Matthean Publication Assumptions and the Sermon on the Mount

In a prior article it was observed that Oliver Buswell acknowledged that his interpretation of the Olivet Discourse was impacted by his assumptions regarding the date of Matthew’s Gospel.¹ I suggest that publication assumptions can likewise impact one’s interpretation and application of the Sermon on the Mount.²

Specifically, I suggest that those who dismiss the early date, priority, and chronological integrity of Matthew may be less inclined to emphasize that the Sermon teaches that the kingdom of God demands a level of righteousness that cannot be achieved by human efforts to follow the law, or the teachings of the Pharisees, or even the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount itself. In this vein, Matthew 5:20 and 5:48 are key passages within the Sermon. Further, I suggest those who view Matthew as a later publication (e.g., AD 60s–80s), or as having discourses compiled from disparate teaching events from various sources, or as not presenting its account chronologically, may have a tendency to elevate the Sermon as a Kingdom or Christian Manifesto—whose teachings make demands on the attitudes and behaviors of the contemporary Christian—while only offering a muted warning concerning the impossibility of ever achieving the level of righteousness demanded, lest this concern undermine one’s striving for the ideal.

Of course, the Sermon can serve as both a demand for an impossible level of righteousness and as a Christian Manifesto, and most exegetes do not ignore these two competing thrusts. However, what I’m driving at is the importance of engaging with the Sermon from within its historical context, as presented by Matthew. For I contend that Jesus was primarily using this sermon as a means to challenge the Jewish crowds concerning the level of righteousness that God demands for entry into the kingdom. Jesus would later reveal that this level of righteousness was only available for those having faith in himself, as the one who was establishing a new covenant by his blood sacrifice, for the forgiveness of their sins (Matt. 26:28). Within its Matthean context, the Sermon was targeted at those who were not believers, in the modern Christian sense, and it sought to undermine the Jewish confidence that their religious traditions and practices were sufficient. From this perspective, the Sermon was to be convictional, not aspirational.

The discussion that follows will begin by elaborating on the Matthean context of the Sermon, then touch on the disparate approaches to the Sermon by Luther and Calvin, and then survey several recent commentaries for how they have approached Matthew 5:20 and 5:48. My intent will be to elaborate on the supposition that one’s underlying assumptions regarding the dating, priority, and chronological integrity of Matthew can influence exegetical emphasis. Although the survey is necessarily limited and does not prove causality between these key assumptions and the various approaches to the Sermon, I trust that this discussion will adequately expose the potential for assumptions regarding Gospel origins to impact one’s exegesis of the Sermon on the Mount.

The Matthean Context

In Matthew’s Gospel there is a progression in the message which Jesus preached, as he gradually disclosed who he was, what he offered, and what he had come to accomplish. Initially, Jesus preached the same message as had John—”Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (3:2; 4:17 ESV). Correspondingly, “fruit in keeping with repentance” was required (3:8) in order to escape the wrath that was to come (3:7). In the midst of proclaiming this “gospel of the kingdom” (4:23), Jesus also healed and laid the foundation for his claim as the Jewish Messiah. This then set the stage for his first recorded sermon (Matt. 5–7), in which Jesus set expectations for humility before God, reconciliation, examination of inward thoughts, generosity, the mandate for perfect righteousness, etc. Then, after the Sermon, the message changed to emphasize that faith in Jesus was required (8:10, 26; 9:2, 22, 29; etc.), that Jesus can forgive sins (9:2–6), that entry into the kingdom was connected to the salvation which Jesus offered to those who followed him (19:23–30), that Jesus must die (20:19; 26:2; etc.), that Jesus would return again (24:3), that Jesus was establishing a new covenant through his blood (26:28), etc.

Given this progression, I accept the view that a key role of the Sermon was to prepare the Jews for recognizing their need of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins through his blood, and as the only way to gain the righteousness demanded for kingdom entry. Paul would later clearly articulate the concepts introduced in Matthew. For example, Paul declared that he was willing to accept the loss of everything “in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ” (Phil. 3:8–9). Thus, the Sermon on the Mount demonstrated the inadequacy of aspiring to keep the law, the Pharisaic regulations, or any other human aspiration for achieving righteousness. Per Carson:

Matthew 5:17–20 ends up demanding a kind of righteousness which must have left Jesus’ hearers gasping in dismay and conscious of their own spiritual bankruptcy. By this means the Sermon on the Mount lays the foundation of the New Testament doctrines of justification by grace through faith, and sanctification by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.³

