Each of the antitheses begins with a particular formula: “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times…” “You have heard that it was said…”  “It was also said…” and “Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times…” This formula, phrased “you have heard” makes it clear that what they have heard is the version preached or taught by someone else, in the synagogues or at the feet of other religious teachers.

This is then followed up by what was said or what was taught: ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’  ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ ‘You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.’ Here, Jesus quotes Biblical text and the interpretations given of the text as presently understood.

And then the antithesis concludes with another formula, “But I say to you…” followed by Jesus’ teaching on the matter.

So, you could certainly be forgiven for concluding that Jesus is doing exactly that: here’s the traditional teaching, but now let me tell you what I teach. And it is passages like these that give the impression to many Jews (and to an awful lot of Christians) that Jesus was somehow breaking or abrogating the Jewish law. “Here’s what it says, but here’s what I’m telling you to do.”

But when we look closer, we find that something else is really going on. Something else more profound.

III. INTENSIFICATION

The first thing that closer inspection helps us to see is that Jesus is not contradicting anything. If anything, he’s building upon what’s there or intensifying what’s there. Now, the reason we think of these as more contradictory than they are is due to a frequent problem in Biblical interpretation: the English language.

Now, while a lot of Christians act as if the Bible were written by a white American protestant, in English, in, say, Kansas or Missouri sometime in the nineteenth century, it turns out that that’s not the case. The scriptures of the New Testament were written in Greek and Greek has a couple of interesting features that English does not. In this case, it has a word between and and but. The word και kai means “and” and is used for things that agree: “I’m going to the movies and Phil is going to the movies.” The word ἀλλά alla means “but” and is used for things that contradict: “I’m going to the movies but I don’t have any money to buy a ticket with.” But between those two is the word δε de, which refers to things that are different but don’t contradict each other and could be said with either and or but in English: “I’m going to the movies but Phil is going home”/“I’m going to the movies and Phil is going home.”

Now the reason for this little Greek grammar lesson is that all of the antitheses use this less powerful but—this de—the one that points out a distinction but not a contradiction. Each of these “But I say to you…” phrases could be translated as “While I say to you…” or “And I say to you….”

So, Jesus is not really having an argument with the Old Testament law—any more than John Cleese and Michael Palin were having an argument when they were just shouting, “No it isn’t!/Yes it is!” at each other.

Instead, Jesus is intensifying the law. He’s not saying “Don’t do that;” he’s saying, “Do that… and also this….”

There’s nothing remotely anti-Torah about this or anti-Jewish. In fact, Jewish teachers engaged in this kind of interpretation all the time. Rabbis frequently “built hedges” around the existing law to prevent breaking that law by requiring even more stringent observance. For example, the Torah says not to use God’s name in vain; Jewish tradition evolved to say not to use God’s name at all. This way, you’d never accidentally use God’s name in vain. In the same way, the Torah tells you not to boil a goat kid in the milk of its mother, because that’s cruel. Rabbinic interpretation expanded that to prohibit ever eating meat and dairy together, lest you accidentally break this law.

So, Jesus is in long-standing company when he intensifies the laws of the Torah. In fact, he engages in a three part process of reaffirmation, radicalization, and situational application. How does he do this?

A. Love shows no hostility [1]

“You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.

After reaffirming the commandment, Jesus takes the prohibition against taking a life and radicalizes it: the follower of Jesus is not content with not murdering people, but seeks positive relationships grounded in love and reconciliation. Jesus is in effect saying that this commandment isn’t only the “thou shalt not” but also a fair amount of “thou shalt.”

See, we’re used to ideas like “the right to swing my arm ends where the other person’s nose begins.” It’s basically a more sophisticated version of that thing we all doubtless did with our siblings when we were kids, having been warned not to “touch” our brother or sister, we’d put our finger about an eighth of an inch away from them. “Mom!” “I’m not touching him!” Jesus is telling us that it’s not enough to not cause harm, we actually have to seek the good of one another. When we have anger toward another, when another has anger toward us, we are called to seek reconciliation, not simply to avoid active harm.

B. Love is not predatory

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.

