• • • • T he Sermon on the Mount

• • • • by Ha ns Dieter Betz

• • • •

• • • •

• • • •

• • • •

• • • •

• • • •

• • • •

• • • •

• • • •

• • • • Hermeneia-

• • • • A Critical

• • • • and

• • • • Historical

• • • • Commentary

• • • • on the

• • • • Bible
 The Sermon on the Mount

•
•
• • •
• • •
 Hermeneia
-A Critical
and Historical
Commentary
on the Bible

Old Testament Editorial Board

Frank Moore Cross, Harvard University, chairman
Klaus Baltzer, University of Munich
Paul D. Hanson, Harvard University
S. Dean McBride, Jr., Union Theological Seminary in Virginia
Peter Machinist, Harvard University
Susan Niditch, Amherst College
Christopher R. Seitz, Yale University
Roland E. Murphy, 0. Carm., emeritus

New Testament Editorial Board

Helmut Koester, Harvard University, chairman
Harold W. Attridge, University of Notre Dame
Adela Yarbro Collins, University of Chicago
Eldon Jay Epp, Case Western Reserve University
James M. Robinson, Claremont Graduate School
The Sermon on the Mount

A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount,

including the Sermon on the Plain
(Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49)

by Hans Dieter Betz

Edited by
Adela Yarbro Collins

Fortress
Press Minneapolis
The Sermon on the Mount
Including the Sermon on the Plain
(Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49)

Copyright ® 1995 Augsburg Fortress

All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in
critical articles or reviews, no part of this book may be
reproduced in any manner without prior written
permission from the publisher. Write to: Permissions,
Augsburg Fortress, 426 S. Fifth St., Box 1209,
Minneapolis, MN 55440.

Scripture quotations from the Revised Standard

Version, New Revised Standard Version, Revised
English Bible, or as indicated. The translations of the
Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain are
by the author.

Cover and interior design by Kenneth Hiebert

Production management by Publishers' WorkGroup
Typesetting by Polebridge Press

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Betz, Hans Dieter.

The Sermon on the mount : a commentary on the
Sermon on the mount. including the Sermon on the
plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49) I by
Hans Dieter Betz ; edited by Adela Y. Collins.
p. em. - (Hermeneia-a critical and
historical commentary on the Bible)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8006-6031-5 (alk. paper)
1. Sermon on the mount-CritiCism,
interpretation, etc.
I. Collins, Adela Yarbro. II. Title. III. Series.
BT380.2.B484 1995
226.9'077-dc20 95-5123
CIP

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum

requirements of American National Standard
for Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper for
Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z329.48-1984.

Manufactured in the U.S.A. AF 1-6031

99 98 97 96 95 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

"Mit diesen worten beschleusst er nu seine
lere jnn diesen dreien Capiteln gethan
und fasset sie aile jnn ein klein blindlein,
darinne mans gar finden moge und ein
jglicher jnn bosem stecken und wol
behalten konne,
Als solt er sagen: Wolt jr wissen, was ich
gepredigt habe und was Moses und aile
Propheten euch leren, so wil ichs euch
wol kurtz sag en und so fassen, das jr
nicht durffet klagen, es sey zu lang odder
zu schweer zubehalten.
Denn es ist eine solche predigt, die man
kan lang und weit ausstreichen und auch
kurtz machen und aile lere und predigt
hieraus fliessen und sich ausbreiten und
widderumb hie zusamen komen.
Wie kund es nu klirtzer und klerer gefasset
werden denn jnn diesen worten? on das
die welt und unser alter Adam nicht lesst
dazu komen, das wir jm nach dencken
und gegen einander halten unser Ieben zu
der lere, lassens zu einem ohr eingehen,
zum andern widder a us.
Solten wirs aber allzeit gegen unser Ieben
und werck halten, so wurden wir nicht so
roh hin gehen und jnn wind schlahen
sondern jmer gnug zu thun kriegen Und
wol selbs unser meister werden und
leren was wir thun solten, das wir nicht
durfften nach heiligen Ieben und wercken
lauffen, auch nicht viel Juristen und
rechtbucher dazu durfften, Denn es ist ja
kurtz gefasset und bald gelernet, wenn
nur der vleis und ernst da were darnach
zu thun und Ieben."
Martin Luther,
Wochenpredigten (1530/32),
Weimarer Ausgabe, vol. 32,
p.494
M 0 T T 0
"With these words he [Jesus] now concludes the teaching
he has been presenting in these three chapters, and
wraps it up as in a little bundle, where it can all be found.
Thus everyone can tuck it in the bosom and remember it
well.
As if he were saying: Would you like to know what I have
preached and what Moses and all the prophets teach you?
I will tell you in brief and put it in such words that you do
not have to complain about its being too long or too
difficult to keep in mind.
For it is a sermon that can be extended to great length,
and that can also be summed up in brief. All teaching
and preaching flows out from here, gets distributed from
here, and comes together again here.
How could anyone formulate it more briefly and clearly
than in these words? The world, however, and our old
Adam do not allow that we give it serious thought and
measure our life by this teaching. Instead, we let it go in
one ear and out again the other.
Thus, if we always measured our life and actions by this
standard, we would not carry on in such a brutish way
and throw his teaching into the wind, but we would have
more than enough to do, and become ourselves masters,
in effect teaching ourselves what we ought to do. Then
we would not need to chase after holy life and holy
works, nor would we need so many lawyers and law
books. Thus, this teaching is concisely formulated and
can soon be learned, if only there is the diligence and
sincerity to do and live accordingly."
v
 The Author

Hans Dieter Betz holds the chair of Shailer Mathews

Professor of New Testament Studies in the Divinity
School, and in the Department of New Testament and
Early Christian Literature of the Division of the
Humanities at the University of Chicago. Born and
raised in Germany, he received his theological education
at Bethel and Mainz (Germany), and at Cambridge
(England). He served as a pastor of churches in the
Reformed Tradition before he came to the United States
in 1963. From 1963 to 1978 he taught at the School of
Theology and the Claremont Graduate School in
Claremont, California. While teaching at Chicago since
1978, he also held appointments as a visiting professor at
several European and Israeli universities.
The author's published works show his major interests
to be the epistles and theology of the apostle Paul
(Nachfolge und Nachahmungjesu Christi im Neuen
Testament [1967], Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische
Tradition [1972], Galatians [Hermeneia, 1979], 2
Corinthians 8 and 9 [Hermeneia, 1985], Paulinische
Studien: Gesammelte Aufsatze III [ 1994]), and the traditions
of the Synoptic Gospels, among which stands out the
Sermon on the Mount (Essays on the Sermon on the Mount
[1985], Synoptische Studien: Gesammelte Aufsatze II (1992]).
Another of his interests has been the investigation of the
relationship of the New Testament to its religious
environment; this is reflected in works written or edited
on the New Testament and Graeco-Roman literature
and religion (Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament
[1961 ]; Plutarch's Theological Writings and Early Christian
Literature [1975], Plutarch's Ethical Writings and Early
Christian Literature [1978], The Greek Magical Papyri in
Translation, Including the Demotic Spells [ 1986, 2nd ed.
1992], and Hellenismus und Urchristentum: Gesammelte
Aufsatze I [ 1990]).

VI
Contents Foreword to Hermeneia Xlll
Preface XV
Reference Codes xvn
1. Sources and Abbreviations xvii
2. Short Titles of Works Often Cited XXVI
Editor's Note xxxvii

, •Introduction I. Approaching the Text 1

II. The Major Problems of Research in Historical
Perspective 5
1. The Ancient Church to Augustine 6
a. Within the New Testament 6
b. Post-New Testament Period 7
c. The Emergence of Written Sources 7
d. The Influence of the Gospel of Matthew 9
e. Commentaries on Matthew 10
f. Augustine's Commentary on the Sermon on
the Mount 11
2. From Augustine to the Reformation 12
3. The Period of the Renaissance and Reformation 13
4. The Period of the Enlightenment 18
5. The Conservative Reaction 20
6. The Nineteenth Century 24
7. The Twentieth Century 32
III. The Literary Composition 44
1. Conspectus: Sermon on the Mount 50
2. Conspectus: Sermon on the Plain 66
IV. The Literary Genre 70
V. The Literary Function 80

• Commentary: Chapter I.
The Sermon on the Mount 5:3-12: The Beatitudes 91
(SM/Matt 5:3-7:27)
1. Introduction 92
a. The Basic Meaning 92
b. The Literary Genre of the Beatitude 97
c. The Number of Beatitudes 105
d. The Relationship between the Beatitudes of
the SM and the SP 109
2. Analysis 11 0
3. Interpretation Ill

Chapter II.
5:13-16: The Commission 154
1. Analysis 155
2. Interpretation 158
Excursus: jerusalem in the SM 162

Vll
 Chapter III.
5:17-20: The Hermeneutical Principles 166
1. Analysis 167
Excursus: Principles for the Interpretation of the Law
in Greek, Roman, and Jewish Legal Thought 167
2. Interpretation 174
Excursus: Socrates' Defiance of the Law 179

Chapter N.
5:21-48: The Antitheses 198
1. Introduction 200
2. The Antitheses 215
a. The First Antithesis: Murder (Matthew 5:21-
26) 215
1) Analysis 215
2) Interpretation 215
b. The Second Antithesis: Adultery (Matthew
5:27-30) 230
1) Analysis 230
2) Interpretation 2 31
c. The Third Antithesis: Divorce (Matthew
5:31-32) 240
1) Analysis 243
2) Interpretation 243
d. The Fourth Antithesis: Oaths (Matthew
5:33-37) 259
1) Analysis 259
Excursus: Oaths: Their Use and Misuse in
Ancient Thought 259
2) Interpretation 263
e. The Fifth Antithesis: Retaliation (Matthew
5:38-42) 274
1) Analysis 275
Excursus: Ius Talionis ("Law of Equal
Retribution") 275
2) Interpretation 277
f. The Sixth Antithesis: Love of the Enemy
(Matthew 5:43-48) 294
1) Analysis 296
Excursus: On the Problems of Transmission
and Tradition 296
2) Interpretation 30 1
Excursus: Theodicy in the SM 313

Chapter V.
6:1-18: The Cultic Instruction 329
1. Introduction 330
a. Literary Genre and Function 330
b. Literary Parallels 335

Vlll
 c. Theology 338
d. Authorship 347
2. Analysis 349
3. Interpretation 351
Excursus: The Lord's Prayer 370
Excursus: The Doxology 414

Chapter VI.
6:19-7:12: The Conduct of Daily Life 423
1. Introduction 423
2. Interpretation 428
a. On Treasures (Matthew 6:19-21) 428
1) Introduction 428
2) Analysis 428
3) Interpretation 432
b. On Vision (Matthew 6:22-23) 437
1) Introduction 438
2) Analysis 439
Excursus: Ancient Greek Theories ofVision 439
3) Interpretation 449
c. On Serving Two Masters (Matthew 6:24) 453
1) Introduction 454
2) Analysis 455
3) Interpretation 456
d. On Anxiety (Matthew 6:25-34) 459
1) Introduction 460
2) Analysis 465
3) Interpretation 468
e) On judging (Matthew 7:1-5) 486
1) Introduction 487
2) Analysis 489
3) Interpretation 489
f. On Profaning the Holy (Matthew 7:6) 493
1) Introduction 493
2) Analysis 497
3) Interpretation 499
g. On Giving and Receiving (Matthew 7:7-11) 500
1) Introduction 501
2) Analysis 502
3) Interpretation 504
h. The Golden Rule (Matthew 7: 12) 508
1) Introduction 509
2) Analysis 516
3) Interpretation 516

Chapter VII.
7:13-23: The Eschatological Warnings 520
1. Introduction 520
2. Interpretation 520

ix
 a. Two Ways and Two Gates (Matthew 7:13-14) 520
1) Introduction 521
2) Analysis 523
3) Interpretation 524
b. The False Prophets (Matthew 7: 15-20) 526
1) Introduction 527
2) Analysis 531
3) Interpretation 533
c. On Self-Delusion (Matthew 7:21-23) 538
1) Introduction 539
2) Analysis 541
3) Interpretation 546

Chapter VIII.
7:24-27: The Parable of the Two Builders 557
1. Introduction 557
2. Analysis 558
3. Interpretation 560

• Commentary: Chapter I.
The Sermon on the Plain 6:20b-26: The Beatitudes and the Woes 571
(SP/Luke 6:20b-49)
1. Introduction 571
2. Analysis 571
Excursus: "Poor" and "Rich" 572
3. Interpretation 575
Excursus: The "Woe"-Sayings 586

Chapter II.
6:27-45: Rules for the Conduct of the Disciples 590
1. Analysis 591
2. Interpretation 592
a. Conduct toward the Outside World (Luke
6:27-38) 592
b. Conduct within the Community (Luke 6:39-
42) 619
Excursus: Rules for Teachers and Students 621
c. Conduct toward Oneself (Luke 6:43-45) 628
Excursus: The Good Man (o aya8h~ CI.v8pw1ro~) 630

Chapter III.
6:46-49: The Parable of the Two Builders 636
1. Analysis 636
2. Interpretation 636

X
• Bibliography 1. Reference 643
2. History oflnterpretation 643
3. Commentaries 644
a. Patristic Period (in roughly chronological order) 644
b. Medieval Period (in roughly chronological
order) 645
c. Renaissance and Reformation Period
(chronological order) 646
d. Modern Period (alphabetically arranged) 64 7
4. Studies 652

Indices
1. Passages 665
2. Greek Words 684
3. Subjects 685
4. Names of Commentators and Scholars 688
Designer's Notes 694

XI
Foreword

The name Hermeneia, Greek £pp.7Jvda, has been chosen as the title of the commen-
tary series to which this volume belongs. The word Hermeneia has a rich background
in the history of biblical interpretation as a term used in the ancient Greek-speaking
world for the detailed, systematic exposition of a scriptural work. It is hoped that the
series, like its name, will carry forward this old and venerable tradition. A second,
entirely practical reason for selecting the name lies in the desire to avoid a long
descriptive title and its inevitable acronym, or worse, an unpronounceable
abbreviation.
The series is designed to be a critical and historical commentary to the Bible
without arbitrary limits in size or scope. It will utilize the full range of philological
and historical tools, including textual criticism (often slighted in modern commen-
taries), the methods of the history of tradition (including genre and prosodic
analysis), and the history of religion.
Hermeneia is designed for the serious student of the Bible. It will make full use of
ancient Semitic and classical languages; at the same time, English translations of all
comparative materials-Greek, Latin, Canaanite, or Akkadian-will be supplied
alongside the citation of the source in its original language. Insofar as possible, the
aim is to provide the student or scholar with full critical discussion of each problem
of interpretation and with the primary data upon which the discussion is based.
Hermeneia is designed to be international and interconfessional in the selection of
authors; its editorial boards were formed with this end in view. Occasionally the
series will offer translations of distinguished commentaries which originally
appeared in languages other than English. Published volumes of the series will be
revised continually, and eventually, new commentaries will replace older works in
order to preserve the currency of the series. Commentaries are also being assigned
for important literary works in the categories of apocryphal and pseudepigraphical
works relating to the Old and New Testaments, including some ofEssene or Gnostic
authorship.
The editors of Hermeneia impose no systematic-theological perspective upon the
series (directly, or indirectly by selection of authors). It is expected that authors will
struggle to lay bare the ancient meaning of a biblical work or pericope. In this way
the text's human relevance should become transparent, as is always the case in
competent historical discourse. However, the series eschews for itself homiletical
translation of the Bible.
The editors are heavily indebted to Augsburg Fortress for its energy and courage
in taking up an expensive, long-term project, the rewards of which will accrue
chiefly to the field of biblical scholarship.
The editor responsible for this volume is Adela Yarbro Collins of the University
of Chicago.

june1992 Frank Moore Cross Helmut Koester

For the Old Testament For the New Testament
Editorial Board Editorial Board
xm
Preface

Now that the work is done and the commentary is ready to be presented to the
readers, the last obligation for the author to fulfill is to give thanks to all those who
have assisted in the preparation and production of the book. Over the last two
decades there have been many, individuals as well as institutions, to whom thanks
are due. In the first place I wish to express my deep gratitude to The School of
Theology and The Institute for Antiquity and Christianity at Claremont, California,
where I taught from 1963 to 1978, and The University of Chicago, where I have
been teaching since 1978. Their administrators, faculty colleagues, students, and
library staffs let me be a scholar, researcher and writer, and they supplied me with
the resources I needed. I am fully aware that such academic freedoms and opportu-
nities are exceptional.
While the first intimations regarding the Sermon on the Mount occurred to me
when I worked on the commentary on Galatians during a very fruitful sabbatical in
1973/74 at Uppsala University, the universities of Zurich (1977), Oxford (1981),
Stellenbosch ( 1982), Cambridge (1984), Tiibingen ( 1987 /88) and Jerusalem ( 1990)
invited me to try out my ideas in teaching as a visiting professor and put the trea-
sures of their libraries at my disposal. While most of the section on the Sermon on
the Plain was written at Westminster College in Cambridge, dear to me since my
student days, the Introduction and the section on the Sermon on the Mount were
the fruit of fourteen months of uninterrupted study and writing in the "Dozenten-
lesesaal" of the University Library at Tiibingen, made possible by the Alexander von
Humboldt Stiftung in Bonn which had awarded me a generous "Forschungspreis."
For further grants I thank the Association of Theological Schools and the Lady
Davis Fellowship Trust at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
Beyond the institutions, I am indebted to all those friends, colleagues and
students, who over the years have made suggestions, sent me offprints, raised
questions, helped clarify issues, and challenged me in discussions and critical
revtews.
Then there are all those who have contributed significantly to the production of
the volume itself. My sincere thanks are due to the Editorial Board of the
Hermeneia commentary series, especially to Professors Helmut Koester and Adela
Yarbro Collins, my volume editor, for accepting and editing this my third volume in
the Hermeneia collection; to Fortress Press and its staff members, in particular its
director, Dr. Marshall Johnson, for their courage and competence in producing a
tome of medieval proportions at a time when "fast food" inspires so much of the
theological book market; to my secretaries Martha Morrow-V ojacek and Peggy
Edwards for their patience with typing complicated manuscripts; to my student
assistants Steven Hall for teaching me how to use the computer, Christopher Mount
for his careful reading of the proofs and, together with Donald D. Walker, Jeffrey R.
Asher, and Matt A. Jackson-McCabe, for compiling the major parts of the indices.

XV
 Finally, thanks to the constant supportive presence of my wife Christel I myself
survived all the ups and downs of the project, and can now be just as amazed as the
reader to hold the volume in my hands.

Chicago, Illinois Hans Dieter Betz

February, 1995

xvi
Reference Codes

1 . Sources and Abbreviations An Bib Analecta biblica

Abbreviations of ancient sources follow, with minor ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts
modifications, the Theological Dictionary of the New Relating to the Old Testament (ed.
Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, ]. B. Pritchard; 3d ed.;
trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Princeton: Princeton University,
Eerdmans, 1964) xvi-lx; see also Luci Berkowitz and 1969)
Karl Squitier, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Canon of An Or Analecta orientalia
Greek Authors and Works (2d ed.; New York and ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der
Oxford: Oxford University, 1986). Abbreviations of romischen Welt
text-critical notes follow Nestle-Aland, Novum Anthol. Pal. Anthologia Palatina
Testamentum Graece, 26th ed. (see below, short titles, ANT] Arbeiten zum Neuen Testament
s.v. Nestle-Aland). For explanations see also Siegfried undjudentum
Schwertner, Internationales Abkilrzungsverzeichnis for AOAW.PH Anzeiger der osterreichischen
Theologie und Grenzgebiete; International Glossary of Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Abbreviations and Related Subjects; etc. (Berlin: de Philosophisch-historische Klasse
Gruyter, 197 4). The following abbreviations have AOT Altorientalische Texte zum Alten
been commonly used: Testament (ed. Hugo Gressmann;
2d ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter,
AASF Annales Academiae Scientiarum 1926)
Fennicae APAW.PH Abhandlungen der preussischen
AASOR Annual of the American Schools Akademie der Wissenschaften,
of Oriental Research Philosophisch-historische Klasse
AAWLM.G Abhandlungen der Akademie Ap. Const. Apostolic Constitutions
der Wissenschaften und der Ap.Jas. Apocryphon ofjames
Literatur in Mainz, Geistes-und Ap.john Apocryphon ofjohn
sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse Apoc. Abr. Apocalypse of Abraham
AB Anchor Bible Apoc.Mos. Apocalypse ofMoses
ABAW.PH Abhandlungen der bayrischen Apoc. Pet. Apocalypse ofPeter
Akademie der Wissenschaften, APOT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of
Philosophisch-historische the Old Testament (ed. R. H.
Abteilung Charles; 2 vols.)
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. David Apuleius Apuleius
Noel Freedman; 6 vols.; Garden Met. Metamorphoses
City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1992) ARG Archiv for Reformationsgeschichte
'Abot Pirqe 'Abot Aristophanes Aristophanes
'Abot R. Nat. 'Abot de Rabbi Nathan Nub. Nubes
ACW Ancient Christian Writers Aristotle Aristotle
Aeschylus Aeschylus Eth. Nic. Ethica Nicomachaea
Agam. Agamemnon Met. Metaphysica
Aesop Aesop MM Magna Moralia
Fab. Fabulae Phys. Physica
AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Pol. Politica
antikenjudentums und des Protr. Protrepticus
Urchristentums Rhet. Rhetorica
AGSU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Rhet. ad Alex. Rhetorica ad Alexandrum
Spatjudentums und ARW Archiv for Religionswissenschaft
Urchristentums As. Mos. Assumption ofMoses
A]P American Journal ofPhilology Asc. ]sa. Ascension ofIsaiah
AKG Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte ASGW.PH Abhandlungen der sachsischen
ALBO Analecta lovaniensia biblica et Akademie der Wissenschaften,
orientalia Philologisch-historische Klasse
ALGHJ Arbeiten zur Literatur und ASNU Acta seminarii neotestamentici
Geschichte des hellenistischen upsaliensis
Judentums AThANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie
Anaximenes Anaximenes des Alten und Neuen
Rhet. ad Alex. Rhetorica ad Alexandrum Testaments

xvii
 Athenagoras Athenagoras BibOr Biblica et orientalia
Suppl. Supplicatio BibS(N) Biblische Studien (Neukirchen)
ATR Anglican Theological Review BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands
Augustine Augustine University Library ofManchester
De serm. dom. BJS Brown Judaic Studies
in monte De sermone domini in monte BK Bibel und Kirche
Ep. Epistulae BKAT Biblischer Kommentar: Altes
AusBR Australian Biblical Review Testament
b. Babylonian Talmud BKP Beitrage zur klassischen
B. Batra BabaBatra Philo Iogie
Ber. Berakot BLE Bulletin de litterature ecclisiastique
B.Me~. BabaMe~a BT Bibliotheca Teubneriana
B.Qam. BabaQamma BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
Nid. Niddab BU Biblische Untersuchungen
Qidd. QidduSin BWANT Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom
Sanh. Sanhedrin Alten und Neuen Testament
Sabb. Sabbat BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
Sukk. Sukkot BZAW Beihefte zur ZA W
Yeb. Yebamot BZNW Beihefte zur ZNW
BAGD Walter Bauer, A Greek-English c. circa, approximately
Lexicon of the New Testament and Calvin Calvin
Other Early Christian Literature Inst. Institutio Christianae Religionis
(ed. William F. Arndt and F. CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Wilbur Gingrich; 2d ed.; revised CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly
by Frederick W. Danker; Monograph Series
Chicago: University of Chicago, chap(s). chapter(s)
1979). See also Bauer-Aland in CChr Corpus Christianorum
the list of short titles. CD Cairo (Genizah) text of the
1 Bar 1 Baruch Damascus Document
2Bar. Syriac Apocalypse ofBaruch CEg Chronique d'Egypte
3Bar. Greek Apocalypse of Baruch Cicero Cicero
Barn. Epistle ofBarnabas De .fin. Dejinibus
BARev Biblical Archaeology Review Deinv. De inventione
BBB Bonner biblische Beitrage De leg. De legibus
BBE Beitrnge zur biblischen Exegese De nat. deor. De natura deorum
BDF F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and De off De officiis
R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of De orat. De oratore
the New Testament and Other Early De Rep. De Republica
Christian Literature (Chicago: Top. Topica
University of Chicago, 1961) Tusc. Tusculanae disputationes
BDR F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and F. CII Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum
Rehkopf, Grammatik des ClQ Classical Quarterly
neutestamentlichen Griechisch 1 Clem. 1 Clement
(14th ed.; Gottingen: 2Clem. 2 Clement
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Clement Alex. Clement of Alexandria
1975) Paed. Paedagogus
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theo- Protr. Protrepticus
logicarum lovaniensium Strom. Stromateis
BEvTh Beitrage zur evangelischen CMC Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis, ed.
Theologie Ludwig Koenen and Cornelia
BFCTh Beitrage zur Forderung Romer, Der Kolner Mani-Kodex:
christlicher Theologie Uber das Werden seines Leibes
BGBE Beitrage zur Geschichte der (Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-
biblischen Exegese Westfalischen Akademie der
BHH Biblisch-Historisches Wissenschaften; Sonderreihe
Handworterbuch "Papyrologica Coloniensia" 14;
BHTh Beitrage zur historischen Opladen: Westdeutscher
Theologie Verlag, 1988).
Bib Biblica col(s). column(s)

XVlll
ConB Coniectanea biblica Ench. Encheiridion
ConBNT Coniectanea biblica, New Epicurus Epicurus
Testament Ep. ad Menoec. npistula ad Menoeceum
Con NT Coniectanea N eotestamentica Epiphanius Epiphanius
Corp. Henn. Corpus Hermeticum Adv. haer. Adversus haereses
Corpus Pan. Panarion
Paroem. Graec. Corpus paroemiographorum Epistula Anach. Epistula Anacharsidis
graecorum EPRO Etudes preliminaires aux
CP Classical Philology religions orientales dans
CPJ Corpus papyrorum judaicorum !'empire Romain
CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum Erlsr Eretz Israel
ad Novum Testamentum ET English translation
csco Corpus scriptorum EtB Etudes bibliques
christianorum orientalium ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses
CSEL Corpus scriptorum ETR Etudes theologiques et religieuses
ecclesiasticorum latinorum Eusebius Eusebius
CThM Calwer Theologische HE Historia ecclesiastica
Monographien Praep. ev. Praeparatio evangelica
Damascius Damascius EvK Evangelische Kommentare
Vitalsid. Vita Isidori EvTh Evangelische Theologie
DB Dictionnaire de la Bible EWNT Exegetisches Worterbuch zum
DBSup Dictionnaire de la Bible, Neuen Testament (ed. Horst Balz
Supplement and Gerhard Schneider; 3 vols.;
Demetrius Demetrius Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, I 978-
Deeloc. De elocutione 83)
Demophilus Demophilus ExpT Expository Times
Sent. Pyth. Sententiae Pythagoreorum FB Forschung zur Bibel
Demosthenes Demosthenes FGH Die Fragmente der griechischen
Or. Orationes Historiker (ed. F. Jacoby; 3 vols.;
Did. Didache Leiden: Brill, 1926-58)
Didasc. Apost. Didascalia Apostolorum FGLP Forschungen zur Geschichte
Dio Chrysostom Dio Chrysostom und Lehre des Protestantismus
Or. Orationes frg(s). fragment(s)
Diodorus Sic. Diodorus of Sicily FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und
Diog. L. Diogenes Laertius Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Diogn. Epistle to Diognetus Testaments
DLZ Deutsche Literaturzeitung FS Festschrift
Doctr. apost. Doctrina apostolorum GCS Die Griechischen Christlichen
EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Schriftsteller der ersten drei
Testament (ed. Horst Balz and Jahrhunderte
Gerhard Schneider; 3 vols.; Gen. Rab. Genesis Rabbah
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, GGA Gottingische Gelehrte Anuigen
1990-92) Gnom.
EJ Encyclopaedia judaica Vatic. Epic. Gnomologium Vaticanum
EKKNT Evangelisch-Katholischer Epicureum
Kommentar zum Neuen Cos. Pet. Gospel ofPeter
Testament Cos. Phil. Gospel ofPhilip
EKL Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon Cos. Thom. Gospel of Thomas
EncRel Encyclopaedia of Religion ( 16 Cos. Truth Gospel ofTruth
vols.; New York: Macmillan, GT German translation
1986) GThA Gottinger theologische Arbeiten
1 Enoch 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch HAT Handbuch zum Alien Testament
2 Enoch 2 (Slavonic) Enoch Hell. Synag. Prayers Hellenistic Synagogue Prayers,
3 Enoch 3 (Hebrew) Enoch cited according to the
Ep. Apost. Epistula apostolorum translation by D. R. Darnell,
Ep. Arist. Epistle of Aristeas OTP 2.671-97
Ep. Pet. Epistula Petri Hennas, Man. Hermas, Mandate
Epictetus Epictetus Hennas, Sim. Hermas, Similitude
Diss. Dissertationes Hennas, Vis. Hennas, Vision

XIX
 Hesiod Hesiod Rom. Romans
Erga Erga et dies Smyrn. Smyrnaeans
Op. Opera et dies Trail. Trallians
Theog. Theogonia Int Interpretation
Hippocrates Hippocrates Irenaeus Irenaeus
Art. De arte Adv. haer. Adversus haereses
Hippolytus Hippolytus I socrates !socrates
Ref Refutatio omnium haeresium Or. Orationes
HKAW Handbuch der klassischen Ad Nicocl. AdNicoclem
Altertumswissenschaft Nicocl. Nicocles
HKNT Handkommentar zum Neuen Panegyr. Panegyricus
Testament JAC Jahrbuch fiir Antike und
HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Christentum
Testament Jll.OS Journal of the American Oriental
Homer Homer Society
II. Iliad JB jerusalem Bible
Od. Odyssey JBL journal of Biblical Literature
Horace Horace JBLMS Journal of Biblical Literature
ArsP. Ars Poetica Monograph Series
Carm. Carmina fDA! Jahrbuch des deutschen
Epist. Epistulae archiiologischen Instituts
Epod. Epodi JEA journal ofEgyptian Archaeology
Sat. Satirae JHPh journal of the History of Philosophy
HR History of Religions JHS journal ofHellenic Studies
HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical JJP Journal ofjuristic Papyrology
Philology JJS journal ofJewish Studies
HThKNT Herders theologischer JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Kommentar zum Neuen jos. Asen. joseph and Aseneth
Testament Josephus Josephus
HTR Harvard Theological Review Ant. Antiquitates Judaicae
HTS Harvard Theological Studies Ap. Contra Apionem
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual Bell. Bellum judaicum
HUTh Hermeneutische JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
Untersuchungen zur Theologie JR journal of Religion
HWPh Historisches Worterbuch der JSHRZ Jiidische Schriften aus
Philosophie (ed.Joachim Ritter; hellenistisch-romischer Zeit
vols.l-;Basei:Schwabe, 1971-) ]Sf Journal for the Study ofJudaism in
HWRh Historisches Worterbuch der the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman
Rhetorik (ed. Gert Ueding; vols. Period
I-; Tiibingen: Niemeyer, JSNT journal for the Study of the New
1992-) Testament
Hymn. Orph. Hymni Orphici JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the
Hyp. Arch. Hypostasis of the Archons New Testament, Supplement
Iamblichus Iamblichus Series
Vita Pyth. De vita Pythagorica ]SOT Journal for the Study of the Old
ICC International Critical Testament
Commentary JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old
!DB Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible Testament, Supplement Series
(ed. G. A. Buttrick; 4 vols.; JSS Journal ofSemitic Studies
Nashville: Abingdon, 1962) fTC journal for Theology and the
IDBSup Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Church
Supplementary Volume (ed. K. JTS journal of Theological Studies
Crim; Nashville: Abingdon, Jub. jubilees
1976) Julian Julian the Apostate
Ignatius Ignatius of Antioch Ep. Epistulae
Eph. Ephesians Justin Justin Martyr
Mag. Magnesians A pol. Apologia
Phld. Philadelphians Dial. Dialogus cum Tryphone
Pol. Polycarp KAT Kommentar zum AI ten

XX
 Testament MBTh Miinsterische Beitrage zur
KD Kerygma und Dogma Theologie
KEK Kritisch-exegetischer Mek. Mekilta
Kommentar iiber das Neue Menander Menander
Testament Mon. Monostichoi
KIT Kleine Texte Sent. Sententiae
KNT Kommentar zum Neuen MH Museum Helveticum
Testament MT Masoretic Text
KP Der kleine Pauly (5 vols.; Munich: MThZ Munchener theologische Zeitschrift
Druckenmiiller, 1975) MTS Miinchener Theologische
LCC Library of Christian Classics Studien
LCL Loeb Classical Library n.(nn.) note(s)
LD Lectio divina NEB New English Bible
LdA Lexikon der Agyptologie Neot. Neotestamentica
Libanius Libanius N.F. Neue Folge (new series)
A pol. Apologia NGWG.PH Nachrichten von der
LJ Liturgisches Jahrbuch Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
log. logion, logia, saying(s) in Gottingen, Philologisch-
LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek- historische Klasse
English Lexicon (9th ed.; Oxford: NHC Nag Hammadi Codices
Clarendon, 1961) NHSt Nag Hammadi Studies
LThK Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche NIGTC New Intemational Greek
Lucian Lucian of Samosata Testament Commentary
Abdic. Abdicatus NovT Novum Testamentum
Alex. Alexander sive Pseudomantis NovTSup Novum Testamentum,
Demon. Demonax Supplements
Dial. mort. Dialogi mortuorum NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
Eunuch. Eunuchus NRSV New Revised Standard Version
Hes. Hesiodus NRTh Nouvelle Revue Theologique
Mere. cond. De mercede conductis n.s. new series
Nigr. Nigrinus NT New Testament
Phil. P hilopseudes NTA Neutestamentliche
Prom. es in verb. Prometheus es in verbis Abhandlungen
Reviv. Revivescentes NTApoc New Testament Apocrypha (ed.
Rhet. praec. Rhetorum praeceptor Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm
Vit. auct. Vitarum auctio Schneemelcher; trans. Robert
Lucretius Lucretius MeL. Wilson; 2 vols.; London:
De rer. nat. De rerum naturae Lutterworth; Philadelphia:
LUA Lunds universitets arsskrift Westminster, 1963-65; 2d ed.
LXX Septuaginta 1991-92)
Lysias Lysias NTApok Neutestamentliche Apokryphen (ed.
Or. Orationes Wilhelm Schneemelcher; 5th
m. Mishnah ed.; 2 vols.; Tiibingen: Mohr
B.Me~. BabaMe~i'a [Siebeck], 1987, 1989)
B. Qam. Baba Qamma NTD Das Neue Testament Deutsch
Cit. Gittin NTOA Novum Testamentum et Orbis
Ker. Keritot Antiquus
Pesa/.1 Pesa/.lim NTS New Testament Studies
Sanh. Sanhedrin NTTS New Testament Tools and
Seba. Sebu'ot Studies
Seqal. Seqalim NZSTR Neue Zeitschrift fur systematische
Marcus Aurelius Marcus Aurelius Theologie und Religionsphilosophie
Me d. Meditationes OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis
Mart. Polyc. Martyrium Polycarpi Odes Sol. Odes of Solomon
MaTS Marburger Theologische OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford:
Studien Oxford University Press, 1968-
MBPF Miinchener Beitrage zur 82)
Papyrusforschung und antiken Origen Origen
Rechtsgeschichte Ad Rom. Commentarii in epistulam ad

XXI
 Romanos Mut. nom. De mutatione nominum
Contra C. Contra Celsum Omn. prob. lib. Quod omnis probus tiber sit
De orat. De oratione Op. mund. De opificio mundi
De princ. De principiis Plant. De plantatione
In loan. Commentarius in evangelium Poster. C. De posteritate Caini
Joannis Praem. poen. De praemiis et poenis
InMatth. Commentarius in evangelium Prov. De providentia
Matthaei Q Exod. Quaestiones in Exodum
OT Old Testament Q Gen. Quaestiones in Genesim
OTP The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Rer. div. her. Quis rerum divinarum heres sit
(ed.J. H. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; Sacr. AC De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Sobr. De sobrietate
1983, 1985) Som. De somniis
p. (pp.) page(s) Spec. leg. De specialibus legibus
P. Berol. Papyri Berolini, cited by Virt. De virtutibus
inventory number Vit. cont. De vita contemplativa
P. Oxy. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (London: Vit. Mos. De vita Mosis
Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898-) Philodemus Philodemus
par. parallel(s) P. Here. Papyri Herculanenses
Paralip. fer. Paralipomena Jeremiae Philostratus Philostratus
PECL 1 Plutarch's Theological Writings Vita Apoll. Vita Apollonii
and Early Christian Literature (ed. PL Patrologia latina (ed.J.-P. Migne)
H. D. Betz; SCHNT 3; Leiden: Plato Plato
Brill, 1975) A pol. Apologia
PECL2 Plutarch's Ethical Writings and Ep. Epistulae
Early Christian Literature (ed. H. Euthyd. Euthydemus
D. Betz; SCHNT 4; Leiden: Euthyph. Euthyphro
Brill, 1978) Gorg. Corgi as
PC Patrologia graeca (ed. J.-P. Lach. Laches
Migne, ed.) Leg. Leges
PGL A Patristic Greek Lexicon (ed. Lys. Lysis
G. W. H. Lampe; Oxford: Men. Meno
Clarendon, 1961-68) Phaedr. Phaedrus
PGM Papyri graecae magicae. Die Phil. Philebus
griechischen Zauberpapyri (ed. K. Polit. Politicus
Preisendanz; rev. Albert Prot. Protagoras
Henrichs; 2d ed.: Stuttgart: Rep. Respublica
Teubner, 1973-74) Sop h. Sophista
Phaedrus Phaedrus Symp. Symposium
Fab. Fabulae Theaet. Theaetetus
Philo Philo of Alexandria Tim. Timaeus
Abr. DeAbrahamo Plautus Plautus
Aet. mund. De aeternitate mundi Pseud. Pseudo[us
Agric. De agricultura Pliny Pliny
Cher. De Cherubim NH Naturalis historia
Conf ling. De confusione lingua rum Plotinus Plotinus
Decal. De decalogo Enn. Enneades
Det. pot. ins. Quod deterius potiori insidiari Plutarch Plutarch of Chaeronea
soleat Adulat. Quomodo adulator ab amico
Deusimm. Quod Deus sit immutabilis internoscatur
Ebr. De ebrietate Adv. Colot. Adversus Colotem
Flacc. InFlaccum Aem. Paul. Aemilius Paulus
Fuga De fuga et inventione Alcib. Alcibiades
Gig. De gigantibus Alex. Alexander
Hyp. Hypothetica Aud. De recta ratione audiendi
jos. Dejosepho Cato min. Cato minor
Leg. all. Legum allegoriae Cons. adux. Consolatio ad uxorem
Leg. Gaj. Legatio ad Gajum Corio[. Marcius Coriolanus
Migr. Abr. De migratione Abrahami De coh. ira De cohibenda ira

XXII
 De cup. div. De cupiditate divitiarum 4QFlor Florilegium from Cave 4
De curios. De curiositate 4QpNah Pesher on Nahum
Defrat. am. De fraterno a more 4QpPs Pesher on Psalms
De gen. Socr. De genio Socratis 4QpPs37 Pesher on Psalm 3 7
De sera num. vind. De sera numinis vindicta 4Q525 Fragment 525 from Qumran
De tranq. an. De tranquillitate animi Cave4
De virt. et. vit. De virtute et vitio 11QPs• Zion The" Apostrophe to Zion"
Defect. orac. De defectu oraculorum from Qumran Cave 11
Is. et Os. De /side et Osiride 11QTemple Temple Scroll from Cave 11
Lib. educ. De liberis educandis 11QTorah Torah Scroll
Mor. Moralia Quintilian Quintilian
Praec. coniug. Coniugalia praecepta Inst. Institutio oratoria
Quaest. conv. Quaestiones convivalium Rab. Rabbah
Them. Themistocles RAG Reallexikon fur Antike und
Polycarp Polycarp Christentum (vols. 1-; Stuttgart:
Phil. Epistle to the Philippians Hiersemann, 1950-)
Porphyry Porphyry RAGSup Reallexikon fur Antike und
Ad Marc. Ad Marcellam Christentum, Supplementa
Prot.jas. Protoevangelium ofJames RB Revue biblique
Ps. Sol. Psalms of Solomon RE Realencyklopiidie fur
Ps.-Aristotle Pseudo-Aristotle protestantische Theologie und
Virt. et vit. De virtutibus et vitiis Kirche
Ps.-Clem. Pseudoclementine Literature REB The Revised English Bible, with
Diam. Diamartyria the Apocrypha (1 989)
Ep. Clem. Epistula Clementis RechBib Recherches bibliques
Ep. Petri Epistula Petri RevQ Revue de Qumran
Hom. Homilies RGG Die Religion in Geschichte und
Rec. Recognitions Gegenwart
Devirg. De virginitate Rhet. ad Her. Rhetorica ad Herennium
Ps.-Galen Pseudo-Galen RhM Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie
Hist. philos. De historia philosophica RivB Rivista biblica
Ps.-Isoc. Pseudo-!socrates RNT Regensburger Neues Testament
Dem. Ad Demonicum RPh Revue de philologie, de litterature et
Ps.-Philo Pseudo-Philo d'histoire anciennes
Ant. bibl. Liber antiquitatum biblicarum RSPhTh Revue des sciences philosophiques et
Ps.-Phocyl. Pseudo-Phocylides theologiques
Sent. Sententiae RSR Recherches de science religieuse
Ps.-Plato Pseudo-Plato RSV Revised Standard Version
Ale. min. Alcibiades minor RThL Revue theologique de Louvain
Ale. mai. Alcibiades maior RThPh Revue de theologie et de philosophie
Def Definitiones RV Revised Version
Ps.-Plutarch Pseudo-Plutarch RVV Religionsgeschichtliche
Cons. ad Apoll. Consolatio ad Apollonium V ersuche und Vorarbeiten
PVTG Pseudepigrapha V eteris SAC Studies in Antiquity and
Testamenti graece Christianity
PW Pauly-Wissowa, Real- SANT Studien zum Alten und Neuen
Encyclopiidie der classischen Testament
Altertumswissenschaft SB Sources bibliques
PWSup Supplement to PW SBA Schweizerische Beitrage zur
QD Quaestiones disputatae Altertumswissenschaft
QL Qumran Literature SBB Stuttgarter biblische Beitrage
1QH Thanksgiving Hymns from SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature
Cave l Dissertation Series
1QM War Scroll SBLMS SBL Monograph Series
1QpHab Pesher on Habbakuk SBLSBS SBL Sources for Biblical Study
1QS Community Rule SBLSCS SCL Septuagint and Cognate
1QSa Community Rule, Appendix Studies
A SBLSP SBL Seminar Papers
1QSb Community Rule, Appendix SBLTT SBL Texts and Translations
B
XXIll
 SBM Stuttgarter biblische Flor. Florilegium
Monographien StPB Studia postbiblica
SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Str-B H. Strack and P. Billerbeck,
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
sc Sources chretiennes (6 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1926-
sc. scilicet, namely 63)
SCHNT Studia ad Corpus Hellenisticum StTh Studia Theologica
Novi Testamenti SUNT Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen
SEA Svensk exegetisk arsbok Testaments
Seneca Seneca Sup Supplementary volume
De clem. De dementia s.v. sub voce, sub vocibus, under the
De ben. De beneficiis word(s) or entry(ies)
Ep. Epistulae SVF Stoicorum veterum fragmenta (ed.
De tranq. De tranquillitate animi J. von Arnim; 4 vols; Stuttgart:
Sextus Sextus Teubner, 1968)
Sent. Sententiae SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti
Sextus Empiricus Sextus Empiricus Pseudepigrapha
Adv. math. Adversus mathematicos Syr. Menander Syriac Menander
SGVS Sammlung Sent. Sententiae
gemeinverstandlicher V ortrage t. Tosefta
und Schriften aus dem Gebiet Ber. Berakot
der Theologie und B.Me$. BabaMe$i'a
Religionsgeschichte lful. Ifullin
SHAW.PH Sitzungsberichte der Sanh. Sanhedrin
Heidelberger Akademie der T. Abr. Testament of Abraham
Wissenschaften, philologisch- T. Is. Testament ofIsaac
historische Klasse T.Jac. Testament ofJacob
Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles T.job Testament ofjob
SJ Studia Judaica T. 12Patr. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
SJLA Studies in judaism in Late T. Ash. Asher
Antiquity T. Benj. Benjamin
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology T. Iss. Issachar
SNTSMS Society for New Testament T.Jos. joseph
Studies Monograph Series T.jud. Judah
SNTU Studien zum Neuen Testament T. Naph. Naphtali
und seiner Umwelt T. Reu. Reuben
so Symbolae Osloenses T.Sim. Simeon
SOAW.PH Sitzungsberichte der T. Zeb. Zebulon
Osterreichischen Akademie der Tacitus Tacitus
Wissenschaften, Philosophisch- Ann. Annates
historische Klasse TBA Tiibinger Beitrage zur
Sophocles Sophocles Altertumswissenschaft
Ant. Antigone TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New
El. Electra Testament (ed. G. Kittel and G.
Oed. Col. Oedipus Coloneus Friedrich; trans. Geoffrey W.
Oed. Tyr. Oedipus Tyrannus Bromiley; I 0 vols.; Grand
SPAW.PH Sitzungsberichte der Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76)
preussischen Akademie der TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old
Wissenschaften, Philosophisch- Testament (ed. G. J. Botterweck
historische Klasse and H. Ringgren; Grand
SQS Sammlung ausgewahlter Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-)
kirchen- und Teach. Silv. Teachings of Silvanus
dogmengeschichtlicher Tertullian Tertullian
Quellenschriften Adv. Marc. Adversus Marcionem
StEv Studia Evangelica A pol. Apologeticus
StNT Studien zum Neuen Testament De bapt. De baptismo
Stobaeus Stobaeus De praescr. haer. De praescriptione haereticorum
Anthol. Anthologia TextsS Texts and Studies
Eel. Eclogae Tg. Targum

xxiv
 Ps.-J. Pseudo-Jonathan vs(s) verse(s)
THAT Theologisches Handworterbuch zum VT Vetus Testamentum
Alten Testament (ed. E. Jenni and VTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements
C. Westermann; 2 vols.; WA Martin Luthers Werke (so-called
Munich: Kaiser; Zurich: Weimarer Ausgabe, critical
Theologischer Verlag, 1971- edition of the works of Martin
1976) Luther) (Weimar: Bohlau,
ThBei Theologische Beitriige 1883-)
Theocritus Theocritus WD Wort und Dienst
Idyll. Idyllia WdF Wege der Forschung
Theophrastus Theophrastus WMANT Wissenschaftliche
De sens. De sensu et sensibilibus Monographien zum Alten und
ThExh Theologische Existenz heute Neuen Testament
ThHKNT Theologischer Handkommentar ws Wiener Studien
zum Neuen Testament WUNT Wissenschaftliche
ThLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Theophilus Theophilus Testament
Ad Auto!. Ad Autolycum WZ(L).GS Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der
ThQ Theologische Quartalschrifl Karl-Marx-Universitiit Leipzig,
ThR Theologische Rundschau Gesellschafls- und
ThSt Theologische Studien sprachwissenschaflliche Reihe
ThStK Theologische Studien und K ritiken Xenophon Xenophon
ThWAT Theologisches Worterbuch zum Cyr. Cyropaedia
Alten Testament (ed. G.J. Mem. Memorabilia
Botterweck and H. Ringgren; Oec. Oeconomicus
vols. 1-; Stuttgart: Kohl- Symp. Symposium
hammer, 1973-) Y· Jerusalem Talmud
ThWNT Theologisches Worterbuch zum YCS Yale Classical Studies
NeuenTestament (ed. Gerhard YJS Yalejudaica Series
Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich; ZAW Zeitschrifl fur die Alttestamentliche
II vols.; Stuttgart: Wissenschafl und die Kunde des
Kohlhammer, I933-79) iilteren Judentums
TRE Theologische Realenzyklopiidie ZEE Zeitschriflfor evangelische Ethik
(vols. I-; Berlin: de Gruyter, ZKG Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte
I977-) ZKT Zeitschrifl fur katholische Theologie
TRev Theologische Revue ZNW Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche
TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Wissenschafl und die Kunde der
Judentum iilteren Kirche
TThS Trierer theologische Studien ZPE Zeitschrift for Papyrologie und
TThZ Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift Epigraphik
TU Texte und Untersuchungen zur ZPhF Zeitschrift fur Philosophische
Geschichte der altchristlichen Forschung
Literatur ZRGG Zeitschrift for Religions- und
TZ Theologische Zeitschrifl (Basel) Geistesgeschichte
UaLG Untersuchungen zur antiken ZSRG.G Zeitschrifl der Savigny-Stiftungfur
Literatur und Geschichte Rechtsgeschichte, Griechische
Ulpian Ulpian Abteilung
Dig. Digestae ZSRG.R Zeitschrifl der Savigny-Stiftungfiir
UNT Untersuchungen zum Neuen Rechtsgeschichte, Romanische
Testament Abteilung
vc Vigiliae christianae ZSTh Zeitschrifl fur systematische
VCSup Vigiliae christianae, Supplements Theologie
VD Verbum Domini ZThK Zeitschrifl fur Theologie und Kirche
VetChr Vetera Christianorum ZWTh Zeitschrift fur wissenschaflliche
VF Verkilndigung und Forschung Theologie
Vg Vulgate
v.l. varia lectio, variae lectiones
(variant reading[ s])

XXV
 2. Short Titles of Works
Often Cited
(For works on the Sermon on the Mount and on the
Plain and for commentaries of the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke, see also the bibliography at the
end of this volume.)
Aalen, Begriffe
Sverre Aalen, Die Begriffe 'Licht' und 'Finsternis' im
Allen Testament, im Spiitjudentum und im Rab-
binismus (Oslo: Dybwad, 1951).
Abrahams, Studies
Israel Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the
Gospels (ed. Morton Enslin; New York: KTAV,
1967).
Aland, Synopsis
Kurt Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (13th
ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1985).
Aland and Aland, Text of the NT
Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New
Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and
to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism
(trans. Erroll F. Rhodes; 2d ed.; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1989).
Allison, "Structure"
Dale C. Allison, "The Structure of the Sermon on
the Mount," JBL 106 (1987) 423-45.
Assmann, Ma 'at
Jan Assmann, Ma 'at: Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblich-
keit im Allen A.gypten (Munich: Beck, 1990).
Asmussen, Bergpredigt
Hans Asmussen, Die Bergpredigt: Eine Auslegung
von Matth. Kap. 5-7 (Wege in die Bibel1; Got-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939).
Banks,jesus and the Law
Robert Banks, jesus and the Law in the Synoptic
Tradition (SNTSMS 28; Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1975).
Bauer-Aland, Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch
Walter Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zu
den Schrijten des Neuen Testaments und der fruh-
christlichen Literatur (ed. Kurt and Barbara Aland;
6th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988).
Baumbach, Das Verstiindnis des Bosen
Gunther Baumbach, Das Verstiindnis des Bosen in
der synoptischen Tradition (Theologische Arbeiten
19; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1963).
Bengel, Gnomon
Johann Albert Bengel, Gnomon Novi Testamenti, in
qua ex nativa verborum vi simplicitas, profunditas,
concinnitas, salubritas sensuum coelestium indicatur
(Stuttgart: Steinkopf, 1742 [1st ed.], 1887 [8th
ed.]). ET: Gnomon of the New Testament (trans.
Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent;
Philadelphia: Perkinpine & Higgins, 1862).
Berger, Amen-Worte
Klaus Berger, Die Amen-Worte jesu (BZNW 39;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970).
XXVI
Berger, Gesetzesauslegung
Klaus Berger, Die Gesetzesauslegungjesu: Ihr
historischer Hintergrund im judentum und im Allen
Testament, vol. 1: Markus und Parallelen (WMANT
40; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1972).
Berger, Formgeschichte
Klaus Berger, Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments
(Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984).
Berger, "Hellenistische Gattungen"
Klaus Berger, "Hellenistische Gattungen im
Neuen Testament," ANRW II, 25/2 (Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1984) 1031-1432.
Betz, Essays
Hans Dieter Betz, Essays on the Sermon on the Mount
(trans. Laurence L. Welborn; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1985).
Betz, Galatians
Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on
Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).
Betz, Greek Magical Papyri
Hans Dieter Betz, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri in
Translation, Including the Demotic Spells (2d ed.;
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).
Betz, Hellenismus und Urchristentum
Hans Dieter Betz, Hellenismus und Urchristentum:
Gesammelte Aufiiitze I (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1990).
Betz, Lukian
Hans Dieter Betz, Lukian von Samosata und das
Neue Testament: Religionsgeschichtliche und parii-
netische Parallelen; ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hel-
lenisticum Novi Testamenti (TU 76; Berlin: Aka-
demie-Verlag, 1961 ).
Betz, Nachfolge
Hans Dieter Betz, Nachfolge und Nachahmungjesu
Christi im Neuen Testament (BHTh 37; Tiibingen:
Mohr [Siebeck], 1967).
Betz, Paulus
Hans Dieter Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die
sokratische Tradition: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu
seiner "Apologie" 2 Korinther 10-13 (BHTh 45;
Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1972).
Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9
Hans Dieter Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Com-
mentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle
Paul (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).
Betz, Synoptische Studien
Hans Dieter Betz, Synoptische Studien: Gesammelte
Aufiiitze II (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1992).
Beyschlag, "Geschichte"
Karlmann Beyschlag, "Zur Geschichte der
Bergpredigt in derAlten Kirche," ZThK 74 (1977)
291-322.
Black, Approach
Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels
and Acts (3d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1967).
Bohlig, Gnosis
Alexander Bohlig, Die Gnosis, vol. 3: Der
Manichiiismus (Zurich and Munich: Artemis,
1980).
Bolkestein, Wohltiitigkeit
Hendrik Bolkestein, Wohltiitigkeit und Armenpjlege
im vorchristlichen Altertum (Utrecht: Oosthoek,
1939).
Bonhoffer, Epictet und die Stoa
Adolf Bonhoffer, Epictet und die Stoa: Unter-
suchungen zur stoischen Philosophie (Stuttgart: Enke,
1890).
Bonhoffer, Ethik
Adolf Bonhoffer, Die Ethik des Stoikers Epictet
(Stuttgart: Enke, 1894).
Bonhoffer, Epiktet und das Neue Testament
Adolf Bonhoffer, Epiktet und das Neue Testament
(RVV 10; GieBen: Topelmann, 1911).
Boring, Sayings
M. E. Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian
Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS 46;
Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1982).
Bornhauser, Bergpredigt
Karl Bornhauser, Die Bergpredigt (Gutersloh:
Bertelsmann, 1927).
Bornkamm, "Bergpredigt"
Gunther Bornkamm, "Bergpredigt I-III," RGG
(1957) l.l047-54.
Bornkamm,jesus
Gunther Bornkamm,jesus ofNazareth (trans. Irene
and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson;
New York: Harper & Row, 1960).
Bornkamm, Gesammelte Aufiiitze
Gunther Bornkamm, Gesammelte Aufiiitze I-IV
(Munich: Kaiser, 1952-71).
Bornkamm, "Aufbau"
Gunther Bornkamm, "Der Aufbau der Berg-
predigt," NTS24(1978)419-32.
Bousset, Kyrios
Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des
Christusglaubens von den Anfiingen des Christus-
glaubens his Irenaeus (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1913; 5th ed. 1965). ET: Kyrios Christos:
A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of
Christianity to Irenaeus (trans. John E. Steely;
Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1970).
Bovon, Lukas
Frant;ois Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Lk
1,1-9,50) (EKK III/I; Zurich: Benziger;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989).
Braun, Radikalismus
Herbert Braun, Spiitjudisch-hiiretischer und
friihchristlicher Radikalismus:jesus von Nazareth und
die essenische Qumransekte (BHTh 24; 2 vols.;
Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck], 1957).
Braun, Qumran
Herbert Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament (2
vols.; Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck], 1966).
Broer, Freiheit
Ingo Broer, Freiheit vom Gesetz und Radikalisierung
des Gesetzes: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Evangelisten
Matthiius (SBS 98; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel-
werk, 1980).
Broer, Seligpreisungen
Ingo Broer, Die Seligpreisungen der Bergpredigt:
Studien zu ihrer Uberlieferung und Interpretation
(BBB 61; Konigsteir:i; Hanstein, 1986).
Brox, Hermas
Norbert Brox, Der Hirt des Hermas (Kommentar zu
den Apostolischen Vatern 7; Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1991).
Brunner, Altiigyptische Weisheit
Hellmut Brunner, Altiigyptische Weisheit: Lehren fur
das Leben (Zurich and Munich: Artemis, 1988).
Bultmann,jesus and the Word
RudolfBultmann,jesus and the Word (trans.
Louise Pettibone Smith and Erminie Huntress
Lantero; New York: Scribner's, 1958).
Bultmann, History
Rudolf Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition
(trans. John Marsh; 2d ed.; Oxford: Blackwell,
1969).
Bultmann, Ergiinzungsheft
Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen
Tradition: Ergiinzungsheft (ed. Gerd TheiBen and
Philipp Vielhauer; 4th ed.; Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1971 ).
Bultmann, Theology
Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament
(trans. Kendrick Grobe!; 2 vols.; New York:
Scribner's, 1951, 1955).
Bultmann, Exegetica
Rudolf Bultmann, Exegetica: Aufiiitze zur Erfor-
schung des Neuen Testaments (ed. Erich Dinkier;
Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck ], 1967).
Burkert, Greek Religion
Walter Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard University, 1985).
Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults
Walter Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University, 1987).
Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels
John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew,
Mark and Luke (ed. David W. Torrance and
Thomas F. Torrance; trans. A. W. Morrison;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Edinburgh: Saint
Andrew, 1972).
Carlston, "Betz on the Sermon on the Mount"
Charles E. Carlston, "Betz on the Sermon on the
Mount-A Critique," CBQ 50 (1988) 47-57.
Carmignac, Recherches
Jean Carmignac, Recherches sur le "Notre Pere"
(Paris: Editions Letouzey & Ane, 1969).
Chantraine, Dictionnaire
Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaire etymologique de la
langue grecque; histoire des mots (4 vols. in 5; Paris:
Klincksieck, 1968-80).
xxvii
 Chase, Lord's Prayer
Frederick H. Chase, The Lord's Prayer in the Early
Church (Texts and Studies 1/3; Cambridge:
Cambridge University, 1891).
Cohen,jewish and Roman Law
Boaz Cohen .jewish and Roman Law: A Comparative
Study (2 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological
Seminary of America, 1966).
Cohen, Law and Tradition
Boaz Cohen, Law and Tradition in judaism (New
York: KTAV, 1969).
Coing, "EinfluB"
Helmut Coing, "Der EinfluB der Philosophie des
Aristoteles auf die Entwicklung des romischen
Rechts," ZSRG.R 69 (1952) 24-59.
Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians
Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on
the First Epistle to the Corinthians (trans. James W.
Leitch; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975).
Crossan, In Fragments
John Dominic Crossan, In Fragments: The
Aphorisms ofJesus (San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1983).
Criisemann, Tora
Frank Criisemann, Die Tora: Theologie und Sozial-
geschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes (Munich:
Kaiser, 1992).
Dalman,jesusjeschua
Gustaf Dalman,jesusjeschua: Die drei Sprachen
jesu:jesus in der Synagoge, auf dem Berge, beim
Passahmahl, am Kreuz (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922;
reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch-
gesellschaft, 1967). ET: Jesusjeshua: Studies in the
Gospels (trans. Paul P. Levestoff; New York:
Macmillan, 1929).
Dalman, Die Worte Jesu
Gustaf Dalman, Die Worte Jesu (2d ed.; Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1930). ET: The Words ofjesus (trans.
D. M. Kay; Edinburgh: Clark, 1909).
Dalman, Handworterbuch
Gustaf H. Dalman, Aramiiisch-Neuhebriiisches
Handworterbuch zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1938;
reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1967).
Danby, Mishnah
Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford
University, 1933).
Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism
David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic
judaism (1956; reprinted New York: Arno, 1973).
Davies, Origins
William D. Davies, Christian Origins and judaism
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962).
Davies, Setting
William D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the
Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1964).
Davies, Studies
William D. Davies, jewish and Pauline Studies
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984).
xxviii
Davies and Allison, Matthew
William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel
ofMatthew. vol. 1: Matthew 1-7; vol. 2: Matthew 8-
18 (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1988, 1991).
Delobel, Logia
Joel Delobel, ed., Logia: Les Paroles de ]isus: The
Sayings ofjesus (BETL 59; Leuven: Peeters and
Leuven University, 1982).
Derrett, Studies in the NT
J. Duncan M. Derrett, Studies in the New Testament
(4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1977-86).
Derrett, Ascetic Discourse
J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Ascetic Discourse: An
Explanation of the Sermon on the Mount (Eilsbrunn:
Ko 'amar, 1989).
de Vogel, Greek Philosophy
C.J. de Vogel, Greek Philosophy (4th ed.; 3 vols.;
Leiden: Brill, 1964-69).
Dibelius, Hermas
Martin Dibelius, Der Hirt des Hermas (HNT, Sup 4;
Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1923).
Dibelius, Sermon on the Mount
Martin Dibelius, The Sermon on the Mount (New
York: Scribner's, 1940) ="Die Bergpredigt," in
Botschaft und Geschichte (ed. Gunther Bornkamm; 2
vols.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1953) 1.79-174.
Dibe!ius,james
Martin Dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle
ofjames (rev. Heinrich Greeven; trans. M.A.
Williams; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1976).
Didier, Matthieu
M. Didier, ed., L'Evangile selon Matthieu: Redaction
et Theologie (BETL 29; Gembloux: Duculot, 1972).
Diels-Kranz, Die Fragmente
H. Diels and W. Kranz, eds., Die Fragmente der
Vorsokratiker (6th ed.; 3 vols.; Zurich: Weidmann,
1951-52).
Dietzfelbinger, Antithesen
Christian Dietzfelbinger, Die Antithesen der
Bergpredigt (ThExh 186; Munich: Kaiser, 1975).
Dihle, Goldene Regel
Albrecht Dihle, Die Goldene Regel: Eine Einfilhrung
in die Geschichte der antiken und frilhchristlichen
Vulgiirethik (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1962).
Dirlmeier, Aristoteles, Nikomachische Ethik
Franz Dirlmeier, Aristoteles, Nikomachische Ethik, in
Aristoteles: Werke in deutscher Ubersetzung, vol. 6 (8th
ed.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1983).
Dittenberger, Sylloge
Wilhelm Dittenberger, Sylloge inscriptionum
graecarum (3d ed.; 4 vols.; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1915-
24).
Dodd, NT Studies
Charles H. Dodd, New Testament Studies (Man-
chester: Manchester University, 1953).
Dodd, More NT Studies
Charles H. Dodd, More New Testament Studies
 (Manchester: Manchester University, 1968).
Dover, Greek Popular Morality
K. J. Dover, Greek Popular Morality in the Time of
Plato and Aristotle (Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California, 197 4 ).
Dupont, Beatitudes
Jacques Dupont, Les Beatitudes, vol. 1: Le probleme
litteraire; les deux versions du Sermon sur la montagne
et des Beatitudes (Bruges: Abbaye de Saint-Andre;
Louvain: Nauwelaerts, 1954; 2d ed. 1958); vol. 2:
La bonne nouvelle (Paris: Gabalda, 1969); vol. 3: Les
evangelistes (Paris: Gabalda, 1973).
Eichholz, Auslegung
Georg Eichholz, Auslegung der Bergpredigt (2d ed.;
BibS[N)46; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag,
1970).
Elon, Principles
Menachem Elon, ed., The Principles ofjewish Law
(Jerusalem: Keter, 1975).
Fiebig, Bergpredigt
Paul W. Fiebig,JesuBergpredigt(FRLANT 20;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924).
Fitzmyer, Essays
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background
of the New Testament (London: Chapman, 1971 ).
Fitzmyer, Luke
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke
(AB 28, 28A; 2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Double-
day, 1981, 1985).
Foerster and Wilson, Gnosis
Werner Foerster, Gnosis: A Selection of Gnostic Texts
(ed. Robert MeL. Wilson; trans. Wilson et al.; 2
vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1972, 1974).
Frankemolle, j ahwebund
Hubert Frankemolle,]ahwe-Bund und Kirche
Christi: Studien zur Form- und Traditionsgeschichte des
"Evangeliums" nach Matthiius (NT A, N .F. 10;
Munster: Aschendorff, 1974; 2d ed. 1984).
Friedlander, Sources
Gerald Friedlander, The Jewish Sources of the Sermon
on the Mount (1911; reprinted New York: KTAV,
1969).
Gerhard, Phoinix
Gustav Adolf Gerhard, Phoinix von Kolophon
(Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1909).
Gessel, Theologie
Wilhelm Gessel, Die Theologie des Gebetes nach "De
Oratione" von Origenes (Munich, Paderborn, and
Vienna: Schoningh, 1975).
Gnilka, Matthiiusevangelium
Joachim Gnilka, Das Matthiiusevangelium
(HThKNT 1.1-2; Freiburg: Herder, 1986, 1988)
Goppelt, "Problem"
Leonhard Goppelt, "Das Problem der Berg-
predigt," in his Christologie und Ethik: Aufsiitze zum
Neuen Testament (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1968) 27-43.
Goppelt, Bergpredigt
Leonhard Goppelt, Die Bergpredigt und die Wirk-
lichkeit dieser Welt (Calwer Hefte 96; Stuttgart:
Calwer, 1968).
Goppelt, Der erste Petrusbrief
Leonhard Goppelt, Der erste Petrusbrief (KEK 12.1;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978). ET:
A Commentary on I Peter (ed. Ferdinand Hahn;
trans. John E. Alsup; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-
mans, 1993).
Goulder, Mid rash
Michael D. Goulder, Mid rash and Lection in
Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974).
Grasser, Problem
Erich Grasser, Das Problem der Parusieverzogerung
in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Apostel-
geschichte (BZNW 22; Berlin: Topelmann, 1957;
2d ed. 1960).
Grese, Corpus Hermeticum XIII
William C. Grese, Corpus Hermeticum XIII and
Early Christian Literature (SCHNT 5; Leiden: Brill,
1979).
Greeven, Synopsis
Heinrich Greeven, Synopse der ersten Evangelien, mit
Beigabe der johanneischen Parallelstellen; Synopsis of
the First Three Gospels, with the Addition of the
johannine Parallels (13th ed. of the Synopse by
Albert Huck; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck), 1981).
Grundmann, Lukas
Walter Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Lukas
(ThHKNT 3; 2d ed.; Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1961 ).
Grundmann, Matthiius
Walter Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Mat-
thiius (ThHKNT 1; Berlin: Evangelische Verlags-
anstalt, 1968; 2ded. 1971).
Guelich, Sermon
Robert Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount: A
FoundationforUnderstanding(Waco, Tex.: Word,
1982).
Gundry, Matthew
Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His
Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1982).
Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy
W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy (5
vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1962-
78).
Hadot, Seneca
Ilsetraut Hadot, Seneca und die griechisch-romische
Tradition der Seelenleitung (Quellen und Studien
zur Geschichte der Philosophie 13; Amsterdam:
Hakkert, 1969).
Hahn, Hoheitstitel (Titles)
Ferdinand Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel: Ihre
Geschichte imfruhen Christentum (FRLANT 83;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963). ET:
The Titles ofjesus in Christology: Their History in
Early Christianity (trans. Harold Knight and
George Ogg; London: Lutterworth, 1969).
XXIX
 Harnack, "Geschichte"
Adolf von Harnack, "Geschichte eines program-
matischen Worts J esu (Matth. 5, 1 7) in der altesten
Kirche," Sitzungsberichte der preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philologisch-
historische Klasse (1912) 184-207.
Harnack, "Ich bin gekommen"
Adolf von Harnack, "'Ich bin gekommen.' Die
ausdrucklichen Selbstzeugnisse Jesu iiber den
Zweck seiner Sendung und seines Kommens, "
ZThK 22 (1912) 1-30.
Harnack, Marcion
Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom
fremden Gott; Eine Monographie zur Geschichte der
Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche. Also includes
Neue Studien zu Marcion (2d ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs,
1924; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1960).
Harnack, Spruche und Reden (Sayings ofjesus)
Adolf von Harnack, Sprilche und Red en jesu: Die
zweite QueUe des Matthiius und Lukas, in his Beitriige
zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, vol. 2 (Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1907). ET: The Sayings ofjesus (trans.
J. R. Wilkinson; London: Williams & Norgate;
New York: Putnam, 1908).
Harnisch, Gleichnisse jesu
Wolfgang Harnisch, Gleichnisse j esu: Positionen der
Auslegung von Adolfjillicher bis zur Formgeschichte
(WdF 366; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch-
gesellschaft, 1982).
Harnisch, Gleichnisforschung
Wolfgang Harnisch, Die neutestamentliche Gleichnis-
forschung im Horizont von Hermeneutik und Literatur-
wissenschaft (WdF 575; Darmstadt: Wissen-
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982).
Harnisch, Gleichniserziihlungen
Wolfgang Harnisch, Die Gleichniserziihlungen jesu:
Eine hermeneutische Einfilhrung (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985).
Hatch and Redpath
Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Con-
cordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions
of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books)
(2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1897).
Heiligenthal, Werke
Roman Heiligenthal, Werke als Zeichen: Unter-
suchungen zur Bedeutung der menschlichen Taten im
Frilhjudentum, Neuen Testament und Frilhchris-
tentum (WUNT 2.9; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1983).
Heinemann, Philons griechische und jildische Bildung
Isaak Heinemann, Philons griechische und jildische
Bildung: Kulturvergleichende Untersuchungen zu
Philons Darstellung der jildischen Gesetze (Hildes-
heim: Olms, 1962).
Heinemann, Prayer
Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms
and Patterns (SJ 9; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977).
XXX
Heinrici, Bergpredigt ( 1900)
Carl Friedrich Georg Heinrici, Die Bergpredigt
(Matth. 5-7. Luk. 6,20-49) quellenkritisch und
begriffsgeschichtlich untersucht (Leipzig: Durr, 1900).
Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1905)
Carl Friedrich Georg Heinrici, Die Bergpredigt
(Matth. 5-7. Luk. 6,20-49) begriffsgeschichtlich
untersucht (Leipzig: Diirr, 1905).
Hengel, "Bergpredigt"
Martin Hengel, "Die Bergpredigt im Widerstreit,"
ThBei 14(1982)53-67.
Hengel, judaism and Hellenism
Martin Hengel,judaism'and Hellenism (trans. John
Bowden; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974).
Hengel, "Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt"
Martin Hengel, "Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt
und ihremjudischen Hintergrund," ThR 52
(1987) 327-400.
Herford, Pirke Aboth
R. Travers Herford, Pirke Aboth: The Ethics of the
Talmud: Sayings of the Fathers (New York:
Schocken, 1962).
Hirsch, Frilhgeschichte
Emanuel Hirsch, Frilhgeschichte des Evangeliums (2
vols.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1941).
Hoffmann, Studien
Paul Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie der Logien-
quelle (NT Abh 8; Munster: Aschendorff, 1972).
Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments
H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments
of the Twelve Patriarchs (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill,
1985).
Hommel, Sebasmata
Hildebrecht Hommel, Sebasmata: Studien zur
antiken Religionsgeschichte und zum fruhen Chris-
tentum (WUNT 31-32; 2 vols.; Tubingen: Mohr
[Siebeck ], 1983).
Horn, Glaube und Handeln
Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, Glaube und Handeln in
der Theologie des Lukas (GThA 26; 2d ed.; Got-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986).
Horsley, New Documents
G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early
Christianity (6 vols.; North Ryde, N.S.W., Aus-
tralia: Macquarie University, 1981-92).
Hubner, Gesetz
Hans Hubner, Das Gesetz in der synoptischen
Tradition (2d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1986).
Hubner, Law
Hans Hubner, Law in Paul's Thought (trans. James
C. G. Greig; ed.John Riches; Edinburgh: Clark,
1984).
Jeremias, Abba
Joachim Jeremias, Abba: Studien zur neutesta-
mentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966).
Jeremias, Bergpredigt (Sermon on the Mount)
Joachim Jeremias, Die Bergpredigt (Calwer Hefte
27; Stuttgart: Calwer, I959). ET: The Sermon on
the Mount (trans. Norman Perrin; London:
Athlone, I96I; Philadelphia: Fortress, I963).
Jeremias, Jerusalem
Joachim Jeremias, jerusalem in the Time ofjesus: An
Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions
during the New Testament Period (Trans. F. H. and
C. H. Cave; London: SCM; Philadelphia: Fortress,
I969).
Jeremias, Parables
Joachim Jeremias, The Parables ofjesus (trans. S. H.
Hooke; 2d ed.; New York: Scribner's, I963).
Jeremias, Prayers
Joachim Jeremias, The Prayers ofjesus (SBT 2/6;
trans. John Bowden et al.; Naperville, Ill.: Allen-
son, I967).
Jeremias, Theology
Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology (trans.
John Bowden; New York: Scribner's, I97I).
J iilicher, Gleichnisreden
Adolf J iilicher, Die Gleichnisreden J esu (2 vols.;
Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I9I 0; reprinted
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
I976).
Kaser, Privatrecht
Max Kaser, Das romische Privatrecht (HKA W
I0.3.3.I; 2d ed.; Munich: Beck, I97I).
Kertelge, Ethik
Karl Kertelge, Ethik im Neuen Testament (QD I 02;
Freiburg: Herder, I984).
Kloppenborg, Formation
JohnS. Kloppenborg, The Formation ofQ· Trajec-
tories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (SAC I; Phila·
delphia: Fortress, I987).
Kloppenborg, QParallels
JohnS. Kloppenborg, QParallels: Synopsis, Critical
Notes, and Concordance (Sonoma, Calif.: Pole-
bridge, I987).
Klostermann, Lukasevangelium
Erich Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5;
3d ed.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I975).
Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium
Erich Klostermann, Das Matthiiusevangelium (HNT
4; 4th ed.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I97I).
Knox, Sources
Wilfred L. Knox, The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels,
vol. I: St Mark; vol. 2: St Luke and St Matthew (ed.
Henry Chadwick; Cambridge: Cambridge
University, I953, I957).
Kohler and Baumgartner, Lexicon
Ludwig Kohler and Walter Baumgartner, Lexicon
in Veteris Testamenti Libras (Leiden: Brill, I953).
Kohler, Rezeption
Wolf-Dietrich Kohler, Die Rezeption des Matthiius-
evangeliums in der Zeit vor Ireniius (WUNT 2.24;
Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I987).
Koester, Uberlieferung
Helmut Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferung bei den
Apostolischen Viitem (TU 65; Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag, I957).
Koester, Introduction
Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament
(2 vols.; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, I982).
Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels
Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their
History and Development (Philadelphia: Trinity
Press International; London: SCM, I990).
Kiimmel, Introduction
Werner G. Kiimmel, Introduction to the New
Testament (trans. Howard C. Kee; 2d ed.; Nash-
ville: Abingdon, I97 5 ).
Kiimmel, Heilsgeschehen
Werner G. Kiimmel, Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte:
Gesammelte Aufsiitze 1933-1964 (ed. Erich Grasser,
Otto Merk, and Adolf Fritz; MaTS 3; Marburg:
Elwert, I965).
Kiinzel, Studien
Studien zum Gemeindeverstiindnis des Matthiius-
evangeliums (CThM series A, vol. I 0; Stuttgart:
Calwer, I978).
Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary
Samuel Tobias Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the
New Testament: The Gospels ofMatthew, Mark, and
Luke(Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV, I985).
Lambrecht, Sermon on the Mount
Jan Lambrecht, S.J., The Sermon on the Mount:
Proclamation and Exhortation (Good News Series
I4; Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, I985).
Laufen, Doppelilberlieferung
Rudolf Laufen, Die Doppelilberlieferung der
Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums (BBB 54;
Bonn: Hanstein, I980).
Lausberg, Elemente
Heinrich Lausberg, Elemente der literarischen
Rhetorik (5th ed.; Munich: Hueber, I976).
Lausberg, Handbuch
Heinrich Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen
Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft
(2d ed.; 2 vols.; Munich: Hueber, I973).
Layton, Gnostic Scriptures
Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures: A New
Translation with Annotations and Introductions
(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, I987).
Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex II,2-7
Bentley Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex II,2-7,
together with XIII,2*, Brit. Lib. Or. 4926(1), and P.
Oxy. 1, 654. 655 (NHS 20-2I; 2 vols.; Leiden:
Brill, I989).
Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature
Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: A
Book of Readings (3 vols.; Berkeley: University of
California, I973-80).
Lieberman, jewish Palestine
Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in
XXXI
 the Life and Manners ofJewish Palestine in the li-N
Centuries C.E. (New York: Jewish Theological
Seminary of America, 1942).
Lightfoot, Horae hebraicae
John Lightfoot, Horae hebraicae et talmudicae,
Impensae in Evangelium S. Matthaei. Etc. (Canta-
brigiae: Field, 1658).
Lindemann, Clemensbriefe
Andreas Lindemann, Die Clemensbriefe (HNT 17;
Die Apostolischen Vater I; TO bingen: Mohr
[Siebeck], 1992).
Lohmeyer, Matthiius
Ernst Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Matthiius
(KEK-Sonderband; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1956).
Lohmeyer, "Our Father"
Ernst Lohmeyer, "Our Father": An Introduction to
the Lord's Prayer (trans. John Bowden; New York:
Harper & Row, 1965).
Lohse," Aber ich sage euch"
Eduard Lohse, "Aber ich sage euch," in Eduard
Lohse, ed., Der RufJesu und die Antwort der
Gemeinde: FS fur Joachim Jeremias (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 189-203.
Long and Sedley, Hellenistic Philosophers
A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, The Hellenistic
Philosophers (2 vols.; Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University, 1987).
LOhrmann, Redaktion
Dieter Liihrmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle:
Zur weiteren Vberlieferung der Logienquelle
(WMANT 33; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1969).
Luther, Heilige Schrifft
Martin Luther, Die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch
[Wittenberg 1545] (ed. Hans Volz et al.; 2 vols.;
Munich: Rogner & Bernhard, 1972).
Luz, "Erfiillung"
Ulrich Luz, "Die Erfiillung des Gesetzes bei
Matthaus (Mt 5, 17-20)," ZThK 75 (1978) 398-
435.
Luz, Matthiius (Matthew)
Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (EKK
1.1-2; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1985, 1989). ET: Matthew
1-7 (trans. Wilhelm C. Linss; Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1989).
Maier,Jesus
Johann Maier,Jesus von Nazareth in der tal-
mudischen Vberlieferung (Ertrage der Forschung 82;
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1978).
Maier,Judische Auseinandersetzung
Johann Maier,Jildische Auseinandersetzung mit dem
Christentum in der Antike (Ertrage der Forschung
177; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell-
schaft, 1982).
Manson, Sayings
T. W. Manson, TheSayingsofJesus(London: SCM,
xxxii
1957).
Marguerat, Le jugement
Daniel Marguerat, Le jugement dans l' tivangile de
Matthieu (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981).
Marshall, Luke
I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel ofLuke: A Com-
mentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978).
Martin, Rhetorik
Josef Martin, Antike Rhetorik: Technik und Methode
(HKAW 2.3; Munich: Beck, 1974).
Mees, Ausserkanonische Parallelstellen
Michael Mees, Ausserkanonische Parallelstellen zu
den Herrenworten und ihre Bedeutung (Quaderni di
Vetera Christianorum 10; Bari: Istituto di
Letteratura Cristiana Antica, 1975).
Meier, Law and History
John P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew's Gospel:
A Redactional StudyofMt. 5:17-48 (AnBib 71;
Rome Biblical Institute, 1976).
Menard, Thomas
Jacques E. Menard, L'Evangile selon Thomas (NHSt
5; Leiden: Brill1975).
Merklein, Gottesherrschaft
Helmut Merklein, Die Gottesherrschaft als
Handlungsprinzip: Untersuchung zur EthikJesu (FB
34; Wiirzburg: Echter, 1978; 2d ed. 1981).
Merklein,jesu Botschaft
Helmut Merklein,]esu Botschaft von der Gottesherr-
schaft (SBS 11; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,
1983).
Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien
Adalbert Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien
nach der syrischen im Sinaikloster gefundenen
Palimpsesthandschrift (2 parts; Berlin: Reimer,
1897 -1902).
Metzger, Textual Commentary
Bruce M. Metzger, ed., A Textual Commentary on
the Greek New Testament (London and New York:
United Bible Societies, 1971).
Montefiore, Synoptic Gospels
Claude G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels (2d ed.;
3 vols.; London: Macmillan, 1927).
Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature
Claude G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and
Gospel Teachings (London: Macmillan, 1930).
Moore,Judaism
George Foot Moore,Judaism in the First Centuries
of the Christian Era (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University, 1927, 1930; reprinted New
York: Schocken, 1971).
Maule, Idiom Book
Charles F. D. Maule, An Idiom Book of New Testa-
ment Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University,
1955).
Moulton, Grammar
James H. Moulton et al., A Grammar ofNew
Testament Greek (4 vols.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1908-
76; reprinted 1988).
Mussies, Dio Chrysostom
Gerard Mussies, Dio Chrysostom and the New
Testament (SCHNT 2; Leiden: Brill, 1972).
Nestle-Aland
Novum Testamentum Graece (ed. Eberhard Nestle,
Erwin Nestle, Kurt Aland eta!.; 26th ed.; 4th
revised printing; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibel-
stiftung, 1981 ).
New Documents
New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (ed.
G. H. R. Horsleyetal.;6vols.; NorthRyde, N.S.W.,
Australia: Macquarie University, 1981-92).
Niederwimmer, Askese
Kurt Niederwimmer, Askese und Mysterium
(FRLANT 113; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1975).
Niederwimmer, Didache
Kurt Niederwimmer, Die Didache (Kommentar zu
den Apostolischen Vatern 1; Gottingen: Vanden-
. hoeck & Ruprecht, 1989).
Nilsson, GGR
Martin P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen
Religion (HKAW 5.2.1-2; Munich: Beck; 2ded.
1961; 3d ed. 1967).
Nissen, Gott
Andreas Nissen, Gott und der Nachste im antiken
judentum (WUNT 15; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1974).
Nock, Essays
Arthur Darby Nock, Essays on Religion and the
Ancient World (ed. Zeph Stewart; 2 vols.; Oxford:
Oxford University; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University, 1972).
Norden, Agnostos Theos
Eduard Norden, Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur
F ormengeschichte religioser Rede (4th ed.; Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1956).
Norden, Kunstprosa
Eduard Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI.
Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance
(4th ed.; 2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1923).
Otto, Sprichworter
August Otto, Die Sprichworter und sprichwortlichen
Redensarten der Romer (Leipzig: Teubner, 1890;
reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1962).
Percy, Botschaft jesu
Ernst Percy, Die Botschaft jesu: Eine traditions-
kritische und exegetische Untersuchung (LUA, N.F.,
Avdeeling I, Band 49.5; Lund: Gleerup, 1953).
Perrin, Rediscovering
Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching ofjesus
(New York: Harper & Row, 1967).
Peterson, Eli. 0EOI.
Erik Peterson, Eli. 0EOI.: Epigraphische,
formgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche Unter-
suchungen (FRLANT 24; Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1926).
Piper, Wisdom
Ronald A. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition: The
Aphoristic Teaching ofjesus (SNTSMS 61; Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University, 1989).
Pohlenz, Stoa
Max Pohlenz, Die Stoa: Geschichte einer geistigen
Bewegung (5th/6th ed.; 2 vols.; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984).
Pokorny, Bergpredigt
Petr Pokorny, Der Kern der Bergpredigt: Eine
Auslegung (Hamburg: Reich, 1969).
Polag, Christologie
Athanasius Polag, Die Christologie der Logienquelle
(WMANT 45; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1977).
Polag, Fragmenta Q
Athanasius Polag, Fragmenta Q· Textheft zur
Logienquelle (2d ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu-
kirchener Verlag, 1982).
Preisigke, Sammelbuch
Friedrich Preisigke, ed., Sammelbuch griechischer
Urkunden aus Agypten (vols. 1-16; StraBburg:
Triibner; Berlin: de Gruyter; Wiesbaden: Harras-
sowitz, 1915-88).
Preisigke, Worterbuch
Friedrich Preisigke, Worterbuch der griechischen
Papyrusurkunden mit EinschlujJ der griechischen
Inschrijten, Aufschriften, Ostraka, Mumienschilder
usw. aus Agypten (vols. 1-3: 1924-31; vol. 4.1-4,
rev. Emil KieBling; Supplement l.l-3: 1969-71;
Berlin and Marburg: Selbstverlag, 1924-71 ).
Resch, Agrapha
Alfred Resch, Agrapha: Ausserkanonische Schrift-
fragmente (2d ed.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 1967).
Robinson and Koester, Trajectories
James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester, Trajec-
tories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1971).
Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library
James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library
in English (3d ed.; San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1988).
Rordorf, La doctrine
Willy Rordorf, La doctrine des douze apotres
(Didache) (SC 248; Paris: Cerf, 1978).
Russel, Paronomasia
Elbert Russel, Paronomasia and Kindred Phenomena
(Ph.D. diss.; Chicago: University of Chicago,
1920).
Sand, Gesetz
Alexander Sand, Das Gesetz und die Propheten:
Untersuchung zur Theologie des Evangeliums nach
Matthaus (Regensburg: Pustet, 197 4).
Sanders, jesus and judaism
Ed Parish Sanders,jesus and judaism (Phila-
delphia: Fortress, 1985).
Sanders, jewish Law
Ed Parish Sanders, jewish Law from Jesus to the
Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM; Philadelphia:
Trinity Press International, 1990).
XXXlll
 Schechter, Aspects
Solomon Schechter, Aspects ofRabbinic Theology
(1901; New York: Schocken, 1961).
Schenk, Synapse
Wolfgang Schenk, Synapse zur Redenquelle der
Evangelien: Q-Synopse und Rekonstruktion in deutscher
Ubersetzung mit kurzen Erlauterungen (Dusseldorf:
Patmos, 1981 ).
Schenk, Sprache
Wolfgang Schenk, Die Sprache des Matthaus: Die
Text-Konstituenten in ihren makro- und mikrostruk-
turellen Relationen (Gottingen: Vandenhoetk &
Ruprecht, 1987).
Schmidt, Ethik
Leopold Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen (2
vols.; Berlin: Hertz, 1882).
Schmithals, Einleitung
Walter Schmithals, Einleitung in die drei ersten
Evangelien (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter,
1985).
Schnackenburg, Bergpredigt
Rudolf Schnackenburg, Die Bergpredigt: Utopische
Vision oder Handlunganweisung? (2d ed.; Dussel-
dorf: Patmos, 1984).
Schniewind, Matthiius
Julius Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Matthiius
(NTD 2; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1964),
Schnurr, Horen
Klaus B. Schnurr, Horen und Handeln: Lateinische
Auslegungen des Vaterunsers in der Alten Kirche bis
zum 5. Jahrhundert (Freiburger Theologische
Studien 132; Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 1985).
Schottroff, Essays
Luise Schottroff eta!., Essays on the Love
Commandment (trans. Reginald and lise Fuller;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978).
Schottgen, Horae Hebraicae
Christian Schottgen, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae
in universum Novum Testamentum (2 vols.; Dresdae
et Lipsiae: Apud Christoph. Hekelii B. Filium,
1733, 1742).
Schulz, Principles
Fritz Schulz, Principles of Roman Law (trans.
Marguerite Wolff; Oxford: Clarendon, 1936).
Schulz, History
Fritz Schulz, History of Roman Legal Science (2d ed.;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1953).
Schulz,Q
Siegfried Schulz, Q; Die Spruchquelle der Evan-
gelisten (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972).
Schurer, History
Emil Schurer et a!., The History of the Jewish People
in the Age ofJesus Christ (175 B.C. -A.D. 135) (rev.
and ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin
Goodman; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1973-
1987).
Schurmann, Lukasevangelium
Heinz Schurmann, Das Lukasevangelium, part 1:
XXXIV
KommentarzuKap. 1,1-9,50 (HThKNT 3.1;
Freiburg: Herder, 1969).
Schwarz, "Und Jesus sprach"
Gunther Schwarz, "UndJesus sprach": Unter-
suchungen zur aramaischen Urgestalt der Worte Jesu
(BWANT 118; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1985).
Schweizer, Beitrage
Eduard Schweizer, Beitrage zur Theologie des Neuen
Testaments (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1970).
Schweizer, Matthaus
Eduard Schweizer, Matthaus und seine Gemeinde
(SBS 71; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 197 4).
Schweizer, Neotestamentica
Eduard Schweizer, Neotestamentica (Zurich:
Zwingli, 1963).
Sieben, Voces
Hermann Josef Sieben, Voces: Eine Bibliographie zu
Wortern und Begriffen aus der Patristik (1918-1978)
(Bibliographia Patristica, Internationale Patris-
tische Bibliographie, Sup 1; Berlin: de Gruyter,
1980).
Siegert, Philon
Folker Siegert, Philon von Alexandrien: Uber die
Gottesbezeichnung "wohltatig verzehrendes Feuer• (De
Deo) (WUNT 46; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1988).
Siegert, Drei hellenistisch-judische Predigten
Folker Siegert, Drei hellenistisch-judische Predigten
(Ps.-Philon, "Uber Jona," "Uber Simson, • "Uber die
Gottesbezeichnung, wohltatig verzehrendes Feuer")
(WUNT 20, 61; 2 vols.; Tubingen: Mohr
[Siebeck ], 1980, 1992).
Simon, Le christianisme antique
Marcel Simon, Le christianisme antique et son contexte
religieux: Scripta Varia (WUNT 23; 2 vols.;
Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1981).
Soiron, Bergpredigt
Thaddaeus Soiron, Die Bergpredigt Jesu: Form-
geschichtliche, exegetische und theologische Erklarung
(Freiburg: Herder, 1941 ).
Speyer, Frilhes Christentum
Wolfgang Speyer, Frilhes Christentum im antiken
Strahlungsfeld: Ausgewahlte Aufsatze (WUNT 50;
Tiibingen : Mohr [Siebeck], 1989).
Spicq, Notes
Ceslas Spicq, Notes de lexicographie neotestamentaire
(2 vols., and a supplementary 3d vol.; OBO 22.1-
3; Fribourg: Editions universitaires; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978, 1982).
Stanton, "Origin"
Graham N. Stanton, "The Origin and Purpose of
the Sermon on the Mount," in Gerald F. Haw-
thorne and Otto Betz, eds., Tradition and Inter-
pretation in the New Testament: FS for E. Earle Ellis
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 181-94;
reprinted in his Gospel, 307-25.
Stanton, Gospel
Graham N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People:
Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: Clark, 1992).
Steinhauser, Doppelbildworte
Michael G. Steinhauser, Doppelbildworte in den
synoptischen Evangelien (FB 44; Wiirzburg: Echter,
198I).
Stoll, De Virtute
Brigitta Stoll, De Virtute in Virtutem: Zur Aus-
legungs- und Wirkungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt in
Kommentaren, Predigten und hagiographischer
Literatur von der Merowingerzeit bis um 1200 (BGBE
30; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I988).
Strecker, "Antithesen"
Georg Strecker, "Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt
(Mt 5,2I-48 par.)," ZNW 69 (I978) 37-72.
Strecker, "Makarismen"
Georg Strecker, "Die Makarismen der Berg-
predigt," NTS I7 (I970-7I) 255-75.
Strecker, Bergpredigt (Sermon)
Georg Strecker, Die Bergpredigt: Ein exegetischer
Kommentar (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
I984; 2d ed., I985). ET: The Sermon on the Mount:
An Exegetical Commentary (trans. 0. C. Dean, Jr.;
Nashville: Abingdon, I988).
Strecker, Weg
Georg Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Unter-
suchung zur Theologie des Matthiius (FRLANT 82;
3d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
I97I).
Strecker, Judenchristentum
Georg Strecker, DasJudenchristentum in den
Pseudoklementinen (TU 70; 2d ed.; Berlin: Aka-
demie-Verlag, I98I).
Streeter, Four Gospels
B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study ofOrigins
(London: Macmillan, I926).
Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings
William D. Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings ofJesus
(SBLSBS IS; Atlanta: Scholars, I989).
Stuhlmacher, "Gesetz"
Peter Stuhlmacher, "Jesu vollkommenes Gesetz
der Freiheit: Zum Verstlindnis der Bergpredigt,"
ZThK 79 (I982) 282-322.
Syreeni, Making
Kari Syreeni, The Making of the Sermon on the
Mount: A Procedural Analysis ofMatthew's Redactoral
Activity (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia,
I987).
Tannehill, Sword ofHis Mouth
Robert C. Tannehill, The Sword ofHis Mouth
(Semeia Sup 1; Philadelphia: Fortress, I975).
Taylor, Sayings
Charles Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers
Comprising Pirqe Aboth in Hebrew and English with
Notes and Excursuses (2d ed.; New York: KTAV,
I969).
Theiler, Poseidonios
Willy Theiler, ed., Poseidonios: Die Fragmente (2
vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter, I982).
Tholuck, Bergrede
August Tholuck, Die Bergrede Christi (5th ed.;
Gotha: Perthes, I872).
Tholuck, Commentary
August Tholuck, Commentary on the Sermon on the
Mount (trans. from the 4th revised and enlarged
edition by Lundin Brown; Clark's Foreign
Theological Library 3.7; Edinburgh: Clark;
Philadelphia: Smith, English & Co., I866; re-
printed I869). Originally: August Tholuck, Die
Bergpredigt ausgelegt (4th ed.; Gotha: Perthes,
I856).
Thorn, "Rhetoric"
Johan C. Thorn, "Rhetoric and Style of the
Sermon on the Mount" (unpublished paper,
I984).
Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece
Constantin Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum
Graece (8th ed.; 3 vols.; Leipzig: Giesecke &
Devrient, I869-94).
Towner, "Hermeneutical Systems"
W. Sibley Towner, "Hermeneutical Systems of
Hillel and the Tannaim: A Fresh Look," HUCA 53
(I982) IOI-35.
Trilling, Das wahre Israel
Wolfgang Trilling, Das wahre Israel: Studien zur
Theologie des Matthiiusevangeliums (Erfurter
Theologische Studien 7; 3d ed.; Leipzig: St.
Benno, I975).
Urbach, Sages
Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and
Beliefs (2 vols.;Jerusalem: Magnes, I975).
van der Horst, Sentences
Pieter W. van der Horst, The Sentences ofPseudo-
Phocylides (SVTP 4; Leiden: Brill, I97 8).
van Tilborg, Leaders
Sjef van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew
(Leiden: Brill, I972).
van Tilborg, Sermon on the Mount
Sjef van Tilborg, The Sermon on the Mount as an
Ideological Intervention: A Reconstruction ofMeaning
(Assen: Van Gorcum, I986).
van Unnik, Sparsa collecta
Willem C. van Unnik, Sparsa collecta: The Collected
Essays of W. C. van Unnik (3 vols.; NovTSup 29-
3I; Leiden: Brill, I973, I980, I983).
Versnel, Faith, Hope
H. S. Versnel, Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of
Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (Studies in
Greek and Roman Religion 2; Leiden: Brilii98I).
Vielhauer, Geschichte
Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen
Literatur (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter,
I978).
Vischer, Leben
Rudiger Vischer, Das einfache Leben: Wort- und
motivgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Wert-
begriff der antiken Literatur (Studienhefte zur
Altertumswissenschaft II; Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, I965).
XXXV
 Volz, Eschatologie
Paul Volz, Die Eschatologie der jildischen Gemeinde
im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (2d ed.; Tiibingen:
Mohr [Siebeck ], 1934; reprinted Hildesheim:
Olms, 1966).
Wehrli, AA0E Blfll:A:E
Fritz Wehrli, AA0E Blfll:Al:: Studien zur altesten
Ethik bei den Griechen (Leipzig and Berlin: Teub-
ner, 1931).
WeiB, Predigtjesu
Johannes WeiB, Die Predigtjesu vom Reiche Gottes
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892; 2d
ed. 1900); reprinted with a new foreword by
RudolfBultmann (3d ed.; Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1964).
WeiB, Urchristentum
Johannes WeiB, Das Urchristentum (ed. Rudolf
Knopf; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1917).
WeiB, History
Johannes WeiB, The History ofPrimitive Christianity
(trans. Frederick C. Grant; New York: Wilson &
Erickson, 1937); republished as Earliest Christianity
(ed. Frederick C. Grant; 2 vols.; New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1959).
Wellhausen, Evangelium Lucae
Julius Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Lucae (Berlin:
Reimer, 1904).
Wellhausen, Einleitung
Julius Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten
Evangelien (Berlin: Reimer, 1905; 2d ed., 1911).
Wellhausen, Evangelium Matthaei
Julius Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Matthaei (2d
ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1914).
Wellhausen, Evangelienkommentare
Julius Wellhausen, Evangelienkommentare. With an
introduction by Martin Hengel (Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1987).
Wengst, Didache
Klaus Wengst, Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief,
Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet (Schriften
des Urchristentums 2; Darmstadt: Wissen-
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984).
Wernle, Frage
Paul Wernle, Die synoptische Frage (Freiburg: Mohr
[Siebeck], 1899).
xxxvi
Wettstein
Johann Jacob Wettstein, H KAINH ~IA0HKH:
Novum Testamentum Graecum (2 vols.; Amsterdam:
Ex officina Dommeriana, 1751-52).
Widengren, Religionsphanomenologie
Geo Widengren, Religionsphanomenologie (Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1969).
Wilson, Love
Walter T. Wilson, Love without Pretense: Romans
12.9-21 and Hellenisticjewish Wisdom Literature
(WUNT 2.46; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1991).
Windisch, Bergpredigt (Sermon on the Mount)
Hans Windisch, Der Sinn der Bergpredigt: Ein
Beitrag zum Problem der richtigen Exegese (UNT 16;
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1929). ET: The Meaning of the
Sermon on the Mount: A Contribution to the Historical
Understanding of the Gospels and to the Problem of
Their True Exegesis (trans. S. MacLean Gilmour;
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1950).
Wolf, Rechtsdenken
Erik Wolf, Griechisches Rechtsdenken (4 vols.;
Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1950-70).
Wrege,Bergpredigt
Hans-Theo Wrege, Die Uberlieferungsgeschichte der
Bergpredigt (WUNT 9; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ],
1968).
Zahn, Matthaus
Theodor Zahn, Das Evangelium des Matthaus (2d
ed.; Leipzig: Deichert, 1905).
Zeller, Mahnsprilche
Dieter Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprilche bei den
Synoptikern (FB 17; 2d ed.: Wiirzburg: Echter,
1983).
Zumstein, Condition
Jean Zumstein, La Condition du croyant dans
l'evangile selon Matthieu (OBO 16; Fribourg:
Presses universitaires; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1977).
Zuntz, Persephone
Gunther Zuntz, Persephone: Three Essays on Religion
and Thought in Magna Graecia (Oxford: Clarendon,
1971).
Editor's Note

In commissioning a commentary on the Sermon on the

Mount and the Sermon on the Plain, the Editorial
Board of Hermeneia recognized the importance of
oral tradition and written sources in the formation of
early Christian writings. We also acknowledge the
extraordinary influence that these Sermons, especially
the Sermon on the Mount, have had in the history of
interpretation and in Western culture generally, as
summaries of the teaching ofJesus. The resulting
commentary provides excellent guidance for reading
the Sermons both in the context of ancient wisdom and
philosophical teaching and as documents that had
enormous influence on the unfolding of Christian
theology and ethics.
The endpapers in this volume are reproduced from
The Eljleda Bond Goodspeed Gospels (Department of
Special Collections, University of Chicago Library, Ms
1054), a tenth-century Greek manuscript presented to
the University of Chicago Library by Edgar J. Good-
speed in 1952. The manuscript, which consists of 265
parchment leaves in 36 quires written by a single
scribe, is a fine example of the early and pure minus-
cule hand. The leaves reproduced here (37 recto and
verso; 43 recto and verso) contain portions of the
Sermon on the Mount of the Gospel according to
Matthew.

-Adela Yarbro Collins

The University of Chicago

xxxvii
 Introduction
Es ist ein Meer auszutrinken,
wenn man sich
in eine historische und
kritische Untersuchung dieserhalb einlaBt.
J.P. Eckermann, Gesprache mit Goethe
(13 February 1831)
I. Approaching the Text
The custom of ancient authors to begin their books with
an address "To the Reader" (Lectori) may be appro-
priately revived here in view of the texts before us, the
Sermon on the Mount (SM/Matt 5:3-7:27) and the
Sermon on the Plain (SP /Luke 6:20b-48). As every
reader knows, these texts are not ordinary material.
Rather, they are from the outset texts that command
respect. Indeed, these texts are in many ways awe-
inspiring, or perhaps it is better to say that their long
tradition in Christian and even in world literature has
dignified them to an extent that modern readers cannot
escape. Religious and cultural valuation makes a dif-
ference, whatever the object may be. Entering the
Temple area in Jerusalem, or the Acropolis of Athens, or
the Cathedral of Saint Peter in Rome is not an ordinary
experience. The same is true of anyone whose mind
enters into the thought world of the famous Sermons, as
the reader is about to do. From afar, these texts look
relatively simple, and for many readers of the New
Testament these Sermons have always represented
nothing more than the simple truth of Jesus' message or
uncomplicated and straightforward principles of moral-
ity and ethics. The intriguing phenomenon is, however,
that the closer one looks into the matter the more one
becomes involved with the issues addressed by the
Sermons. The experience can thus be compared with
visiting famous old castles or cathedrals. Tourists may
put in thirty minutes to walk through, just to get an
impression, and that is what they get. But if one begins to
study such buildings with the help of a good guidebook,
visions of whole worlds open up. Whether it is the
architecture, the symbols and images, the statues and
paintings, or the history that took place in and around
the buildings, under closer examination things are bound
to become more and more complicated, diverse, and
intriguing, with no end in sight.
Such an experience can, I suggest, also be the result of
the study of a text or texts, such as the Sermon on the
Mount and the Sermon on the Plain. The evidence for
this claim is the history of interpretation: since the early
church an almost endless chain of theologians and phi-
losophers have commented on these texts. For this
reason the following commentary treats the Sermon on
the Mount as a piece of world literature, not as an
exclusive text.
Of course, we possess this text in the first place
because ofthe evangelist Matthew. As we believe, he
preserved it and it became world literature together with
the Gospel of Matthew and the New Testament. Yet, as I
shall point out, the Sermon on the Mount has always
been more than a Christian text. This same approach is
extended to the Sermon on the Plain, although it has had
a far less important history. The reason for putting the
two Sermons together into the same literary class is that,
because of their literary and historical origin and nature,
the two Sermons belong together. The case for this
hypothesis will have to be made in the Commentary, but
the evidence may be summed up in the Introduction.
In terms of religion, the Sermon on the Mount and the
Sermon on the Plain have their origins in Judaism, a
Judaism, however, that has been disturbed or inspired
(depending on one's point of view) by Jesus of Nazareth,
who is assumed by the Sermons as their author and
speaker. The particular brand of Judaism that produced
the Sermon on the Mount may be called "the Jesus
movement," or, perhaps at a later stage, "Jewish Chris-
tianity." As I shall point out in detail, the "real author(s)"
(as distinguished from the "assumed author") intended to
formulate an epitome of the teachings of their revered
teacher for the purpose of instructing those who had
joined the Jesus movement, the "disciples." The Sermon
on the Mount, therefore, sums up what the Jesus move-
ment regarded as the essentials for disciples to know and
always bear in mind.
As Jesus was a Jew, all the teachings of the Sermon on
the Mount are Jewish in theology and cultural outlook.
Because of the development of the early Christian
church, in particular its Jewish-Christian branches, the
Sermon on the Mount ended up in the Gospel of
Matthew, a Christian text, and it was canonized as a
Christian text together with this Gospel as part of the
New Testament; the Sermon on the Plain, for reasons
explored below, ended up in the Gospel of Luke and was
canonized together with that Gospel.
 The Sermon on the Plain is apparently also a product
of the same branch of the Jesus movement, but its
purpose and function differ from those of the Sermon on
the Mount. While basically reflecting the same theology,
the cultural outlook of the Sermon on the Plain is Greek
rather than Jewish. The reason for this difference
between the two Sermons seems to be that the Sermon
on the Plain is directed at disciples coming from a Greek
cultural milieu, while the Sermon on the Mount ad-
dresses those coming from a Jewish milieu. If this as-
sumption is granted, it would mean that even the earliest
church took into consideration that converts usually
come from different cultural and religious backgrounds
and that catechetical material, if it is to be effective, must
be formulated accordingly. This insight is known from
Gregory of Nyssa's Great Catechetical Oration, 1 but it
appears to belong to the conceptual foundations of the
Sermons. Both Sermons, therefore, pay attention also to
Greek religion, although this attention is mostly polem-
ical and apologetic. The Sermons, each in its own way,
are designed to establish an identity for the disciples
within the Jewish as well as the Greek religious and
cultural environment. For this reason, some Jewish and
Greek cultural presuppositions are confirmed and en-
forced, while others are rejected. There is both adap-
tation of and polemic against some forms of Judaism and
of Greek culture. On the whole, the Sermon on the
Mount is more pro-Jewish, while the Sermon on the
Plain is more pro-Greek. These different emphases are
not exclusive, however, although they clearly have
formed their purposes with the presumed audiences in
mind. For this reason it is conceivable that both
Sermons, in spite of their differences, are rooted in the
same branch of the Jesus movement.
On the one hand, that the Sermon on the Mount
involves discussion of issues of Jewish religion has meant
that this text has always been attractive to Jewish readers
who did not fail to discover that it is really part of their
own religious thought. This peculiar relationship be-
tween the Sermon on the Mount and Jewish scholarship 2
has not extended to the Gospel of Matthew as a whole,
nor to the New Testament as a whole. The history of
Jewish interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount shows
that this text has its own peculiar status apart from the
Gospel of Matthew and the New Testament as a whole.
On the other hand, the discussion of Greek cultural
and religious phenomena has meant that, since the times
of the ancient Christian church, leamed church fathers
as well as philosophers have taken account of the teach-
ings in both Sermons. Even in the twentieth century,
philosophers and political theorists, for whatever reason,
find themselves challenged by these teachings. Historians
of law have always discussed the legal and ethical issues
brought forth by the Sermon on the Mount, and they

1 On this point see below n. 609 (cf. n. 470).
2 A fresh investigation appears to be desirable now.
For references, see Erich Bischoff, Jesus und die
Rabbinen. Jesu Bergpredigt und "Himmelreich" in ihrer
Unabhi:ingigkeit vom Rabbinismus dargestellt (Schriften
des InstitutumJudaicum in Berlin 33; Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1905); Paul Billerbeck, "Nachwort zur
Bergpredigt," Str-B 1.470-74; Claude G.
Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings
(London: Macmillan, 1930), who mentions also
earlier works such as Gerald Friedlander, The Jewish
Sources of the Sermon on the Mount (London: Routledge
& Sons, 1911; reprinted New York: KTAV, 1969);
furthermore,Joseph Klausner,]esus of Nazareth: His
Life, Times, and Teaching (trans. Herbert Danby; New
York: Macmillan, 1925) esp. 361-97; Leo Baeck, Das
Evangelium als Urkunde der jildischen Glaubensgeschichte
(Berlin: Schocken, 1938); ET in his judaism and
Christianity (trans. with an introduction by Walter
Kaufmann; New York: Harper& Row, 1966) 41-
138; Gerhard Kittel, "Die Bergpredigt und die Ethik
desJudentums," ZSTh 2 (1924/25) 555-94; idem,
Die Probleme des pali:istinischen Spi:itjudentums und das
Urchristentum (BWANT 3.1; Stuttgart: Kohlharnrner,
1926) 88-140. Despite their great erudition, these
studies are often uncritical or tendentious; even the
most recent work shows little improvement: Samuel
T. Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament:
The Gospels ofMatthew, Mark, and Luke (Hoboken,
N.J.: KTAV, 1987). The most glaring errors will
supposedly be taken care of in a revised edition (so J.
Duncan M. Derrett,JSJ 19 [1988]108-9). Fora
critique of past research on Jesus see Ed P. Sanders,
Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985);
idem,Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies
(London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press
International, 1990).

2

have placed their teachings within the context of serious
legal debates.
The influences exerted by the Sermon on the Mount
generally far transcend the borderlines of Judaism and
Christianity, or even Western culture. Both Sermons
have a peculiarly universalistic appeal (see esp. below on
SM/Matt 5:13-16), so that influences on Islam 3 or
Mahatma Gandhi 4 are less astonishing than might appear
at first sight. Indeed, the Sermon on the Mount never
was and still is not the sole property of the Christian
churches and their tradition, but it has had and still has
separate histories within non-Christian religions as well,
with the most prolific history being within Judaism.
It is true that we know of the Sermons only because
the Christian New Testament preserved them by
canonizing them and by elevating especially "the Sermon
on the Mount," as it has been called since Augustine, 5 to
the high level of authority it has since enjoyed. This
canonization and devotion, however, have been a source
of irritation, betrayal, and deformation, as well as one of
inspiration and continuing renewal for the churches. For
most of church history, for reasons we now understand
quite well, the Sermon on the Mount has been an alien
piece de resistance. The conflict between the authority
attributed to the Sermon on the Mount, taken to be the
quintessence of the teaching of Jesus, and the realities of
common church life and history has never escaped astute
observers inside and outside the church. This dis-
crepancy has been a source of judgment as well as chal-
lenge. Ideological critics of the institutional churches
have always used the Sermon on the Mount as their main
weapon for pointing out the hypocrisy, failures, and
internal contradictions of the Christian religion itself.
Schismatic developments inside Christendom have often
used this text to justify separation, antagonism, emigra-
3 See Stefan Schreiner, "Muhammads Bergpredigt,"
Kairos 19 (1977) 241-56.
4 Mohandas Gandhi, An Autobiography (Ahmedabad:
Navajivan Publishing House, 1927) 50-52; also his
What Jesus Means to Me (Ahmedabad: Navajivan
Publishing House, 1959), with a selection of texts.
5 See below, n. 59.
6 A useful beginning was made by Warren S. Kis-
singer, The Sermon on the Mount: A History ofInter-
pretation and Bibliography (Metuchen, N .] .: Scarecrow,
1975). The work is, however, far from com-
prehensive.
Introduction
tion, and new beginnings elsewhere. Even to those who
have remained faithful to their church traditions, the
Sermon on the Mount has served and still serves as a
constant reminder and resource in times of distress,
confusion, and false accommodation to cultural behavior
incompatible with the Christian faith. These various
roles the Sermon on the Mount has played are far from
being merely a matter of the past. The popularity of the
text today shows no sign of diminution. The multitude of
books on the Sermon on the Mount appearing every year
in all languages and lands, not to mention articles in
journals, magazines, and newspapers, exceeds what even
computerized bibliographies can handle.
Indeed, at present there is no complete bibliography
of all the works written on the Sermon on the Mount, 6
and I dare say there never will be one. Nor is there a
complete history of the interpretation of this text, and
again I dare say there never will be one. If undertaken, it
would largely overlap with the entire history of biblical
interpretation, Christian theology, and even secular
philosophy, since almost every author during this history
had one thing or another to say on the subject. Although
this history includes much repetition, the trains of
thought from author to author are interesting, just as the
divisions of opinions are. There are, even in my limited
experience, innumerable original insights that illuminate
not only later interpretations but even the text itself. 7
In view of this overwhelming evidence, a clear state-
ment of intent and purpose is in order, as far as this
commentary is concerned. To begin with, an unam-
biguous confession of modesty is appropriate.
This commentary intends to be no more than a guide
to an informed understanding of this famous text. Its
7 Contrary to widely held perceptions, the history of
interpretation can be fruitful and interesting. One
can only agree with the statement made by Brigitta
Stoll, De Virtute in Virtutem: Zur Auslegungs-und
Wirkungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt in Kommentaren,
Predigten und hagiographischer Literatur zwischen 800
und 1200 (BGBE 30; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1988) XII-XIII. See also the reviews by Rolf
Sprandel, GGA 241 (1989) 258-64; Hans Dieter
Betz, Critical Review of Books in Religion 4 ( 1991) 2 3 7-
39.
3
purpose is to open up the wealth of ideas, issues, and
problems interwoven with the two Sermons. It will
familiarize the serious reader-the book is meant only
for the serious reader, not the superficial "tourist"-with
the most important comparative materials and secondary
sources. The commentary will also advance a number of
hypotheses deemed necessary for the proper under-
standing of the texts.
This commentary does not claim to explain every-
thing, or to collect all the evidence on everything, or to
deliver the last word on anything. I know all too well that
I stand in a long tradition of biblical scholarship and
theological thinking. I have no intention of hiding the
fact that this tradition has been a lifelong source of
intellectual stimulation and fascination. I will also readily
admit that in my view these texts must be or become a
necessary part of the intellectual equipment of anyone
who lives consciously in our time and who may even cross
the threshold of the twenty-first century. This is not
merely an urgent matter of the Christian faith, although
it is certainly just that in the most immediate sense; it is
also simply a matter of being or becoming a self-con-
scious human being.
This claim should not be misunderstood as prede-
termining understanding and debate. The commentary's
purpose is to clear away false information, prejudices,
and self-delusions, and to enable readers to come to an
understanding, their own understanding, that is suf-
ficiently informed and that can thus have integrity.
Whether such understandings agree or disagree with
positions taken by the Sermons is a different matter that
readers themselves must decide. Their decisions, I am
well aware, depend on many other factors as well and not
only on the reading of one book.
Like the texts themselves, this commentary is also
meant for the student in the true sense of the word. Even
after having written the commentary, I myself do not
cease to be such a student. We are all links in an un-
ending chain of interpretations tied up with the texts.
For this reason, I have avoided simplifying things unduly
or engaging in the repulsive hucksterism that is too often
characteristic of allegedly religious writings. The Ser-
mons are "easy" only to the superficial, whether pious or
secular. Life is not an easy matter either, and the Ser-
mons are concerned with life. Enabling one to live life
fully, meaningfully, and responsibly is the goal of the
4
Sermons, so that this commentary must also help bring
about this living. Therefore, if things look difficult, it is
because in fact they are so. Serious readers will not be
deterred but attracted by such difficulties. Nonetheless,
whatever difficulties there may be, they certainly are at
an acceptable level as compared with other literatures.
The Sermons are not for children but for relatively well-
educated adults, for persons who are not specialists in
biblical studies but experts in human living.
Before turning to the matters of introduction them-
selves, a few technical terms need definition because of
their disputed character in present scholarship.
1. By the author I mean the "actual" author or authors
of the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the
Plain (see also below, sections 3 to 5). Whether one or
several individuals authored the Sermons can no longer
be determined, so I shall use the term author in a generic
way. The "assumed" author (assumed by the texts them-
selves) is Jesus of Nazareth, who speaks in the first person
throughout, although his name is never given within the
speeches.
2. By redactor I mean the author acting as arranger,
adapter, or modifier of source materials not originally
created by him. This activity is then called redaction or
redactional. In principle, these terms can refer to the
evangelists (Matthew and Luke in this case) and their
activities or to presynaptic persons and activities, related
to the Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon on the Plain,
or the sayings source Q.
3. A source is a clearly delineated section of text ac-
quired and included by the redactor. The term may also
refer to the earlier context from which such a section has
been taken.
4. The term tradition refers to less delineated materials
that the author or redactor has received and used. These
materials may include ideas, terms, doctrines, thematic
topics, formal elements, patterns of expressions, and so
on.
5. The term Matthean, used often in a confused way, is
used here only to designate the activities, expressions, or
doctrinal ideas ofthe evangelist Matthew, the final au-
thor of the Gospel by that name. While anything in that
Gospel can be called "Matthean" in principle, the adjec-
tive is used here only to designate contributions by the
final author as distinct from those attributable to pre-
Matthean redactors or traditions.
 Introduction

6. While the recipients of the written Gospels are
readers of these books, earlier sources such as the Sermon
on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain speak of the
"hearers" (and "doers") of the sayings contained in them.
At the time, most people continued to "hear" the books
as they were read aloud to them in gatherings of
Christians. Thus these texts function primarily as oral
and only secondarily as written texts. In a sense, of
course, "hearing and doing these my words" (SM/Matt
7:24-27) remains the same, whether oral or written. The
difference in terminology helps to distinguish between
the primary and the secondary functions of the two
Sermons.
II. The Major Problems of Research in
Historical Perspective
The major problems of research as we encounter them in
the literature on the SM and the SP developed in the
course of their history of interpretation. This simple fact
again points to the often lamented neglect of the history
of the interpretation of Scripture in general, and of the
two Sermons under investigation here in particular. 8 A
complete account of the history of the exegesis of these
texts does not exist at the present time and may never
exist, but some partial investigations at least are
available. 9 Most of the history of exegesis has been
concerned with the Gospel of Matthew as a whole. 1 0 In
addition, there exist commentaries, paraphrases, ser-
mons, and annotations devoted to individual passages of
the SM, the SP, or a harmonization of both. 11 Another
large field is that of the application and use of these texts
in works on historiography, biography (hagiography),
hymnology, liturgy, monastic rules, and so forth.
This study of the history of the interpretation of the
SM and the SP can be fruitful and exciting, if it is done in
conjunction with the problems of historical-critical exe-
gesis as present New Testament scholars discuss them. It
is true not only that our present problems regarding
these texts have evolved in history before us, but also
that past scholarship has made important discoveries that
have been forgotten or misunderstood; if recovered and
properly understood, these older discoveries can make
important contributions even in the present. Thus, the
history of exegesis and the current discussions of
exegetical problems must be brought to bear on each
other.

8 See Gerhard Ebeling's programmatic statement in
Kirchengeschichte als Geschichte der Auslegung der
Heiligen Schrift (SGVS 189; Tiibingen: Mohr [Sie-
beck ], 194 7); reprinted in Wort Gottes und Tradition
(2d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966)
9-27; ET: "Church History Is the History of the
Exposition of Scripture," in The Word of God and
Tradition (trans. S. H. Hooke; London: Collins, 1968)
11-31.
9 Karlmann Beyschlag ("Zur Geschichte der Berg-
predigt in der Alten Kirche," ZThK 74 [1977]291-
322) calls attention to some exemplary texts but does
not provide consistency. More important is Ulrich
Luz (Das Evangelium nach Matthiius [EKKNT 1.1;
Zurich, Koln, and Einsiedeln: Benziger; Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985]; ET: Matthew
1-7 [trans. Wilhelm Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1989]), who surveys the "history of influence" 11
(Wirkungsgeschichte) at the end of each section of the
SM. Surveys are also provided in the 1986 Leiden
dissertation by Johannes Bouterse, De boom en zijn
vruchten: Bergrede en Bergrede-Christendom bij Reforma-
toren, Anabaptisten en Spiritualisten in de zestiende eeuw
(Kampen: Kok, 1986).
10 See Edouard Massaux, Influence de l'Evangile de Saint
Matthieu sur la litterature chretienne avant Saint !renee
(Gembloux: Duculot, 1950); reprinted edition
presented by Frans Neirynck, with a "Supplement
Bibliographie 1950-1985" by B. Dehandschutter
(BETL 75; Leuven: Peeters, 1986); idem, "Le texte
du sermon sur Ia montagne de Matthieu utilise par
Sant Justin. Contribution a Ia critique textuelle du
premier evangile," ETL 27 (1954) 411-48, reprinted
as an appendix in Influence (1986 ed.) 725-62. While
Massaux assumes literary dependency on the Gospel
of Matthew even for the Apostolic Fathers, a 1986
doctoral dissertation at the University ofBem
(Switzerland) reflects the current stage of research; it
is by Wolf-Dietrich Kohler, Die Rezeption des
Matthiiusevangeliums in der Zeit vor lreniius (WUNT
2.24; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1987). For the
whole question see Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian
Gospels: Their History and Development (London: SCM;
Philadelphia: Trinity Press lntemational, 1990).
Biblia Patristica: Index des citations et allusions dans la
litterature patristique (ed. J. Allenbach et al.; 3 vols.;
Paris: Editions du C.N.R.S., 1975, 1977, 1980);
Hermann Josef Sieben, Exegesis Patrum: Saggio biblio-
grafico sull' esegesi biblica dei Padri della Chiesa (Rome:
Istituto Patristico Augustinianum, 1983).

5
 In the following not more than a sketchy historical
survey can be provided. Its purpose is to inform readers
of the broad outlines of what is involved, to point to
major stages of the developments, to provide biblio-
graphical information, and perhaps to stimulate further ·
studies.
1. The Ancient Church to Augustine
a. Within the New Testament
Within the New Testament itself the influence of the SM
and the SP on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, respec-
tively, requires special investigations. Depending on the
presupposition whether the SM and the SP are creations
by the evangelists Matthew and Luke or by presynaptic
authors of sources, such investigations will reach dif-
ferent conclusions. Each Gospel gives the SM and the SP,
respectively, a prominent position at the beginning of the
narratives concerning Jesus' public activity as a teacher
of disciples. Although the evangelists never explicitly
refer to the Sermons again in their respective Gospels,
they do allow them to play a significant role and exercise
influence in them. The prominent places given to the
Sermons in the structure of the Gospels are as important
as are the terms and concepts introduced by them and
shared by the evangelists, not to mention the authori-
tative example presented by Jesus as the speaker. In a
sense one may say that the evangelists' entire works are
commentaries on the SM and the SP, although, as I have
said, they never explicitly refer to these texts again in
their works.
Even more difficult to assess are influences by the SM
or the SP on other New Testament writers. Here also the
question is of decisive consequence, whether such influ-
ence was exerted by the entire Gospels of Matthew and
Luke, by the SM and the SP as presynaptic compositions,
or by individual sayings or clusters of sayings that ended
up in the two Sermons as well. While there is no evidence
that any of the other writers of the New Testament knew
either the Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of Luke,
most scholars today share the assumption that some of
the sayings of Jesus have influenced some writers, but
who these writers are and which kind of influence one
may assume are questions that have resisted a conclusive
answer.
In fact, the evidence itself is inconclusive. Theoreti-
cally, one can imagine a variety of possibilities. Con-
ceivably, there could be influences by the transmissions
of single sayings, clusters of sayings, or more extended
presynaptic compositions such as Q, the SM, or the SP.
Although one can make a case for or against any of these
possibilities, the problem is that alleged citations of
sayings of Jesus in New Testament writers other than the
Gospels rarely agree verbatim with those in the pre-
sumed sources. Moreover, one can explain the dif-
ferences in different ways. Therefore, possible influences
of the SM or the SP on Paul's letters, I2 the Epistle of
James,U1 and 1 Peter 14 have been claimed, but these
claims are still awaiting plausible explanation and proof.
While similarities and parallels doubtless exist (in some
writings such as the Epistle ofJames they exist in abun-
dance), they are of the kind whose textual dependency
on the SM or the SP, or even on Matthew's or Luke's

12 Cf. Rom 12:14=SM/Matt 5:44//SP/Luke 6:27-28;
Rom 12:17, 21=SM/Matt 5:38-42//SP/Luke
6:27-35; Gal5:14; Rom 13:8-10=SM/Matt 5:43; 1
Cor 7:10-16=SM/Matt 5:31-32; 2 Cor
1:17=SM/Matt 5:37; Rom 2:1-2; 14:10=SM/Matt
7:1-5//SP /Luke 6:37-42. None of these and other
passages leads me to assume that Paul was familiar
with either the SM or the SP in regard to their en-
tirety or in regard to single sayings contained in
them. Rather, he seems to have received them from
other sources. Scholars have discussed the possibility
that Paul was familiar with Q, but they have not
reached a consensus. For the full evidence and the
state of research, see Frans Neirynck, "Paul and the
Sayings of jesus," in A. Vanhoye, ed., L'Apotre Paul:
Personnalite, style et conception du ministere (BETL 73;
Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University, 1986) 265-
321, esp. 320, where Neirynck sums up his con-
clusions from an extensive review of scholarship:
"Paul's knowledge of a pre-synoptic gospel, of the Q-
source or pre-Q collections has not yet been demon-
strated." See also Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels,
52-55; Andreas Lindemann, "Die Funktion der
Herrenworte in der ethischen Argumentation des
Paulus im Ersten Korintherbrief," in F. Van Seg-
broeck et al., eds., The Four Gospels: FS Frans Neirynck
(BETL 100; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University,
1992) 677-88.
13 The problem of the relationship between the SM and
the Epistle of james is completely unresolved. See
Massey H. Shepherd, "The Epistle ofJames and the
Gospel of Matthew," JBL 75 (1956) 40-51; Hans
Dieter Betz, Essays on the Sermon on the Mount
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 156 n. 122; Wiard

6
 Introduction

Gospel, can hardly be demonstrated. This situation
leaves one with two options: (1) Paul's letters, the Epistle
of James, and 1 Peter do not depend directly on the SM
or the SP but on traditional sayings on which the SM and
the SP also depend; (2) if one assumes a dependency of
these letters on the SM and the SP, the question of the
literary process of transmission, indicated by the terms
"dependency" and "influence," must be explained in a
special way.
b. Post-New Testament Period
In the post-New Testament period and the Apostolic
Fathers the same problems continue. Here also the
evidence is ambiguous and leads to different con-
clusions. 15 An influence of the entire Gospel of Matthew,
as we have~ it at present, is impossible to demonstrate up
to and includ\ng the time of Justin Martyr (died c. 163 or
167). 16 Until:then, the evidence for sayings and clusters
of sayings aJJOunds. Their transmission can be attributed
to a stream of oral tradition passing on from generation
to generation. There is also sufficient evidence to assume
that this stream soon included written collections of
sayings, which then merged with other collections. 17
One can further assume that oral and written traditions
ran side by side for a considerable length of time and
even interacted with each other. These materials, now
contained in sources more or less textually fixed, suggest
great fluidity and richness at earlier stages. With the
canonization of the Gospels, the stream of tradition
gradually dried up, but this process took a long time and
worked itself out differently in different geographical
areas. The change may have been completed with
Tertullian (c. 160-220), when "the age of the sayings of
Jesus" was over and the new "age of biblical quotations"
began. 18
c. The Emergence of Written Sources
The question of the emergence of written sources was
raised first with regard to Q, the collection containing
sayings of Jesus not in Mark and, hypothetically, used as
a source in the formation of the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke. Without summarizing the present state of research
on Q, one can say with confidence that the source Q
seems to have been written rather than oral. 19 With

Popkes, Adressaten, Situation und Form des J akobus-
briefes (SBS 125/126; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel-
werk, 1986) esp. 156-76; Dean B. Deppe, "The
Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle ofJames" (diss., Aca-
demisch Proefschrift; Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit,
1989); Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 71-75.
14 For a discussion of the parallels between 1 Peter and
the SM, see Ernest Best, "I Peter and the Gospel
Tradition," NTS 16 (1969/70) 95-113, esp. 108-10.
He lists the following parallels: Matt 5:5=1 Pet 3:1-4
(also 1:4); Matt 5:10=1 Pet 3:14; Matt 5:11-12=1
Pet 4:13-14; Matt 5:16-17=1 Pet 2:12-13; Matt
5:44=1 Pet 3:16 (3:9); Matt 5:45=1 Pet 1:17; Matt
5:48=1 Pet 1:16; Matt 6:25ff.=1 Pet 5:7; Matt 7:24-
27=1 Pet 5:10. None of these passages proves a
dependency of 1 Peter on the SM. See Leonhard
Goppelt, Der Erste Petrusbrief(KEK 12.1; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 53-54 ET: A
Commentary on I Peter (ed. Ferdinand Hahn, trans.
John E. Alsup; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 33-
35. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 64-66.
15 See Helmut Koster, Synoptische Vberlieferung bei den
Apostolischen Viitern (TU 65; Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag, 1957); Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels,
passim; Kohler, Rezeption, passim (with bibliography);
Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., Neutestamentliche
Apokryphen in deutscher Vbersetzung, vol. 1 (5th ed.;
Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1987); ET: New Testament
Apocrypha, vol. 1: Gospels and Related Writings (trans.
Robert MeL. Wilson; Philadelphia: Westminster,
1991); A. F.J. Klijn,jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition
(VCSup 17; Leiden: Brill, 1992).
16 See Arthur J. Bellinzoni, The Sayings ofJesus in the
Writings ofjustin Martyr (NovTSup 17; Lei den: Brill,
1967); Kohler, Rezeption, 161-265. Kohler assumes
that Justin knew all four canonical Gospels, but then
he introduces so many qualifications that his con-
clusions become implausible. Against Kohler see
Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 14-15, 360-75.
17 See, e.g., the sayings collection P. Oxy. 654 and its
relationship to the Coptic Gospel ofThomas. See
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Oxyrhynchus Logoi of
Jesus and the Coptic Gospel according to Thomas,"
in his Essays on the Semitic Background of the New
Testament (London: Chapman, 1971) 355-433; Beate
Blatz, "Das koptische Thomasevangelium," in
NTApok 1.93-113; ET: "The Coptic Gospel of
Thomas," NTApoc 1.110-33; Koester, Ancient
Christian Gospels, 75-128.
18 So Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 320.
19 On the whole question, see JohnS. Kloppenborg, The
Formation ofQ' Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom
Collections (SAC; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987);
Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 128-71; also

7
many scholars today I assume that earlier and later
developments in Q can be distinguished, distinctions of
the sort that can be made only in written sources.
Conceivably, Q began as a smaller collection of sayings of
Jesus. These sayings were originally oral in nature, and
so, most likely, were the first attempts to collect them. As
these collections became larger and more intricate, at
some point the material was written down. I assume that
the Gospels of Matthew and Luke incorporated separate
versions of Q, which, even before their incorporation,
had undergone a process during which they had also
been subjected to modifications (QMatt and QLuke). That
QMatt and QLuke share a great deal of material and
roughly the same order means that at some earlier stage
they must have come from a common source (Q). This
hypothesis would explain why QMatt included the SM,
while QLuke included the SP. 20 Assuming this hypothesis,
one can conclude that, prior to their incorporation, the
SM and the SP existed in written form as independent
textual units. In other words, the SM and the SP existed
first as separate compositional units before they were
incorporated into QMatt and QLuke. For their material
they drew on the same pool of sayings ofJesus that Q
drew on, so that in some instances a double represen-
tation of sayings resulted in QMatt and QLuke on the one
hand, and in the SM and the SP on the other hand.
The hypothesis of written forms of Q is strengthened
Charles E. Carlston, "Betz on the Sermon on the
Mount-A Critique," CBQ 50 (1988) 47-57, esp.
48-49. For my own reading of the evidence, see my
essay, "The Sermon on the Mount and Q: Some
Aspects of the Problem," in James E. Goehring et al.,
eds., Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings: In Honor
ofjames M. Robinson (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge,
1990) 19-34; reprinted in Betz, Synoptische Studien:
Gesammelte Aufsiitze II (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1992) 249-69;James·M. Robinson, "The Q
Trajectory: Between John and Matthew," in Birger
A. Pearson et al., eds., The Future of Early Christianity:
Essays in Honor ofHelmut Koester (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1991) 173-94.
20 See below, section II. 7, for further discussion.
21 For the evidence, see Joachim Jeremias and Wilhelm
Schneemelcher, "Fragmente unbekannter
Evangelien," NTApok 1.80-92; ET: "Fragments of
Unknown Gospels," NTApoc 1.92-109.
22 For the literature and a summary of the state of
research see Kohler, Rezeption, 19-56; Kurt
Niederwimmer, Die Didache (Kommentar zu den
8
by the discovery of papyrus collections of sayings of
Jesus, coming most likely from the second century CE. 21
The question is, therefore, not whether such written
collections existed, but rather from what point in time
can one assume such collections to have existed.
The best example of written collections of sayings of
Jesus like those in the SM and the SP is the Didache, a
compilation from about the last decade of the first
century. 22 This work, which has undergone several
stages of development, does not depend on the canonical
Gospel of Matthew, the strong opinions on the part of
some scholars 23 notwithstanding; a more complicated
relationship must be assumed. In its oldest part (chaps.
1-6), the Didache shows great similarity to the SM; it is
this part that existed originally and separately prior to
the other parts of the work. This older part existed also
in another version, the Greek source of the Latin
Doctrina apostolorum. 24 Also related to these texts is in
some way the Two Ways section of the Epistle ofBarnabas
(chaps. 18-20), 25 which must have had an existence
prior to this letter to which these chapters were then
appended.
These texts demonstrate that written collections of the
kind we have in the SM and the SP did in fact exist by the
end of the first century CE; these collections were based
on older sources going back to Jesus and even to Jewish
wisdom literature. The Didache in particular shows a
Apostolischen Vatern 1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck&
Ruprecht, 1989); Clayton N. Jefford, The Sayings of
jesus in the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles (VCSup 11;
Leiden: Brill, 1989); Koester, Ancient Christian
Gospels, 16-17.
23 For example, Kohler (Rezeption, 55-56) assumes that
the Didachist was familiar with the canonical Gospel
of Matthew.
24 See Leo Wohleb, Die lateinische Obersetzung der
Didache kritisch und sprachlich untersucht (Studien zur
Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 7.1; Pader-
born: Schoningh, 1913); Bertold Altaner, "Die
lateinische Doctrina Apostolorum und die grie-
chische Grundschrift der Didache," in his Kleine
patristische Schriften (TU 83; Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag, 1967) 335-42.
25 The Two Ways tradition has had a long history in
patristic literature. For references, see below, n. 32,
and on SM/Matt 7:13-14.
 Introduction

process of evolution from jewish Christianity, which
produced a collection of sayings of Jesus similar to the
SM, to an expanded Christian church order. 26
d. The Influence of the Gospel of Matthew
Taking the influence of the Gospel of Matthew into
account raises the question of the origins of this
Gospel. 2 7 In spite of all efforts to clarify this question,
the beginnings of the Gospel of Matthew are still, to
some extent, shrouded in mystery. From what sources
did the evangelist Matthew obtain the material that he
did not receive from the Gospel of Mark and the sayings
source Q, the so-called Sondergut? If the SM was not part
of QMatt, which is at least a possibility, this question
applies directly to the SM. From where did he get this
material? There remains also the lingering question
regarding the old tradition that our Gospel of Matthew is
only a revision of an earlier version known to some
church fathers. 28
Leaving these questions aside, I must note that even
after Irenaeus (second half of the 2nd century), who for
the first time considered all four Gospels, 29 the SM in
particular continued to wield an influence of its own that
was not simply the result of the success of Matthew's
Gospel. Although, as the result of the success of the four
Gospels, other Gospels and Gospel-like traditions were
gradually eliminated from Christian literature, some
other texts also continued at later times to be influential
independently of the Gospels.
The Didache seemingly functioned on its own from the
time of its origin onward. Later it became a part of
church orders such as the third-century Syriac Didas-
calia, 30 and the Apostolic Constitutions (end of the 4th
century). 31 The Two Ways schema of ethical instruction,
present in Didache 1-6, the Doctrina apostolorum,
Barnabas 18-20, and the Shepherd ofHermas, persisted
in many versions until the end of the ancient church, 3 2
often in epitomes. 33 The formation of the monastic rules
ofBasilius 34 (329-379) and Benedict 35 (c. 480-547)
marked the beginning of a new phase in the history of
this tradition.

26 See Niederwimmer, Didache, esp. the Prolegomena,
§§ 1, 6, and 7.
27 For the present state of research, see Werner Georg
Kiimmel, Introduction to the New Testament (trans.
Howard C. Kee; Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) 101-
21; Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen
Literatur (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975) 355-65; Luz,
Matthew 1.33-99; Graham N. Stanton, "The Origin
and Purpose of Matthew's Gospel: Matthean
Scholarship from 1945-1980," ANRWII, 25.3
(1984) 1889-1951; Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels,
314-31.
28 Kohler(Rezeption, 1-6,151-58, 161-65,256-65,
517-36, and passim) underestimates the problems
when he assumes that only "our" Gospel of Matthew
existed from the beginning and was known by that
name.
29 Irenaeus Adv. haer. 3.11.8-9; for the texts see Kurt
Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (13th ed.;
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1985) 533-37;
and see Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of
the Christian Bible (trans. J. A. Baker; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1972) 103-209; Koester, Ancient Christian
Gospels, 243-44.
30 Arthur Voobus, The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac
(CSCO 401-2, 407-8; Louvain: Secretariat du
CSCO, 1979) esp. 30-35; see Robert H. Connolly,
Didascalia apostolorum (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929);
Franz Xavier Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones
apostolorum (2 vols.; Paderborn: Schoningh, 1905);
Georg Schollgen and Wilhelm Geerlings, eds.,
Didache: Zwoif-Apostellehre; Traditio Apostolica:
Apostolische Oberlieferung (Fontes Christiani 1;
Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1991 ).
31 See the edition by Funk, Didascalia.
32 For a list of these writings, see Stanislaus Giet,
L'Enigme de Ia Didache (Paris: Ophrys, 1970) 19-26;
Willy Rordorf, "Un chapitre d'ethique judeo-
chretienne: les deux voies," RSR 60 (1972) 109-28.
33 On the church orders, see Bertold Altaner, Patrologie
(8th ed.; Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1978)
254-57, 600 for bibliography; on epitomes, see Ilona
Opelt, "Epitome," RAG 5 (1965) 944-73; and below,
section 4.
34 See Hans Urs von Balthasar, Die groj3en Ordensregeln
(2d ed.; Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1961) 33-134.
35 See Basilius Steidle, ed., Die Benediktinerregel,
lateinisch und deutsch (2d ed.; Beuron: Beuroner
Kunstverlag, 1975). See Sigismund Pawlowsky, Die
biblischen Grundlagen der Regula Benedicti (Wiener
Beitrage zur Theologie 9; Vienna: Herder, 1965).

9
 Apart from these influences, some sections of the SM
took on lives of their own. They became standing topics
and proof texts in commentaries, sermons, and other
devotional literature. Such influences were prominently
exerted by the Beatitudes (SM/Matt 5:3-12; SP /Luke
6:20b-24), 36 the Lord's Prayer (SM/Matt 6:9-13), 37 the
section on worrying (SM/Matt 6:25-34), 38 and the
polemics against heresies (SM/Matt 7:15-23).
The antitheses of the SM (Matt 5:21-48) played a
special role for Marcion and his movement and sub-
sequently for all the patristic writings directed against
them. 39 The passages concerning the two ways
(SM/Matt 7:13-14) and the two trees (SM/Matt 7:16-
20) became key passages in the debates about gnostic
forms of dualism. 40 Mani, 41 the founder of a new world
religion in the third century CE (c. 216-7 6), provided
special interpretations of the two trees in his Kephalaia, 4 2
which in turn meant that Augustine gave close attention
to the passage in his commentary and other writings. 43
The Lord's Prayer, along with its teaching on prayer
(SM/Matt 6:5-13), became the subject of entire works
"On Prayer," usually having as their center the inter-
pretation of the Lord's Prayer. 44 To a lesser degree, the
same is true for the sections on almsgiving (SM/Matt
6: 1-4) and on fasting (SM/Matt 6: 16-18). 45
The greatest influence must, however, be attributed to
the Beatitudes (SM/Matt 5:3-12; SP /Luke 6:20b-24).
This influence led to a chain of special writings on this
topic. Beyond this, one can say without exaggeration that
of all the texts of Matthew none has been studied more
intensively, been quoted more frequently, or been the
impetus for more new writings by other authors than the
SM. This enormous influence has not simply been the
result of the canonical authority of the Gospel of Mat-
thew. 46 Rather, it is more likely the other way around.
Matthew's authority may have derived from the fact that
it contained the SM, which was always believed to be the
centerpiece of the teachings of jesus. One may even
suggest that the evangelist knew precisely what he was
doing when he incorporated the SM section and gave it
the most prominent place as jesus' inaugural speech at
the beginning of his public career.
e. Commentaries on Matthew
A full account of the learned commentaries on Mat-
thew's Gospel cannot be provided here. 47 Apart from
complete and fragmentary works, a large number of

36 See the bibliography below to the Beatitudes, esp. the
works by D. Buzy and Mario Spinelli, with bib-
liographies.
37 See the bibliography on the Lord's Prayer below.
38 See the bibliography on this section below.
39 See below on SM/Matt 5:21; Theodor Zahn,
Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (2 vols.;
Erlangen: Deichert, 1888-92) 1/2.596, 666-75;
Adolf von Harnack, Marcion; Das Evangelium vom
Fremden Gott (2d ed.; reprint Darmstadt: Wissen-
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960) 74-92, esp. 89 n.
2.
40 See Kohler, Rez.eption, 339-427; Harnack, Marcion,
194*-195*.
41 See Alexander Bohlig, "Die Bibel bei den
Manichaern" (diss., University of Munster, 194 7);
idem, Die Gnosis, vol. 3: Der Manichiiismus (Zurich and
Munich: Artemis, 1980) 252, 328, 343, 344; Eugen
Rose, Die manichiiische Christologie (Studies in Oriental
Religions 5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1979).
42 See also below on SM/Matt 7:13-14; also 7:15-20.
43 Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 2.24.78-81; also
Contra Fortunatum 22.
44 See below on SM/Matt 6:9-13, for bibliography.
45 See below on the sections SM/Matt 6:1-4 and 6:16-
18, for bibliography.
46 A special case is presented by the Pseudo-Clementine
literature, in which the SM (or SP?) is frequently
cited. For the Greek edition, see Bernhard Rehm,
ed., Die Pseudoklementinen, vol. 1: Homilien; vol. 2:
Rekognitionen in Rufinus Ubersetzung (GCS 42 and 51;
2d ed.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1969, 1965); vol.
3.1-2: Georg Strecker, ed., Konkordanz zu den Pseudo-
klementinen (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1986, 1989).
ET: Pseudo-Clementine Literature (trans. Thomas
Smith; Ante-Nicene Fathers, 8.4; reprinted Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981) 73-346. See Georg
Strecker, "Eine Evangelienharmonie beijustin und
Pseudoklemens?" NTS 24 (1978) 297-316. For lists
of Gospel quotations (SM/SP), see Karl August
Credner, Beitriige zur Einleitung in die biblischen
Schriften (2 vols.; Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisen-
hauses, 1832, 1836) 1.287-89, 417-21; Strecker,
Konkordanz, 3.2, 547-49. The sayings of jesus have
been examined by Leslie L. Kline, The Sayings ofjesus
in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies (SBLDS 14;
Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1975).
47 See C. H. Turner, "The Early Greek Commentaries
on the Gospel according to St. Matthew," JTS 12
(1911) 99-112; Joseph ReuB, Matthiius-Kommentare
aus der griechischen Kirche. A us Katenenhandschriften
gesammelt und herausgegeben (TU 61; Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1957); idem, "Evangelien-
Erklarungen vom 4.-9. Jahrhundert in der

10
 Introduction

comments and notes are in works on different subjects,
of which in particular those oflrenaeus (died c. 200), 48
Clement of Alexandria (c. 140/50-215?) 49 and Tertul-
lian (c. 160-220) 50 deserve mention. Unfortunately, the
great commentary by Origen (c. 185-253/54) on
Matthew, in twenty-five books, is extant only in part,
with the sections on the SM lost. 51 The commentary
attributed to the pen of Hippolytus of Rome (fl. 195-
235) is lost, 52 but his Refutation ofAll Heresies contains
many references to the SM. 53 The commentary on
Matthew's Gospel by Jerome (34 7/48-420) was famous,
a learned work that is preserved and has influenced
scholarship ever since. 54
The first commentary in Latin was by Hilary of
Poitiers (died 367 /68); 55 it was influenced by Tertullian,
Cyprian, and Novatian. At the end of the tradition stand
the great commentaries by John Chrysostom (c. 350-
407)56 and Chromatius of Aquileia (381-407 /8). 57 Also
of importance is the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum,
transmitted under the name of John Chrysostom. 58
f. Augustine's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount
Despite this long history of scholarship it is astonishing
that Augustine of Hippo (354-430), not long after his
conversion to Christianity, wrote the first full com-
mentary on the SM alone. His admirable work marked a
change in the estimation and treatment of the SM. 5 9 For

griechischen Kirche," in Joachim Gnilka, ed., Neues
Testament und Kirche: FS fur Rudolf Schnackenburg
(Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 476-96. 55
48 See Irenaeus Adv. haer. 4.12-16 on passages from the
SM.
49 See Clement's works in GCS 17.1-3, with the index
in vol. 17.4 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1970-1980). 56
See Dietmar W yrwa, Die christliche Platonaneignung in
den Stromateis des Clemens von Alexandrien (AKG 53;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1983); Gerassime Zaphiris, Le
Texte de l'Evangile seton Matthieu d'apres les citations de
Clement d'Alexandrie comparees aux citations des peres et
des theologiens grecs du II' aux XV' siecle (Gembloux:
Duculot, 1970).
50 See TertullianAdv. Marc. 4.14-17.
51 Origen In Matthaeum (Fragmenta), in Origenes' Werke
(ed. Erich Klostermann, Ernst Benz, and Ludwig
Friichtel; GCS 12.3.1-2; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1941; 57
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1955). Regarding the SM,
only fragments are extant (see GCS 12.3.1, 47-76);
see also Hermann]. Vogt, ed., Origenes: Der Kom-
mentar zum Evangelium nach Matthiius (2 vols.;
Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 18, 30; 58
Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1983, 1990).
52 See Adolf von Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen
Literatur his Eusehius (2d ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1958)
1/2.641; 2/2. 251-52; also Miroslav Marcovich,
"Hipf>Olytus," TRE 15 (1986) 381-87.
53 Miroslav Marcovich, ed., Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium
haeresium (Patristische Texte und Studien 25; Berlin
and New York: de Gruyter, 1986), with an index of
Scripture passages.
54 David Hurst and Marcus Adriaen, eds., Hieronymus, 59
Commentarius in Matthaeum (CChr, series latina 87B;
Turnholti: Brepols, 1969); also Emile Bonnard, Saint
jerome: Commentaire sur S. Matthieu (SC 242, 259; 2
vols.; Paris: Cerf, 1977, 1979). See Pierre Nautin,
"Hieronymus," TRE 15 (1986) 304-15.
Jean Doignon, ed., Hilarius, Commentarius in Mat-
thaeum (SC 254, 256; 2 vols.; Paris: Cerf, 1978,
1979). See Hans-Christoph Brennecke; "Hilarius von
Poitiers," TRE 15 (1986) 315-22.
Fridericus Field, ed., SanctiPatris nostrijoannis
Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Homiliae in
Matthaeum (Cantabrigiae: Officina academica, 1839)
1.186-356; also PC 57.223-328. ET: Jaroslav
Pelikan, ed., The Preaching ofChrysostom: Homilies on
the Sermon on the Mount (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1967); G. Prevost, trans., The Homilies ofSt. john
Chrysostom ... on the Gospel of St. Matthew (NPNF I 0; 3
vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1843-51; reprinted Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975). See Jean-Marie Leroux,
"Johannes Chrysostomus," TRE 17 (1987) 118-27.
Anselm Hoste, ed., Chromatius of Aquileia, Tractatus
XVII in Evangelium Matthaei (CChr, series latina 9;
Turnholti: Brepols, 1957) 389-442; also Sermo de octo
heatitudinihus, ibid., 383-88; Praefatio orationis
dominica, ibid., 443-47.
Ps.-Chrysostom, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, PC
56.611-948. See Klaus B. Schnurr, Horen und
Handeln: Lateinische Auslegungen des Vaterunsers in der
Alten Kirche his zum 5. Jahrhundert (Freiburger
Theologische Studien 132; Freiburg: Herder, 1985)
200-219; Franz Mali, Das "Opus imperfectum in
Matthaeum" und sein Verhiiltnis zu den Matthiiuskom-
mentaren von Origens und Hieronymus (Innsbrucker
Theologische Studien 34; Innsbruck and Vienna:
Tyrolia, 1991), with further bibliography.
See the edition by Almut Mutzenbecher, Sancti
Aurelii Augustini De Sermone Domini in monte lihros duos
(CChr, series latina 35; Turnholti: Brepols, 1967).
For an ET seeJohnJ.Jepson, trans., St. Augustine:

11
the first time, it appears, the SM was appreciated and
interpreted as a work of literature by itself, apart from
the Gospel ofMatthew. 60 Since we know of no predeces-
sors for such a work, the questions are what may have
motivated Augustine to undertake this work and why it
took the form it did.
Unfortunately, Augustine did not leave a full account
of how and why the work came about. Perhaps the
principal motivation behind the commentary was his
struggle with Manichaeism. 61 We know from Mani-
chaean sources that the SM played an exceedingly
important role for Mani and the Manichaeans, 62 so that a
serious refutation of their doctrines would have to wrest
this authoritative text from their hands and demonstrate
conclusively that their interpretation was wrong. It may
well be that Augustine, who was intimately familiar with
the Manichaean teachings and writings, dealt them what
he thought to be the final blow by presenting a com-
pletely new interpretation of one of their most cherished
and authoritative pieces of literature.
2. From Augustine to the Reformation
The interpretation of the SM during the period from
Augustine to the Reformation had not been studied to
any great extent until recently. All the more important
then are the conclusions reached by these studies, among
them especially that of Brigitta Stoll in her doctoral
dissertation, 63 entitled De Virtute in Virtutem. 64 The book
investigates commentaries, sermons, and hagiographical
literature between 800 and 1200, with special attention
to the commentaries by Hrabanus Maurus (c. 780-
856),65 Pseudo-Beda, 66 Paschasius Radbertus (c. 790-
856 /59), 67 Christian of Stablo (died after 880), 68 Bruno
of Segni (c. 1 049-1123), 69 the Glossa ordinaria, 70 and
Rupert of Deutz (c. 1070-1129). 71 The great stream of
all this scholarship went into the collection by Nicolaus of
Lyra (c. 1270-1349?), called Biblia sacra cum glossa
ordinaria. 72 Nicolaus assumed that a thoroughgoing
systematic structure underlies the Gospel of Matthew,
with Matthew 5-7 forming the explication of the law
(explicatio legis). The commentary indicates that Nicolaus
regarded the SM as a treatise on the law. 73 This idea is
correct in some sense, although not in the sense he
understood. Nicolaus was thinking of a Christian concept
ofthe law, not the Jewish Torah expounded by the SM.
Thus, his structure, which he imposed on the SM, was
taken from medieval Christian dogmatics.
Every work devoted to the SM during this period
shows the continuing influence of Augustine's De sermone
domini in monte and of his other writings. The questions
he raised and refined continued to be discussed. Also the
hermeneutical rules concerning the interpretation of
Scripture generally remained part of the discussion.
Another subject of continuing interest concerned the

The Lord's Sermon on the Mount (ACW 5; London: 1984).

Longman's & Green, 1948). There is no adequate
investigation of the work. See Piero Rollero, La
"Expositio evangelii secundum Lucan" di Ambrogio come
fonte della esegesi agostiniana (Universita di Torino,
Pubblicazioni della Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia
10.4; Turin: Giappichelli, 1958); AdolfHoll,
Augustins Bergpredigtexegese. Nach seinem Fruhwerk De
sermone Domini in monte libri duo (Vienna: Herder,
1960); Bouterse, De boom, 21-32.
60 See section III below on the compositional aspects.
61 See Augustine Contra Faustum 17-19.
62 See section III below on this point.
63 See above, n. 7.
64 The title comes from Helinand of Froidemont (died
after 1229), SermoXXIII, PL 212 (1855) 671; see
Stoll, De virtute, 42, 231.
65 Commentariorum in Matthaeum libri octo, PL 107
(1851) 727-1156.
66 Expositio in Evangelium Matthaei, PL 92 (1862) 9-132.
67 Beda Paulus, ed., Expositio in Matheo libri XII (CChr,
continuatio mediaevalis 56; Turnholti: Brepols,
68 Expositio in Evangelium Matthaei, PL 106 (1864)
1261-1564.
69 Commentaria in Matthaeum, PL 165 (1854) 63-314.
70 Glossa ordinaria: Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, PL
114 (1879) 63-176. See also Beryl Smalley, "Glossa
ordinaria," TRE 13 (1984) 452-57 (bibliography).
71 Rhabanus Haacke, ed., De gloria et honore filii hominis
super Mattheum (CChr, continuatio mediaevalis 39;
Turnholti: Brepols, 1979).
72 Biblia sacra cum glossa ordinaria a Strabo Fuldensi
Monacho Benedictino collecta (6 vols.; Antverpiae:
Ioannes Meursius, 1634). Vol. 5.91-154 is on the
SM, pp. 771-72 on the SP. See also Bouterse, De
boom, 42-45.
73 For analysis, see Karin Bornkamm, "Umstrittener
'spiegel eines Christlichen lebens': Luthers
Auslegung der Bergpredigt in seinen
Wochenpredigten von 1530 his 1532," ZThK 85
(1988) 409-54, esp. 451-53.

12
 Introduction

images and metaphors used by the SM. 74 Most interest-
ing for us today is the transposition of images and meta-
phors into the figures of saints in the hagiographical
literature (e.g., the saintas "the light of the world"
[SM/Matt 5:14-16]). 75 Another fascination of the time
was numerical symbolism (esp. the numbers seven and
eight as significant for the SM). 76
As the older problems linger on, they feed theological
debates along the way. The question whether the SM
consists of "new law" (nova lex) or of a gift of divine grace
to the service ofthe pedagogy of the saints 77 fore-
shadows the debates of the Reformation. Apparently the
SM was still being used in the education of monks (e.g.,
Christian of Stablo). 78 The interpretation that the SM is
a gift of grace to sacred pedagogy seems to center on a
few sections of the SM. SM/Matt 5:17-20 is prominent
because of the notions oflaw and righteousness, 5:13-16
because ofthe description of the addressees, 5:3-12
because of the enormous importance of the Beatitudes,
and 5:21-48 because ofthe meaning oflaw and gospel.
Among the new developments one should note that the
distinction between consilium ("counsel") and praeceptum
("precept," "command") was presumably introduced by
Rupert of Deutz in the first half of the twelfth century, 79
a distinction that was to play an exceedingly important
role in the Reformation. 80
The greatest commentaries from the medieval period
to the Reformation were those by Thomas Aquinas (c.
1225-1274), the Catena Aurea in Quatuor Evangelia, 81
and the Super Evangelium Sancti Matthaei Lectura. 82
Whereas Thomas was mostly interested in expounding
the dogmatic content of the SM, the venerable Greek
tradition reached its climax and end in the monumental
exegetical and philological commentary on the four
Gospels by the Bulgarian bishop Theophylactus
(c. 1050-1108), 83 student of the great Byzantine scholar
Michael Psellos (1018-1078). Another Byzantine com-
mentator worth mentioning is Nicetas of Herakleia
(c. 1030-1100), who wrote catena commentaries on Mat-
thew and Luke. 84
3. The Period of the Renaissance and Reformation
The period of the Renaissance and Reformation brought
about a total change in the understanding of the SM.
Beginning with and based on the work of Desiderius
Erasmus (1465 [or 1466]-1536), 85 all Reformers had a

74 Stoll, De virtute, 1-12. ed., Theophylacti in Evangelium S. Matthaei com-

75 Ibid., 13-20, 32-37.
76 Ibid., 136-40.
77 Ibid., 38-55.
78 Ibid., 9.
79 Ibid., XV, 50-51.
80 See Rudolf Schnackenburg and Bernhard Haring,
"Evangelische Rate," LThK 3 (1959) 1245-50; Franz
Lau, "Evangelische Rate," RGG 2 (1958) 785-88;
Johannes Griindel, "Consilia Evangelica," TRE 8
(1981) 192-96.
81 Angelicus Guarenti, ed., Thomas Aquinas, Catena
aurea in quatuor evangelia (Turin and Rome: Marietti,
1953); Roberto Busa, S. Thomae Aquinatis Opera
Omnia (7 vols.; Stuttgart and Bad Cannstadt:
Frommann-Holzboog, 1980). See also Bouterse, De
boom, 34-42; M.-D. Roland-Gosselin, "Le sermon sur
Ia montagne et Ia theologie thomiste," RSPhTh 17
(1928) 201-34.
82 Raphael Kai, ed., Thomas Aquinas, Super Evangelium
S. Matthaei Lectura (5th ed.; Turin and Rome:
Marietti, 1951) 63-106 (SM).
83 Ioannes Oecolampadius, ed., Theophylacti archiepiscopi
Bulgariae in quatuor Evangelia enarrationes (Antuer-
piae: Martinus Caesar, 1531). First edition, Basel,
1524 (Latin); first Greek edition, Rome, 1542. For a
modern edition, see Guilelmus Gilson Humphrey,
mentarius (London: Parker, 1854) 66-113 (on the
SM); also inPG 123 (1864) 185-217 (on the SP). On
Theophylactus, see Hans-Georg Beck, Kirche und
theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (HKAW
12.2.1; Munich: Beck, 1959) 649-51.
84 Nicetas ofHerakleia (Serronius), Symbolarum in
Matthaeum (ed. B. Corderius and P. Possinus; 2 vols.;
Toulouse, 1646, 1647); cf. alsoPG 127 (1864) 542;
Christos Th. Krikones, I:YNArnrHN IIATEPON
Eli: TO KATA AOYKAN EYArrEAION (Thes-
salonike: Kentron Byzantinon Eurenon, 1976). See
also Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 651-53.
85 See Friedheim Kruger, Humanistische Evangelien-
auslegung: Desiderius Erasmus von Rotterdam als
Ausleger der Evangelien in seinen Paraphrasen (BHTh
68; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1986), with bib-
liography. Of special interest are Hermann
Schlingensiepen, "Erasmus als Exeget. Auf Grund
seiner Schriften zu Matthaus," ZKG 48 (1929) 16-57;
Albert Rabil,Jr., Erasmus and the New Testament: The
Mind of a Christian Humanist (Trinity University
Monograph Series in Religion I; San Antonio, Tex.:
Trinity University, 1972); Bouterse, De boom, 46-65.
On the present state of research, see also Cornelis
Augustijn, "Erasmus, Desiderius," TRE 10 (1982) 1-
18, with bibliography.

13
 special relationship with the SM. The contributions made
by them would each require a special study. Indeed,
there are numerous special studies of this kind.
Erasmus's significance for the interpretation of the SM
is basically twofold. First are his textual and philological
studies, coming to fruition in his edition of the Greek
New Testament, 5 6 his Annotations on the New Testament, 87
and his Paraphrases of Matthew and Luke. 88 These
works became the foundation of all further scholarship
on the SM down to the present. 89
Second, one can hardly overestimate Erasmus's special
interest in the SM, because of its importance for his
theology. 90 He recognized the literary genre of the SM
as a compendium (corresponding to the Greek f'II"Lrop.~
["epitome"]) and its function in teaching. 91
Not surprisingly, in hisEnchiridion of 1503 the SM
plays an important role as a foundational source. 9 2
Erasmus treated the SM as if it were a unified body of
text. He understood and pointed out its rhetorical
features, 93 and he saw the many connections with
ancient philosophy. 94 While much of what he had
recognized and pointed out was forgotten later, he was
most likely responsible for the fact that the SM continues
to figure prominently in the deliberations of philos-
ophers until the present time. Erasmus's discoveries with
regard to the SM deserve to be recovered from oblivion
because they are still of great value for contemporary
New Testament scholarship.
As in other areas of theological and ecclesiastical
matters, so also in regard to the SM, Martin Luther

86 Novum Testamentum (Basel: Froben, 1516). See Henk
Jan de Jonge, "Nuvum Testamentum a nobis versum:
The Essence of Erasmus' Edition of the New Testa-
ment," JTS 35 (1984) 394-413.
87 The final (5th) edition appeared in 1535. See
Erasmus, Opera omnia, vol. 6 (Lugduni Batavorum:
Petrus van der Aa, 1705) 25-39 (on the SM), 253-
57 (on the SP); Anne Reeve, ed., Erasmus' Annotations 94
on the New Testament: The Gospels. Facsimile of the final
Latin text (1535) with all earlier variants (1516, 1519,
1522 and 1527) (London: Duckworth, 1986), with
111
the review by Henkjan dejonge, NuvT 29 (1987)
382-83; Erika Rummel, Erasmus' Annotations on the
New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Erasmus
Studies 8; Toronto: University of Toronto, 1986).
88 Desiderius Erasmus, Paraphrasis in Euangelium
Matthaei (Basel: Froben, 1522); idem, In Evangelium
Lucae Paraphrasis (Basel: Froben, 1523). Both are
reprinted in the Leiden edition, Opera omnia, vol. 7
(Lugduni Batavorum: Petrus van der Aa, 1706); for
the SM, see cols. 23-47, for the SP, cols. 346-51.
See Roland H. Bainton, "The Paraphrases of
Erasmus," ARG 57 (1966) 67-76.
89 Erasmus's contributions became part of the famous
collection called Critici Sacri, vol. 6 (London:
Flescher, 1660); see below, n. 127.
90 See the survey and characterization by Kruger,
Humanistische Evangelienauslegung, esp. 177-204:
"Die Auslegung von Mt 5-7."
91 On this point, see ibid., 177.
92 Desiderius Erasmus, Enchiridion Militis Christiani ...
Cui accessit nuva mireque utilis Praefatio ... (Basileae:
Froben, 1518); also in Opera Omnia, vol. 5 (Lugduni
Batavorum: Petrus van der Aa, 1704); ET of 1534
ed. by Anne O'Donnell, Erasmus, Enchiridion militis
Christiani: An English Version (Oxford: Oxford
University, 1981 ). See Kruger, Humanistische
Evangelienauslegung, 201-2; Bouterse, De boom, 46-
47.
93 See esp. Gerhard B. Winkler, Erasmus von Rotterdam
und die Einleitungsschriften zum Neuen Testament
(Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte 108;
Munster: Aschendorff, 197 4).
Cf. Paul Wemle, Renaissance und Reformation
(Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1912) 69: "Der Kern des
Evangeliums ist die einfache undogmatische Moral
der Bergpredigt im Einklang mit der Weisheit Platos
und Plutarchs, Senecas und Epikurs und aller Guten
und Edeln. Und dieser Kern ist das wahre alte
Christentum, daher Christianismus renascens die
begeisterte Losung des erasmischen Kreises, eine
Zeitlang auch Zwinglis Losung." ("The core of the
gospel is the simple and undogmatic morality of the
Sermon on the Mount, in consonance with the
wisdom of Plato and Plutarch, Seneca and Epicurus,
and all the good and noble. And this core is the true
and old gospel, whence 'Christianity in rebirth' is the
enthusiastic motto of the Erasmian circle, for a while
also Zwingli's motto.") As Kruger (Humanistische
Evangelienauslegung, 201-2) points out, this
understanding of Erasmus influenced the Religions-
geschichtliche Schule; for a critique, see Manfred
Hoffmann, Erkenntnis und Verwirklichung der wahren
Theologie nach Erasmus von Rotterdam (BHTh 44;
Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1972) 17-21.

14
 Introduction

unleashed his immense intellectual and spiritual energies.
Characteristically, Luther's interpretation of the SM is
found not in the traditional form of the commentary but
in the form of sermons. 95 Mast important are Luther's
Weekly Sermons on Matthew 5-7, preached between Oc-
tober 1530 and April 1532 in Wittenberg, when he was
substituting for the minister in charge, johannes Bugen-
hagen, who was on leave during this time in order to
organize the Reformation in Braunschweig, Lubeck, and
Hamburg. The Weekly Sermons, which Luther admits
having delivered amidst a multitude of other duties,
were published in 1532, based on notes taken by his
students, probably Georg Rorer and others who also
edited the publication. Luther then added his own
Preface. 96 Thus, the Weekly Sermons are not by his own
hand, but they are, as sermons ought to be, from his own
mouth and mind. Technically not a commentary, the
Sermons became a commentary of a new kind, even
though the ancient tradition of the learned homily may
be named as the precursor. The Weekly Sermons are not
devoid of scholarship; on the contrary, they show a
condensation of scholarship in the understanding of the
SM that must have been the result of long and deep
meditation and scrutiny prior to their delivery. 97
In a sense the Weekly Sermons are also a commentary on
commentaries. Luther himself mentions at the outset
Augustine's De sermone domini in monte, 98 and we can take
it for granted that he was steeped in the exegetical and
theological tradition of the time, including the work of
Jacobus Faber Stapulensis (Jacques Lefevre d'Estaples
[c. 1455-1536]). 99
Luther's Weekly Sermons surpassed anything that had
been written on the SM before as regards depth of
insight into Scripture, theology, and human life. 1 00
Despite all the differences, Luther's work should be put
side by side with Augustine's great commentary De

95 Cf. his Annotations to Some Chapters if the Evangelist
Matthew of 1538 (Anmerkungen D. Martin Luthers zu
einigen Capiteln des Evangelisten Matthiius) in Johann
Georg Walch, ed., Dr. Martin Luthers Siimtliche
Schriften (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1880-1910;
reprinted Grofl-Oesingen: Harms, 1987) 7.17-25.
96 D. Martin Luther, Das.ftlnffte, Sechste und Siebend
Capite[ S. Matthei, gepredigt und ausgelegt (Wittenberg:
Johann Klug, 1532). See the critical edition,
Wochenpredigten uber Matth. 5-7. 1530/2. Das.ftlnffte,
Sechste und Siebend Capite[ gepredigt und ausgelegt. 1532
(WA 32; Vienna: Bohlau, 1906) 299-544; also the
St. Louis edition, 346-677; ET: Martin Luther,
Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount (trans. Charles
A. Hay; Philadelphia: Lutheran Publishing Society,
1892); Martin Luther, The Sermon on the Mount
(Sermons) and the Magnificat (ed. Jaroslav Pelikan;
Luther's Works 21; St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1956).
Also useful is Erwin Miilhaupt, ed., D. Martin Luthers
Evangelien-Auslegung, part 2 (3d ed.; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960); reissued as Erwin
Miilhaupt, ed., D. Martin Luthers Auslegung der
Bergpredigt Matthiius 5-7 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1961 ).
97 See Gerhard Ebeling, Evangelische Evangelien-
auslegung: Eine Untersuchung zu Luthers Hermeneutik
(FGLP 10.1; Munich: Lempp, 1942; 3ded., with a
new postscript by the author; Tiibingen: Mohr
[Siebeck], 1991) esp. 261-69, 320, 394-95,428-29,
433-34.
98 See the Preface and on Matt 5:17 (edition by Pelikan,
pp. 3 and 69).
99 Jacobus Faber Stapulensis, Commentarii Initiatorii in
quatuor evangelia (2 vols.; Meldis [Meaux]: lmpensis
Simonis Colinaei, 1521-22) 1.18-32 (SM), 191-93
(SP). See Guy Bedouelle, "Faber Stapulensis," TRE
10 (1982) 781-83, with bibliography.
100 For special studies, see Georg Wunsch, Die Berg-
predigt bei Luther: Eine Studie zum Verstiindnis von
Christentum und Welt (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1920); Hermann-Wolfgang Beyer, "Der Christ und
die Bergpredigt nach Luthers Deutung," Luther-
Jahrbuch 14 (1932) 33-60; published separately as a
book (Munich: Kaiser, 1933); Paul Althaus, "Luther
und die Bergpredigt," Luther: Mitteilungen der
Luthergesellschaft 27 (1956) 1-16 (reprinted in
Miilhaupt's edition of 1961 [see above, n. 96], pp.
*3-*14); Hans-Georg Geyer, "Luthers Auslegung
der Bergpredigt," in Hans-Georg Geyer et al., eds.,
"Wenn nicht jetzt, wann dann?" Aufsiitze for Hans-
Joachim Kraus zum 65. Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1983) 283-93; Helmut
Gollwitzer, "Die Bergpredigt in der Sicht Luthers,"
ibid., 295-304; Helmar Junghanns, ed., Leben und
Werk Martin Luthers von 1526-1546: Festgabe zu seinem
500. Geburtstag (2 vols.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1983); Bouterse, De boom, 66-103;
Bornkamm, "Umstrittener 'spiegel eines Christlichen
lebens'" (seen. 73 above).
15
sermone domini in monte. As Augustine's commentary had
become a new literary work by itself, so did Luther's
Weekly Sermons.
Augustine concentrated his efforts on the literary
architecture of the SM; his work shows the sense of
restraint; composure, style, and lucidity characteristic of
late antiquity. Luther's work, by comparison, is so
impressive because of its profundity of theological
comprehension, its daring exploration of human life
experience, its rhetorical brilliance, and the author's
unrestrained presence struggling to be obedient to God's
word and will-all this in spite of the fact that the edited
work is by other hands, not his own.
Augustine saw his task as bringing out the Sermon's
clarity, lucidity, and literary structure; his work is a
masterpiece of literature itself. By contrast, Luther had
little interest in the compositional structure but
concentrated fully on the theological issues ofthe clarity,
lucidity, and consistency ofthe gospel as he understood
it. One may say, however, that the achievements of both
authors are the results of tremendous struggles with the
ambiguities, paradoxes, and seeming contradictions
created by the SM for the Christian faith as well as for
human life.
Like the SM itself in relation to Jesus, Luther's Weekly
Sermons are a kind of summary of his ideas and concerns;
these ideas and concerns are repeated and elaborated in
many other places in Luther's works. It is most likely
because of their fresh, not to say brisk, and concentrated
form that the Weekly Sermons made such an impact on the
theological world at the time, an impact that has con-
tinued ever since and is in evidence today in the form of
new translations and reprints.
Perhaps because of the success of Luther's Weekly
Sermons, the Annotationes in Evangelium Matthaei by
Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560) have remained in the
background. The work is based on lectures given
between the autumn of 1519 and the spring of 1520. 101
Luther praised these lectures and encouraged Melanch-
thon to publish them, 10 2 but the author found them too
brief and skimpy. Thus, the editions of 1523 were
published against his will. They were based on notes
taken by students and supplemented by editorial ad-
ditions. The Annotationes name as references and sources
Augustine and Luther.
Important is Melanchthon's distinction between iustitia
legis ("righteousness of the law") as Paul has it and as it is
identified with opera externa ("external works") in the SM,
and iustitia Christi ("righteousness of Christ"), which is
identified with iustitia affectuum ("effected righteous-
ness"), effected by grace in us. 103 This distinction,
although "paulinizing" the SM, observes correctly that
the SM differentiates between two concepts of law and
righteousness and that in some way these distinctions are
related to the theology of Paul. Modern scholarship still
needs to define precisely how the distinctions made in
the SM relate to those made by Paul. 104
Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531), with respect to the
SM, wrote Annotationes in Evangelium Matthaei, published
by Leo Juda in 1539. 105 Zwingli's comments on the
SM 106 are notable because he recognized rhetorical
elements as well as characteristic theological subjects in
the SM, in particular the distinction between the human
being as external (homo externus) and as internal (homo
interior), and concepts such as self-knowledge and intel-
lectual illumination. These concepts connect Zwingli
with the tradition of Platonism, but they are also found,
as he correctly observed, in the SM itself. For him the
whole purpose of the SM was to form "the inner
man."I07

101 Annotationes in Evangelium Matthaei iam recens in
Gratiam studiosorum editae (1523), in Peter F. Barton,
ed., Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl, vol. 4: Frllhe
exegetische Schriften (Giitersloh: Mohn, 1963) 133-
208; for the SM, see 149-66.
102 See Barton's introduction, ibid., 133, referring to
WA: Briefe 1.587, 8-10.
103 Annotationes, ibid., 149-50 (on Matthew 5).
104 See also Annotationes, ibid., 153-54 (on Matt 5:17,
19).
105 Leo Juda, ed., In Evangelicam Historiam de domino
nostro Iesu Christo, per Matthaeum, Marcum, Lucam, et
Joannem conscriptam, Epistolasque aliquot Pauli,
Annotationes D. Huldrychi Zvinglii (Tiguri: Chris-
tophorus Froschouverus, 1539). See Bouterse, De
boom, 104-25.
106 Huldricus Zvinglius, Annotationes in Evangelium
Matthaei, ed. Melchior Schuler and johannes
SchultheB, in Opera completa, vol. 6.1 (Zurich:
SchultheB, 1836) 203-483 (on SM, 218-49; on SP,
583-93).
107 See esp. ibid., 218-19.

16
 Introduction

From the English Reformation the learned com-
mentary by William Tyndale (1483-1536), specifically
treating the SM, must be mentioned. 108 He regarded the
fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of Matthew as "the key
and door of the Scripture" and found in them Jesus'
restoration of the law of Moses that the scribes and
Pharisees had corrupted. Although there are serious
difficulties in reconstructing precisely what the scribes
and Pharisees taught at the time of the SM, this under-
standing corresponds to that of the SM (see below on
SM/Matt 5:20).
Most important are the contributions to the under-
standing of the SM made by John Calvin (1509-1564).
His Harmony of the Gospels first appeared in 1555. 109 This
commentary, which is based on a synopsis of the first
three Gospels and follows the Matthean arrangement of
the textual sequences, takes up the tradition of Gospel
harmonies going all the way back to Tatian's Diatessaron
(2nd century CE); the genre had become quite popular in
the sixteenth century.ll 0 The solidity and profundity of
Calvin's scholarship make his work a companion for
scholars even today. 111 The same can be said of his
Institutes of the Christian Religion, the first edition of which
was published in 1536, ll 2 with expanded editions to
follow in 1559 113 and 1560.ll 4
Calvin recognized that the SM and the SP are collec-
tions of sayings ofJesus, brought together as a synopsis of
Jesus' teachings and as a guide to his disciples for a pious
and holy life. Most significant is Calvin's argument that
the Jesus of the SM proclaimed the Jewish law, though in
his own, special interpretation. To a surprising degree
modern scholarship can confirm Calvin's insights. After
Calvin's, other harmonies of the Gospels followed. 115
Among the most important were those by Johannes
Bugenhagen (1485-1558), edited by his student Paul
Krell,ll 6 and by Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586).1 17 The
tendencies of these harmonies, however, turned out to
be increasingly uncritical and unhistorical, a danger that

108 William Tyndale, An Exposition upon the V. VI. VII.
Chapters ofMatthew (Antwerp: Joannes Grapheus, c.
1530); reprinted in Henry Walter, ed., Expositions
and Notes on Sundry Portions of the Holy Scriptures,
together with The Practice ofPrelates (Cambridge:
Cambridge University, 1849) 1-132.
109 John Calvin, Harmonia ex tribus Euangelistis composita,
Mattaeo, Marco, & Luca: adiuncto seorsum Iohanne, quod
pauca cum aliis communia habeat (Geneva: Robertus
Stephanus, 1555). See the critical editions: August
Tholuck, ed., Joannis Calvini im Novum Testamentum
Commentarii (2d ed.; Berlin: Thome, 1835) 1.134-
96; Joannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia (Corpus
Reformatorum 73; Brunsvigae: Schwetschke, 1891)
esp. 159-230. For an ET, see John Calvin, A
Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke (trans.
A. W. Morrison; ed. David W. Torrance and
Thomas F. Torrance; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: St.
Andrew's, 1972) 1.167-242.
110 See Dietrich Wunsch, Evangelienharmonien im
Reformationszeitalter: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
Leben-Jesu-Darstellungen (AKG 52; Berlin and New
York: de Gruyter, 1983); idem, "Evangelien-
harmonien," TRE 10 (1982) 626-36.
Ill See the studies by Hermann Schlingensiepen, Die
Auslegung der Bergpredigt bei Calvin (Berlin: Ebering,
1927); Hiltrud Stadtland-Neumann, Evangelische
Radikalismen in der Sicht Calvins: Sein Verstiindnis der
Bergpredigt und der Aussendungsrede (Mt 10) (Beitrage
zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche
24; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1966);
Dieter Schellong, Das evangelische Gesetz in der
AuslegungCalvins (ThExh 152; Munich: Kaiser,
1968); idem, Calvins Auslegung der synoptischen
Evangelien (FGLP 10.38; Munich: Kaiser, 1969);
Bouterse, De boom, 256-78.
112 See the edition by Peter Barth and Wilhelm Niese!,
Joannes Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis, in
Joannis Calvini Opera Selecta, vol. 3.1 (Munich: Kaiser,
1926-36). ET: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian
Religion (trans. Ford Lewis Battles; LCC 20; Phila-
delphia: Westminster, 1960).
113 August Tholuck, ed., Institutio Christianae Religionis (2
vols.; Edinburgh: St. Andrew's, 1874).
114 Jean-Daniel Benoit, Institution de la Religion Chretienne
(5 vols.; Paris: Vrin, 1957-63).
115 On all this see Wunsch, Evangelienharmonien, passim;
also Ebeling, Evangelische Evangelienauslegung (see
above, n. 97).
116 Bugenhagen's death prevented him from finishing
the work, which was then done by Paul Krell,
Monotessaron historiae evangelicae latinogermanicum
(Wittenberg: 1566 [non vidi]). See Wunsch,
Evangelienharmonien, 244-49.
117 Martin Chemnitz, Harmoniae evangelicae . .. per D
Polycarpum Lyserum continuatae libri quinque, etc. (2
vols.; Geneva: Iacobus Stoer, 1641-45) esp. 1.521-
668. See Wunsch, Evangelienharmonien, 257 n. 3.

17
had been pointed out earlier in warnings by Luther and
Calvin 11 8 in their criticisms of the most influential work
of this kind, that of Andreas Osiander (1496-1552).1 19
Calvin had adopted the term "harmony," but not
Osiander's principles. 120 The warnings of theRe-
formers, however, turned out to be in vain.
Subsequently, other Reformers went their own ways.
The highly learned commentaries by Martin Bucer
(1491-1551),121 Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575), 122
and Theodor Beza (1519-1605) 123 took positions more
in line with Erasmian scholarship, following along with
the text and providing learned annotations. Bucer es-
pecially showed interest in the composition of the SM,
while Beza collected parallels not only from the church
fathers but also from Greek and Latin classics.
As time went by, all these directions were pursued
further by an increasing number of people. The general
direction, however, seems to be indicated by the many
imitations of Osiander's Harmony of the Gospels. They led
the way to the Lives ofjesus of the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. At the same time, critical anno-
tations on the text of the New Testament as well as
collections of parallels in the tradition of Erasmus con-
tinued. They culminated in a series of still-indispensable
works by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) 124 and johann
Jacob Wettstein (1693-1754), 125 the forefathers of the
modern genre of scholarly commentaries. Less notable
but of similar importance are the great collections of
critical annotations by Matthaeus Polus, 126 the Critici
sacri, 127 Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide (1567-1637), 128
andjuan Maldonatus (1533-1583).129
4. The Period of the Enlightenment
In the period of the Enlightenment (17th and 18th
centuries), when historical-critical scholarship on the
Bible generally began, one also sees the beginning of the
critical investigations ofthe SM and the SP. Initially,
however, the SM was still believed to have originated
with the historical jesus. Thus johann Gottfried Herder
(1744-1803) in his Erlauterungen zum Neuen Testament 130
holds this view.
According to him, in the SMJesus the Galilean speaks
with his own authentic voice, "and if he [sc. Matthew] had
written his Gospel in jesus' real mother tongue, the
Syriac-Chaldean dialect, it would have been wholly the
simple expression of the people." 131 For Herder the

118 See Wiinsch, Evangelienharmonien, 158-61.
119 Andreas Osiander, Harmoniae evangelicae libri quatuor
Graece et Latine (2 vols.; Basileae: Hieronymus
Froben, 1537) esp. 1.20-24. See Wunsch, Evangelien-
harmonien, 84-179 and passim.
120 See Schellong, Calvin, 58-59, with n. 73.
121 Martin Bucer, In sacra Quatuor Eva(n)gelia Enar-
rationes perpetuae (Geneva: Robertus Stephanus,
1553) esp. 37-77 (on the SM). See Bouterse, De boom,
173-207.
122 Heinrich Bullinger, In sacrosanctum Iesu Christi Domini
nostri Evangelium secundum Matthaeum; Commen-
tariorum libri XII (Tiguri: Froscher, 1554) 50-80 (on
the SM). See Bouterse, De boom, 223-39.
123 Theodor Beza, Annotationes maiores in Novum Dn.
Nostri Iesu Christi Testamentum (2d ed.; 2 vols.; n.p.,
1594) 28-53 (on the SM), 269-72 (on the SP).
124 Hugo Grotius, Annotationes in quatuor Evangelia &
Acta Apostolorum, in Operum Theologorum, vol. 2.1
(Amstelaedami: Blaev, 1679; reprinted Stuttgart-Bad
Cannstadt: F_rommann Holzboog, 1972).
125 Johann]. Wettstein, H KAINH ~IA0HKH: Novum
Testamentum Graecum editionis receptae, ... vol. 1
(Amsterdam: ex officina Dommeriana, 1 7 51).
126 Matthaeus Polus, Synopsis criticorum aliorumque
scripturae sacrae interpretum et commentatorum: summo
ab eodem studio & fide adornata, vol. 4 (Frankfurt:
Andreae, 1712), cols. 106-232 (SM), 900-911 (SP).
ET: Annotations upon the Holy Bible, vol. 2 (ed. Samuel
Clark and Edward Veale; 4th ed.; London:
Packhurst, 1700; reprinted London: Banner of
Truth Trust, 1962).
127 Annotata ad SS. Evangelia; sive Criticorum Sacrorum,
vol. 6 (London: Flescher, 1660) 124-264 (SM),
1255-76 (SP).
128 Cornelius C. a Lapide, Commentarius in quatuor
evangelia (2 vols.; Antverpiae: Apud haered. Martini
Nvtl [sic], 1639). ET: Cornelius a Lapide, The Great
Commentary (trans. Thomas W. Mossman; 3d ed.;
London: Hodges, 1892).
129 Juan Maldonatus, Commentarii in quattuor Evangelistas
(2 vols.; Mussiponti: Stephanus Mercator, 1596). ET:
John Maldonatus, A Commentary on the Holy Gospel
(trans. George J. Davie; London: Hodges, 1888) esp.
1.126-253 (on the SM).
130 Johann Gottfried Herder, Erliiuterungen zum Neuen
Testament aus einer neueri:ifneten Morgenliindischen
Quelle (Riga: Hartknoch, 1775).
131 Ibid., 106: "In ihm [sc.: in Matthew] spricht recht der
Galillier, und wenn er sein Evangelium gar in der
eigentlichen Muttersprache Jesu, dem syrisch-
chalclliischen Dialekt geschrieben: so wars ganz der
einfaltige Volksausdruck."

18
 Introduction

authenticity of the SM is guaranteed by the origin of the
language. For this language he can refer to the linguistic
studies by John Lightfoot (1602-1675) 132 and Johann
Christian Schottgen (1687-1751).1 33 Moreover, Herder
introduces matters of comparative religion by pointing to
parallels with Zoroaster, 134 and he observes that the SM
professes a non-Pharisaic piety concerning the works of
the law. 135 These programmatic statements have served
until the present day in defenses of the view that the SM
contains the original message ofJesus, as yet undiluted
and uncontaminated, as it were, by the Greeks.
How this program translated into a biography of Jesus
can be seen in the widely read Lebensgeschichte jesu by
JohannJakob Hel3 (1741-1828). 136 According to Hel3,
Jesus gave the SM as one continuous lecture (Lehrvor-
trag):
The main purpose of it was to hand over to his (not
yet completed number of) devotees a religious
doctrine and ethics, thoroughly anti-Pharisaic in
nature, which took the form of easily memorable
maxims and sayings arranged under certain main
rubrics. And this was done in such a practical manner
and presented in a form so completely adaptable to
their situation at that time, as well as in the future,
that it could shape their religious mind completely in
accordance with his. This lecture was able to move the
hearers away from their other petty interests, to which
they, still untrained in his school, may otherwise have
given preference. Thus they were enabled to think,
teach, and act in accordance with his principles in
every situation, in the present as well as in the future.
In short, he not only taught them the right notions
but also a noble attitude of mind, and in doing so he
simultaneously put to good use whatever he found
they already possessed that was true and sound. 137
This description is accompanied by an idyllic picture
of the situation in which Jesus delivered his speech, a
picture reminding us of book illustrations.

132 John Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae,
impensae in Evangelium S Matthaei (Cantabrigiae: Field
and Story, 1658).
133 Johann Christian Schottgen, Horae Hebraicae et
Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum (2 vols.;
Dresden and Leipzig: Christoph Hekel, 1733, 1742).
Both authors share Lightfoot's main hypothesis that
all NT books were written by Jews, exchanged by
and addressed to Jews: "Primo, cum omnes libri Novi
Testamenti iljudaeis sint scripti, atque inter, & ad
judaeos; cumq, omnes orationes in eo habitae a
judaeis pariter, atque ad, & apud Judaeos fuerint
habitae: pro re indubitatissima hoc mihi semper
persuasum fuit, non posse istud Testamentum non
judaeorum stylum, idioma, loquendi formam
normamq, sapere ubique, & retinere" (Lightfoot,
Horae, 173). Schottgen defends the hypothesis in his
Praefatio ( 1, §§ 1-6).
134 Herder, Erliiuterungen, 106, pointing to "righteous-
ness" (Derimher) as a name for the temple in Chaldean
religion.
135 Ibid., 106-7: "Selbst der Werkheilige Begrif des
Pharisaismus ist lange nicht so Juristisch, wie ihn die
Monchs- und Feudalzeiten, wo auf der Gerecht-
erkennung vor Gericht Alles beruhete, gemacht
haben. lch wiinschte, daB dasJemand mit Starke und
Gelehrsamkeit zeigte." See also idem, "Regel der
Zusammenstimmung unserer Evangelien aus ihrer
Entstehung und Ordnung," Siimmtliche Werke: Zur
Religion und Theologie, vol. 12 (Tiibingen: Cotta,
1810) 3-56, esp. 32-33.
136 This work appeared first in 1 7 68-7 3 under a
different title and the 3d ed. under the present title.
The quotation here is given according to the 8th ed.,
Johann Jakob HeB, Lebensgeschichte jesu (2 vols.;
Zurich: Orell, FiiBii & Co., 1822-23) 1.328-29. See
also idem, "Uber das VerhaltniB der Bergpredigt zu
der evangelischen Erlosungs- oder Begnadigungs-
lehre," in Magazin for christliche Dogmatik und Moral
(ed.Johann Friedrich Flatt; Tiibingen: Cotta, 1799,
1800), part 5 (1799) 83-101; part 6 (1800) 1-23. On
HeB, see Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical
Jesus (trans. W. Montgomery; 2d ed.; New York:
Macmillan, 1962) 4, 14, 27-31.
137 "Die Hauptabsicht desselben war, seinen (noch nicht
vollzahligen) Anhangern eine durchaus antiphari-
saische Religions- und Sittenlehre in Ieicht behalt-
lichen, unter gewisse Hauptrubriken gebrachter
Kern- und Sinnspriichen beyzubringen; und dieB so
praktisch, so ganz auf ihre damalige und kiinftige
Lage anwendbar, daB es ihren religiosen Sinn vollig
nach dem seinem bilden, sie iiber aile kleinen
Nebenriicksichten, denen sie, noch ungeiibt in seiner
Schule, hatten Platz geben mc'igen, weg, und in den
Stand setzen konnte, in einer jeden,jetzigen oder
kiinftigen, Lage, seinen Grundsatzen gemaB zu
denken, zu lehren, zu handeln;-kurz, ihnen nicht
bloB richtigere Begriffe, sondern edlere Gesin-
nungen beyzubringen, und, was sich Wahres und
Gesundes schon bey ihnen vorfand, in Anspruch zu
nehmen."
19
 He allowed everyone who wished to listen; the gather-
ing was well attended. He had climbed up to a lower
hill, a place carefully selected so that he could look
over the listeners standing below him, and they could
all hear him better. Next to him stood the four or five
disciples, more formally called to discipleship (we
count Philip among them); surrounding them stood
the rest of the people, more or less eager to learn.
The whole appearance had the aura of the familiar
and sincere, the attractive and the dignified. The
open sky above him, the rural surroundings, all that
formed a natural temple. No synagogue, not even the
temple in the capital, could make a solemn impression
such as this. Nothing in this circumstance belonged to
the formalities that accompanied the customary
lecturing of Jewish teachers. 138
This picture clearly is idealized, but it may not be far
from the one that Matthew intended to create in the
minds of his readers. In HeB's description the picture is
embellished by romanticism and by Enlightenment ideas.
5. The Conservative Reaction
That the relationship between the SM and the SP is one
of similarities and differences was noticed already in
antiquity. 139 Thus, the question was raised whether the
two sermons constitute the same or two separate
°
speeches. While Origen, 14 Chrysostom, 141 Eu-
thymius, 14 2 and Theophylactus 143 assumed two versions
of the same speech, Augustine, 144 perhaps reacting
against Manichaean interpretation, presupposed two
separate speeches of Jesus: one esoteric, before the
apostles only, given to them on the mountain (the SM),
and the other exoteric and shorter, given before all the
people down in the plain (the SP). Many theologians in
following centuries took over Augustine's position for a
variety of reasons. Its main appeal was its compatibility
with the doctrine of divine inspiration. The theory
allowed both speeches to be true and accurate, each in its
own way and for its own purpose.
The two options seemed to be clear. Either one
assumed that Jesus had presented one speech, in which
case one could maintain no strict doctrine of inspiration.
Or Jesus gave two speeches of a separate nature but with
a similar content, in which case one could argue that
both have their own integrity based on divine inspi-
ration. Some scholars, however, held the view that there
was historically one speech, while they maintained as well
the doctrine of divine inspiration, but then they had to
play down the differences between the speeches as insig-
nificant. Others, such as Rudolf Stier ( 1800-1862) 145
used the differences between the SM and the SP to
criticize one of the Gospel writers, mostly Luke. Ac-
cording to Stier, when the Holy Spirit inspired the
Gospel writers, he left room for imperfection. "The
Spirit of the Lord reminded the evangelists of the Lord's
speeches in such a way that they should not, as it were,
write verbally or precisely according to the letter
everywhere, but they should give us the truth in sub-
stance and in the content. But the Spirit of truth did not
allow any essential element of untruth." 146 Therefore,
there could not be any real inconsistencies or substantial
contradictions between the two Sermons. Rather, they

138 Lebensgeschichte Jesu, 329: "Er lie6 zuhoren, wer nur
wollte; die V ersammlung war zahlreich; er hatte eine
mit Flei6 gewahlte Anhohe bestiegen, wo er die
niedriger stehenden Zuhorer iibersehen, und von
allen urn so besser konnte verstanden werden.
Zunachst bey ihm standen jene nun eigentlicher zu
seiner Nachfolge abgerufene vier bis fiinfjiinger (wir
rechnen den Philippus zu ihnen); urn sie her das
iibrige mehr oder weniger lernbegierige Volk. •
"Der ganze Auftritt hatte etwas Traulich-ernstes,
etwas Einnehmendes und Wiirdevolles. Der offene
Himmel tiber ihm, die landliche Gegend umher,
bildeten einen Naturtempel. Keine Synagoge, selbst
der Tempel der Hauptstadt nicht, konnte einen so
feyerlich tiefen Eindruck machen. Nichts fand sich in
dieser Umgebung, das zu den Formalitaten, die den
gewohnten Lehrvortrag der Judenlehrer begleiteten,
mitgehorte. •
139 For the following see Tholuck, Bergrede, 1-6
(Commentary, 1-7).
140 Origen In Matth. 11.4 ad Matt 14.22 (ed. Erich
Klostermann; GCS 40.10.2 [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1935]
39).
141 Hom. 15.1.
142 InMatth., chap. V.1-2 (PG 129.189).
143 Ibid. (PG 123.188).
144 De consensu evangelistarum 2.19.43 (PL 34.1098).
145 Rudolf Stier, Die Reden des Herrn]esu (6 vols.;
Barmen: Langewiesche, 1843-47) esp. 1.69-313.
146 Ibid., 1. 70: "Ja, der Geist des Herrn hat die Evan-
gelisten an die Reden des Herrn also erinnert, daB sie
freilich nicht iiberall wortlich oder vollstandig nach
dem Buchstaben sie schreiben sollten und doch
ihrem Kern und Inhalt nach der Wahrheit uns geben

20
 Introduction

represent two levels of inspiration: "The apostle Mat-
thew, to be sure, has the word of the Lord more ac-
curately; the Spirit in Luke, at another level of inspi-
ration, teaches us that literalness is not necessary in
matters of small detail." 14 7 Thus, Luke is even allowed to
have made minor mistakes. 148 Scholars following this
line of argument tried to show that Matthew's SM is the
more complete and that Luke in his SP omitted impor-
tant sections because of his theological tendencies
(Tendenzkritik). 149 Compared with Matthew, so goes the
argument, Luke lacks order, adding saying to saying,
taking them out of other contexts and changing them in
accordance with his own ideas. One does not gain much,
therefore, from attention to Luke's SP, since we possess
the much better version of the Matthean SM. This
evaluation, then, became the major reason why there has
been little interest in the SP until recently.
Although he did not regard Tendenzkritik as a sufficient
explanation of the problems, the critique of Luke's SP
provided the reason for AugustTholuck (1799-1877) in
his magisterial work Die Bergrede Christi 150 to omit the
treatment of the SP altogether; his commentary discusses
only the SM. 151
As did many others, too, Tholuck agreed 15 2 with the
judgment of Bernhard WeiB (1827-1918): "And for all
times Weiss's judgment will stand: all critical evidence
considered, the sequence of the sayings in Luke 6:27-36
is of a secondary character." 153 This agreement, how-
ever, does not mean that Tholuck was oblivious to views
to the contrary or denied that the SM also showed signs
of redaction: "The possibility of additions by Matthew to
the text transmitted to him must be allowed from the
start, since such a possibility belongs to the authorial
characteristics of the evangelists, each of whom had his
own."154
Tholuck did not believe that such redactional activities
on the part of Matthew, even if admitted, could seriously
affect the claim that the SM reflects "the primary and
original spirit of Christ." 155 As further reassurance
Tho luck calls on the votes of such hard-nosed critics as
Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860) and Heinrich
Ewald (1803-1875), arguing that in spite of Matthew's
alterations "the peculiar enchantment of the whole of
this speech" makes it authentic in the sense of its close-
ness to Jesus. 156

konnten; aber der Geist der Wahrheit hat keine
irgend wesentliche U nwahrheit dabei zugelassen."
147 Ibid.: "Der Apostel Matthaus hat wohl des Herm
Wort genauer, der Geist in Lucas auf andrer Stufe
der Eingebung lehrt uns, daB in Bezug auf solche
Einzelheiten die W ortlichkeit nicht nothwendig sei."
148 For Stier (ibid., 170-71, 301-13) Luke's SP is a
shorter version of Matthew.
149 Ferdinand Christian Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen
iiber die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr VerhaltnijJ zu
einander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung (Tiibingen:
Fues, 1847) 456-58; see also David Friedrich StrauB,
Das Leben jesu kritisch bearbeitet (2 vols.; Tiibingen:
Osiander, 1835-36) 1.569-87. For a discussion of
"tendency criticism" and the controversy between
Baur and StrauB, see Werner Georg Kiimmel, The
New Testament: The History of the Investigation ofIts
Problems (trans. MacLean Gilmour and Howard C.
Kee; Nashville: Abingdon, 1972) 137-43.
150 I am quoting from the 5th ed. of Die Bergrede Christi
(Gotha: Perthes, 1872). The 1st ed. appeared under
the title P hilologisch-historische A uslegung der Berg-
predigt Christi, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Begrundung einer
rein-biblischen Glaubens- und Sittenlehre (Hamburg:
Perthes, 1833). The title of the 5th ed. replaces the
earlier ones. The ET by R. Lundin Brown of
Tholuck's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount is
from the 4th German ed. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1869).
151 Bergrede, 5-6, 6-16 (Commentary, 5-7, 8-13).
152 Bergrede, 14, referring to Bernhard WeiB, "Die
Redestiicke des apostolischen Matthaus," Jahrbiicher
for deutsche Theologie 9 (1864) 49-140, esp. 52-65.
153 "Und fiir aile Zeiten wird das Urtheil von WeiB (p.
55) feststehen: 'Die Spruchreihe Luk. 6, 27-36 tragt
nach allen kritischen lndicien einen secundaren
Character.'"
154 Tholuck, Bergrede, 8: "Die Moglichkeit von Zuthaten
des Matthaus zu dem ihm iiberlieferten Texte muB
von vomherein zugestanden werden, da sie zu den
schriftstellerischen Eigenthiimlichkeiten der
Evangelisten gehort, deren jeder seine eigenen hat."
155 Ibid.: "des urspriinglichen originalen Geistes Christi."
156 Ibid., 8 and 12: "der eigenthiimliche Zauber des
Ganzen dieser Rede."

21
 Yet ifEwald 1 5 7 and Heinrich Julius Holtzmann
(1832-1910) 1 58 were right, Luke's SP would be the
oldest historical account of the speech ofJesus, and
Matthew's longer version would be the product of
secondary redaction on his part. But Tholuck believed
he could dismiss Holtzmann's thesis as extravagant. 15 9
As a result, for Tholuck both the SM and the SP were
products of redaction by the evangelists. The reason why
he went on to write his commentary only on the SM was
that he took the SM to breathe the spirit ofJesus in a
direct sense, regardless of Matthew's redaction. He
found support for this view in Baur, of all people, who
concluded: "If anything, then certainly the anti-Pharisaic
part of the speech, breathing so completely the spirit of a
vivid and fresh polemic, belongs to the most authentic
material that came from the mouth of Jesus." 160
The problem in most of these discussions is that they
confuse two fundamental issues: (1) the historical origin
ofJesus' speech, and (2) the textual basis for recovering
that speech. In the course of these debates a clear
separation of these issues would have been beneficial.
But Tholuck, and with him many others, disregarded
this need. Although he admitted that Matthew's SM is as
much a redactional product as is Luke's SP, Tholuck
insisted on treating the SM as if it were Jesus' original
speech. He thus tried to strengthen his programmatic
work against rationalism, of which the first edition of his
commentary in 1833 161 was a major component, while
failing to recognize how deeply he had allowed himself to
get involved with the critical positions advocated by his
adversaries. For Tholuck the purpose of his enormous
scholarly erudition was to help his cause against ratio-
nalism. Treating Holtzmann's hypothesis lightly, how-
ever, proved to be a mistake. 162 With Holtzmann,
scholarship had in effect turned away from the quest for
the historical first speech of Jesus to the question of
source criticism: Which was the earliest version, and
where did it come from? Taking this shift lightly meant
for Tholuck that, contrary to his own intention, his
commentary deals with a speech ofJesus that was
admittedly fictional. Thus, Tholuck's erudition could
only amount to a Herculean effort at conjuring up the
spirit ofJesus, not through the text but through his own
learned commentary. As a result readers find themselves
persuaded, if at all, more by Tholuck's efforts and
rhetoric than by the SM itself.
The state of research up to this point was well sum-
marized by Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780-
1849) in the introductory section of his commentary on
Matthew. 163 This summary replies to a variety of issues:
1. The question of structure (Gliederung) 164 had been
investigated and there seemed to be a consensus that at
least in some parts the SM has a literary structure:

157 Heinrich Ewald, Die ersten drei Evangelien iibersetzt und (Bergrede, 16): "Die Griinde gegen diese durch so
erkliirt (Gottingen: Dieterich, 1850) 207; idem, Die viele Hypothesen und Willkiirlichkeiten gewonnene
drei ersten Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte iibersezt Bergpredigt liegen so auf der Hand, daB man auf die
[sic] und erkliirt (2d ed.; Gottingen: Dieterich, 1871) eingehende Kritik derselben verzichten darf, bis
256-78, esp. 258. diese kritische Ansicht iiber die Rede sich einen
158 Die synoptischen Evangelien, ihr Ursprung und allgemeineren Eingang verschafft haben wird."
geschichtlicher Charakter (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1863) 163 W. M. L. de Wette, Kuru Erkliirung des Evangeliums
174-78. Cf. idem, Die Synoptiker (Tubingen and Matthiii, inKurzgefaj3tes exegetisches Handbuch zum
Leipzig: Mohr [Siebeck], 1901) 20 1. Neuen Testament (4th ed.; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1857) 1/l.
159 Bergrede, 12-16. 66-69. The 1st ed. of this work appeared in 1836-
160 Ibid., 15, citing Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen, 585: 38.
"Wenn irgend etwas, so geh<>n gewiB der so ganz den 164 Ibid., 66; cf. Tholuck, Bergrede, 19-21 (Commentary,
Geist einer lebensfrischen Polemik athmende 13-17).
antipharisaische Theil der Rede zu dem Aechtesten,
das aus dem MundeJesu gekommen." Similarly,
Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien, 421.
161 On Tholuck's intentions, see Ursula Berner, Die
Bergpredigt: Reuption und Auslegung im 20. Jahr-
hundert(GTA 12; 3ded.; G<>ttingen: Vandenhoeck&
Ruprecht, 1985) 14-16, with nn. 55, 78, 79; Manin
Schmidt, RGG 6 (1962) 854-55.
162 See Tholuck's comment against Holtzmann

22
 Introduction

4:23-25 External situation and occasion
("Veranlassung")
5:1-2 Introduction ("Einleitung")
5:3-16 Exordium ("Eingang in einer
Ansprache an die Zuhorer")
5:17-6:18 The core of the speech or sermon:
Declaration of the messiah at the
beginning of his ministry concerning
his intentions about the new law to
be expected from him, and the kind
of piety demanded by him (" der
Kern der Rede oder die Abhand-
lung: Erklarung des auftretetenden
Messias iiber seine Absichten von der
von ihm zu erwartenden neuen
Gesetzgebung und der von ihm
geforderten Frommigkeit")
6: 19-7:12 Individual smaller or larger doctrinal
sayings ("einzelne kleinere und
grossere Lehrspriiche")
7:13-27 Concluding exhortations ("SchluB-
ermahnungen ")
7:28-29 Conclusion by the narrator ("SchluB
des Berichterstatters")
The question whether perhaps numerical symbolism
was responsible for some of the compositional structure
was raised by Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890) and by
Ewald. Delitzsch assumed a correspondence between the
ten beatitudes and the ten commandments of the
Decalogue, a theory that was much older and was held,
for example, by Luther; Delitzsch regarded the number
three to be important for the antitheses (5:21-48) and
for the cultic teaching (6: 1-18). Ewald took the number
seven to be constitutive throughout the SM. 165
2. The purpose (Zweck) of the SM seemed to be clear.
The designation of "well-ordered speech" (wohlgeordnete
Rede) predominates the literature, and it is associated
with the terms "compendium" and "programmatic." 166
Its content is said to be the "new law" revealed by the
Messiah jesus, or the "new economy of the kingdom" (die
neue Reichsokonomie), perhaps as an analogy to Moses'
revelation on Mount Sinai (Delitzsch). 167 Or the purpose
was to introduce a new way of thinking that enabled
Christians to fulfill the law and to take part in the
kingdom of God (Johann Christian Konrad von Hof-
mann [1810-1877])_1 6 8
3. The problem of the literary relationship between
the SM and the SP had come clearly into focus. There
appeared a consensus that the texts point to one speech,
not two separate ones. Thus, the older consensus about
two speeches (Augustine De consensu evangelistarum 2 .19;
Osiander, Biisching, HeB, Storr, and others) was aban-
doned in favor of a new consensus (Calvin, Stier, and
others) that postulated the same speech to have been
transmitted in two versions. 169 Most scholars regarded
Matthew's SM as older and more complete, 170 and
Luke's SPas derived, shortened, and otherwise
flawed. 171
4. Did Matthew transmit the speech (SM)in exactly
the way in which jesus delivered it? This view was no
longer assumed, but the opposite view, that the SM was
the result of Matthean redaction, gained more and more
ground. According to this view, Matthew arranged his
speech by putting individual sayings of jesus, pro-
nounced by him at other occasions, into some coherent
order. 17 2 Nevertheless, Matthew's work wastaken to be
closer to Jesus' actual ways of teaching, and it must,
therefore, be preferred to Luke's SP. 173
5. When was the speech originally given? According to
Luke 6:20, the election of the Twelve has already

165 See Tholuck, Bergrede, 20-21 (Commentary, 15-16).
166 These terms are older; see esp. on Erasmus above,
section 3.
167 F.J. Delitzsch, Neue Untersuchungen uber Entstehung
und Anlage der kanonischen Evangelien, part 1: Das
Matthiiusevangelium (Leipzig: Dorffiing und Franke,
1853) 73-79.
168 J. C. K. Hofmann, Der Schrifibeweis (2 vols.; Nord-
lingen: Beck, 1852-55) 1.524-26.
169 See de Wette, Kurze Erkliirung, 67; Tholuck,
Bergrede, 6-16 (Commentary, 71-83).
170 So Schleiermacher, Tholuck, Kern, Meyer; see F. C.
Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen (see above, n. 149),
455-56; Adolf Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien nach ihrer
Entstehung und geschichtlichen Bedeutung (Leipzig:
Hirzel, 1854) 173; K. R. Kostlin, Der Ursprung und
die Komposition der synoptischen Evangelien (Stuttgart:
Macken, 1853) 169.
171 Differently Olshausen, Schneckenberg, Bruno
Bauer, Wilke, and others.
172 So Calvin, Pott, Semler, Corradi, Tholuck.
173 See de Wette, Kurze Erkliirung, 69; Tholuck,
Bergrede, 6-16 (Commentary, 17-33).

23
occurred (Luke 6: 12-16), whereas according to Matthew
the installation of the Twelve occurs later (Matt 10:1-4).
Some scholars held that Luke was right; 1 7 4 others
preferred Matthew . 17 5 The idea that in a sense both may
be right did not occur, namely, that Matthew places
Jesus' speech at the beginning of his public career, while
Luke takes it to be Jesus' instruction for the disciples
after their vocation-two purposes one could argue to
be compatible.
6. Who were the first addressees? According to Matt
5:1-2, the SM addresses the "disciples" (ol p.a87Jral) who,
however, should not be confused with the apostles, but
Matt 7:28 (Luke 7:1) records that the people generally
(ol lix>.o,) heard it and were favorably impressed by it.
Therefore, de Wette 176 sees three audiences here: the
disciples in the wider sense, the disciples in the narrower
sense, and the crowds. All of them hear the SM, but its
teaching belongs to those elected by Jesus to be his dis-
ciples-those who are specifically addressed in SM/Matt
5:13-16. 177
The problem was, however, that the idyllic picture
portraying the addressees is unhistorical and to be
attributed to the creators of the narrative framework of
the SM and SP. The texts themselves did not put the
historical questions to rest, but the facts continued to
keep scholars busy. There were, after all, two speeches
delivered by Jesus, one transmitted by Matthew (SM) and
the other by Luke (SP). Both texts claim to have pre-
served Jesus' original speech. With necessity, therefore,
the questions were raised again and again: What exactly
can be said about the similarities and differences between
the SM and the SP? How are they related to each other?
Which of them has the greater claim to historical authen-
ticity?
6. The Nineteenth Century
The major advance in the nineteenth century was the
clarification of the question of the sources. As Calvin had
first proposed, 178 Matthew's SM was shown to be the
redactional product of the evangelist. 1 7 9 Comparison
with Luke's SP had demonstrated that Matthew's redac-
tion consisted of a revision and expansion of an older
source. Consequently, the SM could not be identical with
"Jesus' original speech." Rather, one must regard the SM
as a new creation of a highly sophisticated and even
literary nature. 180 With regard to the question which
source Matthew revised, Holtzmann 181 proposed that
Matthew's source was the "original Mark" (Urmarkus).
According to Holtzmann's Urmarkus hypothesis, this
original source had the SM after Mark 3:19, whereas in
our canonical Mark that section has been omitted; Luke,
who was able to use the Urmarkus, however, took the
source material from there in its entirety and expanded
it slightly by adding Luke 6:39, 40, thus creating the SP.
Matthew, who also had access to the Urmarkus, expanded
it even further, in order to create a systematic summary
of Jesus' "messianic program," thus creating the SM.
Holtzmann agreed with Baur 18 2 that Matthew not only
expanded his source, but gave it a new theme and
advanced its position to the beginning ofJesus' public
ministry. "To Matthew, therefore, belong the disposition
and association of ideas, to Jesus the individual

174 So Ebrard, Kuinol, Hilgenfeld (Die Evangelien, 109).
175 See Tholuck, Bergrede, 16-19 (Commentary, 8-13).
176 De Wette, Kurze Erkliirung, 69.
177 See also Tholuck, Bergrede, 19-21 (Commentary, 13-
17).
178 Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels, 1.168: "Both
Evangelists had the intention of gathering into one
single passage the chief headings of Christ's teaching,
that had regard to the rule of godly and holy living.
... It should be enough for reverent and humble
readers that here, before their eyes, they have set a
short summary 9f the teaching of Christ, gathered
from many and various discourses, of which this was
the first, where He spoke with His disciples on the
true blessedness."
179 See Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, "Ueber die drey
ersten Evangelien: Einige Beytrage zu ihrer
kiinftigen kritischen Behandlung," in Eichhorn's
Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Litteratur, vol. 5/5-
6 (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1794) 761-996, esp. 964-79;
idem, Einleitung in das NT, Kritische Schriften 5
(Leipzig: Wiedmann, 1804) 1.439-40; cf. also
1.498-502; Ewald, Die drei ersten Evangelien (seen.
157 above); Christian Gottlob Wilke, Der Urevan-
gelist; oder, Exegetisch-Kritische Untersuchung uber das
Verwandtschaftsverhiiltnis der drei ersten Evangelien
(Dresden and Leipzig: Fleischer, 1838).
180 See Hilgenfeld, Evangelien, 16-66; idem, "Das Mat-
thiius-Evangelium aufs Neue untersucht," ZWTh 10
(1867)303-23,366-447; 11(1868)22-76;forthe
SM, see esp. 10 (1867) 370-85; Baur,Kritische
Untersuchungen, 582-89.
181 Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien, 174-75.
182 Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen, 586-89.

24
 Introduction

apophthegmata that fill out the plan of composition. "183
The basic ideas ofHoltzmann, however, are found
already inJohann Gottfried Eichhorn's (1752-1827)
seminal work "Ueber die drey Evangelien." 184 Eichhorn
suggested that those sections which are common to
Matthew and Luke but not present in Mark may have
come "from a common written source." 185 This source
was received by Matthew and Luke not in its original
form but in different forms stemming from secondary
elaborations in the manuscripts. In 'other words, as we
would say today, they had been subject to redaction at
the presynoptic leve1. 186 At the beginning, prior to this
redaction, this common source was either in Hebrew or
in Chaldaic-Syriac (Aramaic), while Matthew's and
Luke's versions depend on different translations. 187
Some of the philological and lexical problems in these
versions are attributable to translation mistakes. 188
Matthew's version (the SM) was thus part of the source
he received; it was a redactional product reflecting the
needs and views of Jewish Christianity. 189 Eichhorn's
ideas have been part of the discussion even to this day.
The main problem, well stated by him, is still our own:
"Only that it is impossible even now to determine con-
cerning each addition [sc. in Matthew's SM], whether it
has merely been borrowed from another memorandum
ofthe life of Jesus, or whether it has been written down
first for our Matthew." 190 The style of the SM has no
noticeable difference from the rest of the Gospel because
Matthew would have rewritten it all, not to mention the
fact that he depended on an earlier Greek translation.
"But it is at least probable that the arranger of our Mat-
thew had for some of the additional passages something
written in front of him. " 191 Eichhorn refers to the Lord's
Prayer and other passages from the SM as examples. 19 2
In modern terminology, he speaks ofQMatt.193
In his detailed critique of Holtzmann, Bernhard
WeiB 194 agreed with much that Holtzmann had to say
about Matthew's SM, but he disagreed with the as-
sumption that Luke 6:20-49 contains "the original
sermon." The reason is, as WeiB points out, that Luke's
SP,just like Matthew's SM, shows signs of redaction.
Contrary to what has been said, Luke's SP does not
suffer from lack of order or from incompleteness, but it
represents a composition of its own. Therefore, Luke's
SP must also be granted "a secondary character." 195
In 1847, Ferdinand Christian Baur 196 was already

183 Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien, 175: "Dem
Matthaus gehort also Disposition und ldeen-
association an,Jesu dagegen die einzelnen
Apophthegmata, die den Schematismus ausfiillen."
184 Seeabove,n.179.
185 Eichhorn, "Ueber die drey ersten Evangelien," 965:
"sie miissen also auch hier von einer gemein-
schaftlichen schriftlichen Quelle abhangen."
186 Ibid., 967: "Es bleibt daher der andere Fall wahr-
scheinlicher, daB Matthaus und Lukas diese
Abschnitte aus den andern schriftlichen Quellen, aus
denen sie (wie wir unten sehen werden) neben der
oben beschriebenen verschieden iiberarbeiteten und
bereicherten Urschrift geschopft haben." Cf. 970:
"Endlich wie die iibrigen bisher beleuchteten Ab-
schnitte der Evangelien, so sind auch diese durch
verschiedene verandernde und bereichernde Hande
gegangen."
187 Ibid., 969: "Auch miissen wir uns diese dem
Matthaus und Lukas gemeinschaftlichen Abschnitte
urspriinglich hebraisch oder chaldaisch-syrisch
denken, und die beyden Texte in Matthaus und
Lukas als zwey verschiedene Uebersetzungen
ansehen."
188 Ibid.: "Hierauffiihren die Variationen des
griechischen Ausdrucks, und die hie und da vorkom-
menden Schwierigkeiten, welche durch die Hypo-
these eines Uebersetzungsfehlers am leichtesten
gehoben werden konnen."
189 Ibid., 972: "urn eine Lebensbeschreibung von jesus
zusammenzusetzen, welche allen Wiinschen der
Juden-Christen Geniige thate."
190 Ibid., 977: "Nur ist es unmoglich itzt noch bey jedem
Zusatz zu bestimmen, ob er aus einer andern
Denkschrift des Lebensjesus bios geborgt, oder fiir
unsern Matthaus zuerst niedergeschrieben worden?"
191 Ibid., "Indessen laBt es sich wenigstens wahr-
scheinlich machen, daB der Ordner unseres Matthaus
etwas Schriftliches bey manchen Abschnitten seiner
Zusatze vor sich gehabt habe."
192 Ibid., 977-78.
193 For the importance of Eichhorn's work for the Q-
hypothesis, see Siegfried Schulz, Q· Die Spruchquelle
der Evangelisten (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972)
13.
194 WeiB, "Die Redestiicke" (see above, n. 152), 52-65;
see also his investigation, Das Matthiiusevangelium und
seine Lucas-Parallelen (Halle: Buchhandlung des
Waisenhauses, 1876) esp. 128, 222-24.
195 Idem, "Die Redestiicke," 55: "Die Spruchreihe Luk.
6, 27-36 tragt nach allen kritischen Indicien einen
secundaren Charakter."
196 Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen, 586-89.

25
able to summarize the state of the question by saying that
it has become clear that both the SM and the SP are
redactional products and that the SM cannot be granted
an advantage over the SPin terms of originality. Both
sermons must be seen at the same level as products of
secondary redaction, and neither is to be given an
advantage. This correct insight, however, was compro-
mised by Baur himself when he gave historical pref-
erence to the SM after all. Agreeing with David Fried-
rich StrauB (1808-1874), 197 he believed that in spite of
the secondary nature of Matthew's SM, this evangelist
has preserved the original milieu and conceptuality since
he was not determined by the party opposition, specif-
ically the anti-Matthean bias, to which Baur attributed
the emergence of Luke's Gospel. Thus, Baur basically
agreed with Tholuck, albeit for different reasons.
The result of the discussion up to this point was that
both Sermons were to be recognized as secondary
products of redaction. This view by necessity brought
into focus the question of their common source. Once
the Urmarkus or Urevangelium hypothesis was
dropped, 198 the two-source hypothesis with Q as the
other source besides Mark was the most convincing
solution. 199 Since Mark had no Sermon, the "original
Sermon" must have come from Q. The differences
between the SM and the SP could then be explained as
redactional operations by the Gospel writers.
The development of the Q-hypothesis does not need
to be fully explained at this point. 200 Once the existence
of the source designated Q2° 1 was considered a virtual

197 Ibid., 588-89, referring to StrauB, Leben Jesu, 1.639-
40,652.
198 Cf. Ewald, Die drei Evangelien (seen. 157, above),
1.256-78, who assumes that Luke used the original
sermon he found in the Urmarkus between Mark
3:19a and b, but shortened it to what we now have as
the SP; Matthew used the same source and preserved
the original sermon in its scope, wealth of content,
and form almost in its entirety: "Bei Mt. dagegen hat
sich die groBe rede ihrer ganzen anlage sowie ihrem
uberaus reichen inhalte nach, obwohl nicht ganz in
ihrer ursprunglichsten und vollesten gestalt, doch
sehr vollstandig und klar erhalten" (ibid., 258).
199 The hypothesis regarding the sayings source Q
originated with the ingenious Christian Hermann
Weisse (1801-1866), proposed in his Die evangelische
Geschichte, kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet (2 vols.;
Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hartel, 1838) esp. 1. 79-85.
See Walter Schmithals, Einleitung in die drei ersten
Evangelien (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1985) 182-91.
200 For the present state of research and bibliographies,
see Walter Schmithals, "Evangelien, Synoptische,"
TRE 10 (1982) 570-626 (on Q: 597-99, 619-23);
idem, Einleitung, 182-233; Schulz, Q, passim; Dieter
Luhrmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle (WMANT
33; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969);
see my review in ThLZ 96 (1971) 428-29; M.
Devisch, "Le document Q, source de Matthieu:
Problematique actuelle," in M. Didier, ed., L'Evangile
selon Matthieu (BETL 29; Gembloux: Duculot, 1972) 201 The symbol Q is supposed to be neutral, replacing
71-97; Frans Neirynck, "The Gospel of Matthew
and Literary Criticism: A Critical Analysis of A.
Gaboury's Hypothesis," ibid., 37-69; idem, "The
Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel Synopsis," in
Jean et les synoptiques: Examen critique de l' exegese de M.- Schmithals, TRE 10 (1982) 597.
E. Boismard (BETL 49; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven
University, 1979) 375-83;Joel Delobel, ed., Logia:
Les Paroles de jesus; The Sayings ofJesus (BETL 59;
Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University, 1982);
Frans Neirynck and Frans von Segbroeck, Nf!W
Testament Vocabulary: A Companion Volume to the
Concordance (BETL 65; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven
University, 1984) esp. 489-94; PhilipS. Sellew,
"Early Collections of Jesus' Words: The
Development of Dominica! Discourses" (Th.D. diss.,
Harvard Divinity School, 1985);John S.
Kloppenborg, "Tradition and Redaction in the
Synoptic Sayings Source," CBQ 46 (1984) 34-62;
idem, "The Formation of Q and Antique Instruc-
tional Genres," JBL 105 (1986) 443-62; idem, The
Formation ojQ· Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom
Collections (SAC; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987); idem,
QParallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes and Concordance
(Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1988); Migaku Sato, Q
und Prophetie: Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditions-
geschichte der QueUe Q (WUNT 2.29; Ttibingen: Mohr
[Siebeck ), 1988). For bibliographies, see Frans
Neirynck, "Studies on Q since 1972," ETL 56 (1980)
409-13; Frans N eirynck and Frans van Segbroeck,
"Q-Bibliography," in Delobel, Logia, 561-86; idem,
"Q-Bibliography: Additional List 1981-1985," ETL
62 (1986) 157-65; David Scholer, "Q-Bibliography:
1981-1989," SBLSP 1989, 23-37; idem, SBLSP
1990, 11-13; Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 128-
71.
the earlier apostolische QueUe ("apostolic source") and
thereby indicating the dropping of the claim to
historical originality. See Frans Neirynck, "Once
More: The Symbol Q," ETL 55 (1979) 382-83;

26
 Introduction

certainty, a wealth of studies appeared in print, attempt-
ing to reconstruct this great unknown text that the
evangelists had been able to use. Nonetheless, some
scholars did their best to refute the very idea of Q. Such
rejection of a Q-source found support in the notion of
"oral tradition." In more recent times, Hans-Theo
Wrege's doctoral dissertation, supervised by Joachim
Jeremias (1900-1979) and accepted at the University of
Gottingen in 1963/64,2° 2 represents the position that
oral tradition can explain the parallel sayings in Matthew
and Luke without the need for the hypothesis of a writ-
ten Q. Wrege had taken seriously the doubts expressed
earlier by his teacher Jeremias. 203 Contrary to his claim,
however, Wrege could not explain why the presynoptic
sayings tradition, presumably at the stage of orality,
agrees to the extent it does with the order of arrange-
ment found now in the SM and the SP. This question
had been perceived clearly much earlier in the nine-
teenth century, in particular in the debates for and
against the so-called tradition hypothesis.
Two important studies by the learned Carl Georg
Friedrich Heinrici (1844-1915) preceded Wrege's
dissertation, studies that did not receive the response
they deserve. 2° 4 Assisted by his comprehensive
knowledge of ancient literature, 205 Heinrici investigated
in his first study the source-critical problem of the SM
and the SP. 206 He took up the earlier suggestion that the
two sermons are made up of gnomic sentences, 207 that
they constitute gnomological compilations, and that their
arrangement demonstrates their intended nature as self-
contained literary units. As the starting point Heinrici
refers to Papias's remark about Matthew's cr6vra(ts rwv
KvptaKwv A.6ywv ("compilation of dominical sayings"). 208
This first study, therefore, subjects the sayings of both
Sermons to a careful comparative analysis as gnomai,
determining their formal structure, composition, and
function. Heinrici's conclusion is that the oral trans-
mission of the sayings was carried on by Jesus' disciples
for the purpose of collecting and preserving his
legacy. 209 While this process was still going on, the SM
and the SP show that the step toward written sources had
been taken. The two Sermons, therefore, had gone
through a process of oral transmission before they were
written down. Also important is Heinrici's statement that
the SM and the SP are two separate redactional products
of presynoptic origin and that their relationship cannot
be explained simply as literary creations by Matthew and
Luke. 210
According to Heinrici, both the SM and the SP are
"reconstructions, not simply reproductions," of Jesus'
teaching. 2 11 The SM is informed by Palestinian-Jewish

202 H.-Th. Wrege, Die Oberlieferungsgeschichte der
Bergpredigt (WUNT 9; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1968); see the review by Dieter Liihrmann, ThLZ 95 206 Die Bergpredigt (Matth. 5-7. Luk. 6.20-49) quel-
(1970) 199-200.
203 Joachim Jeremias, "Zur Hypothese einer schriftlichen
Logienquelle," ZNW 29 (1930) 147-49; reprinted,
idem, Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie
und Zeitgeschichte (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1966) 90-93.
204 Somewhat confusingly, the studies appeared under
the title Die Bergpredigt both as Programmschriften and
as parts 2 and 3/1 in C. G. F. Heinrici's collections,
Beitrage zur Geschichte und Erkliirung des Neuen Testa- 208 Papias according to Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.39.16; for
mentes,'parts 1-4 (Leipzig: Diirr, 1894-1908). See
below, nn. 206 and 213, and the main bibliography
at the end of this commentary.
205 See also Hans Dieter Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9
(Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 129 n. 2;
idem, "The Problem of Rhetoric and Theology
according to the Apostle Paul," in A. Vanhoye, ed.,
L'Apotre Paul: Personnalite, style, et conception du
ministere (BETL 73; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven
University, 1986) 16-48, esp. 19-20; idem,
"Hellenismus," TRE 15 (1986) 19-36, esp. 22-23.
lenkritisch und begriffsgeschichtlich untersucht, in
Beitriige, part 2 (Leipzig: Diirr, 1900). The second,
"begriffsgeschichtliche" Untersuchung was published
later as part 3.1 (seen. 213 below). For a rather
negative review, see Johannes WeiB, ThR 4 (1901)
153-55.
207 Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1900) 18: "Gnomen sind der
Inhalt der Bergpredigt" ("The content of the SM is
made up of gnomic sentences").
the text, see Kurt Aland, Synopsis Quattuor
Evangeliorum (13th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibel-
gesellschaft, 1985) 531.
209 Bergpredigt(l900), 10,76-81.
210 Ibid., 80-81.
211 Ibid., 10: "Durch eine Analyse des Inhalts der heiden
Relationen und durch Beleuchtung ihres Verhalt-
nisses zu den sonstigen Parallelen will ich den
Nachweis fiihren, daB beide nicht einfache

27
conditions; the SP has no relationship to a Jewish milieu.
Thus the same sayings have been arranged in different
ways in the SM and the SP because of the different
backgrounds and interests of their original redactors. 212
Heinrici's second study 213 focused on the conceptu-
ality used by the gnomic sentences and related the major
terms to the language of ancient gnomologicalliter-
ature.214 This relationship requires that both Sermons
be viewed in conjunction with ancient gnomologies of
proverbs and maxims, as they are found in Hellenistic-
Jewish wisdom and in Greco-Roman literature and
philosophy.
Heinrici's main conclusions, stated in the terms of
nineteenth-century scholarship, are basically correct:
"Both versions of the speech in Matthew and Luke, each
by itself, are products of collecting activity and stand on
their own independently of each other. In some sense,
they form two, partly overlapping, but independently
arranged, 'summaries of healthy doctrines' (2 Tim
1: 13 ). "2 15 The SM is closer to its original milieu in
Judaism; the SP addresses Gentiles. 216 Both Sermons are
secondary "reconstructions of a foundational speech of
Jesus, in two versions, and not dependent on a common
source. "217 His main investigation was the nature and
origins ofthe gnomic sentences. 218
The problem with Heinrici's studies was that he had
grown weary of the seemingly endless battles of the
proponents of oral tradition against the champions of
written sources, alternatives he rightly considered too
simple to fit the sources. 219 One cannot overlook the fact
as well, as Johannes WeiB observed, that Heinrici did not
state his views clearly enough to challenge persuasively
what had emerged as a consensus among those with
whom he was engaged in debate. 220 The consequences
of ignoring Heinrici were serious, in particular for the
subsequent investigations concerning Q. Therefore, one
of the disadvantages of Wrege's dissertation is that,
although it presumes oral tradition, it is based on the
status of the Q-research of its time. This foundation was
shaky, but Wrege left this fragile condition unexamined.
The fragility was the result of the fact that, once
scholars had focused their attention on the reconstruc-
tion of the source Q, interest in the SP and the SM as
textual units virtually ceased. Indeed, if one held that the
composition of the two speeches (the SM and the SP) was
the work of Gospel writers, then the source Q contained
only the individual sayings that served as building blocks
for these speeches. The Q-source, whatever its nature,
had to have a different structure and extend far beyond
the material of the SM and the SP. As a result, the SM
and the SP became dissolved into Q. This development
can be seen clearly in the important summary provided
by Paul Wernle (1872-1939) in his influential book of
1899, Die synoptische Frage. 221 According to Wernle, the

Reproductionen, sondern Reconstructionen einer
Rede sind, die von Matthaus und Lukas nicht in
gegenseitiger Benutzung oder in Benutzung
derselben Quellenschriften, sondern unabhangig
hergestellt wurden."
212 Ibid., 79: "Die verschiedene Farbung der heiden
Berichte erklart sich aus dem verschieden bedingten
sachlichen Interesse der Referenten, nicht a us
Kirchenpolitik oder Parteipolitik oder iiberlegten
literarischen Abwandlungen."
213 Die Bergpredigt (Matth. 5-7. Luk 6.20-49) begriffs-
geschichtlich untersucht, Beitriige 3.1 (Leipzig: Diirr,
1905). See the important remark by Adolf
DeiBmann, ThR 9 ( 1906) 226: "die evangelischen
Kernworter sind auf dem Hintergrund namentlich
der antiken religiosen und ethischen Begriffswelt
dargestellt, eines Bezirkes, den HEINRICija vollig
beherrscht."
214 See esp. the introduction, ibid., 3-9.
215 Ibid., 1: "In der quellenkritischen Untersuchung der
Bergpredigt kam ich zu dem Ergebnis, daB die
heiden Fassungen der Rede bei Matthaus und Lukas,
jede fiir sich, eine Sammelarbeit sind und daB sie
unabhangig neben einander stehen, gewissermaBen
zwei zum Teil sich deckende aber selbstandig
zusammengeordnete 'Abrisse gesunder Lehren' (2
Tim. 1,13)."
216 Ibid., 2.
217 Ibid., 2: "als zwiefache Wiederherstellung einer
grundlegenden Lehrrede Jesu anzusehen sei, daB sie
nicht auf eine Quelle zuriickzufiihren ist."
218 Ibid.: "daB ferner ihre Urbestandteile Einzelspriiche
und Spruchgruppen bilden."
219 See his survey of the state of research on "Die
synoptische Frage," in Bergpredigt (1900) 1-10, with
important references concerning "oral tradition"
(ibid., 4-5).
220 See the review by Johannes WeiB in ThR 4 (1901)
153-55.
221 Paul Wernle, Die synoptische Frage (Freiburg i.Br.:
Mohr, 1899) 224-33. His summary is the best con-
cerning the first phase of Q-research. See Schulz, Q,
14-15; for a review, see johannes WeiB, ThR 4
(1901) 148-53.

28
 Introduction

SM was part ofQ,2 22 but not in its entirety. Q began
with. the speech by John the Baptist (Matt 3:7-12 I I
Luke 3:7-9, 16-17), and it continued with the temp-
tation dialogue (Matt 4:3-10 I I Luke 4:3-12) and "the
speech on righteousness" (Gerechtigkeitsrede), which in-
cluded the sections Matt 5:3-48; 7:1-6, 12-27; Luke
6:20-49; 11:33; 12:58-59; 16:17-18. Beyond this basic
material, Q may also have included some of Matthew's
"special traditions" (Sondergut), in particular Matt 6: 1-18
(but not 6:9-15!).22 3
In his assessment of the question Wernle was both
cautious and imaginative. He did not want to commit
himself to more than conjectures. 224 Yet, he was also
keen enough to perceive the state of the question and to
identify clearly what he regarded as problems requiring
further investigation. Thus, he saw the need for a fresh
investigation of the compositional structure, of which he
found traces in three groupings of sayings. 225 Their
function, he said, was not chronology but catechesis. 226
Later sayings (e.g., Matt 5:11 I I Luke 6:22) are mixed
with earlier ones. Q, he thought, owes its existence to the
need for written instructions for the new members of the
Christian communities who themselves had not had
direct personal contact withjesus. 227 For these new
Christians, larger themes or topics served as guidance,
such as "What is the will of God?" or "What are the duties
of missionaries?" These topics were of immense im-
portance for the church; they do not give access to the
historicaljesus but to the oldest Christian theology.228
Wernle also noticed the lack of christology, but he
considered this deficiency to be only a seeming one: the
sayings about confessing jesus and the parousia show that
all sayings implicitly presuppose faith in jesus as the
Messiah. 229 These remarks show that characteristics
previously assumed for the SM and the SP had now been
transferred to Q. Wernle also recognized clearly that Q
had passed through a history before it reached the
Gospel writers. 230 "It is by no means certain that this Q-
collection was written in an originally Semitic language.
Rather, the sayings in Matthew and Luke go back to a
common Greek source. There is no reason to postulate
an Aramaic original. We have to reckon with the pos-
sibility that even our oldest records concerning jesus
were in Greek. Since the large Gentile Christian church
superseded the oldest church so rapidly, this fact should
not be a surprise."23l
Therefore, according to Wernle, the Q-source was a
redactional product that can also be related to the early
Christian parties. While the Lukan Q lacks all Judaizing
tendencies, the Matthean Q has been influenced by such
tendencies, for which Wernle named Matt 5:17-20;
10:5-6; and 23:3:
Therefore, the three most important speeches: the
speech on righteousness, the one against the

222 See also Paul Wernle, Die Quellen des Lebensjesu
(Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbiicher 1.1; Tiibingen:
Mohr, 1904; 3ded. 1913).
223 Wernle, Frage, 224-26.
224 Ibid., 227: "Natiirlich sind das alles nur
Vermutungen."
225 Ibid., 226-27.
226 Ibid., 227-28.
227 Ibid., 228: "Sie verdankt ihre Entstehung dem
Bediirfnis nach schriftlicher Unterweisung der neu
eintretenden Gemeindeglieder, die selbstJesus nicht
mehr gekannt hatten.... Die Spruchsammlung will
Glaubige unterweisen, welches im Einzelnen fiir sie
der Weg ins Gottesreich ist."
228 Ibid.: "Diese Rubriken sind von eminentem Wert fiir
die alteste Theologie der Urgemeinde. Es gibt sogar
kein geschichtlich wertvolleres Dokument dafiir als
sie.·
229 Ibid.: "Die Christologie fehlt unter diesen Rubriken
nur zum Schein. •
230 Ibid.: the title of section 4 is "The History of the
Collection" ("Die Geschichte der Sammlung"). Ibid.,
231: "Die Vermutung scheint nicht ungerechtfertigt,
daB die Spruchsammlung vom Augenblick ihrer
Entstehung eine fortwahrende Geschichte durch-
gemacht hat his zu ihrer Aufnahme in Mt und Lc."
231 Ibid., 229: "Die Spruchsammlung ist aber auch nicht
sicher in der semitischen Ursprache verfaBt. Die
Reden bei Mt und Lc gehen auf eine gemeinsame
griechische Quelle zuriick. Zu Riickschliissen auf ein
aramaisches Original ist kein AnlaB gegeben. Wir
haben mit der Moglichkeit zu rechnen, daB unsere
altesten Aufzeichnungen iiber Jesus griechisch
waren. Da die groBe Heidenkirche die Urgemeinde
so rasch iiberfliigelt hat, ist dies auch nicht auffallig. •
On this point see Schmithals, Einleitung, 223-24.

29
 Pharisees, and the one for the missionaries, bear at
their cutting edge the stamp of Judaism, and as a
matter of principle do so, forbidding any kind of
excuse, such as saying that these words were only
spoken by Jesus for particular occasions. Rather, these
three speeches are law for early Christianity. 232
W ernie also pointed out that this source was anti-
Pauline in character: "An antithesis against Paul and his
work can hardly be missed, when the Christian teachers
are measured by their correctness about the law, when
mission to the Gentiles and the Samaritans is prohibited,
and when even the commandments of the Pharisees are
praised. •2 33 One cannot attribute this Judaizing ten-
dency to Matthew, however, but it must have been part
of his source. 234
Not everything in Q expresses this Judaizing tendency;
there are anti-Jewish invectives as well. 235 Consequently,
Q has passed through a history of redaction, during
which several authors contributed material of hetero-
geneous origin and nature:
As the legacy of Jesus the Q-collection was meant for
the community and belonged to those individuals who
had copies. Everyone had the right to supplement or
improve it. Presumably, a few exemplars of Q existed,
of about equal length. Between the first writing (Q)
and the collection that reached Matthew (QMt) and
Luke (QL<) there were Q 1, Q2, Q 3, but it would be a
vain effort to distinguish among them. 236
Wernle, therefore, attributed the differences between
the SM and the SP to the changes that had occurred
during the transmission process through which both
Sermons had passed. Since this process is not known to us
in detail, it is impossible now to determine the reason for
every difference between the SM and the SP. 237 One of
the most obvious differences is that the SP shows a
distance from Judaism and a closeness to Catholicism,
which is certainly the work of the evangelist Luke. By
contrast, the SM seems to be preserved by Matthew to a
greater degree, reflecting as it does more accurately the
state of thinking that must have been typical of the
primitive church. 238 At any rate, Wernle continued, we
have evidence of a history of redaction, but only the last
stage is open to our inspection. The original Q was
probably conceived by one of the earliest followers of
Jesus; it was subsequently enlarged and changed by
redactors. During this stage the Judaizing elements must

232 Wernle, Frage, 229: "Die drei wichtigsten Reden:
Gerechtigkeitsrede, Pharisaerrede, Missionsrede
tragen an ihrer Spitze den Stempel desjudaismus,
und zwar in prinzipiellem Sinn, der jede Ausftucht,
es seien Gelegenheitsworte Jesu, verbietet. Die drei
Worte sind fur die Urgemeinde Gesetz."
233 Ibid.: "Eine Antithese gegen Paulus und sein Werk
ist kaum zu verkennen, wenn die christlichen Lehrer
gemessen werden an ihrer gesetzlichen Korrektheit,
Heiden- und Samarit.ermission verboten wird, und
selbst die Satzungen der Pharisaer Lob erhalten."
The references are to Matt 5:19; 10:5-6; 23:3. Cf.
Betz, Essays, 51.
234 Wernle, Frage, 229: "DaB Mt nicht der Urheber
dieser judaistischen Worte ist, folgt aus seinen
Zusatzen zu Mt 5,17f. (vgl. p. 183) und aus seinem
SchluBwort. Also gehort dieser Judaismus seiner
Quelle an. 1st er aber in der Quelle ursprunglich,
d.h. ist der erste Au tor der Sammlung einjudaist?"
235 Ibid., 230-31.
236 Ibid., 231: "Als die Hinterlassenschaftjesu fur die
Gemeinde gehorte siejedem Einzelnen an, undjeder
hatte das Recht, sie zu erganzen oder zu verbessern.
Es werden vermutlich wenig gleich lange Exemplare
existiert haben. Zwischen der ersten Niederschrift
(Q) und der Sammlung, die Mt (QM') und Lc (QLc)
vorfanden, standen Q 1 , Q2, Q 3 , deren Scheidung fUr
uns freilich vergebene Muhe ware." On this point see
Schmithals, Einleitung, 222-23, 224-26.
237 Wernle, Frage, 233: "Die Doppelgestalt der Reden in
unseren Synoptikern erklart sich genugend erst aus
den Schwankungen und Wandlungen der schrift-
lichen Uberlieferung. Das Exemplar, das Lc hatte,
scheint urn einiges kurzer gewesen zu sein als das des
Mt. Und bei Mt selbst strauben sich einzelne Reden
dagegen, Werke aus einem GuB zu sein. Die genaue
Entwicklung im Einzelnen nachzuweisen, ware ein
aussichtsloses Unternehmen. Es genugt das sichere
DaB der Veranderung."
238 Ibid.: "Die Reden bei Lc entfernen sich vom ge-
schichtlichenjudaismus und nahern sich dem
Katholizismus an. Das ist aber das Werk des Evan-
gelisten seiher. Die Reden bei Mt scheinen Ianger
dem EinftuB der Urgemeinde ausgesetzt gewesen zu
sein; das kommt aber auch daher, daB ihnen Mt mit
groBerer Schonung begegnete. Nur davor ist zu
warnen, daB man sich den U nterschied der Vorlagen
des Mt und Lc zu groB vorstelle."

30
 Introduction

have been introduced into the texts. Finally, Matthew
and Luke incorporated whatthey had before them in
their Gospels. When this had happened, there was no
further need for Q, so that the Q-tradition as a separate
literature came to an end. 239 "Concerning the date of
the first document I do not dare to be precise. It will
hardly have emerged during the lifetime of most of the
apostles. The sixties [sc. of the 1st century] are an
approximate date. •2 40 Prior to the, first document (the
"original Q") we should imagine the oral Aramaic
tradition, "until now more the object of speculation than
secure knowledge." 241 Thus Wernle's account names all
the options and problems, as well as the tasks to be
explored further.
Besides Wernle, the other great summary of nine-
teenth-century research came from Julius Wellhausen
(1844-1918). In particular, his commentaries on Mat-
thew242 and on Luke, 243 and his Einleitung in die drei
ersten Evangelien2 44 must be mentioned. With the keen
analytical mind and merciless criticism for which he was
famous, W ellhausen sorted out the mass of arguments
and hypotheses and identified those worthy of further
consideration. Rather than merely setting down his own
conclusions, however, he always stated the most im-
portant options. Especially valuable for our discussion
are the two editions of Wellhausen's Einleitung, the first
of which appeared in 1905. This edition served as the
basis for Adolf von Harnack's (1851-1930) seminal
study of the Greek text of Q. 245 The second edition of
the Einleitung ( 1911) was changed to a considerable
extent and took into account Harnack's work as well as
that of others.
The first edition of the Einleitung contains an interest-
ing chapter on the Aramaic foundations of the Gospels, a
chapter omitted in the second edition. 246 In this chapter
W ellhausen stated his basic assumption, which proved to
be the beginning of an avalanche of philological inves-
tigations reaching all the way to the end of the twentieth
century. This basic assumption was:
Jesus himself spoke Aramaic, and his words, as well as
the stories told about him, circulated in the congre-
gation of Jerusalem, where the Aramaic tongue was
also spoken. Therefore, the oral tradition of the
Gospel was originally Aramaic, and since it is
preserved for us only in Greek writing, it underwent a
change oflanguage. This is a historical fact that can
also be demonstrated philologically. The original
form of the tradition has not completely disappeared
through the transformation and change of the
language. Often the Semitic idiom shines through the
Greek. 247
If the oral tradition was originally in Aramaic and was
put into Greek only subsequently, the question remains

239 Ibid.: "Derart darfvon einer Geschichte der
Spruchsammlung geredet werden, obschon bloB
deren Endpunkte uns klar vor Augen liegen. Sie
wurde zuerst aufgezeichnet von einem Mann der
urapostolischen Richtung, erfuhr hierauf
fortwahrende Vermehrung, u.a. auch in
judaistischem Sinn, his sie schlieBlich zu Mt und Lc
gelangte. lhre Aufnahme in deren Werke hat ihr
selbst das Ende bereitet, da sie iiberfliissig wurde."
240 Ibid.: "Uber das Datum der ersten Aufzeichnung
wage ich nichts Festes anzugeben. Bei Lebzeiten der
meisten Apostel wird sie kaum verfaBt sein. Die 60er
Jahre sind ein ganz ungefahres Datum."
241 Ibid.: ··was riickwarts derselben liegt, die miindliche
aramaische Tradition, ist bisjetzt das Objekt mehr
der Vermutungen, als des sichern Wissens. Ein neues
groBes Forschungsgebiet dehnt sich hier fur
diejenigen a us, die sich dazu berufen nennen diirfen."
242 Julius Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Matthaei iibersetzt
und erkliirt (Berlin: Reimer, 1904; 2d ed. 1914).
243 Idem, Das Evangelium Lucae ilbersetzt und erkltirt
(Berlin: Reimer, 1904).
244 Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin: Reimer,
1905; 2d ed. 1911 ). All commentaries on the four
Gospels and the 2d ed. of the Einleitung have been
reprinted under the title: Julius Wellhausen,
Evangelienkommentare, with an introduction by Martin
Hengel (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987).
245 Adolf von Harnack, Spriiche und Reden Jesu: Die zweite
Quelle des Matthtius und Lukas, in his Beitrtige zur
Einleitung in das Neue Testament, voL 2 (Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1907). ET: The Sayings ofjesus: The Second
Source of St. Matthew and St. Luke (trans.]. R.
Wilkinson; New York: Putnam; London: Williams
and Norgate, 1908).
246 Wellhausen, Einleitung (1905) 14-34: "Die
aramaische Grundlage der Evangelien." The chapter
is not found in the reprinted edition (see n. 244).
247 Einleitung (1905) 14: "Jesus seiher sprach aramaisch,
und seine Worte sowie die Erzahlungen tiber ihn
liefen in der jerusalemischen Gemeinde urn, die
gleichfalls aramaischer Zunge war. Die miindliche
Uberlieferung des Evangeliums war also von Haus
aus aramaisch, und wenn sie uns nur in griechischer

31
whether Q was also in Aramaic originally or whether it
was in Greek from the beginning. Not without cir-
cumspection, W ellhausen posited that the Gospels were
preceded not only by an oral Aramaic tradition but by
written Aramaic sources as well. "It is conceivable that
the gospel writers were familiar with the oral Aramaic
tradition but wrote it down only in Greek, but the most
probable situation is that the Gospel, which was origi-
nally in Aramaic, was at first also written down in
Aramaic.•248 As proof for this assumption Wellhausen
refers to linguistic phenomena and "misunderstandings"
that cannot be explained except by an Aramaic back-
ground.249
What were the implications of this view for Q? Ac-
cording to Wellhausen, 250 whose caution cannot be
underscored enough, Luke appears to have preserved
the "more original" Q, 251 but of course Luke's Q is a
translation from Aramaic into Greek. "More original" in
Luke is the piece-by-piece assembly of the sayings,
whereas Matthew's version has secondary, larger speech
compositions. As far as the SM and the SP are con-
cerned, Wellhausen'sjudgment is stated accordingly: the
SP is on the whole "more original" than Matthew's SM.
While both show the same arrangement, Luke's SP is
throughout "fresher, more condensed, more popular,
and less spiritual and biblical." 252 But Wellhausen did
not believe that the Lord's Prayer and other materials
from the SM were ever contained in Q. 253 Here, Mat-
thew is older because he had access to original Jewish-
Christian traditions of the Jerusalem church, which he
preserved. 254 Although Matthew wrote his Gospel after
the destruction ofJerusalem, he nonetheless preserved
the older traditions of his church. Matthew does this,
even though in his own conceptions he goes beyond
these older traditions and does not hesitate to set them
aside for his own time. 255 It is interesting to see that for
Wellhausen these older Jerusalem traditions are de facto
identical with the teaching of the historica1Jesus. 256
The second edition of his Einleitung ( 1911 ), largely in
response to Harnack, moved away from the Aramaic
hypothesis and added further considerations about the
Greek. Wellhausen now considered an originally
Aramaic Q that was then translated into the Greek; the
Greek translation developed further into several recen-
sions, of which one was used by Matthew and another by
Luke. 257 Although the Lord's Prayer was not part of the
original Q, 258 the fact that both Matthew (6: 11) and
Luke (11:3) cite the rare term f71'LOt')(no~ ("daily") means
that they must both have had access to the one original
Greek version of the prayer. 259
7. The Twentieth Century
Wellhausen's response to Harnack is important for a
variety of reasons. 260 Opposing Harnack's thesis that Q

Niederschrift erhalten ist, so hat sie einen Sprach-
wechsel durchgemacht. Das steht historisch fest und
es IaBt sich auch philologisch erweisen. Durch die
Umprllgung ist das urspli.ingliche Geprllge nicht
vollig verschwunden. Vielfach blickt semitische
Redeweise durch das Griechische hindurch." This
statement has been omitted in the 2d ed. of 1911.
248 Ibid., 35: "Liegt den Evangelien nur die miindliche
aramiiische Tradition zu grunde? haben die Verfas-
ser diese sofort griechisch niedergeschrieben, wobei
sie natiirlich des Aramaischen kundig sein muBten
und unter dem EinfiuB desselben standen? Denken
IieBe sich das, aber das Wahrscheinliche ist doch, daB
das Evangelium, das von Haus aus aramiiisch war,
zuerst auch aramaisch niedergeschrieben wurde."
249 See ibid., 35-43, with examples.
250 See ibid., 65-73.
251 Ibid., 67.
252 Ibid., 67: "sein Ton und seine Sprache ist durchweg
frischer, gedrungener und volkstiimlicher, weniger
geistlich und biblisch."
253 Ibid., 67-68.
254 Ibid., 88-89.
255 Ibid., 88-89: "Es muss auch die Moglichkeit in
Anschlag gebracht werden, daB Matthaus seiher mit
entschiedener Absicht an der Form der jeru-
salemischen Gemeindeiiberlieferung fest hielt, ob-
gleich er sie zuweilen doch sprengte."
256 Ibid., 113-15.
257 Einleitung(1911) 60.
258 Einleitung (1905) 67; Einleitung(1911) 59.
259 Einleitung (1905) 68, with n. 1; Einleitung (1911) 60.
260 Einleitung (1911) 157-76, with the responses to
Harnack's Sprilche und Reden Jesu (1907) and Kirsopp
Lake's important article, "The Date of Q," Expositor 7
( 1909) 494-507.

32
 Introduction

reflects more genuinely the teaching of the historical
Jesus than does Mark's Gospel, Wellhausen emphasized
the role of the primitive church in Jerusalem that, as he
saw it, preserved the oldest traditions aboutJesus. 261
These traditions, Wellhausen believed, are contained in
Mark's Gospel. The issue here was not only whether Q
or Mark is to be taken as the more valuable historical
source for the teaching of Jesus, but also whether Well-
hausen's hypothesis about the Aramaic sources of the
Gospels holds true. Thus, the issue became Aramaic
versus Greek, linguistically and culturally. As Harnack's
Q-source was Greek, Wellhausen's original Gospel
sources were Aramaic. More importantly, as Well-
hausen's Jesus was not a Christian but a Jew, Harnack's
Jesus was a "Christian liberal" not unlike himself. Since
these two scholars and their theories represent the two
main options that were to dominate research in the
twentieth century, the stage for subsequent debates was
set up by this exchange between Wellhausen and
Harnack. 262 The ensuing debates involved the following
issues: (1) the language ofQ, whether originally Aramaic
or Greek; (2) the date of Q, whether earlier or later; (3)
the theology of Q, whether Jewish Christian or Hel-
lenistic Christian; (4) the "image ofJesus" (Bildjesu)
projected by Q, whether that of a "conservative" or a
"liberal" Jew, the latter easily taken as the first Christian.
The fundamental problem underlying these issues was
whether Q contained the original message and teaching
of the historical Jesus. If Q was originally in Aramaic, as
Wellhausen claimed, the original words ofJesus are
irretrievably lost, 263 and Q represents the hellenized
version of Jesus' message: 264 Accordingly, Jesus must be
placed at the "end ofJudaism, " 265 whereas Christianity
really begins with Paui.2 66 This was Wellhausen's basic
position. It was followed by all those who subscribed to
his famous dictum, "Jesus was not a Christian, but a
Jew."2 67 Directly opposed was Harnack's view that Q "on
the whole is an old source. "268 As he saw it, Q contains a
doctrine consistent in itself, mainly Jewish in nature, and
free from Christian apologetics. 269 Thus, Q presents
Jesus' original message and teaching as well as his his-
torical self-understanding. Although the "original" Q was
in Aramaic (here Harnack agreed with Wellhausen), 270

261 Einleitung(1911) 168-70.
262 On this point see Schmithals, Einleitung, 197-201,
224-27.
263 Wellhausen, Einleitung (1911) 168: "Es hilft nicht,
sich zu strauben. Die WorteJesu sind nicht im eigent-
lichen Sinne authentisch erhalten. Es hat Iangere Zeit
gedauert, bis sie aufgezeichnet wurden. Ihre Uber-
lieferung hat zwei allerdings nicht scharf abzugren-
zende Phasen; in der ersten ist sie gedachtnismaBig
und nimmt ab, in der anderen ist sie frei und nimmt
zu. Markus hat die Reste der alteren, stark zusam-
mengeschwundenen Tradition gesammelt; in dem
nicht aus Markus entlehnten Redestoffbei Matthaus
und Lukas sind diese vielleicht mit etlichen anderen
noch erhaltenen Resten verbunden, vomehmlich
aber neu belebt und weiter gewachsen."
264 See Wellhausen, Einleitung (1905) 14 (quoted above,
n. 247); idem,Einleitung(1911) 103-4.
265 See Wellhausen, Einleitung(1911) 98, regarding
Jesus' saying about the destruction ofthe Jerusalem
Temple (Mark 13:1-2), which Wellhausen regards as
authentic: "Dieses Wort ist darum sicher authentisch,
weil es den Grund zu seiner Anklage aufTempel-
lasterung abgegeben hat, die zu seiner V erurteilung
vor dem Synhedrium fiihrte. Wenn der Tempel
Gottes vernichtet wird, so erst recht das judische
Gemeinwesen."
266 Ibid., 99, 102, 103, 104, 147-53.
267 Ibid., 102: "Jesus war kein Christ, sondemJude." Cf.
ibid., 103: "Man darf das Nich~iidische in ihm, das
Menschliche, fur charakteristischer halten, als das
Jiidische." This passing remark shows that Well-
hansen sees the problem of how to explain the post-
Easter impact ofJesus' message. Concerning the
"impact of his person" ("der Eindruck seiner
Person"), see Einleitung (1911) 103-4. See also
Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament
(trans. Kendrick Grobel; 2 vols.; New York:
Scribner's, 1951, 1955) 1.3; Hans Conzelmann, An
Outline of the Theology rif the New Testament (trans. John
Bowden; London: SCM, 1969) xvii-xviii. Further-
more, see my article, "Wellhausen's Dictum 'Jesus
was not a Christian, but a Jew' in Light of Present
Scholarship," StTh 45 (1991) 83-110.
268 Harnack, Spruche und Reden Jesu, 162: "Q eine im
wesentlichen einheitliche und alte QueUe."
269 Ibid., 163-64.
270 Ibid., 171.

33
its rendering into Greek did not obliterate or obscure
Jesus' original message but preserved it. Q is, therefore,
the oldest and most trustworthy source for recovering
Jesus' original message and teaching; one should prefer it
to Mark's Gospel because that Gospel reflects later
Christian theology.2 71 For Harnack, the Jesus ofQ was
the first Christian. 272 As I have indicated, these funda-
mental hypotheses, diametrically opposed to each other,
determined the battle lines of twentieth-century scholar-
ship.
Scholars felt deeply about these issues and were
inclined to make a decision in favor of the one and
against the other of the alternatives. How strong this
urge was can be seen from Heinrici who, although
hesitant with regard to Q, felt compelled at the end of his
second study on the SM to confess that "Jesus is not the
last Jew, but the creator of a new, authentically rooted
religion; he is the first Christian (Rom 8:29). " 273 In part,
the decisions scholars made at this point were influenced
by their cultural and religious identities. One should
remember that Harnack's view ofJesus and his simple,
undogmatic Christian message goes back to Erasmus,274
a fact that, as Wernle 275 and Troeltsch 276 testify, was
well understood at the time. Harnack's work on Q,
published in 1907, 277 had drawn the conclusion from
Wernle ( 1899) and Wellhausen ( 1905) that the time had
come to attempt the reconstruction of the Greek text of
Q. On the one hand, the SM appears in Harnack's list of
Q-texts as a rubric called "the most significant parts of
the SM, "2 78 but this rubric covers only some sayings
from the SM that can be paralleled by other Q-traditions.
Harnack concluded from the textual comparisons that
the arrangement of the original sermon, to be recon-
structed from the SM and the SP, should follow the SM
as the more reliable order of Q, whereas the sayings
special to Matthew and not found in Luke cannot have
been part of Q. 279 Thus, according to Harnack, the
"original" Q-sermon contained all the sayings common to
the SM and the SP, but followed the arrangement in the
SM. On the other hand, the SP, while having the right
number of sayings, was cut up and distributed by the
redactor Luke. 280 Therefore, neither the SM nor the
SP, as we now have them, can claim a consistency as
textual or literary units; they merely represent sequences
of sayings as Q also has them elsewhere. As a whole, the
SM is the work of the evangelist Matthew, who used the

271 Ibid., 173: "Die Spruchsammlung und Markus milssen in
Kraft bleiben, aber jene steht voran.•
272 Ibid., 173: "Vor allem wird die Ubertreibung des
apokalyptisch-eschatologischen Elements in der
VerkiindigungJesu und die Zuriickstellung der rein
religiosen und moralischen Momente hinter jenes
immer wieder ihre Widerlegung durch die Spruch-
sammlung linden. Sie bietet die Gewllhr fiir das, was
in der VerkiindigungJesu die Hauptsache gewesen
ist: die Gotteserkenntnis und die Moral zu BuBe und
Glauben, zum Verzicht auf die Welt und zum
Gewinn des Himmels-nichts anderes. • See also the
programmatic statement in Harnack's Das Wesen des
Christentums (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1900); ET: What Is
Christianity? (trans. Thomas B. Saunders; with an
introduction by W. R. Matthews; 5th ed.; London:
Benn, 1958). See especially his rejection of the idea
that Jesus' message is confined to the Judaism of his
time and that his religion was "a religion of misery"
("eine Religion des Miserabilismus"). I am quoting
the reedition of the work by Rudolf Bultmann
(Stuttgart: Klotz, 1950) 10-11 (ET: pp. 23-25). On
the sources for Jesus' message, see pp. 12-31;
Harnack's preference for Q is not yet as clearly stated
as in his Sprilche und Reden Jesu of 1907, but in his
additional note from 1908 (p. 180), he refers to his
book on Q as a clarification for his vague remark on
p. 13,line 2. On Jesus' basic message, see pp. 31-47.
273 Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1905) 98: "Jesus ist nicht der
letzteJude, sondern der Schopfer einer neuen,
wurzelechten Religion; er ist der erste Christ (Rom.
8,29)."
274 See in this Introduction, section II.3.
275 See Paul Wernle, Renaissance und Reformation: Sechs
Vortriige (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1912) 114-15:
"Aber er [sc. Erasmus] fiigte dann eine neue, hochst
einfache Wesensbestimmung des Christentums
hinzu, Philosophic Christi pflegte er es zu nennen; es ist
das einfache praktische Evangelium der Bergpredigt,
im Einklang mit der Lebensweisheit aller rechten
Philosophen, aber Kraft geworden durch die
Autoritllt des himmlischen Christus, der es uns lehrt
und vorbildet."
276 Ernst Troeltsch's comment about Erasmus's Enchiri-
dion of 1503 is cited by Kruger, Humanistische
Evangelienauslegung, 20 I: "Mit dieser Schrift ist der
Ubergang von Paulus, den im Grunde keiner dieser
Mllnner [sc. der Humanisten] verstanden hat, zu der
Religion der Bergpredigt und des schlichtenJesus-
glaubens gemacht."
277 See above, n. 245.
278 Harnack, Sprilche und Reden, 126: "Die
bedeutendsten Teile der Bergpredigt."
279 Ibid., 127.

34
 Introduction

order and the material of the Q-sermon but added his
own contributions to the final composition we call the
SM. 281 Arguing against Wellhausen's connection
between the SM and the formulation of the "gospel"
(d1ayyb..wv) in Mark 1:15, Harnack in fact denied that
the SM is more than a cluster of sayings and that it has
common theme. 282
There are, however, serious problems in Harnack's
statements. Apparently contradicting himself, Harnack
concluded that, judged generally, "what has been put in
the SM at the beginning as Jesus' proclamation bears the
stamp of undiluted authenticity. One can only be amazed
that at the very same time when Paul was active and
when apologetic questions and the problem of the law
were urgent issues, Jesus' original proclamation as moral
preaching was remembered and kept in force. "283 This
remembrance was attributable to the continuing impact
of "the image of Jesus" on the early church. 284 This
"image of Jesus" is reflected in the material throughout,
without being identical with specific sayings or clusters of
sayings. Taking his clues from this assumption, Harnack
could even provide a sketch of a "theology" of Q, which
was of course expressed by the Q-sermon as welJ2 85 and
which contained at least the rudiments of a "chris-
tology."286 At this point Harnack's and Wellhausen's
views are close indeed, if not identical:
In the "Sermon on the Mount," which as a whole
surpasses the level of a prophetic manifesto, the
person of Jesus comes to the fore only at two points.
He himself calls his doctrine the light which belongs
on the lampstand, so that it shines for all. ... And he
identifies obedience toward his commandments with
the doing of the will of the Father; by this means it is
decided whether a person builds his house on the rock
or on the sand. By contrast, merely saying "Lord,
Lord" has no value.2 87
As Harnack indicates by putting quotation marks
around the expression "Sermon on the Mount," the SM
has ceased to exist as a textual or literary unit. It merely
points, when the term is used, to the force of the "image
of Jesus"2 88 that is operative in the sayings of Q, whether

280 Ibid., 128-29.
281 Ibid., 129.
282 Ibid., 138-46.
283 Ibid., 146: "Im einzelnen und als Ganzes beurteilt,
tragt das, was in der Bergpredigt als Verkiindigung
Jesu vorangestellt ist, den Stempel unverfalschter
Echtheit. Man staunt, daB in dem Zeitalter, da Paulus
wirkte und wahrend die apologetischen Fragen und
die Gesetzesfrage brennend waren, die V er-
kiindigungJesu so streng als Moralpredigt in Erin-
nerung und Kraft geblieben ist."
284 Ibid., 173: "Das BildJesu, welches Q in den
Spriichen gegeben hat, ist im Vordergrunde
geblieben."
285 Ibid., 159-62.
286 Ibid., 162-64.
287 Ibid., 164: "In der 'Bergpredigt', die als ganze iiber
dem Niveau eines prophetischen Manifests liegt, tritt
nur an zwei Punkten die PersonJesu hervor. Seine
Lehre bezeichnet er selbst als das Licht, das auf den
Leuchter gehort, damit es allen scheine ... , und an
dem Gehorsam gegen seine Gebote, der mit dem Tun
des Willens des Vaters gleich gesetzt wird, entscheidet es
sich, ob ein Mensch sein Haus auf einen Fels oder auf
Sand baut; das 'Herr, Herr'-Sagen ist wertlos."
288 This concept of the "image of Jesus" plays an
important role also for Wellhausen. See his Einleitung
( 1911) 102-4, 168-70; idem, Israelitische und judische
Geschichte (9th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1958) 360,
366-68. The whole concept was then taken up by
Wilhelm Herrmann, Martin Kahler, and, differently,
by Ernst Fuchs. See also Hartmut Stegemann, "Der
lehrende Jesus. Der sogenannte biblische Christus
und die geschichtliche BotschaftJesu von der
Gottesherrschaft," NZSTR 24 (1982) 3-20. See
Wilhelm Herrmann, Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott,
im Anschlu)J an Luther dargestellt (5th/6th ed.;
Stuttgart and Berlin: Cotta, 1908) esp. 67-96;
Martin Kahler, Der sogenannte historische jesus und der
geschichtliche biblische Christus (2d ed.; Leipzig:
Deichert, 1928) esp. 57-71, 99-114. On the whole
question, see also my article, "The Problem of
Christology in the Sermon on the Mount," in
Theodore Jennings, Jr., ed., Text and Logos: The
Humanistic Interpretation of the New Testament [FS for
Hendrikus W. BoersJ (Atlanta: Scholars, 1990) 191-
209; reprinted in Betz, Synoptische Studien, 219-29.

35
belonging to the SM or not. It is strange, however, that
Harnack, when he cites specific passages for verifying
this "image of Jesus," usually refers to SM passages.
Although this practice looks odd or even self-contradic-
tory, it has continued in much of the subsequent
scholarly literature: While the SM is designated as a
Matthean construction, it is simultaneously treated as a
unified text containing Jesus' "original message."2 8 9
Another oddity was that Harnack agreed with Well-
hausen and others that Q was originally a written source
of Aramaic sayings from the period before 70 CE. 290
This assumption implies that the sayings belonging to the
Q-sermon (i.e., sayings common to the SM and the SP)
are Greek translations of their Aramaic antecedents.
Precisely those sayings, however, as their appearance in
the SP shows, are Greek in character, while the sup-
posedly later additions by Matthew (in the SM) express
older Jewish (or Jewish-Christian) ideas and concepts. In
his critique of Harnack, W ellhausen appears to have
been aware of this inconsistency in Harnack's thesis, 291
an inconsistency that calls that entire thesis into question.
Clearly, further studies would follow at this point.
These studies show signs of having been under some
pressure to move Jesus and his teaching away from
Judaism. This growing tendency expressed itself in
several ways: (1) by letting Jesus pronounce his messianic
self-understanding; (2) by having Jesus make a clear
break with the Jewish Torah; (3) by making Jesus teach
straightforward Christian doctrine.
The emphasis on any of these elements, or on all of
them together, can be attributed to the impact of
Harnack's contention that Jesus was "not a Jew but a
Christian." Tragically, after Harnack, this tendency
reached its absurd climax in the infamous address by
Walter Grundmann (1906-1976), entitled "Die Frage
der altesten Gestalt und des urspriinglichen Sinnes der
Bergrede Jesu," 292 followed by his book ,Jesus der
Galiliier und das judentum. 293 According to Grundmann,

289 This is also true of Harnack's Das Wesen des Chris-
tentums, 6 (ET: p. 19), where he refers to "Jesus
Christ and his Gospel," apparently meaning the SM.
At least this is his interpretation of the additional
note from 1908 (in the 1950 reedition on p. 180;
regrettably, not in the ET). The problem that
neither the SM nor Q uses the term "gospel"
(<vayyf>..,ov) is discussed by Harnack, Sprilche und
Redenjesu, 170-74, in response to Wellhausen,
Einleitung (1905) 108-15; Einleitung (1911) 98-104,
147-53, 153-76. The problem of which texts should
be named to identify Jesus' "gospel" remains un-
resolved, and both Wellhausen's and Harnack's
explanations obscure rather than clarify it. The
problem is further complicated by the citation of Isa
61: 1, the LXX version of which contains the verb
<vayy<Ai(<u8a• ("proclaim the good news"), in Matt
11:5//Luke 7:22. Does this citation oflsa 61:1 mean
that the historical Jesus understood his "gospel," and
consequently his own mission, in accoFdance with the
messianic proclamation of the kingdom of God (cf.
Isa 52:7)? At present, this is indeed the position
advocated by Peter Stuhlmacher, Otto Betz, Helmut
Merklein, and others; see the volume of essays edited
by Peter Stuhlmacher, Das Evangelium und die Evan-
gelien: Vortriige vom Tilbinger Symposium 1982 (WUNT
28; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1983); cf. Otto Betz,
"Bergpredigt und Sinaitradition. Zur Gliederung
und zum Hintergrund von Matthaus 5-7," in his
jesus, der Messias Israels: Aufsiitze zur biblischen
Theologie (WUNT 42; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1987) 333-84; Martin Hengel, "Zur matthaischen
Bergpredigt und ihrem judischen Hintergrund," ThR
52 (1987) 327-400, esp. 351-53, where he connects
Isa 61:1-2 with the beatitudes of the SM. The
identification of the concept of "gospel" (<vayy(:J\,ov)
with Isa 61:1-2 LXX and the whole unbroken chain
of tradition is radically questioned by Ernst
Kasemann, Georg Strecker, and Hubert
Frankemolle; for a critical survey of research see
Hubert Frankemolle, Evangelium-Begriff und
Gattung: Ein Forschungsbericht (SBB 15; Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988) esp. 137-38 (on Q),
149-55 (on Matthew); idem, "Jesus als deutero-
jesajanischer Freudenbote? Zur Rezeption vonJes
52,7 und 61,1 im Neuen Testament, durchJesus und
in den Targumim," in Hubert Frankemolle and Karl
Kertelge, eds., Vom Urchristentum zujesus: FSfor
Joachim Gnilka (Freiburg: Herder, 1989) 34-67;
Helmut Koester, "From the Kerygma-Gospel to
Written Gospels," NTS 35 (1989) 361-81; idem,
Ancient Christian Gospels, 1-48. The SM does not
contain the term "gospel" (<vayy(:J\,ov), nor does Q. It
is Matthew who makes the connection by his peculiar
concept of Th <Vayy(:J\•ov Tiir f3auiA<iar, "the gospel of
the kingdom" (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; cf. 26:13). See
also Frankemolle, Evangelium, 149-55; Hans D. Betz,
"The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's Inter-
pretation," in Birger A. Pearson et al., eds., The
Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor ofHelmut
Koester (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 258-75;
reprinted in Betz, Synoptische Studien, 270-89.
290 Harnack, Sprilche und Reden, 171-72.
291 SeeWellhausen,Ein1eitung(1911) 157-76.

36
 Introduction

Jesus was not a Jew but a Galilean, hence an Aryan
preaching the political faith of the Deutsche Christen. The
Jewish Jesus of the SMbecame a later, secondary, and
illegitimate "Judaizing fabrication." Although its ab-
surdity has often been sufficiently exposed, this theory is
not quite dead even today. The present debate, however,
concerns the nature of Galilean Judaism, its differences
fromJudeanJudaism, and the possible implications for
the Galilean Jesus and his disciples. Did they come from
the fringes of Judaism? Did they claim "orthodoxy," and
how can one apply these terms to the Jewish situation at
the time? 294
A survival of Harnack's ill-fated thesis of Jesus being
the first Christian rather than a Jew was and still is the
notion of"Judaization." The implication of this notion is
that the "gospel" (tvayy€A.tov) was originally Christian,
not Jewish. This "gospel" originated with Jesus, when he
broke with Judaism, so that the idea of a secondary and
thus illegitimate "Judaization" (or "re-Judaization")
became conceivable. 295 This idea, although sometimes
falsely attributed to the apostle Paul, was advocated first
by Marcion. 296
Wellhausen's and Harnack's views were unques-
tionably shaped not only by their analyses of the sources
but also by their contemporary concerns. In part, these
larger concerns prevented them from fully exploring
other options that could have suggested themselves given
the status of Q-research at the time. 2 97
The influential work by Vincent Henry Stanton
(1846-1924), carrying the provocative title The Gospels as
Historical Documents, evaluates the Q-hypothesis in a
different way. 298 Stanton assumed that the Q-document
was originally in Aramaic and contained the material
common to Matthew and Luke, and in addition the
material found only in Matthew. Differently from
Harnack, therefore, Stanton considered Matthew's
version of Q to represent the original Aramaic source.
Moreover, as Stanton has it, this original Aramaic source
contained the Q-sermon as well that appears in our
Gospels in two Greek translations, one intended for Jews
(the SM) and the other for Gentiles (the SP). All the
translator of the SP did was simply omit everything he
deemed unsuitable for Gentile readers.
As a result, one could explain the differences between
the SM and the SP in this way: Matthew and Luke used
two different translations of the Q-sermon; Matthew's
SM is virtually the same as the Aramaic original, whereas
Luke's SP is a version curtailed and adapted for use in
the Gentile church by omitting "Jewish concerns" such as
SM/Matt 5:17-48 and 6:1-18. Matthew's SM cannot be
totally accurate in terms of its relationship to the
Aramaic Vorlage, however, because it was translated into
Greek. Thus, the linguistic difference between Vorlage
and translation can explain philological infelicities in the
Greek.
The remarkable thing about Stanton is that, although
he did not know yet of redaction criticism, he could
explain some problems better than W ellhausen and
Harnack. (1) Stanton was open to taking the SM as a

292 Walter Grundmann, Die Frage der iiltesten Gestalt und
des ursprilnglichen Sinnes der Bergrede jesu (Weimar:
Verlag der Deutschen Christen, 1939).
293 Idem, jesus der Galiliier und das judentum (Leipzig:
Wigand, 1940)esp. 16-17,25,165-75,200-201.
294 See Rudolf Meyer, Der Prophet a us Galilaa: Studie zum
jesusbild der drei ersten Evangelien (Darmstadt: Wis-
senscl:taftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970 [reprint of the
1st ed. of 1940]); Geza Vermes, jesus the jew: A
Historian's Reading of the Gospels (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1973) 42-57; idem,jesus and the World of
judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 3-5 and
passim; Udo Schnelle, "Jesus, einJude aus Galilaa,"
BZ 32 (1988) 107-13; Sean Freyne, Galilee, jesus, and 298 V. H. Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents (3
the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical Investi-
gations (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988).
295 See Ethelbert Stauffer, "Jesus, Geschichte und
Verkiindigung," ANRWII, 25/1 (1982) 3-130, esp.
14-17.
296 See Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen
Kanons (2 vols.; Erlangen: Deichert, 1888-92),
1/2.666-75; Harnack, Marcion, 191 *-95*, 249*-
52*.
297 For evaluations of the state of research at the
beginning of the 20th century by British scholars, see
the essays edited by William Sanday, Studies in the
Synoptic Problem: By Members of the University of Oxford
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1911 ). Pertinent to this
problem are the articles by Burnett H. Streeter and
Willoughby C. Allen.
vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1903,
1909, 1920) 2.80-85.

37
presynoptic redactional composition, to use our own
terms (see above, section I, for definitions), coming from
a pre-Matthean translator of an originally Aramaic Q-
Vorlage. This assumption makes more sense than at-
tributing the SM sayings not in the SP and therefore,
according to Harnack, falling outside Q, to yet another
special source or to the evangelist Matthew himself. (2)
Stanton was able to explain the Jewishness of the SM. By
contrast, Harnack, who regarded the Q-sermon of Luke
(i.e., the SP) as the oldest version, was compelled to make
that version more Jewish than it really is. (3) Stanton saw
correctly that the SP has been adapted to the needs of
Gentiles, and he could explain why this happened. (4)
Rather than assuming that the differences between the
SM and the SP were the outcome of happenstance and
error, Stanton saw them as products of intent and
purpose; the two versions serve two different recipients,
Jews and Gentiles.
Another British scholar, Willoughby Charles Allen
(1867-1953), criticized Harnack in his contribution,
"The Book of Sayings Used by the Editor of the First
Gospel. "2 99 Allen pointed out that Harnack's way of
reconstructing the source Q destroyed the very integrity
of the source that he sought to recover. Thus, Harnack
continued to speak of "the Sermon on the Mount," while
in fact he simply named passages common to Matthew
and Luke that taken together add up neither to the SM
nor to the SP. Allen's solution, therefore, was to assume
that the Q-version used by Matthew "presents us with a
homogeneous, consistent, and intelligible work (no
doubt only fragmentary)." 300 At this point one detects
traces of what was later called redaction criticism, when,
as Allen had it, Matthew used a version of Q that had the
sayings of Jesus arranged in discourses, the first of which
was the SM. Allen's reconstruction of this source, as far
as the SM is concerned, 301 closely resembles my own.
Still another hypothesis was proposed by Burnett
Hillman Streeter (1875-1937) in his classic work, The
Four Gospels. 302 In setting forth his hypothesis Streeter
kept in mind Harnack on the one hand and the Ameri-
can scholar Carl Safford Patton (1866-1939) 303 on the
other, while strangely ignoring Stanton's views at this
point. 304 Patton had developed the idea of two recen-
sions of Q (QMt. and QLk-), an idea Streeter found at first
attractive, "but the moment one attempts to visualize to
one's eye the exact kind of documents implied by the
symbols QMt. and QLk., its attractiveness begins to wane.
The symbol Q, by itself, stands for a perfectly definite
concept-a written document from which both Matthew
and Luke made copious extracts with some slight amount
of editorial change. " 305 The problem Streeter perceived
correctly was this: "But to what definite concept do the
symbols QMt. and QLk. correspond?" 306
Taking the differences between QMatt and Luke into
account makes clear that the assumption of only one Q is
illusionary. 307 Instead of talking of only one document in
two versions one should rather speak of two documents
that partially overlap. As incisive as Patton's reconstruc-
tion of two recensions of Q was Streeter's critique of that
theory. Streeter felt he must "choose between Q and not-
Q. " 308 Following up on his idea of "overlapping of
sources," Streeter proceeded to his hypothesis of Q and
M, 309 the symbol M standing for a third source in Mat-
thew, partially overlapping with Q but also containing
the peculiarly Jewish passages not found in Luke.
Streeter assigned this source M to the church in
Jerusalem, 310 while Q belonged to the freer world of
Galilee and Antioch. 311
Not surprisingly, the key text for testing Streeter's
hypothesis is the SM, because it is partly parallel and

299 In Sanday, Studies in the Synoptic Problem, 235-86. Macmillan, 1915; reprinted New York and London:
300 Allen, "The Book of Sayings," 242. See above, n. 297. Johnson, 1967).
301 Ibid., 242-48. See also Allen, A Critical and Exegetical 304 Stanton's views are discussed only in regard to the
Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (ICC; Fourth Gospel.
Edinburgh: Clark, 1907) 72. 305 Streeter, Four Gospels, 236.
302 B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, 306 Ibid.
Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship 307 See Streeter's critique of Patton in Four Gospels, 235-
and Dates (London: Macmillan, 1924; 2d ed. 1925; 38.
5th ed. 1936). See also George Kilpatrick, The Origins 308 Ibid., 238.
of the Gospel according to St. Matthew (Oxford: Claren- 309 Ibid., 238-49.
don, 1946) 14-25. 3HJ Ibid., 230-35.
303 C. S. Patton, Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (New York: 311 Ibid., 233.

38

partly not parallel with the SP. His analysis of the
problem on just four pages must be called brilliant. 31 2
He tried to show that his theory of two overlapping
sources, Q and M, having been conflated by Matthew,
can solve the problems that the Two-Document
Hypothesis could not:
First, two passages are found in the SM but not in the
SP; yet these passages occur elsewhere in Luke and must
therefore be assigned to Q (Matt 6:22-33 =Luke
11:34-36; 16:13; 12:22-31; and Matt 7:7-11 =Luke
11:9-13). Here, however, Streeter saw "no difficulty;
they have obviously been inserted in their present con-
text by Matthew in accordance with his practice of 'ag-
glomerating,' i.e., of collecting into large discourses all
the available material dealing with the same or related
topics." 313
Second, both Sermons (the SM and the SP) begin and
end with the same material, and both are followed by the
story of the centurion's servant. "But on closer study it
appears that the Sermons in Matthew and Luke can be
derived from a single written source only if we postulate
an almost incredible amount of editorial freedom in
rewriting portions of the original." 314
According to Streeter, both Q and M contained
sermons that overlapped in part: "All the phenomena ...
can be satisfactorily explained by the hypothesis that
Matthew is conflating two separate discourses, one from
Q practically identical with Luke's Sermon on the Plain,
and the other from M containing a much longer Ser-
mon."315
What are the consequences of Matthew's conflation of
Q and M, as far as the SM is concerned? According to
Streeter, the following can be said:
1. The conflation of the two sources explains where
Matthew obtained the materials not in the SP (or Q);
some of the differences may also derive from Matthew's
editorial work, although Streeter preferred to speak only
of conflation of existing sources, not of redactional
interferences by the editor- Matthew. 316
312 Ibid., 249-53.
313 Ibid., 249-50.
314 Ibid., 250.
315 Ibid., 251.
316 Ibid., 263.
317 Ibid., 252.
318 Ibid., 252-53.
319 Ibid., 254-59.
Introduction
2. "Hence the Q and M versions of any saying which
occurred in both Sermons would in the original sources
have shown greater divergence than do the present texts
of Matthew and Luke." 31 7
3. "The hypothesis of a summary of Christian teaching
intended for catechetical instruction, current in oral
tradition in more than one form, has often been invoked
to account for the combined phenomena of resemblance
and difference between the versions of the great Sermon
in Matthew and in Luke. But as usually presented it goes
shipwreck on the fact that, in the source used by both
Matthew and Luke, the story of the Centurion's Servant
follows immediately after the Great Sermon. That dif-
ficulty disappears if, instead of supposing that Matthew
and Luke had each a different version of the same
Sermon, we suppose that Matthew had before him two
documents, Q which contained both the Sermon on the
Plain and the Centurion's Servant, and M which gave a
substantially different version of the Sermon, but did not
include the Centurion's Servant. The idea of conflating
the two would be inevitably suggested to Matthew by the
fact that both Sermons began with Beatitudes and also
that they overlapped at certain other points." 318
4. The "Judaistic tendencies" characteristic of the SM
derive from M. They were not part of Q, nor were they
due to Matthew himself. 31 9
The remarkable fact is that the studies by Allen,
Stanton, and Streeter made serious attempts to preserve
the literary entities called the SM and the SP, whereas
Harnack and those following him dissolved these entities
into mere sequences of sayings, all part of the hypo-
thetical Q-sermon. These alternative positions served as
the starting points for further investigations. Therefore,
studies on Q following the approach by Harnack may still
talk of the SM, but they cannot associate Q with an
established textual unit. 320 Its content derives from
320 See Schulz, Q, passim; Liihrmann, Redaktion, 53-56;
Athanasius Polag, Fragmenta Q: Textheft zur
Logienquelle (Neukirchen-VIuyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1979); cf. the review by Frans Neirynck, ETL
55 (1979) 373-81; Wolfgang Schenk, Synapse zur
Redenquelle der Evangelien: Q-Synopse und Rekonstruk-
tion in deutscher Ubersetzung mit kurzen Erliiuterungen
(Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1981 ); Kloppenborg, Formation,
39
sayings common to the SM and the SP, without really
being part of either of them. Thus, scholars in this line of
thought may speak of the SM, even if they deny that such
a sermon ever existed before Matthew. Also, that both
the SM and the SP show traits of a compositional plan
and of a specific function was lost through the over-
arching notion of Q as a collection of sayings without any
identifiable composition. The characteristic way of
calling the hypothetical Q-sermon "almost identical"32I
with the SP cannot make us overlook the fact that no
explanation was given of how and why they are different
in detail. 322
German scholarship in the 1920s and thereafter did
not continue the line of scholarship typical of Harnack
and even of Streeter, but instead turned to form criti-
cism. Even in form criticism, however, the legacy of
Harnack lingered on in that there was little concern for
the SM or the SP as form-critical units. Instead, the focus
was on the individual sayings. Thus the major studies by
Martin Dibelius (1883-1947) 323 and RudolfBultmann
(1884-1976) 324 did not treat the SM and the SPas
separate units. Bultmann's History of the Synoptic Tradition,
however, contained at least the ingredients for later
developments, eventually to be called redaction criticism.
Also, Dibelius devoted his Shaffer Lectures at Yale
University in 1937 to the Sermon on the Mount. 325 In
these lectures he treated the SM as a consistent body of
material, although he did not venture into what was later
called redaction criticism.
In addition to these studies, a work by Emanuel Hirsch
(1888-1972), strange as it is in many respects, deserves
consideration. His two-volume Fruhgeschichte des Evan-
geliums, published in 1941, 326 engages in source criticism
of the kind Harnack was known for and is for this reason
a latecomer. Hirsch did not doubt for a moment that the
SM is the work ofthe evangelist Matthew, "originating
from a carefully planned and artistic expansion of the Q-
sermon on love that Luke has preserved for us in Luke

171-90. Kloppenborg speaks of "Jesus' Inaugural
Sermon" (idem, QParallels, 22).
321 See Betz, "The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's
Interpretation," 21-22 (see above, n. 289).
322 See the critical evaluation of recent attempts in M.
Devisch, "Le document Q, source de Matthieu:
Problematique actuelle," in Didier, L'Evangile selon
Matthieu, 71-97; Frans Neirynck, "Recent Develop-
ments in the Study ofQ," in Delobel, Logia, 29-75.
323 Martin Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums
(Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1919; 2d ed. 1933; 3d
ed. 1959). Although the chapter on "paraenesis"
(234-65) mentions collections of sayings ofJesus,
Dibelius does not deal with the SM as a whole but
mentions only individual sayings from it. For a
review of the 1st ed. by Rudolf Bultmann, see ThLZ
44 (1919) 173-74. Unfortunately, the 3d ed. of
Formgeschichte was not translated into English;
Bertram L. Woolfs translation, entitled From
Tradition to Gospel (New York: Scribner's, 1934), is
from the 2d ed. of 1933.
324 RudolfBultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen
Tradition (FRLANT 29; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1921; 9th ed. 1979). A supplement,
Ergiinzungsheft, ed. Gerd TheiBen and Philipp
Vielhauer, was published first in 1958 (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). The ET by John
Marsh, done from the 2d German ed. ( 1968) and
appended with the supplement of 1962, should be
used only in the rev. ed., History of the Synoptic
Tradition (New York and Evanston: Harper & Row,
1968). On collections of "legal sayings and church
rules," see esp. pp. 148-50, 351-59. On the origin of
Bultmann's work itself, see Martin Evang, Rudolf
Bultmann in seiner Frilhzeit (BHTh 74; Tubingen:
Mohr [Siebeck], 1988) 70-72.
325 Martin Dibelius, The Sermon on the Mount (New York:
Scribner's, 1940); the German ed. appeared in his
collected essays, Botschaft und Geschichte (Tubingen:
Mohr [Siebeck], 1953) 1.79-174. I have discussed
Dibelius's work in my Shaffer Lectures of 1985,
"The Sermon on the Mount: The Challenge
Continues" (3 lectures [unpublished]). This later
work of Dibelius comes much closer to recognizing
the SM as a textual unit in its own right, but it is
interesting to see that he somehow fails to take the
logical final step of talking of redaction criticism at
the presynoptic level.
326 Emanuel Hirsch, Frilhgeschichte des Evangeliums, vol.
2: Die Vorlagen des Lukas und das Sondergut des
Matthiius (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1941) 77-88
(and a summary, 284: "Die Predigt von der Liebe
Luk 6:20-49"). See also his essay, "Die Bergpredigt,"
Deutsches Volkstum 20 (1938) 820-26.

40

6:20-49 in a form still very close to Q." 327 Although
Hirsch never referred to his scholarly predecessors,
whom he had of course studied carefully, his views were
close to the common opinion at the time. Beyond this,
however, Hirsch offered several important observations:
1. He saw that SP /Luke 6:20-49 is, in our terms, 328 a
redactional work, complete and consistent in itself. "One
single theme is carried through, and the individual
sections follow each other in meaningful order,joining
member to member by internal connection. " 3 2 9
2. According to Hirsch, Matthew's SM has expanded
the Q-speech by fusing it with another presynoptic
speech, a composition on the theme of the true fulfill-
ment of the law. This second speech was yet another
presynoptic composition based on Q, which, however,
had remained unknown to Luke. Matthew's fusion of
both speeches led to a new work, "not so much a well-
rounded speech, but rather an artistically grouped
collection of ethical prescriptions of diverse content." 330
3. The two speeches are "summaries" of Jesus'
teaching, carefully worked out by two disciples who had
quite different ideas about him. Both were shaped by
historical reminiscences about the master and the
situation in Jerusalem. The two speeches constitute
historical documents of the first order. 331
4. Both summaries, although advocating opposite
viewpoints, reflect the teaching of Jesus concerning the
Jewish law. The disciple who wrote the Q-speech (taken
to be preserved in the SP) "was under Jesus' influence to
such an extent that to him the Jewish ethical and
religious thought had completely gone to pieces." 33 2
This man reflects Jesus' true teaching. The author of the
other speech on the true fulfillment of the law (preserved
in the SM), however, tried to show that Jesus' attitude
toward the Torah was more positive, but this judgment
was only partially right. "This speech understands Jesus'
teaching, which sharpens up and supersedes the
commandments, as true fulfillment, while in reality it was
the demolition ofthe Torah." 3 33
327 Hirsch, Fruhgeschichte, 2.77-78.
328 Hirsch does not use the term "redactional" but
instead speaks of a presynaptic speech, composed by
a disciple of jesus who belonged to the leading
Palestinian jewish-Christian community (ibid., 87).
329 Ibid., 78.
330 Ibid.
331 Ibid., 86-88.
Introduction
For Hirsch, who at this point sided with Harnack, the
true Jesus is reflected in the Q-speech and thus in the SP,
while the SM with its material contains an apologetic
affirmation of Jesus' Jewish orthodoxy, an affirmation
that is in the final analysis (no doubt due to the standards
of Paul's theology) doomed to failure. 3 34 Nevertheless,
Hirsch did recognize that the SP and the SM are pre-
synoptic redactional products and that they express
theologically different views on what the teaching of
Jesus was all about. Both these sources Hirsch took to
show signs of tension within the early Christian com-
munity in Jerusalem.
When it first appeared on the scene, redaction
criticism was concerned with analyzing the work of the
final authors of the Gospels. The history of this scholar-
ship is well known and needs no restatement here. As
more and better investigations were undertaken, redac-
tional activities were also discovered in the sources that
the final authors of the Gospels used. Whereas up to that
point the usual distinction was between "tradition" (the
material received by the Gospel authors) and "redaction"
(the work done on and with the tradition by the Gospel
authors), later a redefinition of terms was called for.
Whatever material was received could be called "tra-
dition," but redactional activities could be detected at
authorial levels prior to the final versions of the Gospels.
Collections of sayings, parables, and miracle stories were
created by earlier redactors, so that Formgeschichte ("form
history") was followed by Redaktionsgeschichte ("redaction
history"). Just as the individual sayings are involved in a
history of their literary forms and genres, so are the
Gospels as final products the result of a history of
redaction.
Important progress was made in this research by the
1969 Habilitationsschrift of Dieter LOhrmann, entitled Die
Redaktion der Logienquelle. 335 In this work, Lohrmann
demonstrated traces of redaction at the presynoptic level
of Q. As I have pointed out before, this idea was by no
means new, 336 but the careful methodology of
332 Ibid., 87.
333 Ibid.
334 Ibid., 88.
335 See above, n. 200.
336 See Walter Haupt, Worte jesu und Gemeindeilber-
lieferung: Eine Untersuchung zur Quellengeschichte der
Synapse (UNT 3; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913). Haupt
assumes several consecutive redactions, in effect a
41
Liihrmann was, and thus the time was ripe for reopening
the debate. 337
Nevertheless, even Liihrmann remained under the
spell of Harnack. While on the one hand Liihrmann
admitted redaction to be identifiable in Q, on the other
hand he failed to apply the method to identify collections
of sayings within Q. He did not consider the
compositional structure of the hypothetical Q-source.
Nor did he raise the question of its literary genre, or of
the genre of the materials that were incorporated in it.
Therefore, the SM and the SP, while surveyed as part of
Q, 338 are not subjected to further analysis. Yet, he
noticed the common disposition of the SM and the SP,
and he regarded them as collections of sayings. Once
Liihrmann's ideas were pursued further, however, these
questions were sure to arise, and several recent works
have discussed them. 339
Given this state of affairs concerning Q, it is merely a
logical next step to consider the possibility that the SM
and the SP constitute textual units composed by
presynoptic redactors and then included in different
versions or recensions of Q. This "unusual thesis" 34 0 -
though not so unusual because of its impressive
predecessors-I first proposed in 1978; 341 it is, as the
reader is well aware, pursued in this commentary as well.
The state of research has also affected the study of the
Gospel of Matthew. Georg Strecker, who in an essay 34 2
had admitted the pre-Matthean redaction in the Beati-
tudes of the SM, extended this assumption to other SM
texts in his commentary on the SM of 1984. 343 Similarly,
Ulrich Luz in the first volume of his commentary on the
Gospel of Matthew, published in 1985, 344 distinguishes
between pre-Matthean and Matthean redactional traits in
the SM. The problem with both of these works is,
however, that they do not show throughout with
precision and clarity when, why, and how one can
identify redactional traits as Matthean or pre-Matthean.
Though one cannot deny the erudition of these scholars,
neither of these works has sorted out the older approach
of distinguishing between "tradition" (that which is
received by the final author of the Gospel) and
"redaction" (the work of the final author only) from what
should be the new approach. This new approach should
always indicate at which literary level in the text the
terms "tradition" and "redaction" should be applied.
The result is that both Strecker and Luz, while provid-
ing valuable exegetical interpretations of the sections,
sentences, and terms of the SM, fail to recognize and
describe the unique literary and theological contours
characteristic of the SM as a whole. Justifying the need
for writing these commentaries by referring to current
situations and demands in church and university, as
Strecker and Luz do, cannot make us overlook that they
do not explain what the literary and historical sig-
nificance of the entity called the SM was at the time when
it was conceived.
Given the present state of scholarship on Q, what
options are available at this time, assuming that the SM
or the SP, in one form or another, were part ofQ? I shall
set them forth, beginning with the one most agreeable to
present scholarship:
1. There was one source Q that contained an early

history of redaction in Q; also Athanasius Polag, Die
Christologie der Logienquelle (WMANT 45;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977);
and the surveys by Schmithals, TRE 10 (1982) 620-
23; idem, Einleitung, 224-26, 328-29, 334, 384-
404.
337 I have pointed this out in my review, ThLZ 96 (1971)
428-29. For the present state of research on the
redaction history of Q, see Schmithals, Einleitung,
384-404.
338 Liihrmann, Redaktion, 53-65; see also idem, "Liebet
eure Feinde (Lk 6,27-36/Mt 5,39-48)," ZThK 69
( 1972) 412-38, esp. 414.
339 For the work of johnS. Kloppenborg, see above, n.
200.
340 So Schmithals, Einleitung, 332: "Betz vertritt (1984)
die ungewohnliche These, die Bergpredigt des MtEv
(Mt 5-7) sei eine vormatthaische Einheit, die der
Evangelist 'in die Endgestalt des Evangeliums
integriert hat.'"
341 Betz, Essays, 18, 89, 90; also idem, "The Sermon on
the Mount and Q," in Gospel Origins and Christian
Beginnings, 19-34 (seen. 19 above); idem, Synoptische
Studien, 249-69.
342 Georg Strecker, "Die Makarismen der Bergpredigt,"
NTS 17 (1970/71) 255-75; idem, "Les macarismes
du discours sur Ia montagne," in Didier, L'Evangile
selon Matthiew, 185-208.
343 Strecker, Bergpredigt, 9-11 (Sermon, 11-13).
344 Luz, Matthiius, esp. 1.56-59 (Matthew, 1. 73-76) and
passim. See also the dissertation (supervised by Luz)
by Migaku Sato, Q und Prophetie: Studien zur Gattungs-
und Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q (WUNT 2.29;
Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck), 1988).

42

form of the Sermon (Q-sermon), identical, or nearly
identical, with Luke's SP (Q-SP). Matthew's SM would
then be this evangelist's revision and expansion of Q-SP,
for which he used other special traditions (Sondergut).
Some of these special traditions may show signs of pre-
Matthean redaction and collection (e.g., the Beatitudes
[SM/Matt 5:3-12] or the antitheses [5:21-48]). Today
most scholars prefer this option.
2. There was one source Q containing a sermon,
identical or nearly identical with Matthew's SM (Q-SM).
Luke's SP would then be this evangelist's revision by
reduction of Q-SM. No scholar today holds this option,
and rightly so.
3. There was one source Q that was different from
either the SM or the SP, so that they both are redactional
elaborations by Matthew and Luke. Scholars who hold
that the Q-sermon was not completely identical with the SP
in fact subscribe to this view, too. How then did the
differences come about? Conceivably, the earlier Q-
sermon was written first in Aramaic, so that the SM and
the SP represent different translations into the Greek
that reflect different adaptations to later church
concerns. The problem with this view is that the SM and
the SP do not simply represent translations of the same
text but are entirely different literary compositions; also,
there is no sign that either of them is a translation of an
Aramaic Vorlage.
4. Whatever the origins of Q may have been, the
evangelists Matthew and Luke received Q in two
recensions, one containing the SM and one the SP. This
option presupposes that Q has passed through a history
of development, in the course of which an earlier Q-
source was modified in different ways in different con-
texts. This view would explain the similarities and
differences as the results of presynoptic redaction rather
than the redaction of the evangelists. Therefore, one
need not exclude the redaction by the evangelists, which
could be additional. The supposition of this option would
have to be that the original Q contained some form of a
sermon that, however, cannot be recovered. This
original Q-sermon may have been in Aramaic or Greek,
or first in Aramaic and then in Greek.
5. The SM and the SP were formulated first indepen-
dently from Q as separate sayings collections. At a later
stage of Q's development they were joined to Q. The
analogy for this option would be the inclusion of smaller
Introduction
collections of sayings into larger ones as we find it in
Greek and Latin gnomologia. As already suggested,
further investigations of Q may turn up other such
inclusions of already existing smaller collections.
6. The SM and the SP were first formulated indepen-
dently from Q as separate collections and never became
part of Q. Instead, the evangelists Matthew and Luke
took them from their respective sources (Sondergut) and
included them along with Q. This option would come
close to a multiple-source theory.
Which of these options is the most probable one? This
question is not easy to decide. At any rate, any decision
will have to draw together a variety of issues, not only in
regard to Q, but the problem of Q yet remains the
crucial one. These issues include the following ones:
1. Both Matthew and Luke use Q elsewhere in their
Gospels, not only with regard to the SM and the SP.
Whatever they do elsewhere must be true of the SM and
the SP. On the whole, therefore, the two-source
hypothesis explains best the overall parallel transmission
of sayings in these Gospels to the extent that they differ
from Mark. The conclusion should be that what is true of
the majority of the materials should also apply to the SM
and the SP.
2. The SM and the SPare located at about the same
place in both Gospels, and in both they are surrounded
by a similar narrative framework (Matt 4:24-5:2 and
Luke 6: 17-20a). In both Gospels they are followed by
the story of the centurion's servant at Capernaum (Matt
8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10). This sequence oftextual
units, independently parallel in Matthew and Luke, must
have been the same in Q. In some form, therefore, Q
must have contained a sermon.
3. As this commentary demonstrates, the SM and the
SP represent two substantially different elaborations of
in part the same materials (beatitudes, interpretations of
the love-command, the Golden Rule, the sayings on
judging, two trees, and the parable of the two house
builders). These sections are arranged in roughly the
same order. As elaborations, the SM as well as the SP
have an independent integrity of their own, composi-
tionally, functionally, and theologically. It is not possible
to explain the differences between them as redactional
changes of one thing into another, either by expansion
(SM) or by reduction (SP). It is also impossible to explain
all the similarities and differences between the two
43
Sermons as the editorial work of the Gospel writers
Matthew and Luke. Rather than alterations of an already
existing text, the SM and the SP constitute independent
elaborations of a common stock of material. These
elaborations conform to a known pattern of composition,
and they also have in mind a specific function. What
unites the SM and the SP is the material they use, the
overall plan of composition they follow, and the func-
tional purpose they have in mind. These elaborations,
therefore, must be the work of presynoptic
authors/redactors.
4. The internal evidence shows theological ideas that,
although agreeable to the evangelists, have not sprung
from their minds. The SM contains a consistent Jewish-
Christian theology of a period earlier than Matthew, a
theology remaining in the context ofJudaism. Matthew
assigned the SM to the important place ofJesus' first
programmatic speech in his Gospel, but by the same
token Matthew also relativized the SM. Taken as a
whole, the Gospel of Matthew is a reinterpretation,
revision, and correction of earlier sources, among them
the SM.
The SP shows less tension with Luke's own theology
than does the SM with Matthew's, but the SP's peculiar
educational philosophy, while in harmony with Luke's
own views, certainly has its roots in Greek thought prior
to Luke.
5. Functionally, both the SM and the SP served edu-
cational purposes related to the training of early
Christian disciples. The SM is directed at disciples
coming from a Jewish background, while the SP speaks
to minds formed by Greek ideas. Both are epitomai
specifically designed for these purposes. This function
differs to some extent from their present role as
"speeches," although the evangelists take account of their
original function by letting Jesus deliver them to the
disciples after they have been called. Matthew has Jesus
deliver the SM to Peter and his brother Andrew, and to
James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John (Matt
4:18-22; 5:1-2), whereas the Twelve (disciples and
apostles) receive the mission instruction (Matt 10:1-5).
According to Luke, however, the Twelve (disciples and
apostles) were chosen first and then received the SP
(Luke 6: 12-16, 20a). At any rate, the roles of the SM
and the SP are secondary in their present contexts in the
Gospels, attributable to their function in the narratives;
44
their primary function was no doubt educational.
All things considered, one can draw the following
conclusions with regard to the origins of the SM and the
SP: First, the evangelists Matthew and Luke obtained
them from Q. Second, to explain the differences between
the SM and the SP, we have two subsidiary options: (a)
Matthew and Luke drew on different versions of Q
(QMatt and QLuke); (b) Matthew found a Q-sermon in his
Q-Vorlage and replaced it with another version that he
had in his tradition and that he believed to represent
more fully the teaching of Jesus. His substitution of the
SM would have been the decision of a historian. If the Q-
Vorlage resembled the SP closely, his choice would have
been justified because of the Jewish character of the SM.
Since other passages in Matthew also show that his
version of Q must have undergone prior developments
different from Luke's version, the conclusion is most
likely that Matthew as well as Luke found the SM and the
SP, respectively, in their recension of Q (QMatt and
QLuke). If one accepts this conclusion, very definite
reasons will have to be given for any characteristic
difference between the SM and the SP that is attributed
to the evangelists' redaction rather than to their sources.
This conclusion fits best with the results of modern
scholarship on Q, which is at present attempting to
reconstruct the history of the various redactions of Q, as
well as with redaction criticism of Matthew and Luke.
Ill. The Literary Composition
When one speaks of the literary composition of a text, it
is presumed that the text in question has been put
together by intention and with a plan and purpose in
mind. It is furthermore assumed that such a text has an
author or authors, whether known or unknown. The
author or authors may operate as creative writers, as
mere collectors or compilers, or as redactors, and in their
work they may or may not use already existing sources or
traditions. Attempts to show literary structures in the
text must be controllable by the methods of comparative
literary criticism.
In regard to the texts before us, one must clearly
distinguish between the SM and the SP. These two texts
are clearly separate textual units, as I have already
shown. Their relationship to each other constitutes a
special problem which is bound up with their internal
composition. Both the SM and the SP are the work of
 Introduction

authors or redactors who have composed them inde-
pendently of each other. The similarities and differences
between the texts are evidence that in some way or other
the material derived from a common source. In this
commentary I assume and try to prove that both the SM
and the SP are the work of presynoptic authors or
redactors, and not the evangelists Matthew and Luke.
The sources that these presynoptic authors or redactors
used consist of smaller sayings compositions (..\oyot) and,
in the case of the SM, oflarger units (e.g., SM/Matt 6:1-
18). In other words, while the SP seems to be more
unified, the SM is a work of a more composite nature, in
which more than one original author can be dis-
tinguished.
These assumptions are the result of insights gained by
previous scholarship as well as my own investigations.
The most important contributions by scholars of the past
are those of Augustine (see also above, section 11.1.f) and
Erasmus (see above, section 11.2-3).
Augustine's De sermone domini in monte libri duo, 34 5
written probably between 393 and 396 when he was a
young priest in Hippo Regius, is not only the first full
commentary on the SM but also one that pays careful
attention to the questions of hermeneutics and literary
composition. Today, Augustine's ideas are outdated, but
his concems are still our own. Since his theories are
somewhat complicated, a full discussion of them would
require a separate treatment. Here I can only summarize
briefly the major issues:
1. The problem of textual criticism regarding biblical
quotations;
2. The concern about the hermeneutical principles to
be employed;
3. The plan of composition that Augustine saw in the
SM, making it an independent textual unit in distinction
from Matthew's Gospel as a whole.
In regard to literary matters, Augustine sees several
levels of meaning operative in the SM, especially the
literal sense (sensus literalis) and the figurative sense
(sensus .figuratus). These meanings move back and forth
within the text in a rather fluid way, covering everything
from the literal (legal, doctrinal, or liturgical) to the
anagogical and even the allegorical types oflanguage.
Augustine understood that there has to be an interplay
among the exegetical, literary, and theological inter-
pretations, and his commentary is indeed a mixture of all
of them. Most important is his insight that the sayings of
the SM are presented in such a way that they stimulate
the human intellect to penetrate the surface and enter
into the underlying world of theological ideas.
Augustine's main contribution, as far as the com-
mentary on the SM is concerned, is the discernment of a
systematic plan of composition that gives unity to the text
as a whole. Given the importance of the symbolic
number seven, he sees the whole of the SM based on this
number, which is manifest in seven beatitudes 346 and
seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer. 347 Thereby the
seven beatitudes are correlated with the major sections
of the SM, so that seven such major parts emerge: 348

345 On this work see above, section Il.l.f. 347 Augustine counts seven petitions (2.9.35; 2.10.36-
346 The eighth beatitude (Matt 5: I 0) leads back to the 37).
first, forming a ring-composition: "The eighth 348 Augustine himself regards the system in which seven
maxim returns, as it were, to the beginning because it beatitudes correspond to seven parts of the SM as a
shows and commends what is perfect and complete. hypothesis, not more: "But whether the order here
Thus, in the first and the eighth the Kingdom of given should be observed or some other, ... "
heaven is mentioned .... Seven in number, (2.25.87).
therefore, are the things which lead to perfection.
The eighth maxim throws light upon perfection and
shows what it consists of, so that, with this maxim
beginning again, so to speak, from the first, the two
together may serve as steps toward the perfection of
the others also" (1.3.10, St. Augustine, The Lord's
Sermon on the Mount [trans. John]. Jepson; Ancient
Christian Writers 5; London: Longmans, Green,
1948]18).

45
Parts Beatitudes SMSections Sections in Augustine III Sorrow Knowledge Fulfillment of God's will
First (5:3) 5:21-24 1.9.22-1.10.28 IV Justice Fortitude Bread
II Second (5:5) 349 5:25-26 1.11.29-32 v Mercy Counsel Forgiveness of sins
III Third(5:4) 5:27-28 1.12.33-36 VI Purity Understanding Temptation
IV Fourth (5:6) 5:29-37 1.13.37-1.18.55 VII Peace Wisdom Redemption
v Fifth (5:7) 5:38-48 1.19.56-1.23.80
VI Sixth (5:8) 6:1-7:12 2.1.1-2.22. 76 These sequences, thought of as interacting with each
VII Seventh (5:9) 7:13-23 2.23. 77-2.25.86 other, are to be taken as steps of an ascending ladder of
stages of piety. Taken together and coordinated with the
The difficulties that these correlations present should seven parts of the SM, the system attributes the smaller
be obvious. Their purpose should also be clear: they steps to Book I (beatitudes I-V, covering 5:21-48),
attempt to explain how the Beatitudes, considered to be evidently because they are the elementary ones to be
foundational, are related to the rest of the SM. Those mastered first. They constitute the "good deeds" (bona
who do not follow Augustine will have to solve this opera) of the "life of practice" (vita activa), 353 while Book
problem in some other way. 850 Another problem of II (beatitudes VI-VII, covering 6:1-7:23) is devoted to
which Augustine was aware is the apparent absence of the "contemplation of the greatest good" (contemplatio
the Holy Spirit in the system so far drawn up. Since the summi boni) of the "contemplative life" (vita
SM consists of commands, the Christian who is expected contemplativa). 354
to keep them needs to be empowered somehow in order The ultimate goal of this scheme, although it pays
to be able to do so. For this reason, Augustine coordi- attention to literary concerns, is doctrinal and even
nated his scheme of seven parts with yet another scheme, polemical. Its purpose is to take the SM, as one consistent
that of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit according to Isa unit, out of the hands of the Manichaeans, who used
11:2-3, tuming their sequential order around. 851 This some passages to prove that their doctrine of radical
coordination of the seven beatitudes with the seven gifts dualism came from jesus himself. By contrast, Augus-
of the Holy Spirit as derived from Isa 11:2-3 goes back tine's scheme makes sure that the crucial passages 355 are
to the Cappadocian Fathers. 852 In applying this scheme, part and parcel of a consistent body of text determined
Augustine proposed three sets of notions: by a thoroughgoing doctrine of redemption by grace. 356
While Augustine's commentary achieved its doctrinal
Nos. Beatitudes Gifts of the Petitions of the Lord's
and polemical goals, his literary ideas were largely
Spirit Prayer
Humility Fear of God Sanctification of God's ignored in later periods. 35 7
name As already pointed out, the SM played a major role for
II Meekness Godliness Arrival ofthe kingdom Erasmus. 85B Although he was less interested in its formal

349 For the order of the Beatitudes observed by
Augustine, see 1.2.4-5.
350 Ulrich Duchrow has shown that the seven beatitudes
serve as a compositional schema also in other writings
of Augustine and that this schema connects his
writings with his life as steps on his way toward
salvation: "Der Aufbau von Augustins Schriften
Confessiones und De trinitate," ZThK 62 (1965)
338-67, esp. 344-47 (with references to further
bibliography). See also Stoll, De virtute, 136-40.
351 See Almut Mutzenbecher's "Einleitung," in Sancti
Aurelii Augustini De sermone in monte libros duos (CChr,
series latina 35; Turnholti: Brepols, 1967) IX-
XVIII.
352 For bibliography, see ibid., XLVII; Luz, Matthiius,
1.216-18 (Matthew, 1.243-46).
353 Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 1.3.1 0.
354 Ibid.; see also 2.21.71 and Mutzenbecher, Sancti
Aurelii Augustini De sermone in monte, XII-XIII.
355 See Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 1.20.65; 2.9.32;
2.24.79.
356 See ibid., 2.4.16; and Mutzenbecher, SanctiAurelii
Augustini De sermone in monte, XVII.
357 For bibliographical information, see MutzenbecheJ:,
ibid., XVII with n. 4. Augustine's interpretation of
the Beatitudes themselves influenced later ascetic
and mystic authors, esp. Beda, Petrus Damianus,
Hugo of St. Victor, Thomas Aquinas, and Bonaven-
tura. See David Buzy, "Beatitudes," Dictionnaire de
Spiritualite I (1937) 1298-1310.
358 See esp. Kruger, Humanistische Evangelienauslegung
(see above, n. 85), 177-204.

46
 Introduction

composition than its philosophical content, his treatment
of the SM is noteworthy for the following reasons:
1. Erasmus treated the SM as a compendium of the
dogmata Christi needed to be known by those who want to
become true theologians. 35 9
2. He saw the main function of the SM as one of
theological education, an education that is characteris-
tically different from and antithetical to what he
perceived to be going on in scholasticism. While
scholastic life was consumed by futile exercises of
syllogisms and hairsplitting, true theological education
should concentrate on the Christian essentials, and these
he took to be summarized in the SM. 360
3. For Erasmus, the SM consists of theological
principles of doctrine, not simply moral rules. At several
places, he extracted from the SM what he considered to
be the major principles. 361
4. The doctrines of the SM are not only precepts for a
small group of disciples, but they are generally binding
for all Christians. 362
5. The doctrines of the SM describe a way of life in
terms intelligible to the human mind that can also be
accomplished. The often paradoxical formulations in the
SM are the result of rhetoric (hyperbolic figures of
speech and thought-provoking imagery), rather than
demands impossible to fulfill. 363
6. The demands made by the SM are not to be taken
as laws to be carried out literally, but as examples
functioning in a learning process that leads the Christian
to an ethical life.
7. The doctrines set forth in the SM are not im-
plausible or irrational but reasonable and prudent.
8. The SM is compatible with, and in many ways
analogous to, the tenets of ancient philosophy.
Most of these points of observation and judgment are
well taken, even though I would rather state them in my
own terms.
Modern research on the composition of the SM begins
with some seminal investigations in the latter part of the
eighteenth century. Most important was the doctoral
dissertation by David Julius Pott, 364 reviewed by Johann
Gottfried Eichhorn (1752-1827), 365 who also used that
dissertation for his introduction to the New Testa-
ment. 366 Pott's proposals played a role in all following
debates; they can be summed up as follows:
1. The SM is a composition by the evangelist Matthew,
whose intention was to demonstrate Jesus' way of teach-
ing and who for this purpose put together several
speeches delivered by Jesus on different occasions to
different audiences.
2. The SM consists of a collection of sententiae and
longer speech sections only held together loosely by the
association of ideas.
3. Such collections of gnomic sentences were typical of

359 See the introduction to the SM in Erasmus, In
Evangelium Matthaei Paraphrasis, Opera omnia [see
above, n. 88], vol. 7, col. 23. Prior to the Paraphrasis
(1522), similar statements are found in Erasmus's
Methodus (1516), according to the edition by Gerhard
B. Winkler, ed., Erasmus von Rotterdam, Ausgewahlte
Schriften, vol. 3 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1967) 58-60; Ratio seu compendium
verae theologiae (1518), ibid., 124-26; Paraclesis, id est 365 Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, Allgemeine Bibliothek der
adhortatio ad Christianae philosophiae studium (1522),
ibid., 16-18.
360 The main purpose of the SM is to correct false views 366 Idem, Einleitung in das NT (see above, n. 1 79) 1.439-
and attitudes. See In Evangelium Matthaei Paraphrasis,
col. 23D: "Ex falsis opinionibus oriuntur omnia
peccata vitae" ("From false opinions arise all the sins
of life"). See Kruger, Humanistische Evangelien-
auslegung, 187-91.
361 See the passages named inn. 359; Kruger,
Humanistische Evangelienauslegung, 177-80.
362 See Kruger, Humanistische Evangelienauslegung, 180-
83.
363 Ibid., 191-201.
364 David Julius Pott, Dissertatio theologica inauguralis de
natura atque indole orationis montanae et de nonnullis
hujus orationis explicandae praeceptis (Helmstadii:
Literis M.G. Leuckart, 1788). See also Carl Gottlob
Ludwig Frotscher, Dissertatio de consilio, quod Jesus in
oratione, quae dicitur montana, secutus est, inprimis
Matth. V, 17.18.19 (Vitebergae:Jo. Tzschidrich,
1788).
biblischen Litteratur (10 vols.; Leipzig: Weidmann,
1787-1800), vol. 2 (1789), pp. 351-55.
40. See also Christian Gottlieb Kuinol, Commentarius
in libros Novi Testamenti historicos (2 vols.; Lipsiae:
Barth; 3d ed. 1823-27) 1.108-213; Karl Reinhold
Kostlin, Der Ursprung und die Komposition der
synoptischen Evangelien (Stuttgart: Macken, 1853) esp.
45-69.

47
the literature of antiquity, where teachers used them for
teaching. There is, however, no need to look in them for
any rigorous system of theological doctrine. 367
In the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
these studies were followed by detailed investigations of
the composition. These investigations, although
sometimes venturing into speculation, often contain
valuable observations. I mention especially the contri-
butions by Hugo Weil3, 368 Friedrich Grawert, 369 Paul
SzczygieJ, 3 7° Hugo Huber, 371 andJosefStaudinger. 37 2
Such studies 373 were apparently quite experimental and
came to an end when form and redaction criticism
developed. 374
The major form critics, Rudolf Bultmann and Martin
Dibelius, while concentrating their efforts on the
individual sayings and smaller compositions of sayings,
did not bypass completely the question of the
composition of larger units. Bultmann's History of the
Synoptic Tradition 375 already contains the ingredients of
what later on became redaction criticism. In his Shaffer
Lectures of 1937, 376 Dibelius pursued numerous ques-
tions he understood to have been left unexamined in his
Formgeschichte and subsequent research, but he did not go
much beyond raising the questions. Redaction criticism,
as it was developed after World War II, focused on the
other end of the spectrum, the investigation of the
composition of the Gospels as final redactional works. In
some instances possibilities of presynaptic composition
were explored, but the SM or the SP did not belong to
the texts examined with this question in mind.
While the summary work ofDomJacques Dupont 377
kept the issue of the composition of the SM and the SP
alive, after World War II a new wave of experimental
studies began to appear using literary categories. Thus,
St. Gallo, 378 Morton Smith, 379 Generosus Mar-
quardt, 380 and Josef Kiirzinger 381 proposed schemes of
composition. Gunther Bornkamm, 382 too, took up the
issue in his SNTS presidential address of 1977, when he
attempted to explain the most difficult passage of the
SM, Matt 6:19-7:12, as directly arranged in accordance
with the petitions of the Lord's Prayer. These proposals,
however, remain tenuous. Bornkamm's hypothesis, even
if it were accepted, 383 would not explain the whole of the
SM. 3 84 Yet, it should be stated clearly at the outset that
any compositional proposal, even if focusing on an
individual passage, must explain the composition of the

367 Against Pott, Storr, Michaelis, and others, see
Johann Wilhelm Rau, Untersuchungen die wahre
Ansicht der Bergpredigt betreffend (Erlangen: Palm,
1805).
368 Hugo WeiB, Die Bergpredigt Christi in ihrem organischen
Zusammenhange erkliirt (Freiburg: Herder, 1892).
369 Friedrich Grawert, Die Bergpredigt nach Matthaeus auf
ihre iiujJere und innere Einheit mit besonderer Berilck-
sichtigung des genuinen Verhiiltnisses der Seligpreisungen
zur ganzen Rede neu untersucht und dargestellt
(Marburg: Elwert, 1900).
370 Paul Szczygiel, "Die Bergpredigt (Mt 5-7) nach
ihrer strophischen Struktur," Pastor bonus 34
(1921/22) 449-60, 508-17; cf. David Heinrich
Muller, Die Bergpredigt im Lichte der Strophentheorie
(Vienna: Holder, 1908).
371 Hugo Huber, Die Bergpredigt: Eine exegetische Studie
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1932).
372 Josef Staudinger, Die Bergpredigt (Vienna: Herder,
1957).
373 See also A. Frikart, "Die Composition der Berg-
predigt, Matth. Cap. 5-7," Theologische Zeitschrift aus
derSchweiz 6 (1889) 193-210; 7 (1890) 43-52, 107-
25; Gillis P. Wetter, "Den litterara Karaktaren av
Jesu 'Bergpredikans,' forsta del," in Till Arkebiskop
Soderbloms sextio arsdag 1926 (Stockholm:
Diakonstyrelsen, 1926) 449-67.
374 For surveys, see Tholuck, Bergrede, 20-21 (Com-
mentary, 16-17); Achelis, Bergpredigt, xi-xii, 71-77,
313-22, 426-31; Thaddaus Soiron, Die Bergpredigt
Jesu (Freiburg: Herder, 1941) 98-127.
375 See above, n. 324.
376 See above, nn. 323, 325.
377 Jacques Dupont, Les Beatitudes (2d ed.; Louvain:
Nauwelaerts, 1958) 1.196-200, reporting on
attempts at a "Plan du Discours" for the SP, and
175-82 for the SM. None ofthe authors of these
attempts, however,justifies what they take to be the
plan by literary criteria. Dupont himself remains
skeptical in regard to these hypotheses.
378 St. Gallo, "Structura sermonis montani," VD 27
(1949) 257-69.
379 Morton Smith, Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels
(SBLMS 6; Philadelphia: SBL, 1951) 88-91; cf. also
J. W. Doeve,jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels
and Acts (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1954) 191-200.
380 Generosus Marquardt, "Die Bergpredigt des
Matthaus-Evangeliums, eine meisterlich disponierte
Komposition des Evangelisten," BK 13 (1958) 81-84.
381 Josef Kiirzinger, "Zur Komposition der Bergpredigt
nach Matthaus," Bib 40 (1959) 569-89.
382 Gunther Bornkamm, "Der Aufbau der Bergpredigt,"
NTS 24 (1978) 419-32. Cf. Betz, Essays, 1.
383 Robert Guelich (The Sermon on the Mount: A Foun-

48
 Introduction

whole of the SM.
Christoph Burchard 385 tried a different approach,
asking thematic questions, whereas Wilhelm Egger 386
appears to have been the first to employ linguistic
categories in his investigations. A group of scholars
working under the leadership of A. B. du Toit, especially
P. J. Maartens, analyzed the SM in terms of "discourse
analysis." Maartens arrived at a complete diagram
showing the "cola structure" of the SM. 387 Using a
different set oflinguistic criteria, David Hellholm 388
pointed out marks of division in Matthew, showing
where the speeches in that Gospel begin and end. Finally,
the first part of a recent Finnish thesis by Kari Syreeni
advances a method called "procedural analysis." 389
One can probably expect more linguistic studies in the
future. Their value is greatly limited, one must admit, by
idiosyncratic "methodologies," self-limitation to
examination of one text only, and lack of corroboration
by literary parallels and the criteria of classical philology
and literary criticism. If linguistic approaches can be
integrated with agreed-upon standards and criteria, such
approaches can be highly illuminating. One can at
present only express the hope that a comprehensive and
integrative analysis of the SM and the SP will at some
time see the light of day. The present commentary will
perhaps provide stimulation in this direction. At the
same time, more traditional investigations will certainly
continue, among which may be mentioned the analyses
by Rainer Riesner, 390 Dale C. Allison, 391 and Otto
Betz. 392 Also the recent commentaries by Robert
Guelich, Georg Strecker, 393 and Jan Lambrecht 394
presuppose some form of compositional plan, as do the
commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew 395 that have
recently been published; however, none of the authors
explicitly attempts to discuss and justify an outline.
Thus, as the flow of studies shows, the problems of the
composition and structure of the SM and the SP, while a
continuing concern, have remained unsolved. Different
approaches will certainly help to gain a variety of
perspectives on these problems. In this situation, there is
certainly also a need for experimentation, which does not
mean that every experiment will be successful. The
priorities to be set and followed seem to be clear as well.

dation for Understanding [Waco, Tex.: Word, 1982]
323-25) and Jan Lambrecht (The Sermon on the
Mount: Proclamation and Exhortation [Good News
Studies 14; Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1985]) gave
their support.
384 For a critique, see Dale C. Allison, "The Structure of
the Sermon on the Mount," JBL 106 (1987) 423-45,
esp. 424-29.
385 Christoph Burchard, "Versuch, das Thema der
Bergpredigt zu finden," in Georg Strecker, ed.,jesus
Christus in Historie und Theologie: FS fur Hans
Conzelmann (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1975) 409-
32. ET: "The Theme of the Sermon on the Mount,"
in Luise Schottroff et al., Essays on the Love Com-
mandment (trans. Reginald and lise Fuller;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) 57-91; cf. idem, "Le
theme du Sermon sur Ia Montagne," ETR 72 (1987)
1-17.'
386 Wilhelm Egger, "Faktoren der Textkonstitution in
der Bergpredigt," Laurentianum 19 (1978) 177-98.
387 The essays are published under the title "The
Structure of Matthew 1-13: An Exploration into
Discourse Analysis," Neot. 11 (1977; 2d ed. 1980),
with an addendum: "Discourse Analysis of the Greek
Text of Matthew 1-13 ."
388 David Hellholm, "En textgrammatisk konstruktion i
Matteus-evangeliet," SEA 51 (1986) 80-89.
389 Kari Syreeni, The Making of the Sermon on the Mount: A
Procedural Analysis ofMatthew's Redactional Activity,
part 1: Methodology and Compositional Analysis (AASF
44; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 198 7).
390 Rainer Riesner, "Der Aufbau der Reden im
Matthaus-Evangelium," ThBei 9 (1978) 172-82, esp.
173-76; cf. Luz, Matthiius, 1.185 n. 3; (Matthew,
1.213 n. 3).
391 Allison, "Structure," 423-45.
392 Otto Betz, "Bergpredigt und Sinaitradition" (see
above, n. 289) esp. 335-36, 381-82.
393 Guelich, Sermon, 36-39; Georg Strecker, Die
Bergpredigt (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1984) 12; ET: The Sermon on the Mount (trans. D. C.
Dean,Jr.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1988) 15.
394 Lambrecht, Sermon, 26-29.
395 See esp. Luz, Matthiius, 1.185-87 (Matthew, 1.212-
13).

49
It is important, first of all, to stay close to the Greek text 1) Acclamation
and within methodologies that can be controlled. 2) Addressees
5:6b b. Statement of reason: eschatological promise
Solutions are most likely to be expected from a
(future tense)
convergence of different methods, rather than from 5:7 5. Fifth macarism (3d person plural)
single or idiosyncratic approaches ignoring what others 5:7a a. Pronouncement
have done. The following commentary as a whole 1) Acclamation
presents a comprehensive analysis of both the SM and 2) Addressees
5:7b b. Statement of reason: eschatological promise
the SP. This analysis has been worked out by keeping in
(future tense)
mind the phenomena in the texts, as well as the multi- 5:8 6. Sixth macarism (3d person plural)
tude of issues and contributions made by others. It is 5:8a a. Pronouncement
hoped that the analysis is substantiated by the totality of 1) Acclamation
the evidence. 2) Addressees
5:8b b. Statement of reason: eschatological promise
In the following pages, I set forth the analysis in the (future tense)
form of two conspectuses, with Conspectus I comprising 5:9 7. Seventh macarism (3d person plural)
the SM, and Conspectus II comprising the SP. It should be 5:9a a. Pronouncement
clear that methodologically this analysis is not based on 1) Acclamation
any one method, especially not one of the more idio- 2) Addressees
5:9b b. Statement of reason: eschatological promise
syncratic methods. Its criteria and standards are those of (future tense)
the historical-critical method, that is, a set of methods 5:10 8. Eighth macarism (3d person plural)
that are applied in all critical and scholarly study of 5:10a a. Pronouncement
ancient texts. The conspectuses provide no more than an 1) Acclamation
overview. Further amplifications can be found in the 2) Addressees
5:10b b. Statement of reason: anticipated eschatological
subsequent sections of the commentary, especially in the judgment (present tense)
sections called "Analysis," preceding the major sections 5:11 9. Ninth macarism (2d person plural)
of the text. 5:11a a. Pronouncement
1) Acclamation
2) Addressees
1 . Conspectus: Sermon on the Mount
5:11b b. Conditions: description of three possible or real
situations of harassment
•5:3-16 I. Exordium: The premises 1) First situation: reproach
5:3-12 A. Ten macarisms (beatitudes) 2) Second situation: persecution
5:3 1. First macarism (3d person plural) 3) Third situation: slander
5:3a a. Pronouncement a) General procedure
1) Acclamation b) Two limitations
2) Addressees (1) First limitation: it must be lies
5:3b b. Statement of reason: anticipated eschatological (2) Second limitation: it must be "because of
judgment (present tense) me"
5:4 2. Second macarism (3d person plural) 5:12 10. Tenth macarism (2d person plural)
5:4a a. Pronouncement 5:12a a. Pronouncement
1) Acclamation 1) Double call for joy
2) Addressees 2) Addressees
5:4b b. Statement of reason: eschatological promise 5:12b-c b. Statement of reason: theological doctrine
(future tense) 5:12b 1) Prediction of eschatological reward (present
5:5 3. Third macarism (3d person plural) tense)
5:5a a. Pronouncement 5:12c 2) Deduction
1) Acclamation a) Present experience of persecution
2) Addressees b) Historical precedent: persecution of the
5:5b b. Statement of reason: eschatological promise prophets of old
(future tense) c) Conclusion: a maiori ad minus and per analogiam,
5:6 4. Fourth macarism (3d person plural) principle of equal justice
5:6a a. Pronouncement 5:13-16 B. The commission: two declarations
50
 Introduction

5:13 1. First declaration (2d person plural) interpretation of the Torah: a sentence of "sacred
5:13a a. Identification of the addressees law" (antithetical parallelismus membrorum)
1) Address: "you are ... " 5:19a-b 1) First part
2) Description by metaphor 5:19a a) Protasis: description of inadequate teaching
a) Metaphor of the salt 5:19b b) Apodosis: prediction of eschatological
b) Application: "ofthe earth" consequence (future)
5:13b-c b. Warning against unfaithfulness 5:19c-d 2) Second part
5:13b 1) Construction of a hypothetical case (meta- 5:19c a) Protasis: description of adequate teaching
phorical narrative) 5:19d b) Apodosis: prediction of eschatological
a) Protasis: use of metaphor as oxymoron consequence (future)
b) Apodosis: rhetorical question (answer self- 5:20 d. Fourth principle concerning eschatological
evident: negative) righteousness
5:13c 2) Continuation of the hypothetical case 5:20a 1) Formula of doctrinal affirmation
(metaphorical narrative) 5:20b-c 2) Sentence of "sacred law"
a) Evaluation and prediction (present tense) 5:20b a) Protasis: statement of the condition for entering
b) Exhortation (implicit) into the kingdom of God
5:14-16 2. Second declaration (2d person plural) 5:20c b) Apodosis: prediction of the eschatological
5:14 a. Identification of the addressees consequence (negative, present tense)
5:14a 1) Address: "you are ... " 5:21-48 2. The "antitheses"
2) Description by metaphor 5:21-32 a. Laws pertaining to personal relationships in the
a) Metaphor of the light family (metaphors of family ethics)
b) Application: "of the world" 5:21-26 1) First antithesis: on murder
5:14b-15 b. The charge 5:21 a) Refutation of inadequate interpretation
5:14b-15 1) Two illustrative proverbs 5:2la ( 1) Reference to chain of tradition
5:14b a) First proverb (formulated negatively) (a) Present recipients: "you have heard"
5:15 b) Second proverb (formulated negatively), with (b) Past recipients: "the ancients"
added explanation (c) Origin: God as subject of passivum divinum
5:16 2) Application (metaphorical narrative, missionary ("it was said")
language) 5:21b (2) Quotation of Scripture text: Exod 20:13
5:16a a) Imperative, using the metaphor of the light (vs 5:21c (3) Citation of inadequate (literal) inter-
14a) pretation: a statement of "sacred law"
5:16b b) Statement of purpose (a) Protasis: offense
(b) Apodosis: punishment
• 5: 17-7:12~ II. Main part: The "way of life" (cf. 7:14) 5:22 b) Presentation of adequate interpretation
5:17-48 A. The interpretation of the Torah 5:22a (1) Doctrinal formula, identifying authority
5:17-20 I. Set of four hermeneutical principles (four sayings 5:22b (2) Citation of adequate interpretation: a
of Jesus) statement of "sacred law"
5:17 a. First principle concerning Jesus' teaching as a (a) Protasis: offense
whole (b) Apodosis: punishment
5:17a 1) Rejection of a false saying ofJesus 5:22c-26 c) Argument
a) Disapproval formula (imperative, prohibition) 5:22c-d (1) Two illustrative examples (climactic)
b) Citation offalse saying ofJesus 5:22c (a) First example: statement of "sacred law"
5:17b 2) Correction of the false saying by providing the (exaggerated, parodistic)
right term, "fulfill" a. Protasis: offense
5:18 b. Second principle concerning the text of the Torah {3. Apodosis: punishment
5:18a 1) Formula of doctrinal affirmation (amen- 5:22d (b) Second example: statement of "sacred law"
formula) (exaggerated, parodistic)
5:18b-d 2) Three-part definition of the authority of the a. Protasis: offense
Torah {3. Apodosis: punishment
5:18b a) Setting a temporal limit by affirmation of 5:23-26 (2) Two illustrative cases
apocalyptic dogma: "until heaven and earth pass 5:23-24 (a) First case: a religious conflict (narrative)
away" 5:23a a. Description of normal performance of a
5:18c b) Defining the Hebrew text as authoritative sacrificial gift
5:18d c) Setting a temporal limit by affirmation of 5:23b (3. Interference: remembrance of a moral
apocalyptic dogma: "until all this comes to pass" conflict
5:19 c. Third principle concerning the authority of Jesus' 5:24 y. Recommendation of how to act properly

51
5:24a (a) Interruption of ritual (3) Conclusion (implied): intent of law is to
5:24b (/3) Reconciliation with brother eliminate root cause of adultery
5:24c (y) Resumption and completion of ritual 5:31-32 3) Third antithesis: on divorce
5:25-26 (b) Second case: a legal conflict (narrative) 5:31 a) Refutation of inadequate interpretation
[a. Omitted: description of a court case in 5:31a (1) Reference to chain of tradition
analogy to first case1 ((a) Omitted: present recipients1
5:25 {3. Recommendation of how to act properly [(b) Omitted: past recipients1
5:25a (a) Interruption of going to court (c) Origin: God as subject of passivum divinum
5:25b (/3) Settling conflict "out of court" in good ("it was said")
will [(2) Omitted: quotation of Scripture text: Deut
5:25c-26 y. Statement of reason: a useful recom- 24:1-41
mendation 5:31b-c (3) Citation of inadequate (literal) inter-
5:25c (a) Possibility of alternative disastrous pretation: a casuistic legal ordinance
course of events 5:31b (a) Protasis: case of divorce envisioned
5:26 (/3) A warning in the form of a sarcastic (b) Apodosis: prescription oflegal means
amen-logion 5:32 b) Presentation of adequate interpretation
d) Conclusion (implied): intent of law is to 5:32a (1) Doctrinal formula identifying authority
eliminate root cause of murder 5:32b-c (2) Citation of adequate interpretation: a legal
5:27-30 2) Second antithesis: on adultery opinion about consequences of divorce,
5:27 a) Refutation of inadequate interpretation formulated as two mock casuistic-legal
5:27a (1) Reference to chain of tradition ordinances
(a) Present recipients 5:32b (a) First opinion
[(b) Omitted: past recipients1 a. Protasis: case of divorce envisioned
(c) Origin: God as subject of passivum divinum {3. Apodosis: description of consequence
("it was said") y. Exception clause
5:27b (2) Quotation of Scripture text: Exod 20:14 5:32c (b) Second opinion
[(3) Omitted: citation of inadequate (literal) a. Protasis: case of marrying a divorced
interpretation 1 woman envisioned
5:28 b) Presentation of adequate interpretation {3. Apodosis: description of consequence
5:28a (1) Doctrinal formula identifying authority c) Conclusions (implied)
5:28b-c (2) Citation of adequate interpretation: a legal- (1) Interpretation ofDeut 24:1-4 as cited in vs
ethical opinion about what constitutes adultery 31 is inadequate because it has consequences
5:28b (a) Protasis: offense contrary to the Torah
5:28c (b) Apodosis: ethical identification as adultery (2) Argument e contrario: intent oflaw is to
5:29-30 c) Argument: two illustrative "medical" examples eliminate evil consequences of divorce
(exaggerated metaphorical imagery) 5:33-48 b. Laws pertaining to personal relationships outside
5:29 (1) First example: eye family
5:29a (a) Presupposition: ordinary functioning of 5:33a 1) Indication of second group of antitheses:
eyes "again"
(b) Hypothetical situation of conflict: 5:33-37 2) Fourth antithesis: on swearing an oath
malfunctioning of right eye 5:33 a) Refutation of false interpretation
5:29b (c) Seemingly absurd recommendation for 5:33a ( 1) Reference to chain of tradition
correction ("cure") (a) Present recipients
5:29c (d) Statement of reason: a rule of utility from (b) Past recipients
"surgery" justifying it as lesser evil, transposed (c) Origin: God as subject of passivum divinum
into an eschatological warning ("it was said")
5:30 (2) Second example: hand 5:33b (2) Quotation of "Scripture": halakah
5:30a (a) Presupposition: ordinary functioning of the (Hellenistic-Jewish, see LXX 1 Esdr 1:46; Wis
hands 14:25, 28; Zech 5:3; T. Ash. 2.6; Philo) based
(b) Hypothetical situation of conflict: on Exod 20:7; Lev 19:12; Num 30:3; Deut
malfunctioning of right hand 23:22; etc.
5:30b (c) Seemingly absurd recommendation for 5:33c (3) Citation offalse (literal) interpretation: a
correction ("cure") cultic ordinance (apodictic)
5:30c (d) Statement of reason: a rule of utility from 5:34-37 b) Presentation of correct interpretation
"surgery," justifying it as lesser evil, transposed 5:34a (1) Doctrinal formula identifying authority
into an eschatological warning 5:34b (2) Citation of correct interpretation:

52
 Introduction

prohibition (apodictic) 5:43-48 4) Sixth antithesis: on treatment of the enemy

5:34c-36 (3) Argument: rejection of four types of oaths 5:43 a) Refutation of inadequate interpretation
by demonstrating their absurdity 5:43a ( 1) Reference to chain of tradition
5:34c (a) First type (a) Present recipients
a. Reference to cultic act [(b) Omitted: past recipients]
{3. Statement of reason for rejection: (c) Origin: God as subject of passivum divinum
theological doctrine ("it was said")
5:35a (b) Second type 5:43b (2) Quotation of Scripture: Lev I9: 18
a. Reference to cultic act 5:43c (3) Citation ofinadequate (literal) inter-
{3. Statement of reason for rejection: pretation
theological doctrine 5:44-48 b) Presentation of adequate interpretation
5:35b (c) Third type 5:44a (1) Doctrinal formula identifying authority
a. Reference to cultic act 5:44b-45 (2) Citation of adequate interpretation
{3. Statement of reason for rejection: 5:44b (a) Prescription: command to love enemy
theological doctrine 5:44c (b) Concretization by parallel prescription
5:36 (d) Fourth type 5:45 (c) Statement of reasons: soteriology
a. Reference to cultic act 5:45a a. Eschatological promise
{3. Statement of reason for rejection: 5:45b {3. Reference to cosmogonic myth: God's
theological doctrine creatio continua
5:37 (4) Conclusion: command to speak the truth 5:46-47 (3) Argument: e contrario by two rhetorical
5:37a (a) Prescription to use ordinary language of questions and answers
saying, "Yes, yes, no, no." 5:46 (a) First question
5:37b (b) Declaration of intent oflaw: "magical" 5:46a a. Description of conventional behavior
props of human speech are evil and must be 5:46b {3. Question (negative answer implied)
eliminated 5:46c y. Statement of reason (in the form of
5:38-42 3) Fifth antithesis: on retaliation question, positive answer implied)
5:38 a) Refutation of inadequate interpretation a. Conclusion (implied): such behavior
5:38a (1) Reference to chain of tradition receives no special reward
(a) Present recipients 5:47 (b) Second question
[(b) Omitted: past recipients] 5:47a a. Description of conventional behavior
(c) Origin: God as subject of passivum divinum 5:47b {3. Question (negative answer implied)
("it was said") 5:47c y. Statement of reason (in the form of
5:38b (2) Quotation of Scripture: ius talionis question, positive answer implied)
(halakah), based on Exod 21 :24-25; Lev a. Conclusion (implied): such behavior
24:20; Deut 19:21 receives no special reward
[(3) Omitted: citation of inadequate (literal) 5:48 (4) Conclusion: statement of intent of law
interpretation, to be inferred from vs 39a] 5:48a (a) Prescription/prediction (future indicative/
5:39-42 b) Presentation of adequate interpretation volitive) of eschatological destiny: state of
5:39a (1) Doctrinal formula identifying authority perfection
5:39b (2) Citation of correct interpretation: 5:48b (b) Reason: doctrine of imitation of God
prohibition (apodictic) (imitatio Dei)
5:39c-42 (3) Argument: four illustrative examples 6:I-I8 B. The practice of the cult
5:39c (a) First example 6:I I. General exhortation
a. Action suffered 6:Ia a. Imperative (summary exhortation, reminder, and
{3. Paradoxical reaction recommended warning)
5:40 (b) Second example b. Description of conduct to be avoided generally
a. Action .suffered (formulated negatively)
{3. Paradoxical reaction recommended 6:Ib c. Statement of reason
5:41 (c) Third example I) Protasis: condition of disobedience envisioned
a. Action suffered 2) Apodosis: eschatological consequences
{3. Paradoxical reaction recommended 6:2-I8 2. Specific instruction concerning three most
5:42 (d) Fourth example important cultic acts
a. Action suffered 6:2-4 a. First cultic act: on almsgiving
{3. Paradoxical (?) reaction recommended 6:2 1) Prohibition of improper performance
(4) Conclusion (implied): intent of law is to 6:2a a) Reference to cultic act
eliminate violence 6:2b b) Imperative (negative)
53
 c) Caricatured description 6:9c-13 (b) Two sets of three petitions
(1) Satirical imagery 6:9c-10 a. First set
6:2c (2) Comparison with playactors 6:9c (a) First petition
6:2d (3) Improper purpose 6:10a (fJ) Second petition
6:2e d) Statement of eschatological consequence: 6:10b (y) Third petition
amen-saying 6:11-13 {3. Second set
(1) Introductory formula 6:11 (a) Fourth petition
(2) Disclosure of eschatological judgment 6:12 (fJ) Fifth petition
6:3-4 2) Instruction for proper performance 6:12a aa. Petition
6:3a a) Reference to cultic act 6:12b bb. Declaration about corresponding
b) Imperative (negative) action (imitatio Dei)
6:3b-4a c) Description of proper performance 6:13 (y) Sixth petition, antithetical parallelismus
(1) Proverbial expression membrorum
(2) Statement of proper purpose 6:13a aa. First line: negative
6:4b d) Statement of reason 6:13b bb. Second line: positive
(1) Theological dogma 6:14-15 d) Supplement: interpretation of vs 12b, a
(2) Eschatological promise statement of "sacred law" (antithetical paral-
6:5-6 b. Second cultic act: on prayer lelismus membrorum)
6:5 1) Prohibition of improper performance 6:14 ( 1) First statement
6:5a a) Reference to cultic act 6:14a (a) Protasis: action envisioned as carried out
6:5b b) Imperative (negative) 6:14b (b) Apodosis: eschatological consequence
6:5c c) Caricatured description (promise)
(1) Comparison with playactors 6:15 (2) Second statement
(2) Satirical imagery 6:15a (a) Protasis: action envisioned as not carried
6:5d (3) Improper purpose out
6:5e d) Statement of eschatological consequence: 6:15b (b) Apodosis: eschatological consequence
amen-saying (threat)
(1) Introductory formula 6:16-18 d. Third cultic act: on fasting
(2) Eschatological judgment 6:16 1) Prohibition of improper performance
6:6 2) Instruction of proper performance 6:16a a) Reference to cultic act
6:6a a) Reference to cultic act b) Imperative (negative)
6:6b b) Imperative (positive) 6:16b c) Caricatured description
c) Description of proper performance (1) Comparison with playactors
(1) Proverbial expression (2) Their typical behavior
(2) Statement of proper purpose 6:16c (3) Improper purpose
6:6c d) Statement of reason 6:16d d) Statement of eschatological consequence:
( 1) Theological dogma amen-saying
(2) Eschatological promise (1) Introductory formula
6:7-15 c. Another teaching on prayer (2) Eschatological judgment
6:7-6 1) Prohibition of improper performance 6:17-18 2) Instruction of proper performance
6:7a a) Reference to cultic act 6:17a a) Reference to cultic act
6:7b b) Imperative (negative) 6:17b b) Imperative (positive)
6:7c c) Caricatured description c) Description of proper performance
(1) Satirical imagery (1) Two acts symbolizing celebration
(2) Comparison with the "pagans" 6:18a (2) Statement of proper purpose
6:7d (3) Statement of "pagan" doctrine about prayer 6:18b d) Statement of reason
6:8 2) Instruction of proper performance (1) Theological dogma
6:8a a) Imperative (negative): Prohibition of (2) Eschatological promise
assimilation with the "pagans" 6:19-7:12
6:8b b) Statement of correct doctrine of prayer C. The conduct of the daily life
6:9-13 c) Prescription of proper performance 6:19-21 1. On gathering treasures
6:9a (1) Conjunction 6:19-20 a. A sententia (antithetical parallelismus membrorum, 2d
(2) Imperative (positive) person plural)
6:9b-13 (3) Citation of authoritative example: the 6:19 1) First part
Lord's Prayer 6:19a a) Imperative (negative)
6:9b (a) Invocation 6:19b b) Statement of reason (two llwov-clauses)

54
 Introduction

(1) First clause (two nouns, one verb): prover- 6:25c-30 1) First argument
bial expression 6:25c a) Two theses (rhetorical question)
(2) Second clause (one noun, two verbs): ( 1) Soul or life is more than nourishment
proverbial expression (2) Body or person is more than clothing
6:20 2) Second part b) Conclusions (implied)
6:20a a) Imperative (positive) ( 1) It is foolish to confuse procurement of food
6:20b b) Statement of reason (two <l1rov-clauses) and clothing with care for one's soul or life
(1) First clause (two nouns, one verb): prover- (2) It is prudent to care for one's soul or life
bial expression and body or person
(2) Second clause (one noun, two verbs): 6:26-30 c) Proofs
proverbial expression 6:26-27 (1) The necessities oflife: comparison of
6:21 b. Conclusion: a maxim ("where-there" form, 2d animals and humanity
person singular) 6:26a (a) Example of the birds
6:21a 1) First part: choices given a. Appeal to observe their behavior (see vs
6:21b 2) Second part: result predicted 28b)
6:22-23 2. On vision fl. Paradox to be observed in respect to
6:22a a. Definition of the human eye their behavior
6:22b-23 b. Physiological and paraenetical commentary (a) They do not sow
6:22b-23a 1) Interpretation of the eye as the organ of vision (fl) They do not reap
6:22b a) The condition for proper vision (y) They do not gather into barns
( 1) Protasis: the condition of the eye is sound (o) Yet they are fed
(2) Apodosis: the expected positive result 6:26b y. Conclusion: God feeds them
6:23a b) The condition for defective vision 6:26c o. Considerations (rhetorical question)
( 1) Protasis: the condition of the eye is not (a) Presupposition: traditional distinction
sound between animals and humanity in which
(2) Apodosis: the expected negative result humanity is accorded a higher position
6:23b 2) Interpretation of the image of the lamp (fl) Conclusion (a minori ad maius): if anxiety
a) Protasis: assumption of a paradoxical possibility over food is unnecessary for animals, how
b) Apodosis: An exclamation of surprise much more so for humanity
6:24 3. On serving two masters 6:27 (b) Example from human life (rhetorical
6:24a a. A sententia (proverbial) question)
6:24b-d b. Social and ethical commentary a. Paradox to be observed in respect to the
6:24b-c 1) Presentation of evidence future
6:24b a) First observation (a) No one can add a span of time to one's
6:24c b) Second observation life
6:24d 2) Conclusion: a sententia containing doctrine (fl) Yet each day one's life is lengthened
(formulated by analogy with vs 24a) fl. Conclusion (implied): God measures out
6:25-34 4. On worrying one's life
6:25a a. Introduction y. Consideration
1) Connection: "therefore" (a) Presupposition: the future is measured
2) Doctrinal formula identifying authority: "I say by God, not by humanity
to you" (fl) Conclusion (a maiori ad minus): if the
6:25b b. Exhortation future as a whole is under God's control, it
1) Imperative (negative) is futile and improper for humanity to
a) Observation (presupposition) worry about part of the future as if it were
( 1) Anxiety as common human behavior under human control
(2) Object in, question: "soul" or "life"? 6:28-30 (2) Clothing: comparison of plants and
b) Prohibition (cf. vss 31a, 34a) humanity
2) Caricature of behavior to be rejected 6:28a (a) Presentation of the problem (rhetorical
a) Confusion of care for one's soul or life with question)
procurement of the necessities of life a. Reference to vs 25c
(1) Eating fl. Reference to worrying as common
(2) Drinking human behavior
b) Confusion of care for one's body or person with 6:28b (b) Example of the lilies
procurement of clothing a. Appeal to observe their behavior (cf. vs
6:25c-34 c. Argumentation 26a)

55
 fJ. Paradox to be observed in respect to (a) God's omniscience
their behavior (b) God's benevolence: his provision of basic
(a) They do not toil human needs
(fJ) They do not spin 6:33 d) Conclusions
(y) Nevertheless, they grow 6:33a ( 1) Exhortation
y. Conclusion (implied): God causes them (a) Imperative (positive)
to grow a. Required behavior: "seeking" ((71rlro)
6:29 a. Consideration rather than "worrying" (vss 25b, 31a, 34a:
6:29a (a) Doctrinal formula identifying authority p.eptp.varo)
6:29b (fJ) Presupposition: the splendor of the fJ. Priority: "first"
royal robes of Solomon was thought to be y. Proper object
unsurpassed (a) Principle: the kingdom (of God)
6:29c (y) Conclusion: the clothing of the lilies, (fJ) Specific: God's righteousness
because the work of God, surpasses the 6:33b (2) Promise
human splendor of Solomon's garments (a) Condition: "and (only then)" (Ka0
6:30 (c) Example from human life (rhetorical (b) Traditional doctrine of divine reward
question) a. Eschatological (presupposed)
6:30a a. Paradox to be observed in respect to fJ. This-worldly (derived): "everything"
nature 6:34 3) Third argument
(a) Fate of the lilies 6:34a a) Connection: "therefore"
aa. Today they Jive b) Repetition of exhortation in vss 25b, 31a
bb. Tomorrow they are thrown into ( 1) Imperative (negative)
oven as fuel (a) Observation (presupposition)
(fJ) Yet God has arrayed them so splendidly a. Worrying as common human behavior
fJ. Conclusion (implied): God "wastes" his fJ. Object: tomorrow
gifts on his creatures (b) Prohibition
6:30b y. Consideration [(2) Abbreviation of argument by omission of
(a) Presupposition: God measures out gifts description of behavior to be rejected]
without giving thought to transitoriness of 6:34b-c c) Proofs
his creatures 6:34b (1) Maxim on tomorrow
6:30c (fJ) Conclusion (a minori ad maius): if God (2) Maxim on today
treats his lesser creatures in this way, how d) Conclusions (implied)
much more so his highest creation, the ( 1) A maiori ad minus: if the future as a whole is
human being under God's control, it is futile and improper
6:30d (y) Address (at the same time transition to for humans to worry about tomorrow, a part
next argument) ofthatfuture
6:31-33 2) Second argument (2) E contrario: if tomorrow is not under human
6:31a a) Connection: "therefore" control, then today's problems (its "plague")
b) Repetition of the exhortation in vs 25b must be dealt with by humans
(1) Imperative (negative) (3) E contrario: If it is futile and improper for
(a) Observation (presupposition) humans to worry about the future, then the
a. Anxiety as common human disposition right way to deal with the problems of today is
fJ. Object: the future in general not by worrying about them, but by seeking in
(b) Prohibition the "plague" of each day the righteousness and
6:31b (2) Caricature of behavior to be rejected thus the kingdom of God
(dramatization) 7:1-5 5. On judging
(a) Eating 7:1-2 a. Composition of sententiae (2d person plural)
(b) Drinking 7:1 1) Maxim
(c) Clothing 7:1a a) Imperative (negative)
6:32-33 c) Proofs: comparison between Gentiles and Jews 7:1b b) Prediction (gnomic)
6:32a ( 1) Example of the Gentiles 7:2 2) Reason: Double sententia (ius talionis)
(a) Observation of their improper "striving" 7:2a a) Connection: yap
(E7rt("f/rlro) for the goods oflife b) First sententia: on judging
(b) Identification with behavior rejected in vs ( 1) Description of action
31 (2) Prediction of reaction (future [eschato-
6:32b (2) Traditional doctrine logical or gnomic?])

56
 Introduction

c) Connection: Kal 7:9-11 c. Argument (diatribe composition)

7:2b d) Second sententia: on measuring 7:9-10 1) Two rhetorical questions (expected answers:
( 1) Description of action negative)
(2) Prediction of reaction (future [eschato- 7:9 a) First question
logical or gnomic?]) 7:9a ( 1) Identification of addressees as human
7:3-5 b. Argument (diatribe composition) beings
7:3-4 1) Two consecutive rhetorical questions (using 7:9b-c (2) Description of normal human behavior
exaggerated images) 7:9b (a) Action encountered
7:3 a) First question 7:9c (b) Absurd reaction denied
7:3a ( 1) Description of criticism of others 7:10 b) Second question
7:3b (2) Disclosure of failure of self-criticism 7:10a (1) Action encountered
7:4 b) Second question 7:10b (2) Absurd reaction denied
7:4a ( 1) Connection: if 7:11 2) Conclusion (a minori ad maius)
(2) Description of correction of others 7:11a a) Protasis
7:4b (3) Disclosure of failure of self-correction (1) Connection: oi.v
7:5 2) Conclusion (2) Identification of addressees as sinners
7:5a a) Address: "you hypocrite" (evildoers)
b) Observation (implied): need for self-correction (3) Description of normal human behavior
7:5b-c 3) Rule (formulated positively) 7:llb b) Apodosis
7:5b a) Imperative: self-correction first (1) Logical principle (qal wab,omer): 1r6u'!'
7:5c b) Predicted result p.0.AAOV
(1) Nature of competence (future, gnomic) (2) Description of God's benevolence
(2) Recommended correction of the brother (a) Divine epithets
7:6 6. On profaning the holy: a cryptic sententia (2d (b) Prediction of God's benevolence
person plural) a. His reaction
7:6a a. Double imperative (negative, using parallelismus {3. Human action encountered
membrorum) 7:12 8. The hermeneutical principle: the Golden Rule
1) First imperative 7:12a a. Connection: oi.v
a) Action b. Ethical principle: the Golden Rule formulated
b) Object of action positively
2) Second imperative 1) Anticipated (desired) reaction by others
a) Action 7:12b 2) Recommended action
b) Object of action 3) Presupposition: principle of do ut des
7:6b b. Statement of purpose (negative, preventive, using 7:12c c. Interpretative identification
parallelismus membrorum) 1) Conclusion: y6.p
1) First envisioned consequence 2) Formula of identity
a) Action
b) Object of action: abrovs • 7:13-23 Ill. Eschatological warnings
2) Second envisioned consequence 7:13-14 A. The Two Ways and the Two Gates
a) Two actions 7:13a 1. Imperative (positive, 2d person plural)
b) Object of action: vp.O.s 2. Introduction of the image of the narrow gate
7:7-11 7. On giving and receiving (2d person plural) 7:13b-14 3. Description of the image of the Two Ways and
7:7 a. Set of three maxims Two Gates
7:7a 1) First maxim 7:13b a. Connection: lin (indicating traditional material)
a) Imperative 7:13b-d b. The way of destruction
b) Prediction of reaction (future, gnomic) 7:13b 1) The wide gate
7:7b 2) Second maxim 7:13c 2) The comfortable road
a) Imperative 7:13d 3) The large crowds
b) Prediction of reaction (future, gnomic) 7:14 c. The way oflife
7:7c 3) Third maxim 7:14a 1) The narrow gate
a) Imperative 7:14b 2) The rough road
b) Prediction of reaction (future, gnomic) 7:14c 3) The few
7:8 b. Reason 7:15-20 B. The false prophets
1) Connection: y6.p 7:15 1. Appeal to be alert
2) Set of three proverbial statements (based on 7:15a a. Imperative (positive, 2d person plural)
observation)
57
 b. Introduction of technical term "pseudoprophets" 7:22b 1) Protest of clients against their prior rejection by
7:15b-c c. Description of their conduct Jesus
7:15b 1) As wandering in from outside (itinerant a) Presentation of proof of legitimacy on three
prophets) grounds, in the form of a question
7:15c 2) By a proverb (1) Prophetic utterance in the name ofJesus
7:16a 2. Recommended method for recognizing false (2) Exorcisms in the name ofJesus
prophets (3) Miracles in the name of Jesus
7:16b-19 3. Argument 7:23 2) Statement of the advocate: repeated and final
7:16b a. Rhetorical question: agricultural rule; expected rejection
answer: negative 7:23a a) Reference to time: "then"
7:17 b. Analogy from nature b) Nature of the declaration: bJJ.oAoyE'iv
7:17a 1) Connection indicating analogy: olln.>s 7:23b-c c) Recitation of legal formulae
2) Rule from agriculture (positively formulated, 7:23b ( 1) Indication of citation: lin
antithetical parallelismus membrorum) (2) Formula of renunciation
a) First part: every good tree brings forth good 7:23c (3) Formula of repudiation (Ps 6:9)
fruit
7:17b b) Second part: every rotten tree brings forth bad • 7:24-26 IV. Peroration: A double parable describing success
fruit and failure
7:18 c. Explanation (negatively formulated, antithetical 7:24a A. Connection: oLv
parallelismus membrorum) 7:24-25 B. First parable: the successful student
7:18a 1) First part: impossibility of good tree bringing 7:24a 1. Marks of the good student: hearing and doing
forth bad fruit 7:24b-25 2. Example demonstrating success as stability
7:18b 2) Second part: impossibility of bad tree bringing (perseverance)
forth good fruit 7:24b a. Formula of comparison
7:19 d. Rule from agriculture for dealing with useless trees b. Focal person: the "prudent man"
7:20 4. Conclusion 7:24c c. Description of his activity
a. Connection: li.pa yE 1) Action
b. Restatement of the recommended method (see vs 2) Critical difference
16a) 7:25a d. Description of calamitous events
7:21-23 C. Self-delusion 1) Rain
7:21 1. Sentence of "sacred law" stating condition for 2) Floods
admission into the kingdom of God 3) Storms
7:21a a. Negative: rejection of satirically formulated false 7:25b e. Description of the effects
definition 1) Events
1) Pointed negation: ov a) Regarding the calamitous forces
2) False definition b) Regarding the house
a) Description of required conduct 7:25c 2) Reason
( 1) Action: "speaking" 7:26-27 C. Second parable: the failing student
(2) Nature of action: liturgical kyrios- 7:26a 1. Marks of the failing student: hearing, not doing
acclamation, twice repeated 7:26b-27 2. Example demonstrating failure as instability (lack
b) Promise of perseverance)
7:21b b. Positive: presentation of proper definition (elliptic) 7:26b a. Formula of comparison
1) Adversative particle: &AM b. Focal person: the "foolish man"
2) Correct definition 7:26c c. Description of his activity
a) Action: "doing" 1) Action
b) Nature of action 2) Critical difference
[c) Promise: to be inferred from vs 21a] 7:27a d. Description of calamitous events
7:22-23 2. Preview of a scene in the last judgment 1) Rain
7:22a a. General description of the situation 2) Floods
1) The persons involved 3) Storms
a) Jesus as advocate 7:27b e. Description of the effects
b) Large group of clients 1) Events
2) Reference to time: "on that day" a) Regarding calamitous forces
b. The scene in sharper focus: the decisive episode in b) Regarding house
the course of the trial 7:27c 2) Concluding evaluation and warning

58

The preceding conspectus, which is intended to sum
up the evidence and analysis presented in the com-
mentary, shows that the SM is composed of four clearly
distinguishable parts. These four parts are carefully
structured within themselves and are closely related to
each other.
Part I provides an introduction and is therefore called
by its rhetorical term exordium. 396 This part consists of
two sections, each of which can be divided into two
subsections. 397 The first of these comprises a set of ten
beatitudes (5:3-12). These ten beatitudes can again be
subdivided into two subsets: a group of eight beatitudes
structured in strict parallelism and forming an indusia
(5:3-10) and what appears to be a secondary expansion
containing one other beatitude formulated somewhat
differently (5: 11 ), and a concluding call for joy (5: 12).
Strictly and form-critically speaking, this call for joy is
not a beatitude but it is closely related to beatitudes; it
provides a fitting climactic end to the sequence. 398 While
the beatitudes are formulated as factual or presup-
positional statements with an implied appeal, as ex-
pressed in the direct address of the last beatitude (5: 11),
the concluding direct appeal "Be glad and rejoice!" (5: 12)
calls for the response by the recipients (hearers or
readers).
Literary and rhetorical parallels show that the use of
beatitudes in exordia was not uncommon, but also that
such use must be regarded as secondary. 399 The primary
function of beatitudes seems to be liturgical in some
sense, constituting pronouncements by a liturgist in
worship; consequently, the secondary usage of beatitudes
in the SM serves as a reminder of the ritual experience. 400
Since no appropriate ritual act is mentioned in the SM
itself, one would have to think of it in terms of presup-
position. The natural ritual for disciples would be their
initiation through baptism. Indeed, this possibility is
supported by the redactional framework in Matthew,
according to which Christians are to be made disciples,
baptized, and taught. This s!':quence is stated by the risen
396 On the rhetorical and literary exordium, see Hans
Dieter Betz, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia;
Fortress, 1979) 44-45.
397 For a detailed discussion of the internal composition,
see below on SM/Matt 5:3-12.
398 For a discussion of this point, see below on SM/Matt
5:12.
399 On this point see below, Introduction to the
Introduction
Christ in his commission to the church (Matt 28: 19):
"Go forth therefore and make all nations my disciples;
baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and
the Holy Spirit, and teach them to keep all that I have
commanded you."
For Matthew, therefore, Christian discipleship presup-
poses the call to discipleship, initiation by baptism, and
subsequent teaching of the essential tenets of the
Christian faith. For the historian that Matthew also was,
things were somewhat more complicated. He knew from
Mark that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist (Matt
3:13-17), that he was tempted by Satan in the desert
(4: 1-11), and that after the temptation Jesus began to
proclaim the gospel and to call disciples (4: 17-22). When
Jesus delivered the SM, only Simon Peter and his brother
Andrew, and James and John, the sons of Zebedee, had
been called (4:18-22). For them, however, no baptism
was reported. This seems to imply that Matthew knew
that Jesus did not baptize his disciples, but that the ritual
came into use in later Jewish Christianity, prior to
Matthew's own time. Ifthen the Jewish-Christian
community from which the SM originated practiced
baptism, one may conclude that the SM, with its citation
ofbeatitudes, reminds the recipients of their baptism.
While the Beatitudes served as a reminder certainly for
the church of Matthew, they could have done so as well
in the Jewish-Christian context from which the SM came,
but no clear evidence exists for this last suggestion.
There may at least be one parallel in Gal 4:15, where
Paul's question, "Where then is your beatitude?" may
refer to the pronouncements at baptism, perhaps even to
the formula in Gal 3:26-28. 401
If the Beatitudes are reminders ofbaptism, their
present function in the SM is didactic, not liturgical. One
can hardly overestimate their importance for the SM as a
whole. That they are put into the exordium means that
they are regarded as the foundation on which the entire
SM rests.
As statements of definition, the Beatitudes set forth
Beatitudes.
400 Later the eight beatitudes served as liturgical texts.
See Balthasar Fischer, "Die acht Seligpreisungen als
Gesangs- und Gebetstext in V ergangenheit und
Gegenwart," TThZ 81 (1972) 276-84.
401 See Betz, Galatians, 226-28.
59
what is given to the disciples and what is expected of
them. They formulate the "indicative" and the "impera-
tive,"402 the point of departure and the goal not only of
discipleship but also of human life in general.
From the perspective of ancient thought, the Beati-
tudes contain a GiUerlehre, the doctrine concerning the
truly good. 403 Their extremely concise formulation
states the basic assumptions that the disciples can count
on concerning cosmology, anthropology, ethics, escha-
tology, and theology. These Beatitudes describe the
condicio humana that the disciples of Jesus are called to
take up conscientiously and affirmatively.
This condicio humana is characterized by great con-
trasts: poverty and wealth, mourning and comfort,
gentleness and domination, deprivation of justice and
satisfaction, mercy in a merciless world, purity even of
the heart in a milieu thoroughly polluted, peace in a time
ravaged by wars, victory after persecution, and in the
end jubilation after great tribulation. 404 These contrasts
are interwoven with others, such as God and humanity,
heaven and earth, and past, present, and future. Human
life is full of extremes and contradictions, generating
confusion, tumult, and suffering on the one hand, but,
on the other hand, there is blessedness, an order worthy
of trust, and final jubilation and fulfillment. 405
The ethical task must be formulated with these
conditions in mind. The Beatitudes list a series of ethical
virtues, beginning with the lowest, humility (5:3a), but
the ethics of the SM is not a simple virtue-ethics in the
Greek sense. In fact, the Beatitudes set forth promises
along with demands; they are both at once, not one or
the other. 406 The ethical task follows from this compli-
cated situation. Indeed, any ethics that is to be taken
seriously must correspond to the intricacies of human
life. The ethical task set out for the disciples is, therefore,
more than a set of demands, whether ethical precepts or
entrance requirements for the kingdom of God. The
Beatitudes set before the disciples the conditions under
which the ethical life must take place. The rest of the SM
then builds on these conditions, providing a guide
through the maze of contradictions that fill human life.
The ethical task itself is described by the image of the
Two Ways (7: 13-14). It amounts to entering through
the narrow gate and, before that, to traveling on the
rough road. 407 The goal (dA.os) is clearly stated in 6:33:
"Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness."
One can identify the Beatitudes, therefore, as descrip-
tions of the beginning of the rough road that the
disciples must travel on their way through life, if they
want to reach their desired destiny, the gate to life
eternal (7:14).
This direction of the road points to the eschatological
perspective characterizing the whole of the SM; it is
treated thematically in the third major part (7: 13-23). In
the view of the SM there are two ways in life humans can
travel from here to the hereafter: the road to eternal life
and the road to eternal destruction (7: 13-14). The road
to eternal life is identical with all that is prescribed in the
SM, while the road to destruction includes all that is
explicitly or implicitly rejected.
Finally, what is the blessing in all of this? What kind of
support can the disciple expect in the struggle? It is true

402 On this terminology, see RudolfBultmann, "Das
Problem der Ethik bei Paulus," in his Exegetica
(Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1964) 36-54. This
terminology is usually applied only to Paul, but there
is every reason to use it for the SM as well, even
though the theological presuppositions of the SM
differ from those of Paul.
403 See Manfred Wacht, "Giiterlehre," RAG 13 (1986)
59-150, who, however, fails to mention the Beati-
tudes (cols. 106-I 0).
404 Cf. the so-called paradoxes of Paul, I Cor 4: I 0-13; 2
Cor 6:8-IO; Phil4:IO-I3.
405 It is, therefore, not a surprise that in the history of
interpretation the Beatitudes became connected with
the metaphor of the way of ascension. On these
developments and for the references to Gregory of
Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan, and Augustine, see Piero
Rollero, La "Expositio evangelii secundum Lucan" di
Ambrogio come fonte della esegesi agostiniana (V niversita
di Torino: Pubblicazioni della Facolta di lettere e
filosofia, vol. 10.4; Turin: Giappichelli, 1958) esp.
21-46; Duchrow, "Aufbau," 344-47.
406 On the meaning and literary form of the Beatitudes,
see below, Introduction to the Beatitudes, I.l.a,c.
407 One can view the image in two ways. If one looks at
the demands of the SM as being equated with the
"rough road," one can also connect the "narrow gate"
with the Beatitudes as "entrance requirements" into
the kingdom of God.

60
 Introduction

that the SM never speaks of grace or the gift of the Holy
Spirit the way Paul does. The doctrine of salvation
propagated by the SM is Jewish, and there are no
specificially Christian means for salvation. Yet, the
disciple is not without help.
First of all, God and his kingdom are always present, if
not on earth then certainly in heaven (6: 10, 25-34).
Righteousness exists as certainly as God himself exists; it
will in the end prevail. The difficulty with righteousness
is that one needs to seek and find it; it may not be
obvious, but it is a given. Eternal life is waiting, and one
only needs to arrive in it instead of in eternal extinction.
Life is a mess, to be sure, but God has provided a way
through and out of the mess; all that the disciple needs is
to join the small band of those who are traveling on the
right road. This road is rough, not only because of the
obstacles it presents but also because of the failures of
those traveling on it. But God is merciful and forgives
those who sincerely ask him (6:12-13, 14-15).
Thus, there is no reason for pessimism or despon-
dency. In the final analysis, the SM is optimistic. But the
SM is also realistic: One has every reason to prepare for
tough times. One cannot deny that the disciple must
travel the rough road, not the smooth one, and that he
or she must be among the few, not the masses. There are
only these two options, and everybody must make a
choice and in fact does make a choice. Life is good,
despite all appearances, but human beings must choose,
and do choose, which of the two ways of life they
consider good. This is what human life is all about.
Discipleship is not simply a call to join a small sect of
devotees ofJesus. Rather it is a call to be human beings
in an uncompromising way.
From this initial statement the text moves to the
second subsection of Part I, the commission of the
disciples. This subsection has two sayings (5: 13 and
5:14-16), each beginning with the address "You
are .... "408 The connection with vs 12 is by catchword:
iJp.oov (vs 12) and iJp.lis (vs 13 and vs 14). Also, the
indefinite "they" of vss 11-12 is now made definite by
the word li.v8pwzro& ("human beings").
The commission is given to the disciples as a group,
but remarkably this group has no name; there is only the
plural address "you, "409 referring to the addressees as
human beings, not by the name "disciples." It is note-
worthy that the designation "human beings"
(li.v8pw7To&) 410 dominates the passage (vss 13c, 16a). 411
There are, in fact, two kinds of human beings: the
crowds outside, identical with "the many" (ol 1ro>..>-.ol
[7:13]), 41 2 and those inside the group. The former
merely happen to be human, the latter are called to be
consciously so.
Two powerful images describe the role the disciples
are expected to play: "salt of the earth" (vs 13)413 and
"light of the world" (vs 14). 414 Even these images are
part of contrasts: not only the contrast between "earth"
and "heaven" (vss 13, 14), but also between the good
earth for which the salt is to be used, and the dirt into
which those who fail their calling get trampled. Or there
is the contrast between the "the world" (6 Kocrp.os), which
is in need of illumination, and "the heavens" (ol ovpavol),
which constitute the transcendent realm of God from
which all illumination comes. Thus, the commission of
the disciples is not exempt from the contrasts but calls
people into them. Although clothed in images and
metaphors, the objectives before the disciples are clearly
marked. The sole purpose of human life is to achieve
"good deeds" (Ta Ka>..a fpya). Humans are "doers," so that
the two options are doing good deeds or doing evil

408 For detailed analysis, see below on SM/Matt 5:13- theology, see also Michael Wilkins, The Concept of
14. Disciple in Matthew's Gospel as Reflected in the Use of the
409 The absence of any name, such as "church" Term Mathetes (NovTSup 59; Leiden: Briii, 1988).
(tiCIC~:qula) or even "disciples" (}J.a87JTat) for the 410 For the meaning of this term in the SM, see below on
addressees in the SM itself is astonishing (cf. ,.a87JT~r SM/Matt 5:13.
in SP/Luke 6:40). Is the reason that the disciples are 411 See also Riesner, "Aufbau," 175.
to be "humans" or, to use the traditional expression, 412 See below on SM/Matt 7:13.
"sons of their heavenly Father" (for the meaning of 413 See below on SM/Matt 5:13.
this expression, see below on SM/Matt 5:9)? For 414 See below on SM/Matt 5:14.
Matthew's identification of them as "disciples," see
Matt 5:1 (see Betz, "The Sermon on the Mount in
Matthew's Interpretation," 265-66). For Matthean

61
deeds. Such good deeds are not to be done for their own
sake; their sole purpose is that the people who witness
these good deeds are moved to praise God. Thus, people
are ordinarily not motivated to worship God, although
this worship is expected of them. The one thing that can
motivate people to engage in honest worship is that they
witness other human beings doing good deeds (vs 16b).
Therefore, good deeds are good because of their
capacity to make people do what they are supposed to
do. With this reference to doxology the exordium that
began with vs 3 concludes.
This is not the place to discuss the many internal
correspondences that exist between the two sections of
the exordium, but some observations may be allowed.
Both the Beatitudes and the commission contrast the
lowest and the highest. In 5:3, for example, the human
being is seen as the poor creature who, however, is
promised the wealth of heaven; in vs 13d the lowest
point of failure, being trampled under the dirt, is
contrasted with the highest of success: making people
glorify God in heaven.
Part II comprises the entire body of the SM (5:17-
7: 12). 415 It is constructed as a ring composition, as
indicated by the expression "the law and the prophets" in
5:17 and in 7:12. 416 The "hermeneutical principles" for
interpreting "the law and the prophets" are placed at the
beginning (5: 17-20) and at the end (7:12). 417 The main
body of the SM is made up of three sections: a first
section dealing with the interpretation of the Torah
(5:17-48), a second section dealing with cultic rituals
(6:1-18), and a third section devoted to the affairs of
daily life (6: 19-7: 12). That there are three sections calls
for an explanation. Numerical symbolism occurs
throughout the SM, and the number three plays a
prominent role in this regard, 418 but there seems to be
more to the three divisions. Dividing phenomena of
religion or theology into three sections was apparently a
literary convention at the time when the SM was com-
posed. Such divisions may apply to notions or to sections
of text. The earliest instance of this may be Mic 6:8:
God has told you what is good; and what is it that the
LoRD asks of you? Only to act justly, to love loyalty, to
walk wisely before your God. (NEB)
In the LXX, the three notions are: 'lTOtt'i'v Kplp.a ("render
just verdict"), aya'lTaV ;AfOS ("love mercy"), and ~TO!p.OV
£tvat rov 'lTopn'!£u8at p.£r'lz Kvplov 8£ov uov ("be ready to
walk with the Lord your God"). The passage has the
character of a programmatic summary. 419 It also has a
parallel in Hos 12:6:
Turn back all of you by God's help; praise loyalty and
justice, and wait always on your God. (NEB) 420
Programmatic is certainly also the statement at the
beginning of 'Abot attributed to Simon the Just ('Abot
1.2):
Upon three things the world standeth: upon Torah,
upon Worship and upon the showing ofkindness. 4 2 1
W. D. Davies has noted the parallelism of this statement
with regard to the three sections ofthe SM. 422 Indeed,
the Torah corresponds to SM/Matt 5:17-48, and
worship to 6:1-18, but the "deeds ofloving-kindness"
hardly correspond to 6:19-7:12. 423 Even ifthe paral-
lelism is not complete, however, the similarity calls for an

415 For a more detailed analysis, see below, Introduction
to SM/Matt 5:17-20.
416 For the meaning ofthis expression, see below on
SM/Matt 5:17.
41 7 See the commentary below on these passages, and
Betz, Essays, 37-54.
418 The Beatitudes can be divided either into 3 x 3 + 1
(= 10), or 2 x 4 + 2 (= 10); the exordium can be
thought of as tripartite: vss 3-ll, 12, and 13-16; the 421 According to the translation by R. Travers Herford,
main body ofthe SM has three sections (5: 17-48;
6:1-18; 6:19-7:12); the antitheses consist of2 x 3
cases (5:21-48); the cultic teaching (6:1-18) com-
prises three cultic acts: almsgiving, prayer, and
fasting; the eschatological warnings (7: 13-23) have
three subsections: Two Ways (7:13-14), false
prophets (7:15-20), self-delusion (7:21-23). For the
importance of the number three generally, see Rolf
Mehrlein, "Drei," RAG 4 (1959) 269-310.
419 See Wilhelm Rudolph, Micha-Nahum-Habakuk-
Zephanja (KAT 13.3; Giitersloh: Mohn, 197 5) I 06-
14, esp. 108, 113-14; Hans Walter Wolff, Dodeka-
propheton 4: Micka (BKAT 14.4; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1982) 153-58.
420 LXX: Kat <TV EV lie~ <rov E1TL<rrpfV€LS' (>.eov Kat KplJJ.a
</>vA&.uuov ~ea\ f'AwL{E wphs Thv 8EIJv CTOV a&~ wavTIJS'.
Pirke Aboth: The Ethics of the Fathers (New York:
Schocken, 1962)22.
422 William D. Davies, The Setting rif the Sermon on the
Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1964)
304-15; he builds on the parallel for his hypothesis
of the SM being Matthew's "Christian answer to
Jamnia" (315); see also his Jewish and Pauline Studies
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 348-49 n. 48. For a

62
 Introduction

explanation; the phenomena can hardly be accidental. 424
The instances cited demonstrate what appears to be a
tendency in jewish thought to summarize the essentials
of religion under three key terms. These summary
statements may vary according to the particular view-
points summarized by the respective authors, but they
agree on important points, especially on putting the
Torah first. The least agreement seems to be on the final
section. This situation certainly corresponds to the
composition of the SM as well. 425 There is other cor-
roborating evidence.
Important evidence comes from Greek philosophy, for
which division in three parts became increasingly
important. How old these divisions are is difficult to
determine, but investigations have shown that Xenoc-
rates (396/395-314 BCE), the member of the Old
Academy, introduced the three parts of "the physical" (TO
cpvutK&v), "the ethical" (TO 1}8tK&v), and "the logical" (TO
..\oytK&v) into philosophy. 426 Most discussed were the
divisions developed by the Stoics427 and the Epi-
cureans,428 again in three parts, formulated in accor-
dance with the respective school traditions. From the
philosophia tripertita was derived the theologia tripertita,
proposed first by M. Terentius Varro (116-27 BCE). 429
The names and the order of the divisions depended on
the respective school tradition or individual preference,
but the accepted pattern is clearly visible. The three-part
divisions served basically three purposes: systematization
of school traditions, marking of distinctions between the
schools, and polemic against the ideas of adversaries.
In view of the SM it is important to note that dividing
the essentials of religion into three parts seems to have
been an accepted formal principle in judaism at the time
as well. 430 It may be that Stoicism influenced the order
of the parts. At least the tendency is common to deal
with the fundamental concepts of God and cosmos first,
with the cult second, while the third part is more open to
variation. 431

critique, see Burchard, "Versuch," 428 n. 79 (ET:
"Theme," 90 n. 79); Georg Strecker, Der Weg der
Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthiius
(FRLANT 82; 3d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1971) 257-67; idem, Bergpredigt, 19
(Sermon, 20).
423 See below, the Analysis ofSM/Matt 6:19-7:12.
424 Cf. also b. Ber. 5a: "It has been taught: R. Simeon b.
Yohai says: The Holy One, blessed be He, gave Israel
three precious gifts, and all of them were given only
through sufferings. These are: The Torah, the Land
of Israel, and the world to come." Trans. by Maurice 429 According to Augustine De civitate Dei 6.5.
Simon, Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian
Talmud: Berakoth (London, Jerusalem, and New
York: Soncino, 1960).
425 Is there a relationship to the fact that three "pillars"
head up the Jewish-Christian church inJerusalem
(Gal 2:9)? Do these pillars consist merely of the
persons James, Cephas, and John or also of their
theologies? Regrettably, there is no further in-
formation concerning the meaning of this concept of
three "pillars." See Betz, Galatians, 99; cf. Roger D.
Aus, "Three Pillars and Three Patriarchs: A Pro-
posal concerning Gal 2:9," ZNW 70 (1979) 252-61.
426 See Friedrich Uberweg, GrundrijJ der Geschichte der
Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 3: Altere
Akademie, Aristoteles, Peripatos, ed. Hellmut Flashar
(Basel and Stuttgart: Schwabe, 1983) 46-47, 69,
123; also Godo Lieberg, "Die theologia tripertita als
Formprinzip antiken Denkens," RhM 125 (1982) 25-
53; idem, "Die 'theologia tripertita' in Forschung
und Bezeugung," ANRW I, 4 (1973) 63-115.
427 See Pierre Boyance, "Ciceron et les parties de Ia
philosophie," Revue des etudes latines 49 (1971) 127-
54; Pierre Hadot, "Les division des parties de Ia
philosophie dans l'Antiquite," MH 36 (1979) 201-23;
A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philoso-
phers (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University,
1987) 1.160-62.
428 See Robert Philippson, "Zu Philodems Schrift tiber
die Frommigkeit," Hermes 55 (1920) 225-78; 56
(1921) 355-41 0; Lieberg, "Die theologia tripertita,"
25-53.
430 Thus the conclusion of Lieberg, "Die theologia
tripertita," 51: "Die angefuhrten Autoren zeigen,
daB man seit dem fruhen Hellenismus die Vielfalt der
religiosen Phanomene und die Moglichkeiten ihrer
Vermittlung mehr oder weniger reflektiert nach dem
Gesichtspunkt der Dreiteilung gliederte und
beurteilte." ("The authors referred to show that from
the early Hellenistic period the multitude of religious
phenomena and the possibilities of their mediation
were more or less consciously categorized and
evaluated in terms of a tripartite division.")
431 Epictetus calls the three parts TO'lTOL ("elements" or
"commonplaces"; Latin: loci): Diss. 3.2; 3.7.25; Ench.
51; cf. Diss. 2.17.15; see AdolfBonhoffer, Epictet und
die Stoa (Stuttgart: Enke, 1894) 13-28.

63
 If this assumption is correct, the divisions found in the
SM and in the 'Abot may be intended as counterproposals
to what the philosophers had to offer. 432 In a sense,
therefore, W. D. Davies was right 433 when he suggested
that the SM is a counterproposal to the rabbinic decisions
ofjamnia, only the adversary was notjamnia but Greek
philosophy. Davies will have to be given credit for having
recognized the programmatic and polemical nature of
the three-part division. I do not assume, however, that
the SM was directly set up in opposition to 'Abot. Rather,
I conclude that these and other tripartite divisions were
originally separate and independent from each other,
but that they came out of the larger debates and compe-
tition among schools of thought at the time. The
significance of the three parts is therefore indicated by
what they select and by the order in which they present
what they have determined to be essential.
The order in the SM is characterized by an internal
logic. The first section of this three-part division is
devoted to the interpretation of the Torah, a subject of
the highest priority (5: 17-48). This section turns from
the descriptive exordium (5:3-16) to explicit exhortation
(5: 17). The first subsection (5: 17-20) sets forth doctrinal
principles about what to think and what not to think
(5: 17). The entire first section is altogether made up of
seven subsections: the introductory "hermeneutical
principles" (5:17-20) and the six "antitheses" (5:21-48).
Dealing with six cases of Torah interpretation, this
section of the SM lays the groundwork for what the SM
regards as theological thinking about God, righteous-
ness, Torah, Scripture, ethics, and eschatology. The
"antitheses" can easily be subdivided into 2 x 3 cases,
indicated by the dividing particle ?Ta.Aw ("again") in 5:33.
These seven subsections of the first part of the body of
the SM correspond to the seven subsections of the third
and last part (6: 19-7: 12), only that there the "herme-
neutical principle," the Golden Rule, comes at the very
end (7:12).
The middle section (6: 1-18) has again three subsec-
432 Although this idea is a supposition, Philo (Spec. leg.
1.13-31) shows that he adopted the tripartite
division from Hellenistic philosophy. For the
appropriation by Christian theology, see the article
by Lieberg, "Die theologia tripertita" (see above, n.
426).
433 See above, n. 422.
64
tions, devoted to the three main acts of worship. Fol-
lowing an introductory thesis (6: 1), the three acts of
worship are almsgiving (6:2-4), prayer (6:5-15), and
fasting (6: 16-18). They constitute the primary means of
human response to the revelation of God's will in the
section on the Torah (5:17-48). The cultic response
(6: 1-18) is then followed by the "secular" response in
6:19-7:12. Among all the responses, whether cultic or
not, giving is the first in priority. Therefore, almsgiving
is named as the cultic act first in order (6:2-4); the issue
of money is likewise the first in order in the "secular"
affairs of daily life (6: 19-21 ). The reason is that giving
gifts is a direct response to God's generosity as indicated
in the previous section (see esp. 5:45). According to
Jewish theology generally, it is a matter of justice (6: 1) to
respond to God's generosity in kind.
The second subsection of the middle part of the body
is on prayer (6:5-15). Its composition is intricate because
a second unit of teaching on prayer (6:7-13) and a
related "sentence of sacred law" (6:14-15) have been
inserted into an existing formula (6:5-6) that is part of
the larger unit (6:1-4, 5-6, 16-18). As it now stands, the
entire section of teaching on prayer (6:5-15) occupies
the center of the SM as a whole, not only of the cultic
teaching (6: 1-18). The centerpiece within the central
subsection is the Lord's Prayer (6:9b-13). This archi-
tecture points to the central importance of prayer for the
SM (prayer is mentioned also in the first subsection
[5:44], and in the following subsection [7:7-11 ]). Thus,
the architecture of the composition allows different
perspectives on the SM from the beginning to the end,
from the center to the periphery, and from the end to
the beginning. In one sense, the Beatitudes form the
beginning of the Two Way pattern, using the image of
the ways oflife. In another sense, the eschatological goals
(7: 13-23) determine the construction of the SM; even its
beginning Beatitudes (5:3-12) contain eschatological
promises. In yet another sense, the centerpiece of the
Lord's Prayer calls attention to the centrality ofap-

proaching God in prayer; it also reminds us that this
prayer is the oldest part of the tradition, going back, for
all we know, to the historical jesus. Thus, the SM begins
historically in the center as well.
The third subsection regulates fasting (6:16-18). This
traditional ritual, however, is given a special inter-
pretation. Fasting is singled out as the ritual of self-denial
and sacrifice. That it is to be joyful, not sullen and
gloomy, is intended to qualify all other sacrificial aspects
in the SM.
It is to be noted that all three acts of worship have
been interpreted in the light of the criticism of cultic
activity contemporary with the SM. These reinterpreted
acts of worship are then presupposed throughout the
SM, so that all human responses must be seen as funda-
mental expressions of "giving and receiving," the balance
of which constitutes righteousness.
The third and last section of the body of the SM
(6: 19-7: 12) concerns, as already mentioned, the human
response to God's generosity in the affairs of daily life. In
a way parallel to the first main section (5: 17-48) but
chiastically arranged, this section considers six basic
issues of human life (6: 19-7:11 ), with the
"hermeneutical principle" to follow in 7: 12.
This section recognizes that human response to God's
generosity cannot be limited to cultic acts of worship, but
that the "secular" world of daily business must also be
included. Worship comes first, but what the disciples do
in their daily affairs is just as important. Only when it all
comes together can the better righteousness (5:20) be
achieved (7:21-23).
Scholars are still uncertain with regard to the nature,
order, and internal logic of the six issues in 6:19-
7:11. 434 At this point Gunther Bornkamm435 and Dale
C. Allison 436 have made major proposals.
Allison is convinced that these six divisions have a
compositional pattern, because the same is true of all
other sections of the SM. He sees a pattern of two
parallel columns, each divided into instruction and
434 For a more detailed analysis, see below, Introduction
to SM/Matt 6:19-7:11.
435 Seeabove,nn. 382and418.
436 Allison, "Structure," 432-45, esp. 434-38.
437 Ibid., 435 with diagram.
438 See Betz, Essays, 3; supported by Allison, "Structure,"
430.
439 As Riesner ("Aufbau," 176) has seen, the term
Introduction
encouragement, and concluded by the Golden Rule. 437
The problem with this rather puzzling scheme is its
tendency to achieve symmetry at almost any cost. The
distinction between "instruction" and "encouragement"
is artificial, without parallel warrants, and it does not fit
the text. Rather, all six sections are at once instruction,
exhortation, and encouragement. Furthermore, the
distinction between "exhortation" and "parable" is too
rigid. Rather, all sections use parables and metaphors as
means in their arguments. Nevertheless, while Allison's
scheme does not work as he has set it up, he is in my view
right on his main points of observation: There is indeed a
compositional structure to 6:19-7:12; the six sections
deal with "social issues"; and the sections are determined
by the Golden Rule (7: 12).
Part III contains three sections of eschatological
warnings (7:13-23). This part presupposes the con-
clusion of the main body (5: 17-7: 12); it looks back on it
and characterizes it as "the troublesome road that leads
to eternal life" (7:14). 438 The beginning imperative
"enter into!" (dub.. Oau [7: 13 ]) recalls the programmatic
conclusion of 5:20 concerning the "entering into the
kingdom of the heavens" 439 and the Beatitudes at the
beginning (5:3-12).
The purpose of the section, however, is not so much to
set up the conditions for entering into the kingdom, 440
because all of the SM is doing that, but to remind the
disciples in no uncertain terms that God's justice requires
the enforcement of standards. They must not mis-
understand God's generosity, described so impressively
in the preceding sections (6:25-34; 7:7-11). It is part
and parcel of his righteousness and requires a response in
kind on the side ofthe faithful disciples (7:21-23). As
God is righteous through his generosity, so the disciples
must respond righteously. In this way the Torah is
upheld (5:17, 18) and God's will is obeyed (6:10; 7:21),
but lawlessness will be the cause for condemnation in the
last judgment (7:21-23).
dominates the passages of Part III (occurring in 7: 13
[his], 15, 21).
440 Cf. Riesner, "Aufbau," 176: "eine Sammlung von
Einlafibedingungen ins Himmelreich" ("a collection
of entrance requirements into the kingdom of
heaven").
65
 Part N contains the peroration, using the parable of 2) Historical precedent: the old prophets suffered
the two builders who build their houses on the rock and from the hand of "their" forefathers and were
rewarded by God
on the sand, respectively. This parable demonstrates the 3) Conclusion: a maiori ad minus and per analogiam,
importance of "hearing and doing",the sayings of jesus, principle of equal justice
that is, all that is contained in the SM. This conclusion 6:24-26 C. Four threats (2d person plural)
has a close parallel in the SP as well; its language is 6:24 1. Connection, marking turning point: 11"A~v ("but")
traditional in educational contexts. Thus, it provides a 6:24 2. First threat
a. Acclamation
fitting and impressive conclusion to the SM, summarizing b. Addressees
its meaning and purpose. c. Statement of reason: eschatological consolation
(present tense)
6:25a 3. Second threat
2. Conspectus: Sermon on the Plain
a. Acclamation
b. Addressees
• 6:20b-26 I. Exordium c. Statement of reason: eschatological prediction
6:20b-22 A. Four macarisms (2d person plural) (future tense)
6:20b 1. First macarism 6:25b 4. Third threat
a. Acclamation a. Acclamation
b. Addressees b. Addressees
c. Statement of reason: anticipation of eschatological c. Statement of reason: eschatological prediction
judgment (present) (future tense)
6:21a 2. Second macarism 6:26 5. Fourth threat
a. Acclamation 6:26a a. Acclamation
b. Addressees b. Addressees
c. Statement of reason: eschatological prediction 6:26b c. Statement of reason
(future) 1) Specification of offense: accepting approval
6:21b 3. Third macarism from all humankind
a. Acclamation 2) Deduction (cf. vs 23b)
b. Addressees a) Historical precedent: "their" fathers did it to
c. Statement of reason: eschatological prediction the pseudoprophets
(future) b) Hypothetical fact: when you let them do it to
6:22 4. Fourth macarism you
6:22a a. Acclamation c) Conclusion: per analogiam, principle of equal
6:22b-e b. Statement of conditions justice
6:22b 1) First condition: experience of hatred by
humankind (general) • 6:27-45 II. Rules for the conduct rif disciples
6:22c-e 2) Second condition: experience of three kinds of 6:27-38 A. Toward the outside world
harassment (specific) 6:27a 1. Introductory formula
6:22c a) Exclusion from society a. Connection: a:l\:1\a ("but")
6:22d b) Reproach b. Doctrinal reference formula
6:22e c) Blacklisting 1) Author: "I say"
(1) Procedure and effect 2) Addressees
(2) Cause: "because of the Son of Man" 6:27b-28 2. Set of four maxims (in imperative form)
6:23 B. Call for joy 6:27b-c a. First parallelismus membrorum
6:23a 1. Appeal 6:27b 1) First maxim: basic command of Jesus (cf. vs
a. First imperative: "rejoice" 22a)
b. Reference to time: "on that day" 6:27c 2) Second maxim: variation (cf. vs 22b)
c. Second imperative: "dance" 6:28a-b b. Second parallelism us membrorum
6:23b 2. Statement of reason: theological doctrine 6:28a 1) Third maxim: variation (cf. vs 22c)
a. Demonstrative particle: "behold" 6:28b 2) Fourth maxim: variation (cf. vs 22d)
b. Prediction of eschatological reward (present tense) 6:29-38 3. Argument
c. Deduction (cf. vs 26b) 6:29-30 a. Set of four examples (imaginary cases, exag-
1) Statement of present experience: "they" did the gerated, demonstrating the seeming absurdity of the
same to you maxim)

66
 Introduction

6:29a 1) First example (specific) (b) Second imperative (general): "do good"
a) Action suffered (repeated from vss 27c, 33)
b) Paradoxical reaction recommended (positive) (c) Third imperative (specific): "lend money"
6:29b 2) Second example (specific) (cf. vss 30b, 34)
a) Action suffered (d) Statement of critical difference: "expecting
b) Paradoxical reaction recommended (negative) nothing in return"
6:30a 3) Third example (general) c) Conclusion
a) Action suffered (1) Two predictions (future tense)
b) (Paradoxical?) reaction recommended (positive) 6:35b (a) General: great reward (cf. vs 23b)
6:30b 4) Fourth example (general) 6:35c (b) Specific: "you will be sons of the Most
a) Action suffered High"
b) Reaction recommended (negative) 6:35d (2) Statement of reason: doctrine of divine
6:31-36 b. The presupposition philanthropy
6:31 1) Ethical principle: the Golden Rule (formulated (a) Quotation mark: /Jn ("that")
positively) (b) Concerning God's nature (hymnic?); divine
a) Anticipated (desired) reaction by others epithet: XP7Jun5s
b) Recommended action (c) Concerning human nature, the bene-
c) Presupposition: principle of do ut des ficiaries: "the ungrateful and the wicked" (cf.
6:32-35 2) Commentary the question of x6.pts, "credit," vss 32b, 33b,
6:32-34 a) Refutation of the misunderstanding of the 34b)
Golden Rule (vs 31) as applied to the command of 6:36 3) Conclusion: a maxim (imperative)
Jesus (vs 27b); set of three rhetorical questions and 6:36a a) Imperative
answers (all negative) 6:36b b) Statement of reason: doctrine concerning the
6:32 (1) First question (cf. vs 27b) nature of God
6:32a (a) Description (hypothetical) of conventional c) Principle (implied): imitatio Dei
(inadequate) behavior 6:37-38 c. Paraenetical application (positive)
6:32b (b) Question (negative answer implied) 6:37-38a 1) Set of four maxims (in imperative form)
6:32c (c) Statement of reason: observation that even 6:37a-b a) First parallelismus membrorum
criminals love those who love them 6:37a (1) First maxim
(d) Conclusion (implied): such behavior (a) Imperative (negative)
receives no special reward (b) Prediction: denial (gnomic)
6:33 (2) Second question (cf. vs 27c) 6:37b (2) Second maxim, climactic
6:33a (a) Description (hypothetical) of conventional (a) Imperative (negative)
(inadequate) behavior (b) Prediction: denial (gnomic)
6:33b (b) Question (negative answer implied) 6:37c-38a b) Second parallelism us membrorum (asyndetic)
6:33c (c) Statement of reason: observation that 6:37c (I) Third maxim
criminals do the same (a) Imperative (positive)
(d) Conclusion (implied): such behavior (b) Prediction (future, gnomic[?])
receives no special reward 6:38a (2) Fourth maxim, climactic (principle of do ut
6:34 (3) Third question (cf. vs 30b) des)
6:34a (a) Description (hypothetical) of conventional (a) Imperative (positive)
(false) behavior (b) Prediction (future, gnomic[?])
6:34b (b) Question (negative answer implied) 6:38b 2) Saying on measure (gnomic, asyndetic)
6:34c (c) Statement of reason: observation that a) Verbal image of what the good measure of
criminals do the same grain looks like (prolepsis)
(d) Conclusion (implied): the Golden Rule does (I) Technical term
not meanthe exchange of favors among the (2) Three descriptive participles (asyndetic)
like-minded; it would receive no special reward b) Prediction (gnomic future)
6:35 b) Correct understanding of the Golden Rule (vs 6:38c 3) Conclusion: Saying on measuring (gnomic,
31) as applied to the command of Jesus (vs 27b) paronomasia)
6:35a (1) Connection, marking turning point: 'lfA~v, a) Description of action
"by contrast" (cf. vs 24) b) Prediction of reaction (gnomic future)
(2) Set of three imperatives (positive) 6:39-45 B. Toward the insiders, members of the group
(a) First imperative (general): "love your 6:39 I. Presupposition: demonstration of the need for
enemies" (repeated from vss 27b, 32) education (preventive education)

67
6:39a a. Introductory formula the bad person (positively formulated, antithetical
1) Author: "he spoke" parallelismus membrorum)
2) Addressees ( 1) First definition: marks of the good person
3) Hermeneutical category: proverbial image (o aya60r lf.v6puJ1I"Or)
(1rapa{3oA~) (2) Second definition: marks of the bad one (b
6:39b-c b. Two rhetorical questions, describing what edu- 1rov71 p6r)
cation is intended to prevent b) Third statement: a proverb
6:39b 1) First question: expected answer: no c) Observation (implied): need for self-knowledge
6:39c 2) Second question: expected answer: yes
c. Conclusion (implied) • 6:46-49 Ill. Peroration
1) Observation: lack of "insight" 6:46 A. Warning: a rhetorical question
2) Goal of education is the good guide (ba71yor) 6:46a 1. Caricatured description of formal devotion
who "sees" 6:46b 2. Sarcastic observation: the failure of not "doing"
6:40-45 2. Three basic rules for the learning community 3. Conclusion (implied): the contradiction marks the
a. First rule concerning student-teacher relationship immature student
(two definitions) 6:47-49 B. A double parable describing success and failure
6:40a 1) First definition (negatively formulated): student 6:47-48 1. First parable: the successful student
and teacher before student's graduation 6:47 a. Introduction
6:40b 2) Second definition (positively formulated): 6:47a 1) Marks ofthe good student: coming, hearing,
student and teacher after student's graduation and doing the words of jesus
6:41-42 b. Second rule concerning relationship between 6:47b 2) Announcement of the literary type of example
student and students (diatribe composition) (1st person singular)
6:41-42a 1) Two consecutive rhetorical questions (using 6:48 b. Example demonstrating success
exaggerated images) 6:48a 1) Formula of comparison
6:41 a) First question 2) Focal person
( 1) Description of criticism of others 3) Description of the process of building a house
(2) Disclosure of failure of self-criticism a) Excavating the ground
6:42a b) Second question b) Going deep down to rock
(1) Description of correction of others c) Laying the foundation on the rock
(2) Disclosure of failure of self-correction 6:48b 4) Description of calamities
6:42b 2) Conclusion a) Rising flood
a) Address: "you hypocrite" b) Bursting of the river against the house
b) Observation (implied): need for self-correction 6:48c 5) Results
6:42c 3) Rule (formulated positively) a) Negative: the house is able to withstand
a) Imperative: self-correction first b) Reason: it is well built
b) Predicated result 6:49 2. Second Parable
(1) Nature of competence (future, gnomic) 6:49a a. Introduction
(2) Recommended correction of fellow student 1) Marks of the failing student: hearing, not doing
6:43-45 c. Third rule concerning relationship to oneself [2) Omitted: announcement of example1
(composition of gnomic sentences) 6:49b b. Example demonstrating failure
6:43-44b 1) Set of three sententiae comparing plants and 1) Formula of comparison
humans 2) Focal person
6:43 a) First sententia: agricultural rule (negatively 3) Description of the process of building a house
formulated, chiastic parallelismus membrorum) a) On the ground
6:44a b) Second sententia: agricultural rule (positively b) Without foundation
formulated) 6:49c 4) Description of calamities
6:44b c) Third sententia: agricultural rule (negatively [a) Omitted: rising flood1
formulated) b) Bursting of the river against the house
2) Conclusions (implied) 6:49d 5) Results
a) What is true of plants is also true of humans a) Immediate collapse of the house
b) Deeds are inevitable consequences of the b) Extent of the collapse
quality of the person
6:45 3) Application to anthropology: set of three
statements The SP, which has always remained in the shadow of
a) First statement: juxtaposition of the good and the SM, has not been analyzed in detail until recently. As

68
 Introduction

already pointed out, Tholuck pays almost no attention to
it. 441 Although Ernst Christian Achelis (1838-1912) 44 2
agrees with most ofTholuck's views, his commentary on
the SM contains a major section on the SPas well. 443
This section provides an analysis of the SP, which, in his
view, has three parts: 44 4
A. A "hymnological introduction": the "blessings" and
the "woes" (6:20b-26)
B. The "new law oflove" (6:27-45), divided into two
subsections:
I. The love of the enemy (6:27-38)
II. The love of the brother (6:39-45)
C. Conclusion: A two-part exhortation (6:46-49)
Remarkably, Wellhausen had already suggested that
the SP is a compositional unit by itself, 445 but nobody
came forward with an attempt at analysis until very
recently. Thaddaus Soiron 446 finds reasons to confirm
that the SP has a compositional structure. His analysis
does not differ much from Ache lis, except that Soiron
assumes a division by strophes. 447 Commentaries on
Luke sometimes try to offer an outline of the SP, 448 but
until Heinz Schiirmann's commentary there was little
interest in the perspective of composition. 449 Recently,
Heinrich Kahlefeld 450 and Jan Lambrecht 451 have
presented more detailed analyses, which I have taken
into consideration in my own. I agree with these earlier
analyses that the SP has three major parts:
Part I consists of the exordium that takes the form of
four beatitudes contrasted with four threats or "woes"
(6:20b-26). The beatitudes of the SM and those of the
SP have as many similarities as differences; I will discuss
them in detail in the appropriate sections below.
The most important difference is that the SP has no
continuing sequence of beatitudes, but a set of four
beatitudes (6:20b-22), which is juxtaposed with a set of
four threats or "woes" (6:24-26); between them comes
the call for joy (6:23), which the SM has at the end (Matt
5:12) of the sequence ofbeatitudes (5:3-11). The focus
of the SP is not on "virtues," as in the SM, but on the
contrast of the social types of the poor and the rich. 452
Part II contains the main body of the SP (Luke 6:27-
45); it is made up of rules of conduct for the disciples,
presented in argumentative form. These rules are
divided into two sections, one directed at the outside
world (6:27-38), and the other at the inside world of the
group of disciples (6:39-45). 45 3
The doctrinal basis of the whole is Jesus' love-com-
mand, set forth as a set of four maxims in imperative
form (6:27b-28). A subsequent argument showing the
validity of Jesus' command begins, seemingly negatively,
with four examples demonstrating its absurdity (6:29-
30).
A further positive argument points out how one
should properly understand these maxims. First, the

441 See above, n. 151. Lukas (ThHKNT 3; 2d ed.; Berlin: Evangelische

442 Achelis, Bergpredigt, 459: "Wir haben somit in Mt. 5
und in Lc. 6 denselben Anfang derselben Berg-
predigt; nur flieBt dem Mt. die nahere und reinere
QueUe, welche die Worte Jesu treu iiberliefert
enthalt, wahrend Lc. sich mit einer entfernteren und
durch die verwischende und vermischende Erin-
nerung getriibten QueUe begniigen musste." ("We
have therefore in Matthew 5 and Luke 6 the same
beginning of the same Sermon on the Mount, only
that Matthew has the benefit of a closer and purer
source, which transmitted jesus' sayings faithfully,
while. Luke had to be content with a source further
removed and muddied through a blurred and mixed-
up memory.")
443 Ibid., 433-92.
444 Ibid., 479-83, with names of predecessors, 479.
445 Wellhausen, Evangelium Lucae, 24 (Evangelien-
kommentare, 482).
446 Soiron, Bergpredigt, 111-27.
447 Ibid., 126-27.
448 See, e.g., Walter Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach
Verlagsanstalt, 1961) 139-54; Joseph A. Fitzmyer,
The Gospel According to Luke (AB 28, 28A; 2 vols.;
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981, 1985) 1.625-
46, esp. 627-32.
449 Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.323-86. Schiir-
mann's views will be discussed in detail below.
450 Heinrich Kahlefeld, Der Junger: Eine Auslegung der
Rede Lk 6,20-49 (Frankfurt a.M.: Knecht, 1962).
451 Lambrecht, Sermon on the Mount, 32-39, 206-33. See
also my review in]BL 106 (1987) 541-43. A "Formal
Analysis" of the "Inaugural Sermon" is also found in
Kloppenborg, Formation, 342-43.
452 See below on SP /Luke 6:20-26.
453 The name "disciple" (p.a871r~s) occurs in 6:40. See
above, n. 409.

69
ethical principle of the Golden Rule is stated (6:31 ); then
an exposition of this principle follows.
Its first part, again negatively, shows how the Golden
Rule should not be understood (6:32-34); this part takes
the form of three rhetorical questions. A positive
argument follows; three imperatives show how the
Golden Rule must be understood properly (6:35). A
concluding maxim (6:36) sums up the argument.
The paraenetical application occurs by way of a set of
four maxims in imperative form (6:37-38a), a verbal
image (6:38b), and a concluding sententia (6:38c).
The second section of the main body contains basic
rules for the education of disciples (6:39-45). This
section begins with an argument demonstrating the need
for theological and ethical education (6:39). This is
followed by three rules for the learning community
(6:40-45): a rule for the relationship between student
and teacher (6:40); another rule concerning relationships
between students (6:41-42); and a third rule concerning
the relationship to oneself (6:43-45).
Part III begins with a warning in the form of a rhe-
torical question using caricature (6:46), and continues
with the parable of the two house builders (6:47-49)
familiar from the SM.
To conclude: The detailed analyses of both the SM
and the SP, as I have provided them in this commentary,
lead to the following conclusions regarding the relation-
ship between these two Sermons:
1. The relationship between the SM and the SP is
characterized by great similarities and differences. These
similarities and differences involve whole sections of texts
as well as minute details of formulation, wording, style,
and arrangement. The evidence leads me to conclude
that the SM and the SP represent two separate and
textually independent elaborations of a common pattern
of composition. The evidence of the similarities and
differences cannot be explained as the result of textual
changes by one of the other. The SM is not simply an
expansion of the SP; nor is the SP a reduction of the SM.
It is not the case that everything that is in the SP is also
found in the SM. Contrary to common assumption, the
two Sermons do not follow the same order precisely; they
do so only in a more general sense. Consequently, one
454 See above, n. 59, and Stoll, De virtute, 38-39.
70
must explain their relationship in terms other than
textual dependency or revision of sources.
2. The two Sermons share component parts and
overall arrangement. Both have an exordium, in which
beatitudes constitute the major component. In addition
to beatitudes, the SP has threats or "woes"; they are not
found in the SM, which, however, has an eschatological
warning section not found in the SP. Jesus' love-com-
mand plays the major role in the main body of both
Sermons. Both Sermons carefully expound the meaning
of this love-command, but in doing so they use rather
different arrangements and arguments. The presup-
positions and conclusions, however, are on the whole the
same. Both Sermons recognize the Golden Rule as a
fundamental ethical principle. Both Sermons conclude
with the parable of the two house builders. Beyond these
major components, the two Sermons share a pool of
individual sayings, images, metaphors, and theological
concepts. They also have in common that they both
function in the eduction of disciples.
3. The differences between the SM and the SPare the
result of the fact that they are different elaborations of
similar material for similar purposes. The observation
has been recorded earlier that the SM is designed to
address an audience that is culturally Jewish, while the
SP speaks to people who are culturally Greek. These
different audiences require different arguments and
other means of persuasion, so as to further their progress
in comprehending and appropriating Jesus' message and
ethos.
These observations lead me to conclude that one must
explain the compositions of the SM and the SP, their
similarities and differences, by their literary genre and
function, rather than by source criticism as understood
in the terms of Harnack. This explanation, if it is to be
persuasive, must coincide with other overall char-
acteristics, especially those of comparative religion and
theology.
IV. The Literary Genre
The question whether the SM and the SP conform to a
known literary genre was raised only in modern times.
Since Augustine's De sermone domini in monte, 454 the SM
 Introduction

has traditionally been treated as a sermo (English:
"sermon"; German: Predigt or Rede). 455 This classi-
fication is, however, not satisfactory. Sermo is too broad a
category, 456 and it takes its clues from the SM in the
Gospel of Matthew, which is secondary. Matthew makes
the SM the first of the great "speeches" set into the
framework of his narrative. Yet, even Matthew calls the
SM by the term used by the SM itself: ol A.&yot ("the
sayings") 457 and~ otoax1/ ("the teaching") 458 of Jesus, not
his A.&yos ("speech"). 459 It is not inconceivable that
Matthew knew that the SM was, in strict terms, not a
speech. Similar assumptions may be true of Luke, who
calls the SP Tiz p1/p.aTa ("the pronouncements" [Luke
7:1 ]).
Augustine, who used the term sermo, nevertheless
treated the SM as a compendium, 460 a genre description
not yet used by him in this context but only later by
Erasmus, 461 who made it acceptable. In all probability,
the German term often used by later scholars, "Zusam-
menfassung" ("summary") was derived from Erasmus, 46 2
or from Calvin, 463 or from both. The term may go back
to Papias's concept of cn)vTafts Toov KvptaKWV A.&ywv
("collection of dominical sayings"). 464
Another category applied to the SM is "catechetical,"
especially since Alfred Seeberg attempted to reconstruct
an early Christian baptismal catechism. 465 In his view,
this catechism consisted of three parts and integrated
older materials from a jewish proselyte catechism. Since
then the term "catechism" has been used by others, even
when they did not accept Seeberg's entire hypothesis. 466
While the search for a jewish proselyte catechism has
been given up, the recent study of comparable Hel-
lenistic-Jewish texts by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr raises the
issue again. He calls the texts he investigates "catechism-
like" (katechismusartig). 467 It should be said, however, that
the category of catechism fits only later Christian
texts, 468 and that the adjective "catechism-like" is very

455 Hence the titles "Bergpredigt" or "Bergrede."
456 Michael D. Goulder (Midrash and Lection in Matthew
[London: SPCK, I97 4)II, 26, I84-86) regards the
SM as a sermon composed by a Christian scribe
(Matthew) to be read in a synagogue at Pentecost.
But the fact that the SM has a proem and a per-
oration is not enough to make it a synagogue sermon.
Goulder's hypothesis is built on other elaborate
presuppositions indicated in the title of his book.
457 As the SM refers to itself in SM/Matt 7:24, 26. See
Betz, Essays, 3.
458 Cf. the verb atoa<TK<tv ("teach") in SM/Matt 5: I9, also
referring to the SM (see Betz, Essays, 46-5I); cf.
a.M...KaAOS ("teacher") in SP /Luke 6:40.
459 Matthew follows the SM in calling the sayings of Jesus
A.6yot (7:24, 26, 28; IO:I4; I9:I; 24:35; 26:I);Jesus'
message as a whole is called A..lyos (I3: I9-23; I5: I2).
460 See Augustine De serm. dom. in monte I.I, lines 9-I 0:
"ut appareat in eo praecepta esse omnia quae ad
informandam vitam pertinent" ("as to make it
apparent that it embraces all the directives we need
forlife"). Similarly, I. I, lines 25-27.
46I See Kruger, Humanistische Evangelienauslegung, I77.
462 See Herder, "Regel der Zusammenstimmung" (see
above, n. I35), 33; Eichhorn, "Ueber die drey ersten
Evangelien" (see above, n. I79) 976: "Zusammen-
stellung"; Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien,
I74-75: "Zusammenfassung." From then on, these
·terms are used repeatedly up to modern times. See
Dibelius, Sermon, 92-94, 97 ("Bergpredigt," 92-93,
97); Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 84-
I 02, 357: "the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew
gives less the impression of prophetic preaching than
of a Church Catechism"; Betz, Essays, I n. 2.
463 Calvin, In Novum Testamentum Commentarii (see
above, n. I 09) l.I35 on Matt 5: I: "hie ante oculos
positam habeant brevem summam doctrinae Christi,
collectam ex pluribus et diversis eius concionibus"
("that here, before their eyes, they have set a short
summary of the teaching of Christ, gathered from
many and various discourses").
464 Papias, apud Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.39.I5-I6; for the
text see Aland, Synopsis, 531.
465 Alfred Seeberg, Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit
(Leipzig: Deichert, I903; reprinted Theologische
Bucherei 26; Munich: Kaiser, I966); cf. Wiard
Popkes, "Die Gerechtigkeitstradition im Matthaus-
evangelium," ZNW 80 (I989) I-23.
466 See esp. Charles H. Dodd, "The 'Primitive Cate-
chism' and the Sayings ofJesus," in New Testament
Essays: Studies in Memory ofT. W. Manson (Manchester:
Manchester University, I959) I06-I8; reprinted in
Dodd, More New Testament Studies (Manchester:
Manchester University, I968) ll-29.
467 Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, Gesetz und Pariinese: Katechis-
musartige Weisungsreihen in der fruhjudischen Literatur
(WUNT 2.28; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck), I987).
468 See esp. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the
Newly Baptized, which has many parallels to the SM
and the SP. For the text, see the edition by Otto
Stahlin, GCS I7.7.3 (I909) 22I-23; ET by George
W. Butterworth (LCL; London: Heinemann, I9I9)
370-77. More comprehensive, but no less important
for comparison, are the three books of The Pedagogue;

71
broad and can be applied to a variety of texts. 469 Also,
this terminology is too specifically Christian to be appli-
cable to other texts. 470 In its wider sense, much of the
wisdom literature of Hellenistic Judaism can be called
"catechetical," since it comes from a school milieu and
serves pedagogy. It is not incidental that the SM and the
SP are frequently mentioned in this connection as well.
While Dibelius's 471 and Bultmann's works have only
intimations regarding the literary genre of the SM and
the SP, it is to Bornkamm's credit that he brought up the
issue again in his SNTS presidential address of 1977. 4 72
He demanded that scholars give more attention to the
still open question of the Gattung of the SM. However,
Bornkamm also stated his skepticism to the effect that he
did not see any real literary analog to the SM in either
the primitive Christian or Jewish literature. In a list of
possible analogs, Bornkamm considered from Qumran
1 QS, 1QSa, and the Damascus Document, and from
rabbinic Judaism the Pirqe 'Abot. All these texts, he
concluded, are structured differently. From Christianity,
he named the Didache, calling it a "church order"
(Kirchenordnung). Yet, the Didache resembles the SM
more closely than Bornkamm realized, because the
similarities to the SM are mostly found in the first six
chapters (Didache 1-6), the older part, while only the
later chapters (Didache 7-15) make it a church order.
On the whole, Bornkamm was too skeptical, 473 and that
for several reasons:
1. More comparable texts exist than he considered;
they come from Judaism as well as from Christianity.
2. At least Pirqe 'A bot and the Didache deserve more
consideration. In the case of 'Abot 474 there are signs of
development, since a later expansion exists in two
versions, A and B ('Abot de Rabbi Nathan). 475 As for the
Didache, there is the Doctrina apostolorum, which closely
resembles Didache 1-6. 4 76
3. Even if such texts are composed in a different way,
this does not necessarily preclude their belonging to the
same literary genre.
4. The question of the genre requires a discussion of
the function as well. Taking my departure from Dibelius
and Bornkamm, I proposed a new solution in my 1978
Inaugural Lecture at the University of Chicago. 477
Making use of functional and literary hints in the SM
itself, I proposed the classification of epitome for the SM.
Tracing literary clues in the text to appropriate

see the text in GCS 17.7 .1, 2d ed. (1972); ET by
William Wilson, Clement of Alexandria (Ante-Nicene
Christian Library 4.1; Edinburgh: Clark, 1871) 113-
346.
469 On the whole, see Andre Turck, "Catechein et
catechesis chez les premiers Peres," RSPhTh 47 (1963)
. 361-72; idem, Evangelisation et catechese aux deux
premiers siecles (Paris: Cerf, 1962); Paul Blomenkamp,
"Erziehung," RAG 6 (1966) 502-59, with bib-
liography; Georg Kretschmar and Karl Hauschildt,
"Katechumenat/Katechumenen," TRE 18 (1988) 1-
14.
4 70 Especially important is Gregory of Nyssa's Great
Catechetical Speech. See the new edition and com-
mentary by Joseph Barbel, Die groj3e katechetische Rede:
Oralio catechetica magna (Bibliothek der griechischen
Literatur 1; Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1971). For an
ET, see Edward R. Hardy and Cyril C. Richardson,
eds., Christology of the Later Fathers (LCC 3; London:
SCM, 1954) 268-325. On Gregory, see the article by
Heinrich Dorrie, "Gregor III (Gregor von Nyssa),"
RAG 12 (1983) 863-95, esp. 875-76.
471 See the references above, n. 462; also nn. 323-25.
472 Bornkamm, "Aufbau," esp. 432. See also above, n.
382.
473 Bornkamm says nothing about the SP.
4 7 4 See the text and translation by Herford, Pirke A both;
Charles Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, Com-
prising Pirqe Aboth in Hebrew and English with Notes and
Excursuses (2d ed.; New York: KTAV, 1969 [reprint
of the 1st ed., 1897]). For bibliography, see Emil
Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of
jesus Christ (ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and
Matthew Black; rev. ed.; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: Clark,
1973-87) 1.82-83; 3.214-15.
475 For a translation and notes, see Judah Goldin, The
Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (Version A) (1955;
reprinted New York: Schocken, 197 4); Anthony J.
Saldarini, The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (Abot
de Rabbi Nathan [Version B ]) (SJLA 11; Leiden: Brill,
1975); idem, Scholastic Rabbinism: A Literary Study of
the Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (BJS 14; Chico,
Calif.: Scholars, 1982).
476 For the edition and bibliography, see above, n. 24.
4 77 Published under the title, "The Sermon on the
Mount (Matt 5:3-7:27): Its Literary Genre and
Function," JR 59 (1979) 285-97; reprinted in Betz,
Essays, 1-16.

