EXEGESIS ON MATTHEW 5: 13- 20
“JESUS’ TEACHING ON FUNCTIONS AND MOTIVES OF THE INHERITERS”
(Presented by Lenin Elijah)
(On: 9th Sept 05.)
INTRODUCTION
The passage Matthew 5:13- 20, beautifully fits into the content of, “ the citizens of the kingdom”, where Matthew does not find it necessary to record the early Judean ministry of Jesus, therefore he directly finds pleasure in bringing Jesus directly after the temptation experience and finds it easy to say that Jesus was on a mountain and the recipients according to Matthew are Jesus’ disciples, but whereas Luke includes the multitude along with the disciples. However Jesus proceeds to give a practical application that Christians are not merely to be sufficient within their own dimensions, but rather to influence the vicinity around them, and He moves further in inspecting their inner thoughts and motives which plays a imperative role in their out ward actions. Thereby he reaches to a new way of hermeneutics in handling things of the kingdom of God.
TRANSLATION : -
5:13 "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
5:14 "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.
5:15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.
5: 16 In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
5: 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
5: 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
5: 20 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.
Form/Structure/Setting
A. The tone of the sermon set in the midst of the beatitudes, the evangelist next presents two comprehensive statements about the necessity of living in a way that reflects the good news of the kingdom, which are, in short, “kingdom” ethics—instructions for how those who are recipients of the kingdom are to live. The emphatic uJmei`", “you yourselves,” in each maxim brings out this emphasis. It is particularly important to note that the kingdom precedes the ethics; there is no insistence that people are to live this way in order to receive the kingdom. The disciples are first identified as salt and light, and even here being precedes doing. It is because they are salt and light that they are expected to behave in appropriate ways. The two maxims about salt and light thus serve as an introduction for what is given in detail in the material that follows[1].
B. Matthew is unique among the Gospels in placing these two main metaphors side by side in the form of maxims in parallel structure. The salt metaphor, however, is found also in Mark 9:50 and Luke 14:34–35. Luke seems to dependent on the Markan parallel, although, in one word (mwranqh`/, “loses its taste”), Luke agrees with Matthew against Mark. Luke’s second verse (14:35) is not found in Mark but is similar in content to Matt 5:13c, especially in the reference to “casting out” tasteless salt. Mark alone has the corresponding comment: “Have salt in yourselves and be at peace with one another” (9:50)[2].
The metaphor of a lamp upon a lamp stand is found in Mark 4:21 and Luke 8:16 (and 11:33), however, it occurs in reference to the mission of Jesus and still they use it in two different ways. Luke 11:33 is followed, on the other hand, by material that occurs in Matt 6:22–23. Matthew alone has the imperative about letting your light shine. The wording in all three Synoptic parallels, moreover, varies considerably. Therefore one can conclude the light on the lamp stand metaphor originated from a common starting point, and also they have independent oral traditions with the work of the individuals[3].
C. The two declarative maxims of this pericope (vv 13 and 14) are exactly parallel in form: to; a{la" th`" gh`", “the salt of the earth,” is parallel to to; fw`" tou` kovsmou, “the light of the world.” The discussion following each maxim is parallel in content, though not in form, focusing on the uselessness of salt that is not salty and light that is hidden. The second maxim is followed by another metaphor (v 14b) that makes the same point as the discussion that follows: “a city on a hill cannot be hidden.” V 16 contains the imperative application of the second maxim (and the first by implication). This imperative is the subject of the entire sermon: to belong to the kingdom necessitates reflecting the light of the kingdom through one’s good deeds. The imperative, however, receives its force from the indicative: i.e., you are the light; let your light shine[4].
D. Matthew’s material is probably drawn from oral tradition. It is impossible to know the extent to which the evangelist is responsible for the present form of the pericope. V 14b is a somewhat awkward mixing of metaphors interpreting the argument about light. It may therefore be a later accretion to the original material, but at what time we cannot say. If the sermon is essentially the construction of the evangelist using pieces of oral tradition, then his creativity may be seen in his placement of this passage here, immediately following the beatitudes and prior to the detailed instruction provided by the sermon. The parallel structure of the pericope argues for the evangelist’s having taken over material from the oral tradition[5].
E. In this pericope, only v 18 finds a partial Synoptic parallel. Luke 16:17 reads, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped.” Obviously, these are different renditions of the same saying. Matthew’s version adds the reference to “one jot,” which may be an elaboration occurring in the tradition. Matthew’s final e{w" (“until”) clause, finding no parallel in the Lukan version, gives the strong appearance of having been added by the evangelist as an explanation and a strengthening of his point. One other related saying, which refers to the passing away of heaven and earth in contrast to the permanence of Jesus’ words, occurs in verbatim agreement in all three Synoptics (Matt 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33)[6].
