|
The major
thrust of this pericope is that the disciple's
righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and
Pharisees.
It also stresses that the disciple's righteousness must
be the right kind of righteousness!
Paul in his Epistles to
Romans and Galatians (as well as elsewhere) will argue
that the disciple's righteousness is not gained by law
keeping, but by grace through faith in Jesus..
However, Jesus' purpose at this point, unlike Paul, is not
how one becomes righteous, but rather the
clarification of the nature of righteousness.
In Jesus' day, the
Scribes and Pharisees held that righteousness could only
be possible if one kept all of the minutia of the law
as taught by the Jewish system and tradition of the
Scribes and Pharisees.
Jesus began by stressing that his purpose was not to
destroy the Law, but to establish its real
purpose.
In doing this, it became necessary for Jesus to address
the Scribes and Pharisees attitude toward law.
This he does in Six striking Antitheses (Opposite
conceptions).
Jesus then addressed
Jewish attitudes toward, and understandings of the
purpose of the Law.
He began by stressing that had not come to destroy the
law, but to fulfill the law.
The remainder of the pericope is Jesus addressing,
in the Six Antitheses, the Scribal and
Pharisaical attitudes toward the law that he found faulty.
The problem was that the Scribes and Pharisees had the
wrong attitude toward, and understanding of the law.
Jesus was concerned that the attitude
of the disciple should not be like that of the Scribes
and Pharisees, but should
address deeper matters, or root issues, for which the
law was intended, but which the Scribes and Pharisees
missed.
We must begin by thinking
of the Law as a Jew would think of the Law! For Jesus as a
Jew speaking to Jews, and Matthew was a Jew, writing to
Jewish Christians. We should, therefore, approach
this pericope with a Jewish sensitivity and
understanding of
the Law.
First, Law as Torah.
The English word law derives from the Greek and
Septuagint translation of the Hebrew word, Torah,
as nomos
(nomos - law, principle).
The English word "law", and the Greek word nomos
simply do not do justice to the Hebrew concept of Torah.
Law translates only a part of what is understood by the
Jew in Torah.
We recommend that the student explore Torah in a good
Bible Dictionary such as The Interpreter's Dictionary
of the Bible, or preferably, The Anchor Bible
Dictionary. (Click here on Torah
to go to the Glossary of Terms.)
The Law and the
Prophets.
This pericope is fascinating (and difficult) in that
it contains several parallel statements which are
intended to reinforce Jesus claim.
His primary claim is that he
did not come to destroy the law, for the law is the
instruction of God!
He reinforces this claim with several parallel
statements.
Notice the parallel
statements:
| 5:17 |
Think not
that I have come to
abolish the law... (kataluw
- kataluo - destroy)
I have not
come to abolish
them but to fulfill them (kataluw
- kataluo destroy) |
5:17
5:18 |
to fulfill
them (plhrow
- pleroo - to fulfill)
all is
accomplished (ginomai
- ginomai - happen,
fulfill) |
5:18
|
till
heaven and earth pass away (ews
- heos
- until)
until all is
accomplished (ews
- heos
- until) |
In 5:17, Jesus
began by stressing that his purpose was not to
abolish (kataluw
- kataluo, destroy, abolish, repeal) the
law and the prophets, but to fulfill
them. Since the discussion later on the Six
Antitheses (5:21-48) has to do primarily with the Mosaic
law, we can here assume that Jesus includes here the law
(Torah) as seen in the Pentateuch. However,
since Jesus adds to this and the Prophets,
he also includes Torah in the broader
sense. It is interesting that Jesus would specify the
law and the prophets rather than merely the law!
He obviously intended to include the full understanding
of Torah.
Jesus had
no intention of destroying any of the Torah!
This saying of Jesus is
vitally important to his ministry, and also that of
Matthew. It is so vital that Jesus repeats the
saying twice in a parallel form. Jesus is
stressing that he upholds the full Torah,
correctly understood.
Notice above that in the construction that Jesus
(Matthew) sets to abolish in opposite parallelism
against to fulfill .
But what exactly does
Jesus mean by fulfill? The word fulfill
(plhrow
- pleroo) can involve several thoughts including to
accomplish, to complete, to finish, to bring to an end,
to validate, to confirm, to establish, to uphold
the law, or to bring out the intended meaning of
the law.
