JESUS’ ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE LAW IN LIGHT OF MATTHEW 5:17-48
By: Girma Wojo AlaloA Thesis Submitted to the Ethiopian Graduate School of Theology [EGST] in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Arts in Biblical and Theological Studies [MABTS]
Supervisor: Bekele Deboch [PhD.]
ETHIOPIAN GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
June 2018
1.1. Background of the Study
I. INTRODUCTION
Matthew 5:17-48 is one of the New Testament canonical texts which have been a central place in the discussion of Jesus‟ relation to the Law and over which there have been considerable scholarly debates going on. The continuing validity of the law, the demand for perfect righteousness in the eschatological kingdom, and the interpretation of fulfilment are some debatable issues in the passage.
Furthermore, some also suggest as there is inconsistency in the passage. Jesus, while claiming as he has come for the fulfilment of the law and announcing the expected judgment against antinomians in verses 17-20, he seemingly reinterprets the law in the commonly called “antitheses” texts using the formula- “It was said...but I say to you…” in verses 21-48.
Therefore, taking the existence of these ambiguities into the consideration, the study has attempted to disambiguate some of the issues in the passage and argued for the consistency of the passage in describing Jesus‟s attitude towards the law.
1.2. Research question
The question that the thesis attempts to address was that what is the implication of Jesus‟ demonstration of antithetical examples in verses 21-48? Is that to invalidate the significances of the existing law (Torah) or intensifying it by showing the true intent and transcendent meaning of the law?
1.3. Thesis statement
As it is indicated in the passage, some of Jesus‟ audiences might have a thought that Jesus has come to abrogate the law so that observing the law is no more significant for them (5:17).1
1 George Eldon Ladd. A Theology of the New Testament. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993), 222.
For this matter, Jesus clearly identifies himself as the one who has come not to nullify the law but to fulfill what it demands (17-20). In addition to this, Jesus‟ language of “you have heard”, “It was said…but I say to you” indicates as there were misconception and interpretation among his contemporaries that evades the ultimate purpose of the law so that using six examples, Jesus has demonstrated the transcendent meaning of the law.
Thus, the researcher has attempted to argue that Jesus‟ „demonstration of the so-called antithetical interpretation (vv.21-48) should be read in light of the opening remark (vv.1720) and the epilogue of the passage- the ethical demand of the new kingdom (48), accordingly, Jesus does not alter, nullify or replace the former commandments rather by correcting misunderstanding and teaching of the law of his contemporaries, he merely intensifies it by showing the true intent and transcendent meaning of the law.
1.4. Rationale
From a serious reading of the passage, we can be aware of the ambiguity regarding Jesus‟ teaching and practices in relation to the law so that he had or has been misunderstood by some of his contemporaries and today‟s reader as well. Sometimes, on the one hand, he is considered as antinomian in practice and very radical on the other. Throughout the readings of Matthew 5:17-48 we can see that Jesus claims as he has not come to abolish the law (vv. 17-20) though, he also was found reinterpreting the existing law in a new way (21-48) which might seem inconsistent with his claim. Hence, the critical and exegetical study of the passage would be a possible way of clearing out these ambiguities regarding Jesus‟ attitude towards the law. Therefore, making an effort to exegete and analyze Matthew 5:17–48 would be an essential task in having a clear understanding of Jesus‟ attitudes towards the laws.
1.5. Limitation
For the complete understanding of the text, it needs engaging into the detail studies of the Matthaean Christology in general and other thematic and programmatic arguments. The issues of the eschatological kingdom of the Messiah, the quest of righteousness in the kingdom, and the discussion on the continuity versus discontinuity of the validity of the Torah are some factors which can be integrated into this kind of study. However, because of the scope of the study and various limitations, these issues were not dealt in detail. In addition to this, the exegesis would not be on a verse by verse rather focusing on key verses and themes supposed to be an essential in indicating Jesus‟ attitude towards the law.
1.6. Methodology
Since the study is aimed at grasping the exegetical and analytical meaning of the text, it is expected to apply an integrated methodology of an exegetical biblical study. Hence, considering the view that Matthew used Mark and Q as the source, this research prefers to employ both source and redaction criticism methods in an integrated manner. As James Dunn has suggested, source and redaction criticism methods are the most applied methods in Matthean scholarship.2 Using the source criticism method as a tool has helped the researcher to identify the source of Matthean phrases and wordings unique from the synoptic. The redaction criticism method also enabled the researcher to explore how and why the author consistently has edited his sources in order to express his theological perspectives. As it is suggested by Warren Carter, redaction criticism is so helpful in addressing the circumstances of the community being addressed3 so that the researcher has known more about the
2 James D. G. Dunn. Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Way (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.100, 1999), 100.
3 Warren Carter. Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publisher, 2004) 243.
community referred in the passage and notified with their understanding in regard Jesus „attitude towards the law.
1.7. Overview of the Research
After setting out an appropriate methodological tool for its study, the review of literature related to the topic has also been assessed in brief. Followed to this, the attempt was made on the study of context and the text in order to get a comprehensive understanding of the contextual background of the discourse. The leading Matthaean key terminologies related to the topic has also been seen in brief. Then selected verses of the passage supposed to be a key for addressing the thesis question was analyzed. Finally, the thesis came to its conclusion.
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The literature related to Jesus‟ attitude towards the law in Matthew is so extensive. A large number of scholars have made efforts to have clear insights on Jesus‟ stance in relation to the Law. Matthew 5:17-48 is mostly focused passage by New Testament scholarship whereby Jesus has claimed as he has come for the fulfillment of the Law and he has also shown the ultimate meaning of the Laws by reinterpreting. Hence, by referring to this passage various scholars come up with different suggestions and positions. Some take a position that Jesus should not be seen as abrogating the Old Testament Law rather he was intensifying its continuing validity by correcting misunderstanding and misinterpretation of his time.
Contrary to this position, others suggest that Jesus‟ claim as he has come to fulfill the Law and his teaching about the inauguration of the new kingdom era must be seen in the way that Jesus is the end of the Law so that no longer the Law has its continuing validity. Furthermore, some scholars also tend to question that some sayings in the passage might not be the sayings of the historical Jesus but probably the later polemical works of the Christian Judaism. Some others are concerned about the reductions in the passage that has made intentionally by the author due to the intention of establishing his theological themes. Considering as a solution others prefer focusing on the study of the social settings of the Matthean community for better understanding of the passage within its context.
Accordingly, this paper attempts reviewing some literature related to my thesis topic- Jesus‟ attitude towards the law in light of Matthew 5:17-48.
One of the scholars who has come up with the best work is William R. G. Loader. In his book titled “Jesus‟ attitude towards the Law”, before presenting his own perspective on the issue, giving significant portion, Loader has reviewed the current and previous researchers of
scholarship on Jesus‟ stance in relation to the Law according to the records of the canonical gospels and then finally he has come up with his own positions.
