8. Transitional conclusion: Jesus’ authority (7:28–29)
7“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
9“Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!”
COMMENTARY
7–8 Zahn tries to establish a connection between these verses and the preceding ones by saying that Jesus now teaches that it is best to ask God to remove the speck in the other person’s eye. Stott (Message of the Sermon on the Mount, 174–75) understands vv.1–11 in terms of relationships: to believers (vv.1–5), to “pigs” and “dogs” (v.6), and to God (vv.7–11). Bonnard best exemplifies those who say there is no connection at all between vv.7–11 and the preceding verses. Yet there are, in fact, deep thematic connections. Schlatter perceives one of them when he remarks that Jesus, having told his disciples the difficulties, now exhorts them to prayer. Moreover, one of the most pervasive features of Jesus’ teaching on prayer is the assurance it will be heard. But such praying is not for selfish ends but always for the glory of God according to kingdom concerns. So here: the Sermon on the Mount lays down the righteousness, sincerity, humility, purity, and love expected of Jesus’ followers, and now it assures them such gifts are theirs if sought through prayer.
The sermon has begun with acknowledgment of personal bankruptcy (5:3) and has already provided a model prayer (6:9–13). Now (v.7) in three imperatives (ask, seek, knock) symmetrically repeated (v.8) and in the present tense to stress the persistence and sincerity required (cf. Jer 29:13), Jesus assures his followers that, far from demanding the impossible, he is providing the means for the otherwise impossible. “One may be a truly industrious man, and yet poor in temporal things; but one cannot be a truly praying man, and yet poor in spiritual things” (Broadus). Far too often, Christians do not have the marks of richly textured discipleship because they do not ask, or they ask with selfish motives (Jas 4:2–3). But the best gifts, those advocated by the Sermon on the Mount, are available to “everyone” (v.8) who persistently asks, seeks, and knocks.
Jesus’ disciples will pray (“ask”) with earnest sincerity (“seek”) and active, diligent pursuit of God’s way (“knock”). Like a human father, the heavenly Father uses these means to teach his children courtesy, persistence, and diligence. If the child prevails with a thoughtful father, it is because the father has molded the child to his way. If Jacob prevails with God, it is Jacob who is wounded (Ge 32:22–32).
9–11 Another a fortiori argument (see 
Four observations will tie up some loose ends.
1. Lachs (“Textual Observations,” 109–10) insists that the “concept that man is evil from birth, born in sin, and similar pronouncements, is a later theological development” and therefore proposes to emend the text of an alleged Semitic original. While it is true that rabbinic literature does not normally portray man as inherently evil, it is false to say that the idea arose only after Jesus, presumably with Paul (cf. Pss 14:1–3; 51; 53:1–3; Ecc 7:20). Jesus regularly assumes the sinfulness of humanity (cf. TDNT, 6:554–55). Therefore, the rabbinic parallels to vv.7–11 are of limited value. They stress the analogy of the caring parent, but not on the supposition that the human parent is evil.
2. The fatherhood-of-God language is reserved for God’s relationship with Jesus’ disciples (see
3. What is fundamentally at stake is a person’s picture of God. God must not be thought of as a reluctant stranger who can be cajoled or bullied into bestowing his gifts (6:7–8), as a malicious tyrant who takes vicious glee in the tricks he plays (7:9–10), or even as an indulgent grandfather who provides everything requested of him. He is the heavenly Father, the God of the kingdom, who graciously and willingly bestows the good gifts of the kingdom in answer to prayer. See Jayhoon Yang, “Ask, Seek and Knock? A Reconsideration of Matthew 7:7–12,” ExpTim 119 (2008): 170–75.
4. On the “good gifts” as spiritual gifts (cf. Ro 3:8; 10:15; Heb 9:11; 10:1) and the parallel reference to the Holy Spirit (Lk 11:13), see Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 469–70.
