THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT PART 1
REQUIRED ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOUR UNDER THE KINGLY RULE OF HEAVEN (5:1-7).
Having travelled widely throughout Galilee, and having proclaimed the need for repentance and response to the Kingly Rule of Heaven, Jesus now recognised the need for those who had responded to His message and had become His followers to know more of what had happened to them and more of what was required of them. Up to this time His message had been to the crowds, and had essentially been, ‘Repent, for the Kingly Rule of Heaven is at hand' (Matthew 4:17), although, of course, expanded on, even though we are not told in what way. Now He wants to instruct the wider group who have become disciples. The small group who went around with Him could learn while they accompanied Him about, but the wider group of disciples, of whom there would be many, would require special attention at the times when they came to Him. And this message is a kind of clarion call, first outlining who and what they are, and then calling on them to go and live it out in the world so that they might be the light of the world, as Israel should have been. And it ends with the reminder that ‘in that Day' they will have to give an account, not just to God, but to Him (Matthew 7:22-23).
We should remember that even with the presence of what was seen by them as a great Prophet among them life had to go on. Fields had to be tended, farm animals cared for, daily needs catered for. The make up of the crowds would therefore vary considerably as He went from place to place, and from season to season, and many who had responded to His teaching, and in that sense were His disciples, did not follow all the time, just as Peter, Andrew, James and John had not done so before they were especially called, even though they had been ‘believers' for some time (see John 1:35-51). We must therefore distinguish the disciples who followed Him and went about with Him, of which there were a good and varying number, and from among whom were chosen the twelve, and probably numbering around seventy (see Matthew 8:18-22; Luke 8:2-3; Luke 9:57-62; Luke 10:1), from those who had eagerly responded to His message and could be classed as ‘believers', and had either been baptised by either John or Jesus' disciples (e.g. John 3:22-23; John 4:1-2), or had committed themselves to Him in Galilee and saw themselves as being now under the Kingly Rule of God, and who regularly came to hear Him teach, but who did not go about with Him all the time. But all were ‘disciples'. (The term can be defined by Matt 28:29. It represents those who have responded to the teaching of Jesus with commitment, and we could add in the light of Matthew 16:18, and have become potential members of the new congregation of Israel being introduced by Jesus). And we must differentiate both of these groups from the crowds who at first idolised Him, and loved to hear Him teach, but who had made no real commitment. All had to be catered for.
So we note in Matthew 5:1 the deliberate distinction between ‘the crowds' and ‘the disciples'. The crowds gathered to Him, flocked around Him and sought healing. They wanted to hear the words of the prophet, but had as yet not responded in depth. The ‘disciples', however, were different. They had repented and had entered under the Kingly Rule of Heaven. The ‘Kingly Rule of God' was in them (or among them)' (Luke 17:21). They had responded from the heart to the light that had shone on them (Matthew 4:16). They were now greater than John the Baptiser in status because they had come under the Kingly Rule of God (Matthew 11:11) and were enjoying something of the drenching of the Spirit of God (see on Matthew 3:11; and compare Luke 11:13; John 3:1-6; John 4:10-14). And four at least had already been called to be ‘fishers of men' (Matthew 4:19), consider also Philip (John 1:43). It was therefore now necessary for them to know more of what all this involved.
Jesus therefore moved away from the crowds and went up into the mountain, where He waited for ‘His disciples' to ‘come to Him'. The word may well have gone out that they should join Him there (for it is said that they ‘came to Him'). Or alternatively a number of disciples may have gone up with Him, and ‘came to Him' might simply signify what happened when He sat down. Either way they gathered around to hear what He had to say. But the main point of mentioning ‘going up into the mountain' is precisely in order to differentiate this teaching from the earlier proclamations. Here He had moved to a quieter and more rarified atmosphere where He could speak more personally to His own followers.
We should pause in awe at this moment. Here was the first gathering that we know of, of the new congregation of Israel that Jesus had come to establish. Here on this mountainside was being gathered the nucleus of an army that would shake the world. Later Jesus would speak of being able to call on twelve legions of angels, but the truth was that He did not need twelve legions of angels, for He had these men. And the words that He was about to speak to them would resound throughout the world, and would never be forgotten. Here was the beginning of an army greater than that of Alexander the Great, and the mighty Pompey, and the all victorious Julius Caesar. It was an army that would take the world by storm. And few would have noticed the man who sat by with his writing implements at the ready, so that he could faithfully record the words of Jesus. They had their Scriptures. They little realised that the New Testament was being bon.
So He sat down and ‘opened His mouth' and taught them. In the Old Testament the ‘opening of the mouth' often indicated the bringing of a special word from God (see Ezekiel 3:27; Daniel 10:16, and contrast Isaiah 53:7 where He refused to open His mouth to His oppressors). A similar situation applies in Matthew 13:35. There also, as here, He was revealing the ‘secrets kept hidden from the foundations of the world', that is, was bringing out what men had missed of God's truth from the beginning, and was expanding on it.
