|
Wilfrid J. Harrington: Matthew, Sage Theologian,
Chapter 4.
Proclamation of the Kingdom (Mt 3-7)
Everyone who hears
these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his
house on rock (Mt 7:24).
Narrative
Preliminary Manifestations
(Mt 3-4)
The Testing (4:1-11)
Proclamation and Call (4:17-22)
The Sermon On The Mount (Mt 5-7)
Beatitudes (5:1-12)
The Principle (5:17-20)
The Antitheses (5:21-48)
Three Acts of Piety 6:1-18
The Lord's Prayer 6:9-13
Teachings 6:19-7:12
The Close of the Sermon 7:13-29
A summary of the preaching of John the Baptist
(Mt 3:1-12) leads to the baptism of Jesus (3:13-17). In Matthew's account the
emphasis is on the revelation of Jesus as Son of God, not on the baptism as
such. Jesus came to be baptised. Why? To inaugurate his mission (and, in
effect, the messianic era); to raise the baptism of John to a new level; to
show his solidarity with sinful humankind; to give an example of humility.
The vision (3:16) sets the seal of divine approval on this mission of Jesus.
Here only in the Synoptic accounts of the
baptism does the Baptist recognise Jesus before the baptism. He tries to
prevent Jesus from undergoing this baptism of repentance meant for sinners.
Jesus appeals to God's plan of salvation. It befits John and him 'to fulfil
all righteousness', to conform to the roles mapped out for them. Matthew's
text shows the Christian embarrassment (quite absent from Mk 1:9) that Jesus
should have undergone a 'baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins'
(see Mk 1:4) and at the hands of his inferior, John. The voice of the Father
is for all present (and not for Jesus alone as in Mark): Jesus is not being
designated Son for the first time ('You are my beloved son' - Mark). Rather,
his sonship is proclaimed to others: "This is my beloved Son. '
Each gospel shows Jesus subjected to
temptation, to testing. Even John, who does not mention the forty days in the
desert, shows moments in the public ministry when Jesus' fidelity came under
pressure. The letter to the Hebrews is emphatic that Jesus was tested in all
things as we are, yet without sinning (Heb 4:15). Our Synoptic wilderness
accounts are expressing in stylised form the broadly based New Testament
conviction that Jesus had to struggle to remain faithful to God's will.
At the start of this passage, Matthew shows
Jesus experiencing what Israel had experienced in the desert - with the
radical difference that this Son will conquer where God's son Israel had
failed (Deut 8:2-5). The tempter immediately latches on to the question of
Jesus' sonship. (It ought to be obvious that a literalist interpretation -
and, a fortiori, presentation - of the 'temptations' must be avoided. This is
a sophisticated piece of writing and one must correctly grasp Matthew's
intent). At the baptism Jesus, had been solemnly acclaimed as God's Son
(3:17); the question now is: how will he function as God's Son? One should
have in mind that Matthew is addressing his Christian community. In terms of
this 'temptation' of the Lord he is reading them a salutary lesson.
Jesus will not misuse his sonship to his own
advantage (first temptation); his disciple will not abuse his or her
Christian status. In quoting Deut 8:3 Jesus had urged his trust in God; now
he is challenged to turn that trust into crass presumption (second
temptation); the true Christian will not seek to put God to the test.
Building on the promise that the Messiah-Son would have the nations for his
inheritance (Ps 2:6-8), the 'ruler of this world' (]n 12:31; 16:11) presents
himself as a god to be worshipped - only to be unceremoniously repudiated.
This bizarre episode is readily understandable when we recall the basic
temptation of Israel to idolatry and when we observe that Jesus' reply is an
emphatic assertion of God's fundamental command to Israel: monotheism (Deut
6:13). The Christian will, likewise, reject any form of idolatry - the
idolatry of wealth, of ambition...
Matthew situates Jesus' public ministry just
after John had been arrested ('delivered up', anticipating the delivering up
of Jesus to his passion). Jesus' preaching, 'Repent, for the kingdom of
heaven has come near', continues the Baptist's call to conversion. He catches
up the torch from the hand of John.
Jesus summoned his hearers to repent (change
their lives) because they had not allowed the rule of God to become effective
in their lives. The expression 'kingdom of heaven' is rich in meaning. It
signifies God's rule on earth, his reign in people's hearts. It means the
fulfilment of the promises, the fullness of blessings, in short, the new
order of things to come, an order already present in the person of Jesus.