72
 Introduction

technical terms of Hellenistic rhetoric led me to specific
Hellenistic texts associated with these terms. A text
closely comparable to the SM turned out to be Epic-
tetus's Encheiridion, a handbook-type compilation of
sayings of the philosopher. Like other such works, the
Encheiridion belongs to the category of epitome, more
specifically the philosophical epitome. The prototype for
Epictetus's Encheiridion was Epicurus's Kyriai Doxai
("Principal Doctrines").47 8
Not surprisingly, my proposal met with criticism by
those New Testament scholars who were unfamiliar with
this material and kind ofreasoning. 479 They offered the
following objections, all of them in my view incon-
sequential:480
1. There are "substantial differences in form between
the K yriai Doxai and Matt 5-7." While this fact cannot
be denied, the conclusions drawn from it are inaccurate:
(a) "Whereas the Kyriai Doxai is a synopsis of the whole
ofEpicurus's philosophical system, the SM includes only
part ofthe teaching of Jesus-the ethical teaching." This
objection, however, is inaccurate. In all likelihood the
SM as well as the SP are designed to sum up "the whole"
of Jesus' teaching, each in a different way for different
audiences. What "the whole" is needs to be determined
in each case; in the case of the SM and the SP, reference
is made to Jesus' teaching as a whole, that is, the pool of
sayings from which the SM has drawn its material.
Moreover, the SM, in particular, contains not only
"ethics" but interpretation of the Torah and matters of
cult as well, not to mention theology, cosmology, and
eschatology; in a different way than ethics does, the SP
emphasizes anthropology and education.
(b) "There are a number of verses in the Sermon,
especially in the Antitheses, 5:21-48, which hardly
qualify for inclusion in a concise synopsis on the basis of
their 'primary importance'; they seem to have been
included in their present context as illustrations (e.g.
5:39b-42), or as the result either of a catchword con-
nection or of broadly similar content." This statement is
obviously speculative, although made as if factual. It
overlooks that, in the present composition of both the
SM and the SP, all segments are part of a thoroughgoing
argumentation that also uses illustrations, catchwords,
association of ideas, and so forth. Therefore, none of
these features precludes the hypothesis of an epitome, but
are part of it; they are found in many other epitomai as
well.
(c) "Whereas the Kyriai Doxai probably contains no
literary structure at all, the SM has been carefully
composed." This objection takes up Hermann Usener's
claim of 1887, reported by me, 481 but regards it as a
fact, not as a claim. 482 Like many such claims made at
the time about texts having no recognizable structure,
Usener's was also wrong. There are, however, definite
indications, which need a detailed investigation, that the
Kyriai Doxai does contain a literary structure. There is
also evidence of heavy use of catchword connection and
association of ideas.
2. The point has been made that my hypothesis rests
on the presupposition that the epitome as a literary genre
of Hellenistic origin was "known in strict Jewish-Chris-
tian circles within a generation of Jesus' death"; there is,
however (thus goes the objection), no evidence of other
Jewish epitomai at this time. 483 But such analogs do exist.
One should not rule out the factual existence of a
phenomenon simply on the grounds that it has not been

478 Idem, Essays, 11-15. 480 The following is a reply to Stanton, "Origin," 183.
479 See the reviews ofBetz, Essays, by Graham N. 481 Betz (Essays, 13) refers to Hermann Usener, Epicurea
Stanton,JTS 37 (1986) 521-23; idem, "The Origin (1887; reprinted Stuttgart: Teubner, 1966), p.
and Purpose of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount," in XLIV.
Gerald F. Hawthorne and Otto Betz, eds., Tradition 482 One should note that Stanton's objection is not based
and Interpretation in the N!!W Testament: Essays in on any new investigation of Epicurus's work; he
Honour of E. Earle Ellis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, simply takes Usener's remark as a proven fact.
1987) 181-92, esp. 182-83; reprinted in his A Gospel 483 So Carlston, "Betz on the Sermon," 50.
for a NI!W People: Studies in Matthi!W (Edinburgh: Clark,
1992) 307-25; Charles E. Carlston, "Betz on the
Sermon on the Mount-A Critique," CBQ 50 (1988)
47-57, esp. 50-51.

73
adequately investigated. Hellenistic-Jewish literature
includes a number of works that on closer examination
can be shown to be epitomai. It is also known that
Hellenistic-Jewish literature chooses literary genres of
Greek origin. Indeed, it is quite possible that the literary
success of Epicurus's Kyriai Doxai led Hellenistic-Jewish
authors to come up with contrapropositional imita-
tions. 484 At any rate, works such as Ben Sira, 485 Pseudo-
Phocylides, 486 Philo's Hypothetica, 487 and the Wisdom of
Solomon488 are prime candidates for comparison-
works that have now been collected and discussed by
Max Kiichler, 489 James Charlesworth, 490 Karl-Wilhelm
Niebuhr,49I and John Kloppenborg. 492 Many of them
are put together in the corpus ofjudische Schriften aus
hellenistisch-romischer Zeit, volume 3: Unterweisung in
lehrhafter Form. 493 The collection in Charlesworth's Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha, volume 2, has a section entitled
"Wisdom and Philosophical Literature," among them
Ahiqar, Pseudo-Phocylides, and the Sentences of the Syriac
Menander.
Other such writings come from different branches of
Judaism: the Manual of Discipline (lQS, lQSa), and the
Damascus Document from Qumran; the Pirqe 'Abot494
and the 'Abot de Rabbi Nathan (versions A and B) from
rabbinic Judaism. No investigations of their composition
have been conclusive as yet, but one can hardly doubt
that all of them functioned as epitomai of the doctrines
considered essential by those Jewish movements which
produced them. These observations lead to the con-
clusion that at least in the Hellenistic era the literary
genre of the epitome was transcultural. One can see from
Egyptian literature also how this genre developed in a
different context.
In ancient Egypt, the "Teachings" are firmly estab-
lished as a literary genre.4 95 There can be no serious
doubt that this literature has influenced the biblical
literature as early as the Old Testament. 496 Later, in the
Hellenistic period, Greek material and ideas influenced
both Egyptian and Jewish wisdom literature. On the
Egyptian side, such influences have been shown in the
Papyrus Insinger, the Demotic sayings tradition, and the
Teachings of Silvanus from Nag Hammadi. 497 The
Teachings of Silvanus have become superficially Chris-
tianized. Such a history that begins in Hellenistic-Jewish
wisdom and continues in Christianity can also be as-
sumed for the Didache (Didache 1-6), 498 the Doctrina

484 See my remark in the article, "Hellenismus," TRE 15
(1986) 20-21.
485 See Helge Stadelmann, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter:
Eine Untersuchung zum Berufsbild des vor-makkabiiischen
SOfor unter Berilcksichtigung seines Verhiiltnisses zu
Priester-, Propheten- und Weisheitslehrertum (WUNT
2.6; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1980).
486 See the commentary by Pieter W. van der Horst, The
Sentences ofPseudo-Phocylides: With Introduction and
Commentary (SVTP 4; Leiden: Brill, 1987); Niebuhr,
Gesetz und Pariinese (see above, n. 467) 5-31.
487 See Niebuhr, Gesetz und Pariinese, 13-72.
488 Ibid., 211-16, with further bibliography.
489 Max Kuchler, Frilhjildische Weisheitstraditionen: Zum
Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens im Bereich des Jrilh-
judischenjahweglaubens (OBO 26; Fribourg: Uni-
versit!itsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 1979).
490 James Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseud-
epigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
1983-85).
491 See above, n. 486.
492 Kloppenborg, Formation, 329-41.
493 Unterweisung in lehrhafter Form OSHRZ 3; Giitersloh:
Mohn, 197 4-81 ).
494 These writings were mentioned by Bomkamm,
"Aufbau," 432; see Betz, Essays, 2 n. 5.
495 See Hellmut Brunner, Altiigyptische Erziehung (Wies-
baden: Harrassowitz, 1957); idem, "Lehren," LdA 3
(1980) 964-68, and the articles by various authors
on the various "Instructions," LdA 3 (1980) 968-92
(with bibliography); idem, Altagyptische Weisheit:
Lehren Jilr das Leben (Zurich and Munich: Artemis,
1988); idem, in Wolfgang Rollig, ed., Das hiirende
Herz: Kleine Schriften zur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte
Agyptens (OBO 80; Fribourg: Universit!itsverlag;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988); Miriam
Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 3
(Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California,
197 5); idem, Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the
International Context: A Study of Demotic Instruction
(OBO 52; Fribourg: Universit!itsverlag; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983).
496 See Brunner, LdA 3 (1980) 968; idem, Das horende
Herz, 391-427, with further bibliography; Kuchler,
Weisheitstraditionen, passim; James L. Crenshaw,
"Education in Ancient Israel," JBL 104 (1985) 601-
15.
497 NHC VII, 4, 84.15-118.7. See Malcolm L. Peel
and Jan Zandee, "The Teachings of Silvanus," in
James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in
English (3d ed.; Leiden: Brill; San Francisco: Harper
& Row, 1988) 379-95.
498 See above, n. 22.

74
 Introduction

apostolorum, 499 the Two Ways schema in Barnabas 18-
20, the Mandates ofHermas, 500 and the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs. 50 I
The Greek side has important literary precursors in
addition to Epictetus and Epicurus. Most important are
the "Oral Instructions," acusmata (aKoVup.ara) designed
for the "auditors" (aKovup.anKol), the class of "under-
graduate" students of the Pythagorean school. 50 2 These
"oral instructions" are quoted in Iamblichus Vita Pyth.
18.80-8 7; Porphyry Vita Pythagorae 42; Plutarch Liberis
educ. 17, 12D-F; and Diog. L. 8.17-18. 503 The sources
may go back to Aristotle's lost treatise "On the Pythago-
reans" (IIt:pl. ITvBayopt:lwv). 504 The acusmata constitute a
compendium of apparently mysterious sayings that, to
the initiated who knew what they meant, summed up the
essentials of the Pythagorean way of life. According to
Armand Delatte, this "catechism" had two parts, "doc-
trines" and "precepts." These acusmata exerted a great
influence even beyond the limits of the Pythagorean
circles. The question has also been raised how the
acusmata are related to the so-called Golden Verses (Xpvua
"E11'1J) of Pythagoras. Whereas no clear answer has so far
been given to this question, the dissertation by Johan
Thorn has shown that the Golden Verses are, as regards
their genre and function, an epitome of sayings com-
parable to the SM and the SP. 5 05
One remarkable observation is the number of parallels
that can be established between these compendia and the
SM and the SP. 506 One can hardly have any doubt that
these compendia played a major role in philosophical
studies. Moreover, in the Hellenistic period, all philos-
ophy was considered the ars vitae et moriendi ("the art of
life and of dying"), 507 so that to have epitomai drawing
together the main precepts of philosophy was considered
most useful. The purpose of such epitomai was in the first
place to serve the appropriation of basic teachings by
philosophical adepts. 508 The theories and practices

499 See above, n. 24. Commentary (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World

500 See Reinhart Staats, "Hermas," TRE 15 (1986) I 00-
108; A. Hilhorst, "Hermas," RAG l4 (1988) 682-
701, esp. 692-93, onHermas Man. 6.1.2-5; Norbert
Brox, Der Hirte des Hermas (Kommentar zu den
Apostolischen Vatern 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & 507 See Albrecht Dihle, "Philosophie-Fachwissenschaft-
Ruprecht, 1991) 222-28.
501 See the critical edition by Marinus deJonge, The
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of
the Greek Text (PVTG 1.2; Leiden: Brill, 1978); H. W.
Hollander and M. deJonge, The Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden:
Brill, 1985); Howard C. Kee, OTP 1.775-828;
Jurgen Becker, Die Testamente der ZwolfPatriarchen
QSHRZ 3.1; Gutersloh: Mohn, 197 4).
502 The Pythagoreans distinguished between two classes
of students, the "acusmatics" and the "mathemati-
cians," representing different stages of initiation into
philosophy. See Kurt von Fritz, Mathematiker und
Akusmatiker bei den alten Pythagoreern (SBAW.PH
1960:11; Munich: Beck, 1960). Cf. SP/Luke 6:40.
503 For an edition and commentary, see Armand
Delatte, Etudes sur la litterature pythagoricienne (Paris:
Champion, 1915) 271-312; Delatte speaks of"Le
catechisme des acousmatiques." See also Martin P.
Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion (2d ed.;
Munich: Beck, 1961) 2.699-708; Walter Burkert,
Greek Religion (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni-
versity, 1985) 301-4.
504 So von Fritz, Mathematiker, 14.
505 For an edition and commentary, seeJohan C. Thorn,
The Pythagorean 'Golden Verses': With Introduction and
123; Leiden: Brill, 1995).
506 A good number of parallels have been pointed out by
Isidore Levy, La ligende de Pythagore de Gri!ce en
Palistine (Paris: Champion, 1927) 315-20.
Allgemeinbildung," in Aspects de la philosophie
hellinistique (Entretiens sur l'antiquite classique 32;
Vandoeuvre-Geneve: Fondation Hardt, 1986) 185-
223, esp. 186: "Das in disziplinierter, nachprufbarer
Ausdrucksweise dargelegte und gesicherte Grund-
wissen vom Aufbau der Welt und der Stellung der
Menschen in ihr soli den Adepten befahigen, sich in
bewuBtem Handeln mit der Naturordnung in
Ubereinstimmung zu setzen und derart das ihm
zugeordnete Lebensziel zu erreichen."
508 See Benjamin Ludwig Hijmans, Al:KHl:IE: Notes on
Epictetus' Educational System (Assen: Van Gorcum,
1959), with the review by Willy Theiler, Gnomon 32
(1961) 498-500; Ilsetraut Hadot, Seneca und die
griechisch-romische Tradition der Seelenleitung (Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1969); Pierre Hadot, Exercises spirituels et
philosophie antique (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes,
1981 ); idem, "Antike Methodik der geistlichen
Ubungen im Fruhchristentum," in Das Christentum in
der antiken Welt, Humanistische Bildung 4 ( 1981) 31-
62; Abraham]. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation: A
Graeco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1986); Robert]. Newman, "Cotidie meditare: Theory
and Practice of the meditatio in Imperial Stoicism,"
ANRWII, 36/3 (1989) 1473-1517.

75
connected with this education then led to longer treatises
on education generally, 509 directed at students in
elementary or secondary education. 510 Later, this type
of teaching material continued in the monastic rules of
Basilius ofCaesarea (c. 329-379), 511 Augustine (354-
430),512 and Benedict ofNursia (c. 480/490-
555/560).513 It should be pointed out that even in these
later monastic rules the influence of the SM and the SP is
extraordinary. 5l4 While major studies of this influence
are lacking, Karlmann Beyschlag's dissertation of
1953 515 has demonstrated the great importance of the
SM for the life and thought of Francis of Assisi
(1181/1182-1226), and for the monastic rules of the
Franciscan order.
Can one subsume all these texts under the literary
category of epitome? Admittedly, even if the texts are in
one way or another comparable, this should not be taken
to mean that they all are simply epitomai. The answer,
therefore, depends to some degree on what one defines
an epitome to be. What then are the characteristics of an
epitome? 516
As a book title, 51 7 "epitome" has been used since the
fourth century BCE, the name deriving from the verb
E7T&Ttp.vnv ("cut short," "divide"). Latin equivalents are
epitoma or breviarium. As the article by Ilona Opelt shows,
one must distinguish many different subtypes of the
genre; also one must not confuse the genre with other
similar genres, such asgnomologium, anthology, flori-
legium, catena, commentary, and so forth. 518
As a literary work, the epitome is secondary in nature.
It is a condensation of a larger work, made by a redactor
(who may at the same time be the author of the larger
work), 519 and for a specific purpose. Consequently,
because of the different types of material going into an
epitome, individual epitomai may differ greatly in ap-
pearance, while in regard to genre and function they
may be very similar.
Being a secondary work, therefore, the epitome
presupposes an earlier and larger work to be epitomized.
Ancient authors have at times described the process of
epitomizing as a redactional reworking and rearranging
of carefully selected excerpts. 520 These excerpts are
taken from already existing sources, written, oral, or
both. 5 2 1 Sometimes such sources are extant as well,
sometimes not, 522 and they may be homogeneous or
heterogeneous in terms of the material contained in

509 See esp. Plutarch's treatises "On Listening" (De
audiendo) and "On Listening to the Poets" (De
audiendis poetis). Cf. Brian P. Hillyard, Plutarch, "De
audiendo": A Text and Commentary (New York: Arno,
198I); D. M. Schenkeveld, "The Structure of
Plutarch's De audiendis poetis, • Mnemosyne 35 (1982)
60-71.
510 See Pseudo-Plutarch, "On the Education of Chil-
dren" (De liberis educandis), the only treatise on
education we possess from antiquity. See Edmund G.
Berry, "The De liberis educandis of Pseudo-Plutarch,"
HSCP 63 (1958) 387-99.
511 See Wolf-Dieter Hauschild, "Basilius von Caesarea,"
TRE 5 (1980) 301-13, with bibliography.
5I2 See Adoar Zumkeller, "Augustinusregel, • TRE 4
(I979) 745-48, with bibliography.
513 See above, n. 35; also Frumentus Renner, "Bene-
diktusregel," TRE 5 (I980) 573-77, with
bibliography.
5I4 For references see also above, nn. 34 and 35.
5I5 Karlmann Beyschlag, Die Bergpredigt und Franz von
Assisi (BFCTh 2.57; Giitersloh: Bertelsmann, 1955);
Werner Goez, "Franziscus von Assisi," TRE II
(1983) 299-307, with bibliography.
516 See Hermann Peter, Griechische Litteratur der
romischen Kaiserzeit bis Theodosius I und ihre Quellen (2
vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1897) 2.34I-83, esp. 365-
67; Eduard von Wolfflin, "Epitome," Archivfilr
lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik I2 ( I902)
333-44; Henricus Bott, De epitomis antiquis (Mar-
burg: Hamel, I920); Ilona Opelt, "Epitome," RAG 5
(I962) 944-73; Betz, "The Sermon on the Mount
(Matt. 5:3-7:27): Its Literary Genre and Function,"
in Essays, IO-I5 (also Betz, Synoptische Studien, 77-
9I); Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 85-104, with
examples esp. from Hierocles the Stoic (2d century
CE).
51 7 Some epitomai are not designated as such by the book
title.
518 See Opelt, "Epitome," 944-45. Cf. also Karlfried
Froehlich, "Bibelkommentare-Zur Krise einer
Gattung," ZThK 84(1987) 465-92.
519 Opelt, "Epitome," 957-58.
520 For example, Epicurus Epistula ad Herodotum, in
Diog. L. I0.35 (see Betz, Essays, 11-I2; Bott, De
epitomis, 5-7).
521 Arrian'sEnchiridion ofEpictetus is based on the
philosopher's oral teaching and on his student's
written notes. Epictetus's Dissertations were written
down by Arrian.
522 See Opelt, "Epitome," 960.

76

them. At any rate, the epitomator fashions a new work
consisting of whatever materials he decided to use. 523
The characteristics of the epitome include brevity and
precision in selection and formulation, but the epitome is
more than simply a collection of selected passages (an
anthology or florilegium). Rather, the epitomator has a
systematic whole in mind, so that the selected materials
are integrated into a systematic synopsis. In composing
the epitome, the epitomator has considerable freedom to
be creative, to reformulate, to transpose, to add, or to
omit in view of the overall purpose and genre.
As demonstrated previously, the SM, when viewed as
an epitome, comes close to one of the finest examples of
the philosophical epitome, 524 Epictetus's Encheiridion. 5 2 5
A number of observations may be made at this point. 5 2 6
The Encheiridion is a compilation of sayings of Epic-
tetus, made by his student Arrian from the philosopher's
Dissertations (BtaTpt{3a{). In this literary sense, therefore,
the Encheiridion is secondary as compared with the
Dissertations. In terms ofthe origins of the material,
however, the Encheiridion precedes the Dissertations
insofar as it contains the fundamental sententiae that serve
as the basis of the expositions in the Dissertations.
Arrian himself has provided helpful information for
understanding his methods and purposes; he does so in
the epistolary prooemium addressed to Lucius Gellius. 52 7
Accordingly, the Dissertations contain the sayings (A.oyot)
of Epictetus as Arrian wrote them down in his notebooks
(i!7Top.vrjp.aTa). These sayings, therefore, existed pre-
viously in oral form only, since Epictetus did not write
them down himself.
523 Ibid., 962.
524 For a survey of philosophical epitomai see ibid., 950-
52.
525 Ibid., 951, no. 61.
526 See Betz, Essays, 10-11, referring to Michael
Spanneut, "Epiktet," RAG 5 (1962) 599-681; Theo
Wirth, "Arrians Erinnerungen an Epiktet," MH 24
(196() 149-89, 197-216; Thomas Schmeller, Paulus
und die "Diatribe": Eine vergleichende Stilinterpretation
(NTA, n.s. 19; Munster: Aschendorff, 1987) 157-
67. See my review in]TS 40 (1989) 197-200.
527 In Henricus Schenkl's edition, Epictetus (Berlin:
Teubner, 1965) 5-6.
528 Ibid., 5, lines 15-19.
529 Ibid., III, testimonium III.
530 Ench. 1.5. Cf. Diss. 1.28.28, 30; 2.11.13-25; 2.20.21;
3.3.14, 15, etc. For the importance of the term, see
Introduction
The present work of the Encheiridion, Arrian says, was
written and published in order to fight opponents who
despised not only him but also Epictetus's sayings and
doctrines. These sayings, he assures us, were once
powerful enough "to incite the mind of his hearers to the
best things. If, now, these words of his should produce
the same effect, they would have, I think, just the success
which the words of the philosophers ought to have." 5 2 8
For information concerning the Encheiridion, however,
we have to turn to Simplicius's commentary, in which he
quotes from a letter by Arrian. According to this
quotation, the Encheiridion was composed by selecting
from Epictetus's sayings those that he deemed most
important and essential for his philosophy and that
would have the strongest impact on the readers. 529 In
the Encheiridion itself, Arrian calls these fundamentals
"canons" or "rules" (Kav0v£s-), 530 which the philosopher
ought to have always "at hand" (7rp6xnpov), 531 for his
"training" (p.£A£Tav). 5 32
In terms of its literary genre, the Encheiridion belongs
to the philosophical epitome. 533 Admittedly the most
famous example of this category in antiquity was
Epicurus's Kyriai Doxai. 534 The concept of Kavwv
("canon, rule") also comes from Epicurus, 535 as Epictetus
himself acknowledges in Diss. 2.23.21.
Harlot, Seneca, 57, 58.
531 Ench. 1.5; 16; 52.2; 53.1; and often in the
Dissertations.
532 Ench. 1.5.
533 So correctly Opelt, "Epitome," 951, no. 67.
534 Diog. L. 10.139-54. See Wolfgang Schmid,
"Epikur," RAG 5 (1962) 618-819, esp. 695-97,743-
46; Horst Steckel, "Epikuros," PWSup II (1968)
579-652, esp. 586-87, 598-99; Norman W.
DeWitte, Epicurus and His Philosophy (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota, 1954) 111-13: "The Use of
the Epitome."
535 Diog. L. 10.129; Graziano Arrighetti, ed., Epicuro:
Opere (2d ed.; Turin: Einaudi, 1973) 139, frg. 31.21,
line 13; 354, frg. 34.31, line 14; 356, frg. 34.22, line
7. See also Usener, Epicurea, 104-6.
77
 Arrian obviously imitated Epicurus's tetra-
pharmakos,536 "the fourfold medicine" mentioned at the
beginning of the Kyriai Doxai, when he placed Epictetus's
most important principles at the beginning of the
Encheiridion. 537 Epicurus, therefore, may well have been
the creator of this particular type of epitome, but he in
turn may have had in mind other precursors of a similar
nature. 538 Fortunately for us, he openly admits why he
has created this particular philosophical work. Briefly
stated, the purpose of his Kyriai Doxai was auxiliary, a
pedagogical tool, for many of his students were unable to
study his magnum opus, thirty-seven books On Nature
(7r<p't. cjl11)(T£ws). For these students he composed, as he
himself says, the Epistle to Herodotus: "For those who are
unable to study carefully all my physical writings or to go
into the longer treatises at all, I have myself prepared an
epitome of the whole system." 539 In other words, the
Epistle to Herodotus is an epitome in epistolary form. What
applies to this epistle, moreover, must equally be true of
the other epistles of Epicurus: they are also epitomai. In
addition, we know that still other epitomai must have
existed: a J.tLKpa t71'Lrop.~ and a p.cyali.1J imrop.~ ("a small
epitome" and "a large epitome"), the latter probably the
source of Lucretius's De rerum natura. 540 A complication
seems to be created by the fact that Epicurus himself
does not call his Kyriai Doxai an epitome. 541 Nevertheless,
not too much should be made of this point. Not only
have the Kyriai Doxai and the epistles a great deal of
material in common, and not only do both the Kyriai
Doxai and the Epistle to Herodotus begin with the tetra-
pharmakos, but also later authors treat the Kyriai Doxai as
an epitome. 542 As a result, one can conclude that the
Kyriai Doxai is one of several epitomai circulating in the
Epicurean school, very similar to the epistles but
different from them due to their epistolary
subcategory. 543
All of the characteristics of the epitome fit the Kyriai
Doxai, a work that includes forty philosophical sayings or
groups of sayings taken from the larger works of
Epicurus. As a compositional unit, the Kyriai Doxai
represents his philosophical system as a whole. The first
four sayings, the tetrapharmakos, constitute the principles
underlying everything else, a kind of summary of the
summary. As I have stated, these Kyriai Doxai sum up
Epicurus's "system," but this system is not simply iden-
tical with his work On Nature; rather, what is summed up
is the philosoph~r's thought and teaching as a whole.
Unfortunately, scholars have not reached a consensus
with regard to the literary structure and composition of
the Kyriai Doxai, so that Hermann Usener's verdict-that
it has no structure at all and that for this very reason the
work may even be inauthentic-still awaits a definitive
answer. 544 For our purposes, however, it is enough to
conclude that the Kyriai Doxai can be expected to have a

536 So Hadot, Seneca, 56-57, who also points to other
examples of imitations ofEpicurus, e.g., Seneca and
the regula vitae of Demetrius the Cynic (see Seneca De 541 The Vita Epicuri calls the Epistle to Herodotus an
ben. 7.1.3-7.2.1).
537 Ench. 1.1.3.
538 See above, n. 502, on the acusmata of the Pythago-
reans.
539 Diog. L. 10.35: otalipiiv lmTop.~v Tij~ /5)1:'1~
orpayp.aTEla~. The translations here and following are
by R. D. Hicks, Diogenes Laertius: Lives ofEminent
Philosophers (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, 543 The suggestion that the Kyriai Doxai is an epitome is by
Mass.: Harvard University, 1925). See also Diog. L.
10.37: "I have prepared for you just such an epitome
and manual of the doctrines as a whole" (£oroL7Jrr6. rrot
Kat TOta-IJr1JV TLVb; f7rLTOfL~V Kat UTOI.X£lwuLV rWv CJAwv
ootwv).
540 The Epistle to Pythocles calls the Epistle to Herodotus the
"little epitome" (p.tKplt lortTop.~) (Diog. L. 10.85), but
this designation is as doubtful as the authenticity of
the letter (see Cyril Bailey, Epicurus [Oxford:
Clarendon, 1926)277; Steckel, "Epikuros," 612). At
least several epitomai were circulating in the Epi-
curean school; see the Vita Epicuri, in Diog. L. 10.27,
31.
epitome, and then mentions the Kyriai Doxai sepa-
rately (Diog. L. 10.31).
542 See also Diogenes ofOenoanda in C.W. Chilton, ed.,
Diogenis Oenoandensis fragmenta (BT; Leipzig:
Teubner, 1967), frg. 23: lmTop.~ ~litK~; also the
characterization of the K yriai Doxai by Cicero De nat.
deor. 1.30.85; De fin. 2. 7 .20; Lucian Alex. 4 7.
no means arbitrary, as Stanton seems to object,
"Origin," 182: "Betz freely acknowledges that
Epicurus himself does not use the term epitome [sc.
for the Kyriai Doxai]." See Betz, Essays, 11-13.
544 See above, n. 482.

78
 Introduction

structure and that it represents a philosophical epitome.
'thanks to Epicurus himself we are well informed
about the function of his epitomai. Since, as already
mentioned, many of his students proved unable to study
the larger works, the whole system had to be epitomized,
"to preserve in the memory enough of the principal
doctrines, to the end that on every occasion they may be
able to aid themselves on the most important points." 545
Therefore, the epitome was not intended for out-
siders546 or beginners, but for the advanced students:
"Those who have made some advance in the survey of
the entire system ought to fix in their minds under the
principal headings an elementary outline of the whole
treatment of the subject. For a comprehensive view is
often required, the details but seldom."5 47
The method to obtain this knowledge is spelled out at
several points. The epitome is composed in such away that
it facilitates a carefully worked out learning process. The
goal of this continual learning is to keep a vision of the
entire system as well as the seminal formulations of
doctrinal positions and key terms constantly in the minds
of the students. "For it is impossible to gather up the
results of continuous diligent study of the entirety of
things, unless we can embrace in short formulas and hold
in mind all that might have been accurately expressed
even to the minutest detail." 548 The practical purpose is
evident from statements in the Epistle to Menoeceus:
"Those things which without ceasing I have declared
unto thee, those do, and exercise thyself, holding them
to be the elements of right life. " 549 Again, in the
epilogue of that letter: "Exercise thyself in these and
kindred precepts day and night, both by thyself and with
him who is like unto thee; then never, either in waking or
in dream, wilt thou be disturbed, but wilt live as a god
among men. For man loses all semblance of mortality by
living in the midst of immortal blessings." 550 Thus, in
order to be an Epicurean one does not need to have the
whole system worked out in detail. Rather, it is more
important to keep philosophizing in the Epicurean way at
every stage of the student's advancement. To facilitate
this educational process is the purpose of the Kyriai
Doxai. Having the principal doctrines always "at hand,"
the philosophers are then free to develop individual
topics on their own; these may be needed in debates or in
their own writings. Nonetheless, merely knowing the
system or all the sententiae is not enough. The goal must
be that the philosophy is practiced: "practicing and
meditating" ('1TpaTHLV Kat p.EAETav) must always go hand
in hand to be valid.
So much for Epicurus and his Kyriai Doxai. What is
true of his work applies mutatis mutandis to others like
it, in particular to those that imitate it. Depending on the
philosophical school tradition, the material, content, and
disposition will vary, but one may still classify such works
under the term "philosophical epitome."
In what sense, then, can one compare Epicurus'sKyriai
Doxai to the SM and the SP? Even after a preliminary
survey, the similarities as regards the literary genre and
function should be apparent. 551 The documents in
question are very different in their content and cultural
background, although they may not be totally un-
related.552 At any rate, the hypothesis can now be stated

545 Diog. L. 10.35.
546 It is, therefore, not to be confused with "protreptic"
material of the sophistic Werberede. On this genre see
esp. the introduction of Ingemar During, Aristotle's
Protrepticus: An Attempt at Reconstruction (Studia
Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 12; Goteborg:
Elander, 1961 ); Otto Schonberger, lamblichos: Aufruf
zur PIJilosophie; Erste deutsche Gesamtilbersetzung mit
zweisprachiger Ausgabe von Ciceros "Hortensius" (Wurz-
burg: Konigshausen & Neumann, 1984).
547 Diog. L. 10.35.
548 Ibid., 36.
549 Ibid., 123.
550 Ibid. Cf. also 82, 83, 84, 85, 116.
551 Cf. Vielhauer (Geschichte, 316-17), who compared
Epicurus's Kyriai Doxai and Q and came to the
conclusion that the two documents do not share a
common literary genre. While this conclusion seems
correct, the situation is more complicated because of
the existence of the Gnomologium Vaticanum Epi-
cureum, which shares numerous sayings with the
Kyriai Doxai, although they differ in genre, com-
position, and purpose. In some sense, the two texts
resemble the relationship between the SM/SP and
Q, but a careful investigation would be needed to say
more. See the recording of cross-references in the
edition of Peter von der Muhll, Epicuri epistulae tres et
Ratae sententiae a Laertio Diogene servatae, accedit
Gnomologium Epicureum Vaticanum (BT; Berlin:
Teubner, 1966); see also Arrighetti, Epicuro, 119-
37, 139-57; Schmid, "Epikur," 697-98, 771-72.
552 The relationship has remained unexplored. For a list
of parallels, see Betz, Essays, 15 n. 76; and through-
out this commentary.

79
again: the literary genre of the SM and the SP is that of
the epitome, presenting the teaching of Jesus in a par-
ticular selection of his sayings in a systematic fashion for
specific purposes.
As the analysis in the commentary will show in greater
detail, the SM and the SP are carefully worked out as
epitomai, consisting of sayings of Jesus grouped together
according to systematic points of doctrine considered to
be of primary importance. The sayings are derived from
sources; some of them can be identified by parallels in Q
and in other synoptic traditions. Larger groupings seem
to have been taken from older sources, perhaps in
written form. Such larger units as the "antitheses" (Matt
5:21-48) or the "cultic teaching" (6:1-18) may have
come from written sources other than Q. Whatever the
origin of the material, it has all been worked into a
consistent new entity, existing in two versions (the SM
and the SP).
V. The Literary Function
Both Sermons provide clues as to their literary function.
In this respect, one will have to distinguish between the
function that the Sermons presuppose on their own
terms, and the function that is attributed to them by the
Gospel writers. In addition, one must take into con-
sideration the relationship between the SM and the SP.
From the narrative frameworks of Matthew and
553 See Alfred M. Perry, "The Framework of the
Sermon on the Mount," ]BL 54 (1935) 103-15;
Terrence J. Keegan, "Introductory Formulae for
Matthean Discourses," CBQ 44 ( 1982) 415-30;
Gerhard Lohfink, "Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? Eine
redaktionskritische Untersuchung von Mt. 4, 23-
5,2 und 7,28£.," ThQ 163 (1983) 264-84; idem, Wem
gilt die Bergpredigt? Beitriige zu einer christlichen Ethik
(Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 1988); Klaus-Stefan Krieger,
"Das Publikum der Bergpredigt (Mt 4,23-25),"
Kairos 28 (1986) 98-115; Terence L. Donaldson,
Jesus on the Mountain: A Study on Matthean Theology
QSNTSup 8; Sheffield:JSOT, 1986). Besides these
special studies, see also the commentaries, in par-
ticular Tholuck, Bergrede, 41-50 (Commentary, 51-
58); Achelis, Bergpredigt, 1-4; Soiron, Bergpredigt,
134-37; Guelich, Sermon, 59-61; Strecker, Berg-
predigt, 25-27 (Sermon, 24-26); Luz, Matthaus, 1.
178-83, 197-98, 415-16 (Matthew, 1.203-8, 223-
24, 454-56).
554 See already Herder, "Regel der Zusammenstim-
mung" (see above, n. 135) 32-33. Herder sees that
80
Luke, 553 within which the SM and the SPare now set, it
is clear, as already pointed out, that both served as
instructional material for disciples. This purpose is even
evident from the present narrative frameworks of Matt
4:24-5:2; 7:28-29 and Luke 6:17-20a. Since both
Sermons are prefaced by short introductions (Matt 5: 1-2
and Luke 6:20a), some such introduction must have
existed already at the presynoptic level, most probably in
QMatt and QLuke. These narrative introductions are
secondary in nature, but they correctly interpret clues
contained in the Sermons themselves, which they
preface. Indeed, the authors of these older introductions
may have known about the original function of the
Sermons. The same can also be assumed for Matthew
and Luke as the final authors of the Gospels.
Both the SM and the SP present Jesus as the teacher
delivering his teaching to his disciples (p.a871Tal). 554 In
Matthew, one should note some inconsistencies. While in
Matt 5:1-2 Jesus speaks to "the disciples" (o{ p.a871Tal
avTov), the preceding narrative tells US that SO far only
four have been called (Simon Peter and his brother
Andrew, and James and John, the sons of Zebedee
[4: 18-22]). Their call is preceded by Jesus' temptation in
the desert (4: 1-11 ), and his beginning of the "proc-
lamation of the gospel of the kingdom" (1C'f/pVcrcr£LV !0
£vayyb..Lov Tfjr; {3acrLA£la~ [4:12-23]). In Matthew's view,
the gospel is to be proclaimed to all, but the SM is
the SM and the SP are secondary compositions of
originally independent sayings. Matthew's collection
has the purpose "to show the true teacher of the
people, and the teacher of teachers" ("die Zusam-
menstellung in Matthlius, und zwar an diesem Ort,
hat die offene Absicht, hier den wahren Lehrer des
Volks und den Lehrer der Lehrer zu zeigen, durch den
Licht aufgehen soli unter den Volkem, durch den
die Religion der Herzenseinfalt und Redlichkeit den
Menschen wiederkommen sollte"). According to
Herder, one must contrast this portrait ofJesus with
those of other Jewish teachers, scribes, and Torah
scholars (cf. Mark 1:22, 27; SM/Matt 7:28-29;John
3:2). If Ernst Bammeljudges that "in the Jesus
tradition there is to be found almost no teaching
material of the kind that was common in his environ-
ment," he has in mind the later rabbinic model, but
that model was not the only one, especially in Jesus'
lifetime (see Ernst Bammel,jesu Nachfolger: Nach-
folgeilberlieferungen in der Zeit des frilhen Christentums
[Heidelberg: Schneider, 1988]27).
 Introduction

intended for the disciples only. According to 4:25-5:2,
Jesus withdrew from the crowds, to whom he had
proclaimed the gospel, and went up on the mountain,
where he sat down when the disciples approached him.
Then, it says with some solemnity, "he opened his mouth
and taught them" (Kat avol,as Tb UTOp.a avrov Kat (li{lia,£V
avroh A.eywv [5:2]). For Matthew, therefore, there is a
clear difference between the gospel and the "instruction"
(li1liax~) given to those who were called to be disciples
(5:2; 7:28-29). The relationship between the gospel and
the SM is indeed interesting. According to Matthew,
prior to becoming a Christian one has to hear the
proclamation of "the gospel ofthe kingdom" (4: 17, 23).
In Matthew's view, this was as true at the beginning as it
was in his own time.
Then, historically,Jesus called some of those who had
heard the gospel to become his disciples (4:18-22), and
they were those who received the SM as their instruction.
By implication, therefore, the SM constitutes the
"advanced" teaching for those who have already become
disciples. In Matthew's view, the SM was not intended to
be the personal instruction of only the four disciples
addressed, but of all disciples. In his scheme, the Twelve
(disciples and apostles) were later appointed as mis-
sionaries (10:1-2), among them the four previously
called (4:18-22; 10:2-4), in order to be sent out (10:5).
They received further instructions called 7rapayye'A.p.ara
("commandments" [cf. the verb in 10:5]). These orders
(Matt 10:5-42) are specifically designed for missionaries,
and this is one reason why the missionary instruction
differs from the SM.555
What appear to be inconsistencies in the text are thus
most likely the result of the arrangement of sources.
Matthew arranged these sources in such a way that they
show the developments in the early church. In the same
manner one can explain another inconsistency.
While, according to the beginning in 5: 1, only the
disciples received the SM, 7:28-29 reports that somehow
"the crowds" (ot lfx'Ao1) came to know it, too. Rather than
an oversight on the part of Matthew, the seeming
inconsistency shows "progress": Matthew seems to have
been aware that the SM was originally intended for the
disciples only, but that it had become public knowledge
as well. This had happened because the SM was not
intended to be esoteric teaching. This observation may
go hand in hand with the change of the meaning of the
term "disciples." While originally designating the
followers of the historicalJesus (5:1; 8:21, 23; 9:10, 11,
14, 19, 37; 10:1; etc.), it later became the name for the
members of the Matthean church (28: 19). 556 Indeed, for
Matthew "the crowds" (ot lfx'A.o1) are the pool from which
new church members are to be recruited. 557 That the
"crowds" also receive the SM (7:28-29) shows how this
change took place and that the SM played an important
role in attracting people to the church. 558 The SM has
played this role during the entire history of the church
up to the present.
The situation according to Luke's SP is remarkably
similar. The difference is that, according to Luke, the
election ofthe twelve "disciples whom he also named
apostles" (6: 13-16) takes place bifore Jesus' delivery of
the SP. There are, however, already large numbers of
disciples in addition to other crowds (6: 17). While all
these people are around, Jesus "raised his eyes upon his
disciples and said ... " (Kat avrbs E71'6.pas TOVS otjJBa'A.p.oVs
avrov ds TOVS p.a8'1/rh.s avrov f.'A£yw [6:20a]). In 7:1 we
read: "After he had completed all his pronouncements to
the ears of the people, he went into Capernaum" ('E71'Hli~
E71'A~pwu£V 71'6.vra rlz p~p.ara £tS rlzs aKolzs TOVs Aaov,
duijA8£v ds Katjlapvaoilp.).
Again, as in Matthew, all the people hear the SP,
which, however, is especially intended for the disciples.
Besides these references in the narrative frameworks, the
SM and the SP themselves contain important internal
clues regarding their function. In the SM, the motif of
the Two Ways is fundamental to its structure (SM/Matt
7: 13-14). 55 9 This motif is traditional in instructional
texts. Together with it other literary elements enter into

555 See Eung-Chun Park, "Missio Ecclesiae-Missio In Matth. 11.4 (ed. Erich Klostermann; GCS 40.10.2
Christi: Composition, Function, and Theology of [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1935]39).
Matthew's Mission Discourse" (Ph.D. diss., University 558 Cf. Martin Bucer, in his leamed commentary on the
ofChicago, 1991). SM (In sacra Quatuor Evan(n)gelia Enarrationes [see
556 Strecker (Bergpredigt, 26-27 [Sermon, 25-26]) above, n. 121], 37-77), who calls the entire SM a
emphasizes the ecclesiological function of jesus' protreptic speech: "Oratio haec protreptica est,
disciples for the church of Matthew. partim & exegematica."
557 On this point see the interesting discussion of Origen 559 See below on SM/Matt 7:13-14.
81
consideration. The Two Ways are presented as images
suggesting that one is "leading to [eternal] destruction,"
while the other is "leading to [eternal] life." In the
concluding parable of the two builders (7 :24-27), we
learn that one is to identify "the troublesome road" with
the sayings of Jesus as they are contained in the SM. In
other words, one is to regard the SM in its entirety as
"the way" to eternal life, whereas the way to destruction
consists of the doctrines and practices explicitly or
implicitly rejected by the SM. This way to eternal life is
also to be taught by the teachers mentioned in 5: 19.560
While many of the same ideas also apply to the SP,
there are characteristic differences. The SP does not
employ the motif of the Two Ways, but contrasts two
types of persons, "the good person" (b aya8hs l1v8pol71'os)
and "the bad" (b 7TOVTJpos), the latter not even deserving
the name "human being" (l1v8pol71'os). 561 These two types
of persons (SP /Luke 6:45) are also to be identified with
"the rich" and "the poor" (6:20b-26).
Furthermore, Luke turns the SPinto a "speech," 56 2
although the section consists of sayings, .Aoyot. 563 That
these sayings serve in education is evident from the
important passage in 6:39-40, containing a theory of
education (6:39) 564 and rules for the relationship
between students and teachers (6:40). These rules
distinguish between students in training (JJ.a8TJml),
graduates (KaTTJpnup.Evot), and teachers (otoctuKa.Aot). 565
The subsequent rules examine the relationship between
fellow students (6:41-42), and the relationship with
oneself (6:43-45). 566
What then is to be done with these sayings ofJesus?
The programmatic conclusion in SM/Matt 7:24-27
states that the proper response to these sayings is
"hearing and doing." This pair of terms is also
traditional. 567 Apart from our passages, SM/Matt 7:24-
560 See above n. 458.
561 See the commentary below on SP /Luke 6:45.
562 See Luke 6:20a; 7:1.
563 See below on SP /Luke 6:27, 39, 46-49.
564 See below on SP /Luke 6:39.
565 See below on SP /Luke 6:40.
566 See below on these sections.
567 See Brunner, Altiigyptische Erziehung, 131-34, 134-
35, 136-39.
568 For references, see below on SM/Matt 7:24, 26;
SP/Luke 6:47,49.
569 See Matt 11: 15; cf. 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9, 23; 7: 16;
82
26 and SP /Luke 6:4 7-49, the word pair is widely
attested in early Christian literature. 568 The primary
question, however, is: What do these terms mean in the
SM and the SP?
"Hearing" (aKot'mv) refers not only to the physiological
act of listening but also to the wide range of notions
describing understanding what one has heard. "He who
has ears to hear, let him hear!" This saying does not
occur in either of the Sermons, 569 but the intellectual
process presupposed in it is certainly intended in them.
More specifically, "hearing" designates the appropriation
of tradition, that is, didactic activities in the wider sense
of the term. Thus, the stereotypical formula introducing
the antitheses, "You have heard that it was said, ... " 570
designates what in the view of the SM is an uncritical
acceptance of inadequate teaching about the meaning of
the Torah, a hearing without proper understanding.
Rather than mere physical hearing, the SM emphasizes
the comprehension of what has been perceived phys-
ically. This theoretical presupposition is manifest also in
other indicators, such as the typical exhortations
1rpouEX£T£ ("pay attention!" [6: 1; 7: 15]) and KaTap.a8£n
("observe," "notice," "learn!" [6:28]). In other words,
hearing as understanding presupposes vision. 571 In-
cluded in this field is not only visual observation of
phenomena that exist (e.g., the birds of the air and the
lilies of the field [6:26, 28-30]), but also the visualization
of mythical events (like the episode in the last judgment
[7:21-23]). Another object of visualization is the
perception of the paradoxical. This is exemplified by the
often hyperbolic imagery used by both the SM and the
SP (like the beam in the eye [Matt 7:3-5], or the light
under the bushel [5: 15 ], or the saltless salt [5: 13]). 572
This emphasis on vision is by no means accidental or
merely a result of proverbial source material, but it is, as
8:18; Luke 8:8; 14:35, etc. See BAGD, s.v. ots, 2,
with more references.
570 See SM/Matt 5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43.
571 See the terms {3A.f.7TELV, I'JLa{3Af.7TELV, tp.{3A.f.7TELV, opO.v,
3cp8aA.p.os in the index of Greek terms below.
572 See below on SM/Matt 5:13-16; 7:3-5,6, 7-9; etc.
See also Jacques Dupont, "Le langage symbolique des
directives ethiques de Jesus dans le Sermon sur Ia
montagne," in his Etudes, 2.763-78.
 Introduction

the section "On vision" (6:22-23) demonstrates, based on
a serious theological understanding of vision that draws
on ancient philosophical wisdom. 573
These ideas were not new in antiquity. 574 They allow
us to conclude that the SM and the SP were originally
conceived as oral texts. Their content was to be delivered
orally, that is, spoken aloud, repeated, and mem-
orized.575 This original function changed, at least to
some extent, when they were included in the Gospels,
which are written texts to be read (presumably aloud as
well). The original purpose of the sayings was, therefore,
to facilitate mental appropriation and comprehension,
rather than, as one might surmise, to hand down
tradition accurately. One does not exclude the other, just
as oral texts may be written down without losing their
oral quality. 576
The relationship between oral and written texts is in
this case even more complicated. While, as we now have
them both, the SM and the SP constitute written texts,
their components may originally have been oral or
written. While the single beatitude, for instance, was
originally an oral pronouncement, the sequences in
SM/Matt 5:3-12 or SP/Luke 6:20b-26 seem to have
been written compositions from the beginning. The
antitheses (SM/Matt 5:21-48) are certainly the product
of written composition. This is true, even though the
arguments evoke debates and may assist in debates. The
cultic instruction (SM/Matt 6: 1-18)577 is certainly a
compilation and conftation of written sources, although
its centerpiece, the Lord's Prayer, is an oral text. 578
Therefore, the SM and the SP, although composed as
written texts, are oral in nature and function.
This assumption can even be supported by the Gospel
texts in which they are now embedded. Although the
Gospel writers made them part of written texts, having
found them most likely in written form as sources, they
regarded them prima facie as oral texts and, therefore,
placed them into the mouth of jesus as speeches. As part
of the historical narratives, however, these speeches
serve as authoritative documents from the past, that is, as
written documents that became part of the longer works
of Matthew and Luke.

573 See Betz, Essays, 71-87; and below on SM/Matt
6:22-23.
574 See Hillyard, Plutarch, "De audiendo" (seen. 509
above). This treatise of Plutarch sums up Hellenistic
views on how to listen properly to advice and
instruction. See furthermore Franz K. Mayr,
"Horen," RAG 15 (1991) 1023-1111.
575 See Theodor Klauser, "Auswendiglernen," RAG 1
(1950) 1030-39;J.J. Vincent, "Did jesus Teach His
Disciples to Learn by Heart?" SEv (TV 88 [1964]
105-18); Birger Gerhardsson, Tradition and Trans-
mission in Early Christianity (ConNT 20; Lund:
Gleerup, 1964); idem, Die Anfiinge der Evangelien-
tradition (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1977), reviewing
the discussion of his earlier work, Memory and
Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in
Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (ANSU 22;
Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1961; 2d ed. 1964) esp.
122. Gerhardsson is followed by Rainer Riesner,
Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der
Evangelien-Uberlieferung (WUNT 2.7; Tiibingen:
Mohr [Siebeck], 1981; 3d ed. 1987). Whereas
Gerhardsson and Riesner assume that the whole of
the older tradition of the Gospels was first ap-
propriated and handed down through memorization
techniques, this view can actually be demonstrated
for selected texts only; on the whole, however, the
process of transmission, even for the SM and the SP,
was much more diverse. Cf. also Betz, Essays, 9 n. 49.
576 Instructive in this regard is Peter's speech in Ps.-Clem.
Rec. 2.1.4-6: "I confess, brethren, that I wonder at
the power of human nature, which I see to be fit and
suited to every call upon it. This, however, it occurs
to me to say of what I have found by experience, that
when the middle of the night is passed, I awake of my
own accord, and sleep does not come to me again.
This happens to me for this reason, that I have
formed the habit of recalling to memory the words of
my Lord, which I heard from himself; and for the
longing I have towards them, I constrain my mind
and my thoughts to be roused, that, awaking to them,
and recalling and arranging them one by one, I may
retain them in my memory." Cf. Ap.Jas. 2.1-15
(NHC I, 2) in Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, 30:
"the twelve disciples [were] all sitting together and
recalling what the Savior had said to each one of
them, whether in secret or openly and [putting it]
into books."
577 For further discussion on this point, see the com-
mentary below on SM/Matt 6:1-18.
578 For further discussion, see the excursus below on the
Lord's Prayer.

83
 Oral or written, the SM and the SP are first of all
objects of sense perception, and from sense perception to
"knowledge" is a small yet significant step. A few occur-
rences of terms expressing knowledge show that pre-
cisely this is the expected result of sense perception.
The "false prophets" (SM/Matt 7:15-20), for instance,
are to be "recognized [h,ywdluiCtw] by their fruits." 579
The programmatic passage in SM/Matt 5:16 exhorts the
community: "Let your light shine in such a way before
the people that they may see [rlloou'v] your good deeds
and praise your Father who is in the heavens."
The term t!llov includes both sense perception
(/3>..£-rmv, op0.v, ICT>...) and understanding (tt/1Jva,). 580
Simplistic conclusions, however, should be avoided at
this point. According to the SM, the "good deeds" of the
faithful disciples should not be ostentatious. Rather, as
good deeds they should be inconspicuous and thus done
in imitation of the invisible God. 5 81 They should be done
in the knowledge that "your left hand must not know what
your right hand is doing" (SM/Matt 6:3). Therefore,
"seeing the good deeds" and "praising the Father who is
in the heavens" can only describe missionary goals that, if
reached, accomplish conversion to God and, as a result, a
complete change of perception. 582 Those who are able
to identify "good deeds" as such and who as a result
praise God do not, in effect, "think" as pagans think
(lloiCttv), 588 but they think as God thinks. One can infer
such a claim because Jesus in his Sermons revealed the
principles of God's judgment as he will apply them in the
lastjudgment. 5 8 4 Furthermore, "knowledge" is not
simply identical with the "hearing and doing" of the
sayings of jesus in the SM and the SP. Rather, one gains
true knowledge by an intensive interaction between
reflection and practice. The process of reflection is kept
going by the thoroughgoing rhetorical structure of the
texts. The constant flow of interchanging rhetorical
questions, reminders, juxtapositions, examples, and
provocative images creates the intellectual stimulation
for which the SM at least is famous.
579 SM/Matt 7:15, 20//SP/Luke 6:44; cf. also the
reference to "knowing" (yw..Sa-Knv) in Matt 6:3; 7:23.
580 See BDF, § 81 (3); BAGD, s.v. Eiaov.
581 On this doctrine, see below on SM/Matt 6:1-18.
582 See below on SM/Matt 5:16; and Hans Dieter Betz,
"The Cleansing of the Ten Lepers (Luke 1 7: 11-19),"
JBL 90 (1971) 314-28, esp. 318-19; reprinted in
Betz, Synoptische Studien, 50-67.
84
In addition, the relatively frequent occurrence of the
term "doing" ('2To,t'tv) makes sure that this reflection is
conjoined with experience and practice. Again, the word
pair "hearing and doing" comes to mind. Indeed, since
the SM and the SP are concerned with the fulfillment of
the Torah, the "doing" is a highly important goal of the
texts. 585 Beyond this goal, human conduct in general is
described as "doing, " 586 so that the right kind of conduct
can be contrasted with the wrong kind, as perpetrated by
the wicked, the tax collectors, the hypocrites, and the
pagans. 587
Characteristically, the result of this interaction of
reflection and practice is not stated in the form of
objective knowledge. Instead, it is stated by prototypical
figures representing present experience as well as future
goals, the figure of the "prudent man" (av~p C/>pov,p.or)
and the "foolish man" (av~p p.wpor). The contrast of these
two types constitutes an instance of the syncrisis motif in
the final parable ofthe two builders (SM/Matt 7:24-27
I I SP/Luke 6:4 7-49), but this instance shows only that
the two contrasting figures are presupposed throughout
the SM and the SP. "Everyone who hears these sayings of
mine and does them" equals the "prudent man," who is
wise in a practical way and experienced in surviving the
vicissitudes of human life. By contrast, the "foolish man"
is "everyone who hears these sayings of mine and does
not do them." The "prudent man" has developed
"prudence" (C/>pov71u'r), an old and revered philosophical
virtue, based on sense perception, reflection, and
practical experience, while the "fool" is one who stays
with sense perception only and lacks reflection and
practical experience. The terms C/>pov,p.or and p.wpor have
been chosen because of their traditional role in com-
parable contexts of paraenesis. In this instance, the
implication is that this "prudence" is, in addition to
everything else, also informed by insight into God's
thought and God's standards. Therefore, such theo-
logical insights and values primarily inform what is
gained through reflection and experience. This is the
583 See below on SM/Matt 6:8; also Betz, Essays, 62-64.
584 See below on SM/Matt 5:3-12, 17-20; 7:21-23.
585 On '!ro,Eiv ("do, practice"), see SM/Matt 5:19, 32, 36,
46,47;6:1,2,3;7:12, 17, 18, 19,21,22,24,26;
SP/Luke 6:23, 26, 27, 31, 33, 43, 46, 4 7, 49.
586 See esp. the Golden Rule (SM/Matt 7:12; SP/Luke
6:31).
587 See SM/Matt 5:46, 47; 6:32; cf. 5:17-20.
 Introduction

implication of the association of the traditional term
"prudent" with the "hearing and doing" of the sayings of
Jesus as contained in the SM and the SP. In contrast, the
"fool" has no such insights to inform the mind, and for
this reason fools stay at the superficial level of the so-
called data of sense perception.
When we evaluate this literary evidence presented in
the two Sermons in terms of Hellenistic rhetoric and
ethical thought, we have no difficulty in locating the
proper context. The functional terms of sense percep-
tion, reflection, and practice point to exercises like those
found in Hellenistic philosophy, 588 especially the so-
called diatribe literature, of which Epictetus is a good
example. 589 According to Epictetus's philosophy, the
response demanded by the recipients of the two Sermons
would be called li.crK7JC1U ("training"), 590 for which the
following passage may suffice as a definition:
For who is the man in training? He is the man who
practices not employing his desire, and practices
employing his aversion only upon the things that are
within the sphere of his moral purpose, yes, and
practices particularly in the things that are difficult to
master. 591
More specifically, Epictetus frequently defines the task
ofthe philosopher as p.€A£Tav, an almost untranslatable
term combining philosophical-ethical reflection with
practical experience. This activity, for which Socrates is
the prototype, 592 should keep the philosopher busy from
morning to night. 593 The object of such p.£A£Tav can be
described differently: "the philosophical doctrines
regarding the good and the bad" (Tiz 7r£pt Tc;JV lqa8wv Kat
KaKwv o&yp.aTa), 594 "the necessary principles" (Tiz
avayKaLa 8£rop~p.aTa), 595 and "philosophical Sententiae"
(A.&yot). 5 96 To initiate and maintain the activity of
p.£A£Tav is the purpose of Epictetus's Diatribes as well as of
all philosophy. Epictetus also emphasizes again and again
that the precondition for the proper p.£A£Tav is the clarity
in the philosopher's mind of the "guidelines we must
have ready at hand" (Tl 7rpOxHpov ~XHv) in the various
circumstances of life. 59 7
Frequently also, the philosopher provides sketchy lists
of items to be considered as "things to be held at hand"
(Ta 7rpOxHpa). 598 This expression means that Epictetus's
Diatribes that Arrian later wrote down were originally
designed to stimulate and maintain the activity of
p.£A£Tav on the part of his listeners. Hence, the philos-
ophy of Epictetus cannot be identical with the Diatribes,
but is, rather, presupposed in them. The purpose of
these Diatribes cannot be to inform the readers about
Epictetus's philosophy, as one informs oneself about
other matters, but it is, rather, to make people philos-
ophize, so that they can on their own develop the wisdom
necessary to meet the challenges of Tyche. 599 By
contrast, those who fail to engage in p.£A£Tav and remain

588 On the background of this material, see Paul
Rabbow, Seelenfilhrung: Methodik der Exerzitien in der
Antike (Munich: Kosel, 1954); Frank Hieronymus,
MEAETH: Obung, Lernen und angrenzende Begriffe (2
vols.; Basel: KOng & Ochsle, 1970); and the literature
above inn. 508.
589 On this literature and for further bibliography, see
Schmeller, Paulus und die "Diatribe" (see above, n.
526).
590 The terminology enters into Hellenistic judaism in 4
Mace 12:11; 13:22 (cf. 2 Mace 15:4); Ep. Arist. 168,
255, 285;JosephusAp. 2.171; Ant. 3.309; 4.294;
Philo Abr. 52 and very often. Early Christian usage of
the ter'minology begins with the Apostolic Fathers (2
Clem. 20.4; Hermas Man. 8.10; Diogn. 5.2; 12.5; Mart.
Pol. 18.2). See BAGD, s.v. auKiw,liuKTJ<Tt~; PGL, s.v.
lf.uKTj<Tt~; PECL 2, index, s.v. li<TKTJ<TI~.
591 EpictetusDiss. 3.12.8.
592 Ibid., 1.25.31.
593 Ibid., 1.1.21-25; 2.16.27; 4.1.111.
594 Ibid., 2.16 (titulus); cf. 4.1.132.
595 Ibid., 4.6.16.
596 Ibid., 4.1.1 70.
597 Ibid., 1.1.21; cf. 2.1.29 (trans. William A. Oldfather,
LCL edition of Epictetus [London: Heinemann;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1925],
1.221 ): "That is why I say over and over again,
'Practise these things and have them ready at hand,
that is, the knowledge of what you ought to face with
confidence, and what you ought to face with cau-
tion-that you ought to face with confidence that
which is outside the province of the moral purpose,
with caution that which is within the province of the
moral purpose.'" On the concept of 1rpoxnpov ("at
hand") see Hadot, Seneca, 58.
598 See esp. Epictetus Diss. 1.1.22; 4.1.83, 111.
599 See esp. ibid., 2.2.21-26.

85
at the level of jargon (rh. A.£f£l8La) are fools unable to cope
with the events of life. 600 They are fools in that they fool
themselves.
For an even more elaborate and systematic exposition
of the philosophical theory behind these terms, one may
turn to some of Plutarch's ethical works. 601 Plutarch has
adapted some of the Cynic-Stoic diatribe material, but to
a greater degree he depends on the Platonic-Aristotelian
tradition. In spite of these differences, Plutarch's ethical
ideas have much in common with those of Epictetus. Also
different in Plutarch is the literary form; he writes longer
essays in which he spells out the theories that Epictetus's
Diatribes presuppose and apply. Therefore, in Plutarch's
essays the "training" (au1C£tv ICat fi-£A£Tav) is usually found
in the exhortative sections. 602 Furthermore, Plutarch
distinguishes more clearly between intellectual reflec-
tions, called f7rLA.oyLup.ol, 603 and practical exercises,
called t8Lup.ol. 604 Both of these constitute Plutarch's
concept of preventive ethical therapy. 605
None of these philosophical terms is found in the
Sermons, or for that matter in the New Testament. 6 06
But the basic approaches and concepts regarding
appropriation of ethical tradition are very similar in the
SM, the SP, Epictetus, Plutarch, and, I might add, in
much of the Hellenistic-Jewish and early Christian
literature. 607 Indeed, one can assume that large sections
of the Hellenistic world at the time of the SM and the SP,
including Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity,
shared many of these approaches and concepts, differing
only in philosophical or religious school terminologies
and the more general cultural or religious milieu. Also
different was the degree to which these approaches and
concepts became subject to theoretical analysis and
conceptualization. But having taken all the variables into
account, one should not overlook that the common
elements enable one to understand the literary function
of the SM and the SP: both are intended to stimulate and
maintain what in Hellenistic-philosophical terms is called
auiC£tv ICat fi-£A£Tav. If this is so, then the difference
between the SM and the SP is in the first place deter-
mined by their literary function, not by the genre, which
is, as I have pointed out, the same. One can clarify the
reason for their functional difference, once one realizes
the implications of the fact that the SM speaks to disciples
corning from a Jewish background, while the SP ad-
dresses disciples from a Greek background. While the
SM is based throughout on the presuppositions of Jewish
religion, society, and culture, the SP contains only a few
Jewish ideas comprehensible to non-Jews and is mainly
informed by Greek cultural ideas and values. 608
The question is how to evaluate this difference in
intended recipients. The two Sermons seem to have a
common origin, rather than separate origins. It is
conceivable that the two Sermons had different authors,
that they reflect different church traditions, and that
they originally functioned independently. But it is just as
possible that their authors from the beginning intended
the SM and the SP to serve two distinct communities.
The similarities between the Sermons, in form, literary
genre, composition, and content, seem to tilt the balance
in the direction of the second option: both Sermons
come from the same origin, presuppose the same authors

600 Ibid., 2.1.30-33; cf. also 1.30.5; 2.1.38; 2.6.14; Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament [2 vols.;
2.13.4; 2.16.2-3, 15; 3.7.17-18; frg. 10. Oxford: Clarendon, 1897] s.v.). See furthermore
601 See PECL 2, with examples and bibliography. Alan Mendelson, Secular Education in Philo of Alexan-
602 Ibid., 201, 214; cf. also 18, 176, 189, 268, 287. dria (Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 7;
603 Ibid., 12, 201, 286,434. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1982); David M.
604 Ibid., 17, 176, 284, 286,287. Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction in Sasanian Babylonia
605 Ibid., 2, 7, and the index, s.v. Psychagogy. (SJLA 9; Leiden: Brill, 1975).
606 Surprisingly similar, however, isjas 1:19-25, a text 608 The evidence for this claim is presented in the
that has much in common with the SM. Conscious commentary below, but the idea as such is not new.
and systematic appropriation begins with Clement of
Alexandria; see his Exhortation to the Newly Baptized,
and the Paed. I, as a whole (for the bibliographical
data, see above, n. 468).
607 See esp. Philo Rer. div. her. 253; Leg. all. 3.18; Ep.
Arist. 160; the terms p.EA<nl.ro and p.<A.trTJ occur
frequently in the LXX (see Edwin Hatch and Henry
A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the

86
 Introduction

originally, and had as their common purpose from the
beginning to serve as teaching material for different
constituencies of disciples.
The possibility is supported by a pertinent statement
made by a much later author, Gregory of Nyssa (335-
394?), in the prologue of his Great Catechetical Oration. 609
This statement reflects more than Gregory's personal
opinion; it is the reflection of the experiences the church
has had over a longer period of time:
Religious instruction is an essential duty of the leaders
of the mystery of our religion [ 1 Tim 3: 16]. By it the
church is enlarged through the addition of those who
are saved, while the "sure word" which accords with
the [traditional] teaching [Titus 1 :9] comes within the
hearing of unbelievers. The same method of teaching,
however, is not suitable for everyone who approaches
this word. Rather we must adapt religious instruction
to the diversities of religion. While we keep in view
the same objective in our teaching, we cannot use the
same arguments in each case. A man of the Jewish
faith has certain presuppositions; a man reared in
Hellenism, others. The Anomoean, the Manichaean,
the followers of Marcion, Valentinus, and Basilides,
and the rest on the list of those astray in heresy, have
their pre-conceptions, and make it necessary for us to
attack their underlying ideas in each case. For we
must adapt our method of therapy to the form of the
disease. You will not heal the polytheism of the Greek
in the same way as the Jew's disbelief about the only-
begotten God. Nor, in the case of those astray in
heresy, will you refute their erroneous doctrinal
inventions all in the same way. For the arguments
which might correct a Sabellian are of no help to an
Anomoean; nor is our controversy with the
Manichaean of benefit to the Jew. But, as I have said,
we must have in view men's preconceptions and
address ourselves to the error in which each is
involved. We must put forward certain principles and
reasonable propositions in each discussion, so that the
truth may finally emerge from what is admitted by
both sides. 610
This method of using a variety of approaches (rpo?Tot)
in catechetical instruction was not a new idea. It was the
method that came to be known as "accommodation. "611
Clement of Alexandria had treated this method before,
when he applied it not only to catechesis and mission but
also to the rhetoric needed to reconvert heretics. 61 2 The
New Testament itself shows that this method was used in
the Christian mission from the beginning. 613
When, according to Gal2:1-10, 614 the Jerusalem
conference decided to divide the Christian mission into
two movements, one under the leadership of Peter going
to the Jews, and the other under Paul and Barnabas
going to the Gentiles, this division was intended to
institute a common strategy. Paul states the principle
justifying this approach in Gal 2:8: "He [sc. God] who has
empowered Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision
[sc. the Jews], has also empowered me for the Gentiles."
As Clement has rightly indicated, a figure no less
important than Paul himself exemplified the principle (in
fact he cited it), in 1 Cor 9:19-23. Accordingly, Paul left
Judaism and became like a Gentile for the purpose of
saving at least some ofthe Gentiles (I Cor 9:22a; Gal
4:12a).
The logical conclusion from these presuppositions,
events, and parallel passages would be that whatever
catechetical instruction was needed in Christian mission
would be designed differently so as to respond to the
different cultural backgrounds of the potential converts
to the new religion.615

609 See Barbel, Gregor von Nyssa: Die gro)3e katechetische
Rede (see above, n. 4 70); Heinrich Dorrie, "Gregor
III (Gregor von Nyssa)," RAG 12 (1983) 863-95, esp.
875-76.
610 The text is in PC 45.2, col. 9; the translation is by
Cyril C. Richardson, in Gregory of Nyssa," An
Address on Religious Instruction," in Edward R.
Handy, ed., Christology of the Later Fathers (LCC 3;
London:SC~, 1954)268.
611 For discussion and bibliography, see Rudolf Hof-
mann, "Accommodation," RE I ( 1896) 127 -30;
Rudolf Bultmann, "Ankniipfung und Widerspruch,"
in his Glauben und Verstehen (5th ed.; Tiibingen:
~ohr [Siebeck], 1968) 2.117-32; Heinrich Leipold
and Hans-Rudolf ~iiller-Schwefe, "Ankniipfung I-
II," TRE 2 (1978) 743-52.
612 Clement Alex. Strom. 7.9.52.1-54.5, in Otto Stahlin
et al., eds., Clemens Alexandrinus (GCS 17.7.3; Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1970) 38-40.
613 See Kurt Deil3ner, "Anpassung und Abwehr in der
altesten ~issionspredigt," ZSTh 16 (1939) 516-27.
614 For the following, see Betz, Galatians, 97-101.
615 Cf. also Heb 5:12-14; 1 Cor 3:1-3; 1 Thess 4:1-2; 1
Pet 2:2.

87
 My hypothesis is, therefore, that the two epitomai of
the SM and the SP were created by the early Jesus
movement, one (the SM) to instruct converts from
Judaism, the other (the SP) to instruct those coming from
a Greek background. The hypothesis can indeed explain
the peculiar parallels and differences that exist between
the SM and the SP. On the one hand, using the funda-
mental teachings ofJesus, the SM argues throughout for
these teachings in terms of Jewish theology. On the other
hand, the SP uses the same fundamental teachings and
argues for them in terms of Greek ideas. While expo-
sition of Torah and worship are found on the one side,
Greek maxims, proverbs, imagery, and ideas are found
on the other. The two Sermons also share important
Jewish doctrines, since the SM confronts "paganism"
(SM/Matt 5:47; 6:7, 32), and the SP speaks of eschato-
logical merit (SP /Luke 6:23, 35), persecution ofJewish
prophets (6:23), and God "the Most High" (b f5'1/!urros
[6:35]). Therefore, the SP has clearly been designed
from the Jewish side for the Gentiles, rather than by
Gentiles for Gentiles, and that same Jewish side directed
the SM to fellow Jews.
Not to be overlooked at this point is that the SM is
much longer and more elaborate in its arguments than
the SP. By comparison, the SP also appears simpler, less
challenging, and not as interesting. Apparently, Jewish
converts had greater difficulties and needed more
detailed instructions. Was it, by comparison, easier to
translate Jesus' teaching into the gnomic wisdom of the
Greek type? Was it because the SP shows no evidence of
opposition from within the movement, while the SM is
fighting against opponents on several fronts?
In sum, the SM and the SP were meant to complement
each other,just as the two missionary movements were
intended to do. Entering into discipleship could be done
on Jewish as well as on Greek terms. The message of
Jesus could be cast into either mode of thinking, but the
ethos of the disciple to be expected from the instructions
was no doubt the same.
These approaches and aims most likely reflect the
situation of the early Christian movement prior to and
concurrent with Paul's letters (c. 50 cE).
88
 The Sermon on the Mount
[SM/Matthew 5:3-7:27]

• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
•
 Matthew 5:3-12

Chapter I
5 Translation The Beatitudes
3 Blessed are the poor in (the) spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they shall find consolation.
5 Blessed are the meek.
for they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst
for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall find mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for
the sake of righteousness.
for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.
11 Blessed are you,
when they insult you and persecute (you)
and say every kind of evil against
you [provided they are lying] for my sake.
12 Rejoice and be glad,
for your reward is great in the heavens;
for in the same way they persecuted the
prophets (who lived) before you.

Bibliography critical study," reprinted in his More New Testament

Betz, Essays, 17-36.
Gunther Braumann, "Zum traditionsgeschichtlichen
Problem der Seligpreisungen Mt V 3-12," NovT 4
(1960) 253-60.
Ingo Broer, Die Seligpreisungen der Bergpredigt: Studien
zu ihrer Vberlieferung und Interpretation (BBB 61;
Bonn: Hanstein, 1986).
G.J. Brooke, "The Wisdom of Matthew's Beatitudes
(4QBeat and Mt 5:3-12)," Scripture Bulletin 19
(1989) 35-41.
Lyder Brun, Segen und Fluch im Urchristentum (Oslo:
Dybwad, 1932).
Giorgio Buccellati, "Le beatitudini sullo sfondo della
tradizione sapienzale Mesopotamica," Bibbia e
Oriente 14 (1972) 241-64.
Denis Buzy, "Beatitudes," Dictionnaire de Spiritualite 1
(1937) 1298-1310.
Henri Cazelles, "'j~~," ThWAT 1 (1973) 481-85
(TDOT 1 [1974]445-48).
Albert Descamps, Les Justes et la justice dans les evangiles
et le christianisme primitif hormis la doctrine proprement
paulinienne (Gembloux: Duculot, 1950).
Gustave Lejeune Dirichlet, De veterum macarismis (RVV
14.4; Giessen: Topelmann, 1914).
Charles Harold Dodd, "The Beatitudes: A form-
Studies, 1-10.
Jacques Dupont, "Beatitudes egyptiennes," Bib 4 7
(1966) 185-222; reprinted in his Etudes, 2. 793-
832.
Idem, Les Beatitudes. vol. 1: Le Probleme litteraire; les
deux versions du Sermon sur la montagne et des
Beatitudes (2d ed.; Bruges: Abbaye de Saint-Andre,
1958); vol. 2: La bonne nouvelle (Paris: Gabalda,
1969); vol. 3: Les evangelistes (Paris: Gabalda, 1973).
Hubert Frankemolle, "Die Makaris~en (Mt 5,1-12;
Lk 6,20-23): Motive und Umfang der redak-
tionellen Kompositionen," BZ 15 (1971) 52-75.
Augustin George, "La 'forme' des beatitudesjusqu':l.
Jesus," in Melanges bibliques en l'honneur de Andre
Robert (Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1957) 398-403.
Burkhardt Gladigow, "Der Makarismus des Weisen,"
Hermes 95 (1967) 404-33.
Robert Guelich, "The Matthean Beatitudes: 'Entrance-
Requirements' or Eschatological Blessing?" JBL 95
(1976) 415-34.
Idem, Sermon, 62-118.
Dennis Hamm, S.J., The Beatitudes in Context (Wil-
mington, Del.: Glazier, 1990).
Friedrich Hauck and Georg Bertram, "f'aK6.p&o~ KTA.,"
TDNT4.365-73.

91
David Hellholm, "Die Seligpreisungen der Bergpredigt
als invertierte Makarismen," in his New Testament
and Text Linguistics: Collected Essays 1 (Tobingen: J.
C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck ], forthcoming).
Manin Hengel, "Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt und
ihremjiidischen Hintergrund," ThR 52 (1987)
327-400.
Waldemar Janzen, "'Asre in the Old Testament," HTR
58 (1965) 215-26.
Christoph Kahler, "Studien zur Form- und Traditions-
geschichte der biblischen Makarismen" (diss., 2
vols.,Jena, 1974).
Idem, "Zur Form- und Traditionsgeschichte von
Matth. XVI 17-19," NTS 23 (1976) 36-58.
Walter Kliser, "Beobachtungen zum alttestamentlichen
Makarismus," ZAW 82 (1970) 225-50.
Rene Kieffer, Essais de methodologie neo-testamentaire
(ConBNT 4; Lund: Gleerup, 1972).
Idem, "Vishet och valsignelse som grundmotiv i
saligprisningarna hos Matteus och Lukas," SEA 34
(1969) 107-21; German: "Weisheit und Segen als
Grundmotive der Seligpreisungen bei Mt und Lk,"
Studien zum Neuen.Testament und seiner Umwelt 2
(1977) 29-43.
Idem, "Wisdom and Blessings in the Beatitudes of St.
Matthew and St. Luke," StEv 6 (TU 112; Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1973) 291-95.
Klaus Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition (trans. S.
M. Cupitt; New York: Scribner's, 1969).
Konrad Kohler, "Die urspriingliche Form der Selig-
preisungen," ThStK 91 (1918) 157-92.
Edouard Lipinski, "Macarismes et psaumes de con-
gratulation," RB 75 (1968) 321-67.
Charles H. Maahs, "The Makarisms in the New
Testament: A Comparative Religions and Form
Critical Investigation" (diss., Tiibingen, 1965).
Chester S. McCown, "The Beatitudes in the Light of
Ancient Ideals," JBL 46 (1927) 50-61.
NeilJ. McEleney, "The Beatitudes of the Sermon on
the Mount/Plain," CBQ 43 (1981) 1-13.
Christian Michaelis, "Die w-Alliteration der Subjekts-
worte der ersten 4 Seligpreisungen in Mt, Lk und
in Q," NovT 10 (1968) 148-61.
Percy, Botschaft, 40-108.
Emile Puech, "4Q 525 et les pericopes des beatitudes
en Ben Sira et Matthieu," RB 98 (1991) 80-106.
Soiron, Bergpredigt, 141-208.
Georg Strecker, "Die Makarismen der Bergpredigt,"
NTS 17 (1971) 255-75.
Idem, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s. v. 1-'aK&.p,os.
Christopher Tuckett, "The Beatitudes: A Source-
critical Study; with a Reply by Michael M.
Goulder," NovT 25 (1983) 193-216.
Francesco Vattioni, Beatitudini, proverta, ricchezza
(Milan: Ancora, 1966).
Benedict Viviano, "Beatitudes Found among Dead Sea
Scrolls," BARev 18 (1992) 53-55,66.
Nikolaus Walter, "Die Bearbeitung der Selig-
preisungen durch Matthaus," StEv 4 (TU 102;
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968) 246-58.
Wrege, Bergpredigt, 5-34.
1. Introduction
a. The Basic Meaning
As a musical masterpiece begins with an introitus, the SM
opens with an extraordinary sequence of statements, the
so-called Beatitudes. The name beatitude is derived from
the Latin beatitudo, which corresponds to the Greek
p.aKaptcrp.o~ ("macarism"), a label that may have been used
perhaps even in the New Testament itself.l The term
designates a literary genre; it originates from the
adjective p.aKCtpLo~ ("blessed" or "happy"), which is
repeated nine times in SM/Matt 5:3-11 (cf. the four
beatitudes in SP /Luke 6:20b-24). Philological investi-
gations have shown that the adjective p.aKCtpLo~ is derived
from the older word p.CtKap, and that its roots may not be
Greek. 2 Some scholars 3 have proposed an Egyptian
origin, pointing to Egyptian m 'r as having the same
meaning as p.aKCtp(w~). 4 Beatitudes are rather frequent in
Egyptian literature, 5 so that an Egyptian origin is

Gal4:15; see Betz, Galatians, 226-27; Rom 4:6, 9; 1
Clem. 50.7.
2 See Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaire etymologique de Ia
langue grecque; histoire des mots (4 vols. in 5; Paris: 4
Klincksieck, 1968-80) 3.659, s.v. ,.&.Kap; Emile
Boisacq, Dictionnaire etymologique de Ia langue grecque
(Heidelberg: Winter, 1916), 601-2.
3 Alexander Krappe, "MAKAP," Revue de Philologie, de
Litterature et d'Histoire Ancienne, 3/14 (1940) 245-46;
Benrand Hemmerdinger, "Noms communs grecs
d'origine egyptienne," Glotta 46 (1968) 238-47; cf.
Cornelius de Heer, MAKAP-EY ~AIMilN-OABIOI:-
EYTYXHI:: A Study of the Semantic Field Denoting
Happiness in Ancient Greek to the End of the 5th c. B.C.
(Amsterdam: Hakken, 1969).
See Adolf Erman and Hermann Grapow, eds.,
Worterbuch der agyptischen Sprache (7 vols.; Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1926-63) 2.48,line 11.
5 See the collections of passages in jacques Dupont,
"Beatitudes egyptiennes," Bib 4 7 (1966) 185-222;
reprinted in his Etudes, 2.793-831;Jan Assmann,
"Weisheit, Loyalismus und Frommigkeit," in Erik
Hornung and Othmar Keel, eds., Studien zu alt-
agyptischen Lebenslehren (OBO 28; Fribourg: Uni-

92

conceivable. 6 This hypothesis has gained in credence
throughjan Assmann's observation of the two-line
beatitudes, in which the second line gives a reason. 7
The old sources seem to agree on the basic meaning of
the term as well: it designates a state of being that
pertains to the gods and can be awarded to humans
postmortem. In ancient Egyptian religion the term plays
an important role in the cult of Osiris, where it refers to
a deceased person who has been before the court of the
gods of the netherworld, who has declared there his
innocence, 8 and who has been approved to enter the
paradise of Osiris, even to become an Osiris himself.
Such a person, according to Egyptian religious thought,
is truly blessed, just as Osiris himself was declared blessed
by his brother Thoth and by the court of the great gods
after his death. 9
The meaning corresponding to Greek religion is
found in the ancient Homeric Hymn to Demeter (cited
below), where the term lJ>..fJLo~ ("blessed") serves as a
synonym for p.aKapLo~, referring to the postmortem state
of being of those who are initiates of the mysteries of
Demeter. Cornelius de Heer, however, points out that
the benefits of immortality or eternal life are "not merely
future, they are immediate as well, and as such they are
no doubt believed to be material, both now and in the
hereafter. " 1 0
These ancient passages demonstrate some important
aspects that also apply to the beatitudes of the SM and
the SP. Of course, the beatitudes in the SM and the SP
are not drawn from ancient Greek mystery cults, but
they have developed out of a jewish matrix. The Old
Testament and postbiblical literature contain a large
number of beatitudes, presenting them in a wide variety
of forms and functions and making it thereby difficult to
see their primary characteristics. Comparing all these
versitli.tsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 1979) 12-72.
6 Pace Chantraine, Dictionnaire, 3.659: "!'hypothese
d'un imprunt egyptien 0 0 est invraisemblable."
0 1937) 94-104. Differently Eduard Norden, Agnostos
7 See Assrnann, "Weisheit," 29-43 and 66-72, with a
large collection of beatitudes. I owe this reference to
Professor Hellmut Brunner.
8 On this point see Betz, Essays, 127-29.
9 I am following Krappe, "MAKAP," 245-46.
10 IamfollowingdeHeer,MAKAP,17-19.
11 This view is also held by Tomas Arvedson, Das
Mysterium Christi: Eine Studie zu Mt 11,25-30
Matthew 5:3-12
materials leads to the following conclusions:
1. Their original function (Sitz im Leben) 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.
Although the beatitudes of the SM and the SP are
comparatively late and presuppose a jewish milieu, these
basic aspects apply to them as well and one should keep
them in mind, to avoid misunderstandings. There are,
however, other aspects to consider:
1. If the original function or Sitz im Leben of the
Beatitudes is in the ritual, their present occurrence in the
SM and the SP, which are basically didactic texts, is
secondary. 11 In this secondary function they serve as
reminders of things the recipients of the SM and the SP
have heard before. These things are now being recalled
as presuppositions for the entire SM and SP. In other
words, as didactic texts both the SM and SP presuppose
some form of cultic experience, which, however, remains
outside the texts. 12 Furthermore, as literary formations
serving didactic functions the beatitudes of the SM and
the SPare characterized by considerable complexity. It is
too simple a matter to speak of the beatitude, as if there
were only one such thing. Rather, the question is, which
type of beatitude is before us? What are its components?
What functions does it have in its present context? If, as I
assume, the beatitudes in the SM and the SP have
primarily didactic functions, their form follows this
function-to apply here this famous principle of modern
functionalism. For this reason, in my view, the beatitudes
of the SM are, at least in their majority, given in the third
person plural. The second person plural appears to
reflect more directly the primary function in the ritual,
while the third person plural conforms to the didactic
(Arbeiten und Mitteilungen aus dem neutes-
tamentlichen Seminar zu Uppsala 7; Leipzig:
Lorentz; Uppsala: Lundeqvistska Boekhandeln,
Theos (4th ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1956) 100 n. 1, who denies all
"causal relationships" between the Greek and the
beatitudes of the SM.
12 The same is true of other cultic experiences; see
below on SM/Matt 6:1-18.
93
function. The evidence shows, however, that beatitudes
formulated in the second person plural also function
didactically, just as those stated in the third person are
never without the connotation of an ethical appeal. 13
2. As statements of fact (third person) as well as
addresses (second person), the Beatitudes are declarative
in nature. What kind of declaration do they intend?
Although the SM no doubt puts the beatitudes in the
mouth ofJesus as the speaker, this does not mean that he
simply invented this literary form. His pronouncement
does not even necessarily mean that it occurs on his own
authority. What the declarations state is a mythical truth,
a kind of theological dogma, which applies to the
eschatological judgment of God. If in the context of the
last judgment God as the supreme judge pronounces the
verdict over someone, 14 he simply makes concrete what
is stated as a principle in the third person. 15 Therefore,
one may say that the beatitudes in the SM (and also in the
SP) represent anticipated eschatological verdicts.
Whether formulated as principles in the third person
plural (as in SM/Matt 5:3-10) or as a direct address in
the second person plural (as in 5:11 ), these anticipated
verdicts belong together and must not be viewed as
opposites: The principles are presupposed and actualized
in the address, and the principles would not make any
sense unless they are applied. It makes good sense,
therefore, that the principles in the third person are in
the SM cited first because everything else is based on
them.
In this way, the beatitudes ofthe SM and the SP stand
in the tradition of Jewish wisdom literature. 16 This
background also explains the large number of parallels to
these beatitudes in the Jewish wisdom texts, from where
the tradition entered into apocalyptic and rabbinic
Judaism. 17 All of them declare in one form or another
that the one blessed deserves this state of being because
of"the wisdom displayed before God and humanity." 18
This wisdom is based on the divine justice or righteous-
ness revealed in the Torah. In the SM, the faithful
disciple is therefore called "the prudent one" (o
cppOVLp.o~).1 9
That the SM and the SP assume Jesus to be the
speaker should not be misunderstood. In the present
contexts Jesus is no doubt the authority behind the
Beatitudes. They are, however, not merely pronounced
on the authority ofJesus. If Jesus is regarded as the
authoritative teacher who formulated these beatitudes,
he did so not for the sake of arbitrarily inventing them.
Indeed, they derive from the concept of divine justice.
As a Jewish teacher Jesus was familiar with the principle
of justice that, according to Jewish thought, informs
God's verdict in the last judgment. Every competent
Jewish teacher would presumably understand these
principles, so that one need not postulate a special

13 This way of stating the differences between second-
and third-person formulations must be distinguished
from the source-critical question. There is no reason
to speculate that either the third- or second-person
beatitudes are earlier, and depending on that
question, whether the SM or the SP is an earlier
source. Also different is the question whether Jesus
himself used the beatitudes in the one form or the
other. For discussion see Broer, Seligpreisungen, 17-
19,29-34.
14 Cf. Matt 25:31-46; and Betz, Essays, 24, 26, 130,
149. See alsoHermas Vis. 3.2.1; Clement Alex. Strom.
4.6, § 30.1 (cf. 4.15.6), who emphasizes this eschato-
logical aspect.
15 At this point, the beatitudes of the SM and the SP
differ from blessings. Strictly speaking, blessings are
ritual pronouncements, and as such a subcategory of
prayer. In contrast to curses, blessings are meant to
confer divine benefits on those addressed. By
comparison, the beatitudes in the SM and the SP
state a reality that already exists. See Rene Kieffer,
"Weisheit und Segen als Grundmotive der Selig-
preisungen bei MaWi.us und Lukas," SNTU2 (1976)
29-43, esp. 36-43.
16 Kieffer ("Weisheit," 32) is right when he observes the
wisdom perspective expressed by the Beatitudes.
This perspective involves a general statement of fact
assessing common experience through the eyes of
wisdom ("ein allgemeinmenschliches Konstatieren,
... eine Betrachtung gewohnlicher Ereignisse mit
den Augen der Weisheit").
17 See the collections of material made by Fiebig,Jesu
Bergpredigt; Friedlander, Sources; Str-B; Maahs,
"Makarisms"; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary; and
Hengel, "Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt."
18 Kieffer ("Weisheit," 33): "Man ist also selig durch die
Weisheit, die man vor Menschen und vor Gott an
den Tag legt."
19 See below on SM/Matt 7:24-27; also 5:13-16.

94

revelation, be it apocalyptic or otherwise, that has
provided Jesus with insight into the ways of God's
judgment. Apocalyptic vision reports often provide
reaffirmations of the divine principles of justice, but one
can hardly argue that those visions discover them for the
first time. The SM and the SP include no vision reports
but simply assume that Jesus knows these principles.
Consequently, the final authority on which the Beati-
tudes are based is God's justice, a concept fundamental
to the SM (see below on SM/Matt 5:6, 10).
If one assumes that the historical Jesus pronounced the
Beatitudes, or at least some of them, and if their first
pronouncement occurred in the context of a cultic
performance of some kind, this context now lies outside
the present texts. The question of which cultic act cannot
be answered with any certainty. The first recipients of
the Sermons may remember baptism as their initiation
ceremony, but neither the SM nor the SP mentions
baptism; even the evangelist Matthew, who sees the
connection, keeps them apart. In the context of Jesus'
baptism, which is the prototype of Matthew's Christian
baptism, the heavenly pronouncement does not occur in
the form of a beatitude (Matt 3:17): "You are my beloved
son with whom I am well pleased." This declaration may
come close to a beatitude, but the literary form is
different. Thus, the precise literary connection between
beatitudes and other sayings involving a declaration of
"you are ... " remains unclear. 20
In their present context, the Beatitudes are doctrinal
statements; they are intended to be learned by heart and
remembered. This secondary function is quite ap-
propriate in that it shows the connections between
doctrine and ritual.
An interesting example of such a connection are the
so-called Orphic gold leaves, which have been known
20 On this point see Betz, Galatians, 183-84.
21 See Burkert, Greek Religion, 296-301; idem, Ancient
Mystery Cults, 33-34.
22 Gunther Zuntz, Persephone: Three Essays on Religion
and Thought in Magna Graecia (Oxford: Clarendon,
1971)322-23.
23 Quoted according to Zuntz, Persephone, 301. The
translation is mine.
24 Cf. also PGM 111.599-600: xa{pop.£v, iln umvr6v ~p:iv
f'aofas, xalpop.Ev, <Jr~. fv 7rAII.uJ.LaCTI.V ~J.'aS' 8vTas
lnro6£ci>uas rfi <T£avrov yvci>u£< ("We rejoice because
you showed yourself to us; we rejoice because while
Matthew 5:3-12
since the nineteenth century but have aroused great
interest only recently. 21 Gunther Zuntz has correctly
pointed out that the inscriptions on the gold leaves
contain quotations of brief sentences, among them a
beatitude (text A.1, line 8):22
lJJ\.{31€: Kat JLaKap!<TTf, 8f:OS Ot ~<TTJ UVTt {3poTOtO.
Happy and blessed are you, you will be god instead of
human. 23
One can reach some conclusions about the purpose of
these gold leaves and their inscriptions. They were
apparently placed into the tombs of deceased mystery-
cult initiates, put in the initiates' hand or near their ears.
The inscriptions provide the deceased with the decisive
formulae that as initiates they have to know as passwords
on their way to the Elysian Fields. These formulae were,
one may suppose, revealed to the initiate during an
initiation ceremony, and they contain the essential
message of salvation that the cult conveys. The formulae,
therefore, must be remembered, and hence they were
inscribed on indestructible gold and given to the
deceased in their tombs, so that they could take them
along into the afterlife. For the initiate these statements
contain indispensable knowledge, and they possess
magical force. These facts, if correctly reconstructed, are
confirmed by similar sayings, such as in text A.4, lines 3-
4, where we also find a parallel to SM/Matt 5:12: 24
xatp€: 7ra8fuv TO 7rtl87JJ.La TOll' ol57rw 7rp6u8f: £7rf:7r6v8m·
8f:os £y€vov £( av8pchov.
Rejoice, you have this experience (now) which you
have never experienced before;
you have become god instead ofhuman.2 5
we are [still] in bodies you deified us by the knowl-
edge of who you are" [trans. by William C. Grese, in
Hans Dieter Betz, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri (2d
ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1992) 33-34]);
see also Betz, Hellenismus und Urchristentum, 169.
25 Quoted according to Zuntz, Persephone, 329. The
translation is mine. Zuntz (331) remarks that the
exclamation "rejoice!" (xalp£) is virtually synonymous
with the address "Happy and blessed are you! " in the
previous beatitude. Cf. also Firmicus Maternus De
errore profanarum religiosum 22.1: 6app£tT£ p.,';ura•, rov
8£oV u£ucpcrp.Jvov, (uTaL yC,.p VJ.L'iV fK 1rOvwv uwr7Jpla
95
 Lines 5-6 of text A.4 point to the topography of the
netherworld and give directions:
xa'L(pt:) xa'Lpt:• lit:ftav oliot7TOp(n) At:!p.wvlzs n Lt:pobs Kal.
lf.>..ut:a cl>t:put:<!Jovt:las.
Rejoice, rejoice, go to the right, to the holy meadows
and groves of Persephone. 2 6
As Zuntz noted in his commentary, 27 the statements
have essentially two purposes: They announce, by way of
traditional formulae, that the initiate is deified; 28 and
they guide that person or soul on its way to the Aspho-
delos Meadows. In order that the initiate does not forget
them, the formulae are copied onto the gold leaf, serving
as indestructible passwords. Taken by themselves, the
inscriptions are statements of theological doctrine
pertaining to the afterlife. They identify their bearer as a
beneficiary of the mysteries.
The secondary context of the Beatitudes as didactic
sayings was made possible by another literary develop-
ment. Long before the SM the beatitude became a
literary genre and a part of the ancient gnomological
literature. One should not overlook that the use of the
genre was never limited to Jewish or Christian literature.
For this reason we find beatitudes in Egyptian and Jewish
wisdom literature, in early Christian sayings traditions, in
other New Testament writings, and also in rabbinic
sources. As the following examples will show, the
beatitude was also common in Greek literature, in poetry
and in philosophical wisdom. Consequently, the genre of
the beatitude can be regarded as common in antiquity at
the time of the New Testament. Also, beatitudes show up
in a number of variations and can be adapted to quite
different contexts. The secondary function of many of
them is clear from the philosophical context, so that
Burkhardt Gladigow could speak of such beatitudes as
"macarisms of the wise man. "29
These phenomena explain why New Testament
authors (e.g., Paul), the authors ofthe New Testament
Apocrypha, or those of the Nag Hammadi texts seem to
have had no difficulty in formulating beatitudes. These
sayings were simply a literary device summing up
essential doctrines in the briefest possible form. In the
literary sense, the beatitude had become a subgenre of
the sententia.
3. Like most beatitudes, those of the SM and the SP
have eschatological as well as this-worldly implications.
Therefore, it is a fundamental mistake to favor either
their future aspect of promise or their present pro-
nouncement. As principles of eschatological and divine
justice the Beatitudes are ipso facto future-oriented; as
principles pronounced in the present they have an
impact on the present as well. Divine justice not only is
above time and space but also reaches into time and
space.
The implications of the Beatitudes as present pro-
nouncements are, however, even more complex. Strictly
speaking, they should be pronounced by the divine judge
in the afterlife, as verdicts at the eschatological judg-
ment. Spoken in the present they reveal a message that
belongs to the future of persons for whose eternal
salvation this message is decisive. One must also dis-
tinguish the beatitude from a promise. While the
promise assures one about something one commonly
knows and expects, the beatitude reveals a fact com-
monly unknown or unexpected. Even if such a fact was
known in a general way, for the person receiving the
message it constitutes a new revelation.
As revelation of a principle, the beatitude shows and
opens up a way oflife implementing that principle. The
pronouncement moreover presents the demand that the
person receiving the message takes up in the most serious

("Rejoice, [you) initiates, because the god has been
saved, salvation from affliction will be yours!").
Furthermore, cf. Corpus Hermeticum 13.8: xa'i:pE
AonrOv, ~ TlKvov, U.vaKa8aLp0p.Evos To'i's ToV 8EoV
avv<i/LE<T&V, Elr uvv.ip8pwu&v roil Aoyov ("Rejoice now,
my child, cleansed are you by the powers of God, for
the building up of the Logos.") See also PGM 1.127:
Z, /LaK<ip&<TTE ,.6.,.ra ("0 most blessed initiate!").
26 Quoted according to Zuntz, Persephone, 332-33. The 29
translation is mine.
27 Zuntz, ibid.
28 re.
See also text A.5, line 4: VO/LWI ar:a YEYW<Ta ("Go!
You have become a goddess in accordance with the
law"). The citation and interpretation follow Zuntz,
Persephone, 333-35. For further material and newly
discovered inscriptions see Zuntz, 355-93; idem,
"Die Goldlamelle von Hipponion," WS 89 (1976)
129-51; Martin L. West, "The Orphics of Olbia,"
ZPE 45 (1982) 17-29; idem, The Orphic Poems
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1983) 23, 265.
For more information on this below, see Burkhardt
Gladigow, "Der Makarismus des Weisen," Hermes 95
(1967) 404-33.

96
 Matthew 5:3-12

sense the way of life revealed: It requires no less than a
radical decision, as it lays claim to the recipient's entire
course and conduct oflife. Thus, the benefit of this
revelation goes hand in hand with the demand of a
response. Without adequate response the beatitude turns
into condemnation. It is after all a principle of justice.
Beatitudes are pronounced without condition, but they
have inescapable consequences.
4. Thus the beatitude has a close relationship to
morality and ethics. By revealing a new way of life, the
beatitude affects moral behavior and demands an ethical
awareness. 30
The beatitudes in the SM and the SP spell out this
aspect by specifying the addressees as "poor in (the)
spirit" and so forth. Thus the addressees can be identi-
fied and indeed are supposed to identify themselves by
conscious attitudes, actions, and thoughts. As I shall
show in case after case in the following (see the Inter-
pretation below), these attitudes, actions, and thoughts
are not common but exceptional and contrary to what is
regarded as the conventional standards of behavior.
These specific attitudes, actions,. and thoughts must also
not be confused with "works of the law" in the Pauline
sense. They do not "earn" salvation, but they are the
"fruits" of insights into God's ways, and as such they
"deserve" salvation. Paul would call them "fruit of the
Spirit" (Gal5:22), rather than "works of the law."
Nonetheless, the attitudes, actions, and thoughts
demanded are different from what Greeks would call
"virtues." They are not, like virtues, approximations
toward the divine absolute, but they are complete
realizations and as such "perfect" (SM/Matt 5:48).
Furthermore, whatever ethical actions may be con-
sidered, they are to be part and parcel of the Jewish
Torah as understood by the SM. In spite of all this,
however, it is clear from the list of commended attitudes,
actions, and thoughts that beatitudes have some kinship
with "virtues" in the Greek sense of the term. At any
rate, taken together the Beatitudes circumscribe the way
oflife of the faithful disciple of jesus. As such they
constitute the exordium, or introduction, of the SM and
the SP. That they merely introduce the SM and the SP
means that the full range of obligations of the faithful
disciple go far beyond the attitudes, actions, and
thoughts outlined in the Beatitudes.
b. The Literary Genre of the Beatitude
In spite of previous attempts, no complete collection of
the beatitudes from antiquity exists (for partial ones see
Strack and Billerbeck, Dirichlet, Hengel, Maahs).
Neither is there any satisfactory classification of the
various literary forms and stylistic criteria that would
determine those forms (see Betz, Broer, Dodd,
Gladigow, Hauck and Bertram, Janzen, Kahler, Kaser,
Strecker [see the bibliography above]). Given this
situation, I can present only a preliminary assessment
here, which will be supported by select examples, few in
number, from the vast body of material that exists in the
sources and alone could easily fill a volume.
1. The oldest beatitudes point, as mentioned already,
to religious cult, specifically to the mystery cults, as the
primary Sitz im Leben. The most famous beatitude comes
from the mysteries of Demeter and Persephone at Eleusis
and is quoted in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter (lines 480-
83):
/JJ\{310<; 8s raa' /J71'W71'€V £mx8ov[wv av8pcfmwv·
8s a' auJ\~s tfpwv, 8s r' ctp.p.opos, ov 7ro8' op.olwv atav
Elxf' cJ>Olp.wos 71'fP imo (ocJ>Cfi d;pw£vn.
Happy is he among humans on earth who has seen
these mysteries;
but he who is uninitiate and who has no part in them,
never has lot of like good things once he is dead,
down in the darkness and gloom. 31

30 For a discussion of the question whether the mys- H. G. Evelyn-White, LCL.

teries of Eleusis contained teaching on ethics, see
Fritz Graf, Eleusis und die orphische Dichtung Athens in
vorhellenistischer Zeit (RVV 3 3; Berlin: de Gruyter,
1974) 81-82.
31 Quoted according to J. B. Richardson, The Homeric
Hymn to Demeter (Oxford: Clarendon, 197 4) 134, and
the interpretation, 313-15. The translation is by
97
 Stated in the third person singular, the beatitude is
spoken to those who have been initiated into the Eleusin-
ian mysteries. 3 2 This initiation, therefore, must have
preceded the pronouncement, since it is referred to by
the words "he who has seen these things," indicating the
things shown in the mystery ceremony (Ta auKv-6J.Lwa). 3 3
The first line sums up the benefits of the initiation in a
general way. The second line issues a threat toward the
outsiders, the uninitiated. They "have no share" either
now or in the hereafter; they will not go to the Elysian
Fields but will be thrown down into gloomy Hades. 34 It
is important to realize that the beatitude is pronounced
in the present, but its main concern is the eschatological
destiny of the individual. 3 5 The threat of the second line
certainly reminds one of the combination of blessings
and threats in SP /Luke 6:20b-24, corresponding in the
SM to the eschatological section in SM/Matt 7:13-23. 36
The question regarding this beatitude is its internal
relationship to the Homeric Hymn. Does the Hymn "quote"
the beatitude from the liturgy? Or was the beatitude part
of the Hymn from the beginning? Was the Hymn used in
the liturgy, or is it a poetic work modeled on hymns
chanted in the ceremony? Unfortunately, we have no
means of answering these questions with certainty. It
appears that the long Hymn incorporated liturgical as
well as nonliturgical components, but we know too little
about "liturgies" in the mysteries to be able to arrive at
any firm conclusion, except that there must have been
some form of relationship. At any rate, if the beatitude
originated in the liturgical context, its inclusion in the
Hymn would be secondary, but the relationship could just
as well have been the other way around.
When the poet Pindar refers to the same beatitude he
does so by coming up with another version:
CJA.{3tos guns 1awv EK£LVa KolA.av duLV l!"ITO x86va·
otaw J.L~V {3LOTOV T£A£VT!tV, ota~;v a~ atiJuaoTOV apxav.
Blessed is he who has seen these things before he goes
beneath the hollow earth;
for he understands the end of mortal life; and he
understands the god-given beginning. 37
Interesting here is that Pindar states only the blessing,
not the threat. Peculiar is his reference to the "god-given
beginning" Guxtaposed with the reference to the
afterlife), 38 and the emphasis on the cognitive aspect of
the experience. Nothing is known about the origin of the
verse: Did the poet quote it from a hymn, which would
then be a hymn different from the Homeric Hymn to
Demeter? Or did Pindar compose the verse himself,
perhaps imitating the cultic beatitude? As intriguing as
these questions are, there is no way to give a firm answer.
Also informative is a beatitude in Euripides' Bacchae,
lines 72-77:
6> J.LclKap, guns ~;tJaalJ.Lwv nA£Tas O~;wv £laws f3wTav
aytun-6u Kat 8taU£.,j£TaL 'fFvxav.

32 In addition to Richardson's work see Graf, Eleusis,
79-94; Burkert, Greek Religion, 285-90; idem,
Ancient Mystery Cults, 89-114, esp. 93.
33 For the parallels to "seeing" (11lEiv) see Graf, Eleusis,
81 n. 12; Betz, Hellenismus und Urchristentum, 152-
53; Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults, 93.
34 Cf. the beatitude for the Jewish convert in Philo
Praem. poen. 152: "The proselyte exalted aloft by his
happy lot will be gazed at from all sides, marvelled at
and held blessed by all for two things of highest
excellence, that he came over to the camp of God
and that he has won a prize best suited to his merits, a
place in heaven firmly fixed, greater than words dare
describe, while the nobly born who has falsified the
sterling of his high lineage will be dragged right
down and carried into Tartarus itself and profound
darkness."
35 Important is Herodotus's (1.32) explanation that
only after death one can be called "blessed" (iJ11.{3.or),
because during one's life one may at most be "of
good fortune" (Evrvx~r); for he says, "there are many
to whom heaven has given a vision of blessedness,
and yet afterwards brought them to utter ruin." The
author of the SM would have endorsed this com-
ment. It also seems to be a critical reflection on the
mystery-cult initiation.
36 For the double aspect in the Eleusinian mysteries see
also Cicero De leg. 2.14.36: laetitia vivendi ("joy of
living") and spes melior moriendi ("better hope in
dying"). For comments see Giulia Sfameni Gasparro,
Soteriology and Mystic Aspects in the Cult ofCybele and
Attis (Leiden: Brill, 1985) 23-25.
37 Pindar frg. 121, in C. M. Bowra, ed., Pindar (Ox-
ford: Clarendon, 1964) 90 (my trans.). Clement
Alex. Strom. 3.17 .2 (ed. Stahlin, p. 203) attributes the
beatitude to the Eleusinian mysteries. See also Graf,
Eleusis, 80-81.
38 Cf. also the inscription on one of the Orphic tablets
from Olbia: Blor 0avaror Blor ("life-death-life"). See
Martin L. West, "The Orphics of Olbia," ZPE 45
(1982) 17-19; idem, Orphic Poems, 17, 19.

98
 Matthew 5:3-12

0 blessed he who in happiness knowing the rituals of
the gods makes holy his way of life and mingles his
spirit with the sacred band. 39
This beatitude, belonging in some way to the cult of
Dionysos, bears a striking similarity to the one from the
Homeric Hymn to Demeter cited above. The same questions
arise also in view of this beatitude: Is it Euripides' own
creation? Does he cite it from a liturgy? Even here the
mysteries keep silent.
Peculiar to this beatitude is that it does not mention
the afterlife. It does, however, emphasize knowing,
holiness, and a way oflife through inspiration and purity,
concepts pointing to the Dionysiac religion. As Dionysiac
religion is reflected, the analogies between this and the
beatitude belonging to the Demeter religion remain a
puzzle. Are they a reflection of the wider problem of the
relationship between the two cults?
Another close and illuminating parallel comes from
the cult of Isis and Osiris, according to the account given
in ApuleiusMet. 11.16 (p. 278, lines 7-10, ed. Griffiths),
where a crowd of worshipers greets Lucius upon his
return from death into life during his initiation:
hunc omnipotentis hodie deae numen augustum reformavit
ad homines.
felix hercules et ter beatus,
qui vitae scilicet praecedentis innocentia jideque meruerit
tam praeclarum de caelo patrocinum, ut renatus
quodam modo statim sacrorum obsequio desponderetur.
This is the man who has been today restored to
human shape through the splendid divinity of the
all-powerful goddess.
Happy is he, by heaven, and thrice-blessed
to have clearly deserved, by the purity of his
former life and his pious loyalty, such wondrous
favour from heaven that he is, as it were, born
again and has at once pledged himself to service in
the holy rites. 40
These are the words chanted by the crowds and thus
recited from memory. They declare the fulfillment of
the promise made to Lucius by Isis upon her appearance
to him. 41 Afterward Lucius had himself initiated into the
mysteries, a process that now has reached its fulfillment.
Apuleius does not describe the secret rites themselves, so
that his words are general and veiled, and only those
initiated know exactly to what they refer. But at least
Apuleius gives us the synthema, a carefully worded
circumscription of the initiation. 42 While its precise
meaning was clear only to the initiates, outsiders like us
must be content to guess its implications:
accessi conjinium mortis et calcato Proserpinae limine per
omnia vectus elementa remeavi,
nocte media vidi solem candido coruscantem lumine,
deos inferos et deos superos accessi coram et adoravi de
proxumo.
I approached the boundary of death and treading on
Proserpine's threshold,
I was carried through all the elements, after which I
returned.
At dead of night I saw the sun flashing with bright
effulgence.
I approached close to the gods below and the gods
above and worshiped them face to face. 43

39 Quoted from Gilbert Murray's edition of Euripides
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1920); the translation is by G. S.
Kirk, The Bacchae of Euripides (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1970) 33-35; see also H. S. Versnel,
Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religions, vol. 1: Ter 42
Unus: Isis, Dionysos, Hermes; Three Studies in Henotheism
(Studies in Greek and Roman Religion 6; Leiden:
Brill, 1990), esp. 167-68.
40 Text and translation are according to Griffiths,
Apuleius, 88-89, whose commentary should also be
consulted (256-59). 43
41 ApuleiusMet. 6, pp. 270,23-271,4 (ed. Griffiths,
76-77): "You shall live indeed a happy man, you shall
live full of glory in my protection, and when you have
completed the span of your lifetime, you will pass
down to the netherworld, but there also, in the very
midst of the subterranean hemisphere, you shall
often worship me, whom you now see, as one who
favours you, shining in the darkness of Acheron and
ruling in the Stygian depths, when you the while shall
dwell in the Elysian fields."
See the sentence following the synthema: "Behold, I
have related things about which you must remain in
ignorance, though you have heard them" ("ecce tibi
rettuli, quae, quamvis audita, ignores tamen necesse
est" [Met. 11.23, p. 285, 14-15, ed. Griffiths,
Apuleius, 98-99]).
See Met. 23, p. 285, 11-14 (ed. Griffiths, Apuleius,
98-99). Cf. also the beatitude in Met. 22, p. 284, 6-7.
On the synthema see Griffiths (294-308), who also
refers to the Orphic gold lamellae mentioned above.

99
 Both beatitude and synthema breathe the spirituality of
the Egyptian Isis religion. We can conclude that during
the initiation Lucius has taken a symbolic-ritual journey
to the world beyond, where his eternal destiny was
revealed to him. This experience is then interpreted as
death and rebirth. As a response he pledges his service to
the goddess. The beatitude thus sums up the benefits of
the initiation, which are also expounded by the much
larger context of the surrounding narrative of the
Metamorphoses book 11.
In Jewish literature only a few beatitudes belong to the
type we find in association with mystery cults. Of this
group the most instructive one is found in the Hel-
lenistic-Jewish novel joseph and Aseneth, a work heavily
influenced by mystery-cult language.
After Aseneth, an Egyptian woman (cf. Gen 41:45, 50;
46:20), has converted to the Jewish religion, she passes
through an elaborate initiation ritual, at the culmination
of which the initiating "angel of God" pronounces this
beatitude upon her (los. Asen. 16.7-8):
r
tJ.aKap{a E crv' , AcreveO'
(Jn a11'EKaAvt/J67J CTOL Ta a7r&pp7Jra TOV Oeov,
Kat tJ.aKtipLoL o£ 7rpOcrKELtJ.EVOL Kvp{Cfl r(iJ Oe(iJ ~v tJ.ETavoll!-,
CJn ~K rovrov rov K7Jplov tJ>&.yovraL,
olon Tb tJ.EAL TOVTO 11'E11'0L~KaCTLV a£ tJ.EALcrcraL TOV
1rapaoelcrov rij~ rpvtJ>ij~,
Kat OL liyyeAOL TOV Oeov ~t avrov ~crOlovcrL,
Kat 11'a~ ~~ !J!&.yeraL ~t avrov OVK a1!'o6ave'iraL el~ TbV
,~
aLwva.
Blessed are you, Aseneth,
because the ineffable mysteries of God have been
revealed to you,
and blessed are those who attach themselves to the
Lord in repentance,
because they eat from the (honey-)comb.
For the bees of the paradise of delight have made
this honey,
and the angels of God eat of it,
and everyone who eats from it will not die forever. 44
44 The text is cited according to the edition by Marc
Philonenko,Joseph et Aseneth (StPB 13; Leiden: Brill,
1968); the translation is mine; for another translation
based on a different text see Christoph Burchard,
OTP 2.228-29; see also Kahler, "Zur Form- und
Traditionsgeschichte," 48-50.
45 Reinhold Merkelbach, Roman und Mysterium in der
Antike (Munich and Berlin: Beck, 1962); idem, Die
100
The text does not reveal what "the hidden things of
God" are, but in this Jewish text they are probably
identical with the ceremonies described. The "angel of
God" is a redeemer figure who comes down from heaven
knowing all the secrets of heaven and earth. Receiving
the initiation through this angel encompasses all that
conversion to Judaism as understood in this text
requires. The beatitude sums up this understanding of
Jewish conversion and its benefits. That it occurs as part
of what appears to be a conversion ritual points to its
original Sitz im Leben. At least in this context, however,
the ritual is a literary fiction, conforming to the genre of
the novella, and therefore it has a secondary setting and
composition. This textual situation raises important
questions that cannot be treated here, but they have
been treated in several stimulating contributions by
Reinhold Merkelbach. 45
Other interesting instances of the cultic-religious
beatitude occur in Jewish apocalyptic texts. Some of
these are peculiar because of their similarity to those
associated with the Greek mystery cults, notwithstanding
the religious and cultural differences. One ought also to
keep in mind that the origins of these texts, especially
their relationship to theJe~ish rituals, are an unresolved
problem. Therefore, we do not know whether these
apocalyptic beatitudes are cited from sources, or whether
they were formulated in imitation of those sources, or
whether these sources were liturgical.
An early instance of this type of beatitude is found in
Sirach 48, a chapter with an apocalyptic ring to it. The
section focuses on Elijah, Elisha, Hezekiah, and Isaiah as
apocalyptic seers. In the section dealing with Elijah (Sir
48:1-11), an aretalogy of the prophet leads to his ascent
into heaven and the pronouncement of a beatitude
(48:11):
tJ.aKtipLOL OL lo&vre~ erE Kat OL ~v aya71'~CTEL KEKOLtJ-7JtJ.EVOL
0
Kat yap ~tJ.E'i~ (wfi (1/cr&tJ.eOa.
Blessed are they who saw you and died in love,
for also we shalllive. 46
Hirten des Dionysos: Die Dionysosmysterien der romischen
Kaiserzeit und der bukolische Roman des Longos (Stutt-
gart: Teubner, 1988) esp. 52.
46 Quoted according to the edition by Joseph Ziegler,
Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta 12.2; Got-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 351. The
translation is mine.
 Matthew 5:3-12

Unfortunately the text of vs 11 is uncertain and makes some modifications by author):

interpretation difficult. 47 The beatitude seems to x6.p1J81 Kat lz:ya:A.:A.lacral l7Tt TOt!.' VLOt!.' TOJV liucalwv,
pronounce blessed those who have seen Elijah after he Cfn crvvax8~CTOVTal Kat ~:v:A.oy~crovcrw TOV KVp!OV TWV
ascended to heaven in the chariot (vs 9). Perhaps the liiKalwv. 53
statement refers to the hereafter: "Blessed are they who Be glad and rejoice for the sons of the righteous,
see you after having died in love. "48 Or, if one takes up for they will be gathered together and they will
the reading ava7Tavcr£L proposed by Smend, one may praise the Lord of the righteous.
~ '
render: "they who are asleep in eternal rest." The second '9'
W f.WKapiOI
I
01 aya7TWVTI:!.' CTI: xap1JCTOVTal 1:71'1 T!J €Lp1JV!J
"" I 1 ' ' ""' ' I

line then confers the same benefit on the present crov·

generation as those who by the apocalyptic revelation
have been informed about their destiny in the hereafter.
A similar literary situation is presented by the end of
the book ofTobit. 49 In Tob 12:6 an angel who later
reveals himself to be Raphael (12:15) calls Tobit and his
son Tobias, in order to hand over to them a piece of
cultic instruction (12:6-10). 50 When Raphael reveals his
identity (12: 11-15), Tobit and Tobias are terrified and
fall on their faces worshiping him. Raphael then discloses
to them "the mystery of the kingdom," 51 implying that
they have no reason to be afraid because their eternal
salvation is assured ( 12: 17). Raphael also explains
( 12: 19): "All these days I appeared to you, and I did not
eat or drink, but you were seeing a vision." He then
orders them to write down in a book 5 2 what they have
experienced, and this process is characterized with these
words: "Then they confessed the great and wonderful
works of God and that the angel of the Lord had
appeared to them." As a conclusion, Tobit composes a
hymn praising God's kingdom (13:1-18). In this section,
a curse and a blessing are included (13:14 LXX),
followed by beatitudes (13:15-16 LXX; trans. RSV with
0 blessed are those who love you, 54 they will be glad
because of your peace.
p.aKd.pwl Cfcro1 l:A.v7T~81Jcrav l7Tt 7Td.cral!.' Tat!.' p.acrTltlv crov,
Cfn (7r{ CTOI xap~CTOVTal 8~:acrap.~:VOI 7Tacrav T~V /lOtav
crov,
Kat ~:vcppav8~crovTal cL!.' TOv alwva.
Blessed are they who have grieved over all your
afflictions, 55
for they will rejoice over you upon seeing all your
glory,
and they will be made glad forever.
The beatitudes in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch 5 6 appear to be
purely literary creations. They are part of the seer's
instruction and farewell speech to "his sons," after he has
returned from a journey to heaven. In heaven he has
seen "whatever is now and whatever will be until the day
of judgment. "57 As a result the seer can say of himself
that he knows all things from the lips of the Lord himself
and that he has seen all from the beginning to the end. 58
The purpose of the book of 2 Enoch is to inform 59 the

47 See Ziegler's critical apparatus, and the discussion in 52 The "book" is the book of Tobit.
Theophil Middendorp, Die Stellung Ben Siras zwischen 53 Cf. SM/Matt 5:12.
judentum und Hellenismus (Leiden: Brill, 1973) 134- 54 That is, who love Jerusalem.
35. 55 The statements seem to refer to Jerusalem; the
48 "You" is probably to be connected with "having died heavenly Jerusalem is described in 13:16-18 (cf.
in love." See BDF, § 442; BDR, § 442. 14:4-5). Cf. also SM/Matt 5:14; 7:13-14.
49 For the question of the composition see Paul 56 For this strange work, the date of which is uncertain,
Deselaers, Das Buch Tobit: Studien zu seiner Entstehung, see the introduction, translation, and notes by F. I.
Komposition und Theologie (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Andersen in OTP 1.91-213. That 2 Enoch is
Ruprecht, 1982). characterized by numerous parallels to the SM has
50 Cf. SM/Matt 6:1-18. often been noted, but no plausible explanation has
51 The Greek concept is expressed as p.v<Tr~ptov yet been found. See OTP 1.95.
fJa<TtAtror ("mystery of the king") in 12: II , at least 57 2 Enoch 39.2 (OTP 1.163).
according to the text of B A of the edition by Rahlfs. 58 2 Enoch 40.1 (OTP 1.165).
For the term p.v<Tr~ptov ("mystery") see also (LXX) 59 2 Enoch 39.2 (OTP 1.163).
Wis 2:22; 6:22; 14:15, 23; Sir 3: 18; 22:22; 27:16, 17,
21; Dan 2:18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 39, 47.

101
readers about the vision, in this way conveying the
experience of the seer in heaven to the readers of his
book on earth. 60 After he has seen the paradise of the
righteous, the seer blesses Israel with nine beatitudes (2
Enoch 42.6-14):
Happy is the person who reverences the name of the
LORD, and who serves in front of his face always,
and who organizes his gifts with fear, offerings of
life, and who in this life lives and dies correctly!
Happy is he who carries out righteous judgment, not
for the sake of payment, but for justice, not
expecting anything whatever as a result; and the
result will be that judgment without favoritism will
follow for him.
Happy is he who clothes the naked with his garment,
and to the hungry gives his bread!
Happy is he who judges righteous judgment for
orphan and widow, and who helps anyone who has
been treated unjustly!
Happy is he who turns aside from the secular path of
this vain world, and walks in the right paths, and
who lives that life which is without end!
Happy is he who sows right seed, for he shall harvest
sevenfold!
Happy is he in whom is the truth, so that he may speak
the truth to his neighbor!
Happy is he who has compassion on his lips and
gentleness in his heart!
Happy is he who understands all the works of the
LoRD, performed by the LORD, and glorifies him!
For the works of the LoRD are right, but the works
of mankind-some are good, but others are evil;
and by their works those who speak lying
blasphemies are recognized. 61
Such strings of beatitudes, for which other examples
could also be cited, among them the Qumran fragment
4Q525, 62 indicate that the beatitude as a literary genre
has been included in collections of gnomic sayings in the
context of apocalyptic fiction. This context, however, is
secondary, and so are the beatitudes.
In an apocalyptic context the beatitudes are part of the
literary effort to create, or recreate, an apocalyptic vision
in the imagination of the reader of the apocalyptic book.
The beatitudes must be regarded as part of this apoc-
alyptic fiction.
In jewish wisdom and rabbinic literature serial
arrangement of beatitudes seems to follow literary
methods such as numerical sequence. 63 These methods
based on numerical symbolism or acrostic figures are
used also by gnomologia, but this type of saying is not
directly associated with a cultic context. They are
consciously literary productions. Accordingly, the
sequence of the beatitudes in the SM and the SP consti-
tutes "serial sayings" (Reihensprilche), each saying begin-

60 2 Enoch 40.2 (OTP 1.165).
61 OTP 1.168 (recension]; cf. recension A [p. 169],
which has nine shorter beatitudes; in formulation
they are not strictly parallel).
62 If Puech's reconstruction is correct, the Qumran text
4Q525 has a series of five beatitudes, the last one
being different from and longer than the other four.
See Emile Puech, "Une Hymn Essenien en partie
retrouve et les Beatitudes: 1QH V 12-VI 18 (col.
xiii-xiv 7) at 4Q Beat.," RevQ 13 (1988) 59-88;
AdamS. van der Woude, ThR 55 (1990) 273-74;
Martin Hengei,JSS 35 (1990) 52 n. 66; Benedict
Viviano, "Beatitudes Found Among Dead Sea
Scrolls," BA Rev 18 (1992) 53-55, 66. See,
furthermore, Acts ofPaul and Thecla 5-6, according
to the text in Lipsius and Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum
Apocrypha, 1.238-40; translation in NTApoc 2.354-
55. How these beatitudes, some of which are
strikingly similar to those of the SM, are related to
Christian literature or ritual is unknown. The
introductory scene is fictional: "when Paul had
entered into the house of Onesiphorus there was
great joy, and bowing of knees and breaking of bread
and the word of God concerning continence and the
resurrection, as Paul said." For further examples see
also Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 321 n. 68; Berger,
Formgeschichte, 188-94.
63 See W. Sibley Towner, The Rabbinic "Enumeration of
Scriptural Examples": A Study of a Rabbinic Pattern of
Discourse with Special Reference to Mekilta d' R. Ishmael
(StPB 22; Leiden: Brill, 1973), preceded by W. M.
W. Roth, Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament
(VTSup 13; Leiden: Brill, 1965); August Wiinsche,
"Die Zahlenspriiche in Talmud und Midrasch,"
Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenliindischen Gesellschaft 65
(1911)57-100,395-421;66(1912)414-59.

102
 Matthew 5:3-12

ning with the term "blessed. "64 The structure of the
sayings may be the same, or they may vary; both types
are typical of the Reihensprilche. 65 This variability is
important in view of the last beatitude (SM/Matt 5: 12).
The changes occurring in the literary genre and
function of the beatitude have so far been discussed with
regard to Jewish literature, but one can observe the same
phenomena in Greek literature as well. 66 In an im-
portant essay Burkhardt Gladigow has called attention to
"the beatitude of the wise man, "67 showing how Greek
philosophers made use of this literary genre in order to
state a philosophical idea in a succinct formulation easy
to memorize. Modeling a gnomic beatitude after the
ritual precursor, the philosophers expressed rational
thought, not cultic knowledge, and they did so in public,
not in esoteric rituals. The distinction between a reli-
gious and a philosophical beatitude is sometimes in-
triguing, and the phenomenon calls for more ex-
planation than can be given here.
A famous example of such a borderline beatitude
occurs in Hesiod's Theogony. This beatitude is pro-
nounced after Herakles' completion of his famous toils;
he has already become the prototype of the sage trying to
cope with the toils of life:
lJA.f3ws, 8s p.(ya fpyov fV a8aviLTOUT!V av!Juuas va{u
Cz7T~p.aTOS Kat ay~paos Tfp.aTa 7TILVTa.
Happy he! For he has finished his great work and lives
amongst the undying gods, untroubled and
unaging all his days. 68
By comparison, a complete transformation of the
beatitude into a philosophical sententia has taken place in
a saying of Empedocles:
lJA.f3ws 8s B£iwv 1Tpa7Tillwv fKT~uaTo 7T A.ovTov,
8£tA.bs a' ciit CTKOT6£CTCTL 8£wv 1T£pt Mt"a p.ip.TJAW.
Blessed is he who has acquired a wealth of the divine
wisdom,
but miserable he in whom there rests a dim opinion
concerning the gods. 69
This sententia provides what appears to be a critical
commentary on the mystery-cult beatitude. The true
wealth is now declared to consist of "divine thoughts"
(lhiat 1Tpa7Till£s), 70 which means that redemptive knowl-
edge has been exchanged for philosophical knowledge of
divine quality. 71 It is, therefore, more important to share
this philosophical wisdom than merely to take part in the
ritual. Darkness and gloom are to be feared not merely
in the hereafter, but whoever does not have a share in
this wisdom now already lives in intellectual darkness
because of false opinions regarding the gods. 7 2
That the right knowledge concerning the gods is
required for true "happiness" is declared also in the form
of a beatitude at the beginning of Epicurus' s K yriai Doxai,
although the content of that knowledge differs from that
in the saying ofEmpedocles: 73
Tb p.aKILptoV Kat llcj>8apTOV oifu avTb 7Tp/,.yp.aTa fxu oifu
llAA~ 1Tap(xu, ifluT£ opyats oifT£ xiLpLCTL CTVV,X£TaL"
fV au8£V£L y"izp 1rav Tb TO!OVTOV.

64 Towner, Rabbinic "Enumeration," 229, mentions the 70
beatitudes of the SM as "functional analogues." 71
65 See also Ludwig A. Rosenthal, Uber den Zusam-
menhang, die Quellen und die Entstehung der Mischna 72
(2d ed.; Berlin: Wechselmann, 1918) 138.
66 See Betz, Essays, 26-33.
67 Gladigow, "Der Makarismus des Weisen," Hermes 95
(1967) 404-33.
68 Theog. 954-55, according to the edition and trans-
lation in LCL by H. G. Evelyn-White. See also Martin
L. West, Hesiod: Theogony (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966) 73
418-19.
69 Frg. 132, ed. Diels-Kranz, B 132 (I, 365). The
translation is by Arthur Fairbanks, The First Phi-
losophers of Greece (New York: Scribner's, 1898) 201;
on this saying see also Arvedson, Das Mysterium
Christi, 95.
On this term see also Zuntz, Persephone, 208 n. 5.
See Gladigow, "Der Makarismus des Weisen," 408-
1 0; Zuntz, Persephone, 258.
For further consideration of this idea see the Pseudo-
Platonic Epinomis, and on that Leonard Taran,
Academica: Plato, Philip of Opus, and the Pseudo-Platonic
Epinomis (Philadelphia: American Philosophical
Society, 1975) 32-36,48-69, 155-67. Clement
Alex. Strom. 5.6-7 (ed. Stahlin, vol. 2, p. 330, 8-16)
coordinates Epin. 973C with SM/Matt 5:8.
See Cyril Bailey, The Greek Atomists and Epicurus (New
York: Russell & Russell, 1964) 472.

103
 A blessed and eternal being has no trouble himself
and brings no trouble upon any other being; hence
he is exempt from movements of anger and
partiality;
for every such movement implies weakness. 74
Epicurus's sententia defines in a theoretical way what
according to his philosophy constitutes "blessedness,"
that is, "imperishability" -things talked about in reli-
gion. The intent of the philosopher is also paraenetical,
when he addresses, as he does, the Epicurean student to
whom he announces the most fundamental principle as a
goal for his life. 7 5
Epicurus's opening sentence is important for yet
another reason. Beatitudes appear to serve as intro-
ductory principles in prooemia of didactic texts. Even Ps
1: 1-2 is an example of this function in that it not only
states the fundamental principles of the Jewish religion
but does so at the beginning of the Psalter as a whole:
Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night. (RSV)
The negative formulation of the first part is peculiar in
that it turns around the normal order of stating first the
positive and then the negative. 76 Another example of a
beatitude-like saying at the beginning of a sayings
collection comes from the prooemium of the Sententiae of
Pseudo-Phocylides:
TavTa OLK?JS bul?Jcn 8wv {3ov'JI.£iJp.am cpalv£L, ci>wKv'JI.lli7]s
74 Kyriai Doxai 1, Diog. L. 10.139, according to the
LCL edition by R. D. Hicks; see also Epicurus Ep. ad
Menoec., Diog. L. 10.123, 134; Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 1.
75 The terminology of blessedness is rather frequent in 77
Epicurus. See the index in Graziano Arrighetti,
Epicuro, Opere (2d ed.; Turin: Einaudi, 1973) 769, s.v.
p.aKap•os Kr >..
76 See also Ps 119:51; Prov 3:34; 19:25-29. One should 78
note that in the LXX translation of Ps 1:2 the last
line (Ka'L fv TCiJ vOp.q> aVroV p.EAET?jun .qp.Jpar Ka'L vv~eToV,
"and on his law he will meditate day and night") may
have an anti-Epicurean ring; cf. Epicurus Ep. ad
Menoec., Diog. L. 10.122, 123, 126. For later Jewish
polemics against the Epicureans see Henry A.
Fischel, Rabbinic Literature and Greco-Roman Philos-
ophy (StPB 21; Leiden: Brill, 1973); Willem C. van
Unnik, "An Attack on the Epicureans by Flavius
104
avopwv 0 uocj>wTaTOS lJ'JI.{3ta Owpa.
These counsels of God by his holy judgments
Phocylides the wisest of men sets forth, gifts of
blessing. 77
Whether or not these first two lines are an original part
of the collection, they now form its prooemium. There is
also a connection between these first and the last lines of
the poem (229-30), thus properly coordinating
prooemium and epilogue. 7 8
As the term lJA.{3ta owpa ("gifts of blessing") indicates,
the prooemium is supposed to look archaic. 79 The whole
collection is called "counsels of God" based on "holy
judgments," terms implying that the poet has obtained
them by revelation and hands them over to the readers
as "gifts of blessing," or as the epilogue calls them (229),
"mysteries of righteousness" (otKatoutJv7]s p.vuT~pta). 80
The significance of the prooemium as well as of the
whole text is summed up well by Gedaliahu Alon in an
article cited by van der Horst:
Ps. Phoc. did not write for pagans but for Jews. The
poem is the presentation of the principles of Jewish
life as compared to the heathen way of life (hence the
many agreements with the Two Ways document
behind Did. I-VI). The poet, speaking here in the
name of an ancient Greek author, seeks to demon-
strate to the Jews who are engrossed in Hellenistic
culture and imitate its manners and deeds, that even
an ancient writer of great acclaim recognizes Jewish
moral requisites. The author wants to bring them
back to good deeds in an indirect way .... Alon goes
on to situate Ps. Phoc. within a current in ancient
Josephus," in Romanitas et Christianitas: Studia Jan H.
Waszink oblata (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1973)
341-55.
Cited is the edition and commentary by Pieter W.
van der Horst, The Sentences ofPseudo-Phocylides
(SVTP 4; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 88-89, with the
commentary on 107-10.
See van der Horst, Sentences, 109-10.
79 Cf. Homer Od. 13.41-42. See van der Horst,
Sentences, 109; furthermore, H. W. Parke and
D. E. W. Wormell, The Delphic Oracles (2 vols.;
Oxford: Blackwell, 1956) vol. 2, nos. 8, 206, 319,
374,497,498.
80 See van der Horst, Sentences, 260-62.
 Matthew 5:3-12

Judaism which tended to reduce the Torah to a
limited set of ethical principles which were meant for
theJews. 81
These literary analogs demonstrate that placing a
beatitude at the head of a collection of ethical maxims
was almost a literary convention. The implication for the
SM and the SP is that they, in their own ways, follow this
convention. The phenomenon certainly points to a
literary environment related to Jewish wisdom, the
environment within which the SM and the SP had their
origins as well.
c. The Number of Beatitudes
Since antiquity, the question of the precise number of
beatitudes in the SM has been widely discussed. Are
there seven, eight, nine, or ten in SM/Matt 5:3-12?
Most of the time scholars decide this question in com-
parison with SP/Luke 6:20b-26, which juxtaposes four
beatitudes with four "woe" -sayings. The number of
beatitudes in the SM is then taken as the result of
expansion. I have already pointed out that the beatitudes
in the SM as well as in the SP are secondary redactional
products. The question remains how such redaction took
place.
Most scholars agree that SM/Matt 5:11-12 is the
result of an e:ll.pansion of an earlier set in 5:3-10. Verse
11 involves a change from the third to the second person
plural, and there is no identification of the recipients.
Verse 12 has a different beginning altogether, so that
scholars often do not include it among the beatitudes but
label it a "call for joy," arguing that at this point at least
the composition destroys the pattern of serial beatitudes.
Clearly, the interest of the author of the SM, whether a
pre-Matthean writer or Matthew himself, shifts from
repeating the pattern to addressing the readers directly.
Although this analysis reflects the virtual consensus of
scholarship, one need not accept it uncritically. As shown
in the main Introduction (see above, pp. 5-88), there is
no reason to regard the SM as an expansion of the SP.
Instead, each version of the Sermon has its own rationale
for its composition.
It is clear that the SM includes a set of eight or seven
beatitudes, for which 5:3 and 5: 1 0 serve as an inclusio.
Then vs 11 changes to a direct address, omitting the
"specification of the addressees," and from a Cln-sentence
the second line goes to an Mv-sentence. Finally, vs 12
reaches a climax by changing to a different form al-
together. This arrangement is the result ofliterary
design, rather than the accidental outcome of embel-
lishment or expansion. What, then, are the reasons for
this design, and what are its intentions?
The church fathers have rightly recognized that
numerical symbolism is involved. By contrast, modern
research seems opposed to theories arguing for such
symbolism. 82 There is, however, good reason to look
further in this direction. 83
Numerical arrangement of sayings, as mentioned
above, was a common way to compose gnomological
literature. Especially popular was the number ten, a
symbol of perfection. Sir 25:7-11 contains "ten happy
thoughts," introduced by the words: "With nine thoughts
I have gladdened my heart, and a tenth I shall tell with
my tongue." 84 The pattern of nine plus one occurs

81 Ibid., 45-46.
82 An exception is Strecker, "Makarismen," 259, who
assumes that the number seven played an important
role'for Matthew as well as for his tradition. See the
Introduction above, pp. 42, 45-46.
83 See the scholarly studies listed above, n. 63. Philo of
Alexandria shows the popularity of numerical
speculation in Hellenistic Judaism. Adopting Platonic
ideas from Middle Platonism, he associates the
number eight with equality and justice; see Philo Q
Gen. 1. 7 5; 3.49. The number ten represents perfec-
tion and applies to the "divine mysteries" (Q. Gen.
4.1 0). On the whole matter see the investigation by
Karl Staehle, Die Zahlenmystik bei Philon von Alexan-
dreia (Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1931); further-
more, Anton Vogtle, "Achtlasterlehre," RAG 1
(1950) 74-79; Karl Schneider, "Achtzahl," ibid., 79-
81; Franz Joseph Dolger, "Zur Symbolik des christ-
lichen Taufhauses," Antike und Christentum 4 ( 1934)
153-87; Friedrich Hauck, "o£Ka," TDNT 2.35-36.
84 Sir 25:7 (LXX): 'Evv£a fnrof!V~f'aTa £f'aKd.pura £v
Kapo£1!- Kat rh o£Karov £pw £,.t yArorTrT1/f· Similarly,
SM/Matt 5:3-11 are meant to be listened to, while
5:12 calls for a loud response.

105
elsewhere 85 and could also apply to SM/Matt 5:3-12.
Yet the number eight is often chosen as well. Both
numbers symbolize perfection, a concept important for
the SM (5:48).
Gregory of Nyssa seems to have been the first to
interpret the Beatitudes as stages in the ascent of the
soul. 86 According to him the SM addresses the "disciples
of the Logos" and describes their ascent together with
the Logos from the earthly and lowly thoughts to the
spiritual mountain of higher contemplation. 87 Gregory
counts eight beatitudes constituting the steps of the
mystical ladder. Emphasizing the number eight he sees in
the eighth beatitude "the restitution to heaven of those
who had fallen into slavery. "88 This theory had an
extraordinary influence on later interpreters. Although
the symbolic or allegorical system is certainly a secondary
imposition on the New Testament text, it may have some
basis in the text. 89
Probably following Gregory, 90 Ambrose of Milan
gives special thought to the eight beatitudes of Matthew
in his commentary on Luke. 91 Combining Luke's four
with Matthew's eight beatitudes, Ambrose sees the eight
as stages in the ascent of the soul, just like Gregory, while
85 For the decad as ennead plus monad, see Philo Q.
Gen. 4.110. Sacr. AC 122 declares the number ten as
sacred to "education" (7ra&ll£ia); Rer. div. her. divides
the Decalogue into two sets of five commandments.
See furthermore, Staehle, Zahlenmystik, 53-58. In
'Abot 5.1 the organizing principle is the number ten;
see Taylor, Sayings, 78 n. 1; Rosenthal, Vber den
Zusammenhang, 134-41; Leo Baeck, "Die zehn
Sephirot im Sepher Jezira," Monatsschrift fur Geschichte
und Wissenschaft des judentums 78 (1934) 448-55;
Felix Bohl, Gebotserschwerung und Rechtsverzicht als
ethisch-religiose Normen in der rabbinischen Literatur
(Frankfurter Judaistische Studien 1; Freiburg i.Br.:
Schwarz, 1971) 109-17; idem, "Die Demut (;"'!, ':>:)
als hochste der Tugenden: Bemerkungen zu Mt. 5.3,
5," BZ 20 (1979) 217-23.
86 De beatitudinibus, PC 44.1193-1302, a work contain-
ing eight orations on eight beatitudes in Matthew; it
has been dated to 387 CE. See jean Danielou, "La
chronologie des sermons de Gregoire de Nysse," RSR
29 (1955) 346-72, esp. 372.
87 Oratio 1, PC 44.1193B: uvvava{3ijvat avrii> xaJ-1bli£v,
O:wO rWv KolA.wv Kal Ta'7TEtvOOv V07JJL/trwv, Els rh
7TV£VJ.IaTtKbv lfpos rijs in/rqAijs li£wpias.
88 Oratio 8, PC 44.1292B: Kat tvravlia ~ oya&1j
I
J.laKaptOT1jS, ...
T1jS ' \ ' \ ., I
<IS rovs ovpavovs a7TOKarauranv £X £I
r&Jv Els lJovAElav JLfV tK1TECT6vrwv, l'7T). {3aur.A.Elav lJ(
106
the four represent the cardinal virtues of philosophy.
With the four contained in the eight, the mystical
perfection is demonstrated. 92 This scheme is indebted to
Neoplatonic mysticism.
Ambrose's commentary (written c. 388/89-392 CE),
was probably known to Augustine. While taking over
some of the ideas, however, Augustine goes another way.
Instead of coordinating the eight beatitudes with the
four cardinal virtues, he combines them with the "seven
gifts of the Holy Spirit," another traditional concept.
Augustine's interpretation thus differs fundamentally
from Ambrose in that his basic concept is "grace," not
"virtue." With his predecessors 93 Augustine sees mystical
significance in the number of beatitudes, and he agrees
that they describe the ascent of the soul, but he goes
further in relating the Beatitudes to the SM as a whole.
As pointed out in the main Introduction (see above, pp.
11-12, 45-46), Augustine is the first who attempted to
analyze the SM as a unified text in terms of its compo-
sition. Three concepts play a decisive role for Augustine:
the symbolism of numbers, the stages of the ascent of the
soul, and the division into the vita activa and the vita
contemplativa.
1r&.Ar.v EK rfis OovAElas b.vaKATJ8Evrwv.
89 Ibid., 1292A-B: ty(, at KaAws lx£1v 4>111-'l. 7rpwrov EKELVO
Karavofiuar. r[il A6ycp, rl rh rfjs Oy067}s wapCz r{il
7rpo!J>~T'lJ J.IVUT~p!ov, ... Taxa Tl uvyy£vts b ap!liJ.!bS
ot)ros wphs r~v Oy067Jv fxn p.at<ap1.6r71Ta 1/r~.s ~CT1TEp
Kopvcf>~ rWv p.at<aptup.Wv wO.vrwv l?TL roV iLKpor6.rov
K£tTal rijs ayaliijs Kara{3aU,£1JJS.
90 So Mutzenbecher in her edition of Augustine's
commentary De sermone domini in monte, p. XIII.
91 Cited here according to the edition by Gabriel Tissot,
Ambroise de Milan, Traite sur l'Evangile de Luc (SC 45;
Paris: Cerf, 1956) 201-7 (vss 49-68).
92 Verse 49: "Hie enim quattuor velut virtutes am-
plexus est cardinales, ille in illis octo mysticum
numerum reseruauit ... ; sicut enim spei nostra
octaua perfectio est, ita octaua summa uirtutum est."
See In-San Bernhard Tschang, "Octo beatitudines: Die
acht Seligpreisungen als Stufenleiter der Seele bei
Ambrosius" (diss., Katholisch-theologische Fakultat
Bonn, 1986). This instructive work also contains a
detailed comparison of Ambrose's interpretation
with those by Jerome, Chromatius, and Augustine.
93 De serm. dom. in monte 1. 3.1 0 (p. 7, lines 148-49):
"Quapropter iste sententiarum numerus diligenter
considerandus est." See Mutzenbecher's edition, pp.
"
IX-XVII.
 Matthew 5:3-12

For him the eight beatitudes in the SM address
humankind in general (Matt 5:3-10), whereas 5:11-12
are spoken only to those who were present with jesus. In
my view, these categories of present/absent are insuf-
ficient for drawing such a distinction. In some sense both
sets in 5:3-10 and 5: 11-12 address those who were
present as well as those who were absent.
When Augustine interprets the Beatitudes as stages in
the ascent of the soul he does so in terms of psychology.
The beginning is "humility" (humilitas [5:3]), the result of
fear in God's judgment. From this lowest point the soul
ascends to the knowledge of Scripture (Augustine reads
5:5 before 5:4 to make this possible). At stage six (5:8)
the soul has completed the vita activa and can move on to
the higher stage of the vita contemplativa. 94 The highest
point of this stage is the attainment of wisdom itself (5:9):
it is the contemplation of truth itself that gives a person
peace and makes one like God. The eighth beatitude
(5: 10) sums it all up, completes the series, and returns to
the beginning. Augustine concludes: "Seven in number,
then, are the things which bring perfection; and the
eighth illuminates and points out what is perfect, so that
through these steps others might also be made perfect,
starting once more, so to speak, from the beginning. "9 5
As already indicated, Augustine also combines the
eight beatitudes with the "sevenfold gift of the Holy
Spirit" seen revealed in Isa 11:2-3, a passage that has a
rich history of interpretation. 96 As shown by the seven
plus one beatitudes and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit,
Augustine considers the number seven to constitute the
basis for the entire SM. Therefore, he divides the SM
into seven sections, corresponding to the first seven
beatitudes. 97 The sixth beatitude, dealing with prayer
(5:8), corresponds to another set of seven: the seven
petitions of the Lord's Prayer (6:9b-13).9 8 Finally,
Augustine divides his entire commentary into two books.
The first, comprising beatitudes 1-5 and the command-
ments of Matthew 5, contains the "good works" (bona
opera) of the vita activa. The second book supersedes the
first, containing the "contemplation of the highest good"
(contemplatio summi bani) of the vita contemplativa; this
book constitutes Matthew 6-7.
In this ingenious way Augustine is able to combine all
previous interpretations into one. He relates the Beati-
tudes to the body of the SM as well. From our modern
perspective, his approach is highly speculative; it is, in the
final analysis, impossible to verify in terms of literary
criteria. Nonetheless, his ingenious interpretation
deserves admiration; indeed, his literary sensitivity has
never been matched.
Although the history of the interpretation of the
Beatitudes cannot be treated here in an adequate way,
attention should be called to further developments
following Augustine in the work of Thomas Aquinas. In
quaestio 68 of his Summa theologiae Thomas also deals with
the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, while quaestio 69 is
devoted to the Beatitudes, 99 and quaestio 70 to the "fruit
of the Spirit." This sequence is indicative of the agree-
ments and differences between Thomas and Augustine, a
matter that we cannot pursue further here. 100 Thomas's
discussion in article 3 is, however, interesting: "Are the
beatitudes enumerated properly?" 101 Thomas distin-

94 See also Robertjoly, Le theme philosophique des genres
de vie dans l' antiquite classique (Memo ires de
l'academie royale de Belgique, Classe des lettres et
des sciences morales et politiques 51.3; Brussels:
Palais des Academies, 1956).
95 Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 1.3.1 0 (trans.
Francine Cardman, injaroslav Pelikan, ed., The
Preaching of Augustine: "Our Lord's Sermon on the
Mount" [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973]9); text
according to M utzenbecher' s edition, p. 9, lines 184-
87.
96 Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 1.4.11 (p. 9, line
188- p. ll,line 221). See Karl Schliitz,lsaias 11, 2
(die sieben Gaben des HZ. Geistes) in den ersten vier
christlichen Jahrhunderten (Aittestamentliche Abhand- 100 See quaest. 69, art. 1.
lungen 11.4; Munster: Aschendorff, 1932); also
Mutzenbecher's edition, pp. XI, XLVII.
97 Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 2.25.87 (p. 188,
lines 2007-11).
98 Ibid., 2.4.15-2.11.39. According to Mutzenbecher
(in her commentary on Augustine, De sermone),
Augustine is the first to count seven instead of the
traditional six petitions (pp. XI-XIII; and the
Conspectus Tractatus, pp. 239-40). On Augustine's
understanding of blessedness see also Walter
Beierwaltes, Regia Beatitudinis: Zu Augustins Begriff des
glilcklichen Lebens (SHAW .PH 1981.6; Heidelberg:
Winter, 1981).
99 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ia 2ae, quaestio
69, according to the Blackfriars' edition, vol. 24
(New York and London: Blackfriars, 1964) 43-63.
101 Quaest. 69, art. 3.

107
guishes three types of beatitudes: those of the vita
voluptuosa (beatitudes 1-3) are designed to remove the
impediments of the voluptuous life: the abundance of
wealth and honor (Matt 5:3), the passions of the irascible
(5:5) and of the concupiscent (5:4). The vita activa is
concerned with things we do to others and includes the
work for justice (5:6), which is obligatory, and the
showing of mercy (5:7), which is spontaneous. The last
two beatitudes, as for Augustine, represent the vita
contemplativa, with purity of the heart as the beginning
(5:8) and peace as the goal (5:9). On this foundation
Thomas then develops his grandiose system, which
coordinates all gifts, merits, and rewards. All of this,
according to him, is found in the seven beatitudes, with
the eighth (5: 10) serving as summary and confirmation.
The church fathers have unquestionably interpreted
the Beatitudes in terms of Christian Neoplatonism and
mysticism. The SM does not subscribe to this method of
interpretation. But one should admit that the inter-
pretation of the church fathers, although imposition, was
carefully grafted onto a text that provides points of
contact and that seems strangely open to such inter-
pretation. Whereas the ascent of the soul is of no concern
to the SM, 102 ascent definitely is. 10 ll Virtues are certainly
part of the conceptuality of the SM, but not the four
cardinal virtues of Greek philosophy. Points of contact
exist, however; for example, the first beatitude begins by
introducing "humility," generally recognized as the
lowest and most elementary virtue. One cannot overlook
the sequence ending with the vision of God (5:8) and the
acceptance as "sons of God" (5:9), but the sequence does
not indicate "steps" (gradus). Instead the beatitudes
conform to eschatological scenes. 104 All concepts add up
to "justice" (BtKatouvv7J), but this justice is to be taken in a
Jewish and not in a Platonic sense, 105 although there is
no absolute separation between them. Numerical
symbolism does occur in the SM, but it is a literary device
as in jewish wisdom, not a ladder of mystical revelation.
For these reasons I agree with critical scholarship today
that the speculative interpretations by the church fathers
must be rejected as impositions on the texts. This does
not mean, however, that the number and the order of
the Beatitudes are problems to be left unresolved.
Should we count seven or eight or ten beatitudes-and
why? This question is still debated today.
Following nineteenth-century scholars such as Ewald
and Kostlin, 106 in the twentieth-century Wellhausen, 107
Klostermann, 108 Strecker, 109 and others prefer seven
beatitudes, but for different reasons. They arrive at this
number by eliminating 5:4, which is textually
disputed. 11 0 When the number seven is favored, the
patristic tradition seems to continue to have an im-
pact.111 In addition, consideration of compositions
elsewhere in Matthew can be brought to bear as con-
firmation,112 but these may be extraneous arguments.
The number must be decided primarily on the basis of
the SM itself.
Most scholars in antiquity as well as today prefer eight
beatitudes; see especially Tholuck, 11 ll Zahn, 114
Lohmeyer, 115 Grundmann, 116 Luz, 117 and Gnilka. 118
These eight beatitudes can be divided into three groups,
either 3 x 3 sayings (Lohmeyer) or 2 x 4 + 1 sayings

102 For the notion of"soul" (1/lvx~) see Betz, Essays, 96 n. 112 For example, the seven "woes" in Matthew 23, and
32, 104 n. 51, referring esp. to SM/Matt 6:25. the seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:9-
103 See below on SM/Matt 7:13-14. 13). See Wellhausen, EvangeliumMatthaei, 14;
104 See Betz, Essays, 24-25. Lohmeyer, Matthiius, 85-86.
105 See below on SM/Matt 5:10, 17-20. 113 Tholuck, Bergrede, 56 (Commentary, 63-64).
106 See Tholuck, Bergrede, 55-57 (Commentary, 63-65); 114 Zahn, Matthiius, 177 with n. 9.
Achelis, Bergpredigt, 71-77. 115 Lohmeyer,Matthiius, 80.
107 Wellhausen, Evangelium Matthaei, 14. 116 Grundmann,Matthiius, 119.
108 Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 3 7. 117 Luz, Matthiius, 1.199 (Matthew 1.226).
109 Strecker, "Makarismen," 259; idem, Bergpredigt, 31 118 Gnilka, Matthiiusevangelium, 1.115.
(Sermon, 30).
11 0 See Konrad Kohler, "Die urspriingliche Form der
Seligpreisungen," ThStK 91 (1918) 157-92, esp.
167-68.
111 See also Joseph Heinemann, "One Benediction
Comprising Seven," Revue des etudes juives 125 (1966)
101-11.

108
 Matthew 5:3-12

(most others). Michaelis observed the phenomenon of 7r-
alliteration for the first four beatitudes, 119 but he left
unclear whether such alliteration is intentional, and what
its purpose may be. 12° At any rate, the consensus today
counts eight beatitudes. One must still account, however,
for the existence of the ninth and tenth beatitudes.
Taking into consideration the popularity of ten in
Jewish number symbolism, 121 Franz Delitzsch 122 opted
for ten beatitudes and saw them as modeled on the
Decalogue of Exodus 20. Most scholars 123 have rejected
this idea as fanciful, but one must still explain why there
are ten beatitudes. The problem is related to and
dependent on the further question of the relationship of
the beatitudes to each other.
d. The Relationship between the Beatitudes
of the SM and the SP
The question of the relationship between the beatitudes
of the SM and the SP is fraught with difficulties mainly
for two reasons. 124 First, the texts themselves have no
indicators that could help to explain the relationship;
second, all possible answers depend to a large extent on
the methodological presuppositions of the modern
investigator.
If one accepts that the arrangement of the beatitudes
in the SM and the SP is the result of redaction, the
question is: Whose redaction, the evangelists' or that of
the authors ofpre-Matthean and pre-Lukan source
material? Is numerical arrangement involved, and if so,
does that point to numerical symbolism? Since neither
Matthew nor Luke refers to the Beatitudes elsewhere in
their Gospels, and since we are not informed about the
methodology applied by the sources, there is not much
room for certain judgment.
Ulrich Luz 125 has made a bold attempt to reconstruct
the redactional history of the Beatitudes from the
historical Jesus to Matthew's Gospel, proceeding from
the source Q. According to Luz, the first three beati-
tudes of Q (Luke 6:20b-21) derive (perhaps without the
vvv in vs 21) from Jesus himself. Q then expanded these
three beatitudes to four (extant in Matt 5: 11-12).
Between Q and Matthew's latest redaction the original
three beatitudes grew to four (Matt 5:5), all specifying
the addressees by using words beginning with 1r (7r-
alliteration). Furthermore, the sequence was expanded
by vss 7-9. Matthew found this series of seven beatitudes
in his sources, 126 and he added the eighth himself
(5:10).127
Three main difficulties beset this rather complicated
picture: (1) Luz himself vacillates between pre-Matthean
and Matthean redaction to a degree that they become
indistinguishable; (2) the idea of a development from
Jesus to Matthew does not consider that the SP and SM
have very different views of what a beatitude is; (3) the
continuous use of terms like Erweiterung ("expansion"),
Neuformulierung ("reformulation"), and so on should be
supported by explanations for these phenomena, rather
than naming them as the results of synoptic comparison.
The overall situation with regard to the SM and the SP
suggests that the Sermons operate with different views
about what these beatitudes mean. 128 They depend on
sources, but the primary question is: What has the
assumed redactor done with the material, and why are
the Beatitudes in the form that we now have before
us?129
As the church fathers recognized, and I believe they
were right, the first beatitude in the SM (as well as in the
SP) is basic. 130 Thereafter, all others are climactic
developments of some sort. In the SM the climax is
reached in SM/Matt 5:12. Moreover, vs 3b and vs lOb

119 See Christian Michaelis, "Die ,.-Alliteration der 92), 228-31 with further references.
Subjektsworte der ersten vier Seligpreisungen in Mt. 125 Luz, Matthiius, 1.199-202 (Matthew, 1.226-29).
V 3-6," NovT 10 (1968) 148-61. 126 Ibid., 200 (Matthew, 1.226-27).
120 See Strecker, "Makarismen," 260 n. I; Gnilka, 127 See also ibid., 214 (Matthew, 1.241-42).
Matthiiusevangelium, 1.115. 128 For the SP see the interpretation below, ad Joe.
121 Philo's speculations conceming the number ten 129 For the following see also Betz, Essays, 22-25.
could support Delitzsch's argument (see above, n. 85). 130 See below on SM/Matt 5:3.
122 Delitzsch, Untersuchungen, 76.
123 See esp. Tholuck, Bergrede, 56 (Sermon, 63-64);
Zahn, Matthiius, 177 n. 9.
124 The church fathers treat the question as one of
order; see Tschang, Octo beatitudines (see above, n.

109
("for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens") repeat the
same statement in the present tense and provide an
inclusio around 5:4-9. The second lines of the beatitudes
in 5:4-9 state eschatological promises in the future tense.
This series in 5:4-9 contains beatitudes that correspond
to consecutive scenes describing the destiny of the
righteous in paradise. Thus one may see in these verses a
greatly abbreviated apocalyptic vision of the world to
come, enclosed by the statements in the present tense in
5:3 and 5:10. In addition, one may divide the sequence
of eight beatitudes into two sections of four, each ending
with the important term "righteousness" (otKatouvv7J). 131
After this descriptive set of eight has been presented, the
ninth beatitude addresses the recipients directly in the
second person plural. This ninth beatitude (5:11)
connects with the preceding one (5: 1 0) by way of the
catchword ouf>KHV ("persecute"). By this rhetorical turn
the indirect addresses in 5:3-10 are suddenly made
direct. The climax is reached in 5: 12 with the call for joy,
which is again connected with 5: 11 by the same catch-
word (ouf>KELV, "persecute"). The phrase "rejoice and be
glad" is also closely connected with the Beatitudes, as is
clear from the literary parallels adduced already (see
above, pp. 495-96). The difference with regard to the
other beatitudes is that the call for joy demands or
encourages a response from the recipients, rather than
merely making pronouncements to them like the other
beatitudes. Thus, this call for a response provides a
fitting conclusion to the sequence. 13 2
If the church fathers saw a climax arising in the
movement from the lowest virtue of humility (5:3) to the
highest vision of God and "deification" (5:8, 9), they
recognized in it the mystical ladder leading to union with
God. Even though this speculative mysticism is absent
from the SM, the notion of ascent is present. The
specifications ofthe addressees in 5:3-10 describe
conditions endured and actions taken on earth, all
variations of 5:3a, while the second lines of each beati-
tude spell out the heavenly reward to be expected. Since
the entire SM describes the way to paradise (see below on
7: 13-14), the second lines of 5:3-10 state the rewards
for those who have been approved by God in the last
judgment (see below on 7:21-23).1 33
2. Analysis This introduction to the beatitudes of the SM (some of
it pertaining also to those of the SP) has shown that
these beatitudes are sayings of a highly complex
literary nature. They state the principles underlying all
of the SM, and they come to expression in a multitude
of different ways throughout the texts.
The sequence of beatitudes in the SM includes four
different types, each containing two lines, with the
exception ofvs 12, which has three lines:
1. The first and leading beatitude is that of 5:3. It
has its counterpart in 5: 10. The first lines contain the
beatitude as such, formulated in the third person
plural. Special for this type is the specification of the
addressees in each of the sayings. The second line is a
<in-clause, stating the reason for the first line. As a
component, this <in-clause was originally a verdict that
has its place in the last judgment ("to them belongs the
kingdom of the heavens"); the verdict is anticipated
here.
2. The second type is found in vss 4-9. Again the
first lines contain the blessings proper, cast in the third
person plural and accompanied by the specification of
the recipients. The second line, each time a <iTt-clause,
gives the reason for the blessing. These <in-clauses
consist of eschatological promises or predictions,
formulated in the future passive tense. These promises
are based theologically on an eschatological application
of the ius talionis (on this see below on SM/Matt 5:38-
42; 7: 12). The promises also constitute scenes describ-
ing the fate of the righteous in paradise.
3. The third type is found only once, in vs 11. This

131 See also Luz, Matthiius, 1.200 (Matthew, 1.226-27). beginning of the SM has its counterweight in the
132 Daube also regards 5:11-12 as the formal conclusion eschatological warnings of 7:13-23 (cf. also 7:24-
of the sequence of beatitudes (NT and Rabbinic 27). Furthermore, eschatological warnings are
judaism, 196-201). present throughout the SM (see 5:13, 19, 20, 22, 25,
133 That the Beatitudes are stated in the present tense 29, 30; 6:14, 15; 7:1, 2, 13, 14, 19,21-23, 27). The
does not contradict an expectation of the eschato- concept of "reward" (}J.tuO&s) is affirmed in 5:12, 46;
logical rewards. On the contrary, both aspects are 6:2, 4, 5, 6, 16, 18, 20.
closely related. Also, just as the Beatitudes are by way
of presupposition materially present in the rest of the
SM, so the whole of the SM is present in them. For
this reason, as has often been noted, the Beatitudes
can be stated unconditionally, but this unconditional

110
 Matthew 5:3-12

beatitude is stated in the second person plural; there is
no specification of the addressees, except for the
pronoun "you." The llrav-clause in the second line
describes three situations of harassment that the
addressees must be prepared to undergo.
4. The fourth type is a three-liner, represented by vs
12. It is also stated in the second person plural and
begins with the double summons "rejoice and be glad."
The <In-clause in the second line provides the justi-
fication, consisting of a dogmatic judgment: "Great is
your reward in heaven." The third line gives the
reason: "for so they persecuted the prophets who were
before you." In other words, a historical assessment
equates the persecution of the prophets of old with the
present persecution of the addressees, in order mainly
to conclude on the basis of the concept of fairness that
equal suffering deserves equal rewards.
3. Interpretation
• 3 The first beatitude, regarding poverty and riches, has
been the center of interest since New Testament times.
Indeed, the response to it by readers even to this day has
been overwhelming, and so is the literature dealing with
it. As Ambrose says, this beatitude is not only the first in
order, but also the one that in some way generates all
other virtues. 134 This response cannot be explained by
its novelty, since the beatitude sums up in an extremely
succinct form ideas that had been contemplated for
centuries before by religious and philosophical thinkers.
Apart from such summing up of what had been known
before, however, the beatitude contains new insights that
have kept minds and pens busy since it was first
pronounced.
As pointed out in the Analysis above, formally the
beatitude comprises two lines, the first of which (5:3a)
consists of the macarism proper: "Blessed are the poor in
(the) spirit" (JJ.aKctpLOL ol 'lTTwxol. T{il 'lTVEiJp.an). Although
textually undisputed, this statement has its share of
problems mainly through the strange expression "the
poor in (the) spirit" 135 -if this is its proper English
translation. 13 6
Extensive research in recent years, stimulated by the
discovery and study of the Qumran texts, has made an
explanation of the expression possible, but this research
also raises new questions. (1) Does 'lTTwx6s refer to
economic poverty, or is it used as a spiritualized
metaphor signifying the meaning of "mentally de-
pressed," "fainthearted," or "conscious of a general state
of deprivation"? Or does it refer to "voluntary poverty"?
In other words, does the expression envision a state of
somatic or psychic deprivation, or a form of piety? (2) Is
the dative of T{il 'lTvEiJp.an instrumental or referential? (3)
Does "spirit" ('lTVEvp.a) refer to human or divine spirit?
The expression "poor in (the) spirit" is found only here
in the New Testament, 137 or indeed in the Greek

134 Ambrose In Lucam 5.51 (CSEL 32.4, ed. Schenk!, p.
20 1, line 17): ordine enim prima est et parens quaedam
generatioque virtutum ("for it is the first in order and as
it were the parent and generation of the virtues").
For a survey of the entire range of topics involved see
Manfred Wacht, "GOterlehre," RAG 13 (1986) 59-
150.
135 All commentaries include discussion of the problem
of this expression. See also the major studies by
Percy, Botschaji., 45-89; BAGD, s.v. 7rv£vp.a, 3.b;
idem, 7rrwx6s, I.e; Eduard Schweizer, TDNT 6.401;
Ernst Bammel, TDNT 6.904; Helmut Merklein,
EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v. 7rTwx6s KTA.;Jacques Dupont,
"Les 7rrwxol T~ 7rV£Vp.an de Matthieu 5,3 et les <nwj
rwh de Qumran," in joseph Blinzler eta!., eds.,
Neutestamentliche Aufstitze: FS for Joseph Schmid zum 70.
Geburtstag (Regensburg: Pustet, 1963) 53-64;
reprinted in his Etudes 2. 779-92; idem, Beatitudes,
3.385-4 71; Simon Legasse, "Les pauvres en esprit et
les 'volontaires' de Qumran," NTS 8 (1961/62) 336- 137 That the expression "poor in (the) spirit" does not
45; idem, "Pauvrete et salut dans le Nouveau
Testament," RThL 4 (1973) 162-72; idem, Les
pauvres en esprit: Evangile et non-violence (LD 78; Paris:
Cerf, 1974); Luise Schottroffand Wolfgang
Stegemann ,jesus and the Hope of the Poor (trans.
Matthew J. O'Connell; Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis,
1986); Strecker, Bergpredigt, 32-34 (Sermon, 31-33);
Luz, Matthtius, 1.204-8 (Matthew, 1.232-34); Broer,
Seligpreisungen, 68-75.
136 The RSV and REB render "poor in spirit," suggesting
mental weakness and probably depending on V g
pauperes spiritu. This understanding would
correspond to the term oAq07ri<TTOI ("people of little
faith," 6:30; cf. also 6:25). NEB renders: "How blest
are those who know that they are poor." This
translation correctly emphasizes the intellectual
component. The term 7rV£vp.a ("spirit") never occurs
again in the SM. On the problem see also Edgar J.
Goodspeed, Problems of the New Testament Translation
(Chicago: University of Chicago, 1945) 16-17;
Broer, Seligpreisungen, 68.
occur in Matt 11:5; 19:21; 26:9, 11, where only
"poor" (7rrwx6s) is used, may indicate that it comes

111
language; 138 it is not repeated in other early Christian
sources. 139 The LXX uses comparable dative construc-
tions, but this one is not attested there. 140 The dative Tijl
7TVEVp.an ("in [the] spirit") is almost certainly referen-
tial, 141 not instrumental; the referential dative is not
uncommon elsewhere 142 in the SM and in the New
Testament as a whole. 143 Although grammatically
po~sible in Greek, the expression may be a rendering of a
corresponding Hebrew notion. 144 This expression was
difficult to understand for Greeks, 145 and later Christian
usage may have omitted "in (the) spirit" as redundant.
As the usage of the vocabulary shows, the meaning of
the term "poor" must be determined contextually. Was it
intended in the economic sense or merely figura-
tively?146 This ambiguity may have resulted in the later
predominance of the terms Ta7TELVOs, Ta7TELVOf/>pwv, and so
on ("lowly, humble-minded").1 47
Obviously, the expression makes a statement about
poverty and its opposite, wealth, a topic much debated in
antiquity. 148 Also obvious is the positive valuation given
to poverty. It is as such a contradiction to what was held
to be the common view that the rich are blessed and the

from pre-Matthean tradition. So also Broer,
Seligpreisungen, 70-7I; Schenk, Sprache, 424.
I38 See LSJ, s.v. 1rrroxos,I.2.
I39 Cf. Ps.-Clem. Rec. 1.61.2: beatos pauperes dixit which
would correspond to the Greek l'aKapl(rov rolls
1rrroxof1s ("blessing the poor"); 2.28.3: pauperes
beatijicabat ("he blessed the poor"). See Hans Waitz,
"Eine Parallele zu den Seligpreisungen aus einem
ausserkanonischen Evangelium, • ZNW 4 (I903) 335-
40; Ernst Bammel, TDNT 6.9I4.
I40 Cf. esp. Ps 33: I9 LXX: o! ra1TE&vol ri!\1TIIEfl/'aT& ("the
humble in the spirit"). See Walter Grundmann,
TDNT 8.IO (B.3.d); the spirit is here the human spirit
(Hebrew n,.,); see Friedrich Baumgartel, TDNT
6.360-62.
My son Arnold Betz has suggested to me that there
may be a connection here with the peculiar meaning
the Hebrew expression nM .,xp has in some texts,
where "short of breath" refers to weakness or
anguish. See, e.g., Prov I4:29 (LXX: bA&yol/rvxos);
Exod 6:9 (LXX: bA&yol/rvxla). Interestingly, this
expression has parallels in Ugaritic, esp. in the Epic
of Keret, where Ya~~ib, the son of King Keret, speaks
to his father, who is seated on the throne, and
declares to him why his strength is failing: "You have
been brought down by your failing power. You do
not judge the cause of the widow, you do not try the
case of the importunate [q,17 npJ, short in spirit]. you
do not banish the extortioners of the poor before
you." Trans. John C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and
Legends (2d ed.; Edinburgh: Clark, I978), p. I02. For
the text see Andree Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en
cuniiformes alphabitiques decouvertes aRas Shamra-
Ugarit de 1929 a 1939 (Mission de Ras Shamra IO; 2
vols.; Paris: Klincksieck, I963) I6.Vl.32-35. For the
terminology see]. Marbtlck, ·.,xp II," ThWAT 7
(I990) II2-I7, esp. II4, section 3 (also II2-I3 for
further bibliography).
14I See BDF, § I97; BDR, § I97; Eduard Schweizer,
TDNT 6.40I; Luz, Matthaus, I.205-6 (Matthew,
1.232-34).
I42 See SM/Matt 5:8: "pure in (the) heart"; cf. 6:28;
6:25.
I43 Cf., e.g., Coli:2I: lxBpos rfi ~&avol~ ("inimical in [the]
mind"); Matt II :29: 1rpaUs Ell'& Kat T41TEIII0f rfi Kap~l~
("I am gentle and humble in [the] heart").
I44 So also Hengel, "Zur matthltischen Bergpredigt," 27-
28.
I45 Differently Broer, Seligpreisungen, 69, 7I, following
Kahler's unpublished dissertation.
I46 Cf. esp. 2 Cor 8:2 and 8:9, where the economic
condition and the mental attitude coincide; in 8:9 a
christological meaning is also present. See also Jas
2:I-6.
I47 See Matt II:29; Luke I:52; Rom I2:I6; 2 Cor 7:6;
IO:I;Jas I:9; 4:6; I Pet 5:5 (Prov 3:34); etc. For
further references see BAGD, s.v. T41TE&Vos; Walter
Grundmann, "ra1rnvos KTA.," TDNT 8.I-27. The
opposite of "humble" is indicated by the terms
"hubris, • "arrogance, • etc., in passages such as Rom
I2:I6; I Tim 6:I7. See Georg Bertram, TDNT
9.228-29. For the history of interpretation see
Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.399-4II; Luz, Matthaus,
1.207-8 (Matthew, 1.234-35).
I48 The vast literature on this subject cannot be
reviewed here. See the survey articles by Hans
Wissmann et a!., "Armut," TRE 4 ( I979) 69-I2I,
with bibliography; Martin Hengel, Eigentum und
Reichtum in der jrilhen Kirche: Aspekte einer frilh-
christlichen Sozialgeschichte (Stuttgart: Calwer, I973);
ET: Property and Riches in the Early Church (trans.
John Bowden, Philadelphia: Fortress, I974);
Manfred Wacht, "Giitergemeinschaft," RAG I3
(I986) I-59.

112
 Matthew 5:3-12

poor forsaken. 149 Just as commonly, gnomic authors and
philosophers questioned and criticized this view in
proverbs and maxims. 150 Jewish-Hellenistic literature in
particular is full of criticism against the overestimation of
external wealth. 151
The SM, however, differs from the SPin one
important point. The SM does not, as the SP does,
juxtapose "the rich" (ot '7TAovuwt) and "the poor" (ot
'7TTwxo0 as social types (see below on SP /Luke 6:20b,
24). Instead, the expression "the poor in (the) spirit" in
the SM intends to qualify a statement regarding poverty.
What kind of qualification is it, and what did the author
of the SM wish to indicate? Based on comparable similar
expressions one can say that the addition "in (the) spirit"
is a critical comment intended to forestall a mis-
understanding of the simple adjective "poor." Indeed,
the phrase as a whole critically and apologetically
interprets what Jesus meant-and did not mean!-when
he called the poor blessed. This interpretation,
therefore, presupposes reflection and debate about what
Jesus may have meant when he called the poor blessed.
This debate, which is presupposed in the SM, will have
been concerned not only with the message of Jesus but
also with the implications of I sa 61: 1, a passage essential
for the understanding of the blessing of the poor.l 52
Ifthe historical Jesus called the poor blessed, did he do
so in order to liberate the economically poor from their
miserable conditions? 153 Did he address a specific group,

149 This common view has often been stated. See, e.g.,
Sextus EmpiricusAdv. math. 2.53: oS( .,.Ao.\uto~
p.aKapto~ Kat oBavaro~ KaK6v ("The rich man is blessed
and death is an evil" [my trans.]). Similarly, Diodorus
Sic. 31.18. 3: CJcrrE TLr Av 7TLCTT£-6un£v rot's fnrh rWv
.,.OAAWV VOJJ-L(op.lvol~ a:ya8ol~ ~ roll~ lm(p TO p.trpov
<VTVXOVVTa~ p.aKap{urov~ ~')I~<TaiTO; ("In the light of
this, who, pray, would put his faith in the things that 152 Isa 61:1 (cf. 35:5) is not mentioned in the SM, but
the multitude consider good, or would regard as
enviable those whose good fortune is more than
average?"). Text and translation according to the
LCL edition by Francis Walton. Anaximenes Rhet. ad
Alex. 35, 1440b 22-23: roll~ ylzp luxvpoh Kat roll~
KaAobs ~ea't rohS' eiJyEve'is Ka't robs 7f 1\.ovulovs oVK l7Tatvliv
aAAlz p.aKap{(uv .,.pou~K<I ("since it is appropriate for
the strong and handsome and well-hom and rich to
receive not praise but congratulation on their good
fortune"). Text and translation according to the LCL
edition by H. Rackham. Philo of Alexandria uses the
topos in Som. 2.35 in order to explain the name
Asher; differently, Migr. Abr. 95.
150 This is exemplified by the Delphic piety in the stories
about Croesus (Herodotus 1.30-92); on this see Fritz
Hellmann, Herodots Kroisos-Logos (Neue Philologische
Untersuchungen 9; Berlin: Weidmann, 1934);
Vischer, Das einfache Leben, 38-44. For the Socratic
and Cynic tradition see Teles, ed. Hense, p. 43, line
1; 50', line 15; 56, line 14; 61; EpistulaAnach., ed.
Malherbe, p. 50, line 5. On the whole subject see
Hendrik Bolkestein et al., "Armut I (Beurteilung der
Armut)," RAC 1 (1950) 698-705; Andreas Biglmair,
"Armut II (freiwillige)," RAC 1 (1950) 705-9;
Raymond Bogaert, "Geld (Geldwirtschaft)," RAC 9
(1976) 797-907, esp. 813-16,823-31,839-43,
844-49, 852-50.
151 See Trevor Donald, "The Semantic Field of Rich and
Poor in the Wisdom Literature of Hebrew and
Accadian," Oriens Antiquus 3 (1964) 27-41; also
Charles F. Fensham, "Widow, Orphan, and the Poor
in the Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom
Literature," JNES 21 (1962) 129-39; Erhart
Gerstenberger, ":"ll!.l II," ThWAT 6 (1987) 247-70.
Matthew cites the passage in Matt 11:5. This
situation does not necessarily mean that the Scripture
passage was introduced only later; it can just as well
be presupposed in the SM. The problem is related to
the relationship between the "gospel" and the SM.
For Matthew at least, Luz's statement is correct
(Matthiius, 1.208 [Matthew, 1.235]): "The Sermon on
the Mount is the unfolding of the 'gospel of the
kingdom.'" On this much-disputed problem see also
Broer, Seligpreisungen, 64-67; Hengel, "Zur
matthaischen Bergpredigt," 25-27.
153 This view is characteristic of those who subscribe to
forms ofliberation theology. See Luise Schottroff,
"Das Magnifikat und die alteste Tradition iiber Jesus
von Nazareth," EvTh 38 (1978) 298-313; Schottroff
and Stegemann,jesus and the Hope of the Poor (see
above, n. 135); Wolfgang Stegemann, The Gospel and
the Poor (trans. Dietlinde Elliott; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1984); van Tilborg, Sermon, 14-19.

113
such as the so-called people ofthe land ('am ha'arets)? 154
Did he call for voluntary submission to this social or
economic condition? 155 Did he simply try to console
those living in a state of depravity? 156 Or did he have a
more comprehensive message? These questions are
answered by the expression "poor in (the) spirit," but this
expression has become a question itself.
The term "the poor" has unquestionably always
referred to persons living in social and economic misery.
Therefore, it is important to realize that the SM does not
regard the condition of poverty as a blessing. At this
point, the SM differs from some strands of Greek
philosophy critical of external wealth, 157 while sharing
common ground with jewish wisdom and other strands
of Greek philosophy. Even though the condition of
poverty is not blessed, persons living in such conditions
can be blessed.
Indeed, praising the condition of poverty as such
would hardly be conceivable in antiquity, unless it were
done as an act of folly or cynicism. Also, praising the
poor simply because they are poor economically would
be equally cynical because experience indicates that poor
people may be good or bad like everyone else. Texts as
early as the Didache, 158 if not the New Testament
itself, 159 tell of Christians who use their poverty in order
to extract undue advantages from their generous fellow
Christians. 160 In conclusion, while one must take
material deprivation seriously, such conditions as such
cannot be the reason for the blessing. 161
According to some, the qualification of "in (the) spirit"
points to the involvement of the human mind or spirit,
turning the whole matter into one of consciousness.
Consequently, those who are conscious of their poverty
as such would conceive of themselves as living in a
praiseworthy condition, a misunderstanding that
prompted Julian the Apostate to assure the Christians
that he could happily execute the blessing by expropri-
ating the church of Edessa. 16 2
Instead, I shall assume that the SM has in mind a topos
widely discussed in antiquity, which addresses the
general human condition (condicio humana). 163
Accordingly, this topos, which is attested not only in the
Greek philosophers 164 but also in jewish wisdom 165 and
apocalypticism, 166 in Qumran, 167 and in successive
literatures, including the church fathers, 168 describes la
condition humaine as one of poverty, desertion, and

154 See Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.429-42. On the concept
see also Alfred Burgsmiiller, Der 'am ha-ares zur Zeit
jesu (Marburg: Gorich & Weiershauser, 1964);
Aharon Oppenheimer, The 'Am Ha-Aretz: A Study in
the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-
Roman Period (ALGHJ 8; Leiden: Brill, 1977);
Gerstenberger, ThWAT 6.259-70.
155 See Andreas Biglmair, "Armut II (freiwillige)," RAG
1 (1950) 705-9; Bernward Buechler, Die Armut der
Armen: Uber den ursprilnglichen Sinn der miinchischen
Armut (Munich: Kosel, 1980); Gerstenberger,
ThWAT 6.270.
156 See Leander E. Keck, "Armut III. N eues Testa-
ment," TRE 4 (1979) 78; similarly Ernest Best,
"Matthew V 3," NTS 7 (1960/61) 255-58, who
renders the term as "faint-hearted."
157 See the collection in Stobaeus Eel. V, pp. 780-88,
under the title 1rwias ;7ra&vos ("praise of poverty"); cf.
pp. 733-46 on ;7ra&vos 7rAo,\Tov ("praise of wealth").
On the whole topic see the basic study by Wilhelm
Meyer, Laudes inopiae (Gottingen: Hubert, 1915);
also for the wider literary world Gerhard Hertel, Die
Allegorie von Reichtum und Armut: Ein aristophanisches
Motiv und seine Abwandlungen in der abendlandischen
Literatur (Erlanger Beitrage zur Sprach- und
Kunstwissenschaft 33; Nuremberg: Carl, 1969).
158 Did. 1.5: "but he who receives [sc. alms) without need
shall be tested as to why he took and for what" (my
trans.).
159 See 2 Thess 3:6-10.
160 See Manfred Wacht, "Wahre und falsche Armut.
Bemerkungen zu Clemens Alexandrinus, Quis dives
salvetur Kap. 19," in Vivarium: FS fur Theodor Klauser
zum 90. Geburtstag QAC Sup 11; Munster: Aschen-
dorff, 1984)338-47.
161 For passages see Luz, Matthaus, 1.207 n. 58 (Matthew,
1.324 n. 58). Cf. also the apologetic interpretation in
Ps.-Clem. Hom. 15.10.4: "But our teacher pronounced
the faithful poor [7r&uTobs 7rEVTJTas) blessed; and he
did so, not because they had given anything, for they
had nothing, but because they were not to be
condemned, as having done no sin, simply because
they gave no alms, because they had nothing to give."
162 Julian Ep. 40, p. 424C-D: "Therefore, since by their
most admirable law they are bidden to sell all they
have and give it to the poor that they may attain
more easily to the kingdom of the skies, in order to
aid those persons in that effort, I have ordered that
all their funds, namely, that belong to the church of
the people of Edessa, are to be taken over that they
be given to the soldiers, and that its property be
confiscated to my private purse." Translation
according to the LCL edition by Wilmer C. Wright,
3.127.

114
 Matthew 5:3-12

misery. The message is that becoming aware of this
condition is essential for one's understanding oflife in
general; it is also the starting point of an ethic. Precisely
this point needs amplification.
Before getting into this matter further, one may draw
one conclusion already: the characterization of Matt 5:3a
as "spiritualization" and as a softening of Jesus' original
radicalism, which is then seen more adequately expressed
in SP /Luke 6:20b, is misleading. 169 In fact, both
parallels express the same position while emphasizing
different aspects. 170 Yet another misunderstanding
would result from jumping to the conclusion that the
virtue of patience in the face of the unchangeable
circumstances of poverty is recommended. 171 Some
church fathers highly favored this interpretation, and
since then others have favored it because of a con-
comitant high estimation of asceticism. 172 While these
church fathers were not altogether wrong, the SM has
more than simple patience in mind.
Rather, the expression "poor in (the) spirit" first of all
points to an intellectual insight into the human con-
dition.173 The attitude adequately corresponding to that

163 See Egert Pohlmann, "Der Mensch-das Mangel-
wesen? Zum Nachwirken antiker Anthropologie bei
Arnold Gehlen," Archiv for Kulturgeschichte 52 (1970)
297-312; Pierre Courcelle, Connais-toi toi-mi!me: De
Socrate aSaint Bernard (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes,
1974-75) 2.295-324; Betz, Essays, 105 n. 55.
164 The most important passages are: Lucretius De rer.
nat. 3.1046-75; 5.222-34; Pliny NH 7, praefatio 1-5.
At the beginning stands Hesiod' s myth of Pandora
and Cronus (Opera et Dies 80, 105, 110-201), and
Protagoras's myth of Prometheus and Epimetheus
(Plato Prot. 320c-322a); Ps.-Piato (Philip of Opus)
Epinomis 973d-974a (see Tarin, Academica [see
above, n. 72], 209-11 ); the topos is also part of the
consolation literature, for which see esp. Ps.-Piato
Axiochus 366d-367a; and Peter Meinel, Seneca ilber
seine Verbannung: Trostschrift an die Mutter Helvia
(Bonn: Habelt, 1972) esp. 127-72. From the
Hellenistic period see also the important fragments
from Ecphantos's "On Kingship," ed. Louis Delatte,
Les Traitis de la Royauti d'Ecphante, Diotogene et
Sthinidas (Bibliotheque de Ia Faculte de Philosophie
et Lettres de I'Universite de Liege 97; Paris: Droz,
1942); Reinhold Merkelbach, "Die Fragmente aus
der Schrift des Ekphantos 'Uber das Konigtum,'" in
his Kritische Beitriige zu antiken Autoren (BKP 4 7;
Meisenheim: Hain, 1974) 73-93.
165 See esp. Isa 40:6-8; Ps 90:5-6; 103:15-16;Job 14:1;
Wis 7:1-6 (cf. 6:2-20; 8:9; 15:9); Sir 40:1-11 (cf.
30:21-25; 31:1-4); Tob 5:17-21; 10:1-7; Philo
Praem. poen. 98-126; Virt. 1-6.
166 See, e.g., Apocalypse ofSedrach 4 (OTP 1.610): "It
would" be better for man if he were not born."
167 The self-descriptions of the members of the Qumran
sect belong to the same category, even though the
theology of that community has its own features as
well. See Hermann Lichtenberger, "Eine weis-
heitliche Mahnrede in den Qumranfunden
(4Q185)," in Matthias Delcor, ed., Qumran: Sa piiti,
sa thiologie et sa milieu (Paris and Gembloux: Duculot,
1978) 151-62; idem, Studien zum Menschenbild in
Texten der Qumrangemeinde (SUNT 15; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980) 73-93 (with
further bibliography).
168 See Courcelle, Connais-toi toi-mi!me, passim; Gerard
Bartelink, "Hieronymus iiber die Schwache der
condicio humana," Kairos 28 (1986) 23-32.
169 Karl Kautsky gave the charge of Matthew's
"revisionism" its classic formulation in his book Der
Ursprung des Christentums (Stuttgart: Dietz, 1908)
345-4 7. According to Kautsky, Matthew was a
Christian propagandist whose goal was to water down
the original enthusiasm, class struggle, and socialism
of Jesus so as to accommodate new wealthy church
members, an opportunism necessary for the
expanding organized church. The Sermon on the
Mount, however, was already too well known at the
time to be simply obliterated, so that Matthew
"bowdlerized" it and changed the economic beggars
into "beggars in spirit." See also Wellhausen,
Evangelium Matthaei, 13; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 33
(Sermon, 32); van Tilborg, Sermon, 14. For the history
of exegesis see Dupont, Beatitudes, 3. 385-4 71.
170 In this point I agree with Weder, Rede 54, 84; idem,
Hermeneutic, 176; Hengel, "Zur matthaischen
Bergpredigt," 27.
171 So the interpretation in Ps.-Clem. Rec. 2.28.3:
"pauperes beatificabat eosque pro penuriae tolerantia
adepturos esse pollicebatur regna coelorum" ("he
blessed the poor, and promised that they should
obtain the kingdom of heaven for their endurance of
poverty").
172 For passages see Tholuck, Bergrede, 60-63 (Com-
mentary, 66-70).
17 3 This is shown even by the explanation of the name of
Ebion in Epiphanius (Pan. 30.17; ed. Holl; GCS 1, p.
355, Jines 17-18): 'lTTWX/,y yd.p roy aA7j6roy Kat rfi
a1avo£f!- Kat rfi fA'lT£a1 Kat T~ ;py'{J ("for he is truly poor
in his intellect, in his hope and in his work" [my
trans.]).

115
 insight is "humility," a virtue highly praised in antiq-
uity.174 This virtue is opposed to hubris, arrogance, self-
indulgence, and overextension of the natural limits of
the human predicament. Therefore, the way oflife set
forth and recommended by the SM is based on the
insight into the condicio humana that accepts it as
"poverty" in the wider sense of the term. By the time of
the New Testament, this insight and the attitudes
following from it had become a mark of religious piety
and wisdom. 175 This was the case especially in Jewish
wisdom, the immediate context of the SM, and later in
rabbinic Judaism, 176 but it was no less the case in some
strands of Greek philosophy. 177
Philologically, the explanation ofthe term "the poor in
(the) spirit" has been made possible by the Qumran texts,
which attest an equivalent self-designation several times
(n,, •m1).17B This designation is the Hebrew equivalent
for the Greek term, but this equivalence points also to a
wider theological context. In Judaism the expression
appears to be connected with the so-called 'aniiwfm-
piety, a characteristic form of piety that seems to have its
beginnings in the later periods of Israelite piety. Jews
who defined their religion under these terms regarded
,,'I themselves as poor creatures in the eyes of God as well as
I'
of fellow humanity. They would try to conduct
themselves humbly and unostentatiously, relying firmly
on God's mercy and grace. 179
In Greek thought, poverty as the basic condicio humana
was seen primarily in terms of human mortality and
finitude. Accordingly, the Delphic maxim "Know
yourself" (yvwlh uavT6v) was taken to mean "Know that
you are mortal." 180 Many testimonies to this self-
understanding occur in both word and picture. 181
Philosophically, the positive valuation of poverty,
understood as a self-understanding, became associated
especially with the Socratic and Cynic schools. 182 Even
then, however, a more general understanding persisted
until much later, as the following epigram, attributed to
Claudius Ptolemaeus (c. 85-160 CE in Alexandria)
illustrates:
Oto' Hn 8v7JTOs ly6J Kal lcpiL,.upos·
a..\..\' 8TaV Cf.uTpwv J.Lauu./Jw 7TVKWUS aJ.Lcj>LOpOJLOVS lALKM
oVKlr' f7Tt'\jlaVoo
yaL7JS 7TOO'"LV, a..\..\' 7Tap' avTCi> Zav\. 8EOTpEcj>tos
7TLJL7TAaJ.LaL aJL~pouL7JS.
I know that I am mortal, a creature of a day;
but when I search into the multitudinous revolving
spirals of the stars my feet no longer rest on the
earth, but, standing by Zeus himself, I take my fill
of ambrosia, the food of the gods. 183
When, according to Plato (Apol. 23c), Socrates says that
he lives "in abundant poverty" (lv 7TWLf!. JLVplg.), he has in
mind more than horrifying economic stringencies. 184
Rather, his entire way of life, as he has chosen, is one of

174 See Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.399-417; Willem den Seligpreisungen, 73-75.

Boer, "Tapeinos in Pagan and Christian Termi-
nology," in E. Gabba, ed., Tria Corda: Scritti in onore di
Arnalda Momigliano (Como: Edizione New Press,
1983) 143-62; Willem C. van Unnik, "Zur
Bedeutung von Ta?T<tvovv T1jV ,Yvx11v bei den
Apostolischen Vatern," in his Sparsa collecta (Leiden:
Brill, 1983) 3.71-76.
175 On this topic see the basic study by Rudiger Vischer,
Das einfache Leben (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1965); see further Betz, Essays, 85, 109.
176 See Felix Bohl, "Die Demut (:"'11lP) als hochste der
Tugenden. Bemerkungen zu Mt 5, 3.5," BZ 20
(1976) 217-23.
177 See Albrecht Dihle, "Demut," RAC 3 (1957) 735-78;
Horst Dietrich PreuB, Marianne Awerbuch, and
Stefan Rehrl, "Demut I-IV," TRE 8 (1981) 459-68.
178 1QM 14.7; cf.14.3; 1QH 5.21-22; CD 19.9; etc.
For references see Bammel, TDNT 6.896-99;
Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.386-99; Awerbuch, TRE 8
(1981) 462; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 33-34 (Sermon,
32); Luz, Matthiius, 1.206 (Matthew, 1.233); Broer,
179 See the discussion of this point in Dupont, Beatitudes,
3.460.
180 On this maxim see my essays in Hellenismus und
Urchristentum, 92-111, 156-72.
181 See, e.g., mosaic pictures involving skulls and
skeletons. For the material see Otto Brendel,
"Untersuchungen zur Allegorie des pompejanischen
Totenkopf-Mosaiks," Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archiiologischen Instituts, Romische Abteilung 49 ( 1934)
157-79; Katherine M.D. Dunbabin, "Sic erimus cuncti
... The Skeleton in Graeco-Roman Art," Jahrbuch
des deutschen archiiologischen Instituts 10 ( 1986) 185-
255.
182 For further references see Betz, Paulus, 109-13.
183 Anthol. Pal. 9.577, according to the LCL edition and
translation by W. R. Paton. Cf. Franz Boll, "Das
Epigramm des Claudius Ptolemaeus," Sokrates:
Jahresberichte des Philologischen Vereins zu Berlin 4 7
(1921) 2-12, who provides a somewhat different
interpretation and text. He also shows that the

116
 Matthew 5:3-12

"poverty" (lv 7ff:vlct- p.vplct-). 185 The reason for this choice
was mainly twofold: the growing suspicion of the
philosophers that wealth is not to be trusted, and the
concurring theological conviction that the gods who are
in need of nothing live in happiness and freedom. 186
Choosing a life in poverty, therefore, was believed to be
the proper way of imitating the gods, apart from
acquiring the best educational tool, something
amounting to a "gymnasium of virtue" (yvp.vau,ov
external goods and beauty within are the gifts of the
gods, but while external wealth is obvious, internal
beauty must be specially revealed because of human folly
and misguided values. Indeed, a revaluation of values is
required:
"il cpi:A.t: Tiav Tli KatlLA.A.oL CJuoL rfjot: 0~:o{, OOL7]T( p.oL
KaAijJ y~:v(u8aL ravod8~:v·
;too8t:V Of CJua ;xoo, TOtS (vrbs Iitva{ JJ.OL cpLALa.
1T AOV<TLOV oE- vop.l(oLp.L TbV uocp6v·

ap~:rijs). The goal of such a life was reaching the state of
"self-control" (lyKpctuLa). 1B7
Socrates' ideal was not total self-impoverishment.
Rather, by imitating the gods and their lack of needs he
attempted to come as close as any human being would be
able to the gods' state of happiness and freedom. For this
reason, poverty took on a positive valuation, and it
became less and less a condition to be ashamed of. The
Socratic understanding is well summed up by the prayer
at the end of Plato's Phaedrus, even though the term
"poverty" does not occur in it. The prayer asks the deity
to grant only as many possessions as one can handle and
as one needs, which certainly are as few as possible. This
petition also focuses sharply on the other side. If Socrates
believed in the immortality of the soul, which he most
probably did, the option for external "poverty" is
believed to be richly compensated by the realization of
the beauty within. The implications are that both
Tb oE- XPV<TOV ?TAij8os lir1J JJ.OL CJuov p.7]u cp(pt:LV p.1}u CI.y~:w
ovvatr' Cf.AA.os ~ 0 uwcppoov.
Oh beloved Pan and all ye other gods of this place
grant to me that I be made beautiful in my soul
within and that all external possessions be in
harmony with my inner man.
May I consider the wise man rich; and may I have
such wealth as only the self-restrained man can
bear or endure. 188
What are the similarities and differences between this
philosophical view, worked out especially by the Socratics
and the Cynics, and the SM? The similarities as well as
the differences are indeed striking.

epigram has similarity to Philo Op. mund. 1; Spec. leg.
2.45. See further Franz Cumont, After Life in Roman
Paganism (New Haven: Yale University, 1923) 211-
12; Andre-Jean Festugiere, La Revelation d'Hermes
Trismegiste (Paris: Lecoffre, 1954) 4.265-66.
184 Descriptions of Socrates' proverty are found in a
variety of sources. See esp. Xenophon Mem. 1.5-6,
and the commentary by Olof Gigon, Kommentar zum
ersten Buch von Xenophons Memorabilien (Basel:
Reinhardt, 1953) 151-65.
185 The Socratic tradition prefers 7TfV7JS rather than
7Trwx•ls. For the difference between the terms cf.
Aristophanes Plutus 552: 7Trwxov {3los . .. (ijv f«TTLV
~TJa~v fxovra, TOV ~~ 'ITEVTJTOS (ijv «/><&o6p.£VOV Kat TOtS
fpyo&s 7rpo.,.€xovra ("'Tis a beggar alone who has
nought of his own, not even an obol possesses. My
poor man, 'tis true, has to scrape and to screw and his
work he must never be slack in"). Text and
translation according to the LCL edition by
Benjamin B. Rogers.
186 Xenophon Mem. 1.6.1 0: lyw il~ vop.l(w rh p.~v p.TJa•vhs
8liov ~eiu8ar. E1var., rb a~ WS" f.Aaxlcrrwv fyyvr&:rw roV
6Elov, Kai rO J.L~V 8£iov ~ep&.rr.urov, rh 0' Eyyvr&.no roV
e.lov lyyvrarw TOV Kpar{«Trov ("But my belief is that to
have no wants is divine; to have as few as possible
comes next to the divine; and as that which is divine
is supreme, so that which approaches nearest to its
nature is nearest to the supreme"). See also Cyr.
8.3.40; Symp. 4.35.
187 On the whole topic see Karl Joel, Der echte und der
Xenophontische Sokrates (Berlin: Gaertner, 190 1)
2/2.668-73.
188 Plato Phaedr. 279b-c. Text and translation according
to the LCL edition by Harold N. Fowler. See
Thomas G. Rosenmeyer, "Plato's Prayer to Pan,"
Hermes 90 (1962) 34-64; B. Darrell Jackson, "The
Prayers of Socrates," Phronesis 16 (1971) 14-37;
Diskin Clay, "Socrates' Prayer to Pan," in Glenn
Bowersock et al., eds., Arkturos: Hellenic Studies
Presented to B. M. W. Knox (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979)
345-53.

117
 If my interpretation of "in (the) spirit" (7rv£vJ.Lan) is
correct, it seems to agree with Socrates' dictum in Plato's
Apol. 38a: "The unexamined life is not worth living for
the human being" (b av£ftTaCTTOS {3{os OV {3twT0S
av8pC:)7/'C!J ). 18 9 As one may see from the SM as a whole
(and from the SPas well), self-examination is one of the
most important activities expected of the faithful disciple
of Jesus. Thus, the element of intellectual insight into the
human predicament does not need to be based on one
word alone, but it is supported by the SM and the SPin
their entirety. 190
The main difference between Plato and the SM,
however, is that for the SM blessedness is not found in
the immortal soul dwelling in the human body. 191 On
the contrary, a seemingly conscious polemic against such
an idea occurs in SM/Matt 6:22-23, when "the light
within" can be assumed to be total darkness. 192 In
another passage, the human soul ('1/tvx~) is worrisome
(6:25 ), 193 while the human person is essentially impure
(5:8) and even "evil" (7:11). The quality that grants
blessedness for the SM is, instead, the "kingdom of the
heavens," an altogether eschatological concept, the
discussion of which takes us to the second line of the
189 Cf. Aristotle's beatitude based on Socrates' dictum
(Protr. B 108, according to Ingemar During, ed.,
Aristotle's Protrepticus: An Attempt at Reconstruction
[Goteborg: Elander, 1961]90-91): "Mankind has
nothing worthy of consideration as being divine or
blessed, except what there is in us of reason and
wisdom; this alone of our possessions seems to be
immortal, this alone to be divine" (Ova{v o~v 8iiov fj
p.aKap&ov imapxn Tots av8pC::.1ro1s 1rA~v fKftv6 ')If p.6vov
ll.f~.ov u7Tov~fj~, iluov fur\v fv ~p.iv voV ~ea\ f/>pou~CTEro~·
roiiro y0.p IJ.6vov lotKfV Elvaf. r&lv f]p.Erfprov CL8clvarov Ka\
p.6vov 8ftov). See also During's commentary, p. 265.
190 This interpretation is not new; for a survey see
Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.434-47.
191 See also the material discussed by Meine!, Seneca,
153-61;Johannes Haussleiter, "Deus internus," RAG
3 (1957) 794-842; Pierre Courcelle, "Gefangnis (der
Seele)," RAG 9 (1976) 294-318; Ragnar Holte,
"Gluck (Gluckseligkeit)," RAG 11 (1979) 246-70;
Manfred Wacht, "Guterlehre," RAG 13 (1986) 59-
150.
192 SeeBetz,Essays, 71-87.
193 Seeibid.,96n.32,104n.51.
194 The question of the origins, history, and various
interpretations of this notion cannot be treated here.
For investigation and bibliography see the recent
studies by Jacques Schlosser, La Regne de Dieu dans les
118
beatitude (vs 3b).
As already mentioned, the second line of the
beatitudes of the SM contains a statement of reason in
support of the first line; the second line is therefore
introduced by Cfn ("for"). The line also anticipates an
eschatological verdict: "for theirs is the kingdom of the
heavens" (Cfn avTc;lV fCTT!V ~ {3autA.£la TWV ovpavwv).
One has basically two questions to answer here: (1)
Precisely how are the two lines connected? (2) Which
interpretation of the concept of "the kingdom of the
heavens" does the SM presuppose? To begin with the
second question: One can have no doubt that the SM,
like Matthew and the rest of the early Christian
literature, is familiar with this concept because of the
teaching ofthe historical Jesus, in which it occupied an
important role. 194 Since the New Testament contains a
variety of interpretations of this concept, the question is,
Which one does the SM prefer? Does the concept as
interpreted in the SM differ from its interpretation in the
rest of the Gospel ofMatthew? 1 95
The evidence shows that the SM prefers the
expression "the kingdom of the heavens"(~ f3autA.£la Twv
ovpavwv) instead of "the kingdom of God" (~ {3au!A£la TOV
dits de jesus (2 vols.; Paris: Gabalda, 1980); Helmut
Merklein, Die Gottesherrschajt als Handlungsprinzip:
Untersuchung zur Ethik]esu (FB 34; 2d ed.; Wurzburg:
Echter, 1981 ); idem, jesu Botschaft von der Gottes-
herrschaft: Eine Skizze (SBS 111; Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983); Odo Camponovo,
Konigtum, Konigsherrschaft und Reich Gottes in den
fruhjildischen Schriften (OBO 58; Fribourg:
Universitatsverlag, 1984); Andreas Lindemann,
"Gottesherrschaft und Menschenherrschaft:
Beobachtungen zum neutestamentlichen Basileia-
Zeugnis und zum Problem einer Ethik des
Politischen," Theologie und Glaube 76 (1986) 69-94;
idem, "Herrschaft Gottes/Reich Gottes, IV. Neues
Testament und spatantikes Judentum," TRE 15
(1986) 196-218; Martin Hengel and Anna Maria
Schwemer, eds., Konigsherrschaft Gottes und
himmlischer Kult in judentum, Urchristentum und in der
hellenistischen Welt (WUNT 55; Tubingen: Mohr
[Siebeck ], 1991 ). See also Klaus Thraede, "Got-
tesstaat (Civitas dei)," RAG 12 (1981) 58-81; Spicq,
Notes, 3.98-103; BAGD, s.v. fJau&Afia, 3.
195 See also Betz, "The Eschatology of the Sermon on
the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain," SBLSP
1985, 343-50 (reprinted in Betz, Synoptische Studien,
219-29).
 Matthew 5:3-12

8wv), preferred by the SP. 196 With the exception of the
Lord~s Prayer (6: 12, 13) 197 and the peculiar passage in
6:33, 198 the SM uses the expression "the kingdom of the
heavens" when it refers to the dwelling place ofGod; 199
by contrast, the singular "heaven" is used in passages that
contrast earth and "sky." 200 God's realm is spoken of in
the plural, and it is clearly distinguished from the sky as
part of the cosmos. By comparison, the evangelist
Matthew is less concerned with the terminology, using
mostly the traditional "kingdom of the heavens," but he
can also speak of "the kingdom of God" occasionally. 2° 1
This language seems to suggest that the realm of God
is not limited to one place or time. It is beyond earth and
sky; it is nevertheless present everywhere in creation. It is
to come in the future, but it is also a reality in the
present. The last judgment does not preclude the creatio
continua. 202 Thus, the plural "heavens" expresses a
worldview involving multiple heavens. Consequently,
God's eschatological verdict can be known even now, and
if so it can also be pronounced now.
While the phrase "the kingdom of the heavens" is
predominant in the SM, God's reign is described as that
of the "Father" (5:45, 48; 6:1, 9, 10; 7:11)2° 3 and only
once as that of"the great King" (5:35). The heavenly
Father /King rules with justice and mercy. 204 His realm
therefore is where "his justice" (6:33) prevails (see also
the third petition of the Lord's Prayer [6: 10]).
In which way then is one to understand vs 3b as the
reason for vs 3a? What is the logic that allows "the poor
in (the) spirit" to be called "blessed" already now? The
answer, surprising as it may be, is that justice requires
it. 2° 5 This does not mean that the condition of poverty is
by itself just. Suffering and hardship, conditions that
poverty entails, can never simply be called 'just." If,
however, such poverty is the general human predicament
and if those who are God's faithful recognize and accept
it with humility, such submission deserves "merit"
{J;.tcr86~). 206
God, who represents and guarantees justice, will
therefore reward such faithfulness (see 5:12). This
explanation also conforms to Jewish theology more
generally.
• 4 The second2° 7 beatitude praises those who mourn:
"Blessed are those who mourn" (J;.aK6.ptot o1
71'£v8ovvT£~). 208 The meaning of this beatitude becomes
clear once it is related to its wider context of ancient
thought. This context will also clarify whether the
mourning in question refers to specific losses such as the
death of loved ones, to grief over the sins of Israel, or to
sorrow over one's own sinfulness, loneliness, and
despondency.

196 SP /Luke 6:20, and always in Luke. 207 Part of the manuscript tradition has the second (5:4)
197 It reads "your kingdom" (f3acnA..ia uov). and the third (5:5) beatitudes in reverse order (D 33
198 See Betz, Essays, 97 n. 44, and also below on b f q vg sy< horns Clement and Origen). See Nestle-
SM/Matt 6:33. Aiand and Aland, Synopsis, critical apparatus;
199 "The kingdom of the heavens": SM/Matt 5:3, 10, 19 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 12. The question is still
(2x), 20; 7:21 (2x); cf. the phrase "the Father in the disputed; see Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.252-53; 3.4 73-
heavens": 5:45, 48; 6:1, 9; 7:11, 21; "the reward in 7 5; Mees, AujJerkanonische Parallelstellen, 46-51;
the heavens": 5:12 (cf. SP/Luke 6:23 singular). Strecker, Bergpredigt, 35-36 (Sermon, 34-35); idem,
200 SM/Matt 5:16, 18, 34; 6:26. "Makarismen," 264; Broer, Seligpreisungen, 79-87. I
201 Matt 12:28 (Q); 19:24 (Q); 21:31, 43. For a survey of am opting for the order given in the text ofNestle-
the evidence see Armin Kretzer, Die Herrschaft des Aiand; see also the discussion below.
Himmels und die Sohne des Reiches (SBM 10; Stuttgart: 208 The reading of vvv ("now") inK 33 892 pc aur vgmss
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1971) 21-63; cf. Broer, sams bois clearly an intrusion from the SP.
Seligpreisungen, 70 n. 12, with whom I agree.
202 See Betz, Essays, 89-123.
203 Apart from these passages see ibid., 118-23.
204 See ibid., 120 n. 99.
205 This reason also explains why poor Lazarus (Luke
16:22) is taken to heaven and why no further
justification is needed.
206 The book ofJob is the classic example of this
theological issue.

119
 i

All these possibilities of interpretation have been
offered during the history of the exegesis concerning this
passage. 2° 9 A further question is why this beatitude
follows the one in 5:3, 210 if indeed the majority of
witnesses has the correct order of the beatitudes.
The wider context for this beatitude is the ancient
consolation literature. If poverty characterizes the
human condition in general (see above on 5:3a), then
grief is the expected human response. 2l l Literary as well
as non-literary sources 212 from the ancient world abound
with material dealing with grief. 213 The category of
consolation literature2 14 focuses on this aspect of human
misery: the comforting of those stricken with grief in all
its forms. 215
Considering the immediate background for the SM,
one must examine Jewish religion concerning its
resources. jewish literature displays the full range of
kinds of grief, from personal loss to lament over Israel,
the state ofthis world, and one's own failure and
sinfulness. 216 Because this beatitude mentions no specific
cause for grief and sorrow, one has no reason to limit its
scope to one or the other of possible issues. This is true

209 See Grundmann (Matthiius, 123-24) and Dupont
(Beatitudes, 3.545-54), who report on the options.
21 0 Grundmann sees the reason in Isa 61: 1-3 (LXX). Cf. 214 The basic studies are by Carolus Buresch, Con-
Broer, Seligpreisungen, 75.
211 It includes "weeping" (1<1lalnv, SP/Luke 6:21, 25;
Mark 5:38, 39; 14:72; 16:10; Luke 7:13, 32, 38, 44;
John 11:31) and "lamenting" (raJla&1Tropliv, Rom
7:24;Jas 4:9; 5:1; Rev 3:17). Also, the gloomy look
(u1<v8pro1Tliv, SM/Matt 6:16; Luke 24:17) should be
mentioned. See Rudolf Bultmann, "1r~v8£ro, 1TEv8or,"
TDNT 6.40-43; BAGD, s.v. 8p71v£ro and 1r~v8£ro,
1TEV8or; Horst Balz, EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v. 1T~v8£ro;
Fritz Stolz, "":IN, 'bl, trauern," THAT 1. 27-31;
ArnulfBaumann, "":IN 'abhal," ThWAT 1.46-50
(TDOT 1.44-48).
212 For the various themes and materials concerning
tomb inscriptions, sculptures, and architecture see
Richard Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin
Epitaphs (Illinois Studies in Classical Philology 28;
Urbana: University of Illinois, 1942); Ewald
Grissmair, Das Motiv der mors immatura in den
griechischen metrischen Grabinschriften (Com-
mentationes Aenipontanae 17; Innsbruck: Wagner,
1966); Pieter W. van der Horst, Ancient jewish
Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey of a Millennium of
Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 BCE-700 CE)
(Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991). For surveys see
Gerhard Pfohl, "Grabinschrift I (griechisch)," RAG
12 (1983) 467-514; Charles Pietri, "Grabinschrift II
(lateinisch)," ibid., 514-90; Klaus Stahler, "Grab-
hau," ibid., 397-429; Maria-Barbara von Stritzky,
"Grabbeigabe," ibid., 429-45; Klaus Stahler,
"Grabdenkmal," ibid., 445-55. On the whole topic
see Burkert, Religion, 79-80, 190-208; idem, Homo
Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial 216 See Claude G. Montefiore, Ancient jewish and Greek
Ritual and Myth (trans. Peter Bing; Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California, 1983), 48-72.
213 See Margaret Alexiou, The Ritual Lament in Greek
Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1974);
Robert Garland, The Greek Way ofDeath (Ithaca, N.Y.:
Cornell University, 1985); also for further materials
! '
Karl Meuli, Gesammelte Schriften (Basel and Stuttgart:
Schwabe, 1975), 1.303-435.
solationum a Graecis Romanisque scriptarum historia
critica (Leipzig: Hirschfeld, 1886); Wilhelm
Schaeffer, •Argumenta consolatoria, quae apud
veteres Graecorum scriptores inveniuntur" (diss.,
Gottingen, 1921); C. C. Grollius, T£xv71 allv1rlar:
Ko&vol T01TOI roii 1rp"os Iloll!lj3&ov roii I.~v£1<a Kal1TTj')lal
avriilv (diss., Thessaloniki, 1956; see the review by
Rudolf Kassel, Gnomon 30 [ 1958] 155-56); Rudolf
Kassel, Untersuchungen zur griechischen und romischen
Konsolationsliteratur (Zetemata 18; Munich: Beck,
1958); Neil C. Hultin, "The Rhetoric of Consolation:
Studies in the Development of the Consolatio Mortis"
(Ph.D. diss.,Johns Hopkins University, 1965); Pierre
Courcelle, "Consolation de Philosophie" dans la tradition
litteraire: Antecedents et posterite de Boece (Paris: Etudes
Augustiniennes, 1967); Horst-Theodor Johann,
Trauer und Trost: Eine quellen- und strukturanalytische
Untersuchung der philosophischen Trostschriften ilber den
Tod (Studia et Testimonia Antiqua 5; Munich: Fink,
1968); Peter Meine), Seneca ilber seine Verbannung:
Trostschri:ft an die Mutter Helvia (Bonn: Habelt, 1971 );
Jean Hani, Plutarque, Consolation aApollonios. Texte et
traduction avec introduction (Etudes et Commentaires
78; Paris: Klincksieck, 1972); Joachim Gruber,
Kommentar zu Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae
(Texte und Kommentare 9; Berlin: de Gruyter,
1978).
215 The connection with the topos •De communi hominum
condicione" is pointed out by Johann, Trauer und Trost,
section 119; Meine), Seneca, 190-93; Hani, Plutarque,
15-18; Kassel, Untersuchungen, 54-69.
Encouragement and Consolation in Sorrow and Calamity
(London: privately printed, 1917); Dov Slotnik, The
Tractate "Mourning" (Semahot): Regulations Relating to
Death, Burial and Mourning (YJS 17; New Haven:
Yale University, 1966); William M. Brinner, An
Elegant Composition concerning Relief after Adversity

120
 Matthew 5:3-12

in spite of the fact that long before the New Testament
~mourning" had become a common metaphor to
describe the faithful jews' response to the terrible state
of affairs in the life oflsrael. 217 This response was
regarded as proper for the righteous, in stark contrast to
the frivolous and cynical, who do not care. 218 According
to the principle of eschatological reversal, the prophets
had promised the end of all mourning to come in the
future when God will redeem his people.2 19
The immediate reason why the beatitude about
mourning follows that on poverty seems to be connected
with the important passage Isa 61:1-3, where vss 2-3
elaborate on God's eschatological promise:
?TapaKaAiuat ?TavTas Tovs ?TEv8ovvTas,
oo8ijvaL TOtS 1TEV80VCTL l:twv oofav CtVTL CT?TOOOV,
liAH!J.!J.a d!cppou6v7JS avTI. ?Ttv8ovs,
KaTaCTTOAtJV oof7Js CtVTL 1TVEt'J!J.aTOS CtK7]0las·
Kal. KA7]8~CTOVTaL rEvEal. OLKatout'!V7]S,
cpt'JTW!J.a Kvplov Els oofav. (LXX)2 20
to comfort all who mourn;
to grant to those who mourn in Zion-
to give them a garland instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness instead of mourning,
the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit;
that they may be called oaks of righteousness,
the planting of the LORD, that he may be glorified.
(RSV)
Most people in antiquity saw mourning as the human
response to death. Therefore, mourning consisted
mainly of rituals and prayers, especially burial proces-
sions and entombment, dress codes, gestures, withdrawal
into solitude, and so forth. These rituals have been
described in literary sources and depicted in monuments.
On the whole, the body of material is enormous; it
demonstrates the great importance of mourning for the
life of the people. 221
Apart from these primary sources and documents,
there is the voluminous consolation literature,222
consisting mostly of philosophical and religious
reflections and recommendations. This literature advises
readers about the issues involved; it educates them about
the reasons for or against mourning, or how much
mourning is enough and how much is excessive or even
harmful. These arguments and counterarguments
became more and more stereotyped as the literary
sources accumulated; often the arguments for or against
mourning are simply listed as commonplaces.
The philosophical genre of consolation essays seems to
have begun with the Academic Crantor's (c. 340/35-
275 BCE) work "On Mourning" (1rEpl. ?Ttv8ovs), now
unfortunately lost but certainly of wide-ranging
influence on later ancient literature. 223 Among the
Stoics, Chrysippus (c. 281/77-208/204 BCE) had worked
out the psychological aspects and presuppositions.
Prior to the Stoics, the Sophists and Plato, whose
dialogue Phaedo became a classic of consolation literature
itself, 22 4 had dealt with the subject. 225 Each school had
some different advice to give, and they all offered various
mental therapies to treat grief, which became recognized
as a malady of the soul.

(trans. from the Arabic with introduction and notes; 221 Seeabove,nn.212-13.
YJS 20; New Haven: Yale University, 1977); 222 See above, n. 214.
Emanuel Feldman, Biblical and Post-Biblical Defilement 223 See esp. Johann, Trauer und Tod, passim; Hani,
and Mourning: Law as Theology (New York: KTAV, Plutarque, 43-49; Hans Joachim Mette, "Zwei
1977). Akademiker heute: Krantor von Soloi und Arkesilaos
21 7 Apart from I sa 61: 1-3, a large number of passages von Pitane," Lustrum 26 (1984) 6-40.
should be examined: e.g., Isa 25:8; 60:20; 66:10;Jer 224 It was known under the title "On the Soul" (ll•pt
38:13 LXX (31:13 MT); Ps 126:5; 1 Bar 4:23; 5:1; 1 1Jtvxfir); see Ps.-Plutarch Cons. ad Apoll. 120C-121E;
Enoch 96.3; 4 Ezra 8.46-62; 9.38-10.59. See Plutarch Cato min. 68, p. 792E; Lucian Phil. 27.
Bultmann, TDNT 6.42. 225 See esp. Kassel, Untersuchungen, passim.
218 On those who "laugh" see below on SP /Luke 6:21,
25; andJas 4:9.
219 See Otto Schmitz and Gustav Stahlin, "wapaKaA€w
KTA.," TDNT 5.788-93.
220 According to the edition by Joseph Ziegler, Isaias
(Septuaginta 14; 2d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1967) 348.

121
 Naturally, all these literary texts presuppose religious
rituals as the primary form of the expression of grief.
Since virtually all people performed mourning rituals,
one must recognize some presuppositions as underlying
these forms of response: ( 1) Death is viewed as an evil,
and even the greatest of all evils; 226 (2) mourning is not
only a response to death but also an expression of the
fear of death;22 7 (3) mourning raises the question about
life after death. 228
All philosophical or theological treatises concern many
of the same issues and presuppositions. Is mourning
justifiable, and if so, to what extent? Is death really an
evil? Should one fear death? Does belief in an afterlife
make a difference?
While Jewish religion regulates mourning and thus
approves of it, Greek and Roman consolation literature,
for the most part, regard mourning to be the practice of
the uneducated masses. Educated individuals, however,
should limit all forms of grief, or should even eliminate
them altogether. Whether the philosophers advise
against excessive mourning or issue outright prohibitions
against it, their evaluation of the practice is mostly
negative. One important way to overcome grief for the
Greeks is to become initiated in the mystery cults,
especially the Demeter mysteries of Eleusis. Although
the details have never been fully reconstructed, the
Eleusinian mysteries seem to confer the assurance that
the initiated would inherit an afterlife in the Elysian
Fields. Therefore, reminding the initiates of their
knowledge about the Isles of the Blessed and the Elysian
Fields is believed to be a strong antidote for stilling the
tears and ending the fear of death. 22 9
The philosophical schools take different positions with
regard to mourning and grief. For the Stoics, the
problem with grief is the heavy emotional uproar caused
by it, so that restoration of the emotional balance
(j;.€Tpto7Ta8na) becomes the major concern for ther-
apy.230 Mourning can be useful to the extent that it is
made to serve the domestication of the emotions.
Most negative is the assessment of mourning and grief
by the Cynics and Epicureans. For the Cynics, mourning
is simply another example of human folly and hypocrisy.
One should face death as a natural event not with fear
but with courage; the howling and wailing of the
mourners become the target of Cynic ridicule and
scorn. 231
Extreme for a different reason was the position of the
Epicureans. 232 According to Epicurus's second sententia
in the Kyriai Doxai, "Death is nothing to us. "233 The
reason for this startling conclusion is that death, defined
as the end of life, cannot reach us. As long as we live, we
are free of death, and when death comes, we do not feel
it or know of it because we are dead. Hence, we have no
reason to fear death. Rather, during one's life one should

226 See RudolfBultmann, "OavaTos KTA.," TDNT 3.7-21.
227 See Horst Balz and Gunther Wanke, "<f>o(3{w KTA.,"
TDNT 9.189-219; for the philosophical discussion
see Amelie 0. Rorty, "Fearing Death," Philosophy 58
(1983) 175-88.
228 Among the letters of Paul, 1 Thessalonians is most
interesting in this respect. The occurrence of death
in the church ofThessalonica (4:13) raised the
anxious question among the Christians there about
the condition of the deceased members at the
parousia. Paul had apparently not instructed the
church before concerning this issue, and he gives a
first answer only in this letter (4: 13-18; 5:1-11 ):
indeed, his previous instruction (1:9-10) seems to
omit the question. Paul's letter intends to end the
grief, and thus it has features of a consolation letter.
229 The long line of tradition begins with the Orphics
and their gold tablets; see above, n. 28; also Hani,
Plutarque, 58-62. Impressive are the passages in Ps.-
Plato Axiochus, esp. 370C-372B; Plutarch Cons. ad
ux., esp. 608F, 611D-612B; Ps.-Plutarch Cons. ad
Apoll., esp. 120B-121D; Cicero Tusc., esp. 1.13.29;
1.24; 3.12. On the subject as a whole see Burkert,
Ancient Mystery Cults, 21-29, 48.
230 See Ps.-Plutarch Cons. ad Apoll. 102C-F.
231 This message is the subject of Lucian's De luctu (see
the LCL edition by A.M. Harmon, Lucian, 4.112-
31 ). On this work see Rudolf Helm, Lucian und
Menipp (Berlin and Leipzig: Teubner, 1906) 348-50;
for the Cynic position see Kassel, Untersuchungen, 12-
17.
232 For the Epicurean viewpoint see A. A. Long and
D. N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers (2 vols.;
Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987) 1.149-54;
2.154-59; Traudel Stork, Nihil igitur mors est ad nos:
Der Schluj3teil des dritten Lukrezbuches und sein
Verhiiltnis zur Konsolationsliteratur (Bonn: Habelt,
1970); Barbara P. Wallach, Lucretius and the Diatribe
against the Fear ofDeath (Mnemosyne, Sup 40; Lei den:
Brill, 1976); David Furley, "Nothing to Us?" in
Malcolm Schofield and Gisela Striker, eds., The
Norms of Nature: Studies in Hellenistic Ethics (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University, 1986) 75-91; Philipp
Mitsis, "Epicurus on Death and the Duration of Life,"

122
 Matthew 5:3-12

be happy and enjoy it as much as possible, but mourning
and grief can only be the expression of erroneous ideas
and superstition. 234
In contrast to this Greco-Roman philosophical
tradition, the second beatitude of the SM is uncon-
ditionally affirmative: Mourning is to be praised. What is
the reason for this straightforward affirmation?
Bultmann suggests that the praise does not actually
refer to mourning as such. "Hence the sorrow referred
to here is not to be regarded too narrowly as penitent
sorrow for sin. On the other hand, it is evident that not
all who mourn are called blessed. The reference is
plainly to those who see this suffering aeon as it is and
who are not led astray by its charms like the y£.>uovus"
("those who are laughing," SP /Luke 6:25). Their
mourning is a sign of their internal separation from this
aeon and their waiting for the kingdom of the heavens.
Consequently, the lament of penitence because of
sinfulness should not be excluded.23 5
Bultmann's interpretation is based on his under-
standing of jesus' message, but he also emphasizes the
influence oflsa 61:2. 236 Furthermore, wisdom parallels
show that the SM merely continues a line of tradition
that goes back to the Old Testament. 237 Denials
elsewhere in the New Testament make clear, however,
that one could also understand jesus' message in a way
that would make mourning superfluous. 238 For this
reason, the affirmation of mourning in the SM is more
than a foregone conclusion. 239 The praise of the
mourners accepts as part of the condicio humana that
people in fact suffer losses and engage in mourning and
grieving. 240 Mourning is the reaction to human
deprivations and loss in all their forms, and with that the
faithful disciple is expected to identify conscientiously. It
is the mark of the discipleship of Jesus not to deny but to
accept the deplorable facts of human life.
Verse 4b gives the theological reason for the blessing
of the mourners: "for they shall find consolation" (l)n
avTOt7TapaKA7J8~uovrat). Clearly, the statement reflects

Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium on Ancient
Philosophy 4 (1988) 295-314.
o
233 KyriaiDoxai 2, Diog. L. 10.139: 8avaros ovotv npbs
~p.as· rb yap OLaAv6tv avaur61jTEL' rb o' avaur61jTOVV
ovotv nphs fJp.l1s ("Death is nothing to us; for the body,
when it has been resolved into its elements, has no
feeling, and that which has no feeling is nothing to
us"). Text and translation according to the LCL
edition ofDiogenes Laertius by R. D. Hicks, 2.664-
65.
234 See EpicurusEp. adMenoec., Diog. L. 10.124-26;
perhaps a counterargument is made in Ps.-Piato
Axiochus 369B.
235 Bultmann, TDNT 6.43.
236 Ibid., n. 152. Differently, Broer, Seligpreisungen, 75-
79.
237 Cf. the beatitude in Tob 13:14: "happy all who
grieve for you in your afflictions" (NEB); Sir 7:34:
"Do not turn your back on those who weep, but
mourn with those who mourn" (NEB). T.jos. 17.7-8:
"and every pain of theirs was my pain; every ailment
of theirs was my sickness; their wish was my wish. I
did not exalt myself above them arrogantly because
of my worldly position of glory, but I was among
them as one of the least" (OTP 1.823).
238 The synoptic sayings of jesus at times seem to oppose
mourning; see Matt 8:21-22 par.; 9:15. Paul argues
against it for a different reason in 1 Thess 4:13 (see
above, n. 228), but he affirms it in Rom 12: 15; 1 Cor
7:30; 12:25-26. The tradition has some difficulty
explaining whether mourning is appropriate in view
of jesus' death (see Mark 16:10; Luke 24: 17;John
16:20; 20:11, 13, 15). See furthermore Mark 5:38,
39 par.; Luke 7:13;John 11:31, 33.Jesus' own
mourning (Mark 14:32-42; Luke 19:41) is clearly
affirmed.
239 SM/Matt 6:16-18 appears to rule out mourning.
240 See the story from Lucian's Demon. 25, adduced by
Bultmann, TDNT 6.41: The Cynic Demonax
promises Herodes, who is in mourning over his son's
death, that he would adjure the shadow of the dead if
Herodes could find three people who have never
engaged in mourning because of cases of death. This
clearly impossible condition demonstrates the
common experience of death.

123
the prophetic promise of Isa 61:2, 241 but there is more
to it than this reflection. The change from the factual
present tense in vs 3b to what is evidently an eschato-
logical future tense in vs 4b reveals an intricate
relationship between present and future in view of the
kingdom of the heavens. This change involves all the
beatitudes, whereby the eschatological predictions in vss
4b, 5b, 6b, 7b, 8b, 9b are framed by the factual
statements in vss 3b and lOb. This inclusion means two
things:
First, the fulfillment of the predictions is a matter of
divine "justice" (otKatouvv7J). The argument for this point
is made in jewish terms 242 largely by implication and
specifically by analogy to 5:3, a fact that explains why no
christology is brought in at this point. The principle of
justice to be applied here is presupposed also in the story
about poor Lazarus. 243 In this story Abraham from
heaven informs the rich man sitting in hell: "Remember,
my child, that all the good things fell to you while you
were alive, and all the bad to Lazarus; now he has his
consolation [7rapaKaA£tTat] here and it is you who are in
agony" (Luke 16:25 [NEB]).244
Second, the willingness and ability to mourn is no
longer to be taken as simply part oflife, but its
affirmation is the result of special insight into the human
condition before God. In this regard, vs 4 is based on vs
3, and one is to consider mourning a virtue. 245 This
subtle change is fundamentally important to understand
the ethics of the SM. Whatever the SM has to say on the
subject of ethics, it is grounded in the Beatitudes.
The construction of the promise (vs 4b) in the future
passive is characteristic of jewish thinking. It is a device
to avoid using the name of God; 246 hence it is God who
will provide the comforting as part of his eternal reign in
justice.
• 5 The third beatitude, "Blessed are the meek, for they
shall inherit the earth" (/;.aKctptot Ot 7rpa£tS, lfn aVTOt
KA7Jpovop.~uovutv T~v yijv), is spoken into a world in which
meekness was highly desired but little practiced. The
beatitude contains two of the most important concepts of
Hellenistic ethics, that of meekness and that of who is
entitled to possess the earth. Before addressing these
issues, however, I must examine two methodological
questions.
1. The question of the proper place of the beatitude
has already been discussed above on 5:4. The problem is

241 See esp. the famous passage in Isa 40:1-2. For
parallels in Jewish literature see Str-B 1.195-97;
2.124-26, 232; Otto Schmitz and Gustav Stahlin,
".,.apaKaAc!w KTA.," TDNT 5.792-93. These parallels
tempt one to interpret the beatitude of the SM in
their light and thus to read rabbinic theology into the
SM. Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary, 72-74) does this
when he identifies the mourners with "the avele ?ion,
the Mourners for Zion, a well-known group among
the Jews who were so deeply affected by the
destruction of the Temple that they lived their lives
amidst grief and mourning because of the national
tragedy" (p. 73). It is difficult to say how old this
tradition is, but it is attested in 11 QPs•Zion. Whether
it must always refer to the same group is another
question. As far as the SM is concerned, Matt 5:23-
24 seems to imply that the Temple is still
functioning. See also Hengel, "Zur matthaischen
Bergpredigt," 28-31.
242 Hengel ("Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt," 31-36)
argues for a Jewish interpretation of atKaiOUiJV7J
("righteousness") in the context of the SM. While this
is certainly correct, he does not seem to consider that
in Jewish theology righteousness is the principle on
which the Torah is based, a principle that itself,
however, is not simply identical with the Torah. As a
principle it is both something given and a demand.
Pace Hengel, this Jewish concept of righteousness
differs from its interpretation in the context of the
evangelist Matthew's Christian theology.
243 As has often been observed, the story in Luke 16:19-
31 contains Jewish theology.
244 See also Jas 4:9-10; Luke 2:25-38; 18:9-14; cf. 1
Thess 3:2; 4:18; 2 Thess 2:15-17; Rev 7:13-17; etc.
For further references see Bauer, s.v. 7rapaKaAc!w, 4;
Johannes Thomas, EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v. 7rapaKaAc!w.
245 At this point, modern studies can confirm the
position of the SM; see esp. Alexander and
Margarete Mitscherlich, Die Unfiihigkeit zu trauern:
Grundlagen kollektiven Verhaltens (Munich: Piper,
1967).
246 On the meaning of the passivum divinum see Dalman,
Wortejesu, 183-85;Jeremias, Theology, 9-14; BDF, §
130(1).

124
 Matthew 5:3-12

created by the fact that some manuscripts have 5:4 and
5:5 in reversed order. 247 Wellhausen 248 had suggested,
and many scholars are inclined to agree with him, that
the reverse order is original. As a result, W ellhausen
argued, one could reconstruct an original parallelismus
membrorum,, formed by 5:3 and 5:5. The interpolator
who inserted 5:4 presumably did not understand the
parallelism and destroyed it by his interpolation. 249
2. Wellhausen's hypothesis is based on another
assumption that was important to him. According to him,
all of the Gospels are translations of an Aramaic
substratum, so that he assumed that both 71"rooxol (5:3)
and 7rpaf'irt (5:5) are renderings of the same Aramaic
'aniyim or 'iinawim, as one would expect in a parallelismus
membrorum. Both terms, therefore, are expressions of the
underlying Aramaic and must be interpreted
accordingly.2 50 Those who share Wellhausen's general
hypothesis of an Aramaic substratum will be inclined to
agree also in this instance. There is, however, no
evidence of such a substratum, at least not in the SM; the
original language of the SM was Greek, not Aramaic.2 51
In the light of these facts it would be erroneous to
interpret an Aramaic meaning into the beatitude.2 52 Its
Greek origin becomes all the more obvious once one
realizes that the concept of meekness was eminent in
Greek ethical thought; 253 this eminence in turn was the
reason why the LXX translators chose the word.
The formulation of the beatitude's second line is
obviously an adaptation of Ps 36:11 (LXX): o[ a~ 7rpaf'irt
K)..:qpovop.~uovaw yfjv ("but the meek will inherit [the]
earth [or: land]"). This adaptation is usually taken to be a
direct quotation, but it could just as well have been taken
out of the pool of oral wisdom sayings that is well
represented in the SM elsewhere. Another question of
method is whether one can use this literary character of
the beatitude to argue against its originality. The
sentence is redactional, but this is true of all of the SM.
Nothing follows from this point for the question of the
possible origin of the beatitude. Since it has no parallel in
the SP its secondary nature is apparent, but this can
hardly determine its historical origin.
It would be a mistaken conclusion to take the MT of
Ps 37:11 using the term Cl'1ll7 and interpret the Greek
equivalent on the basis of the Hebrew instead of the
Greek. 254 The opposite is the case: as in many other
instances the LXX translators have chosen the Greek

24 7 See above, n. 207. zunachst der griechische Wortlaut interpretiert

248 Wellhausen, Evangelium Matthaei, 13-14; he is
supported by those scholars who share the assump-·
tion of an Aramaic background for the SM; see
Black, Aramaic Background, 258; Dupont, Beatitudes,
2.252-53; 3.473-74; Guelich, Sermon, 81-82; Lachs,
Rabbinic Commentary, 74. Differently Harnack,
Sprache, 38; Streeter, Four Gospels, 250 n. 2;
Klostermann,Matthiius, 37; Bultmann,History, 109-
10; Manson, Sayings, 152; Koster, Synoptische
iiberlieferung, 166; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 24-25.
249 See esp. Zahn, Matthiius, 184-86; Dupont, Beatitudes,
1.252-53.
250 He assumes accordingly that the term "land" refers to
the kingdom of God; see below, n. 279.
251 The Syriac tradition, the foundation for Well-
hausen's hypothesis, is divided on the question of
order; see Merx, Matthaeus, 64-65. On Wellhausen
see aliso Betz, Hellenismus und Urchristentum, 263-64;
idem, "Wellhausen's Dictum 'Jesus was not a
Christian, but a Jew' in Light of Present Scholar-
ship," StTh 45 (1991) 83-110.
252 So rightly Kahler, Studien, 1.183: "Auch wenn Mt 5,
5 als Erlauterung zu Mt 5, 3 verstanden und
eingefilgt worden sein sollte, geht es nicht an, den
Satz primar von dem moglichen semitischen
Aquivalent her zu verstehen, sondern es muB
werden" ("Even if Matt 5:5 was understood as a
further explanation of 5:3 and was interpolated later,
it is not appropriate to interpret the sentence
primarily on the basis of an assumed Semitic
equivalent, but first of all the Greek wording must be
considered"). Similarly Broer, Seligpreisungen, 79-80.
253 On this concept see Friedrich Hauck and Siegfried
Schulz, "7tpafJs, 7tpaflr7Js," TDNT, 6.645-51; Bauer,
s.v.; Hubert Frankemolle, EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v.
7tpa't\r7Js; Spicq, Notes, 3.570-82. The major study of
the concept is by Jacqueline de Romilly, Ladouceur
dans la pensie qrecque (Paris: Societe d'edition "Les
belles lettres, • 1979).
254 For the rabbinic interpretation see Str-B 1.197-200.
Ps 37:11 is interpreted in rabbinic literature, but this
fact cannot be used to read rabbinic theology into the
SM.

125
ethical concept of 7rpa~s ("meek") to make the Jewish
'aniiwfm piety intelligible for Greek-speaking readers.
Who are those designated as "the meek" (ol 7rpaEis)? In
the context of the SM the answer is evident: "The meek"
is a variation on the notion of "the poor in (the) spirit"
(5:3). This connection also explains that meekness is not
simply a given condition but an ethical attitude to be
acquired. Meekness is an attitude that fits the condicio
humana; it is the appropriate reaction to it and may even
be generally desirable. This does not mean, however,
that it is to be taken as a commonplace.
Literary parallels show that jewish piety highly valued
meekness, where it is a synonym for "humility." The
meaning of terminology differs, of course, depending on
the context in wisdom literature, 255 the Qumran
texts, 256 apocalyptic, 257 or later rabbinic literature. 258
Meekness is the general characteristic of the sage, the
righteous person, and the ruler, with Moses and others
serving as paradigms. 259
For the Greeks, 7rpa6TTJS ("mildness," "gentleness,"
"meekness") was a virtue closely associated with
philanthropy. Theologically, it was associated with the
justice of Zeus, 260 but the religion of the Greeks had
many other manifestations of divine gentleness. 261
As a virtue, meekness was a mark of the true
philosopher, foremost Socrates. 262 For the Romans,
dementia became the preferred virtue of the good ruler,
a tradition that has its roots in Greek and Near Eastern
traditions. 263 The opposites of meekness were
"brutality" (aypt6T7Js) 264 and "untamed anger"
(6pytA.6T7Js). 265 There is no question, therefore, that the
SM joins with the Hellenistic world in general when it
singles out meekness as a fundamental ethical stan-
dard.266
Not surprisingly, the third beatitude played a
significant role in early Christian ethics. Did. 3. 7 has
another version somewhat different from the SM: "Be
then meek, since the meek will inherit the earth" (i'u8t ot-
7rpa~s, €7rf.L ol 7rpa£'is KA7Jpovop.~uovuw T~v yijv). 267 Closely
related is 3.8: "Be patient and merciful and free of evil
and quiet and good and trembling with regard to the
words always that you have heard" (ylvov p.aKpMvp.os Kal.
(A.f.~JJ.WV KaL liKaKOS KaL ~uflxws KaL aya8Ds KaL Tp£p.wv TOVs
A.Jyovs OLa 7favT6s' ons i/Kovuas ). 2 6 8
James 3: 13 makes meekness part of the description of
the Christian sage: "Who among you is wise or clever?

255 See, e.g., LXX Pss 24:9; 33:3; 75:10; 146:6; 149:4;
Sir 1:27; 3:17-20; 4:8; 10:28; 36:23; 45:4.
256 See 4QPs37, 2.8-11; 3.9-10, with the conclusion:
"the inheritance of the whole world." Cf. also
1QpHab 12.3-10.
257 For the passages see Paul Volz, Die Eschatologie der
judischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter
(Tobingen: Mohr, Siebeck, 1934), 380-81,408,413.
258 Midr. Ps. 37, ed. William G. Braude, The Midrash on
Psalms (YJS 13; 2 vols.; New Haven: Yale University,
1959) 1.422, with a reference to Abraham. For
further comments see Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic
Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (3 vols.; Leiden:
Brill, 1971), 1.321-24; Lachs,RabbinicCommentary,
74.
259 See Num 12:3; Sir 45:4; cf. Onias in 2 Mace 15:12;
for references to rulers see Zech 9:9 (cited in Matt
21:5); Sir 10:14-18; Luke 1:52. On Philo see David
Jobling, "'And Have Dominion ... ':The Inter-
pretation of Gen 1:28 in Philo Judaeus," JSJ 8 (1977)
50-82. This article is a section ofJobling's dis-
sertation mentioned below, n. 280.
260 See de Romilly, Ladouceur; also Ulrich Luck, TDNT
9.107-9.
261 See Dio Chrysostom Or. 5.23; 32.50; Philo Det. pot.
ins.146; and de Romilly, Ladouceur, 275-92.
262 See esp. Plato Phaedo 116c.
263 See Klaus Winkler, "Clementia," RAG 3 (1955) 206-
31; de Romilly, Ladouceur, 38.
264 See Plato Symp. 197d; !socrates Or. 9.67; and de
Romilly, La douceur, 38.
265 See Herodotus 2.181; Aristotle Eth. Nic. 4.5.1-4,
1125b 26-1126a 4; Rhet. 2.3, 1380a 7-8; Epii:tetus
Ench. 42.
266 For the question of definition see also Ps.-Plato Def
412d 6-7 and the discussion in Heinz-Gerd
Ingenkamp, Untersuchungen zu den pseudoplatonischen
Definitionen (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967) 4 7-48.
267 The translation is mine. Did. 3.7 does not presuppose
the knowledge of the Gospel of Matthew; the
question may be raised, rather, whether Did. 3. 7
depends on the pre-Matthean SM, from which it
differs, however, by spelling out the ethical demand
that is only implied in Matt 5:5. See Koster,
Synoptische Uberlieferung, 166-67; Mees, Paral-
lelstellen, 48; Kohler, Rezeption, 48. See also Did. 5.2;
15.1; Bam. 19.4; 20.2; Ignatius Trail. 3.2; Eph. 20.2;
Pol. 2.1;HermasMan. 5.2.6; 11.43.8; 12.3.1.
268 The translation is mine. The Didache interprets by
combining a series of related ethical notions; similar
are the parallels in Bam. 19.4; 1 Clem. 61.2 (in a
prayer concerning the rulers).

126
 Matthew 5:3-12

Let his right conduct give practical proof of it, with the
meekness that comes from wisdom [€v 1rpa~TTJTL
crocplas]. •2 69 The old cluster of wisdom sayings in 1 Clem.
13.1-3 that combines passages from the Old Testament
with sayings of Jesus, which perhaps come from the SM,
concludes with a citation of Isa 66:2: "The man I [sc.
God] shall look to is none other than the one who is meek
and quiet and trembling with regard to my words" (' E1rl
TLVa €7rLCT'Kf"l[fW, clAA' ht TbV 1rpatv Kat ~cr!Jxwv Kat TPf!J.OVTfL
p.ovra >..&yta [1 Clem. 13.4]). 270 The relationship between
thepassagesinDid. 3.8and 1 Clem. 13.1-4isapparent,
but explanation of that relationship is difficult.
Textually, they do not depend on each other; most
probably both have drawn the material from some
wisdom source. From this pool, rather than from Ps
36:11 LXX directly, may also come the material that
makes up the beatitude .in SM/Matt 5:5. For the SM
itself, one can find evidence of meekness throughout;
meekness is an ethical value that underlies many other
passages, even if it is not stated (cf. 5:21-26, 38-42,43-
48; 6:12, 14-15).
In the larger context of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus
is shown not only as teaching meekness but also as
practicing it. 271 Different from the SM, Jesus' meekness
became an important part of Matthew's christology.
Later paraenetical tradition contains continuous
references to meekness, 272 sometimes with, sometimes
without, Jesus as the primary example.2 73
The reason given in 5:5b for the blessing in 5:5a is
stated, analogously to 5:4b, as an eschatological promise.
One must also see this promise in relation to the long
tradition of promising dominion over the world to the
righteous. 274 Like the other promises in 5:4b-9b, one
must conclude that also this one refers to an episode in
the new age, when God hands over the earth to his
faithfuJ.2 75 This conclusion, however, raises some
questions:
1. What does "earth" refer to precisely? Is it "this
earth" as a whole, or "the land" of Israel, or the kingdom
of God, or a "new earth" after Christ's parousia?
Exegetes have argued for all of these possibilities at one
time or other. 276

269 The translation is mine. Cf.Jas 1:21; 1 Pet 3:4, 15.
See Dibelius,james, 37; 113; Mussner,jakobusbrief,
170.
270 The translation is mine. See also Koster, Synoptische
Uberlieferung, 12-16; Kohler, Rezeption, 67-71. One
should note that the LXX translation of Isa 66:2
vacillates in the manuscripts between ra"ll"E&vOv and
,.pa~v; see Joseph Ziegler, Isaias (Septuaginta 14;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967) 365-
66.
271 Matt 11:29; 21:5 (Zech 9:9); see Dupont, Beatitudes,
3.510-45; Kahler, Untersuchungen, 182-83; Broer,
Seligpreisungen, 82-87.
272 See 1 Pet 3:13-16; Ignatius Eph. 10.1-3. Conse-
quently, meekness can be commended as imitation of
Christ. See also T.jud. 24.1 and T. Dan 6.9, passages
that may show Jewish-Christian influence. See Jiirgen
Becker, Die Testamente der ZwolfPatriarchen QSHRZ
3.1; Giitersloh: Mohn, 1974) 76, 97.
273 See Hauck and Schulz, TDNT 6.650-51; PGL s.v.;
Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.502-10.
274 For references see Volz, Eschatologie, 380-81, 408,
413.
275 The interpretation is given in narrative form in
Apocalypse ofPaul21 (NTApoc 2.772-73): The angel
has led Paul on his journey into heaven (2 Cor 12:1-
4) into the second heaven, from where he can take a
look down on the earth. His report: "And I said: Sir,
what is this place? And he said to me: This is the land
of promise. Have you not yet heard what is written,
'Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth'?
The souls of the righteous, however, when they come
out of the body are sent for a while to this place. And
I said to the angel: Will then this land come to be
seen after a time? The angel answered and said to
me: When Christ whom you preach comes to reign,
then by the fiat of God the first earth will be
dissolved and this land of promise will then be shown
and it will be like dew or a cloud, and then the Lord
Jesus Christ, the eternal king, will be revealed and he
will come with all his saints to dwell in it and he will
reign over them for a thousand years and they will
eat of the good things which I shall now show you."
Apocalyptic scenarios follow, in which another
beatitude (Matt 5:6) is cited (ch. 22, NTApoc 2.774).
Cf. also the interpretation in Acts of Thomas 94
(NTApoc 2.491-92): "Blessed are you meek, because
God has counted you worthy to become heirs of the
heavenly kingdom. Blessed are you meek, because you
shall see the face of the Lord."
276 On this topic as a whole see William D. Davies, The
Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and jewish
Territorial Doctrine (Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California, 197 4) esp. 359-62; idem,

127
 The SM mentions "the earth" (7} -yij) several times in
juxtaposition to "the sky" (5:13, 18, 35; 6:10, 19).
Therefore, it is most likely that 5:5 does not have the
kingdom of God as the object in mind, although the
eschatological event of handing over the earth will occur
in the kingdom of God. The land of Israel cannot be
meant either, at least not exclusively; it would be
included in any understanding of the earth as a whole.
Finally, the SM gives no indication whether it intends
"the earth" to be the old or the new; by comparison,
Matthew, who has a far more developed apocalyptic
worldview, clearly speaks of a "new" earth. The
difference between the SM and Matthew is at this point
apparent (cf. Matt 19:28; 25:34).
2. What is the meaning of the term "inherit"
(1CA7Jpovop.e'iv)?277 A number of proposals for its
interpretation have been made. Most recently van
Tilborg2 78 has suggested that the term may be a general
promise to the dispossessed that their land ownership will
be restored. This suggestion, however, is as unpersuasive
as taking the term in the strictly metaphorical sense. 279
Psalm 3 7:11 (MT) already expresses an ancient doctrine
concerning the proper relationship between human
beings and the earth. Accordingly, human beings are
part of creation, but they do not own it. 280 Dominion
over the earth is deferred to the eschaton.
The implication for 5:5b is that at present the faithful
do not possess or have dominion over the earth, but they
have reason to hope that God will hand it over to them in
the end. While this inheritance is thus a matter of the
eschatological future, later Christian interpretations of
the promise show that its eschatological meaning was not
taken as excluding an application to the Christian world
mission. 281 This would also be no doubt the evangelist
Matthew's own reading. While the SM itself has no
concept of a mission, passages such as SM/Matt 5:13-16
were used in later interpretations to justify the Christian
world mission.
This development can also be observed in the Didache.
Although in an earlier stratum Did. 3. 7 did not refer to
the mission field, the later expansion of Did. 9.4 does
contain the promise that the church members will be
gathered "from the ends of the earth into your kingdom"
(awo TWV 'lrf.paTOOV Tij~ -yij~ f.l~ T~V cr~v fiacr&Af.lav). 282
This notion implies that the earth is the mission field.
Matthew's reading would be similar to Matt 28:18-20,
and his entire interpretation of God's promise to
Abraham (3:9; 4:13-16; 8:11-12; 9:35; 10:18; 21:43;
24: 14; 25:32; cf. Rom 4: 13). For the SM, the present
situation is indeed the opposite of the promise: the earth
is under the dominion of worldly potentates. 28 !1 While
on the whole the SM abstains from political commentary,
the implication is clear. The earth is at present not in the
possession of the righteous, and this fact is a matter of

The Territorial Dimension ofjudaism (Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California, 1982).
277 The term is used with the object "the earth" only
here in the SM. In Matthew's interpretation
elsewhere (19:29; 21:33-46, esp. 38; 25:34) the
objects are different ("kingdom of the heavens," "life
eternal," etc.). See Werner Foerster and Johannes
Herrmann, "KJ\.7jpovop.os «rJ\..," TDNT 3.767-85, esp.
781-85;Johannes Friedrich, EWNT(EDNT) 2, s.v.
"J\.71povop.os.
278 Van Tilborg, Sermon, 23-27.
279 Wellhausen, Evangelium Matthaei, 14: "a strange
expression for the kingdom of God."
280 See David K.Jobling, "'And Have Dominion ... ':
The Interpretation of Old Testament Texts
concerning Man's Rule over the Creation (Gen. 1:26,
28; 9: 1-2; Ps 8:7-9) from 200 B.C. to the Time of
the Council ofNicea" (Ph.D. diss., Union Theo-
logical Seminary, New York, 1972 [microfilm]).
281 Cf. also Rom 4:13; 1 Cor 6:9; Matt 25:34;Jas 2:5; 1
Pet 3:9; Rev 21:1-8.
282 Cf. Did. 16.4; Barn. 4.4. Cf. the mission instruction in
Matt 10:5, 23.
283 See also 1 Cor 4:8; 6:2; Matt 4:8;John 18:33-37;
Barn. 6.18-19. The Gnostics have claimed the
inheritance now; see The Books offeu 44 (ed. and
trans. Carl Schmidt and Violet MacDermot; NHSt
13; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 137: "And I say to you that
since they were on earth they have already inherited
the kingdom of God. They have their part in the
Treasury of the Light, and they are immortal gods." Cf.
also the Coptic Gos. ofThom. log. 2, in Bentley
Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7 (NHSt 20;
Leiden: Brill, 1989) 1.52-53; idem, Gnostic Scriptures,
380; Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, 126.
Interesting to compare are also Philo's discussions,
for which seeJobling's article (above, n. 259), 61-70.

128
 Matthew 5:3-12

injustice that will be corrected by God's justice in the
coming kingdom. 284 This situation calls for the petition
of the Lord's Prayer (6:10): "Your kingdom come, your
will be done as in heaven so also on earth." This petition
itself is a perfect description of what meekness means.
• 6 Most illuminating for the theology of the SM is the
fourth beatitude: "Blessed are those who hunger and
thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied"
(/.LaK/tpwt OL 7T€tvWVT€S Kat lito/WVT€S T~V litKatOO"VV1JV, CJn
avrot xopracrB~crovrat). 285 Comparison with the parallel
in SP /Luke 6:2la shows the peculiar emphasis of the
SM. While the SP speaks primarily of physical hunger,
the SM prefers metaphors. 2 86
Being oriented toward ethics, the SM speaks of
"hunger and thirst for righteousness." While physical
hunger and thirst are certainly deplorable conditions,
they are as such devoid of ethical content. The physical
conditions of hunger and thirst may be an ethically
motivating force, but they may just as well lead to
apathy, fatalistic despair, or even reckless greed. By
themselves then, hunger and thirst have no ethical value
and do not constitute a virtue. The SM therefore focuses
on another, equally painful kind of hunger and thirst:
the hunger and thirst for righteousness. 2 87
If one follows the thoughts of the SM, this hunger is
the fruit of insight into the human condition. Values and
virtues, as the SM understands them, presuppose such
insight and understanding. This understanding has
learned to view the human predicament as one of
unrighteousness; it is also accompanied by the burning
desire to overcome this condition. 288 Indeed, the ethical
impulse as such could simply be defined as "hunger and
thirst for righteousness. "289 If physical hunger is the
result of social injustice, as the SP has it, hunger and
thirst for righteousness is the beginning of the way out of
it. Social conditions produced by injustice can be turned
around only through personal hunger and thirst for

284 Related are in some way Philo's eschatological
speculations, for which see Praem. poen. 85-97 and
Jobling (above, n. 259) 71-72. The entire matter
must also be seen in the light of Greco-Roman
political philosophy and the traditions about
philosopher kings. For Hellenistic texts see C. J. de
Vogel, Greek Philosophy (Leiden: Brill, 1964) 3, nos.
1044-50; Ragnar Hoistad, Cynic Hero and Cynic King
(Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1948); Betz, Lukian,
206-7, 210; PECL 2.221 (on Plutarch De tranq. an.
12, p. 472A); also the material in Hans Conzelmann,
1 Corinthians (trans.]. W. Leitch; Hermeneia;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 87-88. For the entire
topic of Greek ideas on the legitimation of rulership
see Peter Stockmeier, "Herrschaft," RAG 14 ( 1988)
877-936, esp. 896-901.
285 Wellhausen regarded the phrase ot>f!wvTE~ r~v
OLKatocrOvTJV as an addition, because it is not found in
SP/Luke 6:21 and because otKaLOut\vTJ is a religious
concept of Matthew (Evangelium Matthaei, 14). See
also Nestle-Aland, critical apparatus, ad Joe.; Kurt
and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament
(trans. Erroll F. Rhodes; 2d ed.; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1989), 239. There is no reason for this
hypothesis, if one assumes that the SM as a whole is a
pre-Matthean composition.
2 86 For the present state of research see the com-
mentaries on Matthew and the surveys in Albert
Descamps, Les justes et la justice dans les evangiles et le
christianisme primitif hormis la doctrine proprement
paulinienne (Gembloux: Duenlot, 1950), 164-79;
Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.355-84; Broer, Seligpreisungen,
87-96; van Tilborg, Sermon, 28-31; Hengel, "Zur
matthaischen Bergpredigt," 31-34.
287 The translation of the term oLKatout\vTJ is hampered
by modern English. We use the term "righteousness"
despite its somewhat archaic ring and its connotation
of false moralizing and self-righteousness. The other
possibility for rendering the term is "justice." This
term, though it rightly retains the legal and
philosophical aspects, does not emphasize the ethical
connotations that are so important to the SM.
Unfortunately, no English term includes the entire
range of meanings present in the SM.
288 Wellhausen (Evangelium Matthaei, 14) observes
succinctly: "Given his metaphorical understanding,
Matthew may not be altogether wrong; cf. 1 Bar
2:18. The primitive Christians certainly were no
starvelings" (my trans.).
289 Hunger and thirst were metaphors commonly used
in antiquity; see esp. in the context of OT prophecy
and wisdom: Isa 49:9-10; Prov 9:5; 25:21; Sir 24:21;
Philo Fuga. 139; for the NT see John 6:35; Phil 4: 12;
Rev 7:16 (Isa 49: 10); 21 :6; 22:17. For references see
also BAGD, s.v. ot>f!aw, 3;Johannes Behm and Georg
Bertram, "ot>f!6.w," TDNT 2.226-29; Leonhard
Goppelt, "7T€tv6.w KTA.," TDNT 6.12-22, esp. 17-18;
H.-J. van der Min de, EWNT (ED NT) 1, s. v. ot>f!aw;
also Dupont, Beatitudes 3.368-76.

129
justice on the part of individuals. The SM does not seem
to distinguish between the goal of personal righteousness
and that of social justice. Both together are envisioned,
and indeed one cannot be had without the other.
These are reflections, I submit, that may have led to
the peculiar definition of the addressees in vs 6a. These
addressees are none other than "the poor in (the) spirit"
of vs 3a. They are those who suffer from living in a world
full of injustice, including their own. For the SM, one
should remember, the world is full of evil and temptation
(see SM/Matt 5:3-16; furthermore, 5:28, 29-30, 37,
45; 6:13, 22-23; 7:1-5, 10-11). It is the world in which
God's will is not done (see 6:9-1 0). Therefore, blessed
are those who realize the full extent of their involvement
in this evil, but who have not succumbed to it and seek a
way out of it.
Further questions pertain to the concept of "righteous-
ness" (otKawuvv1J) itself. In recent years, this concept has
been widely discussed. 290 As far as the Gospel of
Matthew is concerned, the question is whether one is to
understand "righteousness" as God's own activity that is
imparted through the redemption ofChrist, 291 or as a
human effort to achieve righteousness. 292 Although at
this point scholars have not reached a consensus, some
issues seem to be clear: (1) It is methodologically
unnecessary to force the same meaning on a term each
time it occurs. 293 (2) In some passages that come from
Jewish sources, such as the SM, the term "righteousness"
conforms to Jewish ideas. 294 (3) The evangelist Matthew
then interprets the term christologically and soterio-
logically in the Christian sense (see Matt 3:15; 27:4, 19,
24, 54).295
Within the SM, the term OLKatouvv1J occupies a place of
central importance. It is consistently used in the Jewish
sense of the term. 296 This use implies that God
represents righteousness and that the "kingdom of the
heavens" is the realm of his righteousness (6:33: "God's
kingdom and his righteousness"). In the first instance,
this righteousness is the principle on which the law is
based. 297 One must therefore interpret the Torah
accordingly (see 5: 17-48). Ethically, righteousness is the
standard for human conduct and therefore for all ethical
thinking and action. Ethical awareness means continual
self-examination with regard to the principle of
righteousness (5:20; 6:1, 33; 7:12). During the course of
human life, one must constantly seek righteousness

290 Strecker (Weg, 150-58) rightly emphasizes the
similarities with the Epistle ofJames (1:20; 2:21, 24,
25; 3: 18; cf. also 1 Pet 2:24; 3: 14); cf. Wrege,
Bergpredigt, 18-19; Strecker, "Makarismen," 265;
idem, Bergpredigt, 38 (Sermon, 37-38); Dupont,
Beatitudes, 3.213-384; Benno Przybilski, Righteous-
ness in Matthew and His World of Thought (SNTSMS
41; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1980); Heinz
Giesen, Christliches Handeln: Eine redaktions-
geschichtliche Untersuchung zum a!Ka!Ocrtwq-Begriff im
Matthausevangelium (Europaische Hochschulschriften
23.181; Frankfurt and Bern: Lang, 1982); Luz,
Matthiius, 1.209-11 (Matthew, 1.237-38); Broer,
Seligpreisungen, 87-96; Hengel, "Zur matthaischen
Bergpredigt," 31-36; van Tilborg, Sermon, 28-31;
Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 74-75. For the whole
topic see Albrecht Dihle, "Gerechtigkeit," RAG 10
(1978) 233-360, esp. 306-8; Josef Scharbert, Asher
Finkel, and Dieter Liihrmann, "Gerechtigkeit I-III,"
TRE 12 (1984) 404-20, esp. 415.
291 This is not to be confused with a "Paulinizing"
interpretation; see Peter Stuhlmacher, Gottes
Gerechtigkeit bei Paulus (FRLANT 87; 2d ed.;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 188-
91; idem, Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness: Essays
in Biblical Theology (trans. Everett R. Kalin;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); Guelich, Sermon, 102-
3; Gundry, Matthew, 70.
292 So esp. Strecker, Weg, 156-57; idem, "Makarismen,"
264-66; idem, Bergpredigt, 39-40 (Sermon, 37-38);
Luz, Matthiius, 1.210 (Matthew, 1.237). For a survey
see also Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.355-84.
293 For this view see Eichholz, Bergpredigt, 41-44;
Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.383; Broer, Seligpreisungen, 89.
294 Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.383-84; Hengel, "Zur
matthaischen Bergpredigt," 31-36.
295 See also Broer, Seligpreisungen, 89-90.
296 While Hengel ("Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt," 31-
36) has correctly emphasized the Jewish background,
he attributes, incorrectly in my view, a Jewish-
Pharisaic theology to the evangelist Matthew. The
reason is that Hengel does not distinguish between
the theology of the pre-Matthean source SM, which is
Jewish, and that of the Matthean redactor, which is
Christian. Hengel describes Matthew as a Jewish
Torah scholar who was "a wanderer between two
worlds" (p. 20): Does this mean that this "wanderer"
could not make up his mind about fundamental
theological issues that had been decided by Paul a full
generation earlier? This portrait of Matthew is
historically unlikely (see also ibid., 15-25).
297 The exegetical discussion at times seems to suffer
from lack of perspective. Not only in Judaism but in
all antiquity the concept of justice was regarded as

130
 Matthew 5:3-12

(6:33). This can only be done if the human appetites are
clearly directed toward this goal.
Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness must
also realize that they will be the target of harassment and
persecution. Although their hunger and thirst may not
be satisfied in this age, it must not be subdued or get
weary. According to Jewish and early Christian thinking,
no one can enter into the kingdom of God who does not
meet the demands of righteousness, that is, who remains
in a state of unrighteousness (5:45) or lawlessness (7:23;
cf. 5:17-20). The demand to seek righteousness
certainly involves human effort to its full extent, and the
ethics of the SM are concerned with this effort. Yet, this
effort can succeed only because God, through the Torah
and Jesus' interpretation of it, has opened the "way of
righteousness," a Jewish concept that could well apply to
the SM (see 7: 13-14). 298 This "way of righteousness"
applies not only to legal and ethical issues but also to
rituals (see 5:23-24; 6:1-18), indeed to life as a whole.
At this point one encounters righteousness as God's
"gift," understood, however, in Jewish, not in Christian
(Pauline), terms. Righteousness is given to Israel and to
humanity as a constitutive principle of creation, and the
Torah is the guide on the way ofrighteousness.2 99 Thus,
the Torah, interpreted rightly, is the means by which the
hunger and thirst for righteousness can be met.
This way of righteousness is a rough road, but it will
lead to its goal. 300 Those who hunger and thirst for this
righteousness are encouraged to "seek God's kingdom
and his righteousness" above all else (6:33), 301 to stumble
along the rough road, and to search for the narrow gate
(7: 13-14). Their goal is to become worthy "sons" of their
heavenly Father, indeed to become perfect as he is
perfect (5:45, 48). Then the divine judge will approve
and admit them to the heavenly kingdom (5:20; 7:13-
14; cf. 7:21-23).
This interpretation of the notion of righteousness,
central as it is for the SM, differs from that of the
evangelist Matthew. For the evangelist, it is first of all
Jesus who through his life and teaching "fulfilled all
righteousness" (Matt 3: 15). Indeed, he was a righteous
man, as even outsiders had to admit (see 10:41; 23:34-
36; 27:4, 19, 24-26). That is also why he was crucified
and raised from the dead, in order to be appointed by
God as Lord over the universe (28: 18-20; cf. also
18: 15-20; 19:28; 25:34, 40; 26:63-64). He will protect
those who are faithful to him and will guide them into
life everlasting (7: 13-14; 19: 16-30; 25:31-46). Yet, the
church here on earth cannot claim perfection of
righteousness. To pronounce the final verdict is the

the principle on which all laws must be based and only ethical demands. Hengel finds in them the
according to which they must be interpreted. This "pronouncement of grace" ("Zuspruch der Gnade"),
principle also determines the relationship between justified because of the messianic authority of Jesus
righteousness and Torah. For the Greek background presumed by the SM (Hengel, "Zur matthaischen
see Dible's article (see above, n. 290); furthermore Bergpredigt," 35). I do not think, however, that the
Hugh Lloyd-Jones, The justice of Zeus (Sather SM attributes messianic authority to Jesus.
Lectures 41; 3d ed.; Berkeley and Los Angeles: 300 The doctrine conforms to Jewish wisdom; see Prov
University of California, 1983); Eric A. Havelock, 21:21; Sir 2: 16; 4: 12; 51:13, 26; Wis 1:1; 6: 12; etc.
The Greek Concept ofjustice (Cambridge: Cambridge See also Str-B 1.201-2; Hengel, "Zur matthaischen
University, 1978); Keith W. Whitelam, The just King: Bergpredigt," 34.
Monarchical judicial Authority in Ancient Israel 301 The terminology of"seeking" is basic to the SM; see
OSOTSup 12; Sheffield:JSOT, 1979). Forfurther below on 6:32, 33; 7:7, 8, 14; and Betz, Essays, 97,
disC!JSSion see below on SM/Matt 5:20. 114, 118 n. 96.
298 The concept "the way of righteousness" (~ o~h~
~&Ka&ou,';v7Js) occurs in Matt 21:3 2 with reference to
the teaching ofJohn the Baptist. See Dupont,
Beatitudes, 3.213-25. The concept could just as well
describe the teaching ofthe SM as a whole (cf. below
on 7:13-14).
299 Cf. the debate between Broer (Seligpreisungen, 89-
92) and Hengel ("Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt,"
32-35). Broer rightly sees that the Beatitudes are not

131
privilege of the Son of man, who is to be the judge at the
lastjudgment (24:30-31; 25:31-46). Here on earth
there remain the hunger and the thirst, the seeking and
the searching: "He who perseveres to the end, this one
will be saved" (1 0:22; 24: 13). This conclusion then takes
us to the promise of vs 6b: "for it is they who will be
satisfied." Like the previous beatitudes this c-ne also is
eschatological, 30 2 taking up well-known prophetic
promises such as Isa 49:10: "they shall not hunger or
thirst. "303 The fulfillment of this promise plays an
important role in apocalyptic literature, as one can see
from the example of 1 Enoch 48.1: 304
And in that place I saw the fountain of righteous-
ness305
Which was inexhaustible:
And around it were many fountains of wisdom:
And all the thirsty drank of them,
And were filled with wisdom,
And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy
and elect. 306
Finally, how can such a promise be justified theo-
logically? How can mere hunger and thirst for righteous-
ness be given the same credit as righteousness itself? In
order to answer this question in terms of the Jewish
theology of the SM, one must consider the principle of
righteousness itself. Accordingly, human limitations
mean that at the most only a few can obtain full
righteousness. Only pretense and self-delusion could
claim more. Given these limitations and the adverse
circumstances of this sinful world, the mere keeping up
of the desire for righteousness is so difficult that it
requires a person's total commitment. It will take no less
than the love of God (SM/Matt 6:24) "with all your heart
and all your soul and all your mind and all your strength"
(Mark 12:30//Matt 22:27). If this much is required, it is
only fair that God reward the truly faithful for
maintaining their hunger and thirst for righteousness (cf.
5:12).
If the fulfillment of the promise is "satisfaction," 307 the
metaphor points to the eschatological banquet. 308 The
term "satisfy," therefore, has the ring of mythical realism
to it. 309 The SM, however, does not mention the
eschatological banquet familiar from other Jewish
sources; one may imagine it to occur after the faithful
enter through the gate into heaven (7: 13-14). 310
• 7 The fifth beatitude poses few interpretative problems.
It conforms to a well-known doctrine ofJewish religion:
"Blessed are those who are merciful, for they shall find
mercy" (JJ.aKtLptot OL fA€~p.OV€~, CJn avTo'r. fA€1]8~crovTat).
Praises of mercy are common in the Old Testament
and subsequent Jewish literature. Deeds of mercy are
generally those done out of compassion with the
unfortunate and helpless. 311 The name and act of
"almsgiving" (f.A.€7Jp.ocrvv7J) is its most ordinary expres-

302 For a gnostic interpretation see Cos. Thorn. log. 69:
"Blessed are the hungry, for the belly of him who
desires will be filled." Whatever the meaning of this
saying may be, the language is entirely metaphorical.
303 For the passivum divinum see above on 5:4.
304 See also LXX Isa 41:17-18; 44:3; 48:21; 55:1;
furthermore, LXXJer 38:12, 25; Ezek 34:29; 36:29;
Ps. Sol. 5.10. For references see Goppelt, TDNT
6.15-17; Behm and Bertram, TDNT 2.226-29;
Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.368-80; Wrege, Bergpredigt,
17-18.
305 The "fountain of righteousness" is a prominent
image in apocalyptic texts (see 1 Enoch 22.2, 9; 48.1-
10; 96.6; Odes Sol. 6 and 30; cf. also Rev 21 :6; 22:17.
See Wilhelm Michaelis, TDNT 6.112-17.
306 Trans. Charles, APOT 2.216.
307 On the metaphor of xopTa(op.a• ("be satisfied"), which
occurs only here in the NT, see BAGD, s.v.
308 See Isa 25:6; 1 Enoch 62.14; 45.6; 2 Enoch 42:5. For
passages see also Str-B 1.878-83; 4/2.1154-56;
Volz, Eschatologie, 367-68. For the NT see Mark
14:25 par.; Matt 22:1-14 par.; Rev 19:9.
309 Cf. other metaphors such as" Abraham's bosom"
(Luke 16:22); furthermore, see Luke 1:53; 15:25-
31;John 4:13-15; 6:35; 1 Cor 4:11; Rev 7:16 (Isa
49:10); 21:6; 22:17.
31 0 See the texts discussed in Betz, Essays, 148-51, and in
addition Apocalypse of Paul 22 (citing Matt 5:6);
NTApoc 2.773-74.
311 See esp. Prov 14:21-22; 17:5; Tob 4:5-7; 'Abot 1.2
(with the interpretation in 'Abot R. Nat. 4; see Taylor,
Sayings of the Fathers, 13 n. 6); Str-B 4/1.536, 538-
39. For further references see Str-B 1.203-5; Rudolf
Bultmann, "tA<os KTA.," TDNT2.477-87; ThWNT
10.1072; Wilhelm Schwer, "Barmherzigkeit," RAG 1
(1950) 1200-1207; Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.604-33;
Spicq, Notes, 3.250-58.

132

sion. 312 Thus, for all branches of judaism the exercise of
mercy was one of the preeminent religious and social
duties. 313 This duty was based on the belief that God is a
God of mercy. 314 Early Christian theology continued this
tradition in a variety of ways, among them this beatitude.
SP /Luke 6:36 cites the doctrine in the form of a
maxim: "Be merciful, as your Father is merciful" (ylvm·B£
olKT{pp.OV£S, Ka86Js 0 7TaT~P vp.wv OtKTLpp.wv f(]"Tlv). The
older clusters of sayings in 1 Clem. 13.2 and Polycarp
Phil. 2.3 contain similar forms ofthe maxim: "Be
merciful, so that you will find mercy" (lA£iin, Yva
EA€1J8fin). The parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matt
18:23-35) applies the principle to a narrative context
(18:33). 315 Drawing on its jewish heritage, the New
Testament continues to speak of the God ofmercy, 316
and mercy becomes a constitutive part of early Christian
paraenesis(e.g., Luke 1:50,54,58, 72, 78). 317
In Greek literature, popular morality also valued
mercy positively, but philosophical ethics treated it with
suspicion. Popular piety is reflected, for instance, in the
erection of an altar to Eleos by the Athenians. This altar
was well known to the ancients as an asylum. 318
According to Xenophon, Socrates considered mutual
mercy as an element of friendship. 319 Other
philosophers, especially the Stoics, however, were critical
of it because of its impact on the emotions, 320 a suspicion
that lingers on even into modern times. 3 2 1
312 See below on SM/Matt 6:2-4.
313 For the OT see H.-J. Zobel, •.,en, ~resa:d," ThWAT
3.48-71 (TDOT 5.44-64); Spicq, Notes, 3.252-55;
Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.606-17; for Qumran see
Braun, Radikalismus, 2.87 n. 2; idem, Qumran, 1.14;
Zobel, TDOT 5.64. Hellenistic Judaism has many
references; see, e.g., T. Ash. 2.5, 6; T. Zeb. 5.1, 3; 7.2,
3; 8.1; Pr Man 6-7, 14; Ep. Arist. 208; Philo and
Josephus often.
314 See esp. Exod 34:6; Deut 4:31; Pss 86:15; 103:8;
111 :4; 112:4; 116:5; 145:8.
315 The citation comes from an older source, but there is
no indication of dependency on Matt 5:7. See alsoP.
Berol. 16388, cited in Aland, Synopsis, 254.
316 See SP/Luke 6:36; Rom 9:15 (Exod 33:19 LXX);
11:30-32; 12:1; 15:9; 2 Cor 4:1; Eph 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3;
2John 3;Jude 2, 21.
317 See also Luke 10:25-37; Rom 12:8; Col3:12; Eph
4:2;Jas 2:13; 3:17; 1 Pet 3:8; etc.
318 For the references see Otto Waser, "Eieos," PW 5
(1905) 2320-21; Wolfgang Fauth, "Eieos," KP 2
(1967) 242.
Matthew 5:3-12
How then is one to interpret the fifth beatitude in the
context of the SM? The designation of the addressees as
"the merciful" (vs 7a) must be seen as analogous to the
other beatitudes of which it is a variation. Clearly,
therefore, compassion and mercy are the proper
attitudes given the human predicament (see above on
5:3). 322 Mercy is recommended as an ethical response to
violence and enmity (5:38-42, 43-48). The duty of
almsgiving is affirmed and underscored (6:2-4), and
forgiveness is singled out as a very important aspect of
prayer (6:12, 14-15; also 5:45, 48; 7:10-11).
Thus, one should not make too much of the fact that
the SM never again mentions the term "mercy. " 3 2 3
Other closely related texts corroborate that this
interpretation is correct. Apart from Did. 3.8 3 2 4 and the
prayer in 1 Clem. 60.1, 325 2 Clem. 4.2 combines in a
cluster of SM-type sayings notions such as lyKpan'is,
fA€~p.OVH, aya8o{ ("self-controlled, merciful, and good
people") and supplements them with the appeal: "and we
are obligated to suffer together" (Kat (]"Vp.7Tct(]"X£tV
aAA~AOVS ocJ>€LAOp.£v). 326 Generally speaking, therefore,
the SM, like Christian thought elsewhere, continues to
regard mercy as an expression of righteousness and
wisdom. 327
The promise in vs 7b is again to be taken eschato-
319 XenophonMem. 2.6.21; see also Dover, Greek
Popular Morality, 195-97, 201; Spicq, Notes, 3.250-
52.
320 For the Hellenistic material see de Vogel, Greek
Philosophy, vol. 3, nos. 953b, 1044b, 1050b;
Bultmann, TDNT 2.493-96.
321 R. Hauser and]. StOhr, "Barmherzigkeit," HWPh 1
(1971) 754-55.
322 Cf. terminologically Rev 3:17; Did. 3.8; cf. 5.8; Barn.
20.2; also 3.5 (Isa 58:1 0).
323 In the NT cf. Heb 2:17; Luke 6:36;Jas 5:11.
324 "Be magnanimous and merciful" (yluov p.aKpo6vp.os
Ka't tAn/p.rou).
325 God is addressed as "you who are merciful and
compassionate" (<Adp.ou Ka't olKrlpp.ou).
326 Cf. the quotation ofHos 6:6 in Matt 9:13; 12:7;
moreover, see Matt 23:23; 1 Pet 3:8.
327 See esp.Jas 2:13; 3:13-18; and for the interpretation
cf. Dibelius,james, 147-48.
133
logically: "for it is they who will find mercy." The future
passive328 indicates that at the last judgment God will
show mercy toward those who have done deeds of mercy
during their life on earth. This expectation is based on
the principle of justice, but also on the insight that no
matter how many deeds of mercy they may have done
those who appear before God's throne will need mercy.
In the SM, the concept of mercy is therefore connected
with the practice of forgiveness (6:12, 14-15). It is true
that God is always merciful, but justice requires that
petitioners for forgiveness act with mercy as well. 32 9
Merely knowing of or talking about mercy is not enough;
the actual deeds of mercy are what counts. 330 Expecting
God's mercy is justified if his mercy has been taken
seriously and practiced in one's conduct of life. By
contrast, those who cannot show deeds of mercy will not
find it in the last judgment (cf. 7:21-23).33! The
underlying legal principle is the ius talionis (see below on
5:38); the ethical principle involved is the Golden Rule
(7: 12). 332
• 8 The sixth beatitude identifies purity of heart as a basic
virtue. Thus vs Sa designates the addressees in this way:
"Blessed are the pure in heart" (}l.aKapLOL or Ka8apo', Tfj
Kapalfl.). The meaning of the concept of purity of the
heart is more presupposed than explained; it is never
mentioned again in the SM or, for that matter, elsewhere
in the New Testament. 33 3
The Jewish environment from which the SM came
regarded purity of heart as a virtue of great importance.
This tradition then is responsible also for this beati-
tude.334
In terms of the history of religions, the concept implies
critical reflection about purity and related rituals. 335
Antiquity considered impurity primarily a matter of
external pollution and the cause of evil in its many forms;
its removal was the purpose of purification rituals.
Critical reflection about common practices in judaism
began as early as the Old Testament; in Greek thought
one can find such reflection beginning with the Pre-
Socratics. 336 The problems addressed in these reflections
were mainly twofold: (1) the unclear relationship
between ritual purity and morality, and (2) the
observation that the internal conditions of a person can
be a greater source of impurity than external pollution.
These insights could then lead either to an abandonment
of purity rituals or to their intensification by including
the internal aspects.
This latter option is presupposed by the concepts of
purity and impurity of the heart (Kapala) or soul ('1/rvx~).
These developments took place both in judaism, which
preferred the concept of the heart, and among the
Greeks, who preferred the concept of the soul. One
should not overstate the differences, however, because
each side can also use the other concept. At any rate, by
the time of early Christianity all antiquity had concluded
that a person's inner disposition was a matter of the
greatest significance, ritual or no ritual, so that the
concept of purity of the heart or soul acceded to the
status of a virtue.
In the Old Testament one can see these developments
in the classic passage of the temple entrance liturgy in
Psalm 24, 337 where in vs 3 the question is called out:

328 On the passivum divinum see above on 5:4b.
329 See also the passages 5:21-48; 6:2-4; 7:1-5, 12, 15-
20.
330 See Betz, Essays, 3-7.
331 See below on SM/Matt 7:21-23; Matt 25:31-46;
and Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.626-32.
332 Outside the SM one can adduce many passages that
exemplify these ideas; e.g., Luke 10:25-37; 18:9-14;
Matt 20:1-16; see Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.618-23.
333 The SP has no parallel.
334 For the terminology see Friedrich Hauck and Rudolf
Meyer, "Ka6apos n>..," TDNT 3.413-31; Friedrich
Baumgartel and Johannes Behm, "Kaplila, • ibid.,
3.605-13; Wilfried Paschen, Rein und Unrein: Studien
zur biblischen Wortgeschichte (SANT 24; Munich:
Kosel, 1970);Jacob Neusner, The Idea ofPurity in
Ancient judaism (SJLA 1; Leiden: Brill, 1973);
BAGD, s.v. 1<a6apos; Kaplila; Hartwig Thyen, EWNT
(EDNT) 2, s.v. Ka6apos; Alexander Sand, ibid., 615-
19; Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.557-603. On the whole
subject see Johannes B. Bauer and Anneliese Felber,
"Herz," RAC 14 (1988) 1093-1131.
335 For the history of religions aspect, see Nilsson, GGR
1.89-110; 2.73-74; Burkert, Greek Religion, 75-84;
JamesJ. Preston, "Purification," EncRel12 (1987)
91-100.
336 For Greek ritual and thought see Paul Stengel, Die
griechischen Kultusaltertilmer (HKAW 5.3; 3d ed.;
Munich: Beck, 1920) 155-70; Louis Moulinier, Le
Pur et l'impur dans la pensee des Grecs d'Homere a
Aristote (Etudes et commentaires 12; Paris: Klinck-
sieck, 1952); Robert Parker, Miasma: Pollution and
Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford: Claren-
don, 1983).

134
 Matthew 5:3-12

Who may go up to the mountain of the LORD?
Who may stand in his holy place?
The answer is given in vss 4-6:
One who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who has not set his mind on what is false,
or sworn deceitfully.
Such a one shall receive blessing from the LoRD,
and be vindicated by God his saviour.
Such is the fortune of those who seek him,
who seek the presence of the God of Jacob. (REB)
This psalm attests all the ideas needed for the
beatitude in SM/Matt 5:8. This does not mean,
however, that the beatitude merely "quotes" Psalm 24.
Rather, the beatitude confirms ideas that were
commonly accepted in Judaism at the time. Beginning in
the Old Testament, but even more so at the time of early
Christianity, purity of heart was the great virtue sought
by the truly religious. 338 One can assume that everyone
knew passages such as Ps 51: 10:
Create a pure heart in me, 0 God,
and give me a new and steadfast spirit. (NEB)
The Greek concept of purity of the soul is also very old
and may go back to the old Orphics, of whose secret
rituals the Orphic gold tablets show evidence. 339 Purity
of the soul then became a primary concern for the
Pythagoreans, 340 and from them the idea entered into
the thought of Platonism. 341 Apparently from early on
the idea of the purity of the soul was connected with
eschatology in that only the one whose soul is pure may
enter into the Elysian Fields or the Isles of the Blessed. In
his famous work "On Piety" (IItpi tvut{jtlas) Theo-
phrastus states that purity of the soul is more important
than ritual purity. 342 These ideas were present also in
Greek religion, as one can see from temple inscriptions,
for example, at Delphi 343 and Epidaurus. 344
More specifically, this context makes explicit
connections between the concept of purity of the soul
and vision of the gods. For instance, in the Myth of
Thespesius, told by Plutarch in his "On the Delay of
Divine Vengeance," a work depending on Orphic-
Pythagorean afterlife mythology, the soul ofThespesius
experiences a flight into the afterlife. When he comes
near the highest and most sacred part of heaven, he
desires to see the divine light that originates from the
heavenly tripod, but this light is too bright for him to
gaze into, and he is unable to make out anything. 345 The

337 See Paschen, Rein und Unrein, 68-69 (with further
references).
338 See also Ps 73:1, 13; Prov 22:11; cf. Gen 20:5; Deut
9:5; 1 Kgs 3:6. For references see also Str-B 1.205-6;
Baumgartel, TDNT 3.607 (A.2.d); Paschen, Rein und
Unrein, 68-71, 182-200; H.J. Fabry, ":l':> lef!.,"
ThWAT 4.443-44; Neusner,Idea ofPurity, 12.
Related is the concept of the "Torah of the heart"
Oer 31:33), which, however, is not attested in the
SM; see Christoph Levin, Die Verheij3ung des neuen
Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang
ausgelegt (FRLANT 13 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1985), 257-64, 265-79. In the Qumran
texts the concept of purity of heart plays no role, but
"hardness of heart" is common, and the battle of the
two spirits takes place in the heart (1 QS 4.22-23).
See Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 106,
113, 139-40, 150.
339 The formula on the tablets is ;pxoJLa• EK Ka6aprov
Ka6apa ... ("from the pure I come, a pure ... "). For
the edition and commentary, see Zuntz, Persephone,
304-8; Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta, frgs. 32 and 33;
Norden, Agnostos Theos, 93 n. 1.
340 See Parker, Miasma, 281-82, 322-27.
341 See esp. Plato Phaedo 65e-69d, 80d-83e, 108a-c,
113d, 114c; the conceptuality is found elsewhere in
Plato, too; see Parker, Miasma, 281-82.
342 Theophrastus, IIEPI EY~EBEIA~ (ed. Walter
Potscher; Leiden: Brill, 1964) 162 (frg. 8, lines 20-
21; frg. 9, lines 3-11).
343 Anthol. Pal. 14.71 (cited according to the LCL
edition by W. R. Paton, 5.63-65): "Come, stranger,
pure in mind, to the precinct of the pure god, after
dipping thy hand in the water of the Nymphs. For a
little drop suffices for the righteous, but not the
whole ocean shall cleanse a wicked man with its
streams." Cf. 14.7 4: "The holy places of the gods are
open to the righteous, nor have they any need of
lustration; no defilement touches virtue. But thou
who art evil at heart, depart; for never by sprinkling
thy body shalt thou cleanse thy soul." See also Parker,
Miasma, 324.
344 Cited by Plato Leg. 4. 716d-e; proverbial in
Epicharmus frg. 269: "If you have a pure mind,
you're pure in all your body." Parker (Miasma, 323-
24) mentions the popularity of the saying among
Christian writers as well. The gnome is attested also
in Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 228. For more temple entrance
requirements see Stengel, K ultusaltertilmer, 155-56.
345 Plutarch De sera num. vind. 22-32, 563B-568A, esp.
566E. See PECL 1.223, 225, 230.

135
conclusion must be that his soul is not pure enough for a
full vision.
According to the Greeks, only the best achieved purity
of the soul. Famous philosophers, foremost among them
Socrates, 346 were believed to pass directly to the Isles of
the Blessed. These beliefs were popular in the Hellenistic
period.
It cannot be a surprise, therefore, that in Hellenistic
Judaism the ideas of both cultures came together.
Aristobulus seems to have been the first to show
influences from Orphism. 347 Philo of Alexandria does
not hesitate to speak of the purity of the soul, 348 and the
same can be said about Rabbinic Judaism. 349
The New Testament only rarely mentions purity of
the soul, but even the concept of purity of the heart is
less frequently attested than one would expect. 350 One
can have no doubt, however, that for the SM purity of
the heart is a virtue of fundamental importance. 351 Not
only is the heart (Kapala) frequently mentioned (5:5, 28;
6:21, 24; cf. 6:22-23), but also throughout the SM is a
constant emphasis on the internal disposition of the
person as over against the external world, on the
invisible versus ostentation, and on honest simplicity
versus hypocrisy. Therefore, one can conclude that "the
pure in (the) heart" are synonymous with "the poor in
(the) spirit" (5:3a). Indeed, purity of the heart is a virtue
that underlies all ethical attitudes in the SM; it certainly
also underlies the performance of rituals. In particular
the praying ofthe Lord's Prayer presupposes it, even if it
is not explicitly stated.
In support of the centrality of the concept, one may
also refer to Mark 7: 1-2 3 and its synoptic parallels, a
chapter devoted entirely to purity concepts. 352 This
chapter seems to have its roots in Hellenistic Judaism and
possibly in the theology ofJesus himself. 353
As mentioned already, the eschatological promise in vs
8b is traditionally connected with purity of the heart:
"and it is they who will see God." In biblical literature
references to a vision of God are comparatively rare,
whether in the Old Testament354 or in the New
Testament. 355 This rarity stands in contrast to the
frequency of visions of heaven and even God himself in
apocalyptic 356 and rabbinic literature, 357 not to speak of
Christian and Jewish mysticism and Gnosticism. 358 One
should also note that in Greek religion the connection
between beatitudes and epiphany is found as early as the

346 See Plutarch De gen. Socr. 20, 588D about Socrates: b
vovr 1Ca6apor Gw Kal awa6~r ("his mind [was] pure and
free from passions"). About the Pythia cf. De def orac.
40, 432C. Even the Cynic Cyniscus qualifies
according to Lucian Catapl. 24; De luctu 7; see Betz,
Lukian, 85.
347 According to EusebiusPraep. 13.12.1-16 (ed. Denis,
Fragmenta, 163-67, 221-22); for translation see OTP
2.840-41; furthermore West, Orphic Poems, 33-35.
348 See esp. Philo Spec. leg. 1.257, 259, 260; for
references see Hauck, TDNT 3.416-17 (A.3); Meyer,
ibid., 3.423 (C.4).
349 For references see Edmond Jacob, "1/rvx~." TDNT
9.626-31 (B.4; 5.d); Dible, ibid., 9.632'-35 (C.I.1-5);
Eduard Lohse, ibid., 9.635-37 (C.II.1-2).
350 For purity of the heart see also Acts 15:9; 1 Tim 1:5;
2 Tim 2:22 (cf. 1 Tim 3:9; 2 Tim 1:3); 1 Pet 1:22;
for purity of the soul see 1 Thess 5:23; 1 Pet 1:22; cf.
2 Cor 7:1. For other passages see BAGD, s.v. 1<a6apor,
3.b; Ka6apl(UJ, 2.b.
James 4:8 seems closely related: "Sinners, make your
hands clean; you who are double-minded, sanctify
your hearts" (1<a6aplcran XEipar, b.p.aprUJ>..ol, Kal
b.yvlcrarE Kap3lar, 3{>/fvxo&). In James this admonition
is part of the "wisdom from above" (see 3:13-18;
1:26-27; 5:5, 8). Cf. furthermore Matt 23:25-26;
Heb 9: 14; 10:2; Barn. 15.1, 6; and frequently in the
Shepherd ofHermas. See also Norbert Brox, Der Hirt
des Hermas (KEK [Kommentar zu den Apostolischen
Vatern 7]; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1991) 551-53.
351 This fact is also reflected in the history of the
interpretation ofthe beatitude, which is often quoted
(see Acts ofPaul and Thecla 6 [ed. Lipsius and Bonnet,
Acta apostolorum apocrypha, 1.239-40]; trans. in
NTApoc 2.355); Resch, Agrapha, 272; Ps.-Clem. Hom.
17.7.4. See Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 301-7; Luz,
Matthli.us, 1.212-13 (Matthew, 1.239-41).
352 For a detailed investigation and bibliography see
Roger B. Booth, jesus and the Law ofPurity: Tradition
History and Legal History in Mark 7 OSNTSup 13;
Sheffield: JSOT, 1986). It must be said, however,
that Booth does not seem to recognize the centrality
ofthe concept (p. 211).
353 See also below on SM/Matt 5:33-37.
354 See Job 19:26-27; Isa 60:2. For further references
see Wilhelm Michaelis, "bp6.UJ KTA.," TDNT 5.315-81,
esp. 324-40 (B.I-III).
355 See 1 Cor 13: 12; Heb 12: 14; 1 John 3:2; Rev 22:4.
Cf. also the beatitude in Acts ofPaul and Thecla 6 (ed.
Lipsius and Bonnet, Acta apostolorum apocrypha,
1.239-40; trans. in NTApoc 2.355); Resch, Agrapha,
273: "Blessed are those who keep the understanding
ofJesus Christ, for they will be in the light." Cf. ibid.:

136
 Matthew 5:3-12

Demeter mysteries of Eleusis. designation clearly presupposes and affirms peacemaking

In the SM, the promise to see God, although not
explicitly mentioned again, is given further inter-
pretation in 7:21-23. Here it is assumed that those who
enter into the kingdom of God will see God, who is the
judge and before whom all must appear. It is also
assumed that those who are to be rejected will not see
him; this may be the reason why God is not mentioned in
7:21-23, although he is presumed to act as the judge.
Moreover, the SM may make a connection between
purity of the heart and the improvement of the physical
and mental functioning of the eye. Generally, the human
eye and its functioning prove extremely important for
the SM (see on 5:14-16, 28-29; 6:22-23,26, 28; 7:3-5,
15-20, 24-27). This importance is also expressed in the
extensive use of images and metaphors relating to vision.
• 9 The seventh beatitude has always been controversial
because of its political implications. 359 When in vs 9a the
addressees are designated as peacemakers, this
as a virtue: "Blessed are the peacemakers" (JwKaptot o1
<lp7]V07rowl). Since no further explanations are deemed
necessary, the text assumes that the recipients know what
is meant. For the modern reader, the beatitude raises a
number of controversial questions. These questions are
historical as well as theological and ethical: Is the term
"peacemakers" to be taken in the religious or in the
political/social sense? Is the background to be sought in
Jewish theology of the Old Testament or in Greco-
Roman political thinking? These alternatives have been
sharpened here for the purpose of discussion. 360
Scholars have pointed out that €tp7JV07roto~ ("peace-
maker") is a verbal adjective typical of Hellenistic
Greek. 361 Early Christian literature attests the term only
here; other verbal composites such as 7TOt£tv dp~V7JV
("make peace") correspond better to the Hebrew :-t!DP
C1':llt.! and also occur more frequently in the comparable

"and they will not see the bitter day of judgment." Is
a
the difficult phrase in Col 2:18 related: £6paKEV
€p.{Jar<tJwv (translation questionable)? For the
interpretation see Eduard Lohse, Colossians and
Philemon (trans. William R. Poehlmann and Robert J.
Karris; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971),
117-21.
356 See esp. 1 Enoch 1.2; 14.15-25; 71.5-17; 4 Ezra
7.87-101; Rev 22:4. For references see Volz,
Eschatologie, 396; Michaelis, TDNT 5.339 (B.III.1).
357 For references see Str-B 1.206-15; 3.601-2;
Michaelis, TDNT 5.339-40 (B.III.2); Lachs, Rabbinic
Commentary, 76.
358 See the comprehensive article on this subject by A.
Hilary Armstrong, "Gottesschau (Visio beatifica)," RAC
12 (1981) 1-19.
359 For special studies and further literature see Egon
Brandenburger, Frieden im Neuen Testament:
Grundlinien urchristlichen Friedensverstiindnisses
(Giitersloh: Mohn, 1973); Milton P. Brown,
"Matthew as EIPHNOIIOIOI:," in Studies in the History
and Text of the New Testament in Honor ofKenneth W.
Clark (Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1967) 39-
50; Erich Dinkier and Erika Dinkier-von Schubert,
"Friede," RAC 8 (1970) 834-905; idem, EIPHNH: Der
urchristliche Friedensgedanke (SHAW.PH 1973:1;
Heidelberg: Winter, 1973); Dupont, Beatitudes,
1.258; 3.633-64; Walter Kirchschlager, "Die
Friedensbotschaft der Bergpredigt: Zu Mt 5, 9.17-
48; 7, 1-5," Kairos 25 (183) 223-37; WillemS. van
Leeuwen, Eirene in het NT: Een semasiologische,
exegetische Bijdrage op Grond van de Septuaginta en de
Joodsche Literatuur (Wageningen: Veenman & Zonen,
1940); Richard B. Miller, "Tradition and Modernity
in the Nuclear Age," JR 65 (1985) 258-70; Gerhard
von Rad and Werner Foerster, "•lp~v7J KTA.," TDNT
2.400-420; Rudolf Schnackenburg, "Die Selig-
preisung der Friedensstifter (Mt 5, 9) im mattaischen
Kontext," BZ 26 (1982) 161-78; Peter Stuhlmacher,
"Der Begriff des Friedens im NT und seine
Konsequenzen," Studien zur Friedensforschung 4
(1970) 21-69; Klaus Wengst, Pax Romana: Anspruch
und Wirklichkeit; Erfahrungen und Wahrnehmungen des
Friedens beijesus und im Urchristentum (Munich:
Kaiser, 1986); Hans Windisch, "Friedensbringer-
Gottessohne: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Inter-
pretation der 7. Seligpreisung," ZNW 24 (1925) 240-
60; Gerardo Zampaglione, The Idea ofPeace in
Antiquity (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame,
1973).
360 For the options as presented by scholarship see
Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.633-44.
361 For the evidence see the lexica of LSJ, BAGD, PGL,
s.v.; also von Rad and Foerster, TDNT2.419-20;
Victor Hasler, EWNT (ED NT) 1, s.v. •lp~v71; BDF, §
119(1); BDR, § 119, 1.

137
literature. 36 2 In Hellenistic literature outside the New
Testament the honorific epithet "the peacemaker" (o
£tp7JV07rou)s) carries special weight in the language of
ruler-cult notions. 363 These parallels inspired Hans
Windisch to develop his hypothesis that the SM was
influenced by ruler-cult notions: "At any rate, the
possibility should be considered that the terminology of
the Greek version [of the SM] was influenced by titles of
ancient rulers. "364 This influence would pertain not only
to the term "peacemakers" but also to the epithet "sons of
God" in vs 9b. If this hypothesis is accepted, two
transformations would have occurred: The underlying
religious ideas would have been converted from
paganism to Christianity, and the court milieu would
have been adapted to the social context of the early
church. Windisch saw in these transpositions a veiled
polemic by early Christianity against the Roman imperial
cult: "Thus the duties stated in our beatitude, which
come from the needs and struggles of daily life, receive
the rank of the highest nobility anyone can think of. The
work of beneficence done in the smallest circle is placed
at the same level as the worldwide benefits of an
Alexander and Augustus. "365 What are we to make of
Windisch's hypothesis? Was the SM really concerned
with the emperor cult of the time? Does vs 9 reflect a
political stance of resistance? These questions cannot be
answered categorically one way or the other.
It is evident that the SM deals with acts of peace-
making at several levels. 366 The antitheses (SM/Matt
5:21-48) in effect present six cases of peacemaking,
although this term is not used; all six belong to the
context of family and friendship ethics. The issues of
forgiveness (6: 12, 14-15) and judging (7: 1-5) are also
related to peacemaking. On the other side, hostile
comments are made against "the pagans" (5:47; 6:7, 32;
cf. 7:21-23). At any rate, all these instances involve
repairing relationships between individuals, not between
political bodies or social classes. Seen from this angle
political involvement lies outside the concerns of the SM.
One cannot ignore, however, that peacemaking is seen
as a direct consequence of "righteousness"
(otKatocn'w7J). 367 It is also presupposed that God is the
principal peacemaker and that he rules accordingly in his
kingdom (see 5:44-45, 48; 6:12, 14-15; 7:10-11).
Consequently, all human peacemaking is done in
imitation of God. 368
To the extent, therefore, that peacemaking is a
function of righteousness and the kingdom of God, the
work of the disciples as peacemaking agents of God has
indeed political implications. The antitheses (5:21-48)
are certainly opposed to war and strife, whether personal
or corporate. Also, 5:13-16 implies the possibility of
political conflict, and one should interpret 5: 10, 11, 12
accordingly.

362 Cf.Jas 3:18; Eph 2:15: <lp~V7JV 1roti!v ("make peace");
Col 1:20: .lp1JV07Tou!w ("make peace"); <lp7Jv<vw ("be
peaceful"): Mark 9:50; Rom 12:18; 2 Cor 13:11; 1
Thess 5:13; <lp7]VtKOs ("peaceful"): Heb 12:15;Jas
3:17.
363 For parallels from Hellenistic literature see BAGD,
s.v. <lp1JV07TOtOs, and the studies by Dinkier, Wengst,
Windisch, and Zampaglione. The connection with
the ruler cult is reflected in Antony's funerary speech
(Dio Cassius 44.49.2). Elp7]V07Totbs rijs olKovp.ev1}s
("peacemaker of the inhabited world") was a royal
epithet (Dio Cassius 72.15.5).
364 Windisch, "Friedensbringer," 257: "Jedenfalls ist die
Moglichkeit zu erwagen, daB die Terminologie der
griechischen Fassung durch die Titulatur der antiken
Herrscher beeinfluBt sei."
365 Ibid., 260: "So empfangen in unserer Seligpreisung
die Pflichten, die die Not und der Streit des taglichen
Lebens uns auferlegen, den hochsten Adel, den man
sich denken kann. Das segenbringende Tun im
kleinsten Kreis wird der eine ganze Welt begliick-
enden Leistung eines Alexander, eines Augustus
gleichgestellt."
366 For further comments on the interpretation of vs 9
within the SM see Schnackenburg, "Seligpreisung"
(see above, n. 359), 167-70.
367 See also the beatitudes in vss 10-11; furthermore,Jas
3:18; Heb 12:14.
368 For Philo, God is "the peacemaker," b <lp1JV07TOtOs
(Spec. leg. 2.192) and "the guardian of peace," b
dp7Jvo<J>vA.at (Decal. 178; Rer. div. her. 206; Spec. leg
1.192; Leg. Gaj. 147); cf. also Som. 2.253. See
Windisch, "Friedensbringer," 254-55; Siegert, Philon
von Alexandrien, 230, 232.

138
 Matthew 5:3-12

These implications, however, are regarded entirely as
a matter of personal example on the part of the
individual disciples. There is no interest in the disciples
acting as a political group, dedicated to negotiating
reconciliation between opposing parties. For such
activities the SM does not claim to have the authority or
power. Therefore, the SM cannot be used as a general
guide for political behavior. Rather, the SM simply
educates the disciples so that they develop attitudes
appropriate for the teaching of Jesus; in this process,
concrete political situations are not given consideration.
Nonetheless, one must add that the disciples, when
properly instructed, are in no way prevented from
applying their conduct to the larger social and political
environment. This is the way the SM was understood
most of the time, and it appears to be the correct way.
How was peacemaking valued in the Greco-Roman
world at the time? The investigations by Windisch,
Dinkier, Wengst, and Zampaglione have shown that
peacemaking was a value held in high regard by society
and political authorities. The concept of the pax romana
meant that the Romans understood the very essence of
their rule to be the making and preserving of peace in
the empire. The benefits of the pax romana were
appreciated by most, whether they were Gentiles or
Jews. 369 After centuries of wars and in view of the ever-
increasing devastations wars brought with them, the
longing for peace and stability was common every-
where. 370 On a smaller scale, making peace between
groups, within families, or between individuals was
regarded as a proper task for the philosophers. Lucian's
Demonax sums it up when he characterizes Demonax as
an ideal philosopher: "He made it his business to
reconcile brothers and to make terms of peace [dp~V7JV
7rpvTav~/;wv] between wives and husbands. On occasion
he has talked reason to excited mobs, and has usually
persuaded them to serve their country in a temperate
spirit. " 371 Similar things were said about Apollonius of
Tyana.372
In Judaism not only peace but also peacemaking was a
long-established virtue. The concept of shalom was
fundamental to the Old Testament and Israelite
religion. 373 Its dimensions are cosmic and involved the
order of the universe as intended by the creator. 374 The
concept is closely related to that of "justice" (Hebrew:
;,p,~; Greek: litKaw<r.,';v7J). 375 Jewish ethics is nothing but
the human conforming to the standards set by the divine
order. In the Hellenistic period, the older notions
concerning peace were interpreted in Greek terms.
Thus, the terminology of dp~v7J and related words occur
in the LXX, the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
Josephus, and Philo; also rabbinic theology regards peace
as an eminent virtue. 376
Other texts, however, such as the Qumran writings,

369 Prominent in this regard was the idealized image of
Alexander the Great; see Plutarch De Alexandri magni
fortuna et virtute 329C, 330E. For collections of
material see Windisch, "Friedensbringer," 251-57;
Dinkier, RAG 8.437-48; Pierre Hadot, "Fiirsten-
spiegel," RAG 8.555-632; Peter Stockmeier,
"Herrschaft," RAG 14 (1988) 877-936, esp. 896-
910.
370 Cf. the opening compliment in Tertullus's speech
(Acts 24:2) before the Roman governor Felix: "Your 376 Exemplary are the famous statements in 'Abot 1.13:
excellency ... , we owe it to you that we e~oy
unbroken peace" (REB).
371 Lucian Demon. 9, cited according to the LCL edition
and translation by A. M. Harmon.
372 Philostratus Vita Apoll. 1.15; 6.38. See Bieler, 0EI0l:
ANHP, 1.101-2;Betz,Lukian, 137.
373 See the basic works by Walter Eisenbeis, Die Wurzel
O"!il im Alten Testament (BZAW 113; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1969); Heinrich Gross, Die Idee des ewigen
und allgemeinen Weltfriedens im Alten Orient und im
Alten Testament (2d ed.; TThS 7; Trier: Paulinus,
1967); Hans H. Schmid, SalOm: "Frieden'' im Alten
Orient und im Alten Testament (SBS 51; Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1971 ); idem, "Frieden, II.
Altes Testament," TRE 11 (1983) 605-1 0; Odil H.
Steck, Friedensvorstellungen im allen Jerusalem:
Psalmen, Jesaja, Deuterojesaja (ThSt Ill; Zurich:
Theologischer Verlag, 1972).
374 See, e.g., Lev 26:6; Num 6:26; Isa 27:5; 45:7.
375 SeePs 85:11; Prov 10:10 (LXX); also Ps 37:37; Sir
28:9, 13; 50:23 (LXX).
"Be of the disciples of Aharon; loving peace, and
pursuing peace; loving mankind, and bringing them
nigh to the Thorah"; 'Abot 1.19: "On three things the
world stands: on judgement, and on Truth, and on
Peace" (trans. Taylor, Sayings of the jewish Fathers, 20-
21, 25). See also 'Abot R. Nat. (A), chap. 12, and
Taylor's commentary on 'Abot, pp. 20-21, 25-26;
Moore,judaism, 2.195-97; Str-B 1.215-18; Werner
ThieBen, "Frieden, III:Judentum," TRE 11 (1983)
610-13; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 76.

139
and events, such as the Jewish uprisings against the
Romans, show that the high value placed on peace did
not rule out war and violence. 377 In particular, the
apocalyptic literature is full of the language of war. Yet,
surprisingly this literature also contains parallels to the
beatitude of the SM (e.g., 2 Enoch 52.11-12):
Happy is he who establishes peace.
Cursed is he who strikes down those who are in
peace. 378
Early Christianity was not united on the subject of war
and peace. 379 The occurrence of war or warlike
conditions presented for early Christians a problem of
survival as well as of ethics. 380 Jesus' attitude seems to
have been ambivalent: If his teachings commended
peace, he also strongly opposed the rule of the Romans
and their Palestinian allies. Since he did not settle the
question, the history of the interpretation of his sayings
and the narratives show diversity of views. Paul's
constant exhortation to maintain peace 381 may be
directed against attitudes reflected in the Q-saying Matt
10:34-35 I I Luke 12:51-53. 382 In Matthew it is part of
the instruction on mission that is often similar to the SM,
but in this case it seems to take a position opposite to
SMIMatt 5:9:
You must not think that I have come to bring peace
[,BaA.€'iv €lp~V1JV] to the earth; I have not come to bring
peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against
his father, a daughter against her mother, a son's wife
against her mother-in-law; and a man will find his
enemies under his own roof. (NEB)
In this situation of ambiguity 383 the SM sides firmly
with those who value peacemaking positively. This
position is all the more remarkable because the SM shows
that the community expressing their views in this text
was fully aware of their life in a world characterized by
hostility. The community's own attitude to the Romans,
as to all of paganism, was hostile. Why then this strong
affirmation of peacemaking?
The SM recognizes war, persecution, and injustice as
part of the evil world. Precisely because there is war,
strife, dissension, and hostility, peacemaking is a demand
that comes with justice and the kingdom of God.
Peacemaking is a means of involvement in the human
predicament of warlike conditions. Coping with such
conditions corresponds to God's own response and
action. Consequently, affirming peacemaking is more
than agreeing with a commonplace. It implies assuming
responsibility against all the odds, risking peacemaking
out of the situation of powerlessness, and demonstrating
the conviction that in the end God's kingdom will
prevaiL For this reason, the peacemakers will be
rewarded by God.
The promise in vs 9b takes up a topos of Jewish
eschatology: 384 "for they shall be called sons of God" (Cfn

377 Notably, according to Josephus Bell. 2.135; Philo
Omn. prob. lib. 76, the Essenes were peacemakers. See
also Braun, Radikalismus, 1.81; Dinkier, RAG 8.455-
56; ThieBen, TRE 11.612-13.
3 7 8 Cited according to version A, OTP 1.181; see also 2
Enoch 52.13-14; 53; 66.7-8; 1 Enoch 92.1; 94.4; Ps.
Sol. 12.5. On the topic see Volz, Eschatologie, 81;
Brandenburger, Frieden, 17-28.
379 So rightly Brandenburger, Frieden, 11.
380 See esp.Jas 3:18; 4:1-2; Mark 13:7 I I Matt 24:6 I I
Luke 21:9; also Mark 9:50; Heb 12:14; Did. 4.3;
15.3; Barn. 19.12; 21.9; 2 Clem. 10.2. For the later
interpretation see also Const. Apost. 2.46.7; 3.15.4
(moreover, 2.1.7; 2.53.1).
381 See 1 Thess 5:13; 1 Cor 7:15; Rom 12:1-7, 18. On 1
Corinthians see Laurence L. Welborn, "On the
Discord in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Ancient
Politics," JBL 106 (1987) 85-111; Margaret M.
Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An
Exegetical1nvestigation of the Language and Composition
of 1 Corinthians (HUTh 28; Tiibingen: Mohr
[Siebeck], 1991).
382 Cf. also Rev 2:16; 9:7; 12:7, and often. By contrast,
the language of "peace" (•1p~v7J) occurs only in Rev
1 :4; 6:4 ("taking peace away from the earth").
383 For the problem caused by the saying in later debates
seePs.-Clem. Rec. 6.4-5;Hom. 11.19.1-3.
384 On the title "sons of God" in application to humans
see the study by Gerhard Delling, "Die Bezeichnung
'Sohne Gottes' in der jiidischen Literatur der
hellenistischen Zeit," in God's Christ and His People:
Studies in Honour ofNils A. Dahl (Oslo: Universitets-
forlag, 1977) 18-28; also Peter Wiilfing von Martitz
eta!., "v!.ls KTA.," TDNT 8.334-97, esp. sections
B.5.c; C.I.l.c; II 3; D.IV.1-2; Carsten Colpe,
"Gottessohn," RAG 12 (1981) 19-58.

140
 Matthew 5:3-12

avTOL dol ihov KA1J6~crOVTaL). 385 The promise was first
made by God to Israel, as the Old Testament testifies, 386
and it remained a continuous part of the Jewish religious
hope. One can see its importance from the apocalyptic
literature, which affirmed it strongly. This history is
presupposed in the SM, which also affirmed and
reinterpreted the tradition.
The beatitude in the SM makes two statements with
regard to the traditional promise: (1) It clearly regards its
fulfillment as an eschatological event, assuming that the
honorific name "sons of God" will be conferred on the
faithful in paradise; (2) it stipulates that not every Jew is
entitled to the name, but that only those qualify who
meet the terms of vs 9a: "for it is they who will be called
'sons of God.'"
The honorific title "son of God" (vio~ 6.:-ov) is used
rather frequently as a self-description in the SM (5:9, 45;
7:9-11 ). 387 The ethics of the SM in its entirety is
intended for those who regard themselves potentially as
"sons of God" and whose training leads to this reward as
their eschatological goal. For them God himself has set
the example: He acts as the great peacemaker, 388 letting
the sun rise on the bad and the good, and letting the rain
fall on the righteous and the unrighteous (5:45). 389 He
forgives sins (6:12a, 14-15; 7: 11), and he hands out
benefits to the undeserving (7:7-11). God's example thus
informs Jesus' interpretation of the Torah as a whole
(7: 12), making ethics a matter of the imitation of God
(5:48). 390 Yet, it is only in the afterlife that the faithful
are awarded the honorific title (cf. 7:21-23). 391 This
eschatological reservation-to use Ernst Kasemann's
expression-is shared by other Jewish-Christian texts, of
which the closest parallel is in SP /Luke 6:36: "You will
be sons of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the
ungrateful and the wicked" (NEB). 392 Remarkable is also
the close parallel in what I regard as an anti-Pauline
fragment in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1; 393 it says in 6:17-18:
"Then I will accept you, ... I will be a father to you, and
you will be my sons and daughters. " 394 Also the
apocalyptic passage in Luke 20:36 contains older ideas,
when it states about those who will be resurrected: "They
are like angels; they are sons of God, because they share
in the resurrection." 395 Rev 21:7 sums up: "All this is the
victor's heritage; and I will be his God and he shall be my
son" (NEB). 396

385 afJToi is missing in ICC D jl3 pc it vg<l" syP Did., but it
should be read with B W ep 33. 892. I006. I342.
I506 9Jt f k vgww syw.c.hco in the light of the
parallelism in the other beatitudes. See the critical
apparatus in Nestle-Aiand, and Aland, Synopsis, 75.
The avToi is also attested in the beatitude in Acts of
Paul and Thecla 6 (ed. Lipsius and Bonnet, Acta,
1.239); Resch, Agrapha, 273.
386 See esp. Deut I4:1; 32:5, 19; Isa 43:6; 45:II; Hos
2:1. For passages and discussion see Georg Fohrer,
TDNT 8.35I-53 (B.5.c); Eduard Schweizer, ibid.,
354-57 (C.I.l.c; C.1.3); Eduard Lohse, ibid., 359-60
(C.II.3); Str-B l.2I9-20.
387 See Betz, Essays, 122-23. Related is the beatitude in
Acts of Paul and Thecla 6 (ed. Lipsius and Bonnet,
Acta, I.239); Resch, Agrapha, 273; trans. according
to NTApoc 2.354: "Blessed are those who have
received (the) wisdom of jesus Christ, for they shall
be called sons of the Most High."
388 Cf. the epithet "the God of peace" (Rom 15:33; I Cor
14:22; 2 Cor I3:I1; Phil4:9; 1 Thess 5:23; 2 Thess
3:I6; Heb I3:20). See Gerhard Delling, "Die
Bezeichnung 'Gott des Friedens' und ahnliche
Wendungen in den Paulusbriefen," in jesus und
Paulus: FS fur Werner Georg Kummel zum 70.
Geburtstag (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
I975)76-84.
389 For peace as constitutive of the kingdom of God see
Rom I4: 17, 19; Ps.-Clem. Hom. I9.20.I ("the sons of
my house") and 19.20.9 ("the peaceful reign of
Christ").
390 This may also explain the meaning of the peculiar
notion of "son of peace" (vll>r <lp~v7Jr), Luke 6: I 0; cf.
Const. Apost. 2.54.2: "like sons of peace bestowing
peace on those who are worthy" (ror vlolJr <lp~v7Jr
<lp~V7JV xapt(op.tvovr TOLf a~iotr). See also Ps.-Clem.
Rec. 2.26-3I, where Matt 5:9 and other sayings are
interpreted. Cf. Dinkier, EIPHNH, 44 n. 138.
39I At this point, the SM notion of "sons of God" differs
from Greek philosophy, where the title can be
attributed to the philosopher. See Epictetus Diss. I.3
and I.9.2-8 (this latter passage is perhaps based on
Poseidonios; see Betz, Essays, I22 n. 104).
392 The promise is here extended to Gentile Christians;
for discussion see below on SP/Luke 6:36.
393 See on this Betz, Galatians, appendix 2.
394 A citation and interpretation of 2 Sam 7: 14; see also
Rom 9:26; Rev 21:7 (cf. 2:26-27); Heb 1:5. See
Fohrer, TDNT 8.349-5I (B.5.b}; and Schweizer,
ibid., 389-9I (D.IV .I).
395 On the son of God and his friends see also Ps.-Clem.
Hom. 9.3-4.
396 The promise has its counterpart in the condem-
nation; see Rev 2I:8: "But as for the cowardly, the

141
 This Jewish-Christian concept of divine sonship differs
somewhat from Paul's in that according to the apostle
"sonship" is conferred on the Christian at baptism in
conjunction with the gift of the Holy Spirit (see Gal 4:6,
7; Rom 8:14-17). 397 Such conferral, however, does not
remove accountability of Christians in the last
judgment. 398 The difference seems to be that, while Jews
possess the promise by tradition, Gentile Christians must
be included by a special dispensation (see esp. Romans
9-11 ). The present pronouncement of sonship,
therefore, as Paul conceives of it, does not circumvent
the last judgment, but it puts Gentile Christians on the
same level as Jews. Both must face the last judgment and
give account (see also SM/Matt 7:21-23).
• 1 0 The eighth beatitude takes a special place for
reasons of form and content. Formally, it stands at the
end of the series of beatitudes stated in the third person
plural. The second line (vs lOb) repeats the second line
of the first beatitude (vs 3b), thus creating an indusia.
While the first set of four beatitudes emphasizes themes
of pursuing righteousness (vs 6), the second set of four
speaks of endurance for the sake of righteousness (cf. vss
6 and 10). Thus, the prominence of the dual concept of
righteousness is demonstrated. It is fundamental to the
entire SM in both respects, pursuing righteousness and
suffering because of it: one does not exist without the
other.
The question of the composition of the series of
beatitudes leaves us with two options. There could be
two sets of four beatitudes as I have indicated, each
ending on the notion of righteousness. 399 The number
four would have a parallel in SP /Luke 6:20b-24, where
four beatitudes are juxtaposed with four threats ("woes").
Or there could be two sets of 3+ 1 (vss 3-5+6, and vss 7-
9+ 10). The latter may be more probable because vss 3-5
describe situations of deprivation, motivating the
"hunger and thirst for righteousness" (vs 6), while vss 7-
9 have verbs describing human activities that meet with
persecution for the sake of righteousness. 400
Another question pertains to the sources from which
the eight beatitudes could have derived. Strecker
believes that two sets of three beatitudes were taken
from QMau, together with vs 5, which had been added
prior to Matthew in order to complete the number
seven, which, according to Strecker, plays an important
role in Matthew's Gospel. 401 The evangelist Matthew
then added vs 1 0 to create a series of eight beatitudes. 402
This analysis is, however, hardly convincing. Although
numerical symbolism plays a role in Matthew's Gospel,
no fixed system can be detected. The notion of
righteousness (fnKawuvv7J) is not the result of Matthew's
redactional insertion at this point, as Strecker maintains,
but that notion is an intrinsic element of the SM as a
whole.
The designation of the addressees in vs 1 Oa introduces
one of the most crucial issues of ancient thought,
persecution for the sake of righteousness: "Blessed are
those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness"
(p.aKd.pwt o~ O(Owryp.(vot lv(KW [ri/s] OtKawuvv7]s). 403
Contrary to what many assume, the experience of
being persecuted because of righteousness was not
original to Christianity. 404 Matthew is well aware that

faithless, and the obscene, the murderers, forni-
cators, sorcerers, idolators, and liars of every kind,
the lake that burns with sulfurous flames will be their
portion, and that is the second death" (REB). Cf.
SM/Matt 5:21-27,28-30, 30-31, 33-37; 7:21-23.
397 See Betz, Galatians, 209-12; Eduard Schweizer,
TDNT 8.389-92 (D.IV.1-2).
398 The evangelist Matthew agrees up to this point, but it
is noteworthy that he never calls the disciples (i.e.,
Christians) "sons of God." Cf. esp. Matt 25:34: "the
blessed ones of my Father"; the only son of God is
Christ (Matt 2:15; 3:17; 4:3, 6; 8:29; 11:25; 14:33;
16:16; 17:5; 26:63; 27:40, 43, 54). For Matthew,
peacemaking does not seem to have been of great
interest; outside the SM he mentions it only in 10:13,
34 (citing source material from Q). See also
Schnackenburg, "Seligpreisung," 170-7 4.
399 So Schniewind, Matthiius, 40; Grundmann, Matthiius,
199.
400 So Schlatter, Matthiius, 137; Strecker's objections
("Makarismen," 160 n. 1; Bergpredigt, 31 [Sermon,
30]) are not necessarily decisive.
401 See Strecker, Bergpredigt, 30-31 (Sermon, 29-30);
also "Markarismen," 259, 260.
402 See Strecker, Bergpredigt, 44 (Sermon, 42); idem,
"Makarismen," 267-68, following Wellhausen,
Evangelium Matthaei, 15, and many others; see also
Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.225; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 26;
Luz, Matthiius, 1.200 (Matthew, 1.226-27).
403 C adds the article rij~ before 5tKatouf>v'l~· probably in
parallelism with 5:6, 20; 6:1, 33; all of these verses
have the definite article, which, therefore, should be
read in vs 10 as well. Cf. Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.343-
44; Strecker, "Makarismen," 268.

142
 Matthew 5:3-12

such persecution threatens his church, but he reminds
his readers that they are not the first to suffer this
fate. 405 It has occurred in the past, and this history is
documented in Matthew's sources. Thus the passages in
Matt 10:16-33; 22:6; 23:29-39; 24:9-14 describe the
earlier history of persecution of the church. 406 This
history was "predicted" by Jesus in our passage in the SM.
Apart from Matthew, however, the complex of ideas
associated with persecution for the sake of righteousness
has had a long and intricate history.
The SM specifically applies the experience to
discipleship of which it is a constitutive element (vs 11 ),
but this experience is the result of theological doctrine
(vs 10). Consequently, vs 10 is not redundant, but it
spells out what it is that the disciples experience when
they are persecuted. 407 Persecution because of
righteousness was an important theme in ancient
thought, Jewish and Greek. The immediate background
for the SM was the Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom tradition,
in which Wis 2: 10 has become something like a locus
classicus: "Let us oppress the righteous poor man!" 408
The speakers of this passage are the "atheists" whose
beliefs are described in satirical form in Wis 1: 16-
2:24.409 The theme ofWis 2:10 is developed, perhaps
under the influence oflsa 52:13-53:12, 410 in Wis
2:12-20 (RSV):
12 Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our
actions;
he reproaches us for sin against the law,
and accuses us of sins against our training. 411
13 He professes to have knowledge of God,
and calls himself a child of the Lord. 41 2
14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
15 The very sight of him is a burden to us,
because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange.
16 We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
and he calls the last end ofthe righteous happy, 413
and boasts that God is his father. 414
17 Let us see whether his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of this
life;
18for if the righteous man is God's son, 415 he will
help him,
and he will deliver him from the hand of his
adversaries. 416

404 Against Strecker, "Makarismen," 268; idem, kingdom of God" (p.aK.ipLoL o! 7rTwxot Kat o! SLwKop.woL
Bergpredigt, 45 (Sermon, 42-43); Luz,Matthiius, 1.214 fv£KfV OtKatocrDvn~, Hr~. aVrWv fur tv 1J {3autAEla roV

(Matthew, 1.241-42). llwv).

405 See also SP /Luke 6:22; 1 Pet 3:14; 4:14; Barn. 7.11; 409 They are called in Wis 1:16: 'Au<fJii~ a~ Tat~ x<putv
PolycarpPhil. 2.3; Cos. Thorn. 68, 69a. See Menard, Kat Tot~ A.oyoL~ ("Godless [they are] by their hands and
Thomas, 169-71; Resch, Agrapha, 89-90; Apoc. Pet. their words"). Some scholars see in the chapter
16 (trans. in NTApoc 2.682; NTApok 2.577). Paul's influences of Greek philosophy, esp. anti-Epicurean
references to persecution are numerous; see 1 Thess polemics. See James M. Reese, Hellenistic Influence on
1:6; 2:2, 14-16; Gal1:13, 23; 1 Cor 15:9; etc. the Book oJWisdom and Its Consequences (AnBib 41;
406 Similarly Paul (seen. 405). On Matthew specifically Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1970) 111-13; David
see Descamps, Les justes (see above, n. 286), 157-63; Winston, Wisdom of Solomon (AB 43; Garden City,
Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.223-27, 227-43; 2.285-378; N.Y.: Doubleday, 1979) 119.
3.329-55; Douglas R. A. Hare, The Theme ofJewish 410 The fourth Servant Poem, however, may be an
Persecution of Christians in the Gospel of St. Matthew independent development of the same theme.
(SNTSMS 6; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 411 Cf. SM/Matt 5:17-48.
1967). 412 Cf. SM/Matt 5:9.
407 So also Wrege, Bergpredigt, 26-27. 413 LXX: p.a~<apl(<L ;uxaTa OLKalwv. Cf. SM/Matt 5:10,
408 RSV translation. The LXX has: KaTaSvvaur<vuwp.<v 11, 12; 7:21-23.
7rtVTJTa alKaLov. One should note the similarity 414 See SM/Matt 5:16,45, 48; 6:1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 14-15, 18,
between Wis 2:10, SM/Matt 5:3 and 5:10, and 26, 32; 7:11.
Polycarp Phil. 2.3: "Blessed are the poor and the 415 LXX: <1 y&p lunv oS{KaLO~ v!b~ ll<ov. Cf. SM/Matt 5:9.
persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the 416 Cf. SM/Matt 7:24-27; also 5:13, 33; 7:7-11; etc.

143
 19Let us test him with insult and torture, 41 7
that we might find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected.
Wisdom and prophecy obviously connect at this point.
The parallelism between Wis 2:12 and Isa 3:10 (LXX)
speaks for a common tradition: "Let us bind the
righteous, because he is inconvenient to us." 418 The
persecution of the prophets is a prominent theme in
those Old Testament parts that deal with them, 419
whereas the sufferings of the righteous 4 2° are a
recurring motif in the Psalms. 4 2 1
The prototype of it all is Job, whose suffering makes
his righteousness evident. 422 Later the theme becomes
prominent in apocalyptic literature; for example, in 1
Enoch 95.7 423 threats are issued:
Woe unto you, sinners, for you persecute the
righteous! For you shall be handed over and be
persecuted through oppression. Its yoke shall be
heavy upon you.
The persecuted righteous ones are comforted by
eschatological promises of reward; for example,
2 Bar. 48:48-50:
But now, let us cease talking about the wicked and
inquire about the righteous.
And I will tell about their blessedness;
And I shall not be silent about their glory which is
kept for them.
For surely, as you endured much labor in the short
time in which you live in this passing world,
So you will receive great light in that world which has
no end. 424
In Hellenisticjudaism, 425 in the Qumran texts, 426 and
in rabbinic literature, 427 the theme of the persecution of
the righteous became part of the ideology of martyrdom.
This entire complex of ideas and traditions, very diverse
in itself, was then absorbed by early Christianity. 4 2 8
One should not overlook the additional fact that the
theme of persecution of the righteous has had a long
history also in Greek thought. 429 In Plato the famous
passage Rep. 361e-362a focuses on Socrates, who
inquires about the nature of justice and compares the
righteous and the unrighteous. His dialogue partner,
Glaucon, proposes that a life of injustice commends itself
more than a life of justice:

417 Cf. SM/Matt 5:11,12. 103.9-15; 104.1-6.

418 The precise relationship is unclear; see Hans
Wildberger, jesaja Kapitel, 1-12 (BKAT; 2d ed.,
Neukirchen-VIuyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980) 118 425 For surveys see the literature above, nn. 419, 420.
(ET: Isaiah 1-12 [trans. Thomas H. Trapp;
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991] 134-35).
419 See the basic study by Odil H. Steck, Israel und das
gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur
Oberlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im
A/ten Testament, Spiitjudentum und Urchristentum
(WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1967).
420 See Lothar Ruppert, Der leidende Gerechte: Eine
motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum A/ten Testament
und zwischentestamentlichen Judentum (Wiirzburg:
Echter, 1972); idem, Der leidende Gerechte und seine
Feinde: Eine Wortfelduntersuchung (Wiirzburg: Echter,
1973); Karl-Theodor Kleinknecht, Der leidende
Gerechtfertigte: Die alttestamentliche Tradition vom
"leidenden Gerechten" und ihre Rezeption bei Paulus
(WUNT 2.13; 2ded.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1987); Yaakov Elman, "The Suffering of the
Righteous in Palestinian and Babylonian Sources,"
JQR 80 (1990) 315-39.
421 See, e.g., Pss 7:1-17; 31:15; 69:26; 109:16; 119:86.
422 See, e.g. ,Job 13:20-27; 19:22, 28.
423 Trans. according to OTP 1. 76; see also 1 Enoch
424 Trans. according to OTP 1.376; see also 2 Bar. 52.5-
7; 54.16-18.
426 In Qumran, the persecution of the "teacher of
righteousness" is an important concem (e.g.,
1QpHab 11.4-8; CD 1.20). See Braun, Radikalismus,
1.39, 61-62,83-84, 130-31; Dupont, Beatitudes,
3.349-51; Ben Zion Wacholder, The Dawn of
Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of
Righteousness (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College,
1983)91, 104,186-92.
427 See the passages collected in Str-B 1.220-26.
428 See Wolfgang Nauck, "Freude im Leiden: Zum
Problem einer urchristlichen V erfolgungstradition,"
ZNW 46 (1955) 68-80; Sam K. Williams,jesus' Death
as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept
(Harvard Dissertations in Religion 2; Missoula,
Mont.: Scholars, 1975); Theofried Baumeister, Die
Anfiinge der Theologie des Martyriums (MBTh 45;
Munster: Aschendorff, 1980); Wolfgang Stegemann,
Zwischen Synagoge und Obrigkeit: Zur historischen
Situation der lukanischen Christen (FRLANT 152;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) 113-
34.
429 See Emst Benz, Der gekreuzigte Gerechte bei Plato, im
Neuen Testament und in der a/ten Kirche (AAWLM.G

144

What they will say is this: that such being his
disposition the just man will have to endure the lash,
the rack, chains, the branding-iron in his eyes, and
finally, after every extremity of suffering, he will be
crucified, and so will learn his lesson that not to be but
to seem just is what we ought to desire. 430
Socrates became the prototype of the persecuted
righteous man. Plato developed this character especially
in the Apology and in the Phaedo. 431 Xenophon, 43 2 the
Cynic and Stoic traditions, 433 and the later Platonic
Academy 434 also carried on the theme in various forms.
Imitatio Socratis became the literary and ethical ideal.
In trials of philosophers the defendant often played
the role of Socrates. At some point this venerable
tradition became connected with Christian teaching;
1950.12; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1950); Hildebrecht
Hommel, "Der gekreuzigte Gerechte," in his
Sebasmata, 2.75-82; Armand Delatte, "Lesage-
temoin dans Ia philosophie stolco-cynique," Bulletin
de la classe des lettres et des sciences morales et politiques de
l'Academie Royale de Belgique 39 (1953) 166-86.
430 Trans. by Paul Shorey in the LCL edition of Plato,
Republic, 1.125. The passage has had an impact on
patristic literature also, not to mention the later
philosophical tradition (esp. Cicero De Rep. 3.17 .27).
For references see Benz, Der gekreuzigte Gerechte
(above, n. 429), passim; Klaus Doring, Exemplum
Socratis: Studien zur Sokratesnachwirkung in der kynisch-
stoischen Popularphilosophie der Kaiserzeit und im jrilhen
Christentum (Hermes-Einzelschriften 42; Wiesbaden:
Steiner, 1979) 145 n. 13.
431 See Plato Phaedo liSa, at the end of the work: "Such
was the end, Echecrates, of our friend, who was, as
we may say, of all those of his time whom we have
known, the best and wisest and most righteous man"
(b.plurov KaL li.AA.w~ f/>poutiJ.Wr&.rov Kal Oucatorc:Zrov).
Trans. by Harold N. Fowler in the LCL edition of
Plato, 1.403.
432 See esp. XenophonMem. 1.1-2.
433 See Delatte, "Le sage-temoin" (above, n. 429);
Wilhelm Nestle, "Asebieprozesse," RAG I (1950)
735-40; Betz, Lukian, II 0-16; Doring, Exemplum
Socratis (above, n. 430), passim; Thomas C.
Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial
(Princeton: Princeton University, 1989).
434 A good example is Plutarch's Life ofPhocion, esp. 9.4;
13.3; 24.2; 35-36; 37.3; 38.1; see Hans-Joachim
Gehrke, Phokion: Studien zur Erfassung seiner
historischen Gestalt (Zetemata 64; Munich: Beck,
1976) 139-55. Aristides, the hero of another of
Plutarch's Lives, has the byname "the righteous" (o
Matthew 5:3-12
perhaps this connection was made already in the New
Testament itself. 435
As far as the SM is concerned, only the general theme
is presupposed and affirmed in vs 10. Remarkably, no
attempt is made to connect the theme with the life and
death of Jesus. This is all the more surprising because
other Christian writings base entire christologies on the
concept of Jesus as the persecuted righteous man. 436 For
the evangelist Matthew the theme plays an important
role, 437 but not in the SM, where it is completely
absent. 438 I regard this absence of a christology and
indeed of any reference to the suffering ofJesus as
evidence that the SM comes from a pre-Matthean
source. 439
L:l.lKatos); seeAristides 2.2, 5; 4.1, 4; 6.1; 7.1, 6; 26.6.
Furthermore, see Tacitus Ann. 13.49; 14.12, 48, 49;
15.20; 16.21-35.
435 The explicit connection between Wis 2:10, 12; Isa
3:10; and Plato Rep. 36le is made in Martyrium
Apollonii 38, ed. Musurillo, Acts, 100-101: "After
teaching us this doctrine vigorously and persuading
us with many arguments, he [sc. Jesus] himself
attained a great reputation for virtue. Still he was
despised by the ignorant, like the philosophers and
just men who lived before him. For the wicked have
no use for the righteous. Wherefore it is written that
the ignorant say unjustly, 'Let us imprison the just
man, for he is useless to us.' So too one of the Greeks
has written for us to hear.... " Collections of names
of persecuted righteous men are found in 1 Clement
45 (see also 4.9, 13; 5.2; 6.2); Tertullian Scorpiace 8-
9, with reference also to Matt 5:10-12. For further
references see Benz, Der gekreuzigte Gerechte, 31-45;
Doring, Exemplum Socratis, 143-61; Winston, Wisdom
ofSolomon, 119.
436 See the study of Lothar Ruppert, jesus als der leidende
Gerechte? Der Wegjesu im Lichte eines alt- und
zwischentestamentlichen Motivs (SBS 59; Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972).
437 See esp. Matt 27:19, 24, 25, 54; Ruppert, jesus, 56-
57.
438 See also Luke 11:54;Jas 5:6, 10-11; I Pet 1:21-25;
3:18; 1 John 2:1; Acts 3:14-15; etc.;Justin Dial.
137.3; Clement Alex. Strom. 5.14, § 102.2-3.
439 See Betz, "The Problem ofChristology in the
Sermon on the Mount," in Theodore W. Jennings
Jr., ed., Text and Logos: The Humanistic Interpretation of
the New Testament (FS for Hendrikus W. Boers)
(Atlanta: Scholars, 1990) 191-209; reprinted in
Betz, Synoptische Studien, 230-48.
145
 In what way then is the theme of persecution for the
sake of righteousness interpreted in the SM? Its
prominence for the whole of the SM would be apparent
from the place vs 10 occupies at the end of the sequence
ofbeatitudes in vss 3-10, but other passages in the SM
underscore the significance. . In the SM, the eighth beatitude appropriately forms
The perfect participle of ol O£O!WY!J.~Vot indicates that
persecution has occurred in the past and continues in the
present (see vss 11-12). 440 The phrase "because of
righteousness" (~v£K£V [T7/s] OtKatou6v1Js) means that those
so designated are persecuted because of their pursuit of
righteousness. Since striving for righteousness is the
highest goal for the SM (see esp. 6:33; also 5:6, 20; 6:1;
7:21-23), persecution for the sake of that goal must also
be the highest test and virtue. This is the reason why the
eighth beatitude occupies such a prominent place.
This central position of the beatitude can also be
justified for more general reasons. The classic definition
of justice in Ulpian's Digestae states: "Justice is a steady
and enduring will to render unto everyone his right. The
basic principles are: to live honorably, not to harm any
other person, to render to each his own. "441 If taken
seriously, especially the words "a steady and enduring
will," this definition implies suffering for the sake of
justice. Thus, persecution for the sake of justice is an
integral part of the pursuit of justice, even its most
crucial component.
Suffering because of righteousness is also part of the
human predicament generally. 442 This experience was
discussed in antiquity in a variety of ways, depending on
the cultural and religious context. Judaism considered it
to be the greatest test for the righteous, the supreme
means of divine education, or the proper compensation
for the sins of others. Greek philosophy connected the
matter with doctrines concerning the goal (rb..os) of
enlightened existence. 44 3
an inclusio together with the first beatitude (5:3). It also
forms a climax: If humility is the most elementary of the
virtues, persecution for the sake of righteousness is the
highest. Thus, the condicio humana comprises not only
situations of deprivation and misery but also those
demonstrating human dignity and strength. Indeed, all
of the virtues of vss 3-1 0 are testimonies to human
strength, rather than weakness. All of this is said to a
community that at present lives under distress,
harassment, and persecution (vss 11-12; see also 5:44). It
is therefore natural that the test in what follows turns to
the immediate needs of the community, the situation of
its own suffering (vss 11-12). In conclusion, the eighth
beatitude in summing up the beatitudes of vss 3-1 0
details both the passive and the active aspects of what
later on (6:33) is stated as the basic telos of the SM: "Seek
first the kingdom [of God] and his righteousness. "444
The second line ofthe beatitude (vs lOb) repeats the
second line of vs 3b: "for theirs is the kingdom of the
heavens" (Cfn avrwv ffTT!V ~ f3autA£La TWV ovpavwv). 445 For
the SM, the meaning of the inclusio is clear: the sequence
of virtues in vss 3a-9a, combined with the eschatological
promises in vss 4b-9b, is held together by the theme of
the kingdom of the heavens, in which righteousness
reigns and will ultimately prevail. 446

440 See Zahn, Matthiius, 190 n. 36; A. H. McNeile, The
Gospel according to Matthew (London: Macmillan,
1915) 53; Grundmann,Matthiius, 132; C. F. D.
Moule, An Idiom Book ofNew Testament Greek
(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1955) 14;
Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.333 n. 5; BDF, § 342.
441 Ulpian Dig. 1.1.1 0: "lustitia est constans et perpetua
voluntas ius summum cuique tribuendi. I uris
praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non
laedere, suum cuique tribuere." For discussion see
also below on SM/Matt 5:20, 38-42.
442 On suffering as part of the human predicament see,
e.g., Epictetus Diss. 2.10.5-6: "if the good and
excellent man knew what was going to happen, he
would help on the processes of disease and death and
maiming, because he would realize that this
allotment comes from the orderly arrangement of
the whole." See also Bonhoffer, Ethik, 20-39.
443 For this topic see Isaak Heinemann, Die Lehre von der
Zweckbestimmung des Menschen im griechisch-romischen
Altertum und im judischen Mittelalter (Breslau: Marcus,
1926).
444 So also Strecker, "Makarismen," 268, who, however,
places too much emphasis on the individual deed of
righteousness.
445 Dreads ~<J"Tat ("will be") instead of lcrTtV ("is"). If it is
not a scribal error, the change assimilates vs 10 to vs
11.
446 So also Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.224; Wrege, Bergpredigt,
27; Gaechter, Die literarische Kunst, 22-23; Strecker,
"Makarismen," 260 n. 1.

146
 Matthew 5:3-12

• 11 The ninth beatitude turns from what thus far have
been affirmations in the third person plural to a direct
address in the second person plural. 447 Apart from these
formal differences, there is, however, no break in the
logic between vss 10 and 11. As already indicated, vss 3-
10 also imply appeals, though indirect, so that the change
is merely from implicit to explicit appeal, a change that is
deemed not only logical but necessary. Furthermore,
remember that the whole unit vss 3-12 is the result of
the redaction of the SM. Therefore, the differences at
this point between SM/Matt 5:11 and its parallel in
SP /Luke 6:22 reveal the need to come to terms with the
concrete situations of the addressees, that is, the
communities behind the texts. That this SM passage has
an unusually large number of textual variants can be
taken as evidence that the pressure on this text continued
in the early tradition and led scribes to apply it to
themselves. The following treatment takes up the
problems presented by this beatitude one by one.
The composition of the ninth beatitude is char-
acteristically different from the preceding ones in other
ways. Apart from the change to the second person plural
there is no specification of the addressees. They are
simply addressed in vs 11a by "Blessed are you" (p.aK6.pwl
(uu). The reasons for the change are mainly two: vs 11
applies what has been said generally in vs 10, so that the
conditional clause in vs 11 describes actual situations of
persecution for the sake of litKawut'lv7J ("righteousness").
Those who experience these situations are therefore led
to conclude that they are in effect suffering for
righteousness. The persons are those who have
committed themselves to the teachings contained in the
SM. They regard themselves as followers of Jesus, and it
is "because of me" (lvEKEV (fLov) that they accept the
harassment and persecution.
This correspondence between those addressed as
"you" and the speaker Jesus ("me") adds a rare historical
dimension to the Beatitudes. For the first time in the SM
Jesus is identified as speaker, 448 and the fact is also stated
that an identifiable group of persons have responded
positively to his teaching and are willing to bear the
consequences. 449 This group of persons are the disciples
for whom the SM was written; their leaders were
presumably those who composed the text. For them
Jesus figures as their authoritative master and
teacher. 450 By implication, his teaching is viewed as a
matter of the past reaching into the present, and thus it is
not merely a prediction of the future. 451 Therefore, vs
11 presupposes that the group has had a history, albeit a
short one. At the beginning of this history stands Jesus as
the implied author of the SM who has spoken the words
in the past so as to address the intended hearers and
readers in the present. Notably, these presuppositions do
not contain a trace of a higher christology. The phrase
"because of me" says no more than that the reason for
the persecution is Jesus' teaching, which is dedicated to
righteousness. Thus, persecution for the sake of such
teaching and such a teacher is to be expected.
Introduced by a £1Tav-clause, vs 11 b sets forth three
situations of hostility: "if they insult you and persecute
(you) and say every kind of evil (things) against you"
(£1Tav ovHliluwuw VfLOS Katlitwfwuw Kat Ei'?Twuw ?Tav
?TOV7JpOv Ka8' V/J-wv). 452 The sentence appears overloaded
because two qualifications are appended at the end:
"provided they are lying" (o/wli&/A-wot), and "because of
me" (lvEKEv (/A-ov). The result is that this crowded
sentence has been a crux interpretum all along, a fact that
is also demonstrated by the many variant readings which
reflect attempts at improvements.

44 7 The change has been discussed extensively; see the 450 See below on 5:17: ~AOov ("I have come").
commentaries on the SM and on Matthew, esp. Zahn, 451 See below on 7:24-27.
Matthiius, 193; also David Daube, "The Last 452 The text is that of Nestle-Aland. Some witnesses (D
Beatitude," in his NT and Rabbinic Judaism, 196-201; (33] h k [syc] mae bo) have a different word order
JohnS. Kloppenborg, "Blessing and Marginality: and put "persecute" in the first place. This variant
The 'Persecution Beatitude' in Q, Thomas and Early seems the result of catchword connection between
Christianity," Foundations and Facets Forum 2 (1986) vss 10 and 11.
36-56; idem, QParallels, 24-25.
448 The first person singular is later taken up by >..tyw
vp.lv ("I say to you") in 5:18, 20, 22, 26, 28, 32, 34,
44; 6:2, 5, 16, 25, 29; cf. 7:23.
449 See below on 5:13-16.

147
 To begin with the two qualifications at the end of the
sentence, thorough examination of the textual evidence
has led to questioning the originality of £vMp.£VOL
("provided they are lying"). 453 The word is missing in
some manuscripts 454 and in the parallel SP /Luke
6:22. 455 Consequently, Nestle-Aland puts it in square
brackets, 456 while Greeven's Synopsis omits it
altogether. 457 Although the textual evidence is
ambivalent, internal reasons speak in favor of retaining
the word. Indeed, both qualifications show critical self-
reflection such as occurs also elsewhere in the SM.
The first qualification ("providing they are lying")
acknowledges the temptation, especially by a group
Q l_~' .
1__1.·. •
under severe pressure, to ward off every kmd of
criticism, even if justified, as "persecution for the sake of
righteousness." Such defensiveness is, however, not
righteousness but unrighteousness. 458
Similarly, the second qualification ("because of me")
makes sure that genuine persecution has its proper cause
in Jesus, that is, the teaching of the SM, 459 rather than in
the improper conduct or teaching of the members. 460
The phrase "because of me" can legitimately refer only
to the master and never to the disciple. 461 Consequently,
associating with Jesus must not become a mere pretense
and cover-up for improper behavior.
A special problem is presented by the parallel in
SP /Luke 6:22 and its differences from the SM. 46 2 The
address "Blessed are you" is the same, but the conditional
clause in the latter part of the statement describes
somewhat different situations. SP /Luke 6:22 has two
llTav-clauses connected by Kal ("and"), describing four
situations of harassment. The first of them ("when people
hate you") invokes the general topos of odium generis
humani, while the three others ("exclusion," "reviling,"
"throwing out the name as evil") point to specific
experiences the community has had. They seem to focus
on Gentile Christians being excluded from the (Jewish or
Jewish-Christian?) community. 463 By comparison,
SM/Matt 5:11 has only one llmv-clause and three
situations describing defamation and maltreatment of
persons who remain insiders of the Jewish community;
the three situations do not refer to exclusion or
expulsion.
The surprising occurrence of the title "Son of man" in
SP /Luke 6:22, as compared with "because of me" in
SM/Matt 5:11, does not mean that the Matthean

453 See Zahn, Matthiius, 193; Konrad Kohler, "Die
urspn1ngliche Form der Seligpreisungen," ThStK 91
(1918) 157-92, esp. 158-63; Dupont, Beatitudes,
1.236-38; 3.334-40; Akira Satake, "Das Leiden der
Junger 'urn meinetwillen,'" ZNW 67 (1976) 4-19;
Michael W. Holmes, "The Text of Matthew 5.11,"
NTS 32 (1986) 283-86.
454 D it sy' Tertullian do not read it, but these witnesses 461 The phrase "because of me" is attested also in Matt
are in the minority.
455 See below on SP /Luke 6:22 and the parallels in Matt
10:22;Jas 2:6.c.7; 1 Pet4:14-16 (cf. 2:12); 1 Clem.
60.3 (iiaiKws).
456 For the arguments see Metzger, Textual Commentary,
12-13. What the committee attributes to the scribes,
the author /redactor of the SM could just as well
have done himself.
457 Greeven, Synopsis, 31, with the critical apparatus.
458 See SM/Matt 5:13b-c; 5:15; 7:1-5; cf. also Paul in I 463 See below on SP /Luke 6:22.
Cor 9:27; 2 Cor 13:5; Gal6:4.
459 Sa take ("Das Leiden," 11) is right in saying that the
phrase lV<K<V Ef'OV ("because of me") representS the
oldest stage of the tradition. If Mark 8:35 and 10:29
add "and because of the gospel," this is a secondary
interpretation reflecting further development. To
the point is also the variant reading in D it (lv<KEV
a&KaiOIT,\V1jS ("because of righteousness")) because it
emphasizes that the issue is not the person of jesus
but his teaching. The variant in sy•·c lv<K<V rov
ov6p.anls p.ov ("because of my name") reflects the
experience that the cause is the pronouncement of
the name at present rather than the person in the
past (cf. also Luke 21: 12).
460 Cf. SM/Matt 5: 19; also Matt 10:24; 23:8-12.
10:18, 39; 16:25;cf. 19:5,29. Itisanoldphrase,
pre-Matthean in origin (see Mark 8:35 par.; 10:7
par.; 10:29 par.; 13:9 par.), with SM/Matt 5:11 most
likely being its oldest attestation. In contrast,
Strecker ("Makarismen," 269-70; idem, Bergpredigt,
47 [Sermon, 44-45]) and Luz (Matthiius, 1.202
[Matthew, 1.229]) attribute it to Matthean redaction.
462 See Wrege, Bergpredigt, 21-23; Strecker, Bergpredigt,
46-47 (Sermon, 44-45).

148
 Matthew 5:3-12

redactor omitted the Son of man title; 464 Matthew has
no objections elsewhere to this title. 465 Rather, its
absence in SM is evidence that the source Matthew used
did not contain it; the SM has no interest in "Son of man"
as a christological title. 46 6
The first type of harassment is ovnol(nv ("reproach,"
"revile," "heap insults on someone"). 467 It occurs only
here in the SM, but it stands in third place in the SP-
parallel (Luke 6:22). Other early Christian paraenesis
shows that it is a topos. See 1 Pet 4: 14: "if you are reviled
because of[or: in] the name of Christ" (e1 ovnol(eu8e lv
ov&p.an XptuTov). 468 The topos came originally from
Jewish wisdom literature 469 and has found its way into
the passion narratives, especially the story of the two
criminals at the cross (Mark 15:32// Matt 27:44). 470 1
Clem. 16.15 refers to Ps 21:7-8 (LXX) as a proof-text for
Jesus' humility. The term seems to be traditionally
associated with the persecution of the righteous. 471
The second situation is described by otcf>KE£V ("perse-
cute"), a term that has previously occurred in vs 1 0 and
will occur again in vs 44. Therefore, persecution seems
to rank as a most serious threat against the community of
the disciples. In vs 11 b persecution is named in the
middle position between two other terms defining it
further. New Testament passages outside the SM
indicate that "persecution" was experienced as the hostile
reaction by Christians more generally, which explains
why the terminology plays such an important role in the
tradition. Peculiar to the usage of otcf>KnV in the SM is
that persecution is done not simply by outsiders but by
people outside the group of disciples, people who are
simultaneously insiders of the larger community. In
other words, this persecution seems to occur between
Jews, with the group of the disciples for which the SM
was written at the receiving end. 47 2 This suggestion can
be supported by the evidence found in Paul's letters.
Paul as a Jew persecuted other Jews (that is, those who
were not observing the law in the way he thought it
should be observed), and after his conversion to
Christianity he in turn was persecuted by other Jews and
Jewish Christians. 4 7 3 Does this peculiarity also explain
the absence of the term "persecute" from SP /Luke 6:22,
which addresses Gentile Christians?
The third situation is characterized by a strange
expression not often used in New Testament writings, 474
where Kara.\a.\e'i:'v ("defame") 475 and 1f!evoop.aprvpe'i:'v
("bear false witness") 476 are more common. "Speaking all
kinds of evil (things) against someone" amounts to
defamation and slander, issues treated more extensively

464 Against Strecker, "Makarismen," 269-70; idem,
Bergpredigt, 4 7 (Sermon, 45); Luz, Matthiius, 1.202
(Matthew, 1.229). • Acts 7:52; etc.
465 Matt8:3;9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8; 12:32,40; 13:37,
41; 16:13, 27; 17:9, 12, 22; 18:11; 19:28; 20:18, 28;
24:27, 30, 37, 39, 44; 25:31; 26:2,24, 45, 64. In
10:32, Matthew has ~yC:, ("I") instead of "Son of man"
(cf. 23:34). These instances reflect differences in the
sources, rather than redaction by the evangelist
himself (differently, Manson, Sayings, 48; Dupont,
Beatitudes, 1.238-43; 3.339-40; Strecker, "Makaris-
men," 269-70; Luz, Matthiius, 1.202 n. 22 (Matthew,
I .229 n. 22).
466 So also Wrege, Bergpredigt, 22 n. 4 with further
references.
467 So BAGD, s.v. 3vEI~l(w, 1.
468 See also 1 Tim 4:10 v.l.; Heb 10:33; 11 :26; 13:13.
469 See LXX Pss 68:10b; also 34:7; 41:10; 43:I6; 54:I2;
68:9; 73:10, 18; 88:51; etc.; T. Rub. 4:2; T. Levi 10:4;
etc. For the term see Johannes Schneider, "llvEI~os
KTA.," TDNT 5.238-42; BAGD, s.v. 3vEI~l(w KTA.
470 Rom 15:3 also quotes Ps 68:10 LXX.
471 For rabbinic parallels see Str-B 1.226.
472 See also Matt 10:23; 23:34 par.;John 5:16; 15:20;
4 73 See Gal 1:13, 23; 4:29; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:6; 1 Tim
1:13; Acts 8:1; 9:4-5; 22:4, 7, 8; 26:11, 14, 15. For
Paul being persecuted see Gal5:11; 1 Cor 4:12; 2
Cor 4:9; 12:10; Rom 8:35; etc. See on the whole
John T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An
Examination of the Catalogues ofHardships in the
Corinthian Correspondence (SBLDS 99; Atlanta:
Scholars, 1988); Martin Ebner, Leidenslisten und
Apostelbrief Untersuchungen zu Form, Motivik und
Funktion der Peristasenkataloge bei Paulus (FB 66;
Wiirzburg: Echter, 1991).
474 See Acts 28:21; 3 John 10, especially; also BAGD, s.v.
1TOV7JpJs, l.b.,8.
475 SeeJas 4:11; 1 Pet 2:1, 12; 3:16; also 2 Cor 12:20;
Rom 1:30; for further references see BAGD, s.v.
Kara>..a"Atw; Gerhard Kittel, TDNT 4.3-5.
476 See Mark 14:55-64 par.; Matt 27:13;John 18:29-
30. See also BAGD, s.v. ,Ywaop.aprvptw.

149
in the Old Testament, 477 in Philo, 478 and in rabbinic
texts. 479 The passion narratives of the Gospels include
the matter (Mark 14:55-64 par.), and it became a topos
in Christian texts having to do with persecution and
martyrdom. 480
In the ancient world, defamation and slander were
recognized as hazards the righteous must expect and
face. Instructions to this effect are found in the Old
Testament, 481 especially in wisdom texts, 482 and in
Greek philosophical literature, where the trial of
Socrates with its preposterous accusations and false
witnesses serves as the prime example. 483 Thus, every
philosopher worthy of the name will have his Anytus and
Meletus. 484
If defamation is the issue, variant readings seem to be
the result of attempts at clarification. 485 Some wit-
nesses486 add o! Civ8pcJJ1roL ("the people") as the subject of
the <lrav-clause. 487 Or numerous witnesses add frijp.a
("legal matter") after ?Tav ?TOV7Jpov. 488 The absolute ro
?TOV7Jpov ("evil") is an important term in the SM and
relates the issue of defamation to other passages. 489
In conclusion, one may say with confidence that issues
such as the definitive break between Judaism and
Christianity, 490 the exclusion of Christians from the
synagogue, 491 or even the famous Birkat ha-Minim 492 are
not implied in the language of vs 11. The situations
depicted in this beatitude reflect what appears to be
earlier situations of harassment and persecution within
Judaism. By contrast, SP /Luke 6:22 speaks of exclusion
or perhaps refusal of admittance of Gentile Chris-
tians.493 Neither the SM nor the SP presupposes a
definitive break between the two religions. As we know,
this final separation of the two religions must have
occurred after the fall of Jerusalem (c. 70 CE) and after
the new religion of Christianity had established its own
identity. The SM shows a situation that is still far away
from this final separation, but, as Matthew's Gospel as a
whole points out, situations such as those described in the

477 See LXX Exod 20:13; Lev 19:16; Ps 12:2-5; Prov
12:22; Eccl7:1; Sir 28:13-18; Ps. Sol. 15.3.
4 78 See, e.g., Philo Spec. leg. 3.80-82.
479 See esp. 'Abot 4.17, and on the whole topic Stephen
M. Passamaneck, "The Talmudic Concept of
Defamation," Revue internationale des droits de
l'antiquite, 3d series, 12 (1965) 21-54; reprinted in
his Studies in Jewish jurisprudence (New York:
Hermon, 1976) 4.247-80.
480 See Matt 10:17-19// Luke 12:11-12; Mark 13:9
par.; Acts 6:13; 21:28; 25:8, etc.
481 See, e.g., LXX Pss 26:12; 42:1; 108:2; 119:2-3.
482 LXX Prov 6:17, 19; 12:17; 19:5, 9; 21:28; 25:18;
etc.; Sir 11:31; 19:15; 26:5; 51:2;Ps. Sol. 12.1-6. For
further references see Str-B 1.226-31.
483 See esp. Plato Ep. 7, 325b-c; Xenophon Mem. 1.2.
For a summary see Guthrie, Greek Philosophy, 3.61-
64.
484 See Betz, Lukian, 110-11; Doring, Exemplum Socratis,
173, index, s.v. Anklage und Prozess.
485 The following is based on the text in Aland, Synopsis,
75.
486 0133 (aur* g 1 q vg') sy'·'.
487 "The people" (oi liv8pw7ro1) are the typical outsiders
also elsewhere in the SM; see 5:13, 16, 19; 6:1, 2, 5,
14, 16, 18; 7:9, 12. Cf. also Matt 10:17, 32-33;
12:36; 16:13; etc.
488 C W 0 j1.13 33. 892. 1006. 1342. 1506. 9Jl q syP·h
Origen.
489 See on SM/Matt 5:37, 39; 6:13; cf. 5:45; 6:23; 7:11,
17, 18.
490 Against Davies, Setting, 272-86; Werner Stenger,
"Die Seligpreisung der Geschmahten (Mt 5, 11-12;
Lk 6, 22-23)," Kairos 28 (1986) 33-60, esp. 43-44.
Even Matt 10: 17-25; 23:34; Mark 13:9 par.; Acts
5:41;Jas 2:6-7 do not speak of such a break, but
John 16:2 (see also 9:22; 12:42) certainly does. See
also Schiirer, History, 2.431-33.
491 I agree with Steven T. Katz, "Issues in the Separation
ofJudaism and Christianity after 70 CE: A
Reconsideration," JBL 103 (1984) 43-76, esp. 50.
492 See esp. Reuben Kimelman, "Birkat Ha-Minim and
the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish
Prayer in Late Antiquity," in E. P. Sanders, ed.,
Jewish-Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2: Aspects ofjudaism
in the Graeco-Roman Period (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1981) 226-44; William Horbury, "The Benediction
of the Minim and Early Jewish-Christian Contro-
versy," JTS 33 (1982) 19-61; ShayeJ. D. Cohen,
"The Significance ofYavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and
the End of Jewish Sectarianism," HUCA 55 (1984)
27-53.
493 See below on SP /Luke 6:22. Cf. Wrege, Bergpredigt,
20-23; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 46 (Sermon, 44).

150
 Matthew 5:3-12

SM led ultimately to the separation. 4 9 4
• 12 .The tenth and last beatitude has an altogether
different form. Instead of continuing the initial "Blessed
are ... " in vss 3-11, it begins by issuing a double call for
joy: "Rejoice and be glad" (xa{p£T£ Kat ayaA.A.tau8£). 495
This double call appeals to the hearers or readers for
what amounts to a liturgical response, 496 much like
"hallelujah" or similar exclamations. 497 As the second
part makes clear (vs 12b-c), gladness and jubilation are
called for at the present time, not only in the eschato-
logical future (as in SP /Luke 6:23). 498 The two
imperatives are more than simple duplication; they
describe a sequence, first the reaction of joy and then its
expression by exclamation.
Formally, the double call in vs 12 raises the question
about the relationship of vs 12 to vs 11 and beyond to
the other beatitudes. Some scholars have taken vss 11
and 12 together as one beatitude, 499 but this is
unconvincing. Parallels of other beatitudes show that vs
12a introduces a new element. 500 Another question is
whether vs 12 can be treated as another beatitude, or
whether the series of beatitudes in vss 3-11 ends with a
different form-critical statement.
The change introduced by vs 12a is that it calls for a
response by the hearers or readers to the messages they
have received in vss 3-11, the final one addressing them
directly (vs 11). It is, therefore, quite fitting that the
series of blessings in vss 3-11 ends with the hearers'
response of jubilation. 501 The question also arises
whether this response reflects actual liturgical practice or
whether it is merely a literary device.
Though never repeated in the SM, the appeal is basic
to it. Eschatological joy provides much of the motivation
for the ethics of the SM (cf. the attitude of good will in
5:26, or the cheerful face in 6: 17). 502 Although the SM
never uses the term "gospel" (d;ayy€A.wv), the com-
bination of blessings and the call for joy in vss 3-12
provides almost a description of it. 503
V e,rse 12b-c contains dogmatic statements justifying
not only the call for joy but also the beatitudes in vss 3-
11. These dogmatic statements simply furnish
information, presumably not unknown to the recipients
but needed at this point in order to understand that the
response called for is theologically legitimate.

494 Differently, Strecker, "Makarismen," 269; idem,
Bergpredigt, 46-47 (Sermon, 44-45), who attributes
the passage to Matthew's redaction. According to
Strecker, Matthew writes from the Gentile-Christian
point of view, so that the persecutions do not come
from fellow Jews but from non-Christian Gentiles.
This conclusion, however, seems to contradict
Strecker's earlier suggestion (Bergpredigt, 45 [Sermon,
43]) calling the tradition "old." If the tradition is as
old as he says it is, it must reflect persecutions prior
to Matthew's own time. Matt 24:9b (see Strecker,
Bergpredigt, 46 n. 69 [Sermon, 44•n. 69]) is Matthew's
own evaluation from a later perspective (so
apparently also Luz, Matthiius, 1.215 [Matthew,
1.243]).
495 The addition of £v EKELVT/ rfi ~p.l.pq. ("on that day")
read by sy•·c is clearly an intrusion from the parallel
in SP /Luke 6:23a.
496 For the combination of xalpw and aya>.>.uiw see also
Luke 1:14 (cf. 1:44; Acts 2:46); 1 Pet 1:8 (cf. 1:6);
4: 13; Rev 19:7; 1 Clem. 63.2; Mart. Polyc. 18.2; for
the imperative xalp•r• ("be glad") alone see Phil2:18,
28; 3:1; 4:4; 1 Thess 5:16. See RudolfBultmann,
"aya>.>..aw Kr>..," TDNT 1.18-20; Dupont, Beatitudes,
2.320-24; Hans Conzelmann, "xalpw KrA.," TDNT
9.359-72, esp. 366-68 (D.1-2); Otto Michel,
"Freude," RAG 8 (1970) 348-418, esp 392; BAGD,
s.v. ayaAAiaw, aya>.>.lacn~.
497 See Rev 19:1, 3, 4, 6; BAGD, s.v. xalpw, aya>.>..aw.
For liturgical exclamations generally see Bultmann,
TDNT 1.18-20; Conzelmann, TDNT9.362, 371-72
(A.3 and F).
498 See below on SP /Luke 6:23; cf. also Dupont,
Beatitudes, 1.244-50; 2.285-350; 3.38-39, 270.
499 So Strecker, "Makarismen," 268-71; idem,
Bergpredigt, 48 (Sermon, 43); and Luz, Matthiius,
1.215 (Matthew, 1.242-43), who combines vss 11 and
12a and calls vs 12b-c an appendix (Anhang).
500 See also Betz, Essays, 24-25.
501 See also the Introduction to the Beatitudes above.
Noteworthy is the phrase "Enter into the joy of your
Lord" (Matt 25:21, 23): "entering" can be compared
to the Beatitudes, while "joy" describes the reaction
of those admitted to the kingdom of God.
502 Cf. the cynical laughter of the rich in SP /Luke 6:25.
503 On this point see the Introduction above,
pp. 95-96.

151
 The !In-clause of vs 12b provides ari immediate reason
for vs 12a: "for your reward is great in the heavens" (!In b
J.I.LU8os VJJ.OOV 'lTOAVS EV TOLS ovpavo£s). 504 This !In-clause is
parallel to the similar clauses in vss 3b-10b and sums up
what they have presented in more detail. Although vs
12b has no verb, it is self-evident that the reward exists in
the present. SM/Matt 6:20 leads one to assume that the
"reward" (J.I.Lu8os) is stored with God ("in the heavens"
[plural]), waiting for those who are entitled to it. 505 Since
that reward is "theirs" already now,jubilation is in
order. 506
This doctrine of reward requires further explanation.
Generally speaking, it is a jewish doctrine, here
attributed to the theology of Jesus. 507 In the SM, reward
is not a "gift" given by God through grace. 508 Rather,
reward is to be claimed by those who are entitled to it as
a matter of justice. Thus, this entitlement is conditional.
For the SM, the conditions are set by the teachings of
Jesus in the SM: If the disciples are faithful to these
teachings, they are entitled to this "treasure in heaven."
Their faithfulness does include access to God's mercy
and forgiveness, if they have petitioned God in the
appropriate manner (see below on 6:12, 14-15). The
faithful disciples can justifiedly be joyful even now,
because they can be sure that their reward is awaiting
them in heaven and that God himself as the guarantor of
justice is guarding the treasure. Also part of this doctrine
is the idea that the reward can be claimed only once. 509
Therefore, its actual claiming must be postponed until
the eschatological kingdom of God. 510 Only the joy can
be anticipated in the present.
Why can this reward be called "great" (7ToA.vs)? 511 The
reason for this statement can only be the sufferings
sustained as part of faithfulness regarding the virtues
stated in vss 3-11. One can draw this conclusion not only
from vs 12c but also from other parallel texts in the New
Testament and in jewish literature elsewhere. 512
Verse 12c presents the conclusion to vs 12 as well as to
vss 3-11 by adding a syllogism: "For in the same way
they persecuted the prophets (who lived) before you"
(oi!nos -yap €lilw{av Tovs 'lTpocf>~Tas Tovs 'lTpO VJJ.OOV ). 513 The
sentence states general historical information in an
almost proverbial way. The subject in "they persecuted"
is left unexplained; it refers no doubt to the Jews of the
past. The words "who lived before you" do not imply
that all those addressed are prophets. That the Jewish

504 The singular ~v rif> ovpavif> ("in the heaven") read by
D pc is again the result of intrusion from the parallel
SP; SM prefers the plural for the realm of God (see
above on 5:3b).
505 See also the references to "reward" (JI.•ullos) in 5:46;
6:1, 2, 5, 16; cf. Matt 10:41-42; 1 Cor 3:8, 14; 9:17,
18;Jas 5:4; Rev 11:18; 22:12.
506 One of the peculiar differences between the SM and
the SP is that in the latter (SP /Luke 6:23, 35) the
great reward is to be expected in the future ("on that
day"), not in the present. This difference may be
caused by the fact that SP addresses Gentiles. See
below on the passages for the SP.
507 See Gunther Bornkamm, "Der Lohngedanke im
Neuen Testament," in his Studien zu Antike und
Urchristentum; Gesammelte Aufsiitze, 2.69-118;
Wilhelm Pesch, Der Lohngedanke in der Lehre Jesu
verglichen mit der religiosen Lohnlehre des Spiitjudentums
(MTS 1.7; Munich: Zink, 1955); also Herbert
Preisker and Hans Wurthwein, "p.1ulios," TDNT
4.699-736; BAGD, s.v. p.1ulios; Dupont, Beatitudes,
2.345-50; Wilhelm Pesch, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s.v.
p.•ulios (bibliography).
508 The principle is stated in Rom 4:4: "To the man who
works, his wages are considered not a favor, but what
is due him" (trans. BAGD, s.v. p.•ulios, 2.a). Cf. also 1
Cor9:17-18.
509 See below on SM/Matt 6:1, 2, 5, 16; 7:13-14; also 2
John 8; 2 Clem. 15.1.
510 See in the SM: Matt 5:20, 26, 29, 30; 6:4, 6, 14-15,
18; 7:1,7-11,14,19,21-23. Cf.Jas 1:2; 1 Pet 1:6
(also 1:8; 4:12-13; 5:10); Rev 19:7; 22:12.
511 See also SP /Luke 6:23, 35.
512 See Str-B 1.231-32; Conzelmann, TDNT 9.967-68
(D.2); Wolfgang Nauck, "Freude im Leiden: Zum
Problem einer urchristlichen V erfolgungstradition,"
ZNW 46 (1955) 68-80; Dupont, Beatitudes, 2.338-
345; Lorenzo de Lorenzi, "'Godete ed esultate' (Mt.
5, 11-12): La gioia nelle tribulazioni peril regno
secondo Origene," in Testimonium Christi: Scritti in
onore de jacques Dupont (Brescia: Paideia, 1985) 151-
76.
513 Textual variants are due to influences from the SP:
The addition of o11faTepes avrwv ("their fathers")
read by U b c (k) sys.(c) is an intrusion from SP /Luke
6:23; sy' omits roh 1rpo £p.wv ("those before you"),
and D adds £1rapxovras ("those who were"), perhaps
under the influence of the Latin (vg: "qui fuerunt
ante nos"). See Nestle-Aiand, critical apparatus.

152
 Matthew 5:3-12

ancestors persecuted the prophets was a topos of Jewish then leads to the theological verdict of vs 12b. The
theology since the Old Testament, 514 and this tradition connection of vs 12 with the previous sequence of
was taken over into early Christian theology at a very beatitudes in vss 3-11 should now also be clear. The
early time. 515 Amazingly, however, our passage does not virtues stated in vss 3-1 0 lead to the persecution for the
mention Jesus in this connection. 516 Indeed, Jesus' sake of righteousness (vs 10). This connection explains
suffering, crucifixion, and resurrection play no role in why the addressees suffer from such persecution (vs 11 ).
the SM. 517 Thus, Jesus is not regarded here as a prophet If this point is granted, vs 12 is not only called for but a
who suffered before the present recipients of the SM. demand of justice itself. 520
The syllogism ofvs 12 can be understood now, but it
has to be read in reverse: 518 A historical verdict is
rendered by which the present persecution is equated
with the persecution of the prophets of old. Since their
persecution resulted in divine rewards, justice requires
that those who suffer the same persecutions also receive
the same rewards. 519 The historical judgment of vs 12c

514 For the material see Odil H. Steck, Israel und das
gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur
Uberlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im
Alten Testament, Spatjudentum und Urchristentum 517
(WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1967); Wrege, Bergpredigt, 173; Hare, Theme 518
ofJewish Persecution, 13 7-41; Dupont, Beatitudes,
2.294-318; Betsy Halpem-Amaru, "The Killing of
the Prophets: Unravelling a Midrash," HUCA 54
(1983) 153-80. 519
515 See also Matt 23:29-33, 35, 37 par.; Acts 7:52; 1
Thess 2:14-15; Rom 11:3; Heb 11:36-37;Jas 5:10. 520
516 Matt 10:40-42 differs in this regard; the context
leaves little doubt that Jesus is the model for the
disciples (Matt 10:17 -22). 1 Thess 2:14-15 has the
sequence: prophets, Jesus, Jewish Christians in Judea,
Gentile Christians in Thessalonica. In his Gospel the
evangelist Matthew establishes the sequence of John
the Baptist, Jesus, the missionary apostles, and
Matthew's own church.
See Betz, Essays, 151-54; also idem, "Problem of
Christology" (see above, n. 439).
This answers Luz's question (Matthiius, 1.215
[Matthew, 1.242-43]): "It remains unclear how the
persecution of the Old Testament prophets lays the
foundation for the promise of the heavenly reward."
The consequence is extended to Gentiles. See below
on SP /Luke 6:23.
Luz (Matthiius, 1.215 [Matthew, 1.242-43]) rightly
observes that 5:12 presupposes persecution by Jews
and that this describes the situation reflected in
Matthew's sources. The persecution of Matthew's
church is predicted in Matt 24:9-14.

153
 Matthew 5:13-16
5 Translation
13 Youarethesaltoftheearth.
Yet, ifthe salt becomes dull, with what
shall one salt?
It still has power for nothing, except for
being thrown out to be trampled down by
the people.
14 You are the light of the world.
A town that lies on top of a hill cannot be
hidden.
15 Nor does one light a lamp and put it under
the meal-tub,
but (one puts it) on a lampstand, and (then)
it lights up things for all in the house.
16 Thus let your light shine before the people.
in order that they see your good deeds
and praise your father who is in the
heavens.
Bibliography
Paul-Richard Berger, "Die Stadt auf dem Berge: Zum
kulturhistorischen Hintergrund von Mt. 5, 14," in
Wort in der Zeit: Neutestamentliche Studien, FS far Karl
HeinrichRengstorfzum 75. Geburtstag(Leiden: Brill,
1980) 82-85.
Ken M. Campbell, "The New Jerusalem in Matthew
5.14," SJT 31 (1978) 335-63.
Oscar Cullmann, "Das Gleichnis vom Salz," in his
Vortriige und Aufsii.tze I925-I962 (Tiibingen: Mohr
[Siebeck]; Zurich: Zwingli, 1966) 196-201.
Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.82-92; 3.307, 315-17,320-29.
Jacques Dupont, "La transmission des paroles de Jesus
sur Ia lampe et Ia mesure dans Marc 4, 21-25 et
dans Ia tradition Q," in Delobel, Logia, 201-36.
Kenneth L. Gibble, Yeast, Salt, and Secret Agents: New
Insights into Biblical Stories (Elgin, Ill.: Brethren,
1979).
Ferdinand Hahn, "Die Worte vom Licht, Lk 11, 33-
36," in Paul Hoffmann, ed. Orientierunganjesus:
Zur Theologie der Synoptiker: FS far Josef Schmid
(Freiburg: Herder, 1973) 107-38.
Joachim Jeremias, "Die Lampe unter dem Scheffel (Mk
4, 21; Mt 5, 15; Lk 8, 16; 11, 33)," ZNW 39 (1940)
237-40; reprinted in his Abba, 99-102.
Ludwig Kohler, Kleine Lichter: 50 Bibelstellen erkliirt
(Zurich: Zwingli, 1945).
Michael Kramer, "Ihr seid das Salz der Erde ... Ihr
seid das Licht der Welt. Die vielgestaltige Wirk-
kraft des Gotteswortes der Heiligen Schrift fiir das
Leben der Kirche aufgezeigt am Beispiel Mt 5, 13-
16," MThZ 28 (1977) 133-57.
James E. Latham, The Religious Symbolism ofSalt
(Theologie historique 64; Paris: Beauchesne,
1982).
154
Chapter II
The Commission
Wolfgang Nauck, "Salt as a Metaphor in Instructions
for Discipleship," StTh 6 (1952) 165-78.
Jaroslav Pelikan, The Light of the World: A Basic Image in
Early Christian Thought (New York: Harper, 1962).
Piper, Wisdom, 127-31.
Gerhard von Rad, "Die Stadt auf dem Berge," EvTh 8
( 1948/49) 439-4 7, reprinted in his Gesammelte
Studien zum Alten Testament (Munich: Kaiser, 1961)
214-24; ET: "The City on the Hill," in The Problem
of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W.
Trueman Dicken; Edinburgh: Clark, 1966) 232-
42.
Rudolf Schnackenburg, "'Ihr seid das Salz der Erde,
das Licht der Welt': Zu Mt 5, 13-16," in Melanges
Cardinal Eugene Tisserant (Cittll del Vaticano: La
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1964) 1.365-87;
reprinted in Johannes B. Bauer, ed., Evangelien-
forschung (Graz: Styria, 1968) 119-46; also in
Schnackenburg's Schriften zum Neuen Testament
(Munich: Kosel, 1971) 177-200.
Gerhard Schneider, "Das Bildwort von der Lampe:
Zur Traditionsgeschichte eines Jesuswortes," ZNW
61 (1970) 183-209.
Gunther Schwarz, "Matthaus V .13a und 14a: Emen-
dation und Riickiibersetzung, • NTS 17 (1970) 80-
86.
Idem, "KaAov -ro aAas," Biblische Notizen 7 (1978) 32-35.
Idem, "Und]esus sprach," 64-72.
Josef B. Sou~ek, "Salz der Erde und Licht der Welt:
Zur Exegese von Matth. 5, 13-16," TZ 19 (1963)
169-79.
Burton L. Visotzky, "Overturning the Lamp," JJS 38
(1987) 72-80.

1 . Analysis Without transition, it seems, a new section begins in
5:13, setting before the reader a quite different
matter. The question is whether there is really no
connection between the Beatitudes (vss 3-12) and the
new passage (vss 13-16); if there is a connection, it
must be sought apart from the surface language.
Furthermore, the question of the literary genre,
composition, and function of vss 13-16 needs to be
clarified.
The transition becomes evident once one notices
the catchword connection between the addresses "you
are" in vs 11 (carried on in vs 12) and in vss 13 and 14.
Only the formulaic "blessed" (!'.aKd.ptor) is absent from
vss 13 and 14. Other connections are more subtle and
have to do with the functional aspect of giving guid-
ance to the hearers or readers. Already in vss 3-12, the
readers' eyes of imagination have been directed to go
up and down, from earth to heaven and back to earth,
and so on in each of the beatitudes. In vs 12 the eyes
seem to be firmly pegged on "the heavens" and its
reward. Then, vs 13 takes us back down to earth,
indeed into the mud itself. While vss 11-12 described
the status of the faithful in heaven and before God, vss
13-14 turn to their status on earth, in the world, and
among the people. While vss 11-12 excite us because
of the great reward in heaven, vss 13-16 confront us
with the hard tasks to be performed here in this world.
Whereas the "you are" is continued as an address, the
content is no longer heavenly bliss but the details of
daily life down here. These positions are not the only
means of connection. There is also the internal logic
that bases the worldly role of those addressed on the
status they already possess with God, a case of the
imperative based on the indicative. As a result, the new
section of vss 13-16 is indeed closely related to the
Beatitudes of vss 3-12, but the statement of vss 13-16
is also different in that it spells out the commission for
the faithful in direct consequence of the previous
section.
The unit consists of two sayings compositions, each
beginning with the declarative address "you are" in vss
13 and 14-16. The first saying in vs 13a is followed by
an intriguing question and answer, adding up to a
warning (vs 13b-c). The second saying in vs 14a is
supported by images amounting to a positive descrip-
tion of purpose and goal, using missionary language
(vss 14b-16).
One should note also the parallel with the com-
missions implied in the call narratives. See Mark
1:17: "I will make you fishers of men"; see also Mark
2:14-17; Luke 5:4-7;John 21:5-8; Gal1:16. The
key passage for Matthew is Matt 16:17-19.
2 On the interpretation see Betz, Galatians, 181-201.
3 For further "you are"-sentences in the NT see Matt
23:8;John 13:10; 15:3; 1 John 2:14; 4:4; Eph 2:8. In
Matthew 5:13-16
Clearly, therefore, the two sayings compositions
belong together as a sequence. Theologically based on
the Beatitudes (vss 3-12), they formulate program-
matically what the community for which the SM was
composed regarded as their role and task in the world.
That the address is stated in the second person plural
means that the addressees regard this role and task not
as their own invention but as the commission issued by
Jesus himself. 1
The statements in vss 13 and 14-16, therefore,
stipulate two things: they define the status of the
addressees, and they assign a specific task. Thus the
statements are simultaneously descriptive, declarative,
and determinative or imperative. The imagery used
describes what the community addressed is, what they
should be, and what they ought to do.
One matter to decide is whether the address "you
are" has in mind an unspecified number of individuals,
referring to anybody who ever hears or reads the text,
or a specific group for which the text as a whole was
intended originally. The SM never uses any collective
terms, like "church," designating a community, but it
presupposes that the addressees are Jesus' "disciples," a
term that occurs at least once in the SP (SP/Luke
6:39-40; see also the Introduction above, pp. 61, 82).
My conclusion from the analysis ofthe SM and the
SP in their entirety is that these texts address specific
communities of disciples of Jesus rather than un-
specified individuals. The internal evidence, which is
admittedly scarce, can be strengthened by other texts,
pointing to a community rather than individuals. The
first text is Gal 3:26-28, 2 which addresses the Galatian
churches:
26 For you are all sons of God through [the] faith
in Jesus Christ.
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ
have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek;
there is neither slave nor freeman;
there is no male and female.
For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
This saying occupies a central place in Galatians and
may have its origin in a liturgical context. A similar
saying occurs in 1 Thess 5:5: 3
For you are all sons of[the]light and of[the] day. 4
For extra-Christian parallels, the saying in Corp. Herm.
13.8 is similar in that it combines a call for joy with the
the OT cf. Lev 25:23; Deut 14:1; also 1:10; 7:7; 1
Esdr 8:57 (LXX); Ps 61:6 (LXX); Amos 9:7; Isa 57:4;
Jer 18:6; Ezek 34:31.
4 See also John 12:36: "As you have the light, believe
in the light, in order that you become 'sons of light.'"
This statement concludes an interpretation of the
concept of"sons oflight" (12:34-36). Cf. Luke 16:8;
Eph 5:8-10.
155
indicative of salvation and the formulation of a task:
Rejoice now, my child, since you are being cleansed
by the powers of God, in order to build up the
Logos. 5
xaipE AO&w6v, ;:, TlKVOV, avaKa8a&p6p.EVOS Tais TOV 8EOV
~vvap.E<TIV, Els uvvap8pwu&v TOV A6yov.
Also comparable is the gnostic definition attributed to
Valentinus, according to Clement Alex. Strom.
4.13.89.2-3 (ed. 0. Stahlin):
From the beginning you are immortal and children
of eternal life. You wished to take death to your-
selves as your portion in order that you might
destroy it and annihilate it utterly, and that death
might die in you and through you. For when you
destroy the world, and when you yourselves are not
destroyed, then you are lords over the whole
creation and over all decay. 6
ciw' O.pxfis 0.6/z.va.Tol Eur£ Ka.l TJKva '(J)fjs EurE alfdvlas
Kal TllV 8avaTOV -ij8tAETE p.Epluau8a& Elf ~aVTOLS,
l'ua ~awav~tT'IJTEa.VrOv Kal O.va.AWa7JTE, Ka\ O.wo8c!tv11 0
80.varos Ev hp.iv Ka\ a,' v,.,.wv.
liTav yap TOv K<lup.ov AV"IITE, IJp.Eis ~E p.~ KaTaAV"Il<TBE,
KVpiEVETE TijS KT{<TEWf Kal Tijs f/>8opas awa<T"I!f.
These parallels, to which others could be added, 7
may suffice to justify labeling the section 5:13-16 as
"The Commission" of that group which the SM
originally addressed. This commission, issued by Jesus
as the intended speaker, formulates the self-under-
standing and identity of that group, for which the SM
as a whole was composed. This commission also reveals
its peculiar features when it is compared with other
commissions in the Gospels, such as Matt 10:5-42 par.;
28:18-20; Mark 16:15-18; Luke 24:46-49; andJohn
5 Trans. William C. Grese, Corpus Hermeticum XIII and
Early Christian Literature (SCHNT 5; Leiden: Brill,
1979) 14-15, with the commentary, 116-I 9.
6 Trans. Foerster and Wilson, Gnosis, 1.242; cf. the
somewhat different translation by Layton, Gnostic
Scriptures, 240-41.
7 Cf. also the "you are"-sentences inPGM IV.2987;
VII.243, 645; VIII.lOO; LXI.7. For a series of such
sayings, beginning with a citation of Matt 5:13, see
Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A
Study ofEarly Syriac Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1975) 163.
8 In this respect the SM differs from Matthew else-
where, where "church" (~KKA"Ilula) occurs as the name
for the Matthean community (Matt 16:18; 18:17).
9 The term "synagogue" (uvvaywy~) occurs in SM/
Matt 6:2, 5, interestingly enough to designate not
outsiders but places where the members of the SM
community also meet and observe what is reported
(similarly 23:6, 34). Differently, 4:23; 9:35; 10:17;
12:9; 13:54: "their synagogues. • See also Jas 2:2.
10 Cf. Matt 28:19; Mark 16:16.
156
20:21-23; 21:1-23. Although a detailed comparison
cannot be undertaken at this point, two major dif-
ferences should be noted, especially because they show
that the passage in 5:13-16 is relatively older than the
other texts named.
1. The group addressed and identified in vss 13 and
14 is given no name (such as "church" [~KKA"IIula]) 8 and
no distinction is made between Christianity and
Judaism. 9
2. No specifically Christian rituals, such as bap-
tism, 10 are mentioned. No reference is made to
Christian terms like "gospel," II "discipleship," 1 2 or
"faith. •IS The atmosphere of the miraculous is
completely absent. 14 Instead the metaphors and
images used are traditionally Jewish. Furthermore,
there is no reference to a special authority assumed by
Jesus, 15 or to a particular authority or power given to
the community . 16 The tasks of the group are described
in terms that could be used for other Jewish groups as
well.
One can, therefore, conclude that the commission
of vss 13-16 comes from a time when the addressees
were a group ofJesus' disciples within Judaism. They
regarded themselves as something of an avant-garde
within the Jewish religion, intended to fulfill its highest
aspirations. In this respect, the passage is similar to
Matt 10:5-8, at the pre-Matthean level of the source,
but very different from Matt 28:18-20, a passage that
reflects the self-understanding of Matthew's church at
the end of the first century. By contrast, 5:13-16 was
formulated in the pre-Matthean tradition, 1 7 in what
we call early Jewish Christianity.
For the composition of the section, the SM has
11 Cf. Mark 16:15; Gall:l6.
12 Cf. Matt 28:19.
13 Cf. Mark 16:16-17.
14 Cf. Mark 16:17.
15 Cf. Matt 28:18.
16 The authority to forgive sins is proof of this: it is
connected with the Lord's Prayer and part of the
instruction on prayer (SM/Matt 6:12, 14-15); thus,
forgiveness of sins requires no special authority.
Differently, Matt 16:19;John 20:23, where forgive-
ness of sins is part of the special commission. Mat-
thew himself has it as part of the church order (Matt
18: 18), but he does not make it part of the com-
mission of 28:18-20.
17 Differently, Strecker, Bergpredigt, 51 (Sermon, 48):
"The language is Matthean. • The expressions
Strecker refers to on p. 48 n. 77 all come from pre-
Matthean traditional language; they cannot be used
to demonstrate Matthew's redactional activity.
Cf. similarly Luz, Matthiius, 1.220 (Matthew, 1.247-
48); Gundry, Matthew, 75-76; Guelich, Sermon, 119-
23.

taken up sayings material appearing also in Q. 18 This
material uses images and metaphors traditionally
connected with discipleship. Luke 14:34-35 has a
saying about the salt that is already integrated into a
larger sayings composition dealing with the conditions
of discipleship (Luke 14:25-33). Mark 9:49-50 is a
similar saying that occurs at the end of a paraenetic
sayings composition concerned with offending the
brother (9:42-50). This topic of offending the brother
is also treated in Matt 18:6-9 I I Luke 17:1-2, but
without the saying about the salt. 19
One can conclude from this evidence that the saying
using the image of salt was already known to all these
texts as denoting discipleship, so that when the SM
took up this saying it did so in the context in which it
would be expected. 20 Then it gave the saying its
special interpretation. 2!
This interpretation, which I shall discuss in greater
detail below, involved several changes. Not only was
the introductory "you are" added, but as a result of this
introduction the image of the salt was turned into
allegory. The salt became "the salt of the earth," a
change that made all the other terms allegorical as
well, if they were not transparent already. Thereby
also the talk about the salt "becoming dull" and being
"thrown out and trampled down by the people"
became warnings against failure of discipleship. One
18 See Bultmann, History, 47, 91-92,98, 102; Klop-
penborg, Formation, 42 n. 1; 232-34; idem, Q
Parallels, 172-73.
19 See also Col4:6, where the metaphor of salt refers to
speech in a context that is similar to the paraenesis of
theSM.
20 In his article "Salt as a Metaphor in Instructions of
Discipleship," StTh 6 (1952) 165-78, Wolfgang
Nauck has shown that the metaphor of salt occurs
also in an instruction for students of scribes in Derek
'Ere~ Zuta at the beginning: "The ways of disciples of
scribes: They (should be) modest and (of) humble
spirit, industrious and salted, suffering insult and
(they should be) liked by all men." The text belongs
to one of the minor tractates of the Babylonian
Talmud; its date is uncertain. See also Marcus van
Loopik, The Ways of the Sages and the Way of the World:
The M;inor Tractates of the Babylonian Talmud: Derekh
'Eretz Rabbah; Derekh 'Eretz Zuta; Pereq ha-Shalom
(TSAJ 26; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1991) 172-
76; Schiirer, History, 1.80.
21 For the synoptic comparison see also Wrege, Berg-
predigt, 27 -34; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 51 (Sermon, 48).
22 "Jesus said: 'A city built on a high mountain and
fortified cannot fall, nor can it be hidden.'" Trans. by
Harold W. Attridge, in Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex
II, 2-7, 127; for the Greek seep. 120 and Aland,
Matthew 5:13-16
must read these warnings against the background of
the eschatological warnings elsewhere in the SM, in
particular in the final sections (7:13-23 and 7:24-27).
There is a direct connection between the "dullness"
(j.Lwpav8ijva&) ofthe salt in vs 13 and the "foolish man"
(av~p fJ.lllpOs) in 7:24-27, who is the example of the
failed disciple.
The composition of 5:14-16 is analogous. Again,
the introductory "you are" prefaces traditional
imagery, "the light ofthe world," which is then
illustrated by proverbs. The first proverb ("A city set
on a hill cannot be hid" [vs 14b]) has parallels outside
the canonical New Testament inP. Oxy. 1, no.7 22 and
in the Coptic Gos. Thom. log. 32. 2S The proverb in
5:15 has parallels in other places of the synoptic
Gospels, all of them different from and none of them
related directly to the SM. 24
The leading image of "the light of the world" takes
up the well-known self-designation ofJudaism2 5 and
must therefore be taken as an allegory also. Thereby
the proverbs in vss 14b and 15 also become trans-
parent, a fact that is made explicit by the addition of vs
16.2 6 As a result, "the lamp" (vs 15) becomes "your
Synopsis, 77.
23 "Jesus said: 'A city built on a high mountain and
fortified cannot fall, nor can it be hidden.'" Trans. by
Thomas Lambdin, in Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex II,
2-7,67.
24 Mark 4:21; Luke 8: 16; 11 :33; Coptic Gos. Thom. log.
33: "For no one lights a lamp and puts it under a
bushel, nor does he put it in a hidden place, but
rather he sets it on a Iampstand so that everyone who
enters and leaves will see its light." On the synoptic
sayings see Bultmann, History, 73, 81, 98, 102, 168;
Wrege, Bergpredigt, 32; Schulz, Q, 474-76; the essays
in the bibliography above by Dupont, Hahn, Jere-
mias, Schneider, Visotzky; also Kloppenborg, Q
Parallels, 102-5.
25 For references see below on vs 14.
26 See also the cluster of sayings in Justin Apol. 1.16.1-
2, where together with other SM sayings (Matt 5:22,
41) this one also occurs: "Let your good works shine
before the people, in order that seeing them they
marvel at your father who is in the heavens." For the
text see Aland, Synopsis, 77. A dependency on the
text of canonical Matthew cannot be demonstrated.
157
 light" (vs 16), corresponding to "you are the light of
the world" (vs 14a). In the same way, "the house" (vs
15) is interpreted as "the world" (vs 14) and becomes
identical with "the people" (vs 16). The "shining" of the
lamp (vs 15) points to the "doing of good deeds," so
that the enlightenment will be hailed by the people,
who will then praise God (vs 16).
These observations reveal an extraordinary skill
displayed by the SM in its use of images, metaphors,
proverbs, allegories, and similar materials. The author,
whoever he may have been, demonstrates an almost
poetic mastery of these materials.
Finally, the composition of the unit makes clear that
it is far more than a collection of isolated wise sayings.
Rather, carefully selected wise sayings have been taken
up and reshaped so as to fit into the fine sayings
composition in vss 13-16. This composition as a whole
serves as the programmatic self-definition of the
community for which the SM was designed as a basic
text. 27 Put into the mouth of Jesus, it spells out the
tasks to which the community addressed is committed.
This task is no different from that of every faithful
Jew-to represent God on earth.
2. Interpretation
• 1 3 The new section begins with the declaration "You
are the salt of the earth" (vJL£L~ €uu To Cl.A.a~ Tij~ yij~). 28
The statement is unique in the SM and has no analogy in
the SP. As pointed out in the Analysis, the metaphor of
the salt has been taken up from its traditional context of
education and given a special interpretation in the SM.
The question is what this metaphor means for the SM.
The first thing to say is that the metaphor of the salt is
interpreted by the genitive attribute "of the earth." The
earth is the place where the community addressed in the
SM lives. It is the place opposite to the sky, or "heaven"
(singular; see also 5:18, 34; 6:10, 20, 26). 29 The earth is
the place where the community is on the way from here
to there (see 5:5, 14b, 15, 16, 25, 35-36, 41, 45; 6:2, 5,
10, 11, 19-21,26-30;7:6,9-11, 13-14,15-20,24-
27). This place is "among the people" (5: 13, 16, 19; 6:1,
2,5, 14-16, 18;7:9, 12)and"intheworld"(5:14).Itis
the life between the extremes, between poverty and
wealth (5:3), death and life (5:4), meekness and ar-
rogance (5:5),justice and injustice (5:6), mercilessness
and mercy (5:7), impurity and purity (5:8), war and
peace (5:9), persecution and heavenly reward (5: 10-12).
Thus, "the salt of the earth" means that the faithful
disciples must get involved with this earth and its life.
They are to regard themselves as a most important
ingredient of this life; to say it with the metaphor: they
must be part of the dirt out of which this world is made.
There can be no doubt that this means a life under
hazardous conditions. One might refer to another
proverbial image: "Behold, I send you as sheep in the
midst of wolves" (Matt 10:16 I I Luke 10:3; cf.John
10:12; Acts 20:29; 1 Pet 5:8). Yet, the life of the faithful
disciples is not that of passive and helpless victims, 30 but
that of movers and shakers: it is a life of "doers. "31 Every
single situation described in the SM puts the disciples
into the center oftrouble, difficulties, and hard choices.
This is the place where they must "seek the kingdom of
God and his righteousness" (Matt 6:33). If they fail, they
will be trampled down (5:13; 7:6) or washed away by the
storms of history (7:24-27). These implications are then
further demonstrated by a rhetorical question and

27 Compositionally, the double commission has its Matth. 5, 13-16," TZ 19 (1963) 169-79; Rudolf
counterpart in the double parable SM/Matt 7:24- Schnackenburg ("'Ihr seid das Salz der Erde, das
27. Licht der Welt': Zu Mt 5, 13-16," in his Schriften zum
28 Variant readings spell differently (W* D* W: /l.)l.a). On Neuen Testament[Munich: Ki:isel,1971]177-200)
the problem see BDF, § 47 (4); BDR, § 47,4 (a); speaks of the church as sacrifice before God and on
BAGD, s.v. /1.)\a~. behalf of the world. Cf. Paul's metaphors in 1 Cor
29 See also Betz, "Eschatology in the Sermon on the 4:9, 13. See also Luz, Matthiius, 1.222 (Matthew,
Mount and the Sermon on the Plain," SBLSP 1985, 1.249-51).
343-50, esp. 344; reprinted in Betz, Synoptische 31 Cf. the similar metaphor of the dough and the leaven
Studien, 219-29. (Gal5:9; 1 Cor 5:6, 7; Rom 9:21; 11:16).
30 Against Oscar Cullmann, "Das Gleichnis vom Salz,"
in his Vortriige und Aufsiitze 1925-1962 (Tiibingen:
Mohr [Siebeck ]; Zurich: Zwingli, 1966) 192-201,
who interprets according to Luke 14:33-34 and
thinks that salt points to sacrifice, suffering, and self-
denial of the disciples. Similarly, Josef B. Sow;:ek,
"Salz der Erde und Licht der Welt: Zur Exegese von

158
 Matthew 5:13-16

answer in 5: 13b.
The question presupposes the metaphor of vs 13a:
"Yet, if the salt becomes dull, with what shall one salt?"
(eav B£ Tb 8.1\a~ p.wpav8fi, EV Tlvt al\tu8~ouat;). 32 The
translation is difficult, and one has at least three options
for rendering the sentence: ( 1) "If the salt becomes
tasteless, how will it be made salty again?" 33 (2) "If the
salt becomes dull, with what shall one salt?" 34 (3) "If the
salt becomes dull, with what will God salt?" 35 All these
options are grammatically possible; the question is which
of them should one prefer.
As so often in the SM, images are made to clash, as if
we run up against an absurdity. Salt losing its saltiness is
like water losing its wetness, a real absurdity, 36 even if it
is to be taken metaphorically. The term p.wpalvw, which I
have rendered as "become dull" to cover both the
material and the figurative meaning, points to the
direction in which we ought to think. 37 No doubt the SM
has in mind the character of the failing disciple called
"the foolish man" (o av~p p.wp&~) in the concluding double
parable, 7:24-27. 38 Ironically also, the one who calls his
brother "fool" (p.wp&~) becomes a case of "dull salt"
himself. Elsewhere in the New Testament "folly" is also
the mark of the failed Christian (see Matt 25:1-13; cf.
Paul's play on words in 1 Cor 1:18, 20-23; 2: 14; 3:18-
19; 4: 1 0). 39
The answer to the question of vs 13b is given in vs 13c:
"It can achieve nothing, except being thrown out to be
trampled down by the people" (d~ oVB£v 1uxv£L fn t:lp.~
f31\1!8£v ffw KaTa7Tan'iu8at t!7Tb Tc;JV av8pdJ7Twv). 40 The
translation is again difficult because of the phrase d~
ovB£v LUXV€LV. One can take the phrase idiomatically to
mean "be good for nothing." 41 Or one can understand it
in the sense that dull salt has some power left but it leads
to nothing, 4 2 a meager result further described in the
remainder of the sentence. I prefer this latter option
because of the metaphorical implications: ordinary salt is
indeed powerful, but dull salt has left only the power of
self-destruction. 43 One should not tone down the
violence of the imagery, which takes its clues from
practical life. Dull salt is nothing but dirt, and it is thus
treated like dirt. It is waste thrown into the street
outside, 44 where the people walk over it and trample it
down, until it is like all the other dirt of the street. 45

32 Textual variants again (cf. vs 13a) change the spelling
to ll.>.a (M B2 W Origen).
33 So the translation in BAGD, s.v. a>.l(w and p.wpalvw,
2: similarly NEB and REB: "And if salt becomes
tasteless, how is its saltness to be restored?" The idea
of restoration is, however, absent from vs 13b, and
this rendering is based on Mark 9:49-50, which
requires a quite different interpretation.
34 The parallel in vss 15-16 suggests human action as
well.
35 Taking the construction as a passivum divinum.
36 It does not, however, refer to chemistry. Some have
thought it necessary to produce chemical evidence
that salt can change to other chemical substances. See
Ludwig Kohler, Kleine Lichter (Zurich: Zwingli, 1945)
73-76; for further material see Str-B 1.232-36;
Cullmann, Vortriige (see above, n. 30), 193-96; Luz,
Matthiius 1.221-23 (Matthew, 1.250-51).
37 Differently, Black, Approach, 123-24, who thinks
that p.wpav8fi is the result of faulty translation from
the Aramaic. See also Jeremias, Parables, 168;
Gunther Schwarz, "Matthaus V 13a und 14a:
Emendation und Ruckubersetzung," NTS 17 (1970)
80-86; idem, "KaAov TO a>.as," Biblische Notizen 7
(1978) 32-35; idem, "Und jesus sprach," 64-69.
38 Cf. the question and answer in Epictetus Diss. 2.4.4:
"What confidence am I to place in you?-If you were
a vessel so cracked that it was impossible to use for
anything, you would be cast forth upon the dung-hill,
and even from there no one would pick you up."
39 For further references see BAGD, s. v.; Georg
Bertram, "p.wp&s KTA.," TDNT 4.832-47, esp. 837-
44.
40 D Wit sys.c.p Cyprian omit ~TL ("still"); perhaps they
take it to be redundant. D W 0jl 3 1006. 1342. 1506
~read f3>.718ijvat ~~w Kat ("to be thrown out and
trampled down"), which would indeed be better
Greek, but for the same reason less likely original.
See Aland, Synopsis, 76.
41 Thus the translation in BAGD, s.v. lux-6w, 2.
42 The phrase <ts ovo~v lux-.\w is then taken as the
opposite of ,-o>.v lux-6w ("effect much"), as inJas 5:16.
43 The parallel in Luke 14:35 remains nonmeta-
phorical: "it is of no use either for the soil or for the
dunghill" (thus the translation in BAGD, s.v. d!B<Tos).
What this puzzle means is to be figured out by the
hearer: "If you have ears to hear, then hear." By
contrast, the SM figures it out for the reader by
making it metaphorical.
44 The phrase is not to be taken in the eschatological
sense; it differs at this point from similar language in
SM/Matt 5:25, 29; 6:30; 7:19.
45 For a similar image see 7:6; also Luke 8:5; 12:1; Heb
10:29. See BAGD, s.v. KaTa,-an!w.

159
 These images are meant to warn the disciples. On the
one hand, they indeed ought to get involved with the
earth, but they should do so in such a way that they
exercise power as "the salt of the earth." Yet, on the
other hand, they ought not to get mixed up with the
earth as trash gets mixed up with other trash. 46 As "salt
of the earth" the disciples can get involved with the
world in two ways: they can be a seasoning and fertilizing
agent, or they can be useless waste like all other useless
waste. These powerful metaphors describe in almost
cruel detail what the SM regards as the task of faithful
discipleship ofJesus. 47 Small and unassuming as salt is, its
power is enormous, but only as long as it acts in the way
it is supposed and equipped to act. 48 If the disciples of
Jesus fail in their mission, the people will throw them out
like garbage. This talk is, first of all, metaphorical, but
the possibility of actual contempt is not ruled out. At any
rate, such miserable failure is qualitatively different from
persecution and other forms of harassment that are signs
of strength. Being thrown out and trampled down by the
people could also be a sign of true martyrdom and thus
strength, but this passage does not consider this possi-
bility (cf., however, SP/Luke 6:22).
One should observe at this point that the saying in vs
13 contains no christological implications. Scholars have
sometimes speculated that the salt can do its job only as it
"dissolves" and that this may be a veiled reference to
Jesus' suffering and death. 49 These scholars then point to
Mark 10:45 par. and Mark 8:32 par. as parallels, but
these interpretations are farfetched. 50 The more
remarkable fact is, on the contrary, that in our passage
Jesus does not speak about himself but only about the
disciples, and that his suffering and death play no role at
all in the SM. 51
• 14 The second saying (vss 14-16) is a more elaborate
composition of several elements. Like vs 13a it begins in
vs 14a with the designation of the addressees: "You are
the light of the world" (ilp.li~ EITTf TO f#>w~ Tov ICO!Tp.ov). 52
This designation is of the greatest importance for the
SM. Differently from vs 13, which may have been
created by the author of the SM in analogy to vs 14a, the
expression "the light of the world" takes up the tra-
ditional Jewish aspiration of being the intellectual leaders
of the world. It sums up what is stated in programmatic
form in Isa 42:6 (NRSV):53
I am the LoRD, I have called you in righteousness,
I have taken you by the hand and kept you;
I have given you as a covenant to the people,
a light to the nations,
to open eyes that are blind,
to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,
from the prison those who sit in darkness.
At the time of the New Testament this self-under-
standing ofJews to be "the light of the world" seems to
have played an important role. This is all the more
remarkable because of the political fact that Judea was an
occupied country at this time. But the self-understanding
as "the light of the world" does not make claims in the
sense of political power; rather, it aspires to enlighten-
ment of the world in a religious or cultural sense. 54 This
conviction of Jews that they represent the enlightened
avant-garde of the world was_ also behind the movements

46 The unpaved and filthy streets in antiquity were
proverbial. Cf. the anecdote about Socrates trying to
get through the streets of Athens without the pigs
messing up his clothes (Plutarch De gen. Socr. 10,
5800-F).
4 7 For the metaphor of salt see the special study by
James E. Latham, The Religious Symbolism ofSalt
(Theologie historique 64; Paris: Beauchesne, 1982),
which has assembled the material.
48 This is why NEB and REB render: "You are salt to
the world." The rendering, however, harmonizes vs
13 with vs 14.
49 See Schwarz, "Undjesus sprach," 68-69.
50 Salt seasons; it does not sacrifice itself.
51 On this problem see the main Introduction, above
pp. 80-81.
52 Some Latin translations read huius mundi ("of this
world"): a aur b (c g 1) h q. But this dualistic cos-
mology is alien to the SM.
53 See also Isa 49:6. For the OT see Sverre Aalen, • .,,IC
'or," ThWAT 1.177-78 (TDOT 1.163) (II1.3.c); for
rabbinic judaism see Str-B 1.236-38; Hans Conzel-
mann, TDNT 9.317-23; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary,
82-83. On the whole see Sverre Aalen, Die Ber;riffe
"Licht" und "Finsternis" im Alten Testament, im Spat-
judentum und im Rabbinismus (Oslo: Dybwad, 1951)
25-27 and passim.
54 The translation in REB (similarly NEB) anticipates
the interpretation ofvs 16: "You are light for all the
world." The RSV has the correct translation of the
Greek text.

160
 Matthew 5:13-16

of Jewish apologetics and proselytism in the first century.
In the SM, the metaphor is neither merely cultural (cf.
Isa 42:6; 49:6; 60:1, 3) nor dualistic-cosmic (cf. Qum-
ran), but clearly emphasizes ethics.
Paul also knows of this claim when he characterizes the
Jews by their conventional self-descriptions as "guide to
the blind, light of those in darkness, educator of the
ignorant, teacher of the immature" (Rom 2: 19). Due to
its connection with the Jewish proselyte movement, the
early church, probably since the days when it was still
part of this movement, took over this self-understanding.
Appropriating this tradition, therefore, Paul can call the
Christians at Philippi "shining luminaries in the world"
(c/JwuTijp~!; £v KOup.~ [Phil2:15]). 55 Or the New Testa-
ment can use similar epithets seemingly understandable
to the reader without further explanations, such as
"children oflight" (TtKva c/JwT0!;) 56 and "sons oflight"
(vrol Tov c/JwT0!;). 57 When the SM designates the members
of its own community as "the light to the world," it
therefore affirms a Jewish self-description that only
secondarily became Gentile Christian. Also significant is
that the singular "light" is used, not a plural "lights" or
"luminaries," thus apparently referring to the group as a
whole, not to its individual members or to some special
internal quality they claim to possess. 58
Further interpretation of what is meant by the epithet
follows in vss 14b-16. The term "light" (c/Joo!;) is not
interpreted in terms of anthropology 59 or cosmology. 60
Nor is there any hint of a doctrine other than the usual
Jewish concepts of salvation. 61 The term KOup.o!; is Greek
in origin, referring to the world at large; 62 it is not likely
a translation of the Hebrew c?iP, as the explanation ofvs
16 makes clear. The meaning of the term is taken to be
well known generally, so that the explanations given here
are simply reminders of what it is assumed the readers
already know from their Jewish milieu.
The interpretation continues in vss 14b-15 with two
illustrative proverbs. The first proverb in vs 14b is simply
cited: "A town that stands on a hill cannot be hidden" (ov
Ot\vaTa! ?TOA!!; Kpvf3ijvat €?Tavw C:pov!; KHJLEV1/)· The class of
proverbs to which this one belongs is easy to identify: it is
the class stating impossibilities (impossibilia), a genre that
also determines its meaning. 63 This proverb occurs only
here in the New Testament, but it has parallels in P. Oxy.
2, no. 7, and the Coptic Cos. Thom. log. 32. 64 The
observation that cities often are situated on the top of
mountains is true of many ancient cities, but one can
hardly have any doubt that here it refers to Jerusalem.
This city is of great importance to the SM; it is the only
city that is mentioned several times (see the excursus on
Jerusalem below). It can also be taken for granted that
the author refers to the actual city 65 and not, as some
have suggested, to the heavenly Jerusalem. A city is more
than what appears before the eyes, however, especially
when it is Jerusalem. In connection with the epithet
"light of the world" one must take seriously the sug-
ge~tion made by Gerhard von Rad: "The saying about
the city which is visible to all is closely bound up with that

55 See BAGD, s.v. <j>wuT~p, 1, with parallels.
56 Eph 5:8; Ignatius Phld. 2.1.
57 Luke 16:8;John 12:36; 1 Thess 5:5. This desig-
nation is also found in the Qumran texts and in
Gnosticism. For references see BAGD, s.v. <j>wr, 3;
Conzelmann, TDNT 9.325-27, 327-43 (C.3-4; D.1-
8).
58 Very different light theologies are part of the
Joharmine and Pauline literature; for references see
Conzelmann, TDNT 9.345-55 (E. III-IV).
59 For an anthropological interpretation, see below on
SM/Matt 6:22-23.
60 Cf. the difficult passage Jas 1: 1 7: "from the Father of
the lights, with whom there is no change or shadow
of variation" (my trans.). For the interpretation see
the commentaries and BAGD, s.v.l1.1rouKlauf'a.
61 Matthew does not apply the epithet to his own
church (cf. 28:18-20), but similar terms are found in
his sources (4:16; 10:27; 17:2, 5).
62 The term occurs only here in the SM; see BAGD, s.v.
KOITfLOr, 5 .a.
63 This category is represented also in SM/Matt 5:36;
6:24, 27; 7:18.
64 The passages are cited in the Analysis above.
65 See Paul-Richard Berger, "Die Stadt auf dem Berge:
Zum kultur-historischen Hintergrund von Mt 5, 14,"
in Wort in der Zeit: Neutestamentliche Studien fur Karl
Heinrich Rengstorf zum 7 5. Geburtstag (Leiden: Brill,
1980) 82-85.

