Matthew 5:27-37.pdf

This pericope corresponds to the sixth beatitude in Matthew 5:8, “Blessed are the pure in heart, because they shall see God.” In this pericope, Jesus elaborates on the purity required to see God. 

These verses emphasize that purity—both inward and outward—is essential to see God and experience his presence.

The first need on the agenda is to justify the limits of this pericope (Matthew 5:27-37). That is, it should be established that this pericope does indeed encompass the three “It was said…but I say” cycles in 5:27-30, 31-32, and 33-37. This is important, especially since the last of these cycles initially seems different from the first two, in terms of subject matter. The first reason these three cycles belong together - is simply that they do not belong elsewhere. If you have been following along with the Sermon on the Mount series, it should be clear that none of these three cycles belong with the previous pericope (Matthew 5: 21-26). The question will actually boil down to whether or not the last cycle (Matthew 5:33-37) belongs here or if it may be grouped with the next pericope, Matthew 5:38-48. In that case, the last cycle would somehow correspond with the fifth beatitude of Matthew 5:7 “Blessed are the merciful, because they shall receive mercy”). I invite the reader to review those verses. I trust you will agree that the next pericope contains two cycles that can clearly be related to the fifth beatitude, but that Matt. 5:33-37 does not match in any way. Yet, proving the negative is not sufficient. If we intend to continue with the overall proposal regarding a Sermon on the Mount/Beatitudes chiasm, we must agree on how Matthew 5:33-37 may be associated with the concepts of purity and/or seeing God in Matthew 5:8.

Let’s begin by considering the biblical-theological context. We can readily identify at least two biblical passages that reinforce the same ideas found in the sixth beatitude:

• Hebrews 12:14

“Strive for peace with everyone, 

and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” 

• Psalm 24:3-4 (My translation of Psalm 23:3-4 from the LXX)

“Who shall ascend into the mountain of the Lord? 

And who shall stand in his holy place? 

He who has innocent hands 

and a pure heart, 

who did not grasp his life vainly,

and did not swear treacherously to his neighbor.” 

Regarding the last line of the translation above, although the Hebrew word means “deceitfully,” I have translated the Greek LXX text “treacherously” because the LXX text reads (very literally) “based on treachery.” As we will see, the two translations are really not so different in effect.

Although we might also have considered Psalm 15 (14 LXX), which is similar, notice right away the repetition of words and concepts in Psalm 24 (23 LXX) that match up with the sixth beatitude. Portions of the sixth beatitude match this psalm - for example “pure heart” and “stand in his holy place.” The latter location is an appropriate place, close enough to possibly experience God’s visible glory cloud beyond the veil - especially if one is figuratively seeking (to see) the face of the God of Jacob per vs 6 in this psalm. Our present pericope (Matt. 5:27-37) also matches up with both verbal and thematic content in the psalm. Notice, for example, the reference to (not so innocent) “hands” in Matt. 5:30. And more significant for our purposes, “swearing” is explicitly mentioned in Matt. 5:33 ff.

When a person swears or takes an oath, they are affirming the truth of their statement by calling on God or some divine being to execute sanctions against them if the statement in question is not true. Although overtly, Jesus would seem to be forbidding all oaths, it is at least worth mentioning that there are certain limited contexts where oaths seem to have a legitimate function:

• God confirmed a promise with an oath (Heb 6:13-18, Acts 2:30)
• The high priest adjured Christ to speak under oath (Matt. 26:63-64)
• The Law prescribed that a priest put a woman suspected of adultery under oath (Num 5:19, 21)

Getting back to Psalm 24 (23 LXX), the reference to swearing is instructive, first, because the oath is portrayed as being sworn “deceitfully to his neighbor.” The swearing itself is a form of trickery and so it is condemned because it is intended to deceive. This is either because what has been sworn to be true, is not true; or, because the oath-taker has no intention of fulfilling what he has promised under oath.

Second, the reference to swearing is instructive because taking an oath deceitfully or treacherously is contrary to the conditions stated in the psalm as necessary for one to be able to ascend to the holy place where the Lord’s presence dwells (i.e., in the Lord’s manner of speaking, in the beatitude, to “see God"). 

If we bring in the other verse we cited above (Hebrews 12:14), we can summarize that without such holiness (sanctification/consecration) in both word and deed (as expressed in the psalm), “no one will see the Lord.”

