Criswell Theological Review 6.1 (1992) 43-56.
Copyright © 1992 by The
THE LAW IN THE SERMON ON
THE MOUNT: MATT 5:17-48
STEPHEN
WESTERHOLM
“This
man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath”: so
runs one assessment of Jesus in John's Gospel
(9:16). It is decidedly not
the view of the evangelist, for whom the contrary
claim--that Jesus is
"the one God sent" (3:34)--is a fundamental and
recurrent theme. We
may well find it strange, in view of the obvious
logic behind the oppo-
nents' charge (God gave the
Sabbath; Jesus does not keep it; therefore
Jesus
cannot represent God) that John would even permit its expres-
sion: why, we may wonder,
would John make his own task more diffi-
cult by noting plausible grounds on which it might
well be doubted,
and has by many been doubted, that Jesus came
"from God"?
John's response to the charge, a
fascinating subject in itself,1 can-
not be explored here. We should note, however, that
the Jesus of the
synoptic Gospels repeatedly invites the same easy
dismissal as that ut-
tered by "some
Pharisees" in John 9:16: clearly it was too common a
perception, too vital an element in Jesus’ story,
for the evangelists to
pass it by. Of all the Gospel writers, Matthew in
particular feels the
urgency of responding to the issue. Jesus'
relation to Moses and the
1 In fact, no direct
answer to the opponents' charge is given; its refutation is rather
worked out in an implicit way in the narrative of the
Gospel. In the immediate context
we see how the opponents' logic, when pressed to
its end, leads to the absurd conclu-
sion that the healing of a
blind man is the work of a sinner (9:24-33); clearly, John sug-
gests, what Jesus did must be construed differently,
as a work of God (9:3, 33). In the
context of the Gospel as a whole, we may note
the insistence throughout that what
Jesus
does--even on the Sabbath--is God's work (e.g., 5:16-18), while the would-be “dis-
ciples of Moses” who criticize
him (9:28-29) evidence no real loyalty to their supposed
teacher or to God (e.g., 5:39-47; 7:19-24).
44
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Mosaic
law is the focus of attention in Matt 5:17-48, and the
occasion
for this extended treatment implicit in the
introductory verse is
clearly the same perception as that we
encountered in John. Some-
thing there was about Jesus' words and deeds which
could be con-
strued as a setting aside of
the Law;2 but that, Matthew wants us to
know, is a misconstruction. Jesus represents, not
the Law's abrogation,
but its "fulfillment" (5:17). This bold
claim, in apparent defiance of the
simple facts, is defended and developed in the verses
that follow. But
before we examine the argument, the framework
necessary for its in-
telligibility and force must be
summarized briefly.
The Larger Context: The Dawn of God's
"Rule"
Important though the discussion of
Jesus' relationship to Moses
may be for Matthew, it does not introduce the Sermon
on the Mount;
nor, indeed, does the Sermon mark the start of
Jesus' public activity in
Matthew's Gospel--and for good reason. To ask whether Jesus
sets
aside or affirms the Mosaic code is tantamount to
assessing new wine
from the perspective of what it does to old
wineskins: there is point to
the inquiry, but it will hardly lead to an
appreciation of the taste of
new wine. Matthew's portrayal of Jesus' public
career begins with the
proclamation of the kingdom (4:17;
5:3): something new, the truly deci-
sive stage in the history of
God's dealings with his people, has begun.
That
history is a long one (cf. Matt 1:1-17!), but its movement was ever
forward, its mood till now anticipatory. Now the
culmination of the
activity of the "law and the prophets,"
the yearning of "many prophets
and righteous people," is being realized
(5:17; 13:17). The decisive rev-
elation must not be thought to lie in the past.
Where Sinai is con-
strued as the crucial
revelation, the criterion by which all that is
"new" must be judged (cf. John 9:29), departures from
its standards in-
evitably appear as
transgressions if not apostasy. But Matthew will
not allow the premise. And when the old revelation
is interpreted in
the light of a new and decisive stage in salvation
history, whatever
tensions between the two may arise must be
attributed to the partial
nature of past revelation and its transcendence in the
new.