Those scholars and theologians who dismiss the chronological integrity of Matthew’s account may tend to blur the setting and audience that the Sermon was speaking into. For example, Marshall flatly asserts that Luke’s “Sermon on the Plain is a shorter version of the Sermon on the Mount. It is generally accepted that one basic piece of tradition underlies the two Sermons and that both Evangelists [Gospel authors] … have expanded it and molded it in accord with their own purposes.”⁴ Similarly, John Stott remarks that the common material between Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount and Luke’s Sermon on the Plain “suggests that the two are versions of the same sermon.”⁵ Stott further reports, though not necessarily agreeing, that

Many have denied that the Sermon on the Mount was ever in any meaningful sense a “sermon” preached by Jesus on a particular occasion. It is a well-known feature of the first evangelist’s editorial practice to bring together into a collection some of the related teachings of Jesus.⁶

The difficulty with these claims is that, if the Sermon is an accumulation of teachings from throughout Jesus’ ministry, then it is not clear what the audience had previously heard and responded to; therefore, the intent behind this or any other recorded sermon likewise becomes unclear. According to Matthew, at the time of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus had not yet begun presenting himself as the one in whom faith was required and as the one who could forgive sins. However in Luke, Jesus had already started advancing these themes before preaching the Sermon on the Plain. Whether or not these themes had yet been advanced is key to understanding whether the Sermon on the Mount should be understood as primarily convictional or aspirational. Carson nicely summarizes this concern, as he responds to those who seek to primarily apply the Sermon as “catechetical” material, targeted at those who had already heard the gospel and experienced personal conversion—”The chief problem with this interpretation is that it does not treat the Gospel of Matthew as a serious historical (as well as theological document).”⁷

Again, I claim that the Sermon, if approached from within its Matthean context, is more appropriately recognized as convictional, directed at an audience which had not yet heard the full revelation of Jesus’ role as Savior. As a matter of contemporary application, the Sermon yet makes that same point for those who need to recognize their inability to meet God’s demand for righteousness on their own. However, for those who have already placed their faith in the crucified and resurrected Savior, it is also then appropriate as a matter of application for the Sermon to be promoted as aspirational.

Luther and Calvin

Jonathan Pennington has helpfully surveyed various historical perspectives on the Sermon on the Mount.⁸ When he gets to the Reformation era, he notes that for Luther, “it is the impossibly high demands of the Sermon that are meant to make all people aware of their sin and poverty before God and thereby turn to Christ in faith.”⁹ Hence, “the Sermon is a preparation for the gospel … the standard of the Sermon is set so high that it casts us back upon grace.”¹⁰ I contend that this is a key message of the Sermon that may be missed, if Matthew is not read in its own context.¹¹ However, Pennington then asserts that “this reading … does not result in a positive, constructive use for the Sermon.”¹² In response, I suggest that Pennington’s assessment oversimplifies Luther’s treatment, for Luther’s commentary on the Sermon is full of admonitions to strive for the perfection of Christ as idealized in the Sermon, to “daily move towards it.”¹³ Yes, Luther does emphasize the inadequacy of human righteousness as he wages a polemic battle in his commentary against the present day Pharisees—the Papists, Jews, jurists, sophists, Anabaptists, and Turks. With respect to Matthew 5:20, Luther declares, “All priests and monks, and all that are called spiritual, without exception, are eternally damned to hell, with all their system.”¹⁴ Their “righteousness is false.”¹⁵ And yet, at the same time, he also calls on Christians to be gracious, doing good, restrained, humble, etc., consistent with the Sermon. With respect to 5:48, he urges true Christians to strive for Christ’s perfection, though this cannot be achieved by any, despite the false claims of “our [Catholic] ecclesiastics”¹⁶ Regardless, this striving must be grounded on faith in Christ, not on our own merit.

For it is very necessary that every one should have some idea of the difference between grace and merit. … Therefore let all merit in this matter be entirely thrown away, and let us conclude that one cannot secure grace and the forgiveness of sin in any other way, manner or measure than by the word of God concerning Christ, and receiving it by faith.¹⁷

