You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Ēkousate hoti errethē moicheuseis Ou
The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Adultery
Matthew 5:27–30 — Adultery. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Ēkousate hoti errethē moicheuseis Ou
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
de egō legō hymin hoti pas ho blepōn gynaika pros to epithymēsai autēn ēdē emoicheusen autēn en tē autou kardia
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
de ei ho sou ho dexios ophthalmos skandalizei se exele auton kai bale apo sou gar sympherei soi hina apolētai hen tōn sou melōn kai mē sou holon to sōma blēthē eis geennan
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to depart into hell.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
kai ei hē sou dexia cheir skandalizei se ekkopson autēn kai bale apo sou gar sympherei soi hina apolētai hen tōn sou melōn kai mē sou holon to sōma apelthē eis geennan
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
The verse is four Greek words of quotation inside two of framing. Ἠκούσατε is aorist, a hearing that happened; ἐρρέθη is aorist passive with no agent named, and Ellicott, JFB and Pulpit agree that the following words “to them of old time,” retained in the older English, are not supported by the best manuscripts. What is left is the seventh commandment with its speaker unnamed, exactly as a school gloss leaves it. Ellicott judges that the words are given “as it was taught in the Rabbinic schools, simply in the narrowness of the letter,” and JFB says that the traditional perverters of the law restricted the breach of this commandment to acts of criminal intercourse between, or with, married persons exclusively. Gill reports the received sense at greater length: the law was to be taken strictly as it lies, regarding only the sin of uncleanness in married persons, and so having no respect to unchaste thoughts, words, or actions. Note what none of them claims: nobody accuses the school of altering a word. μοιχεύσεις is untouched. What the school did was hold a rare verb (G3431, 12 verses) to its narrowest possible address.
Against a passive with no speaker, Jesus sets ἐγὼ, a pronoun the verb did not need. Then the grammar does the work. βλέπων is a present participle, and Ellicott draws the line where the Greek draws it: not the passing glance, not even the momentary impulse of desire, but the continued gaze by which the impulse is deliberately cherished. πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι is preposition with articular infinitive; Pulpit refuses to settle it flatly as purpose, citing Weiss that deliberate purpose belongs to the refinement rather than the beginning of sin, and concluding with Ellicott that πρὸς τό here carries a shade between purpose and result, and expressly not the immediate purpose that εἰς τό would have given. Pulpit also records that αὐτήν as accusative object of ἐπιθυμεῖν stands here only in the New Testament, and may not be original. Then the verdict: ἐμοίχευσεν, aorist indicative, past tense, done. Barnes names the canonical instance without flinching, David, whose deep and awful crime shows the danger of the rovings of a wanton eye (2 Samuel 11; Psalm 51). Cambridge makes the one structural observation the others miss, setting the heart of this verse against the pure in heart of Matthew 5:8. Ellicott is also honest about what is not unique here: he grants that parallels are found in Confucius, Seneca, Epictetus and the Rabbis, and quotes Juvenal's line that whoever cherishes a guilty thought bears the guilt of the act; he simply denies that the parallels disparage the teaching. Pulpit supplies the counter-testimony that makes the antithesis bite, Josephus: “The purposing to do a thing, without actually doing it, is not worthy of punishment.”