From Matthew's perspective, then,
the starting point of any dis-
cussion of Jesus' relationship
with "Moses" must be an understanding
of Jesus' role in the dawning "kingdom of
heaven," God's "reign" or
2 "Or the
prophets," as Matt 5:17 goes on to say. That Jesus represents the
"fulfill-
ment" of the prophetic
Scriptures is of course an important Matthean theme
as well;
but it is not the theme of our study here, nor,
indeed, does it figure in the immediate se-
quel in Matthew, where the
law (5:18) and its commands (5:19, 21,27, etc.) are the issue.
Stephen Westerholm: THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 45
"rule."3 What is meant by the latter phrase?
Among Jesus' contempo-
raries, it was used in at
least the following three ways.
(1) God's "rule" may refer
simply to his control over the events
and people of history; in this sense the divine
"rule" is seen as a
present and eternal reality, whether human
beings acknowledge it or
not. The exercise of this "rule" is well
illustrated in Daniel 4 where
Nebuchadnezzar
successively has power, is deposed, and is restored
to his throne, all by the decree of God.
(2) At the same time, however, the
chapter illustrates the present
limitations on God's "rule," since it is
not till the final stage that the
pagan king recognizes and submits to the sovereignty
of the Most
High. Accordingly, God's "rule" may be
spoken of in a more limited
sense as confined to those who submit to him, those
to whom he has
revealed his ways and who strive to abide by
them. Ideally, this in-
cluded all God's people:
28:5).
In fact--and by definition--reprobate Jews as well as the vast
hordes of "God-less" Gentiles were excluded.
(3) But, alas, there were more
people like the early Nebuchadnez-
zar who knew not God than
there were like the later Nebuchadnezzar
who had learned to worship him; lamentably, too,
the means by which
the change in Nebuchadnezzar was brought about did
not commend
itself as the solution on a larger scale. There was
something not right,
something ultimately dissatisfactory and
intolerable, about a world
which was made, sustained, and "ruled" by
God, but which nonethe-
less failed to acknowledge its Creator or give him
his due. That a dra-
matic transformation of
present conditions was called for and awaited
was a staple element in the faith of many
1st-century Jews. Some, no
doubt, were content to be discontent with pagan
domination over Is-
raeland longed for nothing more
than a turning of the tables. But for
others,
symptom of the evilness of the age. Tyranny and
injustice would
surely not be allowed to prevail forever in God's
world; inevitably, and
appropriately, the establishment of
righteousness would be accompa-
nied by the filling of the
earth with "the knowledge of the glory of the
Lord,
as the waters cover the sea" (Hab 2:14). That
day would mark the
dawn of God's "rule" in its third and
future sense, a "rule" over sub-
jects who owned and obeyed
the God of Israel, a "rule" from which the
wicked would by definition be banished, while the
vindicated righ-
teous would feast at a table
spread by God.
3 On basilei<a as "reign,” see G.
Dalman, The
Words of Jesus (
46
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Readers familiar with the NT will
recognize that the basic pat-
tern of belief summarized above is abundantly
attested in the Gos-
pels. Here we must be
content to underline briefly three aspects of
Matthew's portrayal of Jesus' proclamation of
God's kingdom.
(1) In all current understandings of
the coming
those participating in the divine rule would be the
righteous; the
wicked would be excluded. Distinctive of Jesus'
proclamation, how-
ever, is the concern whether an eternal consignment
of men and,
women on that basis would leave God with any subjects
to rule, with
any guests for his feast. The concern is most
evident in the parable of
the wedding feast (Matt 22:1-14), but implicit
throughout. The sum-
mons to the kingdom is
extended to notorious sinners, partly in the
conviction that a loving, compassionate God is not
willing to give up
his claim on any potential subjects, but partly
also in the conviction
that such "sinners" were scarcely further
from the kingdom than the
ostensibly "righteous." Pious the latter
might be, and rigorously atten-
tive to the most picayune
details of God's law. But too often the zeal of
the pious, the Matthean
Jesus proclaims, did not extend to the weight-
ier concerns of the divine
will (23:23); its manifest motivation was too
often the securing of human praise (6:1-18; 23:5-7);
its judgment of
those who failed to measure up to its standards ran
counter to divine
priorities (9:13; 12:7). Hence even the
"righteousness" of the "righ-
teous" was inadequate
for admission to the kingdom (5:20), though,
disastrously, it was sufficient to
blind many to their need for repen-
tance: as a result "tax
collectors and harlots are going into the king-
dom of God before you"
(21:28-32).