F. The four verses of this pericope, although related in theme, are not interrelated or interdependent in such a way that they form a single entity. Instead, they are readily separable without any loss of meaning and thus could have come initially from different contexts. On the other hand, the verses did cohere in the evangelist’s mind, and every attempt should be made to consider them as a unified whole. The key statement in the pericope is, of course, v 17. The stress of the passage is evident from the repetition in the words “I did not come to destroy” after the words “think not that I came to destroy.” V 18, which describes the permanent authority of the law, is prefaced by the formula “verily I say to you” and contains a double e{w" a[n (“until”) clause, chiastically constructed, making it both awkward in structure and difficult to understand. V 19 contains a beautiful symmetry of form in the contrast between the one who fails to keep the commandments and the one who keeps them. The repetition and symmetry make this verse ideal for memorization; it could well have circulated as an independent logion used to introduce or to conclude ethical teachings of Jesus. V 20 has the “I say unto you” formula again, emphatically pointing to the righteousness that is the subject of the following verses. The reference to entering the kingdom of heaven binds this verse to the preceding one, so that it serves as a bridge between what precedes and what follows[7].
G. The perspective contained in this pericope is especially useful to the evangelist in his presentation of the gospel to his Jewish-Christian audience, though he might not have composed this material; it is clear that he was a passive transmitter of the tradition available to him. He is responsible at least for the present combination of these four separate verses, which lends emphasis to the whole. The evangelist, moreover, has probably put his own stamp on the traditional material, shaping it so as to make the strongest possible impact upon his Jewish-Christian readers[8].
EXEGESIS ON MATTHEW 5: 13- 20
V 13. Jesus describes his disciples (the uJmei`", “you,” is emphatic) as to; a{la" th`" gh`", “the salt of the earth.” Here according to William Hendricksen salt has many characteristics: whiteness, pungency, flavor, antiseptic, prevents and retards decay and it also has a negative function i.e. it combats deterioration, works secretly and its influence is real, similarly Christians are combating moral and spiritual decay and though the world is corrupt, only God would know how it would it be without restraining power of the life and prayers of the saints (Gen 18: 26- 32)[9] and to S.R Driver the saying of Jesus is probably proverbial and the idea underlying “salt” is probably its use as a preservative and therefore the disciples are the elements in the world who keep it wholesome and control the decay and the consequent judgment, but since the salt may become useless for house hold purposes and thrown out of doors, so the disciples should beware that they loose their essential Christian character. And it may become useless only when it is soiled mixed with dirt and other extraneous substances as it becomes practically useless[10]. To this verse Frank E. Gaebelein gives the explanation that, salt in the ancient world was used to flavor foods and even in small doses as a fertilizer, above all as a preservative, especially with meat to slow its decay. It was a precious commodity and the Greeks called it divine, and from earliest times salt was considered as an offering to the gods, to say all Hebrew meat offerings were salted (Lev.2:13). Thus one can understand the fact that the ancient Romans regarded salt as a symbol of purity as they said that salt came from the purest of all things i.e. the sun and the sea[11].
But still strictly speaking salt cannot loose its saltiness, as Sodium Chloride is a stable compound. But most salt in the ancient world derived from marshes or the lake, rather than by evaporation of salt water, and therefore contains many impurities, and could be reached out, leaving a residue so dilute it was of little worth[12]. According to James Burtun Coffmann, salt was accepted and collected as taxes by the Romans from the people of the holy land, as the main source of salt was the Dead Sea,[13] and John Mac Arthur adds to it saying that the Romans held, except for the sun, nothing was more valuable than salt and often the Roman soldiers were paid in salt and in many ancient societies salt was used as a mark of friendship and also in the ancient Near East salt was frequently used to bind a covenant[14]. So oppressive were these taxes that the people adulterated the salt with sand or other earthly material. The government purified the salt by spreading it in big vats or tanks, filling them with water and drawing off the concentrated salt solution. Indeed the salt has lost its savor because it was no longer salt. It was fit to be trodden under foot. And other way was the surface waters of the Dead Sea, on evaporation, have a chemical salts content of about 31%Sodium Chloride, 13% Calcium Chloride, and 48% Magnesium Chloride, together with other impurities. The Calcium and Magnesium Chlorides are hygroscopic (taken out of the air) and this will thus literally dissolve the sodium Chloride. A bitter tasting composition results. It was a custom those days to store vast amount this salt in houses that had earthen floors. In time, the salt next t the door spoiled because of the dampness. Since it would be harmful fertile to fertile land because of its salt content, and no man would allow it to be thrown in the field. The only place left was the street, where it was trodden under foot of man[15].
In modern Israel savorless salt is still said to be scattered in the soil of flat roofs and this helps to harden the soil and prevents leaks and since the roofs serve as playground and places for public gathering, the salt still is being trodden underfoot. This explanation negates the attempt some to support that, precisely because pure salt cannot loose its favor. And the verb “mwraivnein” means “to become or to make foolish” (e.g., Sir 23:14; Rom 1:22; 1 Cor 1:20). The unusual use of it here to describe what has lost its saltiness goes back to the underlying Hebrew root, lpt.[16] Therefore Jesus is saying that true disciples cannot loose their effectiveness and therefore Jesus’ disciples are to act as a preservative in the world where moral standards are low and constantly changing, or even non-existence. And therefore they can discharge this function only if they themselves retain their virtue[17].
