Iii. Jesus’ Ministry In Galilee, 4:12–13:52
III. JESUS’ MINISTRY IN GALILEE, 4:12–13:52
A. Introduction, 4:12–17
12And having heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. 13And he left Nazara and came and lived in Capernaum, which is by the sea in the regions of Zebulon and Naphthali; 14so that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, saying,
15“Land of Zebulon and land of Naphthali,
way of the sea, beyond the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles —
16the people that sit in darkness
saw a great light,
and on those sitting in the region and shadow of death
light has dawned.”
17From then on Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near.”
Matthew here begins his story of Jesus’ ministry, characteristically stressing the note of fulfilled prophecy. He leaves the impression that Jesus was in Judea for some time after his baptism, moving to Galilee only after the arrest of the Baptist. Of course John may have been arrested immediately after he had baptized Jesus, but unless this happened Jesus remained in Judea for some time (which would agree with John’s account of activities of Jesus in that area). Matthew prefers to start his account of Jesus’ ministry with the fulfilment of prophecy.
12. Matthew does not tell us how Jesus heard that John the Baptist had been arrested (for the story see 14:3–12), where his verb is a technical term for handing someone over into custody. It is often used of Judas, when it is usually translated “betray.”36 Matthew contents himself with saying that Jesus heard this news and goes on to the information that he then withdrew into Galilee. The verb was used of the Magi (2:12); it often has something of the notion of withdrawing from danger. The point of this withdrawal is sometimes said to be that after John had been arrested it was prudent for those who had been associated with the Baptist to place themselves at some distance from the area of his work. There may be something in this, but we must bear in mind that Herod Antipas ruled both regions. It is more likely that with John’s ministry completed Jesus saw that it was time to begin his own; whereas John had done his work in the wilderness Jesus would do his largely among the people of Galilee.37 Matthew says essentially what Mark and Luke say, but with very few coincidences of language (only “John” and “into Galilee”). Galilee (see on 2:22) was the region west of the Jordan and the Sea of Galilee bounded on the west and north by Phoenicia and Syria and on the south by Samaria. It was thus not large in area, but it was very fertile and had a considerable population. Josephus observes that it had all been cultivated, that there was no waste land, and that the smallest village had more than 15,000 inhabitants (War 3.43). Even allowing for exaggeration Galilee must have been well populated. Important roads passed through the area (Barclay quotes a saying: “Judaea is on the way to nowhere: Galilee is on the way to everywhere”), and whereas Judea was mountainous and isolated, Galilee was open to trade and ideas. History had seen foreign conquerors make their mark on the region and, of course, had brought an influx of people from many races. All this means that Galilee was the kind of country where new teachings might be heard and even welcomed.
13. He left Nazara,38 where the verb sometimes means no more than leave behind, but where it can also signify “abandon” (cf. its use in 19:5). However we translate, the fact is that Jesus seems not to have lived any longer in Nazara39 where he had been brought up. Luke tells us that the people of this town rejected Jesus when he preached in their synagogue (Luke 4:16–31), but that incident can scarcely have been the cause of his removal, for he had already exercised a ministry in Capernaum when he preached in Nazareth (Luke 4:23). Little is known about Capernaum, but Matthew tells us that it occupied a seaside position and that it was in the general area of Zebulon and Naphtali (these tribes are mentioned again in the New Testament only in v. 15 and Rev. 7:6–8). The name Capernaum means “Nahum’s village,” but this does not help us because it is not known who the Nahum in question was. It is generally accepted that the site of the city is that known as “Tell Hum” at the northwest corner of the Sea of Galilee. It was of a fair size (J. P. Kane says that its area was c. 800 by 250 m.),40 but it was not a great city and there are few references to it outside the Gospels. For whatever reason, Jesus made Capernaum the center of his ministry rather than his hometown; JB’s “settled in Capernaum” brings this out (cf. 9:1).
14. Characteristically Matthew finds that all this was done in order to fulfil prophecy (the construction expresses purpose), this time some words in Isaiah 9:1–2. For the formula of quotation see on 1:22. What is written in Scripture must, Matthew holds, find its fulfilment, and thus the Messiah made his dwelling in a place mentioned by the prophet. It might have been expected that the Messiah would do his work mainly in the capital city, Jerusalem. But Jesus spent most of his time in despised Galilee. Why? Matthew tells us that this was in order to fulfil the divine purpose expressed in the prophecy.
15. The prophecy agrees with neither the Hebrew nor LXX; Matthew may have had access to a translation no longer extant. The prophet goes on to speak of the birth of the Messiah (Isa. 9:6), but Matthew is not dealing with this at the moment, so he confines his reference to information about the land. He passes over the prophecy that gloom will vanish and that the Lord “will make glorious the way of the sea” (Isa. 9:1) and concentrates on the fact that this is where Messiah lives. Land of Zebulon and land of Naphthali referred originally to the tribal lands where the joy would be, but for Matthew they refer to the place where Jesus would live. Way of the sea41is a natural enough expression, for Capernaum was situated by the sea of Galilee, but beyond the Jordan is puzzling (NIV has “along the Jordan,” but this does not seem correct). As far as our information goes, Jesus was in the region beyond the Jordan only occasionally, but our knowledge is incomplete and Jesus may have worked there more than we know. Certainly people from trans-Jordan came to know his teaching and were included among those who followed him (v. 25; cf. 19:1). Galilee of the Gentiles42 points to the fact that many non-Israelites lived in the area (cf. NEB, “heathen Galilee”). The inhabitants had been forcibly Judaized and compelled to accept circumcision in about 104 B.C.,43 which means that their commitment to Judaism was probably less than wholehearted.44 The extent of this operation has been questioned, but it must have had some effect. The mixed population in Galilee caused the Jews in Jerusalem to look down on the Galileans, but for Matthew it was important that the Messiah came to despised Galilee. This fits in with his general approach: God does not act in accordance with the expectations of people, even religious people; he does his great work among the lowly and the despised. While Jesus did not mingle much with Gentiles,45 the salvation he came to bring was just as much for them as for the Jews. It was important accordingly that he lived in an area greatly influenced by Gentiles.
16. The prophecy goes on to refer to people46 that sit in darkness, where sit indicates more than a passing moment. The people in question are habitually in darkness, a darkness of the mind or spirit.47 And it is those benighted people who came to see a great light (the position of great seems to give it emphasis; it was no usual light that they came to see). The thought is repeated in the second couplet with some variations. They are still sitting, so the thought of a continuing state is repeated. But they are now seen as in the region and shadow of death; a territory is assigned to death, and that is where they sit. They are close to death, for they are in its shadow, a term that also points to lack of light (cf. GNB, “the dark land of death”). The people in mind are those whose horizon is bounded by death. Death is a tyrant, and their whole life is lived in its shadow, subject to its nearness, under its threat. This is evidently the way the people in Jerusalem regarded their country cousins in Galilee. Matthew’s recording of it is part of the way he brings out the truth that Jesus’ ministry was in the first instance to those whom the religious leaders of his day had neglected. For those people Light has dawned. They are not seen as producing light; the light dawned for them as a new day dawns. The light that dispels their darkness is God’s good gift.
17. Having pointed out the significance of prophecy for the location of Jesus’ ministry, Matthew goes on to summarize his first preaching. From then48 points to a new departure: “from the time that Jesus moved to Capernaum there was a difference.” He now began to preach,49 and Matthew mentions two points in that preaching, repentance and the coming of the kingdom (for both see the notes on 3:2). Jesus began with the same emphasis as John the Baptist had. The two go together: if the kingdom of God is near, then clearly people cannot be complacent. They must prepare for that kingdom, and that means repenting of their sins. Jesus calls on them to realize that they are unfit for the kingdom of heaven and to repent accordingly. Such preaching is a clarion call to action, not a recipe for slothful complacency. We should not overlook the importance of this call to repentance at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry; everything else follows from that. Matthew has often been seen as one who stresses the importance of good works, and of course he does. But this must not be held in such a form that his emphasis on grace is missed. From the beginning Jesus took it for granted that people are sinners, and accordingly his first message was that they must repent. Only so would they know the forgiveness he came to bring.
There has been a great deal of discussion on whether we should see the kingdom as having arrived in the person of Jesus or whether he proclaimed a kingdom yet to come. But a good deal of this is misplaced ingenuity, for both surely have a place in the teaching of Jesus. That the expression does not mean that the kingdom is already here is surely indicated by the fact that John the Baptist used exactly the same verb and on his lips the expression cannot mean that the kingdom is a present reality. There is a sense in which God has acted decisively in sending his Son: the kingdom is here in his words and deeds. But there is another sense in which the culmination of the kingdom in all its fulness is a future reality: the best is yet to be. Both truths are important.
B. The First Disciples and the First Teaching, 4:18–25
18Now as he was walking by the Sea of Galilee he saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishers. 19And he says to them, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.” 20And straightaway they left their nets and followed him. 21And he went on from there and saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father preparing their nets; and he called them. 22And immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him.
23And he went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every illness among the people.
24And the report about him went out into all Syria, and they brought to him all who were ill with various diseases and those gripped with torments, and demoniacs and lunatics and paralytics, and he healed them. 25And great crowds followed him from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and Trans-Jordan.
Presently Matthew will give us an extensive account of Jesus’ preaching in the Sermon on the Mount and proceed with stories of individual healings. But he begins with a short account of the way Jesus called his first disciples and a summary statement of the effect of his teaching and healing. We need not think of the call of the disciples as anything more than a sample account—Jesus had other disciples than these four—but Matthew did not find it necessary to say how they were all called. It is noteworthy that Jesus called those he wanted; in Judaism the disciple chose his rabbi.
18. Mark also has an account of the call of the first disciples,50 but there are verbal differences throughout. For example, where Matthew speaks of two brothers,51 Simon who was called Peter and Andrew his brother, Mark has “Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon” (Mark 1:16). The differences do not amount to much, but they indicate that neither has copied the other. The words of Jesus are almost verbatim, but the rest of the story has variations.52 Matthew seems to imply that Jesus was not deliberately looking for particular people; he simply says that as he was walking by he saw the men. This does not, of course, rule out the possibility of previous contacts.53 We are not required to think that Jesus had no knowledge of these men (nor they of him), or that he did have knowledge but by supernatural means. Matthew simply ignores all that had gone before and goes right to the critical time. He tells us that the name of one man was Simon and that he was called Peter. This latter name means “stone” or “rock,” but Matthew does not stop to explain this, nor does he say when or why the name was given. He states that the brother’s name was Andrew, and he adds that the brothers were casting a hand net54 into the sea. He explains that they were fishermen.55
19. Jesus calls them (Matthew uses the present tense), saying something like “Here, after me.”56 This call clearly points to a lasting association; Jesus is not inviting them to a pleasant stroll along the seashore but inviting them to discipleship; there is the thought of personal attachment. Jesus adds a promise, “I will make you fishers of men.” This is a somewhat cryptic saying (Carr calls it “a condensed parable”), for it is not immediately clear what fishers of men means. Stendahl reminds us that “used in a good sense” there is “no known precedent” for this expression. At this early stage the men could not have known Jesus well, nor could they have had any depth of insight into his mission. But clearly fishing for men has a greater dignity than fishing for fish so that in this allegorical connecting of their present and future ways of life they must have discerned that Jesus was inviting them to something very worthwhile.57 Diétrich puts it well: “It is no longer a question of taking fish from the lake, but of drawing men up out of the abyss of sin and death, catching them in the great net of God!” Jesus’ disciples would not only learn from him but would bring others into living contact with God. The call to discipleship clearly meant separation from the kind of life they had been living hitherto, but it did not mean that they had to sell everything and break every earthly tie (as 8:14 shows).
20. The two knew enough about Jesus to realize that his call was not to be taken lightly; they obeyed immediately.58 They left their nets, which means that they stopped doing what they had been occupied with. But there is more to it than that. The action is symbolic. The word left59 can have the meaning “abandoned” (cf. 26:56), and whether Matthew means it in this sense or not he is speaking of a decisive action. Until then these men had been fishermen; now they were committing themselves to becoming disciples of Jesus. They left their nets60 and all that those nets meant behind. And they followed61 Jesus. The verb may be used in the literal sense of walking behind (21:9), but it also means “accompany” (v. 25). This idea of association may intensify into that of being a disciple, which is clearly what is in mind here. It is often pointed out that students used to follow their teachers literally as they walked from place to place.
21. Jesus went on. Matthew does not say whether he was specifically looking for James and John, but as he went on his way he came to them. James is mentioned first and related to Zebedee,62 after which we hear of John who was his brother. James appears to be the more important of the two and probably the elder. The brothers were in the boat, where the article points to a definite boat. Since we find elsewhere, however, that the family had at least an interest in another boat (Luke 5:7), it is not easy to see what this means. The brothers were with their father and were preparing63 their nets. As they were busy about their craft, Jesus called them.64 Matthew does not give the words Jesus used, but clearly he means that the two brothers were called into discipleship in the same way that the brothers already mentioned were called.
22. Just as the first pair did, these two responded. Their response was prompt: as in the case of Peter and Andrew they acted straightaway. In the Marcan account when Jesus saw this pair he “immediately” called them (Mark 1:20), but Matthew transfers “immediately” to the brothers’ response; his emphasis is on their prompt obedience to the call. And their response was wholehearted, for they left the nets that symbolized their whole way of life. Matthew tells us further that this pair left not only their boat but their father, thus breaking the strongest family tie. Allegiance to Jesus is stronger than any earthly attachment. But we should not think that they left their father to manage on his own; he had hired hands who worked for him (Mark 1:20).
23. In verse 17 Matthew has told us that Jesus began to preach; now he tells us a little more of what the Master’s ministry involved.65 That this is of importance for Matthew is shown by the fact that he repeats it essentially in 9:35. Matthew emphasizes healings of a variety of kinds and speaks of people coming from a number of places to be cured. This was a period when Jesus was popular and greatly sought after. He went about in all Galilee, which points to a wandering ministry where all makes it clear that Jesus did not confine himself to any particular area: he was active throughout the region. Bonnard detects a marked difference from the rabbis (who set themselves to instruct a small group of disciples) and from the men of Qumran (who withdrew the pure into the desert). Jesus’ concern was for all the people in all the country.