Jesus reaffirms the ancient prohibition on adultery, but then radicalizes it. Jesus declares that beyond committing adultery, the predatory looking upon the wife of another man with lustful intent makes you an adulterer in your heart.

Two things are worth noting. First, Jesus addresses men here, when traditionally women were the ones blamed for committing adultery. That is, when a married woman slept with someone other than her husband, she was usually viewed as the offending party. (Just look at the story from John’s gospel about “the woman caught in the act of adultery”—where’s the guy who was also presumably, caught in the act?)

Second, Jesus is not talking about natural physical attraction and whatever daydreams might accompany it. That is, he’s not talking about what Jimmy Carter famously confessed to when he said, “I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times.” Rest easy, President Carter. Jesus wasn’t talking about you.

He was talking about those who look at another person’s spouse for the purpose of that desire. Here’s it’s not just the act; it’s the intention of the heart that is judged. It’s the desire for something exploitative and predatory that’s the problem.

C.   Love in marriage

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

This is a tough teaching. On its face, it sounds incredibly strict and full of judgment. But here, Jesus is demanding higher conduct.

Divorce was permissible in the Torah and was the provenance of the husband to do. Only men can divorce their wives, which they do by giving them a get or a certificate of divorce, something they could do on their own, without having to go to court, simply by making the declaration in front of certain witnesses. Then, as now, older men would often divorce their wives in pursuit of younger women. All of this was perfectly legal in that time and women were frequently without resource.

Jesus takes what had essentially been seen as a contractual relationship and recasts it as part of a divinely ordained commitment. And while the declaration that a divorced woman has been “caused” to “commit adultery,” it’s interesting to note that in the text, it is Jesus who makes the husband responsible for that transgression, not the woman. Once again, Jesus has taken the status quo of the Torah and raised the expectations for the Christian community.

D.   Love is unconditionally truthful

“Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.’ But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’; anything more than this comes from the evil one.”

As many of you know, prior to my career in the ministry, I was a practicing attorney. So, let me assure you that I know very well how to say things that are technically truthful. When I was in law school, my professors in trial advocacy recognized that I was good at responding absolutely literally to my classmates’ questions, without lying and tapped me frequently to play the role of a witness in class. This was meant to train my classmates to ask better questions. Such as when one asked me how I could have witnessed what I had, given that there was a “sign” in the window obstructing my view. “There was no sign,” I said truthfully. Sure, there were huge hand-painted letters in the window that obstructed the view, but you said, “sign.” That’s true but it’s not exactly the truth, is it?

Here, Jesus addresses the idea that you ought not lie when you invoke God’s name and intensifies that: don’t lie at all. Don’t have one kind of speech that’s true and another kind that’s true-ish: be truthful unconditionally. It’s a radical request and definitely heightens the expectations.

Does that mean that Jesus wants us to be honest when our coworker asks us how we like her new haircut? Does it mean that when the Nazis are banging on the door asking if there are any Jews hiding in our home that we should tell them that there are? The text doesn’t address these cases. But what it does address is the expectation that we have that there are some super-formal and serious occasions, like in court, where we’re supposed to tell the truth, and others where we can fudge it. Or that as long as we’re technically not lying, then we’re engaging in truth-telling. Once more, Jesus is calling us to a higher standard.

IV. RELOCATION OF AUTHORITY

Throughout all of this, we see that Jesus is not contradiction the tradition, but is adding to it: increasing the demands on his disciples to live out a fuller, deeper ethic grounded not in following the letter of the law but in lives governed by love.

But there’s another point to make in all of this. The antitheses are not simply a better interpretation of ancient scripture. They’re not simply Jesus saying, “Here’s another way of understanding this issue.” This is, as one scholar notes, a relocation of authority.[2]

And here’s your second Greek lesson of the day. In Greek, the verb is conjugated in such a way that the subject is understood. The Greek verb λεγειν legein “to say” is conjugated:

λεγω λεγεις λεγει λεγομεν λεγετε λεγουσιν

legō legeis legei legomen legete legousin

I say you (sg.) say he/she/it says we say you (pl.) say they say