7.

1 The Gospel according to Matthew: Some Basic Issues

Authorship, Date and Place of Composition

Although the gospel is traditionally associated with Matthew the tax collector (9:9)
who became one of the twelve disciples called by Jesus (10:3), ambiguity about the actual
identity of the author, the linguistic structure, the style of writing and, particularly the
evangelists’ knowledge of (and interest in) the Hebrew Scripture (and subsequent frequent
use of Hebrew texts) as well as his awareness of Jewish debates about certain legal issues
(like divorce and Sabbath observance) has convinced many scholars that the evangelist
was beyond doubt a member of the Jewish community writing for Jews.1326 The
evangelist’s audience (and community) was likewise Jewish Christians who ―were
involved in an ideological and theological struggle over which movement best preserved
and represented the heritage of Israel after the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of
its temple in 70 CE.1327

With regards to the issue of dating, both patristic writings (such as Didache 8) and
the evangelists apparent references to the destruction of the Jerusalem in the texts (21:41,
22:7 and 27:25) indicate that the gospel was written after 70 CE and before the turn of the

1325
For convenience‘s sake and in deference to convention, I refer to the evangelist as
Matthew.

1326
Davies, and Allison, Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 9-33, 58. John
Meier, however, by pointing out that the evangelist made certain errors regarding things
Jewish, counter proposes that Matthew was either a learnt gentile scholar or a Greek-
speaking Diaspora Jewish Christian. See John P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew: Christ,
Church, and Morality in the First Gospel (New York: Paulist Press, 1991), 22-23.

1327
Daniel J. Harrington, The Synoptic Gospels Set Free: Preaching Without Anti-Judaism
(Mahwah, NJ:
Paulist Press, 2009), 8.

323
century. These and other external and internal allusions support the view that the
earliest possible date of composition would be around 85 or 90 CE.

Likewise, although there is no definite answer regarding the place of composition,

it is generally understood that it was situated in a large Greek-speaking eastern
Mediterranean city where a substantial Jewish community has settled. One widely
circulated suggestion is Antioch of Syria.

Setting and Purpose

In order to find clues on why the evangelist would have composed the gospel, we
need to first understand the various settings—especially the socio-historical, political, and
religious settings—of the gospel. Historical criticism shows that the gospel was written in
a time of crisis that affected the whole Jewish community of the late first century CE:
After 70 CE Judaism was in its early stage of transition during which various
movements/communities emerged (including early rabbis and Matthew‘s community).1328
The survival of Judaism was at stake and hence the tension among these movements was
severe. In short, the gospel was clearly set in the context of ancient Judaism.

1328
It is thus noted that Judaism of that period was a very diverse and complex reality.
Charles Talbert argues that Matthew‘s separation is one within Judaism and not from it.
See Charles H. Talbert, Reading the Sermon on the Mount. Character Formation and
Ethical Decision Making in Matthew 5-7 (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina,
2004). Ulrich Luz, however, claims that Matthew‘s community was no longer belonging
to the Jewish system and hence Matthew was not responding to a particular Jewish
sect/movement but the overall Israel‘s no to Jesus. See Donald Senior, What are they
Saying about Matthew? (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1996), 10. Senior cites J. Andrew
Overman, Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean
Community (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990). See also Luz, Matthew 1-7: A
Commentary, 54.
 As far as Matthew‘s community was concerned,1329 on the one hand, their
relationship with the broader Jewish community was complicated and a trace of
sectarianism could be noted; on the other hand, the community was rather fearful of the
gentile world and thus adopted a policy of distancing. In addition, the law-keeping
community of Matthew seemed to be having difficulties with those ‗law-free‘
Christians.1330 As a whole, Matthew‘s community was somehow alienated from the rest
of the world. Alongside with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and the presence of
Roman (political and military) control, these circumstances had led the Jewish Christians
of Matthew‘s community to seek identity and continuity (within discontinuity).

Subsequently, the fundamental purpose of the gospel, as Harrington notes, was to

point out that Jesus is ―the authoritative interpreter of the Torah and the fulfillment of
Israel‘s hopes.1331 The best way to preserve their heritage is thus for Christian Jews like
the evangelist himself to follow Jesus‘ teaching and example and to recognize him as the
Son of David and the Lord.

Sources and Nature

Regarding the sources upon which Matthew drew for his writing, most Matthean
scholars generally accept the so-called ‗two-source‘ hypothesis. They agree that the
evangelist apparently employed the materials from the Markan gospel (like the death of

1329
See David C. Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge
and NY: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 181-221. Most scholars would agree that
Matthew‘s community has separated from the synagogue. See Carter, What are They
Saying about Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount? 62.

1330
The reason for Matthew‘s community to keep the entire law is, as Luz points
out, because Jesus commands it (5:17-18). See Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary,
48.
 1331
Harrington, The Synoptic Gospels Set Free, 9.

John the Baptist in 14:3-12), the Sayings source Q1332 (like the Sermon on the Mount in 5-7), and
other oral (and/or written) traditions peculiar to Matthew (such as the infancy stories in 1:18-
2:23). In particular, Matthew is noted for incorporating a lot of Mark‘s materials in his framework
(including theological ideas such as the ‗Son of God‘ sayings); hence, the gospel is at times
understood as the ‗revised‘ edition of Mark‘s gospel.1333 As a whole, German New Testament
scholar Ulrich Luz comments that the evangelist is related to his sources both linguistically and
theologically.1334

Moreover, as will be discussed shortly, although there is no firm evidence that

Matthew depended directly on particular Jewish apocalypse (and vice versa),1335 Matthew at
least shared their apocalyptic theology.1336

1332
The Saying source Q is referred to as a collection of Jesus‘ sayings. It is after the
German word Quelle, meaning source.

1333
Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995), 9.

1334
Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary, 41-43. Luz further claims that such continuity
between Matthew and his sources extends to sociological and historical continuity.
See Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary, 49-52.

1335
Apocalypse is ―a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which
a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a
transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological
salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.‖ Adela Yarbro
Collins, ed. ―Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting,‖
Semeia 36 (Decatur, GA: Scholars Press, 1986), 2. Based on this definition, two strands
of Jewish apocalypse can be classified, namely, ‗historical‘ apocalypse that is
characterized by visions (like the Daniel and 4 Ezra), and ‗otherworldly journey‘
apocalypse that has strong cosmological speculation (like 3 Baruch). They all share these
essential features: The revelation of a supernatural world and the activity of supernatural
beings; a final judgment and a destruction of the wicked; and a hortatory aspect. They
also involve a transcendent eschatology that seeks retribution beyond the limits of
history. Some scholars, however, propose that the themes of revelation and reversal (and
promise of restoration of the fortunes of a group) as the only essential elements of
apocalyptic genre. Yet, this proposal is criticized for not able to clearly distinguish
apocalypses from prophetic literature. See John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination:
An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1998), 5-11. Collins cites E. P. Sanders, ―The Genre of Palestinian Jewish
Apocalypses,‖ in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East:
Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12-17,
1979, ed. David Hellholm, (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1983), 447-

See also Collins, ed. Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting, 1.
1336
This apocalyptic theology or eschatology, in particular, is concerned with the coming
of the Messiah, the judgment with rewards and punishments, and the arrival of the new
world in its fullness. See Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 14.

326
 Furthermore, taking into account the Jewish identity of the author and the settings
of the gospel, it is logical to consider the gospel as fundamentally a Jewish text ―in its
conceptual and rhetorical assumptions, in its sociological setting, and in its theological
message.‖1337 In fact, the gospel is seen as the most Jewish gospel. However, it is
sometimes portrayed as anti-Jewish for its polemical tone in certain texts (e.g., 27:25). In
order to correct this inadequate view, Harrington points out that the polemical parts of the
gospel should be framed within the ‗inner-Jewish‘ context:1338 The evangelist was solely
pinpointing the Pharisees and scribes of his time and those Jewish officials who were
responsible for the death of Jesus. In other words, within its original historical context,
the Gospel of Matthew needs not be seen as anti-Jewish.

Structure, Style, and Themes

Luz observes that scholars generally agree on the fact the gospel can be divided
into sections even though how it is divided is debatable.1339 The debate is due to the
different structural principles like the literary (i.e., narratives vs. discourse) and
geographical-chronological (i.e., Jesus‘ movement or life sequence) patterns employed
in dividing the gospel.1340 Literary criticism, for instance, focuses on the narrative
patterns and claims that Matthew was simply retelling the story according to Mark with
his own

1337
Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 2.