Loader, quoting to Gerhard Barth‟s work, suggests that Matthew has expounded Torah on two fronts. The first front is “against lax Christians who believe the law has been abolished or modified (7:15-23; 24:10-11) and the second against rabbinic casuistry”.4 The study of the large context can give the hint that Matthew has Jesus who expounds the centrality of love in interpreting Torah (22:34-40; 12:9-14; 7:12; 23:23; 12:1-8; 18:12-35) by striking against any suggestion that Torah has lost its validity.5
According to Loader, particularly, Matthew 5:17-48 arranged into two main parts. The first one is “statements of principle (5:17-20) and the other is an exposition of six aspects of Torah in 5:21-48.”6 According to him, “the rigorous demands of 5:18-19 and the way Torah is treated in 5:21-48 belong together.”7 Thus, he suggests, the better way of approaching the passage could be considered the antithesis as a frame of the demand for total obedience expressed in 5:20 and 5:48.8
Hence, Loader argues that “the Matthean Jesus is concerned about Torah interpretation of his time so that he should not be seen as abrogating Old Testament Law.”9 Furthermore, he also suggests the importance of identifying the social function of 5:17-48 for a comprehensive understanding of the passage.10
4 William R. G. Loader, Jesus’ attitude towards the law (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002), 137.
5 Loader, Jesus’ attitude towards the law, 137.
6 Loader, Jesus’ attitude towards the law,165.
7 Loader, Jesus’ attitude towards the law, 165.
8Loader, Jesus’ attitude towards the law, 179.
9 Loader, Jesus’ attitude towards the law, 181.
10 Loader, Jesus’ attitude towards the law, 181.
Therefore, Loader takes the position that Matthew‟s emphasis in Matthew 5:17-48 as a whole is about confirming and upholding the validity of the Law and Prophets so that in the passage the focus is not on Jesus replacing the law rather “on the Law in particular and upholding it and giving instruction so that it is rightly fulfilled.”11
Contrary to Loader Robert Banks suggests that “for Matthew, then, it is not the question of Jesus' relation to the Law that is in doubt but rather its relation to him!”12
Robert Banks begins his discussion by suggesting the importance of the passage for an understanding of Jesus‟ attitude to the Law.13 He also notes how the passage has been passed through different stages gave various emphasis based on the methodologies employed. Banks says “in the first stage of historic-critical inquiry the passage was almost unanimously accepted as an authentic utterance of Jesus. However, with the arrival of the form-critical methodology, it was, for the most part, relegated to a conservative Jewish-Christian milieu.”14
Later on the advent of redaction-critical analysis, the focus has been shifted to the study of the passage giving more emphasis to the role of the evangelist in re-working the tradition.15
Analysis of the comparisons of the Matthean usage of words and phrases in the passage with the other synoptic parallels lead some scholars including Banks to suggest that in most cases, most probably, Matthew having been influenced in his choice of words because of the tendency that he had “to heighten the Christological import of Jesus' sayings.”16
11 Loader, Jesus’ attitude towards the law, 166-167.
12 Loader, Jesus’ attitude towards the law, 240.
13 Robert Banks, “Matthew's Understanding of the Law: Authenticity and Interpretation in Matthew 5:17-20”, Journal of Biblical Literature, 93, 2 (Jun., 1974), 226.
14 Banks, “Matthew's Understanding of the Law”, 226.
15 Banks, “Matthew's Understanding of the Law”, 226.
16 Banks, “Matthew's Understanding of the Law”, 227-31
Banks‟ point of view in relation to Jesus‟s attitude towards the Law is that the term “fulfil” (plereo) in Matthew 5:17 is used to mean both the prophetic teachings and the Mosaic Laws point forward to the teachings and actions of Christ and have also been realized in him in a more profound manner.17 Therefore, according to Banks‟ examination of the passage (Matthew 5:17-20), Matthew has been attempting to draw out some of the theological implications, and practical consequences of the attitude Jesus adopts.18 Banks says
“This leads him to emphasize the prophetic, and so provisional, function of the Mosaic legislation and to underline its realization and fulfilment in Christ's ministry; to highlight the authoritative character of Jesus' utterances and to indicate the polemical ramifications of his position for contemporary Jewish approaches to the Law; to stress the need for obedience to Jesus' teachings and to find an adequate ethical terminology to describe the character or the conduct which Jesus demands.”19
Consequently, Banks come to the conclusion that Matthew‟s focus “is not so much Jesus' stance towards the Law that he is concerned to depict; it is how the Law stands with regard to him, as the one who brings it to fulfilment and to whom all attention must now be directed”, therefore, for Matthew, then, “it is not the question of Jesus' relation to the Law but rather its relation to him!”20 In saying this Banks takes the position contrary to William Loader who claims as Matthew has emphasized not on Jesus replacing the law rather on the Law in particular and upholding it and giving instruction so that it is rightly fulfilled.
John P. Meier is the one among the scholars who strongly suggest on the existence of the problem while studying the relationship of the historical Jesus and the historical law.
Meier‟s recommendation to the readers of the gospels that has to be taken into consideration is about the works of the first and second generation of Christians as they were selective in
17 Banks, “Matthew's Understanding of the Law”, 231.
18 Banks, “Matthew's Understanding of the Law”, 231.
19 Banks, “Matthew's Understanding of the Law”, 231.
20 Banks, “Matthew's Understanding of the Law”, 242.
their writings and even they have reformulated, created, and probably deleted some sayings of Jesus on the Law. This is for the reason that each of the four evangelists has his own understanding of the Law and also has used different sources upon which he draws.21
Furthermore, Meier tries to show the extent of the problem saying;
“All these activities reflected the needs and problems of a group of Jews for Jesus as they both argued with other Jews and at the same time struggled to incorporate all-too-recently pagan Gentiles into their holy assembly of the last days, the church. It was this creative and somewhat chaotic matrix that gave birth to the various reinterpretations of Jesus‟ approach to the Law that we find in the four Gospels. Here, then, is the nub of the problem: we find in the Gospels not simply Jesus‟ interpretation of the Law but, first of all, the four evangelists‟ reinterpretation of Jesus‟ interpretation of the Law. Realizing this should make us more than a little wary of blithely quoting any and every pronouncement of Jesus on the Law that we find in the Gospels as though it must come from the historical Jesus, provided it sounds sufficiently Jewish.”22
Having such a view on the works of the gospel writers, Meier prefers to see each and every gospel narratives in critical ways. Therefore, Meier suggests that Matt 5:17–48 is one of the passages where Matthew‟s articulation and redaction can be seen. Thus, the passage as a whole is about “the theology of a Christian evangelist in the second half of the 1st century than it does about the teaching of a Jew named Jesus in the first half of the 1st century.”23
Referring to the use of the verb “fulfill” (plēroō) in Matthew 5:17 as the indication of Jesus‟ relation to the Law and the prophets, Meier says that it is a clear indicator of Matthew‟s own redactional hand.24 The introductory phrase “Do not think that” before the main part of the
21 John P. Meier, A marginal Jew: rethinking the historical Jesus, Vol. 4, (London: Yale University Press, 2009) 40-42. 22 Meier, A marginal Jew, 41. 23 Meier, A marginal Jew, 41. 24 Meier, A marginal Jew, 41.
