Realized Eschatology in the Sermon on the Mount - III 

Realized Eschatology in the Sermon on the Mount - III

13 And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil

The Greek term translated here as “temptation” is peirasmos, which, depending on the context, can also be translated as “testing.” Here, the latter is actually preferred because God does not (cannot) lead creation into temptation (James 1:13). Hagner writes “To be tempted is to be enticed to sin, to be tested is to be brought into difficult circumstances that try one’s faithfulness.” Betz adds that “It is true that, even according to the Old Testament, God has been seen as the one who puts people, especially the righteous and the wise, to the test.” Jewish parallels using the word peirasmos are found, but speak only in terms of the temptations of everyday life. Luz says an alternative translation is “affliction,” or “suffering,” though he prefers the standard “”temptation.”

14 For if you forgive men for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men, then four Father will not forgive your transgressions.

This pericope seems to interrupt the flow of Matthew 6:1-18. Some scholars believe that the interruption is apparent because the verses are a late addition. Horsley believes as much, citing the fact that the word for “trespasses” or “transgressions,” paraptomata, occurs only in Matthew 6:14-15. Hagner believes that the verses may point to the existence of tensions in the Matthean community, thus the focus on forgiveness.

The fact that others find difficulty with the passage does not mean it is not original to Jesus. The act of forgiveness is found throughout the Gospels, and is central to the ethics of the SM, as well as the commandment to love. The very fact that the idea fits into the overall narrative of the Sermon on the Mount, and that forgiveness has always been a hallmark of YHWH, suggests that we should not be mislead into identifying the verse as foreign to the original text.

16 And whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance in order to be seen fasting by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 17 But when you fast, annoint your head and wash your face; 18 so that you may not be seen fasting by men, but by your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees you in secret will repay you.

Fasting was an integral part of first-century religion. However, writes Betz, while the ritual is not rejected by Jesus, its performance is scrutinized. Betz adds that “Jesus [H]imself did not have high regard for fasting.” Yet, while some commentators suggest Jesus placed little importance upon fasting, Matthew and Luke both portray a fast of Jesus’ preparation for His ministry. Jesus did not command almsgiving, prayer and fasting, He presupposed these actions. He spoke against contemporary methods and motives of such acts.

Fasting was often accompanied by the wearing of sackcloth (common throughout scripture) and abstaining from washing the body. Jesus commands disciples not call attention to themselves by these methods, so that only God will be aware of their devotion.

To suggest that fasting was inappropriate in the mind of Jesus is farfetched, though He is obviously critical of many aspects of contemporary practice. The reality is, however, that there is a firm relationship in Hebrew Scripture between almsgiving, prayer, and fasting, as is found in Isaiah 58. Indeed, God speaks at length about what is necessary for a fast that is pleasing to the Lord. Isaiah 58 also shows realized eschatological rewards for proper fasting. The kingdom community itself, and its freedom from Roman, and aristocratic Temple domination, is one such reward.

Matthew 6:19 through 6:34 provides our next pericope. In this second half of chapter six, Jesus speaks to concerns that were not only foremost in the mind of economically stable persons of the first century C.E., but also maintain an overwhelming presence in the hearts and minds of our 21st century contemporaries. Jesus challenges the order of the day by warning that a true disciple should not pursue material desires or wealth. He calls for total submission, and trust, to God’s providence for all the material needs of day to day life, even as He instructed disciples to pray for daily bread just a few verses prior. The first beatitude of Matthew 5:3 sets the theological and ethical tone for Matthew 6:19-24. Betz writes that “…the SM does not wish to claim any ‘wealth’ - be it spiritual or material - here on earth.” Materialism is recognized as a concern reminiscent of the first beatitude, as are the spiritual implications of that concern.

“Jesus had no possessions” wrote Martin Hengel, and He called on others to give up theirs. He sends disciples into the world with “extreme poverty” being a prerequisite. Again, Betz writes “…it is precisely the realization of poverty that enabled the disciple to cope with the human predicament, which includes not only want, but sufficient provision by God.”

“The identification and location of one’s treasure,” says Boring, “turns out to be a matter of one’s total self (this is the meaning of ‘heart’ in v.21). How one handles property turns out not to be peripheral, but a matter of saving or losing one’s being.”

19 Do not lay up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in and steal; 21 for where your treasure is, there will be your heart also.

Matthew 6:19 warns against placing too much priority on material items, most notably, but not limited to, clothing, and coins or metal items of worth. Yet, how is one to store up heavenly treasures, if not those so appealing during life in the flesh? According to Mark 10:21, the first thing one should do is put those earthly treasures to good use. Sell them and give the proceeds to the poor. First Timothy 6:18-19 also provides a SM style exhortation concerning material wealth.