Hagner is possibly correct in concluding that Jesus
came to bring the law to its intended purpose or meaning.
In other words, Jesus came to bring to the law its
proper focus, that is, its rightful role in right
relations with God. He came to bring
to light the divinely intended and theological meaning
and purpose of the law.
To emphasize his
conviction that he had no intention of destroying the
law, Jesus adds that "heaven and earth would
pass away" before he removed on jot or dot
from the law. To reinforce his claim he adds
(5:18) "until all is accomplished," that is,
"until the law is understood in its proper role."
The point here again is that he has no intention of
destroying the law!
The jot is a
translation of iwta
- iota
(iota, the letter "i" in English and
the smallest letter in the Greek alphabet, iota
is the equivalent of the yod, one of the smallest
letters the Hebrew alphabet). The word dot is
translated from the Greek keraia - keraia
- which is one of the minute markings of a written
text. The point again of this somewhat Semitic
idiom is that Jesus had not intention of destroying the
law!
The fascinating saying of
Jesus in 5:17,18 contains two ews
(heos - till, until) clauses,
"till heaven and earth pass away..."
and "until all is accomplished."
The expression "is accomplished"
derives from genhtai
(ginomai -
ginomai meaning to come into existence, to
occur, to take place, to be established, to be finished,
to be completed) and is similar, or parallel to
fulfill in 5:17.
The two clauses introduced by the same ews
are intended to be parallel clauses, the second clause
expanding on the first.
The first expression "till heaven and earth
pass away" means "before the end of time or
the age or world."
The second expression "until all is
accomplished" means until the correct meaning of
the law is explained, understood, fulfilled.
We should be aware that these two clauses of 5:18 are
merely a Semitic idiomatic way of explaining that Jesus
had no intention whatsoever of destroying the law!
5:19 simply adds to Jesus
point! The kingdom of heaven is all about the
correct instruction of God! Whoever relaxes even
the least of the commandments of God's instruction is
least, or not deserving of the kingdom or reign of
God! The commandments (entolh
- entole - command) in this context must
have reference to the Mosaic law, but not as interpreted
by the scribes and Pharisees, but as interpreted by
Jesus. By contrast, he who properly understands
the commandments and keeps them is great in the kingdom.
5:20 is the clinching statement,
or what this pericope is all about. It is possibly
the key and pivotal statement to what follows in the Six
Antitheses that follow, and in Jesus understanding of
righteousness.
| For
I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds
that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will
never enter the kingdom of heaven. |
Jesus comes to his
point: Kingdom righteousness is different from
that of the established Scribes and Pharisees.
John. R. W. Stott in his work The Sermon on the Mount,
describes what he feels is the key to the Sermon.
It is simple! Disciples are
different!
Jesus
does not deny that the Scribes and Pharisees do not have
a form of righteousness! However, he stresses
that their righteousness is not adequate for kingdom
righteousness!
The
point Jesus makes is this: The disciple's
righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and
Pahrisees.
The
Scribes and Pharisees, we will learn from Matthew, make
a show of their righteousness! Apparently, they do
it to be seen by men (Mat 6:1).
It is
imperative at this stage of the study that we
investigate the Jewish understanding of righteousness,
or, the biblical understanding of righteousness.
Matthew's
Understanding of Righteousness.
We can also express this in terms of Jewish and
Biblical understanding of righteousness meaning the correct
Jewish understanding of righteousness as we learn of it
from Jesus, Matthew, and Paul. However, our focus
in this study is on Matthew's use of the term
righteousness.
We must
extend a word of caution here! The study of the
topic, righteousness, is an extensive study. For
example, the article on righteousness in The Anchor
Bible Dictionary covers 50 pages, and includes 2 1/2
pages of bibliography! It soon becomes obvious to
the careful student that the subject of righteousness
covers an number of theological concerns, and historically
in the Old and New Testaments manifests a considerable
growth in understanding and application. What
makes the study challenging is the fact that the root
words in both the OT (Hebrew MT text - sdq, sadeq,
and the Septuagint - dik
- dikaiosunh
- dikaiosune) and the NT (dik
- dikaiosunh
- dikaiosune ) are translated in a number of
different ways, depending on context. The meanings
of these terms are broad. For example, acquittal,
deliverance, honest, integrity, judgment, justice,
prosperity, right, righteous, righteous deeds,
salvation, victory, vindication, et al!