It is important that we see that these words are spoken to those who have been prepared for them. This is not a message to the crowds as a whole. The message to them was ‘repent and respond to the Kingly Rule of Heaven' (which we see expanded on in chapter 13). This is a message for ‘the disciples', those who have already repented, who have entered the Kingly Rule of Heaven and are ‘seeking first' His Kingly Rule and His righteousness and must continue to do so (Matthew 6:33). The light has dawned on them (Matthew 4:16) and they have seen it and have responded, and are thus themselves to be the light of the world (Matthew 4:14) and persecuted for His sake (Matthew 4:11). It is not therefore a message for the onlooker, but for the believer. Here was a community of Heaven, and it is on Heaven that Jesus will concentrate their minds, especially in the latter part of His Sermon, before He sends them back into the world.
The fact that it is encapsulated between an opening summary, where it is the disciples who were present (Matthew 5:1), and a closing summary, where the crowds were present (Matthew 7:28-29), demonstrates that it was not totally exclusive, so that no one needed to be prevented from coming, but its focal point was different. It had in mind those who were committed. Of course, once it was known that Jesus was teaching His disciples in the mountain, some of the interested crowd would naturally follow, and they would not be turned away. And yet His words were not for them unless they truly repented and turned to God and came under the Kingly Rule of Heaven.
This is the first use in Matthew of the term ‘disciple' which means a ‘learner who is responsive to his teacher', and regularly referred to the students who attached themselves to a Rabbi in order to learn from him. It was elsewhere also used of those who were most closely attendant on John the Baptist in a similar way (Matthew 9:14; Matthew 11:2; John 1:35). They practised fasting and attended on John in his prison. So it clearly indicated a genuine commitment. In the same way these ‘disciples' of Jesus were those who had revealed themselves as committed to Jesus and wanted to learn from Him, even though not all could follow Him about everywhere.
The change in the text from ‘disciples' at the beginning (Matthew 5:1) to ‘crowds' at the end (Matthew 7:28) indicates that as He spoke to ‘the disciples' who had gathered, some in ‘the crowds' learned about it and also slowly filtered up the mountain and gathered around, in the same way as crowds would often gather around a group of disciples in the Temple who were listening to a popular Rabbi. In this way the crowd around Him would gradually grow from being a bunch of ‘disciples' to being a larger ‘crowd'. But not all in such a crowd would be seen as ‘disciples', and we must accept Matthew's own description of the fact that His words in this sermon were specific to the disciples, even though they were open to be heard by the crowds. Indeed the hope was that they too might become genuine disciples. (He would not turn any away). But the words were not specifically directed at the crowds. To them He spoke in parables (Matthew 13:13-17; Mark 4:11).
This fact is brought out quite clearly by the content. Those to whom these words were actually spoken were seen to be those who were singularly favoured by God (Matthew 5:3-9). They were called on to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-14). They were those who would be persecuted on Jesus' account (this is conclusive) in a way comparable with the prophets (Matthew 5:11). They were clearly in the Kingly Rule of Heaven, for their behaviour within it is weighed up and considered (Matthew 5:19). They pray, ‘Your Kingly Rule come', recognise their responsibility to advance that Kingly Rule, and their responsibility to forgive others, (forgiveness was a feature of the coming kingdom), and pray for ‘Tomorrow's bread', that is, they pray to eat with the Messiah at His table (Matthew 6:9-14). They are expected to set aside concern about food, drink and clothing and to seek first God's Kingly Rule (Matthew 6:33). They are of those who genuinely call Him ‘Lord, Lord' and seek to do the will of His Father Who is in Heaven (Matthew 7:21-22). All this points to those who have repented, have been forgiven and have entered under the Kingly Rule of Heaven in response to Jesus' call (Matthew 4:17).
As we have already seen, this is the first of five large discourses in Matthew (see also Chapter s 10, 13, 18, 23-25), each presenting us with different aspects of Jesus' teaching, and this one is to be seen as presenting us with the picture of the true disciple of Jesus (and therefore of the true Christian disciple), together with instructions as to the attitude that they must have towards life and towards Him.
Note on The Context and Source of the Sermon on the Mount.
We have only to read these ‘instructions' carefully to see that they bear the mark of Jesus' genius. Running through them like a golden cord is the handprint of the Master. No man ever spoke like this man. Classic literature is in one sense very little different from ordinary literature in that the words used are the same. But it is the way in which those words are put together, and the ideas that they convey, that make the difference. And that is why they are remembered and become world changing. It is the same with this message. It is more than a classic, it is a work of genius. It is not a question here of selecting out from His material something here and something there, and trying to find from it something spectacularly new. It is a matter of seeing the whole. For the whole is, in its presentation, spectacularly new, even though it is firmly based in the Scriptures. Nothing like it can be found before or since. It presents a total picture that has astounded the world throughout the centuries, including many of differing religions and no religion. Any view of it that does not recognise this element of genius within it can be dispensed with immediately. To suggest therefore that it could be the invention, or even part invention, of a committee or ‘school' (apart from that consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is so absurd as to be ludicrous. For it hangs together as one whole and has far too much quality for that. It contains ‘the ring of truth' and ‘the mark of its genius' throughout. It bears the stamp of a unique personality. It is not only unique in its generation, it is unique in every generation.