1338
Harrington, The Synoptic Gospels Set Free, 12-13.

1339
Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary, 2.
1340
For example, some scholars propose that the Gospel is a three-part arrangement that
deals with Jesus‘ person, proclamation, and passion. Others suggest that the Gospel has
a chiastic outline with alternating narrative and discourse. See Talbert, Reading the
Sermon on the Mount, 15-16. Dale Allison, however, notes that these principles tend to
fall into two camps: Those who divide the Gospel into three parts based on the repeated
phrase in 4:17 and 16:21, and those who adopt Benjamin Bacon‘s principle. See Dale
C. Allison, Jr., Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2005), 135.

327
various ideas and themes. The gospel is thus divided into three main sections (1:1-4:16;
4:17-16:20 and 16:21-28:20) in which the second and third sections are corresponding
to Mark‘s two major sections, namely, Jesus‘ ministry and preaching in Galilee and his
journey to Jerusalem.1341

Yet, many scholars continue to adopt Benjamin Bacon‘s principle1342—that there

are five major speeches (chapters 5-7, 10, 13, 18, 24-25), each ending with ‗when Jesus
finished these words‘. They also agree that the narratives alternate with discourses and
triadic structure is employed.1343 For example, the Sermon on the Mount follows the
extended introductory narrative in chapters 1-4 and precedes the narrative on Jesus‘
activities within Israel in chapters 8-9.

Nevertheless, based on the evaluation of these diverse structural principles, a

number of biblical scholars conclude that Matthew‘s ‗plan‘ was ―much less
systematic and much richer in variety than most scholars have thought.‖1344 Rather,
the gospel is structurally mixed despite its apparent unity.1345

1341
Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary, 4.
1342
This is Benjamin Bacon‘s so-called Pentateuchal theory: Each major speech contains
a discourse and a narrative. This pattern seems to be modeled after the five books of the
Pentateuch. See Senior, What are they Saying about Matthew? 26. Senior cites Benjamin
W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew (London: Constable, 1930). In this work, I adopt the
traditional view that the Gospel is comprised of five great discourses and the
preamble/epilogue.

1343
Talbert, Reading the Sermon on the Mount, 16. Talbert cites Davies, and Allison, Jr.,
A Critical and

Exegetical Commentary, 1-7, 71-72.

1344
Senior, What are they Saying about Matthew? 35.

1345
Davies, and Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 72. Davies and
Allison cite R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 11 and James Moffatt, An Introduction to the
Literature of the New Testament (New York: Scribner,

1911), 244.

328
 On the other hand, Matthew used various literary techniques to construct his
gospel:1346 For instance, he gathered together materials that are similar in content or form
(like the parables in 21:38-22:14 or the eschatological teaching in 24-25). Matthew also
demonstrated a penchant for numbers (especially the triad) as learned Jews do with their
Rabbinic texts. In addition, he was inclined to suggest his themes by repeating key words
(like ‗righteousness‘ in 5-7) or summarizing statements (7:12). As a result, different
understandings of the genre of the gospel emerge, such as the genre of ‗biography‘ as
suggested by Burridge. Still, there exists a strong apocalyptic outlook within the gospel.

With regards to the themes of the gospel, Harrington identifies five major themes:

The God of Israel is the father of Jesus who is the preeminent presence of God. 2) The
reign of the kingdom of heaven/God has begun and its fullness is yet to come. 3) Jesus,
being the Son of God and of Man, and Messiah, is the present embodiment and
manifestation of the kingdom of God, and the fulfillment of the Torah. 4) The disciples,
though with little faith, are the closest followers of Jesus (and his teaching) and models
for Christians. 5) The formation of Christian character through following Jesus and
cultivating values and practices that help achieve the goal of human life, namely, with

God in God‘s kingdom. Thus, all followers of Christ, including non-Jews, constitute the
people of God.1347

These themes somehow reflect the eschatological nature of the gospel: The
earthly Jesus as the Son of Man is an eschatological figure who inaugurates the age of
1346
Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary, 6; Davies, and Allison, Jr., A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary,

73-96. Davies and Allison identify thirteen different literary styles and characteristics in
Matthew.

1347
This understanding points to the question of the Gentile mission. See Luz, The
Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, 15-21.

329
fulfillment, the kingdom of God.1348 In fact, the Gospel of Matthew has long been
recognized as ―the most thoroughly ‗apocalyptic-eschatological‘ of the gospels in
its general outlook.‖1349

Apocalyptic-eschatological Outlook

The Jewish messianic and eschatological apocalyptic movements continued to

survive and flourish into early Christianity and its writings.1350 One such example is the
character of the Sayings source Q: ―Q‘s perspective is framed both spatially by
transcendent realities…and temporally by the coming judgment…and the
eschatological meal in the Kingdom…[For] Q, as for some other expressions of
Christian apocalypticism, the present already partakes of eschatological realities.‖1351
Thus, although there is only one apocalyptic text in the New Testament (the book of
Revelation), the Synoptic gospels ―are colored by an apocalyptic worldview to a
significant degree‖ because of the person of Jesus.1352

1348
Jack Dean Kingsbury, ―The Significance of the Earthly Jesus in the Gospel of
Matthew,‖ Ex auditu 14

(1998): 61-62, 65.

1349
Sim, 2n. Sim quotes F. C. Grant, The Gospels: Their Origin and Their Growth
(London: Faber and Faber, 1957), 137.

1350
Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 260. Collins cites Adela Yarbro Collins,
―The Early Christian Apocalypses,‖ Semeia 14 (1979): 61-121.

1351
Ibid., 259. Collins quotes John S. Kloppenborg, ―Symbolic Eschatology and the
Apocalypticism of Q,‖ HTR 80 (1987): 296.

1352
Ibid., 256-57. Robert Miller notes that there is a debate on whether Jesus was an
apocalyptic prophet. One representative of those who give confirmative answer is Dale
Allison. Those who reject this view are represented by the members of Jesus Seminar.
See Robert J. Miller, ―Introduction,‖ in The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate, ed. Robert J.
Miller (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 2001), 2-11. Miller points out that the
‗kingdom‘ sayings of Jesus, his other ambiguous sayings/deeds, as well as his
relationship to the apocalyptic thinking of his time can be interpreted either way. In this
work, I basically agree with the majority‘s/Allison‘s view.

330
 Moreover, all the characteristics of Jewish apocalyptic theology—and
apocalyptic eschatology in particular—are present in the Gospel of Matthew:1353 In the
first place, the use of cosmic terms (like angels in 4:11 and the evil ones in 13:19),
parables (such as the parable of the weeds in 13:24-30, 36-43), and comparative terms
(the narrow and wide gates in 7:13-14, or the faithful and wicked servants in 24:45-51)
reveals the evangelist‘s adoption of a completely dualistic perspective.

Second, the gospel is also deterministic regarding the course of history. Both the
portrayal of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament (26:56) and his
knowledge/prophecy of the future (26: 21-25) presuppose that what God has set in
motion is a history that cannot be changed.1354

Third, Matthew identifies Jesus with the Son of Man1355 who had a historical
mission (8:20, 9:6), is now at the right hand of God (28:16-20), and will return in glory
in

1353
Sim identifies six characteristics of Jewish apocalyptic theology: First, it highlights
dualism on various levels (such as the present vs. the future). Second, it has a
deterministic view of history in that God remains in control of all events. Third, within
the present time, terrible things are fast approaching and a savior will arrive. Fourth, the
arrival of the savior introduces the eschatological events—the final and universal
judgment. Fifth, it concentrates on the reversal of present circumstances in near future.
Sixth, there is the imminence of the end. Sim, 35-53, 70. The following account is based
on Sim‘s reconstruction of the Gospel of Matthew. I slightly rearrange its order here. See
Sim, 75-177. Apart from these characteristics, some scholars further note that the symbol
of ‗kingdom‘ found in the Gospel ―lent itself to an eschatological interpretation in the
context of Jewish literature from around the turn of the era, especially in literature
deriving from the land of Israel that was originally composed in a Semitic language.‖
They also suggest that John the Baptist‘s preaching about the coming of an apocalyptic
judgment as narrated by Matthew has an eschatological orientation (of restoration) that is
typical of the apocalypses. See Collins,

258-60. Collins cites R. L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical
Study (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991); Joan E. Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist
within Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997); and E. P.
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1985).