Several
good works address the topic of righteousness, mostly as
it relates to the Christian understanding of the topic:
The
Anchor Bible Dictionary
Barth, M. Justification: Pauline Texts
Interpreted in the Light of the Old and New
Testaments, 1971.
Dunn, J. D. G. "Righteousness from the
Law," Tradition and Interpretation in
the New Testament, 1988.
Fitzmyer, J. A. Romans,
Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism, 1985.
Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism,
1977.
Sanders, E. P. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish
People, 1983.
Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 1948.
Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1-8, 1993.
Hill, David. The Gospel of Matthew, 1972. |
Although
he word righteousness is not often found in Matthew (it
is used in Matthew seven times), the concept of
righteousness is fundamental to Jesus' and Matthew's
teaching. For Jesus and Matthew, Kingdom
understanding is understanding righteousness!
The use of the term righteousness in Matthew extends
from a right relationship with God, to right
conduct in view of that relationship with God, to an
attitude of commitment to the will of God.
We will find that Matthew uses the concept of
righteousness in a variety of nuances, all related to
the right relationship to God.
We can summarize Matthew's use of righteousness then as,
1) the right relationship to God and his will, 2)
the right conduct that flows from that relationship
to God.
In the
Sermon on the Mount (here at 5:20, but also at 6:1, and
6:33) the point Jesus makes is that the disciple's
behavior that flows from the disciple's relationship
with God must be deeper and more extensive than that of
the Scribes and Pharisees, whose concept of
righteousness was limited to superficial deeds
(minutiae) in accordance with their interpretations of
the Torah. Kingdom righteousness is
different from that of the Scribes and Pharisees.
In the Six Antitheses, and the remainder of the Sermon,
Jesus will demonstrate what he means.
Unless
the disciple's righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes
and Pharisees, they will have no part in God's
kingdom.
The
Six Antitheses (5:21-6:48)
The six antitheses that follow Jesus' instruction on
righteousness contrast Jesus' understanding of the true
meaning of the Torah with the common Rabbinic
understanding of the Torah.
The radical sound of Jesus' teaching in the antitheses
does not amount to an annulment of the Torah (5:17), but
a true explanation and fulfillment of its intended
meaning. Jesus was correcting Rabbinic
understanding and use of the Torah, but at the same time
explaining the depth of the righteous attitude toward
God's Torah, and the radical nature of discipleship in
the kingdom.
5:21-26 |
Antithesis One - The Sixth Commandment -
"You shall not kill..." |
The
expression "you have heard that it was
said..." is repeated in five of the
antitheses, and is included in similar form in
the third antithesis.
The use of this phrase was a typical Rabbinic
device by which the Rabbis demurred from pitting
their views against Scripture, or even readily
commenting on Scripture. It was their
custom to refer back to the teachings and
conclusions of previous Rabbis with the
expression, "you have heard that it was
said..., contrasting their views with the
Rabbinic tradition rather than Scripture.
The corpus of Rabbinic tradition in the Halakah
and Haggadah was a much safer pool for
thought, discussion, and debate!
Jesus, in good Rabbinic style, sets his teaching
against the Rabbinic tradition with the
traditional Rabbinic saying "you have heard
that it was said...", but then draws his
conclusions from Scripture, correcting the
Rabbinic tradition.
Jesus' teaching, therefore, carried a much
stronger Scriptural authority than the Rabbinic
tradition ands style. It is no wonder that
at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, "the
crowd were astonished, for he taught them as one
who had authority" (Mat 7:29).
"You have
heard that it was said..." as a repeated
Rabbinic formulae means "you have
received the rabbinic tradition..."
"You have
heard that it was said to the men of old..."
probably refers back to the Mosaic period when
the law was given.
The Rabbinic
teaching "You shall not kill; and whosoever
kills shall be liable to judgment" in
Jesus' mind missed the meaning and purpose of
the sixth commandment (Ex 20:13). The
quotation of the commandment is precisely as
stated in Ex 20:13 and Deut 5:18, the concluding
comment re judgment is a Rabbinic interpretation
of the commandment. It is difficult to
determine with any certainty what was meant in
the Rabbinic tradition by judgment.