161
concerning the light of the world: the eschatological
congregation of the faithful is the city set on a hill, and
their light will be visible to the whole world. The saying
thus takes up an ancient eschatological theme, re-echoing
that already sounded by Isaiah in the Old Testament." 66
Excursus:
Jerusalem in the SM
One should not overlook the important role the city of
Jerusalem plays for the SM. The city is mentioned by
name(' l<po<r6Avp.a) only in SM/Matt 5:35 as "the city
of the great king" (that is, God). Its location on the hill
("Zion") was proverbial and is reflected in 5: 14b and
perhaps in 7:13-14.Jurisdictional and sacrificial
institutions are mentioned in 5:22-25 and 6:2. While
places, streets, and buildings belong to every city, the
little vignettes of city life in 6:2 and 6:5 may have
Jerusalem in mind. Also it was in this city that the
prophets of old were persecuted (5: 12; cf. Luke
14:33-34; Matt 23:37-39). To be sure, the earthly
Jerusalem is to be connected with the heavenly city to
which the disciples are on the way (7:13-14). Being the
only city mentioned in the SM,Jerusalem is therefore
mentioned relatively frequently. For the SM,Jeru-
salem is the center of the world (5:35) and the destiny
of the faithful (7:13-14). This city illuminates the
world (cf. 5:14b; Isa 60:1-3; Tob 13:11). Since all of
this seems to be self-evident to the SM, one may
conclude that the author was an inhabitant and that
the community for which the SM served originally was
the early church in Jerusalem. This is more likely than
the place of origin being elsewhere in the Diaspora, for
which the centrality of Jerusalem could have been just
as important.
Bibliography
BAGD, s.v. 'I<po<r6Avp.a.
Norbert Brox, "Das 'irdische Jerusalem' in der
altchristlichen Theologie," Kairos 28 ( 1986)
152-73.
Georg Fohrer and Eduard Lohse, "I.twv KTA.," TDNT 7
(1964) 292-338.
Lars Hartmann, EWNT(EDNT) 2, s.v. 'I<po<r6Avp.a,
'I<pov<raA~JL·
Joachim Jeremias, jerusalem in the Time ofjesus (trans.
F. H. and C. H. Caven; 3d ed.; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1969).
Idem, "IEPOYI.AAHM/IEPOI.OA YMA," ZNW 65
(1974) 273-76.
Philip]. King, "Jerusalem," ABD 3 (1992) 747-66.
Hans-JosefKlauck, "Die heilige Stadt: Jerusalem bei
Philo und Lukas," Kairos 28 (1986) 129-47;
reprinted in his Cemeinde, Amt, Sakrament: Neutesta-
mentliche Perspektiven (Wiirzburg: Echter, 1989)
101-29.
Schiirer, History, 3/2, index, s.v.Jerusalem.
Peter Welten, James K. Elliott, and Lewis M. Barth,
"Jerusalem I-III," TRE 16 (1987) 590-617.
• 1 5 The second proverb is expanded into a parabolic
narrative. 67 It is also stated negatively, describing first an
absurd action that no one in his right mind would do (vs
15a); then (vs 15b) the right action follows: "Nor does
one light a lamp and put it under the meal-tub, but (one
puts it) on a lampstand, and then it lights up things for all
in the house" (ovllt KaloVO'LV A.vxvov Kat n8€auw avTOV V7TO
TOV p.6Swv aA.A.' f7Tt T~V A.vxvlav, Kat A.d.p.?TEL 1Tct!TtV lv Tfj
olKl~). The subject in "one" refers simply to ordinary
people and what they do, 68 but the following is filled
with interesting cultural detail. Presupposed is the one-
room house lit up by one lamp on a lampstand. 69 These
details are taken from Q, where other versions occur and
more details can be recovered. 70 The tendency of
providing details is continued even by modern scholars
who put their imaginations to work. 71 The "meal-tub" (o

66 Von Rad, "The City on the Hill," 242. For an
examination of von Rad's thesis see Ken M. Camp-
bell, "The New Jerusalem in Matthew 5.14," SJT 31
(1978) 335-63. The significance of the entire
complex of ideas for the proselyte mission in Hel-
lenistic Judaism has been pointed out by Aalen,
Begriffe, 210-32.
67 Scholars often treat the passage simply as a parable,
but in terms ofliterary criticism the problems are
most difficult. See Jiilicher, Cleichnisreden, 1.29, 185,
247; 2.76, 79-88, 88-91, 98;Jeremias, Parables, 90-
92; Harnisch, Cleichnisforschung, 5: idem, Gleichnisse
Jesu, 147; idem, Gleichniserziihlungen, 106.
68 The impersonal "they" is not necessarily the result of
Aramaic influence as Joachim Jeremias assumes,
"Lampe," 237-40; reprinted in his Abba, 99-102;
Wrege, Bergpredigt, 32.
69 See Luke 8:16; 11:33; Cos. Thom.log. 33, which
assume that the lampstand is near the door. Cf. also
Acts 12:7; Matt 25:1-13.
70 In the Cos. Thom. log. 32 and 33 the sayings about
the city on the hill and the light are combined, an
indication that the sayings were associated already in
the presynaptic tradition. Differently, Strecker,

162
 Matthew 5:13-16

p.Ollw~) is a vessel that may conceivably be used to hide
lamp. 7 2 At any rate, the saying was widely used and
seems to have been popular.
Allegorical interpretation appears to be the reason for
the next step, 73 and the author seems to play with several
meanings of terms as well, such as "overturning the
lamp" 74 or "extinguishing the lamp." 75 In the SM,
however, the two sayings in vss 14b and 15 serve as
examples, with the application following in vs 16. The
two sayings illustrate two contrasting points: While vs
14b observes that a city on a hill cannot be hidden, vs 15
makes the opposite point that a light can be hidden, but
to do so would be absurd and contrary to the light's very
purpose of giving light to all in the house. With this last
phrase we already hear the application that is to follow in
vs 16. 76
If this interpretation is correct, it speaks against that of
Jeremias. 77 He takes the word Kalovuw ("they kindle") to
express the contrast to "they extinguish," which would
imply that Jesus in a veiled way refers to the threat by his
opponents to kill him. Jeremias's interpretation must be
seen as part of his attempt to give a christological reading
of the sayings of Jesus. But no such christology is to be
found in the text of the SM.
• 1 6 The application and paraenesis of vs 16 is intro-
duced by the conjunction oiino~~ ("in such a way"); its
positive formulation stands in contrast to the negative
a warning in vs 13b. Verse 16a first states the imperative:
"Thus let your light shine before the people" (oiiTw~
' A.ap.'fr&.Tw TO !f>w~ vp.wv ~p.-rrpou8£v TWV av8p6nrwv). The
imperative picks up the image of the shining light
(>..&.p.,mv) in vs 15b, but no explanation is given about the
precise nature of the light other than that the community
addressed has it as their own. 78 In the context of the SM,
one may conclude that the light refers to the SM as a
whole, that is, the Torah as interpreted by Jesus. 79 The
SM does not refer by this image to Jesus himself as being
the light. The term "world" (Koup.o~) in vs 15 is now
understood to refer to "the people" (o1ll.v8pw7rot), and the
metaphor of "giving light" (A.&.p.7rHv) indicates that
enlightenment is the second primary task of the com-
munity.80
The Cf1rw~-clause in vs 16b further explains what is
meant by "shining": "in order that they [sc. the people)
see your good deeds and praise your Father who is in the
heavens" (Cf7rw~ i'awutv vp.wv Ta KaA.a ~pya Ka't Bo,&.uwuLV
TOV 7TaTtpa vp.wv TOV tV TOL~ ovpavo'i~ ). 81
The good deeds are now identified as the shining of
the light; they are not the light itself, but only what the
light does and reflects. "The people" represent the
outside world. 82 Seeing the good deeds done by the
insiders, the outsiders will be provoked to the praising of
God. Converting the people to the true worship of God
is, in Jewish terms, the whole purpose of doing good

Bergpredigt, 53 (Sermon, 50). 1018-28, 1047-49; Karl-Heinrich Bieritz and

71 See Jeremias, "Lampe." Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary,
86 n. 21) argues against these speculations.
72 Cf. also Josephus Ant. 5.223: "They all bore empty
pitchers with lighted torches inside them, to prevent
the enemy from detecting their approach." Cf.
SP/Luke 6:38, where the grain-measure plays a role;
it is called rh p.Erpov. See also BAGD, s.v. p..llaor.
73 See SM/Matt 6:22-23; Luke 11 :34-36; Rev 1:12-
13, 20; 2:1, 5. See BAGD, s.v. Avxvla and AVxvor, 1-
2; Wilhelm Michaelis, "A6xvor KrA.," TDNT 4.324-
27.
74 Burton L. Visotzky ("Overturning the Lamp," JJS 38
[1987]72-80) tries to show that some stories in b.
Sabb. 116a-b are parodies of Matt 5:14-16; dif-
ferently, Maier,Judische Auseinandersetzung, 78-93,
119.
75 See Rev 2:5; 18:23. Cf. also Betz, Lukian, 94.
76 The house (olKla) is of importance also elsewhere in
the SM (see 7:24-27). For the vast possibilities of
metaphorical application see Friedrich Ohly, "Haus
III (Metapher)," RAC 13 (1986) 905-1063, esp.
Christoph Kahler, "Haus III," TRE 14 (1985) 478-
92.
77 Jeremias, "Lampe"; Schwarz, "Und jesus sprach," 69.
78 Cf. Matt 10:26-27// Luke 12:2-3.
79 For the Torah as "light" see the references in Str-B
1.237; Conzelmann, TDNT 9.823-24; Aalen,
Begriife, 183-95, 211-32 (with an important collec-
tion of passages from Philo).
80 Cf. the interesting interpretation of the saying in Ps.-
Clem. Rec. 8.4.1, where Peter is the speaker: "Those
who speak the word oftruth and who enlighten the
souls of men, seem to me like the rays of the sun,
which, when once they have come forth and ap-
peared to the world, can no longer be concealed or
hidden, while they are not so much seen by men as
they afford sight to all." Similarly Ps.-Clem. De virg.
1.2 and 1.12.
81 B* omits fpya ("deeds"), perhaps a dogmatic decision.
82 There is no indication of who they are; see above on
5:13.

163
deeds. 83 For Judaism, praising the heavenly Father is the
sign of true piety. 84 In the SM, specifically, the good
deeds include the virtues stated in the Beatitudes (vss 3-
12) as well as everything included in 5: 17-7: 12. 85
For the sake of proper understanding it must be
pointed out that the purposefulness of doing good deeds
in no way denies their true value. 86 A good deed is
genuine for two reasons, not only one: it is a benefit to
the recipients and to the bystanders as well, because the
latter become witnesses, and thus both are moved to
what every enlightened religious person ought to do: to
praise God. 87 One must not confuse these good deeds
with Paul's concept of "works of the law": 88 what Paul
rejects is the idea that good deeds are done for the sake
of self-praise and self-justification, but he does not reject
good deeds as such, especially if they are done to make
people glorify God. 89 Therefore, the SM and Paul are
not different in their judgment at this point.
Another problem seems to be that the statement in vs
16 contradicts the cultic instruction in 6:1-18, according
to which cultic acts, in order to have integrity, must be
done "in a hidden manner. "90 One must not deny the
difference between the two passages. The passages come
from two different traditions and thus express different
concems. These concerns are, however, not incom-
patible. Verse 16 is concemed about the visibility of
good deeds because otherwise the people will not be
moved to praise God (not to praise the doers of those
deeds!), while 6:1-18 emphasize that good deeds, in
order to be worthy of merit, must be done in such a way
that premature praise of the doer is avoided. The
parable of the Last Judgment (Matt 25:31-46) goes even
further in saying that the best deeds are those that are
visible for everyone except the one who does them; thus,
those whom Christ approves are not aware of the good
deeds they have done. 91 Good deeds, therefore, may be
done unawares but nonetheless in a way conspicuous to
others. As a result, the SM implicitly rejects the idea that
good deeds are only those done "for their own sake," if
this means that they are done without purpose or intent.
Rather, the very notion of "good deeds" implies purpose
and intent.
A further question, explicitly raised by some scholars,
is whether vs 16 has a universalistic outlook. 92 Does the
language of "the people" and "all in the house" refer to
Israel only or to the whole world? It is important to
realize that phrases like "you are the salt of the earth"
and "you are the light of the world" do not put any limits
on the good deeds named in vs 16. Therefore, the
community of the SM, although still within the Jewish
religion, subscribes to a universalistic outlook when it
describes its mission. It is entirely conceivable, therefore,
that this community would have agreed with the mission
of Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles, as long as Paul and

83 Soalso2Clem. 3.4; 13.1-5;JustinApol. 1.16.2. See
Willem C. van Unnik, "Die Riicksicht auf die
Reaktion der Nicht-Christen als Motiv der alt-
christlichen Paranese," in his Sparsa collecta, 2.307-
22.
84 See the references in Str-B 1.239-40; Fiebig,
Bergpredigt, 22-23.
85 See also SM/Matt 7:15-20, 21-23, 24-27, and for
the topic as a whole Roman Heiligenthal, Werke als
Zeichen: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung der menschlichen
Taten im Frilhjudentum, Neuen Testament und Frilh-
christentum (WUNT 2.9; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1983) esp. 115-23.
86 The concept of ra Ka.\.a fpya ("the good deeds") is
found only here in Matthew, but the singular occurs
in Mark 14:6// Matt 26:10. Cf.John 10:32; 1 Tim
5:10, 25; 6:18; Titus 2:7, 14; 3:8; Heb 10:24; 1 Pet
2:12. Of all these passages only Matt 5:16 is jewish in
nature. See BAGD, s.v. fpyov, 2.c.f3.
87 For the importance of praising God, see Matt 9:8;
15:31, etc.; Luke 17:11-19, and the references in
Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 120-21 (on 2 Cor 9:13);
Peter Krafft, "Gratus animus (Dankbarkeit)," RAG 12
(1983) 732-52.
88 See Betz, Galatians, 116 (on Gal2:16). For the
history of exegesis see Luz, Matthiius, 1.225-26
(Matthew, 1. 253-54).
89 Cf. also SP /Luke 6:26a.
90 Cf. SM/Matt 6:2: "be glorified by the people"; also
6:1, 5, 16, 18.
91 See Matt 25:37-39, 44.
92 See Bemhard Lanwer, Die Grundgedanken der
Bergpredigt auf dem Hintergrund des Alten Testaments
und Spiitjudentums (Hiltrup: Herz-Jesu-Missionshaus,
1934) 117-41: "Dasjudentum eine universale
Religion?"; Soiron, Bergpredigt, 208-31; Heiligenthal,
Werke, 115-23; Kunze!, Studien, 134-39.

164
 Matthew 5:13-1 6

Barnabas, not the community of the SM, were charged
with this task. This possibility could then be confirmed
by Paul's account of the conference at jerusalem during
which the mission to the world was divided into two
branches (Gal 2: 1-10), 93 and by Matthew's mission
instruction (Matt 10:5-6), 94 which also recognizes the
different missions. 95
In conclusion, vs 16 marks the end of the exordium and
the definitions that establish the identity of the com-
munity addressed in the SM. Strecker has rightly pointed
out that with vs 16 a climax has been reached and that
the foundation of the paraenesis has been laid. 96 Paraen-
esis was already present in vss 3-12, although the main
purpose of that section was to lay the foundations for the
paraenesis. In vss 13-16 the paraenesis is further
prepared by formulating the mission and purpose of the
community. As indicated before, the double commission
in vss 13-16 has as its counterpart the Two Ways schema
throughout the SM, culminating in 7: 13-14 and the
double parable in 7:24-27 as the epilogue ofthe SM.

93 Paul maintains that the mission enterprises headed
up by him and Peter are complementary: the same
God works in both of them (Gal 2:8). Cf. Philo's ideas
on universalism, for which see Franz Geiger, Phi/on
von Alexandreia als sozialer Denker (TBA 14; Stuttgart: 95
Kohlhammer, 1932)85-94, 104-6,110-13.
94 So the mission instruction Matt 10:5-6, but the
parallels in Luke 9:2-6 and Mark 6:8-11 do not have
the restriction. Therefore, the mission instruction of 96
Matt 10:5-6 on the one hand, and the parallels in
Luke and Mark on the other hand, seem to confirm
the two-pronged mission strategy. Cf. esp. Matt 10:5:
"On the way of the Gentiles do not go and into a
town of the Samaritans do not enter."
The evangelist Matthew resolves the disparities
between SM/Matt 5:16 and Matt 10:5-6 by showing
the development of the church culminating in
28:18-20.
Strecker, Bergpredigt, 54-55 (Sermon, 51-52).

165
 Matthew 5:17-20
5 Translation
17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the
law or (and) the prophets; I have come
not to abolish but to fulfill.
18 For truly I say to you: till heaven and earth
pass away, not even one iota or one dot
will pass away from the law, until all is
accomplished.
19 Therefore, whoever does away with one of
the least of these commandments and
teaches the people in this manner will be
called least in the kingdom of the
heavens. But whoever does and teaches
[them], he will be called great in the
kingdom of the heavens.
20 For I say to you: if your righteousness does
not surpass that of the scribes and
Pharisees, you will not enter into the
kingdom of the heavens.
Bibliography
David L. Balch, "The Greek Political Topos TI<pt vop.wv
and Matthew 5:17, 19, and 16:19," in David L.
Balch, ed., Social History of the Matthean Community:
Cross-Disciplinary Approaches (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1991) 68-84.
Robert Banks, "Matthew's Understanding of the Law:
Authenticity and Interpretation in Matthew 5: I 7-
20," JBL (1974) 226-42.
1dem,jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition
(SNTSMS 28; Cambridge: Cambridge University,
1975) 203-35.
Klaus Berger, Die Gesetusauslegung]esu, vol. 1
(WMANT 40; Neukirchen-VIuyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1972).
Hans Dieter Betz, "The Hermeneutical Principles of
the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5: 17-20)," in
idem, Essays, 37-53; German: "Die
hermeneutischen Prinzipien in der Bergpredigt
(Mt. 5:17-20)," Synoptische Studien, 111-26.
Gunther Bornkamm, "Wandlungen im alt- und
neutestamentlichen GesetzesversUindnis," in his
Glaube und Geschichte 2; Gesammelte Aufsiitze 4
(Munich: Kaiser, 1971) 73-119.
Ingo Broer, Freiheit vom Gesetz und Radikalisierung des
Gesetzes: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Evangelisten
Matthaus (SBS 98; Stuttgart: Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1980).
Bultmann, History, 138, 146-47, 149, 163,408 (see
also idem, Ergiinzungsheft, 56).
Michael]. Cook, "Interpreting 'Pro-Jewish' Passages in
Matthew," HUCA 54 (1983) 135-46.
William D. Davies, "Matthew 5:17-18," in his Origins,
31-66.
Idem, Setting, 100-101, 334-36.
Idem,]ewish and Pauline Studies, 227-32.
166
Chapter Ill
The Hermeneutical Principles
W.]. Dumbrell, "The Logic of the Role of the Law in
Matthew V 1-20," NovT 23 (1981) 1-21.
Gunter Harder, "Jesus und das Gesetz (Matthaus 5,
17-20), " in Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament?
Abhandlungen zum christlich-jildischen Dialog 2
(Munich: Kaiser, 1967) 105-18.
Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1900) 30-31; (1905) 28-33.
Christine Heubult, "Mt 5, 17-20: Ein Beitrag zur
Theologie des Evangelisten Matthaus," ZNW 71
(1980) 143-49.
Hans Hubner, Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition
(2d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1985) 15-39.
Gunter Klein, "Gesetz III. Neues Testament," TRE 13
(1984) 58-75.
Knox, Sources, 2.19-20, 27; 1.28-33.
Werner Georg Kummel, "Jesus und der judische
Traditionsgedanke, "ZNW 33 (1934) 105-30;
reprinted in his Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte,
15-35.
Andreas Lindemann, Paulus im iiltesten Christentum:
Das Bild des Apostels und die Reuption der paulinischen
Theologie in der Jrilhchristlichen Literatur his Marcion
(BHTh 58; Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck], 1979) 154-
56.
Henrik Ljungman, Das Gesetz erfullen: Matt 5, 17ff und
3, 15 untersucht (Lund: Gleerup, 1954).
Ulrich Luz, "Die Erfullung des Gesetzes bei Matthaus,"
ZThK 75 (1978) 398-435.
Daniel Marguerat, Le Jugement dans l' evangile de
Matthieu (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981) 110-41.
Idem, "L' Avenir de Ia loi: Matthieu a l'epreuve de
Paul," ETR 57 (1982) 361-73.
John P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew's Gospel
(AnBib 71; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1976).

Alexander Sand, "Die Polemik gegen 'Gesetzlosigkeit'
im Evangelium nach Matthaus und bei Paulus: Ein
Beitrag zur neutestamentlichen Uberlieferungs-
geschichte," BZ 14 (1970) 112-25.
Idem, Das Gesetz und die Propheten: Untersuchung zur
Theologie des Evangeliums nach Matthiius (Regens-
burg: Pustet, 197 4).
Hans Joachim Schoeps, "Jesus und das judische
Gesetz," in his Studien zur unbekannten Religions- und
Geistesgeschichte (Gottingen: Musterschmidt, 1963)
41-61.
Eduard Schweizer, "Matt 5, 17-20. Anmerkungen
zum Gesetzesverstandnis des Matthaus," in his
Neotestamentica: Aufsiitze 1951-1963 (Zurich:
Theologischer Verlag, 1963) 399-406.
Idem, "Gesetz und Enthusiasmus bei Matthaus," in his
Beitriige zur Theologie des NT (Zurich: Zwingli, 1970)
49-70.
Idem, "Observance of Law and Charismatic Activity in
Matthew," NTS 16 (1969-70) 213-30.
Idem, "Noch einmal Mt 5, 17-20," in Das Wort und die
Worter: FS for Gerhard Friedrich (Stuttgart:
Kohlkammer, 1973) 69-73.
Peter Stuhlmacher, "Das Gesetz als Thema biblischer
Theologie," ZThK 75 (1978) 252-80.
M. Jack Suggs, Wisdom, Christology, and Law in
Matthew's Gospel (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University, 1970).
Wolfgang Trilling, Das wahre Israel: Studien zur
Theologie des Matthiius-Evangeliums (SANT 10; 3d
ed.; Munich: Kosel, 1964) 167-86.
Bernhard Weifi, "Die Gesetzesauslegung Christi in der
Bergpredigt; exegetische Studie," ThStK 31 (1858)
50-94.
Wrege, Bergpredigt, 35-57.
1. Analysis The sentences in vss 17-20 introducing the inter-
pretation of the Torah (5:17-48) state the her-
meneutical principles underlying that interpretation.
These four principles, presented as the guide for Jesus'
interpretation of the Torah, form a carefully
composed set.
For a discussion of the problem see Neil]. McEleney,
"The Principles of the Sermon on the Mount," CBQ
41 (1979) 552-70, who, however, uses the term
"principle" with a different meaning. Based on the
notion of Leitgedanke ("leading idea"), used by
Johannes Kiirzinger (see the Introduction above, p.
48), McEleney discusses Matt 5:17 and 20 as the two
kellillm ("basic structural principles") "governing the
collection of materials into Matthew's Sermon on the
Mount" (p. 554). For him, vss 17 and 20 go back to
the historical Jesus in substance, not in wording,
while vss 18 and 19 are Matthew's addition.
Matthew 5:17-20
How do we know that the sentences are in fact
hermeneutical principles? The text attaches no
descriptive title to them, and there is nothing with
which to compare them in the New Testament or
elsewhere in the early Christian literature. Scholars
generally do not name a category under which they
can be subsumed. 1 How, then, can the proposed
category of "hermeneutical principles" be justified?
The discussion in vss 17-20 unquestionably pertains
to the law, but close examination reveals two sets of
issues intertwined in the section: the interpretation of
the law, with its constituent elements (principle,
source, and norm); and the interpretation of Scripture,
with its constituent elements (text of Scripture,
authoritative interpretation by Jesus, text of SM, and
didactic process served by the SM). One can analyze
both sets of issues in Jewish and in Greco-Roman
terms.
Excursus:
Principles for the Interpretation of the law
in Greek, Roman, and Jewish legal Thought
In the history of law, the explication of the principles
guiding the interpretation of laws is secondary to their
actual practice. This is not to say that the presumed
earlier practice of the law was either primitive or
devoid of principles; these principles simply consisted
of unwritten rules handed down from generation to
generation among the legal officials, first among the
priestly officials and then among secular jurists. 2 In
Greek and Roman law, these developments have
frequently been investigated and documented. In
Judaism, the legal experts, even after they were no
longer priests, were never fully secular: the office of
the rabbi, which developed during the first and second
centuries CE, combined a number of duties, among
them the interpretation of the law, and all of them
having some cultic, if not priestly, aspects. In Greek
and Roman legal history, the development of
hermeneutical principles began with the Sophists and
2 For the historical developments, see Fritz Schulz,
History of Roman Legal Science (2d ed.; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1953) 5-37; Franz Wieacker, Romische
Rechtsgeschichte: Quellenkunde, Rechtsbildung, Frilhzeit
und Republik (HKAW 10.3.1.1; Munich: Beck, 1988).
167
was developed further by Plato and Aristotle through
the introduction of dialectic. 3 Noteworthy in this
development is the important role played by Greek
rhetoric. Pertinent details will be found among the
special studies listed in the bibliography. A few general
remarks, however, are necessary here.
I. One must consider the positive and negative
stimulating forces of rhetoric in any discussion of the
principles oflegal interpretation. Once one recognizes
that what is legal and just is to a large extent what
legislators, jurors, and constituencies believe to be
legal and just, one must acknowledge the question of
their manipulation by rhetoric. 4
2. Formulating hermeneutical principles means
more than spelling out what has been practiced
regularly over time. The moment the quest for
principles begins, the problems oflogic, definition of
terms, distinction of cases, and questions of internal
consistency arise and demand changes in rules and
procedures, and indeed, changes in the law itself. 5
3. Definitions and distinctions are reflected in the
developing legal terminology, but clarity was achieved
only over the course of time. 6 The Greeks dis-
tinguished between "customs and laws" (7{671 Kat vtll-'o•;
Latin: mores et leges), 7 or between "written laws" (vtll-'o•
yeypal-'1-'fvo•; Latin: ius scriptum) and "unwritten laws"
(vol-'o•lf.ypatJ>o•; Latin: ius non scriptum). 8 Although it is
generally assumed that the written laws are the law-
codes of the cities and states, while the unwritten laws
refer to conventions and customs, the actual case is
more complex. 9 The question is, furthermore, who is
"the lawgiver" (b vol-'o6€r71r)? Are the laws given by the
gods, the mythical ancestors, or the assemblies of the
3 For Greek law, see Erik Wolf, Griechisches Rechts-
denken, vol. 2 (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1952)
passim; for Roman law, see Schulz, History, 62-75.
4 For Greek law, see Wolf, Rechtsdenken, vol. 3 (1956)
passim; for Roman law, see Schulz, History, 75-86.
5 On this point see Schulz, History, 71-75.
6 See Schulz, History, 76-85.
7 Herodotus 2.35; Polybius 18.34.8. See Schulz,
History, 74: "Leges et mores as constituents of ius. So
the Roman orators translated 7f671 Kat vtll-'o•,
subsuming both terms under ius. All that the orators
meant was that a general rule (ius) could be proved
either from statute or from custom. The juris-
consultants certainly admitted the auctoritas of mores
maiorum, but they made no use of the distinction
leges-mores because they did not admit Roman
customary law."
8 On this important concept, see the contributions by
Rudolf Hirzel, Alfred Pernice, and Martin Ostwald
in the bibliography below; furthermore, Schulz,
History, 73-74; Hermann Kleinknecht, "vtll-'or,"
TDNT 4.1025-35 (A.2-3).
168
cities? On what is the law based? Is it the will of the
deity, divinely inspired "reason" (voilr), the "law of
nature" (b VO/LOf rfjr tj>t'Ju<ror; Latin: ius naturae), 10
common moral standards (mores maiorum), momentary
expediency, or the fickle opinions of the crowds?
Consequently, there are different kinds of "righteous-
ness" (liiKaiOfTt'JV"f/): there is the tj>t'JfTEI S{KaiOV ("that
which is by nature just"; Latin: ius naturae) and the
VO/Lq> or 6lu<l SlKalov ("that which is just by human law
or decree"; Latin: ius civile). There are also the SlKaiOv
tJ>vuiKOv ("that which is just in accordance with
nature"), the lilKa1ov lf.ypatJ>ov ("that which is just in
accordance with unwritten norms"), and the SlKalov
Karlx vtll-'ov or VO/LIKOv ("that which is just according to
law"). These distinctions also pertain to qualitative
degrees of righteousness, the highest of which is that
upheld in the eyes of the deity or that which is in
harmony with the constitution of the cosmos, while the
lowest is found in mere conformity to laws established
by democratic vote, laws that may not even be just in
themselves.
4. Greek and Roman legal thought also presupposes
the separation of law and ethics, with "morality"
standing somewhere between them. 11 Increasingly,
philosophical ethics placed demands on the law, so that
in the course of time, the very nature of the law
changed and existing laws were amended or abolished.
The disciplines of jurisprudence and philosophy,
however, have remained separate up to the present,
and the tensions between them are always present.
5. The introduction by Aristotle of the concept of
f7TIElK<Ia ("equity, fairness") alongside li1Ka10ut'Jv71
("righteousness") had far-reaching consequences. 12
9 Diog. L. 3.86.
10 See Rhet. ad Her. 3.2.3-3.3.5; the source for the
definitions is Hermagoras. See also Schulz, History,
71-72.
11 For an excellent survey of the history of ethics see
Albrecht Dihle, "Ethik," RAG 6 (1966) 646-796.
12 On the whole question see Aristotle Eth. Nic. book 5,
"On justice and Injustice" (II<pt li1Ka10ut'Jv71r Kat
ali1Klar), esp. 5.9.14-5.10.8; Rhet. 1.13; Rhet. ad Her.
2.13.19; Cicero De inv. 2.53.160-54.165; De leg.
1.17. Most influential has been the article by
Johannes Stroux, "Summum ius summa iniuria," in FS
Paul Speiser-Sarasin zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet
(Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1926; reprinted in his
Romische Rechtswissenschaft und Rhetorik [Potsdam:
Stichnote, 1949)9-66). See also Schulz, History, 7 4-
75; Harry Caplan, [Cicero j Ad C. Herennium De ratione
dicendi (Rhetorica ad Herennium) (LCL; Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University; London: Heinemann,
1977) 90 n. b.

Apparently, the Sophists and Plato first raised the
problem that the &.v8pw1ros aV8ao71s ("the man
relentlessly following the Jaw") may miss rather than
realize justice. 13 Aristotle speaks of the aKpt{3oolKaiOS
("the man rigorous as to the Jaw"), that is, the legal
person who insists on the written laws regardless of the
consequences for those involved. 14 After all, written
laws will never fit all the cases at hand, so that justice
requires "correcting" the Jaws by "equity" (t7rtElKna;
Latin: aequitas). Of course, justices have always
interpreted the laws in ways that were helpful in
solving the actual cases, but they did so as part of the
practice of the Jaw. 15 What Aristotle introduced,
however, was the corrective interpretation of the law
by an ethical concept apart from the law. According to
him, the goal of justice that the law is to achieve is in
danger of failing unless compliance with the law also
includes the realization of the virtue of justice. These
distinctions can easily lead to the polarization between
mere "legalism" 16 on the one hand and "abolition" of
the law in the name of ethics on the other. 17 Aristotle
separated a lower kind of justice, content with simple
compliance with the Jaw, from a higher, ethically
13 Gorg. frg. b, Diels-Kranz, 82 B 6 (II, 285, 15-19), 15
and on this Wolf, Rechtsdenken, 2.67; Plato Polit. 16
294C, and on this Wolf, Rechtsdenken 4.2 (1970), 140.
14 Aristotle says (Eth. Nic. 5.1 0.8, 1137b 34-1138a 4) in
a summary of the discussion: "And from this it is
clear what the equitable man [ot7riEIK~s] is: he is one
who by choice and habit does what is equitable, and
who does not stand on his rights unduly [o p.~
aKpt{3oolKatos ], but is content to receive a smaller
share although he has the law on his side. And the
disposition [E'gts] described is Equity; it is a special
kind ofJustice and not a different quality altogether
[ Kal .q ~ft~ allr71l1Tr.ElKEr.a, lJr.Kar.outJv71 TLS' otua Kal oVx 17 Cf. the example given by Cicero De orat. 1.56.240:
trlpa ns E'gts]." For special treatment of the term, see
the work by Max Salomon, Der Begriff der Gerechtigkeit
bei Aristoteles (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1937) 73, 83-84, 95-
98; the author also points to the juxtaposition of
"justice" and "love of neighbor" as a parallel (95-96).
See also Romilly, Ladouceur, 189-96;Johannes
Triantaphyllopoulos, Das Rechtsdenken der Griechen
(MBPF 78; Munich: Beck, 1985) 17-24. Philo is
familiar with the terms and issues; see Rer. div. her.
143; Som. 2.101;Jos. 65. See for the continuation in
Latin Rhet. ad Her. 2.10.14; Cicero Pro Caecina
23.65. For the notion of t7rtEIKEta, t7r1EIK~S in relation
to the Bible see Spicq, Notes, 1.263-67. The NT
evidence, however, has not been sufficiently inves-
tigated: see esp. 2 Cor 10:1; Acts 24:4;Jas 3:13-18;
Matt 11:28-30. Acts 22:30 (cf. 26:5) characterizes
Paul's Pharisaic upbringing as KaTa aKplf3nav TOV
1raTp<!>ov v6p.ov, a judgment confirmed by Paul
himself in Gal5:3 (see Betz, Galatians, 259-61).
Matthew 5:17-20
conscious justice, which in reality is the only justice
deserving the name. The introduction of the concept
of equity was intended to insure the higher kind of
justice; it includes the following consequences: 18
(a) Whenever circumstances dictate, grace and
forgiveness should be granted; especially, one must
distinguish among premeditated, planned criminal
acts, erroneous violation of the law, and mere
accidents (ao{K1/p.a, ap.apT1/p.a, adJX1/P.a).
(b) It is necessary to show understanding and
compassion for the human dimensions involved.
(c) It is necessary to focus on the lawgiver and his
original intent, not simply on the written text of the
law.
(d) It is necessary to keep in mind the whole person,
not merely the isolated injurious act.
(e) Settlements out of court are to be preferred to
court decisions.
These doctrines have become part and parcel of the
rhetorical as well as of the legal tradition. In the
Hellenistic period, equity was no longer a concept
apart from the law but served as a constitutive element
of it. Because of equity, the law of nature was given
See Schulz, History, 74-75.
This important concept is the subject of the
interesting study by BernardS. Jackson, "Legalism,"
JJS 30 (1979) 1-22. Jackson traces the origins of the
modern anti-Jewish accusation of legalism back to the
Middle Ages, but he does not consider the juristic
and ethical issues concerning legalism raised as early
as Aristotle. The question, therefore, remains
unanswered whether there is a connection between
the modern propagandistic accusation against the
Jews and the issue oflegalism or legal formalism
discussed by ancient jurists and philosophers.
"Galba ... urged many considerations in favor of
equity as against rigid Jaw [multaque pro aequitate
contra ius dicere]." In De orat. 1.57.244, Cicero tells us
that even the school boys engage in mock trials
where they defend, at one time, the written law
(scriptum), at another time, equity (aequitas). The
question who wins is said to be largely one of
rhetorical skills.
18 The following is based on the article by Helmut
Coing, "Der EinfluB der Philosophie des Aristoteles
auf die Entwicklung des romischen Rechts," ZSRG.R
69 (1952) 24-59, esp. 42-45.
169
more serious consideration than was human law. In the
interpretation of written laws, one was to respect the
true and original intention of the lawgiver, 19 and this
to the extent that even modification of the laws became
a possibility. 20 In other words, what one party may call
fulfillment of justice, another may denounce as
abolition of the law.21
As has often been pointed out, the doctrine of
equity became not only part of Hellenistic rhetoric and
jurisprudence; 22 it also expressed the religious and
moral mentality oflate antiquity in general. Its classical
formulation is found among the principles for the
interpretation of the law in Digestae 50.17.90: In
omnibus quidem, maxime tamen in iure aequitas spectanda
est ("In every respect, and especially in law, equity must
be given due consideration"). 23 In Roman philosophy
and law, equity became an important concem for
humanitas. 24
A number of other common distinctions 25 are also
represented in SM/Matt 5:17-20:
(a) Aristotle distinguished between deed and
guilt. 26 One can thus apply ethical judgments only to
willed deeds, not to mere opinions (without deeds) or
to forced and involuntary deeds (under compulsion or
by accident). The proper response to the last two cases
is compassion and forgiveness. 27
(b) Ethics is concemed primarily with voluntary
deeds (£Kotu:not), whose origin and cause lie within the
one who'acts. 2B Further distinctions must be made
here, however. One must distinguish acts done under
compulsion from acts committed from fear (llta
q,IJ~ov), 29 because the former are done by one's own
choice but not from one's own free will. Acts done in
error or through ignorance 30 can be forgiven only if
the error or ignorance pertains to the actual
circumstances. If error and ignorance are one's own
fault, and if, therefore, the origin and cause of the act
19 SeeRhet. ad Her. 2.10.14.
20 On this point see Aristotle Rhet. 1.15.23-25, 1367b.
21 SeeRhet. ad Her. 2.10.15-11.16.
22 See Cicero Top. 5.28; Rhet. ad Her. 2.13.19: "The
constituent departments [sc. of the law], then, are the
following: Nature, Statute, Custom, Previous
Judgments, Equity, and Agreement" ("Constat igitur
ex his partibus: natura, lege, consuetudine, iudicato,
aequo et bono, pacto").
23 My translation.
24 See Fritz Pringsheim, "jus aequum und jus strictum,"
ZSRG.G 42 (1921) 643-68, esp. 663, with references
to humanitas ("humanity"), benignius ("more lenient"),
melius ("more virtuously"), utilitas ("usefulness"). See
also Fritz Schulz, Principles of Roman Law (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1936) 189-222.
25 See Coing, "Einflu6," 44-45.
170
lie within the person who has committed the act, the
commission of the act is not forgivable. In particular,
false values, ignorance of moral standards, and
negligence in paying attention to them are one's own
responsibility.
(c) For the identification of the legal and ethical
nature of a human deed, only those deeds come into
question that are done by plan and decision, because:
"The cause of action (the efficient, not the final cause)
is choice, and the cause of choice is desire and
reasoning to some end" (7rp.l£<ws p.ev ai\v apx~
1rpoalpeutr (H8ev ~ Klu7]utr CtAA' o~x o{; fveKa),
7rpoatptuEws Of l:JpEtts Kai Abyos b f'vEKa Ttvos ). 31
6. The formulation of hermeneutical principles
arises as a response to criticism and challenge, as
evidenced by Greek and Roman law, where the sources
reflect the process. Formulated principles ofJewish
hermeneutics simply emerge in the first century CE,
seemingly as a result of external and internal pressures
and conflicts.
7. In Judaism, formulation of principles for the
interpretation of the Torah is associated with the name
of Hillel. Investigating the possible causes for the
emergence of the rules, W. Sibley Towner 32 names six
motivating factors, all elements in a hermeneutical
crisis: the existence side by side of a written and an oral
Torah; the development of extrabiblicallegal
traditions competing with scriptural law; the growing
popularity of homiletical Scripture interpretation in
post-70 CE synagogues and the formation of rabbinic
school traditions; the high degree of sectarianism and
the resulting controversies over the interpretation of
Scripture and legal traditions; the influence of
Hellenism; 33 and finally, the destruction of the
Temple in 70 CE, causing a shift away from Temple
worship to Torah piety and Torah interpretation
characteristic of rabbinic Judaism. The first of the
26 Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 3.1.1-6, 11 09b 30-111 Oa 19;
3.2.11-12, 1112a 1-5.
27 Ibid., 3.1.15, 1110b 30-1111a 3.
28 Ibid., 3.1.1., 1109b 30-35.
29 Ibid., 3.1.4-6, 111 Oa 4-20.
30 Ibid., 3.1.13-15, 1110b 18-1111a 2.
31 Ibid., 6.2.4, 1139a 32-34.
32 W. Sibley Towner, "Hermeneutical Systems of Hillel
and the Tannaim: A Fresh Look," HUCA 53 (I 982)
101-35, esp. 103-9. For descriptions of the
rabbinical rules and for bibliography, see this article
and also Hermann L. Strack and Gunter Sternberger,
Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: Beck,
1982) 25-40 (ET: Introduction to the Talmud and
Midrash [trans. Markus Bockmuehl; Minneapolis:
Fortress; Edinburgh: Clark, 1991) 17-34; Michael
Lattke, "Halachah," RAC 13 (1986) 372-402.

rabbinic rules to appear were the seven middot
attributed to Hillel. Scholars believe that "at least some
of the seven hermeneutical principles attributed to
Hillel were already ancient by his day. "84 Their precise
formulation, however, and their integration into a
system may be new phenomena. Similar developments
can be assumed for the thirteen middot of R. Ishmael
and the thirty-two middot of R. Eliezer.
Thus it appears that the four principles in SM/Matt
5:17-20 presuppose inner-Jewish discussions about the
Torah that have somehow been stimulated or
influenced by Greco-Roman thought concerning law
and ethics, in particular the notion of equity. "The
dilemma that equity is to be better than justice, and yet
not quite opposed to justice, but rather a kind of
justice, has troubled men as early as Aristotle's famous
chapter V 14 of the Nicomachean Ethics. "85 This
judgment by Gustav Radbruch seems to be one of the
presuppositions underlying the argument in SM/Matt
5:17-20. This presupposition is not explicitly stated,
but the whole debate is hardly understandable without
the assumption that, at the presuppositionallevel, it
had influenced the debate in which the SM takes a
position.
Bibliography
Helmut Going, "Der EinfluB der Philosophie des
Aristoteles auf die Entwicklung des romischen
Rechts," ZSRG.R 69 (1952) 24-59.
Albrecht Dihle, "Gerechtigkeit," RAG I 0 (1978) 233-
60.
Josef Esser, Grundsatz und Norm in der richterlichen
Fortbildung des Privatrechts: Rechtsvergleichende
Beitriige zur Rechtsquellen- und Interpretationslehre
(Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1956).
M. Gagarin, Early Greek Law (Berkeley, Los Angeles,
and London: University of California, 1986).
J. Himmelschein, "Studien zur antiken Hermeneutica
iuris," in Symbolae Friburgensae in honorem Ottonis
Lenel (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1931) 373-424.
Rudolf Hirzel, ltypa.po~ v&p.o~ (ASGW.PH 20/1;
Leipzig: Teubner, 1900).
33 David Daube has investigated these relationships in
two articles, "Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation
and J:Iellenistic Rhetoric, "HUCA 22 (1949) 239-64;
and "Alexandrian Methods of Interpretation and the
Rabbis," FS H. Lewald (Basel: Helbing & Lichten-
hahn, 1953) 27-44; for pertinent comments and
passages, see also his collection of essays, NT and
Rabbinic judaism; Saul Lieberman, "How Much
Greek in Jewish Palestine?" in Alexander Altmann,
ed., Biblical and Other Studies (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University, 1963) 123-41; Lattke, RAG
13.275-90. Towner's essay, "Hermeneutical
Matthew 5:17-20
Max Kaser, "Zur Methode der romischen Rechts-
findung" (Nachrichten der Akademie der Wis-
senschaften in Gottingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse
1962), no. 2, pp. 49-78.
Hildegard Kornhardt, "Summum ius," Hermes 81
(1953) 77-85.
W. von Leyden, Aristotle on Equality and justice: His
Political Argument (New York: St. Martin's, 1985).
Ulrich Manthe, review of Das Rechtsdenken der Griechen,
by Johannes Triantaphyllopoulos, Gnomon 62
(1990) 289-98.
Richard Maschke, Die Willenslehre im griechischen Recht,
zugleich ein Beitrag zur Frage der Interpolationen in den
griechischen Rechtsquellen (2d ed.; Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968).
Emmanuel Michelakis, Platons Lehre von der Anwendung
des Gesetzes und der Begriff der Billigkeit bei Aristoteles
(Munich: Hueber, 1953).
Ralph W. Newman, ed., Equity in the World's Legal
Systems: A Comparative Study Dedicated to Rene Cassin
(Brussels: Emile Brulant, 197 3).
Dieter Norr, Rechtskritik in der romischen Antike
(ABAW.PH. n.s. 77; Munich: Beck, 1974).
Martin Ostwald, Nomos and the Beginning of the Athenian
Democracy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969).
Idem, "Was There a Concept of ltypa,Po~ v6p.o~ in
Classical Greek?" in E. N. Lee et al., eds., Exegesis
and Argument: Studies in Greek Philosophy Presented to
Gregory Vlastos (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1973) 70-104.
Alfred Pernice, "Nachtrag iiber Gewohnheitsrecht und
ungeschriebenes Recht," ZSRG.R 22 (1901) 59-95.
Fritz Pringsheim, "Bonum et aequum," ZSRG.R 52
(1932) 78-155.
Max Salomon, Der Begriff der Gerechtigkeit bei Aristoteles
(Leiden: Sijthoff, 1937).
Fritz Schulz, History of Roman Legal Science (2d ed.;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1953).
Idem, Principles ofRoman Law (trans. Marguerite
Wolff; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1938).
Johannes Stroux, "Summum ius summa iniuria," in FS
Paul Speiser-Sarasin zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet
(Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1926); reprinted in
Systems," 107-9, has no comment on this point.
34 Towner, "Hermeneutical Systems," Ill.
35 Gustav Radbruch, Einfilhrung in die Rechtswissenschaft
(9th ed.; Stuttgart: Kohler, 1952) 75. The translation
is mine.
171
 idem, Romische Rechtswissenschaft und Rhetorik
(Potsdam: Stichnote, 1949) 9-66.
W. Sibley Towner, "Hermeneutical Systems of Hillel
and the Tannaim: A Fresh Look, • RUGA 53 (1982)
101-35.
Johannes Triantaphyllopoulos, Das Rechtsdenken der
Griechen (MBPF 78; Munich: Beck, 1985).
Michael Villey, Recherches sur la litterature didactique du
droit romain (Paris: Domat-Mont-Chrestien, 1945).
Uwe Wesel, Rhetorische Statuslehre und Gesetzesauslegung
der romischen juristen (Annales Universitatis
Saraviensis: Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftliche
Abteilung 29; Cologne: Heymann, 1967).
Franz Wieacker, Romische Rechtsgeschichte: Quellenkunde,
Rechtsbildung, jurisprudenz und Rechtsliteratur, part
1: Einleitung, Quellenkunde, Frilhzeit und Republik
(HKAW 10.3.1.1; Munich: Beck, 1988).
Erik Wolf, Griechisches Rechtsdenken (vols. 1-4 [parts 1-
2]); Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1950-1970).
In the light of the foregoing excursus, it is surprising
that none of the four principles attributed to Jesus in
vss 17-20 occurs explicitly elsewhere in the synoptic
tradition. Their formulation by the author of the SM
can, however, be shown to be similar to some develop-
ments in Greco-Roman and Jewish law.
The SM, therefore, regards it as an erroneous con-
clusion that the historical Jesus, whose views are
claimed to be represented in the text, proceeded in an
unprincipled and arbitrary way when he interpreted
Scripture and Torah to his hearers. 36 The SM implic-
36 Cf. the assessment, typical for present scholarship,
and summary by Towner, "Hermeneutical Systems, •
106-7: "and of course, beginning about 30 CE, from
followers ofJesus of Nazareth who systematically
applied Old Testament tradition by means of infor-
mal hermeneutical methods to the new situation
created for them by their conviction that the Prom-
ised One of Israel had been among them. • The
assumption here is that the rise of Christianity is a
phenomenon of messianic faith and that the methods
Christians employed were chaotic. It should be
pointed out, however, that no evidence substantiates
such conclusions; they derive from modern religious
presuppositions.
37 For this reason, much of the literature on Jesus and
the law is in need of revision. One should not derive
from vss 17-20 in a direct way the attitude of the
historical Jesus toward the Torah. For different
views, see the comprehensive studies and bibliogra-
phies in Banks, jesus and the Law, 182-235 and
passim; and Guelich, Sermon, 134-74. What I regard
as the correct view has been stated by Bultmann,
172
itly dismisses the idea that he had set aside clear
thinking in favor of emotional appeals. Instead, we are
to assume that he knew what he was doing and that,
purposefully, he spelled out his principles in the SM.
Since these principles are found only in the SM, how-
ever, their formulation is best attributed to the author
of the SM. This approach seems to have followed the
practice of other Jewish teachers of the time. They
usually taught without giving account of their
hermeneutical principles. The definition of such prin-
ciples was, on the whole, a later development in
rabbinic school tradition.
The point the SM wants to make is this: Jesus did
follow principles; vss 17-20 state them explicitly, and
vss. 21-48 demonstrate how they are to be applied.
These principles also reveal that they have been
formulated in retrospect and in a situation of contro-
versy. This controversy could not have arisen, how-
ever, if the principles of Jesus' hermeneutic had been
set forth systematically earlier. In this respect, vss 17-
20 appear to be a creative step rather than simply a
statement of what Jesus left unsaid. This does not
imply that Jesus had no method; rather, he conformed
to the current practice of applying but not spelling out
principles.
How are the principles ofvss 17-20 related to the
discussions of the Torah elsewhere in the synoptic
tradition? Why is it that none of them appears to be
reflected in other synoptic debates on the Torah?37
What is reflected there, rather, is ambiguity regarding
hermeneutical principles. Was it an essential part of
Jesus' intention to advance his "adequate," as opposed
History, 138: "Matt. 5 17-19 derives from the discus-
sions between the more conservative (Palestinian)
communities and those that were free from the law
(Hellenistic) .... Matt. 5 17-l9 thus records the atti-
tude of the conservative Palestinian community in
contrast to that of the Hellenists. • So also Braun,
Radikalismus, 2. 7-8, 11 n. 2; Gunter Harder, "Jesus
und das Gesetz (Matthaus 5, 17-20), • in Anti-
judaismus im Neuen Testament? (Abhandlungen zum
judisch-christlichen Dialog 2; Munich: Kaiser, 1967)
105-18, esp. p. 105: "nicht eine originale RedeJesu,
sind auch nicht originale WorteJesu, sondern sind
ein Teilstiick der Auseinandersetzung der urchrist-
lichen Gemeinde mit dem judischen Gesetz" ("not an
original speech of Jesus, not even original words of
Jesus, but a part of the debate in the early Christian
community about the Jewish law").
 Matthew 5:17-20

to other "inadequate," interpretations of the Torah?
Did he, deliberately or inadvertently, abolish the
Torah? Did he intend to substitute his own teaching
for that ofthe Torah? The present debate among New
Testament scholars considers all of these possibilities.
This debate seems to go back to the ancient texts
themselves. Whatever principles Jesus may have held,
the controversies as reported in the synoptic tradition
leave the impression of ambiguity. If these texts reflect
a historical reality ofJesus' debates-an assumption
that can neither be made nor disproved automatically
-this ambiguity may have been unintentional or it
may have been planned by him as a challenge to his
opponents. At any rate, it is this ambiguity that must
have raised the problems to which SM provides an
answer.
The SM presupposed more than ambiguity. In
particular, vss 17-20 respond to specific accusations
with regard to Jesus' interpretation ofthe Torah.
These accusations no doubt originated with opponents
ofJesus and the early Jewish-Christian church; they
appear to have included the following points:
1. Jesus' interpretation of the Torah was not
controlled by clearly defined hermeneutical rules
but was arbitrary (that is, informal, individualistic,
on the spur of the moment, charismatic, intuitive,
idiosyncratic, "inspired," or the like).
2. The effect ofJesus' teaching, if not its purpose,
was to undermine the authority of Scripture and
Torah. 38
3. The result of his "coming" was a heresy that abol-
ished the Torah.
The four principles in vss 17-20 are designed to
refute these accusations. 59 For the SM,Jesus was
"orthodox" in the Jewish sense of the term, not a
heretic. 40 If his teaching led to the abolition of the
Torah among some, or even among the majority, of
(Gentile) Christians, this development was based on
misunderstanding and misleading instruction by false
prophets and false teachers (5:19; 7:15-20), and it will
have dire consequences for the victims (7:21-23).
The question must also be raised why the four
principles in vss 17-20 have so little resemblance to the
seven middot ofHillei. 41 Hillel's seven middot seem to
have been a creation of post-70 CE rabbinic school
tradition, but some may have been formulated earlier.
Verses 17-20, therefore, cannot have derived from
Hillel's rules but, rather, seem to represent alternative
principles. In pre-70 CEJudaism, Hillel's tradition was
certainly not the only one in existence, so that alterna-
tive Jewish principles are conceivable and even prob-
able. To judge from vs 20, the principles of the SM
have been formulated in antithesis to Pharisaic prin-
ciples as well. That we do not have these Pharisaic
principles does not rule out their existence. The extant
material coming from first-century Pharisaism is
extremely scarce. Because vs 20 expressly states its
anti-Pharisaic tendency, such a statement should be
taken seriously as historical evidence regarding early
Pharisaism.
2. Interpretation
•17 Regarding the first hermeneutical principle, 42 the
Christian tradition never had any doubt about the
programmatic character of vs 1 7. This is true, although
the interpretation of the saying remains in dispute to this
day. 43 I shall discuss first its literary form, then the
technical terms employed, and finally the content of the
statement.

38 For the objection that introducing equity results in
abolishing the law, see above, nn. 17, 21.
39 The controversies are reflected, although only 41
faintly, in the talmudic tradition. For the collection
of the relevant passages, see Maier, judische Aus-
einandersetzung, 79, 83, 89-90, 114, 115, 223, 226-
27.
40 For polemical definitions of what constitutes 42
"heresy," see 'Abot 3.14: "R. Eleazar the Modiite said: 43
He who profanes holy things and despises the
festivals, and shames his associate in public, and
makes void the covenant of Abraham our father, and
gives interpretations of Torah which are not
according to Halachah, even though he possess
Torah and good deeds he has no portion in the world
to come" (trans. Herford, Pirke Aboth, 80). See also
'Abot 6.2, 7-11. For discussion, see Davies, jewish and
Pauline Studies, 44-45. See also Hans Dieter Betz,
"Haresie," TRE 14 (1985) 313-18.
When one reads and contemplates Daube's discus-
sion of Hillel's principles and ideas, however, they
appear to be remarkably close to those in vss 17-20.
See his article "Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation"
(above, n. 33), 244-55.
See Betz, Essays, 39-43.
For the fundamental works, see Adolf von Harnack,
"Hat Jesus das alttestamentliche Gesetz abgeschafft?"
in his Aus Wissenschaft und Leben (Giessen: Topel-
mann, 1911) 2.227-36; idem, "Geschichte eines
programmatischen WortsJesu (Matth. 5,17) in der
altesten Kirche," Sitz.ungsberichte der preuBischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin, Philologisch-
historische Klasse I912, I84-207; idem, "'Ich bin
gekommen.' Die ausdriicklichen Selbstzeugnisse Jesu

173
 The literary form and composition presuppose the
argumentative content to be discussed below. This
presupposition includes, furthermore, a historical
dimension: (1) the appearance of Jesus, and (2) the
postulated or real consequences of his teaching. The
opening words in vs 17a (JJ.~ vop.LITTJTf.), in the sense of
"do not think it right ... , " or "do not share the opin-
ion ... ,"are both polemically and apologetically
intended. They are only meaningful on the supposition
that there are actually those who are inclined to think as
they should not. Sayings beginning with p.~ vop.luTJTf. ("do
not think it right ... ")occur elsewhere in the New
Testament; in all instances their character as statements
of principle is clear (see Matt 10:34; Acts 8:20; 17:29; 1
Cor 7:36; 1 Tim 6:5).
The term vop.l(w is of interest for two further
reasons. 44 First, the verb vop.l(w (BAGD, s.v. vop.l(w, 2,
renders it "think, believe, hold, consider") played an
interesting role in Greek philosophy and religion,
designating religious thought especially regarding the
gods. 45 The term, therefore, describes a specifically
theological or even dogmatic activity and should be
interpreted in this sense in vs 17 as well.
Second, the verb has an affinity to the noun ovop.os
("the law") in that it betrays an awareness of the original
meaning of vop.os as "that which is in habitual practice,
use or possession" (LSJ, s.v. vop.os); from this were
derived other meanings such as "custom" and, specifically
in the LXX and the New Testament, of "law." The verb,
therefore, when applied to vs 17, describes not only
thinking and believing but also the setting of standards
for thought as well as for religious practices and
behavior, and in this way it is connected to the
subsequent verses. 46
In the Christian community, theological standards
were established through the medium of belief in Jesus.
Although the SM never speaks of "believing in Jesus
Christ" (7rttTTf..,',f.w ds 'I7Juovv XptuTov), 47 vs 17 implies
that a judgment about the purpose of Jesus' coming is
basic to what his disciples ought to think. This judgment
in turn is to be based on the sayings of Jesus circulating in
the tradition. 48 Even the disciples speaking in the SM
claim to have direct access to Jesus himself only through
his sayings. In fact, they are involved not simply as
passive receivers of the Jesus tradition but also in its
formulation. Remarkably, vs 1 7 addresses the disciples as
those who actually formulate the sayings tradition. The
exhortation states the importance of formulating Jesus'
sayings in the right way or, more specifically, of rejecting
or correcting any false sayings of Jesus in circulation.
What is being rejected in Jesus' name by the SM is not a
particular belief, not even a christological belief that is
designated as false, but a saying of Jesus that is declared
to be false.

iiber den Zweck seiner Sendung und seines
Kommens," ZThK 22 (1912) 1-30; Wrege,
Bergpredigt, 35-38; Eduardo Arens, The HA80N-
Sayings in the Synoptic Tradition: A Historical Critical
Investigation (OBO 10; Fribourg: Universitatsverlag;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976) 91-
116; Simon Legasse, "Mt 5,17 et Ia pretendue
tradition paracanonique," in Josef Zmijewski and E.
Nellessen, eds., Begegnung mit dem Wort: FS fur
Heinrich Zimmermann (BBB 53; Bonn: Hanstein,
1980) 11-21; Guelich, Sermon, 134-43; Strecker,
Bergpredigt, 55-57 (Sermon, 53-55); Luz, Matthiius,
1.232-36 (Matthew, 1.261-65); Hubner, Gesetz, 32-
35.
44 On the term, see Hermann Kleinknecht, TDNT
4.1023-25, 1028-29; Wolfgang Fahr, 8E0Yl:
NOMIZEIN: Zum Problem der Anfiinge des Atheismus bei
den Griechen (Spudasmata 26; Hildesheim: Olms,
1969), whose treatment of the NT passages is,
however, hardly sufficient.
45 The expression vop.i(<tv 8•ovr (Herodotus 1.131;
4.59; Aristophanes Nub. 329, 423; for further
passages, see LSJ, s.v. vop.i(w) means to honor the
gods by taking part in the official cult of the city. The
negation 8whr ov vop.i(wv ("not worshiping the gods")
was one of the points of accusation against Socrates
(Xenophon Mem. 1.1.1-2). See the excursus below
on Socrates (pp. 179-181 ).
46 Cf. the usage in Acts 16:13: ol! Jvop.i(op.•v 1rpou•vx~v
.!vat ("where we assumed was a customary place of
prayer").
47 For the Matthean usage, see Matt 18:6; 27:42. The
phrase comes from Gentile-Christian theology; see
Gal2:16 and Betz, Galatians, 117-18.
48 For other ~Mov-sayings ("I have come" sayings), see
Mark 2:17//Matt 9:13//Luke 5:32 (cited in 2 Clem.
2.4; Barn. 5.9;Justin Apol. 1.15.8); Matt 10:34, 35.
See Johannes Schneider, TDNT 2.668-69 (B.1.a);
Arens (see above, n. 43), 91-94.

174
 Matthew 5:17-20

This false saying of Jesus is cited 49 in full as follows
(RSV): "I have come to abolish the law or (and) the
prophets" (~>..8ov KaTaA.vuat Tov v&p.ov ~ TOVS 7Tpocp~Tas).
The phenomenon of a false saying of Jesus is startling
indeed, but it is not without parallels in the tradition. 50
Has the SM picked up such a saying of Jesus from actual
circulation? Was this saying regarded as authentic by the
bearers of the tradition? 5 1 Or are we dealing with an
imitation, on the pattern of other ~>..8ov-sayings, and
hence with a spurious composition, produced ad hoc only
to be repudiated? Could it be that we are dealing with a
deliberate caricature, a bowdlerization, of other sayings
of Jesus actually in circulation?
The latter is certainly the more probable, for in the
extracanonicalJesus tradition, a number of similar
sayings are found with which Matt 5:17 bears com-
parison. Indeed, the tradition is so rich at this point that
it proves Adolf von Harnack's remark to be correct that
the patristic exegesis of vs 1 7 could easily fill an entire
book. 52 The closest examples come from the Jewish-
Christian tradition in the apocryphal Gospels:
1. Gospel of the Ebionites, frg. 5 (Epiphanius Panarion
30.16.5): 53
~>..8ov KaTaA.vuat Tas 8vulas,
KaL lav p.~ 7TaV0"'1/0"8£ TOV 8vnv, ov 7TaVO"£Ta! acp' vp.wv ~
opy~.
I have come to abolish the sacrifices,
and if you do not cease sacrificing, the (divine) wrath
will not cease from you. 5 4
The saying assumes that Christians are still inclined to
take part in the Jewish sacrifices but that discontinuation
of the practice is now demanded. Justification for such
discontinuation is twofold: First, Jesus' entire mission was
to abolish the sacrifices, presumably those of the
Jerusalem Temple; this claim certainly represents an
exaggeration of the evidence in the synoptic tradition, 55
but one must always bear in mind that concerning the
time of Jesus, the evidence is fragmentary. Jesus was
assumed to have opposed Temple sacrifices, just as the
Qumran community opposed them for the same or for
different reasons. 56 Second, the eschatological wrath will
not cease. Such wrath can refer to the divine wrath at
present on those addressed or to never-ending wrath in
the world to come.
2. Gospel of the Egyptians, frg. 3 (Clement Alex. Strom.
3.9.63): 57
~A8ov KaTaA.vuat Ta ~pya Tijs 871A.£las.
I have come to abolish the works of femaleness. 58
The saying comes from a gnostic background, imitating
Matt 5:17 or a similar saying. The reason for the
imitation is the assumption that gender differentiation,
just like the law, is part of the structure of this world that
Jesus and, following him, the Gnostics claim to have
overcome. 59

49 liTI functions like a quotation mark. On the liTI opposes only misuse of Temple sacrifices, but later
recitativum, see BAGD, s.v.IITI, 2; BDF, §§ 397 (5); Christian theology opposes them altogether (Matt
470 (1); BDR, §§ 397, 5; 470, 1. 9:13 [quoting Hos 6:6]; 12:33; Acts 7:41-42
50 Besides Matt 10:34, cf. also SM/Matt 7:21. [quoting Amos 5:25]). See also Ps.-Clem. Rec. 1.39
51 For a collection of parallel passages, see Harnack, and 1.64.
"Geschichte" and "'Ich bin gekommen'"; U:gasse, 56 See Sanders, jesus and judaism, 61-76: "Jesus and the
"Mt 5,17" (see above, n. 43); Beyschlag, "Ge- Temple."
schichte," 310-13. 57 For a citation, see also Aland, Synopsis, 78.
52 Harnack, "'Ich bin gekommen,'" 17. 58 My translation.
53 For a citation, see also Aland, Synopsis, 78. For the 59 For the interpretation, see NTApoc 1.166-69; Resch,
interpretation, see NTApoc 1.155-56; Resch, Agrapha, 253-54. Cf. also Matt 19:12; Gal3:28, and
Agrapha, 227-28; Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings, on this passage, Betz, Galatians, 195-200, with
54-55. further material.
54 My translation.
55 On the question whether Jesus was opposed to
Temple sacrifice, see Davies, jewish and Pauline
Studies, 228-32; Sanders, jesus and judaism, 207-8,
269, 271; idem,jewishLaw, 42-43,90. The SM does
not regard sacrifices as illegitimate (SM/Matt 5:23-
24), although they do not appear among the
important acts of worship (SM/Matt 6: 1-18). The
pre-Matthean tradition of Matt 23:18-20, 35

175
 That the Gnostics knew the sentence of vs 1 7 but did
not like it is documented by the Marcionites, who turned
it around, ascribing the false version (correctly, from
their point of view) to "theJudaists"; according to
Adamantius De recta in deum fide chap. XV, the
Marcionite Marcus said: 60
rovro o~ 'lovaa·iura'r. ~ypal/fav,
rh ovK ~>..lJov Kara>..vuaL rhv v&p.ov lt>..>..a 7TA7JpwuaL·
ovx otirws at- fhfv 0 XpLur&r, >..(y£L yttp"
ovK ~AlJov 7TA7JpwuaL rhv u&p.ov lt>..>..a Kara>..vuaL.
This is what the Judaists wrote, the (version): "I have
not come to abolish the law but to fulfill (it)." But
Christ did not speak in this way; he said rather: "I
have not come to fulfill the law but to abolish
(it)."6l
The Marcionites correctly understood that the Jewish-
Christian vs 17 is at odds with the standard New Testa-
ment theology, that is, Paulinism as they conceived of it,
and they (or Marcion himself) went ahead and
"corrected" it. · repetition in vs 17b provides: "I have not come to abolish
Bowdlerization occurred also in Jewish polemics,
however, in particular in a tale in b. Sabb. 116a, which
Karl Georg Kuhn rightly characterized as a satire. 62 In
this story, the following citation from the Gospels is put
into the mouth of "a corrupt philosopher" (i.e., probably
a name for a Christian theologian): "I have not come to
take away from the Torah of Moses, but I have come in
order to add to it." 63
The date of this rabbinic satire cannot be deter-
mined,64 but it refers to the pre-Matthean SM or to the
Gospel of Matthew or to still other Jewish-Christian
traditions that it thus intends to repudiate. "Adding" to
the Torah of Moses violates one of the principles of
rabbinic interpretation and is equally objectionable to
"taking away" from it. 65 Thus in rabbinic eyes, the saying
as stated is evidence of wrongness and thus a device of
polemic. How offensive the saying in SM/Matt 5:17 was,
not only to Jews but also to Christians, could be further
demonstrated from the history of interpretation. The
foregoing examples also demonstrate the phenomenon
of tampering with the exact wording, a phenomenon to
which we must now turn.
The authentic saying that remains to be formulated in
vs 1 7b is not satirical, but it is, on that account, no less
contrived or artificial. Strictly speaking, this saying exists
only as a theological concept in the mind of the reader.
The text is intentionally written in such a way that
readers cannot as easily discern the correct saying as they
can a false one; they must construct the correct saying
themselves out of the building materials that the
but to fulfill" (ovK ~AlJov Kara>..vuaL lt>..>..a 7TA7JpwuaL). The
false saying is simply to be corrected in that first the
crucial term (Kara>..vw, "abolish") is replaced by another,
clearly the right term, 7TA7Jp&w ("fulfill"). Thus in its
correct form the saying must run as follows:
~AlJov 7TA7JpwuaL rhv v&p.ov ~(?)robs 1rpocp~ras.
I have come to fulfill the law or (and?) the prophets.
As I have said, this correct saying is not written down but
must be formulated by the readers in their minds; only
the false saying is written down. This phenomenon is im-
portant for the nature and purpose of the SM as a whole.

60 Cited according to the edition ofWillem van de Maier {jildische Auseinandersetzung, 89-91, 115)
Sande Bakhuyzen, Der Dialog des Adamantius "De recta denies that the rabbinic passage has anything to do
in Deum fide" (GCS 4; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901) p. 88, with Matt 5: 17, but in my view his description of
lines 31-33. For the gnostic and Marcionite Matt 5:17 as "eschatological" rather than juristic
interpretation of Matt 5:17, see Harnack, "'Ich bin misunderstands the saying as well as its context.
gekommen,'" 16-17. 65 For the background of this rule, see Deut 4:2; 13:1;
61 My translation. Eccl 3: 14; for further discussion and bibliography see
62 Karl Georg Kuhn, "Giljonim und sifre minim," in below on SM/Matt 5:19.
judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: FS for Joachim
Jeremias (BZNW 26; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1960) 24-
61, esp. 50-58. Cf. also S. Pines, The ]wish Christians
of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a Nw
Source Qerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities, 1966) 5.
63 Quoted according to the translation of Str-B 1.241.
64 On the problem of dating the story, see Jeremias,
Theology, 1.83 n. 7; furthermore Str-B 1.241-42.

176
 Matthew 5:17-20

Concerning terminology, vs 1 7 contains a number of
technical terms that one must carefully define. They are
to be construed primarily as legal terms, 66 not as
Matthean christological concepts. 67 Thus ICaraA.flw
(BAGD, s. v. KaraA.vw, I.e: "do away with, abolish, make
invalid or annul" the law) 68 is a legal technical term in
Greek 69 as well as in Hebrew. 70 The object rhv v&p.ov ~
robs 1rpocp~ras ("the law or the prophets") is specific to
the Jewish tradition; 71 it is a set phrase referring to the
Holy Scripture of the Jews as a whole. 72 Accordingly,
Scripture has two parts, the Torah (that is, the
Pentateuch, ha-torah), and the prophets (that is, the
prophetic books, ha-n'bZ''im). Even if the term "the law" (o
v&p.os) refers to Scripture, it is still a legal term referring
to the Mosaic Torah and its binding authority. 73 This
older concept differs from the later rabbinic concept of
Torah in the wider sense, which includes the written
Torah (i.e., the written text of the Hebrew Bible) and the
oral Torah (i.e., the unwritten tradition by which the
written text is interpreted). 74 The term "the prophets"

66 So rightly Strecker, Bergpredigt, 57 (Sermon, 54-55).
67 For a christological interpretation, see Guelich, 72
Sermon, I36-43; and Luz, Matthiius, I.232-36
(Matthew, I.260-65), who notes a difference between
the legal meaning in 5: I 7 and christological over-
tones in the theology of Matthew (235-36 [ET: 265 ]).
68 See also the simplex J..{;w in SM/Matt 5:I9;John 73
5:I8; 7:23; I0:35; I John 4:3. For KaraJ..6w as a legal
term, see Friedrich Biichsel, TDNT 4.336, 338; Hans
HUbner, EWNT 2.5I-52 (EDNT 2.264); idem, Gesetz,
22, 32-35.
69 For the legal meaning in Greek literature, see
!socrates Or. 6.66; Polybius 3.8.2. For collections of
parallels, see Wettstein, 1.293-94; BAGD, s.v.
Kara>..6w, I.e; Ulrich Luz, "Die Erfiillung des
Gesetzes bei Matthaus (Mt 5,I7-20)," ZThK 75
(I978) 398-435; 4I5 nn. 82-83; David L. Balch,
"The Greek Political Topos ll<pt vJ,..wv and Matthew
5:I7, I9, and I6:I9," in Balch, ed., Social History of the
Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches
(Minneapolis: Fortress, I99I) 68-84. For the later
Jewish-Christian and patristic exegesis, see Beyschlag,
"Geschichte," 3IO-II; Luz,Matthiius, 1.233-35
(Matthew, 1.26I-65). See also CMC, p. 90, line 2I
(ZPE 32 [I978]II 0 with nn. 255-56).
70 Not in the OT. Str-B 1.24I gives Hebrew and
Aramaic ':l10::1 as equivalent; see Dalman, Handworter·
buch, 52, s.v. ':l10::1, 2. The Hellenistic-Jewish literature 74
uses KaraJ..{;w in the technical sense; see 2 Mace 2:22;
4:11; 4 Mace 5:33; Philo Spec. leg. 3.112, I82; Flacc.
52; Som. 2.I23; cf. Leg. Gaj. 322 (Kar&.J..v<Tts);
JosephusAnt. I3.296, 408; I6.35; I7.246; 20.284.
7I The expression is found not in the Hebrew OT but
in the LXX and points to the development of the OT
canon. See Sir, prologue I, 8-9, 24; 2 Mace I5:9; 4
Mace I8:IO; cf. also Zech 7:I2. See Str-B 1.240;
Walter Zimmerli, Das Gesetz und die Propheten: Zum
Verstiindnis des Alten Testaments (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, I963); Alexander Sand,
Das Gesetz und die Propheten: Untersuchungen zur
Theologie des Evangeliums nach Matthiius (BU II;
Regensburg: Pustet, I974); Hubner, Gesetz, 32-35.
The two-part division of the OT is attested in the NT
besides Matt 5:I9 also 7:I2; II:I3; 22:40; Luke
I6:I6;John I:45; Acts I3:I5; 24:I4; 28:23; Rom
3:2Ib; for the three-part division see Luke 24:44.
See BAGD, s.v. vJfLos, 4.a-b.
There is no question that b vJ,..os renders the Hebrew
:1.,1M, a rendering that is in itself beset with the
problem that the meanings do not fully coincide;
indeed, their equation involves a hellenization of the
Hebrew concept, which, however, does not by itself
imply a narrowing to a legalistic understanding. The
Greek concept is just as diverse in meaning as the
Hebrew one. On this point see Charles H. Dodd, The
Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder and Stoughton,
I935), chap. 2; Walter Gutbrod, TDNT 9.I036-65
(B.I-8; C.I-4; D.I-4); Hans Hubner, EWNT
2.II58-72 (EDNT 2.47I-77, with bibliography);
Davies, jewish and Pauline Studies, 3-26: "Law in
First-Century Judaism"; 229-42: "Law in the New
Testament"; George Pelham Shipp, NOMOI: "Law"
(Sydney: Sydney University, I978); Alan F. Segal,
"Torah and Nomos in Recent Scholarly Discussion,"
Studies in Religion/Sciences &ligieuses I3 (I984) I9-
27;Jack N. Lightstone, •Torah is Nomos-Except
When It Is Not: Prolegomena to the Study of the
Law in Late Antique Judaism," ibid., 29-37.
See Urbach, Sages 1.285-3I4; 2.8I4-25: "The
Written and the Oral Laws"; Peter Schafer, "Das
Dogma von der unendlichen Torah," in his Studien
zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen judentums
(AGJU I5; Leiden: Brill, I978) I53-97.

177
(o~ 1rpocpijTat) points to the Old Testament prophetic
books in their capacity as binding legal authority; they
are in this sense also law.
The particle 1f ("or") is disjunctive 75 and points to the
difference among similar terms, while the usual Kal
("and") emphasizes commonality (it occurs in SM/Matt
7: 12). The choice of 1/ ("or") is not superfluous, however,
but focuses on a particular point of jewish theology. 76
According to this view, the Torah of Moses has priority
because it was given by God directly to Moses, while the
prophets testify to the Torah only indirectly through the
Spirit. 77 At the same time, the prophets are raised to
almost the same rank as the Torah of Moses, so as to
avoid a conflict of authority between the two bodies of
literature. Finally, the authority of the traditions is
limited to the books of the Bible, so that extrabiblical
legal and prophetic tradition remains secondary and not
binding. These distinctions have played an important
role in the development of the Old Testament canon as
well as for the Pharisaic and rabbinic concepts of Torah.
By the same token, one must also take the other term,
7TA:qpow ("fulfill") in the legal sense, 78 corresponding to
the Hebrew c~p. 79 In fact, both terms are complemen-
tary and interpret each other. 80 What, then, do they
mean? One must not confuse them with transgressing or
abiding by specific prescriptions or prohibitions, with
which they are indirectly connected.
The terms refer first to the recognition and implemen-
tation-or the refusal of recognition and implemen-
tation-of Holy Scripture as legal authority. Torah and
prophets have such authority because they are the
sources of justice (atKatouVv7J); second, the term must be
interpreted in such a way that justice can be brought to
bear on given cases oflaw.
One must keep in mind the difference here between
Scripture as general authority and source of justice, and
individual laws that are also contained in the Torah and
that must serve justice. Generally, laws are always

75 See BDF, § 446; BAGD, s.v.Tf, l.a.{J.
76 No other passage in the NT makes this point, not
even in the SM itself (cf. 7: 12). Cf. Guelich, Sermon,
137-38, who observes the singularity but, taking it to
be Matthew's redactional change, misunderstands its
meaning.
77 Str-B 1.240.
78 In this sense the term occurs also in Matt 3: 15; Gal
5:14; Rom 8:4; 13:8; for other references, see
BAGD, s.v. 1rll:qp/Joo, 4.b; Gerhard Delling, "7rA7Jp~s
KTA.," TDNT 6.283-311, esp. 286-94; Hans Hubner,
EWNT(EDNT), 3, s.v. 1rA7JpOoo KTA (with bib-
liography), who interprets correctly as "zur Geltung
bringen des Gesetzes (und der das Gesetz auslegenden
Propheten) durch Lehre" (col. 259). So also Strecker,
Bergpredigt, 57 (Sermon, 54-55); see also the excursus
in Guelich, Sermon, 138-42; and Luz, Matthiius,
1.232, 235-36, with further material (Matthew,
1.260-61, 264-65). Luz surveys the options and
decides in favor of fulfillment of the law through
Jesus' actions; this view, however, follows from Luz's
tendency of interpreting Matthew's theology into SM.
79 So in 'Abot 4.11, ed. and trans. by Herford, Pirke
Aboth, 106: "R.Jonathan said:-He who fulfils Torah
when he is poor will fulfil it in the end when he is
rich. And he who makes void the Torah when he is
rich will in the end make it void when he is poor."
The whole section deals with proper and improper
ways ofteaching the Torah. Differently Delling,
TDNT 6.293-94, who takes it to be the equivalent of
IC':IC because of the use by the LXX (6.287 -88).
Different again is Jechiel Lichtenstein, A us Jechiel
Lichtensteins Hebriiischem Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament (Leipzig: Akademische Buchhandlung [W.
Faber], 1895) 15: "l'haschlim (nicht l'hakim)" in the
sense of "the execution of a design" or "the
realization of something which is conceived as an
idea" ("die Ausfiihrung dessen, was bisher nur im
Entwurf fertig ist"; "die Erganzung des erst in der
Idee Vollendeten").
80 Semantically, they are not as incompatible as is often
suggested. Cf. Delling, TDNT 6.292. See further
Henrik Ljungman, Das Gesetz erfullen: Matth. 5,17ff.
und 3,15 untersucht (Lund: Gleerup, 1954), with the
review by Ernst Kasemann, ThLZ 81 (1956) 547-48;
Charles F. D. Moule, "Fulfillment Words in the New
Testament: Use and Abuse," NTS 14 (1967-68)
293-320; E. P. Sanders, "On the Question of
Fulfilling the Law in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism," in
Donum Gentilicium: New Testament Studies in Honour of
David Daube (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978) I 03-26;
Trilling, Das wahre Israel, 188; Luz, "Die Erfiillung
des Gesetzes," 416; Heikki Raisanen, Paul and the
Law (WUNT 29; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1983)
86-88; Ferdinand Hahn, "Mt 5,17: Anmerkungen
zum Erfiillungsgedanken bei Matthaus," in Die Mitte
des Neuen Testaments: FS fur Eduard Schweizer zum 70.
Geburtstag (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1983) 42-54.

178

particular and do not automatically fit given situations
and cases; they are not in and of themselves identical
with justice. The term "fulfill" is well chosen because it
describes a process of legal interpretation in which
individual laws are interpreted in such a way that they
are made to fit given situations or cases and to facilitate
justice. Justice is served when the laws fulfill the purposes
for which they were designed. Given the laws and the
situations or cases, justice demands to be served; 81 and
when that goal is reached its demands are "fulfilled."
Particular laws are intended not simply to be complied
with but to be "fulfilled" by serving as instruments for
meeting the demands of justice. 8 2
The question then arises, Where does justice come
from? What are its standards, and how does it work?
Justice is above the laws and even above Scripture;
according to ancient theology it is a metaphysical entity,
a divine quality, and Scripture is its revelatory source.
Therefore, justice must first be recognized through a
general interpretation of Scripture, so that the individual
laws that are also derived from Scripture can be applied
in such a way that justice is served. Basically, this was the
contemporary concept ofjustice and law not only in
Judaism but also in Greek and Roman law, which has
equivalent legal concepts and terms. In mentioning
justice (a"ca,ocn'wq) I have anticipated vs 20, where it is
given full treatment.
81 As has been noticed before (see John Calvin, In
Nuvum Testamentum Commentarii [ed. August
Tholuck; 2d ed.; Berlin: Thome, 1835] 5.45), these
ideas are somehow related to Paul's theology in
Romans, where he defends himself against the
supposition that his theology undercuts the authority
of the law. The important things about the law are
"the demands ofthe law" (TI13uca&C::.p.aTa Toil v6p.ov,
Rom 2:26; 8:4). Only if these demands are
understood (Rom 1:32) and met can the law be
fulfilled (Rom 8:4; 13:8; Gal 5: 14). It is through faith
that the demand is recognized (Rom 3:31): "Do we,
then, destroy, the law through faith? By no means,
but we establish the Jaw" (v6p.ov O~V KaTapyOVp.EV 3&11
Tijf wliTT€Wf; p.~ ylvo&To· ZIAAII v6p.ov !ITTavop.Ev). Paul
could just as well have used the phrase "fulfill the
law." Cf. Raisanen, Paul and the Law, 69-72, 86.
82 One should note that these ideas are also remarkably
similar to Aristotle's notion of lwav6p8wp.a vop.lp.ov
3&Kalov ("rectification/establishment of legal ju~tice")
in Eth. Nic. 5.10.3-7, 1137b 12-33. Aristotle is in
discussion with Plato, as has been pointed out by
Matthew 5:17-20
Excursus:
Socrates' Defiance of the Law
Jesus' saying, "Do not think I have come to abolish the
law or the prophets, • should be related to a wider
context of the history of civil disobedience, not only to
the history oflaw, and in that regard especially to a
specialty of Athenian law, the trials because of
"impiety. • The technical term lurl~na ("impiety")
designating the charge covers not only offenses against
belief in and worship of the gods but also offenses
against the law. 88 The difference between religion and
law was not clearly defined because the belief in and
official worship of the traditional gods was regarded as
the cornerstone of the law of city and state, so that
disbelief in the gods constituted a severe threat to the
law and the polis. The following definition is
representative of the ancient understanding of the
charge: "Impiety is the offense against the gods, the
demons, the dead, the parents, and the nation. "84
These offenses were considered so severe that they
required harsh punishment because they violated the
"unwritten laws" (lf:ypatf>o• v6p.o1) that undergirded the
written laws of city and state as well as of public
morality. 85
In view of the saying ofJesus, the term vop.l(w
("think" or "believe") was connected with the charge of
impiety from the beginning and indicates its legal
nature. 86 The specific accusation of defiance of the law
occurs first in connection with the most notorious of
such trials, that against Socrates in 399 BCE. Scholars
have not yet clarified the precise charges against
Franz Dirlmeier in his notes to Aristoteles: Niko-
machische Ethik (8th ed.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,
1983) 432-34.
83 On this concept, see Werner Foerster, "/&.,.€~~f KTA.,"
TDNT 7.185-91; Helmut Merkel, "Gotteslasterung, •
RAG 11 (1981) 1185-1201;Jean Rudhardt, "La
definition du delit d'impiete d'apres Ia legislation
attique," MH 17 (1960) 87-105; Dover, Greek
Popular Morality, 247-68.
84 Ps.-Aristotle Virt. etvit. 7,1251a 31.
85 See Dover, Greek Popular Morality, 255-57.
86 See Wolfgang Fahr, ElEOYl: NOMIZEIN: Zum
Problem der Anfiinge des Atheismus bei den Griechen
(Spudasmata 26; Hildesheim: Olms, 1969).
179
Socrates, so that statements about the matter require
caution. 8 7 One of the oldest sources is Xenophon, who
at the beginning of his defense of Socrates sums up, or
even quotes verbatim, the indictment (ypa<j>~):
Socrates is guilty of rejecting the gods acknowl-
edged by the state and of bringing in strange
deities; he is also guilty of corrupting the youth. 88
The first point conforms to the infamous law of
Diopeithes; 89 the second is directed against the
introduction of new deities and religious practices into
Athens, which was against Athenian law. 90 The third
point, corruption of the youth, is at first sight difficult
to account for, but discussions show that the accusation
involved Socrates' teaching the youth to disregard the
laws and their family obligations. In this connection,
the charge can also be stated in broader terms:
"Socrates ... is a teacher of contempt for the laws, "91
or "Socrates ... is a teacher of the abolition of the
state. • 9 2 By the time of Plutarch, the phrase "to abolish
the laws" had become a catchall accusation against
prominent intellectuals who had for some reason
become inconvenient in the eyes of the mighty and
powerful. 98
87 Polykrates' "Accusation against Socrates" (KaT7j')'Opla
l:wKpchov~) was written after Socrates' death. The
extent to which it can be reconstructed and the
question of its relationship to the actual speech
delivered against Socrates present an intriguing
analog to the accusations against Jesus, and thus to
Matt 5:17. See Rudolf Hirzel, "Polykrates' Anklage
und Lysias' Vertheidigung des Sokrates," RhM 42
(1887) 239-50;JosefMesk, "Die Anklagerede des
Polykrates gegen Sokrates," WS 32 (191 0) 56-84; A.
S. Ferguson, "The Impiety of Socrates," ClQ 7 (1913)
157-75;Jean Humbert, "Le pamphlet de Polycrates
et Je Gorgias de Platon," RPh 5 (1931) 20-77;
Gunnar Rudberg, Sokrates bei Xenophon (Uppsala:
Lundeqvistska Bokhandeln; Leipzig: Harrassowitz,
1939); P. Treves, "Polykrates (Rhetor)," PW 21.2
(1952) 1736-52; Ernst Gebhardt, Polykrates' Anklage
gegen Sokrates und Xenophons Erwiderung (Philos. diss.,
Frankfurt a.M., 1957); cf. the review by J.-H. Kuhn,
Gnomon 32 [1960] 97-107.
88 Xenophon Mem. 1.1.1: 'A3&KEi l:wKpaT'T/~ oll~ ,.~v ~
11'0A&S vo,.l'n BEoV~ ov vo,.l,wv, lTEpa 3~ Ka&va 3a&,.clv&a
Elu<j>£pwv· a3&1CEL Cl~ Kal TOVr v£ov~ Cl&a<j>8Elpwv.
89 See Plutarch Pericles 32.1: "And Diopeithes brought
in a bill providing for the public impeachment of
such as did not believe in gods, or who taught
doctrines regarding the heavens" (Kal1/nl<j>•ul'a
fl.&o11'Et87j~ lypa..;Ev EluayylAAEuBa& TOV~ Ta BEia ,.~
vo,.l(ovTa~ lj AOyov~ 11'Epl Tiiw /'ETapulwv CI&M<TKOVTa~).
90 Cf. Acts 17:18, where Paul is categorized thus: "He
seems to be the messenger and proclaimer of foreign
divinities."
180
The question of how the accusation of contempt of
law could have arisen is as intriguing in the case of
Socrates as it is in the case of jesus. While his defenders
made every effort to present Socrates as a Jaw-abiding
citizen, his statements in Plato's writings are ambigu-
ous. 94 In Plato's Apol. 29B, Socrates distinguishes
radically between obedience to the laws of the city,
represented by the court, and the command of the god
of Delphi, who ordered him "to spend my life in
philosophy and in examining myself and others" (28E;
trans. Harold N. Fowler, LCL). Ignoring that
command would be tantamount to "not believing that
there are gods" (29A).
On the question of obedience toward the city laws,
Socrates' words are, however, highly ambiguous:
Perhaps, gentlemen, in this matter I also differ
from other men in this way, and if I were to say that
I am wiser in anything, it would be in this, that not
knowing very much about this other world, I do
not think I know. But I do know that it is evil and
disgraceful to do wrong and to disobey him who is
better than I, whether he be god or man. So I shall
never fear or avoid those things concerning which I
91 Libanius A pol. 13: l:wKp6.T7jV ... CI&MuKaAov ')'EVO,.Evov
... V11'Epo..;la~ Trov v&,.wv. Cf. also Apol. 80; Aristoph-
anesNub. 1400; XenophonMem. 1.2.9;JosephusAp.
2.37.2.
92 Libanius Apol. 13: l:wKp6.T7jV ... 3&MuKaAov ')'EVO/'Evov
... 31/I'OV KaTaAV<TEw~. Cf. Apol. 51. For a discussion
of these passages, see Hieronymus Markowski, De
Libanio Socratis defensore (Breslau: Marcus, 191 0) 5-7.
93 See Plutarch's (Cato 22-23) report about the arrival
ofCarneades in Rome, the enthusiastic reception
by the youth, Cato's suspicions, and his initiative to
rid the city of the philosophers because he saw in
them the followers of Socrates, "a mighty prattler,
who attempted, as best he could, to be his country's
tyrant, by abolishing its customs [~<aTaAvovTa Ta £'871],
and by enticing his fellow citizens into opinions
contrary to the Jaws." In his Life ofPhocion, Plutarch
describes the death ofPhocion in analogy to that of
Socrates (38.2), and he emphasizes that his hero
"managed the affairs of the city with mildness and
according to the laws" (29.4), while his rival,
Demades, violated laws and customs whenever he
could (30.2ff.).
94 For a discussion of the problem, see Anthony D.
Woozley, "Socrates on Disobeying the Law," in
Gregory Vlastos, ed., The Philosophy of Socrates: A
Collection ofCritical Essays (London: Macmillan, 1971)
299-318; Robert]. McLaughlin, "Socrates on
Political Disobedience," Phronesis 21 (1976) 185-97,
where further literature is discussed.
 Matthew 5:17-20

do not know whether they are good or bad rather
than those which I know are bad. (29A)
He goes on to say that even if the court sets him free
and orders him to stop doing philosophy, he would
disobey their order. He then draws the ironic
conclusion: "if I were acquitted your sons would all be
utterly ruined by practicing what I teach" (29C). The
conflict between Socrates' idea of obedience to the law,
according to which obedience to Apollo, the god of law
and order, is superior to the man-made laws of the city,
and the popular notion followed by the court,
according to which the laws of the city are the highest
and must be obeyed without exception, appears
unresolvable.
In Plato's Crito, however, Socrates 95 seems to take
the opposite position when, imprisoned, he is
presented with the opportunity to flee the city. He
refuses that opportunity. Letting the laws speak for
themselves, he says:
If, as I was on the point of running away (or
whatever it should be called), the laws and the
commonwealth should come to me and ask, "Tell
me, Socrates, what have you in mind to do? Are you
not intending by this thing you are trying to do, to
destroy us, the laws, and the entire state? ... Or do
you think that state can exist and not be over-
turned, in which the decisions reached by the
courts have no force but are made invalid and
annulled by private persons?" (50B-C; trans. Harold
N. Fowler, LCL)
After a lengthy speech made by the laws themselves in
which they defend their usefulness, Socrates appears to
be persuaded that they are, after all, right. The
dialogue ends with Socrates' approval but not without
the doubt that he would have more and different
things to say.
This dialogue suggests that Socrates' position on the
law was open to various interpretations. As a result,
open defiance 96 or external accommodation alongside
mental reservation 97 became possible attitudes for
Greek philosophers after Socrates. The suspicion
against philosophers that they subvert the laws of the
state, public morality, and thereby the state itself thus
continued to flare up in the Greco-Roman world, as
indeed that suspicion has lurked in all societies ever
since. It is in this wider context that one must interpret
the accusation against jesus that it was his intention to
abolish the law of judaism.
Bibliography
David Daube, Civil Disobedience in Antiquity (Edinburgh:
University of Edinburgh, 1972).
Eudore Derenne, Les proces d' impiete intentes aux
philosophes il Athenes au Vme et au Vlme siecles (Paris:
Champion, 1930).
W. K. C. Guthrie, A History ofGreek Philosophy (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University, 1969) 3/2.89-96.
Wilhelm Nestle, "Asebieprozesse," RAG 1 (1950)
735-40.
• 1 8 Whereas vs 1 7 is formulated negatively, vs 18 affirms
the authority of the Torah in the form of a tripartite
definition introduced by the doctrinal formula, "truly I
say to you" (ap.~v >..f.yw vp.l:v). 98 The introductory formula
in vs 18a is emphatically positive, employing the
liturgical "amen" 99 to counterbalance the negative
refutation in vs 1 7. This introductory formula was
apparently also typical of the historica!Jesus, a fact that

95 See Anthony D. Woozley, Law and Obedience: The
Arguments ofPlato's "Crito" (Chapel Hill, N.C.:
University of North Carolina, 1979).
96 This attitude was represented by the Cynics. See,
e.g., Antisthenes in Diog. L. 6.11; PhilodemusP.
Here. 339: "They attach no validity to the cities we
know, nor to any law" (my trans.).
97 This appears to have been Epicurus's attitude, for
whicli see Kyriai Doxai 31-38; Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 51;
frg. B.2; 81; 83 (ed. Bailey); Cicero De .fin. 2.9.28.
98 In the SM, the phrase occurs in 5:18, 26; 6:2, 5, 13,
16. See Victor Hasler, Amen: Redaktionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung zur Einfilhrungsformel der Herrenworte
"Wahrlich, ich sage euch" (Stuttgart and Zurich:
Gotthelf, 1969);Jeremias, Theology, 1.36 n. 2; idem,
"Zum nicht-responsorischen Amen," ZNW 64 (1973)
119-23; Klaus Berger, Die Amen-Worte Jesu (Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1970); idem, "Zur Geschichte der
Einleitungsformel 'Amen, ich sage euch,'" ZNW 63
(1972) 45-74;John Strugnell, "'Amen, I say unto
you' in the Sayings of jesus and in Early Christian
Literature," HTR 67 (1974) 177-82.
99 On the "amen," see Heinrich Schlier, "ap.~v," TDNT
1.337-38; Johannes Hempel, • Amen," !DB 1.1 05;
Theodor Klauser, "Akklamation," RAG 1 (1950) 227;
Paul Glaue, "Amen," ibid., 3 78-80; Daube, NT and
Rabbinic judaism, 388-93; Shemaryahu Talmon,
"Amen as an Introductory Oath Formula," Textus 7
(1969) 124-29; Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, EWNT
(EDNT) 1, s.v. ap.~v;Joachimjeremias and Gerhard
Krause, TRE 2 (1977) 310-23; Alfred Stuiber,
RACSup 1 (1985) 310-23.

181
does not, however, mean that vs 18 is by necessity an
ipsissimum verbum jesu, "a word of Jesus himself," to use
Jeremias's description. 100
The second hermeneutical principle in vs 18 seeks to
define in what sense the followers ofJesus' teaching are
to regard the Torah as authoritative Scripture. The
connection with yap ("for") signifies that vs 18 is the basis
as well as the consequence of vs 1 7. 1 0 1 ·
The definition itself is a composition of three distinct
parts. The principal statement is unquestionably located
in the middle of the definition (vs 18c) and is bracketed
by two temporal qualifications (vs 18b and d):
vs 18b: till heaven and earth pass away,
vs 18c: not even one iota or one dot will pass away
from the law,
vs 18d: until all is accomplished.
o
vs 18b: ~oo~ Av 1rap£A8y oilpav'b~ Kat ~ yfj,
vs 18c: Uora ;v ~ p.la Kfpala oil p.~ 1rap£A8y Ct7TO rov
I
vop.ov
vs 18d: ~oo~ Av 1ravra y£v71TaL.
The principal assertion in vs 18c defines the Torah as
a written text in the following respect. That the Torah is
referred to by means of lwra ("iota") and Kfpala ("dot,"
lit., "hook") implies that the text under consideration is
written in Hebrew script: only for such a text would
"iota" and "dot" serve as distinguishing characteristics. 1o2
Furthermore, the conclusion in question must be drawn
a minori ad maius: 103 what is true of the smallest letter
must, by implication, be true of the rest. Such references
make clear that in keeping with Jewish theology the
Hebrew text of the Torah was the scriptural authority
for the original audience of the SM, and that the text was
considered binding down to its smallest letter. 104 Such a
declaration is astonishing because the SM itself is written
in Greek and was part of the Greek linguistic milieu.
This reference corresponds to the other scriptural
citations and particularly to those found in the antitheses
in 5:21-48, since all of them are in Greek.
There is no indication that the SM as a whole was
translated from the Hebrew, and one's attention is
otherwise seldom drawn to Semitic figures of speech. 105
Moreover, there is no evidence that the author of the SM
even understood Hebrew. Scriptural exegesis in the SM
is always based on the Greek wording of the biblical
quotations. What is one to make of this paradox?
The most likely answer seems to be that since we know
almost nothing about the social and cultural matrix of
the SM, we must not exclude the possibility that
familiarity with the Hebrew language may have played a
greater role than appears from this text, which was
doubtless written for Jewish Christians whose daily
language was Greek. Furthermore, I conclude that the
restriction of scriptural authority to the Hebrew text of
the Torah must have had special motives; perhaps one
can explain it as an attempt at polemical delimitation. 1 06
This delimitation may also be related to the so-called
false pericopes in later Jewish Christianity as reflected in
the Kerygmata Petrou of the Pseudo-Clementine
literature, 107 where Matt 5:18 plays an important part in
this connection (Ps.-Clem. Hom. 51.3; cf. Ep. Petr. 2.5-
6). 108 The doctrine of "false pericopes" assumes that the
original law of Moses was given to him by God orally and

100 See Betz, Essays, 67;Jeremias, Theology, 1.35-36. ytEvva ("Gehenna") in 5:22, 29, 30; p.ap.wviis
101 See Bornkamm, Gesammelte Aufsii.tze, 4. 76. ("Mammon") in 6:24; and paKa ("fool") in 5:22, have
102 Iota here refers to the Hebrew letter yodh, while become part of Greek colloquial speech in Palestine.
KEpala ("dot") is proverbial in Greek as well. Cf. Philo 106 Compare Paul's very different view in Gal 5:14 and
Flacc. 131. For comparative material, see Str-B the summary in 5:3 of the view he had held before he
1.244, 244-49; BAGD, s.v. lidra, KEpala; Gunter became a Christian. See Betz, Galatians, 259-61,
Schwarz, "lidra 2v ~ p.la KEpala (Matthii.us 5, 18)," ZNW 274-76.
66 (1975) 268-69. 107 See Strecker,judenchristentum, 162-87.
103 This hermeneutical rule seems to be prerabbinic in 108 For a translation of these texts, see NTApoc 2.112
Judaism. See Christian Maurer, "Der SchluB 'a minore and 118-20.
ad maius' als Element paulinischer Theologie," ThLZ
85 (1960) 150-51; Towner, "Hermeneutical
Systems," 113-16.
104 So also Strecker, Bergpredigt, 58 (Sermon, 55-56);
differently apparently Luz, Matthii.us, 1.236 n. 71
(Matthew, 1.265 n. 71).
105 Words like li.p.~v ("truly") in 5:18, 26; 6:2, 5, 13, 16;

182
 Matthew 5:17-20

that it was written down only after Moses' death. When it
was written down, however, the false pericopes were
smuggled in, and it was jesus who stripped them away
again and thus recovered the original oral Torah of
Moses, which is also the one the Kerygmata Petrou
affirms. 109 Both the SM and the Kerygmata Petrou have
the same goal of getting back to the original Torah of
Moses, 110 but their methods differ: the SM recognizes as
authoritative the original Hebrew text, while the -
Kerygmata Petrou, operating on the basis of the LXX,
separate the original Torah of Moses from later,
allegedly false accretions. Compared with the Kerygmata
Petrou, the SM affirms the original Hebrew text of "the
whole Torah" (see also 7:12), although one can interpret
that concept in a number of ways. 111 As a legal principle,
SM/Matt 5:18 stands in a long tradition of prohibitions
against changing the biblical text and indeed other
authoritative texts. 112 The authority thus rests on the
written letters.
This definition of scriptural authority, however, gives
rise to a problem that demands an explanation. As the
term 7rap£px€u8at ("pass away") 113 indicates, the Torah,
in its character as Scripture, participates in the
createdness of the world, and thus is subject to
transience. But how can this transience be compatible
with the absolute authority of Scripture?
The answer provided by the SM is that the authority
of Scripture is temporally limited. 114 Thus the SM gives

109 Cf. Ps.-Clem. Hom. 3.51.2-3 and 52.1 (NTApoc
2.120): "And in saying: 'I am not come to destroy the law'
[Matt 5: 17] and yet destroying something, he
indicated that what he destroyed had not originally
belonged to the law. His declaration: 'The heaven and
the earth will pass away, but one dot and one tittle shall not
pass from the law' [Matt 24:35; 5:18] shows that what
passes away earlier than heaven and earth does not
belong to the true law. For whilst heaven and earth
still exist, sacrifices, kingdoms, prophecies of those
who are among them that are born of women [Matt
11: 11] and such like, have passed away, not going
back to the ordinance of God."
110 In both texts, this goal is connected with anti-
Paulinism: in the SM in a very subtle way, in the
Kerygmata Petrou openly and without restraint. See
Strecker,judenchristentum, 187-96; Betz, Galatians,
5-9 and appendix 3A (pp. 331-33).
Ill Cf. Paul, who held two concepts of the whole Torah: 114 So correctly Bornkamm, Gesammelte Aufsiitze, 4. 77-
(1) his (pre-Christian) Pharisaic doctrine, according
to which Torah means all the prohibitions and
prescriptions (Gal 5:3); and (2) his Christian concept,
according to which the whole Torah is contained in
the principle of the love-command (Gal5:14; Rom
13:8-10). See Betz, Galatians, 274-76; Hans
Hubner, "Das ganze und das eine Gesetz," KD 21
(1975) 239-56; idem, Law in Paul's Thought, 36-42;
F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary
on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1982) 241-42.
112 See Deut 4:2; Eccl3:14; Rev 22:19;JosephusAp.
1.42; Ep. Arist. 308-11; cf. Str-B 1.244-48. For large
collections of parallels, see Willem C. van Unnik, "De
Ia regie 'M~TE 7Tporr8livat P.~Tf lupeA.e'iv' dans l'histoire
du canon," VC 3 ( 1949) 1-36; reprinted in Sparsa
collecta 2.123-56; Wilhelm Herrmann, "Zu Kohelet
3, 14," WZ(L), GS 3 (1953/54) 293-95; Christoph
Schaublin, "p.~u 1rporr8e'ivat Jl-'1/T' luf><A<'iv," MH 31
(1974) 144-49; Michael Gagarin, Early Greek Law
(Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of
California, 1986) 76-77. Related are the rules in 1
a
Cor 4:6: TO 1-'~ htp yiypa7TTa! ("the [principle]'not
beyond what is written'"); IgnatiusPhld. 8.2; see
Laurence L. Welborn, "1 Cor 4:6: A Conciliatory
Principle," NovT 29 (1987) 320-46.
113 So correctly also Bornkamm, Gesammelte Aufsiitze,
4. 77-78. The use of 1rapipxop.at ("pass away") in
5: 18b and c plays the cosmological/ apocalyptical (cf.
Mark 13:30 par.; 2 Cor 5: 17; 2 Pet 3:1 0) against the
juristic meaning (cf. Mark 13:31 par.; Luke 15:29).
For the term, see also BAGD, s.v. 7rapipxoJJ.at;
Johannes Schneider, TDNT 2.679-80; Alexander
Sand, EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v. 1rapipxoJJ.at; Broer,
Freiheit, 48-49, with further literature.
78; differently Str-B 1.244-49; Banks ,Jesus and the
Law, 215; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 58 (Sermon, 55), who
interpret the passage in accordance with the rabbinic
doctrine of the eternal existence of the Torah. Again
different is Guelich's interpretation, trying to
reconcile the statements with Paul (Sermon, 145-49).
After carefully weighing the options, Luz (Matthiius,
1.236-37 [Matthew, 1.265-66]) decides to harmonize
the passage with the Matthean context (cf. Matt
24:35) and prefers the unlimited authority ofthe law.
It is, however, methodologically questionable to
interpret rabbinic or even "Matthean" (if it is
Matthean) views into the SM. By contrast, the
Kerygmata Petrou insist on the eternity of the Torah
(see Strecker,Judenchristentum, 165-66). For the
rabbinic doctrine, see also Peter Schafer, "Das
Dogma von der unendlichen Torah," in his Studien

183
rise to an apparent paradox: the scriptural authority of
the Torah will not pass away so long as the conditions of
the transitory world persist.
It is the task of the two bracketing sentences in vs 18b
and d to specify the time at which the conditions of the
transitory world will be annulled. This temporal limit is
derived from apocalyptic expectation, as is evident from
two formulae.
The first formula concerns vs 18b: lws liv -rrapb..Bv o
ovpaVOS Kat ~ yij ("until heaven and earth paSS away").
That lws with the aorist subjunctive has a temporal
meaning cannot be doubted. 115 The time for which the
Torah is valid begins with Moses and ends with the end
of the world. 116 The second formula (vs 18d) is
conceived as a parallel to vs 18b and is also of apocalyptic
origin: lws liv -rr6.vra yivTJrat ("until all is accomplished").
In other words, at the end, the Torah will not simply pass
out of existence but will be replaced by salvation itself,
which, after all, is its content. 117
This view of a temporal limit differs from that of Paul,
for whom the end of the Jewish Torah coincided with
the coming of Jesus and the coming of faith. 118 But while
non-Christian Judaism must have considered the Pauline
solution heretical, 119 the same cannot be said of the SM.
It asserts merely that the written Torah was given under
historical conditions and that these conditions will come
°
to an end with history itself. 1 2 Until then, the
community of the SM remains within the bounds of
Judaism.
• 19 While vs 18 affirms traditional principles regarding
the Torah as a written text, vs 19 moves on to the
teaching of that Torah. This teaching also concerns the
teaching of Jesus and the status of his teaching. The
connecting word otv ("therefore") signifies that vs 19
follows from vs 18, just as vs 18 requires the clarifications
of vs 19: the Torah does need interpretation and
teaching. It is noteworthy that in Did. 1.2-3, in the
context of similar hermeneutical principles, the
quotations from the Torah, coupled with the Golden
Rule, 121 are followed by citations of Jesus' "teaching in
regard to these principles" (rotSrwv a€ TWV ft.6ywv ~
a,aax~).122
Formally, vs 19 is a statement of"sacred law," 123
specifically of the casuistic type, 1 2 4 formulated as an
antithetical isocolon or parallelismus membrorum. The
antitheton is based on the two word pairs ft.tSw/-rrodw and

zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen judentums
(AGJU 15; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 153-97.
115 See BDF, § 383; BDR, § 383; Bauer, s.v. fw~.
116 The formula comes from apocalyptic language. See
Mark 13:31 par.; 1 Cor 7:31; 2 Pet 3:10; Rev 21:1.
For parallels see also Str-B 3.840-47. The SM
distinguishes between the singular "heaven and
earth" as part of this world (5:18, 34; 6:20, 26;
differently the Lord's Prayer, 6:1 0) and the plural
"heavens" as the realm of God the Father (5:3, 10,
12, etc.). See Betz, "Eschatology," in Synoptische
Studien, 219-29, and above on SM/Matt 5:3.
117 See also Mark 13:30par.; Rev 1:1, 19; 4:1; 22:2. See
Eduard Schweizer's different interpretation in
"Gesetz und Enthusiasm us bei Matthaus," in his
Beitriige, 51; idem, "Noch einmal," in hisMatthiius,
83. Apparently sensing the tension with Matthean
theology, he tries to establish a final sense for the
phrase and thus make it conform to the larger
context of Matthew ("so that the whole law is done").
Similarly Bornkamm, Gesammelte Aufsiitze, 4. 78. But,
as Luz (Matthiius, 1.237 [Matthew, 1.266]) recognizes,
this hypothesis does not commend itself for a number
of reasons.
118 See Gal3:19-25; Rom 10:4. Cf.Jas 2:10.
119 For Paul's self-defense see Rom 3:31; 6:1; further-
more Acts 15:5; 18:13, 15; 21:28; 23:29; 25:8. Cf.
the Ps.-Clem. Ep. Petri 2.4-7 (NTApoc 2.112), where
Peter defends himself: "And indeed some here have
attempted, whilst I am still alive, to distort my words
by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the
dissolution of the law and, although I was of this
opinion, did not express it openly." Cf. Acts 10:45;
11:2, and also Mani in CMC, pp. 72, 19-74, 5, who is
said to have taken exactly this position.
120 Philo (Vit. Mos. 2.14-15), probably together with at
least part of Hellenistic judaism, advocated a similar
combination of ideas, when he wrote of the Mosaic
laws: "and we may hope that they will remain for all
future ages as though immortal, so long as the sun
and the moon and the whole heaven and universe
exist [1rph!~ rhv l7r£tra w&.vra Or.ap.£V£iv €A1r~s aiJrlz. alWva
lf>uwEp lt6£tuara, fro~ Au TfA.r.os Kaf. u£A~V1J Ka\ 0 u-tJp:rras
ovpav6~ TE Kat K6ap.o~ n]. Thus, though the nation has
undergone so many changes, both to increased
prosperity and the reverse, nothing-not even the
smallest part of the ordinances-has been disturbed,
because all have clearly paid high honor to the
venerable and godlike character" (trans. F. H.
Colson, LCL).
121 Did. 1.2 contains altogether three principles: a "first"
consisting of Deut 6:5, and a "second" consisting of
Lev 19: 18; these two are then connected with the
Golden Rule, which is, however, not called the

184
 Matthew 5:17-20

£>.ax urTos I p.Eyas. In each of the parallels, the conditional
relative clauses (vs 19a and c) state the legal case, while
the apodoses (vs 19b and d) contain the verdict. The
repetition of the final words in the apodoses are cases of
epiphora. 125
The first part of the antithetical parallelism in vs 19a is
formulated negatively: 8s lav o:Ov :Ailcry p.lav Twv lvTo:Awv
TOtJTIJJV TWV l:AaxlcrTIJJV KaL otlitlfv oilTros TOVs av8pJl1rOVS ...
("Therefore, whoever does away with one of the least of
these commandments and teaches the people in this
manner ... "). 126 The sentence states that the offense is
twofold: the setting aside of the commandments and the
teaching of disregard for them to the people. The
statement, however, presents a number of difficulties,
whose solution is to some extent a question of method.
Can one distinguish between :Ailw (vs 19) and Kara:Ailw (vs
17), both basically meaning "dissolve"? 127 Do both refer
to the same thing? 128 Do the "commandments" (vs 19)
add up to the "law" (vs 17), or do they refer to different
commandments? If the latter, whose commandments are
we to think of?
Then there is the question concerning the phrase "the
least of these commandments." Does the phrase
presuppose the rabbinic distinction between lesser and
weightier Torah commandments? Does "the least" mean
"least important" or "requiring the least effort to do"?
Does the phrase "the least of these [TotJTrov ]" point to
commandments inside the SM, perhaps to the antitheses
in 5:21-48, or to Jesus' commandments elsewhere?
The violator in vs 19a is clearly more than a
transgressor of individual commandments. His violation
consists of the setting aside of the commandments
altogether, either in their entirety or by selection. He is
presented as a teacher who not only sets aside the
commandments but also teaches the people to do the
same. In sum, he is an apostate teaching apostasy. 1 2 9 A
close parallel to this sentence occurs in Did. 11.1-2,
which contains a tripartite regulation concerning
teachers:
~as &v o:Ov £A86Jv Otoafv vp.as TaVTa 7TtlVTa Ta
7Tp0Hp7Jp.Eva, 0Efacr8€ avTov· lav ot- avTOS 0 OIOtlCTKIJJV
crTpacp€1s otoacrK!/ Cf.:A:A7Jv otoax~v ds TO KaTa:Avcrat, p.~
, ,.. , ,
aVTOV aKOVCT1JT€"
€1s ot- TO 7Tpocr8lival O!KatocrtJV7JV KaL )'VWCTIV Kvplov,
0Efacr8€ avTOV WS KtJpwv.

"third" principle. Cf. Mark 12:30-31 par.; SM/Matt
7:12; SP/Luke 6:31.
122 The term .\oyor in Did. 1.3a refers to the three
statements in 1. 2 and classifies them as "principles."
Beyond this, the entire Didache consists of .\oyo•; cf.
3.8; 4.2. For the SM, see Matt 7:24-26.
123 For this genre of sayings, see the pioneering article
by Ernst Kasemann, "Sentences of Holy Law in the
New Testament," in New Testament Questions of Today
(trans W.J. Montague; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969)
66-81; pace Klaus Berger, "Zu den sogenannten
Satzen heiligen Rechts," NTS 17 (1970/71) 10-40;
idem, "Die sogenannten 'Satze heiligen Rechts' im
Neuen Testament; ihre Funktion und ihr Sitz im
Leben," TZ 28 (1972) 305-30; cf. idem, Form-
geschichte, 176-80. Against Berger, I agree with Luz,
"Erfullung," 409.
124 See Hans Jochen Boecker, Law and the Administration
ofjustice in the Old Testament and Ancient East (trans.
Jeremy Moiser; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980) 150-
71; Willy Schottroff, "Zum altestamentlichen Recht,"
VF 22 (1979) 3-29; Harry W. Gilmer, The If-You
Form in Israelite Law (SBLDS 15; Missoula, Mont.:
Scholars, 1975).
125 On this form, see Lausberg, Handbuch, 1, §§ 719-
54; § 631 on epiphora; Jeremias, Theology, 14-20.
126 Form critically, the rule is related to vs 18. The
difference is that vs 18 refers to the written text of
the Torah, while vs 19 is said with regard to the oral
teaching. Cf. Berger, Formgeschichte, 177-78.
127 .\6w is the opposite here of "doing and teaching,"
whereas in vs 17, Kara.\6w is the opposite of 7rA"'pow.
Both are related, but as the object of vs 17 is the
written Torah (vs 18) and the object ofvs 19 the
Torah teaching of jesus, the two verbs do not refer
to the same thing. So also Grundmann, Matthiius,
150; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 60 (Sermon, 57-58).
Notably, Did. 11.2 uses Kara.\6w in the same context,
referring to the false teacher as one who "dissolves
... righteousness and knowledge."
128 For this view, see Klostermann, Matthiius, 41; Str-B
1.249-50; Guelich, Sermon, 150; Luz, Matthiius,
1.238 (Matthew, 1.267); idem, "Erfullung," 409 n. 55.
129 Cf. Did. 4.13: ov p.~ tyKara.\i1ryr tvro.\as Kvpiov,
tf!v.\a~E&r ~E il?rapt.\a{l<r, p.~r< 7rpouTI8<tr p.~r< atf!aLpwv
("Do not abandon the Lord's commandments, but
keep what you have received; neither add [to it] nor
take away [from it]"). Cf. Barn. 19:2: ov p.~
tyKara.\L7r"lJf tvro.\as Kvpiov ("Do not abandon the
Lord's commandments"); cf. 19.11.

185
 Whoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these
things said above, receive him;
if, however, the teacher himself turns away and
teaches another doctrine, for the purpose of
destroying [sc. our doctrine], do not listen to him;
but if his teaching is for the increase of righteousness
and knowledge of the Lord, welcome him as [sc.
you would welcome] the Lord. (My trans.)
The apodosis in vs 19b determines the punishment or
verdict: fAOXLO"TOS' ICA7]8~o-£TaL lv Tij {3ao-LA£lq. TOOV ovpavrov
("he will be called least in the kingdom of the heavens").
The legal principle by which this verdict is established is
the ius talionis interpreted eschatologically: 130 offense in
regard to the "least" of the commandments will result in
being the "least" in the heavenly kingdom (paronomasia).
The positive part of the antithetical parallelism follows in
VS 19c-d: 8s a• av 'ITDL~o-y ICaL aLaiLty, o:0TOS' iJ.fyas
ICA7]8~o-€TaL lv Tij [3ao-LA£lq. TOOV ovpavrov ("But whoever
does and teaches [them], he will be called great in the
kingdom of the heavens"). 131
The protasis in vs 19d describes the faithful teacher:
he is the one who "does" ('1Todw) the commandments and
who teaches accordingly. 132 This person fulfills the role
of the teacher as the SM prefers it: he actually obeys and
does the commandments of Jesus, and he continues
teaching in the tradition of Jesus himself. Not sur-
prisingly, the verdict in vs 19d provides for eschato-
logical reward: ohos iJ.£yas ICA7]8~o-£TaL lv Tij {3ao-LA£lq. Trov
ovpavrov ("he will be called great in the kingdom of the
heavens").
The problems raised by vs 19 are difficult and require
careful consideration. First of all, for whom was vs 19
formulated? The answer can hardly be in doubt in the
light of the activities described in vs 19a and c. The
terms "dissolve" (A.vw) and "do" ('1Todw) designate the kind
of conduct that was on the one hand prohibited and on
the other hand required of the community of the SM in
relation to the teaching of Jesus. The proper response
was to "hear" (aiCovw) and "to act" ('1Todw) in accordance
with his teaching, whereas merely hearing and doing
nothing leads to ruin-both in this world and in the
world to come. 133 While this rule applies to all persons,
one must take the statement of vs 19 to refer specifically
to teachers who are at work in the community. 134 It is
said that when their teaching occurs in the proper
manner, it takes place as "doing and teaching" ('1TOL£tv "al.
aLaao-IC€LV). That is, the content of the teaching is first
lived out as an example by the teacher. In this way, the
student has always before the eyes not only the words of
Jesus but also the teacher who actually lives them. This
procedure corresponds, as far as we know, to con-
temporary Jewish methods ofteaching. 135 By way of
contrast, teachers who disregard the teaching of Jesus set
up false teaching in opposition to the truth and then
teach their own false doctrine to the people. 136
A second question begs consideration. What is one to
understand by "the least of these commandments"
(lvToA.rov TDVTwv Trov lA.axlo-Twv)? What portion of
teaching is meant by this expression? Is one to identify
these "commandments" (lvToA.al) with the statements of
the Torah (vOiJ.os) or with the commandments of Jesus? It
is evident from 5:17 and 18, as well as from 7:12, that

130 See above on the Beatitudes (5:3-12) and below on Lehrer in der 'Lehre der zwolf Apostel,'" VC 34
5:38-42. (1980) 209_:17.
131 The whole verse is omitted in K* D W born• 135 Cf. Matt 23:3 of the Pharisees: 'lfOtilv Kat T7Jpiiv ("do
(according to Nestle-Aland, critical apparatus), no and keep"); T. Levi 13.9: lltll6.crKELV Kat 1rp&rntv
doubt for theological reasons. Sy' adds oilrror after ("teach and do"). Cf. Str-B 1.527-29; Betz, Nachfolge,
lltMfy to make the parallel complete (cf. vs 19a), but 11-12.
oilrwr followed directly by o~ror looks like diplog- 136 Cf. Mark 7:8-9; Matt 23:23, where this is used
raphy. against the Pharisees.
13 2 The statement has a number of closer parallels in
references concerning teachers and teaching in 'Abot;
see esp. 'Abot 1.13, 15; 4.2, 6-8; 5.15, 17, 18; 6.3-7
(ed. Herford).
133 See SM/Matt 7:24-26, and Betz, Essays, 1-16.
134 See also SP /Luke 6:40. The SM has no other
reference to the role of teachers. More explicit
references occur in the Didache (4.1-4, 9; 6.1; 11.1-
2; 13.2; 15.1-2). See Hermann-Adolf Stempel, "Der

186
 Matthew 5:17-20

the SM uses the term VOftO'> to designate the written
Torah, which, however, for the purpose of teaching
must be interpreted. Thus, the term lvroA.a{ must refer
to the commandments ofJesus that are authoritative
interpretations of the Torah and that are also the
teaching material of the SM. 13 7
But to what does "these" (rovrwv) refer? 138 The
pronoun most probably refers to the teaching of Jesus as
presented from 5:21 onward. If so, how much is to be
included in the commandments of Jesus? It is hard to
provide a conclusive answer to this question, since the
term lvroA.~ ("commandment") does not occur elsewhere
in the SM. Are the "commandments" to be identified
with the so-called antitheses of 5:21-48, 139 in which the
formula "but I say to you" (£yi.> Of A.tyw Vft'iv) repeatedly
introduces Jesus' interpretation of the Torah? Or are all
of the sayings of Jesus included in the SM his "command-
ments" (£vroA.at) and thereby identical with the "words"
(A.oyot [7:24-27])? Or is the limit to be drawn more
narrowly, so that only the main part of the SM (5:21-
7: 12) is to be regarded as the "commandments" (£vroA.a{)
of Jesus? The so-called Golden Rule and its application
(7: 12) does indeed constitute the conclusion of the body
of the SM and reflects back on it.
The problem is made still more difficult by the fact
that the commandments of Jesus are classified as "least"
(£A.6-xuTTat), though there is no explanation of what this
expression means. Surely, the author in some way makes
reference to the division of the commandments into
those of greater and lesser importance or easier and
more difficult, a distinction that has its parallels, above
all, in pharisaic and rabbinic theology. 140 Does such a
classification presuppose that the community of the SM
would have applied such a distinction to more or less
significant commandments ofJesus? 141 If this were the
case, does it mean that the SM contains only the lesser
commandments, while the more important command-
ments are to be sought elsewhere? Since this supposition
has no basis elsewhere, the other possibility alone
remains: that the commandments ofJesus as a whole
were classified as "of little importance." But such an
evaluation can only be meant ironically: it constitutes,
indirectly, a polemic against the emphasis on the "heavy"
or "difficult" commandments in Pharisaic theology. This
anti-Pharisaic polemic has a parallel in Matt 23:23-24.
What mattered according to Pharisaic theology was
the fulfillment of the commandments of the Torah that,
because of their degree of difficulty, were judged to be
more "important." It is clear from the presynaptic
tradition that Jesus and the primitive Christian church
polemicized with special vehemence against this Pharisaic
teaching. 14 2 Above all, this polemic maintained that one
cannot simply equate the degree of external difficulty
required for the fulfillment of a command (that is, the
quantitative cost) with the fulfillment of God's will

137 The term evToA~ ("commandment") occurs only once
in the SM (Matt 5: 19). That vop.or refers to the
Torah collectively while evToA~ refers to Jesus' own
interpretation of an individual commandment can be
concluded from the somewhat ambiguous evidence
in the synoptic tradition (see esp. Mark 7:6, 9; 10:5,
19; 12:28, 31) and the less ambiguous older layers of
the tradition in Did. 1.5; 2.1; 4.13 (referring to all of
1.2-4·.11; differently perhaps 13.5); 1 Clem. 13.1-3;
2 Clem. 3.4; 4.5; 6. 7; 8.4; 17.1, 3, 6; Ignatius Polyc.
2.2-3; 3.3; 4.1; Barn. 16.9. A clear witness is 1 Cor
14:37 (cf. 7:10); Rom 13:9 (cf., however, 1 Cor 9:21;
Gal 6:2). The evangelist Matthew speaks in Matt
28:20; and the Fourth Gospel uses the term for the
love-command (cf.John 10:18; 12:49, 50; 13:34;
14:15, 21, 31; 15:10, 12, 14).
138 Cf. the discussion of the range of possibilities in
Grundmann, Matthiius, 149 n. 41; Guelich, Sermon,
150-51; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 60-61 (Sermon, 57-
58); Luz, Matthiius, 1.238-40 (Matthew, 1 .267-69).
139 So Franz Dibelius, "Zwei Wortejesu," ZNW 11
(1910) 188-92, esp. 190; Charles E. Carlston, "The
Things That Defile (Mark VII.14) and the Law in
Matthew and Mark," NTS 15 (1968) 75-96, esp. 76-
77; Schweizer, Beitriige, 52.
140 On the rabbinic teaching concerning greater and
lesser commandments, see Urbach, Sages, 1.342-65;
Str-B 1.249, 900-905; Abrahams, Studies, 1.18-29.
141 Cf. Dibelius, "Zwei Wortejesu," 188-90; Grund-
mann, Matthiius, 149-50.
142 Cf. esp. debates about pure and impure in Mark 7:1-
23 par., about the greatest commandment in Mark
12:26-34 par., and the anti-Pharisaic polemics in
Matt 23:1-39.

187
demanded by the Torah. 143 Thus it appears that in
contrast to Pharisaic theology, the commands ofJesus
were ironically and polemically judged to be "of little
importance" and "easy to fulfill." 144
Indeed, from the Pharisaic standpoint, one can only
conclude that the commands of Jesus in the SM are
"light" or "easy." Yet, it is precisely the question ofthe
criteria that determines what is easier and what is more
difficult. This question is also the theme of the antitheses
ofthe SM (5:21-48). I cannot pursue this problem
further here, but one may at least say that only at first
glance do the commandments of Jesus seem to be easy to
fulfill; on closer analysis, the fulfillment turns out to be
very difficult indeed. The degree of difficulty in this
instance is not measured by the external, quantitative
cost, but by the inner, qualitative resistance in people,
which must be overcome in the course of fulfillment.
It is my conclusion, therefore, that vs 19 establishes
the binding force ofJesus' interpretation of the Torah
for teachers in the community of the SM. Corresponding
to this point is the eschatological classification of
teachers. 1 45 Here again the rule of the eschatological ius
talionis 14 6 is in operation. The place that the teachers will
occupy in the coming kingdom of God is determined by
the degree ofloyalty to the teaching ofJesus. 147 One
should note that a remarkable paradox results from this
evaluation, for, contrary to what one would expect, a
place in the kingdom of God is not denied even to the
disloyal teacher who seeks to set aside Jesus' teaching. If
such a teacher receives no more than the disparaging
title "least" (tA.axtuToS') in the coming kingdom, it
nevertheless corresponds exactly to the disdain which
that teacher has shown for Jesus' teaching. 148 Ever since
Johannes WeiB, 149 scholars have repeatedly called
attention to the fact that the use of the title "least"
(tA.axtuToS') here may represent a wordplay on the name
of the apostle Paul. 150 Paul was not reluctant to apply
the name "the least of the apostles" (o fA.axtuTOS' Twv

143 As the admonitions of the rabbis show, the problem
was chiefly an inner-Jewish one. Cf. esp. 'Abot 2.1,
according to the translation of Herford, Pirke A both,
38-39: "Rabbi said: ... And be careful in the case of
a light precept as in that of a weighty one, for thou
knowest not how the rewards of the precepts are
given." 'Abot 4.2 (Herford, Pirke Aboth, 96): "Ben
Azai said: Be swift towards a light precept, and flee
from transgression.... For the reward of a precept is
a precept and the reward of a transgression is a
transgression." Str-B 1. 902 rightly remarks: "A great
deal of room was given here to one's subjective
judgment."
144 That the yoke ofJesus was "light" is stated as a matter
of principle in Matt 11:30: "For my yoke is easy, and
my burden is light." On the passage see Hans Dieter
Betz, "The Logion of the Easy Yoke and of Rest
(Matt 11:28-30)," JBL 86 (1967) 10-24; reprinted in
Betz, Synoptische Studien, 1-17. See also Acts 15:10,
19-20, 28-29; 1 John 5:3; Did. 6.3. See also Luz,
Matthiius, 1.238-39 (Matthew, 1.267 -69).
145 For different ranks in heaven according to Jewish
thought, see Dalman, Worte Jeru, 92-94; StreB
1.249-50, 774; 4/2.1138-39 (m).
146 See below on SM/Matt 5:38.
147 For different ranks in heaven according to early
Christian thought, cf. the disciples' discussions about
rank in Mark 9:35-37 par.; 10:35-45 par.; also Matt
11:11.
148 Similarly also Kasemann, New Testament Questions of
Today, 85-87; Luz, "Erfiillung," 410; idem,Matthiius,
1.238 (Matthew, 1.267).
149 Johannes WeiB, The History of Primitive Christianity
(trans. Frederick C. Grant; New York: Wilson &
Erickson, 1957; republished as Earliest Christianity [2
vols.; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959]) 2.753;
Streeter, Four Gospels, 257; Montefiore, Synoptic
Gospels, 2.494; Manson, Sayings, 24-25; Bultmann,
Theology, 1.54; Charles H. Dodd, "Matthew and
Paul," in his NT Studies, 54-57; Schweizer,
Neotestamentica, 404; Betz, Essays, 51. Differently
Davies, Setting, 335;John P. Meier, Law and History in
Matthew's Gospel: A Redactional Study ofMt. 5:17-48
(AnBib 71; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1976) 95; Sand,
Gesetz, 99-100; idem, "Die Polemik gegen
'Gesetzlosigkeit' im Evangelium nach Matthaus und
bei Paulus: Ein Beitrag zur neutestamentlichen
Uberlieferungsgeschichte," BZ 14 (1970) 124-25;
Luz, "Erfiillung," 410; idem, Matthiius, 1.238 n. 85
(Matthew, 1.267 n. 85).
150 The pun is found already in 1 Sam 9:21 (LXX),
involving the name of Saul and the tribe of
Benjamin. I owe this reference to Professor Jon
Levenson. Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin too
(Phil3:5; Rom 11:1; cf. also Acts 13:21). See Richard
M. Meyer, "Der Namenwitz: Ein Beitrag zur Theorie
des Witzes," Neue Jahrbiicher jar das klassische
Altertum, Geschichte und deutsche Literatur 11 (1903)
122-45.

188
 Matthew 5:17-20

fL'lTOITTOAoov) to himself in 1 Cor 15:9. 151 If, as I believe, vocation.

this passage also alludes to the name of Paul, it is all the
more remarkable that he is not absolutely denied
entrance into the kingdom of God, but merely relegated
to the position of a back-bencher. Moreover,J. Cor 15:9
is evidence that such a verdict would have thoroughly
pleased Paul. 15 2 The implication is clear that the SM
recognizes forms of Christian teaching guided by
theological principles other than those of the SM, 153
although these other forms of teaching are judged
negatively.
I observe again at this point that the position of the
SM, surprising as it may be, does agree to some extent
with that of Paul. Paul also insists that the Torah of God
is binding in the sense that "the law is holy, and the
commandment is holy and just and good" (Rom 7: 12
[Rsv]), while the interpretation of how one is to fulfill the
law of God can vary as long as the fulfillment of the
a!KaLC:,p.aTa TOV vop.ov ("the demands to do justice
contained in the law" [my trans.]) is theologically
safeguarded. 154 At any rate, the community of the SM
regards teachers as "orthodox" if they are committed to
Jesus' interpretation of the Torah and if for them the SM
itself constitutes the teaching material. Thus one may
assume that in the honorific title "great" (p.'ya~). which is
promised to a loyal teacher in the heavenly kingdom, the
author of the SM expresses his own COIJCeption of his
• 20 The fourth and last of the hermeneutical principles is
stated as a rather complicated saying. The sentence
contains several parts. It is introduced by a formula of
doctrinal affirmation (vs 20a): "for I say to you" (A.,yoo yap
vp.'iv). 15 5 This formula differs from its parallel in vs 18 in
that it lacks the "amen." The subject of the first person
singular is implied in the verb while in similar statements
it is spelled out as "I" (~yw). Like vs 19, the statement of
vs 20 as a whole may be classified as a "sentence of sacred
law" (see above on vs 19). Its protasis states a condition
(vs 20b): "if your righteousness does not surpass that of
the scribes and Pharisees" (Hn ~av ,...~ 'lT€p!ITIT€lJTI vp.oov ~
a!Ka!OITVV71 'lTA£LOV TOOV ypap.p.aT,CIIV Ka~ lllap!O"atoov). 156 The
apodosis (vs 20c) pronounces an emphatic verdict, a
negative prediction concerning the afterlife: "you will
not enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (oil p.~
£la-'A871T£ d~ T~v {Jaa-IA£lav Toov oilpavoov).
As I have identified it, the sentence is form-critically a
"sentence of sacred law," specifically of the casuistic

I5I The Deutero-Pauline author of Ephesians considered
this self-assessment worthy of imitation (3:8); the
author of the Pastorals reinterpreted it (I Tim I: I5-
I6).
I 52 The teacher not committed to the teachings ofJesus
must not, however, simply be ranked among the false
prophets (7:I5-20) or the lawless (7:2I-23).
I 53 Similarly Kllsemann, New Testament Questions of Today,
87; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 60-6I (Sermon, 57-58);
Luz, Matthaus, I.239 (Matthew, I.268), who speaks of
a half-liberal position in contrast to the rabbis.
Notably, the position taken by the SM is compatible
with that of the two versions of the gospel on which
the eatly church agreed at the Jerusalem Conference
(Gal2:7-8). See Betz, Galatians, 95-99.
I 54 Differently from Galatians, in Romans Paul
distinguishes between "the law" (o uOJJ-os) and "the
deeds ofjustice" (rO. a&Ka&6JJJ-ara) because only when
the latter are done can the law be considered fulfilled
(Rom 2:26; 8:4; cf. I:32; 5:I6, IS). This distinction
seems to take into account discussions in Greek
philosophy, according to which compliance with
existing laws does not necessarily serve justice. Cf.
esp. Aristotle Eth. Nic. 5. 7. 7, II35a I O-I3: "Nature
or ordinance pronounces a thing unjust: when that
thing is done, it is 'unjust conduct' [aalK71JJ-«]; till it is
done, it is only 'unjust.' And similarly with 'just
conduct,' dikawma (or more correctly, the general
term is dikaiopragema, dikaioma denoting the
rectification of an act of injustice)." Trans. H.
Rackham, Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics (LCL;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London:
Heinemann, I934) 297.
I 55 For this formula see also SM/Matt 6:29; other forms
occur in 5: IS, 22, 26, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44; 6:2, 5, I6,
25. See also SP /Luke 6:27.
I 56 D omits the whole sentence; on this see Zahn,
Matthaus, 22I n. 86. The variant reading w•p~<ru.-6u••
(L 8 pc) seems to be due to a misspelling. Clement of
Alexandria read w>.•ou&.uy for wEp&uu•vuy, perhaps
confusing synonyms (cf. I Thess 3: I2). The verse is
quoted by Justin Dial. I05.6, as coming from the
apomnemoneumata (an unknown collection of sayings
ofJesus); for a citation, see Aland, Synopsis, 78.

189
type. 157 This category, however, applies only to the first
part of the sentence, while the second part conforms to
another category of sayings that state the conditions for
entering into the kingdom of God. 158 This combination
of two categories of sayings in vs 20 is peculiar and points
to conscious formulation, if not to literary artistry, on the
part of the author of the SM.
In terms of content, the principle states the ethical and
eschatological goals of the teaching ofJesus as under-
stood by the SM. According to this understanding, the
teaching ofJesus consisted of ethical demands with a
clearly defined eschatological purpose. Also, in
conformity with Jewish ethics, his teaching focused on
the whole way of life of the disciple. Ethical demands
should shape this way of life; but the purpose of such
demands is primarily eschatological in that their goal is to
qualify the disciple for entering into the kingdom of the
heavens. The SM assumes by implication that this focus
was central to the teaching ofJesus: proclaiming the
kingdom of God means calling the disciples onto the way
to that kingdom and preparing them for entering into it.
Surprisingly, vs 20 gives only a negative definition of
the condition for entering into the heavenly kingdom.
Central is the notion of "righteousness" (atKatou~v71), a
notion that played an important role in the Beati-
tudes.159 How is one to interpret this notion in vs 20?
Within the religious and ethical context of Judaism,
one can have no doubt that the divine demand of
righteousness must be fulfilled by anyone who wishes to
enter into the kingdom of God. Thus righteousness is the
result of human obedience to the will of God as revealed
in the Torah. The same condition holds true in the
Christian context, with the exception that the initiative
for achieving righteousness shifts to God's action; in
some way God provides the required righteousness
through Jesus Christ for those who believe in him. This
view was held by the author of the Gospel of Matthew
and in a different way by the apostle Paul.
The expression "your righteousness" (vp.ii>v ~
atKatOU~V71) leaves little doubt that the SM, in conformity
with Jewish theology, speaks of a righteousness achieved
by human action, 160 rather than a righteousness imputed
by God as a gift to the faithful. 161 Jesus' Torah
interpretation, so the SM stipulates, provides the disciple
with the means necessary for acquiring the righteousness
demanded by God at the last judgment. The issue

157 See on SM/Matt 5:19.
158 This category of saying is also used in SM/Matt 7:21
(cf. also 7:13). See Hans Windisch, "Die Spriiche vom
Eingehen in das Reich Gottes," ZNW 27 (1928) 163-
92; Str-B 1.252-53; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 147; Berger,
Formgeschichte, 182-84.
159 This concept of righteousness conforms to the one
underlying the whole of the SM (Matt 5:6, 10, 20,
45; 6:1, 33; cf. 7:13-14, 21-23); it is closely bound
up with the concept of reward (5:12, 46; 6:1, 2, 5,
16). In his Weg, 150-58, Strecker has attempted to
show that the redactor Matthew was responsible for
inserting the terminology of righteousness into the
SM and that the terms refer to the conduct of the
disciples. Peter Stuhlmacher (Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei
Paulus [FRLANT 87; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1965] 188-21 ), objected, pointing to the
concept of the righteousness of God, esp. in
SM/Matt 6:33. The contradiction disappears,
however, if one understands vs 20 as pre-Matthean
rather than Matthean, so that for the pre-Matthean
SM, the righteousness of God as revealed in the
Torah becomes the standard for the disciples to
imitate (see below on 5:43-48). Cf. also Hubner,
Gesetz, 35-36, questioning the origin of vs 20 as a
result of Matthean redaction.
160 One should therefore understand the concept of
righteousness in the SM in a Jewish sense, not in the
sense of Matthean Christian theology; for the latter it
would have to be based on the imitation of the
righteousness of Christ (Matt 3:15; 10:41; 27:4, 19,
24). So also Benno Przybylski, Righteousness in
Matthew and His World of Thought (SNTSMS 41;
Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1981) 80-87,
121-23, but he strangely takes Matthew's theology
to be jewish. For critical reviews, see Fred W.
Brunett,JBL 102 (1983) 149-51; Ulrich Luz, ThLZ
109 (1984) 264-65. By contrast, Meier (Law and
History, 76-80, 108-19) interprets what he considers
to be Matthean theology into the pre-Matthean
sources. Unclear is Strecker (Bergpredigt, 61-64
[Sermon, 58-61 ]), who argues for a "Matthean"
interpretation in the sense that jesus' Torah
demands were grounded in the OT Torah, but that
he discovered its true meaning. But Strecker's
analysis points to theology in the pre-Matthean
sources rather than to Matthew's own redaction.
161 Luz, Matthiius, 1.210-11, 240 (Matthew, 1.237-38,
269).

190
 Matthew 5:17-20

discussed between Jews and Christians in the first century
was not whether a human being had to be in a state of
righteousness at the last judgment. That assumption was
accepted by all. The question was rather how one might
acquire that state of righteousness.
How then does the SM see the issue? The SM defines
its concept only negatively by contrasting it with the
doctrine held by the scribes and Pharisees and by
declaring their views on the matter to be inferior and
inadequate. Further details are not spelled out at this
point; the SM assumes that they are common knowledge.
It is considered sufficient to state that the righteousness
of the disciples must surpass that of the scribes and
Pharisees, if the disciples hope to enter into the divine
kingdom. 162 These observations speak against the thesis
that the evangelist Matthew inserted the concept of
righteousness at this point, so I disagree with those
scholars who argue for a Matthean origin and inter-
pretation.163 Rather, here as well as elsewhere, the
concept is an integral part of the theology of the SM.
What does the plerophoric term "surpass" (7T€ptuu£Vw
7TA£'iov) mean? 164 Should one take it quantitatively in the
sense that the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees
is of a lower degree but not altogether false, or should
one take it qualitatively, so that the righteousness of
Jesus' disciples must be of a radically different quality?
Scholars have argued each option. 165 One should expect
the answer from the application of this principle in the
antitheses (SM/Matt 5:21-48), but first some of the
presuppositions underlying vs 20 must be spelled out.
The reference to "the scribes and the Pharisees" is
peculiar in that it occurs only once in the SM. It also
occurs in Matt 23:2, probably derived from pre-
Matthean source material similar to the SM in that both
sources recognize the prominent position of the
Pharisees. The expression is doubtless polemical; it takes
for granted that the reader knows what these people did
and believed. As such, the reference is also stereotypical
and reductionistic. Its occurrence presupposes a previous
history of argument and counterargument. For the SM,
the polemic is situated in the controversies between Jesus
and his adversaries. 16 6
That numerous references to "the scribes and the
Pharisees" exist elsewhere in the synoptic tradition leads
to two conclusions. First, along with these other texts the
SM looks back at the debates between Jesus and his
adversaries. That so many stereotypical references occur
in so many New Testament passages indicates that these
references are redactional, even if one cannot simply
identify the redactor as one of the Gospel writers. Thus
the reference in vs 20 is due not to Matthean redaction
alone but to the tradition in general. Second, as far as the
historical Jesus is concerned, it appears that he discussed
his own views on the Torah with the scribes and
Pharisees, but it is far from clear that lumping them
together in this fashion conforms to historical reality. It
is ~ven likely that Jesus had more in common with them
than with other Jewish groups of the time. Comparing
his own doctrines with theirs made it all the more clear
where and why he differed from them.
Why are the scribes and Pharisees mentioned at this
point in vs 20? What were their particular doctrines on

I62 Complete failure to attain righteousness amounts to (I984) 58-59.

"lawlessness" (lzvop.la). See below on SM/Matt 7:2I- I66 The association of scribes and Pharisees occurs in the
23. SM only in 5:20. The evidence elsewhere in the
I63 LOhrmann ("Gerechtigkeit, III. Neues Testament," synoptic tradition shows that the association comes
TRE I2 [I984]4I5) also argues for a Matthean from the tradition. Sometimes the scribes are named
origin. first (Matt I2:38; 23:2, I3, I4, I5; Mark 2:I6; Luke
I64 For the accumulation of comparatives in 7r<purunlw 5:2I; 6:7; II:53;John 8:3; Acts 23:9), sometimes
1rXiiov ("have abundance in excess"), see BDF, § 246; second (Matt I5:I; Mark 7:I, 5; 9: II v.l.; Luke 5:30;
BDR;§ 246; BAGD, s.v. 1roXvs, II.2.c; Str-B 1.250- I5:2). See Wrege, Bergpredigt, 42.
52; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 4I-43; Hubner, Gesetz, 36-
38. Cf. also SM/Matt 5:47; Mark I0:2I par.; Luke
I8:I4; Gali:I4; Rom 3:1.
I65 See Peter Stuhlmacher, "Jesu vollkommenes Gesetz
der Freiheit: Zum V erstandnis der Bergpredigt,"
ZThK 79 (I982) 283-322, esp. 288; Luz, Matthiius,
1.240-4I (Matthew, 1.269-70); differently Gunter
Klein, "Gesetz, Ill. Neues Testament," TRE I3

191
"righteousness"? Unfortunately, little is known about the
precise teachings of the scribes and Pharisees at the
beginning of the first century CE. The New Testament
passages coming from the older layers of the synoptic
tradition figure prominently among the few sources we
do possess. But one cannot take these passages, or other
sources of the time, at face value, so that we have little
reliable evidence about the teachings of the Pharisees for
the period in question. Rabbinic theology, about which
we are much better informed, is on the whole of a later
date, and there is great uncertainty about how much can
be dated back to contemporaries of the historical jesus.
One piece of evidence may, however, be important.
There seems to be a consensus that the polemic in the
Dead Sea Scrolls against the "seekers of the smooth
things" (e.g., 4QpNah 1.2, 7; 2.2, 4; 3.3, 6-7; 1QH 2.15,
32; CD 1.18) is directed at opponents that include
Pharisees. If the Pharisees are the target, the SM would
agree that the righteousness of Pharisees is the right kind
but inferior in degree. This rather positive stand toward
the Pharisees would have a parallel in Matt 23:3-4,
which states that the Pharisees have the right teaching
but fail in the right practice.
It is safe to say, however, that pairing the scribes and
the Pharisees as in vs 20 betrays a reductionism typical of
polemics, because the terms refer to different groups of
people. The "scribe" (ypap.p.an..5s) 167 was a legal expert,
an official in a society that relied on experts competent to
interpret written texts, documents, laws, customs, and
Holy Scripture. The Pharisees, 168 however, represented
a religious movement within judaism, devoted to
religious and political renewal. This movement attracted
ever more serious-minded jews, and among them most
likely a number of scribes. Although scribes and
Pharisees were far from forming one group, as the
reference in vs 20 suggests, they may have shared some
or even many theological views. At least to their partners
in debate, they may have appeared to agree substantially
on religious matters, so that pairing them became a
matter of course. Thus, based on present knowledge,
one may say that although associating the scribes and
Pharisees looks like a polemical reductionism, there may
have been other reasons for such an association. One can
see then that the words "if your righteousness does not
surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees" imply a
substantial criticism of the thought and practice of these
groups. Indeed, the statement reads like a summary of a
more comprehensive criticism. To summarize, the
shortcomings of the scribes and Pharisees come to one
point, namely, that their teaching and practice of the
Torah do not lead to the "surplus" necessary at the last
judgment.
How can one justify such criticism in the light of our
knowledge? Caution is certainly in order at this point
because of the limited information we possess concerning
the teachings and practices of the scribes and Pharisees
before 70 CE. 169 In the light of this dearth of evidence, a
passage like SM/Matt 5:20 becomes especially
important.
One must first note the emphasis on the term
"righteousness" (Greek: otKatocrtJv1}; Hebrew: ;,p,:.: ). One
can scarcely have any doubt that for both the SM and the

167 On the office of the scribe, see Jeremias, jerusalem,
233-35; BAGD, s.v. ypap.p.anvr; Schiirer, History,
2.322-36 (bibliography); Giinter Baumbach, EWNT
(EDNT) 1, s. v. ypap.p.anvr (bibliography); Anthony J.
Saldarini, "Scribes," ABD 5.1012-16.
168 For the Pharisaic movement and bibliography, see
Rudolf Meyer and Hans Friedrich WeiB, "<J>aptua'Lor,"
TDNT 9.11-51; Schiirer, History, 2.381-403; Ellis
Rivkin, IDBSup, 657-63;John Bowker,jesus and the
Pharisees (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1973);
Hans Burgmann, "Der Grunder der Pharisaergenos-
senschaft: der Makkabaer Simon," ]Sf 9 (1978) 153-
91; Ellis Rivkin, "Scribes, Pharisees, Lawyers,
Hypocrites: A Study in Synonymity," HUCA 49
(1978) 135-42; Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Patriarchs and
Scholarchs," Proceedings of the American Academy for
]wish Studies 48 (1981) 57-85;Jacob Neusner, "Two
Pictures of the Pharisees: Philosophical Circle or
Eating Club," ATR 64 (1982) 525-38; Albert I.
Baumgarten, "The Name of the Pharisees," JBL 102
(1983) 411-28; idem, "Josephus and Hippolytus on
the Pharisees," HUCA 55 (1984) 1-25; idem, "The
Pharisaic Paradosis," HTR 80 (1987) 63-71; Shaye
J.D. Cohen, "The Significance ofYavneh: Pharisees,
Rabbis, and the End ofJewish Sectarianism," HUCA
55 (1984) 27-53; Harry Falk,jesus the Pharisee: A
N w Look at the J wish ness ofJesus (New York and
Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist, 1985); Klaus Berger, "Jesus
als Pharisaer und friihe Christen als Pharisaer," NovT
30 (1988) 231-62; Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees,
Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological
Approach (Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1988); Sanders,
]wish Law, passim; Anthony J. Saldarini, "Pharisees,"
ABD 5.289-303.

192
 Matthew 5:17-20

Pharisees, obtaining righteousness before the throne of
God was the primary religious goal. 170 They had,
however, very different ideas on how one could succeed
or fail in obtaining this status at the last judgment.
Moreover, the Pharisaic viewpoint was criticized at the
time by non-Pharisees, among them the Qumran
community. A most important critic was Paul, himself
originally a Pharisee, who had joined the early Christian
movement. 171 Other Jewish sources also exhibit criticism
of the Pharisaic way of piety. Major differences among
these anti-Pharisaic polemics exist, however, especially
concerning alleged shortcomings. 1 72 Since these sources
were partly Jewish, partly Christian, one must not
confuse such anti-Pharisaism with anti-Judaism in
general. 1 73
The SM itself advances three points of criticism: first,
the antitheses (5:21-48) repudiate the notion that mere
compliance with the written stipulations of the Torah
can be considered ethically adequate; second, the
antitheses also reject the notion that one is to interpret
the Torah through the medium of the tradition; and
third, reliance on external performance, especially on
ostentatiousness, in the practice of cult and custom is
repudiated in 6: 1-18 in favor of the internal opening of
the heart to God and of an inconspicuous performance
of ritual and custom. The contention in all these points is
that the understanding and practice of the scribes and
the Pharisees led to what the SM considers an inferior
form of righteousness. This lower righteousness,
however, must be judged insufficient for qualifying for
admission into the eternal kingdom of God. 1 7 4 Those
who followed the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees
would, therefore, not be permitted to enter into the
kingdom of God. This refusal would be based, not on
"lawlessness" (avop.la), as in the case of Gentile Christians
outside the Torah (see SM/Matt 7:21-23), but on an
inferior quality of righteousness.

169 For a critical evaluation of the evidence, see Jacob
Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees
before 70 (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1971); idem, From
Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic judaism
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973); idem,
"The Formation of Rabbinic Judaism: Yavneh
Qamnia) from A.D. 70-100," ANRW II, 19/2 (1979)
3-42. See also the literature named inn. 168.
170 See also Luke 7:29-30//Matt 21:31-32; Matt 3:15;
10:41; 13:17,43, 49; 23:28, 29, 35; 25:37,46. In
assessing these passages, one must distinguish the
levels of tradition at which the terminology occurs.
Matthew interprets them all according to his
theology, but this does not mean that early layers of
source material do the same.
171 See esp. Gal2:15-16, and on this passage, Betz,
Galatians, 115-19.
172 See the discussions of the Pharisees in Josephus Bell.
2.119-66; Hippolytus Rif. 9.18.2-29.4. For the
interpretation of these sources, see Albert I.
Baumgarten, "Josephus and Hippolytus on the
Pharisees," HUCA 55 (1984) 1-25.
173 Luz (Matthiius, 1.240-41 [Matthew, 1.269-72]) is
right in pointing out that there are two concepts of
righteousness under discussion, one Jewish and the
other Matthean (i.e., Christian). I have concluded,
however, that two Jewish concepts are presupposed,
one Pharisaic and the other Jesuanic; the latter at
least is applied in the antitheses of 5:21-48 in
particular. In other words, the evidence points to an
inner-Jewish sectarian dispute; such disputes were
typical before 70 CE (see Cohen, "Significance of
Yavneh," mentioned above, n. 168). Matthew took
the difference to be that between Judaism and
Christianity generally, since for him the Christian
church (Matt 16:18; 18:17) began withJesus,
although he was not a Christian but a Jew. See Betz,
"Wellhausen's Dictum 'Jesus was not a Christian, but
a Jew' in the Light of Present Scholarship," StTh 45
(1991) 83-110; also Betz, "The Sermon on the
Mount in Matthew's Interpretation," Synoptische
Studien, 270-89. Cf. Strecker, Bergpredigt, 61-64
(Sermon, 58-61 ).
174 A close parallel is the encounter between Jesus and
the young man in Mark 10: 17-22 par., where it is
understood that the young man has fulfilled only a
lower degree of righteousness, which is judged
insufficient for inheriting eternal life. See also the
evaluation of the piety of the Pharisee as compared
with that of the tax collector in Luke 18:9-14a: "I
tell you, this man went down to his house justified
rather [or: more] than the other" (RSV). The
interpretation of -rrap' fKEivov is disputed: does it
mean that the Pharisee was not justified at all, or that
the tax collector's justification was greater and to be
preferred in comparison with that of the Pharisee?
See Jeremias, Parables, 141-42;Juan B. Cortes, "The
Greek Text of Luke 18:14a: A Contribution to the
Method of Reasoned Eclecticism," CBQ 46 ( 1984)
255-73; Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1188. One cannot decide
the question on the basis of grammar alone. It
appears, especially in the light of old tradition such as
Matt 23:1-2, that the historical Jesus was not
completely in opposition to the Pharisees, so that the

193
 At this point, one must consider this criticism from a
Jewish perspective. Contacts also exist with other early
synoptic passages in which the Pharisees are criticized,
but a closer look reveals that the criticisms in these other
sources are made from a Christian perspective. By
contrast, the SM mentions none of the usual specifics,
including the keeping of the Sabbath, tithing, purity and
impurity, separation from the "people of the land" ('am
hii- 'are~). contradiction between words and deeds, and so
on. 175 Comments on hypocrisy and traditionalism
treated elsewhere in the SM have no role here.
It is remarkable that elsewhere the New Testament
has no precise parallels in which the Pharisees are
criticized for being righteous to an inferior degree,
although one may cite some more loosely aligned
passages. The great anti-Pharisaic polemic in Matthew
23, the sources of which are still a matter of debate, does
not deny that the Pharisees occupy the seat of Moses
(23:2), but the polemic castigates abuses of what would
otherwise constitute acceptable theological positions.
Thus, the criticism of SM/Matt characteristically differs
from other Christian polemics. One should therefore not
simply dismiss it as fanciful and unhistorical. Further, the
criticism is undergirded by a rationale that can be
adjudicated in terms of contemporary Jewish concerns.
Beyond Judaism, one can connect the whole debate with
discussions in Greek philosophy, in particular the ethics
of Aristotle. 176 Lastly, later rabbinic literature contains
wide-ranging discussions that appear to be related.
How can one coordinate this evidence? No documents
explicitly connect Jewish and Aristotelian ethics; but
despite, or rather because of, the lack of sources for the
period in question, one is not justified in excluding
possibilities that may have existed. It is indeed con-
ceivable that Aristotle's discussion of justice has, directly
or indirectly, influenced early rabbinic discussions about
the subject and that the later rabbinic discussions in the
Mishnah may have roots in earlier discussions contem-
porary with the SM. 177 Indeed, the position in the SM is
best understood as one result of contemporary debates
on the nature of justice, while the rabbinic views in the
Mishnah, the Qumran texts, and the Hellenistic-Jewish
literature are witnesses to still other positions prevalent
at the time. Speculative as these possibilities may seem,
they are nonetheless conceivable in the light of our
knowledge, notwithstanding the obvious gaps in that
knowledge.
I begin with Aristotle. When he discusses the concept
of justice (otKatocn1!V7J) in book 5 of the Nicomachean Ethics,
he distinguishes among varying degrees of justice. "Thus
it is clear that there are more kinds of justice than one,
and that the term has another meaning besides virtue as
a whole." 178 In other words, there is a higher and better
justice that is identical with the virtue of justice. "We may
then set aside that Justice which is coextensive with
virtue in general, being the practice of virtue in general
toward someone else, and that injustice which is the
practice of vice in general toward someone else." 179 The
lower, inferior justice is divided into two types,
distributive justice (distribution of honor, wealth, and
other assets of the community) and corrective justice
(private transactions). Corrective justice is further

comparative meaning is the more likely, while the
exclusivistic interpretation is due to the Gospel
writers (see esp. Luke 18:14b: "For everyone who
exalts himself will be humbled; and he who humbles
himself will be exalted").
175 For a survey of such criticism of the Pharisees, see
Hans Friedrich WeiB, "<t>apumlos," TDNT 9.36-43
(B.l.l-3).
176 For the developments of Greek thought concerning
ethical justice, see Albrecht Dible, "Gerechtigkeit,"
RAC 12 (1976) 233-89, esp. 252-63. For connec-
tions with Egypt see Jan Assmann, Ma'at: Gerechtigkeit
See, e.g., Isa 1:27: "Zion will be redeemed by justice,
and those in her who repent, by righteousness"
(RSV). For the interpretation of the passage, see
Hans Wildberger,jesaja, Kapitel1-12 (BKAT 10.1;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972) 67-
68 (ET: Isaiah 1-12 [trans. Thomas H. Trapp;
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991]71-73); Schweizer,
Beitriige, 53 n. 12. How much the emphasis of the
prophets was on the ethical demands is shown by the
"new covenant," Jer 31:31-35.
178 Trans. H. Rackham, LCL, Eth. Nic. 5.2. 7, 1130b 6-
7: a On. p."fvo~v duL OtKatoutSvat 7Ti\Elov~, Kat Cfrr. fun. TLS'

und Unsterblichkeit im Alten Agypten (Munich: Beck, KaL f.Ttpa 1raph. T~v CJA7JV ltpET~V, OfjAov·.
1990). 179 Ibid., 5.2.10, 1130b 18-20.
177 The distinction between the Torah as a system of
social norms and as specifically religious and ethical
demands was first made by the prophets of Israel.

194

divided into voluntary transactions (buying, selling,
lending) and involuntary transactions, the latter
subdivided into furtive actions (theft, adultery) and
violent actions (assault, imprisonment). 180
Pursuit of the lower forms of justice thus does lead to
some form of justice and is not in and of itself injustice,
but it lacks the higher quality of ethical justice for which
the virtuous should strive. This higher, better justice can
be accomplished through the introduction of "equity"
(£7rt£LKna), 181 an important concept already discussed
(see the excursus on hermeneutical principles in Greek
and Roman law, above, pp. 167-72):
For equity, while superior to one sort of justice, is
itself just: it is not superior to justice as being
generically different from it. Justice and equity are
therefore the same thing, and both are good, though
equity is better. 182
How is it better? "Equity, though just, is not legal justice,
but a rectification oflegaljustice." 183 The concept of
"rectification" (£7ravop8wou) introduced here is
important not only in Aristotle but seems as well to be
implied in the SM. It means:
When therefore the law lays down a general rule, and
thereafter a case arises which is an exception to the
rule, it is then right, where the lawgiver's pronounce-
ment because of its absoluteness is defective and er-
roneous, to rectify the defect by deciding as the
lawgiver would himself decide if he were present on
the occasion, and would have enacted if he had been
cognizant of the case in question. 1 84
This effort of "rectifying" (£1ravop8ovv) is required of all
180 Ibid., 5.2.12-5.5.16, 1130b 30-1133b 28.
181 Ibid., 5.10.1-8, 1137a 31-1138a 5.
182 Ibid., 5.10.2, 1137b 8-11: Ton yap l'II"LEII<Es liLKaiov
T&vbs 8v ~f'A.r&6u T& furl. roV a1.1c.alov. raVrhu lJ.pa 7JlKa&OV
Ka\ fw&fi.Kfr, Kal" a.,.upoiv uwovaalor.v Gvro&v Kplirrov rO
, '
E'D'I.EUCES.
183 Ibid., 5.10.3, 1137b 12-14: 'II"OLEah~v l.'ll"oplav lin
rO fwtEI.KEs alKa&OV "''u Eur&v, oV rO KarO. v/Jp.ou af, clAA'
l'll"avopllw,.a vo,.l,.ov liLKaiov.
184 Ibid., 5.10.5, 1137b 20-23: I!Tav oi\v Al')'11 ,.€v b v&,.os
Ka80Aov, uvp.J3fj 7J' fw& roVrov wapO. rh Ka86Aov, r&rt
Opl/;;,s, f'XEL y 'll"apaAEi'II"EL 0 VO/LOIIlT7jS Kat Tf!Lapnv a'II"A;;,S
ElwC:w, fwavop8oVv rh fAAeup8fv, 8 KAv 0 vop.o8f.r1JS
aVrhs o{;ros Au Efwo& fKEi wapfiJv, Ka\ El f/7JE& 1
£vop.o8lr1Juav ll.v.
185 See also ibid., 5.7.7, 1135a 13; 5.10.3, 1137b 12
(cited above, n. 183) and 1137b 26. Cf. 5.4.6., 1132a
Matthew 5:17-20
jurists if they are to do their work properly, since only in
this way is justice established. 185
I have reason to believe that the differentiation
between the lower and higher justices and the concept of
"rectifying" may also play a role in the SM in the
arguments ofthe antitheses (5:21-48); this is particularly
the case where the thrust of the arguments appears
dependent on these concepts. I do not suggest that the
SM is familiar with the Nicomachean Ethics; rather, I
presume that the contemporary debates within which the
SM takes a position discussed the distinctions, most likely
because Aristotle's deliberations had become part of
legal and ethical debates in wider circles. 186
Was Paul aware of these ideas when he presented his
strangely analogous argumentation in Romans 2 and 3?
Having begun to defend his gospel in 1: 16-1 7, he
discusses the so-called prerogatives of the Jew (TO
7r£ptcrcrhv Tov 'Iovaalov), that is, the advantages that the
Jew claims he has over the Gentile (2:1-29; cf. 3:1, 9).
Paul denies that the three marks of Jewish distinction
(possession of the Torah [2: 12-16], the honorific name
"Jew" [2: 17-24], and the ritual of circumcision [2:25-
29]) can be construed as an advantage over the Gentiles,
because before God no one has an advantage and all are
without excuse (3:1-20). The righteousness that alone
can save in the last judgment cannot be constituted by
these claims (3: 19-20). Rather, God has revealed a
superior righteousness for all believers (3:21-30). For
the apostle this divinely revealed righteousness is the
better one, especially as compared with that which he
18, where Tb l'll"avopllooT&KbV lliKaLov ("justice as
rectified") is defined as Tb ,.€uov ("the mean"); this
definition is then picked up in 6.1.1, 1138b 18 as the
main concept of ethical virtue.
186 The concepts of l'll"avopllw,.a KT A. and r'II"LEiKELa KT A.
are widely attested, with various meanings, in the
writings of Philo of Alexandria (see the indices of
Leisegang and Mayer, s.v.). Plutarch and Epictetus
show that l'll"avopllw,.a has become an ethical term,
but the older meaning is still present in Epictetus
Diss. 2.21.16, where "rectifying" one's judgments is
given as a reason for attending school (cf. also Diss.
3.5.2; 3.19.5; 3.21.15; 3.24.66; 3.26.10; 4.10.13;
Ench. 33.10; 51.1).
195
himself once had claimed as a Pharisee. 187 Remarkably,
Paul insists that the "righteousness by faith" does not
destroy but establishes the law: vop.ov ~uTCzvop.£v ("we are
establishing the law" [3:31 ]).1 88 Paul is not arguing here
specifically against the Pharisees but against Judaism
generally, and yet one can see that the former Pharisee is
using arguments similar to those of SM/Matt 5:20.
There is no indication that Paul intended to appeal to
the SM or to Aristotle, and yet the analogies appear to be
more than coincidental.
Later rabbinic tradition recognizes the concept of
lipnfm misurat hiid'in ("beyond the line of the law"), a
concept associated with its opposite, "the scoundrel with
Torah license." 189 The latter refers to the person who
manages to observe the Torah to the letter while in fact
behaving like a scoundrel. The former concept is more
difficult to understand. In sum: the proper way to
observe the Torah is to pay careful attention to the
obligations of the civil law and then "to do the right and
the good." As Aharon Lichtenstein has put it:
If, however, we recognize that Halakha is multiplanar
and many-dimensional; that, properly conceived, it
includes much more than is explicitly required or
permitted by specific rules, we shall realize that the
ethical moment we are seeking is itself an aspect of
Halakha. The demand or, if you will, the impetus for
transcending the din is itself part of the halakhic
corpus. 190
The concept is well described, together with examples, in
b. B. Me$ 30b. A gemara attributed to R. Johanan says:
"Jerusalem was destroyed only because they gave
judgments therein in accordance with Biblicallaw." 191
An erroneous interpretation of this sentence is dismissed
by the question: "Were they then to have judged in
accordance with untrained arbitrators?" Of course not.
The correct interpretation then follows: "But say thus:
because they based their judgments [strictly] upon
Biblical law, and did not go beyond the requirements of
the law." The implication is that the strict judgments are
inadequate in God's eyes, necessitating God's punish-
ment in the destruction of Jerusalem.
The other example occurs in a story about R. Ishmael,
the son of R. Jose. R. Ishmael helped a man carry a heavy
load of faggots. The question is why he did this. One
explanation has it so:
Yet was not R. Ishmael son of R. Jose an elder for
whom it was undignified [to help one to take up a
load]? He acted beyond the requirements of the law.
For R. Joseph learnt: And thou shalt shew them-this
refers to their house of life; the way-that means the
practice of loving deeds; they must walk-to sick-
visiting; therein-to burial; and the work-to strict law;
that they shall do-to [acts] beyond the requirements of
the law.l 92
The concept of "beyond the line of the law" is not
entirely clear, however. Is it part of the observance of the
law itself to do more than is required? Is it an expression
of the fact that all types of law have an ethical side that
one must recognize if justice is to be done? If "doing the
right and the good" is the goal of the law as well as of
ethics, then "going by the rules of the book" will not
suffice. Or is the idea of "beyond the line of the law" a
"supralegal conduct" and "the hallmark of a small coterie
of l;tasidim"? "Postulated as an aristocratic rather than as a
popular ideal, lifnim mishurat hadin thus represents a lofty
plane whose attainment is a mark of eminence but whose
neglect cannot be faulted as reprehensible." 193
The answer given to these questions by the rabbinic
tradition was apparently not unanimous. The answer
given depends, to some extent at least, on other,

187 Cf. Gal2:15-16; Phil3:3-10. Halakha?" in Menachem M. Kellner, ed., Contem-

188 The wrong understanding of the law leads to the
wrong kind of righteousness; cf. Paul, who juxtaposes
the righteousness of God with one's own claim to
righteousness (see Rom 10:3: T~v lalav otKatocnJV7JV
crTijcrat ["establish one's own righteousness"]; 10:4). 2
Tim 3:16 speaks of"correction" (l1ravopllwcrt~) in the 190 Lichtenstein, "Does Jewish Tradition," 108-9.
more general sense like Philo and Epictetus, but the
association with righteousness is certainly there. See
also Spicq, Notes, 1.259-60; Hubner, Law, 137-48.
189 On this doctrine see Aharon Lichtenstein, "Does
Jewish Tradition Recognize an Ethic Independent of
porary jewish Ethics (New York: Sanhedrin, 1978)
102-23. On the larger subject of righteousness in
rabbinic theology, see Urbach, Sages, l. 483-511;
Asher Finkel, "Gerechtigkeit, II.Judentum," TRE 12
(1984) 411-14.
191 Cited according to the Soncino translation, The
Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, Baba
Me?i'a (London: Soncino, 1962).
19~ Ibid. For the interpretation, see Lichtenstein, "Does
Jewish Tradition," 107-11.

196

unfortunately unanswerable, questions such as how old
this legal or moral concept is, whether there were
influences from Greek legal thought or whether it
originated as an entirely inner-Jewish phenomenon.
Whatever the answers, there is remarkable agreement
among the sources surveyed and SM/Matt 5:20,
including these points: (1) Law and ethics are two sides of
the same coin. They must be distinguished but they
cannot be separated. (2) Obedience to the will of God
requires that one give attention to both the written
statutes and the unwritten moral demands; an ethical
stance must incorporate both, and God will recognize
only both together as righteousness. (3) Mere compliance
with the written statutes of law represents a lower
standard of justice that, although it may not be subject to
court action on earth, one cannot regard it as adequate
morally and ethically, and therefore cannot suffice
eschatologically as meeting the condition for entering
into the kingdom of God.
The question is, furthermore, whether the stance
taken by the SM should be judged as general or elitist.
Does the SM claim that its stance is valid for the legal
interpretation of the Torah as obligatory for all jews, or
is it the supralegal ethical stance demanded of the
disciples of jesus only-in other words, a mishnah of the
hasidim? 194 The parallel example of the Qumran
community shows that a choice is not easy. Even if a
193 Ibid., 110.
194 For an example of such a "mishnah of the hasidim,"
see Gen. Rab. 94.9, according toMidrash Rabbah:
Matthew 5:17-20
sectarian movement presents a special interpretation of
what the Torah demands, the usual implication is that
their position is in truth required for all Jews, if not for
all humankind. A mishnah of the hasidim may be
provocative and demonstrative, but it cannot be elitist in
the sense that it is true and obligatory for the particular
group only. This is true of the ethics of the SM as well. It
would, then, be difficult to argue that the ethics of the
SM is merely that of an exclusive sect (cf. SM/Matt 5: 13-
16). Like most leaders of rigoristic groups, Jesus
certainly addressed all Israel with his proclamation.
Rather than leaving the specifics of fulfilling the "greater
righteousness" open, the SM claims that Jesus' inter-
pretation of the Torah, while upholding the written text
and challenging other interpretations as inadequate,
spells out the terms by which one may obtain the
"greater righteousness." The very purpose of the SM was
to demonstrate that jesus' teachings are the greater
righteousness and that they are not open to debate but
constitute the foundation of the Jewish-Christian
community within which the SM originally functioned.
Genesis (2 vols.; trans. Harry Freedman; London:
Soncino, 1982), 2.879.
197
 Matthew 5:21-48

Chapter IV
5 Translation The Antitheses
21 You have heard that it was said to the men
of old: "You shall not kill. Everyone,
however, who kills shall be answerable
to the court."
22 But I say to you that anyone who is angry
with his brother shall be answerable to
the court. Everyone who says to his
brother "empty-head" shall be
answerable to the high court; and
everyone who says (to him) "fool" shall
be guilty (enough) for the Gehenna of fire.
23 Therefore, when you bring your gift-
offering (to be placed) on the altar, and
there you remember that your brother
has something against you,
24 leave your gift there in front of the altar,
and first go and become reconciled with
your brother, and then come (back) and
offer your gift.
25 Become well disposed toward your
opponent quickly, as long as you are with
him on the way (to court), or else that
opponent may turn you over to the judge,
and the judge to the court-guard, and you
will be thrown into jail.
26 Truly, I say to you: You will never get out
from there, until you have paid up the last
cent.
27 You have heard that it was said,"You shall
not commit adultery."
28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at
a woman with the intent to desire her
has already committed adultery with her
in his heart.
29 If, then, your right eye gives you trouble,
pluck it out and throw it from you, for it is
good for you to lose one of your members
rather than to have your whole body
thrown into Gehenna.
30 And if your right hand gives you trouble,
cut it off and throw it from you; for it is
good for you to lose one of your members
rather than to have your whole body pass
into Gehenna.
31 It was also said, "Whoever divorces his
wife, let him give her a certificate of
divorce."
32 But I say to you that everyone who
divorces his wife, except on the grounds
of sexual immorality, makes her commit
adultery; and whoever marries a divorced
woman commits adultery.
33 Again, you have heard that it was said to
the men of old, "You shall not swear an
oath falsely, but keep your oaths to the
Lord."
34 But I say to you: Do not swear oaths at all,
neither by heaven, for it is the throne of
God;
35 nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor
by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great
king;

198
 Matthew 5:21-48
36 nor shall you swear oaths by your head, for
you cannot make (even) one hair white or
black.
37 Instead, let your word be "Yes, yes, no,
no," but anything exceeding these
(words) is from (the) evil (one).
38 You have heard that it was said, "An eye
for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."
39 But I tell you not to retaliate against the
evildoer; Instead: whoever strikes you on
your right cheek, turn to him the other
also;
40 and to the one who wants to go to court
with you and take your shirt, let him have
also your coat.
41 And whoever will force you (to go) one
mile, go with him two.
42 To the one who asks you, give; and from
the one who wants to borrow from you,
do not turn away.
43 You have heard that it was said, "You shall
love your neighbor and hate your
enemy."
44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and
pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may become sons of your
Father who is in (the) heavens; for he
makes his sun rise on (the) bad and (the)
good, and he makes the rain to fall on
(the) righteous and (the) unrighteous.
46 For if you love those who love you, what
reward do you have? Do not the tax
collectors also do the same?
47 And if you greet your brothers only, what
extraordinary thing do you do? Do not the
pagans do the same?
48 Therefore, you shall be perfect as your
heavenly Father is perfect.

Bibliography zur Priizisierung der Frage nach dem Ursprung der

Banks, jesus and the Law, 182-203.
P. W. van Boxel, "You have heard that it was said,"
Bijdragen 49 (1988) 362-77. , Gunter Klein, "Gesetz, III. Neues Testament," TRE 13
Ingo Broer, "Die Antithesen und der Evangelist
Mattltus: V ersuch, eine alte These zu revidieren,"
BZ 19 (1975) 50-63.
Idem, Freiheit, 75-113,123-30.
Bultmann,History, 134-36, 147, 149,325,406-7.
Idem, Ergiinzungshift, 54-55.
Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 55-62.
Christian Dietzfelbinger, Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt
(ThExh 186; Munich: Kaiser, 1975).
Idem, "Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt im Verstiindnis
des Matthiius," ZNW 70 (1979) 1-15.
Robert Guelich, "The Antitheses of Matthew V 21-48:
Traditional and/or Redactional?" NTS 22 (1976)
444-57.
Virgil Howard, Das Ego Jesu in den synoptischen
Evangelien (MaTS 14; Marburg: Elwert, 1975).
Hubner, Gesetz, 40-112, 230-36.
Eberhard Junge!, Paulus undjesus: Eine Untersuchung
Christologie (BHTh 2; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1962) 203-8.
(1984) 58-75, esp. 58-59.
Knox, Sources 2.20-25.
Michael Lattke, "Halachah," RAG 13 (1985) 372-402.
Eduard Lohse, "Ich aber sage euch," in Der RufJesu
und die Antwort der Gemeinde: FS for Joachim Jeremias
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1970) 189-
203; reprinted in his Die Einheit des Neuen
Testaments (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1973) 73-87.
Daniel Marguerat, Le jugement dans l' roangile de
Matthieu (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981) 142-67.
Meier, Law and History, 125-61.
Merklein, Gottesherrschaft, 72-80, 222-37.
Idem,jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft, 93-131.
Sanders, Jesus and judaism, 260-64.
Gunter Schmal, "Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt,"
TThZ 83 (1974) 284-97.

199
 Bruno Schuller, "Zur Interpretation der Antithesen
der Bergpredigt," in Dietrich-Alex Koch, Gerhard
Sellin, and Andreas Lindemann, eds.,jesu Rede von
Gott und ihre Nachgeschichte imfrilhen Christentum: FS
Jilr Willi Marxsen zum 70. Geburtstag (Giitersloh:
Mohn, 1989) 101-15.
Morton Smith, "A Comparison of Early Christian and
Rabbinic Tradition," JBL 82 (1963) 169-76.
Georg Strecker, "Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt (Mt
5, 21-48 par)," ZNW69 (1978) 36-72.
M. Jack Suggs, "The Antitheses as Redactional
Products," in Schottroff, Essays, 93-107.
Trilling, Israel, 207-11.
Hermann V enetz, "Theologische Grundstrukturen der
VerkiindigungJesu? Ein Vergleich von Mk 10, 17-
22; Lk 10, 25-37 und Mt 5, 21-48," in Melanges
Dominique Barthelemy: Etudes Bibliques o.ffertes a
!'occasion de son 60' anniversaire (OBO 38; Fribourg:
Editions universitaires, 1981) 613-50.
Wrege, Oberlieferungsgeschichte, 57-94.
1 . Introduction
The section immediately following the hermeneutical
principles (5:17-20) has been designated by com-
mentators as the "antitheses" and includes the remainder
of the fifth chapter (5:21-48). There is no analogy to the
antitheses of the SM anywhere else in the early Christian
literature, and it is important to realize that in approach-
ing this section of the text, we confront one of the most
controversial and yet one of the most intriguing parts of
the New Testament. There are six antitheses; they divide
easily into two groups of three. Of the first group, 5:21-
26 discuss murder; 5:27-30, adultery; and 5:31-32,
divorce. The second group, indicated at the beginning
by the term 1T~ALV ("again"), includes the sections on
perjury (5:33-37), retaliation (5:38-42), and the
treatment of the enemy (5:43-48). Before beginning the
exegesis of the individual antitheses, however, I shall
raise a number of questions.
1. Who first used the term "antitheses" to designate
this section? As far as we can determine, it was the
second-century "heretic" Marcion who gave the title
Antitheses to one of his works as a whole, now un-
fortunately lost; but fragments and testimonies are
extant and are gathered in Harnack's famous work. 1
According to those church fathers who had access to the
work at the time, Marcion saw the significance of the SM,
which he took as coming directly from jesus, in the
"Marcionite" separation of the god of the gospel from
the god of the law and the prophets. 2 For him, the
decisive passage was SM/Matt 5: 17. "Purified" from
what he took to be later Judaistic forgeries, 3 Marcion
believed this verse said that Jesus had indeed come to
abolish the law and the prophets. This separation was
then carried through in the six antitheses by juxtaposing
the "You have heard that it was said to the men of old
... "with Jesus' "But I say to you .... " Marcion under-
stood his own task to be the recovery of Jesus' "original"
words and intentions in order then to continue and
implement these intentions in the church. 4
Marcion's use of the name "antitheses" indicates two
facts: first, in terms of rhetoric, Marcion quite correctly
took the juxtaposition of sentences stating contrasting
points of view to be instances of the figure of antitheton. 5
Second, theologically, according to Marcionite

Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom
fremden Gott; Eine Monographie zur Geschichte der
Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche (2d ed.; Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1924); reprinted together with Neue Studien
zu Marcion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell-
schaft, 1960). In the following, references are to the
reprint edition. For the Antitheses of Marcion, see pp.
256*-313*, especially 261 *-62*, 291 *-92*;
furthermore, Barbara Aland, "Marcion
(ca. 85-160)/Marcioniten," TRE 22 (1991) 89-101,
esp. 92-93.
2 Tertullian Adv. Marc. 1.19 (PL 2.267C): "Nam sunt
antitheses Marcionis, id est contrariae oppositiones
quae conantur discordiam evangelii cum lege
committere, ut ex diversitate sententiarum utriusque
instrumenti, diversitate quoque argumententur
deorum" ("For these are the antitheses ofMarcion,
that is, the contrasting juxtapositions which attempt
to perpetrate the disunity of the gospel and the law,
so that on the basis of the juxtaposition of the
sentences of both instruments also the opposition
between tbe gods could be argued").
3 See above on SM/Matt 5:17, and also Harnack,
Marcion, 252* n. 3, 262*.
4 See also Irenaeus Adv. haer. 1.27.2; 4.13.1 (ed.
Harvey, vol. 1, p. 217; 2, pp. 180-81); Epiphanius
Adv. haer. 1.3.42 (PG 4l.800C), who in an anti-
Marcionite interpretation of Matt 5:17 alludes to the
title: , AAA' obll~ avrUhro~ b Xpurrh~ T~ e.~ T~
ll<oroKOTL VO~J-OV Kat 1rpo<jl~ra~ ("But neither was Christ
antithetical to God who gave law and prophets").
5 See BDF, §§ 485, 489-92; BDR, §§ 485, 489-92;
Moule, Idiom Book, 194-96; Lausberg, Handbuch 1,
§§ 787-807, esp. 796;Jorg Villwock, "Antithese,"

200
 Matthew 5:21-48

interpretation, the antitheses of the SM express jesus'
breaking away from the Mosaic law of the Old
Testament and replacing it with the gospel. For Marcion
and his followers, this interpretation derived from the
theology of Paul, which they read into the SM. The
suggestive nature of the term "antithesis" may be one of
the reasons why the idea that the historical Jesus stood in
opposition to the Mosaic law is still held today, in non-
Marcionite terms, by many scholars.
2. What is the reason for the arrangement of the six
antitheses? There clearly appears to be a rationale behind
the six antitheses and their arrangement in the SM, but
that rationale has so far eluded scholarship; few scholars
have even discussed the question. A number of
possibilities might be taken to provide an answer to the
problem of arrangement, but at closer inspection, each
turns out to be a false lead.
Can the arrangement of the antitheses in the SM be
explained on the basis of the Decalogue (Exod 20:2-17)?
The answer is negative because only the first two
offenses, murder and adultery, follow each other in the
Decalogue as well (Exod 20:13, 14). The other offenses
(divorce, perjury, retaliation, hatred of the enemy) are
not mentioned in the Decalogue at all. 6 They were,
however, considered as part of the Torah insofar as they
are treated elsewhere in the Pentateuch. Moreover, one
can argue that at least for the redactor(s) of the Penta-
teuch, all these offenses are understood to be, either
explicitly or implicitly, contained in the Decalogue. As
Frank-Lothar Hossfeld has shown, 7 the Decalogue itself
seems to be a relatively late composition based on earlier
series of precepts. Other such series of precepts occur in
Deut 5:6-21; Lev 17-26 (Holiness Code); Hos 4:2; and
Jer 7:9. In other words, the Pentateuch shows evidence
of a gradual expansion of earlier catalogues of precepts
at the end of which process stands the Pentateuch itself.
A part of these expansions was the inclusion of both legal
and cultic as well as moral precepts. 8
As there is no clear dividing line between legal and
moral statements, neither does there appear to be any
fixed order, except that murder and adultery are often
linked, although the order varies. 9 If the catalogues of
prohibitions seem to have no systematic order, the
reason may lie in their different origins and purposes, at
least at the beginning; but this situation may also reflect
the fact that neither Jewish nor Greek thought made
serious attempts to systematize the doctrine of sin in the
sense of identifying a root sin, from which all other sins
could be derived, or in the sense of constructing a list of
preeminent offenses (Hauptsilnden). As has been pointed
out by Reinhard Staats 10 in his RAG article on "Haupt-

HWRh 1 (1992) 722-50. Cf. also Doctr. apost. 4.13:
"Custodi ergo, fiJi, quae audisti; neque appones illis
contraria neque diminues" ("Keep, therefore, my
child, [the words] you have heard and neither add to
them [anything] antithetically, nor take away from
them"). Regarding this statement see above on
SM/Matt 5:19 also.
6 Philo Decal. 50 divides the Decalogue into two sets of
five commandments, the first set having to do with
the relationship to God, the second with humanity.
For Philo, both the numbers 5 and 10 have symbolic
value, but he also knows of other groupings, e.g., the
quadripartite group of theft, adultery, murder, and
sacrilege (Conf ling. 163). Cf. also Op. mund. 79;
Migr. Abr. 60.
7 Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Der Dekalog: Seine spiiten
Fassungen, die originate Komposition und seine Vorstufen
(OBO 24; Fribourg: Presses universitaires;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982);
furthermore, Anthony Phillips, Ancient Israel's
Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1970); Michael Fishbane, Biblical
Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon,
1985); Frank Criisemann, Die Tara: Theologie und
Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes (Munich:
Kaiser, 1992).
8 For such summaries see Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 3-6 (OTP
2.574-76); Syr. Menander II,15-19 (OTP 2.592);
Ps.-PhiloAnt. bibl. 44.6-7 (OTP 2.358); Syb. Or. 2.73,
()9, 130, 248, 256; 4.31 (OTP 1.347, 348, 351, 385).
See Walter T. Wilson, The Mysteries of Righteousness:
The Literary Composition and Genre of the Sentences of
Pseudo-Phocylides (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1994).
For a collection of rabbinic texts, see Str-B 1.254-75;
3.36-43 (distinction between the six or seven
Commandments of Adam and the seven of Noah);
4/1.437-50.
9 For example, Philo Decal. 36; Doctr. a post. 2.2; 5.1;
Barn. 19.4; 20.1. For rabbinic texts, see Str-B 1.255
(a).
10 Reinhard Staats, "Hauptsiinden," RAG 13 ( 1985)
734-70.

201
siinden," only early Christian ethics developed a concept
of values that consisted of a system of chief virtues and
vices. It was clearly Tertullian who devised a system of
delicta capitalia ("capital crimes") for which penitence had
to be done publicly and which could be distinguished
from the common sins (peccata). 11 The origin of this
systematization seems to have been the early Christian
penitential practice. 12 Since this practice has earlier
roots, however, the New Testament catalogues of vices
and virtues may figure as antecedents; but lack of sources
prevents me from offering a suggestion at this point.
An interesting grouping occurs in the Qumran
Damascus Document (CD), where "whoredom,"
"acquisitiveness," and "defiling the sanctuary" are called
"the three nets of Belial," with which the devil attempts
to catch Israel (CD 4.12-19). 13 There maybe a relation
here to the later Christian triad of adultery, murder, and
idolatry, 14 and the same may be true of rabbinic
Judaism, which regarded idolatry, fornication, and
bloodshed as the three cardinal sins. 15 Remarkable,
however, is the lack of interest in most catalogues with
regard to the first table of the Decalogue. Often the
commandments of the first table are simply lumped
together under the term "idolatry" (£lSwA.oA.aTpla), 16
found at the beginning of lists, but other precepts can
take the first place just as well.
Two questions arise from this evidence: First, what
was the entire spectrum of diversity with regard to
prohibitions and offenses? Second, can one extract from
the available sources a history of development from the
early times in Israel to the early Christian community?
The six antitheses of the SM show some hints at a
systematic composition, but these hints do not come
from the literature thus far surveyed. Catalogues of
prohibitions found in the New Testament continue the
traditions of Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom. One must note,
however, that a clear transformation regarding the
antitheses of the SM has taken place in that the New
Testament lists consist of moral catalogues of vices and
virtues rather than legal or cultic prescriptions and
prohibitions.
The parallel catalogues in Mark 7:21-22 are a good
example of what has occurred in the tradition. Mark
7: 1-23 as a whole is a rather elaborate chapter on purity
and impurity, the traditions of which come from
Hellenistic-Jewish Christianity. 1 7 The catalogue in Mark
that concludes the chapter lists twelve evil thoughts
arising from the impure heart, six in the plural and six in
the singular: 7ropv£lat, KA07Tal, cpovot, p.otx£lat, 7TA£ov£flat,
7TOV7]p{at, 1\0A.os, CUrfA)'Ha, OcplJaA.p.bs 7TOV7]pos, {3A.acrcp7]p.{a,
l!7T€p7]cpavla, acppocrtJv7] ("instances of fornication, theft,
murder, adultery, greed, and wickedness; deceit,
licentiousness, evil eye, blasphemy, arrogance,
stupidity"). 18 The Matthean parallel (Matt 15: 19) differs
characteristically in that it has reduced the number of
items to six, all plural: cpovot, p.otx£lat, 7ropv£lat, KAo7Tal,
'l/l£vSop.apTvplat, f3A.acrcp7]p.lat ("instances of murder,
adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, blasphemy").
The number in Matthew conforms to the number in the
SM, as do the first three vices; but the last three vices are
different, making difficult a decision whether Matthew
has brought the list-at least at the beginning-into
harmony with the SM, or whether the Matthean list is
due to a different tradition as well.
In Mark 10: 19Jesus cites another list from the second
table of the Decalogue. It includes these prohibitions: p.fJ
cpov£tJcr?Js, p.fJ p.otxftJCT?JS, p.fJ KAE'I/I?Js, p.fJ 'l/l£vSop.apTvp~cr?Js,
JJ.fJ a7TOCTT€p~cr?JS ("Do not kill, do not commit adultery, do
not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud"
[RSV]). 19 The prohibitions are followed by the

11 For references, see ibid., 735.
12 See also Anton Vogtle, "Achtlasterlehre," RAG 1
(1950) 74-79; Karl Holl, Enthusiasmus und BuBgewalt
beim griechischen Monchtum (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1898)
225-331.
13 See Hans Kosmala, "The Three Nets of Belial: A
Study of the Terminology of Qumran and the New
Testament," Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute
4 (1965) 91-113; Ben Zion Wacholder, The Dawn of
Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of
Righteousness (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College,
1983) 119-24; Sanders, jesus and judaism, 257-59.
14 See Harald Sahlin, "Die drei Kardinalsiinden und das
Neue Testament," StTh 24 (1970) 93-112.
15 See esp. b. Sanh. 74a; t. Pe'a 1, 2 (18). For other
passages, see Str-B 1.255(a).
16 On idolatry, see jean-Claude Fredouille, "Gotzen-
dienst," RAG 11 (1981) 828-95; Hans Hubner,
EWNT (EDNT) 1, s. v. ElowAoAaTp<la.
17 For further discussion and bibliography regarding
this passage, see below on SP /Luke 6:45.
18 For parallels, see also Rom 8:9;Jas 2:8-11. For
catalogues and bibliography on vices generally, see
Betz, Galatians, 281-83.

202
 Matthew 5:21-48

prescription: Tlp.a Tov 7raT€pa Ka'r. T~V JJ.'f/Tipa ("Honor
your father and mother"). 20 In the parallel Matt 19:19,
Matthew modifies the list by omitting the last prohi-
bition-if in fact he read it in his Markan Vorlage 21 -
and by adding the love-command, Ka'r. aya7r~um TOV
7rA'f/ulov uov oos u£avn\v ("and you shall love your
neighbor as yourself"). 22
Another interesting parallel text is Didache 2, where a
list of prohibitions is secondarily connected with the Two
Ways schema (Did. 1.1) and the double command to love
God and the neighbor (Did. 1.2). The double command
is called A.oyoL ("principles"), while what follows can be
identified as two sections of "teaching" (SLSax~) in 1.3-6
and 2.1-7. The list of prohibitions is rather long and
begins with the traditional ov cpovn'.!uns, ov JJ.OLX£-6uns
("you shall not murder, you shall not commit adul-
tery"). 23 Although the catalogue shares a good number
of items with the antitheses of the SM, it does not appear
to depend directly on the antitheses ofthe SM: ov
7ropv£-6u£LS ("you shall not fornicate") is, to some degree
at least, parallel to SM/Matt 5:31-32; ovK f7rLOpK~uns
("do not commit perjury" [Did. 2.3]), to which variations
and explanations are added, is parallel to SM/Matt
5:33-37. 24 The conclusion (Did. 2.6-7) consists of a
sayings composition built around the love-command that
has a parallel in Matt 5:43-48. 25 One can say similar
things about the catalogue of vices that makes up the
"way of death" (Did. 5). It begins with cpovoL, p.oLx£laL,
f7rL8vp.laL, 7ropv£laL ("instances of murder, adultery, sexual
desire, fornication"), 26 all having parallels in SM/Matt
5:21-32, but the rest ofthe catalogue is altogether
different from the SM.
What conclusions can one draw from this evidence?
This stage of the synoptic tradition and the Didache
seems no longer to distinguish clearly between the
prohibitions of the Decalogue, which are primarily legal
statements, and moral vices and virtues. Also the
transformation of prohibitive commands into lists of
moral concepts is easily done. While the first items on
such lists seem to be more fixed by tradition, the
remainder seem to be more open to variation and
expansion. 27
The question, then, is how the antitheses of the SM
compare to the evidence surveyed above. No doubt the
antitheses somehow must be related to the same tradition
that informed the other lists. The difference between
them and the antitheses, however, should also be clear:
the six antitheses represent a closed list, not open to
variation or expansion. If systematization in the other
lists was lacking, it is in keeping with the character of the
SM as a whole that such systematization is provided. How
can one explain this? One possibility is to regard the
antitheses as a series of positive ethical commendations
rather than as a prohibition of vices and sins. In Gal
5:19-23, the catalogue of vices has no order and may
reflect the chaotic nature of sins (Gal 5:19-21 ), while the
catalogue of virtues has nine terms, ordered in three sets
of three (Gal 5:22-23). 28

19 A number of witnesses do not read p.1J awo<Tup~<T!IS
("do not defraud"), while other witnesses are
different in the sequence and wording. The
tendencies are obviously those of harmonization
between lists. See Aland, Synopsis, 338 with the
critical apparatus; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 105.
20 Cf. Deut 5:16-21, where the commandment to
honor father and mother stands at the beginning,
followed by the prohibitions not to kill, commit
adultery, steal, bear false witness, covet your
neighbor's wife, etc. Cf. furthermore Exod 20: 12; Sir
3:1-16; Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 3-8 (OTP 2. 574); Mark
7:10//Matt 15:4; Eph 6:1-3. See AdolfLumpe,
"Eltern," RAC4(1959) 1190-1219.
21 Luke 18:20, the Lukan parallel, does not read it
either.
22 See the critical apparatus in Aland, Synopsis, 338. On
the love-command, see below on SM/Matt 5:43.
23 SoalsoDoctr. apost. 1.1-2.7, butBarn.l9.2-25and
20.1-2 are different. Cf. also the pledges of the
Elchasaites, according to Hippolytus Ref. 9.15; for a
translation, see NTA poe 2. 7 49; and for discussion,
Reinhold Merkelbach, "Der Eid der bithynischen
Christen," ZPE 21 (1976) 73-74.
24 For further discussion, see below on SM/Matt 5:33-
37.
25 For further discussion, see below on SM/Matt 5:43-
48.
26 See also Doctr. apost. 51; Barn. 20.1.
27 For further discussion and bibliography see Wengst,
Didache, 20-32; Niederwimmer, Didache, 146-51.
28 On this point see Betz, Galatians, 283.

203
 If the antitheses were limited to six and represented
the result of systematization, what was the rationale for
selecting these six antitheses and for putting them in the
order in which they now stand? Several attempts have
been made to provide an explanation; none, however, is
convincing.
Hans Joachim Schoeps 29 proposed that Jesus discussed
only those sections of the Torah about which he
disagreed with the accepted and traditional inter-
pretation, and that he could legitimately do so because
that part of the halakah was not fixed at the time. 30
Schoeps thereby assumed correctly that the historical
Jesus discussed halakah and that his interpretation was
controversial. It is hard to understand, however, why
only the six halakot of the antitheses should still be open
for discussion while all others were already settled. Does
not even the later Mishnah give evidence that there was
openness to different interpretations nearly everywhere?
Did not Jesus discuss other halakic problems as well, if we
examine the synoptic tradition more fully? Jesus must
have debated questions about purity and impurity,
observation of the Sabbath, or temple worship, but the
antitheses of the SM do not mention them. Obviously
Schoeps's hypothesis cannot solve these problems. 3 1
One should also dismiss another possible explanation:
The six antitheses do not simply discuss the sins as
counterparts of the virtues of the Beatitudes (SM/Matt
5:3-12). There are no doubt relationships between the
antitheses and the Beatitudes, but they are more subtle
than simply juxtapositions. Again, the sinners con-
demned in SM/Matt 7:21-23 do not receive the verdict
because of their transgression of the specific command-
ments that are part of the antitheses; in fact, the later
parts of the SM never mention the antitheses. 3 2
What, then, is the underlying rationale? I submit, and
will discuss further below, that one can determine a
rationale when one views the whole of the six antitheses.
The set climaxes in the final antithesis, the com-
mandment concerning the treatment of the enemy
(SM/Matt 5:43-48). This commandment by itself,
however, is an interpretation of the commandment to
love the neighbor, Lev 19:18, quoted in SM/Matt 5:43.
This commandment, central as it was not only for early
Christian theology but also for the teaching of the
historica1Jesus, 33 sums up all of the antitheses. The
concept of "love" (aya?Tcl.w) 34 is explicitly mentioned in
SM/Matt 5:43-48, as is the notion of perfection (rb..~:to<;
[5:48]); perfection, however, is related to the "fulfill-
ment" of the Torah (5:17; 7:12). How, then, are the
antitheses apart from 5:43-48 related to the love-
commandment?
When the final antithesis (5:43-48) names "hatred"
{p.tu(w) as the opposite of "love" (aya?Tcl.w), 35 we find a
formula true of the other antitheses as well: all are

29 Hans Joachim Schoeps, "Jesus und das jiidische
Gesetz," in his Studien zur unbekannten Religions- und
Geistesgeschichte (Gottingen: Musterschmidt, 1963)
41-61.
30 Schoeps (Studien, 41) assumes that the SM comes
directly from the historical Jesus.
31 ·For another attempt to explain the composition of
the antitheses, see Achelis (Bergpredigt, 319-27), who
assumes that Jesus' argument is directed against the
dissolution of the Torah by the Pharisees and
introduces justice as the "norm" for the Torah. The
antitheses (SM/Matt 5:21-48) discuss the Quid
("essence") of the demands ofjustice, first concerning
the laws of the Decalogue (5:21-26: do not kill;
5:27-32: do not commit adultery), second concern-
ing laws outside the Decalogue, by which the
Pharisees have perverted the law (5:33-37:
commandment to use oaths; 5:38-42: commandment
to retaliate; 5:43-48: commandment to love one's
neighbor). This scheme, however, is beset with many
problems. It has no room for 5:31-32; the parallel
composition of all six antitheses is unrecognized; and
there is no evidence that the antitheses argue against
specifically Pharisaic misinterpretations.
32 Cf. also other lists of sins because of which people are
condemned in the last judgment: Matt 25:42-44;
Rev 9:21; 21:8; 22:15; Apoc. Pet. 7.22-20, 34. See
Albrecht Dieterich, Nekyia: Beitriige zur Erkliirung der
neuentdeckten Petrusapokalypse (3d ed.; Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969) 54-62,
163-95; Betz, Lukian, 185-94, esp. the list in Lucian
Icaromenippus 15 (Betz, Lukian, 187).
33 See below on SM/Matt 5:43--46 and SP/Luke 6:27.
34 See 5:43, 44, 46; 6:24.
35 For the concept of hatred as the opposite oflove, see
John Procope, "HaB," RAG 13 (1985) 677-714.

204

construed around opposites oflove. The anticlimax to
the notion of "love" is found in the first antithesis (5:21-
26), naming "anger" (opyl(op.at) as the root cause of
hatred and thus the very opposite of love. 36 Whereas
5:43-48 deal with the enemy, 5:21-26 focus on the
brother who is the antitype of enemy. 37 All antitheses,
therefore, consider opposites of"love." 38
At the same time, the six antitheses conform to the
conventions of Hellenistic family ethics, the discussions
of which often deal first with relatives and kin, then with
friends. 39 The SM regards all these relationships as
instances of"neighborhood" (7rA.:qulov), the key concept
of the love-command (5:43). Within the context ofthe
SM, the categories offamily ethics are to be taken in the
metaphorical sense. This sense conforms to common
usage in Christianity, where "brother," "sister," or
"friend" is taken to refer to the members ofthe
community.
Furthermore, all instances in the antitheses discuss
broken relationships. The first antithesis (5:21-26)
concerns the broken relationships between "brothers,"
the second (5:27-30) and third (5:31-32), women. 40
The second group focuses on broken friendship
relations: perjury (5:33-37), retaliation (5:38-42), and
the enemy (5:43-48). As elsewhere in antiquity, the
enemy is understood as the opposite of the friend. 41 If
one accepts this hypothesis, the consequence would be
that all antitheses of the SM are exemplifications of the
love-command in Lev 19:18. This means that the love-
command directs the interpretation of the Torah
commandments. Correctly interpreted, these Torah
36 Cf. Did. 3.2: "Do not be angry, for anger leads to
murder, or a fanatic or contentious or hot-tempered,
for from all ofthese murders originate" (p.~ yivov
opyi>..or, baT/y£1 yl.p ~ opy~ orpor TOV q,Jvov, 1-'T/af
(71>..ror~r1-'T/a£ tp&<TnKOr fLT/li£ OvfL&KJr· tK yl.p roilrrov
lr.oravrrov q,Jvo& y£vvwvra&). For the connection
between hatred and anger, see Procope, RAC 13.679.
37 Cf. Did. 2.6-7: "You shall not have wicked designs
against your neighbor. You shall not hate any human
being, but some you shall expose, for some you shall
pray, some you shall love more than yourself" (ov
>..1}>/ln {jov>..~v orov71pl.v Karl. rov 1fAT/<Tiov <Tov. Ov
J.'I.U~UEIS w&.vra li.v6pwwov, 0;A.A' Of,S' J'~V (Afy[EIS, 7rEp',.
cliv li£ 7rpOIT£tJ(y, ollr a£ ayaor1}<T£1f V7rfp T~V >/lvx1}v ITOV).
38 Cf. also Did. 1.3-3.10, all of which discussion is
placed under the love-command in 1.2.
39 Basic are Xenophon Mem. 2.2-6; Aristotle Eth. Nic.
Matthew 5:21-48
commandments are "fulfilled" in the sense that with thL
love-commandment, the whole Torah is fulfilled. From
this perspective, the apparent conclusion is that the six
antitheses amount to what Paul calls "the law of Christ" (6
vop.os TOV Xpturov): "Bear one another's burdens, and in
this way you will fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2). 4 2
Although Paul uses this principle in Galatians in working
out his polemical stance vis-a-vis the Jewish Torah, the
SM employs the same principle in the opposite way for
interpreting the jewish Torah in a positive way. In
Romans, however, where Paul offers a modified view of
the jewish Torah, he appears to come much closer to the
interpretations of the SM; and when he refers to the
love-command (Rom 13:8-10; 12:9-21), he also includes
paraenesis quite similar to what occurs in the SM.
3. What kind of argument do the antitheses contain?
As a rhetorical device, an antithesis states an argument;
the question is always which type of argument is being
stated and how is it made. In the antitheses of the SM, a
Scripture interpretation that is to be refuted as false is
introduced by the formula "you have heard that it was
said," and then contrasted with jesus' own interpretation,
introduced by the formula "but I say to you." This
pattern of juxtaposed formulae, not to mention the
argument itself, has no analogy elsewhere in early
Christian literature, especially not in SP, Q, Doctrina
apostolorum, Didache, and Barnabas. Where did this
pattern then come from?
That the antithesis as such is a figure of speech
common in rhetoric has been mentioned (see above, p.
8.10.4-14.4, 1160b 23-1163a 29. See the
commentary of Franz Dirlmeier, Aristoteles:
Nikomachische Ethik, in Aristoteles: Werke in deutscher
Ubersetzung, vol. 6 (8th ed.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,
1983) 529; Julia Annas, "Plato and Aristotle on
Friendship and Altruism," Mind 86 (1977) 532-54;
John N. Cooper, "Aristotle on Forms of Friendship,"
Review ofMetaphysics 30 (1977) 619-48. See
furthermore Plutarch De Jraterno a more (for which see
Betz,PECL 2.235-36); Plutarch Solon 21.3.
40 The term "sister" is not used in the SM, however.
SM/Matt 5:27-30 considers violation of the
marriage taboo by adultery with someone else's wife,
5:31-32 by divorce from one's own wife.
41 See below on SM/Matt 5:43.
42 See Betz, Galatians, 298-301. Cf. also above on
SM/Matt 5:19.
205
200). One can say more, however, concerning its origin
and formal characteristics. Dalman, Daube, Smith, and
Lohse 43 have collected and evaluated parallel formulae
from the rabbinic literature in order to explain the
antithesis form found in the SM. The parallels they have
adduced are of three types:
(a) If there are two possible interpretations of Torah
or Scripture under discussion, they may be indicated
by the formula "I might hear [or understand] [it this
way], but you should say .... "44
(b) One scholar may contradict another's opinion by
the emphatic refutation "but I say." 45
(c) The formula "but I say to you" can occur with
reference to a refuted opinion. 46
There are clearly several similarities and differences with
regard to the antitheses of the SM:
(a) Apart from the word pair "hearing" and "saying,"
there is little similarity; indeed, the phrase "you
should say" states the opposite of what SM states ("I
say").
(b) Parallel is the use of the first person singular, but
the refuted opinion is not introduced by a comparable
formula.
(c) This formula has no relation to the antithesis but
functions in doctrinal contexts as an introduction to a
body of doctrine.
It is obvious, therefore, that the parallels do not have
exactly the same form, but the kind of argument is
similar. The rabbinical formulae may have a prior
history of their own, and that history may have
connections to Hellenistic court rhetoric. This problem,
however, cannot be investigated at this point. 4 7
There are indications that the interpretation of the
Torah as set forth in the antitheses may follow rules
established by Greek rhetoricians. In terms of Greek
rhetoric, the six antitheses contain interpretations oflaw
and therefore must be adjudicated in terms of the
appropriate status ("issue"), the VOJLLKat o-nio-m ("legal
issues"), 48 to use Hermogenes' term (the Latin
equivalent: genus legale). 49 The genus legale comes under
consideration when actions whose legality or illegality is
in question are of such a nature that they pose problems
with regard to written laws. The presupposition at this
point is that written laws were judged always to be
imperfect because their concrete formulation prevents
their unlimited applicability to the infinite diversity of
possible situations and actions. Special interpretation is
thus needed in some cases to clarify the relationship
between law and actions. 50 The method used in such
interpretation includes semantic ranges of meanings of
words as well as legal and literary principles. The
elements of the genus legale are these: existing and
binding laws, 51 the lawgiver, 52 the written formulation
of the law, 53 and the originally intended meaning of the

43 Dalman,jesus-Jeschua, 68; Str-B 1.275; Daube, NT
and Rabbinic Judaism, 55-62; Morton Smith,
Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (SBLMS 6; Phila-
delphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1961) 27 -30;
idem, "A Comparison of Early Christian and Early
Rabbinic Tradition," JBL 82 (1963) 169-76; Braun,
Radikalismus, 2.5 n. 2, 85 n. 2; Eduard Lohse, "Ich
aber sage euch," in Der Rufjesu und die Antwort der
Gemeinde: FS fur Joachim Jeremias (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 189-203;
reprinted in his Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973) 73-87.
See also Davies, Setting, 101-2; Hubner, Gesetz, 40-
41, 230-36; Guelich, Sermon, 184-85; Strecker,
Bergpredigt, 65 (Sermon, 62-63); Luz, Matthiius, 1.247
(Matthew, 1.276).
44 Mek. Exod. 20.12; for the interpretation, see Daube,
NT and Rabbinic judaism, 55-56.
45 For collections of passages, see the contributions by
Smith and Lohse (above, n. 43).
46 T. Reu. 1.7; T. Dan 2.1; T. Naph. 4.1; T. Gad 5.2, etc.;
1 Enoch 94.1, 3, 10; 99.13; 102.9. For these and
other references, see Luz, Matthiius, 1.247 nn. 14
and 15 (Matthew, 1.276 nn. 14 and 15). See also
below, n. 88.
47 For analogous investigations see David Daube,
"Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic
Rhetoric," HUCA 22 (1949) 239-64; idem,
':<\lexandrian Methods of Interpretation and the
Rabbis," in FS Hans Lewald (Basel: Helbing &
Lichtenhahn, 1953) 27-44.
48 See Lausberg, Handbuch 1, §§ 198-223; Martin,
Rhetorik, 293-95, 312-15.
49 Hermogenes Il<pt uraouw 2.13-14, in Hugo Rabe,
ed., Rhetores Graeci, vol. 6: Hermogenis Opera (Lipsiae:
Teubner, 1913) 39-40.
50 See Lausberg, Handbuch 1, § 198.
51 The law itself is therefore never simply identical with
the written (scriptum) or spoken (vox) text. See
Quintilian lnst. 7 .5.6.
52 The auctor ("author") is called legumlator ("legislator")
by Quintilian (lnst. 7 .8. 7); Rhet. ad Her. 1.11.19 calls
him scriptor ("scribe").
53 Hermogenes Il<pt urau<WV 2.13: PTJTOV ("spoken

206
 Matthew 5:21-48

law. 54 The basic problem was seen as a conflict between
the written text of the law and the originally intended
meaning of that law. The examination of the problem
may focus on either the written text or the originally
intended meaning. 55
When one examines the scriptum, the written text, one
must observe some rules. 56 One must take the text in its
"natural" linguistic meaning; 5 7 this meaning may be
apparent, obscure, or ambiguous. 5 8 The conflict may be
between the scriptum (the written text) and the voluntas 59
(the originally intended meaning), whereby the latter
may be argued as a case of aequitas ("equity"). 5° The
opposing parties in the dispute may base their case either
on the scriptum, declaring that the written text as such
expresses equity, or on the intended meaning (voluntas,
sententia). In the latter instance, the party would argue
that the written text, although to be respected, is in need
of interpretation in regard to its intended meaning.
Consequently, the dispute transcends the written text
and involves the discussion of "norms. " 61 Whatever
solution to the dispute is agreed upon will result, among
other things, in some kind of amendment to the existing
law. This amendment can take the form of either a
subsidiary interpretation of the written text of the law or
the rewriting of that law itself.
The ancient rhetoricians determined as well that there
are basically four categories of "legal issues" (status
legales); 62 the first of these applies to all six antitheses in
SM/Matt 5:21-48: the status known as scriptum et
voluntas, or scriptum et sententia (Greek: P'T'JTOV JCa'r. litavola),
that is, the conflict between the written text of a statute
and its intended meaning. 63 The solution is reached
when the original meaning intended by the legislator is
determined; it will be either identical or not identical
with the written code. 64
As Quintilian points out, the question of scriptum et
voluntas presupposes an instance of obscurity (obscuritas)
in the text. 65 This obscurity can take two forms: (a) the
law in question is in itself obscure and leads to different
interpretations because each party understands it as the
statement of a different intention by the lawgivers; 5 6
(b) the text itself is clear but its true meaning must be
brought to light by means of a philological investigation
ofthe terms of the text. 67 In both instances, the
interpretation of "equity" decides the conflict. 68 Given
this argumentative structure, each of the six antitheses of
the SM attempts to accomplish two goals: the refutation
of an inadequate legal doctrine and the presentation of a
contrary doctrine that is accepted as adequate. The
doctrines in question are expressed by opposite
interpretations of citations of the Torah and both imply
and aim at a position with regard to legal and ethical
issues. Consequently, each antithesis has two argumen-
tative parts: first the refutation, then the presentation; a
third part, the ethical conclusion, is left unstated: it is
expected that the hearer or reader will draw the
satisfactory conclusion.
The part of the antithesis containing the refutation is a
complex argument in itself. It begins with a description
of the origin of the inadequate doctrine and of the mode
of reception in the present. The "chain of tradition," to
use Elias Bickerman's term, 69 is traced from the present

word"); Rhet. ad Her. 1.11.19: scriptum ("written 59 In the following section I am depending on
word"); Quintilian/nst. 7.10.7: verba legis ("words of Lausberg, Handbuch 1, § 203.
the law"). 60 On "equity," see above on SM/Matt 5:20.
54 Hermogenes Il<p'r.ur<iu<wv 2.14: attivota ("mind"); 61 See also Lausberg, Handbuch 1, § 220.
Rhet. ad Her. 1.11.19: "scriptorisvoluntas,... 62 Ibid.,§§ 206-7.
scriptum et sententia" ("the writer's intention... 63 Ibid.,§§ 214-17.
[written] Letter and Spirit"); Quintilian Inst. 7.8. 7: 64 Ibid.,§ 209.
"voluntas legumlatoris" ("intention of the legislator"); 65 Quintilian Inst. 7 .6.1-2.
3.6.43: "quid senserit legis constitutor" ("what the 66 Ibid., 7.6.2-4.
legislator intended"). (My trans.) 67 Ibid., 7.6.4-7.
55 Quintilian Inst. 7.5.5. 68 See Lausberg, Handbuch 1, §§ 209-12.
56 See Lausberg, Handbuch 1, § 202. 69 See 'Abot 1.1; 'Abot de R. Nat. (A), chap. 1. On the
57 Quintilian Inst. 7.9.15: "secundum naturam... tradents, see Elias Bickerman's famous essay, "La
sermo" ("interpretation according to nature"). chaine de Ia tradition pharisienne," RB 59 (1952) 44-
58 Quintilian Inst. 7.5.6: "scriptum aut apertum est aut 54; reprinted in his Studies in Jewish and Christian
obscurum aut ambiguum" ("the written text is either History (AGJU 9; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 2.256-69.
clear or obscure or ambiguous"). (My trans.)

207
recipients to the origins. The present recipients have
learned the doctrine by "hearing" (aKovw) it from a
teacher, that is, as accepted doctrine. All that needs to be
indicated about this doctrine in order to discredit it is
that it is secondhand. Thus the originator of the doctrine
is said to be God, the subject of the passive "it was said"
(£ppJ87J). 70 The doctrine is said to be revealed "to the
ancients" (or apxfLOL). 71 The implication is that the
inadequa~e doctrine has passed through many hands
before it has reached the present hearers. While some
may regard antiquity as a guarantee of the truth, the SM
declares it to be nothing but secondhand information
and thus uncertain as to accuracy. As David Daube has
pointed out, the phrase "the one who hears" can be used
in rabbinic theology with the connotation of inferiority:
"he who hears" often describes someone "who sticks to
the superficial, literal meaning of Scripture." Daube,
therefore, renders ~KovuaTf as "ye have literally
understood" or "ye might understand literally." 7 2 The
past recipients and tradents have handed down the
doctrine as tradition: "that it was said to the ancients." In
other words, the SM introduces here a critical difference
between what God has in fact said and what the tradition
claims God has said) 3 The refutation thus is not directed
against what God has in fact said but against what he has
allegedly said, that is, what he has in reality not said. 74
The second step in the refutation consists of the citation
of the inadequate doctrine itself. First, the Scripture
quotation in question is given. Then the erroneous
interpretation of that Scripture quotation is added
(SM/Matt 5:21, 33, 43), or the Scripture quotation is left
to stand without further interpretation (5:27, 31, 38).
Where no further interpretation is supplied, it is assumed
that the erroneous interpretation is identical with the
"literal" understanding of the text and, furthermore, that
a "literal" understanding is ipso facto a mistaken
understanding.
The second part of the antithesis consists of the
presentation of the adequate interpretation of the cited
Scripture text and is introduced by a definition of the
mode of presentation. The originator is Jesus, speaking
in the first person singular, and the mode is delivery to
the present recipients ("but I say to you"). This
introductory formula is part of all six antitheses (5:22,
28, 32, 34, 39, 44) and is followed by the statement of
the adequate interpretation of the cited Scripture text.
The famous formula "but I say to you" has been the
subject of much controversy. 7 5 Recent investigations
have left no stone unturned in the search for parallels;
but no one has come up with precise parallels, that is,
with the same formula being used in rabbinic literature.
Daube at least has pointed out similar forms of refutation
in rabbinic texts in which the phrase "but you must say"
introduces a substitution for a doctrine to be refuted. 76

70 See below on SM/Matt 5:21.
71 See below on SM/Matt 5:21 and 33.
72 Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 56.
73 This critical difference is often overlooked. Cf., e.g.,
Lohse, "Ich aber sage euch," 192: "In den Antithesen
Jesu wird aber mit ~"oti<TaTE nicht auf ein moglicher-
weise eintretendes MiBverstandnis eines Schrift-
wortes angespielt, das durch dessen allzu wortliche
Erklarung entstehen konnte; sondern es wird
vielmehr auf das den Horern vertraute Gebot des
Gesetzes Bezug genommen" ("In the antitheses of
Jesus the term 'you have heard' does not refer to a
possible misunderstanding stemming from an
excessively literal interpretation; rather, the term
refers to the commandment familiar to the hearers of 75
the Law"). Similarly ambiguous is Lohse's inter-
pretation of Jesus' formula "but I say to you" ("Ich
aber sage euch," 198).
74 Differently Lohse ("Ich aber sage euch," 199-200):
"Aber Jesu Wort zerschlagtjede Moglichkeit, den
Gehorsam wiederum zu formalisieren.Jesus hat die
Autoritat des Gesetzes nicht grundsatzlich in Frage
gestellt; faktisch fiihrt jedoch gerade die Radi-
kalisierung des gottlichen Gebotes, wie Jesus sie in
seinem in ~tovda gesprochenen £y{, a£ AE")IOO vp."iv
vollzieht, zur Sprengung der Thora." ("But the word
of Jesus denies any possibility of again taking
obedience in a formalistic sense.Jesus did not in
principle call the authority of the law into question;
in fact, however, the radical interpretation of the
divine commandment, as Jesus carries it out when he
speaks 'with authority', his 'but I say to you,' leads to
the breaking up of the Torah.") This conclusion is,
however, in reality based on Paul's theology, and it is
precisely the conclusion against which the SM was
directed (cf. above on SM/Matt 5:17-20).
For bibliography, see above, n. 43.
76 Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 55-62.

208

The difference between this form of refutation and the
one used by the SM pertains to tone and authority: "Note
not only the first person, 'I say,' but also the 'unto you,'
not present in the rabbinic form. The tone is not
academic but final, prophetic, maybe somewhat defiant.
Nor is there any reasoning. The correct attitude is simply
stated ... , with no argument a minori ad maius or the
like. "77 Daube is, however, correct in emphasizing that
"the gulf is very much smaller than we have so far made
it appear." 78 The rabbinic phrase "but you must say" is
not all that different from "but I say to you." "Clearly,
'But thou must say' contains a strong element of
discretionary power. The seed is there which, given
certain conditions, might develop into the absolute 'But I
say unto you.'" 79
Yet the rabbinic formula contrasts the views of one
scholar with another, or the views of one with others.
"Here an imaginary fellow-scholar is addressed and
instructed. The interpretation is to be excluded, that is,
is represented as favored by an opponent-a scholarly,
friendly opponent, it is true, but still a 'thou' in need of
guidance. "80 This formula "but you must say" then
introduces "a recognized logical justification for
replacing the literal meaning by a freer, yet in effect does
substitute a new, freer meaning. Nor were the religious
leaders of the time unaware that exegesis might be
tantamount to legislation. "81 Daube's analysis has been
criticized by Hiibner, 82 who tries to drive wedges into
some clefts left unexplained by Daube, but that criticism
is exaggerated. Whereas Bacher 83 argued that one ofthe
differences between the rabbinic parallels and the SM is
that Jesus does not justify his position by reference to
Scripture passages, Daube rightly observes that instead
of a dictum probans, there could simply be a logical
deduction of some kind. Then, however, Daube states
that the "antitheses" of the SM do not use conclusions "a
minori ad maius or the like. "84 This observation is true of
the text of the SM, but a wrong conclusion which others
have read into the remark is that the historical Jesus did
77 Ibid., 58.
78 Ibid., 59.
79 Ibid.
80 Ibid.
81 Ibid.
82 HUbner, Gesetz, 231-36.
83 Wilhelm Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der
jildischen Traditionsliteratur (1899; reprinted
Matthew 5:21-48
not justify his position at all. 85 Virgil Howard states the
matter this way: "By contrast, Jesus' statements in the
antitheses lack all reasoning by a scripture scholar. There
is no argument, there is proclamation." ("Dagegen
entbehren die AussagenJesu in den Antithesenjeglicher
schriftgelehrter Begriindung. Es wird nicht
argumentiert, sondern proklamiert.") 86 From this wrong
conclusion it is but a short step to Jesus' alleged
"messianic" authority. 87 In fact, however, a logical
argument is being made, but it is different from and
more intricate than the parallels adduced by Daube
would lead one to expect. The formula used in the SM,
"but I say to you," is, therefore, not rabbinic in origin. It
goes further-as far as we know-than did other rabbis.
It is by intention anti-Pharisaic; it presupposes a different
concept of tradition, interpretation, and method. The
proposed correct interpretation is set in opposition to all
"traditional" interpretations. The rabbinic phrase "but
you must say" deemphasizes rather than emphasizes the
authority of the rabbi, although there is no doubt that it
is a rabbi who proposes the correct interpretation. It is,
however, incorrect to say that there is no argument
attached to the expression "but I say to you." Which
justification is then given for the pronouncement?
First, the pronouncement is not an arbitrary
declaration but an interpretation of a Scripture verse. It
is based on the reading of the Torah directly (see above
on 5:18) and it eliminates the chain of tradition. The
reason is no doubt that the Scripture is believed to be a
sufficient textual basis, but that the interpretation is the
problem. Second, what Jesus introduces is his inter-
pretation of the passage, based on his theological insight
into the original intention of the legislator, God.
Contrary to what is often assumed, however, this insight
is not derived from any esoteric revelation. Rather, that
the pronouncements are followed by an argumentation
presupposes that the reasons behind Jesus' interpretation
are open to rational comprehension and debate. Jesus'
interpretations are assumed to make sense because they
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1965) 189.
84 Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 57.
85 Ibid., 58; cf. also 6 n. 1; Lohse, "Ich aber sage euch,"
198-99; HUbner, Gesetz, 233.
86 Virgil Howard, Das Ego Jesu in den synoptischen
Evangelien (MaTS 14; Marburg: Elwert, 1975) 191.
87 Ibid., 197-98.
209
can be confirmed by examples, proverbs, rhetorical
questions, and so on. For the SM, and in all probability
for the historical Jesus himself, the original intent of the
legislator God was the principle of the love-command
(5:43), which, in turn, is directly related to the Golden
Rule (7:12). In other words, the Scripture texts, if
interpreted by the love-command and the Golden Rule,
lead to the interpretations given by Jesus. The Golden
Rule as a general legal and ethical principle shows that
the love-command of Lev 19: 18 is not an idiosyncratic
doctrine. Third, that these are such argumentations
presupposes that the readers or listeners can follow them
rationally, so that the stated conviction that Jesus is right
is not due to irrational devotion by his disciples but to
rational insight into the conclusiveness of ethical
arguments. Because of this assumption, which counts on
the rational faculties of the hearers or readers, the
implementation of the commandments in the concrete
situations of life can be left to the recipients in the
expectation that they will implement what they have
understood.
4. Do the antitheses imply a higher christology? Since
the antitheses make no explicit statement about a higher
christology, one must question whether the words
attributed to Jesus, especially the statement "but I say to
you," imply such a christology. If these words express a
high degree of self-consciousness, do they imply as well a
"messianic" consciousness? Despite assurances by
Christian scholars past and present, there is no evidence
of "messianic" consciousness, either on the part ofJesus
or on the part of anyone else involved in the SM. 88 On
the contrary, the SM appears to be ostensibly disin-
terested in messianism. Jesus' self-consciousness as
expressed in the words "but I say to you" does not
necessarily go beyond that of an authoritative teacher,
such as Jesus is for the SM, who is confident about the
truth and the eschatological consequences of what he has
to say. 89 It is true that rabbis shun using the first person
singular, 90 but their restraint conforms to the rabbinic
ethos 91 and does not imply that everyone else, even
within Judaism, who uses the first person singular in
doctrinal pronouncements necessarily overextends
himself. To cite a parallel, Paul uses the first person
singular or plural in a similar way, 9 2 expressing his clear
sense of an authoritative role as an apostle, but there is
no reason to conclude from his language that he had
"messianic" ambitions or the like.
A good analogy to the view of the SM that Jesus was an
authoritative teacher is the Qumranic Teacher of
Righteousness, especially if Ben Zion Wacholder's
interpretation of the Temple Scroll (11QTemple) is
correct. As he points out, this scroll contains evidence of
an unusual use of the first person singular. The
document presumes to be a divine revelation of the

88 So correctly Braun, Radikalismus, 2.5 n. 2, 85 n. 2; endorsements can hardly obscure the fact that it is
Lohse, "Ich aber sage euch," 197; Guelich, due to a Paulinizing reading of the antitheses, not to
"Antitheses," 457; idem, Sermon, 255-71; Strecker, the words themselves. ·
Bergpredigt, 67-69 (Sermon, 65-67). In favor of a 89 See Lohse, "Ich aber sage euch," 197-98.
messianic interpretation are Schniewind, Matthaus, 90 On this point see Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism,
37; Werner Georg Kiimmel, "Jesus und der jiidische 59,62.
Traditionsgedanke," in his Heilsgeschehen und 91 See, e.g., Hillel's maxim, 'Abot 1.14 (ed. Taylor): "He
Geschichte, 31-32; Howard, Das Egojesu, 197-98. Of used to say, A name made great is a name destroyed";
great influence was Ernst Kasemann's statement 'Abot 6.5: "Seek not greatness for thyself, and desire
("The Problem ofthe Historical Jesus," in his Essays not honour."
on New Testament Themes, 37): "The determining 92 See Rom 4:9; 9:1; 10:18, 19; 11:1, 11, 13; 12:3;
factor, however, is that the words ly(o ~( A(yro 15:8; 1 Cor 1:12; 7:6, 8, 12, 35; 10:15, 29; 15:51; 2
embody a claim to an authority which rivals and Cor 6:13; 7:3; 8:8; 11:16, 21; Gal1:9, etc.
challenges that of Moses. But anyone who claims an
authority rivalling and challenging Moses has ipso
facto set himself above Moses; he has ceased to be a
rabbi, for a rabbi's authority only comes to him as
derived from Moses.... For the Jew who does what
is done here has cut himself off from the community
ofJudaism-or else he brings the Messianic Torah
and is therefore the Messiah." A large number of
scholars have endorsed this statement, but such

210

Torah set forth in the first person singular and
addressing Moses as "you." Moreover, the composer of
the scroll, whom Wacholder identifies as the Teacher of
Righteousness, also speaks in the first person singular:
The real author concealed his identity by advancing
the claim that his writings were of a divine source, not
as conveyed by any mortal, but revealed directly by
God, in the same way as the Torah had been revealed
to Moses. By presenting his work as the word of God,
the author played for high stakes: he might be
glorified as a divine messenger or damned as an agent
ofSatan. 93
Wacholder believes that the author attempted to
introduce a "new" Torah:
All indications are that the author called his book
Seper Torah or Torah, a title that implied an invidious
comparison with the Mosaic Pentateuch. If this is
correct, the name Megillat Hammiqdash [i.e., Temple
Scroll] given to this work in the editio princeps is both
inappropriate and misleading. On the other hand,
Qumranic Torah seems to be a fitting and proper title
for a book that claimed to have been given to Moses
on Mount Sinai. Such a title was intended to reinforce
the book's claim not only for equality with its Mosaic
counterpart, but for superiority to it. The author's
attitude to the traditional Torah was perhaps similar
to that found in Matt. 5: 17, which in paraphrase may
be rendered: "I have not come to diminish the law of
M~ses but to complete it. "94
Whether Wacholder's hypothesis can be accepted in toto
remains to be seen. Concerning the historical Jesus,
however, he assumes that the rabbinic version and
interpretation in b. Sabb. 116b accurately reflects what
Jesus had in mind. We have seen, however, that
SM/Matt 5:17 is of a complex apologetic nature and
denies precisely what Wacholder postulates. 95 The
question, therefore, is whether in his interpretation of
the Temple Scroll he is influenced to some degree by his
views on the historical Jesus. If he should be so
93 Wacholder, Dawn ofQy,mran, 4.
94 Ibid., 3I-32.
95 See above on SM/Matt 5:I7.
96 Wacholder (Dawn of Qumran, 202-I2) dates
II QTorah c. 200 BCE.
97 The repeated statements that jesus taught and acted
with authority (ifovula) are due to Matthew's
christology. See Matt 7:29; 8:9; 9:6, 8; IO:I; 2I:23,
Matthew 5:21-48
influenced, however, the evidence of the use of the first
person singular in the Temple Scroll may not be as
peculiar as Wacholder postulates, indicating rather what
was possible in first-century Judaism. 96
The implied belief of the SM, rather, is that Jesus is
viewed as a righteous man and a teacher who instructs
with authority, as Matthew rightly judges. 97 Such a
teacher, however, would not think of basing his authority
on his own presumptuousness. Instead, as the SM
presupposes, Jesus' authority was the truth and the will
of God as revealed by the Torah. The teacher with the
courage to say "but I say to you" makes a statement first
of all about every true teacher. Rather than seeing
himself as merely handing down tradition, the true
teacher assumes the personal responsibility for
examining and judging the truth of a matter and for
pronouncing it with frankness. Such a stance may very
well disagree with the traditional views. 98 In the
antitheses before us, the truth at stake is not anything in
general; rather it pertains to particular insights into what
the law of God says, and what it does not say, and the
ethical consequences that one must draw from it.
5. With whom did the antitheses originate? Although
this question is still the subject of much debate, points of
agreement among the discussion partners need to be
examined more closely before the four basic hypotheses
are discussed more fully. There seems to be widespread
agreement that the antitheses as we now have them in
the SM were not worked out by the historical Jesus but
are the result of redactional activity. But juxtaposing the
question of historical origin with that of formal
composition obscures the fact that one does not
necessarily exclude the other. The evidence certainly
points to a later redactor as far as the composition is
concerned, but this indication only raises the question of
where and how this redactor learned the method and
substance of what he presented. In the light of the dearth
of reliable historical information concerning the
24, 27; 28:I8.
98 See Mark I2:I4; and Betz, "Vom wahren Lehrer," in
Synoptische Studien, 68-76.
211
historical jesus and his teaching method, and in
consideration of the unique nature of the material at
hand, one cannot rule out the possibility that the
redactor had access to a tradition that reported more or
less correctly what jesus taught and how he presented it.
One must assume, furthermore, that when jesus taught
subjects pertaining to the Jewish Torah, he did so by
using the forms of legal argumentation available at the
time. Moreover, one cannot dismiss the possibility that
the other Gospels apart from Matthew, which to a large
extent transpose jewish arguments into moral arguments
more generally comprehensible and applicable to early
Christian life in a Greek environment, passed over what
appeared to be internal jewish debates. If the antitheses
present such internal jewish debates, as I believe they do,
they may constitute a very old tradition that, although
not coming from Jesus directly word for word, may
truthfully reflect his concerns and his methods regarding
the jewish Torah. 99
Granting that the antitheses are the work of a
redactor, one must raise further questions: At which
stage in the tradition is the redactor to be sought? How
did the redactional work proceed? What was the result of
the redaction?
Contemporary scholars do not agree on any of these
questions. Part of the problem is doubtless the scholarly
debate itself, which, in spite of all the progress that has
been made, operates all too often with unexamined
presuppositions and uncritically accepted limitations of
options resulting from older investigations. In general,
one can distinguish five hypotheses:
1. The most commonly accepted hypothesis, named by
Luz 10 0 "Normalhypothese," usually takes its cues from
Bultmann's discussion in his History of the Synoptic
Tradition. 1 0 1 Bultmann regarded the first, second, and
fourth antitheses to be "older formulations" that came to
Matthew from his special tradition. These older
antitheses served as models for their expansion from
three to six on the part of the redactor Matthew.
Matthew, then, was the creator of the "secondary"
layer-the third, fifth, and sixth antitheses-and the
composition as a whole. "Thus the older formulation
5 2lf., 27f., 33-37 has given rise to analogous formulations,
in which unattached dominical sayings have found a
home. The motive for the formulation is clear: the
antithetical form commends itself by its catechetical
character." 102
Bultmann's rather sketchy discussion goes back to the
beginnings of his form-critical work, 103 and on that
account is beset with some problems. His distinction
between "primary" and "secondary" antithe§t:S is based
on the fact that the "primary" ones have synoptic
parallels while the "secondary" ones do not. Con-
sequently, the synoptic parallels are supposed to have
come from Q, so that the antitheses having Q-parallels
can be attributed to older tradition. By the same token,
those having no Q-parallels are judged to be contri-
butions by the redactor. This rather simple procedure,
however, does not pay sufficient attention to the fact that
neither the form of the antithesis nor the argument is
part of the Q-material, a fact that even includes the
Sermon on the Plain (SP/Luke 6:20b-49). 104 One has

99 This is basically the point made by Sanders (jesus and 104 Bultmann (History, 135), however, mentions the fact:
judaism, 260-64), who is mainly concerned about the "In Luke, the sayings about revenge and loving one's
question of historical authenticity and does not enemy show no trace of antithetical adjustment."
address the question of form and composition. The German text is even clearer: "da diese Worte
100 Luz, Matthiius, 1.245 (Matthew, 1.274). urspriinglich einer antithetischen Einkleidung
101 Bultmann, History, 135-36. This hypothesis had been entbehrten" (Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition,
advocated also by Kummel, "Jesus und der judische 143). So also Strecker (Bergpredigt, 65 n. 2 [Sermon,
Traditionsgedanke," 125 n. 75; Klostermann, 20 1 n. 2]), who points out that the formula in
Matthi:lus, 42; Eichholz, Bergpredigt, 70; Strecker, SP/Luke 6:27a, "but I say to you," does not reflect
Weg, 38; idem, "Antithesen," 39-47; idem, the form of the antithesis.
Bergpredigt, 64-67 (Sermon, 62-64); Guelich, Sermon,
178-79, 265-71; Luz, Matthiius 1.244-47 (Matthew,
1.274-79).
102 Bultmann, History, 136.
103 Cf. the 1st ed. of Die Geschichte der synoptischen
Tradition (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1921) 82-83, where the wording is almost identical.

212
 Matthew 5:21-48

no real reason, therefore, for distinguishing "primary"
from "secondary" antitheses and for deriving the
"primary" ones from older tradition while attributing the
"secondary" ones to the redaction of Matthew. 105 With
this conclusion, other distinctions of Bultmann, such as
that between model and imitation and prohibition and
instruction, lose their force. Since the antitheses are
certainly not "original" in the sense that they were
composed by Jesus, they all must be redactional, leaving
open the question of whether this redaction took place at
the Matthean or the pre-Matthean stage.
2. Some scholars who were involved in redaction
criticism at the time when they examined the antitheses
have attributed them quite naturally to Matthew's
redaction. 106 These scholars, however, do not pay
sufficient attention to the possibility and indeed, the
probability, ofpre-Matthean redaction. Their method
was rather simplistic and resulted in attributing
everything for which no synoptic (Q-) parallel could be
adduced to the final redactor and author of the Gospel.
Meanwhile, however, redactional activities have been
shown to exist in the presynoptic sources of the
Gospels. 107
3. The opposite hypothesis, that all the antitheses are
due to pre-Matthean formulation, was presented by
Wrege in his Gottingen doctoral dissertation of 1963-
64, published in 1968. 108 This painstaking investigation
was supervised by Joachim Jeremias, who was in basic
agreement with the results. 1 09 Wrege assumes that
Matthew took the antitheses in Matt 5:21-48, without
any changes, from Christian congregations free from the
Torah. 110 Wrege, however, does not consider the
possibility that Matthew took over a larger unit than
5:21-48. Furthermore, Wrege's concept of a free-
flowing oral tradition prevents him from seriously raising
the question of the composition of such blocks of
material. 111 At this point, as Luz 112 has indicated, lies
the weakness ofWrege's hypothesis: the consequence is
either to deny the existence of Q altogether (as Jeremias
and Wrege do) or to postulate a special redaction ofQ
prior to Matthew (QMau), from which the whole block of
material would have been taken over.
4. The possibility that the antitheses may have come to
Matthew from a pre-Matthean redaction of QMatt is
contemplated by Strecker, 113 but he concedes this
possibility only for Matthew's Sondergut ("special
tradition"), that is, the first, second, and fourth
antitheses. Strecker here simply affirms Bultmann's
hypothesis, although he also says clearly that the Q-
tradition common to Matthew and Luke did not contain
the formulation of the antithesis. 114 Why, then, does he
not simply attribute all antitheses to QMatt?

105 See, however, Strecker's point of view (below, section
2).
106 This hypothesis is advocated by Suggs, Wisdom, 109-
15; idem," Antitheses," 432-44 (reprinted in
Schottroff, Essays, 93-107); Liihrmann, "Liebet eure
Feinde," 413 n. 4; Broer," Antithesen," 19, 50-63;
idem, Freiheit, 75-113, 123-30. For criticism cf.
Strecker, Bergpredigt, 65-66 (Sermon, 63-64); Luz,
Matthiius, 1.246 (Matthew, 1.279).
107 See the Introduction above, p. 4.
108 Wrege, Bergpredigt, 3, 56-57,66-70, 82, 93.
109 Jeremias, Theology, 250-53. See also Sand, Gesetz, 48;
Dietzfelbinger, Antithesen, 9; Liihrmann, Redaktion,
118. F~r a critique see Luz, Matthiius, 1.245-46
(Matthew, 1.279).
110 Wrege (Bergpredigt, 57) argues: "Mt muB also die
Antithesen 5,21-48 schon als solche aus gesetzes-
freien Gemeindekreisen iibernommen haben"
("Matthew must have taken over the antitheses 5:21-
48 en bloc from law-free congregational circles").
Ill Characteristically, he calls them Spruchreihen ("series
of sayings") or Spruchgut ("sayings material")
(Bergpredigt, 82, 92-93).
112 Luz (Matthiius, 1.246 n. 5 [Matthew, 1.275 n. 5])
himself rejects the possibility that the antitheses came
from Q/Matt because he postulates Matthean
theologoumena in the redaction (esp. vss 25-26, 29-
30). There is, however, no real reason to attribute
these theological interests to Matthew alone (see
below on SM/Matt 5:25-26, 29-30). Luz is willing
to concede that the fifth antithesis (5:38-39) also
comes from a pre-Matthean source.
113 Strecker, Bergpredigt, 66: "Wahrscheinlicher ist, daB
gerade die Antithesen des matthaischen Sondergutes
in QMatt vorhanden waren" (Sermon, 63: "It is more
likely that the antitheses themselves were present in
the special Matthean material in QMatt").
114 Ibid., 65: "Dies besagt, daB in der Matthiius und
Lukas gemeinsamen Q-Tradition eine antithetische
Formung nicht vorliegt" (Sermon, 63: "This means
that in the Q tradition common to Matthew and
Luke, there was no antithetical formulation").
According to Strecker, the parallels that do exist
pertain only to "the substance" (die Materie), not to

213
 5. Strecker's reference to QMatt opens the door to the
thorny problem of the general relationship between Q
and SM. If one assumes that there was a secondary
recension of Q prior to Matthew from which Matthew
drew his material (QMatt), and if one further assumes that
SM was part of QMatt, then one easily reaches the
conclusion that either all or most of the antitheses came
from QMatt. This hypothesis has been proposed mostly by
American and British scholars who, however, merely
drew their conclusions from the earlier postulation of
successive recensions of Q. 115 Thus, B. H. Branscomb 116
took five antitheses to be pre-Matthean with only the
third added by Matthew. Other American and British
scholars offered similar views: B. W. Bacon, 117 G. D.
Kilpatrick, 118 T. W. Manson, 119 and W. D. Davies. 1 2°
My own position on this question should now be clear
and may be summarized as follows: the set of six
antitheses are the creation of the redactor of the SM and
are thus pre-Matthean. One has to account for Matthew's
own redaction in terms of the whole of the SM, not in
terms of the antitheses alone. 121 Since the antithetical
form has no parallels in SP, Q, the synoptic Gospels
elsewhere, Doctrina apostolorum, Didache, and Barnabas,
Bultmann's distinction between an older and a younger
layer of antitheses becomes unnecessary. If redaction is
not restricted to the operation of the final redactor
Matthew, one no longer has any need to force Matthean
redaction on the text where there is no unambiguous
evidence for it. Similarly, the motivation for reading
Matthean christology into the text by setting up Jesus in
opposition to the Mosaic Torah or even to the Old
Testament in general has fallen away. 12 2 According to
the SM, Jesus did not set aside either the Torah or the
Old Testament but is shown to refute wrong inter-
pretations by right ones. In terms of the history of
exegesis and theology, in the SMJesus did not proclaim a
"new law" (nova lex) or a particularly Christian ethic,
juxtaposed respectively to the old law (Jewish Torah) or
to rabbinic ethics; rather, he expounded what the will of
God as revealed in the Torah had originally intended.
This position affirms the view of the matter held, among
many, especially by the reformers, Luther and Calvin in
particular. 12 3

the antithetical form. Bultmann (History, 146-4 7) has 122 I differ here sharply from most recent scholarship;
raised the question whether the antitheses originated
with the Streitgespriiche ("conflict stories"); see also
Liihrmann, Redaktion, 118. One must certainly
assume some relationship, but this assumption is to
be separated from the question of origin.
115 See esp. Paul Wernle, Die synoptische Frage (Freiburg:
Mohr, 1899), 88, 229-31; CarlS. Patton, Sources of
the Synoptic Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1915);
Allen, Matthw, 72; McNeile, Matthw, 101; cf.
Streeter's critical remarks, Four Gospels, 235-38;
Harnack, Spruche und Reden Jesu, 80-81, 89-91,
128-29 (Sayings, 53-63, 229-31). See also john P.
Brown, "The Form of 'Q' Known to Matthew," NTS
8 (1961/62) 27-42; M. Didier, "L'evangile selon
Matthieu," in Didier,Matthieu, 12-13; M. Devisch,
"Le document Q, source de Matthieu: Problematique
actuelle," in ibid., 71-97.
116 B. H. Branscomb, Jesus and the Law ofMoses (New
York: Smith, 1930) 234-36.
11 7 B. W. Bacon, Studies in Matthw (New York:
Scribner's, 1930) 181.
118 Kilpatrick, Origins, 18-20, 24.
119 Manson, Sayings, 23-24, 153-63.
120 Davies, Setting, 387-88.
121 For these more general conclusions, see the main
Introduction to the SM, above, pp. 50-66.
cf., e.g., Strecker's succinct statement (Bergpredigt,
65: "Dagegen stehtJesus in Distanz zur Tora Moses.
Der Kyrios steht iiber der Tora; seine Autoritat
ermoglicht es, Torakritik zu iiben, die his zur
Auflosung von Einzelgeboten und his zur Aufstel-
lung von neuen Weisungen fiihrt" [Sermon, 62:
"Jesus, however, stands at a distance from the law of
Moses. The Kyrios stands over the Torah; his
authority makes it possible to be critical of the
Torah, which leads even to dissolving individual
commandments and setting up new command-
ments"]). Similarly Guelich, Sermon, 260-63; Luz,
Matthiius, 1.249-50 (Matthw, 1.278-79).
123 For an informative survey of the history of exegesis
and references, see Luz, Matthiius, 1.24 7-49
(Matthw, 1.276-78). Remarkable are his final words
(249): "In dieser wichtigen Frage behalt die
altkirchlich-katholische Auslegung grundsatzlich
gegeniiber der klassisch protestantischen Recht"
(Matthw, 1.278: "In this important question, the
interpretation of the ancient Catholic church remains
basically correct in contrast to the classical Protestant
position").

214
 Matthew 5:21-48

2. The Antitheses adequate interpretation of the Scripture passage

a. The First Antithesis: Murder (Matt 5:21-26)
Bibliography
Banks, jesus and the Law, 186-89.
Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1.290-306.
Braun, Radikalismus, 2.83-99.
Robert Guelich, "Mt 5,22: Its Meaning and Integrity,"
ZNW 64 (1973) 39-52.
Idem, Sermon, 179-93.
Joachim Jeremias, "'LaB allda deine Gabe' (Mt 5,23f.),"
ZNW 36 (1937) 150-54, reprinted in his Abba,
103-7.
Daniel Marguerat, "Matthieu 5, 21-26: Les conflits,"
ETR 53 (1978) 508-13.
Idem,Jugement, 151-67.
Charles F. D. Moule, "Uncomfortable Words; the
Angry Word: Matthew V. 2lf.," ExpT 81
(1969/70) 10-13, 115-18.
Percy, Botschaft, 123-43.
Str-B 1.253-94.
Strecker, "Antithesen," 4 7-51.
Manfred Weise, "Mt 5,2lf., ein Zeugnis sakraler
Rechtsprechung in der Urgemeinde," ZNW 49
(1958) 116-23.
Preben Wemberg-M~ler, "A Semitic Idiom in
Matthew V. 22," NTS 3 (1956-57) 71-73.
Wrege, Bergpredigt, 57-64.
Zeller, Mahnspriiche, 62-67.
1) Analysis The first antithesis (5:21-26) discusses the inter-
pretation ofExod 20:13, the prohibition of the
Decalogue against murder. Formally, the section
contains the antithetical argument in its fully
developed form. The first part concerns the refutation
of what is termed an inadequate interpretation (5: 21 ).
The naming of the "chain of tradition" is followed by
the Scripture quotation under discussion (Exod 20:13)
and the statement of the inadequate interpretation,
formulated as "sacred law." In the second part, the
refutation is juxtaposed to what is regarded as the
(5:22a-b), introduced by a doctrinal formula
identifying the authority claimed for this inter-
pretation. In the third part, the adequate inter-
pretation is argued (5:22c-26) by two illustrative
examples, both parodies of casuistic law (5:22c-d), and
by two illustrative cases describing a religious (5:23-
24) and a legal (5:25[-26]) conflict. The conclusion
(5:26) comprises a warning formulated as an Amen-
saying. The ethical conclusion to be drawn from the
argument is unstated and left to the reader to discern
(see below).
2) Interpretation
• 21 The first word of the first antithesis addresses the
readers or the listeners in terms of their present
situation: "You have heard" (~KovuaTE) 124 identifies them
as recipients of previous instruction, by implication
understood as the traditional instruction. Despite its
claims, however, this instruction is deemed to be without
merit. The claim of the tradition is judged to be
unfounded: "it is said," namely, by God (€ppEe7J). 1 25 This
tradition was given "to the men of old" (TOL!i' iz.pxalot!i') 1 2 6
and has thus been handed down through many
generations to the present. The evaluation of this
tradition, however, is negative. Rather than constituting
a proof verified by antiquity, the chain of tradition is
judged to be a history of error.
The expression "the men of old" (o1 iz.pxa'iot) requires
further explanation. Occurring only in the SM (Matt
5:21,27 v.l., 33), 127 it refers to authorities of the distant
past. We are not told precisely who these authorities
were. Where, then, did the concept originate? Rabbinic
parallels show that "the men of old" can be biblical
authorities or, from a later perspective, the early rabbis.

124 The term aKOVW ("hearing") is used here in regard to
receiving teaching. See above, p. 5. See also
SM/Matt 5:27,33,38, 43; 7:24, 26; SP/Luke 6:27,
47, 49, For the remainder of the NT, see the
passages and literature in BAGD, s. v. aKOVW, 1;
Gerhard Kittel, TDNT 1.216-25; Gerhard
Schneider, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s.v. aKovw.
125 The form £pp£81J ("it was said") refers to God as the
author of what was said. Cf. Matt 1:22: rh p1J8h v1r0
Kvplov ("what was said by the Lord"). The form epp£871
occurs in SM/Matt 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43; see
furthermore Rom 9:12; Gal3:16; Rev 6:11; cf. also
Matt2:15, 17,23;4:14;8:17; 12:17; 13:35;21:4;
22:31. For the formula introducing citations, see
BDF, § 130 (3); BDR, §130 n. 2; Str-B 1.253.
126 For rabbinic parallels, see Str-B 1.253.
127 The phrase is applied to the ancient prophets in Luke
9:8, 19; Did. 11.11. See BAGD, s.v. apxa'io~. 2, which
gives as parallels Thucydides 2.16.2; Cornutus, p. 2,
18; p. 4, 9; Sir 39:1; 2 Kgs 5:10 (LXX); PhiloRer.
div. her.181 (referringtoPlato);JosephusAnt. 7.171.
See also Gerhard Delling, TDNT 1.485; LSJ, s.v.
apxa'io~. 2.b.

215
Greek tradition uses the concept in reference to the pre-
Socratics or to the "classical" writers. 128 The synoptic
tradition appears to be connected with the Jewish
usage, 129 when jesus' interpretation of the Torah is
contrasted with "the tradition of the elders"(~ 7Tap&l'Jocns
Twv 7TaT£pwv), 130 which is, as the synonym "the tradition
of humans"(~ 7Tap&l'Jocns TWV av8pC:l7Twv) shows, to be
valued negatively. 131 How can one explain the
expression in the SM? It appears to have been common
in Hellenistic judaism, as Philo illustrates. He can refer
to Plato by saying "as one of the men of old has said" (ws
£t7Tf TIS TWV apxalwv) 132 or to Aristotle's De caelo by using
the phrase "as the account of the old has it" (ws oTwv
apxalwv .Aoyos). 133 In other places, he offers more
lengthy explanations when he speaks of the "men of old"
in connection with the law. He distinguishes between the
general laws and the special laws, seeing the former as
originals (apx£Tv7Tot 7rpoupot) and the latter as copies
(£tKOV£s). The originals are in effect embodied in men of
old, of whom Philo gives a laudatory description in Abr.
4-8; they are said to be identical with the law of
nature. 134 The special laws are first of all those of the
Decalogue; they have been handed down by scholars:
"These are the explanations handed down to us from the
old-time studies of divinely gifted men who made deep
research into the writings of Moses." 135 Philo repeatedly
warns against any disrespect toward these ancient laws:
We must not indeed reject any learning that has
grown grey through time, nay, we should make it our
aim to read the writings of the sages and listen to
proverbs and old-world stories from the lips of those
who know antiquity, and ever seek for knowledge
about the men and deeds of old. For truly it is sweet to
leave nothing unknown. Yet when God causes the
young shoots of self-inspired wisdom to spring up
within the soul, the knowledge that comes from
teaching must straightaway be abolished and swept
off.136
Philo's concept is clearly very similar to Greek ideas
concerning the origins oflaw. He himself reports the
Stoic view concerning the development from the law of
nature to the special laws of human societies. 137 We find
also in the Stoic sources, which subsequently have
informed Roman law, the veteres or maiores, as the first
interpreters of the law. Cicero finds that same law
codified in the civil law, the old code, and the Twelve
Tables, "a complete picture of the olden time, since a
primitive antiquity of language can be studied there, and
certain forms of pleading reveal the manners and the
way oflife of our forerunners." 138
It is noteworthy as well that in Roman legal thought
the interpretation of the veteres is connected with the
distinction between the written and the unwritten law.
The veteres interpreted the law not according to the

128 So frequently in Aristotle, for which see Bonitz, Index 138 Cicero De orat. 1.43.193: "he has throughout the
Aristotelicus, 110 s.v.; cf. also Ps.-Demetrius De eloc.
67. For these and other passages, see LSJ, s.v., 11.1;
Wettstein, 1.297.
129 See Str-B 1.253-54; Lohse, "Ich aber sage euch,"
197, with parallels from Qumran; Gunther
Bomkamm, "1rp<u{3vs KrA.," TDNT 6.655-62.
130 Mark 7:1-23/ /Matt 15:1-20; cf. Gal1:14.
131 Mark 7:9, 13; Col2:8. See Bornkamm, TDNT
6.661-62.
132 Philo Rer. div. her. 181. The trans. is according to the
LCL edition of Philo by F. H. Colson and G. H.
Whittaker ( 10 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1962) 4.373.
133 Ibid., 283.
134 Philo Abr. 6.
135 Philo Spec. leg. 1.8: ravra p.tv oi\v <ls aKoi..s ~Mi£ rh.s
~p.<ripas, apxa£OAoyoVp.<va 1rapa 8£<T7r£U{OIS avlJpau1v,
oT ra Mwvutws ov 1raptpyws l>11Jp<Vv7Juav.
136 Philo Sacr. AC 79.
137 Philojos. 29-31, for which see also SVF 3, no. 323;
and Hans Leisegang, "Philo," PW 41 (1941) 25.
common law, and in the priestly books and the
Twelve Tables, a complete picture of the olden time,
since a primitive antiquity of language can be studied
there, and certain forms of pleading reveal the
manners and the way of life of our forerunners"
("plurima est, et in omni iure civili, et in pontificum
libris, et in Duodecim Tabulis, antiquitatis effigies,
quod et verborum prisca vetustas cognoscitur, et
actionum genera quaedam maiorum consuetudinem
vitamque declarant"). Text and trans. according to
the LCL edition by E. W. Sutton and H. Rackham,
Cicero (28 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University, 1942) 3.134-35. Cf. also
Cicero Brutus 69; Quintilian Inst. 1.4.3; 9.3.1.

216
 Matthew 5:21-48

letter but according to res et sententia, "purpose and
intention." 139 Their goal was to practice the law
according to a specific rule: "How that truth, justice, and
the general good combine to demand that we consider
not the exact terms in which any particular law was
framed but its purpose and its intention" ("id verum, id
aequum, id utile omnibus esse spectari quo consilio et
qua sententia, non quibus quidque verbis esset
actum"). 140
The task of the Stoic wise man, therefore, was to
recover and to continue this original and prudent
interpretation of the veteres. Indeed, the power of the law
was considered to be identical with prudence (prudentia)
for the purpose of exercising right and preventing wrong
action. As Cicero explains it, this is what the Greeks
meant by the principle of suum cuique tribuendo
("dispensation to each what is his or her due"), 141 that is,
equity as the goal and purpose of the law. 142 Present
interpretation oflaw, therefore, must choose between
justice and law. 143 By contrast, pernicious and
unrighteous decrees that by some means may have crept
into the written law during history must be rejected as
unlawful and not binding. 144
The SM unquestionably takes a different position
when it rejects the interpretation purportedly given to
the ancients; the view expressed by the SM is more
complicated. What is rejected here is the claim by
present interpreters that a specific interpretation of a
Torah commandment-namely, the one they
advocated-had been revealed to the men of old whence
it came down to the present. What is not rejected is either
the Torah quotation itself or tradition per se. The
alternative interpretation of the same Torah command-
ment, presented by the SM as the adequate inter-
pretation, may also be related to tradition, even though
Jesus himself authorized it by the formula "but I say to
you." What is refuted, therefore, is both a specific
interpretation and the claim by present advocates that it
came down straight through the authoritative "chain of
tradition."
This situation raises another intriguing question: How
can the refutation of a legal claim by the SM be
compared with Paul's rejection of the Torah given on
Mount Sinai? The answer to this question is not easy,
especially since Paul appears to have changed his
argument to some degree in Romans as compared with

139 Cicero Pro Caecina 28.81. See esp. Otto Behrends,
Die fraus legis. Zum Gegensatz von Wort- und Sinngeltung
in der romischen Gesetzesinterpretation (Gottinger
rechtswissenschaftliche Studien 121; Gottingen:
Schwartz, 1982) 52, and passim.
140 Ibid., cited according to the LCL edition of Cicero,
The Speeches: Pro lege Manilia, Pro Caecina, etc., with
an English trans. by H. Grose Hodge (London:
Heinemann, 1927) 179.
141 Cicero refers to the deriviation of v.lp.os from v(p.w
("dispense") and vovs ("mind"); on these ideas see esp.
Plato Leg. 4, 714a: r-i!v rov vov ~Lavop.-i!v £1rovop.ti(ovras
v.lp.ov ("calling the law the dispensation of reason").
142 Cicero De legibus 1.6.19: "And so they [sc. the Stoics]
believe that Law is intelligence, whose natural
function it is to command right conduct and forbid
wrongdoing. They think that this quality has derived
its name in Greek from the idea of granting to every
man his own, and in our language I believe it has
been named from the idea of choosing. For as they
have attributed the idea of fairness to the word law,
so we have given it that of selection, though both
ideas properly belong to Law." ("ltaque arbitrantur
prudentiam esse legem, cuius ea vis sit, ut recte
facere iubeat, vetet delinquere; eamque rem illi
Graeco putant nomine a suum cuique tribuendo
appellatam, ego nostro a legendo; nam ut illi
aequitatis, sic nos delectus vim in lege ponimus, et
proprium tamen utrumque legis est.") Text and
trans. are cited according to the LCL edition by
Clinton W. Keyes, Cicero (28 vols.; London:
Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University,
1928) 16.316-17. See also Behrends, Diefraus legis,
87-97.
143 Cicero De leg. 2.5.11: "in the very definition of the
term 'law' there inheres the idea and principle of
choosing what is just and true ("in ipso nomine legis
interpretando inesse vim et sententiam iusti et iuris
legendi"). See also for this text SVF 3, no. 318.
144 Ibid.: "From this point of view it can be readily
understood that those who formulated wicked and
m~ust statutes for nations, thereby breaking their
promises and agreements, put into effect anything
but 'laws'" ("Ex quo intellegi par est eos, qui
perniciosa et iniusta populis iussa descripserint, cum
contra fecerint quam polliciti professique sint,
quidvis potius tulisse quam leges"). See Behrends, Die
fraus legis, 88-89. Cicero reports that Chrysippus had
compiled a collection of such "deceptions" (Tusc.
1.45.1 08; also SVF 3, no. 322).

217
that in Galatians. In Gal 3:19, Paul clearly rejects the
authority of the whole Torah given by the angels to
Moses on Mount Sinai. 145 Since Paul approves of the
Torah of God in principle elsewhere (Gal5:14; 6:2; Rom
7: 12), his refutation can only imply the claim that the
Sinai Torah is not the only authoritative one.
To return to the SM: the tradition allegedly revealed
to "the men of old" is then cited. There are actually two
statements, first the sixth (so MT, RSV; LXX: eighth;
Philo: seventh) prohibition from the Decalogue: "You
shall not kill" (ov <jlov£vum, Exod 20:15 LXX; 20:13
MT); 146 and second, its interpretation in the form of
casuistic law: "Everyone, then, who kills shall be
answerable to the court" (as B' Ci.v <jlov£vun, tvoxos tuTat
Tfj Kplu£~). 147 The statements are joined as if they were
divine revelations.
The interpretation as presented assumes that the
prohibition of the Decalogue refers quite specifically to
murder or manslaughter. 148 The interpretation assumes,
furthermore, that the commandment is a stipulation
belonging to criminallaw. 149 Criminal law determines
what is to be done with criminals, that is, it presupposes
the definition of what constitutes crime. Based on Exod
20:15, murder is thus defined as a crime. Such crimes are
assumed to occur; and when they do, one must take
responsive action. 150 The proper action in this case
requires that the perpetrator appear in court to answer
questions concerning what he has done and why. The
court will then convict and sentence him according to the
facts, the motivation for the deed, and so forth. In short,
this interpretation takes the prohibition of the Decalogue
to be simply a ground rule for criminal law. As such, it is
limited to its "literal" meaning: the term <jlov£vHv
("committing murder") occurs in both the quotation and
the casuistic law interpretation.l 51 Yet one should regard
the law as a general reference to trial by court rather
than a concrete reference to the Court of the Twenty-
three, 15 2 or to capital punishment, 153 or to the last
judgment. 154 One can have no doubt that vs 21
represents the traditional interpretation of the
prohibition in the Decalogue. Why, then, does Jesus
oppose it-or, more precisely, does he oppose the
quotation or the interpretation?
• 22 This verse contradicts the casuistic law of vs 21 c.
Introducing his instruction with the doctrinal formula
"but I say to you" (lytu Be A.€yw i>~-t'iv),Jesus, the speaker,
offers an alternative legal stipulation to vs 21c, exactly
repeating the apodosis, "he shall be answerable to the
court," and substituting a different protasis. The citation
marker Cfn ("that") indicates that he intends to amend the
(allegedly) revealed law quoted in vs 21c. His own
amended law, therefore, is intended to replace the
interpretative, casuistic law in that verse but not the
prohibition of the Decalogue itself.

145 On this see Betz, Galatians, 162-71. jugement, 152-53.

146 Cf. Exod 21:12-14; Lev 24:17; Num 35:16-34;
Deut 5:18; Matt 19:18//Mark 10:19//Luke 18:20;
Rom 13:9;Jas 2:11; Did. 2.2; Barn. 19.5; Doctr. apost.
2.2: "non homicidium facies" ("Do not commit
homicide").
147 So BAGD, s.v. Kpt<TLS, 2: "he will have to answer to a
(local) court." BAGD takes Kpt<ns to refer to the
board of judges on a local court. This meaning is
most likely correct because of the climactic parallels
in vs 22.
148 The interpretation of the prohibition in the OT itself
shows that its applications were more inclusive in that
they could refer to animals as well. See Berger,
Gesetzesauslegung, 1.290-306; Horst Balz, EWNT
(EDNT) 3, s.v. <fiovnlro; Hossfeld, Dekalog, 69-70 and
passim; Str-B 1.254-75.
149 See Haim H. Cohn, in Elon, Principles, 475-77.
150 lvoxos means that the perpetrator is "caught in" the
crime and that his deed requires a response of the
human community to determine adequate retri-
bution. See BAGD, s.v.lvoxos, 2.a; Marguerat,
151 They correspond as Ia w and transgression of that
law. This is in accordance with the meaning of the
"You shall not." For the future indicative in
connection with prohibitions, see BDF, § 362; BDR,
§ 362; Moule, Idiom Book, 178-79.
152 Str-B 1.275. See Strecker, Bergpredigt, 68 (Sermon,
65-66).
153 Joachimjeremias, "paKa," TDNT6.975; Christian
Dietzfelbinger, "Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt im
Verstandnis des Matthaus," ZNW 70 (1979) 1-15,
esp. 14-15.
154 Cf. Rev 21:8; 22:15; Apoc. Pet. 25. See Betz, Lukian,
188n.l.

218
 Matthew 5:21-48

The emendation contains two changes. First, the
initial phrase 8s- o' .:l.v ("whoever") has become 1TiiS" b
("everyone who"). The change seems unimportant, but it
expresses the shift from a casuistic criminal law to a
moral rule: "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall
be answerable to the court." Second, the verb cpov£-!Juv
("murder") is replaced by opyl(£u8aL ("be angry"). It is
well known that all antiquity regarded anger (opy~) as
morally reprehensible, but it was not in and of itself a
criminal offense.
Does the SM here seriously propose to regard anger
toward the brother as a criminal offense? On the one
hand, to do so would hardly make sense. Or is the
emended law of vs 22a designed to ridicule the rejected
law ofvs 2lc? This possibility appears more likely
because of the examples in vs 22c and d. Even if vs 22a is
satirical, however, it cannot be the sole ethical demand
the SM is concerned with here. Yet vs 22a introduces
anger as the root cause of murder; its elimination will
constitute the ethical demand. The full comprehension
of this ethical demand, however, must be delayed until
the examples have been presented. If, on the other hand,
vs 22a is to be taken seriously as criminal law and as
analogous to vs 2lc, the phrase "he shall be answerable
to the court" must imply some concrete court oflaw.
Scholars who hold this view have proposed a local court
for dealing with this offense. 155
A number of important manuscripts read £lKfj
("without cause"), 156 obviously modifying the anger
against the brother. 15 7 There has been a longstanding
controversy over the acceptability of this variant. 15 8
Preben Wernberg-M¢ller 159 has attempted to
strengthen its place in the text by noting a parallel in
IQS 7.8. It is most likely, however, that £LKfj represents a
secondary ethical interpretation. 160 What is the reason
for substituting anger against the brother for murder?
One can cite several reasons, some having to do with
ancient ethical doctrines, others with the composition of
the SM: (1) What the SM leaves unstated, Did. 3.2 spells
out: "Do not become angry, for anger leads to murder"
(JJ.~ ylvov opytA.os-, bo7jy£'i yh.p 7] opy~ 1Tp0s- TOV cpovov). 161
One can hardly doubt that the SM tacitly presupposes
the same idea. The theory that anger leads to murder
was commonly known in antiquity, 16 2 and especially in
the biblical tradition. 163 (2) Anger corresponds to
hatred, the opposite oflove (ttya1r7j). (3) The brother
(tto£Acpos-) should be treated first in this list of dis-
turbances of neighborly relations because the closest
family member is the brother; 164 "brother" is also the

155 So Wettstein, 1.297; BAGD, s.v. Kplcnr, 2: "(local
court)" referring to Matt 5:21-22 only; Matthias
Rissi, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s.v. Kplvw, 2; Strecker,
Bergpredigt, 69 (Sermon, 66-67).
156 <tKii is read by M2 D L W 0 233jl· 13 ~it sy co
Irenaeus1"' OrigenP' Cyprian Cyrillus; it is missing in
p6 4 M* B pc vgJustin OrigenP' Jeromemss. See Nestle-
Aiand, and Aland, Synopsis, critical apparatus, ad Joe.;
also Wettstein, 1.297-98.
157 So BAGD, s.v. <tKfj, 1.
158 See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 13.
159 Preben Wernberg-M¢ller, "A Semitic Idiom in
Matthew V,22," NTS 3 (1956-57) 71-73.
160 So also Strecker, Bergpredigt, 70 n. 13 (Sermon, 202 n.
13).
161 Didache expands by adding a variation: "nor (be) a
fanatic nor contentious nor a hot-head, for out of all
of these originate instances of murder" (}.<.,a~ (71A.rorhr
p:qOE EptUTtKD~ p.7]0E 8vp.LK0s· fK yh.p TO-iJTwV a'7T£iVTWV
cp6vot ywvwvra<). Similarly Doctr. apost. 3.2: "Noli
fieri iracundus, quia iracundia ducit ad homicidium,
nee appetens eris malitiae nee animosus, de his enim
irae nascuntur." Cf. also Did. 15.3.
162 The connection is made also in Rom 1:18 and 29. On
the doctrines connected with anger, see Gustav
Stahlin, "opy~ KrA..," TDNT 5.383-448; Wilhelm
Pesch, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s. v. opy~ (bibliography);
Betz, Lukian, 27 n. 4, 201 n. 6; PECL 1 and 2, indices
s.v. opy~, "Anger."
163 The great example is the brothers Cain and Abel:
Cain's anger leads to Abel's death: Gen 4:5. See
Gustav Stahlin, TDNT 5.420-22. In jewish wisdom,
note esp. Sir 22:24; T. Sim. 2.6-7, 11; T. Dan 1.7-8;
2.3; T. Zeb. 4.11. Philo's rich interpretation
illustrates the popularity; see Migr. Abr. 7 4-7 5; Det.
pot. ins. 1, 47, 50, 52,69-70, 75-78;Post. C. 21, 38,
45; Conf ling. 22; etc. For passages, see Colson's
index, Philo, LCL, vol. 10, pp. 295-96; Terian,
Index, p. 6.
164 On the whole topic see Plutarch's essay, "On the
Control of Anger" (7r<pt aopy71ular), Moralia 452E-
464D, and the commentary by John Dillon and Hans
Dieter Betz in PECL 2.170-97. Plutarch's essay
shares many ideas with Seneca's "On Anger" (De ira).

219
name for the fellow Christian 165 and the fellow Jew;1 66
thus loving one's neighbor (SM/Matt 5:43) means first of
all loving one's brother. 16 7
How can the substitution of anger for murder claim to
provide a more adequate interpretation of Exod 20: 13?
Despite its brevity, Exod 20:13 is not at all clear. What
was really meant by forbidding murder? What was the
original intent of the lawgiver's, that is, God's, will? As
we have seen, a literal answer to these questions is not
plausible. Rather, one is to extrapolate the answers from
the love-command of Lev 19: 18, which serves as the
principle for the interpretation of the Torah.
According to the SM, Exod 20:13 is to be taken not
merely as a criminal statute of law but, in the first
instance, as a moral rule based on the Golden Rule
(7: 12). The ethical demand, therefore, must be
preventive. The goal must be to imagine a behavior that
gains control over anger and thereby eliminates the root
cause of murder. As a result, the original intent of the
lawgiver did not involve the criminal law alone but both
the criminal law and the moral rule whereby the latter
informs the former, as the subsequent examples
demonstrate.
Following the formal antithesis ofvs 22a-b,Jesus
defends his interpretation with two illustrative examples
of "sacred law" (vs 22c-d) and two exemplary cases in
narrative form (vss 23-26). The two illustrative examples
(vs 22c-d) are climactically arranged 168 and parodistic in
nature. Two strictly parallel formulations of "sacred law"
are devised 169 in order to demonstrate by provocative
exaggeration the intent of vs 22b.
The first example (vs 22c) states offense and sentence
in the protasis and apodosis, respectively: "Everyone who
says to his brother 'empty-head' shall be answerable to
the high court." The protasis parallels vs 21 c and vividly
describes how anger toward the brother happens in daily
life. An outburst of bad language is cited, calling the
brother paKa. The word is an Aramaic loanword 170 in
the Greek 171 and is the equivalent of J.Lwp6s ("fool") used
in vs 22d. The derogatory paKa seems to have been
popular in the bilingual culture of Palestine at the time;
it occurs in rabbinic tradition. 172
What does the appearance of this loanword mean in
terms of the original language of the SM? Clearly it does
not mean that the SM as a whole was originally written in
Aramaic 173 and then translated into Greek. It is more

On the role of the family in this context, seePECL
2.179, 186.
165 See Gal6:2 (cf. 5:13-14); Rom 12:9-21, esp. vss 10
and 19; 13:8-14, esp. vs lOa; 1 Cor 13:5; Eph 5:29;
6:4, etc.
166 See Str-B 1.276; Hans von Soden, "ltS•I\<j>&s," TDNT
1.144-46; BAGD, s.v. &.S•I\<j>&s;Johannes Beutler,
EWNT (EDNT) 1, s.v. &.S•I\<j>&s, esp. section 5, and the
bibliography.
167 Cf. the related virtue of "brotherly Jove"
(<j>tl\aS£1\<j>la): 1 Thess 4:9; Rom 12:10, etc. See
BAGD, s.v. <j>ti\aa•i\<j>la, <j>tl\aa•l\<j>os; Betz, PECL
2.231-63, on Plutarch's essay "On Brotherly Love,"
Moralia 478A-92D, with further bibliography. The
opposite, "hatred between brothers" (jJ.L<TaS•i\<j>la),
occurs in Plutarch (see PECL 2.235, 237, 240, 244);
T. Benj. 7.5 (with reference to Cain); Philo Som. 2.98; 173 Many commentators who regard the appearance of
but not in the NT and other early Christian
literature.
168 Cf. Wrege, Bergpredigt, 58-59, who, following
others, denies the climactic arrangement.
169 See above on SM/Matt 5:19, 2lc-d.
170 For the term 1'-wp&s/pat<a ("fool," "empty-head"),
which occurs only here in the NT, see Wettstein,
1.298; BAGD, s. v. pat< a with further references; Str-
B 1.278-79;Joachimjeremias, "pat<a," TDNT6.973-
76; idem, Theology, 6; ThWNT 10.1257 (bib-
liography); Robert A. Guelich, "Mt 5,22: Its Meaning
and Integrity," ZNW 64 (1973) 39-52; EWNT
(EDNT) 3, s.v. pat<a. See also the commentaries by
Guelich, Strecker, and Luz, ad Joe.
171 It occurs also as a loanword inP. Zenon, dated 257
BCE (Preisigke, Sammelbuch, no. 7638, 7): 'AvTloxov
TOV f>axav (" Antiochus the empty-head"). See BAGD,
' '
s.v. pat<a.
172 Corresponding to Aram. ri!qii' ("empty," "silly"), for
which see the passages in Dalman Uesusjeschua, 71),
who considers also the less likely derivation form
pat<os ("rag"); Str-B 1.278-79. The ancient
interpreters regard it as equivalent to Greek K£v&s;
Latin vacuus (see BAGD, s.v. pat<a). So apparently
already Jas 2:20: 6, i'1.vlipw1r£ K£V' ("0 you empty
man").
the term as evidence of an underlying Aramaic
stratum argue differently, but this hypothesis
overlooks the social function ofloanwords. See
Guelich, Sermon, 186: "betrays the Aramaic
background of the verse"; similarly Strecker,
Bergpredigt, 70 n. 12 (Sermon, 202 n. 12).

220
 Matthew 5:21-48

likely that the SM was written originally in Greek with
some Aramaic terms representing the "lower" vernacular
for the community of the SM. All Aramaic loanwords in
the SM are residual single words not representative of
the continuously spoken language of the text as a whole.
Moreover., the case of abusive language, which is the
focus here, is intentionally trivial, an everyday occur-
rence.174
The apodosis is surprising: "he shall be answerable to
the high court" (uvv£aptov). 175 The judgment appears to
be incommensurate with the seemingly trivial offense. If
such a law were ever implemented, the courts would be
swamped with a flood of cases and the judicial system
would be paralyzed. There are, however, other
possibilities of avoiding such a dilemma. Scholars who
take this to be a serious law must then lower the status of
the court to a kind of community council. 176 Or,
scholars can take it parodistically, focusing on the legal
formulation per se and acknowledging that if one
understands the command "you shall not murder" (vs
21b) as criminal law, then jesus' interpretation is absurd.
Hence, one must not take vs 21 bas criminal law but
primarily as the will of God. As a divine precept, vs 21 b is
primarily an ethical demand and only secondarily a legal
prohibition. Consequently, the parodistic exaggeration
ridicules the assumption that a moral offense such as vs
22c describes cannot be subject to earthly court action,
so that the last judgment is meant. 177
The second example (vs 22d) parallels the first exactly
with the absurdity now pushed to the extreme: "and
everyone who says (to him) 'fool' shall be guilty (enough)
for the Gehenna offire." 178 The expression ds y£wvav
Tov 1rvpos ("into the Gehenna of fire") no longer names a
forensic institution but the eschatological destiny of
those condemned at the lastjudgment. 179 Therefore, a
change of translation is required as well for tvoxos, a
term that can also mean "convicted as guilty" or
"condemned." 180 The climactic parallelism of tvoxos in

174 This was pointed out by Chrysostom and Basilius; for
the references see BAGD, s.v.;Jeremias, TDNT
6.976.
175 uvvEOpLov in this context refers to the Sanhedrin, the
Jewish high court in Jerusalem, which is mentioned
frequently in the NT: see Matt 5:22; 26:59; Mark
14:55; 15:1; Luke 22:66; Acts 5:21,27,34, 41; 6:12,
15; 22:30; 23:1, 15, 20, 28; 24:20;John 11:47. See
BAGD, s.v. uvvEDpLov, 2; Eduard Lohse, TDNT
7.858-69 (bibliography); Ulrich Kellermann, EWNT
(EDNT) 3, s.v. uvvEopLOv (bibliography); Hugo
Mantel, IDBSup, 784-86 (bibliography); CRINT
1.379-400; Schiirer, History, 2.199-226
(bibliography); Albert Baumgarten, "The
Duodecimal Courts of Qumran, Revelation, and the
Sanhedrin," JBL 95 (1976) 59-78; Anthony].
Saldarini, "Sanhedrin," ABD 5.975-80.
176 So Davies (Setting, 236-39), based on the Qumran
texts and suggesting a communal investigation.
Similarly Martin Weise ("Mt 5,2lf-ein Zeugnis
sakraler Rechtsprechung in der U rgemeinde," ZNW
49 [1958]116-23), followed by Wrege (Bergpredigt,
59-60), Dietzfelbinger (Antithesen, 17 -18), and
opposed by Guelich (ZNW 64 [ 1973]43-44; idem,
Sermon, 186-87). Differently also Strecker,
Bergpredigt, 70 (Sermon, 67). As Guelich points out
correctly, the Syriac use of uvvaywy~ or f.KKA7J<rla
represents a secondary interpretation, an attempt to
bring Matt 5:22 in line with Matt 18:18 and practical 180 BAGD (s.v. ;vox or, 2.c) explains it as "brachylogy
church application. So also Luz, Matthlius, 1.252 n.
17 (Matthew, 1.282 n. 17).
177 This was correctly recognized by Huber, Bergpredigt:
"Uber den Zornigen gabs damals so wenig wie heute
ein menschliches Gericht, weil das faktisch nur die
greifbare Tat strafen kann" ("Neither then nor today
is the angry person answerable to a human court of
law because it in fact can punish only the deed
actually committed" [my trans.]). The sentence is
quoted by Davies (Setting, 237) as evidence against
Bornhauser (Bergpredigt, 75-84), who wants to
construct a ritual of excommunication on the basis of
Matt 5:22.
178 Some manuscripts complete the parallelism with vs
22b by adding ri!> ao•>..cJ>i!> avrov ("to his brother"): L
0 0233 j1.1 3 700 pc ff1 sy•·c bo Cyprian. So Nestle-
Aland, critical apparatus, ad Joe. But the longer
reading is unnecessary; the SM often abbreviates
sentences in this way. Cf. also the parallel in Justin
Apol. 1.16.2, cited in Aland, Synopsis, 80.
179 On the expression ~ f'E£vva rov 1rvpor ("the Gehenna
of fire"), see also SM/Matt 5:29, 30; Matt
10:28//Luke 12:5; Mark 9:43,45,47/ /Matt 18:9,
cf. 18:6, 8; Matt 23:15, 33;Jas 3:6; 2 Clem. 5.4; etc.
See BAGD, s.v. f'E£vva; 1rvp, l.b;JoachimJeremias,
"yE£vva," TDNT 1.657-58; Friedrich Lang, "1rvp,"
TDNT 6.942-46 (D.III.2); Otto Bacher, EWNT
(EDNT) I, s.v. f'E£vva (bibliography); Hermann
Lichtenberger, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s.v. 1rvp (bib-
liography); Duane F. Watson, "Gehenna," ABD
2.926-28.
guilty enough to go into the hell offire."

221
vs 22b, c, and d reaches a kind of semantic crisis
requiring this change of translation and the shift from
this world to the afterlife, all of which is int~nded to
point up the inadequacy of the interpretation repudiated
by the SM. The abusive term is now p.wpos ("fool"), either
the Greek equivalent of the loanword paK&. or something
even more insulting. 181 In the light of the climax in vs
22b-d, one should indeed expect a more serious insult,
and rabbinic usage that knows it as a loanword can be
cited in support of such an interpretation. 182
• 23 The two examples in vs 22c-d are followed by two
longer narratives describing illustrative cases (vss 23-26).
These cases from real-life situations demonstrate Jesus'
interpretation of the prohibition in vs 21 b. Although the
two examples appear to be adduced at random, they
were not chosen without reason, and synoptic parallels
show that they came from tradition. I will discuss each in
turn.
The first case involves an episode during a ritual gift-
offering; its subject matter is a cultic-ethical conflict (vss
23-24). The connecting otv ("therefore") introduces the
little story that, rendered in the second person singular,
imagines a person making a sacrifice: £av otv 7rpornpEpys
To liwpov uov £1rl To 8vutauT~pwv ... ("Therefore, when
you bring your gift-offering on the altar, ... ").The use
of the second person singular 183 presupposes that the
readers of the SM made such offerings regularly. Given
the Jewish context, one must assume that the altar upon
which the offering was to be deposited was the altar of
burnt offering in the Temple of Jerusalem, most likely
located in the courtyard. 184 The narrative further
assumes that the reader is familiar with the ritual, which
is described briefly, accurately, and with technical
terminology. 185 We possess pictorial descriptions
detailing the acts of carrying (tjJEp~tv), 186 the offering
(liwpov), 187 the approach to (1rpos) the altar, 188 and the
deposition of the gift on top of the altar (£1rl To
8vutauT~ptov). 189 Remarkably, this sequence does not
presuppose a priest functioning as an intermediary who
receives the gift and places it on the altar. Scholars have
suggested that the account may be abbreviated and that
the priest may have been omitted as self-evident; but one
need not postulate 190 an intervention of such a priest in
this ritual of gift-offering, since the text gives no
indication that it was concerned with priesthood and
priestly mediation. 191 If the SM conforms to Jewish

181 So Wettstein, 1.298-99; Str-B 1.279; Georg
Bertram, TDNT 4.844-46; BAGD, s.v. p.ropos, 3;
Spicq, Notes, 3.490-95, with further bibliography.
182 For passages, see Str-B 1.279. Differently Luz,
Matthaus, 1.252 (Matthew, 1.282).
183 The change to the second person singular cor-
responds to the commandment in vs 21b, but the
composition as a whole is addressed to fJp.'iv ("you,"
second person plural [vs 22a]), probably the
community of the SM. By the second person singular,
the ethical imperatives focus on the individual
member.
184 The altar of burnt offering in the inner forecourt of
the Jerusalem Temple is meant. It was built by
Herod and it is described in Josephus Bell. 5.225-26.
The NT mentions it also: Matt 23:18-20, 35; Luke
11:51; Heb 7:13. See Bo Reicke, BHH 1.63-65;
Frederick F. Bruce, IDBSup 19-20; Schiirer, History,
2.275-313.
For the term 8vu1aur~p1ov see LSJ, s.v.;Johannes
Behm, "86ro KTA.," TDNT 3.182-83, 184-86 (A.3.a
and B.2); BAGD, s.v. 8vu1aur~p1ov, l.a;Jiirgen
Roloff, EWNT (EDNT), 2, s.v. 8vu1aur~p1ov.
185 See the commentary ofStr-B 1.282-84.
186 For the general meaning, see Josephus Ant. 6.67:
aoopa 7rp0<Tlt/>Epov ("they presented gifts"); 13.101;
Matt 2:11; on specifically sacrificial gifts, see also
Matt 8:4; Heb 8:3-4; 9:9. See BAGD, s.v. 1rpout/>tpro,
2.a; Konrad WeiB, "1rpout/>tpro," TDNT 9.67-70;
Wolfgang Schenk, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s. v. 1rpout/>tpro,
with bibliography.
187 aoopov refers to the gift-offering generally. For
parallels, see BAGD, s.v. aoopov, 2; Str-B 1.282-83;
AlfredStuiber, "Geschenk," RAC 10(1978)685-
703; Gerhard Schneider, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s.v. aoopov
(bibliography).
188 Cf. the parallel from m. Pesal; 3. 7-8, cited in Str-B
1.283-84. Cf. also Lev 18:3; Ezek 40:46; 42:13;
44:13, 15, 16; Rom 5:2, etc.
189 For "upon the altar" (£1rl ro 8vu1aur~p1ov), see 1 Esdr
8:15;Barn. 7.3; and BAGD, 719-20.
190 So Zahn, Matthaus, 229-30; Klostermann, Matthaus,
44; WeiB, TDNT 9.68; Schenk, EWNT 3.429 (3.177-
7 8). All of them interpret in accordance with Mark
1:44.
191 See Joachim Jeremias, "LaB allda deine Gabe (M t
5,23f)," ZNW 36 (1937) 150-54; reprinted in Abba,
103-7; lthamar Gruenwald, "From Priesthood to
Messianism: The Anti-Priestly Polemic and the
Messianic Factor," in lthamar Gruenwald, Shaul
Shaked, and Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa, eds., Messiah
and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity
Presented to David Flusser on the Occasion ofHis Seventy-
Fifth Birthday (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1992) 7 5-

222
 Matthew 5:21-48

practice in the Jerusalem Temple, this text contains
important information about the Temple worship
around 50 CE by Jerusalem Christians.
The course of the narrative, still addressing the
audience in the second person singular, suddenly veers
from the reader's vision of his own performance of the
ritual: a thought interferes as the sacrificer remembers
something that, if he should continue the ritual, would
destroy its very purpose and meaning: "and there you
remember that your brother has something against you"
(KaK£L p.V7Ju8fis- Cln 0 alkll.cJ>6s- ITOV ~X£L TL KaTa uov). 19 2 The
moment is crucial. The thought interferes 193 at the
precise moment when the gift is to be placed on the altar,
when it leaves human hands and becomes the property of
God. 194 What specifically is the grudge that the sacrificer
remembers? We do not know, and it is not important.
We are told neither who is at fault nor what the issue
may be. The phrase ~xuv n Kant nvos- ("have something
against someone") 195 is deliberately vague. We are to
imagine only that in some way the brotherly relationship
has been disrupted, and that for two reasons the healing
of this relationship must take precedence over the
offering of the gift. First, the imperatives of vs 24 were
traditionally related to the commandment of neighborly
love (Lev 19: 18), the opposite of hatred (Lev 19: 19);
furthermore, this commandment prohibits grudges:
"You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge
against the sons of your own people" (Lev 19: 18
[RSVJ). 196 This connection hints yet again that the
commandment of Lev 19: 18 stands behind the passage
(see below on SM/Matt 5:43). The second reason
concerns sacrificial theology. Offering a gift to God is an
expression of love toward God; 197 yet, according to the
theology of the SM, love of God and love of neighbor
must go together. Going ahead with the sacrifice without
reconciling oneself with the brother would in effect
separate love of God and love of the brother; it would
contradict one of Jesus' central doctrines (see esp. Mark
12:30-31//Matt 22:37-40/ /Luke 10:27). 198
How does this reasoning compare with rabbinic
theology? According to the rabbis, the case at hand
would have to be judged as a conflict between a lesser
and a more important obligation. 199 What was more
important and what would have to take precedence, the
completion of the sacrifice or the reconciliation with the
brother? If the latter, then to interrupt the sacrifice to be
reconciled with the brother would be quite appropriate.
Jewish theology was diverse, and the case could be made
in rabbinic terms as well as in the terms of the SM.
Furthermore, since older traditions sometimes surface in
tannaitic law and in New Testament passages, as Jacob
Milgrom has pointed out, 200 the almost classic case

93, esp. 86-87.
192 KaKil is crasis from Kat tKil ("and there"). See BAGD,
s.v. KaK£1, 1; BDF, § 18. Some manuscripts avoid the
crasis: D 0 jl 1006 9Jt; see Aland, Synopsis, ad Joe.
193 For parallels to this point, see Str-B 1.283-84, esp. m.
Pesaf:t. 3. 7, translation of Danby, Mishnah, 139-40:
"If a man was on the way to slaughter his Passover-
offering or to circumcise his son or to eat the
betrothal meal at his father-in-law's house and he
remembered that he had left hametz [i.e., fermented
dough] in his house, if he has yet time to go back and
remove it and return to fulfil his religious duty,let
him go back and remove it; but if not, he may annul
it in his heart."
194 On the efficaciousness of the altar, see the rabbinic
passages collected by Str-B 1.283, section B.
195 For this expression see also Mark 11 :25; 1 Cor 11:4
(without object); and 1 Cor 6:1, 7; Acts 24:19; 25:19,
etc. See BAGD, s.v. ;xw, 7.a.
196 In Lev 19:18, the key term is nfr, rendered by LXX
as ov J.L7JVtfiY ("You shall not rage"). For this
terminology in connection with Lev 19:18 see Sir
10:6; 28:7; Hermas Sim. 9.23.3; cf. alsoJas 5:9; Acts
6:1. See H. Madl, •.,!:ll natar," ThWAT 5 (1985) 432-
36, esp. sections 1.4-5 and Ill.
197 See on this point Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 42, 46-
49,66-67,110-11.
198 See also Did. 1.2;JustinDial. 93.2. For further
discussion, see below on SM/Matt 5:43-48.
199 So Str-B 1.284.
200 Jacob Milgrom (Cult and Conscience: The Asham and
the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance [SJLA 18; Leiden:
Brill, 1976] 110-11) points to the priority of
restitution in pentateuchal passages concerning guilt
offerings: "only after the rectification has been made
with man can it be sought with God." He refers
primarily to Leviticus 5, but mentions in this
connection Matt 5:23-24 also and concludes: "This
inference is corroborated by the practice of the
second Temple as reflected in both tannaitic law and
the New Testament. It marks a startling innovation
in jurisprudence; in matters ofjustice man takes
priority over God."

223
narrated by the SM could have derived from such older
traditions rather than having been invented anew.
• 24 This verse provides the solution to the conflict by
advising the interruption of the ritual so as to enable the
sacrificer to become reconciled with the brother: "Leave
your gift there in front of the altar" (llt/JH EKEL TO owp6v
uov t,.,.1rpou8ev Tov 8vutaUT1Jplov ). No details are provided
of how the gift is to be left: Is it to be put down on the
ground in front of the altar? Is it to be left with a priest?
The issue is "and go first and get reconciled with your
brother" (Kat ii7Ta')'E 7rpWTOV OtaAActy1J8t Tijl aOEAt/Jw uov).
The position of 1rpwTov ("first") between the verbs
probably means that it should be taken as referring to
both of them. 2° 1 It establishes a religious priority:
reconciliation2°2 must precede the sacrifice. The reason
is not, apparently, that the sacrifice is less important but
that the grudge against the brother destroys the integrity
of the ritual. Nor is anything said about how the
reconciliation should occur; important only is that it does
occur. If the goal is the removal of the grudge against the
brother who is the sacrificer, some sort of petition for
forgiveness should be implied. Compensation may also
be an option, 2° 3 but there is no interest in such specifics:
the story wants to remain general. Thus the nature of the
grudge is also left unspecified. 204 In all likelihood it was
mutual, since grudges usually are, so that vs 22a-b applies
to both brothers. The question is not, however, who
expressed anger first but who should take the initiative in
reconciliation. 205 Clearly, the initiative falls on the
sacrificing brother. He cannot complete the ritual until
the obstacle is removed. 206 After he has effected the
reconciliation, he can resume and complete the sacrifice:
"and then come (back) and offer your gift" (Kal T6TE
eA.8~v 7rp6utflepe TO owp6v uov).
Interestingly, this example has been interpreted
differently in Did. 14.2, where it occurs in the context of
the celebration of "breaking the bread" on Sunday. 2° 7
There is, however, no indication that Did. 14.2 is
dependent on Matthew's Gospel or even on the SM. 208
Rather, it appears that like the SM, the Didachist has
drawn the example from the tradition. The inter-
pretation places it in the ritual context of the sacred
meal, understood as a "pure sacrifice" (Ka8apa ~ 8vula
v,_,wv). Therefore, "But everyone who has a quarrel with
his fellow, let him not join you (in your meeting), until
they are reconciled, in order that your sacrifice be not
defiled" 209 (7ras o€ txwv Thv al-'t/Jt{3oA.lav 1-'ETCr TOV halpov
aVTOV 1-'h uvveA.8tTw VI-'LV, ~(JJS ov otaA.A.aywutv, Yva 1-'h
KOtvw8fi ~ 8vula v,.,.wv). The interpretation shows an
affinity to 0 ld Testament ideas, 210 especially to the
Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26), 211 but it seems to
reflect general Hellenistic ideas concerning sacrifice
as well. 212
Although according to Strack-Billerbeck, the example

201 On the punctuation see the critical apparatus in
Nestle-Aland, and in Aland, Synopsis, ad loc.
202 ~•al\l\tiuuol-'a•, "become reconciled," occurs only here
in the NT; cf. also Did. 14.2 (see below). The term
and concept are common in Greek. See BAGD, s.v.
l'llal\l\tiuuol-'a•; Friedrich Biichsel, "o•al\l\tiuuw,"
TDNT 1.253-54; Spicq, Notes, 3.117-19. A variant
reading is D, which has Kaml\l\tiy1J81, the more
common NT term, which has clearer Christian
overtones (cf. Acts 12:22 D; 1 Cor 7:11).
203 So Jeremias, Abba, 103-7; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 70
(Sermon, 67-68). See also the examples in Str-B
1.284-88.
204 Reconciliation is the removal of enmity and the
restoration of a peaceful relationship. See 1 Cor
7:11; Rom 5:8-11; 2 Cor 5: 18-20, etc. See above on
vs 23 and below on 5:43-48.
205 1 Sam 29:4 shows David taking the initiative in
getting reconciled with the angry Saul. The opposite
is Cain in Gen 4:5-8. See also Gen 32:20; Prov 16:7;
Sir 27:21 (with the context).
206 As Philo frequently points out, the person who enters
the temple or approaches the altar must be pure
from defilements, not only of the body but foremost
of the soul. See esp. Spec. leg. 1.202-4, 269-71, 283;
Vit. Mos. 2.107-8; Cher. 95-96; Deus imm. 7-9.
Similarly Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels, 228-29.
207 See Wengst, Didache, 53-57.
208 See Koester (Synoptische Uberlieferung, 213-15), who
treats the passages as a community rule circulating in
the oral tradition and attested in the NT also in Matt
5:23-24 and Mark 11:25.
209 The trans. is mine. See also Did. 15.3; 1 Cor 5:11.
210 Did. 14.3 cites Mal1:11 and 14. Cf. also Justin Dial.
117.2 and 4, and on that passage, Wengst, Didache,
55-56.
211 Seeesp.Lev 19:5-8,13-18.
212 Cf. Ps. Sol. 15.3; Philo Spec. leg. 1.203-4: "For the
law desires, first, that the mind [vovs] of the
worshipper should be sanctified by exercise in good
and profitable thoughts and judgements; secondly,
that his life should be a consistent course of the best
actions, so that as he lays his hands on the victim, he
can boldly and with a pure conscience speak in this

224
 Matthew 5:21-48

does not have a parallel in rabbinic literature, 213 it does
seem to be close to the Greek ethical texts of Theo-
phrastus and Plutarch. Theophrastus's important
religiophilosophical work "On Piety" (Iltpl. d;u£(3£las) is
unfortunately extant only in fragments attested mostly
by Porphyry De abstinentia. 214 Several of these fragments
discuss the relationship between ethics and sacrifice,
whereby the philosopher seeks to make them compatible.
In the course of the argument several principles are
stated. He says in fragment 7: "indeed one must sacrifice
those things which, when we offer them, harm no one,
because nothing must be as unharmful to all as sacrifice"
a
(KaL JJ.~V (J{mv a(t (K£tVa, (J/;ovu<; ovatva 7T7JJJ.aVOVJJ.£V"
oMf:v yap W<; TO (Jvp.a a(3A.a(3h £tVa! XP~ 7TaCTtV). 215
Porphyry reflects only on the question of the materia to
be sacrificed, however, and does not consider the human
relationships between the officiants. At the end of the
fragment, another principle is stated, derived probably
from Delphic theology: "The daimonion looks at the
ethical attitude of the sacrificer, more than at the
quantity of sacrificial gifts" (Kat p.aA.A.ov TO aatp.ovwv 7TpOs
TO Twv (JvoVTCJ)V ~(Jos ~ 7rpOs TO TWV (Jvop.£vwv 7TA.ij(Jos
{3At7TH). 216 This discussion, however, considers only the
question of the quantity of the gifts, although we do not
know what the lost portions of the text may have
contributed.
Fragment 9 argues that the offerer must be pure, not
only pure regarding clothes and body but foremost:
"One must go to the sacrifices having a soul pure from
evils" (Ka(Japav KaKWV T~V "'VX~V fxovu<; twu!V 7Tp0<; Ta<;
8vulas). 217 "The ethical attitude must be purified when
one goes to sacrifice to the gods" (a£! Tolvov Ka(J7Jpap.£vovs
TO ~(los (J/;uovms TOt<; (Jw'is ). 218 Porphyry then quotes an
inscription at the entrance to the sanctuary at Epidaurus:
Pure must one be when entering the temple smelling
of incense,
But purity is thinking holy things.
ayvov XP~ vao'io evwaws (vTO<; LOVTa E'p.p.£Vat•
ayv£{a a• fCTTL cppov£tV ifuta. 219
Again, however, fragment 9 considers only the quantity
of gifts while other possible interpretations of the verse
seem of little or no interest.
The parallel from Plutarch is found in his treatise "On
Brotherly Love," which was influenced by Theophras-
tus's work "On Friendship," now unfortunately lost. 220
Plutarch discusses not only brotherly love (cptA.aa£Acpla),
but also its opposite, hatred of the brother
{p.tuaa£A.cpla). 22 1 Speaking of family relationships, the
philosopher observes that hatred between brothers runs
deeper than a broken friendship and is therefore more
difficult to heal. Since friendship is a matter of choice, it
can be resumed more readily; but "when brothers have

wise: 'These hands have taken no gift to do injustice,
nor shared in the proceeds of plunder or over-
reaching, nor been soiled with innocent blood. None
have they maimed or wounded, no deed of outrage 214
or violence have they wrought. They have done no
service of any other kind at all which might incur
arraignment or censure, but have made themselves 215
humble ministers of things excellent and profitable, 216
such as are held in honour in the sight of wisdom and 217
law and wise and law-abiding men'" (trans. F. H. 218
Colson). Related NT texts are Mark 7:15-23//Matt 219
15:11-20; 1 Cor 11:17-33; cf. also Ignatius Trail.
8.2, where the context is, however, not that of 220
sacrifice but avoidance of slander against the church.
213 Str-B 1.284 on Matt 5:24, section A: "Eine Unter-
brechung der Opferhandlung aus dem Grunde, wie
ihn Mt 5,23f. enthalt, kennt die Halakha nicht." Cf.,
however, the doctrine stated in m. Yoma 8.9 and Sifre 221
Lev. 16, 30 (324•), cited by Str-B 1.287, section 2,
translated by Danby, Mishnah, 172: "For
transgressions that are between man and God the
Day of Atonement effects atonement, but for
trangressions that are between a man and his fellow
the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he
has appeased his fellow."
Citations are according to the edition by Walter
Potscher, Theophrastos, TIEPI EY:EEBEIA:E (Philo-
sophia Antiqua 11; Leiden: Brill, 1964).
Frg.7,lines10-11.
Ibid., lines 53-54.
Frg. 9, lines 5-6.
Ibid., lines 1-2.
Ibid., lines 10-11. Cf. also frg. 8, lines 20-21; frg.
19,lines 11-13.
Plutarch De fratemo a more, cited according to the
edition and translation by William C. Helmbold,
Plutarch's Moralia, vol. 6 (LCL; London: Heinemann;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1962). For a
discussion of the treatise, see Betz, PECL 2.231-63.
De frat. am., chaps. 2-6, pp. 478D-481B.

225
once broken the bonds of Nature, they cannot readily
come together, and even if they do, their reconciliation
bears with it a filthy hidden sore of suspicion" (De frat.
am. 7, 481 C). 2 22 Enmity toward the brother is very
painful because ""it is necessary to share sacrifices and the
family's sacred rites, to occupy the same sepulcher, and
in life, perhaps, the same neighboring habitation-such
an enmity keeps the painful situation ever before our
eyes" (ibid., 7, 481D).22 3 Moreover, such hatred is an
offense against nature and is unhealthy (ibid., 3, 479D).
The implication is that offering sacrifices while
simultaneously hating one's brother is tantamount to a
sacrilegious act.
• 25 The second illustrative case involves a court trial (vss
25-26). The narrative is abbreviated in that the first part
of the story, analogous to vs 23, is omitted. Again told in
the second person singular, the story starts at the point
where recommendation of appropriate action is to be
given (cf. vs 24). The episode depicts two men on the
way to court to obtain a decision on a dispute between
them; we are not told the nature of this dispute,
evidently because it is irrelevant to the point to be made.
The appropriate way to handle the dispute is to settle out
222 a.aEAf/>o\ a~ TOV KaTa tf>VuLV €K'1dUOVTf:S oiJTE Pll-'6lro~
uvvfpxovrat, ~e&v uvvEA8rocn., {lvwaplzv ~ea\ ~wowTov
oVA~v a& '6taAtSuE&S' £</>fAKovrat.
223 ~ 3£ 7rpbs aOEA¢0v, <li liVCTIOOV T€ ICOIVCIIVflV aVcljiiC1J Kal Behm, "•vvo.!oo," TDNT 4.968-70; Spicq (Notes,
iEp{;,v warpcbwv Op.Ora.p&v T£ y£vlu8a& ~ealwov uVvoucov
~ yEtTOVa xooploov, ev lfJJ.p.a<riV lxn Tb AV1r1Jp&v. See
Betz, PECL 2.245-46.
224 The word order is different in some parts of the
tradition, reading fV Tfi bllcp JJ.ET' avTOV (0 0233 9Jt Jat
syh samss mae). The better part of the tradition is in
support of the text given in Nestle-Aland: M B D L W
jl.l3 28. 33. 892 pc it sy•-c.p sams• boP'. So the evidence
given by Nestle-Aland, ad Joe.
225 This technical term is common in Greek literature
and a loanword in rabbinic Hebrew. See in the NT
also Luke 12:58; 18:3 (perhaps of the devil as in 1
Pet 5:8). See BAGD, s.v. avTtOIICOS; Str-B 1.268-69.
Gottlob Schrenk (TDNT 1.373-75), however, takes it
in the metaphorical eschatological sense (p. 374); he
is followed by Horst Balz, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s. v.
0.vTl'6tKOS'.
226 A common Greek term found, however, only here in
the NT. See BAGD, s.v. Evvo.!oo, with reference to the
parallel in Plutarch De frat. am. 18, 489C: "And our
asking and receiving forgiveness for our own errors
reveals goodwill [Eilvota] and affection [¢tJ\ocrTopyla]
quite as much as granting it to others when they err.
226
of court: "Become well disposed toward your opponent
quickly, as long as you are with him on the way (to
court)" (ro-8L €VVOWV Tijl avnl3{Kf!> O"OV TaXV, ~CJlS 8TOV €1 !J.€T'
al!Tov Ev Tfj baijl).22 4 The terminology in vs 25 consists
mainly of technical terms from the court of law: b
CtVTl13LKOS is the opponent in a lawsuit; 225 the verb €VVO€tV
("be well disposed," "make friends with someone")22 6
indicates reconciliation. Simple prudence would seem to
be behind this advice: it may happen that one has the
weaker case and will lose, and should this be the case, a
chain of terrible consequences will be set in motion over
which one has no control: "or else that opponent may
turn you over to the judge, and the judge (turn you over)
to the court-guard, and you will be thrown into jail"
(p.~'ITOTf 0"€ '!Tapaaijl b avTll3LKOS Tijl KPLTfj Kat b KpLT~S Tijl
{m7JpfT!J Kat €LS q,vAaK~V f3A7J8~u!J). 227
One can conclude several matters from the legal
procedures reported in the text. In all likelihood, the
case concerns the owing of debts, since the person is
summoned into court by his opponent. 228 The trial then
leads to the conviction and the imprisonment of the
accused. Apparently the winner has the power to hand
over the convicted ('1Tapa13l13wp.L) 229 to the judge (b
For this reason we should neither overlook the anger
[opy~] of others, nor be stubborn with them." See
also Betz, PECL 2.258; furthermore,Johannes
3.316-21) with reference toP. Washington I, 6, 20,
26, identifies the usage in Matt 5:25 rightly as "terme
judiciaire" (p. 31 7).
227 The text given in Nestle-Aland is represented by P 6 7
o
MB j1.13 892 pc k. The words Kal KPIT~s Tcp flw1Jp.!T!I
are missing in sy', while other witnesses add erE
wapallro after "P'T~s, perhaps because ofthe parallels
in Luke 12:58 ([D] L W 0 0233 9Jt !at syc.p.h), or
perhaps because of early instability of the text at this
point. See Nestle-Aland, ad Joe.; Aland, Synopsis, ad
Joe.; cf. Greeven, Synopsis, ad Joe.; Metzger, Textual
Commentary, 13.
228 In law, this is called in ius vocatio, the bringing of a
defendant before the court. See David Werner
Amram, "The Summons: A Study in Jewish and
Comparative Procedure," in Studies in Jewish
Jurisprudence (New York: Hermon, 1976) 4.281-98.
The author refers to instances of the summons in
Num 16:16 and job 9:32. Cf. also Deut 25:1;Job
14:3; 34:23; Ps 109:6; Matt 10:17; Mark 13:9 par.; 1
Cor 6:6-8;Jas 2:6.
229 For material on this technical term, see BAGD, s.v.
wapalltlllllJJ.I, l.b; Spicq, Notes, 3.504-15, esp. 5I4-15
 Matthew 5:21-48

KPIT~s) 230 who then orders the court-guard (b
t!7r7JP",T'T/Y) 231 to take him away and. throw him into jail (£1s
cf>v>..aK~v f3a>..>..£w). 232 According to Bernard jackson, this
procedure indicates the Roman institution of the
imprisonment of a debtor. 233
The question remains, however, of how one is to
understand the point of this little story in vs 25. 234
There are several options. First, the advice given could
be a matter of clever foresight. 235 One can support this
interpretation by a parallel in Diodorus Siculus, which
relates an encounter between Antiochus Epiphanes IV
and the Roman general Popillius. In commenting on the
story about Antiochus's yielding to the Roman, 236
Diodorus refers to some old wisdom: "It is then
apparently true, as certain of the sages of old have
declared, that forgiveness is preferable to punish-
ment."237 Following this wisdom, Diodorus explains, is
not only suitable for the good ruler but also a gainful
method for generating gratitude and loyalty that might
be useful in less fortunate times. 238 If one applies this
view to the SM, one can thus see that the deal struck on
the way to court 239 is a clever move in view of the
possible disasters that can otherwise befall one. Second,
one has a possible interpretation within the framework of
Jewish ethics. The person who takes the initiative and
offers a settlement out of court gives up any claims he
may have against his accuser. Thus he chooses the more
difficult route of righteousness that will gain more favor
in the eyes of God. Such yielding of one's legal claims
and even the intervention of a nonjudicial conciliator was

with references from the papyri.
230 For this term from jurisprudence, see BAGD, s.v.
Kplr~s, 1.a.a; Friedrich Biichsel, "Kplr~s." TDNT
3.944; Wolfgang Schenk, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s.v.
KpiT~S.
231 For this special meaning ofthe term V7r1Jptr1Js see also
Matt 26:58; Mark 14:54, 65;John 7:32, 45-46; 18:3,
12, 22; 19:6; Acts 5:22, 26. See BAGD, s.v.,
V7r1Jptr1Js; Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, "V7r1Jptr1Js,"
TDNT 8.530-44; Str-B 1.290; Gerhard Schneider,
EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. V7r1Jptr1Js (bibliography).
232 The expression occurs also in Luke 12:58; Matt
18:30; Luke 23:19, 25;John 3:24; Acts 16:23, 24,
37; Rev 2:10. See BAGD, s.v. {3a>.Aw, l.b; Friedrich
Hauck, "{3a>.Aw," TDNT 1.524-25; Fritz Stolz, THAT
2.916-19; Otfried Hofius, EWNT(EDNT) 1, s.v.
{3aA.A.w.
233 See Bernard S.Jackson, Theft in Early jewish Law
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) 144, referring to Plato
Leg. 9, 857A: "For the thief also, whether he steals a
great thing or a small, one law and one legal penalty
shall be enacted for all alike: first he must pay twice
the value of the stolen article, if he loses his case and
possesses enough property over and above his
allotment wherewith to pay; but if not, he must be
put in prison until either he has paid the sum or has
been let off by the prosecutor."
234 The story in vs 25 and the logion in vs 26 together
have a parallel in Luke 12:57-59 and are thus
derived from the tradition of Q. Because of the very
different form in which the text is found in the two
Gospels, it is not clear which form was originally part
of the tradition ofQ. Clearly, the SM has integrated
whatever it took from the source into a new context,
making it into an example story. At least in the SM
the story is not a parable, as several scholars have
proposed. For discussion see Bultmann, History, 96,
99, 149, 172;Jeremias, Parables, 43-44; Dodd,
Parables, 136-39; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 62-64; Schulz,
Q, 421-24; Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 64-67; Strecker,
Bergpredigt, 71-72 (Sermon, 69-70); Harnisch,
Gleichniserziihlungen, 69 n. 63. For the various
options, see Jiilicher, Gleichnisreden, 2.240-46;
Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1001-3.
235 For this interpretation cf. Matt 18:23-35.
236 Diodorus Sic. 31.1-3. For the historical background,
see Schiirer, History 1.151-52.
237 Diodorus Sic. 31.3.1: "OTI aA1J8Es ~v li.pa, ws
folK<, ro
Pn8fv fnrb TLvwv rWv 1r&.Aat crocpWv, Hn uvyyvWp.?J
Tlp.wplas alp<rwrtpa (my trans.). I am indebted for this
parallel to Dr. Roy D. Kotansky.
238 Cf. ibid., 31.3.2: "Nor would it, indeed, be just that a
man who has denied all humanity to others should
himself, when he in turn stumbles and falls, meet
with consideration from those who have him in their
power" (oV ytzp OlKatov rhv f7rt rWv li.AAwv h.7rn7n1,.uvov
1rauav cfnAav8ponrlav aVrhv lv p.(pEt 7rEptwraluavra
rvyx&.vov Tfj~ 1raph. rWv KparoVvrwv f7rtfi.Kela~). Text
and translation are according to the LCL edition of
Diodorus of Sicily by Francis R. Walton, vol. 11
(London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University, 1957) 316-17.
239 See Artur Steinwenter, "Die Streitbeendigung durch
Vergleich," Milnchner Beitriige zur Papyrusforschung 8
(1925) 117-40; reprinted in Zur griechischen
Rechtsgeschichte (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1968) 434-54.

227
one of the norms of Jewish religious ethics. 240 But, the
story does not mention a claim first held and sub-
sequently relinquished by the accused. Third, an
interpretation could also be achieved through the Greek
ethical principle of "fairness" (lm£LKua). 241 The person
who is taken to court gives up whatever advantage he
may have because he is a fair man (o lmuK~~) and thus of
a high ethical character. There is no indication, however,
that that man is satisfied with less than his due. Finally,
because the case-story is intended to illustrate vss 21-
22a, none of the interpretations outlined above really
fits. The story makes sense because it demonstrates that
Jesus' interpretation of the Decalogue is in accordance
with prudence.2 42 Only fools rush into lawsuits! The
dreadful risks implied in a lawsuit can be avoided if the
opponents settle the dispute out of court.
What is the underlying rationale here? The term
£vvo£'iv ("be well disposed") implies that the basic reason
for going to court is emotional and thus related to anger
(opy~), the subject of the whole passage. 243 Therefore,
the real cause for the trial, the dispute over which the
opponents go to court, is not the issue. The issue is the
uncontrolled anger that has set them against each other.
By gaining control over that anger and by changing it
into friendliness, they will find they have no reason to go
to court 244 and can part as friends rather than foes. 245
In this way, the commandment of Jesus (vs 22a), the
Torah commandment (vs 21 b), is fulfilled in a positive
and beneficial way, that is, in accordance with the overall
purpose of God's Torah.
• 26 A final amen-saying sums up the experience of those
ending up in jail: "Truly I say to you: you will never get
out from there till you have paid up the last cent" (iz.p.rJV
A.(yw crot, ov p.fJ lfb.. en~ EK£t8w, lw~ Clv iz7Tooi!J rhv ~crxarov
KoopavrrJV). 246 Introduced by the familiar formula
"Truly I say to you" (iz.p.nv A.(yw crot), 247 the sentence
appears to contain a proverb taken out of the oral
tradition of wisdom sayings. 248 Its parallels in Did. 1.52 49
and Sextus Sent. 39, 250 as well as in the older Greek
literature, conform to this supposition, adding
interesting details pertaining to justice and eschatology.
Plato Rep. 1, 3 31 e quotes the poet Simonides (c.
557/56-468/67 BCE) as saying with regard to justice
(7T€pl. otKatocrt'!v7Js ): "That it is just to render to each his
due" ("On TO rlt ocfmA.6p.€Va ~KaCTTI!J iz7TOOL06vaL OLKat6v
€ern). 251 As Plato explains, the saying is almost a

240 See Felix Bohl, Gebotserschwerung und Rechtsverzicht als
ethisch-religiose Normen in der rabbinischen Literatur
(Frankfurter Judaistische Studien 1; Freiburg i.Br.:
Schwarz, 1971), esp. 66-71; Erich Dinkier, "Das
Problem der Ethik bei Paulus: Rechtsnahme und
Rechtsverzicht(l Kor6, 1-11)," ZThK49(1952)
167-200; reprinted in Dinkier, Signum Crucis:
Aufsiitze zum Neuen Testament und zur Christlichen
Archiiologie (TObingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1967) 204-
40, esp. 215.
241 For this concept, see above, pp. 168-71.
242 Cf. SM/Matt 7:24-27.
243 Cf. the older brother in the parable of the Prodigal
Son (Luke 15:28): "he became angry" (wpyiuOTJ).
244 This is what the father suggests in Luke 15:31-32.
245 For the situation regarding Hellenistic ethics, see
Plutarch's essays, "On the Control of Anger" and
"On Brotherly Love," noted above, nn. 164, 167,
226.
246 Regarding the text, L W (0233). 1424 al read~"'~
("until") instead of the majority's ~"'~ iiv, while 33 pc
read only~"'~· Similar differences are found in the
parallel Luke 12:59. Cf. also Matt 18:30. See Nestle-
Aland, ad loc.; Aland, Synopsis, ad loc.
247 The ap.~v is not part of the parallel Luke 12:59. For
the longer formula in SM, see above on 5:18.
248 Cf. Prov 25:7-8; Sir 18:20; furthermore Prov 6:1-5;
Counsels of Wisdom, lines 11-16, according to AOT,
291-92. These passages are mentioned by Zeller,
Mahnspruche, 65-66. In the NT, the saying occurs
only in SM/Matt 5:26; Luke 12:59.
249 Did. 1.5 is a warning against illegimately accepting
financial assistance from the congregation; the
person who does so will have to face the con-
sequences (my trans.): "When he is put into prison he
will be interrogated about what he has done, and he
will not get out from there until he has repaid the last
penny" (iv uvvoxii St yev&p.wo~ it£rau0~CT£Tal 7T£pt cl)v
f1rpate, Kal oi~K E[EAeVu£rar. fKli8ev, p.lx.Prs ol; lz.?ToOc'i> rhv
~uxarov Ko5pttvTTJV).
250 Sextus Sent. 39 (my trans.): "Regarding the one who
lives a wicked life: after his release from the body an
evil daimon straightens him out until he has got the
last penny out of him" (KaKw~ (Wvra p.<rlt r~v
a7TaAAay~v ToV uC::,f'aTOS £V8Vvn KaKOS' Oalp.rov p.IXPLS' o.O
Kat rbv ~uxarov KoapaVTTJV a7TOAafJn). There does not
ov appear to be a direct connection between this saying
and the SM, but the connection with the gnostic
Excerpta ex Theodoto 52 is obvious.
2 51 Cited according to the LCL text and translation by
Paul Shorey, Plato, vol. 5 (London: Heinemann;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1969) 20-
21, with n. C referring to Rep. 4.433E.

228
 Matthew 5:21-48

definition of justice. As such, it is related to the later
principle of suum cuique ("To each his due"), 252 one of
the fundamentals of Roman justice: "Justitia est constans
et perpetua voluntas suum cuique tribuens" ("Justice is
the constant and perpetual will to render each his
due").25ll
This secular meaning, however, does not exclude
eschatological applications. According to Plato's
interpretation of the myth ofEr, "paying one's debts in
full" is part of eschatological justice, just as everyone
receives from the deity his or her due. 254 Speaking of the
sinners punished in the afterlife, the myth determines
the punishments to be tenfold for each crime perpe-
trated on earth: "as for example that if anyone had been
the cause of many deaths or had betrayed cities and
armies and reduced them to slavery, or had been
participant in any other iniquity, they might receive in
requital pains tenfold for each of these wrongs, and again
if anyone had done deeds of kindness and had been just
and holy men, they might receive their due reward in the
same measure" (Plato Rep. 10, 615b-c). 255 A parallel in
the Orphic gold tablets confirms that this doctrine is
Orphic in origin. One of the inscriptions reads: "I have
paid the amends for injustice. "2 56 It is assumed that
when the initiate recites the saying as he passes into the
afterlife, it is part of his declaration ofinnocence,2 57
which allows him to move on into the Elysian Fields.
Paying back debts can also be interpreted meta-
phorically,258 as we see in Rom 6:2: "For the compen-
sation ofsin is death" (Ta yap o1J!6>vta TfjS ap.apT{as
8avaTos). 259 The meaning of the statement is not entirely
clear: is the compensation to be paid for sin or to sin?2 60 It
appears that death is the compensation to be paid for sin;
it is, in a sense, the last penny humans must pay for their
involvement with sin. 261 Related is the more general
principle cited in Rom 2:6: "(God) who will recompense
everyone aCCOrding tO his deeds" (3s a'IToa6>u£t ~KclO"Tf!>
KaTa Ta fpya ai1Tov). 262 In vs 26 of the SM, however, the
sentence is applied to the case at hand. When it sums up
what must have been common experience, it amounts to
a blunt comment on the jail conditions of the time. Once
in jail, one will not be able to get out until one has paid
out the last penny. 263 Does this refer to the debt owed
the opponent, 264 to the fees owed the lawyers, to the
fines imposed by the court, or to the bribes paid to the
prison guards to open the jail doors? We are not told;

252 On this principle, see pp. I67 -72, 286 n. 696.
253 Ulpian Dig. I.I.I 0. I owe this reference to Shorey
(see above, n. 25I ), p. 20, n. C (my trans.).
254 See Plato Rep. I0,6I4a, 6I5b-c; Phaed. II3d-e, etc.
255 Cited is Shorey's translation (see above, n. 25I), p.
497.
256 Tablets A2 and A3, line 4, according to the
reconstruction by Zuntz, Persephone, 303, 305, 3I3-
I4, 336, 339: "II"O&vav ~· O:vra.,..lrm lp-ywv ~vEl<' oiJn
3ucalwv·.
257 See Betz, Essays, I28-29 n. I4.
258 Scholars often interpret vs 26 as vacillating between
prudence and eschatological exhortation, whereby
the "original" meaning is assumed to have been
reinterpreted by the Gospel writers. See esp.
Bultmann, History 96, 99, I49, I72, 4I5-I6;
Erganzungsheft, 36; Lohmeyer, Matthaus, I23-25;
Jeremias, Parables, 43-44; Grundmann, Matthaus,
I 57-58; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 62-64; Schulz, Q, 42I-
24; Zeller, Mahnsprllche, 64-66; Guelich, Sermon,
I92-93; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 7I-72 (Sermon, 69-
70); Luz, Matthaus, I.260 (Matthew, I.290).
259 The trans. is mine.
260 See Wolfgang Heidland, TDNT 5.592; Spicq, Notes,
2.635-38.
26I Cf. the epitaphs, in which death is regarded as
repayment of a debt; see Richard Lattimore, Themes
in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (2d ed.; Urbana, Ill.:
University of Illinois, I968) I70; Raymond Bogaert,
"Geld (Geldwirtschaft)," RAC 9 (I975) 83I, 843.
262 My translation. See also 2 Cor ll:I5; I Cor 3:I3-I5;
1 Clem. 34.3; 2 Clem. II.6. For rabbinic parallels, see
Str-B 3.78-79.
263 Ko3plivr"lj~ is a Latin loanword (quadrans), occurring
also in rabbinic literature; see Str-B 1.290-94. The
value of the coin was small; it is mentioned also in
Luke I2:59 D (most manuscripts have AE"II"rov); Did.
I.5. See BAGD, s.v. Ko3plivr"lj~. with reference to the
parallel in Sextus Sent. 39; moreover Arie Kindler,
Coins of the Land ofIsrael Qerusalem: Keter, I97 4).
264 This seems to be the force here: O:.,..o3l~w,.,, "pay
back," "retum." See also Luke I2:59; Did. 1.5; Matt
I8:23-35, esp. vss 25-30, 34; SM/Matt 5:33; 6:4, 6,
I8; Luke 7:42. For further references, see BAGD,
s.v., O;.,..olllllwl''• 2; Alexander Sand, EWNT(EDNT) I,
s.v. a. . olll~w,.,, with bibliography.

229
and apparently the result is the same: a lawsuit will of
necessity render the loser penniless.
Which ethical conclusions should the hearer or reader
draw from the argument as a whole? As mentioned
above, the conclusion is not stated explicitly but must be
inferred from the argumentation, which gives clues as to
direction. The root cause of murder, we were told, is
anger directed against the "brother." "Hatred of the 1) Analysis The second antithesis (5:27-30) concerns the
brother" (};.tcraliEAcp{a), 2 65 which inevitably follows from
such anger, is the opposite of "brotherly love"
(cptAaliEAcp{a) 266 as commanded by the love-command in
Lev 19:18 (SM/Matt 5:43). Simply stated, the source of
murder is a broken relationship with the brother. The
famous case of Cain's murder of his brother Abel (Gen
4:8-16) comes to everyone's mind, although it is not
mentioned in the text. 267 What, then, is the intent of the
Torah commandment, "You shall not kill"? According to
the SM, its intent-that is, God's will-is that one come
to grips with the root cause of murder. It is this root
cause that precipitated the prohibition. Once the root
cause is identified as anger, the ethical demand follows:
one must control anger. 268 One achieves this goal by
avoiding situations that lead to anger, or, if the situations
already exist, by defusing them through reconciliation
and the restoration of the peaceful brotherly relation-
ship. 269 This ethical demand was a standing topic in both
contemporary Jewish and Hellenistic ethics. 270
b. The Second Antithesis: Adultery (Matt 5:27-30)
Bibliography
Heinrich Baltensweiler, Die Ehe im Neuen Testament:
Exegetische Untersuchungen ilber Ehe, Ehelosigkeit und
Ehescheidung (A ThANT 52; Zurich: Zwingli, 1967)
112-19.
Banks, Jesus and the Law, 190-91.
Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1.307-49.
265 The term JWraoE>HJ>ia does not occur in the SM or the
SP. Cf. p. 200 n. 167.
266 The term cJ>tA.aoEA</>ia is not found in the SM or the
SP, but it is a synonym of "love" (ayan7J) in Rom
12:10 (cf. 12:8-21; 13:8-10); see also 1 Thess 4:9; 1
Pet 1 :22; 3:8; 2 Pet 1:7, etc.; for further references
see above, n. 167.
267 The example is mentioned and sometimes explicitly
contrasted with "love" (ayan7J) in Matt 23:35//Luke
11:51; Heb 11:4; 12:24; 1 John 3:11-12;Jude 11-
12; 1 Clem. 4.1-7.
268 For this topic in NT paraenesis, often in connection
230
Kurt Niederwimmer, Askese und Mysterium: Vber Ehe,
Ehescheidung und Eheverzicht in den Anfiingen des
christlichen Glaubens (FRLANT 113; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 24-33.
Percy, Botschaft jesu, 143-44.
Soiron, Logiajesu, 55-56.
Strecker, "Antithesen," 51-52.
Wrege, Bergpredigt, 64-66.
interpretation ofExod 20:14, the prohibition of the
Decalogue against adultery. The formal composition
corresponds to that of the first antithesis, with some
differences. Most notably, the composition of vss 27-
30 is shorter: elements stated fully in the first antithesis
are abbreviated in the second. Apparently the reader
who has comprehended and memorized the first
antithesis should have no trouble supplying the
elements omitted in the second. Despite this reduction,
however, nothing is truly missing. We see here a
phenomenon already familiar from the section 5: 17-
20, namely, the difference between the written text
and the text intended to develop in the reader's mind.
The shortened form of the antithesis, therefore,
appears to be a device to force the reader to supply
from memory and perception that which is left
unstated. Thus the reader can control whether he or
she has not only memorized the words but also
understood the argument.
The composition as a whole, like that of the first
antithesis, has three parts. The first part refutes what is
regarded as an inadequate interpretation of Exod
20:14. The "chain of tradition" is briefly mentioned
again, followed by the Scripture quotation; the
inadequate interpretation is not made explicit,
however (5:27). The second part (5:28) then presents
the adequate interpretation of the Decalogue
commandment in the form of a legal definition
introduced by the familiar doctrinal formula, "but I say
to you" (5:28). The third part demonstrates the
validity of this interpretation. The argument is based
on two illustrative examples from medicine, proverbial
with the love-command, see Rom 1 :29; 2:8; 12: 19;
13:4, 5; Eph 4:26, 31; Col 3:8; 1 Tim 2:8; Titus 1 :7;
Jas 1:19, 20; Did. 3.2; 15.3, and often in post-NT
literature.
269 The classic example in the NT is the parable of the
Prodigal Son (Luke 15: 11-32), esp. the behavior of
the older brother (vs 28: wpyiu87j, "he became
angry") in contrast with the father.
2 7 0 For this topic in Hellenistic ethics and further
material, see above, nn. 167 and 266.
 Matthew 5:21-48

in both origin and nature. The first of these focuses on
the eye (5:29), the second on the hand (5:30).
The ethical conclusion is not explicated but left for
the reader to infer. The root cause of adultery is erotic
love working through the members of the body. The
original intent of the prohibition calls for more than
simple compliance in the literal sense; it calls as well for
the removal of the root cause through control of one's
erotic desires.
2) Interpretation
• 27 The second antithesis, like the first, begins the
refutation with a reference to the "chain oftradition."2 71
The term "you have heard" (~KoVo-an) names the present
recipients of the tradition with God as its originator and
authority (f.pp£87], "it was said"); omitted-in accordance
with the best manuscripts-is the reference to the past
recipientS, "to the men Of old" (TOtS apxalots). 272
Verse 27b then introduces the quotation of the
Scripture passage to be discussed: Exod 20: 14, the
seventh (MT, RSV) or sixth (LXX, Philo) commandment
of the Decalogue: "You shall not commit adultery" (ov
fA-OLX£Vo-m).2 73 Omitted, too, is the formulation of the
inadequate interpretation of this commandment, an
omission that appears to be intentional. Since the second
antithesis is analogous in form to the first antithesis, the
inadequate interpretation, were it stated, could only be
the literal interpretation and would read: as ll' c1v
fA-OLX£VO"TJ, ~voxos ~a-Tat Tfj Kplo-u ("Everyone, indeed, who
commits adultery shall be answerable to the court").
According to this interpretation, compliance with the
Torah commandment would mean the avoidance of the
physical act of adultery and the breaking of the taboo. 274
This literal interpretation, however, is rejected as
inadequate.
• 28 The presentation of what the SM considers the
adequate interpretation of Exod 20: 14 begins with the
well-known doctrinal formula (vs 28a), "but I say to you"
(f.ytiJ llt A.€yw VfA-"iv). 275 The interpretation itselftakes the
form of a legal and ethical opinion about what constitutes
adultery. 276 The statement contains two parts. The first
part (vs 28b) describes and defines the offense, the
second (vs 28c) identifies it as adultery. Clearly the
statement as a whole redefines the term "adultery,"
shifting the emphasis from the breaking of the taboo to
the psychological predisposition of the heart: "Everyone
who looks at a woman with the intent to desire her has
already committed adultery with her in his heart" (1ras o
{3Af1TWV yvva"i'Ka 1Tpos TO ht8v!J-fiO"aL avT~V T/llTJ f!J-olxcVO"£V
aVT~V fV Tfj KaplJ[c_z aVTOV).
Not surprisingly, this statement is one of the most
thoroughly discussed of the entire SM. 277 Indeed, the
question is: What does it mean? In order to understand
it, one must look more closely at the components and
terms of the sentence; and we must clearly apprehend

271 See above on vs 21a. Latte, "J.<o•x•ia," PW 15 (1932) 2446-49; Friedrich

272 L ~ 0 0233 J 13 33. 579. 892 pm lat syc.h** lr OrP'
Eus Cyr read Tolr b.pxaio<r, supplying it on the basis of
Matt 5:21, 33. So Nestle-Aiand, and Aland, Synopsis,
adloc.
273 Exod 20:13 LXX; see also Deut 5:17; related is the
Holiness Code, Lev 20:10-21; see also Hos 4:2;Jer
7:9-10, etc. For further references and bibliography,
see Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1.312-26; David Noel
Freedman and B. E. Willoughby, "!:lKl nii'ap,"
ThWAT 5 (1984) 123-29. The prohibition is cited in
Mark 10:19//Luke 18:20; Rom 2:22; 13:9;Jas 2:11;
Doctr. apost. 2.2; Did. 2.2; Barn. 19.4; Testamentum
Dom.ini 1. For a collection of parallels from Greek
religion, philosophy, and the patristic authors, see
Franz joseph Dolger, "Ne quis adulter! Christliche und
heidnische Achtung des Ehebruchs in der Kult-
satzung," Antike und Christentum 3 (1932) 132-48; 4
(1934) 14 7-49, 284-87. Cf. also the catalogues of
vices in Mark 7:22/ /Matt 15:9; Luke 18:11; 1 Cor
6:9; Heb 13:4.
274 On the terminology of J.<O<X.!Jw, see LSJ, s.v.; Kurt
Hauck, "J.<o•x•vw KTA.," TDNT 4. 729-35; further
bibliography in: ThWNT 10/2 (1979) 1180; BAGD,
s.V.J.<o•x•ia KTA.; Eckhard Pltimacher, EWNT (EDNT)
2, s.v. 1-'o•x•vw KTA. (bibliography).
275 See above on 5:22a.
276 No definition is provided by the Decalogue, but the
meaning follows from Lev 20:10: "When a man
commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both
the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to
death" (RSV). The offense is committed by the man
against the other man, not the woman, and
constitutes a violation of the proper relationship with
the neighbor (7rA7Jrriov). The connection with Lev
19:18 (SM/Matt 5:43) should be obvious. No
consideration is given to the offender's own status,
whether married or not, or to his wife, if he has one,
since they are immaterial to the legal issue.
277 See the bibliography prefacing the section on the
antitheses.

231
the presupposed psychology of erotic love, an emotion as
common in antiquity as it is today.
The role of the eye in erotic love is a frequent theme
in ancient literature (in proverbs, poetry, and drama) as
well as in philosophy. 278 In the latter, the works entitled
"On Love" (?Ttpt ~pwTos) usually make this point. Plato
states the matter briefly: "And love is so called because it
flows in from without, and this flowing is not inherent in
him who has it, but is introduced through the eyes. •2 79
Aristotle sums up what became the common view in
Hellenism when speaking of the importance of
"goodwill" (dlvota).2 80 "Goodwill seems, therefore, to be
the beginning of friendship, just as the pleasure of the
eye is the beginning oflove. No one falls in love without
first being charmed by beauty, but one may delight in
another's beauty without necessarily being in love: one is
in love only if one longs for the beloved when absent,
and eagerly desires his presence." 281 To look at a woman
thus implies her presence and the charm of her
beauty. 282
To look arouses the "desire" (lm8vJ.t£w, f?Tt8vJ.tla) 283 to
be with her and ultimately to have sexual union with
her. 284 Such is the normal course of love relation-
ships. 285 No mention is made at this point ofthe
woman's reaction or her participation through her
"looks";2 86 the focus is strictly on the man's initiative.
In applying this common view to the issue under
discussion, the SM points to anthropological factors. It
acknowledges the manner in which human love
relationships develop: the power of the human eye, the

278 For a large collection of parallels, see Wettstein,
1.301-2; furthermore Paul Wilpert, "Auge," RAC 1
(1950) 957-69; idem, "Begierde," RAC 2 (1954) 62-
78; Hommel, Sebasmata, 2.54-56.
279 Plato Crat. 420a: ;poor a(, lin E<rpe'i ;tooOev Kal. OVK o1Keia
Eurlu 7, /Jof] a~T1J rep fxovrt, lz.AA' f7rEluaKTO~ lh(z. rWv
op.p.aroov. Plato explains ;poor "etymologically" by
euptoo ("flow into"), which in olden times was called
;upor and then changed by substituting omega for
omikron. For the close association of "love" (;poor) and
"desire," see Plato Phaedr. 237d; 238d; Lys. 221e;
Symp. 192e; 200e; Resp. 3.396d; 9.578a.
280 Cf. the term evvotoo ("be goodwilling") in the first
antithesis (see vs 25a).
281 Aristotle Eth. Nic. 9.5.3, 1167a 4-8: ;OIK€ a~ apx~
</>tAiar €LVal, /J,u-rrep TOV epav ~ llth. riir if-.Jreoor ~oov~· flo~
yh.p wpa7]u8Elf; rfi lOl~ oVBEfs Ep~, 0 0~ xalpwv rijl fiiEL
oVBtv p.aA.Aov fp~, ltAA' 8rav Kal lt.,.,.Ovra 1To6fi KaL rijs
-rrapovuiar e-rrtOvp.fi. For further material, see Wilpert,
RAC 1.961.
282 Cf. the close parallel in Epictetus Diss. 2.18.15: "To-
day when I saw a handsome lad or a handsome
woman I did not say to myself, 'Would that a man
might sleep with her,' and 'Her husband is a happy
man,' for the man who uses the expression 'happy' of
the husband means 'Happy is the adulterer' also"
(trans. by W. A. Oldfather, LCL edition ofEpictetus
[London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University, 1961)1.353). See alsoDiss. 2.23.12;
3.7.21; 4.9.3.; Ench. 2.1-2; 33.8. Dibelius (Hermas,
426-30) and Brox (Hermas, 78) rightly refer to the
quotation from Epictetus as a parallel to Hermas Vis.
1.1.2-8.
283 In this context the terms refer simply to sexual
appetite and lust, with or without moral implications.
See LSJ, s.v.; for the Hellenistic usage, see esp. the
concordances to Lucian of Samosata (Betz, Lukian,
78 n. 9) and Plutarch; and for the papyri, Preisigke,
Wiirterbuch, 4/4.888; Sup 1.1 0.; PGM has the terms
frequently; for Hellenistic judaism, see Hatch and
Redpath, s.v.;the concordances to Philo, Josephus,
and Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs (in the edition by
dejonge, p. 223).
284 Wettstein, 1.301, rightly refers to 1 Cor 7:1.
285 See the example of judith Odt 12:16): "Thenjudith
came in and lay down, and Holofernes' heart was
ravished with her and he was moved with great desire
to possess her; for he had been waiting for an
opportunity to deceive her, ever since the day he first
saw her" (RSV). Cf. the context,Jdt 12:15-16; 16:7-
9; Sus 7-12. Famous is the example of David
seducing Bathsheba (2 Sam 11: 1-4; cf. Josephus Ant.
7.130-31). See also Gen 39:7 and its novelistic
treatment in T. jos. 2-9 (OTP 1.819-21); Bilhah's
seduction by Reuben (Gen 35:22) as renarrated in
jub. 33.1-9; T. Reu. 3.11-15 (cf. 10); furthermore
Num 15:39; Hos 2:10. The theme is popular in Song
of Songs (Cant 1:15; 4:9; 5:12; 6:5; 7:5; 8:10) and
wisdom literature (Prov 6:25; Sir 9:7-8; 30:20;
40:22); for rabbinic parallels see Str-B 1.299-301,
302.
286 For the effects of painting of the eyes and oflong
eyelashes, see 2 Kgs 9:30;Jer 4:30; Ezek 23:40; Prov
6:25 (cf. 4:25); Sir 26:11-12 (cf. 26:13-18); 42:12.

232
 Matthew 5:21-48

arousal of "desire" (£m6vJL£w), 287 and the decisions made
by the "heart" (Kaplila). 288 The process is traced from the
outside to the inside, from eye contact to desire to the
heart, where the decision to commit adultery is made.
This erotic psychology itself is not the object under
criticism, however; 289 it is simply considered as inherent
to the issue. Where, then, lies the problem?
The statement of the problem begins with the term
yvv~ as the object of the man's act of seeing. According
to the consensus of scholarship, this term refers to the
married woman. 2 90 This meaning is also required
because of the definition of what constitutes adultery:
JLOLX(la is the "secret sexual intercourse with a free
woman without the consent of her lord [Kvptos]." 291 Thus
adultery originally posed a problem in that it infringed
on the social authority of a husband over his wife. Only
in the course of time did adultery become a moral issue.
The translation of the Vulgate as mulier ("adult female")
instead of uxor ("wife") shows further expansion and
indicates a change that had enormous consequences in
the history of Christianity, implying as it does the radical
discreditation of any sexual activity involving women
other than a man's own wife. 2 9 2
As Aristotle reminds us, however, not every look at a
woman must be lustful, although looking always has
some purpose. 2 93 The SM specifies that purpose in the
phrase 1Tpos TO E1Tt6VJLijUat avr~v. the rendering of which
remains disputed. One can take the preposition 1rpos in
the final sense, assuming that the man is the logical
subject of the verb; in this case, one translates: "with the
purpose of desiring her." 294 Thus the fault lies in the
man's evil intent and plan to "commit adultery with her
[avr~v]." Another understanding of the phrase perceives
it in a consecutive sense, 295 implying that whenever a
man looks at a woman, he ultimately desires her. The
logical subject may also be the woman, however, in which
case the man "makes her commit adultery." In other
words, the man's offense is seduction, while the woman's

287 E7TI6vl-'{w as a sexual term occurs only here in the NT;
see also Hermas Vis. 1.1.4; cf. Did. 5.1 (.povo•, f'OIX£La•,
f1n6vp.lar., 7ropv£lat); it is known, however, to
Hellenistic Judaism: see 1 Enoch 6.2; 4 Mace. 2.5; Sus
8; Philo Spec. leg. 3.66. For these and other passages,
see BAGD, s.v. E7rl6vi-'Erot Friedrich Biichsel,
"£m6vl-'iw," TDNT 3.168-72; further bibliography in
ThWNT 10/2 (1979) 1111; Paul Wilpert, "Be-
gierde," RAG 2 (1954) 62-78; Hans Hubner, EWNT
(EDNT) 2, s.v. £m6vf<EW KrA. (bibliography). For the
sexual meaning of the noun, see 1 Thess 4:5; Rom
1:24 (in context); Did. 1.4; 3.3; 5.1, etc. See BAGD,
s.v. E7TI6Vf<La, 3.
288 Especially important is the notion of "the desires of
the heart" (a! E7TI6Vf<Lal riir Kaplilar), found in Rom
1:24; Mark 7:21-22//Matt 15:18-19; 1 Clem. 3.4.
In the SM, as for all of antiquity, the heart is the
center of the human personality (see SM/Matt 5:8;
6:21).
289 Much more negative is the catalogue of vices in 2 Pet
2:14: "having eyes full of desire for an adulteress"
(o.p6aA.I-'oh ;xovnr 1-'fcrroh 1-'o•xaA.llior); 1 John 2:16:
"the. desire of the eyes" (7) £m6vl-'{a rwv o.p6aAf<wv).
For patristic parallels, see Wilpert, RAG 1.966. Cf.
Eph 1:18: o1 o.p6aAf<Ot riir Kaplilar ("the eyes of the
heart"); Did. 3.3; Hermas Man. 4.1.1-2.
290 See BAGD, s.v. yvv~ 2, with reference to Matt 5:28,
31-32; Johann B. Bauer, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s. v. yvv~;
Klaus Thraede, "Frau," RAG 8 (1972) 197-269, esp.
239-43.
291 So the definition by Kurt Latte, "1-'o•xfla," PW 15
(1932) 2446-49, esp. 2449: "Mo•xda ist der
heimliche geschlechtliche V erkehr mit der freien
Frau ohne Zustimmung ihres K6pwr" ("Adultery is
secret sexual intercourse with the free woman
without consent of her lord"). For the Jewish context,
see the definition in Jeffrey H. Tigay, "Adultery," EJ
2 (1971) 313: "Voluntary sexual intercourse between
a married woman, or one engaged by payment of the
brideprice, and a man other than her husband." See
also Moshe Greenberg, "Crimes and Punishments,"
!DB 1. 733-44, 739-40; Charles A. Taber, IDBSup,
244-45; idem and Robin Scroggs, "Marriage,"
IDBSup, 573-77; Louis M. Epstein, Sex Laws and
Customs in judaism (New York: Blochs, 1948) 194-
215. Similarly Gerhard Delling, "Ehebruch," RAG 4
(1959) 666-77.
292 Mulier is the sexually active woman generally; uxor is
the wife. See OLD, s.v. "mulier." The Latin translation
of the \g betrays the rigorous sexual asceticism of the
ancient church. See for the history of interpretation
Luz, Matthiius, 1.262-64 (Matthew, 1.294-97).
293 See the quotation above, n. 281.
294 For this usage see SM/Matt 6:1; Matt 13:30; 23:5;
26:12; Mark 13:22; 2 Cor 3:13, etc. See BAGD, s.v.
1rp0r, lll.3.a. As the parallels show, the usage is not
exclusively Matthean; cf. Luz, Matthiius, 1.246
(Matthew, 1.293-94).
295 See BAGD, s.v. 1rpor, III.3.b; BAGD (s.v. £m6vl-'iw)
points to the variant reading avriir (M 1f 1 205. 1506
al), while P 64 M* pc Tert Cl Cyr omit the pronoun
altogether, in both cases making clear that the
woman is the object. Cf. Niederwimmer, Askese, 25 n.
60.

233
is adultery. This last interpretation has recently been
defended by Klaus Haacker, 296 who thinks that the
aorist infinitive ht8vp:ijuat describes the reaction of the
woman to the suggestive looks of the man. He translates:
"Whoever looks at a married woman in such a way that
she becomes [or: is meant to become] lustful has already
seduced her in his heart to commit adultery." Although
grammatically possible, this translation loses sight of the
argumentative context requiring an explanation of the
interpretation of the prohibition "You shall not commit
adultery" (vs 27b).
Such a shift in emphasis from the man to the woman,
however, is not warranted by the text. The initial words
"everyone who looks" are directed at the behavior of the
man who takes the initiative. The words thus comprise
the prohibition of Exod 20: 14 itself. There remains the
possibility of the woman's committing adultery on her
own, but this problem is discussed only in the third
antithesis, vss 31-32. Also not raised in vss 27-30 is the
question of the woman's role in the process of seduction,
but this question was unavoidably introduced by the
patristic commentators who were doubtless influenced by
the increasing suspicion of and hostility toward women in
late antiquity. 297
The truly important shift in this redefinition of
adultery is the shift from the physical breaking of the
taboo to the decision of the heart. Adultery is thus
296 Klaus Haacker, "Der Rechtssatzjesu zum Thema
Ehebruch (Mt 5, 28)," BZ 21 (1977) 113-16. His
translation: "Wer eine Ehefrau so ansieht, daB sie
begehrlich wird (oder: werden soli), der hat sie in
seinem Herzen bereits zum Ehebruch verfiihrt" (pp.
114-15). ("He who looks at a woman in a way that
she becomes desiring [or: should become desiring]
has in his heart already seduced her into adultery.")
297 For passages, see Luz, Matthiius, 1.262-64 (Matthew,
1.292-94).
298 For this usage of the term denoting "logical
proximity and immediateness" and approaching "the
sense really" see BAGD, s.v. 7f5TJ, 2.
299 A connection with the concept of the purity of the
heart (see above on SM/Matt 5:8) needs to be made
here.
300 For parallels from judaism, see Wettstein, 1.301-2;
Str-B 1.298-302; Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1.319-
36; Braun, Radikalismus, 2.86 n. 1, 109 n. 6; idem,
Qumran, 1.16; Niederwimmer, Askese, 26-29.
301 Trans. of RSV. The Greek reads: 1ropv<la yvvatKDs £v
p.<nwptup.o'is 3</>lia>..p.wv, Kat £v ro'is {3A.<</>6.pots abrijs
234
committed prior to the physical act, "already" (i/o7J) 298
"in the heart" (lv rfi Kapol{L). 299 This shift also suggests
that if one is to prevent adultery, the course of action
must begin in the heart, the center of human person-
hood, where all decisions on moral and ethical behavior
are made.
As scholars have noted, the psychology of sin
presented in SM/Matt 5:27-28 was well known in first-
century Judaism. 300 To cite just a few characteristic
passages:
Sir 26:9: A wife's harlotry shows in her lustful eyes,
and she is known by her eyelids.30I
Ps. Sol. 4.4-5, of the "profaner": His eyes are on every
woman indiscriminately, ... with his eyes he speaks to
every woman of illicit affairs. 302
T. Iss. 7. 2, in a declaration of innocence: Except my
wife, I have not known any woman. I did not act
impurely by uplifting my eyes. 3 03
T. Iss. 4.4, in speaking about the "man of single-
mindedness" (o a'li'Aovs): And the spirits of deceit have
no power against him. For he does not welcome the
beauty of a woman lest he would pollute his mind with
perversion. 304
Philo holds similar views and explains why women are
excluded from the sports arena, where the athletes strip
themselves naked:
Each sex should turn away from seeing the nakedness
yvwuli~u<rat.
302 Trans. by R. B. Wright, OTP 2.655. The Greek
reads: ol Ocp8aAp.o't. aVroV f'lT', '1Tao-av yvvaLKa llvEv
5tauro>..ijs, ... £v 3</>lia>..p.o'is avrov AaAEl 7r6.uy yvvatK't
-
' uvvrayy KaKtaS.
<V '
303 Trans. according to Hollander and de Jonge. The
Greek reads: 7rA~v rijs yvvatK6s p.ov OVK ;yvwv lf.AATJV'
ovK £1r6pv<vua £v p.<nwpt(J'p.i{J 3</>l!a>..p.wv p.ov. For the
declaration of innocence, see Betz, Essays, 128 n. 14.
304 Kalye ra 1fVE-Dp.ara rijs '1TA&V1JS' oVO~v luxVovut 7rphs
aVrOv. oV yap eTOev E1nDltacr8at K&:AAos Br(AElas, Yva p.~
EV 5taurpo</>fi p.td.vy rhv vovv avrov· See also T. Iss. 3.5;
4.6; T. Benj. 6.2-3; T. Reu. 2.4, together with the
commentary by Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments,
93,241,245,427-28.
 Matthew 5:21-48

of the other and so comply with what nature has
willed. Surely, then, if it is reprehensible for them to
use their sight, their hands are far more guilty. For
the eyes often take liberties and compel us to see what
we do not wish to see. 305
Philo does, however, make a distinction between mere
imagination and execution:
For so long as we only conceive disgraceful actions
with the bare imagination of the mind, so long we are
not guilty of the intent, for the soul may even against
our will move amiss. But when the deeds planned have
also been carried out, the very planning involves guilt,
for the deliberateness of the offence is the chief point
made evident by its execution. 3° 6
These quotations reveal Philo's major concerns: the
avoidance of situations that stimulate evil desires and
pleasures (~Sovat}, and the legal distinction between
imagination, intent, or planning, and execution; of these,
only the last two are subject to punishment, while the
first can be controlled by the soul-provided the soul is
sufficiently equipped. 30 7
The whole complex of ideas thus far considered
consists of traditions and topoi common in the Hel-
lenistic world. In Jewish literature, they are evidenced in
wisdom, narratives, and paraenesis, sometimes
influenced by Greek popular philosophy. Since there
seem to be no systematic organization or patterns
attributable to schools of thought, one must conclude
that these ideas concerning the psychology of sin were
fairly common in the Jewish thought of the first century
and that learned debates would draw on them. Rabbinic
literature shows that the whole complex of thought
passed into rabbinic theology, often attached to the
interpretation of Job 24: 15; 308 and while certainly not all
rabbis agreed, an impressive part of the tradition held
that the common label "adulterer" should apply not only
to those who engage in the physical act of intercourse but
also to those who desire with their eyes and hearts. 309
Scholars have undeniably been correct in maintaining
that SM/Matt 5:28 remains essentially within the
framework of Jewish theology. 310 This conclusion,
however, is of some concern to those who believe that
they must fine! points indicative of Jesus' originality. Such
attempts generally presuppose that the passage as a
whole is based on, or at least a reflection of, the theology
of the historical Jesus. 311 The intention of the SM,

305 Philo Spec. leg. 3.177-78, trans. F. H. Colson. parallels.

306 Philo Det. pot. ins. 97, trans. F. H. Colson and G. H.
Whittaker. For similar rabbinic doctrines, see Str-B
1.301-2.
307 Philo's interpretation of the prohibition is interesting
for comparison; he presents it at length in Decal.
121-31, in short sketches in Decal. 168-69, and in
Spec. leg. 3.8. According to him, the prohibition
against adultery stands at the head of the second set
of five commandments, containing the duties toward
one's fellow man. The source of adultery is "love of
pleasure" (</>•A.'r/aovla [Decal. 122]); the extreme
severity of the crime is explained by the psychological
and social damages resulting from it: partnership
between the man and the woman in crime,
destruction and bastardization of at least three
families, danger to the state, suffering of illegitimate
childr:en, and, above all, the situation of the woman
who must bear all the consequences. On Philo's
doctrine of sin in general, see Max Freudenthal, Die
Erkenntnislehre Philos (Berlin: Calvary, 1891) 63-75;
Helmut Schmidt, Die Anthropologie Philons von
Alexandreia (Wiirzburg: Triltsch, 1933); David T.
Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the "Timaeus" ofPlato
(Akademisch Proefschrift; Amsterdam: VU
Boekhandel, 1983) 1.259-61.
308 Str-B 1.298-302 provides a valuable collection of
309 For the expansion of the concept and the inclusion of
"seducers and pederasty, ... dissolute living and
indulgence in lawless and licentious forms of
intercourse," see Philo Decal. 168. Similarly Ps.-
Phocyl. Sent. 3: "Neither commit adultery nor rouse
homosexual passion"; and 175-206, esp. 179-83
(trans. Pieter W. van der Horst, OTP 2.574, 580-81).
310 So rightly Percy, Botschaft, 143-44; Braun,
Radikalismus, 2.7 n. 2 (section 6), 5 n. 2, 27 n. 8, 86
n. 1, 109; Guelich, Sermon, 193 (cf., however, 194);
Strecker, Bergpredigt, 74 (Sermon, 71); Luz, Matthaus,
1.265 (Matthew, 1.295-96).
311 See esp. Lohmeyer (Matthaus, 127-28), who believes
that Jesus turned into an unconditional law what the
Jewish sayings tradition attributed only to the
especially pious. Similarly Niederwimmer (Askese,
29): because of Jesus' eschatology, Jesus transformed
the "moral maxim" that he took from Jewish
tradition into "an unconditional law binding for all,
to be fulfilled at once and completely. The motive of
Jesus is, in the final analysis, different from the Jewish
tradition in that the conflict between libido and law is
sharpened up drastically and that the radicalism is
carried to the extreme." Guelich (Sermon, 194) wants
to distinguish between the meaning of "heart" in the
Jewish sources and in the SM. Strecker (Bergpredigt,

235
however, is apologetic. If one assumes that the substance
of the discussion reflects the teaching of the historical
Jesus, the purpose of the argument is to show that this
teaching can be accounted for in a meaningful way
within the Judaic frame ofthought. 31 2
• 29 The argument demonstrating the validity of the
interpretation set forth in vs 28 rests on two examples,
one concerning the eye (vs 29) and one concerning the
hand (vs 30). The parallels in Matt 18:8-9 and Mark
9:43-48 show that the examples were drawn from the
sayings tradition and that they originally had nothing to
do with vss 27-28 and their topic. 313 What type of
examples do we have here? How are the examples
connected to vss 27-28? How do they make their point?
Formally, vss 29-30 are carefully composed as an
isocolon, 314 consisting of two parallel sententiae and
forming a case of interpretation. 315 The ideas, images,
and functions belong to the category of hyperbole. 316 Also
the tva-clauses in vss 29c and 30c contain an isocolon in
chiastic order. 31 7
The first example, focusing on the eye, one's most
precious organ, presents a hypothetical situation (vs 29a):
"If, then, your right eye gives you trouble" (£lll€ o
ocp8aA.p..o~ O"OV 0 O€tto~ O"KavllaA.l(u 0"€). 318 The example
begins at the level of physiological or medical analogy, in
order then to turn to metaphorical application. We are
asked to imagine what appears to be a medical emer-
gency: the eye giving trouble. Then the right eye, which
normally functions properly, suddenly becomes a source
of moral offense. 319 The term uKavllaA.l(w 320 is used here
in a more general sense: the eye has become a "trap"
(uKavllaA.ov) entangling its owner in sin. The ambiguous
term here is certainly suggestive, since the reader at once
determines the nature of the trouble, namely, the seeing
that causes the adultery.
What is one to do? What is the "cure"? The recom-
mended remedy seems absurd (vs 29b): "Pluck it out and
throw it from you" (lt€A€ avTOV Kat {3aA.€ a?TO uov). On the
ordinary plane, the remedy constitutes radical self-
mutilation.
What is behind such a radical remedy? In vs 29c, a
statement of utility in the form of a filb-saying 321 tells us:
"For it is beneficial to you that one of your members gets
lost but not your whole body is thrown into Gehenna"
(uvp..cp€pu yap uot Yva a?TOA"T/Tat ~v Tc;>V p..€A.wv uov Kat p..~
8A.ov TO uwp..a O"OV f1A.118fi d~ y€£vvav). 322 Indeed, the

7 4 [Sermon, 71-72]) speaks of the eschatological law
of the kingdom of God that Jesus erected in contrast
to the law of Moses and that challenges the human
person totally. All these attempts appear forced and,
where they admit the Jewish parallels, self-
contradictory.
312 Contra Niederwimmer (Askese, 26-27): "The thought
contained in the saying is completely alien to any
rational ethics. Contemporary Judaism, however, was
quite familiar with the idea" ("Der im Logion
ausgesprochene Gedanke ist fur jede rationale Ethik
im hochsten Masse befremdlich. Dem zeitgenos-
sischenJudentum ist der Gedanke aber durchaus
vertraut"). If both these presuppositions were correct
(and I do not believe they are), the alleged radicalism
ofJesus would consist in his extreme irrationalism,
going beyond "normal" irrationalism in Judaism
generally. Consistent with his position is Nieder-
wimmer's polemic against those who admit
Hellenistic philosophical influences (ibid., 29 n. 81,
32-33).
313 So rightly Bultmann, History, 148, 311-12, 324;
Braun, Radikalismus, 2.109 n. 7; Luz (Matthiius,
1.261-62 [Matthew, 1.291-92]), who also discusses
the possible origin in Q. The double tradition of the
saying in Matthew is evidence that the author
received two different sources containing the saying
in variant forms, to which Mark 9:43-48 and Justin
Apol. 1.15.2 must be added as further variants. This
makes it probable that Matt 5:29-30 was combined
already with 5:27-28 in the SM. A witness to this is
also Justin. Whether he knew Matthew's Gospel as a
whole or not, he has the two parts together (see the
text in Aland, Synopsis, 81 ). See also Guelich, Sermon,
194-95, with further references.
314 On this figure of speech, see BDF, § 485; BDR, §
485; Lausberg, Elemente, §§ 336-62.
315 See Lausberg, Elemente, § 343.
316 So Eduard Konig, Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik in bezug auf
die biblische Litteratur (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1900) 77.
317 The last three words are a chiasm: f3>.118fi flr
ytfvvav/dr ytfvvav iinb..ev. Note also the assonance
of the iincl>.7Jra• at the beginning of the Yva-clause in
vs 29c and the iiniMv at the end of vs 30c.
318 The variant readings of word order and structure
evidenced especially by D appear to be the result of
tampering with the text. See Nestle-Aland, and
Aland, Synopsis, ad Joe.
319 cr. the similar problems regarding the eye in
SM/Matt 6:22-23; 7:3-5.
320 On this term see BAGD, s. v. uKavoaAi(w, 1.a; Gustav
St:ahlin, "uKavoa>.i(w," TDNT 7 .339-58; ThWNT
10/2 ( 1979) 1265 (bibliography); Heinz Giesen,
EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. uKavoa>.i(w, with bibliography.

236
 Matthew 5:21-48

question involves a choice of the lesser of two evils: losing
as precious an organ as one's right323 eye is bad enough,
but to sacrifice it in order to save the whole body is
nonetheless a prudent move. Introduced by the
formulaic phrase "it is beneficial to you" (crvp.cp€p£L y6.p
crot), the saying may well utilize an analogy from
medicine. Every surgical measure involves the sacrifice of
a smaller organ, however valuable, for the benefit of the
whole body and its survival. The terms and images,
however, remain ambiguous, and probably intentionally
so.324
The latter part of the sentence then transfers the
whole idea to the level of eschatology, contrasting the
throwing away of one member by its owner to the whole
body being thrown into the Gehenna to suffer without
escape. 325 A conclusion of the type a minori ad maius 326
is implied: if the choice makes sense in this-worldly
terms, 327 how much more so in view of the threat of
eternal condemnation.
• 30 The second example concerns the right hand and
parallels vs 29 in both form and meaning. 3 2 8 First, a
hypothetical situation is presented (vs 29a): "And if your
right hand gives you trouble" (Kat t:1 ~ o£b6. crov X£tp
crKavoa>..l(£t cr£). 329 In antiquity, the right hand 330 was
often highly valued because it was seen as primarily
responsible for the progress of humanity throughout
civilization. 331 Yet, the imagined situation presumes that
the normal beneficial function of the hand ceases and the
organ subsequently becomes a source of trouble. 33 2 As

321 On this form of saying, see Graydon F. Snyder ("The
Tobspruch in the New Testament," NTS 23 [1976]
117-20), who refers to Matt 5:29, 30 (p. 119). Other
sayings using this form beginning with uvp.<J>ep<t
occur in vs 30; Matt 18:6; cf. 19:10;John 11:50;
18:14; cf. 1 Cor 6:12; 10:23.
322 D 700mg it sy•·c (mae) bo read a1rb,8n instead of
j3>.:TJ8fi; some may do this because they omit vs 30
altogether, perhaps regarding it as redundant.
323 The right side is the good side, according to many
ancient writers. See Wettstein, 1.302; BAGD, s.v.
a,~,,)~, 1, with parallels and literature; Walter
Grundmann, "a,~,.S~," TDNT 2.37-40; ThWNT 10/2
(1979) 1037; Peter von der Osten-Sacken, EWNT
(EDNT) 1, s.v. a.~,.J~; Betz, Lukian, 38 n. 6. For the
importance of the right eye in divination, see Diels-
Kranz, 87 B 81A (II, 368, 25-30). See also below, n.
330.
324 The use of the term <h.\ov~ in SM/Matt 6:22-23 is
similarly ambiguous. See also Betz, Essays, 85-86.
325 See also the eschatological threat of Gehenna in
SM/Matt 5:22.
326 For this type of conclusion, see below, p. 506 n. 640.
327 Cf.Josephus (Ant. 6.69-71), who reports a
punishment for captured warriors: cutting out their
right eyes makes them useless as soldiers because
their left eyes would be covered by the buckles. For
cutting out the eyes as punishment, see Deut 16: 14;
Judg 16:21; 1 Sam 11:2. For a different reason to
pluck out one's eyes, see Gal 4:15 and the inter-
pretation by Betz, Galatians, 227-38.
328 For the structure of the saying, see above on vs 29.
329 The entire vs 30 is omitted by D pc vgm• sy bom•; a
different word order is found in (0}/13 : ~ x<lp uov ~
a.~.o.. probably a harmonization with vs 29a.
330 The right hand is the good hand, which blesses,
concludes agreements, etc.; its power may be
enhanced by magic. See, e.g., Gen 48:12, 14, 17; Ps
73:23; 110:1;Jer 22:24; Ezek 17:18; Matt 27:29;
Acts 3:7; Gal2:9; Rev 1:16, 17; 10:5; 13:16. See also
Betz, Galatians, 100.
331 A large amount of material, both primary sources
and secondary works, is devoted to the investigation
of the human hand in cultural history. For treatment
and collections ofthe evidence see Walter Spoerri,
Spiithellenistische Berichte ilber Welt, Kultur und Cotter
(SBA 9; Basel: Reinhardt, 1959) 148-52; Kenneth
Grayston, "The Significance of the Word Hand in the
New Testament," in Melanges bibliques en hom mage de
P. Beda Rigaux (Gembloux: Duculot, 1970) 479-87;
Karl Grofi, "Lob der Hand im klassischen und
christlichen Altertum," Gymnasium 83 (1976) 423-
40;Jan Bergman, Wolfram von Soden, and Peter
Ackroyd, ·~:jad," ThWAT 3.421-55 (TDOT 5.393-
426); Eduard Lohse, "x<lp," TDNT 9.424-37;
ThWNT 10/2.1291; Walter Radl, EWNT (EDNT) 3,
s.v. x<lp. On the whole topic, see the monumental
work by Karl Grofi, Menschenhand und Gotteshand in
Antike und Christentum (ed. Wolfgang Speyer;
Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1986); furthermore,
Lieselotte Kotzsche, "Hand II (ikonographisch),"
RAC 13 (1985) 402-82.
332 The trouble is not caused by a disease as in the Lukan
story of the man with the withered hand, Luke 6:6.

237
the term uKavoaA.l(w indicates, 333 the organ "lends a
hand," as it were, to the commission of sin. 334 What the
specific sin is we are not told directly, but the context of
seduction and adultery suggests that the hand plays a
role in these. 335
What is the remedy? Once again the recommendation
is self-mutilation: "cut it off and throw it from you"
(f'KKOI[Iov aVTTJV KaL {3aAf. a?Th uov). 336 As in vs 29c, the
reason for this absurd remedy 337 is given in the form of a
tob- saying (vs 30): "for it is beneficial to you that one of
your members gets lost but not your whole body passes
into Gehenna" (uvp.c/J,Pf.L yap ITOL Yva a?TOA7]TaL ~v TWV
P,f.AWV ITOV KaL P.h CJAov TO uwp.a ITOV ds Y'f.Vvav a?TfA8?J). 338
How do these examples in vss 29-30 demonstrate that
vs 28 makes a valid point? What do the right eye and the
right hand have to do with adultery? The parallels in
Matt 18:8-9 339 and Mark 9:43-48 340 indicate that the
examples were originally not connected with vss 27-28
and that, most probably, the connection was made prior
to Matthew in the tradition. 341 That tradition appears to
be more specifically the SM itself and not Q. 342 Thus the
reason for adducing the examples was given already with
the sayings tradition. This assumption is confirmed by
parallels from Hellenistic 343 and rabbinic 344 literature,
where exaggerated demands to cut off limbs from the
body as a sign of seriousness about morality were
commonplace.
In rabbinic literature, b. Nid. 2.1, p. 13b is concerned
with the role of the hand in masturbation, called
"adultery by the hand." In this passage, sayings

333 For the meaning see above, n. 320.
334 For the hand as an instrument ofsin, see Gen 16:12;
1 Kgs 16:7; 2 Kgs 22:17; Pss 9:16; 28:4; Prov 17:16;
Isa 2:8; Wis 1:12; Sir 2:12. For Qumran parallels, see
Braun, Radikalismus, 1.39 n. 5, 62 nn. 3-5, 131 n. 6,
2.109 n. 7; Str-B 1.302-3.
335 In Semitic languages the hand can be a euphemism
for the penis; for passages and bibliography, see
ThWAT 3.429-30 (TDOT 5.399-400); there is no
indication, however, that this Semitic idiom lies
behind vs 30. See also Braun, Radikalismus, 1.40, on
1QS7.13.
336 W L.l. read the simplex KOo/ov.
3 3 7 It is not meant to be a punishment as in Deut 2 5: 11-
12; 1 Sam 5:5; 2 Sam 4:12; 2 Kgs 9:35; 1 Mace 7:47.
See]. Duncan M. Derrett, "Law in the NT: Si
scandalizaverit te manus tua abscinde illam (Mk. IX 42)
and Comparative Legal History," in his Studies in the
NT,l.4-31.
338 M* mae read~ instead of Kat p.~. L W 0 jl 3 1006.
1342. 1506. 9ltfvgms sy(p).h sa change the word order
to harmonize it with vs 29c.
339 The sayings composition Mark 9:42-50//Matt
18:6-9 is a warning against offending (uKavaa)l.{(w)
"one of these little ones who believe in me." There is
no connection with adultery. See Helmut Koester,
"Mark 9:43-47 and Quintilian 8.3.75," HTR 71
(1978) 151-53.
340 Mark 9:43-45 has three examples: the hand, the
foot, and the eye. Matthew seems to represent
another tradition, rather than being simply a result
of Matthew's redaction of Mark. Also, Matthew's
tradition seems to be in continuity with the SM.
341 So Bultmann, History, 149; Manson, Sayings, 157;
Lohmeyer, Matthiius, 101; Braun, Radikalisinus,
2.109 n. 7; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 65-66; Hubner,
Gesetz, 68-71; Strecker, "Antithesen," 52; idem,
Bergpredigt, 74-75 (Sermon, 72); Guelich, Sermon,
195; Luz,Matthiius, 1.261 (Matthew, 1.291-92). For
other solutions, see Klostermann, Matthiius-
evangelium, 45; Kilpatrick, Origins, 18-19; Dupont,
Beatitudes, 1.121-23.
342 The saying does not seem to have been part of Q. On
this point see Luz, Matthiius, 1.261 n. 4 (Matthew,
1.292 n. 4); differently Stahlin, TDNT 7.352 n. 72.
343 Collections of parallels from ancient literature are to
be found in Wettstein, 1.302-3; Tholuck, Bergrede,
221-27; Heinrici, Bergpredigt 2.39-41; Hommel,
"Herrenworte," Sebasmata, 2.56-58, 67; cf. 39-40;
Luz, Matthiius, 1.266-67 (Matthew, 1.297-98). The
most important parallels are Xenophon Mem.
1.2.51-55; Plato Symp. 205e; Aristotle Eth. Eud. 71,
1235a; Plutarch De virt. mor. 5, 444C; De frat. am. 7,
481C; De cup. div. 3, 524D (seePECL 2.160, 215,
245, 329); Epictetus Diss. 4.7.7.; Philo Spec. leg. 3.179
(see below, n. 347); Sextus Sent. 13 (see below, n.
348); Seneca Ep. 51.13; Ovid Ex Ponto 4.14.17-18;
Heliodorus Aeth 2.16.1-4. The tradition seems to be
steady in Pythagoreanism (see Iamblichus De vita
Pyth. 7.34; 31.187), as was pointed out by Johannes
Schattenmann, "Jesus und Pythagoras," Kairos 21
(1 979) 215-20. Regarding the goal as being "self-
control" (uw<J>pouvv7J), lamblichus (Pythagoras?)
agrees with Justin Apol. 1.15.1, in his introduction to
the passage on adultery (for the text see Aland,
Synopsis, 81 ). See furthermore, Athenagoras Suppl.
32; Theophilus Ad Auto[. 3.13; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 11.32;
Rec. 6.13; 7.37.
344 For a collection of rabbinic parallels, see Str-B
1.302-3.

238
 Matthew 5:21-48

remarkably similar to the SM are found, such as "it is
preferable that his belly shall be split rather than that he
should go down into the pit of destruction. " 345 The
similarity involves both the form of the fob-saying and the
hyperbolic manner of speech. Was the demand meant
literally? 346 The rabbis have apparently discussed the
question whether the command to cut off the hand
should be taken literally as a punishment or as an
execration. The ambiguity was not resolved, perhaps for
paraenetical reasons, but the examples given in b. Nid.
2.1 and b. Sabb. 108b speak in favor of the execration. 347
I conclude, then, that the recommendations to pluck out
the eye and to cut off the hand (vss 29b, 30b) are
hyperbolic speech, not orders to perform real acts of self-
mutilation; yet the continued ambiguity is not resolved.
Therefore, the examples function as warnings in view of
the eschatological consequences of the sin of adultery. 348
The warnings must not be confused with the ethical
demand itself, however, as if the hyperbole directly
expresses ethical radicalism. 349 Rather, the demand itself
is not stated but must be inferred by the reader.
What, then, is the intention of the prohibition of the
Decalogue against adultery? What is Jesus' interpretation
actually demanding? As we have seen, adultery leads to
the disruption of family relations. It begins with the
man's desirous look at another man's wife. Prevention
must begin at the same point: 350 gaining control over the
whole psychological erotic process from the heart to the
eye to the physical act is the substance of the ethical
demand. My study indicates that the SM is here in
substantial agreement with other passages in the New
Testament concerning the ethical life of the Christian
family, maintaining that restraint, even asceticism, is the
best way to fulfill the divine commandment in this
point. 351 Considering the overall framework of the
antitheses, the point should be clear: avoidance of
adultery is a special application of the love-command,
"Love your neighbor as yourself."

345 b. Nid. 13b, translated by I. Epstein, The Babylonian
Talmud. Seder Tohoroth, vol. 1: Niddah (London:
Soncino, 1948), p. 89.
346 Stahlin (TDNT 3.852-53, 859-60; 7.351-52) takes
the sayings literally and speaks of a propitiatory self-
punishment to avoid eschatological punish~ent and
gain entrance to eternal life. This interpretation
could be supported by sayings such as Mark 8:34-37
par. and Matt 19:12. Similarly Gundry, Matthew, 88:
"Jesus was not speaking hyperbolically"; he meant
"radical self-discipline." Differently Friedrich Horst,
TDNT 4.559-61.
347 So also Philo, who in Spec. leg. 3.169-80 discusses the
woman's place in society and the understanding of
the law to cut off the hand (Deut 25:11-12). In
section 179, Philo sums up: "Naturally therefore we
are commanded in a symbol [uvp.{3oAtKw~ J to cut off
the hand ... , not ... meaning that the body should
be mutilated by the loss of a most essential member,
but to bid us exscind from the soul the godless
thoughts" (trans. F. H. Colson). See also Som. 2.68-
69 for a similar statement; furthermore Det. pot. ins.
175 ..
348 Cf. Sextus Sent. 12-14: "It is neither eye nor hand
nor any such thing that sins, but he who misuses hand
and eye. Cast away any part of the body which leads
you to intemperance; for it is better to live tem-
perately without it than to perish whole. Consider
that at the judgment both your rewards and your
punishments will be eternal." There is no indication
that this philosophical version of the sayings is
textually dependent on Matt 5:29-30. Differently
Henry Chadwick, The Sentences ofSextus (Cambridge:
Cambridge University, 1959) 12-13; Hommel,
"Herrenworte," Sebasmata 2.58. See also the critical
apparatus in the edition by Edwards and Wild,
Sentences of Sextus, p. 16, whose translation is given
above.
349 Differently Strecker, Bergpredigt, 75 (Sermon, 72): "It
is an unconditional demand for a decision that has
radical consequences" ("Eine unbedingte Ent-
scheidungsforderung, die zu radikalen Kon-
sequenzen ruft"). Similarly Niederwimmer, Askese,
31-33; Niederwimmer, however, connects the
passage with Rom 7:7-25, thinking that Matt 5:27-
30 reflects an experience of self-alienation and the
beginning of the Christian struggle against
concupiscence (32-33): "Its goal is not the (always
merely relative) repair of the moral life but the
disclosure of the eschatological demand; not the
successive acts of struggle but the definitive victory
over self-alienation" ("Das Ziel ist nicht die [immer
nur relative J Ausbesserung der moralischen Existenz,
sondern die Aufdeckung des eschatologischen
Anspruchs, nicht die sukzessive Bekampfung,
sondern die definitive Oberwindung der Selbstent-
fremdung").
350 Cf. Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 18: "Remove sight, association
and contact, and the passion of love is at an end."
Related also is section 71: "Every desire must be
confronted with this question: what will happen to
me, if the object of my desire is accomplished and
what if it is not?"
351 See also the third antithesis, below (vss 31-32);

239
c. The Third Antithesis: Divorce (Matt 5:31-32)
Bibliography
Isaac Abrahams, "Jewish Divorce in the First Century,"
in his Studies, 1.66-78.
David Werner Amram, The jewish Law ofDivorce
according to the Bible and Talmud (Philadelphia:
Stern, 1896).
Heinrich Baltensweiler, "Die Ehebruchsklauseln bei
Matthaus: Zu Matth. 5,32; 19,9," TZ 15 (1959)
340-56.
1dem,Ehe.
Banks, jesus and the Law, 191-93.
Johannes B. Bauer, "De conjugali foedere quid edixerit
Matthaeus? (Mt 5, 3ls; 19, 3-9)," VD 44 (1966):
7 4-78; reprinted in Opuscula Latina quibus
Bibliorum sacrorum apocryphorumque loci et Patrum
sententiae exponuntur (Graz: 1nstitut fur oku-
menische Theologie, 1979) 56-60.
Idem, "Bemerkungen zu den matthaischen Unzuchts-
klauseln (Mt 5,32; 19,9)," in Josef Zmijewski and
Ernst Nellessen, eds., Begegnung mit dem Wort: FS for
Heinrich Zimmermann (BBB 53; Bonn: Hanstein,
1980) 23-33.
Berger, Gesetz.esauslegung, 1.508-75.
Ludwig Blau, Die judische Ehescheidung und der jildische
Scheidebrief Eine historische Untersuchung (2 parts;
Strasbourg: Triibner, 1911-12).
Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, "Matthew 5:32; 19:9 in the
Light of Pre-Rabbinic Halakhah," NTS 35 (1989)
291-95.
Joseph Bonsirven, Le divorce dans le Nouveau Testament
(Paris: Societe de S.Jean l'Evangeliste; Desclee,
1948).
Gunther Bornkamm, "Ehescheidung und Wieder-
verheiratung im Neuen Testament," in his
Geschichte und Glaube 1; Gesammelte Aufsatz.e 3.56-
69.
George H. Box and Charles Gore, Divorce in the New
Testament: A Reply to Dr. Charles (London: SPCK,
1921).
Braun, Radikalismus, 2.89-90, 108-14.
David R. Catchpole, "Synoptic Divorce Material as a
Traditio-Historical Problem," BJRL 57 (1974-75)
92-127.
Aloys Cigoi, Die Unaujloslichkeit der christlichen Ehe und
die Ehescheidung nach Schrift und Tradition: Eine
historisch-kritische Erorterung von der apostolischen Zeit
bis auf die Gegenwart (Paderborn: Schoningh, 1895).
Boaz Cohen, "Concerning Divorce in Jewish and
Roman Law," Proceedings of tbe American Academy of
furthermore Mark 7:22//Matt 15:19; Mark
10:19//Matt 19:18//Luke 18:20; Luke 18:11;
Rom 2:22; 13:9; 1 Cor 6:9; Jas 2:11; Heb 13:4. One
240
Jewish Research 21 (1952) 3-34; reprinted in his
jewish and Roman Law, 1.377-408.
J. F. Collange, De Jesus a Paul: L'ethique du Nouveau
Testament (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1980) 266-7 4.
Crossan, In Fragments, 205-13.
Henri Crouzel, L'Eglise primitive face au divorce: Du
premier au cinquieme siilcle (Theologie historique 13;
Paris: Beauchesne, 1971).
Idem, "Le texte patristique de Matthieu V.32 et
XIX.9," NTS 19 (1972) 98-119.
Idem, "Le canon du concile d' Aries de 314 sur le
remariage apres divorce," RSR 61 (1973) 353-62.
Idem, "A propos du Concile d'Arles: Faut-il mettre non
avant prohibentur nubere dans le canon 11 (ou 10) du
Concile d' Aries de 314 sur le remariage apres
divorce," BLE 75 (1974) 25-40.
Idem, "Le remariage apres separation pour adultere
selon les Peres latins," BLE 75 (1974) 189-204.
Samuel Daiches, Divorce in Jewish Law (London: Society
for Jewish Jurisprudence, 1926); reprinted in his
Essays and Addresses (ed. Maurice Simon and Isaac
Levy; Newport, Mon. [Great Britain]: R. H. Johns,
1955) 84-96.
David Daube, "Divorce," in his NT and Rabbinic
judaism, 71-86.
Idem, "Terms for Divorce," in his NT and Rabbinic
judaism, 362-72.
Idem, "Concessions to Sinfulness in Jewish Law," JJS
10 (1959) 1-13.
Jean Daubillier, "L'indissolubilite du mariage dans Ia
Nouvelle Loi," L'Orient Syrien 9 (1964) 265-90.
Gerhard Delling, "Das Logion Markus 10,11 und seine
Abwandlungen im NT," NovT 1 (1956) 263-74;
reprinted in his Studien zum NT und zum hel-
lenistischen judentum, 226-35.
Idem, "Ehescheidung," RAC 4 (1959) 707-19.
Francesco Delpini, Indissolubilita matrimoniale e divorzio
dal I al XII secolo (Archivio Ambrosiano 37; Milan:
Nuove edizione Duomo, 1979).
J. Duncan M. Derrett, "The Teaching of Jesus on
Marriage and Divorce," in his Law in the New
Testament (London: Darton, Longman & Todd,
1970) 363-88.
A. M. Dubarle, "Mariage et divorce dans l'Evangile,"
L'Orient Syrien 9 (1964) 61-73.
David Dungan, The Sayings ofjesus in the Churches of
Paul: The Use of the Synoptic Tradition in the
Regulation of Early Church Lift (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1971).
P. J. Du Plessis, "The Ethics of Marriage according to
Matth. 5, 27-32," Neot. 1 (1967) 16-27.
may also compare the story of the woman caught in
adultery Qohn 7:53-8:11) with the ethics of the SM
at this point.

Jacques Dupont, Mariage et divorce dans l'Evangile:
Matthieu 19, 3-12 et paralleles (Bruges: Abbay de
Saint-Andre, 1959). ·
Louis M. Epstein, The jewish Marriage Contract: A Study
of the Status of the Woman in Jewish Law (New York:
Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1927).
Idem, Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud
(Harvard Semitic Studies 12; Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University, 1942).
Idem, Sex Laws and Customs in judaism (New York:
Bloch, 1948).
Walter Erdmann, Die Ehe im alten Griechenland (MBPF
20; Munich: Beck, 1934) 384-409.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Matthean Divorce Texts and
Some New Palestinian Evidence," Theological Studies
37 (1976) 197-226.
Idem, "Divorce among First-Century Palestinian Jews,"
Erlsr 14 (1978) 103*-110*.
Anton Fridrichsen, "Excepta fornication is causa," SEA 9
(1944) 54-58.
Heinrich Greeven, "Zu den Aussagen des Neuen
TestamentsiiberdieEhe," ZEE 1 (1957) 109-25.
Idem, "Ehe nach dem NT," NTS 15 (1968/69) 365-
88.
Klaus Haacker, "Ehescheidung und Wieder-
verheiratung im Neuen Testament," ThQ 151
(1971) 28-38.
Pat Edwin Harrell, Divorce and Remarriage in the Early
Church: A History ofDivorce and Remarriage in the
Ante-Nicene Church (Austin, Tex.: Sweet, 1967).
Wilfrid]. Harrington, "Jesus' Attitude Towards
Divorce," Irish Theological Quarterly 37 (1970) 199-
209.
Idem, "The New Testament and Divorce," ibid., 39
(1972) 178-87.
William A. Heth and G. J. Wenham, jesus and Divorce
(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1984).
Paul Hoffmann, "Jesus' Saying About Divorce and Its
Interpretation in the New Testament Tradition,"
Concilium 55 (1970) 51-66.
Constantin Hohenlohe-Schillingsfurst, Einjluss des
Christentums auf das Corpus Juris Civilis: Eine
rechtsgeschichtliche Studie zum Verstiindnis der sozialen
Frage (Vienna: Holder, Pichler, Tempsky, 1937)
160-62.
Michael W. Holmes, "The Text of the Matthean
Divorce Passages: A Comment on the Appeal to
Harmonization in Textual Decisions," JBL 109
(1990) 651-64.
U. Holzmeister, "Die Streitfrage tiber die Ehescheid-
ungstexte bei Mt 5, 32; 19, 9," Bib 26 (1945) 133-
46.
Hubner, Gesetz, 68-81.
Stawros G. Huwardas, Beitriige zum griechischen und
griikoiigyptischen Eherecht der Ptolemiier- und frilhen
Matthew 5:21-48
Kaiserzeit (Leipziger rechtswissenschaftliche Studien
64; Leipzig: Weicher, 1931).
Abel Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple
(ASNU 24; Lund: Gleerup, 1965).
jewish Law Annual, vol. 4 (1981): "The Wife's Right to
Divorce."
Sherman R. Johnson, jesus' Teaching on Divorce (New
York: General Convention of the Episcopal
Church: Joint Commission on Holy Matrimony,
1945).
Max Kaser, Das romische Privatrecht (HKA W 3. 3.1; 2d
ed.; Munich: Beck, 1971), 81-83 (§ 19).
John]. Kilgallen, "To What Are Matthean Exception-
Texts (5, 32 and 19, 9) an Exception?" Bib 61
(1980) I02-5.
Walter Kornfeld, "Mariage, I. Dans I' AT," DBSup 5
(1957) 906-26.
Bernhard Kotting, "Digamus," RAG 3 (1957) 1016-24.
Laufen, Doppelilberlieferungen, 343-60, 573-94.
Rudolf Leonhard, "Divortium," PW, 9th half-volume
(1903) 1241-45.
Ernst Levy, Der Hergang der romischen Ehescheidung
(Weimar: Bohlau, 1925).
Justus Hermann Lipsius, Das attische Recht und
Rechtsverjahren (3 vols.; Leipzig: Reisland, 1903,
1908, 1915; reprinted in 1 vol., Hildesheim: Olms,
1984).
Benno Lohmann, "Das EhescheidungsverbotJesu im
Hinblick auf die Eheauffassung in der orien-
talischen und Iateinischen Kirche," Erfurter
Theologische Studien 37 (1977) 673-89.
Gerhard Lohfink, "Jesus und die Ehescheidung: Zur
Gattung und Sprachintention von Mt 5,32," in
Helmut Merklein and Joachim Lange, eds., Biblische
Randbemerkungen: Schillerfestschrift fur Rudolf
Schnackenburg (2d ed.; Wiirzburg: Echter, 197 4)
207-17.
Evald Lovestam, "AIIOA YEIN-en gammalpales-
tinensisk skilsmassoterm," SEA 27 (1962) 132-35.
Idem, "Divorce and Remarriage in the New Testa-
ment," jewish Law Annual11 (1981) 47-65.
Aidan Mahoney, "A New Look at the Divorce Clauses
in Mt 5:32 and 19:9," CBQ 30 (1968) 29-38.
Manson, Sayings, 136-38.
Corrado Marucci, Parole di Gesil sul divorzio: Richerche
scritturistiche previe ad un ripensamento teologico,
canonistico e pastorale della dottrina cattolica dell'
indissolubilita de matrimonio (Aioisiana 16; Brescia:
Morcelliana, 1982).
Meier, Law and History, 140-50.
Moses Mielziner, The jewish Law ofMarriage and Divorce
in Ancient and Modern Times (Cincinnati: Bloch,
1884).
Joseph Moingt, "Le divorce 'pour motif d'impudicite'
(Matthieu 5, 32; 19, 9)," RSR 56 (1968) 337-84.
241
Idem, "Le mariage des Chretiens," RSR 62 (1974) 81-
116.
Francis]. Moloney, "Matthew 19,3-12 and Celibacy:
A Redactional and Form Critical Study," JSNT 2
(1979) 42-60.
James R. Mueller, "The Temple Scroll and the Gospel
Divorce Texts," RroQ 10, no. 38 (1980) 247-56.
Andre Myre, "Dix ans d'exegese sur le divorce dans Ie
NT," in Le Divorce: L'Eglise catholique ne drorait-elle
pas modifier son attitude seculaire al'egard de
l'indissolubilite du mariage? (Montreal: Fides, 1973)
139-63.
Pierre Nautin, "Divorce et remariage dans Ia tradition
de I'eglise Iatine," RSR 62 (1974) 7-54.
Ulrich Nembach, "Ehescheidung nach alttesta-
mentlichem undjudischem Recht," TZ 26 (1970)
161-71.
Paul Nepper-Christensen, "Utugsklausulen ogjosefi
Matthaeusevangeliet," SEA 34 ( 1969) 122-46.
Reinhard Neudecker, Frilhjudisches Ehescheidungsrecht:
Der Tosefta-Traktat Gittin (BibOr 39; Rome: Biblical
Institute, 1982).
Idem, "The Sermon on the Mount as a Witness to
'Inculturation': The First Two Antithetical Cases
(Mt 5, 21-32)," in P. Beauchamp et al. eds.,
Inculturation: Working Papers on Living Faith and
Cultures (Rome, 1982) 73-89.
Alfred Niebergall, Ehe und Eheschlie6ung in der Bibel
und in der Geschichte der alten Kirche (ed. A. M.
Ritter; MaTS 18; Marburg: Elwert, 1985).
Niederwimmer, Askese.
Viggo Norskov Olsen, The New Testament Logia on
Divorce: A Study of Their Interpretation from Erasmus to
Milton (BGBE 10; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1971).
Anton Ott, Die Auslegung der neutestamentlichen Texte
ilber die Ehescheidung, historisch-kritisch dargestellt
(NTA 3.1-3; Munster: Aschendorff, 1911).
Idem, Die Ehescheidung im Matthiius-Evangelium
(Wurzburg: Rita, 1939).
Percy, Botschaft, 144-46.
Rudolf Pesch, Freie Treue: Die Christen und die
Ehescheidung (Freiburg: Herder, 1971 ).
Antonio Quacquarelli, "Gii incisi ellittici (5:32a e
19:9a) nella compositio di Matteo," VetChr 6 (1969)
5-31; reprinted in his Saggi Patristici: Retorica ed
esegesi biblica (Bari: Adriatice Editrice, 1971) 345-
77.
Carl Heinz Ratschow,JosefScharbert, Zeev W. Falk,
Bo Reicke, and Henri Crouzel, "Ehe, Eherecht,
Ehescheidung," TRE 9 (1982) 308-62.
Leopold Sabourin, "Les incises sur le divorce (Mt.
5,32; 19,9)," Bulletin de Theologie biblique 2 (1972)
80-87.
Alexander Sand, "Die Unzuchtsklausel in Mt 5,31.32
242
und 19,3-9," MThZ 20 (1969) 118-29.
Sanders, jesus and judaism, 256-60.
Berndt Schaller, "Die Spruche uber Ehescheidung und
Wiederheirat in der synoptischen Uberlieferung,"
in Eduard Lohse et al., eds., Der Rufjesu und die
Antwort der Gemeinde: Exegetische Untersuchungen
Joachim Jeremias zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet von
seinen Schillern (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1970) 226-46.
Ben-Zion Schereschewsky, "Divorce," EJ 6 (1971)
122-37.
RudolfSchnackenburg, "Die Ehe nach dem Neuen
Testament," in his Schriften zum Neuen Testament
(Munich: Kosel, 1971) 414-34.
Gerhard Schneider, "Jesu Wort uber Ehescheidung in
der Uberlieferung des Neuen Testaments," TThZ
80 (1971) 65-87.
Hans Joachim Schoeps, "Ehebewertung und Sexual-
moral der spaterenjudenchristen," StTh 2
(1948/49) 99-102.
Kurt Schubert, "Ehescheidung im Judentum zur Zeit
Jesu," ThQ 151 (1971) 23-27.
Schulz, Q. 116-20.
Heinz Schurmann, "Neutestamentliche Marginalien
zur Frage nach der Institutionalitat, Unauflos-
barkeit und Sakramentalitat der Ehe," in Alois
Winter, ed., Kirche und Bibel: FS Eduard Schick
(Paderborn:Schoningh, 1979)409-30.
Idem, "Die Verbindlichkeit konkreter sittlicher
Normen nach dem Neuen Testament, bedacht am
Beispiel des Ehescheidungsverbotes und im Lichte
des Liebesgebotes," in Walter Kerber, ed., Sittliche
Normen: Zum Problem ihrer allgemeinen und
unwandelbaren Geltung (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1982)
107-23.
Donald W. Shaner, A Christian View ofDivorce according
to the Teaching of the New Testament (Leiden: Brill,
1969).
JosefSickenberger, "Die Unzuchtsklausel im
Matthausevangelium," ThQ 123 (1942) 189-206.
Idem, "Zwei neue AuBerungen zur Ehebruchklausel
bei Mt," ZNW 42 (1949) 202-9.
Karl Staab, "Die Unaufloslichkeit der Ehe und die sog.
'Ehebruchsklauseln' bei Mt 5,32 und 19,9," in FS
fUr Eduard Eichmann (Paderborn: Schoningh, 1940)
435-52.
Idem, "Zur Frage der Ehescheidungstexte im
Matthausevangelium," ZKT 67 (1943) 36-44.
Werner Stenger, "Zur Rekonstruktion einesjesusworts
anhand der synoptischen Ehescheidungslogien (Mt
5,32; 19,9; Lk 16,18; Mk 10,11f.)," Kairos 26
(1984) 194-205.
Peter Stockmeier, "Scheidung und Wiedererheiratung
in der alten Kirche," ThQ 151 (1971) 39-51.
Strecker, Weg, 130-32.

Idem, "Antitheses," 52-56.
Theodor Thalheim, "Ehescheidung," PW 5 (1905)
2011-13.
E. Vallauri, "Le clausole matteane sui divorzio:
tendenze esegetiche recenti," Laurentianum 17
(1976) 62-112.
Antonio Vargas-Machuca, "Los casos de 'divorcio'
admitidos por S. Mateo (5,32 y 19,9): Conse-
cuencias para Ia teologia actual," Estudios
Ecclesiasticos 50 (197 5) 5-54.
Bruce Vawter, "The Divorce Clauses in Mt 5:32 and
19:9," CBQ 16 (1954) 155-67.
Idem, "The Biblical Theology of Divorce," Proceedings
of the Catholic Theological Society 22 (1967) 223-43.
Idem, "Divorce and the New Testament," CBQ 39
(1977) 528-42.
Friedrich Vogt, Das Ehegesetz]esu: Eine exegetisch-
kanonistische Untersuchung von Mt 19,3-12; 5,27-32;
Mk 10,1-12; und Lk 16, 18 (Freiburg: Herder,
1936).
B. N. Wambacq, "Matthieu 5, 31-32: Possibilite de
divorce ou obligation de rompre une union
illegitime," NRTh 104 (1982) 34-49.
G.J. Wenham, "The Restoration of Marriage
Reconsidered," JJS 30 (1979) 36-40.
Idem, "Matthew and Divorce: An Old Crux Revisited,"
JSNT 22 (1984) 95-107.
Ben Witherington, "Matthew 5:32 and 19:9: Exception
or Exceptional Situation?" NTS 31 (1985) 571-76.
Hans julius Wolff, "Die Grundlagen des griechischen
Eherechts," in Erich Bemeker, ed., Zur griechischen
Rechtsgeschichte (WdF 45; Darmstadt: Wissen-
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968) 620-54.
Wrege, Bergpredigt, 66-70.
Yigael Yadin, "L'attitude essenienne envers Ia
polygamie et le divorce," RB 79 (1972) 98-99.
Reuben Varon, "On Divorce in Old Testament
Times," Revue International des Droits de l'Antiquite 4
(1957) 117-28.
Idem, Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1961).
Idem, "The Restoration of Marriage," JJS 17 (1966)
1-11.
Heinrich Zimmermann, "p.~ .lwt wopv€lq." (Mt 19,9)-
ein literarisches Problem: Zur Komposition von Mt
19,3-12," Catholica (Munster) 16 (1962) 293-99.
Idem, Neutestamentliche Methodenlehre: Darstellung der
historisch-kritischen Methode (5th ed.; Stuttgart:
KatholischesBibelwerk, 1976) 105-15,231-36.
1) Analysis The third antithesis (5:31-32) treats the issue of
divorce and the interpretation of the jewish tradition
regarding divorce, in particular Deut 24:1-4. As the
extensive bibliography indicates, this prohibition has
been-and still is-one of the most hotly contested
Matthew 5:21-48
passages of the New Testament. Scholarship, however,
has been able to clarify many problems surrounding
this important text.
Formally, the third antithesis appears to be tacked
on to the second; in size, it is even further reduced
than the second. One should not, however, take these
often observed formal peculiarities to mean that the
structure of the section is defective. Scholars have
often concluded from the brevity of this antithesis that
it is a later insertion and merely a variation of the
second antithesis; but if all the antitheses are due to
pre-Matthean redaction, the assumption of "later"
insertion is unnecessary. It is true that the content of
the third antithesis is closely related to that of the
second-as is the content of the sixth to that of the
fifth. But the basic structure even of this short
antithesis is the same as the structure of those
preceding it.
Like its predecessors, the third antithesis consists of
three parts. The first part is the refutation of what is
considered an inadequate interpretation. The
reference to the "chain of tradition" omits the past and
the present recipients and retains only the naming of
the presumed authority by the formula "it was said" (vs
31 a). Rather than quoting a Scripture verse, vs 31 b-e
moves directly to the citation of the false inter-
pretation. This statement takes the form of a casuistic
legal ordinance. Its protasis envisions a case of a
husband divorcing his wife; the apodosis prescribes the
proper legal procedure. Simultaneously, the sentence
is a summary of Deut 24:1-4.
The second part (vs 32) presents the assumed
correct interpretation. The doctrinal formula
identifying authority (vs 32a) introduces a legal
opinion concerning the consequences of divorce and
consists of two casuistic definitions. The first of these
(vs 32b), in the protasis, envisions the case of a man
divorcing his wife, as in vs 31 b-e. The apodosis
describes the consequences of the divorce for the
woman. Between protasis and apodosis, and belonging
to both, stands the so-called exception clause. The
second definition (vs 32c) focuses, in the protasis, on
the man marrying a divorced woman; the apodosis
describes the consequences of such a marriage for the
man. As in the previous instances, the ethical
conclusion is left unstated. Since it is the result of a
rather complicated argument, discussion of it shall
follow a close examination ofthe text.
2) Interpretation
• 31 Like the other antitheses, the third begins with the
refutation of what is declared to be an inadequate
interpretation. The introductory reference to the "chain
of tradition" (vs 3la) leaves out, as I have observed above
243
(see the Analysis), the past and present recipients but
retains the phrase "it was also said" (£ppt871 a~). identifying
the origin and author of the subsequent statement. The
meaning is identical to that in vss 21 and 27: the subject
of the passivum divinum is God, who is the revealer of the
material subsequently quoted.
The statement in vs 31 b-e is not what one would
expect given the parallels in the previous anthitheses.
The sentence serves two purposes simultaneously. First,
rather than quoting a verse from Scripture, vs 32b-c
summarizes a longer passage from Deut 24:1-4.
Contemporary Jewish Scripture interpretation, however,
regarded such a summary as little, if any, different from
a verbatim quotation, 35 2 so that it is only a minor
divergence from the previous antitheses. Nonetheless,
the summary is not simply identical with Deut 24:1-4,
and it is this difference that provides the opening for the
subsequent argument. Second, the sentence states in the
form of a casuistic ordinance 353 what is perceived to be
an inadequate interpretation ofDeut 24:1-4.
The ordinance presupposes the current practice of
divorce: "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a
certificate of divorce" (8~ av Q7TOAVU'!J T~V yvvaL'Ka atJTov,
lloTCo aiiTii a7TO<rTautov). 354 The case envisioned (vs 31 b)
assumes that men divorce their wives, 355 and this
assumption certainly reflects Jewish practice of the time;
however, it leaves undiscussed whether women had the
legal power to divorce their husbands. Thus, by
implication, the analogous case of women divorcing their
husbands is excluded from the text before us. But at least
one parallel New Testament text focuses on this
possibility: Mark 10:12 presents the reverse case, "and if
a woman divorces her husband and marries another
man, she commits adultery" (Kal £av aiiT~ cho:>..vuaua TOv
Ci.vllpa aiiTfj~ yap.~<r!J Ci.:>..:>..ov p.otxaTat). 356 The Markan
passage has no parallel in Matthew (19:7, 9); it seems to
be unknown to the Matthean tradition as well as to other
parallel texts. 357
The Matthean texts, therefore, take for granted that
divorce is the privilege of the man. Whether Jewish
women of the time had the legal right to divorce their
husbands has often been discussed but is controversial
even today. 358 It is possible, even probable, that while
SM/Matt 5:31-32 represents a Jewish (-Christian)
milieu, the Mark::tn passage reflects Roman practice,
which we know allowed divorce by women. 359 The

352 This method of citing Scripture has a parallel in Paul,
for which see Otto Michel, Paulus und seine Bibel
(GO.tersloh: Bertelsmann, 1929; reprinted Darm-
stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972) 68-
90.
353 See above on SM/Matt 5:19.
354 The trans. is mine.
355 For the jewish materials on divorce, see David W.
Amram, The Jewish Law ofDivorce according to the Bible
and Talmud (Philadelphia: Stern, 1896; reprinted
New York: Hermon, 1968); Ludwig Blau, Die
judische Ehescheidung und der jildische Scheidebrief Eine
historische Untersuchung (2 parts; Stra6burg: Trubner,
1911-12); Abrahams, Studies, 66-78; David Daube,
"Divorce," in idem, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 71-86;
Boaz Cohen, Jewish and Roman Law: A Comparative
Study (2 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological
Seminary of America, 1966) 1.377-408; Ze'ev W.
Falk, Introduction to the Jewish Law of the Second
Commonwealth (AGJU; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1972,
1978) 2.307-16;Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "Divorce
amongFirst-Centuryjews," Erlsr 14(1978) 103*-
110*; Irwin H. Haut, Divorce in]ewishLaw and Life
(Studies in jewish jurisprudence 5; New York:
Sepher-Hermon, 1983). For a survey, see Ben-Zion
Schereschewsky, "Divorce," EJ6(1971) 122-37;
Schurer, History, 2.485-86.
356 The trans. is mine.
357 Cf. 1 Cor 7:13, where Paul speaks ofthe woman
"leaving" (afj>&lua&) her husband.
358 On the woman's right to divorce in judaism, see
Schaller, "Spruche," 229, and the articles assembled
in part 1 of jewish LawAnnual4 (1981); in addition,
there has been a controversy between Bernadette
Brooten ("Konnten die Frauen im altenjudentum
die Scheidung betreiben? Uberlegungen zu Mk
10,11-12 und 1 Kor 7,10-11," EvTh 42 [1982] 65-
80) and Eduard Schweizer ("Scheidungsrecht der
judischen Frau? WeiblicheJO.nger Jesu?" EvTh 42
[1982] 294-96), and Hans Weder ("Perspektiven der
Frauen?" EvTh 43 [1983] 175-78).
359 On Roman law concerning divorce, see Alan Watson,
The Roman Law ofPersons in the Later Roman Republic
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) 48-67; Max Kaser, Das
romische Privatrecht (HKAW 3. 3.1; 2d ed.; Munich:
Beck, 1971) 81-83 (§ 19); for the Greek law, see
Walter Erdmann, Die Ehe im alten Griechenland
(MBPF 20; Munich: Beck, 1934) 384-409;
furthermore Manson, Sayings, 136-37; Schaller,
"Spruche," 232-33, 237.

244
 Matthew 5:21-48

terminology is technical: l1.1ro>..ilw T~v yvva'i'Ka in the
special sense of "divorcing one's wife" is well attested in
Hellenistic literature and legal documents. 360 The term
implies that the woman is "released from" her marriage
obligations and is "sent away" out of the house, 361 so that
she is no longer under the power and authority of the
man. Sending her away also presupposes the social
custom of the woman not owning a house but living in
the house of her husband. 362 The expression "give a bill
of divorce" (olowf-'L choO"T«lO"tov) 363 is also technical, as
parallels from the papyri especially evidence. 364 In
rabbinic literature, the tractate Giffin is entirely devoted
to this subject. 365
Turning to the content of vs 31 b, one must distinguish
three implications to understand the argument: First, the
actual practice of divorce as experienced in the social
environment of the SM; second, the justification for this
practice by reference to Deut 24:1-4, of which a
summary is provided in SM/Matt 5:31b; and third, the
realization that the summary of vs 31 b is not the only
summary and interpretation possible.
From the available evidence, one can conclude that
the meaning ofDeut 24:1-4 was disputed at the time of
the SM and that the institutions of both marriage and
divorce were matters of controversy. Since Deuteronomy
24 was part of the Torah, the disputing parties, each in
its own way, tried to justify the positions taken by
concomitant interpretations of the passage. Hence the
question concerning the force of Deut 24:1-4. 366 Does it
simply ratify the divorce practices current at the time of
the SM? Is it in favor of expansion or restriction of the
husband's right to divorce? There was no agreement on
these questions. 367
Even in the Old Testament one can find different
views on the question of divorce. There is the "original"
pronouncement of Gen 2:20-25 368 concerning the

360 In the NT, this special meaning occurs only in Matt
1:19; 5:31-32; 19:3, 7-9; Mark 10:2,4, 11; Luke
16:18; cf. Herrnas Man. 4.1.6. See BAGD, s.v.
lrm-o.>u\ro, 2.a; Gerhard Schneider, EWNT (EDNT) 1,
s.v. lt,-o.\:vw (bibliography); PGL, s.v. lt,-o.\.vw, 5.
361 The technical terms are lt,-o,-£p.,-ro, JK,.£p.,-ro,
JK{31L.\..\.w. Cf. Gal4:30 (Gen 21:10; cf. 21:14 LXX).
See Justus Hermann Lipsius, Das attische Recht und
Rechtsverfahren (3 vols.; Leipzig: Reisland, 1903,
1905, 1915; reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1984)
2.485-87; Theodor Thalheim, "Ehescheidung," PW
5 (1905) 2011-13; Ernst Levy, Der Hergang der
romischenEhescheidung(Weimar: Bohlau, 1925)4-10;
David Daube, "Terms for Divorce," in idem, NT and
Rabbinic judaism, 362-72.
362 See Deut 24:1: "he sends her out of his house."
363 lt,-ouTIL<rtov is a short form for {3t{3.\.lov lt,-oumulov,
originally referring to the bill of relinquishment of
property after sale, a reminder that the wife was
regarded as the property of her husband. On this
point see Judith R. Wegner, Chattel or Person? The
Status oJWomen in the Mishnah (New York: Oxford
University, 1988) 45-50: "Divorce: Disposition of a
Wife." The basic study on the bill of divorce is that
by Blau, Die jildische Ehescheidung, part 2 (see above,
n. 355), where examples of such bills are reproduced.
See also Levy, Hergang, 53-66. The full term {3t{3A.lov
lt,-ouTaulov occurs in Mark 10:4; Matt 19:7. See
BAGD, s.v. lt,-ouTILutov; Friedrich Schmidtke,
"Apostasion," RAC 1 (1950) 551-53;Johannes B.
Bauer, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s.v. lt,-ouTILtrtov (bib-
liography).
364 See Preisigke and KieBling, Worterbuch, 4.1 ( 1944)
258-59;Sup(1971)34.
365 For a good introduction and bibliography, see Rein-
hard Neudecker, Frilhrabbinisches Ehescheidungsrecht:
Der Tosefta-Traktat Gittin (BibOr 39; Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1982). For a collection of passages
from rabbinic literature, see Str-B 1.303-12.
366 On this passage, see esp. Ulrich Nembach, "Ehe-
scheidung nach alttestamentlichem und judischem
Recht," TZ 26 [1970]161-71), who says it "does not
represent a general regulation concerning the matter
[sc. of divorce], but that it is concerned with the
consequences of divorce only; of the many con-
sequences thinkable and possible only one is
regulated. The husband who divorced his wife is
prohibited from remarrying her after she has been
married to a third person" (161) ("stellt keine
generelle Regelung der Materie dar, sondern betrifft
nur die Folgen einer Ehescheidung, wobei unter den
vielen denkbar moglichen Folgen nur eine einzige
geregelt wird. Es wird dem geschiedenen Ehemann
untersagt, seine geschiedene Ehefrau erneut zu
ehelichen, wenn sie nach der Ehescheidung mit
einem Dritten verheiratet gewesen war").
367 For the later interpretation of Deut 24:1, see the
collection of texts in Str-B 1.313-15.
368 See Manfred R. Lehmann, "Gen 2:24 as the Basis for
Divorce in Halakhah and the New Testament," ZA W
72 (1960) 263-67; Stefan Schreiner, "Mischehen-
Ehebruch-Ehescheidung: Betrachtung zu Mal 2: 10-
16," ZAW91 (1979) 207-28.

245
creation of Eve out of Adam's rib, to which Adam
responds by saying: "This at last is bone of my bones and
flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she
was taken out of Man" (vs 23 [RSV]). Added to this
statement is the explanation for the phenomenon of
marriage: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his
mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one
flesh" (vs 24 [RSV]). The passage intends to ground the
institution of marriage in the creation myth itself, a move
that is not only oflater origin but most likely a reflection
of the fragility of monogamous marriage.
The social reality of an older age is probably better
reflected in the patriarchal narratives, in which the
unlimited right of the man to divorce his wife is
presupposed. Abraham thus "sends away" Hagar, whom
he had taken as a wife in addition to Sarah (Gen 16:3;
21 :9-14). Although he sends her away reluctantly and
only at the insistence of Sarah, he assumes that no legal
restrictions exist to prevent him from doing as he pleases.
In addition to documenting polygamy and the man's
unlimited rights to divorce, the Old Testament also
testifies to an increasing uneasiness about divorce
practices and presents stipulations intended to curb the
man's legal powers in this sphere. In particular, the book
of Deuteronomy legislates that there must be grounds
for divorce that will stand up in court; that proper
procedures must be followed throughout all proceed-
ings; and that divorce and remarriage are subject to
restrictions regarding another marriage partner (Deut
22:13-19, 28-29; 24:1-4). Thus Deut 24:1-4 already
stands in a tradition tending to limit rather than expand
the practice of divorce.
The passage itself contains primarily a description of
the terrible consequences of divorce for the woman,
detailing with dreadful repetition how the divorced
woman goes from man to man, ending up a social outcast
because of her ritual "defilement. "369 The practice of
writing a bill of divorce is described, a practice not
outlawed but introduced and justified as a regulating
procedure in an otherwise chaotic situation. The point,
however, is not to awaken sympathy for the woman but
to outlaw the remarriage of the same wife after she has
taken a number of marriage partners. 370
Finally, Deuteronomic reasons are given for the
recommended legal procedures. These reasons are
theological in origin and are only secondarily related to
the divorce issues. Deut 24:1-4 (RSV) reads thus: "When
a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no
favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in
her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her
hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out
of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man's
wife, and the latter husband dislikes her and writes her a
bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out
of his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her
to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her
away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has
been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LoRD,
and you shall not bring guilt upon the land which the
LORD your God gives you for an inheritance."
The history of the interpretation ofDeut 24:1-4 up to
the time of the New Testament cannot be reviewed here
in all its complicated details. 371 In general, the evidence
shows that as history progressed, the ambiguous wording
of the text lent itself to varying interpretations. On the
whole, these interpretations took two directions: (1) A
growing tendency in one part of the tradition opposing
or even outlawing divorce; 372 legally, this tendency led
to restrictions in application and procedure, 373 and
finally even to rejection of marriage. 3 7 4 This tendency is

369 For the terrible lot of the divorced woman, see
Hagar's despair, Gen 21:14-16;Jub. 17.2-14; Gal
4:21-31; furthermore Isa 54:6; Mal2:13-16.
Notably, the New Comedy of Greek literature had a
genre of pieces with the title' A7ToAd.,.ovua ("The
Divorcee") by Apollodorus, Crobylus, and Diphilus,
all of them lost. See Theodorus Kock, ed., Comicorum
Atticorum Fragmenta (3 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner,
1880-88) 2.545; 3.278-79, 281, 380.
370 Cf. the treatment of the woman given successively in
marriage to many men after their death; cf. also Tob
6:9-8:21, where an evil demon is the cause of it.
See Paul Deselaers, Das Buck Tobit: Studien zu seiner
Entstehung, Komposition und Theologie (OBO;
Fribourg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1982) 138-64. Comparable is
also Mark 12:19-23 par., where Sadducees draw the
satirical conclusion that in the resurrection no one
knows to which man the woman belongs.
3 71 For informative surveys, see Blau, Die jildische
Ehescheidung, 10-31; Str-B 1.312-21; Berger,
Gesetzesauslegung, 1.508-75.
372 Negative reactions in the OT are found in the
descriptions of the terrible lot of the divorced woman

246
 Matthew 5:21-48

also reflected in some Qumran texts: when marriage is
entered into, it is to be monogamous and binding (e.g.,
CD 7.6-9 [Num 30:16]; 16.10-12). (2) Other traditions
represent a trend toward greater liberalization of divorce
practices and the expansion of the man's rights to
divorce. In rabbinic theology, these two directions were
seen as represented by the houses of Shammai and Hillel,
with the former holding the restricted and the latter the
more liberal view. Such attributions, however, historical
or not, should not obscure the fact that in the first
century a wider range of options was open, a range that
included several configurations even in the New
Testament.
From its inception, the interpretation of Deut 24: 1-4
was seemingly focused on the words 'erwat dabar
(.,~., n1.,P) (Deut 24: 1), the meaning of which is
ambiguous. The expression, which is attested only one
other time, in Deut 23:15 (LXX 23: 14), can be either
general or specific; it can refer to one or to two issues.
Hence the translations differ. Since 'erwah (:-11.,~)
elsewhere means "nakedness, pudenda," 375 the
expression in Deut 23: 15; 24:1 is usually rendered as
"something disgraceful" (RSV: "indecent"), 376 as a
reference to some unspecified sexual impurity. If, as it
happened, the passage as a whole was understood as a
prescription for divorce, the expression was thought to
provide the reason for it. Such a reason must be
demonstrable in court, an understanding leading to
several possibilities: ( 1) a cultic-sexual offense committed
by the woman (e.g., premarital intercourse); 377 (2) a
physical defect in the woman (e.g., premarital loss of
virginity); 378 (3) adultery specifically; 379 (4) other
transgressions of the Torah; 380 (5) emotional rejection
by the man; 381 or (6) impurity because of a previous
marriage. 382 The LXX translators took the expression in
the more general sense as l1.ux7Jp.ov -rrpayp.a, 383 the Greek
perhaps pointing to a legal matter as grounds for
divorce; at least this is suggested by the story of Susanna,
where it clearly refers to adultery. 384
The Mishnah presents two interpretations as
characteristic of early rabbinic theology. 385 The older
one was represented by the school of Shammai and took
Deut 24:1 as implying adultery, 386 while the school of
Hillel regarded the meaning as "something disgraceful"
in the wider sense, including even things like burning the

(see above, n. 369); see also the sharp critique of the 382 A divorced woman may not marry a priest (Lev 21:7,
man's behavior, Mal2:13-16, esp. God's pronounce- 14; Ezek 44:22).
ment, "I hate divorce" (vs 16); cf. furthermorejub. 383 Deut 24:1 LXX; cf. 23:14: aux7Jp.ocrvv1J; 23:15:
3 .4-8; 1 7.14 (at least according to Blau, Die judische aux7Jp.ouVv1Jr 1rp6.yp.aror.
Ehescheidung, 30, 63-64); Wis 14:26; Sir 7:26; 28:15 384 Sus 63 (Theodotion): li.ux7Jp.ov 1rpayp.a. Cf. Rom
(different 25:26). 1:27; 1 Cor 7:36; 12:23; Rev 16:15.
373 Divorce ceased to be a private matter, and subjecting 385 For literature, see above, n. 355, esp. Blau, Die
it to public law meant court procedures, provable judische Ehescheidung, 31-40; Ben-Zion Scher-
evidence, witnesses, and the bill of divorce; see, e.g., eschewsky, "Divorce," EJ 6 (1971) 122-37; Cohen,
Deut 22:13-21, and the polemic against slander, Sir jewish and Roman Law, 1.377-408; Falk, Introduction,
28:15; Sus 19-59. 2.276-331; Neudecker, Fruhrabbinisches Ehe-
374 See esp. Matt 19:10-12, and for further discussion scheidungsrecht, 1-6.
and references, Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1.565-67; 386 Seem. Cit. 9.10, translation of Danby, Mishnah, 321:
Niederwimmer, Askese, 53-58. "The School of Shammai say: A man may not divorce
37 5 See Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1. 511. his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, for it is
376 See Werner H. Schmidt, ThWAT 2.113 (TDOT written, Because he hath found in her indecency in
3.1 06). anything."
377 See, e.g., Deut 22:13, 14, 19.
378 See, e.g., Deut 22:13-21, 28-29;jub. 41:2.
379 See, e.g.,Jer 3:6-10; Ezek 16:32; 18:5-13; 23:2-49;
Hos 2:2-5; Sus 63.
380 For references, see Str-B 1.313-18.
381 This reason is called "hatred": see Gen 29:31, 33;
Deut 21:15-17; 22:13; 24:3;Judg 14:16; 15:2; 2
Sam 13: 15; Isa 60:5; Ezek 16:37; 23:28, 29;jub.
41.2.

