I’d appreciate people’s thoughts on Matthew 5:17-48 . This is one of those passages I thought I more or less understood, but after going through it briefly in bible study recently I’m not sure I do.

So, Jesus, sermon on the mount. The first thing I notice is the NIV labels, eg v17"The Fulfillment of the Law”. IMO the NIV labels pose some problems here. It seems to be that the next topics (murder, adultery, divorce) are Jesus illustrating his point in v20, “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” But the NIV labels make it look like Jesus was preaching from power point slides, and Matthew was only able to make notes from the the slides after the sermon.

If it is the case that Jesus is illustrating his point in v20 with these examples, then whenever they are preached on, surely it would be a mistake to simply take the NIV labelled sections on their own as bite sized teachings (eg again esp murder, adultery and divorce) - you’d miss the real point Jesus was making. I’ve often heard it said that what Jesus means in these verses is that anger at a brother is “the same” or “in the same spirit” as murdering them - likewise adultery, to “looks at a woman lustfully” is akin to adultery. Its all sin after all! But surely this isn’t true - its logically impossible. Being angry at someone isn’t murdering them, and nor is lusting after someone the same as commiting adultery with them. Obviously not! So what is Jesus saying?

Well, again IMO, its clear that Jesus is using hyperbole to make the point that “unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven”. He is not saying anger = murder and looking lustfully = adultery!! But so often I’ve heard this implied - its the same spirit, or same motive, or its all sin anyway or whatever. And I’m sure many people (probably younger Christians) struggle with this and beat themselves up over it. Surely the point is just that you are too sinful to get into heaven on your own - your righteousness would have to surpass the Pharisees and the teachers of the law - impossible! And I don’t think much more can be read out the passage that this. (Others may disagree?)

Ok, here’s where I have probs. Later parts of the chapter, and chapter 6 make things less clear than I suggested. If what I’ve said above is accurate then what does this mean for Jesus’ other examples later in the chapter? Is the next one…

31”It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Then the next para seems to be hyperbole again:

...If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.  40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.  41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.  42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Good point Jesus, well made. But again Jesus is using hyperbole, and how does that reflect on the divorce comment (and all the rest)? (I’m not interested in the theology of divorce per se, but how to read those verses.)

Of course Jesus use of hyperbole isn’t all or nothing. There are bits and pieces thrown in with general advice. But deciding what is and what isn’t is difficult…

Now, toward the end of chapter 5 and into chapter 6, it starts to look like this is Matthew’s “best of” collection of teachings from the sermon on the mount, and contrary to my critisim of the NIV above, these really are disparate, bite-sized chunks of wisdom. Ch 5 finishes with what the NIV labels “An Eye for an Eye” and “Love for Enemies”, and then Ch 6 (this seems like a pointless break) continues with “Giving to the Needy”, “Prayer”, “Fasting” and so on. Do we agree that the first ‘topics’ in chapter 5 I mentioned earlier (murder, adultery, divorce) are illustrations of the point that “unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” , and then by extension, the rest of Chapter 5 and 6 are also examples of this (I find that hard to believe). Or am I wrong about murder, adultery, divorce being examples, and they really are just bite size teachings the NIV labelled correctly? Thats what the rest of 5 and 6 would seem to indicate.

And last of all, what do make of this verse, after being told how impossible it is for us to be perfect?

48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

phew! I hope that makes some vague sense. I think its TV time… :)

Re: Matthew 5

After coming back from an Oktoberfest celebration, this may not be the best time to respond, but I shall try.

First up: The Labels

To me the labels often used are as confusing as some of the verse and chapter divisions that whacky French cardinal (whose name I have forgotten) gave us.  I tend to take them as suggestions and skip them whenever possible [although they are useful for finding parables and miracles quickly if you can’t remember exactly where they are!] It does annoy me [Lord, forgive me] when people read them in church as part of the passage.

*laugh* about the Powerpoint(TM) [in case any MS execs are reading] and Jesus, Luke!

[quote author="Luke Stevens"]If it is the case that Jesus is illustrating his point in v20 with these examples, then whenever they are preached on, surely it would be a mistake to simply take the NIV labelled sections on their own as bite sized teachings (eg again esp murder, adultery and divorce) - you’d miss the real point Jesus was making. I’ve often heard it said that what Jesus means in these verses is that anger at a brother is “the same” or “in the same spirit” as murdering them - likewise adultery, to “looks at a woman lustfully” is akin to adultery. Its all sin after all! But surely this isn’t true - its logically impossible. Being angry at someone isn’t murdering them, and nor is lusting after someone the same as commiting adultery with them. Obviously not! So what is Jesus saying?