Christological statement, “I have come…” (5:17; 10:34), which is the only usage of Matthew within the New Testament, is the other more indications of Matthew‟s redactional hand.25
Labelling the name “the magic mantra” for the passage Matthew 5:17-48 because it is cited and argued over and over in relation to Jesus‟ attitude towards the law, Meier concludes that Matthew 5:17-48 does not offer a solution for the enigma of Jesus and the Law rather it poses a problem.26 Meier‟s critical observation of the passage is helpful to note the redactions in the pericope and the reason why the author prefers describing Jesus‟ relationship to the Law in such way. Nevertheless, Meier‟s conclusion of generalization on the significance of the passage as it does not give any contribution to the quest of understanding Jesus‟ relationship with the Law is not such a convincing suggestion. Rather, I would say that the study of Matthew 5:17-48 with the cautions mind has significance on knowing Jesus‟ stance in relation to the Law.
Suggesting the essentiality of the contextual study of the passage, Eric D. Huntsman comments that the six antitheses established by the Matthean Jesus should not be seen in isolation with its larger context. Matthew 5:17-48 is “integral parts of the other arguments of the first section of the Sermon on the Mount.”27 Thus, the whole discourses of the chapter are interconnected. As Huntsman has said the preceding sections such as the teaching about Beatitudes (5:3–12) and a section that the marks of Disciples listed out (5:13–16) are clear indications of what it meant for Jesus to fulfill the law (5:17-20).28 Thus, Huntsman argues that in “the antitheses Jesus was neither nullifying nor replacing the law, but rather
25 Meier, A marginal Jew, 42.
26 Meier, A marginal Jew, 42.
27 Eric D. Huntsman, The Six Antitheses: Attaining the Purpose of the Law through the Teachings of Jesus, (Religious Studies Center) Accessed on January 10-2018 https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/sermon-mount-latter-day-scripture/6-six-antitheses-attainingpurpose-law-through-teaching-0
28 Huntsman, The Six Antitheses, "n.p.”
intensifying it and helping the believer better fulfill its intent” that leads them to the perfection which is the demand of the eschatological kingdom (5:48)29
Therefore, plausibly, Huntsman underlines that the Matthean Jesus expects the disciples and challenges his followers for deeper spirituality and observance which should be articulated not only superficially in action but also in thought and motivation.30
Jack Dean Kingsbury sees the issue in a different way. He has the opinion that each "antithesis" in some respect supersedes a "thesis" of the Mosaic Law.31 He analyses the pericope dividing into three parts. The first part is where Jesus reminds disciples of the traditional custom that they have heard (the formula of “you have heard”) in the Jewish synagogue. The second part is identified as the formula of “it was said”, according to Kingsbury, features the use of the "divine passive". The third part ("to the people of old") is supposed as it refers to the Israelites at Sinai who received the law and the generations subsequent to them as well.32 “But I say to you…” formula is set in contrast to this introductory formula. Thus, considering Jesus‟ antitheses as against to the Law given at Sinai through Moses, Kingsbury concludes that in such way “Jesus the son of God dares to place his word and his authority above those of Moses.”33
The problem of this conclusion is that how Jesus can against the Mosaic Law while claiming as he has come for its fulfillment (5:17) and even warning whosoever tends to break one of these least commandments, and teaches in against (5:18-19). The context does not confirm
29 Huntsman, The Six Antitheses, "n.p.”
30 Huntsman, The Six Antitheses, "n.p.”
31 Jack Dean Kingsbury “The Place, Structure, and Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, VOL. XLI • NO. 2 (APRIL 1987):139.
32 Kingsbury “The Place, Structure, and Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount”, 139.
33 Kingsbury “The Place, Structure, and Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount”, 139.
such view that Jesus dares to replace the Law. It rather shows as Jesus deepening the intended meaning of the Law.
Remarking the importance of the passage for an examination of Jesus‟ stance regarding the Old Testament Law, Douglas J. Moo interprets the passage in salvific-historical view.34 He also pointed out various viewpoints suggested by different scholars. Some hold the view that against over the Jewish‟s misinterpretations, Jesus has restated the true meanings of the Mosaic Law.35 The other point of view holds the position that having the ethical demand of the New Kingdom in mind Jesus has profoundly promulgated and radicalized the meaning of the Law over the original one.36 Opposing to this, others hold the view that in verse 19 when Jesus says “these least commandments” it is not referring to the Old Testament commandments, rather he is referring to his own teachings as it must be kept and focused.37 The shortfall of this view is its separation of verse 17-9 which are so interrelated and clearly referring to the Old Testament Laws. Thus, the phrase “these commandments” (v.19) could not be referred to Jesus‟ own teachings but it is crystal clear that he is referring to the Old Testament Laws (vv.17-18).
Now turning to Moo‟s position, he holds the view that Jesus‟ teaching about the Law is probably suggesting “the discontinuity within the overall continuity of the law for guidance in the way they are to live.”38 Therefore, according to his suggestion, the Mosaic Law is no longer active as the standard of conduct for God's people so that it is superseded by Jesus'
34 Douglas J. Moo, “The Law of Christ as the Fulfilment of the Law of Moses: A Modified Lutheran View” in Five Views on Law and Gospel, Edited by Wayne G. Strickland (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996) 348.
35 Moo, “The Law of Christ as the Fulfilment of the Law of Moses, 348.
36 Moo, “The Law of Christ as the Fulfilment of the Law of Moses, 348.
37 Moo“The Law of Christ as the Fulfilment of the Law of Moses,353
38 Moo, “The Law of Christ as the Fulfilment of the Law of Moses, 353.
39
ministry and teaching, therefore, the disciples to look to Jesus as the fulfiller of the law and only his teaching as guidance in the way they are to live.
It is Greg L. Bahnsen, who strongly has responded to Moo‟s position. Greg L. Bahnsen convincingly refutes the suggestion that Jesus in this pericope teaches about the discontinuity of the Mosaic commandments.40 Unlike Moo, Bahnsen argues that Jesus‟ focus in Matthew 5:17-19 is not about the redemptive provision, atonement or prophecy but about the ethical instruction of the Old Testament such as about good works (v. 16), righteousness (v. 20), and distortions of the moral code (w. 21-48).41 Therefore, Bahnsen‟s suggestion is not to ignore Jesus‟ demand for the genuine observance of ethical instructions at the expense of the fulfillment discourse.42
Walter C. Kaiser has the same position in opposing Moo‟s view of considering Matthew 5:21-48 as Jesus‟ deliberate abrogation of the Law. He suggests that the six antitheses formulated in the form "you have heard… but I said” is for challenging the oral law of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law of his time with intention of strengthening what had been said.43 Even Jesus expands on what has already been said.