247
soup. 387 When divided into two words, "a disgrace and
[or] some other thing," the expression could include
almost any reason whatsoever. This was the way
Josephus, Philo, and Matthew (19:3) interpreted it. 388
Historically, the interpretation of the school of Hillel
prevailed in later rabbinic theology, as well as in the
modern world.
To return to SM/Matt 5:31b, it should now be
obvious that the statement summarizing Deut 24:1-4
describes, according to the SM, the conventional reading
of the text. This reading took Deut 24:1-4 literally as
containing a prescription for divorce without any
qualms. Thus the practice of divorce is justified as a
matter of course. The writing of the bill of divorce is
what the SM considers the proper interpretation of Deut
24:1-4. Apart from the introductory formula (vs 32a),
"but I say to you that" (£y6> ot A.(yw ViJ.LV /Jn), 390 the
sentence consists of a legal opinion comprising two
consecutive, casuistic definitions, the first of which is
provided with an additional exception clause. Both
definitions focus on the social and moral consequences of
divorce, and one must read both of them against the
background ofDeut 24:1-4.
The first definition (vs 32b), in the protasis, envisions a
case of divorce in order then to describe, in the apodosis,
the consequences: "Everyone who divorces his wife, ...
makes her commit adultery" (7Tii~ b ihoA.vwv r~v yvvaiKa
avrov 0 7TOt£L avT~V iJ.OtX£v8ijvat). 391 What is the reason
0 0

regarded as a minimum legal requirement of procedure
to cancel the marriage, thereby treating marriage as a
contract that can be cancelled like any other contract.
There is no indication of moral scruples; the proof text
legitimizing the practice is viewed as sufficient.
Therefore, one may also conclude that the summary
itself is by implication polemical and contains the reasons
for the refutation. 389
• 32 Parallel to the previous antitheses, vs 32 presents
behind this conclusion? If, as the text presupposes,
marriage is indissoluble, 392 the bill of divorce will not
cancel the marriage. The question here is whether
marriage per se is simply identical with the marriage
contract, which can be cancelled by a bill of divorce, or
whether the sexual union in marriage is an irreversible
act involving metaphysical aspects.
Current practice, which the SM criticizes in vs 31,
employed the bill of divorce to cancel one marriage and

387 Ibid.," And the School of Hillel say: [He may divorce concept of righteousness is found wanting (see above
her] even if she spoiled a dish for him, for it is on 5:20). Moreover the SM has no indication of
written, Because he hath found in her indecency in differences between the houses of Hillel and
anything." The line is continued by R. Akiba, who Shammai, a reminder that the Pharisaism of the two
said: "Even if he found another fairer than she, for it houses could be a construction created later in
is written, And it shall be if she find no favour in his eyes." retrospect.
388 Josephus Ant. 3.276-77; 4.253: "for whatever cause" 390 See above on 5:22a.
(Ka6' a<T5'1/7TOTOVV alTL<t~); 16.198; Vita 426; Philo Spec. 391 Textual variants all represent harmonization with the
leg. 3.30-31: "for any cause whatever" (Ka6' i)v <iv parallels in Mark 10:11 I I Matt 19:9; they also turn
r6xn 7rpO<j>a<Tw); cf. 3.80. See Heinemann, Philons vs 32 into an antithetical parallel to vs 31. D 1506 it
griechische und jildische Bildung, 314-20; Berger, omit lin. DE (0250). 346. 579. 1006. (1506) pm it
Gesetzesauslegung, 1.512, 518-20. sy'·C? sams bo read 8~ <iv a7TOA61Tn. L 1006. 1342. 1506
389 Neudecker (Frilhrabbinisches Scheidungsrecht, 5-6) has (E 6. 565. 579. 1424) 9Jt read l"otxa<T6at instead of
attempted to show that Matt 5:31 and 19:9 were l"otx<v6ijvat. See Aland, Synopsis, 81, in the critical
formulated against Pharisees of the school of Hillel. apparatus; cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 13-14;
The opposite view is held by Harvey Falk (Jesus the Henri Crouzel, "Le texte patristique de Matthieu
Pharisee: A New Look at the jewishness ofJesus [New V.32 et XIX.9," NTS 19 (1972) 98-119.
York and Rahway, N.J.: Paulist, 1985]), who argues 392 So also Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:39.
that jesus' criticism of the Pharisees was directed
against the school of Shammai, not Hillel. These
hypotheses, however, are too sweeping and general,
and they do not pay sufficient attention to the
different layers of tradition. In the SM, one must
distinguish several polemics as far as Judaism is
concerned. While there is total rejection of merely
conventional piety, the Pharisees are seen in a rather
positive light, although in the final analysis, their

248
 Matthew 5:21-48

open the way to another. This understanding, however,
was in.conflict not only with the view held by the SM but
also with Deut 24: 1-4. As we have seen, Deuteronomy
narrates with painful repetition the way of the woman
who moves from husband to husband as a warning to
prohibit remarriage to her first husband. Her "defile-
ment" at last reveals her predicament: she committed
adultery when she married her second husband, and she
has been defiled ever since. Whatever the original
meaning of Deuteronomy, the passage could be and was
read in several ways in later times. The reading of it by
the SM is certainly possible because its interpretation
coincides with the tendency of Deuteronomy.
Two conclusions arise from this consideration. First,
with regard to the woman: if she enters into another
marriage while her first marriage is still binding,
regardless of the bill of divorce, she commits adultery as
legally defined. Furthermore, given the current
understanding of the practice, if a man divorces his wife
and gives her a bill of divorce, he in effect forces her to
commit adultery. In other words, he becomes a
panderer.
Most important, although difficult to understand, is
the famous exception clause, "except on the grounds of
sexual immorality" ('rrapeKTb<; A.6yov 7ropvela<; ). 393 The
clause has a parallel in Matt 19:9, although the wording
differs: p.~ h'r. 7ropvel11- 394 ("not because of the resultant
sexual immorality"). 395 Therefore one should not
harmonize the translations of the two passages too
quickly. 396 Where did the clause come from? Many
scholars believe that Matthew interpolated it into the Q-
tradition, which, as one can see from the synoptic
parallels, did not have it. 397 But it seems to me that he
took both clauses over from his Q-tradition, where they
were already interpolated prior to Matthew's redaction.
That the clauses reflect jewish legal thinking speaks in
favor of jewish-Christian tradition rather than later
Christian innovation on the part of Matthew. One could
assume that Matthew introduced the clause either in
5:32 or in 19:9 on the basis of the other passage, but if
that were the case, he would have most likely used the
same language. 398
In the history of exegesis, the exception clauses have
been the subject of heated debates. 399 The central
question has been whether one should understand the
clauses in the exclusive or in the inclusive sense. If they

393 The trans. is mine. Vg renders excepta fornication is
causa; RSV: "except on the ground of unchastity";
NEB: "for any cause other than unchastity";JB:
"except for the case of fornication."
394 A considerable number of textual variants represent
apparent attempts at assimilating 19:9 to 5:32, thus
recognizing that there is a difference in what the
better texts have. See the critical apparatus on 19:9
in Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece; Nestle-
Aiand; and Aland, Synopsis, 335; also Zahn, Matthiius,
591 n. 55; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 47-48;
Crouzel, "Le texte" (see above, n. 391). Cf. Gundry,
Matthew, 381.
395 The phrase is an abbreviation of a longer clause; the
preposition E7rL with the dative is that of purpose,
goal, or result (see BAGD, s.v. E7rL Il.1.b.•); it has a
parallel in Rom 7:3: TOV p.~ Etva• avT~V p.o•xa>..laa
y<vop.tVTJV avapt £Ttp'!J ("so that she is not an adulteress
when she belongs to another man").
396 Like the textual variants (see n. 394), the translations
sometimes tend toward harmonization of the two
passages. Cf. V g: nisi ob fomicationem; RSV: "Except
for unchastity" (with an added note); NEB: "for any
cause other than unchastity";]B: "I am not speaking
of fornication" (with an added note).
397 In favor of Matthean redaction are Wellhausen,
Evangelium Matthaei, 21; Bultmann, History, 132, 148
(not entirely clear, however); Dupont, Marriage, 92 n.
l; Braun, Radikalismus, 2.110 n. 4; Grundmann,
Matthiius, 162; Luz,Matthiius, 1.271 (Matthew,
1.302). Undecided is Strecker (Bergpredigt, 77
[Sermon, 74-75]).
398 In favor of pre-Matthean redaction are Wrege,
Bergpredigt, 68; Delling, "Logion," 267-70; Schaller,
"Spriiche," 230; Hauck and Schulz, TDNT 6.590-91;
Guelich, Sermon, 206-9; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 77
(Sermon, 74-75).
399 Baltensweiler,Ehe, 59-72; 87-102; Bauer,
"Bemerkungen," 23-31; Berger, Gesetzesauslegung,
1.562 n. 1 (bibliography); Blau, Ehescheidung, 45-55;
Fitzmyer, "The Matthean Divorce Texts," 202-3;
Fridrichsen; Greeven, "Zu den Aussagen," 11 0-18;
idem, "Ehe," 382-85; Guelich, Sermon, 204-9;
Holzmeister; Kilgallen; Lohfink; Luz, Matthiius,
1.273-74 (Matthew, 1.304-6); Mahoney; Moingt;
Nepper-Christensen; Niederwimmer, Askese, 13-24;
Pesch, Freie Treue, 7-76; Sabourin; Sand; Schaller;
Schneider; Sickenberger; Staab; Stenger; Strecker,
"Antithesen," 52-56; idem, Bergpredigt, 77-78
(Sermon, 74-75); Tholuck, Bergrede, 241-45;
Vallauri; Vargas-Machuca; Vawter; Vogt; Wambacq;
Wenham; Wettstein, 1.303-4; Witherington; Wrege,
Bergpredigt, 68-69; Zimmermann. For the bib-
liographical data see the bibliography at the

249
were meant to be exclusive, 7rap£KT6s in vs 32b should be
translated "apart from, except for"; 400 if inclusive, the
meaning would be "not even because of." In the first, the
exclusive sense, the prohibition would leave open one
possibility for divorce, while in the second, the inclusive
sense, divorce would be categorically denied even under
the severest circumstances. 401 Until recently Roman
Catholic authors defended the inclusive understanding
because it helped to bolster that church's policies on
marriage and divorce; now, however, even Roman
Catholic exegetes have given up this position. 40 2
Exception clauses are known from the legal literature
of the time. 40 3 They stipulate exceptions from general
rules but do not imply the abrogation of the law to which
the exception is made. In the case ofvs 32, other
instances of legal language are conspicuous: A.6yos here
means "legal matter," 404 and 7ropv£la refers to unspeci-
fied acts of sexual immorality (see below), 405 the
evidence for which must hold up in court. 406
What, then, is the reasoning behind this exception
clause? The definition ofvs 32b, it stipulates, does not
apply if the woman has been convicted of defilement due
to "sexual immorality" (7ropv£la). What does this term
1ropvda mean? How is it related to adultery (p.otx£la)? The
difference in terminology, I believe, indicates that the
SM wants to differentiate between the terms. This means
that 1ropv£la must be general, not specific; but at least it
narrows the offense to sexual immorality, thereby
excluding other transgressions. Furthermore, "sexual
immorality" (1ropv£la) figures prominently in moral
catalogues and other texts involving sexual crimes. 407
Thus the argument is made that, if a woman who is
already defiled through 1ropv£la gets divorced from her
husband, her status of impurity does not change for the
worse, even when she enters into another marriage
relationship. Since under these circumstances divorce
does not become the cause of defilement, it can be
permitted. The underlying principle is that a Torah

beginning of this section. Presses universitaires de France, 1983).

400 See BAGD, s.v. wap<Kr6r, 2; BDF, § 216 (2); BDR, §
216, 2; Roland Bergmeier, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v.
'
7rapEKT0f.
401 For the history of exegesis, see the basic studies by
Cigoi; Crouzel; Delpini; Dupont; Holzmeister;
Nautin; Niebergall; Olsen; and Ott (see the
bibliography on this section, above).
402 See Paul Hoffmann, "Jesus' Saying about Divorce
and Its Interpretation in the NT Tradition,"
Concilium 55 (1970) 51-66. Cf. also vol. 87 (1973) of
Concilium, where several articles on marriage impinge
on the subject of "marital breakdown."
403 On this point see Schulz, Principles, 17, 41, 94.
404 See BAGD, s.v. A6yor, l.a.<; 2.d.
405 For the meaning of the term wopv<ia, especially in
relation to p.o•x.ia ("adultery"), see BAGD, s.v., 1;
Friedrich Hauck and Siegfried Schulz, "wopv<ia,"
TDNT6.579-95, esp. 590-92; ThWNT 10.2 (1979)
1246-47; Gottfried Fitzer, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v.
wopv<ia (bibliography); S. Erlandsson, ":"12) zfinlih,"
ThWAT 2.612-19 (TDOT 4.99-104). Specifically on
Matt 5:32, see Anton Fridrichsen, "Excepta
fornicationis causa," SEA 9 (1944) 54-58;
Baltensweiler, Ehe, 87-102; Schaller, "Sprilche,"
236; Bruce Malina, "Does porneia Mean Fornication?"
NovT 14 (1972) 10-74; Meier, Law and History, 140-
50; Joseph jensen, "Does porneia Mean Fornication?
A Critique of Bruce Malina," NovT 20 (1978) 161-
84. For the later period, see Aline Rousselle,
"Porneia": De la maftrise du corps ala privation
sensorielle, Ile-IVe siecles de l'ere chretienne (Paris:
406 See Num 5:11-31; Philo Spec. leg. 3.52-63;Josephus
Ant. 3.270-71; m. Sofa, passim.
407 The NT considers wopv<ia a general term referring
to every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse, and as
one of the gravest sins destroying the Christian's
I
sanctity (1 Thess 4:3). The Decalogue, according to
the variant readings of Mark 10:19 (D [r pc] k
Irenaeus), has it in first place, and in catalogues of
vices it often stands at the beginning (Mark 7:21 I I
Matt 15:19; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal5:19; Eph 5:3; Col3:5).
Abstention from this sin is required by the Apostolic
Decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21 :35), and for Paul its
prevention provides justification for marriage (1 Cor
7:2; cf. 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8, etc.). See also Berger,
Gesetzesauslegung, 1.389-92, 516-20, 567. Meier
(Law and History, 14 7 -50) argues for a narrower
interpretation of wopv<ia as "incestuous marriage,"
thinking of Gentile converts joining a Jewish-
Christian church bringing with them wives who on
the basis of Leviticus 18 would be declared close
kinship. He then tries to corroborate his thesis by
referring to the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:29; also
15:20; 21:25) and 1 Cor 5:1. There is no indication,
however, that "incestuous marriage" is the problem
in the SM, not to mention other difficulties.

250
 Matthew 5:21-48

prescription cannot be legal if it becomes an instrument
of impurity, that is, a form ofi~ustice.
My interpretation is corroborated by Paul, who in 1
Cor 7: 10-16 discusses divorce in a similar context, based
also on Jesus' prohibition of divorce but without
knowledge of the Matthean exception clause. Sur-
prisingly, however, in vs 15 he sets aside the saying of
Jesus when he states, "if the unbelieving partner [in a
mixed marriage between a Christian and a pagan] is for
separating, then let him separate. God has called you in
[or: tO] peace" 408 (t:t a£ b Cl7rttTTOS xwp{(.::TaL, XWPL(eu8w· OV
a.::ao6..\wTaL b iia.::A.cpos ~ ~ a.a.::A.cp~ fV TOtS TOL06TOLS" fV a£
dp~vy KeKA1JK£V vp.as b 8.::6s). Paul's ruling is based on the
same reason as that of the SM: as an unbeliever, the non-
Christian marriage partner is outside salvation, so that a
divorce would not change that status. Hence, a divorce
would not worsen the situation of impurity for the non-
Christian partner, and so by implication would not
compromise the status of the Christian in salvation.
The second definition (Matt 5:32c) shifts the attention
from the woman to the man: "and whoever marries a
divorced woman commits adultery" (Kat 8s fav
a7rOA£AVJJ.JJ.,V1JV yap.~uy, JJ.OLXaTaL). 409 The reason for this
shift of attention seems to be a question implied in the
first definition (vs 32b): if the woman commits adultery,
what does this mean for the responsibility of the man? Is
he not guilty of adultery as well? The protasis of vs 3 2c
foresees a case of a man marrying a divorced woman; the
apodosis stipulates his guilt in adultery. In what way is he
guilty? I can see two possibilities: on the one hand, if the
divorced woman has had sexual intercourse only with
her former husband, the man who marries her after her
divorce thereby desecrates her former marriage, which,
despite the divorce, is still valid. On the other hand, if
the woman has had sexual intercourse with other men
after her divorce, the man who marries her marries a
"defiled" woman and thereby desecrates his own
marriage. 410 Whichever option applies, in either case the
man is guilty of adultery. The double meaning of p.oLxaw
as "cause to commit adultery" and "commit adultery" 411
may imply that the man who becomes the cause of
adultery is also guilty of it because of complicity,
although it is the woman who commits the act. 412 In
order to understand the position taken by the SM, one
must first understand three presuppositions:
1. SM/Matt 5:31-32 is formulated in retrospect,
taking into account the prohibition of divorce by the
historical Jesus but elaborating on it in a secondary
argument. Thus one must not confuse the passage with
the teaching of the historical Jesus itself. The wide
attestation of Jesus' prohibition of divorce in early
Christian sources apart from Matt 5:32 (1 Cor 7:10;
Luke 16: 18; Mark 10:9; Matt 19:9; Hermas Man. 4.1.6;
Justin Apol. 1.15.3) 413 makes it virtually certain that the

408 The translation follows Conzelmann (J Corinthians, latine," RSR 62 (1974) 7-54; Henri Crouzel, "Le
119), but my interpretation differs from his with remariage apres separation pour adultere selon les
regard to the reasoning. Peres latins," BLE 7 4 ( 197 4) 189-204.
409 Variant readings consist mostly of harmonizations 411 In the NT, p.o•xaw occurs always in the passive sense.
with parallel passages. B pc sa (?) read Kat 8s Of the man it is used in Matt 5:32; 19:9 v.l.; Hermas
a7rOA<Avp.EVTJV yap.~cras, p.o&xiiTa&, thereby assimilating Man. 4.1.6; Mark 10:11: p.o•xiira& i1r' avr~v ("he
the clause to vs 31 b. D pc a b k Origen (?) omit the commits adultery against her"). See BAGD, s.v.
statement altogether, perhaps regarding it as p.o•xaw, 2.
superfluous, which, however, it is not. Lohmeyer 412 So also Allen, Matthew, 52; Berger Gesetzesauslegung,
(Matthiius, 130 n. 1) believes it to be a later addition 1.561-70, who documents the long tradition behind
to the better tradition. See for the evidence Aland, vs 32b.
Synopsis, 81, in the critical apparatus; Metzger, 413 For the texts see Aland, Synopsis, 81, 336-37. Didache
Textual Commentary, 13-14. and Doctrina apostolorum have no parallel.
410 Following Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4.34.5) and other
patristic commentators, Bauer ("Bemerkungen," 28-
30)adduces 1 Cor 6:15-16 to interpret Matt 5:32 in
order to conclude that a Christian man who discovers
that he married an adulterous wife must divorce her.
This interpretation, however, appears to be a later
Christian one, which developed out of the jewish
argument present in vs 32. See also Pierre Nautin,
"Divorce et remariage dans Ia tradition de l'eglise

251
historical Jesus actually held this position. Braun's 414
careful comparison of the marriage halakah of the Jesus
tradition with that of the Qumran sect and rabbinic
theology has shown that, apart from a few common
elements, Jesus' position differed markedly from both
Qumran and rabbinic theology. Critical examination of
the evidence, therefore, leads to the conclusion that-the
historical Jesus ruled out divorce altogether and that,
related to this prohibition, he preferred to stay
unmarried. 415
2.Jesus seems to have shared this position with John
the Baptist, his former teacher, perhaps from the time
that he joined the Baptist's movement. Mark
6:18/ /Matt 14:4//Luke 3:19 transmit the probably
reliable tradition that John was murdered because he
condemned the marriage of Herod with his divorced
sister-in-law, Herodias, as incestuous (Josephus Ant.
18.136; cf. Lev 18:16; 20:21). As a radical ascetic, John
the Baptist was also unmarried. 416
New documents from the Dead Sea Scrolls 417 have
provided additional evidence that prohibition of divorce
was not as uncommon by the time of Jesus as scholars
had once believed. 418 The Temple Scroll contains
halakot about a variety of issues, among them prescrip-
tions for a future king of Israel, based on a quotation and
interpretation of Deut 1 7: 14-1 7. The prohibition of
polygamy (Deut 17:17) is interpreted to include divorce
as well (11QTemple 57.17-19): "And he shall not take in
addition to her another wife, for she alone shall be with
him all the days of her life; and if she dies, he shall take
for himself another (wife)." 419
More complicated is another passage in the Damascus
Document (CD 4.12b-5:11). In the view of the author
of this document, the present official leadership of Israel
is ensnared by the "three nets ofBelial": 420 "unchastity,"
"wealth," and "defilement of the sanctuary." Unchastity is
said to take two forms: "by taking two wives during their
lifetime" (4.20-21) and "they take (as wives), each one (of
them), the daughter of his brother, and the daughter of
his sister" (5. 7-8). 421
These criticisms are supported by Scripture quotations
advocating monogamy (Gen 1:27; 7:9; Deut 17:17).
Scholars are not in agreement whether the passage from
Qumran rules out polygamy and marriage after divorce,
polygamy alone, or any new marriage. Perhaps one can
conclude in the light of 11 QTemple 57.17-19 that
"unchastity" (Mm) includes polygamy, incest, and divorce,
believed to be current plagues of immorality. There
appears to be more agreement that the prohibitions do
not merely apply to the king but to the common Jew as
well. 42 2 Most important for the SM, the passages
represent interpretations of the Torah that go beyond
the letter of the law while they do not set aside the
Torah. 423

414 Braun, Radikalismus, 2.108-14; Sanders, jesus and
judaism, 256-60.
415 Braun, Radikalismus, 2.11 0, 112. Marcion upheld the
absolute prohibition against divorce, if a marriage
had been entered into, but he also absolutely
prohibited marriage for his followers. See Harnack,
Marcion, 148-49.
416 See Niederwimmer, Askese, 40.
417 See Braun, Radikalismus, 2.108-14; idem, Qumran,
1.16; Fitzmyer, "Divorce"; followed by idem, "The
Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian
Evidence," Theological Studies 37 (1976) 197-226;
idem, Luke, 2.1121;James Mueller, "The Temple
Scroll and the Gospel Divorce Texts," RevQ 10
(1980) 247-56; Wacholder, Dawn of Qumran, 16-17,
120, 125-27.
418 Str-B 1.312, 319-20, who consider only the mishnaic
period and later.
419 I follow here the interpretation by Fitzmyer,
"Divorce," 104-5; idem, "Matthean Divorce Texts,"
215-16.
420 On the "three nets of Belial," see above, p. 13.
421 See Fitzmyer, "Divorce," 106*-10*; idem,
"Matthean Divorce Texts," 216-21. One should,
however, avoid interpreting the Greek 1ropv•la (Matt
5:32; 19:9) solely "in the specific sense of zenilt as an
illicit marital union between persons of close kinship"
(pace "Matthean Divorce Texts," 221; Meier, Law and
History, 147-50). For the correct interpretation, see
Braun, Radikalismus, 2.109 n. l.
422 So Fitzmyer, "Matthean Divorce Texts," 219;
Mueller, "Temple Scroll," 242-56; Wacholder, Dawn
of Qumran, 261 n. 107. See also Michael 0. Wise, A
Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave II
(Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 49; Chicago:
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
1990) 16.
423 On this point see Wacholder, Dawn of Qumran, 32-33
and passim.

252
 Matthew 5:21-48

3. Apart from the SM, the early Christian sources
contain a number of discussions of Jesus' prohibition of
divorce: 1 Cor 7:10-16; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:2-12;
Matt 19:3-12; Hermas Man. 4.1.6.;Justin Apol. 1.15.3-4;
Ptolemaeus Epistula ad Floram 2.4 (Epiphanius Pan.
33.4.4-1 0). 4 2 4 All of these consist of secondary
redactional compositions based on older traditions and
then integrated into larger redactional units. Differences
among them show that their basis in tradition is largely
independent of each other. One cannot simply reduce
these compositions to a common denominator. They
consist of discrete and self-contained units attempting to
negotiate what apparently turned out to be a difficult
piece of Jesus' legacy.
a. Closely related to the third antithesis is Paul's
discussion of divorce in 1 Corinthians 7. 425 The chapter
as a whole concerns the sexual conduct of Christians and
is influenced by the same tradition that surfaces in the
synoptic Gospels; however, one must not overlook the
differences between 1 Corinthians 7 on the one hand and
the synoptic material on the other. The Corinthians
appear to be unfamiliar with Jesus' prohibition against
divorce, since they first hear it from Paul. 426 They are,
however, familiar with the principle of radical absti-
nence: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a
woman" (Ka..\ov av8ponrcp yvvatKOS JJ.~ Cl7TT€CT8at [1 Cor
7: 1]). This stance of radical asceticism emerges in a
different form in Matt 19:10-12, which secondarily
relates it to the issue of divorce: avoidance of divorce is
easiest if one remains unmarried. From the concrete
instances discussed in 1 Cor 7:10-16, one concludes that
the Corinthians-or at least a sufficient number of
them-felt that radical abstinence required a separation
from previously acquired marriage partners. Perhaps the
women led this movement, since their separation from
their husbands comes up first. Paul's response presents
several considerations and distinguishes among different
causes of divorce.
As one (but not the only one) of the principles of
Christian sexual conduct, the apostle introduces Jesus'
prohibition against divorce ( 1 Cor 7: 1 0). He regards it as
a legal instruction (1rapayyf...\A.ro) 427 of the Lord in the
sense that it was issued historically by Jesus but is also
binding through the authority of the risen Lord: "(The)
wife is not to separate from her husband" (yvvatKa a1r0
avopos JJ.~ xroptu-8ijvat). This version, which speaks of the
separation of the wife from her husband rather than of
the husband from the wife, is paralleled in Luke 16: 18
and Mark 10:12 (see below), but not in Matt 19:9 or
SM/Matt 5:32. The "dismissal" (acptf.vat) of the wife by
her husband is then taken up in Paul's further ap-
plication of Jesus' prohibition to the situation of
marriages between Christian and non-Christian partners
(1 Cor 7:12-16).
In its form and style, Paul's presentation very much
resembles the legal and casuistic formulations of the
third antithesis, 428 including the provision of an
exception, although a different exception from that in
the SM. Paul acknowledges the authority of Jesus'
prohibition and applies it to a variety of concrete
problems. Its primary purpose is to rule out the
wholesale endorsement of divorce as a means to
implement the demand of radical abstinence cited in vs
1. 4 2 9 Paul himself, however, is in agreement with that
principle, as he follows Jesus' example in remaining

424 For a translation, see Foerster and Wilson, Gnosis,
1.156-57; for discussion, see Niederwimmer, Askese,
168 n. 29.
425 On this chapter see the commentary by Conzelmann,
1 Corinthians, esp. 119-24; Niederwimmer, Askese,
80-124; Fitzmyer, "Matthean Divorce Texts," 198-
200.
426 So Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 120.
427 For this term in connection with the teaching of
Jesus, see the Introduction, above, p. 81.
428 Differently Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 120: "it is not
turned into a casuistical rule, as the following
applications show."
429 This position is further attested in gnostic sources.
See 2 Clem. 12.2; Gospel of the Egyptians, according to
Clement Alex. Strom. 3.63 (ed. Stahlin, vol. 2, p. 225,
lines 1-6): "For they say: the Saviour himself said: 'I
am come to undo the works of the female,' by female
meaning lust, and by the works birth and decay"
(NTApoc 1.166-70; Betz, Galatians, 195-201;Josef
Frickel, Hellenistische Erlosung in christlicher Deutung:
Die gnostische Naassenerschrift [Leiden: Brill, 1984]
121-47).

253
"unmarried" (lfyaJLos). 430 Yet this principle is not an
ironclad rule for everyone, because its overarching
purpose is "continence" (£yKpauta), 431 not abstinence for
its own sake. If abstinence proves untenable for a person,
marriage is recommended as a means to the same end of
continence (vs 9). 432
Paul names a second principle in vs 1 7, legislating in
accordance with it in all the churches: "Each should live
according to the apportionment the Lord has allotted to
him [or: to her]" 433 (tKauT'!l ws EJLEptuev oKilpws, lKauTov
ws KEKATJKEV olle&s, oilnlls 7rEpt7raulnv). This principle is
well known from Paul's theology and is applied
elsewhere in the chapter, but it has no parallel in the
synoptic Gospels. 434
How, then, are these principles applied to the various
cases at hand? Those who are married should remain
married (vs 10). As for divorce, the apostle distinguishes
between separation (xwp{(ew) and dismissal (cupdvat). As
David Daube has shown, cupdvat (literally, "send away,"
"expel") signifies the jewish husband's legal authority to
dissolve the marriage fully, 435 while xwpl(ew is used of
the woman who can separate from him, 436 leave the
domicile, and refuse sexual intercourse, but she cannot
legally dissolve the marriage, 437 at least not in the Jewish
context. The distinction of the terms, which has its
counterparts in Roman law, 438 raises the question of
whether it affects the meaning in other ways. If couples
are separated already, they are told to stay that way.
While reconciliation is permitted, dismissal is not (vs 11 ).
In other words, this distinction makes it possible to
uphold jesus' prohibition of divorce while permitting
hopelessly estranged couples to live separately and to
avoid complete dissolution of the marriage. A new
marriage would thereby be impossible as well, because it
would result in adultery. 439
Mixed marriages (vss 12-16) constitute a separate
category. According to the apostle, there is no reason to
divorce a non-Christian marriage partner in order to
preserve the Christian partner's sanctity and purity.
Sanctity and purity are the benefits of Christian
salvation, 440 and the fruit of the faith of the Christian
partner. The existence of a non-Christian partner cannot
in itself compromise that status. In addition, mixed
marriages offer opportunities for mission (vs 16). 441
Finally, "but ifthe believing partner is for separating, let
him get separated" (et 0~ 0 lf7T!<TTOS xwp{(eTa!, xwpt(£ulJw

430 See 1 Cor 7:8, 11, 32, 34, 40. As the peculiar variant
reading liya,..os ("unmarried") in Matt 22:10 (C)
indicates, Jesus' status as unmarried was soon
interpreted in terms of his being the "bridegroom"
(vv,...pios), with the church being the "bride." The
nymphios christology played an important role in the
early church. On this point see Niederwimmer,
Askese, 58-63.
431 The term can be closely related to "love." See the
catalogue of virtues at the beginning and the end in
Gal5:22-23 (and Betz, Galatians, 287-88); Polycarp
Phil. 4.2; 1 Clem. 30.3; Hermas Vis. 1.2.4 (and often).
432 So Ambrosius De viduis 13.79 (PL 16.259):
incontinentiae remedia ("remedies of incontinence").
See Niederwimmer, Askese, 88-89.
433 The trans. is mine. The context shows that the
principle applies to men and women alike.
434 See 1 Cor 1:9, 26; 7:15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24; Gal
1:6; 5:13; Rom 8:30, etc.
435 The term a<Jli'IIIL' is used of the man's action in 1 Cor
7:11, 12, but of the woman's in 7:13. See BAGD, s.v.
a<Jli'IIIL'• l.b; Spicq, Notes, 3.81-87. In Roman law, the
term corresponds to divortium, the full dissolution of
the marriage. See Rudolf Leonhard, "Divortium,"
PW, 5th half-volume (1903) 1241-45. The Vg at 1
Cor 7: 11, 12, 13 renders as dimittere.
436 The term xwpi(•w refers to the woman's action. See 1
Cor 7:10, 11, and (less clear) 15; Mark 10:9; Matt
19:6, that is, the wife's separation from her husband.
See OLD, s.v. "discedo," 3.c; "discidium," 2.b.
437 David Daube, "Terms for Divorce," in his NT and
Rabbinic judaism, 362-72; see also J. K. Elliott,
"Paul's Teaching on Marriage in I Corinthians: Some
Problems Considered," NTS 19 (1972/73) 219-25,
esp. 223-24. Opposed is Niederwimmer, Askese, 98
n. 82; cf. also Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 120.
438 See the literature listed above, n. 359.
439 Differently Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 123: "the
pagan partner desires a divorce, and that means, of
course, he can secure it. Once again the 'law of
freedom' prevails: the Christian is not subjected to
any constraint because of the pagan's behavior. He
can marry again."
440 See the reason given in vs 15: "In peace God has
called you" (lv a~ Elpt/vn K(KA'I/KEV £,..as b IIE6s). How
"peace" relates to "sanctity" is not spelled out.
441 See Joachim Jeremias, "Die missionarische Aufgabe
der Mischehe (1 Kor. 7,16)," inNeutestamentliche
Studienfilr RudolfBultmann (BZNW 21; 2d ed.;
Berlin: Topelmann, 1957) 255-60; reprinted in his
Abba, 292-98.

254
 Matthew 5:21-48

[vs 15 ]). Such a separation can be permitted because the
Christian's status in salvation is not affected by separation
from a partner already outside salvation-at least, one
should add, as long as the Christian partner remains
unmarried.
b. While Jesus' prohibition against divorce is part of an
elaborate argument in 1 Corinthians 7, its simplest and,
most probably, its oldest form occurs as an isolated 4 42
saying in Luke 16:18. 443 Since the saying is attested in
different forms in all three synoptic Gospels, its origin
from Q is a virtual certainty:
Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another
(woman) commits adultery; and (everyone) who
marries a woman divorced from her husband commits
adultery. 444
fl(i~ b 0/TrO)\:VWV T~V ")IVVatKa aVTOV Kat yap.WV tT£pav
!J-OLX£V£L, Kat b O.'Tr0A£Avp.€V1JV o:rro avllpo~ yap.wv
p.OLX£V£L. 445
The saying consists of two parallel legal definitions
(isocolon), defining adultery in terms of divorce, the first
line focusing on the man, the second on the woman. The
saying is, however, not devoid of argument, even though
the argument is implicit. Since adultery is forbidden by
the Decalogue (Exod 20:14), divorce is equally
forbidden. 446 Moreover, remarriage (or successive
polygamy) 447 is ruled out, and there are no provisions
for exception. The possible conflict with Deut 24:1-4 is
not taken into consideration, nor is Paul's solution of
separation.
c. The dialogue among Jesus, the Pharisees, and the
disciples in Mark 10:2-12 448 comprises two scenes: a
dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees (vss 2-9), and a
dialogue betweenJesus and his disciples (vss 10-12). The
second scene takes the Q-logion (Luke 16:18 I I Mark
10:11-12) to have been pronounced by Jesus to the
disciples as insiders only; 449 when "at home" they asked
him the same question (vs 1 0) that the Pharisees had
asked in the first scene (vs 2), "Is it lawful for a man to
c divorce his wife?" (£Z ~fHTTLV avllpt yvva'iKa CL"lTOAVO"aL). The
first scene, therefore, is a defense of Jesus' prohibition
against divorce as a result of questions raised by
outsiders. These questions, four in number, were not
arbitrary, but they would have to have been raised in any
serious discussion of Jesus' position.
(1) Did Jesus' prohibition against divorce contradict
the Torah? In the dialogue, Jesus raises the question
himself, asking (vs 3), "What did Moses command
[tvT€AA£LV] you?" Their answer involves the crucial
passage Deut 24:1-4, which they construe as (Mark
10:4): "Moses ordered [or: permitted] to write a bill of
divorce, and (thus) to divorce."
(2) If jesus contradicted Deut 24:1-4, as he apparently
di~.• did he contradict the Torah? The negative answer is
given on the basis of the double meaning of the term

442 Ernst Bammel ("Is Luke 16,16-18 of Baptist's
Provenience?" HTR 51 [1958]1 0 1-6) has suggested
that the sayings cluster of Luke 16:16-18 comes
from the tradition ofJohn the Baptist. For the fact
that Jesus and John the Baptist both prohibited
divorce, see above, p. 252. There is, however, not a
sufficiently close connection of vs 18 either with its
context or with the Baptist (cf. vs 6); also the
evidence in Hermas Man. 4.1.6 and Justin Apol.
1.15.3 speaks in favor of the transmission of vs 18 as
an isolated saying.
443 For literature on this saying, see the bibliography
above, esp. the articles by Catchpole; Delling;
Derrett; Fitzmyer; Schaller; Stenger; furthermore
Bultmann, History, 132; Braun, Radikalismus, 2.89 n.
3, 110 n. 1; Baltensweiler, Ehe, 59-64, 69-72;
Schulz, Q. 116-17; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 66-70;
Hubner, Gesetz, 42-67; Laufen, Doppelilberliiferung,
343-60; Niederwimmer, Askese, I 7 -18; Fitzmyer,
Luke 2.1119-21; Marshall, Luke, 630-32.
444 The trans. is mine.
445 So according to the text in Nestle-Aland, and Aland,
Synopsis, no. 227, pp. 309-10.
446 Both lines assume that divorce is imposed by the man
on the woman. Whether the woman can divorce is
not considered; by implication, however, the same
rule would apply to her. The Jewish provenience of
the saying is obvious.
447 So Fitzmyer, Luke 2.1121.
448 The literature on this passage is extensive. See the
bibliography above, esp. the contributions by
Bultmann, History, 26-27, 386; idem, Ergiinzungsheft
24; Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1.533-70; Bornkamm;
Delling; Derrett; Dupont; Laufen; Niederwimmer,
Askese, 13-15, 19, 44-50; Schaller. For further
bibliography and discussion, see the recent
commentaries on Mark by Pesch, Markusevangelium,
2.119-27; Gnilka, Markus, 2.68-79.
449 See on this point David Daube, "Public Retort and
Private Interpretation," in his NT and Rabbinic
judaism, 191-50.

255
i71'1TpE7T€LV, which the Pharisees understand to mean
"order," "command," but which can also mean
"permit. "450 Jesus interprets it in the latter sense (Mark
10:5), implying that Moses allowed divorce as a
concession, necessitated because of "your hardness of
heart" (7rpbs T~V ITKA1JpoKapl!lav vp.wv). 451 In law,
however, concession is always subordinate to the primary
law, which is thereby not denied but upheld. 45 2 The
primary law in this case is the divine order of creation (vs
6), for which Gen 1:27 and 2:24 453 are quoted as proof
texts (Mark 10:6-Sa).
(3) Since divorce presupposes marriage, which
doctrine of marriage follows from this? The answer is (vs
8b): "Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh
[p.la uapfl. •454
(4) What does this say about divorce? The answer is (vs
8b): "Therefore what God has joined together let a
human not put asunder" (8s otv olhhs O"vv£(wf£v
Cf.v8pW7TOS JL~ XWPL(ETW).4 55
Although set in the context of Jewish theological
debate, the dialogue is clearly conceived from a Gentile-
Christian perspective. 456 It considers and answers the
question that arises as well from SM/Matt 5:31-32: Did
Jesus set aside the Torah? The necessity of spelling out
an answer apparently did not exist at the level of the Q-
logion or the SM, where it was implied; but the situation
of early Christian apologetics required a formal reply, a
development that is therefore secondary. This does not,
however, rule out the possibility that Jesus himself held
the same position, or one similar, because its justification
occurs entirely in Jewish theological terms. If one takes
Deut 24:1-4 to be a later concession due to human
imperfection ("hardness of heart"), this does not obviate
the primary law; rather, it presupposes and confirms it.
The Torah itself implies that the primordial order of
creation must be in harmony with later legal regulations.
Therefore, if Jesus' prohibition against divorce involved
the use of these verses, then, far from making the Torah
invalid, Jesus would see himself as merely correcting the
misconception that has allowed a concession to become
the primary law and that, as Mark interprets it, has
substituted human regulations for the original order of
creation.
At this point, the discussion stops. Two questions,
however, will be raised later: Did Jesus not in fact allow
divorce as a concession, too? If marriage is indissoluble in
principle, and if the consequences of failure are so
severe, should one not avoid marriage altogether? The
first question was considered by later patristic com-
mentators,457 the second by the evangelist Matthew
(Matt 19:3-12).
d. Matthew's account 458 (19:3-12) shows that he has
carefully reworked and expanded the Markan Vorlage.
The new version also comprises two scenes, different

450 See BAGD, s.v. t1Tirptwro, 1-2.
451 This argument occurs only here (Mark 10:5 I I Matt
19:8). See Klaus Berger, "Hartherzigkeit und Gottes
Gesetz," ZNW61 (1970) 1-47.
452 See David Daube, "Concessions to Sinfulness in
Jewish Law," JJS 10 (1959) 1-13.
453 Cf. also Eph 5:31, and Str-B 1.801-3; Berger,
Gesetzesauslegung, 1.54 7-52.
454 Cf. also 1 Cor 6:16; 7:10-16; and Str-B 1.803-4;
Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1.536-37, 539-50.
455 See Daube, "Terms for Divorce," in his NT and
Rabbinic judaism, 362-72.
456 This raises the question of the meaning in vs 1 0 of
the phrase f'Otxarat h' allr~v ("he commits adultery
against her [or: with her]"). Schaller ("Spriiche," 240-
45) has convincingly argued for a Semiticism to be
rendered "with her," but one should not too quickly
dismiss the possibility that the meaning "against her"
could be due to a Gentile-Christian reflection about
who is the perpetrator and who is the victim of
adultery. The Markan phrase makes the divorced
wife the victim and the man the perpetrator; this is
different from saying, as does Matthew, that the
woman is the perpetrator because she actually
commits the act. Strictly speaking, the view that it is
the woman who commits adultery conforms to the
older Jewish tradition, which is changed in early
Christian theology to apply to both. On this point see
also Delling, "Logion," 270-71; Berger, Gesetzes-
auslegung, 1.559; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2.125-
26; Gnilka, Markus, 2.74-75.
457 From the bibliography above see the works on the
history of exegesis, esp. Crouzel; Delpini; Harrell;
Heth and Wenham; Lohmann; Marucci; Myre;
Niederwimmer; Olsen; Ott; Staab; Vallauri; and
Vogt. For surveys, see Gerhard Delling, "Ehescheid-
ung," RAG 4 (1959) 707-19; Carl Heinz Ratschow,
JosefScharbert, Zeev W. Falk, Bo Reicke, and Henri
Crouzel, "EheiEherecht/Ehescheidung," TRE 9
(1982) 308-62; Luz,Matthiius, 1.276-79 (Matthew,
1.307-10).
458 On the Matthean version, see Bultmanri, History, 26-
27, 386; idem, Ergiinzungsheft, 25;Jeremias, Theology,
1.224-25, and the commentaries on Matthew by

256
 Matthew 5:21-48

from those in Mark. The first scene includes the dialogue
between Jesus and the Pharisees. The Pharisees
immediately ask (vs 3), "Is it lawful for a man [lfv8pw1Tos]
to divorce his wife for any reason whatsoever [KaTlz
1Tauav alTlav ]?" 459 In reply, Jesus quotes the texts of Gen
1:27; 2:24, si:ating the creational order and drawing the
conclusion for marriage and divorce.
This first exchange leads to the Pharisees' second
question (vs 7), "Why then did Moses command to give a
bill of divorce, and to divorce (her)?" Jesus corrects (vs 8)
their misconception by saying that Moses did not
command divorce but, "because of your hardness of heart
he permitted you to divorce your wives." The repeated
"you" and "your" emphasizes that divorce was practiced
neither "from the beginning" (vss 4 and 8) nor
universally, but was given as a concession to the Jews only
because of their hardness of heart.
The implications for Matthew and his church are
clear: Jesus' prohibition rules out divorce "for any reason
whatsoever" for Christians, contrary to what is seen as
current Jewish practice. This practice appears to
Matthew to be excessive and morally decadent. When in
vs 9 he interpolates the Q-logion, which contains the
exception clause from 5:32 (possibly a Matthean
insertion), he creates an ambiguity that has ever since
kept exegetes busy: Does Matthew make Jesus allow
divorce and subsequent remarriage of the innocent
partner, in a case where "unchastity" (1Topv£la), 460 usually
understood as adultery, is involved? Or does 19:9
stipulate that only separation, not remarriage, is
permitted, for either partner? Matthew seems to be
affirming the older view that any remarriage after
divorce is adulterous but that divorce alone is not, if it
occurs because of the woman's unchastity. The exception
clause thus does not constitute a concession analogous to
that of Moses in Deut 24:1-4, but it only recognizes that
unchastity would already have destroyed the marriage.
This view on the part of Matthew seems to be confirmed
by the acccount of Joseph considering a divorce from his
wife, Mary (Matt 1: 18-19).
If these are the consequences, how should Christians
respond to their own sinfulness, for Matthew a factor
with which the church must come to terms? 461 The
disciples consider this question in the second scene (vss
10-12), 46 2 when they draw the conclusion (vs 10), "If
the case of man's relationship with the woman is like this,
it is not advisable to marry at all" (d ollToos luTtv ~ alTla
Tov lw8pC:l1Tov P,£Tlz Tijs yvvatK&s, ov uvp.cp£pov yap.ijuat).
Jesus confirms this conclusion with an esoteric saying,
drawn from an otherwise unattested tradition (vss 11-
12). 463 This very difficult saying, which I cannot fully
discuss here, suggests self-castration "for the sake of the
kingdom of the heavens," a metaphor indicating
complete sexual abstinence as the only means of avoiding
the consequence of sin that would disqualify one from
the kingdom of God. 464
What conclusions can one draw from the redaction
history of the different interpretations of SM/Matt 5:32?
( 1) It appears clear that for the earliest level of the
tradition (Q/Luke 16:18 and SM/Matt 5:32), the

Wellhausen; Klostermann; Allen; McNeile; instead, the saying is esoteric.

Lohmeyer; Grundmann; and Gundry; furthermore,
the contributions (see the bibliography above) by
Berger, Gesetusauslegung, 1.570-74; Bornkamm;
Catchpole; Delling; Dupont; Fitzmyer; Heth and
Wenham; Marucci; Moloney; Niederwimmer; Pesch;
Schaller; Staab; and Vogt.
459 Cf. the parallel references above, n. 389.
460 This view was especially argued by Erasmus in his
Annotationes in Nrroum Testamentum (1519) 326. See
the careful presentation of the material by Ott,
Auslegung, 151-57; furthermore, G.J. Wenham,
"Matthew and Divorce: An Old Crux Revisited,"
JNTS 22 (1984) 95-107.
461 On this point see Strecker, Weg, 232-35.
462 Different from Mark 10:10-11 (see above), this scene
in Matthew is not private because of its location;
463 On this point see David Daube, "Let Him That
Readeth Understand," in his NT and Rabbinic
judaism, 422-36. Braun (Radikalismus, 2.112 n. 3)
considers it an authentic jesus logion; so also (with
caution) Jeremias, Theology, 224. Differently Georg
Kretschmar, "Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem
Ursprung fruhchristlicher Askese," ZThK 61 ( 1964)
27-67, esp. 56. See Niederwimmer, Askese, 40, 53-
58.
464 For the patristic exegesis of this saying, see Walter
Bauer, "Matth. 19,12 und die alten Christen," in
Neutestamentliche Studien Georg Heinrici zum 70.
Geburtstag(UNT 6; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1914) 235-44;
reprinted in his Aufiiitu und kleine Schriften
(Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck), 1967) 253-62.

257
question of whether Jesus contradicted the Torah was
not of great concern. As for SM/Matt 5:31-32, the
question is presupposed (5:17) but answered in the
negative by the antitheses as a whole (Matt 5: 1 7 -48).
Regarding divorce specifically, the question must have
arisen in Jewish Christianity along with other instances of
Jesus' Torah interpretation. (2) The supposition that
Jesus' prohibition against divorce contradicted the
Torah is explicitly denied in Mark and Matthew. Both
state how the conflict should be explained; these
explanations presuppose a Gentile-Christian context in
which implicit arguments of a Jewish nature are no
longer debated. (3) Matthew harmonized the Q-logion
(Q/Luke 16:18//Mark 10:11-12) with SM/Matt 5:32
either by preferring his version of the logion (Q/Matt)
or by introducing the exception clause in Matt 19:9,
using wording slightly different from SM/Matt 5:32. He
assumed, therefore, that the exception clause plays the
same role in 5:32 as in 19:9. (4) My analysis of SM/Matt
5:31-32 in the context of the SM, however, has shown
that the explanation of why Jesus did not contradict the
Torah is different in 5:32 than in 19:3-9. The argument
in the third antithesis is based on Deut 24:1-4 itself, not
on the order of creation (Gen 1 :27; 2:24) or the doctrine
of marriage derived from it. According to Matt 19:4-8,
Deut 24: 1-4 would mean precisely what the SM says it
does not mean, but the author of the Gospel does not
seem to have noticed this conflict. He assumes, rather,
that there is only one explanation, that of 19:4-8, which
is valid as well for 5:31-32. (5) As far as the historical
Jesus is concerned, he could conceivably have given both
explanations. According to first-century Judaism, both
are possible. What was Jesus' motivation for prohibiting
divorce? Did he arrive at his position through his study of
the Torah? Or because of the imminent eschatological
end? Or because of his social criticism? Or for humani-
tarian reasons? All these reasons are possible, but the lack
of source material prohibits one from saying more than
this. Based as it is in part on Mark 10:2-12, however,
Matt 19:3-12 is clearly later and is strongly influenced
by Gentile-Christian theology. On tradition-historical
grounds, then, SM/Matt 5:31-32 is not only earlier than
Matthew's theology but is also more likely to have come
465 On this type of conclusion, see Quintilian Inst. 5.8.5.
258
from the historical jesus himself.
Given these premises, what are the consequences of
the argument of SM/Matt 5:31-32? As in the other
antitheses, the conclusions are implied. They must be
reached within the context of the overarching argumen-
tation of all the antitheses (5:21-48) and in analogy to
the other antitheses individually, especially the preceding
one on adultery (5:27-30). In addition, comparison with
the arguments presented in other New Testament
parallels has established positions peculiar to the SM. On
this basis, one can draw two major conclusions:
First, the interpretation of Deut 24:1-4 as cited in
Matt 5:31 is rejected as inadequate because its conse-
quences are contrary to the Torah. The argument here
is one ex consequentibus ("from the consequences"). 465
This legal argument holds generally that in case of an
ambiguity in a particular law, an interpretation does not
meet the intent of the law if its application permits or
encourages illegal acts, because it cannot be the intent of
a just lawgiver to make that law an instrument of
injustice. According to the SM, the true meaning of the
famous passage Deut 24:1-4 is the curbing of divorce as
a social instrument that produces injustice in the form of
adultery, which is prohibited by the Decalogue (Exod
20:14; see above on SM/Matt 5:27-30). Divorce can be
allowed only if defilement already exists through "sexual
immorality" (7ropv<la ); divorce cannot be allowed if it will
produce adultery.
Second, one must interpret the issue of divorce in the
context of family ethics. Thus one must judge divorce as
a case of a broken family relationship in analogy to other
instances of broken family relationships in the foregoing
antitheses. What is the ethical resolution of such
situations?
There is no question about the overarching principles
involved, that is, the fulfillment of the Torah (5: 17-20)
and the Golden Rule (7: 12). As with the other antitheses,
the ethical imperative follows from SM/Matt 5:43 (Lev
19: 18), "You shall love your neighbor," which, as
mentioned already, governs all ethical considerations in
the antitheses. Since divorce presupposes alienation
between marriage partners, what does "love of neighbor"
demand in this instance? The answer is limited, as one

must recognize from the discussions by Paul (1 Cor
7:10-16) and the Gospels of Mark (10:2-12) and
Matthew (19:3-12). The SM addresses only husbands,
assuming with Jewish life at the time that they have the
legal power to divorce. Negatively, the demand is that
any action which creates injustice is to be ruled out. This
is especially true of divorce, since this action creates
injustice for the woman as well as for the man. Positively,
various alternatives for divorce are left open for
consideration: reconciliation, separation (without
remarriage), and avoidance of marriage altogether
("celibacy"). None of these alternatives, however, is
explicitly discussed or even mentioned. None of them is
excluded, either, as is witnessed by the wealth of debate
in other early Christian texts.
d. The Fourth Antithesis: Oaths (Matt 5:33-37)
Bibliography
Banks,jesus and the Law, 193-96.
Otto Bauernfeind, Eid und Friede: Fragen zur
Anwendung und zum Wesen des Eides (Forschungen
zur Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte, N.F. 2;
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1956).
Idem, "Der Eid in der Sicht des Neuen Testaments," in
H. Bethke, ed., Eid, Gewissen, Treuepjlicht
(Frankfurt: Stimme, 1965) 79-112.
Braun, Radikalismus, 2.80-83.
Idem, Qumran, 1.16.
Hellmut Brunner, "'Eure Rede seijaja, nein nein' im
Agyptischen," in his Das hlirende Herz: Kleine
Schriften zur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte Agyptens
(OBO 80; Fribourg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988) 396-401.
Bultmann, History, 134-35, 147, 148,407.
Gerhard Dautzenberg, "Ist das Schwurverbot Mt 5,
33-37;Jak 5,12 ein Beispiel fur die Torakritik
Jesu?" BZ 25 (1983) 47-66.
Idem, "Eid, IV. Neues Testament," TRE 9 (1975)
379-82.
Dibelius,james, 248-51.
Dennis C. Duling, "'[Do Not Swear ... ) by Jerusalem
Because It Is the City of the Great King' (Matthew
5:35)," JBL 110 .(1991) 291-309.
Bernhard Kotting (B. Kaiser), "Geliibde," RAG 9
(1975) 1055-99.
I. Kottsieper, "P;il9 saba'," ThWAT 7 (1992) 974-1000.
Ernst Kutsch, "Eure Rede aber sei ja ja, nein nein,"
EvTh 20 (1960) 206-18.
PaulS. Minear, "Yes or No: The Demand for Honesty
in the Early Church," NovT 13 (1971) 1-13.
Mu6ner,jakobusbrief, 213-16.
Matthew 5:21-48
Percy, Botschaft, 146-48.
Gustav Stahlin, "Zum Gebrauch von Beteuerungs-
formeln im Neuen Testament," NovT 5 (1962)
115-43.
Strecker, Weg, 133-34.
Idem, "Antithesen," 56-63.
Adolf Wenzel, Das israelitisch:Judische Gelubde (Berlin:
Philo, 1931).
Wrege, Bergpredigt, 70-75.
Zeller, Mahnspruche, 124-26.
1) Analysis The analysis on the fourth antithesis, dealing with the
swearing of oaths, indicates that the composition here
follows the pattern common to all the antitheses in the
SM. The initiai.,.O.A.tv ("again") demarcates the opening
of the second set of three antitheses (5:33-48). Parallel
to the first antithesis (5:21-26), the fourth is composed
in complete form, with no omissions.
Two basic sections constitute the antithesis: the
refutation of the inadequate interpretation of the
scriptural prohibition, introduced by the "chain of
tradition" (vs 33), which is followed by the presentation
of the adequate interpretation of the prohibition (vs
34). The argument in defense of the adequate
interpretation (vss 34c-36) is construed as a demon-
stration of the theological absurdity of four popular
types of oaths. The conclusion (vs 37) states the
positive ethical result, a prescription concerning the
use of human language.
Excursus: Oaths: Their Use and Misuse
in Ancient Thought
The fourth antithesis (Matt 5:33-37) contains an
ethical argument regarding the use and misuse of
oaths. This argument is made in the context of
contemporary discussions concerning the subject, so
that one must, at least to some extent, reconstruct this
context to upderstand the argument. The topic of
oaths, oath taking, vows, and related issues really
requires treatment in book length, a task that cannot
and need not be undertaken here. Excellent studies
provide this service (see the bibliography). In the
following, therefore, I discuss only those presup-
positions that are essential for the understanding of the
argument made in the SM.
1. One of the most primitive rituals, the oath has its
roots in the oral phase of human culture. Although
one can no longer separate its original function and
meaning from later, secondary applications, it must
have had a connection with a weakness of the human
language. Oral affirmations or denials can be true or
false, made in honesty or with deception, out of
prudence or irresponsibility. How is one to know the
259
difference? Human language carries no built-in
guarantees. Instead there are seemingly endless
possibilities for its manipulation. Yet, human
interaction depends to a large degree on language.
In order to be effective, the human word presup-
poses a relationship between people that is one of
mutual trust. Trust should be the basis for a relation-
ship among friends. 466 Enemies, however, have no
such basis oftrust. Therefore, other safeguards are
needed to make sure that the words spoken are
reliable, spoken in truth, and intended to be kept in
the future. To provide such a guarantee seems to be
the function of oaths. 467
Not surprisingly, even literary cultures did not
abandon the oath. Written documents did not replace
the oral word but codified it in a different way. Of
course, written documents can be falsified just as easily
as oral statements. Therefore, oaths continue to serve
as a constitutive element in all forms oflegal contracts,
agreements, and treaties. 468 Apart from the legal side,
one must also pay attention to the religious and moral
aspects of oaths.
2. The oath itself consists of religious formulae, by
which the divine forces of the universe are invoked as
witnesses, enforcers, or avengers in case of viola-
tion. 469 Usually, heaven and earth, sun, moon, the
stars, the gods of the city or nation, or higher gods are
called on. 47° Thus, the oath is related to prayer and,
by implication, to magic. It is important, however, to
point out that swearers call primarily on the forces of
the cosmos. The gods are often understood to
represent the forces of the cosmos, but the distinction
466 The connection between oath and friendship is clear
from Philo Decal. 89-91; Euripides Hippol. 611-14;
PlutarchPraec. gerend. 4, 801B.
467 For the place of oaths in legal contracts, see Hirzel,
Eid, 65-75, and passim.
468 For examples see Max Kaser, Das ri!mische Privatrecht
(HKAW 10.3.3; 2ded.; Munich: Beck, 1971) 1.27,
28, 168-69, 285; also vol. 2 (1959) 10, 49; idem, Das
ri!mische Zivilproz.essrecht (HKAW 10.3.4; Munich:
Beck, 1966) 197-200; Hans Julius Wolff, Das Recht
der griechischen Papyri Agyptens (HKAW 10.5.2;
Munich: Beck, 1978) 77, 131, 202-5.
469 See esp. Hirzel, Eid, 32-41.
470 See ibid., 11-41; Erich Ziebarth, "Eid," PW 5 (1905)
2076-83; Burkert, Religion, 377-78.
471 See, e.g., Philo, who rules out swearing by God (Spec.
leg. 2.5): "But also a person may add to his 'Yes' or
'No' if he wish, not indeed the highest and most
venerable and primal cause, but earth, sun, stars,
heaven, the whole universe." Cf. 2.6-8.
472 See Gen 14:22; Exod 36:7; Deut 32:40; Ps 106:26,
etc. (see TDNT 5.459 n. 19; Peter Ackroyd, ThWAT
260
is important for those ancient thinkers who have raised
the question whether the gods should be involved in
oaths at all, a question that is also discussed in the SM
text. 471
Furthermore, whatever the forces invoked may be,
they constitute the universe ofthe oath taker. This is
important for the identification of the religious and
cultural context of the oath taker; in the case of the
SM, the passage on oaths betrays the geographic and
religious origins of the SM.
The act of oath taking, however, includes elements
other than the formulae. Apart from their recitation,
there are gestures, such as pointing toward heaven,4 7 2
or shaking hands, the latter being taken as good as the
oath itself. 4 7 s In addition there could be sacrifices. 4 7 4
3. The ethical situation concerning oaths is
constituted by the problems arising from their use and
misuse. The ethical problem is not a merely theoretical
one, whether one ought to use oaths, but a practical
one presented by the fact that the use, overuse, and
misuse of oaths of all kinds are common features of
life. How is one to deal with these phenomena in a
responsible way? This is the ethical question in general
and also in the SM.
4. The ancient discussions concerning the use and
misuse of oaths show that the legal, ethical, and
religious problems connected with them were well
known. 475 Approaches to the problems vary,
depending on the cultural background, but there is
also a common stratum. Common abuses were the
breaking of oaths, the swearing of false oaths, 476 the
inflation of oaths (wo>..vopKla), 477 and their criminal use
3.448-40; TODT 5.41 0-12). For literature, see
Eberhard 0. G. von Kiinssberg, Schwurgebiirde und
Schwurfingerdeutung (Freiburg: Herder, 1941 );
Bernhard Kotting, "Geste und Gebll.rde, • RAG 10
(1978) 898-99.
473 See Gal2:9 and Betz, Galatians, 100. For the
handshake instead of the oath, see Sophocles Oed.
Col. 650;Phil. 811-12.
474 See Burkert, Religion, 377-79, with references.
475 Ibid., 377-82. Already Hesiod Theog. 231-32 makes
Oath one of the children of Strife ("Epts) and states:
"and Oath who most troubles men on earth when
one willfully swears a false oath" ("OpKov 8', as~~
wAfiuTov f.,nx6ovlovs lzu8pclnrovs w7Jp.alvEL, CJTe tcJv Trs
EKt.:Jv f:wlopK.ov Op.Ouuy).
4 76 The definition of various types of false oaths was the
subject of a controversy between the Stoic philoso-
phers Cleanthes and Chrysippus. See below, n. 511.
4 77 See Sir 23:11; Philo Decal. 92: f/J6frat y"a.p l"
wo>..vopKlas 1/lfvaopKla Kal.lurtfJna ("For from much
swearing springs false swearing and impiety"). Cf.
also Spec. leg. 2.8, cited below, n. 506.

in conspiracies. 478 That oaths involve magic was
recognized as religiously and ethically problematic. 479
Beyond such agreements, approaches vary. The Greek
mind typically tries to get at the problems by defining
the terms and by classifying the types of oaths in use,
which in turn leads to the definition and classification
of abuses. The Jewish mind as it is expressed in the Old
Testament and later literature is very sensitive toward
the misuse of the name of God, but there is no
systematic treatment before the Mishnah.
The ethical goal was to develop the proper attitude
and use with regard to oaths (evopKla), but the methods
for attaining that goal varied a great deal. Honoring
the oath, 480 instead of dishonoring it, 481 was the
common answer. 482 Prohibition of abuse, such as
perjury, 483 was a cure of the symptoms but did not get
at the roots of the problem. Abstaining from oaths
altogether was recommended by some philosophers
and by the SM. 484 Then there were also considerations
and theories about the underlying causes that lead to
the abuses, which in turn helped to develop strategies
for avoiding them. 485 Again, one must mention the
SM in this regard because the ethical argument made
478 On this point see Philo Spec. leg. 2.10-15. A typical
case is the oath in the conspiracy of Catilina, as
described by Sallust Hist. 22.
4 79 See Hirzel, Eid, 19-22; on Horkos as a demon, see
142-70. For the role of oath in PGM, see 1.82 (ilpKov
a[1Too]ro); XII.740; IV.1450, mentioning ilpKOI xlloVIOI
("underworld oaths"). A spell involving oaths is called
opKtup.o~ (1.92; IV.3018, 3079), its performance
opKl(nv, itopKl(nv. See Friedrich Pfister, "Beschwor-
ung," RAG 2 (1954) 169-76.
480 Ps.-Pythagoras Carm. aurea 2: u£{3ov ilpKov ("respect
your oath"). See also Diog. L. 8.33: ilpKtov T< eTvat rh
olKaiOV Kat Ola TOVTO Ll.la ilpKIOV A..!yeulial ("Right has
the force of an oath, and that is why Zeus is called the
God of Oaths"). Iamblichus Vita Pyth. 155: evopKiiv ll(
1r6.vrwv p.d.A.tura 1rapayy.!A.A.et ("Most importantly, he
commanded to swear only good oaths"); also 53, 88,
144, 150, 162, 255. On the doctrine of
Pythagoreanism regarding oaths, see Armand
Delatte, Etudes sur Ia litterature pythagoricienne (Paris:
Leroux, 1915) 249-68, especially 265-68; Walter
Burkert, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagorean ism
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1972) 179.
481 See Euripides Hippo!. 611: ilpKOV~ JL1/0ap.ro~ anp.d.un~
("by no means dishonor your oaths").
482 See Ps.-Isocrates Ad Demonicum 13: "First of all, then,
show devotion to the gods, not merely by doing
sacrifice, but also by keeping your oaths [aA.A.a Kat rol~
ilpKot~ ip.p..!vwv ]; for the former is but evidence of a
material prosperity, whereas the latter is proof of a
noble character." For further references, see LSJ, s.v.
Matthew 5:21-48
in Matt 5:33-37 presupposes such an underlying
theory.
Definitions of oaths are important because they are
part of the analysis of the problems as the ancient
thinkers saw them. Philo's definition, 486 which he
repeats in a number of his writings, seems to come
from a Greek philosophical background. For example,
Spec. leg. 2.10: "For an oath is nothing else than to call
God to bear witness in a disputed matter" (ilpKo~ yap
ovo(v liA.A.o ~ p.aprvpla Oeov 1T<pt1rpayp.aro~
ap.</>t<T/31/TOVJLfVOV). 487 This definition has a close
similarity with those given by Cicero De off. 3.104: "An
oath is an assurance backed by religious sanctity; and a
solemn promise given, as before God as one's witness,
is to be sacredly kept" ("est enim iurandum affirmatio
religiosa; quod autem affirmate quasi deo teste
promiseris, id tenendum est"). 488 While these
definitions focus on the legal aspects, the one given by
the Rhet. ad Alex. 17.34, 1432a 33-34 has rhetoric in
ebopKJro KTA.
483 See below, p. 264.
484 See below on 5:33b.
485 See below on 5:34a.
486 See the bibliography on the excursus infra, esp.
Hirzel, Eid.
48 7 This definition is repeated several times in Philo:
Spec. leg. 3.205; Decal. 86; Sacr. AC 91; Plant. 82.
488 As Heinemann has shown; Philo's definition
probably derived from Stoic sources, since in a
similar form it occurs in Cicero Off. 3.1 04-5; Marcus
Aurelius In se ipsum 3.5. See Isaak Heinemann,
"Philos Lehre vom Eid," in judaica: FS zu Hermann
Cohens 70. Gebuttstag (Berlin: Cassirer, 1912) 109-18,
esp. 11 0; idem, Philons griechische und jildische
Bildung, 12-96. In his long discussion about oaths in
Spec. leg. 2.1-38, Philo interprets the third
commandment of the Decalogue, the prohibition
against "taking God's name in vain" (2.2), as implying
the keeping of good oaths (note the title as well: 7r<pt
evopKla~). See also Decal. 84-95. On the definitions,
see Hirzel, Eid, 2-7, 11-22.
261
mind: "An oath is an unproved statement supported by
an appeal tO the gods" ("0pKO~ a• t<Trl Ji.ETl:. 6£{a~
'ITapa)\.~>/r£(1)~ tJ>tt<TI~ ava...6a£1KTO~). 489 These definitions
and classifications show that they were made for a
purpose. They are intended to bring order into the
chaos of the phenomena; they define implicitly the
ethical problem; and they are supposed to lead to
ethical directives.
5. The Old Testament attests a wide variety of
oaths, reflecting the common practice of the time.
Georg Giesen490 has investigated 215 attestations of
oaths. He divides them into nineteen categories and
functions with three major classes: (a) profane oaths
found in political treaties and agreements, (b) legal-
religious oaths, often connected with vows, (c)
theological oaths, especially the covenantal oath swom
by Yahweh and Israel. Yahweh himself is the
guarantor of oaths, which means that taking oaths is in
principle a good thing. Breaking oaths, therefore, is a
form of sacrilege. Even an oath based on fraud must
not be broken, once it is taken (see, e.g., Josh 9:15-
20). If oaths must be kept, the prudent man will be
cautious in using them (Eccl8:2-3). Perjury comes in
many forms. Since political treaties were made under
oath, breaking them implies perjury (cf. Gen 21:22-
31, esp. 23). Most serious was the breaking of the
covenant Yahweh had made with Israel (Isa 63:8; cf. Ps
89:34). Giving false testimony in court was another
offense (Exod 20:16; Deut 19:18; Ps 27:12); doing this
is the mark of the enemy (Ps 144:8, 11). Religiously
offensive was the use of Yahweh's name in false oaths
(Lev 19:12; Zech 5:4) or swearing by the name of false
gods (Jer 5:7).
The connection of these abuses with the law codes
varies and appears to be secondary. In the Decalogue
the third commandment attracted most of the
attention (Exod 20:7; cf. Deut 5:11): "You shall not
pronounce the name of Yahweh in vain." The crucial
term siiw' was open to various interpretations ("evil,"
"nothingness," etc., even "evil inflicted by magic"). In
addition the ninth commandment was seen to be
related (Exod 20:16): "You shall not bear false witness
against your neighbor." Because of the name of
Yahweh, the first commandment was relevant also
(Exod 20:2-3 [RSV]): "I am the LORD your God, who
brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house
of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me."
The Holiness Code names "swearing falsely by my
name" in connection with stealing, dealing falsely, and
lying (Lev 19:11-12). In a similar way other
Decalogue-like series of prohibitions list deceitful
489 Cf. Aristotle Rhet. 1.15, 1377a 7-b 11; also 1375b
18; Quintilian/nst. 5.1.2; 5.6.1-6; 5.10.87.
490 Giesen, Wurzel (see the bibliography, infra).
262
swearing, profaning the divine name, and even magic
(Jer 7:9; Zech 5:3-5; Mal3:5).
On the whole, the Old Testament evidence shows
that oaths as such were viewed positively and that
misuse was to be avoided as contrary to the Torah.
The righteous man, when he enters the sanctuary,
must be free from deceitful swearing of any kind: he
"walks blamelessly, and he does what is right and
speaks truth from his heart" (Ps 15:2; cf. 24:3-6). One
must see these teachings as distinct from the occur-
rence of Greek technical terms for perjury (tmopKla
[see below on 5:33b]) in the LXX. Together with the
Greek terminology came Greek philosophical and
ethical deliberations, which were further developed,
especially by Philo. 491
Philo makes also a clear attempt to systematize the
types of oaths and vows, and thus to deal with perjury
in a consistent way. Another systematization, made no
doubt for a similar purpose, even though in a very
different way, occurs in the Mishnah and Talmud,
tractates Sebu 'ot and Nedarim. 492
6. The fourth antithesis of the SM shows affinities
with Hellenistic Judaism, but within that context of
Jewish thought the SM takes a unique stance. In what
must have been an inner-Jewish debate at the time, the
SM not only formulates an ethical response to perjury
but also develops theoretical ideas about the roots of
perjury and the nature of oaths as such. 493 One can
assume on the basis of existing texts that other Jewish
positions were represented by the wisdom literature,
Qumran, Philo, and the Mishnah, to name only these,
but the option with which the SM sharply disagrees
seems to have been held by the Pharisees. Because of
the lack of early Pharisaic sources, this cannot be
demonstrated conclusively, however. The SM itself
indicates that the position rejected was the commonly
held view of the Judaism of the time, but this judgment
seems to be exaggerated in view of the diversity shown
by the sources.
Bibliography
Oscar Augustin, Der Eid im griechischen Volksglauben und
der platonischen Ethik (Programmschrift; Elbing:
Kuhn, 1894).
Erich Bereker, "Eid," KP 2 (1979) 202-10.
Burkert, Religion, 377-82.
Haim H. Cohn, "Oaths," in Elon, Principles, 615-21.
Danby, Mishnah, 408-21.
Georg Giesen, Die Wurzel17::lTD "schworen": Eine
semasiologische Studie zum Eide im Alten Testament
49l For references, see below on 5:33 and 37.
492 On this point see Lieberman, Jewish Palestine, 117.
493 See below on 5:37.
 Matthew 5:21-48

(BBB 56; Bonn: Hanstein, 1971), with an extensive 2) Interpretation

bibliography.
Rudolf Hirzel, Der Eid: Ein Beitrag zu seiner Geschichte
(Leipzig: Hirzel, 1902).
PeterKaplony, "Eid," Ldii. 1 (1975) 1188-I200.
Ursula Kaplony-Heckel, "Eid, demot.," Ldii. 1 (1975)
1200-1204.
C. A. Keller, "l':llD sba', ni. 'schworen,'" ThAT 2.855-
63.
Martin A. Klopfenstein, Die Luge nach dem Alten
Testament: lhr Begri.ff, ihre Bedeutung und ihre
Beurteilung (Zurich: Gotthelf, 1964).
Kurt Latte, "Meineid," PW, 29th half-volume (193I)
346-57.
Jon D. Mikalson, Athenian Popular Religion (Chapel Hill
and London: University of North Carolina, I983)
3I-38.
Nilsson, GGR l.I39-42.
Johannes Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten in seinem
Verhiijtnis zu verwandten Erscheinungen sowie die
Stellung des Eides im Islam (StraBburg: Triibner,
I9I4).
Joseph Plescia, The Oath and Perjury in Ancient Greece
(Tallahassee: Florida State University, I970).
Marvin Pope, "Oaths," !DB 3.575-77.
F. V. Reiterer, "IC1!D 5aw'," ThWAT 7 (I993) 1104-17.
Jean Rudhardt, Notionsfondamentales de la pensee
religieuse et actes constitutifs du culte dans la Grece
classique (Geneva: Droz, 1958) 202-I2.
Leopold Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen (Berlin:
Hertz, 1882) 2.1-IO, 455.
Johannes Schneider, "8pKos KTA.," TDNT 5.457-67.
ThWNT I0.2 (I979) I206 (bibliography).
Erich Ziebarth, De iureiurando in iure graeco quaestiones
(Gottingae: Officina academica Dieterichiana,
1892).
Idem, "Eid," PW, I Oth half-volume (I905) 2076-83.
• 33 The fourth antithesis about oaths follows the pattern
of starting out with the rejection of the inadequate
interpretation (vs 33). The introductory ?Td.A.tv ("again")
must be original to the SM despite its strangeness. Since
none of the other antitheses is introduced in this manner,
belonging to the following formula is not the only reason
for its being there. 494 Grundmann 495 is probably right
when he takes it to mark the beginning of the second
group of three antitheses. 496 This is also indicated by the
fact that the formula describing the "chain of tradition"
(vs 33a) is stated in full as in the first antithesis (5:21):
"You have heard that it was said to the men of old"
(~ICOVO'aTt' CJTL eppE87j TOL~ apxaloL~). 49 7
The "Scripture" text is cited next (vs 33b): oviC
E?TLOpiC~um ("You shall not swear an oath falsely"). Which
Scripture is cited here? The texts usually named as
parallel references in the Old Testament are Lev 19:12,
Exod 20:16, and Deut 5:20; but the LXX 498 as well as
the MT of these passages are different. It was, first of all,
Hellenistic judaism that regarded the prohibition OVIC
E?TLOpiC~uELs as part ofthe Torah, for which one can cite a
wide range of mostly wisdom texts. 499 The explicit
prohibition, however, is found only in Ps.-Phocyl. Sent.
16:
Do not commit perjury, neither ignorantly nor
willingly. The immortal God hates a perjurer,
whoever it is who has sworn.
p.~ a· E'lTLOpiC~O'!JS fJo~T· ayvws p.7jat fiCOVTL' t£vaop1COV
O'TV')'EEL 8£0S lJ.p.{3poTOS CJO'TLS op.OUO'!J. 500

494 So BAGD, s.v. wc:l.)l.ov, 3. 'lrA'f/<Tlov uov p.apTvplav ..;evliij ("you shall not bear
495 Grundmann (Matthiius, I63) points to Michaelis false witness against your neighbor").
(Matthiius 1.270) as precursor. See also Strecker, 499 See LXX Zech 5:3-4; I Esdr 1:46; Wis I4:25; T. Ash.
Bergpredigt, 81 (Sermon, 77-78). 2.6; Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. I6; Philo Spec. leg. 1.235; 2.26,
496 For the composition of the series, see the Intro- 27; 4.40; Decal. 88;Josephus Bell. 1.260; 2.I35; Ant.
duction to the antitheses, above. 5.169-70; 8.20; I4.348; I8.335; Vita 21.
497 k sy*s Ir do not read Tols &pxaloos ("to the men of 500 Text and translation according to van der Horst,
old"), however, and by preferring the short form Sentences, I23.
used in 5:27, 3I, 38, 43, these texts eliminate the
marks of separation between the two groups of three.
Grundmann (Matthiius, I 53) notes the parallel to the
two groups of four beatitudes.
498 Lev I9: I2: Kal OVK op.elue. Ti!J ovop.aTl p.ov lw' alilKtp
("and do not swear by my name unjustly"); Exod
20:7: ov )\~p...;y TO 8vop.a Kvplov Tov Beov lwl p.araltp
("you shall not take the name of the Lord your God
in vain"); Exod 20: I6: ov ..;wliop.apTvp~um KaTa TO

263
Strictly speaking, therefore, the text referred to in Matt
5:33 is Hellenistic-Jewish halakah; it is regarded as a
Torah prohibition, but it is not part of the written
Hebrew text of the Old Testament.
How this Hellenistic-Jewish halakah came about is best
shown by Philo in his exegesis of the third command-
ment in Spec. leg. 2.1-38. As he says in the section title,
he understands Exod 20:7 to deal with "the duty of
keeping oaths" (1T€pl. £vopKlas). He discusses the various
types of oaths, first the impiety of misusing God's name
in assertory oaths (2.2-8), then (2.9-31) the subject of
good and bad promissory oaths (£vxal), with a digression
in 2.11 about dishonorable oaths; finally, he deals with
specifications for votive offerings (avaB~p.am) to the
temple (2.32-38). 501 All ofthe categories and practices
derive from current cultic descriptions, perhaps even
based on Stoic sources. 50 2 They undoubtedly reflect
] ewish practice in Alexandria as well as general
Hellenistic practices and ideas. Philo's intention is to
bring them into some kind of order and to eliminate
those which violate his understanding of "taking the
name of God in vain." 503 Ideally, the ordinance should
make an oath unnecessary altogether: "the good man's
word, it means, should be an oath, firm, unswerving,
utterly free from falsehood, surely planted on truth. "504
If one is forced by the circumstances, however, one
should look for the compromise least offensive to the
divine name. What this means for the various types of
oaths (and the corresponding types of perjury) is the
subject of most of Philo's deliberations.
The prohibition of perjury was debated throughout
antiquity. 505 Philo Decal. 92 derives perjury from too
much swearing (?ToA.vopKla): "from much swearing springs
false swearing and impiety" (cp/;£TaL yi:Lp £K ?ToA.vopKlas
t£vSopKla KaL au£{3Ha). 506 But one can contrast Philo's
views to other explanations that are often presented in
connection with etymologies, definitions, and attempts at
classification. The terms commonly used are £mopKiiv
("commit perjury"), £?TwpKla ("perjury"), and £?TlopKos
("perjurer"). 507 They refer either to an intentionally
false oath or to the breaking of an oath or vow. The
terms are found since Homer and Hesiod, 508 but their
explanation has been the subject of much discussion. 509
The best explanation may be contained in Hesiod Erga
193-94, 282-83, where the phrase £?TI. S' CJpKov lfp.ouu£
refers to the taking of the magical staff upon making a
statement, that is, swearing an oath in addition to the
statement. 510 Perhaps the phrase "what is more than
these" (Matt 5:37) alludes to this understanding of
£?TlopKos as something done in addition.
Among the philosophers, the Stoics Cleanthes and
Chrysippus tried to limit the meaning. 511 They
disagreed about the moment when an oath would be
broken. Cleanthes defined it as an oath falsely sworn,

501 For the interpretation of Philo, see Heinemann, Aristophanes Ran. 145-50; frg. 431; Menander Mon.
"Philos Lehre" (cited above, n. 488). 34 7; the sections in Stobaeus Eel. Ill, 27 (7r€pt ilpKov);
502 See ibid., 110, with references. III, 28 (7r£pt t7rtopKlas).
503 Philo Spec. leg. 2.2; for the present discussion of the 509 For the literature see TDNT 5.466-67, with notes;
meaning of the term IC1TD "magically evil"[?], see Chantraine, Dictionnaire, 3.820-21.
J. F. A. Sawyer, THAT 2.882-83. 510 So Manu Leumann, Homerische Worter (Basel:
504 Philo, Spec. leg. 2.2. See furthermore Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. Reinhardt, 1950) 79-90, who proposes as the
7,12,48-50,123-24. original meaning of h't ilpKOV op.6uuat: "einen Eid
505 For discussion and references see Hirzel, Eid, 41-52, dazu schworen" ("swear an oath in addition"). See
75-79; Giesen, Wurzel, passim, with bibliography; Matt 26:72 (p.£ra ilpKov); also the third denial26:74;
Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen, 2.3-10; Kurt Mark 6:26; Matt 14:7, 9.
Latte, "Meineid," PW, 29th half-volum·e (1931) 346- 511 For the texts see SVF 1.131 (no. 581 ); 2.6 (no. 197);
57; Plescia, Oath and Perjury, esp. 83-91; Dover, for the interpretation see Hirzel, Eid, 75-79.
Greek Popular Morality, 248-50.
506 See also Philo Spec. leg. 2.8 for a description of
1ro>..vopKla, and Sir 23:9-11, for the same subject in
the context of the "education of the mouth" (7ratada
ur6p.aros [23:7]).
507 See Johannes Schneider, TDNT 5.466-67; Betz,
Lukian, 185 n. 3.
508 See LSJ, s.v. Most interesting are Theognis 1195-96;
Hesiod Theog. 231-32; Pindar 01. 2.65-67;

264
 Matthew 5:21-48

that is, with the intent of breaking it, while Chrysippus
calls that 'ljfwaopKEtv and reserves hwpKEtv for the later
failure to honor an oath or a vow when it should be
honored.
Hellenistic Judaism also knew the terminology:
£1rlopKos occurs in LXX Zech 5:3; £1rwpKla in Wis 14:26;
hwpK£w in 1 Esdr 14:28; and esp. in Ps.-Phocyl. Sent.
16-1 7. 512 Hellenistic Judaism firmly connected the
prohibition of perjury with the third commandment of
the Decalogue: "You shall not take the name of the Lord,
your God, in vain" (Exod 20:7; cf. Deut 5:11). The
connection appears to be secondary but justifiable.
Certainly Exod 20:7 and Deut 5:11 have much more in
mind than perjury, but if a connection had to be found,
this is an appropriate one because of the implied magical
misuse of God's name. 513
As the Mishnah tractate Sebu 'at shows, rabbinic
Judaism was engaged in even more complex disussions of
the various types of oaths and their abuse. 514 While the
prohibition of perjury in general is transcultural, Philo
demonstrates more clearly than some of the other
parallel texts 515 that the simple prohibition ovK
£mopK~um ("you shall not swear falsely"), at least the
choice of the words, is not Jewish but Greek in origin and
that it was only secondarily connected with the Torah by
making it part of the halakah.
Matthew 5:33 shows that the ambiguity connected
with the prohibition in the earlier Greek tradition is
carried over into Judaism and Christianity: does the
injunction refer to perjury in the legal and moral sense
or to the breaking of religious vows? The interpretation
given in vs 33c makes a decision in favor of the religious
vow: lmoawuus a£ r{il Kvpl'l:l TOVS CfpKOVS uov (literally: "but
you shall make good your oaths to the Lord"). The
question is which type of interpretation we have before
us. As indicated by the particle a€ ("but"), 516 the
statement is another cultic ordinance interpreting the
preceding one in a positive way. 517 At issue is not only
the legal and moral offense of perjury but that oaths are
sworn before God and therefore constitute a debt owed
to God. Consequently, failure to make good this debt by
breaking the oath amounts to perjury. 518 This
implication may explain why the distinctions between
oaths and vows were anything but clear and why the
expression olowp.t CfpKovs could be almost a synonym of
amoolawp.L CfpKOVS as early as classical Greek language.
The further implication is that £1rwpKla ("perjury") is
interpreted here in a way very similar to Philo, who also
argues that once one has sworn an oath, one must keep
it: "But if anyone has been compelled to swear on any
matter whatever, so long as it is not forbidden by the law,
he should use all his strength and every means in his
power to make good his oath, and allow nothing to
hinder him from carrying out his decision." 519 Philo's
position, however, corresponds to the general ancient
religious and moral judgment. It can also easily be
reconciled with statements in the Old Testament
advocating the same position (Num 30:3-4; Deut 23:21-
23; Ps 50:14).
Violation of oaths and vows was prohibited because it
is both a religious and a moral offense punishable by the
deity. This was the common viewpoint in antiquity. For
example, see Deut 23:21 (RSV): "When you make a vow
to the LORD your God, you shall not be slack to pay it; for
the LORD your God will surely require it of you, and it
would be sin in you."
On the Greek side, the popular view is expressed, for
example, by XenophonAnabasis 2.5.5-7: "I could never
deem happy a man who is aware that he has disregarded
such oaths. For I do not know with what swiftness of foot

512 Cited above; see van der Horst, Sentences, 12 3, with 516 The particle is omitted by W.
the commentary, 123-34. Cf. the same statement in 517 For Greek parallels see LSJ and BAGD, s. v. lnroaiawfL'·
Sib. Or. 2.68-69. 518 This has been pointed out correctly by Strecker,
513 See Lev 19:12; Sir 23:9-11; 27:14; Ps. Sol. 4.4; Wis "Antithesen," 58; idem, Bergpredigt, 81 (Sermon, 77-
14:28-29; 3 Bar. 4.17; 13:4; Philo Decal. 82-95, esp. 78).
88-91; Spec. leg. 2.1-38, esp. 26-28, also 1.235; 519 PhiloSpec.1eg.2.9;seealso2.12.
4.39-40; T. Ash. 2.1.
514 See Danby, Mishnah, 408-21; Str-B 1.325-27, with
the texts; for a survey see also Haim H. Cohen,
"Oath," in Elon, Principles, 615-21; idem, "Perjury,"
ibid., 516-17.
515 See below, nn. 523, 544-50.

265
he might escape the hostility of the gods or any place to
which he might flee, nor do I know any dark spot he
might run off to or how he might withdraw to a secure
place. For all things everywhere are subject to the gods
and they control all things equally." 5 2°
As far as Matt 5:33c is concerned, one can sum up the
implications in this way. The term ll.7Tol'ilowp.t ("give
[back]") may be more than a synonym of the simplex
l'ill'iwp.t ("give") and may be understood here in the more
specialized sense 521 of"making good on a religious
vow." 52 2 This would imply that <ipKo!; ("oath") is to be
taken in the sense of £VX~ (Latin votum, "vow") made to
the deity, 523 here "to the Lord" (TiP Kvp{~). 524 The
ordinance would say, therefore, that once one has
promised a votive offering to God, one must carry out
that promise. 525 By contrast, failure to do so amounts to
perjury. In conclusion, it is clear that the interpretation
of vs 33b by vs 33c is a specialized one, 526 one that has
no parallel elsewhere in the New Testament. 5 2 7
If this view is accepted, the theory implied here is that
one must regard perjury as a sacrilege and that one can
most effectively avoid it if swearing an oath is upgraded
from the level of a common habit, as it were, to the
higher religious level of a vow. Or, if one prefers other
terminology, the shift that would take place would be
from the assertory to the promissory oath. At any rate,
one does not take promissory oaths or vows as easily, and
520 Translation by Mikalson (Athenian Popular Religion,
37), where more examples can be found.
52 I For the more general meaning, see Matt 5:26 and
BAGD, s.v. 8p1<os and lnrolllllwfL•; Alexander Sand,
EWNT (EDNT) I, s. v. One should not overlook that
awolllllwfL• is not quite the same as lllllrol-'• (lipKov). See
LSJ, s.v. lip~<os, with the passages.
522 This meaning is unique in the NT, but not in the
LXX and the Apostolic Fathers.
523 In fact, ,;,X~ is the term used in Ps 49:I4 LXX. For
this meaning, see Paul's vow in Acts I8:I8; 2I:23; cf.
1 Clem. 41.2; 53.3 (Ps 49:I4 LXX); Philo Spec. leg.
2.38, summing up the discussion 2.I-38 as dealing
with lipKwv ,.<v ll~ w•pt Kat •iJxwv ("On oaths and
vows"). See BAGD, s.v. ,;,X~· 2; Heinrich Greeven,
"•i!xo!La•, ,;,X~ nA.," TDNT 2, 777-78 (A.2); Str-B
1.372-73; Bernhard Kotting, RAG 9 (I975) I959-
84; Gunter Lanczkowski eta!., "Geliibde," TRE I2
(I983) 300-3I6, esp. 306.
524 ",';p•os ("Lord") here refers to God. Cf. the different
meanings in Matt 6:24; 7:2I, 22.
525 The issue is, therefore, different from Lev I9: I2,
266
when one does take them, one must fulfill them or incur
divine punishment. Thus one must treat the inter-
pretation ofvs 33b by vs 33c as a serious option, not as a
caricature 528 or as the result of an unintended confusion
of oaths and vows. 529 This underlying theory about how
to deal with perjury is, however, rejected by the SM.
• 34 The antithesis in vs 34a should formulate the correct
interpretation of the Torah, but it is difficult to see how
vs 34a is related to vs 33bc. Verse 34a unquestionably
advances the uncompromising prohibition of any kind of
oath taking : "But I say to you: 'Do not swear oaths at
all"' (€yw o£ A.€yw vp.'i:v p.~ op.6uat <iA.w!;). This statement
consists of two elements: the doctrinal formula "but I say
to you," familiar from the other antitheses (5:22, 28, 34,
39, 44; cf. 5:20), and the apodictic prohibition.
Another problem is whether one can substantiate the
claim made in this statement that the prohibition goes
back to the historical jesus. Strecker 530 has made a
strong case for it, advancing a number of reasons, among
them its unparalleled rigor. 531 This prohibition stands at
the beginning of a development that one can still observe
by careful analysis of the texts (Matt 5:33-37;Jas 5:12;
andjustinApol. 1.16.5). 532 Gerhard Dautzenberg,
however, has cast doubts on the whole line of Strecker's
argument. 533 One must recognize that, apart from Matt
5:33-37, the synoptic tradition has no evidence that
Jesus held this position. But the parallels injas 5:12 and
where the use of the divine name is the problem.
526 Cf., however, the story of Ananias and Sapphira,
Acts 5: I-6. Related is the critique of the practice of
Kop{3av in Mark 7:9-I3 par., and of Herod's oath in
Mark 6:22-24.
527 Cf. I Tim I: I 0 in a list of vices; Doctr. apost. 2.2-3;
Did. 2.3, also in a list of vices (see Audet, Didache,
29I); Apoc. Pet. I4.29, and on this passage Albrecht
Dieterich, Nekyia (2d ed.; Leipzig: Teubner, I9I3)
I64-84; Latte, PW, 29th half-volume (I93I) 347.
Related is the crime of false witness (1/t•vllol-'aprvpla).
528 Against Suggs, "Antitheses as Redactional Products,"
442.
529 Unclear is Strecker, "Antithesen," 59 n. 60, with
references to Matt 23:I6ff.; 26:74; idem, Bergpredigt,
8I (Sermon, 77-78).
530 Strecker, "Antithesen," 58-60; idem, Bergpredigt,
82-83 (Sermon, 78-80).
53 I I disagree, however, with his statement that prior to
Jesus antiquity did not know a rigorous prohibition
of oath taking. For discussion and references see his
Bergpredigt, 82-83 (Sermon, 78-79).
 Matthew 5:21-48

Justin Martyr are important witnesses in that they show a
close relationship at the presynaptic level among the SM,
the Epistle of James, and Justin Martyr. This level is
Jewish Christian and part of the oldest layer of the Jesus
tradition. 534 Given the extent of our ignorance
regarding Jesus' teaching, in this case one may give the
tradition the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, the
evidence can be called "multiple attestation" only if the
three passages are independent witnesses, and that we do
not know.
The prohibition of oaths seems to have originated in
some philosophical schools, but there is no certainty
about the origin. 53 5 The list of the Delphic precepts in
Dittenberger (Sylloge [4th ed. ], 1268 [I, 8]), has this
precept: "Do not use the oath!" (C5pKrot p.~ XPW ). 536
Certainly, Sophocles speaks out against the oath. 537
Plutarch considers it unworthy of the wise man, 538 and
so does Quintilian, who admits oaths only under some
circumstances in oratory. 539 Among the Stoics, Epictetus
clearly forbids the oath for his students. 540 Marcus
Aurelius follows suit in rejecting it. 541 Whether these
Stoics were influenced by the Pythagoreans, 542 the latter
rejecting the oaths by invoking the gods but not the
elements, is not clear. 543 If one assumes such an
influence, one would have to assume similar influences
for the Qumran sect 544 and for Philo. 545 A peculiar
form of avoidance was the so-called oath of Rhada-
manthys, according to which an oath was taken "by the
dog," "by the goose," and so forth. 546 Socrates probably
used this form of the oath. 54 7
At any rate, if one assumes that vs 34a goes back to the
teaching of the historical Jesus, the argument in which it
is set in vss 33-37 is secondary and the work of the SM.
How is this argument made? One must extract the
answer from the setting, specifically from the relation-
ship between vss 33bc and 34b-37. Thefour examples
of oaths given in vss 34b-36 do not include the swearing

532 Strecker, "Antithesen," 56-58; idem, Bergpredigt, 82
n. 38 (Sermon, 205 n. 38).
533 Gerhard Dautzenberg, "Ist das Schwurverbot Mt
5,33-37;Jak 5,12 ein Beispiel fur die Torakritik
Jesu?" BZ 25 (1983) 47-66; Strecker (Bergpredigt, 82
n. 37; cf. 84 n. 43 [Sermon, 204 n. 37; cf. 205 n. 43])
argues against Dautzenberg.
534 Cf. Strecker, "Antithesen," 61: "Der Entstehungs-
grund wird das hellenistische Judenchristentum sein,
dessen Verbundenheit mit der judischen Tradition
durch den Gebrauch des Schwures unter Anrufung
Jerusalems zum Ausdruck kommt." See idem,
Bergpredigt, 83-84 (Sermon, 79-81).
535 See Hirzel, Eid, 109-23.Johannes Schneider, TDNT
5.179-80.
536 Is it accidental that the next line has cf,.A.iav aycba
("love friendship")? If this is not a coincidence, it
would confirm my treatment of the oath in
connection with the concepts of friendship and
enmity. See also Solon in Diels-Kranz, 10 (73a) (I, 63,
15-17); Democritus in Diels-Kranz, 68 B 239 (II,
193, 6-8); Gorgias 82 B 11a (II, 296, 11). Menander
Mon. 582 has this sentence: "Flee the oath, if only
you swear properly" ("OpKov S~ cf>£vy£, Kiiv StKaiw~
ol-'v,',71~). I am indebted to Roy Kotansky for this
parallel.
537 SophoclesOed. Col. 650;Phil. 811-12.
538 Plutarch Quaest. Rom. 44, 275C-D. Plutarch lists
possible reasons why the priest ofJupiter was
prohibited from taking oaths.
539 Quintilian !nsf. 9.2.98.
540 Epictetus Ench. 33.5: "Refuse, if you can, to take an
oath at all, but if that is impossible, refuse as far as
the circumstances allow" (''OpKov 7rapaiT1/UaL, £t 1-'~V
or&v TE, els C£7Tav, d Of,.,.~, EK rWv lvOvrwv). See
Bonhoffer, Ethik, 72-73, 113-14 n. 31; idem, Epiktet
und das NT, 30.
541 Marcus Aurelius In semetipsum 3.5.
542 Diog. L. 8.22: "Not to call the gods to witness, man's
duty being rather to strive to make his own word
carry conviction" {JA.TJl>' OJLvVvat BeoVs· ltcrKe'iv yd.p abrOv
Sii'v a~L07fluTov 7rap'xHv). See also Hermann Diels,
Elementum (Leipzig: Teubner, 1899) 48, who refers
to Philo Spec. leg. 1.1 and Matt 5:34-35 as parallels.
543 See Bonhoffer, Ethik, 113-14 n. 31; Schneider,
TDNT 5.179-80.
544 See Philo Omn. prob. lib. 84; Josephus Bell. 2.135; Ant.
15.371-72; CD 15.1-16. For the interpretation see
Braun, Radikalismus, 1.69, 73 n. 5, 85 nn. 6-7; 2.80-
83; idem, Qumran, 1.16; 2.98-99, 289, 296.
545 Philo Spec. leg. 2.5; Leg. all. 3.207. See Heinemann,
"Philos Lehre" (see above, n. 488); also t.lful. 2.17:
"R. Meir says, 'It is better that you should not vow
than that you should vow and not pay' (Qoh 5.5)-
best of all is that you should not vow at all" (trans.
Jacob Neusner, The Tosefta [New York: KTAV,
1979]5.73).
546 See Hirzel, Eid, 90-104, with references.
547 SeeR. G. Hoerber, "The Socratic Oath 'By the
Dog,"' Cl] 58 (1963) 268-69; Kotting, RAC 9 (1975)
1082; Doring, Exemplum Socratis, 154-55.

267
by God's name. One should not overlook this peculiar
fact because this omission means that the use or abuse of
the name of God is not the real reason behind the
prohibition. Instead, all four examples use substitutes as,
for example, Philo recommends, to avoid the divine
name. 548 But the substitutes do not justify even this
limited use of oath. 549 Invalid as these substitutes are,
their vanity alone does not suffice to reject oaths as
violations of the sanctity of God's name. In fact, two
other reasons are named as speaking against oaths:
human limitations 550 and the sufficiency of ordinary
language. 551 The four examples are ordered in such a
way that they begin with heaven, then move down to
earth, to the center of the earth (Jerusalem), 552 and
finally to one's head. Together they circumscribe the
universe of the swearer and name its important focal
points. 553
The first example, vs 34b, is indeed typical in that it
makes use of the invocation of heaven: "neither by
heaven, for it is the throne of God" (p.~u lv Tij> ovpavij>,
()n 8p6vos ftTTLV Tov Beov). Philo confirms the great
popularity of such oaths in antiquity, in which the
swearer calls on "earth, sun, stars, heaven, the whole
universe" (yijv, 1/A.wv, atTTtpas, ovpav6v, TOV O"VJL7TILVTa
ICJtTp.ov). 554 Burkert notes that oath formulas invoking
the corners of the universe are found in Greek religion,
where they are numerous. 555 Important primary sources
for such invocations are the Greek Magical Papyri55 6
and Jewish magic. 557 As Strecker 558 correctly points out,
in jewish Christianity the great oath in the Ps.-Clementine
Contestatio 559 and the one used by the Elchasaites 560 must
be mentioned. The phrase "swearing by someone or
something" (lfp.vvp.1 €v nv1) is a Semiticism that is found
often in LXX. For the New Testament, see, apart from
Matt5:34-36, Matt23:16, 18; Rev 10:6. 561 The reason
for prohibiting such swearing is given in vs 34c : "for it is
the throne of God. " 562 This clause is possibly an allusion
to Isa 66: 1, 563 but the notion of heaven being God's

548 Philo Spec. leg. 2.2-5.
549 Here SM differs from Philo, who justifies the oath by
limiting its usage.
550 The argument is traditional: the oath is over-
extension and thus hubris or folly. Cf. Philo Decal.
84: "To swear not at all is the best course and most
profitable to life, well-suited to a rational nature
which has been taught to speak the truth so well on
each occasion that its words are regarded as oaths; to
swear truly is only, as people say, a 'second-best
voyage,' for the mere fact of his swearing casts
suspicion on the trustworthiness of the man."
Similarly, Spec. leg. 2.6-8. See Hirzel, Eid, 109-12.
551 This argument is also traditional. For passages and
discussion, see Hirzel, Eid, 115-23.
552 See Ezek 5:5; 38:12;jub. 8.12, 19; 1 Enoch 26.1-2,
etc. For further references see Georg Fohrer, TDNT
7.318 n. 125; Eduard Lohse, ibid., 324-25.
553 There seems to be a parallel argument in Matt
23:16-22, although it is formulated differently. The
passage argues against profaning God by the
contradictory ways in which vows are performed.
The conclusion one ought to draw is that one should
not swear at all.
554 Philo (Spec. leg. 2.5), however,justifies such swearing:
"for they [i.e., earth, sun, etc.] are worthy of highest
respect, since they have precedence in time over our
place in creation, and also will remain forever
untouched by age according to the purpose of Him
who made them" (trans. F. H. Colson). In rabbinic
judgment, such oaths do not fall into the category of
swearing (m. Sebu. 4.13; see Str-B 1.332-33).
, 555 Burkert, Religion, 3 7 7-78, with further references.
556 See esp. PGM III.394; XII.241-44; XIII. 761-94;
XXI.6-10, and often.
557 See esp. Sepher Ha-Razim: The Book of the Mysteries
(trans. Michael A. Morgan; SBL TT [Pseudepigrapha
Series 11 ]; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1983) passim;
Lieberman, Greek in jewish Palestine, 115-43.
558 Strecker, "Antithesen," 61-62.
559 Ps.-Clem. Contestatio 2.1; 4.1-3, calling on heaven,
earth, water, air, then ether, and God himself.
560 The Elchasaites invoked seven witnesses: heaven,
water, the holy spirits, the angel of prayer, oil, salt,
and earth. See Hippolytus Ref 9.15.1-2; 9.15.4-
16.1 (see N1Jl..poc 2.748-49; N1Jl..pok 2.622);
Epiphanius Adv. haer. 19.1.6a-b. See also Georg
Strecker, "Eikesai," RAG 4 (1959) 1180-81; idem,
"Judenchristentum und Gnosis," in Karl-Wolfgang
Troger, ed., Altes Testament, Frilhjudentum, Gnosis
(Giitersloh: Mohn, 1980) 280-81.
561 See also BAGD, s.v. lv, IV.5.
562 For a close parallel, see Matt 23:22.
563 Acts 7:49 and Barn. 16.2 actually quote Isa 66:1, but
Matt 23:22 does not. For rabbinic parallels, see Str-B
1.333.

268
 Matthew 5:21-48

throne may have become proverbial, since it is found also
in Greek religious literature. 56 4
The SM takes this notion to be a valid reason for
ruling out such oaths because they involve overstepping
human limits and usurping powers belonging to the
divine sphere. One should note that neither Philo nor
rabbinic theology shares this sensitivity. 565 One can
more easily connect the concern with the Delphic
maxim, "Nothing in excess" {p.7]li'fv llyav). Overextension
of human limitations would be implied in two ways: the
unwarranted and preposterous assumption of having any
influence on the forces of the cosmos, and the offensive
attempt to compel 566 the one who is sitting on the throne
(Matt 23:22) by magic. 567 At any rate, the position
advocated by the SM conforms to the charge of laxness
raised against the scribes and Pharisees (SM/Matt 5:20).
• 35 The second example (vs 35ab) is "nor by the earth,
for it is his footstool" (p.~n £v Tfj yfi, Hn v'lTO'lToliulv £unv
Toov 'lTolioov afJTov). The same reasoning as in vs 34bc is to
be applied here. The earth is not under human
command, contrary to popular assumption. 568 That it is
God's footstool may again refer to Isa 66:1, or to a
proverbial expression, or to both. 569 Here as elsewhere
in the SM, therefore, the earth is seen as God's realm. 570
The third example (vs 35cd) focuses on Jerusalem:
"nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king"
(p.~T£ t:Z!> 'lt:pouoA.vp.a, Hn 'lTOAL!> £uTtv Tov p.t:y&.A.ov
{3au&A.(ro!>). There are some peculiar features to be
mentioned here. That the city is referred to at all is
worth noting. We know that in Greek oath formulas, the
patron deities of the polis are often invoked. 571 They
refer to the city from which the swearer comes. If one
can apply this idea to the SM, in which Jerusalem is the
only city mentioned several times, it presents the
strongest evidence 572 that the provenance of the SM is
the Jewish-Christian congregation at Jerusalem. 57 3
Peculiar also is the change of preposition from £v to
t:Z!>. There may, however, not be any difference in
meaning, 574 and the change may be due to the common
usage of the preposition t:l!> with places and especially
with cities. 575 The expression also occurs with different
shades of meaning elsewhere in the New Testament (see
Matt 16:21; 20:17, 18; 21:1, 10; Acts 13:13; 15:4;
18:21; 20:16; 25:15, etc.).
The form of the name for Jerusalem, 'It:pouoA.vp.a
instead of 'It:povuaA.~p., is the more common one found

564 For parallels in Greek literature, see Hymn. Orph.
62.2; PGM LXXVII.I2-I3; Armand Delatte,
Anecdota Atheniensia (Paris: Champion, I927) I.260,
line 34. See also BAGD, s.v. 8povos I. b.
565 See above, n. 550.
566 Su;ch compulsion, well attested by the "magical
formulae of compulsion" (lwavayKauros) in PGM, was
regarded as the element in magic most offensive to
religion. See esp. PGM IV.238-60, and on the
subject Theodor Hopfner, Griechisch-iigyptischer
Offenbarungszauber (2d ed.; Amsterdam: Hakkert,
I974) I,§§ 688-92, 729, 785-86, 875, 876. See also
idem, "Theurgie," PW, 2d series, II th half-volume
(I936) 258-70; Betz, Hellenismus und Urchristentum,
I78-79, 2I7.
567 See also Did. 2.2: ov p.ayevuns, ov <t>app.aKevue&s ("you
shall not practice magic, you shall not practice
sorcery"); Doctr. apost. 2.2; Did. 5.I; Gal 5:20; Barn.
20.I; Rev I8:23; 2I:8; and on the whole subject
BAGD, s.v. <t>app.aKela KrA.
568 See, in contrast, PGM VII.836-37: lfopKl(;e u€, KVp&E
l£vaTfAA( cou] KaTtt jlaiav T~1TOV 8Aov ICOU~oL&KoV KarU roV
ra
1<Vp1EVOVTOS T~V i$A1JV olKovp.lV1JV Ka\ EVEp)IOVVTOS
wQvra ("I adjure you, lord, you who rise over the land
of the whole cosmic realm, by the one who rules over
the whole world and who is the benefactor of the
universe").
569 See also Acts 7:49; Barn. I6.2; Philo Conf ling. 98;
Jas 2:3; cf. LXX Pss 98:5; I09:I; Lam 2:1. See
BAGD, s.v. bwowoa&ov; Folker Siegert, Philon von
Alexandrien, Uber die Gottesbezeichnung "wohltiitig
verzehrendes Feuer" (De Deo) (WUNT 46; Tiibingen:
Mohr [Siebeck], I988) II9-20; Str-B 1.333. For a
parallel in magic, see PGM LXXVII.I4.
570 Cf.theusageinMatt5:5, I3, I8;6:IO, 19;also5:45;
6:25-34.
57 I See, e.g., Burkert, Religion, 378; Hirzel, Eid, 10 n. 2.
572 See also Matt 5:14; 7:I3-I4.
573 For Jerusalem as the "navel of the earth" see also
Martin Hengel, The "Hellenization" ofjudaea in the
First Century after Christ (London: SCM; Philadelphia:
Trinity Press International, I989) 68 n. 45 (with
further bibliography).
574 So BAGD, s.v. els, 6.b.
575 For references, see BAGD, s.v. els, 9.a.

269
frequently in the synoptic tradition, Acts, and Paul (Gal
1:17, 18; 2:1; cf. the other form in Gal4:25, 26). 576 In
Matthew, this form is used throughout, except in 23:37,
where 'Ic:povuai'I.~J.t occurs, probably due to a source. 577
In magic, the name was known and employed in both
forms. 578 That Jerusalem is known as "the city of the
great king" appears to be a reference toPs 48:3 LXX, if
the phrase is not already proverbial. 57 9 "Great king" is a
divine epithet of Yahweh. 580 The title occurs in magic,
too. 581 In the SM, it occurs only in Matt 5:35, but it
indicates that one should connect any talk of kingdom
with the notion of God's kingship, despite the fact that
most of the time, the SM refers to God as Father. 58 2
• 36 The fourth and final example refers to swearing by
one's head: "nor shall you swear by your head, for you
cannot make (even) one hair white or black" (J.t~n €v Tfj
Kc:rf>ai\fi uov OJJ.Ouns, CJn ov Bvvauat J.tlav Tplxa i\c:vK~v
7Totijuat ~ J.tb.. awav). Swearing by the head is attested in
Jewish 583 as well as in non-Jewish sources, 584 and one
can therefore assume that it was generally popular. 585
That nobody can make a hair white or black is a
proverbial 586 truism and a good example of such truisms
often proving false. 587 Ancient medicine had developed
ways of hair coloring, 588 and the Egyptians were known
to have practiced it. 589
• 37 Introduced by B€ ("instead"), vs 37a takes us to the
conclusion of the section on oaths: "Instead, let your
word be 'Yes, yes, no, no"' (~uTw Bt i\oyos VJ.tWV vat val, oil
oi!). This command, however, transcends the issue of
oath taking and makes a statement about the nature and
usage of language as a means of human communication
regarding truth and falsity. 590 The term i\oyos ("word")
here means more than promise and denial. It recognizes
that promise and denial are general characteristics of
human language, so that the taking of oaths must be
related to this larger issue. What is at stake is that
ordinary human language must suffice for human
communication.

576 See Betz, Galatians, 73 n. 172, with further literature 584 See BAGD, s.v. ~•.Pa>.~, l.a, referring to Athenaeus
and references. See also Dennis C. Duling, '"[Do Not
Swear ... J by Jerusalem Because It Is the City of the
Great King' (Matt 5:35)," JBL 110 (1991) 291-309;
Dennis D. Sylva, "Ierousalem and Hierosoluma in
Luke-Acts," ZNW 74 (1983) 207-21.
577 See BAGD, s.v. 'I<pocnlAv/La; Georg Fahrer and
Eduard Lohse, "I.tciJv ~rA"., TDNT 7.291-338; Lars
Hartman, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s. v. 'I<pou6>.v/La,
'I<povuaA~IL·
578 PGM XII1.997-1001 on "the great name which is in
Jerusalem" (rl> IL£ya lJvo/La rl> lv 'I<pouoAviLo•~); cf.
XIII.233-34: "as I have adjured you, child, by the
temple in Jerusalem" (Ws E£ciJpKr.triL ue, TEKvov, Ev T~
I<pif> rif> lv 'I<pouoAV!L'!'); IV.1221, 3069. See also
TDNT 7.328 n. 231; Str-B 1.333.
579 See Str-B 1.333-34.
580 melekgadol (Pss 47:3; 48:3; 95:3; Mal1:14; Tob
13:16; PhiloMigr. Abr. 146; Op. mun. 71, 88; Vita
Mos. 1.166; etc.). See Jan Bergman, Helmer
Ringgren, and R. Mosis, ThWAT 1.928, 946 (TDOT
2.391, 407-8); BAGD, s.v. ~autA<v~, 2.b.
581 See PGM 111.540; IV.1928; cf. Il.53; XIII.250, 605;
LXXII.17.
582 For the divine epithet "Father" see above on
SMIMatt 5: 16.
583 The question in this tradition is whether swearing by
one's head includes a conditional self-curse. See Str-B
1.334, referring tom. Sanh. 3.2. Cf. also the curse
mentioned in Acts 18:6, and BAGD, s.v. ~•.Pa>.~, l.a;
Michael Lattke, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s. v. ~•<j>a>.~, esp.
sections 4a and b.
2.72 (p. 66c) as parallels; and Wettstein, 1.305-6,
listing Greek and Roman passages; also Carl Sittl, Die
Gebarden der Griechen und Romer (Leipzig: Teubner
1890), 139 n. 1; 140 n. 2; Hirzel, Eid, 33 n. 2.
585 See PGM IV .1916-1 7 for an oath sworn by the heads
of the underworld gods; and on this point see Sam
Eitrem, Beitriige zur griechischen Religionsgeschichte
(Kristiania: Dybwad, 1917) 2.34.
586 Cf. Matt 10:30 I I Luke 12:7; 21:18; Acts 27:34,
which attest a similar proverbial expression
concerning hair. Cf. also Matt 6:27.
587 Such truisms may even be maintained at times when
the opposite is commonly practiced.
588 See the material in Wettstein, 1.306. In Menander
(Sam. 262) someone dyes his white hair.
589 Sappho frg. 98a. See Margarethe Stephan,
"Haartracht," PWSup 6 (1935) 90-102; Bernhard
Kotting, "Haar," RAG 13 (1986) 176-203, esp. 195-
99. Noteworthy are the comments by Tertullian De
cultu feminarum 2 .6; Cyprian De habitu virginum 16.
590 This argument is not found in the parallelsJas 5:12;
Justin Apol. 1.16.5; it is a contribution of the SM
only. The question whether the whole argument goes
back, in substance or in words, to the historical Jesus
cannot be answered positively or negatively.

270

As the ancients saw it, human language is a direct
extension of the character of the person speaking it. 591
In communication with one another, we constantly make
inferences from the trustworthiness of the words to the
trustworthiness of the person. These inferences are also
informed by tone, gestures, eye-to-eye contact,
knowledge of the person's previous history, and so on.
This entire process of communication is sufficient and is
in no need of extralinguistic props. 592
If extralinguistic props are brought in, however, the
normal flow of communication is imperiled, if not
destroyed. This is the meaning of the statement in vs 37:
"but anything exceeding these [words] is from (the) evil
(one)" (root 1T£PL<T<TOV roiJrwv £K TOV 7TOV1Jpov £<TTLV). What
is meant by ro 7T~pL<T<Tov ("whatever is more than this,
whatever goes beyond this") 593 is not immediately clear.
The meaning of the adjective apparently differs from
other instances in the SM. 594 It seems most likely that
the meaning of the term is related to the preposition £1rt
in the verb £1rwpK~'iv (see above on vs 33b), indicating
that the oath is taken "in addition." Philo praises people
who are "in the habit of saying 'Yes, by ___ ' or 'No,
by ___ ' 595 and add nothing more and by thus
591 Cf. Ps 37:30-31 (REB): • A righteous person speaks
words of wisdom and justice is always on his lips." See
also Prov 16:23;Job 8:10; 1 Kgs 3:9; etc. For further
references see Hellmut Brunner, "'Eure Rede seija
ja, nein nein' im Agyptischen," in his Das hOrende
Herz: Kleine Schriften zur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte
(OBO 80; Fribourg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988).
592 It is noteworthy that another reasoning that would
be analogous to Matt 5:21-22 is not given here. A
certain Eusebius (in Stobaeus Flor. 28.13), about
whom nothing further is known, has argued that
even the intention, without committing the act itself,
is breaking the oath and is perjury. See on this point
Hirzel, Eid, 78-79, who refers to the story of
Leotychides in Herodotus 6.86.
593 So the renderings in BAGD, s.v. w<ptucnlY, 3. See also
BDF, § 185 (1); BDR, § 185, 1 n. l.
594 Cf. Matt 5:20: w<ptuuevw w.\iiov; also 5:47.
595 For the so-called elliptical oath, see Plato Gorg. 466E;
Aristophanes Frogs 1379.
596 Philo Spec. leg. 2.4-5: .ZC:,8aut yap ll.va</>8<yt6.p.<vo•
rouoVrov p.6vov "v~ n)v" ~ "p.h. nSv," p.1]0"fv
wpouwapa.\afJovr<Y, (p.</>6.u<L riiY lLwoKowfjy rpavovv
CJpKOV olJ )'EV6fLEVOV. Q.A.A.h. Kal 7rp0U7Tapa'A.a{3Jrw
{3oVA£rat, p.~ p.lvrot rh ltvwrJrw Kal 7rpEu{3-6rarov EV8Vs
arrtov, 0.AA0: yijv, 1/Atov, lurrlpas, oVpav6v, rhv
Matthew 5:21-48
breaking off suggest the clear sense of an oath without
actually making it. But a person may add to his 'Yes' or
'No,' if he wishes, not, indeed, the highest and most
venerable and primal cause, but earth, sun, stars, heaven,
the whole universe." 596 Philo is satisfied if only the use of
God's name is avoided.
In contrast, the SM is more radical in ruling out
anything superseding ordinary human language, a
position Philo regards as ideal but unrealistic. 597 The
thing ruled out by the SM, therefore, is magic, that is,
magical props of all sorts. The reason given is that such
props are "from the evil" (£K rov 7TOV1Jpov), that is, they
have their origin in evil, or even in "the evil one" (Satan),
and hence they result in evil. 598 That result is none other
than perjury (£7TwpK~'iv), which is named in vs 33b. What
must suffice, therefore, is the ordinary "Yes, yes, no, no,"
which is not an oath 599 but an intensified affirmation and
denia1. 600
In conclusion, one can state that the argument in vss
33-37 does not merely justify the prohibition of oaths; it
uvp.w6.vra KOup.ov. Cf. also Spec. leg. 2.6, where Philo
criticizes "the lightness and heedlessness shown by
some that they pass by [im<pfJ6.vr<r] all these works of
creation and allow their words to dash on [ll.varp'x"v
rep .\oy'!' ro.\p.wut] to the Maker and Father of all."
597 Philo Spec. leg. 2.2.
598 Overtones of demonic evil should not be denied,
because "oath" was understood since Hesiod to be a
demonic being. See Hirzel, Eid, 142-49.
599 Cf., however, what appears to be a secondary
interpretation in 2 Enoch 49.1.
600 See alsojas 5:12; 2 Cor 1:17-20; and BAGD, s.v. val,
5. For the interpretation, see also the articles by
Kutsch; Stahlin; Minear; Dautzenberg (1983) 55-56,
all listed in the bibliography above; furthermore,
Brunner, "Eure Rede," 396-401. The problem
whether 2 Enoch 49.1-3 0) is dependent on the SM is
discussed by F. I. Andersen in OTP 1.176 n. a;
Dautzenberg, TRE 4 (1982) 381 n. 4.
TfS, El
271
also explains how oaths lead inevitably to perjury. The
inference to be drawn for ethics is clear: one can achieve
avoidance of perjury only by abstaining from oaths
altogether.
Thus the passage 5:33-37, and vs 37 in particular,
seems to make a moral rather then a religious argument
in favor of a straightforward speaking of the truth.
Behind this moral argument, however, emerge
theoretical problems having to do with the philosophy of
language. The question arises whether the SM was aware
of these theoretical issues. These issues were discussed in
ancient philosophy, and it could well be that the SM was
somehow influenced by these discussions.
1. Rhetorically, the phrase, "Yes, yes, no, no," is
epanadiplosis, the repetition of important words for
emphasis. 601 This rhetorical feature, however, is an
indication of a weakness of the human language itself.
Through manipulation of the words or through
deception, a "yes" can become a "no" and vice versa. 602
If language consists of "sounds" (cpwval) and "names"
(ov&fA-aTa), 603 both can be and are all too often used in
false and deceptive ways. The results are "lying"
("l/l£vaos), 604 "deception" (a'lTaTav, £ta'lTaT7Jins), 605 and
"error" ('lTA.av7J). 606 The correct and ethically respon-
sible, that is, truthful, usage of the language was called
'lTapp7]ula ("outspokenness," "frankness," "plainness of
speech"), 607 a notion that plays an important role in the
ancient doctrines about friends and enemies. 608
2. The most incisive analysis of the strategies of
deception was undertaken by the Socratic-Platonic
critique of "sophistic rhetoric," especially in Plato and
Aristotle. 609 In Plato's Phaedrus, for example, sophistic
rhetoric is charged with systematically exploiting the
possibilities in human language for "praising evil under
the name of good" (260c). 610 Based on the theory that
the "names" (ovO!J-aTa) and what they mean are the result
of conventional agreement (6,uts) rather than being
rooted in the nature of being (cpiJuts), the sophistic
rhetorician has carefully studied the psychology of the
masses for the purpose of creating an impression of truth,
with no concern for truth itself. Rhetoric, therefore,
appears to be the art and science of passing off the "yes"
for the "no" and the "no" for the "yes."
Socrates then advances a completely different theory,
pointing to the speaker of the word (275c). 611 He speaks
about the "begetting" (276a) of the word in the human

601 See BDF, § 493 (1), with examples; cf. also 432;
Schwyzer, Grammatik, 2.597 n. 1.
602 Paul discusses such a possibility in 2 Cor 1:17-22,
where he rejects what must have been an accusation
by his adversaries in Corinth, "Was I vacillating when
I wanted to do this? Do I make my plans like a
worldly man, ready to say yes and no at once? As sure
as God is faithful, our word to you has not been yes
and no" (2 Cor 1:17-18 [RSV]). For the inter-
pretation, see Hans Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief
(KEK 6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1924), 63-66. Another parallel is Jas 5: 12; for the
interpretation, see Dibelius and Conzelmann (james,
248-51 ), who render it, "Let your 'yes' be true and
your 'no' be true" (249). See also the rabbinic
parallels in Str-B 1.336.
603 See on this point H. Steinthal, Geschichte der
Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Ri!mern mit
besonderer Rilcksicht auf die Logik (2d ed.; Berlin:
Diimmler, 1890) 1.252-71.
604 Cf. Matt 5:11; Rom 1:25; Eph 4:25; Rev 14:4; Did.
5.2; Barn. 20.2. See Hans Conzelmann, "l[F<vlio~
KTA.," TDNT 9.594-603. According to Heraclitus
(frg. 28 [Diels-Kranz, I, 157]), Plato (Leg. 11.937b-c),
and Aristotle (Eth. Nic. 5.5, p. 1131a 7), the greatest
of all lies is perjury (Conzelmann, TDNT 9.592).
605 Cf. Rom 16:18.
606 Cf. 2 Cor 6:8; Jas 5: 19; 2 Pet 2:15, and for the whole
word field, Herbert Braun, ",.>..avd.w KTA.," TDNT
6.228-53.
607 So BAGD, s.v. '1Tapp7Jcrla, 1; see also Heinrich Schlier,
",.app7Jcrla KTA.," TDNT 5, 871-86.
608 Aristotle Eth. Nic. 9.2, p. 1165a 29-30; Plato Gorg.
487a-e; Lack. 188e; !socrates Or. 2.3; Philo Rer. div.
her. 21. See Schlier, TDNT 5.871.
609 See Antje Hellwig, Untersuchungen zur Theorie der
Rhetorik bei Platon und Aristoteles (Hypomnemata 38;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), esp.
151-321 on the ethos of the speaker.
610 On this passage see Hellwig, Untersuchungen, 78, 315.
611 Plato Phaedr. 275b-c: "SocRATES. They used to say,
my friend, that the words of the oak in the holy place
of Zeus at Dodona were the first prophetic
utterances. The people of that time, not being so
wise as you young folks, were content in their
simplicity to hear an oak or a rock, provided only it
spoke the truth; but to you, perhaps, it makes a
difference who the speaker is and where he comes
from, for you do not consider only whether his words
are true or not" (trans. Harold N. Fowler, Plato
[LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University;
London: Heinemann, 1914] 1.565).

272
 Matthew 5:21-48

soul, "the word which is written with intelligence in the
mind of the learner, which is able to defend itself and
knows to whom it should speak, and before whom to be
silent. "612 It is "the living and breathing word of him
who knows." 613 - speech, and is oratorical. "616 He is, according to ancient
3. The problem of whether the "names" have a root in
nature or are the result of convention is the subject of
Plato's Cratylus. 614 Cratylus advances the theory that
only if the gods were the first givers of the names could
one have any confidence in their being true: "I think the
truest theory of the matter, Socrates, is that the power
which gave the first names to things is more than human,
and therefore the names must necessarily be correct"
(438c).
This idea refers to the theory of language associated
with magic, for which the names of the gods are revealed
by the gods themselves. The magician is the one who
claims to possess the secret names of the deities and
therefore to be able to control the universe itself. This
language theory lies behind the words of the prayer of
the magician inPGM IV.604-10: "because, on account
of the pressing and bitter and inexorable necessity, I
invoke the immortal names, living and honored, which
never pass into mortal nature and are not declared in
articulate speech by human tongue or mortal speech or
mortal sound. "615
Socrates does not subscribe to this theory. Plato points
out (407e-408b) that the name of Hermes reveals by its
etymology that, although it has the well-known
connection with speech (A6yo!1), the god "is an interpreter
[EPJ.A-'1/V(iJ!I] and a messenger, is wily and deceptive in
thought, identical with the Egyptian god Thoth, also
foremost the god of speech and magic. 617 Given these
circumstances, Socrates concludes that the things as they
are in reality cannot be learned from the names they
have but "much better through themselves than through
names. "618 Socrates then tells "what I often dream
about. •6 19 He dreams of seeing things as they really are
and thus obtains unchangeable knowledge of them: "that
which knows and that which is known. "620 This dream
refers not only to the doctrine of the ideas but beyond it
to ecstasy (€v8ovcnaup.6!1) and notions related to the
mystery cults. 621
Plato's Cratylus does not deal with this background,
however, but in 398e, Socrates points to it as the subject
to be taken up on the next day: "So I think this is our
duty: we ought today to make use of this wisdom and
finish the investigation of names, but tomorrow, if the
rest of you agree, we will conjure it away and purify
ourselves, when we have found some one, whether priest
or sophist, who is skilled in that kind of purifying. "6 2 2

612 Ibid., 276a: ''0~ p.<r' h&uT~P,'I~ yp.i</><ra& £v rfi roil
p.av66.vovro~ o/vxfi, avvarh~ p.ev ap.vva& tavri!>,
f1Tt.UT~J.LWV a~ Aiynv T£ Ka'r. utyO.v 7rph~ oih· 0£t.
613 Ibid.: Thv roil <lOOror A6yov A'yn~ (rovra Kat ~p.o/vxov.
For a fuller discussion of this doctrine of Plato, see
Gaiser, Name und Sache in Platons "Kratylos"
(AHAW.PH 1974:3; Heidelberg: Winter, 1974) 86-
94, 101-17.
614 On the Cratylus as well as Plato's theory oflanguage,
see Gaiser, Name und Sache; Josef Derbolav, Pia tons
Sprachphilosophie im K ratylos und in den spiiteren
Schriften (Impulse der Forschung 10; Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972); Jetske C.
Rijlaarsdam, Platon uber die Sprache: Ein Kommentar
zum K ratylos, mit einem Anhang uber die QueUe der
Zeichentheorie Ferdinand de Saussures (Utrecht: Bohn,
Scheltema & Holtema, 1978). For the discussion of
these problems in Neoplatonism, see Maurus
Hirschle, Sprachphilosophie und Namenmagie im
Neoplatonismus. Mit einem Exkurs zu Demokrit B 142
(BKP 96; Meisenheim, Glan: Hain, 1979).
615 The translation is that of Marvin Meyer, in Betz,
Greek Magical Papyri, 1.50. Cf. Philo's view that "in
the very words of God are oaths and laws of God and
most sacred ordinances; and a proof of this sure
strength is that whatever He saith cometh to pass,
and this is especially characteristic of an oath· (Leg.
all. 3.204; trans. F.H. Colson and G.H. Whittaker).
616 Plato Crat. 407 e-408a: Kal rb tpp.'lv'a <tva& Kal rl>
ll.yy£Aov Ka'r. rh KA01TI.K6v Tf Ka'r. rh a1T«T1JA.hv Ev A6yot.s
\ \' I
Ka& TO ayop&O"TIKOV.
617 See PlatoPhaedr. 274c-275b, on the god Theuth
(Thoth), the inventor of numbers, arithmetic,
geometry, astronomy, draughts and dice, and most
important, letters (ypap.p.ara).
618 Plato Crat. 439b: oi!K £( ovop.arwv, CzAAa ?ToAh p.aAAOV
aVra. ft aVrWv Ka'r. p.a87JrJov Ka'r. (7]TTJrfov ~ fK rWv
' '
ovop.arwv.
619 Ibid., 439c: 1l £ywy• ?TOAAtlKI~ ovnpwTTW.
620 Ibid., 440b: rl> y•yvrouKOV, ~UTI ae rl> y•yvwuK<lp.<VOV.
621 Cf. ibid., 396d. See Gaiser, Name und Sache, 49-53.
622 Ibid. 396e. The important words are: aiJp10v ae, ...
a.,.oa&o?TO/J-?T'Iu6p.<6a n ai!r~v Kat Ka6apoVp.<6a
£t£vp6vr£s Hurts rCr. rotaVra Onvhs- Ka8alpnv, d1-£ rWv

273
 What does the preceding discussion mean for the
interpretation of Matt 5:37? It certainly does not suggest
a direct connection between the SM and Plato, but there
are indirect connections. Ifvs 37 does not spell out but
does presuppose an underlying theory about language,
clues may be found in other passages. There is other
reflection in the SM as to who the "you" (vp.£'is) are whose
speech is supposed to be truthful. The sixth beatitude
(Matt 5:8) blesses those who are "pure in heart" (o!
1<a8apol Tfj 1<apolq.) because they shall see God. 623 This
notion of the purity of heart is analogous to the Greek
notion of the purity of the soul, through which truthful
speech comes about.
That the human heart is basic to the SM is evident
from a number ofpassages, 624 but the doctrine merely
presupposed in the SM is spelled out more fully in Mark
7:1-23 par., the great chapter on purity and im-
purity.625 The principle is stated in 7:15, "There is
nothing outside a person which by entering into him can
defile him; but that which comes out of a person is what
defiles that person." In 7:21-22 we learn that "from
within, out of the heart of persons come forth evil
thoughts, (leading to) illicit sexual acts, acts of theft,
murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, (as well as) deceit,
licentiousness, evil eye, slander, arrogance, foolishness."
In other words, it is the condition of the heart that
decides whether the "yes" is really a "yes" and the "no"
really a "no. "626 The similarity of this doctrine to ancient
philosophical discussions about "frankness of speech"
(7rapp1Jcr{a) as part of the ethos of the speaker (~8os TOV
>..£yovTos) seems too obvious to be a mere coincidence. 627
e. The Fifth Antithesis: Retaliation (Matt 5:38-42)
Bibliography
Banks,jesus and the Law, 196-99.
Braun, Radikalismus, 2.92 n. 1.
Idem, Qumran, 1.17.
Bultmann,History, 135-36,148-49.
C. John Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude to War
(London: Headley, 1919; reprinted New York:
Seabury, 1982) 22-25.
Henri Clavier, The Duty and the Right of Resistance
according to the Bible and to the Church (Dale
Lectures, Oxford 1946; Oxford: Blackwell, 1956)
32-45.
Idem, "Matthieu 5,39 et Ia non-resistance," Revue
d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses 37 (1957) 44-57.
John D. Crossan, "Jesus and Pacifism," in James W.
Flanagan and Anita Weisbrod Robinson, eds., No
Famine in the Land: Studies in Honor ofjohn L.
McKenzie (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1975) 195-
208.
Stuart D. Currie, "Matthew 5:39a-Resistance or
Protest?" HTR 57 (1964) 140-45.
David Daube, "Matthew 5:39f," JTS 45 (1944) 177-78;
see his NT and Rabbinic judaism, 254-65.
Idem, Civil Disobedience in Antiquity (Edinburgh:
University of Edinburgh, 1972) 109-10.
Lewis Donelson, "'Do Not Resist Evil' and the
Question of Biblical Authority," Horizons in Biblical
Theology 10 (1988) 33-46.
Paul Fiebig, "Jesu Worte tiber die Feindesliebe," ThStK
91 (1918)30-64,305-6.
Ludwig Gunther, Die Idee der Wiedervergeltung in der
Geschichte und Philosophie des Strafrechts: Ein Beitrag
zur universal-historischen Entwicklung desselben (parts
1-3, first half[no more published]; Erlangen:
Blasing, 1889-95) 1.263-85.

1tp.!wv r•s trn rwv uo,Purrwv. Gaiser (Name und Sache,
50) refers to Soph. 230B-E and Phaedr. 243A as
parallels.
623 See above on SM/Matt 5:8. Cf. also Num 30:3; Zech
8:17; Sir 23:9-10.
624 Apart from SM/Matt 5:8 see 5:28; 6:21; on "soul"
(lJ!vx~) see 6:25. Related areJas 1:21, 26-27; 3:1-
18; 4:8; 5:5, 8; Matt 12:34-37.
625 On this chapter see Hans Hubner, "Mark VII.1-23
und das 'judisch-hellenistische' Gesetzesverstandnis,"
NTS 22 (1976) 319-45;Jan Lambrecht, "Jesus and
the Law: An Investigation ofMk 7, 1-23," ETL 53
(1977) 24-79; Heikki Raisanen, "Jesus and the Food
Laws: Reflections on Mark 7:15," JSNT 16 (1982)
79-100.
626 This interpretation is confirmed by the context in
which the injunction against perjury occurs in later
tradition: Doctr. apost. 2.3-5; Did. 2.3-5; and Didasc.
apost. Syr. 3.6 have to do with sins committed by
speech. See Wohleb, Die lateinische Ubersetzung, 92-
93, with the apparatus.
627 See Hellwig, Untersuchungen, 298-321. Reference
should also be made to the principle of fidelity that
was part of Roman law and ethos: fit quod dicitur
("keeping one's word"). Schulz (Principles of Roman
Law, 223-38) refers to Cicero Off 1.7.23; Rep. 4.7,
and many other passages, among them 1 Mace 8:1,
12, and Pilate's words (John 19:22), "What I have
written, I have written."

274

Rudolf Hirzel, "Die Talion," Philologus, Supplementband
11 (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1907-10) 405-82, esp.
421-22.
Hubner, Gesetz, 81-112.
Gerhard Lohfink, "Der ekklesiale Sitz im Leben der
AufforderungJesu zum Gewaltverzicht (Mt 5,
39b-42/Lk 6, 29)," ThQ 162 (1982) 236-53.
Dieter Liihrmann, "Liebet eure Feinde (Lk 6, 27-
36/Mt 5, 39-48)," ZThK 69 (1972) 412-38.
Fritz Neugebauer, "Die dargebotene Wange undJesu
Gebot der Feindesliebe: Erwagungen zu Lk 6, 27-
36/Mt 5, 38-48," ThLZ 110 (1985) 865-76.
Percy, Botschaftjesu, 148-52.
Jerome Rausch, "The Principle of Nonresistance and
Love of Enemy in Matt 5:38-42," CBQ 28 (1966)
31-41.
Harald Sahlin, "Traditionskritische Bemerkungen zu
zwei Evangelienperikopen," StTh 33 (1979) 69-94.
Jiirgen Sauer, "Traditionsgeschichtliche Erwagungen
zu den synoptischen und paulinischen Aussagen
iiber Feindesliebe und Wiedervergeltungsverzicht,"
ZNW 76 (1985) 1-28.
Luise Schottroff, "Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe in
der urchristlichenJesustradition, Mt 5,38-48; Lk
6,27-36," in Georg Strecker, ed.,jesus Christus in
Historie und Theologie: Neutestamentliche FS for Hans
Conzelmann (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1975)
197-221; ET: "Non-Violence and the Love of
One's Enemies," in Schottroff, Essays, 9-40.
Schulz, Q, 120-127.
Krister Stendahl, "Hate, Non-Retaliation, and Love
(JQS X,17-20 and Rom 12:19-21)," HTR 55
(1962) 343-55.
Strecker," Antithesen," 63-65.
Robert C. Tannehill, "The 'Focal Instance' as a Form
of New Testament Speech," JR 50 (1970) 372-85.
Gerd Theissen, "Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe (Mt
5, 38-48/Lk 6, 27-38)," in his Studien zur Soziologie
des Urchristentums (WUNT 19; Tiibingen: Mohr
[Siebeck], 1979) 160-97.
Anton Vogtle, "Ein 'unablassiger Stachel' (Mt 5,39b-
42 par. Lk 6,29-30)," in Helmut Merklein, ed.,
Neues Testament und Ethik: [FS Jfor Rudolf
Schnackenburg (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna:
Herder, 1989) 53-70.
Jakob Weismann, "Zur Erklarung einer Stelle in der
Bergpredigt," ZNW 14 (1913) 175-76.
Werner Wolbert, "Bergpredigt und Gewaltlosigkeit,"
Theologie und Philosophie 57 (1982) 498-525.
Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 55-60.
1 ) Analysis The composition of the fifth antithesis dealing with
retaliation follows a pattern familiar from the
preceding antitheses. The omissions correspond to
those of the second antithesis (5:27-30). The unit as a
Matthew 5:21-48
whole is well worked out in its construction and
argumentation and has two clearly distinguishable
parts.
First, the beginning (vs 38a) contains the refutation
of the inadequate interpretation of the ius talionis, in
itself a statement ofhalakah. This refutation is
introduced by the "chain of tradition," mentioning the
present recipients and the divine origin of the tradition
("it was said"); the past recipients are not mentioned.
The talio formula is quoted as Scripture in vs 38b; its
inadequate interpretation is not stated separately but
left to the reader to infer from the right interpretation
ofvs 39a.
Second, the argument in favor of the adequate
interpretation is set forth by a set of four (or five)
examples composed in a parallel manner as an isocolon
of five sentences. The first three sentences are
completely parallel except for alternating between a
relative clause (vss 39b, 41a: li<Tr&s ... ) and a
participial phrase (vss 40a, 42a: TfP 6b..ovr&, riP
alrovvr&). The fourth sentence is elliptic (vs 42a), while
the fifth (vs 42b) resembles the second (vs 40a); the last
two statements (vs 42a, b) form a double liner in that
they present closely related situations. The relationship
between the sentences is anticlimactic and accumu-
lative, beginning with the violent slap on the cheek and
then decreasing the violence to a mere petition in the
final sentence. Each sentence first describes an act of
violence suffered and then offers a prescription for a
reaction that is contrary to what is expected. All
examples are formulated in the second person
singular, expressing their exhortatory force in addition
to their illustrative function within the argument. The
ethical conclusions to be drawn from the whole
argument are not stated. I will consider them after an
examination of the passage and its argument.
Excursus:
Ius Talionis ("Law of Equal Retribution")
The fifth antithesis, with its reference to the famous
talio formula, leads into the field of the history of law.
In considering this antithesis, one must distinguish
between the graphically descriptive formula, "eye for
eye and tooth for tooth," and the principle it expresses.
Both formula and principle belong to the most ancient
stock oflegal rules in Western culture, yet their
understanding is not without problems. The origin of
the talio principle is unknown, as is the etymology of
the Latin word talio itself, the name by which the
principle was known in antiquity. From ancient sources
as well as from modern investigations, it is clear that
the talio indicates a particular stage in the development
275
oflegal thought and practice (see Diamond, Cardascia,
in the bibliography below). Ancient sources testify that
the talio principle replaced a primitive system of
indiscriminate cycles of blood revenge. It is thus
incorrect to identify the formula "eye for eye and tooth
for tooth" with blood revenge, as is often done. On the
contrary, the original purpose of the talio principle was
to limit, or even to eliminate, revenge by revising the
underlying concept ofjustice. Justice was no longer
obtained by revenge but by proportionate punishment
of the offender or by substitutional compensation. The
following points seem to be clear and should be kept in
mind as we interpret the SM passage:
1. As a legal principle, the ius talionis stipulates that
the corporal punishment of the perpetrator of a violent
injury must be similar or equal to the injury sustained.
If the. punishment is incommensurate, a new injustice is
created and justice is not served.
2. The legal principle underlies virtually all penal
systems in antiquity, including the Old Testament and
Judaism, and those of today as well.
3. The talio principle corresponds to the classic
definition of justice (Uipian Dig. 1.1.1 0): "Justice is a
steady and enduring will to render unto everyone his
right. The basic principles of right are: to live
honorably, not to harm any other person, to render to
each his own" ("Justitia est constans et perpetua
voluntas ius suum cuique tribuendi. I uris praecepta
sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum
cuique tribuere"). For the notion of justice and suum
cuique, see also above on SM/Matt 5:20.
4. The talio principle is closely related to the ethical
principle of the Golden Rule. Whereas the law
punishes the perpetrator of a criminal offense after it
has occurred, the Golden Rule as an ethical principle
considers and recommends preventive initiatives to be
taken after the offense has occurred and instead of the
expected revenge, so as to break up the cycle of
violence and counterviolence (for discussion see below
on SM/Matt 7: 12; SP/Luke 6:31). The justification
for this initiative lies in the principle of law according
to which injustice incurred cannot be rectified by new
injustice. The principle of "eye for eye and tooth for
tooth" had appeared already in the Code of Ham-
murabi (§ 196): "If a seignior has destroyed the eye of
a member of the aristocracy, they shall destroy his
eye." The social standing of the perpetrator and the
victim being equal, the punishment must equal the
injury. But if their standing is unequal, compensation
by money is in order: "If he has destroyed the eye of a
commoner, he shall pay one mina of silver. If he has
destroyed the eye of a seignior's slave or broken the
bone of a seignior's slave, he shall pay one-half his
value"(§§ 198-99). Correspondingly, "if a seignior has
knocked out the tooth of a seignior of his own rank,
they shall knock out his tooth. If he has knocked out a
276
commoner's tooth, he shall pay one-third mina of
silver"(§§ 200-201, ANET, 175). According to these
laws, then, "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" refers to
corporal punishment or monetary compensation, with
eye and tooth being only exemplary possibilities in a
series of dafl¥lges. This kind of law is found in even
older law codes of ancient Mesopotamia (see Frymer-
Kensky).
In Greco-Roman law, the talio principle was
fundamental. Here also its original purpose was to do
away with blood revenge (see Aeschylus Choephori 304;
cf. 301; Sophocles Oed. Tyr. 100; Plutarch Romulus
7.23.1-3; Cato 15.3; Dionysius ofHalicarnassus 2.52-
53; Quintilian Inst. 5.10.14; XII Tables 8.4 [Aulus
Gellius Noctes Atticae 20.1.14)). Private revenge was not
immediately eliminated and continued to exist in some
areas such as adultery and burglary by night. The
execution of punishment was the personal responsi-
bility of the victim or, if the victim was unable, of the
next of kin. Thus the ius talionis belongs to private law
whether retribution was understood as punishment or
as compensation.
Roman as well as Jewish law greatly expanded
monetary compensation, the amount of which had to
be settled by agreement between victim and perpe-
trator. As a result, one must conclude that abstaining
from retaliation altogether is an extreme form of
limitation, but as such it does not contradict the ius
talionis (cf. esp. also Livy 3.58.4). Apart from
compensation, forgiveness or mercy (dementia) could
also express such abstention. Moreover, the post-
ponement of retaliation from this life to the hereafter
seems to have been part of ancient tradition as well
(see, e.g., Plato Rep. 10,615c; Pausanias 10.28.4; T.
Gad 6.7; Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 77; 2 Enoch 50.4; Rom
12:19; Heb 10:30).
Bibliography
Albrecht Alt, "Zur Talionsformel," ZAW 11 (1934)
303-5; reprinted in his Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte
des Volkes Israel (Munich: Beck, 1953) 1.341-44.
David W. Amram, "Retaliation and Compensation," in
his Studies in jewish Jurisprudence (New York:
Hermon, n.d.) 2.191-211; first published in]QR 2
(1911/12) 191-211.
Joel Blau, "Lex Talionis," Yearbook of the Central
Conference of American Rabbis 26 (1916) 336-66
(with additional discussion, 366-75).
Guillaume Cardascia, "La place du talion dans
l'histoire du droit penal a Ia lumiere des droits du
Proche-orient ancien," in Melanges offerts aJean
Dauvillier (Toulouse: Centre d'histoire juridique
meridionale, Universite de Toulouse, 1979) 169-
93.
Boaz Cohen, "Law and Ethics in the Light of the

Jewish Tradition," in his Law and Tradition in
judaism (New York: KTAV, 1969) 182-238; also
in his jewish and Roman Law: A Comparative Study (2
vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, 1966) 1.65-121.
Haim H. Cohn, "Talion," in Elon, Principles, 525-26.
David Daube, "Lex Talionis," in his Studies in Biblical
Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 194 7;
reprinted New York: KTAV, 1969, 102-53).
Idem, "Eye for Eye," in his NT and Rabbinic judaism,
254-65.
Idem, Civil Disobedience in Antiquity (Edinburgh:
University of Edinburgh, 1972).
Arthur Sigismund Diamond, "An Eye for an Eye," Iraq
19 (1957) 151-55.
Idem, Primitive Law Past and Present (London:
Methuen, 1971) 98-101, 398-99.
Albrecht Dihle, Die Goldene Regel: Eine Einfuhrung in
die Geschichte der antiken und fruhchristlichen
Vulgiirethik (Studienhefte zur Altertumswissenschaft
7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962).
Idem, "Goldene Regel," RAG 11 (1981) 930-40.
Jacob J. Finkelstein, "The Goring Ox: Some Historical
Perspectives on Deodands, Forfeitures, Wrongful
Death and the Western Notion of Sovereignty,"
Temple Law Quarterly 46 (1973) 169-290.
Louis Finkelstein, "An Eye for an Eye," Menorah
journal24 (1936) 207-18.
Tikva Frymer-Kensky, "Tit for Tat: The Principle of
Equal Retribution in Near Eastern and Biblical
Law," Biblical Archaeologist 43 (1980) 230-34.
Ezechiel Eduard Goitein, Das Vergeltungsprincip im
biblischen und talmudischen Strafrecht (Inauguraldis-
sertation, Halle-Wittenberg, 1891; Frankfurt,
1893).
Ludwig Gunther, Die Idee der Wiedervergeltung in der
Geschichte und Philosophie des Strafrechts: Ein Beitrag
zur universal-historischen Entwicklung desselben, parts
1-3, first half(Erlangen: Blasing, 1889-95).
Oda Hagemeyer, "'Wenn dir jemand einen Streich
gibt auf deine rechte Backe ... '(Matthaus 5, 39),"
in Traditio-Krisis-Renovatio aus theologischer Siehl: FS
Winfried Zeller (Marburg: Elwert, 1976) 10-23.
Arnold Herdlitczka, "Talio," PW, 2d series, 8th half-
volume (1932) 2069-77.
Karl Friedrich Hermann, Uber Grundsiitze und
Anwendung des Strafrechts im griechischen Alterthume
(AAWG.PH 6; Gottingen: Dieterich, 1856) 267-
321.
Rudolf Hirzel, "Die Talion," Philologus, Supplementband
11 (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1907-10) 405-82.
J. Horovitz, "Auge urn Auge, Zahn urn Zahn," in
judaica: FS zu Hermann Cohens siebzigsten Geburtstag
(Berlin: Cassirer, 1912) 609-58.
Bernard S.Jackson, "The Problem ofExod. XXI 22-
25 (Ius Talionis)," VT 23 (1973) 273-304;
Matthew 5:21-48
reprinted in his Essays in Jewish and Comparatzve
Legal History (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 75-107.
Benno Jacob, Auge um Auge: Eine Untersuchung zum
Alten und Neuen Testament (Berlin: Philo, 1929).
ErnstJenni and D. Vetter, "!'P, 'ajin Auge," THAT
2.259-68.
Herbert F. Jolowicz, "The Assessment of Penalties in
Primitive Law," in Cambridge Legal Essays, Written in
Honour of and Presented to Doctor Bond (Cambridge:
Heffer, 1926) 203-22.
The Digest ofjustinian (Latin text, ed. Theodor
Mommsen with the aid of Paul Kruger; ET, ed.
Alan Watson; vols. 1-4; Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania, 1985).
Klaus Koch, ed., Um das Prinzip der Verge/tung in
Religion und Recht des A/ten Testaments (W dF 125;
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1972).
Geoffrey MacCormack, "Revenge and Compensation
in Early Law," American journal of Comparative Law
21 (1973) 69-85.
Erwin Merz, Die Blutrache bei den Israeliten (BW ANT
20; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916).
J. K. Mikliszanski, "The Law of Retaliation and the
Pentateuch," JBL 66 (1947) 295-303.
Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law ofDamages,
part 1: Baba Qamma (SJLA 35.1; Leiden: Brill,
1983).
Joseph Norden, "Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn": Eine
umstrittene Bibelstelle (Berlin: Philo, 1926).
Jan Quaegebeur, "Vergeltung," LdA 6 (1986) 985-86.
Willy Schottroff, "Zum alttestamentlichen Recht," VF
22 (1977) 3-29.
Heinz-Horst Schrey, "Gewalt/Gewaltlosigkeit, I:
Ethisch," TRE 13 (1984) 168-78.
K. Seybold, "~Q;gamal," ThWAT 2.24-35 (TDOT
3.23-33).
Jakob Weismann, "Talion und offentliche Strafe im
mosaischen Rechte," in FS fur AdolfWach (2 vols.;
Leipzig: Meiner, 1913) 1.1-100.
2) Interpretation
• 38 As mentioned above, the fifth antithesis, which
concerns retaliation, opens with a refutation of the
inadequate interpretation of the respective Torah
commandment. Parallel to the other antitheses,
reference is made to the "chain of tradition": "You have
heard that it was said" (~ICoVuau Cin f.pp£81J). The present
recipients are named, and God is recognized as the
originator of what was said in the authoritative tradition
of the Torah. The past recipients are not mentioned.
This pattern corresponds to that of the second antithesis
(5:27-30). The quotation from Scripture is the famous
277
principle of ius talionis ("law of equal retribution"), for
which see the excursus above.
Rhetorically, the statement, "an eye for an eye, and a
tooth for a tOOth" (ocp8aAp.OV tLVTt ocp8aA.p.ov Kat ooJvTa
tLVTt ooJvTOS)628 is an isocolon COnsisting of tWO COla, both
of which contain a polyptotic geminatio. 629 The language is
descriptive rather than prescriptive, although like all
rules, the principle functions in a prescriptive or norma-
tive manner. Parallels indicate that other cola could have
provided additional examples: "then you shall give life
for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot
for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for
stripe" (Exod 21:23-25 [RSV]); 630 or "fracture for
fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Lev 24:20 [RSV]);
or "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for
hand, foot for foot" (Deut 19:21 [RSV]); or "skin for
skin" Qob 2:4). 631 The contexts of these passages
show that the statements contain examples of equal
compensation. 632
These considerations, however, do not automatically
solve all existing problems. Are these compensations to
be taken in the literal or the symbolic sense? 633 Is the ius
talionis thus exemplified to be carried out literally?634 Is
it by itself a practicable law, 635 or is it merely a
theoretical principle to be implemented through other
concrete laws? Or is it simply proverbial?636 What does
"for" (ttvTl) mean? Does it allude to the procedure of
exchange ("something given in place of something
else"), 637 or does it involve sacrificial ideas of vicarious-
ness or substitution?638 Still widely disputed today, these
problems were given various interpretations in antiquity.
Turning to SM/Matt 5:38, one can draw several
conclusions from these queries. The quotation is not
concerned with a specific Old Testament context but
with the legal principle of the Torah generally as it is
exemplified by "eye for eye and tooth for tooth." The
colon "life for life" (o/vx~v ttvTI o/vxfis) found in Exod
21 :23; Deut 19:21 (cf. Job 2:4) is omitted, as David
Daube has rightly observed, 639 justifying the conclusion
that the SM passage is not concerned with murder but
that it is concerned with violent attacks. Furthermore,
the quotation presupposes that in analogy to the
preceding Torah interpretations in the SM, the citation
was interpreted in a literal way. One can conclude that
the literal interpretation was to be refuted.
The literal interpretation was attributed by rabbinic

628 The Kal ("and") is not attested in D jl 3 it mae. The
omission may be due to secondary conformity with
LXX Exod 2I:24; Lev 24:20; Deut I9:21.
629 Lausberg, Handbuch I,§ 648, 4 (p. 329).
630 On this passage see the important essay by BernardS.
Jackson, "The Problem of Exod. XXI 22-5 (Ius
Talionis)," VT 23 (1973) 273-304; reprinted in his
Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History (Leiden:
Brill, 1975) 75-I07.
631 The principle is announced here by Satan, "Skin for
skin. All that a man has he will give for his life." See
Friedrich Horst,Hiob (BKAT 16.1; Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, I968) 1.24-25. Cf. the
Ugaritic expression "house for house" (bita kima bita);
see Jean Nougayrol, Le Palais Royal de Ras Shamra
(Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1955) 3, no. 16.383. I
am indebted to Professor Walter Michel for the
references.
632 Cf. Lev 24:19: "as he has done it shall be done to
him"; furthermore Deut 19:19.
633 See Weismann, "Talion," 22, giving as examples
Deut 25:1I-I2 for the real, and Wis II :I5-I6 for
the symbolic, understanding. See also Gen 9:6; Num
5:2I, 22; Wis 12:23.
634 On these options see Jackson, "Problem," 282-304.
635 A subsidiary question is whether at different times it
was practiced as law or regarded as a theoretical rule.
For the real punishment, see J udg I: 7; but later it
was apparently no longer practiced. See Jackson,
"Problem," 280-81.
636 See Jackson, "Problem," 282.
63 7 So David Daube, Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge:
Cambridge University, I947; reprinted New York:
KTAV, I969) I03-7, taking the Hebrew ta~at in the
sense of £.,.6, Latin sub.
638 So esp. Albrecht Alt, "Zur Talionsformel," ZAW 1I
(I934) 303-5, reprinted in his Kleine Schriften zur
Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Munich: Beck, I953)
1.34I-44. Alt assumes a cultic origin of the formula,
which only later was turned into a legal principle, and
bases this judgment on Punic inscriptions, com-
parable to passages such as Gen 4:23; 22:I-I4; Exod
22:29; 34:20, etc.
639 David Daube, Civil Disobedience in Antiquity (Edin-
burgh: University of Edinburgh, I972) IIO.

278
 Matthew 5:21-48

theology toR. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (c. 90 CE), according
to b. B. Qam. 84a: "eye for eye, (means) actual eye for
eye, "640 and to the Sadducees and the Boethusians.
Josephus (Ant. 4.280) leaves the choice among the
options to the person who has incurred the damage: "He
that maimeth a man shall undergo the like, being
deprived of that limb whereof he deprived the other,
unless indeed the maimed man be willing to accept
money; for the law empowers the victim himself to assess
the damage that has befallen him and makes this
concession, unless he would show himself too severe." 641
Providing for compensation corresponds to the Pharisaic
doctrine, although the Pharisees required that the
tribunal, rather than the victim, assess the amount. 642
Philo, however, censures those legislators "who
prescribe for malefactors punishments which do not
resemble the crime, such as monetary fines for assaults,
disenfranchisement for wounding or maiming another,
expulsion from the country and perpetual banishment
for willful murder or imprisonment for theft." In a long
discussion (Spec. leg. 3.181-204), 643 which is part of the
consideration of the laws concerning the sixth (Philo's
seventh) commandment of the Decalogue, Philo gives
special consideration to the prohibition of murder (Spec.
leg. 3.183-204). In Philo's view, these types of
compensation, because of inequality and incompatibility,
are inimical to a community that pursues truth (ibid.,
3.181). "Our law exhorts us to equality when it ordains
that the penalties inflicted on offenders should
correspond to their actions, that their property should
suffer if the wrongdoing affected their neighbor' s644
property, and their bodies if the offense was a bodily
injury, the penalty being determined according to the
limb, part or sense affected, while if his malice extended
to taking another's life, his own life should be the forfeit"
(ibid., 3.182).
In commenting on the eye, Philo inserts a long
discussion of the significance of the organ for vision
based on Platonic ideas (ibid., 3.184-97). 645 The eye has
"the lordship of the senses" (T(;lV alcr6~cr£wv Tb KpaTos
&v,SwK£V ocp6a>.p.o'i:s [ibid.' 3.184 ]). The eyes were also the
instrument through which the human "mind" (vovs) first
beheld the higher roads of philosophical contemplation
(ibid., 3.185 ). This took place by fixing the sight on the
celestial cosmos of the sun, the moon, and the stars (ibid.,
3.187-89), followed by scientific investigations of things
on earth (ibid., 3.190-91). At the same time, the eye is
closely akin to the soul and the inner world (ibid., 3.192-
94). It makes sense, therefore, for the literal application
that giving the most precious organ in restitution for the
destruction of the eye of another should be applied with
full vigor to the freeman as well as the slave (ibid.,
3.195-98).
The same principle applies to the tooth, which Philo
suggests is the second most important organ because all
nutrients go through the teeth (ibid., 3.200). A
comparison of eye and tooth (ibid., 3.201-2) leads to a
summary of the argument (ibid., 3.203-4) and the
conclusion: "For anyone who deprives another of the
instruments needed to preserve existence is well on the
way to murder, since his hostile intentions extend to
attacking life itself" (ibid., 3.204).
According to Philo, compensation less than equal
constitutes "irregularity and inequality" (Th &vd:Jp.a>.ov Kat
CivLcrov), the antithesis of "equality" (1cr6T'17S) as required
by justice. 646 In effect, therefore, those lesser compen-
sations lead to the "abolishing of the laws" (KaTa>./;nv
v6p.ovs); 647 only equal retribution fulfills the Torah. For
all his polemics, however, Philo does not name the
legislators whom he criticizes. We do not even know

640 On this point see Amram, "Retaliation," 204, 21 0;
Str-B 1.340-41; 4/1.350-51 (nos 3, 7). Harvey Falk
(jesus the Pharifee: A New Look at the jewishness ofjesus
[New York and Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist, 1985]118)
believes that Jesus' critique was directed against R.
Eliezer's interpretation, not the Pharisees in general,
but the SM does not distinguish between these two
positions.
641 According to the LCL translation by H. St. J.
Thackeray,josephus (London: Heinemann;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1930) 4.611.
642 See Thackeray's n. d (ibid., pp. 610-11), referring to
b. B. Qam. 83b; furthermore Str-B 1.337-41.
643 On Philo's treatment of the talio principle see Samuel
Belkin, Philo and the Oral Law (Cambridge:
Cambridge University, 1940) 96-103; Heinemann,
Philons griechische und judische Bildung, 346-83.
644 The phrase aSIK07rpayiiv TWV 7rA7J<Tiov shows that it is
a violation of the commandment to love one's
neighbor (see SM/Matt 5:43).
645 See also Betz, Essays, 75-84 (on Philo, see 84).
646 Philo Spec. leg. 3.181.
647 Ibid., 182.

279
whether the courts of his day did carry out or were
willing to carry out his rigorous standards. Most likely,
he argues against the prevailing liberal application of the
law.648
How does Philo's position compare with the SM? On
the whole, the SM rejects the literal application ofthe ius
talionis but for a reason different from Philo's legis-
lators. 649 While Philo criticizes the current court
practices in general, the SM discusses the interpretative
problem of Torah exegesis: Is interpretation to be literal
or according to intent? Although the SM is aware of the
charge that Jesus abolished the Torah (see above on
SM/Matt 5: 17), the issue in 5:38-42 is not equal
retribution versus compensation. In the SM, the ius
talionis is treated as a general legal principle, not as a
measure for fixing punishment for crimes committed.
• 39 This verse introduces what the SM considers to be
the adequate interpretation of the principle of
reciprocity, prefaced by the doctrinal formula iden-
tifying authority (vs 39a): "But I tell you not to retaliate
[or: resist] against the evildoer" (lyw at- A.(yro vp.'iv p.~
aVTUTTijVa! TClJ 1TOV1]pi!J). Because every word in this
apodictic prohibition is controversial, our analysis can
proceed only with a careful examination of each element.
The construction of Jesus' teaching in the form of a
negative infinitive 650 is parallel to vs 34, "not to swear an
oath at all" (p.~ op.ouat CfA.ros). Most difficult is the
interpretation of the verb av8{CTT1]fJ.!. Is the meaning
general, "set (oneself) up against, oppose, resist,
withstand," 651 or is it more specific, "go to law"? 652 Is its
force more passive, as in "resist," or more active, as in
"retaliate"? The consequences of decisions here are
enormous.
If "resist" is the correct rendering, does it imply that
the Christian exclude any form of self-defense or self-
protection? Are all forms of prevention, avoidance, or
other means of combating evil prohibited? If so, does
Christian ethics demand that one allow evil to take its
course? And how can one distinguish such nonresistance
from compliance and collusion with evil, or at the least,
with outright submission to evil?
The translation "resist," which the RSV and most other
standard translations prefer, 653 leaves only two options:
either to regard the position as proposed to be immoral
and unethical, or to construe it as a sort of "radicalism."
Radicalism of whatever sort, however, can never be
accepted as an excuse for condoning injustice. Ethically,
there can be no question that total nonresistance to evil
constitutes an irrational and unjustifiable position
incompatible with the rest of early Christian teaching
and its numerous admonitions to combat, avoid, or
escap~ from evil. 654
Any decision about the translation of avnuTijVa! must
be made on the basis of an analysis of the context
determined by the interpretation of the ius talionis. This
legal and ethical principle concerns retaliation, that is,
the question which action to take in the face of injury
incurred so that justice is done. Given this background
and the illustrative examples in vss 39b-42, the answer
to the problem can only be that the issue is nonretaliation
and that avnuTijvat must be translated as "Do not
retaliate."

648 See Amram, "Retaliation," 203: "Retaliation was still
legally recognized but practically abandoned." See
also J. K. Mikliszanski, "The Law of Retaliation and
the Pentateuch," jBL 66 (1947) 295-303.
649 Cf. Boaz Cohen, Law and Tradition in judaism (New
York: KTAV, 1969) 207, who argues that the rabbis
favored compensation "because a consistently strict
application of the rule would lead to a violation of
the intent and purpose of the law."
650 The force is imperatival; cf. BDF, § 389; BDR, §
389; Moule, Idiom Book, 126-27.
651 See BAGD, s.v. avliluT7jJJ.I, 1. Cf. aVT&KaliluT7jJJ.I, Heb
12:4, and on this Spicq, Notes, 1.102-4.
652 So Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 259 n. 2, with
reference to Deut 19:18; Isa 59:12;Jer 14:7; and Isa
50:8. Daube translates: "Resist not the wicked man,"
or "Do not prosecute the wicked man."
653 Cf. NEB: "Do not set yourself against the man who
wrongs you." Though vague, this may be the best
translation because the Greek is also vague. Cf. also
jB: "offer the wicked man no resistance" (with a
footnote stating the resulting ethical dilemma); REB:
"Do not resist those who wrong you." The term
"resist" comes from the V g: non resistere malo. Cf.
Luther (1545) 2.1975: "Dasjr nicht widerstreben
solt dem vbel."
654 Cf. esp. passages like Rom 12:9; 1 Cor 5:13; 1 Thess
5:22; 2 Thess 3:3; Eph 6:13, or the catalogues of
vices (see Betz, Galatians, 281-83).

280

One may understand retaliation in antiquity as well as
today to consist of indiscriminate revenge motivated by
irrational rage or passion; one may also distinguish it
from reasoned judicial punishment or other legal
responses. 655 But excessiveness and irrationality are not
the issue. Rather, in ethical terms, retaliation means to
"return evil with evil," which amounts to what Plato calls
clVTaa"ct-'iv Or clVTLICaiCOVpyltV ("return injustice for
injustice," or "return infliction of evil for infliction of
evil"). 656
Such actions, however, are irreconcilable with justice
in that they simply cause more injustice. 657 The object
T(i> 7TOV71Pii> can refer to the person committing the
offense, 658 or to the devil, 659 or to evil as an impersonal
force. 660 Only the context can determine which of these
options applies to vs 39. Since vss 39b-42 list types of
evildoers, one must also assume the personal meaning for
vs 39a.
The SM dearly presents Jesus as unequivocally
prohibiting retaliation. The question here, on which
everything else in the passage depends, is, How can one
construe such a prohibition as a fulfillment of the
principle of reciprocity? Present New Testament
scholarship is in virtual agreement that vs 39a contradicts
vs 38b, saying that the SM opposes the Torah with its
own command, disavowing retaliation and vengeance,
and advocating submission to the evildoer. 661 Is the
655 This has been pointed out by Augustine, Luther, and
Calvin. See the instructive survey of patristic and
medieval exegesis in Tholuck, Bergrede, 286-92
(Commentary, 266-76).
656 Plato Crit. 49B-D; 54C; Theaet. 173A.
657 See also the discussion below on SM/Matt 5:43.
658 For this meaning see also SM/Matt 5:45; 7:11;
SP/Luke 6:35, 45. See BAGD, s.v. 1TOV1jp6r, 2.a.
659 This meaning may be attested in the Lord's Prayer
(see below on SM/Matt 6: 13), and is certainly found
injas 4:7: "Therefore, be obedient to God, but resist
the devil [lwr{<rT7jTE 3~ Tij) 3'atJIJA<!I), and he will flee
from you." See BAGD, s.v. 1TOV1jp6r, 2.b. One cannot,
however, demonstrate any literary connection ofJas
4:7 with SM/Matt 5:39a.
660 This meaning occurs in SM/Matt 5:11, 37; 6:13 (?);
SP/Luke 6:22, 45c. See BAGD, s.v. 1TOV1jp6r, 2.c.
661 See esp. Strecker, Bergpredigt, 86 (Sermon, 82):
"Against the legal command ofthe Torah, the
Preacher on the mount places his own law: not
retaliation but renunciation of revenge, not struggle
with evil but submission to hostile power!"
Matthew 5:21-48
point that the SM, in the name ofJesus, recommends
humility, meekness, and "pacifism"? The SM does
recommend such virtues: humility in 5:3; meekness in
5:5; peacemaking in 5:9, and reconciliation in 5:21-26.
All the antitheses recommend all these virtues in a
general way. Is the point the same one that Paul makes in
1 Cor 6:1-8? Are the believers to be comforted, as
Strecker thinks, by the conviction that even in defeat
they are in the hands of God's love? 662 Such theological
reasoning, however, seems to represent the theology of
the evangelist Matthew, or even that of Paul. 66 3
I conclude that this interpretation involves a
soteriology in which a "Christian law of love" is set up in
opposition to the Jewish Torah and its order for
vengeance by a redeemer, Jesus, who does away with that
kind ofTorah. 664 That this construction is a modern
Christian apologetic, however, has been pointed out
repeatedly, especially by Jewish scholars. 665 At times,
these Jewish scholars developed their own apologetics,
both to make their Jewish position appear realistic and
thus plausible, and to ridicule the Christian point of view
as an unrealistic and sentimental romanticism. Represen-
tative of such counterapologetics is the comment by Boaz
Cohen about Matt 5:39-40: "the ultra-violent reaction of
the gospels to the legal principle of retaliation with an
extremely pacifist ethic of non-resistance to evil would
have struck the rabbis of the Talmud as an unrealistic
662 See Strecker, Sermon, 83: "Even while being
overcome by evil, even in defeat, believers know that
they are borne by the agape of God."
663 Strecker (Bergpredigt, 86 [Sermon, 83]) takes recourse
to 1 Cor 6:1ff.
664 So Strecker (Bergpredigt, 86 [Sermon, 82-83]), but
there is a problem when he says in the preceding
paragraph that it would be a misunderstanding to
assume that the ius talionis is a call to take the law into
one's own hands (Selbstjustiz), even though this might
be suggested by the text.
665 See esp. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, 50-59;
Joseph Klausner,jesus ofNazareth: His Life, Times, and
Teaching (trans. Herbert Danby; New York:
Macmillan, 1925) 363-68, 381-97; Friedlander,
Sources, 65-69. Apologetic as these works are, given a
modern point of view, they do not consider the
diversity within judaism at the time of jesus and
therefore cannot explain the polemic in the
antitheses in any other way than by attributing them
to later Christian redaction.
281
interpretation of a goal realizable only by a few saints on
earth, for the Torah was not intended for angels." 666
Here, the "idealist" interpretation by liberal Christian
theologians 667 has led to a thoroughly negative reading;
but one must not confuse this interpretation with the
meaning of the SM. Cohen is right when he emphasizes
that "the principle of reciprocity to this very day
constitutes the essence of the unwritten law that governs
individuals in their private relations with one an-
other."668
Another issue is raised by David W. Amram, who
points out that Jesus' position presupposes that the
rabbinical law as we know it was not in existence at the
time. "Had the rabbinical law been fully developed and
had it then been generally accepted that eye for eye
means money for eye, it is unlikely that he [sc. Jesus]
would have completely ignored it. "669 In other words,
the rabbinical laws of compensation provided a different
solution to the same problem, presumably because they
sharedJesus' concerns.
Joel Blau was equally correct when he observed in
regard to the passage in the SM that "non-resistance may
mean pity towards the individual, but it means cruelty
towards society." 670 In answering this criticism of
Christianity, Rabbi Felix A. Levy pointed out two facts
that one should give due consideration. First, our
understanding of the ius talionis today has grown out of
Roman law, in which the law of reciprocity received its
fullest elaboration. In addition, because Jesus' basic point
was well taken and made sense, his doctrine of nonresis-
tance has long been a part of our legal principles and our
moral concepts: "Our theories of crime and penology
and social reform, while they may agree with the Jewish
principle, have evolved from the Roman conception of
law tempered by New Testament teachings, and
Christianity has made valuable contributions as well as
Judaism." 671
Yet while these controversies make fascinating reading
in and of themselves, they do not help much in
understanding the passage of the SM under investi-
gation; they are all too quick to assume, erroneously, that
the meaning of this passage is fairiy obvious. 672 As far as
SM/Matt 5:38-39 is concerned, one must distinguish
between, and then explicate, two problems: (1) the
meaning of the ius talionis as cited in vs 38b; and (2) the
nature and meaning of the position of nonretaliation as
advocated in vs 39a.
1. The interpretation of the "ius talionis." In discussing
the law ofreciprocity (see above on vs 38), I have pointed
out that the SM rejects a "literal" interpretation because
such an interpretation was and usually is taken as a call
for retaliation. Why is this interpretation in error, and
what better interpretation should replace it?
According to the SM, the "literal" interpretation is
mistaken because it is incompatible with the "intent" of
the Torah. If the Torah represents 'justice" (otKatouiJVTJ
[see on SM/Matt 5:20]), and if the teaching of Jesus
based on the Torah leads to greater justice, then
retaliation cannot be part ofthe Torah. Retaliation
would simply lead to greater injustice. Within the
framework of the SM, retaliation is certainly contrary to
Lev 19:18 (SM/Matt 5:43), the command to love one's

666 Cohen, Law and Tradition, 208; also idem, jewish and 671 Ibid., 375.
Roman Law, 1.91. Similarly,]. K. Mikliszanski, "The 672 Of interest in this regard is the critique of the SM
Law of Retaliation and the Pentateuch," JBL 66 from a Jewish point of view by Benno Jacob (Auge um
(1947) 295-303, esp. 302-3: "his [sc.Jesus'] views Auge: Eine Untersuchung zum AT und NT [Berlin:
expressed in the Sermon on the Mount are within the Philo, 1929]), esp. 121-37. Relying on the collection
idealistic realm of pity and self-sacrifice." of parallels made by Heinrici, Jacob concludes that
667 For the history of interpretation, see Ursula Berner, Jesus here does not criticize the Jewish morality of
Die Bergpredigt: Rezeption und Auslegung im 20. the Torah but conventional pagan morality, in a way
Jahrhundert (GT A 12; 3d ed.; Gottingen: Vanden- similar to the Greek philosophers.
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1985); Luz, Matthiius, 1.298-302
(Matthew, 1.331-35).
668 Cohen, Law and Tradition, 208; also in idem, jewish
and Roman Law, 1.91.
669 Amram, "Retaliation," 203.
670 Joel Blau, "Lex Talionis," Yearbook of the Central
Conference of American Rabbis 26 (1916) 336-66, with
additional discussion, 366-75.

282

neighbor. Ethically, retaliation is precisely what the
Golden Rule (SM/Matt 7:12) seeks to overcome.
Consequently, there is no way to justify the "literal"
understanding of the ius talionis as leading to the
fulfillment of the Torah.
The SM instead proceeds by assuming that the original
intent of the principle of reciprocity was to curtail and
eliminate vengeance. 673 As historians oflaw have
pointed out, the talio principle undeniably emerged as
one of the first legal principles to combat indiscriminate
personal revenge, especially blood revenge. As required
by "equality" (luon7s), which was considered a part of
'justice" (StKatouvv1]), 674 retribution must correspond
"like for like" to the offense and resultant damages.
Curtailing vengeance does increase justice, if only by
preventing further injustice and by providing some form
of compensation. This point is as far as the legal
implications go in considering the situation after an
offense has occurred.
The ethical demand arises from the situation before
an offense has occurred, and, as always in the SM, the
demand is preventive. In tracing the development of an
ethical position, one must be attentive to the ethical
principles of the SM. What does the love-command
presuppose and demand (Lev 19: 18; SM/Matt 5:43)? It
regards offenses as envisaged in the SM/Matt 5:38b and
39a as broken neighborly relationships, as situations
673 This was correctly pointed out by Tertullian, who
was trained in Roman law (Adv. Marc. 4.16 [PL
2.395-98); see Harnack, Marcion, 192*-93*). Cf.
Luz, Matthiius, 1.297 (Matthew, 1.330). For the
interpretation by "intent," see also Dietzfelbinger,
"Antithesen," 12.
674 See esp. Aristotle Eth. Nic. 5.1, 1129a 34-36: [o)
OlKato~ EuTal. g T£ vO}J-tfLO~ Kat b ruos. rO JJ-~V OlKatov llpa
v&p.tp.ov Kal TO r<Tov ("Hence it is clear that the law-
abiding man and the fair man will both be just. 'The
just' therefore means that which is lawful and that
which is equal or fair"). For further discussion, see
Gustav Stahlin, ·r"o~ KTA.," TDNT 3.343-55, esp.
34 7, 354-55 (A.3.c and B).
675 The question of how evil deeds are related to human
nature is not pursued very far in the SM. It is raised,
however, in connection with the "evil eye" (see below
on SM/Matt 6:22-23) and the "bad fruits" (see below
on SM/Matt 7:17-18). See also on SM/Matt 5:37
for the interpretation of EK rov 7rov1Jpov ("out of the
evil"); and SP/Luke 6:43-45. A different problem is
posed by the sixth petition of the Lord's Prayer (see
Matthew 5:21-48
involving individuals who should be friends and who may
have been friends at one time. A closer look at the
"evildoer" (o 7TOV1]pos) allows further conclusions. He is
more than the potential perjurer of the preceding
antitheses (SM/Matt 5:33) because he has done actual
damage to a fellow human being. Yet he is not simply
identical with the enemy of the following antithesis
(SM/Matt 5:43), although they may become identical.
Although the SM considers humanity to include "the
bad and the good" (SM/Matt 5:45), and although the
disciples of Jesus addressed by the SM are simply counted
among the "bad" (SM/Matt 7: 11 ), the evildoer of vs 39 is
primarily the one who committed an injury. People are
not called "bad" because they are intrinsically evil but
because they commit unlawful acts. 675 Once an unlawful
act has been committed, however, the injury or damage
must be dealt with quite apart from the evildoer. 676
Verse 39a does not treat the matter of compensation,
although one must consider it in connection with the
examples that constitute vss 39b-42. Verse 39a instead
focuses on the victim's negative reaction to the
perpetrator of an injurious act. The command to desist
from retaliation does not comment on positive reaction.
Yet, nonretaliation is not the only concern here;
indeed, it is only a subsidiary concern. The overarching
goal is the combating of evil (TO 7TOV1]pov), 677 that is, the
establishment of justice. There can be no question that
below on SM/Matt 6: 13b): "deliver us from the evil"
(rL7rO roil 7rOV1Jpov).
676 This is why biblical and rabbinic law developed the
provisions of compensation. For a NT example, see
the story about Zacchaeus, Luke 19:1-10. See also
Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 254-65; Amram,
"Retaliation"; Herbert F.Jolowicz, "The Assessment
of Penalties in Primitive Law," in Cambridge Legal
Essays, Written in Honour of and Presented to Doctor
Bond (Cambridge: Heffer, 1926) 203-22; Geoffrey
MacCormack, "Revenge and Compensation in Early
Law," American journal of Comparative Law 21 (1973)
69-85.
677 In the SM, "the evil" (ro 7rOV1Jp6v, SM/Matt 5:11, 37;
6:13 [?),equals "lawlessness" (avop.la, 7:23),
"transgressions" (1rapa7rr6:,p.ara, 6:14, 15 ). Cf. KaKla
("evil," "trouble," 6:34); <TK&ro~ ("darkness," 6:23).
See also Betz, Essays, 85-87, 116-17.
283
the evil must be defeated and eliminated if justice is to
prevail. The evil committed cannot be eliminated by
revenge against the evildoer, however; this evil can be
eliminated only by its removal from the evildoer. 678 One
should therefore see nonretaliation as a weapon to
combat evil and to help justice prevail.
Moreover, nonretaliation does not mean a passive
acquiescence in the face of evil; rather it means an
aggressive move to overcome evil. Which positive actions
can one correlate with nonretaliation? At this point, one
can exclude two possible courses of action. Non-
retaliation is not recommended as a result of the victim's
being advised either to despise or to forgive the
perpetrator. Neither contempt nor forgiveness is foreign
to the SM, 679 but neither is part of this particular
argument. What, then, is the alternative?
The Golden Rule (see below on SM/Matt 7:12;
SP/Luke 6:31) requires that one take positive action to
interrupt a vicious cycle of revenge. If the victim of an
offense should retaliate, such an attack would only pave
the way for recurring violence which, in turn, would lead
to new retaliation, and so on ad infinitum. The Golden
Rule, however, reverses the cycle: "Whatever you wish
that people would do to you, so do to them." Conse-
quently, abstention from retaliation removes the
incentive for further violence. Furthermore, the Golden
Rule builds on the very old and universally accepted rule
of behavior named by the formula Do ut des ("I give so
that you may give [in return]"). Thus nonretaliation is a
positive gesture of generosity that carries with it the
expectation that the adversary will respond in kind. The
Golden Rule, then, teaches a preventive ethics that one
should apply to a reading of SM/Matt 5:39a.
To conclude: The meaning of the controversial
command p.~ avnuTfjvaL ("Do not retaliate") is not to
recommend an attitude of resignation and defeatism
concerning evil or a principled self-surrender to all kinds
of villains. Rather, what is commanded is not non-
violence in general but desistance from retaliation in
specific instances. 680 The difference is that such
desistance is in effect a positive method of fighting evil
and helping justice prevail. 681 This method corresponds
to the "intent" of the ius talionis and is thus an adequate
way to fulfill the Torah prescription.6 82
Other New Testament texts confirm this inter-
pretation. The Jesus of the passion narratives is shown as

678 This was rightly emphasized by Jakob Weismann, one's rights, for which he refers to SM/Matt 5:22,
"Talion und offentliche Strafe im mosaischen 40, and SP /Luke 6:30, is too narrow. This thesis is
Rechte," FS for AdolJWach (Leipzig: Meiner, 1913) de facto based on 1 Cor 6:1, which, however,
1.1-100, esp. 97-99. represents a different application of the same
679 For contempt, cf. the caricatures of the "hypocrites" principle. The examples in SM/Matt 5:39b-42 speak
(SM/Matt 6:2, 5, 16; 7:5) and the "pagans" (5:47; against Currie's view, and he fails to come to terms
6:7, 32) and the Gentile Christians (7:22-23); for with them. Guelich (Sermon, 219-20) follows Currie's
forgiveness, see 6:12, 14-15. view. For a correction, see Luz, Matthiius, 1.296
680 Cf. Marcus Borg, • A New Context for Romans (Matthew, 1.329).
Xlll," NTS 19 (1972/73) 205-18. Relating Romans 682 Differently Dietzfelbinger (" Antithesen," 11-12), for
13 to Matt 5:39b, 44, 46, Borg wrongly argues that whom Matt 5:39a represents a pre-Matthean polemic
statements in Romans 13 do "not primarily [contain] against the Torah that contradicts the Matthean
generalizations about passive non-resistance, but are formulation of 5:17-20. Matthew, however, does not
spoken to a concrete situation, counselling his [i.e., employ the rabbinic hermeneutical rule, which would
Jesus'] hearers not to join in armed resistance to be implied, and he does not refer to the passages
Rome" (207). The SM would certainly have Dietzfelbinger has in mind. Dietzfelbinger is right
counselled against armed insurrection against Rome, that the Jesus of Matthew's passion narrative, by his
but one can only infer this point, because of the total life and death, fulfills the Torah in the sense
silence about politics in the SM. Although forced intended by the SM, but this is due to the influence
service is a Roman practice, Rome is not a concern in of the SM on Matthew's theology, not the other way
the SM passage; this is also confirmed by the around.
examples in vss 39b-42. For the correct view, see
Luz, Matthiius, 1.298 (Matthew, 1.330-31).
681 Stuart D. Currie ("Matthew 5:39A-Resistance or
Protest?" HTR 57 [1964]140-45) is right in relating
the term avnurfjva& to the context oflaw, but his
interpretation as taking legal recourse for obtaining

284
 Matthew 5:21-48

an example of desistance from retaliation. The episode
of Jesus' arrest (Matt 26:47-56 par.) contrasts him as one
who allows himself to be arrested without a fight to the
disciple who draws a sword and cuts off the ear of the
high priest's slave. Jesus tells this disciple: "Put your
sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will
perish by the sword" (Matt 26:52). 683 Jesus does not ask
God the Father to send the heavenly army of angels
because to do so would be contrary to the fulfillment of
the Scriptures and, presumably, the triumph of justice
(vss 53-56). 684 When Jesus is beaten (Matt 26:67-68;
27:30 par.), he does not hit back. In Matthew's theology
in particular, hitting back would disqualify Jesus from
being a righteous man. 685 When, according to Acts
23:2-3, Paul is struck on the mouth by the servants of
the high priest Ananias, he does not hit back but rather
scolds Ananias for committing an illegal act. 686
Although such examples of nonretaliation abound in
the New Testament, the closest parallels to the SM are
found in Paul's discussion of agape and the love-
command in Rom 12:9-21 and 13:8-10. Rom 12:9-21
is a composition of maxims on agape. Among them we
find ( 12: 1 7): "Repay no evil for evil, but take thought for
what is noble in the sight of all"; and vs 19: "Beloved,
never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of
God." 687 Paul's own ideas certainly differ from those of
the SM, but he approves of these maxims, which he
probably received from tradition. He reserves revenge
for God; the revenge of one person on another would
thus usurp God's prerogative. In dealing with evildoers,
the apostle is nearly always concerned with their possible
repentance and eschatological future. 688 The SM would
certainly have endorsed Paul's final maxim: 689 "Do not
be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom
12:21 ). 690
While the passage SM/Matt 5:39-42 does not appear
concerned with the positive effect of nonretaliation on
the evildoer, the difference at this point between the SM
and Paul is hardly great. Both prescribe desistance from
retaliation because it is the just action required by God,
not because it is effective. Even if the evildoer continues
to do evil, nonretaliation remains the just thing to
practice. At the same time, however, the SM is equally as
concerned as Paul about the impact of Christian conduct
on outsiders. The images of the "salt of the earth" and
the "light of the world" (SM/Matt 5:13-16) describe

683 Clearly an instance of ius talionis. See also Rev I3: I 0;
furthermore Matt 27:25; Luke I6:25; Acts I8:6;
Rom I:27.
684 In Matthew's theology, Jesus Christ, who is the Lord
(KvpLOr ), desists from violence for the sake of the
salvation of the world through his death and
resurrection.
685 Cf. Matt 3:I5; 27:4, I9, 24.
686 Paul even apologizes because he did not know that he
stood before the high priest, because scolding a high
priest is against the Torah (Acts 23:4-5).
687 For a close theological parallel, see I QS I O.I9-20: "I
will pay no man the reward of evil; I will pursue him
with goodness. For judgment of all the living is with
God and it is He who will render to man his reward"
(trans. by Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in
English [Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books, I962]90-
9I). By comparison, the SM also presupposes that
God will mete out justice in the hereafter and even in
this world (cf. SM/Matt 6:I4-I5; 7:2I-23, etc.). Yet
desisting from retaliation as a human act is just in
itself, and-differently from Paul-the SM does not
use the referral of evildoers to divine retribution as
part of the argument.
688 See esp. I Cor 5:5, Gal6:I (and Betz, Galatians, 295-
98).
689 A similar maxim is attested elsewhere in Paul and the
NT: Rom I2: I7, "To nobody requite evil with evil"
(J'-'1/0EVt KaKbV avTt KaKOV a?TOOIOOVTEr); I Thess 5: I5a;
Jas 5:6; I Pet 3:9 (cf. 2:23); see furthermore Rom
I3:IO; Gal6:IO; I Thess 3:I2; 5:I5b. Interesting is
also Ps.-Clem. Hom. I5.5-9, which presents a defense
of SM/Matt 5: 39b-4I under the topic of "philan-
thropy."
690 See also T. Benj. 4.3. For the background in Jewish
wisdom, seePs 38:2I; Tob I2:7; Sir 7:I; and for the
opposite, Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. I32-34, I43, I 52. For
further parallels, see Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die
Romer (EKKNT; 3 vols.; Zurich: Benziger; Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, I978, I980,
I982) 3.25-26; Jiirgen Sauer, "Traditions-
geschichtliche Erwagungen zu den synoptischen und
paulinischen Aussagen tiber Feindesliebe und
Wiedervergeltungsverzicht," ZNW 76 (I985) I-28,
esp. I7-23.

285
vividly the expectations of the community of the Sermon
on the Mount.
2. Retaliation and nonretaliation. Recent studies show
that opposition to retaliation did not fall on deaf ears at
the time of the SM. Such sympathy toward non-
retaliation was due to developments in the Hellenistic
era. As Greek literature and philosophy indicate, the
normative view in the classical era soundly favored
retaliation. Aristotle cites "Rhadamanthys's rule of
justice" 691 when he introduces the subject of retaliation
and its relationship to justice (Eth. Nic. 5.5.3, 1132b 26-
27):
An a man suffer even that which he did,
Right justice will be done.
Er KE 7ra6ot TaT' £pEtE,
OLK1J K' l6E'ia y€votTo. 6 92
Indeed, retaliation was the principle underlying all
Greek penallaw. 693 It was also the rule governing
popular morality, where it figured prominently in the
context ofthe ethics offriendship. 694 The rule here,
often quoted in ancient authors, is stated by Xenophon
Mem. 2.6.35: "a man's virtue consists in outdoing his
friends in kindness and his enemies in mischief" (avopb<;
apET~V ELVaL VLKav TOV<; cplAov<; E~ 7rOLOVVTa, TOV<; o' lx6pov<;
KaKws). 695 Based on the ius talionis, this rule justifies
retaliation. If justice is defined as "to each man his
due," 696 vengeance is the outcome: "To take vengeance
on one's enemies is nobler than to come to terms with
them; for to retaliate is just, and that which is just is
noble, and further, a courageous man ought not to allow
himself to be beaten." 69 7
Yet this consensus begins to be challenged even in the
classical period. The development of the problem, which
I cannot review here in detail, 698 begins with the
discussion of the correspondence of "doing and suffering
wrong" (aoLKELV Kat aOLKEtuBat) in Plato (Gorg. 509c-51 Oc),
or the questioning of the maxim "Benefit your friends
and harm your foes" in his Republic (1.7-8, 332b-
336a).699 Is it just under any circumstance to render to
the enemy what is his or her due, namely, some evil
(332b)? Socrates' cross-examination ofPolemarchus
completely confuses him about the true meaning of the
maxim (332b-334b). Equally troublesome is the question
abouJ who is a true friend (334c-e) and who is an enemy
(335b-e). As a result, the maxim is judged to be false:
"For it has been made clear to us that in no case is it just

691 According to Dirlmeier (Aristoteles, Nikomachische Dihle, Goldene Regel, passim.

Ethik, 412-13), this argument is to be regarded as
secondary, and its origin is probably Hesiod frg. 174
(ed. Rzach); see also the LCL edition ofHesiod, ed.
Hugh Evelyn-White, pp. 74-75 (frg. 1). Plato also
refers to the saying, but without mentioning
Rhadamanthys (Leg. 9, 870d5-e3; 872e4; 873a1).
692 Text and translation according to the LCL edition by
H. Rackham, pp. 280-81. Aristotle reports it as
popular opinion. See Dirlmeier's commentary
Aristoteles, Nikomachische Ethik, 412.
693 Karl Friedrich Hermann, Uber Grundsiitze und
Anwendung des Strafrechts im griechischen Alterthume '
(Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
zu Gottingen 6; Gottingen: Dieterich, 1856 267-
321) 270: "Vergeltungist der alteste Grund alles
griechischen und wohliiberhaupt alles antiken
Strafrechts" ("Revenge is the oldest foundation of all
Greek and virtually all ancient penal law").
694 See XenophonMem. 2.3.14; 2.6.32-39; PlatoMeno
71E; Rep. 1.7, 332B-336A; !socrates Demon. 24-26;
Nicocl. 61. For comprehensive studies and rich
documentation, see Hermann, Uber Grundsiitze, 270-
72; Ludwig Gunther, Die Idee der Wiederuergeltung in
der Geschichte und Philosophie des Strafrechts: Ein Beitrag
zur universalhistorischen Entwicklung desselben (parts 1-
3, first half; Erlangen: Blasing, 1889-95) 1.76-129;
695 Text and translation according to the LCL edition of
Xenophon by E. C. Marchant, 144-45.
696 Aristotle Rhet. 1.9.7, 1366b 9-11: "Justice is a virtue
which assigns to each man his due in conformity with
the law; injustice claims what belongs to others, in
opposition to the law" (~ITTt ot OLKa!OITVV1J p.tv ap•r~ OL'
~v ra aVTWv fKaCTTOI. fxovcn, Kat ros- b v6p.os-, O.OtKla ot Or.'
~v rlt a)\)\orpLa, ovx w~ 0 vop.o~). Text and translation
according to the LCL edition by John H. Freese, pp.
90-93.
697 Idem, Rhet. 1.9.24, 1167a 19-22: Kat rh roh lxBpobs
np.ropii~TBaL p.al\l\ov Kat p.~ Karal\l\6.rTEIT8aL. ro TE yltp
Ctvrawo0r.06var. OlKatov, Th Of OlKatov KaA6v, Kat O.v0p£lov
rh p:h ~rr0.u8ar..
698 See the notes in Dirlmeier's commentary (Aristoteles:
Nikomachische Ethik, 411-27); and Dihle, Goldene
Regel, 66-72; idem, "Gerechtigkeit," RAG 10 (1978)
249,254.
699 Plato (Rep. 1.7, 332B; cf. 335E) attributes the maxim
to the poet Simonides. See also Plato Grit. 49B-C; and
for commentary Schmidt, Ethik, 2.313, 319, 363;
Hildebrecht Hommel, Symbola (Hildesheim: Olms,
1976) 1.185.

286
 Matthew 5:21-48

to harm anyone" (ovoafLOV yap o{Kawv ovo€va fJfLtV ecpav7J
llv {3A.a-rrTf.tv [335e ]). If, then, contrary to common belief,
the maxim is wrong, it cannot have been pronounced
first by a sage (uocp6s); it must have come from some rich
and powerful man with delusions of grandeur (336a). 700
In terms of these discussions, the frequent instances of
initial and retaliatory blows are representative: "Is not
the man who is most skillful to strike or inflict a blow in a
fight, whether as a boxer or elsewhere, also the most
wary to guard against a blow?" (Rep. 1.8, 333e). In Gorg.
486b-c, Callicles describes a man reduced by his enemies
to nothing, living in his own city like an outcast: "Such a
person, if one may use a rather low expression, can be
given a box on the ear with impunity." In the later
discussions, Socrates applies the example to himself
(508c-e), and with regard to the blow he says "that to be
wrongfully boxed on the ear is the deepest disgrace" (Th
TV7rTf.u8at E7rt K6pp7JS iiolKws aruxtUTOV f.tVa£ [508d-e]).7°l
In his discussion of justice in Eth. Nic. 5. 5.1, 113 2b
21-23, Aristotle begins with a critical examination of
what he says is the Pythagorean 702 definition of justice:
"Justice is simply equal to reciprocity" (Th l-rrmf.-rrov8hs
f.tVa£ a'TrAWS o{Kawv)/ 03 meaning "suffering reciprocally
With another" (Th O{KaWV aVT£7rf.7rOV8hs lf)\)\C!l), 704 which is
nothing but the ius talionis. Aristotle concludes that "in
many cases Reciprocity is at variance with Justice," using
the example of beating: "for example, if an officer strikes
a man, it is wrong for the man to strike him back; and if a
man strikes an officer, it is not enough for the officer to
strike him, but he ought to be punished as well. "705
Simply requiting evil with evil cannot be justice; and one
must judge the matter "by proportionality" (KaT'
iivaA.oylav), not "by reciprocity" (KaT' lu6T7JTa). 7° 6 The
shrines dedicated to the Graces remind us that it is
characteristic of "grace" (xapts) to return kindness, and
thus "it is a duty not only to repay a service done, but
another time to take the initiative in doing a service
oneself" (iiv8v-rrf.p7JTijual Tf. yap of.'i T{il xaptuafL€vC!l Kat
7rtlA£V avThV lfpfat xapt(JfLWOV). 707
After showing from commerce that reciprocal
proportionality does characterize human interaction,
Aristotle applies it to ethics and concludes that ''just
conduct is a mean between doing and suffering injustice"
(oijA.ov /:In .q O£Kaw-rrpayla fL€uov EUTt TOV aO£KflV Kat
aO£Kf.tu8at). 708 Consequently, on the one hand, ''justice is
that quality in virtue of which a man is said to be
disposed to do by deliberate choice that which is just" (Kat
.q 0£KaWUVV7J EUTL Ka8' ~v 0 olKaws A.€yf.Ta£ -rrpaKnKhs KaTa
-rrpoalpf.utv Tov OtKalov ). 709 In other words, justice cannot
simply be a reaction to suffering. On the other hand, "of
the injustice done, the smaller part is the suffering and
the larger part the doing of injustice" (TOV Ot aOtK~fLaTOS
Th fLtV fA.aTTOV Th ot aO£Kf.tu8a{ EUT£, Th ot !J.f.t(ov Th
aOtKf.tV). 7l O
In the Hellenistic and Roman periods, these
fundamental discussions became a permanent topic of
ph;Josophical school debates, where they led to new
conceptualizations not only of the idea of retaliation but

700 Plato rules out Simonides or one ofthe Seven Sages
(Bias or Pittacus), but considers as authors men like
Periander, Peridiccas, Xerxes, or Ismenias of
Thebes. He thus recognizes the maxim to state a
political policy (Adelsethik) rather than philosophical
wisdom. See Dihle, Goldene Regel, 32-33.
70I See also Plato Gorg. 526-27, and further below on
SM/Matt 5:39b; also Gustav Stahlin, TDNT 8.263.
702 Diels-Kranz (58 B 4 [I, 452, 26-28]) includes only
this passage. See Dihle, Goldene Regel, 30, 66-68.
703 My own translation. The adverb a:rr>.ws expresses
Aristotle's evaluation.
704 Text and translation according to the LCL edition by
H. Rackham, pp. 278-79.
705 Aristotle Eth. Nic. 5.5.4, II32b 28-3I; cf. 5.8.3,
II35a 25-35; Eth. Eud. 2.8, I224b I3-I5.
706 Eth. Nic. 5.5.6, II32b 32-34.
707 Ibid., 5.5. 7, II33a 4-6.
708 Ibid., 5.5.I7, II33b 30-32; see also Plato Rep. 2,
359a 5-8, on which see Dirlmeier, Aristoteles,
Nikomachische Ethik, 4I5-I6.
709 Aristotle Eth. Nic. 5.5.I7, II34a I-3.
7IO Ibid., 5.5.I8, II34a I2-I3. See also Plato Ep. 7,
335A: "one should account it a lesser evil to suffer
than to perform the great iniquities and injustices"
(otO Kat ra J.teyaAa CtJ.tapT~J.tara Kat aOtK~J.taTa
up.r.Kp0TEpov E7vat XP~ vop.l{etv KaKhv '71'&.oxnv ~ llpCiuar.).
Similarly, Plutarch De sera num. vind. 7, 55IC (see
PECL 1.200; cf. also PECL 2.I25, 2I5-I7). For the
NT, see I Cor 6:7; I Pet 2:I9-20; 3:I4, I7. In the
SM, Matt 5:IO, II, I2 come close.

287
of justice in general, pertaining to philosophy, law, and
ethics. In his valuable study on the Golden Rule,
Albrecht Dihle 711 describes impressively how the ideas
concerning retaliation gradually changed from the
ancient Near East to the patristic period. He dis-
tinguishes several strands of development that took place
simultaneously in interaction with each other. There are
the developments within law 712 and within popular
morality/ 13 documented by law codes, inscriptions,
gnomic and other literature; 714 and there is the
systematic examination of the ideas, laws, and con-
ventions in the philosophers' treatises. 715 One can
observe parallel developments in the Old Testament,
Judaism, and early Christianity. 716 Somewhere along the
line, connections were made among the Jewish, the
Christian, and the Greco-Roman traditions, although it is
still disputed how and when such intercultural exchanges
occurred.
The large number of passages from ancient literature
documenting these developments need not be reviewed
here. 717 Of interest in regard to the SM/Matt 5:38-42 is
that when the SM was formulated, retaliation was
thoroughly discredited as far as ethical thought was
concerned. 718 Especially in regard to the Stoic doctrine
of oikeiosis719 retaliation was regarded by philosophers,
and increasingly by popular morality, as a "bad habit"
(mala consuetudo) to be overcome through education by
the benevolence toward each other that is characteristic
of the human race as partakers of divinely inspired
reason. This "natural benevolence" then became the
foundation for law ("natural law") and ethics. 720 The
resulting redefinition of law and, connected with it, of
retaliation is stated by Cato in Cicero's De fin. 3.21. 71:
"Right moreover, properly so styled and entitled, exists
(they aver) by nature; and it is foreign to the nature of
the Wise Man not only to do wrong but even to hurt
anybody. Nor again is it righteous to enter into a
partnership in wrongdoing with one's friends or
benefactors." 721 These ideas are presented as part of the
doctrine of friendship: "In friendship some profess that
the Wise Man will hold his friends' interests as dear as his
own, while others say that a man's own interests must
necessarily be dearer to him; at the same time the latter
admit that to enrich oneself by another's loss is an action
repugnant to that justice towards which we seem to
possess a natural propensity." 7 22

711 See below on SM/Matt 7:12 and SP /Luke 6:31.
712 Dible, Goldene Regel, 13-30.
713 Ibid., 30-40; furthermore Dover, Greek Popular
Morality, 181-84, 191-95.
714 Dible, Goldene Regel, 41-60.
715 Ibid., 61-71.
716 Ibid., 72-79.
717 Besides Dible's work, see the extensive collection of
passages in Nissen, Gott und der Niichste, 304-16;
Luise Schottroff, "Non-Violence and the Love of
One's Enemies," in Schottroff, Essays, esp. 17-22;
Zeller (Mahnsprilche, 57-59), who includes material
from ancient Near Eastern, OT, and early Jewish
wisdom literature; Lichtheim ("Late Egyptian
Wisdom Literature," 31-35) points to the inter-
national character of the teaching on nonretaliation;
see Str-B 1.341-42 for rabbinic literature. See also
Luz, Matthiius, 1.293-95 (Matthew, 1.326-29).
718 So correctly stated by Strecker, Bergpredigt, 86
(Sermon, 83); Luz (Matthiius, 1.293 [Matthew, 1.327])
claims incorrectly, however, that the SM does not
provide a motivation for the rejection of retaliation.
He does not recognize that the motivation is given
with the interpretation of the ius talionis (vs 38b).
According to him, the position advocated by the SM
is not "plausible" in a rational way, but an emotional
expression of symbolic protest against violence (293-
94; ET 326-27). On the whole, Luz's interpretation
points to modern political activism as analogy.
719 See Dible, Goldene Regel, 117-18. For a collection of
texts, see de Vogel, Greek Philosophy, 3.127-31 (nos.
999-1001).
720 For texts, see de Vogel, Greek Philosophy, 3.176-83
(nos. 1065-76).
7 21 According to the LCL edition and translation of
Cicero by H. Rackham (vol. 40; London: Heinemann;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1951) 290-
91: "Ius autem, quod ita dici appellarique possit, id
esse natura; alienumque esse a sapiente non modo
iniuriam cui facere verum etiam nocere. Nee vero
rectum est cum amicis aut bene meritis consociare
aut coniungere iniuriam." See also de Vogel, Greek
Philosophy 3.176 (no. 1065.b).
722 CiceroDefin. 3.21.70: "Quamquamautemin
amicitia alii dicant aeque caram esse sapienti
rationem amici ac suam, alii autem sibi cuique
cariorem suam, tamen hi quoque posteriores fatentur
alienum esse a iustitia, ad quam nati esse videamur,
detrahere quid de ali quo quod sibi assumat."

288

To return to the fifth antithesis, one can state that the
rejection of retaliation is by no means unrealistic or
implausible. Such rejection is based both on an
interpretation of the ius talionis that opposes the
interpretation refuted in vs 38b, and on the cultural
presuppositions of the time, according to which
retaliation is ethically objectionable. Moreover, the
additional argument by four examples assumes that the
rejection of retaliation is reasonable and ethically
justifiable.
These factors speak clearly at this point against Luz's
interpretation. He claims that "a motivation for the
renunciation of force is lacking, "723 although he
admitted on the page preceding this claim that such
exhortation was widespread in antiquity. According to
Luz, the SM is not at all interested in rational argument
and plausibility. 724 Drawing on the tactics of modern
protest demonstrations, he explains: "In our sayings
there is contained a good bit of conscious provocation.
The point is estrangement, shock treatment, and a
symbolic protest against the vicious cycle of violence. "725
The four examples in vss 39b-42 are indeed provoc-
ative,726 as is the argument as a whole; but such
provocativeness surely excludes neither plausibility nor
practicability.
Verse 39b begins the argument by substantiating vs
39a with the first of the four examples (vss 39b-42). The
connection is extremely brief: aA.A.a ("but"; or, "instead it
should be like the following"). 727 The first example
involves a traditional topic: 728 "Whoever strikes you on
your right cheek, turn to him the other also" (CJITns IT€
723 Luz, Matthiius, 1.294 (Matthew, 1.326).
724 Ibid., 294-95 (ET 326-27).
725 Ibid., 295 (ET 327-28).
726 So rightly Tannehill, Sword ofHis Mouth, 378-80,
who does not, however, apply the metaphors to
political agitation.
727 For this use of aAA&, see also SM/Matt 7:21;
SP /Luke 6:27. See BDF, § 448 (4); BDR, § 448, 3;
BAGD, s.v.lr.H&, 3.
728 See below, esp. at nn. 735-39.
729 D L 8 jl- 13 m-1 read the future, pa1ri<Tn ("he will
strike"), instead of the present tense. The future
tense could be due to a simple scribal error or
assimilation to vs 41. £1ri is read instead of •ls by the
second corrector ofM, by D L 8, and others, certainly
due to harmonization with SP/Luke 6:29. A number
of manuscripts have a different word order; some
Matthew 5:21-48
pa7T{(H ds T1}V li€{tav ITtayOva [ITOV ], ITTpbpov avT(i> /Cat T1}V
CI.A.A.rJV). 72 9 As I have pointed out, the example of striking
a person is commonplace in Hellenistic discussions about
retaliation. 730 Not surprisingly, therefore, there are
parallels in SP /Luke 6:29a,7 31 Did. 1.4, 732 and Justin
A pol. 1.16.1. 733 In view ofthe parallel in the SP, I note
that not only the language but also the content differs. In
the SP the example illustrates the command to love the
enemy (Luke 6:27b), while in the SM it illustrates the
interpretation of the ius talionis in the light of the love-
command. On the one hand, the ius talionis is not part of
the SPat all; on the other hand, traditionally the love-
command and the ius talionis may be treated in ethical
discussions on "friends and foes." 734 Finally, the SM
divides the treatment of the ius talionis (vss 38-42) and
the love-command (vss 43-48) into two separate
arguments. Perhaps this division is paralleled by the two
principles of the love-command and the Golden Rule
(7: 12). These differences and similarities exclude a
simple literary takeover of either the SM or the SP in the
composition of the other, either by way of reduction or
expansion, and they argue in effect for separate
redactional elaborations of a traditional illustration by
both the SM and the SP.
It has been observed that beating someone on the
right cheek requires use ofthe back of the right hand, 735
an extreme humiliation in the Greco-Roman 736 as well as
the Jewish world,7 37 and indeed, in our own time. Why
the right cheek? The right side is always the more
omit CTOV as redundant. See the apparatus in Nestle-
Aland, and Aland, Synopsis, 82.
730 SeePECL 2.190-92.
731 See below on SP /Luke 6:29a.
732 Not in Doctrina apostolorum.
733 Not in Justin Apol. 1.15.1 0.
734 See Schmidt, Ethik, 2.337-68; Dover, Greek Popular
Morality, 181-84.
735 See also above on SM/Matt 5:29, 30; and below on
6:3.
736 See the examples given in Wettstein, 1.308-9;
Gustav Stahlin, TDNT 8.263.
737 Rabbinic passages are assembled in Str-B 1.342-43.
289
important one; thus the strike is even more humili-
ating. 738 The term pa7rl(w ("strike," "slap") is forceful, 739
but so is the term TV7TTW, used in the SP parallel.
Turning to 740 the striker the other cheek 741 as well is
a provocative invitation to receive a second strike. To do
this is by no means a sign of weakness but, as we have
seen, one of moral strength. The gesture exposes the act
of the offender as what it is: morally repulsive and
improper. In addition, it doubles the renunciation of
violence by the person insulted; and finally, it challenges
the striker to react with comparable generosity. A person
who would ignore the gesture and strike again would
reveal that person as an uncivilized brute. Thus the
turning of the other cheek is a highly provocative
challenge demonstrating the ius talionis in reverse 742 by
taking the initiative in accordance with the Golden Rule
(7: 12).
• 40 The second example, taken from the world of the
courts, focuses on a person suing for a shirt: "and to the
one who wants to go to court with you and take your
shirt, let him have also your coat" (Ka! Tij> BtJ\ovTl croL
KpLBijvaL KaL TbV XLTwva crov 1\a(3t:"iv, lf.cpn avT(j> KaL Tb
1JLanov). 743 This example differs in character from its
parallel in SP /Luke 6:29b. 744 While in the SM the image
is that of a court trial/ 45 in the SPit is that of a robber
stealing a garment; and the garments are reversed. In the
SM the adversary wants to sue for the less valuable
"undershirt" (xmhv)/ 46 and he is to be given the more
valuable "overcoat" (1J.tanov). 747 In the SP, the robber
takes the overcoat first and gets the undershirt in
addition. In my view, one can explain the differences
only by assuming that the example occurred in two
different versions in the SM and the SP, and that the
Matthean version is not the result of Matthew's rewriting
of what was supposedly in Q (= SP /Luke 6:29b). 748 Q
had the example too, but it is impossible to decide which
of the versions it was. 7 49 The interpretation of the
example should parallel that of the first one in 5:39. 750

738 See Jacob Weismann, "Zur Erklarung einer Stelle in
der Bergpredigt," ZNW 14 (1913) 175-76.
739 It is noteworthy that Matt 26:67 (cf. 27:30) picks up
£p.1rrVw ("spit") from Mark 14:65 (cf. 15:19), but
changes Mark's wording too! at £pa1T1uav ("and some
struck him"). Does this change express Matthew's
interpretation of the passion of Christ in the light of
the SM? Cf. also John 18:22; 19:3; Barn. 5.14 (Isa
50:6); Cos. Pet. 3.9. Acts 23:2-3 is also a parallel. See 744
BAGD, s. v. pa1ri(w, pamup.a, with further references. 745
740 In the NT, the term urpto/ov ("turn") occurs only
here (also in the parallel passage in Did. 1.4);
SP/Luke 6:29a has 1rapixuv ("offer"), which Marcion
exchanges for the Matthean phrase. Since in my view
Did. 1.4 does not depend on the Gospel of Matthew,
pa1ri(w is not due to Matthean redaction but stood in 746
the source common to SM and Didache. See BAGD,
s. v. urpttf>w, l.a.a. 747
741 u•ayC:w ("cheek") is common to the parallels, among
them SM/Matt 5:39; SP /Luke 6:29; Did. 1.4; Barn.
5.14; Cos. Pet. 3.9;JustinApol. 1.16.1. See also 748
BAGD, s.v. u•aywv.
7 42 For a different interpretation, see Strecker,
Bergpredigt, 87 (Sermon, 83-84): "as proof of
unreserved compliance that seeks neither to preserve 749
one's own honor nor to maintain one's own position
of power." Other interpretations rightly rejected are 750
listed in Luz, Matthiius, 1.292-93 (Matthew, 1.325-
26).
743 D changes rep 8ti.ovr•, a dative, into the nominative o
Ob..wv, so as to make the sentence parallel to vss 39b
and 41; but vs 42 shows that the examples alternate
between nominative (vss 39b, 41a) and dative (vss
40a, 42a). Instead of avrcp in vs 40b, K* 892 pc bo
read roVT<J> ("to this one"), perhaps to increase the
emphasis. At the end, K 33. 1424 pc co add uov
("your" [sc. coat]), probably for clarification and
emphasis. See the apparatus in Nestle-Aland. Did. 1.4
reads ai>rcp; neither Did. 1.4 nor Justin Apol. 1.16.1
has the finaluov.
See below on SP /Luke 6:29b.
KpL8ijva•, with the associative dative, here meaning
"go to law with someone," is attested only here in the
NT, but it occurs in LXX Job 9:3; 13:19. See
Wettstein, 1.309; BAGD, s.v. Kpivw, 4.a.B; BDF, §
193 (4); BDR, § 193 n. 5. Cf. SM/Matt 5:25; 1 Cor
6:6.
The term occurs in SM/Matt 5:40; SP/Luke 6:29b;
Did. 1.4;Justin Apol. 1.16.1. See BAGD, s.v. x•rwv.
The term occurs in SM/Matt 5:40; SP/Luke 6:29b;
Did. 1:4;JustinApol. 1.16.1; furthermore, see
BAGD, s.v.lp.anov, 2.
Luz (Matthiius, 1.291 [Matthew, 1.323-24) is right in
being cautious about the reconstruction of the exact
wording of Q, and so is Sauer ("Feindesliebe," 14-
15, with further references).
More optimistic are Schulz (Q, 120-27), Zeller
(Mahnspruche, 55), and Polag (Fragmenta Q, 34-35).
Differently for Guelich (Sermon, 222) and Luz
(Matthiius, 1.293 [Matthew, 1.325-26]), the situation
depicted is that of a pawn trial in which the shirt has
been pledged as collateral. Luz sees the command to
give also the coat as an "indirect opposition"
("indirekte Spannung") to the pawn laws ofExod

290
 Matthew 5:21-48

The reaction proposed to the victim is to apply the law of
retaliation in a reverse way and, instead of reacting, to
take the initiative corresponding to the Golden Rule
(7: 12). The obvious absurdity of the example in leaving
the victim standing naked 751 does not exclude its sound
logic. 7 52 The exaggerated image shows the paradoxical
situation of a person acting according to the Golden
Rule, a rule ofprudence.75!1
• 41 The third example focuses on another kind of
indebtedness: "and whoever will force you (to go) one
mile, go With him two" (KallfcrTL~ CT£ a:yyape0cr£L p.{)UOV ~V 1
ii7J"ay£ p.£T' ahov avo). 754 This example does not appear
in the SP parallel (Luke 6:29-30), but Did. 1.4 and Justin
Apol. 1.16.2 have different versions ofit. 755 The little
scene depicts someone who "commandeers" (ayyap£V£LV)
the services of another. Scholars have pointed to the
origin of this practice among the Persians, 7 56 a practice
continued by the Romans. 757 Some persons could legally
compel others to render services gratuitously, and the
victim of such a despicable request was legally obliged to
comply. An example occurs in the passion narratives,
where Roman soldiers compel Simon of Cyrene to bear
Jesus' cross. 758 The measurement of one "mile" (p.lA.wv)
also has a Roman flavor. 759 One must understand the
command to go the "extra mile" 760 in analogy to the

22:26-27; Deut 24:12-13. As a result, "one should
not get involved in such lawsuits at all, and even as a
debtor one should voluntarily give up even the
minimum of the right of the poor." Whether or not
one can assume such an allusion to the OT pawn
laws, the evidence is too slim for constructing a
principal stance against the Torah.
751 Strecker (Bergpredigt, 87 [Sermon, 84]) takes the
nakedness to be an existentialist allegory: "The
radical nature ofthe demand for compliance is based
on nothing other than the nearness of the kingdom
of God, which demolishes all human certainties;
before it nothing can prevail, and every person
appears naked and bare."
752 Against Strecker (Bergpredigt, 87 [Sermon, 84]):
"Jesus' demand breaks every rule of good sense."
753 Zeller (Mahnsprilche, 55-59) rightly points out that
one must relate the example to the notions of order
and reason underlying all ancient wisdom thought.
754 A different construction is shown by IC A (33. 892*
pc): ll.v ~napE-Dun ("if he forces"). In vs 41 b, D it vgcl
sy' read lTI {i)l.)l.a ("still another [two miles]"); similarly
lat sy" Irenaeus1•• by adding {i)l.)l.a ("another"). Thus
the required distance is increased to three miles. The
variants clarify the question whether two or three
miles is meant.
755 Did. 1.4: ll.vli:yyapE.Ouy ut r&s J'lA&OII lv, ll1rayE J'ET'
abrov Mo ("If someone forces you [to go] one mile,
go with him two"). Cf. the variant readings inn. 7 54
above. Justin Apol. 1.16.2: llavr\ at- anapE-Dovrl <TE
J'iAIOII atcoAo-66Tj<TOII Mo ("To everyone who forces you
[to go] one mile, follow [him] two"). See also Ps.-Clem.
Hom. 15.5.5; AthenagorasSupp1. 1.4.
756 The term ayyapEIJw ("requisition,. "press into
service") derives from the Persian postal service. For
the origins, see BDF, §§ 6, 42 (2);James Hope
Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary cif the
Greek Testament (reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1982) 2-3; BAGD, s.v., with references; PGL, s.v.;
Rudiger Schmitt, "'Meconnaissance' altiranischen
Sprachgutes im Griechischen," Glotta 49 ( 1971) 97-
101; Spicq, Notes, 1.31-33. For documentary
evidence, see also New Documents, 1.36-45 (no. 9);
2. 77 (no. 28). For the rabbinic loanword, see Paul
Fiebig, "anapEIJw," ZNW 18 (1918) 64-72; Str-B
1.344-45; for the Latin loanword, see OLD, s.v.
angaria, angaria, angarus. Wettstein (1.310-11) has a
collection of parallels.
757 See Hugh]. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions
(American Studies in Papyrology 13; Toronto:
Hakkert, 1974) 19;]. David Thomas, "Compulsory
Public Service in Roman Egypt," in Gunter Grimm et
al., Das romisch-byzantinische A.gypten: Akten des
Internationalen Symposiums 26-30. September 1978 in
Trier (Mainz: von Zabern, 1983) 35-39.
758 Mark 15:21//Matt 27:32. According to John 19:17,
Jesus carries his own cross. The question is whether
Simon of Cyrene exemplifies what the SM com-
mands. On the Simon whose son Alexander may be
mentioned on an ossuary from the Kidron Valley, see
the references and discussion in Martin Hengel,
Between Jesus and Paul (trans. John Bowden;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 17 n. 117, 158 n. 15.
759 The term J'lA&ov ("mile") occurs only in connection
with this example (SM/Matt 5:41; Did. 1.4;Justin
Apol. 1.16.2; not in the SP or Doctrina apostolorum).
The name comes from a "thousand (paces)," probably
the Roman mille passus ("thousand paces"), fixed to
equal eight stades or 4,854 feet or 1,478.5 meters.
See BAGD, s.v. J'lA&ov.
760 In his diatribe "On Freedom," Epictetus (Diss. 4.1.77)
brings a number of examples to illustrate the

291
previous examples (vss 39b, 40). The text gives no
indication of the purpose for which the request was
made/ 61 a sign that purpose is not the point.
• 42 The fourth and last example comes from the world
of money: "To the one who asks you give; and from the
one who wants to borrow from you do not turn away"
(Tcp 3~ atTOVVTL ITEMs, ICat TbV (J{A.ovTa a-rrb ITOV 3avluau8at
flo~ a-rrouTpacpfis). 762 The double-liner consists of two
parallel examples, one positive and one negative,
connected by the association of ideas ("asking,"
"borrowing"). The first line (vs 42a) has a close parallel in
SP /Luke 6:30a, 763 where a similar saying occurs. 764 Still
different is Did. 1.5-6 765 and justin Apol. 1.15.10: "To
everyone who asks you give, and from the one who wants
to borrow do not turn away" (-rravTt Tcp alTovvn 3l3oTE ICat
TbV f3ovAOf1oEVOV 3avelu8at flo~ a"lTOITTpacpi]TE). 766 SM/Matt
5:42b has another parallel in SP /Luke 6:34-35, 767 while
one should compare vs 42a also with SM/Matt 6:2-4 and
7:7-11.
How is one to interpret the verse? Although scholars
tend to base their understanding on a redactional
revision of the Q-version by Matthew,7 68 the many
different versions in the tradition render such a specific
suggestion impossible to support. There is no evidence
for the special hand of Matthew in the formulation. 769 A
pre-Matthean origin is more likely and lends itself to
interpreting vs 42 in analogy to vss 39b-41. Both
examples focus again on obligation. The one who is
asked to give is obligated to do so-and without limit-
because that person has previously received. 770
Similarly, and more specifically, the one who approaches
for a loan 771 should not be rejected, 772 and there is no
consideration of repayment or interest. 773
What ethical conclusions should the reader draw? To
answer this question, one must differentiate between two
major concerns in the passage: the correct interpretation
of the ius talionis and the application of this legal
principle to ethical thought.

principle "That which is not in your power to acquire
or to keep is none of yours." Among them are these:
"You ought to treat your whole body like a poor
loaded-down donkey, as long as it is possible, as long
as it is allowed; and if it be commandeered [a:yyap£ia]
and a soldier lay hold of it, let it go, do not resist or
grumble I}<~ avrinLV£ 1'1/a~ yclyyv(£ ]. If you do, you
will get a beating and lose your little donkey just the
same" (4.1.79). Clearly, the example, which is given
an allegorical meaning, serves a different inter-
pretative context than the SM. For other parallels
from Epictetus, see Diss. 2.1 0.24; 3.3.9; 3.6.5-7;
3.12.10; 4.1.153; 4.5.9; Ench. 11, 42, 43.
761 Differently Matt 27:32, which states the purpose.
762 L8f 1 33.1006.1342. 15069Jtreadaiaov,probably
to harmonize the sentence with Luke 6:30a, but also
Did. 1.5 and justin Apol. 1.15.10 read aiaov or aiaon.
The better text is read by IC B D W f 13 892 pc. In vs
42b, D (K) change the object to the dative, as in vs
42a(cf.alsoDid.l.5[dative]andJustinApo1.1.15.10
[accusative]).
763 For discussion, see below on SP /Luke 6:30a.
764 See below on SP /Luke 6:30b.
765 See below, ibid.
766 See also Cos. Thom. 95: "Uesus said]: If you have
money, do not lend at interest, but give ... from
whom you will not get them (back)." There is no
parallel, however, in Doctrina apostolorum or Ps.-Clem.
Hom. 15.5-20. See Kline, Sayings, 21-26. Cf.
furthermore, Ps.-Clem. Hom. 11.32; Rec. 6.13.
767 See below on these verses.
768 So esp. Strecker, Bergpredigt, 88 (Sermon, 84-85); Luz
(Matthiius, 1.291-92, 296 [Matthew, 1.323-24, 329])
exaggerates the differences between Luke and
Matthew (Matthew is "less radical"; he shortens the
symmetry of composition). He assumes that Matthew
"had to shorten Luke 6:32-34 for reasons of
symmetry," and thus he "formulated vs 42b in his
language and took over the otherwise missing theme
ofloaning from the omitted verse Luke 6:34, and
shaped it into a command which was practicable in
his community" (Matthew, 1.323). There is, however,
no evidence for this imaginative construction.
769 Strecker (Bergpredigt, 88 [Sermon, 84]) points out that
vs 42 contains a "realistic statement" and a practical
rule of behavior similiar to Luke 6:34-35. There is,
however, no absolute gap between example and
exhortation; the example always has exhortative
functions. For this reason, vs 42 differs neither
structurally nor functionally from the preceding
examples.
770 For the ideas presupposed here, see also Betz, 2
Corinthians 8 and 9, 102-5, and 169 (index), s.v.
Exchange of gifts.
771 For the meaning of aav(£)i(w (middle "borrow"), see
BAGD, s.v., 2; and below on SP /Luke 6:34-35.
772 foL~ a-,rourpa.pfir can be intransitive ("turn away from")
or transitive ("turn away," "reject"). See BAGD, s.v.
i't."Irourpt.pw, 3.a; BDF, § 308; BDR, § 308; Georg
Bertram, TDNT 7.719-22. A decision is difficult to
make. The a-,ro- is played off against the a-,rO ITOV (not
in justin!). Cf. also Did. 4.8; 5.2; Bam. 20.2: "(Do not)
turn away the needy!"
773 Different from SP/Luke 6:30b, 34-35. See

292
 Matthew 5:21-48

First, the ius talionis by itself is, as already pointed out,
a legal principle, not a moral or ethical rule. The issue in
this text is not to abolish the legal principle as such. On
the contrary, the text assumes that the ius talionis is an
authoritative legal principle of Scripture. The question
is, rather, h<;>w to understand this principle properly. As
part of the Torah, the ius talionis must serve to achieve
justice. The talio principle presupposes that injustice has
already occurred. What should one do to prevent further
injustice and to restore justice?
The legal answer would be to provide proportional
retribution or compensation for the damages incurred. It
is important to reali~e at this point that the SM is not
interested in the legal consequences of proportional
punishment or compensation, nor is it interested in any
issue belonging to penal law. The history of inter-
pretation, however, shows that in a later time the
provisions of the SM were applied to such areas as penal
law in general, capital punishment, resistance to tyranny
and totalitarianism, and the international politics of war
and peace. There is nothing wrong per se with these
secondary applications because they are without doubt
grounded in the text itself; but one must remain
conscious of the fact that, in my view, the SM leaves
these issues aside because of its primary interest in the
ethical question. Application to the other legal issues
mentioned would require prior hermeneutical
considerations within jurisprudence.
Second, the ethical principle that is based on the ius
talionis is the Golden Rule; by interpreting the former in
the light of the latter, the ethical consequences become
clear. While legal provisions are reactive to injustices
incurred, ethical thought anticipates such situations and
develops initiatives to prevent them from occurring or
recurring. Thus by preventing more injustices, these
initiatives help justice prevail. The examples in vss 39b-
42 are imaginative in the sense that they envision
situations of violence, pressure, and imposition in order
to propose strategies of conduct that help to overcome
injustice through justice. These strategies focus on
individuals as not only victims but also as ethically
responsible agents ofjustice. Nonretaliation makes sense
because it separates the perpetrator from the evil he or
she commits. This evil can be overcome if the person
committing it ceases to act as an agent of evil in the
future. Treating the perpetrator in such a way that the
cycle of violence and counterviolence is interrupted is
the demand of ethical responsibility. If the perpetrator
responds in kind to the renunciation of revenge, justice
has prevailed. I do not mean to suggest that the generous
offer of nonretaliation will always be accepted in the
same spirit. I do mean, however, that to act in the
proposed manner is ethically responsible and that, in
doing so, one indeed fulfills the intent of the Torah
principle.
There are many examples where the strategy fails; but
success or failure of alternative action is not the concern
of this particular argument. Neither the interpretation of
the ius talionis nor the validity of the ethical stance is
conditioned by success or failure of the strategy. Even in
the case of failure, justice has been served on the part of
the ethically responsible person implementing the
demand of the SM.
One must realize that the argument is limited at this
point. If retaliation is ruled out, are nonretaliatory
judicial processes, corrective measures, or negotiations
about compensation also ruled out? Nothing is said that
enables one to answer these questions. Consideration of
court actions and compensation would imply a shift from
private law, to which retaliation belongs, to public law
and legal arbitration. Early Christianity was apparently
not in agreement on the admissibility of Christians
appealing to public courts. Paul advises against it in 1
Cor 6:1-8, but the author of Acts has Paul appeal even
to Caesar (see Acts 25:9-12; cf. 16:40; 22:29; 28:32).
These questions were discussed in extenso by the church
fathers and the reformers; however, they go beyond the
text of the SM. 774

furthermore Ps.-Phocyl. Sent.14, 83; 'Abot 2.92.
774 Of great influence was Augustine's wide-ranging
discussion of the various aspects (De sermone dom. in
monte 1.19, 56-20, 68 [pp. 63-77, ed. Mutzen-
becher]; ET in The Preaching of Augustine, 63-79).
Luther introduced the doctrine of the two realms,
concluding that as a Christian one must suffer
injustice with patience and without resistance; but as
a father, neighbor, and citizen, one has the duty to
uphold the law. Calvin distinguished between
revenge, which he ruled out, and self-protection,
which he permitted-if it is done peaceably and
nonviolently. Due judicial process is permitted
because it serves justice and the public welfare
(Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels, 1.193-94; idem, Inst.
book 4, chaps. 17-20). These few examples,

293
f) The Sixth Antithesis: Love of the Enemy (Matt 5:43-48)
Bibliography
Banks ,Jesus and the Law, 199-201.
Gerhard Barth, "Das Gesetzesverstandnis des
Evangelisten Matthaus," in Gunther Bornkamm,
Gerhard Barth, and H. J. Held, Uberlieferung und
Auslegung im Matthiius-Evangelium (WMANT 1;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960)
70-80; ET: "Matthew's Understanding of the
Law," in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew
(London: SCM; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963)
58-164.
Walter Bauer, "Das Gebot der Feindesliebe und die
alten Christen," ZThK 27 (1917) 37-54, reprinted
in his Aufsiitze und kleine Schriften (ed. Georg
Strecker; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1967) 235-
52.
Oswald Bayer, "Sprachbewegung und Weltveran-
derung: Ein systematischer V ersuch als Auslegung
von Mt 5, 43-48," EvTh 35 (1975) 309-21.
J iirgen Becker, "Feindesliebe-Nachstenliebe-Bruder-
liebe: Exegetische Beobachtungen als Anfrage an
ein ethisches Problemfeld," ZEE 25 (1981) 5-18.
Gunther Bornkamm, "Das Doppelgebot der Liebe," in
his Geschichte und Glaube, vol. 1; Gesammelte Aufsiitze,
3.37-45; see also Geschichte und Glaube, vol. 2;
Gesammelte Aufsiitze, 4.92-94.
Idem,jesus, 109-17.
Broer, Freiheit, 85-89.
Idem, "Pladierte Jesus fur Gewaltlosigkeit? Eine
historische Frage und ihre Bedeutung fur die
Gegenwart," BK 2 (1982) 61-69.
Johann Friedrich Bruch, De amore inimicorum, quatenus
ille virtus dici possit christianae religionis propria
(Argentorati: n.p., 1812).
Hans Bruppacher, "Was sagte Jesus in Matthaus 5, 48?"
ZNW 58 (1967) 145.
Christoph Bultmann, Der Fremde im antiken Juda: Eine
Untersuchung zum antiken Typenbegri.ff gi!r und seinem
Bedeutungswandel in der alttestamentlichen Gesetz-
gebung (FRLANT 153; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1992).
Bultmann,jesus and the Word, 110-20.
Idem, History, 79, 82, 88, 105, 148-49; idem,
Ergiinzungshejt, 55.
Christoph Burchard, "Das doppelte Liebesgebot in der
friihen christlichen Uberlieferung," in Eduard
Lohse, ed., Der RufJesu und die Antwort der
Gemeinde: FS fur Joachim Jeremias (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 39-62.
however, cannot serve as an adequate summary of
the richness of the exegetical tradition. For surveys,
see Tholuck, Bergrede, 286-300; Luz, Matthiius,
294
C. John Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude to War
(London: Headley, 1919; reprinted New York:
Seabury, 1982).
Israel Gottlieb Canzius, De diligendis inimicis oraculi
Prov. 25, 21. 22, Ethnicorum quoque testimoniis
consentanei (Tubingae: n.p., 1748).
Henri Clavier, The Duty and the Right of Resistance
according to the Bible and to the Church (Dale
Lectures, Oxford, 1946; Oxford: Blackwell, 1956).
Gerhard Dautzenberg, "Mt 5, 43c und die antike
Tradition von der jiidischen Misanthropie," in
Ludger Schenke, ed., Studien zum Matthiius-
evangelium: FS filr Wilhelm Pesch (Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988) 4 7-77.
Dihle, Goldene Regel, 109-27.
Idem, Der Kanon der zwei Tugenden (Arbeitsgemein-
schaft fur Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-
Westfalen, Reihe Geisteswissenschaften, 144;
Cologne and Opladen: Westdeutscher, 1968).
Hermannus Gerardus Iacobus van Doesburgh,
Quaenam et qualis sit r/>•A.•xllpia, quam commendant
Jesus et Apostoli? et an ex hac commendatione etiam
eliceat Christianae doctrinae moralis praestantia?
(Annales Academiae Groninganae 1820-21;
Groningae: Oomkens, 1822).
Paul Johannes DuPlessis, "Love and Perfection in Mt
5:43-48," Neot. I (1973) 28-34.
Paul Fiebig, "Jesu Worte tiber die Feindesliebe," ThStK
91(1918)30-64,305-6.
J. Carolus Christianus Fischer, Quid de officiis et a more
erga inimicos Graecis et Romanis placuerit (Halae
Saxonum: n.p., 1789).
Ernst Fuchs, "Die vollkommene Gewissheit: Zur
Auslegung von Mt. 5, 48," in his Gesammelte
Aufsiitze, vol. 2: Zur Frage nach dem historischen Jesus
(Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1960) 126-35.
Reginald H. Fuller, "The Double Commandment of
Love: A Test Case for the Criteria of Authenticity,"
in Schottroff, Essays, 41-56.
Victor Paul Furnish, The Love Command in the New
Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972).
Hans Haas, Idee und Ideal der Feindesliebe in der
ausserchristlichen Welt: Ein religionsgeschichtlicher
Forschungsbericht (Leipzig: Edelmann, 1927).
Walter Harrelson, "Patient Love in the Testament of
Joseph," in George W. Nickelsburg, ed., Studies in
the Testament ofJoseph (Missoula, Mont: Scholars,
1975) 29-36.
Paul Hoffmann, "Tradition und Situation: Zur
'Verbindlichkeit' des Gebots der Feindesliebe in
der synoptischen Uberlieferung und in der
1.298-304 (Matthew, 1.331-35).

gegenwartigen Friedensdiskussion," in Kertelge,
Ethik, 50-118.
Richard Horsley, "Ethics and Exegesis: 'Love Your
Enemies' and the Doctrine of Non-Violence," JAAR
54 (1985) 3-31.
Wolfgang Huber, "Feindschaft und Feindesliebe," ZEE
26 (1982) 128-58.
Hubner, Gesetz, 81-112.
Ludwig Ph. Hiipeden, Commentatio, qua comparatur
doctrina de amore inimicorum Christiana cum ea, quae
tum in nonnullis veteris testamenti locis, tum in libris
philosophorum Graecorum et Romanorum traditur
(Gottingae: Baier, 1817).
Ferdinand Kattenbusch, "Uber die Feindesliebe im
Sinne des Christentums," ThStK 89 (1916) 1-70.
Walter Kirchschlager, "Die Friedensbotschaft der
Bergpredigt: Zu Mt 5, 9.17-48; 7, 1-5," Kairos 25
(1983) 223-37.
William Klassen, "Love Your Enemy: A Study of New
Testament Teaching on Coping with an Enemy," in
Paul Peachey, ed., Biblical Realism Confronts the
Nation (Scottdale, Penn.: Herald, 1963) 153-83.
Idem, "Love in the NT," IDBSup, 557-58.
Koster, Synoptische Oberlieferung, 220-26.
Georg Kunze!, Studien zum Gemeindeverstiindnis des
Matthiiusevangeliums (CThM, series A, vol. 10;
Stuttgart: Calwer, 1978).
James L. Kugel and Rowan Greer, Early Biblical
Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986).
Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, "Das LiebesgebotJesu als Tora
und als Evangelium: Zur Feindesliebe und zur
christlichen undjudischen Auslegung der
Bergpredigt," in Hubert Frankemolle and Karl
Kertelge, eds., Vom Urchristentum zu jesus: Fur
Joachim Gnilka (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna:
Herder, 1989) 194-230.
Pinchas Lapide, Wie liebt man seine Feinde? Mit einer
Neuubersetzung der Bergpredigt unter Berucksichtigung
der rabbinischen Lehrmethoden und der judischen
Muttersprache jesu (Mainz: Grunewald, 1984).
Michael Lattke, "Halacha," RAG 13 (1986) 372-401,
esp. 387-88, 390-93.
Olof Linton, "St. Matthew 5, 43," StTh 18 ( 1964) 66-
79.
Norbert Lohfink, ed., Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit im
Alten Testament (QD 96; Freiburg, Basel, and
Vienna: Herder, 1983).
Ulrich Luck, Die Vollkommenheitsforderung der
Bergpredigt: Ein aktuelles Kapitel in der Theologie des
Matthiius (ThExh 150; Munich: Kaiser, 1968).
Dieter Liihrmann, "Liebet eure Feinde (Lk 6, 27-
36/Mt 5, 39-48)," ZThK 69 (1972) 412-38.
Idem, Redaktion, 53-56, 118.
Manson, Sayings ofjesus, 49-55.
Hans-Peter Mathys, Liebe deinen Niichsten wie dich selbst:
Untersuchungen zum alttestamentlichen Gebot der
Matthew 5:21-48
Niichstenliebe (Lev 19: 18) (OBO 71; Gottingen;
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Fribourg:
Universitatsverlag, 1986).
Merklein, Gottesherrschaft, 222-37.
Otto Michel, "Das Gebot der Nachstenliebe in der
VerkiindigungJesu," in Nikolaus Koch, ed., Zur
sozialen Frage: Vier Vortriige (Tiibingen: Mohr
(Siebeck], 194 7) 53-10 I.
Hugh Montefiore, "Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbour
as Thyself," NovT 5 (1972) 157-70.
James Moulder, "'Who Are My Enemies?' An
Exploration of the Semantic Background of
Christ's Command," journal of Theology for Southern
Africa 25 (1978) 41-49.
Fritz Neugebauer, "Die dargebotene Wange undJesu
Gebot der Feindesliebe: Erwagungen zu Lk 6, 27-
36/Mt 5, 38-48," ThLZ 110 (1985) 865-76.
Andreas Nissen, Gott und der Niichste im antiken
judentum: Untersuchungen zum Doppelgebot der Liebe
(WUNT 15; Tiibingen: Mohr (Siebeck], 1974).
Percy, Botschaft Jesu, 153-63.
Rudolf Pesch, "Jesus und das Hauptgebot," in Helmut
Merklein, ed., Neues Testament und Ethik: Fur Rudolf
Schnackenburg (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna:
Herder, 1989) 99-109.
John Piper, "Love Your Enemies": jesus' Love Command in
the Synoptic Gospels and in the Early Christian
Paraenesis: A History of the Tradition and Interpretation
ofIts Uses (SNTSMS 38; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1979).
Idem, Wisdom, 78-86.
Gilles Quispel, "Love Thy Brother," Ancient Society 1
(1970) 83-94.
Stephan Randlinger, Die Feindesliebe nach dem
naturlichen und positiven Sittengesetz: Eine historisch-
ethische Studie (Paderborn: Schoningh, 1906).
Carl Heinz Ratschow, "Agape, Nachstenliebe,
Bruderliebe," ZSTh 21 (1950) 160-82.
Jerome Rausch, "The Principle of Nonresistance and
Love of Enemy in Mt 5, 38-42," CBQ 28 (1966)
31-41.
Hans-Richard Reuter, "Liebet eure Feinde," ZEE 26
( 1982) 159-87.
Beda Rigaux, "Revelation des mystt~res et perfection a
Qumran et dans le Nouveau Testament," NTS 4
(1957 /58) 237-62.
Leopold Sabourin, "Why Is God Called 'Perfect' in Mt
5:48?" BZ 24 (1980) 266-68.
Jiirgen Sauer, "Traditionsgeschichtliche Erwagungen
zu den synoptischen und paulinischen Aussagen
tiber Feindesliebe und Wiedervergeltungsverzicht,"
ZNW76 (1985) 1-28.
E. Schaubach, "Das VerhaltniB der Moral des
classischen Alterthums zur christlichen, beleuchtet
durch vergleichende Erorterung der Lehre von der
Feindesliebe," ThStK 24 (1851) 59-121.
295
Gerhard Schneider, "Imitatio Dei als Motiv der 'Ethik John H. Yoder, The Politics ofjesus (Grand Rapids:
Jesu,'" in Helmut Merklein, ed., Neues Testament Eerdmans, 1972) 90-93.
und Ethik: Filr RudolfSchnackenburg (Freiburg, Zeller,Mahnsprilche, 101-10.
Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1989) 71-83.
Luise Schottroff, "Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe in
1) Analysis The sixth and last of the antitheses, dealing with the
der urchristlichenJesustradition, Mt 5, 38-48; Lk treatment of the enemy, is composed according to the
5, 27-36," in Georg Strecker, ed.,jesus Christus in same pattern as the previous antitheses. Like the first
Historie und Theologie: Neutestamentliche FS jilr Hans
and the fourth, the sixth, too, shows a complete form,
Conzelmann (Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1975)
with only one omission (vs 43a).
197-221; ET: "Non-Violence and the Love of At the beginning stands the refutation of what is
One's Enemies," in Schottroff, Essays, 9-40.
judged to be an inadequate interpretation of the
Schulz, Q, 127-39. Torah prescription under consideration. The
Gunther Schwarz, "aya1riiT< roils ix8povs vp.rov (Mt 5,
reference to the chain of tradition (vs 43a) mentions
44/Lk 6, 27a (35a):Jesu Forderung kat' exochen," the present recipients and the origin of the tradition
Biblische Notizen 12 (1980) 32-34.
but omits the past recipients. Then the Torah is
0. J. F. Seitz, "Love Your Enemies: The Historical
quoted (Lev 19: 18), including its inadequate
Setting of Matthew V.43f.; Luke VI.27f.," NTS 16
interpretation (vs 43bc).
(1969/70) 39-54. The second major section (vss 44-48) contains the
Gerard Sevenster, De Liefdeprediking in Evangelie en presentation of the adequate interpretation of Lev
Humanisme (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1933).
19:18, introduced by the doctrinal formula (vs 44a)
Morton Smith, "Mt. 5:43: 'Hate Thy Enemy,'" HTR 45 and consisting of the citation of what is taken to be the
(1952) 71-73. correct understanding of the Torah, the command to
Franz Steinmuller, Die F eindesliebe nach dem natilrlichen love the enemies (vs 44b). Connected with vs 44b is a
und positiven Sittengesetz: Eine historisch-ethische
parallel line (isocolon) in vs 44c that concretizes vs 44a.
Abhandlung (Regensburg: Manz, 1909).
Verse 45 adds a statement of soteriology, giving the
Krister Stendahl, "Hate, Non-Retaliation, and Love
theological reasons for the interpretation of vs 44b-c.
(JQS X, 17-20 and Rom 12:19-21)," HTR 55
This statement contains two parts: a reference to the
(1962) 343-55. eschatological promise (vs 45a) and a reference to
Jay B. Stern, "Jesus' Citation ofDt 6,5 and Lv 19,18 in
cosmogonic myth (vs 45bc). These references may be
the Light of the Jewish Tradition," CBQ 28 (1966)
quotations from hymnic material.
312-16. The preceding correct interpretation is then argued
Strecker, "Antithesen," 65-69.
by a carefully composed interrogatio in the form oftwo
Idem, "Compliance, Love of One's Enemy and the
double questions set up as an extended isocolon (vss 46-
Golden Rule," AusBR 29 (1981) 38-46.
4 7). Each of the two parts of the isocolon begins with a
Gerd Theissen, "Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe (Mt
conditional clause describing conventional behavior
5, 38-48/Lk 6, 27-38)," in his Studien zur Soziologie
and goes on to question that behavior with rhetorical
des Urchristentums (WUNT 19; Tubingen: Mohr
queries, one expecting a negative and one a positive
(Siebeck ), 1979) 160-97.
answer.
Willem C. van Unnik, "Die Motivierung der
The section concludes with a final maxim (vs 48)
Feindesliebe in Lukas VI 32-35," in his Sparsa
that sums up the underlying theological doctrine not
collecta (Leiden: Brill) 1.111-26.
only for vss 43-48 but also for all of the antitheses and,
Richard Volkl, Die Selbstliebe in der Heiligen Schrift und
indeed, for the SM as a whole. The last word ofvs 48
bei ThomasvonAquin (MTS 2.12; Munich: Zink,
("perfect") seems to connect with the last word of
1956).
SM/Matt 5:17 ("fulfill"), thus making the entire
Michael Waldmann, Die Feindesliebe in der antiken Welt
section on the antitheses (vss 17-48) a ring compo-
und im Christentum (Theologische Studien der Leo-
sition. The connection implies that "fulfilling the
Gesellschaft 1; Vienna: Mayer, 1902).
Torah" in the sense intended by the SM is tantamount
Wettstein, 1.311-17.
to "perfection."
Friedrich August Wolf, Quid de officiis et amore erga
inimicos (Halle: Seminarii philologici sodalis, 1789).
[non vidi]
Excursus:
Werner Wolbert, "Bergpredigt und Gewaltlosigkeit,"
On the Problems of Transmission and Tradition
Theologie und Philosophie 57 (1982) 488-525.
Idem, "Die Liebe zum Nachsten, zum Feind, und zum The parallel passages Matt 5:43-48 and Luke 6:27-
Sunder," Theologie und Glaube 74 (1984) 262-82. 28, 32-36 enable one to study in some detail three
Wrege, Bergpredigt, 82-94. related and important questions: (1) the question ofthe

296
 Matthew 5:21-48

history of tradition; (2) the question of the teaching of an earlier written stage for Didache 1-6 as over
the historical Jesus; and (3) the question of a written Q- against Didache 7-16, a presupposition confirmed by
source for both Sermons. The following commentary the interpolation of Did. 1.3b-2.1 in several
will not repeat the substance of the Introduction manuscripts and by the existence of the Doctrina
discussed above; rather, here I shall test the questions apostolorum. 7 81 The latter, however, is not simply the
with respect to the texts under consideration. Vorlage of Didache 1-6 translated into Latin; it is,
First, as Hans-Theo Wrege 775 and Dieter rather, another version in Latin translation of what
LOhrmann 776 have pointed out, the starting point in must have been the Greek Vorlage for Didache 1-6.
both Sermons is the command to love the enemy The Doctrina apostolorum does not include the
(SM/Matt 5:44b/ /SP /Luke 6:27b). This command is command to love the enemy but has instead (2.7),
also attested by the Apologists Athenagoras Suppl. "Hate no human being, whom rather you shall love
11.1, and Theophilus Ad Autol. 3.14, in the same form more than your own soul" ("Neminem hominum
of "love your enemies" (ltya1ran Toh £x8poiJ~). Justin oderis, quosdam amabis super animan tuam").
Apol. 1.15.9 has a different formulation, "love those
who hate you" (ltya1TaTE Toh !J.ICTOiJvTa~ vp.a~); and Did. Love, General
1.3, using another verb, has also </liAiin Toh JJ.ICTovvTa~
vp.a~ ("love those who hate you"). Since these texts are ' '
aya1raw
based on tradition independent from the written ("love")
canonical Gospels, 777 one must take them into Matt 5:44b (SM) .......... TohS' £x8pohs v,.,.wv
consideration. Luke 6:27b (SP) ("your enemies")
The contexts into which the command is set are 2 Clem. 13.4
argumentative, using similar but not identical Athenagoras Suppl. 11.1
exemplifications; but the arrangements and the TheophilusAdAutol. 3.14
theological ideas guiding the arguments differ. These (cf.JustinDia1. 85.7;
similarities and differences appear to be for the most Ps.-Clem. Hom. 12.32.1)
part a matter of the tradition rather than of the final Justin A pol. 1.15. 9 ........ TohS' p.tuoVvras Vp.tiS'
redaction by the authors in whose writings we find ("those who hate
them. I conclude, then, that we are dealing not simply you")
with "collections" but also with thoughtful "redac-
tion" 77 8 -redaction not merely at the level of the final </liAtw
author but even at an earlier level in his source ("love")
material. The following diagram shows the com- Did. 1.3
monalities and the differences of a wide-ranging
tradition. 779 The history of this tradition includes both KaAWs 1rodw
the New Testament and extra-canonical attestations, ("do good")
thus reflecting the transmission process that must have Luke 6:27c (SP) To'i.'s p.tuoVcnv Vp.U.s
been characteristic of the stage before the writing of ("those who hate
the Gospels. you")
This wide distribution of similar but different
elements points to oral tradition rather than to a Love, Concrete Action
dependency on written texts. One must remember that
neither the Apostolic Fathers nor the Apologists had eVAoyfw
the four written Gospels before them. 7 80 They quoted ("bless")
\ I t ,..,
from oral tradition, but that oral tradition may have Luke 6:28a (SP) TOV~ KaTapwp.EVOV~ vp.a~

been committed to written texts before these authors Did. 1.3 ("those who curse
received them. One may almost certainly assume such you")

775 Wrege, Bergpredigt, 83. 780 See Koster, Synoptische Uberlieferung, 257-66.
776 LOhrmann, "Liebet eure Feinde," 417. 781 See above, p. 8.
777 See Koster, Synoptische Oberlieferung, 220-26.
778 For this distinction, see LOhrmann, Redaktion, 14-
16, revising Bultmann, History, 322-28.
779 1 have modified the diagram in Wrege, Bergpredigt,
84-85; cf. Koster, Synoptische Oberlieferung, 220-21;
LOhrmann, "Liebet eure Feinde," 415.

297
 Justin Apol. 1.15. 9 haters, enemies
Athenagoras Suppl. 11.1 of the cross
Rom 12: 14a .............. TOV~ 5uuK&vTa~ vp.O.~
("those who V1JCTT£VW ' '
' V7T<p
persecute you") ("fast on behalf of")
Rom 12:14b .............. <VAoy<tT£ Kat p.~ Did. 1. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toov o<wK&vTwv vp.a~
KaTapO.u ("those who
("Bless and do persecute you")
not curse")
l Cor 4: l2b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.otoopotJp.<VO< Didache 1-6 shows clearly, too, that the oral stage
<VA.oyovp.<v must have preceded the written, since the oral
("Being insulted performance is mentioned. 7 8 2
we bless") The individual elements of sayings listed above were
1 Cor 4: 12c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O<wK&p.<VO! av<x&p..ea not transmitted in isolation from one another but as
("being clusters of sayings. These clusters, however, were not
persecuted we simply random collections of sayings: they show signs
endure") of theoretical and argumentative structure and
(1 Pet 3:8-9) purpose. In other words, they constitute redactional
units. Once the transition from the oral to the written
7Tpotu6xop.a< v1r'p stage had occurred-first simply by written fixation of
("pray on behalf of") what was delivered orally-the redactional activities
Matt 5:44 (SM) .......... . rWv ar.wKOvrwv V~-ta.s became ever more elaborate. One can study these
Athenagoras Suppl. 11.1 ("those who stages in detail in the Didache, and one can conclude
persecute you") that similar processes of transmission took place as well
Did. 1.3 .................. . TOOV <x8poov vp.oov in the synoptic tradition.
P. Oxy. 1224 ("your enemies") What about the SM and the SP? On the one hand,
the elaborate nature of the units SM/Matt 5:43-48
7Tpocr<6xop.a< 7T<pl and SP /Luke 6:27-36 speaks clearly in favor of
("pray about") written texts prior to their inclusion in the Gospels.
Luke 6:28b (SP) ridv f:rr7]pEa(6vrwv V,_,.as Thus one can deduce that neither text as we now have
TheophilusAdAutol. 3.14 ("those who mis- it existed in the same form in the oral tradition. On the
treat you") other hand, looking at the wide attestation should
dissuade one from assuming that only the Gospel
Ei5xop.ar. inrEp writers Matthew and Luke could have composed the
("pray on behalf of") sections. One finds compositions of a similar nature
]ustinApol. 1.15.9 ........ TOOV E7TTjp<a(&vTWV vp.oov written by other authors outside the New Testament;
(cf. 1.14.3; Dial. 35.8) ("your enemies") compositions in the New Testament therefore could as
ridv f7T7]pEa(0vnJJV V,.,.as well have come from authors other than the Gospel
("those who mis- writers.
treat you") The presynaptic composers drew on the sayings
(cf. also 1 Pet 3:16) material in the oral tradition or took over portions of
Justin Dial. 96.3 ........... Toov <x8poov material that had already existed in written form. One
("the enemies") should not assume that all texts passed from the oral to
the written stage at the same time or in the same
orare pro manner.
("pray on behalf of") Further problems arise in an already complicated
Polycarp Phil. 12.3 list of objects, situation with the realization that the command "Love
including saints, your enemies!" is not known to the apostle Paul, not
kings, potentates, even in the sayings composition Rom 12:9-21 (see esp.
princes, vss 14 and 20) with its material so closely related to the
persecutors, SM and the SP. Moreover, no other New Testament

782 Did. 7.1: The remark TavTa 1ravTa 7Tp0«7T&vu~ the performance of baptism. Cf. a similar phrase in
("having recited all these things before") refers to the 11.1. See Niederwimmer, Didache, 158-60, 212.
oral citation of Didache 1-6 in the liturgy prior to

298

text, and most remarkably neither Matthew nor Luke,
ever refers to this command again. Moreover, the love-
command from Lev 19:18, "Love your neighbor (as
yourself)," is known to the SM (Matt 5:43), and to Matt
19:19; Mark 12:31, 33//Matt 22:39//Luke 10:27;
Did. 1.2; Doctr. apost. 1.2; Rom 13:9; Gal 5: 14; and Jas
2:8, but it is unknown to the SP. Further, it is only in
the SM and in Did. 1.2-3 that Lev 19:18 and the
command to love the enemy are combined, 785
although the contexts are different. The SM provides
primarily an exegetical context, while the Didache
presents a Two Ways schema that belongs to moral
instruction and that is introduced by the double-
command to love God and the neighbor. In the SM,
however, the Two Way schema is pan of the
overarching compositional framework, not the
immediate context. One must ask, then, which context
is primary-the moral or the exegetical? Since the
exegetical context appears only in the SM, it would
seem to be secondary. Does this mean, then, that at the
inception ofthe tradition the moral command to love
the enemy stood on its own as a moral maxim? This
question leads to my second concern.
Second, if, as all scholars agree, the substance of the
love-command goes back to the historical Jesus, was he
primarily a teacher of individual moral precepts, 784 or
did he deliver his teaching as interpretation of the
Torah? Was Jesus primarily a wisdom teacher or a
theological interpreter of the Torah? Or, with respect
to the SM and the SP: granted that both are secondary
compositions, does the exegetical argument of the SM
or the moral instruction ofthe SP reflect Jesus' primary
concern?
To answer these questions is difficult. Ifthe moral
instruction of the present context of the SP should be
prior-and most scholars assume that it should be-it
need not necessarily reflect the original Sitz im Leben.
Matthew's SM context, with its presupposition of
Torah debate, could just as well have been the original
Sitz im Leben, while the moral instruction could be
derivative. In general, the redactional character of a
textual unit does not necessarily rule out its reflection
783 See also Koster, Synoptische Uberlieferung, 134, 170-
72.
784 So esp. Zeller (Mahnsprilche, 149-54, 157-60, 174-
84), who characterizes the historical Jesus primarily
as a wisdom teacher. Zeller affirms the old, entirely
speculative picture of the unlearned Jesus, who at
most attended a village school in Nazareth and
acquired whatever he knew about Scripture and
halakah in the local synagogues. Nothing is known
about study with a rabbi, and his temporary joining
ofJohn the Baptist cannot be counted as serious
studies (174-75).
Matthew 5:21-48
of the original Sitz im Leben, although it is not simply
identical with it either. Indeed, since both the SM and
the SP are redactional, neither has an advantage as far
as the original Sitz im Leben is concerned.
Further help comes from considering the question
of comparative religion. Of all the texts concerned,
only the SM reflects the Jewish environment from
which the historical Jesus came. The SM passage
contains a theological argument in purely Jewish
terms, and one need not have recourse to specifically
Christian ideas in order to understand it. In addition,
passages like the one about the Great Commandment
(Mark 12:28-34 par.) and the epistles of Paul (Gal
5:14; Rom 13:8-10) as well as ofJames (2:8-11), not
to mention Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, assume Jewish
debates about Torah and Scripture as the Sitz im Leben,
even though they are viewed from a later perspective.
In contrast, those texts that contain only the moral
maxim are all Greek and Gentile Christian in
orientation.
As far as the historical Jesus is concerned, then, one
can conclude from these observations that the context
ofJewish Torah interpretation is primary. The set-up
in the SM passage, therefore, comes closest to the
original context and reflects the teaching of the
historical Jesus. This means as well that the moral
command to love the enemy represents Jesus'
interpretation of the command to love the neighbor
(Lev 19: 18). The actual wording and composition of
SM/Matt 5:43-48, however, are secondary, while that
of the SP parallel is secondary both in composition and
in the presumed Sitz im Leben.
Third, the problem of how to relate the SM and the
SP passages under discussion to Q has been intensely
debated in recent years. A virtual consensus has
emerged, although it still cannot account for most of
the textual phenomena. The usual method for
establishing the assumed Q-text is to combine the
elements common to the SM and the SP and to explain
the differences as redactional operations by the Gospel
writers Matthew and Luke. 785
785 See most recently Guelich, Sermon, 224; Strecker,
Bergpredigt, 90 (Sermon, 87); Luz, Matthaus, 1.306-7
(Matthew, 1.339-40); Gundry, Matthew, 96; Gnilka,
Matthausevangelium, 1.188-89; Sauer, "Traditions-
geschichtliche Erwagungen," 11-17.
299
 In his careful investigation of Matt 5:43-48 and
parallels, Dieter Liihrmann has again demonstrated
that the form of the antithesis is secondary, 786 while
the love-command and its combination with the
Beatitudes at the beginning and with the double
parable at the end, as well as the general order in the
arrangement of the passages, must have existed prior
to their final formulation in Matthew and Luke. 787
Liihrmann is also most cautious in moving to
reconstruct the presumed Q-text of the Sermon. He
agrees with Strecker788 that the Beatitudes have
undergone gradual expansion prior to reaching their
full form in Matt 5:3-11 (or 12). He also warns that
the symbol of Q does not necessarily stand for the
development ofjust one text. 789 Many scholars,
including Strecker and Luz, assume several versions of
Q or several stages in the development of Q or
both.790
Given these complexities, one can no longer explain
the elements-both common and different-between
the SM and the SP simply as a result of dependency on
one prior written text, apart from redactional
operations. Rather than searching for that one
presumed source text, one should be prepared from
the start to reckon with several texts. I do not mean to
say, however, that Wrege's solution-to assume that
there never was a written source Q but only an
amorphous flow of sayings traditions-is the only
alternative. 791 A third possibility, which I tend to
affirm, is to assume redaction at the presynoptic
level. 792 This assumption accounts for the facts that (a)
the compositional units of the SM and the SP are
integral parts of the larger structure of the SM and the
SP; (b) they each have their individual arrangement
and argument; (c) one cannot account for all their
differences as a result of redactional operations by the
Gospel writers; and (d) they have an independent
history also in extra-canonical Gospel sources and even
in other New Testament texts older than the final
redaction of the Gospels (such as the epistles of Paul).
Looking at the passages concerning the command to
love the enemy from this perspective, I conclude that
786 Liihrmann, "Liebet eure Feinde," 412-13.
787 Ibid., 414-16.
788 Georg Strecker, "Die Makarismen der Bergpredigt,"
ZThK 17 (1970/71) 255-75; idem, Bergpredigt, 30-
31 (Sermon, 29-30).
789 Liihrmann, "Liebet eure Feinde, • 422 n. 42.
790 See the Introduction, pp. 6-9.
791 Wrege cannot really explain the sayings compositions
as rhetorical and argumentative textual units. See the
critique of Wrege, Bergpredigt, in the Introduction, p.
27.
792 See esp. Bultmann, History, 88, 145-50.
300
SM/Matt 5:43-48 and SP/Luke 6:27-36 are parallel
compositions. The question that remains is where the
analogous arrangement comes from, if it does not
come from a common source. I maintain that there was
a common source, but not a common text. I submit that
the common source producing the parallel arrange-
ment was that of rhetorical patterns and argumentative
strategies used in early Christian instruction of
disciples.
Consequently, in regard to Q, I abstain from recon-
structing one Q-sermon, 793 from which the SM and
the SP passages derived, but I assume that there were
two versions of "Q, • each with a different version of
the Sermon. To this evidence the Doctrina apostolorum
and the Didache (Did. 1.6) should be added as further
versions. The context of instruction apparently re-
quired explication of the love-command ofJesus,
controversial as it was. The general form of such
explications followed more or less established patterns
so that individual versions showed both common
elements and differences. One can account for all the
commonalities and differences in terms of the presyn-
aptic redaction, and one need not think of redactional
operations by the Gospel writers. If one assumes two
versions of arguments concerning the love-command,
they were from the start integral parts of the SM and
the SP, that is, of written texts. Since Q was an
evolving collection showing signs of redaction as well,
and since Matthew and Luke have incorporated mate-
rial from two different versions of Q (Q/Matt and
Q/Luke), at some stage in the development of these
two versions the passages SM/Matt 5:43-48 and
SP /Luke 6:27-28, 32-36 were taken up as part of the
SM and the SP into Q/Matt and Q/Luke, and this
accounts for the similarities and differences.
Furthermore, the fifth and sixth antitheses have a
special relationship. Strecker especially has suggested
that the evangelist Matthew, to whom he attributes the
composition of the SM, took the love-command from
the Q-Sermon (Luke 6:27) and fashioned from it two
antitheses, the fifth and the sixth. 794 I find this theory
unlikely for two reasons. First, it is impossible to say
793 The most recent attempt to reconstruct a Q-version
of this passage was made by Sauer, "Traditions-
geschichtliche Erwagungen," 11-14. His "recon-
structed" Q-text, however, mixes Gentile- and
Jewish-Christian elements purely on the basis of
textual comparison, with no attention given to
composition, theology, or comparative religion.
Sauer also admits (pp. 14-15) that his text is not a
genuine compositional unit ("keine originare
Kompositionseinheit") but is put together from
heterogeneous pieces of tradition ("zwei unter-
schiedliche Traditionsstiicke"). I submit that his text
 Matthew 5:21-48

exactly that the evangelist Matthew should have done
this. Already Lev 19:18 has the two commands
together, and in the same order as in SM/Matt 5:38-
42 and 5:43-48: "You shall not take vengeance or bear
any grudge against the sons of your own people, but
you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the
LoRn" (RSV). Moreover, the composition of sententiae
on love in Rom 12:9-21, which is derived from
Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom tradition, 795 deals in the
same context with vengeance (vs 17a) and with the
enemy (vs 20). That Paul derived his sententiae from
the SM or the SP is unlikely. Paul does not cite the
command to love the enemy, although some of the
sentences come very close to it. Nor, I hasten to add,
were the SM or the SP influenced by Paul. Rather, all
texts in question depend on Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom
traditions. 796 This tradition treated the interpretation
of the ius talionis and the command to love the
neighbor as separate but related issues. This
background explains why the SM contains the two
antitheses. 797 By contrast, the SP gives only the
independent maxim commanding the love of the
enemy; it does not refer to the scriptural background
nor to the Jewish exegetical argument one finds in the
SM.79B
2) Interpretation
• 43 Like the previous antitheses, the sixth begins with the
refutation of the inadequate interpretation introduced
by the references to the chain of tradition (vs 43a).
Addressed are the present recipients of what is assumed
to be the tradition, "You have heard" ( fJKo/;uan ). 7 99 The
expression "it was said" (€ppfe7J) refers, as elsewhere in
the SM, 800 to God as the origin of and the authority
behind that tradition. The reference to the past
recipients, "the men of old," is omitted; 80 1 this reference
occurs only in the first (5:21) 802 and fourth (5:33) 803
antitheses.
The Scripture passage under consideration is Lev
19:18, and its citation in vs 43bc presents problems that
have caused much debate in past and present scholarship.
Clearly, the SM intends to quote Lev 19: 18 as part of the
Torah, but the quotation differs from both the MT and
the LXX. Regarding the Old Testament, the quotation
lifts two words from a longer sentence, the rest of which
is ignored except for two argumentative points. The two
words are: 1~":1~ tl=?::'ll$1 ("and you shall love your
neighbor").
1. Since the first part of Lev 19:18 makes what may be
a parallel statement, "You shall not take vengeance or
bear any grudge against the sons of your own people"
(1~~ '~::p), a question arises concerning the relationship
between "neighbor" and "your own people." The reason
for the parallelism in the Old Testament is to answer the
question "Who is my neighbor?" by saying that the
command to love the neighbor applies to the people of

never existed except on p. 14 of Sauer's essay.
794 Strecker, Bergpredigt, 90 (Sermon, 87: "Matthew, on
the other hand, formed two antitheses from the Q-
material").
795 For the pre-Pauline traditions behind Rom 12:9-21,
see Sauer, "Traditionsgeschichtliche Erwagungen,"
17-23; Walter T. Wilson, L(J!Je without Pretense:
Romans 12.9-21 and Hellenistic-Jewish Wisdom
Literature (WUNT 2.46; Tii.bingen: Mohr [Siebeck),
1991), passim.
796 See also Sauer, "Traditionsgeschichtliche Erwag-
ungen," 28.
797 See the texts cited by Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 57-58,
104-6.
798 Sauer's conclusion is that the command to love the
enemy must be regarded as a late product of
redaction and cannot be attributed historically to
Jesus of Nazareth. If, however, the SM and the SP
constitute presynoptic sources from c. 50 CE, as I
believe, it would make them contemporary with the
Pauline epistles. The conclusion would then be that
the SM, the SP, and Romans 12 were influenced by
wisdom traditions independently. These influences as
such do not, however, decide the question of
authenticity because Jesus himself was influenced by
wisdom traditions. What remains decisive is that the
command to [(J!Je the enemy is not attested in the
wisdom texts. The reason for this is, as I show below,
that this command is the result not of wisdom but of
the interpretation of Lev 19:18. Thus Sauer's doubts
are unwarranted.
799 See above on SM/Matt 5:21.
800 Ibid.
801 The Syriac tradition adds it; see Merx, Matthiius, 107.
802 See above on SM/Matt 5:21.
803 See above on SM/Matt 5:33, and on the compo-
sition, pp. 215-16, 263.

301
Israel (cf. Lev 19:1). Clearly, however, the command
applies elsewhere in the Holiness Code to a variety of
neighbors: the parents (19:3), the poor (vs 10), the hired
hand (vs 13), the handicapped (vs 14), the slave (vs 20),
the aged (vs 32), and the stranger (vss 33-34); excluded
is the profaner of the holy (vs 8), because God is holy 804
(vs 2). Consequently, the question who is my neighbor is
fundamental to the Holiness Code as a whole, but the
answer given here is only one among many found in the
Pentateuch. 805
2. The second point concerns the important phrase "I
am the LoRn" (:"'j:"'~ ·~11). This statement, although not
cited in the SM, may be responsible for the centrality of
the concept of the imitation of God in SM/Matt 5:43-48
and, indeed, in the SM as a whole. The SM, however,
does not refer directly to the theology or text of the
Holiness Code of Leviticus 19. The tradition had much
earlier lifted the love-command, "You shall love your
neighbor as yourself," out of this context, and it had
become the subject of learned Torah debates. 806 These
debates are presupposed by the SM as well as by the New
Testament as a whole. Thus the question "Who is my
neighbor?" appears in the New Testament as well as in
Leviticus, 807 and one must consider carefully how early
Christianity answered the question. As far as SM/Matt
5:43 is concerned, the citation of Lev 19:18 shows two
peculiar features:
(a) While the citation agrees with the LXX text of Lev
19:18 in the first words, "You shall love your neighbor"
(a:ya'll'~utu Tl:w 'li'A7Julov uov), the phrase "as yourself" (ro~
ufavn)v) is omitted. 808 Is this omission accidental or
intentional, and if it is intentional, what was the reason
for it?
(b) Although marked as part of the quotation, "and
you shall hate your enemy" (Kal. p.tu~um TOv £x8pov uov),
the second part of the statement in 5:43c, is not found in
the Old Testament at all. 809 What is the significance of
this expansion? Does it indicate an error, a different
textual basis, or an intentional argumentative move?
On the first point, the omission of the phrase "as
yourself" (ro~ ufaVTOv) is indeed surprising, since every
other quotation of Lev 19:18 in the New Testament
includes the phrase; SM/Matt 5:43 is the sole excep-
tion.810 Even in the Matthean version of the story of the
Rich Young Man (Matt 19: 16-22), where Matthew has
added the love-command in vs 19b, the full quotation
appears. Why, then, was the phrase "as yourself" omitted
in the SM?
While accidental omission is certainly possible,
deliberate omission is equally possible for a number of
reasons. First, the shorter quotation in the SM could be
due to the fact that Matthew found it in this form in his
source, that is, in the SM, while elsewhere he prefers,
along with other sources and the rest of the New

804 For the state of research on the Holiness Code, see
Horst Dietrich PreuB, "Heiligkeitsgesetz," TRE 14
(1985) 713-18; Karl Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4;
Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1966); and for the
interpretation, see james L. Kugel and Rowan Greer,
Early Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia: West-
minster, 1986) 90-96; Frank Criisemann, Die Tora:
Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen 808 Guelich (Sermon, 225) explains the omission on
Gesetzes (Munich: Kaiser, 1992) 323-80.
805 See esp. the Decalogue, Exod 20:16, 17, or Deut
4:42; 5:21; 15:2; 19:4, 5, 11, 14; 22:24, 26; 23:24,
25; 27:17, 24, to give a few examples.
806 For the history of the interpretation of Lev 19:18,
see Str-B 1.353-64, 368; Nissen, Gott, 278-329,
400-407; Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1.80-136
(bibliography); Piper, "Love Your Enemies," passim;
Michael Lattke, "Halacha," RAG 13 (1986) 372-402,
esp. 387-90; Criisemann, Tora, 374-80.
807 Luke 10:29: rl~ lurlv p.ov 7TA1JU{ov; cf. vs 36;
furthermore Acts 7:27; Rom 13:9-10; 15:2; Eph
4:25; 2 Thess 3:15;Jas 2:8; 4:12; Did. 1.2; 2.3, 6;
Barn. 19.3, 5, 6, 8; I Clem. 38.1; 51.2; IgnatiusMagn.
6.2; Trail. 8.2; PolycarpPhi1. 3.3, etc. Explicit
debates are described or presumed when Lev 19: 18
is cited in the passages on "The Great Com-
mandment" (Mark 12:28-34//Matt 22:34-
30//Luke 10:25-28) and "The Rich Young Man"
(Matt 19:19 [only]). For bibliography on "Who is my
neighbor?" see Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.888-90.
formal grounds: "This omission doubtless resulted
from the conjuction ofthe two commands in 5:43ab,
and does not affect the import of the commandment."
809 Commentators have invariably noted the fact.
Billerbeck (Str-B 1.353, 368) is on the right track
when he surmises that the saying as a whole appears
to be a popular maxim, according to which "the
average Israelites" of jesus' day understood their
conduct toward friend and foe, and he refers to 2
Sam 19:6 as a parallel ("you love those who hate you
and hate those who love you").
810 Mark 12:31, 33//Matt 22:39/ /Luke 10:27; Rom
19:9; Gal5:14;Jas 2:8; cf. Did. 2.7.

302

Testament, the longer form (cf. Matt 19:19; 22:39). 8 ll
Second, there may be a formal reason: vs 43b is an
antithetical isocolon, and its strict parallelism forms a
paromoiosis; 812 the isocolon, however, would be destroyed
by the phrase "as yourself" in the first line only:
aya'71'~CTE!S TOV '71'A:qulov CTOV
Ka'r. f.L!u~um Tov lxBpov uov.
You shall love your neighbor
and you shall hate your enemy.
In addition, there may have been a theological reason,
and if so, this reason must have been the decisive one.
The words "as yourself" imply a positive valuation of self-
love. Such an emphasis on self-love, however, appears to
be improper in a context where the doctrine of the
imitation of God is the guiding doctrine. If the SM
teaches that God loves his creation and even his human
enemies (vs 45b), and if the demand is stated that the
"sons of God" follow the same ethos (vss 45a, 48), there is
no room for the suggestion that God loves himself. The
term aya'71'aW ("love") always foCUSeS On SOmeone else as
the object oflove, and a suggestion that God would look
at himself as another person with love would in antiquity,
especially in a gnostic context, conjure up notions of
narcissism. 813 It would undercut the firm belief in
monotheism and selfless love of God's creation, which
are characteristic of the SM (vs 45b). When even love
because of love in return is ethically ruled out (vss 46-
4 7), a divine self-love and its consequences for the ethical
life of the disciples would be incompatible with
"perfection" (vs 48).
Although one can say nothing definitive because of the
811 One should note that syh omits the quotation of Lev
19:18 in Matt 19:19. Origen Comm. inMatthaeum
15.14 attributes the quotation to a redactor, but he
reports that the Gospel to the Hebrews (i.e., the Gospel to
the Nazareans) reads it (see NTApoc 1.149; NTApok
1.135). See Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece,
1.118; Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 15 7;
Plummer, Matthew, 266; McNeile, Matthew, 279;
Lohmeyer, Matthiiusevangelium, 286-87. For the
thesis that Lev 19:18 is an addition by Matthew's
redaction, see Grundmann,Matthiius, 433; Gundry,
Matthew, 387.
812 See Lausberg, Elemente, 116 (§ 387).
813 Gnosticism concentrates on the love of the self, while
love of the neighbor becomes irrelevant.
814 The other side is stated by the christological
formulae about Christ's love (see Gall :4; 2:20, etc.,
Matthew 5:21-48
absence of corroborating texts elsewhere in the SM, it
appears that the omission of "as yourself" was deliberate
rather than accidental. I note, too, that Paul, who always
retains the "as yourself" when quoting Lev 19:18 (Gal
5: 14; Rom 13:9), can do so because his theological
context forbids an application to God himself. In
christological passages, however, Paul emphatically
denies the idea that Christ could have loved himself (see
esp. Phil2:6, with the exhortation in Phil2:1-4; Rom
15:1-3 and 1 Cor 10:24, 33; 13:5; Rom 12:9-21; Gal
6:2, etc.). 814 If my suggestion concerning the SM holds
true, it points to the fact that the SM is concerned with
the doctrine of God and not with chris to logy. 815 At this
point the SM is then characteristically different from the
theology of Matthew as a whole. 816
On the second point, the expansion of the quotation in
the second part by the words "and you shall hate your
enemy" has created a great deal of controversy. 817 Since
no version of the Old Testament text of Lev 19: 18
contains these words, how can anyone claim this to be a
quotation? In answering this question, one must consider
a number of points.
(a) It is clear from the composition of the passage that
vs 43bc claims to be the quotation of Lev 19:18, but in
fact it is both quotation and interpretation, the latter to
be judged inadequate. This negative judgment is part of
the refutation, but it does not extend to the words that
come from Lev 19:18 itself.
and Betz, Galatians, 125-26, for further passages).
815 SeeBetz,Essays,l51-54.
816 In Matthew's Gospel, the divine agape is focused on
Jesus, God's "beloved son" (Matt 3:17; 12:18 [Isa
42:1]; 17:5). Although Jesus preaches the love-
command (Matt 5:43-44; 6:24; 19:19; 22:37, 39)
and certainly is believed himself to be the greatest
example of its fulfillment, Matthew's christological
concern is not Christ's "love" (ayt:br71) but his
"righteousness" (aLtca&outlv1), 3: 15; cf. 10:41; 11: 19;
21:32; 27:4, 19, 24).
817 For detailed discussions, see the contributions by
Linton, Nissen, Smith, and Stendahl in addition to
the commentaries on the SM and Matthew.
303
 (b) The words "and you shall hate your enemy,"
therefore, constitute an interpretative comment stating
the improper interpretation of Lev 19:18. 818 This
method of adding the interpretation of a passage to the
quotation of that passage was practiced elsewhere in
Jewish and Jewish-Christian scriptural theology. 819 It is
not typical of Matthew's own method, however: he
°
usually quotes the LXX verbatim. 82 Consequently, the
expansion in vs 43c is another indication of a pre-
Matthean source of Jewish-Christian origin.
(c) Subsequent to the discovery of the Dead Sea
Scrolls, some scholars have proposed that vs 43 may have
been formulated in repudiation of the Qumran sect, in
which hatred toward the enemy was a clearly distin-
guishable trait. 821 For example, 1QS 1.4 stipulates "that
they may love all that He has chosen and hate all that He
has rejected. "822 This juxtaposition oflove and hatred is
deeply rooted in the dualism of Qumran theology. 8 2 3
Even if one grants all this, however, there is no reason to
see here a special relationship of polemic expressed by
the SM. 824
(d) Luz is correct in saying that "'Hate your enemy' is a
rhetorical counter-formulation" suggested by Lev 19:18
and is intended to confront the readers. If one
understands the love-command in a particularistic or
popular-ethical way, hatred of the enemy will follow in
practice. 8 2 5 But why would anyone advocate such an
interpretation?
In order to understand this problem, one must
consider the issues within the wider context of ancient
ethics generally, and not within Old Testament and
Jewish ethics alone. In the wider ancient context, the
ethics of friendship and enmity was commonly debated
by poets and philosophers especially. On the Greek side,
Hesiod in Works and Days 342-51, a work generally
known as foundational for Greek ethics and based on
older, probably Near Eastern, traditions, associates the
friend/ enemy with the good/bad neighbor. As Martin
L. West points out in his commentary, the topic has
parallels, and most likely antecedents, in the wisdom of
ancient Egypt. 826 The seventh-century poet Alcman 827
and the sixth/fifth-century poet Pindar 828 also treat the
topic of being a good neighbor. The pronouncements of
these poets reflect an older popular morality.
The situation in the Old Testament is not altogether
different when the good neighbor (~'j) is associated with

818 So correctly Luz, Matthiius, 1.310 (Matthew, 1.343-
44); similarly Guelich, Sermon, 225-27; Strecker,
Bergpredigt, 90-91 (Sermon, 88-89).
819 This hermeneutical procedure needs fresh
investigation. It was practiced also by Paul, e.g., in
Gal2:16. For comments and references see Betz,
Galatians, 118, with n. 50.
820 For Matthew's way of quoting the OT, see Krister
Stendahl, The School ofSt. Matthew and Its Use of the Old
Testament (ASNU 20; 2d ed.; Lund: Gleerup, 1968),
37, who seems to feel that SM/Matt 5:43 is special:
"whatever may be the biblical or Rabbinic support
for the additional clause Kat jJ.IO"~O"EIS TOV tx6pOV uov."
See furthermore Wilhelm Rothfuchs, Die Erftll-
lungszitate des Matthiius-Evangeliums (BW ANT 88;
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969); Robert H. Gundry,
The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel
(NovTSup 18; Leiden: Brill, 1967).
821 See Braun, Radikalismus, 2.57 n. 1; idem, Qumran,
1.17-18; idem, jesus, 89-104; Davies, Setting, 252;
Grundmann, Matthiius, 176-77; Hubner, Gesetz, 97-
104.
822 Translation by Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in
English, 72.
823 See also 1QS 1.10; 9.21-23; 10.17-20, and on the
problems see Krister Stendahl, "Hate, Non-
Retaliation, and Love (JQS X, 18-20 and Rom
12:19-21)," HTR 55 (1962) 343-55; E. F. Sutcliffe,
"Hatred at Qumran," RevQ 7 ( 1960) 345-56; Braun,
Radikalismus 2.57 n. 1; John Procope, "HaB," RAG 13
(1985) 677-714, esp. 697.
824 Cf. Guelich, Sermon, 226, who argues against an anti-
Qumran polemic because he attributes the expansion
of Lev 19:18 to Matthean redaction and cannot
imagine a common social context for Matthew's own
church and the Qumran sect.
825 Luz (Matthew, 1.345): "'Hate your enemy' is a
rhetorical counter-formulation, called forth by Lev.
19:18, which wants to address the hearer. In point of
fact, it does mean the hatred of the enemy if one
understands the love command in a particularistic or
popular ethical way."
826 Martin L. West, Hesiod: Works and Days (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1978) 243-44, with valuable references
toP. Insinger 16.6-8; 28.15-16; Cato De agric. 4;
Columella 1. 3. 5-7; and others. West also refers to
Prov 27:10 and Ahiqar (see especially Sayings 174-76
[OTP 2.506] and 139-41 [OTP 2.504]). See also Syr.
Menander 128-32 (OTP 2.595-96).
827 Aleman 123: p.tya ydrov& yElrwv ("A neighbor is to
his neighbor a great thing").
828 Pindar Nem. 7.86-89; Pyth. 8.58; Isth. 1.52-54. See
West, Hesiod: Works and Days, 244, on line 346;
JeffreyS. Rusten, "rEIT.ON HP.OI:: Pindar's Prayer

304
 Matthew 5:21-48

the friend and set opposite to the enemy. 8 2 9 The
questions the Old Testament texts presuppose and
answer in a variety of ways are, Who is a good or a bad
neighbor? Whom does the Torah require the Israelite to
treat as a neighbor? Both the Decalogue (Exod 20:16, 17
explicitly; 20: 10-15 implicitly) and the Holiness Code
(Lev 19:13~ 15, 16, 17, 18 explicitly; 19:9-12, 14, 33-36
implicitly) set forth prescriptions for being a good
neighbor. Israel in particular had to decide the question
again and again as to who was included in and excluded
from the category of neighbor. 830 Should they include
or exclude strangers, slaves, sojourners, resident aliens,
and even enemies? Wisdom literature in particular
focused on personal relationships: Who is a true or a false
friend and thus a good or a bad neighbor? What should
be done about deceivers, flatterers, and other false
friends?
The best neighbor is the one who is a good friend,
while the "enemy" (~~_iK) is the complete opposite of both
neighbor and friend. Correspondingly, the relationship
with the friend is one of "love" (~:"1K, 'iihab), while the
relationship with the enemy is based on hatred (Kl'IO). 831
These terminological correspondences and juxta-
positions are so commonplace in the Old Testament that
one can take for granted their appearance in the SM.
One can conclude, then, that the neighbor to be loved is
in fact the friend, 832 and that this is the intended
meaning ofSM/Matt 5:43b. Even at the level of
translation, the LXX often rendered "neighbor" as
"friend" (tj>lA.os instead of 7TA7Julov). 833 If vs 43b were to
read the phrase "as yourself" (ws uwvrov), this under-
standing would be further strengthened since in ancient
belief the friend was regarded as "another self" or "alter
ego": "your friend who is as your own soul" (Deut 13:6
[LXX: 13:7]). 834 At any rate, just as love and hate are
contrasted, so are neighbor and enemy; and, as popular
morality has it, one loves the former and hates the latter.
Where then lies the ethical problem? As already
mentioned, a problem indeed existed as early as Plato,
who condemned as ethically unacceptable the popular
maxim: "a man's virtue consists in outdoing his friends in
kindness and his enemies in mischief." 835 Ancient writers
quote this maxim in many versions; 836 the maxim

to Heracles (N. 7.86-101) and Greek Popular
Religion," HSGP 87 (1983) 289-97.
829 The juxtaposition of friend and foe is also suggested,
it seems, in the Hebrew because of the similarity of
::::1\,liK ("friend") and ::::J~_iK ("enemy"). Cf., e.g.,Judg
5:31; Lam 1:2; and esp. 1 Sam 18:1-5 and 29.
830 For passages see Johannes Fichtner, "1r>.:qcrlov,"
TDNT 6.312-15 (B.2-3). On the concept, see
ThWNT 10/2 (1979) 1237-38 (bibliography);
BAGD, s.v., 1r>.:qcrlov; Klaus Haacker, EWNT (EDNT)
3, s.v. 1TA1Jcrlov (bibliography);]. Kiihlewein, "l!'j re•'
Nachster," THAT 2.786-91.
831 See Helmer Ringgren, "::::1:1$. 'iiyabh," TDOT 1.228-
35; Bauer, s.v. <xBpJs; Wemer Foerster, TDNT
2.811-15; ThWNT 10/2 (1979) 1093-94
(bibliography); Erich Fascher, "Fremder," RAG 8
(1972) 306-47; cf. RAG 13 (1985) 682; Michael
Wolter, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s.v. <xBpJs.
832 See Gustav Stahlin, "<f>{>..os KTA.," TDNT9.146-71,
esp. 154-59 (B.I-II).
833 For the rendering of rea' as "friend" (.pl>..os), see the
references in Stahlin, TDNT 9.154-55; Kiihlewein,
THAT 2.786-91, esp. 787-88.
834 For more references, see Stahlin, TDNT 9.151-54,
esp. 152 n. 54.
835 Xenophon Mem. 2.6.35: O.vapos ap<r~v dvat V!Kav roh
p~v <f>{>..ovs <V 7TOIOVVTa, roVs 5' £x8polJs KaKros.
836 See also XenophonMem. 2.3.14; 3.6.2; 3. 7.9; 3.9.8;
3.10.1; 4.2.12-19; Gyr. 1.6.17; Thucydides 2.40.4;
Euripides Here. Fur. 585; cf. Phoen. 1446. For the
gnomologia, see Theognis 337-38, 869-72;
Dittenberger, Sylloge (3d ed.), 1286, 1.15.16 (3d
century BCE) with the Delphic maxim: .pl>..ots <vvJ<~,
£x8poh apvvov ("To friends be kind, against enemies
retaliate"); Menander Mon. 505 (ed. Jaekel); Plutarch
Apoph. Lac., Agesilaus 66, 213C; Stobaeus Eel.
4.13.64 and 66 (ed. Wachsmuth and Hense,
Anthologia [Berlin: Weidmann, 1909], vol. 4, pp. 368,
369). For large collections of passages, see Friedrich
Georg Welcker, Kleine Schriften zur Griechischen
Litteraturgeschichte (Bonn: Weber, 1845) 2.432-33 n.
122; Jacob Bernays, Gesammelte Abhandlungen
(Berlin: Hertz, 1885) 1.214 n. I; Karl Friedrich
Nagelsbach, Die nachhomerische Theologie des
griechischen Volksglaubens (Niimberg: Geiger, 1857)
24-51; Franz Dirlmeier, <PIAOI: und <PlAIA im
vorhellenistischen Griechentum (Diss., Munich; Munich:
Salesianische Offizin, 1931) 28;Jean Bollack, "Les
maximes de l'amitie," Association Guillaume Budi: Actes
du VI/feme Gongres (Paris: Bude, 1968) 221-36;
Dihle, Goldene Regel, 32-33; idem, RAG 11 (1978)
251; Carl-Wemer Muller, Die Kurzdialoge der
Appendix Platonica (Munich: Fink, 1975) 167-68; D.
A. Hester, "To Help One's Friends and Harm One's

305
interprets "virtue" as manliness in the philosophically
unrefined sense in the same manner as "kindness" is seen
to consist of favors and "mischief" to consist of hostile
acts restrained only by some conventions of civility.
As Dirlmeier has pointed out in his doctoral
dissertation, 837 the popular maxim to love the friend and
hate the enemy was first contested by Socrates in Plato's
Criton 49a-e. Here Socrates argues that "wrongdoing (is)
inevitably evil and a disgrace to the wrongdoer" (49b).
This is true even if done to "requite evil with evil"
(49c): 838 "it is never right to do wrong or to requite
wrong with wrong, or when we suffer evil to defend
ourselves by doing evil in return. "839
In the Republic ( 1, 332d-336a), the Platonic Socrates
explicitly refutes the popular maxim in a long argument
examining its terms in the light of the definition of
justice as "rendering to each what befits him, the name
that he [i.e., the poet Simonides] gave to this was 'the
due.'" 840 As a result, the maxim under consideration,
which Plato ascribes to the poet Simonides, 841 turns out
to be incompatible with justice. Its imperatives do not
befit the conduct of "the good one," for "in no case is it
just to harm anyone" (335e). 8 4 2
The popular maxim recommending the love of friend
and the hatred of foe is not found, to my knowledge, in
the Old Testament and rabbinic literature, but
reflections of its popular assumption are everywhere.
Loving one's friends and hating one's enemies is the
usual human behavior, maxim or no maxim. Even
though "hating the enemy" (p.urliv T~IV f.x8pov) is not
attested in the Old or the New Testament, there is wide
Enemies," Antichthon 11 (1977) 22-41; MaryW.
Blundek, Helping Friends and Harming Enemies: A
Study in Sophocles and Greek Ethics (Cambridge:
Cambridge University, 1989), esp. 26-59.
837 Dirlmeier, ci>IAOI:, 27-28.
838 This refers to the talio principle; see above on
SM/Matt 5:38-42.
839 Plato Crito 49d: ~s oliliE"IrOTE 3p8oos lxovros oi!Tf rov
~~LKEiV oiJTE Toii lr.vra~LKE'i'V oifTE KaK(;}~ waaXOVTa
O.p:6vEu8a& O.vr&3poovra KaKoos.
840 Plato Rep. 1.332b-c: llr& rovr' Erf/ litKa&ov, rb ?rpouiiKOV
€K&.O"Ttp O.wo~,aOvaL, TOVTo a~ &lv&p.atTEV Ot/JELAO,.,.Evov.
For this definition see also above on SM/Matt 5:20.
841 So in Plato Rep. 1.332b-c, but in 335e-336a, some of
the Seven Wise Men are considered, "or some other
rich man who had great power in his own conceit"
(336a). Plato thus recognizes that the maxim reflects
306
evidence that this is how people acted. In this respect, the
maxim as well as SM/Matt 5:43bc describe common
human behavior. At the same time, however, the
expansion of vs 43c rejects what the maxim approves of
and judges it to be unethical. At this point, Plato and the
SM agree in regard to their ethical judgment.
How can one explain such a remarkable agreement?
Could the SM at this point have been influenced by
Plato? Or do other texts indicate that Platonic ideas were
communicated to Judaism? Or was there a more
widespread popular philosophy to which the SM had
access? Answers to these questions are difficult to find
because the complex of ideas has only partially been
investigated. Many texts indicate that philosophical
schools debated widely the topic of friendship and
enmity. 843 The same is true of jewish wisdom, which
expressed doubts and second thoughts about, if not
polemic against, conventional assumptions. At the same
time, the popular conventions about hating the enemy
and doing good for the friend-and the corresponding
behavior patterns-continued to circulate. It is quite
probable that Greek philosophical school debates
influenced Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom literature in some
as yet unexplored ways.
Plato, however, cannot have been the only source to
question the common behavior. Law and wisdom even
before the Bible had begun to examine critically the
common behavior, including treatment of the enemy,
and had come to discourage hatred as immoral.
The Holiness Code, from which the SM quotes, and in
which being a good neighbor is a fundamental concern,
the ethos of an earlier age, not that of his own.
842 Cf. also Plato Gorg. 492c. Dirlmeier (ci>IAOI:, 28)
points to the role of the popular maxim in rhetoric
and names Anaximenes Rhet. 36, 1442a 11-14;
Aristotle Rhet. 1.6, 1363a 21; 2.21, 1395b 14; Top.
1.10, 104a 29-30; 2.7, 112b 27-113a 19.
843 See Schmidt, Ethik, 2.337-68: "Freundschaft und
Feindschaft"; Kurt Treu, "Freundschaft," RAG 8
(1970) 418-34; Dover, Greek Morality, 181-84;Jean-
Ciaude Fraisse, Philia: La notion d' amitie dans la
philosophie antique (Paris: Vrin, 197 4).
 Matthew 5:21-48

explicitly rules out hatred of the brother: "You shall not
hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason
with your neighbor" (Lev 19:7). Hatred of the enemy is
not explicitly mentioned, but since the "brother" as
insider was understood to be the opposite of the enemy,
the outsider, prohibition of hatred of the enemy would
be inconceivable as part of the theology of the Holiness
Code.
Exodus 23:4-5 recommends helping the enemy's ox
or ass if they are in trouble, but such help is directed
toward the animals, not toward the enemy; thus the
parallel in Deut 22:1-4 speaks of the brother's animals,
not the enemy's, when the same stipulation is set forth.
Like all ancient wisdom, Jewish wisdom has a great
deal to say about the topic of friends and foes. Ben Sira
especially offers a number of pertinent precepts, for
example: "Do not become an enemy instead of a friend"
(Sir 5:15 [LXX 6: 1a]). On the whole, Ben Sira advises
one to be cautious about friends and to avoid or bypass
the enemy: "Do not fight with a wrathful man, and do
not cross the wilderness with him, because blood is as
nothing in his sight, and where no help is at hand, he will
strike you down" (8:16 [RSV]). Indeed, the world is full
of enemies, often disguised as friends, so that
circumspection and caution are matters of prudence. 844
Hatred per se is not immoral, but hating the enemy
would be imprudent, 845 and loving him certainly
foolish. 846 These lines of tradition continue even into
rabbinic literature. 84 7
Philo has no discussion, as far as I can see, on the
subject of hating the enemy, 848 but he argues against
those who are excessively devoted to their kinship and
may, on that account, prefer violence to justice: "It is
right indeed to shew friendship to those whose actions
are worthy of friendship, but no evil-doer is a true
friend" (Spec. leg. 3.155; trans. F. H. Colson). This, of
course, excludes the enemy from such friendship, but
Philo considers only the other side:
Those whom we call our kinsfolk or within the circle
of kinsmen our friends are turned into aliens by their
misconduct when they go astray; for agreement to
practice justice and every virtue makes a closer
kinship than that of blood, and he who abandons this
enters his name in the list not only of strangers and
foreigners but of mortal enemies. (Spec. leg. 3.155;
trans. F. H. Colson)
The whole discussion of Spec. leg. 3.153-68 appears
influenced by Hellenistic moral thought, but, as often in
Philo, such influences are hard to prove.
Discussions concerning what to do about the enemy
must have been a common topic of discussion among
philosophers. 849 Epictetus in the exordium of the

844 See Sir 12:8-18; cf. 6:8-13; 37:1-6; Prov 19:4. See
Jack T. Sanders, "Ben Sira's Ethics of Caution,"
HUCA 50 (1979) 73-106.
845 See Sir 30:21-24; Prov 10:12, 18; Wis 11:24; 19:13;
etc.
846 See Sir 25:1-2 and esp. 6:1-18 (on this section, see
Gunter Krinetzki, "Die Freundschaftsperikope Sir 6,
5-17 in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht," BZ 23
[1979]212-33).
847 See 'Abot 2.16 (ed. Herford; Pirke Aboth, 57): "R.
Jehoshua said:-The evil eye and the evil principle
and hatred of mankind drive a man out of the
world." For further material from rabbinic literature,
see Str-B 1.364-68; Abrahams, Studies, 2.206-7;
Nissen, Gott, 295-304, 305-17.
848 In a description of true and false magic, Philo notes
that it is the latter which among other things, "turn
men's love into deadly enmity" (Spec. leg. 3.197).
Philo (ibid.) does not approve of hatred of the
enemy; at another place he does approve only in a
limited way (Spec. leg. 4.121; LCL trans. modified):
"human enemies, who should be combated not for
wrongful gain as robbers do, but in self-defense,
either to avenge the injuries which he has suffered
already or to guard against those which he expects to
suffer in the future." Philo (Virt. 152-54) interprets a
similar maxim, "In joining friendship we should not
ignore the possibility of enmity, and conduct our
quarrels with future friendship in view." The maxim
is attributed to Bias and cited in full in Diog. L. 1.87;
cf. Aristotle Rhet. 2.13.4, and the discussion in
2.21.13-14; Cicero De amic. 16.59. For discussion
see Colson's note in the LCL edition of Philo, vol. 8,
p. 448. See also Philo Op. mun. 168; Leg. All. 1.34;
Mut. 24; Sacr. AC 124; Virt. 106-8, 117-19, 160;
Spec. leg. 4.73, 186-87; Flacc. 121.
849 For a survey, see John Procope, "Hafi," RAC 13
(1985) 677-714, esp. 683-89, to whom I am
indebted for most of the passages adduced below;
also Nissen, Gott, 417-502.

307
Enchiridion stipulates that part of the freedom those
enjoy who are able to distinguish between what is up to
them and what is not is this: "You will have no personal
enemy, no one will harm you, for neither is there any
°
harm that can touch you. " 85 Further elaboration of this
topic is found in the section on social duties (Ta
KaB~KOVTa, Ench. 30). 851 Epictetus did not invent these
ideas but adopted them from school tradition communi-
cated by his teacher, Musonius Rufus; 85 2 it is not
surprising to find them as well in Dio Chrysostom,
another of Musonius's students. 853
One must realize that Hellenistic philosophy rejected
hatred of the enemy for many reasons, depending on the
philosophical school. For one thing, having enemies was
not necessarily bad. Enemies are part of life and: "He
who has no enemies has no friends either." 854 Hatred of
the enemy may be a necessary motivation for self-
defense. 855 If such hatred is valued negatively, however,
it cannot possibly extend to the "hatred of evil"
(p.&IT07rOV'1/Pla) because it is basic to all virtue. 856 Hatred of
inimical persons, however, may be rejected because it is
"too extreme, "857 or because it strains the emotions and
impedes the "tranquillity of the mind. "858 Again, the
850 Epictetus Ench. 1.3: ix_8pb11 oilx reElS, oii~Els UE fl>..&:o[IEI,
oMt -yl:tp fl>..aflEptJII Tl -rrEluy. See Sextus Empiricus
Adv. math. 11.40 (SVF 3, no. 76; cf. also nos. 97 and
106). Cf. Did. 1.3: "and you will have no enemy."
851 Epictetus is opposed to hatred because of the
emotional involvement; see Diss. 1.18, passim (esp.
1.18.9, 19); 1.22.15; 1.26.17; 1.28.10; 2.22.15-21;
3.4.6. See Procope, RAC 13.688-89.
852 Musonius Rufus (ed. Cora Lutz), chapter 10.
853 For parallels, see Mussies, Dio Chrysostom, 42-43.
854 Chilon, according to Plutarch frg. 174 (ed.
Sandbach, LCL edition of Plutarch's Moralia,
15.308-9): "enmities necessarily follow upon
friendship and are interwoven with them" (l' ava-yK'1S
l-rraKOAov8liv Kal UV11Ep."ITAEKEu8a& </>&>..{a&s cl"ITEX8E£as).
855 See Cicero (Tusc. 4.43-64), arguing against the
Peripatetics.
856 On the concept see Procope, RAC 13.685-86; also
PECL 2.142, 168, 171, 183, 194,216, 363, 365, 366.
857 Sophocles El. 177. It would violate the Delphic
maxim P.'1~tvli.-yav, "Nothing in excess." See Aristotle
Rhet. 2.21, 1395a 31-32.
858 See esp. Plutarch's essay "On tranquility of the mind"
(De tranquillitate animi; Moralia 464E-477F), and my
discussion of it in PECL 2.198-230.
859 Plutarch De capienda ex inimicis utilitate (Moralia 86B-
92F).
308
reason might be caution or prudence. Plutarch's works
include an important essay "On how to draw benefits
from one's enemies." 859 Distinguishing true friends from
false is difficult; an honest enemy may be an asset, while a
flatterer and false friend is certainly more dangerous. 860
Prudence suggests that one should treat an enemy,
especially when he is defeated or in trouble, in such a
way that he may become a friend in the future. 861 At any
rate, as Pittacus has said, "Mercy is better than
vengeance"; 862 or, to cite another famous dictum of
Sophocles, "My nature is for mutual love, not hate."863
Turning to the SM, one finds that hatred of the enemy
is rejected for different reasons from those given by the
Greek wisdom sayings, poets, and philosophers. The
rationales of Greek wisdom and philosophy, however,
were not felt to be incompatible with the SM. On the
contrary, they were soon brought in as additional
support as early as the New Testament and certainly by
the church fathers. 864
The SM has its own theological justification for
rejecting hatred of the enemy. Presented by a rational
argument, this justification is theological in nature. In
principle, the ethical demand presented by the SM is
860 On this topic see Plutarch's essay on "How to tell a
flatterer from a friend" (Quomodo adulator ab amico
internoscatur [Moralia 48E-7 4E)). Important also are
the essays "On the control of anger" (De cohibenda ira
[Moralia 452E-464D)) and "On brotherly love"(De
fraterno amore [Moralia 4 78A-492D)); see PECL
2.170-97, 231-63. On the entire problem area, see
Heinz Gerd Ingenkamp, Plutarchs Schriften ilber die
Heilung der Seele (Hypomnemata 34; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971 ).
861 The maxim, 'A>..>..~>..o&s 8' op.&AELII, ws Tots p.tv4>l>..ovs
~x8pol!s p.~ "ITO&fjua&, Tolls 3' lx8pots </>{AOVS lp-yauau8a&
("So to behave one to another as not to make friends
into enemies, but to turn enemies into friends"), was
ascribed to Pythagoras by Diog. L. 8.23, to Homer
by Clement Alex. Strom. 2.102.4, to Solon in Gnom.
Vatic. no. 508 (ed. Sternbach), to Socrates by
Themistius Or. 7.95a-b, to Alexander in Gnom. Vatic.
no. 82 (ed. Sternbach), and to Ariston of Chios by
PlutarchApophth. Lac., Ariston 1, 218A. These
passages have been collected by Procope, RAC
13.686 (section B).
862 Diog. L. 1. 76: uv-y-yvJJp.71 T&p.roplas KpEluurov.
863 Sophocles Ant. 523: oiiTOI UVIIEX8E'ill, a>..>..l:t uvp.</>IAELII
l4>vv. Cited according to the LCL edition and
translation of Sophocles by F. Storr.
864 Without depending on the SM, this was done as early
 Matthew 5:21-48

neither irrational nor incompatible with its contem-
porary environment, nor is it simply based on Jesus'
personal authority. 865 One must see the argument made
in vss 43-48 in its specificity and its limitations, set by its
own concerns: 866 (1) the interpretation of a scriptural
demand of the Torah (Lev 19: 18) in the light of the
hermeneutical principles set forth in SM/Matt 5:17-20
and 7: 12; (2) justification for the teaching of the
historical Jesus in terms of what was believed to be Jewish
orthodox theology; (3) the working out of an ethical and
legal stance to meet the higher righteousness as
demanded in 5:20.
Once clearly recognized, these limitations can be
transcended and applied to ethical and even political
issues outside the text, although one must not confuse
these text-external issues with the intentions of the SM
itself. Equally obviously, the issues of the interpretation
of Lev 19:18 and, indeed, of Jesus' interpretation cannot
be confined to what the SM is willing to discuss. Later
interpretations are thus legitimate in principle, even
when such interpretations are quite different from that
of the SM.
• 44 The presentation of what is proposed as the correct
interpretation of Lev 19: 18 follows in vss 44-48,
introduced by the doctrinal formula identifying
authority, "but I say to you" (£yoo ot AfYW vp.'iv [vs 44a]).
This correct interpretation takes the form of a maxim (vs
44b), "Love your enemies" (aya?Ta.u roh £x8polJ<; vp.wv).
My discussion ofvs 43bc has shown the reasons on which
the command is based: if the conclusion is that the
neighbor includes the enemy, then one must, as a good
neighbor, deal with-that is, one must love-the enemy.
What appears at first to be a contradiction in terms, the
command to love the enemy, is thus presented as a
reasoned conclusion from the interpretation of
Scripture. How can one explain this phenomenon?
This particular interpretation of Lev 19: 18 does not
appear in other Jewish sources contemporary with Jesus.
Thus I agree with most scholars that it should be
attributed to Jesus as its originator. 867 The passage is a
classic example of Jesus' exegesis of the Torah; far from
breaking with the Torah, he interpreted it in terms of
Jewish hermeneutics of the time in order to propose a
startlingly innovative interpretation that is nonetheless
compatible with common sense. Moreover, one can easily
see why this command makes sense to non-Jews as well;
and not surprisingly, one finds it in the parallel SP /Luke
6:27b as the basic maxim of the entire SP. 868
In evaluating SM/Matt 5:44b, one must distinguish
between the words "love your enemies," which come
from Lev 19:18 ("love" [aya'lT!~W] by quotation, and
"enemies" [£x8pol] by exegesis), and the underlying
ethical demand to treat the enemy in a humane way.
This ethical demand belongs to what one may call
ancient "humanism" and is first found in the ancient
Babylonian Counsels of Wisdom, written before 700 BCE:
Unto your opponents do no evil;
Your evildoer recompense with good;
Unto your enemy let justice [be done].
Unto your oppressor ...
Let him rejoice over you, ... return to him.
Let not your heart be induced to do evil. 869

as Paul in Rom 12:9-21, drawing on other wisdom
traditions (Deut 32:35; Prov 25:21-22), and by Did.
1.3. This line of thought continues in the Apologists
and church fathers. See Procope, RAG 13.699-701.
865 Thus one should not overstate the uniqueness of the
position held by the SM. The SM is certainly also
interested in prudence, as indicated by the Golden
Rule (7:12) and the conclusion, 7:24-27, so that
rejection of hatred is not solely based on the
imitation of God (5:45, 48). Differently Dihle,
Goldene Regel, 114-16, who does not recognize the
Golden Rule (7: 12) in the context of the SM and
therefore concludes, "No direct way, in fact, leads
from the Golden Rule to the new ethics, which
culminates in the command to love the enemy,
because that rule evaluates all action in the light of
the principle of reciprocity" (p. 116). Dihle is
followed also by Procope, RAG 13.699-700.
866 Other passages in early Christian literature may
provide different reasons for rejecting hatred. On
the entire topic of hatred and for bibliography, see
Otto Michel, TDNT 4.683-94; BAGD, s.v. p.t<Tiw,
p.I<Tor; Heinz Giesen, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s.v. p.t<Tiw
KTA.; Procope, RAG 13.677-714.
867 See Bultmann,jesus and the Word, 11 0-20; idem,
History, 79, 82, 88, I 05, 148-49; Braun, Radikalis-
mus, 2.91 n. 2; idem, Qumran, 1.17-18; idem,Jesus,
22, 89-104, 109; Perrin, Rediscovering, 148-49;
Liihrmann, "Liebet eure Feinde," 427-36.
868 See below on SP /Luke 6:27b.
869 Lines 35-40, quoted according to ANET, 426. Cf.
the accompanying n. 3: "Lines 35-40 ... are on the
level of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:38-45)."

309
Interesting for comparison is not only the general idea
but also the formal analogy of serial variation of the main
principle named first and repeated last (ring compo-
sition), the implied Golden Rule, and the implied rule of
equal compensation. 8 70
Ancient Near Eastern wisdom texts warn against
excessive revenge against the enemy, joy over his
misfortunes, and curses. Instead, these texts recommend
generosity and letting divine retribution take its course,
although never "love" of the enemy. These ideas have
found their way into the Old Testament, especially the
wisdom literature. The key passage is Exod 23:4-5, 8 7 1
becoming as it did the preferred text for later rabbinic
exegesis: 872
If you meet your enemy's ox or his ass going astray,
you shall bring it back to him. If you see the ass of one
who hates you lying under its burden, you shall
refrain from leaving him with it, you shall help him to
lift it up. (RSV)
It is remarkable that what is granted the animals is not
granted the enemy himself. This hesitation has
disappeared in wisdom literature, especially Prov 24:17-
18:873
Do not rejoice when your enemy falls,
and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles;
lest the LORD see it, and be displeased,
and tum away his anger from him. (RSV)
Most important and influential was also Prov 25:21-
22:874
If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat;
and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;
for you will heap coals of fire on his head,
and the LoRD will reward you. (RSV)
These passages only seem to come close to the SM, but
they really do not. Also, they do not refer directly to Lev
19: 18. There are other such Old Testament passages,
less explicitly stated, based on the commandment to love
the neighbor, usually within the thematic context of
friendship and enmity. 8 7 5
A classic passage of the kind is the cycle of stories
about David and jonathan in 1 Samuel 18-24. The two
men are the exemplars of true friendship, confirmed in a
covenant by which "the soul of jonathan was knit to the
soul of David" (1 Sam 18:1; see 18:3; 20:17, 41-42). The
pair is then contrasted with the relationship between
David and Saul, a relationship exemplifying enmity in its
stages of development from initial love, to envy, to
attempted murder. The turning point occurs in the cave
of the Wildgoats' Rocks, where Saul is given into the
hand of David, but David does not kill him (24:1-15).
When Saul recognizes what has happened, he says to
David (24: 17-19):
You are more righteous than I; for you have repaid
me good, whereas I have repaid you evil. And you
have declared this day how you have dealt well with
me, in that you did not kill me when the LoRD put me
into your hands. For if a man finds his enemy, will he
let him go away safe? So may the LORD reward you
with good for what you have done to me this day.
(RSV)
Saul then appoints him his successor. Is this an instance
of the love of enemy the SM mentions? The text could

870 For further material from ancient Near Eastern Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; 2 vols.;
wisdom, see Zeller, Mahnspruche, 104-6, also 55-58. Edinburgh: Clark, 1981) 2.648-50; 650, no. 1
871 Cf. the parallel Deut 22:1-4, which does not mention (bibliography); Wilson, Love, 195-98.
the "enemy." Cf. 23:7, 9. 875 See, e.g., Sir 7:21: "An intelligent slave love as
872 For a collection of passages, see Str-B 1.386-70. Cf. yourself; do not deprive him of his freedom • (my
Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 140: "If a beast of your enemy falls trans.). The context is the chapter dealing with "Do
on the way, help it to rise" (trans. van der Horst, no evil, and evil will never befall you" (7:1). Sir 34
Sentences, 207; for more parallels, see his (31 ): 11-31, dealing with table manners, is guided by
commentary, ibid.). Lev 19:18 (see esp. Sir 34 [31]:15). See furthermore
873 For the rabbinic interpretation, see the texts in Str-B Sir 15:1.
1.369-70, most notably 'Abot 4.24 (ed. Herford,
Pirke Aboth, 118-19); b. Ber. 55b.
874 This passage influenced Paul's interpretation ofthe
love-command in Rom 12:20-21, but it was not used
by the SM or the SP. For the interpretation in
rabbinic theology, see Str-B 3.301-3; and in Rom
12:20, see C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical

310
 Matthew 5:21-48

well illustrate what the SM intends, but it would fit better
as an illustration of Did. 1.3. The reason David does not
kill Saul lies in careful calculation, a reliance on the
validity of the Golden Rule. David's magnanimity is a
challenge to induce Saul to give up his enmity toward
him and to hand over the kingdom to him. The SM,
however, rules out any such this-worldly payoffs. The
similarity between the SM and 1 Samuel 24 arises from
the common underlying assumptions about friendship
and enmity and the Golden Rule. 8 76
A similar magnanimity provides the motive in the final
section of joseph and Aseneth (29.3-4}, where Levi's
treatment of Pharaoh's son provides a close parallel to
the SM. According to the story, Benjamin is about to
give Pharaoh's son, who has fallen from his horse and lies
helpless on the ground, the coup de grace. At t4is
moment, Levi stops him with the words:
By no means, brother, will you do this deed, because
we are men who worship God, and it does not befit a
man who worships God to repay evil for evil nor to
trample under foot a fallen (man) nor to oppress his
enemy till death. And now, put your sword back into
its place, and come, help me, and we will help him of
his wound; and if he lives, he will be our friend after
this, and his father Pharaoh will be like our father. 877
One can conclude, therefore, that Jesus' demand in the
SM has precedent or preparation in the history of ideas,
although it did represent a new step at that time. 878
Much the same can be said about Greek and Roman
morality and ethics, where the humane treatment of the
enemy was demanded as an act of magnanimity or
mercy, virtues becoming to the wise man and the good
ruler. 879 At the time of primitive Christianity, these
views had become commonplace in Stoicism. 880 Not
surprisingly, the church fathers 881 took them as an
approval of the fundamental ethics of Christianity by
pagan philosophy. 8 8 2
Whom does the SM consider the enemy? The question

876 See furthermore Job 3I:29-30; Tob 4:I5; 'Abot R.
Nat. (A) 23: "And some say: (Mighty is he) who makes
of his enemy a friend." Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. I42: "It is
better to make a gracious friend instead of an enemy"
(trans. van der Horst, Sentence~; see also his commen-
tary, 208-9, for parallel passages). Syr. Menander
I28-32: "If you have an enemy, do not pray with
respect to him that he may die-for when he is dead
he is delivered from his misfortunes-but pray with
respect to him that he may become poor, (then) he
will live on and (perhaps may) cease from his evil
practices" (OTP 2.595-96). Cf. also T. Levi I3.8; T.
Iss. 7.6-7; T.jos. 8.2; T. Benj. 4.I-5 (OTP 2.793,
807, 823, 826); Ep. Arist. 225. For a collection of
parallels, see also Piper, "Love Your Enemies," 27-49. 882 When Tertullian says that the demand to love the
877 jos. Asen. 29.3-4, according to the translation by
Christoph Burchard, OTP 2.246; cf. 247 n.c.; also
idem, "Joseph und Aseneth," in: Unterweisung in
erziihlender Form, JSHRZ 2.4 (I983) 720, with
bibliography.
878 On this point see Str-B 1.368, 369 (e); Otto Ploger,
Sprache Salomos (BKAT I 7; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
NeukirchenerVerlag, I984) 283, 304; Zeller,
Weisheitssprilche, I 0 5.
879 See the bibliography on this section, esp. the
contributions by Haas; Hiipeden; Randlinger;
Schottroff; Steinmiiller; van Unnik, Sparsa collecta,
l.III-26; Waldmann; Piper, "Love Your Enemies,"
20-27.
880 About Stoic school doctrine cf. Seneca De otio I.4: "to
give aid even to our enemies when our hand is feeble
with age" ("opem ferre etiam inimicis senili manu").
See also De off 1.25.88; Seneca De ira 1.5; 2.32; Ep.
I20.I 0. The connection with "Christian humanism"
has always been seen. See Walter Ribbeck, L. Anniius
Seneca der Philosoph und sein Verhiiltnis zu Epikur, Plato
und dem Christentum (Hannover, I887) 64;]. N.
Sevenster, Paulus und Seneca (NovTSup 4; Leiden:
Brill, I96I) I83-85. These doctrines, however, were
not limited to the Stoics; see Plutarch De invidia et
odio 6, p. 538A-B (PECL 2.365 ); Regum et imperatorum
apophthegmata I92C.
88I See the bibliography of this section, esp. the
contributions by Bauer; Kattenbusch; Randlinger;
Steinmiiller; Waldmann.
enemy is a Christian proprium (Apol. 37; Ad Scap. I
[PL I.698]), he is right; and so is van Unnik (Sparsa
collecta l.III-I2), when he endorses Tertullian's
claim, but this does not contradict the fact that
treating the enemy humanely has long been part of
Greek and Roman philosophical ethics. See John
Whittaker, "Christianity and Morality in the Roman
Empire," VC 33 (I979) 209-25; reprinted in his
Studies in Platonism and Patristic Thought (London:
Variorum Press, I984), no. xxvii; furthermore
Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 3I3-20, with many
references; de Romilly, Ladouceur, 3I8. Most
important is, as usual, Augustine's interpretation; see
Raymond Canning, O.S.A., "Love of Neighbour in
St. Augustine," Augustiniana 33 (I983) 5-57. For
further references to the history of interpretation,

311
of "Who is my enemy?" is as important as the question
"Who is my neighbor?" Later interpretative history of
the SM presents a bewildering range of options from the
personal enemy to national corporate enemies to
heretics. 883 In principle, the singular in vs 43b and c
leaves matters open and general: every enemy is to be
treated as neighbor. When in vs 44b the SM changes to
the plural "enemies," concrete interpretation is given to
the general maxim of vs 34bc. 884 Also concretized is
what "love" is expected to encompass: "and pray for
those who persecute you" (Ka'r. 7rpou£-bxur8£ tJ7l'tp TWV
lltwKovTwv VJ.Las). 885
At this point the SM differs characteristically from its
SP parallel with which it shares the love-command. While
the SM singles out the persecutors of the community,
SP /Luke 6:27b-28c refers to those who hate, those who
curse, and those who mistreat. 886 These differences
point to redactional activities of the authors of the SM
and the SP: both agree on the love-command of jesus
that for them is authoritative tradition, but they differ on
the interpretation, probably because of the differing
concrete situations to which they react.
There is no indication that the differences between the
SM and the SP are due to the redaction of the Gospel
writers Matthew and Luke, either by shortening Q/Luke
or by expanding Q/Matt. 887 The SM and the SP agree
only on one word, "pray," so that one must treat both
texts as independently composed textual units. 888
Consequently, the redactional differences are due to the
pre-Matthean and pre-Lukan authors of the SP and the
SM, not to the authors of the final Gospels. 889 The
manuscript tradition also indicates what the tendency of
the Gospel writers might have been had they known the
parallel texts-namely, to harmonize the texts by adding
the SP to the SM version. 890 Since the earlier and better
textual tradition shows no such harmonization, 891 one
can only conclude that the Gospel writers Matthew and
Luke did not interfere with their sources SM and SP at
this point.
Verse 44c specifies that loving the enemy means for
the SM to pray concretely for the persecutors. 892 Such
intercession on behalf of persecutors is reported
elsewhere in the New Testament as Christian prac-
tice.893 The question to be answered is, Who were the
enemies specifically in the minds of the author(s) of the
SM? Who were the persecutors? 894 They must be the

see Luz,Matthiius, 1.314-18 (Matthew, 1.347-51);
Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 298-99, 313-20; Procope,
RAC 13.677-714, esp. 702-12.
883 This process begins in the NT itself; cf., e.g., Matt
10:36, 13:39; Acts 13:10; Rom 11:28, 12:20; Gal
4:16 (on this point see Betz, Galatians, 229); Phil
3:18; 1 Thess 2:15; 2 Thess 3:15.
884 Cf. also Guelich, Sermon, 228.
885 The two commandments are joined by an isocolon,
with a polyptotic epiphora at the end of each parallel
line (vp.wv, vp.as). On this rhetorical figure see
Lausberg, Elemente, §§ 268-70, 280.
886 For further discussion, see below on SP /Luke 6:27-
28.
887 Contra Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 50;
Gundry, Matthew, 97; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 93
(Sermon, 89-90); Luz, Matthiius, 1.306 (Matthew,
1.339).
888 So correctly Wrege, Bergpredigt, 84-85, who also
considers the variant versions in the Apostolic
Fathers and the early Apologists that disagree widely
but do not necessarily depend on each other.
889 Contra Wrege ibid., who allows only two options,
oral tradition and final written redaction by the
Gospel authors.
890 For the evidence of such conflations, see Tischen-
dorf, Novum Testamentum Graece; Nestle-Aland; and
Aland, Synopsis; Greeven, Synopsis, ad Joe.
891 So Metzger, Textual Commentary, 14.
892 See also SP/Luke 6:28b (see below); Did. 1.3, with
the expansion "and fast on behalf of those who
persecute you" (v1JUT£VET£ 0~ V1rfp TWv OtCilK6vrwv
vp.ii~); P. Oxy. 1224; Athenagoras Suppl. 11.1;
PolycarpPhil. 12.3;JustinApol. l.15.9;Dial. 96.3;
Theophilus Ad Autol. 3.14. For these texts, see
Aland, Synopsis, 84-85; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 84-85.
893 The authoritative example is Jesus (Luke 23:34),
then Stephen (Acts 7:60). For the later martyrdom
literature see Ignatius Smyrn. 4.1-2, and for further
references Otto Michel, "Gebet II (Fiirbitte)," RAC 9
(1973) 1-36, esp. 18-22.
894 llLciJK<IV ("persecute") occurs only in 5:10, 11, 12, and
44 of the SM but never in the SP (which has less
severe terms in Luke 6:22, 27-28 [see below on these
passages]). The term does occur, however, in Did. 1.3
(cf. 5.2; 16.4); Polycarp Phil. 2.3. See BAGD, s.v.
ll16JKro, 2; Albrecht Oepke, "ll,ciJKw," TDNT 2.229-30;
ThWNT 10/2 (1979) 1053 (bibliography); Otto
Knoch, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s. v. lllciJKw. On the whole
subject, see Douglas R. A. Hare, The Theme ofjewish
Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St.
Matthew (SNTSMS 6; Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1967).

312

same as those described in SM/Matt 5:10, 11, and 12,
that is, fellow Jews for whom the Christian community
represented "heresy." 895 One of those persecutors was
Paul before his conversion. 896 As a result, one can
conclude that the references in the SM to persecutions
were a serious matter of death or survival for the
community of Jesus' disciples. 897
Why, then, was intercession for the persecutors named
as the proper reaction to the enemy? Several con-
siderations are in order at this point.
1. Intercession for persecutors is demanded by
righteousness, a concept basic to the theology of the
SM. 898 So to intercede has already been the mark of the
righteous ones in the Old Testament and in Judaism,
especially Abraham, Moses, Job, and the prophets. 899
This reason is further pursued in vs 45 below.
2. Since for the SM the immediate environment was
Jewish, the persecutors were most likely fellow Jews (see
also SM/Matt 5:11-12), so that intercession for them
coincided with the liturgical prayers on behalf of
Israel. 900 Such prayers are extant in the thanksgiving
prayer called Birkat ha-Mazon 901 and in the Shemoneh
Esreh (Eighteen Benedictions). 902 While we do not know
whether these prayers were known to primitive
Christianity, the early church, although on its own terms,
shared the Jewish concern for Israel's repentance and the
return to Torah and righteousness. 903
3. Syriac Menander 128-32 shows that praying for the
enemy is the opposite of what one should expect, namely,
praying that the enemy should die, 904 so that we have
here another instance of the true piety as a reversal of
the usual, a concern of the SM throughout.
• 45 The soteriological statements in vs 45 present the
reasons for the commandments in vs 44. There are two
such statements, one pertaining to eschatology (vs 45a)
895 See also the adversaries in 5:25, 39b-41, and the
"pagans" in 5:47; 6:32.
896 See Gal1:13, 23; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil3:6; 1 Tim 1:13;
Acts 7:52; 9:4-5, etc. See Betz, Galatians, 67, with
further references.
897 See also Matt 10:23; 23:34;John 5:16; 15:20; 1
Thess 2:15; Ga14:29; Acts 8:1, etc.
898 See above on SM/Matt 5:10 and 20.
899 For passages and bibliography, see Michel, RAG 9.5-
20; also Str-B 1.370-71.
900 For quotations and bibliography, see Betz, 2
Corinthians 8 and 9, 120-21.
Matthew 5:21-48
and one to cosmology (vs 45b). Both statements define
salvation in terms of "righteousness" (litKawuvv.,), 905 a
determinative concept in the theology of the SM.
Although the term itself does not occur in this passage,
this righteousness involves the eschatological status of
the addressees of the SM (vs 45a) and the manifestations
of God's righteousness in the cosmos (vs 45b). 906
Excursus:
Theodicy in the SM
Awareness of the problem of theodicy is one of the
important features of the SM. It is found, however, not
explicitly but at the level of theological presupposition.
This is in itself an indication that theological thinking
occurs throughout the SM. By contrast, there is no
indication of the theodicy problem in the SP.
The "classical" theodicy is the attempt to defend the
deity against the accusation of having created or
tolerated evil in the world. If this accusation were true,
God would be unjust. The usual solution is to put the
blame for the evil in the world on sinful humanity and
thus to exonerate God. In Greek philosophy, the key
formula is cited by Plato, probably from pre-Platonic
(Orphic?) sources, Rep. 10,617e (see also 2,379c; Tim.
42d; Iamblichus De vita Pyth. 218): alrla ~Aop.tvov· 8€1ls
avalr&os ("The blame is on the one who has the choice;
God is blameless"). This formula occurs in many
discussions of the problem of theodicy thereafter (see
Gundel, Beitriige, 42-51). One can, however, trace the
biblical roots through Hellenistic judaism and the Old
Testament to ancient Egypt.
As far as the SM is concerned, the first commentary
on the SM to point out that a theodicy argument is
involved are the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies (3.55-56;
15.18; 19.1-25), whereas the SM itself contains the
argument implicitly. The reason for this assumption is
that the SM touches on all the important points in a
manner similar to the discussions in Hellenistic
Judaism and in Philo.
901 Cited ibid., 212.
902 Especially the thirteenth benediction (Babylonian
recension). See Dalman, Worte]esu, 1.286-95; Str-B
4/1.208-49; Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 121 n. 155
with further bibliography.
903 On this point see esp. Philo Praem. poen. 162-68.
904 For such prayers seePs. Sol. 2.25-27; 12.4; 15.10-
12; 17.22-25, etc.
905 On this concept see above on SM/Matt 5:10 and 20,
especially.
906 For the soteriology of the SM, see brief comments in
Betz, Essays, 118-23.
313
 God is the creator and Father of the universe who
rules it with justice and beneficence (SM/Matt 5:45;
6:25-34; 7:11). There was no evil in creation before
humanity, and nothing is wrong with the makeup of
the human body. God's children (5:9, 45-48) are not
impeded by a dualistic anthropology, a doctrine of two
opposed spirits (Qumran) or impulses (rabbinic
theology). The evil that exists in the world has come
about through human disobedience toward God and
his rule (see 5:11, 37, 39, 45; 6:13, 23, 34; 7:11, 17,
23). God has given humanity the choice through the
law (5:17-18; 7:12). Obedience to the law is required
to maintain righteousness (5:6, 10, 20, 45; 6:1, 33);
disobedience leads to unrighteousness (5:45; 7:23),
"bad fruit" (7: 15-20), and eschatological punishment.
Everyone must give account at the last judgment.
Those who have obtained rewards in heaven (5: 12, 46;
6:1, 2, 5, 16) will have Jesus as their advocate (7:21-
23) and will enter into the divine kingdom (5:3-12,
19-20); the others will be rejected and go to hell (5:22,
29, 30; 7:23).
On earth, under the conditions prevailing, no
human being, not even the faithful disciples, can
escape getting involved with evil. Human evil has its
roots in the heart (5:8, 28; 6:21); it manifests itself in
evil language (5:37), failure of vision (6:22-23), and
the whole range of evil acts, of which life is full. What
is it that motivates humans to commit evil? It is
basically the failure to respond to God's beneficence
adequately and to serve him as one ought to (6:24).
Why such failure occurs is not explained, but
"foolishness" in its widest sense is named throughout
(esp. 7:24-27; cf. 5:13, 22) as the reason for not
obeying God and his will. There is also a remedy for
those who need it; God forgives the faults of those who
ask him (6:12, 14, 15; 7:11); those who receive no
forgiveness (6:15) end up in condemnation (7:23). In
addition to moral evil the world is also full of physical
hardships. In view of these God has provided help
through his foreknowledge (6:8, 32). The SM as a
whole serves as the guide on the way through the
dangers of this life into life eternal (6:33; 7:13-14, 21-
23, 24-26).
Most astute is the awareness of the theodicy
problem in the Lord's Prayer (see SM/Matt 6:12-13).
Thus the insight into the theodicy problem may go
back to Jesus himself, whom I hold to be the author of
the Lord's Prayer. In the last two petitions, evil is
understood as unfulfilled obligations on the part of
humans; they can be taken care of by forgiveness
(6: 12). The persistence of evil, however, condoned by
God, creates the greatest dangers for humanity by
being a constant temptation. The final petition,
therefore (6: 13), comes close to questioning God's
justice. It is assumed that by letting evil continue to
exist, God would lead people into temptation. Instead,
314
he is asked not to let this happen but to rescue human-
ity from evil. This is indeed God's obligation. Since it
has remained unfulfilled, it raises the specter of a God
implicated in evil. Daring as this petition is, it is a func-
tion of righteous persons to call on God to safeguard
their righteousness. That righteousness is, after all, a
balance of relationships between God and humanity, a
divinely instituted partnership. For further discussion
see the section on the Lord's Prayer (6:9-13).
Bibliography
Jan Assmann, Ma 'at: Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im
Alten Agypten (Munich: Beck, 1990).
Paul Barth, "Die stoische Theodizee bei Philo," in
Philosophische Abhandlungen Max Heinze zum 70.
Geburtstag gewidmet von Freunden und Schillem
(Berlin: Mittler, 1906) 14-33.
Friedrich Billicsich, Das Problem des Ubels in der
Philosophie des Abendlandes, voi. 1: Von Thales bis
Thomas von Aquino (2d ed.; Vienna and Cologne:
Sexl, 1955).
R. van den Broek, T. Baarda, andJ. Mansfeld, eds.,
Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman World (EPRO
112; Leiden: Brill, 1988).
Wilhelm Capelle, "Zur antiken Theodicee," Archiv fur
Geschichte der Philosophie 20 (1907) 173-95.
James L. Crenshaw, "Popular Questioning of the
Justice of God in Ancient Israel," ZAW 82 (1970)
380-95.
Idem, "The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach: On
Human Bondage," JBL 94 (1975) 47-64.
Albrecht Dihle, The Theory ofWill in Classical Antiquity
(Sather Classical Lectures 48; Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California, 1982).
Idem, "Philosophische Lehren von Schicksal und
Freiheit in der frtihchristlichen Theologie," JAC 30
(1987) 14-28.
Oskar Dreyer, Untersuchungen zum Begriff des
Gottgeziemenden in der Antike: Mit besonderer
Berilcksichtigung Philons von Alexandrien (Spudasmata
24; Hildesheim: Olms, 1970).
Carl-Friedrich Geyer, "Das Theodizeeproblem heute,"
NZSTR 17 (1975) 179-94.
Karl Gronau, Das Theodizeeproblem in der altchristlichen
Auffassung (Ttibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1922).
Wilhelm Gundel, Beitriige zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der
Begriffe Ananke und Heimarmene (Giessen: Brtihl-
Lange, 1914).
Jean Hadot, Penchant mauvais et volonte libre dans la
Sagesse de Ben Sira (L'Ecclesiastique) (Brussels: Presses
universitaires, 1970).
Fritz-Peter Hager, Die Vernunft und das Problem des
Bosen im Rahmen der platonischen Ethik und
Metaphysik (Noctes Romanae 10; Bern: Haupt,
1963, 1970).
 Matthew 5:21-48

Gerhard Maier, Mensch und freier Wille nach den
jildischen Religionsparteien zwischen Ben Sira und
Paulus (WUNT 12; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1971).
Eugene H. Merrill, Qumran and Predestination: A
Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns (Studies
on the Texts of the Desert ofJudah 8; Leiden:
Brill, 1975).
Albrecht Meyer, Vorsehungsglaube und Schicksalsidee in
ihrem Verhaltnis bei Philo von Alexandria (Wiirzburg-
Aumiihle: Triltsch, 1939).
Rudolf Meyer, Hellenistisches in der rabbinischen
Anthropologie: Rabbinische Vorstellungen vom Wesen des
Menschen (BWANT 4.22; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1937).
Richard D. Mohr, The Platonic Cosmology (Philosophia
Antiqua 42; Leiden: Brill, 1985).
Hans-Peter Muller, "Theodizee? AnschluBerorter-
ungen zum Buch Hiob," ZThK 89 (1992) 249-79.
Hermann Neumark, Die Verwendung griechischer und
jildischer Motive in den Gedanken Philons ilber die
Stellung Gottes zu seinen Freunden (Wiirzburg:
Schatzky, 1937).
Eberhard Otto, "Der Vorwurf an Gott (Zur Ent-
stehung der agyptischen Auseinandersetzungs-
literatur)," in Vortriige der Orientalistischen Tagung in
Marburg, Fachgruppe Agyptologie, 1950 (Marburg:
Universitatsverlag, 1951) 1-15.
Gian Luigi Prato, II problema della teodicea in Ben Sira:
Composizione dei contrari e richiamo aile origini (AnBib
65; Rome: Biblical Institute, 197 5).
Walter Sparn, "Mit dem Bosen Ieben: Zur Aktualitat
des Theodizeeproblems," NZSTR 32 (1990) 207-
25.
Gerhard Streminger, Gottes Gilte und die Ubel der Welt:
Das Theodizeeproblem (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1992).
Edmund Turowski, Die Widerspiegelung des stoischen
Systems bei Philon von Alexandrien (Borna-Leipzig:
Noski, 1927).
Paul Wendland, Philos Schrift ilber die Vorsehung: Ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte der nacharistotelischen
Philosophic (Berlin: Gaertner, 1892).
Wolfgang Werner, Studien zur alttestamentlichen
Vorstellung vom Plan Jahwes (BZA W 173; Berlin and
New York: de Gruyter, 1988).
Wolfhart Westendorf, "Theodizee," LdA 6 (1986)
473-74.
Verse 45a expresses both a purpose and a promise: "so
that you might become sons of your Father who is in
(the) heavens" (li7TWS y€v7Ju8~ VLOt TOV 7TaTpOs vp.o>V TOV £v
ovpavo'is). 907 The conjunction lf7TWS ("so that") looks to
the future, 908 but the form of the verb shows that future
to be a rather complex concept in the SM: lf7Tws y€v7Ju8~
is second aorist subjunctive, indicating present purpose,
future direction, and thus an imperatival force. 909
In the SM, this future orientation is meant to be
eschatological, but it includes both this world and the
afterlife. 910 The theological presupposition ofvs 45a
resides in the beatitude 5:9, where the promise "you will
be called sons of God" 911 is conditioned by the present
conduct as peacemakers. The implication of "becoming,"
therefore, is not a change of nature but the full and
perfect realization of the status the "sons of God" already
enjoy.9l2
Verse 45b indicates that the demand and expectation
ofvs 45a is based on God's own work as evidenced in
nature, that is, on God's creatio continua, 913 "for he makes
his sun rise on (the) bad and (the) good, and he makes the
rain to fall on (the) righteous and (the) unrighteous" (lin

907 e pc add liv after llwoos, which is an Atticism; see BDF,
§ 369 (5); BDR, § 369, 5; BAGD, s.v.llwoos, 2.a.B.
Also 8 jl 3 33. 205. 209. 565. 1006. 1342. 1424.
1506. 1582 pm Clement of Alexandria add the
article ro'is before ovpavo'is, a stylistic improvement
that, however, is in keeping with the almost technical
usage of the expression in the SM and the Gospel of
Matthew (see on SM/Matt 5:12, 16; 6:1, 9; 7:11, 21
and note the v.l. in 6:1, where IC* D Z 0250jl 33 pc
do not read the article, and 6:9, where Did. 8.2 reads
the singular). For the textual evidence, see Nestle-
Aland, and Aland, Synopsis, ad toe.; for discussion, see
Betz, "Eschatology," 344.
908 See BAGD, s.v. llwoos, 2.a.a; BDF, § 369; BDR, § 369.
909 Cf. SM/Matt 5:16b, 18d; 6:2, 4, 5, 10, 16, 18. See
BAGD, s.v. ylvop.a&, 1.4.a.
910 On this point see Betz, Essays, 122-23; idem,
"Eschatology," 343-47.
911 For this term, see the comments and literature
discussed on SM/Matt 5:9; 7:9-11.
912 See below on vs 48.
913 On this point see Betz, Essays, 115, 120-23.

315
TOV 1/A.tov aVTOV avaTtAAEI f?Tl 7TOV7Jp0VS Kal aya8ovs Kal
fJptxEI f7Tl litKalovs Kal alilKovs). 914 This statement is
peculiar, even unique, in the New Testament. Before
discussing the content, however, we should examine
some formal elements.
Rhetorically, the composition is careful. It is set forth
as an isocolon with a disiunctio. 915 The opposites "bad" and
"good" and "righteous" and "unrighteous" are arranged
in chiastic parallelism, 916 with the second pair showing
paronomasia (litK-, alitK-).917
The description of God's activity in vs 45bc both
refers to and makes use of archaic solar mythology 918
nowhere else attested in the New Testament. Two divine
activities are singled out, the first indicated by the verb
avartAAEIV, used here in the transitive sense to mean "he
causes to rise. "919 It is presupposed that God does so by a
command to that effect. 920 The sun is "his," God's,
because he created it and has command over it. 921 The
possessive pronoun does, however, suggest more-the
sun reveals the creator as in a theophany. Close
association of Yahweh and the sun is attested in the Old
Testament, 922 although hesitatingly, 923 and even more
so in apocalyptic and other pseudepigraphical writ-
ings. 924 Depending most likely on Platonic tradition, 925
Pseudo-Phocylides 926 calls sun, moon, and stars "the
blessed ones" and "visible gods," a theology Philo
rejects. 9 2 7 Thus some kind of solar theology, probably
derived from a hymnic background, 928 appears to be
presupposed as well in SM/Matt 5:45b. What God's sun
reveals should be clear from the context. It is his

914 Some manuscripts read II<Trtr or llr ("who") instead of
lin ("because"): II<Tnr 1573 pc lat? sy? Eusebius,
Cyrillus of Alexandria; llr lat? sy? Justin, Irenaeus,
Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian (so
according to the apparatus in Aland, Synopsis, 83).
The changes indicate that the origin of the statement
may be hymnic; at least some scribes felt it to be
hymnic.
915 On this see Lausberg, Handbuch, 1 § 753 (p. 374).
916 Reading the reverse order "good and bad," lat sys.c.p.
sa mae Origen have destroyed the chiasm, which
occurs often in the SM.
917 See BDF, § 488 (1); Lausberg, Elemente, §§ 277-79.
918 There does not seem to exist a comprehensive study
of solar mythology in the Bible. See, also for
bibliography, Theodor H. Gaster, "Sun," !DB 4.463-
65; Gunter Lanczkowski, "Sonne," RGG 6 (1962)
138-39; August Strobel, "Sonne," BHH 3 (1966)
1821-22; Theodor Hartmann, ·~c~ saemaes
Sonne," THAT 2. 987-99. See also Morton Smith,
"Helios in Palestine," Erlsr 16 (1982) 199*-214*;
Hans-Peter Stahli, Solare Elemente im]ahweglauben des
Alten Testaments (OBO 66; Fribourg: Universitli.ts-
verlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985);
MarkS. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and
the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (San Franciso: Harper
& Row, 1990) 115-24: "Yahweh and the Sun." For
early Christian literature, no investigation exists at
all, and TDNT carries no article on 7{Ator; but see for
some references BAGD, s.v. 7fi..•or.
919 For a parallel, see the Gospel of the Naassenes,
according to Hippolytus Ref 5.7, 25-26 (text in
Aland, Synopsis, 84). See BAGD, s.v. avar£i..i..w, 1.
920 See job 9:7; 1 Enoch 41.5-6; cf.Joshua's miracle
making the sun stand still Qosh 10: 12; Ps.-Philo Ant.
bib. 32.10).
921 See, e.g., Ps 19:4-6; Gen 1:14-19.
922 See esp. Deut 33:2; Isa 60:1-3; Pss 84:11; 89:15;
104:2, etc. See Gosta W. Ahlstrom, Psalm 89 (Lund:
Gleerup, 1959) 85-89, 92-95; Frank Schnutenhaus,
"Das Kommen und Erscheinenjahwes im AT," ZAW
76 (1964) 1-22, esp. 9;Jorgjeremias, Theophanie.
Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung
(WMANT 10; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1965; 2d ed. 1977).
923 Helmer Ringgren, "Mj! ziira~," ThWAT 2.661-63
(TDOT4.141-43).
924 For a collection of references, see OTP 2.997-98,
index, s.v. Sun.
925 See Plato Tim. 30b, 38a-41a.
926 Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 72-75, 100-101, 162-63. See van
der Horst, Sentences, 163-65, 182-83, 221.
927 Philo Spec. leg. 1.13-20; in Opif. 27, however, he
speaks of "visible gods" when he means the stars. Cf.
Somn. 1.72-101. For Philo's views in detail, see
David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the "Timaeus"
ofPlato (Philosophia Antiqua 44; Leiden: Brill,
1986). That the sun is not a god is also emphasized in
the Apoc. Abr. 7. 7-8 (OTP 1.692) and the Ladder of
Jacob 2.12 (OTP 2.408).
928 Cf.,e.g.,OdesSo1.11.13-14; 16.11-17(0TP2.745,
749-50);Hell. Synag. Prayers 3.6, 13-14; 12.19-20
(trans. D. R. Darnell, OTP 2.679, 691).

316
 Matthew 5:21-48

justice, 929 which also becomes the object ofthe imitation
of God (vs 48). 930
The second act (vs 45c) indicates that rain is God's
activity: "and he rains on (the) righteous and (the)
unrighteous" (Kat {3p€xf.! f7Tt OLKalov~ Kat aolKov~). 931 The
translation calls attention to the anthropomorphism
identifying God's activity with the downpouring of the
rain. 932 As I have pointed out in my Essays, 933 the
mythology is archaic, but it was popular and suggested
divine fertilization as the cause of prosperity. 934 Thus
this motif is also theophanic in nature. 935
The disturbing fact is that the beneficiaries of these
divine activities are the "bad" (7TOV7Jpol) and the "good"
(aya8o{), the "righteous" (olKawt) and the "unrighteous"
(lfoLKoL). 936 Apparent and even proverbial as this fact is,
how can one reconcile it withjustice? 937 Is it not rather
evidence of injustice? Does it not invalidate any human
striving for justice? These questions have been raised and
discussed many times, a painful history that I cannot
review here. My concern is the answer given by the SM.
With most of antiquity, the SM sees God's justice
revealed in the beneficence of nature. 938 Both

929 For the "sun of righteousness" (LXX: ifl\tos
atKatout\v17s), see Mal 3:20; Ps 112:4; Isa 58:1 0; Wis
5:6; Sir 42:16; 43:2-5. On the whole, see Franz Josef
Dolger, Die Sonne der Gerechtigkeit und der Schwarze
(MOnster: Aschendorff, 1918; 2d ed. 1971) 83-110.
930 Cf.Jas 1:11, where the sun is the instrument of God's
justice by destruction.
931 Cf. the Gospel of the Naassenes, according to
Hippolytus Rif. 5. 7.26 (Aland, Synopsis, 84): "and he
rains upon (the) pious and (the) sinners" (Kat {3ptxn
l ...t ouiovs Kat ap.aprwJo.ot\s). Other versions are found
in Justin Apol. 1.15.13: "and he makes his sun rise
upon (the) sinners and righteous and wicked" (Kat rbv
1/ALOV lz.varfAAEL E7rl &ILaprwA.oVs Kal a&Kalovs Kal
.,.ov11pot\s); differently Justin Dial. 96.3: "and the one
making his sun rise upon (the) ungrateful and the
righteous, and raining upon (the) pious and wicked"
(rOv 1/A.wv a-bToV O.var£A.Aovra f1rl O.xaplurovs Kal
a&Kalovs, Kal fip£xovra f1Tt Ocrlovs Kal 'TrOVT/PDVs). For the
text, see Aland, Synopsis, 85. Bultmann (History, 88 n.
1) calls attention to the Mandaic Ginza R. VII (ed.
Lidzbarski, 216, lines 7-8): "The merciful who feels
pity is like the sun which shines on good and evil."
For comparison, see also Kline, Sayings ofjesus, 40-
45.
932 Translations often avoid the anthropomorphism.
Cf. Vg: et pluit; Luther, Die gantze Heilige Schrifft
Deudsch (1545) 2.1975: "ynd lesst regenen"; RSV:
"and sends rain"; NEB: "and sends the rain";]B: "for
he causes ... , and his rain to fall."
933 Betz, Essays, 120, with nn. 100-101. The parallel
references given there are not repeated here.
934 For the OT see H.-J. Zobel, ·.,roc mii{ar," ThWAT 4
(1983) 827-42, esp. sections III-IVon "Yahweh and
Rain." For rabbinic theology, see Str-B 1.374-77. In
Greek religion, it is Zeus who rains; see proverbially
Theognis 25; Theocritus 4.43, etc.; and Wettstein,
1.313-14; BAGD, s.v. {3ptxw 2.a; R. van den Broek,
T. Baarda, andJ. Mansfeld, eds., Knowledge of God in
the Graeco-Roman World (EPRO 112; Leiden: Brill,
1988) 156-59. Aristotle knows better (Phys 2.8, 198b
18; 1.2, 983a 2; Eth. Nic. 8.1.6, 1155b 1-5; 8.10.4,
1160b 25-30).
935 In the NT see esp.Jas 5:17-18; Acts 14:17; Heb 6:7.
936 There is no identification here with insiders and
outsiders. For .,.ov11pos ("evil"), see above on
SM/Matt 5:11, 37, 39; 6:13, 23; 7:11, 17, 18. The
adjective ayalios ("good") is not attributed elsewhere
to a human person in the SM, probably because it
should be used only as an epithet of God (see Mark
10:18 par.). Different is SP, for which see below on
SP /Luke 6:45. The same holds for SiKatos/liStKos
("righteous/unrighteous"), which occurs only here
because righteousness is an eschatological goal (see
SM/Matt 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33; 7:21-23) .
937 Cf. passages referring to God's withholding of rain as
punishment, e.g., Deut 11:17; 28:23-24; 2 Sam
1:21; 1 Kgs 8:35; 17:1, 7; 2 Chr 7:13;Jer 14:4, 22;
Amos4:7.
938 Xenophon Mem. 4.3.10 shows the beginning of the
long tradition in Greek and Roman philosophy; see
Cicero De nat. deor. 2.31; and Ulrich Luck,
"<J>tlo.avlipw.,.ia," TDNT 9.107-12. For parallel
passages, see also Wettstein, 1.313-14, among them
esp. Marcus Aurelius In semet ipsum 7.70; 8.43;
Seneca De ben. 4.26.1: "If you are imitating the
gods, ... then bestow benefits also upon the
ungrateful; for the sun rises also upon the wicked,
and the sea lies open also to pirates." Furthermore,
7:31; Dio Chrysostom Or. 30.28-31. See Martin
Dibelius, Aufsiitze zur Apostelgeschichte (2d ed.;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1953) 32-33;
ET: Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (trans. Mary Ling;
New York: Scribner's, 1956) 29-32. For numerous
parallels from rabbinic literature, see Str-B 1.374-
77.

317
generosity and mercy, however, were believed to be part
of justice; thus there is no real problem here for the SM.
• 46 The argument in vss 46-4 7 concretizes the
implications ofvs 45. The argument here is a contrario,
taking the form of a carefully composed isocolon. 939 The
two parts each consist of a conditional clause, a rhetorical
question 940 introduced by Tlva/Tl ("whom/what"), and a
second rhetorical question introduced by ovxl ("not").
Since the two parts of the isocolon are to a great extent
synonymous, their relation is that of a disiunctio. The
rhetorical questions in each part serve to express
impatience. 941 One may perhaps distinguish the two
questions into a quaesitum, that is, a question expressing
more than yes or no as answer (here: "no reward,"
"nothing special"), and into an interrogatio proper.
The argument has a parallel in SP /Luke 6:32, so that
careful comparison is needed to point out similarities and
differences. The conditional sentence in vs 46a describes
what is considered to be common behavior and behavior
to be judged inadequate: "For if you love those who love
you, What reward do you have?" (£lw yap aya'7T~!T1JTE TOtJs
aya'lT(;JVTas vp.as, Tlva Jl-!0"60v £'xen;). 942 The answer can
only be: none. Why is such conduct inadequate?
"Loving those who love you" was commonly thought
to occur in all erotic relationships. That this mutual love
corresponded to the proverbial love of neighbor is
beautifully shown in a witty poem ascribed to Moschus
that gives advice to lovers by showing how the gods do it:
Pan loved his neighbor Echo; Echo loved a frisking
Satyr, and Satyr, he was head over ears for Lyde. As
Echo was Pan's flame, so was Satyr Echo's, and Lyde
master Satyr's. 'Twas Love reciprocal; for by just
course, even as each of those hearts did scorn its lover,
so was it also scorned being such a lover itself. To all
such as be heartwhole be this lesson read: If you
would be loved where you would be loving, then love
them that love you. 943
Cicero explains that "loving back" (redamare) is basic to
all good friendship. "For nothing gives more pleasure
than the return of goodwill and the interchange of
zealous service. "944
Where, then, lies the ethical problem? The problem is
that mutual love may be normal and conventional
behavior, and it may even fulfill moral expectations; but
it is nevertheless ethically inadequate. Love as a mere
response to love received amounts to nothing more than
an exchange of favors, and as such it does not conform to
the Golden Rule (SM/Matt 7:12), on which the SM is
based. This argument, which the SP explains in much
greater detail in terms of Greek ethics, 945 is set forth in
the SM in terms of Jewish ethics.
The term p.t0"66s refers to eschatological "reward," as it
does elsewhere in the SM. 946 According to Jewish
thought, one can expect such reward only if good deeds
done here on earth have not already been rewarded by
other good deeds in return, that is, only if the rewards
for good deeds done on earth have been postponed until
the lastjudgment. 947 This concept is also part of the
greater righteousness that SM/Matt 5:20 has in mind. 948
While the expected answer to the first question is
negative, the answer to the second question is positive:
"Do not also the tax collectors do the same thing?" (ovxl

939 For the following statement I am indebted to Dr.
Johan Thorn.
940 For the interrogatio, see Lausberg, Handbuch, 1 §§
767-70 (pp. 379-81).
941 See ibid.,§ 767 (p. 379).
942 The term ltya.,.aw ("love") connects with vs 43b as
interpreted in vs 44b.
943 Cited according to the edition and translation of
]. M. Edwards, The Greek Bucolic Poets (LCL; Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1977) 459-61.
The terminology is not ltya.,.aw but £paw, fpws, <j>tA.!w,
KTA.
944 Cicero De amic. 49-50. See furthermore Hesiod Erga
353: "Be friends with the friendly, and visit him who
visits you" (tJ>tAEovTa cfJtAltv, Kal rhv 1rpocn6vrt
'lTpouelvat). For more parallels see West, Hesiod: Works
and Days, 245.
945 See below on SP /Luke 6:31-36.
946 For the meaning of this term see above on SM/Matt
5:12.
94 7 Cf. also SM/Matt 6:1 b, 2, 5, 16; by contrast,
prophecy, exorcism, and miracles do not qualify for
reward (7:21-23).
948 Cf. SP /Luke 6:32b, 33b, 34b, passages that use the
Greek concept of xapts ("credit"); only VS 35c speaks
of fLtuO&s ("reward") as the SM does in Matt 5:12.
One cannot explain these differences as the result of
interferences in the texts by the Gospel writers
Matthew and Luke, but they are integral to the SM
and the SP as units of text and thought. Cf. Justin
Apol. 1.15.9, 10: r{ Katvbv 'lTOtelu; ("What new thing
are you doing?").

318
 Matthew 5:21-48

Kat OL n:Awvat Tb avTb 7TOLOVutv;). 949 Why are the tax
collectors singled out here? They undeniably provide a
typical example of what the SM intends to demon-
strate.950 Nominally Jewish, the tax collectors were
notorious for their unethical conduct and their cynical
disregard for the Torah in conducting their business of
collecting taxes from their fellow Jews on behalf of the
Roman overlords. But even they had some kind of
professional ethos, if one can call it that. They kept
themselves in business by exchanging favors among
themselves, and they maintained the "buddy" relation-
ship typical of professional villains in every era. Such
practices, however, can hardly be called ethical.
Verse 46 views the tax collector (n:AdJv71s) from a
Jewish or Jewish-Christian point ofview, 951 coupled with
"sinners" (ap.apTw:Aot) and "prostitutes" (7T6pvat), 95 2
approaching the status of the "pagans" (f8vtKol). 953 This
perspective differs from the later Christian view in which
the tax collector became the prototype of the convert, 954
and even an example ofhumility. 955 Matthew's Gospel
reflects both perspectives, the earlier in older traditions,
the later in Matthew's redaction. 95 6
• 4 7 The second set of questions is strictly parallel to the
first (vs 46), although there are variations: "and if you
greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing do
you do?" (Kat ECzV CzU7TctU7]U8£ TOVS ao£A<J>oh ilp.wv p.6vov, TL
7T£ptuuhv 7TOL£tn;). 957 The answer expected from the
readers is: nothing. Greeting one's brothers is a gesture
required of everyone as a part of daily life, and there is
nothing wrong with it per se. The term "brother"
(ao£:A<J>6s) 958 may apply here to the fellow Jew 959 as

949 w• sy•·c bo do not read ovxl, but it should be read not
only for text-critical reasons; the rhetorical
composition also requires it. The variant readings
oilrw~ (D Z 33 h k sy•·c sa? bo) or rovro (jl 205 pc lat
mae) instead of rh avr6 may be due to scribal errors
(mistaken hearing?). For the evidence, see Nestle-
Aland, and Aland, Synopsis, ad Joe. For ovx{, see also
Did. 1.3; for rovro,JustinApol. 1.15.10.
950 For literature, see Otto Michel, "nArov7j~," TDNT
8.88-105; ThWNT 10/2 (1979) 1279-80; BAGD,
s.v. r<Awv71~; Helmut Merkel, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v.
nArov71~; Ernest Badian, Publicans and Sinners: Private
Enterprise in the Service of the Roman Republic. With a
critical bibliography (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University, 1972). For the NT, see John R.
Donahue, "Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt
at Identification" CBQ33 (1971) 39-61.
951 So presupposed in Matt 2:13-17: The Call of Levi
(!/Matt 9:9-13//Luke 5:27-32); the old slogan
branding Jesus as "a friend of tax collectors and
sinners" (Q/Matt 11:19//Luke 7:34); the parable of
the Pharisee and Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14a).
952 So in the parable of the Two Sons (Matt 21 :28-32),
esp. vss 31-32; cf. Luke 7:29.
953 So in the community rule Matt 18:17, pre-Matthean
in origin.
954 Typified in stories like the Call of Levi; the parable of
the Pharisees and Tax Collector; and the Conversion
ofZacchaeus(Luke 19:1-10).
955 In Gnosticism, the tax collectors have become
exemplars of humility and true piety. See Josef
Frickel, "Die Zollner, Vorbild der Demut und wahrer
Gottesverehrung," in Pietas: FS fur Bernhard Kotting
(JACSup 8; Munster: Aschendorff, 1980) 369-80.
956 "Matthew the tax collector" appears in the list of the
twelve apostles only in Matt 10:3, and only the first
Gospel identifies Matthew (instead of Levi) as the tax
collector converted by Jesus (Matt 9:9). For whatever
reason, the author of the Gospel of Matthew has a
special interest in the name and person whom he
portrays from the Christian point of view. Cf. also the
interpretation ofHos 6:6 in Matt 9:13a. Also for
Luke the tax collectors belong to the first Christians
(Luke 3:12; 5:27-32; 7:29-30; 15:1, 7, 10; 18:9-
14a; 19:1-10). Since the rest of the NT never
mentions the tax collectors, interest in them must
have disappeared quickly in Hellenistic Christianity.
957 There are important textual variants in this verse,
which is missing altogether in k sy' (on this point see
Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, ad Joe.). Other
variants are noted below.
958 L W 0 33. 1006. 1342. 1506 9Jt fh syh read instead
<fJ{Aov~ ("friends"), apparently interpreting the Jewish
"brothers" in a wider, Greek sense; 1424 adds
O.u ...a(op.evov~ vp.a~ ("greeting you"), but these variants
are clearly secondary.
959 The term occurs in SM/Matt 5:22, 23, 24, 47; 7:3,
4, 5, although unspecified (see above on 5:22). Cf.
SP/Luke 6:41, 42, where it refers to the fellow
disciple (see below on SP /Luke 6:41-42). The
juxtaposition with "pagans" (vs 4 7) suggests the
meaning of fellow Jew. See BAGD, s.v. aa<A</J6~, 3.

319
opposed to the "pagan" (vs 47c), to the fellow disciple of
thejesus-community, 960 or to the family member, 961 or
to all of them. The limitation imposed by the adverb
"only" (JJ.ovov), however, sets the "brother" in opposition
to whoever may be the outsider, 962 and here the ethical
problem arises.
The ethical problem is not that the greeting is done
because one expects to be greeted in return, although
the ancients regarded failure to return greetings as a
terrible insult and threat. 963 Rather, greeting only one's
own people merely conforms to convention. 964 It lacks
the element of the "extraordinary" 965 that would qualify
it as ethically superior and that would conform to the
greater righteousness of SM/Matt 5:20. 966 The failure
to greet outsiders was in itself an expression of contempt.
In the social life of antiquity, and especially in J uda-
ism, 967 the conventions of greeting played an important
part, as they do today. The position here advocated by
the SM 968 is completely within judaism and its ethics as
summed up in 'Abot 4.20: "R. Mattithiah ben Harash
said: Be first in greeting every man; and be a tail to lions
and not a head to foxes. •969
The second question (vs 4 7 c) parallels that of vs 46c:
"Do not the pagans do the same thing?" (ovx'r. ICa'r. ot fBvtiCo'r.
TO a !!To 'lTOtovow;). 970 That they indeed do must be the
expected answer. The "pagans" or "Gentiles" (ot £8vt1Col)
are viewed here, as elsewhere in the SM, in purely
negative terms, that is, from a jewish Qewish-Christian)
perspective. 971 How could the evangelist Matthew accept
such an opinion, since his church consisted primarily of
Gentiles? 972 He probably accepted it because he found it
in sources that he was aware had come from an earlier
period of the church when things were different from his
own time. The SP does not have this sentence as it was
written entirely for Gentiles; it speaks of "sinners"
(&p.apTCoA.ol) instead. 973 At any rate, in the view of the
SM, the conduct of the Gentiles cannot qualify as the
greater righteousness demanded of the disciples of Jesus
(5:20).
• 48 With the argument of vss 46-4 7 concluded, vs 48
presents a final maxim summing up the doctrine
underlying not only the sixth antithesis but the entire set
of antitheses (5:21-48): "Therefore, you shall be perfect
as your heavenly Father is perfect" (fu~u8~ otv vp.~'is
TJAfLOL WS 0 'lTaT~P vp.wv 0 ovpO.vtos TJAfLOS £unv). 974
The particle otv ("therefore") 975 serves as both a

960 Matthew seems to have taken it in the sense of fellow
Christian, even ifthe tradition is pre-Matthean (see
Matt 18:15, 18, 21; 23:8; 25:40; 28:10).
961 See Matt 10:2, 21; 12:46-50; 13:55; 14:3; 17:1;
19:29; 20:24; 22:24, 25.
962 Cf. Rom 3:29; 4:12, 16; 9:24, pointing to the so-
called advantages of the Jews.
963 Cf. Lucian's De lapsu inter salutandum, "A Slip of the
Tongue in Greeting," in the LCL edition of Lucian,
vol. 6. The greeting is a form of prayer, so that
according to ancient belief, failure to offer it or a
lapse of the tongue spells misfortune. See Betz,
Lukian, 64 n. 3, 154 n. 4, 155 n. 5. On the whole
subject and for bibliography, see Henrik Zilliakus,
"GruBformen," RAG 12 (1983) 1204-32.
964 Cf. Sir 6:6: "Let those that are at peace [Elp.,vEVOVTEs]
with you be many, but let your advisers be one in a
thousand" (RSV). The verb may refer to the
exchange of the peace greeting.
965 TO 'lr£p&uuov ("what is extraordinary") occurs only
here in the SM, but cf. SM/Matt 5:37 and 5:20. See
BAGD, s.v. 'lrEp&ITITOS, 1.
966 Cf. the meaning of the term in Rom 3:1: "What then
is the advantage of the Jew?"
967 Cf. the rich collection of passages in Str-B 1.380-85.
968 Cf. the peculiar mission instruction in Matt 10: 12-
13: "As you enter the house, salute it. And if the
house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it
is not worthy, let your peace return to you." The
parallel instruction in Luke 10:4-5 is different: "and
salute no one on the road. Whatever house you
enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house!' And if a son
of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but
if not, it shall return to you" (RSV).
969 Trans. of Herford, Pirke Aboth, 115. A parallel is
found in b. Ber. 6b; 1 7a.
970 L W 8JI 3 1006. 1342. 1506 ~h syP read T£Awva&
("tax collectors") instead of "pagans," thus equalizing
vs 46 and vs 4 7. The substitution is certainly
secondary, whereas "pagans" is supported by IC B D Z
jl 33. 205. 892. 1424. pc !at syc.h co; Basilius. L 8
1506 [E .a. 565. 579] ~ h syc.h bo also read ollTws
("thus") instead of TO al>ro ("the same"). This evidence
according to Aland, Synopsis, 83, apparatus. See also
Metzger, Textual Commentary, 14.
971 See also 6:7, 32. The term o! f:8v&Kol occurs only here
in the SM, but see also Matt 18:17 (together with
T£Awva&); 3 John 7; Hermas Man. 10.14. See BAGD,
s.v. €8v1.KOs.
972 For Matthew's own concept, see Matt 28:19: "Go
therefore and make disciples of all nations."
973 See below on SP /Luke 6:32-35.
97 4 D W 8 1006. 1342 (A 346. 565. 579) ~read C:,u'lrEp
instead of C:,s, with no basic difference in meaning.

320
 Matthew 5:21-48

transitional and an inferential conjunction, 976 denoting
that the sentence to follow is a consequence of the
preceding argument. That argument showed that the
inadequate interpretation of Lev 19: 18 as set forth in vs
43bc shows no ethical value and thus cannot be the
meaning of the Torah as intended by God. Any
interpretation of the Torah, to be legitimate, must lead
to the greater righteousness required in the last
judgment (see above on 5:20). In contrast, mere
conformity to popular morality and convention does not
suffice.
If one accepts this line of argument, then the opposite
must be true; going beyond or against popular morality
and convention may be required to do justice to the will
of God. Applied to the case before us, this doctrine
underlies the presentation of what is proposed as the
correct interpretation of Lev 19:18 in vs 44, while vs 45a
states the eschatological consequences for those who
follow that correct interpretation. Verse 45b adduces the
mythology containing the reasons why the imperatives in
vs 44bc are theologically well founded. Yet the
fundamental theological doctrine underlying the whole
argument ofvss 43-48, and indeed ofvss 17-48, needs
to be stated positively, and this is the purpose ofthe
concluding maxim of vs 48.
The maxim has two points: the first is a verb in the
future tense and the second states the reason justifying it.
This form of composition is common among maxims, 977
but vs 48 is more complicated. It is not clear from the
outset whether tt:uo-8£ is merely an imperative ("Be
perfect!"), or a prediction ("You will be perfect"), or an
eschatological promise ("You may be perfect").
Grammatically 978 as well as contextually, one could
justify each of the options. The imperatival meaning
follows from the other commandments in vss 43b, c; 44b,
c (see also 5:17, 21b, 24, 25, 27b, 29, 30b, 34a, 37, 39a
and c, 40b, 41 b, 42a and b). Those who take tuf.o-8£ as a
prophetic prediction can point to the beatitudes (5:3-
12), while the eschatological promise follows from that
interpretation of the Torah which leads to the greater
righteousness required in the last judgment (5:20; 7:13-
14, 21-23). My suggestion is that the ambiguity is
intended precisely to combine the various aspects, none
of which can be isolated without losing grasp of the
theology of the SM as a whole. Basic to it all is the divine
promise of salvation for those who are obedient to the
will of God. Based on this promise are the command-
ments of Jesus as interpreted by the SM. Finally, given
these promises, one can venture predictions concerning
the eschatological future, as is done throughout the SM
either by imagining or anticipating the future or by
warning against failure. All these aspects are combined as
well in 5:45a: Cf1rws y€v1Ju8f. ... ("so that you might
become ... ").
The key term denoting the eschatological status for
which the faithful disciples are destined, and which is

The SM uses w~ introducing examples or com- of Matthean redaction.

parisons also in 6:5, 10, 12, 16, 29; l1Hrrr•p in 6:2, 7. 977 See Hans Dieter Betz, "Eine Christus-Aretalogie bei
See BAGD, s.v. w~. II, 3-4. (D*) Ec ~ 8 565. 579.
700. 1006 pm it Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,
Ps.-Clem. Hom. 3.57 read EV TOL~ ovpavo"i~ ("in the
heavens") instead of 0 ovpavto~ ("the heavenly [one]").
Both forms occur elsewhere in the SM: "in the
heavens" occurs in SM/Matt 5:12, 16, 45; 6:1, 9;
7:11, 21 (cf. the singular, 5:34; 6:10, 20); "the
heavenly (one)" in 5:48; 6:14, 26, 32. The manu-
script tradition exchanges the two expressions also
elsewhere; see Aland, Synopsis, 84, apparatus. See also
Betz, "Eschatology," 344.
975 For similar usage see SM/Matt 5:19, 23; 6:2, 8, 9,
22,31,34, 7:11,12,24.
976 The conjunction is "redactional" (Strecker,
Bergpredigt, 96 [Sermon, 92]), but it is not typical only
Paulus (2 Kor 12, 7-10)," ZThK 66 (1969) 288-305,
reprinted in Paulinische Studien: Gesammelte Aufsi:itze
III (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1994), 1-19, esp.
293-300; Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 21-22; David Aune,
Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediter-
ranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 58-
60.
978 See BDF, §§ 98, 362; BDR, §§ 98, 362, deriving the
form from the OT: Deut 18: 13; Lev 19:2; cf. 1 Pet
1:16: "you shall be holy" (/iytot [cnu8<).

321
indeed fitting for the "sons of God," is Tb..uos ("perfect").
As one would expect, this term and its possible meanings
have been widely discussed from antiquity to the modern
period. 979 This rich history of interpretation, 980
however, cannot even be sketched here, and I must
restrict myself to the meaning most probable for 5:48 in
the context of the SM. Before turning to this task,
however, I should mention some correlative terms.
The term Tb.. uos occurs only here in the SM, and here
twice with two different meanings: in vs 48a as an
attribute of human persons, 981 and in vs 48b as an
attribute of God. 982 The relationship between the two
attributes is parallel to that between God and the sons of
God, 983 the righteousness of God and the superior
righteousness of the faithful, 984 God's activity in creation
and salvation and the human tasks of worship and ethics,
God's eternal status "in the heavens" 985 and the
eschatological destiny of the faithful in the kingdom of
God.986
The terminology of perfection is widely attested in
ancient literature and encompasses a correspondingly
wide range of meanings. Establishing what the term
means in a particular instance requires the examination
of the context of that passage as well as close literary
parallels.
The adjective Tb..£ws ("perfect") derives from n.A.€w,
TEAos, and so on ("finish," "complete," etc.; "end," "goal,"
etc.). 987 The basic meaning, therefore, is "having
attained the end" or "purpose," "complete," "perfect." 988
Depending on the general context, this meaning can be
specified in terms of cult, education, and ethics, to name
the most important fields of meaning. Although the term
"perfect" occurs only here in the SM, it seems to have
influenced other closely related texts that provide
further explanations. A close parallel is Matt 19:21,
Matthew's version of the story of the Rich Young Man
(Mark 10:17-22//Matt 19:16-22//Luke 18:18-23).
When Jesus, according to Mark (1 0:17-22), says to the
young man, "You lack one thing" (~v u£ vuup£!),
Matthew's version changes this to, "If you wish to be
perfect" (d6€A.u TEA£ws £Lvat). The change, whether the
result ofMatthew's 989 or ofpre-Matthean redaction, 990
appears to be influenced by the SM. Both passages are
concerned with the proper interpretation and fulfillment
of the Torah and with the goal of discipleship, that is,
they combine the ethical and the educational fields of

979 See Tholuck, Bergrede, 317-20 (Commentary, 288-
93).
980 For bibliography on rliwos, see the lexicon articles
by Gerhard Delling, "dAos KTA.," TDNT 8.67-78;
ThWNT 10/2 (1979) 1279; Hans Hubner, EWNT
(EDNT) 3, s.v. rlA€1os; Klaus Koch, "OOM tmm
vollstandig sein," THAT 2.1045-51. See furthermore
Bultmann,jesus, 119-20, 121, 126; Braun,
Radikalismus, 2.43 n. 1, 99 n. 3, 127 n. 2, and index,
s. v. OOM, rlAnos; idem, Qumran, 1.18; Dibelius,james,
74-77; PaulJ. DuPlessis, TEAEIOl:: The Idea of
Perfection in the New Testament (Kampen: Theo-
logische Akademie, 1959); idem, "Love and
Perfection in Mt 5:43-48," Neot. 1 (1967) 28-34;
Karl Priimm, "Das neutestamentlische Sprach- und
Begriffsproblem der Vollkommenheit," Bib 44 ( 1959)
76-92; Hiibner, Gesetz, 110-12; Trilling, Das wahre
Israel, 192-96; Luck, Vollkommenheitsforderung,
passim; Rudolf Schnackenburg, "Die Vollkom-
menheit des Christen nach Matthaus," in his
Christliche Existenz nach dem Neuen Testament (Munich:
Kosel, 1967) 1.131-55; E. Yarnold, "Thnosin St.
Matthew's Gospel," StEv 4 (TU 102 [1968]) 269-73;
Georg Kiinzel, Studien zum Gemeindeverstiindnis des
Matthiiusevangeliums (CTM, series A, vol. 10;
Stuttgart: Calwer, 1978) 218-50; Leopold Sabourin,
"Why Is God Called 'Perfect' in Matt 5:48?" BZ 24
(1980) 266-68. Discussions of Matt 5:48 are found as
well in the commentaries on Matthew and on the SM.
981 So mostly in the NT; see Matt 19:21 (see below);
1 Cor 2:6; 14:20; Phil3:15; Col4:12; Heb 5:14;Jas
1:4; 3:2; Did. 1.4, 6.2; Polycarp Phil. 12.3.
982 As a divine attribute, rlii.Eios ("perfect") occurs only
here in early Christian literature. For Greek religion,
where the divine epithet is attested since Pindar and
Aeschylus, see Delling, TDNT 8.68 (A.2); BAGD, s.v.
n!Anos, 2.e.
983 See above on SM/Matt 5:45a.
984 See above on SM/Matt 5:20.
985 See above on SM/Matt 5:45a.
986 See below on SM/Matt 7:13-14.
987 See F. M. J. Waanders, The History ofTEAOl: and
TEAEfl in Ancient Greek (Amsterdam: Griiner, 1983).
988 So the translation in BAGD.
989 So most scholars; see Gundry, Matthew, 388; Guelich,
Sermon, 233-34; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 97-98
(Sermon, 93-95); Luz, Matthiius, 1.313-14 (Matthew,
1.346-47).
990 I am following Bultmann (History, 67-88), who,
however, does not explicitly deal with Matt 19:21;
and Braun (Radikalismus, 2.43 n. 1). Cf. Luz,
Matthiius, 1.313-14 (Matthew, 1.346-47), who seems
to feel the tension between 5:48, 19:21, and
Matthew's own theology and who observes the

322
 Matthew 5:21-48

meaning. 991 One can conclude that had the young man
followed Jesus' advice, he would no longer Jack anything
as a student but would reach the stage of maturity. He
would obey the Torah adequately and could therefore
expect to be admitted to the eschatological kingdom of
God.
Most important are the passages in the Didache,
influenced as they are by pre-Matthean tradition, 99 2
rather than by the final redaction of Matthew's
Gospel. 993 Did. 1.4 cites the passage about offering also
the other cheek (cf. SM/Matt 5:39//SP /Luke 6:29) and
concludes with the words "and you shall be perfect."
Similarly Did. 6.2: "For if you can bear the whole yoke of
the Lord, you shall be perfect; but if you cannot, do what
you can." The Epistle of James, whose relationship to the
SM has yet to be clarified, does not depend on Matthew's
Gospel but has a fully developed perfection theology
similar to the SM. According to that epistle, the
eschatological goal is announced inJas 1:4: "that you
may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing" (Yva ~u
TfA£Lot Ka~ oA.OKA.7]pot (v p.7]li£v~ A.mrop.wot). The means to
that goal is the "perfect law offreedom" (vop.os TfAnos o
Tijs (A.w8eplas, 1 :25; cf. 3:2). 994
Even Paul, who avoids claiming perfection already
now, 995 nevertheless presupposes that Christians must be
perfect at the last judgment. 996 The will of God
expressed and revealed in the law is "good and
acceptable and perfect" (Rom 7:12; 12:2). Of course,
perfection is implied in the divine agape (see esp. 1 Cor
13:10, 13), that fundamental notion of Paul's the-
ology.997 The divine law, rightly understood, is fulfilled
in the love-commandment, Lev 19:18 (Gal 5: 14; Rom
13:8-10). 998 Here Paul comes very close to the theology
of the SM, as doesJohannine theology. Just as it is for
Paul, for Johannine theology God's agape is revealed and
made perfect in Jesus' crucifixion Qohn 19:28, 30; cf.
4:34; 5:36; 17:4, 23; 1 John 4: 18).Jesus gives to his
disciples a new law, the law oflove Qohn 13:34; 14:15,
21, 31; 15:10, 12, etc.). His disciples must be and are
perfect Qohn 17:23). 999 This train of thought continues
in the Deutero-Pauline epistles. 1000
The concept of perfection, however, differs in its
various New Testament contexts. The SM does not refer
to God's love or to Jesus' sacrificial love in the way
Pauline andJohannine theologies refer to them. In the
SM, God is the example. The disciples addressed in the
SM can become perfect because God is already perfect.
In what way is God perfect? He bestows the benefits of
his creation continuously on the bad and the good and
on the righteous and the unrighteous. He does so, not
because he is motivated by the expectation that the
wicked and the unrighteous will become grateful to him

parallel in Did. 6.2, but who fails to draw the
conclusion that both observations speak in favor of
pre-Matthean redaction.
991 Interesting parallels are 1 Cor 1:7, where Paul notes
the Corinthians' "deficiencies" (see also 1 Cor 16:17;
2 Cor 8:14; 9:12; and Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 68-
69); 1 Cor 3:1, where Paul notes their "immaturity";
and 1 Cor 2:6; 14:20, where he points out their goal
or claim of perfection. See Betz, "Problem of
Rhetoric in the Theology of Paul," esp. 33, 46-47.
992 On the relationship between Matthew and the
Didache, see the Introduction above, pp. 8-9; and
esp. Koster, Synoptische Oberlieferung, 220-26;
Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 16-17, and passim.
993 Luz (Matthiius, 1.313 [Matthew, 1.346)) is unclear on
this point, but he correctly points out the basic
agreement between Matt 19:20-21 and Didache:
"The Didache, which follows in the Matthean
tradition, understands it in the same way: Perfection
means 'to bear the whole yoke of the Lord'" (6.2).
Correct is Wrege (Bergpredigt, 87 n. 5), who refers
also to PolycarpPhi/. 12.3 andjas 1:4 as independent
of Matthew's Gospel.
994 See Dibelius,james, 74-77.
995 See Phil 3: 15; cf. 1 Cor 4:8.
996 See 1 Thess 3: 13; 5:23; 1 Cor I :8; 2 Cor 11:12, etc.
997 On 1 Corinthians 13, see Oda Wischmeyer, Der
hochste Weg: Das 13. Kapitel des 1. Korintherbriefes
(StNT 13; Giitersloh: Mohn, 1981 ). See
furthermore Betz, Galatians, 125-26, 273-74, 276,
287; idem, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 58, 106-9;
Wilson, Love, passim.
998 See above on SM/Matt 5:43b.
999 By contrast, anyone who "sins" and who thereby is
not "perfect" is not of God and never was in the first
place. Cf.John 10:29; 17:12, and explicitly 1 John
3:6, 10; 3John 11.
1000 See Col1:28; 3:14; 4:12; Eph 4:13.

323
and worship him; the assumption is, rather, that God's
enemies will not appreciate his benefits. They will remain
enemies even though he keeps doing good to them. 1 oo 1
His generosity, however, does not provide any
justification for the enmity of his enemies. This is God's
perfection. His treatment of his enemies is not to be
taken as a sign of his weakness, or, indeed, of his
indifference to good and evil among human beings. 100 2
Justice, as God represents it, is above all that, but never
indifferent to it.
The "sons of God" can become perfect, too, by
imitating God in dealing with their own enemies. The
implication, however, is that the Christian must not
sentimentalize the demand. Enemies are real and remain
real, 1003 and love of the enemy does not mean loving
them in order to turn them into friends. Although such
conversion of the enemies is desirable, it cannot be the
motivation and purpose. Rather, without looking for
positive results, the "sons of God" will by their conduct
serve as "salt of the earth" and "light of the world," and
they will do so whether or not they are appreciated
(5:13-16). One must not misunderstand love of the
enemy as a pedagogical device for the improvement of
general morality or civility; 1004 it is simply an exercise of
justice, whether by God or by man or woman. 1 005
The position of the SM here seems much more
rigorous than that of the Didache, for example. The SM
emphasizes the realism and depth of enmity and
demands that one face it without illusions and with
nothing to support it but the strength and perfection of
divine justice. If, despite the generosity and mercy of
God, human beings remain stubbornly hostile, it is their
choice. It is neither God's fault 1006 nor the fault of the
truly righteous. 1007 Perfection, therefore, is basically
identical with righteousness and with the "reward"
{p.tcr86~) for those who follow Jesus faithfully. Loving the
enemy is surely a rough road to travel (cf. 7:13-14), but
it is the road to the greater righteousness required at the

I 00 I Cf. the story of the Healing of the Ten Lepers judgment.

(Luke I7: II-I9) and, for the interpretation, see
Hans Dieter Betz, "The Cleansing of the Ten
Lepers (Luke I7:11-I9)," JBL 90 (I97I) 3I4-28;
reprinted in my Synoptische Studien, 50-67. One may
compare what Dio Chrysostom Or. 74.26 has to say:
"seeing the same sun and being nourished by the
same earth does not enter into the reckoning of any
rogue .... Yet the whole sky, beneath which we all
have been from the beginning, is of no avail toward
producing concord, neither is our partnership in
the universe, a partnership in things divine and
majestic." And 74.27: "in the common father of all,
of 'both men and gods,' he from whom we all have
our being, ... cannot check or prevent the
unrighteousness of men!" (The parallels are from
Mussies, Dio Chrysostom, 42-43.)
I 002 That this could be read in antiquity in quite
different ways is shown by Dio Chrysostom Or.
65.8: "Many charge that Fortune lacks discrimi-
nation and stays with bad persons but neglects the
good." In defense of the goddess, Dio argues that
what appears to be neglect of the good is in truth a
moral test to probe one's stability of character.
(The parallel is from Mussies, Dio Chrysostom, 42.)
In a similar vein, Plutarch's essay On the Delay of
Divine Vengeance attempts to explain the problem;
see Betz et al. in PECL l.I8I-235, esp. I83-84,
I87-88. Given the background of jewish wisdom
Qob!), it is interesting that the SM does not bring in
the theory of the moral test for the righteous at this
point; the reason may be the expectation of the last
I003 So correctly Ratschow, "Agape," esp. I68-69.
I 004 Did. 1.3 justifies the love of enemies by saying "and
(then) you will have no enemy," an explanation
found also in Epictetus (see above, n. 850).
I005 Cf. Rom 5:6-IO, where God is said to have
demonstrated his righteousness (vs I Oa): "While we
were enemies we became reconciled with God."
I 006 Attention should be called at this point to the
ancient Orphic saying that states the connection
between divine perfection and faultlessness: alrla
~ll.op.tvov· BEos O.valrtos ("The blame is his who
chooses; God is blameless"). The saying is quoted by
Plato (Rep. IO, 6I7e), when he explains the soul's
primordial choice of life roles. In early Christian
literature, the saying is quoted by Justin Apol.
I.44.8; Clement Alex. Strom. I.I, p. 427 (PG
8.692A); cf. Ps.-Clem. Hom. 4.9.I-2; 8.9-Il. See
PECL l.I82 and Hans Dieter Betz, "The Problem
of Apocalyptic Genre in Greek and Hellenistic
Literature: The Case of the Oracle of Trophonius,"
in David Hellholm, ed., Apocalypticism in the
Mediterranean World and the Near East (Tubingen:
Mohr [Siebeck], I983) 577-97, esp. 588; reprinted
in Betz, Hellenismus und Urchristentum, I96-97.
I007 On this point see Did. 1.3, in the same context: "and
(then) you will not have an enemy" (Kal ovx ~!ErE
lxBpov); 1.5: "he will be innocent" (ltB/!>os lrrrat). See
furthermore 1 Clem. 49.I-2 and the great
intercessory prayer, 59.3-61.3; 2 Clem. IO.I-5;
HermasMan. I; 2.I-7.

324

last judgment (5:20). The concluding maxim in 5:48 thus
applies not only to the sixth antithesis but to all of the
antitheses, 1008 and indeed to the whole of the SM.
Consequently, obedience to the Torah, the teaching of
Jesus, and the imitation of God do not contradict one
another. These concepts are all part of the same
doctrine. Indeed, the SM corresponds remarkably well
also to the double commandment of love of God and love
of neighbor, 1009 or what is called in philosophy the
"Canon of the Two Virtues." 1010 Love toward God is not
a major concern in the SM, but it is certainly stated
explicitly in the saying about God and Mammon (6:24),
and it is implied elsewhere as well.1011
Though Jewish in theology, these ideas of the SM are
not at all incompatible with Hellenistic thought.
Pertinent examples for comparison are provided by Dio
Chrysostom. 10 l2 In his first oration "On Kingship," Dio
points to the model of Zeus, who not only is called
"Father and King" (7TaT~P KaL ,BautA.n)s), 1013 but who has
other epithets as well expressing his "dominion and
power" (apx~ KaL avvaJJ.tS ). I 014 Among these is Philios and
Hetaireios, the "'Lord of Friends and Comrades' because
he brings all men together and wills that they be friendly
1008 SorightlyDietzfelbinger, "Antithesen," 13;
Guelich, Sermon, 255; Strecker, "Antithesen," 68;
idem, Bergpredigt, 98 (Sermon, 94); Luz, Matthiius,
1.312 (Matthew, 1.347).
1009 See Mark 12:28-34 par., and the contributions by
Bomkamm, Burchard, Fuller, Furnish, Nissen,
Piper (see the bibliography preceding the section
SM/Matt 5:43-48).
1010 See the important study of Albrecht Dihle, Der
Kanan der zwei Tugenden (Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur
Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen,
Geisteswissenschaften, vol. 144; Koln and Opladen:
Westdeutscher Verlag, 1968).
1011 See SM/Matt 6:9, 14, 21; 7:11.
1012 For the following parallels I am indebted to
Mussies, Dio Chrysostom, 42.
1013 Dio Chrysostom Or. 1.39. The text and translation
of Dio Chrysostom follows the LCL edition by J. W.
Cohoon and H. Lamar Crosby (5 vols.; London:
Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni-
versity, 1961-1985).
1014 Ibid., 40.
1015 Ibid.: t/JtAIOS lit- Kat 'Eratp<los, llrt 1T&.vras av8pw1TOVS
~vv&.y .. Kat fJoVA<rat <tvat aAA~AOIS .pi>..ovs, <x8phv lit
~ 1TOAtp.tov p.TJIItva p.1Ja<v6s. For the same text, see
Dio Chrysostom Or. 12.75-76; see also 77 and 78.
For further references, see LSJ, s.v . .pi>..tos, 1.2;
Matthew 5:21-48
to one another and never enemy or foe." 1015 Zeus's
example should be followed by the good king 1016 and by
everyone. As Dio sees it, divinely inspired friendship
stands in stark contrast to hatred, 1017 a deep and evil
emotion stemming from greed and violence, 1018 and
usually harbored by weak and fearful natures. 1019 Thus
ethically it is "not so disgraceful to prove inferior in
actions prompted by hatred and, by Heaven, in those
which provoke enmity as it is in those which are inspired
by a spirit of moderation and benevolence. For while he
who is overcome in the one is likely to gain a reputation
for mere weakness, in the other it will be for boorishness
and contentiousness.•I020
I conclude, then, that this concept of the imitation of
God 102l underlies not only vs 48 but the whole of the
SM. Evidence, though largely implied, resides in the
Beatitudes (5:3-12), the Lord's Prayer (6:12, 14-15),
and the frequent references to the heavenly Father and
his sons. 1022 These ideas are not originally Christian but
come from Jewish theology.I 023
Hans Schwab!, "Zeus I. Epiklesen," PW, 2d series
19th half-volume (1972) 371; Betz, Essays, 120-21.
1016 Dio Chrysostom Or. 1.35: "whose (life) is happier
than his who esteems no man as enemy?"
1017 Ibid., 46.1.
1018 Ibid., 38.31.
1019 Ibid., 4.15; 38.31.
1020 Ibid., 40.24.
1021 For this concept and the bibliography up to c. 1966,
see Betz, Nachfolge, esp. 141-42. For later studies,
see ThWNT 10/2 (1979) 1177-78; Edvin Larsson,
EWNT (EDNT) 2, s.v. p.tp.top.at KTA.; Luz, Matthiius,
1.312 n. 51 (Matthew, 1.345 n. 51); Henri Crouzel,
"L'imitation et Ia 'suite' de Dieu et du Christ dans
les premieres siecles chretiens, ainsi que leurs
sources greco-romaines et hebralques," JAC 21
(1978) 7-41, esp. 18-19. Special studies are those
by Jacques Dupont, "L'appel a imiter Dieu en
Matthieu 5,48 et Luc 6,36," Rivista Biblica 14
(1966) 137-58, reprinted in his Etudes, 2.529-50;
R. Thysman, "L'ethique de !'imitation du Christ
dans le Nouveau Testament: Situations, notations
et variations du theme," ETL 42 (1966) 138-75.
1022 See SM/Matt 5:16,45, 48; 6:1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15,
18, 26, 32; 7:11, 21.
1023 For the imitation of God in judaism, see Hans
Kosmala, "Nachfolge und Nachahmung Gottes, II.
325
 One must consider a further problem at this point. Is
one to conclude from the preceding comments that
God's generosity does not extend to Gentiles outside the
Torah covenant? Such a conclusion appears to be
justified in the light of the episode at the last judgment
(7:21-23); 10 2 4 yet it would be in error. One must
remember that for the SM obeying God's Torah is not
identical with obeying just any interpretation. One can
achieve true obedience only through Jesus' inter-
pretation of the Torah as set forth in the SM. Since this
interpretation has its center in the love-command, the
question arises: Does not obedience to the love-command
suffice, whether performed with or without the Jewish
Torah? Is it necessary for Gentiles to become Jews in
order to be saved? Why can they not be faithful to the
love-command and so fulfill Jesus' demand while still
remaining Gentiles? Why should their remaining
Gentiles constitute "lawlessness" (7:23)? Once one raises
such questions, one can easily see what Paul's answer
would have been. But what would be the answer of the
SM?
If, as I propose, the SM was conceived for Jewish
Christians, one should not automatically exclude other
ways of doing justice to God's will. The SM itself has
indications that alternatives for other Christians were
known to the author(s) of the SM and that these
alternatives were not condemned outright even if ruled
out for the readers addressed. 1025 What Gentile
Christians are criticized for in 7:21-23 is self-delusion
concerning "religious experiences" as substitutes for
obedience to God's will, not for the fact that the
unsuccessful petitioners are Gentiles. 1026 Moreover, in
his exhortations Paul is constantly worried about such
misunderstanding, apparently typical where Christian
Gentiles were concerned.I 0 27
If God sends sunshine and rain on the righteous as well
as on the unrighteous, why should salvation be denied
those who are born Gentiles? "Is God the god of Jews
only? Not also of Gentiles? Certainly also of Gentiles!"
(Rom 3:29). One can see how and why Paul developed
his theology of justification by faith in Christ. In the
beginning, at least, this doctrine was pre-Pauline and was
shared-perhaps in different forms-by other branches
of the early church. 1 028 Paul himself assumes in his letter
to the Romans that that church, although not founded
by him, nevertheless basically agrees with him on this
point. His way of putting the matter might be new to
them, but the doctrine per se is not. For the same reason,
it may not be accidental that it is in Romans that Paul
refers to traditions similar to those of the SM (Rom
12:9-21; 13:8-10).
Where, then, are the differences between the SM and
Paul? The SM does not share Paul's concept of "works of
law" (~pya roil v&p.ov) as typical of Jewish Torah
observance. 1029 But even the SM rejects Torah
observance that is based on "literal" misunderstanding,
mere formalism, ostentatiousness, hypocrisy, and so on,
while both the SM and Paul agree that true obedience to
the Torah must be guided by the love-command and the
imitation of God (or, respectively, Christ). Paul's concept
of "works ofthe law" is, therefore, not directed against
all practical meeting of demands; polemical as it is, his
concept may react negatively to what he himself once
believed as a Pharisee; one should remember, in this
respect, that the SM, too, is opposed to Pharisaism
(5:20). The real difference, then, does not lie here but
rather in christology and soteriology.
Whether one be Jew or Gentile, for Paul the
righteousness demanded in the last judgment must come
from a source other than human effort. Because of the

Im jiidischen Den ken," in his Studies, Essays, and 1026 In fact, they are not called "Gentiles" (£6vtKoi).
Reviews(2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 2.186-231; Those who are called by that name are at any rate
Otto Merk, "Nachahmung Christi," in Neues non-Christians, "pagans" (SM/Matt 5:47; 6:7).
Testament und Ethik: FS fur RudolfSchnackenburg 1027 SeealsoBetz,Essays, 154-57.
(Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1989) 172- 1028 For further material concerning this point see Betz,
206 (with bibliography); Hermann L. Strack and Galatians, 116 n. 35.
Gunter Sternberger, Introduction to the Talmud and 1029 See Gal2:15-16 and Betz, Galatians, 116 n. 35.
Mid rash (trans. Markus Bockmuehl; Minneapolis:
Fortress; Edinburgh: Clark, 1991) 9-16.
1024 For the interpretation of this section, see below on
SM/Matt 7:21-23.
1025 See above on 5:19, and below on 7:21-23.

326
 Matthew 5:21-48

depth of human sinfulness, which wipes out differences
between Jews and Gentiles, no human effort will ever
suffice. 1030 To think otherwise leads only to self-
delusion.1031 Therefore, God has provided a way out
through salvation in Christ. 1032 Christ's sacrificial death
on the cross has compensated for the sins of those who
believe in him and who follow his example in their daily
lives. 1033 They will be acceptable to God in the last
judgment because of the love of Christ, who is their
righteousness. 1034
Judging from 7:21-23, the SM reacted to Gentile-
Christian doctrines of salvation with a good deal of
skepticism, if not rejection. Did such reaction amount to
a denial of salvation to Christian Gentiles altogether? Or
did it imply the suspicion that "cheap grace" -to use
Bonhoeffer's phrase-leads Christian Gentiles into self-
delusion? "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your
name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many
wonders in your name?" These words of disappointment,
bewilderment, and despair reveal that these Christians
built their houses on sand (cf. 7:24-27). How could these
Christians believe that they would get away from
"lawlessness"?
Although this picture is imaginary and born of satire,
we know from Paul's letters that he seemed constantly
plagued by just this threat. Indeed, it is the Achilles' heel
of his theology, and he knew it. Just as surely, Paul's
opponents knew it, too. It must have been for this
reason, therefore, that the anti-Pauline opponents
presupposed in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans
demanded that Gentile Christians be circumcised and
submit to the Torah observances.
How would Paul react to the theology of the SM?
Would he question that the way of the SM could lead to
the righteousness required in the lastjudgment? 1035 He
would certainly doubt that one can master the "rough
road" and the "narrow gate" without the help of the Holy
Spirit. What will supposedly happen to those disciples
who, in spite of their goodwill and effort, "cannot do
it?" 1036 The SM takes recourse in the Lord's Prayer,
with its promise offorgiveness (6: 12, 14-15), but one
does not need the SM to know this, as it was always part
of Jewish religion.
Equal problems are posed by the SP and its concept of
the imitation of God's mercy as leading to "reward"
(p.ur8os). 1037 What will happen to the disciple who fails?
Is the warning of the great downfall (Matt 7:24-27 par.)
all that the SM has to offer? Since additional resources
may be available to the community of the disciples that
the SM or the SP does not mention, we have no way of
fully knowing. It seems clear, however, that neither the
SM nor the SP acknowledges any need of supplemen-
tation as far as their theologies are concerned. In
addition, the Didache indicates that the problem was a
real one 1038 and that other solutions had to be found.
Didache 1-6, where failure is admitted, was sup-
plemented by additional rituals and doctrines providing
further resources. Paul undeniably stands out, however,
because his christology and soteriology clearly "solve" the
problem; and once he had established from which source
salvation comes, he could then take over ethical
teachings similar to the SM without reservation.
In a similar manner the evangelists Matthew and Luke
incorporated the SM and the SP into their Gospels and
thereby "corrected" whatever they might have judged
insufficient in these sources. For Matthew, Christian
salvation is assured through Christ's present rule as
cosmocrator and future judge at the last judgment.
Matthew's Gospel makes no further use of the doctrine
of the imitation of God or, for that matter, of the

1030 See esp. Rom 1:18-3:20. 1037 See below ofSP /Luke 6:35.
1031 For Paul's own example see Gall :13-14; Phil3:6- 1038 See the final exhortation in Didache 1-6: "For if
7. you can bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will
1032 See Rom 3:21-31; 4:1-11:36. be perfect; but if you cannot, do what you can" (6.2;
1033 See Rom 1:4; 5:1-8:39. See also Betz, Galatians, cf. 6.3; 1.4; Hermas Man. 4.3-4). Hermas solves the
on Gal1:4; 2:19-20; 3:13; 4:4-6; 5:1, 13. problem by offering the possibility of a second
1034 See esp. 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:17-20; Phil3:9; Rom repentance.
1:16-17; 10:4.
1035 Would Paul call it "trust in the flesh" (Phil 3:3-4;
Rom 2:19)?
1036 Cf. Acts 15:10. For the history of interpretation,
see Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 298.

327
antitheses. The Christians of the Matthean church keep
Christ's commandments, which include not only the
teachings of the SM but also all the other church
regulations, rituals, and doctrines in the Gospel (28: 18-
20). In other words, Matthew recognizes the foun-
dational importance of the SM, but by his theology he
has both historicized and relativized it.

328
 Matthew 6:1-18

ChapterV
6 Translation The Cultic Instruction
1 Be on guard with respect to your righteous-
ness, not to act before people for the
purpose of being seen by them; if you fail
in this, you do not have a reward in the
sight of your Father who is in the
heavens.
2 Whenever, therefore, you give alms, do not
sound a trumpet before you, as the
hypocrites do in the synagogues and in
the streets, in order that they may be
glorified by the people. Truly, I say to you,
they have (received) their reward (in full).
3 But as you give alms, do not let your left
(hand) know what your right (hand) is
doing,
4 So that your almsgiving may remain
hidden; and your Father who sees what is
hidden will compensate you.
5 And when you pray, do not be like the
hypocrites, for they love (it) when in the
synagogues and on the street corners
they stand (in position) to pray, in order
that they may show themselves to the
people. Truly, I say to you, they have
(received) their reward (in full).
6 But you, when you pray, go into your
chamber and shut the door and pray to
your Father who is hidden; and your
Father who sees what is hidden will
compensate you.
7 And as you pray, you shall not babble like
the pagans; for they think that by their
verbosity they will be heard.
8 Therefore, do not become like them; for
your Father knows what you need before
youaskhim.
9 Therefore, you (shall) pray in this way:
Our Father who is in the heavens,
Sanctified be your name,
10 Let your kingdom come,
Let your will be done, as in heaven so
also on earth.
11 Our bread that we need, give us today.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we also
forgive [or: have forgiven] our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but
deliver us from (the) evil (one).
14 For if you forgive people their trans-
gressions,
so will your heavenly Father also forgive
you.
15 If, however, you do not forgive people,
so will your Father also not forgive your
transgressions.
16 But when you fast, do not behave like the
hypocrites (do) with their sullen look. For
they disfigure their faces, in order to
appear to people as those who are
fasting. Truly, I say to you, they have
(received) their reward (in full).

329
 17 But when you fast, anoint your head and
wash your face,
18 So that you may not appear to people as
one who is fasting but to your Father who
is hidden.
Bibliography
James Barr, "The Hebrew/Aramaic Background of
'Hypocrisy' in the Gospels," in Philip R. Davies and
RichardT. White, eds., A Tribute to Geza Vermes:
Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History
OSNTSup 100; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1990) 307-26.
Hans Dieter Betz, "A Jewish-Christian Cultic Didache in
Matt 6:1-18," in Betz, Essays, 55-69.
Christian Dietzfelbinger, "Die Frommigkeitsregeln von
Mt 6, 1-18 als Zeugnisse friihchristlicher
Geschichte," ZNW 75 (1984) 184-201.
Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.159--63; 3.260-72.
Asher Finkel, "The Prayer ofJesus in Matthew," in
Asher Finkel and Lawrence Frizzel, eds., Standing
before God: Studies on Prayer in Scriptures and in
Tradition with Essays in Honor ofJohn M. Oesterreicher
(New York: KTAV, 1981) 131-69.
Augustin George, "La justice a faire dans le secret
(Matthieu 6,1-6.16-18)," Bib 40 (1959) 590-98.
Birger Gerhardsson, "Geistiger Opferdienst nach
Matth 6,1-6.16-21 ,"in Neues Testament und
Geschichte: FS fur Oscar Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag
(Zurich: Theologischer Verlag; Tiibingen: Mohr
[Siebeck ], 1972) 69-77.
Joseph Heinemann, "Private and Non-Statutory
Prayers," in his Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and
Patterns (SJ 9; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter,
1977) 156-92.
P.J. Maartens, "The Cola Structure of Matthew 6,"
Neat. 11 (1977) 48-76.
Klaus Pantle-Schieber, "Anmerkungen zur Aus-
einandersetzung von EKKA7Jcria undJudentum im
Matthausevangelium," ZNW 89 (1989) 145-62.
Dan 0. Via, "The Gospel of Matthew: Hypocrisy as
Self-Deception," SBLSP (1988), 508-16.
Ulrich Wilckens, Alois Kehl, and Karl Hoheisel,
"Heuchelei," RAG 14 ( 1988) 1205-31.
1. Introduction
For the composition of the second main part (SM/Matt
6: 1-18), 1 the author of the SM has apparently taken
over and integrated texts already in existence. As the
analysis reveals, this part has two sections, both of them
highly structured and based on similar but not identical
For the overall composition see the Introduction, pp.
44-66.
2 See Bultmann, History, 133 n. 1, who rejects Albertz's
330
theological ideas. Thus, these sections have their own
distinctive characteristics. The first section comprises the
portions dealing with almsgiving, prayer, and fasting
(6:1-6, 16-18); this first section originally constituted a
unit by itself. The second section (6:7-15) also deals with
prayer and is intercalated into the first; it contains
material even older than itself: the Lord's Prayer (6:9b-
13) and a rule of religious law pertaining to the
forgiveness of sins (6: 14-15 ).
Scholars today have a high degree of consensus about
the nature and composition of the entire section 6:1-18,
but they still debate the questions about literary genre
and function, authorship, and theology.
a. Literary Genre and Function
Anticipating the result of my analysis I can say that a
lengthy passage so masterfully composed down to the
smallest details presupposes a written source (Vorlage) or,
perhaps, two such sources. These older sources were
carefully combined, one being inserted into the other,
according to an overarching plan. At the beginning of
the development, however, we must imagine oral
performance. The Lord's Prayer, as a piece ofliturgical
material, is certainly oral in nature, and so is the.
generally didactic character of the context. If one takes
these considerations seriously, this is one of the most
ancient literary formations of the gospel tradition, the
oldest part being the Lord's Prayer, which, as we shall
see, occupies the place in the center of the architecture
of the SM.
Calling the section 6:1-18, as I have done, a "cultic
did ache," or ritual instruction, requires justification.
Notably, other scholars prefer other classifications, 2 but
the genre of cultic didache can be defended on the
following grounds. 3
1. In form and content the section consists of
instruction for the proper performance of three ritual
acts: almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. These instructions
must be related to larger bodies of cultic literature: on
category of "didactic poem" and stresses the
compositional character as "church catechism."
Elsewhere, Bultmann speaks of "rules of piety"
 Matthew6:1-18

the one hand to cultic law, and on the other hand to
descriptions of cultic,practices. Cultic law in antiquity
sets forth regulations for calendars, feasts, rituals of all
kinds, lists of officials, and so on, 4 while descriptions
assume a position of critical distance when they report
about particular religious practices of some people or
cultic community. Cultic instruction, therefore,
presupposes some form of critical evaluation of
traditional or current practices, taking a position of
distance from them and engaging in reflection about
them. 5 At the same time proposals are stated for doing
things correctly and properly. Consequently, cultic
instruction is the kind of thing one expects from religious
"reformers." Its aim is to make a distinction between
proper and improper performances, and to recommend
ways of doing them in the right form. Cultic duties, after
all, can fulfill their purpose only if they are rendered in
the appropriate way. 6
2. The evangelist Matthew calls the SM l>&l>ax~
(didache, "teaching") in 7:28, referring thereby also to the
body of text under discussion. 7
3. The Didache, a document closely associated with the
SM, carries the genre classification already in its title. 8
The same title was probably attached to the Greek
source (Vorlage) of the Doctrina apostolorum. The term
l>&l>arrKaA.la ("teaching"), commonly designating
catechetical material, is also related. 9
Before I turn to a closer examination of the text itself,
some preliminary considerations about the wider
religious context may be in order. Presenting cultic
instruction was no ordinary matter in antiquity. Anyone
who formulated such instruction must have been
engaged in critical thinking of a theological nature. The
basic question for such thinking must have been the

(Friimmigkeitsregeln), a name also used by Dietz-
felbinger (see bibliography). See also Betz, Essays, 57
n. 8; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 100 n. 1 (Sermon, 207 n.
1); Luz, Matthi:lus, 1.322-23 (Matthew, 1.355-56);
Gnilka,Matthi:lus, 1.201 n. 4, 207, 210,212,234.
3 For a different type of cultic instruction see 2 Cor
6:14-7:1; and on this passage Betz, Galatians,
appendix 2, with bibliography.
4 In general see Sigmund Mowinckel, "Kultus," RGG 3
(3d ed. 1960) 122 (sections 5-6); Widengren,
Religionsphanomenologie, 474-93; for the OT and
Judaism see Klaus Koch,Jehoshua Amir, and Gunter
Klein, "Gesetz I-III," TRE 13 (1984) 40-75; Bernd-
Jorg Diebner, "Gottesdienst II," TRE 14 (1985) 5-
28; Schurer, History, 2.237-487; 3/1.381-420 (on
Qumran), all with comprehensive bibliographies. For
Greek religion see Ioannes de Prott and Ludovicus
Ziehen, Leges Graecorum sacrae e titulis collectae (2 vols.;
Lipsiae: Teubner, 1896, 1906); Franciszek
Sokolowski, Lois sacries de l'Asie Mineure (Ecole
fran~aise d' Athenes: Travaux et memoires 9; Paris:
Boccard, 1955); idem, Lois sacrees des cites grecques
(Ecole fran~aise d'Athenes: Travaux et memoires 18;
2d ed.; Paris: Boccard, 1969); Friedrich Pfister,
"Kultus," PW 10/2 (1922) 2118-25; Paul Stengel,
Die griechischen Kultusaltertilmer (HKAW 5.3; 3d ed.;
Munich: Beck, 1920); Nock, Essays, 2.847-52;
Nilsson, GGR, 2.67-82, 372-74; Burkert, Religion,
246-50; Versnel, Faith, Hope, passim.
5 This investigative activity was typical of the Greeks;
see Alois Tresp, Die Fragmente der griechischen
Kultschriftsteller (RVV 15.1; GieBen: Topelmann,
1914); Nilsson, GGR, 2.51-61, 102.
6 The technical term in Greek was 8E07rpE7r~~,
8Eo7rpE7rWS ("appropriate for the deity"). The SM does
not use this term, but the church fathers rightly apply
it to the Lord's Prayer (Clement Alex. Strom. 7.2.1
[GCS 17.3, p. 3] and often; Origen De orat. 2.1 [GCS
3.2.2, pp. 298, 23-299, 3]). On the whole subject see
Oskar Dreyer, Der Begriff des Gottgeziemenden in der
Antike. Mit besonderer Berilcksichtigung Philons von
Alexandrien (Spudasmata 24; Hildesheim and New
York: Olms, 1970); Wilhelm Gessel, Die Theologie des
Gebetes nach "De Oratione" von Origenes (Munich,
Paderborn, and Vienna: Schoningh, 197 5) 28-29,
128-48.
7 See also a.M<r«EIV ("teach") with reference to the SM
in SM/Matt 5:19, and the Matthean frame 5:2;
7:28-29; also 4:23; 9:35; 11:1; 13:54; 21:23; 22:16;
26:55.
8 Didache, titulus; 1.3; 2.1; 6.1; 11.2. See BAGD, s.v.
a,lJax~, with further references.
9 Apostolic Constitutions, titulus; part of the tradition of
the Apostolic Constitutions comes from the Didache. See
BAGD, PGL, s. v. lJ&aauKa)l.{a, with references.
331
notion of what is "acceptable to God" (d!7rp&uli£KTOV T{il
8£{il). 10 One should realize that ancient people were,
much more than we are, concerned about the ways in
which to approach the deity in the appropriate
manner. 11 Approaching the deity required particular
conditions such as a state of purity, external as well as
internal. Other important dispositions were indicated by
terms like "devout" (dJA.a~~s), I2 "well pleasing"
(€v~pt:uTos), 13 "acceptable" (€v7rp&ulit:KTos), and, foremost,
"religious" (t:vut:~~s). 14 Such dispositions or attitudes
should be the result of "awe" (cp&~os), "reverence"
(£vA.~~t:ta, ~:vui~na), 15 and "gratitude" (~:vxaptuTla). 16
Religious performances of rituals do not automatically
conform to these requirements. There can be wrong
rituals, wrongly performed right rituals, and inap-
propriate persons acting in performances. Faced with
experiences of abuse, conscientious people ask
themselves whether what is being done and accepted as
proper genuinely conforms with the ideas that originally
motivated the institutions of the cult by the ancestors or
even the deity. Here the requirement to follow the
"traditions of the forefathers" has its origin. 1 7 This
requirement is not interested so much in tradition for its
own sake, but whether what is being performed fulfills
the demand of "righteousness" (litKatou!'!v7J) ritually,
legally, ethically, and cosmologically. Ancient people
were aware that religious practices are not necessarily in
conformity with law and ethics. One may say that ritual
originally had little connection with law or ethics. Only
gradually and under the scrutiny of theologians and
philosophers were rituals subjected to the criteria of law
and morality. 18 If these considerations were true of all of
antiquity, they were even more important for the
religion of judaism, from which the SM also originated.
In particular, Hellenistic judaism proved highly sensitive
to these issues. Indeed, most of the literature of Philo,
the Qumran community, or the regulations of Mishnah
and Talmud have these issues as their basic concerns.
The same must be said of early Christian literature,
although the answers given here are different.
Given this wider perspective, one can now understand
the initial exhortation in 6: 1a, "Be on guard concerning
your righteousness" (7rpOITEXfTf T~V litKatou!'JV7JV vp.wv).
Contrary to what is often assumed, however, the subject
matter of the section 6: 1-18 is not simply "righteous-
ness" but the relation of that righteousness to specific
cultic duties of the pious jew. The exhortation calls
attention to the fact that one can perform the rituals
contrary to righteousness. Indeed, conventional
performance cannot ordinarily qualify as righteousness
and has therefore no value in the sight of God. 19 For the
sake of integrity, however, religious rituals must conform
to righteousness, and both must be in harmony. If God
represents righteousness, and if righteousness is

10 Cf. Rom 15:16, 31; 1 Pet 2:5; 1 Clem. 35.5; 40.3;
Hermas Man. 10.3.1; etc. See BAGD s.v.
Elnrp&ua£Kros, 1rpoulJ£KT&s.
11 Cf. the term 7rpouaywy~ ("access," "approach") in
Rom 5:2; Eph 2:18; 3:12.
12 See, e.g., in the NT Luke 2:25; Acts 2:5; 8:2; 22:12;
Heb 5:7.
13 See Rom 12:1-2; 14:18; Phil4:18; Heb 11:5, 6;
12:28; 13:16, 21; etc.
14 See Acts 17:23; 1 Tim 2:2, and often in the Pastoral
Epistles.
15 On this notion see Dieter Kaufmann-Biihler,
"Eusebeia," RAG 6 (1966) 985-1052; Versnel, Faith,
Hope, 245-62; Burkert, Religion, 272-75, 337;
BAGD, s.v. <vutf3••a.
16 See the material and bibliography in Peter Krafft,
"Gratus animus (Dankbarkeit)," RAG 12 (1987) 732-
52; also Versnel, Faith, Hope, 42-62, 72, 209.
17 The Greek technical term is Kara .,.arp•a ("in
accordance with ancestry"). For references see LSJ,
s.v. .,.arp•o~, II; Pfister, PW 10.2 (1922) 2122-23. A
reformist position views it negatively, and this is true
of the Christian opposition against "the traditions of
the elders"(~ 7rapaaou•~ rwv 7rp<uf3vrtpwv [Mark 7:3,
5, 8, 9, 13 par.]) or "the ancestral traditions" (a!
7rarptKat7rapaa&um [Gal1:14; cf. Col2:8]). Cf. also
Acts 15:5; 18:13, 15; 21:10, 24, 28; 22:3, 12; etc.
See also Albert I. Baumgarten, "The Pharisaic
Paradosis," HTR 80 (1987) 63-77.
18 See Nilsson, GGR, 2.275-77: "Die religiose Moral";
Burkert, Religion, 247-50.
19 The section SM/Matt 6:1-18 contains satirical
polemics against "conventional" religious practices
attributed to the typical conduct of "hypocrites" (or
"playactors" [v7roKptral]) or "the heathen" (o1 ~OvtKoi
[6:7]). Thus by way of syncrisis the SM contrasts two
types of piety within Judaism: the "sincere" Jew and
the "insincere" Jew (who of course remains a Jew); for
these concepts see below on 6:4. This syncrisis has
parallels elsewhere in Judaism (cf. the contrasts of
good and bad disciples in Pirqe 'Abot, passim, and also
in SP /Luke 6:20b-24). There is also a relationship
between these juxtapositions of persons with that of
the "antitheses" in SM/Matt 5:21-48. The antitheses

332
 Matthew 6:1-18

demanded of all people, people's religious activities must
be accountable to the standard as well. 2o
The SM is most determined at this point. Special
attention must be given to the question of righteousness
because without it all religion is improper, the product of
degeneration and superstition, if not blasphemy.
Paradoxically, religious activities performed as a matter
of course or without awareness of their inherent dangers
are the greatest source of offense against God. They will
certainly evoke God's wrath.
As I have described it, cultic instruction represents a
secondary development. It stands in contrast and
opposition to an unquestioned handing down of
tradition. Instruction furthermore presupposes an
awareness of alternative options and changes in the
traditions. The need to select, reject, and modify goes
hand in hand with the quest for criteria to be applied in
these operations. For these reasons one can assume that
extant texts relating cultic material are the result of long
processes of critical examination of such materials and
that what has been written down is not by any means
final but only a way station in the liturgical life.
In Greek religion and philosophy cultic instruction
seems to have played a significant role. Regarding Greek
religious thought, the so-called Delphic piety, expressed
in short stories, is a good example. Among these stories
are those about who is the happiest, the wealthiest, and
also the most pious among people. 21 The stories about
true piety involve, for instance, a wealthy man who came
from Magnesia to Delphi and, after offering a hecatomb,
asked the oracle, "Who is the one who honors the god
best and whose offerings are most acceptable to him?"
Expecting that he would be the one, he was surprised to
learn that the Pythia had named one (completely
unknown) Clearchus from Arcadia. When the rich man
went to Arcadia to find the man, he came upon a simple
peasant in a small village who at the appointed times
celebrated the festivals and offered from the fruits of his
fields. The man did not even sacrifice animals, but
performed the ordinary religious duties in the most
simple and unpretentious ways. 22
The message is clear: The god Apollo prefers the
honest and simple gift of the little man or woman and

contrast types of interpretation of law and Scripture
as well as types of religious and moral behavior. On
the general background see the Introduction to the
section on the antitheses above; also B. A. van
Groningen, De Antithese als Griekse denkvorm
(Mededelingen van Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie
voor W etenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten
van Belgie, Klasse der Letteren, Jaargang 15, no. 1,
1953); Hanns-Dieter Voigtlander, Der Philosoph und
die Vie len: Die Bedeutung des Gegensatzes der unphilo-
sophischen Menge zu den Philosophen (und das Problem
des argumentum e consensu omnium) im philosophischen
Denken der Griechen his auf Aristoteles (Wiesbaden:
Steiner, 1980).
20 Cf. the definition of pietas ("piety") in Cicero De nat.
deor. 1.115: "Piety is justice towards the gods" ("Est
enim pietas iustitia adversus deos"). In religious
literature especially, the terms llutor ("pious") and
olKator ("righteous") are frequently associated. For
references see BAGD, s.v., llutor, ouuSr71r; Burkert,
Religion, 268-71; Versnel, Faith, Hope, 12, 188.
21 For the Delphic concerns about religion see esp.
Xenophon Mem. 1.3.1, where the Pythia answers
questions such as "What is my duty about sacrifice?"
On the whole matter see Rudolf Herzog, "Das
delphische Orakel als ethischer Preisrichter," in Ernst
Horneffer, Der junge Platon (GieBen: Topelmann,
1922) 149-70; Fritz Wehrli, AA0E BlfU::Al:: Studien
zur iiltesten Ethik bei den Griechen (Leipzig and Berlin:
Teubner, 1931) 30-60; Wolfgang Schadewalt, "Der
Gott von Delphi und die Humanitatsidee," in his
Hellas und Hesperien (2 vols.; 2d ed.; Zurich and
Stuttgart: Artemis, 1970) 1.669-85; Rudiger
Vischer, Das einfache Leben: Wort- und motiv-
geschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Wertbegriff der
antiken Literatur (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1965) 38-44 and passim; Jean Defradas,
Les themes de la propagande delphique (Etudes et
commentaires 21; Paris: Klincksieck, 1954) 268-83.
22 The story comes in different versions, three of them
from Porphyry De abst. 2.15-17. See jacob Bernays,
Theophrastos' Schrift ilber die Frommigkeit. Mit kritischen
und erkliirenden Bemerkungen zu Porphyrios' Schrift ilber
die Enthaltsamkeit (Berlin: Hertz, 1866; reprinted
Hildesheim: Olms, 1979) 67 -79; Wehrli, AA0E
Bli1l:Al:, 46-60; William Fortenbaugh, Quellen zur
Ethik Theophrasts (Studien zur antiken Philosophie
12; Amsterdam: Gruner, 1984) 54-62,262-74.