Where your treasure is, and where your heart is, results from the blessings of “performing good deeds on earth, particularly by sharing one’s possessions with others.” Luz finds the verses equally clear-cut concerning material wealth. “…the idea of reward is taken up without modification; it refers to almsgiving, works of love, or other good deeds.”

In keeping with the theology of the SM, we can take out another meaning from these verses. If love of enemies, let alone neighbors, is a priority for the community of Jesus followers, than we should allow nothing to interfere with God’s message to the world. If material wealth is accumulated to the point where someone may steal, or we may not want to share, the owner may feel forced to defend such property. How can a kingdom citizen defend property at the expense of the well-being or physical health of another, even if they are evil, person. Property should never win the ethical battle that is waged within, even if an opponent is stealing. The human life of an enemy is worth far more in the eyes of God than jewelry or currency, even if the enemy is coercing the victim. Treasure should be identified as human life, not material wealth.

22 The lamp of the body is the eye; if therefore the eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is within you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

According to Betz, these verses are seemingly independent of the rest of the pericope, with no apparent connection to the preceding 6:19-21. The verses are parallel to Luke 11:34-36. Betz identifies the text, however, as being taken from a different Q source than Luke’s. It is more likely, however, that Jesus simply told different versions of the metaphor to different audiences, and both versions were carried on in the oral tradition. Textual difficulties are hardly resolved by adding yet another hypothetical source to the mix.

As for this text, Betz cites Harald Riesenfeld as saying that “the concepts of ‘heart’ and ‘eye’ exemplify holiness.” The ultimate origin of the eye as a lamp seems to be Greek in origin, though there is some evidence of related imagery in later Hebrew wisdom and apocalyptic literature. This is not necessarily the case, however. Boring states that the eye was viewed in the ancient world as being like a lamp, and that various Hebrew texts are examples of this. The light is shown as an instrument that projects inner light on subjects. Boring also sees the text as fitting properly into the seemingly incongruent context.

“(In) this context,” writes Boring, “Matthew relates the saying to the issue of the disciples’ attitude toward money and property, declaring that if the eye is not clear on the matter, the whole of ones life is perverted.” Luz also writes persuasively against Betz’ claim that the text is Greek in origin, and that it has no connection with the surrounding text.

Eye in Judaism is always metaphorical; in the eyes, the character and moral quality of a person are reflected. A fixed contrast is that of the ‘evil’ and the ‘good’ eye; the texts usually think of avarice and calculation verses generosity and honest.

The Greek word translated as “bad” in the NASB is poneros, which is translated “evil” as well, and works better in this context that parallels the “evil eye” of near eastern cultures. The aplous eye is the opposite - a generous eye - that stands in contrast to the covetous eye belonging to another.

24 No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon.

“The singling out of materialism as a pseudo-religious alternative to the appropriate conduct of worship makes this passage unique.” By no means is this an unfamiliar verse, and if we were to apply 21st century standards to this first-century C.E. text, we would hardly be guilty of anachronistic thought. Proverbial as the opening statement of 6:24 sounds, Betz identifies it as a “legal provision pertaining to slave law.”

Indeed, slavery to the acquisition of wealth, and the maintaining of prosperous circumstances (or empire!) is undoubtedly serving an idol, a god other than YHWH. The Sermon on the Mount can make its stand against wealth no clearer than this proclamation that wealth is an idol. Boring states:

It is a surprising turn to find Jesus placing worldly goods on par with God as an object of service, and idolatrous rival to the one God…(it) is an affront to the common cultural understanding of the meaning of human life, both then and now.

Boring states that the verse does not refer to the emotions of “love” against “hate” but represent a biblical idiom for “choose” against “not choose” and that every choice - between Mammon and God - means not only a favoring of one but a rejection of the other. In all of this railing against wealth, however, the reader often overlooks one thing. Jesus presupposed the owning of personal property. His movement, in one version, was supported by well-to-do women (Luke 8:2f; 10:38f). However, Jesus strictly maintained that all possessions were to be used to help those in need (Matt 6:2; Luke 10:30-37), and money is to be lent without hope of return (Matt. 5:42). But Jesus by no means avoided contact with the rich. A quote from Martin Hengel is a perfect summary of Matthew 6:24.

Anyone who is dependent on his possessions and as a result forgets his neighbor lives in this state of anxious egotistical self-assertion: he rejects God’s commandment to love (of neighbor) for the sake of mammon.

