Visit our new blog. It lists all the new things that we are doing and what new material has been added to our site. We even list new missionaries who sign up with us for technical support so you can pray for them. FCM News
The Beatitudes
1Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat
down. His disciples came to him, 2and he began to teach them saying:
3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and
falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice
and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the
same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Explanation: THE ETHICS OF GOD'S KINGDOM (5-7)
Jesus summons those who would be his followers to radical devotion
and radical dependence on God. His followers must be meek, must
not retaliate, must go beyond the letter's law to its spirit, must
do what is right when only God is looking, must depend on God for
their needs and pursue his interests rather than their own, and
must leave spiritual measurements of others' hearts to God. In short,
true people of the kingdom live for God, not for themselves. (My
overall approach to the Sermon on the Mount combines some approaches,
but still remains one among many. For a more complete summary of
various views on this sermon's message, see, for example, Guelich
1982:14-22; Cranford 1992; Allen 1992.)
Readers should contemplate the message of this sermon. Having summarized
Jesus' message as repentance in view of the coming kingdom (4:17),
Matthew now collects Jesus' teachings that explain how a repentant
person ready for God's rule should live. Only those submitted to
God's reign now are truly prepared for the time when he will judge
the world and reign there unchallenged. This sermon provides examples
of the self-sacrificial ethics of the kingdom, which its citizens
must learn to exemplify even in the present world before the rest
of the world recognizes that kingdom (6:10).
To be faithful to the text, we must let Jesus' radical demands confront
us with all the unnerving force with which they would have struck
their first hearers. At the same time, the rest of the Gospel narrative,
where Jesus does not repudiate disciples who miserably fail yet
repent (for example, 26:31-32), does season the text with grace.
Most Jewish people understood God's commandments in the context
of grace (E. Sanders 1977; though compare also Thielman 1994:48-68);
given Jesus' demands for greater grace in practice (9:13; 12:7;
18:21-35), we must remember that Jesus embraces those who humble
themselves, acknowledging God's right to rule, even if in practice
they are not yet perfect (5:48). Jesus preached hard to the religiously
and socially arrogant, but his words come as comfort to the meek
and brokenhearted.
Of course one also needs to read grace in light of the kingdom demands;
grace transforms as well as forgives. Jesus is meek and lowly in
heart to the broken and heals and restores the needy who seek him;
it is the arrogant, the religiously and socially satisfied, against
whom Jesus lays the kingdom demands harshly (compare Mt 23).
Although the sermon's structure does not fit some modern outlines,
it reflects a consistent pattern. Matthew gathers a variety of Jesus'
teachings on related topics that appear in the source he shares
with Luke. Ancient writers exercised the freedom to rearrange sayings,
often topically; sometimes they also gathered sayings of their teachers
into collections. Evidence within the sermon itself suggesting various
audiences (5:1; 7:28) may also support the view that the sermon
is composite. Scholars debate its precise structure, but 5:17-48,
6:1-18 and 6:19-34 are its largest complete units.
The Setting of Jesus' Sermon
(5:1-2)
Various features of the setting contribute to Matthew's portrait
of Jesus.
First, "mountain" settings in Matthew are usually significant
(17:1; compare 15:29; 28:16; although Moses is not alluded to in
4:8). Many scholars think that Matthew probably recalls Moses' revelation
on Mount Sinai (Ex 19:3) here. If so, Jesus' superior revelation
also makes him superior to those who "sit in Moses' seat"
(Mt 23:2); the One greater than Moses, first encountered in 2:13-20,
has begun his mission.
Second, Matthew's depiction of Jesus' teaching is appropriate. That
Jesus sat to teach (5:1; compare 13:1-2; 23:2) fits expected patterns
of Jewish instruction (see also Lk 4:20). Thus Jesus takes the role
of the scribes, but Matthew also indicates that Jesus is greater
than the scribes (Mt 7:29).
Finally, Jesus' audience is also relevant to Matthew's point. Jesus'
ethics specifically address disciples, but Jesus also invites those
who are not disciples to become disciples and live according to
the values of God's kingdom. The crowds following Jesus (4:25-5:1)
function as at least potential disciples; disciples in the Gospel
provide models for later believers (Guelich 1982:53). Matthew explicitly
indicates that Jesus taught his disciples (5:1-2) but also that
the crowds were present (5:1; 7:28-8:1), implying that Jesus wanted
both to hear, calling both to decision (7:24-27; see Guelich 1982:60).
Kingdom Rewards for the Repentant
(5:3-9)
If we truly repent in light of the coming kingdom, we will treat
our neighbors rightly. No one who has humbled himself or herself
before God can act with wanton self-interest in relationships. Those
with the faith to await the vindication of the righteous in God's
kingdom can afford to be righteous, to relinquish the pursuit of
their own rights (5:38-42; compare 1 Cor 9:3-23), because they know
the just judge will vindicate them as they seek his ways of justice.
Jesus employs a standard Jewish literary form to express this point,
a beatitude, which runs like this: "It will go well with the
one who . . . for that one shall receive . . ." ("Fortunate"
or "it will be well with" may convey the point better
than blessed or "happy.") In this context Jesus' beatitudes
mean that it will ultimately be well with those who seek first God's
kingdom (Mt 6:33).
Because various themes pervade all or many of Matthew's beatitudes
here, the principles are summarized by topic rather than by verse
in this section of the commentary. Matthew intends his audience
to hear all the beatitudes together (his Gospel would have been
read in church assemblies), not for them to be taken piecemeal.
What themes emerge from these brief pronouncements of blessing?
Jesus lists promises that pertain to the coming kingdom. Theirs
is the kingdom of heaven frames most of this section (5:3, 10).
All the blessings listed are blessings of the kingdom time. In the
time of the kingdom God will "comfort all who mourn in Zion"
(Is 61:2); he will satisfy the hunger and thirst of his people (Mt
8:11; 22:2; 26:29; Is 25:6) as in the first exodus (Deut 6:11; 8:17).
God's ultimate mercy will be revealed on the day of judgment (1
Enoch 5:5; 12:6; 92:4; Ps. Sol. 16:15). At that time he will ultimately
declare the righteous to be his children (Rev 21:7; Jub. 1:24),
as he had to a lesser degree at the first exodus (Ex 4:22). God
is technically invisible (1QS 11.20; Jos. Apion 2.191), but in the
future the righteous will fully see God (1 Enoch 90:35; ARN 1A).
The blessings he promises come only by God's intervention. Because
the future kingdom is in some sense present in Jesus, who provides
bread (Mt 14:19-20) and comforts the brokenhearted (14:14; compare
Lk 4:18), we participate in the spiritual down payment of these
blessings in Christ in the present (see Gal 3:14; Eph 1:3). But
such blessings come only to the meek-those who wait on God to fight
God's battles.
The blessings of the beatitudes are for a people ready for the kingdom's
coming. This passage shows what kingdom-ready people should be like;
hence it shows us prerequisites for the kingdom as well as kingdom
promises.First, kingdom people do not try to force God's whole will
on a world unprepared for it. Many first-century Jews had begun
to think that revolutionary violence was the only adequate response
to the violence of oppression they experienced. Matthew's first
audience no doubt could recall the bankruptcy of this approach,
which led to crushing defeat in the war of A.D. 66-73. But Jesus
promises the kingdom not to those who try to force God's hand in
their time but to those who patiently and humbly wait for it-the
meek, the poor in spirit, the merciful, the peacemakers.Of course
Jesus' demand does not merely challenge the bloodshed of revolution.
Peacemakers means not only living at peace but bringing harmony
among others; this role requires us to work for reconciliation with
spouses, neighbors and all people-insofar as the matter is up to
us (Rom 12:18).
Second, God favors the humble, who trust in him rather than their
own strength (5:3-9). For one thing, the humble are not easily provoked
to anger. These are the poor in spirit, . . . the meek, those who
appear in Jewish texts as the lowly and oppressed. Because the oppressed
poor become wholly dependent on God (Jas 2:5), some Jewish people
used "poor [in spirit]" as a positive religious as well
as economic designation. Thus it refers not merely to the materially
poor and oppressed but to those "who have taken that condition
to their very heart, by not allowing themselves to be deceived by
the attraction of wealth" (Freyne 1988:72).
Jesus promises the kingdom to the powerless, the oppressed who embrace
the poverty of their condition by trusting in God rather than favors
from the powerful for their deliverance. The inequities of this
world will not forever taunt the justice of God: he will ultimately
vindicate the oppressed. This promise provides us both hope to work
for justice and grace to endure the hard path of love.