In contrast to his treatment of Luther, Pennington applauds Calvin’s approach, who “teaches that there is a productive use of law/covenantal instructions understood in the context of grace. … The Sermon is the compendium of the doctrine of Christ, the new-covenant law. Unlike Luther’s negative reading, for Calvin the Sermon can be fulfilled by Christians … by the grace given through the Holy Spirit.”¹⁸ Quarles adds that “Calvin taught that the purpose of the Sermon is to rescue the law of God from the erroneous teachings of the Pharisees.”¹⁹ In Calvin’s treatment of Matthew 5:20 within his Harmony of the Gospels, Calvin critiques the Pharisees and scribes, with their hypocrisy, fabricated righteousness, and perverse teaching, while elsewhere Calvin also chides the Papists, Anabaptists, etc.²⁰ However, with respect to 5:48, Calvin exclusively promotes an aspirational view, as though Jesus’ admonitions are directed at those who have already embraced Jesus as savior.²¹

Ye therefore shall be perfect. Perfection here, not in the sense of equality, but in relation to its likeness. However far we are from God, yet we are said to be perfect as He is, as long as we aim for the same goal, that He presents us within Himself. If you prefer to put it differently, there is no comparison made here between God and ourselves, but it is called God’s perfection when we show, first, sheer and free generosity, not spurred by any thought of gain, then, exceptional goodness, such as tackles the ill-will and ingratitude of men. It comes out better in Luke’s words, Be ye merciful, even as your Father in heaven. Mercy is contrasted with the mercenary, that which is tied to personal advantage.²²

Lest my shallow survey appear to mischaracterize Calvin, it must be stated that elsewhere he clearly affirms that justification is by faith and the “righteousness of faith” comes not on account of “merit, but on account of the grace of Christ.”²³

Problematically though, Calvin approaches Matthew’s Sermon from the perspective that “it is likely that only after the choice of the twelve did Christ hold this assembly. … It should be enough for reverent and humble readers that here, before their eyes, they [Matthew and Luke] have set a short summary of the teachings of Christ, gathered from many and various discourses, of which this was the first.”²⁴ Hence, Calvin resides within the camp of those modern scholars who dismiss the chronological integrity of Matthew. Correspondingly, Calvin’s A Harmony of the Gospels joins the two Sermons together as a single unit and otherwise defers to the sequence of events found in Mark and Luke, rather than that of Matthew. Therefore, I suggest that Calvin’s exegesis reflects a blurring of the setting and audience that the Sermon on the Mount was speaking into, as Calvin presents the Sermon as a Christian ideal, while minimizing the Sermon’s convictional message to the original audience.

Contemporary Approaches to Matthew 5:20, 48.

In this next section, I want to survey several contemporary commentaries on the Sermon on the Mount, particularly with respect to how they handle Matthew 5:20 and 5:48. These are passages in which Jesus asserts to his audience that a level of righteousness is required, perfect righteousness, which cannot be achieved by compliance to the law nor to the regulations of the Pharisees. Later in Matthew, Jesus will reveal that perfect righteousness only comes through faith in the one who has authority to forgive sins. Do these commentaries treat these passages as convictional or aspirational?

[I must confess that it is a bit overwhelming to wade into the depth of material on the Sermon on the Mount and to do justice to such in this abbreviated study!]

France (Matthew “dated significantly after 65”).²⁵ France characterizes the Sermon as dealing “with the character, duties, attitudes and dangers of the Christian disciple. It is a manifesto setting out the nature of life in the kingdom of heaven.”²⁶ With respect to 5:17–20, France interprets the teaching from within a Christian context. One of his main observations is that “a Christian who repudiates any part of the Old Testament is an inferior Christian; the consistent Christian will be guided by the OT, and will teach others accordingly.”²⁷ With respect to 5:48, “conformity to the character of God … is now affirmed as the goal of the disciples of Jesus. It is an ideal set before all disciples.”²⁸

Nolland (Matthew “dated before the beginnings of the buildup to the Jewish war”).²⁹ With respect to the criticism of the scribes and Pharisees in the Sermon (e.g., in 5:20), “some of the sharpness of the Gospel [i.e., Matthew’s] criticism may tell us as much about the context of conflict between Jews and Christians in which these traditions were passed on as about the form in which they functioned in the ministry of the historical Jesus.”³⁰ With respect to 5:48, “One must go all the way in obeying the will of God; one cannot be content with some circumscribed version of obeying God’s will, as witnessed to in the Law and the Prophets.”³¹

Carson (Mt most likely dated in the 60s).³² With respect to 5:20, Carson focuses on the demand for righteousness—”verse 20 does not establish how the righteousness is to be gained, developed, or empowered; it simply lays out the demand … anything less does not enter the kingdom.”³³ For 5:48, Carson concludes with, “He teaches them to acknowledge spiritual bankruptcy and to pray ‘forgive us our debts.’ But the perfection of the Father, the true eschatological goal of the law, is what all disciples of Jesus pursue.”³⁴

Walvoord (Mt written in Greek between AD 44 and 70).³⁵ Walvoord characterizes Matthew 5:17–48 as outlining “the details of the moral principles of the kingdom.”³⁶ Later he adds, “the kingdom standards are in contrast to the Mosaic law.”³⁷ In this particular section, Walvoord does not allude to the reality that the demanded righteousness only comes through Christ.