12“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
COMMENTARY
12 The Golden Rule was not invented by Jesus; it is found in many forms in highly diverse settings. About AD 20, Rabbi Hillel, challenged by a Gentile to summarize the law in the short time the Gentile could stand on one leg, reportedly responded, “What is hateful to you, do not do to anyone else. This is the whole law; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it” (b. Šabb. 31a). Apparently only Jesus phrased the rule positively. Thus stated, it is certainly more telling than its negative counterpart, for it speaks against sins of omission as well as sins of commission. The goats in 25:31–46 would be acquitted under the negative form of the rule but not under the form attributed to Jesus.
The oun (“therefore”; NIV, “so”) might refer to vv.7–11 (i.e., because God gives good gifts, therefore Jesus’ disciples should live by this rule as a function of gratitude) or to vv.1–6 (i.e., instead of judging others, we should treat them as we ourselves would want to be treated). But more probably it refers to the entire body of the sermon (5:17–7:12), for here there is a second reference to “the Law and the Prophets”; and this appears to form an envelope with 5:17–20. “Therefore,” in the light of all I have taught about the true direction in which the OT law points, obey the Golden Rule, for this is (estin; NIV, “sums up”) the Law and the Prophets (cf. Ro 13:9).
This way of putting it provides a powerful yet flexible maxim that helps us decide moral issues in a thousand cases without the need for multiplied case law. The rule is not arbitrary, without rational support, as in radical humanism; in Jesus’ mind its rationale (“for”) lies in its connection with revealed truth recorded in “the Law and the Prophets.” The rule embraces quantity (“in everything”) and quality (houtōs kai, “[do] even so”). And in the context of fulfilling the Scriptures, the rule provides a handy summary of the righteousness to be displayed in the kingdom.
Above all, this verse is not to be understood as a utilitarian maxim such as “Honesty pays.” We are to do to others what we would have them do to us, not just because we expect the same in return, but because such conduct is the goal of the Law and the Prophets. The verb estin (NIV, “sums up”) might properly be translated “fulfill,” as in Acts 2:16. In the deepest sense, therefore, the rule is the Law and the Prophets in the same way the kingdom is the fulfillment of all that the Law and the Prophets foretold.
OVERVIEW
The Sermon on the Mount ends with four warnings, each offering paired contrasts: two ways (vv.13–14), two trees (vv.15–20), two claims (vv.21–23), and two builders (vv.24–27): see the useful chart of David Turner. Such pairs reflect preaching in the Wisdom tradition (note, for instance, how people in Proverbs are following either Lady Wisdom or Dame Folly). Here the pairs focus on eschatological judgment and so make it plain that the theme is still the kingdom of heaven. But if some will not enter it (vv.13–14, 21–23), the sole basis for such a tragedy is present response to Jesus’ words. At the close of the sermon, the messianic claim is implicit and only thinly veiled.
13“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
13–14 “Two ways” language is common in Jewish literature, both canonical and extracanonical (e.g., Dt 30:19; Ps 1; Jer 21:8; Sir 21:11–14; 2 Esd 7:6–14; T. Ash. 1:3, 5; 1QS 3:20ff.). The general picture is clear enough. There are two gates, two roads, two crowds, two destinations. The “narrow” gate (KJV’s “strait” is from Lat. strictum, “narrow”; nothing is said about this gate or road being “straight,” despite the modern phrase “straight and narrow”) is clearly restrictive and does not permit entrance to what Jesus prohibits. The “wide” gate seems far more inviting. The “broad” road (not “easy,” NRSV) is spacious and accommodates the crowd and their baggage; the other road is “narrow”—but two different words are used: stenēs (“narrow,” v.13, GK 5101) and tethlimmenē (v.14, GK 2567), the latter being cognate with thlipsis (“tribulation,” GK 2568), which almost always refers to persecution. So this text says that the way of discipleship is “narrow,” restricting, because it is the way of persecution and opposition—a major theme in Matthew (see 
But the two roads are not ends in themselves. The narrow road leads to life, i.e., to the consummated kingdom (cf. vv.21–23; John’s gospel), but the broad road leads to apōleia (“destruction,” GK 724)—“definitive destruction, not merely in the sense of the extinction of physical existence, but rather of an eternal plunge into Hades and a hopeless destiny of death” (TDNT, 1:396); cf. 25:34, 46; Jn 17:12; Ro 9:22; Php 1:28; 3:19; 1Ti 6:9; Heb 10:39; 2Pe 2:1, 3; 3:16; Rev 17:8, 11). (On the relative numbers [“many ... few”], see 22:14; Lk 13:22–30; Rev 7:9.)