(2) If the Jesus of the Gospels
betrays an unusual sense that fit
subjects for God's kingdom were not to be found
even among God's
people, it is also true that he is not content merely
to announce the
imminent coming of the kingdom. People needed to
be made righ-
teous, not simply identified
as such. Jesus is portrayed in Matthew as
fulfilling that task in at least three ways: (a) he
summons his listeners,
"sinners" and (ostensibly) "righteous" alike,
to turn from their self-
serving sin to a life of radical faith in God
and obedience to him;
(b)
he offers divine love and forgiveness to all who will
receive it--
again, "sinners" and "righteous"
alike--though it can only be enjoyed
by those whose lives are thus transformed to
radical faith and obedi-
ence; and (c) finally, since
the sin of even those who claim to be God's
people is perceived as universal, deep-rooted, and
corrupting, and
since God's forgiveness of, and triumph over, all
that is evil can never
be reduced to a mere overlooking of human
wickedness, Jesus offers
his own life to atone for human sins (1:21; 20:28;
26:28), thus enabling
people who fall far short of God's demands to
participate, purged of
their sins, in the kingdom of heaven.
Stephen Westerholm: THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 47
(3) Inasmuch as Jesus' life and
death are the divine means by
which a people fit for the kingdom is brought into
being, his coming
represents the decisive stage in salvation history,
the very dawning
(though not yet the final consummation) of God's
"rule" in its third
and future sense. To humans created by God but
captives of evil and
the Evil One, he brings divine deliverance (cf.
Matt 12:28-29) and the
present joyous assurance of a part in the
blessed age to come (Matt
5:3-12;
13:44-46).
We may now return to the question
with which we began. When
Jesus'
relationship with the Mosaic law is seen in the light
of the
dawning of the kingdom, apparent departures from
the standards of
the law can no longer be construed simply as
transgressions. In fact,
Matt
5:17 insists, Jesus did not "set aside" the law. The point of the de-
nial is at least twofold:
Jesus must not be thought to have discounted
or ignored either the law's claim to be divine or
the requirements of
righteousness which it embodied.
Against the first misconstruction,
the Gospel insists (as we have noted) that Jesus
represents rather the
culmination, the "fulfillment," of the
sacred history begun in the "law
and the prophets." Against the second, the
Gospel insists that the
kingdom righteousness which Jesus proclaims does
not fall short of
the demands of Moses, nor lead to indifference
toward its require-
ments (cf. Matt 5:19!);
rather it transcends them, a more perfect em-
bodiment of the divine will.4
The latter claim is then illustrated with
the six antitheses which comprise the remainder of
the chapter.
The Immediate
Context: The Sermon on the Mount
Few texts have proven more
controversial than the antitheses of
the Sermon on the Mount. A number of problems in
their interpreta-
tion would, however, be
avoided if the following basic principles
about the sermon were kept in view.
(1) The theme of the Sermon on the
Mount is essentially Jesus'
expectations of how his followers
are to behave. Negatively, this
means that the sermon is not intended as a blueprint
for reforming
the laws or institutions of earthly society. It is
assumed throughout
that Jesus' true followers are and will remain a
minority on earth,
subject to persecution (5:10-12) and abuse
(5:39-40), living alongside
scribes and Pharisees, tax collectors and
Gentiles, self-servers of both
4 That plhrw?sai ("fulfill")
includes this element of transcendence is rightly in-
sisted upon by W. D. Davies
and D. C. Allison. Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commen-
tary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1988)
486-87; cf. also 507-9. Such an understanding
is required when we interpret (as Mat-
thew intended) 5:17 and
21-47 in the light of each other, as we shall see below.
48
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
crass and pious hue. That, in this age, Caesar must
be given his due,
and that, for earthly society, the possibility of
divorce represents a
necessary concession to human sinfulness are both
allowed elsewhere
in the Gospel (22:21; 19:8). Jesus' expectations
in the Sermon on the
Mount
are directed not to those who are at home in this world,5
but to
those who are to stand out from the world as its
"salt" and "light"
(5:13-16);
those who, through knowing the heavenly Father, will tran-
scend the norms of human
behavior (5:44-48; 6:1, 8, 32). To be sure,
there is a measure of righteousness even in this age.