This anxiousness, or self-assertion, is the focus of the final pericope of Matthew’s chapter six.

25 For this reason I say to you, do not be anxious for your life, as to what you shall eat, or what you shall drink; nor for your body, as to what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single cubit to his life’s span? 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil or spin, 29 yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory did not clothe himself like one of these. 30 But if God so arrays the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow thrown into the furnace, will He not much more do so for you, O men of little faith? 31 Do not be anxious then, saying “what shall we eat?” or “what shall we drink?” or “with what shall we clothe ourselves?” 32 For all these things the Gentiles eagerly seek; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But seek first His kingdom, and His righteousness; and all these things will be added to you. 34 Therefore, do not be anxious for tomorrow, for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Betz writes that “The passage often entitled On Anxiety is clearly one of the most fascinating in the SM.” As Jesus spoke to peasants throughout the Palestinian countryside, one can just imagine the befuddled response to the following message against worrying about the basic necessities of life. Indeed, as I have shown, many peasants did indeed need to worry about clothing, as it may have been taken of their very backs in a court of law! Eric Dodds has written an entire book concerning the Roman empire as an “Age of Anxiety.

Matthew has taken this passage from the Q tradition (Luke 12:22-31, Thomas, and Justin Martyr) and “transformed it into a theological argument that is in keeping with the theology contained in the whole of the SM.” The exhortation that listeners should “not worry” is categorical, according to Betz. “No exceptions are allowed.” The “do not be anxious” clause appears in verses 6:28, 31, and 34. Verse 6:25 “presents the initial terms of the argument,” that worry about life, food and drink, and clothes is superfluous, and verses 26-30 provides the proof.

In verse 29, those of “little faith” being compared with those who “do not toil and spin” is reminiscent of those Israelites who wanted to gather mannah and quail on the Sabbath while in the wilderness. YHWH has always been clear that God is the trusted provider for Israel. Trust in God has always been paramount, and Jesus extols faith in verse 30-34, but limits God’s provisions to what is necessary.

God Himself had to come and instruct the first human couple about how to make better clothes (Gen. 3:21)… The person who trusts in God - this is the message - knows that God also fulfills human need through culture… only as long as those needs remain natural and therefore justifiable.

In verse 32, the Gentiles are the outsiders who are characterized by “striving for,” that is, by their excessiveness in pursuing material goods. Paganism is identified with materialism and consumerism. Were Jews to engage in such behavior (which they of course often did), it would amount to “forbidden assimilation.” Verse 33 veritably sums up the theology of the Sermon on the Mount, as Hagner calls it the climactic point of the entire text.

The kingdom and the kingdom alone is to be the sole priority of the disciple and that toward which the disciple devotes his or her energy. “Seek” here does not necessarily mean …one should seek to bring in the kingdom. This imperative means rather that one should make the kingdom the center of one’s existence and thus experience the rule of God fully in one’s heart.

Matthew is looking to tie in “righteousness“, or “justice” with the eschatological presence of the kingdom, and to God’s providential care. We must, however, remember that Jesus’ listeners, if not Matthew’s audience, were indeed anxious about food, clothes and water. They were poor, and lived on the edge of the worst poverty, where a pseudo-Jewish king might any day transfer them to a city built upon a graveyard (see above). Remember also, however, that Jesus and His disciples are organizing communities, eschatological kingdom communities, where everyone shares what property they have, and takes care of one another as an extension of the living god’s providence for His church.

“…the imminence of the kingdom of God demands freedom over possessions, the renunciation of all care, complete trust in the goodness and providence of (God).” Kingdom communities are marked out by, as evidenced in chapter six, their willingness and ability to trust that God has acted eschatologically through Jesus, and that as communities obedient to the will of God and not the idols of materialism and wealth, they will be the blessed recipients of God’s providence.

N.T. Wright goes even further in his interpretation of Matthew six, and especially the text of 6:25-34. He believes Jesus is not simply talking about Israel’s propensity to worship accumulated property, but the very idea of land, inheritance, and nationalism.

This is (chapter six), in the last analysis, a matter of worshipping the true [G]od as opposed to worshipping idols: Israel cannot serve the true [G]od and mammon and she is trying to do just that (6:25-34). Those who truly seek the kingdom need not be afraid, whereas those whose seeking of the kingdom consist in pursuing a national or personal agenda for the restoration of land, property or ancestral rights will find that they are serving a god who cannot give them such things.

We now arrive at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew Chapter Seven. The first two chapters provide the blueprint, the standards of the kingdom of heaven and those who wish to claim membership. Chapter Seven provides a series of instructions to disciples (7:1-14), and then shares specific warnings concerning the many threats that face the kingdom (7:15-27). The opening pericope instructs disciples concerning the judgment of others.