What Jesus claimed was that the decisive intervention of God was happening in
his ministry: God is acting in and through the ministry of Jesus and his
disciples. The kingdom is here and now present in history in that the power
of evil spirits is broken, sins are forgiven, sinners are gathered into
Jesus' friendship. These events are present to human experience, and they are
so whether people are aware of them or not. The kingdom-comes as a present
offer, in actual gift, through the proclamation of the gospel. But it only
fully arrives on condition of the positive response of the hearer.
The proclamation of the kingdom of heaven and
the call to conversion were personalised by Jesus' inviting of Peter, Andrew,
James and John to discipleship. The evangelist's description of the call is
more interested in the theological aspect than in the facts. (Jn 1:35-42 has
quite a different account). When Jesus called all four answered
'immediately', leaving their nets (symbol of their former way of life) behind
them. The creative word, meeting them in their everyday world, laid hold of
them and changed their lives forever. This call of the first disciples became
the model for all calls to discipleship in the church.
The Sermon on the Mount is the first of
Matthew's five discourses. The setting (5:1) and the conclusion (7:28-29) indicate
that, in his plan, the Sermon was addressed to all Israel gathered to hear
Jesus. The basic theme is that Jesus came not to abolish the law and the
Prophets but to fulfil them (5:17). Matthew had Jews in mind. More
immediately, he has Jesus present what Christians must accept as his
authoritative interpretation of the Torah.
Plan of the Sermon
- Introduction 5:1-20
- The Antitheses 5:21-24
- Three Acts of Piety
6:1-18
- Other Teachings
6:19-7:12
- Warnings 7:13-29.
INTRODUCTION 5:1-20
Our gospels have two, notably different,
versions of the beatitudes: Mt 5:3-12 and Lk 6:20-23. Matthew has nine
beatitudes - where Luke has four, with four corresponding 'woes' (Lk
6:24-26). Matthew's beatitudes, as a whole, carry distinctive features. The expression
'poor in spirit' points to a transformation of the idea of 'the poor' - the
literally poor (Lk 6:20). In current usage the designation 'poor in spirit'
applies to one who is detached from worldly goods, who is interiorly free in
regard to money. In fact it is frequently related to the possession of
wealth: it is possible for an economically rich person to be 'poor in
spirit'. This is because we take 'poor' in a specific sense, an economic
sense, which may not be the biblical meaning. And that meaning, we now know
from the Jewish texts of Qumran is 'humility'; the poor in spirit are the
humble. The parallel beatitude of 'the meek' confirms this meaning. These
beatitudes, in Matthew, are no longer addressed to those who lack the
necessities of life (Luke/Jesus) but to those characterised by their
meekness, their patience, their humility. They are the anawim with Jesus
himself as the ultimate 'poor man' (11:29). It is evident that 'blessed are
those who hunger and thirst for righteousness' is very different from Luke's
blessedness of the 'poor' and the 'hungry'. For Matthew, Christianity has
broadened and deepened the meaning of the term righteousness (5:20).
'Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall
see God' (5:8). The qualification 'in heart' like 'in spirit' points to an
interior disposition. What is in question is what we would call 'purity of
intention', demanding perfect correspondence between intention and action.
'Pure in heart' characterises people of integrity. The beatitudes of the
merciful and the peacemakers are concerned with action: the conduct of a
Christian towards a neighbour who stands in need. The best illustration of
'merciful' is Matthew's description of the last judgment: T was hungry and
you gave me food' (25:35-40). As for the 'peacemakers': these evoke a good
work highly prized in Judaism. It was observed that, among those who needed
help, the most needy were an estranged husband and wife or friends who have
fallen out. To seek to reconcile them, to restore them to peace, is one of
the kindest services one can render to the neighbour.
Where Luke applied the beatitudes to Christians
as a suffering minority, Matthew has introduced a distinction: he reserves
the blessedness promised in the beatitudes to Christians who truly live the
gospel ideal. He had re-read the beatitudes in light of his pastoral
preoccupation and had filled them out. He takes care to remind Christians
that the promises of salvation are conditional ((5:2). We will not be
admitted to the Kingdom unless, after the example of the Master, we have
shown ourselves to be meek and humble; unless we have given proof of
righteousness and loyalty; unless we have carried out what God has asked of
us, in particular, unless we have served our brothers and sisters in their need.