Scribes and
Pharisees
avoid murder and adultery and give alms to the poor; tax
collectors and Gentiles love those who love them.
But the Sermon on
the Mount defines the "surpassing"
righteousness of those who would
inherit the
Positively, it is clear that Matthew
does expect Jesus' followers to
live by the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount. The
sermon spells
out how their righteousness is to go beyond that of
others. When, to-
ward the conclusion of the sermon, Jesus insists
that those who merely
call him Lord will not enter the kingdom, but only
those who actually
do the will of the Father (7:21-23), the
exposition of the divine will in
the immediately preceding chapters is surely in
view. Similarly, the
sermon ends with a parable which depicts those who
heed and obey
Jesus'
words as the wise who build "on a rock," whereas those who fail
to heed them, like the foolish who build on sand,
do so to their own
ruin (7:24-27). If further confirmation is needed,
the Gospel as a whole
concludes with the instructions of the resurrected
Jesus by which his
disciples are themselves to make disciples of all
nations, to baptize
them, and to teach them "to observe all that I
have commanded you"
(28:19-20).
The Sermon on the Mount is surely a substantial part of the
teaching that is to be passed on and obeyed.
(2) Obedience to what Jesus commands
is, then, expected (by
both Jesus and Matthew!) of
Jesus' followers. Still, just as Jesus con-
veys the message of the
kingdom's coming largely in parables, so the
requirements of the kingdom are
often expressed in dramatic, poetic
form, where the expectation is rather that disciples
will show and act
in accordance with the attitude illustrated in
Jesus' command than
5
This claim by itself is misleading, since Jesus' summons to the kingdom and its
righteousness is directed to all (at
least ultimately, as Matt 28:19-20 makes clear; Mat-
thew does see Jesus himself
as active at a stage in salvation history when the message
was directed to all Jews). The point here is that
the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount
can only be practiced (as we shall see) in the
context of a positive response to the proc-
lamation of the kingdom--and not
everyone so responds. Hence, though the summons is
addressed to all (Matt 4:17), Jesus' account of
the righteousness which is to characterize
his followers (Matthew 5-7) is directed specially
to them.
Stephen Westerholm: THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 49
that they will literally comply with its wording.6
Literalists will miss
the point of Matt 6:6 if they refuse to pray
anywhere but in their
rooms. They will be hard put to know how they can
keep one hand
from being aware of what the other is doing, or what
logs are to be re-
moved from their eyes. And their self-congratulation
that at least they
have never thrown pearls to pigs will be premature.
Jesus' ethical
teaching is at the opposite extreme from the halachic efforts of
"scribes and Pharisees," where maximum concreteness and compre-
hensiveness in the definition of
the divine requirements were sought;
it is not for that reason less serious, as any
sensitive reader of the Ser-
mon on the Mount will
attest.
(3) The form taken by Jesus' ethical
teaching (point 2 above) cor-
responds to the audience for which it is intended
(point 1 above). So-
ciety as we know it needs
specific rules. Ideally, such rules act as a
restraint on evil and serve to inculcate virtuous
behavior; society is
the better where its laws are good and wise. The
risk in a theocracy is
that a body of such laws will be confused with an
exhaustive state-
ment of the divine will;
that compliance with concrete, practicable
rules will be interpreted as the essence of the
righteousness required
by God: hypocrisy (outward compliance without
inner devotion), self-
righteousness, pride, and contempt
for those less obviously "righ-
teous" are attendant
perils.
In fact, true goodness, though it
will express itself in ways no law
would condemn (Gal 5:23), is not the same thing as
careful compliance
with rules.7 Labored compliance, while a
vast improvement over un-
principled living, falls far short of the
spontaneous selflessness and
concern for others, the uncalculating generosity
and kindness, the un-
stinted love of God and all his creatures which
God desires to flow
from his children. Goodness in this sense is related
to joy, thankful-
ness, and appreciativeness--though none of these
qualities necessarily
accompany the most fervent strivings for
self-discipline and moral
virtue. Such is the goodness of
scious delight in the goodness
of God and his creation. It is, alas, also
a goodness which in the Genesis account was
forfeited when human-
kind chose to seek its own path, its own pleasures,
and its own good
rather than accept a role in a creation steered by the
goodness of God.
