Realized Eschatology in the Sermon on the Mount - II 

Realized Eschatology in the Sermon on the Mount - II

Yoder writes of specific references to persecution of Christians by Jews in the Greek Testament and other early sources, though he is hesitant to say these abuses were widespread. Matthew understands that the recipients of his Gospel are not the first to experience this dilemma. Betz writes that “contrary to what many assume, the experience of being persecuted because of righteousness is not original to Christianity.

Still focusing on persecution, verse 5:11 is the first time in the SM that Jesus is clearly identified as the speaker, as well as the fact that an identifiable group is responding to His teaching and are willing to suffer the consequences for following it. Coupled with verse 12, 5:11-12 are seemingly independent from the previous eight. This is clear from the differing form. “Matthew probably received the (material) from another source.”

The final beatitude (verse 12, is it really a beatitude?) issues a call to “rejoice and be glad,” a liturgical response much like “hallelujah.” However, the following statement that “your reward in heaven is great” does not impede our commitment to identifying realized eschatology as the major strand of influence in the SM. “Reward in heaven” may refer to the fact that blessings originate in heaven with YHWH, not that kingdom citizens are bound for it. How do we otherwise explain the promise about inheriting the earth?

The beatitudes, as I have shown, introduce the theme of the kingdom of heaven as material as well as spiritual reality. The beatitudes set the tone for the ethics that set this kingdom community apart from other Jewish communities. Jesus, as we shall see in the next segment for study, is calling these communities to act in a manner that the people of Israel, and their response to the love of YHWH, had been steering clear of.

13 You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing anymore except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. 14 You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a peck measure, but on a lamp stand; and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify the Father who is in heaven.

This next section covers Matthew 5:13-16, which begins with “two comprehensive statements about living in a way that reflects the good news of the kingdom.” Betz regards this section as using “missionary language “ (as mentioned above) that provides a thesis statement for the Matthean community. “This commission, issued by Jesus as the intended speaker, formulates the self-understanding of that (community).” We should, however, take a closer look at this. We will look at the metaphors individually, and then look again and see if the segment makes more sense from a different angle.

The first of the “comprehensive statements” is that the hearers are “the salt of the earth.” The salt metaphor has parallels in Mark 9:50 and Luke 14:34. Hagner, however, states “rather than dependence on synoptics…we probably have an example of oral tradition… “As ‘salt of the earth,’ the disciples can be involved with the world in two ways: they can be a seasoning and fertilizing agent, or they can be a useless waste…” Hagner lists a number of ancient applications for salt: preserving, purifying, seasoning, possibly wisdom, sacrificial (Lev. 2:13a; Eze. 43:24), and covenantal (Lev. 2:13b; Num. 18:19). Betz considers “salt of the earth” as denoting discipleship and the salt becoming tasteless and no longer good for anything is denoting a failure of discipleship.

The “light of the world” is a well known reference to Israel itself. There are significant uses of the light metaphor often in the Greek Testament. “God is light” is found at I John 1:5, and “the light of the world” is found at the Fourth Gospel’s 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; and 1:7-8. According to Betz, The “light of the world” also has a foundation in realized eschatology:

“Light of the World” is a part of Judean self-understanding that aspires to be a beacon of religious and cultural import - a common claim of 1st century Jewish apologetics and proselytism. In the SM, the metaphor is neither merely cultural nor dualistic/cosmic, but clearly emphasizes ethics.

As for “the city on a hill,” this obvious reference to Jerusalem makes it clear that Israel is the light God is talking about.

Failed discipleship plays a role in understanding 5:13-16, but let us dig a little deeper. Boring finds that “Matthew believes that the empirical Israel has failed to carry out (the) mission of the people of God, and that the church of Jews and Gentiles is now charged with the task.”

Israel was always meant to be “the salt” and “the light to the world.” Yet Israel has fallen short of its covenantal duty (see Lev. 2:13; Num. 18:19). Jesus points out to His followers that indeed Israel is failing, but why?

Throughout our study of the SM, we find Jesus calling Israel to a new ethic, a new way of reflecting YHWH’s love for creation. Israel, however, had been hiding its light under a bushel basket. Because of its national desire for the restoration of the land, and world prominence in the form of the submission of the nations around it, especially Rome, the nation of Israel and the city of Jerusalem had lost their saltiness. Jewish identity came not from being a nation of priests called to reflect God’s love, but a nation preoccupied with purity, power and the material dominance of the kingdom of God.

Jesus’ challenge to Israel, and to the new Jewish-Christian community, is to tear away the barriers keeping the light of Israel in and allow it to shine freely once more, according to the ethics maintained in the Sermon on the Mount. Israel is to give up its claim to the land, and be a servant nation that is called to sacrifice in the vein of the suffering messianic figure of Isaiah 53 and shine with the glory of YHWH to the rest of the nations.

17 Do not think that I come to abolish the Law or Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Our next session of the SM contains Jesus’ well-known commentary on Torah. Betz writes that Matthew 5:17-20 make it clear that Jesus used hermeneutical principles when He interpreted and preached the Hebrew Scriptures. This passage concerns the Law and Prophets, the kingdom of heaven and Jesus’ appraisal of other interpretations of Torah.

The segment may be an intended as an introduction to the following antitheses that follow in Matthew 5:21-48, but the fact that these segments appear together appears to be the work of the author of the Gospel rather than something originally strung together by Jesus Himself. Thus, we will study 5:17-20 as a unit separate from 5:21-48.

Again, Betz sees the hermeneutic principles of the SM, as identified by the antitheses and other comments concerning the Law from the mouth of Jesus, existing as alternatives to the Hillel tradition and other pre-70 halakic codes. Verse 20, which is expressly anti-establishment, is an example.

Matthew 5:17-20 may be seen by some as an author’s emphasis on a Jesus figure who speaks and acts more conservatively concerning purity laws than the Jesus portrayed in Mark, and gives evidence of an even more conservative Christian tradition in Matthew 5:19 and 23:3, 23. Many scholars feel that 5:17-20 is well represented by the affirmation of Marvin Wilson, who feels that Jesus “…never wished to see [H]is fellow Jews change one iota of their traditional faith. He [H]imself remained an orthodox Jew to [H]is last moment.” The Gospels, as a whole, seem to present a picture that agrees with Wilson. Geza Vermes writes:

Nowhere in the Gospels is Jesus depicted as deliberately setting out to deny or substantially alter any commandment of the Torah itself. The controversial statements turn either on conflicting laws where one has to overide the other, or on the precise understanding of the full extent of the precept.