There are, of course, exceptions, but as a rule it is more common
for the poor to be "poor in spirit"; Matthew's poor in
spirit does have something to do with Luke's "poor." Surveys
in the United States, for example, show that religious commitment
is generally somewhat higher among people with less income (Barna
1991:178-81; Gallup and Jones 1992), and Christians in less affluent
countries like Nepal, Guatemala, Kenya or China often are prepared
to pay a higher price for their faith than most Western Christians.
In Bible studies among students from different kinds of colleges
and backgrounds I have found that students from poor homes, struggling
to pay their way through college, frequently understand this passage
better than those students for whom the road is easier. Feeling
impressed by the wealth and status of others, the less privileged
students are amazed to learn how special they are to God and embrace
this message as good news. Those of us who have attained more income
or education would do well to imitate their meekness, lest the self-satisfaction
and complacency that often accompany such attainments corrupt our
faith in Christ (13:22).
Further, these humble people are also those who yearn for God above
all else. Luke emphasizes those who hunger physically (Lk 6:21);
Matthew emphasizes yearning for God's righteousness more than for
food and drink, perhaps also implying that those who hunger physically
are in a better position to begin to value God more than food (Mt
5:6; this may include fasting). In this context hungering for righteousness
probably includes yearning for God's justice, for his vindication
of the oppressed (see Gundry 1982:70); the context also implies
that it includes yearning to do God's will (5:20; 6:33; 21:32; 23:29).
This passage reflects biblical images of passion for God, longing
for him more than for daily food or drink (Job 23:12; Ps 42:1-2;
63:1, 5; Jer 15:16; compare Mt 4:4). God and his Word should be
the ultimate object of our longing (Ps 119:40, 47, 70, 92, 97, 103)."Mourners"
here (5:4) may thus refer especially to the repentant (Joel 1:13;
see also Jas 4:9-10; Lev 23:29; 26:41), those who grieve over their
people's sin (Tobit 13:14). Given the promise of comfort, however,
the term probably also applies more broadly to those who are broken,
who suffer or have sustained personal grief and responded humbly
(see Fenton 1977:368). God is near the brokenhearted (Ps 51:17)
and will comfort those who mourn (Is 61:1-3); the people of the
kingdom are the humble, not the arrogant. The pure in heart (Mt
5:8) in Psalm 73 refers to those who recognize that God alone is
their hope.
Likewise, this lifestyle of meekness Jesus teaches challenges not
only Jewish revolutionaries but all Christians in our daily lives.
If we are to walk in love toward our enemies (Mt 5:43), how much
more should we walk in love toward those closest us (compare 5:46-47;
22:36-40)? I am always awed by the presence of the truly humble-like
three of my friends from Ethiopia, one of whom was imprisoned by
the old Marxist regime for a year and two of whom led about two
thousand fellow Ethiopians to Christ in their refugee camp. Not
only did these brothers regularly offer me their most gracious hospitality
when I visited them, but every time I came they would insist on
my teaching them the Bible-though I am sure that I had far more
to learn from them!
Encouragement for Those Persecuted
for the Gospel (5:10-12)
In his final beatitudes Jesus declares not "Happy are those,"
but "Happy are you." Here Jesus takes his ethic of nonretaliation
(5:38-47) to its furthest possible length: not only must we refuse
to strike back, but we are to rejoice when persecuted. The persecution
itself confirms our trust in God's promise of reward, because the
prophets suffered likewise (13:57; 23:37; 26:68; 2 Chron 36:15-16;
Jer 26:11, 23). The prophetic role of a disciple is analogous to
(Mt 10:41-42; 23:34) and greater than (11:9, 11; 13:17) that of
an Old Testament prophet. When we represent Jesus and his message
faithfully and suffer rejection accordingly, we may identify with
ancient prophetic leaders like Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel.
But here Jesus summons us to a greater honor than being prophets;
he summons us to bear the name-the honor-of Jesus. The characteristics
Jesus lists as belonging to the people of the kingdom are also those
Jesus himself exemplifies as the leading servant of the kingdom
and Son par excellence of the Father (11:27; 20:28). Jesus is meek
and lowly in heart (11:29); he mourns over the unrepentant (11:20-24);
he shows mercy (9:13, 27; 12:7; 20:30); he is a peacemaker (5:43-45;
26:52). If he is lowly, how much more must be his disciples, who
are to imitate his ways (10:24-25; 23:8-12)-in contrast to worldly
paradigms for religious celebrities (23:5-7).
Salt and Light
13"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its
saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good
for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot
be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl.
Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone
in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men,
that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
Explanation: Worthless Disciples (5:13-16)
Jesus' audience at least partly includes "disciples" (5:1-2).
Having described the appropriate lifestyle of disciples, Jesus now
explains that a professed disciple who does not live this lifestyle
of the kingdom is worth about as much as tasteless salt or invisible
light-nothing.
Until my conversion in 1975 I professed to be an atheist in part
because I looked at the roughly 85 percent of my fellow U.S. citizens
who claimed to be Christians and could not see that their faith
genuinely affected their lives. I reasoned that if even Christians
did not believe in Jesus' teachings, why should I? My excuse for
unbelief-and the excuse of many other secularists I knew-continued
until God's Spirit confronted me with the reality that the truth
of Christ does not rise or fall on the claims of his professed followers,
but on Jesus himself. The faith of nominal Christians may appeal
to non-Christians who can use it to justify their own unbelief,
bu
t such "Christians" will have no part in
God's kingdom. Instead they will be thrown out and trampled (5:13).
Jesus refers here to more than good deeds; he refers to a good character
(compare 7:17-20; 12:33-37). Such character comes only by embracing
God's kingship as a gift (as in 10:40; 18:4, 12-14, 27). The images
of salt and light evoke consideration less of what we do than of
what we are. If only true disciples count before God (5:13-16) and
true discipleship means treating both friends and enemies kindly
(5:3-12), the salt-and-light paragraph becomes a resounding warning
to heed Jesus' teaching on meekness in the preceding paragraph.
A disciple who rejects the beatitudes' values is like tasteless
salt: worthless. Salt had a variety of uses (see Davies and Allison
1988:472-73); probably the most evident use was as a flavoring agent
(Plut. Isis 5, Mor. 352F; Table-Talk 4.4.3, Mor. 669B). In any case
the point is, what is to be done with salt that no longer functions
as salt should?
A later Jewish story may illustrate how first-century hearers would
have grasped Jesus' point. An inquirer reportedly asked a late first-century
rabbi what to salt tasteless salt with; he responded, "The
afterbirth of a mule" (b. Bekarot 8b). In that society everyone
knew that mules are sterile; the point is, "You ask a stupid
question, you get a stupid answer. Salt can't stop being salt!"
But of course if it were to do so, it would no longer be of any
value as salt.
Just as tasteless salt lacks value to the person who uses it, so
does a professed disciple without genuine commitment prove valueless
for the work of the kingdom.A disciple whose life reveals none of
the Father's works is like invisible light for vision: useless.
Jesus reinforces his point with various images. A disciple should
be as obvious as a city set on a hill (as most cities were), and
a light in a home should be no easier to hide than a torch lit city
at night (5:14-15; most homes had only one room). As a popular sage
had put it, "What is the value of concealed wisdom, any more
than of treasure that is invisible?" (Sirach 41:14).
Jesus depicts his disciples' mission in stark biblical terms for
the mission of Israel. God called his people to be lights to the
nations (for example, Is 42:6; 49:6)-that is, the whole world (compare
Mt 18:7). Christians are light because-contrary to some psychoanalytic
theories-their destiny (13:43) more than their past must define
them.
But Christians cannot be content to remain the world's light in
a merely theoretical sense; they must "be what they are,"
letting their light shine for their Father's honor (5:16). Ministers
of the Word must equip all other Christians for their ministry as
lights in their various neighborhoods and occupations (Eph 4:11-13;
Tit 2:1, 5, 8, 10). While Jesus is opposed to our doing good works
publicly for our own honor (6:1, "to be seen" by people),
he exhorts us to do those good works publicly for God's honor (5:16;
cf. 6:9). This distinction exhorts us to guard the motives of our
hearts and consider the effects our public activities and pronouncements
have on the spread of the gospel and the honoring of God among all
groups of people.