1354
Sim rightly points out that on the individual level Matthew upholds the notion
of free will and repentance. He further notes that this inconsistency is commonly
found in apocalyptic-eschatological writings of that time.

1355
Some scholars point out that the ‗Son of Man‘ and ‗Messiah‘ sayings play a
significant role in revealing the apocalyptic eschatology entailed in Jesus‘ teaching and
deeds. In particular, the belief that Jesus as the Son of Man has risen and ascended, and
will come on the clouds of heaven becomes the key to early Christian apocalypticism.
See Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 261-64.

331
the end time (24:4-31). He also frequently refers to the future coming of the Son of Man
at the end time (e.g. 10:23; 16:27-28). In addition, he provides us with various
eschatological scenarios (e.g. 24:4-31). All these echo the characteristic of apocalyptic
eschatology with regards to the arrival of a savior and the coming of end time events.

Fourth, both Matthew‘s terminology (like ‗harvest‘ in 3:12 or ‗on that day‘ in

7:22) and the description of eschatological scenarios converge on the final and universal

judgment characterized by apocalyptic eschatology. Thus, Matthew depicts Jesus as the

Son of Man who will be the judge (19:28; 25:31) and describes the scene of judgment in

detail (in 7:21-23 and 25:31-46).

Fifth, subsequently, the final judgment and related parables (like the feast banquet
in 8:11-12) depicted by Matthew foretell the fates of the wicked and the righteous: The
fate of the wicked is eternal punishment (25:46) while the fate of the righteous is the state
of the Beatitudes (5:3-10). This description of Matthew is in tune with common
apocalyptic eschatological thinking that there will be a reversal of fates in the
eschatological future.

Sixth, the evangelist likewise detailed the imminence of the end in his gospel, in
16:28 and 24:24. And the mission discourse in 9:37-10:42 further affirms this view in
that the disciples will receive comfort in times of distress (10:22).
 Why, then, would Matthew embrace apocalypticism1356 and take recourse to
apocalyptic eschatology? Historical criticism suggests that it is closely related to
the

1356
Robert Miller notes that there is a distinction between the terms ‗eschatology‘ and
‗apocalypticism‘. Eschatology within biblical studies refers to a particular way of
thinking that is centered on the end time. Although Jewish and Christian traditions have
different eschatological hopes, both are convinced that God will prevail in the end of
history. Apocalypticism, in contrast, is a kind of eschatology and, as will be seen

332
socio-historical setting of the Matthean community:1357 The characteristics of apocalyptic
eschatology allow the community to legitimate their existence and sectarian inclination in
times of isolation. They also allow the evangelist to explain the current situation of the
community. They further provide consolation and hope for the future, and satisfy the
need for vengeance. In short, the gospel was constructed in such a way that dealt with the
needs of the community at a time of difficulty. And the value of Jewish apocalypses lies
not so much in the providing information about cosmology or future history as in their
simple affirmation of a transcendent world.1358

In offering pragmatic ethical values, apocalyptic literature ―shape[s] one‘s

imaginative perception of a situation and so lay[s] the basis for whatever course of action
it exhorts.‖1359 Its language is commissive in character: It commits us to a worldview that
entails certain actions and attitudes.1360 The ethical value of apocalyptic literature ―lies
in its demand for a committed life in the face of fierce opposition and conflict, even
dualism in the realities of good and evil in the world.‖1361

Many of the basic issues we have covered here are not absolutely resolved; for
example, biblical scholars still debate on whether Matthew is anti-Jewish. Still, a general
understanding of the gospel writer, his community, and the gospel itself can be grasped.

below, can be expressed in various ways. From a socio-historical perspective,

apocalypticism is understood as a socio-religious movement. See Miller, ―Introduction,‖
in The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate, 5-6. See also Sim, 24.

1357
Sim, 3-4, 181-221, 241-42. Sim cites B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of
Origins (London:

Macmillan, 1924).

1358
Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 282.
1359
Ibid., 42.

1360
Some scholars further note that apocalypses also implicitly motivate the readers to
live good lives by generating fear and depicting punishment as certain Greco-Roman
apocalyptic texts do. See Collins, ed. ―Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypticism:
Genre and Social Setting,‖ 8.

1361
Cahill, ―Gender and Strategies of Goodness: The New Testament and Ethics,‖ 447.

333
In particular, the presence of Jewish apocalyptic theology (and eschatology) in the gospel

is singularly highlighted for it has significant impact on, among others, the evangelist‘s

views of eschatology, discipleship and attitude toward the Law. From the perspective of

Christian ethics, Matthew‘s eschatology provides a framework for all of Christian life.1362

As Harrington points out, on the surface, the Gospel of Matthew seems problematic in a

number of issues—such as traces of moralism, anti-Judaism, patriachalism, and

legalism—but these issues can also be interpreted constructively.1363 They also help pave

the way to our interpretation of the texts as ‗scripted‘ and ‗script‘. With such

understanding I now turn to the Sermon on the Mount and its issues in order to lay out the

proximate setting of the Beatitudes.

7.2 The Sermon on the Mount: Some Specific Issues

Its Place within the Gospel

Matthew‘s Sermon on the Mount is situated toward the beginning of the

gospel.1364 As far as the storyline of the gospel is concerned, Jesus has started his teaching
and ministry in Galilee and the people from everywhere were drawn by him and to him.
He went up to the mountain and addressed the disciples and the crowds (4:23-5:1). For
those who hold the view that the gospel consists of five major speeches, the Sermon

1362
Daniel J. Harrington, ―Problems and opportunities in Matthew‘s Gospel,‖ Currents
in Theology and

Mission 34, no. 6 (December 2007): 423.

1363
Ibid..

1364
It is noted that some scholars would begin the Sermon at Matthew 5:3 instead of
Matthew 5:1, pointing out that 4:23-5:2 is a literary unit that introduces the Sermon on
the Mount. However, for the sake of convenience, while accepting this finding, I follow
the general use of Matthew 5-7 as a way to describe the Sermon.
334
is the first of these five discourses. However, the Sermon is by no means an independent
speech. Matthean scholars William Davies and Dale Allison, for example, say,
―Although the SM has a narrative beginning and conclusion, it should not be partitioned
off and given a special interpretation…The broader context must be kept in mind.‖1365
Harrington likewise states that it ―must never be detached from the narrative of Jesus as
told by Matthew…[for] it is part of the story of Jesus.‖1366 In other words, the Sermon
must not be treated as an independent speech and ethical treatise but as an integrated part
of the whole gospel.

Yet, Jack Dean Kingsbury notes that there is no consensus among scholars
regarding the exact place and role of the Sermon within the overall plan of Matthew:1367
Those who employ literary criticism, on the one hand, insist that the narration of Jesus‘
passion is the climatic feature of Matthew and hence perceive the Sermon as simply
―the example par excellence‖ of Jesus‘ ministry of teaching. Others who employ
different critical methods, on the other hand, claim that the Sermon dominates the whole
of the gospel, for ―from it one gains insight into the structure of the Gospel and into its
nature and purpose.‖1368 Betz, by interpreting the Sermon‘s involvement of discussion of
Jewish religious issues, further claims that the Sermon enjoys a peculiar relationship with
Jewish scholarship that is not extended to the rest of the gospel (nor the New Testament
as a whole). He thus concludes that the entire work of the evangelist is in a sense a

1365
Davies, and Allison, Jr., ―Reflections on the Sermon on the Mount,‖ 302; Dale
C. Allison, Jr., The Sermon on the Mount: Inspiring the Moral Imagination (New
York: Crossroad, 1999), 10.

1366
Harrington, ―Problems and opportunities in Matthew‘s Gospel,‖ 418.

1367
Jack Dean Kingsbury, ―The Place, Structure, and Meaning of the Sermon on the
Mount within
Matthew,‖ Interpretation 41 (April 1987): 133.

1368
Ibid., 131.

335
commentary on the Sermon although it never explicitly refers to the Sermon again.1369
Allison, in contrast, takes a more nuanced path by pointing out that ―most of the topics
covered in the Sermon come up again elsewhere in Matthew, where they are often
treated at further length.‖1370 Nevertheless, the general view is that the Sermon plays an
important role in the gospel.