“but if the salt becomes… by men”, the salt form the marshes and lagoons or from the rocks in the neighborhood of the Dead Sea acquires a sour or alkaline taste, because of its mixture with gypsum, etc. It is then literally, “good for nothing” but to be thrown away and trampled underfoot (Ezek 47:17). Jesus as he walked on earth, saw many Pharisees and scribes, people who advocated a formal legalistic religion in the place of the true religion proclaimed by the ancient prophets in the name. Thus large and large the salt was it had lost its flavor in the religion and the life of Israel. Here the implication is clear, just as salt having lost its flavor cannot be restored, so also there who were trained in the knowledge of the truth, but resolutely set themselves against the exhortation of the Holy Spirit, hardened their hearts and unwilling to repent will find a difficult place to restore their flavor (Matt 12: 32; Heb 6: 4- 6), therefore let which is named salt be salt indeed[18].
V 14. Here “You” is emphatic, i.e. to say you my followers and none others are the light of the world. Though the Jews saw themselves as the light of the world (Rom 2: 19), the true light is the suffering servant (Is 42:6)[19] fulfilled in Jesus and derivately his disciples constitute the new light probably as the light of Israel (Eph 5: 8-9). Light was a universal religiously symbol in the O.T as well as the in the N.T, it most frequently symbolizes purity as opposed to filth, truth or knowledge as opposed to error or ignorance and divine revelations and presence as opposed to reprobation and abandonment by God[20]. In verse 14a, William explains that light is scripture which indicates the true knowledge of the God (Ps 36:9; Matt 6: 22, 23), goodness, righteousness and truthfulness (Eph 5: 8,9); joy, gladness, true happiness (Ps 97: 11; Is 9 1-7), it symbolizes the best which is, love, laughter and contrasted with darkness, dullness, depravity and despair. When light is mentioned at times revealed knowledge is mentioned and other times it includes all the blessings of “salvation” (Ps 27: 1). The statement “You are the light of the world” probably means that the citizens of the kingdom are not only blessed with these endowments, but are also the means used by God to transmit them to the men who surround them The light possessor become light transmitters, and to say collectively believers are “the light” (Phil 2: 15) and may be even include individuals in the mind of Jesus though the emphasis is collective[21]. John Mac Arthur compares salt and the light saying that salt is hidden, light is obvious. Salt works secretly and light openly, salt works from within, light from without. Salt is more the indirect influence of the Gospel, while light is more its direct communication. Salt works primarily through out living, while light works primarily through what we teach and preach. Salt is largely negative i.e. it can retard corruption, but it cannot change corruption into incorruption, whereas light is more positive which not only reveals what is wrong and false but also helps produce what is righteous and true[22].
However Christians are never a light in and by themselves. They are light, “in the Lord” (Eph 5: 8); Christ is the true, the original “light of the world” (Jn 8: 12; 19:5; 12: 35,36; II Cor 4: 6). Therefore believers are the light of the world in the secondary or derived sense, He is the sun and the believers are the moons that cannot shine by themselves but rather reflect the sun’s light. Therefore as Christ’s followers one should remain in living contact with the original light, so that we can be a light to others[23]. Thereby, God’s people are to proclaim God’s light in the world engulfed in darkness, just as their Lord came to shine His light for those in darkness (Luke 1: 79)[24].
V15 “Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel…giveth light to all that are in the house”
It is very evident that the proper place for a candle or a lamp stands, is not under a bushel or under a bed. According to Donald A Hagner, the purpose of a lamp is to give light, and thus it is placed upon a stand. “pa`sin toi`" ejn th`/ oijkiva/”, “to all who are in the house,” and therefore should not be understood in a restrictive sense but as parallel in meaning to the general tw`n ajnqrwvpwn (“the people”) of vv 13 and 16. That is to say all are in view. The word luvcno", here refers to an ordinary oil-burning household lamp (cf. Luke 15:8). When the lamp was lit, it was placed upon or hung from a stand so as to provide maximum benefit from the light. The movdio" was a common vessel used in measuring grain (about one peck, or 8.75 liters). The suggestion that the measuring vessel was used to extinguish a burning lamp and that the point of the saying is “one does not light a lamp to put it out” is not a convincing statement. But the whole issue is whether that light is seen or not[25].
According to James Burton verses 15-16 set forth instructions regarding the Christian light, or influence in the world (1) Christ forbade hiding it under a bushel (5: 14), that is permitting business and commerce to obscure one’s influence for the truth. (2) He warned it against hiding it under a vessel (Luke 8: 16) i.e. permitting cares, duties, and obligations of life to take over faith. (3) He prohibited hiding it under the bed of licentiousness, laziness, or idleness (Luke 8:16). And according to Oliver B. Greene the “Bushel” mentioned is a measuring container. Sometimes such container held a peck, sometimes half a bushel or a bushel. The size of the container is not important, however, the important thought is that we are not to try to conceal our light. All believers are light but not all believers shine in the same strength or power. Just as there are lighthouses with powerful beacon lights to guide the ships at sea, and lower lights along the shore to bring the ships safe into harbor. Therefore some Christians can be beacons and others are lower lights[26].
