DRAFT ONLY

Introduction
      This passage is part of the first discourse, the Sermon on the Mount, and serves to define the righteousness that exceeds that of the Scribes and the Pharisees. In v21-48 Jesus outlines particular rabbinic teaching on Old Testament Law and points to the impossible ideals which transcend this Law and yet which must be done to "enter the Kingdom of God."

The passage
      v21-22. Rabbinic teaching rightly understands that Biblical Law condemns murder (Not killing as such. Killing in war or judicial execution is not condemned). The murderer is to face "judgement" - judicial process, Deut.16:18. Jesus teaches that anger is murderous in principle and will itself inevitably face God's "judgement." Even an insult (reka = blockhead, idiot) brings us, not just before the Sanhedrin, but to the "fire of hell."
      v23-26. This passage consists of two illustrations which expose the seriousness of anger. Interestingly they concern, not our own anger, but anger provoked in others due to our own sin. By offending another we prompt anger for which we stand condemned. The first illustration concerns a wronged brother. Acceptable worship requires reconciliation. The second illustration concerns a wronged enemy. While still on "the road to life" (Bonnard), with the opportunity to set matters right, we need to take immediate action where we have wronged another. God's judgement is too certain to ignore an offence toward another.
      v27-28. Rabbinic teaching tended toward the view that adultery consisted of the theft of another man's wife. Jesus, on the other hand, pushes the law on adultery (Ex.20:14, Deut.5:18) toward a purity that refuses to lust.
      v29-30. The eye is the channel for imagination, and imagination leads to lust. Better to remove the eye than face damnation. The hand is most likely used here as a euphemism for the male sexual organ. If it drives us to sin then cut it off. Radical treatment of body parts is not new. Origen, along with many others, dealt with sexual temptation by castrating himself. The use of "right" refers to the strongest member. The strongest eye, the strongest hand, and thus the one more likely to lead astray.
      v31-32. Lust, adultery and divorce are all linked together in scripture, although the "something indecent" of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was often taken lightly by the teachers of the Law. A wife could be divorced for burning a meal. Jesus maintains the link and thus the sanctity of marriage. He goes even further and teaches that a husband who divorces his wife, forcing her to remarry and therefore commit adultery, is guilty of her adultery. Ward Powers' translation, "stigmatizes her as an adulteress", is not strong enough. The clause "except for marital unfaithfulness (fornication)" is not provided as a ground for divorce, but rather simply notes that a husband who divorces his wife is not guilty of the wife's fornication where she has already committed adultery while still married to him. The "one flesh" principle of Genesis 2:24 implies that there are no grounds for divorce in the sight of God. Certainly Jesus' teaching pushes in this direction, cf. 19:3-9, Mk.10:11-12, Lk.16:18.
      v33. Rabbinic teaching took the Mosaic law on irreverent and broken vows, ie lying (cf. Ex.20:7, Lev.19:12, Num30:2, Deut.5:11,6:3 etc.) and attempted to codify the degree to which the vow was binding depending on how closely it was linked to Yahweh's name. So swearing "by" Jerusalem was not binding, but swearing "toward" Jerusalem was.
      v34-36. Jesus cuts through this garbage. Seeing that oaths, once designed to encourage truthfulness, are now a means of deceit, Jesus simply abolishes them. In any case, seeing God made everything, an oath in His name is just as binding as an oath on a hair of our head.
      v37. Jesus simply identifies God's will in the matter. We are to tell the truth. Anything less is evil (better than "evil one", NIV).

An exceeding righteousness
      Jehovah's Witnesses, along with many other individual Christians, are unwilling to take an oath in court because to do so defies a direct word from the Lord. Mind you, God himself has sworn many oaths, eg. Lk.1:73. Taking Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount and using them as laws to bind on believers, or even worse, as laws for secular society, is to miss the point of his sermon.
      Jesus takes four Old Testament Laws, namely: murder, adultery, divorce and oaths. He cuts through the contemporary teaching on the laws, often a teaching that underplays the seriousness of the law itself, and goes to the heart of law. He identifies the divine ideal behind the law. In v20 he calls these ideals a "righteousness [that] surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law." It is a righteousness that must be done if a person is to "enter the Kingdom of heaven."
      Jesus definitely does not give us these ideals as laws to be done. They are impossible to keep. We all get angry, we all lust, marriages do break down and we all lie. And this is their very purpose, to remind us of our corruption, and so force us to look beyond ourselves for a righteousness given as a gift of grace rather than bestowed as a reward for obedience. They serve to remind us that it is those who "hunger and thirst for righteousness" who "will be filled."