Most likely they meant the judgment of the
Sanhedrin.
In Jesus'
response we three enlargements on the Rabbinic
tradition, each introduced by the statement
"is liable to...", which picks
up the expression from the Rabbinic saying
"is liable to judgment." The
construction in Jesus saying may provide some
indication of what Jesus meant in his three
"judgment" statements. Note the
parallelism in Jesus' three judgment statements:
| everyone
who is angry with his
brother |
is
liable to judgment |
| whoever
insults his brother (Raka - similar
to idiot) |
is
liable to the
council (Sanhedrin) |
| whoever
says "You fool" (Mwros
- moros - our
moron) |
is
liable to the hell
of fire |
Notice the
increase of intensity from angry, to insult
(Raka - an objectionable social insult),
to You fool (Moron).
A question of
interest is whether the three corresponding
expressions of judgments are in an increasing
order from judgment through the
council to the hell of fire or
whether they are three somewhat synonymous
expressions of judgment.
The Rabbinic
expression in all probability had reference to
the judgment and death penalty of the
Jewish Sanhedrin, for that is all they would
have understood by this. If we move from
that Jewish understanding, and we should
remember that Jesus and Matthew were speaking to
Jews, then we should begin interpreting Jesus'
teaching from within that Jewish context.
In the Jewish
court system, there would be a range of courts
as in our present day court system ranging from
local county courts to state courts through
state supreme courts to the national supreme
court.
The Jewish system would have a local Sanhedrin
comprised of 23 male members, and then the
Jerusalem Sanhedrin comprised of 71 male
members. Cases would move from the local
to the Jerusalem Sanhedrin.
The hell of fire
(literally the Gehenna of fire) certainly
has eschatological (final end of the
world) judgment overtones. Gehenna
derives from the Valley of Hinnon which lay just
outside the city to the South. This was a
"smelly, smoky" place where the city
refuse was burned. In earlier pagan days
it had been the place of human sacrifice. Gehenna
became a suitable Jewish metaphor for the
final judgment.
Whatever the structure, whether a crescendo or
merely synonymous judgments, they certainly go
far beyond the Rabbinic teaching which tied murder
(kill in the commandments meant murder) to the death
sentence.
Jesus went right
to the heart of murder, namely anger that
is permitted to grow to insult and
finally into open denigration which often
lies at the heart of murder.
The strict adherence
to the sixth and other commandments was
admirable, but feel short of the divine intent
of the commandments.
Note Mat 22:36-40 where Jesus observes that to
love God and one's neighbor is the sum of the
commandments, and Mat 19:16-22 where Jesus tells
the rich young man that there is more to eternal
life than merely keeping the letter of the
commandments.
Jesus
is teaching that there is more to the sixth
commandment than mere murder!
The
next verses (23-26) regarding making things
right with your brother before taking an
offering to the altar of sacrifice drives home
the point that God wants more than mere
sacrifice. He wants love, mercy, and
righteousness. This reinforces the point
that Jesus is making. Love comes before
the strict literal performance of the
commandments. This does not diminish the
need to respect and keep the commandments.
It does, however, demand the correct
understanding of the meaning of the
commandments.
5:27-30
Antithesis Two -
The Seventh Commandment - "You
shall not commit adultery
"
The quotation of the seventh
commandment is verbatim from Ex 20:14, and Deut
5:18.
The word for adultery here is moiceuw
- moicheuo, the normal word for the
breaking of the marriage covenant in
extramarital sexual intercourse. (See porneia
and moicheia below under the third
antithesis.)
Like the previous teaching of Jesus on murder,
this teaching goes straight to the heart of the
commandment, not the mere commission of the act,
but the inner thought and being of the person.
Jesus teaching in the antithesis "But
I say to you that every one who looks at a woman
lustfully..." goes right to the heart
of the sin, the lust of the eye and mind, the
desiring or imagining a sexual
relationship. This lustful desire of the
eye and heart in Jesus mind is the same as
committing adultery, only this adultery is in
the heart, which is perhaps more serious than
the act itself for it speaks of the heart of man
rather than merely the actions of the man.
