Chapter 5
2022 - I note from the Chronological Bible that the order of Matthew is like this: 4, 8, 12, and then 5-7. This is quite a "reordering". In my Harmony, we do the first 11 verses of Matt 4, and then there are a number of chapters from John and a couple verses from Luke before we get on to Matt 4:12. It is interesting that much of what we find in the first four chapters of John's gospel is recorded only by John. Then there is a note in the Harmony saying that as the Galilean Ministry begins, Mark is full of detail while Luke's description is fairly condensed. Matthew, during this time, is more topical than chronological. This quote from my Harmony: "The mass of material makes clear grouping difficult, but there is progress in the development of events.
(2021 - Spent a long time reading the OT reading for today. It was quite interesting...but I am worn down now. Will read through Matt 5 pretty quickly.)
The crowds were so large that Jesus went up on a mountain (it says "the mountain") and he gives the Sermon on the Mount. How many books have been written about this sermon? And who it was addressed to?
The message opens with the so called Beatitudes. The first blessing is this verse:
3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [Mat 5:3 ESV] I'm going to repeat the explanation for "kingdom of heaven". Matthew is the only one that uses this phrase. The other gospels all call it the kingdom of God. Matthew uses heaven as a euphemism for God (this is all per the MSB note at Mt 3:2. The Jews were very sensitive about saying the name aloud. Quoting from the 3:2 note: "...Both expressions refer to the sphere of God's dominion over those who belong to Him. The kingdom is now manifest in heaven's spiritual rule over the hearts of believers (Lk 17.21); and one day it will be established in the literal earthly kingdom (Rev 20:4-6).
(I should re-listen to John MacArthur's sermons on these Beatitudes. I remember those being really good.)
2020-So this year, I didn't mess up and read this too soon. I read Luke 6 yesterday, which was his recording of this same sermon. I had some problems with Luke 6:24-26, which are the "woes" that say woe if you are rich now, because you're done with being rich. Woe if you are full, because you are going to be hungry. I note now that these woes are not recorded in Matthew. I am reminded that Matthew was there, and Luke was not. I believe the Bible is what it should be. I don't think you can cut out the parts you don't like and just keep the stuff you do. But I do not understand Luke's woes.
Further information from MSB. There, it calls this the "Sermon on the Plateau", because a different word is used. MSB allows that this could have been preached at a different time than the one in Matthew. Hence, not everything is the same. Same subject matter, same outline, same beginning and ending, but Luke's is shorter and has these woes. MSB goes on though that they are most likely different writer's recounting of the same event. MSB says that both Matthew and Luke have translated this sermon from Aramaic to Greek. MSB seems really sure that Jesus delivered the speech in Aramaic. Not sure how we could possibly know that. MSB notes that Luke leaves out parts that would only have been meaningful to the Jews - like the Mosaic law part. BUT, there is not one thing in MSB about vss 24-26 - those three woes. It occurs to me that the whole point of these three woes is simply that those who focus on the comforts of this world, like wealth and food and the good graces of all men, will at some point realize that these things are transient and fickle, and they will at some point seek something more lasting, more permanent, more "filling" and more "comforting". They will ultimately see the importance and significance of spiritual things. And very likely, if they listened to this sermon and still didn't catch on, they are unlikely to catch on later, under less abundant circumstances, and so end up hungry, poor, weeping, and shunned. That is all this means. It is like I had a mental block about it yesterday...and last year. Copying this back to the Luke 6 notes from yesterday.
2023 - This year, I would say that those who focus on wealth, food, and the good graces of men - IN PREFERENCE TO focusing on the things of God - will end up in hell, and we might want to add hunger, lack of any kind of economy, and everybody selfish in their own suffering to the characteristics of hell. It seems to me, this year, that Luke wasn't talking about the "future" on this earth, but about eternal things. This too removes any "implied condemnation" of those with plenty based solely on the fact that they HAVE plenty while others do not. This is not advocating socialism on Luke's part. Also copying this over to Luke 6.