1 Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves. 2 For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it shall be measured to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, “let me take the speck out of your eye” and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye; and then you will see clearly enough to take the speck out of your brothers eye.

Matthew 7:1 is nearly universally attributed to Jesus, and continues the already established path of radical standards of faith required of the kingdom community. The absolute prohibition on judging originates with Jesus (vs. 1) and the following material may be attributed to Jesus from a different context. Those of a Jewish background would be familiar with the SM notions of “moderation, toleration, and mercy,” but the criticism of the practice of judging others is unfamiliar territory. Commentators, however, warn against misreading what appears to be an obvious theme.

The prohibition against judgment should not be regarded as an all-encompassing statement against all discernment about right and wrong. Such judgment is apparent in Matthew 7:15-20; 10:11-15; 16:6,12; and 18:17-18. Hagner claims that one should simply refrain from judging others by a different or higher standard than we would ourselves. Betz views the instruction as simply addressing basic human preoccupations:

The imperative in vs. 1 implies the observation that in ordinary life people are relentlessly preoccupied with what is prohibited: passing judgment on one another. This habit involves everything from community relations to court actions…The context clearly implies that krinete refers to perpetual human obsession to criticize and correct the behavior of other people.

Betz further believes that the first verse of Chapter Seven implies that one’s own restraint in passing harsh judgment will entice others to use similar restraint. As for verse two, Boring believes that it presupposes “discrimination, not necessarily condemnation.” The principle states the standard of YHWH concerning judgment and that the kingdom community should adopt it. If God measures us according to his generosity and mercy, the SM directs us to act accordingly.

The eye metaphor in verse three has a familiarity to it with first century audiences. Looking into someone’s eye was an important means of discerning the character and personality of another person. According to Betz, “at the same time, another person’s eyes were believed to contain the mirror images of the beholder.”

Hagner asserts “the fact that vss. 3-5 shift from the 2nd person singular to the plural points to logia derived from a different strata of oral tradition.” That judging may be concerned with “discrimination” and not “condemnation” may point to Jesus’ insistence that outsiders be welcomed into the community without judgment. That there seems a slight discrepancy between verse one and vss. 3-5 shows that the original context could have been addressing this.

Verse five ultimately concludes that ethical judgment must be made at some point, but it must be made by persons humble enough to admit and repent of their own shortcomings. That Jesus is addressing His disciples about the subject of judgment, calling them “hypocrites” tells us that being a disciple of Jesus does not make one different than other people, obsessed with criticizing and correcting others while failing in one’s own self-criticism and self-protection.

6 Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they

trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

The first thing that comes to mind when stumbling over Matthew 7:6 is “Wow! Where did this come from?” Most commentators attempt to substantiate the verse, but end up falling short. The following is an example of scholarly input concerning the verse. Betz writes:

“There is at the present no consensus about the original text, the original meaning, the source…and the later interpretations.”

“Some interpreters have suggested that the verse might make more sense translated in Aramaic, but this has not been a credible hypothesis.”

“7:6 may relate to a riddle, but it seems to be an ineffective one, and does not have the qualities of a good riddle - I.e. ‘playfulness’”

Boring adds:

“What is Holy” is not an ethical term but is a biblical expression designating meat offered in sacrifice at the altar.

“In the Didache (9:5) the saying was understood to mean that the unapprised should not be admitted to Eucharist.”

Luz states that Matthew was simply being loyal to Q tradition, and added the text thusly. It must have had an effect on original listeners who were familiar with the original context.

Boring bravely states that the “proverbial meaning is clear. Holy things should not be profaned.” He then admits that the exact meaning remains unclear, “opening the way for a variety of allegorical interpretations in the history of the church.”

Finally, Hagner and other scholars find an allusion to Proverbs 11:22, but He admits that “little is gained from this.”

7 Ask, and it shall be given to you, seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you. 8 For every one who asks receives; and he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks it shall be opened. 9 Or what man is there among you, when his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he shall ask for a fish, he will not give him a snake will he? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him. 12 Therefore, whatever you want others to do for you, do so for them; for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Driver writes that “the verbs ‘ask, seek, and knock’ are really parallel synonymous expressions which describe human activity.” Seeking is often used in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Jewish tradition as a term for prayer, with God’s will being the object. “Knocking” was a Jewish expression of prayer. Thus “ask,” “seek,” and “knock” are not three different actions but three Jewish expressions for prayer. Taking needs to God in prayer is not an informational task, however, but an expression of dependency on God by people who are not in control of their own lives. While conventional wisdom might challenge the integrity of the statements of vss. 7-8, the SM assumes this and responds in vss. 9-11. Thus, those failing to believe in the propensity of God to meet their needs need look no further than their own treatment of and concern for their own children. This leads to perhaps the widely known and repeated part of the Sermon on the Mount known as “The Golden Rule.”