In my opinion, I think Psalm 24 (23 LXX) is not just vaguely similar in thought. It is more than that. There is enough verbal and thematic repetition for us to conclude that our Lord had this psalm in mind as he was speaking this part of the Sermon. Additionally, his reference to this psalm would have been recognized and readily understood by a biblically literate audience (and certainly, upon contemplation, by at least the first hearers of Matthew’s Gospel).

In summary, I propose that all three “It was said…but I say” cycles in this pericope are related in terms of being antagonistic to purity. They are the opposite of purity since they defile the person. The purity in heart necessary to see God is thus contrasted with three defiling actions. Each of these defiling actions are sinful in one way or another.

Here is an alliterated way to characterize these three sinful/defiling actions in this pericope:

• Sexual (inward adultery – lust is a sin of immorality in the mind/heart)
• Social (outward adultery – divorce causes the sin of immorality in the family/marriage relationship)
• Sincerity (adding an oath to one’s word, which then involves God, results in the adulteration of God’s veracity with impure human veracity – which amounts to another defiling sin of infidelity. 

Flippantly adding an oath to one’s word is stated by the Lord to be sinful. Jesus says such additions come from the evil one (Satan). In this case, the sin of adding God to one’s word of truth is a cause of defilement. This is because God is holy and true, but the oath-taker is not (and far from it). This form of defilement is at least a transgression of against God. In the text, Jesus demonstrates that anything the person attempts to substitute in place of God in an oath is still impugning the validity and scope of God and his royal realm. However, if we may import the swearing falsely/deceitfully sense from Psalm 24 (23 LXX), then the added factor of sin on the horizontal level also becomes likely. In that case there is also a defiling sin of covenantal infidelity against one’s fellow in the kingdom.

There is one surprising chiastic structure that became apparent during the process of this study. (I say surprising to my own shame, because the Lord, whom we worship and whom we stand to listen to when the Gospel is read in church, is able to speak with complexity, seemingly “on the fly” as we see in this Sermon - and this complexity might also “fly” over our heads and our observation - apart from his grace and illumination.)

In this case, I am referring to the ABBA structure that spans over the first two cycles (Matt 5:27-32). This structure is evidenced, at first, by the more obvious double occurrence of the word “adultery” at the beginning of the first cycle and end of the last cycle. Once a chiasm is suspected by the observation of a distinctive parallelism, we should look for more verbal and/or thematic repetition. (Note: we should look carefully, in a manner to control for bias. We don’t want to allow our desire to "find something" to overcome reality. Otherwise, if our imagination takes over, we might easily see some structure that is not really there.) Upon examination, what we find in this case is more repetition, just where inner B terms would be located. (So, this is not a simple inclusio.) The repetition is not verbal, but rather, a thematic repetition of concepts. Observe how the Lord repeats twin concepts: exaggerated language of separation (severing an eye or a hand) and abandonment (in both instances, throwing them away). These actions are the hypothetical “solution” to the first sin of adultery in the heart (Matt. 5:29-30). Then, in the second cycle, he proceeds to address the next issue utilizing these same concepts. Here, he brings up the issue (the “problem”) of divorce, which is associated with the concept of separation (ἀπολύω means separation, divorce). This is followed by the concept of abandonment (ἀποστάσιον is a certificate or notice of divorce, and the word has the sense of abandonment, as in the complete relinquishment of any claim on the wife).

In this case, the Lord does not give a correction, as is his custom in these cycles. Instead, the problem of divorce is also the cause for adultery. So, rather than proceeding from “problem” to “solution” he proceeds from “the problem = cause” to “effect.” Once we lay out the simple chiastic structure, we can observe that, in effect, there is a dual structure because an alternating synonymous parallelism is added into the mix:

A. Adultery                                A. Problem

B. Separation/Abandonment    B. Solution

B’ Separation/Abandonment    A’ Problem =                 Cause

A’ Adultery                                B’ (No Solution Stated) Effect

Although I did include a (gray font) “Correction” in the display outline for the second cycle, it is basically an excursus. This because the reader will note that this correction is the Lord’s command - yet it is not found in the Sermon on the Mount through Matthew, but rather it comes to us through St. Paul as found in 1Corinthians 7:10-11.

In the last cycle (Matthew 5:33-37), there is a chiasm with the inner B terms sub-structured in alternating synonymous parallelism. This ABAB structure is evident once we notice how the royal terms (throne & king) are distributed in both the “a” terms of the substructure. This is reinforced by the distribution of the body terms (foot & head) in the “b” terms of the substructure.