Well, again IMO, its clear that Jesus is using hyperbole to make the point that “unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven”. He is not saying anger = murder and looking lustfully = adultery!! But so often I’ve heard this implied - its the same spirit, or same motive, or its all sin anyway or whatever. And I’m sure many people (probably younger Christians) struggle with this and beat themselves up over it. Surely the point is just that you are too sinful to get into heaven on your own - your righteousness would have to surpass the Pharisees and the teachers of the law - impossible! And I don’t think much more can be read out the passage that this. (Others may disagree?)

* Raises hand to disagree *

I tend to go with the explanation you have given as generally said as the one I take.  No doubt in some form Jesus is using hyperbole [esp in v29-30: I am sure God does not want a whole army of one-eyed, one-armed Christians wandering around earth].

To me it is about realising what the Law was all about, and Jesus fulfilling it.  I agree with you that we don’t want young (or old!) Christians beating themselves up unnecessarily - the fact we are forgiven through Christ is something that we should always be aware and thankful of.  However, I see these teachings of Jesus as going that one step further: not to condemn all and sundry, but to help us to see that the spirit of actions is often as important as the action itself.

Person A may lust after every woman in his office and commit adultery with them all.  Person B, who we will take to be a “righteous fellow”, may not commit adultery with anyone, but may lust after them in his own mind.  Person B may therefore believe he is somehow better than Person A as he hasn’t “done the deed”, but I believe that Jesus is trying to counteract this belief, and help us to realise, as you said Luke, “that you are too sinful to get into heaven on your own” [Perhaps I am agreeing with you after all!!!]

In terms of “unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law”, I see it as aiming to wake up the populace.  We often see the Pharisees as the bad guys, but to the Jews back then they were the Jensens, the Archbishops, etc… - people we view as righteous.  Jesus was pointing out the error of their ways as the Pharisees and teachers of the Law often took an all-too-human and burdening interpretation - there is a better way through the examples Jesus showed us.

[quote author="Luke Stevens"]
Ok, here’s where I have probs. Later parts of the chapter, and chapter 6 make things less clear than I suggested. If what I’ve said above is accurate then what does this mean for Jesus’ other examples later in the chapter? Is the next one…

31”It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Then the next para seems to be hyperbole again:

...If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.  40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.  41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.  42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Good point Jesus, well made. But again Jesus is using hyperbole, and how does that reflect on the divorce comment (and all the rest)? (I’m not interested in the theology of divorce per se, but how to read those verses.)

<cut>

Now, toward the end of chapter 5 and into chapter 6, it starts to look like this is Matthew’s “best of” collection of teachings from the sermon on the mount, and contrary to my critisim of the NIV above, these really are disparate, bite-sized chunks of wisdom. Ch 5 finishes with what the NIV labels “An Eye for an Eye” and “Love for Enemies”, and then Ch 6 (this seems like a pointless break) continues with “Giving to the Needy”, “Prayer”, “Fasting” and so on. Do we agree that the first ‘topics’ in chapter 5 I mentioned earlier (murder, adultery, divorce) are illustrations of the point that “unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” , and then by extension, the rest of Chapter 5 and 6 are also examples of this (I find that hard to believe). Or am I wrong about murder, adultery, divorce being examples, and they really are just bite size teachings the NIV labelled correctly? Thats what the rest of 5 and 6 would seem to indicate.

Of course Jesus use of hyperbole isn’t all or nothing. There are bits and pieces thrown in with general advice. But deciding what is and what isn’t is difficult…

I agree they are tough, and I pray for someone wiser to come along and help. 

In terms of the second example, I see this as you do I think Luke: hyperbole in a sense - also as helping us to view our thoughts and not just actions.  I have heard it said this may be a reference to remember the poor, also.  The first seems to be a literal statement.

I personally believe they may very well be “bite sized chunks” and have no real problem with that.  As Matthew, and the other Gospels, was written many years after the event, no doubt it could be a “best of”.  Alternatively, Jesus may have jumped from topic to topic: unless we build a time machine we may never really know.

As you said, Luke, working out what (if any?) may be hyperbole and what is not is difficult.  I often worry I may take an easy option out as say this is hyperbole when it is not as it seems like a hard teaching.  But then I look to the wisdom of those more experienced than me [theologians, Church Fathers, etc.] and test what they believe.  Using our (and others’) God-given intelligence, I believe we can find a way through. 

I do not personally neatly divide up the Sermon on the Mount, or at least I try not to, so that Chapter 5a is literal, 5b and 6 are not, etc.  I try and take each saying as it comes.  I’d be very interested in other’s thoughts.

[quote author="Luke Stevens"]
And last of all, what do make of this verse, after being told how impossible it is for us to be perfect?

48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

phew! I hope that makes some vague sense. I think its TV time… :)

Or bed time! ;-)

I love that verse, though it does scare me at times!