Democratic decisions do not determine truth and righteousness in the kingdom. That there are only two ways is the inevitable result of the fact that the one that leads to life is exclusively by revelation. But if truth in such matters must not be sought by appealing to majority opinion (Ex 23:2), neither can it be found by each person doing what is right in his own eyes (Pr 14:12; cf. Jdg 21:25). God must be true and every man a liar (Ro 3:4).
There remains an important metaphorical difficulty. Granted the correctness of the text (cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 19), are we to think of roads heading up to the gate, so that once through the gate the traveler has arrived at his destination, whether destruction or the consummated kingdom? Or is the gate something entered in this life, with the roads, broad and narrow, stretching out before the pilgrim? Tasker as well as Jeremias (TDNT, 6:922–23) adopt the former alternative. Jeremias appeals to Luke 13:23–24, where a door, not a road, is mentioned, and argues that Jesus originally said something about entering a door or gate and that Matthew’s form is a popular hysteron-proteron (“later-earlier”) way of saying things with the real order reversed (like “thunder and lightning”).
Not only is Luke 13:23–24 so far removed from the language of Matthew 7:13–14 (even “door,” not “gate”) that one may question whether the two spring from the same saying, but even in Luke, entrance through the door is not merely eschatological since there comes a time when the door is shut and no more may enter. This suggests that it is the shutting of the door that eliminates further opportunity for entrance, while the entrance itself takes place now—a form of realized eschatology. This conceptual parallel with Matthew, plus the order of gate-road, suggests, not that the gate marks entrance into the consummated kingdom, nor that the gate and road are a hendiadys (Ridderbos), but that entrance through the gate into the narrow way of persecution begins now but issues in the consummated kingdom at the other end of that way (Grosheide, Hendriksen). The narrow gate is not thereby rendered superfluous; instead, it confirms that even the beginning of this path to life is restrictive. Here is no funnel that progressively narrows down but a decisive break.
This exegesis entails two conclusions.
1. Jesus is not encouraging committed disciples, “Christians,” to press on along the narrow way and be rewarded in the end. He is rather commanding his disciples to enter the way marked by persecution and rewarded in the end. Jesus’ “disciples” (see
2. Implicitly, entrance into the kingdom—or, to preserve the language Matthew uses here but not always elsewhere (e.g., 12:28), entrance into the way to the kingdom—begins here and now in coming through the small gate, onto the narrow way of persecution, and under the authority of Jesus Christ (cf. vv.21, 26).
NOTES
13 The phrase δι᾽ αὐτῆς (di’ autēs, “through it”) could in Greek refer to either the gate or the road (cf. 8:28); but the main lines of exegesis (see 
14 Probably τί (ti, normally “what?” or “why?”; KJV, “for”; NIV, “but”) is the correct reading, carrying the same force as 
(mâ, “how”—e.g., Ps 139:17) in Hebrew (cf. Black, Aramaic Approach, 123; BDF, para. 299 [4]; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 19).
OVERVIEW
Much recent debate has focused attention on the identity of these false prophets in the Matthean church. The argument turns in large part on identifying v.15 as Matthew’s creation and on attempting to discuss the tradition history of vv.16–20; 12:33–35; Luke 6:43–45. The same evidence is better interpreted to support the thesis that Jesus in his itinerant preaching uses similar metaphors in a wide variety of ways.