The Fulfillment of the Law
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I
tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest
letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear
from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks
one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do
the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever
practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the
kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness
surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you
will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Explanation: Jesus Applies Principles in God's Law (5:17-48)
!!As if Jesus' words in 5:3-16 were not strong enough, he presents
even more stringent demands of the kingdom in these verses. While
various groups of Christians today may differ concerning exactly
how Jesus intended his disciples to interpret the law, one point
is clear: Jesus was not an antinomian. He expected his followers
to understand and apply the moral principles already revealed in
Scripture.Christians Must Obey God's Law (5:17-20)
Matthew uses Jesus' words in 5:17-20 as a thesis statement for the
whole of 5:21-48 which follows. Jesus essentially says, "Look,
if you thought the law was tough, wait till you see this. If you
really want to be my disciples, give me your hearts without reservation"
(see 5:17).
This passage seems to suggest that an uncommitted Christian is not
a Christian at all (see 5:20). Like other Jewish teachers, Jesus
demanded whole obedience to the Scriptures (5:18-19); unlike most
of his contemporaries, however, he was not satisfied with the performance
of scribes and Pharisees, observing that this law observance fell
short even of the demands of salvation (5:20). After grabbing his
hearers' attention with such a statement, Jesus goes on to define
God's law not simply in terms of how people behave but in terms
of who they really are (5:21-48).
Jesus' High View of Scripture (5:17-18)
Jesus' view of Scripture did not simply accommodate his culture,
a fact that has implications for the view of Scripture Jesus' followers
should hold (J. Wenham 1977:21; D. Wenham 1979). Here Jesus responds
to false charges that he and his followers undermine the law. First,
when Jesus says that he came not to abolish the Law or the Prophets
but to fulfill them, he uses terms that in his culture would have
conveyed his faithfulness to the Scriptures (v. 17).
Second, Jesus illustrates the eternality of God's law with a popular
story line from contemporary Jewish teachers (5:18). Jesus' smallest
letter (NIV), or "jot" (KJV), undoubtedly refers to the
Hebrew letter yod, which Jewish teachers said would not pass from
the law. They said that when Sarai's name was changed to Sarah,
the yod removed from her name cried out from one generation to another,
protesting its removal from Scripture, until finally, when Moses
changed Oshea's name to Joshua, the yod was returned to Scripture.
"So you see," the teachers would say, "not even this
smallest letter can pass from the Bible." Jesus makes the same
point from this tradition that later rabbis did: even the smallest
details of God's law are essential.We Will Be Judged by Our Response
to God's Word (5:19)
Jesus here provides a graphic example of the law's authority. Jewish
teachers typically depicted various persons as "greatest"
before God; the emphasis was not on numerical precision but on praising
worthy people (for example, m. 'Abot 2:8). When Jesus speaks of
the least of these commandments, he also reflects Jewish legal language.
Jewish teachers regularly distinguished "light" and "heavy"
commandments (as in Sipra VDDeho. parasha 1.34.1.3; compare Mt 23:23)
and in fact determined which commandments were the "least"
and "greatest." Noting that both the "greatest"
commandment about honoring parents (Ex 20:12; Deut 5:16) and the
"least" commandment about the bird's nest (Deut 22:6-7)
included the same promise, "Do this and you will live,"
later rabbis decided that "live" meant "in the world
to come" and concluded that God would reward equally for obedience
of any commandment. One who kept the law regulating the bird's nest
merited eternal life, whereas one who broke it merited damnation
(see, for example, Urbach 1979:1:350; Keener 1991a:116). In the
same way, those who merely honored the highest standards of their
religion would fall short of entering the kingdom at all (Mt 5:20).
Other sages used such language to grab attention and emphasize the
importance of the law. But like Jesus, they did not want anyone
to miss the point: God has not given us the right to pick and choose
among his commandments. As some teachers put it, one should be as
"careful with regard to a light commandment as you would be
with a heavy one, since you do not know the allotment of the reward"
(m. 'Abot 2:1). The sages were not suggesting that they never broke
commandments (see Moore 1971:1:467-68), but rather believed that
one who cast off any commandment or principle of the law was discarding
the authority of the law as a whole (m. Horayot 1:3; Keener 1991a:115-17).
Jesus concurs: God does not allow us the right to say, "I will
obey his teaching about murder but not his teaching about adultery
or fornication"; or, "I will obey his teaching about theft
but not about divorce." To refuse his right to rule any of
our ethics or behavior is to deny his Lordship.In this passage Jesus
also warns that teachers who undermine students' faith in any portion
of the Bible are in trouble with God. This text addresses not only
obedience to the commandments but also how one teaches others (and
teaches others to do the same; compare Jas 3:1). I have occasionally
taught alongside colleagues who actively sought to undermine students'
faith in the name of "critical thinking"; sometimes they
succeeded. Critical thinking is important, but it functions best
with the firm foundation of the fear of God (Prov 1:7).
Bible-Believing People Without Transformed Hearts Are Lost (5:20)
Like John the Baptist in 3:7-12, Jesus savages the false security
of the religious establishment. To grasp the full impact in today's
language we might compare the scribes with ministers or religious
educators and the Pharisees with the most pious, Bible-believing
laypeople (although there was some overlap between the two groups).
Pharisaic ethics emphasized "inwardness" as much as Jesus
did, but Jesus challenges not their traditional ethics but the actual
condition of their hearts (Odeberg 1964).It is possible to agree
with everything Jesus taught in this sermon yet fail to live accordingly
(23:3). That is why Jesus indicates that the best of human piety
is inadequate for salvation-whether it be Pharisaic or Christian.
Nothing short of a radical transformation, what other early Christian
writers called a new birth (Jn 3:3-6; 1 Pet 1:23), can enable one
to live as a disciple (compare Mt 18:3).
Murder
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago,
'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'
22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will
be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,'
is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!'
will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and
there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave
your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled
to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
25"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking
you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or
he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over
to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26I tell you
the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
Explanation: Angry Enough to Kill (5:21-26)
This paragraph opens the section that runs from verse 21 through
verse 48, which requires some introductory comment. Once Jesus has
made it clear that he is not opposing the law itself but interpreting
it, he shows how the customary practice of the law in his day is
inadequate.
In 5:21-48 Jesus explains six legal texts from the Old Testament,
interpreting as a good Jewish scholar of his day would (see Flusser
1988:494; Keener 1991a:113-20). Jesus makes the law more stringent
in this passage (building a sort of "fence" around the
law, which his contemporaries felt was respectful toward the law).
Other Jewish teachers also offered phrases like You have heard .
. . but I tell you when expounding Scripture. Paul, in fact, uses
roughly the same formula when applying one of Jesus' sayings in
this context to a new situation (1 Cor 7:10-12). When Jewish teachers
offered statements like this, they saw themselves not as contradicting
the law but as explaining it, so we might read the passage thus:
"You understand the Bible to mean only this, but I offer a
fuller interpretation" (see Schechter 1900:427; Daube 1973:55-58).
At the same time, Jesus does not speak with merely scribal authority
(7:28-29); there is no academic debate or citation of other teachers,
but solemn pronouncements. Jesus upholds the law (5:17-19) but is
the decisive arbiter of its meaning, not one scholar among many
(Daube 1973:58-60). Matthew 5:21-48 provides concrete examples of
the "greater righteousness" of verse 20. Jesus addresses
not just how we act but who we are.
The heavenly court will judge all offenses of intention. Earthly
courts could not usually judge such offenses as displays of anger
(for exceptions see 1QS 7.5; Gaius Inst. 3.220). But God's heavenly
court would judge all such offenses (Mt 5:25-26; see more fully
Keener 1991a:14-16). Jesus begins by citing the crime of murder
in Exodus 20:13, for which biblical law required a Jewish court
to execute the sentence of death (Gen 9:5-6; Deut 21:1-9). But Jesus
presses beyond behavior specifically punished by law to the kind
of heart that generates such behavior. Anger that would generate
murder if unimpeded is the spiritual equivalent of murder (1 Jn
3:15). God has never merely wanted people to obey rules; he wants
them to be holy as he is, to value what he values.