Blomberg (Mt in the AD 60s).³⁸ Blomberg characterizes “Jesus’ commands [in the Sermon] as being addressed to all ‘disciples’ (per 5:1), those who have already repented and are seeking further instruction.³⁹ With respect to 5:20, he declares that “people must follow Jesus in discipleship … Christian discipleship requires a greater righteousness.”⁴⁰ For 5:48, “Jesus is not frustrating his hearers with an unachievable ideal but challenging them to grow in obedience to God’s will.”⁴¹

Osborne (Mt most likely AD 65–67).⁴² The sermon “establishes the ethical standards of righteousness for Jesus’ followers. … it is the law of the new covenant, the demands of discipleship in the eschatological community brought by Christ.”⁴³ For 5:48, “perfect here in this context … means wholehearted … obedience to all Jesus has said.”⁴⁴

Turner (Mt before AD 70).⁴⁵ The Sermon “is Jesus’ authoritative teaching about the way believers should live today.”⁴⁶ Turner contends that the “higher righteousness enjoined” in 5:20 “is developed in the six contrasts of 5:21–28. As Jesus’ disciples live by this teaching, their righteousness will surpass that of the religious leaders, and their good deeds will be like a shining light that causes people to glorify their heavenly Father (5:16).”⁴⁷ For 5:48, the imitation of the Father “is the surpassing righteousness of which Jesus spoke in 5:20.”⁴⁸

Quarles (Mt during AD 60s).⁴⁹ Quarles contends that Matthew and Luke are describing the same sermon, while explaining that “Matthew’s Gospel was probably topically arranged while Luke’s Gospel was chronologically arranged.”⁵⁰ Broadly, Quarles takes a stand that “the righteousness described in the Sermon is not an impossible goal that was intended to cause people to despair of the possibility of living a righteous life and to drive them to seek God’s gracious forgiveness as unworthy sinners. Although the Sermon may drive sinners to seek God’s forgiving grace, the sermon was intended to be a description of the effects of God’s transforming grace.”⁵¹ His assessment of 5:20 rejects the notion that the required righteousness is imputed righteousness, as “righteousness and related words in Matthew consistently refer to a person’s obedience to God’s commands and conformity to His character.”⁵² For Quarles, the righteousness demanded for entry into the kingdom “is a gracious gift” granted by God to “those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” and it is that which marks one as being “a true disciple.”⁵³ Similarly, 5:48 encourages disciples to pursue full perfection, “armed with the awareness that righteousness is a divine gift that God graciously imparts as His people crave it.”⁵⁴

MacArthur (Mt during the 50s or 60s).⁵⁵ With respect to 5:20, “God not only requires inner righteousness but perfect righteousness … That impossibility leads the sincere person to wonder how such a holy heart is obtained, to ask the question Jesus’ disciples one day asked Him, ‘Then who can be saved?’ (Matt. 19:25).”⁵⁶ For 5:48, “The impossible righteousness becomes possible for those who trust in Jesus Christ … this is precisely our Lord’s point … in the whole sermon—to lead His audience to an overpowering sense of spiritual bankruptcy … that shows them their need of a Savior, an enabler who alone can empower them to meet God’s standard of perfection.”⁵⁷

Per this limited survey, it should be clear that most modern scholars subscribe to the view that the Sermon is primarily aspirational, in encouraging disciples of Jesus to pursue the kind of righteousness exemplified in the Sermon; although, there are a few modern scholars who prioritize the convictional aspect to these passages. However, given the sampling, what this survey cannot demonstrate is whether there is indeed strong causality between one’s view of the date, priority, and chronological integrity of Matthew and the preferencing of a convictional versus aspirational approach to the Sermon. Nonetheless, I believe that the survey does illustrate that some of the perspectives are rooted in an approach to Matthew’s Sermon which does not recognize Matthew’s characterization of the audience and setting, particularly with respect to the progression in the message which Jesus preached.