Grant Macaskill also shares this point saying that the need for the exceeding righteous in the discourse does not for diminishing the Law, but rather goes beyond it.44 He also suggests that the whole argument of the relationship of Jesus and his teaching to the Law in (Matt. 5:17–
39 Moo, “The Law of Christ as the Fulfilment of the Law of Moses, 357.
40 Greg L. Bahnsen, “Response to Douglas Moo” in Five Views on Law and Gospel, Edited by Wayne G. Strickland (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996) 3878.
41 Bahnsen, “Response to Douglas Moo”, 388.
42 Bahnsen, “Response to Douglas Moo”, 388.
43 Walter C. Kaiser, “Response to Douglas Moo” in Five Views on Law and Gospel, Edited by Wayne G. Strickland (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 399.
44 Grant Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity: Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Text and Studies,Vol. 115 (Boston: Brill Leiden, 2007), 132.
48) is interrelated to the opening chapters of Matthew (5:17&18) by the “fulfilment” language that ascribes Jesus as Jesus the culmination of expectation.45 This culmination is not invalidating the continuing significance of the Law but it is the connotation that Jesus was the goal of the Law that the Law has been looking for its fullest realization in him. In view of that, the discussion on the Matthean viewpoints of Jesus‟ attitude towards the Law can be wrapped with Douglas J. Moo‟s conclusive remark on the issue. He points out that the key term which is the base for divergent interpretations of Jesus and the Law is “fulfil” (pleroō) (5:17).46 As the majority of scholars have suggested, Dunn also underlines the viewpoint that the Matthean usage of the Law and Prophets, as well as commandments, are “referring to the commanding aspect of the Old Testament Law.”47 With this standpoint, he summarizes the following most inclusive interpretations of the passage which is proposed by a great number of scholarship. “Fulfil” in the passage means that:
“(1) Jesus fulfills the Law by confirming its validity (presupposing that the Aramaic word qûm lies behind pleroō; Branscomb); (2) Jesus fulfils the Law by adding to it (based on the alleged parallel to Mt 5:17 in b. Šabb. 116b; Jeremias); (3) Jesus fulfils the Law by bringing out its full, originally intended meaning (Bahnsen); (4) Jesus fulfils the Law by extending its demands (Davies); (5) Jesus fulfils the Law by teaching the eschatological will of God which the Law anticipated (Banks, Meier).”48
Conclusion
Due to the scope of my thesis, the literature review did not focus the detail exegetical analyses done in different commentaries. This will be done later in the exegetical part of the thesis. However, the emphasis is given to divergent scholarly argument on the key concepts of the passage such as “fulfilment” and the issue of abrogation. Accordingly, the literature
45 Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, 132.
46 Douglas J. Moo, “Law” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 457 ( Libronix edition)
47 Moo, “Law” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 457.
48 Moo, “Law” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 457.
review examines various viewpoints of interpreting the passage regarding Jesus‟ stance in relation to the Mosaic Law. The base for different scholarly argument is on the issue of fulfillment and the continuing validity of the law. In this regard, there are two positions mostly held by scholars. The majority of scholarship see Jesus‟ relationship with the Law in a positive way and conclude that Jesus in his practices and teachings was intensifying the significance of the Law and giving the intended meaning of the original Laws challenging misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Laws in his time. Including Moo, few scholars hold the position that Jesus teaching has superseded the Mosaic Law so that it is not the Mosaic Law that has a significant value in the new kingdom but the focus must be on Jesus‟ teaching rather than the Law. However, in this thesis, the attempt will be made on analyzing these contrasting positions in light of the passage and its contexts.
III. THE STUDY OF CONTEXT AND TEXT
3.1. Understanding the Matthean community
Before diving into interpreting the passage, we butter to understand what the Matthean community is and to whom the author is addressing his message. It would be easy getting the clues about the passage to the extent that we understand the life setting of the community so that here we try exploring various hypotheses proposed by the Matthean scholarship about the community and its life setting.
In fact, there is always a challenge that one can face while studying the life-setting of the Matthean community. Hagner calls this challenge as “a tension between particularism and universalism within the gospel”.49 Unlike other gospels it is in the Matthew that we find Jesus as he has come particularly to the lost ship which is Israel (Mt. 15:24). It is also recorded that when Jesus commissioned the disciples to preach the good news he has set a prohibition to disciples not to enter into the gentile towns (Mt. 10:5-6). These and other restriction in the gospel of Matthew represents the idea of particularism that limits Jesus‟ mission to the particular people- Israel. Contrary to this particularism we also see an explicit universalism thought throughout the gospel. From several references in the gospel we can see that no longer the restriction of entering to gentile world has worked so far. Especially in Matthew 24:14 and 28:19 we read that Jesus has commissioned his disciples to proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God throughout the whole world. Following the transference of the kingdom motif from particularism to universalism, we obviously see how the tension was intensified between the new community and unbelieving Jewish brothers. Therefore, the challenge here is identifying to which group the gospel of Matthew was particularly written. Thus, as Donald A. Hagner has said, it is not such an easy task positing the convincing setting
49 Donald A. Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13, Ixv.
(Sitz im Leben) of the Matthean community.50 In the way of identifying the real community and the audience of the gospel, the Matthean scholars come with different hypothesis referring to varied motifs and emphasis of the gospel. According to Stephenson H. Brooks, Matthew‟s community exists within the Jewish synagogue whereas Bonkamm sees as they were withdrawn from the Jewish synagogue.51 The argument about social setting of the Matthean community centres on three options. Brooks has listed out these three options as follow.
“(1) They are a Christian Jewish group exhibiting no signs of significant dislocation with the Jewish synagogue; (2) they are a Christian Jewish group beginning to find themselves in a situation of ideological estrangement, which is not yet significant enough to warrant separation from the synagogues; (3) they are a Jewish Christian community separated from the primary social institution of Judaism in their city. This categorization depends on analysis of Law, Ecclesiology, and Christology in the first gospel.”52
Those who argue supposing as the community were Jewish Christians point out some key accounts in the gospel that indicates as they were a Jewish Christians (Mt. 5:17-20; 10; 23; 24; 18:15-20; 28:16-20). The fulfilment motif repeatedly applied throughout the gospel and frequently quoting from the Old Testament that refers to the Messiahnship of Jesus Christ is one key element in the discussion because of the fact that it was the Jewish community that primarily waiting for the dawning of the messianic age than others. The other point is the author‟s emphasis on presenting Jesus as a loyal to the law and his call to righteousness than what Mark and other gospel writers did. The omission of the author explaining the Jewish traditions to its audience contrary to what Mark has done is one of the remarkable points for arguing that Matthew was addressing the Jewish Christian group who already familiar with
50 Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13, lxiv.
51 Stephen H. Brooks, Matthew’s Community: the evidence of his special sayings material, (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 21-22.
52Brooks, Matthew’s Community, 21-22.
the tradition (cf. 15:2 with Mark 7:3–4).53 The sayings such as “their synagogues” (4:23; 9:35; 10:17; 12:9; 13:54), “your synagogues” (23:34), “their scribes” (7:29), and “the Jews to this day” (28:15), uniquely used in the Matthew can be the reflection of the tension between unbelieving Jewish and the Matthean community.