Matthew speaks of a triple function: teaching, preaching, and healing. Jesus’ teaching was carried out in their synagogues. We usually think of the synagogue as a place of worship, which, of course, it was, but it was many other things as well.66 The word means “a gathering place” and could be used for gatherings of various kinds. It could, for example, be used of the gathering together of waters (Gen. 1:9), but predominantly in Scripture it means the gathering together of people. The synagogue was in a special sense the place where people came together to study the law of God. It was the center of Jewish life: the place where Jews assembled, where Jewish law was administered and punishment was inflicted (10:17), and where Jewish teaching was given. Somewhat later the word could be used of Christian assemblies (Jas. 2:2), but in the Gospels it always refers to Jewish assemblies. There would have been no great difficulty in Jesus giving teaching in the synagogues, for any Israelite might be invited to address the people. Matthew speaks of their synagogues, but with no indication as to who “they” may have been. It is not the way of referring to the synagogues that we might have expected, for Jesus was a Jew and a synagogue was his as much as anyone’s. But this may be meant as a way of differentiating him from the people who ran the synagogues, all the more so since Matthew often speaks of synagogues in this way (see 9:35; 10:17; 12:9; 13:54; cf. 23:34). From quite early times the Jewish authorities set themselves in opposition to Jesus, and Matthew is mindful of this. An interesting feature of Matthew’s presentation is that he records no discourse of Jesus as given in a synagogue or even in a house. It seems that for him the essential message of Jesus was given as he moved about—in the countryside, on the seashore, and in similar places.
Jesus also engaged in preaching (for this word with its emphasis on proclamation see on 3:1); this is not the systematic instruction indicated by teaching but a forthright proclamation, a setting forth of certain facts whether people want to take notice of them or not. The content in this case is given shortly as the gospel,67 the good news. In a Christian context the good news is always the good news of what God has done for sinful people in sending his Son to be their Savior. Here it is the gospel of the kingdom, which, as Jesus has said, has drawn near (v. 17). The good news is that God is at work bringing in the kingdom that will be associated with the work his Son is doing. The gospel of the kingdom is an expression found in this Gospel only (9:35; 24:14). It matters to Matthew that the gospel was concerned with God’s sovereign rule.
The third component in Jesus’ initial ministry was healing, and Matthew tells us that he was healing every disease and every illness. Matthew is very interested in healing,68 and has many references to the subject. It is important for him that Jesus brought wholeness to people; he met their spiritual need but he also dealt with their physical ailments. Carson reminds us that “both Scripture and Jewish tradition take sickness as resulting directly or indirectly from living in a fallen world” (on v. 24). Jesus’ defeat of sickness is part of his overcoming of evil. Here Matthew speaks of healing from every disease (a very general term) and every illness (which basically means “softness” and comes to signify “weakness, sickness.”69 Matthew does not say how Jesus healed, only that he did, and this puts him in contrast with various “healers” of antiquity. Whatever their therapeutic merits such people normally made a great fuss of their techniques. In contrast “the mode of healing practised by Jesus is infinitely simple, externally unimpressive, but inwardly so much the more powerful.”70 People often refers specifically to the people of God, and some commentators think that that is the meaning here: Jesus confined his healing to Jews. But this is hard to square with the repeated every; the impression Matthew leaves is that of the breadth of Jesus’ ministry at this time, not of its narrowness. It is better to understand it as a reference to the general populace. Matthew stresses that Jesus healed them all, a fact that differentiates him from the healers of antiquity (or, for that matter, in modern times). Those healers had their successes and their failures, but Jesus had complete mastery over illness; he healed all who came to him.71
24. What Jesus was doing could not remain unnoticed, and the report72 went out about him. We would have expected that the report would go into all Galilee (and it probably did), but Matthew surprises us by mentioning Syria (here only in this Gospel). He probably means that the news of what Jesus was doing spread very widely and went into the neighboring country as well as throughout the one in which Jesus was working. But Syria was the name of the Roman province that covered all Palestine (cf. Luke 2:2; Acts 15:23, 41), and he may be referring to the province. Either way the expression covers a wide area. Matthew does not supply a subject for his verb brought,73 but there is no difficulty in understanding that family or friends would perform this service. He refers to people who were ill (more literally, “had [it] badly”), a general term covering all kinds of physical complaints,74 and he proceeds to elaborate on this. The adjective various, which Matthew uses only here, means “many-colored” and is sometimes employed, as here, in the sense “manifold.” Diseases is the word used in the previous verse, after which Matthew goes on to those in the grip of torments.75 To these he adds demoniacs, a very important group in an age when so much was attributed to demon possession. All three Synoptic Gospels make a great deal of Jesus’ power over demons. Matthew goes on to lunatics (apparently different from the demoniacs); these are often held to be epileptics in modern discussions (NRSV and other translations have “epileptics”), and some of the cases may indeed be those of epilepsy. But we should bear in mind that the word is the exact etymological equivalent of “lunatic”76 and that there is no reason for denying that meaning here. Matthew rounds off his list with paralytics, people for whom there was no cure in the first century. It meant a great deal to Matthew, as to the sufferers, that Jesus healed these people too.
25. Clearly the healings made a deep impression, for great crowds77 followed Jesus. This, of course, does not mean that they followed him as disciples (as did the men in vv. 20 and 22), but simply that, as curiosity seekers, they did not want to miss the latest sensation. In Matthew the crowds occupy a middling position: they are not opposed to Jesus as the Jewish leaders are (though they can be found in opposition, as in 26:55; 27:20), but they are not adherents as the disciples are (though they can support him, 21:9). Matthew lists the places from which these crowds came. We would have expected Galilee, for that was the area in which Jesus was moving, but the others in the list show that some of the people came a good distance. Decapolis means “ten cities”; these were all east of the Jordan except Scythopolis. Jerusalem was quite a distance away, as was Judea, which here denotes the region in the south of Palestine and not the broad concept that took in the whole of the area. Trans-Jordan means much of the country to the east of the Jordan, so this adds to the impression Matthew is conveying that people were attracted to Jesus from very great distances. For this Evangelist Jesus was more than a petty healer in a tiny province.
Matthew 5
C. The Sermon on the Mount, 5:1–7:29
Matthew’s method is to give some important teaching of Jesus in the form of comparatively lengthy discourses (he has five major discourses), interspersed with other aspects of his ministry, such as healing and the instruction of disciples. Now that he has introduced Jesus’ ministry with the call of disciples and with the explanation that Jesus taught, preached, and healed, Matthew comes to the first great section of teaching, usually called “The Sermon on the Mount.” There has been a great deal of discussion of this sermon, and the literature on it is enormous.
A good deal of the discussion turns on the achievability of the ethical teaching Jesus gives here. For some this is an impossible ideal, demanding such a lofty ethical standard that no one can possibly attain it; as a result they dismiss it from the world of practical living. Others view it as something that people can and should attain. There are all sorts of variations on these two basic positions, both of which seem to have truth in them. Part of our problem is Jesus’ method: he keeps making strong, paradoxical statements without the qualifications that we must supply in some situations. To make those qualifications would take away the impact of his words, but he clearly expects his hearers to apply his words in the right way. For example, he says that they are to let their light shine before men (5:16) and that they are not to do their righteousness before men (6:1); clearly both injunctions must be interpreted carefully. He says that they are not to swear oaths (5:34), but he himself made a statement under oath (26:63–64). To interpret these woods in a wooden, literalistic manner is to repeat the method of the scribes whom he denounces so strongly.1
The teaching in this sermon certainly sets a high standard. If we take it seriously we realize that we cannot attain it and therefore cannot merit salvation. It is the end of the way of law and drives us to seek salvation in Christ.2 But when we have received this salvation as God’s free gift, the sermon shows us how we should live in the service of our gracious God. It shows us what life is like in the kingdom of God. The sermon removes all complacency. The follower of Christ cannot say, “I have done all I should; I am the complete servant of God.” No matter how far we have gone along the Christian road the sermon tells us that there is more ahead of us.
But if it stretches our horizons in this way, it also enables us to understand more of what the grace of God means. Dale C. Allison, Jr., brings this out when he sums up his examination of the structure of the Sermon in these words: “The Sermon on the Mount sets forth God’s grace in the past (4:23–5:2), in the present (6:25–34; 7:7–11), and in the future (5:3–12); and this is the context in which 5:13–7:12 is to be heard. Amos Wilder was right on target when he wrote that Matthew 5–7 offers ‘not so much ethics of obedience as ethics of grace.’ ”3 We miss the point if we see the Sermon on the Mount as nothing other than a series of far-reaching demands. The demands are there, certainly. But the love and the mercy of God are there, too.
Most critics hold that this is not the account of any one sermon, but that Matthew has gathered (and adapted) material used on several occasions.4 We need not doubt that some of what we find in this sermon was delivered on other occasions, but I wonder whether some commentators have paid sufficient attention to the fact that an itinerant preacher normally makes repeated use of his material, often with minor or even major changes. He adapts what he has used elsewhere to the situation now confronting him. That we find somewhat similar statements in other parts of the Gospels does not mean that Jesus did not use them on this occasion. We should be on our guard against thinking that it is Matthew’s sermon rather than that of Jesus. The introductory and concluding verses (5:1–2; 7:28–29) read like the beginning and ending of an address. The best solution to a difficult problem seems to be that Matthew has taken a sermon Jesus delivered, and expanded it by including matter given on other occasions. He may be giving a summary of an extended session of teaching given over several hours (or even stretching into days; on one occasion at any rate people were with Jesus without food for three days, evidently to absorb his teaching, 15:32). It can scarcely be a verbatim report, for it is too long for anyone to have remembered the exact words, and there is no suggestion that it was written down as Jesus delivered it. But for us the important thing is that here we are brought into contact with Jesus’ teaching on important aspects of the life of the servant of God.
This discourse displays many resemblances to Luke’s “Sermon on the Plain” (Luke 6:17–49), and many interpreters hold that they are variant accounts of the same discourse. Luke’s use of “plain” does not rule this out, for it means no more than “a level place” and may well indicate a rather flat area in the mountains (though against this is the fact that a great multitude came to be healed, Luke 6:18, and it is unlikely that the sick would have climbed a mountain). Both sermons begin with beatitudes, go on to significant ethical teaching, and conclude with the little parable of the men building houses. But the differences between the two are such that it is not easy to regard them as variant accounts of the same sermon. It is better to think that Jesus used similar material on more than one occasion.5
1. Introduction, 5:1–2
1And when he saw the crowd, he went up into the mountain; and when he had sat down, his disciples came to him. 2And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying,…
Matthew has made it clear that great crowds of people were following Jesus at this stage of his public ministry; here he moves to one occasion when the Master went up into a mountain and taught the people in the open air.
1–2. Jesus saw the great crowds that were following him, so he went up into a mountain.6 Some commentators draw attention to the fact that Moses went up into a mountain to receive the Law (Exod. 19:20) and couple this with the five great discourses in this Gospel, which parallel the five books of the law. They suggest that Matthew is depicting Jesus as the new Moses (cf. Diétrich, “Jesus, the new Moses, promulgates the new law for the children of the Kingdom”). But this is highly unlikely. Matthew is concerned with gospel, not law, and while Moses went up into his mountain alone, Jesus had a crowd of people with him. In addition, Moses gave the Law for the whole people, while Jesus’ teaching was addressed to the disciples.7
Matthew says that Jesus went “up,” which points to a climb, though we need not think that he went to the summit. He sat down, which is the normal posture for a teacher,8 and his followers9 responded by coming to him. Matthew refers to “his” disciples (so also in 8:23; 9:10, 11, 19; 10:1, etc.), which is an early way of speaking. When the Christian faith became established, it was enough to speak of “the disciples”; everyone knew who were meant. But in Jesus’ day there were many teachers, each with his own group of learners, so it was necessary to say whose disciples were in mind. Matthew’s use is the early one rather than the later (overall Matthew has about the same numbers of the early and the later usages). We should bear in mind that the teaching that follows is addressed to disciples rather than the general public. For example, throughout the whole sermon there is no call to repent, the first note in Jesus’ preaching to the people (4:17; cf. the description of the hearers in vv. 13 and 14). This does not mean that no one other than disciples heard Jesus’ teaching, only that it was addressed primarily to people committed to him. Gundry thinks that there were many of these and that the crowd were crowds of disciples. It was not necessary to say he opened his mouth, but it makes for a solemn introduction and prepares the reader for some significant teaching.10
2. The Beatitudes, 5:3–12
3“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4Blessed are the mourners, for they will be comforted. 5Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they will be filled. 7Blessed are the merciful, for mercy will be shown to them. 8Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called God’s sons. 10Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for the kingdom of heaven is theirs. 11Blessed are you when they upbraid you and persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil about you for my sake. 12Rejoice and be very glad because your reward is great in heaven; for in this way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
Luke has four beatitudes (Luke 6:20–22), but they are very different from those in this Gospel, and they are followed by four “Woes” for which Matthew has no parallel. Luke’s four beatitudes are in the second person, while Matthew has eight in the third person (he has the second person in v. 11). It is not easy to see these as simple variants of the same original. It is more likely that Jesus used the “beatitude” approach on more than one occasion.11 It is significant that this sermon begins with beatitudes rather than imperatives. Jesus will go on to make great demands on his followers, but these demands are to be understood in a context of grace.
3. For blessed many translations use expressions of a somewhat secular nature, such as “fortunate” (AB) or “happy” (JB). These bring out the joy that is conveyed by Jesus’ word, but not its full religious content.12 There is more to blessedness than happiness. Bruner has “God bless,” but this sounds too much like a prayer, while Jesus is making a strong affirmation. The first of the blessed ones are the poor in spirit.13 This is not to be understood in the sense of “abject” or “mean spirited,” as the English might perhaps convey. Nor is it the kind of poverty against which people rebel, but rather one that the poor in spirit accept, as pointing to the reality that they can bring nothing to God. The poor in spirit in the sense of this beatitude are those who recognize that they are completely and utterly destitute in the realm of the spirit. They recognize their lack of spiritual resources and therefore their complete dependence on God (cf. Goodspeed, “those who feel their spiritual need”; NEB, “know their need of God”). It is the opposite of the Pharisaic pride in one’s own virtue with which Jesus was so often confronted (and which has all too often made its appearance in later times). “This is the man to whom I will look,” the Lord says, “he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word” (Isa. 66:2). These are the poor in spirit.