Anger, calling someone a fool and calling the person Raca (an "empty
head"; Mt 5:22) are roughly equivalent offenses. Likewise Jesus
probably reads the judgment of verse 21 as the day of God's judgment,
the Sanhedrin (v. 22) as God's heavenly court (compare vv. 25-26;
also portrayed as the Sanhedrin in Jewish texts-Keener 1987), and
both as equivalent to the sentence to be decreed there: damnation
to eternal hell. Because every word is uttered before the heavenly
court, slander of another merits for the accuser the eternal punishment
that would have been due the accused (cf. 12:35-37; Deut 19:16-19;
Susanna 62).
Jesus' prohibition of acting in anger is a general principle. As
in each of his six examples, Jesus graphically portrays a general
principle, although some of these principles (like anger and divorce)
must be qualified in specific circumstances. Most people understood
that such general principles expressed in proverbs and similar sayings
sometimes needed to be qualified in specific situations (see Du
Plessis 1967:17; Keener 1991a:22-28); Jesus elsewhere qualifies
principles of the law more than most of his contemporaries did (as
in Mt 12:3-8).
Although condemning anger and insults, Jesus himself expressed grieved
indignation and called people "fools" under appropriate
circumstances (23:17; see also 23:13-33). Yet our own indignation
is too easily excused as "righteous" (see Jas 1:20), and
even just anger must be expressed productively, never in a manner
harmful to another person (Eph 4:26, 29-32; Col 3:8). Thus when
debating with those like the religious leaders in Jesus' day, we
must speak responsibly for their correction and accept the personal
consequences. When dealing with those closest to us, such as a spouse,
we must humble ourselves and seek the other person's best interests
in love (as in, for example, Eph 5:21-25; Keener 1992b:133-83).
Our relationship with God is partly contingent on how we treat others.
God will not accept our gift at the altar until we reconcile with
our neighbor (see similarly m. Yoma 8:9). Again Jesus depicts the
situation graphically, since his Galilean hearers might have to
travel a considerable distance to leave the Jerusalem temple and
then return (vv. 23-24). Jesus' following crisis parable shows how
urgent the situation is (vv. 25-26). Imprisonment was generally
a temporary holding place until punishment; here, however, a longer
penalty is envisaged. The last penny (Greek kodrant h s, Roman quadrans)
refers to the second-smallest Roman coin, only a few minutes' wages
for even a day laborer.
Through a variety of terrible images, Jesus indicates that when
we damage our relationships with others, we damage our relationship
with God, leading to eternal punishment (compare 18:21-35). A man
who beats his wife, a woman who continually ridicules her husband,
and a thousand other concrete examples could illustrate the principle.
We must profess our faith with our lives as well as with our lips.
God sees what we are each made of. We judge by what we can see of
a person's actions; God evaluates the heart's motivation. Some can
act more moral by society's standards because it is to their advantage
to do so, but this behavior does not necessarily imply that their
hearts are purer than those with less social incentive to behave
morally. Although their options differ, most drug dealers operate
on the same moral principle as the media networks, the junk food
industry or, for that matter, some Christian publishers: "We
just give people what they want; it's not our fault if what they
want isn't what's good for them." This excuse does not absolve
them of guilt, but the person with a straight track through college
and into the work force has more incentive to choose a different
path. Indeed, the intellectual elite in Western universities laid
the groundwork for the sexual promiscuity that has destroyed family
structures in many ghettos and made drugs popular. God evaluates
us not only by our deeds but also by our character-what we are made
of when no one else sees us.
Adultery
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'
28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has
already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If 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. 30And 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 go into hell.
Explanation: Do Not Covet Others Sexually (5:27-30)
Jesus' warning against lust would have challenged some ancient hearers'
values. Many men in the ancient Mediterranean thought lust healthy
and normal (for example, Ach. Tat. 1.4-6; Apul. Metam. 2.8); some
magical spells even 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). Jewish writers, however, viewed
lust far more harshly (for example, Sirach 9:8; 41:21; 1QS 1.6-7;
CD 2.16); some, in fact, viewed it as visual fornication or adultery
(see Keener 1991a:16-17). Yet Jesus is not challenging his hearers'
ethics; the scribes and Pharisees may have agreed with his basic
premise, but Jesus challenges their hearts, not just their doctrine.
Many Christians today similarly profess to agree with Jesus' doctrine
here but do not obey it.
Jesus offers an implicit argument from Scripture, not just a cultural
critique. The seventh of the Ten Commandments declares, "You
shall not commit adultery" (Ex 20:14), while the tenth commandment
declares, "You shall not covet [that is, desire] . . . anything
that belongs to your neighbor" (Ex 20:17). In the popular Greek
version of Jesus' day the tenth commandment began, "You shall
not covet your neighbor's wife," and used the same word for
"covet" that Jesus uses here for "lust." In
other words, Jesus reads the humanly unenforceable tenth commandment
as if it matters as much as the other, more humanly enforceable
commandments. If you do not break the letter of the other commandments,
but you want to do so in your heart, you are guilty. God judges
a sinful heart, and hearts that desire what belongs to others are
guilty.
Jesus does, however, go beyond his contemporaries' customary views
on lust. Jewish men expected married Jewish women to wear head coverings
to prevent lust. Jewish writers often warned of women as dangerous
because they could invite lust (as in Sirach 25:21; Ps. Sol. 16:7-8),
but Jesus placed the responsibility for lust on the person doing
the lusting (Mt 5:28; Witherington 1984:28). Lust and anger are
sins of the heart, and rapists who protest in earthly courts, "She
asked for it!" have no defense before God's court. Jesus says
that it is better to suffer corporal punishment in the present-amputating
one's lustful eye or other offending appendages-than to spend eternity
in hell after the resurrection of the damned (5:29-30; 18:8-9).
Of course gouging out one's eye cannot stop lust; people can lust
with their eyes closed. (Thus Tertullian warns that Christians need
not blind themselves as Democritus did, but must simply guard their
minds; he contends that "the Christian is born masculine for
his wife and for no other woman"-Apol. 46.11-12.) Jesus is
declaring in a graphic manner that by whatever means necessary,
one should cast off this sin (compare Col 3:5). One must repent
to be ready for the kingdom of heaven (Mt 4:17).Herod Antipas, driven
by lust, ended up murdering a prophet (14:6, 10; compare 5:11-12),
illustrating the principle of both this paragraph and the preceding
one (5:21-30), as well as the prohibition of oaths (5:33-37; 14:7).
Most of us lack Herod's power to indulge our desires, but God knows
what our hearts desire, whether we have power to execute that desire
or not. How different the model of Joseph and Mary (1:25) and virtuous
single persons like John the Baptist and Jesus, who suffered persecution
for righteousness!
From this warning we learn the value that God places on marital
and premarital fidelity. Even our thoughts should be only for our
spouse; our spouse, rather than a given culture's idealization,
should redefine our standard of beauty (compare Song 1:15-16). Of
course, since the Bible demands faithfulness in advance to our future
spouse (Deut 22:13-21; see also Mt 1:19), the principle Jesus illustrates
with "adultery of the heart" could apply to premarital
"fornication of the heart" just as well.Jesus does not,
of course, refer here to passing attraction. The Greek tense probably
suggests "the deliberate harboring of desire for an illicit
relationship" (France 1985:121). In our culture, where young
people generally have to arrange their marriages without their parents'
help, we might be in trouble if Jesus meant mere attraction! Jesus
refers not to noticing a person's beauty but to imbibing it, meditating
on it, seeking to possess it.
Lust is antithetical to true love: it dehumanizes another person
into an object of passion, leading us to act as if the other were
a visual or emotional prostitute for our use. Fueled by selfish
passion, adultery violates the sanctity of another person's being
and relationships; love, by contrast, seeks what is best for a person,
including strengthening their marriage. Adultery usually involves
considerable rationalization, justifying one's behavior as necessary
or loving; but lust is the mother of adultery, the demonic force
that allows human beings to justify exploiting one another sexually,
at the same time betraying the most intimate of commitments where
trust ought to abide secure even if it can flourish nowhere else.
Lust demands possession; love values, respects and seeks to serve
other persons with what is genuinely good for them. Lust is always
incompatible with acknowledging God as the supreme desire of our
hearts, because it is contrary to his will.
Legalism cannot change the heart and destroy lust or any other sin;
only transformation of the heart to view reality in a new way can.
Matthew frames Jesus' commandments in this section with that warning
(compare 5:20, 48). Whereas lust distorts relationships, proper
relationships in Christ's family can meet the need that lust pretends
to fill. Paul and his contemporaries prescribed marriage as a helpful
solution (1 Cor 7:2, 5, 9; Keener 1991a:72-74, 79-82), but many
godly people today do not find marriage partners for years-and not
all have the gift to easily embrace that state (Mt 19:11). How can
they best guard against lust?