Two verses, nearly identical, and the near-identity is deliberate; JFB calls repetition in identical terms characteristic of our Lord's manner of teaching. The verb σκανδαλίζει holds them together. Barnes recovers its force: a stumbling-block, a stone in the way, and also a net, or the part of a net against which a bird strikes so that the net springs and it is taken. Pulpit traces it to the trigger-stick of a trap and notes that by New Testament usage the trap sense is gone. Then the imperatives, both aorist: ἔξελε, tear out (G1807, a rare verb, 8 verses), and the harsher ἔκκοψον, excise. Benson, quoting Doddridge, explains the escalation: most of Christ's hearers lived by their daily labour, so the loss of a right hand was a far greater calamity than that of a right eye, and there is a gradation in the passage beyond what has generally been observed. On whether the command is literal the voices are close to unanimous. Ellicott: the bold severity of the phrase excludes a literal interpretation, since the seat of the evil lies in the will and not in the organ. JFB: one might put out his eyes without in the least quenching the lust to which they ministered. Poole: not mutilation but mortifying the members, Colossians 3:5, the deeds of the body, Romans 8:13. Gill, who has just catalogued rabbinic rulings that did prescribe cutting off the hand, says flatly that Jesus is not to be understood literally as enjoining what they enjoined. Barnes alone records that some of the fathers took it literally. Two things remain unsoftened. συμφέρει is a merchant's word, it bears together to advantage, and Ellicott hears it as addressed to a nation immersed in the pursuit of gain: if you must think of profit, make your calculations wisely. And the ending changes voice. In v. 29 the whole body βληθῇ, is thrown, passive; in v. 30 it ἀπέλθῃ, goes away, active. Pulpit catches it: the stress falls not on the action of the Judge but on thy departure. JFB's summary of v. 29 stands over both: “Sharp language, this, from the lips of Love incarnate!”
⚙ This is the tool's own fallible reading, offered to be tested. The paragraph is usually preached as an intensification, as if Jesus raised the bar from deed to thought and thereby made the law harder. Read from the Greek up, it looks less like raising a bar and more like relocating a courtroom. Not one word of the commandment is changed. μοιχεύσεις stands as it stood; what moves is the venue, from the bed to the καρδία. And the relocation makes the offence unprosecutable by any court that the school controlled, which may be the point: a law kept narrow is a law that can be kept, and a law kept in the heart can only be kept by a changed heart. That is why the amputation verses follow and why every voice here reads them as figures. If the eye were really the problem, removal would solve it; JFB puts the refutation in one line, that a man might put out his eyes without quenching the lust they served. So the commanded surgery is impossible on its own terms, and its impossibility is the argument. There is one detail that seems to me under-read. Verse 29 ends in the passive, the body is thrown; verse 30 ends in the active, the body goes away. The same fate is described twice, once as sentence and once as journey, and the second telling gives the condemned man his own legs. Pulpit sees this. If it is right, then the unit closes not with a Judge disposing of a body but with a person walking, whole and unmutilated and entirely himself, out of the city and toward the fire. Whole is exactly the word the text uses, ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου. The man who would not lose a part keeps every part, and keeps it all the way down.
The man who refused to lose a member arrives whole. (⚙ synthesis, not Scripture.)
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
Pulpit records the plain textual fact: vers. 29 and 30 are found again at Matthew 18:8, 9 and in the parallel at Mark 9:43-47, there adduced with reference to offences generally rather than to the seventh commandment, and there with the foot added to the eye and the hand. Pulpit judges it not improbable that the saying was spoken twice, and suggests that here the eye and hand alone are named because they represent the receptive and active faculties and so express man's whole nature. Barnes notes the same repetition. The verbal overlap is dense and includes two rare items, and the Verifier records it.
Matthew 18:8 · Matthew 18:9 · Mark 9:43 · Mark 9:47
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes G1067 γέεννα (rare, in 12 vv) and G1807 ἐξαιρέω (rare, in 8 vv) with Matthew 18:9; G1067 γέεννα plus G4624 σκανδαλίζω (in 27 vv) with Mark 9:43 and Mark 9:45; G906 βάλλω and G3788 ὀφθαλμός with Mark 9:47. All refs are New Testament, Greek to Greek; the rarity of γέεννα and ἐξαιρέω carries the verbal tier.
The words Jesus cites are the seventh commandment, which Gill locates at Exodus 20:14 and Pulpit at Exodus 20:14 and Deuteronomy 5:18 together. Poole states it as plainly: “It was said by God to those fathers of the Jews, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Exodus 20:14.” This is a word-for-word citation, but it cannot be tiered verbal in this apparatus: the Greek μοιχεύσεις and the Hebrew of Exodus carry different Strong's numbering systems, so no shared-lexeme basis can be computed across the Testaments. The tier below is therefore lower than the actual relationship, and the gap is stated rather than hidden.
