Sermonizing on the Sermon on the Mount

A friend recently asked my advice about a sermon series he’s planning to do on the Sermon on the Mount. Here’s what I said:

1) One problem is that many Christians interpret the Sermon on the Mount the way the Amish do. Based on that interpretation, they view the Sermon as hopelessly unrealistic. That creates a dilemma.

2) I think one of the errors of the Amish interpretation is a failure to make allowance for the amount of hyperbole in the Sermon. A number of the injunctions are unrealistic because they are hyperbolic. They were never meant to be realistic. Jesus employs rhetorical overstatement for shock value or graphic effect.

That doesn’t mean we disregard them. Rather, we distinguish between the core teaching and the hyperbole.

3) Then there’s the thorny question of how to relate 5:17-20, which seems to teach absolute continuity between OT and NT ethics, to the succeeding antitheses, which seem to teach abrupt discontinuity. I think the relationship is twofold:

i) On the one hand there’s a contrast between Jesus and the Pharisees. Put another way, there’s a contrast between the written Torah (or written law) and the oral Torah (or oral law).

The oral Torah was the common law or tradition of judicial precedent. This involves both interpreting the Mosaic law and applying the Mosaic law.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. It’s inevitable that when Jewish judges had to try cases, they had to interpret the law and apply the law to the case at hand.

However, Jesus objects to the oral Torah on two or three grounds:

a) The oral Torah often evaded the Mosaic law by attempting to create loopholes.

b) The oral Torah often subverted the Mosaic law by ignoring the underlying rationale for various provisions. Mindless, mechanical enforcement of the law which disregarded legal intent. Failure to distinguish between ends and means, higher and lower obligations. Failure to distinguish between laws of utility and laws of morality.

c) In sum, the oral Torah came to displace the written Torah. Man-made regulations became a substitute for obeying God’s law. Indeed, Jesus accuses the Pharisees of breaking the law. They nullify the law through their traditions.

ii) On the other hand, there’s also a contrast between Jesus and Moses. Jesus is the new and greater Moses. Christians follow Jesus rather than Moses. Or to nuance that, Christians follow Moses through Jesus. The antitype surpasses the type. And Jesus, rather than the Pharisees, is the true interpreter of the Mosaic law.

4) There’s also the question of how Jesus “fulfills” the law. This isn’t derivable from the meaning of the Greek verb alone, but from the concept of fulfillment in the Gospel of Matthew. In principle, Jesus could fulfill the law in one of two ways:

i) Fulfill in the sense of annulling or abrogating the law. Replacing the law. When Jesus comes, the law comes to an end.

ii) Fulfill in the sense of the law achieving its intended or appointed goal. Of course, that, of itself, doesn’t tell you what the goal is.

5) Apropos (4), I don’t think Christ’s fulfillment of the law has a uniform sense in Matthew. That varies according to the context.

i) Given Matthew’s prophetic/typological scheme, it would be counterproductive to present Jesus as a lawbreaker. There must be some basic continuity for Jesus to be the realization of what the law pointed to.

ii) On the other hand, there are some laws, like the Mosaic cultus, that terminate in the person and work of Christ. Like shadows that foreshadow the rising sun. Once the sun is risen, the sunlight drives the shadows away.

iii) There’s some carryover between OT ethics and NT ethics. That goes to the point that much of what Jesus says is directed at the oral Torah rather than the written Torah.

Turning to a few specifics:

6) 5:38-39 are not about self-defense, but honor/shame. How should we respond when someone disrespects us by a backhanded slap? We should let it slide. Not take ourselves too seriously.

7) 5:40-48. I think this articulates a common grace principle. All things being equal, we should treat people better than they deserve. Conversely, there are times when we should allow ourselves to be wronged. Resist the natural impulse to get even–trusting in God’s eschatological justice to right the scales.

Keep in mind that this is about individuals. But we also have an obligation to protect and provide for our dependents.

Loving our enemies is not our only social obligation in Scripture. We also have a duty to love our spouse, parents, children, friends, and neighbors.

Not all obligations are equally obligatory. Not all obligations are simultaneously consistent. Sometimes one takes precedence over another.

8) 6:12,14-16. I think this implicitly teaches conditional rather than unconditional forgiveness. God doesn’t forgive impenitent unbelievers. Rather, God forgives penitent believers.

By analogy, our obligation is to forgive penitent believers, not impenitent unbelievers–or even impenitent believers. That’s made more explicit in passages like Mt 18:15-35.

God is often merciful to unbelievers, and by analogy, we should normally be merciful to unbelievers. There is, however, a difference between mercy and forgiveness.

This doesn’t necessarily mean we can’t forgive impenitents or unbelievers. Just that we don’t have a duty to do so. Likewise, unconditional forgiveness can let offenders off the hook too easily. That may harden them.  They never suffer the consequences of their misdeeds–until it’s too late.

9) 7:1 doesn’t forbid judging others. Rather, it forbids hypocritical censoriousness. We shouldn’t judge others while we exempt ourselves.

10) 7:7-12 is an encouragement to prayer, not a guarantee that we will get whatever we ask for.

11) 5:27-28. In his revised commentary on Matthew, D. A. Carson challenges the conventional rendering. He argues that the prohibition doesn’t concern lusting after others, but enticing others to lust after you. Seduction.

Even if we reject his interpretation, the passage is about adulterous lust.