There are strong protests in modern times against “spiritualizing” and “psychologizing” interpretations of this beatitude, and it is insisted that it must be seen for what it is, a radical reversal of the world’s values. We are told that it is the poor and the distressed as such of whom Jesus speaks. But we must exercise care at this point. Jesus is not saying that poverty is a blessing in itself; to canonize a state of life in which people find themselves against their will (real poverty does not mean voluntarily choosing to live simply) and from which they would escape if they could is scarcely Christian. Now it is true that it is easy for the interpreter smugly to transform the meaning of what Jesus says into an understanding of which the interpreter approves and avoid any real contact with the poverty-stricken. A rediscovery of Jesus’ interest in the poor is long overdue. But I cannot rid myself of the feeling that much modern writing proceeds from the comfortable, people for whom poverty is an interesting subject for discussion but who have never themselves experienced what real poverty is. I have. And poverty is not a blessing, nor is powerlessness. Whatever Jesus meant, it was surely not that these states are blessed in themselves. He knew poverty, and he knew powerlessness in the face of a government that did not care. Any interpretation of his teaching that makes these things in themselves a blessing simply fails to take notice of reality. Jesus is pronouncing a blessing on those empty of any spiritual resource, poor as they often were in material things as well.
There may well be a reminiscence of Old Testament teaching on the poor, but we must bear in mind that the poor in this sense are not the poverty stricken as such, but God’s poor, people oppressed by tyrants but trusting God, people who have nothing, no resource but God. “This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles” (Ps. 34:6). The Old Testament has many references to “the poor,” but we are to understand these not merely of people who lack in worldly goods but of the faithful though downtrodden poor, those who look to God for their deliverance.14
Of these lowly people Jesus says, theirs is the kingdom of heaven.15 We should understand this in the sense of consequence rather than reward. In no sense do they merit the kingdom, but being what they are they possess it. We should understand this in the sense, “theirs alone.”16 Those who are not poor in spirit can never have membership in the kingdom. In the basic sense, of course, the kingdom belongs to God, and it is often said to be his. But in another sense membership in the kingdom belongs to all the people of God, and it is something like this that is in mind here. Jesus is saying that the lowly are especially characteristic of the kingdom. The riches of the kingdom belong to them in the fullest measure. The present tense is used for the blessing pronounced on them here and again in verse 10, but in the intermediate beatitudes the tense is future. We should not press this point too far, for the full blessing in all the beatitudes is future. But this present points to a significant blessing for the poor in spirit right now.
4. A benediction for the mourners is most unexpected. We generally regard mourners as the most unfortunate of people. We see them as people to be pitied, helped, comforted, but not as those to be envied as the recipients of God’s blessing. And they are blessed, Jesus says, because they will be comforted.17 It is this that makes the reference to ordinary mourning as we know it so very difficult. It is not easy to think that Jesus is speaking of those who have suffered bereavement, for example, and saying that they are not really in an unhappy situation because one day they will be consoled. It is much more likely that he is referring to a more fundamental kind of mourning.18 Perhaps we should bear in mind that typically the worldly take a lighthearted attitude to the serious issues of life, a fact that is very evident in our modern pleasure-loving generation. In their seeking after self-gratification and pleasure they do not grieve over sin or evil. Because they do not grieve over what is wrong in themselves, they do not repent; and because they do not grieve over the wrong they share with others in the communities in which they live, they take few steps to set things right. Because they are not moved by the plight of the poor and the suffering, they make no move to help the world’s unfortunates. It may be that Jesus is saying that our values are wrong and that it is those19 who mourn in the face of the evils that are part and parcel of life as we know it, those who mourn over the way God’s cause is so often neglected and his people despised, who are the truly blessed ones. The Psalmist could say: “My eyes shed streams of tears, because men do not keep thy law” (Ps. 119:136). It is to such that Jesus holds out the prospect of ultimate consolation. Now they mourn; but now is not always. God’s ultimate triumph, and with it the comforting of those who have grieved over evil, is sure.
5. Now the meek come in for attention20 (JB and REB have “gentle”). Meekness is another word for self-effacement. We should not miss the point that in all three of the opening beatitudes the truth is brought out that the follower of Jesus does not aggressively insist on his own rights21 but displays genuine humility. Meekness is not to be confused with weakness: the meek are not simply submissive because they lack the resources to be anything else.22 Meekness is quite compatible with great strength and ability as humans measure strength, but whatever strength or weakness the meek person has is accompanied by humility and a genuine dependence on God. True meekness may be a quality of the strong, those who could assert themselves but choose not to do so. The strong who qualify for this blessing are the strong who decline to domineer. Self-assertion is never a Christian virtue; rather, it is Christian to be busy in lowly service and to refuse to engage in the conduct that merely advances one’s personal aims.
The reward of the meek is that they will inherit the earth (cf. Ps. 37:11). The verb23 points to firm possession; clearly there is no thought here of inheriting on the death of a testator or the like. There may be a reference to the psalm that contrasts the wicked, who “will be no more,” with the meek, who “shall possess the land” (Ps. 37:10–11). The sense in which they will do this is not obvious. Tolstoy and others have spoken of “the terrible meek” apparently because there are so many of the downtrodden that in the end the strong are not able to budge the inert mass and accomplish what they want to get done. But it is impossible to think that Jesus’ meaning is anything like that. Rather, the thought is eschatological; Jesus is looking forward to the coming of the messianic kingdom. In the end it is the meek, not the self-assertive, who will have a place in God’s kingdom. It has often been pointed out that the future in this and the following verses indicates certainty and not simply futurity.
6. Next Jesus turns to people’s attitude to uprightness. Matthew uses the verb “to hunger” 9 times, but in all the other 8 it refers to literal hunger while here the meaning is clearly metaphorical (as it is twice in Luke and once in John). With it is linked thirst, which is more often used in the metaphorical sense (cf. Ps. 42:2). Jesus is speaking of an intense longing after righteousness that may be likened to both hunger and thirst.24 Everyone now and then does what is right, but Jesus is pointing his hearers not to occasional acts but to a passionate concern for the right. Righteousness is often used in the New Testament for the right standing believers have before God because of Christ’s atoning work, but this is often said to be a Pauline concept rather than one that Matthew sets forth. Now it is plain that Matthew has a strong interest in the upright living that should characterize the servant of Christ, and we must not try to turn him into a pale shadow of Paul. But we must not minimize his emphasis on grace either (cf. v. 3). Specifically we should notice that he is not suggesting that people can make a strong effort and achieve the righteousness of which he is writing: it is a given righteousness, not an achieved righteousness. The blessed do not achieve it but hunger and thirst for it. They will be filled, which surely means that God will fill them (cf. 6:33, “his righteousness”). We need not doubt that the term here includes the doing of right, an indication that we are expected to live in full accordance with the will of God. How could anyone have a strong desire for a right standing before God without at the same time strongly wanting to do the right? Today there is a strong emphasis on social righteousness, the liberation of people from oppression, and that can scarcely be out of mind either. Righteousness is a rich and full concept, but whichever way we understand it, it is a righteousness that people cannot produce of themselves. We are to do our best and we may be able to avoid “the gutters of life,” but this righteousness is a gift of God.25 And of those who have this wholehearted longing for the right Jesus says, they will be filled.26 They do not achieve it of themselves, but God fulfils their longing. God will not disappoint anyone who has this deep desire to do his will. Those who long for righteousness will have a full measure, not a mere trace. There are two thoughts here, the first of which insists on the disposition of the seeker. The good gift of God does not come indiscriminately to all the race, but only to those who seek it wholeheartedly. The second is that, for all their intense longing, the seekers do not fill themselves with righteousness, but are filled; righteousness is a gift of God.
7. The first four beatitudes express in one way or another our dependence on God; the next three the outworking of that dependence. This beatitude is relatively straightforward: people who show mercy on others will themselves be the recipients of mercy. The adjective for merciful (found elsewhere in the New Testament only in Heb. 2:17) means those whose bent is to show mercy, not those who engage in an occasional merciful impulse. Such people will receive mercy, a truth we often observe in this life. But Jesus is surely referring basically to an eschatological truth. There are people who show by their habitual merciful deeds that they have responded to God’s love and are living by his grace. They will receive mercy on the last day.
8. Matthew does not often use the word for pure (three times only); it signifies “clean” and thus pure. This is the one place in the New Testament where purity is predicated of the heart. With us heart is used of the physical organ and as a way of referring to the emotions, but we must not read that way of understanding the term back into Scripture. There it stands for the whole of our inner state, thought and will as well as emotions: “In a psychological sense, the seat of man’s collective energies, the focus of personal life, the seat of the rational as well as the emotional and volitional elements in human life, hence that wherein lies the moral and religious condition of the man” (AS).27 This beatitude thus leads us to purity at the very center of our being. This is no truism. Jesus later said, “out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies” (15:19). The heart is not the place where we naturally expect purity,28 but Jesus demands purity right there. To be pure in heart is to be pure throughout (cf. Ps. 24:4). And the consequence of this kind of purity is that they will see God (cf. Ps. 73:1). There is a sense and a measure in which this is true of life here and now. The pure in heart see God in a way that the impure never know. But the main thought is surely eschatological; it points us to a vision too wonderful to be fully experienced in this life but that will come to its consummation in the world to come.
9. The word peacemakers is found only here in the New Testament. It is quite general and is not qualified in any way, so that we are left wondering whether the primary reference is to the large scale (dealing with wars and the like) or the small scale (quarrels). That it is left general probably means that both are in mind.29 There is a quality of peaceableness, a disinclination to engage in disputes, that is admirable, but Jesus is talking about more than that. He refers not to peace-keepers but to peace-makers, people who end hostilities and bring the quarrelsome together. Argyle points out that these are “not appeasers, but those who actively overcome evil with good.” A person may be known as one who ends hostilities throughout his whole sphere of life, whether that sphere be great or small.30
It is people like this who will be called God’s sons. There is something godlike in bringing peace to people and people to peace.31 There is, of course, a sense in which all believers are members of the family of God, whether they are distinguished as makers of peace or not. But those who make peace are fulfilling what membership in the family really means, and this is something to which all the members of the family must aspire. The verb “to call” may be used in a variety of ways, but here the point is that the call signifies that the person called really is what the name indicates.
10. We come now to a most unexpected beatitude, one for the persecuted. Matthew’s first readers, who probably had some experience of persecution, would no doubt have been surprised at this statement, for it is never pleasant to experience suffering (cf. Heb. 12:11). Matthew uses his verb “persecute”32 four times in this chapter and twice elsewhere. It can denote putting to flight, driving away (10:23), or even following without hostile intent (Luke 17:23). It may even be used of pursuing virtues like love (1 Cor. 14:1) or generally what is good (1 Thess. 5:15). But in the New Testament it is mostly used of inflicting suffering on people who hold beliefs that the establishment frowns on, and it is this kind of persecution of which Jesus speaks here. He does not speak of persecution as such, but of persecution for the sake of righteousness. People may suffer for doing evil, but such suffering is punishment, not persecution, and in any case believers are not to suffer that way (cf. 1 Pet. 4:15). Jesus is speaking of those committed to God’s cause, and righteousness is the kind of conduct appropriate for those who have been given right standing before God.33 Salvation is all of grace, but there is a kind of conduct that is expected of those who have received God’s good gift and it is that kind of conduct on which Jesus pronounces a blessing. Those who undergo persecution for God’s cause and not for any fault of their own receive a blessing like that for “the poor in spirit” (v. 3), and it is given in exactly the same words: the kingdom of heaven is theirs. There is the same underlying attitude and the same ultimate reward.34
11. Many of the benedictions have been surprising, but none more than this; it is an intensification of the statement in verse 10. Persecution is universally regarded as evil (except by the persecutors). To have it pronounced as a blessing is surprising indeed. But God’s people have always been rejected by the worldly: persecution puts us in good company. There is a change from the third person in the beatitudes up to this point to direct address in this one. When is a general term; we could understand it as “whenever.”35 Upbraid refers to verbal abuse, reproaching, insulting, and the like, but persecute refers to actions as well as words. With falsely say all kinds of evil we are back at words, but we are to bear in mind the qualification falsely.36 Believers are not to engage in the kind of conduct that enables people to accuse them genuinely; their lives are to be above reproach. All kinds is comprehensive; believers must expect a great variety of evil comments. For my sake links the whole saying with the Christian profession. Jesus is not pronouncing a blessing on those in general who receive criticism, but on those who are upbraided for following him. For them reproach, persecution, and slander are occasions of blessing.
12. Far from being despondent and depressed, saddened or enraged, Christians who find themselves in this situation are bidden, Rejoice (cf. Acts 5:41). This call for joy is reinforced with be very glad.37 There is a twofold reason for this joy. Because introduces the first. The word for reward38 properly signifies a “wage” (20:8), but it is also used in the sense “reward,” and this is in order in the present passage, though we should bear in mind that the word often has something of equivalence in its meaning. This does not mean that the pious have merited a heavenly reward, for “the reward is so far beyond anything which men could possibly attain by their own goodness that the very word ‘reward’ has something of irony about it” (AB); it is rather that God’s goodness overflows toward the persecuted. Great shows that the reward in question is far from meager, and in heaven locates it.39 Jesus is not talking about a reward in the here and now. Whatever compensations they receive in this world, the full reward of the persecuted is reserved for the next.
The second reason for joy is that this is the way the prophets were treated. Persecuted believers are in good company. The plural brings all the prophets together as one godly company. The persecutions they received no doubt varied greatly, but the point is that persecution is the lot of the people of God while they walk this earth. In three consecutive verses Matthew has used the verb “persecute,” which puts emphasis on the concept. Here even the prophets, whom everyone now accepts as the servants of God par excellence, were treated badly in their own day. It is a privilege for the servants of God in later days to share in some measure in the lot of these great men of God.
3. Salt and Light, 5:13–16
13“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has lost its taste, with what will it be salted? It is good for nothing any longer but to be thrown out and be trodden under foot by men. 14You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Nor do people light a lamp and put it under the measuring bowl, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”
Now comes a paragraph that points to the penetrating power of the gospel and of people who are transformed by it. They are likened to salt and to light. Morgan points to the permanent applicability of what Jesus said, for people continue to be “in circumstances of corruption and darkness.” While these circumstances last, there will still be the need of this teaching of Jesus. The Master is conveying a warning: salt must salty or it will be thrown out; light must shine.40 The section comes fittingly after the beatitudes: it is the little people, those with no merit of their own to plead but who have been accepted by God in all their lowliness, who are the salt and the light. Jesus has spoken of their blessedness; now he turns to their responsibility.