Once we begin to appreciate our brothers and sisters in Christ as
members of our spiritual family, we are less apt to dehumanize them
as temptations-whether temptations to be avoided or indulged. Our
video culture has cheated us by reducing the meaning of gender to
sexual gratification, as if we could relate to members of the other
gender best as sleeping partners. God ideally gave people families
in part so we could learn how to relate to other people in a variety
of ways (motherly, fatherly, brotherly, sisterly-1 Tim 5:1-2); our
Christian family is no different (1 Tim 5:1-2; see also Mt 12:49;
23:8; 25:40).
Thus giving and receiving genuine Christian love within the appropriate
boundaries-dealing with people as human beings like ourselves rather
than objects of our passion (22:39)-is an important defense against
lust. Perhaps an even greater defense remains being so wrapped up
in Jesus' presence and work that one can wait either for God to
send a spouse or for the ultimate unity that transcends the need
for marriage altogether (see 22:30). In the meantime, one can pray
for God's blessings on and prepare one's own life for the person
God may send, or pour one's whole commitment into the work of the
kingdom (6:33). I suggest these insights not as a married man paternalistically
advising singles, but as one who remains single at the time of writing.
The longer we resist a particular temptation, the less power that
temptation can exercise in our lives.
Matthew 5Divorce
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give
her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I tell you that anyone who
divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her
to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman
commits adultery.
Explanation: Do Not Betray Your Spouse by Divorce (5:31-32)
Adultery is unfaithfulness to one's spouse or accommodating another
person's unfaithfulness to that person's spouse. Lust is one form
of such unfaithfulness; divorce is another. The person who betrays
his or her spouse by divorce is no less unfaithful to his or her
marriage than the adulterer or lustful person and presumably warrants
the same punishment prescribed by the preceding passage-damnation
(5:29-30). Although Matthew does qualify the force of the saying,
he wants us to hear its demand: marriage is sacred and must not
be betrayed.
In principle, remarriage is adulterous because God rejects the validity
of divorce. Employing the same teaching technique of rhetorical
overstatement that pervades the context (as in 5:18-19, 29-30; 6:3;
Stein 1978:8-12, 1979:119 and 1992:198; Keener 1991a:12-25), Jesus
declares that God does not accept divorce; hence a divorced woman
remains married in God's sight to her first husband, making her
remarriage adulterous (5:32). (The image presumably addresses the
woman because the Palestinian Jewish law in Matthew's milieu permitted
men to marry more than one wife anyway, whereas the sharing of a
woman involved adultery-Keener 1991a:35, 47-48; Easton 1940:82;
but compare, somewhat differently, Luck 1987:103-7.) Precisely because
the very term for legal "divorce" meant freedom to remarry,
everyone understood that a woman without a valid certificate of
divorce was not free to remarry (as in m. Gittin 2:1); but Jesus
declares that if God does not accept the divorce as valid, remarriage
is adulterous (19:6, 9; see similarly France 1985:123).
A few churches today take this passage completely literally and
demand that remarried partners break up and return to their original
spouses. If this passage did not employ rhetorical overstatement,
their interpretation would be right; but their interpretation does
not square with the rest of the biblical data (such as Jn 4:18,
where the woman had five "husbands"). As common as divorce
and remarriage were in antiquity (Carcopino 1940:95-100), Paul's
letters would surely have reflected it had he been spending time
breaking up new converts' second and third marriages. The Roman
authorities, already concerned about subversive religious groups
disrupting families (Keener 1992b:139-42), would have also noticed
and acted swiftly! In practice, the strict position of churches
that break up second marriages actually leads to new divorces-a
position God surely disapproves of (Mt 5:19). (Supporters of breaking
up second marriages sometimes cite 2 Sam 3:13-16, but because David
had never actually divorced Michal, Saul's arrangement of Michal's
marriage to Paltiel was illegal and adulterous; compare 1 Sam 19:11-17.
Had that marriage been legally valid, Israelite law would have prohibited
David from taking Michal back; see Deut 24:1-4.)"Adultery"
meant unfaithfulness to one's spouse, and remarriage is adulterous
here precisely because in God's sight the original couple remains
married. The moral issue of the image, however, is not remarriage
but the validity of the divorce; although most people accepted most
divorces as valid, everyone recognized that one could not remarry
without a valid divorce. Jesus is prohibiting divorce in an incomparably
graphic fashion (Keener 1991a:34-40, 43-44; Stein 1979).
In practice, this text demands that we love and serve our spouse.
If integrity forbids us to violate vows in general (Mt 5:33-37),
this principle applies most plainly to marriage vows (see also Mal
2:14). But most marriage vows promise more than "I won't commit
adultery, lust after someone else or divorce you." Most people
marry with the explicit or implicit expectation of enduring, mutual
love; only in a secure relationship like marriage can people trust
enough to intimately expose the depths of their hearts. Yet in all
divorces, one or both parties is unfaithful to this implicit promise
of marriage.
While Jesus gives divorce as an explicit example of marital infidelity,
his principle of challenging all unfaithfulness to one's marriage
as adulterous forces his followers to examine their own marriages
more clearly. A man may never divorce his wife yet also fail to
show her love; a woman may avoid affairs yet despise her husband.
These too are acts of unfaithfulness to marriage (though they are
not biblical grounds for divorce). If I am to love my neighbor as
myself, how much more should I love my wife as my own body, to sacrifice
myself for her willingly as Christ offered himself for the church
(Eph 5:25)! Provided that my love for my spouse expresses rather
than competes with my love for God (Mt 10:37; Lk 14:26; 18:29; Eph
5:1-2, 18-21), any gift of love I offer this daughter of God is
too small a gift for the treasure of her sharing her life with me.
In warning against the sin of abandoning one's marriage, Jesus is
defending rather than oppressing those divorced against their will.
Yet instead of examining our own hearts and marriages as Jesus wills,
some Christians today resort to the very kind of Bible interpretation
Jesus was opposing. Jesus' words protected married people from the
schism of divorce, but we sometimes turn them into a weapon against
wounded Christians. Assuming that anger (Mt 5:21-22) and lust (5:27-28)
are forgivable offenses because we have committed them, some nevertheless
look askance at those who divorced in the past, as if that sin were
unforgivable. Not content with that, some condescendingly claim
to "forgive" innocent parties in divorces (such as a young
mother who is single because she was abandoned by a drug-abusing
husband). Perhaps none of us is a perfect spouse, and many of us
live in a culture that confuses right and wrong, but the Bible does
take sides on some issues. For instance, it plainly assigns guilt
to the adulterer without assuming guilt on the part of the adulterer's
spouse (Lev 20:10); nor may one automatically assume any more guilt
for the abandoned spouse than for a spouse who is not abandoned
(see Stephen 1993:14). Punishing one divorced against his or her
will to show that we are against divorce makes as much sense as
punishing a mugging victim to express our disdain for mugging.
Although many marriages do end by default, I have witnessed countless
Christians who fought to preserve their marriages while spouses
left them against their will; David Seamands tells me he has seen
hundreds of such cases. Some in the church compassionlessly explain
devastating illnesses as evidence of lack of faith, perhaps to assure
themselves that they could never suffer them (compare Job 6:21;
12:5; Ps 38:11). Many other Christians do the same with divorce.
Matthew specifically states an exception. When Jesus offered a proverb
stating a general principle (Mk 10:11; Lk 16:18), ancient hearers
understood that such sayings often needed to be qualified for specific
situations (Keener 1991a:22-25). Two similar divorce sayings in
different contexts actually conflict if pressed literally: Mark
10:9 assumes that divorce should not but can occur, while the Q
saying in Matthew 5:32 par. Luke 16:18 assumes that marriage is
indissoluble and a genuine divorce cannot occur. But the conflict
arises when we ignore Jesus' teaching style (Catchpole 1993:238):
such a disharmony simply means that each saying must be read as
a demand rather than a law, and the overarching social function
of both must be recognized. That function is a call for absolute
faithfulness in and to marriage.
To put the matter differently, Jesus' "purpose was not to lay
down the law but to reassert an ideal and make divorce a sin, thereby
disturbing then current complacency" (Davies and Allison 1988:532;
compare Down 1984). In practice, the early Christians immediately
began to qualify Jesus' divorce saying; other principles of Jesus,
like not condemning the innocent (12:7) and the principle of mercy
(23:23), would have forced them to do so in some circumstances.