Scholars in different camps use such expressions for speculating the life setting of the Matthean community. By referring to these passages and others in the Matthew, a number of scholars try to point out that by the time Matthew wrote the gospel the relationship of Christian Jews or the Matthean community with the synagogue had already broken so that the hostility has been intensified towards the Jews in the gospel.54 Opposing to this position, others argue as Matthew has written the gospel prior to the separation of church and synagogue due to the Yavneh decision of 85, therefore, they suggest as the relationship between Jewish Christians and non-believing Jewish brethren has continued.55 There is also the moderate and very sounding suggestion from the most recent scholarship that “the Matthean churches are either struggling within the synagogue (intra muros) or have parted ways (extra muros).”56 If this is true, it seems that Matthew is writing the gospel to remind the Jewish believers not to doubt as they are the part and particle of the promises to Israel so that the gospel is about developing their confidence believing that their new faith as in continuity with true succession to the Scripture since they are following Jesus the Messiah who was loyal to the fulfilment of law.57
53 Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13, lxiv.
54Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13, lxvii.
55 Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13, lxviii.
56 Richard C. Beaton, “How Matthew writes” edited by Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner, in The Written Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) 127.
57 Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13, lxviii.
3.2. The theme and programmatic terminologies of Matthew in relation to law
Each gospel writers have their own unique thematic and programmatic terminologies as the framework that shapes their theological and Christological arguments while presenting the account of Jesus‟ life and ministries. In this regard, Matthew has used two key thematic terminologies throughout the gospel in general and in the discourse, particularly that we are discussing Jesus‟ attitude towards the law in Matthew 5:17-48. The word “fulfilment” and “righteousness” are two terms that frame the discourse in Matthew 5:17-48.
3.2.1. Fulfilment
One of the unique features in the gospel of Matthew is its repeated reference to the fulfilment of the Scriptures in the formula- “All this happened so that the word spoken by the Lord through the prophet was fulfilled” (Mt 1:22) which seems Matthew was intentionally quoting the Old Testament as a reference to confirm that “how Jesus‟ identity and mission are in continuity with the story and Scriptures of Israel”58. Though it is not agreed by all commentators Matthew has quoted some fourteen fulfilment citations from which about half come from the prophecy of Isaiah either as a form of direct quotation or allusion.
59
As Overmann has precisely said, the notion of fulfilment citation is an attempt by Matthew to claim that the account of Jesus and the beliefs of the Matthean community in him is neither spurious, nor innovative, but it is God's foreordained plan so that “the Matthean community is in continuity with the Scripture, promises, and traditions of the history of Israel” which is contrary to the contention from the Jewish leadership towards Matthew‟s setting.60
58 M. Goodacre, “Redaction Criticism”. Pages 767-771, in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Green, Joel B. Jeannine K. Brown & Nicholas, Intervarsity Press, 2013), 768.
59 J. Andrew Overman. Matthew's gospel and formative Judaism: the social world of the Matthean community (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress 1990), 74.
60 Overman, Matthew's gospel and formative Judaism, 78.
In concluding, fulfillments Matthew tells us that, in an amazing way the NT theology, as well as the theology of his Gospel, is that, God‟s purpose has come to fulfillments in Jesus of Nazareth. He also tells us that the whole history of the world and everything in the OT revolves around Jesus and points out to him and fulfilled in him who is the true Israel. So, his coming is the dawn of a new age so that nothing is the same again. We also read in Matthew the formula-quotation, “this was to fulfil” or “then was fulfilled” what was spoken by the prophets (Mat. 1:22-23; 2:15, 17-18; 2:23; 4:14-16).
3.2.2. Righteousness
As many scholars have convincingly suggested, „righteousness‟ is one of the words that Matthew has characteristically used than other the synoptic gospel writers. The word righteousness occurs seven times in Matthew, has never been used in Mark and only it occurs once in the gospel of Luke (Mt. 3.15; 5.6; 5.10; 5.20; 6.1; 6.33; 21.32; Luke. 1.75). „Seeking righteousness‟ is one of the major themes that appear in the gospel of Matthew (Mt. 6.33).61 The way righteousness has been used in the Sermon on Mount should not be confused with the concept of Pauline or Christian notion of righteousness which is developed later. Though there is no consensus among scholars on the meaning of righteousness in the gospel of Matthew, it has to be noted that righteousness reflected in the Sermon on the Matthew has a Jewish concept of righteousness. In this regard, Hans Dieter Betz suggests that the Jewish concept of righteousness demands the involvement of human effort applying both legal and ethical issues to life as a whole (Mat.7: 13-14).62 This leads one to ask the question that to what extent the human effort can achieve righteousness demanded by God. Betz tries answering this question in the way that “Righteousness is given to Israel and to humanity as a
61 Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (London, NY: Published by T & T Clark International, 2001) 135.
62 Hans Dieter Betz. The Sermon on the Mount (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1995) 131.
constitutive principle of creation, and the Torah is the guide on the way of righteousness. Thus, the Torah interpreted rightly, is the means by which the hunger and thirst for righteousness can be met.”63 The Matthean righteousness, which seems taken from the Jewish source, is referring to a proper behaviour and praxis which distinguishes the community from others and presented as a goal that the community has to pursue and do in order to be part of the kingdom of heaven and the Matthean community (Mt. 5:10).64 It is also metaphorically portrayed as hunger and thirst that the community has to desire and make effort to live in a manner that they were called for (Mt.5:6, 5:10). Thus the community is expected to exhibit the righteousness that surpasses from those of the Pharisees, scribes, and Gentiles (Mt. 5:20, 6:32). Here, righteousness to this community is set as a standard that make them differ from the community with whom they contend.
Furthermore, we will see later on the exegetical part of the discussion that how righteousness is set as a benchmark that weighs once ethical thinking and conduct as well as how it is used as the principle while interpreting the Law (5:20; 6:1, 33; 7:12).