Genre

The origin of the designation of the notion of ‗sermon‘ can be traced back
to Augustine. However, Betz finds this traditional notion is too broad and thus

unsatisfactory:1371 Matthew‘s use of οἱ λόγοι and ἡ διδατή implies that the Sermon,
strictly speaking, is not really a speech (λόγος) but a group of ‗sayings‘ or ‗teachings‘
respectively. By examining the ‗two ways‘ motif in 7:13-14 (―Enter through the narrow
gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many
who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are
few who find it.‖) and evaluating its subsequent meaning in light of certain Hellenistic
ethical/rhetoric literature, Betz then proposes that the specific literary genre of the
Sermon is one of epitome: An epitome is ―a condensation of a larger work, made by a
redactor…for a specific purpose…[with] brevity and precision in selection and
formulation…intended to be a systematic synopsis…[and] intended for those who have

1369
Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 2, 6.
1370
Allison, Jr., The Sermon on the Mount: Inspiring the Moral Imagination, 9.

1371
Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 71, 73, 76-77, 80; Essays on the Sermon on the
Mount, trans. L. L.

Welborn (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1985), 1-16.

336
[already] made considerable progress.‖1372 As an epitome the Sermon systematically and
selectively presents the teaching of Jesus and provides the necessary information/tool for
the disciples of Jesus to creatively implement the teaching in concrete life. Betz further
claims that the Sermon was oral in nature and in function in spite of being composed as
written texts.1373

Allison, however, is convinced that the Sermon, rather than being codes of law, is
partially a poetic text that is both dramatic and pictorial. He also notes that the Sermon
employs hyperbole that is common among Semitic literature.1374 Harrington, from a
different perspective, suggests that the Sermon is closest to the wisdom instructions
found in Jewish wisdom literature, especially Proverbs 1-9 and 22-24, Qoheleth, and
Sirach.1375

Sources and Settings

If we follow the ‗two-source‘ hypothesis and employ source criticism, we will

note that much of the Sermon on the Mount is originated from the Q document.1376 As a
result, Matthew‘s Sermon is sometimes called the ‗Q Sermon‘. One concrete text of this
so-called ‗Q Sermon‘ is Jesus‘ radical teaching on ‗love your enemies‘ in 5:38-48.
However, Matthew did not simply copy from the Q sayings but also carried out

1372
Betz, Essays on the Sermon on the Mount, 13-14. Luz, on the contrary, claims
that there is no real analogy between the Sermon and other form structures and
hence one should not seek any conclusion

regarding the Sermon‘s genre. See Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary, 174.
1373
Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 82-83.

1374
Allison, Jr., The Sermon on the Mount: Inspiring the Moral Imagination, 11-12.

1375
Harrington, ―Problems and opportunities in Matthew‘s Gospel,‖ 418.

1376
Senior, What are they Saying about Matthew? 22; Carter, What are They Saying
about Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount? 13. The identification of the Q material is
usually done by comparing with Luke‘s Sermon on the Plain. Still, there are
disagreements among scholars on aspects of Matthew‘s use of the Sayings source.

337
redactional work by means of expansions, changes, and reorganization of the order.1377 A
second source employed by the evangelist is the diverse, assortment of material
(sometimes called the M source) peculiar to him alone, such as 6:1-6, 16-18. A third
possible (and yet debatable) source, as promoted by the Jesus Seminar, is the person of
Jesus himself. Others like Davies further sought to find rabbinic parallels and
demonstrate that Matthew 5-7 is illuminated by a particular type of rabbinic activity.1378

Still, although only a few verses in the Sermon have possible parallels in Mark,
Matthew might have borrowed from Mark certain sayings and motifs (Mark 3:7-13) in
his introduction of the Sermon, and inserted the Sermon between Mark 1:21 (//Matthew
5:2) and 1:22 (//Matthew 7:28-29).1379 Based on the investigation of the mountain
settings in Matthew, some scholars further claim that the Sermon is actually based on
the ―Mark‘s account of the mountain-top commissioning of the Twelve.‖1380

Finally, Jewish scholar Gerald Friedlander argues for the presence of Jewish
influence by recalling Tertullian‘s words that the Sermon is ―in agreement with the
spirit and teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures…[and thus] contains nothing new.‖1381

As a whole, despite this diversity, one can still claim that the Sermon is at least a
discourse ―constructed out of discrete sayings either by the anonymous redactors of Q,
or

1377
Carter, What are They Saying about Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount? 14-15. Carter
identifies three different possible sources here. See What are They Saying about
Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount? 20-21. See also Davies, and Allison, Jr., A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary, 126, 573-75.

1378
Davies, and Allison, Jr., ―Reflections on the Sermon on the Mount,‖ 293.

1379
Lambrecht, 25-26.

1380
Terence L. Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain. A Study in Matthean Theology
(Sheffield: JSOT Press,

1985), 194.

1381
Gerald Friedlander, The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount (New York:
KTAV Publishing House, 1969), 16.

338
by the evangelist.‖1382 And Matthew creatively shapes and interprets those materials
passed on to him by the early Christian community.

Being an integrated, important part of the gospel, the Sermon likewise has ―its
background in rabbinic discussions after A. D. 70 and in the political and social
conditions of the period.‖1383 Davies thus reminds us that the Sermon needs to be situated
―in the wider context not only of Matthew‘s gospel but of Judaism and the early
Church…[for Matthew 5-7 was formulated] in direct confrontation with Pharisaic
Judaism.‖1384 Together with Allison, Davies further claims that the Sermon is also set in a
Mosaic context:1385 The intentional parallels between Matthew 1-5 and the story of
Moses indicate that Jesus who delivers the speech is the new Moses, Messiah and
eschatological lawgiver. Consequently, the Sermon can be understood as the messianic
Torah in that the Sermon is the teaching of the Messiah who affirms, interprets, and
deepens the Old Law.

The Mountain and the Audience

One of the explicit differences between Luke‘s Sermon and Matthew‘s is the
geographical location where the Sermon was delivered. Matthew‘s Sermon is said to be
delivered on a mountain instead of a plain. Traditionally, Mount Sinai and Mount Zion
―[have] dominated the topology of first-century imaginations nurtured by the Old

1382
Luke Timothy Johnson, ―The Sermon on the Mount,‖ in The Oxford Companion to
Christian Thought, ed. Adrian Hastings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 655.
1383
Davies, and Allison, Jr., ―Reflections on the Sermon on the Mount,‖ 294.

1384
Donald Senior, What are they Saying about Matthew? (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist
Press, 1996). 8. Senior cites Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount.

1385
Davies, and Allison, Jr., ―Reflections on the Sermon on the Mount,‖ 297-98.

339
Testament.‖1386 In both instances the symbolic-theological setting is more important than
historical-geographical setting. Which, then, was the mountain of teaching in Matthew‘s
gospel? Harrington points out that any attempt to determine the exact site is rather
useless for there are many mountains along the western shore of the Sea of Galilee.1387
Still, the common view is that Mount Sinai was the place for it was there that the Torah
was given and thus fits the view that Jesus came to promulgate a New Law. Terence
Donaldson, who is interested in examining the mountain symbolisms and settings in the
Bible, however, argues for a Zion typology, claiming that Matthew‘s emphasis of Jesus
as the new messianic Moses points to Mount Zion that played a role in eschatology, and
that ―in Jewish expectation one aspect of the consummation on Mount Zion was to be a
new giving of the Torah.‖1388

With regards to the specific audience to whom the Sermon was delivered, the
flow of the story indicates that the first disciples and the crowds are the intended
audience (5:1-2). Betz, who perceives that the Sermon as an epitome, suggests that
Matthew 5-7 was meant to instruct the disciples alone while the gospel was intended by
Matthew as for the Jewish Christian community.1389 Harrington, on the contrary, claims,
―The mention of the disciples in 5:1 needs not exclude the crowds,‖ as 7:28-29
confirms.1390

1386
Dennis Hamm, The Beatitudes in Context: What Luke and Matthew Meant
(Wilmington, DL: Michael Glazier, 1990), 76.

1387
Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 78.

1388
Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain. A Study in Matthean Theology, 116. See also
Hamm, The
Beatitudes in Context: What Luke and Matthew Meant, 76.

1389
Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 80-81. See also Talbert, Reading the Sermon on the
Mount, 20.

1390
Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 76

340
Purpose

Many scholars suggest that the Sermon is meant to ―[proclaim] the definitive
and authoritative teaching of Jesus for [the] community…[and provide] guidance on
how disciples of Jesus are to live and [sustain] the community‘s self-understanding in a
situation of transition and marginality.‖1391 In other words, it is aimed at interpreting the
Matthean community‘s concrete experience in relation to discipleship and providing
direction and encouragement.