For instance, when confronted by Christians wanting to divorce unbelieving
spouses, Paul used Jesus' saying to forbid such an intention, but
noted that if instead the spouse left, the believer was "not
bound" (1 Cor 7:15). (Some others also view Paul's exception
as implying that Jesus' prohibition is "not comprehensive";
see Blomberg 1992:111-12; Vermes 1993:34 n. 34.) Paul's words recall
the exact language for freedom to remarry in ancient divorce contracts,
and his ancient readers, unable to be confused by modern writers'
debates on the subject, would surely have understood his words thus
(see, for example, m. Gittin 9:3; CPJ 2:10-12, 144; Carmon 1973:90-91,
200-201, 189; Keener 1991a:61-62). Subsequent history has nevertheless
saddled Christians with prejudices; thus, for example, after the
NIV rightly notes that one who is married should "not seek
a divorce," it translates the same Greek word for divorce as
"unmarried" in the next line, where remarriage is permitted
(1 Cor 7:27-28). One could presume that both uses of the Greek term
"loosed" mean "widowed," of course-provided
one consistently translates "seeking to be widowed" in
this passage, which rather improbably suggests some lethal activity
such as adding arsenic or cyanide to a spouse's tea. But most likely
Paul addresses especially divorce and remarriage in this passage.
Paul's and Matthew's exceptions (Mt 5:32; 19:9; 1 Cor 7:15, 27-28)
constitute two-thirds of the New Testament references to divorce,
and both point to the same kind of exception: the person whose marriage
is ended against his or her will. As Craig Blomberg reasons, other
exceptions probably exist, but they must be governed by the principles
that unite the two biblical exceptions: (1) both infidelity and
abandonment destroy one of the basic components of marriage; (2)
"both leave one party without any other options if attempts
at reconciliation are spurned"; (3) both use divorce "as
a last resort." That some will abuse this freedom (as Blomberg
also warns) cannot make us insensitive to the innocent party who
genuinely needs that freedom (Blomberg 1992:293). In other words,
Jesus' exceptions do not constitute an excuse to escape a difficult
marriage (compare 1 Cor 7:10-14); they exonerate those who genuinely
wished to save their marriage but were unable to do so because their
spouse's unrepentant adultery, abandonment or abuse de facto destroyed
the marriage bonds.
Admitting the exceptional cases does not excuse us from taking Jesus'
actual point seriously. Palestinian Jewish husbands could divorce
for virtually any reason (Jos. Ant. 4.253), explicitly including
their wives' disobedience (ARN 1A; Jos. Life 426), even burning
the toast (m. Gittin 9:10; Sipre Deut. 269.1.1). In broader Greco-Roman
culture (which Paul addresses in 1 Cor 7:10-16) either husband or
wife could unilaterally divorce the other spouse without obtaining
consent (Cary and Haarhoff 1946:144; O'Rourke 1971:181). By removing
the right of divorce, Jesus is protecting a person from being betrayed
by her or his spouse and demanding that we respect one another enough
to do our own utmost to make our marriage work rather than abandoning
the partner with whom we entered into covenant for life.
Although the thrust of this passage is faithfulness to one's marriage,
Matthew's exception clause does not allow his readers to apply his
rhetorical overstatement legalistically. Indeed, to read the Sermon
on the Mount "legalistically as a set of rules is to miss the
point; it represents a demand more radical than any legislator could
conceive" (France 1985:106), still less enforce. Jesus' real
point, which the hyperbolic image is meant to evoke, is the sanctity
of marriage (see also 19:4-6; Efird 1985:57-59). Addressing the
hardness of legal interpreters' hearts (19:8), Jesus opposed divorce
to protect marriage and family, thereby seeking to prevent the betrayal
of innocent spouses.
I believe that churches who punish innocent parties in divorces
today interpret Jesus legalistically with hearts as hard as those
of Jesus' opponents. They understand neither the point of Jesus'
teaching nor the heart of God that motivated him (compare 9:11-13;
12:2-14; 23:23-24). But we do the same when we condone inappropriate
divorce or the hardness of heart in marriage (19:8) that can lead
to divorce or in other ways ruin the intimacy of one flesh that
God commanded.
Oaths
33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long
ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to
the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven,
for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool;
or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do
not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white
or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No';
anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
An Eye for an Eye
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth
for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone
strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And
if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your
cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him
two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away
from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Explanation: Oaths Are a Poor Substitute for Integrity
(5:33-37)
When Jesus quotes his Bible as prohibiting false vows and other
oaths (Deut 23:23), he probably also has in view the Ten Commandments,
as in Matthew 5:21, 27. In this case he alludes to the third commandment:
a false oath "misuses" or takes in vain God's name, since
oaths by definition called on a deity to witness them (Ex 20:7).
Breaking an oath was dangerous, for in all societies oaths contained
curses that deities would avenge if the person who swore by them
broke the oath. The Bible's point in prohibiting false oaths, however,
was that one should tell the truth and keep one's promises. The
Hebrew Bible approved of some oaths and vows (as in Num 5:19-22;
6:2), but Jesus again summons us beyond the law's letter to its
intention. His own point is not so much that oaths are evil as that
the motivation for engaging in them is; one should simply tell the
truth (Mt 5:37).
Although Jesus' position on oaths is not wholly unique, it was rare
enough to be distinctive. Although some Jewish teachers warned against
customary oath-taking, nearly all accepted oath-taking as valid;
in daily life, it was surely common in the marketplace. Some groups
of Essenes may have avoided oaths altogether (Jos. War 2.135), except
for their initiatory oath for joining the sect (Jos. War 2.139-42;
see also 1QS 5.8). Josephus declares that one could trust an Essene's
word more than an oath, however (War 2.135); Philo indicates that
their abstention from oaths declared their commitment to truth (Every
Good Man Free 84; also Vermes 1993:35). Jesus and the Essenes probably
intended the same as Pythagoras: let your word carry such conviction
that you need not call deities to witness (Diog. Laert. 8.1.22;
compare Philo Spec. Leg. 2.2; Isoc. Nic. 22, Or. 2).
The point of this passage is integrity. Jesus observes that since
God witnesses every word we say anyway, we should be able to tell
the truth without having to call God to witness by a formal oath.
Jesus is addressing a popular abuse of oaths in his day. To protect
the sanctity of the divine name against inadvertent oath-breaking,
common Jewish practice introduced surrogate objects by which to
swear (Vermes 1993:34-35). Some people apparently thought it harmless
to deceive if they swore oaths by something like their right hand
(t. Nedarim 1:1; cf. Jos. War 2.451). The further removed the oath
was from the actual name of God, the less danger they faced for
violating it (Schiffman 1983:137-38; E. Sanders 1990:53-54). Jewish
teachers had to arbitrate which oaths were actually binding as allusions
to God's name (m. Sebi`it 4.13; see also CD 15.1-5). Jesus teaches
that all oaths invoke God's witness equally. Just as heaven, earth
(Is 66:1-2) and Jerusalem (Ps 48:2; Mt 4:5; 27:53) belong to God
(Mt 5:34-35), so do the hairs on our heads (5:36); although we can
dye our hair, we have no genuine control over its aging (compare
6:27). All oaths implicitly call God to witness, because everything
that exists was made by him. For Jesus, no aspect of life except
sin is purely secular.
Avoiding oaths is thus inadequate; the issue is telling the truth,
because God witnesses every word we speak. Although many passages
in the Bible allow some degree of deception to preserve life (Keener
1991a:22), such exceptions are rare in our daily lives. When we
lie to cover our own wrong motives from those we think would disdain
us, we forget that one day God will expose all the secrets of our
hearts anyway (Mt 10:26). When we lightly commit ourselves to meet
people at particular times and then unnecessarily delay them (as
if their time were a commodity less precious than our own), we treat
them unjustly and deceitfully, even if in a relatively minor way.
How much more when we make promises in business deals or make still
more lasting vows (such as the marriage covenant-5:31-32).Making
vows (promises) to God lightly is a severe offense (compare Acts
5:1-11). Although Jesus' first followers continued to call on God
to witness the truth of some of their statements, apparently taking
Jesus' words as rhetorical overstatement (examples appear in Rom
1:9; 9:1; Gal 1:20), they seem to have refrained from more overt
oaths (2 Cor 1:17; Jas 5:12). Oaths that invite penalties on oneself
for violating them ("cross my heart and hope to die")
are unnecessary for people of truth.