13. You is emphatic and restrictive: Jesus is not talking about people in general but specifically about his followers. He says, you are: he is making a statement, not giving a promise. He does not explain the salt41 of the earth, but we should bear in mind that “Salt has no beneficial effect upon soil” (McNeile; cf. Deut. 29:23; Judg. 9:45; Ps. 107:34); Jesus is not talking about what happens when salt is put into soil. We should take salt as a metaphor and the earth as referring to people. Jesus is apparently thinking of the function of salt as a preservative, as the enemy of decay, and as giving taste to food. What is good in society his followers keep wholesome. What is corrupt they oppose; they penetrate society for good and act as a kind of moral antiseptic. And they give a tang to life like salt to a dish of food.42 Of the earth makes the application a wide one; their influence is not to be confined to a narrow circle. Has lost its taste43 presents us with a bit of a problem, for sodium chloride does not lose its taste. But the salt in use in first-century Palestine was very impure and it was quite possible for the sodium chloride to be leached out, so that what remained lacked “saltness,”44 and specifically the salty taste. This remainder was literally useless; what could possibly be done with it? Jesus asks, with what will it be salted? It was not possible to put salt back into it. Jesus says of this residual mass: “it has power for nothing”;45 its force was given it by its saltiness; lacking that it had no power. Its fate accordingly was to be thrown out and trampled, testimony to its uselessness.
14. Again we have an emphatic You as words are introduced that apply not to people at large but to those committed to Jesus. The light of the world implies that the world is in darkness (despite its continuing claims to enlightenment!). It is an expression applied to Jesus (John 8:12; 9:5; cf. John 12:35); thus it is interesting to find it used also of his followers.46 The sense is, of course, quite different; Christ is himself the light, whereas his followers are no more than pointers to and reflectors of Christ the Light (they are “light in the Lord,” Eph. 5:8, and they shine “as lights in the world,” Phil. 2:15). But in this way they bring the light to the world and the world to the light in a way that would not take place apart from them. World in this verse, like earth in the previous verse, points to no small and mean task. The task of the disciples is to bring light to the whole world. Jesus goes on to point out that, being who and what they are, giving light is inevitable. It is quite impossible for a city set on47 a hill to be hidden. Its situation makes concealment impossible. The disciples are not to be worldly people, indistinguishable from the people among whom they live.48
15. A further example of visibility is added: the point is clearly important. Jesus refers to people lighting49 a lamp.50 Literally he says, “they light,” but “they” does not refer to any particular group of people; the verb is quite general. The present tense likewise points to continuous activity: this is what people habitually do, or in this case do not do. When they light a lamp people do not put it under the measuring bowl,51 the implement the household would use for measuring grain (the word could also denote a specific quantity of grain, but that is not in mind here). That would defeat the purpose of lighting the lamp. Instead they put it on the lampstand, with the result52 that everyone in the house53 has light. This homely illustration brings out an important function of discipleship. The very purpose of being a follower of Jesus is to give light. Giving light is not an option, so to speak, which the disciple may or may not choose. It is part of being a disciple, just as much part of discipleship as giving light is of a lighted lamp. Jesus has chosen his own so that they may give light. It is the nature of light to shine, and when people have received the light of the gospel they will shine in a dark world. That is the point of both comparisons. It is of the very nature of light that it brings illumination.
16. The point of all this is explicitly brought out. Your light is, of course, a borrowed light. It is because they have received light from Jesus that the disciples can shine in the world. So refers back to the preceding: “let your light shine in the aforementioned way.” This light will issue in good54 works that are seen by people, a provision that must be understood carefully, for there were people like the Pharisees who made sure that their good deeds were seen by others and it is not this Pharisaic attitude that Jesus is commending. The good works are to be seen, not in order that the doers may be congratulated as fine, upstanding servants of God, but in such a way that the observers will give glory to your Father. There is to be no parade of virtue, no attempt to win praise for oneself. It is the light that is to shine, not those privileged to be the bearers of the light. People will always see the deeds that disciples do, and disciples are to make sure that when that takes place it is the light that they will see. And that they will see it in such a way that they will praise God. This is the first time in this Gospel that God is called Father, a usage that will recur (44 times, a total exceeded only by John; in this sermon it occurs 16 times); the divine fatherhood meant much to Matthew. God was sometimes called Father in the Old Testament and by the Jews, but it was not characteristic. It was characteristic for Jesus and for his followers after him. Matthew often qualifies Father with a reference to heaven (v. 45; 6:1, 9; 7:11, 21; 10:32, 33; 12:50; 16:17; 18:10, 14, 19).55 We are so accustomed to referring to God as “the Father” that we do not stop to reflect that this is a revolutionary way of thinking of “the high and lofty One who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy” (Isa. 57:15). Jesus altered forever the way we think of God.
4. Fulfilling the Law, 5:17–20
17“Do not think that I came to abolish the law or the prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfil. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, one iota or one little stroke will not pass away from the law until all has taken place. 19Whoever therefore relaxes one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, this person will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you certainly will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
The law, the books from Genesis to Deuteronomy, was Scripture par excellence for the Jews, and they examined it with minute thoroughness. They discovered, for example, that there are 613 commandments in this part of Scripture (248 positive and 365 negative), and this opened up wonderful possibilities for those of a legalistic turn of mind. They could easily concentrate on discussions of those commandments and on keeping the letter of the law in such a way as to find little place for weightier matters. Jesus had a continuing dispute with people with this approach (see ch. 23), and from their point of view it was easy to accuse him of not taking the law seriously. From the point of view of his own followers there was also a problem. He taught them that salvation is all of grace; people do not merit salvation by their own good works. What then was the place of the commands that Scripture conveys so clearly? It was important for Matthew’s readers (as well as for the Jews and the disciples at the time of Jesus) that Jesus’ attitude to the law be made plain, and in this section of the Sermon Matthew includes important teaching about the law. He shows that Jesus affirmed its continuing validity and that he came to fulfil it. There are some strong words for anyone prepared to break even the least of the commandments and to teach other people to do the same. The statement that the righteousness of those who enter the kingdom must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees must have come as a very surprising piece of information.
17. Jesus directs his hearers as to how they should think56 about the law and his relationship to it. There is a great deal in this Gospel about the law, and this section is very important for Jesus’ understanding of the law and its implications. He makes clear that “He is in no way contradicting the Mosaic law, though He is opposed to the legalistic type of religion that the scribes had built upon it” (Tasker). I came is a significant expression; it is not one that a person would normally use of himself. It will have a meaning like “came into the world,” “came from God” and points to a consciousness of mission. Jesus had a special place and a special function, and that was not concerned with abolishing the law. His verb abolish is a strong one57 and indicates doing away entirely with the law. The law strictly denotes the Pentateuch, and that is its meaning here. With it Jesus joins the prophets.58 The Jews spoke of “the former prophets,” under which heading they included the books from Joshua to 2 Kings, and “the latter prophets,” which were the books we speak of as prophecy. The combination is a way of referring to the whole of Old Testament Scripture (cf. 7:12; 22:40). Jesus firmly disclaims any intention of doing away with any part of the Bible. His program had some resounding novelties about it, but he did not abandon Scripture, as his habit of referring to it shows. Rather, he fulfilled it. He did not have a negative approach to it but a positive one.
To fulfil59 has been understood in three main ways: (1) It may mean that he would do the things laid down in Scripture. (2) It may mean that he would bring out the full meaning of Scripture. (3) It may mean that in his life and teaching he would bring Scripture to its completion. Each points to an aspect of the truth, and Jesus may well have meant that he would fulfil Scripture in more ways than one.60 Davies and Allison well remark: “First, he who fulfils the law and the prophets displaces them in so far as he must become the centre of attention: the thing signified (Jesus) is naturally more important than the sign (the law and the prophets). … Secondly, if the law is fulfilled, it cannot on that account be set aside. Fulfilment can only confirm the Torah’s truth, not cast doubt upon it.” But however we interpret it, we must not forget that the law may be summed up in the two commandments of love (22:37–40) and that “love is the fulfilment of the law” (Rom. 13:10). We must bear in mind that “fulfil” does not mean the same as “keep”; Jesus is speaking of more than obedience to regulations. Nor should we forget that the way in which Jesus fulfilled the law could not be fully appreciated until after his death and resurrection. Not till then could it be seen how he had “fulfilled all righteousness” (3:15), nor how he would send the Holy Spirit to enable his followers to attain a higher standard of righteousness than they ever could in their own strength. We should also bear in mind that the verb “fulfil” applies here not only to the law but also to the prophets. As Robert Banks puts it, “The prophetic teachings point forward (principally) to the actions of Christ and have been realized in them in an incomparably greater way. The Mosaic laws point forward (principally) to the teachings of Christ and have also been realized in them in a more profound manner.”61
18. For introduces the reason, and truly is regularly followed by I tell you. It adds up to a very solemn formula of affirmation and indicates that the words that follow are important. Truly represents the word we transliterate as “amen.” The normal use of the term was as a congregational response to words uttered by someone leading the congregation, for example, at worship. The peculiarity of Jesus’ use is that he put it at the beginning of important sayings. Matthew has the word 31 times, and with the exception of the “amen” at the end of the Lord’s Prayer in some manuscripts he always has it in words of Jesus.62 All the Evangelists have Jesus using the word in this way; in John it is invariably doubled, but in each of the others it is single, a phenomenon that has never been convincingly explained. John has the actual word 50 times (i.e., on 25 occasions), but Matthew has it on more occasions than anyone else. It is used to give solemn emphasis to the words that follow. The solemn protestation of what is true implies that the Person who has made it has high claims to reliability, so that the expression has christological implications.63 Bengel points out that the prophets tend to say “saith the Lord” and the apostles “It is written,” but Jesus uses “I say unto you.”
Until64 heaven65 and earth pass away points to the end of created things. Heaven does not here denote the permanent abode of the blessed but part of the physical universe; it is used with earth in this expression to convey the thought of the totality of creation. It will all in due course pass away, but what God has said in Scripture is more permanent than that. Jesus says emphatically that it will certainly not66 pass away. He is referring to written Scripture, as the terms he employs show clearly. The iota was the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet, but here it is usually understood to refer to the yodh, the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet.67 The little stroke68 was probably a tiny projection on some letters (that helped distinguish similar letters). Jesus is saying “Not the smallest letter, not the tiniest part of a letter —.” It forms a very emphatic assertion of the permanent validity of Scripture. None of it will pass away, Jesus says, until all has taken place.69 The divine purpose in Scripture will be fully worked out.70
19. Therefore introduces the consequence of this permanence of Scripture, and whoever71 makes its application general. Since Scripture is of continuing validity and Jesus is to fulfil it, the breaking of the least of the commandments is not unimportant. The verb for relaxes72 more literally means “looses” and points to more than an isolated breaking of a commandment. As the words about teaching men show, the attitude condemned is one of doing away with the commandment in question, regarding it as nonexistent, as null and void. Even to nullify just one commandment is serious. The rabbis distinguished between “light” and “heavy” commandments (though both should be kept, ’Abot 2:1), but it is unlikely that Jesus is accepting such a distinction. He simply refers to the fact that some of the commandments are not as weighty as others, and he selects the least of them for notice.73 Even this one is to be kept. Verses 21–48 show that this does not mean the literal interpretation of every injunction. There must be careful interpretation. But no commandment is to be taken lightly. The person of whom Jesus is speaking not only fails to keep the light commandment but teaches others to take up the same attitude. Such a person qualifies to be called74 least in God’s kingdom. A wrong attitude to God’s commandments means a lowly position in God’s kingdom. The other side of this coin concerns the person who both obeys the commandments and teaches others to do the same. This is the person who attains honor, who is called great in the kingdom. Apparently both are in the kingdom, but the former has just made it (cf. 1 Cor. 3:15) whereas the latter is held in honor.
20. For links the following on and is possibly explanatory, “for, as you see.” I tell you puts some emphasis on the surprising statement that follows: Jesus calls for his followers to have a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. He is surely using the term righteousness in a sense different from that which the scribes and Pharisees attached to it. They looked for strict legal correctness, whereas Jesus looked for love. They stressed the keeping of the law, and from the standpoint of the lawkeeper it is not easy to see how anyone could exceed their righteousness.75 Along the lines of lawkeeping who could possibly exceed the righteousness of those who tithed mint, dill, and cummin (23:23)? But Jesus has already spoken of a different kind of righteousness (3:15), and it is central to the Christian gospel that Jesus would fulfil all that Scripture means in making a new way, a way in which he would bring those who believe in him to salvation. This does not mean cheap grace, for the words of this verse bring out the truth that those who have been touched by Jesus live on a new plane, a plane in which the keeping of God’s commandments is important.76 Their righteousness is a given righteousness. Nowhere do we get the idea that the servant of God achieves in his own strength the kind of living that gives him standing before God. But when he is given that standing, Jesus looks to him to live in accordance with that standing. Later in this sermon Jesus will emphasize the spirit rather than the letter of the law. The Pharisees put a tremendous emphasis on the letter of the law, but Jesus was looking for something very different from the Pharisaic standard. For them it was a matter of observing regulations (and softening them where possible), but for him it was keeping the commandments in depth; he taught a radical obedience.77
The scribes were learned people, and the term could be used for a high official (Acts 19:35). Among the Jews it meant the experts in the law, scholars who spent their time on learning more and more about Scripture. They are often mentioned with others, such as the elders or the high priests; here they are linked with the Pharisees. They had their place in the Sanhedrin. They were not necessarily Pharisees (and Pharisees were not necessarily scribes), but many of them did belong to that party.78 They are often mentioned along with the Pharisees (7 times in Matthew). Both had a great knowledge of trivia (such as the number of letters or words in a given book), which was sometimes coupled with a lack of insight into the real meaning of what was written. When he says you certainly will not enter the kingdom, Jesus uses an emphatic negative.79 The verb enter is used of entering life (18:8, 9; 19:17). This verse makes it clear that the commandments of God are very important and that there are wrong ways of viewing them. The Pharisees were almost universally praised in Jesus’ day and were regarded as outstanding examples of people who lived by the law of God. Jesus warns his hearers that the Pharisaic way is the wrong way. If they are to enter the kingdom of God they must come by a different way. He does not say at this point how the Messiah will produce this righteousness in his people, only that it must be produced. The Pharisaic way is the wrong way.