2024 - The beatitudes, vss 3-12, are a statement of the characteristics most "rewarded" by God. It is here, for the first time in the NT, that Jesus lays out the heavenly standard of success, of riches, of good character, as opposed to the standard the world applies. Start with vs 3 - It is better to be poor in spirit than to be rich in spirit. To be poor in something is not have much of it. BLB gives 5 definitions for spirit (pneuma). I think this is the most applicable to the usage here: "the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one". Using this definition, Jesus says heaven regards those who are not governed in and of themselves, but who look instead to God. Self-made men need no rewards, but those who struggle just to get out of bed show the best character. They need God's help, they depend on God's help, for all that the do. "one day older and deeper in debt" guys are the ones heaven will reward. Clinical depression is not what is in view here, but those who "do" though they recognize the pointlessness of what they must do to survive, to feed their families, to raise their children, to support themselves as single mothers. Jesus is talking about those who need God to keep going, not those who "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps". God doesn't prize these who will end up proud and arrogant about what "they" have accomplished. People like me.
Then mourners, rather than cheerers. This is not about prizing those who are grieving someone's death. Mourners grieve, but in this case I think they grieve the condition of the world, they grieve the inattention to God in the culture, in neighbors, in rulers. They grieve unfairness, injustice, corruption in high places. There is much to mourn in the US right now, but do we mourn for how far we are from the standard, or just rail against it?
That's as far as I'll go this year...but I think I finally see the subtext of the beatitudes. There will be rewards for those who display these characteristics NOT because they are deprived in this life, but because they have the character traits that God prizes. This is reward, not reimbursement.
Vs 13 and 14 are about salt and light. Perhaps the salt refers to the nation of Israel, which has "lost its savor", and is good for nothing but trampling. But these that Jesus addresses, and these repentant people, are the light now. John 1 says "the light shines in darkness", but says nothing about salt. So that would mean 13 and 14 are contrasts, separating the nation of Israel from the church. MSB does not mention this as a contrast.
Found these several references to salt in the OT. Particularly interesting is that God's covenant with the people of Israel is a covenant of salt. Need to know what all that implies! It surely might relate to these two verses.
13 You shall season all your grain offerings with salt. You shall not let the salt of the covenant with your God be missing from your grain offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt. [Lev 2:13 ESV]
19 All the holy contributions that the people of Israel present to the LORD I give to you, and to your sons and daughters with you, as a perpetual due. It is a covenant of salt forever before the LORD for you and for your offspring with you." [Num 18:19 ESV]
5 Ought you not to know that the LORD God of Israel gave the kingship over Israel forever to David and his sons by a covenant of salt? [2Ch 13:5 ESV]
These are the only three uses of "covenant of salt" in the Bible. Then, here are vvs 13 and 14:
13 "You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. 14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. [Mat 5:13-14 ESV]
Both covenants - the old covenant of salt, and the new of the gospel - apply to those Jesus was addressing. That was mostly Jews, but surely not all Jews. Jesus is saying that the Mosaic Law has lost its savor. It is no longer bringing God's people closer to him, no longer making them more holy to Him. So that is "thrown out". And in its place, the light. They are also the light - his followers whether Jew or Gentile, are the light.
2023 - The Jews ARE the salt of God's covenant with the world. It is through them that all the world comes to be saved. Where the world is concerned - as contrasted with the Jewish people - the Jews are the 'savor" of the covenant. But they have lost their purpose. They are no longer the "seasoning" that makes life more bearable for the whole world. They have lost that. The new covenant - to replace the covenant of salt - is about light and darkness. The metaphor of seasoned sacrifices is to be replaced with the metaphor of light and darkness in the world.