The plucking out the offending right eye and
right hand is a Hebrew idiom or hyperbole
stressing the seriousness of the action or
offense.
This antithesis on adultery leads straight into
the third antithesis on divorce.
5:31-32 Antithesis Three - "Whoever divorces his
wife..."
Unlike the previous two antitheses, this one
is not based on one of the commandments, but
arises out of the command against
adultery. Jesus will again comment on
divorce in Mat 19:3-12 where he is tested
by the Pharisees on Deut 24. the debate on
Deut 24 was obviously one that engaged the
Scribes and Pharisees considerably.
Although Jesus comments
briefly on divorce and
remarriage in this pericope, he does so because
of the previous discussion on adultery.
Jesus does not get involved in a lengthy
discussion on divorce, but uses the occasion to
address the problem of divorce. The
proximity of this teaching to adultery leads one
to believe that adultery and divorce both arise
in the lustful heart of men. Whatever Jesus says about
divorce and remarriage must be seen in the context
of what he has most recently been discussing,
that is, adultery.
The current
"saying" on divorce was that all a man
had to do was to give his wife a certificate of
divorce in accordance with Moses' instruction
(Deut 24). Jesus' response challenges the
superficiality of the current practice.
In the current
discussion among the Rabbis on divorce and
remarriage in Jesus day two opinions held sway,
that of Rabbi Hillel and that of Rabbi Shammai. Rabbi Hillel interpreted Deut 24 loosely
so that divorce was granted for any case of
uncleanness. Rabbi Shammai interpreted Deut
24 narrowly to where divorce was granted only in
cases of unchastity, or sexual
uncleanness.
Again, as in the
case of the previous two antitheses, Jesus takes
the "high" or more difficult road that
challenges the inner heart of man rather than
the superficial nature of man. Jesus
teaches that it divorce according to Moses
involved only unchastity (porneia,
porneia - sexual sin or any kind of
sexual aberration).
Jesus' argument
hinges on the understanding of two Greek words, porneia,
porneia - sexual aberration, and moicheia,
moicheia - adultery. This is
an appropriate time for a brief discussion on
these two words and how they were used in Jesus
day, and especially among the Jews.
Porneia:
As indicated above, the word refers to any
kind of sexual aberration, but often to
extramarital sexual intercourse. The word
in its normal sense refers to fornication
and adultery, that is, any kind of extra
marital or pre marital intercourse.
Although moicheia is the normal term used
for adultery, porneia is a broader term
and can also be used for adultery. In Mat
5:32 porneia involves a married person
engaged in extra marital sexual intercourse
other wise no written certificate of divorce
would be required and the problem being
addressed would not exist!
Moicheia:
Moicheia (and its cognate words)
is the word normally translated adultery,
and is the word used when a married person commits
either porneia (extramarital or
intermarital sexual intercourse). Moicheia
suggests the breaking of a marriage vow
in porneia (extra or inter marital sexual
intercourse).
Some modern
scholars (mostly Roman Catholic) have suggested
that porneia as used here in Mat 5:32
refers to incestuous marriage or marriage within
the forbidden laws of Jewish marriage (Lev
18:6-18). This interpretation has not
gained wide or popular acceptance.
Interestingly, porneia is not used in the
Septuagint of Lev 17-18!
Jesus does not
engage here in the Hillel-Shammai debate with
the Scribes and Pharisees, but when he is tested
over this problem in Mat 19:3-9 takes the
narrower view of Shammai. In this third
antithesis Jesus takes the narrower view of
divorce indicating that kingdom ethics on the
matter of marriage and divorce are different
from the laissez-faire ethic of
much of the current attitude of his day.
More is expected of disciples in Jesus' radical
view of discipleship in the kingdom than is
manifest in the practice of the day (it was
also said...). In Mat 19:10, Jesus'
attitude is so narrow that even the disciples
have problems with it!
5:33-37 Antithesis
Four - "You shall not swear falsely..."
