Ep. 26: The Sermon on the Mount
CLICK HERE for the corresponding devotional in Yeshua Adored
MATTHEW 5-7
Before the calling of the Twelve as his ambassadors and representatives, Jesus probably spent a night of lonely prayer on one of those mountain ranges which stretch to the north of Capernaum. But as dawn broke, the eager multitude waited for him on the plateau beneath. He now approached them with words of comfort and power of healing. As they pressed around him for that touch. He drew back again to the mountain and through the clear air of the bright spring day spoke what has ever since been known as the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ from the place where he sat.
Once we have drunk from the wellspring of Jesus’ teaching there is really no going back to the broken cisterns of the Rabbis. It is unlikely that the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ was really spoken by Jesus on just this one occasion. We can gather this from the plan and structure of Matthew’s Gospel account. There is one characteristic of the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ which, indeed, throws light on the curious chronological recording of events, such as placing it before the calling of the Apostles. And that is the connection to the Law of Moses, through the Divine Revelation in the ‘Ten Commandments’ from Mount Sinai.
We would regard the ‘Sermon’ as presenting the fullest picture of the ideal man of God, of the inward and outward manifestation of discipleship. We might discern four main aspects here. First, the right relationship between man and God, true righteousness rather than the prevailing Jewish views of merit and of reward. Secondly, we would mark the same contrast as regards sin and temptation. Thirdly, we would note it as regards salvation and, lastly, as regards what may be termed moral theology and the like.
And all of this serves to show the contrast between New Testament humility, as opposed to Rabbinic pride; New Testament perfection, in terms of the new life offered, as opposed to Rabbinic ‘perfection’, an attempt by external or internal means to strive for God. This brings us to a general outline of the ‘Sermon on the Mount.’
It is not the ‘New Testament’ Torah or set of Laws. Its great subject is neither righteousness, nor yet any ‘New’ Law, but the Kingdom of God.
It is not a new doctrine, nor yet does it address itself to any outward observances. This marks a difference in principle from all other teachings. Jesus came to found a Kingdom, not a school; to institute a fellowship, not to propound a system.
To the first disciples, all doctrinal teaching sprang out of fellowship with him. They saw him and therefore believed; they believed and therefore learned the truths connected with him and springing out of him. The ‘Sermon on the Mount’ differs from all contemporary Jewish teaching, so therefore it is impossible to compare it with any other system of morality. The difference here is one not of degree, but of standpoint.
The Words of Jesus indeed mark the foundation of true morality. Now, every moral system is a road by which, through self-denial, discipline and effort, men seek to reach the goal. Instead, Jesus begins with this goal and places his disciples at once in the position to which all other teachers point as the endpoint! Others work up to the goal of becoming the ‘children of the Kingdom’; he makes men ‘children of the Kingdom’ freely by his grace. What the others labour for. He gives. They begin by demanding. He begins by giving because he brings good tidings of forgiveness and mercy. Accordingly, in the real sense, there is neither a new law nor a moral system here, but the entrance into a new life: ‘Be you therefore perfect, as your Father who is in heaven is perfect.’ It has always been there, Jesus just reminds us of the Way to think and to act and to embrace what has been freely given to us.
But if the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ is not a new system of morality it follows that the promises attached to the ‘Beatitudes’ must not be regarded as the reward or result of the spiritual state with which they are respectively connected. It is not because a man is poor in spirit that his is the Kingdom of heaven, in the sense of growing into it, neither is the Kingdom the reward of being poor in spirit. It is simply a description of life in the Kingdom of heaven, a place where the poor in spirit can feel a sense of belonging.
The connecting link is in each case Jesus himself because he stands between our present and our future and ‘has opened the Kingdom of heaven to all believers.’ Thus, the promise represents the gift of grace by Jesus in the new Kingdom, as adapted to each case. It is Christ, then, as the King, who is here flinging open the gates of his Kingdom.
In the first part of the ‘Sermon on the Mount’, the Kingdom of God is described generally, first positively and then negatively, marking especially how its righteousness goes deeper than the mere letter of the Old Testament Law.
It opens with the Ten Beatitudes, which are the New Testament counterpart to the Ten Commandments. These present to us, not the observance of the Law written on stone, but the realisation of that Law which, by the Spirit, is written on the fleshly tablets of the heart. These Ten Commandments in the Old Covenant were preceded by a prologue. The Ten Beatitudes have, characteristically, not a prologue but an epilogue. This closes the first section, of which the object was to present the Kingdom of God.
This epilogue, in verses 17 to 20, forms a grand climax and transition to the criticism of the Old Testament Law in its merely literal application, as the Scribes and Pharisees tended to do. The second part is contained in Chapter 6 of Matthew. In this, the criticism of the Law is carried deeper, emphasising that there is more to it than mere observance of the outward commandments.
The Kingdom of God addresses motivations. What are the reasons for giving charitably? What constitutes riches and where should they be sought? This is indicated in verses 19 to 21. Regarding prayer, what really matters are our motivations and reasons for it. It is to lay our inner man wholly open to the light of God in genuine, earnest simplicity, to be quite shone through by him. And what prompts real fasting? A right view of the relation in which the body with its wants stands to God, the physical to the spiritual.
It is the spirit of prayer that must rule in all three areas; the self-dedication to God, the seeking first after the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, that man, self and life may be baptised in it. Such are the real charities, the real prayers, the real fasts of the Kingdom of God.