We must therefore recognise the danger of our becoming so interested in minutely examining the bark of the trees that we miss out on seeing the glory of the forest. It is a danger for us all. What seems out of place in a tree might turn out to be necessary to make up the whole forest. So it is one thing to suggest that like all writers, including the Gospel writers, Matthew was inevitably influenced by his environment when he wrote his Gospel, (as all historians necessarily are), and for that reason selected his material accordingly, it is quite another to suggest that he felt free to alter the sacred words of Jesus to suit the purposes of his fellowship, or to invent some (whether ‘in the Spirit' or otherwise), and impute them to Jesus. To those who believed in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God such a thing would have been unthinkable. They must have seen His words from the very beginning as unique. And this would be especially so for the one who could cite Jesus' words, ‘not one jot or tittle of the Law shall fail until all is fulfilled'. Such a man would not apply any less stringency to the very words of the Messiah in the restatement of that Law, than he did to the Law itself. There is therefore no justification at all for the suggestion that the early church, and especially Matthew, thought that the words of a Christian prophet could be acceptably represented as though they were the words of the earthly Jesus. That would have been totally unacceptable. A Christian prophet might say ‘thus says the Lord' but all knew that a Christian prophet could be fallible, that his words had to be weighed, and that those who weighed his words could be fallible too (1 Corinthians 14:29). But like the Old Testament Scriptures the words of Jesus themselves would be seen as sacrosanct. (It may well be that that was what was meant by references to ‘The Testimony of Jesus'). Paul himself makes this clear, for he carefully distinguishes the words of Jesus from his own, giving them more weight (1 Corinthians 7:10). Consider also his words in 1 Timothy 6:3.
So to suggest that the words of a prophet could have been represented as being the actual words of the earthly Jesus would have been seen as incomprehensible to the early church. They might certainly be seen as ‘from the Lord'. But not as on a par with the actual teaching of Jesus the Messiah when He was on earth. A person who tried to introduce such words as the words of Jesus would soon have been shamed by eyewitnesses who knew Jesus' teaching by heart, and those who had obtained their information from eyewitnesses and had also carefully learned it by heart, for they would know better. And it would have been quite right that he should be shamed.
Nor in fact could any committee or school, even if it had wanted to, have been able to produce this flawless gem, or have written something like it, for it is of such a deep moral quality that it has gained the approval of religious men of all ages and all faiths. All such recognise that it bears within it the stamp of One person, and that One a person of outstanding moral genius. Scholars have scoured the vast array of the teachings of the later Rabbis, which also includes citations from earlier Rabbis, and have here and there found pearls of genuine wisdom, and even sayings similar to those of Jesus, especially when ‘sympathetically' treated. This is not surprising because both looked to the same Scriptures (the Old Testament) and drew many of their thoughts from them. But only Jesus could have produced what we have here, cohesive from beginning to end, with every word telling (and being commented on through the centuries), and covering religious and moral truth in a way that is unique. Many great men have patterned their teaching on that of Jesus. But Jesus was Himself the pattern. Few Jews take their Mishnah to their bedroom with them, and meditate on a different passage each day, until they have covered the whole. But that is what millions have done with the teaching of Jesus throughout the centuries, and still do today.
We can compare the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13). Who else gave a prayer so comprehensive in its scope, so simple in its presentation, before He did? We can scour the teachings of the Rabbis and select a little from here, and a little from there, and make up a similar (although rather verbose) prayer, but there is nothing to compare with this, both in its presentation and its use. Even today in our secular society what is good in society is founded on His words here. (Not that we obey them, but because they have influenced the very way men think). And the same applies to the teaching of Islam. For Mohammed gained many of his ideas from the teaching of Jesus, even if he did receive it in a very distorted form.
We can understand why atheistic writers would try to demonstrate the opposite position to this, because it undermines their whole position. It demonstrates who Jesus really is. But it is difficult to understand how spiritual men fail to see it. It is, of course, partly due to their needing to appear to be respectable scholars by looking in detail at the trees and so not noticing the forest, and then being caught up in the detail. But the clarity of vision and succint coverage of such wide topics as we find in the sermon, presented in a way that is so different from, and so superior to, any other writings of that time (and of the following centuries) is so unique that it has to be the work of one man, and that one a spiritual genius. As with the questions of Socrates, what He said is so obvious afterwards that we all think that we could have said it, but the point is that although much of it is based on the Old Testament Scriptures no one had ever said it in quite such a comprehensive, clear and yet succint way before. Nor had they attempted to do it with such authority. We only have to compare the Rabbis in order to recognise this. It is true, of course, that by saying this we are giving a value judgment, but it is one, we would emphasise, that has the support of history and of men of all religions and diverse creeds throughout the centuries (even though they have regularly distorted it themselves). All agreed that never man spoke like this man, and accepted that what He said proved that He had the right to say ‘I say to you' (instead of ‘thus says the Lord'). But it would have been totally unforgivable for a mere prophet to use such a concept in order to present his own words, however inspirational.