333
shows disdain for the extravagant and ostentatious
hecatombs of the wealthy and the mighty. The god
approves of the loyal performance of the ancestral rites
the year round, as they are due to be performed in the
home and the village. The god is pleased by the true
piety of the heart, while the attempts to bribe him by
expensive gifts only makes him angry. Ideas about true
religion such as these were widely held, even by moralists
and philosophers; among the latter are Xenophon, 2 3
Plato, 24 and !socrates. !socrates sums up this doctrine in
Ad Nicoclem 20: "In the worship of the gods, follow the
example of your ancestors, but believe that the noblest
sacrifice and the greatest devotion is to show yourself in
the highest degree a good and just man; for such men
have greater hope of enjoying a blessing from the gods
than those who slaughter many victims. " 25
The process of examining religious practices by
philosophers began before Plato and certainly included
Pythagoras. The search for the proper performance of
the rituals was guided by theological as well as ethical
notions, among them especially the notion of "righteous-
ness" (BtKawcrvv7J). The aim was always to formulate
criteria for what could pass as "the appropriate worship
of the gods" (~ 1rphs Toils 8t:ovs t:vcr£{3Ha). 26 The
philosophical schools developed definitions stipulating
that "righteousness" 27 must be the foundation of all
worship of the gods, if it is to steer a middle course
between atheism and superstition. 28 These ideas are also
related to the nature of the deity itself. 29 Philosophers
such as Theophrastus 30 and Philodemus 31 wrote highly
influential works "On Piety" (7rt:p\. t:vcrt:fJt:las), which have
come down to us only in fragments but which had a
lasting impact at their time not only on Greek religion 3 2
but even on Judaism, Hellenistic Judaism in particular. 33
Their major concerns, therefore, have parallels also in
the SM, a fact that after all the connections that have
been pointed out above cannot be a surprise:
1. The problematical relationship between ritual
performance and ethical action, pertaining also to the
notions of "righteousness" (BtKatocrvv7J) and law (vop.os).
2. The problem of forming an intelligent, cultured,
and ethically responsible conduct on the part of religious
practitioners. This conduct involves external behavior as
well as internal disposition.
3. The problem of forming appropriate notions about
the deity. Accordingly, proper worship depends on the

23 Xenophon Mem. 1.3.1.
24 Plato Euthyphr. 14d; Leg. 4, 716d; 10, 906d; Ps.-Plato
Ale. min. 2.149. For further references, see Wehrli,
AA0E BHl:I:A:I:, 53-55.
25 Ttr.""fv 7rphs TOiYs 6Eohs 1roln JJ.fV Ws or 7Tp6yovoL
<aTlo••fav, ~yov II~ 8vJJ-a TovTo •aJ\J\urTov •tva• •al
8Epa7r.iav JJ-<yiuT7jV, ltv W~ {3lJ\nuTOV KaLOIKaiOTaTOV
uavThv 7raplxrw 1'-aJ\J\ov yap eJ\7rt~ Tob~ Totothov~ t<pila
7roJ\J\a •aTa{3aJ\J\ovTa~ 7rpd.f..v n 7rapa Twv B•wv
O.ya66v.
26 Plato Symp. 193d. See LSJ, s.v.; Werner Foerster,
"•vu•M~ KTJI..," TDNT 7.175-84, with many
references.
27 PlatoEuthyph. 12e; Ps.-PlatoDef 412e; Ps.-Aristotle
Virt. etvit. 5.2, 1250b 22-23.
28 SeethedefinitioninStobaeusAnthol. 2.7.25,p.147
(ed. Wachsmuth): <vulf3••av JJ-~V o~v <iva•l!fw 8<wv .al
Oatp.&vrov 6Epa7rEVTLK~v, fi.ETafV oVuav lt6E6T7JTOS' Kal
o<tutoatJJ-ovia~ ("True religion is therefore a
worshipful attitude toward gods and daimons, being
between atheism and superstition"). On this point see
Walter Potscher, Theophrastus' IIEPI EY:I:EBEIA:I:
(Philosophia antiqua 11; Leiden: Brill, 1964) 127-
28; Fortenbaugh, Quellen, 271; Versnel, Faith, Hope,
250-59; for Plutarch see the passages in TDNT
7.177; Morton Smith in PECL, 1.9, 35; for Philo see
Deus imm. 164.
29 So esp. the Stoics. See, e.g., Epictetus Ench. 31.1-5;
Stobaeus Anthol. 2.14 7: <vulf3••av II~ E71"1UT~JJ-1JV 8<ov
8<pa7r<ia~ ("True religion is the understanding of the
worship of the gods"). Cf. also Philo Det. pot. ins. 55-
56 (one of many parallel passages).
30 See Potscher's edition (above, n. 28).
31 Philodemus Il<pt<Vu<{3.ia~ (ed. Theodor Gomperz,
"Philodem iiber Frommigkeit," in his Herkulanische
Studien, vol. 2 [Leipzig: Teubner, 1866]); Robert
Philippson, "Zu Philodems Schrift iiber die
Frommigkeit," Hermes 55 (1920) 225-78, 364-72;
56 (1921) 355-410.
32 Cf. Philostratus Vita Apoll. 4.40, where the pious
Telesinus asks Apollonius: "What do you pray for
when you approach the altars?" Apollonius answers,
"I for my part pray that justice may prevail, that the
laws may not be broken, that the wise may continue
to be poor, but that others may be rich, as long as
they are so without fraud." This summary is
somewhat typical of the period, and its context
contains an entire doctrine of cultic reform.
33 Bernays, Theophrastos' Schrift ilber die Frommigkeit (see
above, n. 22); Willy Theiler, Poseidonios: Die
Fragmente (Texte und Kommentare 10.1-2; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1982) 2.275-87.

334
 Matthew 6:1-18

right ideas about the deity. If the deity exists, what does b. Literary Parallels
this imply? Does God care about humans? Can God be In the New Testament itself, the cultic instruction of
approached by human petitions? In what way does God 6:1-18 has no parallels and is simply unique. While Q
act? has no parallel even to any of its main sections, 6:7-13 at
4. Appropriate worship must conform to what God least has a parallel in Luke 11: 1-4, while for the rule in
himself is and does (imitation of God). Matt 6:14-15 parallel references exist in Mark 11:25-
5. These issues are tied up with having the right 26; Matt 16:19; 18:18; andJohn 20:23. I should
notions about the afterlife, including criteria for reward underscore that the entire cultic instruction of Matt 6: 1-
and punishment. 18, being Jewish, has no counterpart in the SP. There
Among the rituals in antiquity, three stand out as most are, however, instructive parallel passages in non-
controversial: canonical sources, demonstrating that this type of
First, the sacrificial offerings. Which offerings are instruction, whether or not influenced by the SM, must
acceptable and which are not? What about bloody have been more common.
sacrifices, or human sacrifice? The choice of almsgiving The Coptic Cos. Thom. log. 6 34 is surprisingly close, 35
in the SM (6:2-4) must be seen in this perspective. while at the same time different:
Second, prayer and its relation to magic. Must God be His disciples questioned him and said to him,
informed? Can he be coerced? The response of the SM is "Do you want us to fast?
stated in 6:7-15. And how shall we pray?
Third, forms of abstinence. Is abstention from food or Shall we give alms?
sex required? Is it required always and totally? What is its And what kind of diet shall we follow?"
purpose? The SM responds in the section on fasting Jesus said,
(6:16-18). "Do not lie,
This survey shows that the SM responds to these issues and do not do what you hate.
in an extremely concise form. The section 6:1-18, For all things are disclosed before heaven.
therefore, contains more than rules for proper behavior. For there is nothing obscure that will not be shown
These rules, as it were, are only the practical applications forth, and there is nothing covered that will remain
of underlying theological ideas. These ideas, on which without being disclosed."
the reflection is based that results in the rules, remain for The compositional structure of the passage is as follows:
the most part unstated, but at some points they are stated
explicitly. The SM is based primarily on Jewish religious I. Description of the situation: Jesus in conversation with his
disciples
thought. Judaism did not produce theoretical treatises
"On Piety," but many of the same attitudes and ideas can II. Dialogue
be found on the Jewish side, beginning with the Old A. Questions
Testament prophets and their criticism of the cult and 1. Origin: the disciples
continuing in Jewish wisdom literature. The history and 2. Four questions
a. Fasting
diversity of this religious criticism within Judaism was
b. Prayer
extensive, so that the cultic instruction in the SM is but c. Almsgiving
one of its many manifestations. In the following I d. Dietary restrictions
examine at least some of the closer parallels.

34 Trans. by Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 381. 7.7.41 (GCS 17.3, p. 31); Origen De orat. 5.1 (GCS
35 Cf. Cos. Thom. log. 14 (trans. Layton, Gnostic 3.2.2, p. 308).
Scriptures, 382-83): "Jesus said to them: 'If you (plur.)
fast, you will acquire a sin, and if you pray you will be
condemned, and if you give alms, it is evil that you
will do unto your spirits." For such prohibitions to
pray at all, see Cos. Phil. log. 7; Clement Alex. Strom.

335
 B. Answer This saying is similar to the one previously cited from the
I. Origin: Jesus
Coptic Gospel ofThomas, but it has differences as well.
2. Two answers forming a set, and added reasons
a. Two prohibitions (apodictic) None of the sayings is, in my view, based directly on the
I) First prohibition: "Do not lie!" canonical New Testament. 38 The compositional
2) Second prohibition: "Do not do what you hate!" structure of this passage in P. Oxy. 654 is as follows:
b. Dogmatic reason
I) Conclusion from the following sententia: "For all will
I. Description of the situation: Jesus in conversation with his
be revealed before heaven"
disciples
2) Citation of authoritative sententia (isocolon) 36
II. Dialogue
Jesus' saying in P. Oxy. 654: A. Questions
His disciples asked him and said, I. Origin: the disciples
"How shall we fast, 2. Four questions (the first three introduced by 7rros ["how"],
and how shall we pray, the fourth by Kat n ["and what"])
and how shall we give alms, a. Fasting
b. Prayer
and what shall we observe when we eat?" c. Almsgiving
Jesus said, d. Dietary restrictions
"Do not lie, B. Answer
and what you hate do not do! I. Origin: Jesus
For all things will be full of truth before heaven. 2. Two answers forming a set, and added reasons
a. Two prohibitions (apodictic)
For nothing is hidden that will not be made I) First prohibition: "Do not lie!"
manifest. 2) Second prohibition: "What you hate, do not do!"
Blessed is he who does not do these things. b. Dogmatic reasons
For all things will be made manifest to the Father I) Conclusion from the following sententiae
who is in the heavens." 2) Set of three authoritative sententiae
(a) General sententia
[' EflEnz(ovow aVTOV o[t p.a87JTat aVTOV Kat A.t]yoviTLV" (b) Beatitude
7TWS VTJITTEJ)[ ITOJ.LEV, (c) Theological statement
Kat 7TWS 7TpOIT€Vfo]p.E8a
Kat 7TWS [ fAETJJ.LOITJ)VTJV 7TOL~ITOJ.LEV, The evidence contained in the Didache is most
K]at T[ 7TapaTTJp~[ ITOJ.LEV ;)TaV li£L7TVWJ.L€ ]v; interesting. This text, which is closely related to the SM
A.tyn 'ITJ(ITovs)· but, as I take it, independent from the canonical Gospel
[p.-7] l/FEJ)fi£0"8€ Kat 3 TL J.LLIT ]EtTaL p.-1] 7TOLflT[ €" of Matthew, has an instruction on almsgiving in Did. 1.5-
7TaVTa yap ~ITTat 7TA~p ]TJS aATJ8Elas a[vTt 6, but this earlier section of the Didache gives no
TOV ovpavov· consideration to prayer and fasting. The later part,
ovl"J(v yap fiTTL ]v a[ 7T ]oKEKp[ VJ.LJ.LlVOV 3 OV however, which begins in chapter 7, has a fully
cpavEpov ~O"Tat· developed instruction for the worship services of the
p.a ]Kapt[ OS] fiTTLV [3 Tavra p.-1] 7TOLWV. church: baptism (chap. 7), fasting (8.1), prayer (8.2-3),
7TavTa yap €v cpavEp ]ip ~ITT[ at 7Tapa Tip 7TaTpt Eucharist (chaps. 9-10), church offices (chaps. 11-13),
3s fV Tip ovpavip fiTT ]tv. 37 Sunday (chap. 14), and election of bishops (15.1-2). 39 A

36 For similar statements see Matt 10:26 I I Luke I2:2; most likely the work of later compilers."
I Cor 3:I3; 4:5; 2 Cor 5:IO; Rom I4:IO. 39 On the Didache see the commentary by
37 For the text see Aland, Synopsis, 85. The translation Niederwimmer, Didache.
is mine.
38 Differently Fitzmyer, Essays, 385: "While certain
elements of this saying are derived from the
canonical Gospels and to that extent can be regarded
as authentic sayings ofJesus, the saying as a whole is

336

summary statement in 15.4 naming "prayers, alms-
givings, and all your deeds" concludes with the much-
debated injunction, "Do them as you have it in the gospel
of our Lord. "40 My translation of Did. 8.1-2 is as follows:
But with regard to your fasts, do not let them happen
together with the hypocrites. For they fast on the
second day [sc. Monday] ofthe week and the fifth [sc.
Thursday]. But you shall fast on the fourth [sc.
Wednesday] and the day of preparation [sc. Friday].
And do not pray as the hypocrites do, but as the Lord
in his gospel has commanded, thus shall you pray: ...
[the Lord's Prayer follows]. 41 In this way you (shall)
pray three times a day. 42
The text has the following compositional structure,
showing that earlier instructional material similar to that
in the SM has been integrated into a larger unit, just as
SM/Matt 6:1-18 has been inserted into the SM as a
whole.
I. On fasting (8.1)
A. Reference to the cultic act
B. Prohibition of the improper performance
1. General mark of distinction: "not together with the
hypocrites" (i.e., non-Christian Jews)
2. Specification of Qewish) times of fasting to be avoided
C. Instruction for the proper performance: stipulation ofthe
days for the proper (Christian) performance
II. On prayer (8:2-3)
A. Reference to the cultic act
B. Prohibition of the improper performance: "not as the
hypocrites"
40 The references are at several points to f:v r~
evayy<Al'!J TOV Kvplov ~p.wv ("in the gospel of our
Lord"), 10.5; 11.3; 15.3-4. This term does not
appear to refer to one of the canonical Gospels as we
have them. For discussion see the literature in
BAGD, s.v. evayybuov, 3; NTApoc 1.71-75; NTApok
1.66-72; Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 16-17.
41 See also below on 6:9b-13.
42 The text is according to Aland, Synopsis, 87; the
translation is mine.
43 NEB; cf. LXX Sir 31(34):9-31; 32:1-26; 33:1-22,
according to the edition by Joseph Ziegler,
Septuaginta Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta 12.2;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980); see also
Georg Sauer,jesus Sirach QSHRZ 3.5; Giitersloh:
Mohn, 1981) 588-92; Helge Stadelmann, Ben Sira
als Schriftgelehrter: Eine Untersuchung zum Berufsbild des
Matthew 6:1-18
C. Instruction for the proper performance
1. Naming of the authority: Jesus
2. Citation of the authoritative prayer: the Lord's Prayer
3. Stipulation of the proper times for the performance
If this teaching was formulated independently from
the canonical Gospels, and by drawing on presynaptic
sources, as I assume, the same should be assumed for
other passages from the Apostolic Fathers. In particular,
2 Clem. 16.4 contains a passage about almsgiving that
also mentions fasting and prayer and establishes a
hierarchy of importance in this order: almsgiving,
fasting, prayer. Hermas Sim. 5.1 considers fasting only
and concludes with a beatitude.
The Jewish antiquity of these sources is demonstrated
by a number of close parallels in jewish wisdom
literature. These parallels are of two kinds: parallel
references to details and entire compositions of an
instructional type.
Sirach 34: 13-36:17 contains suggestions of cultic
instruction with a good number of lines parallel to the
SM. Its composition, however, has not been adequately
investigated and even the textual transmission is
complicated. 43 Two sections can be delimited more
clearly: a section dealing with sacrifice (34: 18-35: 11), 44
and another dealing with prayer (35:12-20; 36:1-17), 45
prefaced by an introduction of a general nature about
religion (34: 13-1 7). 46
While the general introduction is based on the notion
of the fear of God, 4 7 the sections on offerings and prayer
juxtapose right and wrong performance of the rituals.
vormakkabiiischen Safer unter Berilcksichtigung seines
Verhiiltnisses zu Priester-, Propheten- und Weisheits-
lehrertum (WUNT 2.6; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1980) 68-99.
44 LXX Sir 31(34):21-32(35):11.
45 Ibid., 32(35):12-26; 33(36):1-13a, 16b, 17-22.
46 Ibid., 31(34):16-20; the introduction may contain a
longer section beginning in 31 (34): 1.
47 Ibid., 31(34):14.
337
Almsgiving is mentioned in the context of sacrifice,
where it rightly belongs. 48 Prayer is also closely related
to sacrifice, sharing its uses as well as its abuses and
misunderstandings. An authoritative prayer is added
(36: 1-17 [NEB]). 49 Fasting receives less attention, but it
is mentioned in the context of true and false per-
formance (34:26 [NEB]). 50
Tobit 12:6-10 contains a summary of Jewish piety in
didactic form; it includes references to almsgiving,
prayer, and fasting:
Good is prayer together with fasting and almsgiving
and righteousness.
Good is the little (gift) together with righteousness,
rather than much with unrighteousness.
Good is to give alms, rather than to hoard gold.
For almsgiving saves from death, and it cleanses every
sin.
Those who give alms and (gifts of) righteousness will
be filled with life, but those who commit sins are
enemies of their own lives. 51
a:ya8ov 7Tp01TWX~ p.£Tiz V7]1TT£{as Kat £A£7]p.OITVV7JS Kat
0LKaLOITVV7JS"
&ya8ov TO oA.lyov p.£Tiz OLKaLOITVV7JS ~ 7TOAV p.£Tiz cl.otKlas·
KaAov 7TOLijuaL fA£7]p.OuVV7]V ~ 87]uavp{uat xpvu{ov.
fA£7]p.OITVV7] yh.p fK Bavchov pV£TaL, Kat avT~ tL7TOKa8ap£L
~ < I
7Tauav ap.apnav·
Ot7Towvvns h£7]p.ouvvas Kat OLKawuvvas 7TA7]u8~uovTaL
(wijs· ol o€ b.p.apTiwovns 7TOAEp.tol dutv Tijs ~avTwv
(wijs. 52
Much of this could have been stated in the SM, and this
close parallelism points to the Jewish origin of the SM
material.
One can hardly have any doubt that the singling out of
almsgiving, prayer, and fasting has its origin in the Jewish
wisdom traditions to which also Sirach and Tobit belong.
The identification of the three most important acts of
worship as constituting true piety continues in rabbinic
literature 5 3 and even later in Islam, 54 not to mention the
Christian traditions, 55 especially in the patristic period. 56
c. Theology
Regarding its theology, the cultic instruction of 6:1-18 is
distinguished by some concepts unusual in the New
Testament, and by some diversity within a frame of
similar thought. Quite clearly, the cultic instruction of
6:1-6, 16-18 has its own theology, somewhat different

48 Ibid., 32(35):4; cf. 3:14, 30; 7:10; 12:3; 16:14;
17:22, 29; 29:1-13; 34(31):11; 40:17, 24, and other 55
passages.
49 Ibid., 33(36):1-22; cf. 3:5; 7:10, 14; 39:5, 6; 50:19;
51:1, 13.
50 Ibid., 31(34):31.
51 My translation.
52 Text according to the edition by Robert Hanhart,
Tobit (Septuaginta 8.5; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1983) 158-59, with variants in the critical
apparatus.
53 Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary, 112) cites R. Eleazar
(Koh. Rab. 5.6) as saying: "Three things annul the
severe decree and these are they: prayer, charity, and
repentance." The last is frequently accompanied by a
reference to fasting. See also Str-B 1.386-429, and
excurses nos. 6, 22, and 23 in vol. 4/1.
54 The threefold works of piety (prayer, fasting, and
almsgiving) continue to be important in Manichaeism
and in Islam. See Alexander Bohlig, "Manichaismus,"
TRE 22 (1 991) 25-45, esp. 37-38; Kenneth Cragg,
The Call of the Minaret (Oxford: Oxford University,
1964) 105-16, 150-54; Fazlur Rahman, Islam (2d
ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979) 36-37;
Abdul A 'Ia Mawdiidi, Towards Understanding Islam
(Leicester: Islamic Foundation, I 981) 88-93. For the
references to Islam I am indebted to Professor Jan
Bergman ofUppsala.
Cf. Gunter Bader, Symbolik des Todes jesu (HUTh 25;
Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1988) 230 n. 535, who
refers to Guntherus Cisterciensis Monachus (died c.
1220) De oratione, jeiunio, et eleemosyna libri XIII (PL
212.97-222).
56 One should not ignore an important parallel
reference, however. The collection of Christianized
Hellenistic-] ewish prayers in book 7 of the Apostolic
Constitutions has a surprising piece of catechetical
instruction, obviously a remnant from jewish origins:
"Let the one who is to be instructed in piety be
taught before baptism [op.tAAwv rolvvv Kar7Jxil0'8a<
Thv A6yov Tfj!; EiJuE{jelaf 7Tat0Evlu8w 1rp"D ToV
~a?Tr(O'p.aro~]: knowledge concerning the unbegotten
God, understanding concerning the only begotten
son, and full assurance concerning the Holy Spirit.
Let him learn the order of a distinguished creation,
the sequence of providence," etc. (Ap. Const. 7.39.2-
4, ed. Funk; trans. according to D. R. Darnell, OTP
2.687). For discussion see the notes in OTP 2.687;
Wilhelm Bousset, Religionsgeschichtliche Studien:
A ufsiitze zur Religionsgeschichte des hellenistischen
Zeitalters (ed. A. F. Verheule; NovTSup 50; Leiden:
Brill, 1979) 265-67.

338
 Matthew 6:1-18

from but not incompatible with 6:7-15. Such diversity is
as remarkable as is the complementarity of the different
theologies. Working with materials coming from
different sources, the author, or rather the redactor, of
the SM apparently did not care to harmonize these
sources but instead shows a considerable degree of
tolerance for diversity. As the systematician that he no
doubt also was, he took the diversity to be com-
plementary rather than contradictory. The same degree
of tolerance is shown later by the evangelist Matthew,
who, in addition, accounts for diversity in the sources by
his ideas about historical development. At the beginning
of the church, Matthew knows, things were different
from what they were at his own time. Both teachings, the
one in 6:1-6, 16-18 and the other in 6:7-15, employ
doctrines and concepts rarely attested elsewhere in the
New Testament. 5 7 These notions derive, as one would
expect, from judaism of the first century or earlier. Since
the main parallels occur in Hellenistic-Jewish texts, not
surprisingly one finds analogous concepts in Greco-
Roman religious thought as well.
1 ) The Doctrine of God
The instruction SM/Matt 6:1-6, 16-18 states three
times that the heavenly Father is "in the hidden" and that
he sees all that goes on "in the hidden" (6:.4, 6, 18).
Although this notion of God as being and seeing "in the
hidden" appears strange, 58 it presupposes two older
theological doctrines: that of the "all-seeing" God 59 and
that of the "hiddenness" ofGod. 60 It is not clear whether
these concepts are in any way related to Mark's concept
of the "mystery of the kingdom of God" (Mark 4:11
par.). 61 The first concept envisioned is well known in the
history of religions as that of the "all-knowing sky god," a
concept common in all ancient religions. In the Old
Testament it is represented especially in the great hymns
Psalm 139 andjob 28. Wisdom literature 62 and
apocalypticism 63 became increasingly fond of the
concept, and from there it must have entered into early

57 Birger Gerhardsson ("Geistiger Opferdienst nach
Matth 6, 1-6.I6-I8," in Neues Testament und
Geschichte: FS for Oscar Cull mann zum 70. Geburtstag
[Zurich: Theologischer Verlag; Tiibingen: Mohr
(Siebeck), I972]69-77) has seen the difficulty of
relating the passage to the teaching ofJesus and early
Christianity. He recognizes the pre-Matthean
composition and the Jewish theology of the section.
He thinks that the cultic acts, as commended, are
based on the Shema of Deut 6:4-5, commanding
undivided love of God alone. Gerhardsson might
have referred to SM concepts like purity of the heart
(SM/Matt 5:8) or undivided loyalty toward God
(6:24), but the SM never mentions the Shema. When
the love-command is cited in 5:43b, only Lev I9: I8 is
quoted but not Deut 6:4-5; the SM here clearly
differs from the passage Mark I2:29. Even SM/Matt
6:24 does not demand love of God, but service of
God.
58 There is no exact parallel to this kind of theology
elsewhere in the NT, but see Coptic Cos. Thom. log. 5
and 6 (cited above); Kerygma Petri 2 (ed. Erich
Klostermann; KIT 2; 2d ed.; Bonn: Marcus, I908)
13: h lulpaTor ils Ta 1ravTa hpa ("the invisible one who
views all"). For further parallels see Ernst von
Dobschiitz, Das Kerygma Petri kritisch untersucht (TU
II. I; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1893) 30; NTApok 2.38. On
the doctrine of God's hiddenness in the NT see
Albrecht Oepke, • KpV'ITTIJl KT >...," TDNT 3. 961-78;
Helmut Bandt, "Verborgenheit Gottes," RGG 6 (3d
ed. 1962) I256-59; Siegert, Drei hellenistisch-jildische
Predigten, 2.75-79.
59 See esp. Ps 33: I3-I5: "The LORD looks out from
heaven, he sees the whole race of men; he surveys
from his dwelling-place all the inhabitants of earth. It
is he who fashions the hearts of all men alike, who
discerns all that they do" (NEB). See also Gen 29:32;
Pss 9: I4; I13:5-6; I38:6; Luke I :48; etc. On the
whole topic see Heinrich Middendorf, Gott sieht: Eine
terminologische Studie ilber das Schauen Gottes im Alten
Testament (Breslau: Plischke, I935); D. Vetter, •;,ac.,
r'h sehen," THAT 2.696-97 (4.b); Siegert, Drei
hellenistisch-jildische Predigten, 2.II6-I8.
60 See Hubert Schrade, Der verborgene Gott: Gottesbild
11nd Gottesvorstellung in Israel und im Alten Orient
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, I949); Samuel E.
Balentine, The Hidden God: The Hiding of the Face of
God in the Old Testament (Oxford Theological
Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University, I983); also
Oepke, TDNT 3.967-73.
6I See Gunther Bornkamm, "p.vtrT~ptov," TDNT 4.8I7-
I9.
62 See Pss 79:IO; 81:7; I Kgs 8:I2; 2 Chr 6:I; Sir II:2-
6; 16:I7-23; 39:I9; 42:I5-25; 43:I-33; 48:25; Sus
42;jos. Asen. 6.3 (OTP 2.209); Euripides/ Philemon(?)
(OTP 2.827-29).
63 See 3 Enoch 1.6-7; 5.10-14; Sib. Or. 3.I2; 4.12 (OTP
1.24I, 362, 384); Orphica 20-26 (OTP 2. 799-800);
Hell. Synag. Prayers 4.33-34; 9.4-6; I3.8 (OTP
2.681-95). Furthermore, Peter Schafer, ed.,
Ubersetzung der Hekalot-Literatur (TSAJ I 7; Tiibingen:
Mohr [Siebeck], I987) sections 81 and 83. For the
NT see Rom 1:20; Coli:I5, 16; 1 Tim I:I7; Heb
1I:27. See also BAGD, s.v. a6paTor, with references.

339
Christian texts, the earliest of which seems to be the SM.
In Greek religion the concept of the god "who sees
everything and hears everything" goes back to Homer.
The concept is traceable through Greek religion and
literature by the conspicuous epithet given to Zeus,
Helios, and other gods: 8s ?TavT' tcpop~ ICal. ?TavT'
€?Ta1Col'!n. 64 This epithet is related to what Hildebrecht
Hommel has called "the all-present sky god" ("der
allgegenwartige Himmelsgott"), 65 well attested in Greek
philosophical texts. 66 From the beginning it seems that
this concept was also related to the notion of the deity as
the guarantor of "righteousness" (at1Catoul'!v7J). 67 Both
these concepts occur together in philosophical texts, 68
but there may also be a connection with the mystery
religions and their terminology of £?Tti?TT£La ("vision"). 69
For Greek philosophy-or shall I say theology?-the
God who sees and hears all played an important role. It
was usually the sun-god Helios who was called "all-
seeing" (?TavTO?TT1JS, or similar terms), 70 or the "eye of
righteousness" (lJp.p.a aLICaLoul'!v7]s). 7l For Xenophanes the
deity itself was nothing but seeing: "All of him sees, all
thinks, and all hears" (oi)A.os opaL, oi)A.os ae VOEL, oi)A.os a£ T
aiCol'!n). 72
Later it was believed that a clever manipulator had
introduced the belief, in order to get people to obey the
law. Sextus Empiricus 73 reports about "the atheists,"
among them Critias, one of the thirty tyrants of 404 BCE,
that "the ancient law-givers invented God as a kind of
overseer of the right and wrong actions of men, in order
to make sure that nobody injured his neighbors privily
through fear of vengeance at the hands of the Gods."
The passage following quotes a fragment that, as
Albrecht Dihle has established, comes from Euripides'
Sisyphos. 74 The fragment belongs to a section that
explains the origin of religion. The archaic period of
anarchy, it says, was overcome by legislation, and people
stopped committing crimes openly, but still did them in
secret. Then some shrewd man put the fear of the gods
into people by persuading them that the gods see and
hear even the most secret plans and deeds, and they keep
track of them in order to punish the perpetrators. What
we find here obviously belongs to the complex of
doctrines known as Euhemerism. 7 5
Greek philosophical influences are felt also in
0
Hellenistic-Jewish literature, beginning with the
Septuagint 76 and culminating with the citation of Homer

64 Homer II. 3.277; Od. 11.109; 13.214; 17.487; see
also HesiodErga 267; Herodotus 1.124; Sophocles
El. 17 5, 659; Ant. 184; Oed. Col. 1085-86; Oed. T.
498; etc.; PGM Xll.237; cf. 11.89; IV.2612; VII.696;
CI.19; Hymn. Orph. 8; Porphyry Ad Marc. 21. See
Wilhelm Michaelis, "£.,.o.,.r~r, £.,.o.,.rdJ<JJ," TDNT
5.373-75; BAGD, s.v. £.,.o.,.u6w, 1; PGL, s.v.
E'II'O'II'TEVro, 1; Siegert, Drei hellenistischjudische
Predigten, 1.12 n. 24; 2.116-18.
65 Hildebrecht Hommel, "Der allgegenwartige
Himmelsgott: Eine religions- und formgeschichtliche
Studie," ARW 23 (1926) 193-206; reprinted with an
appendix in his Sebasmata, 1.44-64; idem, "Das
religionsgeschichtliche Problem des 139. Psalms,"
ZAW 6 (1929) 11 0-24; reprinted with an appendix in
Sebasmata, 1.65-83; Versnel, Faith, Hope, 167; also
26-30.
66 See Johannes Geffcken, "Zum allgegenwartigen
Himmelsgott: Eine Berichtigung," ARW 27 (1929)
346-49, referring to Plato Leg. 899d, 905a;
XenophonMem. 1.1.19; 1.4.18.
67 See esp. Hymn. Orph. 8.1, 16, 17-18, and the epithets
mentioned there: 7ravaepKh ... lfp.p.a ("all-seeing
eye"); aeiKTa atKato<TVV1jf ("revealer of righteousness");
lfp.p.a 5tKatouVv1jr ("eye of righteousness").
68 See Epictetus Diss. 1.14, entitled lin 'll'avrar £.popq. rh
Belov ("That the deity oversees all people"). For
further references see Gustav Adolf Gerhard, Phoinix
von Kolophon (Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1909)
19-20, 83-85.
69 For this suggestion see Christoph Riedweg,
Mysterienterminologie bei Platon, Phi/on und Klemens von
Alexandrien (UaLG 26; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987) 23-
24.
70 For the references see Otto Jessen, "Helios," PW,
15th half-volume (1912) 58-93; Albrecht Oepke,
"KpV7rrw KTA.," TDNT 3.961-66; Paul Wilpert,
"Auge," RAG 1 (1950) 961-62; Peterson, EIE 8EOI:,
279; Gudmund Bjorck, Der Fluck des Christen Sabinus:
Papyrus Upsaliensis 8 (Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell,
1938) 37-39, 42; Franz Joseph Dolger, Die Sonne der
Gerechtigluit und der Schwarze: Eine religions-
geschichtliche Studie zum Taufgelobnis (Liturgie-
geschichtliche Forschungen 2; Munster: Aschen-
dorff, 1918) 83-110.
71 Hymn. Orph. 8.16-17.
72 Xenophanes frg. 24 (Diels-Kranz, 21 B 24 (1, 137])
with parallel references.
73 Sextus EmpiricusAdv. math. 9.54 (trans. R. G. Bury;
LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University, 1953).
74 Albrecht Dihle, "Das Satyrspiel 'Sisyphos,'" Hermes
105 (1977) 28-42.
75 See Klaus Doring, "Antike Theorien iiber die

340
 Matthew 6:1-18

in Philo of Alexandria. 77 On the Christian side, after the
New Testament the Apostolic Fathers openly cite from
Greek literature. 78
The instruction on prayer in SM/Matt 6:7-8 contains
a distinctively different theology, emphasizing not God's
hiddenness.but his omniscience. What is peculiar about
this doctrine, however, is not only that it is introduced at
this point, but that from early on Greek thought
connected it with theorizing about prayer. In this
connection also the relationship between prayer and
righteousness is discussed. 79 Greek philosophers
questioned whether prayer makes any sense at all, and
they advanced several conditions under which alone
praying made sense.
First, if, as Socrates points out in Plato's Euthyphro, one
accepts the conventional definition of prayer as
"petitioning the gods" 80 and if the precise understanding
involves "asking and giving" in relation to the deity, then
prayer amounts to nothing but a commercial trans-
action. 81 Such business activities, however, cannot be
what prayer is purported to be, namely, "piety"
( btTtOT1]S). 8 2
Second, praying makes sense only if one prays for the
truly good things; this condition, however, presupposes
that one knows what is truly good. Since human finitude
leads us to conclude that only the gods really know what
is truly good, asking the gods for something desirable is
by necessity presumption; the thing desired or deemed
necessary may indeed be dangerous. 83 The horrible fact
is that people pray for one thing or another, whatever it
may be that they fancy they need, with no thought
whatsoever given to the question of righteousness,
appropriateness-or human folly. The question about
what is the truly good should be foremost on their minds.
The "good" means the same as the "just," that is, the just

staatspolitische N otwendigkeit der Gotterfurcht," Klostermann, I965) 39I-94: "Zur Problem-

Antike und Abendland 24 (I978) 43-56. On
Euhemerism see Klaus Thraede, "Euhemerismus,"
RAC 6 (I966) 877-90; Betz, Galatians, 2I4-I5;
Versnel, Faith, Hope, 2I8, 23I.
76 See LXX Esth 5:Ia;Job 35:I3-I4 (34:2I); 2 Mace
3:39; 7:35; 9:5; I2:22; I5:2; 3 Mace 2:2I; Ep. Arist.
21.
77 Philo]os. 265; see also Som. l.I40; 2.33; Spec. leg.
I.279; 4.32; Decal. 90; Leg. all. 3.I7I; Deus imm. 2I;
Aet. mund. 83; Leg. Gaj. 336; furthermore josephus
Ap. 2.I8, 294.
78 1 Clem. 55.6; 59.3; 64.I; PolycarpPhi1. 7.2; see also
PGL, s. v. E7r07rnVro, I, with further references from
the church fathers.
79 See esp. Plato Euthyph. I4c; Aristotle Eth. Nic. 5,
II29b 5. For the views of the Greek philosophers on
prayer see the material and discussion in Henricus
Schmidt, Veteres philosophi quomodo iudicaverint de
precibus (RVV 4.I; GieBen: Topelmann, I907);
Friedrich Heiler, Das Gebel: Eine religionsgeschichtliche
und religionspsychologische Untersuchung (5th ed.;
Munich: Reinhardt, I923); partial ET: Prayer: A
Study in the History and Psychology ofPrayer (trans.
Samuel McComb, with the assistance of]. Edgar
Park; London, New York, and Toronto: Oxford
University, I932); Kurt von Fritz, "Greek Prayers,"
Reviw of Religion IO (I945) 5-39; Edouard des
Places, "La priere des philosophes grecs," Gregori-
anum 4I (I960) 253-72; Emmanuel von Severus,
"Gebet I," RAC 8 (1972) I134-I258, esp. II46-47;
Walter Beierwaltes, Proklos (Frankfurt a.M.:
geschichte des antiken Gebetes"; Wilhelm Gessel, Die
Theologie des Gebetes nach "De Oratione" von Origenes
(Munich, Paderborn, and Vienna: Schoningh, I975)
149-71: "Gebet und Vorsehung"; Versnel, Faith,
Hope, I-64, 232-45; Heinrich Dorrie, "Gottes-
vorstellung," RAC I2 (1983) 81-I54, esp. I47-48,
with reference to Seneca Ep. I 0.4-5; Konrad Gaiser,
"Das Gold der Weisheit: Zum Gebet des Philosophen
am SchluB des Phaidros," RhM I32 (1989) I06-40.
80 Plato Euthyph. I4d: rh a' <iix<a-8at aln!v roh 8<ov~;
("Is then praying asking [things] from the gods?" [my
trans.]).
8I Ibid.: E7rt<TT~P.7J lf.pa alr~<TE(J)~ Kat aoa-<w~ 8<0t~ O<Tt0T1j~
ltv <1'7] EK rovrov rov A.oyov ("According to this
definition, holiness would then be a science of asking
and giving"). Ibid., I4e: 'Ep.1roptK~ lf.pa rt~ ltv <r7J •..
rJxv71v 7J Our.6r7Js 8eo'is KaL O.vBpWwm.s 7rap' U.AA~Awv
("Then holiness would be a kind of business
transaction between gods and humans" [my
translation]).
82 Ibid., I4c: oa-tOT7J~ as defined as £ma-r~p.7Jv rwa rov
8v<tv n Kat <iix<a-8at ("a science of sacrificing and
praying").
83 See Xenophon Mem. I.3.2; 4.2.36; Oec. 5.I9-20; 6.I;
Plato Leg. 93Id, 687e, 80Ia-c; Aristotle Eth. Nic. 5,
1129b 5. See Dirlmeier, Aristotles: Nikomachische
Ethik, 400; Versnel, Faith, Hope, 235-36.

341
distribution of the good. 84 The question is, therefore,
indeed an urgent one: "What shall we ask for, what shall
we pray?" 85
Third, with these questions in mind, the Pseudo-
Platonic dialogue Alcibiades Minor, entitled "On Prayer"
(7r£pl. 7rpouwxfis), 86 raises the problem that ignorant
prayer may be dangerous because the petitioner may
inadvertently ask for something unbecoming and get it.
Unless one is wise, therefore, prayer is unsafe and an
invitation to disaster. 8 7 In the dialogue Alcibiades must
confess that he is a far cry from being a sage, and he
wonders how long it may take until he is fit for prayer.
More importantly, he asks, "Who is my instructor?"
Indeed, such an instructor must possess extraordinary
qualifications: "For I feel I should very much like to see
who the man is. " 88 Alcibiades seems not to realize that
the man he asks for stands right before him. It is Socrates
himself, but the philosopher abstains from commending
himself. Instead he tells Alcibiades that such a teacher
must have two qualifications. First, "it is he who is
concerned about you." Second, he must be capable of
removing the mist of ignorance that now enwraps
Alcibiades' soul, so as to enable him to discern the evil
and the good. 89 As it turns out, Socrates is such a
teacher, and, realizing it, Alcibiades is most eager to
learn; but Socrates advises him to defer prayer and
sacrifice until the teaching is completed. 90 Then Socrates
recites what is regarded as a "safe" prayer:
King Zeus, give unto us what is good, whether we
pray or not; but what is grievous, even if we pray
for it, do thou avert.
Z£v f3autA£V, Til p.i:v £u8>..il KaL £VXOJJ.EVO!S Kal. avdKTO!S
lip.p.! aloov, Til o€ 0£tAil KaL £VXOJJ.EVO!S a7TaAE~£!V. 91
Instead of total deferment, the Pythagoreans have
apparently concluded that it is the philosophers' task to
pray on behalf of the ignorant, rather than letting the
ignorant pray for themselves. Also this solution points to
the basic problem that one must first learn to pray
properly 92 and with safety. 93
Fourth, the Stoics raised the question about prayer in
connection with the theodicy problem. 94 If Fate is
unchangeable, then why should one engage in prayer
and explanation? The conventional prayer clearly makes
no sense, but does any prayer make sense, if even the
gods have neither power nor inclination in changing
what Fate has determined? The conclusion can,

84 Cf. Diogenes ofSinope, according to Diog. L. 6.42:
"He would rebuke men in general with regard to
their prayers, declaring that they asked for those
things which seemed to them to be good, not for such
as are truly good." See also Crates' parody of prayer
cited in Julian Or. 6, 199D-200A.
85 Cf. Xenophon Mem. 4.36: "I confess I know not what
one should ask for in one's prayers." The answers
provided by ancient philosophy are summed up by
PorphyryAdMarc. 12-13.
86 Cited here according to the LCL edition of Plato, vol.
12 (trans. W. R. M. Lamb; London: Heinemann;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1955) 228-
73. For commentary see Guthrie, Greek Philosophy,
5.387.
87 Ps.-Piato Ale. min. 150c.
88 o
Ibid., 150d: rlr 'lTato<.Suwv; 7fo•ura yap ll.v p.o1 ooKoo
l5£iV Thv lJ.v6pw7rOV Tl~ fuTLV.
89 Ibid., 150e.
90 Ibid., 151a.
91 Ibid., 143a;seealsoAntho1.Pa1.10.108.
92 See Diog. L. 8.9; Diodorus Sic. 10.9.6-8.
93 See Socrates in Xenophon Mem. 1. 3. 2: "Again when
he prayed he asked simply for good gifts, 'for the
gods know best what things are good.' To pray for
gold or silver or sovereignty or any other such thing,
was just like praying for a gamble or a fight or
anything of which the result is obviously uncertain."
This doctrine became standard in Hellenistic
philosophy. See also Xenophon Cyr. 1.6.5; Plato
Euthyph. 14d. For Pythagoras see Diodorus Sic.
10.98; Porphyry Ad Marc. 12-13, with Wicker's
commentary, 98-100; lamblichus De vita Pyth. 145;
also Philostratus Vita A poll. 1.11; 4. 40. For
references see also Schmidt, Veteres philosophi, 6-7;
Burkert, Greek Religion, 73-75, 332-37. For the SM
see SMIMatt 7:7-11 I I Luke 11:9-13; also cf.
Hermas Man. 9.4; Sim. 6.3.6.
94 See esp. Seneca Quaest. nat. 2.35.1-2; idem, Ep. 107.
For commentary see Harry M. Hine, An Edition with
Commentary of Seneca, Natural Questions, Book Two
(New York: Arno, 1981) 366-74. On Fate see H. 0.
Schroder, "Fatum," RAG 7 (1969) 524-636. On the
Stoics' view on religious duties see Bonhoffer, Ethik,
75-85.

342
 Matthew 6:1-18

therefore, only be that one ought to hand oneself over to
Fate voluntarily. If prayer has any purpose, it should be
to ask the deity to make one comply with Necessity. 95
Based on these ideas, philosophers in the Stoic tradition
began to develop a new kind of prayer. The most famous
of these was Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus; it had an enormous
influence on antiquity, 96 and it was often cited and
imitated. 97 The remarkable parallels between Cleanthes'
hymn and the Lord's Prayer have been noted before.
Willy Theiler called the hymn of Cleanthes "the Our
Father of antiquity. •98
Another famous prayer, seemingly in some kindred
relationship with Cleanthes, is the conclusion of
Epictetus's Encheiridion:
Lead thou me on, 0 Zeus and Destiny,
To that goal long ago to me assigned.
I'll follow and not falter; if my will
Prove weak and craven, still I'll follow on.
'' Ayov o£ p.', i:J Z£v, Kat u-6 y' ~ TI£7rpwp.£v7J,
Cf7ro! 7ro8' vp."iv dp.t OlaTfTayp.£vor;·
W<; Nop.a! y' lioKVO<;" ~v o£ )'f 1'-~ 8£)\w,
KaKos ywop.wor;, ovoEv i/rrov ~"1/fop.at. 99
Within the SM a contradiction seems to exist between
a theology of God's hiddenness (6:1-6, 16-18) and
another theology emphasizing God's manifest activity in
creation (5:45; 6:25-34; 7:11, 24-27). The contra-
diction is created through the combination of diverse
sources. For the SM, both statements are true. God does
his work openly in creation, but the question is whether
the human eye is able to perceive it. God's activity is
hidden and yet revealed for those whose eyes have
learned to see and understand. For this reason, the SM
places great emphasis on sense perception (see below on
SM/Matt 6:22-23, especially). Those properly
instructed will understand that the same God whose
works are manifest in the cosmos is just as present and
active where the human eye does not reach.
2) Inconspicuous Piety
The God who is and sees "in the hidden" should be
imitated by the truly religious in performing their duties
also "in the hidden" (6:4, 6, 18). True piety, therefore,
occurs inconspicuously, in contrast to false piety, which is
done for the sake of ostentation.
This juxtaposition implies far more than merely a
polemic against false religion. If inconspicuous piety is to
be based on the doctrine of God's hiddenness, one must
suppose that a special view about true and false religion
lies in the background. This doctrine implies a radical
position in regard to all cultic performances. Not only
must one avoid all ostentatiousness, but performances of
religious duties must remain completely invisible, thus
imitating the invisibility of God's work. Almsgiving must
be done in secret, prayer only behind closed doors,
fasting only disguised as celebration. The truly religious
person appears to the outsider as one who seems
irreligious.
One may ask what such a position will do to public
worship in principle. Is it to be shunned altogether?
What about temple worship, the processions, the great
festivals? Should all this be stopped? The principle
advocated here means indeed the withdrawal into private
religion, and even in the private religion of the home;

95 See von Severinus, "Gebet I," RAG 8.1149-50.
96 The hymn is too long to be cited here in full.
Individual lines are cited in the following according
to the edition and translation by Long and Sedley,
Hellenistic Philosophers, no. 54 I (1.326-27; 2.326-
27). For the text see also SVF 1.121-23 (no. 537)
from Stobaeus Eel. 1.1.12, p. 25, 3; de Vogel, Greek
Philosophy, 3.82-83 (no. 943), with bibliography; also
ibid., 3.85 (no. 944c); Pohlenz, Stoa, 1.106; 2.61-62;
Simon Lauer, "Der Zeushymnus des Kleanthes," in
Michael Brocke,JacobJ. Petuchowski, and Walter
Strolz, eds., Das Vaterunser: Gemeinsames Beten von
Juden und Christen (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna:
Herder, 1974) 156-62; Kurt Stier, "Zum Zeushym-
nos des Kleanthes," in Peter Steinmetz, ed., Beitriige
zur hellenistischen Literatur und ihrer Rezeption in Rom
(Palingenesia 28; Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990) 93-108.
97 See esp. Boethius De consol. phil. 3.9, with the
commentary by Helga Scheible, Die Gedichte in der
Consolatio Philosophiae des Boethius (Heidelberg:
Winter, 1972) 101-12.
98 Willy Theiler, Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus
(Berlin: de Gruyter, 1966) 316.
99 Epictetus Ench. 53.1. The first line is cited also in
Diss. 2.23.42; cf. 3.22.95; 4.1.131; 4.4.34. The lines
derive from a poem by Cleanthes, as we learn from
Seneca Ep. 107.10, who gives a Latin translation. See
SVF 1.118-19 (no. 527); Schenkl's edition of
Epictetus, p. 37* with note.

343
one should perform duties in such a way that no one
knows about them. The three cultic acts of almsgiving,
prayer, and fasting can be done in secret, and this seems
to be their only justification.
The question is then also what this meant for the early
Christian rituals of baptism and Eucharist, which are,
however, not mentioned in the SM. Where does this
strange doctrine come from? The parallels, few as they
are, point in the direction of Judaism. The parable of the
Last Judgment (Matt 25:31-46) presupposes that the
deeds of mercy done by the truly faithful ofJesus'
disciples are done not only inconspicuously but even
without their being aware of them as related to Jesus (vss
37-39; cf. vss 44-45). 100 The idea is unique to the
passage, which came from a source; the evangelist
Matthew took it over and found it compatible with his
christology (see Matt 18: 19-20; 28:20), but he makes no
further use of it.
Even closer to the SM is Paul's idea, explained only in
Rom 2:28-29, that the true Jew is "the hidden Jew" (o £v
T/il KpV7TT/il 'lov~atos) as opposed to "the Jew in outward
appearance" (o £v T/il cpav£p/fl 'Iov~atos). 101 It seems that
Paul's answer to the problem "Who is a Jew?" has its
roots in Jewish discussions about religious identity. 10 2
The Roman Christians must have known it because only
then could Paul have used the idea in Romans 2 as an
argument. For Paul, "hidden" means in effect "in the
heart" and "in the spirit" (Rom 2:29). Not denying the
value of externality as such, Paul emphasizes that the
status of a person before God is decided by what is in the
heart and not by conspicuous performances of external
rituals. 103
When one turns to Jewish sources outside the New
Testament, results are meager. 104 Wisdom literature
seems to cherish inconspicuousness and to shun
ostentation, but the themes are not important. 1 05 Two
leads, however, indicate that inconspicuousness of piety
may have been more important in Judaism than the
sources reveal.
Felix Bohl has called attention to "the conscientious
ones" (C'l'mt) in connection with making compliance with
the Torah more difficult. 106 He describes two char-
acteristics of such conscientiousness: first, secrecy and
hiddenness, especially with regard to women, whose
chastity is protected by inconspicuousness; second, the
avoidance of transgression even when one could cover
up a sin. Positively, secret fulfillment of the Torah
obligations is a mark of the truly righteous man. The
ideal is stated in a classic passage attributed to R. Johanan
(b. Pesal,t. 113a/b): 107 "There are three, (whose
virtuousness) the Holy one, blessed be he, proclaims
every day: the bachelor who lives in a big city and does
not sin; the poor who turns over a find to its owner; and
a rich man who gives the tenth of his fruits in secret." 108

I 00 For the interpretation of this passage see Gnilka, 460-83.

Matthiiusroangelium, 2.365-79, with bibliography.
IOI See Anton Fridrichsen, "Der wahreJude und sein
Lob, Rom. 2,28f.," Symbolae Arctoae I (I922) 39-49;
Eduard Schweizer, "'Der Jude im Verborgenen ... ,
dessen Lob nicht von Menschen, sondern von Gott
kommt': Zu Rom. 2,28f. und Mt. 6,I-I8," inNeues
Testament und Kirche: FS for RudolfSchnackenburg
(Freiburg: Herder, I974) II5-24; reprinted in his
Matthiius und seine Gemeinde (SBS 7I; Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, I97 4) 86-98.
I 02 The idea has continued to play a role until modern
times. See Steven E. Ascheim, "'The Jew Within':
The Myth of'Judaization' in Germany," inJehuda
Reinharz and Walter Schatzberg, eds., The Jewish
Response to German Culture (Hanover, N.H. and
London: University Press of New England, I985)
2I2-41. For the religiohistorical background of
hiding one's religious identity see Hans G. Kippen-
berg, Die vorderasiatischen Erlosungsreligionen in ihrem
Zusammenhang mit der antiken Stadtherrschaft
(Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, I99I) 38I-98, 4I7-25,
I 03 Cf. also the peculiar notion of "the hidden man of the
heart" (o Kpvwrhs rfjs Kapalas li.vBprowos) in I Pet 3:4;
see BAGD, s.v. li.vBprowos, 2.c.a; Leonhard Goppelt, A
Commentary on 1 Peter (trans. John E. Alsup; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, I993) 22I-22.
I04 Str-B 1.39I-96 and Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary,
II4) have little to report in terms of parallels.
105 See Prov 25:2-24; Sir 23:I6-21.
I 06 Felix Bohl, Gebotserschwerung und Rechtsverzicht als
ethisch-religiose Normen in der rabbinischen Literatur
(Frankfurter Judaistische Studien I; Freiburg:
Schwarz, I97I) 99-109.
I07 On this passage see ibid., IOO n. 291.
I08 The translation is by H. Freedman, in I. Epstein, ed.,
Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud,
Pesa~im (London: Soncino, I938).

344
 Matthew 6:1-18

According to Bohl, "the conscientious ones" represent a
type of observer of the Torah who fulfills the require-
ments secretly because to do so is more difficult and
therefore more meritorious. This kind of practice also
conforms to God's work in creation and cosmos. A
person belonging to this group of observants can also be
called "a master of soul" (!DEll "':::1). 109 It would be
interesting to know whether there is any historical
connection between "the conscientious ones" and the
later hasidic notions of the "hidden zaddikim." 110
If one can draw no firm conclusions from these Jewish
sources, a similar situation exists with regard to Greek
thought. Delphic piety was opposed to ostentation and
presumptuousness expressed by expensive sacrifices
(hecatombs) and spectacular votive gifts. The gods, we
are told, value the simple gift offered as a token of honest
devotion, but there is no emphasis on hiddenness. 111
More intriguing is the maxim "Live unknown" (Act8€
~Ld>uat; ), attributed to Epicurus. 112 This maxim was
commonly interpreted in terms of Epicurus's recom-
mendation to withdraw from politics and the public
life. 113 If his maxim was based on his concept of the
"inactive" gods and if it described the corresponding
conduct toward religion, one may conclude that he
favored nonparticipation in religious activities.
Unfortunately, however, Epicurus's writings on religious
subjects are lost, so that we cannot tell for sure what his
teachings were on this point. Later interpretation was
ambiguous, if not apologetic. Philodemus reports that
Epicurus attended the public festivals and sacrifices, and
that he recommended the same to his students. 114 This
assurance may, however, be apologetic and intended to
protect the Epicureans from the charge of atheism. In his
polemics Cicero in De nat. dear. 1.115-16 comes to the
conclusion that worship in the conventional sense was
not meaningful to Epicureans: "Why, what reason have
you for maintaining that men owe worship to the gods, if
the gods not only pay no respect to men, but care for
nothing and do nothing at all? ... Piety is justice towards
the gods; but how can any claims of justice exist between
us and them, if god and man have nothing in common?
Holiness is the science of divine worship; but I fail to see
why the gods should be worshipped if we neither have
received nor hope to receive benefit from them?" 115
At any rate, the difference between the SM and
Epicurus should be clear. For the SM, God is not "otiose"

109 See Bohl, Gebotserschwerung, 103.
110 See also Gershom Scholem, "Three Types of jewish
Piety," Eranos-Jahrbuch 38 (1969) 331-48, esp. 346- 113 See esp. Plutarch De tranq. an. 2, 465F; De lat. viv.,
4 7. Scholem characterizes them as follows: "There
were two types of Zaddikim, those who are hidden
and keep to themselves and those who manifest
themselves to their fellow-men and are working as it 115 Cited is the LCL edition and translation by H.
were under the public eye. The former is called a
Nistar, i.e., a concealed one, and the latter Mephur-
sam, i.e., famous. Zaddikim are of the higher order,
because they are not tempted by the vanity almost
inseparable from a public career. Indeed, some of
them take it upon themselves to build up an image in
sharp contradiction to their true and hidden nature.
They may not even be aware of their own nature and
go about performing their good deeds in secret
without knowing that they are of the elect. They are
hidden not only from mankind but from themselves."
111 See, e.g., Seneca De ben. 1.6.2-3, who sums up this
common view: "It is the intention that exalts smalJ
gifts, gives lustre to those that are mean, and
discredits those that are great and considered of
value.... Good men, therefore, are pleasing to the
gods with an offering of meal and gruel; the bad on
the other hand, do not escape impiety although they
dye the altars with streams of blood."
112 For the references see Hermann Usener, Epicurea
(reprinted Rome: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 1963)
no. 551 (pp. 326-29).
passim (esp. p. 1128A and following sections).
114 Philodemus De piet. cols. 109-10 (ed. Usener,
Epicurea, frg. nos. 169 and 13).
Rackham, Cicero (London: Heinemann; Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University, 1933) 19.110-13. The
Latin reads: "Quid est enim, Cur deus ab hominibus
colendos dicas, cum dei non modo homines non
colant sed omnino curent nihil agant? ... Est enim
pietas iustitia adversum deos; cum quibus quid potest
nobis esse iuris, cum homini nulla cum deo sit
communitas? Sanctitas autem est scientia colendorum
deorum; quiquam ob rem colendi sint non intellego
nullo nee accepto ab iis nee sperato bono." See also
the notes by ArthurS. Pease, M. Tulli Ciceronis De
natura deorum (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University, 1955, 1958) 1.506-11. For the maxim
and its older roots see the study by Fritz Wehrli,
AAE>E BH1I:AI:: Studien zur altesten Ethik bei den
Griechen (Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1931 ).

345
but active in secret, and true piety is certainly active as
well, although religious performances are to be done in
secret. A voidance of public ceremonies appears to be the
consequence. On the other side, Epicurus's otiose gods
require worship, if at all, in the form of quietism.
Epicurus himself may or may not have attended public
ceremonies. If he did, he did it pro forma so as to avert
harassment.
That these conclusions reflect Epicurus's views may be
inferred from sayings attributed to him. There are the
strong polemics in sayings against associating with the
crowds.l 16 One must, says the Gnomologium Vaticanum,
clearly distinguish between philosophizing for oneself11 7
and doing so before crowds so as to impress them: "We
must not pretend to study philosophy but study it in
reality; for it is not the appearance of health that we
need, but real health." 118 Or in another saying: "The
disturbance of the soul cannot be ended nor true joy
created either by possession of the greatest wealth or by
honour and respect in the eyes of the mob or by anything
else that is associated with causes of unlimited desire." 119
Ideas such as these occur also in Epictetus, according
to whom the true philosopher is not recognizable as
such. 120 He is what he is by himself, not because others
praise him. One may infer from these passages that these
sentiments regarding inconspicuousness were part of the
Socratic tradition; they may go back to the historical
Socrates himself. 1 21
3) The Doctrine of Reward
The doctrine of reward (JJ.ur6os) contained in 6:1-6, 16-
18 conforms to Jewish theology generally, 122 but the
116 Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 29; cf. Lucretius De rer. nat. 5.11 0.
117 Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 76 sets up the contrast between
"philosophizing for oneself" (rh £avril> <f>tA.orro<fJ'ijrrat)
and "philosophizing for all Greece."
118 Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 54.
119 Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 81; cf. Kvpiat.6.6fa• 7, 17, 34, 35.
120 Epictetus Ench. 23, 24, 46, 47, 48; Diss. 3.12.16-17;
3.14.4-6; 3.23.1-38; 4.6.17, 32; 4.8.17-20, 36.
121 See Betz, Paulus, 118-32.
122 On the doctrine of reward see above on SM/Matt
5:12.
123 The future tense of lmoSC:,rr£1 ("he will remunerate")
in vss 4, 6, 18 refers to the last judgment. Cf. below
on 7:21-23.
124 So, rightly,Jiirgen Becker, Das Heil Gottes: Heils- und
Sundenbegriffe in den Qumrantexten und im Neuen
Testament (SUNT 3; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
346
idea that one must avoid all reward in this world so as to
insure reward by God in the world to come is a specialty
of the SM. 123 The theological basis for this doctrine is
twofold: first, the doctrine of the imitation of God,
fundamental to the SM as a whole; and second, the
principle of righteousness according to which a good
deed can be rewarded only once. 124 This principle is
simply the reverse of the legal rule that an evil deed or
crime can be punished only once. 125 By implication,
God, who is the God of righteousness, upholds this
principle, in particular at the last judgment.
The peculiar conclusion drawn by the SM is that all
rewards, even such trivial ones as public fame and
applause, count. Therefore, one must avoid even these
trivial rewards if one has any expectation that God will
reward righteous deeds in the last judgment. This
doctrine may appear to us formalistic and pedantic, but
we should admit that the passage recognizes the severity
of danger coming from confusing public applause with
true religious piety. We should also realize that the
principle of justice underlying the doctrine is funda-
mental to our own understanding of justice. Punishment
can properly be meted out for the same deed only once;
rewards may be given more often for the same deed, but
frequency of such rewards hurts rather than helps in the
mind of the public.
Scholars often comment on the difference between
this concept of reward requiring good deeds to be done
in secret and what appears to be the opposite commen-
dation in SM/Matt 5:16, to do good deeds before all the
people. 1 2 6 The recommendations are different, with the
Ruprecht, 1964) 20; Dietzfelbinger, "Frommigkeits-
regeln," 186; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 104, 106 (Sermon,
100, 101-2).
125 See Theodor Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht
(Leipzig: Duncker and Humblot, 1899) 4: "Das
Verbrechen wird durch die Strafe als aufgehoben
betrachtet, die offentliche Ordnung als damit
beglichen" ("The crime is regarded as being taken
care of by the punishment, the public order as
thereby restored"). For specific discussion see Detlev
Liebs, "Die Herkunft der 'Regel' his de eadem rene sit
actio," ZSRG.R 84 (1967) 104-32; Erwin Seidl,
Rechtsgeschichte A.gyptens als romischer Provinz: Die
Behauptung des agyptischen Rechts neben dem romischen
(St. Augustin: Richarz, 1973) 124.
126 See Schweizer, "Jude," 92; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 105
n. 19 (Sermon 208 n. 19).
 Matthew 6:1-18

difference due to the source material assimilated into the
SM. The extreme inconspicuousness recommended in
6:1-6, 16-18 seems hard to reconcile with the
unreserved use of good deeds for missionary effective-
ness over against the people in SM/Matt 5:16. The
author or redactor of the SM, however, saw that the
passages are compatible in spite of the differences: 6:1-6,
16-18 deals with specifically cultic performances, while
5: 16 speaks of good deeds generally; and 5: 16 has as its
goal to lead the people to praise God, while 6:1-6, 16-
18 criticizes religious observance done ostentatiously and
leading to the glorification of humans, something in and
of itself improper.
4) The "Hypocrites" and the "Pagans"
By way of syncrisis ("comparison") SM/Matt 6:1-6, 16-
18 contrasts the ideal of true piety with "the hypocrites"
(o! b7ToKp&Tal [6:2, 5, 16]), whose false piety is portrayed
by little satirical vignettes (see below on 6:2, 5, 16). One
can obviously use the term "hypocrite" against anyone
who rightly or wrongly is suspected of performing rituals
without integrity. 127 Peculiar to the i.nstruction in 6:1-6,
16-18 is that the "hypocrites" represent general religious
character types, 12 8 not a specific religious group.
Notably, the SM does not explicitly identify "the
hypocrites" with the Pharisees (cf. 5:20). 129 At this point
the SM differs from the evangelist Matthew, for whom
all Jewish adversaries of Jesus are "hypocrites." 130 In
contrast, the SM does not present "the hypocrites" as
adversaries ofJesus but as character types displaying
sham religiousness, 131 so that the term can apply even to
the addressees of the SM themselves (7:5).
To the extent that "the hypocrites" represent
caricatures of Jews as they appear to other Jews (the
people behind the SM), the criticism of hypocrisy is
inner1ewish and not anti-Jewish. Differently, the prayer
instruction of 6:7-15 focuses on "the pagans" (o! £8v&Ko&'),
viewed from the Jewish perspective. Also here the
"babblers" represent a character type of a wider cultural
application, a comic figure vainly attempting to impress
the god by "babbling" (~aTTaA.oy£w) or sheer "verbosity"
(7ToAvA.oyla). lll 2
For the SM, both the "hypocrites" and the "pagans"
are contrast-types, from whom the faithful disciples must
disassociate themselves. 13 3 In one sense the "hypocrite"
is put at the same level with the "pagan," but in another
sense they differ in that the "hypocrite" is an insider
whereas the "pagan" is an outsider. Their association is a
function of polemic and exhortation.
One should also note that 6:7-8 does not seem to be
concerned with a doctrine of reward. As in Jewish
doctrine, however, one must assume that notions about
reward lie in the background, even though they are not
explicitly stated. Perhaps the concern about reward is
stated later in the eschatological-legal rule of 6:14-15-
if this rule was attached from the beginning to the
section 6:7-13. Eschatological reward and punishment is
also presupposed in the Lord's Prayer (6:9b-13).
d. Authorship
The examination of 6:1-6, 16-18 and 6:7-15 raises the
question about origin and primary authorship. What can
one say about the original authors of these two

127 For further discussion and references see below on criticism elsewhere, so that there may already be this
SM/Matt 6:2. tendency in the SM throughout (see also Betz, Essays,
128 For this reason the term here retains its original 62, and the literature and discussion above on 5:20).
connotation of "playactor." At any rate, the character type of the "hypocrite"
129 Differently Zahn, Matthiius, 260; Dietzfelbinger, leaves the question of a specific designation open; in
"Frommigkeitsregeln," 188, 190-94. Dietzfelbinger this point I agree with Luz, Matthiius, 1.322 n. 20
thinks that the polemic goes against "the synagogue." (Matthew, 1.356 n. 20).
More cautious are Strecker, Bergpredigt, 101-4 132 See below on SM/Matt 6:7.
(Sermon, 98-101 ); Luz, Matthiius, 1.322-24 (Matthew, 133 So also Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 71-72; Luz, Matthiius,
1.355-56). 1.321-22 (Matthew, 1.354-55).
130 See Matt 15:7; 22:18; 23:13, 14, 15, 28; 24:51. See
also van Tilborg,jewish Leaders, 8-26.
131 Matthew takes up the anti-Pharisaic polemic in his
source SM/Matt 5:20, which is connected with the
rejection of "inadequate" Torah interpretation in
5:21-48 and the "hypocritical" piety in 6:1-18.
Ostentatiousness became a point of anti-Pharisaic

347
remarkable pieces of literature? 134 It is safe to assume
that they cannot have come originally from the same pen
because they present quite different theological
perspectives. But can one say more?
1. Whoever wrote the passage 6: 1-6, 16-18 must
have been a Jewish theological mind with some rather
radical ideas. The carefully structured composition of
this teaching points to an individual with clearly defined
didactic convictions. 135 The composition certainly has its
roots in wisdom thought, 136 but out of whatever wisdom
material was at his disposal the author has created a
unique piece of exhortation. Who could this man have
been? Perhaps he was a member of the Jesus-movement
who was inspired by the teaching of the master, and this
made him contribute this piece of cultic instruction.
Comparison with other parts of the Jesus-tradition shows
that this author must have been an independent mind
who shared at least some ideas with the Jesus-movement
but who, on the whole, went his own way, although he
was no doubt influenced by the historical Jesus.
Another possibility would be that the author/redactor
of the SM took over the piece that existed prior to and
outside the Jesus-tradition. Taken on its own terms, the
piece could have been appropriated directly from Jewish
wisdom, without having been influenced in any way by
the historical Jesus. The author/redactor of the SM then
made it "Jesuanic" by interpolating into it the other
section 6:7-15, which contains the Lord's Prayer as its
centerpiece.
The possibility also remains that Jesus himself
composed 6: 1-6, 16-18. If one assumes this possibility,
however, the question arises why elsewhere the Jesus-
tradition has no trace of these doctrines; also the
differences between 6: 1-6, 16-18 and 6:7-15 become
difficult to explain. 13 7
One is admittedly left to speculation at this point, so
that one can make no hard-and-fast decision between
these options. The greatest probability appears to me to
be that all the sources involved have their origin in the
Jesus-tradition, rather than outside it. Their original
authors appear to have been disciples belonging to the
Jesus-movement. They were influenced in their
theological views by their master but also by Jewish
wisdom generally, just as was Jesus himself. That no clear
distinction is made between more general Jewish wisdom
and the Jesus-tradition specifically may be evidence of
the antiquity of the pieces. Perhaps Jesus himself did not
always make clear distinctions between his own ideas and
those he took over from Jewish wisdom. These
ambiguities may be due to the fact that at an early stage
clear borderlines were not yet drawn. Whatever the
answer to these questions may be, the fact that such
diverse sources could be integrated in the SM, which on
the whole represents a somewhat different theology from
either 6:1-6, 16-18 or 6:7-15, points to multiple
authorship within the SM. This assumption can be
supported by other evidence as well. 138 In other words,
the author /redactor of the entire SM understood his
task to be that of selecting and coordinating diverse
materials from the Jesus-tradition. This diversity
represented the range of viewpoints in the Jesus-
movement itself, which the author /redactor had no
interest in destroying. If one can assume this point, one
can also conclude that the Jesus-movement was able to
tolerate a considerable diversity of theological viewpoints
within a common framework. This common framework
is assumed by the author /redactor of the entire SM, as
he judged the diverse pieces of source material to be
theologically compatible. In other words, he appears to
be also a theological systematician, rather than a mere

134 See Betz, Essays, 65-68; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 101-2 should therefore be dated after 70 CE.
(Sermon, 97-99); Luz, Matthiius, 1.322 (Matthew, 136 See Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 71-74, who also seems to
1.355); Dietzfelbinger, "Frommigkeitsregeln," 188- think of individual sages rather than the anonymous
96. flow of tradition.
135 The two passages are highly individualized, so that a 137 Zelier,Mahnspruche, 73-74.
single authorship is more probable than that of a 138 On the question of authorship ofthe SM as a whole
group. So also Luz (Matthiius, 1.322 [Matthew, 1.355- see the Introduction above, pp. 1, 4, 18-22.
56]), but differently Strecker (Bergpredigt, 101
[Sermon, 97-98]), Dietzfelbinger ("Frommig-
keitsregeln," 190), speaking of a Jewish-Christian
group that originated in the synagogue. For Strecker
this group is in opposition to the synagogue and

348
 Matthew 6:1-1 8

rearranger of literary source materials.
2. SM/Matt 6:7-15 clearly points to an original
author different from the one who first conceived 6:1-6,
16-18. The teaching on prayer in 6:7-15 follows
another but also conventional pattern of combining
doctrine and exhortation with an authoritative
example. 139 This author has his eyes on the "pagans" and
their practices, and his main concern is to warn against
"paganization" seen from a Jewish perspective.
Theologically, his doctrine of God's omniscience
dominates his argument. While this author is responsible
for the didactic part (6:7-8), 140 the authoritative
example of the Lord's Prayer is attributed to Jesus
himself (6:9b-13). 141 The addition of the eschatological-
legal rule of 6:14-15 shows how the petition of 6:12 is to
be implemented in the life of the community.l 42 This
author was a member of the Jesus-movement who
contributed the piece and thereby showed what he had
learned from the master. 143 To what extent this author's
theological ideas can be traced back to the historical
Jesus is impossible to say.
3. The Lord's Prayer (6:9b-13) comes from the
historical Jesus himself. I can say this with confidence
because of the multiple attestation of the prayer in Matt
6:9b-13; Luke 11: 1-4; Did. 8.2, sources independently
attributing the Lord's Prayer to Jesus. Since one can
assume, however, that most of the petitions, perhaps
even all of them, have been adapted from prayers
current at the time, in composing this prayer Jesus
himself acted as an author /redactor. As a result this
prayer, despite its traditional nature, is also a highly
original creation displaying its own distinctive theology.
It is, therefore, justified to name Jesus as its author,
which makes this prayer the oldest text in the SM and the
only one that can be attributed directly to the historical
Jesus.I44
As a composition of multiple authorship, the cultic
instruction 6:1-18 evokes before the eyes of the readers
the picture of Jesus and his disciples. The master and his
prayer stand in the center, with his authority backing this
teaching no less than the SM in its entirety. The disciples
surround him with their own contributions, based on
what they have learned but also expressing their
individual theological viewpoints. One of these disciples
serves as the redactor of the whole SM, presiding over
the final composition. Providing authorial leadership
here means to assemble and fit it all into an overarching
framework, the epitome of which is the SM. All
contributors remain anonymous in the interest of
making Jesus the authority to whom all the teachings in
the SM are indebted. Later this company was joined by
the evangelist Matthew when he inserted the SM, as I
assume he did, into his Gospel and thereby showed how
it fitted into the life of Jesus and the earliest church. 145
2. Analysis In regard to composition, 6:1-18 contains three
sections of cultic exhortation, 146 characterized by the
same formal structure. 14 7 Verse I begins with a
general exhortation and serves as an introductory
principle, setting up, as it were, the basic patterns and
concepts. Verse 1 sets forth the doctrine that reward
and punishment at the last judgment depend on the
status of righteousness (o<Katocn'w'l) that the faithful

139 See Zeller, Mahnspriiche, 133-35; Luz, Matthiius, with John the Baptist?" ThZ 29 (1973) 215. If
1.330 (Matthew, 1.365). Differently, Bultmann Meyer's hypothesis were correct, one would have to
(History, 133, 146, 324) and Klostermann (Matthiius, apply this question as well to the prayer instruction as
54), who favor Matthean authorship of 6:7-8, while a whole. It is interesting, as Josef Ernst !Johannes der
Strecker (Bergpredigt, 108-9 [Sermon, 104-5]) Tiiufer: Interpretation, Geschichte, Wirkungsgeschichte
remains undecided. See also Jacques Dupont, "'En [BZNW 53; Berlin: de Gruyter 1989]106) has
priant .. .' (Mt 6,7-8)," in his Etudes, 2.862-68. pointed out, that some later manuscripts have
140 See below, pp. 363-69. "reconstructed" the prayer ofJohn the Baptist.
141 See below, pp. 364, 372-74. 144 See the Introduction to the section on the Lord's
142 See below, pp. 415-17. Prayer below (SM/Matt 6:9-13).
143 Eduard Meyer (Ursprung und Anfonge des Christentums 145 The composition is here in conformity with the rule
[2 vols.; 4th and 5th ed.; Stuttgart: Cotta, 1924] of Matt 23:8: "You shall not be called 'rabbi.' For
1. 90-91) maintains that Luke 11:1 should be taken one isyour teacher, but you are all brothers." Cf. also
to mean that the Lord's Prayer came from John the above on SM/Matt 5:19.
Baptist and his movement, and that it was taken over 146 For the conspectus of the analysis see the Intro-
into early Christianity after Jesus' death. See also duction, above pp. 50-58.
John K. Elliott, "Did the Lord's Prayer Originate 14 7 See also P. J. Maartens, "The Cola Structure of

349
must obtain before they appear before the divine
judge. The cult is legitimate only if its performances
enable the faithful to live in righteousness, so that the
cultic teaching as a whole contains the provisions for
attaining this required status of righteousness.
The three sections of 6:2-4, 5-6, and 16-18 each
begin with a reference to the cultic act to be performed
(vss 2a, 5a, 16a). This reference is followed each time
by a prohibition of the improper performance of the
ritual. These prohibitions are subdivided in the same
way: the imperatives (vss 2b, 5b, 16b) are followed by
caricaturizing descriptions of the wrong performance
(vss 2c-e, 5b-d, 16b-d) and of its improper purpose.
Then comes an amen-saying (vss 2e, 5c, 16c) stating
the consequences of the improper performance; all
three amen-sayings agree verbally. The prohibition is
then contrasted each time with instructions about how
the cultic act is to be performed properly (vss 3-4, 6,
17-18). Again, all three subsections are divided in the
same way. The reference to the cultic act is repeated,
the proper execution of the act is described, and its
proper purpose is stated. Each section concludes with a
statement of the theological rationale underlying the
instruction and with a theological promise of
eschatological reward. The three conclusions also
agree verbally. Finally, one should note the parallel
changes from the second person plural in connection
with the first reference to the cultic act (vss 5, 16;
differently vs 2) to the second person singular in the
second reference (vss 3, 6, 17).
As already discussed, it is generally recognized that
6:7-15 represents a secondary insertion into 6:1-6,
16-18. Most scholars attribute this insertion, not the
material itself, to the evangelist Matthew. This is
possible, but equally possible is that the pre-Matthean
author/redactor of the SM made the insertion; it is this
latter option that I prefer. At any rate, 6:7-15 is
another piece of cultic teaching, devoted to prayer
only. The affinity with 6:5-6 explains why it was
inserted after 6:6. This new piece of teaching
contained the Lord's Prayer (6:9b-13), prefaced by a
didactic part (6:7-9a) and concluded by a "sentence of
sacred law" (6: 14-15 ).
Compared with 6:1-6, 16-18 the teaching about
prayer in 6:7-15 shows features both similar and
different. Also beginning with a reference to the cultic
act (vs 7a), it continues with the prohibition of
improper performance, also described by a caricature
(vs 7b). What is new here is the doctrine about prayer
that serves as the reason for rejecting the improper
performance and commending the proper per-
formance (vs Sa-b). The theological reason is now
stated first, followed by the reference to the cultic act.
The quotation of the Lord's Prayer as the authori-
tative prototype (vss 9-13) and the "sentence of sacred
law" (vss 14-15) have no parallels in the other sections.
350
This prayer instruction, carefully and distinctly
composed as it is, can easily be separated from its
context. Its form and content suggest that it existed
independently prior to its inclusion into the SM. Its
theology can be understood on its own terms and
requires no reference to the context. One can also see
its original independence from the parallels outside the
SM. The parallels in Luke 11:1-4; Did. 8.2-3; 10.5;
and 1 Clem. 13.2 are significant because all of them
come from source materials having some similarity
with Matt 6:7-15, while the triad of almsgiving,
prayer, and fasting is attested elsewhere in Jewish
wisdom traditions. One should note that 6:7-15 has no
parallel in P. Oxy. 654 or the Coptic Gospel of Thomas.
The composition of6:7-15 shows in itself elements
of diverse origin. The didactic part (6:7-8) has
structural similarity with 6: 1-6, 16-18, but it has
characteristic differences as well, in particular the
example of the Lord's Prayer (6:9b-13) and the
"sentence of sacred law" (vss 14-15), formulated as an
antithetical isocolon. The parallels to this "sacred law"
are in Mark 11 :25-26; SM/Matt 5:23-24; Matt
18:21-22// Luke 17:14; Matt 18:35; 1 Clem. 13.2;
and Polycarp Phil. 3.2; there is, however, no
connection of this "sacred law" with Luke 11:1-4 and
Did. 8.3, so that it must have been added secondarily to
interpret the fifth petition of the Lord's Prayer
(SM/Matt 6: 12).
Why was the teaching on prayer (6:7-15)
interpolated into 6: 1-18? The reason seems to have
been that the author/redactor of the SM found
himself in the possession of two sources (Vorlagen) (6:1-
6, 16-18 and 6:7-15) that he wanted to keep and to
integrate in his work. He did so by combining the two
instructions on prayer. A second reason seems to have
been that 6:1-6, 16-18 alone appeared theologically
insufficient because it did not show any connection
with Jesus; indeed, it may not have had any. The
interpolation of6:7-15, therefore, made the section
6:1-6, 16-18 "Jesuanic." If this assumption is correct,
one may conclude that the author /redactor of the SM
regarded 6:1-6, 16-18 not as coming from Jesus
himself but as compatible material to be adopted. In
other words, just as the historical Jesus himself must
have taken over material from his environment, so also
the author/redactor of the SM continued the practice
and thus enriched the Jesus-tradition. Remarkable as it
is, the author /redactor left his sources intact, judging
them to be compatible, which indeed they are.
Because of the lack of evidence it is difficult, if not
impossible, to judge whether the combination of 6: 1-
6, 16-18 and 6:7-15 was the work of the author/
redactor of the SM or of the evangelist Matthew. Since
there is no indication of specifically Matthean
interference, however, I assume that the composition
of the section 6:1-18 came from the author/redactor
 Matthew 6:1-18

of the SM, who was also responsible for integrating the
whole instruction into the SM. With the evangelist
Matthew adopting and integrating the SM into his
Gospel, all the stages form the process of the literary
formation of the tradition.
If, as I assume, the author/redactor took over the
two instructions of6:1-6, 16-18 and 6:7-15, and
merged them, it is not difficult to see why he did so.
These sections provided the ideal building blocks for
the second main part of the SM dealing with worship.
As the composition of the SM now stands, the Lord's
Prayer is found in the center not only of the cultic
teaching in 6:1-18 but of the SM as a whole.
3. Interpretation
• 1 Even the first words of the cultic didache present some
major interpretative problems. Is vs 1 a constitutive part
of the pre-Matthean SM, or did the evangelist Matthew
add it to his source and thus put his redactional stamp on
it? Scholars have shown that placing a summary
statement or thesis at the head of an exhortational piece
belongs to the style of composition common to wisdom
literature. 148 If so, this would speak for a pre-Matthean
origin of vs 1 as an integral part of the composition. 149
The majority of scholars today, however, treat vs 1 as a
Matthean addition and point to what they take to be
Matthean language in it as reason.l 50 Yet, as we shall see,
the language of vs 1 is not attributable to a specifically
Matthean insertion, but it is adopted from and together
with source material used by the evangelist Matthew
himself. 151 Since the evangelist uses sources and also in a
more general sense the language of his church, one must,
to the extent possible, distinguish between these origins
of the Matthean language. This suggestion seems to be
tedious, but to a large extent the understanding of the
whole passage depends on it.
The initial exhortation 7rp0CTEX£T£ T~V OLKawu6v7JV vp.wv
("Be on guard concerning your righteousness") has two
objects, one direct and the other indirect: (1) the first
object is the accusative of reference to "your righteous-
ness," and (2) the second is an infinitive construction
introduced by p.~ ("not"). 152 This highly condensed
expression means that special attention is needed when
rituals are performed without consideration of
righteousness. Without such righteousness, the ritual is
performed illegitimately and improperly.
The warning 7rpou€x£n ("be on guard, concerned for,
pay attention to") occurs elsewhere in the SM and in the
New Testament, but it is then construed somewhat
differently. 15 3 Its occurrence indicates that danger is at
hand. Indeed, according to ancient thought, concern
about rightousness is in order when it comes to the
performance ofrituals. Both Jewish and Greek religion
understand that rituals can easily be performed in
disregard of all that is constitutive of righteousness. 154
Such disregard would mean that "religiosity" (£vu€jjua)
would itself be lost because that term was understood to
be the application of righteousness to worship. 1 5 5

Matthew 6," Neot. 11 (1977) 48-76, with the
Addendum, 12-13; Andrej Kodjak, A Structural
Analysis of the Sermon on the Mount (Religion and
Reason 34; Berlin, New York, and Amsterdam:
Mouton de Gruyter, 1986) 103-19.
148 Zeller, Mahnspruche, 71. For technical terms
indicating comprehensiveness or "the universal" (ab
or ketal) in rabbinic literature see Daube, NT and
Rabbinic judaism, 63-66; Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.131,
159-60; cf. 3.361 n. 8.
149 So Wrege, Bergpredigt, 97; Betz, Essays, 57 n. 9.
150 So emphatically Strecker, Weg, 152; idem, Berg-
predigt, 101 (Sermon, 97); similarly Bultmann, History,
133, 150; van Tilborg,jewish Leaders, 10-11;
Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.260-62; Guelich, Sermon, 274-
75; Luz, Matthiius, 1.321 (Matthew, 1.354); Gundry,
Matthew, 101; Gnilka, Matthiius, 1.201-2. For further
representatives of this position see Wrege, Berg-
predigt, 97 n. 2.
151 This fact was pointed out by Wrege, Bergpredigt, 97;
Luz (Matthiius, 1.321 nn. 9-12 [Matthew, 1.354-55
nn. 9-12]) acknowledges it without drawing any
conclusions from it.
152 This construction does not occur elsewhere in the
NT. See BAGD, s.v. 7rpO<T,xw, 1.b; BDF, § 392 (1.b);
BDR, § 392 n. 3 (a); Schenk, Sprache, 421, s.v.
153 See SM/Matt 7:15; Matt 10:17; 16:6, 11, 12; Luke
20:46; Did. 6.3; 12.5.
154 See the Introduction to this section above, p. 331-
335.
155 See SM/Matt 5:23-25. Another example is the
parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in
Luke 18:9-14. There also the main question is that
of righteousness in the sight of God. Matt 3:15

351
Whether someone's righteousness is safeguarded is
therefore decided not by convictions of faith but by the
performance of rituals. Thus righteousness is a term that
belongs to cultic ethics and law. 1 5 6
These general ideas are shared by the SM. "Righteous-
ness" is to be taken in the Jewish sense as a discipline that
the disciple must learn. This righteousness is funda-
mental to all parts of the SM, whether explicitly stated or
not. 157 It occurs, therefore, throughout the SM at
important points, especially in the telos formula in 6:33.
One of these important points is 6:1, where the SM turns
to the subject of worship. The question, therefore, is not
whether these rituals of worship should be performed
but how they should be performed so as to make sure
they fulfill their proper purpose.
A difficult problem is reflected in the textual
transmission of vs 1: 7rpou£x£n [ot-] T~v OLKawuVV7JV V!J.WV
!J.~ 71'0L£tv ~!J-7rpou8£v TWV lLv8pdJ71'wv 7rpos TO 8£a8ijvaL
avTo'is· . 158 Modern translations, which are quite diverse,
often fail to understand the point of what is basically a
Jewish theology and for this reason attempt to make the
text conform to Christian ideas. 159 I prefer therefore my
own literal rendering: "Be on guard concerning your
righteousness, not to act before the people for the
purpose of being seen by them." The widely attested
reading of f.A.£7]~J.OUVV7J ("almsgiving") for OLKawuVv7J
("righteousness") is such an attempt to "Christianize" the
text. 160 The different reading is a result of failing to
understand the relationship between vs 1 and the
following passages, specifically between OLKawuVv7J (vs 1)
and f.A.£7]~J.OUVV7J (vs 2). Christian scribes apparently no
longer capable of comprehending Jewish theology made
vs 1 part of the section vss 2-4. This substantial change
turned the Jewish cultic problem into a Christian moral
one that made the passage meaningful to a Christian
readership.l 61 Modern attempts to interpret 6: 1 on the
basis of Matthew's understanding of "righteousness"
(oLKawuVv7j) go the same way and take the concept in a
Christian sense. What then is the theological issue at
stake? What was the danger in relation to the cult?
This danger has to do with the fact that religious
rituals are matters of performance ("act, perform"
71'0L£'iv). 16 2 Performances take place before an audience.
Which then is the audience of cultic rituals? According to
ancient thought there are two options: (1) performance
before a human audience, and (2) before God or deities

applies the concept of righteousness to Jesus'
baptism. See furthermore Luke 1:6; 2:25; Rom 2:13; 160 EAHI/J.orrvvrJV instead of O<KaLOrrVvrJV is read by L W Z
1 Cor 11:27 (avafiw~ ["unworthily"]); Phil 3:6; etc.
156 See the Introduction to this section above, pp. 332-
35.
157 See above on SM/Matt 5:6, 10, 20, 45; also below on
6:33; 7:21-23.
158 B D W j13 1006. 1342. 1506. 9R lat sy< mae bomss
omit the a(, but WL Z 0 jl 33. 205. 892. 1424 al g 1
syp.h. bo have it. A decision is difficult. The presence
ofa( helps to connect 5:48 and 6:1, but on the whole
a( is not used in the SM to connect sections (except in
6:7; 7:15, where ll( is read by some witnesses, so that
Aland [Synopsis, 96] puts it into the apparatus). Con-
sequently, the a( in 6:1 may not be original to the SM.
159 Cf. Merx's Syriac versions, from which he translates:
"und machet eure Gerechtigkeit nicht vor dem Auge
der Menschen, daB ihr von ihnen gesehen werdet"
(Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, 1.10-11; see the
commentary, 2/1.120). ET: "and do your righteous-
ness not before the eye of the people, so that you are 162 For the cultic meaning of wodro ("perform") see
seen by them". V g has: "Attendite ne iustitiam
vestram faciatis coram hominibus, ut videamini ab
eis"; RV (1881 ed.): "Take heed that ye do not your
righteousness before men, to be seen of them";
NRSV: "Beware of practicing your piety before others
in order to be seen by them"; REB: "Be careful not to
parade your religion before others."
0j1 3 33.1006.1342.15069RfkmaeCIOrmss. This
shift from "righteousness" to "almsgiving" is also
found in most older translations since Tyndale. Less
frequently attested is llorrw ("gift"): W1 sy< bo. The
better tradition reads O<KawrrVV7J ("righteousness"):
W*2 B D 0250 jl 205. 892 pc lat Ormss. See the critical
apparatus in Aland, Synopsis, 85: Nestle-Aland, ad
Joe.; Walter Nagel, "Gerechtigkeit oder Almosen?
(Mt 6, 1)," VC 15 (1961) 141-45, who defends the
variant "almsgiving" by repeating what appears to be
the misunderstanding by earlier scribes.
161 While appealing to the modern mind, a misin-
terpretation is implied in the NEB: "Be careful not to
make a show of your religion before men" (similarly
REB; see above, n. 159). Even modern "rabbinic"
commentaries take over the misunderstanding from
the RV or Luther's translation; see, e.g., Str-B 1.386;
Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 111.
SM/Matt 6:2, 3; and on the whole see Herbert
Braun, "wodro KTA.," TDNT6.458-84, esp. 469-71,
478-82,484 (B.II.5.a-b; V.7.a-b; VI). For the NT
see also 1 Cor 10:31; 11:24, 25; Luke 22:19; Col
3:17 (23); Acts 18:21 (D); 21 :23; Heb 11 :28; Did.
11.11; 2 Clem. 11.7;Justin Dial. 41.1; 70.4.

352

of some sort. The SM assumes that performance before
human audiences is dangerous and therefore advises "not
to perform before the people." 163 The verb 7TOL€LV ("act,
perform") has no direct object but refers indirectly to the
three cultic acts to follow in vss 2-18. In other words,
cult is by definition a "doing" and a performing. If its
goal is to perform before a human audience, then it is
done "for the purpose of being seen by them" (7Tphs rh
8£a8fivat a·ho'Ls). 164 It is "theater," not worship. 165 By
contrast, worship, properly performed, is to be done
before God for the purpose of being seen by him. 166 The
point here is not whether the people are present, but
whether the intention of the performer is to be seen by
them or by God.
If the intention of the performer is to be seen by the
human audience, the rules and expectations of the
theater prevail: impressive displays, playacting, applause,
and so on. Worship is then turned into a public
spectacle. 16 7 The contrast between such a pseudo-
religious theater and true worship cannot be more
extreme. If God is the audience, theatrics are neither
needed nor appropriate.
Basic to the true religious performance of rituals
therefore is that they are "done" in the presence of God.
There is no need for an object of such doing except for
the implied ritual itself: it is a dromenon, and as such it
comes with strings attached. 168 Only if it is performed in
163 See also SM/Matt 6:2; 7:6; Matt 23:4-7,13, 25, 27-
28, 29-33; Luke 16:15; etc. What is meant is
exemplified in Luke 18:9-14; cf. also the prepos-
terous piety of Simon Magus (Acts 8:1 0) and
Demetrius (Acts 19:24-27).
164 The motif is also used in the anti-Pharisaic polemics
of Matthew 23 throughout (see esp. 23:5a: "but they
do all their deeds so as to be seen by the people" [wphr
Tb 8ea8ijval rolr av8p<i>wo•r]). Cf. also Paul's attack on
Peter in Gal2:11-14.
165 Paul's self-ironic statement in 1 Cor 4:9 is a parallel:
"we have become a spectacle to the world and the
angels and the people" (8tarpov tyev~81jf.'EV rif> K6crl-''!>
Ka\. ayytAOif Ka\. av8p<i>wolr ). See Conzelmann, 1
Corinthians, 88.
166 One can name many NT passages to support this
interpretation. See esp. Luke 1:75; 15:10, 18, 21;
18:9-14; Acts 4:19; 10:31, 33; Rom 14:22; 1 Tim
2:1-3; Heb 13:21; 1 Pet 3:4;Jas 1:27; 1 John 3:22.
167 See also Robert A. Batey, "Jesus and the Theatre,"
NTS 30 (1984) 563-74.
168 On these history of religions concepts see Widen-
Matthew 6:1-18
the "right" way can its "righteousness" and by implication
that of the performer be safeguarded.
The immediate consequence of the failure is the loss of
reward (vs 1b): "but if otherwise, you do not have a
reward in the sight of your Father who is in the heavens"
(€l a€ J.l.~ y€, J.I.LIT8hv OVK fx€T€ 7Tapa T~ 7Tarp'r. VJ.I.WV T~ EV TOLS
ovpavo'Ls ). 169 The initial conditional statement is
abbreviated: d a€ J.l.~ 'Y€ ("but if otherwise"). 170 It suggests
that the abomination just rejected actually occurs; the
particle 'Y€ may add a mark of astonishment ("in-
deed"). 171 That one now has no reward with God means
that in such a case one can expect no reward in heaven
(see above on 5: 12). Indeed, if the condition of
righteousness has failed, there is no ground for
rewarding the unrighteous performer. 172 The phrase
7Tapa r~ 7Tarpl ("in the sight of [or: with] the Father")
states the contrast to vs 1a, "before the people. " 17 3
• 2 Almsgiving is introduced here as the first of the three
rituals (vss 2-4). The reference points to regular
performance: "Whenever, therefore, you do alms-
giving ... " (Cfrav o~v 7TOtfis EA€7JJ.I.OlTVV7JV ... ). The
gren, Religionsphanomenologie, 209-57; Burkert, Greek
Religion, 55-66; Gunther Lanczkowski, "Gottes-
dienst, 1: Religionsgeschichtlich," TRE 14 (1985) 1-
5; Evan M. Zuesse, "Ritual," EncRel12.405-22;
Ronald M. Grimes, "Ritual Studies," ibid., 422-25.
169 The article is left out before ovpavolr ("heavens") in
lot* D Z 0250jl 33 pc. It is read by w2 B L W 8jl3 9R.
So Nestle-Aland's apparatus. The standing formula
in the SM does usually have the article; see SM/Matt
5:12, 16; 6:9; 7:11, 21; differently 5:45 (without the
article).
170 See BAGD, s.v. d, VI.3.b; BDF, §§ 376, 439 (1);
BDR, §§ 376 n. 6; 439, 1.
171 See BAGD, s.v. yt, 3.a, who refers to the parallels in
Luke 10:6; 13:9; furthermore see Matt 9: 17; Luke
5:36; 2 Cor 11:16.
172 See above on 5:12, 46; the present tense is repeated
in awtxovcriV ("they have got") in vss 2, 5, 16.
173 The phrase occurs only here in the SM. Cf. Rom
2:13, and other parallels collected in BAGD, s.v.
wapa, 11.2.b.
353
sentence is clearly connected with the preceding vs 1 by
"therefore" (otiv), indicating that vss 2-4 are the
consequence and application of what was stated as a
thesis in vs 1. The conjunction 8rav ("when") refers to
the Jewish custom that almsgiving is to occur at regular
times as part of the fulfillment of the Torah. 17 4 The
phrase "do almsgiving" (?Tou:'iv £AE1JfA.OcrtivrJV) is technical
in Jewish language 17 5 and expresses the view that
almsgiving is in the first place a ritual required by the
Torah and not merely a social obligation. 176 Peculiar is
the change from the second person plural in vs 1 to the
second person singular in vs 2. Here, as in vss 3a-4, 6,
and 1 7, the second person singular addresses the
individual disciple, but in vs 2a one would expect the
second person plural because of the pronoun ilfA.'iv ("you"
[plural]) in vs 2e and the parallels in vss 5a and 16a. Erich
Klostermann has therefore emended the text at this
point, so that the plural ?TorijTE ("you should do") would
be read in vs 2a, an argument that has not lost its force
since it was first proposed. 177
In the Judaism of the beginning of the Christian era,
the growing importance of almsgiving as a social
institution is evidenced by the frequency of the use of the
terminology in the LXX and in Hellenistic Judaism. 178
Here, £AETJfA.Ocrtiv1J ("almsgiving") is closely related and
often identified or associated with otKawcrtivTJ ("righteous-
ness"). This rising importance of almsgiving may also
have been connected with the increasing criticism of
some forms of the sacrificial cult. At least this form of
sacrifice was not bloody and was all beneficial. It is
noteworthy that the cultic instruction in Sir 34: 13-
36:17 names almsgiving as an acceptable form of
sacrifice because it does not take away anything from the
poor (Sir 34: 18-22). Instead it is construed as a
repayment of good things received and therefore an
appropriate form of thanksgiving (35:2). 179 Similar ideas
are stated in the cultic instruction ofTob 12:6-10
regarding the proper form of thanksgiving:
Praise God and thank him before all men living for
the good he has done you, so that they may sing
hymns of praise to his name. Proclaim to all the world
what God has done, and pay him honour; do not be
slow to give him thanks. A king's secret ought to be
kept, but the works of God should be acknowledged
publicly. Acknowledge them, therefore, and pay him
honour. Do good, and evil shall not touch you. Better
prayer with sincerity, and almsgiving with righteous-
ness, than wealth with wickedness. Better give alms
than hoard up gold. Almsgiving preserves a man from
death and wipes out all sin. Givers of alms will enjoy
long life; but sinners and wrongdoers are their own
worst enemies. (NEB)
These ideas were greatly expanded later in rabbinic
Judaism, 180 where almsgiving, not to be confused with

174 See also SM/Matt 5:11; 6:5, 6, 16. See BAGD, s.v.
15rav, 1.a: "a (regularly) repeated action"; Zeller, 179 See also Sir 3:30; 7:10; 12:1; on these passages also
Mahnspriiche, 71 n. 129.
175 See Sir 7:10; Tob 1:3, 16; 4:7-8; Acts 9:36; 10:2;
24:17. For further references see BAGD, s.v.
fA<"'IJJ.OIFVVTj; 7rOtfw, 1.1.c.{3.
176 The literature on almsgiving is enormous. The basic
work is by Hendrik Bolkestein, Wohltiitigkeit und
Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum (Utrecht:
Oosthoek, 1939); for summaries of research see
RudolfBultmann, "lA.<TJp.OIFVVTJ," TDNT 2.485-87;
Ferdinand Staudinger, EWNT(EDNT) 1, s.v.
lA<TJp.outJVTJ; Hendrik Bolkestein and Wilhelm
Schwer, "Aimosen," RAG 1 (1950) 301-7; Horst-
Dietrich Preuss, Erhard Kamiah, Michael Signer, and
Gustav Wingren, "Barmherzigkeit I-IV," TRE 5
(1980) 215-38.
177 See Erich Klostermann, "Zum V erstandnis von Mt
6,2," ZNW 47 (1956) 280-81.
178 See Str-B 1.387-88; Bultmann, TDNT 2.485-87;
Roman Heiligenthal, "W erke der Barmherzigkeit
oder Almosen? Zur Bedeutung von lA<TJp.ouVVTJ,"
NovT 25 (1983) 289-301.
Stadelmann, Ben Sira, 96-98. For Hellenistic Judaism
see furthermore Prov 21:26 (LXX); Dan 4:27 (MT
24); Ps.-Phoc. Sent. 22-41, with the commentary of
van der Horst, Sentences, 128-41 (also OTP 2.575);
Sib. Or. 2.78-94 (OTP 1.347); Syr. Menander 368-76
(OTP 2.602); T.Jac. 7.23-25 (OTP 1.918); T.job 9-
14 (OTP 1.842-45); Vision ofEzra 7, 26, 31,64 (OTP
1.581, 585, 588, 590). See Heinemann, Philons
griechische und jiidische Bildung, 79, 119, 198-99, 355,
552; Schiirer, History, 2.437, 577-78.
180 See the instructive excursus no. 22 in Str-B 4/1.536-
58: "Die altjiidische Privatwohltatigkeit"; also Str-B
1.386-88; 2.188-89; Urbach, Sages, 448-61;
Michael A. Signer, "Barmherzigkeit, III:Judentum,"
TRE 5 (1980) 228-32 (bibliography); Pinchas
Hacohen Peli, "The I:Iavurot That Were in
Jerusalem," HUCA 55 (1984) 55-74, esp. 65-69:
"Deeds of Loving Kindness and Communal Prayer."

354
 Matthew 6:1-18

t/ ( ( \ ,.. ., .... .... \ ., ....

public welfare, was regarded as one of the most
important deeds of private piety. The New Testament,
however, makes no distinction between almsgiving and
more general "deeds of loving-kindness" (C.,OM n1':lcl),
such as visitation of the sick, hospitality toward strangers,
and so forth. 181 The SM does not discuss other
distinctions such as whether the good deed is done with
money or with one's own personal involvement, whether
it is done toward the rich or the poor, the living or the
dead; at any rate, they seem to be attributable to later
developments. 182
As far as the SM is concerned, almsgiving includes
financial contributions to the funds for the poor. The SM
acknowledges this obligation to be binding for the
disciples of Jesus as part of their fulfillment of the Torah.
This much one can say on the basis of vs 2a, but more is
revealed by the following statements.
Verse 2b-d contains a satirical description of abusive
practices of almsgiving, practices from which the faithful
disciples should disassociate themselves: "Do not sound a
trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the
synagogues and in the streets, in order that they are
glorified by the people" (p.~ uall:rrluns £p.7rpou8€v uov
WU7r£p Ot V'TrOKptTat 7TOWVUW £V TOtS UVVaywyats Kat £V Tats
/rvp.ats, Cl7TWS ootau8wuw imh TWV av8pC:mwv). The
question is whether this description points to real
practices 183 or represents merely polemical exag-
geration. As in satire, both are true: satire would not
work if real occurrences of the said abuse were not
known and could not be drawn on to make a point.
Satire counts on public assent, with regard to both reality
and moral implications. The practices described must
have been known and rejected by the public as
improper. 184 Only then could the satirist take them up,
exaggerate them, and present them as a spectacle of
ridicule.
It is, however, wrong to assume, as Cyril of Alexandria
does, that sounding a trumpet at the occasion of
almsgiving was a Jewish custom. 185 Nonetheless, that

181 Matt 25:35-36,42-43 show that they were known
but not under the rabbinic name. See furthermore
Did. 1.6 (cf. Sir 12:1; Sib. Or. 2.79); 15.4; 2 Clem.
16.4; Hermas Vis. 3.9.4-6; Sim. 1.8-9. For more
references see Bolkestein and Schwer, RAC 1.304.
182 For these distinctions see esp. t. Pe 'a 4, 19 (24); b.
Sukk. 49a; 'Abot R. Nat. (A), chap. 4 (trans. of Goldin,
p. 35): "What then were the acts of loving-kindness in
which he [sc. Daniel] was engaged? He used to outfit
the bride and make her rejoice, accompany the dead,
give a perutah to the poor, and pray three times a
day."
183 Zahn (Matthiius, 259) points out correctly that the
rabbinic literature reports no such incident and that
the suppositions by Lightfoot (Horae Hebraicae, 289),
Schottgen (Horae Hebraicae, 1.51-52), Tholuck
(Bergrede, 327-28 [Commentary, 296-300]), and
August Wiinsche (Neue Beitriige zur Erliiuterung der
Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch [Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1878]77) are worthless.
This did not, however, stop the flow of new or
renewed hypotheses claiming to have found a
rational explanation. Thus, G. Klein ("Mt 6,2," ZNW 184 One cannot regard them as an accepted custom, and
6 [1905] 203-4) suggested that the trumpet may
actually have meant a money box in the Temple
called shofar (literally "trumpet"; cf. Mark 12:41-
44//Luke 21:1-4 about the ya(o.pvJI.aKLOV ["trea-
sury"]). According tom. Seqal. 6.5, 13 such money
boxes in the form of trumpets were in the Temple
(see Str-B 2.37-41). The statement in the SM would,
therefore, represent a translation mistake and Jesus
would have meant to say: "Do not put it into the
shofar." This old suggestion has been renewed by
Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary, 112-13), apparently
without knowing Klein's article; see also Samuel T.
Lachs, "Studies in the Semitic Background to the
Gospel of Matthew," JQR 67 (1977) 103-5. Adolf
Buchler ("St. Matthew VI.1-6 and Other Allied
Passages," JTS 10 [1908]266-70) believes that
trumpets were actually blown, although at different
occasions. Neil]. McEleney ("Does the Trumpet
Sound or Resound? An Interpretation of Matthew
6:2," ZNW 76 [1985]43-46) thinks that donors
dropped coins into the shofar box with as much noise
as possible so as to attract the attention of the
bystanders, and that this is the practice that Jesus had
in mind. This curious hypothesis, however, was
already known to Tholuck (Bergrede, 327
[Commentary, 299]).
there is no point in waiting for new evidence for it.
Cf. Bornhauser, Bergpredigt, 122-23; Schlatter,
Matthiius, 201; Str-B 1.388.
185 So correctly Gerhard Friedrich, TDNT 7 .85-86;

355
Jewish sources do not report incidents such as these does
not mean that they could not have happened. It would
probably be fair to say that religions at all times were
capable of producing what to others inside and out!.ide
looked like acts of obvious folly, not to mention worse
things. Simultaneously, one should take "blowing the
trumpet" as a figure of speech pointing to the entire
gamut of religious ostentation and pomposity. 186 The
figure of speech addresses what Paul calls "boasting. " 187
The ridiculous behavior of the almsgiver who has his
donations announced by a trumpet-blowing herald is
reminiscent of similar descriptions of the pomposity of
the rich in Greek satire. In Lucian's Nigrinus, for
instance, the conduct of the nouveau riche in Athens is
portrayed with gusto: "For example, he [sc. Nigrinus]
mentioned a millionaire who came to Athens, a very
conspicuous and vulgar person with his crowd of
attendants and his gay clothes and jewelry, and expected
to be envied by all the Athenians and to be looked up to
as happy. " 188 This conduct did not fool the sophisticated
Athenians. Another such abuse was the appearance of
the so-called nomenclators: "It is the duty of certain
servants, going in advance of their masters, to cry out
and warn them to mind their footing when they are
about to pass something high or low .... 'Why,' said he,
'this is actually done in public squares at midday!"' 189
These people "display their purple gowns and show their
rings and betray an unbounded lack of taste. Would you
believe it?-They make use of another man's voice in
greeting people they meet, expecting them to be
thankful for a glance and nothing more." 19 0
While the trumpet is sometimes compared to the blare
of rhetoricians in satire, 191 one should compare the
conduct of almsgivers as described in SM/Matt 6:2 to
the givers of public donations (:AELrovpyiat). 19 2 Their
generous gifts were inscribed in stone on public
monuments. 193 They played an important role also in
political power contests and struggles. 194 Satire could
easily make use of these practices in its social criticism of
the arrogance and ridiculous pomposity of the
wealthy. 195 One should look for this context of social
satire as the background for the description in 6:2.
Those who act in such a reprehensible way are called
"the hypocrites" (at v7roKptrai). 196 As has often been
observed, the term here retains its original connotation
of "playactors,'' 197 instead of having been reduced to

Hermann Lichtenberger, EWNT 3.538 (EDNT
3.226); Strecker, Bergpredigt, I 03 (Sermon, 99). Luz
(Matthiius, 1.323, 326 [Matthew, 1.356-57, 360)) has
references to a legendary Jewish custom of blowing
the trumpet at almsgiving in order to attract the poor.
I86 For the metaphor of"blowing one's own hom" see
the references in Tholuck, Bergrede, 325-27
(Commentary, 297-99); BAGD, s.v. CFaA..,.{(w; Luz
(Matthiius, 1.323 nn. 28 and 29 [Matthew, 1.357 nn.
28 and 29)), referring to Str-B 4/1.548-50;
Strecker, Bergpredigt, I 03 (Sermon, 99).
I87 "Boasting" was regarded as foolish and unethical as
early as Egyptian wisdom; see the "Instruction
Addressed to Kagemni," II, I-5, according to
Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, I.60. On the
subject of boasting see Rudolf Bultmann, "Kavxaop.at
KTA.," TDNT 3.646-54; Betz inPECL 2.2I9, 374-82;
idem, Galatians, 302-3, 3I7-I9; Spicq, Notes, 3.386-
94.
188 LucianNigr. 13.
189 Ibid., 34.
190 Ibid., 21. See Betz, Lukian, 194-99. For further
examples of satirical portraits of philosophers see
Heinrici, Bergpredigt ( 1905 ), 2.62-64.
I91 See Lucian Rhet. praec. 13; De domo I6; Dio
Chrysostom Or. 8.2, where Diogenes of Sinope calls
Antisthenes a "trumpet that cannot hear its own
sound"; Diogenes could certainly not be accused of
that. Cf. Paul's self-ironic remark in 2 Cor 6:11a:
"My mouth is wide open toward you, Corinthians."
The context is that of his self-description as the
herald of Christ (2 Cor 5:20).
192 For the literature regarding this concept see Betz, 2
Corinthians 8 and 9, 117-18 (on 2 Cor 9:12).
193 For a list of such inscriptions see Johannes Oehler,
"Liturgie," PW 12/2 (1925) 1877.
I94 The contexts nearly always mention "boasting" and
"arrogance." See, e.g., Demosthenes Or. 21.6, 61,
167; Lysias Or. 21.6; !socrates Or. 12.145
(Panathenaicus); 15.145-48 (Antidosis).
195 Satirical descriptions of the rich are found in
SP /Luke 6:24-26; Luke 12:16-21; 16:19-31; also
Jas 2:1-12 (on the latter see Dibelius,james, 39-45).
These examples demonstrate how satire uses
exaggeration. Differently, Richard A. Batey ("Jesus
and the Theatre," NTS 30 [I984)563-74) thinks
that Jesus was actually acquainted with theatrical
performances by actors and orators, and that he
drew on these experiences to satirize the practices of
religious leaders. But that theaters existed in the
environment in which Jesus lived does not mean that
he visited them. Satirical imagery often travels by
way of oral tradition.
196 Apart from vs 2 see vss 5 and 16; also 7:5.

356
 Matthew 6:1-18

merely a slanderous term designating outsiders. 198 The
"hypocrite" here is not primarily one who is simply
morally dishonest or a dissembler and faker, but the
"typical" religious practitioner whose external per-
formance sharply conflicts with fundamental religious
and moral principles. 199 The reason for this discrepancy
is not hard tO' guess. Besides the usual ignorance and
folly, it is selfishness and arrogance. People of such
character, it is assumed, love to "perform" ('lTOL£tv)2° 0 "in
the synagogue and in the streets" (l.v TatS' uvvaywya'iS' Kat
l.v TatS' pvp.aLS').
These remarks belong to the typology of the hypocrite
and should not be interpreted as a direct attack against
the synagogue in generai.2° 1 On the contrary, the
remark implies basic approval of the synagogue by
criticizing only what conscientious Jews take to be abuse.
Practices such as the ones described are unfortunately
tolerated in the public life of religion, but their
legitimacy is questioned and rejected. 202
The term "synagogues" (plural) refers to buildings
called by that name. 203 It appears that the person who
wrote the piece is used to this language and expects the
readers to be familiar with it as well; it is suggested,
furthermore, that he still attends synagogue worship and
has occasion to see the practices firsthand. At least this is
what the readers are supposed to conclude.
The term pVp.7J ("narrow street," "lane," "alley") points
to a larger city, most likely Jerusalem.20 4
The statement in vs 2d, "in order that they may be
glorified by the people" (8'lTOOS' aotaufJwuLV fmo TWV
lzvfJpcf>'lTwv), explains the intentions of the almsgivers
satirized above. They want to be glorified as pious 205
people and then enjoy the gratitude and appreciation of
the public, 206 who regard them as "benefactors" and
conceivably grant them privileges. This is part of
granting them "glory" (aota).

I97 See Ulrich Wilekens, "fnroKplvop.a&," TDNT 8.559-7I, (Matthew, 1.357-58).

esp. 566-68 (C.I); ThWNT I0/2.I287-88 (bib-
liography); BAGD, s.v. fnroKplvop.a• KTA., with
references and bibliography; van Tilborg,jewish
Leaders, 8-26; Bruno Zucchelli, 'YIIOKPITHI.:
Origine e storia del termine (Brescia: Paideia, I963),
and the review by Harald Patzer, Gnomon 42 (I970)
64I-52; Harold Patzer, Gesammelte Schriften
(Wiesbaden: Steiner, I985) 26I-72; Heinz Giesen,
EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v. fnroKp&r~s KTA. (bibliography);
Spicq, Notes, 3.650-57; Sieben, Voces, 203; Lichten-
berger, Studien zumMenschenbild, I06-7 (on the curse
against the hypocrite in I QS 2 .II-I8). On the
general background see Ulrich Wilckens, Alois Kehl,
and Karl Hoheisel, "Heuchelei," RAG I4 ( I988)
I205-3I; Kippenberg, Die vorderasiatischen
Erlosungsreligionen, 207, 4I8-I9.
I98 SM/Matt 7:5/ /SP/Luke 6:42 show that even the
disciples can be called "hypocrites." Matthew and the
following tradition differ, since for them "hypocrites"
are outsiders and usually Jewish opponents of
Christianity (Matt I5:7 I /Mark 7:6; Matt 22:I8;
23:I3, I4, I5; 24:5I; Mark I2:I5; Luke I2:I, 56;
I3:I5; 20:20; I Tim 4:2; Did. 2.6; 4.I2; 5.I; 8.I-2;
etc.
I99 For the meaning see also Gal 2: I3; and Betz,
Galatians, I09-IO.
200 On the meaning of this term see above, n. I62.
20 I Against Dietzfelbinger, "Frommigkeitsregeln,"
passim; van Tilborg,jewish Leaders, 8, 2I-26;
Guelich, Sermon, 278-79; Strecker, Bergpredigt, I 03
(Sermon, 99); correct is Luz, Matthiius, 1.324
202 It is thus analogous to the story ofJesus' Cleansing of
the Temple (Mark II:I5-I7 I /Matt 2I:I2-
I3/ /Luke I9:45-46//John 2:I3-I7). See Sanders,
Jesusandjudaism, 6I-76, 277.
203 See also vs 5, both times without avrwv ("their"). For
a Christian synagogue seeJas 2:2; cf. Matt 4:23; 9:35;
IO:I7; I2:9; I3:54, which all have avrwv ("their"
[i.e.,Jewish outsiders]); 23:6 (without avrwv); 23:34
(vp.wv ["your," referring to scribes and Pharisees]).
On the term uvvaywy~ ("synagogue") see BAGD, s. v.;
Wolfgang Schrage, "uvvaywy~," TDNT 7. 798-852;
ThWNT I0/2.I273-74; Hubert Frankemolle,
EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v. uvvaywy~ (bibliography);
Schiirer, History, 2.423-54 (esp. 439-47) and 3.996-
97, index, s. v. Synagogue.
204 See also Acts 9:II; I2:IO; Luke I4:2I; and BAGD,
s.v. pvp.TJ.
205 The term aofaCw is used here in the secular sense
("glorify"). See BAGD, s. v., I; Betz, 2 Corinthians 8
and 9, 8I-82.
206 On the meaning of the expression "the people" see
above on SM/Matt 6:1.
357
 The glory, however, belongs first of all to God (see on
SM/Matt 5: 16; 6:13 [for the doxology see the excursus
below]), who is the donor of all good things. 2° 7 The
human donor merely "repays" what has first been given
by God's beneficence.2° 8 What is criticized here,
therefore, is the wrong order of performance. First God
ought to be glorified by a doxology, 2° 9 and then the
benefactor may also be praised.2 10 In principle,
therefore, one is not wrong to praise the benefactor, if
one does this after one has first given God what is due
him. 211 Therefore, the conduct of the almsgiver is
judged improper because he prevents people from
glorifying God first; indeed, he usurps that privilege.
The final statement in vs 2e presents a verdict by
spelling out the eschatological consequences of the
improper performance. The saying belongs to the
category of "amen-sayings": 212 "Truly, I say to you, they
have (received) their reward (in full)" (ap.~v Aiyw vp.'iv,
a7TfXOVITLV TOV p.tu6ov avTC~v).213
What is the reason for arriving at this verdict? By their
donation, the donors should cause the people to glorify
God. This act, when it occurs, deserves reward by God at
the last judgment, but by directing the people's
glorification toward themselves, the donors engage in
pseudopiety and a kind of deferred self-glorification. It is
a kind of deal, a quid pro quo; the donors give a
performance of pseudo-piety with selfish purposes in
mind, and the people give them what they ask for, so that
there is no further obligation. 214 There is certainly no
obligation on the part of God, who has been left out of
the deal altogether. God is under no obligation in the last
judgment to reward this kind ofpseudopiety. 215 These
donors are therefore committing acts of "atheism." As
they ignore God's beneficence, so will he ignore them in
the last judgment. The underlying principle of this
argument is implied in the concept of "righteousness"
(atKaLOuVV7J). 216
• 3 Following the description of the improper per-
formance we are told what the proper performance
should be: "But as you do your almsgiving, do not let
your left (hand) know what your right (hand) is doing"
(O"OV a£ 7TOLOVVTOS' tA£1JfLOUVV7JV J.L~ yv<hTw ~ aptuupa O"OV TL
7TOLa ~ a£fta uov). The change from the second person
plural (6: 1) to the second person singular ("you" [uov])
repeats 6:2a, 217 but stands emphatically in the first place
so as to instruct the disciples to do things right. What
follows, however, is not an exact description of right
performance but a general proverb. The proverb "Let
your left hand not know what your right hand is doing" is
as famous as its meaning is disputed. 218 Surprisingly,
there do not seem to be parallels to this proverb in
biblical, contemporary Greco-Roman, 219 or Jewish
sources, 220 but commentators have pointed out parallels
in later Arabic 221 and Mandaean literature. 222 Whether

207 This notion of God as the supreme benefactor is
presupposed throughout the SM. See esp. SM/Matt
6:11, 25-34; 7:7, 11. Cf.Jas 1:17.
208 See SM/Matt 5:42/ /SP /Luke 6:30, 38; Matt 10:8;
Acts 20:35; 1 Cor 4:7b; 2 Cor 9:6-9; and Betz, 2
Corinthians 8 and 9, 169, index, s.v. Exchange of gifts.
209 See 2 Cor 9:15; and Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 120-
22; Peter Krafft, "Gratus animus (Dankbarkeit)," RAG
12 (1983) 732-52, where material on doxologies is
to be found; in the SM a doxology is present as a later
addition to the Lord's Prayer, SM/Matt 6:13 v.l. (see
the excursus below on the doxology).
210 As it is properly done by the Samaritan in Luke
17:15-16: "But one of them, seeing that he was
healed, turned around and glorified God with a loud
voice, and he fell on his face before his [sc. Jesus'] feet
and thanked him." See Hans Dieter Betz, "The
Cleansing of the Ten Lepers (Luke 17: 11-19)," JBL
90 (1971) 314-28; reprinted in Betz, Synoptische
Studien, 50-67.
211 For the praise of the benefactor see Sir 31:5-11, esp.
the conclusion in vs 11: "Then he shall be confirmed
in his prosperity, and the whole people will hail him
as a benefactor."
212 For this form of the saying, see above on SM/Matt
5:18.
213 IC* 13 pc read" Amen" twice; for this rhetorical
geminatio (doubling) see Betz, Essays, 130 n. 24, and
below on SM/Matt 7:21. For the amen-saying see
above on SM/Matt 5:18, 26.
214 If a reward were outstanding, the verb would be
"having it" (<'x<w); see above on 6:1; also 5:12.
215 The term a1r£xw comes from the world of commerce
and is technical, meaning "receive a sum and give a
receipt for it." In the NT it occurs only in SM/Matt
6:2, 5, 16; cf. SP/Luke 6:24; Mark 14:41. See
BAGD, s.v., 6.7T£xw, 1; Hermann Hanse, "b:rrfxw,"
TDNT 2.828; Axel Horstmann, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s. v.
a1r£xw; Preisigke, Worterbuch, s. v. a1rixw, 4; Spicq,
Notes, 3.46-53.
216 For the concept of righteousness in the SM, see
above on SM/Matt 5:6, 10, 20.
217 <Tov now stands at the beginning of the sentence,
addressing the individual disciple.

358
 Matthew 6:1-1 8

these parallels derive from the Gospel of Matthew or
from independent oral tradition is difficult to say.22 3 The
occurrence of the proverb in the Coptic Cos. Thom. log.
62, unrelated to the issue of almsgiving, speaks in favor
of textual independence from the Gospel ofMatthew. 224
Proverbs involving the hand were popular in the entire
ancient culture, and the lack of early attestations of this
particular proverb may be merely accidental. 225 It is a
fact of proverbial tradition in general that only a small
part of what was actually in circulation was written down
in quotations or collections.
Recent commentators are right when they state that
one should not interpret the proverb in conjunction with
Matt 25:35-38, 42-44. The point in SM/Matt 6:3 is not
that almsgiving should be done in such a way that the
donor is not aware of the act. 226 Rather, the donor's
knowledge of the gift should not be used to let others
know of it, but to keep it secret.22 7 Therefore, it appears
that the proverb in 6:3 is contrary to another famous
Latin saying, "Manus manum lavat" ("One hand washes
the other," or as OLD has it, "One good turn deserves
another"). 228 It is worth mentioning that both the Latin
saying and the one in 6:3 have a slightly immoral tinge in
that they describe daily dealings of some dubious
nature. 229 If one hand does not know what the other is
doing, can this be anything but a sign of disorganization
or dishonesty? Perhaps because these ambiguities were
realized in antiquity different interpretations were
offered or other proverbs were cited in exchange.2 30
Notably, the Didache (1.6) uses another proverb, also in
the context of almsgiving: "Let your alms sweat in your
hands, until you know to whom you give it" (!opcaHnhw ~
(A£7]fA.OCr'{;V7] crov ds ras X£'ipas crov, JJ.EXPLS &v yvii>s, rlvt
oii>s ). 231 At any rate, the SM lets the ambiguity stand.

218 See Tholuck, Bergrede, 330-31 (Sermon, 302);
Strecker, Bergpredigt, 104-5 (Sermon, 100-101); Luz,
Matthiius, 1.324 (Matthew, 1.357-58).
219 For similar proverbs, however, see Seneca Apocol. 9;
Petronius Sat. 46; Epicharmus according to Plato Ax.
366c; Menander Mon. 543. See furthermore Otto,
Sprichwiirter, 210; Hans Walther, Proverbia Senten-
tiaeque Medii Aevi. Lateinische Sprichwiirter und
Sentenzen des Mittelalters in alphabetischer Anordnung
(Gottingen: Vandenho~ck & Ruprecht, 1963-) 2
(1964)p. 828;8(1983)p. 373.
220 No precise parallels are given by Str-B 1.391-92;
Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 114.
221 Wellhausen, Evangelium Matthaei, 25 (with
references).
222 Klostermann, Matthiius, 53; Strecker, Bergpredigt,
105 (Sermon, 101); Luz, Matthiius, 1.324 n. 35
(Matthew, 1.357 n. 35), with reference to the
Mandaean Ginza R. 1.104: "And when you give alms,
my chosen, do not give ostentatiously. If you give
alms ostentatiously, do not do it a second time. If you
give with your right hand, (then) do not tell it to your
left. If you give with your left hand, (then) do not tell
it to your right" (trans. Foerster, Gnosis, 2.291).
223 Differently, Luz (Matthiius, 1.324 n. 35 [Matthew,
1.357 n. 35]) thinks the Ginza depends on Matthew.
224 Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 391: "Do not let your
(sing.) left hand understand what your right hand is
doing."
225 See also SM/Matt 5:30, and BAGD, s.v. l!.pt(J'T£p6~.
with reference to Damascius Vita Isid. 283: "Give not
with one hand, give with both." Cf. Matt 27:24.
226 So correctly Grundmann, Matthiius, 194; Strecker,
Bergpredigt, 104-5 (Sermon, 100-101 ); Luz, Matthiius,
1.324 (Matthew, 1.357-58); Gundry, Matthew, 102;
Gnilka, Matthiiusevangelium, 1.204-5. Differently
Clement Alex. Strom. 4.138; Zahn, Matthiius, 264-
65; Schlatter, Matthiius, 202; Eichholz, Bergpredigt,
108-9.
227 So, rightly, Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 2.8:
"that is, let not the desire of human praise mix with
your consciousness when you strive to fulfill the
divine command in regard to giving alms."
228 For references see OLD, s.v. lauo, Lb.
229 One should note the same ambiguity in Sir 3:31: "He
who repays a good turn is mindful of the future;
when he falls he will find support" (NEB). LXX 3:34:
b avTa7T00tOohs- xO.ptras p.lp.V?]Tat flS' rU JL€Ta raVra Kat
lv Katp'i> 'lrTCd(J'fW~ ei!p~(J'ft (J'T~ptyp.a. Prov 21: 14: "A
gift in secret placates an angry man; a bribe slipped
under the cloak pacifies great wrath" (NEB).
230 Using the fact that the text does not explicitly
mention the hand, some interpreters took "left" and
"right" to refer to evil (or the devil) and good. See
the passages in Tholuck, Bergrede, 331 (Commentary,
302); Eberhard Nestle ("Mt. VI.3," ExpT 13 [1901-
2]524-25), referring to Didasc. Apost. 2 (trans. of
Gibson, p. 3: "let his hand be liberal in giving"), also
Ap. Const. 2.45. Cf. Did. 12.1: "for you have
knowledge of right and left."
231 The proverb is introduced as a quotation, but its
source is unknown; it is most likely not taken from
Matthew but from the oral tradition. Cf. Sib. Or.
2. 79: "Give to the poor at once and do not tell them

359
The proverb seems to admit that giving donations
secretly has a comic side to it; it is playacting of a
different kind, involving some sort of conspiracy between
the donor and God.
• 4 The concluding sentence explains the rationale of it all
(vs 4a): "so that your almsgiving may remain in the
hidden" (H'll"oo~ y uov ~ £A.nJp.outJV1} lv TCfJ Kpv'li"TCfJ). 232 The
expression "in the hidden" appears to be purposefully
awkward; it is repeated in vss 4b, 6b and c, and with
variations in vs 18a and b. The question has been raised
whether the expression may refer to a specific place in
the Temple, where donations could be deposited
unobtrusively, instead of referring to a more general
manner of handling gifts. 238 Following others, Geza
Vermes 234 has renewed the hypothesis that the
Jerusalem Temple had the "Chamber of Secrets," about
which m. Seqal. 5.6 has this to say: "Into the Chamber of
Secrets the devout used to put their gifts in secret and
the poor of good family received support therefrom in
secret. •2 35 This place, according to Vermes, is what the
SM has in mind. If this suggestion were correct and if the
SM knew of this "Chamber of Secrets," recommending
its usage, our passage would be another piece of
confirmation of the origin of the SM in Jerusalem. The
evidence, however, is uncertain. The immediate context
does not mention the Jerusalem Temple; instead, the
synagogues are the setting. Also, the hypothesis does not
allow a correspondence with the other two cultic acts in
6:5-15 and 6: 16-18. 236 In all instances, the expression
"in the hidden" has a general rather than a specific
application. For this reason of parallel composition one
should therefore assume that the expression "in the
hidden" has a general meaning in vs 4, also stipulating
that almsgiving properly performed is anonymous and
inconspicuous. One can confirm this general inter-
pretation also by parallels from wisdom and rabbinic
literature, 237 to which one can add Greek philosophical
admonitions. 238
As we learn from vs 4b, the reason for the secrecy is to
protect one's eschatological reward: "and your Father
who sees in the hidden will compensate you" (Ka'r. o'll"aT~P
uov o{3At'll"wv lv TCfJ KpV'li"TCfJ cl.'ll"ollwu£t uol). 239 A good
deed done in this way has been done according to God's
will and as the Torah requires, but its reward is still
outstanding. Consequently, God, who is righteous, will
provide the reward due at the last judgment.
The verb a'l!"olllllwp.t is a technical term from the
business world and means "pay up a debt owed to
someone. " 240 Employing this term does not mean,
however, that God owes the secret donor a debt, but that
the donor has a credit due to his righteousness which
God will uphold. 241 In terms of righteousness, there is
now an imbalance, but it is assumed that God will take
care of this imbalance by disbursing the reward that is

to come tomorrow. With perspiring hand give a
portion of corn to one who is in need" (OTP 1.34 7).
Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 23 (OTP 2.575): "You must fill your
hand. Give alms to the needy." The Greek is
uncertain; see van der Horst, Sentences, 128-30.
232 A different word order is preferred by It* (33): ~ uov 239 D W jl h q syP·h add avr6r ("he himself") before
lll.f'IJLOU-bv., y. Or D: ~ lil.f'IJLO<T-bv., crov y.
233 See also the interesting parallel in Mark 12:41-
44//Luke 21:1-4: "The Widow's Mite."
234 Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London: Collins, 197 3)
78.
235 Trans. by Danby, Mishnah, 158.
236 See Betz, Essays, 61 n. 11.
237 See Prov 21:14; Sir 1:28-29; 'Abot4.5; etc. For
references see Str-B 1.391-96; Luz, Matthii:us,
1.324-25 (Matthew, 1.357-58).
238 Epictetus (Diss. 4.8) deals with the relationship
between what a philosopher really is and his outward
appearance (uxiiJLa). The things that really count are
"all those for myself and for God" (1r~vra lJLavrif> Ka\
8fif> [ 4.8.17]). Similarly Cicero Tusc. 2.26.64: "there is
no audience for virtue of higher authority than the
approval of conscience" ("sed tamen nullum
theatrum virtuti conscientia maius est"). These and
other references are mentioned by Heinrici,
Bergpredigt (1905), 2.63-64; Luz, Matthaus, 1.324
(Matthew, 1.358).
lz1roll6>uft, thus heightening the impressiveness of the
statement; the shorter text is better attested (It B L Z
e 0250j1 3 33. 205, etc.). See Aland, Synopsis, 85,
with the critical apparatus; Metzger, Textual
Commentary, 14-15. At the end ofthe sentence some
witnesses introduce lv rif> .pavfpif> ("in the manifest"),
making an explicit contrast with the "in the hidden"
(L W 9 892. 1006. 1342. 1506 ~it sy'·P·h). The
addition is apologetic and points out that the divine
reward is certainly recognizable, whether in this life
or the next. Cf. Luke 8:17; 1 Cor 3:13; 14:25; Mark
10:29-30 par. See also Metzger, Textual Commentary,
15.
240 See BAGD, s.v. lz1TolllllwJLI, 1 and 3. In the SM see
Matt 5:26, 33; cf. Luke 14:14.
241 Cf. SM/Matt 5:46-48//SP /Luke 6:32-35.

360
 Matthew 6:1-18

accredited in heaven (seeS: 12). The future tense of the
verb may refer not only to the last judgment but also, in
accordance with 6:33, this-worldly rewards. 242
• 5 The second ritual considered is that ofprayer;2 43
more specifically, it is the prayer every conscientious jew
is obligated to pray privately. 244 As pointed out already,
the prayer instruction in the SM limits the religious
duties to the private prayer, and a strange silence
remains with regard to all genuine acts of public worship
in Temple and synagogue.2 45 Does this silence imply a
distancing ofthe disciples of jesus from public wor-
ship?246 Does it imply a critique of such public worship?
Has the movement of jesus withdrawn from the official
cult of judaism? One will have to be cautious in drawing
such far-reaching conclusions from this strange silence
because the situation with regard to the SM may not be
altogether different from other cultic instructions in
Jewish wisdom, including even the Pirqe 'Abot, which
only rarely mentions Temple and synagogue. 247
Verse Sa assumes ritual prayer to be part of the
ordinary life of the jew, the question being only how to
pray:" And when you pray, ... "(Kat ()rav
7rpoudJx7Ju8E, ... ). 248 Verse Sb draws a negative picture
of the "hypocrites," analogous to vs 2b-d: "Do not be like
the hypocrites, for they love (it) when in the synagogues
and on the street corners they stand (in position) praying,
in order that they show themselves to the people" (ovK
ruEu8E WS l!7r0Kptra[, {)n t/JtAOVUtV fV rats uvvaywya'i's Kat £v
rat's yovlats rwv 7rA.antwv £urwns 7rpoudJxEu8at, ()7rws
t/JaVWUtv TOtS av8pcJmots). 2 4 9
The statement "you shall not be ... " means that the
following satire is the opposite of what the true disciple
should be (cf. S:13-16). The term "hypocrite" has the
same meaning here as in 6:2. The satirical vignette in vs
Se-d is drawn with an eye for detail. 250 The remark that

242 See below on SM/Matt 6:33; and Betz, Essays, 114-
15. Differently Guelich, Sermon, 280; Strecker
Bergpredigt, 106 (Sermon, 10 1-2); Luz, Matthiius,
1.324 (Matthew, 1.358).
243 The literature on prayer is immense. The basic study
is still that of Heiler, Gebet (see above, n. 79). For
surveys and bibliographies see Emmanuel von
Severus, "Gebet I," RAG 8 (1972) 1134-1258; Carl
Heinz Ratschow et al. "Gebet I-IX," TRE 12 (1984)
31-103; Gunter Bader, Symbolik des Todesjesu
(HUTh 25; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1988) 215-
4 7. For the rabbinic literature see Joseph Heine-
mann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns (SJ 9;
Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1977).
244 See Sir 21:1; 39:5; Paralip. fer. 8.4; Philo De Jon a 18-
22; Acts 8:22; 10:2, 4; etc. On the whole topic of
private prayer see Heiler, Gebet, 478-85; von
Severus, RAG 8.1253; Berger, TRE 12.48;
Heinemann, Prayer, 156-92, esp. 191-92: "There
can be no doubt, then, that Jesus is here expressing
his approval of the tradition of private prayer which
he considers preferable to the prayer of the
Synagogue" ( 191 ).
245 In the NT Jesus is portrayed on the one hand as the
model for the private prayer that then becomes the
mark of Christianity as a religion of private prayer.
On the other hand, Jesus is shown as the leader of
group prayer. See Mark 1 :35; 6:46; 11:24-25, and
esp. the Gethsemane episode Mark 14:32-42 par.;
John 17: 1-26; etc.
246 For Jesus as a teacher of prayer see also SM/Matt
5:44; 6:5-13 (15); 7:7-11; Luke 11:1-4; 18:1-8,9-
14; also Mark 12:28-44.
247 See Sir 7:10, 14; 35:12-36:17 (NEB); 37:15; 38:9-
15; 51:1-30; Wis 16:28;PrayerofManasseh; Tob
3:1-17; 8:4-9; 12:6-22. This type of teaching
continues in the tradition, part of which is the SM;
see alsoP. Oxy. 654, no. 5 (Aland, Synopsis, 85); Cos.
Thom. log. 104; Did. 8.2-3; PolycarpPhil. 7.2; 2
Clem. 16.4; Hermas Vis. 2.2.1; 3.1.2; Sim. 5.1;
Clement Alex. Strom. 7. See von Severus, RAG
8.1188-1210.
248 Cf. 'Abot 2.17: "and when you pray." See Taylor,
Sayings, 38-39.
249 The entire vs 5 is not attested in sy'; see Merx, Die
vier kanonischen Evangelien, 2/1.122. Part of the
manuscript tradition continues with the second
person singular: Ka~ /Jrav 7rpou<vxfi, ovK ~<TT/ ([N*] D L
wejl 3 33.1006.1342.15069Jtkqsyc.p.h);the
correct second person plural is read by N2 B Z jl 205.
892 !at syhmg co. Other "improvements" of the text
include the reading of &u1r<p for w~ (L We Jl.l3
1006. 1342. 1506 [E .6. 205. 565. 579. 700. 1424]
9Jt), no doubt in assimilation to vs 2c; cf. vs 16, and
Did. 8.2 (w~). urijva1 (but then £urwrn Ka~
7rpou<vx6p.<vo•) is placed after </liA.ovu•v in Did. it;
turwr<~ is omitted by K; the addition of ll.v before
tf>avwu&v is attested by W 8 1506 (E fl. 346. 565. 579.
700) 9Jt.
250 See also the similar statements about the Pharisees in
Luke 18:9-14; Matt 23:14//Mark 12:40//Luke
20:47.
361
such people "love" (qnAovuw)2 51 to conduct themselves in
the way they do calls attention to psychology: the
"performers" do it, in the final analysis, because they love
themselves. Prayer, supposedly the most intimate
expression of love to God, has turned into its very
opposite, preoccupation with oneself, a matter of
aesthetics rather than religion.
That such people "stand" (£uTwus)2 52 during their
prayer does not mean to say that standing as such is
wrong, but that "posturing" is improper. 2 53 Thus
parading themselves in front of the people in synagogues
and on street corners involves conspicuousness in more
than one respect. It amounts to a demonstration of
religious and even political power. Such visibility leaves
no doubt about who is in charge of religion. Precisely
because of such religiopolitical demonstration, the act of
prayer, and indeed religion itself, has been turned into
the opposite of what it is supposed to be.
Therefore, the verdict in vs 5e is the logical con-
clusion: "Truly, I say to you, they have (received) their
reward (in full)" (ap.~v Af.yw vp.'iv, an£xovuw TOV p.Lu8ov
avTwv). 2 54 The same reasons as in vs 2e apply also here,
where the same verdict is stated.
• 6 Following satire, vs 6 turns to serious instruction. It is
parallel to vs 3: "But you, when you pray ... "(uv o€ CJTav
npoudxTJ . .. ). Again, the personal pronoun "you" (uv)
stands in the first place, addressing the individual
disciple. The following material uses proverbial phrases
and images in advising how to perform the prayer
properly. Prayer is a matter of private intimacy between
the person at prayer and God: "go into your chamber
and shut the door and pray to your Father who is
hidden" (du£A8£ ds To mp.£'i6v uov Kat KA£luas T~v 8vpav
uov np6uwtaL TijJ naTpl uov TijJ €v TijJ KpvnT(jJ). 255 It is
assumed here that the disciples live in their own houses,
in which they have "the inner room" (To Tap.£'iov) to
themselves. 256 This reference points clearly to home
ownership as the normal situation, rather than extreme
poverty. The private chamber may even point to a
private chapel in the house. At any rate, hidden from the
crowds, even from other family members, the prayer can
become what it is supposed to be, communion between
the individual and the transcendent God. 25 7
Notably, there is no indication at this point about what
content such prayer ought to have. As already pointed
out, the Lord's Prayer by itself, being a group prayer,

2 51 This term also occurs in the descriptions of Pharisees
in Matt 23:6/ /Luke 20:46.
252 For standing at prayer see Deut 4:10; 29:10,15; 1
Sam 9:26;Jer 18:20; Ps 134:1; 135:2; 2 Mace 15:12.
For the NT see Mark 11:25; Luke 1:19; 18:11, 13;
19:8 (?); 22:46; Rev 7:9, 11; 8:2; 20:12; furthermore
Mart. Polyc. 7; Ap. Const. 7 .45.1.
253 Standing was the common position for prayer in
Judaism. See the material in Str-B 1.399-400; Lachs,
Rabbinic Commentary, 116 n. 1. The prayer called
Shemoneh Esreh is also called Amidah (from Hebrew
'md, "to stand") because it is to be recited while
standing. See Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud;
Schiirer, History, 2.455-63. For the position of
standing see also Heiler, Gebel, 100; Franz joseph
Dillger, Sol Salutis: Gebel und Gesang im christlichen
Altertum (Liturgische Forschungen 4/5; 2d ed.;
Munster: Aschendorff, 1925), index, s. v. Stehen
beim Gebet; Thomas Ohm, Die Gebetsgebiirden der
Volker und das Christentum (Leiden: Brill, 1948) 323-
31; von Severus, RAG 8.1164, 1167, 1216.
254 The c.,.~v ("Amen") is omitted by syc, and iin is added
by L W 8 1006. 1342. 1506 (E .C.. 346. 565. 579.
1424) 9Jr.
255 The article rif> is omitted by D sy'·c boP', thereby
changing the epithet of God (o lv rif> Kpv1rrij>, "the one
in the hidden") to praying "in the hidden." This is
done in assimilation to vs 4a; but cf. vs 18.
256 BAGD, s.v. raf'Eiov, 2: "generally of rooms in the
interior of a house, innermost, hidden, or secret room."
Matt 6:6, however, does not refer to a secret room
but to a private room. See also T. jos. 3:3 (OTP
l.820);jos. Asen. 10.3-17 (OTP 2.215-17); Matt
24:26; Luke 12:3; 1 Clem. 50.4. For a gnostic
interpretation see Cos. Phil. log. 61 (Layton, Gnostic
Scriptures, 342).
257 On prayer as OfL<Aia 1rp'o~ r'ov 0E6v see the definition by
Maximus ofTyre Dissertation 5.8 (ed. H. Hobein,
Philosophumena (BT; Leipzig: Teubner, 1910], p. 63;
my trans.): "but I regard prayer a communion and
conversation with the gods about the present matters
and a demonstration of virtue" (lyw o£ OfL<Aiav Kat
OuL\.EKTOV 7rph~ roVs 8EoVs 7TEp't. r(;w 1rap6vrwv ~ea't.
f1riOE<~W rij~ apErij~). This definition is discussed at
length by Clement Alex. Strom. 7. 7 .39.6-49.8; see
von Severus, RAG 8.1207-10.

362

does not entirely fit the situation, although the prayer
instruction in its entirety (6:5-15) presupposes that the
Lord's Prayer was used this way. Differently from vss 7-
13 and Luke 11:1-4, this instruction (6:5-6) assumes
that everyone knows which prayers to say in private.
The final statement (vs 6c) again renders a judgment;
it is the opposite ofvs 5e but consonant with vs 4b:2 58
"and your Father who sees what is hidden will com-
pensate you" (Kat o7raT~P uov of3A.€7rwv €v Tcp KpV7rTcp
a7roBwuu uot). 259 As in the previous instances, God's
reward is based on righteousness: the proper per-
formance is done in the imitation of God and thereby in
the fulfillment of the intention of the Torah. An act
being done "to God" alone will generate the reward due.
• 7 As pointed out above, the teaching on prayer in vss 7-
13 (or vss 7-15) comes from a different source; 260 it has
a different literary structure and theological content.
One can easily recognize the three parts of this
instruction: (1) a theological statement of doctrine
concerning prayer (vss 7-8); (2) the Lord's Prayer as the
authoritative paradigm (vss 9-13); and (3) a "sentence of
sacred law" concerning the forgiveness of sins (vss 14-
15 ). All three parts are carefully worked out even to the
smallest detail; they reveal the(i)logical ideas different
from those in vss 5-6.2 61
These tensions within the instructions on prayer and
their constituent parts are attributable to the somewhat
heterogeneous but also compatible elements that have
been forced into the secondary framework of the present
text. The author of the SM has inserted the instruction
ofvss 7-15 behind vs 6, so that the section complements
vss 5-6, by which fact the author(s) may also betray that
they have regarded vss 5-6 by themselves to be
insufficient. At any rate, they found vs 6 to be the right
place to insert the other instructional passage of vss 7-13
( 15) that they had at their disposal. The explicit doctrine
about prayer set forth in vss 7-8 is striking for a number
of reasons. It comes from what appears to be a very old
layer of tradition, that is, from a time when the Jesus-
258 For the terminology see above on SM/Matt 6:4.
259 Similar to 6:4, L W 0 j 13 33vid 892. 1006. 1342.
1506 :D1 it syP·h add €v r(il cpav<p(il ("in the manifest").
The better texts, however, do not have the addition:
K B D Z jl 205 pc aur ff' k vg sy'·c co.
260 See above, p. 349.
261 See above, pp. 347-49.
262 This is reflected in other passages concerning prayer
Matthew 6:1-18
movement was still part of the Jewish religion; one would
expect that prayer as a common ritual was not a
controversial issue. But the appearance of a doctrine
such as that in vss 7-8 presupposes a fundamental crisis.
This crisis must have led to questions such as, What is
prayer? Should we pray at all? How shall we pray? The
crisis to be presupposed here leads me to conclude that
debates must have occurred at the time and that
different positions were formulated in addressing the
problems. The doctrinal statement in vss 7-8 contains
one such position.
At closer examination, the statement in vss 7-8
presupposes a number of issues the consideration of
which has led to its formulation: ( 1) a decision whether to
pray; (2) a self-conscious identification and description of
"pagan" practice and thought, and thus an exercise of
"comparative religion"; (3) an appropriation of the
Hellenistic-Jewish critique of religion, which in turn has
amalgamated ideas from Greek philosophy; (4) a
rejection of "assimilation" and possible "paganization" of
the Jewish religion; (5) a positive reply about the question
of human needs and how we know what they are; (6) the
utilization ofthe Lord's Prayer as the foundation of
theology as well as its authoritative example; (7) a
positive answer to the question of how one is to connect
ritual prayer with the daily life of the community of
disciples. These points of implicit or explicit theology will
have to be taken into consideration as we read through
the text.
The first word of vs 7, 7rpouwxop.£vot ("those who
pray"), represents a decision to engage in prayer that is
then justified by the subsequent interpretation. The
decision that the disciples of Jesus are those who pray has
not been reached lightly. 262 In view of the objections
made by religious critics, routine continuation of what
everybody has been doing thus far turns out to be
inadvisable. If conventional prayer practice is all that
there could ever be, putting a stop to praying altogether
would be the only proper conclusion. At this point, the
as well; see SM/Matt 5:44/ /SP /Luke 6:28; also
Rom 8:26;Jas 4:3.
363
SM would agree with Socrates. 263
The parallel in Luke 11: 1-4 suggests that the
controversy about prayer reaches back even into the
circle of John the Baptist. 264 The episode described
shows Jesus at prayer. While he prays and presumably
knows how to do it properly, the disciples confess that
they do not know how to pray. Their request is twofold.
First, they ask Jesus, "teach us to pray" (BlBa,ov T]p.iis
7TpoudJxEu8at). Strictly speaking this request is not only
for the how but also for the what. Second, similar things
have occurred in the circle of John the Baptist, so that
the disciples ask "as John also taught his disciples" (Ka8ws
Kat , Iwavv1js £alaa,EV TOVS p.a87jTas avTov).
In other words, the disciples of John were in a better
position as compared to the disciples of Jesus because
John had already taught them, and he also, one
presumes, supplied a paradigmatic prayer for them.
Now, Jesus' disciples ask him to do the same, and he
does. He gives them the Lord's Prayer. Unfortunately,
we do not possess John the Baptist's paradigm prayer, so
that we are unable to say how they compared. At any
rate, the Lord's Prayer must have differed from the
Baptist's because otherwise Jesus' disciples could simply
have used what they seem to know as the Baptist's
prayer. They must have concluded that John's prayer
was not adequate for the Jesus-movement.
The text ofvs 7a, however, has nothing to do with
John the Baptist, but contains a much more specific
prescription: "you shall not babble like the pagans" (p.TJ
j3aTTa>..oy~u7jTE if>u7TEp ot EevtKol). 265 The instruction on
prayer in SM/Matt 6:7-13 (15) differs from Luke 11:1-
4 in a number of ways. Not only the wording of the
Lord's Prayer differs but also the answers formulated in
response to criticism of prayer. 266
Verse 7a proceeds to describe what is then judged to
be a nonsensical approach to prayer. Again the SM
resorts to polemic and caricature, but this time the
caricature is directed against "the pagans" (ot £8vtKot), 267
not against "hypocritical" fellow Jews. 268
One can interpret the term j3aTTaA.oyew ("babble") in a
variety of ways, but the synonymous 7TOA.v>..oyla
("verbosity") makes sure we understand what is meant.
The most natural understanding would take it to refer to
repetitiveness in prayer language, but there are other
options as well. The onomatopoetic word j3aTTaA.oyew
occurs only once (hapax legomenon) in the New
Testament. 269 It could refer to seemingly meaningless
magical gibberish (voces magicae) as we find them in the
Greek Magical Papyri. 270 Or the word could point to a
foreign language, which to the ignorant sounds like
babbling. Another parallel is the inarticulate oracular
speech of the Pythia and the Sibyl, which had to be
translated into intelligible language by "exegetes," who
then passed the oracles on to the people consulting the
deity. 271 Greek cultural historians had theorized that
inarticulate sounds preceded human language as an
instrument of communication, so that babbling would
amount to a relapse into the pitiful conditions before the
coming of civilization. 272 Perhaps all these connotations
were on the mind of the author when he chose the term.
Those scholars who are looking for a Semitic
source2 73 of the term must be disappointed because the

263 On Ps.-Piato Alcibiades Minor see above, p. 342.
264 On this passage see also the Introduction to this
section above, n. 143.
265 The command is formulated as an aorist subjunctive;
see BDF, § 337; BDR, § 337.
266 The particle Ill ("and" or "but") connects vss 7 and 6,
but it implies an affirmation of the ritual as well.
267 The "pagans" are viewed here, in 5:47, and in 6:32
from a Jewish perspective (see Betz, Essays, 19 n. 6).
Differently, Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary, 109-1 0,
116) thinks of the 'am hli- 'lire~.
268 B sy< mae, however, read fnrOI<ptrai ("hypocrites"),
making the text conform to vss 1-6 and 16-18.
269 The rare term occurs only in SM/Matt 6:7; cf. Luke
11:2 (D). Cf. {3arro>..oylw in Vita et sententiae Aesopi
Achiqari 109 (ed. Denis, Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum
Graecorum, P· 139, lines 1-2): EV orv'!' ,.~ fJaTTOAO')IfL
uo<fliav ewLOfLKVVp.wor ("through wine do not babble,
demonstrating wisdom"). See for the older literature
Tholuck, Bergrede, 336-42 (Commentary, 307-11);
Gerhard Delling, "fJarra>..oylw," TDNT 1.597; Spicq,
Notes, 1.179-81; Horst Balz, EWNT (EDNT), s. v.; and
BAGD, s.v. fJarra>..oylw.
270 An example would the repetition of vowels, such as a
ee eee iiii ooooo yyyyyy ooooooo (PGM 1.15). For the great
variety of voces magicae see Betz, Greek Magical Papyri,
passim.
271 See esp. Plutarch, De Pythiae oraculis 6-9, 397A-
398E, with the commentary by Wayne G. Rollins in
PECL 1.108-13, also 133, 148, 269; David E. Aune,
"Magic in Early Christianity," ANRW II, 23/2 (1980)
1507-57, esp. 1549-51; Gerhard Dautzenberg,
"Giossolalie," RAG 11 (1981) 225-46.
272 See Diodorus Sic. 1.8.3-4, and for the interpretation

364

word f3arraA.oyEw is pure Greek, and attempts to relate it
to an Aramaic word have failed. 2 74 This word in effect is
one of the sure signs that the SM is not a translated text
but Greek from the beginning. The appropriate way to
pray is obviously the opposite of the caricature of the
"babbler."
What is intended by this caricature? If prayer is
communication with God, "babbling" is not the proper
way of communicating with him. What kind of language
is then the appropriate one? This question was more
difficult to answer in antiquity than one would imagine
today. Among the answers that the ancients could have
given, the polemic of the SM is directed against the
magicians. The methods used by the magicians were
based on the view that in order to communicate with the
gods one must know and speak in the gods' own
language. The so-called voces magicae, appearing to be
nothing but gibberish, were believed to be that
language. 275 This magical language theory, however, is
implicitly rejected by the SM. Positively, the con-
versation between the person at prayer and God, as
envisioned by the SM, is peculiar indeed. God is to be
addressed in simple human language, but God is not
Walter Spoerri, Spiithellenistische Berichte ilber Welt,
Kultur und Cotter (SBA 9; Basel: Reinhardt, 1959)
134-43.
273 See BDF, § 40; BDR, § 40; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 109
(Sermon, 104-5); Luz, Matthiius, 1.330 n. 3 (Matthew,
1.364 n. 3); F. Bussby, "A Note on p'aKa (Matthew
V. 22) and fJa-rro>..oy£w (Matthew VI. 7) in the Light of
Qumran," ExpT 76 (1964/65) 26; Nigel Turner,
"Jewish and Christian Influence on New Testament
Vocabulary," NovT 16 (1974) 149-60, esp. 149:
"coined perhaps from Aramaic." Undecided is Lachs
(Rabbinic Commentary, 116-1 7).
274 So Chantraine, Dictionnaire, 1.170, s.v. fJa-rrapl(w.
275 Cf. PGM IV.605-10, where the magician invokes the
deity: "I invoke the immortal names, living and
honored, which never pass into mortal nature and
are not declared in articulate speech by human
tongue or mortal speech or mortal sound." The
statement is followed by voces magicae. See Hans
Dieter Betz, "The Formation of Authoritative
Tradition in the Greek Magical Papyri," in Ben
Meyer and E. P. Sanders, eds.,jewish and Christian
Self-Definition (3 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980,
1981, 1983) 3.161-70; reprinted in Betz, Hellenismus
und Urchristentum, 173-83; Peter Crome, Symbol und
Unzuliinglichkeit der Sprache: Jamblichos, Plotin,
Porphyrios, Proklos (Munich: Fink, 1970); Maurus
Matthew 6:1-1 8
expected to answer in that same language. Indeed, God
does not answer at all. Instead, he responds, but his
response precedes the petition. Moreover, since the
prayer has been revealed to the petitioner beforehand by
the teacher of the instruction, the person at prayer
merely repeats what has been learned, so that in effect
the prayer is the human response to God's aforegoing
actions. The reason, therefore, why the prayer can occur
in human language is that it is the human response to
what God has ordained and revealed to the teacher. 2 76
God's own language is not involved at all.
The caricature of the babbler also stands in continuity
with Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom literature and Greek
popular philosophy, where criticism of talkativeness of
any kind is frequently made apart from exhortation,
especially as it relates to prayer. 277 This tradition of
criticism of prayer reaches as far back as Egyptian
wisdom. The instruction on prayer of the SM has at this
point its closest parallels in Eccl 5:2-3:27 8
Do not rush into speech, let there be no hasty
utterance in God's presence. God is in heaven, you are
on earth; so let your words be few. (NEB)
In Egyptian wisdom, in the "Instruction of Ani" 4, 279 we
Hirschle, Sprachphilosophie und Namenmagie im
Neuplatonismus (BKP 96; Meisenheim: Hain, 1979).
276 For the importance of the teacher see alsoJas 3:1-
18.
277 On talkativeness see Heinz Gerd Ingenkamp,
"Geschwatzigkeit," RAG 10 (1978) 829-37; on
Plutarch's essay "On Garrulity" (De garrulitate), see
William A. Beardslee in PECL 2.264-88. A sharp
critique of babbling in prayer is made by Origen (De
orat. 21.2; GCS 2.8, pp. 345-46); see Gessel,
Theologie, 143-48.
278 See also Sir 7:14: "Never be garrulous among your
elders or repeat yourself when you pray"; also Sir
20:5;Job 13:5. On the whole point see Heinemann,
Philons griechische und judische Bildung, 520.
279 Trans. by John Wilson, ANET, 420-21. The
Instruction of Ani is dated in the 11th to 8th century
BCE; see also Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature,
2.137; Garth Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes
(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1986) 70-71.
365
find nearly all the ideas that appear in the SM:
Do not talk a lot. Be silent, and thou wilt be happy.
Do not be garrulous.
The dwelling of God, its abomination is clamor.
Pray thou with a loving heart, all the words of which
are hidden, and he will do what thou needest, he
will hear what thou sayest, and he will accept thy
offering.
In Greek literature and philosophy, aBoA.mxla ("chatter,"
"loquaciousness") is described in one ofTheophrastus's
Characters (chap. 3 ),2 80 and by a full treatise on the
subject in Plutarch's Moralia. 281 The widespread
evidence of exhortations against loquaciousness in
antiquity means that the topic was transcultural in
nature, and that the SM has taken the matter up from its
cultural context, 282 in which the fault is also designated
as al<paula >..6-yov ("incontinence of speech"). 283
Among the Greek philosophers the concern for
ethically defensible prayers seems to have begun with
Pythagoras. 284 According to Diodorus Siculus
Pythagoras "used to assert that in their supplications men
should pray simply for 'all good things' [Taya8a], and not
name them singly, as, for example, power, strength,
beauty, wealth, and the like; for it frequently happens
that any one of these works to the utter ruin of those
who receive them in reply to their desire." 285
Philostratus reports about Apollonius ofTyana's
teaching on prayer that because of the gods' omniscience
he recommended short prayers, like "0 ye gods, grant
unto me that which I deserve" (6> Owl. BotrJTE p.ot Ta
c)(JmA.6p.wa). 286 The opposite and false approach would
be to try to purchase the divine verdict,2 87 or, as the
Romans called it, to "wear out the gods" ("deos
fatigare"). 288
Also in Roman philosophy, commendations of quiet
and short prayers were part of the teaching about prayer.
In his Ep. 10.4, Seneca deals explicitly with the need to
change prayer habits: "As for your former prayers, you
may dispense the gods from answering them; offer new
prayers; pray for a sound mind and for good health, first
of soul and then of body. And of course you should offer
those prayers frequently. Call boldly upon God; you will
not be asking him for that which belongs to another."2 89
Seneca then quotes a saying from a treatise "On
Superstition" by Athenodorus, a student of Posidonius:
"Know that thou art freed from all desires when thou
hast reached such a point that thou prayest to God for
nothing except that which thou canst pray for
openly." 290 Seneca concludes with a polemic against the
practice of whispering indecent prayers. 291
One will have to say as a result that "babbling" is not a
fair description of all "pagan" prayer, but the description
was never intended to be objective. As caricature it is
part of Jewish polemic against "paganism." 292 This kind

280 See Peter Steinmetz, Theophrast: Gharaktere (2 vols.;
Munich: Hueber, 1960, 1962) 2.53-61.
281 Plutarch De garrulitate, Moralia 502B-515A; see
above, n. 277.
282 See Prov 10:18-21; Matt 12:34-37, esp. 36;Jas
1:26; 3:1-12.
283 On this concept see Ingenkamp, RAG 10.829-30.
284 For the passages I am indebted to Isidore Levy, La
legende de Pythagore de Grece en Palestine (Paris:
Champion, 1927) 317.
285 Diodorus Sic. 10.9.8 (trans. C. H. Oldfather [LCL;
reprinted Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University;
London: Heinemann, 1956]4.69).
286 Philostratus Vita Apoll. 1.11; see also 4.40.
287 Ibid. 1.11: wvo!Jp.<VOI T~V lliK"I/V.
288 Seneca Ep. ad Lucil. 31.5; Horace Garm. 1.2.26;
Propertius 2.20.3; Polybius 50.19.29; Livy 27.50.5;
Statius Theb. 2.244; Marcus Antonius 5.7. See Spicq,
Notes, 1.181. Cf. against this background the parable
of the Unjust Judge, Luke 18:1-8.
289 Seneca Ep. 10.4 (trans. Richard M. Gummere [LCL;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London:
Heinemann, 191 7]1.59).
290 Ibid., 10.5: "Tunc scito esse te omnibus cupiditatibus
solutum, cum eo perveneris, tu nihil deum roges, nisi
quod rogare possis palam." I am indebted for this
reference to Heinrich Dorrie, "Gottesvorstellung,"
RAG 12 (1983) 81-154, esp. 147-48.
291 This line of tradition was taken up by the church
fathers; see the references in Luz, Matthiius, 1.330
nn. 6-8 (Matthew, 1.365 nn. 6-8).
292 Such caricaturing begins in the OT; see Horst
Dietrich Preuss, Verspottungfremder Religionen im
Alten Testament (BWANT 92; Stuttgart: Kohl-
hammer, 1971). The classic example of the pagan
prayer is the invocation of Baal by his priests in 1 Kgs
18:25-29. Interestingly, as Heinemann (Philons
griechische und judische Bildung, 513, 520) observes,
Philo shows surprisingly little concern about pagan
prayers; cf. von Severus, RAG 8.1168-69.

366
 Matthew 6:1-18

of polemic always takes up phenomena found in the
"other" religion, selecting the less agreeable if not
outrightly ridiculous things. 293 Anyone who looks for
babbling pagans will find them, but the babblers have
also been criticized, as we have seen, by other "pagans."
The purpose of these exaggerations is not so much a
concern for "the pagans" but for the characterization of
their opposites, the religiously proper forms of Jewish
worship. The polemics against the "pagans," like much of
this sort of polemic, has to do primarily with self-identity
and demarcation of the conduct of one's own religion
from that of others. At any rate, the important thing for
the SM is that it concurs with Judaism in condemning
any form of "paganization." This evidence again points
to the SM as still being part of Judaism.
The polemic continues in vs 7b with an equally
sarcastic characterization of "pagan" theology: "for they
think that by their verbosity they will be heard" (BoKovow
yap CJn lv rii 7rOAVAoyl'!- avrwv duaKOVO'OVTat). The word
BoKEW at once renders that theology erroneous ("they are
of the [false] opinion"). 294 The claim that their gods 295
will hear them "through their verbosity"2 96 is based on
the magical understanding of language. Since the words
of prayer contain magical power-at least this is the
assumption-repetition and multiplicity increase that
power, compelling the gods to pay attention. 297 It is
further presupposed in this theory that unless called
upon in such compelling ways the gods do not care, and
unless informed about the person's needs they do not
know what to do.
These ideas and assumptions are declared "pagan"
because they are incompatible with Jewish religion.
Fairness demands mention, however, that many pagan
philosophers had long since made the same point. 298
Indeed, some of the language and ideas used by the SM
may have previously been taken over into Judaism from
originally "pagan" backgrounds. To the SM, the rejected
ideas and corresponding practices are nothing but
manifestations of pagan stupidity. In a way typical for
some forms of Judaism at this time, paganism is shown to
be in need of enlightenment. When that enlightenment
comes, people will turn away from this false religion to
the true religion. One can connect precisely this
expectation with Jewish apologetics and also with the
early Christian mission as reflected in the letters of
Paul. 299
• 8 The positive statement concerning a theology of
prayer is prefaced by the exhortation, "Therefore, do
not become like them" (p.T, ol!v op.otw8iju avro'i:s). This
warning against assimilation is typical ofJudaism, but
unique in the New Testament; 300 its presence in the SM
is strong evidence that it comes from a Jewish back-
ground.301

293 This kind of polemic was taken over by Christianity.
In the NT see esp. Acts I9:34. Scholars usually refer
to the long recitations of divine epithets in Greek and
Roman prayers. See Norden, Agnostos Theos, 146-49;
von Severus, RAG 8.1138, 1142-43, 1155-58;
Burkhard Gladigow, "Gottesnamen (Gottesepitheta)
I (allgemein)," RAG I1 (198I) 1202-38, esp. 1222-
24, I229-31.
294 See also Matt 26:53; Mark 6:49; Luke 12:51, and the
references in BAGD, s. v. SoK,w, I.d.
295 The use of the passivum divinum in €luaKovu6~uovTa<
("they will be heard") makes it possible for the SM to
avoid naming the pagan gods. See BAGD, s.v.
£luaKoVro, 2.
296 See Tholuck, Bergrede, 343-45 (Commentary, 309-
I2); BAGD (s. v. 7rollvlloyla) renders "much speaking,
wordiness," and with regard to 6:7: "with their many
words." See also Luke II :2 (D), and BAGD, s.v.
7roll611allor. For further references see Christian
Maurer, "7rollvlloyla," TDNT 6.545-46. D6lger (Sol
Salutis [see above, n. 253]65-66) refers to the
patristic passages in Justin A pol. 1.65; Clement Alex.
Paed. 2.7.59.4(ed. Stahlin, 1, I93, 1-5);andStrom.
7.7.6 (ed. Stahlin, I, 37, 9).
297 One could illustrate this magical concept by
numerous passages from the Greek Magical Papyri,
e.g., PGM III.704; IV.74, 573, 619, 925-26, 958.
298 See the large collection of texts assembled by
Henricus Schmidt, Veteres philosophi quomodo
iudicaverint de precibus (RVV 4.1; Giefien: T6pel-
mann, I907); and Hermann Kleinknecht, Die
Gebetsparodie in der Antike (TBA 28; Stuttgart and
Berlin: Kohlhammer, I937).
299 See I Thess I:9-IO; Gal4:9-10; 1 Cor 8:4-6;
I 0: 19-22; 12:2, to name only the most important
passages.
300 See, however, SM/Matt 7:24-27; also 5:I3-I6; 2
Cor 6:14-7:1 (see Betz, Galatians, 329-30); Barn.
4.2, 6; I0.4-7. In the book of Revelation, one can
compare the warnings against worship of the demons
as well (see Rev 9:20; 13:4, 8, 12; etc.).
301 On assimilation in judaism see Hengel, judaism and
Hellenism, index, s.v. Apostasy, Assimilation; Arnaldo
Momigliano, Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization

367
 In contrast to vs 7, vs 8b formulates in one sentence
what is offered as approved doctrine concerning prayer:
"for your Father knows which need you have before you
ask him" (oTa£v yap 0 1TaT~P vp.wv ~v XP£lav ~X£T£ 7rp0 TOV
vp.as alTiiiTa' ahov). 302 The statement is dogmatic in
nature and in the present context a reminder of what is
recommended as "orthodox" teaching. 303
According to this doctrine, the only form of prayer
that one can justify is that which is based on God's
sovereignty and omniscience. 304 This doctrine involves a
number of aspects that I need to discuss briefly.
1. The God addressed as "your Father" is the God of
creation. He created those who turn to him in prayer. As
their creator he cares for his creatures from the
beginning to the end.
2. That human beings like all other creatures "have
need" (XP£lav ~X£'v) is not the result of God's insufficient
creation or lack of knowledge about the whereabouts of
his creatures. He not only knows about these needs but
even created them. These needs have a positive purpose
and role to play in the governance of the cosmos. They
are bound up with the notion of righteousness under-
stood as the just distribution of the good.
3. When people turn to God with petitions, they do so
because they are faced with needs they themselves are
unable to take care of. Naming these needs presumes
that they know what their needs are. Antiquity regarded
this presumption as potentially dangerous. While a
hungry person certainly knows the need for food, other
people, especially the wealthy and the powerful, asking
for ever more and better things, fail to understand what
their real needs are. People's real needs may be entirely
different from momentary urgencies or misdirected
desires and ambitions. Only God, through his omni-
science, knows our real needs.
4. Therefore, there is no point in attempting to inform
God about what we think our needs are and to urge him
to take care of them. He already knows, and that not
only because he knows the secrets of the human heart
prior to any articulation of prayer but also because, as
the God of righteousness, he knows how things should be
distributed justly.
5. As a result, legitimate prayer must pay attention to
these theological ideas. If this is done seriously, the end
of the conventional prayer has come. What then is
prayer, especially petitionary prayer? This is the question
to which the instruction on prayer in 6:7-13 (15)
responds.
While the concept of divine fatherhood is common in
the SM, 305 the concern about human need (XP£la)
appears only here. 306 This view about human need
deserves future consideration. 30 7
In ancient anthropology all creatures are distinguished
by the fact that they are in need of something at all times.

(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975).
302 Some manuscripts tend to expand the reference to
include the word "God." When IC 1 B sa mae Origen
read o8€bS o'lraT~p vp.wv ("God your Father"), this
may be intended to avoid confusion with a human
father (cf. 7:9-11). This longer name is, however,
untypical for the SM. The reading o'lraT~P vp.wv o
ol!pav&os ("your heavenly Father") by 892<. 1424 pc
syh conforms to passages elsewhere in the SM (5:48;
6:14, 26, 32), but the shorter reading seems more
original; it is read by the majority of good witnesses
(IC* D L W 8 j(ll IS 33. 892*. 1006. 1342. 1506 9Jt
sy'·c bo). Peculiar to D his the variant avo"i!a• Tb
uTOp.a ("open your mouth") in place of alTijua• al!Tov
("ask him"). It presupposes that reflection has
occurred about when such asking should take place,
whether by mouth or in the heart first. Accordingly,
God who knows the human heart (cf., e.g., Acts 1:24;
15:8) knows one's petitions before one opens the
mouth. See also Metzger, Textual Commentary, 15-16.
303 See Rom 8:29; 11:2; 2 Cor 11:11; 1 Pet 1:20. See
also RudolfBultmann, TDNT 1.715-16. For OT
wisdom texts see Sir 42:18; Wis 19:1; Ps 139:1, to
name some important passages.
304 So, rightly, Luz (Matthiius, 1.331 [Matthew, 1.365-
66]), who points to the parallels in SM/Matt 7:7-11;
Luke 11 :5-8; 18:2-7. See furthermore SM/Matt
6:25-34. Luz (ibid. n. 12) rightly refers toP. Insinger
(c. 300 BCE), where the 24th instruction reads:
"When the people raise their hands the god knows it.
He knows the impious man who thinks of evil. He
knows the godly man and that he has the greatness of
the god in his heart. Before the tongue has been
questioned the god knows its answers" (trans.
Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 3.209).
305 See on SM/Matt 5:16,45, 48; 6:1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15,
18, 26, 32; 7:11, 21.
306 On the Lord's Prayer, see also below on SM/Matt
6:9-13, 14-15, and on 6:25-34; 7:7-11.
307 See below on SM/Matt 6:25-34. Despite the
importance of the concept of need, there appears to
be no special investigation, nor does TDNT have an
article. See Betz, Essays, 105 with n. 55, 109-10, 115
n. 90.

368
 Matthew 6:1-18

This idea has played an important role in Greek
philosophy, especially in connection with theories about
the origins of human civilization. According to Diodorus
Siculus 1.8.5-9, "need" was the teacher of primitive
humanity in that it forced them to develop the arts and
sciences in order to cope with these needs. 308 There
were further ideas on this topic. 309 Perceived needs may
be wrong needs, based on error or folly; preoccupation
with wrong needs, which in truth may not be needs at all,
may prevent people from perceiving their real needs. 310
Whatever the case may be, there was widespread
agreement in antiquity that only the deity can know what
is truly good and, therefore, what our real needs are and
how they can be met. As I have pointed out before, this
view was accepted by large sectors of Hellenistic
philosophy. 311
In this context, "need" (XP~ta) is not anything specific
and not a plurality of things but a general condition such
as deprivation, confusion, perversion-in short,
imbalances in the distribution of the good. It is part of
God's responsibility for justice that the right balance is
restored, but only God knows how the benefits should be
distributed justly. 312
What do these doctrines mean for the proper
performance of prayer? For one thing, they apply
principally to the petitionary prayer. This point is
indicated by the term alT€w ("ask"). 313 The petitionary
prayer is concerned with a person's needs, while the
intercessory prayer intervenes on behalf of others; the
thanksgiving prayer is called for after the needs of a
person have been met. 314 Furthermore, the SM has
properly classified the Lord's Prayer that is to follow as a
petitionary prayer.
For the SM the Lord's Prayer not only fulfills the
requirements of prayer, but as an authoritative paradigm
it defines what God regards to be the "real needs" of
humanity. The Lord's Prayer has been designed from
the perspective of God. Therefore, the petitions of this
prayer are based not on human desires, urgencies,
ambitions, or selfishness but on God's wisdom. Praying
the Lord's Prayer affirms these needs and expresses
confidence and trust in God's beneficence.
• 9 After presenting the theology of prayer in vss 7-8, vs
9a repeats the reference to the performance, "Thus,
therefore, you shall pray: ... " (oilTw~ o~v 7rpoud;xHr8~
vp.~'i~). There are some observations to be made
regarding this seemingly brief and unimportant little
phrase introducing the Lord's Prayer.
The movement of argument began with the critique of
wrong performance (vs 7a) and wrong theory (vs 7b), in
order then to turn to the correct theory (vs 8), and now
to the correct practice (vs 9a), exemplified by the Lord's
Prayer (vss 9b-13), and supplied with further application
in vss 14-15. The argument, therefore, is presented
chiastically; the conjunction o~v ("therefore") serves as
affirmation of the theology ofvss 7-8. The plural
pronoun "you" (vp.~'i~) determines that the Lord's Prayer
is a group prayer, more so than a "private" prayer (cf.
above on 6:6). The verb 7rpoue{;x~u(l£ ("you shall pray")
expresses an imperative as well as an indicative force,
thus affirming the continued use of the Lord's Prayer in
the community from which the text came. 315

308 In conclusion (Diodorus Sic. I.8.9): "Instead,
speaking generally, in all things it was necessity
[XP•la] itself that became man's teacher, supplying in
appropriate fashion instruction in every matter to a
creature which was well endowed by nature and had,
as its assistants for every purpose, hands and speech
and sagacity of mind" (trans. Oldfather; LCL, 1.3I).
309 See Spoerri, Spiithellenistische Berichte (see above, n.
272) I44-48: "Not, Nutzen und Erfahrung als
kulturbildende Krafte."
3I 0 The classic figure is of course the Rich Fool (Luke
I2:I6-2I); see Betz, Essays, I05-7.
3II See the Introduction to this chapter above.
3I2 This topic is also of great importance in the Epistle of
James (see esp.Jas I:4b, 5-8, I7-I8, 26-27; 2: I4-
I7), although XP•la ("need") does not occur there.
For the definition of justice as suum cuique, i.e., as "to
each according to his or her needs," see U.
Schiinpflug, "Bediirfnis," HWPh I (I97I) 765-7I;
Hans Reiner, "Bediirfnislosigkeit," ibid., 77I-73.
3I3 See also SM/Matt 7:7-II, and BAGD, s.v. alr,w,
with references; von Severus, RAG 8.II70; Gustav
Stahlin, "ah'w KTA.," TDNT I.I92-93 (2.b). Walter
Radl, EWNT(EDNT) I, s.v. aldw.
3I4 For discussion and references see Betz, 2 Corinthians
8 and 9, index, s.v. Intercession, and Thanksgiving.
3I5 Grammatically, the verb 7rpocu6x<u6< ("you pray")
can be in the indicative or imperative or a
combination of both; the latter is preferable. Cf.
Luke II :2: "if you pray, say" (ilrav 7rpou<6x7Ju6<
A.'ym). See BDF, § 336; BDR, § 336.

369
 One can say, therefore, that the doctrinal frame ofthe
SM, in which the Lord's Prayer is set, is secondary with
regard to the prayer and its performance in the
community. The doctrine is set forth only now, while the
prayer was performed earlier. This leads me to conclude
that the Lord's Prayer must have preceded the
formulation of the SM; it preceded as an oral text. 316
The adverb "thus" (ol!rws) does not introduce the Lord's
Prayer as a new entity but as an example well known to
the readers already. 317 For this reason it has an agreed-
upon authority. Indeed, the readers are simply reminded
of the prayer they are used to, and they are to take its
citation as confirmation of the tradition. 318 Within the
SM, the introductory statement in vs 9a is an integral
element of the composition of the cultic instruction and
not, as some commentators would have it, a later
insertion made by the evangelist Matthew. 319
Excursus: The Lord's Prayer
1. The Recensions (Matt 6:9b-13;
Luke 11: 1-4; Did. 8.2)
The Lord's Prayer (the name deriving from the Greek
rov Kvplov 7rpo<T£VX~ [Origen De or. 18.1, GCS 2.2, p.
340, 8]; Latin: Oratio dominica, or Pater noster; French:
Le Notre Pere; German: Vaterunser or Unservater) is
extant in three ancient recensions (if "recension" is the
right term): Matt 6:9b-13; Luke 11:1-4; and Did. 8.2.
The SP has no parallel, and the Lord's Prayer is not
attested in any form in the earlier part of the Didache
(chaps. 1-6) or the Doctrina apostolorum, or for that
matter, in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas. In all proba-
316 This follows from the character of the text, not only
from the multiple attestation of the Lord's Prayer.
317 Zahn (Matthaus, 268) points out that "thus" (oilrwr) is
not the same as "these (words)" (ravra) or "this
prayer" (ravrrJV r~v •vx~v), as if jesus had recom-
mended only this prayer. Rather, the Lord's Prayer
is a model for all prayers, not the only one permis-
sible.
318 The argument seems to justify what the congregation
has been doing all along; if so, an element of
apologetics is involved.
319 Against Luz, Matthtius, 1.334 n. 5 (Matthew, 1.370 n.
5 ); Gnilka, Matthausevangelium, 1.214.
320 Luz (Matthaus, 1.334 n. 4, 335 n. 14 [Matthew, 1.369
n. 4, 370 n. 14]) objects against Jeremias (Abba, 157
[Prayers, 88-89]) that private prayers such as the
Lord's Prayer, given the rabbinic traditions on this
370
bility the three recensions are textually independent of
each other; this view does not exclude the fact that
they are related in their dependence on common
tradition.
Scholars have spent a great deal of energy on the
question of which of the recensions is the earliest or
even the original one. For the most part, the
discussions have ignored the character of the prayer as
an oral text. Liturgical material such as this type of
prayer derives, when it is written down, from oral
tradition. It is characteristic of liturgical material in
general that textual fixation occurs at a later stage in
the transmission of these texts, while in the oral stage
variability within limits is the rule. These char-
acteristics also apply to the Lord's Prayer. The three
recensions, therefore, represent variations of the
prayer in the oral tradition. When they were written
down, these variant forms of the prayer became
textually fixed. As a result I can state that there was
never only one original written Lord's Prayer. The
somewhat fluid state of the textual tradition, which one
can observe in the critical apparatus of the editions of
the New Testament as well as the church fathers,
means that the oral tradition continued to exert an
influence on the written text of the New Testament
well into later times. Even present-day church liturgies
use the Lord's Prayer in different forms, and that in
spite of many attempts to come to an agreement about
using one standardized version in all churches. None
of these attempts at standardization has ever
succeeded. Rather than an indication of failure, this
situation is simply an indication of the nature and
function of oral texts.
The three extant recensions have come from the
respective church traditions in which they were in use:
the churches of Matthew, Luke, and the Didache. 3 2°
While the scribes copying the New Testament
subject, did not need to be textually fixed. As for oral
texts, spontaneous variation within a set of rules was
even desirable as a method of internal appropriation.
For relevant texts see Abrahams, Studies, 2.84 n. 2.
In his important chapter, "The Development of
Prayers and the Problem of the 'Original Text,'"
Heinemann (Prayer in the Talmud, 43) states the
matter succinctly: "Therefore, we must lay down as a
fundamental axiom for liturgical studies which would
examine developmentally the texts of the various
prayers that from the first no single 'original' text of
any particular prayer was created, but that originally
numerous diverse texts and versions existed side by
side. It follows, then, that the widely accepted goal of
the philological method-viz., to discover or to
reconstruct the one 'original' text of a particular
composition by examining and comparing the extant

manuscripts were aware of the two New Testament
versions, 521 the discovery ofthe Didache revealed that
other versions must have existed in antiquity.
Matthew's introductory adverb "thus" (ollrro~) may
even imply that the SM was aware of other versions
and recommends the one used by its community.
Today, we know of even more versions of the Lord's
Prayer that were in use in the ancient church. 522
. Scholars have discussed intriguing questions in view
of the existence ofthe three (or more) recensions.
Which of the recensions represents the original Lord's
Prayer?32S Who added or subtracted those elements
peculiar to or missing from one ofthem? IfJesus of
Nazareth first taught the Lord's Prayer to his disciples,
how could they not remember and transmit the precise
version he taught them? 324 Which of the versions, if
any, was represented in Q? 325 Which changes occurred
in the presynaptic tradition, and which changes were
textual variants one with another-is out of place in
the field of liturgical studies."
The matter was already stated clearly by Gotthold
Ephraim Lessing (Theologischer NachlajJ [Berlin: VoB,
1784]76): "Das Vater Unser wurde gebetet, ehe es
bey dem Matthaus zu lesen war. DennJesus selbst
hatte es seineJiinger beten gelehrt" ("The Lord's
Prayer was prayed before it could be read in
Matthew. For Jesus himself had taught his disciples to
pray it"). Lessing states the matter in section 5 of his
"Theses aus der Kirchengeschichte" to show that the
oral tradition preceded the written texts.
321 Following Heinemann, Prayer, 63.
322 See Tholuck, Bergrede, 350-54 (Commentary, 319-
22).
323 Cf. the fragmentary version ofthe Lord's Prayer in
the Antinoopolis Papyri (ed.J. W. B. Barnes and H.
Zilliacus, The Antinoopolis Papyri, vol. 2 [London:
Egypt Exploration Society, 1960]) 6-7 and plate IV
verso. On this see also Ernst Bammel, "A New Text of
the Lord's Prayer," ExpT 73 (1961-62) 54. For
citations of the Lord's Prayer in magical material see
PGM 2.217 (P 9); 2.235 (0 4); PGM LXXXIII (Betz,
Greek Magical Papyri, 300; Robert Daniel and Franco
Maltomini, Supplementum Magicum I [Papyrologica
Coloniensia 16.1; Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag,
1990] no. 29, pp. 79-82); Horsley, Nw Documents,
3.103-5; 4.191; 5.144.
324 See Carmignac, Recherches, 18-28; Strecker,
Bergpredigt, 111-12 (Sermon, I 07 -8); Luz, Matthii.us,
1.334-36 (Matthw, 1.369-72).
325 Schulz (Q, 87, 93) believes that the oldest version
(Luke II :2b-4) was the prayer of the Jewish-
Christian Q-community in Palestine. Cf. Strecker,
Bergpredigt, 122 n. 40 (Sermon, 209 n. 40); Klop-
penborg, Formation, 203-6. For a list of names of
Matthew6:1-18
introduced by the Gospel writers, Matthew and
Luke?326
If the Lord's Prayer was part of Q, it must have
become a part of it after the two versions of Q
developed: Q/Matt received its prayer together with
the SM, while Q/Luke received its version of the
Lord's Prayer not as part of the SP but together with
another instruction on prayer (Luke 11 :2-13). 32? The
Lord's Prayer became part of the Didache in the second
stage of its development, when specifically Christian
cultic materials were added (Did 8.2; cf. I 0.5). 328 The
differences among the three recensions point to an
independent transmission prior to the fixations in
writing, so that I do not assume that any one of them is
textually dependent on another.329
scholars who do not attribute the Lord's Prayer to Q,
see Kloppenborg, Q-Parallels, 84.
326 Michael D. Goulder ("The Composition of the Lord's
Prayer," JTS 14 [1963]32-45) assumes that the
Lord's Prayer is entirely a creation of the evangelists.
Accordingly, while Mark 14:32-42 has only
reminiscences ofJesus' general ideas about prayer,
Matthew, by taking up older Jewish prayer materials,
has formulated his version, which Luke had at his
disposal and shortened. Sjef van Tilborg(" A Form-
Criticism of the Lord's Prayer," NovT 14 [ 1972]94-
105) also postulates (p. 95) "that the origin of the
Lord's Prayer must be sought in a liturgical
development of the Gethsemane story" (Mark 14:32-
42).
327 Cf. Strecker (Bergpredigt, 112 [Sermon, 107-8]), who
does not completely rule out changes made by the
evangelists.
328 Against Luz (Matthii.us, 1.334-35 [Matthw, 1.369-
70]), who assumes that the Didache knew Matthew
and referred to the items of fasting, praying, and
hypocrites from memory, not by copying Matthew's
text. Luz, however, remains unclear about what he
means by "receiving the Matthean texts in the form
in which they remained in the memory of the
community" (370). If the Didache was familiar with
the pre-Matthean Lord's Prayer, which Matthew also
took over from his church tradition, then why does
Didache need Matthew's text, even if only by
memory, to know the Lord's Prayer? Would it not be
logical to conclude that both Didache and Matthew
knew the prayer from their respective church
traditions? Similarly ambivalent is Kohler, Rezeption,
30-36.
329 Strecker's formulation is unclear (Bergpredigt, Ill n.
33 [Sermon, 209 n. 33]): "The oldest post-New
371
 The three recensions may be compared as follows: Christian, Luke one for Gentile-Christian prayer
instruction. "330 This suggestion is indeed intriguing
Matt 6:9b-13 Luke 11:2b-4 Did. 8.2 and it coincides with my hypothesis of the origin of the
7rtl'T'Ep ~p.wv 7r1Lr£p, 1raTEp ~p.wv SM and the SP. 331
0 Ev rots oVpavoLs· 0 Ev r{il oVpav(iJ· 2. Authorship
a:y&au6~'TW ay&au6~'TW ay&au6~'TW All ancient sources agree in ascribing the Lord's
\ J/ I \ J/ I \ J/ I
TO OVOJ.L« D'OV" TO OVOIJ-a O"OV" TO OVOJ.La O"OV" Prayer to Jesus of Nazareth as the original author. 332
f.A6tTw f.'A6t'TW f.A8£rw There is no reason on scholarly grounds to doubt this
~ {3au&AELa uov· ~ {3au&AEla O'OV' ~ {3au&AEla uov· ascription, because it meets the standard criteria of
')'EV'I/6~'TW ')'EV"16~'TW authenticity and inauthenticity as they have been
To 6tA"'P.a uov, rh 8tA71JJ.0. uov, developed by New Testament scholarship. Even if one
Ws fv oVpavjp Ws Ev oVpavfp accepts Jesus' authorship of the Lord's Prayer,
Kai f7Tl yfjs· Kal Ewl yfjs· however, one has numerous problems to consider.
\ ,, t: "'
rhv llprov T,,.,.Wv 'TOV ap'TOV "'!J.WV rhv H.prov i]p.Wv Typical of all prayers, the Lord's Prayer also
, '
' £1i'LOVCTtOV
TOV ' ,
TOV f?TLOVUI.OV ' '
TOV £7TLOVULOV, ' consists of much material that was traditional at the
lios ~p.'iv u~p.Epov· ObS ~!J.LV 'Tb Ka6' ~p.tpav· lios ~p.'iv u~p.EpOV' time. When Jesus created this prayer, he did not create
Ka\ ll.<j>Es ~p.'iv Ka\ ll.<j>Es ~p.'iv Kalll.cf>Es i],Uv something altogether new, but he created it out of
'T~V o<j>EIA~V ~p.wv,
\ (' ' t: ...
Ta o<j>EIA~p.aTa ~p.wv, Tas ap.apnas "'!J.WV, tradition. 333 For this reason, almost all the petitions in
Ka&' yap
t: '(' .... , \
' aV'TOI ('
WS Ka& "1/J-EIS
't . . the Lord's Prayer have close parallels in older Jewish
WS Kal "'!J.EIS
a<j>~Kap.EV a<j>lop.EV a<j>lEp.EV prayers. This way of creating prayers was and still is
TOts o<j>nAtTa&S wavrl 6cpclAovrL TOts o<j>E&AETa&s characteristic of most prayers. In order to make new
~p.wv· ~p.'iv· ~p.wv· prayers acceptable to a liturgical community, they must
Ka\ p.~ EiuEVt')'K1/S ~p.as Ka\ p.~ ElO'EVt')'K1/S ~p.as Ka\ !J.~ ElO'EVl')'K1/S reflect the traditional language and form. Within this
, 7rE&paup.ov,
EIS ' , 7rE&paup.ov.
EIS ' , 7rE&paup.ov,
EIS ' limit, one can introduce new elements that the
a)l.)l.a pvua& ~p.as aHa pvua& ~p.as worshiping community will accept. The originality of
, ' 'TOV"" 7r0V"'POV.
a1ro .... cl?r0 roV wov7]poV. the prayer, therefore, lies in the conception of the
prayer as a whole, in the selection and precise
Joachim Jeremias has suggested that the two formulation of the petitions, and in its peculiar
versions of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew and Luke theology.
have come from two different catechetical instructions. The Lord's Prayer can be shown to have its own
Accordingly, Matthew's "catechism" speaks to people theology (see below, section 6). It is a Jewish, but a
who have been familiar with prayer from their youth peculiarly Jewish, theology. This theology differs
onward but who are seen as being in danger of mere slightly depending on the versions one considers, and it
routinization. By contrast, the Lukan "catechism" is is different from the literary contexts in which it is
intended for people who are "just beginning to learn transmitted.
how to pray and who need encouragement." Indeed, The Lord's Prayer in the SM does not contain a
"Matthew has transmitted to us a catechism for Jewish- reference to God's hiddenness or to his omniscience,

Testament witness is the quotation in Did. 8:2, which
largely agrees with the Matthew text and directly or
indirectly presupposes it."
330 Jeremias, Abba, 157 (ET: The Prayers ofjesus [trans.
John Bowden et al.; SBT 2.6; London: SCM;
Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1967] 88). It is not
altogether clear why Jeremias still pursues the quest
for one original version (Abba, 157-60 [Prayers, 87-
94]).
331 Ernst Lohmeyer (Das Vater-Unser [AThANT 23;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1952; 5th ed.
1962]207-11 [ET: "Our Father" (trans. John
Bowden; New York: Harper & Row, 1965) 291-96])
has suggested that the two versions represent the two
points of origin of Christianity in Galilee and in
Jerusalem.
332 This appears to be the consensus of scholarship; see
Strecker, Bergpredigt, 112 (Sermon, 108); Luz,
Matthiius, 1.336 (Matthew, 1.372). Differently, Schulz,
Goulder, van Tilborg (see above, nn. 325, 326).
333 See Tholuck, Bergrede, 354-58 (Commentary, 322-
26), with reference to the parallels collected by
Drusius, Grotius, Lightfoot, Schottgen, Wettstein,
and others; for more recent collections of material
see Dalman, Worte Jesu, 283-365; Fiebig, Str-B
1.406-24, and Friedlander. For the entire question
see Michael Brocke and Jacob Petuchowski, eds., The
Lord's Prayer and jewish Liturgy (trans. Elizabeth R.
Petuchowski; New York: Seabury, 1978).

372

and yet the authors of the instructions on prayer in vss
5-6 and 7-9a found their ideas confirmed by the
Prayer. How these authors could have arrived at this
conclusion is not entirely clear. They may have been
able to draw on a larger body of knowledge than the
present sources allow us to see. IfJesus originally
formulated the prayer, no specific liturgical sources
can be named. 334 Some famous older Jewish prayers
(e.g., the Kaddish or the Shemoneh Esreh) provide
parallels that come closer than others, but these
prayers are as different among themselves as they are
from the Lord's Prayer. In addition, the date of
composition and original form of the Jewish prayers
mentioned, not to speak of others, are disputed. All of
them, like the Lord's Prayer, have had their origin in
the oral tradition ofliturgicallife, and for some of
them we have different versions or recensions.
Therefore, we can conclude in regard to the Lord's
Prayer that the ascription of this prayer to Jesus may
indeed be historically correct, but that Jesus created
the prayer out of traditional elements by giving it the
form and content he wanted. This method must have
been the same as that of other consciously formed
prayers at the time.
3. Original Purpose and Function
The assumption that Jesus created the Lord's Prayer
leads to further conclusions. As for his mentor and
teacher,John the Baptist (Luke 11:1), for Jesus also
prayer must have been a matter of high priority.
Prayer was more than ritual observance and duty. A
prayer is always also a theological statement and a tool
for theological instruction. Not only serving as a means
for communicating with God, prayers are vehicles of
theology informing those who pray. Prayers therefore
were always a component of catechetical instruction.
This is true also of the Lord's Prayer. Having been
learned and internalized, the Lord's Prayer leads to
funher theological reflection. This is how the
instructions on prayer, in which the Prayer is now
embedded, came about, a process that continued into
church history and the history of theology down to the
present.
If, as already pointed out, the Lord's Prayer stands
in the middle of the SM, this prominent location is not
an accident. 335 Occupying the center of the cultic
instruction of6:1-18, the Lord's Prayer stands also in
the middle of the SM as a whole. The SM creates the
334 Differently, Davies, Setting, 4-5, 309-13. See also
Strecker, Bergpredigt, 113-14 (Sermon, 108-9).
335 It is astonishing that also in Boethius (De consolatione 337 Jeremias (Abba, 77-78 [Prayers, 77-78]) assumes that
philosophiae Ill m. 9) a great prayer that has some
similarity with the Lord's Prayer stands in the middle
of the work. I am indebted for this observation to
Willy Theiler, Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus
(Berlin: de Gruyter, 1966) 321-22.
Matthew 6:1-18
image of a praying Jesus in the center with his disciples
surrounding him. This image also occurs in some
narrative texts of the gospel tradition (see esp. Mark
14:22-25 par.; 14:32-42 par.;John 16:23-33; 17:1-
26).
One of the questions that has received much
attention in past scholarship was whether Jesus prayed
the Lord's Prayer himself or made it up specifically for
his disciples (vs 9a: "This is how you shall pray"). 336
Some have argued that Jesus could not have spoken
the fifth petition concerning the forgiveness of sins
because he would thereby have admitted his own
sinfulness and would have contradicted the church's
dogma of his sinlessness. Yet this argument is a result
of Christian christology, not the Jewish theology
shared by Jesus. As aJew,Jesus must certainly have
acknowledged his sinfulness because such a confession
belonged to the marks of the righteous man. 33 7 With
God's forgiveness, which was assured to everyone who
sincerely asked him for it, "sinlessness" in the Jewish
sense was restored. The later Christian concept of
Jesus' sinlessness, however, presupposes a concept of
sin different from the Jewish one. For Judaism
sinfulness is a part of human limitation and consists of
transgressions, committed consciously and un-
consciously, of God's commandments, whereas the
Christian notion of sin presupposes that demonic
forces of evil possess humanity, which is hence
alienated from God. In the Christian sense, Jesus was
thought to be without sin (cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Gal3:13;
John 8:46; etc.).
What did Jesus intend by the creation of this prayer?
One can only speculate about this question because
none of the sources is explicit about it. The context
suggests that the Lord's Prayer was part of his criticism
of the Jewish cult, especially regarding prayer. In
composing this prayer, "Jesus is here expressing his
approval ofthe tradition of private prayer, which he
considers preferable to the prayer of the Syna-
gogue. "338 This conclusion by Joseph Heinemann may
be correct to a degree. It does agree with the prayer
instruction 6:7-8, which presupposes that the Lord's
Prayer was to be used as a "private" prayer, but I have
already pointed out that this context is secondary and
in tension with the invocation of vs 9b ("Our Father"),
which points to a group prayer. One cannot conclude
from this prayer alone that Jesus disapproved of all
336 See Tholuck, Bergrede, 350-54 (Commentary, 319-
22).
Jesus prayed the Lord's Prayer three times daily; see
also Abba, 70-73 (Prayers, 69-72).
338 Heinemann, Prayer, 191.
373
public prayer in the synagogue. 339 Heinemann's
summary assessment, therefore, is only partly
acceptable:
A prayer which is intimate and inward-directed in
place of a public prayer; a brief prayer in place of a
long series of benedictions; the simple popular style
of a private prayer in place of the more formal and
elaborate style of the Synagogue-prayer; a prayer in
the vernacular Aramaic tongue in place of the
literary or Scriptural style, in which the common
folk were not sufficiently fluent; a prayer every man
can pray for himself rather than one which he must
hear recited by the Prayer Leader-such is the
force ofJesus' instructions to his disciples and of his
exemplary prayer. 340
Heinemann's characterization appears to be influenced
primarily by the instruction on prayer (6:7-8) as well as
by ideas about Jesus that come from modern
scholarship outside the texts. One should note,
however, that the Lord's Prayer itself does not contain
any polemic against the synagogue. Its simplicity and
brevity do not point to folk religion, and there is also
no indication of an Aramaic vernacular behind this
Greek prayer. It is true that it can be prayed by every
person, educated or not, but this is precisely its
theological purpose. The inward direction, which is
certainly part of the prayer, does not preclude its use in
common worship, as the history of the transmission
shows. 341
4. Original Language
The question whether the Lord's Prayer has been
translated from the Aramaic or Hebrew has been
discussed from the Middle Ages to the present. 34 2
There are also numerous attempts to "retranslate" the
Prayer into the presumed original languages. It is,
however, necessary to keep the following facts in mind:
(a) The Lord's Prayer is attested only in Greek as
339 Cf. differently Heinemann, ibid., 192: "nonetheless it 342 See Carmignac, Recherches, 29-52; Pierre Grelot,
is clear beyond all shadow of doubt that these words
of Jesus are directed against the prayer of the
Synagogue, and against fixed, statutory public prayer
in general. In its place, he prefers a simple prayer
conforming to the tradition of popular private
prayer."
340 Ibid., 192.
341 For the use of the Lord's Prayer in Christian worship
see Did. 8.3: "Three times a day you shall pray thus"
(Tpt~ Tij~ ~p.tpa~ ol!Tw 7rpotnvx<u8<). How old this
instruction is we do not know; see Jeremias, Abba,
70-80 (Prayers, 69-81 ). By contrast, Jeremias has
tried to show that in the early centuries the Lord's
Prayer was a secret tradition, revealed only to those
taking part in Holy Communion (Abba, 152-54
[Prayers, 82-85].
374
far as the oldest sources are concerned. As far as we
know, versions in other languages are all translations
from the Greek.
(b) The suggestion by Jean Carmignac and others
whose view he represents that there was a "substrat
semitique" (Carmignac, Recherches, 52) remains
unclear. Does it mean that Jesus' original composition
specifically used the language of the common people,
an Aramaic vernacular, for the purpose of wider
communication? Or is it the Jewish prayer language
generally that as a tradition goes back ultimately to the
Hebrew?
(c) No evidence suggests that Jesus regarded the
Hebrew language as sacred or the Aramaic as popular
and hence as appropriate for this prayer. The earliest
sources give no indication that anything but the Greek
was in use. Even the oldest sources have no doubt that
the Lord's Prayer existed in Greek, as they themselves
always did. Perhaps, as regards the Lord's Prayer, this
is what actually happened. If so, it raises the question
whether Jesus himself composed the prayer in Greek,
or in both Greek and Aramaic (with the Aramaic
version being lost). Or perhaps one of his disciples
created a Greek version at a very early stage. A
conclusive answer goes beyond what the evidence
allows.
(d)JoachimJeremias's hypothesis that Jesus' address
of God as "Father" must be interpreted by the
references to abba (a{3{3a) and understood to reflect
Jesus' special relationship with God rests, to say the
least, on shaky grounds. None of the recensions of the
Lord's Prayer has the Aramaic abba, not even in Greek
transliteration, whereas the references to the abba (Gal
4:6; Rom 8:15; Mark 14:36) show no evidence of
knowing the Lord's Prayer. The oldest texts of the
Lord's Prayer that, according to Jeremias's inter-
pretation, should contain the abba, do not have it. 343
"L'arriere-plan arameen du 'Pater,"' RB 91 (1984)
531-56; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 112 (Sermon, 107);
Luz, Matthiius, 1.336 (Matthew, 1.371-72), with
references. For the problem as a whole see James
Barr, "Which Language Did Jesus Speak? Some
Remarks of a Semitist," BJRL 52 (1970) 9-29; Hans
Dieter Betz, "Wellhausen's Dictum 'Jesus was not a
Christian but a Jew' in Light of Present Scholarship,"
StTh 45 (1991) 83-110.
343 Jeremias, Prayers, 54-57, 89-98; idem, Theology, 61-
68; Witold Marchel, Abba, P"ere! La priere du Christ et
des chretiens (AnBib 19A; 2d ed.; Rome: Biblical
Institute, 1971 ); George Schelbert, "Sprach-
geschichtliches zu 'abba,'" in Pierre Casetti, ed.,
Melanges Dominique Barthelemy (OBO 38; Fribourg:
Editions universitaires, 1981) 395-44 7; Dieter

Paul renders abba as b 7rar~p ("Father") in both Gal 4:6
and Rom 8: 15; the rendering also occurs in Mark
14:36, while Luke 11:2 has the vocative .,.&.np
("Father"), and Matt 6:9b and Did. 8.2 read .,.&.np ~JJ-WV
("Our Father"). The connection of these invocations
with the Lord's Prayer remains speculative.
Thus no evidence suggests that the Lord's Prayer as
we have it was first composed in Aramaic or Hebrew
and only then translated into Greek. 344 The obvious
fact that the Prayer has been translated into many
ancient languages does not mean that it was itself the
result of translation. It may just as well have been the
case that versions of the Prayer in several languages
have existed side by side as they always did down to the
present day. As for its relation to Judaism, the Lord's
Prayer points to an origin in Hellenistic Judaism. 345
5. Composition and Literary Structure
In regard to its composition, the Lord's Prayer in
Zeller, "God as Father in the Proclamation and in the
Prayer of Jesus," in Asher Finkel and Lawrence
Frizzel, eds., Standing before God: Studies on Prayer in
Scriptures and in Tradition with Essays in Honor ofJohn
M. Oesterreicher (New York: KTAV, 1981) 117-29;
Geza Vermes,jesus and the World ofjudaism
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 40-43; Hubertus
Tellenbach, ed., Das Vaterbild in Mythos und
Geschichte: Agypten, Griechenland, Altes Testament,
Neues Testament (Stuttgart: Topelmann, 1976); Max
Wilcoxen, "Semitisms in the New Testament,"
ANRW II, 25.2 (1984) 995-98;Joseph A. Fitzmyer,
"Abba and Jesus' Relation to God," in Fran~ois
Refoule, ed., A cause de l'Evangile: Etudes sur les
synoptiques et les Actes offertes au P. Jacques Dupont (LD
123; Paris: Cerf, 1985) 15-38; Strecker, Bergpredigt,
115-16 (Sermon, 110-11); Luz, Matthiius, 1.339-41
(Matthew, 1.375-77). Against Jeremias see James
Barr, "'Abba Isn't 'Daddy,'" JTS 39 (1988) 28-47;
Mary Rose D'Angelo, "Abba and 'Father': Imperial
Theology and the Jesus Tradition," JBL Ill (1992)
611-30 (with bibliography). For references and
bibliography see also Gottlob Schrenk and Gottfried
Quell, "7rar~p KTA.," TDNT 5.945-1022, esp. 984-
90; Otto Michel, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. 7rar~p; BAGD,
s.v. 7rar~p.
344 Luz (Matthiius, 1.336 [Matthew, 1.371-72]) points to
the linguistic problems of "retranslating" the Lord's
Prayer into Aramaic. These problems have not
inhibited those who are out to recover the Urgestalt of
Jesus' sayings for the sake of the larger project of the
Aramaic substratum of the Gospels. These scholars,
therefore, often explain linguistic problems as
translation mistakes, and they then go ahead and
"restore" what they take to be the "original" Aramaic
text. It should be clear, however, that the whole
Matthew 6:1-18
Greek is a literary masterpiece. 346 Intentionally
concise in the extreme, it has three parts, a pattern that
conforms to the usual forms of hymns and prayers: 347
(a) The invocatio or hlK"Arw•~ ("invocation," vs 9b),
addressing God, without using his name, by one
(respectively, two) attributes.
(b) The main section (vss 9c-13), consisting of two
sets of three petitions. The first set of petitions has an
aretalogical character, and one can categorize it as
hypomnesis ("reminder"): the three petitions remind
God of his obligations. 348 The concept of "righteous-
ness" provides the basis for the implication that by
attending to his own needs and obligations, God
provides the most urgently needed benefits to his
creation, in particular to humanity. The second set (vss
11-13) concerns the specific needs of humans.
matter rests on the hypothesis that there was an
original Aramaic substratum in the first place. Taken
to its extreme, the "method" of "recovering" the
Aramaic "original" declares most of the extant Greek
texts as unreliable; the so-called restoration,
however, produces an entirely fictional text that has
no basis in actual manuscripts. For this approach in
the case of the Lord's Prayer, see Schwarz, "Und jesus
sprach," 209-26.
345 So, rightly, Klaus Berger, "Hellenistische Gattungen
im Neuen Testament," ANRWII, 25/2 (1984)
1170-71.
346 Luther admired the "unendliche Rhetorica" ("infinite
rhetoric") of the Lord's Prayer (Tischreden III, no.
3651).
347 See Richard Wunsch, "Hymnos," PW 9 (1916) 140-
83; Berger, "Hellenistische Gattungen," 1151-71;
Jan Bremmer, "Greek Hymns," in Versnel, Faith,
Hope, 193-215; Michael Lattke, Hymn us: Materialien
zu einer Geschichte der antiken Hymnologie (NTOA 19;
Fribourg: Presses universitaires; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991).
348 They follow the "you-style,'' as the emphatic "you"
(<Tov) at the end of each line shows. See Norden,
Agnostos Theos, 143-63. For the element of hypomnesis
("reminder") see Herbert Meyer, Hymnische
Stilelemente in der fruhgriechischen Dichtung (W tirzburg:
Triltsch, 1933); Andrew M. Miller, From Delos to
Delphi: A Literary Study of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo
(Mnemosyne Sup 93; Leiden: Brill, 1986). For Jewish
prayers see Heinemann, Prayer, 104-22: "The
Address 'You' in Prayer";James M. Charlesworth,
"Jewish Hymns, Odes, and Prayers," in Robert A.
Kraft and George A. Nickels burg, eds., Early Judaism
and Its Modern Interpreters (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986)
411-36.
375
 (c) According to the best textual tradition the
Lord's Prayer ends without an epilogue. The tradition
apparently felt this omission to be too abrupt, so that
later scribes, perhaps stimulated by liturgical usage,
added an "Amen" or a doxology or both (see on 6:13
below).
This compositional structure is by no means
undisputed. Since antiquity commentators have argued
about the key to the composition, structure, and
content of the Lord's Prayer. Tertullian and Origen,
especially, speculated about the intemallogic of the
sequence of the petitions, and even more recently
exegetes have found hidden structures of trinitarian
theology (Tholuck) or of christology (Schiirmann). 849
The number of petitions has been a constant source
of debate up to the present. Augustine in his De serm.
dom. in monte 2.9.35-2.10.36 counts seven petitions,
and the older Roman Catholic tradition follows, 850 but
in his Sermo de oratione domini 5.10.10 and De dono
perseverantiae 5.9 he combined the last two petitions,
making six altogether, a proposal that Origen and
Gregory of Nyssa had made before. Luther and most
of the other reformers later affirmed this proposal. 851
Another problem concems the appropriate names to
be given to the components of the Prayer. Are all of
them "petitions" (alr~,.ara)? If so, the first three are
considerably different from the last three (or four).
Michael Weber 8 52 used rhetorical categories when he
divided the prayer into three parts: wpoJ\oyos (or
praefatio, "prologue" or "preface"), J\oyos (or oratio,
"main prayer"), and lwlJ\oyos (or conclusio, "epilogue"
or "conclusion"). He subdivided the "main prayer" into
349 Tholuck, Bergrede, 359-60 (Commentary, 327-28);
Schiirmann, Gebet, 153-77.
350 So also Mutzenbecher's introduction to Augustine's
De sermone domini in monte, pp. XI-XII. Strecker
continues this tradition (Bergpredigt, 111, 128
[Sermon, 107, 123]) when he proposes that the
number seven played an important part in the
Matthean redaction: Matt 1: 1 7 counts 3 x 14
generations; 5:3-9 has seven beatitudes, and chap.
23 has seven "woes." Strecker is followed by Gnilka,
Matthiiusevangelium, 1.212.
351 For the references see Mutzenbecher, p. XII, citing
Origen De orat. 29.1; Gregory of Nyssa De orat. Dom.
or. 5; cf. also the discussion in Calvin, Inst. 3.20.35.
Luz (Matthiius, 1.334 n. 2 [Matthew, 1.369 n. 2])
agrees, referring to Strecker (see above, n. 350).
352 Michael Weber, Eclogae exegetico-criticae ad nonnullos
librorum N. T. historicorum locos (part 2; Halle:
Schimmelpfennig, 1828) 28-30. See also Origen De
orat. 14.1-6 (GCS 3.2.2, pp. 330-33), 33.5 (GCS
3.2.2, p. 402); and Gessel, Theologie, 85-104. For
modem studies see Schiirmann, Gebet, 20, who
376
three £vxal (or vota, "prayer wishes") and three
alr~,.ara (or petitiones, "petitions"). Similarly,Johann
Albert Bengel in his Gnomon Novi Testamenti 858
recognized that the first three petitions focus on God
(petita Patrem spectantia), while the last three focus on us
(petita ad nos spectantia). These categorizations are,
however, only partially useful because what is needed
are liturgical categories.
Form-critically, the Lord's Prayer as a whole is a
petitionary prayer. I have already discussed the
problem whether one can regard it as a "private"
prayer, but I have decided against this category. The
Lord's Prayer does show some of the characteristics
usually associated with the "private" prayer in contrast
to the official public prayer. The Lord's Prayer opens
with an epithet that is not preceded by any expression
of praise; it addresses God in the second person; its
style is simple; it is quite brief, as are its component
sentences; it lacks the form of the "liturgical Bera-
kah. "854 All this is observed correctly, but the address
and the content scarcely fit the "private" prayer. One
must also assume that prior to the rabbinic orthodoxy
and its distinction between "private" and "public"
prayer there may have been other altematives, such as
group prayers, into whiCh the Lord's Prayer fits better.
Stylistically, 855 the first three petitions (vss 9c-10)
form an isocolon, in which the verbs occupy the first
place, a feature attributed by Eduard Norden to
Semitic style. 856 The close parallelism is one of
syntactical structure as well as sound, constituting
paromoiosis (assimilation by assonance). The first and
third cola have the verb in the form of aorist passive
distinguishes between three "prayer wishes"
("Gebetswiinsche") and three "petitions" ("Bitten").
353 Johann Albert Bengel, Gnomon of the Nf!W Testament
(trans. Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin A. Vincent;
Philadelphia: Perkinpine & Higgins, 1862) 1.122-
23: "There are seven petitions which form two parts,
the former containing three petitions which relate to
the Father, thy Name, thy Kingdom, thy Will, the latter
containing four which concem ourselves. In the
former, we set forth our filial disposition, recognizing
the right, the dignity, and the good pleasure of God,
like the angelic chorus in Luke ii.14; but in the latter
we both sow and reap. In both divisions is expressed
the struggle of the sons of God from Earth to
Heaven, as it were drawing down Heaven to Earth."
354 On the distinction between blessing and prayer see
also Elias Bickerman, "Benediction et priere," RB 69
(1962) 524-32; reprinted in his Studies injf!Wish and
Christian History, part 2 (AGJU 9; Leiden: Brill, 1980)
313-23.
355 For the following I am indebted to an unpublished
study by Johan Thorn.

imperative followed by a noun in the neuter, forming a
syntactical redditio (inclusion by repetition). It is highly
probable that the wy-sentence (vs 1Oc) covers all three
petitions, in which case we have a zeugma (a kind of
bridge connecting different subjects). 357
In vs 11 "bread" is a synecdoche (collective term) of
the type species pro genere (the particular representing
the whole), in which bread represents all the necessities
for sustaining life. 358 Verse 12 contains an isocolon
(parallel lines) based on antapodosis (opposition of
clauses); 359 the isocolon also contains epiphora
(repetition of ~p.wv at the end) and derivatio (repetition
of the word stem: Clfj>E&il.'r/p.ara, o</JE!Atraty), 360 Also vs
13 is composed as an antithetical isocolon. The
recurrence of forms of ~p.ii.Y in vss 11-13 (~p.rov, ~p.'iv,
~p.<'iY, ~p.ay) is again derivatio; this derivatio is to be
juxtaposed to the threefold <Tov in vss 9c-1 Ob.
6. Theology
The quest for the theology of the Lord's Prayer must
face some basic difficulties. In the following, I can give
no more than a brief survey with regard to these
difficulties, and also what I present about the theology
of the Lord's Prayer is only a survey intended as a
guideline for the exegesis of the text itself.
(a) Concerning the difficulties, the modern reader
ought to keep in mind that the Lord's Prayer is
performative language, whereas written reflective
theology is descriptive language. How do these two
types of language relate to each other? How can one
language be translated into the other?
Viewed from this perspective, a prayer is neither
theological as such nor nontheological as such. Even
"naive" prayers, if for the moment one concedes that
they exist, presuppose elementary ideas and concepts.
The Lord's Prayer is anything but "naive"; it is not
"naive" even in the sense that it has its origin in a kind
of unmediated experience of the divine often ascribed
to Jesus. Rather, a close examination of this prayer
points to intensive theological reflection at its base.
Such theological reflection must have preceded the
oral composition of the Lord's Prayer and is therefore
contained in it. In other words, the performative
language of the prayer is implicitly theological. This
situation confronts one with this problem: whether and
how one can transpose the performative language of
the prayer into the descriptive language of theology.
356 Norden, Agnostos Theos, 257. Norden refers to Isa
37:17; Sirach 36; Wis 10:15ff.; 11:2ff.; Eph 5:14 as
parallels.
357 See Lausberg, Handbuch, §§ 692-93 (1.347).
358 See Lausberg, Elemente, §§ 198-99 (1. 72).
359 See Lausberg, Handbuch, § 736 (1.365).
360 Ibid., § 648 ( 1.828-29).
Matthew 6:1-18
How can one avoid arbitrariness and speculation in this
transposition, so that one can arrive at results that can
claim a high degree of objectivity?
Since Jesus was a Jew, the theology contained in the
Lord's Prayer must be Jewish theology. This
conclusion can be supported by the close parallels to
the Lord's Prayer in other Jewish prayers. Yet, one
should not assume that all Jewish prayers presuppose
the same Jewish theology. Although Jewish prayers are
transmitted by rabbinic literature, it would be wrong
to assume that all these prayers express rabbinic
theology. These prayers could also presuppose older
prerabbinic theologies that later rabbinic theologians
found agreeable. At any rate, one must not simply
proceed to read these rabbinic theologies into the
Lord's Prayer. Rather, in the Lord's Prayer, which one
may assume originated with the historical Jesus, one
should expect to find the Jewish theology of an
individual Jewish teacher of the beginning of the first
century. This theology is certainly prerabbinic and
critical with regard to other Jewish theologies of the
time, especially that of the Pharisees. Therefore, one
should proceed from the assumption that the theology
of the Lord's Prayer expresses Jesus' own insights into
the Jewish religion and life as it was understood and
practiced in his environment. In this connection the
remark by one of the disciples about John the Baptist
in Luke 11:1 is informative: "Lord, teach us how to
pray, as also John [the Baptist) taught his disciples."
This remark states two points of identity between Jesus
and John the Baptist. First, both taught prayers and
doctrine concerning prayer; second, the Lord's Prayer
was either similar or dissimilar in comparison with the
prayer paradigm (Mustergebet) taught by John the
Baptist; unfortunately, we do not possess John's prayer
paradigm, so that we are unable to tell. One can
surmise, however, that it was customary for Jewish
teachers at the time to formulate paradigmatic prayers
for their disciples. If one assumes that the Lord's
Prayer is an expression ofJesus' own theology and not
merely ofJewish religious thought generally, this
prayer constitutes one of the primary sources for the
reconstruction of his theology. One must not,
however, underestimate the difficulties of such a
reconstruction. An attempt at reconstruction would be
377
an extraordinary challenge and a litmus test for what
clearly defined and carefully applied historical
methodology is able to deliver.
Two questions of major importance should be
stated here in advance. If one could infer Jesus" own
theology from the Lord's Prayer, how would this
theology be related to what was called "the gospel"
(<vayyb.LOv)? Was Tertullianjustified when he called
the Lord's Prayer a breviarium totius evangelii?
Furthermore, how was this theology related to the
Jewish Torah? These questions are important in spite
of the fact that the prayer itself mentions neither
gospel nor Torah.
If one could infer the theology of Jesus from the
Lord's Prayer, the further question arises as to how
one can identify and verify linguistically this theology.
As theology it not only constitutes a presupposition for
the Lord's Prayer, but it has become part and parcel of
the prayer language itself. On the one hand, therefore,
this theology must somehow be identifiable in the
prayer, while on the other hand the prayer and its
theology cannot simply be identical. The reason for
making this distinction is not only that there are
principal differences between performative and
descriptive language but also that to a large extent the
Lord's Prayer reflects traditional Jewish prayer
language. According to the ancient viewpoint, one
condition that any formulation of new prayers had to
meet was to preserve the continuity with ancestral
traditions. In order to be acceptable, newness had to
be presented in the prayer language of tradition. This
is as true today as it was in the past. If one assumes this
point, how can one distinguish between the old and the
new? Concerning the Lord's Prayer one must admit
that at first sight this prayer does not seem to say
anything new. If then it contains anything new, what is
new is covered up by the old. One will, therefore, have
to focus one's attention on the precise selection of
language and the formulation of the petitions. The
point here can only be to discover the fine nuances of
each petition as well as the structure and thought
content of the prayer as a whole.
After considering the entire range of issues
involved, I conclude that the Lord's Prayer does
indeed contain a theology,Jewish in nature and scope,
that possesses its own peculiar contours. This theology
is presupposed throughout, giving the Prayer unity
and direction. Much of what looks traditional at first
sight turns out to be unusual, even provocative, under
closer examination. Even this uncommon theology
remains within the possibilities ofJewish theology in
the first century CE.
(b) To turn now to a brief survey of the theology of
the Lord's Prayer, one may remember that this
commentary has touched on theological issues at
several points before. I have identified the concept of
378
"righteousness" (51Kalocr{wq) as constitutive for the
Lord's Prayer. Accordingly, if human beings present
petitions to God, they must meet the standards of what
is "meet, fitting, and appropriate to the deity"
(8<07rpf7r<La). Everything that persons at prayer present
to God concerns this concept of righteousness, that is,
the obligations the partners have toward each other
and themselves. These obligations also constitute what
is determined to be "human needs" (XP<la).
As already stated, the first three petitions concern
the needs of God. The peculiar form of the imperative
aorist passive (vss 9c, lOb) indicates that these petitions
deal with obligations regulating the relationships
between God and humanity. Thefirst petition ("Let
your name be sanctified") means that God is holy, and
it is therefore humanity's obligation to sanctify God's
name, which represents him on earth. But human
beings continually profane the name of God. Why is it,
then, that God is being asked: "Let your name be
sanctified"? This petition is meaningful, if one assumes
another presupposed theological conclusion, according
to which human failure to sanctify God's name is
considered so hopeless that only God himself can help.
God is holy in heaven, and he also has the power to see
to it that his name is sanctified on earth. For the sake of
his own righteousness God is obligated to make sure
some day that his name is properly honored also on
earth, but thus far he has not acted. Therefore, this
petition reminds God of an obligation that is still
outstanding. In other words, God's righteousness is at
this point deficient. Paradoxically, on the other side,
the person at prayer is justified in reminding God of
his obligation because his or her own situation of
unrighteousness is so hopeless that only an appeal to
God himself can change it.
Theologically speaking, one can hardly overstate
the difference here between the Greek notion of the
deity and that of the Lord's Prayer. For the Lord's
Prayer, God is not a god without needs. On the
contrary, the boldness of reminding God of a
deficiency in regard to his own righteousness must be
required. This does not mean that God is unrighteous.
What it does mean is that God's righteousness involves
obligations that have been thus far unfulfilled. This is
as true of God's obligations as it is of those on the part
of human beings. Moreover, if human beings
recognize that they can never adequately fulfill their
share of obligations, then calling on God for help is
justified. On his part, God is obligated to provide help
because the demands of righteousness must be met one
way or another. If human beings find themselves
incapable, God's intervention becomes a necessity. As a
result, God is far from being above needs. These
needs, although caused by human beings, are both
theirs and his, but in the final analysis only God himself
can take care of them.

One can also interpret the second and the third
petition in this way. The second petition, "Your kingdom
come" (vs IO), reminds God of his promise to establish
his kingdom on earth, a promise that is still out-
standing. The third petition is similar: "Your will be
done as it is in heaven so also on earth" (vs I Obc). This
petition presents unusual difficulties. The claim that
God's will is obeyed "in heaven" (~v obpavjp) may,
because of its formulation in the singular, have to be
distinguished from the plural "in the heavens" (~v ro&s
obpavo&s) of the invocation. As the history of inter-
pretation shows, there are good reasons to believe that
the singular "in heaven" refers to the supramundane
world of astral entities and not to the higher spheres in
which God exists. The point is that the will of God is
done already in all the regions of the universe, except
on the earth, even though "heaven and earth" together
form the cosmos. The reason for this deficiency is that
the human self-will is opposed to the will of God. The
third petition seems to consider this obstacle
irredeemable. Who but God himself can motivate
human wills to subject themselves to his will? As
creatures of God all human beings are doubtless
obligated to obey their creator's will, and by the same
token God is obligated to make sure that this happens.
So far, however, there is a standoff between God's
delay of the application of force and humanity's
unbending resistance. One can have no doubt that
sooner or later the requirement of righteousness will
have to be met and rebellious wills be subdued. The
question can only be regarding the time and the
means.
If the network of relationships is relatively easy to
comprehend in the first three petitions, things become
much more complicated in the second set of three
petitions. Whereas in the first set God's needs were the
primary concern, the second set focuses directly on the
human needs. These human needs are also carefully
defined, especially as they are deduced from the needs
of God in the previous petitions. In the following I
look at some of the general theological arguments and
then tum to some specific questions.
The fourth petition (vs II) concems the elementary
needs of life, summed up in the petition for the daily
bread, "Our daily bread give us today." Passing over
for now the still unresolved problem of the meaning of
~-.r•o,',IT<os ("daily"), one recognizes that this petition
implies a confession of total dependency on God's
generosity. Although one may say that, as the creator
and sustainer, God has an obligation to provide for his
creatures, it would be improper for human beings to
take this divine beneficence for granted. As surely as
human beings, together with all other creatures, may
confidently depend on God's beneficence through
nature, his gifts always remain gifts. Even daily gifts
remain always gifts. When the petitioners use the
Matthew 6:1-18
much-debated phrase "our daily bread," they imply the
acknowledgment that up to the present day the daily
bread has actually been forthcoming. The problem
with these needs is rather that they recur every day.
Thus the issue is not want but time; day after day we
must face the same needs. Yet, what happens today is
decisive, and hence the emphasis is on the present day:
give us the bread also today, the bread we need daily
and thus far have had daily.
Much may be said about the expression "our bread."
Strictly speaking, God does not give the bread, but
through nature he provides the ingredients from
which we make the bread. It is, therefore, "our bread"
because we make it. Even more intricate is the
realization that we do not ourselves make the bread
each time we eat it. Instead, we depend on others who
make the bread and give it to us. Indeed, we
presuppose a whole chain of suppliers who "give" us
the bread: the farmer, the miller, the baker, the
members of the household, the father who breaks and
hands out the bread at the meal, and so forth. Yet
none of these suppliers could "give," if God did not
give before. As a result the pronoun ~p.ii>v ("our")
instead of p.ov ("my") has its special significance. "Our
bread" implies that it is bread shared among us,
whereas "my bread" would plainly be an absurdity.
One can, therefore, conclude that the petition for
the daily bread contains an ethic in nuce. In the most
immediate sense, it is other people on whom we
depend. These people produce and provide "our
bread." As human beings they are obligated to share
with us God's benevolent gifts of nature, but everyone
knows about the hard facts oflife when it comes to
human willingness to share. Antiquity was aware that
willingness or unwillingness to share resides in the
human heart and that in the final analysis only God is
able to influence this human heart. If then the making
and giving of bread is a human activity, it may seem
odd to address the petition to God. But on closer
inspection, what looks like an inconsistency reflects a
deeper reality of life. Although it is certainly "our
bread" in every sense of the term, the final instance on
which every human activity depends is God's
generosity. Only if he "gives" can the people give, and
only if he motivates their hearts will they give.
Finally, therefore, the petition "give us" involves an
obligation on the part of the petitioners. Because of the
notion of righteousness it would be improper to
receive the daily bread and then refuse to share it with
others. Only if the petitioners act in the same manner
they expect of God and of other human beings are
they justified in presenting this petition. In other
words, the imperative "give us," while being addressed
to God, implies a self-addressed demand to the
petitioners themselves. Once one realizes this point,
one also recognizes that the eventuality of failure is
379
envisaged, and this perception leads then to the fifth
and sixth petitions.
The fifth petition (vs 12) is of special significance
because it presupposes a thoroughgoing, distinctive
interpretation of the Jewish doctrine of sin. Although
petitions for the forgiveness of sins are traditional in
Jewish prayers, the fifth petition of the Lord's Prayer
makes its point by understanding human sinfulness not
as the violation of ritual codes, taboos, and purity laws,
but as the failure to fulfill one's general obligations
toward others. Also in regard to this petition, the
language of which is taken from business and law, the
utmost care is taken to meet the demands of righteous-
ness.
First of all, vs 12a presents a petition in which the
petitioners ask for the remission of debts they have
incurred in their relationships with others. The very
fact that they present such a petition means that they
cannot otherwise make good on these debts. This
irredeemability can have different reasons: the debts
owed may be too large, or too far removed in time, or
hopelessly complicated; at any rate, they may no longer
be under the control of the debtor. It is generally a
matter of fairness in business and law; one can ask for
cancellation of debts only if one is no longer able to
pay them. What is true in the area of business and law
is also true in one's relationship with God. If one
assumes that the petitioners are justified in presenting
this petition, then they also have the right to expect
God's mercy because it is part and parcel of God's
righteousness to grant merciful remission where there
is no other way out. Again, however, the notion of
righteousness demands that the petitioners act in the
same manner in which they expect God to act.
For this reason, vs 12b adds a declaration,
according to which the petitioners declare null and
void all debts owed to them by others: "as also we
forgive [or: have forgiven) our debtors." Strictly
speaking, this declaration is not part of a petitionary
prayer, but in this theologically reconstituted petition
it is necessary. Without this declaration the petitioners
would be in danger of standing before God in a
situation of unrighteousness, and such a situation
would destroy the very ground on which they are
entitled to present their petition.
The sixth petition (vs 13) is no doubt the most
difficult to understand, but this petition is also the
climax of the prayer as a whole and leads back to its
beginning. In a strict sense, vs 13a and vs 13b are two
separate petitions, both traditional, which have been
combined to form an isocolon full of theological
tensions.
To start with vs 13b, the petition "Deliver us from
evil" identifies "evil" as the totality of all unfulfilled and
failed obligations contained in the previous petitions.
In the first place, therefore, "evil" is to be taken as a
380
reference not to the devil but to the subject matter of
evil. In the light of the Lord's Prayer as a whole, one is
to define evil as the impairment of God's righteous-
ness. The total damage done by all unfulfilled and
failed obligations is considered so large that the only
way out is through God's rescue. The term for
"rescue" (pileu6at) is stark and points to drastic action in
a desperate situation. Notably, the Lord's Prayer
makes no suggestion about how this rescue is to take
place. Rather, the focus is on the necessity of such a
rescue. The reason for this urgency is no doubt that
"evil" is regarded as an objective matter of fact, the
elimination of which is required because of righteous-
ness. According to ancient thought, righteousness is
nothing other than the overcoming of evil through
good.
Therefore, by implication, the petitioners of vs 13b
confess their inescapable entanglement in their own
failures and the consequences of the failures of all
humanity. This entanglement is "evil" par excellence,
so that the petitioners turn to God as the final resort
from which redemption can come.
The next question to be asked is, How is vs 13b
connected with vs 13a: "And do not lead us into
temptation"? This petition presupposes the daring idea
that God is the one who leads human beings into
temptation and that the petitioners intervene, asking
God to desist from it.
Historically, this theological idea comes from Jewish
wisdom theology, according to which God tempts and
tests human beings, especially the wise and the
righteous, for the purpose of their moral education. In
Jewish wisdom this idea already provoked the question
whether in doing this God makes himself guilty of
collusion with evil. Given the case that God tests a
human being by temptation and the person succumbs
and commits sin, does not such a case implicate God in
the creation of evil? In response to this question, in
dealing with the theodicy problem, Jewish wisdom
literature emphasized that God is not guilty of the
generation of or collaboration with evil. Against this
background, it is surprising that the Lord's Prayer
boldly admits the possibility of such collaboration with
evil by making God, not Satan, the final source from
which temptations originate.
In the history of interpretation the statement in vs
13a has understandably led to many debates, most of
which were interested in exonerating God. This
apologetic could take the form of making a distinction
between temptations leading to good and those leading
to evil. Or scholars looked for help in the story of
Jesus' temptation (Matt 4:1-11) in order to paraphrase
the petition accordingly: And lead us not into a
situation in which we can be seduced by Satan. These
attempts, however, are not convincing. On the one
hand, if the temptation the Lord's Prayer speaks of

were only for the purpose of the good, one would have
no need for asking God to desist from it. On the other
hand, it cannot be a seduction to do evil because this
would be irreconcilable with the notion of divine
righteousness.
Rather, vs 13 shows that "evil" already exists and
that, solely by its existence, it leads into temptation.
Temptation is the lure of sin to commit more sin.
Redemption from this evil, therefore, would mean the
end of temptation as well. To make this point clear is
the purpose of the combination ofvs 13a with vs 13b.
Even if one accepts this view, the question remains:
Does God not play an active role when evil comes into
existence? Even if one admits that God does not create
evil, does he not collaborate with it by tolerating its
existence? According to the Lord's Prayer, evil has its
origin in and consists of the totality of human failures:
profaning the name of God, opposing his kingdom,
resisting his will, failing to meet obligations toward
fellow humanity, and not resisting the temptations of
evil. Given this condition, there appears to be no
further need for God's probing and testing human-
kind. With humanity hopelessly entangled in evil
already, there is only one thing left for God to do: to
rescue humanity from this entanglement in evil.
Indeed, one must conclude, if God were to continue to
tolerate the existence of evil and thereby the
continuation of temptation, he would be implicated in
the creation of evil and thus become unrighteous. The
presupposition for this conclusion is that the
continuing existence of evil presents an irresistible
temptation for humanity and thus creates new evil all
the time. Therefore, God must choose between
becoming entangled with evil himself and taking
seriously his obligation to be the guarantor and
preserver of righteousness. If he chooses the latter,
which is really the only option open to him, he must
put a stop to the existence of evil altogether. When one
considers these intriguing theological ideas implied in
the sixth petition, one can only conclude that the
combination of vs 13a and b is the result of a long
tradition of theological reflection on the one hand, and
a very provocative solution to the dilemma of theodicy
on the other hand.
The notion of righteousness, however, calls for yet
another issue to be raised. What right do the
petitioners have to present such a bold petition to God?
One should not fail to realize that the sixth petition
touches on the limits of the petitionary prayer and
stops just short of reprimanding God. Does this
petition not violate the rules of what is proper in
relating to the deity? Is it not an expression of human
presumption and arrogance?
If this petition is legitimate, its theological
legitimacy must be the same as that of the other
petitions. As we shall see from the epilogue, their
Matthew 6:1-18
legitimacy consists of the assumption that human
creatures step forward before God and present these
petitions to him in their trust in him as their heavenly
Father, expecting of him nothing but his benevolence
and righteousness. These petitions sum up what people
at prayer consider to be the human predicament. This
judgment on the human predicament is not a sudden
insight, but the outcome of a long tradition of
language and thought relating to prayer, as well as of
serious reflection on the part of the creator of this
prayer.
In accordance with the traditions of antiquity it is
the peculiar obligation of human beings to gain insight
into their situation and to formulate this insight in
their prayers to the deity. It pertains to human
freedom to do this with frankness and without
pretense or fear. All of antiquity regarded human
beings as distinguished from the animals by this
privilege and duty of acquiring clarity about
themselves and giving account of human life generally
as well as individually.
The result stated in vs 13a and b is the confession of
the inescapable entanglement in evil. Petitioners of the
sixth petition admit that they are at their wit's end. In
such a situation, the human being is entitled and even
obligated to appeal to the creator. Seen in this way, the
petition is not only a confession of sin but also an act of
righteousness.
If the appeal to God in the sixth petition addresses
him as the guarantor and protector of righteousness,
whose obligation it is to overcome and do away with
evil, the question is left completely open as to how this
is to happen. The intention of the petition is to present
matters of fact in the most concise form. The question
of what God is supposed to do specifically is not raised,
nor is any impatience or despair indicated. The
attitude of the petitioners is that of people waiting who
know that, in some way and at some time, God will
accomplish one thing most certainly, the final conquest
and elimination of evil.
Therefore, what at first may appear to us as almost a
reprimand of God is in truth an expression of human
freedom. It is a paradox, it seems, that the Lord's
Prayer, while constantly emphasizing human
dependency on God, is at the same time a clear
testimony to human freedom. I will substantiate this
conclusion, which may at first seem a foreign
imposition, by some final comments on the epiklesis.
The epiklesis or invocation (vs 9b) defines with
extreme conciseness the relationship between the
petitioners and the God addressed. Addressed is the
"Father in the heavens," the originator and sustainer of
the universe. This expression "in the heavens" in the
plural is significant because it points to the transcen-
dence of God. The plurality of "the heavens," is
juxtaposed to the singular "heaven," which together
381
with the earth forms the cosmos (vs 1Oc). The epithet
"Father" designates the one from whom all things
originate and in whose care and protection all things
exist. It is furthermore important to see that neither
the term "god" nor a name of God occurs, but only the
one metaphor "Father," describing function. Also
missing are specifically Jewish marks of identity such as
divine names, epithets, and reminders of Israel's
history or religion. Thus far, the invocation could have
been used by any religious person in antiquity.
If only one metaphor is sufficient to describe God's
role, the human counterpart is designated only by the
possessive pronoun "our." Juxtaposed with God stands
the human individual, who is what he or she is as a
member of the species. This human species is nothing
but God's creation. The human being is distinguished
from all other creatures, however, by one char-
acteristic: only the human being knows of God, comes
before him, and addresses him.
The address of God as "Father" makes the person at
prayer a member of the familia Dei, and in turn this
status as a family member implies the right to speak out
before the Father. The point is not that God needs to
be informed about human needs: he knows what his
creatures need before they appeal to him. Rather, it is
important for human beings that they know about
their place or status in creation, and that they put their
knowledge into language and action. As in any human
family, so also in the familia Dei, controversial matters
must be talked about, especially if they are painful and
difficult. It was and is one of the inalienable rights of
the family member to be able to speak up. In those
family discussions more is at stake than the wishes and
needs of the individual; what is always at stake is the
well-being of the whole family. Apart from the family
metaphor, it was considered part of the status of
human beings that they have the right to speak freely
before their God, even if what they have to say is
painful and includes reminding God of his responsi-
bilities and obligations.
The petitioners of the Lord's Prayer are defined as
members of the human community, because the
pronoun "our" includes all human beings living on the
earth. Whatever humans have to bring before God,
they can rightly bring before him only as represen-
tatives of all human beings. Petitions that benefit one
person-and inflict damage on another are inap-
propriate.
This universality in regard to the concept of God, as
well as to humanity, is remarkable. One can hardly
doubt that it was intended at the time. In the Judaism
of the first century such universality may have been
provocative, but it was by no means contrary to Jewish
belief. Even as the Lord's Prayer took its place in
Christian religion, its universality remained an integral
factor, although this was seldom recognized.
382
Finally, it is part of the self-definition ofthe
petitioners that the individual steps forward. It is the
individual who confesses to be a member of the human
community. Even in the group of the petitioners it is
the individual who speaks on behalf of all human
beings. At this point the Lord's Prayer ceases to be a
petitionary prayer and becomes an intercessory prayer.
This shift already occurs in the invocation and
becomes more obvious in the subsequent petitions; it
takes the sting out of the central objection against
petitionary prayers. The charge of being egotistical is
anticipated and refuted because all petitions are
simultaneously intercessory.
Bibliography
The literature on the Lord's Prayer is enormous. The
older bibliography is found in Gebser, De oratione
dominica, 1.2-5; Tholuck, Bergrede, 37-40
(Commentary, 47-49). Modern comprehensive
bibliographies, though selective, are included in
Carmignac, Recherches, 469-553; Dorneich, Vater-Unser
Bibliographie, 21-161; Suppl. 65-115; Schnurr, Horen
und handeln, 284-90 and passim; Sabugal, Abba,
passim. Select bibliographies are given also in modern
commentaries on the Sermon on the Mount, on the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and on the Didache.
Important works from the patristic literature
include:
Pseudo-Ambrose, De sacramentis V, 4, 18-30 (ed. Otto
Faller; CSEL 73 [Vienna: Holder, Pichler,
Tempsky, 1955]). ET: St. Ambrose: On the Sacraments
and On the Mysteries (trans. T. Thompson; London:
SPCK, 1919; 2d ed., 1950).
Augustine of Hippo, De sermone domini in monte Iibras
duos, II, 4, 15-9, 38 (ed. Almut Mutzenbecher;
CChr, series latina 35 [Turnholti: Brepols, 1967]).
ET: St. Augustine, The Lord's Sermon on the Mount
(trans.JohnJ.Jepson; introduction by Johannes
Quasten; notes by Joseph]. Plumpe; ACW 5;
London: Longman's & Green, 1948); The Preaching
of St. Augustine, "Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount"
(ed.Jaroslav Pelikan; trans. Francine Cardman;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973).
Idem, Sermo 56, PL 38.377-86.
Idem, Sermo 57, PL 38.386-93.
Idem, Sermo 58, PL 38.393-400.
Idem, Sermo 59, PL 38.400-402; also ed. Suzanne
Poque; SC 116 (Paris: Cerf, 1966), 186-98.
Idem, De dono perseverantiae, II, 4-V, 9; PL 45.996-99.
Idem, Enchiridion, 30.115-16; PL 40.285.
Idem, Epistula 130 (in Probam) (ed. A. Goldbacher;
CSEL 44 [Vienna: Holder, Pichler, Tempsky,
1904]).
Chromatius of Aquileia, Praefatio Orationis Dominicae
(cura et studio A. Hoste; CChr, series latina 9
[Turnholti: Brepols, 1957]).

Idem, Tractatus XXVIII in Matthaeum 6:9-15 (cura et
studio R. Etaix and]. Lemarie; CChr, series latina
9a [Turnholti: Brepols, 197 4 ]).
John Chrysostom, Homily XIX (ed. Fridericus Field,
Sancti Patris nostri Joannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi
Constantinopolitani Homiliae in Matthaeum
[Cantabrigiae: In officina academica, 1839]). ET:
The Homilies of St. Chrysostom, Archbishop of
Constantinople, on the Gospel ofMatthew (trans.
George Prevost, revised with notes by M. B.
Riddle, NPNF 10; reprinted Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978).
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, book 7 (ed. Otto
Stahlin, Ludwig Friichtel, and Ursula Treu; GCS
17.7.3; 2d ed. [Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1970]) 1-
79. ET: (ed. Alexander Roberts and James
Donaldson; Ante-Nicene Fathers 2, I869;
reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951) 523-57.
Cyril ofJerusalem, Catecheses mystagogicae V, 11-18 (ed.
Auguste Piedagnel and Pierre Paris; SC 126 [Paris:
Cerf, 1966]). ET: Instructions on the Mysteries of St.
Cyril ofjerusalem (trans. Maxwell Woolley; London:
Faith, 1930).
Cyprian, De dominica oratione (ed. Wilhelm Hartel;
CSEL 3/1 [Vienna: Holder, Pichler, Tempsky,
1868]265-94; also ed. Claudio Moreschini, CChr,
series latina 3A [Turnholti: Brepols, 1976]87-113;
Michel Reveillaud, S. Cyprien, L'oraison dominicale
[Etudes d'histoire et de philosophie religieuse
d'Universite de Strasbourg 58; Paris: Presses
universitaires de France, 1964]). ET: ed. and trans.
Roy J. Deferrari, St. Cyprian, Treatises (Fathers of
the Church 36; New York: Fathers of the Church,
1958) I 23-59.
Gregory of Nyssa, De oratione dominica (ed. Johann
Georg Krabinger; Sancti Gregorii episcopi Nysseni De
Precatione orationes V [Landshut: Attenkofer, 1840];
ed. Johannes F. Callahan, Gregorii Nysseni Opera,
VII/2 [Leiden: Brill, 1992]); ET: (ACW 18; ed.
Hilda C. Graef; London: Longman's & Green,
1954).
Origen, De oratione (ed. Paul Koetschau; GCS 3.2.2
[Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899]) 295-403; ET: Eric
George Jay, Origen 's Treatise on Prayer (translation
and notes with an account of the practise and
doctrine of prayer from the NT times to Origen;
London: SPCK, 1954); trans. John J. O'Meara, in
ACW 19 (London: Longman's & Green, 1954);
trans. John E. L. Oulton and Henry Chadwick,
Alexandrian Christianity (LCC 2; London: SPCK,
1954) 180-387.
Tertullian, De oratione (ed. August Reifferscheid and
Georg Wissowa; CSEL 20 [Vienna: Tempsky and
Freytag, 1890]180-200; also ed. G. F. Diercks,
CChr, series latina 1 [Turnholti: Brepols, 1954]
255-74); ET: trans. Alexander Souter, Tertullian's
Matthew 6:1-18
Treatise Concerning Prayer and Concerning Baptism
(London: SPCK, 1919); trans. Ernest Evans,
Tertullian's Tract on the Prayer (London: SPCK,
1953).
From the Middle Ages and the Reformation:
Thomas Aquinas, Catena a urea in Mattaei evangelium
(cura Angelici Guarenti; nova editio Taurinensis;
Turin and Rome: Marietti, 1953). ET: Catena
aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels (Oxford and
London: Parker, 1870) 1.222-37.
Meister Eckhart, Magistri Echardi: Super oratione
dominica (ed. Erich See berg, in Meister Eckhart: Die
deutschen und lateinischen Werke (Stuttgart and
Berlin: Kohlhammer, 1936) 5.101-29.
Nicolaus Cusanus, Die Auslegung des Vater-unsers in vier
Predigten (SHAW .PH 1938-39:4)~
Martin Luther, Auslegung deutsch des Vaterunsers fur die
einfiiltigen Laien (1519) (WA 2.74-130).
Idem, Eine kurze Form, das Paternoster zu verstehen und
zu beten (1519, 1520, 1522) (WA 6.9-19).
Idem, Eine kurze und gute Auslegung des Vaterunsers vor
sich und hinter sich (1519) (WA 6.20-22).
Idem, Der Grosse Katechismus (1529) (W A 30.131, 193-
211).
Idem, Der Kleine Katechismus (1529) (WA 30.250-55).
Idem, Eine einfiiltige Weise zu beten fur einen guten Freund
(1535) (WA 38.358-75).
Idem, Wochenpredigten uber Matthiius 5-7 (W A 32,
esp. 416-22).
John Calvin, In Novum Testamentum commentarii (1555)
(ed. August Tholuck; 2d ed.; Berolini: Thome,
1835; also Corpus Reformatorum 73 [Brunswick:
Schwetschke, 1891]194-203). ET:AHarmonyof
the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke (trans. A. W.
Morrison; ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F.
Torrance; 3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Edin-
burgh: St. Andrew, 1972) 1.204-14.
Idem, Institutio Christianae Religionis (1559) (ed. Peter
Barth and Wilhelm Niesei;Joannis Calvini Opera
Selecta; Munich: Kaiser, 1926), esp. vol. 1, section
Ill.20.34-49. ET: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian
Religion (ed.John T. O'Neill; trans. Ford L. Battles;
LCC 20; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960)
2.897-917.
Among modern studies the following works merit
consideration:
Israel Abrahams, "The Lord's Prayer," in his Studies,
2.94-108.
J. Angenieux, "Les diffhents types de structure du
'Pater' dans l'histoire de son exegese," ETL 36
(1970)40-77,325-59.
Gordon]. Bahr, "The Use ofthe Lord's Prayer in the
Primitive Church," JBL 84 (1965) 153-59.
383
Andrew J Bandstra, "The Original Form of the Lord's
Prayer," Calvin Theological Journal 16 ( 1981) 15-
37.
Michel Bouttier, "LePere, manifeste dans les actes et
caches a Ia piete: Contraste et unite des chap. 5 et 6
du Sermon sur Ia Montagne selon Matthieu," in
Fran,.:ois Refoule, ed., A cause de l'Evangile: Etudes
sur les Synoptiques et les Actes offertes au P. Jacques
Dupont (LD 123; Paris: Cerf, 1985) 39-56.
Michael Brocke,JakobJ Petuchowski, and Walter
Strolz, eds., Das Vaterunser: Gemeinsames Beten von
Juden und Christen (Veroffentlichungen der Stiftung
Oratio Dominica; Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna:
Herder, 1974). Partial ET: The Lord's Prayer and
Jewish Liturgy (trans. Elizabeth R. Petuchowski;
New York: Seabury, 1978).
Raymond E. Brown, "The Pater Noster as an
Eschatological Prayer," in his New Testament Essays
(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968) 217-53.
Jacob van Bruggen, "The Lord's Prayer and Textual
Criticism," Calvin TheologicalJournal17 (1982) 78-
87.
C. F. Burney, The Poetry of Our Lord (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1925) 125-26.
Jean Carmignac, Recherches sur le "Notre Pere" (Paris:
Editions Letouzey & Ane, 1969).
Idem, "Hebrew Translations of the Lord's Prayer: An
Historical Survey," in Gary A. Tuttle, ed., Biblical
and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor ofWilliam
Sanford LaSor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 18-
79.
Frederick H. Chase, The Lord's Prayer in the Early
Church (Texts 1.3; Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1891).
Gustaf Dalman, Die Worte Jesu (2d ed.; Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1930; reprinted Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1965) 283-
365.
Davies, Setting, 4-5, 11-12, 309-13,451-53.
Otto Dibelius, Das Vaterunser: Umrisse zu einer Geschichte
des Gebetes in der Alten und Mittleren Kirche (GieBen:
Ricker, Topelmann, 1903).
Monica Dorneich, Vater-Unser Bibliographie; The Lord's
Prayer: A Bibliography Oubilaumsausgabe der
Stiftung Oratio Dominica; Freiburg i.Br.: Herder,
1982). Sup 1988.
Jacques Dupont, "Le Notre Pere: Notes exegetiques,"
in his Etudes, 2. 832-61.
Gerhard Ebeling, Vom Gebet (Tubingen: Mohr
[Siebeck], 1963); ET: On Prayer (trans. James W.
Leitch; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966).
Ismar Elbogen, Der jildische Gottesdienst in seiner
geschichtlichen Entwicklung (3d ed.; Leipzig: Fock,
1931).
Christopher F. Evans, The Lord's Prayer (London:
SPCK, 1963).
384
Fiebig, Bergpredigt, 103-22.
Idem, Das Vaterunser: Ursprung, Sinn und Bedeutung des
christlichen Hauptgebetes (BFCTh 30.3; Gutersloh:
Bertelsmann, 1927).
Asher Finkel, "The Prayer of Jesus in Matthew," in
Asher Finkel and Lawrence Frizzell, eds., Standing
before God: Studies on Prayer in Scriptures and in
Tradition with Essays in Honor ofJohn M. Oesterreicher
(New York: KTAV, 1981) 131-69.
David Flusser, "Das Vaterunser-einjudisches Gebet,"
in his Das Christentum-eine jildische Religion
(Munich: Kosel, 1 990) 53-62.
Jean de Fraine, "Oraison dominicale," DBSup 6 (1 960)
788-800.
K. Suso Frank, "Die Vaterunser-Erklarung der Regula
magistri," in Pietas: FS fur Bernhard Kotting OACSup
8; Munster: Aschendorff, 1980) 458-71.
Augustus Rudolphus Gebser, De oratione dominica (2
parts; Regiomonti: Georgius Greis, 1830).
Birger Gerhardsson, "The Matthaean Version of the
Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:9b-13): Some Observa-
tions," in William C. Weinrich, ed., The New
Testament Age: Essays in Honor ofBo Reicke (2 vols.;
Macon, Ga.: Mercer University, 1984) 1.207-20.
Wilhelm Gessel, Die Theologie des Gebetes nach "De
Oratione" von Origenes (Munich, Paderborn, and
Vienna: Schoningh, 1975).
Michael D. Goulder, "The Composition of the Lord's
Prayer," JTS 14 (1 963) 32-45.
Pierre Grelot, "L'arriere-plan arameen du 'Pater,'" RB
91 (1984) 531-56.
W. Haller, "Das Herrngebet bei Tertullian: Ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte und Auslegung des
Vaterunsers," Zeitschrifl for praktische Theologie 12
(1890) 327-54.
Adalbert Hamman, Le Pater explique par les Peres (Paris:
Editions franciscaines, 1952; 2d ed. 1 962).
Idem, La Priere (2 vols.; Tournai: Desclee, 1959,
1963); ET of vol. 1: Prayer: The New Testament
(trans. Paul]. Oligny; Chicago: Franciscan Herald,
1971).
Adolf von Harnack, "Die ursprungliche Gestalt des
Vater-Unsers" (Sitzungsberichte der Koniglichen
PreuBischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1904)
195-208.
Idem, "Der ursprungliche Text des Vater-Unsers und
seine alteste Gestalt," in his Erforschtes und Erlebtes:
Reden und Aufsiitze (n.s., vol. 4; Giessen:
Topelmann, 1923) 24-35.
Johannes HauBieiter, "Vaterunser," RE 20 (1908)
431-45.
Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud (SJ 9; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1977).
Joseph Hensler, Das Vaterunser: Text- und literarkritische
Untersuchungen (NT A 4.5; Munster: Aschendorff,
1914).

Johann Gottfried Herder, Erlauterungen zum Neuen
Testament aus einer neuerofneten Morgenlandischen
QueUe (Riga: Hartknoch, I775); also in his
Sammtliche Werke (ed. Johann Georg Muller;
Tiibingen: Cotta, I806) 8.I09-14.
A. J. B. Higgins, "'Lead us not into temptation': Some
Latin Variants," JTS 46 (I945) I79-83.
Paul Hoffmann, "'Er weiB, was ihr braucht ... ' (Mt
6, 7): Jesu einfache und konkrete Lehre von Gott,"
in Norbert Lohfink eta!., "Ich will euer Gott werden":
Beispiele biblischen Redens von Gott (SBS 100;
Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, I98I) I5I-76.
Horsley, New Documents, 3.I04-5.
Joachim Jeremias, "Das Vater-Unser im Lichte der
neueren Forschung," in his Tradition und Gegenwart:
Funf Gastvorlesungen anla}Jlich des 150 jahrigen
Bestehens der Berliner Theologischen Fakultat (Berlin:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962) 7-34. Also in
Zeichen der Zeit I6 (I962) I-13; also as Calwer
Hefte 50 (Stuttgart: Calwer, I962; 4th ed. I967);
idem, Abba, I52-7I; ET: "The Lord's Prayer in
Modern Research," ExpT 7I (I959/60) I4I-46;
also The Lord's Prayer (trans. John Reumann; Facet
Books: Biblical Series 8; Philadelphia: Fortress,
I964; 2d ed. 1966).
Idem, Prayers, passim.
Idem, "Vaterunser," RGG6(3ded.I962) I235-37.
Idem, Theology, 2I-23, 6I-68, I93-203.
Adolf Hermann Heinrich Kamphausen, Das Gebel des
Herrn (Elberfeld: Fridrichs, I866).
Reinhard Gregor Kratz, "Die Gnade des taglichen
Brots: Spate Psalmen auf dem Wege zum
Vaterunser," ZThK 89 (I992) I-40.
Karl Georg Kuhn, Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und der
Reim (WUNT I; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I950).
Otto Kuss, "Das Vaterunser," in his Auslegung und
Verkundigung (3 vols.; Regensburg: Pustet, I963,
1967, 197I) 2.275-333.
Andreas Lindemann, "Die Versuchungsgeschichte Jesu
nach der Logienquelle und das Vaterunser," in
Dietrich-Alex Koch, ed., Jesu Rede von Gott und ihre
Nachgeschichte: FS fur Willi Marxsen zum 70.
Geburtstag (Giitersloh: Mohn, I989) 9I-I 00.
Gerhard Loeschke, Die Vaterunser-Erklarung des
Theophilus von Antiochien: Eine Quellenuntersuchung
zu den Vaterunser-Erkliirungen des Tertullian, Cyprian,
Chromatius und Hieronymus (Neue Studien zur
Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche 4;
Berlin: Trowitzsch, I908).
Ernst Lohmeyer, Das Vater-Unser (AThANT 23;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, I952; 5th
ed. 1962); ET: "Our Father" (trans. John Bowden;
New York: Harper & Row, I965).
Thomas W. Manson, "The Lord's Prayer," BJRL 38
(1955/56)99-II3,343-48.
Witold Marchel, Abba, Pere! La priere du Christ et des
Matthew 6:1-18
Chretiens (AnBib 19A; Rome: Biblical Institute,
I963; 2ded. I97I).
Sebastian Heinrich Moller, "Uber das Vater-Unser
(Matth. 6,9; Luk. II, Iff.)," Theologische Monatsschrift
fur das Jahr 1802, vol. 1, pp. 23-36, reprinted in his
Neue Ansichten schwieriger Stellen aus den vier
Evangelisten (Gotha: Ukert, I8I9) 34-47.
James Moffatt, "Tertullian on the Lord's Prayer,"
Expositor 8/IS (I9I9) 24-41.
Idem, "Cyprian on the Lord's Prayer," ibid., I76-89.
Idem, "Augustine on the Lord's Prayer," ibid., 259-
72.
Johannes C. de Moor, "The Reconstruction of the
Aramaic Original of the Lord's Prayer," in Willem
van der Meer and Johannes C. de Moor, eds., The
Structural Analysis ofBiblical and Canaanite Poetry
(JSOTSup 74; Sheffield:JSOT, I988) 397-422.
C. Immanuel Nitzsch, "Uber die noch unerorterte
Umstellung der zweiten und dritten Bitte des
Vater-Unsers beim Tertullian," ThStK 3 (I830)
846-60.
Ioannes Augustus Noesselt, Observationes ad orationem,
quam vacant, dominicam Matth. V/,9 sq. et Luc XI,2
sqq. (Halae Magdeburgicae, I80I); reprinted in
David Julius Pott and Georg Alexander Rupert,
Sylloge commentationum theologicarum (Helmstedt:
Fleckeisen, I803), 4.I-31.
Heinrich Friedrich Pfannkuche, "Ueber die
Gebetsformel der Messiasschiiler Matth. VI. 9-I3
und Luc. XI. 2-4," Eichhorn's Allgemeine Bibliothek
der biblischen Litteratur IO (I800) 846-78.
Willy Rordorf, "The Lord's Prayer in the Light oflts
Liturgical Use in the Early Church," Studia
Liturgica 14 (I980/8I) I-I9.
Santos Sabagal, El padrenuestro en la interpretacion
catequetica antigua y moderna (Salamanca: Sigueme,
I982).
Idem, "La importancia del Padrenuestro," Revista
Augustiana (Madrid) 23 (I982) 437-86.
Idem, "La redaccion mateana del Padrenuestro (Mt 6,
9-I3)," Estudios Eclesiasticos 58 (I983) 307-29.
Idem, Abba' ... La Oracion del Seiior (Historia y exegesis
teol6gica) (Biblioteca de autores cristianos 467;
Madrid: Biblioteca de autores cristianos, I985 ).
Jacques Schlosser, La regne de Dieu dans les dits de jesus
(2 vols.; Paris: Gabalda, I980), 1.247-322.
Rudolf Schnackenburg, Alles kann, wer glaubt:
Bergpredigt und Vaterunser in der Absicht jesu
(Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, I984).
Gerhard Schneider, "Das Vaterunser des Mattaus," in
Fran<;ois Refoule, ed., A cause de l'Evangile: Etudes
sur les Synoptiques et les Actes offertes au P. Jacques
Dupont (LD I23; Paris: Cerf, I985) 57-90.
385
Idem, "Das Vaterunser-oratio dominica etjudaica?"
in Walter Baier et al., eds., Weisheit Gottes-Weisheit
der Welt: FS josef Ratzinger (St. Ottilien: EOS, 1988)
405-17.
Klaus B. Schnurr, Horen und handeln: Lateinische
Auslegungen des Vaterunsers in der Alten Kirche his zum
5. jahrhundert (Freiburger Theologische Studien
132; Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 1985).
Heinz Schiirmann, Das Gebet des Herm: A us der
Verkilndigungjesu erliiutert (Freiburg i.Br.: Herder,
1958).
Idem, Das Gebet des Herrn als Schlilssel zum Verstehen jesu
(Freiburgi.Br.: Herder,1981).
Giinther Schwarz, "Matthaus Vl.9-13/Lukas Xl.2-4:
Emendation und Riickiibersetzung," NTS 15
(1968/69) 233-47.
Idem, "Und jesus sprach," 209-26.
Phillip Sigal, "Early Christian and Rabbinic Liturgical
Acculturation," NTS 30 (1984) 63-90, esp. 73-75.
Robert Simpson, The Interpretation of Prayer in the Early
Church (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965).
Graham Smith, "The Matthean 'Additions' to the
Lord's Prayer," ExpT 82 (1970/71) 54-55.
Hans von Soden, "Die urspriingliche Gestalt des
Vaterunsers," Die christliche Welt 18 (1904) 218-24.
Aime Solignac, "Pater Noster," Dictionnaire de
Spiritualite Ascetique et Mystique 12 (1984) 388-413.
Wilhelm Staerk, Altjildische liturgische Gebete (KIT 58;
2d ed; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1930).
Benoit Standaert, "Crying 'Abba' and Saying 'Our
Father': An Intertextual Approach of the
Dominica! Prayer," in Sipke Draisma, ed.,
Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of
Bas van Iersel (Kampen: Kok, 1989) 141-58.
Carl Steuernagel, "Die urspriingliche
Zweckbestimmung des Vaterunser," WZ(L).GS
3.2/3 (1953/54) 217-20.
Str-B 1.406-24.
Georg Strecker, "Vaterunser und Glaube," in
Ferdinand Hahn and Hans Klein, eds., Glaube im
Neuen Testament: Studien zu Ehren vom Hermann
Binder anliij3lich seines 70. Geburtstages (Biblisch-
theologische Studien 7; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1982) 11-28.
Idem, Bergpredigt, 109-32 (Sermon, 105-28).
Streeter, Four Gospels, 275-78: "Textual Assimilation
and the Lord's Prayer."
361 On this topic see Jacques Laager, "Epiklesis," RAC 5
(1962) 577-99.
362 Cf. the frequent phrase "call upon the name of the
Lord" (£7rtKaAioJ.Lat rh 8vop.a roV Kvplov ); see Acts
2:21; Rom 10:13, 14; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:23; 2 Tim
2:22; 1 Pet 1:17; 1 Clem. 39.7; etc. See BAGD, s.v.
f1ftKaAiw.
363 On this topic see Burkhard Gladigow, "Gottesnamen
386
Maria-Barbara von Stritzky, Studien zur Vberlieferung
und Interpretation des Vaterunsers in der
frilhchristlichen Literatur (Miinsterische Beitrage zur
Theologie 57; Munster: Aschendorff, 1988).
Johannes Casparus Svicerus, Sacrarum observationum
tiber singularis (Zurich: Schaufelberger, 1665) 145-
296.
James W. Thistle, The Lord's Prayer: An Interpretation
Critical and Expository (London: Morgan & Scott,
1915).
Sjef van Tilborg, "A Form-Criticism of the Lord's
Prayer," NovT 14 (1972) 94-105.
Philipp Vielhauer, "Vaterunser-Probleme," VF
(1949/50) 219-24.
Anton Vogtle, "Der 'eschatologische' Bezug der Wir-
Bitten des Vaterunser," in E. Earle Ellis and Erich
Grasser, eds.,jesus und Paulus: FS fur Werner Georg
Kilmmel (Tiibingen: Mohr (Siebeck]; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 344-62.
William 0. Walker, "The Lord's Prayer in Matthew
and in John," NTS 28 (1982) 237-56.
Georg Walther, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
griechischen Vaterunser-Exegese (TU 40.3; Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1914).
Michael Weber, Eclogae exegetico-criticae in nonnullos
librorum Novi Testamenti historicorum locos (2 parts;
Halle: Schimmelpfennig, 1828).
Geoffrey G. Willis, "Lead us not into temptation,"
Downside Review 93 (1975) 281-88.
Wrege, Bergpredigt, 100-109.
Theodor Zahn, "Das Vaterunser eines Kritikers," Neue
kirchliche Zeitschrift 2 (1891) 408-26.
Verse 9b begins with the citation of the Lord's Prayer.
As has been pointed out before, the first part of the
prayer contains the invocation or epiklesis, 361 through
which the worshiper turns to the deity by calling on and
naming that deity. Therefore, this part of the prayer
commonly uses a calling formula ("I call upon
you, ... ), 362 the names and the epithets identifying the
god or the gods. 363
In the case of the Lord's Prayer, however, no calling
formula is given; instead, the invocation uses the vocative
only: 1ranp ~p..wv ("our Father"). Notably, no name is
(Gottesepitheta) I (allgemein)," RAC 11 (1981)
1202-38; Giinter Bader, "Gott nennen: Von
Gotternamen zu gottlichen Namen: Zur Vor-
geschichte der Lehre von den gottlichen Eigen-
schaften," ZThK 86 (1989) 306-54.

given either, an omission no doubt due to the Jewish
avoidance of pronouncing the name of God. 364 There
are only two epithets, both of them general: "our Father"
and "the one who is in the heavens" (o lv TOLS ovpa-
vo!s ). 365 Thus, the epiklesis does not waste a word. What
are the theological implications?
The first of these epithets referring to God's
fatherhood has always been a source of consternation
and opposition that in turn has led to long doctrinal
apologies. 366 The basic problems are whether the epithet
"Father" is meant in the "real" sense or as a metaphor,
and whether it describes the human relationship to God
adequately.
The address of God as "Father" names him as creator,
sustainer, and protector of his entire creation, the
universe. But the image of the father is more than a
metaphor because it suggests that God has "fathered" his
creation, his progeny. 367 This terminology clearly differs
from that of God as the divine "craftsman" (nxvlT1/S ), 368
"creator" (Clwuovpyos ), 369 or "master builder"
(apxtTEKTwv). 370 By comparison, the epithet "Father"
suggests not only origin but also a permanent and
personal kinship relationship between procreator and
364 See Gladigow, RAG 11.1214-15, 1217-21. Cf.
Cleanthes Hymn 1: 7rOAvclwvp.• ("many-named"),
another way to circumvent naming the deity. For
further references see LSJ, s.v. 1ro'AvclJVvp.os.
365 The article o("he who") is missing inK*; mae and
Did. 8.2 read the singular lv ri!J ovpavi!J ("in the
heaven"). It is, however, part of the theology of the
SM to refer to the divine sphere in the plural, and the
epithet in this plural form is attested throughout (see
5:16, 45; 6:1; 7:11, 21).
366 See the long discussion about the epithet "father" and
the rich patristic documentation in Johannes
Casparus Svicerus, Sacra rum observationum liber
singularis (Zurich: Schaufelberger, 1665) 162-95.
On Origen see Gessel, Theologie, 105-14. For the
modern discussion see the references above, n. 352.
367 For the mythology of divine fatherhood see also the
discussion above on SM/Matt 5:45.
368 This epithet, common in Hellenistic religions, occurs
in the NT only in Heb 11:10; cf. Diogn. 7.2; see
BAGD, s.v. uxvlr7Js.
369 This common Hellenistic epithet occurs also in Heb
11: 10; Diogn. 7. 2; and more often in 1 Clement
(20.11; 26.1; 33.2; 59.2 [with1rar~p, "Father"]). See
BAGD, s. v. o7Jp.10vpyrls.
370 1 Cor 3:10.
371 See 1 Cor 8:6: .rs
e.hs 0 7raT~P lf ov Tlt 7rrlvra Kal ~p.i'is
Matthew6:1-18
progeny. 371 The Philonic epithet "the progenitor" (o
ywv71T~S) would come closest, but it does not occur in the
New Testament. 372
The epithet "who is in the heavens" qualifies the term
"father": God's fatherhood is not to be confused with
human fatherhood. Indeed, human fatherhood receives
its meaning and authority from its relationship to God's
fatherhood. 373 In this respect, God's fatherhood is an
analogical metaphor, taken from human language in
order to describe divine procreation. As a metaphor, the
language of divine fatherhood points to phenomena in
the universe that far transcend the confines of human
language. 374
The address functions at the same time as self-
definition by the orant. In this act of addressing God as
Father, a human being defines himself or herself as
progeny and as subordinate in rank and authority. 375
Like all creation, human beings are "offspring" of God's
creative work. They did not make themselves, nor did
their parents "make" them. A human being is further
defined as standing in juxtaposition to the one God in
heaven. Seen in this way, God and humanity are at the
same time poles apart 376 and closely related by kinship.
<ls avrov ("One God the Father, from whom all
things are and we unto him"); furthermore Rom
11:36; Col1:16-17; Heb 2:10. Cf. also the phrase lK
8<ov ("out of God") John 1: 13; 1 John 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4,
18; and often in theJohannine literature; see BAGD,
s.v. fK, 3.a.
372 Philo Spec. leg. 2.198; Decal. 110, and often; for the
verb cf.John 1 :13; 3:5; 1 John 5:1; and often; see
BAGD, s.v. y•vvaw, l.b; also Nils A. Dahl and Alan F.
Segal, "Philo and the Rabbis on the Names of God,"
]Sf 9 (1978) 1-28; Folker Siegert, Philon von
Alexandrien, Vber die Gottesbezeichnung "wohltiitig
verzehrendes Feuer" (De Deo) (WVNT 46; Tubingen:
Mohr [Siebeck ], 1988).
373 See SM/Matt 7:11; Col 3:17, 21; Eph 5:20, 31; 6:2,
4; etc.
374 For references and bibliography see above, n. 343.
375 See Gladigow, RAG 11.1232-33.
3 7 6 Corresponding to the invocatio are statements of self-
definition such as Rom 8:16 ("we are children of
God"); cf. Rom 7:14, 24; Gal3:26-28; Matt
8:9/ /Luke 7:8. For Hellenistic religions see
CleanthesHymn 4 (Homer fl. 5.896): lK <Tov yap
y<vOp.<<T8a ("for we are your offspring"); Aratus
Phaenomena 5; Acts 17:28. One should also compare
the Orphic gold tablets, for which see the edition by
Gunther Zuntz, Persephone (Oxford: Clarendon,
387
 As human parents, we simply take part in creation by
imitating the work of the creator. This aspect human
beings have in common with all other living creatures.
Yet, of all creatures only human beings are capable of
recognizing their creator and of turning to him in
worship. Thus, the invocation is an act of acknowledging
these fundamental facts oflife.
Humanity also differs from all other creatures in that
human beings know themselves as they know God. The
act of prayer self-consciously expresses this knowledge, a
knowledge that implies an intimacy between creator and
creature for which the father-child relationship is the
closest comparable image.
Joachim Jeremias has repeatedly emphasized that the
address of God as abba ("Father" or "my Father")
expresses the kind of total confidence and trust that is
basic to a child's experience of his or her parents. 377
This basic experience precedes and transcends human
self-consciousness, and for this reason one can indeed
describe the human relationship to God as "childlike." At
this point, however, one ought to beware of sentimen-
talism. It is easy to misunderstand what is indeed a mark
of a deeper and authentic relationship to God. One must
not confuse it with the silly naivete sometimes displayed
by adults. Rather, in the final analysis one can call the
human relationship to God "naive" only in the sense that
it transcends self-consciousness, suspicion, and fear. 378
In addition, it is easy to point to absurdities to which such
a "naive" confidence in God can lead. Such critique of
the father-child relationship may even rise to high levels
of sophistication, but then it may just be "naive" in a
different way.
What then is intended by the analogy of the father-
child relationship? It is the recognition of the plain fact
that we did not put ourselves on this earth but that we
find ourselves here as a result of someone else's will and
action. This relationship cannot be altered or termi-
nated. Even an explicit abrogation of the relationship by
the created being cannot change the facts oflife.
Moreover, the invocation implies the recognition that no
human life can be sustained without a fundamental trust
in God who created and sustains the universe in which
we live. This trust articulates the reason why one should
accept this life and carry it through, conducting oneself
as "son" or "daughter" ofthe heavenly Father. The
consequence of this father-child relationship is,
paradoxically, maturity, not immaturity. 3 7 9
I have already mentioned that the Aramaic word
'abba' is not part of the invocation of the Lord's Prayer.
This fact implies that, as the words stand, we have an
epiklesis that is not unique in any way, especially not for
Jesus, but quite common in Judaism and in the Greco-
Roman world generally.
In discussing Jeremias's hypothesis scholars have
pointed out repeatedly that addressing God as "Father"
was common in Jewish prayers. 380 It was common also in
Greek religion, where "Father Zeus" is the subject of
many extant prayers. 381 Emphasizing the simplicity that
such prayers have and should have was typical of Jewish
as well as of Greek prayers. 38 2
Finally, the invocation joins the worshiper together
with other human beings. Everyone who says "Our

1971) 359 (B.1, line 6): rfjs 7TcUS <lJ.Lt Kat Ovpavov
curnpowros ("I am a child of Earth and of starry
Heaven"). For similar self-definitions in the magical
papyri see Hans Dieter Betz, "The Delphic Maxim
'Know Yourself' in the Greek Magical Papyri," HR
21 (1981) 156-71; reprinted in Hellenismus und
Urchristentum, 156-72.
377 See above, n. 343.
378 Cf. esp. the apophthegm about Jesus blessing the
children (Mark 10:13-16 par.).
379 See Betz, Essays, 118-23.
380 For the sources see Str-B 1.392-96, 410-11; Lachs,
Rabbinic Commentary, 119; and Brocke and Petu-
chowski, Lord's Prayer and Jewish Liturgy, passim. On
Philo, see esp. Oskar Dreyer, Untersuchungen zum
Begriff des Gottgeziemenden in der Antike. Mit besonderer
Berilcksichtigung Philons von Alexandrien (Spudasmata
24; Hildesheim: Olms, 1970) 73-108; Siegert,
Philon, 52; Eileen M. Schuller, O.S.U., "The Psalm of
4Q372 1 Within the Context of Second Temple
Prayer," CBQ 54 (1992) 67-79 (with further
literature).
381 See Gottlob Schrenk and Gottfried Quell, "7rar~p,"
TDNT 5.945-1022, esp. 951-54 (A.V.1-3);
Bernhard Kruse, "Pater," PW, 36th half-volume
(1949) 2120-22; Martin P. Nilsson, "Vater Zeus," in
his Opuscula selecta (Lund: Gleerup, 1952) 2.710-31;
idem, GGR, 1.345, 403, 417; Hans Georg Gadamer,
"Das Vaterbild im griechischen Denken," in Vaterbild
(see above, n. 343) 102-15; Wemer Lemke, "Das
Vaterbild in der Dichtung Griechenlands," in ibid.,
116-35.
382 See the prayer quoted by Heiler (Gebet, 141) from
Aeschylus Supplices 890-93, 899-901: J.La ra J.La ra,

388
 Matthew 6:1-18

Father" acts as a spokesperson and representative of all
humanity. As Aristotle 383 points out, the relationship
between the divine Father and his human children is also
regal, a fact that is acknowledged by the occurrence of
the term "kingdom" ({3acn>..£la ) in vs 1Oa.
If jesus originally formulated the Lord's Prayer, it is
difficult-because of the characteristics just discussed-
to argue that the prayer expresses his exclusive
relationship with God. All one may be able to conclude is
that he saw this relationship to be the all-important one
for humanity in general, and that articulating it first and
thus teaching it to the disciples are a manifestation of his
peculiar relationship to God. At all events, what jesus did
must have been the result of a self-conscious and critical
examination of the practice of prayer at his time. It was
not an outburst of naive trust in God by a person
uninformed about the harsh realities of life. This
conclusion is supported by the following petitions.
Verse 9c presents the first petition: "Sanctified be your
name" (a:ytau8~TCJJ rh lfvop.d. uov). The wording is the
same as in Luke 11:2 and Did. 8.2. The peculiar aorist
(complexive) passive imperative of aytau8~Tw 384 allOWS
for several aspects of interpretation. (1) In conformity
with jewish theology, one may read it as a passivum
divinum. 385 In this case, God as the implied subject would
be asked to see to it that his name be sanctified, a process
that apparently is not happening as it ought to. The ideal
expressed is that, as God is holy in the heavens, so also
should his name be sanctified on earth. The statement
may also have eschatological implications. God would
then be asked to restore his holiness by soon bringing in
the end of the sinful world. In this interpretation, the
verb "sanctify" would refer metaphorically to the
eschatological coming of the kingdom of God, which
would be desired urgently. 386 The passivum divinum,
however, does not require such a restrictive eschato-
logical interpretation; it could also be understood as a
present tense continuum. (2) If one regards the aorist as
an instance of the Greek aorist ofprayer, 387 the subject
would not be God but human worshipers. God would
then be asked to see that humanity sanctify his name, so
that one should understand the petition to read as:
"cause us humans to sanctify your name."
Which of these possibilities is the right one and
whether we must make a choice of one over the other is
difficult to say. 388 Rabbinic parallels are inconclusive
because both interpretations of similar petitions occur; in
rabbinic theology, one should note the emphasis on
human responsibility, an emphasis that may not
necessarily be true of the Lord's Prayer. Since prayer
language tends to be general, one need not decide on
only one of the possibilities of interpretation. 389

.,.a., Z<v ("Mother

(3oav tf>of3<pbv (l.,.clrp<1r<, ;:, 1ra, rar
Earth, Mother Earth, avert his fearful cries! 0 Father
Zeus, son of Earth!") (trans. Herbert Weir Smyth,
Aeschylus [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University; London: Heinemann, 1922]1.87). In
Greek philosophy the address of Zeus as Father was a
subject of controversy. See esp. Plato's Tim. (28c3-4)
and the discussion in Plutarch's Plat. Quaest. (II, pp.
1000E-1001C): "Whyever did he [sc. Plato] call the
supreme god father and maker of all things?" See the
LCL edition and translation of Plutarch's Moralia by
Harold Cherniss (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University; London: Heinemann, 1976) 13/1.29-35
with notes.
383 Aristotle (Eth. Nic. 8.1 0.4, p. 1160b 24-28) points
out that the institution of the monarchy is patterned
after Zeus's government: "the relationship of father
to sons is regal in type, since a father's first care is for
his children's welfare. This is why Homer styles Zeus
'father,' for the ideal of kingship is paternal
government" (trans. H. Rackham, Aristotle: The
Nicomachean Ethics [LCL; rev. ed.; Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University; London: Heinemann, 1934]
493).
384 See BAGD, s.v. ay•a(w, 1 and 3 (bibliography);
Albrecht Dihle, "Heilig," RAG 14 ( 1987) 1-63;
Gunter Lanczkowski, Diether Kellermann, and
Michael Lattke, "Heiligkeit (1-111)," TRE 14 (1985)
695-708.
385 See on this point BDF, §§ 130 (1); 337 (4); BDR, §§
130, 1; 337, 4; Dalman, Wortejesus, 183-85;
Jeremias, Theology, 9-14.
386 Many have favored this interpretation since Zahn,
Matthiius, 268-74, and Albert Schweitzer. Today,
Greeven,Jeremias, Lohmeyer, Schiirmann,
Raymond E. Brown, and Siegfried Schulz hold this
point of view. Luz (Matthiius, 1.339 n. 50 [Matthew,
1. 3 7 5 n. 50]) is right in being skeptical.
387 See BDF, § 337 (4); BDR, § 337, 4.
388 See the discussion by Luz, Matthiius, 1.343-44
(Matthew, 1.379-80).
389 Luz, Matthiius, 1.342-44 (Matthew, 1.378-80).

389
Probably all shades of meaning are intended, or at least
suggested. Theologically, sanctification of God's name
was one of the primary ritual obligations of the Jewish
religion since Old Testament times. 390 The people of
Israel are reminded in this literature time and again to
honor God's name. The implication is that God is
holy, 391 and that it is only through human sinfulness that
his name becomes profaned. To be sure, only God's
name, which represents him on earth, 392 can be
profaned, not God himself. Profanation of his name
occurs simply as the result of the totality of human
sinfulness.
Also, the phrase "sanctify God's name" is traditional in
regard to the notion of obedience to the Torah,
especially at those points where one is to call on the name
of God. The most critical moments in this respect are the
pronunciation of God's name and the trials of martyr-
dom.393
In what sense then is God himself involved? In what
sense is he being asked? What is he supposed to do? God
is involved because any form of profanation creates
injustice, which God as the guarantor of justice is obliged
to correct. In the final analysis he will correct it when the
kingdom comes and the world comes to an end. At
present, however, an imbalance exists, of which the
petitioners remind God and themselves. God has
innumerable ways to make people sanctify his name, be it
coercion by punishment, inspiration, conversion, and so
forth. One should admit that by implication God is being
asked to interfere because it is assumed that sinful
humanity will never reach the point of sanctifying God's
name as is due him. This is the reason why God is
petitioned to do what can only appear to us as para-
doxical: to cause people to honor God voluntarily. This
paradox, however, is to be taken as part of his creatio
continua. One can confirm this interpretation by
comparison with old Jewish prayers, especially the
Shemoneh Esreh 394 and the opening formula of the
Kaddish, 395 which says: "Let his great name be
magnified and hallowed in the world which he has
created according to his will." Close as this parallel is, one
should not conclude that Jesus took the first petition
directly from the Kaddish, which, like the Lord's Prayer,
existed in several versions. 396 More likely, Jesus followed
a pattern more or less traditional in oral prayers. The
main difference between the two prayers is not content
but form: the Lord's Prayer is extremely short.
• 1 0 The second petition follows in vs 1 Oa: "Your
kingdom come," or "Let your kingdom come" (£>..8£rw ~
f3acnA.Ela uov). This petition agrees verbatim with the
parallels in Luke 11:2 and Did. 8.2. 397 What is the
meaning of this petition, and what are its implications for
the Lord's Prayer as a whole?
The combination of this petition with the preceding
one means that God exercises his authority as "Father" in
his "kingdom" (f3autA.da). This language and concep-
tuality were traditional in Jewish prayers. 398 God's
kingdom is eschatological; it is established in heaven but
not yet, at least not yet fully, on earth. The arrival of the
kingdom "also on earth," that is, its complete victory over
evil, is thus the content of this petition. This petition is
justified because no one but God himself can make his

390 For Israel's obligation see Exod 20:7; Lev 22:32; Isa 106-I4; Luz, Matthiius, 1.343-44 (Matthew, 1.379-
29:23; and often. For God sanctifying see Exod 80); Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, II9.
29:43; 3I: I3; Lev I 0:3; 2I :8, I5, 23; 22:9, I6, 32; 396 So also Heinemann, Prayer, I9I, 256; Luz, Matthiius,
and often. 1.343-44 (Matthew, I.379-80); Lachs, Rabbinic
391 On this concept see above, n. 384. Commentary, II8.
392 On the meaning of the "name" of God see the 397 The textual situation is, however, far more
bibliography above inn. 293; also BAGD, s.v. lJvop.a, complicated than these attestations because of the
4; Schiirer, History, 2.306-7. variant readings of the second petition in Luke II :2.
393 For references see Str-B 1.4II-I8. See the literature below in n. 4I 0.
394 For translation and discussion see Betz, 2 Corinthians 398 For God as "king" see above on SM/Matt 5:3; 5:35.
8 and 9, 12I; Schiirer, History, 2.455-63.
395 For the text and translation see the Heidelberg
dissertation by David de Sola Pool, The Old jewish
Aramaic Prayer: The Kaddish (Leipzig: Drugulin,
I909; reprinted as The Kaddish [New York: Bloch,
I929]) esp. XII, 2I-24. See also Elbogen, Gottes-
dienst, 93-94; Str-B I.408-I 0; Fiebig, Bergpredigt,

390
 Matthew 6:1-18

kingdom come. Human beings may wish it, but they
cannot force it. 399
Similar to the first, the second petition also serves as a
reminder to God. In the name of justice God must be
expected to establish his realm firmly, even in the human
world where it is now contested. A God who represents
and guarantees justice cannot indefinitely tolerate a
situation in which this human world is not obedient to
God's rule. The petition, however, makes no mention of
"imminent" or any other specific eschatological
expectation. 400 Traditional as the language remains in
this prayer, it is compatible with forms of "imminent" as
well as "realized" eschatology. Prayer language does not
necessarily express specific concerns, even though such
concerns may be on the minds of the petitioners. The
petitioners certainly wish the kingdom of God to come,
and the sooner the better.
One should not overlook some tensions between the
Lord's Prayer and the SM as a whole. For the SM, the
"kingdom of the heavens"(~ {3aU!Af:la TWV ovpavwv) exists
not only in heaven but also in the universe as a whole. 401
As vs 1Oc points out, the divine kingdom includes the
whole cosmos except the earth, because of human sin.
Even among humanity there are differences. The human
race is seen on the march toward the future along the
Two Way road: the faithful are on the road to the
eternal kingdom, 402 while the wicked will end up in
eternal condemnation. 403 Eventually, therefore, the
world will be dissolved, with one part integrated in God's
kingdom and the other part eliminated from it. When
humanity will have vanished, 404 when no one of them is
left "on earth," "earth" itself, which is already part of the
cosmos ruled by God, will be liberated from the burden
imposed on it by wicked humanity. The eschatology
presupposed here therefore differs from that of
apocalypticism (different also from Rom 8:18-22). The
Lord's Prayer does not apparently envision the total
destruction of the world. Instead, the eschatology of the
Lord's Prayer expects the kingdom of God to conquer
and annex the territory at present inhabited by the
rebellious human race, a conquest that is entirely lawful
while human disobedience is not.
Parallels show that a petition regarding the divine
malkut ("kingdom") must have been part of most prayers
at the time ofJesus. 405 In the Kaddish, such a petition
follows directly on the first, just as in the Lord's Prayer:
"May He, according to His Will, reveal in the world
which He has created, the greatness and holiness of His
Great Name, and His sovereignty [make His redemption
spring forth, cause His Messiah to approach and redeem
His people (and build up His temple)] in your lifetime
and in your days and in the lifetime of the whole house of
Israel, speedily and at a near time (and say ye) Amen." 406
Similar petitions occur in the 'Alenu prayer, where God
is designated and acclaimed as king, and in the 'Al hak-kol
prayer. 407 Only the latter has a prayer that is formally a
petition: "May He reveal His kingdom over us." These
parallels show a wide-ranging variety of formulations,
with secondary interpolations and shifts in emphasis and
position within the prayers. There is no way, therefore,
to identify the precise origin, meaning, and place of this
petition, and one will have to be content with saying that

399 Cf. the strange saying in Matt II :I2//Luke I6:I6. 405 Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary, 1I9) points to the saying
400 This has been correctly observed by Grasser (Problem, in b. Ber. 40b: "Any benediction in which there is no
I 00). Whatever rpxeu8a, ("come") may mean, it does [mention of] malkhut is no benediction." See also his
not imply an imminent eschatological expectation. n. I9, p. 123.
40 I For the interpretation of this concept in the SM see 406 The translation is according to de Sola Pool, Kaddish
alsoonSM/Matt 5:3, IO, I9, 20; 6:I3, 33; 7:21. (see above, n. 395), XII. The brackets indicate
402 See below on SM/Matt 6:33; 7:I3-I4. different versions of the prayer. For parallels see also
403 See below on SM/Matt 7:13-14, 2I-23. Str-B l.418-I9; Fiebig, Bergpredigt, I07.
404 Cf. Cleanthes Hymn 7: uot o~ ..-a~ lloe Koup.o~ 407 See Heinemann, Prayer, 27I.
~)U,CTCT6p.EVOS 7rEp',. ya'iav 7TEl8ETaL 'll KEV l£yys, Kal fK~V
v..-o uelo KpariiraL ("All this cosmos as it spins around
the earth, obeys you, whichever way you lead, and
willingly submits to your sway"). A parallel is found
also in PGM XIII.542 with reference to the creation
of lao: Kal ol.,cirr. oVO€v 1}rc:bcT7JUEV TWv O.Eplwv ("so that
none of the aerial bodies was thenceforth out of
place").

391
some form of petition regarding the "kingdom" was
mandatory in all prayers, but that the specific
formulation was left to the individual composers of such
prayers. The comparison also shows clearly that the
emphasis of the Lord's Prayer is on the "coming"
(£'px£u6aL) of the kingdom, and this emphasis is
confirmed by the important role it played in early
Christian eschatology even later. 408
Verse 1Obc contains the third petition: "Let your will
be done, as in heaven so also on earth" (yfv1/6~TCJ) ro
etxwu!t.uov, WS lv ovpav(i> Kal f'lTt yijs). Verse 10c has some
textual uncertainties, 409 but most remarkably the entire
petition is missing in the parallel Luke 11:2. 410 There
the better witnesses do not have it, while correctors
supplement it from the parallel in Matthew. 411 Did. 8.2
parallels the SM verbatim. The omission in Luke 11:2
remains unexplained, but it is hardly "original." Some
witnesses have an altogether different petition regarding
the coming of the Holy Spirit, but this petition appears to
be a later substitution. There is no convincing reason
why Luke should have excised the third petition
(according to the SM) had he read it, which he most
likely did not; his church seems to have used the shorter
form.
Asking God to let his will happen is traditional in
Jewish prayers, in particular in short prayers: for
example, "Do Thy will in heaven above and give rest of
spirit to them that fear beneath. May it be Thy will, 0
Lord our God, to establish peace in the upper family and
in the lower family." 4 12
The third petition of the SM must be seen in analogy
to the previous two. Again, it is left open as to who
precisely is to do the will of God, God or the people.
Verse 10c assumes that God's will already happens in
heaven, so that only the realm of the earth or the human
world is where the divine will does not happen. The
earth is not to blame for this situation because dis-
obedience toward God's will merely occurs on earth, not
by the earth. Rather, human resistance against God's will
prevents it from being done. Human resistance is easily
explained: it has its cause in human self-will. Thereby
human self-will is pitted against God's will, and this
rebellion is identical with sinfulness. Who else but God
himself can make sinful humanity obey his will? Actually,
the petition emphasizes two aspects of the problem. One
of these aspects focuses on God and requests his
readiness to let his will happen; the other aspect implies
that the petitioner ought to accept on his or her part
what the divine will has decreed.
This latter aspect is well exemplified by the story in the
passion narrative about Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane.
This passage shows Jesus as a model for every Christian
who prays. Without condition Jesus subjects his own will
to that of his Father; he even denies his own will while at

408 The "coming" of the kingdom, is, however, not
attested elsewhere in the SM; cf. Matt 16:28; Luke
23:42 v. l. In the synoptic tradition, ~PXE<r6a•
("come") is mostly connected with the coming of
Jesus in his parousia. See BAGD, s. v. ~pxop.a•, 1.1.a. 71·
409 w~ ("as") is missing in D* abc k bomss Cl Tert Cyp.
The article rij~ ("the") has been added before "earth"
by D L 0 jl3 892. 1006. 1342. 1506 ~;the Nestle
text is represented by MB W Z A jl pc. The variants
are most likely stylistic improvements.
410 For a discussion ofthe Lukan text ofthe Lord's
Prayer, which presents a rather complicated
situation, see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 154-56;
Streeter, Four Gospels, 275-78: "Textual Assimilation
and the Lord's Prayer"; Andreas Lindemann, "Die
Versuchungsgeschichte Jesu nach der Logienquelle
und das Vaterunser," in Dietrich-Alex Koch, ed.,jesu
Rede von Gott und ihre Nachgeschichte im frilhen
Christentum: FS ftlr Willi Marxsen zum 70. Geburtstag
(Giitersloh: Mohn, 1989) 91-100, esp. 92 n. 5.
411 It is not attested in P 75 B L jl 1342 pc vg sy'·c
Marcion Origen. For the textual evidence see
Harnack, Marcion, 207*; Aland, Synopsis, 86;
Greeven, Synopsis, 152; Robert Leaney, "The Lucan
Text of the Lord's Prayer (Lk. XI 2-4)," NovT 1
(1956) 103-11; Carmignac, Recherches, 89-91;
Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.896-909; Rudolf Freudenberger,
"Zum Text der zweiten Vaterunserbitte," NTS 15
(1968/69) 419-32; Gerhard Schneider, "Die Bitte
urn das Kommen des Geistes im lukanischen
Vaterunser (Lk 11, 2 v.l.)," in Studien zum Text und
zur Ethik des Neuen Testament: FS zum 80. Geburtstag
von Heinrich Greeven (BZNW 4 7; Berlin: de Gruyter,
1986) 344-73 (with further bibliography); Jean
Magne, "La variante du Pater de Lc 11:2," Laval
theologique et philosophique 44 ( 1988) 369-7 4.
412 Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary, 121) lists t. Ber. 4.7a
(48); b. Ber. 29b. The text cited is b. Ber. 17a. For
parallels see also Fiebig, Bergpredigt, 116-17; Str-B
1.419-20; Dalman, Wortejesu, 314-15.

392
 Matthew 6:1-18

the same time struggling against the verdict of death.
Jesus' example is typical of any situation of martyrdom; it
is not sought but accepted when unavoidable and
apparently ordained by the divine will (Mark 14:32-42
par.). 413 It is far from clear, however, that the petition
Jesus utters in Mark 14:36 is cited from the Lord's
Prayer. Mark's Gospel shows no awareness ofthe
existence of the Lord's Prayer, except this allusion to the
third petition (according to the SM). How are these
passages related to each other? 414
Martin Dibelius 415 has proposed the idea that
Matthew himself formulated the third petition on the
basis of the Gethsemane story and has inserted it into the
sequence of petitions in the SM. According to Dibelius,
Matthew also attributed great importance to the concept
of the divine will elsewhere in his Gospel (see Matt 7:21;
12:50; 18:14; 21:28-32), 416 so that he found the
Gethsemane story very useful for his theological
interpretation of the gospel tradition. Dibelius's
hypothesis must, however, be rejected for two reasons:
(1) The parallel in Did. 8.2, which is most probably
independent of Matthew's Gospel text, shows that the
third petition is pre-Matthean; (2) Matthew himself,
when he treats his source (Mark 14:36) in Matt 26:39,
creates a doublet of the prayer. The first time Jesus
prays, the petition agrees with Mark 14:36, but then
Matthew refers to the petition a second time in Matt
26:42 without a Markan Vorlage, and it is here that the
petition is brought into compliance with the Lord's
Prayer: "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to
pass me by without my drinking it, your will be done"
(7r&.np !J-OV, d ov a-6vara! TOVTO 7rap£A8£'iv £h:v IL~ avro 7rLW,
)'£V7]8~rw ro 8£A1J!J-&. uov). 417 Matthew, therefore,
understands the possible connections between the Lord's
Prayer and the Gethsemane episode and makes this
connection explicit, but it is clearly Matthew who makes
it explicit, not the Markan source. Similar Matthean
interpretations occur in Matt 12:50; 18: 14; 21:28-
32,418 whereas in 7:21, the notion of the will of God
refers to the Torah, a pre-MattheanJewish concept. For
Matthew, "the will of God" refers to the divine plan as
unfolding in Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
As a result one can conclude that the third petition was
already part of the SM source that Matthew took over.
This form of the Lord's Prayer must have been in use in
Matthew's church as well, and the same must be
concluded for the church of the Didache. The differences
between the versions of the SM/Didache and Luke seem
to be the result of differing church traditions, rather
than the evangelists' own redactional operations. 419
Turning to the meaning of the petition, one must ask
what the notion of the will of God refers to. In the Lord's
Prayer it clearly does not refer to the Torah or to Jesus'
passion. As parallels from the Jewish prayers show,
reference is made to God's plan and intention in his
governance ofthe universe. 420 This idea is not a

413 See Thomas Soding, "Gebet und Gebetsmahnung
Jesu in Gethsemani: Eine redaktionskritische
Auslegung von Mk 14,32-42," BZ 31 (1987) 76-
100; Gunter Bader, Symbolik des Todesjesu (HUT 25;
Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1988) 216-20.
414 Cf. also Caulder's and van Tilborg's hypotheses
mentioned above, n. 326.
415 Martin Dibelius, "Die dritte Bitte des Vaterunsers,"
in his Botschaft und Geschichte, 1.17 5-77. See also
Strecker, Bergpredigt, 119 (Sermon, 115); Gerhard
Lohfink, "Der praexistente Heilsplan: Sinn und
Hintergrund der dritten Vaterunserbitte," in Helmut
Merklein, ed., Neues Testament und Ethik: FS fur
RudoifSchnackenburg (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna:
Herder, 1989) 110-33; Lars Hartman, "Your Will
Be Done on Earth as It Is in Heaven," Africa
Theological Journal (Tanzania) 11 (1982) 209-18.
416 Grundmann (Matthtius, 201) agrees, but not without
hesitation.
417 So also ibid., 201 n. 46.
418 Cf. also Matt 2:18 (Jer 31:15); 9:13 (Hos 6:6); 12:7
(Hos 6:6); 27:43; for Matthew the will of Jesus is
important: his and God's are one (11 :27).
419 Another symptom of the unfixed form of the Lord's
Prayer appears to be that Tertullian knows of a
version that has the second and third petitions in
reversed order. See C. Immanuel Nitzsch, "Ueber
die noch unerorterte Umstellung der zweiten und
dritten Bitte des Vater-Unsers beim Tertullian,"
ThStK 3 (1830) 846-60; W. Haller, "Das Herrngebet
bei Tertullian: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und
Auslegung des Vaterunsers," Zeitschrift fur praktische
Theologie 12 ( 1890) 327-54.
420 For references see Gottlob Schrenk, "O.!A.w, e.!A.7JI'-a

393
specifically Jewish one but general in antiquity. Most
people believe that whatever happens complies with the
divine will and must therefore be suffered, no matter
how horrible it may be. It is the duty and obligation of
the truly faithful to comply with this divine will too. 4 2 1
Many scholars have rightly observed that this petition
concerning the will of God has close parallels not only in
Jewish but also in Greek thought, especially in Stoic
philosophy. 422 The Hymn ofCleanthes 423 and the prayer
ofEpictetus express this belief in an impressive way. 4 2 4
One should not hastily dismiss this parallelism, 425 as
modern commentators unfamiliar with the history of
philosophy often do. By comparison, rabbinic parallels
are sparse, 426 while Philo and other Hellenistic-Jewish
texts yield more parallel material, no doubt because of
their closeness to Greek philosophical traditions. 4 27
The Stoic view is this: it is a matter of prudence, not
only piety, to bring the human will into compliance and
harmony with the divine will. The reason is that the
divine will determines by way of providence and fate
what will happen anyway. Yielding to the inevitable is
prudent, while useless rebellion is immature. Thus
Epictetus advises: "Do not seek to have anything that
happens happen as you wish, but wish for everything to
happen as it actually does happen, and your life will be
serene. "4 2 8 Things do not happen arbitrarily but in
accordance with divine prescience and providence
operating through the force of reason that pervades all
reality. 4 2 9 More or less agreeing with the Stoics, all
schools of Hellenistic philosophy taught that a life that is

KrA.," TDNT 3.44-62, esp. 47-49, 54, 58; Carmig-
nac, Recherches, 103-9. Relevant parallels are esp.
LXX Pss 29:6 (cf. 30:6); 39:9; 102:21; 134:6;
142:10; 1 Esdr9:9; Sir43:16; 4 Mace 18:16. The
closeness of 1 Mace 3:60 has long been recognized:
"As may be the will in heaven, so shall he do [or: so
shall it be done]" (oor a· Av Ji Bl>..ruJ.a tv ovpav~, ollrwr
'II'OI~UEI).
421 The proverbial expression of this piety is the famous
"if God wills" (calledcondiciolacobaea),Jas 4:15: "If it
be the Lord's will, we shall live to do this or that"
(NEB) (tl:.v b K{;p&or 8eA~U1/ Kal (~UOJ.LEV Kal 'ITOI~UOJ.LEV
roiiro ~ tKEivo ). On this statement see the commen-
taries, esp. Dibelius,james, 233-34; also Schrenk,
TDNT 3.47 n. 32, 48.
422 See Grotius, Annotationes, 78-79; Wettstein, 1.324-
25; Tholuck, Bergrede, 372-73 (Commentary, 338-
41); Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 57;
Lohmeyer, "Our Father," 115-18; Berger, "Hellenis- 427
tische Gattungen," 1169-70.
423 See CleanthesHymn, esp.lines 15-19: oMl r&
y{yvera& fpyov twl x8ovl UOV a{xa, aaiJ.LOV, oifrE Kar'
al8€ptov 6Eiov wOAov, oiJT' ~vlwOvrep, wA~v OwOua
{J€{ovur. JC4Kol u</>erJpat.utv O.vola1s. lr.AAlr. ub Kal rlt
7T£ptcra0. £wlurauat ll.prta 8livat, Kal KOup.liv rll.tcoup.a,
Kal ov <fll>..a uol <fll>..a lurlv. ("No deed is done on earth,
god, without your offices, nor in the divine ethereal
vault of heaven, nor at sea, save what bad men do in 429
their folly. But you know how to make things
crooked straight and to order things disorderly. You
love things unloved.") Text and translation are ·
according to Long and Sedley, Hellenistic Philosophers,
no. 54 I (1.326; 2.326-27). For bibliography see
above, n. 96.
424 For the citation ofEpictetus's poem see above, p. 343.
425 As does Luz (Matthiius, 1.344-45 [Matthew, 1.380]),
whose description ofthe Stoic position is a caricature;
similarly Strecker, Bergpredigt, 120 (Sermon, 116).
426 Str-B 1.419-20 refers to Eliezer's short prayer
(tefillah; t. Ber. 3. 7 [6]; b. Ber. 29b): "Do Thy will in
heaven above, and grant relief to them that fear
Thee below and do that which is good in Thine eyes.
Blessed art Thou, 0 Lord, who hearest prayer"
(trans. Maurice Simon, in Hebrew-English Edition cif the
Babylonian Talmud, vol. 1: Berakoth [London:
Soncino, 1960]). Interesting is also the admonition
attributed toR. Gemaliel III (c. 220 CE) in 'Abot 2.4
because both prayers may be influenced by Stoicism:
"He used to say-Make his will as thy will, so that he
may make thy will as his will; make naught thy will
before his will so that he may make naught the will of
others before thy will" (trans. Herford, Pirke Aboth,
43). See also 'Abot R. Nat. (B) 32 (p. 71) (trans.
Saldarini, 193).
The history of the interpretation would require a
study of its own. For Luther's interpretation see the
texts collected in Miilhaupt, D. Martin Luthers
Evangelien-Auslegung, 2.141-43; furthermore Calvin,
Inst. 3.20.43.
428 EpictetusEnch. B;seealsoDiss. 1.12.15-16; 1.14.1-
10; 1.16.15-18; 2.14.7; 2.17.14-28; 4.1.91-94, 97-
104, 131; etc.; Seneca Ep. 74; CiceroAcademica 1.7;
De nat. deor. 2.2; Diodorus Sic. 2.30; etc.
For texts see de Vogel, Greek Philosophy, 3.64-85,
nos. 943-944c (Cieanthes), 1011a (Chrysippus),
1245 (Epictetus), 1267 (Marcus Aurelius).

394
 Matthew 6:1-18

ethically and religiously responsible, mature, and
prudent must seek harmony with the divine will. 430
How conventional these ideas were by the time of the
New Testament can be seen from Acts 5:38, where the
Jewish teacher Gamaliel expresses the general principle,
which jews and Christians then endorse: "For if this idea
of theirs [J3ovA.~] or its execution is of human origin, it
will collapse; but if it is from God, you will never be able
to put them down, and you risk finding yourselves at war
with God" (NEB). 431 Acts 26:14 quotes a heavenly voice
as saying in Hebrew (the last part is in fact a Greek
proverb): "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is
hard for you, this kicking against the goad" (NEB). 432
The Stoic parallels are even closer when one considers
the final clause in vs 1Oc: "as in heaven so also on earth"
(ws £v ovpavi;> Kat E7rL yijs). As mentioned before, this
phrase may apply also to vss 9c and 1 Oa as well; 433 in this
case it would constitute a rhetorical zeugma (a kind of
bridge between the three lines). 434
One must distinguish in the context of the SM the
singular "heaven," as contrasted with "earth," from the
plural "heavens," expressing God's transcendence. In
contrast to the plural, the singular "heaven" refers to the
"sky," which together with the earth forms the universe
(o KOCTJLOS [SM/Matt 5:14]). 435 Thus at present the will of
God is being obeyed "in" (£v) the sky. This statement can
only mean that the sun (5:45), the moon (cf. Mark 13:24
par.; Rev 6:12; 8:12; etc.), the stars (Mark 13:25 par.;
Rev. 1:16, 20; 2:1, etc.), the birds (SM/Matt 6:26), and
so on already now are in compliance with God's will.
Indeed, earth itself obeys God's will (SM/Matt 5:35;
6:28-30), and it is only those human beings moving
about "on earth" who disobey (cf. SM/Matt 5:5, 13, 18,
35; 6:19). 436
The petition, therefore, expresses the request that
obedience to God's will should be extended to include
humanity also, the last outpost in the universe that still
obstructs and defies God's intentions. The petition does
not imply, however, any kind of urgency or even
imminent end of the world; it rather assumes some
duration of the world in conjunction with its obedi-
ence.437 At a secondary level of interpretation the
petition can be made to conform also to imminent
eschatology.
The third petition of the Lord's Prayer has an
interesting parallel in Epictetus's description of the
attitudes taken by philosophical schools toward divine
providence. He distinguishes among five such attitudes.
The first option denies the existence of the divine
altogether ("atheism"); the second maintains that the
divine exists but is inactive and indifferent toward the
cosmos (Epicureanism). 438 Then follows "a third set [sc.
option], that it [sc. the divine] exists and takes fore-
thought, though only for great and heavenly things and
in no case for terrestrial things; 439 and a fourth set, that

430 For the Pythagorean tradition see the concept of
7rpOs TO 6ilov op.oA.oyla ("harmony with the divine") in
Iamblichus De Vita Pyth. 13 7; Ps-Pythagoras, Carmen
aureum 17.
431 For the interpretation see Haenchen, Acts, 253-54;
Conzelmann, Acts, 43; BAGD, s.v. 6Eop.axos.
432 For the interpretation see BAGD, s.v. KtvTpov, 2.
433 So Origen De oral. 26.2, and others following him.
See also Eberhard Nestle, "Zum Vaterunser," ZNW 6
(1905) 107-8; Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 57;
Carmignac, Recherches, 110-17.
434 See Lausberg, Handbuch, §§ 692-93 (1.347).
435 See also above on SM/Matt 5:18.
436 Kal ("and") is to be taken like oilTw ("thus"). See
BAGD, s.v. ws, 11.1.
437 See Grasser, Problem, 97-101, 102-3; Strecker,
Bergpredigt, 119-21 (Sermon, 113-16). This general
eschatology is compatible, e.g., with Stoicism. Cf.
Acts 17:31-32.
438 EpictetusDiss. 1.12.1-3.
439 Ibid., 1.12.2: TplTol S' Ot Kat EtVal Kat7rpovoiiv, aA.A.a TO
p.EyaA.wv Kat ovpavlwv, TWV a< t1ft yfis p.7JSEVfk This
doctrine refers to the three stages of divine
providence taught by Middle Platonism. Accord-
ingly, Plato Rep. 10, 617Cff. was interpreted to mean
that in the highest region of the intelligible world
divine providence rules absolutely, while in the lower
region of the astral deities the material substances are
ruled over by the spirit; it is only in the sublunar
region, including the earth, that there can be a
conflict between freedom and necessity. See esp. Ps.-
Plutarch De jato 9-10, 572F-574D; Apuleius De
dogmate Platonica 1.11-12; Diog. L. 5.32; PGM
XII.217; for Christian texts see Tatian Oralio 2;

395
it [sc. the divine] also takes forethought for things
terrestrial and the affairs of men, but only in a general
way, and not for the individual in particular; 440 and a
fifth set, to which Odysseus and Socrates belonged, who
say 'Nor when I move am I concealed from thee. '" 441
Epictetus favors the last option, which is also the
closest to the Lord's Prayer. Xenophon's interpretation
of Socrates' view on the topic, to which Epictetus has
alluded, makes things clearer: "For like most men,
indeed, he [sc. Socrates] believed that the gods are
heedful of mankind, but with an important difference;
for whereas they do not believe in the omniscience of the
gods, Socrates thought that they [sc. the gods] know all
things, our words and deeds and secret purposes; that
they are present everywhere and grant signs to men of all
that concerns man."442
To a surprising degree these philosophical ideas oflate
Hellenism parallel the third petition ofthe Lord's
Prayer, especially as it is interpreted by the prayer
instruction in SM/Matt 6:7-8. Here also God's hidden
omnipresence is combined with his omniscience and his
boundless generosity. Heaven and earth obey him, with
the sole exception of humanity. The Lord's Prayer,
however, is not at all interested in further exploring the
cosmic worlds between earth and God's realm. The focus
is on the righteous alone, who long to join with the rest
of creation, and they are the ones who pray this petition.
• 11 The last three petitions are concerned with human
needs, 443 as is indicated by the pronoun "us" (~p.lis)
occurring in its various forms in vss 11-13; this pronoun
stands juxtaposed to the singular "you" (uov) in the first
three petitions (vss 9b-10b). The phrase "on earth" (vs
1Oc) provides the transition, 444 thereby also revealing
the place and position of humanity in the universe. While
the invocatio (vs 9b)juxtaposes God and the human
petitioners, the worldview of vs 1Oc is more complex.
Between God and humanity comes the sky and then
earth, so that humanity inhabits the space "on earth. "445
The fourth petition in vs 11 poses some difficulties,
although the general meaning is clear enough: "Our
daily bread give us today" (Tov lipTov ~p.wv Tov l1rwt'Juwv
llos ~p.l.v u~p.Epov). 446
This form of the petition is shared by Matt 6:11 and
Did. 8.2, but the Lukan parallel (Luke 11 :3) differs
somewhat: "Our daily bread give us every day" (Tov lipTov
~p.wv TOV hwt'luwv oloov oqp.'iv TO Ka8' ~p.€pav ). 44 7 Which of

Athenagoras Legatio 5; for Jewish parallels see Str-B
1.420, esp. the prayer cited above at n. 412. On the
whole topic see Alfred Gercke, "Eine platonische
Quelle des Neuplatonismus," RhM 41 (1886) 266-
91, esp. 285-86; Festugiere, L'Ideal grecque et
l'evangile, 224-63; Heinrich Otto Schroder, "Fatum
(Heimarmene)," RAG 7 (1969) 524-636, esp. 533-
34; A. W. Sharples, "Alexander of Aphrodisias:
Scholasticism and Innovation," ANRW II, 36/2
(1987) 1176-1243, esp. 1216-18.
440 Epictetus Diss. 1.12.2: T'TapTOL o' o[ Kat TWV t'lTl y1js Kal
TWv &v8punrlvwv, Els- KOLvhv 0£ p.Ovov Ka't oVx'r. ot Ka'r. Kar'
l0lav fKQ.O"TOV.
441 Homer Il. 10.279-80. Cf. Ps 139:7-12.
442 Xenophon Mem. 1.1.19. For a longer dialogue
between Socrates and Euthydemus about the divine
care for humanity seeMem. 4.3.2-18. OlofGigon
(Kommentar zum ersten Buch von Xenophons Memora-
bilien (SBA 5; Basel: Reinhardt, 1953]24-25)
reminds us that Mem. 1.1.19 is one of the oldest
witnesses for the Greek belief in divine omniscience
and omnipotence. Peculiar also is the doctrine about
the "signs" (IT1Jp.alvELv), which is to be connected with
divination (see also Xenophon Symp. 4.46-49).
443 So Weber, Eclogae, 30: "tres petitions ad necessiates
nostras pertinentes."
444 So Strecker, Bergpredigt, 121 (Sermon, 116-17).
445 See also elsewhere in the SM, esp. SM/Matt 5:33-
37; 6:25-34.
446 For special discussion, apart from the bibliography
above on pp. 382-86, see johann Peter Bock, Die
Brotbitte des Vaterunsers: Ein Beitrag zum Verstiindnis
dieses Universalgebetes und einschliigiger patristisch-
liturgischer Fragen (Paderborn: Bonifacius-Druckerei,
1911 ); idem, "Nachtragliches zur Brotbitte des
Vaterunsers," ZKT 36 (1912) 654-64, 869-86;
Alfred Seeberg, Die vierte Bitte des Vaterunsers
(Rostock: Adlers Erben, 1914); Walter Diirig, "Die
Deutung der Brotbitte des Vaterunsers bei den
lateinischen Vatern his Hieronymus," LJ 18 (1968)
72-86; idem, "Die Exegese der vierten Vaterunser-
Bitte bei Augustinus," LJ 22 (1972) 49-61; Pierre
Grelot, "La quatrieme demande du 'Pater' et son
arriere-plan semitique," NTS 25 (1978/79) 299-314;
Willy Rordorf, "Le 'pain quotidien' (Matth. 6,11)
dans l'histoire de I'exegese," Didaskalia 6 (1976)
221-35;Jean Starcky, "La quatrieme demande du
Pater," HTR 64 (1971) 401-9; Delores Aleixandre,
"En torno a Ia cuarta petici6n del padrenuestro,"
Estudios biblicos 45 (1987) 325-36; Reinhard Gregor
Kratz, "Die Gnade des taglichen Brots: Spate
Psalmen auf dem Weg zum Vaterunser," ZThK 89
(1992) 1-40.
44 7 The manuscript tradition shows that the Matthean

396
 Matthew 6:1-18

the versions may be the earlier or even the original one,
and whether they developed from an original Aramaic
Urtext, I have briefly discussed in the excursus above on
the Prayer (pp. 374-75) and need not elaborate further
at this point. 448 Scholars have observed that the fourth
petition is rather wordy as compared with the previous
ones. Gunther Schwarz even believes that he can
distinguish between a primary and a secondary layer of
interpretation within the petition. 449 Paradoxically,
however, the wordiness is the result of extreme
conciseness. The petition is a summary of both a
theology and an ethic, all compressed into one sentence.
Contrary to Schwarz, therefore, reflection and
interpretation are intimately intertwined, and inter-
pretation is not a secondary layer imposed on an earlier
prayer text.
As in all petitions, the exact formulation is decisive, so
that it is not a matter of accident that the object "our
bread" (rhv li.prov ~p.wv) is placed at the beginning. What
is the significance of this anticipation of the object? The
first reason seems formal: a catchword connection leads
from the "earth" (vs 10c), which produces the grain, to
the bread (vs 11), which we make from this fruit of the
earth. The Lord's Prayer here reflects an older "agrarian
theology" common in antiquity. 450 The implications of
this "agrarian theology" for our passage are that "on
earth" (vs 1 Oc) means that humanity living on earth does
so by living on the produce of the earth. Thus "on earth"
means not only the space but also the resources of the
earth in the sense that the earth feeds humanity. 4 5 1 As
we have already seen, the expression "our bread" is rich
in meaning. One should read it seriously as "our bread"
because we as· human beings make and bake it, but it
nevertheless is "our" bread only in a derived sense. 4 52
We can make bread only if we are given the grain first.
This gift involves not only the earth that produces the
grain but also God, who is the giver of fertility and the
right weather conditions. Furthermore, there are human
intermediaries, all those people who have some role in
providing us with "our bread." In a sense the whole
cosmos as well as the human society is involved, until we
receive "our bread." The expression has therefore in
mind not only us as consumers but also as producers and
distributors.
A true crux interpretum has been and still is the apposite
adjective E7Tto-6cnos, for which a fully convincing
explanation and translation cannot be given even
today. 453 The problem of the meaning of the term
£7TLo-6cnos has been debated since antiquity. 454
The first problem is that the word is not attested in the
Greek language prior to or apart from Matt 6: 11; Luke
11:3; Did. 8.2. There may be an attestation on a
papyrus, 455 but it is late (5th century cE) and damaged.

version was more popular, so that most variants are
adaptations to Matt 6: 11. See Aland, Synopsis, 86.
448 For summaries of discussion on the question, see
Dalman, Wortejesu, 283-365; Black, Approach, 203-
8: Carmignac, Recherches, 121-43, 214-21; Schwarz,
"Und]esus sprach," 214-15.
449 Schwarz, "Undjesus sprach," 214-15.
450 For a discussion and bibliography, see Betz, 2
Corinthians 8 and 9, 98-1 00.
451 For the meaning of £1rl with the genitive here see
BAGD, s. v. £1rl, l.1.b.f'l; for the normal meaning see
section l.l.a.a.
452 One should note that Marcion reads rhv li.prov uov
("your [i.e., God's] bread") in Luke 11 :3; it may be
related to the manna tradition. See Harnack,
Marcion, 207*.
453 For surveys and bibliography see Tholuck, Bergrede,
375-90 (Commentary, 341-53); Werner Foerster,
"E1r&ovu1os," TDNT2.590-99; ThWNT 10/2.1081-
82; LSJ, s.v.; PGL, s.v.; BDF, § 123.1; BDR, § 123;
Carmignac, Recherches, 118-21; Christoph Muller,
EWNT(EDNT) 2, s.v.; BAGD, s.v.; Strecker,
Bergpredigt, 122-23 (Sermon, 117 -18); Luz, Matthiius,
1.345-47 (Matthew, 1.381-82). One should also
consult F.-M. Braun, "'Le pain dont nous avons
besoin' (Mt 6.11; Lc 11.3)," NRTh 100 ( 1978) 558-
68; Louis-Marie Dewailly, "'Donne-nous notre pain':
Que! pain? Notes sur Ia quatrieme demande du
Pater," RSPhTh 64 (1980) 561-88; David Hill, "'Our
Daily Bread' (Matt 6:11) in the History of Exegesis,"
Irish Biblical Studies 5 (1983) 2-10; Colin Herner,
"£1r&ovu1os," JSNT 22 (1984) 81-94; Spicq, Notes,
3.292-95.
454 See esp. Origen De orat. 27.7 (GCS 3.2.2, pp. 367-
68).
455 See Preisigke, Sammelbuch, 1, no. 5224, 20; idem,
Worterbuch, s.v.; Bruce M. Metzger, "How Many
Times Does E7r&ovu&or Occur Outside the Lord's
Prayer?" ExpT 69 (1957) 52-54; reprinted in his
Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and
Christian (NTTS 8; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 64-66.

397
Jerome reports that he found the word mal}ar in the
Jewish-Christian Gospel of the N azoreans, 456 written in
Aramaic. Jerome rendered it as crastinum ("for
tomorrow"), but it is far from clear whether this
reference provides an explanation. For one thing, we do
not possess the Aramaic text to which Jerome refers but
have only his word. Even if his account is correct, the
Aramaic may depend on the Greek rather than the other
way around; we simply do not know anything about the
basis of the text and tradition of the Gospel of the
Nazoreans. Given this situation scholars have tried
different approaches for establishing a possible meaning
of this term: philological derivation on the basis of the
Greek root, hypothetical Semitic roots, determination
from the context, or trust in the oldest translations into
the Latin.
1. Philological derivation from the Greek verb hdvat
("be forthcoming") in the sense of~ E7rtovcra ~fJ.epa ("the
day forthcoming" [tomorrow]) can be applied to the
"bread" as a reference to the expected messianic banquet
or simply as the bread needed for the following day. 457
The first option, defended vigorously by Joachim
Jeremias, 458 is highly speculative and depends on the
acceptance of other hypotheses. The second option
clashes with SM/Matt 6:34, the exhortation against
worrying about tomorrow. 4 59
2. Philological derivation from Semitic roots remains
doubtful because we cannot be certain that the Aramaic
mal}ar was the basis for the Greek term; it may be the
other way around. 460
3. Derivation from the context would understand the
word as a composite of E71"t- and ovcrta and interpret it as
"what is necessary for existence." If one accepts this
meaning, one could render it as: "Our bread that we need
give us today." This interpretation agrees in substance
with SM/Matt 6:8, is quite similar to Prov 30:8, 461 and
has a parallel in the ninth benediction of the Shemoneh
Esreh (Babylonian recension): "Bless this year for us,
Lord our God, and cause all its produce to prosper; and
bless the land; and satisfy us with goodness; and bless our
year as the good years. Blessed art thou, Lord, who
blessest the years." 462 There are also other parallels in
Hellenistic literature dealing with the daily apportion-
ment of food and drink. 463 The closest parallel is no
doubt the phrase inJas 2:15: A.Em6fJ.WOt Tijs £cp1JfJ.Epov
Tpocpijs ("lacking the daily nourishment") and 2:16: Ta
E7rtT~oua Tov crwfJ.aTos ("what is necessary for the
body"). 464 In an important article Hermann Frankel 465
has shown that £cp~fJ.Epos is a key term of Greek
philosophy, describing the human being as a "creature of
a day" and relating the term to notions of poverty. Thus,
human life as a whole is fragile, short-lived, day by day,
and from hand to mouth.
4. The old translations as cottidianum ("daily") as the

456 SeeNTApoc 1.147;NTApok 1.134;Jeremias,Abba,
165-67 (Prayers, 100-102); Strecker, Bergpredigt,
123 (Sermon, 117 -18); also Carmignac, Recherches,
44. Still valuable are also the older studies by Joseph
B. Lightfoot, "On the Words £.,.,o{J<nor, 'lf<pto6cnor,"
in his On a Fresh Revision of the English New Testament
(London: Macmillan, 1891) 217-68; Anton
Fridrichsen, "APTOl: EIIIOYl:IOl:," SO 2 (1924) 31-
41; 9 (1930) 62-68.
457 Cf. SM/Matt 6:34: ai!pwv ("tomorrow"); also 6:30.
See BAGD, s.v. ai!ptov, with references.
458 See Joachim Jeremias, "EIIIOYl:IOl:," ThLZ 79
( 1954) 127 -28; idem, Theology, 199-201; idem,
Prayers, 100-102.
459 So, correctly, Strecker, Bergpredigt, 123 (Sermon, 118).
460 Notably, Schwarz ("Undjesus sprach," 214) does not
attempt to make a case for an Aramaic source.
461 Prov 30:8: "Give me neither poverty nor wealth, but
provide me with the food I need" (REB). The LXX
translates it this way: 'li"AOVTOV at Kat 'lfEVLav J.t?! J.!OI oii>r,
u6vra[ov af JLOI. Tit OfovTa Kat rh: aVTILpK7].
462 Translation in Schiirer, History, 2.457; cf. 460. See
also t. Ber. 3.11 (pp. 6-7), cited by Lachs (Rabbinic
Commentary, 120): "may it be Your will, 0 Lord, that
You fulfill everyone's needs and supply each person's
want."
463 One loaf of bread a day was considered the
appropriate portion for the philosopher living in
frugality. For this reason, Diogenes the Cynic was
called "the one living from hand to mouth" (or "the
one living for the day," ~J.t<pof3wr); so Jerome
Adversus Jovinianum 2.14; Porphyry Opuscula selecta
(ed. August Nauck; Leipzig: Teubner, 1886) 270.
For further parallel references see Franz-Joseph
Dolger, "'Unser taglich Brot': Das eine Brot als
Tagesbedarf und das halbe Brot des Einsiedlers
Paulus," Antike und Christentum 5 ( 1936) 201-1 0;
Johannes Haussleiter, "Brot," RAG 2 (1959) 613. Cf.
SM/Matt 6:31-33; Matt 10:10; 2 Thess 3:10, 12;
Ep. Arist. 140-41.
464 See BAGD, s.v. £cp7}J.t<por, with further references;
PGL, s.v. EwtoVutoS'.
465 Hermann Frankel, "Man's 'Ephemeros Nature'
according to Pindar and Others," Transactions and

398
 Matthew 6:1-18

!tala has it, or supersubstantia/em ("of a higher substance")
as the Vg has it, or perpetuum ("perpetual") as the
Curetonian Syriac version (syc) has it, or necessarium
("necessary") as other Syriac versions (sy(p.)h) have it, or
venientem ("coming") as the Sahidic has it, or crastinum
("for tomorrow") as the Middle Egyptian and Bohairic
(mae bo) have it (whereby the Latin terms are approxi-
mations of the respective languages), are all plausible,
but they may already be the result of guesswork rather
than solid knowledge of the language. 466
· If one seems to have no firm ground for making a
conclusive decision, one is forced to wait for the
discovery of new texts and live in the meantime with a
provisional solution. I would favor the third option
provisionally. It fits into the theological framework of the
Lord's Prayer as well as of the SM (cf. SM/Matt 6:8, 25-
34; 7:7-11) and has religious 467 and cultural 468 support
in Hellenistic texts. One should also keep in mind the
point made many years ago by Anton Fridrichsen:
perhaps Luke already no longer understood the term
f7TtotJcnos and changed it to Ka8' ~f.dpav ("day by day"),
which means the same as the "daily nourishment"
mentioned injas 2:15.4 69
The term "bread" (llpTos) also has multiple meanings.
There is hardly any doubt that it refers to real, not
merely "spiritual," bread, but in antiquity generally
bread was never taken as something merely material. As
already mentioned, the making and consumption of
bread was accompanied by rich symbolism. 470 There-
fore, one can be certain that the reference to "daily
bread" included all that is necessary for nourishment; 471
rhetorically the term is therefore a synecdoche (collective
notion). 472 The request for "our" bread introduces a
complication. The pronoun "we" occurs twice in the
petition. It means literally that we make and distribute
this bread. Yet we still need God to provide the grain,
from which the flour is made, from which the bread can
be baked. How can God then be asked for the bread
instead of the grain?473
The idea may be that the human work involved to
make the bread is so insignificant that it is hardly worth
mentioning, while the gift of the grain is all-important, so
that it is almost the same as giving the bread itself. But
the other ideas concerning the procurement of bread
may be implied (see the excursus above on the Prayer).
The bread becomes "ours" only through the col-
laboration of many people who in fact "give us" our
portion. This fact is most vividly demonstrated by the

Proceedings of the American Philological Association 77 Recherches, 143-91.

(1946) 131-45; German version: "E<I>HMEPO:E als
Kennwort fiir die menschliche N atur," in his Wege
und Formen fruhgriechischen Denkens: Literarische und
philosophiegeschichtliche Studien (2d ed.; Munich: Beck,
1960) 23-39.
466 See Aland, Synopsis, 86, critical apparatus; PGL, s.v.
f7rto6cnos; Gessel, Theologie, 180-86.
467 Going in a theological direction, Origen thinks that
the "daily bread" refers to the eternal word of God,
A.&yos roil Owv (De orat. 27.9 [GCS 3.2.2, pp. 368-
69]). Cf. Cleanthes Hymn 21: A.&yov altv l&vra
("everlasting reason"). See Theiler, Forschungen zum
Neuplatonismus, 316; Gessel, Theologie, 180-86.
468 So also Strecker, Bergpredigt, 123 (Sermon, 118-19).
469 Fridrichsen, SO 2 (1924) 39.
470 For literature and references see BAGD, s.v. lJ.pros;
Johannes Behm, "lJ.pros," TDNT 1.477-78; ThWNT
10/2.993; Horst Balz, EWNT(EDNT) 1, s.v. lJ.pros;
W. Dommershausen, ThWAT 4.538-47, s.v. Cl)'{;
Theodor Klauser, Johannes Haussleiter, and Alfred
Stuiber, "Brot," RAG 2 (1954) 611-20; Carmignac,
471 See also SM/Matt 6:25-26; 7:9; Matt 4:3-4 par.;
Mark 6:8 par.; 6:32-44 par.; 7:2-5 par.; 2 Thess 3:8,
12; Did. 11.6; 1 Clem. 34.4.
4 72 Of the type species pro genere (the part representing
the whole). See Lausberg, Elemente, §§ 98-99 (p. 72).
4 73 Cf. the rich fool in Luke 12:16-21, whose foolishness
consists of the assumption that he posseses (<\..v) his
harvest. See also the proverbial question in 1 Cor
4:7: "What do you have that you did not receive?" (rl
St <'xm 8 oiJK f'Aaf3<s;). Cf. Epictetus Diss. 2.20.32:
"Grateful men indeed and reverential! Why, if
nothing else, at least they eat bread every day and yet
have the audacity to say, 'We do not know whether
there is a Demeter, or a Kore, or a Pluto.'"

399
ritual act of breaking the bread and handing the pieces
around at table. If this giving depends so much on
human givers, one is always uncertain whether they will
in fact give it or deny it. If hunger occurs the reason is
most often that those who are expected to "give" refuse
to give. The giving, therefore, depends not only on the
production of the bread but also on the willingness to
share it. Given the experience of human stinginess, one
has every reason not to take human generosity for
granted. God is therefore also asked to see to it that
human providers are disposed in their hearts and minds
to share what has been produced.
The petition that the bread be given "today" (u~p.fpov)
has parallels elsewhere in the SM. The implication is that
nourishment is needed every day,just as all creatures
must be supplied with the necessities of life day after day
(see below on SM/Matt 6:25-34). 474 The basic human
needs are indeed the same day after day. There is an
implication here with regard to time. Basic human needs
are not timeless, and they are not simply a matter of the
future. What counts is what happens today. 475 So far,
the petition assumes, the daily bread has been forth-
coming, but one has no guarantee that this will happen
day after day, so that one cannot take for granted the
bread for today. As everyone who has faced starvation
knows, it is "today" that matters, and neither past nor
future can compensate for it.
Another implication is with regard to quantity. The
amount of bread needed is limited to what one needs for
one day at a time. The petition is therefore also an
expression of modesty. The petition asks not for great
wealth, gold and silver, houses, and all that comes with
these things, but only for what can be used up in a day.
By implication then, one should pray the Lord's Prayer
every day. There is, however, no prescription at what
time of day it should be prayed, whether in the morning
or the evening. Did. 8.3 prescribes that it be prayed three
times a day, 476 presumably in the morning, at noon, and
in the evening. 477 This prescription has the appearance
of a later liturgical application, but that application could
simply make explicit the assumption of the SM and Luke
11 : 1-4 regarding the practice of prayer.
• 12 The fifth petition concerns forgiveness of sins, a
preeminent concern in jewish and Christian worship and
theology. 478 What makes the fifth petition ofthe Lord's
Prayer stand out, however, is the peculiar interpretation
given to sins as "obligations" (3.pf,>..~p.aTa). This
interpretation takes its terminology from law and
commerce, 479 in order to apply it metaphorically to the
religious topic of sins and forgiveness of sins. 480 This
interpretation also presupposes two doctrines concerning
forgiveness. First, the interpretation of sins as obligations
seems to imply a criticism of the other concept of sins as
transgressions of legal codes or violations of taboos.

4 7 4 This appears to be the reason for the reading of ro
1<a8' .q,.lpav ("the day to day") in the Lukan version
(Luke 11 :3). See BAGD, s.v. .q,.lpa, 2.c; BDF, § 160;
BDR, § 160 n. 3; Frankel, Wege und Formen (see
above, n. 465), 36-39.
4 7 5 Or for the next day, if one renders E'll'&o.Sa&os
accordingly.
476 Did. 8.3: "Three times a day you shall pray in this
way" (Tpls rijr .q,.lpar oliTII111'poaE.SXE0"8E).
4 77 If the following day is meant, the prayer would best
fit in the evening, since the following day begins at
sunset, according to jewish usage. See Mark 14:30;
BAGD, s.v. 0'~/'Epov. Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary,
120-21) is skeptical about this hypothesis.
478 The literature on forgiveness is too vast to list here.
See Moore, judaism, 1.535-45; 2.153-55; Adolf
Buchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic
Literature of the First Century (New York: KT AV,
1967); Abrahams, Studies, 1.139-67; Schechter,
Aspects, 293-343; Hartwig Thyen, Studien zur
Sundenvergebung im Neuen Testament und seinen
alttestamentlichen und judischen Voraussetzungen
(FRLANT 96; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1970); Herbert Leroy, Zur Vergebung der
Sunden: Die Botschaft der Evangelien (SBS 73;
Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974); idem,
EWNT(EDNT) 1, s.v. lJ.f/>{111'' ICTA.; Peter Fiedler,Jesus
und die Sunder (Frankfurt and Bern: Lang, 1976)
204-11.
4 79 For the legal terminology see Alan Watson, The Law
ofObligations in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1965); Kaser, Privatrecht, 474-667. For
Jewish law see Leopold Auerbach, Das judische
Obligationenrecht, vol. 1 (no more published) (Berlin:
Heymann, 1870); Menachem Elon, "Obligations,
Law of," EJ 12 (1971) 1310-16.
480 Against van Tilborg, Sermon, 114: "The basic
metaphor is about real monetary debts." This
interpretation was rightly rejected already by
Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 2.8.28; see also
Tholuck, Bergrede, 390 (Commentary, 355).

400

Second, forgiveness of sins involves interrelated acts-
God's forgiveness is somehow bound up with the
forgiveness of obligations others owe to us.
Before I discuss these doctrines, the different versions
and the formal structure of the petition require
consideratiqn. The fifth petition is composed as an
antithetical isocolon:
And forgive us our debts,
as also we forgive our debtors. 4 8 1
~eal. llt/>fs ~p.tv Ta 3t/>f:LA~p.aTa ~p.wv,
6Js Kal. ~IJ.f:tS at/>~Ka#J.f:V TOtS 3t/>nA(TaLS ~p.wv· 48 2
The Lukan version reads somewhat differently (Luke
11:4):
And forgive us our sins,
for we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted
to us.
~eal. llt/>fs ~p.tv Tas O.p.apTlas ~p.wv
Kal. yap avTol. at/>lop.f:V "lTaVTI. 3t/>f:[AOVTL ~p.tV'
Did. 8.2 also has a different version:
481 Translations of the petition differ considerably,
depending on traditions of liturgy and usage as well
as on interpretation. The main difference is whether
one should assimilate lll/lnA-,j,.ara to the Lukan
parallel and render it as "sins" and whether one
should translate the perfect form of at/>-tiiCa/LEII as "as
we have forgiven our debtors" (so BAGD, s.v.
Ot/>nA€r'ljs, 2.b; RSV). For a survey of translations see
Jacques Dupont, "Le Notre Pere: notes exegetiques,"
in his Etudes, 2.832-61; Carmignac, Recherches, 401-
36, with reference to Albert S. Cook, "The Evolution
of the Lord's Prayer in English," AJP 12 (1891) 59-
66;James W. Thirtle, The Lord's Prayer: An
Interpretation Critical and Expository (London: Morgan
& Scott, 1915) 213-23. The translations of the
Lord's Prayer into English and their history require a
study of their own. The NEB and REB try a middle
way: "Forgive us the wrong we have done, as we have
forgiven those who have wronged us." NEB and REB
prefer "wrongs" in vss 14-15 and thus smooth out
the tension.
482 Textual variants reflect attempts at harmonization
with the Lukan parallel. Origen reads wapawrC:,,.ara
("transgressions") for Ot/>n1l-,j,.aTa ("obligations"). D E
(L) W A El 565 pc sy<? co? read iitPlo,.Ev as in Luke
11:4; M1Jl' 1006. 1342. 1506 9Jt sy"? co? read
at/>lEIL£11 like the Didache and Clement of Alexandria.
iitl>-tl~<a/LEII is attested by the better tradition: M* B Z jl
pc vg" syP·h Gregory of NyssaP'. See the apparatus in
Aland, Synopsis, 86; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 16:
"If the original form of the Lord's Prayer in Aramaic
had a verb in the perfect tense used as a present, the
Matthew 6:1-18
And forgive us our debt,
as also we forgive our debtors.
~eal.lJ.t/>f:S ~p.tv T~V 3t/>f:LA~V ~p.wv,
6Js Kal. ~p.f:tS flt/>lfp.f:V TOtS 3t/>f:LA(TaLs ~p.WV'
Which of these versions is more original is difficult to say.
The difficulties arise not only from the vocabulary 483 but
from the underlying ideas as well. One can account for
all versions in terms of jewish thought, and none
presupposes specifically Christian theology. 484 Some
unusual ideas, however, even within jewish thought are
striking. These ideas have found expression also in other
synoptic passages, such as the parable of the Unforgiving
Servant (Matt 18:23-35) and the parable of the Laborers
in the Vineyard (Matt 20:1-16). One can see how
important this petition was for the SM also from the
inclusion ofSM/Matt 6:14-15. 485 That the text was no
less important for Matthew himself one can conclude
from the reflections on the congregation in Matt 18:18-
19 and 26:28. 486 Taking all aspects into account, I can
aorist tense in Greek would represent a mechanical
translation less idiomatic than the present tense. On
the basis of the weight of the external evidence, as
well as considering the non-parallel reading, a
majority of the COmmittee preferred at/>.,;ICa/LEII."
483 The more conventional object for the verb iitl>l'IIIL'
("forgive") is "sins" (lz,.apTla<, &,.apr-,j,.ara,
wapawrC:,,.ara). Whatever term the Semitic Vorlage
may have had (perhaps M:::l1M) could have been
rendered either by Ot/>ElA'IIILa (Matt 6:12; Did. 8.2) or
&,.aprla (Luke 11 :4). See on this point also Jeremias,
Theology, 6 n. 15.
484 Petitions for the forgiveness of sins occur in
Shemoneh Esreh 6, in the Abinu Malkenu, and in
other old Jewish prayers. For the texts see Willy
Staerk, Altjudische liturgische Gebete (KIT 58; 2d ed.;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1930) 12, 15-16, 28; Str-B
1.421-22; Schiirer, History, 2.457, 460.
485 Against Schwarz ("Und Jesus sprach," 219), who
suggests that 6:14-15 may have led to the insertion
ofvs 12b into the Lord's Prayer.
486 Matt 18: 15-20; 26:28 show that, for the evangelist
Matthew, forgiveness of sins is based on his
christology and soteriology.
401
agree with Georg Strecker that the version in 6: 12 may
be the closest we get to the original petition. 48 7
In the first line (vs 12a) God is asked to forgive us our
debts in the sense of cancelling them. Parallels show that
the language of cupdvaL in connection with ocf>£LA7Jp.a
("debt") comes from law and commerce. 488 Applied to
the relationship between God and humanity, this
language is used metaphorically. It states that we as
human beings have outstanding debts that we have not
repaid or cannot repay. 489 Debts owed to whom? Owed
to God or to other people? What do these debts consist
of? Are they financial (loans or obligations) 490 or more
general (legal, social, etc.)? 491
Whatever the answers may be, two facts are presup-
posed: (1) the social concept that all human affairs are
fundamentally those of mutual obligations and that this
also includes our relationship with God; (2) the
realization that these obligations, at least to a significant
degree, remain unfulfilled. 49 2
487 Strecker,Bergpredigt, 124(Sermon, 119): "Matthew
has the original wording."
488 In the NT this expression is rare. Apart from Matt
6:12 it is found in the parable ofthe Unforgiving
Servant (Matt 18:23-35, esp. vss 27 and 32). This
parable, found only in Matthew, illustrates the
doctrines underlying the fifth petition of the Lord's
Prayer. For the most part, however,Jewish and early
Christian sources connect lupl71p.1 with terms for
"sins." See RudolfBultmann, "lupl'l/p.t," TDNT 1.509-
12; ThWNT 10/2.996-97; BAGD, s.v. lupl'l/p.t, 2;
Herbert Leroy, EWNT(EDNT) 1, s.v. lupl'IIP.' KTA.
489 See also the interpretation given in Polycarp Phil.
6.1-2, where the admonition to be merciful to all is
justified in this way: "We know that we all are debtors
of sin. If we then ask the Lord that he may forgive us,
we are also ourselves obligated to forgive. For we
stand before the eyes of the Lord and of God and 'we
must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ,
and each must give account of himself.'" (<laonr, iin
1r£tvr£s 01/JetAErar. fup.~u b.p.aprlas. £l 0~ oVv 0£6p.£8a roV
Kvp{ov, i'va ~p.LV a.pij, ot/><{Aop.EV Kat ~/)-ELf a.pu!vat•
0.1r€vavTL ytLp rWv roV Kvplov Kal 8£oV lap.€v bcp8aAJLWV,
Kat "lr<tvrar ~·· 1Taparrrfjval T~ f3~p.arl rov Xptrrrov Kat
E'Karrrov fm€p avrov Aoyov oovvat. [my trans.]). The
quotation combines Rom 14: 10 and 12; cf. 2 Cor
5:10.
490 See Matt 18:28-34; 23:16, 18; Luke 7:41; 16:5-7;
17:1 0; Rom 13:8; etc.
491 See Rom 13:7-8; Mark 12:13-17 par.; etc.; and
Friedrich Hauck, "o.P<lAw KrA.," TDNT 5.559-66;
BAGD, s.v. o.P<iAw KTA.; Lohmeyer, "Our Father,.
402
Unresolved obligations, however, constitute a problem
for justice because justice was defined as "suum cuique"
("To each what is his or her due"). 493 Therefore, justice
requires that one properly deal with and redeem all
existing obligations; leaving them permanently
unredeemed constitutes injustice. One can deal with
obligations in two ways: (1) by having the debtor willingly
or by force "pay the debt, "494 or (2) by allowing the
creditor to cancel the debt. 495 In either case the debtor is
released from the obligations.
Remarkably, the fifth petition employs this business
language to interpret what otherwise would be called
"sins" 496 and "forgiveness of sins." Accordingly, sins are
not treated as transgressions of legal, moral, or ritual
codes, the way sins are usually understood. Rather, sins
are taken to be instances of injustice in the sense of
obligations outstanding and not met. 497 Since human life
as a whole consists of an interconnected web of
obligations, the totality of all unredeemed obligations
160-80; Michael Wolter, EWNT(EDNT) 2, s.v.,
o.pElAw KTA.
492 For this interpretation of sins as obligations see esp.
Origen De orat. 28 (GCS 3.2.2, pp. 275-81).
493 See above on SM/Matt 5:20.
494 The term a1Toolowp.t ("[re ]pay") is technical. See above
on SM/Matt 5:26, 33; 6:4, 6, 18; also Matt 18:25-
30, 34; 20:8; etc. For the legal background see
Kaser, Privatrecht, 634-40; Watson, Law of Obligations
(see above, n. 479), 208-19; BAGD, s.v. a1Tol>lowp.1.
495 The technical terms are a1ToA6w and a.pl'IIP.'· See Matt
18:27; SP /Luke 6:37. See Kaser, Privatrecht, 640-
44; BAGD, s.v. a1ToA6w and a.pl'l/p.t, 2:
496 The commercial term is applied to the notion of sin
already in judaism before the NT; it corresponds to
the Hebrew concept of:'l:::lin. See Str-B 1.421-22;
Dalman, Worte jesu, 334-38; Black, Approach, 140;
Jeremias, Theology, 6 n. 15; Carmignac, Recherches,
22-25; BAGD, s.v. o.p<i>..71p.a, 2.
497 See also Matt 18:24, 28, 30, 32, 34; 23:16, 18; Luke
7:41; 16:5, 7; 17:10; etc. The concept of obligation
has remarkable parallels in Paul's theology; see Rom
1:14; 4:4; 8:12; 13:7-8; 15:1, 27; 1 Cor 5:10; 7:3,
36; 9:10; 11:7, 10; 2 Cor 12:11, 14; Gal5:3; Phlm
18; cf. also Eph 5:28; 2 Thess 1:3; 2:13.
 Matthew 6:1-18

constitutes human sinfulness.
How can one resolve this situation? For one thing, one
must realize that there are two kinds of debts: the debts
we owe to others, and the debts others owe to us. One
must look at these two kinds of debts differently. The
problem with debts owed by us may be that they are too
large, too old to be remembered, or just too complicated
to sort out. Even the conscientious person has a limit to
his or her control over debts. One should rather
recognize that nobody can remember, comprehend fully,
and serve faithfully to make good on the multitude of
obligations one owes to others. 498 In this regard,
whatever the obligations consist of, we live in injustice,
and this is the dilemma of sinfulness.
This extent of our indebtedness involves God as well
because he is the guarantor of justice. It is presumed that
God knows the full extent of our indebtedness, even if
we do not know it (cf. SM/Matt 6:8). As judge, God will
rectify the imbalance either by punishment or by
forgiveness; his justice requires one or the other (see also
SM/Matt 5:26, 29, 30; 6:4, 6, 18; 7:21-23).
Asking God for cancellation of our debts amounts to
an appeal for mercy. 499 Such an appeal is justified only,
however, if the petitioner is in a situation that leaves no
other way out. Indeed, it would be blasphemous to
appeal to God for mercy, if we were capable of dealing
with the problem ourselves. Therefore the fact that an
appeal is made means that as petitioners we are unable to
come to terms with our indebtedness by ourselves,
whatever the cause may be for this incapacity.
God, then, by cancelling the debts through his mercy
restores the balance of justice. The presupposition of this
assumption is that mercy is a constituent element of the
administration of justice. After the cancellation, no
further action of punishment or compensation is to be
expected because the petitioner is acquitted.
A further question is, To whom are these obligations
owed? The answer in this context is twofold. First, since
human life is understood as a system of mutual
obligations, "our obligations" are owed to other people.
Strictly speaking, these people would be those who have
to absolve us from the obligations we owe them. Since
they cannot or will not do so, no matter what the reason
may be, an appeal to God is justified. Second, since all
human beings owe it to God to live justly, not unjustly,
we are also indebted to God as the upholder of justice.
God is therefore the appropriate authority to whom to
address the petition. Only he can do what those to whom
we are indebted cannot or will not do. We know from
tradition that God is a God of mercy and has the means
to restore justice by cancelling our debts. If vs 12a
presents an appeal for what we cannot accomplish by
ourselves, vs 12b states as a fact that we do (and must do)
what we are able to do: "as also we forgive [or: have
forgiven] our debtors" (oos Kat ~JULS acp~Kap.£V TOtS
bcpHA.£Tats ~p.wv). Why is this statement made in a
petitionary prayer addressed to God? Not surprisingly,
controversies have raged over this part of the petition,
and their reverberations are felt to this day. Basically
three issues are involved at this point:

498 This dilemma is exemplified by the tax collector lxovro~ at aVThv O.woaoVvaL).
Zacchaeus in Luke 19: 1-1 0. Repaying all those 499 Cf. Luke 18:13: "Have pity on me, 0 God, sinner
"debts" he owes to the people he exploited appears that I am." This expectation conforms to Jewish
impossible because he will not be able to remember religion; see Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1188; for rabbinic
them all (19:8). When jesus pronounces that parallels see Str-B 1.421-22; Fiebig, Bergpredigt, 118.
Zacchaeus is saved (vs 9), therefore, one must assume Cf. furthermore Sir 28:1-7, esp. vs 2: "Forgive your
that he is forgiven also those debts for which he neighbour any wrong he has done you; then, when
cannot make restitution. Giving half of his you pray, your sins will be forgiven" (REB) (litj>£~
possessions to the poor and quadrupling the lz.Q[KTJfLa Tip 7TA7]ulov <TOV, Kat r6TE 0E1}8£VTOS UOV ai
restitution to victims he can remember constitute ap.aprlat ITOV )\.v8.,j<TOVTat).
vicarious acts of redeeming his debts. The important
point is that the debt is somehow absolved. For the
interpretation of Zacchaeus's dilemma see Str-B
2.250-51; Otto Michel, "ull.wv1J~," TDNT 8.103-5
with n. 154; Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1225; Sanders, jesus
and judaism, 202-3. Cf. also Matt 18:25: "and when
he did not have [sc. the money] to pay back" (p.~

403
 1. If we are to read acp~1Cap.€V' should we take this
perfect form as a statement of an accomplished fact ("we
have forgiven"), or is it the translation of an underlying
Semitic word indicating durational or consequential
action ("we forgive")?
2. Is our act of forgiveness to be taken as the legal or
theological ground for the appeal to God, presupposing a
claim ("because we have forgiven")? Or are we making
the appeal as a consequence of our knowledge that God
will forgive those who ask him?
3. Is the petition of vs 12a sufficient in itself, and is vs
12b a later intrusion, inserted by some redactor for
reasons unrelated to the immediate issue? One must
admit that the statement of vs 12b is, formally speaking,
not part of a petitionary prayer, but it is a statement of
fact, a declaration. Therefore, does the purely
petitionary vs 12a stand on its own, or does it need the
attached declaration of vs 12b?
One cannot deny that these questions are loaded with
controversial theological issues. 500 On the one hand, if
our act of forgiveness constitutes a claim, on the basis of
which we have established a right to ask God for
forgiveness, this would constitute the kind of "syner-
gism," or "works righteousness," that most theologians,
at least those in the Reformation tradition, would
repudiate. 501 On the other hand, if forgiveness by God
precedes our forgiveness, it would constitute a situation
of "grace" (gratia praeveniens) and subsequent gratitude.
Important as the question of correct translation is, it
alone cannot decide these issues. The parallel passage in
Luke 11 :4 does not help either because it raises the same
issue, and this is also true of Did. 8.2. The solution to the
problem lies again with the notion of justice presupposed
here.
If human affairs consist of obligations, they are always
mutual obligations. Therefore, since our obligations have
been dealt with in vs 12a, it is necessary that vs 12b take
up those obligations that others owe to us, because we
have an unconditional responsibility to them ("our
debtors"). 502
That these debtors are indebted to us means that we
can do something about their debts. Regardless of
whether we know these debtors personally or whether
these debts are large or small, old or new, we are
authorized legally to dispose of them either by claiming
them or by forgiving them. All that is needed is an oral
declaration stating the manner in which we have
disposed or intend to dispose of them. 503 Verse 12b is
such a declaration.
It is therefore important to understand that vs 12b is a
necessary part of the petition. 504 It is required by the
theology of justice that underlies the entire Lord's
Prayer. It is simply a matter of justice that we have done
all we can when we come before God as petitioners to ask
for mercy. Otherwise, such an appeal would become
itself an instance of injustice; it would create new
injustice instead of redeeming the old. 505 God as the
upholder of justice must not be asked to endorse
injustice. The peculiar situation exists therefore that the
petitioners, even though they find themselves in the
condition of injustice (vs 12a), still need a basis of justice
to make a justifiable appeal for mercy (vs 12b). 506

500 See the surveys in Tholuck, Bergrede, 390-94
(Commentary, 353-57); Carmignac, Recherches, 232-
35; and the special studies dealing with the history of
interpretation.
501 A subsidiary question is whether the phrase "as we
forgive" implies a limitation of the forgiveness.
Against this assumption see Charles F. D. Moule, "'As
We Forgive ... ': A Note on the Distinction between
Deserts and Capacity in the Understanding of
Forgiveness," in Ernst Bammel, C. Kingsley Barrett,
and William D. Davies, eds., Donum Gentilicium: New
Testament Studies in Honour of David Daube (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1978) 68-77.
502 For this term see also Matt 18:24; Luke 13:4; Rom
1:14; 8:12; 15:27; Gai5:3;Jas 3:2; Did. 8.2; Polycarp
Phil. 6.1: "We are all debtors of sin" (.,.&vns l>~P••ll.tra& 505 The same idea is presupposed in SM/Matt 5:21-26,
E<Tj.ltV aj.laprlas). See BAGD, s.v. lli/>EIAlT1JS.
503 In Roman law, this is called acceptilatio. See Watson,
Law of Obligations, 211, 213-14, with further
literature.
504 Some scholars still think that vs 12b cannot have
been part of the "original" Lord's Prayer because
none of the other petitions has an analogous
statement. This argument is not convincing,
however, because it proposes that the "original"
prayer must have been formally "pure" and free from
theological interpretation. For the assumption that vs
12b is "secondary" see Lohmeyer, "Our Father," 180-
84; Jeremias, Theology, 195-96; Schiirmann, Gebel,
118-26; Fiedler,jesus und die Sunder, 204-5;
Strecker,Bergpredigt, 125 (Sermon, 120-21); Schwarz,
"Undjesussprach," 218-19.
esp. vs 24; Matt 18:32-33: "I cancelled the whole of

404
 Matthew 6:1-18

• 13 The sixth and last petition 507 concems the problem
of evil: "And lead us not into temptation but deliver us
from (the) evil (one)" (Kat p.~ £lcr£v£-yK!JS ~#Las £ls
1mpacr#LOV, a..\Aa {/vera& ~#LaS a7J'O TOV 71'0V7JpOv). 508 While
the petition agrees verbatim with Did. 8.2, the parallel
(fifth) petition in Luke 11 :4 has only one line: "And do
not lead us into temptation" (Kat#-'~ £lcr£v£-yK!JS ~#Las £ls
71'£tpacr#Lov). 509 This situation raises the question whether
the second line in vs 13b is a secondary interpretation
added to vs 13a, or, if not, what the relationship between
the two lines is. The position of the second line, vs 13b,
seems uncertain in respect to parallels, where it is
missing. Mark 14:38 has a parallel only to the first line:
"Stay awake and pray that you not come into temptation"
('YP7J'Y0plin Kat 11'pOCT£VX£CT8£, rva p.~ [A.87JT£ £ls 71'£&pacrp.ov).
Polycarp Phil. 7.2 is related to the concept of the all-
seeing God, 510 and a parallel to the saying is cited also in
Mark 14:38 ("The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak"):
"asking in prayers the all-seeing God not to lead us into
temptation" (a£~cr£crtv alToV~L£Vo& TOV 71'aVT071'T7JV 8£ov p.~
£lcr£v£-yKliv ~p.as £ls 71'£tpacr#Lov). 5 11
Before tuming to the most difficult problems of the
interpretation of this petition, one must address the
question of its place in the Lord's Prayer. The compo-
sition of the prayer as well as its intemallogic suggests
that its proper place at the end is intended. Opening the
second set of three petitions, the fourth begins with the
most obvious and eternal need of humanity, that of the
daily bread (vs 11 ). The fifth petition tums to the more
subtle dilemma of human sinfulness. This petition looks
toward the past and its obligations carried over
unredeemed into the present (vs 12). Verse 13 shifts the
focus from past to future sins (vs 13a), in order then to
tum back to the beginning and raise the issue of evil
constituting all sins (vs 13b). Clearly, vs 13 forms the
climax of all petitions, and the last word, "evil," names
the issue that has been in the picture from the beginning.
Evil is thereby implicitly defined as the absence of justice:
the absence of sanctification of the divine name, the
absence of God's kingdom, the disobedience to God's
will, and so on-the outcome of all this, not its origin, is

your debt when you appealed to me; ought you not
to have shown mercy to your fellow-servant just as I
showed mercy to you?" (REB) ('ll"aaav T~V of/IE&A~V
t«£lV71V O..ij,ccl uo&, Ew£1 wap£Kd.A£ud.S' p.E" olnc E~E& Kal uE
lAEfj<TaL TbV atlv~OVAOV aov, .;,r Kayro <TE 1}At7J<Ta;). cr.
also Matt 20:I3-I6. Related also are the legal
principles of "measure for measure" (SP/Luke 6:38)
and the Golden Rule (SM/Matt 7: I2//SP/Luke
6:3I).
506 For this theological reason the redactor of the SM
has added the provision in 6:I4-I5 (see below); it
simply spells out what vs I2 also presupposes.
507 Following some ancient authors, Strecker (Berg-
predigt, I28 [Sermon, I2I]) sees in vs I3b the seventh 51 I It is thus not certain whether Polycarp was familiar
and last petition (see below, n. 565). For the whole
petition see Davis McCaughey, "Matthew 6: 13A: The
Sixth Petition ofthe Lord's Prayer," AusBR 33
(I985) 3I-40; Wiard Popkes, "Die letzte Bitte des
Vater-Unser: Formgeschichtliche Beobachtungen
zumGebetJesu," ZNW8I (I990) I-20.
508 The minuscule I 7 and the V g (vgd) conclude the
Lord's Prayer here with the responsorial "Amen"
(O.,.~v), while other manuscripts and the Didache (8.2)
have a doxology. See the excursus below on the
doxology.
509 The older textual tradition of Luke II :4c has only
this one line (P75 M*2 B L Jl 700 pc vg sy' sa boP'
Marcion Tertullian Origen), while other manuscripts
add a second line, no doubt from Matt 6: 13b (M 1 A C
D W 0 'It Jl3 33. 892. I006. I506 9.lt it vgmss sy"·P·h
boP'). This situation clearly means that the original
Lukan version had only one line, and that the
addition of the second line in some manuscripts was
due to the liturgical influence on the tradition. It
does not necessarily mean, however, that the Lukan
shorter petition was historically the "original" one.
Differently, A.J. B. Higgins, "'Lead us not into
temptation': Some Latin Variants," JTS 46 (I945)
I79-83. See also Metzger, Textual Commentary, I 56.
5IO On this concept see above, pp. 339-40.
with the Matthean or Lukan form of the Lord's
Prayer, or with Mark I4:38, or with still other
traditions. Cf. also I Cor IO:I3;John I7:11, I5; 2
Thess 3:3; 2 Tim 4:I8;Jas I:I3; 2 Pet 2:9; Rev 3:IO.
Also close is the parallel in the Apocryphon ofjames
(NHC I, 2, 4.I8-3I ): "Grant us not to be tempted by
the devil, the evil one" (trans. according to Robinson,
Nag Hammadi Library, 3I ). See Ron Cameron, Sayings
Traditions in the Apocryphon ofJames (HTS 34;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 78-81.

405
evil. Evil by its very existence lures human beings into
committing evil deeds, which explains what temptations
are (vs 13a).
Taking up now the problems of the petition in detail,
the formulation of vs 13a, "Lead us not into temptation,"
seems to suggest that God is the one who leads into
temptation. This suggestion has caused much conster-
nation and a flurry of apologetic proposals to explain
away the problem, a debate that continues until the
present day. 512 Seeing it this way appears to involve the
problem of theodicy. Is God instrumental in tempting
human beings, and, as a result, is he enticing them to
commit evil deeds? Is God, therefore, a cause of evil?5 l!1
The question we need to ask at this point is, Does the
Lord's Prayer presuppose awareness of the theodicy
problem? 514 Or does the Prayer raise this issue
inadvertently, so that we notice it only from our later
perspective? Or has the question of theodicy been
introduced unintentionally by a philological infelicity,
when the Aramaic source was translated into Greek, as
many assume? In other words, is the problem the fault of
the Greek translators who failed to think theologically
when they were translating?
it is true that, even according to the Old Testament,
God has been seen as the one who puts people, especially
the righteous and the wise, to the test. 515 Wisdom
literature especially took temptation by God to be part of
his strategy of education. 516 This same wisdom
literature, however, also expresses doubts about this view
of temptation. The wisdom teachers apparently realized
that when God is tempting people he may want only to
test them, but such testing may in effect turn into
enticing to commit evil acts. Or people who fail the test
may end up doing evil, thus implicating God himself in
the promotion of evil. Because God represents justice,
however, such implication in causing evil is unacceptable.
Consequently, various doctrines were developed in order
to prevent doubts about God being a righteous God.
These apologetic explanations could put the blame on
Satan as the one who actually carries out the temptations,
while God remains the one who also keeps Satan on a
leash. 517 Or the cause of evil was sought in human
nature; it is attributed to the "desires" of emotions, the
"evil heart," or to the ~evil inclination" (ye~er hiirii') of
rabbinic Judaism, or to the "evil spirits" of the Qumran
texts. 518

512 For the surveys ofthe history of exegesis see
Tholuck, Bergrede, 394-404 (Commentary, 357-65);
Carmignac, Recherches, 236-319; Charles F. D.
Moule, "An Unsolved Problem in the Temptation-
Clause in the Lord's Prayer," Reformed Theological
Review 33 (1974) 65-75.
513 See the excursus on the theodicy problem above, pp.
313-15.
514 Tertullian was certainly aware of the theodicy
problem when he introduced an interpretation
saying that God is without fault, but human beings
must ask God for forgiveness. For references see
Chase, Lord's Prayer, 133-36. For Origen's long
expositions see De orat. 29.1-19; 30.1-3 (GCS 3.2.2,
pp. 381-95); and Gessel, Theologie, 160-66. See also
Ps.-Clem. Hom. 3.6-28, 55-57; 15.8; 19.1-25; Rec.
3.15-23; 9.55-56; 10.3.
515 For the OT material and bibliography, see Franz].
Helfmeyer, "l"'~~ nissii.h," ThWAT 5 (1985) 473-87.
The great OT examples are the temptations of
Adam and Eve (Gen 3:1:...19), Abraham (Gen 22:1-
19), and job (book ofjob). The LXX has added to
the importance of the notion of temptation; see
Joachim Hans Kom, IIE1PAI:MOI:: Die Versuchung
des Gliiubigen in der griechischen Bibel (BWANT 4.20;
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 193 7); Cornelius B. Houk,
"ITnpaiTp.Os, the Lord's Prayer and the Massah
Tradition," SJT 19 (1966) 216-25; Heikki Raisanen,
The Idea ofDivine Hardening: A Comparative Study of the
Notion ofDivine Hardening, Leading Astray, and Inciting
to Evil in the Bible and the Qu 'ran (Publications of the
Finnish Exegetical Society 25; Helsinki: Finnish
Exegetical Society, 1972). For the NT specifically,
see Hermann Seesemann, "wEipa KTA.," TDNT 6.28-
36; Fiedler,jesus und die Sunder, 255-59; Wiard
Popkes, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. wE&paiTp.Os; Spicq, Notes,
3.548-59, with further bibliography; Seung Ai Yang,
"The Original Intention of the Longer Version of
the Temptation Story of jesus (Matt 4:1-i 1; Luke
4:1-13): A Jewish Story of God's Testing ofthe
Righteous Man jesus" (Ph.D. diss., University of
Chicago, 1992).
516 See esp. LXX Pss 17:30; 26:2; 66:8-12; 139:1, 23-
24;Job 1:21-22 and passim; Sir 2:1-18; 4:17; 33:1;
34:9-12; 44:20; Wis 2:24; 3:5-6; 11:9-10; 16:8;
Tob 12:13; 1 Mace 2:52; T.jos. 2.7; 'Abot 5.3, etc.
See also Helfmeyer, ThWAT 5.485-86 (111.2.e);
Georg Bertram, "wa&llEla, wa&llE11m," TDNT 5.596-
626; Paul Blomenkamp, "Erziehung," RAG 6 (1966)
502-59; Sieben, Voces, s.v. wa&llEla.
517 See Sir 21:27, and often. See Werner Foerster and
Knut Schaferdiek, "fTarava.s," TDNT 7.151-65;
ThWNT 10/2.1261-62; Otto Bocher, EWNT
(EDNT) 3, s.v.; and BAGD, s.v. fTarav.

406
 Matthew 6:1-18

The greatest testimony to this development is the
book of Job, and it is interesting that the LXX version is
the most determined to develop a concept of temptation
along the lines of Hellenistic thinking. 519 According to
Job, God himself does not carry out the temptation, but
he leaves it to Satan, and that only up to a point: "The
LoRD said to Satan: 'So be it. All that he has is in your
hands; only Job himself you must not touch'" (Job 1:12
[NEB]). When Job proves steadfast, Satan is allowed to
increase the pressure: "So be it. He is in your hands; but
spare his life" (2:6 [NEB]). Although Job goes through
the horrors of temptation, in the end both Job and God
are justified (42:2-6, 7-17). 520
Various passages in the New Testament presuppose
reflection and debates in early Christian circles about the
nature of temptation and God's role in it. Whether the
petition in the Lord's Prayer was important in these
deliberations we cannot tell; the texts in question do not
explicitly refer to the Lord's Prayer. These passages are,
however, aware of the theodicy problem.
It is noteworthy that a flat contradiction to what the
Lord's Prayer says 521 is found in the Epistle of James.
This epistle, which has much in common with the SM, is
to a large extent devoted to the subject of temptation
(seeJas 1:1-3, 12). 522 The teaching on temptation is
summed up in a few lines inJas 1:12-15; this summary is
the opposite of the sixth petition, when it says ( 1: 13 ):
No one under temptation shall say, 'I am being
tempted by God'; for God is not subject to temptation
by evils, and he himself tempts no one.
(my trans.)
M7]B£1s 7Tupa(6JLWO!> A£y,Tw Cin imo Bwv 7THpa(oJ.tat· o
yap 8£0!> Ct7T£lpacrTIJ!> Ecrnv KaK(;>V, 7THpa(u B£ aVTO!>
ovB,va.
Instead, evil is explained as the result of the individual's
natural "desires" (ht8vJ.tlat) that are used and abused by a
demonic force called "Desire" (7} E7TL8vJ.tla). Personified
Desire gives birth to sin, and sin when matured produces
death (1:14-15). 523 Scholars agree that Sir 15:11-20
forms the background for Jas 1:13. Ben Sira as a whole is
very much involved with the problem of theodicy (Sir
15:11-20): 524
Do not say, "The Lord is to blame for my failure"; 5 2 5
it is for you to avoid doing what he hates. Do not say,
"It was he who led me astray"; 526 he has no use for
sinful men. The Lord hates every kind of vice; you
cannot love it and still fear him. When he made man
in the beginning, he left him free to take his own
decisions; if you choose you can keep the command-
ments; whether or not you keep faith is yours to
decide. He has set before you fire and water; reach
out and take what you choose; before man lie life and
death, 52 7 and whichever he prefers is his. For in his

518 See Jean Hadot, Penchant mauvais et volonte libre dans
Ia Sagesse de Ben Sira (L 'Ecclesiastique) (Brussels:
Presses universitaires; 1970); Hermann Lichten-
berger, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der
Qumrangemeinde (SUNT 15; Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1980).
519 See esp. LXX Job 7:1: 71'0T<pov ovxt7r€1par~p10V E<TTIV
0 {llos O.v8pdl7rov lw'r. Tfjs yfjs Ka'r. &u7rEp fLLCT8lov
av8'1//.I€PIVOV ~ (w~ avrov; ("Is not the [course of] life
of the human being on earth [a trial and] temptation,
and his life [i.e., survival]like that of a day laborer?").
See also Origen De orat. 29.1-2 (GCS 3.2.2, pp. 381-
82).
520 For the doctrines about Job's temptation, see Georg
Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob (KAT 16; Giitersloh: Mohn,
1963) 102-3, 157,194, 231;JiirgenEbach, "Hiob,"
TRE 15 (1986) 360-80.
521 There is no indication, however, that the Epistle of
James knew the Lord's Prayer. For a different view,
see Jeremias, Prayers, 104.
522 The example of Job is mentioned in Jas 5:11.
523 For the interpretation, see the commentaries on the
Epistle of James, esp. Dibelius,james, 90-92; also
Peter H. Davids, "The Meaning of i'm£lpauro~ in
James l.l3," NTS 24 (1978) 386-92; Spicq, Notes,
3.554-55; BAGD, s.v. aw£lpauro~.
524 See Hadot, Penchant (see above, n. 518), passim;
James L. Crenshaw, "Popular Questioning of the
Justice of God in Ancient Israel," ZAW 82 (1970)
380-95; idem, "The Problem ofTheodicy in Sirach:
On Human Bondage," JBL 94 (1975) 47-64; Gian
Luigi Prato, II problema della teodicea in Ben Sira:
Composizione dei contrari e richiamo aile origini (AnBib
65; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1975); Hengei,judaism
and Hellenism, 1.138-53, and index, s.v. Theodicy.
525 Sir 15: 11a: "Do not say, 'The Lord is to blame for
my going astray'" (REB) (M~ £rwn~ i5n ~.a K-6ptov
lz.?TICTT7JV).
526 Ibid., 15: 12a: "Do not say, 'It was he who led me into
error'" (REB)(,..~ d7ry~ i5n Avro~ /.1€ ewA<iv.,uw).
527 Ibid., 15:17: "Mortals are offered life and death:
whichever he prefers will be given him" (my trans.)
(Evavr'r. &.v8pC:>7rwv ~ {w~ Ka'r. 0 B&.varos, Ka'r. 8 ECr.v
£vaoK~uy, ao8~oua1 avri!>). Cf. SM/Matt 7:13-14.

407
 great wisdom and mighty power the Lord sees
everything. 5 2 8 He keeps watch over those who fear
him; no human act escapes his notice. But he has
commanded no man to be wicked, nor has he given
license to commit sin. (NEB)
The theodicy question was no doubt widely discussed in
Hellenistic Judaism and in early Christianity. 52 9 Since
the SM shows interest in the question as well, it becomes
more probable that also the Lord's Prayer was familiar
with it. Since the Prayer is not "naive" but the result of
critical reflection, the formulation of the sixth petition
can be assumed to reflect the problem of theodicy in a
special way. 530
A different apologetic attempt to exonerate God is
made in 1 Cor 10:13:
Temptation has not come upon you except human [sc.
humanly bearable temptation]. God is faithful who
will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you can
(endure), but he will provide together with the
temptation also the way out to enable (you) to sustain
(it). (my trans.) 531
Paul also agrees that God does the tempting, but that he
does so with two restrictions: (1) he only allows it to
happen, leaving open who the actual tempter is; 532 (2)
the temptation goes only as far as human weakness can
endure it because more would constitute unfairness and
thus cause injustice. 533 The limit takes the form of a way
528 Ibid., I5:I9: "And his eyes are on those who fear
him, and he knows every deed of a human being"
(my trans.) (KaL o1lup8a!l.p.oL avrov l'JTL TOLf <Pof3ovp.,V01f
aVr&v, KaL aVrhs f7TL'}'Vc1JCT£Tat ?Tau fpyou avepC:nrov). Cf.
SM/Matt 6:4, 6, I8. On the all-seeing god see above,
nn. 67-68.
529 Against Strecker, Bergpredigt, 127 (Sermon, I27); Luz,
Matthiius, 1.349 (Matthew, 1.384-85).
530 Cf. also the apologetic argument concerning some
teachings of jesus, esp. those from the SM, inPs.-
Clem. Hom. 3.55.2: "And to those who suppose that
God tempts, as the Scriptures say, He said, 'The
Tempter is the wicked one'" (rolf a~ olop.,votf 8n o
8Ebf "1TEtpa(Et" (rof a[ ypa<j>at !l.'yovutv) f</J7J" "o 1TOV''IP0f
furr.v 0 wnp&.(wv)."
53 I For the problems of interpretation, see the
commentaries, esp. Charles Kingsley Barrett, A
Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians
(London: Black, I968) 229; Conzelmann, 1
Corinthians, I69.
532 Cf. 1Tap,awKEV ("he handed over") in Rom I:24-29
(cf. I:I8); Gal3:23-24. According to Paul elsewhere,
408
out, by which the temptation in some unspecified way
becomes tolerable. 534 Under no circumstances will Paul
allow the proposition that God is unjust: "Is there
injustice with God? Certainly not!" (p.~ aSLKla 1Tapiz ri!J 8£i!J;
J.L~ ytVOLTO ). 535
How do these passages compare with the Lord's
Prayer? Nowhere else in the New Testament is there so
unqualified an injunction to pray for escape from
temptation. 536 The closest parallel is no doubt Mark
14:36: "Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee;
remove this cup from me; yet not what I will but what
thou wilt" (RSV). The passage has been said to depend on
Matt 6:13, but Mark shows no evidence that the Lord's
Prayer was known to him, and the passage does not say
that God is the tempter. 1 Cor 10:13 speaks only of God
permitting temptation to occur, not that God is actually
the tempter. For Paul, the devil is the tempter. None of
these passages, therefore, can solve the question of the
sixth petition in Matt 6:13. The fundamental problem in
6:13, as it has been seen since antiquity, is that
temptation is here understood as entirely negative, as an
experience generating evil. The possibility that God
leads one into such an experience, unless the petitioner
stops him from doing so, strains one's imagination. Faced
with these problems, later scribes and commentators
have taken refuge in sophisticated explanations to
eliminate the offense. Some church fathers apply the
the tempter is Satan (1 Thess 3:5; Gal4:I4; 5:7; 6:I;
I Cor 7:5; cf. also Matt 4:I-II par.; I Tim 6:9; Rev
2: I 0; etc.).
533 The underlying idea seems to be that justice (equity)
requires that demands on humanity be compatible
with limitations set by human nature. Cf. the
somewhat different application of the principle in
Acts I5:IO, 28; Did. 6.2.
534 The term fK{3autf ("way out," "escape") is not clear.
Does it refer to an exemption from the temptation
altogether or the provision of strength to endure it?
See also Moule, "Unsolved Problem," 74; BAGD, s.v.
fK{3aurs.
535 Rom 9:I4; cf. Matt 20:I3.
536 Cf. also john I7:I5; I John 5:I8; 2 Pet 2:9; Rev
3: I 0, passages that speak of protection from evil in
situations of temptation.

same principle that Paul cites in 1 Cor 10: 13, adding to
the petition in vs 13 the phrase "which we cannot
bear." 537 Or the petition is understood to say, "Do not
allow us to be led into temptation," 538 or, "Leave us not
in temptation. " 539 Marcion wanted to read in Luke 11 :4:
"Do not allow us to be dragged into temptation" (p.~ acpfis
~p.as du€v€x8ijvat €ts 7rnpaup.ov). 540 This permissive sense
may also be present in the Syriac, and it may derive from
the use of the Lord's Prayer in catechetical instruc-
tion. 541 Yet, one cannot accept any of these texts as
softening Matt 6: 13, which names God as the cause of
temptation. One can see how offensive this petition is
even to modern interpreters from the fact that some try
to find philological grounds by which to justify the
church fathers and their efforts to arrive at an inof-
fensive text. 542
Despite a note of caution by Jean Carmignac, 543
Charles F. D. Moule thinks that the term €tucp€pnv
should not be taken too literalistically: "'lead' (or, more
accurately, 'bring') 'us not into' need mean no more than
'do not let us be brought into' by analogy to the 'deliver
us from evil (or the evil one)' ofthe clause." 544 But the
verb €tucp€p€tV €LS stands in antithesis to vs 13b (j/vuat
537 For the following I am depending on A.J. B.
Higgins, "'Lead us not into temptation': Some Latin
Variants, • JTS 46 (1945) 179-83. The fathers
making this addition are Hilary of Poitier, "In Ps.
XCVIII," CSEL 22, p. 369; Ps.-Ambrose De sacr.
5.4.29 (PL 16.473);Jerome, "In Ezech. XLVIII.16"
(PL 25.485).
538 So Tertullian De orat. 8; idem, Adv. Marc. 4.26;
Cyprian De dominica oratione 25, and others; cf.
Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 2.9.30: "Ne patiaris
nos induci in tentationem."
539 Hilary, "In Ps. CXVIII," CSEL 22, p. 369: "Non
derelinquas nos in temptatione."
540 See Harnack, Marcion, 207*; Metzger, Textual
Commentary, 156.
541 On this point see Geoffrey G. Willis, "Lead us not
into temptation," Downside Review 93 (1975) 281-88.
542 This must also be said of the solution offered by
Johannes Heller, S.J. ("Die sechste Bitte des
Vaterunser," ZKT 25 [1901]85-93), which
Carmignac (Recherches, 292-94, 437-45) favors.
Heller argues on the basis of Mark 14:38 par. that
£l<T£A8£'iv £1~ wupa<Tp.Ov equals £l<T.pip£1V £1~ 7r£tpa<Tp.Ov
because both conform to Hebrew~ IC1:ll ("enter into")
in the sense of entering into an agreement. One
would therefore have to render the sixth petition:
"Let us not consent to temptation" ("Und gib, dass
Matthew 6:1-18
a7ro), so that both verbs describe contrasting acts:
"leading into" and "leading out of. "545
Another possibility for solving the problem is inherent
in the different meanings of the term 7rnpaup.os
("temptation"). 546 In the present context this term can
refer (1) to "enticement to sin," that is, an "inward
psychological allurement"; 547 (2) to a "test" through
external circumstances, either by the normal conditions
of life 548 or by special times of testing and trial such as
the "messianic woes" of apocalypticism. 549 When
examined more closely, however, these possibilities do
not provide any solution to the problem of SM/Matt
6:13: "Why should anyone pray to escape testing-even
if it is testing by the devil and constitutes temptation? If
one knows that testing and temptation are inevitable; if
one knows that, before the glorious climax of God's final
triumph, there will be inescapable testing of an
exceptionally severe kind; if, moreover, one knows that
testing can be salutary and that the Lord himself has
pioneered the way through it to spiritual effectiveness-
then what is the logic of praying for exemption?•550
Is the problem then insoluble? "Have we, perhaps,
reached a position where we are confronted by a logical
wir in keine Versuchung einwilligen" or "Und lass
uns nicht in Versuchung einwilligen").
543 Carmignac, Recherches, 246, 254-55, 282, 284-90.
544 Moule, "Unsolved Problem" (see above, n. 512), 65-
66.
545 The term d<T.pipro ("bring" or "lead someone into")
occurs in all citations of the Lord's Prayer (Matt
6:13; Luke 11:4; Did. 8.2; PolycarpPhil. 7.2). See
Konrad Weiss, "d<T.pipro," TDNT 9.64-65; Carmig-
nac, Recherches, 268-92; BAGD, s.v. £l<T</>tpro, 2.
546 For this term see Hermann Seesemann, "w£'ipa ICTA.,"
TDNT6.23-36; ThWNT 10/2.1226-28; Carmignac,
Recherches, 255-68; Wiard Popkes, EWNT (EDNT) 3,
s.v. wup&(ro KTA.; BAGD, s.v. wnp&(ro, wupa<Tp.O~.
547 Moule, "Unsolved Problem" (see above, n. 512), 66.
548 These could also be taken as an eschatological
conflict between God and the devil; see Karl Georg
Kuhn, "ITupa<Tp.Os-&p.aprla-<T&pt im Neuen Testament
und die damit zusammenhangenden Vorstellungen,"
ZThK 49 (1952) 200-22, esp. 218.
549 So esp. Jeremias, Theology, 202.
550 Moule, "Unsolved Problem" (see above, n. 512), 71.
409
inconsequence, but one which expresses a psychological
insight?" 551 This possibility is indeed intriguing. In
referring to Luke 21:36 and Mark 14:36 for support,
Moule asks, "Is it, then, true humility not to intellec-
tualize, not to be over-logical, but, realizing one's own
weakness, to pray for escape even from what seems
inevitable ('all these things that are going to happen'),
while, at the same time, offering one's obedience: 'thy
will be done'?" 55 2 Moule leaves the question open,
suggesting instead that people have always understood it
to mean, "Let us not succumb to temptation when we are
tested. "553 And, he adds, vs 13b may represent "one of
the earliest interpretations in precisely this sense. " 554 But
Moule's suggestion has two problems. First, it resorts to
the theological presupposition that religious truth is in
essence illogical, that is, irrational. The Lord's Prayer
would in this sense be an impressive testimony to
religious humility, but it would also be a truthful attitude
because it conforms to real insights into the paradoxes of
human behavior. Thus, the prayer's truth would be that
it is an expression of human irrationality; it confirms
psychology, not theology. This interpretation, therefore,
does not account for my quite different presupposition,
according to which the Lord's Prayer is the result of
theological rethinking ofJewish theology concerning
prayer. The second difficulty with Moule's view is that
the words of vs 13a do not actually say what they are
made to say. 555
In order to approach the problem, one does well to
consider the most important presuppositions as I set
them forth in the Introduction to the section on cultic
instruction. Accordingly, the Lord's Prayer is the
expression of a theological critique of the practice and
conception of prayer. One must therefore take the
petition of vs 13a as a theological statement. Moreover,
the primary context for interpreting the petition is the
Lord's Prayer itself, and then other Jewish prayers of the
time that are comparable. Finally, the hermeneutical
goal should not be to remove the offensiveness of the
statement but to explain what it means.
Jewish prayers preserved from a later time may allow
one to suppose that either they or their antecedents were
in use at the time ofJesus. Of special interest in this
regard is the prayer cited in b. Ber. 60b:
Blessed is He who causes the bands of sleep to fall
upon my eyes and slumber on my eyelids, and gives
light to the apple of the eye. May it be Thy will, 0
Lord my God, to make me lie down in peace, and set
my portion in Thy Law, and accustom me to the
performance of religious duties, but do not accustom ·
me to transgression, and bring me not into the power
of sin, or into the power of iniquity, or into the power
of temptation, or into the power of contempt. And
may the good inclination have sway over me. And
deliver me from evil hap and sore diseases, and let not
evil dreams and evil thoughts disturb me, and may my
couch be flawless before Thee, and enlighten mine
eyes lest I sleep the sleep of death. Blessed are Thou,
0 Lord, who givest light to the whole world in Thy
glory.556
This prayer clearly expresses rabbinic theology.
Accordingly, God is asked to desist from "bringing into,"
among other things, temptation, but the weight lies on
God's prevention of becoming overwhelmed by the evil
inclination and hence by "the power of sin, the power of
guilt, the power of temptation, and the power of
contempt. " 557 It appears that the only real differences
between this prayer and the Lord's Prayer are the
specifics, respectively, of rabbinic theology and the
theology ofJesus.

551 Ibid., 75. altemative paraphrase is "Garde-nous de consentir a

552 Ibid. Ia tentation" ("Guard us from consenting to
553 This interpretation resembles that ofJeremias temptation"). See Carmignac, Recherches, 397; cf. 445
(Theology, 202), who bases it on a hypothetical (see also above, n. 543).
Aramaic antecedent: "Do not let us fall victim to 556 According to the (modified) translation by Lachs
temptation." (Rabbinic Commentary, 122). See also Str-B 1.422;
554 Moule, "Unsolved Problem," 75. Dalman, Worte]esu, 344-47.
555 This is also true of Carmignac's own solution: "Et fait 557 According to the translation of Str-B 1.422.
que nous n'entrions pas dans Ia tentation" ("And
bring it about that we do not enter into temptation").
According to his rendering, it is "we" who get
ourselves into temptation, unless God prevents it. His

410
 Matthew6:1-18

I conclude, therefore, that one must leave the
provocative or even offensive language of the sixth
petition as it stands. Contrary to later apologetics, the
older wisdom concept, according to which God is the
tempter, is here reaffirmed. 558 This reaffirmation
implies an awareness and careful consideration of
alternative solutions as they are suggested in other
contemporary sources, including parts of the New
Testament. Whatever alternatives Jesus himself may
have had in mind, they are rejected by implication.
Neither Satan nor other people and not even ourselves
are those who lead into temptation. Temptation is
inevitable indeed, and the one who is the ultimate cause
of this inevitability is God himself. This reaffirmation of
the older wisdom position seems to imply also that the
alternative solutions are recognized for what they are;
they exist to obscure the fact that in the final analysis the
cause of temptation can only be God himself. This
conclusion also leads back to the invocatio (vs 9b), in
which the petitioners see themselves confronted with
God and no one else.
This consideration also brings us back to the Lord's
Prayer as a whole, in the context of which the sixth
petition must make sense. What sense then does it make
theologically when we pray, "Do not lead us into
temptation"? In this larger context, too, the one who
leads into temptation is the heavenly Father (vs 9b). One
must not misinterpret his testing as insidiousness or
perniciousness, as a "method of education," or as a
gamble arranged between God and Satan. The
temptation confronting humanity is nothing but the lure
of existing evil (vs 13b). Although temptation and evil
are not the same, the latter works as an enticement to
commit evil deeds. Therefore, God leads into temptation
by allowing evil to persist. The subsequent question then
is, What does evil consist of and how is it present? This
question is implicitly answered by the first three petitions
of the Lord's Prayer. Evil consists of the deficiencies
named in these petitions: the lack of sanctification of
God's name, the absence of the kingdom of God on
earth, and the resistance by humanity against the will of
God (vss 9b-10c). By granting these petitions, God
would in effect eliminate the source of evil forever, so
that by not granting them God allows this evil to persist
and thus to exert its lure of temptation. One can see,
therefore, that the Lord's Prayer as a whole agrees with
the words of the sixth petition and that what is offensive
about it finds an explanation within this context. 559
On this same basis one can now proceed to clarify the
difficult second line of the sixth petition (vs 13b): "but
rescue us from the evil" (aA.A.a pfJCTaL .qp.ar; a'lTO rov
'lTOV71POv). One can hardly have any doubt that this
second line is in some sense an interpretation of the first.
At the same time one must see this second line within the
framework of the prayer as a whole. The difficulties of
this line have been clearly identified by the exegetical
literature. They concern two issues: the relationship
between vs 13b and vs 13a, and the gender ofthe
genitive rov 'lTOV71POV, which can be neuter ("evil") or
masculine ("the evil one," i.e., Satan). The relationship
between the two lines has to some extent already been
discussed. Taken by itself, vs 13b seems to come from
traditional Jewish prayer formulae. 560 The prayer from
b. Ber. 60a, cited above, also includes a similar petition,
and so does the seventh petition of the Shemoneh Esreh:
"Look on our affliction and plead our cause, and redeem
us speedily for thy Name's sake; for thou art a mighty
redeemer. Blessed art thou, Lord, redeemer oflsrael." 561

558 On the theological problem, see esp. the detailed
explanations by Origen De orat. 29-30 (GCS 3.2.2,
pp. 381-95).
559 For the SM as a whole, esp. vs 13b amounts to a
redemption from "lawlessness" (avop.la [7:23]); see
5:17-20, 7:12,21-23. In Matthew's theology, the
emphasis is as much on "lawlessness" as it is on
"righteousness" (see 13:41; 23:28; 24:12: avop.la; for
li&Ka&o<rVII7J see 3:15 and the passages listed above on
SM/Matt 5: I 0). See also Baumbach, Das Verstiindnis
des Bosen, 76-77.
560 For parallels see Str-B 1.422-23; Dalman, Worte jesu,
347-60. Interesting parallels occur also in Greek
philosophical prayers; see esp. Cleanthes Hymn 33:
av8pal7rOV~ pvov awo Avypfj~ ("rescue humans from
ruin" [my trans.]). Cf. also line 16; Hierocles/n
aureum Pythagoreorum carmen 25.1 (ed. Friedrich
Kohler; BT; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1974). Similar
petitions are also found in common Greek prayers;
for some examples see Wilhelm Kasch, "pvop.a&,"
TDNT 6.999-1000 (B. I. I); also Theiler, Forschungen
zum Neuplatonismus, 316.
561 The translation is from Schiirer, History, 2.457. Cf.
also the prayer in Ps 155:13-15 (IIQPs• 155;

411
The Jewish prayers show that "evil" was understood in a
variety of ways. Within these possibilities, the Lord's
Prayer offers what appears to be a highly original
interpretation, in particular regarding the question of
the nature and origin of evil. Accordingly, "evil" is not
the devil but the result of God's not yet having
completed his work of salvation on earth. This is "the
evil" (To 7TOV1Jpov) that also constitutes the temptation for
humanity.
The petition, then, "Deliver us from evil," sums up the
state of incomplete salvation and the demand to
complete it. If God would grant the first three petitions
(vss 9b-10c) he would simultaneously also grant the sixth
petition. Consequently, vs 13b not only interprets vs 13a
but also the Lord's Prayer as a whole.
In this way one can understand how a traditional
petition such as vs 13b has become an integral element in
a theologically elaborate composition. This integration,
being of a secondary nature, also explains why in the
history of exegesis vs 13b has often been treated as a
separate petition (the seventh petition). 562 Tertullian
even appears to take vs 13b as a liturgical response, when
he says, "The concll¥1ion answers, interpreting what 'do
not lead us into temptation' means; for it means this: but
carry us away from evil" ("Respondet clausula,
interpretans quid sit 'sed devehe nos a malo'"). 56 !1 Other
parallels in the New Testament may also point to a
separate petition. 564 These and the Jewish parallels,
however, confirm that vs 13b could and actually did exist
traditionally as a separate petition, but this fact does not
automatically decide its position and role in the Lord's
Prayer. 565
It is thus because of the peculiar arrangement of the
Lord's Prayer that vs 13b is made a constituent part of
the sixth petition; together with vs 13a it forms an
antithetical parallelism (isocolon). Both lines interpret
each other, a clear difference as compared to Luke
11 :4c, which stands on its own. 566 The conjunction of vs
13b with vs 13a means that one must distinguish
temptation from evil itself. Temptation is not by itself
evil; rather, it is the human agent who commits evil.
Verse 13b adds that more is at stake than merely God's
desisting from temptation. 567 Since the seduction comes
from the existence of ev.ii, only the removal of that evil
will end the temptation. Given the depth of human
entanglement in evil, a divine rescue operation is needed

5ApocSyrPs 3; trans. in OTP 2.622-24); see Devorah excursus on the Lord's Prayer above, section 5 on
Dimant, in Michael Stone, ed., The Jewish Writings of the composition and literary structure. For the
the Second Temple Period (CRINT 2; Assen: Van literary problem in the history of exegesis, see
Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, I984) 560-61. Carmignac, Recherches, 3I2-I 7, who demonstrates
562 For a survey of opinions, see Tholuck, Bergrede, 40I- that the notion of seven petitions goes back to
4 (Commentary, 363-65); Lohmeyer, "Our Father," Tertullian (who treats vs I3a and vs I3b as two
208-29. separate petitions) and to Augustine (for whom the
563 See W. Haller, "Das Herrngebet bei Tertullian: Ein principal number seven is also represented by seven
Beitrag zur Geschichte und Auslegung des beatitudes corresponding to the seven gifts ofthe
Vaterunsers," Zeitschrift for praktische Theologie I2 Holy Spirit). Augustine is then followed by Luther
(I890) 327-54; Schnurr, Horen und handeln, 4I-43. and in the 20th century by Zahn, Matthiius, 283-84;
564 See esp. 2 Pet 2:9 (cf. vs 7); Rom 7:24; II :26 (Isa Klostermann,Matthiiusevangelium, 58; Lohmeyer,
59:20); I5:3I; 2 Cor I:IO; I Thess I:IO; 2 Thess 3:2; "Our Father," 25-29, 209; Grasser, Problem, I04.
Coli:I3; 2 Tim 3:II; 4:I7, IS; Did. 5.2; 8.2; etc. See 566 Cf. Bucer, In sacra quatuor evangelia (I553), 64 recto;
BAGD, s. v. {r6op.a&, with many references; Wilhelm Calvin, Inst. 3.20.46. On this point see Carmignac,
Kasch, "p6op.a&," TDNT6.I002-3; Hermann Recherches, 3I3-I4.
Lichtenberger, EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v. p6op.a&; Berger, 567 For the sense of b.AAa ("but"), see also Carmignac,
"Hellenistische Gattungen," II70. Recherches, 3I6-I 7.
565 Strecker (Bergpredigt, I28 [Sermon, I23]) argues
differently and regards vs I3b as the seventh
petition, which does not belong to the "original"
Lord's Prayer because of its absence in the Lukan
parallel version. In his view, vs I3b was added
already in the pre-Matthean church so as to complete
the number seven, which he takes to have been one
of the means of formal composition of the pre-
Matthean tradition. For this hypothesis see also the

412
 Matthew 6:1-18

to bring it about.
One can now also answer conclusively the question
whether a7Th TOV 7TOV7Jpov ("from the evil") should be
taken as a neuter or masculine. The question was
disputed in the early church almost from the begin-
ning. 568 Most Eastern church fathers took the petition to
refer to the devil, 569 while the Western fathers, except
°
for Tertullian, treated it as neuter. 57 For this reason the
Vg renders: "Iibera nos a malo." 571 Today the problem is
still controversial, although most scholars favor the
neuter. 572
In the SM both the masculine and the neuter of the
adjective 7TOV7Jp6~ ("evil") occur, the former referring to
people generally, 573 and the latter to moral evil. 574 The
identification of the evil one with the devil appears
outside the SM only in Matt 13:19 and 38. 575 In a
liturgical text like the Lord's Prayer, however, too sharp
a distinction between the genders may not be advisable.
Much of the language of prayer is deliberately ambiva-
lent, so as to stimulate the thinking of the orants.
Theologically, the Lord's Prayer tends toward an answer
in favor of the neuter. In another context, however, it
would only be natural to ask further questions regarding
the essence of evil, 576 and then the association with Satan
would not be beside the point. 577 One can also assume as
certain that the power of Satan played an important role
in jesus' thought. Major references to Satan and his
company of demons occur in synoptic passages having to
do with demonology and exorcism, but it is not necessary
to read those issues into the Lord's Prayer. Finally, one
should point out that the sixth petition also defines those
who pray this prayer. While the invocatio (vs 9b) does not
have much to say about who the "we" are, vs 13 offers
more evidence. Verse 13b tells more of the implications
of what living "on earth" (vs 10c) means. Human beings,
we learn, are in a frightening way surrounded by evil,
but together with their precarious situation they are also
surrounded by God (vs 9b). It is, therefore, almost a
natural conclusion to turn to God for mercy and
redemption and to remind him that the only hope for the
human predicament is that he completes what he has
committed himself to accomplish. 578

568 See the surveys in Tholuck, Bergrede, 402-4
(Commentary, 363-65);Joseph Barber Lightfoot,
"The Last Petition of the Lord's Prayer," in his On a
Fresh Revision of the English Nw Testament (London:
Macmillan, 1891) 269-323; Carmignac, Recherches,
306-19; Gunter Harder, "wov7Jp6r," TDNT 6.546-
66, esp. 554-62 (C.II); BAGD, s.v. wov7JpOr 2.b;
Armin Kretzer, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s. v. wov7JpOr, esp.
4.c; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 128-29 (Sermon, 124); Luz,
Matthiius, 1.349 (Matthw, 1.385); Egon Branden-
burger, Das Bose: Eine biblisch-theologische Studie (ThSt
132; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1986) 73-7 5.
569 For a list of the church fathers and later exegetes
holding this view see Lightfoot, "Last Petition,"
passim; Carmignac, Recherches, 308-9.
570 For a list of the fathers and later exegetes holding
this view see Lightfoot, "Last Petition"; Carmignac,
Recherches, 311-13. At the beginning of this tradition
stands Augustine, whose arguments persuaded the
reformers and whose influence is still felt.
571 Although linguistically ambivalent, "a malo" tended
to be felt as a neuter; see Tholuck, Bergrede, 402
(Commentary, 363-64); Carmignac, Recherches, 310.
572 See Carmignac, Recherches, 318-19, 397; Kretzer,
EWNT 3.324 (EDNT 3.135).
573 See SM/Matt 5:45; 6:23; 7:11, 17, 18; SP /Luke
6:35,45.
574 See SM/Matt 5:11,37, 39; SP/Luke 6:22, 45;John
17:15; 2 Tim 4:18; Did. 5.2; 10.5; Barn. 20.2; etc.
See BAGD, s.v. wov7JpOr, 2.c; Harder, TDNT 6.559-
62 (C.II.2.c).
575 See also Mark 4:15; Acts 5:3; 1 Cor 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11;
2 Thess 2:9; Rev 12:9; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 19.2. See
Harder, TDNT 6.558-59 (C.II.2.b); BAGD, s.v.
1rOV7JpOr 2. b.
576 See Lohmeyer, "Our Father," 209-29; Kuhn,
"w£1pacr1-16r" (see above, n. 548), 220-21; Grasser,
Problem, 104-5.
577 See esp. Chase, Lord's Prayer, 103-67. One should
note a long apologetic argument concerning the
existence of the devil and evil in Ps.-Clem. Hom. 19.1-
25. In this context (19.2) the Lord's Prayer is cited as
a proof text: "Also, in the prayer which He delivered
to us, we have it said, 'Deliver us from the evil one.'"
See also Calvin, Inst. 3.20.46: "It makes very little
difference whether we understand by the word 'evil'
the devil or sin."
578 On this point cf. Lohmeyer, "Our Father," 229, who
cites Sir 36:4: "As they [sc. the pagans] have seen
your holiness displayed among us, so let us see your
greatness displayed among them" (REB). Reminding
God of his promises and obligations is a constitutive
element of pleas for mercy (besides Sirach 36 see also
34: 13-35:20).

413

Excursus:
The Doxology
Christian liturgical usage knows a doxology following
SM/Matt 6:13: "For thine is the kingdom and the
power and the glory into the ages. Amen" (iln <Tov
fuTI.V ~ {3autA£la Kai. ~ 0-6vap.1s Kai. 1] 06ta Els rohs- alWvas-.
ap.~v). This doxology, however, was not part of the
"original" Lord's Prayer; it was not part of the
Matthean SM either. The reasons for excluding it are
text-critical: the best and oldest manuscripts do not
have it, 579 and the earliest commentaries on the Lord's
Prayer do not know of it. 580 Also, the parallel in Luke
11 :4 does not have it. 581 In addition, those manu-
scripts that do contain a doxology have it in a variety of
forms. 58 2 Apart from this well-known textual
situation, 583 one needs to consider the following
problems:
1. The text-critical situation raises the question of
the origin of the doxology. Most scholars assume that it
was composed on the basis of 1 Chr 29:11-13, but this
hypothesis raises more questions than it attempts to
answer.Joachimjeremias seems to be right in
providing a functional explanation. 584 According to
him, it was unthinkable that a performance of the
Lord's Prayer should end abruptly on the word
"temptation." Rather, the liturgical order was to end a
prayer with a spontaneous praise that was cited from
memory. This possibility seems indeed to be attractive.
Still, it raises yet another question. While, as an oral
text, the Lord's Prayer could very well have ended
with some kind of praise, what about the written text?
Was the doxology omitted in the written text because
it was self-evident that it should follow? If the prayer
instruction contained only what was necessary and not
self-evident, the written form may have omitted the
579 K B D Z 0170 f' 205 pc !at mae bP' do not have it, but
it is found in L W 0J' 3 33.892. 1006. 1342. 1506
:Dt f g 1 k q sy sa boP'. See the appartus in Nestle-
Aland, and Aland, Synopsis, ad Joe.
580 Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian do not know of it.
581 Interestingly, variant readings do not exist that
would insert it into Luke 11:4. So correctly Aland
and Aland, Text of the NT, 304.
582 1342 k sa Did. (8.2) leave out~ fJa<TLAEla Kat ("the
kingdom and"); syc does not have~ o6vap.1s Kat ("the
power and"), and the Old Latin k reads simply "for
thine is the power." Some late manuscripts make the
doxology trinitarian. The "eternity"-formula
"forever" (dr rohr alwvas) can be expanded into "for
ever and ever" (Els Tohs alWvas rWv alWvwv). Most
manuscripts add the responsive "Amen." See the
critical apparatus in Nestle-Aland; Aland, Synopsis,
414
doxology as a noncontroversial custom that was
understood to be observed anyway. When the Lord's
Prayer later entered into the formal liturgical usage of
the Christian church, the liturgical pressure exerted on
the Prayer may have led to the inclusion of doxologies
current at the time (2d/3d century cE), and this usage
then influenced some copyists of the New Testament
manuscripts. This possibility, while it does not answer
all the problems, would at least mean that the
doxologies attested at present in the manuscripts
cannot have been a part either of the "original" oral
text of the Lord's Prayer or of its written citation in
the SM. If a Jewish doxology was used at the earliest
stage, it must now be considered lost. The doxologies
attested by the manuscript tradition, however, do not
show traces of Christian theology; they arejewish in
formulation and theology. If they are taken from
Christian tradition, they may simply have been
adopted from jewish liturgy. At any rate, the fluidity
of liturgical materials generally should keep one from
constructing a clear line of development from the
prayer instruction to the doxologies found in the
textual tradition of Matthew.
2. If one applies the category of doxology, one
should be aware of a form-critical problem. The
composition lacks the typical elements of a dox-
ology. 585 It does not begin with a dative but with "for"
(iln) and a genitive (cf. Gal1:5; Rom 11:36b; 16:25-
27; Rev 5:13). Therefore, the designation "doxology"
applies only in the general sense (see also Origen De
orat. 14 and 33). Tholuck has questioned the category
of" doxology" and prefers "aetiology" and "ac-
clamation" (£.,,.pcf>v71p.a). 586 Perhaps the original
function of the "doxology" in the Lord's Prayer was
that of a response by the worshiping congregation.
While the prayer was spoken by the liturgist, the
community responded with the "doxology," so that for
87; and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 16-17.
583 To this can now be added the Prayer of Paul the
Apostle from the Nag Hammadi Library, translated
by Layton (Gnostic Scriptures, 305): "[For] thine [is]
the kingdom [and] the glory and the praise and the
[greatness] for ever and ever [Amen]." Cf. Dieter
Muller, in Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, 28.
584 Jeremias, Abba, 153,170-71 (Prayers, 82-84, 106-
7).
585 See Alfred Stuiber, "Doxologie," RAG 4 (1959) 221;
Reinhard Deichgraber, "Liturgische Formeln, II:
Neues Testament und Alte Kirche," TRE 11 (1983)
257-59; Berger, "Hellenistische Gattungen," 1372-
75; idem, Formgeschichte, 231-39.
586 Tholuck, Bergrede, 404-8 (Commentary, 365).

this reason it was not regarded as part of the Lord's
Prayer itself. This possibility is strengthened by the
concluding response "Amen."
3. The doxology does not harmonize with the
Lord's Prayer at some points. It remains unclear to
which referent llr• ("for") refers; it may refer to the
first three petitions or to the whole prayer. Except for
the term "kingdom" ({3arn'J..<la [6:10a]), its language
plays no role in the Prayer itself, nor is it reflected
elsewhere in the SM (cf. Matt 6:33a). Thus, I conclude
that in language, form, and theology, the doxology
came from jewish and Christian liturgy and was
inserted in some manuscripts at a later time. 58 7
Bibliography
Berger, Formgeschichte, 231-39.
Betz, Galatians, 43.
Matthew Black, "The Doxology to the Pater Noster with
a Note on Matthew 6.13B," in Philip R. Davies and
RichardT. White, eds., A Tribute to Geza Vermes:
Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History
OSOTSup 100; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1990) 327-38.
Carmignac, Recherches, 320-33.
Dalman, Worte Jesu, 360-65.
Reinhard Deichgraber, "Liturgische Formeln, II.
Neues Testament und Alte Kirche," TRE II (1983)
256-63, cf. 267.
Gnilka, Matthiiusevangelium, 1.228.
Lohmeyer, "Our Father," 230-46.
Luz, Matthiius, 1.349-50 (Matthew, 1.385).
Niederwimmer, Didache, 171-73.
Str-B 1.423-24.
Strecker, Bergpredigt, Ill (Sermon, 117).
Alfred Stuiber, "Doxologie," RAG 4 (1959) 210-26.
Tholuck, Bergrede, 404-8 (Commentary, 365-68).
• 14 Most interesting is the addition in vss 14-15 of what
appears to be a community rule regarding forgiveness of
sins. The rule has no parallels in the SP or Q, but it does
have parallels elsewhere in Matthew and Mark, and even
in the SM itself. The passage is formulated as an
antithetical isocolon; vs 14 contains a positive and vs 15 a
negative statement. The formulation of vs 14 is chiastic,
587 For the parallels see Str-B 1.423-24; Chase, Lord's
Prayer, 168-76.
588 D* L 788 pc samss omit the y6.p; D 1 omits avrwv; and 591 There is no parallel to vss 14-15 following Luke
0 7 00 it read ;, (v rolr ovpavolr. clearly a harmoni-
zation with the SM elsewhere. Ljl 3 pc lat Basilius
complete the parallelism. See the critical apparatus in
Aland, Synopsis, 87.
589 For this literary concept see above on SM/Matt 5:19.
Matthew 6:1-18
setting forth a conditional case and its consequence:
, Ed.v yap ii.cpiju TOLS av6pc1nrOLS rd. 71'apa71'Tcbp.ara avrwv,
acp~O'EL KaL vp.'iv 0 71'arnp vp.wv 0 ovpavws·. 588
For if you forgive people their transgressions,
so will your heavenly Father forgive you also.
The matter is clearly juridical, and the statement as a
whole belongs to the category of "sentences of sacred
law. "589 This sentence has some basic problems.
If the particle yap ("for") refers back to vs 12, the
question arises in what sense one is to understand this
reference. Are vss 14-15 a subsequent interpretation,
either by Matthew or by his pre-Matthean source, ofvs
12, or ofvss 12-13? Or does the sentence ofvss 14-15
give the legal principle underlying vs 12, or vss 12-13? Is
the insertion of the rule the result of Matthew's
redaction, or has it already been inserted by his source?
As a statement of sacred law, vss 14-15 function as a
principle and not merely as a moral rule or a secondary
interpretation of vs 12. 590 One can also assume that the
rule had an independent existence prior to its inclusion
into the present context. 591 For this reason the
terminology is somewhat different from that of the
Lord's Prayer. Regardless of whether the SM or
Matthew made the insertion, one should expect
references elsewhere in the Gospel, and there are indeed
such references.
The connection with the Lord's Prayer is by
catchword: ii.cpl7Jp.L ("release") occurs in vs 12 and in vss
14-15. As the connection by yap ("for") indicates, there
are theological reasons as well. What are these theo-
logical reasons?
If vs 12 contains a petition and if vss 14-15 are a legal
and theological principle, which comes first logically? Are
vss 14-15 an interpretation 592 or a paraenetical
590 Cf. also Strecker, Bergpredigt, 129-30 (Sermon, 125-
26); Luz, Matthiius, 1.353 (Matthew, 1.389).
11:1-4 and Did. 8.2. Mark 11:25 and 26 are
parallels, but the relationship of this passage to the
SM is complicated (see below, nn. 600, 605).
592 So Strecker (Bergpredigt, 129 [Sermon, 125]), who
regards vss 14-15 as a "typically Matthean inter-
415
application ofvs 12, 593 or is vs 12 an implementation of
the principle ofvss 14-15? The relationship between the
verses seems to be twofold:
First, vss 14-15 seem to precede vs 12 logically in that
the principle is presupposed in its application. If the
petitioners of vs 12a expect that their prayers will be
answered, their expectation is conditional upon their
own readiness to forgive (vs 12b). 594 The underlying
reason is that of reciprocity andjustice. 595
Second, the principle of reciprocity sets a practical
standard for the community of the disciples, a standard
that comes to expression in various ways especially in
SM/Matt 5:3-12, 16, 20, 21-26, 27-30, 38-42, 43-48;
6:4, 6, 18; 7:1-5,7-11, 12. If, then, the petition ofvs 12
is an application of the principle of vss 14-15, the issue
of forgiveness does not cease when forgiveness is
granted. 596 Rather, its implication in practice is a
permanent demand, just as the petition of the Lord's
Prayer is to be repeated again and again. 597 As a
principle of Jewish legal and theological thinking, 598 vss
14-15 are also presupposed in the SM as a whole.
The protasis (vs 14a) states the condition in general
terms, not as in a casuistic legal case. 599 The reference is
to "transgressions" (7rapa7rTwp.aTa) of the Torah, a term
mentioned only here in the SM, 600 not to "obligations" as
in vs 12. This difference is clearly due to the nature of
the source from which vs 14 derives.
In the apodosis (vs 14b) the future tense of lup~cm ("he
will forgive") points to the eschatological judgment, but
the power of forgiveness as well as the acceptance of
God's forgiveness are granted to the faithful even now.
In anticipation of SM/Matt 7:21-23 one should say that
present forgiveness is preliminary in view of the last
judgment, so that those who will ask for forgiveness only
in the last judgment will be refused. 601 By contrast, the
faithful disciples who have received and granted
forgiveness throughout their lifetime need not fear
rejection in the end. 6 02
The statement that forgiveness is to be granted to "the
people" (of li.v8pomoL) demonstrates that the community
of the SM exists in the midst of all humanity. The rule is
therefore valid for everyone and not only for the
members of the group.
• 1 5 The second part of the "sacred law" presents the
negative antithesis to vs 14:
ae
£h.v p.~ cupijn TOtS li.v8pw7TOLS,
oM( 0 7TaT~P vp.wv li.cp~cT£L Ta 7rapa7TTWp.aTa vp.wv. 603
If, however, you do not forgive people,
so also will your Father not forgive your transgres-
sions.
The terms used in this statement are the same as in vs 14.
Also, the composition is analogous to vs 14, forming a
chiasm of nuanced contrapositions, so that vss 14a and
15b, 14b and 15a are juxtaposed (a-b-b-a pattern). The

pretation" of the Lord's Prayer.
593 So Luz (Matthiius, 1.353 [Matthew, 1.389]), who
emphasizes the paraenetical connection with the
practice of the church.
594 This also explains why vs 12 has the petition first and
the declaration second, whereas vss 14-15 have
forgiveness by the disciples first and then the promise
ofthe forgiveness by God.
595 See above on SM Matt 6:12.
596 This indicates why the principle is at work in the
community ofthe SM itself; it continues to function
in a different way in the Matthean church later (see
Matt 16:19; 18:15-18, 21-22). One should note that
the principle is also known, independently of
Matthew, in the Gospel of John (20:23).
597 Cf. Matt 18:21-22 (!/Luke 17:4): "'Lord, how often
am I to forgive my brother if he goes on wronging
me? As many as seven times?' Jesus replied, 'I do not
say seven times; I say seventy times seven!'" (REB).
598 For Jewish parallels see Str-B 1. 739-42; Lachs,
Rabbinic Commentary, 122-23, citing Sir 28:1-2;
Midrash Tannaim 15.11, p. 85; m. B. Qam. 8.7.
599 Differently, Strecker, Bergpredigt, 129 (Sermon, 125).
600. The term orapaorrwp.a ("transgression") occurs in
connection with forgiveness elsewhere in the NT; see
Matt 18:35 v.l.; Mark 11:25-26; Rom 4:25; 5:15-20;
2 Cor 5: 19; Gal 6:1. For further references see
Wilhelm Michaelis, "oriorrw KTA.," TDNT 6.161-73,
esp. 164-66 (B.II.2); and "orapaorrwp.a," ibid., 170-
72; Betz, Galatians, 226; BAGD, s.v. orapaorrwp.a.
601 The one who grants forgiveness is the "heavenly
Father" (o orar~p vp.wu oovpau1o~). a concept known
elsewhere in the SM (5:48; 6:26, 32); it appears to
reflect the traditional language of Jewish Chris-
tianity. God's presence at the last judgment is to be
presumed (see on 7:21-23; and Betz, Essays, 127-
28).
602 If the disciples forgive the sins of others, it is not
merely "the preparation for gracious action of the
heavenly Judge" (so Strecker, Bergpredigt, 130
[Sermon, 125]), but the response to divine forgiveness
previously received.
603 At the end ofvs 15a a number of witnesses add ra
orapaorrci,p.ara avrwu ("their transgressions"); no

416
 Matthew 6:1-18

result is that refusal of forgiveness toward people will
lead to God's refusal to forgive the sins of the faithful.
The connection between human and divine forgiveness
follows, as already pointed out before, from the principle
of justice and equity (see above on 6: 12). It is noteworthy
that the demand to forgive "people" implies a universalist
orientation (cf. above on 5: 16). Also, the statement rules
out the idea that the disciples of the SM are "sinless";
"perfection" (5:48) does not amount to a permanent state
of sinlessness. Rather, to the extent that the disciples of
the SM remain sinners, continuous forgiveness of their
sins is needed. The goal of "perfection" is therefore not
to be without sin, but to obtain forgiveness to the full
extent, a goal that is also equal to the status of righteous-
ness. One can see here that the later Lutheran doctrine
of simul iustus et peccator ("simultaneously righteous and
sinner") has its antecedent even in as early a text as the
SM. Furthermore, the statement in vss 14-15 does not
include the authority of "binding and loosing" as it
occurs in Matt 16:19; 18:18;John 20:23. Instead, vss
14-15 speak only of the authority to forgive. Not
forgiving someone is a fault on the part of the unforgiv-
ing disciple and has eschatological consequences, but
nothing is said about the eschatological destiny of sinners
whose sins are not forgiven. This principle differs from
the rule of authority granted to Peter (Matt 16: 19) and
to the church (Matt 18: 18; John 20:23), which includes
the power to determine a person's destiny eternally and
irreversibly. 604 Thus the Matthean passages in 16: 19;
18:18 and their parallel in John 20:23 differ greatly from
SM/Matt 6:14-15. 605 This difference speaks against the
hypothesis that the evangelist Matthew inserted vss 14-
15 into the SM. 606 If the evangelist had wanted to insert
anything at this point, he would most likely have inserted
the rule of 18: 18.
• 1 6 In vs 16 the text rather abruptly returns to the cultic
instruction that began in 6: 1-6 and was interrupted by
the prayer section 6:7-13 and the principle set forth in
6:14-15. The last section ofthe cultic instruction in vss
16-18 deals with the ritual offasting. As far as its
composition is concerned, the section has the same
structure as that found in 6:2-4 and 6:5-6.
The section presupposes that the ritual of fasting is
considered an important component of the practice of
religion at the time. 607 This estimation is confirmed by
other New Testament sources ascribing to the jewish

doubt the purpose is the parallelism with vs 14a (B L
wej1 3 33.892mg_1006.1342.15069Jl[b]fqsy'·h
sa boP'). The best witnesses (MD jl 205. 892*. pc !at
syP mae boP') preserve the a-b-b-a chiastic pattern. In
vs 15b witnesses vacillate whether forgiveness is
connected with the persons or with the sins of these
persons. Therefore, IC pc read vp.lv &.p~u•• ("he will
forgive you") instead of "your [vp.rov] Father will
forgive"; D pc it vg< 1 syP·h read Vp.rov t..p~<TEI vp.lv
("your Father will forgive you"); c syc read &.p~u••
vp.lv ("he will forgive you"). The distinction made
between forgiveness of persons and that of sins
appears to derive from Christian interpretation.
604 See Otto Michel, "Binden und Li:isen," RAG 2 (1954)
374-80; BAGD, s.v. alw, 4; Ferdinand Staudinger,
EWNT(EDNT) 1, s.v. alw KTA.; Gunther Bornkamm,
"Die Binde- und Li:isegewalt in der Kirche des
Matthaus," in his Geschichte und Glaube: Gesammelte
Aufsiitze, 4.37-50; ET: "The Authority to 'Bind' and
'Loose' in the Church in Matthew's Gospel: The
Problem of the Sources in Matthew's Gospel," in
David G. Buttrick eta!., eds.,Jesus and Man's Hope (2
vols.; Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary,
1970) 1.37-50;]. A. Emerton, "Binding and
Loosing-Forgiving and Retaining," JTS 13 (1962)
325-31;]. Duncan M. Derrett, "Binding and
Loosing (Matt 16:19; 18:18;John 20:23)," JBL 102
(1983) 112-17; Herbert W. Basser, "Derrett's
'Binding' Reopened," JBL 104 (1985) 297-300;
Richard H. Hiers, "'Binding' and 'Loosing': The
Matthean Authorizations," JBL 104 (1985) 233-50.
605 The question of the relationship between Matt 6:14-
15 and Mark 11:25-26 points to another difficult
problem. When one assumes that Mark 11:25-26
shows the influence of the rule cited also in Matt
6:14-15, similar to Matt 5:23-24, this does not
necessarily imply that Mark had access to the text of
the SM or of Matthew. Differently Strecker
(Bergpredigt, 129 [Sermon, 125]), who assumes that
Mark 11:25-26 represents post-Markan glosses
based on Matthean influence.
606 Against Strecker, Bergpredigt, 129-30 (Sermon, 125-
26); Luz, Matthiius, 1.353 (Matthew, 1.389).
607 For bibliography and references see Johannes Behm,
"vijun~ KTA.," TDNT 4.924-35; BAGD, s.v. V7Jur<6w,
V7Junla, vijun~;JosefZmijewski, EWNT(EDNT) 2,
s.v. V7Jun!Jw KTA.; Str-B 4/1.77-114 (excursus on
fasting); Klaus Beyer, Die aramiiischen Texte vom Toten
Meer (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984)
354-58; Rudolf Arbesmann, "Fasten," RAG 7 (1969)
447-93; idem, "Fastenspeise," ibid., 493-500; idem,
"Fasttage," ibid., 500-552; Peter Gerlitz eta!.,
"Fasten/Fasttage I-III," TRE 11 (1983) 41-59;
Rosemary Rader, "Fasting," EncRel 5.286-90.

