The arguments of those who claim that Christ is the new Lawgiver: First, from Matthew 5.
The arguments of those who claim that Christ is the new Lawgiver: First, from Matthew 5.
§ 65. Let us see what force there is in the arguments with which they establish Christ as a new Lawgiver. (I) They seek a particular strength for this assertion from Matthew 5, where works more perfect than those which were required in the Law of Moses appear to be prescribed.
We respond. (1) Bellarmine himself acknowledges (De justif., bk. 4, ch. 3) that Christ is here explaining the true meaning of the Law and removing the Pharisaic corruptions with which they were distorting the Lord’s Law. He says:
The scribes and Pharisees were corrupting the very serious commandments about killing and committing adultery when they taught that in commandments of this sort only the outward act is forbidden but not the inward, unless it was betrayed by outward signs. Josephus was guilty of this error (Antiq., bk. 12, ch. 13), as was David Kimchi (commentary on Ps. 66:17). Against such corruptions the Lord says: “The Law which says, ‘You shall not kill,’ restrains not only the hand but also the tongue and mind. The Law which says, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ reaches all the way to the lust conceived in the mind itself” [cf. Matt. 5:21–28]. The Pharisees were repudiating the law of repudiation, which the Law had allowed to go unpunished because of the weakness of those people, but which they themselves were proposing as something absolutely just. The Lord taught that it was wrong to divorce a wife except because of fornication, and He completely abrogated the law of the bill of divorce [cf. Matt. 5:31–32]. The Pharisees were teaching that one must not perjure oneself, but they thought that taking oaths even for insignificant reasons was no sin. On the contrary, the Lord commands that there should be no swearing at all except when necessity demands an oath [cf. Matt. 5:34–37]. The Pharisees were distorting the law of retaliation: “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” [Exod. 21:23–24; Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38]. For they did not realize that such a law had been established to preserve justice rather than to satisfy an appetite for revenge; they were teaching that it was lawful to seek vengeance. Thus the Lord warns them not to long for revenge nor to return evil for evil, but is saying that an honorable man should even rather prepare himself to turn the other cheek to one who strikes him, if he must [cf. Matt. 5:39]. Finally, the Pharisees were perverting the primary commandment of love. Because the Law had commanded them to kill their enemies not out of hatred but with a zeal for righteousness, by which at times even devout kings declare just wars, the Pharisees were teaching the general precept that one must love his friends and hate his enemies. Therefore the Lord gives a very serious warning that we must love our enemies, do good to those who hate us, pray for those who persecute us and speak evil about us [cf. Matt. 5:44].
All this Bellarmine writes very correctly. Later he adds this (toward the end of ch. 4):
Those things in the Gospel which seem to be very important—about loving our neighbors and restraining our concupiscence—are also found in the old Law. Thus the Lord is not saying, “Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Law and the prophets,” but that of the scribes and Pharisees. He does this to signify that He did not so much want to add to the burdens of the Commandments of the Law as to remove the corruptions of the scribes and Pharisees from their midst.
(2) Dr. Chemnitz (Harm. evang., bk. 2, ch. 51, p. 341) proves this very firmly with the following argument. The things that Christ adds as a supplement to this point of doctrine, which doctrine He calls “of those of old” [Matt. 5:21, 27, 33], are in the divine Law of the Old Testament, for example, about wrath and the signs of wrath. “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen?” (Gen. 4:6). “The sinner will see it and be angry; he gnashes his teeth and melts away” (Ps. 112:10). “You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you will not remember an injury” (Lev. 19:17–18). Concerning the lust [concupiscentia] for a neighbor’s wife, this commandment stands in the Decalogue itself: “You shall not covet [non concupisces]” [Exod. 20:17]. Also: “I have made a covenant with my eyes that I would not so much as think about a virgin” (Job 31:1). “The eye of the adulterer observes darkness” (Job 24:15). “Each one neighed after his neighbor’s wife” (Jer. 5:8). “Do not desire [ne concupiscas] the beauty of someone else’s woman; do not be caught by her winks” (Prov. 6:25). Thus it is certain that Christ is not contrasting His explanation to the ancient Law itself but to the corrupt interpretations of the Pharisees, which they were trying to sell to the people without reason or proof, with the prescription of time1 and under the name of antiquity. And because He had earlier mentioned the Commandments which were called the least by the Pharisees, He now explains what those are. Irenaeus (bk. 4, beginning of ch. 26): “Because the Commandments of the perfect life are the same in both Testaments, they show the same God, who indeed advocates precepts particularly apt to each Testament but still counseled the very same greater and highest precepts, without which it is impossible to be saved, in both.”