Whether it was a complete sermon in itself, or a summary made up from Jesus' well remembered words put together to form a whole, may be open to question, and is probably a question which will never finally be answered satisfactorily, simply because all see things differently and there can be no final proof. But there is much about the intricacy of the sermon and its whole framework and presentation that may be seen as suggesting the former, as we shall see) as we consider it. What can, however, be affirmed is that Jesus' words were clearly treated by the early church as being on a par with the Old Testament Scriptures, and as so sacred that they must not be essentially altered. And that that must actually have been so is proved, because otherwise the purity of His teaching would not have been preserved. For it would not have taken men, who tried to ‘improve it', long before they distorted it. Only its accurate preservation as originally given explains why we can appreciate it today as we find it here. Had man got to work on it, it would soon have become degraded. It is true that translation into Greek proved necessary, and this to some extent blurred Jesus careful attempts to make it easy to memorise, something which is discernible in what we can conjecture was possibly the original Aramaic (its Aramaic origin is clear to most). But we can be sure that such translation was not carried out haphazardly, and if it had proved unsuccessful would soon have been put right by spiritual men in authority who knew both Aramaic and Greek (of which there were large numbers) and actually knew what Jesus had said. That was after all one reason why the Apostles had been appointed (John 14:26; John 16:12-14). The preservation of His teaching had become a major reason for their existence (Acts 1:21-22).
Furthermore much of what Jesus said would certainly have been repeated over and over again by Him at different times, and in different circumstances, for like all itinerant preachers Jesus would have repeated His material constantly, and deliberately so in order that it might be remembered. This partly explains many echoes of it in other contexts in the other Gospels. But this was because He wanted His words to be remembered by heart, and designed them for that purpose, repeating them continually and thus using the repetitive methods beloved of the ancients, varying them to some extent to suit the circumstances, but keeping their essential content the same. So the fact that extracts from the Sermon on the Mount can be compared with snippets in the other Gospels proves nothing about the constitution of the Sermon. It simply demonstrates that He deliberately repeated what He said here time and again until His hearers could not forget it. The fact of such repetition, and determination to retain its accuracy, is the only explanation of why we have so ‘little' of the teaching of Jesus. For it is not so much surprising that we have such a quantity of His teaching, as surprising that we have so little. That is undoubtedly partly because so much of it was repetitive, and because no one apart from eyewitnesses was allowed to add to it. (This is so in spite of John's rather exaggerated comment in John 21:25. Had he really thought that so much further teaching was available he would have made sure that far more of it was written down before he died, for it is quite clear from His Gospel that he was trying to supplement the tradition lying behind the other Gospels. He had had a long life in which to do it. Certainly there would be variations on the themes, and possibly many other parables, but essentially we probably have within the Scriptures most of the thought of Jesus in condensed form).
But that this Sermon is not the result of some half remembered or manipulated phrases, suitably transformed and altered up to form a Manual of Discipline for some local church, or even manufactured to suit the conditions of that church, must be considered certain. Such a concoction would undoubtedly have watered down what was said, and introduced debatable elements, a process which would have degraded the teaching beyond recognition, and we would thus not have found the pearl that we have here. The early church were quite frankly incapable of producing something like this (otherwise we would be worshipping them). Indeed we have enough examples from post-Gospel history to conclusively demonstrate that that is so. The truth is that had men tried to ‘improve on it' for their own purposes it would not have retained its moral purity, and its total grandeur. We would not have had what we find in the Gospels. It would rather have been something marred by man, whether ‘church prophet' or otherwise. (Unfortunately for the early church it was unable to produce spiritual geniuses out of a hat like some scholars can, geniuses who then remarkably disappeared from history, although God did find a Peter, a John and a Paul who were shaped by the teaching of Jesus). For that is what man does when he tries to improve on ‘classics'. However genuine he might be he taints all that he puts his hand to, because he reads into it his own prejudices and biases, and concentrates on what suits him. And the 1st century was not noted for its geniuses, while this sermon reveals the hand of a spiritual genius.
In the same way it is impossible for a mere commentator to do justice to its depth. The interconnecting links and thoughts are so many and varied that they deny full analysis. They reveal the hand and intricacies of a Master. While we will seek to bring some of these out in the commentary, we do not pretend that we have comprehended the whole. And we know that the more we study His words the more we will discover. For the truths that shine out from His words have spawned a multitude of books and commentaries. And still there is more to be fathomed. Here then, as every commentator has to confess, we can only begin to sample what is beyond value and beyond analysis, and seek to do the best we can with it, noting especially the number of complicated structures that are involved, without pretending to have fathomed them all, and seeking to pierce their depth of thought, which while it is grounded firmly in the Old Testament, must be seen in terms of an Old Testament renewed quite beyond the ability of any ordinary man to do it.
On the other hand, having said all that we do have to make the attempt, if only with the aim of starting the reader off on a voyage of discovery which he will find is never ending the more he studies it. Like so much of what Jesus taught it is profound, and yet amidst its profoundness is a vein of simplicity that makes it accessible to all. Hopefully then we can tap into this simplicity.