To me it is an ideal: God knows we can never be perfect on our own and most likely will never be perfect while in this mortal coil.  However, that is what we are to *aim* for: remove the lustful thoughts as soon as you catch them; if someone is in need and you can help, HELP!; if someone wrongs you, forgive them...hard teachings, no wonder so many turned back [John 6:60ff] and left Jesus.  But by God’s strength we can hopefully continue and finish the race.

Speaking of finishing, I am.  I hope I haven’t rambled too much and I hope you find my musings useful Luke.

God bless,
Ian.

Hi Luke,

I certainly don’t have the Sermon on the Mount completely ‘sorted out’, but I’ll offer a few thoughts towards your mulling.

Following the introductory Beatitudes and salt-and-light metaphors, I think 5:17-20 are kind of like the central proposition, the thesis statement, if you like, of the whole sermon. Basically it is this: Greater righteousness will be required of Jesus’ disciples, even than that under the law.

The rest of chapter 5 contains six antithetical statements that contrast Jesus’ teaching with the law, in each case demonstrating that thesis in practice - that more is required of Jesus’ disciples than that explicated in the law. These culminate in the climactic statement, “Be perfect, therefore, as your father in heaven is perfect”, which echoes the law - “Be Holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy” (Leviticus 19:2).

Chapter 6:1-18 again contrasts the righteousness Jesus requires with that of the Pharisees, by three examples of true piety -v- hypocritical piety (i.e. piety looking for approval from men rather than God).

The rest of Chapter 6 shows us the worldview of the righteous - they seek first God’s kingdom and righteousness (v33); they are preoccupied with the coming kingdom (which Jesus is bringing cf 4:17), and therefore have no time to be concerned with accumulating material possessions (which the Pharisees, seeing material prosperity as God’s blessing, still were).

Matthew 7:1-12 pre-empts those listening to the sermon thinking about others rather than themselves, and drives them back to self-examination, exhorting them to depend upon God for everything and ‘do to others as you would have them do unto you’.

Then the rest of the sermon gives three illustrations of the ‘two ways to live’ - there are only two possible responses to this sermon, with warnings of snags along the way (wolves in sheeps clothing).

So yes, the penultimate statement of this sermon is 5:48:

“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect.”

That is Jesus’ standard of righteousness. That is the standard required of Jesus’ followers. Nothing can change that.

Luke Stevens wrote:

Surely the point is just that you are too sinful to get into heaven on your own - your righteousness would have to surpass the Pharisees and the teachers of the law - impossible! And I don’t think much more can be read out the passage that this. (Others may disagree?)

Luther popularised the view that the SOTM functions in the Matthew’s gospel a bit like Paul’s discourses on the law - by showing how hopeless our state is, we are driven to seek the Saviour.

There is some truth in this. To see that one only has to look at the pericope immediately following the Sermon (8:1-4).

There we find Jesus, having just asserted the highest ethical requirements possible, immediately confronted with the exact antithesis of everything he has just taught - a leper.

In Jewish thought, we are talking about the ultimate sinner - more than that, someone cursed by God. Anytime a leper came near another person, he had to walk about yelling “unclean, unclean” which is more or less like yelling “Cursed by God, Cursed by God”. In fact, this man’s curse of separation from God’s people was so profound it was contagious - to touch him was to be infected with his curse.

It is no accident that Matthew places this story immediately after the SOTM. Confronted with this man, Jesus “reached out his hand and touched the man”. Matthew almost describes every muscular movement of Jesus as if to grab our attention like a slow motion moment in a movie. This action should render Jesus cursed. But where Jesus is involved, the power runs the other way. The leper is blessed, he is clean, cured, restored to God’s people.

So yes, Luther is right, the SOTM sets us up to seek a Saviour - it makes our need all the more plain and all the more desperate. Chapter 8 (and, of course, the rest of the Jesus story) shows us that Jesus’ mission is not just about dispensing requirements - it is about providing the transformation we need to meet those requirements.

But the sermon still plays another function. It does lay out our pattern of life. It sets the standard of righteousness into which contact with Jesus is supposed to transform us.

So often when I talk with Christians about the need to be perfect, I find they always want to leave the conversation with the final word being something like “Yes, but of course we will still sin.”

This is true as a statement, and profoundly wrong as an attitude. I fear it has the effect of dampening every exhortation towards righteousness permeating scripture back into our comfort zone.

Nowhere in the bible are you left with anything like that as the final word. You are always left with something more like, “It is totally illogical that a Christian should continue to sin”. That is the disposition of the Christian. It doesn’t deny that sin does continue. But grace should drive our relentless pursuit of perfection without distraction by self-absorbed guilt complexes, not relax our pursuit of perfection into a kind of laissez-faire complacency.

So let the full rhetorical force of Jesus’ words ring in your ears. Don’t rush to fit them all into your theological system, and so suffocate Jesus’ sermon under the weight of a thousand qualifications.