Matthew 5:17 seems to soundly indicate that “the intent of Jesus is not to ‘abolish’ or ‘destroy’ the Law of Israel (i.e. to uproot or negate it through misrepresentation) but to ‘fulfill’ it (to establish or support it through correct interpretation).” The term ‘fulfill’, in Greek it is pleroun, appears throughout the Gospel of Matthew in the “proof from prophecy” quotations as a technical term for the eschatological realization of prophecy. According to 5:17, Jesus brought prophesied realization of the Law for the time of salvation.

Indeed, Matthew 11:13 and Luke 16:16 seem to bear this out. These verses consider the Law and Prophets proclaimed until the pronouncements of John the Baptist. Both versions “declare that with John, a decisive change has taken place from the point of view of God’s revelation to man.” Yoder writes:

Jesus’ own statement of the contrasts in Matthew 5 was that [H]e was not bringing rejection but fulfillment of what Torah had really always intended…

His call was for a “greater righteousness” than that of the other teachers, marked by none of the commandments being “dissolved” or “relaxed”…the intent of the original Torah is broadened or intensified by the antitheses.

In sum, to this point, Banks articulates our findings. “The prophetic teachings point forward to actions of Christ and have been realized in a more profound manner.” But this is far from the last word as far as scholarship pertaining to Matthew 5:17-20 is concerned.

James D.G. Dunn raises the question, “is Jesus the Jesus of Matthew 5, who declares the inviolability of the jots and tittles and the importance of even the least commandments?” Or is he the Jesus that speaks in Mark 17:15 and other similar verses? Many scholars simply state that the author of Matthew probably formulated Matthew 17:20 as an apologetic defense for Christian Jews. The Jesus Seminar declares that the author “nullified” Jesus’ “relaxed attitude towards the Law.” Funk and others argue that, while complex, Matthew 5:17-20 (and Luke 16:17) simply reflects ongoing controversy in the early Christian community over whether the Law was still binding. Funk argues that the passage in question is Matthew’s position on the Law, not that of Jesus.

E.P. Sanders’ view predates that of the above thinking. “In its present setting,” writes Sanders, “Matthew 5:17 points to a strict legalism which no one will attribute to Jesus…What chance, then, do we have with a saying such as Matthew 5:17? None, I think.” Actually, Sanders questions the legitimacy of attributing to Jesus anything stated in Matthew between 5:17 and 6:18.

Yet, while the grandstanding of the Jesus Seminar certainly stirs interest, objections to the genuineness of Jesus’ words concerning Torah should be rejected, the Matthean verses included. Yet other theories surround Matt 5:17ff and its attitude toward the Law.

It has been suggested that the text we are presently concerned with is the Matthean author’s response to controversy raised by the apostle Paul’s version of the gospel, or Pauline Christianity. Verse 5:19 is supposedly a response to Paul’s dubbing himself “the least of apostles.” This controversy is spelled out in Acts 15, and is alluded to in Acts 11:25-26, where Paul is cited as teaching at Antioch, a possible location for the Matthean community’s base. Three scholars, however, come out against this theory.

Boring feels that while the Gospel “seems to be written in Antioch…Paul’s lasting influence (there) seems to have been minimal, hardly affecting the Matthean stream of Christianity.” Schnackenburg detects no Pauline influence either way in Matthew’s theology, and W.D. Davies writes “The anti-Pauline interpretation of the SM (would) reduce Matthew to a mere moralist. But secondly, and more important, if Matthew is in opposition to Paul, he stands opposed to one of the most creative and influential figures in the early church.”

To show the difficulty scholars have had in reaching consensus on this brief passage, I will view two other possibilities before drawing conclusions. Hagner believes “the four verses of this pericope, although related in themselves, are not inter-related or interdependent in such a way that they form a single entity.” Hagner feels each verse is “readily separable” and that each individual verse may be lifted from a variety of different contexts - all the while being genuine representations of Jesus’ words.

“Matthew did not compose this material,” writes Hagner, “yet he is responsible at least for the present juxtaposition in order to shape it for Jewish Christian listeners.” He adds that “it is fair to assume that Jesus’ sovereign interpretation of the Law was so out of step with contemporary interpretation that it seemed to many that Jesus was going against the Law…”

Robert Banks, while seeing difficulties in the Gospel portraits of Jesus concerning the Law, asks the 21st century reader to remember the context. According to Banks, Jesus adapts His teachings to the audience He is addressing. This is especially the case, says Banks, in His teachings concerning Torah.

Jesus’ teaching to antinomians (Matt. 7:15ff; 13:41; 24:11ff) differs from His critique of Pharisaic requirements and casuistry (Matt. 23:3ff, 23ff, 27ff) and His sometimes radical demands concerning Law (22:37ff) differ from discourses such as Matt 15:15.

Jesus’ teaching was addressed to different groups of people in different circumstances at different points throughout [H]is ministry…and recognition of this principle can at least go part of the way in explaining different emphasis in [H]is teachings…throughout the Gospels.

Now we must reach some conclusions despite the difficulties raised by Matthew 5:17-20, and Jesus’ reading of the Law and Prophets, at least in the case of this passage. We can be sure that Jesus was not abandoning the Law, and, as we will see, He not only fulfilled the Law and Prophets, but carried on the great prophetic tradition of Israel. Jesus’ affirmation of the Law and its fulfillment in His ministry, however, means transcendence and not repetition, as in Matthew 12:1-4. As I have shown above, the prophetic actions of John announce a change has taken place in the way YHWH is revealing who God is. This is the change considered in Jeremiah 31:31. Jesus announces that His ministry is “the definitive revelation of the will of God.” This means that Jesus, not the Law, is not only ushering in a new covenant, but is the final authority concerning that covenant, and interpretations of Torah.

This is what the Law and Prophets have been pointing toward all along, just as the Hebrew Scriptures testify. A messianic, eschatological, definitive act of God. The kingdom of heaven is the fulfillment of Scripture, the law and the Prophets.

It is important to remember that fulfilment does not first take place on the cross, however, but in the teaching and practice of Jesus. Jesus was announcing, over and against the scribes and Pharisees of verse 20, that YHWH establishes the kingdom that leaves out those who would place restrictions upon it. Jesus redefines Israel, Torah, and the Prophets, and His kingdom reflects God’s intentions for those who would call themselves the people of God.