We should also remember that it is always possible, yes, even probable, that notes were actually taken by someone of what He said. Jesus may indeed have required it. Matthew, a one time tax-gatherer, would have been well trained for such work, for he had constantly had to keep records in his previous employment. It would be second nature to him to keep records. Perhaps that was one reason why Jesus sought him out, as ‘the recorder' for the group, for He did not make him the treasurer (John 12:6). When Jesus sought out Peter, Andrew, James and John it was as fishermen, and He cited this in their call. They were to fish for men. Is it not equally likely that when He called the recorder of taxes, He wanted Him from now on to record His words? It would certainly explain why Matthew could here present the whole Sermon, (and also the other large discourses for which he is so well known) while in other parts much of Jesus' teaching is given in smaller doses.
But even if we feel with some that we have to account for its preservation by looking to hearers who had extremely retentive memories (not unusual in those days when memories were constantly active, and Matthew's training would also have been helpful in this regard) who heard the same message, repeated in a manner designed to aid the memory, a number of times, and could compare notes together, we need not be in doubt of its accuracy. That was the method used for passing on the Teaching of the Elders among the Jews, and it proved highly successful. And, as the form and method of construction of Jesus' words make clear, Jesus spoke in a way designed to ensure that they were remembered. He clearly considered that of considerable importance. And even if the Christian Jews among them clung to oral tradition, it would not be long before people who were not bound by Jewish traditions wrote down what Jesus had said. For many, especially when the Gospel went among the Gentiles, it would indeed be the natural thing to do. Letter writing was a common feature of men's lives, and it is hard to believe that in the letters of Christian communicators no words of Jesus were written down.
(Nor must we underestimate the Eastern memory. At one college where I taught the Senior Lecturer of Statistics thought that he had caught an Asian student cheating. He found that his own long and protracted lecture notes had been repeated word for word in an exam without any attempt made to disguise the fact. The only explanation that seemed possible to him was that somehow the student had smuggled his notes into the exam room. But when the student was called in to account for it a month or so later, to the astonishment of the lecturer he simply recited the notes off word for word. He had them all off by memory without a single error. And he was not unique).
End of Note.
A Suggested Analysis of The Whole (5:1-7).
We will now seek to present an analysis of the whole sermon. But before presenting it we will explain briefly how we have finally gone about it. As is well known the first thing to do in considering something like this is to look for the inclusios and patterns, and among these we would draw attention to the following:
Compare Matthew 5:17 with Matthew 7:12. ‘Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17) --- for this is the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12).' Within this inclusio is contained Jesus' expansion on the teaching in the Law and the Prophets.
Compare Matthew 5:10-12, where He likens the disciples to the prophets, with Matthew 7:15-22 where He gives His warning against false prophets. These are in parallel in the chiasmus and form another inclusio.
Note also the fivefold pattern of Matthew 5:21-48, each part of which commences, ‘You have heard that it was said ---.' See Matthew 5:21; Matthew 5:27; Matthew 5:33; Matthew 5:38; Matthew 5:43, which demonstrates that we must see Matthew 5:21-48 as a united section in itself within the above inclusios.
Note also the threefold or fourfold pattern in Matthew 6:1-18 of ‘when you -- do not -- but --.' See Matthew 6:2-3; Matthew 6:5-7; Matthew 6:16-18, and note that this section commences with ‘being seen of men' and receiving no reward (Matthew 6:1), and ends in ‘not being seen of men' and receiving reward (Matthew 6:18), with ‘will recompense you' meanwhile appearing twice more, and thus three times in all (Matthew 6:4; Matthew 6:6; Matthew 6:18).
Note also the threefold pattern (or fourfold depending on how we see Matthew 7:5-7) of ‘do not lay up for yourself treasure on earth --' (Matthew 6:19), ‘do not be anxious for your life --' (Matthew 6:25), ‘do not judge --' (Matthew 7:1), and possibly ‘do not give what is holy to the dogs' (Matthew 7:6), each being followed by a spiritual activity which resulted in the opposite, ‘lay up treasures in Heaven' (Matthew 6:20), ‘seek first His Kingly Rule and His righteousness' (Matthew 6:33), ‘cast out first the plank out of your own eye that you may see clearly to take the splinter out of your brother's eye' (or possibly ‘do not give what is holy to dogs' (Matthew 7:5)), and possibly, ‘ask and it will be given to you' (Matthew 7:7)), the whole commencing with the idea of treasure that is corrupted by predators (Matthew 6:19) and ending with the parallel idea of not giving to dogs what is holy or treasure to swine (Matthew 7:6). And note also the dictums on which these inner passages end, ‘You cannot serve God and Mammon' (Matthew 6:24); ‘Do not therefore be anxious about tomorrow - let the days own trouble be sufficient for that day' (Matthew 6:34); ‘Do not give dogs what is holy etc. ---' (Matthew 7:6).
These are all indications of careful planning and thought. So as we study it we must not ignore the fact that the sermon is extremely carefully constructed and well thought out.
