Matthew 5:1-48

GENERAL CHARACTER. The magna charta of Christ's Kingdom: the unfolding of His righteousness; the sublimest code of morals ever proclaimed on earth; the counterpart of the legislation on Mount Sinai; Christ here appears as Lawgiver and King; Moses spoke in God's name; Christ speaks in His own. Its position, contents, connection, as well as the whole tenor of the New Testament, show that it is the end of the law and the beginning of the gospel, the connecting link between the two: (1) a mighty call to repentance for the unconverted, showing them their infinite distance from the holiness required by the law; (2) a mirror of the divine will for believers, showing them the ideal of Christian morality; (3) an announcement of blessings (beatitudes) to all in whom the law has fulfilled its mission, to create a sense of sin and guilt, to beget humility and meekness of spirit, as well as to encourage and impel to higher attainments. It is at once a warning, a standard and a promise, but not the whole gospel. The gospel is about Christ as well as from Christ. This discourse contains little about His Person and Work; nor could it. The audience was not ready, not even the Twelve (Mark 1:16-20), facts were not accomplished, the Teacher was wise in withholding, was still in His humiliation; only when He was glorified did the full glory of the gospel appear. The improper estimate of its significance makes Christ a mere teacher of ethics, not a Saviour; makes the gospel a higher legalism, not the power of God unto salvation; exalting Christ's earliest instruction to the Apostles at the expense of the later; uses His tender words on the Mount of Beatitudes to make us forget Calvary; puts His principles before His Person, failing to lead us to Him. But while it is not the full gospel, its tone is evangelical, and its ideal is Christian; not telling how or why we are saved, it implies throughout that God must and will help, encourages us to ask from Him (chap. Matthew 7:11). Addressed to those under the law, it is the best introduction to the gospel.

2. Leading thought and plan. The connection of thoughts, so far as Matthew indicates it, is with chap. Matthew 4:17: ‘Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' The motive to repentance was the coming of the ‘kingdom,' about which the Jews had wrong expectations. These errors are met at the outset by a description of the character of the citizens of that kingdom, while the call to repentance is both expanded and enforced in the body of the discourse, which spiritualizes the law. The leading thoughts are respecting the true standard of righteousness, negatively, higher than the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees (chap. Matthew 5:20), positively, like God's (chap. Matthew 5:48). The Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) is not the leading thought, since the ethics of the discourse are religious; see notes.

The discourse follows the method of natural association, although in some cases the connection of thought is difficult to determine. A plan ‘is simply such an analysis as will help us to understand it as a whole.

Chap. 5. A description of the character of the citizens of the kingdom of heaven, their relation to the world (Matthew 5:3-16); the relation of Christ to the law, with HIS exposition of the law, culminating in a reference to God's perfection (Matthew 5:17-48).

Chap. 6. Religious duties; the false and true performance of them contrasted (Matthew 6:1-18); instruction regarding dedication of the heart to God and consequent trust in Him (Matthew 6:19-34).

Chap. 7. Caution against censoriousness, prayer enjoined through promise of an answer, to which promise the Golden Rule is annexed (Matthew 7:1-12); exhortation to self-denial, warning against false teachers and false professions (Matthew 7:13-23); conclusion, two similitudes respecting obedient and disobedient hearers (Matthew 7:24-27). The impression produced on the multitude is then stated (Matthew 5:28-29).

3. RELATION OF THE DISCOURSES in Matthew and Luke (Luke 6:20-49).

Points of agreement: Both begin with beatitudes, end with the same similitudes, contain substantially the same thoughts, frequently expressed in the same language. In both Gospels an account of the healing of the centurion's servant immediately follows.

Points of difference: Matthew gives one hundred and seven verses, Luke but thirty; Matthew seven (or nine) beatitudes, Luke four, followed by four ‘woes.' Luke is sometimes fuller than Matthew, and the order is occasionally different. Our Lord was sitting (Matthew 6:1) when this discourse was delivered; apparently standing (Luke 6:17) during the other. This was uttered on a mountain, the other on a plain. A number of important events mentioned by Luke before the discourse are heard by Matthew after it.

Explanations: (a) Two reports of the same discourse; each Evangelist modifying to suit his purpose. This is the common view, involving fewest difficulties. It is then assumed, that our Lord was standing immediately before the discourse, but sat down to speak; that on the mountain there was a plain just below the summit (the fact in the traditional locality: ‘the Horns of Hattin,' or ‘Kur'n Hattin,' see Matthew 6:1). The chronological difficulty is not serious. Matthew mentions the sending out of the Twelve (chap. 10), not the choice, which is narrated by Mark and Luke. The latter immediately preceded the discourse (so Luke), the former took place some time after. The mention by Matthew of his own call out of its chronological position is readily accounted for (see in chap. Matthew 9:1-17).

(b) Two discourses on entirely different occasions. So Augustine and others. This is an improbable solution, not called for by the chronological difficulties. The mention of the same miracle as immediately following in both Gospels shows that the occasions, if different, were not widely separated.

(c) Different discourses, but delivered in immediate succession; the longer one on the mountain to the disciples, the other on the plain to the multitudes. So Lange. Favored by the direct address to the disciples, and the allusion to the Pharisees (Matthew 5), not found in Luke's account; opposed however by the fact that the multitudes also heard the longer discourse (Matthew 7:28).

(d) Two summaries of our Lord's teaching about this time, not reports of particular discourses. Such summaries would be in an appropriate place, since in both cases a general sketch of our Lord's ministry proceeds. But both Evangelists specify the place, and even our Lord's posture. Accepting the differing reports of the same discourse, we should remember that the Evangelists did not compose their histories from written documents and with literal accuracy in details, but (according to Oriental fashion) from memory, which was then much better trained than now, and from living impressions of the whole Christ, strengthened and guarded by the Holy Spirit. Hence we have after all a truer, more lifelike and instructive account of our Lord's ministry, just as pictures embodying the varied expressions of a man's countenance are more true to the life than a photograph which can only fix the momentary image. This fact accounts both for the remarkable essential agreement and the decided individuality and difference in detail, which characterize the Gospels. The two reports of the Sermon on the Mount present in a striking manner these characteristics. The date is probably just after the feast mentioned in John 5:1, if that is to be placed during the Galilean ministry. Our Lord had certainly been preaching in Galilee for some time, and had already aroused the antagonism of the Pharisees. See chap. Matthew 12:1-15, for the events immediately preceding (comp. Mark 2:1-19; Luke 6:1-16).