5. Applying the Law, 5:21–48
Jesus’ understanding of keeping the law meant a great deal more than making sure that the letter of the law was not infringed. For him it was important that the deeper implications of what God had commanded be understood and put into practice. He brings this out with reference to specific commands that the Pharisees had no difficulty in keeping in the literal sense. He shows that in each case a principle is involved. When this is understood, keeping the commands is far from the simple thing the Pharisees understood. He is not abrogating the law but exposing the limitations of the way some provisions in it had been understood.
Daube has drawn attention to a rabbinic method of teaching which may lie behind this passage. He points out that a rabbi might say, “I hear,” and go on to a passage of Scripture giving a wrong, though literal, interpretation. He cites an exposition of the fifth commandment which begins, “Honour thy father and thy mother. I might understand. … Honour them with words only.” The Midrash, he says, goes on to refute this and to show that the commandment goes beyond speech. He says that the expression “ ‘he who hears’, is used in the sense of ‘he who sticks to the superficial, literal meaning of Scripture’.” The point of all this is that “in Matthew, we have before us, not a scholarly working out by some Rabbis of a progressive interpretation as against a conceivable narrow one, but a laying down by Jesus, supreme authority, of the proper demand as against a view, be it held by friends or enemies, which would still take the exact words of the Scriptural precept as a standard of conduct. Jesus, supreme authority, lays down the proper demand.”80 Jesus is protesting against a strictly literal interpretation of the commands, an interpretation that indicates an apparent willingness to obey what God has said, but which imposes a strict limit on obedience and leaves scope for a good deal of ungodly behavior. He is laying down authoritatively how these commands of God should be understood.
a. Murder, 5:21–26
21“You have heard that it was said to the people of old, ‘You shall not murder’; and, ‘Whoever murders will be subject to the judgment.’ 22But I say to you, ‘Everyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to the judgment; and whoever says to his brother, “Raka,” will be subject to the Sanhedrin; and whoever says, “You fool,” will be subject to the Gehenna of fire.’ 23If therefore you are offering your gift on the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave there your gift before the altar and first go; be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25Make friends with your opponent quickly while you are still with him on the way, lest your opponent hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26Truly, I say to you, you will certainly not come out from there until you have paid the last penny.”
21. The first of the commands Jesus considers is that which prohibits murder. You have heard reflects an age in which many could not read; most of Jesus’ audience depended on what they heard. It was said to81 the men of old is a most unusual way of citing Scripture,82 but there is no doubt as to what it means, for a quotation from Exodus 20:13 follows (with an interpretative addition). The people of old refers to those who lived long ago and were the original recipients of the commandments (JB renders “our ancestors” and REB “our forefathers,” but it is their relationship to the original commandment that is in view, not their relationship to Jesus’ hearers). The commandment was, You shall not murder;83 the words Whoever murders (Moulton holds that the aorist gives the meaning “has committed murder,” M, I, p. 186) will be subject to the judgment are not in the Exodus passage. This was evidently the way the passage was understood;84 it puts some emphasis on the legal position.85 The judgment can be understood of a local court (cf. GNB, “will be brought to trial”; for local courts cf. Deut. 16:18; Josephus, Ant. 4.214, etc.; Matthew, however, does not use the word elsewhere for a local court). It is also possible that there is a reference to “the” judgment, God’s judgment at the last day. Either way the murderer is accountable.
22. But I say to you sets Jesus emphatically86 over against this view. He, being who and what he is, can issue directives that rank with the honored law. It is not correct to say that he replaces the law with his own commands, for in no case does he relax a provision of the law. Rather, he shows that, rightly understood, the law goes much further than his hearers had reckoned. For them it was enough not to put somebody to death; for Jesus that was just the beginning. He goes to the cause of murder and includes being angry87 in the scope of the command. Brother here is surely “brother man”; it is impossible to limit the expression to a male sibling.88 Subject to the judgment is exactly the same expression as that used in the previous verse for the sin of murder. Since it is hard to imagine anyone being charged in a court of law with the crime of anger, a strong case can be made that the judgment of God is in mind.
A second possible violation that Jesus deprecates is that of saying to one’s brother, “Raka.” The precise meaning of this word is uncertain,89 but it is clearly an expression of contempt that evidently was used by angry people. This form of anger, Jesus says, renders a person subject to the Sanhedrin (which would support the view that the judgment in the earlier part of the verse means that of the law court). Sanhedrin means “council” (e.g., 10:17), but it is used mostly in the New Testament for the high council of the Jews. It comprised priests, elders, and scribes, and the high priest was its president. It was the highest authority among the Jews, not only in religious affairs, but in governmental and legal matters also. Here the term may be used of a local council. Jesus is saying that the insolent and insulting person is not guiltless: he must give account of himself.
The third form of murder is to say, “You fool.”90 It has been suggested that this expression means “obstinate,” or that it is the equivalent of the Hebrew word for “rebel,” or that it is the Greek translation of Raka. On the whole it appears that “fool” is the most likely understanding and that it is an angry and critical ejaculation.91 Jesus is censuring the attitude that brings forth the epithet. The person who is angry enough to utter this derogatory word “is guilty enough to go into the hell of fire” (BAGD).92
23. If introduces another supposition, and therefore shows that it arises from the preceding statements. Because of the dangerous position in which he finds himself, the angry person must take care how he worships. The change from everyone to you sharpens the personal application. The word for are offering is the verb normally used for the offering of sacrifice, and gift is often used of what is sacrificed (though both words are used of other offerings as well). Altar is sometimes used metaphorically, but here the literal altar in the temple at Jerusalem is meant. Jesus is depicting a man in the solemn act of sacrifice. The present tense pictures the worshiper as in the act of offering. And right there, at the altar, he remembers. Something is a very general expression; the brother is thought of as having a legitimate complaint against the worshiper. Interestingly, it is not the anger of the person Jesus is addressing of which he speaks, but anger provoked by that person. It is not enough to control one’s temper (though that is important); one must not arouse other people’s anger.
24. Leave your gift is a sharp command; there is something more urgent than completing the act of sacrifice. The worshiper is to leave the animal right there, in front of the altar, and go. The interruption of so solemn an act emphasizes the overriding importance of reconciliation. First93 has a time reference: “in the first place, before doing anything else.” It is important that the worshiper get his priorities right, and the first thing to do is to effect reconciliation.94 He must take whatever steps are needed to restore harmony, and only when this is done95 may he come back and resume his offering. The act of sacrifice is not as important as the spirit in which it is done.
25. Make friends96 carries on the thought; reconciliation leads to the idea of being in continuing friendly relations even with one’s opponent. This word strictly means an adversary in a lawsuit;97 it is thus the appropriate word in this context. Quickly points to the importance of haste in such a matter; there is to be no delay in establishing friendly relations.98 Jesus pictures a brief encounter in the street or on the way to the court and says that the most is to be made of the opportunity. Friendship can be established there: it is too late when they reach the law court. Prudential considerations dictate urgency, and Jesus opens up the possibility of initiating a series of happenings that lead remorsely to a prison sentence. If reconciliation fails, the opponent may hand one over (the verb is a technical term for “hand over into custody”; see BAGD) to the judge, and he in turn may hand him over to the officer99 who puts offenders in jail.
26. For the emphatic Truly, I say to you see the note on verse 18; it indicates that the following statement is true and important. The double negative is emphatic and points to the impossibility of release from the place of confinement100 until101 the condition is fulfilled. The condition in question is the full payment102 that the penalty requires, and the specification of the last penny103 emphasizes the completion of the punishment. Failure to take advantage of the opportunity of reconciliation means that one must bear the penalty of being unreconciled.
b. Adultery, 5:27–30
27“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29And if your right eye makes you sin, gouge it out and throw it away from you, for it is expedient for you that one of your members should perish and not that your whole body be thrown into Gehenna. 30And if your right hand makes you sin, cut it off and throw it away from you, for it is expedient for you that one of your members should perish and not that your whole body go off into Gehenna.”
Jesus cites the prohibition of adultery and goes on to point out the significance of the lustful look. It is the look that leads to the physical act and thus comes under condemnation. Just as with the command not to murder, Jesus is concerned with the inner state that leads to action and does not simply prohibit the outward deed.
27. The opening formula is as in verse 21 (where see note) except that the reference to the ancients is omitted (so again in vv. 31, 38, and 43). The prohibition is exactly as in the Old Testament (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:17), which is not surprising in a two-word quotation. In the ancient world generally it was held that a married man could have sexual adventures as long as they did not involve a married woman (which would mean violating the rights of her husband). A woman, however, was expected to have no such relations; she should be chaste before marriage and faithful after it.104 The command Jesus cites makes no distinction; people of both sexes were to remain faithful. Specifically he speaks of the man as the adulterer (v. 32; 19:9).
28. Again we have an authoritative word from Jesus (for I say to you see on v. 22). He says that the lustful look (which the rabbis sometimes mentioned105) is wrong in itself; to lust106 after a woman is already to have broken the commandment. This might be deduced from the tenth commandment, but Jesus finds it also in this one. The heart is the center of a person’s life and may denote thought, emotions, and will. Jesus is saying that the person who lusts has committed adultery in the center of his being (contrast “the pure in heart” in v. 8); in all that matters he is an adulterer. This is a startling extension of the commandment. Great rabbis like Hillel and Shammai might debate over the causes that justified a man in divorcing his wife, but they did not approach Jesus in seeing the binding nature of the marriage bond and the importance of complete fidelity on the part of both partners.
29. Since the look can be so significant, it is important to use the eye rightly, and Jesus uses hyperbolical language in speaking of the exercise of sight. His if clause puts the case strongly; for the sake of discussion it implies that the condition is met. The right eye was thought of as especially valuable, for a warrior would be gravely handicapped if he lacked sight in this member.107 Jesus envisages the possibility that this valuable member may in fact be the cause of sin.108 He does not define this further, but the lustful look of which he has just spoken makes clear the kind of way in which an invaluable member of the body may be the cause of bringing evil to the whole. Under those circumstances Jesus advises that it be gouged out and thrown away.109 This picturesque repudiation of a prized part of the body shows vividly that there is to be no compromise with evil. It is better to lose one member now than to lose the whole in Gehenna in due course.110
30. The same argument is applied to the right hand, the hand favored by most people for all activities.111 As in the previous verse the nature of the possible sin is not explained; the reference is left quite general. But if the right hand leads one into sin, it is better to cut it off.112 Mark has a saying similar to this (though with differences),113 and he adds similar statements about the foot and the eye (Mark 9:43–48). Matthew has much the same in 18:8–9. It is not easy to understand why Matthew has included the reference to the hand here; the eye is immediately relevant, but the hand is difficult. It is, of course, not unlikely that Jesus used similar material on a number of occasions. He is not, of course, advocating self-mutilation, nor is he suggesting that if people engage in this kind of surgery their evil desires will be exorcised. But this vivid imagery “emphasizes the crucial importance of taking whatever measures are necessary to control natural passions that tend to flare out of control” (Mounce).114
c. Divorce, 5:31–32
31“And it was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce.’ 32But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife except for a matter of fornication makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries her that was put away is made to commit adultery.”
In the other passages in this section Jesus is dealing with a specific command of God. But people were not commanded to get divorced; this passage assumes the practice of divorce and speaks of the way it was regulated in the Mosaic law.115 The bill of divorce was a protection for the woman; a capricious husband could not drive her from his home and afterward claim that she was still his wife. He must give her the document that set out her right to marry someone else. It was accepted throughout Judaism that a man was entitled to divorce his wife (the procedure is given in Deut. 24:1–4). A wife was not permitted to divorce her husband, though she could petition the court, and if her plea was accepted the court would direct the husband to divorce her. The husband’s right was regarded as inalienable, and the only question was the ground on which he based his action. The school of Shammai took a hard line and saw the meaning of “some indecency” (Deut. 24:1) as adultery,116 whereas the school of Hillel allowed a much wider range of interpretation, and, for example, permitted a man to divorce his wife if she spoiled his dinner (Mishnah Giṭ. 9.10; it adds the further information that R. Akiba allowed divorce “Even if he found another fairer than she”).117 Against such a background Jesus calls on people to appreciate the true meaning and solemnity of marriage. We should bear in mind that he is laying down great principles that should guide conduct; he is not making laws or giving a precise list of occasions when divorce might take place.
31. It was said is the same way of introducing Scripture as in the previous sections, but in an abbreviated form. It is a summary of the way the passage was understood rather than an exact quotation, which accords with the fact that Jesus is opposing scribal interpretations rather than Scripture. Among the Jews divorce was a simple procedure for a man. He must write a bill of divorce in the correct form (it must include words that expressly permit the divorced woman to marry), and there must be proper witnesses; there is to be no doubt as to what is taking place (see the note on 1:19 for the requirements in wording and witnesses).118 The verb rendered divorces119 means more literally “releases,” but it is the usual word for sending a wife away in divorce. The bill of divorce120 is a general word for relinquishing rights, but it was commonly used for divorce, the giving up of one’s claim on a wife.
32. With the emphatic But I say to you Jesus moves to his own understanding of the position. For him marriage was intended to be a lifelong union of one man and one woman, and it was not to be dissolved lightly. He recognizes that a matter of fornication121 is a reason for divorce, and tells his hearers that divorce for any other reason is invalid (cf. Mal. 2:16). A man who divorces his wife and thus, in a Jewish situation, compels her to marry someone else (in first-century Jewish society how else could she live?) makes her an adulteress. There is a problem in that the prohibition of divorce in Mark 10:11–12; Luke 16:18 is absolute. There is no provision there for divorce on account of sexual sin. Many scholars hold that Mark and Luke tell us what Jesus said and that Matthew is giving us the position held in the church in his day. But it is more likely that Matthew is simply spelling out what was implicit in the first century. There is evidence that among the Jews a man was not so much allowed as required to divorce an adulterous wife,122 so that Mark and Luke did not need to mention it specifically. But there is no doubt about Matthew’s inclusion, and we must reckon with it if we are to study the thought of this Gospel.