Verse 12 is regarded by Hagner “as an exegesis of the great positive commandment of Leviticus 19:18,” or “the love commandment.” As Matthew adds the phrase “for this is the Law and Prophets,” which is similar to Matthew 5:17, the two verses act as brackets of the instructional portion of the SM text. The “Golden Rule” is far from unique to the Bible, and it has numerous parallels that are known to virtually every culture in the world, and knowledge of the content predates literary transmission.

Surprisingly, both ancient and modern philosophy has failed to recognize the Golden Rule and its parallels as true ethical standards. Aristotle acknowledges it but finds it insignificant, Plato ignores it, and Augustine calls it a “common proverb.” Later, Locke could find no justification for it and Kant called it “trivial.” Closer to the 21st century, Luz feels the content of the Golden Rule simply “deviates” from the usual “radicality” of Jesus’ teaching.

Regardless of these feelings, verse 7:12 remains a favorite of the pious and non-religious alike. Originally, the context of the Golden Rule may have placed the saying alongside the text concerning love of enemies in Q. Other versions exist in contemporary Christian writings such as Luke 6:31, and Didache 1:2. The Matthean and Lukan version are stated in a positive manner, as opposed to the negative rendering in the Didache. While most literal translations read “Therefore, whatever you want…” the NIV more aptly reads “So in everything…” which Boring suggests makes the Golden Rule an expression of the same radical ethic that Luz found missing, placing verse 7:12 in the company of 5:21-47 and 48 as exhorting listeners to perfection.

Ultimately, we will not decide here what the theological significance of the Golden Rule might be in the context of the SM. Hagner is somewhat overreaching when he writes:

If this teaching of Jesus were to be lived out in the world, the whole system of evil would be dramatically shaken. Even if it were manifested seriously in the Church, its impact would be incalculable.

Luz sums the verse up differently:

With all due caution, one must ask whether the Golden Rule does not include a further development and alteration of the commands of Jesus…(The Golden Rule) assigns place to one’s own ego in the exchange relationship of giving and receiving love.

13 Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. 14 For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it.

We are now at the major turning point of the SM. The ethical teaching is over, and what follows are warnings to the community. The metaphor of the two ways is common in Jewish, Hellenistic and early Christian writings. Yet there is more than just simple (or not so simple) choices concerning lifestyles for followers of Jesus. Matthew’s Gospel has a pattern of thinking found first in this verse. Writes Boring:

In Matthew’s theology, the Christian life is not thought of in static terms, as a condition or once-and-for-all decision, but as a path or road of righteous living between the initial call of the disciple and the final goal of salvation. Thus, he repeatedly emphasizes that many are called but few are chosen. (Matt. 9:13, 20:16, 22:14)

The two verses of 7:13-14 serve not as a prediction of how many or how few souls might be saved, but to “exhort and admonish lagging disciples.” While Jesus is heard saying that few will be saved here, elsewhere Matthew states that many will be saved.

Betz suggests that the two gates mentioned by Jesus do not stand at the beginning of a journey, but at the end of the road. Walking the path spelled out in the SM is a way of life that disciple are expected to live in obedience to the living God. It is the result of living this life of obedience as a community of Jesus followers gives one the experience of God that allows them to choose the “narrow gate” that so few are prepared to choose. Only a life of obedience and sacrifice strengthens one to continue down the narrow way to life.

15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 Even so every good tree bears good fruit; but the rotten tree bears rotten fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits

Sheep is a common Hebrew metaphor for the people of God. Wolves are viewed not only as dangerous to sheep, but here, to truth as well. Wright states “False prophets are on the loose, leading Israel astray, and the only way to avoid being deceived is to note clearly where their movements lead.” Betz declares the warnings are aimed at outsiders from rival communities challenging the Jesus community of Matthew’s audience. Further, he states that the warnings are aimed at the “law free” teaching of the apostle Paul. Modern scholars have suggested a variety of possibilities for the role of false prophets. Zealots, Pharisees, Essenes, “rigorist” Jewish Christians, and antinomian followers of Paul are all possibilities. Boring disagrees:

“False prophets” is not a code name for Pharisees, Zealots, or other opponents of the Matthean community, but refers to Christian prophets who Matthew sees as misleading the church.