The
early Christians, convinced that God had found it necessary to in-
tervene in human history in an
awesome way, could only conclude
that sinful humanity cannot of its own produce the
goodness God
6 Cf. C. H. Dodd, Gospel and Law (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1951) 46-63.
7 Cf. J. Knox, The Ethic of Jesus in the Teaching of the
Church (
don, 1961) 103-8; also his moving portrayal of the
difference between a servant's and a
son's obedience, 82-86.
50
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
desires--not even with the assistance of the
divine law. A “tree” must
be “good” before its “fruit” can be acknowledged
as such (Matt 7:17).
In
Paul's terms, such goodness can only be the product of a life trans-
formed and empowered by the divine Spirit (Gal
5:22-23). In Mat-
thew's terms, it is the
righteousness of the “new age” inaugurated by
Jesus,
a righteousness springing from a radical reorientation toward
God
brought about with the experience of the power and goodness of
his kingdom.
In short, the Sermon on the Mount
does not prescribe in a con-
crete, comprehensive way the
behavior expected of God's children,
for such behavior is neither reducible to, nor the
straightforward re-
sult of compliance with, a
corpus of rules. Rather the Sermon on the
Mount
provides illustrations of the kind of attitude and action which
will-and must-characterize those who thrill in what
it means to be
children of a benevolent heavenly Father.
(4) The orientation which, according
to the Sermon on the
Mount,
is to be displayed in the behavior of Jesus' followers may per-
haps best be summarized in the following two points:
absolute, unwa-
vering trust in God's
goodness; and absolute, wholehearted, loving
devotion to him. Such a way of life is of course
not only audaciously
simple; it is desperately naive and foolishly
impractical--unless the
presence of God's rule, care, and goodness are as
real and reliable as
Jesus
obviously believed they were. Note also that where the essence
of this ethic is seen as love for God and trust in
him, it is clear both
that these are indeed essential requirements of
God's children (can
people really be living as God's children without
showing love and
trust toward him?) and that
they cannot be fulfilled by mere compli-
ance with rules. To be sure,
many deeds done by a loving, trusting
child can be imitated by outsiders to the family. But
just as romantic
love cannot simply be summoned up by a decision of
the lover, but
must be a response to the perceived loveliness of
the beloved,8 so
childlike love and trust, and the radical
expressions of such an orien-
tation demanded by Jesus, can
only be a response to the sensed good-
ness and sufficiency of the Father. Herein lies part
of the explanation
8 The parallel may be
pursued further. Though at times the lover may act in ways
taught quite spontaneously by "love" itself,
and though (ideally, of course) all the lover's
actions are motivated by love, nonetheless
cultural expectations, the guidance of experi-
enced friends, and even the
counsels of books of etiquette will play their role in shap-
ing (though they can never
themselves create) the expressions of love. Similarly, the
expressions of Christian love are "shaped"
by the moral expectations of the believing
community, the guidance of its leaders, the
counsels of its Scriptures: the spontaneity of
love is by no means the sole determinant of
Christian behavior. To judge by the re-
sponse of readers, my Israel's Law and the Church's Faith (
1988)
did not sufficiently emphasize this latter aspect.
Stephen Westerholm: THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 51
why early Christian writers repeatedly feel
constrained to insist that
Christian
virtue is not the virtue of Christians, but is the work of God
living "in" and "through" them;9
herein lies as well part of the expla-
nation why the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount, when
detached
from its character as response and from the
underlying vision of the
(5) But it is only part of the
latter explanation, for it remains the
case, as Matthew well knew, that followers of Jesus
themselves do not
measure up to the demands of the Sermon on the
Mount. After all,
Jesus'
disciples are hardly models of goodness and loyalty in the pages
of the first Gospel; and it is not for nothing
that a petition for forgive-
ness is included in the disciples' prayer. What
Matthew's Gospel does
not tolerate--and it is here at one with all the
writings of the NT--is
moral indifference, the complacency which supposes
that because one
belongs to a believing community, divine favor
is guaranteed regard-
less of one's behavior.10 The Sermon on
the Mount is only one of
many solemn warnings against such an attitude.