V 16. “In the same way …praise your father in Heaven” Here according to James Burton, for the statement, Let your light shine… here the command is to glorify God through an abundance of good works. Origen against Celsus quoted this place and referred to the light of Christians as a “ brilliant and unfading wisdom…the very reflection of everlasting light,” and also argued form this that Christians not bow down before the sun, moon, or the stars, seeing they themselves are light, and from the very same source[27]. Good works …The word ‘kalos, mentioned is verse sixteen set the tone for the rest for the sermon. These good works which are to be performed out of a pure heart as the hallmark of the disciples’ lives are set forth in Matthew 5:17- 7: 12[28].According to Mac Arthur, here Jesus uses here does not so much emphasize quality- though that obviously is important- as it does attractiveness beautiful appearance. Letting our light shine before men allows them to see our good works, the beauty the Lord has worked in us. To see good works by us is to see Christ in us. That is why Jesus says, let your shine. It is not something we create or make up, but something we allow the Lord to do through us. It is God’s light; our choice is whether to hide or let it shine. To say according to Oliver B. Greene good works do not save, nor do they add to salvation; but one who is saved and one who is alive in Christ will work, which may not be the same kind or the same amount of work to all believers, but for sure it can attract others to Christ. We are saved by God’s grace through faith; but we are also “His workmanship” created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them, but to the contrary James Burton says, that it is very clear in that Jesus never gave the slightest encouragement to the delusion that people are saved by faith only. To say good works were considered to be a most necessary and primary requirement on the part of all who would truly follow Christ and would through Him hope to have abundant entrance into the everlasting kingdom (19:17)[29].
Here the author Mac Arthur says that the purpose of letting our light shine and reveal our good works is not to bring attention or praise to ourselves, but to God. Our intent should be that, in what we are and in what we do, others may see God in order that they may glorify our father who is in heaven. Here Jesus speaking of the father emphasis God’s tenderness and intimacy, and speaking of His being in Heaven emphasis His majesty and holiness, as he is pictured dwelling in the splendor of His eternal holy home. Our good works are to magnify God’s grace and power. This is the supreme calling of our life: glorifying God. Everything we do is to cause others to give praise to the God who is the source of all that is good. The way we live should lead those around us to glorify (doxazo, from which we get doxology) the heavenly Father[30].
V 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets…to fulfill”. Such an expression implies that He knew that there was a danger of their thinking so[31], and possibly some had actually said this of Him, especially the Pharisees would be sure to say this, He disregarded the oral tradition, which the held to be equal in authority to the written law and he interpreted the written law according to His spirit, and not as they did, according to the rigid letter. He did not keep the weekly fasts, nor observe the weekly fasts, nor observe the elaborated distinctions between clean and unclean, and he consorted with outcasts and sinners. He neglected the traditional modes of teaching, and preached in a way of His own. Above all, he spoke as if he himself were an authority, independent of the law. Even some of His own followers may have been perplexed, and have thought that he proposed to supersede the Law. Therefore he defends His relationship to the law, making a striking implication as to his person by using the verb “hlqon” twice in this verse[32].
The formula "Do not think that" or "Never think that," is repeated by Jesus also in 10:34 (cf. 3:9). And Jesus' two sayings were designed to set aside potential misunderstandings as to the nature of the kingdom; but neither obviously flows out of open confrontation on the issue at stake. We see that Matthew has not yet recorded any charge that Jesus was breaking the law. Some have argued that many Jews in Jesus' day believed that law would be set aside and a new law introduced at Messiah's coming[33]. Here the introductory words "Do not think that" must be understood, not as the refutation of some well-entrenched and clearly defined position, but as a teaching device Jesus used to clarify certain aspects of the kingdom and of his own mission and to remove potential misunderstandings. Since when comparing with 10:34 shows that the reverse may not be absolute. Few would want to argue from 5: 9 that there is no sense in which Jesus came to bring peace. Therefore they began also to argue that there is no sense in which Jesus abolishing the law[34].
The words "I have come" do not necessarily prove Jesus' consciousness of his preexistence, for "coming" language can be used of prophets and indeed is used of the Baptist (11:18-19). But it can also speak of coming into the world (1Tim 1:15) and in the light of Matthew's prologue is probably meant to attest Jesus' divine origins. At very least it shows Jesus was sent on a mission[35]. According to S.R Driver Jesus' mission was not to abolish[36] {a term more frequently connected with the destruction of buildings (24:2; 26:61)} the law of Moses, which was eternally binding upon the hearts and conscience of men and if any of His disciples taught men to disobey any of his commandments would be placed in a inferior position in the coming kingdom, But by these words Matthew forms a new "inclusio" (5:17-7:12), which marks out the body of the sermon and shows that Jesus is taking pains to relate his teaching and place in the history of redemption to the OT Scriptures. For that is what "Law or the Prophets" here means: the Scriptures. The disjunctive "or" makes it clear that neither is to be abolished. The Jews of Jesus' day could refer to the Scriptures as "the Law and the Prophets" (7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 28:23; Rom 3:21); "the Law... the Prophets, and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44); or just "Law" (5:18; John 10:34; 12:34; 15:25; 1Cor 14:21); the divisions were not yet stereotyped. Thus even if "or the Prophets" is redactional, the referent does not change when only law is mentioned in v. 18, but it may be a small hint that the law, too, has a prophetic function (11:13) G.S Slogan says that it is certainly illegal to see in "Law and Prophets” to some vague reference to the will of God[37][1] N.J. McEleney find the verb so difficult in a context as the essence of the problem lies in the verb "to fulfill" (pleroo)[38], but Jewish scholars, take the verb to reflect the Aramaic verb qum ("establish," "validate," or "confirm" the law).Therefore it good to say that, Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to confirm it and establish it[39].