3.3. Jesus’ relationship to and use of the Law in Matthew
Quoting E. P. Sanders, Bruce Chilton has rightly argued that Jesus‟ stance towards Judaism and the Jewish law and tradition should not be distorted and Jesus should not be understood in the way that he was antinomian and anti-Jewish.65 From the birth to his adulthood Jesus‟ activity was confined within the Jewish tradition and his own people. Jesus was attending the synagogue and observing the Torah and other practices of the Jewish tradition. However, Jesus has been accused by his contemporary adversaries as he and his followers are setting aside the Law and tradition. They were misquoted as they break the tradition of elders by
63 Betz. The Sermon on the Mount, 131.
64 Overman. Matthew's gospel and formative Judaism, 92.
65 Bruce Chilton. The Missing Jesus: Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament. (Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc. 2002) 149.
refusing observing the purity and Sabbath Laws (Mt. 12:2, 15:2). Instead of admitting the charge Jesus responds to them that it is not he but they were ones who neglects the law of God for the sake of their tradition (Mt.15:3, 6). Matthew emphasizes presenting two polarities of antagonism between Jesus and the Scribes and the Pharisees of Jesus‟ contemporary. To them Jesus was seen as a threat. Pharisees and Scribes are portrayed in the gospel with the very negative images as they are evil (12:34, 35, 39, 45), blind (15:14; 23:16, 17, 19, 24, 26), and hypocritical (15:7; 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29). In Matthew 23:13-39 we find how the reproach against the scribes and Pharisees gets its climax. Therefore, the central argument is that charges against Jesus from his opponents are not because Jesus degraded the law but it is the false accusation come from the adversaries. Hence the Matthean Jesus is not the lawbreaker. Rather he calls his followers for a super-righteousness of both outer and inner perfection (5.48). He taught his disciples to observe the laws and human regulations with a better appearance and a manner than the Pharisees and Scribes (Mt. 6:1-8, 16-18; 23:5f). Jesus does not have a problem with the law but he was challenging the practices and traditions that against the will of God. He even claims as he has come for the fulfilment of the law but not to abolish (Mt. 5:17) so that he requires super-strict observance of every particular of the law (Mt. 5:18-19). So, Jesus‟ relationship to and use of the Law in Matthew clearly stated that he has a positive stance towards the Law and his concern is on the way how the Torah should be interpreted.
IV. MATTHEW 5:17-48: A REDACTION CRITICISM PERSPECTIVE
The vast numbers of the Matthean scholars agree on the significance of redaction criticism for Matthean studies believing that Matthew has made some editorial works on the materials he has used as sources while he was writing the gospel. There is a conviction among many Matthean scholarships that there is a possibility for Matthew to use both written and oral traditions as sources. It is a known presupposition that Matthew has used the gospel of Mark and the so-called Q source66as written sources and other traditions as well.67
Brooks has carefully analyzed the special sayings in Matthew and suggested that
“The sayings found only in Matthew may be accounted for in two ways: (a) these sayings may be „redactional‟ in the sense of belonging to the material originated by Matthew as editor and author of the Gospel; (b) these sayings may come from a preMatthean material.”68
In other words, it is to mean that, sayings in Matthew are presented in three possible ways.
These are: (1) sayings paralleled to one of the synoptic and considered as it was taken directly from Q source, (2) sayings which have contained elements of the Matthean style and likely to be a redaction of Matthew, and (3) unparalleled M sayings which are considered as Matthew has directly quoted “from other tradition or traditions available only to him among the Evangelists.”69
Source identification and analysis
Most of the texts in Matthew 5:17-48 are unparalleled to other synoptic gospels and unique in its verbal agreements and contexts as well. Only a few have a parallel to other synoptic
66 The shortened form to the German word Quelle means “source”, in this case it refers to the sayings common to Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.
67 Ian Boxall, Discovering Matthew: Content, Interpretation, Reception (London: SPCK, 2014) 34.
68 Brooks, Matthew’s Community, 15.
69 Brooks, Matthew’s Community, 15.
gospels. In this regard, Brooks has suggested that the source of these texts might be the traditions of the Jewish Christian community and from the author itself.70
Accordingly, verses 17, 19, 20, 21-24, 27-28, 31, 33-37, 38-39a, 43, belongs to Matthew either in the form of redaction or come from a pre-Matthean material, whether oral or written. Thus, as Brook has clearly suggested, “any saying in Matthew that is unparalleled by the other Synoptic may be in part or totally redactional.”71 Whereas, verses 18, 25-26, 29-30, 32, 40-42, 44-48, have a parallel (direct or a partial) either from Mark or Luke that might have come from a Q source. In the other word from the verses in Mathew 5:17-48, only 4 verses (29-32) have a parallel to Mark which is 12.5% of the text. The other 12 verses (18, 25-26, 39b-42, 44-48) have paralleled to Luke which is 37.5% of the text. The rests (16 verses, 50%) are unique of Matthew and considered as the redactional works of the author “in order to fit the literary and ideological context of Matthew” or might be outsourced from preMatthean materials available only to Matthew.72 This indicates that Matthew has done a lot of redactions, sometimes by making the passage more constricted than other parallels, removing irrelevant terms, phrases, and details where it necessitates. In doing so he makes a profound argument about Jesus‟ relation to the Law so that he addresses the question of the community with regard to Jesus‟ attitude towards the Law.
70 Brooks, Matthew’s Community, 15.
71 Brooks, Matthew’s Community, 15.
72 Brooks, Matthew’s Community, 15.
A. Matthew 5:17-48: within the immediate context
The discourse in Matthew 5:17-48 is not an isolated passage; rather it appears sandwiched between the first discussion of the Sermon on the Mount about the ethical demands of the emerging kingdom of heaven (Mt 5:3-16) and the discourse about the outward vs. inward practices of righteousness (Mt 6:1-18). In the preceding section, Jesus teaches his followers to live a life that complies with a demand of an inaugurated kingdom. Thus, Matthew 5: 1748 has a connection with both the so-called Beatitude discourse (5:3-12) and a pericope that discusses on the true marks of the followers (5:13-16) which finally results a surpassing righteousness (5: 20) and a life of perfection (5:48). Likewise, Matthew 5:17-48 is followed by Jesus‟ appeal for inward righteousness (6:1-18) unlike a legalism practice of his contemporaries. In this section, Jesus strongly admonishes his follower not to act as of hypocrites of his time and warns them of the danger of hypocrisy. Thus, presenting three chief acts of Jewish piety, Jesus has continued urging his disciples for a superior righteousness which worth the reward from the heavenly Father (6:1-6, 18; cf. 5:12). In these all discourses an emphasis has been given to the demands for surpassing righteousness (5:16, 20, 46-48), the right motives to perform the acts of righteousness (6:1-18) and the reward for righteousness initiated from the right motives (5:10, 12, 19, 20, 6:3-4, 6, 17-18). Therefore, in doing these all, Jesus has been setting a high standard for moral and ethical uprightness expected from his followers to be granted the kingdom of God. Unlike the teachings and practices of the religious leader of his contemporaries, Jesus has given much more focus on the internalized morality and piety than externalized rituals. Thus, Jesus has been challenging the Pharisees and the leaders of his contemporary for their pretending practices (Mt 6:1-18, 23:23). In the same way, Jesus was also considered as he was lax of laws and traditions. Hence, as a defence to the accusation, Jesus clearly shows his loyalty to the law claiming that he has not come to invalidate its significance.