The word rendered fornication123 strictly denotes sexual intercourse between unmarried people, and some have seen that meaning here. On this view Jesus is saying that if two people get married and it is subsequently found that prior to the marriage one of them had committed fornication, then the marriage may be dissolved. But that seems to be confining the meaning in a way that is not common in the New Testament; the word is used for all sorts of sexual sins. It is much more likely that in this passage it signifies adultery124 than something that happened before the marriage. Improper sexual relations on the part of a married person mean that the marriage may be dissolved. If fornication is interpreted in the way murder is understood in verse 22, the ground for divorce may be somewhat wider than appears in most of our translations.125 It is important to understand that the divorced woman is made to commit adultery and that the man who marries her is also made to commit adultery.126 Among the Jews a man was not held to have committed adultery by engaging in sexual acts outside marriage unless his partner was herself a married woman. But Jesus does not distinguish between the man and the woman: either may commit adultery. It seems to have been a Christian idea that a man could commit adultery; others regarded sexual adventures as a normal part of life for a man. Jesus lays down the highest standard for both sexes. Divorce might happen, but it was not meant to be. Marriage is for life.
d. Oaths, 5:33–37
33“Again, you have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not break your oath, but you shall keep your oaths to the Lord.’ 34But I say to you, ‘Do not swear at all; neither by heaven because it is the throne of God, 35nor by the earth because it is the footstool of his feet, nor by Jerusalem because it is the city of the great king. 36Nor shall you swear by your head because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37But let your statement be “Yes, yes; no, no”; what is more than these is of the evil one.’ ”
This passage is peculiar to Matthew (who returns to the theme with somewhat different statements in 23:16–22). Clearly he was interested in the fact that people seemed very ready to swear oaths. He regarded it as important that what his disciples said could always be relied on; it should not be necessary for them to back up their statements with oaths. This is in striking contrast to a good deal of Judaism, in which oaths evidently played a large part in life. The Mishnah has a complete tractate on oaths (Shebu.), dividing them into classes, giving examples of valid and invalid oaths, etc. Another tractate on vows (Ned.) is also relevant.
33. Again leads into the next subject. The term is used to connect similar items such as a series of quotations from Scripture (here) or a series of parables. It is often used when a speaker takes up a form of words he has used previously; here we have the form employed in verse 21 and in a modified way in verses 27 and 31. The command not to break an oath127 is not given in exactly the words of the Old Testament, but words very similar to them are to be found (Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21; Ps. 50:14; Zech. 8:17). In any case Jesus is giving us the way in which Scripture was understood. The use of both the negative (“You shall not break your oath”) and the positive (“you shall keep128 your oaths”) gives emphasis to the importance of respecting sworn testimony.129 GNB draws attention to something a bit different when it renders “Do not break your promise” and in the next verse, “do not use any vow when you make a promise.” It is true that promises must be kept, but at this point Jesus is speaking of sworn testimony. A similar comment might be made about “You shall not break your vows to God” (LB); while this is true, it narrows unduly what Jesus is saying. An oath is a solemn statement (not necessarily a promise or a vow) affirmed to be true before God. When anyone invokes the deity, the truth must be spoken. Robinson points out that this goes back to a time when people thought that a lie between people did not concern God, whereas if the divine name were invoked “His dignity and honour were at stake”; people would expect perjury to be punished.
34. As throughout this section, Jesus’ command is in emphatic contrast: “Do not swear at all.” To swear means “To make a solemn declaration or statement with an appeal to God or a superhuman being, or to some sacred object, in confirmation of what is said” (Shorter Oxford Dictionary).130 J. Schneider understands swearing to be “primarily self-cursing should one not be speaking the truth” (TDNT, V, p. 458). Such a solemn statement is sometimes called for, but Jesus is saying that it should not be necessary for his followers.131 He is not forbidding the taking of an oath in a law court or the like. The law said, “you shall … swear by his name” (Deut. 6:13; 10:20), and Jesus himself responded when the high priest put him on oath (26:63–64). He is saying in the strongest terms that those who follow him must speak the truth. They must never take the line that only when an oath is sworn need they be truthful. At all132 with the negative excludes the oath altogether. There must never be the need for it. Jesus brings this out by referring to the way oaths were commonly sworn. The Jews held that unless the name of God was specifically mentioned the oath was not binding; there were lengthy discussions about when an oath is or is not binding, and people would sometimes swear by heaven or earth or a similar oath and later claim that they were not bound by that oath because God was not mentioned. Jesus rejects such casuistry. People should not swear oaths at all, certainly not by heaven, for that is the throne of God; to substitute heaven for God does not in fact avoid a reference to the deity, for heaven is his throne.
35. Nor should an oath be sworn by the earth. It seems a curious form of oath, but it is perhaps meant as a contrast to the preceding reference to heaven. Since the name of God was not used, many Jews cheerfully swore “by earth” (an oath “by heaven and by earth” is mentioned in Shebu. 4:13, and regarded as not binding). There may be a reminiscence of Isaiah 66:1, where God speaks of heaven as his throne and the earth as his footstool. Swearing by the earth does not avoid the link with God, for the earth is the footstool of his feet (cf. Isa. 66:1). At one and the same time the footstool brings out subjection and nearness. It is perhaps relevant that God’s footstool is associated with worship (Ps. 99:5). Nor should an oath be sworn by Jerusalem133 (which also may be seen as God’s footstool, Lam. 2:1). The city is linked with God as being the city of the great king (cf. Ps. 48:1–2; for king see on 1:6).134 The point of all this is that by their hair-splitting differences the Jews could not escape between this form of oath or vow and that. God is present in all his creation. The important thing, Jesus is saying, is to tell the truth and keep one’s pledges without insisting that a certain form of words must be used if it is to be binding. No oath is necessary for the truthful person.
36. The first three rejected oaths all in one way or another refer to God, but now comes an oath that centers on the person of the swearer. You are not to swear by your head,135 Jesus says. For this final example the verb swear is repeated, which may be for emphasis, but more probably in order to give balance to the sentence. To swear by the head means that the swearer “would give his head (i.e., his life) if he were not speaking the truth” (Ridderbos). The reason for not swearing moves from the greatness of God to the littleness of people: no one is able136 to change the color of even one hair, a very small part of the human body. Such an impotent being is not one by whom to swear oaths!
37. The conclusion of the matter is that it is never necessary for Christ’s people to swear an oath before they utter the truth. Their word should always be so reliable that nothing more than a statement is needed from them. God is in all of life, and every statement is made before him. Your statement137 will refer to anything you say. I have translated the Greek fairly literally, but the meaning may well be as in REB, “Plain ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ is all you need to say.” That would suit the context. Another possibility is that the words signify much what James says: “Let your ‘yes’ be yes, and your ‘no’ no” (Jas. 5:12), that is, your statement should be thoroughly reliable and thus make an oath unnecessary. Some interpreters suggest that a doubled “yes” or “no”138 (which is more than the single word) is the limit of what is permissible,139 but it is unlikely that Jesus would engage in such casuistry, especially when he is opposing that of the Jews. Anything more140 than these expressions is of the evil one.141 This may mean that it originates in evil or, more probably, that it comes from the devil (so Lenski).
e. Retaliation, 5:38–42
38“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39But I say to you, ‘Do not resist the evil person; but whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other one also. 40And let him who wants to go to law with you and take your tunic have your cloak too. 41And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42Give to him who asks you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.’ ”
Revenge comes easily to the human race. We have a natural tendency to retaliate when anyone harms us (or even when the harm is in our imagination!). But Jesus instructs his followers to eschew hitting back in all its forms; we should even go the “second mile” in doing more than the enemy asks. This is a radically new approach to the question of grievances. Jesus is, of course, still dealing with great principles, not laying down rules. We must not think that he held that his followers should never right wrongs, for example, nor that he felt that they must give to every beggar who approaches them. Were this so, all Christians would live under tyranny and in a state of destitution. But the principles that we are to refrain from asserting our rights and that we should put the needs of others before our own run through all of life and mark the difference between the servant of God and the worldling. There are some parallels in Luke 6:29–30, but mostly in the general sense. Almost every significant word is different, which makes it difficult to derive either account from the other.
38. The formula is the same as that in verse 27, that is, it lacks the reference to “the men of old.” The quotation (from Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21) inserts “and” to join the two members, but is otherwise exact. The eye, of course, is a very important organ of sense perception, and its loss would be felt keenly. So when an eye is damaged or lost, a similar punishment is to be inflicted on whoever caused the loss. So with the tooth. In both cases the punishment is precisely equivalent.142 The precept is an ancient one and is expressed, for example, in the Code of Hammurabi (18th cent. B.C.). In its day this lex talionis was, of course, a great advance. It meant evenhanded justice without respect of persons. No matter how great the offender, he could not escape just punishment, and no matter how small, no more could be exacted of him than his offense merited. It took punishment out of the realm of private vengeance, but Jewish practice tended to put it back. By contrast, Jesus teaches that his people should not be noted for insisting on their just deserts. They must be ready to forego private vengeance, as indeed the law provided if people would only heed it (Lev. 19:17–18; cf. Prov. 24:29).
39. Again the emphatic formula is used to introduce striking new teaching. “Do not resist the evil person”143 does not mean that we should let evil triumph throughout our communities. Jesus is referring to private retaliation, not to public order, and he is instructing his followers not to be intent on getting their own back when someone wrongs them. To be the victim of some form of evil does not give us the right to hit back. Jesus proceeds to give an example, and his but is the strong adversative,144 a word that introduces a sharp contrast; he says, whoever145 slaps you, “hits you with the open hand.”146 The traditional understanding is that the slap is on the cheek, and this may well be right, though the word properly means the jawbone.147 The proper conduct in such a case is not retaliation, but readiness to endure a further blow. This contrasts with the teaching of the Mishnah, where we find that “If a man cuffed his fellow he must pay him a sela” (B. Qam. 8:6; the tractate goes on to lay down the penalties for slapping, hitting with the back of the hand, etc.). There will be occasions when protest is in order, as when Jesus himself drew attention to an illegality at his trial (John 18:22–23). But such occasions are never for the purpose of revenge or the like.
40. Jesus envisages a further indignity and loss, the oppressor148 who wants to take the disciple’s tunic. This is not outright robbery, but the process whereby the enemy adopts legal means of depriving the follower of Jesus of part of his clothing. Normally a person would seem to have worn a loincloth, a tunic, a cloak (outer garment), a girdle, a head covering, and sandals.149 Jesus envisages a situation in which someone adopts legal measures to deprive the disciple of his tunic. Take means here “take into one’s possession”; the verb can be used of seizing by force (21:35, 39). The proper response is not to fight back, but to be ready to let him have the outer garment150 as well, a more expensive garment and one that even the poorest had the right to keep (Exod. 22:26–27; Deut. 24:12–13). A person had an inalienable right to his cloak; it could not be taken away from him permanently. Its voluntary surrender is thus significant.
41. As in verse 39 whoever is the generalizing use of the pronoun (though this time the verb is in the future, there the present). The verb151 was used in the sense “requisition”; originally it was used of the Persian post, but it came to be used of forced service of various kinds. In its only other New Testament occurrences it refers to the pressing into service of Simon the Cyrenian to carry Jesus’ cross (27:32; Mark 15:21). The word mile was a Roman mile, that is, 1,000 paces, but it came to be used of a fixed measure, 8 stades (i.e., 4,854 feet or 1,478.5 meters, BAGD). Jesus tells his followers that when they are compelled to drop what they are doing and go a mile for the authority, they should show their willingness by going another.152 Two points to the importance of going well beyond what is required. The right thing, Jesus says, is not only to put up cheerfully with the unreasonable and disliked demand, but to go well beyond what is asked.
42. Give153 is unqualified; Jesus looks for generosity without condition. Asks is a general term for making requests, and it, too, is unqualified. Jesus is saying that his people must be ready to give to anyone who asks, deserving or undeserving (as in Deut. 15:7–8; Ps. 112:9); they should not reject anyone who wants to borrow from them. The verb turn away154 is used in a variety of senses, but here it clearly points to a refusal that should have no place in the life of the Christian. The follower of Jesus may perhaps not be in a position to give the borrower exactly what he asks, but that does not mean that he rejects him. It may be only a kind word or good advice, but he gives what he can in the circumstances in which he finds himself.155
f. Love for Enemies, 5:43–48
43“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I say to you, ‘Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven, for he makes his sun rise on evil people and good ones and sends rain on just and unjust. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet your brothers only, what are you doing more (than others)? Do not the Gentiles also do the same? 48You shall therefore be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.’ ”
This section is of fundamental importance for an understanding of the Christian ideal of love. We all love our friends, but love of our enemies is quite another matter. But the followers of Jesus are not to take their standards from the communities in which they live. The God they serve is a loving God, and therefore they are to be loving people. Jesus points out that they must learn from God’s love. God’s good gifts, the sunshine and the rain, are given to all alike, the bad as well as the good. Those who serve God should show a similar generous attitude to enemies as well as to friends.156
43. Jesus introduces the scribal teaching with the same introductory formula as in verses 27 and 38. “You shall love your neighbor” is from Leviticus 19:18, though the omission of “as yourself” may indicate that the scribes set the standard rather lower than did Leviticus. Jesus appears to be summarizing the way the interpreters of his day saw the teaching about enemies rather than citing Scripture itself, for the Old Testament nowhere says, “you shall hate your enemy.”157 Indeed, its teaching about enemies is complex. There certainly are passages that inculcate a stern attitude to one’s foes (Exod. 34:12; Deut. 7:2; 23:6), and the Psalmist speaks of hating those who hate God (Ps. 139:21–22). But other Old Testament passages extend love at least to the resident alien (Lev. 19:34) and call for an attitude of helpfulness that extends even to the “enemy” (Exod. 23:4–5; Prov. 25:21–22). We must also bear in mind that on occasion “hate” can be used in the sense “love less” (6:24; cf. 10:37 with Luke 14:26; Gen. 29:31; Deut. 21:15). All this means that those who summed up Old Testament teaching as calling for love for neighbors and hatred for enemies were oversimplifying. The call for hatred is certainly the kind of addition to the command that many have put into practice.158 The verb love159 points to the warmest of attitudes, and from ancient times this is the way the Israelite was taught to view his neighbor,160 that is, his fellow Israelite. A foreigner who lived nearby did not qualify. But with this regard for fellow Israelites there went a hatred for one’s enemies.161 And with this mind-set it was easy to distinguish between good Israelites (Pharisees?) and bad Israelites (tax collectors? were bad Israelites enemies?). As Hendriksen says, “In such an atmosphere it was impossible for hatred to starve. It had plenty to feed on.”