Without having reached it, the Law and Prophets point towards a summary command from YHWH. Love God, love your neighbor, love even your enemy, and renounce violence as a means of being the people of God. The politicking and pseudo-purity of the Pharisees and their ilk has to come to an end. This is Jesus’ imitation of, and obedience to, the creator God. His fulfillment of Torah, as we will see throughout the Sermon on the Mount, is the ushering in of the non-violent kingdom which reflects the true will of God for God’s people.

Our next unit of study, Matthew 5:21-48, is an indication that Jesus did not in fact oppose Mosaic code, but did find it inadequate. As we see from the start, where Jesus broadens the sixth commandment to include anger and confrontational behavior, the six antitheses that make up the unit are Jesus’ way of bringing the letter of Jewish Law into the context of the two great commandments, loving God and loving our neighbor.

Jesus does more than interpret Torah differently in 5:21-48, but He builds upon the old authority, and makes Himself the locus of authority apart from the limited specifics of written law. There is a structure to the six antitheses. The first unit of each pericope acts to reaffirm, not abolish, Jewish Law. Jesus’ interpretation is meant to get at the root (radix) of existing Torah commands. The second aspect visible is the Messianic radicalization of the Law. Not only is one to avoid murder, per say, but the behavior that leads up to it as well. Matthew’s antitheses declare that Jesus’ interpretation represents the Law’s ultimate intent. Finally, each antithesis contains an application.

Parallels to the antithesis style exist in rabbinic Judaism, though most are thought to postdate Matthew’s version. However, Jesus’ use of “I say to you” has the tone of messianic authority and karygmatic quality that clearly represent Jesus as a final authority over Torah.

The six antitheses are divided into two sections of three. The first three model the greater righteousness spoken of in verse 20. The second three are intended as theses for a disciple’s application. The third, fifth and sixth pericopes are paralleled in Luke and thought to be drawn from the Q source. The first, second and fourth units are drawn from M. Undoubtedly, all six antitheses should be found to originate with Jesus.

The first two units are taken directly from the Decalogue. The fourth (oaths) and fifth (lex talionis) involve direct Torah commands, and the third and sixth pericopes involve commands implied by Torah. Together, they are representative of what Hagner calls “kingdom ethics.” All six units are also expressions, as stated above, of “the Great Commandment” which is all-encompassing love. Boring outlines the antitheses this way:

5:21-26 love shows no hostility

27-30 love is not predatory

31-32 love within marriage

33-37 love is unconditionally truthful

38-42 love does not retaliate

43-48 love extends even to the enemy

All of the antitheses not only place an emphasis on love, but all reflect instances of broken relationships. These Torah instances are “fulfilled” in the sense that in the “love commandment” (Lev. 19:18) Torah is fulfilled.

Two final things to consider before we delve into Matthew 5:21-28. Does the statement “I say to you” imply a messianic consciousness in Jesus? While I put forth that it indeed does, Betz says it does not, which would mean the messianic emphasis is the product of the post-Easter community. Our reply to this may that of Hagner: “ ‘…but I (emphatic) say to you’ (plural)…points to the unparalleled authority of Jesus.”

Another consideration as we read through this section of the Sermon on the Mount. The imperatives of the antitheses are no exaggeration or calls to impossible perfection. According to Klassen, they are the “opening of perspective, without exception, to meet everyone in a life promoting or enhancing way, just as God does.”

21 You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder;’ and ‘whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court;’ 22 but I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court, and whoever shall say ‘you fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the hell of fire. 23 If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way, first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.

This first antithesis deals not only with the Decalogue’s command against murder, but Jesus offers that His followers must strive to uncover the root of such forbidden behavior. Matthew 5:22 is said to be a parody of rabbinic casuistry. While the beginning of the pericipe is thick with scribal wisdom, it ends with expressions that suggests God wills that we refrain not only from murder, but the hostility that builds toward that end as well. What is not said explicitly in verses 5:21-22, is found more concretely in the Didache 3:2: “Do not become angry, for anger leads to murder.”

According to YHWH’s standard of righteousness, even trivial remarks such as “fool” and “Raca” betrays that their author has been shown worthy of condemnation already. (Matt.12:34) These words, considered shaming to a first-century Jew, would have been considerably more insulting that today and would undoubtedly escalate a confrontation. Thus Jesus establishes that creating conditions that lead to violations of Mosaic Law is as condemnable as the betrayal of the Decalogue proper.

Yet, not only does Jesus deepen and transcend the letter of Torah, but He redefines evil as well. In the terms of this and the following antitheses, we see evil being defined as a relationship gone wrong, even in a simple dyad.

Verse 5:22 also introduces a first note of hyperbole that can be read through the antitheses. (Matt. 5:22, 29, 30) Jesus is recorded in nearly all English translations as condemning to Hell violators of his transcendent Law. The result of such widespread mistranslation has resulted in the ever present fundamentalist threat of an eternity spent in fiery torture at the bottom of a three-tiered universe.

Beginning with verse 5:21 and working further through to verse 24, we see Jesus laying a foundation for “working with anger and its projection out on others so as to maintain healthy communal relationships.” Matthew 5:23-24 provides a rule for community life. Reconciliation should take priority, even over cultic worship practices, and those who seek to be kingdom citizens must be reconciled to one another. These verses admonish those who have something held against them by others (no fault is mentioned) as related to Leviticus 19:18: “You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge.”

It is obvious from the way Jesus engages this Levitical directive, in a manner that works to prevent the vengeful designs or grudges of an opponent, that reconciliation and forgiveness are closely related. Reconciliation, overcoming hostility and alientation, are in Jesus’ interpretation of Torah, considered weightier than worship in terms of eschatological judgment. A similar theme of reconciliation being a prerequisite of worship, possibly drawn from Sirach 34:23, is found in Mark 11:25.

25 make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way; in order that your opponent may not deliver you to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I say to you, you shall not come out of there, until you have paid up the last cent.

Moving onto verses 5:25-26, we read Jesus’ exhortation to “make friends with your opponent at law.” Making friends with an opponent has roots in ancient Hebrew ethics; taking the initiative and offering a settlement while giving up any claim against the opponent is choosing “the difficult route of righteousness that will gain more favor in the eyes of God.” Betz cites the work of Bernard Jackson as describing the events of 5:25 as indicative of the Roman procedure for the imprisonment of a debtor.