Boring fails to elaborate much further as to who these pseudo-prophets might really be, other than to declare the Matthean church was full of charismatics who were apt to be overzealous in their interpretations of spirit leadings. Luz clarifies that the proposed culprits are most probably “Hellenistic antinomians” and he believes most scholars agree. Most of these theses fail to state what is more obvious when taking into account the reading we have consistently put forth in this paper. That Jesus, as a nonviolent Messiah, was warning that the violent or militaristic means of bringing about the kingdom would seriously mislead Israel into destruction.

Those in sheep’s clothing are preaching restoration, fulfillment of the hopes of land and national glory in the name of YHWH. But inside, they are wolves who feed on those hopes of the people of God to further military objectives that ultimately betray God’s purpose for Israel. Parallels found at Mark 13:22 and Matthew 22:11 and 14 can be read in a similar fashion. Violence is not what God desires, and that is not the kind of messianic leader that God will send to guide Israel.

21 Not everyone who says to me “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father , who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?” 23 And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you, depart from Me you who practice lawlessness.” 24

Verses 7:21-23 provides the climax of the Sermon on the Mount and the specifics of the address eliminates the illusion that Jesus would bless those who fail to meet the standard set in the SM. Disciples must perform the will of the Father in order to be a kingdom citizen. This pericope may be considered controversial in suggesting that some have been persuaded that simple flattery is enough to be invited into the kingdom of heaven. Loyalty to Jesus involves more, however, than religiosity or excessive titles. It involves life lived according to SM principles.

Betz finds the fact that “kurie” or Kurios terminology is not used throughout the SM - and that reference in these verses is directed toward Gentile Christians who were fond of christological terms. Matthew is charging that high Christology is not enough for salvation. “(Paul‘s) doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus Christ have no place in the SM.”

As much here as anywhere else in the SM, there is persuasive evidence of realized eschatology at work in the text. Obviously spiritual aspects such as prophecy, exorcism, and miracles do not imply concrete adherence to kingdom ethics, which entail a much more material commitment to community than spiritual contributions. It is ethics that defines this community, and the willingness to do the work of community building according to the will of God is what defines followers of Jesus, not miracles or majestic works. Betz writes that claimants who point to “extraordinary and supernatural manifestations” as evidence of God’s favor are told by Jesus that such evidence is not enough. Righteousness is necessary above all else. Some have pointed to the translation of anomian in 7:23 in the NASB as “lawnessness” is evidence that Matthew is speaking against those who are advocating the abolition of Mosaic Law, indeed again with the polemical Paul in mind. It is not, however, necessary to continue to play Matthew and his audience against Paul and his views on justification. Anomia is Matthew’s general word for unrighteousness, and it need not refer to antinomian controversy.

24 Therefore every one who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on a rock; 25 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall; for it had been founded on the rock. 26 And every one who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like the foolish man, who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against the house; and it fell, and great was its fall.

N.T. Wright sees this final pericope as a comment on the Herod’s Temple. Calling Jesus “the good revolutionary that [H]e is” Wright finds Him offering a critique in this parable of other revolutionary movements who might use violence in establishing the kingdom of God. The way that Jesus offers is the only way Israel can avoid ultimate destruction, a “disaster which will not be merely personal, but national. The house built on the rock, in first century Jewish terms, is a clear allusion to the temple.” Unless Israel follows the nonviolent path of Jesus, the temple is like the house built upon the sand, and is in great danger of destruction. Suitably, the parable brings to an end the Sermon on the Mount by again offering the listener choices, and Matthew intends these choices originally meant for Israel to apply to the kingdom community as well. The called out assemblies of God can be founded upon the rock of the will of YHWH, or they can be built upon the nationalist and violent sands of militarism. The results of such choices are clearly spelled out by the parable.

Part V

Of course, kingdom ethics are made a priority throughout the Greek Testament, but nowhere as clearly and unambiguously as in the Sermon on the Mount. As I have shown through out this study of Matthew 5 -7, this collection of early ethical teachings attributable to Jesus and carried on by the Church set a standard that followers of Jesus were expected to live out obediently as members of God’s “called out assembly.”