44. Again we have the formula that sets Jesus’ words in emphatic contrast. Love is not simply praised but commanded. As the passage goes on to show, God’s love comes first, and love both to God and to our fellows is our appropriate response to that love. Enemies is plural over against the singular in the previous verse; this may be no more than the reflection of the plural verb love, but it is an all-inclusive term. Jesus had quoted a precept in the singular, but his response is entirely in the plural. He proceeds to an example of what he means with the injunction to pray162 for (or “on behalf of”) the persecutors. The verb “to persecute” (see on v. 10) can indicate persecution in any form, but here it is persecution specifically directed at Jesus’ followers (you). It may be possible to regard in a detached way persecution of others; it is not so easy when one is the object of the persecution. “Persecutors are the most difficult enemies to love” (Nixon). But it is precisely in a situation of persecution that Jesus’ followers are to show their love by praying for those who are harming them.163
45. So that is a construction that expresses purpose. But we should probably understand it not in the sense that our love is to be nothing more than the means to an end—our membership in the heavenly family. Rather, our membership in that family will be so important to us that we pursue love avidly. We will see that to be164 God’s children means to love. Love and membership in God’s family go together. Sons here are members of the heavenly family. There is a sense in which those members are infinitely diverse and another sense in that they are all characterized by dependence on and likeness to the Father; in this sense sons are “those who are bound to a personality by close, non-material ties; it is this personality that has promoted the relationship and given it its character” (BAGD, 1.c.γ; for “Father in heaven” see on v. 16). The conduct Jesus has enjoined in the previous verse is the conduct that characterizes those in close relationship with the heavenly Father. God loves like that, and his sons come to love in some measure like that, too.
The love of God for all the people he has created is shown in the way he gives good gifts indiscriminately to all (there are some gifts that cannot be appropriated without the right spiritual approach, but that is another matter). The sun does not shine exclusively on the good; the rain does not pass over the evil. The shining of the sun is not viewed as something that occurs naturally; God makes the sun rise. There is a divine volition. There is no article with evil or good;165 it is not “the bad” and “the good” viewed as classes, but people generally seen as characterized by evil or goodness. God’s provision extends to the whole race and is not limited by the moral standards people accept. With the sunshine Jesus links the rain. Just as the sunlight, the rain comes on good and bad alike. Jesus changes his terminology, but in this context there is not a great deal of difference between the evil and the good on the one hand, and the just and the unjust on the other.166 The point being emphasized is that God does not limit his blessings to those who serve him faithfully. Even to those who oppose him he gives many good things.
46. For introduces the consequence: the goodness of God has its implications for Christian conduct. The if implies nothing as to the fulfilment or otherwise of the condition; it simply puts a hypothetical case. To love those who love one is nothing wonderful, and Jesus brings this out by asking what reward they can expect for this kind of conduct. He spoke earlier about the heavenly reward his followers could expect (see on v. 12), and here he makes it clear that there is no reward for doing what is commonplace. To behave in this way is to act like the world; it is the natural response of worldly people, and Jesus singles out the tax collectors167 as people who do this. The form of the question168 looks for an affirmative answer: “of course they do.” Tax collectors have never been popular in any culture, but in first-century Palestine they were especially unpopular. Partly this was because they gathered taxes for the Romans, and anything that helped the conquerors was anathema to the subject Jews. Partly also it was because they tended to be extortionate. In the eyes of Jesus’ audience there were no more wicked people than tax collectors as a class. If even they would respond to love with love, then anyone would. They are the last people one would expect to show love, but they do—to their own kind. This example shows that there is nothing wonderful about this kind of love.
47. Jesus gives a further example, this one taken from the usage of his hearers. Again there is the if construction with no indication of fulfilment or otherwise. Greet169 strictly means no more than exchange pleasantries on meeting. But the Jewish greeting was “Peace,” and this was in fact a prayer. Doubtless many people used it with no more thought of praying than we do when we say “Good-bye” without remembering that we are really saying “God be with you.” But to take it seriously implied a certain warmth; the greeting would have the note of goodwill and of welcome. For brother see on 1:2; here it refers to others than siblings and points to people belonging to the same group. Such people are normally greeted warmly. When Jesus’ people do this and do not greet others in the same way, then what are they doing other than what is common practice? For more see the note on verse 37; here it will mean “more than is common,” “more than other people”; it is never enough that believers do the good that unbelievers do; always it is necessary that they do more. If they only equal the deeds of worldly people, we may well ask, “What is so wonderful about that?” Jesus picks out the Gentiles170 as folk who do this. If even they do this, then why should the people of God pride themselves on doing no more? There is no merit in such greetings. Even Gentiles manage them.
48. Jesus ends this part of his discourse with a future normally understood as a command: You shall be (for this construction see on v. 21). This is surely correct: there is a command here. But may we not also see something of a promise?171 Jesus puts his command in such a way that disciples may look for divine help as they press toward God’s goal for them. His therefore relates this future to what has gone before: because of the importance of showing in their lives that they are doing more than is required of people in general, more than the tax collectors or the Gentiles do, more than they themselves do when they greet one another, they must look for perfection. You is emphatic. Jesus is not saying what the Gentiles ought to be or the Jews who do not follow him. He is referring to his followers; they must be perfect.172 That their standard is to be the highest possible (“no limit to your goodness,” REB) is shown by the words that follow: even as your heavenly Father is perfect.173 When Matthew uses the adjective heavenly it always refers to God (he has the word 7 times out of its 9 New Testament occurrences). In this he contrasts with Luke, who uses it of the heavenly host (Luke 2:13) and of the heavenly vision (Acts 26:19). Matthew thus employs the term to stress the difference between God and others, just as Father brings out his nearness and his love. To set this kind of perfection before his followers means that Jesus saw them as always having something for which to strive. No matter how far along the path of Christian service we are, there is still something to aim for. There is a wholeheartedness about being Christian; all that we have and all that we are must be taken up into the service of the Father.
Matthew 6
6. Practicing Piety, 6:1–34
The previous section has made it very clear that Jesus was not opposed to the keeping of the law; rather, he was firmly committed to it and in a much more wholehearted way than his Pharisaic opponents. But the service of God included a good deal more than could be determined by a reference to the law; therefore, he turns now to some of the practical matters that appear when people are trying to put their professed willingness to serve God into practice. The three activities he mentions—the giving of alms, prayer, and fasting—were particularly important in Jewish piety (cf. Tob. 12:8, “Prayer is good when accompanied by fasting, almsgiving, and righteousness”). Jesus insists on the importance of a deep sincerity in those who follow him.
a. Almsgiving, 6:1–4
1“Take care not to parade your righteousness before men in order to be seen by them; if you do, you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. 2Whenever then you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, in order that they may be praised by men; truly I tell you, they have their reward. 3But when you are giving alms, let your left hand not know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your almsgiving may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
Jesus begins with the giving of alms, a most important part of piety in a day when poverty was very widespread and when the lot of the poor was so hard.1 Everybody accepted the fact that it was a religious duty to help the poor, but Jesus points out that it was possible to do this in an objectionable way. Some people made a public display of their generosity (a phenomenon that has been repeated in every age). They were more interested in ensuring that they were known as benefactors than in genuinely helping the poor; reputation rather than relief of poverty was what mattered to them. Jesus teaches that it is important to give, not to be known to give. So he suggests that precautions be taken to ensure that, while gifts are indeed given, the identity of the givers is kept secret.
1. Take care renders a verb that has the meaning “turn (your mind) to” and thus “give careful attention to,” “concentrate on.” Jesus is inviting his hearers to concentrate on the central thing when they perform any act of righteousness.2 This word may be used in any one of a variety of ways, but here it refers to any good deed that a person may do as part of his service of God (Jesus goes on to illustrate with the examples of almsgiving, prayer, and fasting). The believer must always keep in mind that the act is righteous only if it is what it purports to be—the service of God. When instead it is done as a means of enhancing the reputation of the doer of the deed, then it is no longer a simple act of divine service. It is thus important that the aim should never be that people may observe it. Occasions may arise when publicity is unavoidable, but the deed must never be done in order to be made public. If it is so done,3 then there is no reward (see on 5:12) with your Father who is in heaven (see on 5:16). Why should there be? The deed was done in order to secure a reputation, not in order to serve God. Already the doer has secured his reward. He aimed at reputation. He got it. He has no right to expect the further benefit of divine approval.
2. Whenever is comprehensive; Jesus is not pointing to an occasional happening, but to the regular practice.4 You is singular, which makes the application personal (in the previous verse the plural was used). Jesus assumes that his hearers will assist the poor;5 the question is not “Whether?” but “How?” Almsgiving is commanded in Scripture (e.g., Deut. 15:11), and all who serve God must take this seriously. Jesus tells his hearers not to sound6 a trumpet before them. This lively piece of imagery (surely there cannot be anything more public than the sounding of a trumpet!) at one and the same time burlesques the attitude of publicity seekers and denounces it.7 That is the method of the hypocrites.8 The word was used for actors who, of course, play a part and whose words are spoken for effect and not in order to convey the truth. These hypocrites were people who acted a concern for the poor whereas their real concern was to establish a reputation for piety. The synagogue (see on 4:23) was, of course, a place of worship, but it was also the center of life for the community and functions like the administration of justice were carried on there. The synagogue was a public place, and a generous gift made there would certainly be noticed. So it was with the streets.9 Jesus selects two very public places where hypocritical gifts may be given and warns his followers against following the practice. People who engage in that kind of giving are interested in being praised by men;10 it is the praise and not the helping of the needy in which they are primarily interested. For truly I tell you see on 5:18; it is an expression that recurs in this sermon. Such people have11 their reward. This expression employs the ordinary commercial term for a receipt and is a lively way of bringing out the truth that these hypocrites have received all the reward they are going to get for this “good” deed. They sought the praise of men. They received the praise of men. There is nothing more to come. They cannot expect a heavenly reward in addition, for they have already been “paid in full.”
3. But is adversative; it sets the follower of Jesus in contrast to the hypocrites. The present tense of the verb pictures the act as in progress; while it is taking place there must be the utmost secrecy. The figure of the left hand being unaware of what the right hand is doing (again the tense points to the action in progress) is a striking expression for complete secrecy.12 And it forbids the giver to gloat over how good he or she is! “Christian giving is to be marked by self-sacrifice and self-forgetfulness, not by self-congratulation” (Stott, p. 131). The motive deep down is important.13
4. So that introduces the purpose. In giving alms what is one really aiming at? Jesus says that the person must aim at doing this good deed in secret.14 But though almsgiving is done in the right way, that is, done without ostentation and in secret, that does not mean that it is entirely unnoticed. Your Father (an expression found again in the first three Gospels only in vv. 6 and 18; the plural is more common) sees it and takes notice of it (for Father see on 5:16). The verb may be used of various kinds of seeing, literal and metaphorical; here it indicates that human secrecy is no bar to God’s complete knowledge. God sees what is given and will take action, rewarding the donor. This does not mean that good deeds should be done with a view to obtaining a reward;15 that would mean that the deeds would no longer be good. It is a way of saying that in the end justice will be done.16 In our anxiety to make sure that we do not serve God for what we can get out of it we must not go to the other extreme and think of God as not caring what we do, or if he does, as not doing anything about it. God notices what his children do and responds to it. We should bear in mind the nature of the reward. To respond to love is to obtain a wonderful reward even if the reward cannot be quantified in any way nor regarded as merited. But it is very real. As Plummer puts it, “There is nothing degrading in working for the reward of a good conscience here, and of increased holiness hereafter, both enriched by God’s love and blessing” (p. 91). Cf. Gutzwiller, “God himself is the reward of Christians.”
b. Prayer, 6:5–15
5“And whenever you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners in order that they may be seen by men; truly I tell you, they have their reward. 6But you, whenever you are praying, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
7“And when you are praying, do not babble like the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8Therefore do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9You then pray like this:
‘Our Father in heaven,
may your name be kept holy,
10may your kingdom come,
may your will be done,
as in heaven also on earth.
11Give us today our daily bread,
12and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13And do not bring us into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.’
14For if you forgive men their offenses, your heavenly Father will forgive you too; 15but if you do not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive your offenses.”
It would seem that, just as was the case with helping the poor, so there was a tendency for people to use their prayers as a means of impressing others with their piety. But prayer is to be communion with God, not a means of increasing one’s reputation. To pray with a view to impressing people is wrongheaded. Jesus calls on praying people to consider what they are doing. They should concentrate on the matter in hand and forget the plaudits of people.
5. And links on another example. Whenever, as in verse 2, gives a general instruction suitable for all times of prayer. For pray see on 5:44; Matthew has a good deal to say about prayer. There is a change from the singular to the plural, but this does not seem to have great significance. You shall not be is another example of the use of the future with imperatival force; Jesus is not so much uttering a prophecy as giving a direction. For hypocrites see on verse 2; again the word signifies those who profess to do a pious action, but do so with their eye on people when they should be concerned with God only. For is not used here in a causal sense; it rather has a meaning like “seeing that.”17 Standing18 was a normal posture for prayer (cf. Mark 11:25), though when the worshiper wished to adopt an especially lowly position he might prostrate himself, as Jesus did in Gethsemane (26:39). People might pray kneeling (Acts 21:5) or sitting (2 Sam. 7:18). Clearly the posture is unimportant. As we have seen before, the synagogue (see on 4:23) was the center of community life as well as the place of worship. Here it is the place where God is worshipped, and it is singled out as a place where there would be many people. To pray standing in a synagogue was to take up a very public posture. The same must be said about praying on street19 corners. The junction of two streets would be a very public place and to pray there, in a place not especially given over to religious exercises and with many people to observe what was going on, was to court notice and to win the approbation of people who liked to observe religious activities in progress. There were prayers that were offered at prescribed times (cf. Ps. 55:17; Dan. 6:10; Acts 3:1),20 and it was not beyond the ingenuity of some to order their affairs so that they were in a public place at the time of prayer and thus “compelled” to pray where they would be seen. In order that introduces the purpose of the activity: the public exercise of which Jesus speaks was nominally aimed at addressing God, but it actually sought to achieve visibility to men (the masculine, of course, is inclusive and means “people”). The words about reward are repeated exactly from verse 2. Like the demonstrative givers of alms, those who pray merely to put on a show have been “paid in full” for their efforts. In all this Jesus is not condemning public prayer or praying in a public place; it is praying in such a way as to maximize its effect on other people that he condemns.