Avoid Retribution and Resistance
(5:38-42)
Jesus here warns against legal retribution (vv. 38-39) and goes
so far as to undercut legal resistance altogether with a verse that,
if followed literally, would leave most Christians stark naked (v.
40). He also advocates not only compliance but actual cooperation
with a member of an occupying army who might be keeping you from
your livelihood (v. 41), as well as with the beggar or others who
seek our help (v. 42). (Taking the last verse literally would also
break most of us financially. Consider how many requests for money
come in the mail each week!) If Jesus is not genuinely advocating
nudity and living on the street-that is, if he is speaking the language
of rhetorical overstatement (5:18-19, 29-32; 6:3)-this still does
not absolve us from taking his demand seriously. Jesus utilized
hyperbole precisely to challenge his hearers, to force us to consider
what we value.
Jesus' words strike at the very core of human selfishness, summoning
us to value others above ourselves in concrete and consistent ways.
Some misread this text as if it says not to oppose injustice; what
it really says, however, is that we should be so unselfish and trust
God so much that we leave our vindication with him. We have no honor
or property worth defending compared with the opportunity to show
how much we love God and everyone else. By not retaliating, by not
coming down to the oppressors' level, we necessarily will appear
unrealistic to the world. Jesus' way scorns the world's honor and
appears realistic only to those with the eyes of faith. It is the
lifestyle of those who anticipate his coming kingdom (4:17).
Jesus Challenges Our Desire for Personal Vindication (5:38) Eye
for eye never meant that a person could exact vengeance directly
for his or her own eye; it meant that one should take the offender
to court, where the sentence could be executed legally. People sometimes
cite this example as a case of Jesus' disagreeing with the Old Testament.
But a society could recognize the legal justice of eye for eye while
its sages warned against descending to oppressors' moral level by
fighting evil with evil (Akkadian wisdom in Pritchard 1955:426).
Jesus is not so much revoking a standard for justice as calling
his followers not to make use of it; we qualify justice with mercy
because we do not need to avenge our honor. Jesus calls for this
humble response of faith in God; God alone is the final arbiter
of justice, and we must trust him to fulfill it.
Turning the Other Cheek, Letting God Vindicate Us (5:39)
As in much of Jesus' teaching, pressing his illustration the wrong
way may obscure his point. In fact, this would read Scripture the
very way he was warning against: if someone hits us in the nose,
or has already struck us on both cheeks, are we finally free to
hit back? Jesus gives us a radical example so we will avoid retaliation,
not so we will explore the limits of his example (see Tannehill
1975:73). A backhanded blow to the right cheek did not imply shattered
teeth (tooth for tooth was a separate statement); it was an insult,
the severest public affront to a person's dignity (Lam 3:30; Jeremias
1963:28 and 1971:239). God's prophets sometimes suffered such ill-treatment
(1 Kings 22:24; Is 50:6). Yet though this was more an affront to
honor, a challenge, than a physical injury, ancient societies typically
provided legal recourse for this offense within the lex talionis
regulations (Pritchard 1955:163, 175; see also Gaius Inst. 3.220).In
the case of an offense to our personal dignity, Jesus not only warns
us not to avenge our honor by retaliating but suggests that we indulge
the offender further. By freely offering our other cheek, we show
that those who are secure in their status before God do not value
human honor. Indeed, in some sense we practice resistance by showing
our contempt for the value of our insulter's (and perhaps the onlookers')
opinions! Because we value God's honor rather than our own (Mt 5:16;
6:1-18), because our very lives become forfeit to us when we begin
to follow Jesus Christ (16:24-27), we have no honor of our own to
lose. In this way we testify to those who insult us of a higher
allegiance of which they should take notice.
Legal Nonresistance (5:40)
Rather than trying to get an inner garment back by legal recourse,
one should relinquish the outer one too! If taken literally, this
practice would quickly lead to nudity (see also Stein 1978:10),
an intolerable dishonor in Palestinian Jewish society (for example,
Jub. 7:8-10, 20; 1QS 7.12). Many peasants (at least in poorer areas
like Egypt) had only one outer cloak and pursued whatever legal
recourse necessary to get it back if it was seized (CPJ 1:239-40,
129.5). Because the outer cloak doubled as a poor man's bedding,
biblical law permitted no one to take it, even as a pledge overnight
(Ex 22:26-27; Deut 24:12-13). Thus Jesus demands that we surrender
the very possession the law explicitly protects from legal seizure
(Guelich 1982:222). To force his hearers to think, then, Jesus provides
a shockingly graphic, almost humorous illustration of what he means
by nonresistance. His hearers value honor and things more than they
value the kingdom.
This passage is a graphic image, but if we read it literally, believers
should never take anyone to court. How far do we press Jesus' image
here, or Paul's in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8?
A driver had slammed into (and demolished) the car of one of my
students, a new Christian, and the student feared that reporting
him to her insurance company would violate the spirit of this passage.
In such cases I suspect that insurance is our society's way of providing
for the parties involved with a minimum of pain to both. But our
very questions regarding how far to press Jesus' words force us
to grapple with his principle here. Nothing a person can take from
us matters in the end anyway; we must love our enemies and seek
to turn them into friends.
Love Even Your Oppressors (5:41)
Here Matthew probably means submission to a Roman soldier's demands.
Because tax revenues did not cover all the Roman army's needs, soldiers
could requisition what they required (N. Lewis 1983:172-73; Rapske
1994:14). Romans could legally demand local inhabitants to provide
forced labor if they wanted (as in Mt 27:32) and were known to abuse
this privilege (for example, Apul. Metam. 9.39). Yet "going
the extra mile" represents not only submitting to unjust demands
but actually exceeding them-showing our oppressors that we love
them and take no offense, although our associates may wrongly view
this love as collaboration with an enemy occupation. The truth of
this passage is a life-and-death matter for many believers. Members
of both sides in wars have often killed Christians for refusing
to take sides; gangs in inner cities can present similar pressures.
Such courageous love is not easy to come by and is easily stifled
by patriotism. To take but one example that challenges my own culture,
many white U.S. citizens may wish to rethink the patriotic lens
through which they view the American colonies' revolt against Britain
in the 1770s-did they really have grounds for secession of which
Jesus would have approved if they had been his disciples? Past oppression
is also easily recalled. British Christians might consider their
feelings for Germans; Korean and Chinese Christians, for the Japanese.
In some form the principle can apply to most national, racial and
cultural groups. While early Christians responded to their persecutors
with defiant love (a humility the persecutors often viewed as arrogance),
many politically zealous Christians in the United States guard their
rights so fiercely that they are easily given to anger (which opponents
also view as arrogance).
Jesus and Paul responded firmly to unjust blows in the face (Jn
18:22-23; Acts 23:2-5) and in other circumstances (Jn 8:40-44; Acts
16:37; 22:25; 25:11; 26:25) without retaliating in their own interests.
Thus the text need not rule out all forms of resistance (see Clavier
1957; France 1985:126; Vermes 1993:36). But whether persecuted as
Christians or for other reasons, we must respond with love and kindness
(like the workers at a pregnancy-support clinic who brought food
out to abortion-rights picketers). We must resist injustice and
refuse to comply with demands that compromise justice; but we must
do so in kindness and love, not with violence or retribution.
Jesus' words are designed to shock us into considering our values,
but how far do we press Jesus' meaning? Is he calling for personal
or societal nonviolence? Within a week after my conversion, my first
reading of Matthew 5 led me to abandon my peace-through-strength
militarism for a thoroughgoing, martyrdom-anticipating pacifism,
at least on the personal level. Yet I have come to wonder whether
on a corporate level just military interventions might not sometimes
be a lesser evil than tolerating unjust military actions tantamount
to genocide (such as those of Hitler). Can meek and weaponless police
officers enforce laws designed to restrain drug dealers? Possessions
may not matter, but human life clearly does (Mt 6:25).
Still, it is easy for nations to abuse the rhetoric of justice for
self-serving violence, and unlike C. S. Lewis and some other Christian
thinkers I respect, I continue to struggle with the idea of "loving
your enemy" while you are trying to kill him. Dietrich Bonhoeffer,
a pacifist Christian who opposed Hitler's regime, ultimately decided
to participate in an assassination attempt against Hitler. He preferred
to "do evil rather than to be evil," arguing that tolerating
such evil as Hitler was tantamount to supporting that evil. The
plot failed, and Bonhoeffer was executed with his coconspirators.
