of friends. It is not an option not to do this.

5:40 The second example (verse 40) concerns one disciple taking another to court and demanding a pledge against the anticipated ruling for compensation of losses. The OT law excluded going so fas as to demand the outer garment (“cloak”) which for a poor man might be his only source of warmth in cold nights. Jesus asks his disciples, if a fellow believer takes you to court and demands the long inner garment worn next to the skin, and which was not absolutely necessary since it was always covered by the outer garment, you should offer your outer robe, that which is essential both for modesty and for warmth.

What Jesus is getting at here is not per se how much you should part with, even if not required to by law to do so, but how—by making such a gesture—you might dissuade your brother or sister in Christ from continuing with a court suit, as opposed to simply talking it over with you and finding out how you can help him or her and avoid further confrontation in front of unbelievers. This is the same principle that Paul invoked in 1 Cor 6:7.

If the world sees that Christians cannot get along with each other, how will they be interested in becoming part of that family?

5:41 Jesus’ third example describes something that a Roman solider in the occupation forces in Galilee might do to a Galilean peasant. That soldier might have the legal right, given him by the Roman emperor or his commander, to force a civilian to carry some of his load for one mile, not more. A Jewish resistance fighter might refuse to comply and fighting might ensue, together with loss of life. But Jesus commands that instead, the peasant should go the mile and then offer to go a second mile. The offer is voluntary, so far as the soldier knows, but it is obedience to Jesus’ command. Note too that the offer can have a limit: one more mile, or maybe two. But it is at the discretion of the peasant disciple. He is to do it out of kindness—what some today call “random acts of kindness”—but also as a testimony to the disciple’s master, whom he might mention to the soldier as his reason for offering the second mile.

5:42 In verse 42 Jesus commands his followers not to turn away from cases of genuine need, whether it be from those who need loans or from those who need gifts. But these must be genuine needs, not convenience loans. As St. Augustine observed, “Give to every brother who asks,” but not “Give everything to every brother who asks.” See Jesus’ own example in Lk 12:13-15, where the petitioner wanted a better share of his parents’ inheritance, and Jesus warned him against greed instead of interceding for him with his brothers.

Concerning Love for enemies, 5:43-48

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48 NIV) 

5:43 This is the first of the cases where Jesus enlarges and ethical demands of an Old Testament passage, in which the quotation given goes beyond what the scripture itself requires. “Love your neighbor as you would yourself” comes from Lev 19:18. But “hate your enemy” is found nowhere in scripture. It might have been deduced (falsely!) from the preceding verse, where it says “Do not hate a fellow Israelite [literally, ‘your brother’] in your heart,” but that verse does not imply that it was fine to hate a non-Israelite! The motivation of whomever added the second clause was probably to tighten the reference of the word “neighbor” in Leviticus to members of the faith community of Israel. When at another time Jesus was asked about the meaning of this verse with precisely this motive (“Who then is my neighbor?”), his reply was the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Samaritan being as much a faith outsider as a pagan Roman might be. It might be a correct assumption that in Moses’ original formulation he had in view relationships within Israel, because it was envisioned that this would be the entire social world for Israelites living in a conquered Promised Land, from which the pagan inhabitants were either exterminated or driven out. But that would not have led Moses or any OT prophet to require of believing Israelites that they “hate” all outsiders. This was not the attitude of Naomi or Boaz towards Ruth, although admittedly she was at that time a convert. But in Jesus’ day his disciples lived cheek-to-jowl with pagans in Capernaum and all around “Galilee of the Gentiles”, as Matthew called the region. They needed to be salt and light, but not haters of everything and everyone non-Jewish, or even their fellow Jews who chose not to believe in Jesus.

5:44 The demands of Jesus are a love that knows no limits. That “love” always is defined in terms of the ultimate benefit of the loved one, not simply his or her indulgence, is made clear by how Jesus limits it in the second phrase “pray for” them. This doesn’t mean that love of enemies is limited to prayer, but it does show that all forms that love takes should have the same rationale as prayer: “Does this that I do help this person to God, or not?” Giving an alcoholic a glass of wine or a teenager permission to hang out late at night on the mall—is not an act of love.

