|
|
FULL BACKGROUND
Sermon on the mount — After spending a night in solemn meditation and prayer in the lonely mountain-range to the west of the Lake of Galilee (Luke 6:12), on the following morning our Lord called to him his disciples, and from among them chose twelve, who were to be henceforth trained to be his apostles (Mark 3:14, 15). After this solemn consecration of the twelve, he descended from the mountain-peak to a more level spot (Luke 6:17), and there he sat down and delivered the “sermon on the mount” (Matt. 5–7; Luke 6:20–49) to the assembled multitude. The mountain here spoken of was probably that known by the name of the “Horns of Hattin” (Kurun Hattin), a ridge running east and west, not far from Capernaum. It was afterwards called the “Mount of Beatitudes.” 1
SERMON ON THE MOUNT. The Sermon on the Mount is the title commonly given to the teachings of Jesus recorded in Mt. 5-7. Whether the name can be properly used for the somewhat parallel portion in Luke (6:20-49) depends upon one’s interpretation of the literary relationship between the two. The latter is often called the Sermon on the Plain because it is said to have been delivered on ‘a level place’ (Lk. 6:17) rather than ‘on the mountain’ (Mt. 5:1). But both expressions probably denote the same place approached from two different directions (see W. M. Christie, Palestine Calling, 1939, pp. 35f.).
Canon Liddon, in his Bampton Lectures, refers to the Sermon as ‘that original draught of essential Christianity’. If this be interpreted to mean that the Sermon on the Mount is Christianity’s message to the pagan world, we must counter with the reminder that it is manifestly didacheµ (teaching), not kerygma (proclamation). By no stretch of the imagination can it be considered ‘good news’ to one depending upon fulfilment of its demands for entrance into the kingdom. (Imagine a man outside of Christ, without the empowering aid of the Holy Spirit, trying to exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.) It is rather a character sketch of those who have already entered the kingdom and a description of the quality of ethical life which is now expected of them. In this sense, it is true, it is ‘essential Christianity’.
I. Composition
In times past it was taken for granted that the Sermon on the Mount was a single discourse delivered by Jesus on a specific occasion. Certainly this is what appears to be the case as it is reported in Matthew. The disciples sat down (v. 1), Jesus opened his mouth and taught them (v. 2), and when it was over the crowds were astonished at his teaching (7:28). However, most scholars are of the opinion that the Sermon is really a compilation of sayings of the Lord—‘a kind of epitome of all the sermons that Jesus ever preached’ (W. Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 1, p. 79). It is argued that: (1) There is far too much concentrated material here for one sermon. The disciples, not noted for acute spiritual perception, could never have assimilated such a wealth of ethical teaching. (2) The wide range of topics (description of kingdom blessedness, counsel on divorce, admonition concerning anxiety) is inconsistent with the unity of a single discourse. (3) The abruptness with which certain sections emerge in the Sermon (e.g. the teaching on prayer in Mt. 6:1-11) is very noticeable. (4) Thirty-four verses occur in other, and often more suitable, contexts throughout Luke (e.g. the Lord’s Prayer in Luke is introduced by a request from his disciples that he teach them to pray, Lk. 11:1; the saying about the narrow gate comes in response to the question, ‘Will those who are saved be few?‘ Lk. 13:23), and it is more likely that Matthew transposed sayings of Jesus into the Sermon than that Luke found them there and then scattered them throughout his Gospel. (5) It is characteristic of Matthew to gather together teaching material under certain headings and insert them into the narrative of Jesus’ life (cf. B. W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew, 1930, pp. 269-325), and that the Sermon on the Mount is therefore simply the first of these didactic sections. (Others deal with the themes of discipleship (9:35-10:42), the kingdom of heaven (13), true greatness (18) and the end of the age (24-25).)
These considerations, however, do not force one to view the entire Sermon as an arbitrary composition. The historical setting in Mt. 4:23-5:1 leads us to expect an important discourse delivered on a specific occasion. Within the Sermon itself are various sequences which appear to be ‘sermonettes’ of Jesus and not topical collections of separate logia. A comparison with Luke’s Sermon shows enough points of similarity (both begin with Beatitudes, close with the parable of the builders, and the intervening Lucan material—on loving one’s enemies (6:27-36) and judging (6:37-42)—follows in the same sequence in Matthew) to suggest that behind both accounts there was a common source. Before either Evangelist wrote there was in all probability a primitive framework which corresponded to an actual discourse delivered on a definite occasion. Such questions as whether the Sermon as it occurs in Matthew is closer to the original than the Lucan version, or whether Matthew followed a framework supplied by an earlier source, are still matters of scholarly debate. For our purpose it is enough to conclude that Matthew took a primitive sermon source and expanded it for his particular purpose by the introduction of relevant material.