Verse 15 has no synoptic parallel, but the thought is certainly not foreign to Jesus’ other warnings (e.g., 24:4–5, 11, 23–24; Mk 13:22), and Matthew’s language is small evidence for inauthenticity (see Introduction, ). The very diversity of the identifications—the false prophets are Zealots, Gnostics, scribes, antinomians, anti-Paulinists (for a recent survey, see David Hill, “False Prophets and Charismatics: Structure and Interpretation in Matthew 7:15–23,” Bib 57 [1976]: 327–48)—argues that Jesus gave a warning with rather broad limits susceptible to diverse applications. Hill himself sees Pharisees of the AD 80 period in vv.15–20 and Charismatics in vv.21–23. E. Cothenet (“Les prophètes chrétiens dans l’Évangile selon Saint Matthieu,” in L’Évangile selon Matthieu [ed. Didier], 281–308) thinks Jesus in vv.15–23 is condemning Zealots, but Matthew applies his words to condemn antinomians. And Paul Minear (“False Prophecy and Hypocrisy in the Gospel of Matthew,” in Neues Testament und Kirche [ed. Gnilka], 76–93) criticizes theories that center on antinomians and Pharisees and understands the pericope to warn against hypocrisy and false prophecy entirely within the Christian community.
There is nothing intrinsically unlikely about the notion that Jesus warned against false prophets, provided he foresaw the continued existence of his newly formed community for a sustained period. He was doubtless steeped in the OT reports of earlier false prophets (Jer 6:13–15; 8:8–12; Eze 13; 22:27; Zep 3:4). Certainly the first Christians faced the false prophets (cf. v.15) Jesus had predicted (Ac 20:29; 2Co 11:11–15; 2Pe 2:1–3, 17–22; cf. 1Jn 2:18, 22; 4:1–6). In view of Matthew’s care in preserving historical distinctions (see
15“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.”
COMMENTARY
15 Warnings against false prophets are necessarily based on the conviction that not all prophets are true, that truth can be violated, and that the gospel’s enemies usually conceal their hostility and try to pass themselves off as fellow believers. At first glance, they use orthodox language, show biblical piety, and are indistinguishable from true prophets (cf. 10:41). Thus it is vital to know how to distinguish sheep from wolves in sheep’s clothing. Jesus does not explicitly say who will have the discernment to protect the community but implies that the community itself, by whatever agency, must somehow protect itself from the wolves.
Neither the damage these false prophets do nor their brand of false teaching is stated, but the flow of the Sermon on the Mount and its OT background suggest they neither acknowledge nor teach the narrow way to life subject to persecution (vv.13–14; cf. Jer 8:11; Eze 13, where prophets cry “Peace!” when there is no peace). They have never really come under kingdom authority (vv.21–23); and since the only alternative to life is destruction (vv.13–14), they imperil their followers.
16–20 From a distance the little blackberries on the buckthorn could be mistaken for grapes, and the flowers on certain thistles might deceive one into thinking figs were growing (v.16). But no one would be long deceived. So with people! One’s “fruit”—not just what one does but all one says and does—will ultimately reveal what one is (cf. Jas 3:12). The Semitic way of expression (i.e., both positive and negative—namely, every good tree bears good fruit; no good tree bears bad fruit, etc.) makes the test certain but not necessarily easy or quick. Living according to kingdom norms can be feigned for a time, but what one is will eventually reveal itself in what one does. However guarded one’s words, they will finally betray him (cf. 12:33–37; Lk 6:45). Ultimately false prophets tear down faith (2Ti 2:18) and promote divisiveness, bitterness (e.g., 1Ti 6:4–5; 2Ti 2:23), and various kinds of ungodliness (2Ti 2:16). Meek discernment and understanding the dire consequences of the false prophets’ teachings are needed. But at the same time, censoriousness over minutiae must be avoided.
The common wording between 3:10 (spoken by the Baptist) and 7:19 may suggest that v.19 was proverbial or that during the time Jesus and the Baptist were both ministering, various expressions became standard (cf. 3:2; 4:17). Verse 19 is an important example of this, for here we have independent evidence that Jesus preached in this vein (cf. Mk 1:15) so that there is no need to suppose Matthew has transferred a saying of the Baptist to the lips of Jesus.