These teachings were not simply spiritual or personal in manner, but a social and political ethic driven by an inseparable desire to serve the living God according to God’s will as expressed through the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. The SM takes the life of Jesus and declares that it is indeed as important to God’s work on behalf of humanity as the death and resurrection of the Christ. This is a fact long overlooked by the modern Church, which has taught that SM ethics are limited in practice only to those interpersonal relationships carried on by believers. However, the SM is in fact an ethical teaching that demands the Body of Christ live out in order that the world may come to know and understand the will of God. The Sermon on the Mount is a call to a community, or social ethic as opposed to a personal one. As a personal ethic, the teachings of the SM may indeed be hard to carry out, but when set up as a standard for a community committed to living these principles out, they become practical. Wright states that:

The evidence points…toward Jesus intending to establish, and indeed succeeding in establishing, what we might call cells of followers, mostly continuing to live in their towns and villages, who by their adoption of [H]is praxis, [H]is way of being Israel, would be distinctive in their local communities.

And Yoder writes that what Jesus is saying is not that the gospel deals with personal relationships or individual changes of heart. “What needs to be seen is rather that the primary social structure through which the gospel works to change other structures is that of Christian community.”

That these communities were political is a Gospel documented fact. Horsley writes that early Christianity was ”a down-to-earth response” to the oppression of Roman authority and the concurrence of the Jewish aristocracy that had “disrupted economies and overturned ancient traditions.” And, as evidenced by my reading of the SM the early Church was made up of “close-knit communities and weekly assemblies…that rejected conventional career hopes, social ladders, and civic honors.” This evidence shows that the SM is not simply a spiritual goal, but a material ethic meant to define the Body of Christ.

The Sermon on the Mount represents the call of Jesus to His followers, an eschatological call that instructs Israel to give up its nationalism and inheritance claim, and follow what Wright calls a “new agenda.” This “new agenda” is the epitome of eschatology. “This is what we mean by eschatology” writes Yoder. “A hope which, defying present frustrations, defines a present position in terms of the yet unseen goal which gives it meaning.” In other words, the kingdom community lives according to the will of God in the present not only in obedience to God’s will, but in anticipation of the fulfillment of God’s plan for salvation through Jesus Christ.

In this paper, I have defined kingdom community and its eschatological purpose in God’s plan for the Church. Indeed, I have attempted to define the Church, and the role it is commanded to fill in adherence to the call of Jesus Christ. Others will suggest that the community defined by this paper, a community that subverts the political and social assumptions not only of the world, but the modern Church as well, represents an impossible standard. Yet, it is exactly what the cross of Christ makes possible. A way of being God’s people that overthrows the idolatrous tendencies of the world and replaces them with a reality only made possible by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Hauerwas claims that genuine Christianity is determined only through the reality of the cross. We live out the ethics and values of the Sermon on the Mount, not because we know the world will someday be free from its material chains, but because we know of the truth of the cross, and as such we as the Church can live no other way. We simply live out God’s will, and invite others to be a part of that reality, over and against the desire of the world.

As witnessed by the Gospels, the reality of the cross is a reality of suffering servanthood. The Sermon on the Mount often calls for sacrifice. Sacrifice of economic and political strength, and security. Sacrifice of material fulfillment, and sacrifice of pride. As witnessed by the SM, selflessness is the ethic of Christ, His cross, and thus the Church.

The cross of Christ was not an inexplicable or chance event…The cross is the political, legally-to-be-expected result of a moral clash with the ruling powers of (Jesus’) society.

As such, the church may expect the same result as it lives according to the ethic spelled out by Jesus and recorded in the SM. When Jesus calls for disciples to take up their cross, He is expecting that the disciples participate in the same revolutionary political, social, and theological criticism of the very empire that executed Him in the end. And in response to this evil, numbers will be added to the Church day by day. As the cross of Christ, and the dictates of the Sermon on the Mount make clear, the kingdom of God is not enhanced by political or economic power, but by radical servanthood, radical obedience to God, and unwavering commitment to SM principles according to their original definitive meaning.

Bibliography of Works Cited

Anderson, Paul N. in Miller, Marlin E. The Church’s Peace Witness Grand Rapids; 1994; William B. Eerdmans

Banks, Robert Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition Cambridge U.K.; 1975; Cambridge University Press

Betz, Hans Deiter The Sermon on the Mount Minneapolis; 1995; Augsburg Fortress

Boring, Eugene M. The Gospel of Matthew New Interpreters Bible Nashville; 1995; Abingdon Press

Caird, C.B. edited by Hurst, L.D. New Testament Theology Oxford U.K.; 1994; Oxford University Press

Cahill, Lisa Sowle Love Your Enemies: Discipleship, Pacifism, and the Just War Theory Minneapolis; 1994; Fortress Press

Chamblin, J. Knox in Elwell, Walter A. The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible Grand Rapids; 1999; Baker Book House

Chatam, R.D. Fasting: A Biblical-Historical Study South Plainfield, N.J.; 1987; Bridge Publishing Inc.