(6) Finally, it may be asked
whether, since sin undoubtedly re-
mained a reality in the Matthean community, that fact itself discred-
its Matthew's talk of "new age
righteousness" and the demand that
followers of Jesus must show a righteousness
beyond that of "scribes
and Pharisees"--just as Paul's ethic of the
Spirit is sometimes thought
to be discredited by the moral failings of
believers in his churches.
Where
is the moral superiority which ought to distinguish the "chil-
dren of God"? As often,
an illustration best serves to convey the an-
swer which, I believe,
Matthew (and Paul) would give.
A father with carpentry skills
decides to build a shed. The task
presents an opportunity to spend some
"quality time" with his eight-
year-old twin boys and perhaps to teach them a
thing or two about
carpentry. He invites their participation. Both
are excited, but, though
Johnny
agrees to help, Jimmy decides he would rather build a
shed
on his own. They set to work. Tommy, the boys'
friend, drops by and
is immediately impressed by Jimmy's activities,
hammering and saw-
ing all on his own, with
what appears to Tommy to be considerable
skill. Johnny, by comparison, appears positively
awkward and quite
unproductive in all he does-bringing
a hammer to his dad; driving in
nails with his dad's hand also on the hammer;
occasionally attempting
a few strokes on his own, but as often as not
having his father pullout
9 Cf. the fine discussion
in D. M. Baillie, God Was in Christ (
Faber, 1948) 114-17.
10 Cf. Knox, Ethic, 73-75, 87-88, who notes that the
reception of forgiveness itself
implies the acknowledgment, not the neglect, of
one's obligation.
52
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
and straighten the nails he has hit. Tommy can only
conclude that
Jimmy
is much the better carpenter.
But Johnny and his dad produce a
shed, and a fine one at that (his
father is a good carpenter as well as a devoted dad).
Jimmy produces a
mess. The fact is, Jimmy and Johnny are both a
decade or more away
from being able to build a shed. Still, Johnny has
now had a "part" in
the making of one and, for all his awkwardness and
misguided strokes,
learned something about carpentry in the
process. Jimmy got nowhere
and learned nothing (beyond, one would hope, his
own limitations).
Doubtless Matthew and Paul saw God's
righteousness and good-
ness as lying as far beyond human capacities as the
building of a shed
is beyond the skills of an eight-year-old.
External observers may be
impressed by any number of virtuous deeds on the
part of "Jimmy's"
kin; but, from this perspective, they amount to
little. Human virtue
unaided will never take on the character of
divine goodness. The lat-
ter can only be produced by
"cooperation" with God. Matthew and
Paul
saw followers of Jesus as Johnny's kin, and their assurance that
God's
righteousness would result from such "Johnnies'" endeavors
had nothing to do with virtues they perceived in
God's little "helpers."
Where
a child is eager and willing to help, a competent dad will see
to it that the job gets done.
The Moral Vision of the Antitheses
We turn now to the antitheses
themselves. A full-scale exegetical
treatment cannot be provided here. Our more
limited purpose will be
to show how each of the antitheses illustrates
both the moral vision
and the relation to the Mosaic law sketched above.
(1) (5:21-26) The
law prohibits murder--and even the minimally
virtuous will attempt to comply. That community
living requires re-
spect for the life of others
is apparent to all. It is equally apparent
that no earthly society can impose sanctions on
every outburst of an-
ger or expression of
contempt. But the love which God's children
must show their Creator-Father and all his creatures
is violated no
less by angry assertions of self-will and scorn than
by murder itself.
In
poetic, dramatic terms, Jesus shows the moral equivalence (5:22).
It is sometimes said that Matt 5:22
is a radical interpretation of
the law in 5:21, that Jesus merely draws out the
implications already
inherent in the law's prohibition of murder. But,
apart from the fact
that there are later antitheses which cannot
possibly be construed as
interpretations of the thesis quoted
from the law (5:31-32, 33-37, 38-
42,43-48), it is apparent already in 5:21-22 that Jesus' words
are to be
understood as an authoritative declaration to
contemporary hearers
("But
I say to you. . .") in contrast with what was long ago "said to the
Stephen Westerholm: THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 53
men of old": the very formulation suggests a counterthesis rather than
a mere explanation in v 22.11 To be
sure, v 22 does not "set aside" v 21;
murder remains wrong. But Jesus' demand goes beyond
what the law
of an earthly society can reasonably condemn to
proscribe behavior
incompatible with the goodness
required of God's children. The law
is not abolished; it is transcended.