There are several objections.
1. The focus of Matthew 5 is the relation between the OT and Jesus' teaching, not his actions. So any interpretation that says Jesus fulfills the law by doing it misses the point[40].
2. If it is argued that Jesus confirms the law, even its jot and tittle, by both his life and his teaching some understood as setting out his own Halakah (rules of conduct) within the framework of the law And one marvels that the early church, as the other NT documents testify, misunderstood Jesus so badly on this point; and even the first Gospel, as we shall see, is rendered inconsistent[41].
3. The LXX never uses pleroo ("fulfill") to render qum or cognates (which prefer histanai or bebaioun ["establish" or "confirm"]). The verb pleroo renders male and means, "to fulfill." In OT usage this characteristically refers to the "filling up" of volume or time, meanings that also appear in the NT (e.g., Acts 24:27; Rom 15:19). But though the NT uses pleroo in a number of ways, we are primarily concerned with what is meant by "fulfilling" the Scriptures. And under this head are specific predictions, typological fulfillments, and even the entire eschatological hope epitomized in the OT by God's covenant with his people[42].
The lack of background for pleroo ("fulfill") as far as it applies to Scripture requires cautious instruction from the NT evidence. In a very few cases, notably James 2:23, the NT writers detect no self-evident prophetic force in the OT passage introduced. Rather, the OT text (in this case Gen 15:6) in some sense remains "empty" until Abraham's action "fulfills" it. But Genesis 15:6 does not predict the action. Most NT uses of pleroo in connection with Scripture, however, require some teleological force and even the indefinite uses presuppose a typology that in its broadest dimensions is teleological, even if not in every detail. In any case the interchange of male ("fulfill") and qum ("establish") in the Targumim is not of sufficient importance to overturn the LXX evidence, not least owing to problems of dating the Targumim[43].
Other views are not much more convincing. Many argue that Jesus is here referring only to moral law, as he confirms it: the civil and ceremonial law are indeed abolished Although this tripartite distinction is old, its use as a basis for explaining the relationship between the testaments is not demonstrably derived from the NT and probably does not antedate Aquinas Others understand the verb pleroo to mean that Jesus "fills up" the law by providing its full, intended meaning and understood in terms of the double command to love. But this, however, requires an extraordinary meaning for pleroo, ignores the "jot and tittle" of v. 18, and misinterprets 22:34-40[44].
Therefore the best interpretation of these difficult verses says that Jesus fulfills the Law and the Prophets in that they point to him, and he is their fulfillment. And therefore the antithesis is not between "abolish" and "keep" but between "abolish" and "fulfill.” To say then for Matthew it is not the question of Jesus' relation to the law that is in doubt, but rather its relation to him[45]. Therefore one can give pleroo ("fulfill") exactly the same meaning as in the formula quotations, as in the prologue (Matt 1-2) have already laid great stress on the prophetic nature of the OT and the way it points to Jesus[46].
V 18. ajmh;n ga;r levgw uJmi`n, “Truly I say to you.” As an introductory formula (“amen” is the transliteration of the Hebrew ÷mea;). The word, “amen”, meaning “verily” or “truly,” i.e., something to be relied upon, as these words stress the gravity of what follows. This prefatory usage of “amen” is found neither in the OT nor in the rabbinic literature, where the word occurs consistently as a response to a preceding statement. ajmhvn occurs no less that thirty-one times in Matthew, far more than in any other of the Gospels (the Fourth Gospel uses the double ajmhvn, ajmhvn, which never occurs in Matthew)[47].
"I tell you the truth,” signals that the statement to follow is of the utmost importance and in Greek it is connected to the preceding verse by an explanatory "for" (gar) This verse 18 further explains and confirms the truth of v. 17. The "jot" (KJV) has become "the smallest letter" (NIV) is almost certainly correct, for it refers to the letter y (yod), the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The "tittle" (keraia) has been variously interpreted: it is the Hebrew letter v (waw) or the small stroke that distinguishes several pairs of Hebrew letters, and to say in any event Jesus here upholds the authority of the OT Scriptures right down to the "least stroke of a pen."[48].
To say vv. 17-18 not only wrestles theoretically with OT authority but with the nature extent, and duration of its validity and continuity. The nature of these has been set forth in v. 17. Especially the reference to "jot and tittle" establishes its extent not only to reduce the reference to moral law, or the law as a whole or in its parts, or to God's will in some general sense. But "Law" almost certainly refers to the entire OT Scriptures, and not just the Pentateuch or moral law[49].
The duration of the OT's authority is seen in the two "until" clauses i.e. the first is "until heaven and earth disappear"--simply means "until the end of the age”, or to say, “ as long as the present world order persists.” and the second is "until everything is accomplished", which is more difficult. Some take it to be equivalent to the first, which is more delicate than that. Here the word, “panta” ("all things" or "everything") also has no forerunner. According to some scholars, the word cannot very easily refers to all the demands of the law that must be "accomplished," because (1) the word "law" almost certainly refers here to all Scripture and not just its commands, but even if that were not so, v. 17 has shown that even imperatival law is prophetic (2) the word, “genatai” ("is accomplished") must here be rendered "happen," or "come to pass" as the accomplished in any sense cannot mean obeying the law[50].