Exodus 20:14 · Deuteronomy 5:18
basis: Named as the source text by Gill (Exodus 20:14), Poole (Exodus 20:14) and Pulpit (Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18). Cross-Testament Greek to Hebrew, so no shared Strong's lexeme can be computed and no verbal tier is available here even though the citation is verbatim in the Greek tradition.
Paul sets the seventh and tenth commandments side by side, and the two Greek verbs he uses are the two verbs of Matthew 5:28: μοιχεύω (G3431) and ἐπιθυμέω (G1937). That is precisely the fusion this verse performs, reading the prohibition of adultery through the prohibition of coveting. Benson reaches the same conclusion from the Matthew side, that the commandment was intended to forbid the corrupt inclinations of the heart and all irregular desires, as well as the pollution of the body. The Verifier records the shared pair.
Romans 13:9
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes G3431 μοιχεύω (rare, in 12 vv) and G1937 ἐπιθυμέω (rare, in 16 vv). New Testament to New Testament; both passages are quoting the Decalogue in the same Greek wording, and both rare lexemes appear together.
James says that the tongue is set among our μέλη as that which defiles the ὅλον τὸ σῶμα and is itself set on fire by γέεννα. Those are the three load-bearing nouns of Matthew 5:29-30 in the same arrangement: one member, the whole body, the valley of fire. There is no citation in either direction and neither writer signals the other, so this is recorded as a shared configuration of vocabulary, not a quotation. Poole and Gill both move from these verses to the New Testament language of mortified members (Colossians 3:5; Romans 8:13), which is the same field.
James 3:6
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes G1067 γέεννα (rare, in 12 vv), G3196 μέλος (in 24 vv), G3650 ὅλος (in 97 vv). Deliberately tiered below verbal: the lexeme overlap is real and includes a rare item, but neither passage cites the other, and the link is a shared motif of part, whole and fire rather than a quotation.
Poole reads Matthew 5:28 straight into Job: “Hence we read of eyes full of adultery, to avoid which Job made a covenant with his eyes, Job 31:1, and would not suffer his heart to walk after his eyes, Job 31:7.” Pulpit brings in Proverbs 6:25 and Job 31:1 in the same connection, though with a caution worth keeping: in Maimonides and arguably in Job the thought is condemned rather for what it leads to than in itself, which is not quite what Matthew 5:28 says. The link is real and ancient in the commentary tradition; it is also, being Greek to Hebrew, uncomputable as a verbal link, and the caution keeps it from being tiered higher.
Job 31:1 · Proverbs 6:25
basis: Named by Poole (Job 31:1; Job 31:7) and by Pulpit (Job 31:1; Proverbs 6:25). Cross-Testament, so no shared Strong's lexeme is computable; the basis is a shared motif of the eye disciplined by covenant, and Pulpit himself qualifies how far the Job parallel reaches.
The scale on which this unit's arithmetic is done is set out in Matthew 10:28, where the same verb ἀπόλλυμι and the same nouns σῶμα and γέεννα appear together, of the One able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. Barnes reads the body cast into Gehenna here as the body with all its unsubdued propensities, the sinner sent there as he is, and that reading depends on exactly this link. The Verifier records the shared lexemes; the two verses share vocabulary and a frame of reference without either quoting the other.
Matthew 10:28
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes G1067 γέεννα (rare, in 12 vv), G4983 σῶμα (in 120 vv), G622 ἀπόλλυμι (in 84 vv). New Testament to New Testament, but no quotation in either direction, so tiered structural rather than verbal despite the rare lexeme.
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
Verse 27 puts the commandment in an agentless passive, ἐρρέθη, with the words “to them of old time” absent from the best manuscripts (Ellicott, JFB, Pulpit). Verse 28 answers it with a pronoun the Greek verb did not require, ἐγὼ. No prophetic formula intervenes. Poole states the standing reading of this whole section: the Saviour, instead of coming to destroy the law, came to fulfil it, among other ways by giving a more strict and true interpretation of it. Ellicott says it is with the school's teaching that our Lord contrasts His own; JFB that our Lord now dissipates such delusions. ⚙ The christological weight is carried by grammar rather than by title: the one who can say “but I” over against Sinai's own wording is claiming a standing with respect to that word that the text never argues for and never withdraws.