417
religion a high regard for fasting. 608 In the cultic
instruction of the SM, however, fasting is given the least
significant status as compared to almsgiving and prayer
(6:2-4, 5-6). Moreover, no details are provided as to
content, purpose, and times of fasting. The ritual is
simply assumed to be customary. This lack of detail may
be justified to the extent that fasting was an ancient and
venerable ritual in antiquity. It had no specific purpose,
so that abstention could be interpreted in various ways.
The ritual was therefore connected with asceticism, 609
mourning, 610 purification, 611 and meditation. 612
There was no firm opinion about why, how, and when
one ought to fast. Apparently, this indeterminate nature
of the ritual gave rise to cultic criticism, which is also
presupposed in our passage. 613 This criticism is,
however, not explained; we are simply given the
resultant recommendation. 614 One must conclude that
this recommendation is critical of the common view that
fasting as such is religiously and ethically valuable, no
matter how it is done. While the ritual itself is not
rejected, its performance is scrutinized. In analogy to
almsgiving and prayer, the issue of ostentatiousness is
mentioned; indeed, fasting lends itself to ostentatious
displays. Instead, we are told, one must perform fasting
in a particular way, in order to be religiously acceptable.
Fasting is appropriate only if one performs it in-
conspicuously and without ostentatious displays. In this
point the recommendation agrees with the previous
sections (see above on 6:4 and 6:6). The recom-
mendation reflects what seem to have been Jesus'
objections against fasting. One should admit that we are
only inadequately informed about the historical Jesus'
attitude toward fasting. Nonobservance of the ritual may
have been initiated by Jesus himself (see esp. Mark 2:18-
22 par.; Matt 11:18//Luke 7:33). 615 His attitude
toward fasting may have been one of the major
differences between Jesus and John the Baptist, but if so
we do not know the reasons why they differed.
Explanations in the tradition seem to be of later origin.
At any rate, nonobservance was continued later on,
especially in the Pauline 616 and the gnostic tradition.
SM/Matt 6:16-18 does not recommend nonobservance,
however, but modifies the reason for, as well as the
performance of, the ritual. Perhaps 6: 16-18 is the
earliest occurrence of reintroducing fasting, albeit in a
different form analogous to the other rituals described in
this instruction. While the New Testament has little if
any reflection of 6: 16-18, the Coptic Gospel of Thomas
has striking parallels showing gnostic interpretation.
Logion 14 simply advises against fasting:
Jesus said to them, "If you (plur.) fast, you will acquire
a sin, and if you pray you will be condemned, and if
you give alms, it is evil that you will do unto your
spirits. "61 7

608 According to Tacitus (Ann. 5.4) fasting was a ritual
typical for Jews, so much so that Augustus could
boast that he fasted even more than a jew; see also
Suetonius Augustus 76.3.
609 On the fasting of john the Baptist see Mark 1:6;
2:18-20 par.; cf. the Pharisee in Luke 18:12.
610 See Fritz Stolz, "t:l1:.t ~iim fasten," THAT 2.536-37;
H. D. Preuss, "t:l1:.t J{lm," ThWAT 6 (1989) 959-63.
611 See Arbesmann, RAC 7.452-56. Cf. Gal2:12.
612 Often in association with prayer. See Matt 4:2; Mark
9:29 par.; Luke 2:37; Acts 10:30 v.l.; 13:2-3; 14:23;
1 Cor 7:5 v.l.; cf. 2 Mace 13: 12; T. jos. 10.1-2. See
also 2 Clem. 16.4: "Fasting is better than prayer,
almsgiving better than both" (Kp<luuwv V7J<Tnla
7TpOu<vxijs, tA<1Jp.Ou{wq/i~ ap..podpwv).
613 Criticism of fasting begins with the OT prophets (see
Isa 58:1-14;Jer 14:12;Joel2:15; Zech 7:5; 8:16-17, 617
19); it continued in Sir 31(34):31; 34:26; T. Ash. 2.8;
Apocalypse ofElijah 1.13-22 (OTP 1.737-38).
Criticism is also presupposed in the cultic instruction
of Tob 12:8-9, because fasting is not even men-
tioned there, except in variant readings (see Robert
Hanhart, Tobit [Septuaginta 8.5; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983]158-59).
614 Luz argues differently (Matthiius, 1.328 [Matthew,
1.362]) and thinks that neither justification nor
criticism of fasting is involved.
615 See the study by Franz Gerhard Cremer, Die
Fastenansage jesu: Mk 2, 20 und Parallelen in der Sicht
der patristischen und scholastischen Exegese (BBB 2 3;
Bonn: Hanstein, 1965 ), with further bibliography;
see also Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1.170-78; Gnilka,
Markus, 1.11 0-18; Liihrmann, Markusevangelium,
62-64.
616 See 1 Cor 8:13; 9:20; Rom 14:2-3, 13-23 (cf. 2 Cor
6:5; 11:27; Acts 27:9, 33, where the term V7Junla
simply means "hunger"; see BAGD, s.v. V7Junla, 1);
Col2:16; Barn. 3.1-6 (Isa 58:5-6); Diogn. 4.1.
Translated by Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 382-83.

418
 Matthew 6:1-18

At other places fasting can be reinterpreted, in order
to conform to gnostic asceticism with which it simply
becomes coterminous. 618 Jesus himself, however, did not
seem to have had a high regard for fasting. 619 The
passages dealing with fasting clearly represent secondary
interpretations of an older tradition, whatever that may
have been, preserving the negative view that Jesus must
have taken toward this ritual.
In general one can say that the earlier Christian
references to fasting are critical of the Jewish practice,
and that it is in Acts (13:2-3; 14:23; 27:9) and the
Didache (1.3; 7 .4; 8.1) that fasting is acceptable again as a
Christian ritual. This situation seems to be the result of
Jesus' own critical attitude toward the ritual. The passage
SM/Matt 6: 16-18 suggests that ostentatiousness was the
reason for this attitude. Perhaps this suggestion is
historical, especially insofar as the caricature of the
Pharisee in Luke 18:12 makes the same point. Also,
attributing to Jesus eschatological, joyous feasting, rather
than mourning, points in the same direction (Mark 2:18-
22 par.; Matt 11:18-19). If Jesus had taken such a
critical view, he may have done so in continuation of
cultic criticism as it occurs among the Old Testament
prophets and wisdom teachers.
After the brief reference to the cultic act in vs 16a, a
caricature of the false performance is drawn before the
eyes of the reader in VS 16b: ''Orav o£ V7]CTT£{,£T£, J.L~
ylv£u8£ ws ot V7TOKptrat CTKv8pw7rol620 ("But when you fast,
do not behave like the hypocrites [do] with their sullen
look").
The term V7Jun.,',w designating "fasting" occurs only
here in the SM, but the terminology is well attested in
other parts of the New Testament. 621 Did. 8.1 is in some
way connected with our passage: at oE- V7Jun'i:at VJ.Lc;lV J..l.~
~urwuav f.l.£Ta rwv V7TOKptrwv ("But your fasts, let them
not be together with the hypocrites"). This statement
shows no knowledge of SM/Matt 6: 16-18 but belongs to
a later phase of development. 622 The passage in
SM/Matt 6:16-18 presupposes that the disciples for
whom it was originally conceived still belonged to the
Jewish religion. By contrast, Did. 8.1 shows that Judaism
and Christianity have parted ways. "Hypocrites" is now
simply a derogatory term for the Jews as distinct from
the Christians. Their distinction is marked by the
different times for fasting: "For they fast on Mondays
and Thursdays, but you must fast on Wednesdays and
Fridays" (v7Jun.,',ovut yap O£vr€pa uaf3f3arwv Kat 7TEJ..l.7TT'[f
VJ.L£LS' oE- V7]CTT£.,',uan nrpaoa Kat 7TapaCTK£V1JV). Other fasts
are to be held one or two days prior to baptism (Did. 7 .4).

618 P. Oxy. 655: "If you do not fast from the world, you
will not find the kingdom of God." Cf. Cos. Thom. log.
27. See also Harold W. Attridge, in Bentley Layton,
ed., Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, together with XIII, 2,
Brit. Lib. Or. 4926 (1), andP. Oxy. 1, 654, 655 (NHS
20.1; Leiden: Brill, 1989) 118, 127.
6I9 See Cos. Thom. log. I 04: "They said to Jesus, 'Come,
let us pray today and let us fast.' Jesus said, 'What is
the sin that I have committed? Or how have I been
defeated? But when the bridegroom leaves the bridal
chamber, then let them fast and pray'" (trans.
Helmut Koester, in Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex II,
2-7, I. 90-9I ).
620 The absence of a connection with the preceding is
felt by IC* born•, which add Kat ("and"). Instead of wr
("as") L W 8 jl3 33. I 006. I342. I506 9Jl read &;u'll'<p
(same meaning) to make it parallel with vs 2 (the
same difference is "corrected" by the same manu-
scripts in vs 5) and vs 7; ror is read here by IC B D D.jl
205. 892 pc. The inconsistency is to be preferred for
the sake of the rule of lectio difficilior probabilior;
making vss 2, 5, 7, and I6 exactly parallel seems to be
a secondary improvement, but the question is
whether for form-critical reasons these improve-
ments simply complete what should have been there
in the first place. One should not forget that even the
earliest level of the Greek text is not identical with
the "original" SM. The omission of the article o! in IC
may be a scribal error, a result ofhaplography (o! and
v[ 'li'OKptraL]), while turning rlz '11'p0<TIJJ'll'a ("the faces")
into a singular is a grammatical clarification (IC* g 1* k
mae born').
62I Matthew took it over from sources in Matt 4:2; 9:I4-
I5; I5:32; I7:2I, but the evangelist seems to have no
interest in the ritual as far as his own church practice
is concerned.
622 Nor does, for that matter, the strange passage 2 Clem.
I64 (see above, n. 6I2).

419
 A peculiar notion is that of "the hypocrites with the
sullen look" (o! V7rOKpLTat crKv8pw1rol). 623 The "hypocrites"
have been mentioned before (see 6:2, 5), but the
adjective crKv8pw7ros ("with a sad, gloomy, sullen look") 6 2 4
adds another dimension. While Hebrew has no
distinctive equivalent, 6 2 5 the term points to a stock
figure in Greco-Roman literature, in particular in texts
having to do with the critique of religion and
philosophy. 626 From the Roman point of view, the god
of the Jews was a sad god (tristis), 627 and the Sabbath was
sad. 628 Similarly, Plutarch judges the ethos of the
Carthaginians to be "sullen. "629 In criticism of
philosophers the term serves to make fun of their
proverbial gloomy looks. 630 In regard to religion,
crKv8pw7raCTJA-OS ("gloominess") was typical of the Isis
cult, 631 of prophetic figures, 632 or as a reaction to bad
news. 633 Not surprisingly, it was also the mark of the
stupid. 634 It is noteworthy that these Hellenistic
connotations have influenced the LXX 635 and other
Hellenistic-Jewish literature, 636 while the Hebrew
equivalents remain uncertain.
Perhaps the most interesting parallel to SM/Matt 6:16
is found in Ps.-Plato's Alcibiades Minor, the dialogue "On
Prayer" to which I have already called attention. 637 In
this text Alcibiades is on the way to offer a prayer to the
gods when Socrates stops him because of the sullen look
on his face. 638 The dialogue on the whole has its purpose
in changing Alcibiades' sullen look into cheerfulness, 639
so that at the end he is ready to crown Socrates with a
wreath. 640 Alcibiades' gloomy look is, as we learn, the
result of his wrong ideas about prayer and what to expect
from it. In this respect, he is comparable to the disciples
on the road to Emmaus with their sullen looks (Luke
24: 1 7). In these parallel texts, the sullen looks are taken
to be caused by an insufficient understanding of religious
matters, but in SM/Matt 6: 16-18 it is from playacting
the role of the concerned religionist.
Verse 16c goes further in describing in detail the

623 Cf. also 6:7, where it appears in variant readings
instead of £8vtKoi, "pagans" (B syc mae), clearly the
result of secondary harmonization.
624 So the translation in BAGD, s.v.
625 See Werner Bieder, "uKv8pw7d>f," TDNT 7.450-51
(this article, however, does not go beyond listing the
passages); BAGD, s.v. uKv8pw7rbf.
626 See Wilhelm SuB, Ethos: Studien zur iilteren griechischen
Rhetorik (Leipzig and Berlin: Hinrichs, 1910) 251-
53, 260;Jacques Bompaire, Lucien icrivain: imitation
et creation (Paris: Boccard, 1958) 485 (referring to
Epictetus Diss. 3.22.48-49; Lucian Demon. 6). A
collection of references is to be found in Wettstein,
1.328.
627 Horace Sat. 1.5.101-3.
628 Suetonius Augustus 76.
629 Plutarch Praec. ger. 3, 399 D: ~8of 'TfLKpbv, uKv8pw7rbV
("an attitude bitter, gloomy").
630 See PlatoSymp. 206d; XenophonMem. 2.7.1; 2.7.12;
3.10.4; Amphis frg. 13 (CAF 2.239); Menander
Epitrepontes 145 (conj. Wilamowitz); Plutarch De recta
rat. aud. 12, 43F; Lucian Demon. 6; Vit. auct. 7; 20;
Icaromenippus 5; Hermotimus 18; Lucilius 7 54: "tristis
ac severus philosophus" ("a gloomy and stern
philosopher").
631 See Plutarch Is. et Os. 20, 359B; 39, 366E; 69-70,
378D-379A; Defect. orac. 14, 417C; Cons. ad ux. 4,
609A; Amatorius 18, 762D. According to Apuleius
(Met. 11.15, p. 277, line 17 [ed. Griffiths, Apuleius of
Madauros, 86]), Lucius is told to show now a happy
face, since he has been received into the protection of
"seeing" Fortuna.
632 See the Essene prophet as described by Josephus Bell.
1.80; cf. Xenophon Mem. 2. 7 .I; and the god Apollo
in Lucian Dialog. deorum 16(14).1.
633 Euripides Phoenissae 1333: uKv8pw7rOV 81-'1-'a ("sad
look").
634 Theophrastus Characteres 14.7.
635 See esp. LXX Pss 34:14; 37:7; 41:10; Prov 15:13; Sir
25:23; Gen 40:7;Jer 19:8; 27(50): 13; Neh 2:1 v.l.; 2
Esdr 12:2 v.l.; Dan 1:10 v.l.; 3 Mace 5:34.
636 See T. Sim. 4.1 (cf.Jos. 3.4);JosephusAnt. 2.19;
11.54; Bell. 1.80;Jos. As. 10.7; Philo Cher. 6; Plant.
167; Sobr. 6; Fuga 33; Mut. nom. 169; Som. 2.165; Vit.
Mos. 1.20; cf. also PGM XIII.259.
637 See above, p. 342.
638 Ps.-Plato Ale. min. l38a: "You seem, let me say, to
have a gloomy look, and to keep your eyes on the
ground, as though you were pondering something"
(f!>alvy y€ TOL f.uKv6poo7raK€vat T€ Kat £l~ yfiv {3A.f1rnv, IJJ!J
TL uvvvoVp.Evo~).
639 The opposites of uKv8pw7rbf ("gloomy") are
designations for cheerfulness: <f>atoptlf, l!l.apbf,
ev<f>patv(w, J-<ELOLctw, etc.
640 Ps.-PlatoAlc. min., 151ab.

420
 Matthew 6:1-18

methods followed by these religious pretenders:
acpav{(OVCTIV yap Ta 7rp6uw71'a avT{;JV ("for they disfigure
[or: hide] their faces"). 641 The precise meaning of the
verb acpavl(w is disputed. It may simply describe the
disfigured countenance of the sullen person. 642 Others
have taken it as pointing to a neglected and unwashed
face, or to smearing the face with ashes, or to covering
the face with a cloth to avoid looking and being looked
at. All these explanations are possible but none is
certain. 643
The purpose of the disfiguring seems to be clear from
vs 16d: Cf7rws cpavwuw TOLS av8pC:mots V1JCTU{Jovns ("in
order to appear to people as those who are fasting"). The
play on words (acpavl(Hv, cpalvw) suggests that disfigure-
ment demonstrates a good figure of the pious hypo-
crite. 644 Verse 16e repeats the same statement that
occurs in the parallel sections (vss 2e, 5d): ap.~v A.€yw vpiv,
Ct71'fXOVCTLV TOV p.tu8ov avTWV ("Truly, I say to you, they
have received their reward [in full]"). 645
• 17 After the rejection of the improper performance, the
right way to fast is recommended; it is introduced by
another reference to the ritual: CTV Of V1JCTTf..,jWV ctAW/Fa{
uov T~v Kf.cpaA~v Kat TO 7rp6uw1r6v uov vliJrat ("But when
you fast, anoint your head and wash your face"). Both
these measures are ordinary hygiene, 646 so that there is
no suggestion of putting on festive attire. Rather, it
seems to be a method of making one's religious life
inconspicuous. The best parallel to this comes from T.
Jos. 3.4, where Joseph reports: "For those seven years I
fasted, and yet seemed to the Egyptians like someone
who was living luxuriously, for those who fast for the
sake of God receive graciousness of countenance. "647
• 1 8 The final statement explains the positive purpose for
this inconspicuousness: Cf7rws ,..~ cpavfjs TOLS av8pC:mots
V1JCTTf.{Jwv aAAa T{il 71'aTpl CTOV T{il EV T{il Kpvcpal'!J· ("so that
you may not appear to people as one who is fasting but to
your Father who is hidden"). 648 The sentence is a
correction in comparison with vs 16, using again the
term cpalvw. The formation of the divine epithet oev T{il
Kpvcpal'!l ("the one in the hidden") occurs only here in the
SM 649 and replaces the usual oev T{il Kpv7rT{il with the
same meaning (vss 4 and 6). Thus the teaching about
fasting is analogous to the teaching about almsgiving and
prayer in the previous sections of the cultic instruction.

641 B pc read tavrwv, perhaps connecting with the verb
("disfiguring themselves their faces").
642 The terms luj>avl(w and luj>avtup.6s often occur in the
same context as fasting and the sullen look.
643 For the evidence see BAGD, s.v. luj>avl(w.
644 The wordplay occurs also in Jas 4: 14; it constitutes
paronomasia, and the sentence employs chiasmus.
645 IC* born• add y.tp ("for") after the "Amen," no doubt
to improve the reading; L W 0 33. 892. 1006. 1342
~ lat add llrt ("that") before a'lTtxovutv,just as in vs 5
(but apparently not in vs 2).
646 Cf. Plutarch Coniugalia praecepta 29, 142A: "The
woman who is afraid to laugh and jest a bit with her
husband, lest possibly she appear bold and wanton, is
no different from one who will not use oil on her
head lest she be thought to use perfume, or from one
who will not even wash her face lest she be thought to
use rouge." Cf. Mark 14:3//Matt 26:7. For the
rabbinic tradition see Str-B 1.426-29; Luz, Matthiius,
1.327 (Matthew, 1.361).
647 Trans. Howard C. Kee, OTP 1.820. The Greek
reads: ~eat fv~rrTEvov Ev rols Enrh. frErrr.v (KElvor.s, Kat
€tj>atv6p.rw rif> Alyv'lTrtcp WS EV rpvtj>fi a•.tywv lin ol a.1.
rhv 8Ehv V1JUTE-tJOVTfS TOiJ 7rpOCTJ,7rOV T~V x&.ptu
11.ap.{3.tvovutv. Hollander and de Jonge (Testaments,
376) refer to Dan 1:8ff.; Acts ofThomas 6-7; and
Matt 6: 16ff. as parallels.
648 D bo read Yva ("so that") for no particular reason; cf.
also in vs 4, but a simple Ka~ ("and") in vs 6. Some
witnesses change the word order to V1Junvwv ro'is
avOpC:mots, but vs 18a is no doubt intended to parallel
vs 16d. Some scribes seem to have disliked the
epithet: D* reads Kpvtj>lq. and Kpvtj>atcp, the former
probably a hearing mistake; L W 0 jl 3 33. 892.
1006. 1342. 1506 ~read rif> Kpv'lTr/f>, making things
parallel with vss 4 and 6, but the lectio difficilior is well
attested by IC B nc jl pc. If the more difficult text is
the earlier, the reason for the change as compared
with vss 4 and 6 seems stylistic variation. In the end
of the line, some witnesses fill in €v rif> tj>av•pif> ("in the
manifest"), which makes it parallel with the additions
in part of the tradition ofvss 4 and 6 (E ~ 0233. 205.
346. 543. 579. 788<.1342 pm it). The !lisagreements
among manuscripts concerning these additions make
it unlikely that they belong to the earliest text. See
also Metzger, Textual Commentary, 15.
649 See BAGD, s.v. Kpvtj>a'ios.

421
 The sentence also concludes the entire instruction on religious integrity, its "righteousness" (otKawt:n1JV1j
cultic matters (6:1-18). The final passage makes the [6: 1]). 650
point that fasting lends itself easily to ostentatious
displays of piety, that is, to false piety. If so, fasting loses
its significance and integrity as a ritual. Fasting as such is
not rejected, but it is justified only when performed
inconspicuously. Only in this way can one safeguard its

650 Luz argues differently (Matthiius, 1.328 [Matthew,

1.362]): "The subject is the human being and not the
religious custom." Strecker also comes to a different
conclusion (Bergpredigt, 134 [Sermon, 129]) and sees
in the reinterpreted ritual of fasting an anticipation
of eschatological joy. Zeller (Mahnspriiche, 7 3-7 4)
thinks it is sufficient to interpret the passage in the
light of jewish wisdom.

422
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

6 Chapter VI
The Conduct of Daily Life

1 . Introduction subject of controversy, especially in recent years, which

Most difficult to explain is the composition of the third
major block of material, 6:19-7:12. 1 In this com-
mentary the section is treated under the title given
above, although this title is not mentioned anywhere in
the text itself. 2 I have chosen it because it is descriptive
of the content of the section with its sayings composi-
tions, and for other literary reasons. 3
After the end of the cultic instruction (6: 1-18) a new
section obviously begins, treating subjects other than
worship. Indeed, the shift from the cultic instruction
to the new section could not be harsher. Is it accidental
that the cultic instruction deals with life in the
framework of the cult, while 6: 19-7:12 suddenly turns
to the most mundane issues of the daily life, beginning
with money and its accumulation? Money is not the only
concern of the new section, but the discussion of
possessions is involved in almost all of the subsections.
The question is, however, how this section is to be
treated as a whole from a literary and compositional
perspective. How is it organized and what is its function
in comparison with the other parts of the SM?
Fortunately we are not left without clues as to the
subject matter of this section. The beginning of the
following section (7: 13-14) seems to look back at it,
when it describes the "road" (ollOs) humanity is traveling
through this life into the hereafter. In fact, there are two
roads, one leading to eternal life and the other to eternal
destruction. 4 Both these ways are present throughout the
SM, and most impressively in the section 6:19-7:12,
where they are reflected by contrasts and juxtapositions.
It is also understood that only a minority follows the
precepts of the SM, while the majority of people practice
what the SM rejects.
The composition of the section has always been a
have seen a number of new proposals to solve the old
problem. Before I discuss some of these proposals in
greater detail, a brief survey of the section will be useful.
The section 6: 19-7: 12 comprises eight sayings com-
positions: ( 1) On Treasures (6: 19-21 ); (2) On Vision
(6:22-23); (3) On Serving Two Masters (6:24); (4) On
Anxiety (6:25-34); (5) On judging (7:1-5); (6) On
Profaning the Holy (7:6); (7) On Giving and Receiving
(7:7-11); and finally, (8) The Golden Rule (7:12).
What is the compositional key that holds these eight
subsections together? Why are the sayings given in this
sequence? What connections, if any, exist between them?
William D. Davies assigns 6:19-7:12 to the third
section of what he considers to be the Christian answer to
]amnia: "In v. 17-48 we find the Torah of Jesus set
forth; in vi. 1-18 the true ;,.,t:lll or worship, and in vi.
19-vii. 12 what corresponds to c•.,on n,t,•Ql, the
culmination, in vii. 12, expressing the true piety or
obedience in terms of the Golden Rule." 5
The problem is, however, that 6:19-7:12 simply does
not conform to "deeds of loving-kindness" or "acts of
piety," if one accepts Judah Goldin's interpretation. 6 If,
as Davies suggests, Matthew has reformulated the triad
we still do not know what his new third concept would
be. Or does Davies mean that it is the Golden Rule itself,
so that the new triad is: Jesus' Torah, Worship, and
Golden Rule? Unfortunately his remarks are not clear at
this point, and he never fully discusses Matthew's third
part (6:19-7:12).7

1 See also the main Introduction above, pp. 62, 65.
2 On this problem see also Tholuck, Bergrede, 11-12,
21,411-12 (Commentary, 16-17, 24, 371-72);
Achelis, Bergpredigt, 426-31; Soiron, Bergpredigt,
107-8; Luz,Matthiius, 1.354-55 (Matthew, 1.389-
91).
3 Cf. the exhortation concerning "the things of daily
life" (ra fJtwnKa) in 1 Cor 6:3-4; Luke 21:34; Hermas
Vis. 1.3.1; 3.11.3; Sim. 6.3-4. See BAGD, s.v.
{'JtWTIK<ls.
4 See below on SM/Matt 7:13-14.
5 Davies, Setting, 307.
6 Davies, Setting, 305, referring to Judah Goldin, "The
Three Pillars of Simon the Just," Proceedings of the
American Academy for Jewish Research 27 (1958) 43-58;
see also Saldarini, Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan,
55-59; idem, Scholastic Rabbinism: A Literary Study of
the Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (BJS 14; Chico,
Calif.: Scholars, 1982) esp. 45-46; Pinchas Hacohen
Peli, "The I:Iavurot That Were in Jerusalem," HUCA
55 (1984) 55-74, esp. 65-69.
7 See Davies, Setting, 307; see also Davies and Allison,
Matthew, 1.625-27. The common theme is social
issues: "Having received in 5.17-48 instruction on

423
 Christoph Burchard 8 has tried to solve the problem
thematically. He recognizes that "in 6:19 begins a series
of counsels which have to do with money. "9 This section
runs through to 6:34, with the term "righteousness"
(llt1Cato!TVV1J) governing it (6:33). The following section
(7: 1-11) Burchard seeks to unite under the theme: "the
reaction of those before whom the disciples are supposed
to show their good works." 1 0
But Burchard's "attempt to find the theme of the
Sermon on the Mount" 11 can hardly be called a success.
The method he uses in this attempt is to find leading
concepts and then to systematize the sayings accordingly
and thus to identify a thematic content. Although he
proceeds with caution, the process forces him time and
again to make things fit the scheme that do not really fit.
Following earlier suggestions made by Walter Grund-
mann 12 and Eduard Schweizer, 13 Gunther Bornkamm 14
has proposed a hypothesis to account for the sequence of
sayings in 6:19-7:12. As he sees it, the problem is this:
"Are these sayings also arranged according to a pre-
conceived plan?" He adds: "At first sight they appear to
be without any connection." 15 Bornkamm also points to
the fact that earlier theories of composition have been
unable to convince scholars, so that Krister Stendahl's
resignation is understandable: "VI. 19-VII. 29 [sic]
offers material which has been brought into the Sermon
on the Mount by Matthew in such a manner that we find
no clue as to his arrangement." 16 One ought to appre-
ciate that Bornkamm's hypothesis was proposed in full
realization of its inherent problems. What are his reasons
for not giving in to resignation?
Bornkamm concludes from the fact that the compo-
sition of the other parts of the SM is remarkably clear
"that it is a priori hardly imaginable that the same
evangelist who has so carefully composed all the other
parts according to thematic concepts should have given
up a planned redaction," and that the sequence of
6:19-7: 12 should simply be an appendix of disorderly
odds and ends. 17 According to Bornkamm, there is a
connection of some kind between 5:17-20, 6:1, and
7:12. Since 5:20 subsumes the antitheses 5:21-48 under
the concept of "righteousness" (llt1Cato!TVV1J) and 6:1 does
the same with regard to the cultic material in 6:1-18,
5: 17 and 7: 12 form some sort of redactional frame
around the sayings included by these bracket verses. But
this frame does not by itself yield the leading theme for
the section 6:19-7:12.
One should have expected that Bornkamm would
have considered the leading theme to be contained in
7:12, but surprisingly he goes in another direction, and
he does so without giving reasons. 18 Starting from a
discussion of 7:7-11, he tries to show that the sequence
of 6:19-7:11 is determined by the petitions of the
Lord's Prayer. The rationale for this supposition follows

the Torah and 6:1-18 on the Cult, the true disciple
next learns in 6.19-7.12 how to behave in the
world at large" (p. 627).
8 Christoph Burchard, "Versuch, das Thema der
Bergpredigt zu finden," in Georg Strecker, ed.,jesus
Christus in Historic und Theologie: FS fur Hans Conzel-
mann (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1975) 409-32,
esp. 427 -30; ET: "The Theme of the Sermon on the
Mount," in Schottroff, Essays, 57-75, esp. 70-74;
Burchard, "Le theme du Sermon sur Ia Montagne," 13
ETR 62 (1987) 1-17, esp. 15-17. 14
9 So also Strecker (Bergpredigt, 135 [Sermon, 130-31]), 15
who thinks that 6:19-24 deals with wealth, but he 16
does not treat the problem of composition. Luz
(Matthiius, 1.354-55 [Matthew, 1.389-91]) agrees 17
with Bornkamm (" Aufbau," 425) that there is no 18
order.
10 Burchard, "Theme," 71.
11 So the German title of the essay; the ET has omitted
the restraint.
12 Grundmann (Matthiius, 204-6) assumes that the
Lord's Prayer stands at the center of the SM and that
the first sections of the SM lead up to the first strophe
ofthe Lord's Prayer, whereas the last sections of the
SM "unfold" ("entfalten") the second strophe of the
Lord's Prayer. These assumptions are, however,
mere speculation, and Grundmann makes no attempt
to justify them. As he acknowledges, the idea comes
from Tertullian's concept of the Lord's Prayer as
"breviarium totius evangelii" (p. 206). See also
Burchard, "Theme," 90 n. 79.
Schweizer, Matthiius, 130.
Bornkamm, "Aufbau," 419-32.
Ibid., 424-25 (my trans.).
Krister Stendahl, in Peake's Commentary on the Bible
(London: Nelson, 1962) 425.
Bornkamm, "Aufbau," 425.
Ibid., 425: "Zur Verdeutlichung unseres Problems
scheint es mir geraten ... " ("To clarify our problem
it appears to me to be prudent ... "). He gives no
reason, however.

424

from a literary analysis showing that Matthew inserted
the prayer instruction 7:7-15 into a previous, broader
context of 6: 1-18, 19 and that this insertion served to
connect 6:19-7:11 with the prayer instruction. 20 The
next step in Bornkamm's hypothesis is to connect 6:19-
21 with the first three petitions of the Lord's Prayer
(6:9b-10); 6:22-23 and 6:24 are taken to underscore this
connection even more. 21 The section 6:25-34 interprets
the petition for the daily bread (6: 11 ), while 7: 1-5
connects with the petition for forgiveness (6: 12) and its
interpretation in 6:14-15. 2 2 The puzzling 7:6 is then
explained by association with the petition not to lead into
temptation (6: 13), by interpreting temptation as the
giving away of everything that the Lord's Prayer has
entrusted to the disciples to the unworthy who were
brought in by the mission to the Gentiles. 28 The final
section 7:7-11 is not to be taken concretely, but only
figu!"atively as a promise that God will hear such
prayers. 24 This is Bornkamm's thesis; it is, however, not
convincing and creates more problems than it solves, as I
point out in brief as follows.
1. 6:16-18 stands between the prayer instruction 6:7-
15 and the section "On Treasures" (6: 19-21 ), but it has
nothing to do with prayer. Bornkamm himself sees the
problem emerging here. 1£6:19-7:11 is intended to
interpret the Lord's Prayer, why is the interpretation so
far removed from the Prayer it is supposed to explain? 25
2. The assumed connections between the Lord's
Prayer and 6: 19-7: 11 are mostly farfetched, imported
into the text from outside and without linguistic evidence
in the text itself. Bornkamm does not distinguish clearly
enough between connected ideas, of which there are
certainly many, and linguistic evidence in the texts
themselves that could explain the composition.
3. As a result of Bornkamm's hypothesis, the petition
concerning the temptation is misinterpreted. This
petition has nothing to do with the mission to the
Gentiles. 26
4. Bornkamm does not show 7:12 to have any relations
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid., 426-31.
21 Ibid., 427.
22 Ibid., 427-28.
23 Ibid., 428-29.
24 Ibid., 430.
25 Ibid., 425-26.
26 Ibid., 429.
Matthew 6:19-7:12
with 6:19-7:11, despite the assumption he makes that it
forms the redactional frame around the whole section
6:19-7:11. 27
Bornkamm has also considered the possibility that the
sequence of 6:19-7:12 has been received from tradition
as a block and then inserted into the SM. Comparison
with other sources, however, shows that while the
individual sayings are attested elsewhere in the gospel
tradition, they never take the same form or arrangement
in which they are found in the SM. Matt 6:19-21 has a
close parallel in Luke 12:33-34, but the Lukan version is
stated in a different form, and in Luke it is a component
of a different cluster of sayings dealing with avarice,
beginning in Luke 12:13. The warning against "avarice"
(7rA£ov£cla) includes the parable of the Rich Fool (Luke
12: 16-21 ), the sections "On Anxiety" (Luke 12:22-32)
and "On Treasures" (Luke 12:33-34). At least two of the
sayings of Matthew (6:19-21 and 6:25-34) occur
together, but in reverse order.
SM/Matt 6:22-23 has a parallel in Luke 11:34-36,
but the Lukan version of the passage is quite different in
content, although it looks similar at first sight. In Luke
that passage is part of a different sayings composition,
beginning with the parable of the Light (Luke 11 :33 / /
SM/Matt 5:15// Mark 4:21) and continuing with the
passage "On Vision" (Luke 11 :34-36) and discourses
against the Pharisees (Luke 11:37-44).
SM/Matt 6:24 has a close parallel in Luke 16:13,
where it is embedded in a cluster of sayings dealing with
money: "On Mammon" (Luke 16:10-11), "On Serving
Two Masters" (Luke 16:13), and "On the Love of Wealth
by Pharisees" (Luke 16:14-15).
SM/Matt 6:25-34 has its Lukan parallel, as men-
tioned, in the cluster dealing with avarice. Justin Martyr
has it in a quotation together with "On Treasures" (Apol.
1.15.11 and 14).
SM/Matt 7:1-5 returns suddenly to Luke's SP for a
parallel (SP /Luke 6:37-42), where it follows after the
blessings and woes (6:20-26), the passage on the love of
27 Ibid., 425: "die von ihm als AbschluB formulierte
'Goldene Regel' 7.12 klar eine redaktionelle Inten-
tion (ausspricht)" ("the Golden Rule, 7:12, formu-
lated as a conclusion, clearly expresses redactional
intent"). For critical evaluation see also Luz, Mat-
thiius, 1.354-55 (Matthew, 1.390).
425
one's enemy, and the Golden Rule (6:27-36). Why the
SM in Matt 7: 1-5 returns suddenly to the order of the
SP after the long interval since SM/Matt 5:48 remains
unknown.
SM/Matt 7:6 has no parallel at all in Luke, but
parallels are found elsewhere. The Coptic Cos. Thom. log.
93 includes the saying in a cluster dealing with seeking
and finding, together with parallels to SM/Matt 7:7-11.
SM/Matt 7:7-11 has its Lukan parallel in Luke 11:9-
13, where it is part of the instruction on prayer in Luke
11: 1-13; in the Coptic Cos. Thom. log. 92 and 94 do not
relate the saying to prayer, a sign that the connection
with prayer is due to secondary interpretation.
Finally, the Golden Rule (SM/Matt 7:12) does have a
parallel in SP /Luke 6:31, but there it is part of a section
interpreting the love-command; in the SM, by contrast,
the Golden Rule is removed from the interpretation of
the love-command (SM/Matt 5:43-48), but in the wider
sense it is also connected with it (see below, and also
above on SM/Matt 5:17-48).
What is the resulting picture from all of this? No
compositional pattern seems to exist that connects the
sequence of SM/Matt 6:19-7: 12 with any single source
outside the SM. The redactor of the SM seems to have
taken individual sayings from a variety of sources, or
from Q, and reformulated and rearranged them. One
should, therefore, regard formulation and sequence as
the work of the redactor of the SM. 28
One can make other observations by comparing the
synoptic tradition of the sayings. The redactor of the SM
follows to a degree the same arrangement as the SP
(Luke 6:20-49), that is, as far as the frame, sequence,
and most of the sayings are concerned; some sayings are
special to the SP as well. Yet, if there is this parallel
structure, the redactor or author of the SM has formu-
lated everything in accordance with his own plan and
ideas, which differ from that of the SP.
Also difficult to evaluate is the fact that parallels to
SM/Matt 6:19-7:12, wherever they occur elsewhere in
the synoptic tradition, do so in clusters of similar sayings
that provide more obvious interpretative contexts, but
these contexts have no bearing on the structure of the
SM.
Surprisingly often one finds parallels to the section
6:19-7:12 in Jewish wisdom literature, especially in
Tob 4:5-19, 29 but also in the Epistle ofJames, 30 the
Coptic Gospel of Thomas, 31 and in other extracanonical
traditions of the sayings of Jesus. 3 2 None of the sayings
in SM/Matt 6:19-7:12 has a parallel in the Fourth
Gospel, except 7:7-11, which has parallels in John
14:13-14; 15:7; and 16:24, showing that older sayings
material was included.
On the whole, however, the comparisons reveal that in
formulation and arrangement the sayings in SM/Matt
6: 19-21 are independent of other sources. Thus, one
must consider the section as a composition by the author
of the SM, reflecting his own ideas about order and
composition. This conclusion holds, whether or not one
can detect what his ideas were specifically.
In looking for a clue to the problem, one may begin by
noticing that the eight sayings <;om positions in 6:19-
7: 12 might reflect numerical symbolism, a structural
element that is of some importance for the composition
of the SM. 3 3 Moreover, one ought to take into con-
sideration that the hermeneutical principles for the
interpretation of the antitheses in 5:21-48 are stated in
5:17-20, the section preceding the antitheses. The cultic
didache in 6:1-18 states its own hermeneutical principles
within each subsection (6: 1, 4, 6, 18). Should we not,
therefore, look to the end of the section 6: 19-7: 12 for

28 So also Bornkamm ("Aufbau," 421), who, however, 32 Cf. Did. 4.4; 10.3; 9.5; 11.1-12; 1.5; 4.9; 1.2 and
identifies the redactor of the SM with the evangelist SM/Matt 6:19-21; 6:25-34; 7:6; 7:1-5; 7:7-11;
Matthew. 7:12.
29 Cf. Tob 4:9, 7, 15; and SM/Matt 6:19-21; 7:7-11; 33 For the role of numerical symbolism see the main
7:12. Introduction, above pp. 13, 23, and index on
30 Cf.Jas 5:1-6; 4:14; 4:11-12; 5:9; 2:12-13; 1:5; 4:2- Subjects.
3; 2:8 and SM/Matt 6:19-21; 6:25-34; 7:1-5; 7:7-
11; 7:12.
31 Cf. Cos. Thom. log. 76b, 24, 47b, 36-37, 26, 93, 2,
92, 94 and SM/Matt 6:20; 6:22-23; 6:24; 6:25; 7:3-
5; 7:6; 7:7-8. See also Koester, in Layton, Nag
Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, 46-48.

426
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

its interpretative principle? Indeed, the Golden Rule
(7:12) does make sense as the interpretative key, espe-
cially since 7: 12b expressly provides a connection with
5:17. As a result, 5:17-20 and 7:12 play the role of the
hermeneutical frame around the body of the SM. If one
assumes this point, one would have to interpret 6: 19-
7:11 on the basis" of the Golden Rule, which would
provide its connecting rationale. The question remains
whether such an interpretation can be carried out
without doing violence to the individual sayings. Ac-
tually, 7: 12 presents two hermeneutical principles: the
Golden Rule as a definition of the ethical standard, and
the identification of that Rule with "the law and the
prophets" (5: 1 7). If the Golden Rule could assist in
understanding the meaning of the sayings in 6: 19-7:11,
the order and arrangement of these sayings would still be
another question that the Rule does not answer. Is there
anything else that can be made out? 34
Since the sequence of 6: 19-7: 11 contains par-
aenetical material, one should expect some signs of
arrangement, although loosely structured sayings
arrangements are typical of exhortational wisdom
materials in general. As often in such materials, there are
indeed catchword connections, but not in all instances,
and even where they occur they do not explain the
sequential order of the sayings compositions. Since
nobody has been able to figure out the rationale for the
arrangement of the sayings in 6:19-7:12, all one can do
is to propose some "informed guesses." They are largely
speculative, but they do explain at least some of the
reasons for the arrangement.
Conceivably, the sayings are arranged with a view of
the life in mind that is further described in the next
section (7:13-14). Accordingly, the readers are chal-
lenged to imagine that they are wandering on the rough
and troublesome road, trying to find their way through
crucial experiences and hard choices. If my suggestion is
correct, the section 6: 19-7:11 sets forth the experi-
ential scenarios for what it means to travel on the rough
road through life. Having been equipped with the
instructions about the Torah, ethics, and worship in the
preceding parts ofthe SM, 6:19-7:11 confronts the
reader with episodes of life on the metaphorical road
designated in 7:13-14 as the "rough" one.
Other clues connect with the sequence of passages as
well. It is significant to consider the verbs: gathering
treasures (6: 19-21 ), searching with one's eyes as with
lamps in the dark (6:22-23), serving overlords (6:24),
worrying (6:25-34),judging others (7:1-5), withholding
secrets and protecting the holy (7:6), and giving and
receiving (7:7-11). These verbs describe the activities of
daily life, but they do not indicate a structural order of
the passages.
Or one may take account of the orientation: heaven
and earth, self and others. Or one can identify the
choices to be made, choices that exemplify the Two
Ways schema (7: 13-14). 35 Or one can consider the inner
world of the disciples: the heart (6:21), the light within
(6:23), emotional love and hatred (6:24), the worrisome
soul (6:25-34), self-inspection and self-correction (7: 1-
5), the need for discretion (7:6), and the readiness to give
generously (7:7-11).
In other words, the road through life involves an
itinerary that has outward and inward dimensions. The
outward dimensions one faces are episodic and imply the
coming to grips with material possessions concentrated in
the figure of money. 36 Temptation and choices come not
with poverty but with abundance; one has treasures to
store, Mammon to serve, and so on. Making the hard
choices and steering around the cliffs of temptation,

34 Tholuck (Bergrede, 411-12 [Commentary, 371-72])
advances another hypothesis. He proceeds from
6:18, where the idea of God seeing in secret was
mentioned for the third time, and concludes that in
6:19-7:12 the human imagining of the invisible
God is the primary demand. For the same reason
associations with "hypocrisy" (6: 16) could unite the
sections as follows: one could construe 6:19-21 as a
waming against at1fAOicapala ("double-heartedness"),
6:22-23 and 6:24 could point to the same thing; one
could interpret 6:25-34 in terms of at.Yvxla ("double-
mindedness"); 7: 1-5 mentions "hypocrisy," and so
on. Cf. also Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments,
338-41, 351.
35 Since the Two Ways schema underlies the whole of
the SM, the question is whether concerns about
"double-mindedness" would correspond to it.
36 See Raymond Bogaert, "Geld (Geldwirtschaft)," RAG
9 (1976) 797-907, esp. 843-50; Manfred Wacht,
"Giiterlehre," RAG 13 (1986) 59-150, esp. 106-10.

427
however, depend on one's inner disposition and
orientation, beginning with the heart (6:21 ).
The image and the goal should be clear. The struggle
on the rough road is one of choices to be made in life.
Making the right choices will then mean to remain part
of the small company of those who will find the narrow
gate to the heavenly realm and life eternal (7: 13-14).
2. Interpretation
a. On Treasures (6:19-21 I
19 Do not store up for yourselves treasures on
earth, where moth and rust ruin [them]
and where thieves break in and steal
[them].
20 Rather, store up for yourselves treasures in
heaven, where neither moth nor rust ruin
[them] and where thieves neither break
in nor steal [them].
21 for where your treasure is, there will be
your heart also.
Bibliography
Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.79-81; 2.345-50; 3.113-17,
272-74.
Michael Mees, "Das Sprichwort Mt 6, 21/Lk 12, 34
und seine au6erkanonischen Parallelen," Augus-
tinianum 14 (1974) 67-89.
Idem, Au}Jerkanonische Parallelstellen, 133-41.
Wilhelm Pesch, "Zur Exegese von Mt 6, 19-21 und Lk
12, 33-34," Bib 41 (1960) 356-78.
Piper, Wisdom, 103-4.
Harald Riesenfeld, "Vom Schiitzesammeln und
Sorgen-ein Thema urchristlicher Paranese: Zu
Mt VI 19-34," in Neotestamentica et Patristica:
Freundesgabe Oscar Cullmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag
ilberreicht (NovTSup 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962) 4 7-58.
AdolfM. Ritter, "Christentum und Eigentum bei
Klemens von Alexandrien auf dem Hintergrund
der friihchristlichen 'Armenfrommigkeit' und der
'Ethik' der kaiserzeitlichen Stoa," ZKG 86 ( 197 5)
1-25.
Reinhard Staats, "Deposita pietatis-Die Alte Kirche
und ihr Geld," ZThK 76 (1979) 1-29.
Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 77-81.
1 I Introduction
The third major block of the body of the SM, 6:19-
7:12, begins with the section 6:19-21, commonly
entitled "On Treasures." This position of a section, the
content of which is rather traditional, indicates several
37 So Bultmann, History, 84.
38 See Lausberg, Handbuch, § 879 (1.434). For the
analysis of the section I am indebted to Johan Thorn.
428
things. The passage certainly highlights the concern
about materialism as being of primary importance. This
concern reflects the first beatitude (5:3) in both respects,
material wealth and its spiritual implications. The human
being is viewed as a seeker and gatherer. On the way
through life the human race is incessantly preoccupied
with accumulating possessions. Yet, one must make
choices, and with regard to wealth the choice is whether
to gather treasures on earth or in heaven. One must see
this choice in connection with the telos-formulation
("goal"-formulation) stated in 6:33, "Seek first the king-
dom [of God] and his righteousness." If the human being
is a gatherer of treasures, which treasures correspond to
the demand of righteousness? The activity of"gathering"
as a "doing" must lead to "reward," if it is ethically valid.
Which kind of gathering, then, meets this requirement?
The individual's decision determines his or her total
outlook on life here on earth or in the hereafter. These
are the basic concepts set forth at the beginning of this
important section of the SM.
21 Analysis The passage 6:19-21 is a carefully structured sayings
composition. It consists of two parts that form a clearly
delineated unit: (1) verses 19-20 form an antithetical
isocolon (parallel lines) in symmetrical juxtaposition.
Verse 19 begins with a prohibition, a negative
imperative using the second person plural; it is
followed in vs 20 by a positive recommendation. Each
of these imperatives is provided with reasons, stated in
double lfwov-clauses ("where"-clauses) containing
chiasm: the first lfwov-clause has two nouns and one
verb (vss 19b and 20b), while the second lfwov-clause
has one noun and two verbs (vss 19c and 20c). The
pleonastic expressions in vss 19a and 20a (BTJ<TavplCm'
BTJuavpovs, "treasure treasures") and in vss 19c and 20c
(K11iwrat ... KAtwrnv, "thieves ... steal") are meant to
be emphatic. (2) Verse 21 is a sententia, stated as an
isocolon (parallel lines) using antapodosis (parallel in
comparisons) and the form "where ... there." This
sententia may have been an originally independent
proverb. 37 At the end of the argument, such as it is
here, it forms an epiphonema (concluding statement). 38
The question of the connection with the preceding
section (6:16-18) needs consideration, which I have
done in connection with the entire section comprising
6:19-7:12 (see the Introduction above, pp. 423-24).
Notably, while at the beginning ofvs 19 no connection

is obvious, one may point to association of ideas. If vss
16-18 warn against excessive asceticism, vss 19-21
argue against the opposite, indulging in material
luxuries. Or, ifvss 16-18 oppose formalistic per-
formance of ritual, vss 19-21 focus on the internal
disposition of the heart. Or, ifvss 16-18 have to do
with the head and the face, vss 19-21 .consider the
heart, a topic carried on in 6:22-23 (the "light within,"
lumen internum), 6:24 (love as a matter of the heart and
emotions), and 6:25-34 (the soul). Or, since vss 16-18
deal with abstention from consumption, all the
following sections up to 7: 12 deal with giving and
receiving. Finally, since 6:1-18 is concerned with
matters of the cult, 6:19-7:12 turns to mundane
affairs of daily life.
The composition makes it evident that its content
and purpose serve one continuous argument. The
question is, however, what the argument is about and
how it fits into the SM as a whole. Commentaries treat
the passage as a wisdom saying dealing with moral
issues "Concerning Gathering of Treasures and
Worrying," 39 but this description is too imprecise. 40
Harald Riesenfeld has pointed out that the passage
belongs to the standard themes of early Christian
paraenesis. This means that, while one can adduce
other New Testament texts as evidence, one must
interpret the passage in its present context. As Riesen-
feld rightly perceives, this context is concerned with
the education of the disciples in their new way of life
that is guided by the principle of righteousness. The
section 6:19-34 demonstrates "the necessity of the
right decision" and "the divine demand of wholeness";
this theme holds the passages together. 41 As Riesen-
feld shows, the anthropological concepts of "heart" and
"eye" exemplify that wholeness. 42 These observations
are indeed helpful, although they are incomplete. The
necessity of making decisions is central to the whole
39 In addition to many commentaries, see Zeller,
Mahnsprilche, 77-81.
40 For this criticism see Harald Riesenfeld, "Vom
Schatzesammeln und Sorgen-ein Thema urchrist-
licher Paranese: Zu Mt VI 19-34," in Neotestamentica
et Patristica: Freundesgabe Oscar Gull mann zu seinem 60.
Geburtstag ilberreicht (NovTSup 6; Leiden: Brill,
1962) 47-58, esp. 47.
41 Ibid., 47.
42 Ibid., 48-49.
43 For evaluation of wealth in antiquity, see Bogaert,
RAG 9.797-907, esp. 808,813-16,823-31,839-
43; for the NT 843-50; Hans-Jiirgen Horn, "Gold,"
RAG 11 (1981) 895-930, esp. 897-98, 903-4, 914-
15, 918-19; Manfred Wacht, "Giiterlehre," RAG 13
(1986) 59-150; Karl Suso Frank, "Habsucht (Geiz),"
RAG 13 ( 1986) 226-4 7; also Reinhard Staats,
Matthew 6:19-7:12
context because of the underlying Two Ways schema,
and the anthropological concepts play an even greater
role than Riesenfeld seems to realize. Yet, these ideas
and concepts do not fully explain what the argument is
about and how it fits into the context. Three major
issues make up the argument.
1. When turning from the cult (6:1-18) to matters
of daily life, the SM at once focuses on the most
obvious aspect of that life: the question of wealth. The
preceding section (6: 16-18) had rejected excessive
abstinence in fasting, but it certainly did not commend
excessive indulgence in luxury. The question of
abstinence in daily life, therefore, must first come to
terms with possessions and wealth. Possessions and
wealth are, however, matters of some complexity.
What God's creation provides, first of all, is not
possessions human beings can acquire, but abundance.
This abundance, owed to God's generosity manifest in
nature's fertility, no doubt constitutes "wealth"
(.,. Aovror). Ancient ethics long before the times of the
New Testament had wrestled with the problem of what
wealth was, what true and false attitudes toward it
were, and how humans can benefit from it. 43 The pre-
Socratics had realized what became a commonplace in
the Hellenistic period: pursuance of external wealth
and indulgence in luxuries are destructive, but true
wealth is internal, and its pursuance is the way to
happiness. Among the pre-Socratics, it was Democritus
who declared:
<voatp.ovt1J 1frvxiir Kat KaKooatp.ovt1Jr.
Happiness is a property of the soul,just as
wretchedness is. 4 4
The question was, which daimon dwells in the soul:
EVaatp.ovl7j oVK £v f3ouK1}p.acnv oliCE'i oV~t £v XPvu[p·
1/rvx~ olK1JT~ptoV oatp.ovor.45
Happiness does not dwell in herds, nor in gold;
the soul is the dwelling place of the daimon.
"Deposita pietatis-Die Alte Kirche und ihr Geld,"
ZThK 76 (1979) 1-29. For collections of parallels see
Wettstein, 1.329; Betz, Lukian, 194-99; O'Neil in
PEGL 2.348-49; for rabbinic Judaism see Str-B
1.429-31; for Hellenistic Judaism see Heinemann,
Philons griechische und judische Bildung, 431-46, 456,
545, 553.
44 Diels-Kranz, 68 B 170 (II, 178). The translations
here and below are mine. See also de Vogel, Greek
Philosophy, 1, no. 155; Wacht, RAG 13.64-65.
45 Diels-Kranz, 68 B 171 (II, 179).
429
This does not mean, however, that happiness comes
easily:
au~~ uavrhu 0.uo{fqts fuao8ev, '7f'OLIC{Aov TL JCa\
'IJ"OAV'IJ"a6~s K4KWV Tap.,ELOV £i1p~ITE'S Kal
61jiTatJp,.,.p.a. 46
If you open up yourself inside, you will find a
colorful and passion-rich storehouse and
treasury of evils.
Who is that daimon inside, and how can this internal
storehouse become a treasury of good things? The
answer Democritus gave was probably no different
from that of Empedocles:
8l\f3,os,/:ls 6Etrov wpawtl!rov tKT~IT4TO 'ITAOVTOV.
aE,llbs a·.~' ITKOT<lEITIT4 6EWV 'II"Epl Mga p.f.p.TJAEV. 47
Blessed he who has earned wealth from divine
thoughts;
wretched, he who cherishes a dark delusion
concerning the gods.
The matter was clear by the time of Socrates and Plato.
In Plato's Euthyd. 280d (LCL ed. and trans.) he affirms
that true wealth is wisdom, not money:
~E'iv lf.pa, f.PTJv, cilr fo,Ka, p.~ p..lvov KEKTfj.,.ea, Ta
T0,4VT4 aya6a TbV p.f_J\J\OVTa Eilliatp.oVa f1TEIT6a,, aJ\J\a
Kal XPfi.,.ea, aiiTo'ir" cilr oill!~v 8.pEllor Tfjs KT~II"Eros
ylyvETa,.
So it seems, he [Socrates] said, one must not merely
have acquired such goods if one is to be happy, but
use them too; else there is no benefit gained from
their possession.
Therefore, two matters are at stake. First, external
possessions as such do not constitute wealth. It is the
usage to which wealth is put once it has been acquired.
That usage, if it is to be of benefit, depends on one's
inner disposition. Mere heaping up treasures for the
sake of heaping them up makes no sense and does no
good. If one uses what one has with prudence, it may
lead to happiness. This principle in turn determines
46 Diels-Kranz, 68 B 149 (II, 172).
47 Diels-Kranz, 31 B 132 (1, 365). Pythagoras was one
who was believed to have obtained such great wealth
of thought (Diels-Kranz, 31 B 132 [I, 364]). See also
Betz, Essays, 32.
48 Cited according to the LCL edition and translation
by H. N. Fowler, Plato, 1.576-79. See also Konrad
Gaiser, "Das Gold der Weisheit: Zum Gebet des
Philosophen am SchluB des Phaidros," RhM 132
(1989) 106-40.
49 Xenophon Symp. 4.34.
50 Ibid., 4.41.
51 For the references I am indebted to the article by
Hans Herter, "Seelenfrieden gegen Unrast bei
Demokrit," in Latinitiit und Alte Kirche: FS filr Rudolf
Hanslik zum 70. Geburtstag (WS Sup 8; Vienna and
Koln: Bohlau, 1977) 131-49, esp. 140-42.
430
how much one needs for such usage, and what usage is
for. These ideas appear to be summed up in Socrates'
famous prayer at the end of the Phaedrus:
0 beloved Pan and all ye other gods of this place,
grant to me that I be made beautiful in my soul
within, and that all external possessions be in
harmony with my inner man. May I consider the
wise man rich; and may I have such wealth as only
the self-restrained man can bear or endure.
~ fl t/ltAE llav TE Kallf.>\J\o' /:l.,.o, TfiliE 6Eot,
l!Ot'ljTf. J.'O' K4A~ ")IEVf.IT6a' Tlf.vl!o6EV"
lECtJ8eu a~ Hua fxw, rois luths eTval p.ot <PlAta.
'IJ"AOtJIT,OV a~ vop.l(o'J.'' TbV ITO</I.lv· Tb ...~ XPVITOV
wll.fj6or Er'TJ p.o' /:l.,.o, p.~TE .pf.pov p.~TE lf.yov l!tJva,T'
o
lf.ll.ll.os ~ .,.C:,.pprov. 48
The same conclusions are reached in Xenophon's
discussion about wealth in his Symp. 4. Again, it is
Socrates who sums up:
Because, sirs, I conceive that people's wealth and
poverty are to be found not in their real estate but
in their hearts [-.Jrvxa'is]. 49
If one is to have happiness, one must draw it from the
"store of the soul" (tK Tfjs -.Jrvxfis Tap.,EtJop.a,). 50 The
treasure is not soul itself, therefore, but what is in the
soul. Plato's doctrine of the soul is devoted to that
problem. Another chapter of Greek ethics, beginning
with Plato and developing after Plato, is devoted to the
question of right usage (XPfi.,.ea,). 51
By the time of the New Testament these ideas are
commonplace. 52 Most interesting is that Jewish
literature has taken up the idea of the internal
treasure, but now in accordance with Jewish anthro-
pology it is located in the "heart" (Kapllla). Thus, the
concept occurs in Ps. Sol. 14.8 LXX:
HTL Oaol O.u8pC:nrwu yuwural iv6>'1n.OU aVroV o,a. wavrOs,
Kal rap.leta KapOlas lwlurarat wpO roV yeulu8at.
For the ways of men are known before him always,
52 See the passage in Plutarch, based on Democritus, De
tranq. an. 14, 4 73B: lv €avT~ Ta Tfjs Eilevp.las Kal Tfjs
liviT6vp.las fx_ov Tap.,E'ia ("Everyone has within himself
the storerooms of tranquillity and discontent" [my
trans.]). For further references see Georg Siefert,
Plutarchs Schrift wEpl EMvp.las (Programm Pforta 21,
May 1908; Naumburg: Sieling, 1908) 35-39. Siefert
mentions Plutarch De virt. et vit. 1 and 4; De tranq. an.
19; De audiendis poetis 6. See also De exilio 5, 600C-D;
Quaestiones convivales 5, praefatio, 672F. Many
passages from Epictetus could be cited too; see, e.g.,
Diss. 1.14.6; 1.17.27; 2.8.11-12,18-19.

and the storerooms of the heart are understood
before they happen. (my trans.)
While this is just an individual wisdom saying, 53 Philo
took over the entire range of Platonic ideas discussed
above. His treatise De fuga, especially, is strongly influ-
enced by Plato's Theaetetus 54 and Timaeus, 55 including
the discussion of the theodicy problem. In De JUga 62,
Philo contrasts the spheres of heaven and earth:
Now it was quite fitting that different regions
should be allotted to different things, heaven to a
good thing, the earthly parts to an evil thing. That
which is a good thing is a thing upward-soaring;
and should it ever come to us, in the bounty of its
Father, it hastens, as is meet and right, to retrace its
steps; but that which is evil stays here, removed as
far as possible from the Divine Company. 56
Among all the creatures, "the soul of man was to be
susceptible of conceptions of evil things and good
things, and to use one sort or the other, since it is im-
possible to use both. "57 Based on these doctrines, Philo
endorses the fundamental idea of Greek philosophy:
fu ~p.Lu yh.p aVro'is, Ws (tfJ7Ju, o{ rOOv KaKWv ElcTI.
87Juavpol, 'lTapa lleiP a~ ol p.&vov aya8wv.
For as I have said, the treasuries of evil things are in
ourselves; with God are those of good things
only. 58
Applied to the SM passage 6:19-21, the general
53 See, e.g., Wis 1:6-9; Philo Virt. 8-9; Vit. Mos. 1.22-
29; Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 42-45, with van der Horst's
commentary, Sentences, 142-45.
54 Theaet. 176a-b; Rep. 379b-c, 617e.
55 Tim. 29-30, 41.
56 Philo refers to Plato Theaet. 176a-b in the context.
Philo is cited according to the LCL edition (trans.
F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker; London: Heine-
mann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1934)
5.42-45.
57 Philo Fuga 70.
58 Ibid., 79.
59 Zeller (Mahnspriiche, 79-80) has traced the motifs
back to Jewish and Egyptian wisdom literature. In
adapting the wisdom material, however, the SM
composition expresses a theological and ethical
argument that includes more than that of a single
paraenetic saying (Mahnspruch).
60 Cf. T. Levi 13.5: "Therefore, my sons, do righteous-
ness on earth, in order that you might find it in
heaven" (1rot~uarE 0LKaLou.Ov7Jv, rJKva J.LOV, €1rt rfjs yijs,
Yva dlp7Jn EV ro!r ovpavotr ). The text is cited accord-
ing to the edition by Marinus de Jonge, The Testa-
ments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the
Greek Text (PVTG 1.2; Leiden: Brill, 1978); the trans.
is mine. Cf. also T. Benj. 10.3; Tob 13:8.
61 See above on SM/Matt 5:3.
Matthew 6:19-7:12
warning that occurs everywhere in ethicalliterature 59
is endorsed: Hoarding treasures for their own sake is
not the right way of dealing with the daily problems of
human life. The reason is that treasure hunting of this
kind is evidence of wrong goals in life. Instead one
should seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness
(6:33). The consequence of seeking the kingdom of
God is that the treasure is not in the heart itself, but
eschatological (see vs 21 ). 60
2. The theological and ethical starting point for vs
19 in the context of the SM is the first beatitude in 5:3,
in particular the concept of "poor in spirit. "61 How are
"the poor in the spirit" supposed to come to grips with
abundance? The answer is certainly not radical
asceticism, whether voluntary 62 or involuntary. 63
Poverty, one must conclude, is not simply a matter of
material want but just as much a disposition of the
spirit. Indeed, poverty "in the spirit" is a kind of
wealth: it equals "being rich toward God," to say it with
Luke 12:21 (elr llehv 'lTAovn!v). 64 The SM does not
mention this expression, but the concepts of poverty
"in the spirit" and "treasures in heaven" are closely
related. The difference seems to be that the SM does
not wish to claim any kind of "wealth," be it spiritual or
material, here on earth. On the one hand, conceivable
notions such as wealth of the heart or of the inner
world are studiously avoided because they would
62 Voluntary asceticism involves the practice of fasting.
63 Gerd Theissen (Social Reality and the Early Christians:
Theology, Ethics, and the World of the New Testament
[trans. Margaret Kohl: Fortress, 1992] 39-40) has
attempted to interpret the critique of wealth in 6:19-
21 in terms of the needs of the itinerant charismatic.
There is no evidence, however, that the disciples of
the SM are itinerant. Their travel on the "rough
road," including their "poverty," are primarily
matters of mental perception expressed by meta-
phors that point to stress but not to stringencies
stemming from actual wandering through the
country.
64 Luke 12:21, at the conclusion of the parable of the
Rich Fool. Cf. also Jas 2:5; Rev 2:9; 3: 17; 2 Clem.
6.1-5; Barn. 19.2; and esp. 2 Cor 8:9 (see Betz, 2
Corinthians 8 and 9, 61-63 with further material);
also 1 Cor 1:5.
431
jeopardize the expectation of divine reward in the
hereafter. The principles underlying the doctrines of
merit and reward require that the disciple does not
boast in any form of spiritual wealth here on earth. 65
On the other hand, it is precisely the realization of
poverty that enables the disciple to cope with the
human predicament, which includes not only want but
also sufficient provisions by God through nature. 66
Abundance, to the extent that it is available, is there to
be shared. Its purpose is not to be hoarded as useless
treasures. The faithful disciples, therefore, will share
in what God provides, and that means they will partly
use it and partly pass it on to others. 67
3. As for material goods, the Golden Rule (SMI
Matt 7: 12) is the primary hermeneutical principle
guiding this section (see the Introduction above, pp.
426-27). What is to be done with material goods
according to the Golden Rule? Their purpose is to go
to charities. In other words, one is to accept God's
generosity in the spirit of human generosity, and in
turn it will generate more generosity; this increase in
generosity will not only assure survival in the present
circumstances but it will also amount to "treasures in
heaven." One should observe that much of what is
assumed here as part of the theological thought
directing the argument in vss 19-21 remains unstated
in these sentences, but it comes to expression else-
where (see on 6:2-4 and 7:7-11). These theological
ideas are indeed close, even though they are not fully
spelled out in the argument. One can see this impli-
cation from a comparison with the parallel Luke
12:33-34, where they constitute the main point of the
exhortation.
This parallel is not easy to evaluate, however. While
one can assume that Luke 12:33-34 was part of Q, it is
not clear how "original" its formulation and inter-
pretation in Q is. In the Lukan context, the passage is
65 This is the reason why that wealth remains in heaven
(vs 21).
66 Cf. SMIMatt 6:33; 7:24-27.
67 Theologically, this is the starting point for Christian
charity. So, rightly, Riesenfeld, "Vom Schatzesam-
meln," 50-51, who refers to 1 Cor 7:31-32 and
Luke 10:38-42. See also Mark 10:21; 2 Cor 12:14
(for the ancient principle see Plutarch De cup. div. 7,
526A-527 A [on the passage see O'Neil in PECL
2.350-55]; Philo Vit. Mos. 2.245 [cf. Herter, "Seelen-
frieden," 141-42]); Mark 7:9-13; 1 Tim 6:19. On
the whole see Adolf Lumpe and Heinrich Karpp,
"Eitern," RAC 4 (1959) 1190-1219.
68 Luke 12:33-34 as well as Matt 6:19-21, therefore,
depend on the Q-tradition. The image of the
treasure in heaven in combination with the examples
of thief and moth must have been in Q. See Klop-
432
integrated into Jesus' speech to his disciples that begins
in Luke 12: 1 and consists of a sequence of sayings,
some of which have parallels in the SM. The more
immediate context in the Lukan speech of jesus deals
with possessions: 12:13-15 deals with "greed"
(trA<ov•fla), illustrated by the parable of the Rich Fool
(12:16-21); vss 22-32 (/I SMIMatt 6:25-33) with
"worrying" (/.t•p•J.Lvav); and vss 33-34 (cf. SMIMatt
6:2-4) with almsgiving (lA<TJJ.LOcrtJvTJ). These passages
are followed by eschatological warnings. Accordingly,
Luke 12:33-34 represents another redactional
composition, now part of an exhortation to give alms.
This composition shows no dependence on the SM (the
reverse is also true):6B
Sell your possessions and give alms. 69
Make for yourselves money-purses that do not wear
out, 70
an indestructible treasure in the heavens, 71
where thief does not get near, nor moth destroys. 72
For where your treasure is, there will also be your
heart. 73
'7TwA~uar£ Th- V1r&.pxovra Vp.Wv ~eat 06r£ fAET/p.ou-6v71v·
trot~crau £avrols {3a>..>..O.vna J.L~ traAatOtJJ.LEVa,
87Jcravphv avEKA£L7TOV Ev Tots oVpavols,
H7rov KAi7rTTJS' oVK fyyl(Et oVO~ ufis Or.acJ>BElpn ·
Cf1Tov y&.p furtv 0 871uavphs VfLWv, fKEi Kal ~ KapOla
( ,.. ,,
VJ.LWV ECTTat.
One can draw two conclusions from this evidence: (1)
Both compositions in SMIMatt 6:19-21 and Luke
12:33-34 are secondary redactions; they have each in
their own way appropriated the versions they found in
their recensions of Q. (2) The version in the SM is not
based directly on Luke 12:33-34, 74 but both the SM
and Q seem to have derived the sayings from the
wisdom tradition independently. What then was the
text contained in the "original" Q? This question is
difficult to answer. 75
penborg, Formation, 149; idem, QParallels, 134-35.
69 Cf. Mark 10:21 I I Matt 19:21 I I Luke 18:22.
70 Cf. Luke 10:4; 22:35-36; also 9:3.
71 Note the differences of singular and plural: SMIMatt
6:20 has "treasures in heaven"; Luke 12:33: "treasure
in the heavens."
72 The sequence of thief and moth, as well as the verbs,
differ from the SM.
73 On the singular versus the plural, see below, n. 83.
74 See Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 77-78, with references; also
Bultmann, History, 92, 237; Braun, Radikalismus,
2.74 n. 2; Grundmann,Matthiius, 209-10; Schulz, Q,
142-43; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 135-36 (Sermon, 131-
32).
75 Against Luz, Matthiius, 1.356 (Matthew, 1.392), who
suggests that Matthew has taken over the Q-text,
with the exception of the phrase "in the heavens,"
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

3) Interpretation pidity 82 of such hoarding: "where moth and rust ruin

• 19 The exhortation begins with a warning against the
hoarding of material goods: "Do not store up for
yourselves treasures on the earth" (M~ 87Juavpl(£u vp.'iv
87Juavpol!s ~'lTt Tijs yijs). The exhortation presupposes that
this is precisely what everyone normally does. The
pleonastic 87Juavpl(Hv 871uavpovs ("treasure treasures")
signifies the mindless piling up of such treasures, 76 an
activity that is as common as it is futile. 77 That this
accumulation is done for selfish reasons ("for yourselves")
is part of the picture, but it is not the point here. 78
Rather, that the hoarding takes place on earth deter-
mines its futility. Everything on this earth is subject to
perishability. 79 This is a fact oflife and everyone should
know it, 80 but people are normally ignorant or defiant,
thinking that they alone can escape from the destiny
awaiting all material goods. Therefore the question of
amassing earthly goods is in the first place a matter of
prudence versus imprudence. There is nothing ethically
wrong with worldly goods as such: they are what they
are. The problem of ethical behavior toward these goods
is primarily one of perception and handling of these
goods. 81
The passage defines such material goods by singling
out clothes and money, but these items are tokens
representing all material goods. The Ci'lTov-clauses in vs
19b-c make use of commonplaces describing the stu-
[them] and where thieves break in and steal [them]"
(Ci'lTOV uijs Kat f3pwuts acpavl(H Kat Ci'lTOV KAi'lTTal
Swpvuuovuw Kat KA£'lTTovuw). 83 Using powerful pro-
verbial images the Ci'lTov-clauses appeal to common
observation and experience. Clothes that remain unused
get eaten by moths (uijs). 84 Money hidden in walls,
basements, or under the ground is stolen by thieves who
dig it up after breaking through the walls. 85
• 20 The positive commendation uses the same
terminology as vs 19, but turns it into metaphors:
"Rather, store up for yourselves treasures in heaven"
(87Juavpl(£T£ Sf: vp.'iv 87Juavpol!s ~v ovpavi!J). "Treasures in
heaven" will be exempt from perishability: "where
neither moth nor rust ruin [them] and where thieves
neither break in nor steal [them]" (Ci'lTov oifu uijs oifu
f3pwuls acpavl(H Kat Ci'lTOV KA,'lTTal ov SwpvuuOVITIV ovS€
KA,'lTTOVITW). 86
The peculiar notion here is that of "treasures in
heaven," apparently a commonplace of Jewish wisdom at
the time. 87 The SM makes reference to the same idea in
SM/Matt 5: 12b, "your reward will be great in the
heavens." Indeed, the image is connected throughout the

which Matthew changed to the singular.
76 See Tannehill, Sword ofHis Mouth, 48.
77 On the terms 07Juavpl(w, 07JuavpJ~ see Friedrich
Hauck, TDNT 3.136-38; Dieter Zeller, EWNT
(EDNT) 2, s.v. 07Juavpl(w KTA. (with bibliography).
78 Luke 12:16-21 makes this point against collecting
material goods quite clear.
79 See SM/Matt 5:5, 13, 14-16; 6:10, 25-34; 7:24-27.
80 See Job 17:16-23, describing the lot of the wicked;
Prov 22:1; 23:4-5; Sir 5:1-6; 11 :23-28;Jas 1:10-
11; 5:1-6; Teach. Silv. 89.17-21 (Robinson, Nag
Hammadi Library, 383): "Do not become desirous of
gold and silver which are profitless, but clothe
yourself with wisdom like a robe."
81 Cf. also SP/Luke 6:38.
82 This is why the rich man in Luke 12:16-21 is a fool.
83 The singular iupavl(n shows that uii~ Kal fJpwu•~ is
taken as a zeugma (rhetorical figure of combining
one verb with two nouns, but fitting only one). D* f
g 1 k read the plurali'l(pavl(ovutv, which is gram-
matically correct and also parallel to vs 16. Verse 20
has the singular too, however, and it is not disputed.
The symmetry ofvss 16 and 20 requires the singular.
84 For parallels from Hellenistic literature see Betz,
Lukian, 196 n. 3; BAGD, s.v. uii~ and fJpwu•~. 2. Cf.
also u7JrJfJpwro~ ("moth-eaten") inJas 5:2.
85 For literary parallels see Betz, Lukian, 195 n. 4;
BAGD, s.v. awp-6uuw; Zeller, EWNT, 2.371 (EDNT
2.150). See also Job 24:16; Matt 24:43; Luke 12:39.
86 IC jl 205 pc it sy< read Kal K>ti1rrovutv ("and they
steal"), clearly an improvement because "digging
through" should precede stealing; W k omit the last
two words altogether, perhaps for the same reason.
87 For the concept in jewish wisdom and apocalyptic
literature see Tob 4:9; 12:8-9; Sir 3:4; 17:22-23;
29:10-13; Ps. Sol. 9.51; 1 Enoch 38.2; 2 Enoch 50.5; 4
Ezra 6.5-6; 7.77; 8.33, 36; 2 Bar. 14.12; 24.1; T.Job
18.6-8; T. Levi 13.5; T. Naph. 8.5-6. The tradition
continues in Christianity: Mark 10:21 par.; 1 Tim
6:18-19; Heb 11:26; and in rabbinic tradition: 'Abot
6.9; for more passages see Str-B 1.429-31; Fiebig,
Bergpredigt, 122-25. For discussion see Zeller,
Mahnspruche, 79-80; idem, EWNT 2.372-73 (EDNT
2.150-51). A derivation solely from apocalypticism

433
SM with the notion of "merit" {JA.tu8os). 88 In Judaism,
however, where the image is at home, it is more than a
mere metaphor. It points to a metaphysical concept, 89
according to which there is a location above the earth,
where the good works of the faithful are either kept in
storage, 90 or where they are registered in "the book of
life. "91 The idea oflaying up heavenly treasures looks
strange to us today, but in terms of ancient ethical
thinking it makes good sense. With regard to the ethical
task, perishability in general cannot mean that "good
deeds" simply vanish like everything else on earth. The
same is true of "bad deeds." Without this assumption no
accountability or responsibility would exist. The idea of
justice requires that there be, by analogy perhaps with
human monuments, 9 2 a record somewhere where
human deeds, good and bad, are kept available for
inspection at the last judgment. This memory bank of
good deeds is what is meant by "treasures in heaven."
These treasures consist of accumulated "merits," which
must not be spent but must continuously be increased
through more good deeds. It is assumed that these
heavenly treasures, which are done on earth but not
rewarded on earth, will be stored in an inaccessible and
indestructible place somewhere between God's realm
and the earth. 93
How is one to lay up heavenly treasures? One can
derive the answer from Mark 10:21 and 1 Tim 6:18-19.
It is to be done by performing good deeds here on earth,
in particular by sharing one's possessions with others.
This idea has had a long history in Judaism, from where
it was taken over into Christian beliefs. 94
Given this presupposition, one must connect the idea
of collecting treasures in heaven with the exhortations to
provide alms (cf. SM/Matt 5:40-42, 46; 6:2-4; 6: 12).
Indeed, the entire section 6: 19-7: 12, as guided by the
Golden Rule, applies at this point. If one wants to benefit
from the heavenly treasures and be acceptable to God in
the last judgment, one must take the initiative here on

appears to be one-sided because the concept occurs
also in Egyptian wisdom. See Klaus Koch, "Der
Schatz im Himmel," in Leben angesichts des Todes: FS
Helmut Thielicke zum 60. Geburtstag ( Tiibingen: Mohr
[Siebeck), 1968) 47-60; Arthur Marmorstein, "The
Treasures in Heaven and upon Earth," London
Quarterly Review 132 (1919) 216-28; idem, The
Doctrine ofMerits in Old Rabbinic Literature (London:
Jew's College, 1920) 20-24; Ephraim Urbach,
"Treasure Above," in Gerard Nahon and Charles
Touati, eds., Hommage a Georges Vajada (Lou vain:
Peeters, 1980) 117-24.
88 See above on SM/Matt 5:12.
89 The concept is related to the notions of justice and
theodicy. If good deeds receive no recognition in this
world, justice requires that they be rewarded in the
next; otherwise God's justice would be in jeopardy.
This problem also accounts for the preeminence of
the concept of merit in apocalypticism and rabbinic
theology.
90 See already the Egyptian Instruction of Merikare 55
(ANET, 415; AOT, 34; Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian
Literature, 1.101 [cited here); Brunner, Altiigyptische
Weisheit, 145): "When a man remains over after
death, his deeds are set beside him as treasure, and
being yonder lasts forever." On storage places in
heaven, see Koch, "Der Schatz," 59; Zeller, EWNT
2.372-73 (EDNT2.150-51).
91 For the "book oflife" cf. Phil4:3; Rev 3:5; 13:8 v.l.;
20:15; 1 Clem. 53.4;HermasSim. 2.9; Vis. 1.3.2. See
BAGD, s.v. {3i{3A.os, 2. The idea goes back to the OT,
to apocalypticism, and to the Near East; see esp. Dan
7:10; 10:21; 12:1;jub. 30.20-22; 1 Enoch 47.3;
81.1-2; 108.3; 2Enoch 52.15; T.jac. 7.21-28; T.
Abr. 12-14;jos. Asen. 15.4; 'Abot 2.1; 3.20 (ed. R.
Trevers Herford, The Ethics of the Fathers [New York:
Schocken, 1962)38-39, 89); etc. See Str-B 2.169-
76; Shalom M. Paul, "Heavenly Tablets and the Book
of Life," Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of
Columbia University 5 (1973) 345-53.
92 See Helmut Hausle, Das Denkmal als Garant des
Nachruhms: Beitriige zur Geschichte und Thematik eines
Motivs in lateinischen Inschriften (Zetemata 75; Munich:
Beck, 1980); Klaus Stahler, "Grabdenkmal," RAG 12
(1982) 445-55; Gerhard Pfohl, "Grabinschrift I
(griechisch)," RAG 12.467-514, esp. 487-93;
Charles Pietri, "Grabinschrift II (lateinisch)," RAG
12.514-90, esp. 546-48.
93 The singular fV ovpav~ ("in heaven") may indicate
that the SM thinks of a place separate from God's
own realm ("in the heavens" [plural)). See above on
SM/Matt 5:3, 10, 12, 18, 34; 6:10, 16; etc.
94 See also Philo Spec. leg. 4.74; 3 Bar. 11.8-9; 14.2
(OTP 1.676 n. 14b); Vision of Ezra 4-6, 24-26, 60-66
(OTP 1.587-90); T.job 9-13,44-45 (OTP 1.842-44,
863).

434
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

earth by using one's material goods for the doing of good
works. After all, the earthly goods have all been received
in the first place thanks to God's generosity, and it is only
fair and just that they are shared with those in need.
• 21 A peculiar sententia ("sentence") concludes the
composition of vss 19-21: "For where your treasure is,
there your heart will be also" (chrov y6.p £crnv o87Jcravpos
crov, £Kii ~crrat Kat ~ Kapola crov ). 95 At first sight, this
sentence looks like a proverb, but it appears to be more
than simply commonplace. It has no parallel, to my
knowledge, in any of the collections of proverbs from
antiquity. 96 This uniqueness may be accidental, since we
do not possess all the proverbs that existed in antiquity,
but the absence of parallels in the Old Testament and
subsequent Jewish literature almost rules-out a pro-
verbial origin. 97 Many scholars have therefore taken the
sentence to be an original creation ofJesus. 98 The
change from the second person plural (vss 19-20) to the
second person singular (vs 21) 99 is an added sign that the
saying existed prior to its present context. One can also
relate the saying to others in the SM. As justin Martyr
shows (Apol. 1.15-16), one can relate it to Matt 6:33.
Moreover, the concept of the heart is fundamental to the
anthropology of the SM (see 5:8, 28; cf. 5:37; 6:4, 6, 18,
22-23,24, 25; 7:13-14) and the SP (Luke 6:45). The
parable of the Rich Young Man (Mark 10:21 par.) shows
that his heart is indeed where his possessions are.
Likewise, one can point to the parable of the Rich Fool
(Luke 12: 16-21) or to the parable of the Hidden
Treasure and the Pearl (Matt 13:44-46). As a result,
there is evidence that the saying sums up an important
point of the teaching of the historical Jesus and may
therefore have originated with him. According to the
theology of Jesus, then, the decisive point in dealing with
material goods is that of perspective. If one envisions
one's life in the perspective of the treasures in heaven,
this perspective will inform and guide the human heart,
which in turn will decide what to do in one's daily life.
These decisions have to do, in the first place, with
material goods and their disposal. The future ~crTat ("will
be") is therefore logical, not local or temporal. 1 00
Yet, the story does not end here. Scholars 101 have
discussed the phenomenon that different versions 10 2 of
the sentence circulated in post-New Testament liter-
ature. Justin Martyr (Apol. 1.15-16) has a cluster of
sayings similar to the SM that includes another version of
the saying: "For where the treasure is, there is also the
intellect of the person" (117Tov yap o87Jcravpos £crnv, £K~'i Kat
0 vovs TOV av8pdmov ). 1 03 The difference as compared
with SM/Matt 6:21/ /Luke 12:34 is that the human
"intellect" (vovs) is now identified as the treasure, while
the eschatological dimension has been eliminated.
Clement of Alexandria makes this point even clearer by
turning things around: "For where someone's intellect is

95 B horns omit the Kai ("also") as redundant or because
ofhaplography. The parallel in Luke 12:34 shows
that the Kai should be read.
96 Closely parallel is Prov 4:23: "Guard your heart more
than any treasure, for it is the source of all life" (my
trans.). Cf. Ps 62:10-13 (LXX 61:10-13).
97 See Wilhelm Pesch, "Zur Exegese von Mt 6, 19-21
und Lk 12, 33-34," Bib 41 (1960) 356-78; Str-B
1.431; Fiebig,Bergpredigt, 125.
98 So Percy, Botschaft Jesu, 90 n. 6; Pesch, "Zur Exe-
gese," 368-69,370, 375; Zeller,Mahnsprilche, 81.
99 So the better witnesses (II B), while L W 0 jl- 13 33.
892. 1006. 1342. 1506 :IJl f sy boP' read the second
person plural, no doubt in order to make vs 21
consistent with vss 19-20 as well as with Luke 12:34.
100 See also Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 80-81, who speaks of
the heart being "anchored in heaven" and refers for
support to T.job 36.3, which, however, says some-
thing different: "My heart is not fixed on earthly
concerns, since the earth and those who dwell in it
are unstable. But my heart is fixed on heavenly
concerns, for there is no upset in heaven" (OTP
1.857). Cf. Col 3:2: "Consider the things that are
above, not the things that are upon the earth."
101 See the investigation by Michael Mees, "Das Sprich-
wort Mt 6, 21/Lk 12, 34 und seine aufierkanon-
ischen Parallelen," Augustinianum 14 (1974) 67-89;
idem, Auj3erkanonische Parallelstellen, 133-41, with
further references; for the older literature, see
Tholuck, Bergrede, 416-17 (Commentary, 375-76);
Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.79-81; 2.345-50; 3.113-17.
102 One tradition uses "heart" (Kapaia), another "intel-
lect" (voil~). See Mees's articles for references; also
Pesch, "Zur Exegese," 376-77.
103 The text is given in Aland, Synopsis, 89. The trans-
lation is mine.

435
there is also his treasure" (g1rov yap h vovs nvos tKli Kat h
o.,uavpos avTov). 10 4 Or: "For where the intellect of a
person is, there is also his treasure" (g1rov yap h vovs Tov
av8pC:mov tKli Kat h o.,uavpos ahov.). 105 That this version
is attractive to the Platonist philosopher is evident from
yet another variant: "But our true treasure is where the
kinship Of the intellect is" (b a~ T(i> lfvn 871uavp0S f,p.wv fv8a
.;, ctvyy£vna TOV vov). 106
This Platonizing interpretation identifies the "intel-
lect" (vovs) as the center of the human personality; it is
the treasure because according to Platonic doctrine the
possession of the divine intellect constitutes the center of
the human person, 107 later called h fvvovs l1.v8pw1ros ("the
intellect-endowed human person") 108 or h fuw l1.v8pw1ros
("the inner human person"). 109
No wonder that this version was popular also in
Gnosticism. 110 Yet, the real question is, Where did this
version come from and how did it originate? Two
answers have been given:
1. Michael Mees, who has collected the evidence,
thinks there is no difference between "heart" (Kapala) and
"intellect" (vovs) because both are translations of the
Hebrew :::1':!. Indeed, the Hebrew word can mean both,
but this fact cannot decide the meaning in the present
context. 111
2. Gilles Quispel 112 derived all these versions, which
he traces to Egypt, from the Gospel to the Hebrews; he
"reconstructs" from them a saying in parallel lines
(isocolon):
Where the heart (is), there (is) the treasure;
And where the treasure (is), there will your heart be
also. 113
This saying is, however, purely the result of conjecture;
it is attested nowhere. Quispel simply formed a new
saying by adding the two basic versions to form a
parallelismus membrorum (parallel lines) using chiasm.
One needs to take into account other puzzling
parallels in the New Testament. 1~Pet 3:4 contains the
saying: "Let your adornment be the inner self, with the
lasting beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit-;which is very
precious in God's sight" (NRSV) (h KpV7TTOs Tijs Kapalas
l1.v8pw7TOS tv T(i> acfl8ctpTCfJ TOV 7rpa£ws Kat f,uvxlov
7TV£Up.aTos, g tunv lvci>7T&ov Tov 8£ov 7TOAvuA£s). 114 One
can compare this saying in turn to ideas in Col 3: 15-16;
Eph 3:16-17 (cf. 1:18; 5:14, 19), no doubt rooted in
Paul's theology (cf. Gal 2: 19-20; 4:4-6; 2 Cor 4:6; Rom

104 Clement Alex. Strom. 7.12.77.6 (GCS 17.55, line 15).
The translation is mine.
105 Idem, Quis dives salvetur 17.1 (GCS 17.170, line 20).
106 Idem, Strom. 4.6.33.5 (GCS 52.163, line 4).
107 Cf. Gos. Thom. log. 76 (trans. Layton, Gnostic Scrip-
tures, 393): "Jesus said, 'What the kingdom of the
father resembles is a merchant who owned some
merchandise, and then learned about the existence of
a certain pearl. That merchant was shrewd, sold the
.merchandise, and bought the single pearl. You
(plur.), too, seek the ceaseless and enduring treasure,
where moth does not approach to eat nor worm to
destroy.'" Also here, salvation is within (log. 70):
"Jesus said, 'If you (plur.) produce what is in you,
what you have will save you. If you do not have what
is in you, what you do not have [will] kill you'"
(Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 393). On the "kingdom
within," see also log. 3. For the passages see also
Kloppenborg, Q-Parallels, 135.
108 Corp. Herm. 1.18, 21; cf. 13.4; see Grese, Corpus
Hermeticum XIII, 97-98, 184.
109 See Rom 7:22; 2 Cor 4:16; Eph 3:16. The concept
goes back to Plato Rep. 9, 589a; Ps.-Plato Ale. mai.
129e-130a; see also Plotinus Enn. 5.1.1 0; Philo
Plant. 42; De congressu eruditionis gratia 97: Det. pot.
ins. 23; Zosimos of Panopolis, On the Letter Omega (ed.
and trans. Howard M.Jackson; SBLTT 14; Missoula,
Mont.: Scholars, 1978) 28-29 (section 10), and nn.
48-52 (pp. 49-50). For bibliography see BAGD, s. v.
lJ.vBpwwos, 2.c.a; Pierre Courcelle, "Gefangnis der
Seele," RAG 9 (1976) 294-318; Carsten Colpe,
"Gnosis 11 (Gnostizismus)," RAG 11 (1981) 537-659,
esp. 605-7.
ll0 Gospel ofMary 14.14 (ed. Walter Till, Die gnostischen
Schriften des Papyrus Berol. 8502 [TU 60; Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1955]69): "Denn (ylip) dort, wo
der Verstand (vovs) ist, da ist peho [Quispel: dein
Schatz]." ("For where the intellect is, there is the
treasure.") See also Robert MeL. Wilson and George
W. MacRae, "The Gospel of Mary," in Douglas M.
Parrott, ed., Nag Hammadi Codices V, 2-5 and VI with
papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4 (NHS 21; Leiden:
Brill, 1979) 463; Kloppenborg, QParallels, 135.
111 Pesch, "Zur Exegese," 377 n. 2.
112 Gilles Quispel, "Das Hebraerevangelium im gnos-
tischen Evangelium nach Maria," VC 11 (1957) 139-
44; idem, "The Gospel of Thomas and the New
Testament," ibid., 189-207, reprinted in his Gnostic
Studies, 2.3-16.
113 So Quispel, "Gospel of Thomas," 199; idem, Gnostic
Studies, 2.5.
114 For the difficulties of interpretation, see Goppelt, Der
erste Petrusbrief, 216-18. (Idem, A Commentary on 1
Peter [trans. John E. Alsup; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

436

5:5; 8:15-16). 115 b. On Vision (6:22-23)
Also of interest is the possibility that the Platonizing 22
versions of the saying in SM/Matt 6:21 may go back as
far as Democritus and Plato. The sayings cited above 116 23
show that the polemic against c/>tA.onp.la ("ambition") and
c/>tA.apyvpla ("love of money"), coupled with the insight
that the true treasures lie in the human soul, are found as
early as Democritus. 117 According to Greek philosophy,
the method for drawing on the benefits of this treasure is
paideia, "education." The benefits paid out are wisdom
and tranquillity of the mind (EVBvp.la), which enable the
sage to cope with the realities of daily life (apKE'icr8at ro'is
1rapovcrt). 118 The key term Ev8vp.la ("tranquillity of the
mind") not only points to famous philosophical treatises
by Plutarch 119 and Seneca 1 2° but also establishes
connections with the New Testament. 121
To return to SM/Matt 6:21, it is conceivable that the
Platonizing versions in Justin and Clement of Alexandria
are in substance older than the New Testament, al-
though they are attested chronologically later. This in
turn could mean that Jesus' saying contained in vs 21 is
not a common proverb but a self-consciously formulated
critical maxim. In other words, vs 21 is a de-Platonized
version of the saying, which Justin and Clement of
Alexandria have either re-Platonized or cited in older
Platonizing versions. If this development led to the
formulation of the saying, it would constitute a subtle
polemic against Hellenistic philosophy, analogous to
what we found in other SM passages. The critique would
in effect say that the treasure is not in the heart and
certainly not in the soul. The heart is in need of puri-
fication (5:5) because the inner center of the person can
be utter darkness (6:22-23). Instead, the treasure is
eschatological and outside the heart, in heaven. The
heart must direct itself toward that treasure, and the
disciple must walk on the way toward the kingdom of
God (7:13-14). Seeking the kingdom of God and his
righteousness will lead to the treasures in heaven (see
6:33).
1993]221-23).
115 The treasure here is Christ or the Holy Spirit; see
esp. 2 Cor 4:7; Col 2:3.
116 See above, p. 436.
117 On this point see Herter, "Seelenfrieden," 138-42.
118 For bibliography see ibid., 141.
119 Plutarch, "On Tranquillity of Mind" ("lTEpl EVBvp.las),
in Plutarch's Moralia (trans. William C. Helmbold
Matthew 6:19-7:12
The lamp of the body is the eye.
If, then. your eye is healthy/good. your
whole body will be full of light.
If, however, your eye is sick/evil. your
whole body will be dark.
If, therefore. the light which is in you is
darkness-what darkness!
Bibliography
Sverre Aalen, Die Begriffe "Licht" und "Finsternis" im
Allen Testament, im Spiitjudentum und im Rabbinismus
(Skrifter utgitt av det Norske Videnskaps-Academi
i Oslo; Historisk-filosofisk Klasse 1951:1; Oslo:
Dybwad,1951).
Dale C. Allison, "The Eye Is the Lamp of the Body
(Matthew 6.22-23 =Luke 11.34-36)," NTS 33
(1987) 61-83.
Joseph Amstutz, AIIAOTHI:: Eine begriffsgeschichtliche
Studie zum jildisch-christlichen Griechisch (Theo-
phaneia 19; Bonn: Hanstein, 1968).
Georges Andre, "La vertu de simplicia~ chez les Peres
Apostoliques," RSR 11 (1921) 306-27.
Heinrich Bacht, "Einfalt," RAG 4 (1959) 821-40.
Benjamin W. Bacon, "The 'Single' Eye," Expositor, 8/7
(1914) 275-88.
Gunther Baumbach, Das Verstiindnis des Biisen in den
synoptischen Evangelien ( Theologische Arbeiten 19;
Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1963).
Hans Dieter Betz, "Matthew 6:22-23 and Ancient
Greek Theories of Vision," in idem, Essays, 71-87;
also idem, Synoptische Studien, 140-54.
RudolfBultmann, "Zur Geschichte der Lichtsymbolik
im Altertum," Philologus 97 (1948) 1-36; reprinted
in his Exegetica, 323-55.
Henry J. Cadbury, "The Single Eye," HTR 47 (1954)
69-74.
Hans Conzelmann, "<Pro~." TDNT 9, s. v.
Waldemar Deonna, Le symbolisme de l'oeil (Bern:
Francke, 1965).
Albrecht Dihle, "Vom sonnenhaften Auge," JACSup
10 (1983) 85-91.
Conny Edlund, Das Auge der Einfalt: Eine Untersuchung
zu Matth. 6, 22-2} und Luk. 11, 34-35 (ASNU 19;
Uppsala: Almqvist,& Wiksell, 1952).
F. C. Fensham, "The Good and Evil Eye in the Sermon
on the Mount," Neot. 1 (1967) 51-58.
[LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University, 1962]6.166-241).
120 Seneca, "On Tranquillity of Mind," De tranquillitate
animi, in Seneca: Moral Essays (trans. John W. Basore
[LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University, 1965]2.202-85).
121 See Betz, "De tranquillitate animi," in PECL 2.198-
230.
437
Paul Fiebig, "Das Wortjesu vom Auge," ThStK 89
(1916) 499-507.
Susan R. Garrett, "'Lest the Light in You Be Dark-
ness': Luke 11:33-36 and the Question of Commit-
ment," JBL 110 (1991) 93-105.
Ferdinand Hahn, "Die Worte vom Licht Lk 11, 33-
36," in Paul Hoffmann et al., eds., Orientierung an
jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker: FS fur josef Schmid
(Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1973) 107-
38.
Otto Hiltbrunner, "Simplicitas: Eine Begriffsge-
schichte," in his Latina Graeca (Bern: Francke,
1958) 15-105.
Johannes Lindblom, "Det solliknande ogat," Svensk
teologisk Kvartalskrift 3 ( 1927) 230-4 7.
Carmel McCarthy, "The Apple of the Eye," in Pierre
Casetti et al., eds., Melanges Dominique Barthelemy
(OBO 38; Fribourg: Editions universitaires, 1981)
289-95.
Hans Hermann Malmede, Die Lichtsymbolik im Neuen
Testament (Ph.D. diss., University of Bonn, 1959;
partially printed: Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-
Wilhelm-Universitat, 1960).
Idem, Die Lichtsymbolik im Neuen Testament (Studies in
Oriental Religions 15; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
1986).
Wilhelm Michaelis, "bptiro KTA.," TDNT 5.375-78.
Margaret Miles, "Vision: The Eye of the Body and the
Eye of the Mind in Saint Augustine's De trinitate
and Confessione," JR 38 (1983) 125-42.
Piper, Wisdom, 127-30.
Edward Robertson, "The Apple of the Eye in the
Masoretic Text," JTS 38 (1937) 56-59.
Adolf Rosenzweig, Das Auge in Bibel und Talmud
(Berlin: Mayer & Muller, 1892).
Gunnar Rudberg, Hellas och Nya Testamentet (Stock-
holm: Diakonistyrelsens bokforlag, 1929) 150-51.
Margot Schmidt, "Das Auge als Symbol der Erleuch-
tung bei Ephram und Parallelen in der Mystik des
Mittelalters," Oriens Christianus 68 (1984) 27-57.
Friedrich Schwencke, "Das Auge ist des Leibes Licht
(Mt 6, 22f., Lk 11, 33-36)," ZWTh 55 (1913) 251-
60.
Erik Sjoberg, "Das Licht in dir: Zur Deutung von
Matth. 6, 22f. Par.," StTh 5 (1951) 89-105.
Ceslas Spicq, "La vertue de simplicite dans !'Ancien et
le Nouveau Testament," RSPhTh 22 (1933) 5-26;
see also his Notes, 1.125-29.
Rudiger Vischer, Das einfache Leben: Wort- und
motivgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Wertbegriff
der antiken Literatur (Studienhefte zur Altertums-
wissenschaft 11; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1965 ).
Paul Wilpert (Sibylla Zenker)," Auge," RAG 1 (1950)
958-69.
438
1 I Introduction
The saying "On Vision" (6:22-23) is one of the most
difficult and yet most interesting passages of the SM. The
problem of its interpretation involves first of all a
methodological decision: Is the SM with its images and
concepts primarily a collection of individual wisdom
sayings, prephilosophical in nature, or are the sayings
assembled in the SM succinct statements of theological
arguments involving philosophical ideas of a more
developed nature? If the former is true, interpreters will
be content with referring to the parallels in wisdom
sayings in the biblical and Hellenistic-Jewish literature.
Widespread as it is, however, this approach has not
succeeded in clearly explaining what the passage is all
about. The second option, therefore, is more com-
mendable because it can explain the meaning. This
option accords with the method I follow throughout this
commentary. In view of the text at hand, it is necessary
to take recourse to the philosophical tradition of the
Greeks, which has extensive theoretical discussions about
sense perception, cognition, ophthalmology, light and
darkness, and colors. From the large number of passages
dealing with these subjects it is apparent that thinkers in
the Hellenistic period were intensely interested in the
functioning and malfunctioning of the eyes, especially
also in comparison with the ears. These discussions drew
on popular and proverbial wisdom on the one hand, and
on scientific observations and experiments on the other
hand. The results were handed down in ever reexamined
and reinterpreted form by the various philosophical
school traditions. This stream of tradition can be traced
back as far as the pre-Socratics.
Prior to the New Testament, the traditions in some
form reached jewish wisdom literature, which gave more
and more attention to this subject matter because of the
implications for perception and vision pertaining to the
divine word and revelation. Here Greek thought met
with and helped interpret the older traditions of pro-
verbial wisdom, in which sayings about the eye and vision
had already played an important role. For this reason it
is only natural that wisdom and apocalyptic literature
were especially preoccupied with interpreting these
teachings. One can hardly have any doubt that
Hellenistic-Jewish literature was influenced by Greek
ideas early on, although explicit references to Platonic
(i.e., Middle-Platonic) doctrines do not occur until Philo

of Alexandria.
What mattered most to this literature was the dualism
between light and darkness as it applies to human vision,
the notion of the "inner light" (lumen internum), the idea
of the eyes being mirrors of the soul, and the relationship
between the eyes and the sun.
Parallels from judaism have been gathered in the
comprehensive studies listed above in the bibliography
on this section. This material is rich and diversified, so
that I cannot reproduce it here except for illustrative
examples. The excursus below on ancient Greek theories
of vision will also provide a survey of the material as far
as it is needed to understand the presuppositions of the
text.
2) Analysis The connection of the passage 6:22-23 with the
preceding in 6:19-21 has not yet been determined.
There is no identifiable verbal connection, not even a
particle, so that one must make note of a grammatical
asyndeton. There seems to be, however, association of
ideas. The last noun in vs 21 is the "heart" (Kapll[a), but
the saying of vss 19-21 leaves the disposition of the
human heart a matter open for further reflection. 122
Indeed, vss 22-23 further pursue this question,
although instead of the "heart" 123 the entire internal
life of the person is subjected to self-exploration. 124 At
the level of presupposition one can detect an anthro-
pology, dualistic in nature, which sets the dark body in
stark contrast to "the light that is within you." Contrary
to what one would expect, however, vss 22-23 do not
mention the "soul" (o/vx~); it is mentioned only in vs
25. The sections ofvss 19-21, 22-23, and 24 are held
together by, among other things, anthropological
concepts and ethical ideas that depend on them. This
122 Conceivably, a concept such as "the eyes of the heart"
(o1 o<J>8aAp.ot T"fif Kap/l{af) Stands in the background.
This concept occurs, however, in NT texts that are
removed from the SM; see Eph 1: 18; 1 Clem. 36.2;
Mart. Pol. 3.2; and in Hermetic literature (Corp.
Herm. 4.11; 7.1-12). On the connections between
the eyes and the heart in the OT see Deut 28:65; 1
Kgs 9:3;Job 31:7; Prov 21:4; Isa 6:10; 44:18; etc.
See Conny Edlund, Das Auge der Einfalt: Eine
Untersuchung zu Matth. 6,22-23 und Luk. 11,34-35
(Copenhagen:Munksgaard, 1952)23-27.
123 The "light in you" is not simply the same as the heart.
Differently, Hahn, "Die Worte vom Licht," 125.
Sjoberg ("Das Licht in dir," 93) is right in making a
distinction.
124 On the transition see the comment by Wellhausen
(Evangelium Matthaei, 27 [also Evangelienkommentare,
Matthew 6:19-7:12
situation conforms to Hellenistic ideas about sense
perception, cognition, and ethical conduct as the ways
in which human beings encounter the realities of the
world.
In regard to synoptic comparison, vss 22-23 have a
close parallel in Luke 11:34-36. Despite the simi-
larities in form and language, however, the passages
are quite different in content. Luke 11:34-36 reads:
34 The lamp of the body is your eye.
If your eye is healthy/good, your whole body
also is full of light.
If, however, it is sick/evil, your body also is
dark.
3 5 See to it then that the light which is in you is not
darkness.
36 If, therefore, your whole body is full oflight, not
having any part that is dark,
it is altogether enlightened as when a lamp
illuminates you by its flash.12 5
34 '0 ><-ilxvof TOV uwp.aTOf EITTIV b l)(J>BaA.p.Of uov.126
8rau 0 O,p8aAp.&~ uov h.wA.oV~ ij, Kat 8Aov rO uWp.&.
uov cf>wTEtv&v Eurtv·
Ewav at 7TOV71Phr i], Kal rh uWp.G. uov «TKOT£Lv0v.
35 o-K6'7TEt oVv 1-'~ rh cf>Ws rh f.v uol uKOros f.urlv.
36 el o~v rh uWp.&. uav 8Aov cpwrnvOv, p.1, £xov p.lpos rr.
'
CTKOT£LVOV 1
lurat cJ>wrnvhv HAov &>s 8rav 0 AVxvos rfi &.urpa1rfj
.pw.-l(n u<.
The major differences between the two versions of
the saying occur in Luke 11:35 and 36, the latter verse
having no parallel in the SM at all. The introduction of
vs 35 ("See to it, therefore") presupposes that the
darkness of the light is the result of moral failure and
that one can therefore prevent such a failure. By
comparison, SM/Matt 6:22-23 merely observes a
203)): "Mt kommt von dem Herzen als Quelle des
Dichtens und Trachtens auf das Auge als Quelle der
Sehkraft, die hell oder auch nicht hell sein kann"
("Matthew starts from the heart as the source of
imagining and intending and proceeds to the eye as
the source of the ability to see, which can be bright or
also not bright"). See also Fiebig, "Wort," 502.
12 5 The translation, notoriously difficult, is my own
attempt.
126 The text is that of Aland's Synopsis, no. 65 (p. 89).
Variant readings ofvss 34-35 for the most part
represent harmonization with the Matthean parallel;
see Aland's critical apparatus.
439
possibility of a dark light within, but says nothing about
preventability; instead, an expression of shock occurs
as the result of the observation.
Luke 11:36 appears to be a secondary expansion,
perhaps even an ancient gloss. What did the author of
this addition want to say? This author was apparently
dissatisfied with the simple idea of a lamp illuminating
the whole body. A lamp normally provides not only
illumination but also shadows and dark corners. The
comment, therefore, may be intended to eliminate the
problem by superseding the image of the lamp with
that of the lightning flash that sets everything ablaze.
The author of this additional comment seems in-
terested in some form of mystical illumination that he
found necessary to avoid, possibly on account of the
negative consequences of the image of the lamp.
The interpretation of the saying in the Coptic Cos.
Thorn. log. 24 also differs:
His disciples said, "Show us the place where you
are, for we must seek it." He said to them, "Who-
ever has ears should listen! There is a light existing
within a person of light. And it enlightens the
whole world; if it does not enlighten, that person
[or: it] is darkness." 127
This little composition may be made up of gospel
reminiscences. 128 The statement made by the disciples
may reflect John 1:38, but Jesus' reply takes up a well-
known proverb found in the gospel tradition (Matt
11:15; 13:9,43, and often). What then follows is a
gnostic interpretation of a nongnostic saying as it
occurs in the SM. The Gnostic assumes only the "Licht-
menschen" to be enlightened, so that they in turn
illuminate the whole world. 129 This idea may be
connected with earlier statements such as SM/Matt
5:15,John 1:4-5, 8:12, or it may be independent. At
any rate, a person who cannot illuminate the outside
world is not a "light-person" and thus is darkness. No
127 Translation by Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 385; cf.
Thomas Lambdin's translation (in Layton, Nag
Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, p. 65): "His disciples said,
'Show us the place where you are, since it is necessary 131 See also Kloppenborg, Formation, 121.
for us to seek it.' He said to them, 'Whoever has ears, 132 Schulz (Q, 469) draws a different conclusion and
let him hear. There is light within a man of light, and
he lights up the whole world. If he does not shine, he
is darkness.'" The question for the translator is
whether the translation should be assimilated to Matt 133 Against Allison ("Eye," 79-81), who follows Torrey's
6:22-23 or to gnostic ideas.
128 For commentary see Menard, Thomas, 116-17.
129 The concept occurs elsewhere in early Christian
literature; see esp. Luke 16:8;John 12:36; 1 Thess
5:5 ("sons of light"); Eph 5:8; IgnatiusPhid. 2.1
("children oflight"). See BAGD, s.v. cpc;,~, 3, with
further references. On the "man of light" see below,
n. 239.
440
evidence suggests that Cos. Thorn. log. 24 depends
textually on either SM/Matt 6:22-23 or Luke 11:34-
36. It is more likely that the passages are connected
through the presynoptic tradition and that the versions
give their peculiar interpretations.
Which of the versions, then, was part ofQ? 130 This
question is especially difficult to decide because of the
differences between the versions in SM/Matt 6:22-23
and Luke 11:34-36. The SM clearly took its version
from a different Q-source than Luke 11:34-36 did.
Both versions are redactional elaborations of the same
saying, and Cos. Thorn. log. 24 provides still another
version. These redactional changes must have oc-
curred prior to the inclusion in the present contexts.
The SM-version conforms to the views and purposes of
the SM, while Luke 11 :34-36 has become part of a
speech made by Jesus to the crowds 131 that includes
also the passage of the Sign ofJonah (Luke 11:29-
32//Matt 12:38-42//Mark 8:11-12), the parable
about the Lamp (Luke 11:33//SM/Matt 5:15//Mark
4:21), and ends with the saying "On Vision" (Luke
11 :34-36). This context is surely also secondary. In
conclusion, it is not possible to say with certainty
whether the exclamation of SM/Matt 6:23c-d or the
exhortation of Luke 11:35 was part of Q. The same
problem exists for Luke 11:36. Was it part of Q, or
was it an elaborated version of a later stage of Q
preserved only in Luke, or an addition by the evan-
gelist Luke himself? From whatever version of Q the
SM drew its material, it most likely did not include a
parallel to Luke 11:36. 132 Also, the mere possibility
that the verse can be translated into Aramaic cannot
substantiate the hypothesis that it must have existed in
Aramaic prior to the Greek; modern "retranslations"
are in fact new translations into the Aramaic. 133
In terms of rhetoric and composition, the logion of
vss 22-23 combines several elements into a unified
130 For discussion of this problem see Schulz, Q, 469;
Wrege, Bergpredigt, 113-15; Kloppenborg,
Formation, 134-39; idem, QParallels, 104.
regards Luke 11:34-36 as the Q-version and Matt
6:22-23 as its secondary revision; see also Luz,
Matthiius, 1.354, 356 (Matthew, 1.390, 392-93).
attempt at reconstruction (Charles C. Torrey, The
Four Gospels [New York and London: Harper, 1933]
309; similarly Thomas W. Manson, The Sayings of
jesus [London: SCM, 1949; reprinted Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1979]94). For other such "reconstruc-
tions of the Aramaic original" see Jeremias, Parables,
162-63; Schwarz, "Undjesus sprach," 230-35. The
problem with the alleged "retranslations" is that the

saying and expresses a consistent argument. Formally
and structurally it has two major parts: (I) An intro-
ductory definition (finitio) 134 of the human eye. This
statement (vs 22a) appears to be a proverb, and indeed
it became a proverb later, 135 but the image of the eye
as a lamp also has a long prior history. The history of
this image means that we have before us a quasi-
philosophical sententia ("sentence"), interpreting the
phenomenon of the human eye as a means of
illumination, not only of the body but also of the mind.
(2) Verses 22b-23 provide a commentary that critically
evaluates the introductory sentence. This commentary
forms an antithetical isocolon (parallel lines) using
homoioteleuton (similar-sounding ending). 136 The
parallelism is then adjoined to the sentence of vs 22a
by way of chiasm. While vs 22a names the lamp first
and then the eye, vss 22b-23a discuss the eye first, and
the lamp is second in vs 23b. The introductory words
~l.u obu (vs 22b), ~l.u ~' (vs 23a), and £L obu (vs 23b)
suggest that the statements function as commentary,
proceeding from the objective phenomena stated in
the third person singular (vs 22a) to the paraenetic
second person singular (vss 22b-23b). The com-
mentary itself has two parts: the eye as the organ of
vision (vss 22b-23a), and the interpretation ofthe
image of the lamp (vs 23b). One can subdivide the first
part again into the description of the proper and the
defective functioning of the eye. The final part of the
commentary (vs 23b) contains a succinct oxymoron
("the light is darkness"), 137 using repetition (redup-
licatio) (uiCOTos •.• <TIC0Tos) 138 and ending with an
exclamation (exclamatio: TO <TICOTos 1Tou.lu).l 39 This
"restored Urtext" is attested nowhere else but in the
imagination of the modern scholars whose presup-
positional views they closely reflect. See Betz,
"Wellhausen's Dictum 'Jesus was not a Christian, but
a jew,' in Light of Present Scholarship," StTh 45
(199I) 83-110, esp. 90-93 with notes.
134 See Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.385 (§ 782).
135 Cf. Deutsches Sprichworter-Lexicon (ed. Karl F. W.
Wander; Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1867) 1.172 n. 87:
"Die augen sind des leibs latern"; Hoyt's New Cyclo-
pedia ofPractical Quotations (ed. Kate L. Roberts;
London: Funk & Wagnalls, I927) 24 7 n. 15, 248 n.
22; The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (ed. Carl van
Doren; Oxford: Oxford University, 1941) 406a,
424a. See also the riddle in the collection of Sym-
posius (67): "Lumen habens intus, divini sideris
instar, noctibus in mediis faciem non perdo dierum"
("I have the light within me, equal to the light divine;
in the midst of nights I am not amiss of the view of
days"). I am indebted for this reference to Reinhold
Merkelbach and Maria Totti, Abraxas: Ausgewahlte
Papyri religiosen und magischen Inhalts, vol. 1: Gebete
Matthew 6:19-7:12
second part of the commentary interprets how one
should correctly understand the image of the lamp.
The light burning in the lamp is now identified as "the
light in you." This identification as well as the form of
the oxymoron is evidence that the argument has
definitely moved from a physiological to a moral level.
The oxymoron introduces the paradoxical possibility
that "the light within you" may well be "darkness," and
it concludes with the exclamation of bewilderment,
"What a darkness!" (To <TICOTos 1Tou.lu). This exclamation
is a rhetorical device, making inescapably clear that
one is to waste no time on trivialities and absurdities,
but that matters of ultimate concern are at stake.
This compositional structure has some parallels in
Greek philosophical sources dealing with theories of
sense perception and cognition. Most important in this
regard is one of the influential works of the Hellenistic
era, Theophrastus's De sensibus. 140 Theophrastus
begins his essay by reporting on the theories of
cognition proposed by earlier philosophers. He then
criticizes these theories by pointing out their intrinsic
consequences and resulting faults, which are judged to
cause greater dilemmas than those they were intended
to explain. The whole procedure of report, critique,
and dilemma is informed and shaped not only by the
sources but also by Theophrastus's own theory.
Compared with the work of this philosopher, SM/Matt
6:22-23 is obviously extremely short. It appears to be
a condensation into a sayings composition of what in an
elaborate form would be a treatise.
An analogous short composition on a related topic is
found in Epictetus's Diss. 3.3.20-22. The passage
(Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-WestHi.lischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sonderreihe Papyro-
logica Coloniensia 1 7 .I; Opladen: W estdeutscher
Verlag, I990) 4. For a comprehensive treatment of
the symbolism of the eye see Waldemar Deonna, Le
symbolisme de l'oeil (Bern: Francke, 1965).
136 See Elbert Russell, Paronomasia and Kindred Phe-
nomena in the New Testament (Ph.D. diss., University of
Chicago, 1919; Leipzig: Drugulin, I920) I5.
137 Sojiilicher, Gleichnisreden, 2.99. On the oxymoron
see Lausberg, Elemente, 126 (§ 389, 3).
138 See Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.134 (§ 619).
139 See Lausberg, Elemente, I46 (§ 446).
140 Theophrastus De sensibus, ed. George M. Stratton,
Theophrastus and the Greek Physiological Psychology
Before Aristotle (New York and London: George
Unwin, I9I7).
441
seems to be a doxological excerpt placed at the end of
the dissertation. It begins with a definitional statement
of two lines, using imagery. Then there follows a case
description, first using imagery and then applying it to
ethics. The conclusion takes the form of a concise
statement using paronomasia (same word):
The soul is something like a bowl of water,
and the external impressions something like the ray
of light that falls upon the water.
Now when the water is disturbed, it looks as though
the ray oflight is disturbed too, but it is not
disturbed.
And so, therefore, when a man has an attack of
vertigo, it is not the arts and the virtues that are
thrown into confusion, but the spirit in which
they exist, and when it grows steady again, so do
they, too.
or&v Eurtv ~ AEK0.V71 roV UOaToS", TOtoVrov ~ 'o/vx~,
oTov ~ aVy~ ~ 7rpou7rlwrovua r(p UOart, rowVrov ai
cpavTauiat.
15rav otv rh UOwp KLV718fi, aoKEi p:fv Kai ~ aVy~
Ktvliu6at, o-b pivrot KtVE'irar..
Kai 8rav rolvvv uKorw8fi rrs, oVx at: rfxvat Kaf. ai
O.pErai uvyxfovrar., cl.AA.a rO 7rVEVp.a, Ecf o~ Elcrlv·
Karao-nlvros 0~ Ka8lcrrarat K0.Kliva.
Excursus:
Ancient Greek Theories of Vision
One cannot understand the argument about the
human eye and its functioning, as contained in Matt
6:22-23/ /Luke 11:34-36, without some knowledge
141 Just as in Hellenism, interests were focused on the
"inner eye" (see 2 Chr 16:9; Prov 6:23; Sir 17:7,
etc.). See also Julicher, Gleichnisreden, 2.1 00; Conzel-
mann, "<Pro~ KTA.," TDNT 9.314-19. Another key
concept is the "pupil" or "apple" (~ K/:,p71) of the eye.
See Deut 32:10; Zech 2:12; Ps 17:8; Lam 2:18; Prov 144 A good example is the puzzling sententia in Prov
7:2; Sir 3:25; 17:22; 1 Enoch 200.5; Orphica, Hymn
22-24 (OTP 2. 799);jos. Asen. 25.5; 16.2; Philo Leg.
all. 2.67; 3.171; Rer. div. her. 55, 79; Op. mund. 66;
Mut. nom. 56; Omn. prob. lib. 140, etc.; Bam. 19.9.
For literature see Edward Robertson, "The Apple in
the Eye in the Masoretic Text," JTS 38 (1937) 56-
59; Carmel McCarthy, "The Apple of the Eye," in
Pierre Casetti, ed., Melanges Dominique Barthelemy
(OBO 38; Fribourg: Editions universitaires, 1981)
289-305. The interest was no doubt stimulated also
by Platonic influences (Ps.-Piato Ale. mai. 132d-
133d); see Howard Jackson, "K&p71 K&u!Lov: Isis, Pupil
of the Eye of the World," CEg 61 (1986) 116-35.
142 See, e.g., Greek Apocalypse ofEzra 6.3-7:4 (OTP
1.577-78) about soul and body (on the eye: 6.8-9);
Apocalypse ofSedrach 9-11 (on the eye: 11.13 [OTP
442
concerning ancient theories of sense perception and
cognition. If one assumes this point, one must also
conclude that the debate about such theories was
widespread in the circles of philosophers and theo-
logians at the time of the New Testament and that this
debate had entered into Jewish circles. Indeed,
influence of this kind was typical of Hellenistic Ju-
daism. In wisdom literature, 141 later apocalyptic
literature, 142 and rabbinic theology 143 we find what
appear to be Jewish responses to Greek theories of
sense perception. Like the Greek theories, Jewish
contemplation of the functioning of the eye also starts
with proverbial imagery that was current at the time
and cross-cultural in scope, in order then to enter into
deeper interpretations of its implications. 144 These
considerations are all part of the great confrontation
between Judaism and Hellenism. Our passage (Matt
6:22-23//Luke 11 :34-36) is a good example of this
confrontation.
Since these Jewish responses are informed by Greek
theories of sense perception, one must first examine
these presuppositions to understand their evaluation
by the SM. Thus one must enter the territory of very
diverse and in part complicated fields of study such as
the theory of elementary cognition, the theory of light
and color, the physiology and therapy of the eye. I
cannot adequately treat any of these fields here; I can
only mention the main points of contact.
1. The style of definition with regard to the human
eye occurs as early as Pythagoras, who, according to
anonymous Pythagoreans, called the eyes "gates of the
sun. " 145 This image recalls old mythological notions,
1.611-12)).
143 On the whole see Rudolf Meyer, Hellenistisches in der
rabbinischen Anthropologie: Rabbinische Vorstellungen
vom Werden des Menschen (BW ANT 4.22; Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1937).
20:27 (REB): "The LORD shines into a person's soul,
searching out his inmost being" (LXX: .pro~ Kvpiov
"lrVO~ av8pw1rwv, 11~ EpEvviJ. TaJLtEta KOtAia~ ("The light
of the LORD is the people's breath, who searches the
caves of the belly"]). The transformation could be
due to Stoic influence; cf. also the version of the
saying in 1 Clem. 21.2. Prov 20:27 was often inter-
preted by the rabbis; for the texts see Str-B 1.432-
33; also Ploger, Spriiche, 239.
145 Diels-Kranz, 58 B 1a (I, 450, line 13).

as when sun and moon are considered to be the eyes of
a cosmic deity, or the human eyes to correspond to sun
and moon. The interpretation of Pythagoras's saying,
however, is not clear. 146 Are the eyes "gates of the
sun" in the sense that the sunlight enters through them
into the body? Or is the sun the image for the inner
"light of the soul," which in turn can be identical with
the "mind" (':'our)? Or are several meanings combined
as in another saying of the philosopher, "not to speak
without light" {J.t~ A€ynv livev <f>roT6r)? 147 At any rate,
Pythagorean tradition also contained the dualism of
light (<f>ror) and darkness (<rKOTor), which according to
some sources goes back to a Chaldean named Zaratas
(Zarathustra). 148 Furthermore, the Pythagoreans seem
to have introduced the separation of body (<rwp.a) and
soul (•/lvx~), 149 a dualism also presupposed in Matt
6:22-23. The concept of crwp.a comes close to that of
body/tomb (<rwp.aj<rijp.a), 150 but -.Jrvx~ is not
mentioned.I 51 Instead, Matt 6:23//Luke 11:35 has
"the light in you" (Tl> <f>wr Tl> lv <rot'), a concept of Greek
origin 152 which even in later Jewish thought is known
and which is often identified with that of the soul. 15 3
Of fundamental interest was the metaphor "the eye of
146 On all this see the basic study by Werner Beierwaltes,
Lux intelligibilis: Untersuchung zur Lichtmetaphysik der
Griechen (Munich: Novotny & Soeller, 1957) 30-33.
147 IamblichusDevitaPyth. 84 (ed. Ludwig Deubner, p.
48, 22).
148 Hippolytus Ref. 1. 2.12, ed. Miroslav Marcovich,
Hippolytus: Refutatio omnium haeresium (Patristische
Texte und Studien 25; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986) 60.
149 Cf. Diels-Kranz, 58 B 1 a (I, 450, 5). See also Walter
Burkert, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1972) 143-
65.
150 On this topic see Alois Kehl, "Gewand (der Seele),"
RAG 10 (1978) 945-1025; Pierre Courcelle,
"Gefangnis (der Seele)," RAG 9 (1976) 294-318;
idem, "Grab der Seele," RAG 12 (1983) 455-67.
151 Cf., however, SM/Matt 6:25; and Betz, Essays, 96 n.
32, 104 n. 51.
152 For passages and discussion see Beierwaltes, Lux
intelligibilis (n. 146 above).
153 See the texts assembled in Str-B 1.432-33 and the
studies by Aalen, Begriffe, 69-70; Franz Boll, A us der
O.ffenbarung johannis: Hellenistische Studien zum
Weltbild der Apokalypse (Leipzig: Teubner, 1914;
reprinted Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1967) 66-67;
Conzelmann, TDNT9.316-27; Adolf Rosenzweig,
Das Auge in Bibel und Talmud (Berlin: Mayer &
Muller, 1892) passim; Sjoberg, "Das Licht in dir,"
passim.
154 See Plato Rep. 508c, 518a, 519b, 527d, 533d(cf.
363d), 540a; Symp. 219a; Soph. 254a; Aristotle Topica
1.17 ( 108a 11 ); Hippocrates Art. 11; Cicero Tusc.
Matthew 6:19-7:12
the soul" (Tl> Tijr -.Jrvxfir lJp.p.a), perhaps originally an
Orphic idea. 154
2. The pre-Socratics also discussed the importance
of sense perception for intellectual cognition. In what
sense can one assume that one perceives reality, and
what are the differences between seeing and hearing?
Which of the senses is the more trustworthy?
Two sayings of Heraclitus are important for the
study of Matt 6:22-23/ /Luke 11:34-36. One,
perhaps proverbial in origin, has to do with the
preference of vision over audition: "The eyes are more
accurate witnesses than the ears" (o<f>llaAp.ol yap Twv
&;TroV aKpL{3E<rT€pOL p.apTvper).I 55 The SM also affirms
this preference; the SM gives extraordinary attention
to matters of vision and perception, 156 while being
more skeptical in regard to hearing. 157 Another saying
of Heraclitus, critical of the eye and ear as organs of
sense perception, is intentionally obscure: "Bad
witnesses are eyes and ears to men, if they have
barbarian SOUls" (KaKOl p.apTVpH av!JptiJ7TOLCTLV o<f>IJa)\p.ot
Kal {3ap{3apovr -.Jrvxar lx6vTrov). 158 The phrase "bar-
barian souls" is difficult to understand. According to
Diels-Kranz these are souls who, like barbarians,
1.20.46; Lucretius De rer. nat. 3.360; also Plutarch
De sera num. vind. 5, 550D-E; Philo Op. mund. 71;
Migr. Abr. 39; Sacr. AC 36; Som. 1.164; 2.160; Q
Exod. 2.39. Christian authors began to use it starting
with justin Dial. 4.1. The origins may be Py-
thagorean/Orphic; see Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta,
no. 345, pp. 337-38; Albrecht Dieterich, Abraxas:
Studien zur Religionsgeschichte des spiitern Altertums
(Leipzig: Teubner, 1891) 58; idem, Eine Mithras-
liturgie (3d ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1966) 55-58; PGM III.565
(IV.959-60, 1057-70); Corp. Herm. 1.6; 10.4; frg. 23
(Kore Kosmou), section 36. For the wider context see
Wilpert, "Auge," 961; Conzelmann, TDNT9.313-
15; Christoph Riedweg, Mysterienterminologie bei
Platon, Philon und Klemens von Alexandrien (UaLG 26;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987) 96-97.
155 Diels-Kranz, 22 B lOla (I, 173, 15-16). See Milan
Marcovich, Heraclitus (Merida, Venezuela: Los Andes
University, 1967) 23-24.
156 See SM/Matt 5:8, 16, 28, 29; 6:26; 7:3-5, etc. See
Betz, Essays, 4 n. 15.
157 See SM/Matt 7:24-27; and Betz, Essays, 4-7.
158 Diels-Kranz, 22 B 107 (I, 175, 1-2); see Marcovich,
Heraclitus, 45-48.
443
cannot properly understand the information given by
the senses. Heraclitus would then be saying that he
does not doubt the value of sense perception per se, 159
but he contends that those who do not use the organs
with "consideration" (.pp6v.,cnr) cannot interpret what
they have perceived. 160 The failure lies in the fact that
they do not possess reason (the >.oyor). 161 On the
whole, however, Geoffrey S. Kirk is correct in his
exposition of Heraclitus: "His criticism of men is hased
upon the fact that the truth is there to be observed, is
common to all, but they cannot see it: apprehension of
the Logos is no mystical process but the result of using
eyes, ears, and common sense. " 162 Although the ears
are not mentioned in Matt 6:22-23 par., this passage
undoubtedly gives preference to the eye. At the same
time, the passage affirms the idea that the eye alone is
not capable of recognizing the truth but that another
factor must enter into the process of vision.
3. The dualism oflight and darkness is preeminent
in the cosmology and epistemology of Parmenides. 16 3
In his thought light and darkness are metaphors for
"truth" versus "ignorance," and "being" versus "non-
being." These principles also determine the process of
vision. 164 Darkness is to the highest degree the nature
of the corpse, which has no capacity for cognition. I 55
If, however, the human mind is illuminated by light,
cognition of being can take place. Consequently, the
organ of cognition is no longer the eye (which is
devalued) 166 but thought. 167 Matt 6:22-23 par. also
distinguishes the eye and the capacity to see, and in the
final analysis the capacity to see depends on another
factor not named in the passage-sinfulness, which
qualifies both "the light within you" and the eye.
4. The comparison of the eye to a lamp occurs first
in Empedocles' poem TIEpl.pvcTEror. 168 Adapting what
appears to be proverbial material, 169 Empedocles
compares the process of vision to a man who wishes to
159 Diels-Kranz, 22 B 55 (1, 162, 11-12).
160 Ibid., 22 B 17 (I, 155, 6-8).
161 Ibid., 22 B 72 (1, 167, 9-11).
162 Geoffrey S. Kirk, Heraclitus: The Cosmic Fragments
(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1954) 376.
163 See Beierwaltes, Lux intelligibilis, 34-36 (seen. 146
above).
164 Cf. Diels-Kranz, 28 B 9 (1, 240-41).
165 Ibid., 28 A 46 (I, 226, 10-15).
166 Cf. the expression li<TKO"II"OV lfp.p.a ("inconsiderate eye")
in ibid., 28 B 7 (1, 234, 34).
167 Ibid., 28 B 4 (1, 232, 7); 28 B 7 (1, 235, 1).
168 Ibid., 31 B 84 (I, 342, 4-9).
169 Cf. Theocritusldyll. 24.18-19; TheophrastusDe
sens. 26, citing Alcmaeon (cf. below, n. 172).
170 Cf. Diels-Kranz, 31 B 85, 86, 95 (1, 343, 345).
171 Ibid., 31 B 84 (I, 342, 10-14).
444
go out on a winter night and who, because of the
darkness outside, equips himself with storm lamps.
When Aphrodite 170 created the human eye, she
constructed a kind of a lamp: the eternal fire was
wrapped in fine membranes and thin veils behind the
pupil. Within the eye, water flowed around the fire,
but the eye lets the light pass from the inside out
because it is so much finer. 1 7 1 Empedocles, therefore,
assumed a firelight within tl:}e eye behind the pupil.
Like a lantern this light shines through the eye and
thus facilitates the process of vision. 172
At this point I note a clear difference between
Empedocles and Matt 6:22-23: although both use the
term "lamp" (o >.vxvor), in Matt 6:22-23 the light is not
in the eye but somewhere else in the body. This
difference is no doubt intended and not simply
accidental.
5. The philosophers of the following periods
continued to build their own theories of sense percep-
tion and cognition, but the foundations laid by the pre-
Socratics remained decisive presuppositions. Theo-
phrastus, who has transmitted to us important doxo-
graphical material in his De sensibus, has also attempted
to sort things out historically. Basically, he finds two
conceptions of the process of cognition. 1 78 Par-
menides, Empedocles, and Plato share the principle of
"similarity" (rep op.o&lfl), while Anaxagoras and Hera-
clitus start from the principle of"contrast" (rep
lvavrllfl). The first group assumes that the agent of
cognition is located within beings and that cognition,
especially vision, occurs by way of an "effluence"
(lnroppota) from within the body toward the objects
outside, where they meet with entities akin to them in
nature. The other group proceeds from the theory
that opposites attract one another. This principle also
underlies Democritus's theory of "air-imprints," 174 by
which he tried to explain why, if one looks into the eye,
172 The fiery nature of the eye was observed earlier by
the physician Alcmaeon (Diels-Kranz, 24 A 5 [I, 212,
5]). See also John I. Beare, Greek Theories ofElementary
Cognition from Alcmaeon to Aristotle (Oxford: Claren-
don, 1906) 16;Jaap Mansfeld, "Aicmaeon: .pvu&Kor or
Physician? With some remarks on Calcidius' 'On
Vision' compared to Galen's Plac. Hipp. Plat. VII, •
in Kephalaion: Studies in Greek Philosophy and Its
Continuation Offered to Professor C.]. de Vogel (Assen:
Van Gorcum, 1975) 26-38.
173 Theophrastus De sens. 1-2, ed. Stratton, p. 6.
17 4 On Democritus's theory I follow Walter Burkert,
"Air-Imprints or Eidola: Democritus' Aetiology of
Vision," Illinois Classical Studies 2 (1977) 97-109,
with further bibliography.

one perceives in the pupil a reduced "appearance"
(;p.<J>auu) of the world outside, including perhaps the
observer. Employing Empedocles' notion of "efflu-
ence," Democritus thought that the "appearances"
occur in this way: the objects seen send out atoms that
produce "air-imprints" (a.,.oTV'lTwu&r) when they hit the
air. The medium of the air then transports these "air-
imprints" into the eye, a process facilitated by the sun.
The fire-atoms of the sunlight compress the air, so that
the "imprints" can be received, and the light guides the
"air-imprints" through channels into the eye. After
they have passed to the pupil, the "appearances" occur
and are then transmitted to the rest of the body,
including the soul, which, according to Democritus, is
part of the body and a material entity.
The conditions of vision are established if the
physiology of the eye meets the needs of the passage of
the "appearances." The extemal membranes must be
thin and dense, the inner parts spongy and free from
fat and meaty tissue, the veins must serve to pass the
"appearances" on into the body, and so on. 175 Compli-
cated as Democritus's ideas about vision and
disturbance of vision certainly are, the conditions for
vision or disturbance of vision are always physiological
in nature. The same is true for Epicurus and his
famous theory of "images" (•i~wAa). 176 These "images"
are constantly produced and emitted by the objects
seen. Separating from the objects, the "images" float
into the eye. Since Epicurean philosophers, among
them especially Lucretius, 177 later also promoted this
theory, one may assume that it was rather widely
known in the New Testament era.
Looking again at Matt 6:22-23/ /Luke 11:34-36,
one will have to conclude that the passage, by intention
or accident, implicitly rejects the atomistic and
Epicurean theories of vision, while approving of the
Empedoclean and Platonic traditions, at least to the
175 Diels-Kranz, 68 A 135 (II, 114, 28-115, 3; 116, 3-
4).
176 Cyril Bailey, The Greek Atomists and Epicurus (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1928) 406-13; Burkert, "Air-Imprints,"
103.
177 Lucretius De rer. nat. 4.311-52 (ed. Hermann Diels).
Cf. also Epicurus's saying, "But even when he has lost
his eyesight, he [sc. the sage] takes part in life" (a.>..A.lz
Ka~ 'lT1/PW8EvTa Tlzr lJ>f!m p.<BE,EIV ai>Tl>v Tov f3{ov ). The
citation is according to Graziano Arrighetti, Epicuro:
Opere(2ded.; Turin: Einaudi,1973) 27 (frg. [1]119,
8-9).
178 On the malfunctioning of the eye, see also Plato Rep.
10.609a-b; Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1.7.19, 1097b 30;
2.6.2, 1106a 19; De anima (see de Vogel, Greek
Philosophy, vol. 2, nos. 642, 648, 650, 651).
179 See Beierwaltes, Lux intelligibilis, 37-72 (seen. 146
Matthew 6:19-7:12
e:"tent that vision occurs through light passing from
the inside out.
6. The theory of cognition and, as part of it, of
vision is the topic of discussion especially in Plato's
Republic, books 1, 6, and 7, and in Timaeus. In Rep. 1,
353b-e Plato speaks about the functioning of the eyes
(their ap<T~ and ;pyov). Vision is as much the result of
health as of the excellence of the soul. The excellence
of the soul is justice, its defect injustice. 178 These basic
ideas are further explained by the great parables: the
parable of the Sun (Rep. 6, 507b-509c), the parable of
the Parallel Lines (Rep. 6, 510b-511b), and the parable
of the Cave (Rep. 7, 514a-518b).179
In connection with the parable of the Sun, Plato
first calls to mind the difference between the phe-
nomena and the ideas: "And the class of things
[namely, phenomena] we can say can be seen but not
thought, while the ideas can be thought but not
seen." 180
Next, "vision"(~ lf-Y,&r) is the topic of consideration.
According to Plato, vision is to be regarded as a higher
sense compared with the others because it needs a
third element, light, without which it cannot function:
"Though vision may be in the eyes and its possessor
may try to use it, and though colour be present, yet
without the presence of a third thing specifically and
naturally adapted to this purpose, you are aware that
vision will see nothing and the colours will remain
invisible." 181
The origin and cause of this light is the god Helios,
and therefore the eye can rightly be named "the most
sunlike of all the instruments of sense." 182 But vision is
identical neither with the eye nor with the sun. Helios
is the "cause" (arT&or) 183 of vision, and the eye receives
"the power which it possesses as an influx, as it were,
dispensed from the sun." 184 Then (Rep. 6, 508c) the
discussion turns from the visible world to the world of
above).
180 Plato Rep. 6, 507b-c (cited according to Plato: The
Republic [trans. Paul Shorey; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University; London: Heinemann, 1935]
2.97).
181 Plato Rep. 6, 507 d-e.
182 Ibid., 508b.
183 Ibid.
184 Ibid.
445
thought. Here Plato discusses first the phenomena of
the disturbance of vision.
We see normally as long as we direct our eyes
toward objects illuminated by the light of day; but
"when the eyes are no longer turned upon objects
upon whose colours the light of day falls but that of the
dim luminaries of night, their edge is blunted and they
appear almost blind, as if pure vision did not dwell in
them." 185 These observations are then applied to the
ways in which the soul perceives the truth:
When it is firmly fixed on the domain where truth
and reality shine resplendent it apprehends and
knows them and appears to possess reason; but
when it inclines to that region which is mingled
with darkness, the world of becoming and passing
away, it opines only and its edge is blunted, and it
shifts its opinions hither and thither, and again
seems as if it lacked reason.186
This is the result as far as insight into the truth is
concerned:
This reality, then, that gives their truth to the
objects of knowledge and the power of knowing to
the knower, you must say is the idea of good, and
you must conceive it as being the cause of knowl-
edge, and of truth in so far as known. Yet fair as
they both are, knowledge and truth, in supposing it
to be something fairer still than these you will think
rightly of it. But as for knowledge and truth, even
as in our illustration it is right to deem light and
vision sunlike, but never to think that they are the
sun, so here it is right to consider these two their
counterparts, as being like the good or boniform,
but to think that either of them is the good is not
right. Still higher honour belongs to the possession
and habit of the good. 187
The problem of the disturbance of vision is given
special consideration in the parable of the Cave. Plato
distinguishes there between two kinds of disturbances
ofthe eye: the one when a person comes out of the
light into darkness, and the other when a person
changes from darkness to light. 188 The parable
explains what this distinction means for philosophy.
The cave dwellers who have never seen anything else
but the shadows on the wall can only take those
shadows for reality itself. If, however, one of the cave
dwellers were "freed from his fetters and compelled to
stand up suddenly and turn his head around and walk
185 Ibid., 508c.
186 Ibid., 508d.
187 Ibid., 508e-509a.
188 Ibid., 7, 518a.
189 Ibid., 515c.
190 Ibid., 515d.
191 lbid.,516e-517a.
192 Ibid.
446
and to lift up his eyes to the light," 189 he would only
feel pain in his eyes because of the dazzle and glitter of
the light and see nothing. Even "if someone told him
that what he had seen before was all a cheat and an
illusion, but that now, being nearer to reality and
turned toward more real things, he saw more
truly," 190 he would turn back to the cave and to those
objects of vision that he is able to discern. Plato's
solution to the problem is gradual adjustment to the
light, so that at its end cognition of reality can truly
occur.
The second kind of disturbance of vision happens
when the same man, now accustomed to live in the
light, returns to the darkness of the cave. His vision of
things has now completely changed, and "if he recalled
to mind his first habitation and what passed for wisdom
there, and his fellow-bondsmen, do you not think that
he would count himself happy in the change and pity
them?" 191 Such a man would no doubt lose all interest
in returning to the cave. But if one imagines he would
indeed return he would have the problem of disturbed
sight again. At this point Plato describes the situation
of the philosopher, obviously with the destiny of
Socrates in mind:
Now if he should be required to contend with these
perpetual prisoners in "evaluating" these shadows
while his vision was still dim and before his eyes
were accustomed to the dark-and this time
required for habituation would not be very short-
would he not provoke laughter, and would it not be
said of him that he had returned from his journey
aloft with his eyes ruined and that it was not
worthwhile even to attempt the ascent? And if it
were possible to lay hands on and to kill the man
who tried to release them and lead them up, would
they not kill him? 192
As Plato points out in the following interpretation of
the parable, he intended to speak about "the soul's
ascension to the intelligible region." 193
The goal is to see the idea of good and to accept it
as "the cause for all things, of all that is right and
beautiful, giving birth in the visible world to light, and
the author oflight and itself in the intelligible world
being the authentic source of truth and reason, and
that anyone who is to act wisely in private or public
must have caught sight of this." 194 Based on this
assessment Plato outlines the task of the philosopher:
193 Ibid., 517b.
194 Ibid., 517c.

Wherever he saw a soul perturbed and unable to
discern something, he would not laugh unthink-
ingly, but would observe, whether coming from a
brighter life its vision was obscured by the un-
familiar darkness, or whether the passage from the
deeper dark of ignorance into a more luminous
world and the greater brightness had dazzled its
visio'}. And so he would deem the one happy in its
experience and way of life and pity the other, and if
it pleased him to laugh at it, his laughter would be
less laughable than that at the expense of the soul
that had come down from the light above.I95
This situation is for Plato also the starting point of
education (paideia). Education, he emphasizes, cannot
"put true knowledge into a soul that does not possess it,
as if they were inserting vision into blind eyes." 196
Rather, education corresponds to the turning around
of the liberated man in the cave; it is the "art of
changing around" the soul: "not an art of producing
vision in it, but on the assumption that it possesses
vision but does not rightly direct it and does not look
where it should, an art of bringing this about." 197 The
capacity of vision itself is never lost, and so "the
excellence of thought, it seems, is certainly of a more
divine quality, a thing that never loses its potency." 198
It is only the application of the faculty that must be
converted, from the useless and harmful to the useful
and beneficent. Plato at this point inserts an interesting
illustration:
Have you never observed in those who are popu-
larly spoken of as bad, but smart men, how keen is
the vision of the little soul, how quick it is to discern
the things that interest it, a proof that it is not a
poor vision which it has, but one forcibly enlisted in
the service of evil, so that the sharper its sight the
more mischief it accomplishes?l99
In addition to the Republic, the Timaeus treats the
eye and the process of vision extensively. 200 I cannot
present a detailed comparison between the two works
at this point, but a few points may be brought out. In
the Timaeus Plato makes use of Empedocles' idea of the
fire in the eye as he calls the eyes "fire-bearing eyes"
195 Ibid., 518a.
196 Ibid., 518c.
197 Ibid., 518d.
198 Ibid., 518e.
199 Ibid., 519a.
200 Plato Tim. 45aff. See Francis M. Cornford, Plato's
Cosmology (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner,
1937) 151-59.
201 On this point see Beare, Greek Theories, 45 (seen. 172
above).
202 Plato Tim. 45c-d (trans. according to Cornford,
Plato's Cosmology, 153).
203 Plato Tim. 45d.
Matthew 6:19-7:12
(</>wrT<J>opa 8p.p.ara). Vision involves three kinds of light:
first, the daylight dispersed by the sun in the air;
second, the light contained in the eyeball and flowing
out of it toward the objects seen; and third, the light
that is part of the colors of the objects. Vision takes
place through a cooperation of all these lights, a
process later called rTvvaVyfla ("meeting ofrays"):2° 1
Accordingly, whenever there is daylight round
about, the visual current issues forth, like to like,
and coalesces with it and is formed into a single
homogeneous body in a direct line with the eyes, in
whatever quarter the stream issuing from within
strikes upon any object it encounters outside. So
the whole, because of its homogeneity, is similarly
affected and passes on the motions of anything it
comes in contact with or that comes into contact
with it, throughout the whole body, to the soul, and
thus causes the sensation of vision. 202
Disturbance of vision happens, for example, at night,
because then the external fire is cut off, so that the
internal fire, when it issues, meets with something that
is unlike it, and therefore prohibits vision. 203
(7) This survey has covered at least superficially the
major theoretical presuppositions of Greek philosophy,
insofar as they are needed for the interpretation of
Matt 6:22-23/ /Luke 11:34-36. Even after Plato
these basic conceptions were constantly reproduced,
criticized, and modified in many different ways.
Pseudo-Plato's parable of the Eye (Ale. mai. 132d-
133c) was enormously influential in connection with
the problem of self-knowledge and self-examination,
but the SM passage under consideration does not
directly raise this problem. 204 The same must be said
about new ideas that the Stoics introduced. They are
not reflected in the SM. 205
204 See esp. Beierwaltes, Lux intelligibilis, 88-91 (see n.
146 above).
205 On Stoicism see SVF II, nos. 863-72; and Heinz
Gerd Ingenkamp, "Zur stoischen Lehre vom Sehen,"
RhM 14 (1971) 240-46. Other important texts are
Cicero Academica 2.19-2 3; 2. 80; Dio Chrysostom Or.
11.1; Galen De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis 7.4-8
(text and commentary by Phillip de Lacy, Galen: On
the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato [Corpus Medi-
corum Graecorum 5.4.1-3; Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag, 1978, 1979, 1984)); Marcus AureliusMed.
3.16; I 0.26.
447
 Jewish thinking, which had for a long time paid
extraordinary attention to the eye, 206 enters only
hesitatingly into the debate. When Jewish authors pay
growing attention to the theory of vision, they do so in
response to Hellenism and its influences. Their own
development of theory is, where it exists, late. Also,
the LXX translators appear to have been aware of the
issues, as pertinent Old Testament renderings show. A
clear line of development can be traced through
wisdom literature, the Testaments of the 12 Patri-
archs, 2° 7 and Philo, who explicitly takes up the whole
Platonic tradition, most likely in a Middle-Platonic
version: it is not the eyes that see, but the mind (vous)
that sees through them. 20B In a long section on the
faculty of vision in Abr. 150-66, Philo follows the
doctrines of Plato's Timaeus, 209 but he strongly
emphasizes that the faculty of vision is under the
influence of the emotions ('li'M'T/ ), apparently a Stoic
concept. 21 0
Bibliography
Elizabeth Asmis, Epicurus' Scientific Method (Ithaca,
N.Y., and London: Cornell University, 1984).
Cyril Bailey, The Greek Atomists and Epicurus (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1928).
John I. Beare, Greek Theories ofElementary Cognition from
Alcmaeon to Aristotle (Oxford: Clarendon, 1906).
Werner Beierwaltes, Lux Intelligibilis: Untersuchung zur
Lichtmetaphysik der Griechen (Munich: UNI-Druck
Novotny & Sollner, 1957).
Hans Blumenberg, Hohlenausgiinge (Frankfurt:
Suhrkamp, 1989).
Dieter Bremer, "Hinweise zum griechischen Ursprung
und zur europaischen Geschichte der Licht-
metaphysik," Archivfo.r Begriifsgeschichte 17 (1973)
7-35.
Idem, "Licht als universales Darstellungsmedium:
Materialien und Bibliography," Archiv for Begriifs-
geschichte 18 ( 197 4) 185-206.
Idem, Licht und Dunkel in der fruhgriechischen Dichtung:
Interpretationen zur Vorgeschichte der Lichtmetaphysik
206 See the large collection of passages in Rosenzweig,
Auge (seen. 153 above); Str-B 1.431-33; Fiebig,
Bergpredigt, 125-27; Wilhelm Michaelis, TDNT
5.375-78 (s.v. ocp8aAf'6s).
207 See esp. T. Iss. 3-4; T. Benj. 4.2; 5.3; 6.1-7; T. Gad
3.2; 5.7; 6.2; T. Reu. 3.8; T. Levi 14.4; T. Dan 2.2-4;
T.jud. 13.6; 14.1; etc. On these passages see the
commentary by Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments.
208 Philo Poster. C. 126; cf. Epicharmus in Diels-Kranz,
23 B 12 (1, 200, 16); Cicero Tusc. 1.20.46.
209 See also Philo Op. mund. 120, 147; Deus imm. 45, 79;
Conf ling. 194; De congressu eruditionis gratia 135; Ebr.
70, 182-83; etc. For discussion see Max Freuden-
448
(Archiv fiir Begriffsgeschichte Sup 1; Bonn:
Bouvier, 1975).
Idem, "Affekt und Erkenntnis: Zur anthropologischen
Konstitution des Erkennens bei Platon"
(Habilitationsschrift, Munich, 1979).
RudolfBultmann, "Zur Geschichte der Lichtsymbolik
im Altertum," Philologus 97 ( 1948) 1-36; reprinted
in his Exegetica, 323-55.
Walter Burkert, "Air-Imprints or Eidola: Democritus'
Aetiology of Vision," Illinois Classical Studies 2
(1977) 97-109.
Harold Chernis, "Galen and Posidonius' Theory of
Vision," AJP 54 (1933) 154-61.
Carsten Colpe, "Gnosis II (Gnostizismus)," RAG 11
(1981) 537-659.
Hans Conzelmann, ".Pros KTA.," TDNT 9.310-58, esp.
311-16, 327-32, 343-44 (A.1-4; D.1-2; E.II.l).
Phillip De Lacy, Galen: On the Doctrines ofHippocrates
and Plato (ed. with a translation and commentary;
parts 1-3; Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V.4.1-
3; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1978, 1979, 1984).
Martin Dibelius, "Die Vorstellung vom gottlichen
Licht: Ein Kapitel a us der hellenistischen Religions-
geschichte," DLZ 36 (1915) 1469-83 (review of
Wetter [see below]).
Albrecht Dible, "Vom sonnenhaften Auge," JACSup
10 (1983) 85-91.
Petrus F. M. Fontaine, The Light and the Dark: A
Cultural History of Dualism (2 vols.; Amsterdam:
Gieben, 1986-87).
Kurt von Fritz, "Demokrits Theorie des Sehens," in his
Grundprobleme der Geschichte der antiken Wissenschaft
(Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971) 594-622; originally
English: "Democritus' Theory of Vision," in Science,
Medicine, and History: Essays on the Evolution of
Scientific Thought and Medical Practice Written in
Honour of Charles joseph Singer (Oxford: Oxford
University, 1953) 83-99.
Arthur E. Haas, "Antike Lichttheorien," Archiv fur
Geschichte der Philosophie 20 (1907) 345-86.
Julius Hirschberg, Geschichte der Augenheilkunde (2d ed.;
2 vols.; Leipzig: Engelmann, 1899).
thai, Die Erkenntnislehre Philos von Alexandria (Ber-
liner Studien fiir classische Philologie und Archae-
ologie 13.1; Berlin: Calvary, 1891) passim; Helmut
Schmidt, Die Anthropologie Philons von Alexandreia
(Wiirzburg: Triltsch, 1933) 75-79; Franz-Norbert
Klein, Die Lichtterminologie bei Philon von Alexandrien
und in den hermetischen Schriften (Leiden: Brill, 1962);
David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of
Plato (2 vols.; Akademisch Proefschrift; Amsterdam:
Vrije Universiteit, 1983) 1.229-40; Riedweg,
Mysterienterminologie, 96-97.
21 0 On the doctrine of pathos ('ll'<i8os), see Schmidt,
Anthropologie, 86-101.
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

Idem, "Die Seh-Theorien der griechischen Philos-
ophen in ihren Beziehungen zur Augenheilkunde,"
Zeitschriftfur Augenheilkunde 43 (1920) I-22.
Johannes Hirschberger, Seele und Leib in der Spatantike
(Sitzungsberichte der wissenschaftlichen Gesell-
schaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat
Frankfurt a.M. 8.I; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1969).
Heinz-Gerd Ingenkamp, "Zur stoischen Lehre vom
Sehen," RhM I4 (1971) 240-46.
Walter Jablonski, "Die Theorie des Sehens im
griechischen Altertum his auf Aristoteles," Sudhoffs
Archiv filr Geschichte der Medizin 23 (1930) 306-31.
Franz-Norbert Klein, Die Lichtterminologie bei Philon von
Alexandrien und in den hermetischen Schriften:
Untersuchungen zur Struktur der religii!sen Sprache der
he'llenistischen Mystik (Leiden: Brill, I962).
'Hans Lackenbacher, "Beitrage zur antiken Optik," WS
35 (1913) 34-61.
Franz Lammli, Vom Chaos zum Kosmos: Zur Geschichte
einer Idee (SBA 10; Basel: Reinhardt, 1962).
Wilhelm Luther, "Wahrheit, Licht und Erkenntnis in
der griechischen Philosophie his Demokrit," Archiv
fur Begriffsgeschichte 10 (1966) 2-240.
Ludolf Malten, Die Sprache des menschlichen Antlitzes im
frilhen Griechentum (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1961 ).
Jaap Mansfeld, "Alcmaeon: <j>v<TtK&~ or Physician? With
some remarks on Calcidius' 'On Vision' compared
to Galen's Plac. Hipp. Plat. VII," in Kephalaion:
Studies on Greek Philosophy and Its Continuation
Offered to Professor C. J. de Vogel (Assen: Van
Gorcum, 1975) 26-38.
Wilhelm Michaelis, "bp6.w KTA.," TDNT 5.316-24 (A.I-
2).
Raoul Morley and Carsten Colpe, "Gnosis I (Erkennt-
nislehre)," RAG 11 (1981)446-537.
Rene Schaerer, L'homme antique et la structure du monde
interieur d'Homere il Socrate (Paris: Payot, I958).
Helmut Schmidt, Die Anthropologie Philons von Alex-
andria (Wiirzburg: Triltsch, 1933).
Heinrich von Staden, Herophilus: The Art ofMedicine in
Early Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity, 1989).
Ludwig Stein, Die Psychologie der Stoa (Berliner Studien
fiir classische PhiloIogie und Archaologie 3.1 and
7.1; 2 vols.; Berlin: Calvary, 1886, 1888).
George M. Stratton, Theophrastus and the Greek
Physiological Psychology before Aristotle (London and
New York: Allen & Unwin, I917).
Gillis P. Wetter, PHOS (<1>.0!.): Eine Untersuchung ilber
hellenistische Fri!mmigkeit, zugleich ein Beitrag zum
Verstiindnis des Manichaismus (Uppsala: Akademiska
Bokhandeln; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1915).
Paul Wilpert (Sibylla Zenker), "Auge," RAG 1 (1950)
958-69.
3) Interpretation
• 22 At the beginning of the sayings composition comes a
sentence that looks like a thesis or definition: "The lamp
of the body is the eye" (o >..-6xvos TOV crwp.an5s- ECTTLV 0
ocp8a>..p.os-). 211 This sentence has been the object of many
investigations, and indeed it raises a host of questions. 2 1 2
If it looks like a quotation of some sort, the question is
where it would have come from. The pre-Hellenistic
parts of the Old Testament and Jewish literature offer no
parallels. 2 13 Some passages in later wisdom and apoc-
alyptic literature, however, contain a comparison of the
eye with a lamp (as well as with torches, fire, and light-
ning). There is also evidence of the growing interest in
the eye and related imagery. 214 The culmination of this
development is certainly the treatment given to it by
Philo of Alexandria. 21 5

2I1 Bit vgd add <Tov, no doubt a harmonization with the
parallel in Luke 11 :34; by comparison, D 0 !at syP bo
omit the <Tov in Luke 11:34, probably for the same
reason.
212 See the bibliography above, and Wilhelm Michaelis,
"Avxv&~, Avxvla," TDNT 4.324-27; "bp6.w KTA.,"
TDNT 5.375-78 (s.v. o<j>6aAfL&~); BAGD, s.v. A.\xvo~,
2; D. Kellermann,.,~ ner," ThWAT 5 (1986) 616-26,
esp. 626 on Zech 4:2; Prov 20:27.
213 Str-B 1.432-33; Fiebig (Bergpredigt, 125) and Lachs
(Rabbinic Commentary, 127 -29) have no parallels from
the rabbinic literature.
214 Connections between the light and the eye are made
in proverbial and wisdom literature, but the com-
parison of the eye with the lamp is found only rarely
in late texts. See Pss 19:9; 36: 10; 38:11; II9: 105,
I30; Prov 6:23; 20:8, 12, I3, 20, 27; 24:20; 29:I3;
Eccl8:I; II :7; Sir 3:25; Wis 7:29-30; Tob 10:5;
II:I3; 33:I7; T. Levi 4.3; I8.3; T. Naph. 2.IO; T. Gad
5.7; T. Iss. 3-4; T. Benj. 4.2: 6.4, etc. (see the
commentary by Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments,
330);jos. Asen. 6.3; 8.IO-II; I2.2; I5.I3. See also
Conzelmann, "<j>w~ KTA.," TDNT9.3I6-27. The
passages cited by Allison, "Eye," 66-69, most of
which were already known, do not have the com-
parison of the eye with the lamp. There are, how-
ever, different comparisons with "torches" (Aa,...,.6.oH)
in Dan 10:6; 3 Enoch 35.2, and with lamps in epiph-
anies in Zech 4:I-I4; 1 Enoch 42.I; T.job I8.4; b.
Sabb. 151 b (see Allison, "Eye," 69-71 ).
215 On Philo's treatment see the studies in the bib-
liography above by Wetter; Dibelius; Aalen; Klein;
Conzelmann, "<j>w~ KTA.," TDNT 9.329-32 (D.2).

449
 Another problem is the form-critical classification of
the saying. It has been called a "parable" or "riddle," 216
but "proverb" 217 would be a better description. 218 As I
have shown above, the ultimate origin of the saying
seems to be in Greek philosophy. The pre-Socratic
philosopher Empedocles was the first to compare the
human eye with a lamp. From then on the image was a
topos in discussions concerning sense perception and
vision. Thus, the saying may have entered into Jewish
literature, perhaps in the context ofwisdom, 219 rather
early and certainly before Philo of Alexandria, who took
over whole sections of theories on vision from Middle-
Platonic sources. 220
At first sight the saying is not clear about what it
intends to say. Are we to approve of the statement or
not? In what sense are we to take the genitive "of the
body," as an objective or a subjective genitive? Does the
eye/lamp belong to the body, or does it merely illumi-
nate the body?
In view of these uncertainties, the following com-
mentary (vss 22b-23b) examines the saying critically.22l
While the proverb appears to take matters for granted,
the commentary shows that they are more complicated.
If the eye is to be compared with a lamp, does this mean
that the light is in the lamp, that is, in the eye itself? Does
the lamp shine toward the inside or the outside? The
commentary maintains that the light is not in the lamp or
eye, but somewhere else in the body, so that the lamp or
eye receives its light from another source. What then is
the source of the light and where is it located?
The critical commentary that begins in vs 22b not only
examines underlying assumptions but also introduces
new terminology. The terms seem to vacillate between
physiological and ethical meanings, ambiguities that in
such a thoughtful and tightly composed text can hardly
be accidental. Rather, they must be intended and part of
the argument. First, then, the case of a normally func-
tioning eye is described: "If then your eye is healthy/
good, your whole body will be full oflight" (lew o~v i7 o
ocp6aA.JL6s OtJV a?T ADVS' ()A.ov TO CTWJJ.a ouv c/JwnLVOV
~crTat). 222 Sentences constructed with "if ... then" occur
elsewhere in the SM, 223 but this kind of statement looks
like a scientific case description and is peculiar to this
passage. A great deal of scholarly endeavor has gone into
explaining the strange word pair of a?TADVS and 1TDV1Jp6s,
the former determining what the latter means. The

216 For surveys of opinion on this point, see Edlund, 11-
13; Amstutz, AIIAOTHl:, 96-98.
217 So Amstutz (AIIAOTHl:, 98): "Ratselspruch"
("proverbial riddle").
218 So Betz, Essays, 73; Allison, "Eye," 62, 73.
219 So Betz, Essays, 84-86.
220 Allison argues differently ("Eye," 71) and draws a
strict line between Greek and Jewish thinking, but he
fails to consider that most of the texts he refers to are
in Greek (LXX or later) and therefore under the
influence of Greek thought. Also, he does not
consider, e.g., Philo, who was Jewish and yet features
Greek philosophical theories of vision.
221 Allison ("Eye," 62, 69-71) objects to my using
Theophrastus (De sensibus) by saying that such
theories are found in Jewish texts as well. One must,
however, distinguish simple associations between the 223 See SM/Matt 5:13, 19, 23, 32, 46, 47; 6:14, 22-23;
eye and light (Allison, "Eye," 63) from critical
investigations to explain matters "scientifically." The
passages Allison cites (Dan 10:6 LXX; Zech 4:1-3
LXX; 2 Enoch 42.1 [A]; and T.job 18.4) do not
engage in theory but state popular views. Allison's
interpretation ofT. job 18.4 (S) is inconclusive
because it is based on a doubtful conjecture by
Robert A. Kraft and on a wrong translation (Allison,
"Eye," 70 with n. 27). The text should be read o! £p.ot
o<J>8al\.p.ot TOVS AVXVOVS 'lTOIOVVTas ~{3AE'lTOV, and should
be rendered as by R. P. Spittler, OTP 1.846: "My
eyes saw those who make lamps at my tables and
couches; cheap and worthless men they were." Cf.
Robert A. Kraft, The Testament ofjob (SBL TT 5
[Pseudepigrapha Series 4]; Missoula, Mont.: Scho-
lars, 1974) 11, 40.
222 Textually, Mpc !at syc mae horns omit ovv, most likely
in harmonization with Luke 11:34, where most
witnesses do not have it; yet, A C 0 'I' j1.1 3 33. 892.
1006. 1506 9Jt it, add o~v in Luke 11:34, where most
witnesses do not read it. Similarly, the word order in
some manuscripts is.harmonized with the Lukan
parallel; the better witnesses read what Nestle-Aland
prints (M B W 1342 pc !at). The preference for the
Lukan text form may have been caused by its better
Greek.
7:12; SP /Luke 6:33, 34. See also BDF, § 373; BDR,
§ 373.

450
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

controversy, therefore, focuses on the term lt?TAov~ body.23l

(Latin: simplex). 224 This term is to be taken as a moral
concept meaning "simple, sincere, generous, "225 or
perhaps as a physiological description ("healthy"). The
moral term is attested widely in the Hellenistic world,
including the LXX and Hellenistic Judaism, 226 while the
physiological meaning is attested only rarely. 227 Yet, this
latter meaning may be more probable. If the vacillation
between the two meanings 228 is intended, as I have
suggested, the argument would begin with the physio-
logical and then move to the ethical level of discourse.
At any rate, the description of the well-functioning eye
presupposes that this eye is healthy and can thus fulfill its
task of illuminating the body. Thereby the body (uoop.a) is
understood as something like a vessel 229 that is dark
inside unless it is illuminated;2 30 the eyes serve as the
instruments of such illumination. These ideas, strange as
they may be in our days, conform to ancient views about
sense perception, including the negative valuation of the
• 23 Next the opposite case is set forth: a description of a
malfunctioning eye (vs 23a): "If, however, your eye is
sick/evil, your whole body will be dark" (lav ll€ o
ocp6aAp.o~ tTOV 7TOV7Jp0~ y, iJA.ov TO uwp.d. tTOV tTKOT£!VOV
£'umt). 232 This description is simply the opposite of the
former case. The adjective ?TOV7Jpo~ can mean "sick" as
well as "evil." 233 Moreover, the "evil eye" had a very
pronounced meaning in the ancient world. 234 It includes
all shades from the begrudging look of jealousy and
envy2 35 to the magic evil eye. 236 The meaning of the
expression, therefore, goes beyond the merely physio-
logical and extends to the moral field of meaning. What-
ever may be the case, whether physically sick or morally
evil, such an eye cannot do its job of illuminating the
body, which therefore remains dark throughout. 237
Verse 23b concludes the composition by giving it a

224 The terminology occurs only here in the synoptic <j>ron&v6~.

Gospels (Matt 6:22/ /Luke 11 :34), but cf. Rom 12:8;
2 Cor 8:2; 9:11, 13; 11:3; Eph 6:5; Col3:22;Jas 1:5;
Barn. 19.2; 1 Clem. 23.1; and Hermas often. The basic
studies on this terminology are by Amstutz, Andre,
Bacht, Bacon, Brandt, Cadbury, Edlund, Hilt-
brunner, Sjoberg, Spicq, and Vischer (see the
bibliography). See also BAGD, s.v. a1rAOT1]~, a1rA.ov~;
Tim Schramm, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s. v.; Spicq, Notes,
1.125-29; Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 44-45; Klaus
Koch, "Ct:IM tmm vollstandig sein," THAT 2.1045-51.
225 BAGD, s.v. a1rA.ov~: "single, simple, sincere,
generous."
226 For the evidence see esp. Amstutz and Spicq.
227 BAGD, s.v. a1rA.ov~, cites only Damascius Vita Isid. 16.
228 The evidence in Testament of the 12 Patriarchs and the
Shepherd ofHermas suggests a wide range of appli-
cations of the term to anthropology and ethics.
Amstutz's proposal (AITAOTHI:, 102) that these
applications are part of the development of a
"spiritual physiognomy" ("geistliche Physiognomik")
is intriguing; for this point see also SM/Matt 6:16-
18.
229 One is reminded ofthe notion that the body is a
prison or shell-like vessel. See Eduard Schweizer,
"crwp.a KTA.," TDNT 7.1024-94, esp. 1025-41, 1058
(A.1-5; D.l.3); the RAC articles by Kehl and Cour-
celle, mentioned above, n. 150; and Pierre Courcelle,
"Fliigel (Flug) der Seele I," RAC 8 (1972) 29-65.
230 <j>ron&v6~ ("illuminated," "full of light") occurs with
this meaning only here in the NT; for other mean-
ings see Matt 17:5; Apoc. Pet. 3. 7. See BAGD, s. v.
231 Negative valuation of the "body" is implied also in
SM/Matt 5:29-30; 6:25 (see Betz, Essays, 96 nn. 32,
34); Matt 10:28.
232 As in vs 22b some manuscripts change the word
order (K* W 33 pc). Whether this difference is due to
harmonization or just irregularity in the formulation
is not clear; it is not the same manuscripts that
change the word order in vss 22b and 23a.
233 See BAGD (s.v. 7rOV1Jp6~, 1) with reference to Plato
Prot. 313a; Hippias Minor 3 7d as parallels for the
physiological meaning "sick."
234 For references and bibliography see BAGD, s. v.
o<j>8aA.p.6~' 1; most important are the studies by
Cadbury, Fiebig (see bibliography above), and
Baumbach (Das Verstiindnis des Biisen, 77 -79).
235 See Prov 23:6; 28:27; Sir 14:10; T. Iss. 3.3; 4.6; T.
Benj. 4.2, 6. In the NT see Matt 20: 15; Mark 7:22.
236 On this topic see Siegfried Seligmann, Der bose Blick
und Verwandtes (2 vols.; Berlin: Barsdorf, 1910;
reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1985 ); idem, Die
Zauberkraft des Auges und das Berufen (Hamburg:
Friedrichsen, 1922); Dov Noy, "Evil Eye," EJ 6
(1971) 997-1000; Katherine M.D. Dunbabin and
Matthew W. Dickie, "Invida rumpantur pectora: The
Iconography of Phthonos/Invidia in Graeco-Roman
Art," JAC 26 (1983) 7-37; Michel Meslin, "Eye,"
EncRe/6.236-39; furthermore Matthew W. Dickie,
"Envy," ABD 2.528-32.
237 Baumbach (Das Verstiindnis des Biisen, 77-78) points
out that dualistic connotations are found in Testa-
ments of the 12 Patriarchs as well as in SM/Matt 6:22-

451
surprising turn: "If therefore the light within you is
darkness-what a darkness!" (t:l o1lv TO cpws TO lv O'OL
uK&Tos luTlv, TO uK&Tos ?T&uov.). 2 38 New terms are
suddenly introduced that shift the argument altogether
away from the physiological level to the level of religious
anthropology and ethics. The result of the preceding
argument was that the eye does not itself contain the
light but receives its light from another source. Now we
learn that this source is "the light within you" (To cpros TO
lv uot). 239 This phase alludes clearly to the well-known
concept of the "light within" (lumen internum) as we know
it from Greek philosophy, where it plays an important
role in contexts dealing with vision and epistemology. 240
Appropriating this concept of the internal light means,
first of all, that the eye functions not by receiving its light
from the outside by intromission. Instead, the source of
light is within. But even this notion is subjected to criti-
cism. Contrary to what we should expect given the
philosophical background, we do not hear that the
internal light is identical with the "soul" ("'vx~) or the
"intellect" (vovs). 241 We do not read about the "eyes of
the soul" 242 or the "intelligible light" (lux intelligibilis). 243
Instead we are told that the inner light can become
darkness. This possibility stands in direct opposition to
the doctrines of the Greek philosophers. 2 44. According to
the Greeks the internal light is a spark from the divine
light itself that can never become totally extinct. 245 The
divine light can never be turned into its radical opposite,
total darkness. 246
If this threat is seriously suggested, therefore, it can
only be intended as an attack against the tenets of
Platonic and Stoic philosophy in particular. I should
point out, however, that even within this tradition
skeptics doubted that all humans have the potential of
superior intelligence. This skepticism occurs in Plato
when he considers the functioning and malfunctioning of
the eye. 247 It continues in Stoicism with its consideration
of the impact of affections (?Td.87J) on vision. 248 Other
points of discussion were the implications of physical and
mental blindness, and the ease with which one can be
overcome by deception. 249 Given these topics, it is not
surprising that "blindness" and "deception" became
important themes also in primitive Christian
literature. 250
At any rate, with these deliberations the transition
from the physiological to the moral level of thinking has

23; this dualism requires that the terms mean more
than simply "stingy" or "envious."
238 W changes the word order of <TKOTor luTlv to luTtv
<TKOTor, thereby creating a chiastic structure in vs 23b.
239 This expression occurs only in this passage (SM/Matt
6:23/ /Luke 11:35). Cf. the interpretation of the
imagery in John 11:9-10 (also 8:12; 12:35-36).
Directly connected are the concepts of "sons of light"
and "children oflight" (see above, n. 129). The play
with the etymology of <floor ("light") and <flcl>r ("human
being"), which was so attractive for the Gnostics, may
be behind the interpretation of"the light within you"
in Cos. Thorn. log. 24 (see above at n. 127). Is there
any relationship between "the light within" and "the
inner man" (o ;,."' li.v8pw1ror [Rom 7:22; 2 Cor 4:16;
Eph 3:16; cf. 1 Pet 3:4])? For the gnostic develop-
ments see Plutarch, An recte dictum sit latenter esse
vivendum 1130A-B (on this see Betz, Hellenism us und
Urchristentum, 137-38); Corp. Herm. 1.12-15;
Howard M.Jackson, ed., Zosimus ofPanopolis on the
Letter Omega (SBL TT 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars,
1983) §§ 10-13. For discussion and bibliography see
also Nock and Festugiere, Hermes Trismegiste: Corpus
Hermeticum, 1.21 n. 34; Conzelmann, TDNT9.343
nn. 261-62; Michel Tardieu, Trois mythes gnostiques:
Adam, Eros et les animaux d'Egypt dans un ecrit de Nag
Hammadi (II, 5) (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 197 4)
85-86, 96; Bremer, "Licht als universales Darstel-
lungsmedium," 189-90; Bernhard WyB, "Gregor II
(Gregor von Nazianz)," RAG 12 (1983) 828, 834.
240 See the bibliography above, esp. the studies by
Beierwaltes, Bremer (with extensive bibliography),
Bultmann, Conzelmann, Deonna, Dibelius, Haas,
Klein, Lindblom, Luther, Sjoberg, and Wetter.
241 See above, p. 443.
242 See above, p. 443.
243 See Beierwaltes, Lux intelligibilis, passim.
244 See also Betz, Essays, 83.
245 Cf. PGM IV.2959 about magical power to make the
fire in someone's eyes disappear.
246 See also PGM IV.2298-99.
24 7 See above, pp. 445-4 7.
248 About the location of the ~y<p.ovtKOV ("guiding
principle)" in the heart, see Ludwig Stein, Die
Psychologie der Stoa (Berliner Studien fiir classische
Philologie und Archaeologie 3.1; 7.1; 2 vols.; Berlin:
Calvary, 1886, 1888), esp. 1.133-39; about the
affections (Tlt 1ra87J) as "diseases of the soul" see
1.139-44. Consequently, the Stoic theory of cog-
nition is primarily a matter of psychology (2.1 04-
227). SeealsoPohlenz,Stoa, 1.116-19, 141-58;
2.240-41, 242-43.
249 Cf. Dio Chrysostom Or. 11.1: "For the truth is bitter
and unpleasant to the unthinking, while falsehood is

452

been completed. 251 If vision is impaired because of the
effects of sin, one must assume that this has grave
consequences also for the "internal light." After all,
nothing human is exempt from sin.
In conclusion, one can say this: if sin can dim the inner
light and even turn it into its opposite, darkness, then
one can no longer have confidence in it as the ultimate
weapon in the battle against the "desires," which ac-
cording to Greek thinking are awakened through sense
perception. 252 The eye itself is thus not the cause of evil
and sin, but the inner light is, if it has been turned into
darkness. This consequence finds its expression in the
dramatic exclamation at the end: "What a darkness!" (TO
uK&Tos "lT&uov). 253
What does this outcome mean for the ·definition of the
eye as a lamp (vs 22a)? Is it accepted or rejected? The
conclusion is that, after having reflected on the definition
in the commentary (vss 22b-23b), we are asked to
reaffirm the initial definition. Indeed, if the "inner light"
shines, the eye will serve as the lamp that illuminates the
body. The inner light enables the eye to be a"lTAovs
("sound") and thus function normally.
Where then lies the paraenetical edge of the saying? It
sweet and pleasant. They are, I fancy, like men with
sore eyes (TOLf VO<TOV<TI Ta 8/-'f'aTa ]-they find the
light painful, while the darkness, which permits them
to see nothing, is restful and agreeable [TO fLtV <Pwr
ltvtaphv bpO.v, rh ot O"K6TOS' ll.Av1l'OV Kai tf>{Aov, oi.JK E6Jv
J3A.t1rnv]. Else how could falsehood often prove
mightier than the truth, if it did not win its victories
through pleasure?" Cited according to Dio Chrysostom
(trans.]. W. Cahoon; LCL; London: Heinemann;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1961)
1.446-47.
250 See BAGD, s.v. chaTaw, chaT71; and Tv.p>..or, Tv.p>..ow,
with references and bibliography. Cf. also Jas 1 :26;
Matt 13:22; Heb 13:3; Eph 4:22; 5:6; on blindness as
metaphor see also below on SP/Luke 6:39. Although
these terms do not occur in the SM, the issues of
deception and blindness run through it and can be
identified in many passages.
251 This transition was made earlier in Stoicism; Philo of
Alexandria connects it with Jewish ideas. See Stein,
Psychologie, 1.139; on Philo see above, n. 209. One
should note that the Stoics paid attention to the
peculiar idea that darkness is visible (opaTOv .!vat TO
<rKOTor). See Ps.-Plutarch (Aetius) De placitis philoso-
phorum 4.15.3 (SVF II, no. 866); Diels, Doxographi
Graeci, 405-6; John of Damascus, in Stobaeus Flor.,
p. 713 (ed. Gaisford); cf. Ps.-GalenHist. philos., in
Matthew 6:19-7:12
appears that the careful listener who meditates on the
saying conscientiously will ask: What if my inner light is
darkness? How can it be made to shine again?2 54 The
saying is designed in such a way that it raises the question
and the concern, but it gives no direct answer. It leaves
the concerned student alone with his or her uncertainty.
The student will have to find the answer elsewhere,
probably by considering other passages. Stirring up the
student's conscience and leaving him or her in that
situation seems to be the paraenetic intent of the
passage. 255
c. On Serving Two Masters (6:24)
24 No one can serve two masters.
For either he will hate the one and love
the other,
or he will be devoted to the one and
despise the other.
You cannot serve God and Mammon.
Bibliography
Jacques Dupont, "Dieu ou Mammon (Mt 6, 24; Luke
16, 13),"inhisEtudes, 2.551-67.
R. T. France, "God and Mammon," Evangelical
Quarterly 51 ( 1979) 3-21.
Opera (ed. Kuhn, vol. 19, p. 308); also Corp. Herm.
1.28: uKor<tvov .pws ("dark light"). See Stein, Psycho-
logie, 1.128-29; Heinz-Gerd Ingenkamp, "Zur
stoischen Lehre vom Sehen," RhM 14 (1971) 240-
46; de Vogel, Greek Philosophy, 3, nos. 947-48.
252 The Gnostics drew a radical conclusion from this
idea, saying that not everyone possesses the "intel-
lect" (vovs). This conclusion appears in Cos. Thorn.
log. 24.
253 For the translation: "how great(?)" and for parallel
references to the exclamation, see BAGD, s.v. 1r0uos,
1.
254 See also the Lukan parallel, Luke 11:35: "Consider,
therefore, whether the light that is within you is
darkness" (uK61TEL oVv fL~ rh cf>Wr rh Ev uo& uK6roS" furlv).
255 Cf. Marcus AureliusMed. 10.26: "Contemplate,
therefore, in thought what comes to pass in such a
hidden way, and see the power, as we see the force
which makes things gravitate or tend upwards, not
with the eyes, but none the less clearly" (trans.
A. S. L. Farquharson, The Meditations of the Emperor
Marcus Aurelius [Oxford: Clarendon, 1968]).
Similarly, Med. 3.15-16; 11.12; 12.28.
453
 E. P. Groenewald, "God and Mammon," Neot. 1 (1967)
59-65.
Shmuel Safrai and David Flusser, "The Slave of Two
Masters," Immanuel6 (1976) 30-33; reprinted in
David Flusser,judaism and the Origins of Christianity
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988) 169-72.
Franceso Vattioni, "Mammona iniquitatis," Augus-
tinian urn 5 (1965) 379-86.
1) Introduction
The saying in 6:24 is extremely concise and follows the
preceding vss 22-23 without an apparent connection.
One should not, however, take this situation as a reason
for uniting the two passages. Instead, vs 24 is a saying in
and of itself; its connection with vss 22-23 is by associ-
ation of ideas.
The kind of split in loyalty described and rejected in v
24 is the very opposite of what a7rAovs, "simple" (Latin:
simplex, "simple"), means in vs 22. If another well-known
concept is used, vs 24 describes "double-mindedness"
(lit'iFvxla) 256 or "double-heartedness" (liL7TAOKapli{a), 257
terms that do not occur in the SM but only in related
literature. 258
As the rhetorical analysis below shows, vs 24 contains a
tightly composed argument. What is its main content and
purpose? The title usually given to the passage is "On
Serving Two Masters." This title is taken from the
beginning in vs 24a and assumes that the entire compo-
sition is a practical wisdom saying advising against love of
money. 259 This ethical warning is, however, only one
aspect of a surprisingly large agenda of concerns. 260
One should derive the meaning of the whole saying
from the final maxim in vs 24d. Accordingly, the saying
deals with the notion of God and the service of God. For
the saying the notion of God implies serving him with
undivided loyalty and devotion.2 61 This theological
demand is certainly nothing new for the Jewish religion.
Then what is the point? The saying is peculiar in that it
sees this undivided loyalty as threatened by the service to
another deity, Mammon, that is directly opposed to
God. 262 In the polytheistic environment of Hellenism,
therefore, the danger to the demand of undivided
service to the true God is not seen as coming from the
deities of other religions, but from a pseudo-deity
personifying materialism. In the concrete situations of
life, therefore, one must choose between serving the true
God and serving a pseudo-deity, Mammon. This choice is
a clear-cut one, without allowing compromises; it sets up
the alternative terms: service versus enslavement, hatred
versus love, devotion versus contempt, external materi-
alism versus internal dedication, slavery of the money
lovers versus freedom of "the sons of God." Thus, vs 24
shares with all of 6: 19-7: 11 the concern for the
external versus the internal. Consequently, vs 24 speaks
about what it means to serve God in the appropriate way,

256 The terminology is of great importance in the Epistle were not a desirable calamity to mortals! For your
of james (Jas 1:8; 4:8, 16: ai'[!vxos; see the whole sake there are battles and plunderings and murders,
section 4:4-12), the Didache (2.4-5; 4.4), andHermas and children become the enemies of their parents,
(Vis. 3.10.9; 3.11.2; Man. 10.1.1-2, 4; 9.9, where and brothers (the enemies) of their kinsmen" (OTP
at'[lvxia is called the daughter of the devil). See 2.575). See the commentary by van der Horst,
BAGD, s.v. at'[lvx.!w, at'[lvxia, ai'[!vxos, with further Sentences, 142-46; also Betz, Lukian, 194-99;
literature; Niederwimmer,Didache, 120, 137-38; Edward N. O'Neil, "De cupiditate divitiarum," in
Brox, Hermas, 500-502, 551-53. Cf. also atyv6>p.wv PECL 2.289-362; on the whole subject see also
("double-minded") in Did 2.4; Bam. 19.7. Martin Hengel, Property and Riches in the Early Church
257 Did. 5.1;Barn. 20.1. (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974).
258 See also Georges Andre, "La vertu de simplicite chez 261 On this point see esp. Mark 10:17-21 par.; 12:28-34
les Peres Apostoliques," RSR 11 (1921) 306-27; par.; 1 Thess 1:9; Rom 8:28; 12:1-2; 1 Cor 2:9; 8:3-
Dibe!ius,james, 31, 82-83, 226-27; Brox, Hermas, 6; Bam. 19.2; Polycarp Phil. 3.3; etc. See also Tob
500-502. 4:14; 14:7; Sir 7:31; Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 8 (for further
259 </>•Aapyvpia, </>•Aapyvpos. See esp. T.jud. 18.2; 19.1; parallels in Jewish wisdom literature see van der
Luke 16:14; 1 Tim 6:10; 2 Tim 3:1-2; Did. 3.5; etc. Horst, Sentences, 116-17). The topic is common in
See BAGD, s.v. </>•Aapyvp.!w, </>•Aapyvpia, </><Aapyvpos. Hellenism.
260 Such warnings were commonplace in antiquity. As an 262 This choice is related to the Two Ways pattern (see
example see Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 42-47: "The love of below on SM/Matt 7: 13-14). Notably, the inter-
money is the mother of all evil. Gold and silver are pretation of our saying in Ps.-Clem. Rec. 5.9.4 is in
always a lure for men. Gold, originator of evil, terms of two kingdoms (see also 5.12.4).
destroyer oflife, crushing all things, would that you

454

both religiously and ethically. The singling out of
materialism as a pseudo-religious alternative to the
appropriate conduct of worship makes this passage
unique. As the SM has it, the great temptation for the
faithful worshiper is that false worship of a pseudo-god is
inadvertently substituted for the proper worship of the
one God. 263
2) Analysis Verse 24 is a composition of considerable rhetorical
artistry. 264 The arrangemen(shows some similarity
with vss 19-20 and vss 22-23, but is also different in
that it represents an argument of formal logic, an
enthymema, 265 that is, an abbreviated syllogism. The
saying has three parts. 2 66
The opening statement (vs 24a) is a sentence of a
proverbial nature; strictly speaking it is a legal pro-
vision. 267 It uses alliteration and assonance: ova- av- av-
Kv- aov. 268
The second part (vs 24b-c) explains the beginning
sentence by presenting evidence based on observation;
this is called aetiologia. 269 This part is formally an
isocolon ("parallel lines"), consisting of two antithetical
parallelisms (isocola) interpreting each other and hence
to be called interpretatio. 270 The two parts are related
chiastically ("hate"-"love," "devote"-"despise"), the first
line setting forth an ethical judgment (vs 24b), and the
second line drawing on psychological observation (vs
24c); the psychological observation serves as the
grounds for the ethical judgment.
The third part (vs 24d) is a conclusio, formulated as a
263 For the general background of this important topic
see Falk Wagner, Geld oder Gott? Zur Geldbestimmtheit
der kulturellen und religiiisen Lebenswelt (Stuttgart:
Cotta, 1984); Raymond Bogaert, "Geld (Geld-
wirtschaft)," RAG 9 (1976) 797-907, esp. 844-46;
Manfred Wacht, "Giiterlehre," RAG 13 (1986) 59-
150; Gunter Bader, Symbolik des Todes jesu (HUT 25;
Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1988) 136-77.
264 For the rhetorical analysis I am indebted to Thorn,
"Rhetoric and Style," 12-13.
265 See Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.432-33 (§ 875).
266 Ibid., 1.199 (§ 371).
267 See below, the section on Interpretation.
268 See Russell, Paronomasia, 15.
269 See Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.430 (§ 867) and 1.432-
33 (§ 875).
270 Ibid., 1.374 (§ 751).
271 In terms of its literary genre, the saying should not
be classified as a parable or similitude, unless one
wants to give these categories a very broad definition.
Seejulicher, Gleichnisse, 2.108-15; Bultmann,
History, 75, 87, 91, 105, 168; Dupont, Etudes, 2.551-
Matthew 6:19-7:12
sen/entia in contrast to vs 24a. 271 This final statement
sums up the doctrinal point that is the goal of the
argument. It is stated negatively like vs 24a; if it were
formulated positively, it would conform to the Shema
(Deut 6:4-5, quoted in Mark 12:29-30). The change
from the descriptive third person singular in vs 24a-c
to the second person plural (vs 24d) shows its
paraenetical application (cf. vss 21, 2 3 ).
The saying has a parallel in Q (Luke 16:13) that is
verbally almost identical. 272 The context in Luke is
also secondary. Luke 16:13 is preceded by the great
parables of chapters 15 and 16 and a similarly struc-
tured saying in 16: I 0-12. Apart from its present
context in Luke, the saying in 16:13 almost certainly
represents the older Q-version. If one accepts this
hypothesis, the omission of the notion of "servant" or
"slave" (olKlT7JS) in SM/Matt 6:24 would be due to the
redaction of the SM. 273 Perhaps the reason for the
change was that the addressees of the SM are not
"servants" or "slaves" but free "sons of God. • 2 7 4
The saying according to its Lukan form appears also
in 2 Clem. 6.1, where the initial proverb "No slave can
serve two masters" (oVaE1S' olKlT7JS' OVvarat Ovul. KvploLS'
aov..\<vELv) is followed by a longer commentary present
also in other synoptic sayings (2 Clem. 6.1-7). It is
virtually certain that 2 Clem. 6.1 is not based on the SM
or on Matthew, but on Q. 275 Remarkably, the passage
uses the same commentary method, only more
52; Harnisch, Gleichniserziihlungen, 106 n. 182.
272 The only difference is the reading of "no slave"
(ova.'ts olKtT7Js) at the beginning in Luke, a reading
supported by 2 Clem. 6.1. On the Lukan context see
Dupont, Etudes, 2.556-58.
273 See also Jiilicher (Gleichnisreden, 2.112) and many
others following him (see the report in Dupont,
Etudes, 2.554 n.l3). Strecker (Bergpredigt, 138 n.ll5
[Sermon, 134 n.115]) argues differently that Luke
added "slave" because it helped to connect the
passage by catchword to the parable of the Unjust
Steward (Luke 16: 1-9). That the addition serves this
function, however, does not automatically mean that
Luke must have added it. The term "slave" merely
spells out what is assumed by the verb "serve"
(aovA<VELv [ vs 24d]). On Strecker see also Dupont,
Etudes, 2.567 n.
274 See above on SM/Matt 5:9, and Betz, Essays, 122-
23.
275 See Bultmann, History, 75; Koester, Synoptische
Uberlieferung, 74-75; Kohler, Rezeption, 142; Klop-
penborg, QParallels, 178; Lindemann, Clemensbriefe,
455
elaborate than the version in Q and in the SM. 276 This
same method is then also found in Ps.-Clem. Rec. 5.9.4,
where Matt 6:24a and dare cited and expounded. First
the text gives the exegesis in terms of the two king-
doms, then follows a sayings composition (apophthegma)
including the quotation: "Wherefore also the true
Prophet, when he was present with us, and saw some
rich men negligent with respect to the worship of God,
thus unfolded the truth of this matter: 'No one,' said
He, 'can serve two masters; he cannot serve God and
Mammon'; calling riches, in the language of His
country, Mammon. •277
A somewhat different elaboration is found in the
Coptic Cos. Thom.log. 47:
Jesus said, "A person cannot (at the same time)
mount two horses or draw two bows. And a slave
cannot serve two owners, but truly will honor the
one and scoff at the other. No person drinks
vintage wine and immediately desires to drink new
wine. And new wine is not put into old wineskins
lest they burst. And vintage wine is not put into
new wineskins lest it go bad. And old patches are
not sewed to new garments, for a rip will
develop." 278
Bentley Layton has entitled the gnostic passage quite
properly, "Opposites cannot coexist." The saying
simply collects examples, some from the synoptic
tradition, to demonstrate the point by accumulation of
evidence. The following log. 48 emphasizes unity. Yet
another parallel occurs in T. jud. 18.6; this parallel
seems to be evidence that the saying originated in
Jewish wisdom literature:
215.
276 For a still different version in the Gospel of Barnabas
see Luigi Cirillo and Michel Fremaux, L'Evangile de
Barna be: Recherches sur la composition et l' origine (Paris:
Beauchesne, 1977) 152.
277 The Latin reads: "propter hoc denique ;ems
propheta cum esset praesens nobiscum et quosdam
ex divitibus neglegentes erga dei cultum videret,
huius rei ita aperuit veritatem: 'Nemo potest,' inquit,
'duobus dominis servire, non potestis deo servire et
mammonae'; mammona patria eorum voce divitias
vocans." Cf. alsoPs.-Clem. Rec. 5.12.4.
278 Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 388.
279 Translation by Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments,
215 (see also their notes, 217).
280 L Ll. pc add olKtT"I/f ("slave"), no doubt from the
parallel in Luke 16: 13; modem translators should
not take over this secondary harmonization (as, e.g.,
in NEB; correct in REB, NRSV).
281 For proverbs using this form of sentence stating
impossibilities, see SM/Matt 5:14, 36; 7:18.
282 See Schulz, Principles ofRoman Law, 78 (with ex-
456
For being a slave of two passions contrary to the
commandments of God he cannot obey God,
because they have blinded his soul, and he walks in
the day as in the night.279
~-Do yh.p 7r&.8n Evavrla rWv EvroAOOv roV 8£oV
OovA£-Dwv 0£i!) 6£oV V7TaKo-6£tV oV OVvarat HTt
frVcpArouav T~v "'vx~v aVroV, KaL Ev ~p.Epf!- Ws- Ev VVKTL
7TOp£V£rar..
The context is that of the love of money and its
dangers; the saying is also reminiscent of SM/Matt
6:22-23, but it does not seem to be based on synoptic
sources.
3) Interpretation
• 24 The saying is introduced by what appears to be a
proverb: "No one can be a servant [or: slave] of two
masters" (Ov?lt"ls ?lVvaTat ?lvu'r. Kvplot~ ?lovA.n!t"tv). 2 80
Proverbial as the statement sounds, 281 it is really a legal
provision pertaining to slave law. 282 The two masters
envisioned are slave lords. 283 The rule that a slave can be
owned by only one owner has been questioned, 2 84 and
there may have been exceptions of co-ownership, but the
general rule as stated was no doubt followed most of the
time. The omission of"slave" (otKfT1/~) in vs 24a (as
compared with the Lukan Q-parallel) indicates that for
the SM the statement serves as a theological principle, so
that the terms no longer function legally but theo-
logically. Therefore, the phrase "no one can" operates at
amples); Elon, Principles ofjewish Law, 158. See, e.g.,
Cicero Balbo 11.28: "No one of our citizens can be a
citizen of two states" ("duarum civitatum civis noster
esse nemo potest").
283 See Matt 1 0:24-25; 13:27; 25:20, 22, 24; Luke 13:8;
14:22; 18:31; 19:16, 18, 20, 25; 24:48; Luke 12:36,
46; etc. For further references see BAGD, s.v. Kvpwr,
Il.1.a.f3.
284 See Acts 16:16, 19; T.Jos. 14.2. For the problem see
BAGD, s.v. dptor, 11.1.a.a and {3; Str-B 1.430 has
rabbinic parallels; see also Shmuel Safrai and David
Flusser, "The Slave of Two Masters," lmmanuel6
(1976) 30-33; reprinted in David Flusser,judaism
and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes,
1988) 169-72.
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

two levels: the level of the experientially impossible, and
the level of the ethically impermissible. The latter is
restated unconditionally in vs 24d. The term oovA£-6£w
("serve") 285 vacillates between "being a slave to" and
"being a servant of. "286 At the theological level, there
are no masters, except the one God. The other, Mam-
mon, is not a master in the same sense, so that one may
sum up vs 24 by saying, "No one can serve two masters
because there is only one. •287
The interpretation of this beginning statement in vs
24b-c operates at the experiential level. Everyone can
observe in life what happens when a person attempts to
serve two superiors at the same time. The two parallels in
vs 24b-c are connected by "either ... or" (if ... -q). 2 8 8
The future tense means that in the situation envisaged
a servant develops a liking for one superior over the
other. What one can observe is that he "clings to"
(cwTEX£u8at)2 89 the one, while he "despises" (KaTa-
cppov£'iv)290 the other. Such emotional ties lead to
behavior that is described as "hating" the one and
"loving" the other. 291 This preference and dislike,
however, not only contradicts the demands of legal
ownership that would require impartial service to both
superiors, but it also makes life unbearable for everyone
involved. The reason, the suggestion goes, is psycho-
logical; logically speaking, there is no reason why a
servant should not love both masters.
Yet, the real interest of the saying is not psychological
but theological. This is evident from the conclusion (vs
24a): "You cannot serve God and Mammon" (ov o-6vau8£
8£~ oovA.£-6£tv Ka'r. p.ap.fJ-wv~). Again, the verb "you cannot"
works at the two levels of psychology and theology, the
dilemma also being one of ethics. At this point it should
be clear that "you cannot" addresses readers who are
engaging precisely in what they should rule out. There-
fore, "you cannot" addresses the futility of something the
addressees are seen as doing, an activity that has no
rational reason or purpose. Thus what is ruled out is
something irrational. If the options are so clear, how-
ever, why are people caught in the dilemma oftrying to
do both?
In order to understand the saying one should realize
that in vs 24d the terms have shifted from the example to
figurative language. At this level, the addressees appear
trapped in a dilemma. On the one hand, the first
obligation of all human beings, in particular of jews, is to
serve God, and him alone. 292 The language vacillates
between "serving" and "being a slave." But one must not
simply identify serving God with slavery. 293 God is not a
slave master; serving him is a voluntary acknowledgment
of his beneficence and rulership. "Serving God" describes
a relationship with God that befits free human beings, 294
"the sons of God" as the SM describes them. 29 5 It is

285 See BAGD, s.v. oovl\fvw, with references and bib-
liography.
286 This intended ambiguity is typical also of Paul's use
of the terminology (see Rom 6:6, 19; 8:15, 21; Gal
4:8-9, 25; etc., in contrast to Rom 6:19; 7:6; 12:11;
14:18; 16:18; Gal5:13; Phil2:22; 1 Thess 1:9; etc.),
but cf. Luke 15:29, where the older son says: "So
many years I have served you," meaning that to him
it was "slavery."
287 The SM is strictly monotheistic, so that Mammon is
not to be placed at the same level as God. For the
SM, Mammon is at best a pseudo-deity, comparable
to what Paul calls "the so-called gods" (1 Cor 8:5-6).
Cf. the different perspective of2 Cor 6:15, which sets
Christ and Beliar in opposition; in Jas 2: 19; 4:11 it is
the one God and the devil with the demons. See also
Wagner, Geld oder Gott? 98-102.
288 For this connection see BDF, § 446; BDR, § 446;
BAGD, s.v. 1/, Lb.
289 The term is commonly Hellenistic; for parallels see
BAGD, s. v., iivr.!xw, 1. In the NT, it occurs only in
Matt 6:24//Luke 16: 13; Titus 1 :9; cf. Hermas Vis.
1.1.8.
290 Cf. Matt 18:10; 1 Cor 11:22; 1 Tim 4:12; 6:1; 2 Pet
2:10; etc. See BAGD, s.v. Kara,Ppov.!w, 1.
291 For the contrast of "hate" and "love" see also
SM/Matt 5:43; for further parallels see BAGD, s.v.
p.r.ulw, 1; p.LCTos.
292 See Exod 20:2-6; 23:24, 33: Lev 19: 1-4; Deut 4:25-
31; 6:4-9; etc. See also Karl Heinrich Rengstorf,
"oovl\os Krll..," TDNT 2.267-69, 273-77 (B.3-4; C.2).
293 Cf. Gal2:4; 3:28; 4:7, 8-11, 31; 5:1, 13; etc.
294 The language of Paul is also vacillating, speaking
sometimes of social slavery, sometimes using the
metaphor of slavery (service) to God, notwith-
standing the terms indicating freedom and sonship.
See 1 Cor 7:21-23; Rom 6:18, 19, 20, 22; 8:2, 21;
etc.
295 Cf. Gal 4:7: "You are no longer a slave, but a son."

457
noteworthy that the SM does not use the notion of
"servant of God. "2 96
On the other hand, then, is the opposite, "serving
Mammon," a pseudo-religious captivation by
materialism. The term "mammon" (}Lap.p.wvas) is
interesting for a number of reasons. Originally an
Aramaic term, pee, 2 97 in its Greek form it designates
"wealth" and "property" as a personified and demonic
force. 298 The name recognizes the religious structure of
materialism. Antiquity had long before recognized that
the relentless pursuit of money and possessions is
tantamount to the worship of a pseudo-deity. Naming
this pseudo-deity by a foreign name indicates its demonic
and even magical character. Serving this Mammon
results in self-enslavement; one has lost control. To many
of those who are in the service of this pseudo-deity, the
worship of the true God may appear to be compatible. 299
Things could be neatly arranged: serving materialistic
goals in the secular world, and serving God in the
religious world. Such a combination, popular as it may
be, however, renders the service of the true God
impossible. 300 Once Mammon is granted power, the
demands by this pseudo-god crowd out everything else,
and the worship of God becomes an empty gesture. The
problem is not, therefore, spending money or owning
property, but becoming possessed by Mammon's
demonic powers.
What ethical conclusion then does one draw from it?
One must choose: one can either serve God in freedom
or serve Mammon in slavery. One cannot do both
because theologically they are antithetical and absolutely
irreconcilable. Ethically, one is obliged to serve God in
the proper ways. What then is the consequence for one's
handling of money and possessions? The message is that
money and property are not just that, but that they can
easily ensnare and possess people. 301 They exercise
power that is none other than what we call materialism.
Materialism, however, is a pseudo-religious way of life,

296 For references see BAGD, s.v. aovA.os, 4; also
aouA.nlro, 2.b.
297 Emphatic state, amcc, Greek p.ap.wvas, Latin
Mam(m)ona. The term is rare in the NT (see also
Luke 16:9, 11; cf. 2 Clem. 6.1). In Jewish literature it
is attested in Sir 31(34):8; 1QS 6.2 (cf. 6.24-25);
1Q27.1, 2, 5; CD 14.20; 'Abot 2.17, and so on. The
occurrence in the SM says nothing about being a
translation from the Aramaic; the loanword was
already current in the Greek by the time of the NT.
For discussion and references see Friedrich Hauck,
"p.ap.wvas" TDNT 4.388-90; BAGD, s.v. p.ap.wvas;
Horst Balz, EWNT (EDNT), 2, s. v. p.ap.wvas; Str-B
1.433-35; Black, Approach, 139-40; Hans Peter
Ruger, "Map.wvas," ZNW64 (1973) 127-31; Klaus
Beyer, Die aramiiischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Got-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984) 625;
Braun, Radikalismus, 2.74 n. 3; Schwarz, "Undjesus
sprach," 6, 21-22; B. A. Mastin, "Latin Mam(m)ona
and the Semitic Languages: A False Trail and a
Suggestion," Bib 65 (1 984) 87-90.
298 Thus the expression "mammon of iniquity" (o
p.ap.wvas rfjs O.atKias) in Luke 16:9, 11, for which see
Francesco Vattioni, "Mammona iniquitatis," Augus-
tinianum 5 (1 965) 379-86.
299 The great example demonstrating this point is the
story of the rich young man in Mark 10:17-22 par.
Cf. also Tg. Prov. 3:9: "Honor Yahweh with your
mammon"; Tg. Deut. 6:5: "You shall love Yahweh
your God with all your heart, and with all your soul,
and with all your mammon."
300 These ideas were commonplace in antiquity. Cf. the
Greek and Latin parallel references, esp. the gnomic
poet Demophilus, Sententiae Pythagoreorum, ed.
Johann Conrad Orelli, Opuscula Graecorum Veterum
Sententiosa et Moralia (Leipzig: Weidmann, 181 9)
1.42; cited by Wettstein, 1.333: tf>tAOXP~P.arov, Kat
c/nA68£ov rhv aVrhv cl5Vvarov £Tvar: 0 ytzp ...
</>tAOXP~p.aros lt avayK'l/S lf.atKOOS ("It is impossible that
the same person is ... a lover of money and a lover of
God; for the ... lover of money is by necessity
unrighteous.") For this line of thought cf. also Jas
4:4; 1 John 2:15-17.
301 Cf. Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 67 (ed. Von der Miihll):
'EA.nlli.pos {3ios oi> avvarat KT~cracrliat XP~p.ara 'lTOAAd.
atlt Tb 'lTpayp.a [p.~] p4otoV .!vat xropts li'l/TEias lfXAWV ~
OvvacrrWv, ltAAtt o-VVEX£'i Oa"'r.AElf!, '7l"&.vra KfKT7JTar.· Civ Of
7J'"OV Ka't rVxn XP1Jp.&.rwv 7TOA.AWv, Ka't raVra p~alw~ av ElS'
T~V TOV 'lTA'l/crlov .i!votav otap.•rpfjcrat ("A free life
cannot acquire many possessions, because this is not
easy to do without servility to mobs as monarchs, yet
it possesses all things in unfailing abundance; and if
by chance it obtains many possessions, it is easy to
distribute them so as to win the gratitude of neigh-
bours" (trans. Bailey, Epicurus: The Extant Remains,
117).

458

the service of a pseudo-god identified by the name 31
Mammon. Contrary to expectations, Mammon does not
liberate but enslave. Discipleship of jesus is clearly
incompatible with such entrapment by Mammon. How is 32
oae to prevent it? The answer given in the SM is not that
money or ownership of property is by itself evil. Rather, 33
the SM presupposes that the disciples have
possessions. 302 How else could they be exhorted to give
alms? The issue is not the money but the service of 34
Mammon and the enslavement of those who are caught
up in it. That enslavement makes money and possessions
a trap of self-destruction. The worship of the one God is
the best means of keeping oneself free from such
entrapment, once one recognizes that a clear choice has
to be made. More explanations of the matter are given in
the following passages.
d. On Anxiety (6:25-34)
25 Therefore I say to you:
Do not be anxious about your soul/life,
what you shall eat [or what you shall
drink],
nor about your body/person, what you
shall put on.
Is not the soul/life more than nourish-
ment,
and the body/person more than clothing?
26 Look at the birds of the sky: they neither
sow nor harvest nor gather into barns,
yet your heavenly Father feeds them.
Are you not of greater value than they?
27 Then, which of you who are worried
is able to add one span to his life?
28 And about clothing, what are you so
anxious about?
Study closely the lilies of the field, how
they grow:
they neither toil nor spin.
29 But I tell you, not even Solomon in all his
splendor
was clothed like one of these.
30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field,
which today exists and tomorrow is
thrown into the oven,
(will he) not all the more (clothe) you. you
men of little faith?
302 SM/Matt 6:24 par. may reflect the position held by
the historical Jesus concerning wealth (cf. also Luke
14:33; Mark 10:17-22 par.). This would imply that
Jesus did not require total poverty for everyone, but
only for those whom he recognized as being in the
grip of Mammon. See Braun, Radikalismus, 2. 73-80;
idem,jesus ofNazareth: The Man and His Time (trans.
Matthew 6:19-7:12
Therefore, do not be anxious, saying,
"What shall we eat?"
or, "What shall we drink?" or, "What
shall we wear?"
For the pagans strive for all these things.
But your heavenly Father knows that you
need all these things.
But seek first the kingdom [of God] and his
righteousness.
and all these things will be given to you in
addition.
Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow.
For tomorrow will worry about itself.
Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
Bibliography
Oswald Bayer, Schopfong als Anrede: Zu einer
Hermeneutik der SchOpfong (Ttibingen: Mohr
[Siebeck], 1986) 142-48: "Sorget nichtl"
Hans Dieter Betz, "Cosmogony and Ethics in the
Sermon on the Mount," in idem, Essays, 89-123;
German: "Kosmogonie und Ethik in der Berg-
predigt," ZThK (1984) 139-71; also in idem,
Studien zur Bergpredigt (Tilbingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1985) 78-110; Synoptische Studien, 155-87.
Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.272-304.
Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1905) 74-80.
Paul Hoffmann, "Der Q-Text der Sprtiche vom Sorgen
Mt 6, 25-33/Lk 12, 22-31: Ein Rekonstruktions-
versuch," in Ludger Schenke, ed., Studien zum
Matthiiusevangelium: FS fUr Wilhelm Pesch (Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988) 128-55.
Idem, "Die Sprtiche vom Sorgen (Mt 6, 25-33/Lk 12,
22-31) in der vorsynoptischen Uberlieferung," in
Helmwart Hierdeis and Heinz S. Rosenbusch, eds.,
Artikulation der Wirklichkeit: FS fUr Siegfried Oppolzer
zum 60. Geburtstag (Frankfurt, Bern, New York,
and Paris: Lang, 1988) 73-94.
Idem, "Jesu 'Verbot des Sorgens' und seine Nach-
geschichte in der synoptischen Uberlieferung," in
Dieterich-Alex Koch, Gerhard Sellin, and Andreas
Lindemann, eds.,jesu Rede von Gott und ihre
Nachgeschichte im .frilhen Christentum: Beitriige zur
Verkundigung]esu und zum Kerygma der Kirche; FS
fur Willi Marxsen zum 70. Geburtstag (Gtitersloh:
Mohn, 1989) 116-41.
Merklein, Gottesherrschaft, 174-83.
Everett R. Kalin; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 80-
88; idem, Qumran, 1.18-19; Wacht, RAG 13.106-10.
459
 M. F. Olsthoorn, The JlrWish Background and the Synoptic
SettingofMt 6, 25-33 andLk 12,22-31 (Studium
Biblicum Franciscanum, Analecta 10;Jerusalem:
Franciscan, 1975).
Piper, Wisdom, 24-36.
Harald Riesenfeld, "Vom Schatzesammeln und
Sorgen-ein Thema urchristlicher Paranese," in
Willem C. van Unnik, ed., Neotestamentica et
Patristica: FS fur Oscar Cullmann (NovTSup 6;
Leiden: Brill, 1962) 4 7-58.
Luise Schottroff and Wolfgang Stegemann, jesus and
Hope for the Poor (trans. Matthew]. O'Connell;
Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1986) 39-45.
Steinhauser, Doppelbildworte, 215-35.
Tannehill, Sword ofHis Mouth, 60-67.
Wrege, Bergpredigt, 116-24.
Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 82-94.
1) Introduction
The passage often entitled "On Anxiety" is clearly one of
the most fascinating in the SM. In the history of
interpretation 303 it has naturally attracted some of the
most brilliant minds. To name only one of them, Sjl.iren
Kierkegaard wrote three separate works on the pas-
sage. 304 Moreover, countless sermons have been
preached on this text. What makes this passage so
thought-provoking? Consideration of the complexities
revealed by a close examination and analysis makes one
conclusion compelling: the passage provokes thought
because much thought has gone into it and is contained
in it in an extremely condensed form. Indeed, the
passage contains a comprehensive argument on several
of antiquity's most controversial subjects of discussion.
These subjects include foremost the topic of anxiety, 305
set into the larger context of creation of the world by
God and divine providence. 306 Although the terms for
providence do not occur in the text itself, there has never
been a question that this topic, and even the problem of
theodicy, is involved and needs to be discussed. 307 The
argument made in the text is thus a combination of
several interrelated arguments.
The argument laid out in SM/Matt 6:25-34 is well
constructed. The great care displayed by the compo-.
sition must be accredited to the author of the SM. He
derived the material from the Q-tradition but not the
compositional structure as it now appears in the SM. The
Lukan parallel (Luke 12:22-32) has its own nuances and
is less tightly structured (see below). The same can be
said of the other parallels in P. Oxy. 655, the Coptic
Gospel ofThomas, and Justin Martyr (see below). It is
characteristic of the SM that the Q-material, in whatever
form it may have existed prior to the SM, 308 has been
transformed into a theological argument that is in
keeping with the theology contained in the whole of the
SM.309
As one can observe in other compositions in the SM,
the pericope begins with an introductory paraenetical

303 No special investigation of the history of exegesis providence in antiquity; Rudolf Eisler, "Vorsehung,"
exists. For some remarks and information see Luz, Wiirterbuch der philosophischen Begriffe (Berlin: Mittler,
Matthiius, 1.372-75 (Matthew, 1.409-12). 1930) 3.436-37;Joachim Konrad, "Vorsehung,"
304 Sj11ren Kierkegaard, Erbauliche Reden in verschiedenem RGG 6 (3d ed. 1962) 1496-99; H. P. Owen, "Provi-
Geist (1847), in Gesammelte Werke, part 18 (Dussel- dence," Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy 6 (1967) 509-10;
dorf: Diederichs, n.d.) 163-222: "Was wir lernen von Ernst Niermann, "Vorsehung," Sacramentum Mundi 4
den Lilien auf dem Felde und den Vogeln des (Freiburg: Herder, 1969) 1207-13.
Himmels: Drei Reden," Christliche Reden ( 1848), in 307 The theodicy problem is under consideration
Gesammelte Werke, part 20 (Dusseldorf: Diederichs, throughout the SM; see the excursus above on
1959) 5-96; "Die Sorgen der Heiden," Kleine theodicy in the SM, following SM/Matt 5:45.
Schriften (1848/49), in Gesammelte Werke, parts 21-23 308 For the relationship of the SM to Q see the Introduc-
(Dusseldorf: Diederichs, 1960) 29-7 4; "Die Lilie auf tion, above pp. 6-9, 24-44.
dem Felde und der Vogel unter dem Himmel: Drei 309 Similarly Schulz, Q, 152-53.
fromme Reden," Der Augenblick, in Gesammelte Werke,
part 34 (Dusseldorf: Diederichs, 1959) 230-34.
305 No comprehensive investigation exists. See Rudolf
Bultmann, "1-'<PII-'v&w Kr11..," TDNT 4.589-93;Jurgen
Gotzmann, "Sorge," Theologisches Begriifslexikon zum
Neuen Testament 2/2 (1971) 1179-81; Anton Vogtle,
"Sorgen," LThK 9 (1964) 892.
306 See johannes Behm, "votw KTA.," TDNT 4.1009-17,
with a bibliography and survey on the concept of

460

imperative stating the goal of the entire argument (vss
25a-b). This is followed by three subsidiary arguments
aimed at supporting the initial exhortation: first, vss 25c-
30; then, vss 31-33; and, finally, vs 34. At the beginning
of each of these subsidiary arguments, the initial ex-
hortation (vss 25a-c) is repeated in abbreviated form,
with small·but significant variations in each instance (vss
25a, 31a, 34a). To understand the argument as a whole,
one should keep in mind the following points.
First, any analysis must deal with the text as it now
stands. In view of a text such as the one before us, which
combines extraordinary complexity with great concen-
tration and density, the analysis of the surface structure
requires great care. Yet, one cannot discern the argu-
ment simply from a surface structural examination.
Rather, the surface structure serves merely as a kind of
auxiliary memorandum that brings a far more extensive
argument to mind. In other words, the written text
recalls an unwritten text, and this unwritten text
summarizes a position taken in a larger conversation.
Thus, we have the peculiar phenomenon that presup-
positions and conclusions, which are part of the unwrit-
ten text, appear sometimes in the written surface
structure, while at other times they remain unstated
implications. This form of argumentation is in keeping
with the construction of the SM as a whole. For this
reason, the analysis and interpretation of the text cannot
be confined to the surface of the written text but must
attempt to bring to light the unwritten text as well.
Another matter is related to this construction of the
text. As elsewhere, also here the SM is fond of engaging
the reader in semantic word games. Apparent ambigu-
ities, such as the meaning of the terms "'vx~ or troop.a (see
below on vs 25), appear to be intended to stimulate the
reader's or hearer's thinking. It would therefore be
wrong for translators and interpreters to remove such
ambiguities and straighten out what they could view as
"problems," because by doing so they would edit out
much of the force of the argument. By making the text
plain, they would kill its inner life and with it the interest
of the readers.
What then is the argument in vss 25-34 all about?
This question is not easy to answer. The initial paraenesis
310 Eric R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of
Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experience from Marcus 311 For references and discussion see Egert Pohlmann,
Aurelius to Augustine (New York and London:
Matthew 6:19-7:12
(vss 25a-b) begins with an observation about human
behavior in general. The prohibition of anxiety assumes
that anxiety is a typical element of human behavior.
Indeed, people in all ages, and in particular during the
Hellenistic age, were tormented by anxiety. Quite
appropriately, E. R. Dodds spoke of the later Roman
Empire as an "Age of Anxiety. "31 0 There were indeed
more than enough reasons for such a description. The
political catastrophes and socioeconomic unrest of the
period have often been detailed. Less widely known is
that for centuries men and women had been taught by
anxiety-ridden writers, teachers, prophets, and philoso-
phers. The literature of the Hellenistic age is full of
admonitions, arguments for or against, and stories about
anxiety, or its opposite, "tranquillity of the mind."
Therefore, the topic of anxiety seems a most appropriate
one. It is necessary, however, to see what the SM has to
say on the topic in the context of the larger conversation
in other Hellenistic literature, Jewish and non-Jewish.
That anxiety was such a popular theme in the Hel-
lenistic and Roman age is therefore not simply the result
of political and socioeconomic circumstances that were
experienced by ever larger populations, but also the
consequence of a literary, philosophical, and religious
tradition that penetrated deeper and deeper into the
human mind and behavior. Thus, behind our text stands
an entire spiritual and intellectual culture dealing with
human behavior, and it is this culture that unites the
various themes found in our text. These subsidiary
themes include the following.
1. People are indeed anxious about all sorts of things,
without being clear about which worries are justified and
which are uncalled for. It is in fact characteristic of
human behavior in general that people worry without
knowing why. Such worries are typically concerned with
the wrong things, so that folly and comedy are very
much part of the picture, evoking laughter and derision.
2. A more serious reason for anxiety was seen in
humanity's fragile condition, demonstrated already at
birth, when the body is set out naked and helpless in a
world full of dangers and enemies. Ancient literature
widely attests this theme (topos) concerning the human
predicament (condicio humana). 311 The history of the
Norton, 1965).
"Der Mensch-das Mangelwesen? Zum Nachwirken
461
topos begins with Hesiod's myths of Pandora and
Cronus, 31 2 and Protagoras's myth of Prometheus and
Epimetheus. 313 Descriptions of humanity's lamentable
condition were handed down in the Platonic school and
became a constant element of the so-called consolation
literature. 314 Well-known summaries of this human
condition communicated the topos to the Romans. 315 In
Roman times, apparently as offsprings of the Pandora
and Prometheus myths, one finds personifications such as
Phrontis and Epimeleia, and especially Cura. According to
Horace (Carm. 2.16.22; 3.1.40), Cura is the constant
companion of human beings who keep trying to run
away from her. She becomes the subject of a fable by
Hyginus entitled Cura (Fabulae 220). 316 The importance
of cura for religion became apparent when it turned up
in one of the inscriptions of the Mithras sanctuary
discovered underneath the Church of Santa Prisca in
Rome. 317 In the creation myth narrated in the Hermetic
fragment no. 23 (Kore Kosmou), which seems to be based
on the Pandora and Prometheus myths, anxiety is a
frustrating and destructive force plaguing human-
kind.318

antiker Anthropolog1e bei Arnold Gehlen," Archiv for 1966) 342-66.

Kulturgeschichte 52 (1970) 297-312; also Wehrli,
AA8E BH1I.AE, 3-6.
312 Hesiod Op. 60-105, 110-201. According to Op. 65
Aphrodite puts into Pandora "cruel longing and
cares that weary the limbs" (w68ov apyall.tov Kal
yv&o~eopovr !L£A£lioovar). First "the tribes of men lived
on earth remote and free from ills and hard toil and
heavy sicknesses which bring the Fates upon men; for
in misery men grow old quickly. But the woman [i.e.,
Pandora] took off the great lid of the jar with her
hands and scattered all these and her thought caused
sorrow and mischief to men" (Op. 90-95; cited
according to the LCL edition, Hesiod [trans. Hugh G.
Evelyn-White; rev. ed. 1936; reprinted London:
Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University,
1982] p. 9). Only hope remained in the jar. See also
West, Hesiod: Works and Days, 159; 358 on Op. 799,
and the concept of "eating out one's heart" (lill.y£1TI
8vp.ofJopliv), which occurs in ancient Near Eastern
sources and in a saying of Pythagoras (Ps.-Piutarch
Vita Homeri 154; also in Holger Thesleff, The
Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period [Acta
Academiae Aboensis, series A: Humaniora 30.1;
Abo: Akademi, 1965] 159, line 22; cf. Diog. L. 8.17-
18; 1amblichus De Vita Pyth. 42): "Spare life, do not
destroy it by heart-eating" (tf>£l3£o rijr (wijr, p.~ p.1v
~eara8vp.ofJop~IT11f). Cf. Plutarch Lib. educ. 17, 12E:
"'Do not eat your heart'; a3 much as to say, 'Do not
injure your soul by wasting it with worries'" ("p.~
t<T8l£1V ~eaplilav·" 1/ro& p.~ fJAO.wrnv r~v '1/lvx~v ra'ir
tf>povrl<TIV avr~v Kararp-!Jxovra). The Anonymus
lamblichi (Diels-Kranz, 89 [82], 4 [II, 402, lines 1-2])
states about the Pythagoreans: t/>&Ao'l/lvxov<T& p.tv, 8r&
rovro ~ Cw~ t<Tr&v, ~ '1/lvx~· ra-6r7Js obv tf>•lliovra& Kal
wo8ov<TIV avr~v li1lz t/>&ll.[av rijs (wijs ("They Jove their
soul, for this is the life, the soul; therefore they spare
it and long for it on account of their love of that
life"). See Carl Robert, "Pandora," Hermes 49 (1914)
17-38; reprinted in Ernst Heitsch, ed., Hesiod (WdF
44; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
313 Plato Prot. 320c-322d.
314 See Ps.-Piato (Philip of Opus) Epinomis 973d-94 7a;
and Leonard Taran, Academica: Plato, Philip of Opus,
and the Pseudo-Platonic Epinomis (Philadelphia:
American Philosophical Society, 197 5) 209-11; Ps.-
Piato Axiochus 366d-367a; Ps.-Plutarch Consol. ad
Apoll. 25, 114C-D3; Cicero Tusc. 1.48; and the
collection in StobaeusAnthol. vol. 3, pp. 221-23. For
literature on consolation see above on SM/Matt 5:4,
and for a survey on Greek pessimism see Jakob
Burckhardt, Griechische Kulturgeschichte (5th ed.;
Berlin and Stuttgart: Spemann, 191 0) 396-43 7.
315 See Lucretius De rer. nat. 3.1046-75; 5.222-34;
Pliny NH 7, praefatio 1-5. Does the description go
back to Epicurus? See Karl Reinhardt, "Poseidonios,"
PW 22 (1953) 719; Barbara Wallach, Lucretius and
the Diatribe against the Fear of Death: De rerum natura II
830-1094 (Mnemosyne Sup 40; Leiden: Brill, 1976).
The matter became a topos; see Menander frgs. 534,
539, 598, 649 (ed. and trans. Francis G. Allinson,
Menander: The Principal Fragments [LCL; London:
Heinemann; New York: Putnam, 1921 ]).
316 HyginusFabulae (ed. H. I. Rose; Lugduni Bata-
vorum: Sijthoff, 1934) Fab. 220, entitled Cura. See
also Jacob Bernays, "Herder und Hyginus," RhM 15
(1860) 158-63, 168; reprinted in his Gesammelte
Abhandlungen (Berlin: Hertz, 1885) 2.316-21; Emil
Aust, "Cura 4," PW 4 (1901) 1773.
317 See Hans Dieter Betz, "The Mithras Inscriptions of
Santa Prisca and the New Testament," NovT 10
(1968) esp. 69-71; reprinted inHellenismus und
Urchristentum, 79-80.
318 Corp. Herm. frg. 23.17 (ed. Nock and Festugiere); see
Hans Dieter Betz, "Schopfung und Erlosung im
hermetischen Fragement 'Kore Kosmu,'" ZThK 63
(1966) 160-87; reprinted in Hellenismus und Urchris-
tentum, 22-51.

462

The language and conceptuality of anxiety is not
attested in the Old Testament before the Hellenistic
age, 319 when the theme became more and more promi-
nent. In the LXX concerns about worrying occur in
wisdom texts. 320 This literature also has exhortations not
to worry, 321 commendations of wisdom as freedom from
worrying, 322 and warnings in the form oflengthy
descriptions of humankind's miseries. 323 These ideas
and terms occur in the New Testament as well. 3 2 4
3. Our passage does not explicitly mention the concept
of divine providence, but concurrent discussions that
treat similar material deal with this topic as well. Men-
tioned first in Herodotus (3.1 08.2), the concept of
providence acquired great prominence in Greek philoso-
phy after Plato. 325 Later it became the subject of debates
319 Hebrew has no exact equivalent for the Greek
p.<ptp.v&.w; see Kohler and Baumgartner, Lexicon, s.v.
:~:,;, liC.,, and :"1;1(1"), referring esp. to Josh 22:24; Jer
17:8; 42:16; 49:23; Ezek 4:16; 12:18-19; Prov
12:25; Sir 30:24; 42:9.
320 See Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, s.v. p.tptp.va,
p.<ptp.v6.w; RudolfBultmann, "p.<ptp.v6.w KTA.," TDNT
4.589-90 (1, 2).
321 See Pss 37(38): 18; 54(55):22; 94(94): 19; Dan 4:4-5;
1 Mace 6:10; 2 Mace 15:18; Prov 14:23; 17:12; Tob
5:17-22; 10:1-7; Sir 30:21-25; 31:1-4; Ep. Arist.
271.
322 See Wis 6:12-20; 8:9; 15:9; 1 Bar 3:18.
323 See Wis 7:1-6; Sir 40:1-11; PhiloPraem. poen. 98-
126; Virt. 1.6.
324 Apart from the passage under discussion, see also
Mark 4:19//Matt 13:22//Luke 8:14; Matt 10:19;
Luke 10:41; 21:34; 1 Cor 7:32-34; 12:25; 2 Cor
11 :28; Phil 2:20; 4:6; 1 Pet 5:7 (Ps 55:23 LXX).
325 See Xenophon Mem. 1.4.6; Plato Leg. 10.877a-888d;
Tim. 30b.
326 Zeno, frg. 174; 176 (SVF 1.44-45). See Pbhlenz,
Stoa, 1.98-101; 2.55-58; de Vogel, Greek Philosophy,
3.71-85 (nos. 926-32); ArthurS. Pease, M. Tulli
Ciceronis De natura deorum (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University, 1955) 2.740-42, 839, 879,
11 7 5, with notes.
327 See Epicurus Ep. ad Menoec., according to Diog. L.
10.123-24; de Vogel, Greek Philosophy, 3.85-86 (no.
845). The technical term is l1.7rpovo71ula (improvidentia).
328 See esp. Wis 14:3; 17:2; 3 Mace 4:21; 5:30; 4 Mace
9:24; 13:19;JosephusAnt. 1.225; 11.169; 13.80;
Bell. 7.453. On the whole see Edmund F. Sutcliffe,
Providence and Suffering in the Old and New Testament
(London: Nelson, 1953).
329 See Hengel, judaism and Hellenism, 1.141, 158, 312;
Matthew 6:19-7:12
between Stoics and Epicureans in particular. The Stoics,
beginning with Zeno, developed extensive arguments in
its favor, 326 while Epicureans denied it just as
fervently. 3 2 7 The debate was carried over into Jewish
literature in the later parts of the Old Testament, 3 2 8
especially in wisdom literature. 329 At the time of the
New Testament, several great treatises summed up the
whole state of the question: Philo's 330 and Seneca's De
providentia, 331 and several of Epictetus's Diatribes. 33 2 No
one at the time, it seems, could ignore the issue. Thus it
is not astonishing that the early Christians also enter into
the debate, albeit cautiously, with the SM and the apostle
Paul taking the lead. 333
2.92 n. 228; Urbach, Sages, 225-85; Schurer, History,
2.393-94; Yehoshua M. Grintz and Gershom
Scholem, "Providence," EJ 13 (1971) 1279-86.
330 Philo's "On Providence" has been preserved in
fragments. See the LCL edition, Philo (trans.
Frederic H. Colson; London: Heinemann; Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1954) 9.447-
507. For a commentary see Ludwig Fruchtel, Philo
von Alexandria: Werke (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1964)
7 .267-382; and the indispensable study by Paul
Wendland, Philos Schrift ilber die Vorsehung: Ein Beitrag
zur Geschichte der nacharistotelischen Philosophic (Berlin:
Gaertner, 1892). For recent discussion see Abraham
Terian, "A Critical Introduction to Philo's Dia-
logues," ANRWII, 21/1 (1984) 272-94, esp. 276-
81.
331 Seneca De providentia, in Seneca: Moral Essays (trans.
John W. Basore; LCL; reprinted London: Heine-
mann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1971)
1.2-47; see also Seneca Naturales Quaestiones,
praefatio 11-17 in Seneca (trans. Thomas H.
Corcoran; LCL; reprinted London: Heinemann;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1971) 7.8-
15.
332 Epictetus Diss. 1.9; 1.14; 1.16; 3.26; also 3.9.15-22;
3.20.12, 15; 3.24; 4.6.22-24; 4.10; see also Marcus
Aurelius Med. 2.3; Plotinus Enn. 3.2; Boethius De
consolatione philosophiae 4.
333 See Rom 8:14-16, 28-30, 35-39; 1 Cor 2:7-9; Phil
2:12-13.
463
 Beyond these themes I should also mention that the
issue of anxiety has had a long history in Greek and
Roman philosophy. This history, which is too long and
complicated even to be sketched at this point, connects
directly with the theme of "happiness" (t:baa&p.ovla). 334
No matter which philosophical school considered the
matter, one of the requirements for happiness was
freedom from anxiety. 335 The positive key term was
t:VBvp.la or tranquillitas animi ("tranquillity of the mind"),
about which we possess lengthy essays by Plutarch336 and
Seneca. 337 The most important negative concepts were
Epicureanism's lt.Tapa[la ("freedom from dis-
turbance")338 and Stoicism's lt.1r&.8t:&a ("freedom from
emotion," "imperturbability"). 339 The positive principle
for all these writers was: lt.pKacr8a& To'i~ 1rapovcr&v ("Be
content with things as they are"). 34°
The arguments advanced by Hellenistic writers in
regard to divine providence presuppose a long-standing
debate in which belief in such providence has been on
the defensive and in need of additional support. This
debate means that the traditional confidence in the
goodness of the deity, divine foresight, go-yernance, and
care for the world had fallen into doubt. Defensive
arguments, therefore, are usually designed so as to
remove such doubt, and in order to accomplish this they
produce allegedly "unshakable proofs" for the existence
of divine foresight and care. Such proofs are preferably
derived from cosmology. They must also take into
account religious concepts such as Chance (Tyche,
Heimarmene) and the notion of "free will."
How then does the SM approach the topic? 341 As far
as the providence of God is concerned, the position taken
by the SM is also one of defending it, but this defense
appears to have been caused by a profound crisis of faith
in God's providence. 342 As already indicated, this crisis
was by no means confined to the world of the early
Christian community, but it was typical of the whole age.
One must see the position taken by the SM, therefore, in

334 On the whole topic see Ragnar Holte, "Gliick
(Gliickseligkeit)," RAG 11 (1981) 246-70; Manfred
Wacht, "Giiterlehre," RAG 13 (1986) 59-150.
335 For the beginning of the philosophical treatment of
this topic, see Hans Herter, "Seelenfrieden gegen
Unrast bei Demokrit, • in Latinitiit und Alte Kirche: FS
for RudolfHanslik zum 70. Geburstag (Vienna,
Cologne, and Graz: Bohlau, 1977) 131-49.
336 Plutarch IlEpl EVBvp.las ("On Tranquillity of Mind,"
Moralia 464E-477F); see Plutarch's Moralia (trans.
William C. Helmbold; LCL; reprinted London:
Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University,
1957) 6.163-241. For secondary literature and
commentary see Betz, "De tranquillitate animi, • in
PECL 2.198-230.
337 Seneca De tranquillitate animi, in Seneca: Moral Essays
(trans. John W. Basore; LCL; reprinted London:
Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University,
1958) 2.202-85.
338 Epicurus Ep. ad Herod., according to Diog. L. 10.82;
Ep. ad Pyth. (Diog. L. 10.85); Ep. ad Menoec. (Diog. L.
10.28); Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 9; Kyriai Doxai 17 (Diog. L.
10.144); etc. This terminology enters into Christian
language only with Clement Alex. Strom. 4. 7 (ed. 0.
Stllhlin et al., GCS 2, p. 274, 1); Paed. 2. 7 (ed. 0.
Stahlin eta!., GCS 1, p.192, 15). Cf. arapax(l)s
("unperturbed") 1 Clem. 48.4. See PGL, s.v. arapa!la.
339 On this concept see Bonhoffer, Epictet und die Stoa,
284-98. On Philo see David Winston, "Philo's
Ethical Theory," ANRWII, 21/1 (1984) 373-416,
esp. 400-405 on "Apatheia/Eupatheia. • This
terminology is attested in Christian literature first in
Justin 2 Apol. 1.2; Clement Alex. Strom. 2.20 (ed. 0.
Stahlin, et al., GCS 2, p. 169, 25); 4.22 (p. 309, 12);
6.9 (p. 468, 30); 6.13 (p. 484, 29); etc. See PGL, s.v.
awa8na.
340 Democritusfrg. 191 (Diels-Kranz, 68 B 191 [II,
184-85). See BAGD, s.v. apKt(l), 2; PECL, 2.311-13,
also 191-92; Gustav A. Gerhard, Phoinix von
Kolophon (Berlin and Leipzig: Teubner, 1909) 56-
58; Paul Wilpert, "Autarkie," RAG 1 (1950) 1032-
50.
341 Commentators have long recognized that Matt 6:25-
34 amounts to an apology for divine providence .. See,
e.g., the quotation of SM/Matt 6:32 and 6:8 in Ps.-
Clem. Hom. 3.55.3: "But to those who presume that
God does not have foreknowledge, he [sc. Jesus] said,
'For your heavenly Father knows that you need all
these things, before you will ask him!'" (rois ~t:
vwol..ap.flavovtT&V lin b 8Eos oil wpoy•vC:,ITKE&,l</>"1. oi~Ev
yll.p b war~p vp.U.v b oi>pav&Of lin XPY(ETE TOtJT(I)V
&wa11r(l)v, wp\v ai>rov ~,.;,.,.En). The text is cited
according to Bernard Rehm, ed., Die Pseudoklemen-
tinen, vol. 1: Homilien (GCS; 2d ed.; Berlin: Aka-
demie-Verlag, 1969) 77; the trans. is mine. See also
Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 2.15.51,lines 1103-
4 (ed. Mutzenbecher, p. 141); Zahn, Matthaus, 296-
302; Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 62; and
Bultmann,]esus and the Word, 160. Other views are
held by Grundmann (Matthiius, 214): "Lehrgedicht
vom Sorgen"; Schulz (Q, 152): apocalyptic
"Warnrede."
342 This crisis has not disappeared. Cf. the great debates
inPs.-Clem. Rec. 2.18-22; 3.20-30; 3.37-41; 4.8-11;

464

the context of this wider debate, in order to recognize its
peculiar argument. Indeed, as we shall see, the SM goes
its own way as compared with other pertinent texts.
Within contemporary Judaism, the SM passage is very
similar to what one finds in wisdom literature, from
which part of the material used in Matt 6:25-34 seems to
derive. But at important points the SM shows its own
characteristics as compared with other wisdom literature.
1. With its concept of seeking after God's kingdom
and his righteousness, Matt 6:33 is foreign to wisdom
theology. Indeed, this statement has no parallel in
contemporary Jewish literature, although the component
parts, such as the notions of "kingdom of God," "righ-
teousness," and "seeking after," are certainly common.
Thus, the key statement in 6:33 is peculiar to the SM and
seems to have originated in the teaching of the historical
Jesus.
2. Surprisingly positive is the way in which the natural
order is treated in our passage. On the whole, the natural
order is oflittle interest in the New Testament. Char-
acteristically, in our passage the goodness of God's
creation is not demonstrated by reference to the creation
accounts in the book of Genesis. 343 Skepticism must have
been so strong that a simple appeal to Genesis was no
longer convincing. In other ways, apocalypticism and
apologetics bear witness to this skepticism as well, but the
SM takes recourse neither to apocalyptic visions nor to
the cosmologies of the Hellenistic age in stating the
meaning of creation.
3. The approach taken by the SM appears to confront
radical skepticism squarely. The approach faces up to
skepticism by calling attention to things as they stand
before one's eyes, things that one can verify immediately.
The goodness of life is thus grounded in daily experi-
ence. At first sight, calls to observation seem stunningly
naive but undeniable: sunrise and sunset, rain (see above
on SM/Matt 5:45), the daily bread (see 6: 11), the birds
and the plants (6:26, 28), and so forth. The message is: if
our skepticism will allow only what we can see and touch,
8.1 0-24; in all of these passages the SM plays a great
role.
343 Cf. Isa 40:26: "Lift up your eyes to the heavens;
consider who created these, led out their host one by
one, and summoned them by name. Through his
great might, his strength and power, not one is
missing" (REB). See also the rejection of the com-
plaint (Isa 40:27) and the hymn to the creator God
Matthew 6:19-7:12
so much the better. Precisely these simple experiences
testify to the goodness of creation. No complicated
theories are needed.
Admittedly, this approach could easily lead to a
romanticizing of the natural life. The SM avoids this
danger, however, by taking the troubled world very
seriously. The Beatitudes (SM/Matt 5:3-12) detail the
daily troubles: poverty, sorrow, brutality, injustice, lack
of mercy, impurity of heart, war, persecution of the
righteous, and at last martyrdom. At the end of the SM
stands the double parable of the two builders who build
their houses, the first on rock, and the second on sand
(7:24-27). The images of torrential rain, flood, and
storm are traditional and symbolize the turbulent and
unpredictable powers of nature and history. But above
all, what makes the world so dangerous is human folly
and sinfulness. In the face of all of this, it is due to the
good Father in the heavens that the world endures
despite all the disasters, and that the possibility exists of
finding a way through it all. No question, every day has
its own trouble (6:34), but thanks to God the prudent
have a chance for survival.
2) Analysis The detailed literary analysis of the passage 6:25-34
shows a lengthy and well-composed argument on the
theme of anxiety. The introductory formula (vs 25a) is
followed by a general exhortation (vs 25b-c). This
exhortation is formulated as an isocolon (parallel lines)
whose two parts share the predicate, thus forming an
adiundio (combination). Throughout, the passage uses
caricature in describing the attitudes one should reject.
This initial exhortation is then provided with reasons
in the form of three arguments (vss 25d-30, 31-33,
and 34), whose length shortens progressively, leaving it
to the reader to supplement what the written text does
not state. The first argument (vss 25d-30) begins with
a thesis, an interrogatio (rhetorical interrogation); the
two rhetorical questions of this interrogatio constitute
another isocolon using adiunctio. Verses 26-30 contain
examples from nature demonstrating by comparison
what one can observe in nature regarding the neces-
sities of life. The example of the birds describes their
(40:28-41 :20). On the whole topic see Rainer
Albertz, Weltschopfung und Menschenschopfung:
Untersucht bei Deuterojesaja, Hiob und in den Psalmen
(CThM A/3; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1974); Peter Doll,
Menschenschopfung und Weltschopfong in der alt-
testamentlichen Weisheit (SBS 117; Stuttgart: Katho-
lisches Bibelwerk, 1985).
465
behavior in three parallel statements (vs 26a), a case of
subiunctio (coordination of statements expressing
different meaning); 344 from the description a para-
doxical conclusion is drawn, and the paradox is then
explained (vs 26b). The example ends with another
rhetorical question (interrogatio, vs 26c). Verse 27 turns
to the comparison with human life, providing another
example for the purpose of demonstration. It is
formulated again as a rhetorical question, but a
quaesitum (a specific matter asked) with direct address,
not a general interrogatio.
Verses 28-30 follow a.second example, now com-
paring plants and humans. The introductory rhetorical
question (vs 28a) names the subject matter. The
description of plant behavior uses subiunctio again (vs
28b) and leads to a paradoxical conclusion parallel to
vs 26b. Instead of simply speaking of plants in general,
however (as of birds, vs 26a), verse 28 singles out the
lilies as a special case, underscored by the additional
comment drawn from popular wisdom in vs 29. Verse
30 makes a comparison with human life. This
comparison uses what has been observed in vss 28-29
to question human attitudes (interrogatio with direct
address).
The second argument is much shorter (vss 31-3 2).
Its beginning is clearly marked by oi)v ("therefore") and
by the repetition of the exhortation ofvs 25b in vs 31a.
The caricature of human behavior (vs 31b) uses
subiunctio again, but as compared with vs 25b, it is now
dramatized using direct speech. The "proof" (vs 32)
now compares "pagan" with appropriate Jewish (i.e.,
Jewish-Christian) conduct. The description of pagan
behavior identifies, classifies, and condemns such
behavior (vs 32a), providing also a theological reason
(vs 32b). The decisive imperative follows in vs 33,
making the connection not only by o.! ("but") but also
by words from the same family (paronomasia: £7rt(7Jr<'iv,
(TJTE'iv). The exhortation in vs 33, basic as it is for the
passage as a whole, consists of an imperative, now
positive (vs 33a), in contrast to the negative (vss 25b
and 31a), and a promise (vs 33b).
The third argument (vs 34) is extremely brief and
consists of two parts: an exhortation and a repetition of
the negative imperatives ofvss 25b and 31a in vs 34a;
then follow two maxims as proofs (vss 34b-c). Verse
34a and b form a chiasm. The final maxim (vs 34c) is
an epiphonema (concluding sentence), parallel to vss 21,
344 See Lausberg, Elemente, 114 (§ 346).
345 Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1905) 74: "Diatribe von den
Erdensorgen, das farbenreichste, sonnigste Sttick der
Bergpredigt." Cf. Henri Marrou, "Diatribe," RAG
3.997-1009, esp. 999.
346 See also Konrad Kohler, "Textkritische Bemerk-
ungen zu der Perikope vom Sorgen im Lukas-
evangelium," ThStK 86 (1913) 452-61.
466
23, and 24.
The rhetorical skill with which the passage is
composed is extraordinary. Whoever was responsible
for this composition was a master of gnomic poetry.
Heinrici calls it a "Gnome" (sentence of pointed style)
and a "Diatribe" (fictitious discourse of questions and
answers), "the most colorful and sunniest of the
Sermon on the Mount. "345 As the parallel in Luke
12:22-32 shows, this rhetorical craftsmanship was
already present in Q, but the author/redactor of the
SM was fully aware of the poetic quality of his Vorlage
and saw to it that it was preserved as fully as possible.
The parallel in Luke 12:22-32 is very close and
shows that the SM took the passage from Q, including
the introduction a.li TOVTO )l.eyw vp.'iv ("because of that I
say to you"). But the two versions also have char-
acteristic differences. 346 Rather than taking these
differences to be the redactional work of the evan-
gelists Matthew and Luke, I assume that redaction
took place even before them, so that the two versions
were most likely transmitted with differences in the
versions ofQ that reached the evangelists. 347 Which
redactional changes one can attribute to the evangelists
and which to their sources in Q is as difficult to
establish as the precise wording of the Q-sources
themselves. At any rate, the Lukan version differs in
small details, as well as in its overall composition, which
is Jess tightly structured than the SM parallel.
The context in Luke differs as well. Luke 12
contains a speech ofJesus, given in part to his disciples,
in part to the crowds. Notably, the sayings that the SM
also uses are spoken in this Lukan speech to the
disciples. Immediately preceding Luke 12:22-32 is the
parable of the Rich Fool (12:16-21), and following is
Luke's version of the saying concerning treasures
(Luke 12:33-34//Matt 6: 19-21). The Lukan context
is clearly secondary too, so that one can conclude
nothing at this point about the original Sitz im Leben
(social setting) of the passage.
One of the major characteristics of the SM passage
is its antipagan polemic (SM/Matt 6:32). That polemic
is absent from Luke 12:30, as is the SM'sJewish
orientation (SM/Matt 6:33; cf. Luke 12:31). One can
argue that the Jewish characteristics came from the
teaching of Jesus, since they would certainly be
compatible with it. But one could just as well argue the
opposite, that the Jewish tendencies of the SM are the
347 For recent attempts to reconstruct the original Q-
version see David Catchpole, "The Ravens, the Lilies
and the Q Hypothesis: A Form-Critical Perspective
on the Source-Critical Problem," SNTU 6-7 ( 1981-
82) 77-87; Merklein, Gottesherrschaft (2d ed. 1981)
174-82; Kloppenborg, QParallels, 130-33.
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

work of the Jewish author(s) of the SM. Whether one II ~v E'xovr[ H E']va[ v-]
should judge the more Gentile orientation of Q/Luke I2 ,.a, rUv[ail€u8€ J Kat
in the same or in a different way is another open I3 V!L€Is; rls Av wpoa-8( €l)71
question. 14 £w\ T~V €iAt.Klau
Still other versions are found in P. Oxy. 655, in the 15 -b~J-iDv; aVrh[s- a]d>uo
Coptic Gospel of Thomas, and in Justin Martyr. These v-
I6 VI-'€IS Tb E'vav,.a
attestations are evidence that the saying circulated I7 1-'WV.
widely in the tradition and became part of different Uesus says, "Be not solicitous f]rom morning un[til
collections in different forms. evening nor] from eve[ning until mo]rning [for
On the whole these extracanonical citations are y]our [sustenance], what [you will] eat, [or] for
shorter and less interested in elaborate arguments. [your] clo[thing], what you [will] put on.
Their place in sayings collections seems to be [You] are worth [far] more than [the lili]es whi[ch
responsiQie for the fact that they are short and in neither card nor s[pi]n, a[nd] have n[o] clo[th]ing.
conformity with the literary structure of sayings. This And you, what do [you put on]? Who among you
situation presents another problem. Does it mean that can add to his stature?
the extracanonical sayings are reductions of the longer He will [g]ive you your clothing. "348
arguments in the Q-material found in the SM/Matt
6:25-34//Luke I2:22-32? Or are the latter P. Oxy. 655, col. I, line I7-col. II, line I (saying no.
secondary elaborations of originally shorter gnomic 37):
sentences? In principle, are shorter logia earlier, and
are longer elaborations later? One can argue with good I7 ).(yovu&V aii-
reasons either way. It appears more likely, however, I8 ri!> ol 1-1a87Jra't aiirov·
that the extracanonical sayings are formulations I9 wcln ~l-'€1v ~1-'1/Ja-
textually independent of the canonical versions, and 20 u~s fut&, Ka\ wOrE
that they derive from other oral tradition; whatever 2I u€ olfro!-'€8a; ).(yn·
their "original" form was is impossible to say. Also, 22 Hrav ~"ailu7Ju8€ Kat
both the elaborations in SM/Matt 6:25-34 and in 23 1-'~ aluxvv8fjr€
Luke I2:22-32 are most probably secondary com- [etc., approximately 6 lines]
positions using older sayings material. The textual b [ ... oiia~ f/lofi7J-]
form of that older sayings material is impossible to col. II, I 8[~u€u8€].
determine, but one can safely assume that this older
material was not identical with any of the extra- His disciples say to him, "When will you become
canonical sayings. manifest to us, and when shall we see you?" He says,
"When you take off your clothes and are not
P. Oxy. 655, col. I, lines I-I7 (saying no. 36): ashamed ... and you will not have fear."

a (AE}'El 'I(7Juoil)s· 1-'~ !-'€PIJU•ii-J Coptic Gos. Thom. log. 36-37:

I [rdt]wo wpwHlws ln/1~].
2 [1-'~r]€ lJ.f/1' E'uw[(pas] Jesus said, "Do not worry from dawn to dusk and
3 [E'ros w]pwl, 1-'~T€ [rfi] from dusk to dawn about what you [plur.J will
4 [rpoi/Jfi v]1-';;>V rl 1/Ja- wear."
5 [y7Jn, 1-'~T€] rfi ur[o-J His disciples said, "When will you be shown forth to
6 [).fi v,.wv] rl MIJ- us and when shall we behold you?" Jesus said,
7 (U7J )a-8€. ("li"OA]Ai!> 1<pd[s-]
8 [uov j(s ~[un J roov [Kpl-]
9 vwv, lfTL[va o]ii 'a[l-]
I0 V€1 oM~ v[ ~8]€1. !-'[ 71a-]

348 Text according to Harold W. Attridge, in Layton, Kraft, "Oxyrynchus Papyrus 655 Reconsidered,"
Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, I2I-22; the translation HTR 54 (I96I) 253-62 (with further bibliography).
follows mostly Fitzmyer, Essays, 406-IO. The Greek
is given also in Aland, Synopsis, 9I; Kloppenborg, Q
Parallels, I3I; See alsoNTApoc 1.110-I2; NTApok
l.I05. For the question of the text see Thomas F.
Glasson, "Carding and Spinning: Oxyrhynchus
Papyrus No. 655," JTS I3 (I962) 33I-32; RobertA.

467
 "When you strip naked without being ashamed, and
take your garments and put them under your feet
like little children and tread upon them, then [you J
will see the child of the living. And you will not be
afraid. "349
Whatever the author of the Gospel of Thomas had on
hand as his material, he subjected it to a radical gnostic
interpretation. The material he received may have
included log. 36, while log. 37 is its gnostic inter-
pretation. At any rate, this version is secondary as
compared with its sources. Logion 36 seems to have
been taken out of a larger context, but what relation-
ship may have existed between that logion and Q is
hard to say.
Justin Apol. 1.15: 350
1'-h p.<ptp.van OE Tl <J>ay"I/TE ~ Tl EVOtJU"I/U8£. Ovx vp.ils
rWv 1l'ETEtVWv ~eal. rWv 87]p{CiJv ar.af/>lpErE; Kat 0 8£0r
Tpb/1<1 avTa. Mh oi.v p.<plp.V~U"I/TE, Tl <J>ay"I/TE ~ Tt
lva.Ou7Ju8e oTaE yCtp 0 1T«r~p iJp.Wv 0 oVp&.vr.o~ Cirr.
roVrwv XPElav fxET£" {7JTEiTE a~ T~V f3aur.AElav rWv
obpavWv, Kal. raVra 1T&.vra 1Tpocrr£8~u£rat Vp.'iv.
Do not worry, however, about what you should eat
or what you should put on (as clothes). Are you not
superior to the birds and the animals? But God
feeds them. Therefore, do not worry about what
you should eat or put on (asclothes). For your
heavenly Father knows that you have need of these
things. Seek, however, the kingdom of the heavens,
and all these things will be given to you in ad-
dition.351
This passage is also quoted from a source; it is also
surrounded by other sayings, some of which have
parallels in the SM, while others do not. 352 Justin Apol.
1.15.1 0 has a close parallel in SM/Matt 5:42 (cf.
SP /Luke 6:30); then follows a parallel to SM/Matt
6:19-21/ /Luke 12:33-34 with the inclusion of the
saying Matt 16:26//Mark 8:36-37/ /Luke 9:25-26 in
Apol. 1.15.11-12. This context leads to the question
cited above; the conclusion is a parallel to SM/Matt
6:21: "For where the treasure is, there is also the mind
349 Translated by Layton (Gnostic Scriptures, 386-87),
who also points out the differences between the
Coptic and Greek versions. For the text see also
Reinhold Merkelbach, "Logion 36 des Thomas-
evangeliums (Die Lilien auf dem Felde)," ZPE 54
(1984) 64.
350 The text is quoted according to the edition by Otto,
justini Opera; see also the excerpt in Aland, Synopsis,
91.
351 The trans. is mine.
352 See also Massaux, Influence, 479-81; cf. 412-14;
Bellinzoni, Sayings, 14-17; Kohler, Re:r.eption, 174-
76.
468
of a man" (Apol. 1.15.15b). In Apol. 1.15.17 another
saying is added that has its parallel in SM/Matt 6: 1.
This cluster of sayings seems to presuppose a larger
argumentative context, similar to the SM, but it is
unclear how and by whom this arrangement was made.
Justin seems to have taken it over from his source. This
source may have had some connection with the SM,
the precise nature and extent of which, however,
cannot be determined.
Verse 34 of SM/Matthew 6 has no parallel in Luke
12:32 and no other parallels in the New Testament
either, but similar sayings occur plentifully in Hel-
lenistic wisdom and popular philosophy. SM/Matt
6:33 has analogies in different sayings quoted by
Clement of Alexandria and Origen:
Clement Alex. Strom. 1.24 SUi.hlin and Friichtel, eds.,
(p. 158, 2):353
alre'tu8E rh. J.LE')'&.Aa, Kal. rh. p.tKph. Vp.Lv 1Tpocrr£8~ueraL.
Ask for the great things, and the small things will
be given to you in addition.
Origen De orat. 14.1 (GCS 3.330, lines 7-9); 2.2 (GCS
3.299, 19-21): 354
alrlir£ rh. p.ey&.Aa, Kal. ra
JLLKpd. VfL'iV 7rpOCTTEB.qcrerar:
c"
Kar.\ atTEtTE
' ""' \
ra ' I
E7rovpavta, Kat\ ra
\ ' I
nrr:yna vp.w
7rpoun8~u<Tal.
Ask for the great things, and the small things will
be given to you in addition; and ask for the heav-
enly things, and the earthly things will be given to
you in addition.
3) Interpretation
• 25 The introductory words, "because of this I say to
you" (8t1z TOVTO >..iyw £1-L'iv"), seem surprising; they appear
unwarranted and unrelated in the context. 355 A look
into the synopsis, however, reveals that they were taken
over together with the whole passage from Q. This
353 See also Resch, Agrapha, 111; and Stroker, Extra-
canonical Sayings, 122-23, who also list further
parallels.
354 See also Resch, Agrapha, 111-12; Stroker, Extra-
canonical Sayings, 124. See also Massaux, Influence,
415; Kohler, Rezeption, 457; Gessel, Theologie, 173-
75.
355 Cf. SM/Matt 6:29: "but I say to you," which also
occurs in the parallel Luke 12:27 and must therefore
have stood in Q. The phrase is also common in the
"antitheses," but with a different meaning (SM/Matt
5:18, 20, 22, 26, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44); cf. "truly, I say
to you" (6:2, 5, 16; also 5:18, 26).
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

conclusion is confirmed by a second introduction found
in the parallel text in Luke 12:22a, preceding the
introduction common to the SM and Luke 12:22a.ll 56
The evangelist Luke apparently added this second
introduction to make sure that the passage was spoken to
the disciples alone:ll 57 "He then said to [his] disciples,
'Because of this I say to you'" (t-ln·t"v at 7rpOr rovr p.a871rar
[avrov]" a,a TOVTO >..tyro vp.w).
We do not know what the phrase "because of this"
referred to originally. In the present context one can
understand the words in different ways. If they refer to
vs 24, the relationship remains unclear. At any rate, that
relationship does not matter except in a general sense.
The real connection could be one of association of ideas.
Verse 24 describes a slave in a worrisome dilemma
between two overlords;ll 58 from that kind of worry one
moves easily to the different kind of worries in vss 2 5-
34. Also, vs 24 raises the question of the necessities of
life: If one is to serve God alone, how is one to take care
of daily needs? Verses 25-34 provide an answer, in the
sense that serving God alone also takes care of daily
needs (vs 33). These connections between vss 25-34 and
vs 24 are slight, however, and, at any rate, at the level of
secondary association.
The prohibitive imperative "Do not worry" (p.~
p.t"p'p.vaTt") is meant to be categorical with no exception
allowed;ll 59 it is repeated in vss 28, 31, and 34, and thus
constitutes the major exhortation of the passage. This
exhortation, however, is not in any way new; it is
traditional in early Christian paraenesis, !1 60 taken over
fromjewish traditions. 361 The exhortation makes sense
because it is based on the general observation that people
are indeed engaged in worrying "from dawn to dusk and
from dusk to dawn," as the Gospel of Thomas says. ll 62 The
point in the SM is not merely excessiveness of worrying
but the habit as such, which is described then further in
some detail: p.~ p.t"p,p.vart" rfi '1/Fvxfi vp.wv r[ c/Ja"Y7JTt" [7/ rl
7rl1JTt" ], ll 6 ll p.7Jat rif> cr6>p.an vp.wvll 64 rl £vavcr7Jcr8t" ("Do not
be anxious about your soul/life, what you shall eat [or
what you shall drink], nor about your body/person, what
you shall put on"). Most important for the understanding
of the passage is the expression p.t"p,p.vav rfi '1/Fvxfi ("be
anxious for the soul/life"). Identifying something
objectionable, the expression must be taken in the
negative sense. The interpretation is hampered by the
fact that the expression occurs in the New Testament
only here and in the Lukan parallel. The dative rfi '1/Fvxfi
("for your soul/life") is one ofadvantage,ll 65 but the real
difficulty concerns the meaning of'I/Fvx~. which is usually
translated as "life. "!1 66 But one could also take it to mean
"soul" or "self," whereby these meanings may simply be

356 Cf. the introduction "Jesus says" (AE)'EI 'l71<r0vr) inP.
Oxy. 655 and Gos. Thom. log. 36.
357 Cf. Luke 12:1,4, 5, 8, 13, 15, 16, 18, 22, 41, 54.
358 For a comparable situation, cf. also 1 Cor 7:32-34.
359 See BDF, § 337 (3); BDR, § 337 n. 3.
360 See Matt 10:19 I I Luke 12:11; Phil4:6; also Mark
4:19//Matt 13:22//Luke 8:14; Luke 10:41; 1 Cor
7:32-35; 12:25; 2 Cor 11:28; Phil2:20; 1 Pet 5:7;
related are furthermore Matt 28:4; Ignatius Pol. 7.1;
Hermas Man. 5.2.3; Ps.-Clem. Ep. Clem. 6.1. For other 364 The word f>p.idv ("your") is omitted by M" b k, prob-
parallel passages see BAGD, s. v. p.Ep&p.v6...,, p.Eplp.v71,
O.p.Ep&p.vla, O.p.lp&p.vor; and David L. Balch, "1 Cor
7:32-35 and Stoic Debates about Marriage, Anxiety,
and Distraction," JBL 102 (1983) 429-39.
361 See above, p. 465.
362 Cited above, pp. 467-68.
363 The rhetorical structure of the passage argues
against the omission ofthe words "or what you shall
drink" (~ rl wl71rE) in Mjl 892 pc a b ffl k I vg syc samss 365 See BDF, § 188(1); BDR, § 188, n. 1.
Clement. The full text is read by B W Jl 3 33. 205.
209. 1342 alit samss mae bo Hieronymusnu•. The
omission may be an attempt to conform the passage
to Luke 12:22 (but cf. 12:29). L 8 1006. 1506 9Jt
syP·h have a different wording: Kal rl wl71rE, "and what
you shall drink," probably an improvement because
one does not exclude the other. At any rate, the
repetition of the phrase in vs 31 has both eating and
drinking. See also Metzger (Textual Commentary, 17),
who defends the square brackets [~ rl wl71rE]; Betz,
Essays, 96 n. 33; and Greeven (Synapse, 39), who
omits the disputed words.
ably in conformity with Luke 12:22, where, however,
some witnesses, no doubt for the same reason, add
the pronoun (B 070 ps 33. 1424 al vgmss syP co). The
parallelism of "your soul" and "your body" appears to
be rhetorically natural, although for the reason of
brevity the second pronoun could be omitted. The
rhetorical concern in the whole passage, however, is
not brevity but vividness and memorability.
366 This translation of .Pvx~ as "life" is preferred by the
standard translations since Luther's Die gantze Heilige
Schrifft Deudsch 1545, 2.1977: "Leben." The matter

469
different aspects of the same thing. 367 The problem of
how to take it in this instance is further complicated by
the possibility, and indeed probability, that the term may
be intentionally ambiguous.
The juxtaposition of tvx~ and uwp.a ("body") in vs 25
speaks in favor of "soul" rather than "life. " 368 In the SM,
the anthropological concept of uwp.a refers to the
physical "body" as a kind of container of the inner life (cf.
also SM/Matt 5:29-30; 6:22-23) and suggests the
concept of the "garment of the soul. " 369 If "soul" is to be
preferred, does the term then presuppose a Greek
philosophical anthropology? Or is it to be taken in a
prephilosophical sense? How sharp was the difference
between a philosophical and a prephilosophical under-
standing in the context of Hellenistic Judaism, the
environment of the SM? Modern scholarship is often
marred by a strange bias against Hellenistic philosophical
ideas, 370 a prejudice that some Jewish sources may share,
while it is not in others. Therefore, one has to examine
each text on its own terms. In Greek sources, even in
philosophical ones, "it is often impossible to draw hard
and fast lines between the meanings of this many-sided
word. "371 As far as the SM is concerned, therefore,
influences from Hellenistic philosophical traditions
appear in a number of places, so that one should not
exclude them here as well. Indeed, as Hildebrecht
Hommel has shown, sayings attributed to Jesus have an
impressive number of parallels with the Socratic tra-
dition, so that one should assume some form of influence
even at the earliest level of the Jesus-tradition. 372
If Hellenistic philosophical ideas had an influence on
our passage, one would have to take the expression in a
positive sense: "care for the soul" (~ l·mp.bwa Tij~ '1/lvxii~)
was one of the most important concepts of Greek ethics
beginning with Socrates and Plato. 373 Clearly, however,
the SM does not employ this concept, 374 but has in its
place a Jewish counterpart, "seeking the kingdom and
(God's) righteousness" (vs 33). 375 In addition the SM
favors the concept of the "heart" (Kapola), 376 while "soul"
does not occur even where we should expect it (cf. 6:22-
23). Although concern for one's "life" is a theme also in
the SM, the term used refers to "eternal life" ((w~ [7:14]).
Outside the SM, '1/lvx~ occurs in the older layers of the
synoptic tradition and shows a similar ambiguity.
Consequently, qne may conclude that in the SM '1/lvx~
refers to a person's earthly soul/life/self, in contrast to

was discussed earlier by Augustine (De serm. dom. in Concept)," EncRell3.434-38.

monte 1.15.42, lines 1009-14 [ed. Mutzenbecher, p. 368 For the contrast of "soul" and "body," see also Matt
47]). He takes anima to refer to "this life" (haec vita) 10:28; cf. Matt 10:39//Luke 17:33; Matt 11:29
because of the food that sustains it. Cf. also John Oer 6:16); 16:25-26 par.; 20:28 par.; 22:37 par.
Chrysostom's (ed. Cramer, Catenae, 49; also Homilies (Deut 6:4-5); 26:38 (Pss 42:6, 12; 43:3).
21.3) interpretation as "soul." Augustine's translation 369 See Alois Kehl, "Gewand (der Seele)," RAG 10 (1978)
is taken up in BAGD (s. v. >Jrvx~. l.a.~): "life as 945-1025.
prolonged by nourishment," but the passage should 370 See Gerhard Dautzenberg, Sein Leben bewahren: 'l'vx~
also have been listed in section l.d, dealing with the in den Herrenworten der Evangelien (SANT 14;
soul as "the center of both the earthly (I a) and the Munich: Kosel, 1966) 92-97. He proposes to take
supernatural (I c) life." Cf. also Eduard Schweizer, >Jrvx~ as "vitality" ("Lebenskraft, Vitalitat").
TDNT 7, s.v. rrrop.a, esp. p. 1058; idem, TDNT 9, s.v. 371 BAGD, s.v. lJrvx~. col. 893a.
>Jrvx~. esp. pp. 637, 641-47; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 119; 372 See esp. Hommel, Sebasmata, 2.40-41, 58-59, 67-
Betz, Essays, 96 n. 32, 104 n. 51; Strecker, 69, for discussions of Matt 10:37//Luke 14:26.
Bergpredigt, 141-42 (Sermon, 137); Luz,Matthiius, 373 See Plato Apol. 29d-e, 30a-b; Ps.-Piato Ale. mai.
1.363, 367-68 (Matthew, 1.400, 403-4). 128e-135e; etc. See Manfred Wacht, "Guterlehre,"
367 One should not simply regard the concept of>Jrvx~ as RAG 13 (1986) 59-150, esp. 70-73. For Cynic
"soul/life/self" as a Semitism, as do, e.g., Black references see Gerhard, Phoinix, 128-36.
(Approach, 76), Moule (Idiom Book, 185), BDF (§ 283 374 Cf. Ignatius Pol. 1.2 for f.rrLp.EAELa ("care") in regard
[4); BDR, § 283 n. 8), Schwarz ("Undjesus sprach," to body and spirit. The Platonic conceptuality
254-55), and Luz (Matthiius, 1.367 [Matthew, 1.403)). appears in Christian literature first in Clement of
Even the Greek concept of the soul is rather complex Alexandria; see PGL, s.v. emp.EA<La.
and should not be stereotyped as merely "the 375 See Betz, Essays, 118 n. 96; and below on SM/Matt
immortal soul." See David B. Claus, Toward the Soul 6:33.
(New Haven: Yale University, 198l);Jan Bremmer, 376 See SM/Matt 5:8, 28; 6:21.
The Early Greek Concept of the Soul (Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University, 1983); idem, "Soul (Greek

470
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

the body (urop.a) on the one hand, and to eternal life ((wr/)
on the other hand. In the other world, one may further
conclude, the whole person must appear before the
divinejudge, 377 which means that the "body" (urop.a) and
not only the "soul" of a person is brought before God's
throne. The lJFvxr/ as souljlife/selfbelongs together with
that person's body (urop.a) and is not separable from it (cf.
below on 7:21-23). The concept of soul, therefore,
differs at this point from the classical Greek concept.
In Greek literature, a person who is overly anxious
about the worldly life and self is often characterized by
the terms cJnA.olJFvx£w, cptA.olJFvxla, and cptA.olJFvxos, 3 78
which one can take in a positive sense of having the
desire to live, 379 or negatively as "clinging to dear life" at
all cost, or displaying cowardice or faintheartedness. 380
On the one hand, the SM clearly rejects as unethical a
concern about life that is preoccupied only with the
means of life. Beautifully portrayed by the story of the
Rich Fool (Luke 12: 16-21), such a person's perspective
is judged shortsighted and overlooking the obvious. 381
Ethically commendable, on the other hand, is a concern
for life that considers the whole life sub specie aeternitatis.
This commendation, however, does not use the term
p.€ptp.vav ("be anxious") but (7Ju'iv ("seek" [cf. below on
6:33; 7:7, 8, 14]).
The confusion in a person's mind about what is part of
the proper concern for one's souljlife/selfwith an
improper obsession regarding the means for life is
judged typical of human folly; it is, when witnessed,
laughable. The ambiguity of the language seems to
reflect the nature of this confusion. Presupposed in this
initial paraenesis is the observation, therefore, that
anxiety torments people, above all religious people. For
what reason are such people so anxiety-ridden? People
worry about all sorts of things without understanding
which of the worries are justified and which are not. Like
wisdom in general, the SM sees it as a typical character
trait of the ordinary person to be anxiety-ridden without
knowing why. 382 By contrast, a prudent and enlightened
person knows how to make the proper distinctions
between the important and the unimportant. Enlighten-
ment by wisdom, therefore, amounts to being able to
straighten out the confusion, and to sort out things
belonging to the means for life, life here on earth, and
life in the hereafter, or in other terms, the importance of
one's inner life for life eternal, and the relative un-
importance of the means for one's mundane existence.
In the following discussion it will become even clearer
that the ambiguities of the language thus far observed
were not an accidental matter but an intended part of the
argument.
The phrase "what you shall eat [or what you shall
drink]" (Ti cp6:y7]T£ [~ TL 7rL1JT€]) is proverbial and sums up
what life is all about, given popular standards. 383 These

377 See SM/Matt 5:29-30; 7:2I-23. diatribe materials.

378 See LSJ, s.v. In early Christian literature these terms 383 See also Matt II:I8-I 9//Luke 7:33-34; Luke 5:30
do not occur, but </>&AO(wos ("loving life") occurs in
Hermas Sim. 8.2.7; 8.6.I; </>&AOvAos ("loving material
things") in Ignatius Rom. 7.2. Cf. also Wis 11:26
LXX: at<r7rOTa </>&AOo/vXE ("0 Lord, lover of human
life [or: souls]").
379 Cf. Plato Gorg. 5I2e: "One should not set one's heart
on mere life [of> </>&Aoo/VX1/Ttov] .. . , but ... he should Alttestamentlichen Theologie: FS fur Walther Zimmerli
then proceed to consider in what way he will best live
out his allotted span of life." See also Marcus
Aurelius Med. 7 .46.
380 SeePlatoApol. 37c;Leg.12.944e.
381 See E. W. Seng, "Der reiche Tor: Eine Untersuchung
von Lk. xii 16-21 unter besonderer Beriicksich-
tigung form- und motivgeschichtlicher Aspekte,"
NovT 20 (I 978) I36-55.
382 See the instructive passage in Gerhard, Phoinix, I28-
36, showing that the contrasts between care for the
soul and for material possessions, and between body
and clothes, in addition to comparison with animals
and plants, were quite common in Hellenistic
(cf. Matt II:9; Mark 2:16); Matt 24:38/ /Luke 7:27;
Matt 24:49/ /Luke 12:45. Cf. also john 6:55; Rom
I4:I7; Col2:I6; Heb 9:IO; etc. See BAGD, s.v.
{3pwp.a, with further passages. For OT parallels see
Rudolf Smend, "Essen und Trinken-ein Stiick
W eltlichkeit des Alten Testaments," in Beitriige zur
zum 70. Geburtstag (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, I 977) 446-59; Elpidius Pax, "Essen und
Trinken," Bibel und Leben IO (I969) 275-91. The
topic was common in Hellenistic philosophy; see
EpictetusDiss. 1.9.8; 1.9.19; 3.3.I7; 4.1.35; 4.8.34;
and often; Ench. 33.2; Musonius Rufus (ed. Otto
Hense) Diss. I8A, I8B (7rEpt rpo.pijs); I 9 (7rEpt <rKt1r71s);
20 (7rEpt <rKE-6wv); Seneca De ad Marciam consolatione
22.2 (trans. John W. Basore, LCL edition of Seneca,
Moral Essays [3 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University, I932]2.78-79):
"And think of the thousand taints of the soul! For
even noble natures do not support continuously into

471
standards are judged inadequate for the life of the
disciple of Jesus. 384 One should not, however, take this
saying to mean that eating and drinking are irrelevant as
functions of one's daily existence. 385 The point is that
these means for life must not be confused with life itself,
and that they should not become the object of obsessive
worrying.
The same is to be said about clothing: "nor for your
body /person what you should put on" (p.71a€ Tii> uti>p.an
vp.wv TL £vatJU1jU8e). The ambiguity here is about how to
understand what is meant by "body" (uwp.a). Does it refer
to the physical "body" or the "person" as a physical
object? Also here we meet popular confusion. People
believe or pretend that they are concerned about their
"person," while in actuality they are worried about how
to dress. The person of prudence knows that the popular
adage is false that says, "Clothes make the man. "386 A
person's personal quality or personality depends on inner
dispositions, not on external clothes. Only the misguided
and foolish are incessantly preoccupied with clothes as if
they could improve one's personal quality.
A rhetorical question concludes the initial paraenesis
(vs 25d): "Is not the souljlife/selfmore than nourish-
ment, and the body/person more than clothing?" (ovxl ~
lfrvx~ 7TAELOV lunv Tijs Tpocpijs Kat TO uwp.a TOV £va!Jp.aTos;).
The affirmative answer to this question is expected to
come from the readers or listeners. Again, the readers or
listeners are confronted with ambiguous language, not to
confuse them, but to make them think and to force them
to make up their minds.
The terms juxtaposed now concern the inside versus
the outside: "soul" versus "nourishment, "387 and
"person" versus "body," but there are also the other
juxtapositions of "life" versus "means of life," and "body"
versus "wrappings of the body. "388 The purpose of these
ambiguities is to cut off an easy way out, for the argu-
ment is not yet over; it is just beginning.
• 26 After vs 25 has presented the initial terms of the
argument, vss 26-30 set forth the "proofs." These proofs
involve the procurement of the necessities of life through
nature, showing thereby the superfluousness of anxiety.
This first round of the argument has two separate proofs:
a comparison of animals and humans, using the example
of the birds (vss 26-27); and a comparison of plants and
humans, using the example of the lilies (vss 28-30). The
first comparison demonstrates the procurement of food,

old age the expectations they had stirred in their
youth, but are often turned aside; they either fall into
dissipation, which corning late is for that reason more
disgraceful, and begins to tarnish the brilliance of
their first years, or they sink wholly to the level of the
eating-house and the belly, and what they shall eat
and what they shall drink become their chief
concern" ("surnrnaque illis curarurn fuit, quid essent,
quid biberent"). For more references see Cicero De
nat. deor. 2.60 (ed. Pease, 2.690-91); Paul Wend-
land, "Philo und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe," in
Paul Wendland and Otto Kern, Beitrage zur Geschichte
der griechischen Philosophie und Religion (Berlin:
Reimer, 1895) 3-75, esp. 8-15 (on eating and
drinking), 15-17 (on clothing and shelter).
384 Cf. Rom 14:17; 16:18; 1 Cor6:13;Phil3:19.
385 On the topic of "the necessities of life" see Deut
10:18; Sir 29:21: "The necessities oflife are water,
bread, and clothes, and a horne with its decent
privacy." In a C~ristian co~t~xt s~ejas 2:14-;-16,
where the techmcal term ra £7rLT1jS£ta rov uwp.aros
("the necessities of the body") occurs. Matt 25:35-36,
37-39, 42-44 has another list, and Luke 21:34
names p.tptp.vat fJtwnKal ("necessities of daily life").
See also below, n. 471.
386 English: "Fair feathers make fair fowls." Latin:
"Habitus virum indicat." Or: "Vir bene vestitus vir
creditur esse peritus." German: "Kieider rnachen
Leut." See Karl Friedrich Wilhelm Wander, Deutsches
Sprichworter-Lexikon (2 vols.; Leipzig: Brockhaus,
1870) 2.1377. August Otto (Die Sprichworter und
sprichwortlichen Redensarten der Romer [Leipzig:
Teubner, 1890]100, s.v. cultus) refers to Quintilian
Inst. 8, proem 20; Seneca Ep. 4 7.16: "stultissirnus est,
qui hominem aut ex veste aut ex condicione, quae
vestis modo nobis circurndata est, aestirnat" ("he is
doubly a fool who values a man from his clothes or
from his rank, which indeed is only a robe that
clothes us").
387 The term occurs only here in the SM; cf. Matt 10:1 0;
Jas 2:15. Drink is now subsumed under rpo</>~
("nourishment"); Did. 10.3 is different. See BAGD,
s. v. rpo</J~, l.
388 lvSvp.a ("garment") occurs only here in the SM (vss
25, 28; cf. Luke 12:23; P. Oxy. 655). See BAGD, s.v.
lvovp.a, l.

472
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

the second that of clothing. The order is determined by
the hierarchy of beings in nature. Implied is always that
God orders matters as the supreme provider. The
highest of the creatures is the human being, then come
the animals, then the plants; of the animals and the
plants, the "highest" are selected as examples: the birds
high in the sky, and the lilies on the ground because of
their beauty. There seems to be a tension between this
hierarchy of beings and the other assumption also made,
that human behavior can and should be learnt from
nature, in particular from the animals. This assumption,
however, is also rooted in ancient thought, 389 for which
one can cite instances from the Old Testament and
Jewish wisdom 390 as well as from Greek philosophy. 391
Especially Greek philosophy accepted studying animal
behavior as a "scientific" method for determining what
rational human behavior ought to be. 39 2 Even modern
biological and anthropological research sometimes
maintains this approach.
The reason why animal behavior was accepted in
antiquity as a model for human behavior was that
animals were seen as still an integral part of nature, while
humans as a result of civilization have become at least
partially alienated from nature. Nature, however,
operates according to cosmic laws that in turn conform
to metaphysical reason. If animals, therefore, act by what
we could call natural instincts, they act "with reason,"
even though as members of their species they were
judged to be "without reason" (cf. 2 Pet 2:12;Jude 10:
ll.A.oya (ii>a). By contrast, since human conduct was
thought to be based on customs and conventions, all of
them questionable as to their reasonableness, it is likely
to be wholly or partly "unreasonable." Human ethical
conduct, so goes the argument, must be brought back
into conformity with reason. Proper ethical conduct can
and must be clarified by observation of natural phe-
nomena. In a strange way, therefore, animal behavior,
because it conforms to nature and thus to cosmic and
metaphysical reason, can serve to establish what is
ethically reasonable human conduct. 393 The SM passage
does not, however, raise yet another issue that would
make the argument even more complex: Do animals
possess souls, and do they thus have at least some
measure of reason? 39 4
Verse 26 presents the example of the birds, prefaced

389 For a large collection of material see Sherwood
Owen Dickerman, De argumentis quibusdam apud
Xenophontem, Platonem, Aristotelem obviis e structura
hominis et animalium petitis (Halis Saxonum: Typis
Wischani et Burkhardti, 1909); Urs Dierauer, Tier
und Mensch im Denken der Antike: Ideengeschichtliche
Studien zur Tierpsychologie, Anthropologie und Ethik
(Studien zur antiken Philosophie 6; Amsterdam:
Gruner, 1977).
390 See esp. Prov 6:6-11 ("Go to the ant"); Job 12:7-10
("Go and ask the cattle"); 40:15-24 ("Consider the
chief of the beasts, the crocodile"); Ep. Arist. 139-42;
Barn. I 0; etc. See also Olsthoorn,jewish Background,
34-35.
391 Comparisons with animals go back to the ancient
Near East. See Carl Sylvio Kohler, Das Tierleben im
Sprichwort der Griechen und Romer: Nach Quellen und
Stellen in Parallele mit dem deutschen Sprichwort
herausgegeben (Leipzig: Fernau, 1881) 180-82;
Herbert P. Houghton, Moral Significance of Animals as
Indicated in Greek Pruverbs (Amherst, Mass.: Carpen-
ter & Morehouse, 1915) 54; Dierauer, Mensch und
Tier, passim.
392 The philosophers called it "proof based on analogy";
on this method see Philodemus, On Methods of
Inference (ed. with a translation and commentary by
Philipp H. De Lacy and Estelle A. De Lacy; 2d ed.;
Naples: Bibliopolis, 1978); Hans Diller, "if-.J~t~ aa~Awv
ra <j>aw.lp.wa," Hermes 67 (1932) 14-42, reprinted in
his Kleine Schriften zur Literatur (Munich: Beck, 1971)
119-43; G. R. E. Lloyd, Magic, Reason and Experience:
Studies in the Origins and Development of Greek Science
(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1979) 126-29;
Elizabeth Asmis, Epicurus' Scientific Method (Ithaca,
N.Y., and London: Cornell University, 1984) 66,
76-77.
393 Thus, the Cynics taught that animals live better
because they live according to nature. See Dierauer,
Tier und Mensch, 180-93.
394 See Plutarch De bruta animalia ratione uti, Moralia
985D-992E, in Plutarch's Moralia (trans. William C.
Helmbold; LCL; reprinted London: Heinemann;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1957)
12.492-532; for a discussion see Dierauer, Tier und
Mensch, 187-93.

473
by an appeal: "Take a look at the birds of the sky"
(ep.{3A.b/Fan ds Th. 'lT£THvh. TOV ovpavov). The idea is that
the listeners or readers of the SM, as they stand on the
ground, should lift up their eyes and gaze into the sky 395
where the birds are flying. 396 The appeal to "take a look"
(ep.f3A.t7T£LV) 397 implies that whatever the example has to
teach is open to everyone's observation. Thus, the truth
advocated by the SM is a matter of human experience
and insight in general, observable by whoever has eyes to
see. 398 But not everyone who has eyes to see auto-
matically perceives the obvious. As we have seen in
SM/Matt 6:22-23, clear vision requires a sound dis-
position of heart and mind. Such vision, however, does
not depend on a special faith or doctrine; everyone can
learn it, and that by experience. The phrase "the birds of
the sky" is proverbial, 399 assigning "the sky" (o ovpavos)
to the birds as their ordinary habitat. 400
One is to observe the paradox of their behavior. In
contrast to human beings, who must work for their
livelihood, the birds do not need to do so: "They do not
SOW OF harvest or gather intO barns" (ov U'lT£lpoVCrLV ova£
8£p{(ovuLV ova£ uvvayovuLV £LS tL7ro8fiKas), 401 but yet they

395 Cf. Pss 145:15; 147:8-9; Isa 40:26: "Lift up your
eyes to the heavens; consider who created it all." The
act presupposes the erect position, one of the
essential marks of the human being. See Pythagoras,
Anaxagoras, and Aristotle (according to Iamblichus
Protr. 9); Aristotle Ethica Eudemica 1.5.9, 1216a 12-
16; Ps~-Plato Axiochus 370b; Cicero Tusc. 5.3.7-9; De
nat. deor. 2.56.1401; Sallustius Catilina 1.1; Philo
Plant. 17; Quod deterius potiori insidiari solet 85-86;
Seneca Ep. 65.20; 92.30; 94.56; Plutarch Quaestiones
Convivalium 617 A-B; Diogn. 10; etc. For collections of 399 The meaning is simple enough; in the SM, ovpav6s
references see Dickerman, De argumentis, 92-101,
and passim; Isaak Heinemann, Die Lehre von der
Zweckbestimmung des Menschen im griechisch-romischen
Altertum und im judischen Mittelalter (Breslau: Marcus,
1926); Antonie Wlosok, Laktanz und die philosophische
Gnosis: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Terminologie
der gnostischen Er!Osungsvorstellung (AHAW.PH
1960:2; Heidelberg: Winter, 1960).
396 Instead of the general term "birds," Luke 12:24 has
rohs K6paKas ("the crows"). Why do SM/Matthew and
Luke differ here, and what did the Q-version read?
No explanation seems plausible. Crows were disliked
(cf.Job 38:41; Ps 146:9), but what difference does it
make to the argument? See Olsthoorn,jewish
Background, 35, with further parallels. According to
Barn. 10.1, 4, the crows are symbolic of people who
do not work for food but steal it from others.
Perhaps there is an influence here from Cynicism,
because Diogenes of Sinope is said to have written a
dialogue entitled "The Crow" (Diog. L. 6.80).
397 €p.f3A.e1rw is to be understood in an intensive way ("fix
one's gaze upon"). Cf. Acts 1:11; Mark 8:25; 10:21,
27; 14:67 par.; John 1:36, 42. The "vision with the
eyes of the soul" ( 1 Clem. 19. 3) is not intended here
(cf. BAGD, s.v. €p.f3A.e1rw, 2). Cf. Luke 22:27:
Karavo~uan ("consider in your minds"). For the
simplex {3A.e1rw ("see"), cf. SM/Matt 5:28; 6:4, 6, 18;
7:3.
398 Cf. Philo Sacr. AC 34 (LCL, Philo, 7.121 ): "things
holy in virtue of their essential goodness cannot but
through their very nature have speech for us, though
we pass them by in silence, I say no more about them.
For neither do sun and moon need an interpreter,
because their rising by day or night fills the whole
world with light. Their shining is proof that needs no
further witness, established by the evidence of the
eyes, an evidence clearer than the ears can give." See
also Philo Vit. Mos. 1.274; Leg. all. 4.60. Kierkegaard
also discusses this motif of silent revelation in his
interpretations (see above, n. 304).
(singular) refers to the "sky," while the plural
"heavens" refers to God's realm (see above on
SM/Matt 5:18, 34; 6:10, 20). Differently, Etan
Levine ("Distinguishing 'Air' from 'Heaven' in the
Bible," ZNW 88 [1976]97-99) takes the expression
to be a Hebraism meaning "birds of the air." J.
Duncan M. Derrett ("Birds of the Air and Lilies of
the Field," Downside Review 105 [1987]181-92)
believes that the examples derive directly from Ps
103:12 LXX (rl:t 7rfT£tVl:t rovovpavov, "the birds of
the sky"). But the expression occurs also in LXX Pss
8:8; 49:11; 78:2; Eccl10:20, and often; the same is
true ofx6pros, "grass" (LXX Pss 36:2; 71:16; 91:7;
101:4, 11; 102:15; 103:14; etc.). The term "lilies"
does not occur in Psalms at all, but it does elsewhere
(see Isa 35:1; Hos 14:6; Sir 39: 14; 50:8; etc.).
400 The expression is frequent also in the NT: Matt 8:20;
13:32; Mark 4:32; Luke 8:5; 9:58; 13: 19; Acts
10:12; 11:6; Barn. 6.12 (Gen 1:28), 18; Hermas Sim.
9.24.1. Cf. BAGD (s. v., 7r£nw6v) with the rendering
"birds of the air"; also s.v., ovpav6s l.d.
401 M1 L 346 pc add the article: £1s rl:ts lL7rollijKas ("into the
barns"). Luke 12:24 is different: "for they do not sow
or harvest, for them there is no storeroom or barn"
(oV U'1T£lpovcnv aVO€ 8£pl(ovut.v, ors- oVK luri.V rap.£'iov
ovSe lr7roii~K7J).

474
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

get fed. How does this happen? Verse 26b gives the
answer: "Yet your heavenly Father feeds them" (Kat o much more so for human beings? 406 The vexing ques-
7TaT~P vp.wv b ovpavtos TP'4>~L avra). 402 Their nourish-
ment comes from nature's storehouse through which
God provides for all his creatures. 403 The connection Kal
seems to express astonishment ("yet") because God's
generosity looks irksome in view of the birds' idleness.
With the birds standing pars pro toto, one is to conclude
that all creatures live through nature's abundance and
God's generosity. They do not earn their livelihood and
thus, no wonder, they do not worry.
One must admit that the example has been chosen in
order to make a point and not to give a full description of
the phenomena of nature. Antiquity knew well that some
animals do work and collect food, and other paraenetical
contexts use their example. 404 The point made here is
that the birds do not worry for two reasons: they rely on
nature's abundance, and they have no presumptions
about controlling the future.
Verse 26c ends the example by inviting a consider-
ation through a question: "Are you not of greater value
than they?" (ovx vp.~'is p.iiAJ\ov llta4>'p~u avrwv;). The
expected answer is affirmative. The traditional hierarchy
makes sure that human beings occupy a position of
higher value, so that the expression p.ii>.>.ov llta4>'p~tv
means in effect "be different from and worth more
than. "405 One is to draw the conclusion a minori ad maius:
if anxiety over food is unnecessary for animals, how
tion why, granted this presupposition, human beings
must still work for their upkeep is not raised at this point.
Also, the conclusion apparently reached by some later
Christians that work as such is unnecessary and that
idleness 407 and dependence on other people's charity 408
is the Christian thing to do is not envisioned by our text.
Dealing with such consequences was the task of later
Christian leaders. The SM would have never approved of
idleness. "Seeking the kingdom of God and his righteous-
ness" (6:33) includes work because honest work was
prescribed by the Torah and was thus part of righ-
teousness. 409
• 27 Intimating that skeptics may still not be convinced,
the SM adds an example from human experience. It
takes the form of a rhetorical question with direct
address, identifying the addressed anxious: "Then, which
of you who are (so) worried is able to add one span to his
life?" (rls at- it vp.wv P.~PLJJ.VWV llvvarat 7rporr8~'ivat i7TL T~V

402 So also Luke 12:24: "Yet God feeds them" (Ka~ o8Ebr
rpl.pn avro"ir). The idea of God as "nourisher" occurs
only here in the NT, but the epithet orpotfJE6r ("the
nourisher") is common in Hellenistic religions; see
Epictetus Diss. 1.3: Philo Leg all. 3.177; Congr. 171; 407 Cf. the polemics against the llraKTOL ("disorderly,"
Corp. Herm. 16.12; Diogn. 9.6.
403 This topic is common in the OT already. SeeJer
5:24; Lev 26:4; Deut 22:6;Job 38:41; 39:26-29; Pss
104:27-28; 145:15-16; 147:8-9; etc. See Moore,
Judaism, 1.384, 394-95; Olsthoorn,Jewish Back-
ground, 36-38. For the NT see Acts 14:17; 17:24-
25, and Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 111-17 (on 2 Cor
9:9-10).
404 Cf., e.g., the business of ants (Prov 6:6; 30:25), bees
(Prov 6:6, 8 [Clement Alex. Strom. 1.6.33.6; GCS 15,
p. 22]; Sir 11:3), or oxen (Deut 25:4; 1 Cor 9:9; 1
Tim 5: 18). See Photina Rech, "Ameise," RAG 1
(1950) 376-77; Leo Koep, "Biene," RAG 2 (1954)
274-82.
405 For this logical conclusion see also Luke 12:24; Matt 409 For references and bibliographies see Horst Dietrich
10:31//Luke 12:7; Matt 12:12; 1 Cor 15:41.
406 The conclusion is implicit in the SM but explicit in
the parallel Luke 12:24: "How much more valuable
are you as compared with the birds?" (1r6u'!l p.a>..>..ov
Vp.Etf a.a.pepETE TWV 1TETELVwv;). See also Olsthoorn,
Jewish Background, 38-40.
"idle") in 1 Thess 5:14; 2 Thess 3:6-12; 1 Tim 5:13,
16. Related is also the mission instruction Matt
10:10b: "Worthy is the worker of his food" (ilf•or yap
o~py&.r11r rfjr rpotflfjr avroii). The rule serves as
justification for freeing the mission worker from his
need to work for a living. Paul, however, refused to
take advantage of this rule, at least in some instances;
see 1 Cor 9:4; 2 Cor 12:14-18; cf. 1 Tim 5:18. On
the whole see Betz, Paulus, 100-117; Spicq, Notes,
1.157-59; GlennS. Holland, The Tradition That You
Received from Us: 2 Thessalonians in the Pauline
Tradition (HUTh 24; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1988)52-54,55-56,75-76,81-82,88-101.
408 For the abuse of almsgiving see also Did. 1.5-6.
PreuB, Michael Brocke, and Karl Hermann Schelkle,
"Arbeit I-III," TRE 3 (1978) 613-24.

475
~AtKlav avrov 7riixvv E-'va;). 410 The paradox one is to
observe in the behavior of animals is juxtaposed with the
absurdity characterizing human action. A person who is
anxious about food is at the same time also anxious about
the future. Yet, the person is unable to "add"
(7rpocrrl6mu) 411 a single "span"(~ 7riixv!;) 412 to life.
Nonetheless, with every new day another span is added
to the person's life. One can infer this much from the
written text of vs 27, but the reader is invited to probe
deeper. First, an inference: If a person who is concerned
about the future is unable to add a single new day to life,
and if such additions occur day after day nevertheless,
then this is so because God calls each new day into being.
It is God, not humans, who measures out the periods of
one's life-a commonly held belief in antiquity that finds
confirmation here. A further inference follows from it: If
all of the future lies in God's hands, then it is unwar-
ranted and indeed foolish when people are worried
about some part of the future as if it were under their
control. 413 Thus, human anxiety over the future is
presumptuous. 414 The future is divine creation, con-
tinuous creation (creatio continua). In regard to the
future, therefore, human life is not fundamentally
different from that of the animals. Yet, unlike the
animals, human beings do not want to entrust themselves
to that future that God creates continually. 415
• 28 This sentence introduces the second proof (vss 28-
30) regarding clothing. This proof compares plants with
humans. 416 First (vs 28a), the readers or hearers are
reminded of the problem (cf. vs 25) in the ongoing
argument, lest their thoughts have begun to wander:
"And about clothing, what are you worried about?" (Kat
7r£pt lvo{,p.aro!; rl p.£ptp.van;). Again the addressed are
identified as people who actually do worry about
clothing. In this the disciples are not different from all
others, but they ought to know better, and the example
of the lilies is going to teach them.
The appeal (vs 28b) is more emphatic than the one
introducing the previous example (vs 26a). The reason is
rhetorical climax as well as factual evidence. While one
must look at the birds from below, at a distance, the lilies
can be "studied closely" (Karap.av6avHv), 417 perhaps by
looking down (Kara-) on them. The expression "the lilies
of the field" (ra Kplva TOV aypov) has been and still is the
subject of controversy, mainly because of attempts to
determine their precise species. 418 But the SM is not

410 p.<p•p.vwv ("you who are worried") is omitted in 1293
it sy<; the same is true in the parallel Luke 12:25,
where D 2542 omit it. The omissions may be due to a
doctrinal correction because the participle seems to
contradict the exhortation not to worry.
411 The term 7rpouri8TJp.• ("add"), which occurs only here
and in the Lukan parallel (Luke 12:25) in this sense,
is to be seen in contrast to God's "adding" in
SM/Matt 6:33/ /Luke 12:31.
412 The term refers originally to a measure of length
("cubit") and is thus used figuratively ("span") in our
passage. For parallel references see BAGD, s.v.
1rijxv~. showing that the metaphor was common in
Hellenistic Greek; cf. Olsthoorn's (jewish Background,
41-45) pointing to the parallels in Sir 30:24; Ps. Sol:
5.6. Gunther Schwarz ("1rpou8i!va• t7Tt r~v ~ALKiav
a broil 1rijxvv ~va," ZNW 71 [ 1980] 244-4 7) finds the
"problem" can be solved only by "retranslation" into
the Aramaic; so also in his "Und jesus sprach," 85-91.
His "retranslations," however, are unnecessary.
413 The conclusion "from the less important to the more
important" (a minori ad maius) is implicit in vs 27 but
explicit in the parallel Luke 12:16: "If then you are
incapable (of doing) even the smallest (thing), why do
you worry about the rest?"
414 In his interpretations (see above, n. 304) Kierkegaard
uses the term Vermessenheit ("overextension"), no
doubt alluding to the phrase "adding a span"; but
Sophocles (Oed. Col. 1556-78: fourth stasimon)
reminds us that the topic is a traditional one.
415 This concept of the future is rooted in Jewish
wisdom, for which one could adduce many parallels.
See esp. LXX Ps 36:38-40; Prov 23:17-18; 24:13-
20; Eccl8:5-8; Wis 7:18; 8:1; 19:1; Sir 38:20-23;
40:1-17. From the NT, see esp. Luke 12:19-20;
Acts 14: 17; 17:26, 30; 1 Thess 5: 1-5; Mark 13:32-
36 par.;Jas 4:13-15; 1 Pet 1:24 (Isa 40:6-8).
416 No attention is paid to the physiological differences
between animals and plants, an important topic for
ancient scientists. Cf., however, Wis 7:20 LXX. See
Dierauer, Tier und Mensch, 44, 47, 109-16, 142-43.
417 The climax is reached only at SM/Matt 6:26a, 28b;
the Lukan parallel has Karavo~uau ("contemplate")
in both instances (Luke 12:24a, 27a).
418 The lily (Greek: rl> Kpivov; Hebrew: susan, sosiin,
sosannt1) plays an important role in the aesthetics of
the OT; the beauty of the lily was proverbial and is
often compared with human beauty, a fact that also
comes to expression in making it a personal name.
See john C. Treve11, "Lily," !DB 3.133-34; BAGD,
s.v. Kpivov;Jehuda Feliks, "Lilie," BHH 2.1093;
Olsthoorn.jewish Background, 45-49. J. Enoch Powell
has advanced the rather fanciful idea that the lilies
make a bad contrast to the birds in the sky and that

476
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

interested in classifying flowers. The reference is meant
to be general. Although vs 29 seems to point to a
particular species, what is said about the flowers is true of
all of them. Studied closely, every flower reveals its own
unsurpassable beauty.
The paradox, however, is even more general: "how
they grow" (1roos avt"avovow). Indeed, how do they grow?
Verse 28c observes: "they do not toil or spin" (ov
K01T£WO'LV ova~ v~8ovow). 419 At least, this is the reading of
most manuscripts. The appeal to consider the lilies is
followed by one positive and two negative statements,
whereby a contrast is created between "how they grow"
and the fact that "they do not toil or spin." This contrast
parallels vs 26, which has, however, three negative
statements: the birds "do not sow or harvest or gather
into barns." One must therefore raise the question
whether the variant reading of toe* ov t"alvovcnv ("they do
not comb [wool]"; see BAGD, s.v. t"alvw), although
unique, is original. When Theodore C. Skeat discovered
this variant with the help of ultraviolet light in 1938, 420
many thought it represented the original reading, and
some still do so today. 421 This exceptional reading,
however, may have come about when a scribe thought
that vs 28 should have three verbs as in vs 26; since
avt"avovcnv ("they grow") was in his source, he falsely
corrected it to ov t"alvovcnv ("they do not comb [wool]"),
then noticed the mistake, erased it, and returned to what
he should have written according to his source. 1rws
("how") has no parallel in vs 26, and there is no need to
eliminate variation in an otherwise parallel construction.
Thus, 1rws avt"avovuw ("how they grow") seems to reflect
the best text. 422 It is also the one paralleled in Luke
12:27. 423
The verbs are still focusing on the making of gar-
ments. The lilies grow, but they are not busy making
garments. How so? The answer is implied: God causes
them to grow. He is the one who makes things grow; at
least, that is the doctrine of ancient agrarian theology. 424
• 29 Parallel to vs 26c, vs 29 adds another consideration
to underscore the point just made. The introductory
formula "but I tell you" (A.Eyro a~ VJJ.tv) 425 is intended to
call attention to something easily overlooked or taken for
granted: "not even Solomon in all his splendor was
clothed like one of these" (CJn ova~ 'E.oAOJ.LtoV fV 1TctiTI/ Ti/
aJt"I/ avTOV 1TEpt<{3ctAHO OOS ~V TOt\Twv). 4 26
Indeed, tradition held that Solomon's royal robes were
unsurpassed in splendor. 427 The argument takes up this
proverbial wisdom, but only to turn it on its head. One is
to draw the conclusion "from the contrast" (e contrario):
the clothing of the lilies, as a work of God, surpasses even

"animals" should be read instead ("Those Lilies of the
Field Again," JTS 33 [1982]490-92).
419 B (33) read Komov<rtv instead of K01rtw<rtv, most likely
a copyist's error. Ljl 3 892. 1006. 1342 (1506) 9Jt
give the verbs in the singular, a grammatical
correction and thus secondary; the Lukan parallel
(12:27) also has the singular.
420 Theodore C. Skeat, "The Lilies of the Field," ZNW
37 (1938) 211-14.
421 So esp. Klaus Brunner, "Textkritisches zu Mt 6, 28,"
ZKT 100 (1978) 251-56 (with further bibliography);
see also Peter Katz, "1rw~ al>~avov<rtv, Matt. VI. 28,"
JTS 5 (1954) 207-9; Olsthoorn.jewishBackground,
13; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 18; Benedikt
Schwank, "Von den Lilien des Feldes (Mt 6, 27-28),"
Erbe und Auftrag 57 (1981) 145-48.
422 It is represented by K1 jl 205 (with 0 syc having a
different word order) and most likely by P. Oxy. 655
(see Attridge, in Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex II,
2-7, p. 121, in the critical apparatus).
423 One should not overlook that Luke 12:27 also has
textual problems regarding the verbs. See Metzger,
Textual Commentary, 161; Olsthoorn.jewish Back-
ground, 11-13.
424 Cf. 1 Cor 3:7: "the God who makes things grow" (o
al>~avwv 8<6~); 2 Cor 9:10. See Betz, 2 Corinthians 8
and 9, 113-15.
425 As the parallel in Luke 12:27c shows, the intro-
ductory formula was also part of Q, as was the whole
sentence.
426 0 reads oi!n instead of ol>ot, an easy mistake for a
scribe to make; Luke 12:27c has ol>o£ without
variants.
427 See 1 Kgs 3:13, where Solomon is promised in a
dream: "I give you furthermore those things for
which you did not ask, such wealth and glory [LXX:
o6~a] as no king of your time can match." See also 2
Chr 9:15;Josephus Ant. 8.190, which calls Solomon
"the most glorious [.1voo~6raro~] of all kings"; cf. Ant.
8.186. The "glory" is reflected by the robes (cf. LXX
Esth 5:1; Sir 6:29-31; 27:8; 45:7; 50:8, 11). For
Solomon's proverbial glory see also Str-B 1. 438;
Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 133; Olsthoorn.jewish
Background, 45-49; Eduard Lohse, ":Eo!l.op.wv," TDNT

477
the splendor of Solomon's garments because they were
made by human hands. 4 2 8 When one contemplates the
toil and spinning that must have gone into Solomon's
garments, the conclusion is startling indeed. The passage
under consideration is remarkable also because the
subject matter of aesthetics is not often discussed in the
New Testament. 4 2 9 Although largely remaining at the
level of presupposition, beauty in nature is seen, as it was
in antiquity for the most part, as a reflection of divine
beauty. God himself is beautiful, and the cosmos and its
beauty is a mirror image of his beauty. This is the reason
why nature's beauty is unsurpassable and why it is
incomparable with the artistry that comes from human
hands. That is also why classical Greek art devoted so
much attention to creating images of the gods. Making
these images reflects the perfect beauty of gods and
goddesses, and this was the only way for the artists to
overcome the imperfections imposed on their work by
the fact that they were human beings. In our passage,
therefore, one must judge human artistry, exemplified
by Solomon's royal garments, as coming from human
hands. One should praise this art, valued on its own
terms, for what it is. In comparison, however, even the
most excellent of human artwork must take second place
to each and every flower blooming in the fields.
• 30 Parallel to vs 27, vs 30 also turns from the example
of nature to human life. The sentence is formulated as a
rhetorical question using direct address. The first part
stating the premises leads to an application in the second
part. Interesting here is the technique of describing the
human condition in terms of plant behavior. The
conclusions to be drawn, however, are left to the reader
or hearer of the text. In describing the fate of the plants,
vs 30a observes another paradox: "But if God clothes in
such a way the grass of the field, which exists today and is
thrown into the oven tomorrow" (d a€ TOV xopTOV TOV
&:ypov u~p.Epov CfvTa Kal aiJptov £ls KAl{3avov {3aA.A.Op.£vov o
8£os ot!TCJ)S &.p.cpdvvvuw). 430 The beauty greater than
Solomon's garment wastes away in what appears to be a
deplorable way. The statement "God clothes in such a
way" 431 means that we are still dealing with the lilies of
the field (vss 28-29), but they are now classified as
ordinary "grass" (xopTos). 432 The proverbial char-
acteristics of grass, however, are transitoriness and
perishability: today it flourishes, 433 tomorrow, when it
has dried up, it will become fuel for the oven. 434 The

7.461-62,464-65 (A.2 and B.3). The prominent
figure in Greek literature is Croesus, the legendary
king of the Lydians; see Diog. L. 1.51: "There isa
story that Croesus in magnificent array sat himself
down on his throne and asked Solon if he had ever
seen anything more beautiful. 'Yes,' was the reply,
'cocks and pheasants and peacocks; for they shine in
nature's colours, which are ten thousand times more
beautiful" (cl>aul a£ 1"LV£~ 1Jr1 KO<TfJ.~<Ta~ iaVTOV 0
Kpoluo~ 1Tavroaa1Tro~ Kal Ka8lua~ £1~ rov 8p6vov 7fp£ro
aVThv ef Tl. 8Jap.a K&.lltov Te8laTat: 0 lJJ "O.AeKTp-Dovas,
eTwe, Kai rpao-1.avoiJS" Ka\ Tatl>s· t/>vu&K~ yO.p IJ.v8e1.
K£K6<rfJ.1jVra& Kal fJ.VPL'!J KaAAtov•"). Cited according to
the LCL edition, Diogenes Laertius: Lives ofEminent
Philosophers (trans. R. D. Hicks; London: Heinemann; 432
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1925) 1.52-
53.
428 Cf. Acts 7:48, 50; 17:24; Mark 14:58; 2 Cor 5:1; Col 433
2:11.
429 For the OT see Claus Westermann, "Das Schone im 434
Alten Testament," in Beitriige zur Alttestamentlichen
Theologie: FSfilr Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) 479-
97.
430 w adds lv a:ypcp ("in the field"), most likely to
harmonize it with the parallel in Luke 12:28. The
Lukan text read by P 75 IC B L Q was not read by
Marcion; it has a different word order in part of the
manuscript tradition, an example of the fluidity in
the transmission of the text. See Aland, Synopsis, 91,
in the critical apparatus.
431 For afJ.</>&c!vvv!L• see also Matt 11:8//Luke 7:25 (Q);
the Lukan parallel to Matt 6:30 in Luke 12:28 has
the synonym a!L<t>•&.(w. See BAGD, s.v. a!L<t>•&.(w,
afJ.</>&c!vvvfJ.&. Since one can easily confuse these
Hellenistic terms, no decision is possible about which
of them the "original" Q read; indeed, a substantial
part of the Lukan textual tradition reads like
Matthew: a.,.<t>.EvvV<TIV (IC Awe"' Jl.IS 33. 1006.
1342. 1506 9Jt), while O.,.<t>.E(n is read by p45 p75 (B)
D L070. 892.
The term x6pro~ designates wild, not cultivated
grass, i.e., weeds. See also Luke 12:28;Jas 1:10, 11; 1
Pet 1:24 (Isa 40:6-7), and BAGD, s.v. x6pro~.
For £1/Ll ("live") see Matt 2:18; 23:30, and BAGD, s.v.
£1,.l, 1.2.
The phrase £1~ KAt{3avov {30.)1.)\nv ("throw into the
oven") occurs only here and in the Lukan parallel
(12:28). Perhaps an allusion to the day ofjudgment is
intended as well (cf. 2 Clem. 16.3; Rev 2:22 v.l.); as
for the SM, cf. Matt 5:13, 25, 29; 7:19.

478
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

example is traditional in Jewish as well as in Greco-
Roman proverbial wisdom. 435
The point to conclude from this observation is that
God, by allowing these things to happen, seemingly
"wastes" the beauty as well as the future of these crea-
tures.436 The application in vs 30b-c is simply stated as a
conclusion, "what is true of the less important is true also
of the more important" (a minori ad maius) in abbreviated
form: "not by much more, you men oflittle faith?" (ou
-rroAA.fi> p.a>..>..ov vp.as, OAI'Y07rLITTO!;).
In order to understand this rhetorical question, the
reader or hearer needs to make an intermediate con-
sideration. One must take two presuppositions into
account. First, God is the one who measures out the
future, and he does so without modifying the transi-
toriness of his creatures. 437 Thus, the greatest beauty
can be displayed one day, while on the next day the
whole splendor has vanished. This is the normal course
oflife, and nothing is wrong with it. Second, plants are
lesser creatures than humans on the scale of living
beings.
From these presuppositions follows the conclusion,
which is stated: If God cares for his lesser creatures in
this way, he will care even more for his highest creatures,
human beings, in the same way. 438 He will provide the
clothing for them, and one has no reason to worry even
in the face of transitoriness and perishability.
The address in vs 30c, "men oflittle faith"
(6A.tyomurot), is an indication that trust in God may not
be plausible. The readers or hearers are taken to be
skeptics who have little confidence in God's providence.
The term 6A.tyo-rrturos is not meant here in a specifically
Christian sense ("men whose faith in Christ is weak") but
in a general sense. 439 People ridden by anxiety (and all
people are, not only the disciples ofJesus) 440 have little
confidence that things like clothing simply happen
through nature's provision.
One has good reason to be skeptical at this point. The
issue belongs to the history of culture. People in antiq-
uity judged human clothing artificial and thus funda-
mentally different from natural coverings of other
creatures. This is why clothing is treated separately from
food: as people in antiquity saw it, nature does not clothe
human beings but sends them into the world naked. 441
The address "you men of little faith" assumes, how-
ever, that God's care is not limited to what nature
provides. The problem of human nakedness is discussed
as early as Genesis 3. 442 After the fall, Adam and Eve
discover that they are naked. They attempt to remedy
the situation by sewing fig leaves together: "Then the
eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were
naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made
themselves aprons" (Gen 3:7 [RSV]). This primitive

435 SeePs 90:5-6; 1 Pet 1:23-25 (Isa 40:6-7);Jas 1:9-
11; 4:13-14. See also Pliny NH 21.1; Plautus Pseud.
1.1; Ausonius Alethio 7; for further Jewish materials
see Str-B 1.438; Olsthoorn,Jewish Background, 50-
52.
436 The example is traditional; it is stated more fully in
Jas 1: 10-11 with application to the wealthy. See Isa
40:6-7;Job 14:1-2; Mark 4:5-6 par.; cf. 1 Clem.
24.5;Justin Dial. 125.1-2, in connection with proofs
for God's providence.
437 Cf. Eccl 3:2b LXX: "A time to plant and a time to
pull up what is planted."
438 For this conclusion "from the less important to the
more important" (a minori ad maius) see above, n. 405.
439 The same address occurs in the parallel Luke 12:28;
it was, therefore, also part of Q. The evangelist
Matthew must have liked the term and the idea of
the disciples having little faith, because he uses it also
in 8:28; 14:31; 16:8; for the noun o)uyo7TI<TTla see
17:20. This evidence is an example that shows how
Matthew learned from his sources. For the Matthean 442 See Gen 2:15; 3:7, 10, 11;Job 1:21; Eccl5:15.
interpretation see also Strecker, Weg, 233-34; idem,
Bergpredigt, 143 (Sermon, 138), who, however,
interprets its content according to Paul (Rom 4:1 7).
The term o.\1y6muTos is pre-Christian and jewish, for
which see Str-B 1.438-39; Schiirer, History, 2.487;
Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 133; Olsthoorn,jewish
Background, 52-54. An interesting case is presented
by Sextus Sent. 6: "Regarding faith, a man of little
faith is without faith" (o.\Ly67fi<TTos €v ,{unlli7TI<TTos).
The saying occurs in a sayings composition on the
notion of "the faithful man" (7ri<TT0s liv8pw1ros), but
there is no indication of Christian influence on the
notion of 7TI<TTOs/limuTos (Sent. 1-8).
440 Related is o.\1yo,Yvx.!w, o.\1y6,Yvxos ("be faint-
hearted"); see 1 Thess 5:14; 1 Clem. 59.4, and
BAGD, s. v. The terminology occurs also in LXX; for
the passages see Georg Bertram, TDNT 9.665-66.
441 On the history of culture, see Ebach, Weltentstehung,
287-90 (with references and literature); Klaus
Thraede, "Erfinder II (geistesgeschichtlich)," RAG 5
(1965) 1191-1278, esp. 1241.

479
attempt is, however,judged inadequate. God himself had
to come and instruct the first human couple about how
to make better clothes: "And the LoRn God made for
Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed
them" (Gen 3:21 [RSV]).
These instructions certainly go beyond the provision
of nature. God is viewed here as the bringer and in-
ventor of culture. The person who trusts in God-this is
the message-knows that God also fulfills human needs
through culture, but he does so only as long as those
needs remain "natural" and therefore ethically jus-
tifiable.
• 31 The second argument (vss 31-33) presupposes the
first (vss 26-30). So much is indicated by the conjunction
"therefore" (oiiv) in vs 31a. The initial paraenesis in vs
31a also shows that it is a new argument in that vs 25b is
repeated with minor differences. The imperative is now
an aorist imperative: 443 "therefore, do not be anxious"
(jJ.~ oiiv p.Eptp.v~u7Jn). The depiction of anxiety is height-
ened and dramatized by self-parody (vs 31b): "'What
shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we
wear?'" (Tl cpa:ywp.Ev; Tf· Tl71'lwp.Ev; Tf· n '11'Ept{3aA.ciJp.E8a;). 444
Parallels from Epictetus's Diatribes show that such
dramatization was a literary device common in Hel-
lenistic moral instruction. 445
• 32 The second argument then addresses the problem of
anxiety in a positive sense. How then shall people care
for their soul/life/self in the right manner? The two
proofs, adduced for the sake of clarification, are not
derived from nature or history as in the first argument,
but from theology in the narrower sense. Both proofs in
vs 32a and b take the form of comparison of jews and
pagans. First, the conduct of pagans is described and
evaluated: "For the pagans strive for all these things"
('11'avTa yap TavTa Ta f8v7J i'11't(7JTovutv). 446 From the
Jewish (i.e., the SM's) standpoint, 447 their conduct
deserves to be identified with the false anxiety rejected in
the previous argument (vss 26-30). "The pagans" (Ta
(8v7J) are lumped together and set in juxtaposition to the
Jews, 448 including no doubt the community behind the
SM. The pagans are the outsiders, characterized by
"seeking after" (€'11't(7JTE'iv) or "striving for," 449 that is, by
excessiveness in pursuing material goods. Thus, pagan-
ism is identified with materialism and consumerism. 450
Were jews to engage in such behavior, it would amount
to forbidden assimilation. The faithful jew, as imagined

443 See BDF, § 337 (3); BDR, § 337 n. 3.
444 The Lukan parallel is peculiarly different (Luke
12:29): "And you, do not seek what you shall eat and
what you shall drink, and do not be high-flying" (Ka\
fJp.ELS p.~ (1JTELTE Tt </Ja')'1JTE Ka\ Tt 7rL1JTE Ka\ p.~
p.ETEIJlpli;Etr6E). The verb p.ETEIJlpt(op.aL is an NT hapax
legomenon and difficult to interpret. It could be a
synonym of p.EpLp.vafJl, but it could also mean some-
thing like "presumptuous." For the problem of
interpretation, see BAGD, s.v. p.ETEIJlpt(op.aL; Spicq,
Notes, 2.560-62.
One of the questions is whether the verb is
connected with the Hellenistic criticism of worrying
about rtt p.ETtfJlpa ("the upper realms between heaven
and earth"). For the criticism of Socrates as a
"thinker about the upper spheres" (rtt p.ErtfJlpa
<flpovnur~s), see Aristophanes Nub. 228, 1284; Plato
Apol. 18b, 23d; Epicurus Ep. ad Menoec. 1 (Diog. L.
6.28); also Usener, Epicurea, 27. On the topic see also
Gerhard, Phoinix, 135-36; Hermann Koller,
"Jenseitsreise des Philosophen," Asiatische Studien 27
(1973) 35-57.
445 EpictetusDiss. 1.9.8,12,19-20; 3.26.37. It is found
even in a Babylonian incantation against toothache,
cited in Samuel Noah Kramer, Mythologies of the
Ancient World (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961)
123-24: "After Anu had created heaven, heaven had
created earth, earth had created rivers, rivers had
created canals, canals had created marsh, marsh
had created worm-the worm came weeping before
Shamash, his tears flowing before Ea: 'What will you
give me to eat? What will you give me to drink?'"
446 A different word order is found in part of the textual
tradition: raiira yttp wavra (K ~ 0 0233jl 892. 1506
allat sy< Clement Basil); so also Luke 12:30a. The
singular ~wL(1JTEL is a correction in view of the plural
subject being in the neuter (cf. vs 28); the same
correction is found in part of the manuscript tra-
dition ofthe Lukan parallel, Luke 12:30 (P 45 A [D]
W0~JI 892.1006.1342.1506mt}. The plural
verb form is unquestionably the better text, even
though the Greek is less elegant. See BDF, § 133 (3);
BDR, § 133 n. 3. The Nestle-Aland text is repre-
sented by 1>1 B 0 ji.I 3 33. 205 pc co.
447 The parallel Luke 12:30 (RSV) reads differently: "all
nations of the world" (wavra rtt f6v1J roii KOtrp.ov),
presupposing a Gentile-Christian perspective.
448 In the SM, rtt f6v1J is always a negative designation of
"pagans." See Matt 5:46-47; 6:7, 32.
449 This negative term occurs only here in the SM. In
this sense, it is rare in the NT (cf. Matt 12:39; 16:4)
but common in Hellenistic literature elsewhere.
Notably, in Rom 11:7 Paul applies it to Israel's goals.
450 For this sort of criticism see esp. Philo Spec. leg. 2.21;

480
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

by the SM, proceeds on the assumption that the heavenly
Father knows what the people's needs are (vs 32b): "But
your heavenly Father knows that you need all these
things" (otSw yap o'll'aT~p iJp.wv oovpavws Cin XPY(E<T(l£
To6Twv im6.vTwv). 451 This theological doctrine has been
adduced before (see on SM/Matt 6:8; 7:11). The
doctrine of God's omniscience serves as the source of his
providing for human needs.452
What then is the difference between pagan and jew
according to this passage? Supposedly, both need "all
these things," and yet, precisely at this point they differ.
The pagans are portrayed as relentless "go-getters" who
think that only the complete fulfillment of their material
desires will meet their "needs." Faithful Jewish disciples,
however, avoid such reprehensible excessiveness; they
leave it to God to determine how much they need of any
given thing. God has long revealed that the essential
needs should be confined to the so-called necessities of
life. 453 There may also be a play on words here: if God
determines what "you need" (XPri(eTE), 454 it is to be
limited to what is actually "used" (xp6.op.at,xpij<Tts). 455 By
contrast, pagans know of no limit to their desires. 456 All
these contrasts are due to the exaggerated language of
polemics.
• 33 This most important statement is the culmination of
the argument. Indeed, it is not an overstatement to say
that the sentence has a significance beyond the present
context in which it serves as a kind of telos-formula
("goal"-formula): 457 "But seek first the kingdom [of God]
and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to
you in addition" ((TJTELTE a£ 'II'PWTOV T~V {3a<TtAelav [ TOV
8eov] Kat T~v StKaw<T6v7Jv avTov, Kat TavTa 71'6.vTa
7rpo<TTE8~<TETaL bp.'iv). 458 One can see the great im-

Som. 2.13-16; and Heinemann, Philons griechische und
judische Bildung, 431-46, where the evidence is
collected; Heinemann relies on Paul Wendland,
"Philo und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe," in Wend-
land and Kern, Beitrage (see above, n. 383), 3-75.
451 K* mae add o8<o~ ("God") as subject, a redundant
addition probably coming from vs 30 (cf. vs 26); the
result is that b oilpav•o~ is left out (K lat sy< mae bo
Clement).
452 Notably, in SM/Matt 6:7-8 human needs are
defined somewhat differently by the Lord's Prayer,
which follows in 6:9-13. In the Lord's Prayer, the
essentials of life are summed up in the metaphor of
bread (6: 11 ).
453 On this term see above, n. 385, and below, n. 471.
454 For this term see also Luke 11:8; 12:30; Rom 16:2; 2
Cor 3:1, and further references in BAGD, s.v. x_py(w.
By comparison, God has no needs according to 1
Clem. 52.1: oila~v oi!a<vb~ x_py(u; Ps.-Clem. Hom.
2.44.2 (see Strecker,judenchristentum, 180, 278).
Lowering one's needs is what humans also should do,
so as to obtain self-sufficiency. See Norden, Agnostos
Theos, 13-14; BAGD, s.v.lnrpoua•~~-
455 See BAGD, s.v. x_pcl.o~J-a•, l.a, esp. on 1 Cor 7:21, 31; 458 The phrase r~v fJau,)l.iav [roil 8£ov] Kat r~v
9:12, 15. Usage, however, should remain in ac-
cordance with nature (Kara .pvuw); see Rom 1:26-27.
On this doctrine and its importance in Greek
philosophy, which connects it with the ethics of
moderation, see Gerhard, Phoinix, 113-15; Paul
Wilpert, "Begierde," RAC 2 (1954) 62-78; Manfred
Wacht, "Giiterlehre," RAC 13 (1986) 59-150, esp.
74-75, 80-84. For the technical expression
<iJx_p1Juro~("useful" or "serviceable"), see SVF 3, nos.
168, 184, 233; it also appears in Philo (see Wacht,
RAC 13.102-6) and the NT (Phlm 11; 2 Tim 2:21;
4: 11; etc.). See BAGD, s.v. <iJxp7Juro~; Wacht, RAC
13.110-12.
456 The appropriate terms would be aKpaula, -'·Kpar~~
("lack of self-control," "indulgence"). See 1 Cor 7:5;
Matt 23:25; 2 Tim 3:3; Hermas Sim. 9.15.3.
457 Greek philosophers formulated such statements in
order to define the purpose and goal of their ethics.
See Gerhard Delling, "Telos-Aussagen in der
griechischen Philosophic," in his Studien zum Neuen
Testament und zum hellenistischen judentum: Gesammelte
Aufsatze 1950-1968 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlags-
anstalt, 1970) 17-31; Albrecht Dihle, "Ethik," RAC 6
(1966) 646-796, esp. 649-57; Isaak Heinemann, Die
Lehre von der Zweckbestimmung des Menschen im
griechisch-romischen Altertum und im jildischen Mit-
telalter (Breslau: Schatzky, 1926). For the Stoics see
Diog. L. 7.85-87; also Clement Alex. Strom.
2.129.1-5; for discussion see Pohlenz, Stoa, 1.111-
19; 2.64-68; Theiler, Poseidonios, 1, nos. 426-28; 2,
pp. 362-64.
a1Ka10uVV7JV aiJrov is textually difficult (L W 0 jl.l 3
33. 892. 1006. 1342. 1506 9JT lat sy mae). (B) K (k) I
sa bo Tertullian Eusebius omit roil and understand
"the kingdom and his righteousness"; Breads
a1KaiOO'VV7JV Kat T~V fJauiA££av ("righteousness and the
kingdom"). The Lukan parallel (12:31) has only "his
kingdom" (r~v fJauiA£iav ailrov); different are also
JustinApol. 1.12.16 and the extracanonical sayings

481
portance of this statement from the role it has played in
the history of interpretation and Christian theology. For
instance, in a controversy about theodicy the Pseudo-
Clementine Recognitions quotes Matt 6:33 as a principle.
Thus, for example, the debate between Peter and Simon
Magus about the origins of evil 459 is introduced in this
way: "Therefore, he commanded us to inquire, not
whence evil comes, as you have asked, but to seek the
righteousness of the good God, and his kingdom; and all
these things, says he, shall be added to you." 460 The
phrase "the kingdom of God and his righteousness"
occurs as a standard term in the Recognitions. 461
The exhortation in vs 33 is now positive, stating first
(vs 33a) the required conduct: "seek" ((TJTiiv), instead of
"strive for" (£m(7JTE'iv), which was rejected as "pagan" (vs
32a) and as a cause for anxiety. Since vs 33 encapsulates
the theology of the SM, 462 one must carefully examine
the terms. Indeed, no word is superfluous 6r ambiguous
in this statement, and each word is reflected throughout
the SM in one form or another.
As intended by the SM, the disciple of jesus is not a
quietist who simply sits and waits for what God gives, like
an animal. On the contrary, the person who has learned
the tenets rightly is a seeker. 463 Indeed, human beings
are seen as seekers in principle, the question being only
whether they seek the right things in the right way.
Those who follow the teaching of the SM should give
"first" (1rpwTov) priority 464 to the kingdom ofGod. 465
They should travel on the rough road and search for the
narrow gate to the heavenly city (see below on 7: 13-14).

(agrapha) in Clement of Alexandria and Origen (see
Aland, Synopsis, 91; Straker: Extracanonical Sayings,
122-25). Cf. William H. P. Hatch," A Note on
Matthew 6:33," HTR 38 (1945) 270-72; Metzger,
Textual Commentary, 18-19. The expression "of God"
cannot have been part of the original text; the SM
always uses the expression "the kingdom of the
heavens"(~ {3afTtA<la TWV avpavwv [5:3, 10, 19, 20;
7:21 ]). {3afTtA..la ("kingdom") alone occurs in the
Lord's Prayer (6: 10), but the meaning is clear
anyway (cf. Matt 8:12; 9:35; 13:19, 38; 24:7, 14).
Zahn (Matthiius, 299 n. 1 7) argues rightly that the
modifiers are not needed for the basic concept, so
that "kingdom" in the Lord's Prayer may be original.
Cf. 1 Mace 2:29: (TJriiv r~v otKatafTtJVTJV ("seek righ-
teousness"); Hermas Sim 9.13.2: <vp<8fjvat <t~ r~v
{3afTtA<lav ("be found in the kingdom"; see BAGD,
S.V. <VptiTKW, l.b).
459 Ps.-Clem. Rec. 3.16.1.
460 Ibid., 3.20.3: "et ideo iussit nos quaerere, non unde
sit malum, ut tu paulo ante require bas, sed 'iustitiam'
boni 'dei regnumque eius, et omnia,' inquit, 'haec
adicientur vobis.'" Interestingly, Simon replies that
this mandate was given to the Hebrews, who have the
right knowledge of God and the conviction that they
can do these things, and asks what implication this
may have for the non-Jew (3.20.4).
461 Ibid. 1.11.1: "omnipotentis dei regnum iustitiamque
praedicabo" ("I shall preach the kingdom of the
almighty God and his righteousness"); 2.20.2:
"iustitiam dei regnumque eius inquirere" ("inquire
into God's righteousness and his kingdom"); also
2.46.3; 3.20.3; 3.37.9; 41.4. The concept is fully
explained in 2.20-22. Notably, it does not occur in
Pseudo-Clementine Homilies (see Strecker,juden-
christentum, 135).
462 Cf. the close parallel in T. job 36.2-3 (OTP 1.857):
"And he [sc. Baldad) said, 'Is your heart untroubled?'
And I said to him, 'My heart is not fixed on earthly
concerns, since the earth and those who dwell in it
are unstable. But my heart is fixed on heavenly
concerns, for there is no upset in heaven.'" See
furthermore, Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 70-96 and the
interpretation by Wilson, Love, 112-19.
463 The assumption that humans are "seekers" is
surprisingly common in the NT. For passages see
BAGD, s.v. (7Jr£w; Edvin Larsson, EWNT(EDNT) 2,
s.v. (7Jr£w; Siegfried Wagner, "1Vj") diirash," TDOT
3.293-307, with further bibliography. From the NT
see Rom 3:11; 1 Thess 4:1; Col3:1; Heb 13:14; etc.;
Ps.-Clem. Diam. 5.2; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 1.19.8; 2.7.1;
2.11.1; 3.18.2; and often; see Strecker's indices to
Ps.-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, s.v. (TJTEW,
inquiro, inquisitio, quaero, etc.
464 Cf. also SM/Matt 5:24; 7:5. See BAGD, s.v. 1rpwra~.
2.c. One should note that the term plays a role in
philosophical telos-formulae ("goal"-formulae). In
Greek philosophy, from which one can adduc~ many
parallels, the search for philosophical wisdom is the
primary concern (see, e.g., Socrates according to
Plato Apol. 20d-21e; Epicurus Ep. ad Menoec. [Diog.
L. 10.122); Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 78; EpictetusDiss.
3.20.12, 15; 3.22.44; frg. 3; PhiloAbr. 68; 87; Virt.
215; Spec. leg. 2.165; Deus imm. 92-93; Leg. all. 3.47;
Fuga 38; Praem. poen. 1 04). For Jewish wisdom see
esp. Solomon's prayer, 2 Chr 1:10: "Give me now
wisdom and knowledge" and God's answer, vs 12:
"wisdom and knowledge are given to you; I shall also
give you wealth." In rabbinic Judaism, concern for
the study of the Torah comes first (see 'Abot 3.5; 4.9-
10; etc.). Cf. 1 Cor 1:22: "the Greeks seek wisdom."
On Philo see Hans Windisch, Die Frommigkeit Philos

482
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

But how does one go about seeking the kingdom of
God? The answer to this question is contained in the
brief expression immediately following, which is of
decisive importance: "and his righteousness" (Kat Thv
OLKatocrVV7JV avTov). 466
By seeking righteousness one seeks that quality which
characterizes the kingdom of God, and indeed, God
himself. By seeking this righteousness the disciple of
Jesus seeks the divine kingdom itself and is promised
entrance into it. Codex B, which has turned the words
around, has understood matters properly. 467 This
seeking of righteousness, as the SM states frequently
(5:6, 10, 20; cf. 5:45), takes place in this life; it is to be
regarded as the sum total of the disciple's duties. Taking
up this duty may involve traveling the hard way and
searching for the narrow gate, but those who do so also
have the promise of finding it (7:7-8, 14). While such
seeking is the principal task (7rpooTov), 468 it is not the
complete answer to the question of how to deal properly
with anxiety.
One can take for granted in this context that the
search for the kingdom of God has an eschatological
orientation, leading to life eternal (7: 13-14). Does this
orientation mean that worldly needs are taken lightly?
The text is clear that earthly needs and worldly
concerns are not to be ignored or covered up by pious
preoccupation with the hereafter. 469 Alongside the
paraenesis ofvs 33a stands the promise ofvs 33b.
According to that statement eternal life is not held out as
the only reward for the earnest seeker, but in
anticipation of that eternal life and in addition to it, the
seeker is promised that the necessities of life "shall be
provided in addition" (7rpocrn8~crcTat). 4 7°
According to the SM, therefore, the disciple is
envisaged as one who at once seeks and finds. Such a
person should neither be plagued by excessive anxiety, as
only a fool would be, nor chase madly after the material
goods of life, as a pagan would do. Rather, the one
devoted to the search for God's righteousness should
trust that God will provide what is needed for life's
necessities as an added bonus.
What are the implications of this doctrine? It means,
for one thing, that no one has a right to obtain the
necessities of life. Rather, they are gifts and part of God's
beneficence. 471 Even when people limit themselves to

und ihre Bedeutung fur das Christentum (Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1909) 35-46; on the Stoics see Robert
Philippson, "Das 'Erste Naturgemasse,'" Philologus
87, n.s. 41 (1932) 445-66.
465 For this concept see the discussion above on
SM/Matt 5:3.
466 Zahn (Matthiius, 299 n. 17) argues that the pronoun
"his" must be taken to refer to the "heavenly Father"
(vs 32); thus, it applies to both nouns in vs 33.
467 So rightly Zahn, Matthiius, 299 n. 17; Klostermann,
Matthiiusevangelium, ad Joe.
468 Cf. also Rom 14:17; furthermore, John 5:44; Acts
17:27; Rom 3:11; 1 Cor 1 :22; 10:24, 33; 13:5; Gal
2:17; Col3:1; etc.
469 Correctly Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1 905), 79: "Das
Trachten nach Reich und Gerechtigkeit fiihrt also
nicht zur Weltflucht, sondern zur Selbstbehauptung
in der Gewissheit der Vaterliebe Gottes" ("The
search for kingdom and righteousness does not lead
to a flight out of this world, but to self-affirmation
through the confidence in God's fatherly love").
Thus, the concept of the SM is very different from
the influential Platonic concept of the "flight from
here to there," for which see Plato Phaedo, passim;
Apol. 40c; Theaet. 176a-b.
4 70 The meaning of the term here seems special, pace
Christian Maurer, TDNT 8.168, who suggests simply
"to give, to hand over"; similarly BAGD, s.v., 2. Cf.
the allegorical interpretation of "Joseph" (~0',
"addition"; Greek: 1rpou8<p.a) for Philo's doctrine
concerning the goods and the law (Mut. 89; Sam.
2.47;jos. 28). Heinemann (Philons griechische und
judische Bildung, 434 n. 4, 449-51) assumes a Cynic
background.
4 71 The question about what constitutes the necessities
of life was widely debated in antiquity. For a collec-
tion of passages, see Pease, M. Tulli Ciceronis De
natura deororum, 2.690-91 (on De nat. deor. 2.60);
and for a survey and large collection of the evidence,
Paul Wendland, "Philo und die kynisch-stoische
Diatribe," in Wendland and Kern, Beitriige (see
above, n. 383), esp. 8-17; Manfred Wacht, "Giiter-
lehre," RAG 13 (1986) 59-150. As examples see Sir
29:21 (RSV): "The essentials for life are water and
bread and clothing and a house to cover one's
nakedness" (' Apx1-J (wijs iJOwp Kall1pTOS Kat r,.uln.ov Kat
oiKos Ka)u'mrwv ltuxTJp.ou{JVTJV). Cf. Epictetus Ench.
33.7 (trans. W. A. Oldfather, LCL edition of
Epictetus, 2.519): "In things that pertain to the body
take only as much as your bare need requires, I mean
such things as food, drink, clothing, shelter and
household-slaves; but cut down everything which is
for outward show or luxury" (Ta 7T£pt Tb uwp.a p.tXP<
riis XP<ias -.{F<Aiis 1rapallap.{3av<, oiov rpo,Pas, 1r0p.a,

483
the basics of food, drink, and clothing, they cannot
demand that nature or culture will always satisfy these
needs. Gifts of God remain gifts; they are bestowed as
rewards, the search for God's kingdom and his righ-
teousness being the prerequisites. The gifts of God's
beneficence are part of the eschatological reward of the
faithful, given in addition and as an advanced bonus.
Striking as it is in the SM, this doctrine was nothing new
to Judaism in this period of the SM. Rather, it was part of
the normal Jewish notion of reward and punishment.
One can also easily connect it with other texts attributed
to Jesus in the synoptic tradition, in which the concept of
"reward" (/J.tcr8os) is treated. 47 2
Moreover, the additional reward, since it is granted by
God, cannot cancel out other rewards (cf. above on 6:1,
2, 5, 16). Equally false would be the assumption that the
additional bonus is something special given to the
disciples of Jesus only. 473 Rather, it is part of the
ordinary continuous creation (creatio continua), accessible
to all the faithful. Yet, the faithfulness required is also
clearly defined. Such a person regards even the rising of
the sun or the falling of the rain (cf. above on 5:45) as
such a bonus, and in that the faithful differs from the
crowds who take them "for granted" (that is, not as
granted gifts). Phenomena of nature such as the rising of
the sun and the falling of the rain are part of the normal
course oflife, but it is improper for a human being to
Q.fL7rEX6V1JV 1 olKlav, olKfTlav· Th 7rpbf OJtav ~ rpvcJ>~v
ii.TTav TT<piypacf><). Telling is also the magical gem
inscription in Campbell Bonner, Studies in Magical
Amulets Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian (Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University of Michigan, 1950) 182 (British Museum
56260): "Water for thirst, bread for hunger, fire for
cold." For the NT seejas 2:16; Matt 25:35-36, 37-
39, 42-44. See also above, n. 385.
472 See above on SM/Matt 5:12; also Braun, Radi-
kalismus, 2.54 n. 1.
4 73 For the principles determining reward, see Matt
10:41-42 (Mark 9:41; Luke 10:7); 20:8; Rom 4:4; 1
Cor 3:8, 14; 9:17-18; 1 Tim 5: 18;Jas 5:4.
474 For the nature of this abbreviated argument see
above,pp.465-66.
4 75 The same beginning oLv ("therefore") introduces the
second argument in vs 31 a.
4 76 avrijs instead of (avrijs is read by B* L co(?); rl:t (avril
("its own things") byE(~) 0233 jl· 13 33. 205. 1006.
1424. 1506 pm syh; rh £avr6v ("itself") 0 565;
(avr~(v) 700 pc. So according to Aland, Synopsis, 91
ad Joe. All these variants seem to be attempts at
484
disregard the fact that even the normal things are divine
gifts. Thus also, the additional bonus does not in any way
differ from the extension oflife day after day (vs 27).
• 34 The third argument is extremely brief, but it is
supposed to be at the same level as the two preceding
arguments (vss 25c-30 and 31-33). 474 Introduced by
the connective o~v ("therefore"), 475 the exhortation of
vss 25b and 31a is again repeated (vs 34a): "Do not be
anxious" (JJ.h o~v JUptp.v~crTJTE), with the phrase now
added: "about tomorrow" (ds rhv aliptov). A description
of people anxious about the next day is omitted; instead
the proofs are set forth in the form of two maxims,
introduced by yap ("for").
The first maxim (vs 34b) is about tomorrow: "Tomor-
row will worry about itself"(~ yap alipwv p.Eptp.v~cry
£avrfjs). 476 No exact parallel to this maxim occurs
anywhere else in the New Testament, and since the
parallel version in Luke 12:3 2 reads something entirely
different, 477 it is unlikely that the early Q-version had it;
it is, therefore, most likely due to the redaction of Q Matt
or the SM itsel£. 478
At any rate, the large number of parallels outside the
New Testament 479 come from wisdom literature,
beginning with ancient Egypt, 480 and including Jewish
wisdom 481 and Greek philosophy. 48 2 In Greek literature
and philosophy, taken up by the Romans as well, the
proverbial carpe diem ("Use the day while it lasts") is
grammatical improvement, but (avrijs is most likely
the original reading.
477 "Do not be afraid, you little flock; for your Father has
chosen to give you the kingdom" (M~ cf>of3ov, rh
f.LtKphv 1rolp.vwv, Cfr1. EV06K1JCTEV b 1rar~p V,.,.Wv r1]v
f3acnA<tav).
4 78 Strecker (Bergpredigt, 145 [Sermon, 140-41]) takes it
to be a pre-Matthean addition; Luz (Matthiius, 1.364
[Matthew, 1.401]) attributes it to Q/Matt (and Luke
12:32 to Q/Luke).
4 79 For collections of parallels see Grotius, Annotationes,
86; Wettstein, 1.336-37; Heinrici, Bergpredigt
(1905), 78-79; Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 64;
Dibelius,james, 232-33; van der Horst, Sentences,
195-98 (on Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 116-21).
480 See John G. Griffiths, "Wisdom about Tomorrow,"
HTR 53 (1960) 219-21; Zeller,Mahnspruche, 93-94.
481 See esp. Prov 1:27; Sir 10:10; 11:18; 20:15; Ps.-
Phocyl. Sent. 116-21. For rabbinic literature see
'Abot 2.14; b. Sank. 1OOb; b. Yeb. 63b, and for more
material Str-B 1.441; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary,
134.
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

widely attested; Paul also cites it: "Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we are dead. • 483
The interpretation of the maxims must occur first in
the framework of gnomic and aphoristic literature.
Polyvalence is a standing feature in this literature, its
purpose being to provoke thought. The tone of the
maxim is seemingly pessimistic, but, as the history of
exegesis has pointed out, one can take it either in a
pessimistic or in an optimistic way.484
The second maxim (vs 34c) concerns the present day:
"Sufficient for the day is its own trouble" (apKeT"Cw Tfj
~p.Epf!. ~ KaKla avTijs). 485 The third argu9lent is worded
sparsely, but it presupposes the same trllin of thought as
the previous two arguments. It is characteristic of all
three arguments that they complement one another: the
first (vss 25c-30) appears in the written text in its
entirety, while the second (vss 31-33) and the third (vs
34) are progressively shorter, though the arguments
themselves remain the same. 486 The intelligent readers
can easily supply what has been omitted from the written
text, if they have understood what they have read in the
first argument.
The third argument focuses on anxiety as implying
time, an idea that vs 30 already mentioned. Again it is
assumed that people are commonly anxious about the
future, but a more detailed account is not given; the
readers or hearers are supposed to supply concreteness
from their own experience. The two maxims are cited
without further explanation, and the conclusions one is
to draw are left unstated. The reader or hearer should
be able to come to the conclusions himself or herself.
Regarding vs 34c any informed reader or hearer will
at once think of another famous maxim and philo-
sophical principle: ttpKE'itT8at To'is 7TapoV!T!V ("Be content
with what is at hand"). 487 Is vs 34c a specific inter-
pretation of this principle? It is hard to say, but one can
assume that knowledge of it existed in early Christianity
because of the parallels in the New Testament. Thus,
even for the SM one may assume knowledge of the idea

482 From the many references the following should be
highlighted, in particular Cicero Tusc. 5.2.5 (cited
according to the LCL edition and trans. by J. E.
King, Cicero [28 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1945] 18.428-
29, from Cicero's hymn to Philosophy): "Moreover,
one day well spent and in accordance with thy lessons
is to be preferred to an eternity of error" ("Est autem
unus dies bene et ex praeceptis tuis actus peccanti
immortalitati anteponendus"). For commentary and
further bibliography see Hildebrecht Hommel,
Ciceros Gebetshymnus an die Philosophie, Tusculanen V 5
(SHAW.PH 1968:3; Heidelberg: Winter, 1968) esp.
27-31; idem, Sebasmata, 1.263-66. See also Aris-
tippus, according to Aelian Varia historia 14.6; Diog.
L. 2.66; Epicurus, according to Plutarch De tranq. an.
16, p. 474C (cf. 14, p. 473B-E; and Betz inPECL
2.223-24); Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 7, p. 280c-d,
quoting from Philetaerus The Huntress; Simonides Frg.
6D; EpictetusDiss. 1.9; 2.19.34; 3.26; etc.; Marcus
AureliusMed. 3, passim; Horace Carm. 1.9; 1.11;
2.11; 2.16; 3.29; Epist. 1.11; SenecaEp. 12.6-9;
24.2, 20; etc. See also Wehrli, AA8E BI.Ol:Al:, 3-10.
483 1 Cor 15:33, quoting Menander's Thais. See Conzel-
mann, 1 Corinthians, 278; cf.Jas 4:13-17. On the
carpe diem see the collection of passages in Wehrli,
AA8E Blfll:Al:, 20-25.
484 For some examples see Luz, Matthiius, 1.372 (Mat-
thew, 1.409).
485 For parallels see esp. Eccl 7:14; 12:1; Epictetus Diss.
3.24-25; 4.12.20-21. Str-B 1.441 refers to b. Ber. 9b
(the same example in Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary,
134). From the poets see the LCL edition of The
Greek Bucolic Poets (trans. J. M. Edmonds; London:
Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University,
1928) 471 (Megara 65): "Are not the misfortunes
which possess us enough each day as they come?" Cf.
also the saying by Pittacus, according to Plutarch De
tranq. an. 11, p. 471B: "Everyone of us has some
trouble [KaKclv ]. He that has only mine is doing very
well indeed." See furthermore Heinrici, Bergpredigt
(1905), 76.
486 Bernard Lategan first pointed out this characteristic
tome.
487 See also above, p. 464, with n. 340. For the NT and
early Christian literature, see also Luke 3:14 (on the
whole passage, Luke 3:10-14, see Friedrich Wilhelm
Hom, Glaube und Handeln in der Theolofiie des Lukas
[GTA 26; 2d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1986] 91-97); Heb 13:5; 1 Clem. 2.1;
Ignatius Pol. 5.1. See also BAGD, s.v. apKEw, for more
references.

485
and perhaps familiarity with the maxim itself.
In the interpretation of both maxims one must keep
their literary character in mind. They are half-philo-
sophical statements in which observations on the affairs
of daily life combine with practical conclusions to be
drawn from them. The maxims themselves are hinted at,
but are finally left to the reader or hearer. It would be
wrong, and hardly in keeping with the sense of the SM, if
one were to draw pessimistic conclusions from the
situations described. The maxims are characterized by
extreme realism, as is often the case in gnomic literature.
But they do not intend the kind of pessimism that
exclaims, "There is no purpose to it all!" In any event,
the context demands that one interpret the maxims in
relation to the theology of the SM.
In this context one must take the maxims to refer to
anxiety about the future. The sayings rightly observe
that in so-called everyday life people have to deal with
existence as it confronts them day by day. Thus the
general concept of "future" resolves into its practical
components of tomorrow and today. People are foolish
to be concerned with tomorrow since, as vs 27 has
shown, it is not under human control. Therefore,
worrying about tomorrow is excluded, and along with it,
anxiety about the future in general. This first conclusion,
"from the more important to the less important" (a maiori
ad minus), does not introduce anything new, but only
reiterates what vss 27 and 30 have already said.
This point clearly suggests a second conclusion. If, in
fact, people have no power over the coming day,
nevertheless they have power over the present. Today is
always there, relentlessly confronting people with its
"trouble" or "evil" (~ KaKla). 488 One must always over-
come this trouble in the present if one wishes to attain
tomorrow. It lies in the realm of human possibility to
accomplish this, but it demands one's entire strength and
vigilance. This kind of concern is commanded. The
second conclusion is, therefore, e contrario, reversing the
form of the first conclusion.
The third conclusion is once again one "from the
contrast" (e contra rio): if it is wrong to be anxious on
account of the future, and particularly on account of
tomorrow, then the right way to care for today is not by
488 Thus, rightly, Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 65,
who follows Chrysostom.
486
being anxious (j.uptfJ-vav) but by seeking the kingdom and
righteousness of God (vs 33) in the troubles of each day.
This conclusion is in fact identical with the ethics of the
SM as a whole.
Thus the third proof presents a practical way of
mastering the future: the future is a temporal concept
that one may analyze into today and tomorrow. So long
as one gazes anxiously at tomorrow-whose problems
may neither be known nor overcome until tomorrow has
become today-one fails to lay hold of the problems of
today, which always confront one. Only if one is freed
from this pointless anxiety can one concern oneself with
today and its troubles. These troubles are always
concrete necessities whose conquest lies in the realm of
human possibility.
For Jesus' disciple in the SM, the search for the
kingdom and righteousness of God (vs 33) means
freedom for the practical problems of the present. Such a
possibility is opened up when the disciple of jesus seeks
after the kingdom and righteousness of God in the face
of the plagues of the present day.
e. On Judging (7:1-5)
1 Do not pass judgment, in order that judg-
ment not be passed on you.
2 For with whatever judgment you judge you
will be judged, and with whatever
measure you measure it will be mea-
sured to you.
3 Why is it that you see the speck of sawdust
in your brother's eye, but you do not
recognize the plank in your (own) eye?
4 Or how is it that you can say to your
brother, "Let me take the speck out of
your eye," but look!-the plank is in your
eye?
5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of
your eye, and then you will see clearly
(enough) to take the speck out of your
brother's eye.
Bibliography
B. Couroyer, "De Ia mesure dont vous mesurez il vous
sera mesure," RB 77 (1970) 366-70.
]. Duncan M. Derrett, "Christ and Reproof (Matthew
7.1-5/Luke 6.37-42)," NTS 34 (1988) 271-81.
GeorgeS. Hendry, "Judge Not: A Critical Test of
Faith," Theology Today 40 (1983) 113-29.
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

Engelbert Neuhausler, "Mit welchem MaBstab miBt
Gott die Menschen? Deutung zweier Jesusspriiche,"
Bibel und Leben 11 (1970) 104-13.
Piper, Wisdom, 36-44.
Hans Peter Ruger, "Mit welchem MaB ihr meBt, wird
euch gemessen werden," ZNW 60 (1969) 174-82.
R. B. Y. Scott, "Weights and Measures of the Bible,"
Biblical Archaeologist 22 (1959) 22-40, esp. 29-32.
Wrege, Bergpredigt, 124-31.
Zeller, Mahnspriiche, 113-17.
1) Introduction
Heinrici's naming of the section as "the vivid apostrophe
on self-deception" 489 appears justified, but the history of
the interpretation of the passage reveals a great deal of
uncertainty regarding the precise meaning. 490 Some
determine the content by looking at vss 1-2, others by
focusing on vss 3-5. Tolstoy thought that the social
demand of abolishing the entire system of public justice
is stated in these words, while Wellhausen, arguing
against Tolstoy, thinks of a moral injunction against
private judging that was much in vogue among Jews and
Christians, an ugly vice to be rooted out from human
fellowship. 491 Thus, determining the very content of the
passage depends to a large extent on the presuppositions
with which one approaches it. Does the section concern
itself with a commonplace, the exposure of a stupid habit
ofpassingjudgment on one another? 492 Or is the point
to be made the result of a longer argument? Plenty of
evidence certainly substantiates the commonplace, 493
but even that evidence suggests that it is part of a more
extended context. This context belongs to ethical
education and growth in general, and in that context it
concerns the need for correction of others as well as self-
correction in particular. Thus, the question is not
whether one should abandon judging altogether; rather,
the point is that good judgment is a necessary element in
human relations, and that exercising that good judgment
is part of prudence. 4 94
In order to understand the passage, one must look at
the argument made by it as a whole. This argument
shows that the matter under consideration is that of
fraternal correction within family and kinship. The Bible

489 Heinrici, Bergpredigt ( 1905 ), 81: "die lebhafte
Apostrophe an die Selbsttauschung."
490 For the history of interpretation, see Beyschlag,
"Geschichte," 313-20; Luz,Matthiius, 1.376-78
(MattMw, 1.414-15).
491 Wellhausen, Evangelium Matthaei, 30.
492 The matter is succinctly stated in Cicero Tusc. 3. 73:
"For it is a peculiarity of folly to discern the faults of
others and to be forgetful of its own" ("est enim
proprium stultitiae aliorum vitiae cernere, oblivisci
suorum"). The development of the topic in Cicero's
De off. 1.146 about admonition and instructions
(admonitio et praecepta) is also interesting: "For it
happens somehow or other that we detect another's
failings more readily than we do our own; and so in
the school-room those pupils learn most easily to do
better whose faults the masters mimic for the sake of
correcting them" ("fit enim nescio quo modo, ut
magis in aliis cernamus quam in nobismet ipsis, si
quid delinquitur. Itaque facillime corriguntur in
discendo, quorum vitia imitantur emendandi causa
magistri"). Cited according to Cicero: De officiis (trans.
Walter Miller; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1938) 148-49.
493 The commonplace of being an unfair judge of others
has many parallels in Greek and Latin literature. See
the poignant comment by Horace Sat. 1.3.25-29:
"When you survey your own errors, your eyes are
watery as if inflamed; why, when you view the flaws
of your friends, is your sight as keen as an eagle or as
an Epidaurean serpent? But now it turns against you;
they, too, in turn inquire about your faults" ("cum
tua pervideas oculis mala lippus inunctis, cur in
amicorum vitiis tam cernis acutum quam aut aquila
aut serpens Epidaurius? at tibi contra evenit, in-
quirant vitia ut tua rursus et illi"). The text is cited
according to Hans Farber, ed., Horaz: Siimtliche Werke
(Tusculum-Biicherei; Munich: Heimaran, 1967); the
trans. is mine. Plutarch (De curios. 1, 515D) shows
that the topos belongs to the character of the
"busybody" (7roA.v7rpayl-'wv), but Stobaeus (Anthol. 33
[vol. 3, pp. 596-60 1)) has put together parallels
under the rubric 7r<pt </JLA.avrla~ ("On self-love"). See
also Phaedrus Fab. 4.1 0; Petroni us Gena Trimalchionis
57.7. One can find collections of material in Grotius,
In Matthaeum, 87-88; Wettstein, 1.338-40; Heinrici,
Bergredigt (1905), 80-81.
494 See Aristotle Eth. Nic. 6.8.3-4, 1141 b 30-1142a 12;
6.10.3, 1143a 15.

487
mentions it first in the Holiness Code (Lev 19: 1 7), which
relates it directly to the command to love one's neighbor:
You are not to nurse hatred towards your brother.
Reprove your fellow-countryman frankly,
and so you will have no share in his guilt.
Never seek revenge or cherish a grudge towards your
kinsfolk;
You must love your neighbour as yourself.
I am the LORD. (REB)
The LXX of vs 17 495 uses terminology derived from
Greek philosophical tradition: l>.IyxHv and €A.~ybs
("exposure," "conviction," "reproof"). 496 Such fraternal
correction was of obvious importance in school and
education, especially in the Greek philosophical
schools, 497 but it occurs as well in Jewish wisdom, 498 in
Qumran, 499 in rabbinic literature, 500 and in early
Christian literature. Impressive examples of fraternal
correction come from the New Testament itself. 501 In
the final analysis, such correction is identical with
paraenesis itself.
One must realize several important concerns from the
inception:
1. The SM passage has no intention to eliminate
fraternal correction altogether, but to commend its
proper usage. The dramatic and highly ironic manner in
which the matter is presented draws attention to the
dangers connected with the exercise of fraternal
correction. 502 This also involves a necessary confronta-
tion with the readers or hearers, presupposing that
everyone is always and everywhere implicated in its use
and abuse. This presupposition is simply a consequence
of the general human foolishness assumed throughout
the SM. In that way the conclusion is that the abuse of
brotherly correction is the normal thing one expects, and
that the proper use is the exception.
2. Different from the parallel in SP /Luke 6:41-42,
the SM passage concerns fellow Jews ("brothers"), rather
than fellow disciples. 503 One makes this inference from
the context, since all sections in SM/Matt 6: 19-7:11
deal with the larger Jewish society, and only in that
framework with the group of disciples immediately in
focus.
3. The activity to which the SM addresses itself
concerns individuals and involves criticism (critical
discernment and exposure of flaws) as well as correction
(removal of flaws by change of habit or opinion). 504

495 Lev 19:17 LXX: lAEYf-'ii> lA.!ytm rhv TrATJuiov uov, Kat
oil A~f-'l/1!1 a, ' ailrhv b.f-'aprlav. The text is cited
according to John W. Wevers, Leviticus (Septuaginta
11/2; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986).
496 For the usage of the terms, see Friedrich Biichsel,
"lJI..!yxro KTA.," TDNT 2.473-76; BAGD, s.v. lAEyf-'6r
KTA.
497 For the beginnings see descriptions of Socrates'
elenctic method in Plato Soph. 230b-c; Apol. 39c, and
often. See B. Waldenfels, "Elenchus, Elenktik,"
HWPh 2.442-43. For the nature and purpose of
elenctic in the Hellenistic period, see Epictetus Diss.
2.23.33-34; on correction of self and others, Diss.
2.16.44-45; also 1.26.17; 2.1.32-33; 2.14.20;
2.26.4; 3.9.13; 3.IO.ll; 2.14.9; Ench. 33.8-9;
Seneca De ira 1.14.2; 1.15.1-16.7; 2.28.1-8;
Plutarch De tranq. an. 8, 469B; etc. On the topic see
also Hadot, Seneca, 65-66.
498 See esp. Wis 23:22: "So we are chastened by you, but
you scourge our enemies ten thousand times more,
so that we may lay your goodness to heart when we
sit in judgment, and may hope for mercy when we
ourselves are judged" (REB). For other passages see
Chrysostome Larcher, Le livre de la sagesse ou la
Sagesse de Salomon (3 vols.; Paris: Gabalda, 1983-85)
3.736-37; Zeller,Mahnspruche, 113-17.
499 The main texts are I QS 5.25-6.1; CD 9.2-4; 13.9-
10. See Braun, Radikalismus, 2.23-25, 86 n. 4; idem,
Qumran, l.38-40;Joachim Gnilka, "Die Kirche des
Matthaus und die Gemeinde von Qumran," BZ 7
(1963) 43-63; Frankemolle,Jahwebund, 226-4 7.
500 See esp. 'Abot 1.6, a saying by Joshua b. Perai)yah:
"Judge all men in the scale of merit," and Hillel:
"Judge not your fellow man until you have come into
his situation." The point is not equal, but favorable,
judgment, because that is meritorious. For further
references see Str-B 1.441-46; Lachs, Rabbinic
Commentary, 135-38.
501 See esp. Matt 18:15-17//Luke I7:3;John 7:24, 51;
also the story of the woman in 7:53-8:ll; Rom 2:1-
3, 16, 17-29; 14:1-23; I Cor 4:1-5; 5:12-13; 6:1-3;
9:3;Jas 4: ll-12.
502 On this point see also Gal 6: I; and Betz, Galatians,
295-98.
503 Cf. below on SP /Luke 6:41-42.
504 So also Matt 18:15: "Show him his fault while you are
alone with him" (tAEytov ailrhv f-'Eratl.J uov Kat ailrov
f-'Ovov).

488
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

Remarkably, public censure or social criticism of
institutions is not under discussion. 505 If fraternal
criticism is carried out properly, it is part of education.
One of the indispensable conditions for engaging in
fraternal correction properly understood is that it is
preceded by self-criticism and self-correction. Persons
who are unable or unwilling first to recognize and
remove the plank in their own eyes are unqualified and
even dangerous to the persons they may try to correct.
2)Analysis The section "On judging" (7:1-5) is a composition of
sayings in two parts. First, an introductory exhortation
is stated in the second person plural (vss 1-2); and
second, a following argument in the diatribe style is
stated in the second person singular (vss 3-5).
The first part, 506 the introductory exhortation,
begins with a moral maxim, a prohibition against
passing judgment on others (vs 1). To this is added a
double sentence (isocolon) providing a reason (y~p,
"for") for the maxim in vs 1, the relationship being that
of interpretation (interpretatio [vs 2]). 507 Actually, vs 2a
and b present two quasi-legal principles, their terms
being related by way of derivatio (variation of the word
form): 508 Kplvnv, Kpt8iivat, Kplp.a (vss 1 and 2a), and
p.ETpE"iv, p.<Tp1J8iivat, p.lTpov (vs 2b).
The second part appears to be different in nature. A
diatribe-style argument, 509 tightly constructed,
supports the preceding exhortation (vss 3-5). Using
hyperbolic imagery, 510 the SM addresses two questions
to the hearer or reader. The first question (vs 3) forms
an antithetical parallelism (isocolon) with a chiastic
structure; the second question (vs 4) contains an
element of surprise (loo.S, "behold!"). The questions are
designed not to elicit an answer but to disclose
hypocritical behavior. Therefore, the conclusion (vs 5)
bluntly turns on the addressed, calling him "you
hypocrite," in order then to propose a rule for the
proper conduct toward the brother. This rule is stated
positively.
The composition as a whole has a close parallel in
SP/Luke 6:37-42. 511 Therefore, it comes from Q,
albeit from different versions of Q, as indicated by the
variations. Both passages have undergone some
redactional changes at the presynaptic level, 512 so that
one cannot simply take either of the versions to be
identical with the "original" Q. 513 Further parallels in
the New Testament and the extracanonical sources are
evidence that the material in whatever form must have
circulated widely, 514 while only the SM and the SP,
and thus Q, contain the structured arguments before
us. The arguments themselves, however, have parallels
elsewhere in the New Testament, 515 but it is doubtful
that they depend on our texts in the SM or the SP.51 6
One must assume, therefore, that the basic material
circulated orally and emerged in written texts in a
variety of forms. 51 7
3) Interpretation
• 1 The opening exhortation is a prohibition, taking the
form of a maxim: p.~ Kplv£n, Yva p.~ Kpt8fjn ("Do not pass
judgment, in order that judgment not be passed on

505 Cf. John the Baptist and jesus criticizing the royal
house, Luke 3:19; 13:31-33; also john 16:8:Jesus
condemning the world; furthermore jude 15.
506 There is no indication of a connection with the
previous section, but unquestionably SM/Matt 7:1
turns to a different matter. Many proposals have
been made to explain the connection between the
passages. See Tholuck, Bergrede, 438-39 (Com-
mentary, 395-96). Association of ideas suggests that
SM/Matt 6:25-34 is concerned with anxiety about
oneself, 7:1-5 with anxiety about the other. A
catchword connection could be by 7rpwTov "first"
(6:33; 7:5), but all this is uncertain.
507 See Lausberg, Handbuch, 1, § 751.
508 Ibid., 1, § 1058, 1.
509 On this style see above, p. 466.
510 See also Tannehill, Sword ofHis Mouth, 114-18.
511 See below on this passage.
512 So also Strecker, Bergpredigt, 148 (Sermon, 143); Luz,
Matthiius, 1.376 (Matthew, 1.413).
513 Strecker comes to a different conclusion (Bergpredigt,
14 7 [Sermon, 143: "The present version of the
Matthew text may come very close to the original Q
tradition"]).
514 See Mark 4:24-25; Matt 12:37; 1 Clem. 13.2;
Polycarp Phil. 2.3;Justin Dial. 47.5; Codex NT 1424;
P. Oxy. 1.1; Gos. Thom. log. 26. The texts are given in
Aland, Synopsis, 93; Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex II,
2-7, pp. 65 and 118; Straker, Extracanonical Sayings,
134-35; Kloppenborg, QParallels, 32-36.
515 Cf. also Gal6:1; 1 Cor 4:4; 5:12-13; 6:1-8; Rom
2:1-3; 14:1-23;Jas 4:11-12; 5:9; Ps.-Clem. Diam. 2.2.
516 Regarding the section Matt 18:1-20, influence by
the SM is certain. The question is only whether this
influence occurred in the pre-Matthean tradition or
as the result of the evangelist Matthew's redaction.
517 Within the SM, see the Beatitudes in 5:3-12; the self-
definitions in 5:13-16; the antitheses in 5:21-48;
and the rule of6:14-16.

489
you"). In the present context, the prohibition is meant to
function as a maxim, its content being general, not
specific. 518 The principle on which it is based is the
Golden Rule (7: 12). The maxim is, therefore, a rule of
prudence, so that one should avoid taking the second
part exclusively as an eschatological consequence. 519
One should recognize, however, that in other contexts
one could interpret it eschatologically.
The imperative in vs 1a implies the observation that in
ordinary life people are relentlessly preoccupied with
what is prohibited: passing judgment on one another.
This habit involves everything from mere gossip 520 to
community regulations 521 to court actions. 522 The habit
of passing judgment on others also involves a mechanism
of tit for tat. The kind of judgment one passes on others
comes back to the person who started it. Gossipers
become targets of gossip; critics must face being criti-
cized, and so forth. The prudent person, so goes the
advice, will break the vicious cycle by withholding such
judgment because the same mechanism will work in the
reverse direction as well. Restraint will motivate others
to exercise equal restraint.
This reciprocity implies that the verb Kplvuv ("pass
judgment") 523 is taken as negative and destructive
conduct. Thus no demand is made here to stop judges in
court from delivering honest and fair verdicts, or to
advise against professionals evaluating the work of other
professionals. The context clearly implies that Kplvuv
refers to the perpetual human obsession to criticize and
correct the behavior of other people, in particular those
with whom one is closely associated and whom one
regards as "brothers" (vss 3-5).
What is wrong with passing judgment in this manner?
It is true that human conduct inevitably involves taking
the measure of each other; in this way human society
establishes place, rank, affiliation, and rewards. This all-
penetrating activity is the way human individuals identify
themselves and their place in family, group, or society.
This activity is acknowledged by the saying, but it is not
condemned; it is observed as part oflife.
What is criticized, then, is the degeneration of this
process. This happens when a person denigrates another
by harsh and unfair criticism, with a lack of sympathy
and understanding, if not a pathological delight. In
doing so, people put themselves into the role of judges,
working themselves up into a position of "holier than
thou." 5 2 4 Once this habit takes hold, pedantry and self-
righteousness become the norm. Any person indulging
in such conduct becomes an irritant for everyone else.
Self-righteousness, lack of mercy and compassion, and
antisocial destructiveness are attitudes that are
incompatible with the ethics of the SM. 5 2 5
• 2 The double sentence in vs 2 provides a reason for the
maxim of vs 1. There are actually two parallel
statements, the first of which (vs 2a) connects directly·
with the previous sentence: ~v c!J yttp Kplp.an KpLvf.n,
Kpt8~!Tf.u(Jf. ("For with whatever judgment you judge you
will be judged"). The statement is a principle oflaw, an
application of the "law of equal retribution" (ius talionis)
and a reminder to judges. 5 2 6 Two issues are at stake.
First, justice requires that before the law all are equal, so
that even judges must be judged by the same law that

5I8 The question of specificity was soon raised in the 522 See also I Cor 6:I-8 and the exegetical literature on
exegetical tradition; see Luz, Matthiius, I.376-78 this text.
(Matthew, l.414-I5), fbr some interesting examples. 523 See the lexica, esp. Friedrich Biichsel and Volkmar
519 Strecker argues differently (Bergpredigt, I48-49 Herntrich, "Kplvw KTA.," TDNT 3.92I-54.
[Sermon, I43-44]) as does Luz (Matthiius, 1.378-79 524 Typical characters are the Pharisee in Luke I8:9-I4,
[Matthew, l.4I6]); both see the prohibition as or the older brother in Luke I5:25-32.
motivated by the imminent coming of the kingdom 525 See SM/Matt 5:2I-48, the antitheses.
of God. For Strecker, the Yva-sentence in vs I b points 526 On the ius talionis see above on SM/Matt 5:38-42.
to the last judgment.
520 Cf. KaTaXaXilv, Kara)\a)\[a, etc., in Rom I :30; 2 Cor
I2:20;Jas 4:II; I Pet 2:1, I2; 3:I6. For the opposite
seetheadmonitionsinRom I2:9-2I; I3:8; I4:I-
I5:6; Gai5:I3, 26; 6:2; Phil2:3; I Thess 3:I2; 4:9,
I8; 5:II, I5; Eph 4:2, 25, 32; Coi3:I3;Jas 5:9, I6;
etc.
52 I See, e.g., Matt I8:I5-20; Acts 5:I-ll;John 7:53-
8:11; I Cor5:I-I3;Jas4:II-I2.

490
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

they administer. Second, judging others always leads to
some kind of "verdict" (Kplp.a). 5 2 7 One must base this
verdict on standards of justice in order to be just. 5 2 8
Issuing such a verdict, therefore, raises the question of
competence. Who is knowledgeable and authorized to
issue verdicts? This is certainly a difficult question.
Experience tells us that verdicts, once they are issued,
have a tendency of coming back on the one who issued
them. Judges, therefore, must be specially protected
against this mechanism.
Within the context of the SM, a future tense as in
Kpt8~u£u6£ ("you will be judged") also has an
eschatological perspective. 529 This is not automatically
so, but in the SM one is certainly to assume it. Thus the
ius talionis is also applied eschatologically; in this regard
one finds the next parallels in the Beatitudes (5:5, 7, 9,
especially).
Verse 2b adds another rule, further interpreting the
preceding one. Any verdict, in order to be rendered,
must be based on the standards of justice: Kat tv ciJ p.€Tpl{)
JJ.€Tp€LU JJ.€Tp7]6~U£Tal vp.l.v 530 ("and with whatever
measure you measure it will be measured to you"). This
principle involves a number of issues. It is a definition of
justice that defines it as reciprocity. The rule is general,
but one can apply it concretely. As such, it is a rule of
business stipulating that the same instruments for
measuring (To p.€Tpov) must be used for all business
transactions. 531 Hence justice requires the stan-
dardization of measures and weights.
In the present context, "the measure" refers to ethical
standards. 532 Consequently, whatever the measure is by
which we evaluate others, justice demands that we must
be judged by the same yardstick. Eschatologically
speaking, in the last judgment God will do the same
thing. 533 This doctrine is also known as divine
"impartiality." 534 Moreover, because we know that the
principle states God's standard, we should also adopt it.
That is, if God's generosity and mercy are his yardstick,
by which he measures us, we are as human beings under
obligation, and we are also advised in the name of
prudence, to do the same. 53 5
The question of the right measure was discussed
widely in Greek ethics as well, but the SM does not
explicitly consider 536 the topic of p.hpov llptuTov ("the
best measure") 537 or the homo-mensura ("the human
being is the measure") principle. 538

527 The term Kpip.a ("verdict") is used here in a general
sense; see BAGD, s.v. Kpip.a, 6.
528 For the connection between verdict and justice see
also 1 Clem. 12.1-3.
529 Cf. the future tenses in SM/Matt 5:5, 6, 7, 9, 25, 29;
6:7, 9, 10, 33; 7:1, 2, 7, 19. Cf. also Str-B 1.443.
530 0 0233 j1 3 alit vgci Ath Cyr read cwnp.£TP~•urat
("will be measured in return"), a secondary clari-
fication that is perhaps based on the parallel in
SP /Luke 6:38; cf. Polycarp Phil. 2.3.
531 On this aspect see B. Couroyer, "De Ia mesure dont
vous mesurez il vous sera mesure," RB 77 (1970)
366-70 (with interesting parallels). Accordingly, the
point is precision: a stick (uKvTa)\:'1) was used to make
sure the grain-measure vessel was neither over-
flowing nor partly empty. If so, vs 2b would say the
opposite of SP /Luke 6:38.
532 This understanding had been traditional in judaism
since the OT. Hans Peter Ruger ("Mit welchem MaB
ihr meBt, wird euch gemessen werden," ZNW 69
[1960)174-82) presents the evidence for the jewish
dictum, "With what measure a man measures it will
be measured to him" (m. Sofa 1.7). The underlying
principle is clearly the ius talionis (law of retribution).
See also Str-B 1.444-46; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary,
136-37.
533 Ruger ("Mit welchem MaB," 177, 182) has tried to
show that the eschatological interpretation preceded
rabbinic theology in the Targums. Against this
assumption see Peter Kuhn, Oifenbarungsstimmen im
antiken judentum: Untersuchungen zur Bat Qol und
verwandten Phiinomenen (TSAJ 20; Tubingen: Mohr
[Siebeck), 1989) 224 n. 72.
534 See Mark 12:14 par.; Acts 10:34; Gal 2:6; Rom 2:11;
Col 3:25; Eph 6:9; Jas 2:1, 9; 1 Pet 1:17. See also
Betz, Galatians, 94-95.
535 Engelbert Neuhausler ("Mit welchem MaBstab miBt
Gott die Menschen? Deutung zweier Jesusspruche,"
Bibel und Leben 11 [1970)104-13) points out that
passages like Mark 4:24; Luke 6:38: 1 Clem. 13.2;
and Polycarp Phil. 2.3 emphasize the abundance of
the divine gift as the standard.
536 See Kurt Deissner, "p.f.Tpov KTA.," TDNT 4.632-34;
Wilhelm Pesch, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s. v. p.f.Tpov; and
BAGD, s.v. p.f.Tpov.
537 See H. Ottmann, "MaB," HWPh 5.807-11, with
references and bibliography.
538 See Protagoras frg. 1 (Diels-Kranz, 80 B 1 [II, 263));
Plato Theaet. 151e; 152a; Leg. 4, 716c; Prot. 343b;
Charmides 164d. See Guthrie, History of Greek Philoso-
phy, 3.181-92.

491
• 3 The argument in vss 3-5 reveals that the exhortations
ofvss 1-2 do not stand alone but that they are part of the
overarching ethical theme of the criticism of oneself and
others.
The argument begins with two observations of actual
practice: the pedantry characteristic of the criticism of
others, and the concurrent generosity toward oneself in
forgetting about self-criticism. The stark discrepancy
between these two issues is brought out by the question
confronting the hearers or readers: Tl a( {3A.€-rrus To
Kapcpos TO lv Tij> ocp6aA.p.fi> TOV Cta€A.cpov uov, T~V a( lv Tij> uii>
ocp6all.p.(i> aoKOV oil KaTaVO€t<;;5 39 ("Why is it that you see
the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye, but you do
not recognize the plank that is in your [own] eye?"). The
speck refers to a tiny chip of wood or straw (Kcipcpos), 540
whereas the "plank" (aoKOs) has in mind a large object,
larger than the eye itself. 541 This terminology is
interesting because it operates on two levels. On the
surface, these are strangely exaggerated images. The
other, deeper level has to do with the functioning of the
eye. According to ancient views, looking into someone
else's eyes was considered (it still is!) an important
method for discovering who the other person is. Such
eye contact establishes the beginnings of a relationship
between persons. 54 2 At the same time another person's
eyes were believed to contain mirror images of the
beholder. 543
Therefore, then as now people friendly with each
other communicate by looking into their eyes,
exchanging nonverbal messages followed up by actions;
all this is in confirmation of their relationship of trust.
539 The change in word order in M* 0233 pc harmonizes
the text with the parallel in SP/Luke 6:41.
540 The term occurs only in SM/Matt 7:3-5//SP /Luke 548 See above on SM/Matt 5:8, 28, 29, 38; 6:22-23, 26,
6:41-42;P. Oxy. 1.1. See BAGD, s.v. K6.pcfw~.
541 The term occurs only in the passages named in n.
540.
542 For love relationships see SM/Matt 5:28; further-
more, Luke 4:20; 22:56; Acts 3:4, 12; 6:15; 10:4;
11:6; 13:9; 14:9; 23:1; etc.
543 The ideas are also found inJas 1:22-25; cf. also
above on SM/Matt 6:22-23.
544 See below on SP /Luke 6:41-42.
545 See above on SM/Matt 5:22-24, 47.
546 For this term see also SM/Matt 5:28; it is used of
God in 6:4, 6, 18; cf. 7:5: ata{3Af'7mV; 6:26: £p.{3Af'TrfLV.
54 7 The term KaTavoflv is almost technical in connection
with self-cognition; see, e.g., Acts 11 :6; Rom 4: 19;
492
The same method, however, serves to criticize the other.
Whatever flaws a person may have, their degree of
severity is revealed by a look into the eyes. The speck
and the plank are therefore images indicating presumed
flaws of character and behavior. Human nature, being
what it is, tends to exaggerate the flaws of others and to
overlook one's own flaws. This is true especially among
relatives and friends.
The term aa£A.cp&s ("brother") stood already in Q, but
the SM and the SP differ in interpretation. In the SP,
"brother" refers to the fellow student as insider, 544
whereas in the SM the term identifies the fellow-Jew who
is an outsider of the group of disciples. 545 The verbs are
also telling: criticizing the other takes a mere look from
the outside ({3A.€-rruv), 546 while perceiving one's own
flaws requires deeper self-recognition (KaTavo£"i'v). 54 7
This passage is, therefore, another instance confirming
the importance of vision for the SM. 548
The person who is unable or unwilling to see his or her
flaws lacks self-criticism and is, for this reason, declared
incompetent to criticize another. The form of question
confronts the hearer or reader inescapably with the
discrepancy between claim and reality; it requires no
answer but the consent that things are regrettably so.
• 4 From criticism (vs 3) the SM turns to correction (vs 4):
~ 'TrW<; €p€t<; Tij> aa€A.cpfi> uov· li.cp€<; fK{3aA.w TO Kcipcpo<; fK TOV
ocp6aA.p.ov uov, Ka~ laov .q aoKO<; lv Tij> ocp6aA.p.fi> uov; 549
("And how is it that you can say to your brother, 'Let me
take the speck of sawdust out of your eye,' but look!-
the plank is in your eye?"). We recognize the dramatic
climax in the scene that is emerging before our eyes.
Heb 3:1; 10:34;Jas 1:23-24. In the SM it occurs only
in 7:3/ /SP/Luke 6:41-42; P. Oxy. 1.1.
38.
549 M* 8 0233. 700 !at mae read A.€ym instead of lpfl~,
both meaning "you say"; it is probably a harmoni-
zation with SP /Luke 6:42. For the same reason, M
vgmss (sam•) insert O.afA.cp€ ("brother"). The preposition
awJ instead of fK, both meaning "from," is preferred
by W 8 1006. 1342 (E G ~ 346. 565. 579. 700) :ut,
perhaps for stylistic reasons or because of the
assumption that the speck is located on the surface of
the eye, not in the interior of the organ.
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

The person in focus now steps up to the brother,
addressing him directly while moving into action. The
word "Let me" (&cpH) 550 seems to anticipate a self-
protecting gesture so as to keep off the all-too eager
helper. Then the dialogue ends abruptly: "but look!"
The exclamation turns the attention to the eye of the
helper, and to the large plank in it. The point made is
analogous to vs 3. There is this absurd discrepancy
between the readiness to correct the other's minor flaws
and the failure to perceive one's own major failures.
• 5 The direct address draws the conclusion and spells out
what vss 3-4 had already suggested: V7TOKpm'z, ~K{jaA.f.
7TpWTOV fK TOV ocp8aA.p.ov ITOV T~V SoKov, KaL TOTf. Sta{jA.b/ms
~K(jaA.e'iv TO Kapcpos ~K TOV ocp8aA.p.ov TOV aaf.A.cpov uov 551
("You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye,
and then you will see clearly [enough] to take the speck
out of your brother's eye").
The address "you hypocrite" 552 catches the readers by
surprise and tells them rather bluntly that being a
disciple of jesus does not make one any different from
other people. Also the disciple of Jesus is obsessed with
criticizing and correcting others while failing in one's
own self-criticism and correction. The correct procedure
is then finally stated as a rule: first comes the removal of
the plank from one's own eye, which can be done if self-
criticism has prepared the ground. Only then is one able
to "see clearly" (Sta{jA.£7Tf.tv) 553 and thus to evaluate and
correct others properly.
Returning to the beginning of the argument, the rule
implies that judging others is not as such a bad thing, but
to do it rightly one must keep the proper procedures in
mind. This requirement is indispensable because on it
rests justice and fairness. All of the argument is based on
the Golden Rule, and because of this criticism and
correction of others it can be recommended as prudence.
f. On Profaning the Holy (7:6)
6 "Do not give what is holy to the dogs, or
throw your pearls before the pigs, so that
they will not trample on them with their
feet, and turn around and tear you apart."
Bibliography
Jan Hjarpe, "'Parlor at svin.' Ett 'Jesusord' i arabisk
tradition," SEA 36 (1972) 126-35.
Joachim Jeremias, "Matthaus 7,6a," in his Abba, 83-87.
Hermann von Lips, "Schweine fiittert man, Hunde
nicht-ein Versuch, das Ratsel von Matthaus 7,6
zu losen," ZNW 79 (1988) 165-86.
P. G. Maxwell-Steward, "'Do not give what is holy to
the dogs' (Mt 7:6)," ExpT 90 (1978/79) 341.
Felix Perles, "Zur Erklarung von Mt 7:6," ZNW 25
(1926) 163-64.
Gunther Schwarz, "Matthaus vii 6a: Emendation und
Riickiibersetzung," NovT 14 (1972) 18-25.
Zeller,Mahnspruche, 137-39.
1) Introduction
The saying in 7:6 has always been known for its
obscurity. The first question, therefore, should be
whether this obscurity is intended or unintended. If it is
unintended, those scholars could be right who assume
that a meaning that once was clear became obscured by
misunderstanding or mistranslating. 554 Following many

550 On the usage of the imperative of l:up{1Jp.• see BDF §
364, 1-2; BDR § 364, 1-2.
551 L W 8 jl· 13 33. 892. 1006. 1342 1506 9Jllatt change
the word order to the same in SP /Luke 6:42 and P.
Oxy. 1.1. The Nestle-Aland text is supported by M B
cv;d; being less elegant, it is to be preferred, but the
other word order may be that of Q.
552 The term is applied here to the insiders; cf. SM/Matt
6:2, 5, 16, where it refers to outsiders. The dif-
ference points to different sources. Since SP/Luke
6:42 has it also, this usage must go back to Q, while
SM/Matt 6:1-18 with its different usage was not in
Q.
553 Apart from our passage and its parallels in SP /Luke
6:42 and P. Oxy. 1.1, li•a{3)oirmv occurs also in Mark
8:25, the Healing of the Blind Man at Bethsaida. The
term may be technical as in Greek philosophy since
Plato, often used in connection with vision theories.
See LSJ, s.v.; BAGD, s.v.; PGL, s.v. li•a{31l.f.11w (with
reference to Origen In Matth. 11.14, p. 58, 6; PG
13.949B).
554 According to Tholuck (Bergrede, 449 [Commentary,
405]), the theories about false translation begin with
Johann David Michaelis, Einleitung in die gottlichen
Schriften des Neuen Bundes (4th ed.; 2 vols.; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1788) 1.149. In fact,
Johann Adrian Bolten (Der Bericht des Matthiius von
jesu dem Messia [Altona: Kaven, I 792]119-20) was
the first who took TO i:f.y1ov ("the holy") to be a false
rendering of Mlf'"Jj?, meaning "amulet," specifically
"earring." Bolten was followed by Eichhorn, Bertold,
Kuinol, and Tholuck, the last referring also to the
much-debated passages Isa 3:20 and Prov 11:22. See
Felix Perles, "Zur Erklarung von Mt 7:6," ZNW 25

493
predecessorsJoachimJeremias 555 and Gunther Schwarz
recently affirmed this latter view. 556 The strange fact is,
however, that in the history of interpretation the saying
was always thought to be applicable, that is, those who
thought they knew what the images and metaphors refer
to took the saying to be clear. 557 In the light of this
history of interpretation, the attempts at "retranslation"
into Aramaic and thus "recovery" of the original
meaning appear artificial. These attempts do away with
the Greek text as preserved and "reconstruct" a
hypothetical Aramaic source that reveals banalities.
By contrast, Strecker 558 recognizes the original
obscurity of the saying. According to him, Matthew
found the saying in his Q-material (QMatt) or as an
isolated saying; he gave it some sense by making it the
conclusion of the section vss 1-5. Strecker is unable to
explain, however, what this statement would add to the
rather straightforward argument in vss 1-5. Saying it is
"drastic" is not an explanation of the meaning. There is
no indication that vs 6 speaks of excommunication or
church discipline. Strecker's interpretation is apparently
also influenced by the later church fathers. The fact
remains that vs 6 has little connection with vss 1-5.
Luz holds the opposite view. Unable to discover any
presynaptic meaning of the saying of vs 6, he also
despairs of finding out what Matthew may have made of
it. Remarkably, Luz states: "I am taking the liberty of not
interpreting the logion in the Matthean context.
Matthew was a conservative author; he toqk this logion
over because of his loyalty to the tradition simply because
he found it in his copy of Q."559
In my view, the position of the saying in the history of
transmission speaks in favor of having been part of the
pre-Matthean SM. 560 In this context, the sentence had a
meaning, which Matthew himself may or may not have
understood; he took it over together with the rest of the
SM. Since he never refers to the saying again in his
Gospel, it may have been as mysterious to him as it is to
us. What are the alternatives? It is conceivable that the
saying refers obliquely to the SM itself, admonishing the
hearers or readers to keep the document secret. By
publishing his Gospel, however, the evangelist made the
SM public together with the saying, perhaps because by
the time of Matthew the reasons for the secrecy had
disappeared.
As these positions indicate, there is at present no
consensus about the original text, the original meaning,
the source, and the origins of the later interpretations
given to the saying. Rather than taking refuge in a
nonattested Aramaic primary source (Urtext) or giving up
interpretation altogether, I make a cautious attempt in
the following to determine its meaning. First I must state
some methodological presuppositions.
1. Since only the Greek text is extant, the Greek text

(1 926) 163-64; Arnold Meyer,jesu Muttersprache addressed by the SM.

(Freiburg and Leipzig: Mohr [Siebeck), 1896) 80-81,
108: Black, Approach, 200-202.
555 Joachim Jeremias ("Matthaus 7, 6a," in his Abba, 83-
87) thinks the original Aramaic was KW"lj' meaning
the "nose ring" and arrives at the translation: "Do not
put nose rings on the dogs, nor hang your pearls on
the snouts of pigs" (my trans.). The sentence would
intentionally use absurdities such as Prov 11:22
(NRSV): "Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a
beautiful woman without sense." The meaning of
SM/Matt 7:6, however, remains obscure, while Prov
11:22 is clear.
556 Gunther Schwarz, "Matthaus vii 6a: Emendation und
Ruckubersetzung," NovT 14 (1 972) 18-25; idem,
"Und jesus sprach," 236-44. Intending to improve on
Jeremias, he arrives at this translation (244): "Your
earrings, don't put them on dogs, and your neck-
laces, don't hang them on pigs." What does Schwarz
think the saying means? It is supposed to be advice
given to women disciples about what not to do with
their jewelry. Women disciples, however, are never
557 For references regarding the history of inter-
pretation, see Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 301 n. 49;
Luz, Matthiius, 1.382 (Matthew, 1.41 9-20).
558 Strecker (Bergpredigt, 151-53 [Sermon, 146-48))
mostly follows Bengel, Gnomon, ad Joe.
559 Luz, Matthiius, 1.382 (Matthew, 1.419), according to
my trans. Andreas Lindemann ("Erwagungen zum
Problem einer 'Theologie der synoptischen Evan-
gelien,"' ZNW 77 [1 986)1-33, 25 n. 97) points out
that Luz's handling of the passage is inconsistent with
his own hypothesis that Matthew composed the SM.
560 Luz (Matthiius, 1.381 [Matthew, 1.41 9)) also assumes a
Jewish-Christian origin of the saying.

494
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

must be the basis of the interpretation, and not a
hypothetical Aramaic source, which, if it ever existed,
has disappeared without a trace.
2. The present context suggests that vss 6-11 are
connected by terms for "giving" (olowp.L). The connection
with vss 1-5 may also be by catchword (cf. £K{3aA.A.w, 7:4,
5; {3aAA.w, 7:6).
3. The literary genre ofvs 6 may be related to the
riddle, but riddles are or imply questions to be figured
out. 561 Its purpose is to let the hearer or reader guess
what the meaning is. 56 2 More likely, vs 6 is an esoteric
saying that the uninformed will never be able to figure
out. Finding the explanation is not a matter of natural
intelligence but of initiation into secrets. The decision
which option is before us depends on the context as well
as on the content. Both context and content suggest that
the saying conveys something serious; it is not one of the
playful riddles that occur in wisdom literature, usually in
the company of other such sayings. That vs 6 is isolated
and that its content involves some "sacred.object" (ro
liyLov) speaks in favor of some message of importance. 563
4. The cryptic phrases "giving away the holy" or
"throwing away the pearls" presuppose that those to
whom the saying was first addressed knew what these
terms meant. In other words, we are dealing with some
kind of secret (arcanum). Indeed, the language reminds
us of arcane teaching (Arkandisziplin) as it was used in the
Greek mystery religions and in philosophy. 564 As
Christoph Riedweg 565 has pointed out, mystery-cult
language used metaphorically had invaded judaism by
the time of the New Testament; in particular Philo of
Alexandria employed it to justify his allegorical
interpretations of the Bible. 566 Philo also alluded to the
oath that the initiates of the mysteries had to swear to
protect the sacred tradition by not revealing its myths,
formulae, rituals, and symbols to uninitiated outsiders.
Similarly, the Greek Magical Papyri contain numerous
exhortations to keep the magic secret. 56 7
Heinrici called attention long ago to the practice of
some philosophers not to reveal their teaching to
uneducated and unappreciative outsiders. He mentions
the anecdote about Bias, 568 the rule attributed to
Heracleitus, 569 and the Pythagoreans, concerning whom
sayings collections contain several sayings similar to Matt

561 See Harry Torczyner, "The Riddle in the Bible,"
HUCA 1 (1924) 125-49;James L. Crenshaw,
"Riddles," ABD 5.721-23; Lausberg, Elemente, 140
(§ 423).
562 See, e.g., Job 38:3-4; T.job 37-38 (OTP 1.857-58).
563 This point would be even clearer if the original pro-
verbial expression meant "something valuable"
instead of something "holy." P. G. Maxwell-Stewart
("'Do not give what is holy to the dogs' [Mt 7 :6],"
ExpT 90 [1978/79] 341) refers to a warning to
youths about sycophants in Philostratus Vita Apoll.
6.36: "nay you are forced to shower your wealth
upon them and cast your gold before them, as you
scatter tit-bits before dogs" (a;>,.A' i1ravrl\iiv XP~ rwv
8vrwv, "at 7rpo{36.AAELv aVro'ts rO XPVulov, CiJu7Tf.P rlt
JJ.fiALyp.ara ro!~ KV<n). Text and trans. are cited
according to the LCL edition, Philostratus: The Life of
Apollonius ofTyana (trans. F. C. Conybeare; London:
Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University,
1912) 2.126-27.
564 See Othmar Perler, "Arkandisziplin," RAG 1 (1950)
667-76; Douglass Powell, "Arkandisziplin," TRE 4
(1979) 1-8.
565 Christoph Riedweg, Mysterienterminologie bei Platon,
Phi/on und Klemens von Alexandrien (UaLG 26; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1987) 80-85.
566 See, esp. Philo Cher. 48; Sacr. AC 60; Leg. all. 2.57;
Sobr. 6; Mut. nom. 44; furthermore Apuleius Apologia
53-56.
567 See PGM IV.733-50; IV.2512; XII.322; XII!: 763;
for further passages and discussion see Betz, Hel-
lenismus und Urchristentum, 180-81.
568 Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1905), 82-83, refers to Diog.
L. 1.86: "When an impious man asked him to define
piety, he was silent; and when the other inquired the
reason, 'I am silent,' he replied, 'because you are
asking questions about what does not concern you'"
(fpwr7J8E'r.s V1rh G.uE{3oVs U.v8pC:nrov rl7Torf furtv
d.)(ri{3oa, f:ulya. roV 0~ r1}v alrlav rijs utyijs 7Tv8op.£vov,
"o-Lw?TW," f</>7], "C1rt 7TEp'i. rWv oVOfv uo1. 7rpOU1JK0vrwv
?rvvlld.vy"). Text and trans. according to the LCL
edition, Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers
(trans. R. D. Hicks; reprinted London: Heinemann;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1966) 1.88-
89.
569 According to Plutarch Corio/. 38.4: "But most of the
Deity's Powers, as Heracleitus says, 'escape our
knowledge through incredulity'"(al\l\a rwv p.ev ll•iwv
ra 7rOAAJ., Kali' 'HpJ.KAftTOV, a?r<urLyo<acf>VyyJ.vfl p.~
y<yvwuK£ulla<). The citation is according to Diels-
Kranz, 22 B 86 [116] (I, 170, lines 5-6); the trans. is
that of Bernadotte Perrin, Plutarch's Lives (LCL;
London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University, 1959)4.214-15.

495
7:6. 570 The recent debate about esoteric teachings of
Plato and his lecture "On the Good" merit mention as
well. 571
Heinrici also connects Matt 7:6 with proverbial
expressions, so-called absurdities (absurda), such as Prov
11:22, Phaedrus's fable about the chicken and the pearl
(Fab. 3.12), or short oxymorons like lfvos "Avpas (aKpoaT~s)
("Ass listener of the lyra"). 57 2 If the SM and its saying in
7:6 stand in this tradition in any way, it would mean that
the SM refers to arcane teachings (arcana). What
conclusions can one draw from this hypothesis?
Does the term TO Cl.ytov ("the holy") refer to a specific
matter or a collective one? If something specific, the
"holy" could be a ritual, while the "pearls" could refer to
a collection of sayings. If collective, the terms could refer
to the same things. Although one cannot reach a firm
conclusion, it is more likely that the terms have specific
things in mind. If so, "the holy" could be the Eucharist,
while "the pearls" are teachings. This possibility could
explain why no sacrament is mentioned in the SM, and
also how the SM was relating itself to teaching materials
other than itself. Since it is a manual for disciples,
however, vs 6 could well be self-referential, reminding
the hearers and readers to keep the SM away from the
uninitiated crowds. Then "the holy" could refer to the
teaching of jesus as a whole, while "the pearls" would
refer to the string of sayings contained in the SM.
Originally, then, the SM was meant to be insiders'
literature, not to be divulged to the uninitiated
outsiders. 573 But one should remember that these are
possibilities, nomore. ·
2) Analysis The cryptic sentence is formulated as a parallelism of
two lines (isocolon); this pertains at least to the first half
of the sentence (vs 6a). The two imperatives are stated
negatively as prohibitions in the second person plural.
Verse 6b is a statement of purpose, the purpose being
preventive. The verbs describe the behavior of the
animals, using chiasm. The first verb refers to the pigs

570 According to Aristotle frg. 192: I"~ £iva• wpor wc:l.vrar
wc:I.VTa p1Jrc:l. ("Not all things are to be told to all
people"). Cf. also Iamblichus Vita Pyth. 31; Diog. L.
8.15; Sextus Sent. 350-54: "Do not talk about God
with everyone. It is not safe for those corrupted by
fame to hear about God. To speak even the truth
about God involves no small risk. Say nothing about
God which you have not learned from God. Say
nothing about God to the godless" (trans. Richard A.
Edwards and Robert A. Wild, The Sentences ofSextus
[SBLTT 22; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1981] 59). Cf.
also Heinrich Schenkl, "Pythagoreerspnlche in einer
Wiener Handschrift," WS 8 (1986) 262-81, esp. 272
no. 55.
Another saying uses absurdity to make the point:
a'ITlov £lr lz,.l~a I"~ ll"fJc:l.>o.>o.nv, which Plutarch inter-
prets in this way (Lib. educ. 1 7, p. 12F, trans. Frank
C. Babbitt, LCL edition of Plutarch's Moralia
[London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University, 1927]1.61): "'Do not put food into a
slop-pail' signifies that it is not fitting to put clever
speech into a base mind. For speech is the food of
thought, and baseness in men makes it unclean."
Ibid., 12E: "'Do not give your hand to everybody,'
instead of, 'Do not make friends too easily.'" On the
Pythagoreans see Walter Burkert, Lore and Science in
Ancient Pythagoreanism (trans. Edwin L. Minar;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1972) 178-
79,219-20,454-55.
571 See Konrad Gaiser, Platons ungeschriebene Lehre (2d
ed.; Stuttgart: Klett, 1968); for a survey of the debate
see Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, 5.418-42. See
also Thomas A. Szlesak, Platon und die Schriftlichkeit
der Philosophie: Interpretationen zu den frahen und
mittleren Dialogen (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter,
1985).
572 Heinrici calls attention to collections of proverbs. See
Ernst L. Leutsch and Friedrich W. Schneidewin,
Cwpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum (3 vols.;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1839, 1851,
1887) index, s.v. K-Doov,llr; Hans Walther, Proverbia
sententiaeque latinitatis medii aevi; Lateinische Sprich-
worter und Sentenzen des Mittelalters in alphabetischer
Anordnung (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
·1963-67) 1.262-63, s.v. canis; 5.230-32, s.v. sus.
573 Remarkably, Elchasai used the same language
(according to Hippolytus Ref. 9.17.1): "Inasmuch as
he considers that it would be an insult to reason that
these great and ineffable mysteries should be
trampled under foot or that they should be handed
down to many, he advises that they should be
preserved as valuable pearls saying this: Do not read
this word to all men and guard carefully these
precepts because all men are not faithful nor are all
women straightforward." Text and trans. are cited
according to A. F.J. Klijn and G.J. Reinink, Patristic
Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (NovTSup 36;
Leiden: Brill, 1973) 120-21; cf. also NTApoc 2. 7'50;
NTApok 2.623. Epiphanius (Adv. haer. 19.4.3)
transmits a secret saying by Elchasai that turns out to
be an Aramaic palindrome transcribed into Greek;
the translation that Epiphanius (19.4.4) provides,

496

("trampling down"), and the two following verbs ("turn
around and tear up") focus on what the dogs are doing.
The objects are also different: "them" and "you." Verse
6b narrates some sort of story, but what the story is
about remains obscure.
The saying is found only in the SM. No parallels
occur elsewhere in the New Testament, but Did. 9.5
cites. the first part as applying to the exclusion of
people not baptized from the celebration of the
Eucharist (cf. also Did. I 0:6):
Let no one eat or drink from your eucharistic meal,
but (only) those who were baptized in the name of
the Lord; and about this matter the Lord said, "Do
not give the holy to the dogs."
I-'7JIJftS /Jt </Jaytrw 1-'"1//Jt 1TtlTW a1rl> rijs evxaptur{as
Vp.Wv, &A.A.' or {3a7TTI.cr6fvr£~ c:ls- 8vop.a Kvplov· Ka't 7TEp't
roVrov ErP7lK£V 0 K{,pLOS'" M~ arorE rh Hytov TOLS' KVuL
Whether the Didache here reveals the original meaning
of the saying or a secondary interpretation is
uncertain; both possibilities are conceivable. 57 4
Strecker 5 7 5 has called attention to the peculiar
interpretation of Matt 7:6 in the Pseudo-Clementine
Recognitions. In Rec. 2.3, Peter, after inquiring about
the heretic Simon, cautions against circulating the
doctrine among the unworthy:
For if we have it in charge, that when we enter into
a city we should first learn who in it is worthy, 576
that we may eat with him, how much is it proper for
us to ascertain who or what sort of man he is to
whom the words of immortality are to be
committed! For we ought to be careful, that we cast
not our pearls before swine. 5 77
however, is unrelated to it and may simply be
another saying. See Klijn and Reinink, Patristic
Evidence, 158-59; NTApoc 2. 750; NTApok 2.623;
Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation of Elchasai
(TSAJ 8; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1985) 50-51,
124-25. Cf. also the Mandaean Ginza R. VII (ed.
Mark Lidzbarski, p. 230, line 30): "The words of the 578 Ps.-Ciem. Rec. 3.1.2-3: "Nihil est difficilius, fratres
wise to the foolish are as pearls to a sow." The trans.
is according to Bultmann, History, I 03 n. 2.
574 Massaux (Influence, 618) and Kohler (Rezeption, 36-
3 7) argue differently.
575 Strecker, Bergpredigt, 152 (Sermon, 147).
576 Cf. also the importance of "worthiness" for the
transmission of the secret writings of Peter (Keryg-
mata Petrou) inPs.-Clem. Ep. Petri 1.2; 3.1; Diam. 2.2;
3.4; Hom. 3.19.1; see Strecker's index, s.v. iff•os; also
idem, judenchristentum, 140-41. Cf. also the situation
of the mission as presupposed in Matt I 0: II; another
parallel is perhaps Gal2:ll-l4.
577 Ps.-Clem. Rec. 2.3.4-5: "nam si in mandatis habemus,
ut venientes ad civitatem discamus prius, quis in ea
dignus sit ut apud eum cibum sumamus, quanta
Matthew 6:19-7:12
In a similar context Peter deals with Simon and his ilk
inRec. 3.1.2:
Nothing is more difficult, my brethren, than to
reason concerning the truth in the presence of a
mixed multitude of people. For that which is may
not be spoken to all as it is, on account of those who
hear wickedly and treacherously; yet it is not
proper to deceive, on account of those who desire
to hear the truth sincerely. 57 B
Thinking of Simon Magus, a code name for the apostle
Paul throughout the Pseudo-Clementines, Peter then
develops an interesting policy for the Christian
teacher:
How, then, shall he instruct those who are worthy?
But if he set forth pure truth to those who do not
desire to obtain salvation, he does injury to Him by
whom he has been sent, and from whom he has
received commandment not to throw pearls of His
words before swine and dogs, who, striving against
them with arguments and sophisms, roll them in
the mud of carnal understanding, and by their
barkings and base answers break and weary the
preachers of God's word. Wherefore I also, for the
most part, by using a certain circumlocution,
endeavor to avoid publishing the chief knowledge
concerning the Supreme Divinity to unworthy
ears. 579
magis qualisve sit is cui inmortalitatis verba credenda
sunt! solliciti enim et val de solliciti de bemus, ne
margaritas nostras mittamus ante porcos." The trans.
given in the text above is by Thomas Smith, ed. M. B.
Riddle, Ante-Nicene Fathers 8 (1886; reprinted
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951) 97-98.
mei, quam de veritate apud permixti populi
multitudinem disputare. quod enim est, omnibus ut
est dici non licet propter eos qui maligne et insidiose
audiunt; fallere vera non expedit propter eos qui
sincere audire desiderant veritatem." Trans.
according to Smith, Ante-Nicene Fathers, 8.117.
579 Ps.-Ciem. Rec. 3.1.4-7: "quid ergo faciet cui ad
indiscretum populum sermo est? occultet quod
verum est? et quomodo instruit eos qui digni sunt?
sed si meram proferat veritatem his qui salutem
consequi non desiderant, illi a quo missus est
iniuriam facit, a quo et mandatum accepit, ne mittat
verborum eius margaritas ante porcos at cones, qui
adversum eas argumentis ac sofismatibus reluctantes,
ipsas quidem caeno intelligentiae carnalis involvant,
497
 It is remarkable that the Pseudo-Clementines, which
contain traditions and sources closely related to the
SM, which is often cited, assume without question that
SM/Matt 7:6 refers to withholding the main parts of
the Christian doctrine from unworthy outsiders. These
outsiders are represented by Simon Magus, that is, the
apostle Paul and his theological allies. If one takes this
interpretation together with the anti-Pauline stance in
the SM, it is conceivable that the Pseudo-Clementines
have preserved the original meaning of the saying in
the SM. Thereby, the "pearls" would point to the
string of precious sayings of Jesus contained in the SM;
"the holy" could refer to some sacred ritual, perhaps
the Eucharist, or Jesus' teaching as a whole. Since the
SM has no indication of rituals such as the Eucharist, a
cryptic reference to Jesus' teaching as a whole may be
more likely, but then one must raise other questions. If
the SM is a students' manual, one must assume that
there are matters important to the community that are
not treated in such a brief expose. In particular, if
rituals like baptism or Eucharist were regarded as
secret, the community would do well not to mention
them in a students' manual. Furthermore, taking "the
holy" to refer to Jesus' teaching as a whole implies that
the SM actually holds such a view, but there is no
evidence that there was a concept of Jesus' teaching as
a whole.
In this situation of uncertainty, all that one can say
is that "the holy" may indeed indicate that sacred
rituals or one such ritual were regarded as constituting
something arcane by the SM; the reference therefore
points to something outside the text. The "pearls" most
probably refer to the sayings ofJesus inside the SM,
that is, to the SM itself. This probability would imply
that at its earliest stage the SM was regarded as inside
information only.
A close parallel to our saying is found also in the
latratibus autem suis et responsionibus sordidis
rumpant et fatigent praedicatores verbi dei. propter
quod et ego in plurimis circuitu quodam verbi utens
temperare nitebar, ne principalem de summa
divinitate intelligentiam minus dignis auribus
publicarem." The trans. is according to Smith, Ante-
Nicene Fathers, 8.117; see also Strecker,juden-
christentum, 50.
580 Cited according to Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 396.
581 Cf. Strecker, Bergpredigt, 151 (Sermon, 147).
582 For further parallels see Menard, Thomas, 194-95.
583 According to Epiphanius Pan. 24.5.2. For the text
see Aland, Synopsis, 93; the trans. is mine. For the
relationship with Matthew see Kohler, Rezeption,
373-74, with whom I disagree, however, when he
assumes that Basilides quotes Matthew's Gospel
directly; one should not overlook that pigs and dogs
498
Coptic Cos. Thom. log. 93, 580 but the text is
unfortunately damaged:
Uesus said], "Do not give holy things to dogs, lest
they throw them upon the dunghill. Do not throw
pearls to the swine lest they [ ... ]. "
Because of the difference between Cos. Thom. log. 93
and the SM it is not possible to decide whether these
texts depend on each other directly. 5 81 The Gospel of
Thomas gives no further application to the saying, 58 2
but other gnostic sources indicate how popular the
saying must have been among them. The Alexandrian
gnostic Basilides (c. 130-140 CE) used it in his gospel:
"We, he [sc. Basilides] said, are the human beings, but
all the others are pigs and dogs. And because of this he
[sc. Jesus] said, 'Do not throw the pearls before the
pigs, nor give the holy to the dogs'" (~1'-•lr, cfJ7Juiv, o!
ll.v8pw7TOt, oi a€ CiAAor. w&.VTES VEs Kat KVvf.';. Oth. ToVro
<t,-<v· !'-~ {3aA1JT< rol.>r 1'-apyapirar rl'-,-pou(J.v rwv xoiprov,
JL"lO€ OWr£ rb Ciyr.ov ro'i's Kvulv). 583
The second element of the isocolon (parallelism)
turns to another animal: "or throw your pearls before
the pigs" (/'-7jot {3aA1JT< roh 1'-apyapirar V~LWV r!L,.PO<r8<v
rwv xoiprov). The object is now in the plural, and it is
"your pearls." As imagery, "pearls" could refer to the
same matter as "the holy" or to something different,
such as sayings. 584 If "your pearls" does refer to
sayings, one should understand them as including
Jesus' sayings of the SM. Theoretically, the reference
could also point to sayings outside the SM.
The "pig" (l!r, xolpor) was for theJewsjust as
unclean as the dog, 585 a sentiment shared widely in
antiquity. 586 As a derogatory term, "pig" could be
used in a variety of ways. 587 Among the philosophers,
the Epicureans were sometimes called "pigs." 588 The
New Testament shares usage of this figure by
designating opponents and "heretics" as "pigs. "589
are in reverse order as compared with Matthew.
Interestingly, Pan. 24.5.4 mentions Basilides' order
that his disciples keep his teachings secret.
584 Cf. Matt 13:45-46, which may involve a cryptic
image, and Ignatius Eph. 11.2, speaking of "spiritual
pearls" (i.e., the martyr's bonds). See Friedrich
Hauck, "!Lapyapir7Jr," TDNT 4.472-73; and Bauer,
s.v. l'-apyapir7Jr. For the pearl as an image for a saying
see Str-B 1.448-49; cf. Ps.-Clem. Rec. 3.1.4-7.
585 For references see Str-B 1.448-50, 492-93; Lachs,
Rabbinic Commentary, 139-40; Schiirer, History,
3/1.152.
586 See Ferdinand Orth, "Schwein," PW, 2d series 8th
half-volume (1 921) 801-15, esp. 815; Otto, Sprich-
worter (seen. 386 above), 28-29, 284, 336; Will
Richter, "Schwein," KIP 5 (1975) 43-47, esp. 46-47;
Dierauer, Tier und Mensch, 188.

3) Interpretation
• 6 As the discussion about the presuppositions for the
interpretation of vs 6 has shown, one can associate the
proverbial sentence of vs 6a with a variety of mean-
ings. 590 The SM seems to have given the saying a special
application, which, however, is withheld from us. The
original hearers or readers of the SM knew what the
terms meant. By simply transmitting the saying as it was,
the evangelist did not spell out the intended meaning;
perhaps he did not know it himself. All one can do,
therefore, is to pay attention to the language and later
usage.
The beginning, "Do not give the holy to the dogs" (Mh
own rh Ciywv ro'is KvuL), encompasses two extreme
opposites, whatever it is that the words refer to. If
carried out, giving something sacred to the dogs
constitutes sacrilege. The singular rh Ciywv ("the holy") is
noteworthy because one might have expected the plural,
which in fact occurs in Cos Thom. log. 93. Since the term
587 Cf. Plato's swine-state, Rep. 2.372d.
588 For "pigs" as a name for Epicureans, see Horace Ep.
1.4.16; Cicero In Pisonem 16. For commentary see
Wolfgang Schmid, "Epikur," RAC 5 (1962) 681-819,
esp. 767.
589 Later Christian texts identify the dogs with pagans,
and the swine with heretics (for a collection of
passages see Hans-Jiirgen Loth, "Hund," RAC 16
[1993]81 0-14), or the dogs with lapsed sinners, and
the swine with unbelievers. This process of iden-
tifying the animals with rejected adversaries begins in
the NT itself. See Mark 5:1-20 par.; Luke 15:15-16;
2 Pet 2:22; Did. 9.5; Cos. Thom. log. 93; Ps.-Clem.
Hom. 1.12.3; 2.19.2, 3; 4.21.4; 10.6.2; 19.14.4; etc.
See BAGD, s.v. v~ and xo!po~; EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v.
xo!po~; Franz Annen, Heil fur die Heiden: Zur
Bedeutung und Geschichte der Tradition vom besessenen
Gerasener (Mk 5, 1-20 parr.) (Frankfurter Theo-
logische Studien 20; Frankfurt: Knecht, 1976) 1262-
73.
590 For the proverbial material see Ps.-Isoc. Demon. 29:
"Bestow your favours on the good; for a goodly
treasure is a store of gratitude laid up in the heart of
an honest man. If you benefit bad men, you will have
the same reward as those who feed stray dogs; for
these snarl alike at those who give them food and at
the passing stranger; and just so base men wrong
alike those who help and those who harm them"
(Tobs Ciya8oVs Ei) 1roler: KaAOs yhp' 87]cravp0s 1rap' O.vOpl
CT7TOV0a{CfJ xd.ptS (uj>EtAOJJ.fV7]. robs KaKo1Js Etj 7rOtidv (jJ.'OI.a
TrElun ro'is rU.s O.AAorplas KVvas cnrl(ovcnv· f.KE'ival TE
Matthew 6:19-7:12
is uncertain in its application, 591 the parallel in the story
of the Syrophoenician Woman (Mark 7:24-30/./Matt
15:21-28) may be important. When jesus justifies his
refusal to heal the Gentile woman's daughter, he says:
"Let the children be satisfied first; it is not fair to take the
children's bread and throw it to the dogs." The children
are clearly meant to be the jews, the dogs the Gentiles,
and the bread salvation, in this context meaning
primarily liberation fwm the demon. Could it be then
that "the holy" refers to Christian salvation? The
problem is that the SM has no concept of "Christian"
salvation. One can make another connection with the
yU.p roVs Ot06vras /Jcr7rep roVs rvx6vras VAaKro-Dutv, ot'
TE KaKot robs WtflEAoVvras /Ju7tep roVs j3A&.7rrovras
aOIKOVO'I). Text and trans. are those of the LCL
edition, !socrates (trans. George Norlin; reprinted
London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University, 1980) 20-21. Similarly Diodorus Sic.
26.22; cf. Theognis Elegiae 105-8: "He that doeth
good to the baser sort getteth him little thanks; as
well he might sow the waters of the hoary brine.
Thou wouldst no more receive good again if thou
didst good unto the bad, than reap long straw if thou
sowedst the waters" (Ll.<1A.ol>~ <V i!poovn p.arawr6.r71
xcipts f.ur{v·luov Kat U7TElpEtV 1r6vrov &AhS' 7fOA.I.fjS. oiJre
ylrp av 7T6vrov CT'TfElpwv {3a8h A1i"t"ov &.p.(iJs, oiJT€ KaKohs EI,
opwv .~ ?TctAIV avnA.d.~o·~). Text and trans. are from
the LCL edition, Elegy and Iambus (trans. J. M.
Edmonds; reprinted London: Heinemann; Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1982) 1.240-41.
See Otto, Sprichworter (seen. 386 above), 68-72; Will
Richter, "Hund," KIP 2 (1967) 1245-49; Heinz-
Jiirgen Loth, "Hund," RAC 16 (1993) 773-828.
591 See BAGD, s.v.llyw~, 2.a, mentioning only Matt 7:6
and Did. 9.5.
499
mission to the Gentiles as perceived in Matt 10:5-6 (cf.
15:24), so that the derogatory term could refer to
Gentiles as "dogs." Because of more objective terms used
in the SM elsewhere, however (cf. SM/Matt 5:47; 6:7:
£8vtK6s; 6:32: Tlz f8v7J), it is more likely that "dogs" are
those considered "heretics," perhaps the Samaritans (cf.
Matt 10:5) or Gentile Christianity under Paul's
leadership. 59 2
Verse 6b states the preventive purpose of the
withholding recommended in vs 6a: "in order that they
may not trample upon them with their feet, and turn
around and tear you apart" (p.~7TOH KaTa1TaT~uovow
avTOVs £v TOtS 7TOulv avTwV Kal UTpatjJ€vns P~tovuw
VJ.!as). 593 Clearly, some sort of typical behavior is being
described, but whose behavior? Do the verbs refer to
both kinds of animals, or does the first verb connect with
the swine, and the second and third with the dogs? Or is
the real focus intended to be on the people?
It appears that the trampling underfoot is typical of
swine, while the turning about and tearing apart is more
attributable to dogs. At any rate, the interest is focused
more on the prevention of human abuse than on the
animals. 594 The act of trampling underfoot signifies
disdain and defeat. What is meant may be what Ps.-Clem.
Rec. 3.1.4-7 states openly (seen. 579 above).
The words "turn around and tear you up" fit the
behavior of "mad dogs. "595 Figuratively, the term
uTp€tJ!w may refer to apostasy, either of the "dogs" or of
their victims. One may also interpret the word p~yvvJ.!t
("tear to pieces") by Ps.-Clem. Rec. 3.1.4-7 (seen. 579
above). 596 If this imagery speaks of "heretics," as I
suggest it does, one must see this terminology in its
relationship to dangers coming from "heresy" as
perceived by the SM elsewhere (see above on SM/Matt
5:19, and below on 7:15-20, 21-23).
g. On Giving and Receiving (7:7-11)
7 Ask and it will be given to you;
seek and you will find;
knock and it will be opened to you.
8 For everyone who asks receives,
and he who seeks finds,
and to him who knocks it will be opened.
9 Or who is there from your midst, a human
being, whom his son will ask for bread
(and who) will give him a stone?
10 Or he will ask for a fish, and he will give
him a snake?
11 Therefore, if you who are evil ones know to
give good gifts to your children, how
much more will your Father who is in the
heavens give good things to them who
ask him.
Bibliography
Norbert Brox, "Suchen und Finden: Zur
Nachgeschichte von Mt 7, 7b/Lk 11, 9b," in Paul
Hoffman, ed., Orientierung an Jesus: FS fur Josef
Schmid (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder,
1973) 17-36.
Hans von Campenhausen, "Gebetserhorung in den
iiberliefertenJesusworten und in der Reflexion des
Johannes," KD 23 (1977) 157-71.
Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.68-73.
Dale Goldsmith, "'Ask and it will be given ... ':
Toward Writing the History of a Logion," NTS 35
(1989) 254-65.
Jeremias, Parables, 105.
Jiilicher, Gleichnisreden, 2.36-44.
Klaus Koschorke, "'Suchen und Finden' in der
Auseinandersetzung zwischen gnostischem und
kirchlichem Christentum," WD 14 (1977) 51-65.
Carl H. Kraeling, "Seek and You Will Find," in Allen
Wikgren, ed., Early Christian Origins: Studies in
Honor of Harold R. Willoughby (Chicago:
Quadrangle, 1961) 24-34.
Ronald A. Piper, "Matthew 7,7-11 par. Lk 11, 9-13:
Evidence of Design and Argument in the Collection
of Jesus' Sayings," in Delobel, Logia, 411-18.

592 The dog was believed to be an unclean animal. The
term was also used to castigate heretics of various
sorts; see Phil3:2; Rev 22:15; IgnatiusEph. 7.1; cf. 2
Pet 2:22. See Otto Michel, "Kilwv KTA.," TDNT
3.1101-3; BAGD, s.v. Kilwv; Sigfred Pedersen,
EWNT (EDNT) 2, s.v. dwv. For Judaism see Str-B
1.447; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 138-39. In
Greek tradition, the dog gave its name to the Cynics,
in particular Diogenes of Sinope; see for references
LSJ, s.v. Kilwv, II; Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy,
3.306; Karl August Neuhausen, "Platons 'philoso-
phischer' Hund bei Sextus Empiricus," RhM 118
(1975) 240-64; Dierauer, TierundMensch, 190.
593 KaTa7raT~<TW<TLV, the subjunctive, is read by It jl 892.
1006. 1342. 1506 91t Clement; the future indicative
KaTa7raT~<TOVCTIV is read by B c L we jl 3 33.205 al.
See BAGD, s.v. p.~7ron, 2.b.y; BDF, § 369 (3); BDR,
§ 369 n. 5.
594 For the same term used of humans, see above on
SM/Matt 5: 13; figurative usage occurs also in Luke
8:5; Heb 10:29. See BAGD, s.v. KaTa7raT,w.
595 See for other references BAGD, s.v. uTp,<J>w, 2.
596 See BAGD, s.v. p~yvvp.1, 1, with a reference to Aesop
Fab. 408; cf. also Gal5:15.