Hence the word panta ("everything") is best understood to refer to everything in the law considered under the law's prophetic function, i.e. to say, until all these things have taken place as prophesied. This is not simply pointing to the Cross, nor simply to the end of the age and not even with 24:34-35 (judgment day) as is not that close. But according to verse 18d it simply means the entire divine purpose prophesied in Scripture must take place; not one jot or tittle will fail of its fulfillment and a similar point is found in 11:13. Thus the first "until" clause focuses strictly on the duration of OT authority but the second returns to considering its nature; it reveals God's redemptive purposes and points to their fulfillment, their "accomplishment," in Jesus and the eschatological kingdom he is now introducing and will one day consummate[51].
V 19. The key problem of this verse hinges on the meaning of the phrase “tw`n ejntolw`n touvtwn tw`n ejlacivstwn”, “the least of these commandments.” A number of scholars have concluded that the phrase refers to the teaching of Jesus especially given in vv 21–48. But in keeping with the emphasis of the preceding verses, it is more naturally taken as a reference to the Mosaic law, and the equivalent of the “jot and tittle” of v 18. What is in view is not the least in importance but the easiest to fulfill. If the commandments of the OT are in view here, we must regard this statement as hyperbolic. As in the preceding verse, a literal understanding is not consistent with Jesus’ own treatment of the law, or indeed with the emphasis in v 20. What is being emphasized in this way are not the minutiae of the law that tended to captivate the Pharisees but simply a full faithfulness to the meaning of the law as it is expounded by Jesus. Thus, the phrase “the least of these commandments” refers to the final and full meaning of the law, but taken up and interpreted by Jesus. For example in the material that begins in v 21 i.e. the description of the “great commandment” in 22:36–40 and Jesus’ ability to find the heart of the law in the double love commandment. Thus, the language of this verse, like that of the preceding verse, is familiar to the Jews, and especially to the Pharisees (a “sentence of holy law,” in which human action is followed by divine action). Now, however, it has new connotations, given the larger context in which it is uttered—the fulfillment brought by Jesus. These new connotations and a fuller picture of Jesus’ intention concerning the Mosaic Law will emerge as we progress through the Gospel[52].
The addition of the word didavxh/, “teach,” in both halves of the verse stresses the responsibility of the disciples, not simply to observe the law as interpreted by Jesus but also to teach it faithfully[53]. Teaching receives great emphasis in the Gospel of Matthew, and the evangelist obviously regarded it as of the highest importance for his church (Matt. 28:20)[54].
The ranking of persons as ejlavcisto", “least,” or mevga", “great,” in the kingdom of heaven is in keeping with the Jewish and rabbinic perspective and therefore it is directly related to the idea of rewards as a motivation for correct conduct (cf. 5:12 and 18:4). The “least” has presumably been essentially faithful to the law, though not having reached or taught the ideal championed by Jesus. Matthew could well have in mind more liberal Jewish Christians or especially gentile Christians who tolerated more carelessness regarding the law than he wished to promote among his particular Jewish-Christian congregation[55]. MacArthur says that the “least” refers to those excluded from the kingdom. But the assumption is that although they were guilty of the smallest commandments, they had kept the law for the most part and to say their reward will be proportionately less[56].
V 20. Again, as in v 18, the formulaic levgw ga;r uJmi`n, “I say to you,” stresses the great importance of the words that follow. This verse points to the essence of the matter and provides a clarification of the meaning of v 18, as well as a confirmation of our interpretation of the pericope. The dikaiosuvnh, “righteousness,” in view must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (plei`on, “more,” provides emphasis when added to perisseuvsh/, “abound”). But it is clear, especially from what follows in the sermon, that despite the language used this is not to be understood quantitatively and the righteousness that Jesus’ use of this word dikaiosuvnh, means, “righteousness”, which has a special significance especially in the Gospels, does not come through a greater preoccupation with the minutiae of the law that outdoes even the grammatei`", “scribes,” who were the professional scholars of the law, who spent much of their time in detailed study of its minutiae and the Pharisees who attempted to fulfill the requirements of the Torah through an elaborate oral tradition that was meant to illuminate its demands. Therefore Jesus expects a new and a higher kind of righteousness that rests upon the presence of the eschatological kingdom and finds its definition and content in his definitive and authoritative exposition of the law[57], and this is depicted clearly by William Hendricksen who brings out two kind of righteousness one of the scribes and the Pharisees, who fail to satisfy the heart (as they were formal, external and shallow), and the other of Jesus, who satisfies the heart, (as he was genuine, intensely deeply rooted and complete), secondly the scribes and Pharisees failed to satisfy the minds (theirs were based on reasoning that is deceptive, misleading and merely clever and proceeds from a mind that is not at rest), whereas Jesus satisfies the minds, (in line with reasoning that is honest, reliable and sound, and proceeds from a mind that has found, or in the process of finding rest), thirdly the scribes and the Pharisees are self-made and they were self-righteous and that commended buy Jesus is God-given, fourthly the scribes and Pharisees glorify self which is ostentatious and proud, whereas Jesus glorifies God, he is unpretentious and humble[58]. Thus Jesus clearly calls his disciples to a way of righteousness, but it is a new way that rests upon the true meaning of the Torah now delivered by the Messiah. To follow that teaching is to follow the path that leads to perfection (5:48)[59].