In the realized eschatology of my present reading of the SM, we see Jesus proclaiming kingdom ethics as surmounting Roman rule. Horsley writes, “Jesus and [H]is followers clearly understood the rule of God as direct, and unmediated by human institutions of government. Indeed, the later were to be avoided.”

27 You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery;’ 28 but I say to you that every one who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29 And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish than for the whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you, for it is better that one of your body parts perish, than for your whole body to go into hell.

This pericope is a straightforward citation of the seventh commandment. The antithesis, with its equation of a lustful glance and adultery has been commonly interpreted as being in complete agreement with rabbinic teaching. “This was not simply an exposition or radicalization of the seventh commandment,” writes Banks, “for by equating the covert desire with the overt act, Jesus was demanding a new relationship which actually transcended the requirements of the Law.” In this unit, Jesus redefines adultery and shifts emphasis from a simple transgression of a commandment to the innermost demeaning of another in the heart. This is significant in that Jesus is viewed in these verses as giving meaning to a woman’s existence.

“Jesus breaks with the tradition that a man cannot commit adultery against his own wife. The double standard is abolished…” writes Schrage. Closer investigation of this text implies the “radical discrimination of any sexual activity involving women other than a man’s own wife.” Winks shares a complete interpretation that fits into our present reading, defining the kingdom of heaven as a a realm where women are treated as first-class citizens.

A Jewish male could not commit adultery against his own wife, but only against the sexual property of other men. In that setting, lust did not refer to sexual desire or excitement as we use the term today, but specifically to the envy of another mans sexual property. Jesus radicalizes the meaning of lust and adultery to include even the mental act of dehumanizing women…He does so…to counter the self-righteousness of men who are technically free of adultery under the Law but continue to treat women as sexual objects.

We shall see a continuation of this revolutionary accounting of women in the next pericope. Jesus speaks directly toward the issue of divorce, a prominent aspect of first-century Jewish life, just as it is during the present.

31 And it was said, “whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of dismissal;” 32 but I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

In this statement, Jesus speaks toward first-century interpretations of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 which made divorce a common occurrence, and had lead to a breakdown of the institution of marriage. In this case, Jesus declares the word of God in Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as taking precedent over Deuteronomy 24:1. And, while the Deuteronomic passage allows for divorce, Jesus may be radicalizing the Torah mandates of Exodus 22:16 and Deuteronomy 21:14ff that provides protection for women in cases of marital splits.

Jesus also radicalizes the Torah foundations concerning divorce in another way. While Malachi 2:14-16 is certainly implicit concerning absolutes against divorce, Jesus’ prohibition concerning God’s will on the matter is unprecedented in Judaism. His statements on the subject would be taken as a provocative statement by a Jewish listener because wives were considered no more than property under Torah. Sanders elaborates upon this fact:

In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, there is a clear statute: A man may not remarry a wife whom he had divorced if she had subsequently married another man. There is also an implied ordinance: A man who divorces his wife should write her a bill of divorce. Divorce itself is not a statute. It is neither forbidden or required…In the New Testament passages, Jesus forbids divorce…He introduces a statute where there was none.

Jesus is, however, radicalizing Torah on this point for reasons that do not often rise to the forefront in a society where most educated women enjoy economic independence and equal status under the law as human beings. Horsley writes that Jesus actions concerning divorce speak directly against the “patriarchal formulation in the Jewish tradition.” To men happy with the easy divorce laws of the day (easy for men that is), Jesus declared that the Creator’s will for marriage is a man and a woman joined together in a lifelong covenant.

The teaching of 5:31-32 speaks to the issue of what was happening to women throughout Palestine, as well as the Diaspora. Jesus is addressing the ease with which a man could divorce a woman with such severity because, according to Wink, He is trying to prevent the wholesale dumping of ex-wives in the streets. The fate of such women is spelled out in the Gospel of John 4:5-18, where a woman was in fact living outside of marriage with a man after five divorces. Treatment such as this lead to prostitution.

33 Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, “You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.” 34 But I say to you, make no oath at all; either by heaven, for it is the throne of God; 35 or by earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of a great king. 36 Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your statement be “Yes, yes” or “No, no” and anything beyond these is evil.

This prohibition of oaths represents the binding nature of the spoken word. The fourth antithesis recalls Leviticus 19:12, Numbers 30:2ff and Deuteronomy 23:21ff; and radicalizes the Mosaic Law by going beyond false or unfulfilled oaths, to include all oaths. First-century Jews connected perjury directly to the Third Commandment against taking YHWH’s name in vain. The prohibition against oaths is recognizable in several Hellenistic philosophical traditions, but something in Jesus’ version sets it apart. The use or abuse of God’s name does not appear to be the reason behind the prohibition. Hagner feels that Jesus’ kingdom ethic does not necessarily prohibit oaths, but the radical truthfulness of Jesus’ followers makes them unnecessary. This should be questioned indeed. While truth telling is a cornerstone of the Judeo-Christian ethic, and this verse certainly can be read to be speaking against a double-standard for every day speech and formal witness, there are two issues that require deeper discussion of the unit.

The first issue is that, pertaining to truth, only YHWH may know the truth, and some truth is not perceptible to human beings. Humans should not declare to know absolute truth apart from that revealed in scripture or the life of Jesus. A first-century example of this reading accounts for verse 5:36. The example of swearing on one’s own head, that no one can turn the color white or black, is an example of “proverbial truisms” proving false, according to Betz. Ancients had found a way to color hair in some cases, raising question concerning even the validity of such a “concretely held” statement. The feeling here is that oaths inevitably lead to perjury. Those who have heard varying witness accounts, say, of the location Jesus’ first resurrection appearance to the disciples, are a wonderful biblical example of human accounts conflicting even in the best of circumstances. Banks agrees, saying that this antithesis is

quite emphatic, and any attempt to weaken its force by reference to the distinction between public and private life, its limitation to a prohibition of false swearing or the casuistic examples of 34b-36 must be rejected.