Summary

In summary, I maintain that publication assumptions can impact one’s interpretation and application of the Sermon on the Mount. Per Matthew’s chronology, the Sermon stands between Jesus’ preaching of John the Baptist’s simple call to repentance and Jesus’ subsequent revelation that He was the one in whom faith was required in order to obtain forgiveness of sins and hence the righteousness required for entry into the kingdom. For those who work under the premise that Matthew’s Sermon represents an accumulation of materials which Jesus taught over the course of his ministry, I suggest that there may be a tendency to over emphasize the aspirational aspect of the Sermon—to the detriment of the convictional aspect. In contrast, I contend that those who accept the early date, priority, and chronological integrity of Matthew, will be more inclined to embrace the convictional thrust of the Sermon, while not denying the imperative for the one who has already placed their faith in Jesus to aspire to the Sermon’s lofty ideals.

---

1. “Publication Assumptions Impact Buswell’s Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.” ↩︎
2. For this survey, am not as interested in delving into claims of pre-Matthean source material and such as promoted by Nolland and others. John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 215. ↩︎
3. D. A. Carson, The Sermon on the Mount: An Evangelical Exposition of Matthew 5–7 (Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 1998), 43. For a similar view, see also J. Dwight Pentecost, The Sermon on the Mount: Contemporary Insights for a Christian Lifestyle, 2nd ed. (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1980), 91–92, 126–27. ↩︎
4. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Exeter, UK: Paternoster, 1978), 243. ↩︎
5. John R. W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount: Christian Counter-Culture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985), 22. ↩︎
6. Ibid. ↩︎
7. Carson, Sermon, 166. ↩︎
8. Jonathan T. Pennington, The Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing: A Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017), ProQuest Ebook Central. ↩︎
9. Ibid., 22. ↩︎
10. Ibid. ↩︎
11. Nonetheless, I also affirm Carson’s view that the Sermon is more than just “an impossibly high ideal designed to make men aware of their sin and turn to Christ for forgiveness.” Carson, Sermon, 165. ↩︎
12. Ibid. ↩︎
13. Martin Luther, Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, trans. Charles A. Hay (Philadelphia, PA: Lutheran Publication Society, 1892), 227. ↩︎
14. Ibid., 132. ↩︎
15. Ibid. ↩︎
16. Ibid., 226–27. ↩︎
17. Ibid., 490, 498–99. ↩︎
18. Pennington, Sermon, 23 ↩︎
19. Charles L. Quarles, Sermon on the Mount: Restoring Christ’s Message to the Modern Church (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2011), 18, ProQuest Ebook Central. ↩︎
20. John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, trans. A. W. Morrison, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Saint Andrews Press, 1972), 182. ↩︎
21. Ibid., 200. ↩︎
22. Ibid., 200. ↩︎
23. Ibid., 7. ↩︎
24. Ibid., 168. ↩︎
25. Richard T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985), 61. ↩︎
26. Ibid., 111. France’s characterization of the Sermon parallels Pink, who identifies the Sermon as “the Manifesto of the King, containing an enunciation of the Laws of His Kingdom.” Arthur W. Pink, Why Four Gospels? (New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 2017), 17. ↩︎
27. France, Matthew, 122. ↩︎
28. Ibid., 135. ↩︎
29. Nolland, Matthew, 17. ↩︎
30. Ibid., 224. ↩︎
31. Ibid., 271. ↩︎
32. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 21. ↩︎
33. Ibid., 147. ↩︎
34. Ibid., 161. ↩︎
35. John F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1998), 12. It is noteworthy that Walvood claims that Matthew is not presented in chronological order. Ibid., 43. ↩︎
36. Ibid., 47. ↩︎
37. Ibid., 50. ↩︎
38. Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), 25. ↩︎
39. Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1992), 95. ↩︎
40. Ibid., 105. ↩︎
41. Ibid., 115. ↩︎
42. Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 35. ↩︎
43. Ibid., 160. ↩︎
44. Ibid., 241. ↩︎
45. David L. Turner, Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 259, ProQuest Ebook Central. ↩︎
46. Ibid., 144. ↩︎
47. Ibid., 164. ↩︎
48. Ibid., 177–78. ↩︎
49. Charles L. Quarles, Robert W. Yarbrough, and Andreas J. Köstenberger, Matthew (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2017), 13, ProQuest Ebook Central. ↩︎
50. Ibid., 23. ↩︎
51. Ibid., 28. ↩︎
52. Ibid., 87. ↩︎
53. Ibid., 87. ↩︎
54. Ibid., 127. ↩︎
55. John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Handbook (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 303. ↩︎
56. John MacArthur, Matthew 1-7, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1985), 279–80. ↩︎
57. Ibid., 350. ↩︎

---

NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)