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”
COMMENTARY
21–23 If vv.15–20 deal with false prophets, vv.21–23 deal with false followers. Perhaps some became false because of the false prophets. Their cry of “Lord, Lord” reflects fervency. In Jesus’ day, it is doubtful whether “Lord” when used to address him meant more than “teacher” or “sir.” But in the postresurrection period, it becomes an appellation of worship and a confession of Jesus’ deity. Therefore some suspect an anachronism here. Two factors support authenticity: (1) the parallel in Luke 6:46 (cf. Jn 13:12–16), and (2) the fact that throughout Jesus’ ministry he referred to himself in relatively veiled categories whose full significance could be grasped only after the resurrection. The latter point is central to understanding the “Son of Man” title (see 
On the background of kyrios (“Lord,” GK 3261) as a christological title, see Fitzmyer, Wandering Aramean, 115–32. Here Jesus’ point is made during his ministry, if at that time his disciples understood “Lord” to mean “teacher.” But implicitly Jesus is claiming more, since his “name” becomes the focus of kingdom activity; and he alone decrees who does or does not enter the kingdom (vv.22–23). Thus the warning and rebuke would take on added force when early Christians read the passage from their postresurrection perspective.
Indeed, the tables may be turned. Far from providing evidence that virtually every use of kyrios in this gospel is anachronistic because it presupposes a high Christology (e.g., Kingsbury), these verses suggest that Matthew is painfully aware that the title may mean nothing. This explains, for instance, the deep irony of Peter’s “Never, Lord” (16:22). Jesus himself is preparing his followers to put the deepest content in the title, for finally obedience, not titles, is decisive.
The determinative factor regarding who enters the kingdom is obedience to the Father’s will (v.19; cf. 12:50). This is the first use of “my Father” in Matthew (cf. Lk 2:49; Jn 2:16); as such it may support the truth, taught throughout the sermon, that Jesus alone claims to be the authoritative revealer of his Father’s will (Mt 7:21). It quite misses the point to say that the Father’s will is simply the OT law mildly touched up by Jesus, and that therefore the Matthean church “seems to have been unaware of or uninfluenced by Pauline Christianity” (Hill).
1. If the preceding exegesis of the Sermon on the Mount is correct, Matthew is not saying that Jesus is simply taking over the law but that Jesus fulfills the law and thus determines the nature of its continuity.
2. Within this framework, Matthew presents Jesus as standing at a different (i.e., earlier) point in salvation history than any church in Matthew’s day, for Jesus is the one who brings about the new dispensation.
3. Paul’s alleged antinomian tendencies are implicitly exaggerated by Hill’s reconstruction, for it is difficult to think of one thing in the sermon Paul does not say in other words. The differences between Matthew and Paul—and there are major ones—have more to do with differences in interest and in their relative place in the stream of redemptive history. Moreover, Matthew, as we shall see, strongly stresses grace; therefore, it is legitimate to wonder whether he is presenting obedience to the will of the Father as the ground or as the requirement for entrance to the kingdom. Paul would deny only the former and insist on the latter no less than Matthew would.
“That day” is the day of judgment (cf. Mal 3:17–18; 1 En. 45:3; cf. Mt 25:31–46; Lk 10:12; 2Th 1:7–10; 2Ti 1:12; 4:8; Rev 16:14). The false claimants have prophesied in Jesus’ name and by that name exorcised demons and performed miracles. There is no reason to judge their claims false; their claims are not false but insufficient. Significantly, the miracles Jesus specifies were all done by his disciples during his ministry (cf. 10:1–4). He does not mention a later gift, such as tongues. The argument of David C. Sim (“Matthew 7:21–23: Further Evidence of its Anti-Pauline Perspective,” NTS 53 [2007]: 325–43) that these verses betray an anti-Pauline bias depends on an arbitrary alignment of material. Sim argues that according to these verses Jesus as final judge condemns the very sort of people who belong to Paul and his circle—people who are lawless and defend themselves by saying they prophesy, work miracles, and perform exorcisms in the name of Jesus; i.e., they engage in charismatic activities. But the same Paul insists that those who continue in their pre-conversion sins will never inherit the kingdom (e.g., 1Co 6:9–11), which is much in line with what Jesus here underscores.