Donaldson adds that Matthew ―attempt[s] to present the Sermon as Christian

Torah and Jesus as the new Moses.‖1392 Allison similarly claims that the Sermon as a
discourse ―presupposes and teaches important things about its speaker, whose identity
is crucial for interpretation.‖1393 In short, the Sermon tells us who Jesus is.

Themes and Structure

According to Harrington, the basic theme of the Sermon is that ―Jesus came not
to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill them,‖ as indicated in 5:17.1394 Still, based
on Jesus‘ pronouncement at 5:20 (―unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes
and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven‖), many scholars would add
that ‗greater righteousness‘ is the structuring principle and core theme of the Sermon.
For them this ‗greater righteousness‘ is the kind of lifestyle of the disciples who devote
1391
Carter, What are They Saying about Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount? 65.

1392
Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain. A Study in Matthean Theology, 111.

1393
Allison, Jr., The Sermon on the Mount: Inspiring the Moral Imagination, 15.

1394
Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 76.

341
themselves to God wholeheartedly by doing God‘s will.1395 However, others counter-
propose that the notion of ‗Father‘ is the core subject matter of the Sermon and
hence argue that the Lord‘s prayer is the heart of Matthew 5-7.1396

In either case, the structure of the Sermon is determined by the themes identified.
For those who focus on the theme of ‗greater righteousness‘, the Sermon can therefore
be divided into five parts:1397 The first part specifies those who practice the greater
righteousness, namely, those who live according to the Beatitudes and as ‗salt of the
earth‘ and ‗light of the world‘ (5:3-16). The following three parts focus on the kinds of
practices Jesus demands—toward the neighbor (5:17-48); before God, (6:1-18); and in
other areas of life with the Golden Rule as the culmination of all practices (6:19-7:12).
The final part contains certain concluding commands on practicing the greater
righteousness (7:13-27).

Among those who claim the centrality of the Lord‘s prayer (6:9-13), some
perceive the rest of the Sermon is a continuation of the prayer while others propose
their own constructions.1398 Allison, for example, constructs the Sermon and centers the
Lord‘s prayer around various triads:1399 Apart from introduction (4:23-5:2) and
conclusion (7:28-8:1), the rest of the texts are divided into three parts, namely, the

1395
Kingsbury, ―The Place, Structure, and Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount within
Matthew,‖ 137. For an excursus of the notion of righteousness δικαιοσνη, see Luz,
Matthew 1-7: A Commentary, 142.

1396
Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, 3; Dale C. Allison, ―The structure
of the Sermon on the Mount,‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 106, no. 3 (Spring 1987):
425.
1397
Kingsbury, ―The Place, Structure, and Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount within
Matthew,‖ 136-42. Scholars who hold this view include Jack Dean Kingsbury, Hans
Dieter Betz, and Joseph Fitzmyer. However, their exact structural divisions of the
Sermon differ among themselves. In short, this the majority view among contemporary
New Testament ethics scholars, such as Frank Matera and Allen Verhey.

1398
Allison, Jr., ―The structure of the Sermon on the Mount,‖ 426-28. Allison
challenges this position by claiming that apparent links between the Lord‘s prayer and
other parts of the Sermon (e.g. between 6:12 and 7:1-5) are mere coincidence.

1399
Ibid., 429-40. Allison notes that these triads are derived from classical Jewish
formulation.

342
Beatitudes (5:3-12), the task of God‘s people in the world (5:13-7:12), and warnings and
judgment (7:13-27). The middle part, that is, the task of the people of God, consists of
three pillars—Jesus and the Torah (5:17-48), the Christian cult (6:1-18), and social
issues (6:19-7:12).1400

Luz, who also notes the evangelist‘s fondness of tripartite division, divides the

Sermon into three parts based on a chiastic structure:1401 In particular, he highlights that

the central text is 6:1-18 within which the Lord‘s Prayer is exactly the middle of the

entire Sermon. He further comments that the overall structure of the Sermon resulting

from Matthew‘s redactional revision is a work of art in which symmetry, poise and unity

is found. Thus, he insists that the Sermon has to be treated as a holistic entity.

Still, there are some scholars who suggest that the Beatitudes provides the
structure for the Sermon:1402 The rest of the Sermon is basically an expansion in reverse
order of the Beatitudes by means of triadic illustration. For instance, they claim that the
eighth beatitude (in 5:10) is elaborated in 5:11-16.

Again, there is no real agreement among scholars on what the core theme of the
Sermon is and how its structure be studied. Still, Joseph Fitzmyer rightly comments that
1400
Allison further suggests that the evangelist arranged these three pillars in the
Sermon so as to offer a Christian interpretation of the classical pillars of the Jewish
mishna. See ―The structure of the Sermon on the Mount,‖ 442-43.

1401
Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, 48-49. Indeed, since the time of
Augustine, early church Fathers have begun to analyze the Sermon as a unified text. See
Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 106.

1402
Carter, What are They Saying about Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount? 36-38.
Unfortunately, many biblical scholars reject this proposal because it produces strange
sequences and units and destroys certain internal unity.

343
Matthew‘s Sermon on the Mount is better structured than Luke‘s Sermon on the Plain
for it is constructed around a single core theme.1403

A Radical Ethics for All?

As we saw above, some scholars consider the Sermon as an epitome that presents
the teaching of Jesus and offers guidance for the disciples to creatively live out the
teaching in concrete life. This implies that Matthew 5-7 has an explicit ethical function
for its audience.1404 The Sermon is the summation of Jesus‘ moral demand that implicitly
implies the motif of the imitation of Christ who is the moral exemplar.1405

In fact, during the patristic period Augustine had already understood the Sermon
as ―measured by the highest norms of morality, the perfect pattern of the Christian life
[intended for all].‖1406 Luther, while rejecting the traditional view that the Sermon is an
ethics of the perfect for the spiritual elite, also interpreted the Sermon as an ethics of
repentance for all Christians.1407 Still, later on, the Sermon was interpreted by some
theologians as either an ethics of law or an ethics of ideal.1408

Harrington notes, however, that the ethical teaching of Matthew 5-7 is analogous
to Jewish halakah—advice on how the Jews are to behave.1409 Still, he adds that the

1403
Lambrecht, 26. Lambrecht cites Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Gospel according to Luke.
Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981-85).
1404
Some scholars further suggest that the Sermon is also about instruction in worship
and prayer. See Talbert, Reading the Sermon on the Mount, 31. Talbert cites John
Riches, Matthew. NT Guides (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 68.

1405
Davies, and Allison, Jr., ―Reflections on the Sermon on the Mount,‖ 299; Allison,
Jr., The Sermon on the Mount: Inspiring the Moral Imagination, 22.

1406
Johnson, ―The Sermon on the Mount,‖ 655. For Augustine the Sermon poses a
perfectionistic ethics.

1407
Lohse, 64.

1408
Lohse, 65-66.

1409
Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 8.

344
Sermon is not so much concerned with deciding halakic matters but rather with principles
and attitudes, and it has both personal and communal ethical implications.1410 New
Testament scholar Charles Talbert further claims that the Sermon has a twofold concrete
ethical function of ―[serving] as a catalyst for the formation of character…[and
contributing] to decision making.‖1411

Nevertheless, these biblical scholars rightly remind us that the ethics of the
Sermon cannot be separated from the theme of the kingdom of God for it is
already present in the person of Jesus.1412

However, reflection and discussion on the eschatological nature and ethical

demand of Matthew 5-7 lead these same scholars to raise the questions of whether the
Sermon on the Mount contains radical ethics or not, and whether they are meant for all
people. We have already seen that there is a spectrum of views throughout history:1413
Monastic and medieval commentators perceived the radical teachings as counsels of
perfection only for certain people; Luther rejected this idea and claimed that the Sermon
was intended for all even though the demands were impracticable. Reinhold Niebuhr
likewise perceives that the Sermon ―has the character of a norm that is impossible of
fulfillment by humans.‖1414 Those who employ the historical critical method, in contrast,
suggest that the eschatological tone of the gospel would imply an interim ethics of the
Sermon.

1410
Ibid., 76.

1411
Talbert, Reading the Sermon on the Mount, 29.

1412
Davies, and Allison, Jr., ―Reflections on the Sermon on the Mount,‖ 303-4.
1413
Ibid., 284-93. See also Lambrecht, 20-25. Joachim Jeremias and others identify
three general views of interpretation: ethical, pedagogical, and eschatological
interpretations. See Norman Perrin, ed. and trans. The Sermon on the Mount
(Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1963).