We have said ‘threefold or fourfold' because on the whole ‘do not give what is holy to dogs --' fits best as the closing caption to what has gone before (see later), nevertheless as it also appears to act as an antecedent to ‘ask and it will be given to you --' it would seem that it performed a twofold function. Possibly both were intended with the fourth comparison also opening and bringing into contrast the final words.
Having then briefly laid down the basis for our approach, we will now commence with a summary analysis of the three Chapter s, after which we will then study each of the sections one at a time.
Analysis of Matthew 5:1 to Matthew 7:29.
a Opening summary concerning the circumstances and the hearers (Matthew 5:1).
INTRODUCTORY WORDS.
b The ways in which God has blessed Jesus' disciples, His implications from this concerning the attitudes now continually required of them, and the guarantee of the present and eternal results which will follow (Matthew 5:3-9).
c The persecution of the true prophets and the anticipated persecution of the followers of Jesus because of their prophetic status, and their subsequent blessedness because of it (Matthew 5:10-12).
d The effect that His disciples are to have on the world as salt and light (Matthew 5:13-16).
THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS.
e The importance of recognising that Jesus is not replacing the Law of God but is establishing and reinterpreting it so as to lift it out of the straitjacket in which men have placed it, in order to lead His people to a true righteousness exceeding that of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:17-20).
f Five expansions and fuller explanations of the Law, each following the pattern ‘you have heard that it was said --- but I say to you --', stressing the inner meaning of each Law. They are not describing rules to be obeyed, so much as a way of life to be followed, and exhorting His disciples to be true sons of their Father (Matthew 5:17-43).
f Three (or four) warnings against hypocritical ostentation in religious behaviour following the pattern commencing, ‘when you --- do not -- but when you --', the middle one of which includes the pattern prayer in which they are to seek the coming of His Kingly Rule and set their eyes on Tomorrow's bread (Matthew 6:1-18).
f Three caveats against self-seeking behaviour, accompanied by encouragements to do the opposite, each of which culminates in assurances of the Father's resultant blessing, the middle one of which includes the need to seek the Kingly Rule of God and not to seek earthly bread and clothing (Matthew 6:19 to Matthew 7:6).
(There is in fact an argument for combining these last two under the heading ‘do not- -- but ---. They are both in fact dealing specifically with the contrast between what they must not do, and what they must be).
e The importance of recognising all the good things that He has for them and of seeking their heavenly Father earnestly for them because He delights to give them. They are to seek righteousness and the things of righteousness (Matthew 6:33). It should be recognised that here He is talking of spiritual things and spiritual enlightenment, not of obtaining material possessions, something excluded by what has been said previously (Matthew 7:7-12).
CLOSING APPLICATION.
d His disciples are to choose the narrow and afflicted way rather than the wide and broad way (Matthew 7:13-14).
c Warnings against the dangers of false prophets who will be known by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-23).
b The attitude which His disciples are to have towards His words, and the eternal results which will follow, as revealed in the parable of the two housebuilders (Matthew 7:24-27).
a Closing summary concerning the circumstances and the hearers (Matthew 7:28-29).
It will be noted that in ‘b' Jesus commences with encouragement and in the parallel He closes with encouragement and warning. In ‘c' He speaks of those who are true prophets being blessed, and in the parallel of the fate that awaits false prophets. In ‘d' He calls for their true behaviour to have an impact in the world, and in the parallel He stresses the path that that true behaviour must follow. In ‘e' He calls for His disciples to seek true righteousness, and in the parallel to seek the good things of God, which very much includes true righteousness). Centrally in ‘f' are His various exhortations followed by His instructions on what to be rather than on what to do.
It is surely not accidental that the section dealing with the reorientation and ‘expansion' of the Law (Matthew 5:21-48) is in five divisions. Five is the number of covenant and we may see this as the renewal of the ‘requirement' sections of the new covenant, based on the old covenant, although now written in the heart, a new covenant which is being made with the beginnings of the new Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:26-27; Hebrews 8:8-13). It is the law to be written in the heart by the Spirit. But it is a renewal and revivifying of the Law, not its replacement.
It will be noted that the passage deals with personal relationships, rather than simply with basic deeds. The old law spoke of murder, adultery and divorce, false testimony in court, seeking vengeance, and a restricted form of love; but Jesus has in mind both murder and hatred; adultery and lust; false accusations and lack of truth as a whole; a restriction on the idea of demanding personal justice from others to its fullest extent, which will result rather in compassion and generosity towards others; and the need not only to love one's neighbour, but also to love one's enemies, and indeed to love all men everywhere. His words epitomise what lies at the very heart of direct relationships between people, and describe what needs to be done about it. It will be noted that stealing and coveting are not brought in here. They speak more of an attitude towards ‘things'. In chapter 5 Jesus is considering relationships and attitudes towards persons, and ‘things' will be dealt with in what follows.