Verse 23 presupposes an implicit Christology of the highest order. Jesus himself decides not only who enters the kingdom on the last day but also who will be banished from his presence. That he never knew these false claimants strikes a common biblical note, namely, how close to spiritual reality one may come while knowing nothing of its fundamental reality (e.g., Balaam; Judas Iscariot; cf. Mk 9:38–39; 1Co 13:2; Heb 3:14; 1Jn 2:19). “But not everyone who speaks in a spirit is a prophet, except he have the behavior of the Lord” (Did. 11.8).
Two final observations: (1) Although “I have nothing to do with you” is the mildest of rabbinic bans (Str-B, 4:293), the words used here are clearly final and eschatological in a solemn context of “that day” and entrance into the kingdom; and (2) “Away from me, you evildoers” is quoted from Psalm 6:8 (cf. Lk 13:27). In the psalm, the sufferer, vindicated by Yahweh, tells the evildoers to depart. Again it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Jesus himself links the authority of the messianic King with the righteous Sufferer, however veiled the allusion may be (see
24“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
COMMENTARY
24–27 Luke’s sermon ends on the same note (Lk 6:47–49). Probably the evangelists adapted the parable to the situation of their readers. Verses 21–23 contrast “saying” and “doing”; these verses contrast “hearing” and “doing” (Stott, Message of the Sermon on the Mount, 208), not unlike James 1:22–25; 2:14–20 (cf. Eze 33:31–32). Moreover, the will of the Father (v.21) becomes definitive in what Jesus calls “these words of mine” (v.24). His teaching is definitive (see 
In the light of the radical choice of vv.21–23, “therefore” (v.24) the two positions can be likened to two builders and their houses. Each house looks secure in good weather. But Palestine is known for torrential rains that can turn dry wadis into raging torrents. Only storms reveal the quality of the work of the two builders. The thought reminds us of the parable of the sower, in which the seed sown on rocky ground lasts only a short time, until “trouble or persecution comes because of the word” (13:21). The greatest storm is eschatological (cf. Isa 28:16–17; Eze 13:10–13; see also Pr 12:7). But Jesus’ words about the two houses need not be thus restricted. The point is that the wise man (a repeated term in Matthew; cf. 10:16; 24:45; 25:2, 4, 8–9) builds to withstand anything.
What wisdom (phronimos, GK 5861; the term is absent from Mark and occurs twice in Luke [12:42; 16:8]) consists of is clear. A wise person represents those who put Jesus’ words into practice; they too are building to withstand anything. Those who pretend to have faith, who have a merely intellectual commitment, or who enjoy Jesus in small doses are foolish builders. When the storms of life come, their structures fool no one, above all not God (cf. Eze 13:10–16).
The sermon ends with what has been implicit throughout it—the demand for radical submission to the exclusive lordship of Jesus, who fulfills the Law and the Prophets and warns the disobedient that the alternative to total obedience, true righteousness, and life in the kingdom is rebellion, self-centeredness, and eternal damnation.
NOTES
24 The future passive reading ὁμοιωθήσεται (homoiōthēsetai, lit., “will become like,” GK 3929) is more probable than the active ὁμοιώσω αὐτόν (homoiōsō auton, lit., “I will liken him to”), not only on textual grounds, but also because of the possibility of assimilation to the active in Luke 6:47–48: ὑποδείξω ὑμῖν ... ὅμοιος (hypodeixō hymin ... homoios, “I will show you what he is like”). The future tense is significant: the one who puts Jesus’ words into practice will become like the man who ...; i.e., on Judgment Day, when the great storm comes, he will stand fast because of his good foundation (see 
24–26 The words ἀκούει μου τοὺς λόγους τούτους (akouei mou tous logous toutous, “hears these words of mine”) could be rendered “hears me, in respect of these sayings”; Davies (Setting, 94) argues that “in this sense, the ethical teaching is not detached from the life of him who uttered it and with whom it is congruous.” But the verb ἀκούω (akouō, “hear,” GK 201) only once takes the genitive in Matthew, and then it is not a pronoun. The emphatic μου (mou “of mine”) is best understood as a way of forcefully identifying Jesus’ teaching with the will of his Father (v.21), an important point in light of the exegesis of 5:17–20.