Also at issue is the practice of swearing oaths and allegiances to governments, denominations or other entities. The Essenes, as part of their faith commitment, took an initial oath of allegiance, and then abstained from oath taking and swearing as part of their faith commitment. This shows that anti-oath tendencies existed in the first century C.E. At question is the worthiness of fallen human institutions such as governments, courts, or other institutions that not only fall short of God’s expressed will, but often purposely oppose it. Imagine being a soldier sworn to uphold a national constitution that enforced slavery, or, as more recently experienced, a system of aparthied. The idea of attributing oath status to any human institution is not only forbidden by Jesus in the presently discussed pericope (5:34a), but is a most widespread travesty of orthodoxy in the present church.

38 You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” 39 But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil, but whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any one wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

The last two antitheses are the most often quoted texts in the SM, and have long been considered controversial in the some church circles as the the Body of Christ wades through a variety of interpretations. These have ranged from merely assigning the “hard sayings” or teachings of Jesus to a place in the eschatological future, claiming them to be an impossible ethic, to the literal stand of nonresistance championed by many Christian sects. As I will show presently, however, the teachings of the fifth and sixth antitheses are weighed heavily not only with realized eschatological significance, but creative nonviolence that sets the example for the church’s relationship to the world prior to Constantine.

The fifth antithesis begins with Jesus’ comment on lex talionis, or “the law of equal retribution.” This is a legal principle, as opposed to a moral or ethical rule. Betz says the SM text is not so much concerned with murder: the “life for life” unit found along with “eye for eye” and “tooth for tooth” in Exodus 21:23 and Deuteronomy 19:21 is missing. It is, however, very concerned with violent attacks. While this text is often quoted as a comment on the death penalty, first -century Jews had long been using currency to settle disputes. Most Hebrew Scripture readers would not have interpreted the texts in Exodus and Deuteronomy as commanding revenge anyway. The texts, according to Boring, do not command revenge “but had sought to curb the tendency to unlimited private revenge…Already there was a steady stream of biblical and pagan tradition calling for restraint and opposing revenge.” As for resisting evil, there are a plethora of applicable interpretations that are suitable for the realized eschatological focus of this book. I will cover some of these, as well as arguments against these interpretations presently.

While other movements existed within the confines of Roman rule by resisting violently or cowering submissively, Jesus advocated a radical alternative to both in His teaching of Matthew 5:38-42. Ron Sider states that Matthew 5:39 means two very radical things. “1) that one should not resist evil by exacting equal damages for injury suffered (i.e. an eye for an eye); and 2) that one should not respond to an evil person by placing him in the category of enemy.” Paul Anderson writes:

Responding to wrongdoing with good, to return good for evil, is uncommon. It requires divine enablement, first to understand the concept, and then to put it into action. This is not doormat passivity, it is active, proactive, even activistic. Oppression thrives on fight or flight intimidation, and to confront it with agape instead of fear or challenge is to subvert its mode of domination.

Klaus Wengst adds concerning Matthew 5:38-42:

(It) is not a matter of accepting circumstances passively, but of changing situations produced by violence by the creation of a new situation. Violence is countered by a productive imagination, leading to situations which make it possible for the other person to understand himself as a partner and no longer as an opponent.

Lisa Sowle Cahill writes that from Matthew 5:39 it “can be concluded minimally that the disciple does not approach the evildoer in a hard, resistant, alienating, and self-righteous judgement, but in a compassionate desire to meet the needs of wrongdoers and victims as will as possible in the circumstances. Yet commentators raise valid questions concerning this approach to the text. Betz asks

If “resist” is the correct rendering (of 5:39), does it imply that the Christian exclude any form of self-defense or self-protection? Are we to avoid all forms of prevention, avoidance or other means of combating evil? Do Christian ethics demand that one allow evil to take its course?

Betz then quotes Joel Blau as saying “non-resistance may mean pity towards the individual, but it means cruelty toward society.” Shrage concurs. He states that as private individuals or Christians, people must act on the basis of Matthew 5. However, when acting officially and with the public responsibility in mind, Schrage says those same Christians are obligated under certain circumstances to do the very opposite, answering evil for evil and force for force.

As I will now show, however, Jesus is not talking about passivity, and Pacifism and non-violence do not mean as such. We first need to take a much closer look, along with Walter Wink, at the word “resist,” and then delve into the rest of the unit with a new understanding. Wink states theat “purely on logical grounds, ‘resist not’ does not fit the aggressive nonviolent actions…“ of Jesus not only in the present pericope, but in other actions in the Gospels, such as the cleansing of the Temple (Matt. 21:12-13 and pars.).

Wink states that translators often fail to recognize the frequency with which the Greek term translated as resist, antisteni, is used as a military term implying “counteractive aggression.” Liddell-Scott’s Greek- English Lexicon identifies antisteni as “to set against” or “withstand” especially in battle. Ephesians 6:13 is a perfect example of the word’s military usage: “Therefore take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.”

In the LXX the term is used to describe military encounters 44 of 71 times, and Josephus uses antisteni for violent struggle 15 of 17 times. Wink writes, “In the context of the Roman occupation, ‘resistance’ could only have one meaning: lethal violence.” What we have in Matthew 5:39 is a military term. Jesus is calling on followers not to cease resisting evil, but to cease militarism in dealing with evil. Jesus is not calling for passive nonresistance, but as we will see in the following examples found in verses 5:39b-41, Jesus is calling for creative (See Wengst quote above) nonviolent responses to Roman militarism and the temple aristocracy. Jesus is calling for a community of resistance that transcends the violence of the Zealots and the Maccabees.

Wink begins further explanation with an interpretation of 5:39b He writes:

A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of an opponent. An open handed slap would also strike the left cheek. To hit the right cheek with a fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was only used for unclean tasks…The only way one could naturally strike the right cheek is with the back of the hand. We are dealing with an insult here, not a fistfight.

A backhand slap was the usual way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews. We have here a set of unequal relations, in each of which retaliation would invite retribution.

Why then counsel these already humiliated people to turn the other cheek? …such a response would create enormous difficulties for the striker. Purley logistically, how could he hit the other cheek now turned to him. He cannot backhand it with his right hand. If he hits it with a fist, he makes the other his equal, acknowledging him as a peer.

Jesus is in fact counseling His listeners, His disciples, not to fight back, but He tells them not to cower either. He leads them to assert their humanity as worthy creations of YHWH, certainly equal to the Roman soldiers or Jewish aristocracy. It is much harder for the enemy to intimidate a people who show the courage to demand justice from their oppressors.