500

Idem, Wisdom, 15-24.
Haim B. Rosen, "Motifs and Topoi from the New
Comedy in the New Testament?" Ancient Society 3
(1972) 245-57.
Steinhauser, Doppelbildworte, 69-79.
Michael Theunissen, "'0 alrwv )\ap.{31I.ve&: Der
Gebetsglaube Jesu und die Zeitlichkeit des
Christseins," in B. Casper, ed.,]esus, Ort der
Erfahrung Gottes (2d ed.; Freiburg, Basel, and
Vienna: Herder, 1976) 13-68.
Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 127-31.
1) Introduction
The theme of 7:7-11 is indicated by the triad of
asking/receiving, seeking/finding, and knocking/
opening. All three of these word pairs are proverbial,
and one finds them as key terms in the ancient literature,
where they often introduce major theological and
philosophical elaborations. Therefore, in a lengthy
argument such as that set forth in 7:7-11, we are dealing
not simply with proverbs but with a more elaborate
argument that brings out the issues embedded in the
proverbs.
In Old Testament wisdom in particular, "asking and
receiving" applies not only to gifts but also to questions
and answers; 597 the great example of the latter is Job. 598
Likewise, "seeking and finding" occurs in many
variations, among them also "seeking without
finding, "599 or "finding without seeking," 600 the objects
being wisdom, truth, or even God. 601 Finally,
"knocking" on doors that are then "opened" has an entire
literary history to itself prior to the New Testament. 60 2
All three word pairs may be connected with prayer,
597 For the evidence see the lexica: TDOT 2, s.v. !Dp::!; 3,
s. v. !D.,.,; for the NT terms: TDNT, EWNT (EDNT),
and BAGD, s.v. (7jTlW and evpluKW.
598 See Job 8:5; 23:2-9.
599 See, e.g., Prov 1:28 of wisdom: "When they call to
me, I shall not answer; when they seek, they will riot
find me" (LXX: lura& ylzp 8rav lw&KaAtCT7jCT6t p.e, ly(,
aE o1Jic EluaKo{uTDfLa' VfLG>v· CTJT~uovulv J.LE KaKol Kat oVx
€Vp~CTOVCTIV).
600 See, e.g., Isa 65:1 LXX: "I was visible to those who
did not seek me; I was found by those who did not
ask for me" (' Ep.4>av~~ lyev.5p.1jv rol~ lp.( p.~ (7jrovu&v,
€Vpt67jv rol~ lp.( p.~ lwepwrwu&V).
601 See, e.g., Deut4:29; 1 Chr 16:10-11; 21:30; 22:19;
28:9;Job 8:5; Pss 9:11; 22:27; 27:8; etc.; Wis 13:6.
602 See Ha!m Rosen, "Motifs and Topoi from the New
Comedy in the New Testament," Ancient Society 3
Matthew 6:19-7:12
but they do not have to be; they may also refer to general
propositions or recommendations. The first question in
view of 7:7-11 is, therefore, whether the composition as
a whole speaks of a more general recommendation or
specifically of prayer.
In Greek philosophy, "seeking and finding" sums up
major concepts and methods for search and investigation
in the pursuance of truth. 603 Among the pre-Socratics,
Xenophanes said:
Truly, not from the beginning the gods have shown
everything to the mortals, but through time they seek
and find out (the) better (things).
oiJTOL a7T' apxfi~ 7TclVTa lh:ol 8v1JTOL~ V7Tfllntav a..ua.
XP&vwL (1JTOVVT«=~ ~cpwplcrKovcrtv ll.p.nvov. 60 4
Gnomologium Parisinum 158 preserves an interesting
saying from Empedocles (cf. Diog. L. 9.20):
Empedocles said to someone who told him, "I can find
no one who is wise," thus: "Logically, the one who
seeks someone wise must first be wise himself."
'Ep.7T«:l36KA1J~ 7Tp0~ TOV A.lyovTa, lin ovll£va crocphv €Vp€LV
llvvap.at, 'KaTa A.&yov,' eT7T«=" 'Thv yap (7JTovvTa crocphv
ahhv 7TpWTOV «:Tvat ll«:'i crocp6v.'605
The Pythagorean Archytas distinguished between
learning and discovery. Learning is what one did not
know but receives as information from others, while
finding is done by oneself with one's own resources:
Finding, however, without searching is hard to come
by and rare, but with seeking it is ready to come by
and easy; to the one who is without understanding
seeking is impossible.
(1972) 245-57; furthermore, Wettstein, 1.340-41;
Georg Bertram, "Kpoilw," TDNT 3.954-57; and
BAGD, s.v. Kpoilw.
603 See the investigation by Georgios D. Farandos, Die
Krisis der Philosophie, vol. 2: Die Wege des Suchens bei
Heraklit und Parmenides; Die Dialektik des Suchens und
Findens (Epistemata, series Philosophie 8; Wiirzburg:
Konigshausen & Neumann, 1982).
604 Diels-Kranz, 21 B 18,2 (I, 133, 14-15). The trans. is
mine.
605 Diels-Kranz, 31 A 20 (I, 285, 42). The trans. is mine.
501
 oe
efwpliv J-L~ (aTOVVTa lJ.1ropov Kat 0"7TCiVtoV, (aTOVVTa
oe
d57Topov Kat pluotov, J-L~ E1TtO"TClJ-L£VOV (1jT£LV
aovvaTOV. 606
These philosophers attempted to describe the proper
methods for pursuing the truth in a "scientific" manner,
as compared to learning it through divine revelation or
from culture-bringing heroes. Henceforth, the terms
(~T1juts and £1Jp7juts ("search" and "discovery") became
almost a set formula designating discussions about
research and discovery, or problems and solutions. 607
Thus, Plato also related "seeking and finding" to
philosophy. In the Gorgias (503d) Callicles, when
realizing a dilemma, remarks to Socrates, "Ah, but if you
search properly, you will find" (' AA.A.' eh.v (1jTfis KaAws,
d1p~um). Then Socrates begins his inquiry. 608
According to the Apology (19b; 23b), "seeking the things
under the earth and in the sky" was a point of accusation
against Socrates in the trial; he admits to doing this
seeking, but at divine order. 609 Finally, the Timaeus (28c)
defines what is taken to be the greatest task in this way:
Now to discover the Maker and Father of this
Universe were a task indeed; and having discovered
Him, and to declare Him unto all men were a thing
impossible.
oe
TOV p.ev o~v 7TOL1jT~V Kat 7TaT£pa TOV TOV 7TaVTOS £Vp£'iv
T£ epyov Kat £ilpovTa £LS 7T~VTas aovvaTOV A.£yuv. 610
After Plato the word pair "seek and find" appears to have
become part of philosophical school traditions. Here I
cannot fully treat the history of this particular
expression. One can easily see its significance for
philosophical protreptic from Epictetus 611 and Philo of
Alexandria, 61 2 both of whom deal extensively with the
theme in their works. In Hellenism the commendation to
seek and find was apparently directed against skepticism
and pessimism; perhaps this direction was already
oe present in earlier times, as suggested by Sophocles:
"Search out most human traits: you'll find them base" (Ta
7TA£'iuTa tf!wpwv aluXPa tf!wp~uus f3poTwv). 613
2) Analysis As already indicated, vss 7-" l form a thoroughgoing
argument. The composition consists of clearly
distinguishable subsections. At the head stands a
parallelism (isocolon [vs 7]), comprising three parallel
maxims using the second person plural; each
imperative is followed by a statement of the
consequence or reaction to be expected (the future
tenses are gnomic). Each maxim is in itself antithetical;
the first and third maxims (vs 7a and c) use redditio
(inclusion by repeating the same word), underscored
by using the same ending (homoeoteleuton: 1Jo8~o-<raL
VJJ.tV, CtVOLY~O"<TaL VJJ.tV ("it will be given to you, it will be
opened to you"]).
Verse 8 contains a second set, also in parallel lines
(isocolon), using the same three statements as vs 7, but
they are now given in the present tense as proverbs.
The conjunction "for" (ycip) indicates that vs 8 serves as
the rationale for vs 7. The assumption of the proverbs
is that they are based on human experience, with the
introductory "everyone" (.,.ar) intended to be
exaggerated. The rhetorical effect of the parallel
members of the set is reached by varied repetition.
Verses 9-l 0 accept the challenge of protest,
assuming that vs 8 will have provoked protest. The
response to the protest occurs by way of two rhetorical
questions. The beginning of vs 9 uses a common form
("Who among you ... "), and vss 9b-l 0 are again
parallel lines (isocolon), the members of which are
parallels (isocola) in themselves. Their relation to each
other is that of disiunctio (the same point is made by
different expressions). The questions address the
hearers or readers as human beings ("you who are
evil"), in order then to exemplify what the human
experience is and to conclude with a seemingly absurd
proposition. The addressed will confirm that the
reaction is absurd, while what one ought to expect is a
normal reaction. Verse ll presents a conclusion "from

606 Diels-Kranz, 47 B 3 (1, 437, 4-5). The trans. is mine.
607 On this topic see Klaus Thraede, "Erfinder II
(geistesgeschichtlich)," RAG 5 (1962) 1191-1278,
esp. 1213-14, 1241-47.
608 Cf. also Plato Grat. 436a-b; Leg. 7 .816c; also Leg.
3.677d.
609 "Seeking and finding" is thus identified with the
Socratic method.
610 Texts and translations are cited according to the
LCL edition of Plato.
611 See esp. Epictetus Diss. 1.28.19-21; 3.22.38-39, 76;
3.24.12; 4.1.32, 51; 4.5.16.
612 On Philo see Thraede, RAG 5.1245-46; David T.
Runia, "Mosaic and Platonic Exegesis: Philo on
'Finding and Refinding,'" VG 40 (1986) 209-17.
613 Cited in Plutarch De coh. ira 16, 4630, cited ac-
cording to Plutarch's Moralia (trans. William C.
Helmbold; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University, 1939) 6.152-53; see also
Plutarch De frat. am. 8, 481F; Sophocles frg. 853 (ed.
Pearson; frg. 769, ed. Nauck).

502

the less important to the more important" (a minori ad
maius), again forming parallel lines with the members
being a protasis (introductory clause) and an apodosis
(concluding clause). The protasis describes human
behavior, while the apodosis contrasts this human
behavior with God's behavior. The apodosis is
exclamatory; 614 the protasis uses alliteration and
assonance (ol'Oan, aop.ara, a.aovat). 61 5
The Q-parallel in Luke 11:9-13 is now part of the
doctrine on prayer that begins with the Lord's Prayer
(Luke 11: 1-4) and continues with the parable of the
Importune Friend (Luke 11 :5-8). This context is
secondary. 616 Luke's version also differs from
Matthew's at other points, most likely because of
Lukan redaction. Most notable is that Luke 11:11 has
a "fish" and a "snake" instead of the Matthean "bread"
and "stone"; and Luke 11:12 has "egg" and "scorpion"
instead of the Matthean "fish" and "snake." In Luke
11: 13b the divine epithet, "the Father who is from
heaven" (o 1raT~P [o] £~ ol!pavov) differs from Matt
7:11 b: "your Father who is in the heavens" (o 1raT~P
vp.wv 0 fV TO"is ol!pavols). Instead of "will give goods"
(Mrm r'tyaOri) in Matt 7:11b, Luke 11:13b has "will
give Holy Spirit" (ororm "lrV<vp.a llytov). As a result, one
can say that the substance of the saying comes from Q,
but its precise wording and the exact primary context
seem to be beyond recovery. Even in Q, it seems, the
saying was included in a secondary context that
interprets it. There is no question, however, about the
great popularity that the saying enjoyed in the later
tradition of the church. 617 This influence extends
even into Manichaeism; the Mani Biography alludes to
614 So according to Nestle-Aland. The SM often
concludes sections with exclamations.
615 So Russei,Paronomasia, 9.
616 See Strecker, Bergpredigt, 153 (Sermon, 148); Luz,
Matthiius, 1.383; (Matthew, 1.420-21); for the
reconstruction of the Q-version see Ronald A. Piper,
"Matthew 7,7-11 par. Luke 11,9-13: Evidence of
Design and Argument in the Collection of jesus'
Sayings," in Delobel, Logia, 411-18; David Catch-
pole, "Q and the 'Friend at Midnight' (Luke xi 5-
8/9)," JTS 34 (1983) 407-24, esp. 418-19; Klop-
penborg, QParallels, 86-89.
617 See Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 307-10, 313; Norbert
Brox, "Suchen und Finden: Zur Nachgeschichte von
Mt 7,7b/Luke 11,9b," in Orientierung an jesus: FSJilr
Josef Schmid (Freiburg: Herder, 1973) 17-36; Klaus
Koschorke, "'Suchen und Finden' in der Aus-
einandersetzung zwischen gnostischem und kirch-
lichem Christentum," WD 14 (1977) 51-65; Luz,
Matthiius, 1.385-86 (Matthew, 1.423-25).
618 See Ludwig Koenen and Cornelia Romer, eds., Der
Kolner Mani-Kodex: Ober das Werden seines Leibes
Matthew 6:19-7:12
the saying (p. 36.4) and provides a lengthy
interpretation (pp. 38-41).618
Sayings similar to SM/Matt 7:7-11 occur in
extracanonical Gospels, but they are only faint
reflections compared with the rather elaborate
composition in Q. According to Clement of
Alexandria, the Gospel to the Hebrews contained this
saying:
He that seeks will not rest until he finds;
and he that has found shall marvel;
and he that has marvelled shall reign;
and he that has reigned shall rest.
oV 1ra-6cr£rar. 0 (TJrWv, ~w~ liv ellprr
EVpi•JV a~ 8ap.{3~1TETat,
6ap.f37J8<ts a~ f3autAEtJ<TEI,
{3acnAe-6ua~ oE Ewava'7Ta~U£Tat. 619
A variant is included in P. Oxy. 654, no. 1, according to
Harold Attridge's edition and translation:
Uesus said], "Let him who seeks continue [seeking
until] he finds. When he finds, [he will be amazed.
And] when he becomes [amazed], he will rule. And
[once he has ruled], he will [attain rest].
[A'y" 'I71(uov)s·] p.~ 1ravu&u8w o ('IJ[Twv Tov (7JTilv
~CJl~ av ]EiJpy, Kat Hrav EiJpn [8a~J-f31J8~cr£Tat Kat
8ap.]f37J6EtS {3a<TIAEtJIT'[/ Karl {3a<TIAEtJ<Tas
f7Tava1fa ]~o-erar.. 620
The Coptic Gospel of Thomas has three variants, log. 2
being similar toP. Oxy. 654, no. 1:
(Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfalischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften; Sonderreihe
"Payrologica Coloniensia" 14; Opladen: West-
deutscher Verlag, 1988) 22-23, 24-27; Albert
Henrichs and Ludwig Koenen, "Der Kolner Mani-
Kodex (P. Colon~. inv. nr. 4780)," ZPE 19 (1975) 1-
85, esp. 37; Ron Cameron and Arthur]. Dewey, The
Cologne Mani Codex "Concerning the Origins ofHis Body"
(SBL TT 15; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1979) 31-
33; Cornelia Romer, "Mani, der neue Urmensch:
Eine neue Interpretation der p. 36 des Kolner Mani-
Kodex," in Luigi Cirillo, ed., CodexManichaicus
Coloniensis: Atti del Simposio Internazionale (Rende-
Amantea 3-7 settembre 1984) (Cosenza: Marra, 1986)
333-44, esp. 341.
619 For the text see Aland, Synopsis, 94; Kloppenborg, Q
Parallels, 87. The trans. is according to NTApoc
1.164; see also NTApok 1.146-47; Straker, Extra-
canonical Sayings, 116-19, 148, 195-96.
620 According to the edition in Layton, Nag Hammadi
Codex II, 2-7, 113, 126; also Kloppenborg, Q
Parallels, 87; Straker, Extracanonical Sayings, 117.
503
 Jesus said, "Let one who seeks not stop seeking until
that person finds; and upon finding, the person will
be disturbed; and being disturbed, will be
astounded; and will reign over the entirety." 621
Logion 92 agrees in part with Matt 7:7:
Jesus said, "Seek and you (plur.) will find. Yet, now
I am willing to say the things which you used to ask
me about and which I did not say to you; and you
are not seeking them."
Logion 94 agrees in part with Matt 7:7 and in part with
7:6:
Jesus [said], "One who seeks will find. The door will
be opened to one [who knocks]. "6 22
These sayings have obviously undergone interpreta-
tions and changes in terms of gnostic requirements and
understandings. How these sayings developed, how
they became dispersed in the way they now appear in
the Gospel of Thomas, how log. 93 came to be spliced in,
and why the doublets in log. 2, 92, and 94 were
allowed to remain-all these questions remain. At any
rate, one has no reason here to assume a direct
dependency by the Gospel of Thomas on our canonical
Matthew. More likely is the dependency on
presynaptic tradition (Q ?). 623
3) Interpretation
• 7 The three-line maxim is stated in the second person
plural, the first line issuing a general demand: "Ask and it
will be given to you" (aln"Ln ICa~ lio8~o"€Ta! vp."Lv). No
object is given, and there are no clues about the identity
of the giver. The future passive does not necessarily
refer to the eschatological future, but it may. Thus, one
should assume the maxim to be general and to refer to
both daily life and eschatological judgment. The one to
be asked is another person, not necessarily only God.
The topic, therefore, belongs to the general theme of
"giving and receiving." That this topic is in line with the
SM elsewhere one can see from the parallels in SM/Matt
5:42//SP /Luke 6:30: "to the one who asks you give."
The maxim is best exemplified by the parable on the
Importune Friend at Midnight (Luke 11 :5-8). 624 The
application to the petitionary prayer is made only in vs
11; it is not indicated at the beginning of vs 7. 6 2 5
The second part "seek and you will find" ((7Jntn ICa~
evp~uen) is equally general. Having no object, the
recommendation pertains to an attitude to life in
general. That the attitude is theologically important for
the SM is seen from the parallel in 6:33 and also the
eschatological parallel in 7:14. The proverbial phrase is
known elsewhere in the New Testament, either by itself
or deepened by theological interpretation. 6 2 6
The third part has in view the act of knocking on
doors: "knock and it will be opened to you" (1Cpoven ICa~
avoty~ITETaL vp."Lv). Again, the phrase is proverbial. 6 2 7
The saying calls attention to an astounding fact: while
doors are usually locked, they surprisingly open when
one simply knocks at them. Looking at the doors from
the outside, one would not expect it, but it does happen.
What does it indicate?
• 8 The imperatives of vs 7 are supported with reasons in
vs 8; this is done simply by repeating the parallelism
(isocolon) with some difference included. The matter is
now substantiated by experience: "For everyone who
asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who
knocks it will be opened" (7riis yap oa1nov A.ap.{3avEL ICa~ o
(7]TWV EVpLITICEL ICa~ Til> 1Cpovovn avoty~ueTat). 6 2 8

621 Translation according to Layton, Gnostic Scriptures,
380. See also the edition and translation by Thomas
0. Lambdin, in Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7,
52-53 and 86-87.
622 Cited according to Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 396.
623 See Helmut Koester, in Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex
II, 2-72, 39 and 42-43.
624 See also Mark 6:22-25/ /Matt 14:7-8, with the
request "Give me!" (Mr 1-101); cf. Matt 6:11/ /Luke
11:3; Luke 15:12; etc.; Mark 10:35-38; Matt 20:20-
22; Mark 15:43//Matt 27:58;Jas 4:2-3; 1 Pet 3:15.
625 For the application to asking God see SM/Matt 6:8;
7:11; Matt 18:19; Mark 11:24// Matt 21:22; Eph
3:20;Jas 1:5-6; 1 John 3:22; 5:14-16. For rabbinic
parallels see Str-B 1.450-58; Lachs, Rabbinic Com-
mentary, 140-43.
626 Apart from the synoptic parallel versions see Luke
13:6; 15:8; Acts 17:27; Rom 10:20; 2 Tim 1:17; etc.
See BAGD, s.v. <vpiuKw, l.a; (71rew, l.a.j3. Ps.-Clem.
Hom. 3.52.3 interprets "all of you who labor, come to
me" (cf. Matt 11 :28) by saying: "This means those
who seek the truth but cannot find it"; and "seeking
and finding" is given a reason: "since the truth does
not lie on the surface" (my trans.). For rabbinic
parallels see Str-B 1.458; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary,
141.
627 See Luke 12:36; 13:25; Acts 12:13; Rev 3:20. For
parallels see BAGD, s.v. Kpovw; Str-B 1.458-59;
Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, I 41.
628 Breads the present tense, parallel to the first and
Second parts; 0 has aVOIXIi~<TETal; avOI)I~<TETal Seems
to be the best text, but it could also be the result of
harmonization with vs 7 and Luke 11:10. The
reading avoiy<ral (B), which is also read by P 75 B D in

504
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

That this experience happens to everyone may be an
exaggeration, but we count on it as being generally true;
otherwise we would not continue to do these things.
Thus, the suggestion is, one has no reason to be overly
skeptical or pessimistic. Under normal circumstances,
and maybe even under extraordinary circumstances,
people will help when asked. People can expect to find
when they seek. Doors will open when one knocks. The
message is that we do this all the time, and we are right in
doing it. It may not always happen, but surprisingly these
things do happen most of the time.
• 9 The argument having gone this far, one expects a
protest. Are these things really so simple? The examples
given in vss 9-1 0 are intended to disarm a potential
protester by further evidence. This is done by rhetorical
questions, for which the expected answer is affirmative:
yes, this is so.
The first question, using a well-known form of
saying, 629 calls out to someone from the assumed crowd
of listeners or hearers, "Or who is there from your midst,
a human being, whom his son asks for bread (and who)
will give him a stone?" (~ Tls lcrnv lf vp.wv lf.v8ponros, 8v
alT~cru ovlos a·bTov lipTov, JL~ A.l8ov lmowcru alm)v;). 630
The answer to the question is contained in the word
"human being" (li.v8ponros): no one who is worthy to be
called by that name will refuse the request. 631 Being a
human being implies the obligation to act like one. This
assumption is typical of the "humanistic" element in
wisdom sayings. 632 A human being is one who is good to
one's children. The idea of giving a stone to one's child
instead of bread is detestable; it is also proverbial 633 and
makes use of the similarity of shape and color between a
bread and a stone.
• 1 0 The second question is parallel and uses the other
staple food: "Or he [sc. the son] will ask for a fish and he
[she?] will give him a snake?"(~ Kat lx8vv alT~cru, JL~ lJcfnv
lmowcru aim!>;). 634 The question no doubt suggests
something obviously absurd and hideous. No one worthy
of the name "human" will act like this. The snake is
chosen not only because of its similarity to the fish but
also because of its poisonous and dangerous nature. 635
•11 The concluding statement, 636 introduced by o'ilv
("therefore"), sums up the preceding argument (vs lla),
in order then to draw an inference from the human to
the divine behavior. The protasis (introductory clause)
takes human behavior to be paradoxical: "Therefore, if
you who are evil ones know how to give good gifts to
your children ... " (£1 o'ilv vp.E'is 7rOV7Jpot lfvus oliau
oop.aTa ltya8a Oto6vat TOLS TfKVO!S VJLWV ... ). 637 That

Luke 11:10, appears to be the original reading in Q.
629 See also SM/Matt 6:27//Luke 12:25; Matt
12:11//Luke 14:5; Luke 11 :5; 14:5, 28; 15:4, 8;
17:7; etc. See Heinrich Greeven, "Wer unter
euch ... ?" WD 3 (1952) 86-101.
630 B* L 565. 1342. 1424 alit omit iunv; it is absent also
in Luke 11:11; IC 1 L W j1.1 3 33. 892. 1006. (1342).
1506 9Jt lat syh make the relative clause conditional
by adding (<)av. Both variants are linguistic improve-
ments. The Nestle-Aland text is attested by M* B C
(* -<TftS) 8 b (a C g 1 h) sy c.p.
631 The word, which is of some importance to the SM
(see 5:13, 16, 19; 6:1, 2, 5, 14, 15, 16, 18; 7:12; cf.
SP/Luke 6:22, 26, 31, 45, 48, 49), is absent from the
Lukan parallel, Luke 11 : 11.
632 See esp. below on SP /Luke 6:45. On the duties of
fathers toward their children, see Adolf Lumpe and
HeinrichKarpp, "Eitern," RAC4(1959) 1190-1219.
633 See Matt 4:3; Luke 4:3; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 2.32; see
furthermore Luke 11:11 v.l. Str-B 1.459 follows
Lightfoot and refers to Seneca De ben. 2. 7; also
Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 142-43.
634 Grammatically, the sentence is extremely brief and
also awkward; for this reason many manuscripts turn
it into a conditional clause by adding "if" at the
beginning: fi Kat <av lxOhv alr~u?J, "or also if you ask
for a fish" lf13 565. 1506. 1582• al [Iat syc]), or Kat
(()av lxOhv alr~u?J, "and if you ask for a fish" ([L WJ 8
1006. [1342]9Jt syP·h). The text is read by good
witnesses (IC B C [(1]33. [205. 892]. 983 pc [co]).
635 See also Luke 11:11; Mark 16: 18; Luke 10: 19; Acts
28:6; 1 Cor 10:9; Rev 9:19. For the literature see
BAGD, s.v.C:<f>ts, 1; Borge Hjerl-Hansen, "Le
rapprochement poisson-serpent dans Ia predication
de jesus (Mt. Vll,10 et Luc XI,11)," RB 55 (1948)
195-98.
636 Some question whether vs 11 is a factual statement or
a question. See Nestle-Aiand, 26th ed., as compared
with the 25th ed. (which has it as a question). As a
conclusion a minori ad maius, a factual statement is
more likely, but the statement demands consent
anyway, as if it were a question.
637 Instead ofll.lp.ara ayaOajl 205 it vgc 1 Clement read
ayaOa o.lp.ara (perhaps to strengthen the alliteration

505
human beings are by nature "evil" (7rOV7Jpos) is a basic
assumption of the SM, not surprising in its Jewish
matrix, 638 but not unknown in a Greek environment
either. 639 The SM contains a tension between this
censure of the addressees and the higher goals set for
them (see above on SM/Matt 5:13-16, 48; 6:33). Such
warnings (this is what it is intended to be) are reminders
to the disciples that they have a long and arduous way to
go (cf. 7: 13-14). Yet, surprising as it is, one may find
much natural goodness even among evil humanity. Both
facts are true: humanity is a mean race, and yet human
beings know how to act in a "humane" way. If this
conclusion is true among humans, how much more 640 is
it true of God: "How much more will your Father who is
in the heavens give good things to those who ask him?"
(7rOU!p j.tCiA.A.ov b 7raT~P Vj.tc;JV b lv TOtS ovpavo'is liwu€! ayaBa
TOtS atTOVULV avTov). 641 Indeed, God is not evil, and he
does provide benefits to the world. The instruction on
prayer in SM/Matt 6:7-8 is based on this belief, and so is
the SM as a whole. Indeed, only the skeptics in antiquity
would not have agreed to it. What then is the conclusion?
Most scholars assume that the SM passage is an
exhortation concerning trust in the meaningfulness of
praying to God. 642 What is recommended is
unconditional trust in God's readiness to grant petitions
by humans. But this assumption has problems:
First, as the words read, only the conclusion addresses
the subject of prayer, while the rest of the passage applies
to general life experience. This is borne out by the
history of exegesis, which shows that a variety of avenues
were pursued.
Second, in Luke 11:9-13 the text has been applied to
prayer, but this interpretation is secondary. Multiple
application appears to be prior to special application.
Third, ifSM/Matt 7:7-11 concerns certainty about
prayer, it would duplicate what the instruction on prayer
in 6:7-8 had set forth, but it would contradict it, too.
This instruction argues that only God knows which

of OOJ.<aTa StSovat?). L pc ffl I vg" have only ayaOa. no
doubt to make vs 11a consistent with vs 11 b. The
correct reading in Q was most likely OOJ.<aTa ayaOa
(Luke 11: 13).
638 That humans are considered evil is reflected else-
where in the SM (see SM/Matt 5:11, 37, 39, 45;
6:13, 23; 7:17, 18), but this categorical censure of
the disciples is unique; it comes from Q, hence the
redactor of the SM accepted the verdict. The verdict
does not contradict the distinction between "evil" and
"good" persons (5:45; cf. SP /Luke 6:45) in that a
good disciple would refuse to be simply identified
with the good. Cf. also Jeremias, Parables, 145-46;
Baumbach, Das Verstiindnis des Bosen, 80-81, 130-31. 641 Cf. Ps.-Clem. Hom. 3.56.1-2, where Matt 7:9-11 is
639 See Pythagoras in his akousmata ("oral teachings"),
according to lamblichus Vita Pyth. 18.82: "What is
most truly said? Human beings are bad [iln 7TOV7Jpot ol
livOpomo•]. Hence they say he [Pythagoras] praised
the Salaminian poet Hippodamas who composed the 642 So the title in Aland's Synopsis, 94: "God's Answering
following: '0 gods, whence are you? Whence did you
become such? Mortals, whence are you; Whence did
you become so wicked [KaKoi]?'" Text and trans.
according to John Dillon and Jackson Hershbell,
Iamblichus, On the Pythagorean Way of Life: Text,
Translation, and Notes (SBL TT 29; Atlanta: Scholars,
1991) 106-7. Similarly Solon frg. 14: "Nor is any
mortal happy, but all men are unfortunate [7TOV7Jpoi]
that the Sun can see." Cited according to the LCL
edition of Elegy and Iambus (trans. J. M. Edmonds;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London:
Heinemann, 1931) 1.132-33; see also Armand
Delatte, Etudes sur la litterature pythagoricienne (Paris:
Champion, 1915) 282-83.
640 This formal conclusion of qal wa-(wmer ("from the less
significant to the more significant") occurs only here
in the SM; cf., however, SM/Matt 6:26: J.<&.:A:Aov
("more"), and 6:30: 7roA:Aif> J.<&.A:Aov ("much more"); it
comes from the Q-source (Luke 11: 13). Cf. Matt
1 0:25; Luke 12:24, 28; Rom 11:12, 24; Phlm 16;
Heb 9:14; Did. 4.8; Barn. 19.8; Ignatius Eph. 5.1-2;
16.2; 2 Clem. 17.1; etc. See BAGD, s.v., 7TO<To~. 1;
J.<&.:A:Aov, 2.b; Hermann L. Strack and Gunter Stem-
berger, Introduction to the Talmud and Mid rash (trans.
Markus Bockmuehl; Minneapolis: Fortress; Edin-
burgh: Clark, 1991) 21.
cited in the context of a discussion of the theodicy
problem; in vs 11 the quotation is expanded by the
words: "and to those who do his [sc. God's] will" (Kat
rots "l'TOWVutv TO 8'A1Jp.a aVroV).
of Prayer"; Soiron, Bergpredigt, 408-18; Achelis,
Bergpredigt, 380; Guelich, Sermon, 356; Strecker,
Bergpredigt, 153 (Sermon, 148); Luz, Matthiius, 1.382
(Matthew, 1.420). Differently, Tholuck, Bergrede, 439,
453-54 (Commentary, 395-96, 408-9); Heinrici,
Bergpredigt, 2.83-85; Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 127-31.

506
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

human needs should be granted; the Lord's Prayer spells
out these needs. The position taken by the SM,
therefore, is not a naive trust in God that leads to asking
him all kinds of things in the belief that he will surely
grant them. Even 7: 11 does not assume that God will
grant just anything he is asked for, but that he will give
what is good. By contrast, Luke 11:13, a passage dealing
with prayer, corrects what appears to be an earlier
version, stating that God will give Holy Spirit.
I conclude, therefore, that the recommendation
pertains first of all to a general approach to life, an
approach based on the assumption that one can trust life
as good. In spite of the observed fact that humans are
evil, life is not. This conclusion makes sense in the face of
skepticism. Contrary to what the skeptic would
recommend, the SM holds that it is more prudent to
encounter life without suspicion. Be one who asks, be a
seeker, take courage and knock on doors! Most of the
time, these initiatives will find positive responses.
Experiences among humans, as well as with God, bear
this out. This is the message.
On the whole, Matt 7:7-11 is an excellent example of
the importance of later interpretations for illuminating
the original meaning of a saying. Norbert Brox and
Klaus Koschorke have shown how the Gnostics of the
second century especially have used this saying to
formulate their own approach to reality. 643 The church
fathers in their interpretations generally propagate
distrust; 644 for them one no longer has any reason to
seek and search because revelation has occurred. They
increasingly display an aversion against questioning,
seeking, and searching; one expects this aversion from
those who claim to possess the truth. For them it is the
unbelievers who constantly seek and never find.
"Seeking" has become the alternative to "believing."
Christian believers are presented as those who have the
answers, who have found, and for whom the door is
open.645
By comparison, the SM focuses on another form of
skepticism and argues against it. That skepticism
approaches the world with a fundamental distrust.
People are not to be trusted; they are evil, and thus life is
evil and dangerous. 646 All sayings in the SM from 6: 19
on have to do with the question of whom and what to
trust. One must not confuse trust in the goodness of life
with trust in external materialism (6: 19-21; 6:25-34), or
trust in oneself(6:22-23; 6:24; 7:1-5), or even trust in
hostile outsiders (7:6). Rather, trust in life, as being
basically and normally beneficial, is justified because of
our ordinary experiences and because of God's
providence governing that life. The basic approach to
life, therefore, should be that of the quester, the seeker,
the knocker on doors. One should not yield to
misanthropic pessimism, introverted seclusion, or
withdrawal into the group of the like-minded.
This forthright approach goes hand in hand with the
ethics of the SM stated elsewhere. It corresponds to the
task of the disciples to be "the salt of the earth" and "the
light of the world" (5: 13-16). They are to be the seekers

643 Brox ("Suchen und Finden," 20-24) and Koschorke
("Suchen und Finden," 51-65) discuss the great
popularity of the saying in Gnosticism. For the
references toP. Oxy. 654, lines 1-9, Gospel ofThomas, 646 Heinrici (Bergpredigt [1905], 2.85) refers correctly to
and Gospel to the Hebrews, see above, nn. 619-23;
other references are from Pistis Sophia (1.50.14;
2.1 00; 3.132, ed. Carl Schmidt and trans. Violet
MacDermot, Pistis Sophia [NHSt 9; Leiden: Brill,
1978]184, 250, 34 7); Gospel ofMary (P. Berol. 8502)
8.20-21; Discourse on the Eighth and the Ninth 60.10
(ed. Douglas M. Parrott, Nag Hammadi Codices V,2-5
and VI, with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4 [NHS
11; Leiden: Brill, 1979]458, 364).
644 For the passages see Brox, "Suchen und Finden," 25-
29 (esp. lrenaeus Adv. haer. 2.19.3; 2.27 .2; 4.6.4; Ep.
92; Tertullian De praescr. haer. 7-14; De bapt. 20.5).
645 Again different are Clement of Alexandria, Origen,
and Augustine, who emphasize the necessity of a
questioning approach to faith; see Brox, "Suchen und
Finden," 29-35.
Gen 8:21, where God says, "Never again will I curse
the ground because of man, however evil his incli-
nations may be from his youth upwards" (NEB).
Citing Bias on the Greek side (Diog. L. 1.87): "The
majority are evil" (ot 'li'A<Iuro• KaKo{), Heinrici points
out that these insights into human nature have led to
pessimism; see Jakob Burckhardt, Griechische Kultur-
geschichte (5th ed.; Berlin and Stuttgart: Spemann,
n.d. [1910]) 2.396-437.

507
of the kingdom of God and his righteousness (6: 3 3).
They are on their way to life eternal, stumbling along the
rough road and trying to find the narrow gate (7: 13-14).
Openness to life and a forthright approach are needed
for this journey, not debilitating skepticism that turns
backward or inward, rather than forward.
h. The Golden Rule (7: 12)
12 Everything, therefore. that you want
people to do to you, thus you shall also do
to them. For this is the law and the
prophets.
Bibliography
Hans-Werner Bartsch, "Traditionsgeschichtliches zur
'goldenen Regel' und zum Aposteldekret," ZNW 75
(1984) 128-32.
Peder Borgen, "The Golden Rule: With Emphasis on
Its Usage in the Gospels," in his Paul Preaches
Circumcision and Pleases Men, and Other Essays on
Christian Origins (Trondheim: TAPIR, 1983) 99-
114.
Christoph Burchard, "Goldene Regel," EKL 2 (1989)
247.
Albrecht Dihle, Die Goldene Regel: Eine Einfuhrung in
die Geschichte der antiken und fruhchristlichen
Vulgiirethik (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1962).
Idem, "Goldene Regel," RAC 11 (1981) 930-40 (with
bibliography).
Olivier Du Roy, La Reciprocite: Essai de morale
fondamentale (Paris: Epi, 1970).
Victor P. Furnish, The Love Command in the New
Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972).
Robert Hamerton-Kelly, "Golden Rule, The," IDBSup
(1976) 369-70.
Richard M. Hare, Freedom and Reason (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1963).
Hans-Ulrich Hoche, "Die Goldene Regel: Neue
Aspekte eines alten Moralprinzips," ZPhF 32 (1978)
355-75 (with bibliography).
Norbert Horster, "R. M. Hares Fassung der Goldenen
Regel," Philosophischesjahrbuch 81 (1974) 186-96.
Joachim Jeremias, "Goldene Regel, 2. Im NT," RGG 2
(3d ed. 1958) 1688-89.
RaphaelJospe, "Hillel's Rule," JQR 81 (1990) 45-57.
George B. King, "The Negative Golden Rule," JR 8
(1928) 268-79.
Adalbert Langer, "Die Goldene Regel-ein Schliissel
zum Frieden," in Kirche, Recht und Land: FS zum 70.
Lebensjahr von AdolfKindermann (Konigstein i. T.:
Sudetendeutsches Priesterwerk, 1969) 67-7 4.
Siegfried Alfons Lesnik, Die Goldene Regel, Prinzip der
neuen Menschlichkeit in naturrechtlicher und biblischer
508
Auffassung (Heiligenkreuz: Stiftsbuchhandlung,
1974).
Adolf Lutz, "Die Goldene Regel," ZPhF 18 (1964)
467-75.
Hans-Peter Mathys, Roman Heiligenthal, and Heinz-
Horst Schrey, "Goldene Regel," TRE 13 (1985)
570-83 (with bibliography).
Reinhold Merkelbach, "Uber eine Stelle im
Evangelium des Lukas," Grazer Beitriige 1 (1973)
171-75.
Merklein, Gottesherrschaft, 243-4 7.
Nissen, Gott und der Niichste, 390-99.
Leonidas Johannes Philippidis, Die "Goldene Regel"
religionsgeschichtlich untersucht (Inaugural diss.,
Philosophical Faculty, Leipzig, 1929) (Leipzig: n.p.,
1929).
Idem, Religionswissenschaftliche Forschungsberichte uber
die "goldene Regel" (Athens: n.p., 1933).
Hans Reiner, "Die 'Goldene Regel': Die Bedeutung
einer sittlichen Grundformel der Menschheit,"
ZPhF 3 (1948) 74-105; revised in his Die
Grundlagen der Sittlichkeit (3d ed.; Meisenheim am
Glan: Hain, 1974) 348-79.
Idem, Die philosophische Ethik, ihre Fragen und Lehren in
Geschichte und Gegenwart (Heidelberg: Quelle &
Meyer, 1964) 186-95.
Idem, "Die Goldene Regel und das Naturrecht:
Zugleich eine Antwort auf die Frage: Gibt es ein
Naturrecht?" Studia Leibnitiana 9 (1977) 231-54.
Paul Ricoeur, Liebe und Gerechtigkeit. Amour et Justice.
(German trans. by Matthias Raden; ed. Oswald
Bayer; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1990) 49-67.
Idem, "The Golden Rule: Exegetical and Theological
Perplexities," NTS 36 (1990) 392-97.
Hans Henning Ritter, "Gegenseitigkeit," HWPh 3
(1974) 119-29.
Petrus R yhinerus, Dissertatio philosophica de fondamento
juris naturae et gentium, quod continetur Matth. VII.
12, etc., respondenteJosepho Socino, etc. (Basileae:
E. &J. R. Thurnisiorum fratrum, 1727).
Marcus George Singer, "The Golden Rule," Philosophy
38 (1963) 293-314.
Idem, "Golden Rule," Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy 3
(1967) 365-67.
Gunter Spendel, "Die Goldene Regel als
Rechtsprinzip," in Josef Esser and Hans Thieme,
eds., FS jar Fritz von Hippe! zum 70. Geburtstag
(Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1967) 491-516.
Ludwik Sternbach, "Indian Wisdom and Its Spread
Beyond India," ]ADS 101 (1981) 97-131.
Johannes Straub, "Die Goldene Regel," in his
Regeneratio Imperii (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1972) 314-21.
Werner Wolbert, "Die Goldene Regel und das ius
talionis," TThZ 95 (1986) 169-81.
Zeller, Mahnspruche, 117-20.
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

1) Introduction stated positively, "Do to others what you would have

Since the end of the Middle Ages the sentence in
SM/Matt 7:12/ /SP /Luke 6:31 has been called "The
Golden Rule," golden in the sense of most precious and
important. 647 Indeed, the Golden Rule was regarded as
one of the ground rules of human civilization, its truth
being beyond question. This wide acceptance was not
limited to Christian tradition. On the contrary, until
today the great debates about the Golden Rule have
taken place among the philosophers. The reason for the
importance of the Rule for philosophy was certainly not
its attestation in the New Testament, although this
authorization helped its popularity. 648 Rather, as
scholars have discovered since the Enlightenment and
demonstrated by large collections of parallels, the
Golden Rule was known to nearly every culture, even
prior to its literary transmission. 649 In the West, the
Golden Rule is first attested by Herodotus, 650 who may
have learned it from the Sophists. 651 In the East,
Confucius knew it, 65 2 and it is found as well in the
Mahabharatha and in Far Eastern gnomological
collections. 653
The sentence is transmitted in various forms. It can be
them do to you!" or negatively, "Do not do to others what
you would not want them to do to you!" The popularity
of the Golden Rule through the ages has been
accompanied by a growing body of special investigations.
These scholarly efforts are the result of two factors. First,
the Rule is not entirely clear and one can therefore
interpret it in several ways. 654 Second, a number of
different theories have explained its origin. These factors
are bound up with the question of the continued validity
of the Rule under the scrutiny of philosophical ethics and
law. In order to understand the problems raised by the
Golden Rule, it is important to look first at the
presuppositions and then also at the various hypotheses. I
should say, however, that here I cannot give a full
account of all the problems and theories; such an account
would easily become a book by itself. Here I can give but
a brief account; further study should include a thorough
review of the secondary literature (see the bibliography
above).

64 7 For the earliest attestations of the name, see 96-99.

Leonidas J. Philippidis, Die "Goldene Regel" religions-
geschichtlich untersucht (Leipzig: n. p., 1929) 14-15;
Albrecht Dihle, "Goldene Regel," RAG 11 (1981)
930-31; Cohen, jewish and Roman Law, 545 n. 8
(referring toR. Godfrey (1674],]. Watts (1741], and
others). One should also note that Ps.-Clem. Rec.
8.56. 7-8 calls the sentence regula ("rule"): "et intra
hanc regulam humanorum gestorum singula
quaeque concurrunt" ("and every matter of man's
actions is comprehended within this rule").
648 Marcus G. Singer ("The Golden Rule," Philosophy 38
(1963]293-314, 293-94) refers to Thomas Hobbes,
for whom the negatively formulated Golden Rule is
the "sum ... of the Lawes of Nature," while when
formulated positively "it is the Law of the Gospell."
See Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (London: Dent,
1914) chap. 15, para. 35, p. 82; cf. chap. 14, para. 4,
p.67;chap. 17,para. 2,p.87.
649 See the parallel collections in Grotius, Ad Matthaeum,
89-90; Wettstein, 1.341-42; Heinrici, Bergpredigt
(1905) 2.85-88; Str-B 1.459-60; Lachs, Rabbinic
Commentary, 143-45; Philippidis, "Goldene Regel,"
passim; idem, Religionswissenschaftliche Forschungs-
berichte; Dihle, Goldene Regel (see the bibliography to
this section).
650 Herodotus 3.142; 7.136; see Dihle, Goldene Regel,
651 Dihle, ibid., 85-102; Dihle (85) believes that the
Sophists invented the Golden Rule at the end of the
5th century BCE.
652 See Philippidis, "Goldene Regel," 62-74.
653 Ibid., 74-95; and Ludwik Sternbach, "Indian
Wisdom and Its Spread beyond India," JAOS 101
(1987) 97-131.
654 As Singer ("The Golden Rule," 294-95) has pointed
out, "the Golden Rule has to be understood as a
moral principle, and not as a moral rule. That is to
say, it does not, as does a moral rule, state some
specifically determined kind of action that is right or
wrong, or that it ought or ought not to be done. It
rather sets forth, or has to be understood to set forth,
in abstract fashion, a method or procedure for
determining the morality of a line of action, and thus
is intended to provide a principle from which, or in
accordance with which, if it is valid, more specific or
concrete moral rules can be derived. It seems to me
that one of the mistakes that has often been made in
connection with the Golden Rule is to treat it as
though it were a specific directive, having a directly
determined application."

509
 1. Is there a difference between the positive and the
negative formulation of the Rule? If there is, what is the
difference? It is commonly assumed that the two forms
differ significantly in that the positive form prescribes an
initiative and substantial contribution, while the negative
form implies mere abstention without initiative and
contribution. Others have argued, however, that the
difference is simply a matter of formulation, not
substance; one can state a wish or desire positively or
negatively without changing the basic meaning. As a
result, for instance, there would be no real difference
between wanting someone not to tell a lie and wanting
someone to tell the truth. Thus, the difference between
positive and negative would amount to no more than
rhetoric or preference. 6 55
More is involved, however, than mere rhetoric or
personal preference. In court, for example, swearing "to
tell the truth and nothing but the truth" differs greatly
from swearing to abstain from telling lies. The latter,
abstention from lies, is disinterested in finding out what
the truth is in a court case and in general; such an
attitude is disinterested in serving justice. Behind the
formulations, therefore, appear opposite sets of values of
a principal nature, and they determine the choice. This
result also raises the question whether the Golden Rule
is, strictly speaking, a principle that stands on its own
terms, or a maxim that is in turn based on other
principles. One of the points in recent discussions has
focused on these underlying presuppositions.
2. Greek philosophy had recognized what became
apparent much later: that one cannot regard the Golden
655 Singer ("The Golden Rule," 293-94) argues that the
negative and the positive formulations are equiv-
alent, and he also introduces a number of important
distinctions, such as a "denial": "Do not do unto
others as you would have them do unto you!" Or an
"inversion": "Do unto others as they would have you
do unto them!"
a
656 Aristotle Rhet. 2.6.19, 1384b 4: yap Tt~ avro~ 7TOI€L,
a
TaVTa A'y£Tat Tots- 7dAas- oV VftJ.ECTCi.v, ~UTE fL~ wotii,
aijl\ov lir1 vep.eiTii ("For a man is supposed not to
reproach others with what he does himself, so it is
clear that what he reproaches them with is what he
does not do himself"). Cited according to Aristotle:
The "Art" of Rhetoric (trans. by John H. Freese; LCL;
London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University, 1926) 216-17. See Dihle, Goldene Regel,
39, 96, 97, 102.
510
Rule as a self-evident principle of ethics. Aristotle
mentions the Rule in his Rhetoric as the commonsense
"opinion of the many" (S6ta rwv 7TOAAwv), 656 but he does
not treat it as an ethical principle worthy of a place in his
philosophical ethics. Plato does not take it up either. At
the end of antiquity, Augustine calls the Golden Rule a
"vulgare proverbium" ("common proverb"). 657
These judgments were affirmed in the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries by philosophers, especially John
Locke, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and Immanuel Kant,
all of whom examined the Rule critically. 658 Locke was
still able to call the Rule the "foundation of all social
virtue," but he did not consider it superfluous to ask for a
justification of it. 659 Leibniz 660 pointed out that the Rule
needs further interpretation. Is it to be taken in a
restrictive sense ("Do to others only what you would have
them do to you!"), or in an expansive sense ("Do
everything to others that you would have them do to
you!")? If the latter is the right understanding, and this
implication applies to Matt 7: 12 in particular, the
obligations entered into would be potentially unlimited,
which means that only the restrictive sense can be
regarded as plausible.
Leibniz made two important discoveries: (a) he found
that the Rule cannot itself be a criterion for ethical action
because it depends on such a criterion; (b) the Rule
shows the way to such a criterion by putting oneself into
the situation of another person.
Based on Leibniz's critique, Kant dismissed the
Golden Rule as "trivial" and as incapable of serving as an
adequate criterion for ethical action. 661 For a time after
657 Augustine De ordine 2.25 (PL 32.1006); idem, Ep.
157.3.15 (PL 33.681).
658 For the following see Reiner, "Die 'Goldene Regel'";
idem, "Die Goldene Regel und das Naturrecht"; with
further bibliography (see the bibliography to this
section).
659 John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Under-
standing, book 1, chap. 21, section 4 (2 vols.; ed.
Alexander C. Fraser; Oxford: Clarendon, 1894) 1.68.
660 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Nouveaux essais sur
l' entendement humain, in his Die philosophischen
Schriften, vol. 5 (ed.J. C. Gerhardt; Berlin: Weid-
mann, 1882) chap. 2, section 4 (pp. 83-84). See
Reiner, "Die Goldene Regel und das Naturrecht,"
234.
661 Immanuel Kant, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der
Jten, in Kant's Werke, vol. 4 (Berlin: Reimer, 1903)
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

Kant, then, the Golden Rule lost its importance for
philosophical ethics. It was not until the latter part of the
twentieth century that philosophers and jurists took it up
again. 662
3. In a number of important investigations, the
philosopher Hans Reiner has presented a new
comparative approach to the Rule. 663 Comparing the
various formulations of it, he distinguishes not merely
the positive and negative versions but different form-
types (Formtypen) with quite different meanings:
(a) The Einfuhlungsregel ("rule of sympathetic
projection"), found in Epictetus, 664 the Pseudo-Clementine
Homilies, 665 and Augustine, 666 commands not to do to
others what we ourselves do not wish to suffer. We must,
therefore, imagine ourselves in the place of others whose
sufferings we have witnessed or heard of. Nothing in this
version suggests retribution, but what I may have to
suffer may have its origin in something other than
another person. 667
(b) The Autonomieregel ("rule of autonomous
judgment")668 is exemplified by the maxim attributed to
Pittacus, one of the Seven Sages, or to Thales, another of
the same group. When asked how to live best and most
righteously, Thales is said to have pronounced "By
refraining from doing what we blame in others." 669 This
rule presupposes that one acquires one's own evaluative
judgment about the conduct of the other before one acts,
and then acts in the way opposite to what one disap-
proves of. The evaluative judgment presupposes the
existence and application of prior ethical criteria. This
rule, therefore, requires "autonomy" in the sense that a
priori one must voluntarily recognize existing norms as
obligatory. These a priori norms are in turn not
arbitrary, but they are based on the principle of justice.
Reiner sees this exemplified by a statement in Lysias: "It
is not right, therefore, that you ... regard those deeds,
which you deemed unjust when done to you, as just when
you do them to others. • 6 7°
(c) The Rilckbezilglichkeitsregel ("rule ofreflexivity"), 671
which Reiner had earlier named Gegenseitigkeitsregel

430 note.
662 For bibliography see Hoche, "Goldene Regel,"
passim; Spendel, "Goldene Regel"; Singer, "The
Golden Rule"; idem, "Golden Rule"; Mathys,
Heiligenthal, and Schrey, "Goldene Regel" (see the
bibliography to this section); Luz, Matthaus, 1.389- 667
94 (Matthew, 1.425-32).
663 See his articles of 1948 and 1977 and his Die philo- 668
sophische Ethik: Ihre Fragen und Lehren in Geschichte
und Gegenwart (Heidelberg: QueUe und Meyer, 1964) 669
186-95; idem, Die Grundlagen der Sittlichkeit (Mono-
graphien zur philosophischen Forschung 5; 2d ed.;
Meisenheim am Glan: Hain, 197 4) 348-79 (reprint
of the 1948 article with revised notes); see also pp.
278-92.
664 Epictetus frg. 35 and 38 (ed. Schenk!, pp. 486 and
493).
665 Ps.-Clem. Hom. 7 .4.3: "The good things that everyone
wants for himself, let him want the same things also 670
for his neighbor" (" A7rEp I!Ka<TTOS ;avT~ {3o,))I.ETal
KaA<i, Ta avTa f3ov1lwtcr8w Kat T~ 'TrA'I/<Tlov). The text is
cited according to the edition by Bemhard Rehm,
Die Pseudoklementinen, vol. 1: Homilien (ed. Franz
Paschke; 2d ed.; GCS; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,
1969); the trans. is mine.
666 Augustine Ep. 157.3.15: "Nobody should do any evil 671
to another that he himself does not want to suffer"
("ne mali aliquid faciat quisque alteri, quod pati ipse
non vult"). The text is cited according to A. Gold-
bacher, ed., Augustin us, Epistulae (CSEL 44.463); the
trans. is mine. Cf. idem, De serm. dom. in monte
II.22.74-75 (ed. Mutzenbecher, 172-74).
Reiner, "Die Goldene Regel und das Naturrecht,"
237-38; idem, Grundlagen, 356-61.
Idem, "Die Goldene Regel und das Naturrecht,"
238-40; idem, Grundlagen, 361-71.
According to Diog. L. 1.36: 'TrWS av li.piCTTa Kat
a
OtKaU~TaTa {3t6Jrratp.EV' "fh.v TO 'iS' CI.AAotS' EwLTI.IJ-WJ.LEV'
avTOt p.~ l;pwp.EV." Citation according to Diogenes
Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers (trans. by R. D.
Hicks; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard University, 1925) 1.38-39. See Bruno
Snell, Leben und Meinungen derSieben Weisen (4th ed.;
Munich: Heimaran, 1971) 106 (no. 5.4); Dihle,
Goldene Regel, 9.
Reiner, "Die Goldene Regel und das Naturrecht,"
239. Lysias Or. 25.20: ov Tolvvv lf.t"~av XPiicr8a1 TO,)TOIS,
... oVOE a7rcl.uxovTES' O.OtiCa Evop.l(ETf. ?nlaxf.LV, CJrav
;Ttpovs 'TrOiijTE, l;{Kala ~yiicr8a1. Cited according to
Lysias (trans. W. R. M. Lamb; LCL; Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: Heine-
mann, 1930).
Reiner, "Die Goldene Regel und das Naturrecht,"
240-41; idem, Grundlagen, 371-78.

511
("rule of reciprocity"), 67 2 is exemplified in SM/Matt
7:12/ /SP Luke 6:31. This rule takes as the norm one's
own desires regarding the other person's conduct toward
oneself, not the other person's situation, actual behavior,
or need, This rule prudently calculates that the other
person will, if treated in a particular manner, react in
kind, so that the desirable conduct is actualized. Reiner
sees that even this version, though it comes close to the
principle of retribution, is quite different from
retribution; retribution is reactive to deeds already done,
while this version of the Rule operates on the basis of an
anticipated reaction by the other person. One can
anticipate it because of the common acknowledgment of
the social conventions concerning fairness, mutuality of
favors, and exchanges of gifts (do ut des ["I give so that
you may give"]). 673
4. In his important investigation of the Golden Rule,
published in 1962, Albrecht Dihle 674 proposed a new
hypothesis, according to which the Golden Rule has its
historical roots in ancient views on retaliation. Thus, as
Dihle sees it, the Golden Rule was in its origin a legal
principle, identical with the ius talionis ("law of
retribution"). 675 This ius talionis, the principle of
compensatory retribution, was intended to put an end to
indiscriminate blood revenge, up until then the com-
monly accepted practice. Thus, the acceptance of the
rule represented one of the most important steps in the
development of human civilization. In antiquity, this ius
talionis with its built-in concept of retaliation dominated
jurisprudence as well as popular morality. When, in this
context of retaliatory strategies, the Golden Rule was
developed, it could express only retaliatory morality, no
matter how sophisticated its formulation may be. There-
fore, Aristotle's judgment was correct, when he
attributed the Rule to popular morality (Vulgarethik), not
to philosophical ethics. 6 7 6
Beginning with the Sophists, Dihle sees a gradual
development in the course of which retaliatory morality
and thinking was gradually overcome. 677 But even
before the Sophists, the ancient Near Eastern literature,
in particular the Old Testament, contains admonitions to
abstain from vengeance, to be generous and
forgiving. 678 Dihle submits a wealth of passages from
many different sources that demonstrate how retaliation
became more and more objectionable or even
reprehensible. It was the achievement of Greek
philosophy to have taken up these problems and to have
subjected them to rigorous intellectual analysis. As a
result, retaliation ceased to function as an acceptable
moral principle guaranteeing justice. Ethical action,
seriously considered, must be based in principle on the
good, understood as generosity and philanthropy,
regardless of what the other person has done or not
done.
In Dible's view, the teaching of Jesus dispensed with
the Golden Rule and replaced it with the concept of the
love of neighbor. This drastic break with traditional
morality was caused by Jesus' belief in an imminent
eschatology, the coming of the kingdom of God, and
trust in God's grace. Jesus' ethics, therefore, was a
separatist ethics (Sonderethik), 679 not in conformity in any
way with antiquity's general morality and ethics.
Following this ethics meant that the religiously faithful
disciples of Jesus imitated God's generosity and grace.
All forms of retaliation were eliminated, and the only
norm was to be God's or Christ's action (imitatio dei
["imitation of God"] or imitatio Christi ["imitation of
Christ"]). 680
Dible's view raises the question what to do with the
attestation of the Golden Rule in Matt 7: 12//Luke

672 The change was necessary because of possible
confusion with the principle of retribution (ius
talionis). See Reiner, "Die Goldene Regel und das
Naturrecht," 240.
673 On this subject see Du Roy, La reciprocite, 31-49;
Ritter (see the bibliography to this section).
674 See above, n. 649. Dihle's book was reviewed by
D. A. Russell, Gnomon 35 (1963) 213-15; Herbert
Schmid, ZRGG 15 (1963) 303-4; Ludwig Berg, TR
60 (1964) 326-28; A. E. Harvey,JTS 15 (1964) 384-
88; GUnter Haufe, GGA 217 (1965) 268-71;James
M. Robinson,JHPh 4 (1966) 84-88.
675 Dihle, Goldene Regel, 13-40.
676 Ibid., 39-40.
677 Ibid., 61-71,85-103.
678 Ibid., 42-44, 82-84, 109-15.
679 Ibid., 75, agreeing with Bultmann's concept of a
Christian Sonderethik (see Bultmann, Theology, 1.100-
108; 2.203-18 [§ 10.4-5 and§ 59]).
680 Dihle, Goldene Regel, 73-79.

512
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

6:31. 681 Dihle solves the problem by arguing that these
passages682 may not represent Jesus' authentic teaching;
the Rule does indeed conform to Jewish teaching and it
is, for this reason, pre-Christian. "In the case of the
Golden Rule in Matt 7:12 one can say as much as this:
The added reference, according to which the rule
contains the sum of the Law and the Prophets, betrays
that the view propagated is that of late Judaism rather
than the authentic teaching of Jesus. Although acting
according to the Golden Rule does not contradict the
ethical conduct to be derived from Jesus' teaching about
humanity and its situation in the inbreaking endtime, this
Golden Rule could surely never serve as the fundamental
concept for the good to be done, given Jesus' revelation
of the new that had never been spoken before. "683 Jesus'
command to love the enemy definitely means, according
to Dihle, the abrogation of the Golden Rule and marks
the starting point of the new Christian ethics. 684 Dihle's
work, which cannot be analyzed further at this point,
raises the following questions with regard to the Golden
Rule in the SM and the SP:
(a) Is the Golden Rule a principle of retaliatory
morality?
(b) Can one interpret the Rule in a positive sense so
that it is acceptable to Christian ethics?
(c) How is the Golden Rule related to the ius talionis
and to the command to love one's neighbor?
The work by Reiner and the critical reviews of Dihle
have shown that the Golden Rule is not necessarily a
statement of retaliatory morality. Indeed, one can
understand the Rule in several ways, only one of which
Dihle considered. Also, secondary interpretations of the
Rule do not by necessity imply that the Rule itself has
been rejected. The ius talionis at first sight looks similar
to the Golden Rule and has often been confused with it.
They are, however, quite different. Moreover, there is
no need to think that one depends on the other. 685
Reformulated in accordance with the ius talionis the
Golden Rule would read: "Do to others as they do to
you!" Or: "Do as you are being treated!" The difference is
that between a legal principle (the ius talionis) and an
ethical maxim (the Golden Rule). The latter is based on
other presuppositions and on imaginative projection; the
former is a general and declarative abstraction.
The SM subjects both the ius talionis and the Golden
Rule to secondary interpretation; the SM also declares
both compatible with the command to love the neighbor
(see above on 5:38-42 and 5:43-48). The SM claims that
its peculiar understanding of the Golden Rule goes back
to Jesus of Nazareth, and one has no reason to doubt that
in an old source such as the SM this claim is reliable. By
contrast, Dihle's doubts amount to begging the question.
The context in which the Golden Rule is certainly found
is Jewish, but this does not automatically mean that it is
non-Christian. With many other Jewish materials, the
Golden Rule has been taken over by Christianity, and
thus it has been confirmed as it is. Since Jesus himself was
a Jew, a total break between his teaching and that of
Judaism amounts to another instance of begging the
question, based on Christian christology of other New
Testament authors. The Jewish-Christian milieu, from
which the SM and the SP came, means that the Golden
Rule as found in Judaism has been endorsed by
Christians who, however, do not call themselves by that
name at this time, so that there is no room for a total
break between Jewish and Christian ethics in the way
Dihle imagines. In fact, Dihle's notion of a Christian
separatist ethics cannot be maintained. The Golden Rule
was endorsed by Christianity just as it was endorsed by all
of antiquity.

681 Ibid., 103-9, 109-27. Aber nie konnte auf Grund des Neuen, his dahin
682 For Dihle's, in my view mistaken, interpretation of nicht Gesagten, was die Predigtjesu enthalt, die
SP /Luke 6:31 see below on this passage. Goldene Regel zum Inbegriff guten Handelns
683 Dihle, ibid., 112: "Im Faile der Goldenen Regel in erhoben und a us ihr aile MaBstabe fiir die sittliche
Mt. 7, 12 darf man jedoch soviel sagen, daB der Bewertung einer Handlung gewonnen werden."
hinzugesetzte Hinweis, sie enthalte die Summe des 684 Ibid., 114-16.
Gesetzes und der Propheten, eher die Anschauungs- 685 See also Wolbert (see the bibliography to this section).
weise des Spatjudentums als den Geist echter Jesus-
Logien verrat. Zwar widerspricht ein Handeln nach
der Goldenen Regel nicht den Verhaltensweisen, die
sich aus Jesu Lehren vom Menschen und seiner
Situation in der anbrechenden Endzeit herleiten.

513
 While I cannot follow Dihle's overall conception of the
development of the Golden Rule, I do agree that the
Christianization of the Rule was a secondary act and that
it constitutes one of the most important links among
Greek, Jewish, and Christian ethical thinking at the
beginning.
More recently, Paul Ricoeur 686 has presented a new
interpretation of the Golden Rule in several of his essays.
His interpretation is part of a comprehensive theory of
ethics, which defines philosophical ethics as responsible
action in a field of tension constituted by the
metaphorical poetics oflove on the one side and the
formality of law on the other side. Taking over much of
my interpretation, Ricoeur argues against Dihle when he
sees the Golden Rule as open to two interpretations, one
egotistical/utilitarian and another altruistic/nonutili-
tarian. For this concept of ethics he prefers the latter,
nonutilitarian, interpretation. In his view it is based on
the love-command of the ethics of Jesus. As such the
love-command is not without its presuppositions but is
based, in Ricoeur's terms, on an "economy of
abundance." This "economy of abundance" is a "supra-
ethical," cosmic, and quasi-theological process, by which
human beings experience life in its totality as an
abundant gift requiring a concurrent response of
generosity. This "economy of abundance," while itself
not a principle, can be summed up in the form of a
principle. Against Dihle, Ricoeur further argues that one
must not understand Jesus' love-command as an
abrogation of the Golden Rule. Rather, the love-
command is a corrective, to which the Golden Rule is
made to conform. Thus, one must interpret the Golden
Rule in accordance with the "economy of abundance."
As a result, ethical action originates in real-life situations
that occur in the midst of the "logic of abundance" and
the "logic of the exchange of gifts." Such ethical action
can, therefore,justify the requirements of justice and at
the same time engage in the "poetics of love." Love must
not be confused with ethics, according to Ricoeur, but
the "poetics of love" is indispensable for any formation of
ethical action.
While I agree with much ofRicoeur's thesis, there are
further complications, as far as the SM is concerned.
First, what he calls the "economy of abundance" the SM
identifies theologically as God's generosity dispensed
through nature. The SM does not attempt to separate
theological and philosophical ethics. Second, the love-
command itself is a much more involved ethical demand.
This love-command has a long history that goes back to
the Holiness Code of Leviticus 19, within which it is
based on the holiness of God, not on his generosity. But
even prior to its inclusion into the Holiness Code, Lev
19:18 seems to have had a history, when its basis was self-
love alone. Jesus' interpretation in SM/Matt 5:43-48
bases the love-command neither on self-love nor on
God's holiness but on divine generosity dispensed daily
through nature. God's generosity, however, is regarded
as the expression of his righteousness, and distributing
sunshine and rain also to the unrighteous and wicked is
the manifestion of God's mercy. For the SM, therefore,
the "economy of abundance" is certainly a "natural"
phenomenon, but as a natural phenomenon one is not to
take it for granted. To comprehend the phenomenon as
what it is requires confidence in a God who is willing to
pay a price and suffer injustice.
To return to the historical questions, how did the
Golden Rule enter into Judaism? It seems to have
happened in the Hellenistic era, since it turns up first in a
sequence of ethical maxims in Tob 4:15: 68 7
Do to no one what you yourself would hate. (REB)
Kat Cf JJ-LCTf.LS p.1JOf.Vt 7TOL~CT?JS. (LXX)
In Ep. Arist. 207 the Golden Rule is part of an answer
given by a sage to the king's question, "What is the
teaching of wisdom?":
"What does wisdom teach?" This next guest replied:
"Insofar as you do not wish evils to come upon you,
but to partake of every blessing, (it would be wisdom)
if you put this into practice with your subjects,

686 For Ricoeur's contributions see the bibliography on

this section above. For a discussion of his ethical
theories, see David E. Klemm and William
Schweiker, eds., Meanings in Texts and Actions:
Questioning Paul Ricoeur (Charlottesville, Va: Uni-
versity of Virginia, 1992).
687 Only some parts of the manuscript tradition have this
section.

514
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

including the wrongdoers, and if you admonished the
good and upright also mercifully. For God guides all
men in mercy."
T{ fiTTIV uocplas ataax~; 0 a€ lnpos Cz7T£cp~VETO'
Ka8i.Js OV flo{;)\£! ITEaVT{i> Tlz KaKiz 7TapEtVa!, JJ.ETOXOS a€
T;;JV aya8wv imapxE!V a7TCLVTWV, E1 7TptLITITHS TOVTO 7rphs
TOVs li7TOTETayp.£vovs Kat TOVs ap.apTCLVOVTas. 688
Therefore, the Golden Rule entered into Judaism by
way of the Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom tradition. From
there it came into rabbinic Judaism; see b. Sabb. Jla (see
below, n. 690) and the interpretation of m. 'Abot 2.10
and 2.11 in 'Abot de R. Nat. 1.15 and 1.16.
How then did the Rule enter into Christianity?
Joachimjeremias 689 has proposed that Jesus took over
the Rule from Hillel and reformulated it. Whereas
Hillel 690 cited the Rule in its negative form, Jesus
created the positive version. His reason for doing this
was that the negative form merely prohibits causing
damage to the neighbor, while the positive version
implies the initiative to provide help and support. Thus,
in its positive formulation the Golden Rule is no longer
commonsense wisdom but a theologically conscious
interpretation of the command to loveone's•neighbor
(Lev 19: 18).
RudolfBultmann 691 objected to this hypothesis, and
Dihle 692 agreed that there is no real difference between
a negative and a positive formulation of the Rule. Taken
by themselves, both are general moral maxims based on
a naive egotism. In turn,Jeremias 693 tried to defend his
views by saying that HellenisticJudaism, 694 which
constituted Jesus' cultural environment, knew only the
negative form of the Rule; consequently, it must have
been jesus who came up with the positive form found in
the Gospels.
Meanwhile, however, new uncertainties have arisen
that make Jeremias's hypothesis even more difficult.
There are serious doubts about attributing the Rule to
Hillel because of the historical arbitrariness of all such
attributions; but even if that attribution is accepted as a
possibility, what about the affinities between Hillel and
Stoicism? In fact, no sharp line of demarcation between
Hellenism and Judaism seems to have existed in regard
to moral maxims, whether negatively or positively
formulated. It is also unlikely that the rabbinic theology
stated in b. Sabb. 31 a already existed at Jesus' own time
and in his milieu. Most likely, therefore, both Jesus and
Hillel received the Golden Rule from their Hellenistic-
Jewish environment, from where it then entered into
rabbinic literature.
As a result, one has no reason to rule out the
hypothesis that Jesus appropriated the Golden Rule in its
positive version from the tradition. Furthermore, one
can have no real doubt that the Rule was a constitutive

688 Trans. by J. H. Shutt, OTP 2.26; text according to
Andre Pelletier, ed., Lettre d'Aristee aPhilocrate (SC
89; Paris: Cerf, 1962) 196. See the Hebrew T. Naph.
1.6. For a translation see Hollander and de Jonge,
Testaments, appendix I (p. 446). See also Philo Hypoth.
7.6; 2 Enoch(]) 42.6-11, a fusion of the Golden Rule
and the Beatitudes (OTP 1.168); 60.1-3; 61.1 (OTP
1.186-8 7); Ahiqar (Armenian) 8. 88, see OTP 2.490,
587; Ps.-Philo Ant. bibl. 11.9-13 (OTP 2.319), an
interpretation of the Decalogue by the Golden Rule;
Syr. Menander 246-47 (OTP 2.587-88), an
interpretation of the law against adultery by the
Golden Rule; Tg. Ps.-J. I (Lev 19: 18). See also Str-B
1.459-60; Abrahams, Studies, 1.18-29; Lachs,
Rabbinic Commentary, 143-45.
689 Joachim Jeremias, "Goldene Regel," RGG (3d ed.
1959) 2.1688.
690 The text upon which this hypothesis is based is b.
Sabb. 31a: "On another occasion it happened that a
certain heathen came before Shammai and said to
him: 'Make me a proselyte, on condition that you
teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.'
Thereupon he repulsed him with a builder's cubit
which was in his hand. When he went before Hillel,
he converted him. He said to him: 'What is hateful to
you do not to your neighbor, that is the whole
Torah, while the rest is commentary thereof; go and
learn it!" (trans. Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic
Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 [3 vols.; Leiden:
Brill, 1971]1.322-23). On this passage and its
parallels, see Jospe, "Hillel's Rule," JQR 81 (1990)
45-57.Jospe takes seriously the suggestion ap-
parently first made by Mordecai M. Kaplan that the
term !;,,_., ("foot") involves a double entendre and
wordplay using the Latin regula ("rule"). The
witticism would combine the standing on one foot,
the standing on one rule (the Golden Rule), and
Shammai's quite different use of regula ("measuring
rod").
691 Bultmann, History, 103.
692 Dihle, Goldene Regel, 10.
693 Jeremias, Theology, 211-12.
694 Namely, Ep. Arist. 207.

515
part of his teaching; a number of independent witnesses
affirm it. 695 Even if one grants this point, however, one
must still examine the interpretation of the Rule in the
SM.
The SM probably preferred the positive formulation
because it agrees in that point with the love-command
(cf. above on 5:43-44). 696 This form emphasizes the
initiative to be taken by the ethically responsible disciple,
who in this also imitates God's taking the initiative in
dealing with humanity at large (cf. above on 5:45; 6:25-
34). By contrast, one could easily associate the negative
form of the Rule with a God who refrains from anger
and punishment, and who rules by patience and
magnanimity, if not indifference. In addition, one must
not overlook that the Golden Rule in SM/Matt 7: 12 is
provided with a secondary interpretation by associating it
with the Law and the Prophets (on this point see below).
2) Analysis Connected by otv ("therefore"), the Golden Rule is
stated in a positive formulation in vs 12a-b. The
sentence itself has parallel lines (isocolon), the first line
(vs 12a) stating the imagined reaction by others, and
the second line (vs 12b) the recommended action. The
reason for the endorsement of this well-known rule is
provided by the interpretative identification in vs 12c,
which functions as an aetiologia (the reason standing in
postposition). Sententia and aetiologia together form an
enthymema (a syllogism). 697
3) Interpretation
• 12 As has already been shown, the Golden Rule in the
SM has its own characteristics. 698 The beginning words,
"Everything, therefore, whatever it may be ... "("rravm
oiJV Cfua eav . ..), sum up what has preceded, but the
question is how much do those words include. Since the
emphasis is on "doing," one should include everything in
the preceding text that implies doing. Thus, "everything"
should include the entire ethics of the SM. But
"everything" seems to admit that the SM does not deal
with all possible ethical issues, but only with a selection of
especially important issues. In other words, the
applicability not only of the Golden Rule but no less of
the ethics of the SM as a whole is potentially unlimited,
so that the SM here points beyond itself: "Everything,
therefore, whatever you want that people do to
you ... " (7ravra o~v Cfua eav Bb..TJT€ tva "lTOtWITLV vp.l:v OL
livflpamot ... ). 699
This somewhat circumstantial formulation 700 appeals
to the imagination of the hearers or readers. All human
beings have desires and expectations about the ways they
wish others to treat them. It is presupposed that human
social life consists of conventions of reciprocity, exchange
of gifts and favors, action and reaction, and so forth. One
can favorably influence this social system of conventions
and turn it to one's advantage, if one makes use of one's
imagination and realizes one's expectations. It is

695 SM/Matt 7:12/ /SP/Luke 6:31; Acts 15:19-20 v.l.,
28-29 v.l.; Did 1.2; 1 Clem 13.2; P. Oxy. 654, no. 5;
Cos. Thom.log. 6;JustinDial. 93.1. For parallel
passages see Aland, Synopsis, 95; Kloppenborg, Q
Parallels, 28-30; Resch, Agrapha, 60-61, 17 4;
Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings, 24-26. Most of the
parallel passages do not depend on Matthew's or
Luke's Gospel directly. See also Ps.-Clem. Hom. 2.6.4;
7.4.3; 11.4.4; 11.5.2; 12.32.5; 18.16.3; Rec. 5.23.7;
8.56.7. For the problem see the work by Bartsch
cited in the bibliography to this section.
696 Cf. Dihle, Goldene Regel, 109-27.
697 See Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.432-33 (§ 875).
698 Cf. Strecker, Bergpredigt, 160 (Sermon, 155). Strecker 699 The connection otv ("therefore") is not read by K* L
(Weg, 135) takes the words to be the result of
Matthew's redaction, for which he refers to Matt
28:20 (also 13:46; 18:25) for confirmation. He is
followed in this view by Luz, Matthiius, 1.387
(Matthew, 1.430). The problem is, however, that Matt
28:20, which is clearly Matthean, has a different
matter in mind, namely, all of jesus' commandments
in the Gospel of Matthew. Matt 13:46 and 18:25 are
traditions found only in this author, so that it is
impossible to decide whether they come from special
tradition or whether Matthew has contributed them.
The summarizing ,-6.vra ("all") is common in the SM
(cf. 5:11, 15, 18, 22, 28, 32; 6:29, 32, 33; 7:8, 17,
19, 21, 24, 26). Did. 1.2, independent of the canon-
ical Matthew, has similar wording, and so hasPs.-
Clem. Hom. 11.4.4; Rec. 5.23.7. On the other side, the
clearly Matthean formulation in Matt 22:40 differs in
wording: fv TaVTars Tat'S' avuLv €vToAats 8Aos 0 v6f'OS'
Kpep.arat Kat o! ,-po<Pfirat ("In these two command-
ments hang the whole law and the prophets" [my
trans.]). Cf. also Gal5:14; Rom 13:9-10.
983.1424 pc syP born".
700 The parallel in SP /Luke 6:31 is less circumstantial;
one reason is certainly that its immediate context is
shorter and simpler.

516
 Matthew 6:19-7:12

moreover taken for granted that all humans have such
imagination, and that all humans want to be treated in
ways beneficial to them. Far from being stigmatized as
"naive" or "egotistical," these desires and expectations
are regarded as a normal part of human intercourse, and
anything to the contrary one would have to call deviant
and unsocial. Then we are to use these desires and
anticipations positively to influence fellow human beings
and their conduct toward us. 70 1
This presupposition is not called into question, for
example, by seeing a contradiction between "you will" or
"you want" (8b..7Ju), 70 2 and the third petition of the
Lord's Prayer, "Your will be done, as in heaven so also
on earth" (6:10b-c). 703 The term "doing" (7TOL£tv)
includes all human interaction by deeds and words, 704
just as "the people" (ot lf.vOpw'lToL) refers to all members of
the human race, not only the outsiders to the community
of Jesus' disciples. 705 Thus the ethics of the SM is not
particularistic or separatist but universalist, thereby
fulfilling one of the requirements of ethics.
Verse 12b then presents the recommendation for
one's own action: "thus also you shall do to them" (oilToos
"a'r. VfL£Ls '7TOL£LT£ a·bTo'Ls). 706 Instead of having the people's
actions determine our reaction, we should take the
initiative and act toward them first in accordance with
our imagination as to how we wish to be treated by them.
The expectation then is that the people thus approached
treat us in the same manner, so that we can anticipate
what their actions toward us will be. The general
presupposition here is that all people want to be treated
fairly and beneficially, and that all people will respond
with kindness and fairness if they are approached in that
way.
This presupposition by itself appears to be rather
naive. While true most of the time, the ethically
conscientious person will face critical situations that
should require, it seems, a good deal of caution. This
caution then seems to be the reason for the additional
interpretation in vs 12c.
The added interpretation in vs 12c is a formula: "For
this is the law and the prophets" (o{;Tos yap £crnv v6fLOS o
ICa'r. ot 'lTpocpijTat). "This" (ovTos) refers to the Golden Rule,
marking it as a citation. 707 What does it mean to say that
the Golden Rule is identical with the Torah, consisting of
"the law and the prophets"? 708 There are two ways of
understanding this identification:
First, proceeding from the phrase "the law and the
prophets," the Golden Rule could serve as a
hermeneutical principle for interpreting the large and
diverse books of the (Jewish) Bible. Although not
contained in these writings, the Golden Rule establishes a
standard and provides a fundamental unity in all
diversity. The claim would be that, although the Rule is
not found in the Scriptures expressly, it is contained in
them implicitly. 709
Second, proceeding from the Golden Rule and the
recognition of its need for presuppositions, "the law and

7 0 1 This interpretation is confirmed by the interesting
commentaries on the Golden Rule in Ps.-Clem. Hom.
7.4.3; 11.4.4; 11.5.2; 12.32.5; 18.16.3;Rec. 5.32.7;
8.56.7.
702 Cf. also SM/Matt 5:40-42.
703 If "naive egotism" is implied, it is not made an issue
because such egotism would not have been regarded
as an evil, as long as justice is safeguarded in other
ways. Cf. Bultmann's often-quoted statement (History,
103): "The positive form is purely accidental, for
whether it be given positive or negative formulation
the saying, as an individual utterance, gives moral
expression to a naif egoism."
704 Cf. SM/Matt 5:19, 32, 36, 46, 4 7; 6:1, 2, 3; 7:21, 22,
24, 26.
705 Cf. SM/Matt 5:13, 16, 19; 6:1, 2, 5, 14, 15, 16, 18;
7:9.
706 llua ..• ollTwr does not make a good correlation; see
BAGD, s.v. oiJn:os, l,a; Clcros, 2.
707 For parallels see BAGD, s.v. oVTor l.a; in Matthew see
3: 17; 17:5; 26:26, 28.
708 One should note that 7:12 differs slightly from 5:17;
the former has Kal ("and"), the latter has if ("or"); see
above on 5:17. Cf. alsoPs.-Clem. Hom. 12.32.5,
where the concluding reference reads: "For this is
God's law and that of the prophets, this is the
teaching of the truth" (OVTOf yap EITTI IIEOV vop.or Kat
7rpO<f>1JTWV, alJT1J Tijr aA7JIIE{ar ~ a&aauKaALa).
709 For the similar role of the Golden Rule at the end of
moral catalogues see Ps.-Clem. Hom. 7 .4.3; 11.5.2;
12.32.5; Rec. 8.56.7. In non-Christian texts also the
Rule can have this function; see !socrates Nicocl. 61-
62 (see also Nicocl. 49-50; Ad Nicocl. 24; 38; Panegyr.
81; Ps.-Isoc. Demon. 17); Ps.-Piutarch Consol. ad A poll.

517
the prophets" are the presuppositions required. 710 In
particular "that which you want" receives its precise
meaning not from one's own arbitrary wishes and desires
but from the will of God as revealed in the Torah. 711 We
are to affirm this will of God (cf. the Lord's Prayer [see
above on 6:1 Ob-c]).
Both of these options may play a role. Already prior to
the SM,Judaism had established that the Golden Rule
can serve as an integrating hermeneutical principle. In
addition, philosophers had pointed out that the Golden
Rule is in need of clarification regarding its underlying
values. Both these insights conform with the inter-
pretation that the SM gives to the Rule.
What finally is the interpretation given the Golden
Rule in the SM? Positioned at the end of the main body
of the SM and thus concluding its ethical discussions, the
Golden Rule occupies a very important place, indicating
various functions.
1. The Rule serves to summarize the ethical discussion
of 5: 1 7-7: 11 , sections that are understood as only some
examples from a potentially endless number of issues. All
that has been selected and discussed in the SM, all its
ethical commendations, are presented as conforming to
the Golden Rule. The same is true of all the possible
issues not discussed, issues that may come up at any time
in the life of the disciple. Whatever ethical action one
contemplates, therefore, must conform to the Golden
Rule. In this respect, the Rule is confirmed as the general
principle for all ethical decision making.
2. Being in need of interpretation as we have seen, the
Golden Rule is set in a secondary frame of reference.
This is indicated by the reference in vs 12c concerning
"the law and the prophets." Torah and Scripture are the
resources for knowing what God's will is, and this is the
needed presupposition for the interpretation of the
116C-D, which quotes the Delphic maxims "Know
yourself" and "Nothing in excess," followed by the
comment: "for on these two commandments hangs
all the rest."
71 0 Cf. the commentaries on the Golden Rule in Ps.-
Clem. Hom. 7 .4.3; 11.4.4; 11.5.2; 12.32.5; 18.16.3;
Rec. 5.23.7; 8.56.7.
711 So also Calvin, Inst. 2.8.53. Cf. Ps.-Clem. Hom. 2.6.4,
which states that the Golden Rule is a matter of
reason, not revelation. Cf. also Rec. 8.56. 7. Luther's
impressive sermon (W A 3 2. 494-99) goes beyond
these alternatives.
518
Golden Rule. In other words, the phrase "all that you
wish" is not to be left to egotistical arbitrariness, but
focuses on the will of God. The disciples are called on to
imagine what God wills and how God acts, in order then
to join in with his will and acting; and this point serves to
confirm the petition in the Lord's Prayer, "Your will be
done, as in heaven so also on earth" (6: 1Ob-c).
Interpreted in this way, the Golden Rule does not
presuppose as its foundation divine or human retaliation
but God's initiative of generosity, forbearance, and
forgiveness. The disciples are to imitate this divine
initiative in the hope that the people who they thus treat
will respond in kind.
3. The purpose of bringing in the Golden Rule is to
make sure that the ethics of the SM remains realistic,
prudent, and universal. The Golden Rule thus prevents
the ethics of the SM from becoming a separatist ethic
(Sonderethik). Consequently, as such the Golden Rule is
neither non-Christian nor Christian; it is recognized as
universal and is as such "Christianized" by its insertion in
the SM. This insertion takes place first at the level of the
Judaism of Jesus, then Jewish Christianity (SM), and
finally by the appropriation of the SM by the Gospel of
Matthew (the same is true for the SP and its adoption by
the Gospel of Luke).
Inserted at the end, the claim is made as well that the
Golden Rule is compatible with the other hermeneutical
principles at the head of the ethical main body of the SM
in 5:17-20. Thus, the Golden Rule does not abolish and
replace the Torah (cf. 5:17: "law or prophets") but fulfills
it, and it corresponds to the greater righteousness
required in 5:20. The Golden Rule certainly agrees with
the interpretation of the law of retribution (ius talionis
[5:38-42]) 712 and with the commandment to love the
neighbor (Lev 19:18) in 5:43-48. 713 One must keep in
712 Ps.-Clem. Hom. 18.16.3 combines the Golden Rule
and the ius talionis.
713 Cf. the commentary on the Golden Rule in Ps. -Clem.
Hom. 12.32.6. SM/Matt 5:43-44 interprets the love-
command of Lev 19:18, and then defines the
combination in this way, "And this perfect love
towards every man is the male part of philanthropy,
but the female part of it is compassion." This
combination may be traditional in part because it has
a parallel in Seneca (Ep. 47), who understands it in
terms of Stoic philosophy. See Dihle, Goldene Regel,
126 n. 1.

mind that all these interconnected interpretations exist
at the secondary level of the theology of the SM, but the
claim is also made that they exist even at the earlier level
of Jesus' Jewish theology.
4. Finally, besides the required creativity in imagining
what God wills and how he acts, the Golden Rule
demands a willingness to take considerable risks. One has
no guarantee that people will respond in kind when
approached with generosity and goodwill. While it is
considered realistic and prudent to act in this way,
because human beings behave accordingly most of the
time and because this is the right way of acting, one has
no assurance that they will do so all of the time. Indeed,
there is plenty of evidence that humans can be unfair,
ungrateful, exploitative, cynical, and brutal, no matter
Matthew 6:19-7:12
how kindly one may treat them. The cynical exploitation
of generosity and kindness is a daily experience for most
of us, so that the Golden Rule may look more like an
invitation to abuse than prudence.
Such risk taking, however, is a constitutive element of
everything worthy of being called ethical. According to
the SM, such risks are taken by God himself when he lets
the sun shine on the good and the bad, and his rain fall
on the righteous and the unrighteous (5:45).
The risk, therefore, is unavoidable; indeed, it belongs
to the marks of righteousness or prudence, but they
belong to the preconditions for all ethics. That aspect is
also part of the reality to which the Golden Rule
addresses itself.
519
 Matthew 7:13-23

Chapter VII
7 The Eschatological Warnings

1. Introduction similar should not distract from these differences. While

It has always been recognized that 7: 13 is the beginning
of a new section. 1 The composition and structure of this
new section are much easier to discern than that of the
preceding one of6:19-7:12. 2 Three sayings com-
positions make up this section: 7:13-14, 7:15-20, and
7:21-23. All of them contain eschatological warnings. 3
These three sections appear to take up and thematize the
numerous eschatological references that occur in the
preceding parts of the SM. Eschatological paraenesis is
known from Jewish and Christian literature, reaching
back into the Old Testament and subsequent Hellenistic-
Jewish materials. The three passages in 7:13-23 form a
transition from the three major parts of the body of the
SM to the concluding double parable in 7:24-27.
Gunther Bornkamm4 has summed up what can be said
about the composition of the section. He has recognized
that the plan for the composition becomes clear through
a comparison with the SP, where the saying "On judg-
ing" (SP /Luke 6:37-42/ /SM/Matt 7:1-5) is followed
by a comparison between the tree and its fruits and a
man and his works (SP /Luke 6:43-45/ /SM/Matt 7: 15-
20). Luke's source then continues with the saying of
6:46, in order to end with the double parable in 6:47-49
(/ /SM/Matt 7:24-27).
The differences between the SP and the SM at this
point are considerable. That the overall order is quite
the final double parable is essentially the same in the SP
and the SM, the sections in SM/Matt 7:13-23 have no
analogy in the SP. The Two Ways (SM/Matt 7:13-14)
are unique to the SM, with the Two Ways pattern found
only in the SM; the warning against false prophets
(SM/Matt 7: 15-20) is absent from the SP, as that text
knows only of the prophets of old (see below on SP /Luke
6:23). The warning against self-delusion (SM/Matt
7:21-23) has no parallel in the SP, although the subject
matter of self-delusion is certainly not unknown to it.
Bornkamm is right in saying that the strong emphasis
on eschatology is not found in the SP, although escha-
tology is found there, too. As Bornkamm has shown in
his study on the composition of 2 Corinthians, 5 such
eschatological warnings constituted a topos in jewish and
Christian literature at the time. "In the literary sense this
well-known jewish-Christian apocalyptic topos generated
the laws of form and composition so frequently attested
also elsewhere, to place warnings against false prophets
anhe end of larger sections or entire writings, in order
to prepare the church for the lastjudgment." 6
2. Interpretation
a. Two Ways and Two Gates (7:13-14)
13 Enter by the narrow gate!
For the [one] gate is wide and the way is
spacious that leads to destruction, and

See, e.g., Luther, WA 32.499; Tholuck, Bergrede,
458 (Commentary, 413); Meyer, Matthaus (3d ed.
1855) 164-65; Marguerat, Le jugement, 168-75;
Strecker, Bergpredigt, 161 (Sermon, 156); Luz,
Matthaus, 1.394-95 (Matthew, 1.432-33); Allison,
"Structure," 430; 432.
2 There seems to be no connection between 7:12 and
7: 13; the Golden Rule looks back on the SM
preceding it, while 7: 13 looks forward to the future,
and that both in the literary and theological sense.
Cf., however, Did. 1.1-2, where the double com-
mandment oflove and the Golden Rule are the main
ethical principles of "the way of life." This does not
imply (Strecker is unclear at this point [Bergpredigt,
161-62; Sermon, 156-57]) that the Didache presup-
poses canonical Matthew, but both make use of the
same ethical topoi.
3 So also Strecker, Weg, 137-38 with n. 4; idem,
Bergpredigt, 161, 164, 171, 175 (Sermon, 156, 163-
64, 165-66, 167-68); W. Nicol, "The Structure of
Matthew Seven," Neot. 11 (1977) 77-90, esp. 87-88.
Marguerat (Le jugement, 183-84) and Luz (Matthaus,
1.394 [Matthew, 1.432]) argue differently and divide
this section into two parts-the Two Ways (7:13-14)
and the Warning against the False Prophets (7: 15-
23)-and then the concluding double parable (7:24-
27). So also Allison, "Structure," 430 n. 19.
4 Bornkamm, "Aufbau," 423-24.
5 Gunther Bornkamm, "Die Vorgeschichte des
sogenannten zweiten Korintherbriefes," in his
Geschichte und Glaube, vol. 2: Gesammelte Aujsatze, vol.
4 (Munich: Kaiser, 1971) 180-94. On this hypothesis
see also Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 21-22.
6 Bornkamm, "Aufbau," 424 (my trans.). He lists as
parallel passages Mark 13:22; Matt 24:11-12, 24; 1
Cor 16:22; Phil3:2ff.; 1 Pet 4:12ff.; 2 Pet 3:2ff.;Jude
17ff.; Rev 22:9ff.; Didache 16. See also GlennS.
Holland, The Tradition That You Received from Us: 2
Thessalonians in the Pauline Tradition (HUTh 24;
Tobingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1988) 129-58.

520

those who enter by it are many.
14 [But] how narrow is the [other] gate and
[how] confined is the way that leads to
life, and those who find it are few!
Bibliography
Hans Dieter Betz, "Eschatology in the Sermon on the
Mount and the Sermon on the Plain," in Kent
Richards, ed., SBLSP 1985, 343-50; reprinted in
Betz, Synoptische Studien, 219-29.
Adelbert Denaux, "Der Spruch von den zwei Wegen
im Rahmen des Epilogs der Bergpredigt (Mt 7,13-
14 par. Lk 13,23-24): Tradition und Redaktion,"
in Delobel, Logia, 305-35.
J. Duncan M. Derrett, "The Merits i>fthe Narrow Gate
(Mt 7:13-14, Lk 13:24)," JSNT 15 (1982) 20-29;
reprinted with an addendum in his Studies in the
NT, 4.147-56.
Franz joseph Dolger, Die Sonne der Gerechtigkeit und der
Schwarze: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Studie zum
Taufgelobnis (Liturgiegeschichtliche Forschungen 2;
Munster: Aschendorff, 1918) 124-29: "Die heiden
Wege der Finsternis und des Lichts."
Joachim Jeremias, "1rMo.Tj, 1rvAwv," TDNT 6.921-28.
Idem, "6-6pa," TDNT 3.173-80.
Marguerat, Le jugement, 1 7 5-82.
A. J. Mattill, Jr., "The Way of Tribulation," JBL 98
(1979) 531-46.
Wilhelm Michaelis, "hMs KTA.," TDNT 5.42-114.
Piper, Wisdom, 107-10.
Gunther Schwarz, "Mattaus vii 13a: Ein Alarmruf
angesichts hochster Gefahr," NovT 12 (1970) 229-
32.
Idem, "Und Jesus sprach," 244-51.
Steinhauser, Doppelbildworte, 148-57.
Wrege, Bergpredigt, 132-35.
Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 139-42.
1 I Introduction
Several traditional wisdom motifs have been combined in
a peculiar way in 7:13-14, so as to describe what the
disciples should regard as the "way up"(~ ll.vollo~). 7 The
motif of the Two Gates is joined with that of the Two
Ways, each pair leading either to eternal perdition or to
eternal life. Two major problems arise from this mixing
7 The term &vollos is, however, not used in the SM. For
this important theme, see Hildebrecht Hommel,
"Der Weg nach oben: Untersuchungen zum
lateinischen Spruchgut," in his Symbola (Hildesheim:
Olms, 1976) 1.274-89.
8 So already Ps.-Clem. Hom. 7.7.3; also Bengel, Gnomon,
56-67; Meyer,Matthiius, 165; Klostermann,
Matthii.us, 69. See furthermore, Luz, Matthiius, 1.395
Matthew 7:13-23
of images.
First, do the gates mark the beginning of the roads, or
do the roads lead up to the gates? If the former was
intended, 8 the gates would symbolize the beginnings of
the Christian versus the non-Christian life, so that the
SM as a disciplinary instruction would come to symbolize
the narrow gate as well as the narrow way. The analysis
below, however, shows that the intention of the text is
that the gates stand at the end of the roads.
Second, are the gates, or at least one of them, en-
trances to the heavenly city,Jerusalem? 9 As shown
below, there is no indication that the heavenly Jerusalem
is thought of, even though it would be suggestive,
especially in the SM, to have such an indication.
At any rate, the images of ways and gates are of
principal importance for the composition and purpose of
the SM as a whole. "Hearing and doing" the sayings
contained in the SM (see below on 7:24-27) means
walking "the way leading to life eternal." 10 In other
words, the sayings of the SM do not constitute the way
itself but are merely trail markers and guidelines
pointing out the way. The "way" itself is the life to be
lived by the disciples in obedience to the instructions of
the SM.
That the "rough road" indicates that travel will be
difficult and hazardous is to be expected, but it is not the
result of the difficult teachings in the SM. Rather, it is
the result of the difficulties of life itself. These difficulties
consist of the myriad of pressures, dangers, and obstacles
on the outside, as well as of human foolishness and stub-
bornness on the inside. The struggle of the faithful is
with the external as well as with the internal troubles.
Overcoming them means finding "the narrow gate."
The motif of the Two Ways is traditional in all of the
ancient world. The beginnings are in the ancient Near
East, foremost in Egypt, 11 the Old Testament, and
(Matthew, 1.433-34).
9 For this view see below.
10 See also Betz, Essays, 2-3.
11 For the history of the concept, see Hellmut Brunner,
Altii.gyptische Erziehung (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
1957) 107-13;Jan Bergman, "Zum Zwei-Wege-
Motiv: Religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische
Bemerkungen," SEA 41-42 (1976-77) 27-56;
521
Judaism. 12 In Greek religion, the Orphic gold tablets
show evidence of the metaphor. 13 In Greek literature
and philosophy, the combination of the Two Ways 14
with the myth of Heracles led to the famous paradigm of
"Heracles at the crossroads." 15 The possibilities of
application appear almost endless by the time of the New
Testament. There are the juxtapositions of the simple
life with the life ofluxury, 16 the vita activa and the vita
contemplativa, 17 the way of light and the way of dark-
ness, 18 and the way oflife and the way of death .I 9 In late
antiquity, the Two Ways were also interpreted astro-
logically. 20
The SM has inherited the motif of Two Ways from
Judaism. 21 The SM interprets it as an image showing

Gunther Lapp, "Zweiwegebuch," LdA 6 (1986)
1430-32; Zuntz, Persephone, 374; Edmund Hermsen,
Die zwei Wege des Jenseits: Das iigyptische Zweiwegebuch
und seine Topographie (OBO 112; Fribourg: Uni-
versitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 1991 ).
12 See esp. Deut 30:15-16; also 11:28-30;Josh 24:15;
Jer 21 :8-14; Pss 1 :6; 118:29-30; 138:24; Prov 4:11-
12; 15:11-17, 19-20; Sir 6:18-31; 21:10; Sib. Or.
8.399-401 (OTP 1.427); T. Abr. 8-13 (OTP 1.886-
90); T. Ash. 1:3-5:4 (OTP 1.816-18); 2 Enoch 30.15
(OTP 1.152); 4 Ezra 7.3-15 (OTP 1.536-37). Philo
has similar material; see Ebr. 150; Agricr. 104; Poster.
C. 154. For references see also Str-B 1.460-64;
Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 145-4 7; Schurer,
History, 3/1.172; Zeller,Mahnspriiche, 145-47;
Niederwimmer, Didache, 83-88; Brox, Hermas, 190,
225-26, 264,497, 552-53; Sebastian Brock, "The
Two Ways and the Palestinian Targum," in Philip R.
Davies and RichardT. White, eds., A Tribute to Geza
Vermes: Essays on jewish and Christian Literature and
History (JSOTSup 100; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1990) 138-52.
13 See text A.l, line 5: ll<~&i.r.v ollo11r<lp(n) ("go to the
right," i.e., into paradise). See Zuntz, Persephone, 306;
cf. 332; Burkert, Greek Religion, 436-37; Gunther
Zuntz, "Die Goldlamelle von Hipponion," WS 89
(1976) 129-51, esp. 145-46; Barbara Feyerabend,
"Zur Wegmetaphorik beim Goldblattchen aus
Hipponion und dem Proomium des Parmenides,"
RhM 27 (1984) 1-22.
14 The earliest attestations are Hesiod Erga 286-93, a
passage of great influence on later literature; and
XenophonMem. 2.1.21-34.
15 For the evidence and bibliography see Johannes
Alpers, Hercules in Bivio (inaugural diss., Gottingen,
1912; Gottingen: Dieterich, 1912); Otfried Becker,
Das Bild des Weges und verwandte Vorstellungen im
fruhgriechischen Denken (Hermes-Einzelschriften 4;
Berlin: Weidmann, 1937); Erwin Panofsky, Hercules
am Scheidewege und andere antike Bildstoffe in der
neueren Kunst (Studien der Bibliothek Warburg 18;
Leipzig: Teubner, 1930) 42-52; Betz, Lukian, 205-
6; Burkhard Gladigow, "Der Makarismus des
Weisen," Hermes 95 (1967) 404-33, especially 423-
24; Hildebrecht Hommel, "Der Weg nach oben" (see
above, n. 7); Wolfgang Harms, Homo viator in bivio:
Studi~n zur Bildlichkeit des Weges (Medium Aevum 21;
Munich: Fink, 1970), who also discusses the history
of the Pythagorean symbol "Y"; OlofGigon, "Die
Wege zur ap<r~ bei Platon und Aristoteles," MH 42
(1985) 133-50.
16 See Vischer, Leben, 34.
17 For this theme see RobertJoly, Le theme philosophique
des genres de vie dans l' antiquite classique (Memoires de
l'Academie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres et
des Sciences Morales et Politiques 51.3; Brussels:
Palais des Academies, 1956).
18 See 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 (on this see Betz, Galatians,
329-30); Bam. 18-20. On the topic see Franz
Joseph Dolger, Die Sonne der Gerechtigkeit und der
Schwarze: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Studie zum Tauf
gelobnis (Liturgiegeschichtliche Forschungen 2;
Munster: Aschendorff, 1918) 124-29: "Die heiden
W ege der Fins tern is und des Lichts."
19 After Matt 7:13-14 see Doctrina apostolorum; Did.
1.1; 5.1-2; Hermas Vis. 3.7.1-3; Man. 6.2 (see A.
Hillhorst, "Hermas," RAG 14 [1988]682-701, esp.
692-93; and the commentaries by Niederwimmer
and Brox [see above, n. 12]); Clement Alex. Protr.
100 (1.168.1). For the Pseudo-Clementines, seePs.-
Clem. Hom. 3.18.3; 3.52.2; 7.7.1-2; 18.17.3; for the
extracanonical sayings of Jesus see Resch, Agrapha,
161; Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings, 165.
20 See the interpretation by Hippolytus Ref 4.48.9, and
the discussion in Wolfgang Hubner, Zodiacus
Christian us: Jiidisch-christliche Adaptionen des Tierkreises
von der Antike his zur Gegenwart (BKP 144; Konigstein
i.Ts.: Hain, 1983) 137 n. 238. The gates are taken to
refer to the constellations of the Little and the Big
Bears.
21 For the OT see the passages noted above, n. 12. On
the topic as a whole see Volz, Eschatologie, 113, 127-
28, 306, 416; Friedrich Notscher, Gotteswege und
Menschenwege in der Bibel und in Qumran (BBB 15;
Bonn: Hanstein, 1958) 315-18; Paul Winter, "Ben
Sira and the Teaching of the Two Ways," VT 5
(1955) 315-18; Willy Rordorf, "Un chapitre
d'ethiquejudeo-chretienne: les deux voies," RSR 60
(1972) 109-28; M. Jack Suggs, "The Christian Two-
Ways Tradition: Its Antiquity, Form, and Function,"
in David E. Aune, ed., Studies in New Testament and

522
 Matthew 7:13-23

human life as a road to be traveled. The life of the several terms). 27

disciple must not only be traveled, but traveled in
accordance with the guidelines of Jesus' teachings in the
SM. This life of the disciple begins with the Beatitudes
(5:3-12) and the commission (5:13-16); it ends, or
begins in another sense, with the entrance into the
kingdom of God. The motif of the Two Ways also
operates as a literary device in the sense that the teach-
ings of the SM describe "the way of life" to be lived by
the faithful disciple. The eyes of the readers or hearers
are, therefore, directed to look ahead at life as the
difficult road to travel. This application of the image of
the "road" is found also elsewhere in early Christian
literature. 22
The motif of the Two Gates is also traditional in
antiquity, where gates are presumed to mark the
entrance to the afterlife. 23 Like the image of the Two
Ways, that of the Two Gates can be applied in various
forms. 24 Less clear is what lies behind the gates. Joachim
Jeremias 25 suggested that the gates are those of the
heavenly Jerusalem, but the text has no mention of a city;
more importantly, it would be difficult to imagine
"eternal destruction" to take place in the heavenly city.
In terms of comparative religion one certainly need not
think of a city; thus one should assume that the gates lead
to the two realms ofthe hereafter, one to the kingdom of
God 26 and the other to hell (for the latter the SM uses
The next passage, 7:21-23, however, shows that
behind the gates comes first of all the last judgment. 28 If,
however, the "narrow gate" is the entrance to the
kingdom of God, the question is, Where does the SM
think that entrance occurs? According to the theology of
the SM, the disciple is from one point of view already in
the kingdom of God (see above on the Beatitudes [5:3-
12]), but from another point of view the disciple is still
seeking it (see above on 6:33; 7:7-8). Therefore, in the
SM the same tension predominates that is characteristic
of much of the older layers of the Jesus-tradition: the
tension between the kingdom already existing in the
present and the eschatological, future aspect of that
kingdom. It is not inconceivable, though less probable,
therefore, that the "narrow gate" refers to the Beati-
tudes, 29 while the "rough road" points to the lifelong
struggle to implement its tenets.
2) Analysis The composition begins with a commandment, formu-
lated positively and in the second person plural (vs 13a;
cf. vs 15a). Verses 13-14 contain a description of the
Two Ways and the Two Gates. The two parts in vs 13b
and vs 14 form an antithetical parallelism (isocolon).
Within the two parts of the isocolon are two smaller-
scale parallelisms (isocola); alliteration occurs at the
beginning (1TAan!a ~ 1TVA7J). Verse 14 is an exclamation

Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P.
Wikgren (NovTSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 60-74;
Niederwimmer, Didache, 83-88 (with further
material).
22 See above, n. 19.
23 See the lexica on 1TVA7J:JoachimJeremias, TDNT
6.921-28; Reinhard Kratz, EWNT 3.474-76 (EDNT
3.196-97); BAGD, 729; also Wilhelm Michaelis,
TDNT 5.72-75,91-96 (C.2.aand D).
24 Of particular interest is Cebes Tabula 1.1-2.2, and
passim. The setting of the work is a discussion of a
votive plaque in the temple of Cronus. On it is a
depiction of a mysterious walled city, within which
are two enclosures, the larger of them having a gate.
The picture is said to have come from a stranger, a
Pythagorean. See the ed. and trans. by John T.
Fitzgerald and L. Michael White, The Tabula ofCebes
(SBL TT 24; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1983). On p. viii
see the drawing of a relief depicting the walled
enclosure and the gate with the inscription BlOC
("life"). The Tabula of Cebes shows how popular the
metaphors were in Hellenism, and how diversified
and literary its elaborations had become. For further
parallels see also Wettstein, 1.342-43; Betz, Lukian,
46 n. 4, 82 n. 4, 92 n. 6, 96 n. 4. For the importance
of the gates in Mithraism see Reinhold Merkelbach,
Mithras (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1984) 240.
25 See Jeremias, TDNT 6. 922-23 (B); differently
Grundmann, Matthaus, 230-31.
26 Cf. SM/Matt 5:3, 10, 19, 20; 6:10, 13, 33; 7:21.
27 Cf. SM/Matt 5:22, 29, 30: ytEvva ("Gehenna"); 5:22:
ytEvva Tov 1Tvp6r ("Gehenna of fire"); 'lTVp ("fire"). On
the "gates of Hades" see Matt 16:18 and Jeremias,
TDNT6.924-28 (C).
28 For the geography of the afterlife, as Hellenistic
Judaism imagined it, see T. Abr. 8-13 (OTP 1.886-
90): Abraham enters through the narrower of two
gates (chaps. 8-9), visits first paradise and then the
place of judgment (chap. 10).
29 This possibility is strengthened, if one assumes basic
independence from Luke 13:23-24, where the
"door" (8vpa) clearly refers to the entrance to the
afterlife.

523
(exclamatio). 30 The whole image is an allegory, 31
introduced by the term "enter" (<lutpx<u6a•), a key
concept in the SM (see above on SM/Matt 5:20).
Interestingly enough, the allegorical images have been
tumed around. One would think that the roads would
be described first, and then the gates, but as it is, the
term "enter into" requires "gate" first, while "gate"
suggests "road" leading up to it. Also, in a different
way from Did. 1.1-2; 5.1-2; and Barn. 18-20, the SM
is interested only in the "narrow gate" and the "rough
road." These images concern the teachings of the SM
and their goal, not mythical or metaphysical entities as
such. By contrast, the "wide gate" and the "spacious
road" point to possibilities of human existence rejected
by the SM.
The parallel to our passage in Luke 13:23-24 poses
an intricate problem:
Someone asked him [i.e., jesus], "Sir, are only a few
to be saved?" But he said to them, "Struggle to
enter through the narrow door [or: gate], for
many, I tell you, will seek to enter but will not be
able to."
EiwEv aE TLS" a.Ori;J· t<VptE, El OAlyot ot ucp(OJ.LfVOL; 0 a~
E1'71"EV 7Tphs abroVs· 0.ywvl(EU8f. EltrEA8E'iV Ottt rfiS"
<TT<vijs 6vpas, lin 7ro1l.>.ol, >.tyro v,_'Lv, (1JT~uovu•v
elcrEA8e'iv Kat oVK loxVo-ovuLv.
The apophthegm 3 2 serves to introduce a waming by
way of an eschatological episode parallel to SM/Matt
7:21-23, with which, however, it does not have any
direct textual contact. 33 The episode concludes (Luke
13: 13) with a familiar sententia: "And behold, there are
last ones who will be first, and there are first ones who
will be last." 34
The origin of Luke 13:23-30 is' still a matter of
debate. 35 The question here is whether one may
attribute the SM passage to Q, and whether the SM
passage may be the result of a reworking of Q. 36 Any
30 On the textual problem see below.
31 See Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.441-42 (§ 395).
32 See Bultmann, History, 93, 130; Franz MuBner, "Das
'Gleichnis' vom gestrengen Mahlherrn (Lc 13, 22-
30): Ein Beitrag zum Redaktionsverfahren und zur
Theologie des Lukas," TThZ 65 (1956) 129-43; Paul
Hoffmann, "7r<iVTES £pyam. alluclas: Redaktion und
Tradition in Lc 13, 22-30," ZNW 58 ( 1967) 188-
214; Denaux, "Spruch," passim; Fitzmyer, Luke,
2.1020-27.
33 On this point see Betz, Essays, 148-49.
34 Cf. Matt 19:30; 20:16; Mark 10:31; P. Oxy. 654, no.
3; Cos. Thorn. log. 4.
35 So rightly LOhrmann, Redaktion, 55 n. 2.
36 So esp. Manson, Sayings, 124, 175; Streeter, Four
Gospels, 283-84; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 161 (Sermon,
156); Luz, Matthiius, 1.395-96 (Matthew, 1.434). Cf.
524
attempt to demonstrate a dependency of the SM
passage on Q is certainly difficult. 37 Indeed, the
relationship of dependency could just as well be t):le
other way around. 38
Rather than simply accepting the allegory of the
SM, somebody could have tried to clarify its meaning
in Luke 13:23a. Or, taking the clue from the SM, a
storyteller could have fashioned a separate passage
from it. Therefore, one must assume that both texts
represent redactional work, probably at the
presynaptic level. It is methodologically dangerous to
place great emphasis on common words, if they are
quite common anyway, or on words preferred by the
Gospel writers, if these words may come from different
sources used by different Gospel writers. Whatever the
case may be, the end products of the redactional
process are rather different. 39
Both texts appear to make use of common imagery.
This imagery illustrates the difficulties conceming
entering into the kingdom of God, a theme found also
in the teaching of jesus attested elsewhere in the New
Testament. Conceivably, Luke 13:23-30 became part
of the Lukan version ofQ, 40 while SM/Matt 7:13-14
became integrated into the SM (whether or not it ever
circulated independently before), and together with
the SM into QM•tt. Most likely, the passage in SM/Matt
7: 13-14 was composed for the present SM context.
3) Interpretation
• 13 With no connecting particle, vs 13a begins with a
commandment or appeal, stated in the second person
plural and using metaphorical language: "Enter by the
narrow gate!" (Elu£>.8an lltiz Tijs unvijs 1r!JA7Js). The term
duipx£u8at ("enter into") is a key term mentioned in the
SM already in 5:20, "enter into the kingdom of the
Kloppenborg, QParallels, 152-55.
37 On the present status of research, see Denaux,
"Spruch," 316-18; Kloppenborg, Formation, 223-25;
idem, QParallels, 154.
38 See Schulz, Q, 309-11; Denaux, "Spruch," 317 nn.
33 and 34.
39 All of this speaks against Denaux ("Spruch," 318-29),
who argues in great detail that both texts go back to
an original Q-version, which he thinks he can
reconstruct.
40 If Luke 13:22-30 justifies the admission of Gentiles
to the kingdom of God, as most scholars assume, it
would be contrary to the theology of the SM. The
texts would then demonstrate how one could
interpret teachings of Jesus in opposite directions.
 Matthew 7:13-23

heavens." Wherever the term "kingdom of the heavens"
occurs(5:3, 10, 19, 20; 6:10,13, 33; 7:21), "entering
into" is thought of, too. 41 Therefore, the "narrow
gate" 42 is unquestionably the entrance to the kingdom of
the heavens. 43 Because this "gate" ('li'VA:q) 44 is not easy to
find, passing through it is easier said than done. The
saying in vs 13a reflects similar sayings about entering
into the kingdom of God elsewhere in the synoptic
Gospels. 45 Verse 13b, introduced by Cln ("for"), 46
-contains the description first of the wide gate: "For the
[one] gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to
destruction, and those who enter by it are many" (C/n
'li'A.art'ia ~ 'li'VA.TJ Kal. £vpvxropot; ~bah .. ~ chayovo-a £lt; T~V
Ct'li'WA.nav Kal. 'li'OA.A.ol £lo-LV OL £lO"£PXOP.£VOL a,' avTijt;).
The intention is clearly to create a vivid image before
our eyes, but the mixing of the images creates some
problems, as the textual emendations by scribes show.
The relative clause ("that leads") leaves open whether it is
the gate or the way that leads to destruction, so that
some witnesses omit "the gate" 47 and leave only "the
way" in the text. 48 The choice of adjectives is deliberate
and somewhat poetic: 'li'A.au'ia ("broad, wide") fits both
the gate and the road, as parallel references show. 49 Just
as alliteration is characteristic of the first expression
('li'A.au'ia . .• 'li'VA.TJ), so is homoeoteleuton (equal ending of
the words) ofthe second (£vpvxropot; ~ ba&,.). 50 As a
metaphor, the term a'll'ayro ("lead away") has overtones of
being led astray; 51 again this term is connected by
alliteration with a'll'wA.na ("destruction"), a technical term
referring to eschatological doom. 5 2
This wide road and gate are passed through by "the
masses" (ol 'li'OA.A.ot), the proverbial massa perditionis. At
this point one perceives that the SM sees itself as
representing a minority that stands in stark opposition to
the majority of fellow Jews as well as fellow humans. This
minority status is maintained throughout the SM.
Typical of the times anyway, 5 3 however, minority status
was also claimed by other groups in the ancient world,
among them the Jews in general. 54 The SM defines as
the m<Uority "people" (ol ll.v8pro'll'ot), 55 or "the Gentiles"
(Ta ~8vTJ), 56 the Jews in general, 57 and-surprisingly-
Gentile Christians. 58
One should not overlook the last part of the sentence.
The words point to the initial commandment (vs 13a),
but they suggest that the masses do not obey the
commandment, as they, knowingly or unknowingly,
enter through the wrong gate.
• 14 The reason why the description of the narrow gate
and the rough road follows is rhetorical. The arrange-
ment is chiastic and provides a climax by allowing the
paraenetical point to come at the end. The form of the
exclamation is also rhetorical: "How narrow is the gate
and the way that leads into life, and those who find it are
few!" (Tl a-TEVTJ ~ 'li'VA.TJ Kal. u8A.tp.p.evTJ ~bah,.~ hayova-a £lt;

41 For the literature on El<T.!pxop.a&, see above on 2.b-c; 3; 4.

SM/Matt 5:20 and below on 7:21.
42 <Tnvor ("narrow") occurs in the NT only here and in
Luke 12:24; see BAGD, s.v. <TrEvclr.
43 For Jeremias's thesis see above, n. 25.
44 The term w6A7J ("gate") occurs here only; Luke 13:24
has IJ6pa ("door").
45 For the literature see above on 5:20.
46 Some witnesses read Kal rl (118*) or rl (a b hI q
vgmss) to make vs 13a completely parallel with vs 14a.
47 IC* a b c k; Clement Hippolytus Origen P' Cyprian.
See Zahn, Matthiius, 312 n. 33; Jeremias, TDNT
6.922-23 (B); Metzger, Textual Commentary, 19.
48 IC* also omits El<Ttv, probably because it is redundant;
IC2 if1 205) pc sy<·P read wopEvop.Evo& ("walk") instead of
EliTEpxop.Evo& "enter into," another attempt to make
the picture clearer.
49 See BAGD, s.v. w)\ar6r. The expression occurs only
once in the NT, but it is good Hellenistic Greek.
50 See BAGD, s.v. Eilp6xtJlpor; this term also occurs only
once in the NT.
51 Cf. 1 Cor 12:2; Diogn. 9.1; see BAGD, s.v. aw&.y(J),
52 Cf.John 17:12; Rom 9:22; Phill:28; 3:19; 2 Thess
2:3; 1 Tim 6:9; Heb 10:38; 2 Pet 2:1, 3; 3:7, 16; Rev
17:8, 11. See BAGD, s.v. awooAE&a, 2.
53 See Matt 9:37; 20:16; 22:14; Luke 10:2; 13:23. For
more on this point see the Introduction to this
chapter, above; also Betz, Essays, 92-93.
54 The issue has wider implications; see Hanns-Dieter
Voigtlander, Der Philosoph und die Vielen: Die Bedeut-
ung des Gegensatzes der unphilosophischen Menge zu den
Philosophen und das Problem des argumentum e consensu
omnium im philosophischen Denken der Griechen his auf
Aristoteles (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1980).
55 See SM/Matt 5:13, 16, 19; 6:1, 2, 5, 16, 18; 7:9, 12.
56 See SM/Matt 6:32; cf. 5:47; 6:7.
57 They are included in "the people" (see above, n. 55),
a fact that is as such remarkable.
58 See SM/Matt 7:22.

525
T~V (w~v Kat oA.{yot do-'tv OL £vplo-KOVT£S aiiT~V).
As in vs 13, textual variants show the tendency by
scribes to make the lines completely parallel (isocolon) 59
and to clarify whether it is the gate or the way that leads
to life. 60 The form of the exclamation 61 also creates a
paradox. How can one issue a commandment to enter
through the narrow gate, if it is so hard to find? This
kind of paradox, however, seems to have been typical of
the language of the teaching of Jesus. 62
If, as I have pointed out before, the descriptions are
intended allegorically, one must pay special attention to
the adjective and the participle. In what sense is the gate
"narrow" (o-T£vos)? The term is not often used in the New
Testament, 5 3 where related terms are more frequent in
similar contexts: o-nvayp.os, o-nva(w ("groan"), 64 and
o-nvoxwp€w, o-nvoxwp{a ("be under pressure," "feel
distress," or similar meanings). 65 Sometimes this
terminology is associated with the participle n8A.tp.p.€v1J
("troublesome") 66 describing the way. What kind of
distress or troubles does the SM have in mind?
According to the context, strains and distress come
from outside as well as from inside the community and
the individual. One could go through the entire SM
section by section to point this ouvPerhaps Paul's
dictum in 2 Cor 7:5 sums it up best: "Outside quarrels,
inside fears" (E'tw8£v p.axat, E'o-w8w ct>of3ot).
The term 8A.{f3w is well known in early Christian
paraenesis. 67 The doctrine in this respect is stated briefly
in Acts 14:22: "We must enter into the kingdom of God
through many tribulations" (otl:t Twv 7TOAA.wv 8A.{t£wv o£1
~p.as do-£A8£!v ds T~v f3ao-tA.£lav Tov 8wv). 68 That the way
leads "into life" means eternal life (ds T~V (w~v), to be
juxtaposed with "perdition" (chd>A.Ha, vs 13b). This
familiar concept 69 characterizes the goal of the SM 70 and
its Two Ways pattern.7 1
Notably, the warning at the end is directed at the
disciples: There will be only a few, even among them,
who will find life eternal. In other words, "the few"
(oA.{yot) is not simply a name for the community of the
disciples, as if they all belong to the happy few auto-
matically.72 Rather, it is implied that even the majority
of the disciples will fail, and only a few will reach the
desired goal. The term "find" (£vplo-K£w) reminds one of
the theme of "searching" ((7Jntv), which is so prominent
in the SM (see on 6:33; 7:7, 8). What is the object of this
"finding it"?
The answer is not clear: Does "finding it" refer to the
gate or to the way? It appears that neither is meant, but
the intended object is the kingdom of the heavens. There
is thus the possibility of failure even for Jesus' disciples,
who may have set out on the road but who end up being
unsuccessful. This means that the SM is not a foolproof
how-to-do instruction that sets up the conditions that, if
met, guarantee success automatically. Rather, following

59 Parallel to vs 13a, IC* 7 ooc pc samss mae bo read 1iTI
a'
("for"); B* samss read 1iTI ("but for"); 205. 209 have
Kai ("and"). The exclamatory TL ("how!"), however, is
well attested by M2 (B 2) C L W 0 j1.1 3 892. 1006.
1342. 1506 9Jilat sy.
60 544 pc a (h) k Clement Tertullian Hippolytus
OrigenP' Cyprian omit ~ 1rVA71 ("the gate") as in vs
13b.
61 The exclamatory TL ("how!") has been declared a
Semiticism (BDF, § 299 (4); BDR, § 299 n. 4; Black,
Approach, 121-24; BAGD, s.v. TL~. 3.b; Schwarz,
"Und jesus sprach," 24 7), but Luz (Matthiius, 1.395 n.
2 [Matthew, 1.433 n. 2]) is right that it is Hellenistic
Greek (vulgar).
62 Cf. Mark 10:23-31//Matt 19:23-30//Luke 18:24-
30; furthermore, SM/Matt 6:23d.
63 1t occurs only in SM/Matt 7:13, 14; Luke 13:24.
64 See esp. Rom 8:23, 26; 2 Cor 5:2, 4; Heb 13:17;Jas
5:9.
65 See esp. Rom 2:9; 8:35; 2 Cor 4:8; 6:4, 12; 12:10.
66 See Rom 2:9; 8:35; 2 Cor 4:8.
67 A.J. Mattill,Jr. ("The Way of Tribulation," JBL 98
[ 1979] 531-46), however, thinks specifically of end-
68
time tribulations.
See also 1 Thess 1 :6; 3:3-4, 7; Mark 4:17//Matt
23:21; Mark 13:19,24//Matt 24:9,21, 29;John
16:33; etc. For further references see Heinrich
Schlier, "8A.i{3w KTA.," TDNT 3.139-48; BAGD, s.v.
8A.i{3w, 8Xi>Jn~.
69 The concept of (w~ ("[ eternal]life") occurs only here
in the SM. Cf. Mark 9:43, 45/ /Matt 18:8, 9; Mark
10:17, 30//Matt 19:16, 17, 29//Luke 18:18, 30;
Luke 10:25; etc. See BAGD, s.v. (w~, 2.b.
70 Cf. SM/Matt 5:3b, 4b; 6:33; etc.
71 It describes the "way oflife."
72 The term oJ\iyo• ("few") occurs only here in the SM.
Cf. the saying in Matt 20: 16; 22:14: "For many are
called but few are chosen." Cf. also Luke 13:23.

526

the commendations of the SM means that only those who
persist have a chance, but that chance is tenuous and
depends on the arduous process of "seeking and finding."
Being a member of the group means nothing, if the
individual fails. The chances of failure are greater than
the chances of success, a sobering message.
b. The False Prophets (7:15-20)
15 Beware of the false prophets who come to
you in sheepskins, but inside are rapa-
cious wolves!
16 From their fruit you shall recognize them.
Can one gather grapes from thornbushes
or figs from thistles?
17 Thus every good tree produces good fruit,
but the rotten tree produces bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor
can a rotten tree produce good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not produce good fruit
is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Therefore, from their fruit you shall recog-
nizethem.
Bibliography
Edouard Cothenet, "Les prophetes chretiens dans
l'Evangile selon saint Matthieu," in M. Didier, ed.,
L'Evangile de Matthieu: Redaction et Theologie (BETL
29; Gembloux: Duculot, 1972) 281-308.
Vittorio Fusco, "II 'vissuto' della chiesa in Matteo-
appunti metodologici con esemplificazione da Mt
7,15-23," Asprenas 27 (1980) 3-26.
David Hill, "False Prophets and Charismatics: Struc-
ture and Interpretation in Matthew 7,15-23," Bib
57 (1976) 327-48.
Michael Kramer, "Hiitet euch vor den falschen
Propheten: Eine iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung zu Mt 7,15-23/Lk 6,43-46/Mt
12,33-37," Bib 57 (1976) 349-77.
G. W. H. Lampe, "'Grievous Wolves' (Acts 20:29)," in
Barnabas Lindars and Stephen Smalley, eds., Christ
and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour of Charles
F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University,
1973) 253-68.
Simon Legasse, "Les faux prophetes: Matthieu 7,15-
20," Etudesfranciscaines 18 (1968) 205-18.
Marguerat, Le jugement, 183-92.
PaulS. Minear, "False Prophecy and Hypocrisy in the
Gospel of Matthew," in Joachim Gnilka, ed., Neues
Testament und Kirche: FS for RudolfSchnackenburg
(Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 76-93.
Piper, Wisdom, 44-51.
73 See above, nn. 5-6.
74 This difference has been observed before but
interpreted differently. See Luz, Matthiius, 1.403 nn.
Matthew 7:13-23
Heinz Schiirmann, "Die Warnung des Lukas vor der
Falschlehre in der 'Predigt am Berge' Lk 6,20-49,"
BZ 10 (1966) 57-81; reprinted in his Traditions-
geschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen
Evangelien (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1968) 290-309.
Eduard Schweizer, "Matthaus 7,14-23," in his
Matthaus, 126-31.
Idem, "Observance of the Law and Charismatic
Activity in Matthew," NTS 16 (1969/70) 213-30.
Steinhauser, Doppelbildworte, 79-96.
Risto Uro, Sheep among the Wolves: A Study on the Mission
Instructions ofQ (AASF 4 7; Helsinki: Suomalainen
Tiedeakatemia, 1987).
Wrege, Bergpredigt, 136-46.
Zumstein, Condition, 178-87.
1) Introduction
According to the narrative presumed by the SM, the
warning against the false prophets comes while the
disciples of jesus are on their way toward the kingdom of
the heavens (see 7:13-14). On this way the greatest
danger facing them is the emergence in their midst of
"false prophets" (1/r€vl3o7TpocpfjTat). This danger is ap-
parently considered greater than even persecution,
which can serve, in spite of horror, a positive function
(cf. 5:10, 11, 12, 44). False prophecy is, by contrast,
entirely negative. Thus, the SM distinguishes between
different hazards: those that are in a sense "normal," and
those that come unexpectedly. It may be for this reason
that false prophecy is not dealt with in passing like other
temptations, but that it is singled out as the greatest
threat this side of the last judgment.
As already mentioned, Gunther Bornkamm 73 rightly
observed that warnings against heretics of various sorts
occur in the final sections of many paraenetical texts, and
he named Matt 7:15-20 among them. While this literary
function may indeed apply to our passage, it is also
noteworthy that, in a way different from Mark 13:22//
Matt 24:11, 24, the passage before us seems to be
uninterested in the apocalyptic concept of the ap-
pearance of false prophets as a sign of the end time. 7 4 It
is typical that the SM views eschatology in terms of the
individual's course of life, rather than in terms of cosmic
inevitability. Yet, the positioning of the passage right
before the episode in the lastjudgment (7:21-23) makes
one wonder whether another time frame is also involved.
22-23 (Matthew, 1.442 nn. 22-23).
527
Is it incidental that the final event, so to speak, before the
last judgment is the confrontation of false prophets?
Therefore, there may be a closer relationship with
apocalyptic warnings, such as Mark 13:22 par., than is
apparent from the surface, but remarkably the SM shows
no more interest in apocalyptic timetables and sequences
of events. 7 5
In issuing the warning, the SM is characteristically
different from the SP. According to SP /Luke 6:26, the
disciples are to be warned that allowing themselves to be
praised would make them like the false prophets of old.
For the SP, therefore, the false prophets of old serve as
negative examples that jesus' disciples should not
imitate. To the SM, by contrast, the false prophets-
whoever they may be-are seen as present-day outsiders
who have intruded into the community by camouflaging
themselves so successfully that they are hard to detect.
The true disciples, however, should hnitate the models of
the true prophets of old (cf. SM/Matt 5: 12).
Furthermore, neither the SM nor the SP has any trace
that prophecy is a legitimate activity in the present
community. The only indication that prophets must be
generally acceptable to the community is that the false
ones have any chance of being admitted at all. This
situation seems to be somewhat similar to the Didache,
which assumes that itinerant prophets of a Christian
variety come into local churches, where, because of their
high respect, they are welcomed and tolerated, though
not without considerable apprehension (Did. 11. 3-12;
13.1, 4, 6; 16.3). 76 On the whole, however, the SM sees
prophecy as characteristic of outsiders, that is, those
Christians who fail to obey the law and who will there-
fore be rejected at the last judgment (SM/Matt 7:21-
23). 77 If the picture drawn in that passage is right,
prophecy, along with exorcism and miracle working, is
typical of Gentile Christians. Their prophecy is false
because they have separated what belongs together: the
law and the prophets (5: 17; 7: 12).
Consequently, the false prophets warned against in
7:15-20 must be the leaders of those who become
deceived by them 78 and who end up being rejected in
the last judgment. Who were these people? That the SM
does not identify the false prophets should not be
misunderstood. The warning is general, but not because
actual false prophets do not really exist or pose only a
potential threat. 79 On the contrary, the general char-
acter of the warning allows concrete applications as they
are needed.
Designating someone as a false prophet was a standard
feature of ancient polemics. The person thus designated
did not even have to be a prophet. For instance, Did.
11.3-6 shows that a false apostle (missionary) could be
called a false prophet, even though he may not have
prophesied (Did. 11.7-12). 80 In a Jewish environment
such labeling had no doubt severe consequences, while in
a Christian context analogous terms like "pseudoapostle"
('l/r~vlia7rOno>..o~;), "pseudoteacher" ('1/r~vliolitlic'z.uKa>..o~;), and
even "pseudomessiah" ('1/r~vliO)(pUrTo~;) soon became more
relevant for the community. These terms are Christian
creations on the analogy of "pseudoprophet"
('l/r~vlio7rpoe/J~T'I/~;), which initially was a pre-Christian
term. 81
The textual evidence suggests that the warning of
7:15-20 is directed against competitors of the com-
munity, that is, against leaders who under different
circumstances could be regarded as legitimate. Why are
they felt to be a threat? No doubt, they are the ones who
teach the abolition of the law (see above on 5:17, 19, and
below on 7:21-23), 82 so that their followers are found in
a state of"lawlessness" in the last judgment (7:23). The

75 The SM differs at this point from the evangelist
Matthew, who gives special attention to the sequence
of events in the apocalyptic drama (Matthew 24-
25).
76 See also the mission instruction Matt 10:40-42; 79
HermasMan. 11; also Niederwimmer, Didache, 217-
23,260-61.
77 The point is, therefore, not spiritual enthusiasm or 80
charismatic activities as such, but the failure to obey 81
the Torah. See Cothenet, "Les prophetes," 299-305. 82
78 The dangers of deception were recognized in early
Christianity as extremely serious. See esp. Rom
16:18; Col2:8; Eph 5:6; 2 Thess 2:3-12;Jas 1:26.
For further references see the lexica, s. v. awaTaw
KTA.; and Holland, Tradition (see above, n. 6), 44-49,
and passim.
Against Strecker, Weg, 137-38 with n. 4; idem,
Bergpredigt, 167-68 (Sermon, 161-62); see also Aune,
Prophecy, 222-29.
See above, n. 76.
See below, nn. 85 and 123.
Against Luz, Matthaus, 1.403 (Matthew, 1.442:
"Matthew does not accuse the false prophets of
heretical teaching, although there may have been

528
 Matthew 7:13-23

persons who fit this description best are the leaders of
law-free Christianity of the Pauline variety. 83 The
objection that Paul is not mentioned by name 84 does not
have much validity because none of the participants, not
even the approved leaders, is mentioned by name.
The battle against false prophecy raged in antiquity
almost from the beginning of history. While holding
prophecy in high esteem, Greek religion and literature
also has a long line of effort to expose religious char-
latans, diviners, and magicians. 85 In Roman times, the
battle intensified, and Cicero's De divinatione provides a
compendium for it. 8 6
In judaism the Old Testament already distinguished
between true and false prophets, and one can see that the
notion of"pseudoprophet" (o/fvl:Jo7rpocp~T'I/~) becomes
more conspicuous in the LXX, 87 injosephus, 88 and in
Philo. 89 Primitive Christianity from early on developed
its own version of false prophecy, so that by the time of
the SM the existence of Christian false prophets could be
taken for granted. 90 They_not only existed, but they
posed a serious threat to the community, so much so that
a special warning against them was felt to be in order.
The section ;ts a whole has two concerns. First, there is
the traditional warning against such false prophets;
second, given the danger these people present, a method
for their detection is recommended. This method takes
its clues from agricultural experience and wisdom. It
sounds somewhat simplistic, but in reality it is not. 91 The
experiences9 2 referred to in vss 16b and 1 7-19 are
merely examples of a more general truth, so that the
simplicity is deceptive. Heinrici 93 clearly recognized this
point, and referred to parallels in Aristotle (Eth. Nic.
9.7.4, 1168a4-10, 94 and 10.8.12, 1179a20-24)and
Philo (Vit. Mos. 1.280), where one finds the old rule:
"For, as the old saying goes, the certain proves the
uncertain" (1rlcrn~ yap,&~ h 1ra~a'o~ ~oyo~, Trov &a~~oov Ta
tp.cpavij). 95

such, but only bad fruit and [v. 23] avopl.a").
83 See Betz, Essays, 20-21, 51.
84 Against Luz,Matthaus, 1.403 n. 18 (Matthew, 1.441
n. 18). See also above, pp. 188-89.
85 On this wide-ranging topic and for further bib-
liography, see Wolfgang Speyer, "Religiose Betriiger:
Falsche gottliche Menschen und Heilige in Antike
und Christentum," in his Frilhes Christentum im
antiken Strahlungsfeld: Ausgewahlte Aufsatze (WVNT
50; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1989) 440-62;
Harold W. Attridge, "The Philosophical Critique of
Religion under the Early Empire," ANRW II, 16/1
(1978) 45-78; also the various articles inANRWII,
23/2 (1980).
86 See Arthur St. Pease, ed., Marcus Tullius Cicero, De
Divinatione (reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1963), with valuable commentary.
87 See below on vs 15.
88 See Louis H. Feldman, josephus and Modern Scholar-
ship (1937-1980) (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984) 476-77. 94
89 Philo Spec. leg. 4.51. See below, n. 125.
90 For references and discussion, see Lampe; Minear (in
the bibliography to this section); Henning Paulsen,
"Schisma und Haresie: Untersuchungen zu 1 Kor 11,
18.19," ZThK 79 (1982) 180-211, esp. 187-88.
91 See also Sir 27:6 LXX: "As its fruit reveals the
cultivation of the tree, so (is) the language (a reve-
lation) of the thought of a man's heart" (y£6Jpy,ov
(6Aov lKtJ>alvE& 0 Kapwhs abToV, oUTros A6yos
lv/lvp.~p.aro~ Kapllla~ av/lp6J7rOV [my trans.]). Cf. also
Jer 17:10 (NRSV): "I the LORD test the mind and
search the heart, to give all according to their ways,
according to the fruit of their doings"; 2 Enoch 53.2
(J): "See how I have written down all the deeds of
every person before the creation, and I am writing
down what is done among all persons forever. And
no one can contradict my handwriting; because the
LoRD sees all the evil thoughts of mankind, how vain
they are, where they lie in the treasuries of the heart"
(trans. F. I. Andersen, OTP 1.180).
92 See the references in Wettstein, 1.343-44. Luz
(Matthaus, 1.410 [Matthew, 1.449]; Leutsch and
Schneidewin (Corpus Paroem. Graec., 1.252) refer to
the proverb lK roil Kap7rOV ro ll(vllpov ("From the fruit
comes the tree"). See also Menander Sent. 615 (ed.
Jaekel): olla£1~ 7rOV7JpOv 7rpO.yp.a XP7Juros &,v 7ro,£"i'
("Nobody who is good commits an evil deed"). On
the topic see Michael Erler, "Natur und Wissens-
vermittlung: Anmerkungen zum Bauernvergleich in
Platons Phaidros, • RhM 132 (1989) 280-93.
93 Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1905), 92.
Aristotle points out that the work of the artist
corresponds to his potential and that this expresses a
law of nature: "This is in fact a fundamental principle
of nature: what a thing is potentially, that its work
reveals in actuality" (rovro lit f/lvu,KOV" 8 y&p lur'
llvv&p.n, rovro lv£py£l~ ro fpyov p.7Jv-6n). See
Dirlmeier, Aristoteles: Nikomachische Ethik, 550,
referring also to Aristotle Met. 9.8, 1050a 4-23; Phys.
3.3.
95 On this saying see Hans Diller, "0\f!II: A.6.HAON TA
oi>AINOMENA, • in his Kleine Schriflen zur antiken
Literatur (Munich: Beck, 1971) 119-42. Diller shows
that the sentence goes back to Anaxagoras (Sextus

529
 The connection between vss 16 and 17 (oilTCilS, "thus")
is most likely by association of ideas; the last word of vs
16 is "fig," suggesting that the two trees of vss 1 7-19 are
thought of as fig trees. One can hardly overestimate the
importance of the fig tree in antiquity. 96 Thus, the
comparison between the good and the bad fig tree is
introduced, an image that was common knowledge at the
time. Proverbs, sententiae, anecdotes, fables, and so on 97
also made comparisons with humans. 98 The Bible also
reflects the popularity of the fig tree, 99 and it is not a
surprise that later exegesis goes on to expound the
example in ever-greater detail.
Indeed, the seeming simplicity of the passage stands in
stark contrast to the attention paid to the passage in the
later history of exegesis. 1 00 There was a growing
concern because of heresy, for which "false prophecy"
seemed only another name. 1 01 There was also the
powerful imagery of the two trees as comparisons for
good and evil human beings. 102 This imagery has deep
roots in the history of religions. 103
These roots became significant in the debates about
anthropology and soteriology. The image of the two
trees suggests that their nature is eternally fixed and that
they must by necessity bear the fruit that corresponds to
their nature. Therefore, it is no surprise that the
Gnostics found the passage extremely useful and
attractive. 1 04 Marcion used it to demonstrate his radical
dualism, 105 and from the Marcionites the now notorious
text came into the hands ofMani, 106 who wrote a long
explanation of the allegory of the two trees in his

Empiricus Adv. math. 7 .140) and defines the method
of science. See also Diels-Kranz (59 B 21a [II, 43,
14-16]) with further references.
96 For the material on figs see Franz Olck, "Feige," PW
6/2 (1909) 2100-2151; Viktor Reichmann, "Feige I
(Ficus carica)," RAG 7 (1969) 640-82; idem, "Feige
II (Sykomore)," ibid., 683-89.
97 See Olck, "Feige," 2142-44.
98 See esp. Epictetus Diss. 1.15.7; SenecaEp. 87.25:
"Hence, good does not spring from evil, anymore
than figs grow from olive-trees" ("Quemadmodum ex
turpi honestum non nascitur, ita ne ex malo quidem
bonum"). Seneca is cited according to the LCL
edition, Seneca; Ad Lucilium Epistulae morales (trans.
Richard M. Gummere; London: Heinemann;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1920)
2.336-37.
99 See Mark 11:12-14//Matt 21:18-19//Luke 13:6-
9; Mark 11:20-26//Matt 21:20-22; Mark 13:28-
32//Matt 24:32-36//Luke 21:29-33; Luke 19:4;
John 1:48, 50;Jas 3:12; Rev 6:13. For the NT
evidence see Claus-Hunno Hunzinger, TDNT "<TviCfj
ICTA.," 7.751-59; BAGD, s.v. ITVICfj.
100 The history of the exegesis of this important passage
has not been written; for the material and references,
see Giorgio Otranto, "Matteo 7, 15-16a e gli
>f!•v3owpo.pfjra& nell' esegesi patristica," VetGhr 6
(1969) 33-45; Luz,Matthiius, 1.407-11 (Matthi!W,
1.446-50).
10 1 On this topic see Hans Dieter Betz, "Haresie I. N eues
Testament," TRE 14 (1985) 313-18, esp. 315; idem,
"Heresy and Orthodoxy in the NT," ABD 3.144-47;
Norbert Brox, "Haresie," RAG 13 (1986) 248-96.
102 See Matt 3:10//Luke 3:9; Matt 12:33; SP /Luke
6:43-45; Mark 8:24; Matt 13:31-32 par.; Mark
13:28-32 par.;Jude 12; Rev 7:1, 3; 8:7; 9:4. See also
Karl Erdmann et al., "Baum," RAG 2 (1954) 1-34.
103 Cf. the proverbial comparison ofthe arbor felix (the
fruitbearing tree) and the arbor infelix (the dead tree)
in Roman literature. See jacques Andre, "Arbor felix,
arbor infelix," in Hom mage aJean Bayet (Collection
Latomus 70; Bruxelles-Berchem: Latomus, 1964)
35-46; cf. Thomas Koves-Zulauf, "Plinius d.A. und
die romische Religion," ANRWII, 16/1 (1978) 187-
288, esp. 262-63;Jean Gage, "Felicitas," RAG 7
(1969) 711-23, esp. 317; furthermore for ancient
Egypt see Ingrid Gamer-Wallert, "Baum," LdA 1
(1975) 655-60.
104 For the parallel in Cos. Thom. log. 45, see below at n.
118; Cos. Truth 33.37 cites vs 16 to demonstrate the
unity between the Father and his own. Layton
(Gnostic Scriptures, 260) points out the parallel. For
the main parallels see Henri-Charles Puech, En quete
de la Gnose (Paris: Gallimard, 1978) 2.99-108;
Manlio Simonetti, "Matteo 7,17-18 (= Luca 6,43)
dagli gnostici ad Agostino," Augustinianum 16 (1976)
271-90.
105 See Tertullian Adv. Marc. 1.2.1; De anima 21.4;
Hippolytus Rif. 10.19; OrigenDe princ. 1.8.2; 2.5.4;
Ad Rom. 3.6; In loan. 13.11.
106 So correctly Alexander Bohlig, "Die Bibel bei den
Manichaern" (inaugural diss., Munster, 1947) 11,
33-34. I am indebted to the author for advice and
for allowing me to see his personal copy.

530

Kephalaia (chap. 2, pp. 16-23). 10 7 The Cologne Mani
Codex also comments on this exegesis. 1 08 The church
fathers, in turn, did their best to wrest the passage out of
the hands of the Gnostics and the Manichaeans, a battle
that culminated in Augustine's anti-Manichaean writ-
ings, 109 especially his commentary on the SM, De sermone
domini in monte. 11 0
2) Analysis The section 7:15-20 has two pans. Verse 15 is an
appeal to be on guard; the imperative is positive, in the
second person plural. After introducing the technical
term "false prophets" ('I{!Ev3o1Tpotflfira&), a brief descrip-
tion of their conduct is given by using two metaphors
("sheepskins" and "rapacious wolves").
While vs 15 is found in the SM alone, the added
recommendation for detecting false prophets (vss 16-
20) uses a similitude from Q. This Q-material is also
pan of SP /Luke 6:43-45, on the one hand, and of
Matt 12:33-35, on the other, but in SM/Matt 7:16-20
it has been given a special formulation. The method
for detecting false prophets is briefly stated in vs 16a
and repeated in vs 20, thus making the second part of
the composition an inclusio ("inclusion"), or ring
composition, using repetition (redditio). 111 In between
stands an argument proving that the method conforms
to experience. The argument starts out with a rhe-
torical question (interrogatio, verse 16b), with the
expected answer being negative. The question appeals
to agricultural experience. Verse 16b is formulated as
a parallelism (isocolon) with a common predicate (J.&~rE
O'VAAlyovaw), and it thus presents a case of com-
bination (adiunctio).
Verse 17 supports the proposed method by further
adducing agricultural wisdom, introduced by o!lroos
("thus"). The first statement is formulated positively as
107 According to the edition by Carl Schmidt, Kephalaia
(1st half; Manichiiische Handschriften der Staat-
lichen Museen Berlin, vol. 1; Stuttgart: Kohl-
hammer, 1940); and Alexander Bohlig, Kephalaia
(2d half; Manichiiische Handschriften der Staatlichen 111 So]. C. Fenton, "Inclusio and Chiasmus in the New
Museen Berlin, vol. 1; Stuttgan: Kohlhammer,
1966), chap. 96 (p. 24 7). For a translation see also
Bohlig, Gnosis, 3.157-58; funhermore, with more
references, Ernst Waldschmidt and Wolfgang Lentz, 112 The question is whether Justin (Apol. 1.16.13; Dial.
Die Stellungjesu im Manichi:iismus (APA W.PH 1926:4;
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1926) 29-31.
108 CMC, p. 69, 16; see also Albert Henrichs and Ludwig
Koenen, "Der Kolner Mani-Kodex (P. Colon. inv. nr.
4780)," ZPE 19 (1975) 69 with n. 133 (p. 85).
109 For a survey see C. P. Mayer, "Die antimanichiiischen
Schriften Augustins," Augustinianum 14 (1974) 277-
313.
Matthew 7:13-23
an antithetical parallelism (isocolon). Accordingly,
agricultural experience tells us that goodness or
badness of trees corresponds to the kinds of fruit they
produce. The grower, therefore, learns by the fruit
whether the tree is worth keeping.
Verse 18 continues the argument by providing a
simple explanation. The reason why the method set
forth in vs 17 is commendable is that nature deter-
mines it that way. The trees have no choice but to
produce the fruit that corresponds to the quality, or
lack of such, of the trees. This is why a grower can
have confidence in the value of the method of detec-
tion.
Verse 19 looks at the next step. Once a tree has
been identified as producing only rotten fruit, it will be
cut down and used as firewood. If not from the
beginning, at least at this point the language turns
metaphorical. The suggestion is made that human
beings, if they turn out to be in the same condition, will
meet the same fate. They will be cut down and thrown
into the fire of hell.
The analysis so far allows one to give an answer to
the intricate question of the sources from which the
components have come. While vs 15 comes from the
redaction of the SM, its material is derived from the Q-
tradition, most likely from the oral tradition. The
warning against false prophets is derived from jewish
paraenesis. The images of the sheepskin and the
rapacious wolf come from the proverbial tradition, but
the combination of "wolves in sheepskins" may be a
creation by the SM author(s), 11 2 who seems to be fond
llO Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 2.24.78-79, and for
the parallels in other writings of Augustine, see
Mutzenbecher's edition, 176-77; and Simonetti,
"Matteo" (see above, n. 104) 282-90.
Testament," inStEv 1 (TU 73; Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag, 1973) 174-79, esp. 174; Luz, Matthi:ius,
1.401 (Matthf!W, 1.439).
3 5. 3) depends on the canonical Gospel of Matthew or
on an independent source. Apol. 1.16.3 (my trans.):
"For many will come in my name; although outside
they are clothed in sheepskins, inside they are
rapacious wolves. From their works you shall
recognize them. And every tree that does not
produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the
fire" (7TOAAol yap 7f'ovO"&V t7Tl r~ 6vJp.arl p.ov, f'oo6Ev
531
of mixing images. 113
The second part (vss 16-20) adapts the immensely
popular similitude of the two trees (vss 17-19). As I
have mentioned, the same similitude is also used in
SP /Luke 6:43-45, where the application is also one of
anthropology but differs from the one in the SM. The
SP uses it to explain self-examination to insider-
disciples, rather than, as in the SM, exposure of
outsiders as false prophets. The similarities and
differences between the SM and the SPare such that
both texts must have taken the similitude from an
earlier source (Q), in order to elaborate it dif-
ferently. 114
The use of the similitude in' the passage named
"The Sin against the Holy Spirit" (Matt 12:31-37 par.)
is more complicated. In the Matthean version, the
passage has been amplified by the inclusion of the
similitude of the two trees (Matt 12:33):
Either make the tree good and its fruit good,
or make the tree bad and its fruit bad;
you can tell a tree by its fruit. (NEB)
"H ?TOL~UaTE Th lJJu~pov Ka'Ahv K.a\ rhv K«p?Thv aVroV
K.aA6v,
tj 7rOLijuaT£ rh lJJvlJpov ua1rphv K.a'r. rhv K.ap1rhv aVroV
cra1rp/JV"
~K yi.p rav Kap1rav lllvllpav ytvC:.crK<Tat·
The purpose of the passage is to explain the exposure
p.~v (vll<llvp.lva• lllpp.ara 1rpaf3d.rwv, fcrw6w ll~ ifvTEr
A1Jtcot Cl.p1rayEs' tK rWv lpywv aVrWv f1ftyvWcrEu8e
aVTo6s. rrav aE atvOpov, JL~ 1f01.0Vv K«p1Thv K.aA.6v,
fKK01TTET«L K.a'r. Els 1rVp ~IJ.AAET«t).
In Dial. 35.3 Justin quotes three versions of the
saying (my trans.): "Many will come in my name,
outside clothed in sheepskins, but inside they are
rapacious wolves" (IloA.Ao'r. EAeiJuovTat E1r'r. rifl OvOp.arl
p.ov, ftwB<v ~vll<llvp.lval lllpp.ara 1rpaf3d.rwv, fcrw6<v Ill
<t<rl AVKOI Cl.p1ray•r ). This saying as well as the others
are combinations of Mark 13:6//Matt 24:5/ /Luke
21:8, or Mark 13:22//Matt 24:24, with SM/Matt
7:15. Since similar sayings are found in justin Dial.
82:1-2; 2 Pet 3:3; Apoc. Pet. (Akhmim frg. f lOr) 1.2;
Did. 16:3-5; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 11.35.6; also 2.17.4, it is
unlikely that justin depended on our Gospel of
Matthew; it is more likely that the topos was handed
down in written and oral tradition independently.
Included in that tradition could have been the SM in
its pre-Matthean form. Arthur Bellinzoni (The Sayings
ofjesus in the Writings ofjustin Martyr [NovTSup 17;
Leiden: Brill, 1967]44-48, 100-106) points out that
the combination of Matt 7:15, 16, 19 with Matt 24:5
is found as well in Ap. Const. 6.13 and Ps.-Clem. Hom.
11.35.6 as part ofthe same line of tradition. For the
texts see Aland, Synopsis, 97-98, 400-401; Stroker,
Extracanonical Sayings, 140-41; for discussion cf.
532
of persons who slander the Holy Spirit. This purpose is
different from the applications of the similitude in the
SM and the SP. Matthew, who alone has the similitude
in his text on the sin against the Holy Spirit, could have
taken it from Q, or from the SM, but it is most likely
that he took it from his version of Q (QM•«). The
reason for this likelihood is that the statement about
"the good man" is added in Matthew (12:35), while in
SP /Luke 6:45 a similar statement follows directly after
the similitude of the two trees. One may conclude,
therefore, that the combination of the similitude of the
two trees and the statement about "the good man" was
part of Q. That combination then became part of the
SP /Luke 6:43-45 version and, independently, part of
Matt 12:31-37, where, however, the similitude (Matt
12:33) is separated from the statement concerning "the
good man" ( 12:3 5). Another saying is spliced in at
12:34.115
It is revealing also that the combination of the
similitude of the two trees and the statement con-
cerning "the good man" does not occur in the SM. 116
This situation leaves one with two options: either the
SM knew Q, in which case the SM omitted the saying
on "the good man"; or it did not know Q, in which case
the similitude was taken from the oral tradition, from
which Q also took it. That this latter option is more
likely is confirmed also by still other attestations.
Kohler, Rezeption, 186-89.
113 Cf. Luz, Matthiius, 1.40 I n. 2 (Matthew, 1.440 n. 2),
who attributes the formation to the evangelist
Matthew.
114 Differently, Strecker (Bergpredigt, 165-66 [Sermon,
160-61]) and Luz (Matthiius, 1.401-2 [Matthew,
1.439-41]) who attribute all redaction to the
evangelist Matthew.
115 Differently again, Strecker (Bergpredigt, 165-66
[Sermon, 160]) and Luz (Matthiius, 1.401-2, 405
[Matthew, 1.440-41, 444]) attribute the similitude in
Matt 12:33-35 to the evangelist Matthew; Luz (p.
405 [ET p. 444]) explains that this "duplication"
serves to heighten the rhetorical effect. But the
differences between Matt 7:15-20 and 12:31-37
speak against Matthean and for pre-Matthean
redaction.
116 Those who identify Q with Luke 6:43-45 and
assume Matthew to be the redactor should explain
why he omits the saying about "the good man" in the
SM and adds it in a different form in 12:35.

The parable of the Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13:6-
9) 117 is in its present context given a secondary
framework (13:1-5), but it certainly preceded that
context. The parable uses the image of a fig tree that
did not bear fruit for three years. The owner orders
the tree to be cut down, but then is persuaded to
postpone it for one more year. In that year a last
attempt will be made to revive the tree by digging up
the ground around it and by fertilizing it. The parable
seems to draw on the same imagery as the previously
discussed texts, but it shows an independent develop-
ment of that imagery, by which the barren tree is given
a second chance. One must also assume an inde-
pendent development for the Coptic Cos. Thom. log.
45:
Jesus said, "Grapes are not harvested from thorn
trees, nor are figs gathered from thorn bushes, for
these do not bear fruit. Good people produce good
from their store. Evil people produce wicked things
from their evil store within their hearts, and say
wicked things. For out of the heart's abundance
they produce wicked things." us
The logion has a parallel in SM/Matt 7: 16b, except for
the explanation "for they do not bear fruit." The
contrast between good and evil people is a parallel to
SP/Luke 6:45//Matt 12:35, but the saying has been
given a gnostic interpretation in that the heart is made
wicked altogether, while the store from where the
good comes remains obscure. Those readers who are
familiar with gnostic thinking know the answer to the
riddle. Cos. Thom. log. 45 is preceded by a saying on
blasphemy (log. 44), different from the version of this
saying in Matt 12:31-37. Logion 44 has also been
gnosticized:
Jesus said, "Whoever utters blasphemy against the
father will be forgiven. And whoever utters
blasphemy against the son will be forgiven. But
whoever utters blasphemy against the holy spirit
will not be forgiven-neither on earth nor in
heaven." 119
What is missing in this series of sayings is the similitude
of the two trees, except for a reference at the end of
log. 43, where Jesus says of the Jews: "For they love the
tree, and hate its fruit. And they love the fruit, and
hate the tree." 120 The reference is clearly to a single
tree, not two trees. The point is not that tree and fruit
correspond, but that the attitude of the Jews to either
117 On this parable see the discussion and bibliography
in Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1 003-9; Jiilicher, Gleichnisreden,
2.433-38; Jeremias, Parables, 169-71; Richard
Bauckham, "The Two Fig Tree Parables in the
Apocalypse of Peter," JBL I 04 (1985) 269-87.
118 The translation is that of Layton, Gnostic Scriptures,
388; see also Thomas 0. Lambdin, in Layton, ed.,
Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, 70-71. For commentary
Matthew 7:13-23
the fruit or the tree is contradictory. By contrast, it
would be consistent either to hate or to love both tree
and fruit. The underlying presupposition is here also
that tree and fruit correspond, but this is not the point
the saying wishes to make. What does this complicated
situation add up to?
It appears that the combination of the similitude of
the two trees with the saying about "the good man" was
part of Q and that SP/Luke 6:43-45 received it from
there. The sayings composition in Matt 12:31-37
enriched the shorter Markan version (Mark 3:28-30)
by incorporating the similitude of the two trees (Matt
12:33) and the saying about "the good man" (Matt
12:35), and by adding more sayings not attested in Q
(Matt 12:34, 36, 37). If the SM knew Q, it included the
similitude of the two trees but rejected the saying on
"the good man." Indeed, one may argue, the very
concept of "the good man" may be objectionable to
Jewish anthropology. In the SM the ideal is not to be a
good man but to become what one already is, a "son of
the heavenly Father" (see SM/Matt 5:9, 45; cf. 7:9). A
further conclusion is that SP /Luke 6:43-45 cannot
have been identical with Q and cannot have been the
immediate source for SM/Matt 7:16-20. One cannot
explain the differences between the SP and the SM
versions as redactional changes made by the evangelist
Matthew who had before him Q/Luke 6:43-45.
Instead, all related texts have drawn their material
from earlier versions of Q containing differing
elaborations of it. The passage under examination
shows, therefore, quite clearly that the SM does not
depend on the same Q-version that the SP depends on.
SM/Matt 7:15-20 is not a textual elaboration of
Q/Luke 6:43-45. Instead, one must assume, the
beginning is to be seen in the oral tradition, where the
similitude of the two trees was already popular. Q took
it up from there, that is, probably from Jesus' teaching.
Then it became material for quite different elabo-
rations in the versions of Q, one of which (QLuke) was
worked into SP /Luke 6:43-45, and another (QM•tt)
into SM/Matt 7:16-20; yet other elaborations became
the material of still other sayings compositions.
see Menard, Thomas, 145-46.
119 Layton's translation, Gnostic Scriptures, 388; Menard,
Thomas, 144.
120 Layton's translation, Gnostic Scriptures, 388; Menard,
Thomas, 143-44.
533
3) Interpretation
•15 For the readers or hearers of the SM, the warning
against false prophets comes as a surprise, but given the
background of the SM in judaism such a warning was not
unfamiliar: "Beware of the false prophets!" ('rrpocr£xfTf
a71'0 T;;lV t£v/)o7rpocp~n.,v). 121 The imperative 7rpocr£x£Tf
combined with the preposition a7rO ("beware of," "be on
guard against") 122 occurs only here in the SM, but with a
positive meaning the imperative occurs also in SM/Matt
6:1.
Pseudoprophets were not mentioned before in the
SM, but the term, as well as the warnings, is familiar
from other New Testament paraenesis. 123 The source of
this tradition is in Hellenistic judaism, where
t£v/)o7rpocp~T7JS occurs in the LXX, 124 Philo, and
Josephus; 125 the concept itself goes back to the Hebrew
Bible. 126 The term "false prophet" could apparently
designate all kinds of supposed "heretics," even those
who were not prophets in the phenomenological sense of
the term. The New Testament also shows further
development of derived terms such as twi)OXPICTTOI
("false messiahs," "false Christs"), 127 twaa71'0crToAo&
("false apostles), 128 and twaoa&McrKaAo& ("false teach-
ers").129
It is characteristic that there is no identification of
these false prophets, an ambiguity no doubt intended; in
this way the warning could be turned against any newly
emerging heresy. This lack of identification does not
exclude the possibility, and indeed probability, that the
author of the SM had specific individuals in mind. The
hearers or readers of the warning, however, are left to
come to their own conclusions. Modern scholars have
been more than ready to propose identifications:
Zealots, 130 Pharisees, 131 Essenes, 132 rigoristicjewish
Christians, 133 followers of the apostle Paul, 134 or
Hellenistic antinomians. 135 Most of these identifications
are nothing but guesswork. To make an identification,
one must find the clues in the SM itself. It is also method-

121 C L We j1.1 3 33. 892. 1006. 1506 9Jt f q syh samss bo
add t.J ("but"), apparently attempting to connect vs
14 with vs 15, thereby acknowledging that a new
sentence begins with vs 15. The older text, however,
did not have t.J (so IC B 0250. 565. 788. 1342. 1424
allat syc.p sa015' mae). The original connection was
probably by catchword: cf. Elcr-Epxop.a& (vss 13, 14) and
lpxop.a& (vs 15).
122 BAGD (s.v. 'll"poutxro, l.b) refers to Sir 6:13; 11:33;
17:14; 18:27; etc.; also Matt 10:17; 16:6, 11-12;
Luke 20:46;Did. 6.3; 12.5.
123 See SP/Luke 6:26; Mark 13:22//Matt 24:24; Matt
24:11; Acts 13:6; 2 Pet 2:1; !John 4:1; Rev 16:13;
19:20; 20:10; Apoc. Pet. 1.1; Did. 11.5-6, 8-10; 16.3;
Hermas Man. 11.1-2, 7; Ps.-Clem. Ep. Clem. 14.3;
Hom. 2.17 .4; 11.35.6; Rec. 4.34.5. See BAGD, s.v.
>/tEv3o'!l"pot/J~T1JS; Gerhard Friedrich et al., "'ll"pot/J~T7JS
KTA.," TDNT6.804-7, 830,855-56,860-61
(B.III.4-5; D.l.6; D.VII; E.IV); L. Ramlot and E.
Cothenet, "Prophetisme," DBSup 8 (1972) 811-
1337; Horst Balz, EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v.
>/tEvllo'll"pot/J~T1JS; Speyer, Frilhes Christentum, 455-56.
124 See LXX Zech 13:2;Jer 6:13; 33:7, 8, 11, 16; 34:9;
35:1; 36:1, 8. On warnings against false prophets, see
also Mic 3:5-6;Jer 23:11-12; Ezek 13:3-4; and for
the literature see Eva Osswald, Falsche Prophetie im
Alten Testament (SGVS 237; Tiibingen: Mohr
[Siebeck], 1962); Gerhard Miinderlein, Kriterien
wahrer und falscher Prophetie: Entstehung und Bedeut-
ung im Alten Testament (Europaische Hochschul-
schriften 23.33; Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 1974).
125 For references seeJannes Reiling, "The Use of
'I'EY.6-0IIPO<I>HTHl: in the Septuagint, Philo and
Josephus," NovT 13 (1971) 147-56.
126 For passages and bibliography, Hans-Peter Muller,
IC':::ll niibi'," ThWAT 5 (1986) 140-63.
127 Mark 13:22//Matt 24:24. It is noteworthy that the
SM does not have this term; it developed after the
SM, but Matthew, who knew it from Mark, did not
interpolate it in SM/Matt 7: 15, thus confirming that
he regarded the SM as a source.
128 2 Cor 11:13, probably taking a term Paul's op-
ponents used against him as well. See also Ps.-Clem.
Rec. 4.34.5; 8.53.3.
129 2 Pet 2:1; Ps.-Clem. Ep. Clem. 14.3.
130 Schlatter, Matthiius, 252-54; Cothenet (see the
bibliography to this section).
131 Cf. Hill (see the bibliography to this section), esp.
343-48, who interprets Matt 12:33-35; 23:25, 27-
28 into the SM.
132 Constantin Daniel, "Esseniens, zelots et sicaires et
leur mentions par paronymie dans le Nouveau
Testament," Numen 13 (1966) 88-115; idem, "'Faux
Prophetes': Surnom des Esseniens dans Ie Sermon
sur Ia Montagne," RevQ 7 (1969/70) 45-79. Cf. the
critical view of Feldman, josephus, 636.
133 Guelich, Sermon, 393.
134 Johannes WeiB (Urchristentum, 585-86 [History, 753])
connects Paul with Matt 5:17-19; see also Hill, 329,
333-40; Betz, Essays, 20-21; also 51 n. 54, 155.
135 For further references see Cothenet, 299-305.

534
 Matthew 7:13-23

ologically questionable to bring in Matthew's own ideas
right away to interpret a pre-Matthean text. Matt 24:9-
12, 14 represent Matthew's own application of the
traditional warning to the eschatological situation as he
sees it. This does not mean that the SM sees it in the
same way. 136
Even though the SM lacks concrete identifications, one
is not left completely without clues. The veiled descrip-
tion of vs 15b must have been familiar to the readers or
hearers: "who come to you in sheepskins but inside they
are rapacious wolves" (oYnve-s- ~pxovmt rpos- vp.as- tv
tvMp.aut 7rpo{31zrwv, ~uwfJe-v o£ dutv )\:{;Kot czpTraye-s-).
If this language was more or less familiar, what would
hearers or readers make of it? The applications must
refer to circumstances at the time, so that the audience
could make the connection. In part, even the metaphors
were traditional. The application of raving wolves to
false prophecy is not unknown to the Old Testament.l 37
The image thus was a ready-made topos to be used
against heretics in early Christian polemics. 138 What
then do the metaphors point to in vs 15b?
In all of antiquity the wolf was recognized as a dan-
gerous animal. 139 Although only a few people in the
early Christian church will have had the opportunity of
seeing the animal, its very name caused a shudder as of a
demonic creature. 140 The expression "wolves in sheep-
skins"141 may refer to the alleged demonic powers of
wolves to transform themselves into sheep, 14 2 or to
humans to act in this manner. If the latter application is
preferred, the question is whether the expression is an
image or an actual reference to the prophetic garb, as
Otto Bocher has proposed. 143 It seems, however, that
the focus is on the image, 144 not the garb of the prophet,
although one does not necessarily exclude the other.
Interesting for comparison is the different application
of the imagery in Matt 10:16, "Look, I send you out as
sheep among wolves" (loov ty6J amour£Hw vp.as ws-
7rpof3ara tv p.£u~ J\.vKwv). This saying, which comes from
Q, has a parallel in Luke 10:3, which turns things
around: the missionary-apostles are sent out into the
world seemingly unprotected, ready to be torn to pieces.
The world is compared to a pack of wolves who are by
nature "rapacious" (czpTraye-s-). 145 According to the SM,

I36 So apparently also Luz (Matthiius, I.402-3 [Matthew,
1.44I-42]), whose survey I have used; furthermore,
Hill, 327-33.
I37 For related expressions also Gen 49:27; Deut 33:I2;
Ezek 22:27-28; Zeph 3:3-4 (LXX).
I38 See Acts 20:29: >..iYKot {3ape'is ("fierce wolves"); Did.
I6.3; Ignatius Ph/d. 2.2; 2 Clem. 5.2-4; Eusebius (HE
5.I3.4) calls Marcion "the wolffrom Pontus" (o
'll"OVTLKOs >..iJKos);Justin Apol. l.I6.I3; Dial. 3. The
expression "rapacious wolf" is proverbial; for lupus
rapax see Horace Carm. 4.4.I5; Epod. I6.20, and
often. For these and other parallels see Wettstein,
I.343.
I39 On the wolf see Gunther Bornkamm, "lo.iJKos," TDNT
4.308-II; BAGD, s. v. >..iYKos; Spicq, Notes, I.5II-I2;
Will Richter, "Wolf," PWSup I5 (I978) 960-87, esp.
983, 986-87.
I40 For the role of the wolf in magic, see PGM l.28I,
285; II.I43; Ill.435; IV.2276, 2302, 2550; VII.729,
78I; Vlll.II; XIII.275, and often.
I4I As a figure, the expression occurs only here in the
NT; see BAGD, s.v. tvavp.a, 2. Cf. tvovp.a in relation
to flowers in SM/Matt 6:25, 28.
I42 See Did. I6.3: "[the false prophets] transform the
sheep into wo)ves"(Kat ITTpatJ>~ITOVTaL Ta 'll"pt'J{3aTa els
>..iYKovs). See Oskar Holtzmann, "Die Schafe werden
sich in Wolfe verwandeln," ZNW II (I9IO) 224-31.
Cf. also Ignatius Phld. 2.2.
I43 Otto Bocher ("Wolfe in Schafspelzen: Zum religions-
geschichtlichen Hintergrund von Matth. 7, I5," TZ
24 [I968]405-26) refers to the prophetic garb as
described in I Kgs I9:I3, I9; 2 Kgs 2:8, I3 (LXX);
Zech I3:4; Josephus Vita 2; 1 Clem. I7 .I, where the
term is p.1JAWT~ ("sheepskin" as cloak worn by
prophets). See BAGD, s.v. p.1JAWT~. Cf. Matt 3:4
(Mark I :6) about the garment of John the Baptist
("his cloak was from camel's hair"). Bocher's pre-
cursors were Tholuck, Bergrede, 466-67 (Commentary,
4I9-20); Bornhauser, Bergpredigt, 24; Klostermann,
Matthiiusevangelium, 69. The evidence is ambiguous,
however, and it would be too much to say that the
sheepskin was the regular garb of prophets. See also
GostaAhlstrom, ""'1'"11:1 'addir," ThWAT I.78-8I
(TDOT 1.73-74); Otto Michel, "p.7Jlo.wr~," TDNT
4.637-38; Luz, Matthiius, 1.404 n. I4 (Matthew,
I.442 n. I4).
I44 For the proverbial expression see Proverbia Aesopi
I23: "hide the wolf by a sheep's skin" (KpiY'll"TELv rov
>..iYKov .,.po{3<hov oop~). For the reference see BAGD,
s.v . .,.p6{3arov, I; also s.v. fvavp.a and >..iJKos.
I45 Cf. also Paul being mobbed, Acts 23:IO; see also 1
Clem. 46.7; 2 Clem. 5.2-4; Mark I4:27 //Matt 26:3I;
John II:52; Acts 8:32; Rom 8:36. BAGD (s.v.llp.,.ac,
I) refers to Gen 49:27. See furthermore Hab I:8

535
they have the ability of transforming or disguising
themselves, so as to look "sheepishly" harmless; that
image is applied to the disciples, as though they are a
herd of sheep. 146
In this disguise the wolf is extremely dangerous
because he is so difficult to recognize. While ordinarily
the wolf would be kept away from the herd by the
watchful shepherd, 14 7 as a camouflaged intruder the
animal mingles with the herd unrecognized. Once
"inside" (fcroo8£v) he can do his beastly work. I take it that
"inside" does not refer only to the real nature 148 of the
beast but also to its being inside the herd 149 as the result
of the intrusion (fpx£cr8a' 'ITpos-).150
The wolves are clearly intended to describe "here-
tics," 151 coming into the community of disciples from the
outside. People thus described seem to be traveling
prophets, such as those described in Didache 11 and 15,
and in Hermas Mandates 11. 152 What these people
actually do is left for the hearers or readers to imagine. It
is presumably their teaching that is objectionable to the
SM; their doctrines must be somehow related to what is
rejected in SM/Matt 5:17-20, 153 so that those who
follow them end in "lawlessness" (7:23).
• 16 The reason for combining the warning against false
prophets with the imagery of trees and their fruits (vss
16-19) is not difficult to find. Because the "wolves in
sheepskins" are so difficult to detect, vss 16-20 provide a
method for their exposure. The beginning states the
general rule to be followed; it is repeated in vs 20: "From
their fruit you shall recognize them" (tho Tow Kap'lTwv
aVTWV ~'IT,')'VIi>cr£cr8£ avToVs-). This rule presupposes a shift
of imagery from the animal world and shepherding to
agriculture. The method recommended looks simple, if
not simplistic. Its success in the church was, not sur-
prisingly, accompanied by horrendous abuse and failure.
Still, in spite of this miserable history of identification
and persecution of heretics by the church, the rule is
worth considering. Abusus non tollit usum! The method is
still basic to all modern police work. Criminals prefer to
do their work in disguise in the midst of society, and the
work of the police and the courts is to expose the cover-
ups. The only chance for the discovery and conviction of
criminals consists of the simple fact that they inevitably
leave some kind of record or trace. They produce
"fruit."
This underlying presupposition is illuminated by the
word "fruit," a metaphor taken from plant life. 154
Comparing humans with plants has occurred before in
the SM (Matt 6:28-30), but the application here is
different. Like plants human beings also "bear fruit,"
either good or rotten fruit. Human lives have track
records and results of one sort or another . 155 These
results may not be simply "good" or "bad deeds," 156 but
they are more often general, such as relationships with

(LXX); John 10:12, 28, 29. On the whole, see Uro
(see the bibliography to this section).
146 See also Mark 6:34//Matt 9:36; Matt 10:16//Luke
10:3; Did. 13.3;John 10:1-16, 26-27; 1 Pet 2:25,
and other passages, for which see BAGD, s. v.
7rpO{JaTOII, 1-2.
147 For the figure of the shepherd, which is completely
absent from the SM, see the passages mentioned in n.
146, and BAGD, s.v. 'lrO&IL~"· 2; Brox, Hermas, 520-
23.
148 cr. the contrast between inside and outside in other
passages, such as Matt 23:25,27, 28; Mark 7:21, 23;
Luke 11:39, 40; 2 Cor 7:5. In the SM the notion of
"hypocrite" is related (see above on SM/Matt 6:2, 5,
16; 7:5). For this interpretation see also Luz,
Matthiius, 1.404 (Matthew, 1.442-43).
149 Cf. ol furo ("those within" the church) in 1 Cor 5:12.
150 For this term see Matt 3:14; Mark 9:14; Luke 1:43;
John 1:29; 2 Cor 13:1; etc. See BAGD, s.v. lpxo,.a&,
l.l.a.fJ. Cf. Paul's description of the "false brothers"
(1/IEvMild.tj>o•) sneaking in (Gal 2:4; on this point see
Betz, Galatians, 89-91).
151 See Giorgio Otranto, "Matteo 7,15-16a e gli
1/IEvllo7rpotj>ijTa& nell' esegesi patristica," VetChr 6
(1969) 33-45.
152 See Jannes Reiling, Hermas and Christian Prophecy
(NovTSup 37; Leiden: Brill, 1973) 8, 58-59, 61, 70,
72; Gerd Theissen, "The Role of the Wandering
Charismatics," in his Sociology ofEarly Palestinian
Christianity (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1978) 8-16, and passim; for the German
see "Wanderradikalismus," ZThK 10 (1973) 245-71,
esp. 252-53.
153 Cf.Luz,Matthlius, 1.403withn.l8(Matthew, 1.441
n. 18).
154 In the NT, the term Kap1ros ("fruit") occurs only here
in this sense (vss 16-20); cf. also SP/Luke 6:43, 44;
Matt 12:33; for further literature see Betz, Galatians,
286-87, on Gal 5:22.
155 This doctrine is widely attested in Greek philosophy;
for passages see BAGD, s.v. Kap1r0s, 2.a (among them
Proverbia Aesopi 51 [cited according to BAGDJ: "Its
fruit will be clear proof for every tree of the nature
that it has" (L!.ijAOS fAE')IXOS b Kap7r0S ')IEV~UETal 'lraVTOS

536

others. This is an anthropological fact not to be denied.
More specific are the results of prophets. Whatever
pronouncements these prophets make influence what
people who listen to them do and say. Therefore, a great
deal of what we call history is the "fruit" of prophets, the
question being only whether true or false prophets
generated these outcomes. Therefore, careful observa-
tion and analysis of a prophet's track record are in order;
it is the only method for separating true from false
prophets. In modern society, this method is standard
practice for everyone who must render judgment on
pronouncement-makers, opinion-makers, prognosti-
cators, and so forth. In the final analysis, everyone
participating in a democratic society is compelled to
watch constantly for the track records of persons in
public as well as in private life. The term t7Ttywcf>uKw
points out that this activity is eminently intellectual
("learn exactly," "ascertain"). 157 One must link the term
to "ascertaining 158 the truth" 159 or "identifying sin." 160
This method of evaluating prophets seems to have
been tried out on no other than the apostle Paul, if we
read rightly what he says in his Corinthian letters.l 61
Paul's example also demonstrates in a paradigmatic way
how effective, and also how ineffective and even dan-
gerous, this method can be. As he points out especially in
2 Corinthians, his adversaries, whom he calls "false
apostles" (2 Cor 11:13: tw1:Ja7TOCTToAot), almost sue-
otvopov ~v <'xn tfn'JCTIV ]). See also Matt 3:8; 21 :43; Jas
3: 17; Diogn. 12.1.
156 This term is, however, not used here, but see KaAa
f'pya ("good works") in SM/Matt 5:16; tpyti(cu8a1
("do work") in 7:23. See also Betz, Galatians, 283,
302, on Gal5:19; 6:4; furthermore Col1:10; and
BAGD, s.v. Kap7rotf>aptw.
157 See BAGD, s. v. tmyLVwuKw, for the different mean-
ings; and the parallel passages in SP /Luke 6:44; Matt
12:33, which have the simple yLVwuKw.
158 See Acts 23:28; 24:8, 11; and BAGD, s.v. tmyvwuKw,
2.b.
159 See Luke 1:4; Rom 1:32; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Tim 2:25;
Titus 1:1; Heb 10:26; 1 Clem. 59.2; etc. See BAGD,
s.v. E1rlyvrou&~, I.
160 See Rom 3:20.
161 See 1 Cor 2:14, 15; 4:3-4; 9:3; 10:25, 27; 14:24; cf.
t'lr•y•vwuKw, 1 Cor 13:12; 14:37; 2 Cor 1:13; 6:9;
13:5.
162 C L W 0jl 3 1006. 1342. 1506 ml read the singular
uratfm,\~v ("grape"), probably to make it similar to
the singular of uvKa ("fig"). The plural is read by IC B
Matthew 7:13-23
ceeded in driving him out of the church of Corinth, of
which he was the legitimate founder. His dilemma was
that he was unable and unwilling to meet the criteria of
miraculous deeds, by which his opponents tried to
evaluate him. Paul, however, would agree with the SM
that the proper criteria must be ethical.
The rhetorical question in vs 16b makes sure that the
reader understands and approves of the value of the
recommended method: "Or do they [sc. people] gather
grapes from thorn plants or a fig from thistles?" (p.~Tf
uvA.A.(yovutv <hO aKav8wv CTTatJ>vA.as ~ a7TO TptfjoA.wv
uvKa;). 162 The answer is of course negative. 163 In other
words, a rule that makes sense in agriculture can make
sense in human life as well. In the present argument the
plant names may have taken on an allegorical meaning
already, and parallels elsewhere in the synoptic tradition
may confirm it. 164 Later, the images become proverbial
commonplaces. 165
• 1 7 The following vss 1 7-18 apply the rule of vs 16a to
the tree: "In the same way every good tree produces
good fruit, but the rotten tree produces bad fruit" (ol!Tws
7Tav o£v1:Jpov aya8ov Kap7TOVS KaAoVs 7TOtfL, TO o£ ua7TpOv
a£vopov Kap7TOVs 7TOV'1/POVS 7TOtfL}. 166 The negatively
formulated question in vs 16b is now given a solid
answer. The example of the tree is handy not only
0250 p 205. 892 lat sy co; c• reads the plural
uratf>v,\~vas. The parallel in SP /Luke 6:44 has also
the singular, but which fruit is collected from which
plant is different (see below on SP /Luke 6:44). Cf.
alsojas 3:12; Cos. Thom.log. 45.
163 Cf.Jas 3:12: "Can a fig tree, my brothers, yield olives
or a vine figs? No more does salt water yield fresh
water." The example is traditional; see the parallels
in Epictetus Diss. 2.20.18; Plutarch De tranq. an. 13,
472F (see Betz in PECL 2.221-22). Further parallels
are given in Grotius, In Matthaeum, 91; Wettstein,
1.343-44; Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1900), 1.58; (1905),
2.90-91.
164 See Mark 4:7, 18//Matt 13:7,22//Luke 6:44; Luke
8:7, 14; Barn. 9.5. On the whole matter see BAGD,
s.v. lfKav8a and rpl{3oAos.
165 See Heb 6:7-8, and the commentaries, ad Joe.
166 The adverb ol!rws ("thus") is omitted in sy<; the
adjective aya8&v ("good") by W*. B* and vgmss read
7rOI£t KaAoVs instead of KaAobs 7rOI£t.
537
because of its proverbial popularity 167 but also because
of its applicability to people. 168 The latter remains
suggestive, but it is suggested as being just as self-
evidently true as in agriculture. The terms "producing"
('lTotEI.'v), 169 "fruit" (Kap'lTol), 170 and "rotten" (ua'lTpos) 171
could easily apply to humans as well.
• 18 That the quality of the tree corresponds to that of
the fruit is no accident; it cannot be otherwise: "A good
tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor (can) a rotten tree
produce good fruit" (ov ovvaTa! OEVopov a:ya8ov Kap'lTOtJs
'lTOV7JpotJs 'lTO!ELV ovo~ o£vopov ua'lTpOv Kap'lTOVS KaA.ovs
'lTOtEI.'v). 172 The strong emphasis on the "impossible" 173
appears to point to a radical dualism and a kind of
predestination. This point was not lost on later inter-
preters, especially the Gnostics and the Manichaeans.
• 19 The destiny of the trees not producing good fruit is
described next: "Every tree that does not produce good
fruit is cut out and thrown into the fire" ('lTiiv o£vopov J.L~
'lTowvv Kap'lTOV KaA.ov EKKO'lTTETat Ka'r. ds 'lTVp J3&.A.A.eTat).l 74
Whether the tree is good or bad makes no difference,
but the producing of "good fruit" (Kap'lTOs KaA.os) 175
makes all the difference. The unproductive tree is "cut
out" (lKKO'lTTEw) 176 and "thrown into the fire" (ds 'lTVp
J3&.A.A.ew). 177 The words describe what supposedly
happens in real life, but the metaphorical understanding
is unquestionably intended as well. The eschatological
warning, found already in the Old Testament, 178 was
also attributed to John the Baptist. 1 79 Its application to
Christian heretics begins with this passage. 180
• 20 The conclusion, indicated by ltpa ("consequently"),
repeats the rule in vs 16a: "Therefore, from their fruit
you shall recognize them" (llpa YE lmo Tc;JV Kap'lTWV avTWV
l'~Ttyvwueu8e avTovs). 181 The case is taken to be proved;
the conjunction llpa ye ("consequently then") is meant to
be emphatic. 182
c. On Self-Delusion (7:21-23)
21 Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord,"
shall enter into the kingdom of the
heavens, but (only) he who does the will
of my Father who is in the heavens.
22 Many will say to me in that day, "Lord,
Lord! Did we not prophesy in your name,
and in your name cast out demons, and in
your name perform many miracles?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never
knew you; depart from me, you who work
iniquity."

167 For the proverbial material see BAGD (s.v.ll.!vllpov)
with the NT references (Matt 7:17-20; 12:33; Luke
6:43-44; IgnatiusEph. 14.2,Bam. 11.10; Luke
13:19; Matt 13:32; Mark 8:24-"I see people as ifl
see walking trees").
168 On the kinship that ancients believed to exist
between trees and humans see above, p. 530.
169 wotiiv ("do") occurs only here in the SM with this
meaning (vss 17, 18, 19). Elsewhere it usually refers
to human activities (5: 19, 32, 36, 46, 4 7; 6:1, 2, 3;
7:12, 21, 22, 24, 26).
170 For the plural see 7:16, 17, 18, 20; the singular only
in vs 19.
171 uawp6r ("rotten") occurs only here in the SM; see also
SP /Luke 6:43; Matt 12:33; 13:48; Eph 4:29; Hermas
Sim. 9.5.2; 9.6.4. See BAGD, s.v. uawp6r.
172 In vs 18a B Tertullian OrigenP' Adamantius read
iveyKiiv ("bear") instead of wotiiv ("produce"); the
Nestle text is read by K C L W Z eJL 13 33. 892.
1006. 1342. 1506(*) 9Jt latt sy. In vs 18b the situation
differs slightly: iv£yKiiv ("bear") is read by It*,
Tertullian OrigenP' but wotiiv ("produce") by K 1 B C
L W Z ejl· 13 33. 892. 1006. 1342. 1506(*) 9Jt !at sy.
The change from wotiiv ("produce") to cp£pHv ("bear")
is clearly secondary, but the reason is obscure. Is it to
make a stylistic improvement by avoiding the
monotonous repetition of the same verb? Cf. Metz-
ger, Textual Commentary, 20.
173 See also SM/Matt 5:14, 36; 6:24, 27; and BAGD, s.v.
/l,',vap.at, 3. The verb cp.!pHv is undoubtedly more
appealing stylistically (cf. Mark 4:8;John 12:24; 15:2,
4-5, 8, 16; Hermas Sim. 2.3-4, 8). See BAGD, s.v.
cp.!pw, 2; cf. also s. v. Kapwocf>op.!w and Kapwocf>6por.
174 C2 L Zjl 3 33. 1582< alit sy< sa mae bomss add o~v
("therefore") to provide a better connection with vs
18.
175 Now in the singular; cf. vss 17-18.
176 Cf. Matt 3:10//Luke 3:9; SM/Matt 5:30; Luke
13:7, 9; Rom 11:22, 24; 2 Cor 11:12. See BAGD, s.v.
EKK6wrw, 1, which renders it "cut down."
177 See also Matt 5:13, 25, 29, 30; 6:30; 7:6, where
{3aA.A.w ("throw") is used in similar ways. For wvp
("fire") see also 5:22.
178 See Isa 6:13; 10:33-34; 32:19.
179 Matt 3:10//Luke 3:9. It is conceivable that the
language of SM/Matt 7:19 goes back through the
teaching ofJesus to John the Baptist.
180 See also jude 12;HermasSim. 4.4;JustinApol.
1.16.12-13.
181 c and !at(?) have the preposition EK instead of cm6,
perhaps because of EKK6wrw (vs 19), or because of EK
in Matt 12:33; cf.JustinApol. 1.16.13.
182 The conjunction occurs only here in the SM; cf. Matt
17:26. See BAGD, s.v. IJ.pa, 4.

538
 Matthew 7:13-23

Bibliography in Greifswalder Studien: Theologische Abhandlungen

C. Kingsley Barrett, "I Am Not Ashamed of the
Gospel," in his New Testament Essays (London:
SPCK,1972) 116-43.
Gerhard Barth, "Matthew's Understanding of the
Law," in Gunther Bomkamm, Gerhard Barth, and
Heinz Joachim Held, Tradition and Interpretation in
Matthew (trans. Perey Scott; London: SCM;
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972) 68-70, 149-54.
Hans Dieter Betz, "An Episode in the Last Judgment
(Matt. 7:21-23)," in Betz, Essays, 125-57; ET of
"Eine Episode imJungsten Gericht (Mt 7,21-23),"
ZThK. 78 (1981) 1-30; also in Studien zur Berg-
predigt, 111-40; idem, Synoptische Studien, 188-218.
Charles E. Carlston, "The Things That Defile (Mark
VII.14) and the Law in Matthew and Mark," NTS
15 (1968) 75-96.
Edouard Cothenet, "Les prophetes chretiens dans
I'Evangile selon saint Matthieu," in Didier, Mat-
thieu, 281-308.
James E. Davison, "Anomia and the Question of an
Antinomian Polemic in Matthew," JBL 104 (1985)
617-35.
David Flusser, "Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Mat-
thew," Immanuel 5 (1975) 37-45; reprinted in his
Judaism and the Origins of Christianity Gerusalem:
Magnes, 1988) 552-60.
David Hill, "False Prophets and Charismatics: Struc-
ture and Interpretation in Matthew 7,15-23," Bib
57 (1976) 327-48.
Paul Hoffmann, "1r&.uru ~py&.rat aliucla~: Redaktion
und Tradition in Lc 13,22-30," ZNW 58 (1967)
188-214.
Marguerat, Le jugement, 192-203.
Michael Mees, "Ausserkanonische Parallelstellen zu
den Gerichtsworten Mt. 7,21-23; Lk. 6,46; 13,26-
28 und ihre Bedeutung fiir die Formung der
Jesusworte," VetChr 10 (1973) 79-102.
Antonio Omelia, "Les chretiens serontjuges: Mt 7,21-
23," Assemblees du Seigneur 40 (1972) 16-27.
Alexander Sand, "Die Polemik gegen 'Gesetzlosigkeit'
im Evangelium nach Matthaus und bei Paulus," BZ
14 (1970) 112-15.
Akira Satake, Die Gemeindeordnung im der Johannes-
apokalypse (WMANT 21; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1966) 188-90.
Adolf Schlatter, "Zur Auslegungvon Matth. 7,21-23,"
Hermann Cremer zum 25-jiihrigen Professorenjubiliium
dargebracht (Gutersloh: Bertelsmann, 1895) 83-
105.
Gerhard Schneider, "Christusbekenntnis und christ-
liches Handeln: Lk 6,46 und Mt 7,21 im Kontext
der Evangelien," in Rudolf Schnackenburg, ed.,
Kirche des Anfangs: FS for Heinz Schilrmann zum 65.
Geburtstag (Leipzig: St. Benno, 1977) 9-24.
Eduard Schweizer, "Gesetz und Enthusiasmus bei
Matthaus," in his Beitriige zur Theologie des Neuen
Testaments (Zurich: Zwingli, 1970) 49-70.
Idem, "Observance of the Law and Charismatic
Activity in Matthew," NTS 16 (1969/70) 213-30.
Idem, "Matthaus 7,14-23," in hisMatthiius, 126-31.
Wrege, Bergpredigt, 146-52.
Zumstein, Condition, 171-87.
1) Introduction
The theme of self-delusion 188 follows directly from the
preceding theme of the community's deception by false
prophets (7: 15-20), but one should keep the two sections
separate and not treat them as one. 184 The connections
between them are, however, various. The nature ofvs 20
as the end of the ring composition (inclusio, vss 15-20)
means that vs 21 begins anew. 18 5 There are also
catchword connections: 'lTO,t-i'v ("do") in vss 19 and 21;
t'lT''Y'vc1>uKt'v ("recognize") in vs 20 and 'Y'vc1>uKt'v
("know") in vs 23a. Then there are associations of ideas,
such as the very idea of deception and delusion. Indeed,
delusion unites the three sections ofvss 13-23, and even
vss 24-27. Invss 13-14 the multitudes are deceived by
the smooth road and the wide gate; in vss 15-20 the
warning is against deceptive false prophets; and in vss
21-23 those who have been deluded are exposed as
·deluding themselves. Crying "Lord, Lordi" will not save
them in the last judgment. 186 Whereas in vss 13-14 the
delusion comes from the environment, in vss 15-20 the
peril comes from false prophets who have slipped into
the community. As the climax, vss 21-23 deal with
internal self-deception because of the failure to assess
one's situation critically.

183 So, correctly, Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1905), 2.92. alia unit.

184 Luz argues differently (Matthiius, 1.400-402 [Mat- 185 So rightly Strecker, Bergpredigt, 172 (Sermon, 165).
thew, 1.439-41 ]), following Marguerat (Le jugement, 186 When the petitioners ofvss 21-23 prophesied in
183-84); they treat 7:15-23 as one section under the Jesus' name, they did so in good faith, not as "wolves
title "Warning Against False Prophets." But Luz also in sheepskins," whose victims they had become.
recognizes that vs 21 constitutes "a new beginning"
(ET 444; German, p. 405: "Neueinsatz"). Also
Allison ("Structure," 430 n. 19) regards 7:15-23

539
 In a sense one can say that the goal of the entire SM is
to protect the disciples from getting caught up in self-
delusions. Such delusions can be the result of settling for
too little and by giving up the commission God has set
for them (see 5: 13-16), or of claiming too much while
overlooking one's entanglement with evil (see 7:11). Not
surprisingly, therefore, warnings against self-delusion
run through the SM from beginning to end.
Appropriately, 7:21-23 also provide the climax ofthe
eschatological section of the SM, and indeed of the body
of the SM as a whole. This climax is in keeping with the
tradition of wisdom literature, which states that con-
sidering the end is the safest test for the truth in oneself.
As Sir 11 :26-28 (NEB) says: 18 7
Even on the day a man dies it is easy for the Lord to
give him his deserts. One hour's misery wipes out all
memory of delight, and a man's end reveals his true
character. Call no man happy before he dies, for not
until death is a man known for what he is.
It was because of the problem of theodicy that this
wisdom statement, which applies only to this life, had to
be extended to the afterlife, an extension that by
necessity brought in the mythology of the last
judgment. 188
In SM/Matt 5:11 the beatitude is spoken to those
disciples who are defamed and persecuted, but the
blessing does not apply if the accusations against them
are true. The same can be said of all the other beati-
tudes. The specification of the addressees eliminates the
illusion that Jesus would bless those who fail to meet the
conditions and to do the will of the Father.
The "commission" (5:13-16) exposes as self-delusion
the idea that salt which has lost its seasoning power may
still be considered useful, or that light put under a bushel
is still illuminating. Teachers setting aside the SM delude
187 See also Sir 1:13; 3:26; 9:11-12; 50:28-29; 51:30.
See James L. Crenshaw, "The Problem of Theodicy
in Sirach: On Human Bondage," JBL 94 (1975) 47-
64, esp. 54-55.
188 Democritus already argued against this position (frg.
68 B 297 [Diels-Kranz, II, 206-7]): "Some people
who know nothing about the dissolution of human
nature, but who are conscious of their misdeeds in
life, worry in misery and fear all their lifetime by
fabricating false myths concerning the time after
their death" (fvtOI 8V"f1Tiis tfl{;rTIOS ata:>..vrriV OV~ EtOJTEs
ll.v8pw7rot, rrvvEtll~rrEt llt Ti/s ev Til> {3l~
540
themselves just as much as Pharisees who ignore the
inadequacy of their righteousness (5: 19, 20). False
interpretation of the Torah deceives everyone about
what it means to fulfill the will of God (5:21-48).
"Hypocrites" fool not only the crowds but first of all
themselves about the quality oftheir piety (6:1-18). One
could go through the entire SM and point out at every
stage how deception, that is, mostly self-deception, is a
major concern. Indeed, the readers and hearers of the
SM are supposed to sharpen their self-awareness in view
of the endless variety of self-delusions, especially among
those who wish to be faithful. For the SM, therefore,
false religion is synonymous with self-deception, so that
one needs continuous self-examination.
The sequence of7:15-20 and 7:21-23 is of interest
also for another reason. It shows that the SM is very
much concerned with the dangers of heresy. Indeed,
even at this early time in the history of the Christian
movement, heresy and orthodoxy have become a major
issue. The nature of the "false religion" displayed by the
rejected ones (vs 23) is clearly not that of Jewish ad-
versaries. It differs from the polemics against the
Pharisees (5:20) or the "hypocrites" (6:1-2, 5, 16) or
pagan outsiders (5:45, 47; 6:7-8, 32). Rather, it seems
directed against Christians of Gentile origin, that is,
against those who call on Jesus, worship him as "Lord,"
but do not keep the Torah of God. They are the ones
who have been lured into "false religion." 189 This point
does not imply, however, that the community that
expresses its views in the SM claims to represent "true
Christianity." As I have stated before, the SM has no hint
of "Christianity" in the clearly defined sense. The
community of the SM most likely wanted to be true Jews,
their Jewish identity and integrity being based on
following the teaching of Jesus. The rejected "heretics"
~a~o7rpayp.orr6v71s, Tl>v Ti/s {3toTi/s XP&vov £v Tapaxals
~al .p&f3o•s TaAat7rwpovrr• o/E6aEa 7rEpt Tov p.ETa T~v
TE:>..EvT~V
p.v8o1f:>..arrTlovus XP&vov). Cf. also Plato Rep.
1, 330d-331a; I follow Nilsson, GGR 1.816, for the
translation and interpretation of the Democritus
fragment.
189 On this subject, see also R. Dolle, "Betrugstheorie,"
HWPh 1.861-63.
 Matthew 7:13-23

are said to be those who fail to do the will of the Father
in the heavens because they do not follow the teachings
of Jesus as outlined in the SM. They have followed other
teachings by other teachers of whom the SM does not
approve (5: 19). These other teachers taught them about
prophecy, exorcism, and miracles, but not about Jesus'
exposition of the Torah. Not keeping the Torah puts
them in a situation worse than that of the Pharisees,
namely, "lawlessness" (avop.la). If, therefore, the SM is
connected with the phenomenon of "inner-Christian"
dissension because of heresy, it is a matter of juxtaposing
Jewish followers of Jesus and Gentile devotees of Jesus,
who only later were called Christians. At this point,
however, Christianity is not assumed to exist, as an entity
by itself. Just as the disciples of the SM are still part of
Judaism, the Gentile Christians rejected in vs 23 are
treated as deviant outsiders.
Who then are the people targeted in 7: 15-20 and
7:21-23? Are they real opponents or fictitious projec-
tions of heresy to come in the future? Are the same
persons addressed in vss 15-20 and in vss 21-23? Based
on the SM as a whole, one can conclude that the op-
position consists of people who for the author(s) of the
SM really exist, not merely hypothetical constructs of
what might happen in the future. It seems also clear that
the "false prophets" of vss 15-20 are not to be confused
with the rejected petitioners ofvss 21-23. 190 The latter
are the victims ofthe former, the ones who have been
deluded by the false prophets. 191 It is also important to
distinguish between opponents recognized by the pre-
Matthean SM and Matthew's ideas about the heretics in
his own church (cf. Matt 24:5, 10-12, 23-24; also
23:28).192
The question has frequently been discussed whether
the group of people described in vss 22-23 are "charis-
matics" or "antinomians." 193 The evidence leaves little
room for doubt that they are indeed charismatics. They
claim to have prophesied, exorcised demons, and
performed miracles, deeds that involve ecstatic phe-
nomena typical of charismatics.
Are these people also antinomians? They may be to
some extent, for they use, at least in this description,
their charismatic experiences as substitutes for their
obedience to the Torah. Thus operating outside the
Torah, they are in the situation of "lawlessness" (avop.la).
This verdict is polemical. It does not mean that the real
intentions of the people portrayed were to be immoral
and lawless. They should not be stamped as anarchists
denying the validity of all law. Rather, it appears from
the description in the SM that these people end up being
"lawless" against their own intention and to their
surprise, when Jesus rejects them and lets the verdict of
condemnation stand unopposed. They are the victims of
self-deception caused by false teachers who have set aside
the teaching of Jesus (cf. 5: 19) and have led them to
ignore the Torah. They were led to think that charis-
matic experiences are the greater accomplishments in the
eyes of God.
2) Analysis The section 7:21-23 consists of two parts. First comes a
sentence of "sacred law" defining the condition for
admission to the kingdom of the heavens (vs 21 ).
Second, an extremely condensed narrative follows
giving a preview of the eschatological judgment (vss
22-23). The unity of the section is explained by the
fact that vs 21 sums up what one is to learn from the
narrative in vss 22-23. Thus, vs 21 serves as an
introduction to vss 22-23. The literary character of
this brief section is, however, much more complicated
and interesting.
From a formal point of view, vs 21 belongs to two
categories ofliterary sayings: it is a so-called sentence

190 So also Strecker, Weg, 137 n. 4, 276; idem, Berg-
predigt, 171-72 (Sermon, 165-66); Hill, 335-36;
Davison, esp. 628-29 (see the bibliography to this
section).
191 Cf. Allison, "Structure," 430 n. 19, for the argument
that the false prophets of vss 15-20 are the same as
the group in vss 22-23, but his reasons do not
persuade; the group ofvss 22-23 has been deceived
by the false prophets whom they mistakenly followed;
now they must bear the consequences.
192 Davison argues differently (see the bibliography to
this section); he investigates the term in the LXX and
in other Jewish literature, in order to apply the
meaning to Matthew. When he concludes that
Matthew's polemic is not against antinomians, he fails
to see the differences between the evangelist and his
sources.
193 See the contributions by Barth, Betz, Davison, Hill,
Hoffmann, Marguerat, Sand, Satake, Schneider, and
Schweizer (see the bibliography at the beginning of
this section).

541
of sacred law, 194 and a sentence concerning entering
into the kingdom of God. 195 These two categories
have been mingled in such a way that the result is a
maxim of a new type. The first part of the maxim (vs
21a) is still a sentence of "sacred law": the prefixed
negative "not" (ov) determines that one is to reject the
following statement: "Not: Everyone who says to me,
'Lord, Lordi' shall enter into the kingdom of the
heavens, but he (shall enter) who does the will of my
Father who is in the heavens." Although the attitude
expressed by Paul in Rom 10:9-10 comes close, there
never actually was a saying like the one rejected here in
the SM. Like the false Jesus-saying in SM/Matt
5: 17, 196 this saying also has been created artificially for
no other purpose than to be rejected. The intent, as
one sees from vs 22, is satirical. The positive saying
follows in vs 21 b; it is formulated elliptically, to
contrast with the preceding rejection (a.\.\.t, "but").
The positive saying, therefore, reads: "Whoever does
the will of my Father who is in the heavens shall enter
into the kingdom of the heavens."
Thus, vs 21 a presents a form of self-correction
(correctio). 19 7 The first part (vs 21a) rejects a bogus
entrance requirement, prefixed by the sharp ov ("[the
idea is] not: ... "). The false saying describes satirically
the conduct of people who shout liturgical acclama-
tions (cf. Rom 10:9-10: bp.o.\oy,w, "confess in worship
[or: publicly]"), here doubled ("Lord, Lord!") to
suggest repetition. Rhetorically, this figure is called
"doubling" (geminatio). 198 Religiously, this repetition
comes under the verdict of verbosity considered
improper for worship (see above on SM/Matt 6:7-8).
This acclamation will return in the scenario vss 22-23;
in other words, it is anticipated in vs 21a. As pointed
out before, the second part (vs 21 b) is elliptical and
must be completed from vs 21a.
The two parts of the sentence are linked through
194 For discussion and references, see above on SM/
Matt 5:19.
195 See above on SM/Matt 5:20.
196 See above on SM/Matt 5:17; also Betz, Essays, 39-
43, 126.
197 On this see Lausberg, Elemente, § 384.
198 The double acclamation "Lord, Lord!" is often
falsely designated as a Semitic idiom, but it is an
instance ofthe common "doubling" (geminatio). See
Lausberg, Elemente, §§ 244-49; Martin, Rhetorik,
301-2; BDF, § 493, 1; BDR, § 493, 1; Betz, Essays,
130 n. 24; Luz, Matthiius, 1.405 n. 38 (Matthew,
1.444 n. 38). Referring to Werner Foerster (TDNT
3.1 086), Ferdinand Hahn (Christologische Hoheitstitel:
Ihre Geschichte im fruhen Christentum [FRLANT 83;
GC>ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963]96-98;
ET: The Titles ofjesus in Christology [New York &
542
the figure of polyptotic (variation of the same word)
epiphora, that is, ending on the same word, used first in
the genitive and then in the dative plural (ovpavwv [vs
21a], ovpavo'i~ [vs 2lb]).l 99 The episode in vss 22..:.23
depicts in briefest possible form the proceedings at the
last judgment, indicated by the familar phrase "in that
day" (£v EK<lvn rfi ~p..!pq. [vs 22a ]). 200 To understand
this episode, one must recall what the narrator
assumed everyone knew about the events at the last
judgment. Thus, the narrator could restrict himself to
the most important scene, leaving what went before
and what comes afterward to the imagination of the
hearers or readers. 201 On account of common
knowledge, one can assume that on the day of the last
judgment God sits on the judgment seat and humanity
will be brought before him in groups to receive their
verdict. One of these groups is brought into sharper
focus, a large group of people (1ro.\.\ol) 202 who seek
entrance into the kingdom of the heavens on the
presumption that appealing to Jesus is sufficient for
entering. Jesus, who speaks in the first person in the
text and who actually develops the picture of the
events, is himself on hand at the last judgment. One
must infer his precise function from the text, using
criteria of comparative religion as well as literary
parallels (see below for the evidence). It is also assumed
that the proceedings have already advanced, so that
two events have already taken place. The accusation
against the group must already have been pronounced,
and the appeal, which had been presented for a first
time, must already have been rejected. For what the
group submits in vs 22b is a second appeal in protest
against Jesus' refusal to represent the group. It is
remarkable that the group does not turn to the judge,
that is, to God himself, with a plea for mercy, but to
Jesus as the one they regard as their advocate and as
responsible for their case (vs 22). But Jesus refuses to
Cleveland: World, 1969] 90-92) argues for a
"typically Semitic character." He is followed by
Strecker (Bergpredigt, 172 [Sermon, 166]), but see also
Dalman (Worte jesu, 186, 383). Other instances in the
NT include Matt 23:8, 10;John 13:13.
199 See Lausberg, Elemente, §§ 268-70, 280.
200 See below, n. 247.
201 See the material on the last judgment in Volz,
Eschatologie, 272-309.
202 See below, n. 250.

represent and speak for this group (vs 23). 203
Jesus' declaration of refusal (vs 23; for the evidence
see below) is stated in a formal way and only confirms a
rejection previously expressed. The three questions of
vs 22, introduced by the words "Have we not in your
name ... ?" make sense only if they are brought forth
in protest against a prior rejection by Jesus. Indeed,
the three questions of vs 22 are protestations seeking
to force Jesus to recognize that he is obligated to
defend the group. Moreover, they seek to overtum the
verdict that has occurred or is pending by attempting
to demonstrate their innocence. But by reiterating his
rejection Jesus makes clear that their protestation is
based on a profound misunderstanding of their
situation.
Given the scenario of the last judgment it is surpris-
ing that the group Jesus would approve of is not
shown. This omission is due to the character of
warning presented by the passage, but in some sense
the acceptable group is also part of the picture. At this
point one sees the ingenuity of the author of the SM.
The literary analogues show that the narrator could
have presented two groups appearing at the last
judgment, one to be rejected and the other to be
approved. One could then identify those approved
with the faithful disciples addressed by the SM. 2° 4 The
narrator, however, has chosen another mode. He
builds the SM itself into the scenario. How does he
accomplish this?
The declaration of refusal (vs 23) stands clearly
juxtaposed to the Beatitudes at the beginning of the
SM (5:3-I2). 205 The Beatitudes give approval even
203 My earlier assumption (Essays, I27) that a verdict has
already been pronounced must be corrected. What
has occurred is the accusation; what follows is the
condemnation.
204 Cf. the division into two groups in Matt 25:3I-46.
This is not different in principle from the SM, in
which the few saved are contrasted throughout to the
multitudes heading for destruction (see above on
7:I3-I4). Interestingly, a conflation of Matt 7:2I-23 208 See Siegfried Morenz, "Die Herkunft der
and 25:3I-46 occurs among the Arabic Gospel
quotations investigated by Shlomo Pines, "Gospel
Quotations and Cognate Topics in 'Abd aiJabbar's
Tathbit in Relation to Early Christian andJudaeo-
Christian Readings and Traditions," Jerusalem Studies
inArabicand/slam 9 (I987) I95-287, esp. 20I-3.
205 On the Beatitudes see above on SM/Matt 5:3-I2.
206 For a similar application, see the conditional curse
and blessing in Gal I :8-9 and 6: I6, for which see
Betz, Galatians, 50-54, 320-23.
207 For the text see the edition by Thomas G. Allen, The
Book of the Dead (Chicago and London: University of
Chicago, I974) 95-IOI; Raymond 0. Faulkner, The
Matthew 7:13-23
now to the persons addressed. Thus, the Beatitudes are
pronounced in anticipation of the last judgment,
advancing into the present what should occur at the
last judgment. But the specification of the addressees
contained in the first line of each of the Beatitudes
(5:3-IO) places a condition on the blessings: "Blessed
are those who are poor in spirit," and so on. The SM,
then, has as its purpose teaching the readers how to
prepare to meet these specifications. Consequently,
readers are given a choice: if they belong to the faithful
disciples ofJesus as envisioned by the SM, the Beati-
tudes apply to them; if they fail, they will belong to the
rejected. 206
Protestations of innocence before the divine
tribunal have a long history in literature and religion.
At the beginning stands chapter I25 of the Egyptian
Book of the Dead. 2° 7 In this description of the nether-
world, the deceased enters into the judgment hall
where Osiris holds court, surrounded by forty-two
judges of the dead representing the forty-two districts
of the land. Before entering the hall, the deceased
makes a deposition that lists his or her good deeds and
also contains an assurance of innocence. One also
encounters in this context the figure of the substitute
(ushebti). 208 Protestations of innocence seem to occur
in other contexts as well, for example, in priestly
oaths. 209 Literary connections exist between these tra-
ditions and the Old Testament; they are reflected in
Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead (ed. Carol Andrews;
2d ed.; New York: Macmillan, I985) 29-33; Charles
Maystre, Les declarations d'innocence (Livre des morts,
chapitre 125) (Cairo: Institut fram;:ais d'archeologie
orientale,I937);Assmann,Ma'at,I36-49. The
relevant passages are also in ANET, 34; AOT, 9-I2.
For further studies seeM. Hildo van Ess, "Siinde und
Schuld (Schuldbekenntnis)," LdA 6 (I986) 108-10.
'Uschebti,'" in his Religion und Geschichte des alten
Agypten (Cologne and Vienna: Bohlau, I975) 295-
303.
209 See Reinhold Merkelbach, "Der Eid der Isismysten,"
ZPE I (I967) 55-73; idem, "Ein agyptischer Priester-
eid," ZPE 2 (I968) 7-30; Ludwig Koenen, "Die
Unschuldsbeteuerungen des Priestereides und die
romische Elegie," ZPE 2.3I-38;J. Bollok, "Anklager
in der Unterwelt," Annales Universitatis Scientiarum
Budapestinensis, Sectio Classica 2 (I974) 39-50;
Reinhold Merkelbach, Die Unschuldserkliirungen und
Beichten im iigyptischim Totenbuch, in der romischen Elegie
und im antiken Roman (Kurzberichte aus den
543
Job 31 and several of the Psalms (Psalms 5, 7, 17,
26).210
Jesus' reply in vs 23 contains several statements.2 11
First he declares that he is not responsible for the
group that appeals to him, since he does not know
them (vs 23a): "I never knew you" (ouat.,.on tyvwv
vp.ar). This formulaic expression is based on the legal
principle that one cannot serve in court as an advocate,
bailsman, or witness for someone to whom one is a
total stranger. Then, a second formula (vs 23b) 21 2
states a repudiation of the appellants, using words
similar to Ps 6:8: "Depart from me, you who work
iniquity. "213 This formula, which occurs elsewhere
also with2 14 or without 215 the first renunciation
formula, proclaims repudiation or expulsion.
As the reason for the repudiation the formula
names the state of "lawlessness" (avop.ia), but the same
state is also the reason for the condemnation that is
GieBener Papyrussammlungen 43; GieBen: Uni-
versitatsbibliothek, 1987); Assmann, Ma 'at, 140-49.
There is also a parallel in PGM XXXVII, for which
see also Maria Totti, ed., Ausgewiihlte Texte zur Isis-
und Sarapisreligion (Subsidia Epigraphica 12; Hildes-
heim, Zurich, and New York: Olms, 1985) nos. 9 and
10 (pp. 21-24).
210 Paul Humbert, Recherches sur les sources egyptiennes de
Ia litterature sapientiale d'Israel (Neucha.tel: Secretariat
de I'Universite, 1929) 91-96; Claus Westermann,
"Unschuld," BHH 3 (1966) 2054-55; Michael B.
Dick, "The Legal Metaphor in Job 31," CBQ 41
(1979) 37-50; Georg Fohrer, Das BuchHiob (KAT
16; GOtersloh: Mohn, 1963) 429; Marvin H. Pope,
job (AB 15; 3d ed.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
1973) 227.
211 With reference to Str-B 1. 469, the verse is often
called "a synagogal excommunication formula"
("synagogale Bannformel"). See Walter Doskocil, Der
Bann in der Urkirche: Eine rechtsgeschichtliche Unter-
suchung (MTS 3.11; Munich: Zink, 1958) 28-29;
Otto Michel, TDNT 5.207; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 149
n. 3; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 174 (Sermon, 167). The
formula, however, "is not a rabbinical formula of
banishment"; so correctly Luz, Matthiius, 1.406 n. 45
(Matthew, 1.446 n. 45), who also points to Hugo
Grotius, Annotationes in Novum Testamentum
(Groningen: Zuidema, 1826) 1.265; Wettstein,
1.244-45.
212 For further references see below, n. 215.
213 For further references see below, n. 215.
214 The formulae appear together in Matt 7:23; Luke
13:27; 2 Clem. 4.5.
215 They occur separately: renunciation alone, Matt
25: 12; Luke 13:25; repudiation alone, Justin Apol.
1.26.11; Dial. 76.5; Gospel of the Nazarenes (NTApoc
544
certain to follow. In the literary analogies, those
brought before the throne of God are regularly
questioned about their obedience to the Torah.
Because they cannot produce evidence of Torah
obedience, eternal perdition is their destiny.
In regard to the literary genre, vss 22-23 depend
on sources of a special kind. Depictions of scenes from
the last judgment seem to have constituted a literary
genre by themselves. This genre has not yet been
specially investigated, although numerous literary
parallels have been collected. In view of7:21-23, the
parallels found in the Jewish literary tradition are of
special importance. 216 Beginning in the Old Testa-
ment, the genre develops further in Jewish apoc-
alypticism and wisdom, 21 7 only to reach its climax in
rabbinic literature. 218
Connections also exist, however, between the
judgment scene in the SM 219 and similar scenes in the
1.95 no. 6; NTApok 1.134 no. 6); see Betz, Essays,
150 n. 99.
216 On the Jewish material, see the excursus on judg-
ment scenes in Str-B 4/2.1199-1212; Volz, Escha-
tologie, 89-97, 272-309; OTP 2.971, index, s.v. Last
Judgment; George W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection,
Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental judaism
(HTS 26; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University,
1972); Hans C. C. Cavallin, Life after Death, vol. 1
(ConBNT 7.1; Lund: Gleerup, 197 4); George W. E.
Nickelsburg, ed., Studies on the Testament of Abraham
(SCS 6; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1976). For
surveys see Klaus Seybold, Roger D. A us, and Egon
Brandenburger, "Gericht Gottes, I-III," TRE 12
(1984) 460-83.
217 Close parallels are Wis 4:20-5:23 and T. Is. (OTP
1.905-11), the latter probably a Christian work.
218 For the interpretation of some of the texts, see Betz,
Essays, 134-41.
219 See the material in Albrecht Dieterich, Nekyia (3d
ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1969); Ernst WOst, "Die Seelenwagung in Agypten
und Griechenland," ARW 36 (1939) 162-71; G. W.
Macurdy, "Platonic Orphism in the Testament of
Abraham," JBL 61 (1942) 213-16; Nickelsburg,
Studies, 27; Ed P. Sanders, "Testament of Abraham,"
in OTP 1.871-902.

Egyptian 2 2° and the Greek 221 traditions, both literary
and pictorial. 22 2 The Jewish literary parallels depicting
eschatological judgment scenes are widely dispersed
and often enriched by expansions and interpolations.
The most extensive stories are of a late date, but one
can safely suppose that the genre itself is much older
and that only part of a rich tradition of such stories has
been preserved. The passage in the SM stands within
this traditi9n. One must be cautious in using the later
parallels that are more explicit to explain the ex-
tremely concise SM passage, but they do illuminate
what one must regard as typical features.
The question ofliterary genre then leads to the
difficult question of the specific sources for vss 21-
23. 223 A glance at the synopsis shows that SP/Luke
6:46 could be, and has often been taken to be, 22 4 the
source: "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lordi' but do not
do the things that I say?" There is, however, no clear
evidence for the dependency of Matt 7:21-23 on Luke
6:46. Even if the author of the SM knew Luke 6:46
from Q, one would still need to explain how the
literary transformation took place that begins with a
simple rhetorical question and ends with a rather
complicated narrative. Yet it is true that Luke 6:46
stands near the end of the SP, in a similar position to
the parallel in the SM. The differences are just as
.evident. 225 The SP does not have an eschatological
220 On the Egyptian material, see (in addition to nn.
207-10 above) Hermann Kees, Totenglauben und
jenseitsvorstellungen der a/ten Agypter (3d ed.; Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1975); Reinhard Grieshammer,
Das Jenseitsgericht in den Sargtexten (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1970); Siegfried Morenz, "Agyptischer
Totenglaube im Rahmen der Struktur agyptischer
Religion," in his Religion und Geschichte des a/ten
Agypten (Cologne and Vienna: Bohlau, 1975) 173-
213; idem, Die Begegnung Europas mit Agypten (2d ed.;
Zurich and Stuttgart: Artemis, 1969) 63, 66, 97-99,
111-12; Christine Seeber, "Jenseitsgericht," LdA 3
(1980) 249-52 (with bibliography).
221 For the Greek material see Ludovicus Ruhl, De
mortuorum iudicio (RVV 2.2; Giessen: Topelmann,
1903); Richard Ganschinietz, "Katabasis," PW 20
(1919) 2359-2449; Eduard Norden, F. Vergilius
Maro: Aeneis Buch VI (3d ed.; Leipzig: Teubner,
1926); Franz Cumont, After Life in Roman Paganism
(New York: Dover, 1922); Nilsson, GGR 1.688-91,
815-26; 2.231-42, 543-58; Betz, Lukian, 81-89;
Burkert, Greek Religion, 194-99, 293-95; idem,
Ancient Mystery Cults, 12-29; Otto Michel, "Gebet II
(Fiirbitte)," RAC 9 (1976) 11-13.
222 See the rich illustrations in Faulkner's edition of the
Book of the Dead (see above, n. 207); also Erik Horn-
ung, Tal der Konige: Die Ruhestiitte der Pharaonen (2d
Matthew 7:13-23
warning section comparable to SM/Matt 7:13-23.
The SM does not contain a section on "the good
person" (cf. below on SP /Luke 6:45). The SP is far less
interested in eschatology, and much more in anthro-
pology and education, thus reflecting a difference in
emphasis due to the different cultural backgrounds.
One would have to postulate not only a transformation
from a saying to a saying with a narrative but also a
shift from a Greek educational to a Jewish escha-
tological frame of reference. The probable origins of
the two Sermons, however, would suggest the reverse
order, a change from a Jewish religious conceptuality
to a Greek one.
The origin of the rhetorical question in SP /Luke
6:46 is also beset with puzzles, even if one assumes with
Bultmann that the saying comes from the historical
Jesus himself. 226 Such an attribution is unprovable.
Taken by itself, the saying does not refer to the
eschatological judgment but presupposes a simple
teacher-student relationship. The address "Lord,
Lord!" is not cultic as in Matt 7:21-23 227 but simply an
expression of respect for the teacher. 228 By repeating
the address Jesus makes fun of the discrepancy
between the disciples' expression of devotion and their
failure to obey his teaching. 2 2 9 Thus no straight path
leads from the saying in Luke 6:46 to the scenario in
Matt 7:21-23, so that one must take other develop-
ed.; Zurich and Munich: Artemis, 1983) 149-58.
223 See Betz, Essays, 132-33.
224 Thus Bousset, Kyrios, 90; Bultmann, History, 120-21;
Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 70-71; Schulz, Q,
427; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.381; Luz,
Matthiius, 1.401-2 with n. 7 (Matthew, 1.440 n. 7).
225 Cf. Wrege, Bergpredigt, 14 7: "Although Matthew's
interest in the judgment paraenesis is eminent, one
cannot call 7:21 a Matthean reformulation of source
material as we find it in Luke 6:46; for what is
claimed for Matthew as redactor may be true of his
tradition as well. A common written source for Matt
7:21//Luke 6:46 must be excluded in accordance
with observations on the tradition history of the
preceding passage concerning the fruit of the trees"
(my trans.).
226 Bultmann,History,122-23, 135,163.
227 Bousset's observation is preferable (Kyrios, 90-91; cf.
Bultmann, History, 116 n. 2) that Matt 7:21 is
"already in contrast with the simple Lucan saying in
6:46, stylized in consideration of the Christian cult
and the liturgy." Cf. also 133 n. 50 with regard to 1
Cor 12:1-3.
228 Thus agreeing with Bultmann, History, 116 n. 2; cf.
Hahn, Hoheitstitel, 96-98 (Titles, 90-92).
229 Ps.-Clem. Hom. 8.5.4 also considers the point:
"Neither is there salvation in believing in teachers
545
 ments into consideration, and one must interpret the
concept of source in a wider sense. Another problem
that has been widely debated is whether Luke 6:46 or
Matt 7:21-23 was part of Q. This question, which for a
long time had been settled in favor of Luke 6:46, has
now been reopened by Strecker, 230 who considers that
Matt 7:22-23 may also have been in Q. He sees that
redaction has occurred in both the Lukan and the
Matthean versions and concludes that Matt 7:22-23
are also pre-Matthean and thus likely from Q, while
Luke 6:46 has eliminated the verses. The reason for
this omission is then explained as avoiding the polemics
against Christian charismatics and focusing on the
Jewish opponents ofJesus (cf. Luke 13:22-33). This
hypothesis is, however, hardly convincing. On the basis
of the evidence thus far discussed, the question is not
whether Luke 6:46 alone was part of Q, but whether
this verse together with the entire SP was part of Q.
Because I assume that SP/Luke 6:20b-49 was part of
QLuke just as SM/Matt 7:21-23 was part ofQM•tt, both
passages must have been developed redactionally from
an oral saying like the ones we now find in Luke 6:46
and Matt 7:21.
My conclusions regarding the sources and the
redactional composition ofSM/Matt 7:21-23 can be
supported by parallels using similar scenarios of the last
judgment. 2 31 These scenarios can be reduced to
sayings such as the Q-saying Matt 10:32-33//Luke
12:8-9, or Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26, and other parallels
(see esp. 2 Clem. 3-4). Or the scenarios can be
expanded into eschatological dialogues, such as Luke
13:23-28, or into parables, such as Matt 25:1-13 and
25:31-46, 232 or as stories of the kind in Luke 16:19-
31. 233 Since all these texts come from presynaptic
sources, one can conclude that intensive literary
activity prior to the Gospels is responsible for them,
that is, a phase in the transmission of the material that
is close to the SM and the SP.
3) Interpretation
• 21 The beginning of the section is marked by the
emphatic ov ("not"), in the sense of"Not this shall you
think or say." This form of denial occurs elsewhere in the
SM (see above on SM/Matt 5: 17). Verse 21a declares a
saying of jesus to be the wrong kind: "Not: Everyone
who says to me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter into the kingdom
of the heavens." (Ov 'ITas o>..'ywv p.o1· KVpl£ KVpl£,
dcr£A£VC1Ual £LS' T~V {3acriA£lav T;;>V ovpavwv). The
construction of the sentence is somewhat strange and
could lead to misunderstandings. The idea is certainly
not that only some who say "Lord, Lord!" will enter into
the kingdom, but that none will, if they merely say it but
fail to do the will of the Father. What is denied, there-
fore, is an illusionary expectation stated as a false saying
ofJesus that would read: "Everyone who says to me
'Lord, Lord!' will enter into the kingdom of the
heavens." Such a saying is satirical imitation, a bowdler-
ization. 234 Jesus never would have formulated such a
sentence, saying that all one has to do to qualify for the
kingdom is to call him "Lord, Lord." What then is the
purpose of this saying?
The purpose is certainly polemical, suggesting that
some have become persuaded that simple flattery
suffices, that loyalty to Jesus involves nothing more than
gestures of devotion 235 and use of excessive titles. This
suggestion is not entirely hypothetical. If one takes the
satire into account, the saying characterizes Gentile
Christians who use the KVpiOS' title 236 in their confession
of faith. In Rom 10:9 Paul formulates the kerygmatic
statement that Christians are used to making as a
reminder: 237 "For if you confess with your mouth 'jesus
is Lord' and believe in your heart that God raised him
from the dead, you will be saved" (lJn €au op.o>..oy~cr"{/S' €v
Ti!J crn5p.aTl crov KVpwv 'I1jcrovv Kat 'ITICTT£VCT"{/S' €v Tij Kaplilll-
o
crov lJn 8£0S' ahhv 7/y£1p£v €K V£Kpwv, crw8~crn).
It is the SM's critical opinion that Gentile Christianity
demands faith in jesus as Lord but not obedience to the

and calling them lords. • The statement is again
treated in Hom. 8. 7 .3-4, which cites the saying Luke
6:46, most likely from the oral tradition.
230 Strecker, Bergpredigt, 171-72 (Sermon, 165-66).
231 For more discussion see also Betz, Essays, 142-51.
232 See, besides the commentaries, the study by Egon
Brandenburger, Das Recht des Weltenrichters: Unter-
suchung zu Matthiius 25, 31-46 (SBS 99; Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980).
233 On this passage see Ronald F. Hock, "Lazarus and
Micyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke
16:19-31," JBL 106 (1987) 447-63.
234 See Betz, Essays, 39-43.
235 Cf. the flattering approach by the would-be disciple
in Mark 10:17 and Jesus' rebuke in 10:18; further-
more, Mark 12:14, 32;John 13:13-14.
236 One should remember that no title is unambiguously
attributed to Jesus in the SM. The SP uses "Son of
man" (SP /Luke 6:22), but Jesus is not clearly
identified with that figure. Cf. also the Epistle of
James (1:1; 2:1), where the "Lord [K.\p&or]Jesus
Christ" occurs, but the christological doctrines of the
letter are unclear. Elsewhere Oas 1:7; 3:9; 4:10; 5:7,
8, 11, 15) K.\p&or refers to God, not Christ.

546
 Matthew 7:13-23

Torah. This opinion is correct, as we know from Paul's
letters 238 and from the Epistle of James, 239 not to
mention other sources. What is incorrect, however, is the
supposition that Paul's theology ignores the will of God.
In fact, all of Paul's paraenesis expresses his insistence
that one must obey the will of God. The difference
between Paul and the SM is that Paul does not equate, in
the same way the SM does, the will of God with the
Torah as Jesus taught it. For Paul, God's will is expressed
in the "law of Christ" (Gal6:2), which is identical with the
love-command (Gal 5: 14), and which in turn regards Lev
19:18 as the principle and summary of the Torah. 2 40
Gentile Christians do not need to keep the jewish Torah,
as they are not part of the Sinai covenant; but they must
obey the love-command, which serves as Torah for
Christian Gentiles in a universal way. 2 41
Not surprisingly, this rather subtle distinction led to
misunderstandings. The SM and Paul do agree that the
love-command (Lev 19: 18) is the sum total of God's will
and law and that those who obey it fulfill the demand.
They disagree about the requirement that Jesus' inter-
pretation of the Jewish Torah is obligatory and must be
obeyed by everyone. In Paul's view, the important fact in
Jesus' interpretation of the Torah (the "law of Christ")
was that it brought out the universality of the will of
God, instead of confining it to the particularistic Jewish
interpretation. Gentile Christians relate to Jesus through
the "gospel" (d,ayybuov) and "faith in Jesus Christ" as the
redeemer. The acclamation of Jesus Christ as Lord
expresses that faith, which, however, also expresses itself
in good deeds in fulfillment of God's will and demands.
Accusations against Paul's doctrine of justification by
faith, raised by Jewish Christians already during his life-
time, show how difficult it must have been to understand
fully his position. Paul himself would agree that Chris-
tians who have nothing to offer in the last judgment
except the cry "Lord, Lord!" have no chance of escaping
condemnation. As for the SM, one should not suppose
that as a Jewish text it has no place for Gentile Christians.
There is no suggestion in the SM that Gentile Christians
would under all circumstances be excluded from
salvation. The text does not raise the question whether
circumcision and conversion to Judaism would have
saved them. It may, however, imply the question by the
demand to keep the Torah. Nonetheless, the inter-
pretation of the jewish Torah given in the SM is not
completely incompatible with Paul's paraenesis to
Gentile Christians. One can, therefore, state the critical
question raised by the SM in this way: Do Gentile
Christians obey the will of God, or do they use their
spiritual experiences of prophecy, exorcism, and miracles
as a substitute?
Since the SM has no discussion of the implications of
the text, one can only speculate about what the options
were at the time. If we apply what we understand the
text of the SM is saying to the situation of the conference
of Paul and Barnabas with Peter, James, and John at
Jerusalem (Gal2: 1-10), two options emerge.
1. The position advocated in the SM could represent
the views of the Jewish-Christian opposition party at
Jerusalem (Gal 2:4: ol 7rapwrd.ICTOt "'wod.oci\.rpot), called by
Paul "the false brothers." This group did in effect
demand that Gentile Christians be circumcised.
2. More probably, the theological position taken by
the SM was the one held by the so-called pillars at the
Jerusalem Conference (Gal 2:9: ol oo/Covvrcs urvi\.ot ctvat),
shared by Paul, Barnabas, and Titus but opposed by the
so-called false brothers. One can conclude, therefore,
that the SM would approve of those Gentile Christians, if
they supplemented their acclamation "Lord, Lord!" with

237 See also Phil 2:11; 1 Cor 12:3; 2 Cor 4:5; moreover,
Rom 10:11, 13; Acts 2:21; 7:59; 9:14, 21; 22:16; 1
Cor 1:2; 2 Tim 2:22. On Kyrios-acclamations see
Klaus Wengst, Christologische Formeln und Lieder des
Urchristentums (StNT 7; Giitersloh: Mohn, 1972)
131-35; Hans Conzelmann, Theologie als Schrift-
auslegung (BEvTh 65; Munich: Kaiser, 197 4) 109-
10, 112-13; Vielhauer, Geschichte, 13-14, 23-25.
238 SeeGal2:15-16;andBetz,Galatians, 115-19.
239 See the paradoxical expression "the law of freedom"
inJas 1:25; 2:12; see Samuel Vollenweider, Freiheit
als neue Schopfung: Eine Untersuchung zur Eleutheria bei
Paulus und in seiner Umwelt (FRLANT 14 7; Got-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989) 184-85;
Wiard Popkes, Adressaten, Situation und Form des
Jakobusbriefes (SBS 125/ 126; Stuttgart: Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1986) 116-18.
240 See also Rom 13:8-10; and Betz, Galatians, 274-76.
241 Paul and his churches will not have to present "works
of the Torah" at the last judgment (1 Cor 9:19-23),
but they will be "without blemish" because they are
"in Christ" (1 Thess 2:19-20; Phil2:12-16; 3:12-14;
2 Cor 5:10; 11:2, 15; Rom 8:31-39).

547
obeying God's will. Obviously, the precise point of Paul's
doctrine of justification by faith was to meet this demand
(see esp. Gal5:16-24; Rom 13:8-10).
Since the SM never uses the Kilptos acclamation, Jewish
Christians must have believed this KilptoS"-christology, at
least at this time, to be typical of Gentile Christians. For
the SM, those Gentile Christians who merely shout
"Lord, Lord!" can in some sense be compared with the
Pharisees (5:20), not to mention conventional Jewish
religionists chastised as "hypocrites" (6: 1-18). They all
have in common that they consider external per-
formances sufficient, while they fail in their internal
commitments. If this diagnosis correctly described the
condition of the Gentile Christians, Paul would most
likely agree with their being rejected. Was it for precisely
this reason that he left Pharisaic Judaism (cf., e.g., Gal
1:14; 6:12; Phil3:3-11; Rom 2:12-3:8)? At any rate,
such an agreement cannot overlook Paul's very different
ideas about how one can obtain the righteousness
required in the last judgment. One cannot ignore that his
christology of Christ's death and resurrection as well as
his doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus Christ have
no place in the SM.
Verse 21 b then presents the matter positively : "but he
who does the will of my Father who is in the heavens"
(a>..>..' o1rotwv TO 8eA.7Jp.a Tov 1raTpos p.ov Tov £v TOtS'
ovpavo'i'S"). 24 2 Therefore, the correct form of the saying
would read: "Everyone who does the will of my Father
who is in the heavens will enter into the kingdom of the
heavens. "243 This saying would fully agree with the
theology of the SM, so much so that it sounds like a self-
evident truism.2 44 It is improbable, however, that such a
saying of Jesus ever circulated in this form. It is con-
ceivable only in its negation for polemical reasons. The
positive saying constructed above would simply state
what is self-evident in any form ofJudaism.
The sentence is important for yet another reason. By
speaking of God as "my Father" Jesus make~ a statement
about himself, the only time he does so in the SM. One
must not, however, misunderstand this statement as
implying a christology of Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus
regards himself as God's son just as all faithful Jews do
and as it is expressed also in the invocation (epiklesis) of
the Lord's Prayer (SM/Matt 6:9b). 245 This invocation
addresses God as "our Father," and Jesus includes
himself in the community of all children of the heavenly
Father. 246 Also in agreement with the Lord's Prayer
(SM/Matt 6:1 Ob) is Jesus' call for the submission of
everyone to God's will, and to bring this point out is the
purpose of the SM in its entirety.
It is noteworthy that in a composition such as 7:21-23,
which characterizes and criticizes the christology of
Gentile Christians, the SM does not bother to set forth its
own christology. One can only interpret this lack as a
refusal to engage in any form of "higher" christology.
Instead, the SM seems determined to maintain the
position held by the disciples during Jesus' lifetime. He is
regarded as their authoritative teacher and as their
advocate in the last judgment.
Why, then, does Jesus speak of "my Father who is in
the heavens"? Why does he not refer to God as "our
Father" or "your Father"? One must interpret the
reference in its present context. By speaking of God as
"my Father" Jesus sharply separates himself from the
Gentile Christians he rejects. Just as he denies represent-
ing them as their advocate, he negates that they can
approach God as their Father. They face God not as
their Father but as their eternal judge; they are not
"sons," as Jesus and his faithful disciples are "sons of
God" (for the passages see n. 246). Again, Paul takes a

242 L W jl 3 1005. 1342 9Jt omit the article TOtY and read
TOV ~v ovpavoly. The text with the article is read by IC
B C Z 0jl 33.205.892. 1424. 1506 al. The SM
almost always has the preposition with the article
before the plural"the heavens" (5:12, 16; 6:1, 9;
7:11, 21; differently 5:45: ~v ovpavoly, but variant
readings have the article also here). By contrast, the
singular does not have the article (5:34; 6:10).
243 "Pedantically minded scribes, not content with the
clear implications of the WOrds, added" aVTbY (oiiTOY
C2 33 pc) d<T£A£V<T£Tat £lY T~V f3a<TtA£tav TWV ovpavwv
("this one will enter into the kingdom of the heavens"
[C2 W 0 33 pc Iat syc Cyprian Theodoretus)). So
Metzger, Textual Commentary, 20; Aland, Synopsis, p.
98 ad Joe.
244 For the concept of God's will, see the Lord's Prayer
(6:10). On "doing" (1rotii:v) see 5:19; 6:1-3; 7:12, 17-
19, 24-26.
245 See above, the Introduction to the Lord's Prayer.
246 See above on SM/Matt 5:9, 45; 7:9; cf. SP /Luke
6:35.

548
 Matthew 7:13-23

very different position; his doctrine of justification by
faith makes available the status of "sonship" to Christian
Gentiles (Gal3:26-28; 4:4-7; Rom 8:14, etc.).
• 22 Without further ado, vs 22 proceeds from the
declaration ofvs 21 to the narrative ofvss 22-23. Again
the speaker is Jesus, who predicts what will happen at the
last judgment: "Many will say to me in that day" (lToA.A.o'r.
~povcnv p.o1 ~v ~Kelvy Tfj ~p.,pg.). 247 While vs 21 describes
the conduct of people in the present, vs 22 shows the
same people in the future. The projection uses, as we
have seen, the familiar course of events that popular
mythology leads one to expect. 248 Groups of people, not
individuals, will appear before the throne of God. These
groups are headed by their leaders, who are responsible
for them. 249 Jesus is shown also to be present, evidently
to represent his disciples. At that moment, a large group
(7roAA.ot) steps up, 250 apparently believing that Jesus is
their representative. Thus they turn to him after they
have been rejected by the divine judge, presumably God
himself. This rejection is assumed to have occurred prior
to the point at which the story picks up the events. We
meet the group when they protest against Jesus' refusal
to be their representative and advocate. They claim that
they are his legitimate clientele: "Lord, Lord, did we not
prophesy in your name, and did we not exorcise demons
in your name, and did we not perform many miracles in
your name?" (Kvp!E KVpiE, ov Til> uii> ovop.an
~lTp0c/J71TEVCTap.ev, Ka'r. Til> uii> ovop.an liatp.Ovta f.fef3&.A.op.Ev,
Ka'r. Til> uii> 6vop.an livv&.p.m 1roA.A.as ElTOt~uap.ev;).
This "protestation of innocence" is introduced by the
already familiar acclamation "Lord, Lord!" (Kvpte Kvpte [ vs
21 ]). The following questions present three instances of
religious experiences, the expected answers being
affirmative. Yes, they did these things. Their experiences
were undoubtedly real as reported. But the claim based
on them is mistaken. Why is this so?
One should note first that the Greek wording is
succinct, in more ways than the translation can convey.
Again, as in vs 21, "not" (ov) is prefixed in vs 22b, after
the acclamation, but now it is part of the question. The
appellants are still sure that the answer should be
affirmative. Yet, the "no" is nevertheless true. The point
is that the appellants had their experiences and that they
even had them in the name of Jesus. 251 Three times 25 2
they emphasize before naming their experiences that
they had them "in your name" (~v Til> uii> 6vop.an). The
reason for this word order is to express a quasi-legal
client relationship. The protesters take the experiences
to be evidence of a legal obligation on the part of
Jesus. 253 The appellants claim 254 to have had three

247 On this eschatological concept, see Volz, Eschatologie,
163-65; Gerhard Delling, ·~p.(pa," TDNT 2.948-53;
BAGD, s.v. ~p.(pa, 3.b.J3.
248 For parallels see Volz, Eschatologie, 301-4.
249 Cf. Paul's comment in 2 Cor 11:2, announcing that
he will lead his churches at the last judgment.
250 While SM/Matt 7:13-14 describes the "many" of
general humanity on their way to destruction, the
"many" in 7:22 are the majority of Gentile Christians,
in contrast to whom the jewish disciples of jesus are
in the minority (7:13: "the few").
251 On doing miracles in the name of Jesus, see Mark
9:38; 16: 17; Luke 9:49; Acts 3:6, 16; 4:7, 30; 19: 13;
Jas 5:14; etc. See BAGD, s.v.lfvop.a, 4.c.y.
252 The tripartite statement may have a parallel in two
Orphic-Dionysiac gold lamellae found in 1985 in
Pelinna, Thessaly (4th century BCE), published by K.
Tsantsanouglou and G. M. Parassoglou ("Two Gold
Lamellae from Thessaly," EAAHNIKA 38 [ 1987] 3-
16), and discussed by Reinhold Merkelbach ("Zwei
neue orphisch-dionysische Totenpasse," ZPE 76
[1989]15-16) and Marcello Gigante ("Una nuova
lamella orfica e Eraclito," ZPE 80 [1990]17-18).
The inscriptions on the lamellae are almost identical
and presuppose a scene in the underworld in which
the initiate appears before the judgment seat of
Persephone. Questioned by her, the initiate claims to
have been liberated by Dionysos Bakchios Lyaios and
as proof recites a cultic formula of three parts
referring to mythico-cultic acts in which he has
participated. This formula entitled the initiate to the
blessings of the cult. Merkelbach ("Diodor tiber das
Totengericht der Agypter," Zeitschrift fur iigyptische
Sprache und Altertumskunde 120 [1993]71-84) raises
the question whether the imagined scenarios of the
underworld corresponded to judgment rituals taking
place on earth, as Diodorus Sic. 1. 72 reports. Cf. also
Paul's prayer to Christ in 2 Cor 12:8, where his
petitions are denied three times.
253 Making theologically unjustified claims on the basis
of miraculous experiences is what Paul calls false
boasting (Kavx'lou). See Betz, Paulus, 70-77; idem,
Essays, 156.
254 For a warning against spiritual dangers of Christian

549
fundamental religious experiences: 255 "We have prophe-
sied" (e7rpocp7JTd)(ra!J.(V), 2 56 "we have expelled demons"
(Sa!!J.OV!a ef({3aAO~J.W), 257 and "we have performed many
miracles" (ovva!J.m 1roAA.as E7TO!~tTa/J-(V). 258 Using
technical terminology, the appellants state that all three
experiences are standard, known, and unambiguous.
One should realize the following presuppositional points
in this respect:
First, these experiences are extraordinary and
supernatural manifestations of the divine. That much
one can accept as standard religious experience on terms
agreed to by all antiquity. Therefore, they imply God's
approval of those who experience them.
Second, the appellants admit that they would not
ordinarily consider themselves to be entitled to these
experiences. No human being is normally so entitled, but
they were granted them because they used Jesus'
powerful name. In other words, the performers ofthese
spiritual deeds called on God in the name of Jesus to
legitimize their undertakings and to obtain the necessary
divine power for carrying them out. That it worked
proves, at least in the eyes of the appellants, that God had
accepted them as legitimate clients of Jesus.
The logic of the appellants' protestation seems
conclusive. Yet, they have overlooked one decisive point.
The miraculous performances worked on earth, but they
do not entail claims to eschatological rewards. The
appellants ought to know that prophecy, exorcism, and
miracles are performed everywhere in the ancient world
in the name of all sorts of deities. Using the name of
Jesus for magical purposes is attested even in pagan
contexts at a later time. 259 Therefore, the SM does not
deny the reality of these miraculous experiences, not
even the magical potency of the name of Jesus. The SM
does deny, however, that the miraculous experiences
carry with them a valid claim to approval by God in the
last judgment and a cause for waiving the requirement of
"righteousness." Without such righteousness, in other

exorcism, see also Ps.-Clem. Hom. 9.22. Celsus
(according to Origen Contra C. 2.49) takes Matt 7:23
as proof that the persons so described are charlatans.
255 In order to make the protestations more relevant for
a later time, Justin Martyr has updated versions
(Apol. 1.16.11): "But many will say to me, 'Lord,
Lord, did we not, in your name, eat and drink and do
miracles?'" (Iloi\.Aot 0~ f:poVul p.or: KtSptE, KVpte, otJ T~ cr~
6v6p.aTt f:cpt!z:yofLEV ~eal l7tlop.Ev ~eal Dvv&.p.ELS' f:7Tot~UafLEV;)
Or, Dial. 76.5: "Lord, Lord, did we not, in your
name, eat and drink and prophesy and cast out
demons?" (IloAAot lpovul p.o• rfi ~p.tp'l- EK<lvrr Ktlp ..,
KVpte, oV rifl cr~ OvOp.aTr. Ecp&.yop.ev Kal f:7rloi-'EV Kal
7rpOH/>'1/TfVCTap.•v Kat oatp.ovta <g.{36.Aop.•v;) For
discussion see Betz, Essays, 149-51; Kohler, Rezep-
tion, 132-34, 181-89. This updating was continued
even later. Heinrici (Bergpredigt [1900], 75 n. 1)
refers toPistis Sophia (ed. McDermott, p. 316): "And
they will say to me: 'We have received from thy
mysteries, and we have completed thy whole teaching
and thou hast taught us upon the streets." Bengel
(Gnomon, 57) continues:" Add: We have written
commentaries and exegetical observations on the
books and passages of the 0 ld and New Testaments,
we have impressive homilies, etc." Luther applies it to
his time, esp. to the enthusiasts (WA 29.474-88;
Erwin Miilhaupt, ed., D. Martin Luthers Evangelien-
Auslegung [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1939]2.270-71).
256 The verb occurs only here in the SM. For the
prophets of old, see SM/Matt 5:12, 17; 7: 12;
SP /Luke 6:23; apparently, for the present disciples,
prophesying is unimportant. For other references to
prophecy in the name of jesus, see Franz Schnider,
EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. 1rpocJ>~r11r; Aune, Prophecy,
222-24, and passim.
257 The technical term occurs only here in the SM; for
further references see BAGD, s. v. EK{3<iAAw, 1; Klaus
Thraede, "Exorzismus," RAG 7 (1969) 44-117;
David E. Aune, "Magic in Early Christianity," ANRW
II, 23/2 (1980) 1507-57, esp. 1545-49: "The
Magical Use of the Name of jesus."
258 This technical term also occurs only here in the SM;
it was otherwise in other branches of early Chris-
tianity. For passages see BAGD, s.v. l'itlvap.tr, 4;
Gerhard Friedrich, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s. v. l'itlvap.tf
(with bibliography).
259 It was regarded as typical for magic that non-
Christians used the name of Jesus with success. Cf.
the story of the sons of Sceva in Acts 19: 13-1 7, and
the inquiry about the strange exorcist (Mark 9:38-
41/ /Luke 9:49-50). For such use of the name of
Jesus, see also PGM 111.420; IV.1233, 2019-20;
Betz, Greek Magical Papyri, 96-97; idem, Hellenismus
und Urchristentum, 239 n. 25.

550
 Matthew 7:13-23

words, the religious experiences, real as they may have
been, remain outside eternal salvation.
Since the passage expresses the theology of the SM, it
is astonishing that it would go so far as to admit that
Gentile Christians have extraordinary experiences and
that they use the name of Jesus in bringing them about.
The verdict is, 260 rather, that these Gentile Christians
are still stuck in paganism. To the SM, therefore, the
Gentile Christians thus portrayed are simply deluding
themselves by acting as though they are entitled to
eternal salvation.
The obvious disinterest by the SM and the SP in any
form of ecstatic experience also confirms this conclusion.
While the prophets of old are respected (see SM/Matt
5: 12; SP/Luke 6:23), engaging in prophecy, performing
exorcisms, and doing miracles are not regarded as
essential to Jesus' teaching on discipleship. One must
distinguish this viewpoint from the evangelists' attitude:
Matthew 261 as well as Luke has a positive attitude toward
prophecy, exorcisms, and miracles done by Christians,
although not without reservations.
• 23 Jesus' reaction to the plea is categorically negative.
The statement in vs 23a is that of a solemn declaration,
for which the technical term op.oA.oy~:'iv ("declare
publicly")2 62 is indicative: "And then I will declare to
them" (Kat TllU op.oA.oy~uw aho'i~ Hn). This statement
implies, as I have already concluded, that a firm rejection
had previously occurred, 263 but the appellants did not
regard it as final. This second rejection, however,
confirms that it is final. It consists of two quasi-legal
formulae, indicated as citations (Hn).
One can call the first formula (vs 23b) a renunciation
formula: "I never knew you" (ofiat7TOTI: fyvwv vp.as).26 4
The formula belongs to the context of legal represen-
tation. An advocate cannot represent a client whom he
or she does not know personally. Indeed, any form of
recommendation presupposes personal acquaintance
with the one recommended, so that even letters of
recommendation require the statement: "I have known
N.N. for such and such a time in such and such a
capacity." 265 Therefore, the renunciation formula not
only denies knowing the persons but also having any
responsibility for them. The formula occurs also else-
where in the synoptic tradition. 266 In the passages
dealing with Peter's denial, it is used in the third and
final denial (Mark 14:71//Matt 26:74): "Then he [sc.
Peter] began to curse and swear saying, 'I do not know
this man of whom you speak'" (0 a~ TfpfaTO ava8€p.aTl(nv
Kat op.VV€LV 8n OfJK o!aa TOV IJ.v8poo7TOV TOVTOV av Aty€T€).
This is correctly called "denying" (apv€'iu8at,
a7Tapv€'iu8at), 267 the opposite of "confessing" him
(op.oA.oy£'iv).2 68 WhatJesus refuses to grant, but what the
appellants expect to receive, is Jesus' declaration
(homologia) before the throne of God, such as the one in
Jesus' intercessory prayer in John 17, where the climactic
words are in vss 24-26:

260 In the theology of Luke-Acts, this very point serves
to legitimate the mission to the Gentiles without
submission to the Torah (Acts 15:12; also 2:19-21,
43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36; 14:3; etc.). Notably, Paul
does not use the argument at the Jerusalem Con-
ference (Gal1:1-10), but he does so at least once in
Gal3:5 (cf. Rom 15:19).
261 See Strecker, Weg, 137 n. 4; Schweizer,Beitriige, 53-
62.
262 See BAGD, s.v. bp.o>..oyEw, 4, referring to the parallels
in Titus 1:16; Heb 11:13; Acts 23:8. See Otfried
Hofius, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s. v. bp.o>..oyEw; Betz, 2
Corinthians 8 and 9, 123-26 (on bp.o>..oyla in 2 Cor
9:14).
263 Cf. the three denials of Peter in Mark 14:66-72 par.
The opposite is the kiss of friendship the traitor
Judas used to indicate intimacy (Mark 14:44-45 par.).
264 SeeBetz,Essays, 129, 131; Luz,Matthiius, l.406n.
45 (Matthew, 1.446 n. 45); cf. Jeremias, Parables,
209-10; Schwarz, "Undjesus sprach," 145.
265 For such commendations see 2 Cor 8:16-17, 18, 22;
and Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 70-78, 133-40.
266 See Luke 13:27; Matt 25:12; furthermore, Gen 29:5;
42:7-8;Job 19:14; Tob 5:2; 7:4; Matt 11:27;John
1:26, 31; 7:28-29; 8:19, 55; 10:4-5, 14-15, 27;
17:25-26; Acts 12:14; 19:15. For rabbinic parallels
see Str-B 1.469; for Greek and Latin material see
Wettstein, 1.344-45.
267 See esp. Matt 10:33//Luke 12:9 (and on this saying,
see Betz, Essays, 142-5l);John 1:20; Acts 3:13-14.
268 Cf. also the application of the renunciation formula
in 2 Cor 5: 16, where it refers to the earthly Jesus in
contrast to confessing the risen Christ (Rom 10:9).

551
 Father, they are your gift to me; and my desire is that
they may be with me where I am, so that they may
look upon my glory, which you have given me because
you loved me before the world began. Righteous
Father, although the world does not know you, I
know you, and they know that you sent me. I made
your name known to them, and will make it known, so
that the love you had for me may be in them, and I in
them. (REB)
The second formula (vs 23c) is that of repudiation or
expulsion, 269 formulated on the basis of Ps 6:9: "Depart
from me, you who work iniquity" (a:rroxwpliT£ a'lT' ~p.ov o~
~pya(Op.£VOL T~V avop.lav).2 70 This formula, however,
differs somewhat from Ps 6:9 (LXX), which Luke 13:27
quotes verbatim: a'lTOcrT1JT£ a 'IT' ~p.ov, 'lT&.vn~ o~ ~pya(Op.£voL
T~V avop.lav ("Withdraw from me, all you who work
iniquity"). 2 71 Similar formulations occur in the Old
Testament, 272 and comparable forms also occur in the
New Testament elsewhere. 273 This formula of repudi-
ation 2 7 4 does not go as far as curses of execration 2 7 5 or
excommunication. 276
As people who have been rejected by the one on whom
they had placed their hopes, they are doomed. This
outcome is certain when one considers the legal context.
Jesus does not speak a verdict, but he merely refuses to
be their advocate, 277 and thus he lets the previous
rejection stand. 278
One can easily misunderstand Jesus' description of the
group as those "who work lawlessness" (o~ ~pya(Op.£VOL T~v
avop.lav).lt includes three separate statements:

269 See Betz, Essays, 129, 131; cf. Luz, Matthiius, 1.402
(Matthew, 1.441 ).
270 Instead of awoxoopELTE, El jl 3 pc Adamantius read
&vaxoopEtTE with the same meaning; the change is
probably the result of scribal error (so also Justin
Dial. 76.5; cf. Apol. 1.16.11: &woxoopELTE). L El j1 3
1424 alb vg' add w6.vTE~ ("all"), probably under the
influence of Luke 13:27 (Ps 6:9 LXX).
271 Strecker (Bergpredigt, 174 [Sermon, 165]) and Luz
(Matthiius, 1.402 [Matthew, 1.441 ]) attribute the
difference from the LXX to the evangelist, but one
need not do so; both versions of the formula may
come from the oral tradition. See BAGD, s.v.
&woxoop£oo; &.pltrT7JP.'• 2.a, with the parallels.
272 See Num 16:26;Job 21:14; 22:17; Pss 119:15 (LXX
118:15); 139:19 (LXX 138:19); 1 Mace 3:6.
273 See also Matt 4:10; Mark 8:33//Matt 16:23; Matt
25:41; 2 Clem. 4.5; Luke 10:16; Acts 8:20; 1 Cor
1:19; 9:27; Rom 11:1-3; Rev 22:15;JustinApol.
1.16.11; Dial. 76.5; 2 Clem. 4.5. For a parallel see
Lucian Alex. 38: "Out with the Christians" (ftoo
XPttrnavo6~); see also Betz, Lukian, 7; idem, Hel-
lenismus und Urchristentum, 12.
27 4 Cf. also SP /Luke 6:22 (see below on this passage).
275 For this legal term see Ivo Pfaff, "Execratio," PWSup
4 (1924) 454-56; and the application in Clement
Alex. Strom. 3.18, p. 246,31: &wotc7Jp6tcTov~ Eivat Tij~
{JatrtAEla~ Toil BEoil ("cut off from the kingdom of
God"). See furthermore LSJ and PGL, s. v.
&wotc7Jp6trtrlll ICT )\.
276 See Gal1:8-9; 1 Cor 16:22 (cf. 12:3); and Betz,
Galatians, 50-54; Walter Doskocil, "Exkommuni-
kation," RAG 7 (1969) 1-22; Wolfgang Speyer,
"Fluch," RAG 7.1161-1288.
277 The importance of having Jesus as advocate is also
evident from the magical Aramaic formula from the
Book of Elchasai, reconstructed by scholars from a
citation in Epiphanius Adv. haer. 19.4.3: "I am
witness over you [plural] on the day of the great
judgment" (~vl. p.ttral.a i)l.tx6>v {Jt6>p. alva p6.{Ja. Read
from right to left, this comes out in Aramaic as:lt::l.,
Ill'., C1'::1J!:1'&;,17 .,:"ICC llllt}. For this translation see
NTApoc 2.750; cf. NTApok 2.623; Gerard P. Lut-
tikhuizen, The Revelation ofElchasai (TSAJ 8;
Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1985) 124-25. Ac-
cording to Alexander Bohlig ("Manichllismus," TRE
22 [1991] 25-45, esp. 29}, this pronouncement was
also known and valued by Mani: •At the last judg-
ment he [sc. Mani] is the representative both of God
and of the people. In this way Mani combines what
he had been taught as a youth, the Christian proph-
ecy, and, in contrast to the [Elchasaite] Baptists a
positive attitude toward Paul, whom he sees in a
gnostic light. In his connection with his alter ego he is
simultaneously the representative ofJesus at the last
judgment and the helper of his faithful (Psalm Book
20,19-21,15; 25,24-26)" ("Er ist beim Gericht
sowohl Vertreter Gottes als auch der Menschen.
Mani verbindet somit die Lehre seiner Jugend, die
christliche Prophezeiung und eine im Gegensatz zu
den T:i.ufern vorhandene positive Stellung zu Paulus,
den er in gnostischem Lichte sieht. In seiner
V erbindung mit seinem Alter ego ist er zugleich
Vertreter Jesu im Gericht und Helfer seiner
Gl:i.ubigen [Ps.-B. 20,19-21,15; 25,24-26]"). The
trans. is mine; the reference is to C. R. C. AUberry,
ed., A Manichean Psalm-Book (Stuttgart, 1938).
278 Cf. the different scenario in Rom 8:33-34, where
there is no prosecutor and therefore no condem-
nation. See Betz, Essays, 157.

552
 Matthew 7:13-23

1. Every human being "produces deeds" in life, a point
made before in the section 7:15-20. 279
2. The question is under which "law" these deeds are
to be judged. The group in focus is said to consist of
"lawless people," that is, those who have done their deeds
outside the v&p.or ("law") (cf. also above on 5: 17-20). 280
As Gentile Christians, the group is not under the
jurisdiction of the Torah of Judaism. Since Jesus and the
SM conceive of themselves as "within the Torah,"2 81 it is
only consistent that Jesus refuses to represent persons
outside thatjurisdiction.2 82 Indeed, according to Paul it
is the apostle's responsibility to represent his churches at
the last judgment.
3. For a Jew, however, the phrase "outside the Jewish
law" means more than that all deeds done outside it are
declared "lawless" 28 ll and therefore in contradiction to
"righteousness" (aLKaLOITVV7J), the status required in the
lastjudgment.2 84 Therefore, persons who conduct
themselves during their lifetime in a status of lawlessness
are found unrighteous in the last judgment. 285 Con-
sequently,Jesus has no need to pronounce a condem-
nation; he simply states the facts in terms ofJewish
theology, according to which, "Outside the Torah there
is no salvation. "286 These facts have two unavoidable
results.
First, Jesus cannot represent persons who do not
possess the status of righteousness as defined by his own
teaching. He would undercut his entire teaching and
mission if he did so (cf. 5:17-20). He would himself
become "a servant of sin" (Gal2:17).2 87

279 Cf. also SM/Matt 5: I6: "so that they may see your
good deeds" (Gwros ~roaw bp.i;lll ra Ka.\a Vpya).
280 In the NT the terms avop.la ("lawlessness"), llvop.os
("lawless"), and av6p.ros ("lawlessly") have quite
different meanings depending on the context. For
the meaning "outside the Jewish Torah," see Mark
15:28//Luke 22:37; Acts 2:23; I Cor 9:2I; Rom
2:I2.
28I Cf. Paul's term Vvvop.os Xp&urov ("within the law of
Christ" [I Cor 9:2I]), a term that the SM could
endorse.
282 Cf. Matt I5:24, where Jesus says to the Phoenician
woman, "I have not been sent, except to the lost
sheep of the house oflsraeJ" (oi>K aw€<rTaA7JII €1 p.~ €ls
ra wp6{3ara Tiilll awo.\ro.\flra ofKOV 'I<rpa~.\). JeSUS
therefore rejects the first appeal of the woman, then
grants the second. Cf. also Matt I0:5-7 concerning
the mission of the missionary-apostles, and further-
more, Matt 27:24-26; Luke 23:I3-I6; and John
I9:6, which concerns Pilate's refusal to assume
jurisdiction for the case ofJesus. Not without
significance is the discussion about Moses' versus
Jesus' revelation in Ps.-Clem. Hom. 8.6.5-7 .5.
283 For the original meaning of avop.la ("lawlessness"),
see Martin Ostwald, Nomos and the Beginning tif the
Athenian Democracy (Oxford: Clarendon, I969) 85: It
is "the opposite of €l>vop.la as a quality primarily of an
individual. It is, therefore, best rendered as 'lawless-
ness,' if by that term we understand not the 'absence
of law' but the social behavior of an individual who
defies law-and-order and who acts in contravention
of any or all of the canons regarded as valid and
binding by the society in which he lives." One should
not confuse the term with wapavop.la, "transgression
of laws." One must then apply this understanding of
the terminology to the different Jewish-Christian
conceptuality of the SM, according to which the term
means "living in principle apart from" the Torah,
rather than individual "transgression" of the Torah.
284 So, correctly, Wellhausen, Evangelium Matthaei, 33.
See 2 Cor 6:I4; Matt I3:4I; 23:28; 24:I2; 2 Thess
2:3, 8; etc. For the terminology see BAGD, s.v.
avop.la, llvop.os, av6p.ros, with references; Baumbach,
Das Verstiindnis des Bosen, I 03-5; Davison
("Anomia"), who reviews the biblical and Jewish use
of the term. Ifthe group ofSM/Matt 7:23 are
people outside the Jewish Torah and are also
"charismatics," they thereby do not automatically
become "antinomians" in the sense that they reject all
forms oflaw; that would be avapxla (see Plato Rep. 9,
575a: avapx{a Kal avop.{a ("anarchy and lawlessness").
285 Cf. the parallel in Luke I3:27: awourfjn aw' ip.ov
wavT€S tpyara& al:J&K{as ("Depart from me, all you who
are workers of unrighteousness"). See also 2 Tim
2:I9.
286 Cf. the position of the anti-Pauline opposition in
Galatians attempting to introduce circumcision and
Torah. See Betz, Galatians, 5-9. The principle is
stated in Acts I5:I: "Unless you have yourselves
circumcised according to the law of Moses, you
cannot be saved" (iav p.~ 71€p&rp.7J8fjr€ ri;l VB€& ri;l
Mroii<rEros, ol> l:J-6vau8€ uro8fjva&).
287 Cf. the accusation against Paul, rejected by him in
Gal2:I7, that, as a consequence of Paul's theology,
"Christ is a servant of sin" (Xp&uros b.p.aprlas l:J&a~eovos).
See Betz, Galatians, I20.

553
 Second, a formal condemnation is not needed at this
point because the destiny of the rejected is a foregone
conclusion. Not being eligible for the kingdom of the
heavens, they are destined for "destruction"
(a7Tc.IJA.na). 2 88 Thus, all those who are to be classified as
Clvopm ("outside the law") are in effect condemning
themselves. 289 One must take these conclusions into
consideration when one answers the question of chris-
tology in the SM. In 7:21-23 Jesus does not act as the
eschatological judge 290 but as the advocate of his
disciples. 291 This role remains within the eschatological
thinking of Judaism and does not require a specifically
Christian christology. The evangelist Matthew inter-
preted 7:21-23 within the framework of his own
theology, but it is important to recognize that he did not
interfere with his source at this point. His adoption of the
SM from pre-Matthean source material did not mean
that he "corrected" its christology. He did not attempt to
bring the SM up to his own different standards of
christology.
The figure of Jesus in the SM is not interpreted
christologically but eschatologically. Jesus is expected to
be present at the last judgment as the advocate of his
faithful disciples who have followed the teachings of the
SM. 292 This view of Jesus as the advocate (7Tapc'z.KA1JTO~,
paraclete) remains within the framework of Jewish
eschatology, in which the role of the advocate/paraclete
can be entrusted to angels or to the wise and
righteous. 293 In this context, the advocate/paraclete has
only the limited soteriological function of testimony. In
the SM,Jesus' role as advocate/paraclete is based not on
his atoning death and resurrection, which are never
mentioned, but only on the quality of his teaching of the
Jewish Torah. For his disciples he is the authoritative
teacher, and only his teaching, if faithfully observed,
leads to the eschatologically required righteousness. The
testimony of Jesus in the judgment must be "without
partiality," 294 but in this capacity he identifies and speaks

288 See SM/Matt 7:13-14.
289 See Volz, Eschatolog;ie, 304-9. Cf.John 3:16-21, esp.
18b: "He who does not believe is already con-
demned." At this point the critique of advocacy sets
in; see John 5:45 and the interpretation by Otto
Michel, RAG 9 (1976) 9. According to apocalyptic
Judaism, intercession by the righteous on behalf of
the unrighteous should take place among humans,
and one should place no hope on postmortem
intercessors. For the passages see Michel, RAG 9.9-
10.
290 See Betz, Essays, 151-54, with the self-correction in
n. 104. Most commentators argue differently and
simply identify Jesus' role as advocate in the SM with
the evangelist's christology of Christ as eschatological
judge, Son of man, and ruler of the universe (cos-
mocrator). Thus, Wellhausen, Evangelium Matthaei,
32-33; Bultmann, History, 122 n. 1; Schweizer,
Beitriige, 50; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 174 (Sermon, 167);
Luz, Matthiius, 1.406-7 (Matthew, 1.445-46);
Stanton, "Origin," 186; Carlston, "Betz on the
Sermon on the Mount," 55.
291 The correct view is found in Eduard Lohse, "Christus
als Weltenrichter," in Georg Strecker, ed.,jesus
Gkristus in Historie und Theolog;ie: Neutestamentliche FS
fur Hans Gonzelmann zum 60. Geburtstag (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 475-86.
292 Thus rightly Lohse, "Christus," 479-81.
293 On this point see Volz, Eschatolog;ie, 303-5; Nils
Johansson (Parakletoi: Vorstellungen von Fursprechem
fur die Menschen vor Gott in der alttestamentlichen
Religion, im Spiitjudentum und Urchristentum [Lund:
Gleerup, 1940)), however, thinks that in 7:22-23
Jesus appears as "witness" as well as 'judge" (p. 223).
Furthermore, Otto Betz, Der Paraklet: Fursprecher im
hiiretischen Spiitjudentum, im johannesevangelium und in
den neugefundenen gnostischen Schriften (AGSU 2;
Leiden: Brill, 1963); Otto Michel and Theodor
Klauser, "Gebet 11 (Furbitte)," RAG 9 (1976) 1-36,
esp. 7-10 and 13-18. Belief in intercessors con-
tinued among the Samaritans (see Michel, col. 9) and
the Elchasaites (see Luttikhuizen, Revelation [see
above, n. 277], 199-201).
294 Impartiality is an element of righteousness; see Gal
2:6, and Betz, Galatians, 95. Therefore, intercession
cannot make up for missing righteousness; see Ps.-
Philo Ant. bibl. 33.5 (OTP 2.348): "While a man is still
alive he can pray for himself and for his sons, but
after his end he cannot pray or be mindful of anyone.
Therefore, do not hope in your fathers. For they will
not profit you at all, unless you be found like them."
2 Enoch 53 0) also assures that "there is no helper
there" for the sinners (OTP 1.180). The saying in
'Abot 4.13 is ironic (trans. Herford, Sayings of the
Fathers, 108): "He who does one precept gains for
himself one advocate, and he who commits one
transgression gains for himself one accuser." See
furthermore Michel, RAG 9.10-11.

554
 Matthew 7:13-23

for those disciples who have been faithful to his teach-
ings, and in this way his testimony will confirm their
great reward in heaven (5: 12; 6: 19-20). For the faithful,
it would be improper to rely on Jesus' meritorious death,
if all that counts is his teaching, their faithfulness, and
their own record of deeds. 2 95
If this is clear from the text, one can rightly ask: Given
the lack of christology, is there a Christian soteriology in
the SM? If one defines the terms "christology" and
"soteriology" in a narrower sense as based on Jesus' death
and resurrection as salvation event, the SM has neither a
particularly Christian christology nor a corresponding
soteriology. One can also see this point by the develop-
ment of the redeemerjparaclete idea. Texts in Paul's
letters and the Gospel of John show that the advocate/
paraclete idea was later expanded into a "higher" chris-
tology that included, above all, Jesus' role as escha-
tological judge and Son of man. 2 96
In Paul, one is reminded of the notion of advocate/
paraclete in Rom 8:34, which, however, combines it with
a redeemer christology: 297 "It is Christ Uesus] who died
but was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also
intercedes for us" (XptuTOS [' I7]UOVS] 0 a7To8avcf>v, p.aA.A.ov
o~ iyEp8Els, 8s Kal lunv iv oEtt~ Tov 8EOv, 8s Ka't ivTvyxctvEt
im~p ~p.wv). This role conforms to the importance of
eschatological judgment for Romans as a whole. In
Romans the theme of eschatological judgment occurs
prominently first in connection with the theme of the
letter, stated in Rom 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the
gospel. "2 98 This theme determines the argument of the
letter to be that of an apology, which reaches its climax
in Rom 8:31-39 and sets before the eyes of the readers a
scene at the last judgment.
In comparison with SM/Matt 7:21-23, Paul would
agree that any attempt to obtain justification merely
through experiences such as prophecy, exorcisms, and
miracles is bound to fail. All who hope to enter into the
kingdom of God must be found to be without blame. 2 99
Paul confirms this requirement, when he tirelessly
exhorts his churches that obedience of faith means
ethical responsibility so as to meet the demands of
righteousness, for in the last judgment only these
count. 300 In addition, the SM and Paul share the view
that the Pharisaic, not to speak of the conventional,
understanding of the Jewish Torah is not sufficient, but
only the Torah as understood by Jesus. Both the SM and
Paul see the teaching of Jesus epitomized in the love-
command (see above on SM/Matt 5:43-48). How then
can one reconcile this agreement with the lack of
christology in the SM, as opposed to the high christology
of Paul? Paul would argue that, in the final analysis, the
faithful disciples of the SM also need a redeemer
christology. Even the SM admits to the failures of
disciples and their need for God's mercy. Thus, Paul
would argue, it is safer in principle to have Christian
existence based on Christ's merits than on the uncertain
merits of faithful discipleship. Although one need not
deny such merits, they are inadequate for making
everything dependent on them.
The concept of the redeemer/paraclete has been
interpreted further in a christological sense as compared
with Paul. When in the Fourth Gospel Jesus promises
that he will send the Spirit as "another paraclete" (lf.A.A.os
7TapctKA7]Tos) after his return to the Father, he implies that
he was the first paraclete. 301 Thus, Jesus acts as
intercessor/paraclete on earth when he addresses the
great intercessory prayer to his Father in John 17, in
which the borderlines between this world and the next
are transcended in typicalJohannine fashion. But 1 John
2:1 calls on the older notion of the advocatejparaclete, 302

295 See Volz, Eschatologie, 303-4, 306-7.
296 According to Lohse ("Christus" [see n. 291, above],
479-81), the pre-Pauline kerygmatic statement in 1
Thess 1:9-10, that Jesus frees us from the coming
wrath, stands on the border between the concept of
him as witness and as judge. See also Michel, RAC
9.13-18.
297 See Lohse ("Christus," 480), who refers also to 1
John 2:1 and Heb 7:25. Cf. also 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13;
4:15-17; 5:23; Heb 9:24; 1 Clern. 36.1.
298 On this point see C. Kingsley Barrett, "I am not
Ashamed of the Gospel," in his New Test1Lrnent Essays
(London: SPCK, 1972) 116-43; Ernst Kasemann,
Cornrnentary on Romans (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 16-17.
299 This is the theme of the Corinthian letters; see esp. 1
Cor 1:7-8; 3:10-17; 15:58; 2 Cor 1:14; 5:10; 11:2,
15.
300 Seeesp.Gal5:14-6:10.
301 Cf.John 14:16-17, 26; 15:5, 26; 16:5-11, 12-15.
For the whole topic see Gunther Bornkamm, "Der
Paraklet im Johannesevangelium," in his Gesarnrnelte
Aufsatze, 3.68-89; Michel, RAC 9.16-17.
302 The origin of the Johannine title paraclete is still

555
even though this epistle sees that notion from a later
perspective: "My children, I am writing these things to
you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we
have an advocate [?TapcZKA11To~] with the Father, Jesus
Christ, the righteous one [BlKaLo~ ]. "
In conclusion, SM/Matt 7:21-23 puts forward an
eschatological concept of Jesus as the advocatejparaclete
in the last judgment. This concept originated in Judaism
and occurs as an "archaic relic" also in other New
Testament texts. In the SM, this concept does not imply
a christology or soteriology of the kind Gentile-Christian
theologies would develop. Paul and John's Gospel,
however, show how the concept of paraclete was later
given christological and soteriological interpretations.
We have also observed how the evangelist Matthew
has changed this older advocate/paraclete concept by
superimposing on it the christology of the Son of man:
"For the Son of man will come in the glory of his Father
together with his angels, and then he will give to every-
one according to his conduct in life" (Matt 16:27). 303
Several times Matthew repeats this christology of the
righteous Son of man/Son of God/righteous judge
(19:28; 24:30-31; 25:31-46), until the climactic episode
in 26:63-64 (see also 28:20). This christology has been
woven together from various conceptualities, including
that ofthe Messiah, and it is all based on Jesus' death on
the cross, his resurrection, his ascension, and his
enthronement as ruler of the universe (cosmocrator). The
theological reason for this imposition on the part of
Matthew should be obvious. Matthew's church included
not only former Jews but mostly Gentiles, Christians who
did not obey the Jewish Torah. There is in effect no
indication that the Matthean Christians observed the
Jewish Torah. Consequently, their status in the last
judgment had to be put on a different foundation from
that of the faithful Jewish disciples of the SM. This is
done, according to Matthew, by declaring that Jesus,
through his life, death, and resurrection, has "fulfilled all
righteousness" (Matt 3: 15, which refers to more than
simply his baptism). On account of this righteousness, he
was enthroned as lord of the universe, and in this
function he is the eternal protector of his church,
notwithstanding that this church is a mixed body of the
righteous and the unrighteous (Matt 28:18-20).

disputed. Cf. Bomkamm's remark in "Paraklet," 70 the SM, but it does in the SP; see below on SP /Luke
n. 10. Its roots in the history of religions certainly 6:22.
include the figure of the intercessor. See also Rudolf
Bultmann, The Gospel ofjohn (trans. G. R. Beasley-
Murray et al.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1971) 205, 437
(excursus on "The Paraclete"), with the supplement
(Ergiinzungsheft) to the German ed., pp. 41-42.
303 The christology of the Son of man plays no role in

556
 Matthew 7:24-27

Ch~pter VIII
7 The Parable of the Two Builders
24 Therefore, everyone who hears these
words of mine and does them will be like
a prudent man who built his house on
rock.
25 And the rain came down, and the rivers
came, and the winds blew and fell on
that house, but it did not fall, for it was
founded on rock.
26 But everyone who hears these words of
mine but does not do them will be like a
foolish man who built his house on sand.
27 And the rain came down, and the rivers
came, and the winds blew and beat
against that house, and it fell, and its
downfall was a great one.

Bibliography (7: 13-14), this section shows two characters, the

Bultmann, History, 173, 202.
Betz, Essays, 1-16; also Synoptische Studien, 77-91.
Braun, Radikalismus, 2.29-34.
Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.167-69.
David Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der
Gleichniserziihler jesus (Bern, Frankfurt, and Las
Vegas: Lang, 1981) 98-105.
Jiilicher, Gleichnisreden, 2.259-68.
Marguerat, Le jugement, 203-11.
Antonio Orbe, Panibolas evangelicas en San Ireneo (2
vols.; Madrid: La editorial catolica, 1972) 1. 75-
105.
Antonio Ornella, "Les chretiens seront juges: Mt 7,21-
27," Assemblies du Seigneur 40 (1972) 16-27.
Schulz, Q, 312-16.
Gerhard Sellin, "'Allegorie' und 'Gleichnis': Zur
Formenlehre der synoptischen Gleichnisse," ZThK
75 (1978) 281-335.
Philipp Vielhauer, Aufsatze zum Neuen Testament, voi. 2:
Oikodome (Theologische Biichere: 65; Munich:
Kaiser, 1979) 54-55.
Wrege, Bergpredigt, 152-55.
"prudent man" (av~p cppovtp.o~) and the "foolish man"
(av~p p.wpo~). as they build their houses, one on rock and
the other on sand. When bad weather with rains, floods,
and storms beats against the houses, the one built on
rock withstands, while the other built on sand collapses.
The two builders are to be likened to the faithful
disciple who not only hears but also does the words of
Jesus, and to the unfaithful disciple who only hears Jesus'
words but fails to do them. This contrast (syncrisis) of the
two builders is intended to accomplish two goals: ( 1) to
provide a summary of the purpose and function of the
SM; and (2) to inject a final admonition and warning into
the mind of the hearer or reader. 1 The images used in
the passage are traditional; its major terms are to be
taken as metaphors. This is true in particular of the
image of building a house. 2 Noteworthy is the language

1. Introduction
The concluding section of the SM consists of the parable
of the Two Builders. Corresponding to the Two Ways

Thus, the purpose and function are related to
character formation (1}6o.,.oda).
2 The terms and images are biblical. For the references
see Siegfried Wagner, ":"!l::l biiniih," ThWAT 1.689-
706 (TDOT 2.166-81), esp. 696-703 (172-78) (II.4
and III); for the Christian material see the basic study
by Philipp Vielhauer, Oikodome: Das Bild vom Bau in
der christlichen Literatur vom Neuen Testament bis
Clemens Alexandrinus (diss., Heidelberg, 1939;
reprinted in his Aufsiitze zum Neuen Testament, voi. 2:
Oikodome [Theologische Biicherei 65; Munich:
Kaiser, 1979]) 1-168; furthermore, Otto Michel,
"oiKor KTll..," TDNT 5.119-59; Theodor Schneider
and Karl Hermann Schelkle, "Bauen," RAG 1 (1950)
1265-78; Hans Pohlmann, "Erbauung," ibid., 5
(1962) 1043-70; Ernst Dassmann and Georg

557
of "foundation" (8cp.huos; Latin: fundamentum )3 which
occurs frequently in texts dealing with instruction and
education. 4 The same can be said of the metaphor
connected with the building of the house. 5
The two building projects are described as the work of
two stock characters, the "prudent" and the "foolish"
man. Both of these characters are traditional 6 in the
context of wisdom, morality, and education. 7 For the SM
they typify success and failure of discipleship. Set in the
situation of natural disasters, success and failure are
thought of, first of all, in terms of this-worldly survival in
a world full of turbulence and violence, indicated by the
images of rain, river, and storm. 8 There are no doubt
also eschatological meanings involved, however. The
meaning of the parable is explained by the text itself.
The two builders signify the faithful disciple who is able
to combine hearing and doing of the words of Jesus,
while the unfaithful disciple fails to accomplish this
requirement. The requirement itself is also traditional:
"word" (A.6yos) and "deed" (~pyov) must correspond in a
person worthy of being called prudent. 9 General and
traditional as these terms and images are, their function
within the SM is nevertheless specific. What matters,
therefore, is the specific application to the concerns of
the SM.
2. Analysis In terms of literary form, the passage in 7:24-27
consists of a similitudo (similitude), 10 including syncrisis
(comparison by juxtaposition) supplied with its own
interpretation. The narrative stands between a parable
and an allegory; its imagery is metaphorical but not
completely allegorical. One must not misunderstand
the often used term "double parable": the two parts
have always belonged together and form a syncrisis 11 of
the two stock characters, the "prudent" and the
"foolish" man, representing the faithful and the
unfaithful disciple as interpreted by the SM.
Following the connecting particle o~v ("therefore"),
the first part describes the successful disciple, intro-
duced by an identification of his marks (vs 24a) and
followed by a formula of comparison (vs 24b). The
example focuses on the house builder, a craftsman and
popular subject of such parables. 12 His activity is
briefly described, with special emphasis given to the
rock foundation of the house. What the builder does is
nothing exceptional; rather, it is what is professionally
commendable. By way of comparison, his professional
competency makes all the difference (vs 24c). Verse
25a then describes the calamities associated with bad
weather, which a well-built house should be able to

Schollgen, "Haus II (Hausgemeinschaft)," ibid., 13
(1986) 80 1-905; Friedrich Ohly, "Haus III
(Metapher)," ibid., 13.905-1063, esp. 1034; BAGD,
s.v. olKoaop..!w KTA.;Johannes Pfammatter, EWNT
(EDNT) 2, s.v. olKoaop..!w KrA.
3 For the material see Karl Ludwig Schmidt, "6<p.£.\&os
Kr.\.," TDNT 3.63-64; BAGD, s.v. 6Ep.£>.&os; Henryk
Muszynski, Fundament: Bild und Metapher in den
Handschriften aus Qumran; Studie zur Vorgeschichte des
neutestamentlichen Begrifft 8EMEAI0l: (AnBib 61;
Rome: Biblical Institute, 1975).
4 See esp. Quintilian Inst. 1, praefatio 4-5; 7, praefatio
1; 8.5.27; 8.6.63; 9.4.27; 10.3.3; 12.6.2; 12.8.1 (for
further references see Gerhard Assfahl, Vergleich und
Metapher bei Quintilian [TBA 15; Stuttgart: Kohl-
hammer, 1932]46-48); Epictetus Diss. 2.15.8; 8.9;
Philo Gig. 30; Mut. nom. 211; Som. 2.8. For rabbinic
Judaism see Str-B 1.469-70, 733; 3.333.
5 For a collection of passages see Vielhauer, Oikodome,
4-51.
6 For Egyptian wisdom see the Instruction ofPtah-
hotep (c. 3200 BCE); for translations see John Wilson,
ANET, 412-14; Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian
Literature, 1.63-64; Brunner, Altiigyptische Weisheit,
111; idem, Altiigyptische Erziehung, 112-13; Assmann,
Ma 'at, 110, 115, and passim. For the OT see
Johannes Marbock, ·':>~?nahal," ThWAT 5 (1986)
171-85; for the NT see Georg Bertram, "p.wp6s
KTA.," TDNT 4.832-47; idem, "cf>p~v KTA.," TDNT
9.234 (D.5).
7 Here we also find the contrast between the sage and
the fool; see, e.g., Sir 21:10-11, 12-28; 22:1-15; for
the synoptic tradition see esp. Luke 12:13-21;
i4:15-24; 16:1-13; Matt 25:1-13; Mark 7:21.
8 For these images see Ezek 38:22; Ps 71:6; Prov 28:3;
Wis 16:16, 22; Sir 40:13; PhiloSom. 2.109, 125; Vit.
Mos. 1.265; Treatise ofShem, passim (OTP 1.473-86);
Seneca Vita beata 50.28. See also Robert Luyster,
"Wind and Water: Cosmogonic Symbolism in the
Old Testament," ZAW 93 (1981) 1-10.
9 On this topos see Luke 24:19; Acts 7:22; Rom 15:18;
2 Cor 10:11; Col3:17; 2 Thess 2:17; 1 John 3:18;
and esp.Jas 1:22-26; 2:14-16. See BAGD, s.v. ;pyov,
La.
10 For this literary category, see Lausberg, Elemente, §§
401-3,404.
11 For references see Betz, Paulus, 119 nn. 560-61.
12 On this point see Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse,
104-5, who points to rabbinic as well as Greek
philosophical parallels.

558

sustain: rain, river, and winds. Verse 25b reports the
effects of the attack: the house is indeed able to
withstand; vs 2 5c gives the reason for it: the house is
founded on bedrock. Verse 26 then turns to the
negative counterpart, the failing disciple. The lines of
vss 26-27 are constructed in precise parallelism to vss
24-25, so that one can speak of a large-scale isocolon
(parallel lines), comprising the whole passage. Verse
26a sets forth the marks of the failing disciple. Then
(vs 26b) the example ofthe second builder is intro-
duced, followed by the formula of comparison. The
description of his building shows that it is done
unprofessionally: he sets the house directly on the sand
without putting a foundation underneath it (vs 26c).
When the same bad weather with rain, river, and
storm pound against the building, the house collapses
(vs 27a-b). A final evaluation states the total ruin (vs
27c). With this warning the SM has reached its end.
The descriptions of the weather in vss 25 and 27 use
rhetorical figures: subiunctio (coordination) 13 and
paronomasia (variation on the same word, vs 25:
1rpocrl1T€Uav, f7I'£u£v; vs 27: 7rpoulKo\frav, f7r£lT£V,
,-rwu1~). 14
In terms of composition and architecture, the
double parable in vss 24-27 with its stern warnings
stands in juxtaposition to the Beatitudes (SM/Matt
5:3-12) and to the commission (5: 13-16). It also
corresponds to the Two Ways (7:13-14), the Two
Trees pointing to true and false prophets (7: 15-20),
and the two groups in 7:21-23.
With regard to the question concerning the source
of vss 24-27, one must first consider the close parallel
in the conclusion ofSP /Luke 6:47-49. Both passages
share the same position at the end of the SM and the
SP respectively, both work with the same image
material, both are composed according to the same
pattern, and both show the results of some redactional
13 See Lausberg, Elemente, § 346 (p. 114).
14 Ibid.,§§ 386-92 (pp. 126-31).
15 Strecker (Bergpredigt, 176 [Sermon, 169]) concludes
that a different landscape is envisioned: the SM
presupposes a building on the slope of a mountain,
while the SP thinks of a river valley.
16 Gerhard Kittel (Die Probleme des paliistinischen
Spiitjudentums und das Urchristentum [Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1926]55) thinks that the SM passage is
Jewish-Palestinian, while the SP is more Gentile-
Christian in character.
17 Differently, Strecker (Bergpredigt, 176-77 [Sermon,
169]) takes the Lukan version to be later and a
product of Luke's redaction, through which the
earlier symmetry found in Matthew was destroyed;
Luke's version is said to be more Greek, while
Matthew's is more Palestinian.
Matthew 7:24-27
activity, most likely at the presynoptic level. These
similarities, however, should not lead one to overlook
the differences. These differences are considerable in
that they do not include only some terminology.
Rather, in spite of the similarities the basic conceptions
set forth by the examples differ. While the SM stresses
the importance of the rock foundation as compared to
the absence of a foundation for the house built on
sand, the SP puts the emphasis on the work that goes
into laying the foundation as compared with the
effortless setting of the house directly onto the sand.
The calamities of the weather are different too. The
SM has rain, rivers (flash floods), and high winds, while
the SP has high water of one river, with no mention of
rains or winds.I5
More fundamental even than the differences
regarding these images is that between the character
types of the prudent/imprudent man in the SM and
the anthropology of the "good man" in the SP. The SM
presupposes a wisdom anthropology more Jewish in
orientation, while the SP prefers a Greek anthro-
pology. 16 Correspondingly, there are two types of
discipleship. In the SM, the disciple is to become what
he already is (see the Beatitudes and the commission
[SM/Matt 5:3-12, 13-16]); in the SP, the disciple
approaches the master (SP /Luke 6:47a), undergoes a
course of education, graduates (6:40), and is adopted
as "son" in the afterlife.
As in many other instances, one cannot explain
these similarities and differences, subtle and far-
reaching as they are, as the result of redactional work
on the part of the Gospel writers Matthew and Luke. 1 7
They are, in effect, indigenous to the SM and the SP,
so that one can conclude that both texts were already
part and parcel of the presynoptic compositions of the
SM and the SP, and thus ofQ/Matt and Q/Luke_l 8
Since both versions are to be regarded as presynoptic
18 So also Luz (Matthiius, 1.412 [Matthew, 1.451 ]).
Eduard Schweizer ("Zur Sondertradition der
Gleichnisse bei Matthiius," in his Matthiius, 104-5)
considers the possibility that Matt 7:24-27 was
influenced not only by Q but also by a parable
tradition in special sources available to Matthew.
Instead of assuming multiple sources, however,
attribution of the differences to Q/Luke and
Q/Matt may be more plausible. Cf. also Wrege,
Bergpredigt, 154-55.
559
redactional products, which of them was part of the
"original" Q? This question cannot be answered, since
whatever version the "original" Q/Sermon had the SM
and the SP have reworked in completely different
ways. At any rate, the two expanded versions that
became part of Q/Matt and Q/Luke then contained
the different forms of the double parable. The SM and
the SP must have taken over their versions ofthe
parable either from the earlier version of Q or from
the oral tradition. Which was the case is no longer
discernible, but the origin in the earlier Q-version is
more likely. Yet, the further back one reaches, the
closer written and oral tradition come together.
Some scholars have suggested that the double
parable goes back to the historical Jesus. 19 This is
possible, if not probable, in principle, but the two
extant versions in the SM and the SP show, as I have
indicated, considerable redactional work. The ap-
pearance of a similar parable in 'Abot R. Nat. (A) 24,
attributed to Elisha ben Abuyah (c. 120 CE), 20 indicates
that the parable may have circulated more widely. But
even such a wider usage of the parable does not rule
out that it came into the Q-tradition through jesus.
The parable in 'Abot R. Nat. (A) 24 is part of a
sequence of similar parables:
Elisha ben Abu yah says: One in whom there are
good works, who has studied much Torah, to what
may he be likened? To a person who builds first
with stones and afterward with brick; even when
much water comes and collects by their side, it does
not dislodge them. But one in whom there are no
good works, though he studied Torah, to what may
he be likened? To a person who builds first with
bricks and afterward with stones: even when a little
water gathers, it overthrows them immediately. He
used to say: One in whom there are good works,
who has studied much Torah, to what may he be
likened? To lime poured over stones: even when
any number of rains fall on it, it cannot push it out
of place. One in whom there are no good wor~s,
though he studied much Torah, is like lime poured
over bricks: even when a little rain falls on it, it
softens immediately and is washed away. 21
These two parables, followed by others of a similar
character, express rabbinic theology. The differences
between them show how such parables were narrated
and how different versions were made up. Also
important is that two versions of the parable can be
attributed to the same rabbi in the two versions of the
'Abot de Rabbi Natan;2 2 another version using trees
instead of houses occurs inM. 'Abot 3.18.
3. Interpretation
• 24 The conjunction o~v ("therefore"), introducing the
double parable of the two builders, indicates that we
have reached the end of the SM. As I have explained,
this ending of an educational text such as the SM and the
SP was traditional, so that one must also interpret the
images and metaphors in this general context. Com-
parison with the parables, in particular SP /Luke 6:4 7-
49, reveals the emphases intended by the SM.
The introductory sentence (vs 24a) characterizes the
good students as the SM wishes them to be: "everyone,
therefore, who hears these words of mine and does
them" ("rras o~v CliTTLS aKoim p.ov TOVs Abyovs TOVTOVS Kat
'lTOLt-1 avrovs). 23 The generalizing "everyone" addresses
the disciples of the SM and defines them by imagery. 24
The definition is purely functional, 2 5 and the complete
absence of even the designation "disciple" (p.a871r~s), or
titles, ranks, or other identity marks is remarkable. 26

19 SeeLuz,Matthiius, 1.412(Matthew, 1.452). 23 B* 1424 pc a g 1 k mae horns omit ro6rovs ("these")

20 The date of these parables is uncertain. See
Hermann L. Strack and Gunter Sternberger,
Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch (7th ed.; Munich:
Beck, 1982) 215-17 (with bibliography); ET:
Introduction to the Talmud and Mid rash (trans. Markus
Bockmuehl; Minneapolis: Fortress; Edinburgh:
Clark, 1991) 245-47.
21 The translation is that of Judah Goldin, The Fathers
according to Rabbi Nathan (New Haven: Yale
University, 1955) I 03; see also Str-B 1.469; Luz,
Matthiius, 1.412-13 (Matthew, 1.452); Lachs, Rabbinic
Commentary, 151; Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichni.sse,
102-3.
22 See 'Abot R. Nat. (B) p. 77, ed. Anthony]. Saldarini,
The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (Abot de Rabbi
Nathan), Version B (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 205.
probably because it was no longer clear what the
term refers to. The parallel in SP /Luke 6:4 7 does
not have "these."
24 ,.(is ("everyone"), which is also found in the parallel
SP /Luke 6:4 7, stands in contrast to "not everyone"
(ov ,.as) in vs 21. Cf. also SM/Matt 5:15, 22, 28, 32;
7:8, 12, 17; SP /Luke 6:30, 40, 47.
25 "Coming to Jesus" (SP /Luke 6:47) is not part ofthe
conditions in the SM. This may mean that for the
SM, as certainly for Matthew, the disciples are
"called." The SM itself, however, has no reference to
a call.
26 "Disciple" (j.<a81Jr~s) does not occur in the SM, in
contrast to the SP/Luke 6:40. But that the address-
ees of the SM are taught allows one to conclude that
they are regarded as disciples. Cf. also Matt 23:8-12;

560
 Matthew 7:24-27

Within the SM, one must see this definition in its
relations with the Beatitudes (SM/Matt 5:3-12) and the
commission (5:13-16). This widely open definition also
indicates that the community speaking in the SM has not
yet separated from judaism.
The conventional characterization of the disciple as
one "who hears these words of mine and does them" is
important for a number of reasons. 2 7 The words "these
words of mine" are self-referential and show that the SM
is made up of"sayings" (AoyoL) of jesus, taken from a
larger pool of such sayings and declaring the selected
ones to be essential for the instruction of the disciples. 28
These sayings should be "heard" (aKOVELv), 29 which
means that in instruction they are spoken by the teachers
who continue the teaching of jesus (see above on
SM/Matt 5: 19). This situation implies that the primary
function of the SM is oral delivery, while the secondary
function is remembrance and, possibly, recitation. 30
The notion of "hearing" has implications also for the
text of the SM itself. In view ofthe fact that the issues of
oral versus written texts were much discussed in con-
temporary judaism 31 (as also in Greek philosophy), 32 it is
significant that the SM never refers to itself as a written
text. 33 Rather, hearing the spoken word is the only mode
of instruction presupposed. This fact no doubt continues
the oral form of delivery practiced by jesus himself, who
never wrote anything and seems to have shared the
common reservations against the writing down of
teaching. The only written text mentioned is the Torah
(see above on SM/Matt 5:18).
Furthermore, "hearing" implies a dialogical structure
of the teaching. This structure means that, although the
SM is presented as a monologue of jesus, its structure is
that of a dialogue. It provokes debate, both among the
disciples and internally in the individual. The dialogical
structure is therefore considered to be an essential
element of the teaching of jesus. When the SM was
written down, which it was most likely from its inception,
its function was that of a manual for oral instruction.
Thus, even as a written text the SM is structurally
different from a code oflaw, agnomologium (collection of
sayings), or even a "book" (fil{3Ao~) such as the Gospel of
Matthew (Matt 1: 1).
Important as "hearing" may be, "doing" ('lToLe'iv) is the
goal. 34 This emphasis on "doing" not only affirms the
intention of the teaching of jesus, but in the SM it is
related to the doctrine of merit. Only through the
"doing" of good deeds can the disciples be certain of
having "a treasure in heaven" (6:19-21), a treasure to be
drawn on in the last judgment (see above on SM/Matt
5:12 and 7:21-23). Therefore, one cannot separate
"hearing and doing." Only together do theory and
practice constitute wisdom and understanding. In all
antiquity, this emphasis was the same in jewish and
Greek education. Thus, for the SM learning is a process
that includes the interaction of several elements, such as
the teaching of jesus' sayings and their constant
remembrance, their theological appropriation and
internalization of meaning, the ability to argue for their
validity, and their practical application in the situations
oflife. The ability to hold these elements together

Mark I0:35-45 par. Letter," in Arktouros: Hellenic Studies Presented to

27 For further discussion see Betz, Essays, I-I6;
furthermore Franz K. Mayr, "Horen," RAC I5
(I99I) I023-1111, esp. I074-78.
28 See the main Introduction, above pp. 70-88.
29 See also SM/Matt 5:2I, 27, 33, 38, 43. Cf.Justin
Apol. 1.16.IO.
30 See also Betz, Essays, 3-6. Flusser's suggestion (Die
rabbinischen Gleichnisse, I 00-II 0) that the historical
Jesus would have not said "my words" but the words
of the Torah or of God is not plausible; indeed, "my
words" refers to Jesus' interpretation of the Torah as
set over against other interpretations. See also above
on the phrase "but I say to you" (SM/Matt 5:22).
3I See above on SM/Matt 5:I7-I8.
32 See Thomas A. Szlezak, "The Acquiring of Philo-
sophical Knowledge according to Plato's Seventh
Bernard M. W. Knox on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday
(Berlin and New York: de Gruyter [I979]354-63);
idem, Platon und die Schriftlichkeit der Philosophie:
Interpretationen zu den jrilhen und mittleren Dialogen
(Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, I985), with the
important review by Ada Neschke-Hentschke,
Gnomon 59 (I987) 673-80.
33 This situation differs from letters, which as written
texts are to be read aloud (avaytvw<TKEtv). See I Thess
5:27; 2 Cor I :I3; Col4:I6; Eph 3:4; Rev I :3. For the
reading of Scripture aloud see Acts 8:30; Jas I :22-
25; a different reading theory is found in Ps.-Clem.
Hom. I6.9-I5.
34 For this term see also SM/Matt 5:I9, 32, 36, 46, 47;
6:I, 2, 3; 7:I2, I7, I8, I9, 2I, 23, 26.

561
characterizes the faithful disciple, who is declared to be a
"prudent man." The implications 35 should be clear:
faithful disciples ofJesus can certainly not be those who
ignore, forget, set aside Jesus' sayings, and substitute for
them their own teachings (see above on SM/Matt 5: 19).
Rather, faithful disciples are preservers of the Jesus-
tradition. 36
Nor can faithful disciples of Jesus be those who merely
learn his sayings by heart and repeat them verbally, but
who do not enter into Jesus' theological thinking and
who are not able or willing to argue and defend its
validity. In this respect, the SM places great value on the
disciples' intellectual and rhetorical abilities.
Nor can faithful disciples of Jesus be people who
merely theorize and argue, but never bother to practice
what they have understood and learned. At this point the
SM is critical of superficial intellectualism.
Finally, disciples ofJesus cannot be those who mind-
lessly take Jesus' precepts and put them into practice.
The sayings of Jesus are not laws, fixed precepts, or
directives to be applied without question. In this respect
the SM is critical of the mindless activists or slavish
devotees who practice whatever they are told. All too
often readers have taken the sayings of the SM to be
unconditional orders, irrational pronouncements, or
radical axioms to be implemented in blind faith and
without further thought. Clear as most of the sayings of
the SM are, they remain short, condensed, couched in
rich imagery. They are composed to be appropriated
critically and self-consciously. Most of them are, indeed,
also rather general, so much so that one can apply them
to various forms of discipleship, no matter what school of
thought. 37
Verse 24 boldly regards the faithful disciple as a man
of prudence: "he will be like a prudent man"
(ilp.otw8~0'€TaL av~ple/>pov{p.Cf' ). 38 The future tense refers
to the following comparison 39 as well as to the future of
the man in the story (vs 25), including both his future in
this world and in the next. The term ilp.ou)ro ("compare")
reflects Jesus' way of introducing his parables elsewhere
in the gospel tradition. 40
As already mentioned, the "prudent man" is a stock
character known from wisdom literature and philosophy.
In the only mention of him in the SM he represents the
ideal disciple who lives in accordance with the teachings
of the SM. 41 This means that the SM itself claims to be

35 The terminology of 4>povliv, ti>POV'Ijau, tl>pOv&p.os
("think, thinking, prudent") has played an enormous
role in Greek philosophy especially since Plato and
Aristotle. The terms designate intellectual insight
informed by the good and informing action. As an
intellectual and practical force ti>POV'f/U'IS ("thinking")
transforms knowledge into action and makes action
conform to reason. For the literature see Robert
Joly, Le theme philosophique des genres de vie dans
l'antiquite classique (Memoires de I' Academie de
Belgique, Classe des Lettres 51.3; Brussels: Palais de
l'Academie, 1956); Bruno Snell, "il>plvEs-tl>pOv1ju&s,"
Glotta 55 (1977) 34-64; Heinz]. Schlifer, Phronesis
bei Platon (Bochum: Brockmeyer, 1981 ); Olof Gigon,
"Phronesis und Sophia in der Nikomachischen Ethik
des Aristoteles," in Kephalaion: Studies in Greek
Philosophy and Its Continuation Offered to Professor C. J.
De Vogel (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975) 91-104; Troels
Engberg-Pedersen, Aristotle's Theory ofMoral Insight
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1983), with bibliography. For
the NT see the article by Georg Bertram, "<l>p~v
nlt..," TDNT 9.220-35.
36 Cf. Matthew's own goal (Matt 28:20): "teaching them
to keep all that I have commanded you."
37 For a rabbinic characterization of the Torah student
(tal mid) cf. 'Abot, chap. 6, entitled "Acquisition of the
Torah" (Qinyan Torah). See Danby, Mishnah, 458 n.
12; Schurer, History, 3.214-15; Strack and Stem-
berger, Einleitung, 23-24 (Introduction, 14-16).
38 The variant reading bp.o&oouoo ai>Tov ("I shall liken him
to") inC L W 1006. 1342. 1506 9Jt fh k q sy"·h bo
Cyprian is secondary. The change looks like a
grammatical improvement because the future passive
was in doubt. The meaning, however, is clear from
SP/Luke 6:47: "I will show you whom he is like," and
vs 48: "he is like." See below on these SP passages,
and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 20. The passive
future is read by the better witnesses: K B Z 8 Jl.l 3
33. 205. 700. 892. al ffll vg syp.hmg sa mae (so Aland,
Synopsis, 99 ad Joe.).
39 Cf. also Matt 25:1; furthermore, SM/Matt 6:8; 7:26;
Matt 11:16; 13:24; 18:23; 22:2 and respective
parallels; Acts 14:11; Rom 9:29. See BAGD, s. v.
OJ.Lou!uJl, 2.
40 See Str-B 1.653-55; 2.7-9;Julicher, Gleichnisreden,
l.43-44;Jeremias, Parables, 100-103.
41 See also other synoptic references: Matt 10: 16;
24:45//Luke 12:42; Matt 25:2, 4, 8, 9; Luke 16:8;
and the Pauline tradition: Rom 11 :25; 12: 16; 1 Cor
4:1 0; 10: 15; 2 Cor 11:19. See Georg Bertram, TDNT
9.232-34 (D.3-5).

562

cJ>pov7JuLs ("practical thinking"). 4 2 This thinking,
however, does not serve as an end in itself but forms the
character of concrete persons. This goal conforms to the
Jewish concept of the "sage" (C:::lM), 43 but it also
corresponds to the Greek idea of the "philosopher"
(cf>LA.ouocf>os). 44 By comparison, the ideal figure of "the
good man" (o aya8hs lfv8pCJnros) in the SP is based on a
somewhat different anthropology (see below on SP /
Luke 6:45).
The man's wisdom is said to consist of the right way of
building: "he built his house on rock" (CJuns ~KoOOfA.7JtTW
avTov T~v olKlav f?T~ T~v ?T£Tpav). In the picture, the
builder has a choice on which ground he should build.
He is well advised to make sure that the ground under-
neath is solid rock. "Building a house" 45 points to the
disciple's own life as a follower ofJesus. 46 Every person is
presumably building his or her house oflife. This house
consists of thoughts, speech, and practice; it begins with
one's education as a disciple and ends only with death.
42 See above, n. 35. The term plays only a minor role in
the synoptic tradition (see Mark 8:33//Matt 16:23;
Luke 1: 17), but in the Pauline tradition it occurs
more frequently. For the passages see BAGD, s. v.
</Jpov(w KTA.
43 See Hans-Peter MOller and Martin Krause, "c:ln
chiikham," ThWAT 2.920-44 (TDOT 4.364-85) with
bibliography; Urbach, Sages, 1.630-48.
44 See Otto Michel, "</JtA.o<Tocpia, </JtA.O<To</Jos," TDNT
9.172-88.
45 For the literature see above, n. 2.
46 The SM gives no indication that the idea of a house
church is implied. See also above on SM/Matt 5:15.
47 From all I can see the community of the SM was not
made up of wandering charismatics. Zeller (Mahn-
sprilche, 173) is right that Matt 7:24-27 presupposes
"a relatively stable teaching relationship."
48 The literature on this topic is vast. For bibliography
see the pertinent lexicon articles, esp. Oscar Cull-
mann, "1drpa," TDNT6.95-99; idem, "IT(rpos,"
K71 cpas," TDNT6.100-112; ThWNT 10/2 (1979)
1230-32 (bibliography); Rudolf Pesch, EWNT
(EDN1) 3, s.v. 7T(rpa; also 2, s.v. KTJ</Jas; 3, s.v. IT(rpos.
For more recent studies see Otto Betz, "Felsenmann
und Felsengemeinde," in his jesus, der Messias Israels:
Aufsiitze zur biblischen Theologie (To bingen: Mohr
[Siebeck], 1987) 99-126; A. F.]. Klijn, "Die Worter
'Stein' und 'Felsen' in der syrischen Ubersetzung des
Neuen Testaments," ZNW 50 (1959) 99-105;Jean
Danielou, "Fels," RAC 7 (1969) 723-32; Paul
Hoffmann, "Der Petrus-Primat im Matthaus-
evangelium," in Joachim Gnilka, ed., Neues Testament
Matthew 7:24-27
These things determine whether one is "at home" in
life. 47
The reference to building "on the rock" (€?T~ T~v
?T£Tpav) looks self-evident as professional wisdom, but it
has an unusual side too. The matter is mentioned only
here in the SM (and in the parallel in the SP). The image
of the rock is presented as though it were familiar to the
hearers or readers. Indeed, behind the imagery lurks an
entire rock mythology 48 that has played an extraor-
dinary role in early Christianity, particularly in
connection with the church of Peter. 49
Since the church of Matthew developed out of the
Petrine tradition, the Peter-rock connection is fun-
und Kirche: FS fur RudolfSchnackenburg (Freiburg:
Herder, 1974) 94-114; Robert Murray, "The Rock
and the House on the Rock," in his Symbols of Church
and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University, 1975) 205-38;Joseph
A. Fitzmyer, "Aramaic Kepha' and Peter's Name in
the New Testament," in Ernest Best and Robert
MeL. Wilson, eds., Text and Interpretation: Essays in
Honour ofMatthew Black (Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1979) 121-32; Peter Lampe, "Das Spiel
mit dem Petrusnamen: Matth. X Vl.18 ," NTS 2 5
(1979) 227-45; Timothy]. Cornell, "Grunder," RAC
12 (1983) 1107-71, esp. 114 7-48;Josef Fellermayr,
"Hereditas," RAC 14 (1988) 626-48, esp. 644 on the
hereditas Petri (inheritance of Peter).
49 The later anti-Pauline tradition of the Kerygma/a
Petrou (Ps. Clem. Hom. 17 .19.4) and the primary
source called by scholars the Grundschrift (Ep. Clem.
1.2) continue the emphasis on Peter being the rock
and foundation of the church. On this point see
Rudolf Pesch, Simon-Petrus: Geschichte und geschicht-
liche Bedeutung des ersten Jungers Jesu Christi (Papste
und Papsttum 15; Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1980);
Klaus Berger, "Unfehlbare Offenbarung: Petrus in
der gnostischen und apokalyptischen Offenbarungs-
literatur," in Paul-Gerhard MOller and Werner
Stenger, eds., Kontinutiit und Einheit: FS fur Franz
Mussner (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1981)
261-326, esp. 285ff. For the Apocalypse of Peter (NRC
VII, 3) see Klaus Koschorke, Die Polemik der Gnostiker
gegen das Kirchliche Christentum (NHSt 12; Leiden:
Brill, 1978) 39-42;NTApok. 2.21-22.
563
damental. 50 The name of Peter is mentioned first in the
call narrative of Matt 4: 18-22: "Simon who was called
Peter." Then after the references in 7:24 and 7:25 the
story of Peter's installation as "the rock" in 16:13-19
climaxes in Jesus' solemn promise, formulated as a
beatitude:
Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah!
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but
my Father who is in the heavens.
And I say to you: You are Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall
not overpower it.
I shall give you the keys of the kingdom of the
heavens, and whatever you bind on the earth will
be bound in the heavens; and whatever you loose
on the earth will be loosed in the heavens. (my
trans.)
As New Testament scholars recognized long ago, this
passage comes from pre-Matthean tradition, in which it
functioned as one of the foundational texts of the church
of Peter. This origin explains its role in the Gospel of
Matthew because this Gospel belongs to the Petrine
tradition at a later stage of the history of early Chris-
tianity. It also explains the parallels between Matt 16:13-
19 and the SM.
Both passages presuppose the Peter-rock imagery and
ideology, together with its theological implications (see
above on SM/Matt 6:14-15). The section Matt 16:13-
19 seems to be, however, later than the SM in a number
of respects.
The SM does not mention "the church"(~ €KKA7Jula), 51
and "the rock" is Jesus' teaching, presumably as it was
handed down in the community that developed into the
Petrine church. The SM has no concept of the church;
the disciples are addressed simply as "you." The rule of
SM/Matt 6:14-15 is given to all disciples, not only to
Peter as in 16:19. Yet, there are also reasons to make a
connection between "the rock" and Peter in 7:24-26.
First, Matthew himself makes the connection. 52 Jesus'
programmatic statement in 7:24-26 is followed by
further references to Peter (8: 14; 10:2; 14:28-29;
15:15), in order then to reach the climax in 16:13-19.
Peter continues to play an important role later in the
Gospel (16:22-23; 17:1, 4, 24, 25; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33,
35, 37, 40, 58, 69, 73, 75). The end of this role comes
when Peter, together with all the other disciples, leaves
Jesus and flees (26:56). Peter is not mentioned by name
again after his denial (26:75). He was not present at the
crucifixion and did not see the risen Jesus as the first
witness. For Matthew, the new constitution of the church
given by the risen Christ (28: 16-20) does not single out
Peter from the eleven disciples.
This evidence may mean that for Matthew Peter had
played a significant role in the history of the Matthean
church, but long before the evangelist's own time his role
had ended. Thus, Matthew can acknowledge his
indebtedness to the Petrine tradition and include a great
deal of it in his Gospel, but at the same time he limits
Peter's role to the past.5!1
Second, a possible confirmation comes from the letters
of Paul. 1 Cor 3: 10-15 contains a veiled polemic against
people challenging his authority in the Corinthian
church. We do not know who these attackers were, but
we cannot overlook that the names of Paul, Cephas,
Apollos, and Christ play a role in the controversies and
factionalism (1 Cor 1: 12; 3:4, 22). The statement in 1
Cor 3:11 seems to deny Peter's authority as the rock of
foundation: "Another foundation no one can lay besides
the one (already) laid, who is Jesus Christ. " 54
For Paul Christ is undoubtedly the "rock," not Peter. 55
On the Christ-rock the apostles then construct the
building of the church, which, in Paul's terminology, is
"a spiritual temple" (1 Cor 3: 16-1 7; 6: 19). It is a house
built from gold, silver, precious stones, timber, grass, and
reed (3:12), though not metaphorically. The test for this
building is the fire (3: 13-16). Therefore, it seems that
Paul knew the Peter-rock ideology and opposed it. The
polemic in 1 Corinthians 3 is veiled, but that is true of

50 By comparison, the Pauline tradition has always 52 Thus, Matthew seems to agree with Eph 2:20 that
favored Christ being the "rock" and foundation of the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles
the church (see also 1 Cor 10:4; Ignatius Polyc. 1.1; and prophets, with Christ Jesus being its capstone."
Barn. 5.14; 6.3; IrenaeusAdv. haer. 3.38.2 [ed. 53 So, correctly, Danielou, RAG 7.727.
Harvey, 2.132]). For the history of the interpretation 54 See also Rom 15:20; Eph 2:20; 3:17; Coll:23; Heb
see Luz, Matthaus, 1.414-15 (Matthew, 1.453-54). 6:1; 11:10.
51 The name is used of Matthew's own church (16:18; 55 Cf. also I Cor 10:4; Rom 9:32-33; Col2:7; Eph
18:17). 3:17-19; I Pet 2:8.

564
 Matthew 7:24-27

most of these early polemics, including the one against
the "pillars" in Gal2:1-10.
Third, the debate about the Peter-rock ideology did
not end with the New Testament writers. We encounter
the debate again in an interesting confrontation between
Peter and Simon Magus (a cover name for Paul) 56 in Ps.-
Clem. Hom. 17.19:57
If, then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made
himself known and conversed (with you), he did so in
anger as with an adversary, and this is why he spoke
through visions and dreams or even through reve-
lations, 58 happening from the outside. But can anyone
be equipped for teaching on account of a vision? And
if you answer, "It is possible," then why did the
teacher remain for a year and converse with those
who were awake? On the other hand, how are we to
believe you regarding this claim that he appeared to
you? 59 How could he have appeared to you when you
hol9 opinions opposite to his teaching? And if you
were visited by him and made his disciple and apostle
in one hour, proclaim his utterances, interpret his
sayings, (then) love his apostles, and do not fight me
°
who was together with him. 6 For you stand in direct
opposition to me who am the sturdy rock, the founda-
tion of the church. 61 If you were not my opponent,
you would not defame and revile the proclamation
(proclaimed) through me, so that I may not be
believed when I say what I have heard from the Lord
when I myself was present, as if I am obviously the one
"condemned" and you the one "approved"! Yet, if you
call me "condemned," you in fact accuse God who
revealed the Christ to me, and you drag down him
who blessed me for the revelation. 62 But if you really
wish to cooperate with the truth, then learn first of all
from us what we have learned from him, and having
become a disciple of the truth then become our
collaborator. 63
• 25 The parallels between the SM and Paul's letters
extend also to the dangers awaiting the building. While
for Paul the testing is the purification by fire (1 Cor 3:13,
15, 17), for the SM it is the calamities of the weather:
"And the rain came down, and the rivers came, and the
winds blew" (Kat Kadf3TJ ~ {3pox~ Kat ~AOov ol 7TOTaJ.tot Kat
t1rv£vcrav olllv£J.tOt). The list of the events is proverbial
and suggests the area's typical torrential rains, 64 fol-
lowed by enormous swelling of the rivers 65 and flash
floods down the mountain slopes, accompanied by
pounding winds. 66 This scenario differs from the SP, as
already mentioned, in which (SP /Luke 6:48) the river
floods a valley and washes away the ground underneath
the building sitting on the sand.

56 Scholars agree that the person Peter criticizes is the
apostle Paul, although his name is replaced by that of
Simon Magus. See Strecker,judenchristentum, 187-
96; Gerd Luedemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish
Christianity (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1989) 169-94.
57 The trans. is mine. See also Betz, Galatians, 332-33;
Luedemann, Opposition, 187-88.
58 Cf. Gall:16; and Betz, Galatians, 71-72.
59 Cf. I Cor 9:1; 15:8.
60 Ps.-Clem. Hom. 17.19.4: £111' fnr' £K£lvov p.tar ;J,par
OtJ>8£'is Kal JJ.a8'1/T£v8El~ lL7T61TTOAos ~yJvov, ras- £K£lvov
tJ>wvtzs K~pVUCT£, T(t £K£lVOV £pp:r}V£V£, T01JS' £K£lvov
Q..,.ouTOAovr </JlA£L, £p.otTcp uvyy£vop.lvcp avTcp p.~
p..ixov. The source of the information that Christ
visited and instructed Paul for one hour is not known.
61 Ibid., 17.19.4: .,.pllr yap unp£av .,.lrpav lfvra p.£,
8£p.fALOV lKKA'T/<Tlar' lvav.-lor av8luT'T/Kiir' p.OL. See also
Ps.-Clem. Ep. Clem. 1.2. Peter is defended against
Paul's accusation in Gal2:11; it is, however, unlikely
that the Kerygmata Petrou were familiar with the letter
to the Galatians as a whole, but the account in Paul's
letter was known to the authors.
62 Cf.Gal2:ll;Mattl6:17.
63 Cf. Acts 1:21-22 for this rule of apostleship. Accord-
ing to this rule Paul does not qualify as an apostle,
but the author of Luke-Acts shows in his work how
Paul became a collaborator of the apostles. The
combination of the Gospel of Luke with the Acts
demonstrates that Paul's mission is not a direct
continuation of the teaching ofJesus.
64 {3pox~ is mentioned only here and in vs 27, and it is
different from the beneficial rain in 5:45. Cf. the
different term in SP /Luke 6:48.
65 The plural "the rivers" (o! .,.orap.ol) occurs in vss 25
and 27; SP /Luke 6:48, 49 has the singular. For the
image cf. 2 Cor 11:26.
66 The plural "the winds" (o! liv£p.ot) occurs in vss 25 and
27; there is no equivalent in SP /Luke 6:48-49. Cf.
Matt 8:26-27; Eph 4:14;Jas 3:4.

565
 Yet, while the forces of the weather "fell on that
house, it did not fall" (Kat 7rpocrE7T£crav Tfj OLKL<t fK£lvy, KaL
oh ~7T£cr£v). 67 The choice of the terms is deliberate. 68
The house did not collapse, 69 because "it was founded on
the rock" (u8£p.£A.lwTo yap f7TL T~v 7TETpav). According to
some scholars,7° these calamities symbolize the escha-
tological judgment, not the hazards of the human life
here on earth. The text, however, intends to speak of
this world, without excluding the eschatological dimen-
sions. For the SM, the calamities of the bad weather
point to the dangers awaiting the disciples and complicat-
ing their travel on the rough road. These dangers are
certainly real enough, whether external or internal. But
the eschatological dimension is real too, because the
collapse of failed discipleship will be revealed and have
consequences in the last judgment.
• 26 The contrasting figure of the "foolish man" is
introduced in vs 26 in analogy to vs 24: "But everyone
who hears these words of mine but does not do them"
(KaL yap 0 aKoilwv p.ov Toils >..6yovs TOilTovs KaL ,..~ 7TOtWV
avTo'Ls). 71 Hearing without doing amounts to failure of
discipleship, but the SM has more in mind than a simple
commonplace. Disciples who never get beyond listening
to the words of Jesus may not intend to disobey their
master. They are not like the would-be disciples por-
trayed elsewhere in the Gospels (see, e.g., Mark 10:22
par.), who fully understand jesus' words but remain in a
state of indecision. Rather, the SM focuses on those who
listen and listen and listen, while it never occurs to them
that they should implement what they have heard in
their daily lives. Those people may hear, but they do not
understand. A person of this kind is compared with the
foolish builder: "he will be like a foolish man"
(op.otw8~cr£Tat avOpL p.wpii_J ), the antitype of the faithful
disciple ofvss 24-25. One should note that the man is
merely compared with a fool but not called such (cf.
SM/Matt 5:22). Instead, he should recognize himself as
such. The character of the fool was another stock figure,
known from literature and even the theater stage.
What does his folly consist of? He is one "who built his
house on the sand" (CJcrns ~KOOdJL1JCT£V avTOV T~V OLKLaV hi
T~v lfp.p.ov). 72 From the builder's point of view as well as
from everyone's experience such a project is certainly
imprudent.
As regards the metaphor, the question is whether the
sand means something specific. According to the
tradition, sand symbolizes the multitudes of the na-
tions. 73 It was Paul who appealed to the Abraham-
tradition, with its promise to Abraham that his offspring
would be as many as the sand on the beaches. 74 The
question, therefore, arises whether vs 26 contains a
veiled polemic against the Christian mission to the
Gentiles. Given the metaphorical contrast between
"rock" and "sand" in the context of polemics against
Gentile Christianity and the veiled character of such
polemics, the conclusion is not farfetched that, viewed by
the SM, building on sand is what Paul and his churches
are doing. 7 5
If the character of the "foolish man" was applied to
Pauline Christianity, Paul's letter to the Corinthians may
bear it out. Could Paul have heard and ironically
accepted what opponents had called him when he

67 Instead of 1rpou-i-rrflrav ("they fell upon"), some
manuscripts read differently: W has 7rpocr€Kpovcrav
("they knocked against"); C 0 J 1 205 pc: 1rpocr€pp7J~av
("they tore against"; cf. SP/Luke 6:48, 49); 33. 1424 72
pc: 1rpocr€Koljrav ("they beat against"; cf. SM/Matt
7:27). The tendency is clearly to harmonize the
tradition.
68 See above, nn. 13 and 14.
69 1ri1rrw of the collapse of buildings is common; see
BAGD, s.v. 1ri1rrw, l.b.f3; P. Oxy. 1 no. 7 (Aland,
Synopsis, 77); Cos. Thom. log. 32 (see Layton, Nag
Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, 67, 120 [saying 32, lines 39- 74
40]). For the figurative meaning see BAGD, s.v.
7rl7fTW, 2.
70 Strecker, Bergpredigt, 178-79 (Sermon, 171-72);
Marguerat, Le jugement, 204-5; Luz, Matthiius, 1.413
with n. 10 (Matthew, 1.453 with n. 1 0).
71 Some witnesses (0 J 13 pc) put the clause into finite
form: Cfurrs Cz.Ko-Dn and 7TOLE'i ("whoever hears" and
"does").
Some variants (C LJ 13 1006. 1342. 1506 9Jt) change
the WOrd order tO T~V OtK{av aVTOV, for no particular
reason it seems (cf. vs 24). The Nestle-Aiand text is
represented by K B W Z (0)f1 700. 892 pc.
73 See, e.g., Pss 78:27; 139: 18; Sir 1:2. Cf. the use of
the term with armies josh 11:4;Judg 7:12; 1 Sam
13:5; 2 Sam 17:11; or with the people oflsrael: lsa
10:22; 48: 19; etc.
See Gen 12:1-3; 13:16; 17:5; 22:17; 32:12;jos. Asen.
15.7. See Ludwig Wachter, ".,!:lll," ThWAT 6 (1989)
279, esp. section III. I.
75 See Gal 3:6-31; and for the parallels see Betz,
Galatians, 137-43.

566
 Matthew 7:24-27

confesses, "We are fools for Christ's sake" (~p.E'is p.wpot ottz
Xpturov)? 76 In Paul's own interpretation, a fool for
Christ's sake is wiser than the sages of this world. The
conclusion may, therefore, be justified that Paul puts on
the shoe handed to him, but does so with irony.
If there is a polemic against Gentile Christianity or
even Paul in the SM passage, it is not the main purpose.
The main purpose is certainly to issue a warning to the
disciples of the SM. This warning leads back to the
commission in SM/Matt 5:13: "If the salt becomes
'dumb' [p.wpavllfi]." The choice of the verb is deliberate
and points to the av~p p.wpos (the "dumb fellow"). 77 The
warning may also be directed against those who may be
tempted to switch parties and join the Pauline camp. If
they do, they would fail like the saltless salt (5: 13), the
light put under the bushel and thus useless for illuming
the house (5: 14-16), or the group vainly approaching
Jesus in the last judgment (7:21-23).
• 27 The fate of the house built on the sand is told in
analogy to vs 25: "And the rain came down and the rivers
came and the winds blew and beat against that house"
(Kat Kad{j7J ~ {jpox~ Kat ~Aeov o£ 7TOTap.ot Kat E'7TvEvuav o£
llvEp.ot Kat 7Tpou£Ko'l/mv rij olK{f!. fKElvn ). 7 8 The repetitive-
ness of the events is intentional and creates the impres-
sion of the sameness of the hazards as well as their
relentlessness. There is no way to escape the vicissitudes
of nature and history. The only protection one has is the
ground the house is built on. As one would expect, the
house sitting on the sand cannot absorb the beating: 79
"and it fell, and its downfall was a great one" (Kat E'7TECTW
Kat ~V ~ 7TTWCT!S avrijs p.EyctA.7]). 8 0
The collapse of the house is a reminder of another
maxim, not in the SM but in Paul: "He who thinks he
stands, let him see to it that he does not fall" (o ooKwv
£uravat {jAE7TfTW p.~ 7TfCT!l [I Cor 10: 12]). 81 The word
7TTWCTtS ("downfall") is often used of the collapse of
buildings, but its metaphorical and proverbial usage is
well known, too. 82 The noun corresponds to the verb
7Tl7TTHV ("fall"), used throughout the passage (vss 25, 27),
just as in the parallel passage SP /Luke 6:49 ro pijy7]p.a
("the breaking") corresponds to 7Tpoup~yvvp.t/ 7Tpoup~uuw
("break"). 83
This language is certainly ominous. At the literal level
a house under which the ground is slipping away will
collapse totally. Applied metaphorically, it refers to the
slipping away of the ground on which discipleship is
built, the disappearance of a person's "house of life" in
the this-worldly and the metaphysical, eschatalogical
sense. 84 The violence of the image is relentless, but in
that regard not different from other such warnings (see
5:13c, 15, 26, 30; 6:19-20,23, 24; 7:6b, 13, 19, 23).

76 See above, n. 6. 80 0 jl 3 33 al mae add ut/J6opa ("very great").

77 See above on SM/Matt 5:13 and 5:23.
78 For unknown reasons K* omits ;1rvwuav o! li.v<p.o•
("the winds blew"). Some witnesses replace
1rpoulKo1jlav ("they pounded against") by other verbs
(cf. vs 25): C 0 jl 205 pc read 7rpou(ppTJ~av ("they
burst against," as in SP /Luke 6:49); or p 3 pc
7rpou(Kpovuav ("they knock against").
79 The verb 1rpouK61rrw ("beat against") is stronger than
7rpou7rL7rrro ("fall upon") in vs 25, representing a
climax; but cf. the variant readings in vss 25 and 27.
The verb 1rpouK61rrw ("give offense") and its
derivatives play a role in paraenesis; see Rom 9:32-
33; 14:21; 1 Cor 8:9; 2 Cor 6:3; 1 Pet 2:8; and
BAGD, s.v. 7rp6uKop.p.a, 7rpOuK07r~, 1rpouK61rrw. The
terminology is somewhat similar in meaning to
uKavoal\i(w KTA. ("scandalize").
81 See also Rom 14:4; 2 Clem. 2.6; Rev 2.5; cf. Prov
24:16.
82 Cf. Luke 2:34, and the parallels given in BAGD, s.v.
7rrwu1s; Jeremias, Parables, 194 n. 8.
83 See below on SP /Luke 6:49.
84 The "great collapse" is an emphatic expression
(Latin: magna ruina). Cf. Luke 2:34; Zeno (SVF 1.51);
Otto Kern, ed., Orphicorum Fragmenta (3d ed.; Zurich
and Dublin: Weidmann, 1972) no. 251; PhiloMigr.
Abr. 1. For parallels see Wettstein, 1.346-47;
Wilhelm Michaelis, "7rrwu1s ," TDNT 6.167-68.

567
 The Sermon .on the Plain
[SP/Luke 6:20b-49]

• •
• •
• •
• •
•
 Luke 6:20b-26

Ch._pter I
6 The Beatitudes and the Woes
20b Blessed (are) the poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed (are) those that hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed (are) those that weep now,
for you will laugh.
22 Blessed are you, when people hate you,
and (that means) when they exclude you
and revile you,
and spurn your name as evil on account
of the Son of man.
23 Be joyful in that day and leap about,
for behold, your reward is great in
heaven,
for in this same manner their forefathers
did to the prophets.
24 However, woe to you rich,
for you have (already) received your
consolation.
25 Woe to you that are full now,
for you will hunger.
Woe (to you) that laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
26 Woe (to you), when all people speak well of
you,
for in the same manner their forefathers
did to the false prophets.

1. Introduction 2. Analysis The exordium of the SP consists of two groups of four

Like the SM, the SP begins with a carefully composed
exordium. 1 Comparison between the two exordia, how-
ever, shows significant differences in the compositions
that cannot be accidental. These differences are subtle
and indigenous. They are unlikely to be the work of later
redactors, but seem to be original to the compositions
and reflect fundamentally different presuppositions.
These presuppositions have determined the form of the
presynoptic level, and they point to perspectives different
from those of the evangelist Luke. 2
parallel beatitudes (vss 20b-22) and four threats, or
"woes" (vss 24-26). 3 Between those an appeal for joy is
inserted (vs 23) that states an eschatological reason for
the promise of the kingdom of God in the present (vss
20c and 22a) and in the future (vs 21 band c). Thus, vs
23 forms a hinge between the two sections; it has no
corresponding statement after the "woes."
Both the beatitudes and the "woes" are stated in the
second person plural. In this regard they differ from
the SM, which states them partly in the third, partly in
the second, person plural. 4 There is really no ground

On the exordium ofSM, see above on SM/Matt 5:3-
12.
2 Differently, Peter Klein, "Die lukanischen Weherufe
Lk 6,24-26," ZNW 71 (1980) 150-59; Fitzmyer,
Luke, 1.627; Lambrecht, Sermon, 68-74, 207. These
authors regard the "woes" as a Lukan composition.
Crossan (In Fragments, 168-74) has an even more
complicated thesis: an earlier Q-sermon contained
seven woes; Luke cut them down to four, while
Matthew shifted them to Matt 13:13, 15, 16, 23, 25,
27, 29. But Crossan does not consider the fact that
SM expresses the threats in a different way in Matt
7:13-23. Also the content of the "woes" in Matthew
23 has little in common with those in SP /Luke 6:24-
26.
3 This juxtaposition of the good and the bad person is
basic to the entire SP (see 6:45) and recurs in the
peroration (peroratio, 6:46-49) with the contrast
between the successful and the failing student.
Different from the SM on this point, the SP does not
presuppose the Two Ways schema.
4 On this point, see above, pp. l l 0-11.

571
for arguing for a greater "originality" (whatever that
may mean) for either formulation, although such
attempts are continuously made in the commentary
literature. 5 In all instances, the beatitudes as well as the
"woes" in the SP are meant to address the disciples for
whom the text was composed.
When one looks into the details, the composition
becomes more intricate. Although a direct address is
no doubt intended, the structure of the beatitudes
leaves the matter in partial ambiguity. 6 Jacques
Dupont and Heinz Schiirmann have pointed out the
"quite usual construction" of these sentences. 7 The
introductory nominatives clash with the addressees in
the following clauses and require a change of subject.
Such a construction demands an explanation.
Taken by themselves, the introductory statements
in vss 20b and 21a and care factual statements:
"Blessed (are) the poor," "Blessed (are) the hungry
now," and "Blessed (are) those who weep now." These
concise statements doubtless sum up what is otherwise
known from passages in early Christian and jewish
eschatology, that is, they serve as reminders of doc-
trinal presuppositions. 8
This part of the sentence has, therefore, the
purpose of bringing known doctrinal facts before the
addressees and to apply them at once. Comparison of
the beatitudes with the "woes," however, shows that,
grammatically at least, the latter are more directly
applied. The address "to you" (up.lv) in vss 24a and 25a
and c9 (cf. "you" [up.iis], vs 26a) has no corresponding
part in the first three beatitudes (vss 20b, 21a and c),
but has a direct correspondence in the fourth beati-
tude (vs 22a) and the fourth "woe" (vs 26a). In both
instances, this direct address is made dependent on
conditions in the two following llrav-clauses. This fact
may imply that the conditional nature is to be carried
over into the first three beatitudes as well, indicating
that the disciples are not simply identified as the poor,
the hungry, and those who weep, but that whether
they want to be included among these people is left up
to them. One may conclude, therefore, that what at
first appears to be a primitive sentence construction in
5 Grundmann rightly emphasized this point (Lukas,
140-41) and Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.329-
30, with nn. 23-25).
6 Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.281, 297.
7 Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.330.
8 See Luke 1:53; 4:18 (Isa 61.1-2 LXX); 7:22; 16:19- 9
31; 1 Cor 1:26-29; 2 Cor 8:2, 9;Jas 2:1-7. Forthe
history of the promise, see Friedrich Hauck and
Ernst Bammel, "wrwx6s KTA.," TDNT 6.886-87, 889-
94, 895-907, 911 (A. II, B. II, C.II-V, D. I and IV).
For its "misinterpretation" by Caiaphas, see Ps.-Clem.
Rec. 1.61.2: "jesus ... spoke vain things, saying that
572
fact serves a designed paraenetic purpose.
Apart from these peculiar features, the first three
beatitudes in the SPare composed in a way similar to
those in the SM. The beginning is an acclamation
followed by the naming of the addressees, where the
additional adverb "now" (vvv ) in vs 21a and c is
conspicuous. 1 0 The second part of the sentence
contains in each instance the eschatological reason.
The first three "woes" are exact antithetical parallels to
the beatitudes. Beginning with the threatening "woe"
and the address of the disciples, the reason is provided
in the concluding part of the sentence (vss 24, 25a and
c). The fourth "woe" (vs 26) corresponds to the fourth
beatitude (vs 22) and shows the same changes: the
threat is followed by the conditional situations.
Excursus:
"Poor" and "Rich"
One of the main differences between the SM and the
SP lies in the view of human society each presents.
These views are stated in the exordia of the SM and the
SP, in the case of the latter in the beatitudes (SP /Luke
6:20b-23) and the "woes" (SP /Luke 6:24-26). The
SM sees the surrounding world in terms of jewish
thought, separating people into groups of the righ-
teous and the unrighteous and defining the righteous
as "the poor in spirit" (see above on SM/Matt 5:3).
In contrast, the SP divides human society into the
poor and the rich. This division reflects the conceptual
world of the Hellenistic moralists, who tend to view the
poor positively while castigating the rich. Con-
sequently, the beatitudes address the poor while the
"woes" abjure the rich. Taken together, the beatitudes
(SP /Luke 6:20b-22) amount to a social description of
the type "poor," that is, of destitute individuals.
Hunger, weeping, and discrimination are singled out
as concrete situations. Such descriptions are known as
well from other New Testament texts (see, e.g., Mark
12:41-44 par.; Luke 16:19-31;Jas 2:1-7) and from
Hellenistic literature elsewhere.
the poor are blessed and he promised earthly
rewards." See also Rec. 2.28.3; and Hans Waitz, "Eine
Parallele zu den Seligpreisungen aus einem auBer-
kanonischen Evangelium," ZNW 4 (1903) 335-40;
Bammel, TDNT6.914.
On the textual tradition, see below on vss 24 and 25.
10 For the textual tradition, see below on vs 21.

Similarly, the "woes" (SP/Luke 6:24-26) describe
the social type "rich" by satirically characterizing their
habits of filling themselves, of laughing indecently, and
of enjoying their good reputation, if not flattery. For
descriptions of this type in the New Testament, see
Luke 12:16-21;Jas 2:2-4.
The juxtaposition of these two social types is
realistic in the sense of the realism found in the
Hellenistic moralists. Social situations are described
vividly and with a bias intended to generate favor for
the poor and contempt for the rich. As in other
Hellenistic literature, these stereotypes serve the
purpose of moral exhortation.
Bibliography
Barry Baldwin, "Lucian as Social Satirist," ClQn.s. 11
(1961) 199-208.
Betz,Lukian, 75-76,86-87, 194-99.
Idem, PECL 2, index, s.v. Poverty, Wealth.
Willem den Boer, Private Morality in Greece and Rome:
Some Historical Aspects (Mnemosyne Sup 57; Leiden:
Brill, 1979) 151-78.
Robert M. Grant, Early Christianity and Society (New
York: Harper & Row, 1977).
Herbert Grassl, Sozialokonomische Vorstellungen in der
kaiserzeitlichen griechischen Literatur (1.-3. ]h. n. Chr.)
(Historia, Einzelschriften 41; Wiesbaden: Steiner,
1982) 65-166.
Friedrich Hauck and Wilhelm Kasch, "1rroox.Ss ~er>...,"
TDNT 6.885-915.
Idem, "1r>..oiiros ~er>...," TDNT 6.318-32.
Jacob Hemelrijk, IIENIA en Ili\OYTO:E (Amsterdam:
Blikrnan and Sartorius, 1925 ).
Lausberg, Handbuch, 1, § 820-25.
Ramsay MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 50 B.C. to
A.D. 284 (New Haven and London: Yale Uni-
versity, 1974).
Abraham J. Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
Jan Jacob van Manen, IIENIA en Ili\OYTO:E in de
periodenaAlexander(Zutphen: N. V. Nauta, 1931).
Martin, Rhetorik, 291-93.
Helmut Merklein, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. 1TAovros and
1TTOOX0S (bibliography).
Wilhelm SuB, Ethos: Studien zur iilteren griechischen
Rhetorik (Leipzig: Teubner, 1910) 234-35.
11 Cf. Mark 1:14-15 par.
12 This is what I have suggested in an earlier study (see
Betz, Essays, 26-28; furthermore idem, Galatians,
181-85).
13 On this point see also Schiirrnann, Lukasevangelium,
1.383-84.
14 Lambrecht (Sermon, 35-40) argues differently and
accepts the older hypothesis that behind a postulated
Luke 6:20b-26
Manfred Wacht, "Guterlehre," RAG 13 (1985) 59-150
(bibliography).
As to its content, the exordium states the indicative of
salvation, a dogmatic statement that includes the
beatitudes and the "woes." The promise of the kingdom
of God is assumed to be known and thus functions as a
reminder; in a way, it is quoted, certainly with reference
to the preaching ofJesus. 11 Accordingly, the disciples
can proceed from the fact that the kingdom has been
promised to them.
The special question is where the disciples can be
assumed to have first heard the promise. One can infer
on the basis of the context and other New Testament
references that the promise was first conveyed in a ritual
act outside the text of the SP. Was this act the ritual of
baptism? 12 It is possible, but neither the SM nor the SP
mentions baptism in their texts or in their immediate
contexts. Also, whether the church that formulated both
texts used the ritual of baptism at that time is unknown.
All one can be sure of is that the call to discipleship must
have taken place prior to the statement of the beatitudes.
Judging by the terms of the history of religions, however,
baptism would no doubt have been the proper place for
the pronouncement of the promise. 13 This act would
follow upon the proclamation of the gospel and the
conversion of the disciple. It would include acceptance
into discipleship, inclusion into the church, and the
conveyance of whatever rights and obligations there
were.
If one assumes baptism is the context, the relationship
between the beatitudes and the proclamation of the
gospel becomes clear. They are by no means simply
identical: the proclamation of the gospel is addressed to
all, while the beatitudes address the disciples after their
conversion. 14 In fact, the Gospel writers themselves
express this relationship between the two when they have
Jesus directly address the disciples, while the people
Q-sermon stands a programmatic speech given by the
historical Jesus, from which in the course of the
history of tradition the two existing sermons of the
SM and the SP developed. About this "original"
sermon Lambrecht (Sermon, 40) says: "It probably
had a programmmatic character from the very
beginning. With his messianic awareness, Jesus
proclaimed with the beatitudes the great break-
573
generally form a wider body of listeners to which the
disciples formerly belonged (Luke 6: 17-20a; 7: 1; Matt
4:24-5:2; 7:28-29). Thus the message of the gospel is
seen as implicitly presupposed by the beatitudes but not
as identical with them.
This complicated relationship is further reflected in
that the beatitudes are closely connected with the
eschatological last judgment. What is the relationship
between the beatitudes and the last judgment? The
beatitudes convey salvation but at the same time the
"woes" threaten eternal condemnation. What, precisely,
is the relationship between these two statements? 15
Both statements presuppose that the disciples have
begun a new existence. But this new life is in need of
completion, and at its end comes the accounting at the
last judgment. Contrary to today's assumptions, the
promise of salvation is thus not given without con-
dition, 16 but it is given only with the great and final
proviso of the last judgment. This doctrine is not
specifically put forth in the present text; it is a belief
common to early Christianity and to Judaism. The
problem of "cheap grace," rightly criticized by Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, 17 does not exist in the text if it is interpreted
correctly. Rather, one could ask the opposite question:
Does not the strong emphasis on the last judgment in
effect nullify, or at least limit, the promise of salvation?
One can answer this question in the following way.
Between the promise and the final enjoyment of sal-
vation lie the disciple's earthly conduct oflife and the
final test of the last judgment. Our texts, the SP as well as
the SM, contain the guidelines for the conduct of the
earthly life of the disciple. These guidelines lead from
the pronouncement of salvation to its realization. They
testify in case after case how the disciple can move from
one to the other. 18 In principle, the divine gift of
salvation is assumed to be accessible to the disciple at all
times; this is the heart of the gospel message. The
disciple's task is to learn how to live on the basis of that
salvation, while moving toward salvation, life's final goal.
For the disciple who learns this lesson, salvation is
already present; for the one who does not, salvation
remains a mere possibility. The eschatological judgment
is, therefore, the great bracket that includes everything
between beginning and end. This implies that salvation
and its opposite, condemnation, do not have to wait until
the afterlife; they can occur even in the present life of
the disciple. The beatitudes and the "woes" do contain
eschatological judgments, but these judgments are
validated not only in the eschatological future. They are
validated as well in the concrete situations of life as they
are envisioned in the text of the SP.
Given these presuppositions, one can now turn to the
interpretation of the "woes." As pointed out above in the
excursus on "poor" and "rich," the four "woes" are to be
taken together as a satirical sketch of the figure of the
rich and to be juxtaposed with the poor in the beatitudes
(vss 20b-22). But who is addressed in the "woes," the
disciples or the outsiders? 19 Wellhausen is probably right
in saying that "the 'You' addresses again the hearers, that
is, the disciples." 20 Does this premise mean that among
the disciples were rich persons? The possibility may
sound strange to those who have already accepted Luke's

through of God's grace and then called for are-
sponse that consists primarily in love of neighbor.
The Sermon on the Mount, we may justifiably
presume, formed the core of Jesus' preaching of the
Kingdom of God." Similarly Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.629-
31. Cf. Klostermann, Lukasevangelium, 78.
15 As Klostermann (Lukasevangelium, 78) points out, it is
erroneous to assume that the "woes" in the SP must
be "secondary" because they are missing in the SM.
Rather, the SM expresses the eschatological proviso
in a different way: instead of the "woes" of the SP,
the SM has the longer eschatological passages in Matt
7:13-23 that have no parallel in the SP.
16 The unconditional promise of salvation is proclaimed
as part of the gospel message, but the eschatological
assurances of the beatitudes are given only to those
who have faithfully accepted that promise.
17 Dietrich Bonhoeffer (The Cost of Discipleship [trans.
Reginald Fuller; 6th ed.; London: SCM, 1966]1)
begins his first chapter, entitled "Costly Grace," with
the momentous statement, "Cheap grace is the
deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today
for costly grace."
18 This presupposes the concept ofthe way oflife (61i6~).
for which see above on SM/Matt 7:13-14. The
concept of the way occurs in the SP only in the
metaphorical bo1ry'w ("guide") in Luke 6:39.
19 Klostermann (Lukasevangelium, 79, 80) and Schiir-
mann, (Lukasevangelium, 1.336-41) have the "woes"
addressed to outsiders.
20 Wellhausen, Evangelium Lucae, 25: "daB nun das Ihr
sich wieder an die Zuhorer, d. h. die Jiinger, richte."

574
 Luke 6:20b-26

idealized image of the poverty of Jesus' disciples. 21 But a
number of passages in the New Testament warn Chris-
tians about the perils of wealth, 2 2 and such warnings
would not make much sense if in reality the early
Christians had been completely shut off from wealth.
The matter is more complicated, however, than this
issue of the addressees. In analogy to the Beatitudes, one
will have to distinguish as well between tradition and
redaction, or actualization. Just as calling the poor
blessed is a traditional topos, 2 3 so also is threatening the
rich. In Judaism, one will remember the message of the
prophets and the warnings in wisdom and apocalyptic
literature. 24 In the context of Greek literature, one will
think of the Cynic philosophers in particular. 2 5 These
traditional threats against the rich constitute a literary
topos. 26 Verses 24-26 apply this topos to the disciples
directly. What is the purpose of this actualization? It
seems that the purpose cannot be to classify the disciples,
or some of them, as rich. Thus it can only be a warning.
Just as the disciples are expected to conform to the image
of the poor (vss 20b-22), so too they should dissociate
themselves from the image of the rich (vss 24-26). 2 7
Woe to them if they look like the latter and not like the
former! In other words, "poor" and "rich" refer to
typologies in the service of ethos formation. 2 8
Heinz Schiirmann has, in my view, rightly emphasized
that the four "woes" represent a pre-Lukan textual unit
that belongs to the "original" text of the SP. 29 One
should not conclude from this position, however, that
Matthew has intentionally omitted these "woes" from the
SM because "he had no use for the Woes in his catalog of
virtues." 30 Instead of the "woes," the SM has the long
eschatological warnings at the end (SM/Matt 7: 13-23) as
a counterbalance to the Beatitudes (SM/Matt 5:3-12).
3. Interpretation
• 20b This verse contains the first beatitude. As already
pointed out, the acclamation "Blessed (are) the poor"
(p.aKripwt o17fTwxo[) is formally a dogmatic statement, just
as it is in SM/Matt 5:3. 31 That the "poor" are named
here without further epithet is a difference in com-
parison with Matthew's SM that commentators have also
observed continuously. 32 Equally true is that Luke 6:20b
corresponds more closely to I sa 61:1-2 LXX, whereas
the parallel in SM/Matt 5:3 appears to be a later
commentary. 3 3

2I See esp. Luke 5:II, 28; I9:8; Acts 3:6. On Luke's
attitude toward poverty and wealth, see Bammel,
TDNT 6. 905-7.
22 See Friedrich Hauck and Wilhelm Kasch, ",.,\ovros
KTA.," TDNT6.327-30 (D.I-4); Bammel, TDNT
6.902-I2.
23 See Hauck and Kasch, ",.,\ovros KTA.," TDNT 6.3I8-
32, passim; for further references, see Helmut
Mer klein, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. ?TAoVcnos KTA.,
7TTWX6SKTA.
24 See, e.g., Isa 5:8;Jer 22:I3; Amos 5:I8; Hab 2:6, 9;
Mic 2:Iff.; Prov IO:I5; I4:20; I8:II, 23; I9:I; 22:7,
I6; 28:6, II; Sir 8:2; I 0:30; I3: Iff.; 25:2; 3I :3; etc.
25 For a collection of the material, see the 193I Utrecht
dissertation, done under the supervision of Bolke-
stein, by Jan Jacob van Manen, IIENIA en
IIAOYTO:E in de periode na Alexander (Zutphen:
Nauta, I93I); Bammel, TDNT 6.887 (A.II); Fried-
rich Hauck, "?TtV7JS ?T<VIXP6s," TDNT 6.37-38 (A);
Betz, Lukian, 83, 86, 194-99; den Boer, Private
Morality, I5I-78.
26 To this extent, Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.336-
37) is right (see above, n. I9).
27 So, correctly, Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels, I.1 7 4:
"The antithesis is not only to strike terror into the
godless, but to alert the faithful, in case they fall
asleep under the vain and captious charms of the
World."
28 For character descriptions (~6os) of the rich, see
Wilhelm Siif3 (Ethos: Studien zur iilteren griechischen
Rhetorik [Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, I910]235-
3 7) who gives Isaeus Orationes 5. 3 5-4 7 and Demos-
thenes Orationes 36.36-38; 37.52-54; 49; 56 as
examples. Especially important is the section on
~6o?Toda in Rhet. ad Her. 4.49.63-4.5I.65; see also
Lausberg, Handbuch, I. § 820-25.
29 Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.339-41.
30 Ibid., 1.339.
31 Part of the manuscript tradition tends to harmonize
the SP with the SM: K2 8,\ </>alit boP' add ri;>
?TV<Vf'aTt ("in the spirit"). See Aland, Synopsis, I 02,
critical apparatus.
32 See the commentaries by Plummer, Matthew, 62;
Klostermann, Lukasevangelium, 79; Grundmann,
Matthiius, I20; idem, Lukas, 142-43.
33 In addition, see Cos. Thom. log. 54: "Jesus says,
'Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of the
heavens'" (Alyn 'I?JuoVs· p.aKriptoL o1wTwxol, (;Tt
Vp.Erlpa furlv ~ {3acnAEla TWv oVpavWv [Greek retrans.
by Greeven, Synopsis, 72]). This beatitude combines
"the poor" ofthe SP with the expression "kingdom of
the heavens," typical of the SM. For later scribal
harmonizations of the SP and the SM, see Nestle-
Aland (see also above, n. 3I ).

575
 One must ask, however, whether the SM and the SP
are really so different at this juncture and, if they are,
what this difference means. Does the SP state the radical
message of Jesus, while the SM tones it down and
"spiritualizes" it? What does "poor" (?TTrox6s) mean in
Luke 6:20b? Without question, the "poor" in vs 20b are
the economically poor. 34 Yet the juxtaposition of the
"poor" with the "rich" and the references to the pro-
phetic message (cf. esp. Isa 29:19; 57:15; 61:1ff.) and to
the proclamation of Jesus (Luke 4:18-19, 21; 7:22; 10:9,
11, 23-24; 17:20-21, etc.) lead one to the conclusion
that a way of life as a whole is envisaged, not merely
economic conditions. Apart from their own economic
condition, the disciples must decide whether they want to
stand on the side of and share life with the poor or the
rich, the hungry or the satisfied, the weeping or the
laughing. 35
What, then, is the difference between the SP and the
SM at this point? There is no stark contrast between
them; rather, the SM simply spells out what the SP
suggests. The SM wards off the misunderstanding that
salvation is promised to the poor simply because they are
in economic straits. Such a misconception could lead to
questions like, What about a poor crook? The shift from
suggestion to definition touches on the further question,
What does poverty mean? Who is to be considered poor?
Moreover, the juxtaposition of poor and rich as social
types conforms more to the Hellenistic mentality, while
"poor in Spirit" (SM) describes a Jewish notion of piety. 36
In vs 20c, the promise of salvation made in vs 20b is
applied to the disciples: "for yours is the kingdom of
God" (()n VfJ.£T£pa £unv 1} [3autA.da TOV 8wv). 37 I have
already discussed the problem of the grammatical
connection between these two parts of the sentence (see
the Introduction above). It is noteworthy that the SP
uses the more Greek-sounding expression "the kingdom
of God, "38 while SM uses the phrase "the kingdom of the
heavens." 39 Does this difference in terminology reflect
the varying Gentile- and Jewish-Christian cultural
background of the SP and the SM? If so, the termi-
nological difference is not without significance.
• 21 This verse introduces the second and third beati-
tudes. The second, corresponding to the fourth in
SM/Matt 5:6, promises relief to the hungry: "Blessed
(are) those who hunger now" {JLaKaptot Ot 1T€LVWVT€S vvv).
The connection between poverty, the term used in the
first beatitude (vs 20b), and hunger is traditional: The
Old Testament tradition, continued in later sources,
combines poverty and hunger, in both the real and the
figurative sense. 40 As wisdom texts point out, the
immediate consequence of poverty is hunger. 41 That
such hunger dominates the present situation is em-
phasized by the adverb "now" (vvv), 4 2 conspicuously
placed at the end of the statement. In contrast is the

34 So, correctly, Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.327, harmonization with the SM. See Tischendorf, Novum
with further references. Testamentum Graece, 1.484.
35 This implies a demand of poverty for the disciples, 39 Seeabove,pp.118-19.
even if one understands poverty to be a broader 40 So, correctly, Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.331.
concept referring to an entire attitude toward life 41 See esp. Isa 32:6-7; 58:6-7, 9-10;Job 22:7; 24:4-
rather than merely to economic conditions. As far as 11; Tob 1:17; 4:7, 16; Prov 25:21 (cited in Rom
these implications are concerned, one will have to 12:20); Sir 4:2; T. ]as. 1.5; 4.4; T. jud. 25.5; Ps.-
distinguish between the addressees at the pre-Lukan Phocyl. Sent. 155; Luke 15:14, 17; 16:20, 21, etc.
level and Luke's own interpretation. Cf. Schiirmann, For further discussion, see Leonhard Goppelt,
Lukasevangelium, 1.327, who considers only the ".,.<~vaw," TDNT 6.14-17 (B.I-III).
proclamation of the historical Jesus and Luke's later 42 For this adverb, see also vss 21c, 25b and c. Marcion,
view. Schiirmann points out correctly that nowhere Origen, and Eusebius omit the vvv in all instances,
else does Luke impose the demand of poverty on perhaps for the sake of harmonization with the SM.
Christianity.
36 On this point see above, pp. 111-18.
37 Some variant readings are harmonizations with SM:
W ff2 sy2 Marcion read avrwv ("theirs") instead of
vp.m!pa ("yours"). See Aland, Synopsis, 102, with the
critical apparatus.
38 It occurs only here in the SP, but the terminology is
clearly that of the SP. Some variant readings prefer
"of the heavens" (rwv ovpavwv), because of scribal

576

future tense of the following clause stating the rationale
(vs 21c): "for you will be satisfied" (Cin xopTaCTfl~<n:CTfl£). 43
Syntactically, the factual statement of vs 21 b is again,
as in vs 20b, followed by the promise delivered in the
second person plural in vs 21 c. This grammatically
awkward combination is less difficult, though, than in vs
20c because the participle "those who hunger" makes it
easier to relate the second person plural in vs 21 c to the
participle in vs 21 b as well. The same construction occurs
in the third beatitude (vs 21d-e).
The future tense in "you will be satisfied" no doubt
takes up and affirms the old prophetic promise, 44 but the
question of whether the future is to be taken in the this-
worldly or the eschatological, otherworldly sense is not
automatically answered. The context (vss 20c and 23)
speaks in favor of the eschatological fulfillment of the
promise by a heavenly meal, which, as Schiirmann has
correctly pointed out, was imagined to be a real meal. 45
But one should not be constrained by wrong alternatives.
It is precisely the eschatological realism that does not
exclude a metaphorization ofthe language, so that the
SM with its metaphor (SM/Matt 5:6) seizes on an
interpretative possibility inherent in the language
43 The passive points to God as the one who provides
the satisfaction. For the "divine passive," see above
on SM/Matt 5:4 and often in the SM. The variant
reading xopTafT8~1TovTat ("they will be satisfied") is
due to harmonization with the SM (M*· 2 69 it sy' saP'
Marcion). See Aland, Synopsis, 103, with the critical
apparatus.
44 See I sa 49:10, 13; Ezek 34:29; 39:17 -20; Pss 17:14-
15; 37:19; 132:15; also Pss 22:26; 78:29; 104:27-28;
105:40; 147:14; Tob 12:9; T.jud. 25.4, etc. Notably,
TDNT has no article on the subject.
45 Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.331. See Isa 25:6-8;
49:9-13; 1 Enoch 62.14; Luke 14:15-24//Matt
22:1-10; Matt 8:11; 26:29; Luke 22:16, 18, 29-30.
46 The same is true of the parallel in Cos. Thom. log.
69b: "Jesus says, 'Blessed are the hungry, for the
belly of him who desires shall be filled'" (A.!yet
'l17uoiJs· p.a~e/tpr.ol. o17TELVWVTES', CJrt xoprau8'1jun-at [Yva-
a!T8fi?] ~ KOtA.la Tov O.!A.ovTos [retrans. by Greeven,
Synopsis, 30]). Menard (Thomas, 1.171) notes further
parallels.
47 Cf. Luke 15:25-32.
48 The whole third beatitude is omitted in D.
49 Cf. the weeping of the sinful woman in Luke 7:38,
and of Peter, Mark 14:72//Matt 26:75/ /Luke
22:62;Jas 4:9; 5:1. See Karl Heinrich Rengstorf,
"KA.alw KTA.," TDNT 3.722-26; Horst Balz, EWNT
Luke 6:20b-26
itself. 46 Taken together, the future tenses in SP /Luke
6:21-23 paint the verbal picture of an eschatological
meal of joy comprising the consumption of good food,
laughter, and dance. 4 7
Verse 21 c-d contains the third beatitude: "Blessed
(are) those who weep now" (j;.aKapwt o1 KAalovr<!> vvv). 48
The weeping does not refer to one's lament about
sinfulness, 49 or to weeping as part of a burial cere-
mony, 50 or to other specific forms of grief, but to the
weeping over the conditions of this world and the
suffering resulting from them. 51 One can draw this
conclusion from the juxtaposition of "laughing" with
"mourning and weeping" in vs 25e-f. 52 The promise to
the disciples follows in vs 21 d: "for you will laugh" (Cin
y<AaCT<r<). 53 Doubtless the reference is to the escha-
tological laughing of joy because of the fulfillment of the
promise 54 as it is opposed to the cynical laughter in vs
25d. The third beatitude in SP corresponds to the
second in SM/Matt 5:4, but they are independent
formulations. Scholars have done their best to show how
Matthew may have reformulated the Q-version found in
Luke, but with little success. If Matthew had the Lukan
2. 725-27 (EDNT 2.293-94), with further bib-
liography; Hedwig Kenner, Weinen und Lachen in der
griechischen Kunst (SOAW.PH 234.2 [Vienna:
Rohrer, 1960]7-62).
50 Such lament is mentioned in Mark 5:38-39; Luke
7:13; 8:52;John 11:31, 33; 20:11, 13, 15, etc.
51 Cf. Jesus' weeping because of Jerusalem, Luke 19:41;
23:28; cf.John 16:20; Rom 12: 15; 1 Cor 7:30; Phil
3:18. See Rengstorf, TDNT 3.722-26.
52 Weeping is part of"poverty." Cf.Job 30:24-25
(RSV): "Yet does not one in a heap of ruins stretch
out his hand, and in his disaster cry for help? Did not
I weep for him whose day was hard? Was not my soul
grieved for the poor?" Similarly Sir 35:20; anthro-
pologically Wis 7:3 (RSV): "And when I was born, I
began to breathe the common air and fell upon the
kindred earth, and my first sound was a cry, like that
of all."
53 The variant reading yeA.auovfTtv (We sy' saP' Marcion
Origen EusebiusP') is due to harmonization with the
SM; cf. also Luke 6:2la v.l. See Aland, Synopsis, 103,
with the critical apparatus.
54 Cf. Gen 21:6; Ps 126:1-5; Luke 15:7, 10, 24, 32.
577
version or something similar in front of him, no con-
vincing reason has been presented for changing the
wording to what is Matthew's second beatitude. 55
• 22 In comparison with the first three beatitudes, the
fourth varies in its composition. Such variation seems to
be intentional, but the reasons for it are more a matter of
guessing than of clear evidence. One reason is that the
composition is analogous to that of the threat in vs 26.
More difficult to assess is the parallel ninth beatitude in
SM/Matt 5: 11, which varies in its form similar to
SP /Luke 6:22, and it is unlike the preceding eight,
respectively three, beatitudes. 56
Again different is a parallel sayings composition in Gos.
Thom. log. 68-69a, showing independent development:
"Jesus said, 'Blessed are you when you are hated and
persecuted. Wherever you have been persecuted they
will find no place.'" This saying is followed by a second:
"Jesus said, 'Blessed are they who have been persecuted
within themselves. It is they who have truly come to
know the father.'"57
As far as the composition in the SP is concerned,
numerical symbolism may have played a role. If there are
four beatitudes and four threats, the composition in each
55 For recent attempts to construct a history of tradition
leading from Luke to Matthew, see Schiirmann, Lu-
kasevangelium, 1.331 n. 42. Rightly, Fitzmyer (Luke,
1.634) calls for caution: "In this instance, it is not
easy to say which evangelist has touched up the inher-
ited form." See also Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.267-71.
56 See above, pp. ll0-11, 147-51.
57 Trans. Thomas 0. Lambdin, in Robinson, The Nag
Hammadi Library, 134. A further, again independent,
parallel is cited by Clement Alex. Strom. 4.6.41.2 (ed.
Stahlin, p. 266, lines 24-25): !LaKap&o& olliEllii"'Yplvo&
fvEK£V ae.K.at.outSV1JS' I g.,., aVTol viol 8£oV KA7]8~fTOVTal.
("Blessed are they who are persecuted because of
righteousness, for they will be called sons of God").
See also Menard, Thomas, 169-71.
58 On the number four in the SP, see above, pp. 571-
72.
59 So also Bultmann, History, 109-10, 128; Manson, 61
Sayings, 49; Grundmann, Lukas, 143; Schiirmann,
Lukasevangelium, 1.335; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.631;
Marshall, Luke, 251-52.
60 Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.332) explains the 62
coordination of the first three beatitudes as deriving
from LXX Isa 61:1-2, which he thinks forms the 63
basis ofJesus' proclamation of the kingdom in its
primary form ("unmittelbar in ihrer Urform"). But
Isa 61:1-2 speaks only of the poor, not of the hungry
578
case is 3 + 1. 58 Moreover, the first three beatitudes may
have been put together in the tradition prior to the
composition of the fourth, which introduces a con-
cretization and an application to the disciples. 59 Since we
have no sources earlier than the SP, however, we cannot
go beyond such a suggestion. 60 The introduction in vs
22a addresses the disciples directly: "Blessed are you"
(p.aKapLol €un). 61 The address and promise depend on
the conditional clauses that follow. While in the first
three beatitudes it is not at once clear whether the
disciples belong to the poor, the hungry, and the
weeping, this ambiguity is abandoned in the fourth
beatitude. The persecution described in the subsequent
conditional clauses is not merely a possibility but reflects
the real experience of the early church. 62 Such incidents
of persecution find explanation in their association with
the first three beatitudes, which enable the disciples to
identify with the poor, the hungry, and the weeping. Of
them both the tradition and Jesus had spoken, and they
are now applied to the disciples who suffer from sup-
pression. 63
The two temporal conditional clauses are introduced
by ifTav ("when," "whenever") and specify four forms of
and the weeping, so that this derivation must remain
speculative. Prior to Schiirmann, William Manson
Uesus the Messiah: The Synoptic Tradition of the Reve-
lation of God in Christ [London: Hodder & Stoughton,
1943] 80-82) had suggested that the entire Q-
sermon is based on Isaiah 61. Against this view, see
Bultmann, History, 398; Hubert Frankemolle,
Evangelium: Begriff und Gattung; Ein Forschungsbericht
(SBB 15; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988)
149-55; idem, "Jesus als deuterojesajanischer
Freudenbote? Zur Rezeption vonJes 52,7 im Neuen
Testament, durchJesus und in den Targumim," in
Hubert Frankemolle and Karl Kertelge, eds., Vom
Urchristentum zu Jesus: FS fUr Joachim Gnilka (Frei-
burg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1988) 34-67; Hans
Dieter Betz, "The Sermon on the Mount in Mat-
thew's Interpretation," in Synoptische Studien, 280-82.
Some manuscripts (8 lat Marcion) read {uEu8E ("you
will be"), apparently in harmonization with the future
tenses of preceding verses. See Aland, Synopsis, 103,
with the critical apparatus.
For parallels from early Christian literature, see
above on Matt 5:11.
So following Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.631.
 Luke 6:20b-26

suppression. 64 The first of these clauses, naming hatred
by humankind (vs 22b), seems to be more general and
also superior to the second, which describes three
concrete forms of such hatred (vs 22c). Thus the
concrete experiences of vs 22c are being classified under
the rubric "hatred by humanity" and thereby clarified. 65
If this is truly the case, the "and when," "whenever" (Kat
C5mv) in vs 22c is explicative, and, in compositional terms,
numerical symbolism is again operative (1 + 3).
Thus the suppression of the disciples consists of
various forms of rejection, the first and tl"\e more general
being hatred by humankind: "when people hate you"
(C5Tav JUcr~crovcnv'ot &v8pw7rot). 66 This statement occurs
only in the SP and has no parallel in the SM, although
SP /Luke 6:27c mentions hatred against the disciples.
Strangely, such hatred is not a topic in the SM even
though one would expect to find it, especially in con-
nection with hating the enemy (SM/Matt 5:43b, 44b).
One cannot explain this difference between the SP and
the SM by a redactional change on the part of Mat-
thew.67 Yet hatred against the disciples occurs in other
passages, such as the mission instruction in Matt 10:22,
but not in the parallel versions of the other Gospels, an
indication that in Matt 10:22, too, it is pre-Matthean. In
the synoptic apocalypses it has become a firm topos
(Mark 12:13//Matt 24:10/ /Luke 21:17), 68 and this in
turn became part of early Christian paraenesis gen-
erally.69 Being hated by humankind is not a special
Christian experience, however. It is adduced here as a
concept, well known to antiquity, the odium generis
humani. 70 This reprehensible propaganda device for
outlawing undesirables from society has, as we all know,
played a particularly vicious role in anti-Semitism. 71 In
the SP, however, it is not the anti-Semitic but the more
general ancient stigmatization. 72 In view of the SP, this
focus speaks for a Gentile-Christian context, while its
absence in the SM appears to take into account a
different perspective of Jewish disciples of Jesus.
The concretization of this general hatred by human-
kind then follows in the second clause, vs 22c. First men-
tioned is social ostracism: "and (that means) when they
exclude you" (Kat C5Tav b.cJwplcrwcrw ilp.as ). 73 This form of
exclusion 74 from the community occurs only here in the
New Testament, but it has close parallels in Matt 13:36-
43, 18:15-20, and 25:31-46, where it refers to the

64 ilrav with aorist subjunctive refers to "an action that
is conditional, possible, and, in many instances,
repeated" (BAGD, 587, s.v. ilrav). In this instance,
"the action of the subordinate clause precedes that of
the main clause" (BAGD, 588). See also BDF, § 382
(2-4); BDR, § 322, 2-4; Schiirmann, Lukas-
evangelium, 1.336.
65 Differently, Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.332)
speaks of a climactic parallelism that expands from
one suppression to three.
66 The addition of 'lTavnr ("all") by sa is due to harmo-
nization with Luke 6:26.
67 Differently, Grundmann, Lukas, 143; Schiirmann,
Lukasevangelium, 1.333 n. 48; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.628;
Marshall, Luke, 251-52.
68 On the possible sources, see Lars Hartman, Prophecy
Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic
Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 Par
(ConBNT 1; Lund: Gleerup, 1966) 169. See also
Otto Michel, "iJ.uriw," TDNT 4.683-94, esp. 690,
who also mentions Luke 1:71, an interesting passage
because it is part of the (pre-Christian?) psalm of the
Benedictus (1 :68-79).
69 See Did. 1.3; 16.3-4 (not in Doctrina apostolorum); 1
Clem. 60.3; 2 Clem. 13.4, etc. For further passages,
see Michel, TDNT 4.699-701.
70 See Tacitus Ann. 15.44, in application to Christians;
Cicero Philippicae 14.8; Seneca Oedipus 868-78.
71 See]. N. Sevenster, The Roots of Pagan Antisemitism in
the Ancient World (NovTSup 41; Leiden: Brill, 1975)
89-144, who interprets ancient anti-Semitism as a
reaction against Jewish exclusivism and "mis-
anthropy." See also Hans Conzelmann, Heiden-juden-
Christen: Auseinandersetzungen in der Literatur der
hellenistisch-romischen Zeit (BHTh 62: Tiibingen:
Mohr [Siebeck ], 1981 ), index, s. v. Misanthropie. ET:
Gentiles-Jews-Christians: Polemics and Apologetics in
the Graeco-Roman Era (trans. M. Eugene Boring
[Minneapolis: Fortress], 1992), index, s. v. Mis-
anthropy.
72 So Marshall, Luke, 252. Differently most com-
mentators, who think of exclusion ofJewish Chris-
tians from synagogues and a reflection of the
"experience of early Christians of Luke's own day"
(Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.635). Similarly Grundmann,
Lukas, 143-44.
73 Marcion omits this part of the sentence. W omits ilrav
and thereby changes the relationship of the verbs to
each other. p7Svid D omit the second ViJ.WV, probably
considering it redundant.
74 For the meaning of the term cuJwpl(w ("exclude"), see
Karl Ludwig Schmidt, "lupop{(w," TDNT 5.454-55;
Strecker, "Makarismen," 268-69; idem, Bergpredigt,
46 (Sermon, 43-44); Ulrich Kellermann, "cu/JOpl(w,"

579
exclusion of the damned from the eschatological
community (cf. also John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). Which
concrete acts does the SP have in mind? There are
several possibilities. Are we reading about the exclusion
of jewish Christians or Gentile Christians from the
synagogue?75 Or about discrimination in general? 76 If it
means discrimination against Gentile Christians, social
expulsion seems to be the most probable. Perhaps vs 23c
implies exclusion from judaism if one reads it as mean-
ing: as their ancestors did to the prophets, so their
(Jewish) successors do to you (Gentiles [see below on vs
2 3c ]). Exclusion would then involve a refusal of accep-
tance, for which one might refer to 2 Cor 6: 14-7: 1 and
Gal2:1-10, 11-14 as examples. 77
The verb ovHlil(w ("reproach," "revile," "heap insults
upon"f 8 describes the second experience of rejection,
but it is not immediately clear what precisely is meant.
One should probably imagine treatment such as is
reported against jesus in the passion narratives (Mark
15:29-32 par.). Again we appear to have a topos of early
Christian paraenesis with its parallels in SM/Matt 5:11; 1
Tim 4:1 0; 1 Pet 4:14. 79 More difficult to understand is
the third rejection experience: Kal. lK{3a:AwtTLV ro lfvoJLa
VJLWV WS 71'0V7Jpov ~V€Ka TOV v!ov TOV av8pC:mov. 80 The
translation of this sentence is disputed, 81 although one
can explain the verbal phrase, as BAGD correctly points
out, 82 from classical Greek texts so that the meaning
seems clear: "and (when) they spurn your name as an evil
one because of the Son of man."
Questions remain, however. Since Wellhausen 83

EWNT 1.442-43 (EDNT 1.183-84).
75 So WeiB (Predigtjesu, 179): "In the last beatitude
(6:22-23) and in the last 'woe,' the persecutors are
clearly marked as Jews; their fathers have done the
same to the prophets. The persecution is described in
such a way that one can see that persecutors and
persecuted thus far have lived in the same com-
munity, but now the disciples ofJesus are being
pushed out .... Thus, the Christians are thought of
as Jewish Christians" (my trans.). The last sentence
would apply only to the SM (Matt 5:11 ), however,
which does not mention exclusion. Similarly,
Strecker (Bergpredigt, 46 [Sermon, 43-44]) apparently
thinks of Jewish Christians as being expelled from the
synagogue, and regards vs 22 as an "early document
of the beginning separation of the church from the
synagogue."
76 Commentators who assume the statement to refer to
the exclusion from the synagogue often argue that
Luke must have known such a measure. This
conclusion is usually based on references to John
9:22; 12:42; 16:2 as corroborating evidence.
Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.333) goes further,
saying that only by Lukan redaction was this religious
excommunication turned into "civic ostracism"
("biirgerliche Achtung"). The passages in John's
Gospel may reflect a different situation, however,
and neither they nor Luke's redaction can simply be
equated with SP/Luke 6:22. Indeed, there is no solid
evidence that before 70 CE synagogues made any
attempt to exclude Christians. Also, contrary to
Grundmann (Lukas, 144) no synagogal ban against
Christians was in force at this time. See Reuven
Kimelman, "Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of
Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late
Antiquity," in Ed P. Sanders, ed.,jewish and Christian
Self-Definition, vol. 2: Aspects ofjudaism in the Graeco-
580
Roman Period (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 226-44,
esp. 234-35, with n. 54 (p. 396); William Horbury,
"The Benediction of the Minim and Early Jewish-
Christian Controversy," JTS 33 (1982) 19-61, esp.
51: "at Luke vi.22 exclusion is expected generally."
77 See Betz, Galatians, 81-112, 328-30.
78 So BAGD, s.v.
79 On the term itself, see above on SM/Matt 5:11.
80 D it change the word order, reading "expel (you) and
revile your name," thereby removing the difficulties
in understanding the phrase.
81 Cf., e.g., RSV: "and cast out your name as evil, on
account of the Son of man." NEB: "and ban your
name as infamous, because of the Son of Man." JB:
"denounce your name as criminal, on account of the
Son of Man." Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.625: "and reject your
name as evil, on account of the Son of Man." REB:
"insult you and slander your very name, because of
the Son of Man." NRSV: "revile you, and defame you
on account of the Son of Man" (with note t: "Gk cast
out your name as evil").
82 BAGD, s.v. EK{JciA.A.w, 1, with reference to Plato Crito
46B; Rep. 2, 377C; Sophocles Oed. Col. 636; 646. Cf.
LSJ, s.v. EK{JciA.A.w, I-IV, where the evidence, how-
ever, suggests quite a variety of possible inter-
pretations.
83 Wellhausen (Evangelium Lucae, 24) thinks that the
preceding ovnlil(w provides the best interpretation
for the "biblical phrase" and calls attention to the
parallels in Mark 1:28; Luke 7:17; the proper
expression would have been: EK{J<iAAEIV vp.'iv l!vop.a
1TOV1jpOv. But this would hardly solve the problem.
 Luke 6:20b-26

certainly, commentators have considered the possibility
of a Semitic idiom behind the words. 84 Schiirmann 85
conjectures that a curse may have been connected with
the synagogal ban, as is reported later in connection with
Babylonian Judaism, but this interpretation is highly
speculative. The sentence itself is easy to comprehend
without such speculation, especially in the light of the
opposing statement in vs 26a.
The question what is meant by the "name" (lfvol-'a)
remains. If the personal names of the disciples were
meant, 86 one should expect the plural, "names"
(ovoJLam). Or is it an allusion to the name of Jesus? This
might well be the case when one considers the parallels in
Jas 2:7 and 1 Pet 4: 14, but the further reference to the
Son of man would seem to exclude the name of Jesus at
this point. Is a curse meant? 87 Perhaps, but this usage
may also require an overinterpretation of~~ 7rOV1Jpov ("as
evil"). 88 The most likely meaning seems to be the name
by which the disciples are called as a group. Even though
we do not know which name that might be for the SP, it
is certainly a derogatory and hostile name. Is it the name
"Christians, "89 which we are told was originally a bad
name before it became the name for first Gentile, and
then all, Christians (1 Pet 4: 16; Acts 11 :26; 26:28)?9°
The final phrase, "on account of the Son of man"
(~v£Ka TOV v!ov TOV av8pdmov), is rather surprising in that
it has no parallel in either the SP or the SM. 91 Is this
phrase an original part of the SP text? Or is it the result
of later redactional activity, either prior to Luke or
Luke's own? 92 If it is the latter, was it interpolated to
identify the "name" used earlier in the sentence? There is
no clear answer to these questions. The confession of
Jesus as the Son of man is characteristic of the sayings in
Q, 93 which is the earliest source of the Son of man
christology. 94 If the SP was part ofQ before being
incorporated into Luke, the phrase "on account of the
Son of man" could be the result of Q-redaction. 95 This
possibility is more likely than attributing it to the work of
Luke, the final writer of the Gospel. The singularity of
its occurrence here, though, speaks in favor of its being
part of the original text of the SP. 96

84 So also Black, Approach, 135-36; Baumbach, Das
Verstiindnis des Bosen, 125-26; Dupont, Beatitudes,
1.232-36; 2.292-93.
85 SchOrmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.333.
86 Bousset (Kyrios, 18) thinks ofthe removal oftheir
names from the roles of the synagogues. So also
Grundmann, Lukas, 143-44.
87 See SchOrmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.333, and in a
different way, Str-B 2.159.
88 See SchOrmann's interpretation of C:.r wov11p6v, "as a
curse" ("VerwOnschung").
89 Klostermann, Lukasevangelium, 79: "The concern is
not personal reputation but the name Christian"
(referring to Jas 2:7; 1 Pet 4:14). Similarly Marshall,
Luke, 253; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.635.
90 If Acts 11:26 is right that the name "Christians"
emerged first in Antioch, the question is whether the
early allusion to this name in the SP speaks for the
origin of this text in Antioch, a possibility supported
also by the relatively frequent occurrence of the
name in Ignatius (Eph. 11.2; Mag. 4; Rom. 3.2; Pol.
7.3; cf. Trall. 6.1 [adjective)). For parallel passages
and references, see also Heinrich Bietenhard,
"lJvop.a," TDNT 5.278-80; Gerhard Schneider,
EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. Xpt<TTtav6r.
91 Cf. SM/Matt 5:11: "on account of me" (¥v<K<V ep.ov).
92 Joachim Jeremias, "Die alteste Schicht der Menschen-
sohn-Logien," ZNW 58 (1967) 159-72; followed by
Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.635; Marshall, Luke, 253-54.
93 See esp. Matt 10:32-33; Mark 8:38; and on these
sayings, Betz, Essays, 142-43, 146-47.
94 See Heinz Eduard Todt, The Son ofMan in the Synoptic
Tradition (trans. Dorothea M. Barton; London: SCM,
1965)119-21, 123-25,255-56,266;Sch0rmann,
Lukasevangelium, 1.334; Carsten Colpe, "o v!hr -rov
av6pC:mov," TDNT 8.443 n. 308; Paul Hoffmann,
Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (NTA, N.F. 8;
Munster: Aschendorff, 1972) 182-83; Athanasius
Polag, Die Christologie der Logienquelle (WMANT 45;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977)
102-15, 133; Mogens MOller, Der Ausdruck
'Menschensohn' in den Evangelien: Voraussetzungen und
Bedeutung (Leiden: Brill, 1984) 190-91, 200-202;
Adela Y. Collins, "The Apocalyptic Son of Man
Sayings," in Birger A. Pearson, ed., The Future of
Early Christianity: Essays in Honor ofHelmut Koester
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 220-28 (with further
bibliography); John]. Collins, "The Son of Man in
First-Century Judaism," NTS 38 (1992) 448-66.
95 Higgins .jesus and the Son ofMan, 120; Schulz, Q,
453: "Lk dorfte mit dem Menschensohn hier die
Vorlage wiedergeben, wahrend Mt umformt."
Similarly Schormann, Lukasevangelium, 1.334 n. 62.
96 The Q-synopses made by Schenk (Synopse, 24-25)

581
 What would the phrase "on account of the Son of
man" mean in the context of the SP? It could mean that
the disciples of the SP would adhere to a Son of man
christology, according to which they would regard jesus
of Nazareth, their master, as the Son ofman. 97 Does the
term refer to the life of jesus on earth98 or to his escha-
tological parousia as Son of man? Or to a figure other
than jesus? One can give no clear answer to this question,
but because of the closeness to Q, the eschatological
expectation of Jesus as Son of man seems more likely. At
any rate, the christology of the Son of man marks one of
the most important differences between the SP and the
SM, for the SM expects jesus to be the eschatological
advocate (see above on SM/Matt 7:21-23), but does not
call him the Son of man. 99
• 23 As noted, an appeal to be joyful (vs 23) stands
between the beatitudes (vss 20b-22) and the threats or
"woes" (vss 24-26). Although this appeal to be joyful has
a parallel in SM/Matt 5:12, its form in the SP is dif-
ferent. The little composition has two parts: the appeal
itself (vs 23a) and the reason for it (vs 23b).
Difficulties arise in the interpretation of the appeal, vs
23a, the translation of which is questionable: xcip7]H tV
tK£LV!/ Tfi ~p.'p~ Kat ITKLpn]uau. The two aorist im-
peratives imply a time reference, but is the appeal made
in view of the present or of the future? The present time
requires the rendering: "Be joyful in that (same) day and
leap about!" The future time necessitates: "Be joyful in
that (eschatological) day (of the Lord) and leap about!"
Many have attempted to solve the problem. Marcion
took the most radical step by omitting vs 23a-b al-
together. 100 Some manuscripts agree with Matt 5: 12. 101
Modern exegetes often regard the phrase "on that day"
as a secondary insertion by a redactor; 10 2 but a future
eschatology is undoubtedly part of the entire SP. Other
allusions to this eschatology occur in the beatitudes and
the threats. 103 Some exegetes remain unclear
themselves. For example, Schiirmann regards "in that
day" as a redactional insertion by Luke, while at the same
time interpreting it as "in the same day." 104
In forming a judgment, one must keep in mind the
whole composition ofvss 20b-26. The future tense of
the verbs in v 21 b ("you will be satisfied") and vs 21 d
("you will laugh") evokes an image of a feast in the
heavenly kingdom (vss 20c and 23b). It seems clear,
then, that the phrase "on that day" refers to the well-
known eschatological expression.I 0 5
Moreover, as with the beatitudes, the promise of
eschatological joy in the eternal kingdom of God does
not exclude an anticipated joy here on earth. On the
contrary, it is the motivation for such earthly joy. The
appeal to be joyful, therefore, is grounded in the
eschatological conviction that there will be heavenly joy,
a conviction that generates joy even in the present.

and Polag (Fragmenta Q, 321) leave the question organize as they face their persecution and exclusion
open. See also Kloppenborg, QParallels, 24-27. from the synagogue. As pointed out above (on 6:22),
97 Grundmann (Lukas, 144) thinks of an old Son of man expulsion from the synagogue has no basis in the
expectation among the poor of Galilee that led to text. For objections to such ideas, see also Marshall,
their repression. Luke, 254. Different again is Wellhausen, Evangelium
98 Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.635. Lucae, 24: "In 6:23, 'at that time' refers to the time of
99 See also Betz, Essays, 21 n. 15, and 151-52. Cf. the persecutions, which jesus anticipates."
Guelich, Sermon, 95: "The meaning is the same, since 105 The fixed expression tv tK<lvy rfi ~JJ-£p~ ("on that
Son of Man is understood as a self-designation of day"), referring to the eschatological day of judg-
Jesus." ment, occurs only here in the SP and in the SM. For
100 See Nestle-Aland, critical apparatus. other references, see above on SM/Matt 7:22. Some
101 See Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece, 1.484, variants (579 a sy') have /l,pa ("hour") instead of
critical apparatus. "day," eliminating the exegetical problem (see n. 104,
102 Klostermann, Lukasevangelium, 79; Grundmann, above).
Lukas, 144; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.334 n.
63; Marshall, Luke, 254; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.635.
103 So rightly Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.334.
104 Ibid. Grundmann (Lukas, 144 n. 23) thinks of the day
when the human court decides on the expulsion from
the synagogue. Similarly Schiirmann (Lukasevan-
gelium, 1.334) and Fitzmyer (Luke, 1.635) speak of a
festival with dancing that the disciples are ordered to

582
 Luke 6:20b-26

Translations into modern English must strive to retain
this duality. 106 The appeal to joy generally also belongs
to the early Christian paraenetical theme of joy in
persecution and suffering, a theme found as well,
although in a different form, in SM/Matt 5:11-12. 107
The expression CTKLpniw ("leap about for joy") 108 is
peculiar, perhaps indicating a dance (cf. Luke 7:32;
15:25). 109 The kind of dance becomes clear when one
realizes that the CTKLpToL are Satyrs, the jolly companions
of Dionysos, whose grotesque dances were known in
antiquity as "Sikinnis." 110 Pictures of the Satyrs were a
popular decorative motif on vases and walls. 111 The
allusion to such dances must have been obvious. For
Gentile Christians, the positive reference to them must
have induced chuckles; but for Jewish Christians, such a
reference would have been repulsive, and that the SM
does not employ the term cannot be accidental. 112
Verse 23b states the reason not only for the promise of
joy and the appeal in vs 23a but for the entire com-
position in vss 20b-23. The initial "for behold" (13ov
yap) 113 both indicates the character of the reason behind
the statement and expresses a moment of surprise.
Indeed, it must be a surprise for Gentile Christians 114 to
learn that they can expect a reward in heaven: "for
behold, your reward is great in heaven" 115 (loov yap o
JUCT8os ilp.wv 'ITOAVS EV Ttp ovpavip ). 116 The promise,
therefore, is the same as that made to Jewish Christians
in SM/Matt 5:12. How can such a promise be made and
justified theologically?
The subsequent statement answers this question: "for
in the same manner their forefathers did to the proph-
ets" (KaTa Ta avTa yap E'ITOLOVV TOtS ?Tpocp~TaLs OL ?TaTEpES
avTwv). 117 This statement affirms the Jewish doctrine
that the prophets of old suffered from oppression and
persecution by their contemporary authorities. 118 Such

106 To mention only recent examples: ambiguity in the
RSV translation helps to keep both connotations.
NRSV: "Rejoice in that day and leap for joy." NEB
opts for the eschatological interpretation only: "On
that day be glad and dance." REB: "On that day exult
and dance for joy." Also JB: "Rejoice when that day
comes and dance for joy." Fitzmyer (Luke, 1.625),
however, opts for the present by correlating the
sentence with vs 22: "That is the time [i.e., the time
of exclusion] to rejoice and to leap with joy."
107 See above, pp. Ill, 151.
108 Gottfried Fitzer ("uK1pr6.w," TDNT 7.401-2) has
pointed out the metaphorical and proverbial tra-
dition connected with the word. Unfortunately, the
article is one-sidedly based on the OT metaphors
that, according to him, have led to the use in Luke
6:23 as "pure metaphor, for which no relation to the
original meaning continues to play a role." For
parallel references, see also BAGD, s.v. <TK1pr6.w.
109 Cf. also the LXX renderings of Hebrew.,:;,., ("stamp"
[on the ground]) as <TK1pr6.w in LXX Ps 113:4, 6, and
as opxiluiJa• ("dance") in Eccl 3:4; Isa 13:21; 1 Chr
15:29. See also Jeremias, Parables, 130 n. 82;
Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.334 n. 65.
110 See esp. Euripides Bacchae 446; Aristophanes Plutus
761; Plato Leg. 2.653e. The uKipro• are the Satyrs in
the company of Dionysos; ouKiprof and o<TKIPT'1/T~f
("the leaper") are epithets of a Satyr, of Pan, and of
Dionysos. See LSJ, s.v.; S. WeiBbach, "Skirtos," PW,
2d series, 5th half-volume (1927) 550-51.
Ill See Frank Brommer, Satyroi (Wiirzburg: Triltsch,
1937); idem, Satyrspiele: Bilder auf griechischen Vasen
(2d ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1959); Kenner, Weinen
und Lachen, 74-82; Nilsson, GGR 1.232-36; Burkert,
Greek Religion, 102-3, 166-67, 173-74, with further
references.
112 It is noteworthy, in this regard, that Philo uses the
term always in the negative sense in connection with
imagery describing the unruly nature of passion (see
Op. mund. 86; Leg. all. 2.99, 101; Agric. 32, 34, 68,
71, 83, 106; Migr. Abr. 62; Rer. div. her. 245; Som.
2.293; Abr. 135; Spec. leg. 1.304). See also Josephus
Bell. 5.120.
113 D has lin ("for") in harmonization with SM/Matt
5:12b.
114 The element of surprise is missing in the Jewish-
Christian SM (Matt 5:12).
115 Compared with the SM, the singular of "heaven"
(ovpavof) in the SP reflects its Greek milieu; the
plural in the SM conforms to its Jewish milieu (see
above on SM/Matt 5:3b).
116 Be fhave the plural "in the heavens" (£v TOtf
ovpavotf) in harmonization with SM/Matt 5:12b.
117 Part of the tradition contracts Ta avra into TaVTa
here and in vs 26. See Aland, Synopsis, 103 and 104,
with the critical apparatus.
118 On the notion of 1rar£pn as "forefathers" see also vs
26b (cf. of God in 6:36); there are no other oc-
currences in the SP. The notion with this meaning
does not occur in the SM because the name "Father"
is reserved for God (for the passages see above on
SM/Matt 5: 16), while the ancestors are called o!
apxatOI ("the men of old," SM/Matt 5:21, 33). See
BAGD, s.v. 1rar~p, l.b; Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.246-49.

583
persecutions made of these prophets "righteous men"
who generated divine reward. 119 If the Christians, even
Gentile Christians, experience these same persecutions,
they are right in expecting reward because of the legal
principle that equal merit leads to equal reward. Since
the reward of the prophets was great, as was generally
agreed, so will the reward for Christians be great.
As noted, this theological argument is identical with
that in SM/Matt 5:12, except that in the SPit seems to
apply to Gentile Christians. This conclusion follows from
the expression "their forefathers," focusing on the Jewish
forefathers of those prophets. The wording is not "your
forefathers" (cf. SM/Matt 5:12: "the prophets who were
there before you") but "their forefathers," 120 implying a
non-Jewish perspective. Moreover, "they" (that is, the
present Jewish authorities) have acted in the same
manner against the disciples addressed in the SP;
consequently, these disciples can expect the same reward.
Despite parallels elsewhere, this argument is certainly
bold and provocative. Of interest here is that neither the
SM nor the SP mentions the persecution and death of
Jesus in this connection.
Is it conceivable that Gentile Christians can expect a
reward identical to that of Jewish Christians, even
though these Gentiles do not become partakers of the
covenant of Moses? The theology of Paul attests that
such possibilities did exist at his time within Judaism.
Paul's whole mission is based on the assumption that
Christian Gentiles will be acceptable to God in the last
judgment because they are believers in Christ, not
because they are beneficiaries of the Sinai covenant. Paul
would never have undertaken this mission had not Jewish
thought been open to it. The opening, at first tolerated
by the church authorities in Jerusalem, quickly became a
powerful and threatening challenge to Judaism from
within, a phenomenon that in turn led to increased
suspicion, resistance, and even suppression by other Jews,
Christian as well as non-Christian. These developments
are well known from the New Testament writings.
Since no independent sources exist, one can only
surmise the status of the question in the environment in
which the SP originated. Hints suggest that in the first
century, certainly before 70 CE,Judaism was to some
degree open to Gentiles, 121 although there was no
consensus to this effect among the rabbis. Proselytism in
any form meant that possibilities for Gentiles to par-
ticipate in salvation were available. The only question
was how such salvation was to be achieved. Would God
recognize the good deeds of Gentiles in the last judg-
ment? The answer depended on a definition of terms. If,
on the one hand, good deeds are understood as the
general result of human virtues, whether the person
performing them is a Jew or a Gentile is of no con-
sequence. If, on the other hand, only those deeds that
fulfill the particular requirements of jewish cult and
ethos are considered, Gentiles would by definition be
excluded. Rabbi Eliezer would then be right in inter-
preting Prov 14:34 ("Righteousness exalteth a nation,
but the kindness of the peoples is sin") as saying: "all the
charity and kindness done by the heathen is counted to
them as sin, because they only do it to magnify them-
selves, as it says." 122

119 On this doctrine see above on SM/Matt 5: 12; also,
with further literature, Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium,
1.335.
120 Wellhausen (Evangelium Lucae, 24) explains the
difference as a translation variant: "Lc hat 'ihre
Vorfahren' gelesen, als Subjekt des Verbs; Mt 'eure
Vorfahren,' als Apposition zu den Propheten. Die
Differenz ist daq' damaihOn (ol 7rar(pn ahwv) und
daq' damaikon (rob~ 1rpo vp.wv)" ("Luke read 'their
forefathers' as subject of the verb; Matthew read
'your forefathers' as apposition to the prophets. The
difference is daq, damaihOn [o[ 7rar(pn avrwv ('their
forefathers')] and daq' damaikon [rob~ 7rp0 vp.wv
('those before you')])." Wellhausen's explanation
presupposes an Aramaic Vorlage, which is un-
provable; he does not repeat it in the 2d ed. of his
Einleitung. But Black (Approach, 191-92) accepts it.
Opposed are Wrege, Bergpredigt, 24 n. 2; Hare,
Persecution, 17 4-7 5; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium,
1.335 n. 73.
121 On this problem see Emil G. Hirsch and]. D.
Eisenstein, "Gentile," jewish Encyclopedia 5 (ed.
Isidore Singer; rev. ed.; New York and London:
Funk and Wagnalls, 1903) 615-25; Max Kadushin,
"Aspects of the Rabbinic Concept of Israel: A Study
in the Mekilta," HUCA 19 (1945-46) 57-96, esp. 80-
87; Benjamin W. Helfgott, The Doctrine ofElection in
Tannaitic Literature (New York: King's Crown, 1954),
esp. 140-41; Urbach, Sages, 541-54; Ed P. Sanders,
Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1977) 206-12.
122 b. B. Batra 1Ob, trans. Israel W. Slotki, The Hebrew-
English Translation of the Babylonian Talmud, Baba
Bathra, vol. 22, pt. 1 (London, Jerusalem, and New

584
 Luke 6:20b-26

At the time of the SP, both positions were apparently
held in Judaism. Otherwise, why were they debated in an
even later period, when the positive attitude toward the
Gentiles had become almost hypothetical? 123 This
position, interestingly enough, was attributed to R.
Johanan ben Zakkai, who is said to have interpreted Prov
14:34 as referring to both Jews and Gentiles. 124 For
Israel, it means that righteousness comes from atone-
ment through the sacrificial cult; for Gentiles, the term
"righteousness" is defined in the Greek sense, with
righteousness as the result of deeds of benevolence. Thus
R. Joshua is right when he is said to have taught: "There
are righteous men among the nations who have a share
in the world to come." 1 2 5 This position appears to be
remarkably close to the text of the SP, in which benev-
olence is also a dominant theme. Additional evidence for
benevolence as a cardinal virtue of Gentiles is found in
other New Testament texts, most conspicuously in Acts
10, which names specifically the centurion Cornelius.
• 24 The conjunction 'ITA~v ("however") 126 presages the
turning point between promise of salvation and warning
against disaster and marks the first of the four threats or
"woes." 127 Antithetical to the beatitude ofvs 20b, the
"woe" is directed against the rich, whose conduct is
described in detail further on: "However, woe to you the
rich" ('ITA~V oval Vf'LV TOL~ 'ITAOVcrloL~). We have seen before
how this address affects the disciples. The threat is a
warning that the rich can expect no eschatological
reward: "for you have (already) received your comfort"
(Cln a'ITEX£T£ T~V '!TapaKJ\.7Jcrw). The term a'!T€xw comes
from the language of commerce and signifies the cashing
in of a payment and the issuing of a receipt for a sum
owed. 1 2 8 In what sense has the rich cashed in his
"comfort" ('1TapaKJ\.7JcrL~)? 129 In order to understand the
argument, one must consider some social presuppositions
held in antiquity, according to which the rich suffer from
a whole catalog of aches and pains coming from lux-
urious living, including illnesses, worries, fear, anxieties,
thefts, cheating, and false friends. One must have read
Lucian's descriptions of the dreadful lot of the rich to
understand the argument that they, more than others,
need comfort. 130 Now, the SP states that they have
already cashed in on that comfort. One understands that
the luxurious life itself is their comfort, that is, those
things named in vss 25-26: the filled stomach, fun and
laughter, and of course flattery, of which the rich can
never get enough. 131 One understands, too, that this
comfort is in itself waste, illusion, and self-deception, 13 2
even though it is compensation for the plagues. Thus the
rich have already been compensated for whatever they
may have suffered. Real comfort, however, can reside
only in the eschatological promise as given to the
disciples in vss 20b-23 (cf. also SM/Matt 5:4). 133

York: Soncino, 1976). For commentary, see Sanders,
Paul and Palestinian judaism, 208-9.
123 b. B. Batra lOb contains a debate by several rabbis on
the subject, each of them giving his own answer to
the question raised by R. Johanan ben Zakkai about
the meaning of Prov 14:34.
124 He approves of the reply by R. Nei)uniah b. ha-
J5,anah: "Righteousness exalteth a nation, and there is
kindness for Israel and sinfulness for the peoples." R.
Johanan interprets this to mean: "because he assigns
charity and kindness to Israel and sin to the hea-
then." This is said to contain implicitly his own
answer: "Just as the sin-offering makes atonement for
Israel, so charity makes atonement for the heathen."
125 t. Sanh. 13.2 (my trans.). The righteous among the
Gentiles are those who have not forgotten God. The
passage interpreted is Ps 9:18. For commentary, see
Sanders, Paul and Palestinian judaism, 209-10.
126 Marcion and Irenaeus omit it; see Aland, Synopsis,
104. Marcion also omits vp.lv, thereby limiting the
addressees to the outsiders.
127 See the excursus on the "woes" below.
128 The term occurs in SM/Matt 6:2, 5, 16; see above,
on these passages.
129 Commentators have various answers to this question.
Grundmann (Lukas, 144-45) thinks the rich are
threatened because of their egotism. Fitzmyer, Luke,
1.636: "a certain shortsightedness, induced by that
status, leads such persons to think that there is
nothing more to have."
130 See Betz, Lukian, 83-84, 86, 194-99. The plight of
the rich is the subject already of the OT wisdom
literature; see esp. Eccl5:9-6:9.
131 Cf. Luke 16:25, where Abraham says to the rich
man: "Son, remember that you in your lifetime
received your good things, and Lazarus in like
manner evil things; but now he is comforted here,
and you are in anguish" (RSV).
132 See the story ofthe foolish rich man, which is the
best illustration of this point (Luke 12:16-21 ).
133 For the eschatological consolation, see Luke 2:25; 1
Thess 2:3 (and passim); 2 Thess 2:16 (and passim).
See BAGD, s.v. wap6.KA7JO'If, 3; Otto Schmitz and
Gustav Stahlin, TDNT 5.773-99, esp. 796-99; andJ.

585
Excursus:
The "Woe" -Sayings
One must determine the form-critical classification of
the "woes" in vss 24-26 by the context, that is, by the
juxtaposed beatitudes, vss 20b-22. The beatitudes (see
the Introduction to the section on the Beatitudes,
above, pp. 92-111) are sayings that pronounce
someone "blessed." Thus they are statements of
assurance, containing both disclosure and promise.
With these qualities is associated a traditional aura of
religious solemnity.
The "woes" in vss 24-26 are the exact counterparts
of the beatitudes. These "woes" address more directly
the disciples for whom the SP is composed and might
seem almost like curses if they were not given on the
condition that the addressees actually meet the
descriptions of people rich, satisfied, laughing, and
being liked by everyone. Since the disciples are warned
against this condition, the "woes" amount not to curses
but to mere threats, although pronounced with
solemnity and definiteness. Similar threats are found in
Mark 14:21//Matt 26:24//Luke 22:22; Matt
18:7b//Luke 17:1c; 1 Cor9:16d. These forms must
be distinguished from apocalyptic oracles of doom
(Mark 13:17//Matt 24:19//Luke 21 :23; Matt
II:2I//Luke IO:I3; Matt I8:7a; Rev 8:I3; 9:I2;
11:I4; I2:I2; I8:IO, I6, I9)andcurses(Matt23:I3-
I6, 23; Luke II:42-47, 52;Jude 11).
Series of beatitudes and "woes" are found in
prophetic, apocalyptic, and wisdom literature (e.g., Isa
3:9, 11; 5:8-22; Eccl IO:I6-I7; Tob I3:I2, I4; 2 Bar.
I0.6-7; 1 Enoch 94-I03; 2 Enoch 42; 52). The "woes"
in SP/Luke 6:24-26, however, serve a didactic and
paraenetical purpose, with eschatological but not
highly apocalyptic overtones. In contrast, the SM has
no "woes" at all but rather a long section of escha-
tological warnings (SM/Matt 7:I3-23).
Bibliography
Aune, Prophecy, 96-97, 116-I7, I79-81.
BAGD, s.v. obal.
Horst Balz, EWNT(EDNT) 2, s.v. obal.
Bultmann, History, II2-I6, 398-400; Ergiinzungsheft,
42-44.
Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.636.
Grundmann, Lukas, 224-45.
W. Janzen, Mourning Cry and Woe Oracle (BZAW I25;
Berlin: de Gruyter, I972).
Peter Klein, "Die lukanischen Weherufe Lk 6:24-26,"
ZNW7I (I980) I50-59.
Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.336-41.
H.-:J. Zobel, "•1:-r" hoj," ThWAT 2.383-88 (TDOT
3.359-64) (with further bibliography).
• 25 This verse contains the second (vs 25a-c) and third (vs
25d-f) "woes." Verse 25a-c is usually translated (RSV):
"Woe to you that are full now, for you will hunger" (oval
vp.'iv 0~ Eft7T£7TA1JCTJLEVO' vvv, 8n 7Tnvacr£u). 134 The ex-
clamatory "woe" is followed by the specification of the
addressees, first to the disciples and then to the rich,
whose food consumption is described not without
satirical sting as "filling up" either themselves or their
stomachs. 135 Passages in Hellenistic literature confirm
without question this description of the behavior of the
rich. 136 In comedy and satire the flabby rich man who
stuffs himself with delicacies is a well-known char-
acter.137 Moreover, critical descriptions of banquets of
the wealthy and their parasites entertain readers with
detailed episodes of gluttony, giving proper attention to
the consequences of such gluttony. 138

Thomas, EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v. wapaKaAE(JJ KTA.
I34 On the omission of vs 2 5a in sy', see Merx, Die vier
kanonischen Evangelien, 2/2.222. A substantial
number of manuscripts do not read uvu ("now") in vs
25b (AD K P r 'I' OI35. 28. 565. IOIO allat
Marcion Irenaeus1•<), but because of the parallelism
with vs 25c, where it is not disputed, it should be
read in vs 25b as well. See Aland, Synopsis, I04, with
the critical apparatus.
I35 Other NT passages use the term with a positive or
neutral meaning. See Luke I :53: "he has filled the
hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent
empty away" (RSV). The verse is from the Magnificat
and is inspired by OT poetry (cf. Ps I07:9;Job 22:9;
furthermore Deut 3I:20;Job 20:23; Pss I7:I4;
8I:11;Jer 5I:34; Sir 3I:3. Cf. also the reversal in
Luke I5:I6 v.l.: "and he longed to fill his stomach
with the pods that the swine ate." For the variants see
Nestle-Aiand, critical apparatus; also Gerhard
Delling, "wlp.wli.TJp.• Krll.," TDNT 6.I28-34. Cf. also
Rom I6:I8; Phii3:I9: "those whose god is their
stomach"; Gai5:2I.
I36 Differently, BAGD, s.v. £p.wl(p.)w11.1Jp.•, 2; Schiirmann,
Lukasevangelium, I.337 n. 89; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.636;
they see the neutral meaning also in Luke 6:25.
I37 See esp. Lucian Nigr. I3; 2I; Menippus II. For
further parallel material, see Betz, Lukian, 84-86,
I85-99.
I38 For references and bibliography, see David E. Aune
inPECL 2.70-74, esp. 73; Rudolf Arbesmann,
"Gefrassigkeit," RAG 9 (I976) 345-90; Heinemann,
Philons griechische und judische Bildung, 56 n. 2. For
the OT see Ezek 39:17 -20; for Jewish literature, 2
Mace 6:4; Philo Vit. cont. 48-64; Spec. leg. 3.43; Abr.

586
 Luke 6:20b-26

According to common belief, the situation can easily
be reversed, either in this world or in the afterlife. 139 A
number of underworld tales in Jewish and Christian
apocalyptic literature relate that the glutton will suffer
from hunger and thirst. 140 Also a story such,as the Rich
Man and Poor Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 contains this
teaching, according to which the rich man suffers in
Hades from thirst: "And he called out, 'Father Abraham,
have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of
his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in
anguish in this flame'" (vs 24).141
The third "woe" (vs 25d-f) parallels the second. The
address vp.'iv ("to you") is missing in a considerable
number of witnesses, 14 2 but because of the parallel
construction characteristic of the whole section, it should
be restored to the Nestle-Aland text, and one should
read: "Woe (to you) that laugh now, for you will mourn
and weep" (oilal [vf-tlv] o[ yt:A.wvns vvv, Cfn 1rwB~ut:n Kat
KAaVut:n).
Although not obvious from the context, the laughter
seems to be cynical, expressing an eerie joy and even
frenzy, the mark of the fool. 143 One should see this
laughter of the rich in contrast to the grim lot of the
poor. 144 One can adduce numerous parallels for the
rejection of such laughter from the Old Testament and
from Jewish literature, 145 especially the wisdom texts, as
well as from Greek literature. 146 One is not to confuse
the laughter of the rich with the hilarity characteristic of
the sage. 147
The reason for this warning is again the eschatological
reversal of the roles, which has "mourning and weeping"
ready for the laughers. 148 The combination of the two

135; Leg. Gaj. 14. For the NT, cf. Gal5:21 (and on
that, see Betz, Galatians, 284); 1 Cor 11:17-34 (and
on this, see Aune inPECL 2.76-78; Edward N.
O'Neil in PECL 2.356-57); Rom 13: 13; 1 Pet 4:3; 2
Pet2:13.
139 See Eccl10:16-17; Sir 18:32 (RSV): "Do not revel in
great luxury, lest you become impoverished by its
expense." In Greek literature, see Pindar lsthmia
1.68; Ps.-Isoc. Demon. 32; !socrates Antidosis 286-87.
140 For the punishments of the rich in the afterlife, see
Apoc. Pet., lines 86-91 (ed. Albrecht Dieterich,
Nekyia: Beitriige zur Erkliirung der neuentdeckten
Petrusapokalypse [3d ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaft-
liche Buchgesellschaft, 1969] 8); cf. the commentary,
163-95; Betz, Lukian, 84-89; Betz eta!., PECL
1.224-28; Richard Bauckham, "Descent to the
Underworld," ABD 2.145-59 (with bibliography).
For a collection of apocalyptic and rabbinic passages,
see Str-B 4/2.1036-75, esp. 1070 (i), 1071 (m),
1075 (cc).
141 See Alfred Hermann, "Durst," RAG 4 (1 959) 389-
415.
142 It is read by p7 5 AD Q R 'I' 0135 a/lat. See Nestle-
Aland, critical apparatus, ad Joe. Aland (Synopsis,
104) and Greeven (Synopsis) have relegated it to the
critical apparatus. One should probably retain it
because ofthe parallelism ofvss 24a, 25a (cf. vs 26a).
143 Cf. Eccl 2:2 (RSV): "I said oflaughter, 'It is mad,' and
of pleasure, 'What use is it?'" Cf. also 7:3, 6 (RSV):
"For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the
laughter of the fools; this also is vanity." See Sir
21:20; 27:13. See Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, "yEA..iw
~rA..," TDNT 1.658-62. For the NT, see Luke
12:16-21;Jas 5:1-6.
144 Laughter equals contempt. See Prov 17:5 (RSV): "He
who mocks the poor insults his maker; he who is glad
at calamity will not go unpunished." For the opposite
conduct cf. Sir 4:1-10; 7:32-36; 29:8-13. Cf.
furthermore Pss 22:7-8; 31:12; 39:9; 123:4; Sir
27:28, etc.; T. Reu. 4.7; Naph. 2.8. For rabbinic
parallels, see Str-B 4/2.1075 (cc).
145 See Flemming F. Hvidberg, Weeping and Laughter in
the Old Testament: A Study of Canaanite-lsraelite Religion
(Leiden: Brill, 1 962).
146 Ludwig Radermacher, Weinen und Lachen: Studien
uber antikes Lebensgefuhl (Vienna: Rohrer, 194 7);
Kenner, Weinen und Lachen, 72-82; Karl Heinrich
Rengstorf, "~A.alw KTA.," TDNT 3.722 n. 4, citing
Plutarch Quaest. conv. 1.4, 622B: y'A.w~ ha'ipo~ l!f3pEw~
("Laughter, the companion of arrogance"). See also
Ps.-Isocr. Demon. 15; Menander Mon. 144; 165.
14 7 Cf. Sir 21:20 (RSV): "A fool raises his voice when he
laughs, but a clever man smiles quietly." The positive
Greek terms are p.Etllt.iw ("smile") and lA.apo~ ("cheer-
ful"), which are rare in early Christian literature. For
the proper "Christian" laughter, see Clement Alex.
Paed. 2.5.2. See RudolfBultmann, "lA.apo~ ~rA..,"
TDNT 3.297-300.
148 See the direct parallel in Jas 4:9; the paraenesis is
directly addressed to the double-minded.

587
verbs is traditional, 149 so that one should rule out
redactional operations at this point. 150 Apocalyptic
literature and tales of the netherworld also substantiate
that the laughing rich of this world have nothing to laugh
about in the world to come.l 51 These things seem to
have been the stock-in-trade of popular literature,
proverbs, and folklore_I 5 2
• 26 The fourth "woe" (vs 26) is analogous to the fourth
beatitude (vs 22). The initial "woe" exclamation is
followed by the <ITav-sentence (vs 26a) and the reason (vs
26b ). Verse 26a describes yet another type of attitude
typical of the wealthy, flattery: "Woe (to you), when all
the people speak well of you" (oval [vJ.ttv] <ITav vJ.tas KaA.ws
£r1Tw<Tw ml.vus ol li.v8pw1Tot). 153 Obviously, the expression
"speak well" (KaAws £l1T£tv) refers to what we know from
other texts as flattery (Greek KOAaK£La). If all 154 people
speak well of someone, what they say must be flattery. 15 5
One of the troubles of the rich is that they are con-
tinuously surrounded by flatterers; the upstarts and
parasites in particular were known to fall prey easily to
flattery. 156 If defamation is already bad enough (vs 22),
flattery is even worse. Although such a situation is typical
for the rich, the warning is directed toward the disciples.
It is a hypothetical situation as far as they are concerned,
but other early Christian paraenesis confirms that such
warning was not redundant. 15 7
That flattery is the abuse of something positive related
to the purpose of moral maxims, however, we learn from
!socrates when he explains his reason for composing his
piece of exhortation: "But it is not possible for the mind
to be so disposed 158 unless it is fraught with many noble
maxims; for, as it is the nature of the body to be devel-
oped by appropriate exercises, it is the nature of the soul
to be developed by moral precepts. Wherefore I shall
endeavor to set before you concisely by what practices I
think you can make the most progress toward virtue and
win the highest repute in the eyes of all other men." 159
In other words, the goal of any public figure must be to

149 Mark 16:10; Luke 23:18 D;Jas 4:9; Rev 18:11, 15,
19; cf. 21 :4; and already Ezek 27:30-32; LXX 2 Esd
18:9 (= Neh 8:9). Cf. also John 16:20;Jas 5:1-6; Rev
18:9. See Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, "KAaiw KTA.,"
TDNT 3.722-26; RudolfBultmann, ".,.£v8os KTA.,"
TDNT 6.40-43, esp. n. 9.
150 Against Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.331 n. 42,
338 n. 97.
151 See Isa 13:6; 65:13-14;Joel1:8-10; Ezek 22:24-31;
1 Enoch 94:6-11. See Dibelius,james, 235-40.
152 Cf. the proverbial "There will be weeping and
gnashing of the teeth" (Matt 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13;
24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:28).
153 The textual tradition of the verse is characterized by
many variants. Apart from the manuscript evidence,
one must consider the parallel sentence in vs 22.
Nestle-Aland agrees with D W* Ll. 1424 pc b r 1 sy'·P
co Ir1•< that vp."iv ("to you") should not be read. Verse
22 has a direct address in eun ("you are"), however,
and the vp.lv ("to you") in vs 26a may have been
dropped as redundant because of the following vp.as
("you"). A-clear decision is not possible. See Nestle-
Aland, critical apparatus; Aland, Synopsis, 104.
154 The .,.&vns ("all") is required because of the defi-
nition of flattery; without it, the statement would be
absurd. Cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 141.
155 So, correctly, Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels, 1.174-
75; Klostermann, Lukasevangelium, 80. The Greek
term for flattery is KOAania, which occurs in 1 Thess
2:5; cf. Ignatius Pol. 2.2. See BAGD, s.v.;Johannes
Schneider, "(KoAaK.,)w) KoAaKia," TDNT 3.817-18;
PGL, s.v. KOAaK£,;w, etc.; Spicq, Notes, 1.436-39, with
important material. See Plutarch's writings De
garrulitate; Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur;
Lib. educ. 9, 6B; 12F--'13C; Cicero Tusc. 5.12; Lucian
Timon 56; furthermore Wettstein, 1.694; PECL
1.376; van der Horst, Sentences, 176 (Sent. 91: "Make
not parasitic flatterers your friends").
156 See Ernst Meyer, Der Emporkommling: Ein Beitrag zur
antiken Etholog;ie (GieBen: Kindt, 1913).
157 See Gal1:10 (and Betz, Galatians, 55); 1 Thess 2:4-
5; and for the character of the "man-pleaser"
(av8pw7r<ip£uKos) see Eph 6:6; Col 3:22; cf. Ignatius
Rom. 2.1. For references see BAGD, s.v.
av8pw7r<ip£1TKOS. Especially close to the SP is 2 Clem.
13.1: "and let us not become man-pleasers, nor let us
want only to please ourselves, but even those people
who are outside, so that the name (of the Lord) be
not blasphemed on account of us" (my trans.).
158 That is, toward virtue (ap£T7}).
159 Ps.-Isoc. Demon. 12 (ed. and trans. George Norlin,
lsocrates [3 vols.; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1928]
1.10-11 ): ollTw OE T~V yvwp.'I/V ov ovvaTbv otau8ijvat
TOV ,.~ 7rOAAWV Kat KaAwv aKovup.<iTWV 7r£7rA'I/pOp.£vov·
Ta p.£v yap uwp.aTa TOtS uvp.p.£Tp0tS .,.&vots, ~ OE lf!vx~
roL~ CT1Tov0alors A6yor.s- aiJ,cu8ar. 1flcpvKE. Ot61T£p £yJ, p.or.
7rnp&.crop.ar. crvvr011-wS' tnro8lu8at, Or.' ti>v ll.v p.or. OoKELS'
f7rLTT/0EVJ.t&,TtilV 1TAE'i:CTTDV 1rphs- lJ.pET~V f1rr.OoiJvar. Ka't
1rapa ro'Ls- ll.AA.ors Cl.7racn.v Ctv8p6J1rors EVOoKr.p.fjuat.

588
 Luke 6:20b-26

develop a good reputation (oofa) among fellow citi- therefore, must avoid attracting flattery toward them-
zens.160 selves. Acting in such a way that all people praise them
The reason for the warning in vs 26b stands in cannot be a Christian goal. 164 Instead, the people are to
juxtaposition to vs 23c: "for in the same manner their be moved by good deeds to praise God (cf. SM/Matt
forefathers did to the false prophets" (KaTtt Ttt aVTtt yap 5:16).
f7TO/.ovv TOLS 1/F£vl3o7Tpocp~Tats o! 7TaT,p€S avTwv). This
argumentation is a topos, known from the Old Testa-
ment.161 Accordingly, the true prophets were always
persecuted while the false prophets were always glori-
fied.162 From this evidence, anyone can see who the true
and the false prophets are. 163 The true disciples of Jesus,

160 Cf. Ps.-lsoc. Demon. 17; 45-47; 49; !socrates, Ad 164 Cf., however, Paul in 1 Cor 10:33.
Nicocl. 32.
161 See 1 Kgs 22:26-28; Isa 28:7;Jer 5:31; 14:13-16;
23:16-17; cf. 6:14; 8:10-11; Ezek 13:1-16; Mic
2:11; 3:5-7.
162 Cf. SM/Matt 5:12c.
163 See above on SM/Matt 7:15-20 with further
discussion.

589
 Luke 6:27-45

Chapter II

6 Rules for the Conduct

of the Disciples
27 And now to you who listen I say:
"Love your enemies;
do good to those who hate you;
28 bless those who curse you;
pray for those who abuse you.
29 To the one who hits you on one cheek, offer
also the other; and from him who takes
away your coat, do not withold even your
shirt.
30 To the one who begs from you, give; and
from him who takes away your
possessions, do not ask them back.
31 And as you wish that people do to you, do
to them in the same way.
32 And if you love those who love you, what
credit is that to you? For even the sinners
love those who love them.
33 And when you do good to those who do
good to you, what credit is that to you?
For even the sinners do the very same
thing.
34 And when you lend (money to those) from
whom you expect to get (it back), what
credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to
sinners, for the purpose of receiving the
same (amount) in return.
35 But love your enemies,
and do good,
and lend (money) expecting nothing in
return.
Then your reward will be great, and you
will be sons of the Most High, for he
himself is benevolent (even) to the
ungrateful and bad.
36 Be merciful, as (also) your Father is merci-
ful.
37 Judge not, and you will not be judged
either;
and condemn not, and you will not be
condemned either.
Set free, and you will be set free;
38 give, and it will be given to you.
Good measure: pressed down, shaken
together.
overflowing-they will give (it) into your
lap.
For by which measure you measure, it
will be measured to you in return."
39 And then he told them a parable:
"Can a blind man guide a blind man?
Will they not (both) fall into a pit?
40 A disciple is not above his teacher. but
everyone who has graduated will be like
his teacher.
41 Why do you see the speck that is in your
brother's eye, but you do not notice the
log that is in your own eye?
42 How can you say to your brother, 'Brother,
let me take out the speck that is in your
eye,'

590
 Luke 6:27-45
but you yourself do not see the log that is
in your own eye?
You hypocrite, first take the log out of
your eye,
and then you will see clearly to take out
the speck that is in your brother's eye.
43 There is no good tree that bears bad fruit,
nor again is there a bad tree that bears
good fruit.
44 For every tree is known by its own fruit.
For from thorns they do not gather a fig,
nor do they harvest a grape from a
bramble bush.
45 The good man out of the good treasure of
his heart brings forth the good,
but the bad out of the bad brings forth the
bad.
For out of the abundance of the heart his
mouth speaks."