6. But is adversative and marks a contrast, while you is emphatic. The followers of Jesus will not pray in that demonstrative fashion. Whenever means that this is the way they must always pray. Jesus is not, of course, forbidding prayer in public, for example, in services of public worship or on other occasions when united praying is required. Rather, he is giving direction for one’s own prayers and indicating that they are to be undertaken with a single eye on God, not with a side glance at people who could be impressed.21 Go into your room22 (the word means an inner room) prescribes a private place for such prayer. The room itself is secure from observation from the street, and shutting the door secures it from the observation of those who have legitimate business in the house. Every precaution is to be taken that the prayer should be unobserved.23 “The secret of religion is religion in secret” (McNeile). Pray is a command; prayer is not simply desirable but necessary. In verse 4 the giving of alms is said to be in secret and the Father is said to see in secret, but here we have the interesting expression your Father who is in secret. The secret place will exclude other people but not God; he is there, in the secret place.24 The expression may also hint that the essential nature of God is hidden from those he created. For his seeing in secret and rewarding see on verse 4.
7. Jesus has significant teaching on the importance of conciseness in prayer. His followers are not to babble, where the unusual word forbids prolixity.25 To pray at length was regarded by the Gentiles as the way to make sure that one’s prayer was appreciated by deity, and there is no reason for thinking that this error was confined to the Gentiles; Jews could also err in this way (cf. Mark 12:40; the Talmud speaks of pious men who prayed for nine hours a day! Ber. 32b, though we should remember that Jews, too, could advocate short prayers, following Eccl. 5:2). Over against the conviction that the multitude of words indicates piety, Jesus points out that babbling is not the way to the heart of God. For Gentiles see on 5:47; it stands for Gentiles over against the Jews, the people of God. Such people do not understand the way to pray. For introduces the reason for their practice and that the content of their thinking. The Gentiles think of prayer as effective only if long (cf. 1 Kings 18:26–29).26 They agree that God hears and answers, but hold that he does so in proportion to their wordiness.
8. Therefore introduces the reason: there is a fallacy in the position of the Gentiles, which is obvious as soon as it is stated. Do not be like them means, of course, “Do not pray as they do,” “Do not make the error they make.” Jesus justifies this by going on to refer to the knowledge the Father27 has of his children. Before they offer any prayer, he knows exactly what their need is. They pray, not to inform the Father on matters of which he is ignorant, but to worship him.28 Jesus is not, of course, forbidding long prayers; he himself on occasion could pray all night (Luke 6:12) and on one occasion he taught his followers “that they should always pray and not grow weary” (Luke 18:1). Nor does he forbid repetition, for in Gethsemane he repeated his prayer (26:39–44). It is prayer based on the view that length will persuade God that he discourages.
9. Many recent scholars hold that the prayer that we commonly call “the Lord’s Prayer” should be understood in eschatological terms. In this Gospel we have already found that the kingdom of heaven has come near in the person of Jesus (3:2; 4:17), and the suggestion is that Jesus is teaching his followers a prayer that they should pray mindful of the fact that the end of all things is upon them. It may well be granted that these words are suitable for use in the last days as in others, but there is nothing in the language of the prayer that shows that those days alone are in view; if that is what Jesus meant, why did he not use at least one expression that unambiguously gives expression to it? The experience of the church throughout the centuries makes it abundantly clear that the prayer applies well to the here and now. We should understand it as a model prayer to guide disciples in their devotional life.29
As Matthew records it, the giving of the prayer is quite spontaneous, but in Luke it comes in response to a question of the disciples. Jesus had been praying, and the disciples asked him to teach them to pray as John the Baptist had taught his followers. There are differences in the two versions of the prayer that we will notice as we come to them, but both forms “have simplicity, conciseness, intellectual clarity, and spiritual comprehensiveness” (Filson). Comparisons are made between the two versions, often with a view to determining which is the older. The usual conclusion is that on the whole the Lucan form is the more primitive, but that in some details Matthew has preserved what is nearer to the original. This enterprise seems to me mistaken.30 If Jesus seriously meant this to be a form to be used verbatim or as a model, it is highly unlikely that he would have enunciated it once only. And if it was to be used as a pattern rather than as a rigid form, nothing is more probable than that it should vary somewhat on different occasions.31 Like this32 indicates that what follows is meant as a guide, a model, rather than as a set form of words (cf. Zahn). This does not mean that the Lord’s Prayer may not usefully and meaningfully be used exactly as it is enunciated, but it points us to the truth that Jesus is giving us a model that may usefully be employed in fashioning other prayers. The present imperative pray points to the habitual practice. You is emphatic; in verses 5–8 we have seen that the Gentiles pray in an unacceptable fashion, as do the hypocrites among the Jews, but Jesus’ followers are set in sharp contrast. This was taken seriously by the early church, where the use of the prayer was confined to full members of the church (it appears to have been taught as part of baptismal instruction). Others were not to use it.
Jesus starts with the address, “Our Father33 in heaven” (see on 5:16; in Luke the prayer begins simply with “Father”). Our links the praying person to other believers; while the prayer may be used in private it is meant to be prayed in community, which means that it may have had a liturgical use from the first (though this, of course, does not mean that it cannot be profitably used in private prayer). Jesus addressed God simply as “Father” (11:25; Mark 14:36; Luke 23:46; John 17:1), and taught his followers to do the same. Bonnard points out that when God is called “Father” in the Synoptic Gospels the word is always on the lips of Jesus. This is not a commonplace of ancient religion, but a new understanding of the nature of God Jesus taught his disciples. It is characteristic that his followers should address God as “Father,” and distinctive because others, both Jews and Gentiles, even if they addressed God as “Father,” tended to begin their prayers with titles stressing God’s greatness, lordship, and the like.34 But, while the address expresses love and devotion,35 the one whom we call Father is at the same time supremely great, as the fact that he is in heaven reminds us (“God is in heaven, and you upon earth,” Eccl. 5:2). We should not miss the balance in this opening to the prayer. We address God intimately as Father, but we immediately recognize his infinite greatness with the addition in heaven.
The name36 in antiquity meant a good deal more than it does with us. We use it for a personal designation, and that is about all. But in antiquity the name was held to be bound up with the person in some way;37 the name and the qualities associated with the name went together. Thus in the opening of this Gospel we find that the baby was to be called Jesus, for he would save his people from their sins (1:21); the name and the activity went together. The prayer then means more than that we should use the divine name with suitable reverence. It includes that, and is thus a standing witness against every age that uses the name of God (or Jesus or Christ) lightly in oaths or jests. But it also means that we should be reverent before all that God is and stands for. If God’s name is kept holy,38 it is held in proper reverence. This prayer is not so much a petition that God will do some great act that will show everyone who and what he is, as a prayer that he will bring people to a proper attitude toward him. It expresses an aspiration that he who is holy will be seen to be holy and treated throughout his creation as holy.
10. The kingdom of God is a most important concept in this Gospel (see on 3:2). There is a sense in which the kingdom is a present reality, but here it is the future kingdom that is in mind.39 The petition looks to the coming of the time when all evil will be done away and people will gladly submit to the divine Sovereign (cf. Rev. 11:15). Davies and Allison point out that “kingdom of God” is never the subject of the verb “come” in Jewish writings or in the New Testament outside the Gospels; they find here the thought of the “coming” of God (which, of course, includes the coming of his kingdom). The prayer looks for God to take action, not for worshipers to bring the kingdom into being (cf. Stendahl, “It asks for the establishment of the Kingdom of God, by God for us, not by us for God”). The prayer looks for the full realization of all that the kingdom means40 and for the will of God to be perfectly done (the words your will be done are absent from the Lukan version). The word will may be used of the act of willing (e.g., Rom. 1:10) or of the thing that is willed to happen; that which takes place may be done either by oneself (e.g., Eph. 1:9) or by others (21:31). It is this latter use that we see here. The prayer looks for the perfect accomplishment of what God wills, and that in the deeds of those he has created as well as in what he does himself. It points to no passive acquiescence but to an active identification of the worshiper with the working out of the divine purpose; if we pray that way we must live that way. We see something of the cost of praying this prayer by reflecting on the way Jesus used it (Luke 22:42). In heaven God’s will is perfectly done now, for there is nothing in heaven to hinder it, and the prayer looks for a similar state of affairs here on earth.41
11. Until now the petitions have concerned the great causes of God and his kingdom; at this point Jesus’ attention moves to the personal needs of the worshiper. It is interesting that immediately following the prayer for the perfect establishment of the kingdom of heaven and the accomplishment of the will of God we have a prayer for bread42 here and now. This was so incredible to many in the early church that they spiritualized the expression and understood it of Holy Communion or “the invisible bread of the Word of God” (Augustine, p. 42; he finds other meanings as well). In modern times we often find scholars claiming that the expression refers to the messianic banquet in the coming age. Both miss the point that Jesus takes seriously our physical needs. The word translated daily43 is difficult, but a survey of the evidence indicates that the ancient understanding “daily” fits the facts as well as any; “for the coming day” has essentially the same meaning. The prayer prayed in the morning seeks bread for the day opening out before the praying person, while prayed at night it seeks bread for the coming day. Both ways of taking the word see it as looking to God for the supply of one’s immediate needs, not those of the indefinite future. Jesus says that we should do no more than ask for food sufficient for the day on the day. Give44 recognizes that our basic food is not the result of our unaided endeavor; it is the gift of God, while today is important as pointing to a day-by-day reliance on God. The prayer encourages a continuing dependence on God; it does not countenance a situation in which the disciple asks God for a supply for a lengthy period, after which prayer he can go on for some time in forgetfulness of God. He depends on God constantly, and this dependence is expressed in this prayer.
12. Forgive (see on 12:31) recognizes that sinning puts people in the wrong with God and that only he can cancel out the offense and pardon it. The offense is here seen as a debt (in Luke 11:4 we have “sins”), which recognizes that we owe to God our full obedience. When we do not pay it we are debtors to God, and only he can remit the debt.45 The prayer for forgiveness is qualified by as we also have forgiven our debtors. This must surely be taken as an aspiration rather than a limitation, or none of us would be forgiven; our forgivenesses are so imperfect. But the prayer recognizes that we have no right to seek forgiveness for our own sins if we are withholding forgiveness from others, and perhaps even that we cannot really seek it (cf. Buttrick, if anyone says, “I’ll never forgive you!” that person “is not penitently aware of his sins, but only vengefully aware of another man’s sins”; Robinson remarks, “The spirit open to receive love is of necessity open to bestow love”). We also is emphatic; it underlines the significance of forgiving action on the part of those seeking forgiveness.46 Have forgiven47 expresses more than a resolution for future action. The person seeking forgiveness must first have taken forgiving action with respect to those who have sinned against him; “as 5:23–24 shows, mere good intentions are not enough” (Schweizer). We should notice that it is debtors that are forgiven, not “debts.” Both, of course, are involved, but it is the person on whom the emphasis falls. Debtor may be used of literal, monetary debts (18:24), or it may be used metaphorically of various kinds of obligation, and of those who owe something to people (here) or to God (Luke 13:4). Sin may be viewed in any one of a variety of ways. Here it is seen as arising from the fact that we have obligations to God. When we fail to do what we should, we owe God a debt and are in need of help, namely the cancellation of the debt because we cannot repay it.
13. The big question here is the meaning of the word I have translated temptation. The word has the basic meaning “test,” and, when used of Satan’s testing of people with a view to their failing in the test (see the note on the corresponding verb, 4:1), it comes to mean “temptation.” It has usually been understood in this way in this prayer (KJV; so NIV, etc.). But in recent years there has been an increasing tendency to interpret it as pointing to the fiery trial associated with the coming of the End, and it is taken that way in translations like “do not put us to the test” (REB). Against this is the absence of the definite article (there is no “the” in the Greek); the expression seems to point to testing in general rather than one specific test. In any case, no evidence seems to be cited that the word, by itself, signifies the test at the climax of all things. Others understand it as a time of trial rather than of temptation, “do not bring us to hard testing” (GNB). The eschatological meaning is unlikely, but a prayer that we may not undergo difficult tests is a possibility. On the whole the traditional view that the word means “temptation” seems most probable, though not, of course, in the sense that the worshiper may feel that God will present him with temptation (cf. Jas. 1:13).48 God tempts no one. But the worshiper knows his own weakness and in this prayer seeks to be kept far from anything that may bring him to sin.49 But is the strong adversative;50 it sets the following course of action in marked contrast to the preceding. There is a question whether we should take the final expression in the verse in the sense “the evil one” (NIV and most recent translations) or “evil” (Knox): the Greek could mean either. It is argued that in the first century it is more likely that the evil one would be in mind than a general reference to evil, but the translation “evil” may be supported by appeal to 5:39 where the expression cannot mean “the evil one.” It could also be contended that to take it as meaning “the evil one” would make the two parts of the verse say much the same thing and further that this would mean there is “no express prayer for deliverance from moral evil” (Glover). Perhaps the decisive point is one made by Hill: “since neither Hebrew nor Aramaic uses ‘the evil (one)’ to denote Satan, it is probably better to regard the word as neuter. …” Either way of taking the expression makes good sense, but on the whole it seems that the reference is to “evil.”
In the form in which the prayer is commonly used it concludes with the doxology “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory for ever and ever. Amen.” This is lacking in the oldest MSS (in Luke as in Matthew), though it has considerable early attestation.51 But it may be argued that it is unlikely that a first-century Jewish prayer should conclude without a doxology and that its absence in many MSS may be because it was simply assumed, while in others it was explicitly included. On the whole it seems probable that it was a liturgical addition made early in the life of the church, but we should not regard this as certain. The case for the doxology is stronger than many students assume.52
14. For introduces a reason for praying in the way Jesus has just outlined: first, those who forgive in the way suggested in the prayer will find forgiveness themselves, whereas those who do not forgive will not be forgiven. The conditional implies nothing as to the fulfilment or otherwise of the condition; it simply suggests a hypothetical possibility. Men, of course, is quite general and has no particular reference to adult members of the male sex; it means “people.” Offenses53 are activities in which other people really take action against us in some way; forgiveness of such sins is not automatic. But Jesus expects it of his people, and he assures them that such forgiveness means that the forgiveness of God is certain. It is not that the act of forgiving merits an eternal reward, but rather it is evidence that the grace of God is at work in the forgiving person and that that same grace will bring him forgiveness in due course.
15. But is the adversative conjunction that introduces the other side of the coin. The change that puts offenses in the second clause in this verse instead of in the first clause as in verse 14 is largely stylistic, but it perhaps emphasizes the activity of forgiving rather than the nature of the offenses. Forgiveness is important for the followers of Jesus, whereas the nature of the offenses committed against them is not. Jesus is saying that to fail to forgive others is to demonstrate that one has not felt the saving touch of God.