Davies, J.N. in Eiselen et al The Abingdon Bible Commentary Garden City; 1957; the Abingdon Press

Davies, W.D. Sermon on the Mount Cambridge U.K.; 1980; Cambridge University Press

Dodds, Eric R. Pagans and Christians in the age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experience from Aurelius to Augustine New York; 1965; Norton Publishers

Driver, John Kingdom Citizens Scottdale, PA; 1980; Herald Press

Dunn, James D.G. Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians Louisville; 1990; Westminster/John Knox

----- The Theology of the Apostle Paul Grand Rapids; 1998; William B. Eerdmans

Edwards, George R. Jesus and the Politics of Violence New York; 1972; Harper and Row Publishing

Funk, Robert W. and Hoover, Roy W. et al The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? San Francisco; 1993; Harper San Francisco

Goppelt, Leonhard trans. by Alsup, John E. Theology of the New Testament Vol. II Grand Rapids; 1982; William B. Eerdmans

Hagner, Donald Matthew 1-13 Word Biblical Commentary Dallas; 1993; Word Books

Harink, Douglas Paul Among the Postliberals: Pauline Theology Beyond Christendom and Modernity Grand Rapids; 2003; Brazos Press

Hauerwas, Stanley The Hauerwas Reader Durham NC; 2001; Duke University Press

Hengel, Martin trans. by Green, David E. Victory over Violence: Jesus and the Revolutionists Philadelphia; 1973; Fortress Press

-----trans by Bowden, John Property and Riches in the Early Church Philadelphia; 1980; Fortress Press

Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Resistance in Roman Palestine San Francisco; 1987; Harper and Row Publishers

----- in Swartley, Willard M. The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament Louisville; 1992; Westminster/John Knox

----- and Silberman, N.A. The Message and the Kingdom Minneapolis; 1997; Fortress Press

Jeske, Richard in Miller, Marlin E. The Church’s Peace Witness Grand Rapids; 1984; William B. Eerdmans

Josephus, Flavius trans. by Whiston, William The Works of Josephus: New Updated Version Peabody, MA; 1987; Hendrickson Publishing

Klassen, William in Swartley, Willard M. The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament Louisville; 1992; Westminster/John Knox

Luz, Ulrich Matthew 1-7 Minneapolis; 1985; Fortress Press

Mealand, David L. Poverty and Expectation in the Gospel London; 1981; SPCK

Patte, Daniel The Gospel According to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Matthew’s Faith Philadelphia; 1987; Fortress Press

----- Discipleship According to the Sermon on the Mount Valley Forge, PA; 1996; Trinity Press International

Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism Philadelphia; 1985; Fortress Press

Schnackenburg, Rudolph trans. by Barr, Robert The Gospel of Matthew Grand Rapids; 2002; William B. Eerdmans

Schrage, Wolfgang trans. by Green, David E. The Ethics of the New Testament Philadelphia; 1990; Fortress Press

Sider, Ronald Christ and Violence Scottdale, PA; 1979; Herald Press

----- Living Like Jesus: Eleven Essentials for Growing a Genuine Faith Grand Rapids; 1999; Baker Book House

Trocme, Andre trans. by Shank, Michael H. Jesus and the Nonviolent Revolution Scottdale, PA; 1973; Herald Press

Vermes, Geza The Religion of Jesus the Jew Minneapolis; 1993; Augsburg Fortress

----- The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English New York; 1997, PenguinGroup

Wengst, Klause trans. by Bowden, John Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ Philadelphia; 1987; Fortress Press

Wilson, Marvin Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith Grand Rapids; 1989; William B. Eerdmans

Wink, Walter Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination Minneapolis; 1992; Fortress Press

Wright, N.T. Matthew For Everyone 1-15 London U.K.; 2002; SPCK

------ The New Testament and the People of God Minneapolis; 1992; Fortress Press

------ Jesus and the Victory of God Minneapolis; 1996; Fortress Press

Yoder, John H. The Politics of Jesus Grand Rapids; 1972; William B. Eerdmans

----- The Original Revolution: Essays on Christian Pacifism Scottdale, PA; 1977; Herald Press

----- edited by Cartwright, Michael G. The Jewish-Christian Schism RevisitedGrand Rapids; 2003; William B. Eerdmans

Return to Main Page

Comments

Add Comment




On This Site

  • About this site
  • Main Page
  • Most Recent Comments
  • Complete Article List
  • Sponsors

Search This Site


Syndicate this blog site

Powered by BlogEasy


Free Blog Hosting