These five new ‘commandments' are then followed by the six warnings, (or seven), with their antitheses, (twice three indicating intensified completeness, or seven indicating divine perfection), which emphasise true worship and religious practise, followed by an emphasis on single-mindedness towards God, a right attitude of heart towards material things, and the avoidance of all greed (and therefore stealing and coveting) and censoriousness, together with all self-aggrandisement and hypocrisy. These warnings demand the humility and purity of heart revealed in the Beatitudes, without which they would fail of accomplishment (Matthew 5:3-9).
It will be noted that on the whole the Sermon is composed, not so much of specific commandments, but of an attempt to cover every major aspect of life. That is also the basis of all the beatitudes. That is what Jesus does, for example, with the five things that ‘are said' by men which He then ‘improves on'. He does not say that the originals were wrong in every case, only that they were treated in too pedantic and limited a fashion, or misapplied. He then goes to the root of them and brings out what His disciples' attitude of heart should be with regard to the subjects that they dealt with, making them inescapable. And the same applies to the warnings which follow and their antitheses. In each case His emphasis is not so much on what must be done but on the attitudes that must be maintained. He does not replace the Law, He transfigures it.
Having recognised this we can now therefore look at His words in detail. But before doing so we should perhaps note the recurrent themes throughout which are central to the whole. Thus:
He commences with the guarantee of the Kingly Rule of Heaven (God) for those who are truly His (Matthew 5:3) and this idea continues throughout (Matthew 5:3; Matthew 5:10; Matthew 5:19-20; Matthew 5:35; Matthew 6:10; Matthew 6:33; Matthew 7:21). As we shall see it lies at the very heart of His message from beginning to end. It is because they have responded to the Kingly Rule of Heaven in the first place that this is now required of them, and it because they are under the Kingly Rule of Heaven now that they can be expected to carry out what He teaches, and can look on God as ‘their Father in Heaven'. He is Father to those who are under His Kingly Rule.
If it be asked whether this is speaking of the present Kingly Rule of Heaven over His disciples on earth, or the future everlasting Kingly Rule of Heaven, we can only reply that in most cases it refers to both. It refers to the Kingly Rule of Heaven in general, because there is only one Kingly Rule of Heaven. Some serve in it on earth (Jerusalem is ‘the city of the great King' (Matthew 5:35), and thus He already reigns on earth), others serve in it in Heaven. It is only occasionally that we have to differentiate. Some press into it now on earth (Matthew 11:12), and repentant tax-gatherers and prostitutes enter it in front of the Pharisees' very eyes even in the time of John (Matthew 21:31), while all who are His will one day enjoy the fullness of the privilege above (Matthew 8:11). It is not a place, so much as an attitude towards the King and a sphere of spiritual existence (elsewhere thought of to some extent in Ephesians in terms of ‘the heavenly places').
He also stresses their personal relationship with their heavenly Father throughout (Matthew 5:9; Matthew 5:14; Matthew 5:45; Matthew 5:48; Matthew 6:1; Matthew 6:6; Matthew 6:8-9; Matthew 6:14-15; Matthew 6:18; Matthew 6:26; Matthew 6:32; Matthew 7:11; Matthew 7:21). As those who live in accordance with the spirit of the beatitudes they are called ‘the sons of God' and enjoy being under ‘the Kingly Rule of Heaven' (Matthew 5:3; Matthew 5:9), and He is therefore their ‘Father in Heaven'. And it is because of this, and this alone, that His teaching is practicable and liveable. But notice the gradual increase in Jesus emphasis on the idea. As the light of the world they are to reveal their Father to the world (Matthew 5:16). This is then followed in Matthew 5:45; Matthew 5:48, by the instruction that they are to reveal themselves as true sons of their Father by demonstrating love to all men and by being perfect as He is perfect. And from that moment on it is as though a spring has burst forth, for their heavenly Father is constantly mentioned as they set their hearts on things above (Matthew 6:1; Matthew 6:6; Matthew 6:8-9; Matthew 6:14-15; Matthew 6:18; Matthew 6:26; Matthew 6:32), until eventually He brings them into the very inner sanctum of their Father (Matthew 7:7-12), at which point the central portion of His teaching ceases, and He closes with exhortations to faithful response because men must do the will of ‘His Father' (Matthew 7:21).
In both middle sections He contrasts how they should view themselves in contrast to the Gentiles (Matthew 5:47; Matthew 6:7; Matthew 6:32). In each case the idea is not that of a simple contrast, but that of one which sees the Gentiles as the most extreme illustration that could be suggested (each time we could see it as signifying ‘even the Gentiles'). The Gentiles are not simply seen in contrast, they are considered to be the very last people on earth who could possibly have been considered to be an example to follow in religious behaviour. This was particularly relevant in Galilee where there were many Gentiles. Thus while He stresses that the disciples' way of thinking must be changed from that prevalent in Israel, it is not by turning away from Israel to the example of the Gentiles. They are rather to be what in God's eyes Israel was always intended to be, the true Israel fully delivered from ‘Egypt' (see on Matthew 2:15). They are to be the new Israel, the true vine (John 15:1-6). Indeed their attitude and worship is not only to be unlike that of the worst of the Scribes and Pharisees, it is also to be totally unlike that of the Gentiles. We have here the similar idea to that found in John 4:22-24. Salvation is of the Jews, but only once their total attitude is transformed.