The Beatitudes are thoroughly Jewish in form
and content. They challenged those who made up 'Israel' in Matthew's time by
delineating the kinds of persons and actions that will receive their full
reward when God's kingdom comes. They remind Christians today of the Jewish
roots of their piety and challenge each generation to reflect on what persons
and actions they consider to be important or blessed.11
'Do not think that I have come to abolish the
law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil' (5:17). The
opening passage (5:17-20) sets the tone as it states the relation of the
Mosaic Law to Jesus. Jesus had not come to destroy 'the law and the
prophets': his mission is one of prophetic fulfilment. Nor did he come to
obey the Law. He transcends it so that he, not the Law, is norm for the
Christian. This is borne out by v 18 - 'until all is accomplished' refers to
the event of the death-resurrection of Jesus. Post-Easter Christians will
live by the 'law' of Jesus (7:24). Nevertheless, the Christian teacher will
be faithful to the Law - as reinterpreted by Jesus (v 19). Christians are not
to become better 'Pharisees'; they should not grow into legalists.
Christianity is meant to have broadened and deepened the meaning of the term
'righteousness', the doing of God's will, according to the teaching of Jesus.
The principle of vv 17-20 is applied in the
'antitheses' (5:21-48). Six times, with a similar formula each time, the Law
is quoted ('you have heard that it was said') to be followed by an
'antithetical' word of Jesus which modifies it 'but I say to you'). In the
cases of murder, adultery and love Jesus radicalised the Law by extension and
inter-nalisation; in the cases of divorce, oaths and retaliation he abrogated
the letter of the Law.
The first antithesis (vv 21-26) declares that
anger is as a grave a crime as murder. Jesus interprets the fifth commandment
so that it embraces all those feelings and emotions of which murder is the
outcome. He moves to a strong recommendation of brotherly/sisterly
reconciliation and warns that an unforgiving spirit will come between us and
the God we would worship. In the second antithesis (vv 27-30) we are warned
that adultery, too, is born in the heart. The sixth commandment, as
reinterpreted by Jesus, reaches to all thoughts and desires that lead to
sexual sin. One must have firmly in mind that Jesus, as a Jew, had a positive
and healthy approach to human sexuality. There is no trace, in his teaching,
of the neurosis that was to mark, so sadly, a prevalent strain in Christian
attitudes to sexuality.
In the third antithesis (vv 31-32) Jesus
revokes the Law's sanctioning of divorce (see Deut 24:1-4). Puzzling is the
qualification 'except on the ground of unchastity.' It now seems reasonable
to hold (evidence from the Qumran documents has helped) that by 'unchastity'
(porneia) Matthew means marriages within prohibited degrees of consanguinity
and affinity - 'incestuous' marriages. There is no question of divorce in such
cases because there is no marriage to begin with. Jesus forbade divorce
without qualification. The fourth antithesis (vv 33-37) is a radical
rejection of a respected institution of the Torah: oaths and vows. The
Matthean Jesus categorically declares: 'Do not swear at all' There is no way
of reconciling this absolute prohibition with later church practice (recall
the obligation of the anti-modernistic oath). And, to this day, the demand of
a somewhat modified oath. Surely, that should make us think.
Too often the law of talion, 'an eye for an eye
and a tooth for a tooth' is cited as an instance of primitive savagery. On
the contrary it is an enlightened law designed to regulate and moderate
retaliation - to 'make the punishment fit the crime' in short (see Ex 21:24;
Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21). Here, again, Jesus revokes the letter of the Torah.
Not 'a tooth for a tooth', careful correspondence of injury and compensation,
but radical repudiation of any retaliation - 'turn the other cheek also'.
G.B.Caird's illuminating comment on Revelation 13:10 ('Whoever is for
captivity, to captivity he goes; whoever is to be slain by the sword, by the
sword must he be slain. ') opens up a wider perspective:
When one man wrongs another, the other may
retaliate, bear a grudge, or take his injury out on a third person. Whichever
he does, there are now two evils where before there was one; and a chain
reaction is started, like the spreading of a contagion. Only if the victim
absorbs the wrong and so puts it out of currency, can it be prevented from
going any further. And this is why the great ordeal is also the great
victory.12
Jesus rules out all means, even legal action,
of obtaining compensation. Strong stuff, indeed.
Despite the formulation of v 43, nowhere in the
Law does it state that the Israelite should hate the enemy. We are faced with
a popular modification of the love-command: the enemy of the just person or
of God's people is an enemy of God. Besides, 'neighbour' would have been
restricted to fellow-Jews and, consequently, there is no obligation to love
the 'non- neighbour'. Jesus enlarged the range of 'neighbour' to apply to all
without distinction of race (see Lk 10:29-37). He is not taking a sentimental
or naive view that all people are, in practice, brothers and sisters. He
maintains the category of enemy. If he demands love of enemies it is because
the Father loves those whom we would count as his enemies. Unless they can
display this all-embracing love, Christians are no better than others; they
have not really experienced the love of their Father. Matthew speaks of
perfection - meaning generous, single-hearted devotion to God and humankind.