1414
Johnson, ―The Sermon on the Mount,‖ 655.

345
 In order to respond to these questions, Kingsbury argues that the reality of sin and
of the disciples‘ little faith is not the determining factor of Jesus‘ ethics; rather, it is the
reality of God‘s eschatological kingdom that counts—insofar as the kingdom of heaven
is a present reality, an ethics of greater righteousness is possible.1415 Allison thus suggests
that only when reading the Sermon in light of its eschatological orientation (which is an
important characteristic of Matthew‘s gospel) that the Sermon‘s radical demands can be
explained.1416 In a similar way, Harrington comments that although Matthew places
Jesus‘ teaching in an eschatological framework, much of Jesus‘ teaching concerns
behaviors in the present as well.1417 Thus, acting out the Sermon is possible.

With Allison, Davies further points out that ―while moral perfection cannot be
achieved, nevertheless one‘s character is built up as one earnestly struggles.‖1418 They
then conclude that the Sermon is ―not about what we should do but about what we
should be‖ and the ideal posted by the Sermon is a necessity—it has the ultimate end in
the Sermon is view and sets forth the means to that end.1419

Finally, by adopting John Climacus‘s view on virtue, Allison suggests that the
Sermon‘s ethical demand can be perceived as a ladder or as a challenge to Christians to
become better over the course of time.1420
1415
Kingsbury, ―The Place, Structure, and Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount within
Matthew,‖ 143.

1416
Allison, Jr., The Sermon on the Mount: Inspiring the Moral Imagination, 13.

1417
Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 76.

1418
Davies, and Allison, Jr., ―Reflections on the Sermon on the Mount,‖ 290-91; 307.

1419
Ibid., 308.

1420
Allison, Jr., The Sermon on the Mount: Inspiring the Moral Imagination, 14.

346
A Summary

So far I have explored some specific issues regarding the Sermon. We note that
many of these issues are still undergoing debates and conflicting approaches are present.
However, they are helpful to construct my own approach:

The Sermon is closely related to, and plays an important role in the larger context
of the gospel. It is more than an epitome and is in close relation with the Jewish wisdom
literature. The classical two-source hypothesis seems helpful in our understanding of the
sources of the Sermon and its Jewish/Mosaic settings. Moreover, the primary audience
of the Sermon tends to be both the disciples and the Israelites who came to listen to
Jesus.

The Sermon depicts Jesus‘ identity as not just the eschatological prophet and moral
exemplar but the Son of God whose teaching guides us to live out our Christian moral life
(especially in the midst of difficulty). We are called to have a righteousness that is greater
than that of the Jewish Pharisees and scribes. Therefore, the ethical demands posed by
Jesus in the Sermon, when understood in light of eschatological orientation that
characterizes the gospel, are both possible and realistic. Furthermore, in order to grasp the
entire teaching of Jesus delivered on the mountain, one must treat it as a united whole
even though it can be divided structurally into various parts.

Finally, these findings help us to put the Beatitudes in its proper place and offer us
needed information that can serve as guidelines in our exegesis of the Beatitudes. In the
following pages I conclude our background exploration by looking at some critical and
immediate issues regarding the Beatitudes.
347
7.3 The Beatitudes: Some Critical and Immediate Issues

The Meanings of ‘beatitude’ and ‘blessed’

Matthew 5:3-10 is often called the Beatitudes. The term ‗beatitude‘ is derived
from the Latin beatitudo and is equivalent to the Greek term μακάριζμος (macarism)
which could have an Egyptian origin.1421 It is derived from the adjective μακάριος
(meaning blessed or happy) and designates a literary genre. In classical Greek literature,
the blessed is one who ―takes cognizance of the essential harmony which binds him to
society and to the world.‖1422 Another Greek adjective that has a similar meaning is
εσδαιμων. It is the adjective for eudaimonia, the notion that was employed by Aristotle in
his discussion of human happiness. The evangelist, however, opted for μακάριος for a
specific reason: It points toward the divine realm—it refers to the divine happiness that is
intended by Jesus for his followers.1423 According to Davies and Allison, the adjective
μακάριος was first found in the work of Pindar (~518BCE) and meant ―‗free from daily
cares and worries‘, ‗prosperous‘, and was used of the blessed state of the gods, who
neither toiled nor suffered.‖1424 Only later on did it take on various forms and was evoked
by diverse spectrum of objects, ranging from praiseworthy children to virtue and
wisdom. Still, it was always attached to divine providence.

1421
Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 92.

1422
Crosby, 9. Crosby quotes David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (London: Oliphants,
1972), 109.
1423
Carl G. Vaught, The Sermon on the Mount. A Theological Investigation, revised ed.
(Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2001), 13. By comparing with Aristotle‘s
understanding of happiness, Vaught claims out that the nature of happiness found in the
Beatitudes is not just divine but also relational—it comes as a gift made accessible
through a relation between the giver and the receiver. It also points to an inner condition
―that can be achieved regardless of the circumstances in which we find ourselves.‖ See
The Sermon on the Mount. A Theological Investigation, 13-14.

1424
Davies, and Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 431.

348
 As a literary genre macarism refers to a form initiated by μακάριος and means a
living, multi-sided form of speech when used in the predicative form.1425 By examining
some of the oldest macarisms found in Egyptian literature, Betz suggests that this kind of
literary form was originated in the liturgical context of religious, mystery cults.1426 As a
whole, both ancient Egyptian and Greek macarisms bear the following characteristics:
―1) Their original function is in the ritual. 2) Their nature is that of declarative
statements. 3) The future orientation is eschatological as well as this worldly. 4) They are
connected with ethics and morality.‖1427

Later on, the conventional understanding of macarism—which sanctions

materialism—was transformed and brought in line with the Greek philosophical trend of
its day:1428 Macarisms were employed by philosophers to formulate a philosophical idea
in a succinct way, and at times to serve as an introduction to the didactic texts that follow.
For instance, the ‗macarism of the wise man‘ slowly emerged to counter the conventional
view.

Nevertheless, macarisms are also found in the Sacred Scripture (Psalm 1) and
the adjective is commonly translated into ‗happy‘ and ‗blessed‘ to denote the happiness
bestowed by God upon those who receive God‘s blessings.1429 Although some biblical

1425
James W. Thompson, ―The Background and Function of the Beatitudes in
Matthew and Luke,‖ Restoration Quarterly 41, no.2 (1999): 109. Thompson cites
M. Hengel, ―Zur matthaischen Seligpreisungen,‖ TRu 336.
1426
Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 98.

1427
Ibid., 93.

1428
Betz, Essays on the Sermon on the Mount, 26-33; The Sermon on the Mount, 103-4.

1429
Thomas Hoyt, Jr., ―The Poor/Rich Theme in the Beatitudes,‖ Journal of Religious
Thought 37, no. 1

(1980): 34.

349
scholars find these translations either inadequate or unsuitable,1430 I follow the English
translations adopted by the New Revised Standard Version (i.e., ‗blessed‘) although
the original meaning of μακάριος is kept throughout this work.

‘Beatitude’ (Macarism) in the Bible

In the Hebrew Bible, the word ashre (meaning ‗happy‘), though not applied to
God and less sacred, was the basis of the Septuagint translation.1431 It appears forty-five
times; among them over one half occur in the Psalms and some thirty verses begin their
sentence with this word.1432

The macarisms in the Old Testament usually appear either in pairs or in series
(as in Sirach 14:1-2; 25:8-10):1433 Specifically, they first appeared in the wisdom
literature and later employed in apocalyptic writings such as the book of Daniel (12:12).
And different types of usage are noted: Some macarisms pronounce blessings on ethical
conducts that are offered as models (as in Genesis 30:13 and Proverbs 3:13) and thus
point to moral exhortation; others speak of the happiness that is granted and indicate the

1430
The former sounds too banal, superficial and obscures the eschatological character of
the beatitudes; the latter, on the contrary, sounds archaic and sometimes evokes
inappropriate associations with the beyond in certain cultures. Thompson, 109; Luz,
Matthew 1-7: A Commentary, 190.
1431
Another Hebrew word that is equivalent to μακάριος is baruk. It is linked to
‗kneeling‘ and often applied to God (Genesis 1:28). However, its significance is
minimal. See Davies, and Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 432; Jim
Forest, The Ladder of the Beatitudes (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1999), 18.