5:45 The goal for the disciple is to mirror the character of God himself, and so to be salt and light in the world. In nature God’s gifts make no distinction between good and bad people. Sometimes, in fact, bad things happen to good people and vice versa. Jesus’ disciples should imitate God to the extent that their kind actions should not be restricted to fellow disciples. “By this others will know that you are my disciples,” Jesus once said, “that you love each other” (John 13:35). But even more so in that you love those also outside the family of believers.

5:46-47 If the upshot of these commands is that Jesus’ disciples must be like God, their heavenly Father, it is also so that they will not be like those who have no commitment to God through Jesus, or even any commitment to Israel’s historic faith. Jesus gives as examples the Jews who betrayed their kinsmen by hiring out to the Romans to collect Roman taxes from their countrymen, and the pagan Gentiles all around them in Galilee. Jews who had no love for the outsiders were no better. But Jesus’ own must be different: they must show the same love that God himself had for the entire world (see John 3:16).

5:48 Jesus’ disciples must be “perfect,” as their heavenly Father is “perfect.” Wow! That is impossible! The only sinless human who ever lived was Jesus. How can I be “perfect”? The answer is that a better translation of this Greek word is “mature,” that is, complete in commitment to the teachings of Jesus that he has just been giving, not holding back in any area. It is the equivalent of the term "blameless" that is used in the Old Testament. Noah was blameless (Gen 6:9); God commanded Abraham to live blamelessly in his sight (Gen 17:1), and later also Israel (Deut 18:13); God called Job a "blameless" man (Hebrew tām; Job 1:1, 8). David claimed to have remained blameless before God (2 Sam 22:24), and indicates that he knows of others who also were blameless (2 Sam 22:26).  Perhaps the best and fullest treatment of the person who is blameless (Hebrew tāmîm) is found in Psalm 15.

O LORD, who may abide in your tent? Who may dwell on your holy hill? 2 Those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right, and speak the truth from their heart; 3 who do not slander with their tongue, and do no evil to their friends, nor take up a reproach against their neighbors; 4 in whose eyes the wicked are despised, but who honor those who fear the LORD; who stand by their oath even to their hurt; 5 who do not lend money at interest, and do not take a bribe against the innocent. Those who do these things shall never be moved. (Psalms 15:1-5 NRSV)

This psalm would describe David in the Old Testament. He was definitely not "perfect" in the sense of without sin, as his notorious sins with Bathsheba and Uriah show, but he was "blameless" in the sense that the Old Testament uses that word, completely committed to obedience to God's word, even though he sometimes fell short.

Having considered all of the five antitheses and the summary command to love our enemies, that is, those outside the fold of the faith as well as those inside, we need to go back and ponder our Lord's warning about disciples who break the "least " of these commands and teach other disciples to do so (5:19). What is meant by the "least" commandments? Not the least important ones, for they are all important in the eyes of God. But rather those that seem to us least important. To the average person avoiding murder is much more important than avoiding a cutting remark to another person. To us it is much more serious a sin to commit adultery than to let you eye linger on a sexy woman. So it is those sins which we tend to discount as not so serious that we must guard most rigorously against in ourselves. For the result of not doing this is to be "least in the kingdom," that is, they do not keep us out of God's family, but will surely put us last in hearing "well done, good and faithful servant" from the lips of our Savior at the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor 5:10).

Jesus wanted his disciples to be "perfect" (or "blameless") in the same sense that David was, in the sense that they don't opt out of any of Jesus' demands. To do so makes one "incomplete" or "imperfect." The explanation "perfect … as your Father in heaven is" might mislead us, for of course God is perfect in every possible way.  The word "blameless" (Hebrew tāmîm) is also used of God in the OT (Deut 32:4; 2 Sam 22:26, 31= Psa 18). Yet no OT believer would claim that their being "blameless" was the same thing as God's. Jesus was not asking his disciples to be "blameless" or "perfect" in the very same sense that God is.  Rather, what he means is that just as God loves all his human family, so are we to do. In that sense of God's perfection, we too must seek to be "perfect", that is completely in accord with God's own will for us.  Believers model the attitudes and wishes of the One whom they worship.