2023 - Both vss 13 and 14 start with "you", the exact same word in Greek. I think the idea is that BOTH groups are comprised of the same people. Those who were previously the "advancement" of God's plan for man - the Jews when they were obedient - are also the ones who will "take over" that advancement - Christians - while the salt that has become useless is trampled down. Those listening to this sermon were "both" Jews and Christians. They were the same people, participants in the transition from Old Covenant to New.
These verses from John 1:
4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [John 1:4 ESV] The new covenant in Jesus' life.
There are also some verses that say Israel was a baby, thrown out, alone, left for dead. No one rubbed it with salt. Where are those?
Per MSB, this is the longest chapter in Ezekiel and it indicts Israel for her immoral behavior and rebellion against God with no punches pulled. As seems to be typical for Ezekiel. MSB says some ancient rabbis wouldn't allow it to be read in public because it is such a sad story.
As it begins, God reminds Jerusalem of her origins. Son of an Amorite father and a Hittite mother. That is, a people from a land not theirs. Says when born, the cord wasn't cut, no salt, no swaddling. They were thrown into the field to die. Israel, before God's blessing, was just an abandoned child, not considered useful enough to survive. God found them like this, and said "Live!", and they grew up...but were still "naked and bare". As the nation matured, God covered their nakedness. These verses:
8 "When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine. 9 Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil. 10 I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and shod you with fine leather. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with silk. [Eze 16:8-10 ESV]
This speaks first of God's continued care and preservation of this nation, of giving it "clothes" that might appear in public sort of. God decides, first, to keep them, THEN He makes a covenant with them. They did nothing to deserve it. They didn't earn it. He just chose them, because it is what He wanted to do. The section on washing goes on to talk about clothing them. I do not think then, in context, that this is an OT picture of baptism. That's just not what is in view here. In my opinion. Then this verse, a picture of a mature, God-blessed nation:
14 And your renown went forth among the nations because of your beauty, for it was perfect through the splendor that I had bestowed on you, declares the Lord GOD. [Eze 16:14 ESV]
2020-But Jesus has told his listeners that they ARE salt, and also that they ARE light. True, both covenants were present at this time, sort of. Sacrifices were still being offered. But the light was also sitting right in front of them. This was a unique time, and this is a unique statement. They are admonished to begin shining with the light even while the salt is trampled underfoot. In 70 AD, the Gentiles of Rome will trample the temple, and indeed all of Jerusalem underfoot. This is Jesus saying that the Mosaic Law is going completely away. No more High Priests, Levites, Aaronic Priests, or sacrifices. It has been 2000 years now since the Mosaic Sacrificial requirements have been observed.
2024 - Vss 13-16, Let the characteristics of the beatitudes show before others. Don't be ashamed of them, don't hide them because the world does not prize them, but trot them out for all to see. Others will know, deep down, that these are GODLY characteristics, and be encouraged to do the same.
Then Jesus says the Law is not going away, that every scribble of it will be fulfilled. He says He is the fulfiller. And this is so. He will reign as King over an Israel at the pinnacle of the world. This will fulfill the promises to Abraham, to the nation of Israel at Sinai, and to David. All these will culminate in the Millennial Kingdom, but that kingdom could not exist without Christ's coming and dying as the lamb to which all those promises pointed.
2023 - This verse: 19 Therefore whoever relaxes 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 does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [Mat 5:19 ESV]. Hmm...The paragraph next is the MSB explanation of why this does not mean that all the laws are still in effect. Read closely, he says it is the sacrificial law that is no longer required because Jesus fulfilled that part. But what of all the dietary laws? Well...there's Peter and Cornelius that says those go away. Priests and Levites would go away with the sacrificial law. But that still leaves all the eye for eye and tooth for tooth stuff. Did that also go away with the 70 x 7? I need a better - more encompassing - articulation of what really happened here. Hmm...that specific thing is addressed in vss 38-42.