Matthew 5:17 · Matthew 7:29
The verdict of v. 28 is passed on evidence no human court can reach. Barnes marvels at how exceeding strict and broad the law of God is, and at how heinous in God's sight are thoughts and feelings that may stay concealed from the world for ever. Pulpit sets against this the Josephus principle that purposing without doing is not worthy of punishment, which is what any tribunal of witnesses must say. ⚙ A verdict of “already” passed on the καρδία presupposes a judge with access to it, which in the Old Testament is a divine prerogative alone. Cambridge's cross-reference to Matthew 5:8 completes the shape: the same heart that this verse convicts is the heart the Beatitude calls blessed when pure, and the one who can convict it is the one who is going to be seen by it.
Matthew 5:8 · Psalm 51:10 · 2 Peter 2:14
⚙ This reading is the tool's own and is marked novel; it is offered to be tested, not leaned on. The unit's arithmetic is a part weighed against a whole: ἓν τῶν μελῶν against ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου, with Gehenna, the refuse-valley outside the walls, as the place a whole body goes. Ellicott keeps the image concrete, a human body thrown into the offal-fed flame of the Valley of Hinnom. Benson notes the surgical figure underneath, the practice of cutting off a mortified member to keep the sound part from being tainted. The gospel's own ending inverts the calculation. Hebrews 13:12 places the suffering outside the gate, at the refuse end of the city, where the bodies of the sin offering were burned; John 19:36 records that not one bone of that body was broken, so that the whole of it went into death intact. ⚙ If that inversion is genuinely in view here, then the command to lose a part to save the whole is spoken by the only person who would lose the whole to save the parts. I do not find that inversion drawn by any of the voices in this brief, and it is possible the connection is mine and not the text's.
Hebrews 13:12 · John 19:36 · Colossians 3:5
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
⚙ Honesty notes for this unit. Text. The words “by them of old time” in v. 27, present in the Authorised Version, are absent from the best manuscripts; Ellicott, JFB and Pulpit all say so independently, and JFB calls them insufficiently supported and probably not in the original text. Pulpit further records that αὐτήν in v. 28, the accusative after ἐπιθυμῆσαι, is read by B and D but perhaps should be omitted with Sinaiticus, and notes that this accusative construction with ἐπιθυμεῖν occurs here only in the New Testament. The synthesis above follows the interlinear as supplied, which includes the pronoun.
Interlinear ordering. In the supplied data for v. 27 the negative Οὐ is listed at index 4, after μοιχεύσεις at index 3. The Greek word order is Οὐ μοιχεύσεις. The note keys follow the supplied indices; the literal line follows the Greek order.
Sources. Gill's extensive rabbinic material on both verses is his own secondhand citation of Talmudic tractates through seventeenth and eighteenth century channels, with an evident polemical edge; it is quoted here for what it shows of his reading, not as an independent record of first century practice. Benson's best observation on v. 30 is a quotation of Doddridge and is credited as such. Henry's Concise treats 5:27-32 as one block, so his sentences comment on the paragraph rather than on any single verse. Ellicott's list of pagan and rabbinic parallels (Confucius, Seneca, Epictetus, Juvenal) is his, and his defence of the teaching against the charge of unoriginality is his argument, not a datum.
Uncertain. The force of πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι is genuinely contested: Meyer and Trench read purpose, Weiss objects that deliberate purpose belongs to the refinement rather than the beginning of sin, Nosgen proposes simply “looketh lustfully,” and Pulpit settles for a shade between purpose and result. No reading above should be taken as resolving that. Whether Matthew 5:29-30 and Matthew 18:8-9 record one saying transmitted twice or two separate occasions is likewise open; Pulpit thinks two, and the apparatus does not decide it. The third christological entry is marked novel because I could not find its inversion drawn by any voice in this brief.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)