II. Language of the Sermon
In the last generation Aramaic scholarship has taught us much about ‘The Poetry of Our Lord’—to borrow the title of C. F. Burney’s book (1925). Even in translation we can recognize the various types of parallelism, which are the distinguishing feature of Semitic poetry. Mt. 7:6, for example, is a fine illustration of ‘synonymous’ parallelism:
‘Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine’.
It appears that the Lord’s Prayer is a poem of two stanzas, each of which has three lines of four beats apiece (cf. Burney, pp. 112f.). The practical value of recognizing poetry where it occurs is that we are not so likely to interpret the text with such an inflexible literalism as we might employ in interpreting prose. How tragic if someone should (and history records that some have done so) literally ‘pluck out his eye’ or ‘cut off his hand’ in an attempt to do away with the passion of lust. A. M. Hunter notes that ‘proverbs indeed are principles stated in extremes’. We must always avoid interpreting paradox with a crude literalism, but rather seek the principle that underlies the proverb (Design for Life, pp. 19-20).
In this connection let us consider the quality of absoluteness in Jesus’ moral imperatives. Verses like Mt. 5:48, ‘You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect’, have long troubled men. Part of the answer lies in the fact that these are not ‘new laws’ but broad principles set forth in terms of action. They fall into the category of prophetic injunction, which was always deeper and demanded more than the mere letter of the law. And they were ethics of the new age, designed for those who partook of a new power (cf. A. N. Wilder, ‘The Sermon on the Mount’, IB, 7, 1951, p. 163).
III. Circumstances
Both Matthew and Luke place the Sermon in the first year of Jesus’ public ministry; Matthew a little earlier than Luke, who locates it immediately after the choosing of the Twelve and implies that it should be understood as somewhat of an ‘ordination sermon’. In either case, it came in that period before the religious teachers could muster their opposition, and yet late enough for Jesus’ fame to have spread through the land. The first months of his Galilean ministry were spent in synagogue preaching, but soon the enthusiasm of his crowds necessitated some sort of outdoor preaching. A corresponding change can be seen in the character of his message. The early proclamation, ‘Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’ (Mt. 4:17), has given way to exposition on the nature of the kingdom for those who seriously desired to learn.
Since the Sermon falls within the Galilean ministry of Jesus, it is natural to assume that the scene of the Sermon would be one of the foothills which surrounded the N plain. As Jesus entered Capernaum soon after (Mt. 8:5), it was perhaps located in that general area. A Latin tradition, dating from the 13th century, names a two-peaked hill, Karn Hattin, which lies a bit farther to the S, but only guides and tourists seem to take this identification with any degree of seriousness.
The Sermon is addressed primarily to disciples. This is the apparent meaning of both Mt. 5:1-2 and Lk. 6:20. Luke’s use of the second person in the Beatitudes, in sayings like ‘You are the salt of the earth’ (Mt. 5:13), and the exalted ethic of the Sermon as a whole, can only mean that it was designed for those who had deserted paganism for life in the kingdom. Yet at the close of each account (Mt. 7:28-29; Lk. 7:1) we learn of the presence of others. The solution seems to be that the crowd was there and heard Jesus as he taught, but that the discourse itself was directed primarily to the circle of disciples. Occasional utterances, such as the ‘woes’ of Lk. 6:24-26, unless rhetorical devices, seem to be ‘asides’ to some who might be listening in and who needed such admonition.
IV. Analysis
Regardless of whether one sees the Sermon as the summary of an actual discourse or as a mosaic of ethical sayings arranged by Matthew, there is little doubt that Mt. 5-7 has a real unity marked by the logical development of a basic theme. This theme is presented in the Beatitudes and can be expressed as ‘the quality and conduct of life in the kingdom’. The following is a descriptive analysis of the content of the Sermon.
a. The blessedness of those in the kingdom, 5:3-16
(i) The Beatitudes (5:3-10).
(ii) An expansion of the final Beatitude and a digression to show the role of the disciple in an unbelieving world (5:11-16).
b. The relationship of the message of Jesus to the old order, 5:17-48
(i) The thesis stated (5:17). Jesus’ message ‘fulfils’ the law by penetrating behind the letter and clarifying its underlying principle, thus bringing it to its ideal completion.