B. Matthew 5:17-48: An Exegetical
Analysis
As it was seen in the above discussion, Jesus was admonishing his followers for a good deed that glorifies the Father God and effects the grant for entering into the Kingdom of God (5:16). The good work is nothing but fulfilling the will of God as it is reflected in the laws. Therefore, this passage shows the significance of fulfilling the law and the manner how the law can be fulfilled. The passage has nicely divided into two sections; general declaration as an introduction (5:17-20) followed by specific examples from the Mosaic laws which have consisted of six contrasting arguments (5:21-26; 27-30; 31-32; 33-37; 38-42; 43-48). In the first section (5:17-20), Jesus clarifies two points that he has come to fulfil the law far from abolishing and the righteousness that the kingdom of God demands so that his followers must exhibit a righteousness that surpasses of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. Secondly, the demonstration of this surpassing righteousness is presented in the way of contrasting with the existing conception of the righteousness of his contemporaries and the exceeding righteousness that can be resulted from the right understanding of the law. In view of that, the following is a brief analysis of these two sections.
a. Matthew 5:17-20
In this pericope, only v.18 has a partial parallel in Luke 16:17. There are some variations of saying like the phrase “one Jot” and “until” in its final clause which has no parallel in the Lukan version, which might be added by the author for the sake of explaining and strengthening of his point.73 However, as it is suggested by many, the pericope can be taken as a thesis statement for the whole discussion followed in Matthew 5:21-48.74 Different
73Hagner, Donald A.: Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13. , 103
74 Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999), 175.
suppositions are suggested as the reason why the passage is placed in such a way. Hagner and others suggest that the passage is placed here to serve as a preamble to the following argumentation (5:21-48) that against to what has been taught and commonly accepted understanding of the Torah.75 The logic is that when the introduction is clearly grounded from the outset, it would be easy preventing the hearers from making the wrong conclusion about Jesus‟s stance towards the law.
The key statement in the pericope is v. 17 where Jesus has refuted the presupposition that he has come to abolish the law. It says that “do not think that I came” (μὴ νομίζηηε
) which is an indication of the existence of a mistaken assumption regarding Jesus‟ attitude in relation to the law. The correction to this false assumption is assuring that Jesus has come to fulfill the law or the prophet rather than causing to be ceased. The most key and argumentative verb in this verse is “to fulfill” (πληρῶζαι), which has been given different meanings. Hagner has put very simplified options that have been suggested by different scholars that “fulfill” in v. 17 might refers to
“(1) to do or obey the commandments of the OT, (2) a reference to Jesus‟ life and/or the accomplishment of the salvific acts of Jesus‟ death and resurrection, (3) teaching the law in such a way as to (a) “establish” or “uphold” the law, (b) add to and thus “complete” the law, or (c) bring out the intended meaning of the law through definitive interpretation.”76
Furthermore, still others take fulfill in a sense as it refers to the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Scriptures (Matt 1:22; 2:15; 2:17; 2:23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14; 13:35; 21:4; 26:54, 56; 27:9, 35).77 However, given the focus on its fitness to the context (5:21-48), most scholars agree on the meaning of “fulfill” as it refers to “bring out the intended meaning of the law
75 Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 1-13, 103.
76 Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 1-13, 105.
77 Charles H. Talbert, Reading the Sermon on the Mount: Character Formation and Decision Making in Matthew 5-7 (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 2004), 60.
through definitive interpretation.”78 This sounds a convincing argument because the context clearly shows how Jesus was expounding the deepest meaning of the law so that the law significantly gets its fulfillment.
Furthermore, verses 18 and 19 show how Jesus has given the emphasis to the essentiality of obeying the law. Though it has different connotations of explaining the verses, mainly Jesus was signifying the validity of the law and cautioning laxness to obey the law. It is through this way that the followers can achieve the righteousness that shall exceed of the scribes and Pharisees so that they can be granted entering into the kingdom of heaven (v.20). Therefore, the following pericope clearly shows that how the righteousness of the Pharisees and scribes is to be exceeded.
b. Matthew 5:21-48
On the base of comparison with the Synoptics, vv. 21-26, 27-30, and 33-37 do not have a direct parallel. Hence, the most accepted assumption regarding the source of Matthew 5:2148 is to be from pre-Matthean tradition with some redactional editorial works of the author.79
There are various suppositions in regard to the interpretations of the six paragraphs in Mt 5:21–48. Some argue that Mt. 5:21-48 is a contrast with Jesus‟ authoritative words with the OT itself.80 Contrary to this, others convincingly suggest that the contrast introduced with the statement “but I say to you” (εγώ δε λέγω ύμΐν), does not necessarily oppose so much the Torah itself rather it is a correction to “a shallow and inadequate understanding of what the commandment entails.”81 The question basically to be addressed is that how Jesus can
78 Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13, 105.
79 W. D. Davies et.el. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (London, NY: T&T Clark International, 2004) 504. (Libronix version)
80 Davis, et.al. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew,505
81 Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13, 112.
contradict the Torah while claiming as he has come to fulfil the law (v.17) and even boldly cautioning against those with the intention of breaking the law and teaching against the law (vv.18-19).
The pericope has consisted of six contrasting units (5:21-26; 27-30; 31-32; 33-37; 38-42; 4348). Each of the units was introduced by the Greek particle δε, “but I tell you” and has citations either directly quoted or alluded from the Decalogue and the Mosaic Law stated elsewhere. Murder (21-26), adultery (27-30), divorce (31-32), oaths (33-37), retribution/retaliation (38-42) and loving enemies (43-48) are the themes selected for the demonstration.
The first antitheses on Murder (21-26) involve on penetrating the deepest meaning of one of the Ten Commandments, which found in Exod. 20:1–17 (cf. Deut. 5:6–21). The prohibition of the commandment is mainly not to murder. However, Jesus‟ treats this commandment in a broader sense and goes to the source and root cause of murder (vv. 21-23). Here Jesus prohibits not only murder but also wrath against one‟s brother or sister and using harsh words that can cause angry which leads to murder. Jesus‟ focus is on the emotion or motivation leading to the action. In doing so, Jesus neither contradicts nor opposes the commandment; rather, he suggests a precaution has to be taken not to transgress the law.
The second antitheses are on adultery (27-30) were quoted from Exod. 20:14 and Deut. 5:18 that prohibited committing adultery. However, Jesus furthers the prohibition to the extent not to look at a woman with the purpose of lusting that finally leads one to act of adultery. Jesus again deepens the commandment going beyond the literal demand. Still, he has focused on the intention and cause of transgression shifting the attention from the external act to the inner desire and thought.
The third antithesis is on divorce and remarriage (31-32) alluded from Deut. 24:1, which clearly allows divorce. Unlike to this, in his antithetical interpretation, Jesus forbids divorce on the ground that it causes adultery. The exception that Jesus set for divorce is a matter of fornication (μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ, “except for “porneia”-sexual infidelity). The exception clauses are found only in Matthew‟s text. Including in Matthew 19:1-12 and Luke 16:18 Jesus equates divorce and remarriage with adultery. Even he argues that from the very beginning divorce was not permitted though it has been given permission in the Mosaic Law for the hardness of hearts; rather it was not regarded positively. The implication of this argument is that divorce was not the intent of God when it was instituted from the very beginning.