2024 - Vss 17-20, You cannot outgrow, out last, no longer need the commandments of God. The culture, the preachers, the Pharisees and Scribes, no matter how brilliant they are, nor how irresistible their logic, may not "overrule" the commandments of God. One thing...Those who do this will be least in the kingdom of heaven...but they'll be IN the kingdom. These verses are directed at Jewish believers. LGBTQ is a completely different thing.
But then it goes on to say the law is still to be taught, not to be relaxed. To relax the laws is to diminish oneself. MSB says of vs 17 that Christ was fulfillment of the moral law by keeping it perfectly. He fulfilled the ceremonial law by being the embodiment of all the type and symbology that law predicted. And he fulfills the judicial law by personifying God's perfect justice. MSB goes on, in the note on vs 18, to say that the NT does not supplant and abrogate the law, but fulfills and explicates it. (Some words to look up). All the ceremonial requirements of the law were fulfilled in Christ, and therefore the observance of those laws is not required of Christians. But those laws are still valid because of the underlying truth and meaning they convey. Now, we understand, in the light of Christ's work, that the "mystery" of those laws has been made clear by "the light". Jesus shines like a light on the mystery and purpose of the law. And since the reason for the law was to explain the necessity of the sacrifice Jesus embodied - the perfect sacrifice - the law's purpose has been served - completed - but still verifies, confirms, and corroborates the coming of Christ.
The sacrificial system comes back in the Millennial. The salt regains it's savor at that time. I do not really understand this - except that the part about the jots and tittles stays in. There are promises - conditional promises - that are still to be fulfilled, and those promises on the part of Israel include the sacrifices, the ceremony,, the repentance and thankfulness and fear of God embodied in that system.
2022 - I think really the best way to understand all this is that the Law was the covenant between God and Israel. There is nowhere in that covenant that allows for the covenant to fail ultimately. However, the rejection of Christ by those he was sent specifically to save has resulted in a great pause within the covenant. God had told Israel all about the consequences of not keeping their end of the covenant, and I think what we have seen since Jesus' death are those dire consequences. He has withdrawn from them, but not forgotten them. He has left them on their own, but still with the blessings that accrue to Abraham's seed. And while this is going on with Israel, the Gentiles receive a great light. This is our chance - which would never have come without the rebellion of Israel - to be included as the sons of God, to be adopted into his people, to be grafted in as a wild olive branch into the pure and chosen strain that is Israel. We are grafted in, but the ceremonial law was not part of our covenant. We are saved by Jesus' blood, and by that alone. Both Jew and Gentile are saved by faith, but the demonstration of that faith is quite different for each group. For the Jews, there was the Law, the sacrifices, the priesthood, and so on. For us, it is the much more general "Love the Lord they God, and they neighbor as thyself". The foundation is the same, the evidence of faith is different.
2022 - I think we see this difference in the examples that Jesus gives of what he means. Look at anger. It isn't just "Thou shalt not kill...", it is about not being angry enough to kill. It is about the desire to be at peace - total peace - with all people. It is not just about not "killing" your neighbor when you are angry with him, it is about forgiving and not being angry with him. And more than that, do whatever you can to also insure that your neighbor is not mad at you. This is not about the "letter" of the law, but about the intent of the law. It is not just about sacrificing a dove when you want to kill your neighbor, it is about FIXING that problem, whatever it takes. It looks different to those observing it! This really makes good sense to me this year.
2022 - The examples continue to highlight the distinction between the Law as "letter" and the Law as intent. Lust, divorce...Doesn't matter if the Law has been "bent" to allow for divorce, it is still wrong, its intent is wrong. It is not about what is allowed, it is about what is right. This was Jesus' message! It is about what is RIGHT, not what is LEGAL!
2023 - It is about replacement of external ritual with internal direction.