(2) (5:27-30) The
prosperity of earthly societies depends in no
small measure on the preservation of good order and
the honoring by
its citizens of all their commitments. Hence
societies have every rea-
son to promote fidelity and stability in their
families (a consideration
to which modern laws are at times strangely
oblivious). The Mosaic
law carries that principle to the point of
prohibiting adultery and im-
posing sanctions on transgressors.
On the other hand, looks of lust are
hardly the stuff of legislation.
Still,
since they mean the regarding of others solely as opportunities
for one's own gratification, they offend no less
than adultery the love
which respects and delights in the
"otherness" of others while seek-
ing their good. Again, the
goodness of such love transcends without
dismissing the law.
(3) (5:31-32) Human nature being
what it is, promises are not al-
ways kept, peaceful--or even tolerable--coexistence
proves not always
possible, marriages fail. The wise law of earthly
societies, while anx-
ious to discourage, will
nonetheless provide for the orderly dissolu-
tion of marriage.
But such laws cannot be the standard
of God's children. For them,
marriage is not an arrangement of human
convenience to be main-
tained only as long as the
self-interests of both parties are perceived to
overlap, but a divine institution whose very
breath is the commitment
and self-sacrifice of love. Marriage is seen as
serving both to provide
for the bearing and training of the next generation
in the stable context
of a family whose members are committed to each
other, and to woo
human beings from their self-preoccupation and
self-love to occupa-
tion with the concerns and
good of their spouses and offspring. On the
other hand, divorce represents (in most cases) the
rejection of such
other-centeredness for the sordid pursuit
of self-interest. Hence, where
marriage is entered, lifelong, loving commitment
to one's spouse must
always be the resolve of the children of God--a resolve
which tempta-
tions, frustrations, and
hardships serve only to stiffen. And though
Christian
leaders (beginning at least with Paul12) have justifiably
11 Cf.
Davies and Allison, Matthew, 506,
508.
12 Cf. 1 Cor 7:10-16. Matthew's exceptive clause ("except for unchastity," 5:32) is of
course itself an adaptation of the ideal to a concrete
situation. Matt 5:31-32 insists that
remarriage after a divorce involves adultery. This
can only mean that, in God's eyes, the
54
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
wrestled with the problems of counseling, and
applying this ideal, in
less than ideal situations, the moral vision of the
Sermon on the Mount
is lost when casuistry and compromise displace the
celebration of the
ideal in the proclamation and moral education of the
church.
(4) (5:33-37) As
in the case of divorce, oaths represent society's in-
evitable compromises with human sin, the
tolerance of the lesser, to
avoid the consequences of the greater, evil. “All men
are liars,” but at
least when testifying in court, or making solemn
resolutions, they
must be given strong incentives to speak the truth;
hence the place for
oaths. Such oaths remain a sorry compromise, both in
that they imply
that times and occasions determine the priority of
truth, and in that
they represent presumptuous demands of creatures
that the Creator
serve as guarantor of their claims. Children of God,
whose fundamen-
tal orientation is to
please God, will be anxious not to succumb to the
temptation either to protect selfish interests by
uttering untruths or to
use their Father's name in any presumptuous way.
Again, their be-
havior represents not the
setting aside of the law's command, but its
transcendence.
(5) (5:38-42) The
human desire for revenge is moderated in the
law by the principle of fairness: recompense may
match, but must not
exceed, the initial injury. Earthly society cannot
survive without its in-
stitutions of justice.
Still, “fair” though it may seem, we
all recognize that such a prin-
ciple of justice cannot and
should not be applied in all situations. The
rule of “eye-for-an-eye” does not, for example,
prevail in the home.
“Normal”
parents (may their tribe increase!) make considerable
sac-
rifices for their children;
often they put up with considerable abuse.