This antithesis is introduced by the normal
formulae, "You have heard that it was
said..." In this case Jesus is not
taking issue with how the Scribes and Pharisees
treated a commandment, but rather against the
lax Rabbinic casuistry in the treatment of
oaths. Jesus is addressing a crystallization
of several teachings in the Torah (Lev
19:12; Num 30:2; Deut 23:21-23; and possibly Ex
20:7). Swearing by heaven, the temple,
earth, the footstool of God, Jerusalem, or one's
head were typical examples of how Rabbinic
casuistry shifted the oath to a lesser one which
was not as binding as an oath sworn before
God. Jesus taught that kingdom ethics
demanded absolute integrity rather than the easy
way out offered by lesser oaths. Kingdom
ethics demanded that the disciple's word be
binding regardless of an oath. Jesus was
not teaching against oaths taken, but against
the attitude that lesser oaths were not
binding. Nor was Jesus teaching against
taking oaths, since Jesus took and oath (Mat
26:63 "I adjure you..."), God swore by
his promise and his person (Lk 1:73; Acts 2:30;
Heb 6:16-18). Rather than taking an oath
and not keeping it, or attempting to
circumnavigate the keeping of oaths by taking
lesser oaths, James (in the context of the same
Rabbinic practice) encourages disciples not to
take oaths if they are not going to keep them
(Jas 5:12).
5:38-42 Antithesis
Five - "An eye for an
eye..."
Rabbinic
practice in response to the law that permitted recompense
for loss (Ex 21:24 ""eye for eye,
tooth for tooth"; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21)
permitted equal recompense for loss by one's
neighbor. Jesus understanding of these
laws was that they were intended to restrict
excessive retaliation rather than empower
retaliation! We refer to these Mosaic laws
as the lex talionis, the law of
retaliation.
In broad sweeping terms Jesus teaches that
kingdom ethics elicits no retaliation at
all!
Jesus' antithesis sets his kingdom expectation
against the Rabbinic legal practice which
misunderstood the intention of the lex talionis
which was originally intended to restrict
excessive retaliation. A legalistic
response to personal loss was not what the lex
talionis was intended to accomplish, and
Jesus' teaching runs in opposition to the then
current practice and normal human reactions.
Illustrating the extent of kingdom ethics, Jesus
encourages the disciples when taken to court
over ones coat (inner garment) to
surrender one's cloak (outer garment) as
well!
5:43-48 Antithesis
Six - "You shall love your neighbor and
hate your enemy..."
"You shall love your neighbor..."
is drawn directly from Lev 19:18, and later
Jesus will teach that this is the second
commandment of import. The second part of
Rabbinic teaching, "and hate your
enemy...", is not commanded or taught
directly, but may be a summary drawn form such
passages as Ps 139:21-22; 26:5; or Deut 7:2; and
30:7. Following centuries of aggression
against Israel's enemies in the occupation of
Canaan and Palestine, it is natural that Jews
would see hating one's as a legitimate
attitude. At about the same time as Jesus'
ministry the Qumran community taught hatred of
enemies as a legitimate practice (1GS 1:4,
10-11; 9:21-26).
Jesus' response
was a radical antithesis to current Jewish
attitude toward enemies, and the Jews had many
enemies among the Roman occupation armies!
In contrast to hating, Jesus teaches love for
one's enemies, and prayers for those persecuting
the disciple. Since persecution was to be
a major part of discipleship for several
centuries, this teaching would be a critical
aspect of future kingdom ethics and
behavior. Such kingdom ethics would be
proof of sonship of God, for God loves the
enemies (Jn 3:16, "For God so loved the
world that he gave his only son...").
Righteousness in the kingdom includes a call
to be like the Father!
Loving only one's
friends was the practice of sinners (tax
collectors) and the Gentile ethic, and was not
to be the practice of those who strove to be perfect
(teleios
- teleios - having reached one's goal,
mature) as God was perfect. Teleios
was used in the Septuagint for the Hebrew term tamim,
which was often used in contexts of ethical
righteousness, which by implication would
mean maturity in ethical righteousness.
Christian love
for one's neighbor is a sign of spiritual and
ethical maturity, of being mature in love like
God.
Loving one's
neighbor and blessing those who persecute the
disciple became a fundamental teaching of the
early church (Rom12:14; 1 Cor 4:12; 1 Pet 3:9),
and should remain so today! Because to do
so is characteristic of God and his Son, Jesus.
|
|