If we have understood the meaning of the two first parts of the ‘Sermon on the Mount,’ we cannot be at a loss to understand its third part, as outlined in Chapter seven of Matthew. First, the Kingdom of God cannot be limited. Secondly, it cannot be extended by external means, but rather it comes to us from God. Thirdly, it is not preached when it is merely thought of as an external kingdom. Lastly, it is very real, and true and good in its effects. And this Kingdom, as received by each of us, is like a solid house on a solid foundation, which nothing can shake or destroy.
The infinite contrast between the Kingdom as presented by Jesus, with Jewish contemporary teaching, is the more striking, that it was clothed in words with which all his hearers were familiar. No part of the New Testament has had a larger array of parallels in Rabbinic thought than the ‘Sermon on the Mount’. Many of these Rabbinic quotations are, however, entirely inappropriate, the similarity lying in an expression or a form of words. Occasionally, the misleading error goes even further and that is quoted in an illustration of Jesus’ sayings which implies quite the opposite. There is no room here for a detailed analysis, but a few examples will sufficiently illustrate our meaning.
To begin with the first Beatitude, to the poor in spirit, since theirs is the Kingdom of heaven. This early Jewish saying marks not the optimism, but the pessimism of life. ‘Ever be more and more lowly in spirit, since the expectancy of man is to become the food of worms.’ A contrast to Jesus’ promise of grace to the ‘poor in spirit’!
What of the promise of ‘the Kingdom of heaven?’ What did the Rabbis understand as the Kingdom to all men, Gentiles as well as Jews, who were poor in spirit? What fellowship of spirit can there be between Jewish teaching and the first Beatitude? It is the same sad self-righteousness that underlies the other Rabbinic parallels to the Beatitudes, pointing to the negative rather than the positive.
So, when the Rabbis talk of how blessed are the mourners, they are simply stating that much misery now makes up for punishment in the hereafter. No Rabbinic parallel can be found to the third Beatitude or to the fourth one, to those who hunger and thirst after righteousness. Rabbinism would have quite a different idea of ‘righteousness,’ considered as ‘good works’ and chiefly as charitable giving. They speak of a quality of mercy that is supposed not only to bring reward but to also atone for sins.
The Beatitude concerned with peace making has many analogies for the Rabbis but they would never have connected the designation of ‘children of God’ with any but Israel. A similar remark applies to the use of the expression ‘Kingdom of heaven’ in the next Beatitude. One by one, as we place the sayings of the Rabbis by the side of those of Jesus in this ‘Sermon on the Mount’, we notice opposite understandings, whether as regards righteousness, sin, repentance, faith, the Kingdom, charity, prayer, or fasting.
Only two points may be specially selected because they are so frequently brought forward by writers as proof that the sayings of Jesus did not rise above those of the chief Talmudic authorities. The first of these refers to the well-known words of our Lord, ‘Therefore all things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.’ This is compared to the following Rabbinic parallel, in which the gentleness of Hillel is contrasted with the opposite disposition of Shammai. The latter is said to have harshly repelled an intending proselyte, who wished to be taught the whole Law while standing on one foot, while Hillel received him with this saying: ‘What is hateful to you, do not to another. This is the whole Law, all else is only its explanation.’
Yet there is a vast difference between this negative command or the prohibition to do to others what is hateful to ourselves, and the positive direction to do to others as we would have them do to us. The first does not rise above the standpoint of the Law, being as yet far from that love which would lavish on others the good we desire. The second, from the mouth of Jesus, embodies the nearest approach to the absolute love of which human nature is capable, focussing on our conduct to others.
The second instance that is worth recounting is the supposed similarity between petitions in the Lord’s Prayer and Rabbinic prayers. Both the spirit and the manner of prayer are presented by the Rabbis so externally and with such details as to make it quite different from prayer as our Lord taught his disciples. It is scarcely necessary to point to the self-righteousness which is the most painful characteristic of Rabbinism.
But there are points of view that may be gained from Rabbinic writings. Helpful to the understanding of the ‘Sermon on the Mount,’ although not of its spirit. Thus, when we read that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Law, it is painfully interesting to find in the Talmud the following quotation and mistranslation of Matthew 5:17 ‘I have come not to diminish from the Law of Moses, nor yet have I come to add to the Law of Moses.’ But the Talmud here significantly omits the addition made by Jesus, on which all depends: ‘until all be fulfilled.’
Jewish tradition mentions this very letter yod (jot) as irremovable, adding that if all men in the world were gathered together to abolish the least letter in the Law, they would not succeed. Not a letter could be removed from the Law - a saying illustrated by this curiosity, that the yod which was taken by God out of the name of Sarah (Sarai), was added to that of Hoshea, making him Joshua (Jehoshua). Similarly, the guilt of changing those little hooks (‘tittles’) which make the distinction between some Hebrew letters is declared so great, that, if such were done, the world would be destroyed.
The above comparisons of Rabbinic sayings with those of our Lord lay no claim to completeness. They will, though. Help to explain the impression left on the hearers of Jesus. But what must have filled them with wonder and awe was that he who so taught also claimed to be the God-appointed final Judge of all, whose fate would be decided not merely by professed discipleship, but by their real relationship with him (Matthew 7:21-23).
‘The people were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as One having authority - and not as the Scribes.’
This is an extract from the book, Jesus : Life and Times, available for £10 here (Finalist for Academic Book of the year at 2023 CRT awards)