They
discipline, to be sure; but the point in their discipline is not that
parents must be allowed "just
revenge'" or that they should "stick up
for their rights." They are not even thinking
about their "rights'" at
such times. When they function as they should, the
good of their chil-
dren is their goal.
Jesus' point should be clear. The
heavenly Father loves his chil-
dren (in this context his
"children'" means all his creatures) infinitely
more than human parents love theirs. And, of course,
he does not treat
his children on the basis of the
"eye-for-an-eye" principle any more
human institution of divorce effects nothing, that
the first marriage remains in place,
and, hence, that entrance into a second
relationship (even after a divorce) involves un-
faithfulness to the first. The text
insists that responsibility for such sins of adultery
rests with the man who initiates the divorce (Jewish
law did not permit women to do
so)--with one clear exception (hence the “exceptive
clause”): the man is not, of course, to
be considered responsible for his wife's adultery after the divorce when it was her own
adultery prior to the divorce which occasioned
the split.
Stephen Westerholm:
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 55
than they do. God puts up with an incredible amount
of abuse from
his children; he pours out his bounty upon them
with no thought of
equal return. Followers of Jesus are to do likewise.
The principles of
justice in the old age are no adequate guide for
the behavior of those
who would inherit the new. When wronged, Jesus'
followers insist
neither on their "rights" nor on
revenge; nor are they content simply
to bear the abuse. They respond (as Jesus'
dramatic pictures in 5:39-
42
illustrate) with positive actions determined by a genuine concern
for the good of those who wrong them. In Paul's
terms, they "over-
come evil with good" (Rom 12:21)--just as God
overcomes human evil
with his redemptive goodness. Once again, the
requirements of the
law are abundantly transcended by the love which is
to characterize
God's children.
(6) (5:43-47) Finally,
while normal human love includes an ele-
ment of reciprocity which
makes its extension to enemies preposter-
ous, God's goodness is not
so circumscribed. Similarly, the love of
those steered by God's love will transcend the limits
of human be-
nevolence to include all of God's
creatures.
God's children are thus to reflect
the perfection of their Father's
goodness (5:48). That they repeatedly fall short
of this standard hardly
means that they can (or that Jesus should) modify the
definition of
goodness,13 any more than it
follows that God should adjust his char-
acter by bringing it more in
line with human limitations and sin!
Goodness
remains goodness, God remains God, while his love sustains
his children in their weakness and pardons their
failings. But the par-
donable failings do not
include, in Matthew's Gospel, indifference to-
ward Jesus' summons to the righteousness of the
kingdom. Those who
pay no heed to his words are not recognized by the Matthean Jesus as
his own (7:21-23).
Conclusions
The law, for Matthew, prescribed
righteousness in an age of antic-
ipation. To say that Jesus
"sets it aside" is to ignore the positive, divine
role which the Matthean
Jesus assigns the law (and the prophets) and
to suggest that righteousness is for him less than
a fundamental con-
cern; neither is the case.
On the other hand, the Matthean Jesus does
not simply restate the requirements of the law, for
its demands do not
adequately correspond to the goodness of God; some
of its provisions
are limited by what is legally enforceable, whereas
others indulge as-
pects of human sin in an
attempt to limit sin's consequences. Jesus'
13 Again, see the fine
discussion in Knox, Ethic, 50-52.
56
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
commands transcend the law by prescribing (in a
necessarily illustra-
tive, not casuistic or
comprehensive way) the goodness of God as the
standard for his children. Theirs is to be the
perfect love and trust of
children, responding to the love and goodness of
their Father. The re-
peated failings in this life
of those who respond are met with the love
and forgiveness of God, offered in Christ. Still,
according to the Sermon
on the Mount, response is essential if Jesus' hearers
are to enter God's
kingdom: for how can the new age be one of
goodness, how can it rise
about the self-seeking viciousness of the present
age, unless its mem-
bers are those who have
delighted in, submitted to, been transformed
by, and come to reflect the goodness of the
heavenly Father? Divine
goodness, the Gospel insists, has spared no cost--not
even, beyond all
human comprehension and imagining, the cost of the
cross of Jesus--to
include all creation in its sphere. But can
divine goodness itself admit
to its realm those who want no part of--divine goodness?
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: