Notes (NET Translation)
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’
For the commandment against adultery see Ex 20:14; Deut 5:18.
28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
The commandment against coveting explicitly mentions a man’s wife (Ex 20:17; Deut 5:21). The Greek version of the OT uses the same word for “covet” that Jesus uses here for “desire.” Since adultery is mentioned in this passage, “woman” probably means “wife” and not simply any woman. But some scholars disagree, saying the noun could have been modified if that was the intention (i.e., “your neighbor’s wife”). Blomberg says Jesus could be speaking of one who “looks at a woman with the intention of committing adultery” or of one who “looks at a woman for the purpose of getting her to lust after him.” The former option is more likely. The Greek present tense refers to continuous looking rather than a passing glance. “Jesus refers not to noticing a person’s beauty, but to imbibing it, meditating on it, seeking to possess it.”1 It is the desire for an illicit relationship that is condemned as adultery of the heart. Sexual attraction in itself is not the focus.
Jewish men expected married Jewish women to wear head coverings to prevent lust (single women were exempt, since they needed to find a husband). Jewish writers often warned of women as dangerous because they could invite lust (e.g., Sir 25:21; 26:9; Ps. Sol. 16:7-8; Test. Reub. 3.11-12; 5.1-5; 6:1; Jos. War 2.121; Ant. 7.130; b. Ta’an. 24a), but Jesus placed the responsibility for lust on the person doing the lusting (5:28). He treats lust as if it is exclusively a sin of the lusting heart, not a sin of letting hair out from under one’s covering.2
29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into hell.
The “right” side of the body is mentioned because it was seen as the more valuable or powerful side of the body. The hyperbolic language of vv. 29-30 underlines the urgency of rejecting sin (cf. 1 Cor 9:27; Col 3:5). It is better to suffer loss in the present than to be thrown into hell (gehenna). The point of the two metaphors is to rid ourselves of everything that could cause us to sin. As a matter of fact, literally removing one’s eye or hand does not stop one from lusting (Sir 20:4; 30:20; Epict. Disc. 2.20.19; Philost. V.A. 1.33, 36; Acts of John 53). Keener mentions similar rhetorical flourishes in Sen. Ep. Lucil. 51.13; Dial. 1.3.2; Philo Som. 2.68-69; Gen. Rab. 55:4.
30 If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into hell.
The theme is impediments to ultimate salvation, and the importance of eliminating them at all costs, a theme which could have many different applications to relationships, activities, mental attitudes and the like, certainly not only to sexual temptation. It is probably not helpful to speculate whether the eye and the hand were chosen to represent specific sins or temptations. As “removable” parts of the body they serve to make the point that any loss, however painful, is preferable to the total lostness of geënna. The throwing of the “whole body” into hell belongs to the pictorial imagery as the alternative to physical amputation; it is not the basis for a doctrinal debate over either the nature of human existence after death or the physicality of hell. Nor should this passage be used to suggest that amputees will be raised in an imperfect body.3
Although some philosophers, especially Stoics, opposed lust because it meant that pleasure rather than virtue dominated one’s thoughts (e.g., Epict. Disc. 2.18.15-18; 3.2.8; 4.9.3; Marc. Aur. 2.10; 3.2.2; 9.40), many men in the ancient Mediterranean thought lust a healthy and normal practice (e.g., Ach. Tat. Clit. 1.4-6; Apul. Metam. 2.8; Diog. Laert. 6.2.46, 69; Diog. Ep. 35 to Sopolis; Artem. Oneir. 1.78). Among the common magical spells used to secure love (e.g., PGM 13.304; 32.1-19; 36.69-133, 187-210, 295-311, 333-60; 62.1-24; 101.1-53; Theocritus The Spell, in Greek Bucolic Poets, LCL 26-39), some magical spells describe self-stimulation as a way to secure intercourse with the object of one’s desire (PGM 36.291-94), even if she was married (PDM 61.197-216 = PGM 61.39-71; cf. Eurip. Hippol. 513-16).
Jewish writers, however, viewed lust far more harshly (e.g., Job 31:1, 9; Sir 9:8; 23:5; 41:21; Sus 8; 1QS 1.6-7; 4.10; CD 2.16; 11QSTemple 59.14; lQpHab 5.7). Some, in fact, viewed it as visual fornication or adultery (Test. Iss. 7:2; Reub. 4:8; b. Nid. 13b. bar.; Shab. 64ab; Lev. Rab. 23:12; Pesiq. R. 24:2), as have Christian readers of Matthew (Justin 1 Apol. 15; Sent. Sext. 233; Tert. Apol. 46.11-12; cf. Herm. 1.1.1).4
Bibliography
Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. The New American Commentary 22. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992.
Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew: Volume I: Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I-VII. Vol. 1. 3 vols. International Critical Commentary. New York: T&T Clark, 1988.
France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007.
Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1-13. Word Biblical Commentary 33A. Dallas: Word Books, 1993.
Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.
Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1-7. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.
Metzger, Bruce M., ed. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second Edition. Hendrickson Pub, 2005.
Osborne, Grant R. Matthew. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Zondervan, 2010.
Biblical Scholarship 
One thought on “Commentary on Matthew 5:27-30”