But by considering the larger context of the verse i.e. the grace of the beatitudes, it forbids us to conclude that entrance into the kingdom depends, in a cause-effect relationship or upon personal moral attainments. Though the verse is addressed in such a way it must be remembered that entrance into the kingdom is God’s gift; and to belong to the kingdom means to follow Jesus’ teaching[60]. MacArthur clearly says that, Scripture teaches repeatedly that sinners are capable of nothing but a flawed and imperfect righteousness (e.g., Is. 64:6). Therefore the only righteousness by which sinners may be justified is the perfect righteousness of God that is imputed to those who believe (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:5)[61].
SUMMARY
Jesus in His description about the proper function of His disciples, he made use of two sublime illustrations namely the salt and light, therefore in verse 13 “if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned”, Salt is both a preservative and a flavor enhancer. No doubt its use as a preservative is what Jesus had mostly in view here. Pure salt cannot lose its flavor or effectiveness, but the salt that is common in the Dead Sea area is contaminated with gypsum and other minerals and may have a flat taste or be ineffective as a preservative. Such mineral salts were useful for little more than keeping footpaths free of vegetation. In verse 16 from the words, “light so shine” portrays a godly life that gives convincing testimony of the saving power of God, which ultimately will brings Him glory. (1 Pet. 2:12). And, in verse 17, Jesus clearly says that, “he did not came to destroy the Law or the Prophets”. Therefore one cannot think that Jesus’ teaching in the verses that follow was meant to alter, abrogate, or replace the moral content of the OT law. He was neither giving a new law nor modifying the old, but rather explaining the true significance of the moral content of Moses’ law and the rest of the OT. “The Law and the Prophets” speaks of the entirety of the OT Scriptures, not the rabbinical interpretations of them. This speaks of fulfillment in the same sense that prophecy is fulfilled. Christ was indicating that He is the fulfillment of the law in all its aspects. He fulfilled the moral law by keeping it perfectly, the ceremonial law by being the embodiment of everything the law’s types and symbols pointed to and also the judicial law by personifying God’s perfect justice (cf. 12:18, 20). We see that verse 18 begins by, “till heaven and earth pass away … till all is fulfilled”, which explains that Christ was emphasizing both the inspiration and the enduring authority of all Scripture. He was specifically affirming the utter inerrancy and absolute authority of the OT as the Word of God, even down to the least jot and tittle. This suggests that the NT should not be seen as supplanting and abrogating the OT, but as fulfilling and explicating it. For example, all the ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic Law were fulfilled in Christ and are no longer to be observed by Christians (Col. 2:16, 17). Yet not one jot or tittle is thereby erased; the underlying truths of those Scriptures remain, and in fact the mysteries behind them are now revealed in the brighter light of the Gospel. Here from the phrase, “One jot or one tittle”, “jot” refers to the smallest Heb (yodh), and “tittle”, which is a tiny extension on a Heb. Letter. Thereby Jesus upholds the authority of the OT Scriptures right down to the "least stroke of a pen." In verse 19 “shall be called least … shall be called great” Matthew could well have in mind more liberal Jewish Christians or especially gentile Christians who tolerated more carelessness regarding the law than he wished to promote among his particular Jewish-Christian congregation, and some scholars believe that the “least” refers to those excluded from the kingdom. But the assumption of the most is that, although they were guilty of the smallest commandments, they had kept the law for the most part and to say their reward will be proportionately less.
Finally, in verse 20, “unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees”. Here Jesus was calling His disciples to a deeper, more radical holiness than that of the Pharisees. As Pharisaism had a tendency to soften the law’s demands by focusing only on external obedience. Whereas, Jesus unpacks the full moral significance of the law, and shows that the righteousness the law calls for actually involves an internal conformity to the spirit of the law, rather than mere external compliance to the letter. “Will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven”. On the other hand, this sets up an impossible barrier to works-salvation. Scripture teaches repeatedly that sinners are capable of nothing but a flawed and imperfect righteousness (e.g., Is. 64:6). Therefore the only righteousness by which sinners may be justified is the perfect righteousness of God that is imputed to those who believe (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:5).
APPLICATION
We see that Jesus use of two metaphors has a greater meaning and should well keep ringing in the ears of the believers. Since believers are called to be the salt and light of this world and not of heaven, therefore as salt has the capacity and power to preserve, to give flavor, similarly true believers have a greater responsibility over this world from immorality and corruption, they are further called to cleanse and penetrate into this world to create a godly atmosphere, and a life that gives a sweet smelling aroma. The word salt less can further refer to a backslider who loses his flavor and testimony in this world. As light the believers are called to undergo a radical transformation, to become more like Christ and thereby to reflect more of Him (Jn 9:5), and as light is pure, clean, good, right, true, reveals, strips away darkness, protects, similarly believers have the massive task of illuminating their community, city, state and nation, which is totally depends upon the believer as the verse says, “ let your light shine….”, therefore there is every chance for a true believer to refuse to let his/her light, turn off, refuse to turn it, shade it, darken it, or to direct its beam to another direction and the purpose of letting the light shine is to let their good works for the use of this world and also to stir up men to glorify God.
