This is where we really start seeing moral pronouncements laid down. First, a sequence of “Blessed are the X: for they shall Y” lines, where X is generally something that’s good (or, at least, causes your life to be difficult), and where Y is a reward for that. In general, I support the X’s (sometimes more so in Lattimore’s translation than in King James: in particular, contrasting their versions of Matthew 5:5, I have nothing against meekness, but I actively like gentleness.) I have more mixed feelings about the Y’s: sometimes, it’s a simple “it gets better” vibe (Matthew 5:4, “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted”), but sometimes there’s a sort of passive aggressiveness with a real edge to it (the aforementioned Matthew 5:5, “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth”).
Then the gloves start to come off: Matthew 5:16 “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven”, and Matthew 5:18-20, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Clearly, God is not messing around: jump when He says jump, or (as we see in Matthew 5:29-30) you’ll be “cast into hell”. And these verses support a narrow moralism that I’m not at all comfortable with: the “break one of these least commandments” bit quoted above, or “whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” from Matthew 5:28.
Though even here, there are bits that I wholeheartedly get behind: e.g. Matthew 5:23-24, “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” In other words, while prayer is all well and good, you should get your actual actions in order first.
I actually rather like the bits against swearing, from Matthew 5:33-37: a sense of letting your actions speak for you. And then we come to the whole “turn the other cheek” bit (Matthew 5:38-48, e.g. 5:39 “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”) This is absolutely my favorite part of the moral pronouncements so far, a very strong statement indeed: don’t fight evil with evil, respond instead with compassion. I only wish that God would take Jesus’s advice on that score earlier on in this chapter, instead of threatening everybody with hellfire!
From a philological point of view, I really wonder what’s going on here. The different parts of the chapter seem to me to be in rather different styles and from rather different points of view; maybe I’m just reading my own biases into something that’s not there, but maybe the text is an agglomeration of different points of view.
Post Revisions:
This post has not been revised since publication.
Posts
I think you’re exactly right that there’s an amaltgamation of different kinds of teaching here. The question of whether they all originate with the same person isn’t one I think it worth discussing, but it definitely comes to my mind all the time.
There’s a larger point here for me though, which is the definition of “commandment” and “law” as Jesus uses them. One thing you might be missing is that in saying that His followers need to be more law-abiding than the Pharisees, Jesus is changing–radically changing–the meaning of “law.” Instead of a law of ceremonial purity, Jesus is advocating–and indeed, on many readings, embodying–a law of service to one’s neighbor, and of yielding to God as represented to us in our neighbors.
12/21/2010 @ 10:00 am
So, in your point of view, what is the referent of the word “commandment” here? Everything from the Old Testament, only some of the most important bits of the Old Testament (e.g. the Ten Commandments), none of the Old Testament? And then is everything that Jesus says added onto that subset, or only some of that, or none of it?
When I first read this, I was pretty sure it included most or all of what we’re told in the Old Testament, based on Matthew 5:18. So, to me, it seems like there’s still all the old ceremonial purity, albeit potentially with the addition of further requirements.
12/21/2010 @ 5:22 pm
A lot of what’s going on in late Second Temple Judaism–not just Jesus and his followers, but, as far as we can tell, several different groups–is about radically reinterpreting precisely that. One way to cut through the incredible difficulties attendant on figuring out what any particular reference means is to think of the Ten Commandments as the Law; another way is to think of Jesus’ own summary of the law, which is not by any means unique to him, but is clearly a generally known apophthegm of the time: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and all you mind and all your strength; and you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On those two, he said, hang all the law and prophets.
12/21/2010 @ 8:06 pm
Interesting, thanks. I certainly support not being bound to all of Old Testament law…
12/21/2010 @ 8:09 pm
[…] with an accusation of hypocrisy in Matthew 15:3-9, for good measure.) Which is nice to hear: in Matthew 5:19, we were told that we shouldn’t “break one of these least commandments”, so […]
12/28/2010 @ 8:02 am