The fourth antitheses on Oath and truthfulness (5:33–37) are the place where the second part of the discussion has started. The word “again” at the beginning of the antithesis can indicate that the antitheses were presented in two sections, the first consisting of 5:21–26; 27–30; 31–32, and the other of 5:33-37; 38–42; and 43–38. The pericope is mostly related to the OT teaching as found in Exod. 20:7; Lev 19:12; Num. 30:3–15; Deut. 23:21–3, where taking the Lord‟s name in vain is prohibited. Hence, the implication of the argument is emphasizing the necessity of truthfulness and trustfulness to one another so that it keeps the relationship among one another to be healthy and fruitful.
The fifth is on retaliation and submissiveness (5:38–42) which refers back to the law of retribution in the Pentateuch (Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21). This is one of the challenging sections that need wisdom how to apply it to a practice. Here Jesus is not appreciating the practice of injustice; rather he expounds the ethics of the kingdom so that they can able to be gracious toward the undeserving like what Jesus himself is doing.82 In doing so, Jesus was encouraging his followers to respond with forgiveness and generosity to
82 Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13, 131.
those who persecute them and take their advantage. The implication of this antithesis is to show the extent how Jesus has demanded ethical responses from his followers.
The final antithesis is on loving one‟s enemies (43-48) where the analogy has come from Lev. 19:18 which says “…you shall love your neighbor as yourself”. The statement “hate your enemy” does not have a direct parallel from the OT, even though there are some allusions in Deut. 7:2; 20:16; 23:4, 7; 30:7 and other places too. In this final section, the argument comes to its climax that Jesus wraps-up the discussion calling his disciples to show love to others inclusively. In doing this they can reflect God their Father‟s graciousness to the world. One can remember the discussion in Matthew 5:17-20 was concluded with a remark that Jesus‟ followers were expected exhibiting righteousness that exceeds of the Pharisees and scribes. Likewise, the antithesis is wrapped off with the call for righteousness that exceeds of the Gentiles. Then, the final goal for these all is imitating God the father and glorifying Him. Hence, in v. 48 Jesus exhorts the disciples for perfection as their heavenly Father.
In concluding, Jesus‟ account in Matthew 5:21–48 is replacing the existing Mosaic Laws by neither Jesus‟ authoritative words nor contradicting the Torah. But, it is penetrating the intended meaning of the Law contrary to misconceptions and interpretations of the time. The significance of the antithesis, demonstrated with six examples, is to show the required sorts of attitude and behaviors in the kingdom of God that must surpass of both the religious leaders of the time and Gentiles as well.
V. CONCLUSION
Each gospel writers has presented Jesus‟ account in the way that fits their theological and Christological points of view. Thus, albeit the unified presentation of the gospels on the major historical facts of Jesus‟ life, it is obvious that there is some redactions and additions while presenting Jesus‟ account in different ways. That is why different exegetical and hermeneutical methodologies have been developed from time to time. However, when we come to the quest of Jesus‟ attitude towards the Law according to the Matthean account, we must also consider having the right understanding on the context of Jesus. This is to mean that, being a Jew and grew up in the Jewish tradition/s having been observing the rituals and religious pieties, there is no a ground to suppose that Jesus abolishes, invalidates or contradicts the Law given to them with the intention that the Law reveals the will of God their Father. The same is true that the Matthean Jesus has been refuting misunderstandings and connotations in regard to his relationship to the Law. He definitely has defended that he has come not to abolish the law; rather to fulfil the Law and/or prophets. What the study has shown is that by demonstrating six antithetical examples, Jesus has made known the concern that he had for a genuine interpretation and practices of the Law. Without contradicting the Mosaic Law, Jesus had been correcting the existing misconceptions and practices of the Law of his time. Far from abolishing, invalidating and disobeying the Law, he radicalized the law and intensified its significance. Revealing its deepest and intended meanings Jesus has brought the Law to its fulfilment. Unlike the leaders of his contemporaries, he has internalized the meaning of the Law and given much more emphases on inward righteousness than the outward practices. He stress on emotions, intentions and causes that lead one to transgression against the Law. Therefore, Jesus‟ attitude towards the Law is very positive so that he was neither antinomian nor supportive of legalism but by correcting misunderstanding and teaching of the law of his contemporaries, he merely intensifies it by showing the true intent and transcendent meaning of the law.
REFERENCES
Bahnsen, Greg L. “Response to Douglas Moo” in Five Views on Law and Gospel, Edited by Wayne G. Strickland (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996) 387-8.
Banks, Robert “Matthew's Understanding of the Law: Authenticity and Interpretation in Matthew 5:17-20”, Journal of Biblical Literature, 93, 2 (Jun., 1974), 226.
Beaton, Richard C. “How Matthew writes” edited by Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner, in The Written Gospel.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Betz, Hans Dieter. The Sermon on the Mount. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1995.
Boxall, Ian. Discovering Matthew: Content, Interpretation, Reception. London: SPCK, 2014.
Brooks, Stephen H. Matthew’s Community: the evidence of his special sayings material. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987.
Carter, Warren. Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Hendrickson Publisher, 2004.
Chilton, Bruce. The Missing Jesus: Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc. 2002.
Davies, W. D. et.el. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. London, NY: T&T Clark International, 2004. (Libronix version)
Dunn, James D. G. Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Way. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1999.
Goodacre, M. “Redaction Criticism”. Pages 767-771, in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Green, Joel B. Jeannine K. Brown & Nicholas, Intervarsity Press, 2013.
Goodacre, Mark. The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze. London, NY: Published by T & T Clark International, 2001.
Hagner, Donald A. Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13. Dallas, Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1993.
Huntsman, Eric D. The Six Antitheses: Attaining the Purpose of the Law through the Teachings of Jesus, (Religious Studies Center) Accessed on January 10-2018 https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/sermon-mount-latter-day-scripture/6-six-antithesesattaining-purpose-law-through-teaching-0
Kaiser, Walter C. “Response to Douglas Moo” in Five Views on Law and Gospel, Edited by Wayne G. Strickland. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.
Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999.
Kingsbury, Jack Dean “The Place, Structure, and Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, VOL. XLI • NO. 2 (APRIL 1987).
Klouda, Sheri L. “Applying Fishbane's Hermeneutical Strategies: Aggadic Exegesis in Matthew's Use of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:21-48)”, South-western Journal of Theology Vol.46, No 3 (Summer 2004), 19-30.
Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993.
Loader, William R. G. Jesus’ attitude towards the law. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.
Macaskill, Grant. Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity: Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Text and Studies,Vol. 115.Boston: Brill Leiden, 2007.
Meier, John P. A marginal Jew: rethinking the historical Jesus, Vol. 4. London: Yale University Press, 2009.
Moo, Douglas J. “Law” Pages 767-457, in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Green, Joel B. Jeannine K. Brown & Nicholas, Intervarsity Press, 2013.
____________ “The Law of Christ as the Fulfilment of the Law of Moses: A Modified Lutheran View” in Five Views on Law and Gospel, Edited by Wayne G. Strickland (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.
Overman, J. Andrew. Matthew's gospel and formative Judaism: the social world of the Matthean community. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress 1990.
Talbert, Charles H. Reading the Sermon on the Mount: Character Formation and Decision Making in Matthew 5-7. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 2004.