Jesus next focuses His attention towards the relation of the old and the new righteousness. To say with clear distinction, before Christ the law was only rule, words, principles of behavior, demanded perfect righteousness, and also demanded punishment for its disobedience, as a whole it did not have spirit and life in it. But we see through Christ the law was fulfilled and completed, He came to explain the rule and the principle that underlines the law that brought out the full meaning, to inject both idea and the power to behave into a persons mind and life. He secured perfect righteousness by paying the maximum price through his ultimate love and frees all men from the penalty of the law. Thereby he became the representative Man for all men. Therefore the believers are not to be strict religious or legalist, as they have the full liberty in Christ, which makes them to serve God with a positive attitude.
[1] Donald A Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary Volume 33A, Matthew 1–13 (Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1993) 97.
[2] ibid, 98.
[3] ibid.,
[4] ibid.,
[5] ibid.,
[6] Donald A Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary Volume 33A, Matthew 1–13 (Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1993), 103.
[7] ibid, 104.
[8] ibid, 104.
[9] William Hendricksen, New Testament Commentary “Matthew”, (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1973), 282.
[10] S.R Driver, D.D, The International Critical Commentary, (Great Britain: Morrison and Gibb LTD, 1965), 43.
[11] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of The Gospel of Matthew, (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1965), 62.
[12] Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositors Bible Commentary, Vol-8, (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 138-39.
[13] James Burton Coffman, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1983), 56.
[14] John Mac Arthur, The Mac Arthur New Testament Commentary, Matthew 1-7, (USA: BMH Books, 1985), 241.
[15] James Burton Coffman, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1983), 56.
[16] Donald A Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary Volume 33A, Matthew 1–13 (Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1993), 99.
[17] Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositors Bible Commentary, Vol-8, (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 138-39.
[18] William Hendricksen, New Testament Commentary “Matthew”, (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1973), 283- 84.
[19] S.R Driver, D.D, The International Critical Commentary, (Great Britain: Morrison and Gibb LTD, 1965), 44.
[20] Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositors Bible Commentary, Vol-8, (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 139.
[21] William Hendricksen, New Testament Commentary “Matthew”, (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1973), 284.
[22] John Mac Arthur, The Mac Arthur New Testament Commentary, Matthew 1-7, (USA: BMH Books, 1985), 244.
[23] William Hendricksen, New Testament Commentary “Matthew”, (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1973), 284- 85.
[24] John Mac Arthur, The Mac Arthur New Testament Commentary, Matthew 1-7, (USA: BMH Books, 1985), 244.
[25] Donald A Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary Volume 33A, Matthew 1–13 (Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1993),100.
[26] Oliver B. Greene, The Gospel According to Matthew, (USA: The Gospel Hour, 1971), 337.
[27] James Burton Coffman, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1983), 58.
[28] Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold The King: A Study Matthew, (Oregon: Multnomah Press, 1980), 98.
[29] James Burton Coffman, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1983), 59.
[30] John Mac Arthur, The Mac Arthur New Testament Commentary, Matthew 1-7, (USA: BMH Books, 1985), 246.
[31] Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, (Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953), 75.
[32] Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold The King: A Study Matthew, (Oregon: Multnomah Press, 1980), 99.
[33] R. Banks, "The Eschatological Role of Law," Pre- and Post-Christian Jewish Thought, (Exeter: Paternoster, 1982), 173-85.
[34] ibid.,
[35] R. Banks, "The Eschatological Role of Law," Pre- and Post-Christian Jewish Thought, (Exeter: Paternoster, 1982), 179.
[36] S.R Driver, D.D, The International Critical Commentary, (Great Britain: Morrison and Gibb LTD, 1965), 44.
[37] G.S. Sloyan, Is Christ the End of the Law? (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 49.
[38] N.J. McEleney, The Principles of the Sermon on the Mount, (n.p: JBL Publications, 1979), 552.
[39] ibid.,
[40] Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositors Bible Commentary, Vol-8, (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 141.
[41] ibid, 142.
[42] Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositors Bible Commentary, Vol-8, (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 143.
[43] ibid.,
[44] ibid, 144- 145.
[45] Robert Banks, "Matthew's Understanding of the Law: Authenticity and Interpretation in Matthew 5:17-20, (n.p: JBL, 1974), 226.
[46] G.S. Sloyan, Is Christ the End of the Law? (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 49.
[47] Donald A Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary, volume 33A, Matthew, 1-13, (Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1993)
[48] Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositors Bible Commentary, Vol-8, (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 140.
[49] ibid, 141.
[50] ibid.,
[51] ibid.,
[52] Donald A Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary, volume 33A, Matthew, 1-13, (Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1993), 108.
[53] Raymond E. Brown (E.D), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, (Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 2004), 641.
[54] Donald A Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary, volume 33A, Matthew, 1-13, (Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1993), 108.
[55] ibid, 109.
[56] John F. Mac Arthur, Jr., The Mac Arthur Study Bible, (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1997), 65.
[57] Donald A Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary, volume 33A, Matthew, 1-13, (Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1993)--
[58] William Hendricksen, New Testament Commentary “Matthew”, (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1973), 293- 94.
[59] ibid, 294.
[60] Donald A Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary, volume 33A, Matthew, 1-13, (Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1993)--
[61] John F. Mac Arthur, Jr., The Mac Arthur Study Bible, (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1997), 66.
Posts