1432
Friedlander, 17-18. Most of the beatitudes are found in postexilic writings and only a
few appear before the exile (e.g., 1 Kings 10:8). See Crosby, 9. Macarisms are also found
in the Dead Seas Scrolls and in the Enoch literature like 2 Enoch 42:11. Some ethicists
thus point out that Temple themes are an important source of its moral authority. See
John W. Welch, ―Temple Themes and Ethical Formation in the Sermon On the Mount,‖
Studies in Christian Ethics 22, no. 2 (2009): 156, 163.

1433
Davies, and Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 432-33; Thompson,
110-11. It is noted that the use of macarism in cultic-religious context, however, is
uncommon to Jewish literature. This type of use is found usually within apocalyptic
texts, though. See Betz, The Sermon on the Mount,100.

350
nature of these blessings (such as Psalm 144:12-15). In addition, they assume that the
good deeds are rewarded in the present. Those beatitudes found in apocalyptic
literature, in contrast, focus on assurance and the proffering of hope in future. Blessings
are pronounced in the present and promises are to follow, as in Tobit 13:14. These
eschatological macarisms also lead to the development of their counterparts,
eschatological woes. They are employed as a literary effort to ―create, or recreate, an
apocalyptic vision in the imagination of the reader of the apocalyptic book.‖1434

In the New Testament, μακάριος appears around fifty times. Most of them are
found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and are all used to express religious joy.1435
Similar to what is observed in the Old Testament macarisms, New Testament macarisms
are also diverse in forms and types, and are likewise divided into wisdom and
eschatological macarisms, as in Romans 14:22 and Revelation 19:9 respectively.1436 They
also appear either in isolation (as in Matthew 11:6; 13:16) or in series—our Matthean
Beatitudes is a typical example of the latter form.1437

Jewish Influences, Sources, and Development of the Beatitudes

While the genre of macarism might have ancient Egyptian and Greek origin,
Betz points out that the macarisms in 5:3-10 are developed out of a Jewish matrix: They
share the tradition of Jewish wisdom literature despite bearing the characteristics of
ancient
1434
Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 102.

1435
Davies, and Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 434.

1436
Ibid..

1437
Thompson, 112. Some exegetes further claim that Matthew‘s use of third person in
the Beatitudes fits well the genre of macarism. See Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary,
185.

351
Egyptian and Greek macarisms.1438 Not surprisingly, some exegetes conclude that the
Matthean beatitudes are sayings of a sophisticated literary nature.1439

As far as the content is concerned, many scholars note that the Beatitudes is
closely related to certain Old Testament texts, especially passages from the Second
Isaiah (57, 61, 66), and Psalm 37 (as well as Psalms 24 and 73).1440 In order to
understand the close connection between the Beatitudes and these texts, New Testament
scholar George Wesley Buchanan explains that it was common for early Jews/Christians
to prove their arguments by quoting authoritative scriptural texts.

However, Buchanan insists, ―In dealing with the Beatitudes…it is not enough
to recognize the quotations of scripture included in them. These texts must be
understood against their entire background.‖1441 The Babylonian Jews would be
redeemed by their Lord who also redeems Jerusalem, proclaims good news to the
afflicted, and comforts those who mourn.1442 It was ―this mythological background
upon which the author of the Beatitudes appealed, assuming that his readers were in the
same situation as the captive Jews in Babylon.‖1443

While much of the Sermon on the Mount is originated from the Sayings source Q,
is the Beatitudes likewise originated from the Q source, if there is also the Lukan version?
By analyzing the detailed wording of both versions of the Beatitudes as well as the

1438
Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 93.

1439
For a detailed discussion of the complex web of the Beatitudes, see Andreij
Kodjak, A Structural Analysis of the Sermon on the Mount (New York: Mouton de
Gruyter, 1986), 41-74.
1440
George Wesley Buchanan, ―Matthean Beatitudes and Traditional Promises,‖ in New
Synoptic Studies, ed. William R. Farmer (Marcon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983),
161. Friedlander even offers a verse-to-verse comparison between the Beatitudes and
certain Old Testament texts to support his claim that the Beatitudes is built upon Jewish
sources. See Friedlander, 17-23.

1441
Ibid., 162.

1442
Ibid., 163-65.

1443
Ibid., 166.

352
themes occurring in these texts, Christopher Tuckett affirms the widely assumed view
that at least the three common beatitudes of Matthew (5:3, 4, 6) and Luke (6:20b, 21) are
dependent on Q.1444 He further claims that all the differences between the two versions
(such as the additional beatitudes of Matthew and the woes in Luke) are simply due to
the redaction of the evangelists rather than the result of using slightly different versions
of the Q source by them.1445 Unfortunately, this view is not without challenges,
especially by those who think that Luke used Matthew.1446 As a result, there is no
overwhelming consensus regarding the exact relationship between the two versions.

Still, if one takes the view of Tuckett, then stages of redactional development of
the Beatitudes can be proposed as follows:1447 There were three original beatitudes (vv3,
4, 6) found in both Matthew and Luke that existed before the canonical gospels (i.e., Q
source) and can be traced back to the historical Jesus. They were expanded with the
addition of the fourth beatitude (v 5) and all of them employ the ‗π‘ alliteration.1448
Matthew added three beatitudes that he found in the tradition that reflect the concerns for
greater righteousness (vv7-9). Finally he rearranged the order and added the eighth one
(v 10) so as to form two balanced sets of beatitude.

1444
Christopher M. Tuckett, ―The Beatitudes: A Source-Critical Study. With a Reply by
M. D. Goulder,‖

Novum Testamentum 25 (1983): 193-207.

1445
Davies and Allison are among those who insist that Q takes two different forms (Qmt
and Qlk). This view produces a different hypothesis of the development of the
Beatitudes: The dominical beatitudes (vv 3, 4, 6) were joined first by 5: 11-12 and then
by 5:5 (which was from Qmt). Three other beatitudes from Q mt (vv 7-9) were then
composed and added to form eight beatitudes. Matthew finally composed and added

5:10 as the ninth macarism. See Davies, and Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary, 435-36.

1446
Tuckett, 207-14.

1447
Neil J. McEleney, ―The Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount/Plain,‖ Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 43, no. 1 (January 1981): 3-13; Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary,
186-87.

1448
It is the observation of Christine Michaelis that all the Greek forms of the
subjects of the first four beatitudes begin with ‗π‘: πηωτοὶ, πενθοῦνηες, πραεῖς,
πεινῶνηες. See McEleney, 13.

353
The Unity and Structure of the Beatitudes

Borrowing Luz‘s words, a first glance of the beatitudes gives the impression that
they are ―self-contained and compactly composed.‖1449 Indeed, a good number of
biblical scholars are convinced that such a unity is found: Luz himself, for example,
claims that the first and the eighth beatitudes enclose the texts with the same, long
concluding clause to form a single unit. New Testament scholar Alfred Plummer also
addresses them as ―eight different elements of excellence which may all be combined in
one individual, who may acquire them in any order, or simultaneously.‖1450 John Meier
comments that these verses ―form an ingenious and harmonious whole.‖1451 In sum, the
consistency and unity of the eight beatitudes lies in their shared meaning, repetition,
scriptural background, and stylistic composition.1452

However, there is no consensus among scholars on how they are structurally

united.1453 There are two dominating views. Among those who hold the view that there
are two sets of four beatitudes,1454 some note that, based on linguistic evidence, the first
four beatitudes are grouped together for they employ adjectives that begin with the
Greek ‗π‘ sound. Both sets conclude with the use of righteousness and contain an equal
number

1449
Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary, 185.

1450
Buchanan, 172. Buchanan quotes Alfred A. Plummer, An Exegetical
Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew, (New York: Charles
Scribner‘s Sons, 1910), 61.

1451
Ibid.. Buchanan quotes John P. Meier, The Gospel According to Matthew (New York:
W.H.
Sadlier, 1983), 116.

1452
Ibid., 171-72.

1453
Ibid., 174. Buchanan cites T. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Matthäus (Liepzig,
1910), 181, 195; C. Michaelis, ―Die Alliteration der Subjectsworte der Ersten 4
Seligpreisungen in Mt. v.s3-6 und ihre Bedeutung fur den Aufbau der
Seligpreisungen die Mt., Lk., und in Q,‖ Nov 2 (1958): 148-61.