Next, I will follow Wink’s treatment of Matthew 5:40, and the exhortation to give away clothes to your opponent in court. Wink states that only the “poorest of the poor would have nothing but a garment to give as collateral for a loan, and Jewish law strictly required its return every evening at sunset.” (The command to give up clothing in proper order is reflected in the Luke 6:29, but Luke does not preserve the legal setting that would not be understood outside of a Jewish context.) Nevertheless, Jesus is here addressing listeners who have experienced endemic debt very often suffered by Palestinian Jews at the hands of the aristocracy. Wink writes:

His hearers are the poor. They share a rankling hatred for the system that subjects them to humiliation by stripping them of their lands, their goods, and finally, even their outer garment…Why then does Jesus counsel them to give over their undergarment as well? This would mean stripping off all their clothing and marching out of court naked…the poor man has transcended the attempt to humiliate him…nakedness was taboo in Judaism, and shame fell less on the naked party than on the person viewing or causing the nakedness (Genesis 9:20-27). By stripping, the debtor has brought the creditor under the same prohibition that led to the curse of Canaan. As much as Isaiah had walked barefoot and naked for three years, as a prophetic sign (Isa 20:1-6) so the debtor parades his nakedness in prophetic protest.

Wink’s third example of Jesus’ message of nonviolent resistance to evil is found in Matthew 5:41, and involves a soldier’s forcing a subjected local to carry his equipment pack during a march. An example of this is found in Matthew 27:32 when Simon the Cyrene was pressed into helping Jesus carry His cross.

There was a limit placed upon soldiers impressing labor upon subjected peoples. This limit was one mile, and it was abused so much that enforcement mandates were deemed necessary by Roman military authorities with penalties exacted for forcing a subject to go further. It is within this context that Jesus speaks in 5:41. “He (Jesus) does not counsel revolt. One does not befriend a soldier, draw him aside, and drive a knife into his ribs. Jesus was surely aware of the futility of armed insurrection…” The soldier is thrown of balance by his opponents’ eagerness. What will the penalty be, he asks himself, if he is found having his pack carried the extra mile?

Many commentators have tried to relegate the teachings of Jesus to the realm of personal relationships. When we view the admonitions of Matthew 5:38-42, however, we see that the contemporaries of Jesus would have understood them as alternatives to violent rebellion against the imperial army that enforced the client king’s authority in Galilee, and occupied all of Palestine. Wengst argues that if the commands of Jesus apply to whole persons who can reason, how can anyone exclude political responsibility and social justice as part of the individual make-up of a follower of Jesus? “How could it be wrong to compare these instructions,” Wengst asks, “with contemporary discussions of Peace?”

And it is peace that Jesus is advocating, but not simply for the sake of peace as an end. He sees peace as a means to that end, and those means entail a certain type of behavior that goes beyond even creative non-resistance in our study of Wink. Jesus calls upon disciples to Love their enemies.

43 You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you; 45 in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax gatherers do the same? 47 And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Therefore you are to be perfect, as your Father is perfect.

To begin, Betz observes that “loving the enemy” is a common platform of Hellenistic thought, though he feels the SM text is not dependent upon it. In fact, Betz attributes the phrase “love your enemy” directly to Jesus. He calls it a “classic example of Jesus’ exegesis of the Torah…” Boring states that the Matthean Jesus “makes the command to love enemies concrete. In its absoluteness and concreteness, it is without parallel in paganism or Judaism.”

The ethical problems found in many Greco-Roman attitudes of the first century C.E. are summed up in the maxim “a man’s virtue consists in outdoing his friends in kindness and his enemies in mischief.” It is certain that love for enemies contrasted with the mainstream of Hellenistic thought. Love for enemies does, however, find roots in ancient Babylon, antedating the written Torah in the Babylonian Counsels of Wisdom. Lines 35-40 read:

Unto your opponents do no evil

Your evildoer recompense with good

Unto your oppressor…

Let him rejoice over you…return to him

Let not your heart be induced to evil

Horsley, however, believes that Matthew 5:43-47 is not original to the Jesus tradition, and that in fact, the “enemy” cited in the texts is not a reference to Roman imperial troops or “outsiders”, but in fact refers to fellow Jews who would otherwise be considered “neighbors.” Horsley said that “love your enemy” in this context refers to the Synagogue members who persecuted Jewish Christians in response to their Messianic claims.

It is my contention, however, that Horsley falls far short of defending his position in light of the overabundance of New Testament texts concerning Jesus and His nonviolent stance toward Rome. That the gospel, and the Gospels, are political in nature, directly competing with Roman claims concerning lordship, peace, justice and salvation, is well documented. Any reading of Matthew 5:43-44 must keep Roman and Temple authorities in mind.

Trocme writes that when Jesus taught nonviolence over armed struggle, He did so over and against Rome, Hellenism, the temple cult leaders and the Zealot insurrectionists. In first-century Palestine, “neighbor” meant “Jew” and “enemy” meant “Gentile.”

As for verse 43, “Love your neighbor” is a direct quote from Leviticus 19:18. While it is often thought that there is no Hebrew Bible reference that calls for hating the enemy, Deuteronomy 23:6 not only provides a reference but establishes that the enemy may indeed be nations set against Israel. Another Hebrew Bible example of love for neighbor and hate for enemy is provided in the cyclical stories of David and Jonathan, and David and Saul, in chapters 18 through 24 of I Samuel.

Loving one’s enemies, according to Cahill, is “defined in Matthew’s Sermon as a way of acting, not an emotion.” These actions include praying for one’s enemies. Abraham, Moses, Job, and the Prophets all spoke intercessory prayers on behalf of persecutors, setting the standard for the righteousness taught by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. What else is meant by Jesus when He asks disciples to “Love your enemy?”

The hope for what was expected by first-century Jews to be a form of eschatological dominance brought about by the work of a messiah, was instead being manifest in “the prophetic and apocalyptic notion of the gentile pilgrimage.” Contrary to popular opinion, especially in the wake of the Maccabeean revolution, loving one’s enemies as an answer to oppression is not new to the Sermon on the Mount, or the New Testament. Loving one’s enemies is in fact a long-held Jewish mission in the example of Jeremiah’s call for the exiles to seek “the welfare (peace) of the city” in Jeremiah 29:7, and in the example of Jewish exiles in the Book of Daniel, who serve their enemies and act as God’s light unto the Gentiles, all the while staying obedient in the face of persecution by those they were serving.