Never be content with a sin. Never be relaxed about a misdemeanour, even an unrighteous thought. Be perfect. Perfect like God.

[quote author="Matthew Williams"]So often when I talk with Christians about the need to be perfect, I find they always want to leave the conversation with the final word being something like “Yes, but of course we will still sin.”

This is true as a statement, and profoundly wrong as an attitude. I fear it has the effect of dampening every exhortation towards righteousness permeating scripture back into our comfort zone.

Nowhere in the bible are you left with anything like that as the final word. You are always left with something more like, “It is totally illogical that a Christian should continue to sin”. That is the disposition of the Christian. It doesn’t deny that sin does continue. But grace should drive our relentless pursuit of perfection without distraction by self-absorbed guilt complexes, not relax our pursuit of perfection into a kind of laissez-faire complacency.

So let the full rhetorical force of Jesus’ words ring in your ears. Don’t rush to fit them all into your theological system, and so suffocate Jesus’ sermon under the weight of a thousand qualifications.

Never be content with a sin. Never be relaxed about a misdemeanour, even an unrighteous thought. Be perfect. Perfect like God.

* applauds wildly and wishes I could express things like that! *

Ian.

Just a brief comment

Greeting all,
I would like to share one or two thoughts on these matters if I may.

I ask firstly this rhetorical question:  When we prey, what connects our thoughts to the Throne room?  Do we have a built in exchange or a direct connection?

I agree with Mark that the Niv labels are confusing and should most certainly not be read out in Church.(or considered in Bible study)

On the matter of Jesus’ teachings such as on anger/murder and lust/adultery I have a somewhat conventional understanding.

I believe that Jesus’ use of anger here is meant to be understood in terms of H-A-T-E.  He says that anger will make us liable to judgement, not that we are automatically condemned. I see in His thought the idea of us avoiding judgement by dealing with the anger. 
There are many degrees of anger and many causes of it. We all need to get rid of anger quickly because it is a growing thing; it festers and it gives birth to hate, bitterness and all manner of garbage.  The pharasees would have said in such a case that as long as the deed remained undone...no harm is done. 
Anger is going to come at some time to all of us; it is what we do with it or about it that is important.  The young(and old) need not feel defeated when they do feel anger but they must deal with it swiftly and effectively lest hate grow and take hold in their lives; hate can lead to murder.

In like manner, I see in Jesus’ words a recognition that when a man lusts after a woman, he is contemplating the actuality of the deed.  It might not come to pass since it ‘takes two to tango’ however if it were on the board at all it would happen.  So in the heart it has; if thoughts were deeds as the saying goes.
However again we are dealing with an extreme case; perhasps not so much extreme as extended.  We are dealing with a wrong attitude to ourselves and to that/those women and above all a wrong attitude to the Lord when we look lustfully at a woman.
We need not feel guilty if we look with appreciation at a woman; that is another thing entirely; to be attracted to one of the opposite gender is natural enough and that is not lust.( I speak from a singles perspective of course)
Attraction and lust are two different things though attraction can lead to lust.  It all depends on what we do with it. I am married, if I see a woman who is attractive then I see a woman who is attractive.  If I take that further and entertain desire then I have indeed adulterated my marriage and all without having even so much as spoken to her.

And what of my relationship with the Lord?  All these things; anger>>hate, attraction>>>lust are direct connected to the ears of the Lord. We can not think thoughts that are in some way closed off from the Lord’s knowledge; we can’t put Him on hold while we think dishonouring thoughts.
What I think, those thoughts I entertain are a prayer.  Sometimes a reverential prayer, but alas sometimes a not so reverential prayer.
Jesus sums sum these thoughts I believe with this: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Of course we can not be ‘perfect’ as the Father is ‘perfect’, but we can and must work on it.

Doug

Not sure if this helps or not…

The word for “perfect” is the same word for “mature” that, for instance, Paul uses in Colossians 1:28,
“We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone mature in Christ.”
(also Phil 3:12, 15; Heb 5:14 etc)

Hello Mark, yes I think it is the same idea.

I did also have in mind a disciplined approach to thought somewhat along the lines that certain thoughts are contrary to Christ and to holiness.  Those thoughts then are enmity to the gospel and thus must be brought into subjection to Christ or to pinch Paul’s phraseology as in 2 Cor 10:5

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 

This is not the most popular exegesis of that passage, however the point still applies, that thoughts hostile to the gospel and therefor our relationship to the Lord must be brought into subjection to Christ.  Any pretention of thought that allows us to indulge in impure thoughts, to fantise scenarios that would be sinful if brought to actuality must be rejected ASAP.
Thoughts of anger and lust (being contrary to love) need to be understood as being ‘against the knowledge of God’ and must be taken captive just as we would take captive any other enemy.

Feelings of guilt for having these thoughts comes from our claiming ownership of them; not from conquering them.