2025 - An aside about this word for hell at the end of 22: 22 ...whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire. [Mat 5:22 ESV]. I checked BLB to see "which" hell this is. This Greek word is pronounced "gehenna". It is interesting that this was a real physical place. Jesus gives them a visible physical analogy for the final hell. Here is how BLB puts it: Hell is the place of the future punishment called "Gehenna" or "Gehenna of fire". This was originally the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned; a fit symbol of the wicked and their future destruction.
2020 - Jesus talks about how anger and lust are not just "open" sins, and only wrong when actually perpetrated. To have these things inside, to think on them, dwell on them, be obsessed by them...this is just as wrong. Jesus is saying that what we do spiritually - in our minds, not just in our bodies - is visible and noted by God, and that we are answerable to Him for what goes on inside our heads. This was in stark contrast to the Pharisees, who were all about the ritual, the external, the outward compliance with the law, yet they took no concern at all over the mind. This was a sharp break from "existing interpretation".
Then Jesus tells them that anger is like murder. Being angry with a brother makes you subject to judgement. We cannot love God and hate a brother. This is where the judgement comes from. Our sacrifices, our devotion, our prayers offered to God are moot while we harbor and continue to maintain anger with those we know. We are to go to extreme lengths to make peace with our brothers. I would hope that our brothers are those who reciprocate in the desire to maintain the relationship. That is, while you might accept a one-sided settlement to keep a brother close, we are not required to sign over our bank accounts to anyone who says they'll be mad if we don't. (Exaggeration, of course, but there is a difference...at least I think there is.) The fact that it goes on to talk about going to prison implies that this is about "out in the open" injustice. An example might be a dispute about a piece of property - even with a stranger. Best to give in than to go to court and have civil authorities find us at fault (when we were just sure we were not) and require a big settlement with punitive damages. Best to make peace, best to be proactive in settling disputes than litigious about it. Don't let the Pharisees decide, settle it yourself.
One other observation here: Note that vs 21 starts with "You have heard...", and 22 starts with "But I say..." This is the first of six times this contrast will be stated. Jesus is letting them know how they are to live with the law fulfilled. Things are changing from what the Pharisees tell them is right to doing what is right in their hearts. The Holy Spirit is going to be their teacher, their rabbi, and not the religious Pharisee bureaucracy. Further, the contrast is between the letter of the law and the intent of the law! The letter says don't murder. The intent is don't be angry, don't let worldly things come between brothers.
Second contrast is about lust. Letter says don't commit adultery, intent is to guard your thoughts!
Third, the letter says a papered up divorce severs a spiritual union, but the intent - in this case the reality - is that a sacred, God-ordained relationship that makes two people into one cannot be undone, especially not by a piece of paper. Only death or adultery can really sever it. With God, the marriage is still in force. Remember that God divorced Israel for her adultery with false gods, idols, and so on.
The fourth contrast is between swearing - to assure your honesty - and just being honest in the first place. We shouldn't need to put up "collateral" in the form of things that aren't ours anyway, in order to be trusted, or to feel obligated to keep our word even to our own harm. Honesty should characterize us, not have to be exacted from us. I wonder if the Pharisees found all kinds of inventive ways to "swear", and then get out of it later because of the precise wording of the swear. As in a lengthy contract they were sworn to fulfill, but yet...still negotiable as to performance.
The fifth contrast is about justice. The letter says tit for tat. But the intent is to leave it to show God's love by not requiring earthly justice. We are to receive our justice in heaven, from God, not from earthly judges. My 2020 note on yesterday's reading of Luke 6:27-31 talks about this. We are to be patient beyond the world's standard, indeed far beyond it, but not infinitely patient. God eventually reaches the point where justice must be done, even on earth. There is "sin unto death" with God, for individuals on earth. I do not believe we are to be doormats for any bully who wants to take advantage of us in perpetuity. I hope I am right about this!