This is why to be perfect is the obligation of every Christian, or,at very
least, our abiding challenge.
These demands, throughout the antitheses, are
not intended as regulations for the conduct of daily life. But they are meant
to be taken seriously. They are vivid and even startling illustrations of the
manner in which the quality and direction of God's treatment of his children
might be reproduced in human relationships. Jesus was wholly aware of how
much he asked of human nature when he substituted 'love your enemies' for
'love your neighbour. '
Almsgiving, prayer and fasting were traditional
Jewish practices. In each case it is question of a private act of piety.
Admirable, when performed simply, by sincere people. 'Hypocrites' can make an
unholy show of these good ways. Like chapter 23, the passage 6:1-18 is an
attack on the Jewish opponents of Matthew's community. In chapter 23 the
'hypocrites' say but do not do; here what they do is for show. Public
displays of private piety are not for Jesus' fol- ¦ lowers.
One can readily see that, originally, the
passage was made up of the three units 6:2-4, 5-6,16-18 - the uniform
construction of the units makes that much clear. It is obvious that Matthew
took advantage of the reference to prayer here to fill out the teaching of
Jesus on the subject (6:7-15).
'And when you pray, you must not be like the
hypocrites' (6:5). While the 'hypocrites' are the Jewish opponents, they also
represent a legalistic element within Matthew's community. 'When you are
praying': it is assumed that Christians will pray. What is in question is how
they ought to pray - or, in the first instance, how they ought not pray. They
must not make a spectacle of prayer. In vv 7-8 there is another negative
precept, but this time in view of Gentile practice. Invocation of pagan
deities was regularly a fulsome affair. The gods' attention had to be
attracted, hence a prelude of elaborate titles and adulatory attributes.
There is no need for any of this when one turns, trustfully, to an Abba -
look at the Psalms. These negative rulings had cleared the way for the
positive teaching of the Lord: 'Pray then in this way' (6:9).
Matthew (6:9-13) and Luke (11:2-4) have given
two versions of the Lord's Prayer. The first, obvious, difference is that
Matthew's form is the longer. More importantly, Matthew has preserved the
original strongly eschatological flavour of it, while Luke has adapted it to
fit the modest pattern of day-by-day Christian living. Besides, the Matthean
version is notably Jewish in tone, clearly congenial to Jewish Christians.
The first three petitions (vv 9-10) really boil
down to the central one: 'Your kingdom come.' The disciples pray that God
will show forth his saving will by bringing about his definitive Rule over
humankind. The petition, 'Give us this day our daily bread' (v 11) very
likely should read: 'Give us today our bread for the coming day', that is to
say, the bread of the banquet in the kingdom.
The plea for the forgiveness of all sins
('debts') also looks to the end, when Sin will be no more. And, we pray not
be crushed by the great Temptation, the End-time crisis, to escape, at last
and forever, the designs of the Evil One. From first to last it is a prayer
of faith and hope, a prayer that looks confidently beyond this world to the
Rule of the Father. The plea for forgiveness in v 12 is underscored by the
codicil of vv 13-14. The implication is that we are expected to forgive
others before we plead for God's forgiveness of us. (See Sirach 28:1-5).
Indeed (as the prayer stands) we make our forgiveness of others a condition
of God's forgiveness of us. The commentary simply makes unmistakable the
sense of the petition: 'For if you forgive others their trespasses, your
heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others,
neither will your Father forgive your trespasses' (6:14-15). The obligation
of forgiveness cannot be stressed more clearly. Well for us that God does not
really temer his boundless mercy to our grudging forgiveness. But what he
expects of us is clear.
There is no obvious structure to the third part
of the Sermon (6:19-7:12). We will look at some sections of it. In 6:19-34
Jesus cautions his disciples against worldly standards: the 'treasures' of
the world are tawdry and fragile. What Jesus calls for is 'purity of heart'.
A person's heart is where one's treasure is (6:21) There is a basic decision:
one must choose to worship ('serve') the one true God, the heavenly Father,
or the false god of worldly possessions. Jesus came to reveal the Father to
men and women, to assure them that they are not alone. The Father loves them
and cares for them. We are in constant danger of becoming immersed in the
affairs of this world and of allowing them to enslave us. Here Jesus calls on
us to pass beyond a care for material things to a consideration of higher
values. Humankind is made for God and only in God can we find rest.
The general theme of the passage is expressed
in a wealth of imagery that is typically Matthean (Matthew tends to work with
pairs of images). The wild flowers and grasses shape a particularly telling
image of transience. After the rains in Palestine there is a short period
when the arid and rocky scrub soil is covered with delicate wild flowers. In
a few weeks they have withered to yellow, brittle stalks of hay..