What would we have done had we been in Bonhoeffer's place? For some
of us, at least, this seems to be a hard question demanding charity
toward those whose conclusions differ from our own.
At least on a personal level, however, Jesus' point is both uncomfortable
and difficult to evade. The life of Martin Luther King Jr. reminds
us that the meek rarely advance their cause without paying a high
personal price, even martyrdom. Do we have the courage to stand
for justice yet do so without this world's weapons of violence and
hatred (see Thurman 1981:88)? While Jesus' teaching cannot be conformed
to the agendas of those who advocate violent revolution, no matter
how just their cause, neither does it mean total passivity in the
face of evil. It does not mean that an abused wife must remain in
the home in the face of abuse; it does not mean that God expects
people being massacred to remain instead of fleeing (compare Mt
2:13-20; 10:23). James, an advocate of peace (Jas 2:11; 3:13-18;
4:1-2), was unrestrained in his denunciation of those who oppressed
the poor (Jas 5:1-6; see Keener 1991c).
Rather, Jesus' teaching does mean that we depend on God rather than
on human weapons, although God may sovereignly raise up human weapons
to fight the oppressors. If we value justice and compassion for
persons rather than merely utopian idealism, we must also calculate
the human cost of opposing various degrees of injustice. In first-century
Palestine, few "safe" vehicles existed for nonviolent
social protest against the Romans; Romans viewed most public protest
as linked with revolution, and punished it accordingly. In a society
like ours where Christian egalitarianism has helped shape conceptions
of justice, nonviolent protest stands a much better chance of working.
Neither violent revolutionaries (whose cause may be more just than
their methods) nor the well-fed who complacently ignore the rest
of the world's pain (and whose cause is merely personal advancement)
may embrace Jesus without either distorting him or transforming
themselves in the process.
Yet Jesus' own life explains the meekness he prescribes. When the
time appointed by his Father arrived, Jesus allowed people to crucify
him, trusting his Father's coming vindication to raise him from
the dead (Mt 17:11; 20:18-19). He was too meek to cry out or bruise
a reed until the time would come to bring "justice to victory"
(12:19-20). Yet he proclaimed justice (12:18), openly denounced
the unjust (23:13-36) and actively, even somewhat "violently,"
protested unrighteousness although he knew what it would cost him
(21:12-13). Jesus was meek (11:29), but he was not a wimp. He called
his disciples to be both harmless as doves and wise as serpents
(10:16)-in short, to be ruled by the law of love (22:39). Love of
neighbor not only does no harm to a neighbor but bids us place ourselves
in harm's way to protect our neighbor.
Surrender Your Possessions to Whoever Requests
Them (5:42)
Judaism recognized giving to beggars as a moral obligation. Judaism
stressed both charity and a high work ethic; most beggars genuinely
had no alternative means of income. Unlike some of Jesus' contemporaries
(Hengel 1974:20; see also Jeremias 1969:127), he places no cap on
giving. While Jesus lived simply, he did have a home (4:13), like
most other Galileans (albeit probably a modest one, like most of
his townspeople). Yet if Jesus merely counseled "Live simply"
without confronting us with concrete, graphic illustrations, many
of us would define simplicity in terms of our desires rather than
in terms of the world's great needs. Jesus forces us to decide how
much we love others-and him.
Again Jesus invites us to grapple with his point, to which he will
return with far greater force in 6:19-34. If nonresistance means
disdaining our right to personal honor (5:38-39), our most basic
possessions (v. 40) and our labor and time (v. 41) when others seek
them by force, we must also disdain these things in view of the
needs of the poor (v. 42). When the kingdom comes, our deeds rather
than our wealth will matter (6:19-21; compare 25:34-46). In the
meantime those who disdain everything else for the kingdom (13:44-45)
must do with these other possessions what Jesus wills: give them
to those who need them more (19:21). Our "vested interests"
must be in heaven, not on earth (6:19-21). If we cannot value the
kingdom that much, Jesus says, it will not belong to us (19:29-30).
Love for Enemies
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and
hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for
those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in
heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and
sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those
who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors
doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you
doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect,
therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Explanation: Love Your Enemies (5:43-48)
Jesus demands not only that we not resist evil people assaulting
our honor or possessions (vv. 38-42) but that we go so far as to
actively love our enemies.
Jesus Demands Love Even for Enemies (5:43-44)
When Jesus explains his final quotation from the Bible, Love your
neighbor, he adds to the quote an implication some of his contemporaries
found there: hate your enemy. He is probably speaking of all kinds
of enemies. Personal enemies were common enough in the setting of
Galilean villages (Horsley 1986; Freyne 1988:154), but Jesus' contemporaries
may have also thought of corporate threats to Israel or the moral
fabric of the community (see Borg 1987:139). Whereas the biblical
command to love neighbors (Lev 19:18) extends to foreigners in the
land (Lev 19:33-34; compare Lk 10:27-37), other texts hold up a
passionate devotion to God's cause that bred hatred of those who
opposed it (Ps 139:21-22; see also 137:7-9). Popular piety, exemplified
in the Qumran community's oath to "hate the children of darkness,"
may have extended such biblical ideology in Jesus' day (see Sutcliffe
1960). Jesus may well mean both personal and corporate enemies (Moulder
1978).
Jesus builds a fence around the law of love (Mt 22:39), amplifying
it to its ultimate conclusion (compare Ex 23:4-5). In so doing,
he makes demands more stringent than the law. He also makes a demand
that can require more than merely human resources for forgiveness.
Corrie ten Boom, who had lost most of her family in a Nazi concentration
camp, often lectured on grace. But one day a man who came to shake
her hand after such a talk turned out to be a former prison guard.
Only by asking God to love through her did she find the grace to
take his hand and offer him Christian forgiveness.Since Jesus does
not say exactly what to pray for our persecutors, some of us have
been tempted to pray, "God, kill that person!" Needless
to say, the context makes clear that Jesus means to pray good things
for our enemies. Old Testament prayers for vindication (such as
2 Chron 24:22; Jer 15:15) still have their place (2 Tim 4:14; Rev
6:10), but our attitude toward individuals who hurt us personally
or corporately must be love (Lk 23:34; Acts 7:60). Again, Jesus'
words are graphic pictures that force us to probe our hearts; they
do not cancel the Old Testament belief in divine vindication (Mt
23:33, 38; Rev 6:10-11), but summon us to leave our vindication
with God and seek others' best interests in love.
Jesus Appeals to a Positive and Negative
Example (5:45-47)
First he provides the ultimate moral example: God (vv. 45, 48).
Jewish teachers generally recognized, as Jesus did, that God was
gracious to all humanity, including the morally undeserving (for
example, Sipre Deut. 43.3.6); they also saw rain as one of God's
universal signs of beneficence. But after adducing the ultimate
moral example, Jesus adduces an example from the opposite end of
his hearers' moral spectrum (vv. 46-47): he provokes his hearers
to shame by comparing their ability to obey the love commandment
with that of tax-gatherers and Gentile idolaters, the epitome of
moral reprobates (Mt 6:7; 20:25; 18:17; compare, for example, Sipre
Deut. 43.16.1). One whose righteousness would surpass that of scribes
and Pharisees (5:20) must exemplify a higher standard of righteousness
than loving those friendly to their interests.Jesus Demands That
We Be Perfect like God (5:48)
What Jesus illustrated with graphic, concrete examples earlier in
the sermon (vv. 21-47) he now epitomizes in a summary statement
that forces us to go beyond mere examples. We can appeal to no law
to tell us that we are righteous enough-that would be legalism.
Instead, we must desire God's will so much that we seek to please
him in every area of our lives-that is holiness. Jesus says that
God's law was never about mere rules; instead, God desires a complete
righteousness of the heart, a total devotion to God's purposes in
this world.
That God becomes the standard of comparison suggests that Jesus'
instruction here is exhortation, setting a goal, not assuming a
state to which the hearers have already come. (The issue of whether
any Christian is perfect is irrelevant here. All of us can learn
to better reflect God's character; at the same time, God promises
us power to overcome any given temptation; and if we can overcome
any temptation, we should choose to say no to every temptation.)
And as long as God represents the moral standard, none of us has
room to boast; all of us must unite as brothers and sisters in need
and seek God's kingdom and righteousness with all our hearts.