1454
Davies, and Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 429; Mark Allan
Powell, ―Matthew‘s Beatitudes: Reversals and Rewards of the Kingdom,‖ Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 58, no. 3 (1996): 475; Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 142.
However, these scholars hold different views on the emphases of the two sets of
beatitudes.

354
of (36) words. Moreover, while the first set focuses on the persecuted (passive)
condition of the disciples, the second set treats the ethical qualities that lead to
persecution. Others suggest that the Beatitudes can be divided into those emphasizing
the disciple‘s vertical relationship to God and horizontal relationship to others.1455

Among those who perceive the Beatitudes as comprised of inclusions, they first
point out that the first and the eighth beatitudes employ the enveloping present tense of
the verbs as well as the same, concluding clause.1456 Building upon this perception, some
of them propose a chiastic structure:1457 Within this chiastic layout, certain structural
characteristics, such as parallels, rhyme, and alliteration between individual Beatitudes
are identified. For instance, the Beatitudes consists of an alternating arrangement of pairs
in which ―the rhyming future passive…alternates with an active verbal form.‖1458 Based
on these structural characteristics, some scholars further suggest that the Beatitudes
demonstrates the kind of poetic structure defining Hebrew poetry.1459

In sum, although a universally agreed structure of the Beatitudes may not be

possible, many biblical exegetes recognize that the Beatitudes is one of the most
carefully crafted passages and there is a sophisticated web of relationships between the
individual beatitudes.1460

Regarding the internal structure of each of the eight beatitudes, each macarism
is comprised of a two-line statement: The first line (protasis) is introduced by μακάριοι

1455
David L. Turner, ―Whom Does God Approve? The Context, Structure, Purpose, and
Exegesis of

Matthew‘s Beatitudes,‖ Criswell Theological Review 6, no. 1 (1992): 33.

1456
Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary, 185.

1457
Turner, 33-35.

1458
H. Benedict Green, Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2001), 36-37.

1459
Ibid., 40-41. Green acknowledges that many of these characteristics are also found in
Greek literatures.

1460
Powell, 461; Green, 252.

355
while the second one (apodosis) begins with όηι (meaning ‗for/that/because‘) and is
followed by a promise.1461 And as far as its content is concerned, each beatitude has a
pronouncement concerning who the blessed is as well as a promise concerning why one
is blessed.1462

However, Augustine argued that there are seven beatitudes, though this has not

been widely accepted and ongoing debate among scholars continues:1463 Many scholars

insist that there are eight of them and argue that ―verse 11 involves a change from the

third to the second person plural…[and] verse 12 has a different beginning

altogether…[thus] the composition destroys the pattern of serial beatitudes.‖1464 Still,

there are some scholars like Davies, Allison, and Harrington, who would include verses

11 and 12 as well, making the beatitudes nine:1465 These two verses, though different in

form from the preceding verses, are thematically closer to the eighth beatitude than to

5:13-16. Having a much longer concluding text of a series with a shift from one person to
another seems conventional. And the changes in verses 11 and 12 could be simply a

result of literary design, as in the case of Sirach 25:7-11. Convinced that there are nine

macarisms, they note that this fits the triadic number. Finally, a few scholars would even

1461
Thompson, 109.

1462
Turner, 30.

1463
Buchanan, 175. Those who hold Augustine‘s view basically remove the textually
disputed second

beatitude (5:4). See Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 108.

1464
Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 105.

1465
Davies, and Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 430; Allison, Jr.,
Studies in
Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present, 175-77; Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew,
82. Allison defends his position by turning to certain recently published Qumran
materials (4Q525) and other parallels. See also Turner, 29-31.

356
opt for ten beatitudes solely based on the numerical popularity in Jewish symbolism and
employ the Decalogue as a model.1466

Finally, while the Beatitudes enjoys a structural unity in its own regard, there is
the question of their formal connection to the Sermon:1467 On the one hand, some
scholars attempt to show correlation of the Beatitudes with the Sermon by rearranging,
pairing up, and dividing the Beatitudes in such as a way that shows coherence with 6:19-
7:12. Others, on the other hand, adopt a kind of subjectivity and arbitrariness in searching
for connections (such as the first beatitude corresponds to 7:7-11). Still, there are those
who claim a double correspondence between the three main parts of the Sermon (5:21-
48; 6:1-18; 6:19-7:12) and the Beatitudes.

Despite the diverse views with regards to the individual beatitude‘s connection
with the rest of the Sermon, we can still correctly claim that the Beatitudes is not a
separate entity but closely related to the Sermon and plays a unique role in revealing the
teaching of the Sermon.

The Function of the Beatitudes

Though different types of macarisms in the Old and New Testaments are used in
different ways, three types of functions can be proposed. First, the Beatitudes is primarily
hortatory in nature as those macarisms in the wisdom literature are.1468 It is an ethical
imperative calling for cultivation of certain character traits, and regulations for the
1466
Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 109.

1467
Green, 256-61.

1468
Thompson, 112-13.

357
community life.1469 Specifically, it is perceived as entrance requirements for the
kingdom.1470

Second, those who take on the prophetic and apocalyptic view—and the claim
that the Matthean Beatitudes points to a kind of eschatological ethics as the Sermon as a
whole does—argue that the Beatitudes is primarily declarative promises rather than
imperative demands:1471 Since the Beatitudes is situated outside the main corpus of
imperatives found in 5:17-7:12, its moral dimension, though imperatival, is only
secondary. The beatitudes are offered as eschatological blessings and hope for the
oppressed rather than entrance requirements for the kingdom. In other words, the
Beatitudes is conciliatory and implies the notion of grace (especially in the first half of
the Beatitudes).

The third group of scholars tends to offer a more nuanced view. Betz comments
that the Beatitudes must be seen at the same time as both a series of ethical virtues and
promises.1472 He says, ―[While] the [b]eatitudes are ipso facto future-oriented, as
principles pronounced in the present they have an impact on the present as well.‖1473
Elsewhere he continues, ―In fact, the [b]eatitudes set forth promises along with
demands; they are both at once, not one or the other.‖1474 Luz, though he suggests that
the Beatitudes could become ethicized in Matthew‘s hands, also thinks that they
continue to

1469
Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary, 188.

1470
Thompson, 114.

1471
Ibid.; Turner, 38; Davies, and Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary,
439-40; Allison, Jr., Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present, 178. Robert
Guelich, when analyzing the literary form of the Beatitudes, further dichotomizes the
Beatitudes as either ‗eschatological blessings for the new age‘ or ‗new ethical principles
for present living‘. See Robert Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount (Waco, TX: Word
Books, 1982), 66.

1472
Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 96-97.

1473
Ibid., 96.

1474
Ibid., 60.

358
express God‘s grace and hence concludes that these different approaches are
complementary to each other.1475 Harrington, in a similar way, says, ―The
[b]eatitudes function not as ‗entrance requirements‘ but rather as a delineation of the
characteristics and actions that will receive their full and appropriate eschatological
reward.‖1476

Last but not least, a related debate regarding the function and ethics of the
Beatitudes is whether it offers reversals or rewards:1477 Those who insist on seeing the
beatitudes as statements/promises of reversal for the unfortunate would argue that Jesus
proclaims a revolutionary nature of the kingdom of God that opposes the view of the
Sadducees or Pharisees that the social order on earth will be repeated in heaven. Others
like Luz suggest that each macarism should be allowed to be interpreted on its own terms
even at the expense of diminishing unity.

New Testament scholar Mark Allan Powell attempts to resolve this issue by
suggesting a ‗two-stanza‘ structure of the Beatitudes based on a type of parallelism in
Hebrew poetry:1478 ―The first stanza (5:3-6) speaks of reversals for the unfortunate, the
second stanza (5:7-10) describes rewards for the virtuous.‖1479 In other words, the first
stanza attends to the destitute human condition and the second stanza focuses on
activities.1480 In addition, he insists that the blessings are aimed for the entire world rather
than for the Christian community alone, for the use of third person plural implies a
distinction between the immediate audience and those who are blessed. However, such
an

1475
Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary, 188.

1476
Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 83.
1477
W. R. Domeris, ―Exegesis and Proclamation: ‗Blessed are you . . .‘ (Matthew 5:1-
12),‖ Journal of

Theology for Southern Africa 73 (1990): 68.

1478
Powell, 462-77.

1479
Ibid., 462.

1480
Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary, 193n84.

359
attempt risks dichotomizing and segregating the two sets of Beatitudes even though a
theological link (that all the blessings are the effects of God‘s rule) among all macarisms
could be established.