Jesus' words are meant to highlight the reality
of God's care. God is not an impersonal force remote from this world. He is
very much present, even when he may seem to be absent. Jesus is not
condemning human industry or resourcefulness. We must plan for the morrow.
The beauty of the lilies fades and birds die of hunger. We, too, will shrivel
unless we use our God-given talents.
What Jesus calls on us to avoid is not the
normal concern demanded by our human condition but the fretting that
dehumanises us, the worry that keeps us from lifting our gaze beyond material
values and the cares of this world. The concluding proverb (v 34) is not
really as enigmatic as it sounds. Each day has its burden of problems; it
does not help to add the morrow's problems to the load. The Christian will
look not to a fleeting 'tomorrow' but to the solid future of the kingdom. We
will put our future in the hands of God and pray only for the modest needs of
today.
A caution; we are not to be too ready to pass
judgment on others. It is so easy to spot the faults of others. A touch of
humour: if we could but see ourselves - many of us walking about with big
planks sticking out of our eyes, while we peer at a speck in our neighbour's
eye! (7:1-5). As for prayer: ask... seek... knock! - even though your Father
knows your need before you ask (see 6:8). Why ask then? God does not need our
prayer. We need God; we need to acknowledge our dependence; we must seek and
knock. The need is ours. Think of mother and child: a loving mother knows
what is best for her child. The child may ask, may demand; but she will give
only what is helpful. A firm 'no' is often the most loving answer. We should
never forget that 'no' is quite as much an answer as 'yes' -even to prayer!
The road to the kingdom is no four-lane highway
- there is a narrow gate at the end of it. In 7:13-14 the motif of the two
gates is joined with that of the two ways. Each way leads to a gate: to
perdition or to eternal life. This motif of the Two Ways was traditional in
the ancient world. In the Old Testament it is found most prominently in Deut
11:26-28; 30:15-20. There is a stark choice. It is Matthews's view that
entrance to the kingdom is difficult; not many will get there. He reflects
the pessimism of 4 Ezra: 'I said before, and I say now, and will say it
again: There are more who perish than those who will be saved, as a wave is
greater than a drop of water' (9:15-16). It is scarcely the view of Jesus.
The traumatic event of 70 AD scarred both the author of 4 Ezra and Matthew.
We must constantly remind ourselves that, though we have to think and speak
and write of God in anthropomorphic terms, God is divinel We speak, casually
of a God 'of infinite love'. Do we take that infinite seriously? Surely not -however
could we have come up with the ultimate blasphemy: a God who condemns sinners
to hell? To return to Matthew. It is his view that those who will not find
their way through the narrow gate are false prophets. Their fruits will show
them up (Mt 7:15-20).
The passage 7:21-23 speaks against a hazard of
any official religion. The essential demand is to do the will of God. But
people can pretend to be religious and pious while failing hopelessly to
fulfil the revealed will of God as enunciated in the extended teaching of the
Sermon. The wearing of religious titles is no guarantee of true uprightness
in the eyes of God. Not every one who addresses Christ by his faith-name,
'Lord', can be assured of partaking in God's reign. Religion must be more
than a superficial display. Use of religious language and ritual do not
necessarily accomplish the new righteousness and measure up to the moral
requirements of the kingdom.
Jesus' words of condemnation are strong and
unexpected: 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.' 'Knowledge'
in the Bible is very often the knowledge of personal relationship. It has
overtones of love and attachment: the knowledge which friends have of one
another, the mutual knowledge of husband and wife. This kind of knowledge
presupposes the mutual self-gift of one person to the other. So Jesus can say
'I never knew you' because the condemned did not make their contribution to
the relationship. They remained aloof by following their own mirages of
religious responsibility. The Sermon concludes with a contrast-parable (vv
24-27).
Jesus contrasts the person who responds to his
teaching with the one who does not. One who fulfils his words is like a man
who built his house on a solid rock foundation. In the moment of crisis he
can withstand all assaults and temptations because he has made the teaching
of Christ the basis of his moral life. But the person who does not act on his
teaching cannot boast of any such moral integrity or stability. That one is
like a man who has built his house on the sandy bed of a river (the dry
Palestinian wadi or watercourse). When the (winter) floods come it collapses
under the force of the flood waters. If a person is to survive the crises of
one's moral life, particularly the supreme crisis before the end (the
apocalyptic perspective), one must adhere to the teaching of Christ.
"These words of mine': the authority is no longer the Torah of Moses but
the teaching of Jesus - including his reinterpretation of Torah.
|
These Courses