(ii) The thesis enlarged (5:18-20).
(iii) The thesis illustrated (5:21-48).
1. In the command not to kill, anger is the culpable element (5:21-26).
2. Adultery is the fruit of an evil heart nourished on impure desire (5:27-32).
3. Kingdom righteousness demands an honesty so transparent that oaths are unnecessary (5:33-37).
4. Lex talionis must give way to a spirit of non-retaliation (5:38-42).
5. Love is universal in application (5:43-48).
c. Practical instructions for kingdom conduct, 6:1-7:12
(i) Guard against false piety (6:1-18).
1. In almsgiving (6:1-4).
2. In prayer (6:5-15).
3. In fasting (6:16-18).
(ii) Dispel anxiety with simple trust (6:19-34).
(iii) Live in love (7:1-12).
d. Challenge to dedicated living, 7:13-29
(i) The way is narrow (7:13-14).
(ii) A good tree bears good fruit (7:15-20).
(iii) The kingdom is for those who hear and do (7:21-27).
V. Interpretation
The Sermon on the Mount has had a long and varied history of interpretation. For Augustine, who wrote a treatise on the Sermon while still a bishop at Hippo (ad 393-396), it was the ‘perfect rule or pattern of Christian life—a new law in contrast with the old. Monastic orders interpreted it as a ‘counsel of perfection’ designed not for the populace but for the chosen few. The Reformers held it to be the ‘uncompromising expression of divine righteousness directed towards all’. Tolstoy, the Russian novelist and (in later life) social reformer, resolved it into five commandments (suppression of all anger, chastity, no oaths, nonresistance, unreserved love of enemies), which if literally obeyed would do away with the existing evils and usher in a Utopian kingdom. Weiss and Schweitzer held that the demands were too radical for all times, and thus declared them ‘interim ethics’ for the early Christians, who believed that the end of all things was at hand. Still others, making great allowance for figurative language, understood the Sermon as the expression of a noble way of thinking—teaching which dealt with what man should be rather than with what he should do.
Thus the 20th-century interpreter is presented with a bewildering number of ‘keys’ with which to unlock the essential meaning of the Sermon on the Mount. With Kittel he can take the demands as purposely exaggerated so as to drive man to a sense of failure (and hence to repent and believe), or with Windisch he can differentiate between historical and theological exegesis and defend the practicability of the demands. With Dibelius he can interpret the great moral imperatives as the absolute ethic of the inbreaking kingdom, or with the Dispensationalists he can relegate the entire sermon to a future millennial reign of Christ.
How, then, shall we interpret the Sermon? The following will at least give us our guide-lines: a. Although couched in poetry and symbol, the Sermon still demands a quality of ethical conduct which is breath-taking in its dimensions. b. Jesus is not laying down a new code of legal regulations but stating great ethical principles and how they affect the lives of those within the kingdom. ‘It would be a great point gained if people would only consider that it was a Sermon, and was preached, not an act which was passed’ (J. Denney). c. The Sermon is not a programme for the direct improvement of the world, but is directed to those who have denied the world in order to enter the kingdom. d. It is neither an impractical ideal nor a fully attainable possibility. In the words of S. M. Gilmour, it is ‘the ethic of that transcendental order which broke into history in Jesus Christ, has built itself into history in the church, but whose full realization lies beyond history when God will be ‘all in all’’ (Journal of Religion 21, 1941, p. 263).
Bibliography. In addition to the extensive literature cited in other Bible dictionaries (see, e.g., Votaw’s article in HDB, extra vol., pp. 1-45), see B. K. McArthur, Understanding the Sermon on the Mount, 1960; J. W. Bowman and R. W. Tapp, The Gospel from the Mount, 1957; W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, 1964; M. Dibelius, The Sermon on the Mount, 1940; A. M. Hunter, Design for Life, 1953; D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount2, 1976; A. N. Wilder’s article in IB, 7, 1951, pp. 155-164; H. Windisch, The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount, 1951 (translation of revised edition of Der Sinn der Bergpredigt, 1929); D. Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 1948; C. F. H. Henry, Christian Personal Ethics, 1957, pp. 278-326; J. Jeremias, Die Bergpredigt7, 1970; J. R. W. Stott, Christian Counter-Culture, 1978. r.h.m. 2
1. Easton, M. G., M. A. D. D., Easton’s Bible Dictionary, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1996.
2. The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1962.
|
|