William Klassen is cited by Cahill as professing “the way to peace” is nonretaliatory enemy love, tied to modeling a coherent life of discipleship, just as we find in Daniel. To love one’s enemies is to treat them as God treats those who have rebelled against Him. Thus, the children, the disciples should imitate their heavenly Father, as in verse 5:45.

The purpose of loving the enemy is to “be children of your [F]ather in heaven;” if one is to go beyond merely self-gratifying relationships, then one must be perfect in the ways of mercy and forbearance “as your heavenly [F]ather is perfect”

While this concept may still be difficult to understand, we find a perfect example of Jesus’ exhortation in action in the life and conversion experience of the apostle Paul. In the biblical record of Saul/Paul, we get an idea of love for neighbor, and hatred of enemy. We get an idea of who a neighbor would have been, and who counted as an enemy. And we then see what the experience of Jesus does for Paul’s outlook on how to best serve the living God.

First, who did Paul view as a neighbor, and who did he view as an enemy? Paul states in Galatians 1:13 that he participated in “Judaism.” James Dunn writes that the term Judaism used in verses 13 and 14 is “highly distinctive.” It is only used twice in the New Testament, in these two verses, and it is rarely used in earlier texts. When it is used, as in 2 Maccabees, “Judaism represented a rallying point for resistance to the Syrians and for maintainance of national identity.”

Paul’s neighbors were those who fit into the covenant people of YHWH, set apart by Torah, circumcision and Sabbath, among other things. It is clear, that the enemy is the national oppressor, but also, the Hellenists that threatened the much-coveted national purity of Israel. Here Paul’s pre-conversion character is much in evidence. Paul was “advancing in Judaism” and was “zealous for…ancestral traditions. The enemy of Israel in Paul’s case was not the Syrians, but the Romans; not the Hellenistic Jews of the middle second century B.C.E., but the new Jewish Messianic sect that was threatening the separateness and covenant status of Israel.

Let there be no doubt that Paul, by “zealous,” meant violence. He calls himself a persecutor of the church “beyond measure” (Gal 1:13). According to Dunn, there are three striking features to Jewish zealotry. First, as an unconditional commitment to maintain Israel’s purity and separateness from the Gentiles, second, a readiness to do this by force, and third, even or especially to use force against apostate Jews. Paul had role models for this zeal. There were the Maccabees, of course, but let us not forget Simeon and Levi who avenged the rape of their sister in Genesis 34, even though the Shechemites had been circumcised. There was Phineas (Num. 25:6-13), who speared an Israelite who took a foreign woman into his tent, (thus mixing his heritage and becoming impure) and thus made atonement for Israel. And then there was Elijah, who slaughtered 450 prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:40), and Jehu (2 Kings 10:16-17, 30), who wiped out Ahab’s descendants in Samaria.

But after Paul’s conversion experience, He underwent a dramatic transformation, where he preached that Gentiles were now members of the covenant family of God! Paul not only loves his enemies, he welcomes them into his once vigorously protected, radically exclusive fold. This is the love of enemies Jesus calls us to. To be radically obedient, like Daniel, or Jesus, as servants to YHWH, to the point of inviting enemies to participate in the fruits of worship and covenant faithfulness. Jesus, as seen in the conversion and new life of the apostle Paul, calls us to serve our enemies, to love them and become partners with them. Indeed, this brings us to our final verse of the chapter, 5:48.

Matthew 5:48 presents a final maxim summing up the doctrine underlying not only the sixth antithesis, but the entire set of antitheses. Often, this verse is downplayed because of the western philosophical tenet that perfection is an impossibility. But Jesus is not speaking about perfection in the western sense. He is speaking as a first-century Palestinian Jew. The word “perfect‘, translated from the Greek telios, means “having reached its end” or “complete.” The Greek root, telos, is most often translated “an end” in the New Testament. Telios is also the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word tamim - used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to “perfection in the sense of ethical uprightness…” The Hebrew word also carries the meaning “whole.” Boring translates tamim as “wholeness” and writes “To be perfect is to serve God wholeheartedly, to be single-minded in devotion to one God…”

We now move on to Chapter six of Matthew, the middle section of the SM. This section can be split into two parts. Verses 6:1-18 constitute the first part, and 6:19-34 make up the second. The first section, split into three parts (vss. 1-6, 7-15, 16-18), discuss traditional acts of piety. Here, Jesus offers an account of what authentic piety involves in relation to the common religious undertakings of almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. This section of Matthew is derived from all three Matthean sources, most of which comes from “M”, with the Lord’s Prayer (6:9-13) stemming from “Q”, and verses 6:14-15 paralleled in Mark.

Betz refers to the instructive aspects of 6:1-18 as a “cultic didache,” saying that “cultic instruction is the kind of thing one expects from ‘religious reformers’” such as Jesus and His followers. The instructive element provides critical evaluation for tradition and contemporary religious practices.

As a note of interest before I begin with the study of Chapter 6 involves the material found in our first section of study, all of which, except for possibly 6:1 and 6:14-15 can easily be found originating with Jesus, I turn to the Gospel of Thomas. Thomas is considered by some to be worthy of canon status. Interestingly, Thomas 14 makes Jesus out to be against “all acts of righteousness.”

“Jesus said to them, ‘if you fast, you will bring sin upon yourself, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.’” It is with Jesus’ regard for these displays of righteousness in verse 6:1 that we now begin, as He warns His disciples not to be obstinate when engaging in acts of piety.

6:1 Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father in heaven.

Betz identifies 6:1 as a problem verse, a Matthean addition to original Jesus material. Boring agrees, calling the verse an addition that acts as a heading for the entire section of 6:1-18, which, as a whole, reflects much editing. Like similar claims throughout the SM, this is debateable.

Even so, the “acts of righteousness” in verse one of the NASB, is translated as “practicing your piety” in the NRSV. Righteousness fits better for a number of reasons. Betz writes “righteousness is to be taken in the Jewish sense as a discipline the disciples must learn.” This is in keeping with his description of the segment as a “cultic didache.” However, the term righteousness, or dikaiosyne, carries other connotations. Dunn describes dikaiosyne as the fullfillment of covenant obligations, and may be understood as “faithfulness.” The Hebrew concept of dikaiosyne, according to Dunn “is the meeting of obligations laid upon the individual by the relationship of which he or she is part.”