28When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.
COMMENTARY
28–29 This is the first of the five formulaic conclusions that terminate the discourses in this gospel. All five begin with kai egeneto (lit., “and it happened”) plus a finite verb (v.28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1), a construction common in the LXX (classical Greek preferred egeneto plus the infinitive; cf. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, para. 388; Beyer, Semitische Syntax, 41–60). The only other occurrence in Matthew is of the rather different “Hebrew” construction kai egeneto ... kai (lit., “and it happened ... and”) plus a finite verb, which appears once (9:10). Matthew’s formula is therefore a self-conscious stylistic device that establishes a structural turning point. (It is not necessary to adopt Benjamin Bacon’s theory of parallelism to the Five Books of Moses; see Introduction, .) Moreover, in each case the conclusion is transitional and prepares for the next section. Here (as we shall see below) mention of Jesus’ authority leads into his authority in other spheres (8:1–17). In 11:1, Jesus’ activity sets the scene for John the Baptist’s question (11:2–3). And 13:53 anticipates rejection of Jesus in his hometown, while 19:1–2 points forward to his Judean ministry with new crowds and renewed controversies. Finally, 26:1–5 looks to the cross, now looming very near.
The crowds—probably a larger group than his disciples—again pressing in on him (see
The word didachē (“teaching,” GK 1439) can refer to both content and manner, and no doubt the crowds were astonished at both. Their astonishment says nothing about their own heart commitment. The cause of their astonishment was Jesus’ exousia (“authority,” GK 2026). The term embraces power as well as authority, and the theme becomes central (cf. 8:9; 9:6, 8; 10:1; 21:23–24, 27; 28:18). In his authority, Jesus differs from the “teachers of the law” (see 
Daube (New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, 205–16), in arguing that Jesus’ lack of official rabbinic authority was an early issue in his ministry, says that some of the crowds’ response in Galilee was because they did not often hear ordained rabbis so far north. Sigal (Halakhah of Jesus), dating the sources a little differently, insists (probably rightly) that there was no official ordination of rabbis until after Jesus’ death. He argues that Jesus himself was not essentially different in his authority from other proto-rabbis. Both these instructions miss the central point, which transcends halakic applications of the law, the formulas used, and the latitude of interpretation permitted.
The central point is this: Jesus’ entire approach in the Sermon on the Mount is not only ethical but messianic—i.e., christological and eschatological. Jesus is not an ordinary prophet who says, “Thus says the Lord!” Rather, he speaks in the first person and claims that his teaching fulfills the OT, that he determines who enters the messianic kingdom, that as the Divine Judge he pronounces banishment, that the true heirs of the kingdom will be persecuted for their allegiance to him, and that he alone fully knows the will of his Father. It is methodologically indefensible for Sigal to complain that all such themes are later Christian additions and therefore to focus exclusively on points of halakic interpretation. Jesus’ authority is unique (see
29 The word “their” may indicate a distinction between “Christian” teachers and those of the synagogues. Hummel (Auseinandersetzung, 28ff.) and others, following Kilpatrick (Origins, 40), make much of Matthew’s “their” (4:23; 9:35; 10:17; 12:9; 13:54; 23:34) to support a theory that Matthew’s life setting is just before the division between church and synagogue (since 6:2, 5; 23:6 make no allusion to Christian synagogues). But “their” may be quite innocuous. It may reflect the geographical stance of a writer not in Galilee (see