The sixth contrast is that the law says to take care of your neighbors, but hate your enemies. Us vs them. The intent now is to be like God, and to love all equally, as he does. To treat friends and enemies alike, as He does, and leave judging to God. We are to be like our Father. And the proof that we are to treat both friend and enemy alike is in this verse:
45 ...For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. [Mat 5:45b ESV]
God does not make a "difference" in this world. All get the same chance, all live with the same circumstances. It is the heart that will decide, and none can say they didn't receive a fair shake from God. This is in contrast to the favoritism Israel had under the old covenant.
Six things here. These are all about our interaction with others.
Pasting this in from the 11/11/21 reading of Proverbs 21, where it says "heap burning coals on their heads". I have had difficulty resolving the proverb with Jesus saying turn the other cheek and pray for those that despitefully use you. This is how I resolved the OT and NT teachings:
2021 - Per MSB, burning coals were heaped on top of metals to soften them so they could be worked. Think of heating a horseshoe red hot so that it can be shaped and sized. The idea then is that kindness to enemies "softens" their disposition toward us, makes them less antagonistic toward us, cracks to door open for us to bring them around to our side of the battle. Is this saying the same thing as Jesus says in Mat 5:44 above? MSB points out that Paul quotes this Proverb in Rom. 12:20. It is pretty clear that Paul is using the verse the same way the Proverb means it. Jesus does not add the last part of the verse, the burning coals part. Perhaps we should imply it because so much of what he says is parallel to the Proverb. Here is the whole passage from Matthew, part of the Sermon on the Mount:
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. [Mat 5:43-48 ESV]
Jesus is contrasting his teaching with the teaching of the Pharisees (or some other false adage, as quoted). Love your neighbor, hate your enemy is incorrect. We should love all men, treat all men the same, pray for all - even those who would hurt us, because God sends rain to all men, not just the good. We are to love our enemies because they too are God's creation. There is no further objective involving coals. This doesn't imply that we are to open the gates to our enemies. But are to pray for them.
The Sermon on the Mount seems to be about the attitude we ought to have towards others. An eye for an eye is contrasted with turn the other cheek. Hate your enemy is contrasted with pray for all men. Jesus is not precluding either self- or national defense. He is not saying to unlock your doors at night and welcome thieves, robbers, and rapist inside, and offer them a cup a tea when they're done. Not even a little bit is he saying that. But if you are robbed, pray for the robber, don't seek him out to kill him for what he has done. If someone slaps us in anger, we are not to reply with anger, with tit for tat. But if someone seeks to kill us for our wallet, this does NOT say let them kill us. It might well say give them the wallet, but it doesn't say let them beat you half to death. A slap is not "great bodily harm". Wow. I think I finally understand these things.
2022 - Later...It occurred to me that their are a number of similarities between chapter 5's "examples" and the parable of the good Samaritan. Many parables in fact can be traced back to the ideas Jesus presents here. In the Good Samaritan, the Jews would not have attributed any sin - under the law and the extant interpretation of its requirements - to the first two men who went by. The Law did not specifically require one to help a fellow human being, but allowed a lot of filtering before deciding. The fallen man was a Samaritan, beaten until bloody (ceremonially unclean), and so on. Therefore, by the strict letter of the law, it was in fact "better" to just leave him there to die. So the purpose of this parable was to highlight the contrast between "the Law" and the injunction that came before there ever was a law, to "love thy neighbor". The two should not, CANNOT be juxtaposed this way in any situation. The injunctions are from the same infallible source and based on the same timeless principles. The parable doesn't just say "take care of those who need help", it screams "something has gone very wrong with your "religion""!
How many other parables are also given to sharpen the distinction between the Law as practiced and the Law as intended?
2024 - Really, the whole chapter is aimed at raising the bar of conduct and character for those who would have God as their God. It is not just what you do, it is what you think - it is the hidden characteristics in our minds - that God judges as sin or righteousness. You cannot "do it right" while despising the requirement and be judged worthy by God. Imagine how this sounded when interjected into the Jewish culture of the first century. Nothing like it had ever before been heard.