Note that the basis of the behaviour required of them in Matthew 5:38-48, which would otherwise have been deemed unreasonable and impossible of accomplishment, is underpinned by the promises found in Matthew 6:7-8; Matthew 6:25-34, the one requiring the other. Without the idea behind the latter the former would be almost incomprehensible. It is because of their trust in their Father and the certainty of His provision that they can be expected to seek to be ‘perfect' like Him and as generous as He is in the way that Jesus describes. Otherwise it would all be just a hopeless dream, for it demands total self-giving beyond what is reasonable. It would often require rich young rulers to give up their wealth (something that has many times actually been seen to happen among Christians throughout the ages who took these words seriously), and it would require all of them to think very carefully about their way of living.
So as we approach this section we must do so recognising that if we are to understand its contents, we must see them as spoken to those who are consciously in submission to the Kingly Rule of Heaven, as those who have therefore the privilege of recognising God as their heavenly Father Who watches over them in a unique way, and Whom they can approach in a unique way, as those who recognise that their righteousness must exceed the outward show of the Scribes and Pharisees, and as those who recognise that they are also to differ in their whole approach from the mass of Gentiles. In other words they are to see themselves as the new Israel who are replacing the old (Matthew 21:43), the new ‘congregation' (Matthew 16:18; Matthew 18:17), His new firstborn (compare Exodus 4:22). Or perhaps we should rather alternatively say that they are to see themselves as bringing the old Israel to fruition, with the dead wood being cut out and replaced by new branches (John 15:1-6; Romans 11:17). His words are thus spoken to an exclusive company who are to be different from both the old Israel and the Gentiles, although an exclusive company that anyone may join by repenting and coming under the Kingly Rule of Heaven. Of course He longed that all of Israel might participate in this new Israel, but He would soon learn to His anguish that they would not (Matthew 11:20-24), and therefore restricted His preaching and that of the disciples to ‘the lost sheep' among the house of Israel (Matthew 10:6), telling His disciples not to waste their time on those who would not listen, but rather to shake from their feet the dust of those who did not see themselves as lost sheep, thus treating them as Gentiles (Matthew 10:14).
A further thing to note at this point is the numerical patterns contained in this carefully produced sermon. It commences with a sevenfold pattern. That indicates that the divine hand that is on ‘those who are blessed' (by God). It is then followed by seven threefold patterns, some of which include either twofold or threefold possibilities.
Seven Threefold Patterns.
1). In Matthew 5:10-16 ‘you' (His disciples) are addressed, and are advised that firstly they are to be persecuted for His sake (Matthew 5:10-12), secondly they are to be the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13), and thirdly they are to be the light of the world (Matthew 5:14-16).
2). In Matthew 5:17-20 the ‘Law' is firstly to last as long as the present creation does (Matthew 5:18), secondly it is not to be relaxed (Matthew 5:19 a), but is alternatively to be done and taught (Matthew 5:19 b) (two alternatives), and thirdly their obedience to it must not be like that of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20).
3). In Matthew 5:21-26 there is an overall threefold pattern which includes other threefold patterns. Thus we have firstly the warning concerning three different forms of prospective ‘murder' together with their threefold connected judgments (Matthew 5:22), secondly the need to be reconciled with one who has been offended, expressed in a threefold way as bringing his gift to the altar, leaving his gift before the altar, and offering his gift at the altar (Matthew 5:23-24), and thirdly the warning of the threefold consequence that may follow for those who are not willing to be reconciled, being brought to the judge, handed over to the police, and put in prison (Matthew 5:25-26).
4). In Matthew 5:27-32 we have the threefold activities related to adultery, firstly looking on a woman with lust in the heart (Matthew 5:28), secondly cutting off if necessary the eye and hand (two alternatives) in order not to sin (Matthew 5:29-30), and thirdly a warning against making an alternative attempt to commit adultery through unacceptable divorce (Matthew 5:31-32).
5). In Matthew 5:33-37 we have firstly that they are not to swear by any of three things connected directly with God (Matthew 5:34-35), secondly that they are not swear by their heads (with the two alternative possibilities of white or black hair) (Matthew 5:36), and thirdly the need for them only to say one of two possibilities, ‘yes' and ‘no' (Matthew 5:37).
6). In Matthew 5:38-42 we have three examples of generosity, firstly ‘do not resist someone with bad intentions' (Matthew 5:39-41), secondly ‘give to him who begs from you' (Matthew 5:42 a), and thirdly ‘do not refuse him who would borrow from you' (Matthew 5:42 b). The first example is then illustrated in a threefold way, by the striking on the right cheek (Matthew 5:39), the suing for the coat (Matthew 5:40), and the giving of assistance for one mile (Matthew 5:41).
7). In Matthew 5:43-48 we have firstly the command to love their enemies, as their Father in Heaven does, secondly the two alternative examples of how it is not to be done, and thirdly the command to be perfect as their heavenly Father is perfect.
So the threefold patterns dominate in a sevenfold presentation.