In other words, Jesus is instructing disciples in 6:1-18, as Betz indicates, but not simply as a commentary on contemporary practice. Jesus is requiring disciples to practice covenant obedience in a manner that identifies His community of disciples as different than their contemporaries - radicalizing common practices, in this case almsgiving, prayer, and fasting - just as He did with Torah interpretation. Hagner identifies these “acts of righteousness” as possibly the “Christian self-offering in spiritual service.”

There is however, an apparent contradiction between Matthew 6:1 and the previous SM verse 5:16. How is a follower of Jesus supposed to let his or her light shine so that others will see their works (5:16), if Jesus now instructs them to practice such righteousness in private?

Driver calls the inconsistency “superficial… If these practices correspond to motives which are sincere, they will be seen in the same sense that “a city on a hill cannot be hidden’ will bring glory to God.” Boring states the tension between these two verses is “somewhat relieved by the difference in motivation in each case.”

There is, in reality, no tension between the verses when we understand the good works that are foundational to that “city on a hill” or the spark of the light that shines before men refers to established kingdom communities. While these communities show high regard for loving the neighbor, Matthew 6:1 refers to individuals stepping out from their community and acting as a free-agent in search of self-glorification. A community that practices righteousness and justice as a matter of fact, will shine brightly before the world. An individual drawing attention to his or herself is destructive to that community.

2 When therefore you give alms, do not sound the trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honered by men. Truly I say to you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing; 4 that your alms may be in secret, and your Father who sees you will repay you.

Verse 6:2 begins the formula found in 6:2-4, 5-6, 16-18, with verse7-8 of the Lord’s Prayer pericope. “When you…do not…but you…your Father sees.” Matthew 6:2-4 focuses on almsgiving.

Taking care of the poor is commanded throughout scripture by YHWH, especially in Deuteronomy 15. The amount of literature concerning almsgiving was, according to Betz, “enormous.” The Greek word otan, or “when,” refers to the custom of regularly scheduled giving as required by Torah (otan = a regularly repeated action). Of course, the term hypocrites comes from the Greek word for stage actors and is used by Jesus often through the Gospel accounts, especially in Matthew 23. The blowing of the trumpet and the noise this produced is sometimes compared to the “blare of rhetoricians” in Greek satire. This may account for the metaphor used in verse 6:2. Ulrich Luz writes, “Jewish sources demonstrate that almsgiving was also abused, and offered opportunity for advantageous public display.”

Pious Jews paid a first tithe, for purposes of maintainance of religious structures, and then a second tithe was taken and given to the poor, or spent in Jerusalem. “Palestinian society” says David Mealand, “fell largely into two groups: the small community of the rich, and the great mass of the poor…there was perhaps a small middle class which did not have much influence.”

It is important now that I provide a setting for 6:1-18 with this focus on 6:2-4. I will show after study that Jesus is not just commenting on piety practices, but is radicalizing righteousness for His kingdom community. Matthew 6:2 focuses on almsgiving, but as I will show, Jesus’ followers took His radical teaching beyond mere almsgiving.

An example of how poor Jews were treated is found in Josephus’ Antiquities 18.2.3. Herod built a new city in Galilee, called Tiberius, the name of another city that had already existed. Herod forced slaves and poor Jews to populate this city. While he was rich enough to free the slaves and build them housing, there was one problem. The land these slaves and poor Jews were moved to was a gentrified cemetery. Josephus writes:

(Herod) was a benefactor to, and made them free in great numbers, but obliged them not to forsake the city, by building them very good houses…and land also; for he was sensible, that to make this a place of habitation was to transgress the ancient Jewish Laws, because many sepulchers were to be taken away in order to make room for the city.

Obviously, Herod was so rich he built an entire city, and “generously” populated it with slaves, the ill, and the poor; most of them Jews. This generosity, however, came with strings attached. You could not move away, you had to work for Herod, and you had to accept permanent detatchment from the Jewish community, because to live on a gravesite made one ritually unclean. This contrast between the rich and poor, and the subjugation of the poor to the rich, needs to be kept in mind.

Most Christian converts of the first century C.E. were poor. They depended upon daily distribution of goods (Acts 6:1) for day to day living. Wealthy converts to the early church sold possessions, and community leadership and the poor were supported by the proceeds (Acts 4:34-37). Jesus’ instruction on almsgiving, as applied to the Matthean church is now clear. For the wealthy - give generously - without fanfare, and, unlike the Herods of the day, with no strings attached.

According to Mealand, some interpreters have suggested that almsgiving as an “act of righteousness” (re: covenant obligation, or, justice) is meant by Jesus as the restoration of what had been stolen from the poor back into their hands.

Also at issue is the eschatological reward promised at the end of the didactic pericopes. Boring writes “the promised reward is (future) eschatological. God will reward with acceptance into the kingdom of heaven and the granting of eternal life…This-worldly rewards for discipleship is not in Matthew’s perspective.”

Yet, is not the Book of Proverbs concerned with this-worldly rewards? And is not the kingdom of heaven a political term for the realized reign of God breaking into contemporary history? The statement by Jesus: “your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.” can just as easily be read as the blessings available to existing communities that carry out God’s will and are prospered by their willingness to take care of one another in a manner consistent with a realized eschatological reading of the SM.

5 And when you pray, you are not to be as the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, in order to be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your inner room and shut your door, pray to your Father in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

Beginning with verse 6:5 and running through 6:15, we enter the structural center of the Sermon on the Mount. A relevant Hebrew scripture background to this section on prayer is Elisha’s shutting the door on the Shunammite woman and her dead son in order to pray for the son’s life (2 Kings 4:33).

Betz writes concerning verses 6:5-6 that “prayer instruction in the SM limits religious duties to the private prayer, and a strange silence remains with regard to all genuine acts of public worship in Temple and synagogue.” Schnackenburg writes that synagogue was the prefered place of prayer, but that regularly scheduled morning, noon, and evening prayers were often said anywhere.

Synagogue prayer was normal. However, according to Boring, praying on the streets was not. Jesus, however, is not condemning the act itself, but the motivation behind it. “One can also ostentatiously call attention to going to the inner room to pray.” As for the inner room, the meaning behind Jesus’ words does not mandate a holy place, as opposed to the street corner (or, indeed, the synagogue) for prayer. The King James Version translates “inner room” as “closet.”

7 And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition, as the Gentiles do, for they suppose they will be heard for their many words. 8 Therefore, do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need, before you ask Him.

In verses 6:7-8, Jesus stresses further the importance o