1. Analysis The body of the SP, that is, the sections between the
exordium (vss 20-26) and the peroration (vss 46-49),
consists of rules for discipleship, presented as three
consecutive units. They are, however, not simply set
before the reader as rules; rather, each rule in itself
forms an argument, and, taken together, all three
present one consistent argument expressing the ethics
ofJesus.
The first main unit (vss 27 -38) discusses the
conduct of the disciple toward the outside world. 1 This
section is followed by rules concerning conduct within
the community (vss 39-42), 2 then the conduct toward
oneself (vss 43-45). This course of the argument,
starting at the periphery and moving to the inner circle
and finally to the self, corresponds to the modes of
Greek ethical thought. All three rules are carefully
composed formally and argued logically within the
bounds of the argument made in the text. Thus the
rules are not merely set forth but also contain argu-
ments for what is regarded as the reasonable way to
conduct oneself. The definition of reasonable conduct
is informed by Greek ethical ideas.
The argument begins with Jesus' love-command as
the fundamental ethical rule of Christian behavior. It is
stated (vs 27a) and then varied by three additional
parallel maxims (vss 27b-28). All four maxims state
what appears to the Greek mind as paradoxes, a form
of maxim common among the Greeks. Paradoxes are
not in and of themselves irrational. They do not defy
comprehension but capture the phenomena of life
itself. The ensuing discussion (vss 29-38) demonstrates
why Jesus' love-command, though seemingly absurd,
makes sense in terms of Greek ethics. Four exemplary
cases first delineate, and thereby admit, the seemingly
absurd character of the maxims when put into practice
(vss 29-30). Then, vss 31-36 spell out the underlying
ethical presuppositions, beginning with the Golden
Rule (vs 31 ). A commentary on the Golden Rule
follows, which clarifies first its inadequate (vss 32-34),
then its adequate, understanding (v. 35). The in-
adequate understanding is refuted by three rhetorical
questions and answers (vss 32-34), from which the
right interpretation is concluded e contra rio ("from the
contrary"). Once this clarification has been reached,
the result can be applied to Jesus' love-command (vs
27a), which is restated with two variations (vs 35a).
Then vs 35b-d introduces the doctrinal premises, first
the eschatological doctrine (vs 35b), then its specific
application for the disciples (vs 35c). The entire
argument concludes with a positive ethical maxim (vs
36).
The positive paraenetical application can now be set
forth (vss 37-38), accomplished in four maxims
composed in two couplets of parallel lines (parallelism us

The outsiders are not named directly. Cf. SM/Matt

5:16; Mark 4:11; 1 Cor 5:12-13; Col4:5; 1 Thess
4:12. See Willem C. van Unnik, "Die Riicksicht auf
die Reaktion der Nicht-Christen als Motiv in der
altchristlichen Paranese," in his Sparsa collecta,
2.307-22.
2 On these rules see the excursus below on rules for
teachers and students.
591
 membrorum, vss 37a-b and 37c-38a). Finally, the
reader's view is arrested by an impressive verbal image
describing the good measure of grain (vs 38b), leading
to a concluding principle about giving and receiving (vs
38c).
2. Interpretation
a. Conduct toward the Outside World (6:27-38)
• 27 The first ethical rule cites the authoritative doctrine
of Jesus (vs 27b). It is introduced rather formally by a
doctrinal formula (vs 27a): "to you who listen I say the
following" (VJLLV AEyw TOLS aKOVOvcnv). The initial particle
aHa (something like: "and now") 3 marks the beginning
of a new section. The addressees are named next ("you"),
no doubt because the subsequent text (in fact, the SP in
its entirety) is addressed to them. Those who listen (ol
aKovovus) are the disciples. 4 The introductory formula 5
is important because it designates the text as author-
itative teaching material, similar to the SM. 6
The teaching of Jesus, however, is set forth not in one
but in a sequence of four parallel maxims (vss 27-28).
They are arranged by parallel lines (parallelismus
membrorum) in two sets, the first set in vs 27b-c. 7 The first
maxim in the set (vs 27b) states the famous command,
"love your enemies" (aya1rau Toh €x6povs VJLwv). The
wording is identical with SM/Matt 5:44. The subsequent
elaboration concerning the meaning shows that jesus'
love-command is regarded as more than simply his
authoritative doctrine. Within themselves the four
maxims contain an argument that stands in place of the
quite different argument made by SM/Matt 5:43-48.
The difference is that the SP makes no attempt to justify
the love-command by reference to Torah tradition but
assumes that it makes sense on its own, that is, Greek
ethical, terms. This assumption implies that as a maxim
one is to regard it as self-evident. On the surface,
however, jesus' love-command looks paradoxical and
even absurd, an appearance that is not denied but
explicitly admitted and subsequently clarified.
The commandment to love the enemy (vs 27b) is cited,
as elsewhere in the New Testament, as jesus' funda-
mental ethical doctrine. 8 The SP regards this doctrine as
authoritative tradition and thus as well known to the
Christian community. Hence the reason for citing it here
is not to introduce it for the first time but to interpret it
appropriately. 9
The second line provides a parallel variation (vs 27c):
"Do good to those who hate you" (KaAws 7TOt<'in Toh
JLUrovuw vJJ.as). 10 The word "love" (aya1rav) is now
identified with "doing good" (KaAws 7TOt£'iv), 11 a general
Greek moral term, 12 while the "enemies" (€x6pol) are
concretely explained as "those who hate you." Thus
loving and hating, doing good and being inimical,
interpret each other. Yet the word that needs inter-
pretation most is aya?Tav ("love"), not a common term in
Greek moral thought. 13
For the Greeks, the enemy is the opposite of a friend.
With the friend one is united in a bond oflove (cjJtAla)
that consists of mutual acts of doing good. 14 Therefore,
the variation on vs 27c means in effect that the term
"love" is interpreted here in the context of friendship, an
interpretation that makes good sense to a student of
Greek origin. Since such an interpretation is somewhat

3 See BAGD, s.v. a,\Aa, 3. pray"). See Harnack, Marcion, 192*-193*.

4 W adds p.ov, emphasizing that hearing the words of
Jesus equals hearing him. See Aland, Synopsis, 104,
critical apparatus.
5 This doctrinal formula occurs only here in the SP but
more often and more developed in SM/Matt 5:18,
20, 22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44; 6:2, 5, 16, 25, 29;
SP /Luke 6:46 mentions the formula indirectly. On
the formula see also Betz, Essays, 43-44, 48, 52, 67;
also Bultmann, History, 91.
6 The term o[ aKOVOVTf~ ("the listeners") may be a short
term defining the disciples as learners. On the
meaning of hearing see also SP /Luke 6:4 7, 49; and
Betz, Essays, 3-7.
7 Marcion reduces the number of parallels to three by
reading in vss 27b-28a Ka\. Ev>toyi<n ToVs p.urovvm~
Ka\. 7rpocrn)xEcr0E ("and bless those who hate [you] and
8 See the discussion on SM/Matt 5:43-48. For a
combination of love-command and Golden Rule see
also Ep. Apost. 18 (trans. in NTApoc 1.202).
9 The authority ofJesus' love-command is presup-
posed throughout. See also SP /Luke 6:32, 35.
10 The line has no parallel in the SP.
11 The expression KaAw~ 1rodw ("do good") occurs only
here in the SP; cf. SM/Matt 5:44 v.l. For other usage
seeJas 2:8, 19; Matt 12:12; Mark 7:37; Acts 10:33; 1
Cor 7:37-38; Phil4:14; 2 Pet 1: 19; 3 John 6. In
SP /Luke 6:33 the synonym ayaOo?rodw occurs.
12 Cf. BAGD, s. v. KaAw~. 3-4a, but Luke 6:27 should be
cited in section 4a, not 3.
13 On the occurrence of aya1raw in pre-Christian Greek
ethics, see Spicq, Notes, 1.15-30 (with a rich
bibliography).

592
 luke 6:27-45

unusual in the New Testament, its purpose here can only
be pedagogical. The disciples addressed by the SP are
given to understand that the master's commandment to
love the enemy is not an alien and incomprehensible law
but a part of the familiar friendship doctrines. At the
same time, Jesus' love-commandment is shown to be a
matter of reality. Verse 22 already has shown that the
disciples were objects of hatred. Those who hate them
are now identified as the enemies. They must be con-
fronted by the disciples, who in this confrontation need
to learn what is the master's command.
• 28 How can anyone do good to those who hate that
person without making a fool of oneself? Is not such self-
humiliation merely an invitation to add contempt to
hatred? The SP answers questions such as these with the
argument that seeming excessiveness in doing good is far
from absurd. The question is, rather, what is the
Christian way of acting ethically when confronting
hatred? How can one practically implement jesus'
command?
The second parallelism in vs 28a-b offers practical
ways faithful both to the teaching of Jesus and to the
standards of ethics. The variation of Jesus' command in
vs 28a identifies a form of hostility common in antiquity:
cursing, a magical application of enmity. The ordinary
reaction would be to respond in kind and to answer curse
with curse. The SP, however, recommends the opposite
of the curse, namely, the blessing: "Bless those who curse
you" (<vAoy~:'iu rolls Karapwpivovs il~-tiis).l 5
This command, which has no parallel in the SM, is
known, however, from other early Christian sources in
similar contexts. The earliest parallel to it comes from
Paul, who refers to it in Rom 12:14: "Bless those who
persecute (you), bless and do not curse (them)" (<v11.oy~:'iu
rolls otwK6vras [il~-tiis ], <vAoyiiu Kat lot~ KarapiiCT8<). 16
Shorter is the form in 1 Cor 4:12: "as those who are
maligned we bless" (11.otoopov~-twot ~:v11.oyov~-tw). 17 Even
the passage on the tongue in james 3 appears to be aware
of it (3:9-10).1 8 Did. 1.3b has the command as well, but
it is a part of a differently structured argument con-
cerning the reasonableness of Jesus' love-command:
"Bless those who curse you." 19 In addition, still other
variations of this command have no parallels in the SP.
By contrast, the Doctrina apostolorum does not have it,
while the cluster of jesus-sayings in Polycarp (Phil. 2.2)
has the idea but in a different formulation. Polycarp2°
varies the principle of "rendering not evil for evil, or
railing for railing, or blow for blow, or curse for curse"(~
Karltpav avr! Kanl.pas). Another form occurs in the
section of that letter preserved in Latin (12.3): "Pray also

14 The classic definition is in Aristotle Rhet. 2.4.2,
1380b 36-1381a 3: "Let loving, then, be defined as
wishing for anyone the things which we believe good,
for his sake but not for our own, and procuring them
for him as far as lies in our power. A friend is one
who loves and is loved in return, and those who think
their relationship is of this character consider
themselves friends" (trrrw a~ Tb cf>LAfLV Tb {3oVAErr0ai
TLVL (l otErat ftyaOa, fK£lvov lvEKa U.A.Ah. fl~ aVroV, Kat r0
KarU. OVvap.w 7rpaKTt.Khv ETvat. ro6rwv. cplAo~ 0' f.urtv b
c/>tAWv Kat U.vrt.cJJLAoVp.Evo~. otovrat OE cplAot £1vat o1
ol!rw~ tx.. v OtOfLWOI 7Tpb~ aAA~Aov~). Cited according
to the ed. and trans. by J. H. Freese, Aristotle, The
"Art'" of Rhetoric (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press; London: Heinemann, 1926) 192-
93.
15 The dative plural vp.'iv ("you") is read by P 73 L Ll. 0 'I'
0135. 1010 pm. Grammatically, both accusative and
dative are possible; here the accusative conforms to
other occurrences of the pronoun in the verse. See
Nestle-Aland, critical apparatus.
16 The context is a collection of maxims on the theme
oflove (ayc:b17) in Rom 12:9-21. See Wilson, Love,
passim.
17 The saying is part of a cluster of antithetical maxims
(1 Cor 4:10-13), similar to the SM.
18 Once again, the efficaciousness of the tongue is
attributed to the element of magic implied in acts of
blessing and cursing.
19 The explanation given here is: "Then you will have
no enemy" (Did. 1.3b).
20 Paul cites the principle in Rom 12: 17 (see n. 16
above), but cf. also Rom 12:21; 13:8; 14:20; 16: 19; 1
Cor 13:5; 2 Cor 13:7; 1 Thess 5:15; and beyond
Paul, 1 Pet 3:9, 10-12; 3 John 11. Its fullest develop-
ment is in SM/Matt 5:38-42.

593
for the kings and potentates and powers and for those
who persecute and hate you and the enemies of the
cross" ("Orate etiam pro regibus et potestatibus et
principibus atque pro persequentibus et odientibus vos et
pro inimicis crucis"). 21 The confusion indicated by these
sources seems to be caused by the oral tradition of what
appears to be teaching material, and for this reason one
can assume that the variant traditions are textually
independent from each other.
Polycarp (Phil. 2.2) also reminds us of the common
way to respond to a curse with a countercurse. Such were
spells to protect (cfJVA.aKdpwv) or to render the curse
ineffective (A.vuupapp.aKov) or to contain anger
(8vp.oKctToxov). 22 But since none of these magical spells
was ethically acceptable to Christians, 23 other means of
counteraction had to be found. Such a means resides in a
form of "good magic," the blessing. The next line (vs
28b) presents another variation of means for dealing
with the enemy. The question here is, What is to be done
to those who mistreat someone? One would ordinarily
bring such mistreatment before the courts. But this
recourse is ruled out here, either because it is improper
for Christians to go to court (cf. SM/Matt 5:21-26) or
because going to court would be of no use. Equally
improper for Christians would be the infliction of
damages by magic. 24 Instead, the Christian worship
service-in particular, the prayer of intercession-is
recommended as the appropriate way to deal with
mistreatment: "Pray for those who mistreat you"
(7TpOu£-6x£u(J£ 7T€p\. Tc;JV f7T7]p€a(6vTWV vp.as). 25 One may
assume that from a very early time the prayer of interces-
sion was part of Christian prayer life. 2 6 In a situation of
powerlessness, it would appear to have been the most
acceptable course for a victim of abuse to turn to God as
the avenger of injustice. 27 The advice here, however, is
not to invoke his wrath on the evildoer but to plead for
forgiveness on behalf of the evildoer.
What is the purpose of such an action? Ancient
thought would indeed have judged it morally noble and
an act worthy of imitation, not sentimental or stupid. 28
One may assume, therefore, that an attitude such as the
recommended one makes moral sense to Greeks of the
Hellenistic era. This conclusion may even be under-
scored by the use of the verb f7T1Jp€ct(£Lv ("threaten,"
"mistreat"), a good Greek classical term otherwise rare in
the New Testament. 29 Furthermore, the passion

21 SeeP. Oxy. 1224, folio 2, col. 1 (see above on
SM/Matt 5:44);Justin Martyr Apol. 1.14.3; 15.9;
Dial. 35.8; 96.3; 133.6; Didascalia syriaca V, 14, 22
(ed. Funk); cf. Arthur Voobus, The Didascalia
apostolorum in Syriac I (CSCO 401-2, 407-8;
Louvain: Peeters, 1979) chap. III, p. 32, lines 14-17:
"And you shall not hate any man, but you shall
reprove some, and have compassion on others. But
pray because of these. However, love those more
than (you do) yourself." For the discussion ofthe
parallels, see Bultmann, History, 324-25; Koester,
Synoptische Uberlieferung, 220-26.
22 For examples see PGM IV.1596-1715; VII.311-16;
317-18 (<j>vAaKr~ptov); XXXVI.178 (Avcn<j>apfl-aKov);
IV.467-68; XIII.250; XXXVI.l61-77; LXXIX.1-
7; LXXX.1-5 (6vf1-oKaroxov). For translations see
Betz, Greek Magical Papyri, ad loc.
23 Magic appears early in Christian catalogs of vices. See
Gal5:20 (see Betz, Galatians, 284); Rev 21:8; 22:15;
Did. 2.2; 5.1; Bam. 20.1; cf. IgnatiusEph. 19.3.
24 For examples of magical infliction of damages, see,
e.g., PGM IV.396-466; XII.365-75, 376-96; and
for the translations see Betz, Greek Magical Papyri, ad
loc.
25 W pc Clement provide a connection with the preced-
ing by adding Kai ("and"). The preposition lmtp ("on
behalf of") instead of or<pi ("concerning") is preferred
by AD 8 0135 A <j> pllatt Clement Origen (or<pi is
read by P 7 5 B M L W E pc), apparently due to harmo-
nization with SM/Matt 5:44. See Aland, Synopsis,
104. The different prepositions seem to point to
different categories of prayer, either intercession
("on behalf of") or petition ("concerning").
26 Cf. 1 Thess 3:11-13; 5:23, 25; Rom 15:33; 2 Cor
9:14. See Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 125-26.
27 Cf. Rom 12:19; 1 Thess 4:6; also Acts 7:24; 28:4;
Rev6:10; 18:20; 19:2.
28 For further discussion, see above on the parallel
SM/Matt 5:44.
29 In early Christian literature, the word occurs, apart
from SP /Luke 6:28b, only in the close parallel 1 Pet
3:16; for the noun, see Ignatius Mag. 1.3. See BAGD,
s. v. ~or1Jp<a(w. One should note that some of the
variant readings of SM/Matt 5:44 have conflated the
SP with the SM at this point and have included the
maxim. See Nestle-Aland, critical apparatus to Matt
5:44.

594
 Luke 6:27-45

narrative of Luke has made Jesus an example for his
commandment when he prays on the cross (Luke 23:34):
"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they
do."3o
One should note also that the verbs used in vss 27-28
circumscribe what is meant by an enemy: one who hates,
curses, and mistreats. Thus, the Christian is asked to pray
on behalf of the oppressor rather than to retaliate. This
recommendation agrees substantially with the inter-
pretation of the ius talionis ("law of equal retribution") in
SM/Matt 5:38-42. The recommendation later became
part of the early Christian martyrdom ethos, of which
Luke 23:34 and Acts 7:60 may be the earliest instances.
• 29 The four maxims of vss 27-28 are followed by a set
of four examples of abuse, exaggerated no doubt for the
sake of demonstration. Each example envisions both an
act of violence and a recommendation for reaction. The
first two examples (vs 29a-b) are specific, the last two (vs
30a-b) general in nature. The reactions are stated in
alternating fashion: positively (vs 29a), negatively (vs
29b), positively (vs 30a), negatively (vs 30b). 31
What do these four examples demonstrate? What is
their connection with the context? We are apparently
entering here into a more extended argument con-
cerning the maxims (vss 27-28), of which they are a part.
The examples (vss 29-30) bring to the fore the para-
doxical, even absurd, nature of the maxims, and in
particular of jesus' love-command (vs 27b). Indeed, seen
from the Greek perspective of time, the absurdity of this
command was too obvious to ignore or easily explain
away. 32 While vs 28 presented the claim that it is a
reasonable ethical position to take, vss 29-30 seem to
serve primarily a pedagogical function by admitting what
would easily be the students' objections to the maxims.
The four imaginary cases 33 demonstrate the absurd
consequences of jesus' maxims when put into practice.
They leave one with the question: Is this sort of thing
really what jesus demands and what Christian ethics
consists of? Indeed it is. Yet the following section (vss 31-
35) will point out that it is not as unreasonable a position
as it would appear initially. Thus one must not mis-
takenly understand these four examples as commands in
themselves, although they are in fact commands gram-
matically; they are in reality merely illustrations in an
ongoing argument exaggerated by design.
Verse 29 contains the first example of beating, a
specific act of humiliation, and the proposed reaction:
"To the one who hits you on (your) one cheek, offer also
the other" (Tip T{;7TTOVT{ CTf f7TL T~V CTtayova 7rclPfXf Kat T~V
ll.A.A.rJV). 34 This example must have been associated with

30 Since the prayer is found only in part of the manu-
script witnesses of Luke 23:34, the question arises
whether it was an original element in Luke's Gospel
or a later interpolation that became accepted by a
large number of good witnesses. Jesus' prayer
appears clearly to be the implementation of his
command in SP /Luke 6:28a. The insertion must
have been done in the course of the interpretation of
Jesus' life by his own teaching. This interpretation
occurs especially in the passion tradition and seems to
precede the Gospel writers. One can see the influ-
ence of SP /Luke 6:28a also in other texts, showing
that it became a motive of the martyrdom ethos (see
Acts 7:60 and the Gospel of the Nazarenes according to
a medieval excerpt (for which see NTApoc 1.164, no.
35]). Evidently, therefore, Luke knew of the prayer,
probably on the basis of his source for Acts 7, the
Stephen tradition, so that one could argue for its
attestation also in Luke 6:28a. Nonetheless, the
number and quality of witnesses that do not read it is
impressive. See the critical apparatus in Nestle-
Aiand; Aland, Synopsis; and Greeven, Synopsis; also
Metzger, Textual Commentary, 180; Grundmann,
Lukas, 432-33.
31 Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.347-49) argues that
vss 29-30 were combined already in the pre-Lukan
source but that originally the examples had existed
separately. Indeed, one must draw this conclusion in
view of the parallel in SM/Matt 5:39-42.
32 See above on SM/Matt 5:39-42.
33 Tannehill (Sword ofHis Mouth, 67-77) has shown that
these examples use exaggeration.
34 Variants in the manuscript tradition are due to
harmonization of the SP with the SM. For the
evidence, see the critical apparatus in Nestle-Aland,
and Aland, Synopsis.

595
the following one (vs 27b) even in the earlier tradition,
because they appear together in a similar context in
SM/Matt 5:39. In this parallel, however, wording and
argumentation are rather different. 35 Furthermore, the
example in vs 27a seems to have influenced the passion
narratives; but the depiction of Jesus as being beaten and
not retaliating in kind conforms more to SM/Matt 5:39a
than to the SP (see Matt 26:67/ /Mark 14:65//Luke
22:63-64; John 18:22-23; 19:3). 36 Paul affords another
example in Acts 23:2-5, when he reacts to his being
struck on his mouth by conforming to the example of
Jesus. 37 None of these references in the narratives
explicitly mentions either the SM or the SP. If there was
influence by these texts, it must have occurred at the
presynaptic level.
In antiquity, as it is today, striking a person on the
cheek with the hand was an act of severe humiliation. 38
While the ordinary retaliative behavior is to hit back, the
strange recommendation of the SP is not to hit back but
to offer the other cheek as well, obviously an invitation to
another blow. What can this action be but an expression
of weakness and stupidity? Even though the act appears
contemptible, it is not. To see this recommendation as
proposing total inaction or humble submission is a
misreading. Rather, the recommendation proposes
taking the initiative, by which stance the conventional act
of humiliation becomes an act of provocation that calls
into question the entire posture of the assailant.
The example of hitting another on the cheek is
traditional in at least two ways. First, in the SP it is
thought to come from Jesus himself, and this assumption
35 See above on SM/Matt 5:38-42, and in a similar
context Did. 1.4: "If someone gives you a blow on
your right cheek, turn to him also the other, and you
will be perfect" (fO.v TiS O"OL ac;. pd:TrLO"/'-a fLS T~V af~LaV
u'ay&va, urpf1Jlov aVr~ Kat T~V Cl.AA:rw Kallu'[J rfAftoS ).
Ps.-Clem. Hom. 15.5.5 cites the example as a demon-
stration of Christian philanthropy.
36 For the failure to comply and Jesus' reaction, see
Luke 22:50-51.
37 Cf. also 2 Cor 11:20, where Paul asks sarcastically:
"For you (simply) bear it, ... if someone strikes you
in the face" (avtx<u8< yap ...•r ns <ls 1rp6uw7rov viLas
atp<L). Does Paul allude to the SM or the SP? Hardly,
but he seems to know the proverbial illustration.
38 For parallel references in ancient literature, see
Gustav Stahlin, "TV7rTw," TDNT 8.260-69, esp. 263.
One should also note that, as Schurmann (Lukas-
596
is confirmed by the parallels in SM/Matt 5:3 and Did.
1.4. The discussion of SP /Luke 6:32-35 does not repeat
the example. Moreover, a similar example is traditional
in Greek ethical discussion. In the context of the discus-
sion on "doing and suffering wrong" (alltKt:'i'v Kat
aotKt:'i'uOat) in Plato's Gorg. 509C, Callicles and Socrates
refer to the proverbial box on the ear as an example of
the worst kind of disgrace: "to be wrongfully boxed on
the ear is the deepest disgrace" (rh n'nrnuOat i'lTt Kopp1JS
alllKWS aruxtuTOV t:tvat [508D-E]). A person who must
suffer such maltreatment without defense is "unable
either to succour himself, or to deliver himself or anyone
else from the greatest dangers, but [is] like to be stripped
by his enemies of all his substance, and to live in his city
as an absolute outcast" (486C). Socrates adds to this
description of maltreatment (ovnlll(nv [508D]) expropri-
ation of property, expulsion from the city, and death.
One can ascribe these last allusions to Plato; they refer to
Socrates' death. Other passages confirm that the ex-
ample served as an illustration in ethical discussion at the
time of the New Testament. One can conclude, there-
fore, that Gentile-Christian disciples may well have been
familiar with it and that the argument in the SP, pro-
vocative as it is, was not as absurd as SP /Luke 6:29a
would appear to suggest. The term 'lTap€xnv ("offer,"
"give a gift"), 39 found only here in the SP, 40 is used with
purpose. It indicates that the reaction consists of a gift
offering, the other cheek. Alluding to the Golden Rule
(see below on SP /Luke 6:31 ), the one who reacts in such
a way in fact acts by asking for a counteroffer of gen-
erosity, rather than more violence.
evangelium, 1.34 7 n. 32) points out, Luke 6:29, 32-
33 may have influenced 1 Pet 2:18-19. Further-
more, see above on SM/Matt 5:39. There is no
reason, however, for proposing that either Matthew
or Luke changed the wording of their respective
sources. Rather, the SP and the SM use different
terminology. Differently, Harnack (Sprilche, 45
[Sayings, 59]), who has had many followers. Schur-
mann (Lukasevangelium, 1.347) assumes influence of
LXX Isa 50:6, but one cannot demonstrate this
influence for the SP.
39 See BAGD, s.v. 7raptxw, 1. For this meaning see esp.
Acts 28:2; I Tim 6:17; Titus 2:7.
40 SM/Matt 5:39 uses a different term not implying a
gift offering: <FTpt</><LV ("turn").
 Luke 6:27-45

The second example in vs 29b is constructed in the
same way as the first, except that the reaction is stated
negatively: "and from him who takes away your coat do
not withhold even your shirt" (Katll.'lrO TOV arpovn~s- ITOV TO
tfAanov Kat TOv XLTwva fA~ KooAvuvs-). 41 The example
occurs also in SM/Matt 5:40 but with a different
interpretation. The SM has a court action in mind, 42
while the SP describes a robber who attempts to "take
away" 43 by force one's coat. 44 Instead of trying to
prevent the robbery, 45 the victim is ordered to hand
over his shirt as well. 46
This example must have circulated widely in early
Christianity and has found its way into a variety of texts,
taking on different forms in the course of the history of
the tradition. 4 7 Despite the variety, the point is clearly
the paradoxical nature of Christian behavior. 48 In the
present context of the SP, however, a special point is
made. If the robber proves to be "generous," in that he is
only after the victim's overcoat, he is outdone by the
even greater generosity of the victim. As in the previous
example, the whole episode resembles an absurd
exchange of gifts. The paradoxical reaction of the victim
counters the violence by making a gift, no doubt a
challenge to respond in kind. This response is the
method of Christian ethics, not, as some may surmise,
going naked. 49
• 30 The third example (vs 30a) changes from specificity
(vs 29a and b) to generality: "To the one who begs from
you, give" ('1TavTt alTovvTlu£ lllllov). 50 The connection
between the two sets of examples seems to exist by virtue
of catchword. 51 The same example as the one in vs 30a
appears in the parallel section in SM/Matt 5:42a, and it
is attested as well in other passages. 52 The situation
envisages a beggar who stretches out his hand. It has
always been both common expectation and common
habit not to pass by such a person, but to give him
something. The recommendation, therefore, conforms
to ancient morality, and especially to the whole complex
of ideas and attitudes associated with giving and
receiving, 53 which is in turn related to the Golden Rule
(vs 31).
Absurdity enters the picture, however, when the
demand is made that one give something to every
('1TavTl) 54 petitioner. No amount is specified, but the

41 Variant readings, esp. by Marcion, appear to mix tbe
SP with the SM, but they are also similar to the
Didache. See Harnack, Marcion, 193*; and Aland,
Synopsis, 104.
42 SM/Matt 5:40 envisions a court case, in which <L
creditor has filed suit for the shirt (x1r.:.v) because the
coat is exempt from debt service. See above on
SM/Matt 5:40.
43 The verb afpro ("take" by force) occurs also in vs 30
and in Did. 1.4. See also BAGD, s. v. afpro, 4.
44 For the garment called lfL<l.r&ov ("overcoat") see
BAGD, s.v. l,.&.r&ov, 2: "this situation involves
highway robbery, in which the robber first deprives
his victim of his outer garment."
45 The term Kroll:uro ("hinder") indicates the normal
reaction, the prevention of the crime.
46 On the garment called X'r.:.v ("undershirt"), see
BAGD, s.v. x1r.:.v.
47 The parallel in Did. 1.4 is similar to the SP: "If any
man takes your coat, give him also the shirt" (lav lipy
TL~ rb LJL&rtOv O"OV, aoS' aVrii> Ka\ rOu xtrWva). See also
Justin A pol. 1.16.1 (cited in Aland, Synopsis, 106):
"To the one who strikes you on your cheek offer also
tbe other, and do not deny your coat to the one who
takes your shirt" (ri!> TtJ'Irrovla-ov r~v a-&ayova w<l.pexe
Ka\ T~V ll.AAT]V, Ka\ Thv a&f)Our& O"OV rhv XLT~Wa ~ rh
I,.&.nov fL~ KlllA~<T?/~).
48 This example may be connected to the act of
depriving Jesus of his garments in the passion
narratives (Mark 15:24//Matt 24:35//Luke
23:34//John 19:23).
49 But nakedness is also a metaphor for total depri-
vation and exposure. See Matt 25:36, 38, 43, 44;
Rom 8:35; 2 Cor 11:27; furthermore Mark 14:52;
John 21:7; Acts 19:16; 2 Cor 5:3; Rev 3:17; 16:15;
17:16. See BAGD, s.v. yvfLVO~, )!VfLVOT7j~ ("naked,
nakedness").
50 The article rii> before alro~vr& is read by some
witnesses (K L Rjl 565. 1241. 1424 pc). Others have
a~ rii> (AD 0 E 'It 0135jl3 9.Jllat); so according to
Nestle-Aland, critical apparatus. This variation may
be the result of harmonization with SM/Matt 5:42 or
simply a grammatical improvement.
51 wapixro ("present") and ala"'fL' ("give").
52 For passages see above ~n SM/Matt 5:42 and 7:7-
11; Did. 1.5;JustinApol. 1.15.10; Clement Alex. Quis
divessalvetur 31.9 (GCS, vol. 3, p. 18l,line 2).
53 See 2 Cor 9:7: "God loves a cheerful giver." For a
discussion of the implications of this saying, see Betz,
2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 105-9.
54 The position of "every" at the beginning of the
statement is underlining its importance; differently
SM/Matt 5:42. Did. 1.5 has added a different
explanation (my trans.): "To everyone who asks you,

597
assumption can only be (see vs 38 below) that it should be
a generous gift. Whoever follows this advice will soon
run out of things to give. Will such a generous giver not
soon become the victim of cleverness, deception, and
greediness on the part of petitioners? Will such a
generous person not soon have to go begging himsel£? 55
Or, to raise another question, what can one give if one
owns nothing that can be given? 56 Is this obvious
foolishness all that Christian ethics demands? Indeed, it
is, but as the ensuing discussion will reveal, the demand is
not as unreasonable as it would appear. 57
Still, Did. 1.5-6 demonstrates that such generosity
quickly generated new forms of abuse that required
regulation and explanation:
Give to everyone who asks you and do not refuse. For
the Father wills that to everyone be given from the
gifts we have received. Blessed is he who gives
according to the command, for he is without fault.
Woe to him who takes! For if anyone receives having a
need, he is without fault, but he who receives without
having a need will be given punishment for why he
took and for what; when he is in prison he shall be
examined about what he has done, and "he shall not
come out from there, until he has repaid the last
penny." 58 But regarding this issue it was also said,
"Let your alms sweat in your hands until you know to
whom you give." 59
The fourth example (vs 30b), more violent than the
third, is also general in nature: "and from him who takes
away your posse~ions do not ask them back" (Ka'r. a"ITO rov
arpoVTOS ra ua
p.~ Ct"ITalnl). SM/Matt 5:42b contains a
similar example but it is formulated very differently. 60 In
the SP, the fourth example is conjoined with the second
in vs 29b by catchword, showing that all four examples
are connected by similar terms. 61 Compared with vs 30a,
vs 30b presents the opposite case: if vs 30a has as the
focal person a servile beggar, vs 30b shows a brutal
expropriator. The recommended reaction assumes that
the victim is somehow in a position 62 to recover the
stolen goods. 63 Yet he is advised to forgo this chance for
recovery, thereby turning the theft into a generous gift.
Is this cheerful indifference to one's property the
demand of Christian ethics? Apparently so, but the SP
does not advocate lack of responsibility. The intended
meaning is that by giving up the chance of retrieval, the
victim takes the initiative and offers a generous gift to

give and do not ask it back. For the Father's will is
that to all be given [sc. a ponion] out of his own gifts 57
of grace" (?TaUT\ T~ alrofivrl UE alOov Ka\ p.1, O.walT£1."
......... yap Bf.AfL alaou8aL 0 ... ar~p '" rwv lalwv
xaptup.thwv). The reason is that what is given is not
one's own possession and that giving is simply a
passing on of the divine beneficences. Cf. Doctr. apost. 58
8a-b (ed. Wohleb; 2.8, ed. Rordorf). 59
55 This was the lot of Timon the Misanthrope in
Lucian's piece so named. Timon was once wealthy 60
but is now dirt-poor, "ruined by kind-heartedness 61
and philanthropy and compassion on all those who
were in want" (XP7Jur6T1/f ~wJrp&'\frev aVrhv Kal
<#JtAav8pwwla Ka\ 0 wphs roils 0Eop.lvovs ClwavraS' aLKTDS' 62
[Tim. 8]). Cited according to the LCL edition, Lucian
(trans. A.M. Harmon; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 63
University Press; London: Heinemann, 1915) 2.334-
35.
56 Acts 3:6 assumes this situation, when Peter says to
the beggar at the Temple gate: "Silver and gold I do
not have, but what I have that I give to you." By
contrast, the rich man in Mark 10:17-22 par. has
much to give and is yet unable to follow Jesus'
commandment: "Go and give all that you have to the
poor." Cf. Mark 14:25 par.; funhermore Mark
12:41-44 par.; 14:3-9 par.; 2 Cor 8:3 (on this
passage see Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 45-46); Acts
20:35; Did. 1.5; 2 Clem. 2.1.
For practical considerations about how much to give
see SM/Matt 6:3; Luke 19:8; Acts 5:1-1 0; 2 Cor
8:11-12 (for the meaning of "according to their
means" [£tc rov E'xfLv] see Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9,
65-66); also 1 Cor 16:1-4.
Cf. SM/Matt 5:26; Luke 12:59.
The trans. is mine. Cf. Sir 12:1-7; see Rordorf, La
doctrine, 147 n. 5.
See above on SM/Matt 5:42.
Cf. ...apf.xw, "present" (vs 29a), p.~ tcw>..fJw, "not
prevent" (vs 29b), p.~ ibatrf.w, "not demand back" (vs
30b).
Differently Did. 1.4: "for neither are you able to" (ov
a~ yap afJvauat), apparently assuming the opposite.
The verb lmatdw means "demand something back."
See also the parallels in Did. 1.4, 5; Hermas Sim. 8.1.5.
See BAGD, s.v. 1; Wettstein, 1.694, referring to
Lucian Hermotimus 18: aav£l(ovras tcallr.,.atrovvras
,.,tcpws ("those who lend money and demand it back
with cruelty").

598

the offender, no doubt expecting the perpetrator to
respond in kind.
• 31 After the serious questioning ofJesus' command-
ments (vss 27-28) in vss 29-30, a positive argument
begins, to demonstrate their reasonableness. This
positive argument first explains the ethical principles
underlying Jesus' way of thinking, beginning with the
statement of the Golden Rule: "And as you wish that
people do to you, do to them in the same way" (Kat Ka6w~
6i>..~u Yva 71'0Lrouw ot l1.v6pro7rOL, 71'0L~th al!To'i:~ bp.olror). 64
The argument assumes, therefore, that this principle
underlies Jesus' commandments (vss 27-28) as well as
their subsequent discussion. This assumption is far from
evident, however, especially since the Golden Rule can
be, and often is, misunderstood. Therefore, to facilitate a
proper understanding, a commentary on the Golden
Rule is supplied in vss 32-35.
As in SM/Matt 7: 12, the SP also cites the Golden Rule
in its positive form, 65 but there are important dif-
ferences. One cannot explain convincingly the variant
wording in the SP by the hypothesis of redactional
changes made by the Gospel writer. 66 Textual exami-
nation indicates that: (1) The SP has no parallel to
SM/Matt 7:12c: "For this is the law and the prophets."
The omission implies that the SP as a whole shows no
interest in matters of Jewish law. 67 (2) While the SM is
primarily concerned with the justification of the ethics of
Jesus by obedience to the Torah, the SP focuses on
personal attitudes. 68 (3) The use of "all" (7ravTa), typically
emphasized in the SM, is given somewhat less emphasis
in the SP. 69
64 Marcion has removed the lack of clarity in the SP by
reformulating it (my trans.): "And as you wish that
things happen to you from the side ofthe people, so
a)SO you shall do tO them" (Kat Ka8t.Js vp.tV y{v«r8aL
8EAETE waph. rWv O.v8p6Jwrov, oifTco Kai -bp.ei~ wotliTE
avro'is). See Harnack, Marcion, 245*. Further
clarification is represented by r 1 sy' when they add
the object KaAa ("good things") to the verb, or by IC A 71
D L WeE 'I' 0135JL 13 (565) ~ lat syh, when they
add the subject Kat vp.<'is ("and you"). The shorter and
more ambiguous text is read by p7Svid B. 700. 1241 it 73
syP. See Nestle-Aland, critical apparatus.
65 For a discussion of the Golden Rule and bib-
liography, see above on SM/Matt 7:12.
66 See also Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.350 n. 55;
Schulz, Q, 139-41; Zeller, Mahnspruche, 117-20.
67 On this general difference see also above, pp. 86-88.
Luke 6:27-45
These differences indicate that for the SP, the Golden
Rule serves as an ethical principle, the truth of which is
self-evident and not in need of support by authorities
such as "the law and the prophets." It functions in the SP
as it usually functions in Greek ethical discussions. The
parallels and the differences between the SM and the SP
demonstrate how the ethics of Jesus could be negotiated
simultaneously within the cultural and religious contexts
of both Jewish and Gentile Christianity.
While the SM version of the Golden Rule is composed
of four elements, the version in the SP has only three,
but these three are identical to those in the SM: first, the
anticipated desirable reaction by "people"; 70 second, the
recommended action based on that anticipation; and,
finally, the underlying presupposition of do ut des ("I give
so that you may give" in return). 71
There seems to be no grammatical difficulty in
understanding vs 31. The structure of the sentence is
chiastic, so that 'just as" (Ka6ci>~) and "in the same way"
(bp.olro~) correspond to each other at the beginning and
the end. Verse 31a insinuates that the Christians wish to
be treated in a friendly manner by the outsiders, called
here "people" (o1l1.v6pro7roL), 72 while vs 31 b recommends
taking the initiative and treating "people" in just that
friendly way. 73 Albrecht Dihle has questioned this
68 So, rightly, Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.350 n. 55.
69 was occurs in the SP four times (Luke 6:26, 30, 40,
4 7) as compared to sixteen times in the SM (Matt
5:11, 15, 18, 22, 28, 32; 6:29, 32, 33; 7:8, 12, 17,
19, 21, 24, 26).
70 So, rightly, Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.351;
Merklein, Gottesherrschaft, 244-45.
On this point see above, p. 512.
72 For this notion see also SP /Luke 6:22, 26; cf. 6:45,
48, 49.
Merx (Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, 2/2.223)
proposes that the variant reading adding KaAa ("good
things") as the object of the "doing" ofthe people (r 1
sy') must be original because only in this way does the
meaning become clear. Precisely this clarification,
which is not really needed, speaks against its origi-
nality. Merx refers to the parallel in Ps.-Clem. Hom.
599
interpretation, however, by taking 'ITO&€'iT€ ("you do") to
be an indicative rather than an imperative, so that it is
descriptive of general human conduct and not of the
anticipated conduct of the disciples. 7 4 This common
conduct would then stand in contrast to the new ethical
imperatives of jesus. One cannot reconcile Dible's
interpretation with the contextual argument, where the
Golden Rule and Jesus' commandment do not oppose
each other. Rather, the argument attempts to demon-
strate that Jesus' commandments are reasonable because
one can understand them properly in the light of the
Golden Rule, a principle widely accepted in antiquity. 75
• 32 The commentary on the Golden Rule (vs 31) begins
with a refutation of its misinterpretation (vss 32-34).
This refutation consists of three rhetorical questions,
each followed by an implicit answer. The three argu-
ments are remarkably Greek in nature. Their logic is
that of Hellenistic moral discussions on benevolence
(xap,~).76
The first question considers the notion of love
(a:ya'ITav, vs 27b) as it is conventionally understood-and
misunderstood: "And if you love those who love you,
what credit is that to you?" (Kal. €1 aya'ITaT€ TOV~
aya'ITWVTa~ bp.a~. 'ITOla bp.'iv xap&~ iCTTtv;). What is stated
here as a hypothetical assumption is in fact a misunder-
standing of the Christian concept of agape ("love") as an
exchange of favors. Greek ethics did understand love
and friendship in terms of an exchange of favors; but the
Greeks construed the granting of such favors merely as
responses to favors received to be false love and friend-
ship. 77 True love and friendship do not wait for another
to act and do not cease, even when rejected. 78 The
question ofvs 32b, "What credit is that to you?" must,
therefore, be answered: "None." The term xap&~ is used
here with its secular meaning of "grace or favor felt. " 79 It
belongs to the common ancient understanding of
personal relationships as exchanges of favors that build
credit in the eyes of the partner. On the part of the
bestower, xap&~ involves some kind of gift, be it material
or incorporeal, 80 while on the part of the receiver, it
generates gratefulness and obligation. 81 As Sophocles
aptly puts it: "Favor generates favor" (~ xap&~ xapw
cpEp€&). 82 Herodotus reasons that such favors "lay up a
store of gratitude in a person's heart. "83 Social life
consists in nothing more than a network of such ob-
ligations. 84 Thus the translation "What credit is this to

7.4 (82.36): "Whatever good things everyone wants
for himself, those same things he should want also for
his neighbor" (ll.1r£p E'KauTos ~avTi!> flotJA£Ta& Ka11.~, Ta
aha flov11.£vtu8oo Kal TfP 'lrA'Ijulov). Cf. also Ps..Clem.
Hom. 109.14; 132.
74 Dihle, Goldene Regel, 113-14. On Dihle, see above on
SM/Matt 7:12.
75 Against Dihle also Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium,
1.350 n. 56, 351-52.
76 Basic to this whole matter oflove and hate (</>&11£'iv Kal
j.L&<T£'iv) is the section in Aristotle's Rhet. 2.4, which
also discusses the possibility of a lack of x~p&s. On the
whole section, see Willem C. van Unnik, "Die
Motivierung der Feindesliebe in Lukas vi 32-35,"
NovT 8 (1966) 284-300; reprinted in his Sparsa
collecta 1.111-26; van Unnik relies mostly on
Bolkestein, Wohltiitigkeit.]ohn Whittaker ("Chris-
tianity and Morality in the Roman Empire," VC 33
[1979]209-25) rightly criticizes van Unnik for
assuming that the commandment ofJesus to love the
enemy was originally a Christian idea. Also the SP
suggests that jesus' commandment makes sense in
terms of Greek ethics.
77 That love is not a business deal is stated already by
Plato Symp. 218e-219a. Cf. Aristotle Rhet. 2.4.29,
138lb 35-37: "Things that create friendship are
doing a favor, and doing it unasked, and not making
it public after doing it; for then it seems to be
rendered for the sake of the friends, and not for any
other reason" (1ro&'ljT&Ka ll~ .P•Xlas x~p&s, Kal TO I'~
ll£1j8tVTos 'lrO&fjua&, Kal TO 'lrO&~uavTa I'~ ll7j1l.roua&· al>Tov
')'O.p oifTws lvEKa f/>alvEral. Kal oV ~,&. rt lrEpov). Cited
according to Freese's edition and translation (see
above, n. 14). But it is disgraceful "to accept favours
from another and often, and then to throw them in
his teeth" (ibid., 2.6.1 0, 1384a 3-4). See further-
more about the person to whom benevolence is
given, ibid. 2.7.1-6, 1385a 16-1385b 12.
78 See 2 Cor 12:15b; Rom 5:8, 10; 1 Cor 13:4-7; Gal
4:12-20, etc.
79 LSJ, s.v. x~p&s, II, from which the following passages
are taken. For some parallels see also Wettstein,
1.694.
80 LSJ, s.v. X~PIS, 11.1.
81 Ibid., 11.2.
82 Sophocles Oed. Col. 779; similarly Ajax 522; Euripides
Helena 1234; Aristotle Rhet. 2.7.1-6, 1385a 16-
1385b 10.
83 Herodotus 6.43; 7.178; Antiphon 136.127;
Thucydides 1.33.
84 Cf. the expression X~PIV o.p£lA£1V ("owe gratitude") in
Sophocles Ant. 331; Xenophon Cyr. 3.2.30. See LSJ,
s.v. x~p•s, 11.2.

600
 Luke 6:27-45

you?" attempts to capture both the meaning of the word
and the assumptions associated with it. 85 That the credit
is established with people, not with God, disqualifies the
exchange of favors from being an adequate definition of
love (agape). 86
The proof of the argument is derived from life
experience (vs 32c): "For even the sinners love those who
love them" .(Kat yap ap.apTCilAOt TOVS aya"lTWVTas a·hoh
aya7Twcnv). 87 Indeed, sinners-even criminals-
exchange favors; in their own way, they love those who
love them. One can even take the term ap.apTWAdS here
both in the religious ("sinner") and in the secular
("offender," "criminal") sense. That such a meaning is
possible is suggested not only by Greek sources 88 but also
by the New Testament itsel£. 89 In the SPin particular,
the term "sinners" defines Gentiles from a jewish
perspective, suggesting that the disciples addressed by
the SP dissociate themselves from behavior characteristic
of non-Christians, 90 just as the parallel in the Jewish-
Christian SM sets itself apart from the tax collectors and
the pagans (SM/Matt 5:46-47). In conclusion, the
practice described in vs 32c is not only common but also
non-Christian. It is thereby disqualified from having any
value for Christian ethics, or, indeed, for ethics
generally.
• 33 The second rhetorical question is constructed
parallel to the first (vs 32) but with significant dif-
ferences. Conspicuous is the change of the verb in vs 33a:
"And when you do good to those who do good to you,
what credit is that to you?" (Kat [yap] £av aya807TOLijTE TOVS
aya807TOLOVVTas ilp.as, 7Tola ilp.'iv xapts £unv;). Gram-
matically difficult is the connection at the beginning of
the sentence. Perhaps the common Kat yap ("for indeed")
has become confused with another beginning Kat Mv
("and when"), resulting in redundancy 91 and the post-
position of Mv. 92 At any rate, instead of the conjunction
Et ("if") in vs 32a, vs 33a (and vs 34a, too) has £av with the
subjunctive, denoting "that which under certain circum-
stances is expected from an existing general or concrete
standpoint in the present: 'case of expectation and
iterative case in present time."' 93 Hence, the meaning is
the same as that in vs 32a, using Et with the indicative-
"a simple conditional assumption with emphasis on the
reality of the assumption (not of what is being
assumed)." 94 BDF explains the change between vss 32a
and 33a as a case of"encroachment of E1 on the sphere of
Mv," 95 made perhaps for the simple reason of providing
variation among the three clauses (vss 32a, 33a, 34a).
The change of the verb from "love" (aya7Tav) to "do
good" (aya8o7TOLav) parallels the similar change of the
same verb in Jesus' commandment in vs 27b to "do good"
(aya8o7TOLE'iv"), which is a common term in Hellenistic
ethical texts. 96 The SP uses it only here and in vs 35; the
SM does not use it at all, while elsewhere in the New

85 Following BAGD, s.v. x6.pts, 11.2.b, with reference to
Luke 6:33; Did. 1.3; 2 Clem. 13.4; etc.; differently,
Hans Conzelmann, "xalpw KTA.," TDNT 9.392
(D.1.b); also 373-75 (A.1.a). For further material
and discussion, see Spicq, Notes, 2.960-66; Klaus
Berger, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. x6.pts; Betz, 2 Gorin-
thians 8 and 9, index, s.v. x6.pts.
86 Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.353) thinks also here
of "reward with God," but for the phrase "credit with
God" onehastowait until vs35.
87 The sentence is not read by sy'. The variant reading
in D adds .-ov.-o 1I"Otovcnv ("for even the sinners do
this, [when) they love those who love them"). See
Nestle-Aland, critical apparatus on this passage. The
variant reading seems to be a later explanation,
perhaps influenced by the parallel in SM/Matt 5:46c,
47c.
88 See LSJ, s.v., ap.apTwA..;s.
89 The evidence is collected in BAGD, s.v. ap.ap.-wA..;s.
90 Cf. Gal2:15, and on that passage Betz, Galatians, 115
n. 25; furthermore Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium,
1.353 n. 79; Marshall, Luke, 262-63.
91 The y6.p ("for") is omitted in some of the tradition,
and for good reason (M 2 AD L W 0 8 'I' 0135 jl 3 9Jl
latt sy co); it is read, however, by P 75 M* B 700, all
important witnesses, so that one should prefer the
more difficult reading. See Nestle-Aland, critical
apparatus.
92 It is, however, acceptable in Greek. See BAGD, s.v.
£6.v, I.
93 BDF, § 371 (4); BDR, § 371, 4.
94 BDF, § 371 (1); BDR, § 371, 1.
95 BDF, § 372 (3); BDR, § 371, 3.
96 For references see LSJ and BAGD, s.v. aya8o1rodw;
Walter Grundmann, "ayae.;s KTA..," TDNT 1.17-18;
Spicq, Notes, 1.11-14.

601
Testament it is prominent in passages showing heavy
Hellenistic influence. 97 The argument presented is
parallel to that in vs 32, but the change of verb leads to a
change as well in the statement in vs 33c: "For even the
sinners (criminals) do the same thing" (Kat OL ap.aprwA.ot TO
ailrh ?Totovuw). 98 If sinners and criminals do good toward
each other, the very meaning of the term "good" is lost.
In this sense, vs 33 goes beyond vs 32 in that now the
self-contradiction is evident so that the misinterpretation
of the Golden Rule, if taken in this way, is also evident.
• 34 While the first two questions (vss 32a, 33a) are of a
general nature, the last one (vs 34a) considers a specific
issue, the lending of money: "And when you lend (money
to those) from whom you expect to get (it back), what
credit is that tO you?" (Kat (av OaVlU1/T£ ?Tap' <1v (A.1T[(£T£
A.af3£'iv, 1rola vp.'i.v xapts [(urlv ];). 99 The basic argument is
the same as that of the two previous questions, 100 but
there are some fine points of difference. Formally, the
identity of the verbs in the description of mutuality is
given up. Regarding content, there is a sudden turn to a
specific issue. Doubtless this turn is planned, probably for
pedagogical reasons, because it keeps the reader alert. 101
Nevertheless, the question remains: Why is the issue of
moneylending brought in at this point? Moneylending
was certainly a widely discussed issue at the time, both in
Judaism and in Hellenistic ethics. 10 2 For example,
Demonsthenes (Or. 37.52) cites the proverb, "The
Athenians hate the moneylenders," but the question
demands a more specific answer.l 03
The change of topic to the issue of moneylending may
be suggested by the previous questions, especially that of
vs 33. If the exchange of favors exists even among
"sinners," such exchanges are business operations. All
commerce amounts to an exchange of goods. There is no
better demonstration of commerce than the process of
lending money. It is a matter of do ut des: the lender gives
away money in hopes of a return of the capital-and, if
possible, of interest. The implications for the argument
in vss 32-34 are clear: one is not to confuse mutual
favors such as described here with either ethical conduct
generally or Christian conduct in particular; they are
simply business affairs.
The main reason, however, for introducing the issue
of moneylending here is that it has traditionally been
connected with the topic of commerce, both in
Judaism 104 and in Greek ethics, 105 a fact that both

97 See esp. Mark 3:4/ /Luke 6:9; Acts 14:17; 1 Pet
2:15, 20; 3:6, 17 (for the noun see 4: 19; the adjec-
tive, 2:14); 3 John 11; 2 Clem. 10.2; Hermas Vis. 3.5,
9; Sim. 9.18; etc. For more references see BAGD and
PGL, s.v. aya8o1rodw. The Latin equivalent is
benefacere ("confer a benefit"). See Polycarp Phil.
10.2, and for the Latin OLD, s.v. benefacio, etc.
98 After Kai many witnesses add yap (AD LB E 'I' 0135
jl3 9Jt lat syP·h), as one would expect from the
parallels in the other sentences. The tradition,
however, is divided not only here (IC B W 700. 892*.
1241 pc r 1 sy') but also in vs 34b. See Nestle-Aland,
critical apparatus.
99 The question is whether one should read f<TTLV in vs
34b. p45 p7 5 B 700 e leave it out, perhaps to shorten
the sentence in accommodation to the abbreviated vs
34a. But most witnesses read it, in parallelism with
vss 32 and 33 (MAD L W 8 E 'I' 0135. 0147 jl· 13 9Jt
lat syh). So according to Nestle-Aland, critical
apparatus. In vs 34a, 5\' AD 8 0135. 0147 >. </> pl read
a7ro)o.a{je'iv as in vs 34c.
100 Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.354) exaggerates the
differences.
101 Cf. Black, Approach, 137-38, who finds all kinds of
difficulties that he then tries to explain by way of
Aramaic paronomasia (recurrence of the same word
stem).
102 On the term llav(e)i(w ("lend money") see BAGD and
Gerd Petzke, EWNT(EDNT) 1, s.v. llavi(w KTA. On
the economic issues see Raymond Bogaert, "Geld
(Geldwirtschaft)," RAG 9 (1976) 797-907, esp. 806-
8,822-23,825-30,842-43,846-47,854,855,856,
901-3.
103 The active "lend (money)" occurs only here in the
NT (vss 34a, band 35) and in Apoc. Pet. 16.31, which
describes the punishment of sinners in hell: "These
are the ones who lent money and asked back interest
upon interest" (oVrot 0~ ~o-av ol Oav£l(ovrEr Kat
a7raiTOVVTEr r6Kovr T6Kwv). The middle llavei(eCT8at
("borrow") occurs in the parallel SM/Matt 5:42.
Regarding cancelling a loan, see also Matt 18:27, and
the moneylender (llav[<)L<TT'I/r) in Luke 7:41. Cf. Matt
25:27; Luke 19:23.
104 See Exod 22:25; Lev 25:35-38; Deut 15:2-6; 23:19-
20; 24:10; 28:12, 44; Neh 5:10-13; Pss 15:5; 37:36;
112:5; Prov 19:17; 28:8; Isa 24:2; Ezek 18:8, 13, 17;
22:15; Sir 8:12-13; 20:15; 29:1-7; Philo Spec. leg.
4. 72-7 5. See Heinemann, Philons griechische und
judische Bildung, 428-29; Str-B 1.346-53. For more
discussion see above on SM/Matt 5:42.
105 Wettstein (1.694) notes the parallels in Lucian
Hermotimus 18; Plutarch De vitando aere alieno 1 and
7-10, 827F-831B; and others. The rich banker is a
stereotypical figure in rhetoric; see Demosthenes Or.

602
 Luke 6:27-45

Bolkestein and van Unnik have pointed out. 106 Lending
for the purpose of getting a return is good business
practice; lending without requiring a return is benev-
olence toward the needy. According to Aristotle, it is
meanness incompatible with friendship when some
engage in "making gain out of their friends, to whom
they ought to give." 107
One should note that the text in vs 34a does not
criticize the lending of money in itself as ethically
objectionable; it simply describes the process. Lending
money involves a risk: the lender can do nothing but
hope to regain it. Hence money is given only to those
deemed worthy of credit. The terms tll.7rl(w ("hope") 108
and ll.ap.fJavw ("take") 109 are used here in the business
sense. The object of the "taking" is left unspecified; it
could be the repayment of the capital, the additional
payment of interest, or the granting of future loans by
the lender .I 10 The point is not capital or interest but the
process itself. 111
The evidence stated in vs 34b makes yet another
point: "even sinners lend to sinners, for the purpose of
receiving the same (amounts) in return" (Kal ap.apTWAOl
ap.aprwll.o'is liavl(ovcnv, tva &7roll.af3wcnv rlz rua.). 11 2 The
term lL7Toll.ap.fJavw as a business term 113 is ordinary
Greek and the sense is clear. Different from ll.ap.fJavw
("take") in vs 34a, &7roll.ap.f3avw shifts the emphasis to the
earning of returns as the purpose for the lending. The
meaning of ra rua is, however, unclear. Does it refer to
"the same amount as was lent" or to "similar services in
return"? 114 The point does not appear to be taking of
interest as a moral issue, 115 but the equivalency ofthe
exchange, so that "the equal amounts" (rlz rua) must refer
to the sum of money the lender hopes to regain. 11 6

37; 49; 56; Plato Leg. 742a-c; 754e; Rep. 408c.
Aristotle deals with the matter in the chapter on
liberality (~1lEv8Epuh7Js) in Eth. Nic. 4, addressing also
the opposite, "meanness" (avE1lEv8Epla), e.g., "petty
usurers who lend money in small sums at a high rate
of interest" (~<al TOK&trTal KaTa p.tKpa ~wlwo>.>.q, [4.1.40,
1121b 36]). They are to be judged under the term of
"sordid greed" (altr)(pOKEpll{a). Theophrastus (Char-
acteres 30) describes this type. See also 1 Tim 3:8;
Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 5:2; and BAGD, s.v. altr)(pOKEpll~s KTA.
106 See Bolkestein, Wohltiltigkeit, 107-8, 156-70,317-
18,471-73. Van Unnik ("Die Motivierung," in
Sparsa collecta, 1.125-26) says correctly: "DaB Lukas
also das Wort vom 'Leihen' hier angeschlossen hat,
tater nicht nur, urn ein vergessenes Thema nach-
zuholen, sondern wei) dies in dem griechischen
Bereich auch eine gewisse Verwandtschaft hatte"
("Luke has joined here the saying concerning lending
not only to supplement a forgotten topic but because
it is somewhat akin in the Greek context") (my trans.).
107 Aristotle Eth. Nic. 4.1.43, 1122a 11-12.
108 See BAGD, s.v. ~>.wl(ro, 2, with the translation, "from
whom you expect to receive again." For the use of
the business term see the material in Spicq, Notes,
3.259-72, esp. 261-63. Spicq (ibid., 261 n. 2) notes
as NT parallels Acts 26:26, which in turn interprets
16:19.
109 For >.ap.fjavro as a business term, see BAGD, s.v., l.d,
which gives Mark 12:1; Matt 17:24, 25; 21:34; Heb
7:8-9 as instances, but not Luke 6:34.
110 See the discussion by Gustav Stahlin, •ruos KTA.,"
TDNT 3.344-45; Marshall, Luke, 263.
111 Stii.hlin is right in pointing to the do ut des principle
("I give so that you may give [sc. likewise]") and to
relate it to the concept of revenge in SM/Matt 5:38.
Christian love is not compatible with it; see 1 Cor
13:5: "(Love) does not chalk up the evil" ([~ l.y&.w7J]
o.O Aoyl(€Tat. -rb KaKOv).
112 Parallel to vss 32c and 33c many witnesses begin the
statement with Kal yap ("for also"): A De 0135 j1.1 3
lat sy. But omission is equally strongly favored by p7 5
IC B L wE 'I' 700. 892 pc. The ambiguous Ta rua is
left out by D it sy', perhaps because of its ambiguity,
and sa reads ll&w>.a ("double"). See the critical
apparatus in Nestle-Aiand, and Aland, Synopsis, 105.
113 BAGD (s.v. awo>.ap.fjavro, 1) notes the commercial
application ofthe term and refers to Luke 16:25;
18:30 v.l.; 23:41; 2 Clem. 9.5; 11.4, and others. See
Stahlin, TDNT 3.344-45; Preisigke, Wiirterbuch,
1.183-84; 4/1.247-48, s.v. awo>.ap.fjavro.
114 The first option is preferred by Grundmann, Lukas,
149; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.353; the latter
by Marshall, Luke, 263. Fitzmyer (Luke, 1.625), in
effect, makes no decision, translating as "to get
something."
115 Therefore, if the issue of taking interest occurs here,
it is introduced from other contexts, especially OT
and Jewish parallels.
116 So BAGD, s.v. ruos, "receive an equal amount in
return." Cf. Stahlin, TDNT 3.345, who leaves the
matter undecided. The evidence of the inscriptions
proves important; it is now assembled in Spicq, Notes,
3.355-56; he translates the words ofvs 34 (356): "les
pecheurs escompetent recouvrer )'equivalent, une

603
 The implication is that in the lending of money, one
does nothing to another person that one can ethically call
"love" or "doing good." Nothing is given to or bestowed
on the other person, and there is no exchange of favors
as is constitutive of love or friendship. 117 The lending of
money is simply a business transaction, 118 enacted out of
self-interest; it is not an exchange of anything. Thus it is
a grave misunderstanding to confuse such business
transactions with compliance to the Golden Rule.
• 35 After refuting the incorrect understanding of the
Golden Rule (vs 31) and its misapplication to the
commandments of Jesus (vs 27), the commentary moves
to the presentation of the correct understanding. This
highly condensed argument is made in two parts. First, a
set of three imperatives restates Jesus' commandments,
now including the important interpretation (vs 35b-c),
for which a theological rationale is provided (vs 35d).
Verse 36 then presents the conclusion to the entire
argument (vss 27-35).
restitution egale a Ia somme pretee." It is interesting
that Aristotle, when dealing with the occasions for
benevolence (xap•~). exemplifies by distinguishing
"similar, equal, or greater services" (raVra ~ i~a ~
11-•l(w [Rhet. 2.7.6, 1385b 10]).
117 The proper context, therefore, is not friendship but
relations with neighbors and associates. See LXX
Exod 22:24-26; Lev 25:35-38; Deut 23:20; Sir
29:1-7; Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 83, with the commentary by
van der Horst, Sentences, 171-72. This context is also
found in ancient Greek ethics. Hesiod (Erga 346-55;
see West's commentary, 243-45) treats it under the
topic of "good neighbors." Aristotle (Rhet. 2.6.6-7,
1383b 25-34) has it in the section dealing with
matters of which men are ashamed (2.6.1-26): "And
to refuse assistance in money matters when we are
able to render it, or to give Jess than we can; to accept
assistance from those less able to afford it than
ourselves; to borrow when anyone seems likely to ask
for a loan, to ask for a loan from one who wants his
money back, and asking for repayment from one who
wants to borrow; to praise in order to seem to be
asking for a loan, and when you have failed to obtain
it to keep on asking; for all these are signs of stingi-
ness" (Kal rh 1'-h f3oTJ8iiv ovvai'-EIJOJJ ·l~ XP~/'-aTa, ~ 1]rrov
f3oTJ8£iv. Kal rh f3o7J8liu8at 1rapa rwv 1]rrov <lmopwv. Kal
Oavtl(Hr8at Clr£ 06~u alrt'i'v, Kal alrt'iv Hr£ lt'7Tatr£Lv, Kal
a'7Tai.T£'iv CJT£ alTt'iv, Kat E7raLV£'i'V, Yva 06fn alrt'i'v, Kat rh
CL7rOT£TVX7JK0ra fL710€v tjrrov· 1rO.vra yap lz.vtAtv8£pla~
ravra UTJ/'-iia). Cited according to the LCL edition,
Aristotle: The "Art" of Rhetoric (trans. John Henry
Freese; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University;
604
In vs 35a, the turning point is marked by 71"A~v
("but"): 119 "But (you shall) love your enemies, and do
good, and lend money expecting nothing in return"
(7rA~V ltya7J"art: roh ~x8povs vp..wv Kat ltya8o7J"OL£LH Kat
oavl(£u p..7]0fV li71"£A7rl(ovns ). 1 2° The three imperatives
employ the same verbs as do vss 32-34; they are formu-
lated positively, the first and second being general, the
third, specific. The restatement of jesus' commands
takes into account the Golden Rule, properly under-
stood, and affirms them as conforming to that Rule. 121
The critical difference from vs 34 is expressed by the
additional phrase p..7]o€v li71"£A7rl(ovns, of which the
textual form as well as the meaning are disputed. The
phrase presents a classic problem for textual criticism. 1 22
The majority of witnesses read p..7Jo€v li71"£A7rl(ovus
("expect nothing in return"); but a few important
manuscripts have p..7]0(v.a li71"£A7rl(ovns ("disappoint no
one"), which also corresponds to the customary meaning
of the word.I 23 The problem may easily be attributed to
London: Heinemann, 1926) 210-13. See also the
section on benevolence, Rhet. 2.7.3-6, 1385a 21-
1385b 10.
118 In Eth. Nic. 8.13.1, 1162b 5-8, Aristotle dis-
tinguishes between friendship of utility(~ Kara rh
XP~Ut/'-OV cptA.la) and true friends (ol Kar' ap•rhv cplA.ot).
The true friends "vie with each other in giving and
not getting benefit"(<~ opav aAA~AOV~ 7rpo8v11-ovvrat
[1162b 8]), while friends of utility complain that the
other is taking advantage (8.13.4, 1162b 16-21).
Indeed, this friendship of utility is nothing but a
commercial affair, "whether it be purely a business
matter of exchange on the spot, or a more liberal
accommodation for future repayment, though still
with an agreement as to the quid pro quo"(~ 1'-f"
7TQ.fl7rav Cz:yop£la fK xnp0s ElS' xlipa, ~ ()(
O.vtAtv8Eptooripa ds XPOvov, Ka8' Op.oAoylav Of rl lz.vrl
rwo~ [8.13.6, 1162b 26-28]). The trans. is by H.
Rackham, Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics (LCL; rev.
ed.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London:
Heinemann, 1934) 507. See also the following
discussion 8.13. 7-11, 1162b 31-1163a 23.
119 For this conjunction, see also SP /Luke 6:24.
120 In sy'·P bo avro'i~ is added, making sure the "doing
good" is directed toward the enemies.
121 So also Marshall, Luke, 263-64.
122 For major discussions of this problem, see Tischen-
dorf, Novum Testamentum Graece, 1.488-89; and the
major commentaries on the Greek text of Luke.
12 3 So in the reading of IC W 8 pc sy'·P according to the
critical apparatus in Nestle-Aland. This reading is
adopted also by Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights
 Luke 6:27-45

scribal error. Is it a case of haplography or dit-
tography?124 Each is equally possible.
Then there is the lexicographical problem. The
ordinary meaning of CL7TEA7rl(w is "to give up in de-
spair,"125 which would require a personal ("despair of no
one") or impersonal ("despair of nothing") object. The
impersonal object would favor the meaning "expect
nothing in return," but this meaning is not attested
elsewhere in the Greek language prior to Chrysostom
(5th century CE); 126 it would amount to a linguistic
anomaly in the New Testament. Hence, attempts were
made to explain the word as misspelled. 127 Furthermore,
one must consider the context. The understanding
"expect nothing in return" is based on the assumption
that it is parallel to vs 34, while the variant "disappoint
no one" connects with the doctrine of love discussed in
the entire passage. But "expecting nothing in return" is
also part of the doctrine of love, and both can appeal to 1
Cor 13:4-7 for the interpretation oflove (agape). 1 2 8
The dilemma thus seems insoluble on merely text-
critical or lexicographical grounds. One can advance
additional reasons for adopting the Nestle-Aland text:
first, textually it is the more difficult reading and should
thus prevail; second, the variant reading requires the
additional assumption that one must not disappoint the
enemies whom one is supposed to love. This reading,
however, implies something of an internal contradiction:
it presupposes the meaning of Jesus' commandments as
seen through the false interpretation of the Golden Rule
(vss 32-34). Moreover, the meaning of the participle
tL7feA7rl(ovre~ appears to be general rather than specific.
Such persuasive reasoning leads to the conclusion that
"expecting nothing in return" is the correct translation.
This conclusion, however, does not answer the
question of whether reference is being made here to
general benevolence or to a specific prohibition of taking
interest on loans, or the practice of usury. To answer this
question, one must first of all consider the general
context of ethics and also be aware of the issues of law
and business as they were practiced in antiquity.
In the SP, the passage occurs, appropriately, in a
context discussing acts of benevolence. A remarkable
consensus on these issues exists in other Greek and
Roman deliberations on benevolence, and specifically on
the question of what constitutes benevolence. Benev-
olence requires a gift (xapt~). and one must distinguish
this concept from business investments such as loans
carrying interest (Bavel(ew h'r. r6K~ ). 129
Aristotle's definitions regarding benevolence became
standard in the Greek and Roman world. In his Rhet.
2. 7-8, he defines benevolence (xapt~) as a rendering of

into the New Testament (Edinburgh: Clark, 1965) 32-
35. Cf. also Plummer's (Luke, 187-88) rendering as
"giving up nothing in despair." Merx (Die vier
kanonischen Evangelien, 2/2.223-26) tries to recon-
struct the sequence of corruptions. Wettstein (1.695)
lists parallels to nihil desperantes ("nothing in despair").
124 Metzger (Textual Commentary, 141 ): "the result of
dittography." So also Spicq, Notes, 1.121.
125 See LSJ and BAGD, s.v. (L.,.,A.,.{(w; RudolfBultmann,
TDNT 2.533-34; Spicq, Notes, 1.119-21.
126 See PGL, s.v. (L.,.,A.,.{(w, C, for references.
127 See Theodore Reinach ("Mutuum date, nihil inde
sperantes," Revue des etudes grecques 6 [1894]52; cf.
RB 4 [ 1895]116) for the conjecture avr<A.,.{(ovT<r
("hope instead," or "in turn" [LSJ, s.v.]) through a
ligature of the Greek letters NT and TI, a confusion
that led to the reading of the V g, nihil in de sperantes
("expect nothing therefrom" or "in accordance with
that"). Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.355 n. 90)
assumes that the word a'lf<A.,.{(<~v was created by
running together ~A.,.{(<tV and a'lfoAap.f3avfiV (vs 34).
So already Frederic Field, Otium Norvicense (3 vols.;
Oxford: E. Pickard Hall &J. H. Stacy, 1864-81)
3.40; idem, Notes on the Translation of the New Testa-
ment: Being the Otium Norvicense (pars tertia) reprinted
(with an addition by the author, ed. with a preface by
A. M. Knight; Cambridge: Cambridge University,
1899) 59 (with an additional note).
128 Erasmus (Annotationes in Novum Testamentum [1555],
1 91) discusses usury when commenting on Luke 6:30
and 6:35. He rightly sees a difference: in 6:30, the
question is not usury but the mutual obligations
among friends (" Agit enim non de quaestu
foeneratorum, sed de mutuis officijs amicorum inter
ipsos"); in 6:35, the implications are usury, as the
ancients have already seen ("Sentit enim opinor de
foenere, quod ex mutuo redit. Nam in hunc sensum
interpretantur veteres").
129 In Greek, llav<l(w and llav<l(op.at mean "put out
money at usury," that is, llav<l(w ht TOK<p, as in Plato
Leg. 742c. See LSJ, s.v. On the whole topic, see
Plutarch's essay entitled "That we ought not to
borrow" (TI<pt Tov p.~ lli!v llav<l(<<T0at), Moralia 827D-
832A(LCL, 10.317-19).

605
service to persons in situations of need, offered "not in
return for something nor in the interest of him who
renders it, but in that of the recipient." 130 In other
words, if something is given "for a return, it is not a
gift." 131 He then turns to the matter of pity (€'A.£o~). 132
noteworthy because benevolence and pity in that order
also occur in SP /Luke 6:35-36 as well as in Sir 29:1-
13.133 Similarly Aristotle's Eth. Nic. 4.1.6-27, 1120a 4-
1121 a 9 characterizes the man of liberal giving (
£A.£v8epto~) as one who "will give for the nobility of
giving." 134 He is to be contrasted with the "mean" one (o
av£AdJ8£po~) who "takes from every source and all he
can." 135 Thus one must distinguish benevolent gifts from
loans that require repayment. 136
At several places Philo of Alexandria states views in
remarkable agreement with those of Aristotle. 137
Indeed, he appears to draw on the general philosophical
consensus of the time, because De Beneficiis, the great
work of Seneca on benevolence, also confirms his
views. 138 Philo (Spec. leg. 2.39) discusses the issue at
length in the context of his interpretation of the Fourth
Commandment, the sanctity of the seventh day, and
subjected to that topic is the cancellation of debts
(XP£WK07T{a [ibid., 2.71-78]). According to Philo's
apologetic argument, cancellation of debts makes
eminent sense "as a succour to the poor and as a chal-
lenge to the rich to show humanity, in order that by
giving some share of their own to the needy they may
expect to receive the same kindness themselves, if any
disaster befall them." 139
Turning to the interpretation ofDeut 15:1-3, Philo
suggests that the best way of dealing with debts is simply
to cancel them and turn them into benevolent gifts to the
debtors. Because such magnanimity would be unrealistic
(Philo Spec. leg. 2.72), however, Deut 15:1-3 represents a
o less painful compromise when the collection of money is
restricted to non-Jews and prohibited to fellow Jews. The
distinction lies in the differing obligations owed to
kinship and outsiders (Philo Spec. leg. 2. 73). Then Philo
roundly condemns moneylending for interest: "Now
lending money on interest is a blameworthy action." 140
He especially scolds the moneylenders for pretending to
act out of charity while in fact worsening the borrower's
situation: "Why do you assume outwardly a kindly and
charitable appearance but display in your actions
inhumanity and a savage brutality, exacting more than
you lend, sometimes double, reducing the pauper to
further depths ofpoverty?" 141 In the light of these
apparent abuses of the time, the Hebrew law makes
eminently good sense if moneylenders are to be re-
stricted to regaining only their capital outlay and
prevented from enriching themselves through the
misfortunes of others. The borrowers should benefit
from the law by having to "pay neither simple nor

130 Aristotle Rhet. 2.7.2, 1385a 18-19: p.~ avrl TIVOS, p.7Ja'
Yva rr. aVr~ VwovpyoVvrL, 4AA' Yva iKElvcp·
131 Ibid., 2.7.5, 1385b 6-7: ap.<!Jorepws yap Tb avrl TIVOS,
~ur' oVa' otSrros Au Ef7J x/z.pr.s.
132 Ibid., 2.8.1-7, 1385b ll-1386a 4.
133 Moneylending as an act of mercy (LXX Sir 29:1-7) is 140 Ibid., 2.74: V7ralTIOV a~ Tb aav.l(<&v t7rl r6Kcp. Cf. LXX
to be distinguished from almsgiving (Sir 29:8-13).
134 Aristotle Eth. Nic. 4.1.12, 1120a 19-20: o£>..v6ep•os
oltv aC:,u£1. roV KaAoV ~VEKa.
135 Ibid., 4.1.40, 1121b 32-33: rif> 1r&.vro6•v >.ap.fJILv<&V
' ~
K41.'1fQV,
136 Idem, Rhet. 2.6. 7, 1383b 28-31.
137 Philo Spec. leg. 2.74-78; 2.122; Virt. 82-87; Leg. Gaj. 141 Philo Spec. leg. 2.75 (ed. Colson; seen. 139): rl ahif>
343; Poster. C. 142.
138 See esp. the questions of definition in Seneca De ben.
1.1-10. Seneca's main source was a work by Hecaton
of Rhodes, a Stoic who had studied under Panaetius;
his works, however, are lost (cf. ibid., 1.3.9; 2.18.1;
lalwu p.traar.a6vres ltw6pot5' XP7Jura ~eat wep\ aVrG>v
.1 y€vo&r6 r• 1rra'iup.a. Cited according to
7rpocraoKrou&V,
the edition and translation ofF. H. Colson ( 10 vols.;
LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1967) 7.352-53.
Exod 22:25; Lev 25:35-37; Deut 23:20-21. Cf. also
Seneca De ben. 1.1.3: asking for repayment of benefit
is shameful, "for from the nature of such a trust, we
have a right to receive back only what is voluntarily
returned" ("id enim genus huius crediti est, ex quo
tantum recipiendum sit, quantum ultro refertur").
p.~v aoK<LV <iva& XPTJUTbs Kal <!J•ll&.v6pw7rOS -7rpOU7rOifj, £v
a~ TOLS lpyo&s a7rav6pw7rlav t7r&a<lKVVCTal Kal a•• v~v
uKar.6r7Jra, wAelw aJv f'awKaS', ltvawp&.rrmv Kalluri.V
8wov lhwA&.ur.ov, W£vr:xp0repov O.wepya(Op.evoS' rbv
'
'1TfV1JTa;

2.21.4; 3.18.1; 6.37.1). SeealsoSenecaEp. 81;

Cicero De off. 2.20.69-71; 2.24.84-85, 87; 25.89.
139 Philo Spec. leg. 2.71: 1rev7Ju•v E7r&Kovprov Kal robs
7r>.ovcrlovs £1rl <!J•llav6pw1rlav 7rpOKallovp.<vos, Yva rrov

606

compound interest but just the principal." 14 2 Unlike
Aristotle, Philo (Spec. leg. 2. 78) classifies such interest-
free loans as benevolences (xaptns).
If Philo agrees with the Hellenistic distinction of
benevolence and business investment, he also maintains
the opposition against usury reflected in the Old Testa-
ment tradition. 143 This opposition seems to have been
shared by Hellenistic judaism more generally, 144 and it is.
not surprising that it was taken over by early Christian
sources influenced by it. 145 As far as SP /Luke 6:35 is
concerned, one can say that the matter of interest is
mentioned only by implication; 146 but when one turns to
the juristic and economic fine points, the question of
interest emerges.
Apart from the question of whether SP /Luke 6:35
speaks of interest, one must consider the technical
terminology used in the passage. 147 Commonly, a "gift"
(oouts) carries no obligation of repayment or payment of
interest. But one must distinguish a gift from a "loan"
142 Ibid.: T6Kovs Kat E'lrtToKias p.~ u.\ovvus.
143 Besides the passages inn. 140 above, see Pss 15:5;
109:11; Prov 28:8; Neh 5:7; Ezek 18:8, 13, 17;
22:12. See Samuel Sandmel, "Money-lending," EJ 12
(1971) 244-56; Edward Neufeld, "The Prohibitions
against Loans at Interest in Ancient Hebrew Laws,"
HUCA 26 (1955) 355-412; Robert P. Maloney,
"Usury in Greek, Roman and Rabbinic Thought,"
Traditio 27 (1971) 79-109; idem, "Usury and
Restrictions on Interest-Taking in the Ancient Near
East," CBQ 36 (1974) 1-20; Hillel Gamoran, "The
Biblical Law against Loans on Interest," JNES 30
(1971) 127-34; idem, "Talmudic Usury Laws and
Biblical Laws," ]Sf 7 (1976) 129-42; Eberhard
Klingenberg, Das israelitische Zinsverbot in Torah,
Mishna und Talmud (AAWLM.G 177.7; Wiesbaden:
Steiner, 1977); Raymond Bogaert, "Geld (Geld-
wirtschaft)," RAC 9 (1976) 797-907 (bibliography),
esp. 847; Hillel Gamoran, "The Talmudic Law of
Mortgages in View of the Prohibition against
Lending on Interest," HUCA 52 (1981) 153-62.
144 See Josephus Ap. 2.208.
145 Apoc. Pet. 16.31 describes those punished in hell:
oVrot Sf ~o-av of: OavEl(ovrEs Kallt'1TatroVvr£S' r6Kovs
T6Kwv ("these were those who were lending money
and charging interest on interest"). Cf. Hermas Man.
8.10; Cos. Thom. log. 95. In the parable ofthe
Talents (Matt 25:14-30//Luke 19:11-27), loans on
interest are accepted as common practice (Matt
25:27/ /Luke 19:23).
146 Verse 35 is, therefore, parallel to vs 30: vs 30
demands turning things taken by force into a gift,
Luke 6:27-45
called oav£Lov 148 or xpijuts, 149 which must be repaid
(!hootoovat). If the debtor fails to repay, he is fined
(ihrorlvHv). Loans may carry interest, in which case they
are called PvroiCos, or they may be given without interest
(ltro1Cos). 150 Interest-free loans were extended within the
family and among friends. P. W. Pestman 151 provides
examples from the Greco-Egyptian papyri that include
loan agreements between a father and his son, 15 2 or
between brothers, 153 or simply in the family .I 5 4 He
proposes the idea that "the motive of the creditor for
allowing the loan may, in the above cases, be a gesture of
good will towards the debtor." 155 This practice of giving
interest-free loans among "brothers" not only agrees with
Philo's recommendation (see above) but also explains
why such loans are the concern of the SP. The recom-
mendation is a gesture of goodwill intended to turn an
enemy into a friend. Thus it conforms to the Golden
Rule and to the love-command of jesus. It conforms as
well to Greek ethics: "for no one makes a deposit except
while vs 36 demands turning a loan into a gift. By
comparison, SM/Matt 5:42b speaks of turning away
a potential borrower. If loans are to be treated as
charity, no wonder people stop lending altogether.
On this point cf. Did. 1.5-6.
147 See Helmut Ernst Finckh, "Das Zinsrecht der grako-
agyptischen Papyri" (diss., Erlangen, 1962);Johannes
Herrmann, "Zinssatze und Zinsgeschafte im Recht
der grako-agyptischen Papyri," j]P 14 (1962) 23-31;
Hanno Kuhnert, "Zum Kreditgeschaft in den
hellenistischen Papyri Agyptens his Diokletian" (diss.,
Freiburg i.Br., 1965); Hans-Albert Rupprecht,
Untersuchungen zum Darlehen im Recht der griiko-
iigyptischen Papyri der Ptolemiierzeit (MBPF 51;
Munich: Beck, 1967); P. W. Pestman, "Loans
Bearing No Interest?" JJP 16-17 (1971) 7-29; idem,
The New Papyrological Primer (5th ed.; Leiden: Brill,
1990) 118-20 (no. 19).
148 See Aristotle Problemata 29.2, 950a 78-950b 4.
149 Idem, Eth. Nic. 8.13.7, 1162b 31-34. Cf. Rupprecht,
Untersuchungen (seen. 14 7), 8. Aristotle discusses the
matter in the context of friendship.
150 See Rupprecht, Untersuchungen, 64-73.
151 Pestman, "Loans" (seen. 147), 17-18.
152 Papyri Londinenses III, p. 9, no. 1203 (Pathyris,
114/113 BCE).
153 Papyri Londinenses III, p. 15, no. 1205 (100-99 BCE).
154 See the family archive ofDionysios, son ofKephalas
(Papyrus Reinach 1 (114/113-103 BCE)).
155 Pestman, "Loans" (seen. 14 7), 18.
607
with a man whom he trusts. But when a debt is involved,
there is no friend; for if a man is a friend he does not
lend but gives." 156
It is, therefore, by no means farfetched if the church
fathers bring the issue of interest into the discussion. The
first to interpret SP /Luke 6:35 in terms of the pro-
hibition of interest seems to have been Tertullian (Adv.
Marc. 4.17 .4). In the history of the ancient and medieval
church, this interpretation has had momentous con-
sequences. Using primarily Old Testament passages and,
to a lesser extent, New Testament texts from the SP and
the SM, the church fathers condemned interest-carrying
loans as incompatible with the Christian morallife. 157
Church councils finally took action, denouncing the
practice and threatening Christians engaged in it with
excommunication. 158 One result was that the money-
lending industry moved increasingly into the hands of
the Jews, to whom canon law did not apply and to whom
Scripture permitted lending to non-Jews. Such concen-
156 Aristotle Problemata 29.2, 950a 31-33: ovo<'t~ yap
7rapaKaTarl8£raq.t~ 7TtCTTE'6wv. oV ot rh XPEo~, olJ cplAo~· 48 on Luke 6:35); idem, "Von Kaufhandlung und
ov yap oav<i(al, eav i1 cpi>..o~' a>..>.. a oiow<TIV. Cited
according to the ed. and trans. by W. S. Hett,
Aristotle, Problems II (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann,
1937) 136-37.
157 See Franz Xaver Funk, Geschichte des kirchlichen
Zinsverbotes (Tiibingen: Laupp, 1876); E. Sehling,
"Wucher, kirchliche Gesetze dariiber," RE 21 (1908)
521-28; Calvin Elliott, Usury: A Scriptural, Ethical and
Economic View (Millersburg, Ohio: Anti-Usury
League, 1902); Patrick Cleary, The Church and Usury:
An Essay on Some Historical and Theological Aspects of
Money-Lending (Dublin: Gill, 1914).
158 See Funk, Geschichte, 14.
159 See t. B. Me~. 70b, s.v. tashikh, cited by Haim Her-
man Cohn, "Usury," EJ 16 (1971) 27-33, esp. 32: "If
we nowadays allow interest to be taken from non-
Jews, it is because there is no end to the yoke and the
burden king and ministers impose on us, and
everything we take is the minimum for our
subsistence, and anyhow we are condemned to live in
the midst of the nations and cannot earn our living in
any other manner except by money dealings with
them; therefore the taking of interest is not to be
prohibited." On this point see Johann Joseph Ignaz
von Dollinger, "The Jews in Europe," in his Studies in
European History (trans. Margaret Warre; London:
John Murray, 1890) 210-42, esp. 224-33.
160 See Martin Luther's "(Kleiner) Sermon vom
Wucher" (1519) (WA 6.1-8); idem, "(GroBer)
608
tration of the business in the hands of Jews helped to
prepare the ground for the pogroms, persecutions, and
expropriations directed against Jews from the Middle
Ages to the twentieth century. 159
The Protestant reformers were also deeply suspicious
°
of moneylending. 16 Calvin declared that he was not
opposed to it in principle but considered the practice
dubious. 161 He accordingly demanded laws to keep the
banking business within the bounds of Christian ethics as
expressed in the teachings of jesus in the SM and the SP.
This compromise eventually won the approval of
governmental supervision as we know it.
In conclusion, it seems clear that one must understand
SP /Luke 6:35 as a position adopted in the Hellenistic
debates on benevolence, recommending benevolence
and ruling out its confusion with business investments.
Business investments are not necessarily ruled out in
principle, but they have no place in a manual of Christian
discipleship.
Sermon vom Wucher" (1520) (WA 6.36-60, esp. p.
Wucher" (1524) (WA 15.293-322, esp. p. 301 on
Luke 6:34); trans. Charles M.Jacobs and Walther E.
Brandt, Luther's Works, vol. 45 (Philadelphia:
Muhlenberg, 1962) 245-310 (on Luke 6:34-35 see
pp. 290-91).
161 Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels, 1.196 (on Luke 6:35):
"This utterance has been wrongly attached to usury,
as though He were only forbidding His own to lend
capital for interest. Clearly, from the earlier part of
the speech, it has a wider application .... Christ only
wished that the faithful in lending should go further
than profane men, meaning, that is, that they should
aim at pure liberality." For further discussion see
Karl Holl, "Die Frage des Zinsnehmens und des
Wuchers in der reformierten Kirche" (1922), in his
Gesammelte Aufsiitze, 3.385-403; Henri Hauser, "Les
idees economiques de Calvin," in his Les Debuts du
Capitalisme (Paris: Alcan, 1927) 45-79; idem,
"L'Economie Calvinienne," Societe de l'histoire du
protestantismefran~ais 84 (1935) 227-42; Ernst Ramp,
Das Zinsproblem: Eine historische Untersuchung
(Abhandlungen zur Geschichte des schweizerischen
Protestantismus 4; Zurich: Zwingli, 1949); Albert
Hyma, "The Economic Ideas of John Calvin," in his
Renaissance to Reformation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1951) 440-66; Andre Bieler, La pensee economique et
sociale de Calvin (Publications de Ia faculte des
sciences economiques et sociales de l'universite de
Geneve 13; Geneva: Georg, 1959).
 Luke 6:27-45

The issue of benevolence also marks one of the points
of difference between the SP and the SM. Corresponding
to its Jewish-Christian character, the SM speaks of
benevolence only in terms of the Jewish equivalent,
almsgiving (SM/Matt 6:2-4). Moneylending, however,
does enter the picture at one point in SM/Matt 5:42b,
which states that one should not turn away someone who
asks for a loan. One can thus see SM/Matt 6:2-4 as a
parallel to SP /Luke 6:35.
The renunciation of return is not, however, an
expression of "pure altruism." Rather, it is part of a
doctrine of reward that is Jewish in origin. Forgoing a
reward in this world is justified in that it preserves the
reward for the world to come. The argument is thus
similar to that in the SM, especially Matt 6:1-6, 16-18,
which state that since one can claim reward and suffer
punishment for a deed only once, forgoing such claims in
this life establishes the right to them in the world to
come. Therefore vs 35b-c constitutes not two super-
fluous promises but an integral part of the argument. 162
The only remarkable thing is that this doctrine, Jewish in
nature, is being applied to Gentile Christians. 163
The first of the promises (vs 35b) reads: "Then your
reward will be great" (KalluTaL b JLLu8o~ VJL;;>V "lTOAv~).
Although similar to SP /Luke 6:23b and SM/Matt 5:12,
differences exist: Luke 6:35b is stated in the future tense
and refers to the eschatological future, 164 while SP /
Luke 6:23b and SM/Matt 5: 12b are stated in the present
tense with even the future tense implied in the phrase "in
heaven," a reference (perhaps} absent in SP/Luke
6:35b. 165 The disciples in the SM appear already to
possess the reward, but it is stored away in heaven, as "a
treasure in heaven" (SM/Matt 6:20); yet its benefits are
· used already during this life. In SP /Luke, however, the
reward is to be claimed only in the future. It is not yet
there; it is promised only because the granting of it
depends on other factors. The ethical actions com-
manded in vs 35a also lie in the future, so that one's
actual entitlement to the reward depends on the per-
formimce of those ethical actions. The implication,
therefore, is that Gentile Christians are also obliged to
accumulate a treasure in heaven and that they can do so
on the basis of Jesus' commandment. This doctrine is
diametrically opposed to Paul's theology, in which the
reward (if one should use this term) has been earned by
Christ through his sacrificial death on the cross, and in
which the Christians are related to that reward through
faith inJesus Christ. 166 Yet even if Paul does not expect
Gentiles to accumulate their own reward in heaven, they
must not destroy Christ's accomplishment and must
remain "unblemished" during their earthly life, so that
the apostle can present them as a "pure bride" to the
Lord at the last judgment (2 Cor 11 :2). 1 6 7
The second promise (vs 35c) specifies the object of the
first and does not appear to be a separate promise in
content: "and you will be sons of the Most High" (Kal
lu£u8£ dol vtluTov). 168 This promise is known from
SM/Matt 5:9b, 45a, 169 and seems to come from older
Jewish tradition. 170 Again, the surprising thing here is
that the promise is made to Gentiles. How can this
promise apply to them?

162 Against Schurmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.355), who
refers to Engelbert Neuhiiusler, Anspruch und Antwort
Gottes: Zur Lehre von den Weisungen innerhalb der
synoptischen Jesusverkilndigung (Dusseldorf: Patmos,
1962) 47 n. 25.
163 This possibility may have been provided by Jewish
thought itself at the time, perhaps even more than
later sources suggest. Cf. Exod. Rab. 31.4, com-
menting on Ps 15:5: "Anyone who has riches and
gives charity to the poor, and does not lend on
interest is regarded as if he observed all the com-
mandments" (trans. S. M. Lehrmann, Midrash
Rabbah: Exodus [London: Soncino, 1939]381).
Chapter 31.1-5 interprets Exod 22:24: "If you lend
money to any of my people," and "you shall not be to
him as a creditor" (31.6).
164 So, rightly, Schurmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.355.
165 The question is whether lv Ttp ovpav!p ("in heaven")
should be read with a and I, or lv rols ovpavols ("in
the heavens") with ~ecorr a pc aur c r 1 sy'. So according
to Aland, Synopsis, 105. The evidence for this reading
is not strong, however, and appears to be a har-
monization with Luke 6:23b or Matt 5: 12b (see
Aland, ibid., 103, for similar variants). The full
statement is certainly in conformity with the SP and
the SM.
166 See Betz, Galatians, 115-19, on Gal2:15-16.
167 See also I Thess 2:19-20; 3:11-13; 5:23-24; Rom
8:31-39 (and on this passage see Betz, Essays, 153).
168 Marcion substitutes 8eov ("God") for v>Jrl<TTOV ("most
high"), most likely because of the Jewish usage of the
title.
169 See also Betz, Essays, 122-23.
170 For the material see above on SM/Matt 5:9b.

609
 We know from Paul's letters in particular that such a
promise was controversial in primitive Christianity and
that Paul defended its application to his Gentile-Christian
churches in the face of opposition. 1 71 If such a promise is
made here, then, it reflects an older doctrine of the
church rather than later Lukan redaction. 172 Such an
assumption indicates a pre-Pauline origin and character
and would afford additional evidence for the pre-Pauline
history of the doctrine of justification as applied to
Gentile Christians. 1 7 3
The use of the divine epithet (6) iJVncrro<; ("the Most
High") is worth consideration at this point. As we know
from many attestations, among them those in the New
Testament, 174 the epithet was most popular in the
Hellenistic-Jewish Diaspora, 175 whence it seems to have
entered Christian theology. Why was it so appealing?
The answer may lie in the fact that it was able both to
render a Hebrew epithet of God 176 and was familiar to
non-Jews. 177 If, as I assume, the SP is an early text rather
than a Lukan creation, the appearance of this epithet in
the SP represents further testimony for the appeal of
early Christian theology to non-Jews. 178
Verse 35d offers the soteriological reason for granting
the reward to the Gentiles: "for he himself is benevolent
to the ungrateful and evil" (I:Jn avTO<; XP1/0"T6<; EO"TLV hi.
roh axaplcrTOV<; Kat 7TOV7jpOv<; ). 179 The introductory I:Jn
("for") seems to have a peculiar force here, apart from
indicating that the following material supports the
preceding. It functions almost as a quotation mark and
introduces one of the most important theological
doctrines of antiquity, divine philanthropy. 180 The
doctrine is pre-Christian in origin and was at the time
accepted virtually everywhere in ancient religion. Even
its present formulation in vs 35d has nothing specifically
Christian; the statement reads more like an appeal to
doctrine on which all can agree.
The avr6<; ("he himself' [i.e., God]) is reminiscent of
hymic language, in which mode the whole statement
seems to have its proper place. 181 The attribute XP1/crT6<;
is almost technical in this context and should be rendered
as "benevofent." 182 It is prominent everywhere in Greco-
Roman religious contexts, 183 includingjudaism 184 and
Christianity. 185
Divine benevolence stands in stark contrast to human
failure to respond in kind. The phrase "toward the
ungrateful and bad" (E7Tt TOV<; axapLO"TOV<; Kat 7TOV7jpOv<;)

171 See esp. Gal3:6-9, 26-28, 29; 4:4-6, 21-31; and
Betz, Galatians, on these passages.
172 For further discussion on this point, see Schiirmann,
Lukasevangelium, 1.355; Marshall, Luke, 264-65.
173 See Betz, Galatians, 116-18.
174 Here, as in Luke 1:32, the angel's greeting to Mary,
and in 1:76, the Benedictus, the epithet is used
without the article, while elsewhere it is with the
article: Mark 5:7/ /Luke 8:28; Acts 7:48; 16:17; Heb
7:1 (LXX Gen 14:17-20); 1 Clem. 29.2; 45.7; 52.3;
59.3; Ignatius Rom., inscriptio. Cf. Luke 2:14, in the
doxology: "Glory be to God in the highest" (oo'a lv
v..picrTOLf Oei/>).
175 For references see BAGD, s.v., lJ..P<crror; Georg
Bertram, "lJo/or KTA.," TDNT 8.614-20; Gerd Lude-
mann, EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v. lJ1fF<crror; PGL, s.v.
lJ1fF<crror; Marcel Simon, "Theos Hypsistos," in his Le
christianisme antique, 2.495-508; idem, "Jupiter-
Yahve," ibid., 622-48; Pierre Boyance, "Le dieu tres
haute chez Philon," in Melanges d' histoire des religions
offerts aHenri-Charles Puech (Paris: Presses universi-
taires de France, 1974) 139-49.
176 For the evidence see Bertram, TDNT 8.615-19 (B-
D); Str-B 2.99-100; H.-J. Zobel, ")1'1;11' 'reljon,"
ThWAT 6 (1987) 131-51.
177 See Franz Cumont, PW 9 (1914) 444-50, s. v.
lJ1fF<crror; Bertram, TDNT 8.614-15 (A); Horsley, New
Documents, 1.25-29 (no. 5).
178 See the material in Bertram, TDNT 8.617 with nn.
41-43. On the function of divine epithets generally,
see Burkhard Gladigow, "Gottesnamen (Gottes-
epitheta)I (allgemein)," RAG 11 (1981) 1202-38.
179 The position of avr6r is emphatic. P 4 5 has apparently
turned things around; see Aland, Synopsis, 105.
180 For this concept, see the basic work by Bolkestein,
WohltiUigkeit, passim; and A. S. Pease, M. Tulli
Ciceronis De natura deorum (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University, 1955) 2.689-90 (on Cicero De
nat. dear. 2.60); Ulrich Luck, "cfnl\av8pw.,.ia KTA.,"
TDNT 9.107-12, esp. 107-10 (A.1-2 and B); Spicq,
Notes, 1. 922-27; Betz, Lukian, 49; Morton Smith in
PECL 1.34-35; Donald A. Stoike in PECL 1.280;
PECL 2, index s.v. cfnl\av8pw.,.ia. See also Traute
Adam, Clementia Principis: Der EinfiuB hellenistischer
Fiirstenspiegel auf den Versuch einer rechtlichen Fundier-
ung des Prinzipats durch Seneca (Kieler historische
Studien 11; Stuttgart: Klett, 1970).
181 Cf., e.g., Acts 17:25; Eph 2:14; 4:10, 11; 5:23; Col
1:17, 18; Heb 13:5; 1John2:2; 4:10, 19; Rev 17:11;
19:15. See BAGD, s.v. avr6r.
182 RSV, NEB,JB, REB, NRSV, and Fitzmyer (Luke,
1.626) render as "kind." Vg has "benignus."
183 BAGD (s. v. XP7Jcrr6r, 1.b) renders as "kind, loving,
benevolent," and notes that cp<Aav8pw.,.or is a

610
 Luke 6:27-45

makes an important anthropological statement, again
reflecting Hellenistic moral and religious sentiment. I86
Of first importance is the play on the words XPTJrTTO<;
("benevolent") and xapL<; ("favor") in COntrast to
axapLUT.O<; ("ungrateful"). ,People who cannot answer
positively the question about their xapL<; ("favor") in VSS
32b and 34b are "without favor" (axapturot), that is,
ungracious 187 ~the same as ungrateful. 188 This figure
of speech, termed paronomasia, 189 seems to have been
popular in antiquity; students were familiar with it and it
appears to have appealed to them. The combination
"ungrateful and evil" (axapturos Kat 'lTOV7JpOs) 190 implies
that at the root of human immorality lies ungrate-
fulness, 191 while thankfulness toward the deity is the
foundation of both good religion and ethics. 192
What does all this mean for the SP? In sum, the
difference between common behavior and Christian
ethos is that the former merely reacts to favors received
while the .latter takes an initiative, acting first. The
Christian can be generous because God deals with
humanity, especially with the ungrateful and the evil-
doers, with the same generosity. Moreover, since such
spontaneous conduct imitates the divine philanthropy,
the Christian is promised a great reward in heaven.
The result of the whole argument thus far is that
Jesus' love-command (vs 27b), if properly interpreted by
the Golden Rule (vs 31), corresponds to God's philan-
thropy. God also loves his enemies and does not expect
anything in return, even though gratitude is certainly the
appropriate return. The proper ethical conduct for the
Christian can therefore only be to imitate God in his

synonym in Herodian 4.3.3; Philo Leg. Gaj. 67. See
Konrad WeiB, XPTJ<TT6r KTA." TDNT 9.483-92; Spicq,
Notes, 2.971-76;JosefZmijewski, EWNT(EDNT) 3,
s. v. XPTJ<TTck
184 See WeiB, TDNT 9.485-87 (B), with references.
185 See esp. Rom 2:4; Eph 4:32; 1 Pet 2:3 (Ps 34:9);
furthermore Rom 11:22; Eph 2:7; Titus 3:4; 1 Clem. 190 For parallels see Wettstein, 1.695. The combination
9.1; 2 Clem. 15.5; 19.1; Ignatius Mag. 10.1; Smyr. 7.1.
See also WeiB, TDNT 9.487-88 (C).
186 See the story of the Healing of the Ten Lepers (Luke
17: 11-19) and my interpretation in Synoptische
Studien, 50-67. For the whole topic of gratefulness
see Peter Krafft, "Gratus animus (Dankbarkeit),"
RAG 12 (1983) 732-52.
187 See AristotleRhet. 2.7.5, 1385a 34-1385b 1:
<f>avEpbV ~~~ KaliJIJEV lL<f>aLplttTIJaL lvlJ'x_ETaL T~V XtlPLV Kal
.,.o,ilv lLxapl<TTovr ("It is evident also by what means it
is possible to make out that there no favour at all, or
that those who render it are not actuated by
benevolence"). Cf. ibid., 2.7.6, 1385b 10-11: Kal.,.Epl
,.~v TOV xapl(EtTiiaL Kal lLxapLITTE'Iv EfpTJTaL ("This is
enough on benevolence and the lack of benevolence" 192 Cf. again Paul, who makes this doctrine the founda-
[my trans.]). For connections with the doctrine of
friendship see also XenophonMem. 2.2.2; for the
poetic oxymoron XtlPLf lf.xapLf ("graceleSS grace" Or
"thankless favor") see Aeschylus Prometheus Vinctus
545; Agam. 1545; Euripides 1phigenia Taurica 566;
Plutarch De gen. Socr. 14, 583F; Menander Mon. 42-
43; cf. Seneca De clem. 1.1.5; De ira 3.26; De ben.
1.10.3-4; 4.3.3; 4.27.3; 5. 17.3; seeJ. N. Sevenster,
Paul and Seneca (N ovTSup 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961)
123-31.
188 See the Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary
(2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University, 1971), vol. 2,
s.v. "ungracious" and "ungrateful."
189 See BDF, § 488 (1); BDR, § 488,1. A good example
is Ps.-Isoc. Demon. 31: Tar xapLTar &xapltTTiiJf
xapL(6/'EVOf ("bestOW gifts ungraciously").
is a Stoic commonplace; see Chrysippus in Seneca De
ben. 3.4; 4.26.2-3; 4.27 .4; Plutarch De Stoicorum
repugnantiis 21, 1046C; Stobaeus Eel. 2.103, 24 (ed.
Wachsmuth). For these texts see SVF 2.318; 3.168,
169; also Menander Mon. 12; 49; 655; Josephus Ant.
6.305; Celsus in Origen Contra C. 6.53. Cf. 2 Tim
3:2; Kerygma Petri 2, p. 14.
191 This doctrine is contained in the parable of the
Unforgiving Servant (Matt 18:23-35), when "he
took him by the throat saying 'Pay back what you
owe me'" (vs 28; cf. vs 30). The servant is "bad"
(1TOVTJp6r [vs 32]). The same doctrine is basic to Paul's
critique of Hellenistic religion and morality in Rom
1:18-32.
tion of Christian religion (Rom 12:1-2). See on this
point Betz, "The Foundations of Christian Ethics
according to Romans 12:1-2," in Philip Devenish et
al., eds., Witness and Existence: Essays in Honor of
Schubert M. Ogden (Chicago: University of Chicago,
1989) 55-72; German: "Das Problem der Grund-
lagen der paulinischen Ethik (Rom 12,1-2)," ZThK
85 (1988) 199-218; reprinted in my Paulinische
Studien: Gesammelte Aufsiitze 111 (Tiibingen: J. C. B.
Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1994) 184-205.

611
philanthropy. 193
This point basically concludes the argument in vss 27-
35.Jesus' command to love the enemy has been shown to
be by no means stupid or absurd but in conformity with
the basic idea of Hellenistic religion and morality. This
morality, however, differs from that of the classical
period. !socrates sums up the difference when he advises
Demonicus: "Bestow your favours on the good; for a
goodly treasury is a store of gratitude laid up in the heart
of an honest man. If you benefit bad men, you will have
the same reward as those who feed stray dogs; for these
snarl alike at those who give them food and at the passing
stranger; and just so base men wrong alike those who
help and those who harm them." 194
Hellenistic, and especially Stoic, philosophy thinks
differently. 195 For example, Seneca says, "'If you are
imitating the gods,' you say, 'then bestow benefits also
upon the ungrateful; for the sun rises upon the wicked,
and the sea lies open also to pirates.'" 196 Similarly
Marcus Aurelius: "When men blame or hate thee or give
utterance to some such feelings against thee, turn to
their souls, enter into them, and see what sort of men
they are. Thou wilt perceive that thou needest not be
concerned as to what they think of thee. The Gods too
lend them aid in diverse ways by dreams and oracles, to
win those very things on which their hearts are set." 197
Before turning to the conclusion in vs 36, I must
address briefly the relationship between vs 35 and its
parallel in SM/Matt 5:45. The statements in the SP and
the SM make the same point, but they are formulated so
differently that neither can be explained convincingly as
a redactional change of the other. 198 The main dif-
ference appears to be that the SP addresses a Hellenistic,
and the SM a jewish, milieu. The disciples of the SP can
become "sons of the Most High" only after they have
been approved at the last judgment, while those of the
SM are expected to conduct themselves as "sons of the
heavenly Father" here on earth. 199
• 36 The statement concluding the section vss 32-36 is a
maxim: "Be merciful, as (also) your Father is merciful"
(ylv£cr6£ o1Knpp.ov£s, Ka66Js [Kat] o1raThP ilp.wv otKTlpp.wv
€crnv). 200 The imperative ofvs 36a is formulated as a
periphrastic construction of ylvop.at with the present
participle, denoting "the beginning of a state or con-
dition. "201 The motivation for the command follows in
the second clause, where Ka66Js [Kal.] ("as also") resumes

I93 This combination of the doctrine of divine philan-
thropy and imitation of God occurs also elsewhere in
the NT; see esp. Eph 4:32-5:I; cf. Coi2:I3; 3:I2-
14; Rom 5:6-8; I2:I-2; Titus 3:1-7.
I94 Ps.-Isoc. Demon. 29 (trans. George Norlin, !socrates
[LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University;
London: Heinemann, I928]1.2I), a passage reflect-
ing Theognis I05-6. Ps.-Isocrates (ibid., 3I) favors
generosity also in dealing with human weakness.
I95 The doctrine of ethics as imitation of divine philan-
thropy may originally be Pythagorean. See Aelian
Variae historiae I2.59: "Pythagoras said that the two
best gifts of the gods to men were speaking the truth
[aA:'16n\nv] and showing kindness [EiJ£pyen'i'v], and he
added that both resembled the works of gods" (my
trans.). Marvin A. Dilts (in his I984 BT ed. of Aelian)
refers as parallels to Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 53; Plato
Theaet. I76a-b; Philo Fuga 63; Spec. leg. 4.73, 188.
I96 Seneca De ben. 4.26.I: "'Si deos,' inquit, 'imitaris, da
et ingratis beneficia; nam et scleratis sol oritur et
piratis patent maria'" (trans. John W. Basore, Seneca:
Moral Essays [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University; London: Heinemann, I935]3.257).
I97 Marcus Aurelius Ad se ipsum 9.II.27 (trans. C. R.
Haines, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus [LCL; Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University; London: Heinemann,
I930]247).
I98 Almost all modern commentators disagree with me
on this point. See Bultmann, History, 96, 324-25;
Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.354-56; Marshall,
Luke, 264-65.
I99 The oi)v ("therefore") read in vs 36a by .W A 8 q pm
(Aland, Synopsis, I 05) is due to harmonization with
SM/Matt 5:48; see also Tischendorf, Novum Testa-
mentum Graece; and Zahn, Lucas, critical apparatus.
200 The trans. is mine. The Kal ("and") is read now by
Nestle-Aland, 26th ed. It is omitted by WB L WE 'I'
f' pc c d sy' Marcion Clement of Alexandria, but it is
read by AD 8 f'3 9Jllat syP·h Cyprian Basil of
Caesarea Cyril of Alexandria. See Nestle-Aland,
critical apparatus. In a text aspiring to better Greek
one would expect the Kal (cf. Luke 1I:1; 24:24;Joh!i
I5:IO; Acts 2:22; 10:47; I5:8; Rom I5:7; I Cor
10:6,9, IO, 33; ll:I; etc.).
20 I On this point, see BDF, § 354; BDR, § 354. For this
construction see also 2 Cor 6:I4; Mark 9:3, 7; Col
I :I8; Heb 5:I2; Rev 3:2; 6:IO. The imperative
ylverrOe ("be!") is common in paraenesis; see Matt
6:I6; 10:I6; Luke 12:40; Rom 12:16; etc.;Jas 1:22.

612
 Luke 6:27-45

the idea of vs 35d and now states expressly the concept of
the imitation of God. 2° 2 The imperative is based on the
premise that the Father is merciful. This theological
doctrine is presupposed as well known and acceptable. It
must have been prominent in the circles where the SP
and the SM originated, but one should also note the close
parallels in Jas 5:11,2° 3 in the letters of Paul, 204 and in
Eph 4:32-5:1, which has developed it to a new form of
Deutero-Pauline theology. It is likely that the historical
Jesus also held the theologoumenon, and this not only
because it was generally Jewish. 205 The parable of the
Unforgiving Servant (Matt 18:23-35), which I have
adduced in the discussion of vs 35d, states the doctrine in
narrative form; and other references from the synoptic
tradition either express it or allude to it. 206 It is promi-
nent in the SP, however, because the mercifulness of the
deity was also a generally recognized element of Hel-
lenistic religiosity. 207
One of the most interesting works illustrating the
importance of mercy in the Greco-Roman world is
Seneca's essay On Mercy (De dementia). 208 It was known to
have existed in three books, but the extant text breaks
off in the second book and the rest is lost. It is a truly
Roman work, attributing the virtue of mercy to the good
ruler-in this case, the young Nero, to whom the essay is
addressed. Thus it is a testimony to the Roman ruler-
cult; the basic ideas and arguments, however, have much
in common with the SP. In being merciful, the ruler
imitates the gods. 209 Mercy is understood as a "divine
power" 210 that can turn firm enemies into loyal friends, a
fact exemplified by the ancestors, in particular Augustus
and Cinna. 211 Being merciful accords with nature as
well.2 12 It is the province of humanity (humanitas) 213 to
deal with sinfulness in a constructive way, specifically
where the rule oflaw and order are concerned: "No
creature is more difficult to temper, none needs to be
handled with greater skill, than man, and to none should
more mercy be shown." 214 We have here another
instance of the SP explaining the teaching of Jesus in
Hellenistic terms, whereas the SM couches the same
teaching in Jewish terms. 215

202 For this doctrine see above on SP /Luke 6:35c-d;
SM/Matt 5:48; also 5:7. See furthermore Betz,
Nachfolge, 141-42; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium,
1.358-59; Zeller,Mahnsprilche, 110-13.
203 Jas 5:11 states the same doctrine independently of
the SP: "for of great compassion is the Lord and
merciful" (8T1. woA~o-wAayxvJr iuTr.v 0 KVp1.os Ka\
olKTlpp.rov). Dibelius (james, 248) points to the
importance of the doctrine in Hermas Man. 4.3.5; 1
Clem. 23.1; 60.1;Justin Apol. 1.15.13; Dial. 96.3; Ps.-
Clem. Rec. 5.13.1-2, where it is cited in the invitation
to the Gentiles.
204 As the basis for the paraenesis in Rom 12:1. See also
2 Cor 1:3; Rom 9:15 (LXX Exod 33:19), 16, 18;
11:30-32; 12:8; 1 Cor 7:25; 2 Cor 4:1; Phil2:27; 1
Tim 1:13, 16; 1 Pet 2:10;Jude 22; Luke 1:50, 54,
58, 78; 10:37; etc.
205 See BAGD; RudolfBultmann, TDNT 5.159-61;
EWNT(EDNT) 2, s.v. olKTlpro KTA.; Urbach, Sages,
index s.v. Mercy.
206 In the synoptic tradition the christology ofJesus'
compassion and mercy has the same roots. It is used
to justify Jesus' miracles; see Mark 1:41 par.; 6:34
par.; Matt 9:36; etc. See RudolfBultmann, "fAEO~
I<TA.," TDNT 2.477-87; Helmut Koster, "u'lTAttyxvov
KTA.," TDNT7.548-59, esp. 553-55 (C.1).
207 The concept of the divine Father was popular not
only in Jewish but also in Greek religion. See
Hildebrecht Hommel, "Der Himmelsvater," in his
Sebasmata, 1.3-43. On divine mercy see Spicq, Notes,
2.812-15; 3.250-58; Klaus Winkler, "Clementia,"
RAG 3 (1957) 206-31;]. Rufus Fears, "Gottes-
gnadentum," RAG 11 (1981) 1103-59, esp. 1121-
32.
208 For a text and translation see Seneca: Moral Essays
(trans. John W. Basore; LCL; London: Heinemann;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1928)
1.356-449. See Adam, Clementia Principis (see above,
n. 180);J. Rufus Fears, "Nero as the Viceregent of
the Gods in Seneca's De clementia," Hermes 103 (1975)
486-96.
209 SenecaDeclem. 1.1.2; 1.7.1-2; 1.19.8-9.
210 Ibid.,l.26.5: "divinapotentia."
211 Ibid., 1.9.1-10.
212 Ibid., 1.5.2; 1.19.2-4.
213 Ibid., 1.3.2.
214 Ibid., 1.17 .1: "Nullum animal morosius est, nullum
amiore arte tractandum quam homo, nulli magis
parcendum." Similarly, Plutarch De coh. ira 16,
463D-E (see Hans Dieter Betz and John M. Dillon in
PECL 2.194).
215 Cf. Baumbach, Das Verstiindnis des Bosen, 182:
"Katechismus, der den Horern als den am Anfang
des Christenweges stehenden Menschen Belehrung

613
 The connection between vss 35 and 36 has occasioned
much discussion. There appear to be three varieties of
linking: first by catchword: the merciful God is the one
who is benevolent to the "ungrateful and evil" (vs 35d);
second, by the doctrine of the imitation of God, presup-
posed in vs 35c-d and expressly stated in vs 36; 216 third,
by the sequence of benevolence (xapLs) and mercy (€'>..£os),
which may be traditional, since it occurs as well in
Aristotle (Rhet. 2. 7 and 2.8; cf. Cicero De off 211).
The many differences between the maxims readily
appear when one compares the passage with the parallel
SM/Matt 5:48. It is obvious that "perfection" is not
expected of the disciples of the SP. As I have said before,
the language of the SP is Greek religious language while
that of the SM is Jewish. What, then, is the difference
between vss 35 and 36? What is the significance of the
conclusion 217 in comparison with the argument in vss
32-35?
The critical difference lies in the statement in vs 36 of
the positive ethical command for which the apologetic
argument ofvss 32-35 has prepared us. It is noteworthy
that vs 36 does not motivate the Christian to follow Jesus'
love-command by simply appealing to the eschatological
reward (vs 35b-d).2 18 That doctrine, though not repudi-
ated, is superseded by the motivation in vs 36: not
heavenly reward but imitation of God is the higher and
more important doctrine motivating Christian ethics.
Finally, why does Jesus' love-command (vs 27b) make
sense to a Hellenistic student? One can see that the
answer follows directly from the doctrine of the imitation
of God: God loves the enemies in his mercy, and such an
act of love constitutes proper behavior for the religiously
sensitive Christian as well.
• 37 Verses 3 7-3 8 present a set of sentences (sententiae ):
four parallel maxims (vss 37-38a), a gnomic saying on
measure (vs 38b), and a concluding maxim (vs 38c). How
is this passage related to the preceding material? Many
commentators consider-erroneously, I think-vs 36
the beginning of the new section. 219 We will look, then,
for connections and differences between vs 3 7, which
begins the new section, and vss 27-36.220
Verses 37-38 introduce traditional paraenesis for
which the preceding sections have prepared us. The four
parallel maxims, vss 37-38a, explicate concretely what it
means to love the enemy in situations of judging,
condemning, setting free, and giving. All four are
formulated as paradoxes, but the student who has
understood the argument presented in vss 27-36 will
now be able to clarify them. 221 One will recognize all
four maxims as applications of the Golden Rule (vs 31 ),
correctly understood (vss 32-35); one will see in their
implementation the imitation of God's treatment of
humanity (vs 36). The passage vss 37-38 is thus another
part of the interpretation of Jesus' love-command. 222
In the carefully composed vss 37-38a, the four
sentences are arranged as two sets of parallel lines
(parallelismus membrorum). The first of the couplets (vs
37a and b) begins each maxim with a negative pro-
hibitive imperative, introduced by Kal ("and"). Each
maxim is then followed by an emphatic denial using JJ.~ ov
with the subjunctive. The second couplet (vss 37c and
38a) gives positive commands, in asyndetic form,

bringen will" ("a catechism intended to give instruc-
tion to people at the beginning of their way as
Christians"). Cited with approval by Schiirmann,
Lukasevangelium, 1.356 n. 99.
216 So, rightly, Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.356.
217 Differently, Schiirmann (ibid., 357-59) takes vs 36 as
the title ("Uberschrift") to vss 37-38. But the fact
that vs 36 is asyndetic does not mean that it is without
connection altogether. If otv ("therefore") is to be
read, Schiirmann's position would be further
weakened. He finds support in Fiebig, "Jesu Worte,"
62; Bultmann, History, 96, 325; Klostetmann,
Lukasevangelium, 82; Grundmann, Lukas, 150.
Fitzmyer (Luke, 1.641) has the matter right: "Though
v. 36 reformulates what precedes, it is also tran-
sitional to what follows, since the question ofjudging
is a further example of the imitation of God's mercy."
218 Rightly understood by Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium,
1.150.
219 See above on vs 36.
220 Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.357-59) does not
deny this point; differently, Klosterman, Lukas-
evangelium, 82; Grundmann, Lukas, 150.
221 See above on SP /Luke 6:29-30.
222 So also Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.359):
"Formal und inhaltlich gibt sich nur eine Unter-
teilung innerhalb des ersten Teiles der Bergpredigt
(6,27-38) zu erkennen, der als Einheit das neue
GebotJesu darlegen will" ("In regard to form and
content one can recognize only one subdivision
within the first part of the Sermon [6:27-38], which
intends to explain the new commandment of Jesus").

614
 Luke 6:27-45

followed by predictions in the future tense connected
only by Kal ("and").
An interesting variant composition of maxims of Jesus
is quoted in 1 Clem. 13.2:
For he [i.e., Jesus] spoke the following:
"Be merciful, that you may find mercy;
Forgive, ,that you may be forgiven.
As you do, so shall it be done to you;
As you give, so shall it be given to you;
As you judge, so shall you be judged;
As you show kindness, so kindness shall be shown to
you.
With what measure you measure, with that same
measure it will be measured to you."22 3
'9
OVTWS yap
(f '
H11'EV"
EA<an, Yva ~A<7]8iju·
&tj>l<u, Yva lLtj><Bii vpiv·
WS 71'0Lii.'u, oiiTw 71'0L7]8~u<TaL vp.'Lv·
ws oloou, oiiTws oo8~U<TaL VJLLV"
ws Kplv<u, oiiTws Kpt8~cr<u8c·
ws XP7JUT<1J£U8<, oiiTws XP7JUT<V8~u<TaL vp.'Lv·
~ JLETpqJ JL<Tp<LT<, ~v avTc;, JL<Tp7]8~u<TaL VJLLV.
The composition is clear: the introductory formula22 4 is
followed by seven parallel maxims. The first two are
strictly parallel. The third states, hardly by accident, the
Golden Rule; and the fourth, fifth, and sixth maxims-
three in number-constitute its applications. The
concluding seventh maxim varies the pattern. The
sequence of the maxims is similar, but not identical, to
the sequence of maxims in the SP, proof that 1 Clem.
13.2 cannot directly depend on Luke's Gospel or even
on the pre-Lukan SP. It is conceivable, then, that the
quotation in 1 Clem. 13.2 is older than the SP, perhaps
even its source; the SP appears to be a rearrangement
and, at some points, an expansion, of 1 Clem. 13.2; but
other versions of the set exist in other texts, also ap-
parently independent of each other. 225 The presence of
these variant texts should prevent one from constructing
intertextual dependencies prematurely.
Verse 37a presents the first maxim: ''Judge not, and
you will certainly not be judged either" (Kat p.~ Kplv<u, Kat
ov p.~ Kpt8i/u). The connection with Kal ("and") at the
beginning is textually disputed. A number of textual
witnesses 226 do not read it-perhaps for stylistic rea-
sons-because the subsequent material is not a continu-
ation of the preceding text. 227 For this reason, too, it
should not appear in the English translation. The Kal
("and") may simply indicate the beginning of another
section, in which case it might be rendered as "further-
more."
The imperative "judge not" proposes the appropriate
action: it recommends the opposite of common practice.
One should understand the term Kplvw (''judge") here in
its general sense as "passingjudgment" on another.22S
The theme is traditional in moral exhortation, based on
the observation that people constantly pass judgment on
one another and that this practice destroys human
relationships. Passing judgment, whether mere gossip or
a more serious scrutinization of other people's lives, is an
unethical, even a foolish, habit. It undercuts the very
existence of religious communities. In short, ethically
sensitive persons must avoid the practice. Applicable
here are my comments on the parallel in SM/Matt 7:1-
5.
In the light of the Golden Rule (vs 31 ), however,
abstaining from judging others is more than a behavior

223 The trans. and punctuation are mine. Synopsis, 107).

224 The quotation may have been taken from a source
otherwise called "the gospel" (I Clem. 47.2; cf. Did.
8.2; 15.3, 4; 2 Clem. 8.5). See Koester, Ancient
Christian Gospels, 15, 66-71; and the main Intro-
duction above, section A.2.2).
225 The closest parallel version is found in Clement Alex.
Strom. 2.18.91.2, but others are Polycarp Phil. 3.2;
Didasc. Apost. 2.21; 2.42 (Didascalia syriaca is again
different; see Voobus, Didascalia apostolorum in Syriac,
33-35); Macari us Homilies 37 .3.
226 D A allatt Marcion (see Aland's critical apparatus in
227 The omission could be the result of harmonization
with SM/Matt 7:1, a passage that may have influ-
enced the reading ofYva ("in order that") instead of
Kat ov
("and not") in A D W 'I' al it sy' sa boP' Marcion
Cyprian. See the critical apparatus in Nestle-Aland
and in Aland, Synopsis, 107.
228 For parallel references and bibliography see above
on SM/Matt 7:1.

615
pattern one tries to perfect; it is in itself an initial step
toward breaking an unethical practice. No one wants to
be censored, and the best way to avoid being censored is
to avoid censoring others.
In considering the ensuring prediction "you will
certainly not be judged," one must analyze the pos-
sibilities inherent in the use of the future tense. 229
Grammatically, the construction of ov /A.~ with the
subjunctive expresses a strong denial of a future event,
but it does not determine whether it is an immanent ~r
an eschatological future. Most commentators prefer the
latter, with God as judge. 230 This view, however, seems
based primarily on the parallel verse in SM/Matt 7: 1; it
can also be supported by parallels in the gnomic liter-
ature.231 Yet the formulation in Luke 6:37a is-perhaps
intentionally-ambiguous.
A second interpretation of the maxim, based on the
Golden Rule (vs 31 ), favors the possibility of an im-
manent future. In this case, the subject of the act of
judging is thought of as people who will refrain from
passing judgment if others refrain first. 232 Such im-
manent meaning seems to be the primary focus of the
two maxims in vs 37a-b. Still, one must not altogether
disregard the eschatological dimension, for it is intrinsic
to the promise of an eschatological reward (vs 35b-c) and
integral to the third and fourth maxims (vss 37c-38a). 233
In sum, this kind of moral material does not require a
firm decision on interpretation. Ambiguity may be a
reminder of the two dimensions of Christian ethics-life
in this world and life in the world to come.
The second maxim follows strictly parallel to the first,
229 See Nigel Turner in Moulton, Grammar, vol. 3:
Syntax, 96; Moule, Idiom Book, 22; BDF, § 365; BDR,
§ 365; BAGD, s.v. I-'~• D.l.a.
230 So Klostermann, Lukas, 150; Schiirmann, Lukas-
evangelium, 1.361; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.641; Marshall,
Luke, 265-66.
231 For instance, Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 11: "If you judge
evilly, God will judge you thereafter" (~v uv KaKws
aiKttuys, ...~ li<Os !LETf1fEira aiKtt<T<TEI). See the context of
Sent. 9-21, and the commentary by van der Horst,
Sentences, 119; Wilson, Love, 76-77.
232 See the discussions in Plummer (Luke, 189) and
Lagrange (Luc, 197), who prefer the immanent
meaning.
233 The two dimensions are also emphasized by Fitz-
myer, Luke, 1.641.
234 However, P 75 B 579 read the simplex aiKtt(<r<
616
but its force is climactic: 234 "Condemn not, and you will
certainly not be condemned either" (Kat /A.~ KamotKct(t:TE,
Kat ov /A.~ KaTaOtKacr8fjTc). 235 It suggests that censorious-
ness necessarily leads to condemnation. The parallel in
Jas 5:6 continues the logic: "You have condemned, you
have murdered the righteous one" (KaTEOtKctcran,
~cpove6craTE TOV olKatov). 236 The use of traditional ideas in
juxtaposition is underscored by the parallel of the
sequence OtKatw8fjvat ("be justified") and KaTaOtKacr8fjvat
("be condemned") in Matt 12:37, a composition with
strong ties to SP /Luke 6:43-45.237
The second parallelism is asyndetic 23 8 and positively
formulated. The first line (vs 37c) commands an act that
appears to be the opposite of condemning, namely,
setting free: "Set free, and you will be set free" (lL7ToA:6~:n,
Kat a7TOAv8~cr8t:). The meaning of the a7TOAVW is not clear,
even if one reads it as an antonym of KaTaOtKct(w ("con-
demn"). Does it refer to the freeing of prisoners or to the
forgiving of debts? 239 If it refers to the latter, and the
more likely, act, then the parable of the Unforgiving
Servant (Matt 18:23-35) offers the strongest illustration,
especially vs 27: "Out of pity the master of that servant
released him and forgave him his debt" (cr7TA.ayxvtcr8t:ts o£
0 KVptos TOV oovA.ov ~Kclvov a7T£Avcrcv avTOV Kat TO octVcWV
acjJfjKcV avTcp). Was this parable designed to explicate this
interpretation ofvs 37c in narrative form?
•38 The last of the four maxims (vss 37a-38a) is climac-
tic, turning from "letting go" to the more active "giving"
(vs 38a): "Give, and it will be given to you" (oloon, Kat
oo8~crt:Tat VJA.LV). I have mentioned the topic of giving in
vs 30; I now note that the ethical context of the entire
("judge").
235 For the textual problem, see on vs 37a. Also in vs
37b, only part of the tradition reads the Kal ("and"): C
WAD 0 A. pm latt Marcion do not have it (so Aland's
critical apparatus in Synopsis, 107). The reason for
the omission of the Kalin vs 37a and b may be due to
internal synchronizing with vss 37c and 38a.
236 Cf. Pss 37:32-33; 109:29-31; Prov 17:15; Wis 2:10-
20, esp. vs 20; 12:15.
237 Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.362) suggests that vs
37b may have influenced Matt 12:7, 37 andJas 5:6,
but it is more likely that all passages in question draw
on common wisdom tradition.
238 So, correctly, Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.361.
239 Most prefer the latter meaning; see BAGD, s.v.
lmoA.6w; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.361; cf.
Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.626, who translates "forgive."
 Luke 6:27-45

text consistently is giving and receiving. 240 The fourth
maxim, however, presents the act of giving as the
culmination of jesus' teaching as explained through the
Golden Rule (vs 31).2 41 In that context, all of Christian
ethics is a form of giving. The idea of giving is deeply
rooted in the history of ancient ethics and can explain
positively Jesus' meaning when he commanded his
disciples to love the enemy. Giving is reasonable in the
face of adversity, for giving establishes obligations, and
those obligations ensure a return in kind both on earth
and in heaven. Generosity is thus an eminently rea-
sonable trait, a virtue appropriate to the ethical life of
the disciples of jesus. It is additionally the foundation of
communal life and so of the church. The maxim in vs
38a correlates giving, as nearly as possible, with the
famous formula do ut des ("I give, so that you may give [in
return]"), long recognized as fundamental to human
sociallife. 242
The subsequent saying in vs 38b is extraordinary for
several reasons. Its literal translation reads: "Good
measure, pressed down, shaken together, overflowing-
they will give (it) into your lap" (p.£rpov KaA.ov 7T€7Tt€crp.£vov
cr£craA€vp.£vov ii7T£p£KXVVVOp.£vov llwcrovcrtv £1~ rov KOA7TOV
bp.wv). 243 The sentence is best classified as a composite
nominal sentence, 244 asyndetic, although it can also be
categorized by analogy with some sayings in gnomic
literature in which the object is moved to the beginning
of the sentence (prolepsis). 245 In either case, the sen-
tence displays a poetic style unique in the New Testa-
ment. The first part of the sentence presents a word
picture of the good measure, followed in the second part
by a rather puzzling predication. The vivid image, almost
a still life of the measure of grain, 246 is conveyed by
three perfect participles, none attested elsewhere in the
New Testament: 7T€7Tt€crp.£vov evokes the image of the
container filled to capacity, the contents "pressed down,"

240 For this topic of ethics see Aristotle Rhet. 1.5.9,
1361a 27-1361b 2; and Alfred Stuiber, "Geschenk,"
RAG 11 (1977) 686-703; Stephen Charles Mott,
"The Power of Giving and Receiving: Reciprocity in
Hellenistic Benevolence," in Gerald F. Hawthorne,
ed., Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Inter-
pretation: Studies in Honor ofMerrill C. Tenney (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 60-72; Betz, 2 Corinthians
8 and 9, 169, index, s. v. Exchange of gifts, Gifts (and
gift-giving).
241 See the parallels in SM/Matt 5:42; 7:7-11; also
5:23-25, 39-42; 6:2-4, 11, 12, 14-15, 19-21; 7:6.
242 This has been pointed out by Paul (Rom 12:1-2, 3-
21; 1 Cor 12:4-31; 2Cor9:6-15. The doctrine is
also stated aptly in Menander Mon. 443 (my trans.):
"When you receive, give back, and you will receive
again" (l\a{36>v ciwoM~. Kal >.~>/<?1 wa>.w). Cf. ibid., 827,
828.
243 The textual tradition of the sentence is fairly clear.
But D W >. 157 Origen have the first two particles
turned around; E syP Marcion have only the first; c e
r 1 have only the second, while sy' has none of them.
Some witnesses connect the participles by Kal ("and"):
C ~A 9 pm (see Aland, Synopsis, 107).
244 For this type of saying see Hans Jurgen Hermisson,
Studien zur israelitischen Spruchweisheit (WMANT 28;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968)
142-44; Walter Buhlmann, Vom rechten Reden und
Schweigen: Studien zuProverbien 10-31 (OBO 12;
Fribourg: Universitlitsverlag; Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1976) 32-34.
245 For examples see Nigel Turner in Moulton, Gram-
mar, vol. 3: Syntax, 350, to which one should add Gal
2:4.
246 The image of the full measure is traditional and
occurs in the biblical literature elsewhere. See Deut
25:14-15, and for further material Str-B 2.160;
BAGD, s.v. pirpov; and Kurt DeiBner, "p.trpov KTA.,"
TDNT 4.632-34. The stylized form of the saying in
Luke 6:38, however, is unique in the NT; it may
have its origin in poetry. In Greek religion the
goddess Demeter fills the grain-measure, as Theo-
critus (idyll. 7 [Thalysia ], lines 33-34) has it: "because
the Goddess hath filled their threshing-floor in
measure so full and fat" (p.a>.a yap u.pu,.. wlov• p.trpqJ a
~alp.rov Ei5pKlliov avEwA~proCTEV a>.roav). Cited according
to the LCL edition, The Greek Bucolic Poets (trans. J.
M. Edmonds; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni-
versity; London: Heinemann, 1928) 94-95. See also
Aristophanes Aves 580. For these references I am
indebted to Walter Burkert. For depictions, cf. the
Dionysos mosaic at Cologne showing a mixing vessel
(krater) filled with apples, and a basket (kalathos) filled
with cherries; see Heinz Gi}nter Horn, Mysterien-
symbolik auf dem Klilner Dionysosmosaik (Bonn: Rhein-
land-Verlag, 1972) 67-74 with plates 17 and 18.
617
firmly packed into it; 247 u€CraA£vp.tvov intensifies the
sense of fullness, the contents "shaken together" so that
every corner of the container is filled; 248 finally,
V7T£P£Kxvvv&p.£vov proves the fullness in the overflow on
all sides. 249 The image represents generosity and
abundance "beyond measure."2 50
Although the concluding part of the sentence un-
deniably breathes action into the still life, the subject of
the verb "they give" (owuovuw) is unclear. Who are
"they"? Are "they" generally "people" (o! ctv8pw7Tot), 251 or
is the word a reference to God, as many commentators
assume? 252 One would expect a reference to God to be
rendered as a passive, "it will be given to you"; 253 and the
phrase "people" as subject would remind us that we are
still within the context of the Golden Rule. Such am-
biguity suggests that to read into these gnomic sentences
theological or eschatological ideas from the larger
context of the Gospel, or from elsewhere in the New
Testament, is a mistake.
Interpretation of the subject aside, however, we
understand that the overflowing measure is to be poured
out "into your lap." The prepositional adverbial phrase
constitutes an idiom from the Old Testament 254 that
may have been widely used in antiquity; it evokes an
image of a garment, a skirt or a shirttail, put to use as a
satchel. 255
A further complication arises when one realizes that
the subject of the verb "they give" must be a different
entity from the provider of the imagined full measure.
Who filled the measure? As it stands, the image sug-
gests-certainly erroneously-that the full measure
simply exists; the truth is, however, that someone must
have provided the full measure. Surely we cannot be
mistaken in assuming that the provider is the deity-in
Jewish religion, Yahweh; in Greek religion, Demeter; in
the context of early Christian thought, God. Thus, those
who give (owuovuw) are human beings who have first
received the full measure from God before offering it to
another, a conclusion that affirms the commonly held
belief in antiquity that a giver of good things merely
hands on what he or she has received from the deity.
The whole ambiguity may be intentional: the verb
"they will give" states only a projected human action; one
must infer the further act of receiving from the knowl-
edge that what will be given must first be in hand. One
must not take for granted the gift itself. It is not just
there; it has first been received by those who will give.
The concluding maxim states the principle underlying
the entire set of sentences (sententiae, vss 37-38): "For by
which measure you measure, it will be measured out to
you in return" (~yap p.hpcp p.£rp£'i.T£ avnp.£rp7J8~u£rat
vp.'i.v). 256 I have discussed this principle previously in
connection with SM/Matt 7:2b. Its formulation in the SP
is rather more poetic. It uses repetition of the same word

247 See BAGD, s.v. m.!(w.
248 See BAGD, s.v. uaA.EfJw, I; cf. the phrase "shake like
the grain" (uwuiua• wr TOV u'irov) in Luke 22:3I.
249 The word is used here with the passive sense "over-
flow." See BAGD, s.v. t!7r<p<Kx/Jv(v)w. Cf. similar
metaphorical expressions in john 3:34; Mark 6:43-
44; 8: I 9-20 par.; Luke 5:7;John 2I :6. Hermas Man.
5.2.5 describes an overflowing vessel. Wettstein
(I.696) remarks that for this overflow there are
names. In Greek it is called TO £-rrip.<rpov (LSJ:
"something added to make good measure"), for
which see Theocritus Idyll. I2.26; Plutarch De
garrulitate 3, 50 3D; Quaest. conv. 5.3, 676B. In Latin
this is called accessio or auctarium; see OLD, s. v.
250 Klostermann (Lukasevangelium, 83) points out that vs
38 provides the reason for generosity "beyond
measure," while the parallels in SM/Matt 7:2 and
Mark 4:24 speak of quantitative equivalency.
25I See above on vs 31.
252 As in Luke I2:20, 48; I6:9; 23:2I (?).See Turner,
Syntax, 293 (see above, n. 245); Grundmann, Lukas,
I50-5I; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.362, 363.
Fitzmyer (Luke, I.626) translates "will be poured"
and speaks of "divine abundance" (64I ).
253 So in vs 38a. See LXX Ps 78:I2; Isa 65:7;Jer 39:18;
Lam 2:21; for rabbinic parallels see Str-B 2.160; cf.
LXX 3 Kgs 22:35; Prov I7:23.
254 Cf. the story of Croesus's gift to Alcmaeon in
Herodotus 6.I25; LucianHermotimus 37; 81; etc. See
LSJ, s.v. K6A.-rror, II; also Wettstein's (1.697) refer-
ences to Horace Sat. 2.3.171; Corippus 4.1; Apuleius
Met. 8.28.5; Aristidesln Romam, p. 214; Livy 21.18;
Polybius 3, p. 259; Ps 79:12.
255 See BAGD, s.v. KoA.-rror; Rudolf Meyer, "KOA7ror,"
TDNT 3.824-26; cf. Hesychius Lexicon, s.v.
f1fLJ.LETplOa· rh f:7rlp.Erpov, 8 7rpou0.7TT£Tat r{il XtTWvt
("something added to make good measure; that
which can be contained in the garment" [my trans.]).
256 Further stylistic improvements are made in some of
the manuscripts: P 45 0 pc it Marcion have T~ avr~
p..!rp~ ("with the same measure"). Others harmonize
with SM/Matt 7:2b: B* pc be q read the simplex
p.<rpn8~u•ra•. So according to the critical apparatus
in Aland, Synopsis, 107; Nestle-Aland.

618
 Luke 6:27-45

(paronomasia)2 57 in a more balanced way by varying
aVTt/-'£Tp7J8r/ouat, a typically Hellenistic term found only
here in the New Testament. 258
Even a cursory examination indicates the close
relationship of this principle to the Golden Rule (vs 31 ):
the Golden Rule states a general ethical principle while
vs 38c considers the narrower focus of the exchange of
gifts. Verse 31 establishes the acts appropriate to the
daily conduct of human life; vs 38c describes actual
situations surrounding the issue of giving and receiving.
The future dimension of the maxim most likel-y en-
compasses both the immanent and the eschatological
spheres, but the emphasis here is on the immanent.
In conclusion, one can see that in its entirety (vss 27-
38), the argument has demonstrated that jesus' com-
mandment to love enemies conforms to the Golden Rule
(vs 31 ), to the doctrine of the imitation of the benev-
olence of God (vs 36), and to the social customs con-
nected with the exchange of gifts (vs 38c). All three
issues concern fundamental laws of religion, ethics, and
social relations in the Greco-Roman era. 259
b. Conduct within the Community (6:39-42)
• 39 Verse 39 clearly marks the beginning of a new
section 260 that includes vss 39-42 and consists of rules
for the community of the disciples, specifically rules
delineating the purpose of the text of the SPas a whole.
Verse 39 introduces these rules by stating both the need
for and the goal of the learning process.
On the assumption that jesus commonly told parables
to his disciples, the introductory statement appears
formulaic:2 61 "And he told them also a parable" (Ei?rw o£
tca\. 1rapaf3oA.~v ailTo'i's). 262 Stated as a narrative reference,
this early testimony 263 to Jesus' teaching methods is
important to the continuing debate whether the original
addressees of the parables in the Gospels were the
disciples of Jesus or the people of Israel in general. 264
For the SP, the answer is clear: the parables are meant

257 On this figure of speech see BDF, § 488 (1); BDR, §
488, 1.
258 Ps.-Ciem.Hom.18.16.3citesthesayingasarulefor
discipleship. See BAGD, s.v. avnp.•rp,w, which gives
Polycarp Phil. 2.3 as a parallel. For the occurrence of
the term, see also LSJ andPGL, s.v.; B. Couroyer,
"De Ia mesure dont vous mesurez il vous sera
mesure," RB 77 (1970) 366-70.
259 Wettstein (1.697) points out that the principle is
attested as early as Hesiod Erga 349-51 (see also
above on SM/Matt 7:2). He notes Cicero Brutus 4;
Epististula ad Atticum 1.16; 6.1; see also Cicero De off 264 For the present state of the discussion, see Vielhauer,
1.48; Seneca De ben. 4.3.1-3. For Greek and Latin
proverbs related to this issue see August Otto, Die
Sprichworter und sprichwortlichen Redensarten der Romer
(Leipzig: Teubner, 1890) 55, s.v. beneficium; 105-6,
s.v. dare, 2; also Reinhard Haussler, ed., Nachtrage zu
August Otto, Die Sprichworter und sprichwortlichen
Redensarten der Romer (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1968) 140.
260 So most commentators; see esp. Schtirmann, Lukas-
evangelium, 367; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.641.
261 See Mark 3:34; 4:2, 10, 13, 30, 33, 34; 7:17; 12:1,
12; 13:28, and their synoptic parallels. The intro-
ductory formula is not specifically Lukan, although
Luke uses it often (Luke 4:23; 5:36; 6:39; 8:4, 9, 10,
11; 12:16,41; 13:6; 14:7; 15:3; 18:1, 9; 19:11; 20:9,
19; 21:29). When he uses it, he has Jesus address the
crowds. In Luke 12:41, Peter himself asks: "Lord,
are you telling this parable for us or for all?" In Luke
8:4, 9-11 the disciples do not understand the parable
and ask for further explanation. In any case, SP /
Luke 6:39a, where Jesus tells the parable to the
disciples, stands out as exceptional. All of this makes
it unlikely that it is the result of Luke's redaction.
Knox (Sources, 2.1 0) assumes pre-Lukan origin;
differently Fitzmyer (Luke, 1.641). Marshall (Luke,
268) and Schurmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.367) discuss
the options but remain undecided.
262 Textual variants are stylistic improvements: Dreads
~'Aey•v instead of £hw, P 45 .R' A A pm omit Kal ("and").
See Aland's critical apparatus (Synopsis, 107).
263 I assume a pre-Lukan origin (see above, n. 261).
Geschichte, 293-98; Wolfgang Harnisch, ed., Gleich-
nisse jesu: Positionen der Auslegung von Adolfjulicher bis
zur Formgeschichte (WdF 366; Darmstadt: Wissen-
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982) 226 n. 170; idem,
ed., Die neutestamentliche Gleichnisforschung im Horizont
von H ermeneutik und Literaturwissenschaft (WdF 57 5;
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1982); John W. Sider, "The Meaning of Parabole in
the Usage of the Synoptic Evangelists," Bib 62 (1981)
453-70; Hans Weder, Die Gleichnissejesu als
Metaphem (FRLANT 120; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1978).

619
for the disciples as an instrument of their education. The
notion of parable (7rapaf3o>..~) is used here in the broader
sense and not in the narrowly defined sense of modern
scholarship. 265
Verse 39b-c comprises another word picture, this time
formulated as a set of rhetorical questions. 266 The first
question is both proverbial and comic: "Can a blind man
guide a blind man?" (p.~n BvvaTat Tv!f>>..hs Tv!f>>..hv
oB7Jy£'iv;). 267 Of course not, and if he tries, disaster will
follow. The second question describes just such a
disaster: "Will they not fall into a pit?" (ovxl. O.J.L!f>&npot ds
f3&8vvov EJ.L71'£uovvmt;). 268 They certainly will.
Formally and carefully composed, both lines are of
equal length, five words each. Both employ poetic
devices: vs 39b contains examples of chiasm and repe-
tition of the same term (paronomasia), and vs 39c
examples of assonance (4>-/3-71'); both lines scan evenly. 269
What is the purpose behind this comic image? 270 The
form of the two rhetorical questions presupposes prior
knowledge of the material. The proverb of "the blind
leading the blind" is known since classical antiquity. 271
The expression "blind leader" (oB7JyOs Tv!f>>..&s) is an
example of oxymoron, a literary device commonly
employed in antiquity to expose incompetence, in
teachers particularly. 272
The meaning of the passage in the present context
should be clear. The questions are to be answered by
students being trained as leaders, either generally as
exemplars of the faith or more specifically as leaders in
the Christian community. 273 What kind ofleaders will
they be? Will they join the ranks of those who, because of
their blindness, their ignorance, and their stupidity, will
lead others astray?2 74
The "blind guide" is unquestionably entirely un-
suitable for Christian discipleship or leadership; 275 but
one might look askance at a special plea justifying
education as incorporated into an educational text
written for Gentile Christians. Yet one can see from

265 The term occurs only here in the SP and not at all in
the SM (not even in SM/Matt 5: 13-16; 7 :24-27).
On the term 1rapaf3oA.~ see BAGD, s.v.; Friedrich
Hauck, "1rapaf3oA.~," TDNT 5.744-61; with ad-
ditional bibliography in ThWNT 10 (1973) 1212-15;
Gunter Haufe, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. 1rapaf3oA.~;
Berger, "Hellenistische Gattungen," 1110-24.
266 Instead of questions, another word-picture is
presented in Cos. Thorn. log. 34: "Jesus said: 'If a
blind man leads a blind man, both of them fall into a
pit.'" In Greeven's retranslation (Synopsis, 74) this
text reads: Atyn 'I'Iuovs· rv<j>Abs iltv ba'lyfi rv.pA.Jv,
afL</>OTEpOI KaTa7rf<TOVVTal .ls f368vvov. Cf. also the
quotation (?)of Luke 6:39 in Ep. A post. 4 7 (58)
(NTApoc 1.225; NTApok 1.232) and Clement Alex.
Paed. 1.3 (GCS, vol. 1, p. 95, lines 15-16).
26 7 The variant reading IL~ instead of the emphatic fL~Tt
(W al) seems to be a scribal error. Dreads oaay•lv, a
Doric form of oa'lyiiv. See Aland's critical apparatus
(Synopsis, 107).
268 It reads OVK for ovxl; and It c ~A pm have the simplex
7r<<rovvrat for ifL7rE<rovvrat, probably a harmonization 273 Neither the SP nor the SM gives any indication that
with the parallel in Matt 15:14. See Aland's critical
apparatus (Synopsis, 107).
269 For these rhetorical figures see BDF, § 488; BDR, §
488.
270 Wolfgang Schrage ("rv<j>A.os KTA.," TDNT 8.286)
observes that vs 39c has no proverbial parallels, as far 274 Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.365-79) takes:the
as we know.
271 Otto (Sprichworter [see above, n. 259], 60, s.v. caecus,
2) has collected these passages: Plato Rep. 8, 554b;
Horace Epodae 1.17.3; Cicero Tusc. 5.38.112 (see
also Haussler, Nachtriige, 141-42, 203). For the
opposite, see Aristophanes Plutus 15: "For those of us
who see are leading the blind" (o! yltp {3AE7rOVTEs rot's
rv<j>A.ot's ~yoVfL<8a). For further references, see
Wolfgang Schrage, "rv<j>A.Js KrA.," TDNT 8.270-94,
esp. 291-93 (E.III).
272 See, e.g., Xenophon, Mem. 1.3.4; Plato Rep. 6, 484c;
7, 518c; Epictetus Diss. 3.22.26; Sextus Empiricus
Pyrrhoniae Hypotheses 3.259; Adv. math. 1.3; Philo Virt.
7; Demetrius of Phaleron frg. 121. The implied
reason for stating the proverb is found in Plutarch
Lib. educ. 4, 2B (my trans.): "Nature without learning
is a blind thing" (~ fL~V yap .pvu1s l:l.v•v fLa8~u•ws
rv<j>A.Jv). Cf. also Plutarch Ad princem ineruditum
2. 780: "For one who is falling cannot hold others up,
nor can one who is ignorant teach, nor the un-
cultivated impart culture, nor the disorderly make
order, nor can he rule who is under no rule" (trans.
Harold North Fowler, Plutarch's Moralia [LCL;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London:
Heinemann, 1936]1 0.57).
after completion of their studies all students are
going to be teachers themselves (cf. vs 40). Cf.
SM/Matt 5:13-16, 17-20. In a chapter devoted to
teachers and teaching,Jas 3:1 seems to complain
about an oversupply of teachers.
whole section vss 39-45 to be a warning against false
prophets, but this is in fact interpreting SM/Matt
7:15-20 into the SP. Many other commentators
believe that the text here addresses Christian

620
 Luke 6:27-45

similar, if much more comprehensive and explicit,
defenses of education (such as Plutarch's De liberis
educandis and Seneca's Ep. 88 and 90) that education was
under attack at the time, and such a plea was therefore in
order. 276 The Jewish-Christian SM has no analogy to this
plea for education; in the Jewish cultural milieu, a plea
for education was presumably as necessary as carrying
coals to Newcastle.
The implication of vs 39 is that without education the
disciples will remain blind (Tv<f>>..or), as they were blind
before their conversion. Thus education ensures the
development of "vision. " 277 It is noteworthy that this
movement from blindness to vision, interpreted in the
metaphorical sense, also occurs in some miracle stories in
the synoptic tradition. 2 78 Perhaps SP /Luke 6:39 points
to the social context of these interpretations.
Education is here further defined not as develop-
mental but as preventive. It is seen as a fight against, and
a prevention of, ignorance, both intellectual and moral,
rather than as the development of innate, perhaps even
divinely inspired, faculties of the mind as in the classical
tradition. 279 The three rules presented in the following
section (vss 40-45) expose cases of blindness to en-
lightenment.
Excursus:
Rules for Teachers and Students
From a form-critical perspective, the textual unit of
SP/Luke 6:40-45 consists of a set of rules for stu-
dents. Designed for either teachers or students or
both, such rules occur elsewhere in ancient literature,
for example in the important Greek and Roman works
on education. Plutarch Lib. educ. 14, 1OB lists a

teachers (Wellhausen, Manson [Sayings, 59-60],
Grundmann, Fitzmyer). I follow the commentaries
by Plummer, Klostermann, and Hirsch (Frilh-
geschichte, 2. 7 7-8 7).
275 Cf. the application to the Pharisees in Matt 15:14
(but to the disciples in 15:16-17); 23:16, 17, 19, 24,
26; Rom 2:19-20; etc. See Schrage, TDNT 8.292-
93.
276 Pleas for education are common in wisdom literature
as far back as ancient Egypt. See esp. Hellmut
Brunner, Altagyptische Erziehung (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1957) 107-10. For Roman education
see Quintilian Inst. 1.1.1-3. Christians took over the
pleas only with hesitation. See the sentiment ex-
pressed in Sextus Sent. 248-51 (trans. Richard A.
Edwards and Robert A. Wild, The Sentences of Sextus
[SBLTT 22; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1981]45): "Do
not study a teaching which is unworthy of God.
Recognize that too much learning is superfluous for
the soul. He who knows in a worthy manner the
things of God is a wise man. Without learning you
cannot be a person who loves God; accept learning as
necessary."
277 See vss 41-42 for the attention being paid to the eye.
278 See, e.g., Mark 10:46-52;John 9:1-41; 10:21;
11:37; 12:40;2Cor4:4; 1John2:11;etc.
279 The Greek concept of education has often been
summarized. See, e.g., Plutarch Lib. educ. 4, p. 2A-B:
"there must be a concurrence of three things in order
to produce perfectly right action [i.e., in education],
and these are: nature [<jnS•nr], reason [>.oyos ], and
habit [lBos]. By reason I mean the act of learning
[Jt&B"'I""'s ], and by habit, constant practice [liuK"I/IT&S ].
The first beginnings come from nature, advance-
ment from learning, the practical use from continued
repetition, and the culmination from all combined."
Trans. Frank C. Babbitt, Plutarch's Moralia (LCL;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London:
Heinemann, 1927) 1.9. On this important work on
education see Edmund G. Berry, "The 'De liberis
educandis' ofPs.-Plutarch," HSGP 63 (1958) 387-99.
Further important texts of the period are Seneca Ep.
88; Quintilianlnst., book 1; NHC VII,4: "The
Teachings of Silvanus" (Robinson, Nag Hammadi
Library, 381-95); Clement of Alexandria Paedagogus.
On the subject as a whole see Georg Bertram,
"1ra&~E.Sw KTA.," TDNT 5.596-625; Benjamin L.
Hijmans, AI:KHI:II:: Notes on Epictetus' Educational
System (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1959), esp. 33-41;
Harald Fuchs, "Enkyklios Paideia." RAG 5 (1962)
365-98; Paul Blomenkamp, "Erziehung," RAG 6
(1966) 502-59; Alan Mendelson, Secular Education in
Philo of Alexandria (Monographs of the Hebrew
Union College 7; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College,
1982).

621
collection of rules for young students, 280 further
discussed at length in chaps. 14-15, 10B-12A; chap.
17, 12D-F, also adduces the rules of Pythagoras.
Quintillian (Inst. 2.2-89) includes a section of rules for
teachers, De officio docentium (2.9.1), followed by a brief
admonition to students: "I shall for the moment
confine my advice to the learners to one solitary
admonition, that they should love their masters not less
than their studies, and should regard them as the
parents not indeed of their bodies but of their minds"
("id unum interim moneo, ut praeceptores suos non
minus quam ipsa studia ament, et parentes esse non
quidem corporum sed mentium credant" [2.9.3]).
Maturity cannot be achieved "unless teacher and
student are in perfect sympathy" ("nisi sociata tradentis
accipientisque concordia" [2.9.3]).281
Early Christian literature elsewhere contains
isolated rules, sets of rules, or elaborate discussions of
them. Gal 6:6 comprises an isolated rule taken from
another context. 282 Matt 10:24-25 and 23:8-12
present sketches of the ethos of Jesus' disciples. Mark
9:33-50 par. and 10:35-45 contain arguments about
the implications of rules. Such examples prove that the
rules cited and discussed in early Christian literature
were intend"!d for the "higher" education of adult
Christians and not for children, as were most ancient
works on education. One should assume, however, that
many of the rules will apply to both children and
adults.
Close parallels to SP /Luke 6:39-45 occur in Did.
4.1-4, especially 4:1: "My child, you shall remember
by day and by night him who speaks the word of God
to you, and you shall honor him as the Lord, for where
the lordship is spoken of, there the Lord is present"
(TJKvov p.ov, roV AaAoVvrOs uot rhv A6yov roV 8£oV
f.LV1Jcr8~un vvKrh~ Kat ~p.f:pas, n.p.~uns ~t aVrhv Ws t<'Dpwv·
!58ev yCtp ~ Kvpt6r"ls AaAe'irat, fKe'i KiJpu)s furtv). For other
parallel references see Heb 13:7; Gal4:14; 283 further-
more 1 Cor 3:5-9; 4:1-21.
While christology understands Christ to be the
divine teacher, 284 the rules under discussion reflect
the relationship between church members and
Christ. 285 Rabbinic Judaism has similar rules. 286 The
widespread attestation of such rules indicates that they
were in common usage and that their content and
conventions were to some extent transcultural and
international; it is surprising that they have occasioned
little, if any, scholarly investigation. Their antiquity is
evidenced by their occurrence in Egyptian wisdom
literature. 28 7
• 40 The first rule concerns the relationship between
student and teacher and consists of two statements
prescribing the status of the student at two stages of
education. The first statement, formulated negatively,
regards the student prior to graduation: "A disciple is not
above his teacher" (ovK lurtv p.a87Jr~s {nrf:p rhv
otll<iuKa.\ov). 288 Does this rule state a general educational
principle, or does it define in christological terms the
student's relationship to Christ?2 89 Since vs 40 refers to
the general school setting 290 and precedes a second,

280 Seen. 279. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1957); Miriam Lichtheim,

281 See the similar doctrines in Sententiae Aesopi-Achiqari
109 (ed. Denis, Fragmenta 138, lines 7-8; cited in
Betz, Galatians, 305 n. 128).
282 See Betz, Galatians, 304-6.
283 On this text see ibid., 226.
284 On the topic of the good teacher in the synoptic
tradition, see also Betz, "Vom wahren Lehrer," in
Synoptische Studien, 68-76. See furthermore Did.
11.1-2;Barn.19.9b-10;SextusSent.190-91, 218-
19,226-29,244,246,258-59.
285 See esp.John 13:16; 15:20a; NHC VII, 4Silv., pp.
110, 14-112, 10; Clement Alex. Paed. 1.1-13; 3.12
(ed. Stahlin; GCS, vol. 1, pp. 89-152, 282-92); idem,
frg. 5 (GCS, 3, pp. 221-23): '0 orpoTp<"lTTtKOs <ls
{mop.ov~v fi orpos Tovs v<w<TTL f3<f3aorn<rp.,vovs ("The
hortatory work is for endurance or for the newly
baptized").
286 See 'Abot 4.15; 6.3 (ed. Herford, Pirke Aboth, 110-
11, 153-54); 'Abot R. Nat. (A) chap. 27, (B) chap. 34;
b. Qidd. 33b; m. B. Me~. 2.11; m. Ker. 6.9.
287 See Hellmut Brunner, Altiigyptische Erziehung
Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International
Context: A Study of Demotic Instructions (OBO 52;
Fribourg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1983) esp. 158-60.
288 Marcion changes to {m'p with genitive (see Harnack,
Marcion, 174*). A C 'I' :UT sy add avTov ("his" [sc.
teacher]), a harmonization with vs 40 at the end. But
if vs 40a-b is to be taken as parallel lines (isocolon), this
variant reading could be original; if it is not original,
the variants complete the parallelism.
289 Due to the origin and form-critical nature of the rule,
one should not simply read back into the earlier
tradition its later christological interpretation (cf. the
commentaries by Wellhausen, Klostermann, Schiir-
mann, Marshall, in their treatment of the sentence).
Fitzmyer (Luke, 1.642) is correct.
290 Cf. the parallel in SM/Matt 5:19, which is, however,
quite different. See also Betz, Essays, 46-51.

622

similar rule, scholars rightly prefer to interpret it as a
general educational principle.
That the context alludes to no higher christology
strengthens this interpretation. Although the focus is on
"the disciple" 291 in the singular, the statement includes
all newly converted church members for whom the SP
serves as teaching material. The term "teacher" thus
refers to the instructors 29 2 in that community, but their
role was not different from the role of teachers in
general. 293
One must consider, too, the negative formulation of
this rule. Does it indicate a general inclination of
students to elevate themselves above their teachers? Does
it reflect a specific presumptuousness on the part of
Gentile students only? Does it apply to social status, to
degrees of competence, 294 or to both? If, as I think, the
rule is general in nature, these options do not necessarily
exclude each other. Also, there is not sufficient reason to
assume that the rule's appearance in the text reflects any
concrete crisis in the church over and above the dif-
ficulties inherent in any school situation. 295
Verse 40b further specifies: "But everyone who has
graduated Will be like his teacher" (KaT7JpT!U!J-EVOS Of ?TaS
fuTat WS OtoauKaAOS avTov). 296 Although this translation
is clear enough, the meaning seems to have remained
somewhat obscure for translators, resulting in great
variety among major translations. 297 For example:
AV: "Every well-instructed disciple will be as his
master."
Tyndale, Cranmer (1540), following the Vg: "Every
disciple shall be as well instructed as his master."
291 The term occurs only here in the SP and not at all in
the SM, but cf. KaTap.avlltivnv ("learn") in SM/Matt
6:28.
292 The term o&oa<TKaAor occurs only here in the SP (cf.,
however, vs 39b) and never in the SM, but cf.
SM/Matt 5:19 for the verb o&ild.uK£w.
293 Wettstein (1.373) points out that the classical
literature has many proverbial parallels; see esp. the
Greek adage ?ToA.A.olp.a671Tal Kp<iTTovn o&oa<TKd.Awv
("Many students are better than their teachers");
Cicero Epistula ad familiaria 9. 7. 5. Otto (Sprichworter,
204) mentions similar proverbs as, e.g., Jerome De
viris illustribus, praefatio: "Magistrum memet ipsum
habeo" ("As I have myself as a teacher"). For the
subject of arrogant students see Plutarch Lib. educ.
12, 9A; 14, IOC-E; Quintilian/nst. 1.3.1-7; 2.9.1.
294 So Plummer, Luke, 190.
Luke 6:27-45
V g: "Everyone shall be perfect, if he be as his master"
("Perfectus autem omnis erit, si sit sicut magister
eius").
Luther: "If the disciple is as his master, he is perfect"
("Wenn der Junger ist wie sein Meister, so ist er
vollkommen").
Zurcher Bibel: "Yet everyone, when he comes to full
perfection, will be only like his master" ('jeder
aber, wenn er ganz vollendet ist, wird [nur] wie
sein Meister sein").
JB: "The disciple is not superior to his teacher; the
fully trained disciple will always be like his teacher."
RSV: "A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone
when he is fully taught will be like his teacher."
NEB: " A pupil is not superior to his teacher; but
everyone, when his training is complete, will reach
his teacher's level."
REB: "No pupil ranks above his teacher; fully trained
he can reach but his teacher's level."
NRSV: "A disciple is not above his teacher, but
everyone who is fully qualified will be like the
teacher."
Fitzmyer (Luke, 1.626): "Rather, everyone who is fully
schooled will someday be like his teacher."
295 Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.368-71) sees here a
reflection of difficulties with "false" teachers. But the
problem of the "bad" teacher was generally recog-
nized. See Plutarch Lib. educ. 7, 4A-5A; Quintilian
Inst. 1.1.8-9; 1.2.4-5; 1.2.15-16; 1.3.17; 2.4.8-14;
etc.
296 K pc read ~<TTw ("he shall be"), instead of 1rar ~<TTa&
("everyone will be"), qr 1rar ~<Trw ("everyone shall be")
read bye and Origen, obviously attempts at making
the text "meaningful." See the critical apparatus in
Aland, Synopsis, 107.
297 For the various options see the commentaries by
Plummer (Luke, 190) and Marshall (Luke, 269-70).
623
 As varied as these translations are the interpretations
of meaning. 298 Plummer thinks that "the meaning is that
the disciple will not excel his master; at the best he will
only equal him. And, if the master has faults, the disciple
will be likely to copy them."2 99 Wellhausen takes the
teacher to be Jesus, so that "there is no authority besides
Jesus, only the complete conformity with him establishes
a teacher's authority in the Christian community. " 300
Schiirmann 301 takes a similar tack, determining the
meaning by an assumed polemic against false teachers;
according to him, the text does establish criteria for the
identification of such persons, "who in principle recog-
nize Jesus as their teacher, or appeal to him illegit-
imately," but who bring a "new doctrine" that contains
"more" (indp) that is not derived from the single teacher
(cf. Matt 23:8, 10). "Whoever does not teach like the
teacher must be rejected." "More" comprises anything
that goes beyond the love-commandment. The meaning
of "teacher," then, functions not as a paraenesis but as a
christological criterion. 302
As we have seen, however, a christological inter-
pretation of vs 40b is misleading. The statement is first
and foremost simply a school rule that one must see in its
context (vss 39-45) as defining the relationship between
student and teacher generally within the church, not the
relationship between the disciples and their master,
Jesus. Verse 40b is meant as an addition, indicated by lie
("but"), to the stipulation in vs 40a.
A grammatical analysis of the sentence reveals some
problems. For example, the meaning of the present
participle KaTapTl(nv is "to adjust," "to restore," "to put in
order. "303 The perfect participle of the verb occurs since
Herodotus (9.66) with the meaning "furnished,"
"equipped," primarily in connection with naval or
military matters. In Hellenistic Greek, the application to
education seems to have become more common than the
relatively few instances would suggest. 304 Such a
transference is reflected in Polybius 5.2.11: Toov
MaKEMvwv f/li'TJ Tat~ dpEcrlat~ KaT7Jpncrp.evwv ("the Mace-
donians being now well instructed in rowing"). 305 In the
sphere of education, the term refers to developmental or
correctional processes. The more general meaning is
attested in Plutarch's Parallel Lives (Alex. 7.1 ), when he
says that the education of young Alexander was en-
trusted to Aristotle: Kat Tot~ 7rt"pt p.ovcrtK~v Kat Ta €yKVKAta
7Tatlit"vTaL~ ov 1ravv n 7TLCTTt"VWV £7TtcrTacr{av aVTOV
KaTapncrtv ("he would not wholly entrust the direction
and training of the boy to ordinary teachers of
music"). 306 Yet the corrective meaning is attested in
Plutarch (Cato min. 65.5): "Cato turned his eyes upon
Apollonides the Stoic and Demetrius the Peripatetic,
saying, 'It is your task to reduce this man's swollen pride
and restore him to conformity with his best interests"'
(Kal. KaTapTlcrat 7Tp0~ TO crvp.f/>Epov). 307

298 See also Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.53-58; Bultmann,
History, 93, 99, 150; Manson, Sayings, 57. Important
is the comparative study by Charles H. Dodd, "A
Hidden Parable in the Fourth Gospel," in his More
NT Studies, 30-40.
299 Plummer, Luke, 190.
300 Wellhausen, Evangelium Lucae, 25: "eine Autoritat
auBer Jesus gibt es nicht, nur die vollkommene
Ubereinstimmung mit ibm verbiirgt die Autoritat
eines Lehrers in der christlichen Gemeinde."
Similarly Grundmann (Lukas, 153) and Fitzmyer
(Luke, 1.642).
301 Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.368-69.
302 In his interpretation Schiirmann combines Matt 5:19
with 7:15-20 and reads that into the SP.
303 For the evidence see LSJ, BAGD, PGL, s.v. KaTapTl(w,
K«TapTLITJ-IOS, KaTapT-6w; also Spicq, Notes, 1.253-55,
416-19.
304 Cf. Hesychius, ed. Kurt Latte, Hesychii Alexandrini
Lexicon (2 vols.; Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1966)
2.433, S.V. KaTapTliTa&, K«T«ITK£v&ua&, T£A£1001T«I,
uup£ooua&; Suidas, Lexicon, ed. A. Adler, Suidae
Lexicon (4 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1928-1971) s.v.
KaTapTl(w, uAnoo. See Spicq, Notes, 1.418-19.
305 The passage is listed in BAGD, s.v. KaTapTl(w.
306 Trans. Bernadotte Perrin, Plutarch's Lives (LCL;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London:
Heinemann, 1919) 7.241. See also Plutarch Them.
2.5.
307 See also Plutarch Marcellus 10.1 (trans. Perrin): "he
found a state of discord, and the senate being unable
to regulate and manage (/.&£Taxnpluau8a& Kat
KaTapTlua•) the people." By contrast, the ineducable
student is called "the crooked" (o ITKOA&Os); see Georg
Bertram, "uKoA&Os," TDNT 7.403-8; Spicq, Notes,
1.218-20; for the Egyptian material see Brunner,
Altiigyptische Erziehung (see above, n. 276), 114-16.

624
 Luke 6:27-45

Evidence shows that the terminology of KaTapTl(nv
and the related KaTapT6t:w 308 figured prominently in the
educational language of the philosophers. In this
context, one who is KaTTJpnu.,.d.vos ("fully educated") can
also be called Tb..nos ("fully trained," often translated as
"perfect"). 309 New Testament usage conforms to this
application of the terms, emphasizing the correctional
meaning. 310 The most instructive parallel is 1 Cor 1:10,
where Paul exhorts the Corinthians, "that you may be
straightened out [KaTTJPTLITfdvoL] in the same mind and in
the same opinion." The implication is that the Corin-
thians are not yet KaTTJpnup.£voL: their learning still
evidences "deficiencies" (vuup~p.aTa). 311 They are still
"immature" (v~·moL), 31 2 but growth and improvement
will move them further toward "maturation" or "per-
fection. "313
In the context of the SM, which has no parallel to
SP /Luke 6:40, the educational meaning of the term
Tb..nos occurs in SM/Matt 5:48, where it is usually
translated as "perfect. "314 The same language is also part
of the story of the rich young man in Mark 10: 17-22
par. When Jesus tells the man (Mark 10:21): "You have
one deficiency" (~v ITt: vuupt:L), the Matthean version
correctly interprets his comment to mean, "if you want to
become fully trained" (t:18b..m TEAnos t:TvaL). 315
The implication in SP /Luke 6:40 is that the term
KaTTJpnup.£vos divides the learning process into two
phases. These phases correspond roughly to the modern
distinction of before and after graduation. This meaning
must have led to the Vg rendering of "perfectus." 316
Perfection, then, refers not to moral or religious
flawlessness, contrary to what is commonly assumed, but
to the advanced stage of education we would call
postgraduate. 317
Verse 40 thus envisages three levels of education: the
level of the disciple-in-training (p.a8TJT~s); the graduate
(KaTTJpnup.£vos), whose training is completed; and the
teacher (a,aauKaA.os), who is entrusted with the training
of the disciples. That the SP is directed toward the
present disciples-in-training is underscored by the focus
of vs 40 on the future: the SP is the teaching material of
the supervising teachers. This material is not the end of
education, however, so that the postgraduate would
presumably turn to other means of instruction beyond
the text of the SP.
One must not overlook the final phrase, "like his
teacher." The adjectival ws
("as") has a comparative
force, expressing equality or difference. 318 Here it
expresses equality with a difference: not every student
who graduates becomes a teacher, 319 but the graduates
are told that they can count on being treated as a person
of social status equal to that of a teacher, and of all
teachers. 320 The rule thus also regulates the relationship
between former students and teachers in the congre-

308 See LSJ, s.v. Karapr6w.
309 See LSJ and BAGD, s.v. TEA<&os; Gerhard Delling,
"rb.<&os," TDNT 8.67-79 (A.l.b; B); PGL, s.v.,
sections I.C and F.
310 See 1 Thess 3:10; 1 Cor 1:10; 2 Cor 13:9, 11; Gal
6:1 (on this text see Betz, Galatians, 295-98); Eph
4:11-12; Heb 13:21; Ignatius Eph. 2.2; Smym. 1.1.
311 See 1 Thess 3:10: Karapricra• rlt vcrnp~l-'ara rfjs
1ricrT£ws vl-'wv ("to straighten out the deficiencies of
your faith"); 1 Cor 1:7; 8:8; 2 Cor 8:14; 9:12.
312 See 1 Cor 3:1; 13:11; 14:20; Rom 2:20; Eph 4:14.
On the term v~7r1os see BAGD, s. v.; Georg Bertram,
"v~mos KTA.," TDNT 4.912-23; Simon U:gasse,
EWNT(EDNT) 2, s.v.
313 See 1 Cor 2:6; 13:10-11; 14:20; Eph 4:13-14; Heb
5:12-14.
314 See above on SM/Matt 5:48.
315 Cf. also Matt 19:20: ri ln vcrT£pw; ("What am I still
lacking?").
316 The V g translates: "Non est discipulus super magis-
truro: perfectus autem omnis erit, si sit sicut magister
eius."
317 Thus the term corresponds to graduatus, a medieval
Latin term denoting someone who has obtained a
university degree. Since the 15th century the term
has become technical in higher education. See the
Oxford English Dictionary, 4.334-35, s.v. Graduate.
318 See BAGD, s.v. ws, II.3.b; Zahn, Lucas, 298.
319 Cf. Jas 3:1: "Do not all become teachers." Even more
restrictive is Matt 23:8, 10, which reserve the titles of
"rabbi" (fia(3(3{) and "teacher" (Ka87Jy7Jr~s) for Christ.
These passages reflect not so much a rush by many
early Christians into the teaching profession and a
yearning for fancy titles, but the need to develop
appropriate officialdom in the church. Jewish
Christianity as reflected here apparently moved away
from the school model as it grew into a separate
religion.
3 20 Cf. Luke 15: 19: "Treat me as [ws] one of your hired
servants."

625
gation, where both have equal status but different
vocations. 321 Such a situation is not specifically Christian;
it pertains to all educational institutions in society.
• 41 Whereas the rule concerning the relationship
between teacher and student in vs 40 has implied the
need for self-criticism, the next textual unit, vss 41-42,
takes self-criticism as its primary theme. The passage
concerns the relationship between student and fellow
student. Its composition is in the diatribe style, 322
addressing the readers in the second person singular,
thus underscoring the educational function of the SP as a
whole. 323 Verses 41 and 42a contain two parallel
rhetorical questions followed by the epithet "hypocrite"
and a gnomic sentence in two parts employing the form
"do this ... , and then .... " 324
The close parallel in SM/Matt 7:3-5 requires ex-
planation. In addition to the composition with its
imagery, which was popular in similar literature of the
time, 325 close verbal agreements between SP /Luke
6:41-42 and SM/Matt 7:3-5 virtually assure a common
source. 326 In the SM, however, the passage is part of the
section "On Judging" (SM/Matt 7:1-5), a connection
affirmed (though without the imagery of the SM and the
SP) in Rom 2:1-2. While this connection with judging
others seems logical, 327 one can say the same of the
function of the passage in the context of self-criticism
and self-correction. The parallels reveal that the cluster
of sayings is employed in various contexts for different
purposes related to education. 328 In SP /Luke 6:41-42,
the cluster is part of the rule regulating the relationships
between students; 329 in SM/Matt 7:1-5, it is part of
paraenesis for the conduct of disciples toward the
outside. Only in this latter sense does SM/Matt 7: 1-5
correspond to SP /Luke 6:27-36.
The first rhetorical question, vs 41, differs little from
its counterpart in the SM: 330 "Why do you see the speck
that is in your brother's eye, but you do not consider the
log that is in your own eye?" (Tlll~ f3A.£1rm To Kapcf!os To £v
Ti!J ocp8aA.p.i!J TOV allEA.cJ!ov uov, T~V ll~ OOKOV T~V fV Ti!J llllCfl
ocp8aA.p.i!J ov KaTavoE'is;). 331 The only difference between
the SP and the SM here is stylistic: the SP is more elegant
in the Greek, but whether the elegance is due to Lukan
or pre-Lukan redaction is impossible to say.
The meaning of the question is clear: it criticizes the
common human but absurd habit of readily observing
the faults of others while overlooking one's own. The
first part ofthe question (vs 41a) describes the human
readiness to assess the faults of others as writ large, while
the second part (vs 41 b) discloses the absence of self-
criticism. The change from the verb f3A.£1rELV ("see") to
the verb KaTavoE'iv ("to perceive," "to consider") indicates
the shift from external observation to internal self-
inspection. The question is not answered. The reason for
this omission is not that the answer is self-evident.
Rather, the epithet "hypocrite" in vs 42b discloses what
vs 41 b implies.
The exhortation appeals to Greek ethical sentiment.
For example, Ps.-Isocrates in his admonition to Demon-
icus advises him to be "communicative" (o p.tA.7JnK6s)
concerning the weakness of others: "You must not be
given to fault-finding, which is irksome, nor be cen-
sorious, which is exasperating."332

321 Cf. Paul'streatmentofthesameissuein 1 Cor 12:4- Wrege, Bergpredigt, 129-31.

31a, esp. vss 28-29; Rom 12:6-8; and also Gal6:6
(on this text see Betz, Galatians, 304-6).
322 For the diatribe style see above on SM/Matt 6:25-
34.
323 Most of the SP is in the second person plural, except
6:29-30, 41-42, which are in the second person
singular, and 6:38b, 39, 40,43-45, 47-49, which are
in the third person singular or plural, and descriptive
in nature.
324 For the form of the sentence see above on SM/Matt
7:5.
325 See also the close parallel inP. Oxy. 1, no. 1; Cos.
Thom. log. 26.
326 Most commentators assume a pre-Lukan origin as do
Bultmann, History, 47, 79-80, 86-87; Knox, Sources,
2.9-10; Hirsch, Fruhgeschichte, 2.84-85; differently,
327 For further references see Schiirmann, Lukas-
evangelium, 1.369.
328 So Wellhausen, Evangelium Lucae, 25.
329 Differently, Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.372)
takes vss 41-42 as directed against false teachers.
330 Only what is distinctive here is being considered. See
furthermore above on SM/Matt 7:3.
331 o£ ("but") at the beginning is omitted by P 75 1424 pc,
perhaps because of the second o£ in vs 41 b. SM/Matt
7:3, however, has o£ in both places. Similarly, the
article r& in vs 41a is not repeated in D W, but in
SM/Matt 7:3 it is. When D </>read uijJ ("your [own]")
instead of 1ol'!' ("[your] own"), it is done in harmo-
nization with SM/Matt 7:3b. See the critical ap-
paratus in Aland, Synopsis, 108.
332 Ps.-Isoc. Demon. 31: 1-'"1/0E </>tA.airto~ &;v, f3apv yap, 1-'"1/o€

626
 Luke 6:27-45

• 42 The second question (vs 42a) again parallels closely
SM/Matt 7:4: 333 "How can you say to your brother,
'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,'
(but) you yourself do not see the log that is in your (own)
eye?" (1rros a/JVacrat A.(yHV TfP h.O£Acpcp crov· CLO£Acp(, licp£S
fK{3aA.w TO Kapcpos TO f.v TfP ocp8aA.p.cp crov, aVTOS Thv f.v TfP
ocp8aA.p.cp crov OOKOV ov f3A.(?Twv;). 334 The differences
between the versions in the SP and the SM are all
stylistic; the SP exhibits the better Greek. As in the
preceding sentence, it is impossible to say with certainty
whether the differences are due to the redaction of Luke
or to the pre-Lukan redactor; this situation holds true as
well for the SM concerning Matthew or the pre-Mat-
thean redactor. 335 The designation "brother" (ao£A.cpos)
introduces a dramatic element and intensifies the
disclosure of hypocrisy. The question in vs 42a thus
moves from the issue of self-criticism to the issue of self-
correction, and once again observes the bad habit of
eagerly correcting others while overlooking the need to
correct oneself.
The two questions (vss 41 and 42a) are answered in the
direct address, "you hypocrite" (fmoKptTa). The
contradictions observed earlier are now identified by the
correct term, and the conduct is judged to be unethical
and unreasonable. Remarkably, the epithet "hypocrite,"
usually reserved for outsiders, 336 is used in criticism of
the disciple's behavior. The term also introduces the rule
proper in vs 42c: "First take the log out of your (own)
eye, and then you will see clearly (enough) to take out the
speck that is in your brother's eye" (fK{3aA.£ 1rpwTov Thv
OOKOV fK TOV ocp8aA.p.ov crov, Kat TOT£ owf3A.bfrm TO Kapcpos
TO f.v TfP ocp8a>..p.ip TOV ao£A.cpov crov f.K{3aMiv). 33 7
As in SM/Matt 7:5, the rule takes the form of sayings
employing the pattern "do first ... , and then .... " It
recommends self-correction first, as it is the more diffi-
cult to accomplish. Once one has accomplished self-
correction, one is assumed to have gained a sufficiently
clear perspective (owf3A.(?THv) 338 to evaluate the faults of
others in order to correct them. The SP version puts the
verb f.K{3aA.A.Hv ("remove") at the end, a position
expressing the view that the actual correction of others is
an act separate and distinct from the acquisition of a
right perspective for evaluation, and that this correction
of others can occur only at the end of the process. This
order of events stands in contrast to the wrong sequence
in vs 42b, where the surgical act of correction comes at
the beginning. 339
The implications should be clear. Behind these
arresting images lies a theory, according to which any
attempt at self-correction leads to self-knowledge, to the
knowledge of one's own limitations and faults. Such
knowledge in turn increases one's sensitivity regarding

cptA<7TITIJL1JT~r, 7rapotvvnKbv ytlp. Cited according to
the ed. and trans. by George Norlin, !socrates (LCL; 3
vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press;
London: Heinemann, 1980) 1.22-23.
333 For a more detailed discussion see above on SM/
Matt 7:4.
334 The manuscript tradition shows a strong tendency to
harmonize vs 42 with its parallel SM/Matt 7:4-5.
One must therefore take all these variants as
secondary. See the critical apparatus in Aland,
Synopsis, 108; Greeven, Synopsis, 7 5. Merx (Die vier
kanonischen Evangelien, 2/2.288) proposes the text of
D it (cf. sy'·P) as original: Kat laob ~ aoKor £v rif> crif>
ocp8aAJLif> t!'IJ"OKEtTat ("and behold, the beam is stuck in
your eye"). Merx gives as reasons: ( 1) that the oldest
witnesses are often corrected according to Matt 7:4;
(2) that the wrong idea is avoided, as if one sees a
foreign item in one's own eye. But the reading
appears to be simply an "improvement" of the text by
a learned scribe.
335 Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.371 nn. 178-81)
speaks of "GHittungen" ("smoothings out"), but this is
misleading because it suggests that the SP version was
familar with its SM counterpart, an assumption for
which there is no evidence.
336 See above on SM/Matt 7:5 for further discussion.
The same is true for P. Oxy. 1, no. 1 (cited in Aland,
Synopsis, 108; Greeven, Synopsis, 40; Layton, Nag
Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, 1.118; NTApoc 1.105;
NTApok 1.103).
337 For the textual variants see above, n. 334.
338 For the meaning see above, on SM/Matt 7:5.
339 Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.371-72) argues
differently that the disciple is being discouraged
entirely from correcting others and refers to the
parallel in john 8:7 (RSV): "Let him who is without
sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."
But one must see the saying in the SP in the context
of early church discipline, for which see SM/Matt
6:14-15; Matt 18:15-18 and its context; 16:19; Did.
15.3; Gal 6:1.

627
the difficulties inherent in correcting oneself and others,
limits the temptation to self-righteousness, and facilitates
compassion. 340
c. Conduct toward Oneself (6:43-45)
• 43 The final rule concerns the disciple's relationship to
himself. 341 The rule consists formally of descriptive
rather than imperatival statements; vss 43-45 form a
well-structured composition of two sets of three state-
ments each: (1) a set of three sentences (sententiae)
comparing plants with human beings (vss 43-44), and (2)
a set of three anthropological statements (vs 45). All are
united by the underlying assumption that what holds
true for plants also holds true for people. 34 2
Verse 43a introduces the first sentence of the first set.
Formulated as parallel lines (parallelismus membrorum), 343
it employs both a double negative and an instance of
homoioteleuton (lines ending with similiar words): 344
There is no good tree that bears bad fruit,
nor again is there a bad tree that bears good fruit.
Ov yap EITT!V o(vopov KaA.ov 'lTOLOVV Kap'lTOV Ua'lTpov,
OVOE 'lTaAtv o(vopov Ua'lTpov 'lTOLOVV Kap'lTOV KaA.ov. 345
The couplet is proverbial, presented as a kind of agricul-
tural rule. The declaration certainly confirms the
experience of every grower of fruit trees, and its truth
appears obvious even to city dwellers. It is not the
purpose of the saying to teach agricultural wisdom,
however, but to reveal a particular state of human
affairs. 346 Thus it presages vs 45 and the moral appli-
cation of the rule. 347 Verse 43a is simply an instance of a
culture's proverbial wisdom deriving clues from peasant
lore. 348
The connection between vs 43 and the preceding vs
42 appears to be effected by catchword: KapcJ>os ("speck"
[vs 42]) both looks and sounds similar to Kap'lTos ("fruit"
[vs 43]). One should not interpret the yap ("for") at the
beginning of the verse as indicating that the preceding
material presupposes what follows; it indicates, rather,
that we are now reaching the next point. 349
Proverbial as the sentence may be, its meaning is
nevertheless not completely clear. Does the sentence
refer to trees of good quality or to healthy trees? 350 The
word ua'lTpos ("rotten") 351 seems to have been used
because of its similarity in sound pattern to Kap'lTos
("fruit") and because of its metaphorical appropriate-
ness. 352 Moreover, vs 43b by repeating the message of vs

340 Cf. the reverse case discussed by Ps.-Isocrates (Demon.
34-35): "When there is anything of which you are
ashamed to speak openly, but about which you wish
to confer with some of your friends, speak as though
it were another's affair; thus you will get their
opinion, and will not betray your own case. When-
ever you purpose to consult with anyone about your
affairs, first observe how he has managed his own; for
he who has shown poor judgment in conducting his
own business will never give wise counsel about the
business of others." Trans. George Norlin, !socrates
(LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University;
London: Heinemann, 1928) 1.25.
341 Differently, Schtirmann (Lukasroangelium, 1.373-79)
thinks here again that the passage is directed against
false teachers; similarly but with caution Fitzmyer
(Luke, 1.643). But these interpretations are really
based on SM/Matt 7:15-20.
342 This assumption is fundamental to much of ancient
moral and ethical thought, according to which
animals play the more important role, while plants
are regarded as a lower form oflife. See Urs Dier-
auer, Mensch und Tier im Denken der Antike: Ideen-
geschichtliche Studien zur Tierpsychologie, Anthropologie
und Ethik (Studien zur antiken Philosophie 6;
Amsterdam: Gruner, 1977) 109-16. See also above,
on SM/Matt 6:25-34, and Betz, Essays, 84-123.
343 See on this poetic form Moule, Idiom Book, 173-74,
194-96;Jeremias, Theology,15n. 2.
344 See BDF, § 488 (3).
345 The textual tradition seems fairly clear. Only D latt
read the plural Kap1roh cra1rpotJs ("bad fruits"). The
reason for this improvement evidently is inter-
pretation: one bad fruit does not make the whole tree
bad, and vice versa. W has KaKOV for cra1rp6v ("bad") as
the antonym for "good." C .1\' A D 8 pl omit 1raAtV
("again"), no doubt taking it as a redundancy;
poetically, as juxtaposed with yap ecrnv, it is not
redundant. The better texts read 1raAw: P 75 B IC L W
8 cp I pc. See the critical apparatus in Aland, Synopsis,
108.
346 This insight can be different, depending on the
literary context. Cf. SM/Matt 7:17-18; Ignatius Eph.
14.2; Cos. Thom. log. 43 and 45.
347 See also the parallels in Matt 3:10 par.; 12:33; Luke
13:6-9; 23:31; Hermas Sim. 2; etc. For further
discussion see above on SM/Matt 7:15-20.
348 For bibliography see above on SM/Matt 7:15-20.
349 See BAGD, s.v. yap.
350 See the discussion by Otto Bauernfeind, "cra1rpos,"
TDNT 7.94-97.
351 On the term see BAGD andEWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v.
'
cra1rpos.
352 The word is traditional in moral exhortation; for the

628
 Luke 6:27-45

43a simply reverses it chiastically, a result from gnomic
poetry rather than from a somewhat pedantic logic. The
expression "II"OL£'i'v Kap"II"Ov ("make fruit") reflects Semitic
idiom (Septuagintism). 353
• 44 The second statement (vs 44a) is a presupposition
based on the first: "For every tree is known by its own
fruit" (fKaUTOV yap a€vapov tK TOV lalov Kap"II"OV
ytvd>uK£Tat). 354 The sentence would appear to be another
proverb derived from agricultural wisdom and loosely
connected to the preceding proverb (vs 43) by y&.p ("for")
in a positive formulation. I assume that the proverb
originally was not connected to_vs 43 and the "everyone"
(fKauTo!;) does not pertain only to the contrasting good
and bad trees of vs 43 but to all trees. The choice of
fKauTo!; ("everyone") may be poetic, since its pronunci-
ation is similar to that of ytvd>uK£TaL ("is known") at the
end of the sentence. The difference between vss 43 and
44lies in the focus ofvs 44 on the knowing, 355 thereby
introducing a further concept necessary to the under-
standing ofvs 45.356
Verse 44b appears to add what may have been
originally a separate proverb. It supports the proverbs in
vss 43 and 44a but makes its own point as well:
For from thorns they do not gather a fig,
nor do they harvest a grape from a bramble bush.
ov yap tt iLK&.v8wv uv>..>..€yovutv uvKa
ova~ tK {3aTOV O"Tac/>vA~V TpvyroULV. 35 7
This proverb also offers agricultural wisdom, focusing on
experience rather than on knowing (vs 44a). Stated
negatively, the proverb sums up impossibilities, 358
revealing the category of proverbs called impossibilia
(proverbs stating impossibilities), to which it belongs. 359
The agricultural reference once again serves to illustrate
a moral point. The language of vs 44b employs the
technical terms that emphasize knowledge of harvest-
ing. 360 Poetic assonance may also influence the choice of
words: uv>..>..€yovuw uvKa ("they gather a fig") enclosed by
tt aKav8wv ("from thorns") and tK {3aTOV ("from a
bramble bush"). In addition, the proverb offers an
instance of chiasm: in the first line, the object follows the
verb; in the second line, the verb follows the object.
•45 Verse 45 is the climax of the composition vss 43-45:
the lesson learned from the plants is applied to human
existence. 361 The sentence has three parts, formulated
positively (cf. the three parts ofvss 43-44). The first two
parts comprise antithetical parallel lines (parallelismus

parallels see above on SM/Matt 7:17.
353 See Black, Approach, 100-101, 149; Herbert Braun,
"wo.f.ro KTA.," TDNT 6.482-83.
354 For a discussion, see above on SM/Matt 7:16a.
Textually, yap is not read by D 700 alit sy'; see the
critical apparatus in Aland, Synopsis, 109. Taking it as
asyndetic conforms to SM/Matt 7:16a and avoids the
clash with the second yap in vs 44b (but it sy' omit it
there as well). The parallel in Matt 12:33c has the
yap.
355 The term yov6>utcro ("know") occurs only here in the
SP; cf. vs 41 tcaravo/w ("perceive") and vs 42
lnaf3>..twro ("see clearly").
356 The parallels in SM/Matt 7:16a and Matt 12:33b are
worded differently and appear in a different context.
The parallels inJas 3:12 and Cos. Thom.log. 45 do
not have the proverb of vs 44a, but in Ignatius Eph.
14.2 a similar(!) proverb occurs, probably corning
from independent tradition: .z>av€p0v TO litvlipov awo
TOV Kapwov avrov ("Plainly known [is] the tree from its
fruit").
357 The yap is omitted by it sy• (see on vs 44a), preferring
an asyndetic connection. The parallel in SM/Matt
7: 16b is a question. D e read ltc>..lyovrao instead of
uv>..>../yovra&, but the latter is well attested by all
versions (Matt 7:16b; cf. the Greek retranslation of
Cos. Thom. log. 45 (cited in Greeven, Synopsis, 76);
Matt 13:28-30, 40, 41, 48. See BAGD, s. v. uv>..>../yro.
358 The subject in "they gather" is general, as frequently
in proverbs.
359 Cf. Jas 3:12: "Is it possible, my brothers, that a fig
tree produces olives or a grapevine figs?" For the
category of proverbs called "irnpossibles" see James
L. Crenshaw, "Questions, dictons et epreuves
irnpossibles," in M. Gilbert, ed., La Sagesse de l'Ancien
Testament (BETL 51; Gernbloux: Duculot; Leuven:
Leuven University, 1979) 96-111.
360 For the terminology see above, on SM/Matt 7:16b. ~
{3aro~ ("bramble bush") occurs only here and,
referring to the tradition of the burning bush, in
Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37; Acts 7:30, 35; 1 Clem. 17.5.
LXX Job 31:40 has the term in a similar proverb. Cf.
the variant reading of {3Aaurov ("from the shoot") in
IC* (attested also in 1 Clem. 23.4; 2 Clem. 11.3; Barn.
7.8); the origin is unknown. The verb rpvyaro is
technical for "harvesting fruit" but is also open to
metaphorical interpretation. See also Rev 14: 18-19;
2Clem. I3.9;Diogn. 12.8.
361 On the affinity of tree and human being see above,
on SM/Matt 7:17.

629
membrorum), contrasting the good man (vs 45a) and the
bad man (vs 45b); the third part presents a concluding
maxim (vs 45c).
The antithetical parallelism in vss 45a-b is composed of
two anthropological/ethical definitions:
The good man out of the good treasure of his heart
brings forth the good,
but the bad out of the bad brings forth the bad.
0 ayaBhs l1v8pCJl1rOS £K TOV aya8ov 87Jcravpov Tijs Kapolas
7Tpocp£pu Tb aya80v,
Kal. o7TOV1Jpbs £K Tov 7TOV1Jpov 1rpocp£pu Tb 7TOV1JpOv. 36 2
The style of definition indicates that the text has now
changed from proverbial illustrations to the major
concept toward which the SP has been consistently
moving. The emphasis is not on "doing" (unlike the
parallel in SM/Matt 7:15-20) but on "being. "363 The
ideal of the "good man" was famous in ancient Greek
moral and philosophical thought, and this concept has no
doubt intentionally been chosen as an appeal to disciples
from the Greek cultural background. 364
Excursus:
The Good Man (b ayaeo~ l:l.v8punro~)
Although the concept of the good man (o av~p aya86~)
has a firm place in ancient Greek social, moral, and
philosophical thought, one must nevertheless be aware
of conceptual developments and changes through the
362 A number of witnesses (C 5l' A W 8 A</> pllatt sy'·P sa
bo) read Tii~ Kapola~ avTOV ("his heart"); p7 5 B I(
Clement have the shorter text, which looks like the
more original one. D W omit the article T<l before
aya86v ("the good") and 'lTOV71POV ("bad"). The
tradition is also divided on the question whether the
second line should be as complete as the first, and
some fill it up accordingly (Kcorr C 5l' A W 8 cp pl; for
the evidence see the critical apparatus in Aland,
Synopsis, 109).
363 See similarly Matt 12:35.
364 The concept is found only once in SM/Matt 5:45
("on the bad and the good"), but in the SM it is not as
developed as in the SP.
365 See esp. Theognis 31-36, 177-78, 183-96.
366 See julius Gerlach, ArA80I. ANHP (Munich:
Lehmaier, 1932), part II.
367 Plato Apol. 21c-22e; Grit. 44e; Prot. 353a.
368 Plato Grit. 47c-d.
369 XenophonMem. 1.7.1; 3.1.6-11; 3.4.8; 4.2.11;Apol.
2.1.32; 2.6.29-34; 3.4.8; 4.1.5; 4.4.2; Oec. 11.3-6.
370 Plato Polit. 309c; trans. Harold N. Fowler, Plato: The
630
course of history. In the older epics, in Hesiod, in the
poets, and in the inscriptions, the "good man" signifies
a societal value rather than an ethical ideal. He is the
man who, in the judgment of the community, has
achieved a special status because of c~ntributions and
benefits he has afforded the community. Public acclaim
and honorific inscriptions confer the title of "good
man" on such a person. That such a man comes from a
good family, is not without material means, and can
exercise political influence is all taken for granted. 365
This concept was drastically reinterpreted under
the influence of Socrates. 366 According to Plato,
Socrates had questioned the value of "the opinion of
the many"(~ o6ta Twv 'lTOAAwv) as the proper means for
evaluating a person's worth. 367 For him, such an
evaluation would require an expert and, in the final
analysis, that expert can only be the individual him-
sel£.368 For Xenophon and Plato, the good man par
excellence was their teacher, Socrates, because it was
he who had achieved true virtue (ap<T~) and the good
life (<voa•l-'ovla). 369
For Plato, the good man is he who has a good soul:
"I mean that really true and assured opinion about
honour,justice, goodness and their opposites is divine,
and when it arises in men's souls, it arises in a godlike
race.·370
In the Pseudo-Platonic Definitions, the academy set
forth a new definition: "A good man is such a man who
achieves the good for man" (aya8o~ l:l.v8pw'lTo~ b TOIOVTo~
oro~ av8pch'l' Tayaed. E'lTIT<AftV). 371 This definition
became standard in post-Platonic philosophy. Notable
is the substitution of l:l.v8pw'lTo~ for av~p: the meanings
Statesman (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni-
versity; London: Heinemann, 1925) 189. See also
Apol. 41d; Prot. 324d; Leg. 5, 742e-743c; Resp. 10,
606d.
371 Ps.-Plato Def 415d6-7. See Heinz G. Ingenkamp
(Untersuchungen zu den pseudoplatonischen Definitionen
[Klassisch-philologische Studien 35; Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1967]94) who simply points to
Aristotle (Eth. Nic. 2.6.3, 1106a 21-24): "excellence
or virtue [ap<T~] in a man will be the disposition [<'t•~]
which renders him a good man [aya8o~ l:f.v8pW'lTO~]
and also which will cause him to perform his function
well." Trans. H. Rackham, Aristotle: The Nicomachean
Ethics (LCL; rev. ed.; Cambridge, Mass:: Harvard
University; London: Heinemann, 1934) 91.

are the same in English, but in the Greek, av~p is the
male social being and li.v8pro7TO~ is the generic and
philosophical term for human being. 37 2 The emphasis
is no longer on good deeds performed for the city but
on good things in general accomplished for humanity,
that is, for one's fellow humans, be it in the sense of the
individual or in the sense of humanity as a whole.
Later, similar definitions occur in Greek and Latin
thought in a variety of forms and sources supporting
the great popularity of these basic ideas. Lucian cites
the same principle in negative terms, using language
similar to that ofthe New Testament. Finally, no
doubt from the same tradition came the statement,
"Nobody is good who becomes a source of evil for
one's neighbor" (ova£~~ yap av aya80~. KaK(;lV arr&o~
ytvotTo Ti!J 7TA7Ju{ov). 373
In Latin literature, the good man is the vir bonus, an
ideal for everyone. Thus Horace can say: "To be sure,
I like to be a good man and wise, even as you do"
("nempe vir bonus et prudens dici delector ego ac
tu"). 374 But the real question remains: "Who is the
'good man'? He who observes the Senate's decrees, the
statutes and laws; whose judgement settles many grave
suits; whose surety means safety for property; whose
testimony wins suits at law. " 375 This definition is
typically Roman and expresses the preferences and
expectations of that culture. Philosophical reinter-
pretation characterizes another definition offered by
Cicero: "we wish the good man to be happy always. It is
clear whom I mean by good men; for we say that men
equipped with and distinguished by all good virtues are
wise as well as good" ("omnes bonos semper beatos
3 72 Cf. also Plato Gorg. 4 70e: "for a good and honourable
man or woman, I say, is happy, and an unjust and
wicked one is wretched" (To p.tv yap Ka>..ov Kaya8ov
O.vapa Ka& yvva'i'Ka £-baalp.ova ETval cfJ''IP,L, Thv at Clai.KOV
Kai7Tov7JpOv lJ.B>..tov). Trans. W. R. M. Lamb, Plato
(LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University;
London: Heinemann, 1925) 3.341.
373 Lucian Calumniae non Iemere credendum 7 (my trans.);
cf. the context. See also Lucian Toxaris 3 and 47;
EpictetusDiss. 2.3.1; 3.24.50-51; 3.26.27-28; 4.5.1;
4.9.8; frg. 2; Plutarch Consolatio ad Apollonium 37,
121F and often.
374 HoraceEpist. 1.16.31-32 (trans. H. Rushton
Fairclough; LCL; rev. ed. London: Heinemann;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1929) 352-
53.
375 Ibid., 40-43.
376 Cicero Tusc. 5.10.28. Trans.]. E. King, Cicero:
Tusculan Disputations (LCL; reprinted Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University; London: Heinemann,
1945) 455.
377 Idem, De orat. 2.20.85.
Luke 6:27-45
volumus esse. Quos dicam bonos perspicuum est;
omnibus enim virtutibus instructos et omatos tum
sapientes, tum viros bonos dicimus"). 376 Cicero
required that the orator be a good man in voice,
virtues, spirit, speech, and character; 377 and Quintilian
later wrote that he, Cicero, had himself brought the art
of oratory to perfection:
But for my own part, conforming to the language
of every day, I have said time and again, and shall
continue to say, that Cicero was a perfect orator,
just as in ordinary speech we call our friends good
and sensible men, although neither of these titles
can really be given to any save him that has attained
to perfect wisdom.
Ego tamen secundum communem loquendi
consuetudinem saepe dixi dicamque, perfectum
oratorem esse Ciceronem; ut amicos et bonos viros
et prudentissimos dicimus vulgo, quorum nihil nisi
perfecte sapienti datur. 378
Most prominent, however, is the figure of the good
man in the ethics of Aristotle, who, building on
Socrates and Plato, points out the various aspects of a
philosophically interpreted concept: 379 The good man
must be a man of virtue (aya8o~ KaT' ap<T~v). 380 Virtue
cannot exist without thought; thus the good man must
be a man ofthought (ayaBo~ Kal <Jlpovtp.o~). 381 He must
enjoy good deeds: "The man who does not enjoy noble
actions is not a good man at all" (ova' OUTIV aya80~ 0 p.~
xalprov Tal~ Ka>..al~ 7Tp&.[<uw). 382 He must do such deeds
for the benefit of others: "The best is not he who
practices virtue in regard to himself but he who
practices it toward others; for that is a difficult task"
378 Quintilian/nst.12.1.19.
379 See Kathleen V. Wilkes, "The Good Man and the
Good for Man in Aristotle's Ethics," Mind 87 (1978)
553-57; reprinted in Amelie 0. Rorty, ed., Essays on
Aristotle's Ethics (Berkeley and London: University of
California, 1980) 341-57.
380 Aristotle Rhet. 2.4.11, 1381a27. The section 2.4.1-
26, 1381a1-1381b26 is important; see the ed. and
trans. by John Henry Freese, Aristotle: The "Art" of
Rhetoric (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard Uni-
versity; London: Heinemann, 1926) 195.
381 Idem, Eth. Nic. 6.13, 1144b 1-1145a 12. The trans.
here and in the following is by H. Rackham (see
above, n. 371).
382 Ibid., 1.9, 1099a 17-18.
631
(CJ.ptcrror a• oVx 0 11phr aiJrhv rfi 0.pETfi (iAA' 0 1rphs ~TEpov·
TOVTO yap rpyov xaAf'lr<lv). 383
How can a person attain such goodness? Is it a gift
of nature, a habit, or a lesson leamed? 384 These
questions reach the heart of Aristotle's philosophy, in
particular his concept of education (paideia). According
to Aristotle, it is the philosopher who is striving for the
good and for goodness. The philosopher pursues these
goals as an individual, independent from the opinions
of the crowds. But such a person is not alone; the
philosophical school serves as a circle of like-minded
friends among whom the struggle for goodness can
best be won:
Friendship then being divided into these species,
inferior people will make friends for pleasure or for
use, if they are like in that respect, while good men
will be friends for each other's own sake, since they
are alike in being good.
Elr TaVTa at- Ta .&'a11 Tijr </>&Alar V<V<JJ.11/J.tV1/S o1 JJ.fv
.pai!Xo& tcrovTa& .plXo•li•' f71iov~v ~TO XP~cr&p.ov, TatJTU
CJp.otot lfvTES, ot Ot clya6ot at' aiJrotJs cfJ{Aot· if yh.p
aya8oi.3 85
In the Old Testament and in the Judaism of the
postbiblical world, developments parallel those in
Greco-Roman society. 386 The good man is a societal,
and not necessarily an ethical, ideal. Thus Ahimaaz is
called a good man (:::11~ ltl'M) in the eyes of the king (2
Sam 18:27). Under the influence of wisdom thought,
the notion is increasingly interpreted ethically. Psalm
112 (LXX: 111) as a whole praises the righteous man as
the good, in contrast to the wicked, man. 387 Proverbs
12 in its entirety describes the good man and
woman. 388 Ecclesiastes, however, is quite skeptical and
redefines the idea: "Behold, what I have seen to be
good and to be fitting is to eat and drink and find
enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the
sun the few days of his life which God has given him,
for this is his lot. " 389 Hellenistic Judaism sees the
Greek concept personified in the great men of the past,
especially in Joseph, Abraham, and Moses. 390
On the whole the New Testament rejects the
concept of the good person, so that SP /Luke 6:45
383 Ibid., 5.1, 1130a 8-10.
384 Ibid., l0.9,1179a l9-1180b29.
385 Ibid., 8.4, 1157b 1-4.
386 On the concept of ::l11C tt.>M see I. Hover-Johag,
ThWAT 3.325-26 (TDOT 5.306). The concept is not
frequent in the OT (see 2 Sam 18:27; 1 Kgs 1:42;
2:32).
387 Cf. Psalms 36 and 37 (LXX: 35 and 36).
388 Cf. LXX Proverbs 13 (esp. vs 22) and 14 (esp. vs 14);
Mic 6:8; Wis 3:15; 4:9; 8:19-20; Tob 5:13; 7:7.
389 Eccl5:18 (RSV), with the context beginning in vs 13;
3:12; 6:11-12; 7:20; 8:15.
632
occupies a special position. 391 Elsewhere Luke can call
Joseph "a good and righteOUS man" (av~p aya8or Kat
liiKator (Luke 23:50]). Acts 11:24 calls him "a good
man and full of the Holy Spirit and faith" (av~p aya8or
Kat 7TA1/p~r 7TVnJp.aTOS aylov Kat 7Tt<TT<wr). All these
instances are adaptations of the conventional concep-
tuality.
More serious is the formal rejection of the idea in
Mark 10:17-18//Luke 18:18-19. When the man
addresses Jesus as "good teacher" (o&Da<TKaA< aya8t), he
seems to have nothing more in mind than the con-
ventional address; but Jesus' refusal to accept the
attribute "good" implies as well the rejection of the
concept of the good person expressed in it. 392 Since
only God is good, any concept of the good person is
meaningless and must be repudiated. By such b~­
havior, however, Jesus paradoxically proves to the
reader of the Gospel that he was the good man par
excellence. This criticism parallels to a degree the idea
in Greek philosophy and Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom,
and it may also be the primary reason why the New
Testament as a whole has avoided the concept.
Bibliography
Arthur W. H. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility: A Study
of Greek Values (Oxford: Clarendon, 1 960).
W. den Boer,.Private Morality in Greece and Rome: Some
Historical Aspects (Mnemosyne Sup 57; Leiden: Brill,
1979).
Kenneth]. Dover, Greek Popular Morality in the Time of
Plato and Aristotle (Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California, 1974) 52-53, 63-65, 67,
164,235-39,282-84.
Julius Gerlach, ANHP ArA00l: (Munich:]. Lehmaier,
1932). This dissertation collects and interprets the
evidence up to Plato.
Severin Koster, "Vir bonus et sapiens (Ausonius 363, p.
90 P.)," Hermes 102 (1979) 590-619.
Eduard Schwartz, Ethik der Griechen (ed. Will Richter;
Stuttgart: Kohler, 1951).
Manfred Wacht, "Gtiterlehre," RAG 13 (1984) 59-
150.
390 See Harm W. Hollander .joseph as Ethical Model in the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (SVTP 6; Leiden:
Brill, 1981) 65-92: "Joseph as the 'Good Man' in the
Testament of Benjamin"; Philo Abr. 4 and passim;
and Vita Mos. 1.1 and passim.
391 See Walter Grundmann, "aya8or," TDNT 1.10-18,
esp. 15-17 (D); Jorg Baumgarten, EWNT (EDNT) 1,
s. v. aya8or.
392 See also John 7:12, which states a favorable view
about Jesus held by some Jews: "He is a good man"
(aya8or tcrnv).

Once adopted from the Hellenistic environment, the
concept of the "good man" is reinterpreted according to
the theology of the SP. Thus, vs 45 constitutes an
attempt to formulate a Christian answer to the question,
Who is a good man?
Of primary concern is the use of the term l1.v8pw7ros ("a
human being"), replacing the usual term av~p ("a man").
Indeed, Socrates had pointed out that the answer to the
question of the good man cannot be manliness but only
humanity. According to Socrates and Plato, the human
quality of the l1.v8pw7ros depends on the nature of the
soul. 393 The SP does not generally define who is or who
is not a good human being; rather it poses the question,
How can the disciple of Jesus become a good person?
Thus, the Greek concepts are important, and one must
393 For further material see Hans Dieter Betz, "The
Delphic Maxim rN.00I I:A YTON in Hermetic
Interpretation," HTR 63 (1970) 465-84; idem, "The
Delphic Maxim 'Know Yourself in the Greek
Magical Papyri," HR 21 (1981) 156-81; reprinted in
Betz, Hellenismus und Urchristentum, 92-111, 156-
72; furthermore, Betz and Edgar W. Smith, Jr., "De
e apud Delphos," in PECL 1.85-102; cf. 2.55, 221,
375, 379-82;Johannes Mewaldt, "Homo sum,"
Anzeiger der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien,
Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Jahrgang 79 (1942)
(Vienna: Holder, Pichler, Tempsky, 1943) 167-79.
394 The term is used here somewhat differently com-
pared with previous instances in the SP (Luke 6:22,
26, 31, 48, 49; cf. the title "Son of man" in 6:22).
395 The concept occurs only here in the SP. For discus-
sion see above on SM/Matt 5:8, 28; 6:21.
396 This concept occurs only here in the SP. Cf. the
parallels in Matt 12:35a; Cos. Thom.log. 45. Beyond
these passages the concept of the treasure of the
heart occurs in Paul (Rom 2:5; cf. 2 Cor 4:7).
Instead, the SM has the concept of "treasures in
heaven" (SM/Matt 6:19-21); see also Mark 10:21//
Matt 19:21//Luke 18:22; also Mark 12:33, 34; cf.
Matt 13:44, 52; Col 2:3. For further discussion see
above on SM/Matt 6:19-21. Similar sayings occur
frequently in ancient wisdom: e.g., Hesiod Erga 719-
20: yAWCTCT'I/f TOI 87Jcravp0r fV av8pw7TOICTIV tf.p1CTT0f
cf!<~SroA.fjr, 7TA£i<TT1j 5( xJ.p1r KaTa p.'Tpov loV<T1jf ("The
best treasure a man can have is a sparing tongue, and
the greatest pleasure, one that moves orderly"; trans.
Hugh G. Evelyn-White, Hesiod [LCL; Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University; London: Heinemann,
1914]55). See also HesiodErga 322, and the
passages in West's commentary, Hesiod: Works and
Days, 238, 332. For the man of silence as the edu-
Luke 6:27-45
take seriously 0 aya8o<; li.v8pw7rO<; ("the good human
being"). Only one who deserves the attribute "the good
one" deserves as well the name "human being." 394
How does one become a good human being? Tradition
helps to answer the question. The factor determining
how one can become a good human person is the
condition of the heart. 395 According to the SP, two kinds
of people exist, those of good and those of evil heart, and
the character of the heart determines the character of
the person throughout his or her life. The good person is
thus good because his or her heart is a treasure of
goodness (~K TOV aya8ov 87Jcravpov Tij<; Kapslas), 396 which
"produces" (7rpoq>€pct) 397 the goodness characteristic of
cational ideal in ancient Egypt, see Brunner, Alt-
iigyptischeErziehung, 4-5,45, 73, 119-23,126, 147,
150. See also Theognis 63, 409-10; Prov 20:15.
Wettstein (1.394) cites Menander Mon. 27: avSphr
xapaKT~P £K >..6-yov yvropl(£ra• ("A man's character is
known from his speech" [my trans.]). Ps.-Isoc. Demon.
1.29: KaAOr yap 87Jcravphr 7Tap' avSpt CT7TOVSal'!' xci.p•r
ocf!<~Aop.,v7J ("Do good to the good; for favor owed is a
good treasure laid up for a serious man" [my trans.]).
See also Ps.-Pythagoras Carmina a urea 28 (trans.
Johan Thorn): "It is typical of a worthless man indeed
to do or to say senseless things."
397 The term 7rpocf!,p<~v ("bring forth") occurs only here
in the NT (see BAGD and PGL, s. v. ). The choice of
the word in this context may have been influenced by
Stoic language theory, in which the concepts of o
7rpocf!opLKOr >..6-yor ("thought/ conception uttered") and
its counterpart o£va,J.8£ror >..6-yor ("thought/ concep-
tion residing in the mind") played a prominent role
(translations in this note are mine). The popularity of
these concepts beyond Stoicism can be seen from
adaptations elsewhere, among them Hermogenes
I1£pt lS£wv >..6-yov 2. 7: £vo•a8,Tror A.'yflv ("speak from
within"); LXX Prov 10:13, about the sage: 8r EK
XfiA,rov 7rpocf!,p€1 uocplav ("who from his lips brings
forth wisdom"); Corp. Herm. 13:7: o£vSLci.8£ror
tf.v8pro7ror ("the innermost human being"). Philo in
particular shows how the Stoic material was taken
over into Hellenistic judaism; from the large number
of passages see esp. Migr. Abr. 2, 12, 70-73; Poster. C.
36, 100; Gig. 52; Ebr. 70; Fuga 92; Conf ling. 11; Vit.
Mos. 2.127. For further references see the index in
the Philo edition of Cohn and Wendland, vol. 7/2,
s.v. >..6-yor; on Stoicism, see SVF, 4.90-91, 124, s.v.
>..6-yor, 7rpocf!op1KOr >..6-yor; de Vogel, Greek Philosophy, 3,
nos. 965 and 991; Bonhoffer, Epictet und die Stoa,
633
the person. Goodness (To aya86v) 398 can neither be
achieved nor imposed on one; plainly and simply,
goodness is the external manifestation of the internal
quality of the heart. How the heart obtains, or fails to
obtain, such a quality is not considered. 399 The text
presents the matter only to this point.
What do Hellenistic Christian disciples learn from this
definition? First, and most importantly, they learn a new
kind oflanguage. Instead of the language of the Greek
philosophical and religious traditions, they encounter the
language of the biblical tradition, in which the innermost
life of the human being concerns the mortal heart rather
than the immortal soul. 400 This anthropological change
profoundly affects the totality of human conduct. True
humanness no longer rests in care for the divine soul
(tvx~) or for the divine part of the soul, the "mind"
(vovs), but it is centered in the heart, 401 from which,
despite its frailty, foolishness, and sinfulness, "the good"
emerges-provided that goodness resides there. "The
good" consists neither of material possessions nor of
virtuous deeds but of thoughts and decisions made or
generated from the heart. 402 Such goodness char-
acterizes the whole person and is manifested first of all in
one's language (vs 45c).
Verse 45b goes on to contrast the good person with
the bad, and it is noteworthy that the bad is not even
designated as a "human being" (ltv8pw1ros). An evil
human being was apparently felt to constitute a contra-
diction in terms. Why? The answer is logical. The evil
person does not hold a treasure in the heart. Indeed,
neither treasure nor heart is in such a person, but only a
deposit of evil (To 7rOV1jp6v). 403 This deposit of evil does
not remain dormant but manifests itself, and these
manifestations make a person evil. Evil can only re-
produce evil, and evil inside necessitates evil outside. 404
Evil will thus be the nature of the individual, who will
speak and act accordingly.
Verse 45c concludes the argument with a maxim: "For
out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks" (iK
yhp m:ptuu£vp.aTos Kapolas A.aA.£'i' To uT6p.a a·hov). 405 This
concise maxim omits the articles. Even the final avTOV
("his") may have been added by the SP for the sake of
coordination with vs 45a-b. 406
What does this final sentence contribute? Apart from
confirming the preceding material with what originally
may have been a proverb, it observes that the most

113-18.
398 Also this term appears to be influenced by the
philosophical tradition. It occurs only here in the SP,
and not at all in the SM. See BAGD, s.v. aya66~. 2.a.a.
399 Differently, Marshall (Luke, 273), who follows Walter
Gutbrod, "v6p.o~ ," TDNT 4.1062.
400 For Plato's views on the origin of language in the
soul, see above on SM/Matt 5:33-37; furthermore,
Clement Alex. Paed. 2.5.2 (GCS, vol. 1, p. 185, lines
3-4 [my trans.]): "The fruit of the mind is the word"
(Kap7rhs- ar.avolar 0 AOyoS' EuTtV).
401 Cf. Sir 27:6 (my trans.): "The fruit discloses the
cultivation of a tree; in the same-way speech [is the
expression] of the thought of the human heart"
(LXX: y€6Jpyr.ov f{JA.ov EK.palv€1. 0 Kap7ThS' aVToV, oihws
.\&yo~ lv6vp.~p.aTO~ Kapoias av6pcl>nov). See also Job
8:10. Building on metaphors, Cicero (Tusc. 2.13)
determines: "cultura animi philosophia est" ("Philos-
ophy is cultivation of the mind"; 'my trans.).
402 The belief is common in antiquity; see, e.g., the
Egyptian Instruction of Ptah-Hotep, lines 40-50 and
545ff., according to ANET, 412-14; also Quintilian
Inst. 11.1.30 (trans. H. E. Butler, Quintilian [LCL;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London:
Heinemann, 1922]4.172-73): "For a man's char-
acter is generally revealed and the secrets of his heart
are laid bare by his manner of speaking, and there is
good ground for the Greek aphorism that, 'as a man
lives, so will he speak"' ("Profert enim mores
plerumque oratio et animi secreta detegit. Nee sine
causa Graeci prodiderunt, ut vi vat, quemque etiam
dicere"). Cf. Aristides Or. 47 (ed. Bruno Keil, Aelii
Aristidis quae supersunt omnia, vol. 2 [Berlin: Weid-
mann, 1898; reprint 1958]) 49, critical apparatus to
lines 30-31: ofoS' 0 Tpc!nros TotoVTov £Ivat. Kat Thv A6yov
("As the manner of life, so also the speech"; my
trans.).
403 See also SP /Luke 6:22 and 35. The SM has different
ideas: evil is external (SM/Matt 5:11, 37, 39; 6:13;
7:17, 18), affecting the internal (6:22-23); humanity,
including Jesus' disciples, is evil (5:45; 7:11), living in
an evil world (5:3-12; 6:34), from which God must
rescue them (6: 13).
404 Cf. the principle in Mark 7:15//Matt 15:11.
405 Some of the witnesses have the articles, probably as
harmonization with the parallel in Matt 12:34: C 0.\
</> al read Tov n<p<<I'cnVp.aTos; C W 0 .\ .p pm read Tfjs
Kapoias. See the critical apparatus in Aland, Synopsis,
109.
406 The pronoun al>Tov at the end is not read by C al aur
r 1 vg sy'·P sam" b. and is not read in the parallel Matt
12:34.

634
 Luke 6:27-45

important evidence for a person's constitution-one's
"goodness" or "badness"-rests in one's words: not deeds
but words reveal one's true nature.
The maxim, then, presents a theory concerning
human language and its relation to the individual. 407
Every individual has a distinctive language, the character
and quality of which are determined by the heart, the
center of human identity. That language reveals "the
good" and "the bad" of which vs 45a-b speaks. That this
maxim does not mention good and bad deeds implies its
distance from the Jewish conceptuality of the SM. For
the SP actions are ambiguous and secondary to lan-
guage.408
As the discussion of the fourth antithesis of SM/Matt
5:33-37 has shown, the early church attached extraordi-
nary importance to the problem of language. Speech is
by nature spontaneous, and one can deduce with relative
ease a person's identity and character by listening
carefully to his or her language. Language also regulates
one's interpersonal relations as well as relations to God
and to the world in general. That one can fake and falsify
language is not considered here. 409
Which conclusions, then, can one draw from the entire
composition ofvss 43-45? To be a "good human being"
is affirmed as the goal of the disciple, and through this
affirmation the church adopts and confirms the ethical
ideals of Greek culture, albeit modified under the impact
of the Jesus-tradition. Gaining a proper perspective on
oneself involves first an objective evaluation of one's
language: What am I saying? What does my speech
reveal? These questions may be truisms, but historically
they mark an important point, for through such queries
the early church profoundly changed the language of its
environment. One can see this subtle process of develop-
ment throughout the New Testament. Careful attention
paid to language is related to self-inspection and self-
knowledge: What kind of heart do I have? 410 What does
my heart tell me about myself? The text ends here, but
the practice of self-reflection has only begun.

407 For similar doctrines see Matt 12:33-35; Cos Thorn.
log. 45; Mark 7:1-23 (esp. vss 18-23). On the whole
topic see Biihlmann, Vom rechten Reden und Schweigen,
passim; for the role of the heart see above on
SM/Matt 6:19-21.
408 For a different interpretation cf. Ignatius Eph. 14.2
(trans. William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A
Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (Herme-
neia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985)75): "The tree is
known from its fruit; thus those professing to be of
Christ will be seen by what they do." Similarly,
Hermas Man. 6.2.4 (my trans.): "See now also the
works of the angel of wickedness .... Whenever,
therefore, he enters into your heart, know him from
his works." SM/Matt 7:15-20 is a different ap-
plication of these doctrines to the exposing of false
prophets.
409 On this topic see SM/Matt 5:33-37;Jas 3:1-18; Eph
4:29; and the notion of olyA.wrnror ("double-tongued,
deceitful") in Did. 2.4; Barn. 19. 7; furthermore Acts
5:3; Rom 2:5.
41 0 The logical next step would be to speak about the
purity of the heart, as SM/Matt 5:8 does, but the SP
has no such doctrine.

635
 Luke 6:46- 49

Chapter Ill
6 The Parable of the Two Builders
46 Why do you call me "Lord. Lord!" but do not
do the things I say?
47 Everyone who comes to me and hears my
words and does them, I will show by
example what he is like.
48 He is like a man building a house who
excavated and dug deep and laid a
foundation on the rock. When the flood
came and the river burst against that
house. it could not shake it because of its
having been built well.
49 He. however, who hears and does not do is
like a man building a house on the ground
without a foundation, against which the
river burst, and immediately it collapsed.
and the downfall of that house was a
great one.

1. Analysis The final section, the peroration, begins in vs 46 and
includes two subsections: (1) a rhetorical question that
functions as a warning against misconceptions con-
cerning discipleship (vs 46), and (2) a double parable,
also a warning, describing in powerful images both
success and failure (vss 47-49). While the previous
section (vss 43-45) argued the need for self-recog-
nition, the peroration (vss 46-49) establishes the need
for action (wo&lro). This sequence of self-knowledge and
action again indicates the Hellenistic outlook of the SP.
2. Interpretation
• 46 Marked off from the preceding material by a~ ("but"),
vs 46 asks a rhetorical question, "Why do you call. tne
'Lord, Lord,' but do not do the things I say?" (Tl a£ jJ.(
a
Ka~iLT(" KVPI(, KVp!(, Kat oil 'lTOiiin >..f.yw;). 1 In fact, there
is no answer to this question; the reader must draw his or
her own conclusions. All one can say is that the query
discloses an absurd habit of the disciples, a habit for
which the text gives neither reason nor excuse.
The first part of the sentence presents a caricature of a
formal devotional habit of the disciples toward their
teacher, 2 a habit actually no more peculiar to jesus'
disciples than to students in general. The disciples
address jesus as "lord" (Kvp&os-) 3 continuously, to the
extent of absurdity. 4 The critique of this habit is pre-
sented here from the general perspective of the edu-
cator. The teacher observes with amusement and
indignation that this display of subservience is ac-
companied by the failure of the same students to act on
what he tells them to do, 5 thus alluding to the ancient
educational requirement for consistency in learning and

Some manuscripts have reformulated the beginning
of the question: 543 pc syP lrenaeus read Tl pi
KaA€LT€; ("Why do you call me?"); the Ill may have
fallen out because ofhaplography. D pc read Tllll p.€
ll.l")'€T€; ("Why then do you say to me?"), perhaps
harmonizing the text with SM/Matt 7:21. p75 Be
have the singular II instead of the plural/:!; see the
critical apparatus in Aland, Synopsis, 110.
2 Caricatures of disciples are part of the ancient
anecdotal literature concerning teachers and their
disciples. The Gospels have developed these cari-
catures in special ways, such as the recurring motif of
the disciples constantly misunderstanding their
master.
3 The question is whether the address as "Lord"
(~e!\p&os) has christological overtones in the SP. The SP
dearly differs at this point from SM/Matt 7:21-23,
where a group of outsiders calls jesus in this way. In
the SP, the disciples themselves address their master
by this title. The title is used here, however, not in
the higher christological sense but as appropriate for
an honored person of higher rank such as a teacher.
For this usage see Matt 25:11;John 12:21; Acts
16:30; etc. On the whole see BAGD, s.v. ~e!\p&os,
Il.1.b; Bultmann, History, 116 n. 2; Schiirmann,
Lukasevangelium, 1.380-81.
4 For the figure of doubling (geminatio, epanadiplosis)
see BDF, § 493 (1); BDR, § 493, 1; also Betz, Essays,
130 n. 24.
5 For further discussion see above on SM/Matt 7:21-
23.

636

existence in daily life. Any discrepancy between an
external display of loyalty and an internal disloyalty
through ignorance of or contempt for the curriculum
destroys any meaningful concept of discipleship and
renders it farcical. 6 The rhetorical question of vs 46 thus
discloses two essential facts: ( 1) the description is typical
of the behavior of immature disciples; (2) such behavior
is actually, although regrettably, found among the
disciples of Jesus so addressed. 7 Consequently, the
question demands an admission that the cited behavior
cannot be denied, justified, or excused. The question
reveals that the disciples envisioned in the SP are still in a
state of general, not to mention specifically Christian,
immaturity, and that the road toward "graduation" is
lengthy. 8
•47 The double parable of the two builders concludes the
peroration, and thus the entire SP. It closely parallels the
Matthean Sermon on the Mount (see above on SM/Matt
7:24-27). As I discussed in the section on the SM
parallel, the use of building metaphors to end an epitome
of this kind is stylistically traditional. I will note specific
similarities and differences between the two passages. 9
The introductory sentence states explicitly the
purpose of the first parable (vs 4 7). The parable that
follows describes the successful student whose resolute
efforts parallel the safety and sturdiness of a house built
on rock (vs 48). The contrasting second parable describes
the failing student using the same metaphors and images,
the builder constructing not on rock but on sand (vs 49).
Each parable presents the characteristics of the successful
and the failing student, in that order (vss 4 7a, 49a), so as
6 It would amount to a contradiction between doctrine
and life. On this topic see Betz, Lukian, 114-16.
7 Cf. the different wording of the saying in P. Egerton
2, frg. 2 recto (cited in Aland, Synopsis, Ill, lines 26-
27; Greeven, Synopsis, 76; NTApoc 1.97; NTApok
1.85): 0 at 'I71(1Tovy) .zat,y [r~v a.] avotav [al!r]wv
lJLf3p<tJL['IIITaJL<VOY ]<h<v a[ vro'iy ]" ri JL• KaA<tr[ • rep
ITr&]JLaTt vJL[wv a.jM<TKaAov· !-'[~ aKoV]ovTH () Al-yw
("But jesus, when he understood their mind, became
angry and said to them, 'Why do you call me teacher
with your mouth, while you do not hear what I
say?'"). See also Betz, Essays, 144-45.
8 So also Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.643-44; differently,
Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.380) assumes that
false teachers are addressed here.
9 Paul Wendland (Die urchristlichen Literaturformen
[HNT 1; 2d and 3d ed.; Tiibingen: Mohr (Siebeck),
Luke 6:46-49
to demonstrate success and failure through contrasting
imaginative images and metaphors (vss 48b, 49b).
The message of the two parables should be clear. They
represent not only a final warning against failure of
discipleship but also confirmation of its purpose and
goals. The threats of failure serve as a firm reminder of
the preventive purpose of education, which one must
constantly keep in focus. In addition to the warning, one
finds strong affirmation for the success of a well-prepared
disciple. The idea that education assures success in
discipleship underlies the whole of the SP. Discipleship is
not merely an end in itself, however; it is also a discipline
that enables the Christian to sustain the calamities and
vicissitudes oflife.
The introductory sentence (vs 4 7) contains two parts:
first the definition of the qualities of the good disciple (vs
4 7a), and then the literary definition of the subsequent
double parable: "Everyone who comes to me and hears
my words and does them, I will show you by example
what he is like" (Iliis b £px6JJ.<Vos 1rp6s JJ.< Kal. aKovwv JJ.OV
Tc;)V A.6ywv KaL 7rOLWV avTovs, l!7rOli£l~w VJJ.tV TLVL fO"TLV
ClJJ.OLOS ). 1 O
Three characteristics identify the good disciple. First,
like all disciples, the good disciple "comes to" Jesus:
~PXOJJ.aL 1rp6s Twa is a technical term denoting the
initiative leading to discipleship. 11 The present tense of
the participles in vs 4 7 indicates an ongoing process; the
contrasting aorist tense of the participles in vs 49
indicates interruption. 12 The characteristic "coming to"
Jesus has no parallel in SM/Matt 7:24. Is this difference
accidental or intentional? Is it an indication of differing
1912]285) and Klostermann (Lukasevangelium, 85)
point correctly to the Greek character of the passage.
10 Instead of the genitive plural rwv A&ywv, C 'I' al read
the accusative roh A&yovy. This fits better with
avroVY in vs 47 (at the end) and also conforms to the
parallel in SM/Matt 7:24a; hence it is to be rejected
in favor of the lectio dijficilior. On the rule "The more
difficult reading is the more probable reading," see
Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testa-
ment (trans. Erroll F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1987) 276 (#10).
11 See Matt 3:14; 14:28, 29; 19:14; 25:39; Mark 1:40,
45; 2: 12; 3:8; etc. For the passages see BAGD, s.v.
;PXOJLal, l.l.a.{3.
12 For this observation I am indebted to Johan Thorn.
637
presuppositions regarding discipleship?
Scholars have often commented that one's approach-
ing Jesus in order to become a disciple is contrary to
Jesus' understanding of discipleship. Rather, it is Jesus
who takes the initiative and calls his disciples into his
service. 13 The call narratives of the Gospels make this
point. 14 Students who themselves take the initiative in
approaching Jesus are often rebuffed as failures. 15 Thus,
the narratives of the Gospels assume that Jesus himself
called the historical disciples, later named apostles. 16 In
the period of the early church, even apostles such as Paul
and James were still called, now by the risen Christ. But
the great numbers of new Christians who joined the
church came without doubt on their own initiative. It
seems likely that vs 4 7a regards these new Christian
converts, for whom the text of the SP was composed, as
those who "come to" Jesus.
The second and third characteristics of the good
disciple concern hearing and acting on the sayings of
Jesus. I have sufficiently discussed these characteristics in
their connection with SM/Matt 7:24a, 26a. It is ~<>rth
noting, however, that the reference to the words (T{;JV
A.6ywv) of Jesus does not seem to be as restrictive here as
in SM/Matt 7:24a, where "these my words" refers to the
SM itself. Does the SP seek to extend the disciples'
horizon to Jesus' sayings outside the SP? If such is the
case, one wonders whether the remark implies an
opening to other sayings collections, for example, Q.
Verse 4 7b provides literary information, instructing
that one should read the subsequent "parable," as it is
usually called, as a demonstration of the point made in vs
47a, that is by implication the point of the SPas a whole.
The verb V71'00£LKVVJU 17 is used here with the special
meaning "to demonstrate by a story of the v71'6ouyJLa
type," 18 indicating that one is not to read vss 48-49 in
the usual manner of Jesus' parables. It may even be the
case that one must take seriously the preposition v71'o- as
alluding to the "underlying" deeper meaning.
• 48 The first parable (vs 48) consists of two sections: first,
a narrative picture of the good builder constructing a
house (vs 48a); and second, a further narrative picture
describing an attack on the house by the forces of nature
(vs 48b). The narrative picture of the building of the.'
house reads: "He is like a man building a house who
excavated and dug deep (into the ground) and laid a
foundation on the rock (({JLOLd~ £crnv av8pch~
o1KOOOJLOVVTL olKLaV 8~ E'crKal/fw Kat £{3a8vv£V, Kat E'8TJK€V
8€JLEALOV ht T~v 71'ETpav ). 19
The introductory words "he is like" (()JLot6~ lcrnv) use
the form common to the parables ofJesus. 20 This
formula seems redundant here; indeed, it creates some
tension with the preceding introduction in vs 4 7b. In the
parables in the strict sense as used by Jesus, one must
make a literary distinction between the formula "he is
like" and the "example" (v7r6ouyJLa), but this difference is
ignored here. The tension is without doubt the result of
redaction. Verse 48a seems to be the older introduction
from the source material, while vs 4 7b is a later intro-
duction originating with the composer of the SP.
The builder of the house is simply called "a man"
(Civ8pw7ro~). with no further distinguishing attributes (vss
48a, 49a). 21 SM/Matt 7:24b, 26a differ in that there the
"prudent man" (av~p cpp6vLJLO~) is contrasted with the
"foolish man" (av~p JLrop6~). 22 The significant differences
between the SP and the SM come to the fore at this
point: the SP focuses on the building process, while the
SM focuses on the types of builders. Such a difference
would seem to result from variant literary functions and
theologies responsible for the reformulation of the
tradition by each text.

13 See Bornkamm,]esus, 144-52; Betz, Nachfolge, 10,
43; Ulrich Luz, "Discipleship," IDBSup, 232-34.
14 Mark 1:16-20 par.; 2:13-14 par.; etc. See Arthur J.
Droge, "Call Stories," ABD 1.821-23.
15 See esp. Mark 10:17-22 par.; Luke 9:57-62 par.
16 The concept of apostle does not appear in the SP or
in the SM. See Betz, Galatians, 74-75 (with the
excursus); idem, ABD 1.309-11.
17 On this term see BAGD, s.v. fnrollrlKvVJLt, 2.
18 For such examples to be imitated, see John 13:15;Jas
5:10; 1 Clem. 5.1; 6.1; 46.1; 63.1; for examples not to
be imitated see Heb 4:11; 2 Pet 2:6. On the whole
matter see BAGD, s.v. fnr6o£tyJLa; Spicq, Notes,
2.907-9; Adolf Lumpe, "Exemplum," RAG 6 (1966)
1229-57.
19 The omission of llJLot6~ £crnv in sy' is due to hap-
lography (cf. vs 4 7b at the end).
20 Cf. also SP /Luke 6:4 7b and 49a. For discussion
about the introductory formula see Bultmann,
History, 91, 326;Jeremias, Parables, 100-103;
BAGD, s.v. llJLoto~. 1.
21 On the term lJ.v6pw1ro~ see above on SP /Luke 6:45.
22 See above on SM/Matt 7:24-27.

638
 Luke 6:46-49

The SP is characterized, then, because of the careful
description of the building process, by the laying of the
foundations in particular. The verbs describing this
construction are simultaneously metaphors of intellectual
activity. 23 The man "excavates" (uKctnnw)2 4 the ground,
"going deep down" (f3a86vttv) 25 to rock bottom, and "lays
a foundation" (n8£va1 8Ep.buov) 26 "on the rock" (l?TI. T~v
'lTfTpav). 27
Verse 48b assumes that the attack by the forces of
nature occurs upon completion of the building: "Then
the flood came and the river burst against the house, but
it could not shake it because of its having been built well"
o
(1TATJp.p.6pTJ'> ITE ywop.fVTJ'> ?Tpou£pTJtEV ?TOTap.hs Tfi OtKL~
fKELV?I, Kal. OVK ruxvuEV ITaAEVITal avT~V otd. TO KaAW'i
OLKOOop.iju8at avT~V). 28 The course of events differs
characteristically from those of the SM. The SP assumes
that a rising river flood, 2 9 "bursting against"
(?Tpoup~uuw) 30 the house, proved unable to shake it
(ua'AE6w) 31 because of its solid structure.
• 49 The second parable in vs 49 presents the counter-
picture ofvs 48, describing the failing student through
the image of the careless builder. Only the most im-
portant elements of this second parable are expressly
stated; the reader's imagination must supply the rest.
The first part of the sentence describes the man and his
activities: "But he who hears and does not do, he is like a
man who built a house on the ground without a founda-
tion" (o OE aKo!Juas Kal. p.~ 'lTOI~ITas Clp.OIIJ'i fiTTLV av8pol1TCJJ
OLKOOOJJ-~ITavn OLKLav f'lTL T~V yijv xwp\s 8Ep.EALov). 3 2
The initial clause identifies the failing student by
noting that he only "hears" (aKo!JEw) but he fails to "do"
(?Tou'i'v). 33 That no objects are given 34 can only mean
that such a student, although he listens to the sayings of
the master, does not really hear them. The sayings go in
one ear and out the other. He misses the appeal to act in
what he hears, and thus he misses the point. His major
identifying trait is nonaction. 35

23 Cf. above on SM/Matt 7:24b, 26b.
24 For the term uKtt7Tr<<v and its NT occurrences see
BAGD, s.v. uKtt7TTw; for the metaphorical usage see
LSJ, s.v.; for similar examples using uKtt7TT<IV KTA, see
Philo Deus imm. 90-93; Omn. prob. lib. 34.
25 The term f3a8tJv<1v occurs only here in the NT.
BAGD (s.v. {3a8.'Jvw) refers to Philo Poster. C. 118 as a
parallel.
26 For the metaphor of e.,_f>..,os ("foundation") see Rom
15:20; 1 Cor 3:10, 12; Eph 2:20; 1 Tim 6: 19; 2 Tim
2:19. Cf. SM/Matt 7:25, which uses only the verb.
For bibliography and discussion see BAGD; Karl
Ludwig Schmidt, TDNT 3.63-64; and Gerd Petzke,
EWNT(EDNT) 2, s.v. e.,.J>..10s KTA.
27 For discussion see above on SM/Matt 7:24b.
28 Again the textual tradition shows the tendency of
harmonization with SM/Matt 7:25b: C W D 0 A. cp pl
!at syP read u8<1'-<A.iwTo yltp E7Tt T~V 7TtTpav. p45vid
700* sy' omit the phrase. See the critical apparatus in
Aland, Synopsis, 110; Metzger, Textual Commentary,
142. Merx (Die vier synoptischen Evangelien, 2/2.229)
considers both readings to be secondary scholia to be
omitted, as far as the original text is concerned,
which he sees represented by sy'. IfP 45 supports the
omission, Merx's suggestion would gain in strength,
but he does not pay attention to redactional activities
reflected in the tradition.
29 The term 7TA~/'-I'-vpa occurs only here in the NT, but
it is otherwise common in Hellenistic Greek. For
parallels see Wettstein, 1.697; LSJ and BAGD, s.v.
30 The term 7rpoup~uu<1v occurs only here in the SP (vss
48 and 49) and in SM/Matt 7:27 v.l.; Barn. 3.6 shows
its openness to metaphorical interpretation. For
parallels see Wettstein, 1.1397; and BAGD, s.v.
7rpoup~uuw.
31 The term uaA.<tJ<IV KTA. occurs frequently in the NT,
including SP/Luke 6:38, with different metaphorical
meanings; see Georg Bertram, TDNT 7.65-71;
BAGD; and Horst Balz, EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v.
uaA..fJw. The terminology figures prominently in NT
paraenesis, reflecting its popularity in Hellenistic
moral philosophy (see Acts 2:25 [LXX Ps 15:8);
17:13; 2 Thess 2:2; Heb 12:26-27). An impressive
parallel is Philo Leg. all. 3.53: "the bad man is said to
be 'placeless' [liTo7ros) ... 'placeless' is used of an evil
that defies placing (in any known category). Such is
the man that is not good, always restless and unstable
(uaAEVWV Kat KAOVOtJ/'-EVOS ), drifting this way and that
like a chopping wind." Trans. F. H. Colson and G. H.
Whittaker, Philo (LCL; London: Heinemann;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962)
1.377. See also Plutarch Adulat. 28, 68F19; De amore
prolis 1, 493D19.
32 C W cp al read olKollol'-otJvT! instead of olKollol'-~uavT!,
probably in harmonization with vs 48. P 75 U 0 118.
209 pc add the article before olKlav, clearly a stylistic
improvement.
33 The approach to Jesus is omitted as self-evident; cf.
vs. 47a.
34 For the differences cf. SM/Matt 7:24a and 26a:
"these my words."
35 For the meaning of "hearing and doing" see above on
SM/Matt 7:24a.

639
 The parable itself stands in analogy to its predecessor
in vs 48. The man's building activities are judged careless
because he sets the house directly on the surface of the
earth. 36 The additional remark "without a foundation" 37
reveals the thrust of the story, the question being
whether a foundation exists. 38 Such a focus concerns the
intellectual, doctrinal, and ethical foundations presented
throughout the SP.
Verse 49b describes with quick strokes of the pen the
effects of the flood on the house: "The river burst against
it, and immediately it collapsed, and its downfall was a
(n
great one" 7rpordp7Jtw o7rorap.os, Kat t:Mhs uvv€7rt:ut:v
Kat €y€vt:ro TO pijyp.a rijs o1Klas EKt:lv1)s p.£ya). 39
The description assumes events identical to those of vs
48, but now the flood hits the house built on the
foundationless surface. Predictably, the house quickly
collapses, its supporting structure completely eroded by
the raging river. One cannot ignore the metaphorical
applications of the term uvp.7rl7rrt:LV ("collapse"). 40 Thus
the last line brings the drama to a fatal conclusion and
leaves the hearer with a final warning that one cannot
disregard. 41

36 The metaphorical meaning suggests superficiality.
The images in the SM differ, and the rock is con-
trasted with sand.
37 In Greek, this lack of a foundation would be called
aiJEJ.LE{I\tor, Or similarly, which is Used metaphorically.
See LSJ, s.v., citing Secundus Sententiae 17 (ed.
F. W. A. Mullach, Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecorum
[Paris: Didot, 1841) 1.515);PGL, s.v. aileJ.Lel\lwror,
citing Epiphanius Adv. haer. 44.4 (GCS, vol. 1, p.
196. 7; PC 41.828C). Related is the issue of ~6o1roda
("character portrayal") in Rhet. ad Her. 4.50.63: "I
have commenced an insane undertaking-to build
on the same foundations" (i.e., of houses previously
burned down).
38 Epictetus Diss. 2.15.4-12 gives a good illustration of
this point. Here he tells about a friend who had made 40
the decision to starve himself to death, apparently
drawing this false conclusion from philosophical
precepts. Epictetus counsels the man by calling his
attention to the "foundation" for his decision
(2.15.8-9): "Do you not wish to make your beginning 41
and your foundation [rhv ileJ.Lhtov] firm, that is, to
consider whether your decision is sound or unsound,
and only after you have done that proceed to rear
there on the structure [E7rOtKoaoJ.Letv] of your determi-
nation and your firm resolve? But if you buy a rotten
[ua1rp&v; ~f. vs 43) and crumbling [Kara1rt1rrov)
foundation, you cannot rear thereon even a small
building [oiKoaoJ.L&nov], but the bigger and the
stronger your superstructure is, the more quickly it
will fall down." Trans. by W. A. Oldfather, Epictetus
(LCL; 2 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1925) 1.316-19.
39 The textual variants are mostly stylistic in nature and
express the tendency of harmonization with the SM.
W adds Kal to the connective ii; D it drop the y
altogether (haplography? cf. the following letter 1r). D
reads uvv£pp71~ev, perhaps because of uvv£1reuev. W
also adds avrfi as the object of the verb. A number of
witnesses prefer eVIl£wr (~A W 01\ .ppm) to eVIltJr,
while D a c drop the word, probably in harmoni-
zation with the SM, which does not read it. The
simplex ~1reuev is preferred by C ~A W al, perhaps
because of the paraenetic metaphor (see Jas 5: 12; 1
Cor 10:8, 12; 13:8; etc.; and the parallel in SM/Matt
7:27b). See the critical apparatus in Aland, Synopsis,
110.
That is, a <rtJJ.L7rTWJ.La ("calamity") has occurred. For
the meaning see LSJ and PGL, s. v. See also 1 Mace
6:10 (cf. vs 11); T. Zeb. 10.1; T.jos. 71;Mart. Polyc.
12.1. For references see BAGD andPGL, s.v.
'
<TVJ.L1r!71TW.
The term pfi-yJ.La occurs only here in the NT, mean-
ing literally the "breaking" of a house. For parallels
see BAGD, s.v. The rare meaning occurs also in LXX
Amos 6:11 A (cf. B: p&-yJ.La). The parallel in SM/Matt
7:27b has a different term (see above on this pas-
sage). For the metaphor see the proverb cited by
Epictetus Diss. 2.15.13 (in the same context as the
illustration adduced above inn. 38): "A fool you can
neither persuade nor break" (J.Lwphv oilre 7rft<rat oiJre
pfj~at ~unv).

640
Bibliography
Indices
Bibliography
In view of the enormous volume of bibliography on
the SM, the SP, the Gospel of Matthew, and the
Gospel of Luke, the following list is by necessity
selective. Its purpose is to guide the reader to
reference works and critical editions, and to selected
secondary works.
1 . Reference
Biblia Patristica. Index des citations et allusions bibliques
dans [a littirature patristique (5 vols.; Paris: Editions
du C.N.R.S., 1975-82).
Catenae graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum (ed.
John A. Cramer; Oxford: Clarendon, 1840;
reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1967).
Clavis patrum Graecorum, vol. 4: Concilia, Catenae (ed.
Mauritius Geerard; CChr; Turnholti: Brepols,
1980).
Bonifatius Fischer
Die lateinischen Evangelien his zum 10. Jahrhundert, vol.
1: Varianten zu Matthiius (Vetus Latina: A us der
Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel 13; Freiburg:
Herder, 1988).
Joseph Reuss
Matthiiuskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, aus
Katenenhandschriften gesammelt und herausgegeben
(TV 61; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957).
Joseph Reuss
Lukaskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, aus
Katenenhandschriften gesammelt und herausgegeben
(TV 130; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1984).
Joseph Reuss
"Evangelien-Erklarungen vom 4.-9.Jahrhundert in
der griechischen Kirche," in Joachim Gnilka, ed.,
Neues Testament und Kirche: Festschrift filr Rudolf
Schnackenburg (Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 476-96.
Hermann Josef Sieben
Exegesis patrum: Saggio bibliograjico sull' esegesi biblica
dei Padri della chiesa (Sussidi Patristici 2; Rome:
Instituto Patristico Augustinianum, 1983).
Harold Smith
Ante-Nicene Exegesis of the Gospels (2 vols.; London:
SPCK, 1925-26).
C. H. Turner
"The Early Greek Commentators on the Gospel
according to St. Matthew," JTS 12 (1911) 99-112.
Theodor Zahn
Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (2 vols.;
Erlangen: Deichert, 1888-92).
2. History of Interpretation
Luise Abramowski
"Die 'Erinnerungen' der Apostel beiJustin," in Peter
Stuhlmacher, ed., Das Evangelium und die Evan-
gelien. Vortrage zum Tiibinger Symposium 1982
(WVNT 28; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1983)
341-53. ET: "The 'Memories of the Apostles' in
Justin," in Peter Stuhlmacher, ed., The Gospel and
the Gospels (trans. John Vriend; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1991) 323-35.
Arthur J. Bellinzoni
The Sayings ofJesus in the Writings ofjustin Martyr
(NovTSup 17; Leiden: Brill, 1967).
Karlmann Beyschlag
"Zur Geschichte der Bergpredigt in der Alten
Kirche," ZThK 74 (1977) 291-322.
Johannes Bouterse
De boom en zijn vruchten: Bergrede en Bergredechris-
tendom bij Reformatoren, Anabaptisten en Spiritu-
alisten in de zestiende eeuw (Proefschrift; Th.D. diss.,
Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden, 1986; Kampen: Kok,
1986).
Norbert Brox
Der Hirt des Hermas (Kommentar zu den Apos-
tolischen Vatern 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1991).
Robert M. Grant
"The Sermon on the Mount in Early Christianity,"
Semeia 12 (1978) 215-31.
H. Benedict Green
"Matthew, Clement and Luke: Their Sequence and
Relationship," JTS 40 (1989) 1-25.
Victor E. Hasler
Gesetz und Evangelium in der Alten Kirche his Origenes:
Eine auslegungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Zurich
and Frankfurt: Gotthelf, 1953).
Adolf Hilgenfeld
Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die Evangelienjustin's,
der clementinischen Homilien und Marcion's: Ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte der iiltesten Evangelien-Literatur
(Halle: Schwetschke, 1850).
Adolf Hilgenfeld
Novum Testamentum extra canonem receptum (Lipsiae:
Weigel, 1866).
Otto Knoch
"Kenntnis und Verwendung des Matthausevan-
geliums bei den Apostolischen Vatern," in Ludger
Schenke, ed., Studien zum Matthiiusevangelium:
Festschrift filr Wilhelm Pesch (Stuttgart: Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1988) 157-77.
Wolf-Dietrich Kohler
Die Rezeption des Matthiiusevangeliums in der Zeit vor
lreniius (WVNT 2.24; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1987).
Helmut Koester
Synoptische Uberlieferung bei den Apostolischen Viitern
(TV 65; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957).
Helmut Koester
Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development
(Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990).
Andreas Lindemann
Die Clemensbriefe (HNT 17; Die Apostolischen Vater
I; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992).
643
 Edouard Massaux
Influence de l'Evangile de Saint Matthieu sur la lit-
terature chretienne avant Saint /renee (Lou vain:
Publications universitaires; Gembloux: Duculot,
1950). Reprint edition by Frans Neirynck, with a
"Supplement bibliographie 1950-1985" by B.
Dehandschutter (BETL 75; Leuven: Peeters,
1986). ET: The Influence of the Gospel of Saint
Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus
(New Gospel Studies 5.1-3; 3 vols.; trans. Norman
J. Belva! and Suzanne Hecht; ed. Arthur J.
Bellinzoni; Louvain: Peeters; Macon, Ga.: Mercer
University, 1990-91).
Edouard Massaux
"Le texte du sermon sur Ia montagne de Matthieu
utilise par Saint justin: Contribution a Ia critique
textuelle de premier evangile," ETL 27 (1954)
411-48; reprinted in Influence (1986 ed. only),
725-62.
Michael Mees
Ausserkanonische Parallelstellen zu den Herrenworten
und ihre Bedeutung (Quaderni di Vetera Chris-
tianorum 10; Bari: Istituto di letteratura cristiana
antica, 197 5 ).
Michael Mees
Die Zitate aus dem Neuen Testament bei Clemens von
Alexandrien (Quaderni di Vetera Christianorum 2;
Bari: Istituto di letteratura cristiana antica, 1970).
Marcel Metzger
Les Constitutions Apostoliques, vol. 1, containing Books
1 and 2 (SC 320; Paris: Cerf, 1985).
Herbert Musurillo
The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon,
I 972).
Kurt Niederwimmer
Die Didache (Kommentar zu den Apostolischen
Vatern 1; KEK Sup series; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1988).
Alfred Resch
Agrapha: Ausserkanonische Schriftfragmente (TU 15.3-
4; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906; reprinted Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967).
Brigitta Stoll
De Virtute in Virtutem: Zur Auslegungs- und Wirkungs-
geschichte der Bergpredigt in Kommentaren, Predigten
und hagiographischer Literatur von der Merowingerzeit
bis um 1200 (BGBE 30; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1988). See the reviews by Rolf Sprandel, GGA 241
(1989) 258-64; Hans Dieter Betz, Critical Review of
Books in Religion 4 (1991) 237-39.
William D. Stroker
Extracanonical Sayings ofjesus (Atlanta: Scholars,
1989).
3. Commentaries
a. Patristic Period (in roughly chronological
order)
Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Ubersetzung,
vol. 1: Evangelien; vol. 2: Apostolisches, Apokalypsen
644
und Verwandtes (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher;
Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 5th ed. 1987-89; 6th
ed. 1990). ET: New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Wil-
helm Schneemelcher; trans. Robert MeL. Wilson;
2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1991-92).
Die Apostolischen Vater.
Die Apostolischen Vater. Griechisch-deutsche
Parallelausgabe (eds. Andreas Lindemann and
Henning Paulsen; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1992).
Die Apostolischen Vater (ed. and trans. Joseph A.
Fischer; Schriften des U rchristentums 1; 9th ed.;
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1986).
Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemens-
brie[, Schrift an Diognet (ed. and tran~. Klaus
Wengst; Schriften des Urchristentums 2; Munich:
Kosel, 1984).
(Pseudo-) Clement of Rome
Die Pseudoklementinen, vol. 1: Homilien; vol. 2:
Rekognitionen in Rujins Ubersetzung (ed. Bernhard
Rehm and Franz Paschke; GCS 42 [3d ed.] and 51
[2d ed.]; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1992, 1965);
vol. 3.1-2: Konkordanz zu den Pseudoklementinen (ed.
Georg Strecker; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1986,
1989).
Georg Strecker
Das judenchristentum in den Pseudoklementinen (TV 70;
2d ed.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1981).
F. Stanley Jones
"The Pseudo-Clementines: A History of Research,"
Second Century 2 (1982) 1-33, 63-96.
Jiirgen Wehnert
"Literarkritik und Sprachanalyse: Kritische An-
merkungen zum gegenwartigen Stand der Pseudo-
klementinen-Forschung," ZNW 74 (1983) 286-
301.
Die altesten Apologeten; ed. Edgar J. Goodspeed
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984
[reprint of the 1st ed. o£1914]).
Marcion (fioruit c. 150 cE)
Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom
fremden Gott; Eine Monographie der Grundlegung der
katholischen Kirche; Neue Studien zu Marcion (TU 45;
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924; reprinted Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960).
Irenaeus of Lyon (fioruit c. 180 cE)
Adversus haereses (ed. W. Wigan Harvey; 2 vols.;
Cantabrigiae: Typis Academicis, 1857).
Clement of Alexandria (died before 215 CE)
Protrepticus, Paedagogus, Stromata, Excerpta ex
Theodoto, Eclogae propheticae, Quis dives salvetur,
Fragmenta (with indices, ed. Otto Stahlin, Ludwig
Friichtel, and Ursula Treu; GCS 17.1-4, 2d to 4th
ed.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1970-85).
Origen (185-214 cE)
In Matthaeum, in Erich Klostermann, ed., Origenes,
Werke, vol. 12: Origenes' Matthauserklarung, 3.1-2:
Fragmente und Indices (GCS 12.3.1-2; Leipzig:
 Hinrichs, 1941, 1955).
Origenes: Der Kommentar zum Evangelium nach
Matthiius (ed. and trans. Hermann]. Vogt;
Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 18 and 30; 2
vols.; Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1983, 1990).
Hippolytus (beginning of the 3d century)
Refutatio omnium haeresium (ed. Miroslav Marcovich;
Patristische Texte und Studien 25; Berlin and New
York: de Gruyter, 1986).
Hilarius of Poitiers (c. 315-367 cE)
Commentarius in Matthaeum (PL 9.931-54: on the
SM).
Commentarius in Matthaeum (ed. Jean Doignon; SC
254, 258; 2 vols.; Paris: Cerf, 1978, 1979).
Hieronymus (Jerome) (c. 340/350-420 cE)
Commentarius in Matthaeum (ed. D. Hurst and M.
Adriaen; CChr, series latina 77; Turnholti:
Brepols, 1969).
Saint jerome: Commentaire sur S. Matthieu (ed. Emile
Bonnard; SC 242, 259; 2 vols.; Paris: Cerf, 1977,
1979).
John Chrysostom (354-407 cE)
Sancti Patris nostri Joannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi
Constantinopolitani Homiliae in Matthaeum (ed.
Fridericus Field; vol. 1; Cantabrigiae: Officina
academica, 1839) 186-356: Homilies XV-XXIV.
Homiliae in Matthaeum XV-XXIV (PC 57 .223-328).
The Preaching ofChrysostomus: Homilies on the Sermon on
the Mount (ed. Jaroslav Pelikan; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1967).
Pseudo-Chrysostomus (Anonym us)
Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum (PC 56.611-946).
Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum (ed. J. van Banning,
S.J.; CChr, series latina 87B; Turnholti: Brepols,
1988).
Chromatius of Aquileja (381-407 /408 cE)
Tractatus XVII in Evangelium Matthaei (ed. A. Hoste;
CChr, series latina 9; Turnholti: Brepols, 1957)
389-442.
Sermo de octo beatitudinibus, ibid., 371-88.
Praefatio orationis dominicae, ibid., 443-47.
Cyril of Alexandria (died 444 cE)
Commentarii in Lucae Evangelium quae supersunt syriace
e manuscriptis apud Museum Britannicum (ed. Robert
Payne Smith; Oxford: E typographeo academico,
1858).
Commentarii in Matthaeum-see Reuss, Matthiius-
kommentare (listed in section 1 above), 153-269.
Commentarii in Lucam (PC 72.476-949).
Commentarii in Lucam, in johannes Sickenberger, ed.,
Fragmente der Homilien des Cyrill von Alexandrien
zum Lukasevangelium (TU 34; Leipzig: Hinrichs,
1909) 76-107.
Aurelius Augustin us (354-430 cE)
Sancti Aurelii Augustini De sermone Domini in monte
libros duos (ed. Almut Mutzenbecher; CChr, series
latina 35; Turnholti: Brepols, 1967).
The Preaching of Augustine: "Our Lord's Sermon on the
Mount" (ed. Jaroslav Pelikan; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1973).
St. Augustine, The £ord's Sermon on the Mount (trans.
JohnJ.Jepson; introduction by Johannes Quasten;
notes by Joseph C. Plumpe; ACW 5; London:
Longman's & Green, I 948).
Adolf Holl, Augustins Bergpredigtexegese (Vienna:
Herder, 1960).
b. Medieval Period (in roughly chronological
order)
Hrabanus Maurus (c. 780-856)
Commentariorum in Matthaeum libri octo (PL 107.727-
1156).
(Pseudo-) Beda Venerabilis (9th century)
Expositio in Evangelium Matthaei (PL 92.9-132).
Paschasius Radbertus (c. 790-856/59)
Expositio in Matheo libri XII (ed. Beda Paulus; CChr,
continuatio mediaevalis 56; Turnholti: Brepols,
1984).
Expositio in Matthaeum (PL 120.214-358).
Christian of Stablo (Druthmarus) (died after 880)
Expositio in Evangelium Matthaei (PL 106.1261-1564).
Bruno ofSegni (c. 1049-1123)
Commentaria in Matthaeum (PL 165.63-314).
Rupert ofDeutz (c. I070-ll29)
De gloria et honorefilii hominis super Matthaeum (ed.
Rhabanus Haacke; CChr, continuatio mediaevalis
39; Turnholti: Brepols, I 979).
Glossa ordinaria (Radulph ofLaon [died 1131/33?])
Evangelium secundum Matthaeum (PL 114.63-176).
Theophylactus (died after 1118)
Enarratio in EvangeliumMatthaei (PC 123.185-217
[on the SM]).
Theophylacti in Evangelium S. Matthaei commentarius
(ed. Gulielmus Gilson Humphrey; London: Parker,
1854).
Euthymius Zigabenus (died after 1118)
Commentarius in quattuor evangelia graece et latine (ed.
Christianus Fridericus Matthaei; 3 vols.; Lipsiae:
Weidmann, 1792).
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
S. Thomae Aquinatis Opera omnia (ed. Roberto Busa; 7
vols.; Stuttgart and Bad Cannstadt: Frommann-
Holzboog, 1980).
Super Evangelium S. Matthaei Lectura (ed. P. Raphaelis
Cai; 5th ed.; Turin and Rome: Marietti, 1951).
Catena a urea in quatuor evangelia (ed. P. Angelici
Guarenti; Turin and Rome: Marietti, 1953).
Catena a urea: Commentary on the Four Gospels (Oxford
and London: Parker, 1870).
M. D. Roland-Gosselin, "Le Sermon sur Ia Montagne
et Ia Theologie Thomistique," RSPhTh 17 (1928)
201-34.
Roger Guindon, "Le 'De sermone Domini in monte'
deS. Augustin dans !'oeuvre deS. Thomas
d' Aquin," Revue de l'Universiti d'Ottawa 28 (1958)
57-85.
645
 Nicolaus of Lyra (died 1349 [?))
Biblia sacra cum glossa ordinaria (6 vols.; Antverpiae:
Apud 1oannem Meursium, 1634). The com-
mentary on the SM is in 5.91-154; on the SP, pp.
771-82.
c. Renaissance and Reformation Period
(chronological order)
Desiderius Erasmus ([ 1466)1469-1536)
In Novum Testamentum ab eodem denuo recognitum
Annotationes (Basileae: In officina Frobeniana,
1516; 2ded. 1519; 3ded. 1522; 5thed. 1535; last
ed. 1542).
Novum Testamentum, Cui, in hac Editione, subjectae sunt
singulis paginis Adnotationes, in Opera omnia, vol. 6
(Lugduni Batavorum: Petrus vander Aa, 1705).
Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: The Gospels
(ed. Anne Reeve; introduction by M.A. Screech;
London: Duckworth, 1986). See the review by
H.]. deJonge, NovT 29 (1987) 382-83.
Erika Rummel, Erasmus' Annotations on the New
Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Erasmus
Studies 8; Toronto: University of Toronto, 1986).
Paraphrasis in Euangelium Matthaei (Basileae: Apud
Ioannem Frobenium, 1522).
In Evangelium Lucae Paraphrasis (Basileae: In aedibus
Ioannem Frobenium, 1523).
In Evangelium Matthaei Paraphrasis, in Opera omnia,
vol. 7 (Lugduni Batavorum: Petrus vander Aa,
1706) 1-146.
In Evangelium Lucae Paraphrasis, ibid., 281-488.
For citations from Erasmus see also Critici sacri, vol. 6
(1660).
Hermann Schlingensiepen, "Erasmus als Exeget, auf
Grund seiner Schriften zu Matthaus," ZKG 48
(1929) 16-57.
Roland H. Bainton, "The Paraphrases of Erasmus,"
ARC 57 (1966) 67-76.
Albert Rabii,Jr., Erasmus and the New Testament: The
Mind of a Christian Humanist (San Antonio, Tex.:
Trinity University, 1972).
Gerhard B. Winkler, Erasmus von Rotterdam und die
Einleitungsschriften zum Neuen Testament: Formate
Strukturen und theologischer Sinn (Reformations-
geschichtliche Studien und Texte 108; Munster:
Aschendorff, 1974).
Friedheim Kruger, Humanistische Evangelienaus-
legung: Desiderius Erasmus als Ausleger der Evan-
gelien in seinen Paraphrasen (BHTh 68; Tubingen:
Mohr [Siebeck), 1986).
Jacobus Faber Stapulensis Oacques Lefevre d'Etaples
[c. 1455-1536))
Commentarii Initiatorii in quatuor evangelia (2 vols.;
Meldis: Impensis Simonis Colinaei, 1521-22). On
theSM seevol. 1.18-32; on theSP, pp. 191-93.
Martin Luther (1483-1564)
Wochenpredigten ilber Matth. 5-7 (1530/ 2): Dasfilnffte,
Sechste und Siebend Capite! S. Matthei gepredigt und
ausgelegt(1532; WA 32; Weimar: Bohlau, 1906)
299-544.
646
Dr. Martin Luthers Siimtliche Schriften, vol. 7: Auslegung
des Neuen Testaments; Auslegung ilber die Evangelisten
Matthiius, Lukas und Johannes bis zum sechsten Kapitel
johannis [incl.] (ed.Johann Georg Walch; St.
Louis: Concordia, 1880-1910; reprinted GroB-
Oesingen: Verlag der Lutherischen Buchhandlung
Heinrich Harms, 1987).
D. Martin Luthers Evangelien-Auslegung part 2: Das
Matthiius-Evangelium [chaps. 3-25) (ed. Erwin
Mulhaupt; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1939; 4th ed. 1973).
Martin Luther, Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount
(trans. Charles A. Hay; Philadelphia: Lutheran
Publishing Society, 1892).
Luther's Works, vol. 21: The Sermon on the Mount
(Sermons) and The Magnificat (ed. Jaroslav Pelikan;
St. Louis: Concordia, 1956).
Georg Wunsch, Die Bergpredigt bei Luther: Eine Studie
zum Verstiindnis von Christentum und Welt (Tu-
bingen: Mohr [Siebeck), 1920).
Hermann Wolfgang Beyer, Der Christ und die
Bergpredigt nach Luthers Deutung (Munich: Kaiser,
1933). Identical with Beyer's article in Luther-
Jahrbuch 14 (1932) 33-60.
Harald Diem, Luthers Lehre von den zwei Reichen,
untersucht von seinem Verstiindnis der Bergpredigt aus
(BEvTh 5; Munich: Kaiser, 1938).
Paul Althaus, "Luther und die Bergpredigt," Luther:
Mitteilungen der Luthergesellschaft 27 (1956) 1-16.
Gerhard Heintze, Luthers Predigt von Gesetz und
Evangelium (FGLP 10.11; Munich: Kaiser, 1958).
Hans-Georg Geyer, "Luthers Auslegung der Berg-
predigt," in Wenn nicht jetzt, wann dann? Aufsiitze fur
Hans Joachim Kraus zum 65. Geburtstag (Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983) 283-
93.
Gerhard Ebeling, Evangelische Evangelienauslegung:
Eine Untersuchung zu Luthers Hermeneutik (Munich:
Lempp, 1942; 3d ed.; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck ),
1991).
Martin Bucer (1491-1551)
In sacra quatuor Eva(n)gelia £narrationes perpetuae
(Geneva: Oliua Roberti Stephani, 1553). For the
SM see pp. 37-77.
Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)
In sacrosanctum Iesu Christi Domini nostri Evangelium
secundum Matthaeum, Commentariorum libri XII
(Tiguri: Apud Froschoverum, 1554). For the SM
see pp. 50-80.
Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560)
Annotationes in Evangelium Matthaei (1523), in Robert
Stupperich, ed., Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl,
vol. 4: Frilhe exegetische Schriften (ed. Peter F.
Barton; Gutersloh: Mohn, 1963) 133-208.
Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586)
Harmoniae Evangelicae (2 vols.; Genevae: Stoer,
1641-45). For the SM see 521-668.
John Calvin (1509-1564)
Harmonia ex tribus euangelistis composita, Matthaeo,
 !11arco & Luca: adiuncto seorsum Iohanne (Genevae:
Oliuva Roberti Stephani, I555).
Ioannes Calvini In Harmoniarn ex Matthea, Marco et
Luca compositam commentarii, in Joannis Calvini in
Novum Testamentum commentarii (ed. Augustus
Tholuck), vol. I: Harmonia Evangelica (2d ed.;
Berolini: W. Thome, I838). For the SM see pp.
I34-96.
Commentarius in Harmoniam Evangelicam, in Joannis
Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia (Corpus
Reformatorum 373; Brunsvigae: Schwetschke,
I89I). For the SM see pp. I59-230.
A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke, vol.
I (trans. A. W. Morrison; ed. D. W. Torrance and
T. F. Torrance; Edinburgh: Saint Andrew; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, I972).
Institutio Christianae Religionis. 1536; in Joannis Calvini
Opera Selecta, vol. I; (ed. Peter Barth and Wilhelm
Niese!; Munich: Kaiser, I926).
Christliche Glaubenslehre (Institutio) nach der iiltesten
Ausgabe von 1536 (trans. B. Spiess, reprinted from
the I887 edition; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag,
I985).
Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed.John T. McNeill;
trans. Ford Lewis Battles; LCC 20; 2 vols.;
Philadelphia: Westminster, I960).
Hermann Schlingensiepen, Die Auslegung der Berg-
predigt bei Calvin (Berlin: Ebering, I927).
Hiltrud Stadtland-Neumann, Evangelische Radi-
kalismen in der Sicht Calvins: Sein Verstiindnis der
Bergpredigt und der Aussendungsrede (Mt 10) (Bei-
trage zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten
Kirche 24; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, I966).
Dieter Schellong, Das evangelische Gesetz in der
Auslegung Calvins (ThExh I 52; Munich: Kaiser,
I968).
Dietrich Wunsch, Evangelienharmonien im Re-
formationszeitalter: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
Leben-Jesu-Darstellungen (AKG 52; Berlin and New
York: de Gruyter, I983).
William Tyndale (I490/9I-I536)
An Exposition uppon the V. VI. VII Chapters ofMatthew
(Antwerp:Joannes Grapheus, c. I530; London:
Wyllyam Hill, c. I550). Reprinted in Expositions
and Notes on Sundry Portions of the Holy Scriptures,
etc. (ed. Henry Walter; Cambridge: Cambridge
University, I849) I-I32.
Huldrych Zwingli (I484-I53I)
In Evangelicam Historiam de domino nostro Iesu Christo,
etc. (ed. LeonemJudae; Tiguri: Christophorus
Fwschouerus, I539).
Annotationes Huldrici Zuinglii in Evangelium Matthaei,
in Opera, vol. 6.I (Turici: Ex officina Schuthes-
siana, I836).
Theodor Beza (de Beze) (I5I9-I605)
Annotationes maiores in Nouum Dn. Nostri Iesu Christi
Testamentum (new ed.; n.p., I594). For the SM see
pp. 28-53; for the SP, pp. 269-72.
Wolfgang Musculus (I497-1563)
In Evangelistam Matthaeum Commentarii (Basileae:
Ioannes Hervagios, I548; 2d ed. I556).
Johannes Oecolampadius (I482-I53I)
Enarratio in Evangelium Matthaei (Basileae: Cratander,
I536).
Andreas Osiander (I498-I552)
Harmoniae Evangelicae libri III, Annotationum fiber unus
(2 vols.; Basileae: Frobenius, I537). On the SM see
vol. I, pp. 20-24, and annotations in the back of
the work, without pagination.
Theophrastus Bombastus of Hohenheim (Paracelsus)
(I493/94-I54I) Auslegung yber den Euangelisten
Sanct Matheum. Leiden, University Library, Codex
Vossianus Chymicus in folio, no. 25. Transcrip-
tions are in the Paracelsus Institute at the Uni-
versity ofMarburg. Pages 4I-8I contain a
commentary on the SM; further elaborations are
found on pp. 95-I36 (on Matthew 5), and in an
appendix, pp. I-53 (on Matthew 6-7).
Karl Sudhoff, Versuch einer Kritik der Echtheit der
Paracelsischen Schriften (2 vols.; Berlin: Reimer,
I894-99).
Hartmut Rudolph, "Schriftauslegung und Schrift-
verstandnis bei Paracelsus," in Rosemarie Dilg-
Frank, ed., Kreatur und Kosrnos: Internationale
Beitriige zur Paracelsusforschung (Stuttgart and New
York: Fischer, I98I) IOI-24.
Juan Maldonatus, S.J. (I533-I583)
Comrnentarii in quattuor Evangelistas (2 vols.; Mus-
siponti: Stephan Mercator, I596). On the SM and
the SP see l.I08-95.
John Maldonatus, A Commentary on the Holy Gospels,
vol. I: S. Matthew's Gospel (1-14) (trans. and ed.
George]. Davie; London: Hodges, I888). On the
SM and the SP see pp. I26-253.
Cornelius a Lapide (Cornelius van den Steen) (I567-
I637)
Comrnentarius in quattuor evangelia (2 vols.; Ant-
verpiae: Apud haered. Martini Nytl [sic], I639).
On the SM see l.II4-86; on the SP, 2.94-97.
The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide (trans. T.
W. Mossman and F. W. Cobb; 2 vols.; London:
Hodges, I876). On the SM see l.I76-3I6; on the
SP, 2.I80-87.
Fausto Socino (I539-I604)
Concionis Christi quae habetur cap. V-VII apud
Matthaeum evang. explicatio, in Bibliotheca fratrum
Polonorum quos Unitarios vacant (9 vols.; Irenopoli:
I656-92). On Matt 5:3-6:20 see l.I-72.
d. Modern Period (alphabetically arranged)
Ernst Christian Achelis
Die Bergpredigt nach Matthaeus und Lucas exegetisch und
kritisch untersucht (Bielefeld: V elhagen & Klasing,
I875).
John Alberti
Observationes philologicae in sacros Novi Foederis Iibras
(Lugduni Batavorum: Langerak, I725).
647
 Willoughby C. Allen
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
according to St. Matthew (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark,
1907).
Hans Asmussen
Die Bergpredigt: Eine Auslegung von Matth. Kap. 5-7
(Wege in die Bibel 1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1939).
Leo Baeck
Das Evangelium als Urkunde der judischen Glaubens-
geschichte (Berlin: Schocken, 1938); reprinted in his
collected essays, A us drei Jahrtausenden: Wis-
senschaftliche Untersuchungen und Abhandlungen zur
Geschichte des judischen Glaubens (Berlin: Schocken,
1938) 236-312. ET in his judaism and Christianity
(trans. with an introduction by Walter Kaufmann;
New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 41-136.
Johannes Marinus Simon Baljon
Commentaar op het Evangelie van Mattheus (Groningen:
Wolters, 1900).
Frank W. Beare
The Gospel according to Matthew (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1981).
Johann Albert Bengel
Gnomon Novi Testamenti (Stuttgart: Steinkopf, 1742;
8th ed. 1887). ET: Gnomon of the New Testament
(trans. Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent;
Philadelphia: Perkinpine & Higgins; New York:
Sheldon, 1862).
August von Berlepsch
Quattuor evangelia Novi Testamenti, vol. 1: Evangelium
secundum Matthaeum (Regensburg: Manz, 1849).
Paul Billerbeck
Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar
zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (6
vols.; Munich: Beck, 1926, 1956, 1961). On the
SM see 1.189-470, 470-74; 4/1.1-22.
Friedrich Bleek
Synoptische Erkliirung der drei ersten Evangelien (ed.
Heinrich Holtzmann; Leipzig: Engelmann, 1862).
John Bligh
The Sermon on the Mount: A Discussion ofMatthew 5-7
(Slough: St. Paul, 197 5 ).
Johann Adrian Bolten
Der Bericht des Matthiius von jesu dem Messia (Altona:
Kaven, 1792).
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Nachfolge (Munich: Kaiser, 1937). ET: The Cost of
Discipleship (trans. R. H. Fuller; London: SCM,
1948).
Bonifacius aS. Wunibaldo
Commentatio biblica in sermonem Christi in monte Matth.
cap. V. VI. VII (Heidelberg, 1794).
Bonifazius vom heiligen Wunibald
Das Evangelium Matthaei (Mannheim: Cordon, 1797-
1798).
Pierre Bonnard
L'Evangile seton saint Matthieu (Commentaire du
Nouveau Testament 1; Neuchatel: Delachaux &
648
Niestle, 1963).
Karl Bornhauser
Die Bergpredigt: Versuch einer zeitgenossischen Auslegung
(BFCTh 2.7; 2d ed.; Gutersloh: Bertelsmann,
1927). ET: The Sermon on the Mount, Interpreted in
the Light ofIts Contemporaneous World of Creeds,
Customs, and Conditions (trans. C. Sandegren;
Madras: Christian Literature Society for India,
1951).
Fran<;ois Bovon
Das Evangelium nach Lukas, part 1 (Luke 1: 1--9:50)
(EKKNT 3.1; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989).
Anneus Marinus Brouwer
De Bergrede (Zeist: Ruys, 1930).
Critici Sacri
Annotata ad SS. Euangelia, sive Criticorum Sacrorum,
vol. 6 (London: Flescher, 1660). On the SM see
pp. 124-264; on the SP, pp. 1255-76.
Nils Alstrup Dahl
Matteusevangeliet (2 parts in mimeographed form;
Oslo, 1949; 2d ed. 1973).
William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison
The Gospel ofMatthew, vol. 1: Matthew 1-7; vol. 2:
Matthew 8-18) (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1988,
1991).
J. Duncan M. Derrett
The Ascetic Discourse: An Explanation of the Sermon on
the Mount (Eilsbrunn: Ko 'amar, 1989).
Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette
Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testa-
ment, 1.1; Kurze Erkliirung des Evangeliums Matthiii
(Leipzig: Weidmann, 1836; 4th ed. 1857).
Martin Dibelius
The Sermon on the Mount (New York: Scribner's,
1940). GT: "Die Bergpredigt," in Botschaft und
Geschichte: Gesammelte Aufsiitze (ed. Gunther
Bornkamm; 2 vols.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1953-56) 1. 79-174.
Jacques Dupont
Les Beatitudes, vol. 1: Le probleme litteraire; les deux
versions du Sermon sur la montagne et des Beatitudes
(Bruges: Abbaye de saint-Andre; Louvain:
Nauwelaerts, 1954; 2d ed. 1958); vol. 2: La bonne
nouvelle (Paris: Gabalda, 1969); vol. 3: Les evan-
gelistes (Paris: Gabalda, 1973).
Georg Eichholz
Auslegung der Bergpredigt (BibS[N] 46; Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965).
Heinrich Ewald
Die drei ersten Evangelien ilbersetzt und erkliirt (Got-
tingen: Dieterich, 1850; 2ded. 1871).
Paul Fiebig
Jesu Bergpredigt: Rabbinische Texte zum Verstiindnis der
Bergpredigt, ins Deutsche ilbersetzt, in ihren Ursprachen
dargeboten und mit Erliiuterungen und Lesarten
versehen (FRLANT 37; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1924).
Joseph A. Fitzmyer
The Gospel according to Luke I-IX (AB 28; Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981).
Gerald Friedlander
The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount (London:
Routledge, 1911 ); republished with a pro-
legomenon by Solomon Zeitlin (New York:
KT AV, 1969).
Carl Friedrich August Fritzsche
Evangelium Matthaei (Lipsiae: Fleischer, 1826).
Paul Gaechter
Das Matthiiusevangelium (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1962).
Joachim Gnilka
DasMatthiiusevangelium (HThKNT 1.1-2; Freiburg:
Herder, 1986, 1988).
Charles Gore
The Sermon on the Mount: A Practical Exposition
(London: Murray, 1896; 2d ed. 191 0; 3d ed.
1912).
Hugo Grotius
Annotationes in Matthaeum, in his Annotationes in libros
evangeliorum (Amsterdami: Apud Ioh. & Cornelium
Blaev, 1641).
Walter Grundmann
Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (ThHKNT 1; Berlin:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1968; 2d ed. 1971).
Walter Grundmann
Das Evangelium nach Lukas (ThHKNT 3; Berlin:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt; 2d ed. 1961 ).
Robert Guelich
The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Under-
standing (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1982). For reviews
see Hans Dieter Betz,JBL 103 (1984) 479-81;
Georg Strecker, ThLZ 111 (1986) 194-96.
Robert H. Gundry
Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological
Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). See the
review by Ulrich Luz, ThLZ 112 (1987) 505-7.
Carl Friedrich Georg Heinrici
Die Bergpredigt (Matth. 5-7. Luk. 6,20-49), quel-
lenkritisch und begriffsgeschichtlich untersucht, in his
Beitriige zur Geschichte und Erkliirung des Neuen
Testaments, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Diirr, 1900).
Carl Friedrich Georg Heinrici
Die Bergpredigt (Matth. 5-7. Luk. 6,20-49) begriffs-
geschichtlich untersucht, in his Beitriige zur Geschichte
und Erkliirung des Neuen Testaments, vol. 3:1
(Leipzig: Diirr, 1905).
Carl Friedrich Georg Heinrici
Erkliirung des Matthiiusevangeliums (Leipzig: Diirr,
1908).
Heinrich Julius Holtzmann
Die Synoptiker, in Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testa-
ment, vol. 1 (3d ed.; Tiibingen and Leipzig: Mohr
[Siebeck], 1901) 201-25.
Heinrich Kahlefeld
Der Junger: Eine Auslegung der Rede Lk 6,20-49
(Frankfurt a.M.: Knecht, 1962).
Jack Dean Kingsbury
Matthew (Proclamation Commentaries; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1977; 2d ed. 1986).
Erich Klostermann
Das Matthiiusevangelium (HNT 4; 4th ed.; Tiibingen:
Mohr [Siebeck ], 1971 ).
Erich Klostermann
Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; 3d ed.; Tiibingen:
Mohr [Siebeck], 1975).
Christian Gottlieb Kuinol (also Kuhnol)
Commentarius in libros Novi Testamenti historicos (2
vols.; Lipsiae: Barth, 1817; 3d ed. 1823-1827).
Samuel Tobias Lachs
A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The
Gospels ofMatthew, Mark and Luke (Hoboken, N.J.:
KTAV, 1985).
Marie-Joseph Lagrange
L'Evangile selon Matthieu (Paris: Gabalda, 1923).
Marie-Joseph Lagrange
Evangile selon saint Luc (Etudes bibliques 1; Paris:
Lecoffre, 1921 ).
Jan Lambrecht, S.J.
Maar Ik zeg u. De programmatische rede van Jezus (Mt.
5-7; Lc 6,20-49) (Leuven: Acco [Academische
Cooperatief], 1983). GT: Ich aber sage euch: Die
Bergpredigt als programmatische Rede Jesu (Mt 5-7;
Lk 6,20-49 (trans. Leo Hug; Stuttgart: Katho-
lisches Bibelwerk, 1984). ET: The Sermon on the
Mount: Proclamation and Exhortation (Good News
Studies 14; Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1985). See
the review by Hans Dieter Betz,JBL 106 (1987)
541-43.
Jechiel Lichtenstein
Commentar zum Matthiius-Evangelium (in Hebrew; ed.
H. Laible and P. Levertoff; Schriften des Insti-
tutum Delitzschianum zu Leipzig 4; Leipzig: n.p.,
1913).
John Lightfoot
Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae (2 parts; Cantabrigiae:
Field, 1658).
John Lightfoot
Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in Quatuor Evangelistas
(ed.Jo. Benedictus Carpzovius; Lipsiae:
Lanckisius, 1684).
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (2 vols.; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959-1960).
Ernst Lohmeyer
Das Evangelium des Matthiius (KEK Sonderband;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956).
Alfred Loisy
Les Evangiles synoptiques (2 vols.; Ceffonds: Pres
Montier-en-Der [Haute Marne]: self-published,
1907) 1.534-645: "Le discours sur Ia montagne."
Alfred Loisy
L'Evangile selon Luc (Paris: Nourry, 1924).
649
 Ulrich Luck
Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (Zurcher Bibel-
kommentare 1; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag,
1993).
UlrichLuz
Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (EKKNT 1.1-2;
Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu-
kirchener Verlag, 1985, 1989). ET of vol. 1:
Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. Wilhelm C.
Linss; Continental Commentary; Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1989).
Alan Hugh McNeile
The Gospel according to St. Matthew (London: Mac-
millan, 1915).
Horace Marriott
The Sermon on the Mount (New York: Macmillan,
1925).
I. Howard Marshall
The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text
(NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978).
John P. Meier
Matthew (New Testament Message 3; Wilmington,
Del.: Glazier, 1980).
Adalbert Merx
Das Evangelium Matthaeus nach der syrischen im
Sinaikloster gefundenen Palimpsesthandschrift, in Die
vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem iiltesten
bekannten Texte, part 2, 1st half (Berlin: Reimer,
1902).
Adalbert Merx
Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas nach der syrischen
im Sinaikloster gefondenen Palimpsesthandschrift, in
Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem iiltesten
bekannten Texte, part 2, 2d half (Berlin: Reimer,
1905).
Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer
Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch ilber das Evangelium des
Matthiius, in Das Neue Testament Griechisch, part 2,
section 1, 1st half (3d ed.; Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1855).
Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer
The Gospel ofMatthew (trans. Peter Christie; Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testa-
ment; Edinburgh: Clark, 1832; 5th ed. 1864).
Wilhelm Michaelis
Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (2 vols.; Zurich:
Zwingli, 1948-1949).
Giovanni Miegge
ll Sermone sul Monte: Commentario esegetico (Turin:
Editrice Claudiana, 1970).
Claude G. Montefiore
The Synoptic Gospels (ed. Isaac Abrahams; 3 vols.;
London: Macmillan, 1909; 2d ed. 1927). On the
SM see 2.473-555.
Claude G. Montefiore
Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (London:
Macmillan, 1930). For a commentary on the SM,
supplementing that in Synoptic Gospels, see pp. 1-
201.
650
Hermann Olshausen
Biblischer Commentar ilber siimmtliche Schriften des
Neuen Testaments, vol. 1: Die drei ersten Evangelien
bis zur Leidensgeschichte enthaltend (Konigsberg:
Unzer, 1830) 185-241: commentary on the SM.
Daniel Patte
The Gospel according to Matthew: A Structural Com-
mentary on Matthew's Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1986).
Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob Paulus
Philologisch-kritischer und historischer Kommentar ilber
die drey ersten Evangelien (Lubeck: Bohn, 1800). For
the SM see pp. 479-613; for the SP, pp. 614-27.
Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob Paulus
Exegetisches Handbuch ilber die drei ersten Evangelien
(Heidelberg: Winter, 1842). For the SM and the
SP see pp. 575-695).
Allard Pierson
De Bergrede en andere synoptische Fragmenten: Een
historisch-kritisch onderzoek met een inleiding over enkele
leemten in de methode van de kritiek der Evangi!lien
(Amsterdam: van Kampen, 1878).
Alfred Plummer
An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew
(London: Elliot Stock, 1909; 2d ·ed. 191 0).
Alfred Plummer
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
according to St. Luke (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1896;
5th ed. 1902).
Matthaeus Polus (Matthew Poole)
Synopsis criticorum aliorumque scripturae sacrae inter-
pretum et commentatorum: summo ab eodem studio &
fide adornata, vol. 4: Complectens Evangelia et Acta
apostolorum (Francofurti ad Moenum:Johann
Philipp Andreae, 1712). For the SM see pp. 106-
232; for the SP, pp. 900-911.
Matthaeus Polus
Annotations upon the Holy Bible, vol. 2 (ed. Samuel
Clark and Edward Veale; 4th ed.; London:
Parkhurst et al., 1700).
Matthaeus Polus
A Commentary on the Holy Bible (3 vols.; London:
Banner of Truth, 1962; reprint of the Annotations,
edition of 1683-1685).
Joannes Pricaeus (John Price) (1600-1676)
S. Matthaeus ex sacra pagina sanctis patribus Graecisque
ac Latinis gentium scriptoribus ex parte illustratus
(Parisiis: Apud Edmvm Pepigve, 1646). For
learned annotations on the SM see pp. 14-80.
Leonhard Ragaz
Die Bergpredigt]esu (Bern: Lang, 1945).
Johann Georg Rosenmuller
Scholia in Novum Testamentum (4th ed.; 2 vols.;
Norimbergae: Felsecker, 1791-92). For the SM
see 1.95-170; for the SP, 2.96-102.
Leopold Sabourin, S.J.
Il Discorso della Montagna nel Vangelo di Matteo:
Introduzione letteraria; Commentario (Mt 4,17-7,24)
(Marino: Edizioni "Fede ed Arte," 1976).
Leopold Sabourin, S.J.
The Gospel according to St. Matthew (2 vols.; Bombay:
St. Paul, 1982).
Alexander Sand
Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (RNT 1; Regensburg:
Pustet, 1986).
Adolf Schlatter
Die Gabe des Christus: Eine Auslegung der Bergpredigt
(V elbert: Freizeiten, 1928; 2d ed. 1982).
Adolf Schlatter
Der Evangelist Matthiius: Seine Sprache, sein Ziel, seine
Selbstiindigkeit (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1929; 6th ed.
1963).
Josef Schmid
Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (RNT 1; Regensburg:
Pustet, 1965).
Josef Schmid
Das Evangelium nach Lukas (RNT 3; Regensburg:
Pustet, 1951).
Julius Schniewind
Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (NTD 2; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964).
Christian Schottgen
Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in universum Novum
Testamentum (2 parts; Dresdae et Lipsiae: Apud
Christoph. Hekelii B. Filium, 1733, 1742).
Heinz Schiirmann
Das Lukasevangelium, part 1: Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1-
9,50 (HThKNT 3.1; Freiburg: Herder, 1969).
Eduard Schweizer
Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (NTD 2; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981). ET: The Good
News according to Matthew (Atlanta: John Knox,
1975).
Eduard Schweizer
Die Bergpredigt (Kleine Vandenhoeck-Reihe 1481;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982).
Thaddaus Soiron, O.F.M.
Die Bergpredigt jesu: Formgeschichtliche, exegetische und
theologische Erkliirung (Freiburg: Herder, 1941).
Josef Staudinger, S.J.
Die Bergpredigt (Vienna: Herder, 1957).
Alphons Steinmann
Die Bergpredigt exegetisch-homiletisch erkliirt (Beitrage
zur Geschichte, Theorie und Praxis der Predigt 8;
Paderborn: Schoningh, 1926).
Rudolf Ewald Stier
Die Reden des Herrn jesu (6 vols.; Barmen: Lange-
wiesche, 1843-47). For the SM see 1.69-313.
David Friedrich StrauB
Das Leben jesu kritisch bearbeitet (2 vols.; Tiibingen:
Osiander, 1835-1836; reprinted 1984). ET: The
Life ofjesus Critically Examined (trans. George Eliot;
ed. Peter C. Hodgson; London: SCM, 197 5 ).
Georg Strecker
Die Bergpredigt: Ein exegetischer Kommentar (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984; 2d ed. 1985).
ET: The Sermon on the Mount: An Exegetical Com-
mentary (trans. 0. C. Dean Jr.; Nashville: Abing-
don, 1988).
August Tholuck
Philologisch-theologische Auslegung der Bergpredigt Christi
nach Matthiius, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Begrilndung
einer rein-biblischen Glaubens- und Sittenlehre
(Hamburg: Perthes, 1833; 2d ed. 1835). ET: An
Exposition, Doctrinal and Philological, of Christ's
Sermon on the Mount, according to the Gospel of
Matthew (trans. Robert Menzies; 2 vols.; Edin-
burgh: Clark, 1837; 2d ed. 1843).
August Tholuck
Ausfilhrliche Auslegung der Bergpredigt Christi nach
Matthiius: Neue Ausarbeitung (Hamburg: Perthes,
1845). Revision and 3d ed. of the work of 1835.
August Tholuck
Die Bergpredigt ausgelegt (4th ed.; Gotha: Perthes,
1856). ET: Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount
(trans. Lundin Brown; Clark's Foreign Theological
Library, series 3, vol. 7; Edinburgh: Clark;
Philadelphia: Smith, English & Co., 1866; re-
printed 1869).
August Tholuck
Die Bergrede Christi (5th ed.; Gotha: Perthes, 1872).
Wilhelm Christian Thurn
Reine Ubersetzung der Bergrede Jesu nach den Grund-
siitzen der praktischen Vernunft dargestellt und fur
jedermann lesbar gemacht (Lemgo: Meyersche
Buchhandlung, 1 799).
Carl G. Vaught
The Sermon on the Mount: A Theological Interpretation
(Ithaca, N.Y.: SUNY, 1987).
Hans Weder
Die "Rede der Reden": Eine Auslegung der Bergpredigt
heute (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1985).
Bernhard W eil3
Das Matthiius-Evangelium und seine Lucas-Parallelen
(Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1876).
For the SM and the SP see pp. 128-224.
Bernhard W eil3
Das Evangelium des Markus und Lukas (KEK 1.2; 9th
ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901).
Johannes Weil3
Das Matthiius-Evangelium, in Die Schriften des Neuen
Testaments, vol. 1: Die drei iilteren Evangelien (3d
ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917).
Julius Wellhausen
Das Evangelium Matthaei ilbersetzt und erkliirt (Berlin:
Reimer, 1904; 2d ed. 1914; republished in
Evangelienkommentare).
Julius Wellhausen
Das Evangelium Lucae ilbersetzt und erkliirt (Berlin:
Reimer, 1904; republished in Evangelienkom-
mentare).
Julius Wellhausen
Evangelienkommentare. With an introduction by
Martin Hengel (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987).
651
 Johann jacob Wettstein
H KAINH AIAE>HKH: Nuuum Testamentum Graecum
... , vol. I: Continens quattuor evangelia (Amster-
dam: Ex officina Dommeriana, 1751).
Ronald D. Worden
"A Philological Analysis of Luke 6:20b-49 and
Parallels" (Ph.D. diss.; Princeton Theological
Seminary; Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Micro-
films, 1973).
Hans-Theo Wrege
Die Uberlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt (WUNT 9;
Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1968).
Hans-Theo Wrege
Das Sondergut des Matthiius-Evangeliums (Zurcher
Werkkommentare zur Bibel; Zurich: Theo-
logischerVerlag, 1991).
August Wunsche
Neue Beitriige zur Erliiuterung der Evangelien aus
Talmud und Midrasch (GOttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1878).
Theodor Zahn
Das Evangelium des Matthiius (Leipzig: Deichert,
1903; 4th ed. 1922).
Theodor Zahn
Das Evangelium des Lucas (3d and 4th ed.; Leipzig:
Deichert, 1920).
4. Studies
Adolf Ahlberg
Bergpredikans etik: De nyare tolkningsforsiiken
(Stockholm: Diakonistyrelsen Bokforlag, 1930).
Dale C. Allison
"The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount," JBL
106 (1987) 423-45.
Dale C. Allison
"A New Approach to the Sermon on the Mount,"
ETL 64 ( 1988) 405-14.
Tjitze Baarda
Early Transmission of Words ofJesus: Thomas, Tatian,
and the Text of the New Testament (Amsterdam: VU
Boekhandei/Uitgeverij, 1983).
Benjamin W. Bacon
The Sermon on the Mount: Its Literary Structure and
Didactic Purpose (New York: Macmillan, 1902).
Benjamin W. Bacon
Studies in Matthew (New York: Holt, 1930).
David L. Balch, ed.
Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-
Disciplinary Approaches (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1991).
Guiseppe Barbaglio
"Paolo e Matteo: due termini a confronto," Ricerche
storico bibliche 12 (1989) 5-22; the vol. is entitled
Antipaolinismo: reazoni a Paolo tra il I e il II secolo, Atti
del II Convegno internazionale di studi neotestamentari,
Bressanone, 11-12 settembre 1987.
Fritz Barth
Die Grundsiitze der Bergpredigt und das Leben der
Gegenwart (Basel: Reich, 1899).
Gerhard Barth
"Bergpredigt I. Im Neuen Testament," TRE 5 (1979)
603-18.
Hans-Werner Bartsch
"Feldrede und Bergpredigt: Redaktionsarbeit in
Lukas 6," TZ 16 (1960) 5-18.
Heinrich Bassermann
De loco Matthaei capitis V,17 -20 commentatio exegetica
critica historica (]ena: Dabis, 1876).
Bruno Bauer
Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker (3 vols.;
Leipzig: Wigand, 1841-42; reprinted Hildesheim:
Olms, 1974).
David R. Bauer
The Structure ofMatthew's Gospel (]SNTSup 31;
Sheffield: Almond, 1988).
Clarence Bauman
The Sermon on the Mount: The Modern Quest for Its
Meaning (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University, 1985).
Gunther Baumbach
Das Verstiindnis des Biisen in den synoptischen Evangelien
(Theologische Arbeiten 19; Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1963).
Otto Baumgarten
Bergpredigt und Kultur der Gegenwart (Religions-
geschichtliche Volksbucher 6.1 0-12; Tubingen:
Mohr [Siebeck], 1921 ).
Ferdinand Christian Baur
Kritische Untersuchungen uber die kanonischen Evan-
gelien, ihr Verhiiltnij3 zueinander, ihren Charakter und
Ursprung (Tubingen: Fues, 184 7).
Klaus Berger
Die Gesetzesauslegung]esu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund
im judentum und im Alten Testament, vol. 1: Markus
und Parallelen (WMANT 40; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
N eukirchener Verlag, 1972).
Klaus Berger
"Zu den sogenannten Slitzen heiligen Rechts," NTS
17(1970/71)10-40.
Ursula Berner
Die Bergpredigt: Rezeption und Auslegung im 20.
Jahrhundert(GThA 12; GOttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1979; 3d ed. 1985).
Ernest Best
"I Peter and the Gospel Tradition," NTS 16 ( 1969/
70) 95-113.
Hans Dieter Betz
"Eine judenchristliche Kult-Didache in Matthlius
6,1-18," in Georg Strecker, ed.,jesus Christus in
Historic und Theologie: Neutestamentliche Festschrift
jar Hans Conzelmann (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1975) 445-57; reprinted in Studien zur
Bergpredigt, 49-61; also in Synoptische Studien, 127-
39. ET: "A jewish-Christian Cultic Didache in Matt.
6:1-18: Reflections and Questions on the Problem
ofthe Historical jesus," in Essays, 55-70.
Hans Dieter Betz
"Die Makarismen der Bergpredigt (Matthlius 5,3-
12): Beobachtungen zur literarischen Form und

652
 theologischen Bedeutung," ZThK 75 (1978) 3-19;
reprinted in Studien zur Bergpredigt, 17 -33; also in
Synoptische Studien, 92-110. ET: "The Beatitudes
of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:3-7:27):
Observations on Their Literary Form and Theo-
logical Significance," in Essays, 17-36.
Hans Dieter Betz
"Matthew vi.22f and Ancient Greek Theories of
Vision," in Ernest Best and Robert MeL. Wilson,
eds., Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New
Testament Presented to Matthew Black (Cambridge:
Cambridge University, 1979) 43-56; reprinted in
Essays, 71-87; Synoptische Studien, 140-54. GT:
"Matthaus 6,22-23 und die .<ntiken griechischen
Sehtheorien," in Studien zur Bergpredigt, 62-77.
Hans Dieter Betz
"The Sermon on the Mount: Its Literary Genre and
Function," JR 59 (1979) 285-97; reprinted in
Essays, 1-16; also in Synoptische Studien, 77-91. GT:
"Die Bergpredigt: Ihre literarische Gattung und
Funktion," in Studien zur Bergpredigt, 1-16.
Hans Dieter Betz
"Eine Episode imJiingsten Gericht (Mt 7,21-23),"
ZThK 78 (1981) 1-30; reprinted in Studien zur
Bergpredigt, 111-40; also in Synoptische Studien,
188-218. ET: "An Episode in the Last Judgment
(Matt. 7:21-23)," in Essays, 125-57.
Hans Dieter Betz
"Die hermeneutischen Prinzipien in der Bergpredigt
(Mt 5,17-20)," in EberhardJiingel, ed., Veri-
fikationen: Festschrift fur Gerhard Ebeling zum 70.
Geburtstag (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1982) 27-
41; reprinted in Studien zur Bergpredigt, 34-48; also
in Synoptische Studien, 111-26. ET: "The Herme-
neutical Principles of the Sermon on the Mount
(Matt. 5: 17-20)," journal ofTheologyfor Southern
Africa 42 (1983) 17-28; reprinted in Essays, 37-53.
Hans Dieter Betz
Studien zur Bergpredigt (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
1985).
Hans Dieter Betz
Essays on the Sermon on the Mount (trans. Laurence L.
Welborn; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).
Hans Dieter Betz
"Eschatology in the Sermon on the Mount and the
Sermon on the Plain," SBLSP 1985 (Atlanta:
Scholars, 1985) 343-50; reprinted in Synoptische
Studien, 219-29.
Hans Dieter Betz
"The Problem of Christo logy in the Sermon on the
Mount," in Theodore W. Jennings, ed., Text and
Logos: The Humanistic Interpretation of the New
Testament (Festschrift for Hendrikus W. Boers)
(Atlanta: Scholars, 1990) 191-209; reprinted in
Synoptische Studien, 230-48.
Hans Dieter Betz
"The Sermon on the Mount and Q: Some Aspects of
the Problem," in James E. Goehring et al., eds.,
Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings: In Honor of
James M. Robinson (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge,
1990) 19-34; reprinted in Synoptische Studien, 249-
69.
Hans Dieter Betz
"The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's Inter-
pretation," in Birger A. Pearson et al., eds., The
Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor ofHelmut
Koester(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 258-75;
reprinted in Synoptische Studien, 270-89.
Hans Dieter Betz
"Wellhausen's Dictum 'Jesus was not a Christian, but
a Jew' in the Light of Present Scholarship," StTh 45
(1991) 83-108.
Hans Dieter Betz
Synoptische Studien: Gesammelte Aufsiitze II (Tiibingen:
Mohr [Siebeck], 1992).
Hans Dieter Betz
"Hellenism," ABD 3.127-35.
Hans Dieter Betz
"Heresy and Orthodoxy in the NT," ABD 3.144-4 7.
Hans Dieter Betz
"Sermon on the Mount/Plain," ABD 5.1106-12.
Otto Betz
jesus der Messias Israels: Aufsiitze zur biblischen Theologie
(Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1987).
Otto Betz
"Bergpredigt und Sinaitradition: Zur Gliederung
und zum Hintergrund von Matthaus 5-7," in his
Jesus der Messias Israels, 333-84.
Erich Bischoff
Jesus und die Rabbinen, vol. 1: jesu Bergpredigt und
"Himmelreich" in ihrer Unabhiingigkeit vom Rab-
binismus dargestellt (Schriften des Institutum
Judaicum in Berlin 33; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905).
Friedrich Bleek
Synoptische Erkliirung der drei ersten Evangelien (ed.
Heinrich Holtzmann; Leipzig: Engelmann, 1862).
Otto Bacher, Manfred Jacobs, and Helmut Hild
Die Bergpredigt im Leben der Christenheit (Bensheimer
Hefte 56; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1981).
Pierre Bonnard
"Le sermon sur Ia montagne," RThPh 3 (1953) 233-
46.
Gunther Bornkamm
"Bergpredigt I. Biblisch," RGG 1 (3d ed. 1957)
1047-50.
Wilhelm Bousset
"Bergpredigt," RGG 1 (1sted. 1909) 1037-41.
Michel Bouttier
"Hesiode et le sermon sur Ia montagne," NTS 25
(1978) 129-30.
Herbert Braun
Spatjudisch-hiiretischer und fruhchristlicher Radi-
kalismus: jesus von Nazareth und die essenische
Qumransekte (BHTh 24; 2 vols.; Tiibingen: Mohr
[Siebeck], 1957; 2ded. 1969).
653
 Herbert Braun
Qumran und das Neue Testament (2 vols.; Tiibingen:
Mohr [Siebeck], 1966).
Herbert Braun
jesus: Der Mann aus Nazareth und seine Zeit (2d ed.;
Stuttgart: Kreuz, 1984). ET (of lst ed.):Jesus of
Nazareth: The Man and His Time (trans. Everett R.
Kalin; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).
IngoBroer
Freiheit vom Gesetz und Radikalisierung des Gesetzes: Ein
Beitrag zur Theologie des Evangelisten Matthiius (SBS
98; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980).
Ingo Broer
Die Seligpreisungen der Bergpredigt (BBB 81; Bonn:
Hanstein, 1986).
Stephenson H. Brooks
Matthew's Community: The Evidence ofHis Special
Sayings Material (JSNTSup 16; Sheffield: ]SOT,
1987).
Rudolf Bulunann
"Erklarung der Synoptiker," lecture course, summer
semester 1918 (unpublished, non vidi); the lectures
contain an exposition of the SM.
Rudolf Bultmann
Review of Windisch, Der Sinn der Bergpredigt, DLZ 50
(1929) 985-94.
RudolfBultmann
"Die Bergpredigt und das Recht des Staates,"
Forschungen undFortschritte 12 (1936) 101-2.
Christoph Burchard
"Bergpredigt," EKL 1 (1985) 433-36.
Christopher Burchard
Review of Betz, Studien zur Bergpredigt, ThLZ 112
(1987) 508-9.
Wilhelm Bussmann
Synoptische Studien (3 vols.; Halle: Buchhandlung des
Waisenhauses, 1925-1931).
B. C. Butler
The Originality ofSt. Matthew: A Critique of the Two-
Document-Hypothesis (Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1951).
Charles E. Carlston
"Recent American Interpretation of the Sermon on
the Mount," Bangalore Theological Forum 17 (1985)
9-22.
Charles E. Carlston
"Betz on the Sermon on the Mount: A Critique,"
CBQ.50 (1988) 47-57.
David R. Catchpole
"Jesus and the Community oflsrael: The Inaugural
Discourse in Q," BJRL 68 (1986) 296-316.
]. F. Collange
De jesus ii Paul: L'ethique du Nouveau Testament
(Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1980).
John Dominic Crossan
In Fragments: The Aphorisms ofjesus (San Francisco:
Harper&Row,1983).
Christianus Augustus Crusius
Probatio quod scopus homiliae montanae Domini nostri
654
Iesu Christi Matth. V. VI. VII sit evangelicus, neutiquam
legalis (Lipsiae: Langenheim, 1759).
Nils Alstrup Dahl
Das Volk Gottes: Eine Untersuchung zum Kirchen-
bewujJtsein des Urchristentums (Skrifter utgitt av Det
Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, II. Hist.-Filos.
Klasse 1941, no. 2; Oslo: Dybwad, 1941; reprinted
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1963).
David Daube
The New Testament and Rabbinic judaism (1956;
reprinted New York: Amo, 1973).
David Daube
"Responsibilities of Master and Disciples in the
Gospels," NTS 19 (1972/73) 1-15.
Gene L. Davenport
Into the Darkness: Discipleship in the Sermon on the Mount
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1988).
William D. Davies
Torah in the Messianic Age and I or the Age to Come
QBLMS 7; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical
Literature, 1952).
William D. Davies
Christian Origins and judaism (Philadelphia: West-
minster, 1962).
William D. Davies
The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge:
Cambridge University, 1964).
William D. Davies
jewish and Pauline Studies (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1984).
Franz Julius Delitzsch
Neue Untersuchungen ilber Entstehung und Anlage der
kanonischen Evangelien, part 1: Das Matthiius-
evangelium (Leipzig: DorfRing & Franke, 1853).
Joel Delobel, ed.
Logia: Les Paroles de jesus; The Sayings ofJesus (BETL
59; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University,
1982).
Alexander Demandt
Metaphern for Geschichte: Sprachbilder und Gleichnisse
im historisch-politischen Denken (Munich: Beck,
1978).
]. Duncan M. Derrett
Studies in the New Testament (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill,
1977-86).
Martin Dibelius
"Die Unbedingtheit des Evangeliums und die
Bedingtheit der Ethik," Die Christliche Welt 40
(1926) 1103-20.
Albrecht Dihle
Der Kanon der zwei Tugenden (Arbeitsgemeinschaft fiir
Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, series
Geisteswissenschaften 144; Koln and Opladen:
Westdeutscher Verlag, 1968).
Charles Harold Dodd
The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stough-
ton, 1935).
Charles Harold Dodd
More New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester
University; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, I968).
T. L. Donaldson
jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology
(JSNTSup 8; Sheffield: JSOT, I985 ).
Jacques Dupont
Etudes sur les Evangiles synoptiques (ed. Frans Neirynck;
BETL 70; 2 vols.; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven
University, I985).
A. B. du Toit, ed.
The Sermon on the Mount: Essays on the Sermon on the
Mount 5-7. Proceedings of the Third Meeting of
"Die Nuwe- Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap van
Suid-Afrika" held at the University of Pretoria,
4th-5thJuly, I967, publishedasNeot. 1 (I967).
Wilhelm Egger
"Faktoren der Textkonstitution in der Bergpredigt,"
Laurentianum I9(1978) 177-98.
Johann Gottfried Eichhorn
"Ueber die drey ersten Evangelien: Einige Beytrage
zu ihrer kunftigen kritischen Behandlung," in his
Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Litteratur, vol. 5,
parts 5 and 6 (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1794) 761-
996.
Johann Gottfried Eichhorn
Einleitung in das Neue Testament, vol. I, in Kritische
Schriften, vol. 5 (Leipzig: Weidmann, I804; 2d ed.
I820).
Josef Ernst
Matthiius: Ein theologisches Portrait (Dusseldorf:
Patmos, I989).
William R. Farmer
The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (Dillsboro,
N.C.: Western North Carolina, I976).
William R. Farmer
"The Sermon on the Mount: A Form-Critical and
Redactional Analysis of Matt 5: I-7 :29 ," SBLSP
1986 (Atlanta: Scholars, I986) 56-87.
Austin Farrer
St. Matthew and St. Mark (London: Dacre, I954).
Erich Fascher
"Bergpredigt II. Auslegungsgeschichtlich," RGG I
(3d ed. I957) I050-53.
Paul Feine
"Ueber das gegenseitige Verhaltnis der Texte der
Bergpredigt bei Matthaus und bei Lukas," jahr-
bucher fur protestantische Theologie 1I (1885) I-85.
Andre Feuillet
"Die heiden Aspekte der Gerechtigkeit in der
Bergpredigt," Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift I
Communio 7 (I978) I08-I5.
Paul Fiebig
"Der Sinn der Bergpredigt," ZSTh 7 (I930) 497-5I5.
David Flusser
Entdeckungen imNeuen Testament, vol. I:jesusworte
und ihre Uberlieferung (ed. Martin Meyer; Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, I987).
David Flusser
judaism and the 01-igins of Christianity (Jerusalem:
Magnes, I988).
David Flusser
Das Christentum-eine judische Religion (Munich:
Kosel, I990).
Hubert Frankemolle
jahwebund und Kirche Christi: Studien zur Form- und
Traditionsgeschichte des "Evangeliums" nach Matthiius
(NT A, n.s. I 0; Munster: Aschendorff, I97 4; 2d
ed. 1984).
Hubert Frankemolle
"'Pharisaismus' inJudentum und Kirche: Zur
Tradition und Redaktion in Matthaus 23," in
Horst Goldstein, ed., Gottesveriichter und Menschen-
feinde? (Dusseldorf: Patmos, I979) I23-89.
Hubert Frankemolle
"Neue Literatur zur Bergpredigt," TR 79 (I983)
I77-98.
Johannes H. Friedrich
"Wortstatistik am Beispiel der Frage einer Sonder-
quelle im Matthausevangelium," ZNW 76 (I985)
29-42.
A. Frikart
"Die Composition der Bergpredigt, Matth. Cap. 5-
7," Theologische Zeitschrifi aus der Schweiz 6 (I889)
I93-2I0;7(I890)43-52, I07-25.
Carl Gottlob Ludwig Frotscher
Dissertatio de consilio, quod Jesus in oratione dicitur
montana, secutus est, inprimis Matth. V, 17.18.19
(Vitebergae: Tzschidrich, I788).
Ernst Fuchs
"Jesu Selbstzeugnis nach Mt 5," in his Zur Frage nach
dem historischen jesus (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck ],
I960) IOO-I25.
Paul Gachter
Die literarische Kunst im Matthiiusevangelium (SBS 7;
Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, I965 ).
Giovanni Giavini
"Lo schema di Mt 6,5-7,I2: Una precisazione,"
RivB 20 (1972) 575-87.
Heinz Giesen
Christliches Handeln: Eine redaktionskritische Unter-
suchung zum dikaiosyne-Begriff im Matthiius-
Evangelium (Europaische Hochschulschriften
23.I8I; Frankfurt a.M. and Bern: Lang, 1982).
Gunther Bernd Ginzel
Die Bergpredigt: judisch-christliches Glaubensdokument.
Eine Synopse (Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider,
I984).
Edgar J. Goodspeed
Problems ofNew Testament Translation (Chicago:
University of Chicago, I945).
Leonhard Goppelt
Die Bergpredigt und die Wirklichkeit dieser Welt (Calwer
Hefte 96; Stuttgart: Calwer, I968).
Charles Gore
The Social Doctrine of the Sermon on the Mount (London:
Percival, 1892).
655
 Michael D. Goulder
Midrash and Lection in Matthew: The Speaker's Lectures
in Biblical Studies (London: SPCK, 197 4).
Frederick C. Grant
"The Sermon on the Mount," ATR 24 (1942) 131-
44.
Frederick C. Grant
"The Impracticality of the Gospel's Ethics," in Aux
sources de Ia tradition chritienne: Melanges offerts aM.
Maurice Goguelli /'occasion de son soixante-dixieme
anniversaire (Paris and Neuchlitel: Delachaux &
Niestle, 1950) 86-94.
Robert M. Grant
Christian Beginnings: Apocalypse to History (London:
Variorum Reprints, 1983).
Friedrich Grawert
Die Bergpredigt nach Matthiius auf ihre iiussere und
innere Einheit mit besonderer Berilcksichtigung des
genuinen Verhiiltni)Jes der Seligpreisungen zur ganzen
Rede neu untersucht und dargestellt (Marburg:
Elwert, 1900).
Ernst W. C. Grosse
De consilio, quod Christus in oratione montana secutus est,
libel/us (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1818).
Ithamar Gruenwald
"From Priesthood to Messianism: The Anti-Priestly
Polemic and the Messianic ·Factor," in Ithamar
Gruenwald, Shaul Shaked, and Gedaliahu G.
Stroumsa, eds., Messiah and Christos: Studies in the
Jewish Origins of Christianity Presented to David
Flusser on the Occasion ofHis Seventy-Fifth Birthday
(Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992) 75-93.
Walter Grundmann
Die Frage nach der iiltesten Gestalt und des ursprilng-
lichen Sinnes der Bergpredigt (Schriften zur National-
kirche 10; Weimar: Verlag Deutsche Christen,
1939).
Walter Grundmann
Jesus der Galiliier und das Judentum (Leipzig: Wigand,
1940; 2d ed. 1942).
Walter Grundmann
"Die Bergpredigt nach der Lukasfassung," StEv 1
(TU 73; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1959) 180-89.
Robert A. Guelich
"Interpreting the Sermon on the Mount," Int 41
(1987) 117-30.
Rafael Gyllenberg
"Religion und Ethik in der Bergpredigt," ZSTh 13
(1936) 682-705.
Paul D. Hahn
"The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount (Luke
6:20-49)" (Ph.D. diss., Marquette University,
Milwaukee, 1987).
Bernhard Hanssler
"DasJiinger-Ethos der Bergpredigt im Verhaltnis zu
den allgemeinen Moralprinzipien," Renovatio 40
(1984) 82-95.
656
Adolf von Harnack
Sprilche und Reden Jesu: Die zweite QueUe des Matthiius
und Lukas, in his Beitriige zur Einleitung in das Neue
Testament, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1907). ET: The
Sayings ofJesus (trans. J. R. Wilkinson; London:
Williams & Norgate; New York: Putnam, 1908).
Adolf von Harnack
Das Wesen des Christentums (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1900;
2d ed. 1908; reprinted, with a foreword by Rudolf
Bultmann; Stuttgart: Klotz, 1950). ET: What Is
Christianity? (trans. Thomas B. Saunders; 5th ed.;
London: Benn, 1958).
Patrick J. Hartin
James and the QSayings ofJesus (JSNTSup 47; Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic, 1991 ).
Anthony Harvey
Strenuous Commands: The Ethic ofJesus (London: SCM;
Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990).
Giinter Haufe
"Umstrittene Bergpredigt: Positionen ihrer Aus-
legting und Wirkungsgeschichte," in Joachim
Rogge and Gottfried Schille, eds., Theologische
Versuche~XVII (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
1989) 35-43.
KarlHeim
Die BergpredigtJesu,Jar die heutige Zeit ausgelegt
(Tiibingen and Stuttgart: Furche, 1946).
Herman Hendrickson
The Sermon on the Mount: Studies in the Synoptic Gospels
(2d ed.; London: Chapman, 1984).
Martin Hengel
"Leben in der Veranderung. Ein Beitrag zum
Verstandnis der Bergpredigt," EvK 3 (1970) 647-
51.
Martin Hengel
"Die Stadt auf dem Berge: Die Bergpredigt in der
aktuellen Diskussion," EvK 15 (1982) 19-22.
Martin Hengel
"Die Bergpredigt im Widerstreit," ThBei 14 (1983)
53-67.
Martin Hengel
"Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt und ihremjiidischen
Hintergrund," ThR 52 (1987) 327-400.
Johann Gottfried Herder
Erliiuterungen zum Neuen Testament aus einer neuer-
ofneten Morgenliindischen QueUe (Riga: Hartknoch,
1775).
Johann Gottfried Herder
"Regel der Zusammenstimmung unserer Evangelien
a us ihrer Entstehung und Ordnung," in his
Siimmtliche Werke, Zur Religion und Theologie, vol. 12
(Tiibingen: Cotta, 1810) 3-56.
Jodocus Heringa
Specimen critico-theologicum quo fides et auctoritas
Matthaei in referenda Iesu oratione c. 5. 6. 7 vindicatur
(Traiecti Batavorum: [no publisher given], 1779).
Rudolf Hermann
Die Bergpredigt und die Religios-Sozialen (Leipzig:
Deichert, 1922).
Wilhelm Herrmann
Die sittlichen Weisungen Jesu: lhr MijJbrauch und ihr
richtiger Gebrauch (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1904; 2d ed. 1907). Reprinted in his
Schriften zur Grundlegung der Theologie, vol. 1
(Munich: Kaiser, 1966), 200-241.
Wilhelm Herrmann and Adolf von Harnack
Essays on the Social Gospel (trans. G. M. Craik; ed.
Maurice A. Canney; London: Williams & Norgate,
1907).
Johann Jakob HeB
Lebensgeschichte jesu (3 vols., 8th ed.; Zurich: Orell,
Fussli, 1822-1823).
Johann Jakob HeB
"Uber das Verh:iltniB der Bergpredigt zur evan-
gelischen Erlosungs- oder Begnadigungslehre," in
Johann Friedrich von Flatt, ed., Magazin for
christliche Dogmatik und Mor~l, deren Geschichte und
Anwendung im Vortrag der Religion (Tubingen:
Cotta, 1799, 1800), part 5, pp. 83-101; part 6, pp.
1-23.
C. J. A. Hickling
"Conflicting Motives in the Redaction of Matthew:
Some Considerations on the Sermon on the Mount
and Matthew 18:15-20," StEv 7 (TU 126; Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1982) 247-60.
Adolf Hilgenfeld
Die Evangelien nach ihrer Entstehung und geschichtlichen
Bedeutung (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1854).
Adolf Hilgenfeld
"Das Matthlius-Evangelium aufs Neue untersucht,"
Z¥Vrh10(1867)303-23,366-447; 11(1868)22-
76.
Adolf Hilgenfeld
Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das Neue Testament
(Leipzig: Fues, 1875).
David Hill
"The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount in
Matthew's Gospel," Irish Biblical Studies 6 (1984)
120-33.
Emanuel Hirsch
Frilhgeschichte des Evangeliums (2 vols.; Tubingen:
Mohr [Siebeck], 1941 ).
Emanuel Hirsch
"Die Bergpredigt," Deutsches Volkstum 20 (1938) 820-
26.
Volker Hochgrebe, ed.
Provokation Bergpredigt (Stuttgart: Kreuz, 1982).
Robert G. Hoerber
"Implications ofthe Imperative in the Sermon on the
Mount," Concordiajournal7 (1981) 100-103.
Paul Hoffmann
"Auslegung der Bergpredigt," Bibel und Leben 10
(1969)57-65, 111-22, 175-89,264-75; 11
(1970) 89-104.
Friedrich Wilhelm Horn
Glaube und Handeln in der Theologie des Lukas (GThA
26; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983;
2d ed. 1986).
George Howard
The Gospel ofMatthew according to a Primitive Hebrew
Text (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University, 1988). See
the review by William L. Petersen,]BL 108 (1989)
722-26.
George Howard
"The Textual Nature of Shem Tob's Hebrew
Matthew," JBL 108 (1989) 239-57.
Hugo Huber
Die Bergpredigt: Eine exegetische Studie (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1932):
Hans Hubner
Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition: Studie zur These
einer progressiven Qumranisierung und Judaisierung
innerhalb der synoptischen Tradition (2d ed.; Got-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986).
Archibald M. Hunter
A Pattern for Life: An Exposition of the Sermon on the
Mount(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953).
Hermann Gerhard Ibbeken
Die Bergpredigt Jesu, wissenschaftlich-populiir ausgelegt
(Einbeck: Ibbeken, 1888; 2d ed. 1890).
Franz GeorgJentzen
De indole ac ratione orationis montanae dissertatio
(Lubeck: van Rohden, 1819).
Joachim Jeremias
Die Bergpredigt (Calwer Hefte 27; Stuttgart: Calwer,
1959). ET: The Sermon on the Mount (trans. Norman
Perrin; London: Athlone, 1961; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1963). ·
Joachim Jeremias
Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums: Redaktion und
Tradition im Nicht-Markusstoff des dritten Evangeliums
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980).
AdolfJ ulicher
Die Gleichnisredenjesu (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck],
191 0; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1976).
Friedrich Wilhelm Kantzenbach
Die Bergpredigt: Anniiherung, Wirkungsgeschichte
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1982).
PerryV. Kea
"The Sermon on the Mount: Ethics and Escha-
tological Time," SBLSP 1986 (Atlanta: Scholars,
1986) 88-98.
Leander E. Keck
"The Sermon on the Mount," in Donald G. Miller
and Dikran Y. Hadidian, eds.,jesusandMan'sHope
(2 vols.; Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological
Seminary, 1971) 2.311-22.
Karl Kertelge
"Handeln a us Glauben: Zum V erst:indnis der
Bergpredigt," Renovatio 40 (1984) 73-81.
George D. Kilpatrick
The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1946; reprinted 1950, 1966).
Jack Dean Kingsbury
"The Place, Structure, and Meaning of the Sermon
657
 on the Mount within Matthew," Int 41 (1987) 131-
43.
Jack Dean Kingsbury
Matthew as Story (2d ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1988).
WarrenS. Kissinger
The Sermon on the Mount: A History ofInterpretation and
Bibliography (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1975).
Gerhard Kittel
"Die Bergpredigt und die Ethik des Judentums,"
ZSTh 2 (1924/25) 555-94.
Gerhard Kittel
Die Probleme des paliistinischen Spatjudentums und das
Urchristentum (BWANT 37; Stuttgart: Kohl-
hammer, 1926).
Hans-Josef Klauck
Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten
(NTA, n.s. 13; Munster: Aschendorff, 1978).
Joseph Klausner
Jesus ofNazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching (trans.
Herbert Danby; New York: Macmillan, 1925).
Gunter Klein
"Gesetz, III. Neues Testament," TRE 13 (1984) 58-
75.
JohnS. Kloppenborg
The Formation ofQ; Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom
Collections (SAC 1; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).
John S. Kloppenborg
QParallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes and Concordance
(Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1987).
Wolfgang Knorzer
Die Bergpredigt, Modell einer neuen Welt (Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968).
Wilfred L. Knox
The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (ed. Henry Chad-
wick; 2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University,
1957).
Andrej Kodjak
A Structural Analysis of the Sermon on the Mount
(Religion and Reason 34; Berlin, New York, and
Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, 1986).
Karl Reinhold Kostlin
Der Ursprung und die Komposition der synoptischen
Evangelien (Stuttgart: Macken, 1853).
Harald Lang
"V erschrankung von narrativer Syntax und kom-
munikativen Einheiten und ihre Abhangigkeit vom
sozio-kulturellen Kontext, dargestellt am Beispiel
der Bergpredigt," Linguistica Biblica 37 (1976) 16-
30.
Bernhard Lanwer, M.S.C.
Die Grundgedanken der Bergpredigt auf dem Hintergrund
des Alten Testamentes und Spatjudentums (Mt 5)
(Hiltrup: Herz-Jesu-Missionshaus, 1934).
Pinchas Lapide
Die Bergpredigt: Utopie oder Programm? (Mainz:
Grunewald, 1982). ET: The Sermon on the Mount:
Utopia or Program for Action? (trans. Arlene Swirlier;
Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1986).
658
Pinchas Lapide
Wie liebt man seine Feinde? Mit einer Neuiibersetzung
der Bergpredigt unter Berucksichtigung der
rabbinischen Lehrmethoden und der judischen
Muttersprache Jesu (Mainz: Grunewald, 1984).
Jules Lebreton, S.J.
La vie et l'enseignement de jesus Christ notre seigneur (4th
ed.; 2 vols.; Paris: Beauchesne, 1931). ET: The Life
and Teaching ofJesus Christ Our Lord (trans. Francis
Day; 2 vols.; London: Burns Oates & Washbourne,
1934).
Simon Lf:gasse
Les pauvres en esprit: Evangile et non-violence (LD 78;
Paris: Cerf, 1974).
ErnstLerle
"Realisierbare Forderungen der Bergpredigt?" KD
16 (1970) 32-40.
Isidore Levy
La ligende de Pythagore de Gri!ce en Palestine (Biblio-
theque de !'Ecole des Hautes Etudes 215; Paris:
Champollion, 1927).
Saul Lieberman
Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners
ofJewish Palestine in the li-N Centuries C.E. (New
York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America,
1942).
Andreas Lindemann
"Erwagungen zum Problem einer 'Theologie' der
synoptischen Evangelien," ZNW 77 (1986) 1-33.
Hermann von Lips
Weisheitliche Traditionen im Neuen Testament
(WMANT 64; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1990).
Gerhard Lohfink
Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? Beitriige zu einer christlichen
Ethik (Freiburg: Herder, 1988).
Ulrich Luck
Die Vollkommenheitsforderung der Bergpredigt: Ein
aktuelles Kapitel der Theologie des Matthiius (ThExh
150; Munich: Kaiser, 1968).
Dieter Luhrmann
"Liebet eure Feinde (Lk 6,27-36/Mt 5,39-48),"
ZThK 69 (1972) 412-38.
UlrichLuz
"Die Bergpredigt im Spiegel ihrer Wirkungs-
geschichte," inJurgen Moltmann, ed., Nachfolge
und Bergpredigt (Kaiser-Traktate 65; Munich:
Kaiser, 1981) 37-72.
UlrichLuz
"Sermon on the Mount/Plain: Reconstruction of
Q/Mt and Q/Lk," SBLSP 1983 (Atlanta, Ga.:
Scholars, 1983) 4 73-79.
E. Lyttelton
Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (London: Long-
mans, Green, 1905).
Harvey K. McArthur
Understanding the Sermon on the Mount (New York:
Harper& Row, 1960).
Thomas W. Manson
The Sayings ofjesus (London: SCM, 1949; reprinted
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979).
William Manson
Jesus the Messiah: The Synoptic Tradition of the Revelation
of God in Christ: With Special Reference to Form-
Criticism (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1943).
Daniel Marguerat
Le jugement dans l' evangile de Matthieu (Geneva: Labor
et Fides, 1981).
Carlo M. Martini, ed.
Testimonium Christi: Scritti in onore di Jacques Dupont
(Brescia: Paideia, 1985).
Willi Marxsen
"Der Streit urn die Bergpredigt-ein exegetisches
Problem? Anmerkungen zum Umgang mit der
Sprache," in Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des
Neuen Testaments: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von
Heinrich Greeven (BZNW 47; Berlin: de Gruyter,
1986) 315-24.
Thaddee Matura
Le radicalisme evangelique: Aux sources de la vie
chretienne (LD 97; Paris: Cerf, 1978).
John P. Meier
Law and History in Matthew's Gospel (AnBib 71; Rome:
Biblical Institute, 1976).
Max Meinertz
"Zur Ethik der Bergpredigt," in A us Ethik und Leben:
Festschrift fur Joseph Mausbach zur Vollendung des 70.
Lebensjahres (Munster: Aschendorff, 1931) 21-32.
Helmut Merklein
Die Gottesherrschaft als Handlungsprinzip: Unter-
suchungen zur Ethik Jesu (FB 34; Wurzburg: Echter,
1978; 3ded.l984).
Helmut Merklein
jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft: Eine Skizze (SBS
Ill; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983; 3d
ed. 1989).
Arnold Meyer
Die Muttersprache Jesu: Das galiliiische Aramiiisch in
seiner Bedeutung fur die Erkliirung der Redenjesu und
der Evangelien uberhaupt (Freiburg and Leipzig:
Mohr [Siebeck], 1896).
Paul S. Minear
Commands of Christ (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1972).
Jurgen Moltmann, ed.
Nachfolge und Bergpredigt (Kaiser-Traktate 65;
Munich: Kaiser, 1981 ).
Robert Morgenthaler
Die lukanische Geschichtsschreibung als Zeugnis: Gestalt
und Gehalt der Kunst des Lukas (AThANT 14-15;
Zurich: Zwingli, 1949).
Holger Mosbech
"The Ethics of the Sermon on the Mount," in Spiritus
et Veritas (ed. AUSEKLIS; Societas Theologorum
Universitatis Latviensis; Eutin: Andr. Ozolins
Buchdruckerei, 1953) 121-34.
David Heinrich Muller
Die Bergpredigt im Lichte der Strophentheorie (Biblische
Studien 5; Vienna: Holder, 1908).
Friedrich Nagelsbach
Der Schlussel zum Verstiindnis der Bergpredigt (BFCTh
20.5; Gutersloh: Bertelsmann, 1916).
Friedrich Nagelsbach
"Die hohen Forderungen der Bergpredigt, Matth.
5,33-42," Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift 30 (1919) 510-
32.
Friedrich Nagelsbach
"Die Einheit der Bergpredigt," Neue kirchliche
Zeitschrift 39 (1928) 47-76.
Frans Neirynck
"The Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel Synopsis,"
ETL 53 (1976) 350-57.
Kurt Niederwimmer
Askese und Mysterium: Uber Ehe, Ehescheidung und
Eheverzicht in den Anfiingen des christlichen Glaubens
(FRLANT 113; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1975).
Heinrich Gotthilf Oertel
De oratione jesu montana ejusque consilio (diss., Witten-
berg; Wittenberg: Charisius, 1802).
Salvatore Alberto Panimolle
"La struttura del discorso della montagna (Mt. 5-
7)," in Carlo M. Martini, ed., Testimonium Christi:
Scritti in onore di Jacques Dupont (Brescia: Paideia,
1985) 329-50.
Eung-Chun Park
"Missio Ecclesiae-Missio Christi: Composition,
Function, and Theology of Matthew's Mission
Discourse" (Ph.D. diss.; University of Chicago,
1991).
CarlS. Patton
Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (New York: Macmillan,
1915).
Ernst Percy
Die Botschaft jesu: Eine traditionskritische und exegetische
Untersuchung(LuA N.F., Avd. 1, vol. 49.5; Lund:
Gleerup, 1953).
Erik Peterson
"Bergpredigt," RGG 1 (2ded.l927)907-10.
Shlomo Pines
'Judeo-Christian Materials in an Arabic Jewish
Treatise," American Academy for Jewish Research:
Proceedings 33 (1965) 187-217.
Shlomo Pines
The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity
according to a New Source (Israel Academy of
Sciences and Humanities, Proceedings 2.13;
Jerusalem: Central, 1966).
Peter Pokorny
Der Kern der Bergpredigt: Eine Auslegung (Hamburg:
Reich, 1969).
Wiard Popkes
"Die Gerechtigkeitstradition im Matthaus-Evan-
gelium," ZNW 80 (1989) 1-23.
659
 David Julius Pott
Dissertatio theologica inauguralis de natura atque indole
orationis montanae et de nonnullis hujus orationis
explicandae praeceptis (Helmstadii; Leuckart, 1788).
See the review by Johann G. Eichhorn, Allgemeine
Bibliothek der biblischen Litteratur, vol. 2 (Leipzig:
Weidmann, 1789) 351-55.
Herbert Preisker
"Die Art und Tragweite der Lebenslehre Jesu,"
ThStK 92 (1919) 1-45.
Karel F. Proost
De Bergrede, hare herkomst en strekking (Proefschrift,
Leiden 1914; Amsterdam: Brandt, 1914). See the
review by Hans Windisch, ThR 17 (1914) 426-28.
Benno Przybylski
Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought
(SNTSMS 41; Cambridge: Cambridge University,
1980).
Johann Wilhelm Rau
Untersuchungen, die wahre Absicht der Bergpredigt
betreffend (Erlangen: Palm, 1805).
Frant;:ois Refoule, ed.
A cause de l'Evangile: Etudes sur les Synoptiques et les
Actes offertes au P. Jacques Dupont, O.S.B., a l' occasion
de son 70e anniversaire (LD 123; Paris: Cerf, 1985).
Hans-Richard Reuter
"Die Bergpredigt als Orientierung unseres Mensch-
seins heute," ZEE 23 (1979) 84-105.
Herman Nicolaas Ridderbos
De Strekking der Bergrede naar Mattheus (Kampen:
Kok, 1936).
Georg Riegler
Berg-Predigt Jesus Christus, kritisch-historisch-praktisch
erkliirt, zur Belehrung und Betrachtung dargestellt
(Bamburg: Schmidt, 1844). Extract from his work
Das Leben Jesus Christus in Harmonie der vier
Evangelien kritisch-historisch-praktisch erkliirt (Bam-
berg: Schmidt, 1843).
Rainer Riesner
"Der Aufbau der Reden im Matthausevangelium,"
ThBei 9 (1978) 172-82.
Rainer Riesner
jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der
Evangelienuberlieferung (WUNT 2.7; 3d ed.;
Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1987).
James M. Robinson
"The Sermon on the Mount/Plain: Work Sheets for
the Reconstruction of Q," SBLSP 1983 (Chico,
Calif.: Scholars, 1983) 451-54.
Arvid Runestam
"Das ethische Problem der Bergpredigt," ZSTh 4
(1926) 555-72.
Ed Parish Sanders
jesus and judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).
Ed Parish Sanders
Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies
(London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press
International, 1990).
660
Arnold Schabert
Die Bergpredigt: Auslegung und Verkundigung (Munich:
Claudius, 1966).
Ludger Schenke, ed.
Studien zum Matthiiusevangelium: Festschrift for Wilhelm
Pesch (SBS [no number]; Stuttgart: Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1988).
Alphons Schenz
Die Bergpredigt in ihrer ursprunglichen Schonheit
(Augsburg: Filser, 1929).
Adolf Schlatter
"Die Christologie der Bergpredigt," Der Kirchen-
freund (Basel) 13 (1879) 321-28.
Adolf Schlatter
"Das Bild Jesu nach der Bergpredigt," Neue Christo-
terpe: Ein]ahrbuch 16 (1895) 1-11; republished in
his Der Einzige und wir anderen (Velbert: Freizeiten,
1929) 149-62.
Werner Schmauch
"Reich Gottes und menschliche Existenz nach der
Bergpredigt," in Werner Schmauch and Ernst
Wolff, eds., Konigsherrschaft Christi (ThExh 64;
Munich: Kaiser, 1958) 5-19.
Karl Christian Ludwig Schmidt
Exegetische Beytriige zu den Schriften des Neuen Bundes (6
parts; Frankfurt a.M.: Gebhard&Korber, 1791-
94). On the SM see part 1, sections 3-5; part 2,
section 7.
Walter Schmithals
Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1985).
Rudolf Schnackenburg
Alles kann, wer glaubt: Bergpredigt und Vaterunser in der
Absichtjesu (Freiburg: Herder, 1984).
Rudolf Schnackenburg
Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments, vol. 1: Von
Jesus zur Urkirche (HThKNT Sonderband; Frei-
burg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1986).
Rudolf Schnackenburg, ed.
Die Bergpredigt: Utopische Vision oder Handlungs-
anweisung? Mit Beitragen von Johannes Griindel,
Hans-Richard Richter, and RudolfSchnackenburg
(Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1982).
Gerhard Schneider
Botschaft der Bergpredigt (Leipzig: St. Benno, 1973).
Luise Schottroff and Wolfgang Stegemann
Jesus and the Hope for the Poor (trans. Matthew J.
O'Connell; Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1986).
Luise Schottroff et al.
Essays on the Love Commandment (trans. Reginald and
Irene Fuller; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978).
Wolfgang Schrage
"Bergpredigt," Evangelisches Soziallexikon (7th ed.;
Stuttgart: Kreuz, 1982) 137-38.
Wolfgang Schrage
• Aspekte heutiger Bergpredigt-Interpretation," Der
evangelische Erzieher 34 (1982) 387-98.
Wolfgang Schrage
"Das Ende aller Politik? Kritische Fragen an Martin
Hengel," EvK 15 (1982) 333-37.
Wolfgang Schrage
Ethik des Neuen Testaments (NTD Sup series 4;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). ET:
The Ethics of the New Testament (trans. David E.
Greene; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988).
Stefan Schreiner
"Muhammads Bergpredigt," Kairos 19 (1977) 241-
56.
Siegfried Schulz
"Strategie zeitgemasser Veranderung: Relevanz und
RelativiUlt der Bergpredigt," Zeitwende 41 (1970)
226-36.
Siegfried Schulz
Q· Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zurich: Theo-
logischer Verlag, 1972).
Siegfried Schulz
Die Stunde der Botschajt: Einfilhrung in die Theologie der
vier Evangelisten (Hamburg: Furche, 1967).
Siegfried Schulz
Neutestamentliche Ethik (Zurcher Grundrisse zur Bibel;
Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987).
Heinz Schurmann
"Die Warnung des Lukas vor der Falschlehre in der
'Predigt am Berge' Lk 6,20-49," BZ, n.s. 10
(1966) 57-81.
Gunther Schwarz
"Und jesus sprach": Untersuchungen zur aramiiischen
Urgestalt der Worte jesu (BWANT 118; Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1985).
Eduard Schweizer
Matthiius und seine Gemeinde (SBS 71; Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 197 4).
Alfred Seeberg
Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit (Leipzig: Deichert,
1903; reprinted as Theologische Bucherei 26;
Munich: Kaiser, 1966).
Reinhold Seeberg
Zur Ethik der Bergpredigt (Schriften des Instituts fur
Sozialethik und Wissenschaft der Inneren Mission
an der Universitat Berlin 4; Leipzig: Deichert,
1934).
Friedrich Ludwig Sieffert
Uber den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums:
Eine kritische Abhandlung (Konigsberg: Bon, 1832).
Nathan Soderblom
"Le sens des commandements de Jesus dans les
discours sur Ia montagne," RThPh 30 (1897) 247-
63.
Nathan Soderblom
jesu bergspredikan och var tid (Stockholm: Ahlen &
Soners, 1933).
Thaddaus Soiron
Die Logia Jesu: Eine literarkritische und literarge-
schichtliche Untersuchung zum synoptischen Problem
(NTA 6; Munster: Aschendorff, 1916).
Kurt Stalder
"Uberlegungen Z\lr Interpretation der Bergpredigt,"
in Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments: Einheit und Vielfalt
neutestamentlicher Theologie: Festschrift fur Eduard
Schweizer zum 70 Geburtstag (Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1983) 272-90.
Carl Stange
"Zur Ethik der Bergpredigt," ZSTh 2 (1924/25) 37-
74.
Graham N. Stanton
Review of Hans Dieter Betz, Essays on the Sermon on
theMount,]TS 37 (1936) 521-23.
Graham N. Stanton
"The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Sermon on
the Mount," in Gerald F. Hawthorne and Otto
Betz, eds., Tradition and Interpretation in the New
Testament: Essays in Honor ofE. Earle Ellis (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 181-92; reprinted in his
Gospel, 307-25.
Graham N. Stanton
A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edin-
burgh: Clark, 1992).
Vincent Henry Stanton
The Gospels as Historical Documents (3 vols.; Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University, 1903, 1909, 1920).
Johann Jakob Stolz
Geist der Sittenlehre Jesu in Betracht11ngen uoer die ganze
Bergpredigt (3 parts; Lemgo: Meyer, 1792-93).
Gottlieb Christian Storr
Dissertatio exegetica in librorum Novi Testamenti his-
toricorum aliquot loca (3 parts; Tubingen: Fues,
1790, 1791, 1794).
Burnett Hillman Streeter
The Four Gospels: A Study of the Origins, Treating of the
Manuscript Tradition, Authorship and Dates (London:
Macmillan, 1924; 2d ed. 1926; 5th ed. 1936).
August Strobel
"Die Bergpredigt a is ethische Weisung heute: Vier
Thesen fur Nachfolger Christi in einer modernen
Welt," ThBei 15 (1984) 3-16.
Peter Stuhlmacher
"Jesu vollkommenes Gesetz der Freiheit: Zum
Verstandnis der Bergpredigt," ZThK 79 (1982)
283-322.
Kari Syreeni
The Making of the Sermon on the Mount: A Procedural
Analysis ofMatthew's Redactional Activity, part 1:
Methodology and Compositional Analysis (AASF:
Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 44;
Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987).
Robert Tannehill
The Sword ofHis Mouth (Semeia Sup 1; Missoula,
Mont.: Scholars, 197 5 ).
Gerd Theissen
Soziologie der jesusbewegung (Munich: Kaiser, 1977).
ET: Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (trans.
John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).
661
 Eduard Thumeysen
Die Bergpredigt (ThExh 46; Munich: Kaiser, I936).
ET: The Sermon on the Mount (trans. William Childs
Robinson, Sr., with James M. Robinson; Rich-
mond, Va.:John Knox, I964).
Raymond Thysman
Communaute et directives ethiques: La catechese de
Matthieu (Gembloux: Duculot, I974).
Sjef van Tilborg
The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: Brill, I972).
Sjef van Tilborg
The Sermon on the Mount as an Ideological Intervention:
A Reconstruction ofMeaning (Assen: Van Gorcum,
I986).
L.John Topel
"The Lucan Version of the Lord's Sermon," BTB II
(I98I) 48-53.
G. A. Tuttle
"The Sermon on the Mount: Its Wisdom Affinities
and Their Relation to Its Structure," journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 20 ( I977) 2I3-30.
Willem C. van Unnik
"Die Motivierung der Feindesliebe in Lukas VI 32-
35," NovT 8 (I966) 284-300; reprinted in his
Sparsa collecta, vol. I (NovTSup 29; Leiden: Brill,
I973) III-26.
Clyde W. Votaw
"Sermon on the Mount," in James Hastings, ed.,
Dictionary of the Bible: Extra Volume (New York:
Scribner's, I904) I-44.
Fran~,:ois Vouga
jesus et Ia loi dans Ia tradition synoptique (Geneva:
Labor et Fides, I988).
Joachim Wach
Meister und Schiller: Zwei religionssoziologische
Betrachtungen (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I925).
ET: "Master and Disciple: Two Religio-historical
Studies," JR 42 (I962) I-21.
JoannesJacobusWagner
Oration is jesu Montanae pars insignior apud Matt h. cap.
V notis philologico-exegeticis illustrata (diss., Bamberg,
I798; Bambergae: Typis Klietschianis, I798).
Michael Weber
Eclogae exegetico-critiae in nonnullis librorum Novi
Testamenti historicorum locos (4 parts; Programm-
schriften; Halle: Schimmelpfennig, I827-28).
Hans Weder
"Die 'Rede der Reden': Beobachtungen zum
Verstandnis der Bergpredigt Jesu," EvT 45 (I985)
45-60.
HansWeder
"Einblicke ins Menschliche: Anthropologische
Entdeckungen in der Bergpredigt," in Hubert
Frankemolle and Karl Kertelge, eds., Vom Urchris-
tentum zujesus: Filr Joachim Gnilka (Freiburg, Basel,
and Vienna: Herder, I989) I72-93.
Heinrich Weinel
Die Bergpredigt (Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, I920).
662
Bernhard WeiB
"Die Redestiicke des apostolischen Matthaus: Mit
besonderer Beriicksichtigung von 'Dr. H.].
Boltzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien, ihr Ur-
sprung und geschichtlicher Charakter. Leipzig I863,'" ·
Jahrbilcher for deutsche Theologie 9 (I864) 49-I40.
Hugo WeiB
Die Bergpredigt Christi in ihrem organischen Zusam-
menhange erklart (Freiburg: Herder, I892).
Johannes WeiB
Die Predigtjesu vom Reiche Gottes (Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, I892; 2d ed. I900; reprinted
with a new foreword by RudolfBultmann, 3d ed.;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, I964).
Karl Heinrich von Weizsacker
Untersuchungen ilber die evangelische Geschichte, ihre
Quellen und den Gang ihrer Entwicklung (Gotha:
Besser, I864; 2d ed. To bingen and Leipzig: Mohr
[Siebeck], I90I).
Julius Wellhausen
Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin: Reimer,
I905; 2ded. I911).
Julius Wellhausen
Israelitische und jildische Geschichte (Berlin: Reimer,
I894; 2ded. I895; 7thed. I9I4; 9thed. I958).
Julius Wellhausen
Evangelienkommentare. With an introduction by
Martin Hengel (Berlin: de Gruyter, I987).
Paul Wernle
Die synoptische Frage (Freiburg, Leipzig, and Til-
bingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I899).
Gillis P:son Wetter
"Den litterara Karaktaren av Jesu 'Bergpredikans'
forsta del," in Till Arkebiskop Soderbloms sextioarsdag
1926 (Stockholm: Diakonistyrelsen, I926) 449-67.
L.J. White
"Grid and Group in Matthew's Community: The
Righteousness/Honor Code in the Sermon on the
Mount," Semeia 35 (I986) 6I-90.
Amos Wilder
"The Sermon on the Mount," in The Interpreter's Bible
(ed. George Arthur Buttrick; I2 vols.; New York
and Nashville: Abingdon, I95I-57) 7.I55-64.
Christian Gottlob Wilke
Der Urevangelist; oder, Exegetisch-kritische Untersuchung
ilber das Verwandtschaftsverhaltnis der drei ersten
Evangelien (Dresden and Leipzig: Fleischer, I838).
Hans Windisch
Der Sinn der Bergpredigt: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der
richtigen Exegese (UNT I6; Leipzig: Hinrichs,
I929). ET: The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount:
A Contribution to the Historical Understanding of the
Gospels and to the Problem of Their True Exegesis
(trans. S. MacLean Gilmour; Philadelphia:
Westminster, I950).
Ronald W. Worden
"The Q-Sermon on the Mount/Plain: Variants and
Reconstruction," SBLSP 1983 (Chico, Calif.:
Scholars, I983) 455-71.
Dieter Zeller
Die weisheitlichen Mahnspruche bei den Synoptikern (2d
ed.; Wiirzburg: Echter, 1983).
Dieter Zeller
Kommentar zur Logienquelle (Stuttgarter Kleiner
Kommentar: N eues Testament 21; Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984).
Dieter Zeller
"Jesus als vollmachtiger Lehrer (Mt 5-7) und der
hellenistische Gesetzgeber," in Ludger Schenke,
ed., Studien zum Matthiiusevangelium; Festschrift fur
Wilhelm Pesch (SBS Sonderband; Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1 988) 299-317.
Alfred P. Zimmer
Die urchristlichen Lehrer: Studien zum Tradentenkreis der
didaskaloi imfruhen Christentum (WUNT 2.12;
Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1984; 2d ed. 1987).
Jean Zumstein
La condition du croyant dans l' evangile selon Matthieu
(OBO 16; Fribourg: Editions universitaires, 1977).

663
 Indices

Because of the size of the volume the 20:16-17 305 23:21 265
indices are by necessity selective. 20:16 262,263 24:1-4 243-49,
Included in the indices are those 21:23-25 278 255-58
passages, words, subject matters, and 22:26-27 290750 24:12-13 291750
names of commentators and scholars that 23:4-5 307,310 25:11-12 278 683
are actually discussed. Mere accumula- Leviticus Joshua
tions of references on specific topics, 5 223200 9:15-20 262
however, have not been indexed. 17-26 224 Judges
Readers looking for items in the volume 18 250407 1:7 278 635
should consult first a concordance in 18:16 252 I6:21 237" 7
connection with the running commen- 19:1-34 302 1 Samuel
tary on the Sermon on the Mount and I9:7 307 9:2 LXX 188 150
the Sermon on the Plain, and make use 19:9-18 305 II :2 237 527
of the detailed table of contents. Items 19:ll-12 262 18-24 3IO
that can be found simply by going to the 19:12 262, 263, 24 3I1
commentary or table of contents have 266525 29:4 224205
not been included in these indices. 19:17 488, 488 495 2 Samuel
19:I8 184 121 , 204, 1I:I-4 232 285
1. Passages 205, 210, 18:27 632
220, 223, I9:6 302809
a I Old Testament and Apocrypha 230, 23I 276 , 1 Kings
258, 282, 3:I3 477 4 27
Genesis 283,299, I8:25-29 366292
I:27 252,256, 301, 302, 1 Chronicles
257,258 303, 304, 29:ll-13 4I4
2:20-25 245 309, 3IO, 2 Chronicles
2:24 256,257, 321, 323, 1:10ff 482464
258 339 57 , 514, Job
3 479f 5I5, 5I8, I:I2 407
3:1-I9 406 515 51871>,547 2:4 278
4:5-8 224205 19:19 223 2:6 407
4:8-I6 230 I9:33-36 305 7:1 407519
7:9 252 20:10 23I276 8:5 501598
8:21 507646 20:21 252 12:7-IO 4 73' 90
I6:3 246 24:19 278 6" I7:16-23 43380
21:9-14 246 24:20 278 23:2-9 50}598
2I:I4-16 246'69 Numbers 24:I5 235
2I:22-3I 262 30:3-4 265 28 339
22:I-I9 406 515 Deuteronomy 30:24-25 57752
35:22 232 285 5:11 262,265 31 544
4I:45 IOO 5:I6-2I 20320 38:41 474•96
4I:50 100 5:20 263 40:I5-24 4 73' 90
46:20 100 6:5 184 121 42:2-6 407
Exodus 13:6 305 42:7-I7 407
6:9 112 140 I5:I-3 606 Psalms
20:2-I7 20I I6:14 237 527 I:I-2 104
20:2-3 262 I7:14-I7 252 I:2 104 76
20:7 262,264, I7: I7 252 5 544
265 I9:18 262 6:8 544
20:I0-15 305 I9:2I 278 6:9 552
20:13 215, 218, 22:I-4 307, 3I0 871 7 544
220 22:13-I9 246 I5:2 262
20:14 230, 231, 22:28-29 246 17 544
234, 255, 23:I5 247 2I:7-8 (LXX) I49
258 23:2I-23 265 24:3-6 262

665
 24:3 134 63:8 262 Sirach
24:4-6 135 65:1 501600 3:31 359229
26 544 66:1 268,269 5:15 307
27:12 262 66:2 127 6:6 320964
33:13-15 339 59 Jeremiah 7:1 310875
33.19 (LXX) 112140 5:7 262 7:14 365278
36:11 (LXX) 125, 127 7:9 262 7:21 310875
37:11 (MT) 125, 128 17:10 529 91 8:16 307
37:30-31 271 591 31:31-35 194177 11:26~28 540
48:3 LXX 270 Daniel 15:11a 407 525
49:14 LXX 266 520 10:6 449214 15:11-20 407f
50:14 265 Hosea 15:12a 407526
51:10 135 12:6 62 15:17 407 527
89:34 262 Micah 15:19 408528
103:12 474' 99 6:8 62 18:32 587 199
112 632 Zechariah 21:20 587 147
139 339 4:1-14 449214 23:9-11 264506
144:8 262 5:3-5 262 25:7-11 105
144:11 262 5:3 LXX 265 26:9 234
146:9 474' 96 5:4 262 27:6 52991,
Proverbs 9:9 127 271 634401
1:28 501" 99 Malachi 28:1-7 403499
4:23 43596 2:13-16 247 072 29:1-13 606
6:6-11 473' 90 3:5 262 29:21 472 885 ,
10:13 633' 97 1 Esdras 483471
11:22 494 555 ,496 14:28 265 31:5-11 358 211
12 632 Tobit 34 (31):11-31 310875
14:29 112140 4:5-19 426 34:13-36:17 337£, 354
14:34 584,585 4:15 514 36:4 413578
17:5 587144 6:9-8:21 246 870 48:1-11 100
20:27 442144 12:6-10 101, 338, 48:9 101
21:14 359229 354 48:11 100
24:17-18 310 12:6 101 Susanna
25:21-22 310 12:8-9 418 618 63 247 884
30:8 398, 398 461 12:11-15 101 1 Maccabees
Ecclesiastes 12:15 101 3:60 394420
2:2 587148 12:17 101
5:2-3 365 12:19 101 b I Old Testament
5:18 632 13:1-18 101 Pseudepigrapha and Other Jewish
7:3,6 587 148 13:14 101 Literature
8:2-3 262 13:15-16 101
Isaiah 13:16-18 10155 'Abot
1:27 194177 Judith 1.2 62
3:10 144 12:16 232285 1.6 488500
11:2-3 46, 107 Wisdom 1.13 139 876
40:26ff 465 848 1:16-2:24 143 1.14 21091
40:26 474 895 2:10 143 1.19 139 876
42:6 160 2:12-20 143 2.1 188148
49:10 132 2:12 144 2.4 394426
52:13-53:12 143 4:20-5:23 544217 2.16 307847
52:7 36289 7:3 577 52 2.17 36J248
61:1-3 121 11:15-16 278 683 3.14 173 40
61:1-2 36 289 , 575, 11:26 471 078 3.18 560
578 60 14:26 265 4.2 188148
61:2 123,124 23:22 488498 4.11 178 79

666
 4.13 554294 Exod. Rab. 70 431
4.20 320 31.4 609168 79 431
5.1 10685 Jos. Asen. Det. pot. ins.
6.5 21091 16.7-8 100 97 235
'Abot R. Nat. (A) 29.3-4 311 Jos.
4 355182 Josephus 29-31 2161S7
23 31}876 Ant. 265 341' 7
24 560 4.25~ 248888 Leg. all. 3.204 273615
Apoc. Abr. 4.280 279 3.53 639"'
7.7-8 316927 5.223 163 72 3.207 267
b. B. Batra 6.69-71 237827 Omn. prob. lib.
lOb 584,58512> 8.190 477 427 84 267544
b. B.Mei. 15.371-72 267544 Opif.
30b 196 18.136 252 27 316927
b. B. Qam. Bell. Poster. C.
84a 279 1.80 420682 126 448
b. Ber. 2.135 267544 Praem. poen.
5a 63424 ]ub. 85-97 129284
I7a 392 17.2-14 246869 152 98 84
29b 394426 33.1-9 232285 Q. Gen.
40b 39}405 Koh. Rab. 1.75 105 88
60a 411 5.6 338 58
3.49 105 88
60b 410 Ladder ofJacob
4.10 105 88
b.Nid. 2.12 316927 4.110 106 85
2.l,p.l3b Rer. div. her.
238 m. Gif.
2.1 247886 181 216
239 9.10
b. Pesa{l 283 216
m. Pesa/:1
Sacr. AC
113a/b 344 3.7 223198
34 474898
b. Sabb. m. 'Sebu.
79 216
3la 515 4.13 268554
122 10685
108b 239 m. Seqal.
Som.
116 16374, 176, 5.6 360
2.35 113149
211 6.5, 13 355185
Spec. leg.
2Baruch m. Yoma
1.8 216
48:48-50 144 8.9 225 218 64482
1.13-31
1 Enoch Philo 316927
1.13-20
48.1 132 Migr. Abr. 224212
1.203-4
95.7 144 95 113149
2.1-38 261 488 ,264
2 Enoch Abr. 2.2-5 268
39.2 10157, IOJ59 4-8 216 2.2 271
40.1 IOJ5 8 150-66 448 2.4-5 271
40.2 102 60 Conf ling. 2.5 260 471 ,
42.6-14 102 163 201 6 268 554, 267.
42:6-11 m 515688 Decal. 268
49.1-30) 271600 50 201 6 2.9 265
49.1 271599 84 268550, 2.10 261
50.4 276 269565 2.38 26652S
52.11-12 140 89-91 260466 2.39 606
530) 554294 92 260 477 ,264 2.71-78 606
53.2 52991 121-31 235807 2.78 607
3 Enoch 168 235809 3.8 235807
35.2 449214 168-69 235807 3.30-31 248888
Ep. Arist. De fuga 3.153-68 307
207 514 62 431 3.155 307

667
 3.169-80 239 847 Tg. Deut. 4:17-22 59
3.177-78 234-35 6:5 458299 4:17 81
3.181-204 279 Tg. Prov. 4:18-22 44, 59, 80,
3.197 307 848 3:9 458299 81,564
4.51 529 T. Benj. 4:23 81
4.121 307 848 7.5 220167 4:24-5:2 43,80
Virt. T. Gad 4:25-5:2 81
152-54 307 848 6.7 276 5 107
Vit.Mos. T. Iss. 5:1-2 24,44,80
1.280 529 4.4 234 5:1 61409, 81
2.14-15 184 120 7.2 234 5:2 81
Ps.-Philo Ant. bibl. T.jos. 3.4 421 5:3-48 29
11.9-13 515688 T.Jud. 18.6 456 5:3-12 10, 13, 43,
33.5 554294 T. Levi 83, 155,
Ps. Sol. 13.5 43160 158, 164,
4.4-5 234 13.9 186 155 165,204,
14.8 430f T.Reu. 314, 321,
Ps.-Phocyl., Sent. 3.11-15 232285 325, 416,
prooemium 104 T.Abr. 465,523,
3 235809 8-13 52328 543,559,
11 6162Bl T. Is 561,575
16-17 265 (OTP 1.905-11) 544217 5:3 281,428,
16 263 T.Job 596
23 3602!1 18.4 450221 5:4 577
42-47 454260 36.2-3 482462 5:5 7 14, 281,
72-75 316926 36.3 435100 395,437
77 276 t. B. Me~. 5:6 314,317 956 ,
100-101 316926 70b 608 159 483,576,
140 310872 t. Ber. 577
142 31 }876 3.7 394426 5:8 233288,
162-63 316926 3.11 398462 234 299 , 274,
229-30 104 t.l;Iul. 314, 339 57 ,
Qumran 2.17 267545 435
CD 1.18 192 t. Sanh. 5:9 281, 314,
CD 4.12-19 202 13.2 585 315,609
CD4.12b-5:11 252 5:10-12 287710,
CD 7.6-9 247 c I New Testament 312 89 4, 313
CD 15.1-16 267544 5:10 7 14 ,45 846 ,
CD 16.10-12 247 Matthew 314,483
1QH 2.15 192 1:1 561 5:11-12 7 14, 583
1QS 1.4 304 1:18-19 257 5:11 281660,
1QS 4.22-23 135... 1:22 215125 283 677 , 314,
1QS 10.19-20 285687 2:13-17 319951 317 986 ' 540,
4Q525 102 3:4 535 148 578,580
4QpNah 1.2 192 3:7-12 29 5:12 314, 318 948 ,
11QPs•Zion 124241 3:10 538179 555, 582,
11QTemple 210 3:13-17 59 584,609
11QTemple 57.17-19 252 3:15 130, 131, 5:13-16 13, 24, 128,
Sib. Or. 285685, 138, 197,
2.79 3592Bl 303816, 285,324,
Sifre Lev. 351' 55 , 556 507,523,
16, 30 (324•) 225 2.. 3:17 95, 303 816 540,559,
Syriac Menander 4:1-11 59,80,380 561
128-32 311 876 ,313 4:2 419621 5:13 82,567
246-47 515688 4:12-23 80 5:14-16 567

668
5:14 395 5:29 314 493 552 , 540,
5:15 82,425, 5:30 314 548
440 5:31-32 6 12 , 234 6:1-6 609
5:16-17 714 5:33-37 635 6:1-4 10
5:16 84,346£, 5:33 283 6:1 82,119,
416 5:35 119, 395 130, 146,
5:17-7:12 164 5:37c 6 12 , 130, 314,468
5:17-48 37 281660, 6:2-4 133, 292,
5:17-20 13, 29, 131, 283 677 ,314 609
230, 258, 5:38-42 6 12 , 127, 6:2 156 9,
284 682 , 309, 133, 416, 284 679 , 314
426,427, 518,595 6:3 84
518,536 5:39-41 313895 6:4 416
5:17-18 314 5:39 314, 323, 6:5-13 10
5:17 200,204, 596 6:5 156 9,
211,280, 5:40 597 284 679 , 314
427,528, 5:42 468,504, 6:6 416
542 597,598, 6:7-8 481 452 ,506
5:18 209 607 146 , 609 6:7 88, 138,
5:19-20 314,540 5:43-48 127, 133, 284679
5:19 71 458 ,82, 289,416, 6:8 314
173,541 426, 518, 6:9-15 29
5:20 130, 131, 592 6:9-13 10, 108 112 ,
146, 248 389 , 5:43-44 518 7" 314,481452
269, 271" 9\ 5:43 6 12 , 230, 6:9-10 130
276,282, 231 276 , 258, 6:9 119
309, 314, 282,283 6:9b-13 107
318, 320, 5:43b 339 57 6:10 119,129,
321, 325, 5:44-45 138 517,518
326, 347"', 5:44 6 12 , 7 1\ 6:11 32
416,483, 146, 149, 6:12-15 156 16 , 314,
524,548 312 89 \ 592 325,327
5:21-7:12 187 5:45 7 1<, 119, 6:12-13 119
5:21-48 10, 13, 23, 130, 131, 6:12 127, 133,
43, 46, 80, 133, 141, 134, 138,
83, 138, 281 658 , 283, 284 679 ,314
172,182, 506 6' 8, 519, 6:12a 141
185, 187, 565 6<, 609, 6:13 130,281 659 ,
188, 191, 612 283 675 ,
193, 332 19 , 5:46-47 601 283 677 ,314
347" 1, 426, 5:47 88, 138, 6:14-15 127, 133,
540 284679, 134, 138,
5:21-26 127, 281, 364 267 141, 283 677 ,
404 50 5,416 5:48 7 1<, 97, 106, 284679,
5:21-23 131 119,131, 285 687 , 564
5:22 314 133, 138, 6:15 314
5:23-24 124 241 , 131, 141,416601 , 6:16-18 10, 428,
175 55 , 350 417, 426, 451 228 ,609
5:25 313895 614,625 6:16 284 679 , 314
5:26 151 6-7 107 6:17 151
5:27-30 258, 275, 6:1-7:23 46 6:18 416
277,416 6:1-18 23, 29, 37, 6:19-7:12 48
5:28 130, 136, 45, 80, 83, 6:19-21 466,468,
314,435 131, 164, 561
5:29-30 130,470 175 55 ,193, 6:19-20 555

669
6:20 609 204, 210, 7:28 24,331
6:21 136, 233 288 , 220, 258, 7:29 21197
314 276, 283, 8:5-13 43
6:22-33 39, 83, 118, 284, 289, 8:21-22 123 238
130, 136, 290, 291, 8:28 479 439
236819, 309, 309 865 , 9:9 319956
237 82 4, 314, 318, 9:13 175 55
283 675 , 314 405 505 ,416, 9:14-15 419621
6:22-23 470 599 9:15 123 238
6:23 314 7:13-23 98, 110ISS, 10:1-5 44
6:24 132, 136, 157, 571', 10:1-4 24
266524, 575,586 10:1-2 81
303 816 , 314, 7:13-14 10, 81, 131, 10:2-4 81
325, 339 57 132, 165, 10:2 320961
6:25ff. 714 314, 321, 10:3 319956
6:25-34 10, 314, 324,427, 10:5-42 81, 156
400 428,437, 10:5-8 156
6:25 118 483,559 10:5-7 553 282
6:26 82, 416601 7:14 483 10:5-6 29, 165,
6:28-30 82,395 7:15-23 10 165 94,
6:28 82 7:15-20 84, 173, 165 95 , 500
6:32 88, 284 679 , 189 152 , 314, 10:5 81
313 895 ,314, 559, 630, 10: lOb 4 75407
364267, 635408 10:11 497576
416601 7:15 82 10:12-13 320968
6:33 119,130, 7:16-20 10 10:16-33 143
131, 138, 7:16 629856 10:16 158,535
146, 158, 7:17-18 283 675 10:17-25 150490
314, 352, 7:17 314 10:17-22 153516
428,466 7:21-23 82, 134, 10:22 132,579
6:33a 415 137, 138, 10:24-25 622
6:34 314,398 141, 142, 10:30 270586
7:1-5 6 12 , 29, 130, 146, 173, 10:32-33 546
138, 416, 285 687 , 416, 10:34-35 140
615,626 559, 567, 10:40-42 153516
7:1 616 636 8 10:41 131
7:2 618 7:21-22 266524 11:5 36289
7:3-5 82, 236 819 7:21 393 11:11 188147
7:4 627 7:22-23 189 152 , 204, 11:15 440
7:5 284 679 , 347, 284679, 11:18-19 419
357 198 , 627 317 986 , 314, 11:18 418
7:6 158 318 947 , 321, 11:19 319 951
7:7-11 39, 141, 326,327 11:29 127 271
292,416 7:23 131' 283 677 , 11:30 188144
7:7-8 483 314 12:18 303816
7:9-11 141 7:24-27 5, 7 14,82, 12:31-37 532,533
7:10-11 130, 133, 157, 158, 12:33-35 531
138 159, 163 76 , 12:33 175 55 '
7:11 118,119, 165, 187, 629856
141,281 658 , 327,465 12:34-37 274624
283,314 7:24-26 314 12:35 532 116 ,533
7:12-27 29 7:24 71 457 , 637, 12:37 616
7:12 130, 134, 638 12:50 393
141,178, 7:26 71457,638 13:9 440
186, 187, 7:28-29 80,81 13:19 413

670
13:36-43 579 248 891 , 249, 24:9-14 143, 153 520
13:38 413 251,258 24:9-12 535
13:43 440 19:10-12 253 24:11 527
13:44-46 435 19:12 239846 24:13 132
13:45-46 498 584 19:16-30 131 24:14 535
13:46 516 698 19:16-22 302,322 24:24 527' 532 112 ,
14:4 252 19:19 203,299, 534 127
14:7-8 504624 303 24:27 309865
14:31 479 4 " 9 19:20-21 323 99 " 24:30-31 132,556
15:1-20 216180 19:20 625815 25:1-13 159,546
15:7 357 198 19:21 322, 322 990 25:21 1515° 1
15:19 202 19:28 128, 131, 25:23 151501
15:21-28 499 556 25:31-46 131, 132,
15:24 553282 19:29 128277
164,344,
15:32 419 621 20:1-16 401 543 204 , 546,
16:8 479 489 20:16 526 72 556,579
16:13-19 564 21:5 127 271 25:34 128, 131
16:17-19 155 1 21:28-32 319952 ,393 25:35-38 359
16:18 156 8, 564 51 21:32 131' 98 25:35-36 355 181 ,
156 16 , 335, 21:33-46 128 277
16:19 472" 85
22:6 143
417 25:37-39 472 885
22:10 254480
16:26 468 25:40 131
22:14 52672
16:27 556 25:42-44 359, 472 885
17:5 303816 22:27 132 355181
25:42-43
419621 22:37-40 223
17:21
303816 26:28 401,401 486
489516 22:37
18:1-20 26:39 393
22:39 299,303,
18:8-9 236,238 26:47-56 285
303816
18:6-9 157,238""" 516698 26:56 564
22:40
18:14 393 26:63-64 131,556
23 108 112 , 194,
18:15-20 131,401 486 , 353164 26:67-68 285
579
23:1-39 187 142 26:67 290 7"9
18:15 320960, 193174 26:72 264510
23:1-2
488504 26:74 264 510 ,551
23:2 191
18:17 156 8, 23:3-4 192 26:75 564
319 95 •, 23:3 29, 186 185 27:4 130, 131,
564 51 23:8-12 622
285685
18:18-19 401 23:8 349145, 27:19 130, 131,
18:18 156 16, 335, 625" 19 285685
417 23:10 625"19 27:24-26 131,553 282
18:19-20 344 23:16-22 268 55 " 27:24 130, 285 685
18:21-22 350, 416 597 23:16 268 27:30 285
18:23-35 133, 227 205 , 23:18-20 175 55 27:32 291758,
40 1' 402 488 ' 23:18 268 292761
611 191 , 616 23:22 268562, 27:44 149
18:23-25 613 268 56 ', 269 27:54 130
18:25 403 498 , 23:23-24 187 28:16-20 564
516698 23:23 186 106 28:18-20 128, 131,
18:32-33 404505 23:29-39 143 156, 156 16 ,
18:35 350 23:34-36 131 16161,
19:3-12 253,256, 23:34 150490 165 95 , 328,
258,259 23:35 17555 556
19:3 248 23:37 270 28:18 21197
19:7 244 24-25 528 75 28:19 59, 320972
19:9 244, 248' 89 ' 24:5 532112 28:20 187107,344,

671
 516 698 , 12:28-34 299 6:20b-21 109
562' 6 12:29-30 455 6:21a 129
Mark 12:29 339 57 6:22 147, 148,
1:15 35 12:30-31 223 149, 150,
2:18-22 418,419 12:30 132 281660
3:19 24 12:31 299 6:23 88, 151,
3:28-30 533 12:33 299 152 506 , 520
4:11 339 13:6 532112 6:25 123
4:21 425 13:9 150490 6:26 528
4:24 4915 05 13:22 527, 528, 6:27-36 298,300
6:18 252 532112, 6:27-35 612
6:22-25 504624 534127 6:27-28 6 12 , 296,
6:22-24 266526 14:22-25 373 297,298,
7:1-23 136, 187 142 , 14:32-42 123 238 , 312
202, 2161> 0, 371>26,373 6:27 289,309
274 14:32-34 393 6:29-30 291
7:8-9 186136 14:36 375,408, 6:29 289,290,
7:9-13 266526 410
290 740
7:21-22 202 14:38 405, 409 542
6:30 292, 292 762 ,
7:24-30 499 14:44-45 5512 6' 504
8:24 538167 14:55-64 150
6:31 276,284,
8:25 493553 14:66-72 5512 6'
405 505 • 426,
8:34-37 239 346 14:71 551
509, 512,
8:35 148 459 15:21 291758
516700
8:38 546 15:32 149
6:32-36 296
9:33-50 622 16:10 123 238
6:32-35 318 948
9:35-37 188 147 Luke
9:38-41 550259 610174 6:32 318
1:32
6:34-35 292
9:42-50 238" 9 1:50 133
9:43-48 236,238 1:53 6:35 88, 152 506
586 135
9:43-45 238 340 1:54 133 6:36 133, 141
9:49-50 157,159" 1:58 133 6:37-42 6 12 ,425,
10:2-12 253,255- 1:72 133 489,520
56,258, 1:76 610174 6:38 163 72 ,
259 405505,
1:78 133
10:9 251 3:7-9 29 491 530 ,
10:11-12 255 3:9 538179 491 531 ,
10:11 248 391 , 3:16-17 29 4915 35
251411 3:19 252, 489 505 6:39-40 82, 155
10:12 244,253 4:3-12 29 6:39 82
10:17-22 193 174, 322. 6:6 237 322 6:40 24,71 458 ,
458 299 , 6:12-16 24,44 82, 560 26
598 56 , 625 6:13-16 81 6:41-42 82,319 959 ,
10:17-18 546235,632 6:17-20a 43,80 488
10:19 202 6:17 81 6:41 492 509
10:21 434,435 6:20-49 29, 212, 6:42 357198,
10:29 148 459 426 492549,
10:35-45 188 147 , 622 6:20-26 425 493552
11:15-17 357202 6:20 23 6:43-45 82,520,
11:25-26 335, 350, 6:20a 44,80,81 531, 532,
415591, 6:20b 115 532 116 , 533
417605 6:20b-49 546 6:45 82, 317 936 ,
11:25 224208 6:20b-26 82,83,105 435,533
12:19-23 246 870 6:20b-24 10, 92, 98, 6:46 520,545,
12:26-34 187142 142 546

672
6:47-49 82,520, 12:1 432 13:31-33 489505
559,560 12:8-9 546 14:34-35 157
6:47-48 562'8 12:13-15 432 14:35 1594'
6:48 565 12:13 425 15:11-32 230269
6:49 567 12:16-21 369" 0, 15:16 5861S 5
7:1-10 43 399 479 • 425, 15:19 625S20
7:1 24,71,81 433 78 , 15:25-32 490524
7:22 36289 433 82 ,435, 15:28 228249
7:33 418 471 15:29 457286
8:4 619261 12:16 476 4" 15:31-32 228244
8:9-11 619261 12:21 431 16:9 458298
9:26 546 12:22-32 425,432, 16:10-12 455
9:49-50 550259 460,466 16:10-11 425
10:3 535 12:22-31 39 16:11 458298
10:4-5 320968 12:22 469S6S, 16:13 39,425,
10:27 223,299 469S64 455, 456 280
10:29 302 807 12:22a 469 16:14-15 425
10:38-42 43267 12:24 474S96, 16:17-18 29
11:1-13 426 474401, 16:18 251, 253,
11:1-4 335,349, 475402, 255,257,
350,363, 475405, 258
364,370- 475406 16:19-31 12424 ', 546,
72,400, 12:24a 476417 587
404, 415 591 , 12:25 476410, 16:22 119205
503 476411 16:25 124, 5851Sl
11:1 349 1.. 12:27 477, 477 419 , 17:1-2 157
11:2 369S15, 375, 477 42 •, 17:4 416597
389,390, 477 425 , 17:11-19 3241001
390097 ,392 477 426 17:14 350
11:3 32,396, 12:27a 476417 17:15-16 358210
397,397 452 , 12:28 4784SO, 18:9-14 193174,
400 474 478.. 1, 319951,
11:4 401, 401 482 , 478 4.., 351 155 ,
401 485 ,405, 479459 353 16 \
409,409 545 , 12:29 480 444 490524
414 12:30a 480446 18:12 419
11:4c 4055° 9, 412 12:31 481458 18:13 403499
11:5-8 503,504 12:32 468,484 18:14 194174
11:9-13 39,426, 12:33-34 425,432 18:18-19 632
503,506 12:33 432 71 18:20 203 21
11:10 504628 12:34 435,435 95 , 19:1-10 283676,
11:11 503, 505 6 " 43599 319954,
11:12 503 12:41 619261 403498
11:13 503, 506 640 , 12:51-53 140 19:41 123 2' 8
507 12:57-59 227 2' 4 20:36 141
11:29-36 440 12:58-59 29 21:8 532 112
11:33 29,425 12:59 228247, 248 21:34 472' 85
11:34-36 39,425, 13:1-5 533 21:36 410
439f, 440, 13:6-9 533 22:27 474997
442,443 13:13 524 23:13-16 553282
11:34 449 211 , 13:22-30 52440 23:34 312899,595
450222 13:23-30 524 23:50 632
11:35 443,4532 54 13:23-28 546 24:17 123 298 ,420
11:37-44 425 13:23-24 52329, 524 John
12 466f 13:27 552, 553 285 1:4-5 440

673
 1:38 440 15:29 250407 9-11 142
3:16-21 554289 16:13 174 46 9:14 408
7:12 632'92 17:18 180 90 9:24 320962
7:53-8:11 240"' 18:18 266 52 ' 10:3 196 188
8:12 440 19:13-17 550259 10:9-10 542
9:22 150 490 , 19:24-27 353 16 ' 10:9 546
580 76 20:29 535" 8 11:7 480 449
11:9-10 452"' 9 21:23 266 5"' 12 30F 98
12:36 155 4 23:2-5 596 12:1-2 611'92
12:42 150 490 , 23:2-3 285 12:2 323
58076 23:4-5 285686 12:9-21 205, 285,
13:34 323 23:10 535145 298, 303,
14:13-14 426 24:2 139'" 0 309 864 , 326
14:15 323 25:9-12 293 12:14 6 12 , 298,
14:21 323 26:14 395 593
14:31 323 27:9 419 12:15 123"' 8
15:7 426 Romans 12:17 612, 285689
15:10 323 1:16 555 12:19 276
15:12 323 1:18-32 611' 91 12:20-21 310874
16:2 150490, 1:24-29 408 5'" 12:21 612
580 76 1:32 179 81 13 284680
16:20 123"' 8 2-3 195-96 13:8-10 6 12 , 183 1".
16:23-33 373 2:1-2 6 12 , 626 205, 285,
16:24 426 2:6 229 299,323,
17 555 2:19 161 326
17:1-26 373 2:26 179 81 , 13:8 179 81
17:23 323 189154 13:9 299,303
17:24-26 551 2:28-29 344 14:10 612
19:6 553282 3:1 320966 1 Corinthians
19:17 291758 3:29 326 1:7 323991
19:22 274627 3:31 179 81 1:10 625
19:28 323 4:4 152508 1:12 564
19:30 323 4:17 479" 9 1:22 482464
20:11 123"' 8 5:5 436f 2:6 323991
20:13 123"' 8 5:6-10 3241005 3:1 323991
20:15 1232'8 6:2 229 3:4 564
20:23 156 16 , 335, 7:3 249'95 3:7 4 77 424
416 596 , 417 7:7-25 239" 9 3:10-15 564
Acts 7:12 189, 218, 3:13-16 564
1:21-22 565 6' 323 3:13 565
3:6 598 56 7:22 436109 3:15 565
5:1-6 266526 8:4 179 81 , 3:16-17 564
5:38 395 189154 3:17 565
5:41 150490 8:14-17 142 3:22 564
7:41-42 17555 8:14-16 463"' 4:7 399 47 '
7:49 26856, 8:14 549 4:9 353165
7:60 312 89 ', 595 8:15-16 437 4:12 298,593
8:10 353 16 ' 8:15 375 5:1 250407
10 585 8:16 387S76 5:12 536 149
11:24 632 8:18-22 391 6:1-8 281,293
11:26 58190 8:28-30 463'" 6:1 284681
13:2-3 419 8:31-39 555 6:15-16 251 410
14:22 526 8:33-34 552 278 9:19-23 547241
14:23 419 8:34 555 6:19 564
15:1 553286 8:35-39 463'" 7 253-55

674
 7:5 408 5'" 3:26-28 59, 155, 4:10 580
7:10-16 6 12 , 251, 549 5:13 475407
253,259 4:4-7 549 5:16 475407
7:10 251 4:4-6 436 6:18-19 434
7:13 244357 4:6-7 142 2 Timothy
7:30 123 208 4:6 375 3:16 196 188
7:31-32 43267 4:7 457295 Hebrews
8:5-6 457287 4:12a 87 10:30 276
8:6 387 371 4:14 408 532 James
9:19-23 87 4:15 59,92 1, 1:1-3 407
9:21 553281 237327 1:1 546236
9:22a 87 4:21-31 246369 1:4 323, 323 993
10:12 567 5:3 182106 1:4b 369" 2
10:13 408f 5:14 6 12 , 179 81 , 1:5-8 369" 2
12:25-26 123238 182106, 1:8 454256
13:4-7 605 183 111 , 218, 1:10-11 479 436
13:5 603 111 299, 303, 1:11 317930
13:10 323 323,547 1:12-15 407
13:13 323 5:19-23 203 1:12 407
14:20 323991 5:22-23 254 431 1:17-18 369" 2
15:9 189 5:22 97 1:19-25 86606
15:33 485 48 ' 6:2 205, 218, 1:25 323, 547 239
2 Corinthians 547 1:26-27 369" 2
1:17-22 272602 6:6 622 2:1 546 236
1:17 612 6:16 543206 2:6-7 150490
4:6 436 Ephesians 2:7 581
5:16 55J268 1:18 233289 2:8-11 299
6:lla 356191 2:20 56452 2:8 299
6:14-7:1 141,580 3:8 189151 2:12 547239
6:15 457287 3:16-17 436 2:14-17 369" 2
7:5 526 4:32-5:1 613 2:14-16 472 385
8:2 112 146 Philippians 2:15-16 398
8:9 112 146 2:1-4 303 2:15 399
9:7 597 53 2:6 303 2:19 457287
11:2 549 249 , 609 2:15 161 3:1 620273'
11:13 534 128 , 537 Colossians 625" 9
11:20 596 37 2:18 137 355 3:9-10 593
12:8 549252 3:2 435100 3:12 537 163 ,
Galatians 3:15-16 436 629 356 ,
1:8-9 543206 1 Thessalonians 629 359
2:1-14 580 1:9-10 122228 3:13 126
2:1-10 87, 165, 2:14-15 153 516 4:4-12 454256
547,565 3:5 408 532 4:7 281659
2:4 536 150 , 547 3:10 625" 1 4:8 136 350 ,
2:7-8 189 153 4:13-18 122228 454256
2:8 87, 165 9' 4:13 122228, 4:9 587 148
2:9 63425, 547 123238 4:11 457287
2:11-14 353 16 \ 5:1-11 122228 4:14 421644
497 576 5:5 155 4:15 394421
2:11 565 61 5:14 475<07 4:16 454256
2:16 304819 2 Thessalonians 5:6 616
2:17 553, 553 287 3:6-12 475407 5:11 407 522 ,613
2:19-20 436 3:6-10 114 159 5:12 266-67,
3:5 55 J260 I Timothy 270590,
3:19 218 1:15-16 189 151 272602

675
I Peter 18-20 75,524 3.8 126, 127,
1:4 714 19.2-25 203 25 133
1:16 7 14, 321 978 19.2 185 129 4.1-4 622
1:17 714 20.1-2 203 25 4.4 454256
2:12-13 714 20.2 292772 4.13 185 129
3:1-4 714 The Book! offeu 5 203
3:4 436, 344 10 ! 44 12828! 5.1-2 524
3:8-9 298 1 Clem. 5.1 233287
3:9 714 13.1-4 127 6.1 331
3:14 714 13.2 133,350, 6.2 323, 323 990 ·
3:16 7 14,298 4915 35 ,615 •••
4:13-14 714 16.15 149 7-16 297
4:14 149, 580, 19.3 474 597 7-12 72
581 21.2 442 144 7 336
5:7 714 60.1 133 7.1 298782
5:10 714 2Clem. 7.4 419
2 Peter 4.2 133 8.1-2 337
2:1 534129 6.1-7 455 8.1 336,419
2:12 473 6.1 455, 455 272 8.2-3 336,350
2:14 233289 13.1 588157 8.2 315907. 349,
I John 16.4 337, 418612, 370-72,
2:1 555 419622 375, 387 565 ,
2:16 233289 Didache 389,390,
Jude 1-6 72, 74,297, 392,393,
10 473 298,327 396,397,
Revelation 1.1-2 520 2, 524 401, 40148!,
9:20 367 500 1.2-3 184,299 404,405,
10:6 268 1.2 184 121 , 299, 405508
13:4 367500 516698 8.3 374541 , 400,
13:8 367!00 1.3-3.10 205 58 400476
13:12 367 500 1.3 185 122 , 297, 9-10 336
21:7 141 298, 308 850 , 9.4 128
311,312 892 , 9.5 497
d I Early Christian Literature 3241004, 1007, 10.3 472!87
331,419 10.5 337 40 , 350
Acts ofPaul and Thecla 1.3b-2.1 297 11-13 336
5-6 10262 1.3b 593 11 536
6 141'87 1.4 289, 290 740 , 11.1-2 185
Acts of Thomas 291, 323, 11.1 298782
94 127275 596, 59747, 11.2 185127,331
Ap.jas. 598 62 11.3-12 528
2.1-15 (NHC I, 2) 83576 1.5-6 292,336, 11.3-6 528
4.18-31 (NHC I, 2) 405 511 598 11.3 337 40
Apocalypse ofPaul 1.5 114 158 , 228, 11.7-12 528
21 127275 3241007, 12.1 359 250
Apoc. Pet. 597 54 13.1 528
16.31 602 103 , 1.6 300,359 13.4 528
607 145 2 203 13.6 528
Ap. Const. 2.1 331 14 336
6.13 532 112 2.2 269567 14.2 224
7.39.2-4 338 56 2.3-5 274626 15 536
Barnabas 2.4-5 454256 15.1-2 336
10.1 474 596 2.6-7 205 57 15.3-4 337 40
10.4 474!96 3.2 205 56 , 219 15.4 337
16.2 268560 3.7 126, 128 16.3 528, 535 142

676
Didasc. apost. Gospel ofMary 1.16.11 550255
2 3592SO 14.14 436110 1.16.13 531112
Didasc. ffpost. Syr. Cos. Truth 1.44.8 3241006
3.6 274626 33.37 530104 Dial.
Doctr. apost. HermasMan. 4.1 443 154
1.1-2.7 20328 4.1.6 251, 253, 35.3 531 112 ,
1.2 299 255442 532 112
2.2 218146 4.3-4 3271088 35.8 298
2.3-5 274626 5.2.5 618249 76.5 550255
2.7 297 6.2.4 635408 82:1-2 532112
3.2 219161 9.9 454256 85.7 297
4.13 2015 10.1.1-2 454256 96.3 298, 317 981
Elchasai, Book of 10.1.4 454256 105.6 189156
(EpiphaniusAdv. haer. 19.4.3) 11 536 2Apol.
552277 HermasSim. 1.2 464..9
Excerpta ex Theodoto 5.1 337 Kerygma Petri
52 228250 8.2.7 471'78 2 33958
Firmicus Maternus 8.6.1 471'78 Mandaeic Literature
HermasVis. Ginza R. 1.104 359222
De errore profanarum
3.10.9 454256 GinzaR. VII 317 981 ,
religion urn
9525 3.11.2 454256 497 578
22.1
Cos. Thorn. Ignatius Manichaean Literature
Eph. Cologne Mani Codex 69, 16
log. 2 503,504
11.2 498584 531
log. 6 335f
14.2 629 856 , Psalm Book 20, 19-21, 15
log. 14 335• 5, 418
635408 552277
log. 24 440, 4522 89 ,
453252
Pol. Psalm Book 25, 24-26 552277
1.2 470 374 Martyrium Apolloii
log. 32-33 162 70 145405
Rom. 38
log. 32 157, 161
7.2 471' 78 Papias
log. 33 157 24
Smyrn. (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15-16)
log. 34 620266
4.1-2 312 898 71
log. 36-37 467f Trall. P. Egerton
log. 36 469 856 8.2 225212 2, frg. 2 637 7
log. 43 533 Justin P. Oxy. 654 336,350,
Iog.44 533 Apol. 503
log. 45 533,629 056 1.12.16 481 458 P. Oxy655 4196 18,460,
log. 47f 456 1.14.3 298 469 856 ,
log. 54 575 88 1.15-16 435 477 422
log. 62 359 1.15 468 6551.1-17 467
log. 68-69b 578 1.15.1 238 848 655 1.17-11.1 467
log. 69 132 802 1.15.2 236 818 Polycarp, Phil.
log. 69b 577 46 1.15.3-4 253 2.3 133, 143 408 ,
log. 76 436 107 1.15.3 251, 255 442 491 585
log. 92 426,504 1.15.9-10 318 948 3.2 350
log. 93 426,498, 1.15.10 292 6.1-2 402 489
499,504 1.15.11 425 7.2 405,409 545
log. 94 426,504 1.15.13 317 981 12.3 298,323 998
log. 95 292766 1.15.14 425 Prayer of the Apostle Paul
log. 104 419619 1.16.1-2 157 26 (NHCI, I) 414 588
Cos. Eb. 1.16.1 289, 597 47 Ps.-Clem. Contestatio
frg. 3 175 1.16.2 291 2.1 268 559
frg. 5 175 1.16.3 531 112 2.2 593,594
Gospel to the Hebrews 1.16.5 266-67, 4.1-3 268 559
NT Apoc. 1.164 503 270590 12.3 593

677
Ps.-Clem. Ep. Clem. 8.4.1 16380 5.5.1, 1132b 21-23 287
1.2 563 49 8.56.7-8 509647 5.5.3, 1132b 26-27 286
14.3 534129 Ptolernaeus, Epistula ad Floram 5.5.4, 1132b 28-31 287
Ps.-Clem. Ep. Petri 2.4 253 5.5.6, 1132b 32-34 287706
1.2 497576 Teachings of Silvanus (NHC VII, 4) 5.5. 7, 1133a 4-6 287
2.4-7 184" 9 84.15-118.7 74 5.5.17, 1133b 30-32 287
2.5-6 182 89.17-21 433 80 5.5.17, 1134a 1-3 287
Ps.-Clem. Hom. 5.5.18, 1134a 12-13 287
2.6.4 518 7" e I Greek and Latin Authors 5.7.7, 1135a 10-13 189154
3.51.2-3 183109 Aelian, Variae historiae 5.10.2, 1137b 8-11 195
3.52.1 183 109 12.59 612195 5.10.3-7, 1137b 12-33 17982
3.52.3 504626 Aeschylus 5.10.3, 1137b 12-14 195
3.55-56 313 Choephori 5.10.5, 1137b 20-23 195
3.55.2 4085SO 304 276 5.10.8, 1137b 34-
3.55.3 464" 1 Supplices 1138a 4 169 14
3.56.1-2 506641 890-93 388f' 82 6.1.1, 1138b 18 195185
3.57 321974 899-901 388f' 82 6.2.4, 1139a 32-34 170"
7.4 599" Alcrnaeon 6.13, 1144b 1-
7.4.3 511 Diels-Kranz, 24 A 5 (1, 212, 5) 1145a 12 631
8.5.4 545229 444 172 8.4, 1157b 1-4 632
8.6.5-7.5 553282 Aleman 8.1 0.4-14.4,
8.7.3-4 546229 123 304 827 1160b 23-1163a 29 205' 9
11.4.4 516698 Anaxirnenes, Rhet. ad Alex. 8.10.4 389, 389' 8'
11.35.6 532" 2 35 113149 8.13.1, 1162b5-8 604" 8
12.32.1 297 Anthol. Pal. 8.13.4, 1162b 16-21 604" 8
12.32.5 517708 9.577 116 18' 8.13.6, 1162b 26-28 604!' 8
12.32.6 518"' 14.71 135'.. 9.5.3, 1167a 4-8 232,233
15.5-9 285689 14.74 135'.. 9.7.4, 1168a4-10 529
15.5.5 596' 5 Apuleius, Met. 10.8.12, II79a 20-24 529
15.10.4 114161 11.6 99 41 10.9, 1179a 19-
15.18 313 11.15 420 6" 1180b 29 632
17.19 565 11.16 99 Met.
17.19.4 563 49 , 11.23 99 42 , 99" 9.8, 1050a 4-23 52994
56560, 56561 Archytas Phys.
18.16.3 518 712 , Diels-Kranz 47 B 3 501 3.3 52994
619258 Aristophanes, Plutus Problemata
19.1-25 313,413577 15 620 271 29.2, 950a 31-33 608156
51.3 182 552 117 185 Protr. B
Ps.-Clem. Rec. Aristotle 108 118189
1.11.1 482461 Eth. Nic. Rhet.
1.61.2 112m, 572 8 1.9, 1099a 17-18 631 1.9.7, 1366b 9-11 286696
2.1.4-6 83576 2.6.3, 1106a 21-24 630"' 1.9.24, 1167a 19-22 286
2.3 497 3.1-3.2 170 2.4 600 76
2.3.4-5 497 4.1.6-27, 2.4.2, 1380b 36-
2.20-22 482461 1120a 4-112la 9 606 138la 3 593 14
2.20.2 482461 4.1.40, 112Ib 36 603 2.4.11, 138Ia27 631
2.28.3 112"9, 4.1.43, 1122a 11-12 603 2.4.29, 138lb 35-37 600 77
115 171 5 168 12 , 194- 2.6.6-7, 1383b 25-34 604 117
3.1.2-3 497 96 2.6.19, 1384b4 510
3.1.2 497 5.1, 1129a 34-36 283 2.7-8 605,614
3.1.4-7 497,500 5.1, 1130a 8-10 632 2.7.2, 1385a 18-19 606'" 0
3.16.1 482 5.2.7, 1130b 6-7 194 178 2.7.5, 1385a 34-
3.20.3£ 482, 482 460 5.2.10, 1130b 18-20 194179 1385b I 611 187
5.9.4 454262,456 5.4.6, 1132a 18 195185 2.7.6, 1385b 10-11 611 187
5.23.7 516698 5.5, 113la 7 272604 2.7.6, 1385b 10 604" 6

678
 frg. Damascius, Vita Isidori 10.36 79548
192 496570 283 359225 10.37 78539
Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae Democritus . 10.85 78540
20.1.14 276 Diels-Kranz, 68 A 135 10.123 79549
Aurelius, Marcus, In semetipsum (II, 114, 28-115,3) 444f 10.129 77535
3.5 267 Diels-Kranz, 68 A 135 10.139-54 77 534
9.11.27 612 (II, 116, 3-4) 444f Dionysius of Halicarnassus
10.26 453255 Diels-Kranz, 68 B 149 2.52-53 276
Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae (II, 172) 430 Empedocles
III m. 9 373 335 Diels-Kranz, 68 B 170 Diels-Kranz, 31 A 20 501
Cebes, Tabula (II, 178) 429 Diels-Kranz, 31 B 84
1.1-2.2 523 24 Diels-Kranz, 68 B 171 (1, 342, 4-9) 444
Cicero (II, 179) 429 Diels-Kranz, 31 B 84
Balbo Diels-Kranz (1, 342,10-14) 444
11.28 456282 frg. 68 B 297 540 188 Diels-Kranz, 31 B 85
De amic. Demosthenes, Or. (1, 343) 444
49-50 318 37.52 602 Diels-Kranz, 31 B 86
De .fin. Digestae (1, 343) 444
3.21.70, 71 288 50.17.90 170 Diels-Kranz, 31 B 95
De leg. Dio Chrysostom, Or. (1, 345) 444
1.6.19 217142 1.35 3251016 Diels-Kranz, 31 B 132
2.5.11 217143 1.39 325 (1, 365) 430
2.14.36 9836 1.40 325 Frg. 132 103
De nat. deor. 4.15 3251019 Epicharmus
1.115-16 345 38.31 3251018, Frg. 269 135 344
1.115 333 20 3251019 Epictetus
De off 40.24 325 Diss.
1.146 487492 46.1 3251017 1.1.21-25 85593
3.104 261 65.8 3241002 1.1.21 85597
De oral. 74.26, 27 3241001 1.1.22 85598
1.43.193 216 Diodorus Sic. 1.3 141'91
1.56.240 169 17 1.8.5-9 369 1.9 463 332
1.57.244 169 17 1.8.9 369308 1.9.2-8 14J391
2.20.85 631 1.72 549252 1.9.8 480445
Pro Caecina 10.9.8 366 1.9.12 480445
28.81 217 26.22 499590 1.9.19-20 480445
Tusc. 31.1-3 227 1.12.1-3 395438
1.45.108 217 144 31.18.3 113149 1.12.2 395 439 ,
2.13 634401 Diog. L. 396440
2.26.64 360238 1.36 511669 1.14 34068,
3.73 487492 1.51 4 78 427 463 332
4.43-64 308 855 1.76 308862 1.16 463 332
5.2.5 485 482 1.86 495568 1.18 308851
5.10.28 631 1.87 307 848 , 1.25.31 85592
Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus 343 507646 2.1.29 85597
1 387364 6.42 34284 2.1.30-33 86600
4 387376 6.80 474396 2.2.21-26 85599
7 391404 8.17-18 75,462 312 2.4.4 159 38
15-19 394 423 8.22 267542 2.10.5-6 146442
21 399467 8.23 308861 2.15.4-12 640 38
33 411560 8.33 261480 2.15.13 64041
Corpus Hermeticum 10.27 78540 2.16 85594
1.18,21 436108 10.31 78540, 78541 2.16.27 85593
13.7 633397 10.35 78 539 , 79545, 2.17.15 63431
13.8 96 25 , 155 79547 2.18.15 232282

679
 2.20.32 399 47 ' 67 458SOI Od.
2.21.16 195186 71 239'" 0 11.109 34064
2.23.21 77 76 346, 346 117 Homeric Hymn to Demeter
3.2 63" 1 81 346 480-83 97
3.3.20-22 44lf 82 308861 Horace
3.7.25 63" 1 508 308 861 Carm.
3.12.8 85591 Gorgias (rhetor), frg. b 2.16.22 462
3.26 463" 2 Diels-Kranz, 82 B 6 3.1.40 462
3.26.37 480 445 (II, 285, 15-19) 169!S Ep.
4.1.77 291760 Heraclitus 1.4.16 499588
4.1.79 292760 Diels-Kranz, 22 B 17 1.16.31-32 631
4.1.83 85598 (1, 155, 6-8) 444 1.16.40-43 631
4.1.111 85 59 \ 85 598 Diels-Kranz, 22 B 55 Sat.
4.1.132 85594 (1, 162, 11-12) 444 48749S
1.3.25-29
4.1.170 85596 Diels-Kranz, 22 B 72 420627
1.5.101-3
4.6.16 85595 (1, 167, 9-11) 444 Hyginus, Fabulae
4.8 360"'8 Diels-Kranz 22 B 86 495569
220 462
Ench. Diels-Kranz, 22 B lOla Hymn. Orph.
1.1.3 78" 7 (1, 173, 15-16) 443
8.1 34067
1.3 307-8 Diels-Kranz, 22 B 107
8.16 340 67
1.5 77"' 0, 77 581 , (1, 175, 1-2) 443f
8.16-17 340 71
77"2 frg. 28 272604
8.17-18 34067
8 394 Hermogenes, Il€pl CTraCT€WV
Iamblichus, De Vita Pyth.
16 77 581 2.13-14 20649
7.34 238'"
30 308 2.13 206 58
18.80-87 75
33.5 267 2.14 207 54
18.82 5Q66S9
33.7 483£471 Herodotus
31.187 238S4S
51 63" 1 1.30-92 113150
42 462812
52.2 775SI 1.32 98'"
53.1 77"' 1, 343 3.108.2 463 84 443
frg. 3.142 509650 137 395" 0
155 261480
35 511 6.43 600
38 511 7.136 509650 !socrates, Ad Nicoclem
Epicurus 9.66 624 20 334
Epi.stula ad Herodotum Hesiod JulianEp. 40
(Diog. L. 10.35) 76 520 424C-D 114162
Erga
Epi.stula ad Menoeceum 60-105 462, 462' 12 Libanius, Apol.
(Diog. L. 10.124-26) 123284 110-201 462, 462' 12 13 18091' 180 92
Kyriai Doxai 193-94 264 Livy
1 (Diog. L. 10.139) 104 74 282-83 264 3.58.4 276
2 (Diog. L. 10.139) 123 2" 286-93 52214 Lucian
Euripides 342-51 304 Calumniae non Iemere credendum
Bacchae 346-55 604 117 7 631
72-77 98 353 318 944 Demon.
Hippo/. 719-20 633S96 9 139S71
611-14 260466 Theog. Nigr.
611 261481 231-32 260475 13 356
Phoenissae 954-55 103 68 Tim.
1333 420 6" Frg. 8 59855
Gnomologium Parisinum 174 286691 Lucilius
158 501 Homer 754 420680
Gnom. Vatic. Epic. Il. Lucretius, De rer. nat.
18 239'" 0 3.277 34064 4.311-52 445
29 346 5.896 387S76 LysiasOr.
54 346 10.279-80 396 25.20 511

680
Maximus ofTyre, Dissertationes 4.40 334 82 512e 471 879
5.8 362257 6.36 495568 Leg.
Menander Pin dar 4,714a 217141
Mon. lsth. 4, 716d-e 135 844
27 633896 1.52-54 304828 9,857a 227 288
443 617242 Nem. 9, 870d5-e3 286691
582 267 586 7.86-89 304828 9,872e4 286691
Sent. Pyth. 9,873a1 286691
615 529 92 8.58 304828 11, 937b-c 272604
Moschus 318 Frg. Phaedo
Musonius Rufus 121 98 87 ll8a 1454SI
10 308 852 Plato Phaedr.
Orphic gold tablets A pol. 113d-e 229254
A2-A3 229 19b 502 260c 272
359, B.1, line 6 387f"" 23b 502 275b-76a 272
Papyri Graecae Magicae (PGM) 23c 116 279b-c 117 188 , 430
1.127 9625 28e 180 Pol it.
III.394 268556 29a 180-81 309c 630
III.540 270581 29b 180 Prot.
III.599-600 95 24 29c 181 462
320c-322d
IV.604-10 273 38a 118
Rep.
Crat.
IV.605-10 365 275 1 445
274c-275b 273617
IV.1916-17 270585 l.331e 228
396d 273621
IV.2959 452 245 1.7-8, 332b-336a 286-87
396e 273622
VII.836-37 269568 l.332d-336a 306
270578 398e 273
XIII.233-34 l.I25, 36Ie-362a I44
407e-408b 273
XIII.542 39I404 2.372d 499587
407e-408a 273
XIII. 997 -I 00 I 270578 6 445f
420a 232
XXXVII 544209 7 445,446f
438c 273
P. Oxy. I0.6I4a 229254
439b 273618
I, no. 7 I 57 273619 I0.6I5b-c 229
439c
2,no.7 I6I 273620 I0.6I5c 276
440b
I224 298 Grit. I0.6I7cff 395" 9
P. Zenon 220171
49a-e 306 I0.6I7e 3I3, 324 1006
Parmenides 49b-d 28I656 Symp.
Diels-Kranz, 28 A 46 50b-c 18I I93d 334 26
(1, 226, IO-I5) 444 54c 28I656 206d 420680
Diels-Kranz, 28 B4 Ep. 2I8e-2I9a 600 77
(1, 232, 7) 444 7,335a 287710 Theaet.
Diels-Kranz, 28 B7 Euthyd. I73a 28I656
(1, 234, 34) 444166 I4 34I I76a-b 43I, 431' 6
Diels-Kranz, 28 B9 I4c 341" 2 Tim. 448
(1, 240-4I) 444 I4d 34180 28c 502
Pausanias I4e 34J8 1 29-30 43I
I0.28.4 276 280d 430 4I 43I
Phaedrus, Fab. Gorg. 45a ff 447
3.12 496 470e 631872 45d 447
Philodemus 486b-c 287 Plutarch
De piet. 486c 596 Ad princem ineruditum
cols. 109-I 0 345114 50 3d 502 2.780 620272
P. Here. 508 287 Alex.
339 I8J9 6 508d-e 596 7.1 624
Philostratus, Vita Apoll. 509c-5IOc 286 Apophth. Lac., Ariston
1.11 366 509c 596 1, 218A 308861

681
Cato Quomodo adulator ab amico 3.6.43 207 54
15.3 276 internoscatur 4.172-73 634402
22-23 18098 48E-74E 308860 5.10.14 276
Cato min. Romulus 7.5.6 207 58
65.5 624 7.23.1-3 276 7.6 207
Coniugalia praecepta Frg. 7.8.7 206 52 , 207 54
29, 142A 421646 174 308 854 7.9.15 20757
Corio/. Polybius 7.10.7 207"
38.4 495569 5.2.11 624 9.2.98 267
De curios. Porphyry 12.1.19 631
1, 515D 487498 Ad Marc. Rhet. ad Alex.
12-13 342 85 17.34, 1432a33-34 261
De capienda ex inimicis utilitate
De abst. Rhet. ad Her.
86B-92F 308 859
2.15-17 333 22 1.11.19 206 52 ,
De cohibenda ira
Vita Pythagorae 207"· 54
16. 463D 502 618
42 75 2.13.19 170 22
452E-464D 219164,
Proverbia Aesopi 4.49.63-4.51.65 575 28
308860 536155
51 4.50.63 640 37
De frat. am. 123 535144 Sallust, Hist.
478A-492D 220167, Ps.-lsocrates, Ad Demonicum 261478
22
308860 1.29 633896 Seneca
478D-481B 225221 12 588159 De ben.
3, 479D 226 13 261482 1.1-10 606
7, 481C, D 226 29 499 590 , 612 1.1.3 606140
18,489C 226226 31 61 JI89, 1.6.2-3 345111
De gen. Socr. 612 194 , 626 4.26.1 317 988 ,612
10, 580D-F 160 46 34-35 628 840 De dementia
De sera num. vind. Ps.-Piato, Ale. mai. 1.1.2 613
22-32, 563B-568A 135 845 132d-133c 447 1.3.2 613
De tranquillitate animi Ps.-Piato, Ale. min. 1.5.2 613
464E-477F 308 858 138a 420 688 1.7.1-2 613
Is. et Os. 143a 342 1.9.1-10 613
20.359B 420681 150-51 342 1.17.1 613
Liberis educ. 15Iab 420640 1.19.2-4 613
4, 2A-B 62J279 Ps.-Piato, Axiochus 1.19.8-9 613
620272 369B 123284 1.26.5 613
4, 2B
14, lOB Ps.-Piato, Def De consolatione ad Marciam
621
14-15, IOB-12A
415d 6-7 630 22.2 47lf 888
622
Ps.-Piutarch, Cons. ad Apoll. De otio
17, 12D-F 75,622
116C-D 517709 1.4 311 880
17, 12E 496570
102C-F 122280 Ep.
17, 12F 496570
Ps.-Piutarch, Vita Homeri 10.4 366
Marcellus 462812 366290
154 10.5
10.1 624807
Ps.-Pythagoras, Carmen aureum 47 518713
Pericles 261480
2 47.16 472 386
32.1 180 89 28 633396 87.25 530 98
Phocion Pythagoras 88 621
29.4 180 98 Diels-Kranz 31 B 132 90 621
30.2ff. 180 98 (1, 364) 430 47 Sextus, Sent.
38.2 18098 Diels-Kranz 58 B I a 1-8 479 489
Praec. gerend. (1, 450, line 13) 442145 6 479 489
3, 399 D 420629 Quintilian, Inst. 12-14 239 848
4,80IB 260466 2.2-89 622 39 228
Quaest. Rom. 2.9.1 622 248-51 62J276
44, 275c-d 267 2.9.3 622 350-54 496570

682
Sextus Empiricus, Adv. math. Theognis, Elegiae
2.53 113149 105~8 499S90
9.54 340 Theophilus, Ad Autol.
Solon, frg. 3.14 297,298
14 506 6"9 Theophrastus
Sophocles Characteres
Ant. .14.7 420 6"4
331 600 84 3 366
523 308 Desens. 441, 450 221
El. 1-2 444
177 308857 Ulpian, Dig.
Oed. Col. 1.1.10 146441 ,
650 267 229 253 ,276
779 600 Xenophanes
1556-78 476414 Diels-Kranz 21 B 18.2 501
Oed. Tyr. Diels-Kranz 21 B 24
100 276 [I, 137] 340
Phil. Xenophon
811-12 267 Anabasis
frg. 2.5.5-7 265-66
853 502 Mem.
Stobaeus 1.1-2 1454"2
Anthol. 1.1.1 18088
2.7.25, p. 147 334 28 1.1.19 396
2.147 334 29 1.3.1 333 21
33 487 49 " 1.3.2 342 9"
Flor. 1.6.10 117186
28.13 271" 92 2.1.21-34 52214
Suetonius, Augustus 2.2-6 205" 9
76 420628 2.6.21 133
76.3 418608 2.6.35 286,305
Tacitus, Ann. 4.3.10 317 9• 8
5.4 418608 4.36 34285
Thales Symp.
Diog. L. 1.36 511 4 430
Themistius, Or. XI/Tables
7.95a-b 308861 8.4 276
Theocritus, Idyll.
7 [Thalysia], 33-34 617 246

683
2. Greek Words EVuE{3na
333-35,351
af3f3a <q,~p.epos
374-75,388 398
aya8os li.u8punros
630-35
0:0tKE'iV Kat lz.0tKE'icr8at.
286-88,596
0.pKe'iu8at rot's 7rapoVcnv A.a8e fJ•C:,uas
464,485 345-46
G.u€{3na A.&yot
179-81 45, 71, 77, 82, 85,
Cf.uK1JCTLS 184-85
75,85,86,621
p.a87jT~S
{3Af7rf!U 24,61,80,82,560-
82,492,626-27 67,592,619-35,
636-40
yvW8r. o-avrOv p.aKapws
116,267,269 92-97, 155
p.<A<TtlW
otafJA.£-rr<w, 77,79,85-86
82,492,627
OtatluKaAOS uop.l(w
71,82,623,625-35 174,179-80
lito ax~ u&p.os
71, 81, 330 168,177-78, 185,
0tKatouVv7J 187,189,196,334
104, 108, 110, 124,
129-30,131,132, lJA.fJtos
138, 142-43, 145- 93, 104
46, 147, 168-72, Op.tA.la 7rp0s rOv 8E0v
178-79,190-97, 362
286-88, 332-35, Opav
340-43,351,352- 82
53,422,424,483- ?Jq,BaA.p.&s
84,491 82, 439, 442-49,
450-53
E8vtK0s
319,332,347,364, -rrapp7jula
480-81 272,274
f.KK'A.1Jt:T{a '
'7TI.O"TEVEI.V

61,156,564 174
£p.{'JAf7rEIU
82,474,492 rEAos
' '
E7fi.EI.KEI.a 60, 146, 352, 428,
168-71, 194-95, 481-84
207,217,228
f.wwVo-tos 1Jrvx~
32,397-400 108, 118, 134-36,
f1TtTO#l~ 461,469-71
14,72-80,88
el!ayy£A.wu
35, 36, 37, 80-81,
151,156,337,547

684
3. Subjects 583, 584, 585, 599, Eleusis 509,510-16,561,563,
609,610,620 97,98, 122,137 612,624-25,630-34
abba Jewish Epicurus, Epicureans religion
374-75,388 1,27-28,36,38,44, 122,345-46,463 93,126,135,136,268,
addressees 149-50,175,182-83, epitome 333-34,339-40,351,
1-3,17,19-20,23-24, 326-27,580,583,599 1, 14,23,44,47,71-80, 388,461-62,522,529,
44,59,61,70,80-88 name of 88 545,610-11,612,613,
advocate (paraclete) 581 erotic love 617-18
552-56 christology 232,239
agrarian theology 29, 145, 147, 153, 160, Hammurabi, Code of
397-400 174,210,554,555,556, family ethics 276
'Alem1 (prayer) 622 205,225-26,232,288- hearing and doing
391 compendium 89,305-6,325,592-93, 5,66,75,82,84,85,516-
'AI hak-kol (prayer) 14,23,41,47,71 632 17,521,558,561,566,
391 condicio humana, see "human form-criticism 637-39
Ani, Instruction of condition" 40-41,48 Hebrew text
365-66 Confucius function, literary 182
anti-Paulinism 509 14,29,47,60-61,71-72, Heracles
30,553,563 consolation literature 73,80-88 522
Aramaic 120-22,462
heresy
18, 19,25,29, 31,32, 33, conspectus: Sermon on the genre, literary
37,41, 173,500,535,
36,37,38,43, 125,182, Mount 14,19,47,70-80
536,540-41
220,221,374,388,397, 50-58 Gnostics
holy spirit
398,406,440,494,495 conspectus: Sermon on the 74,136,175,176,418-
106-7
Plain 19,436,507,530-31,538
ascent of the soul human condition (condicio
106-10 66-68 gospel
humana)
author, authorship
Cynics 35,36, 37,80-81,151,
ll4-16, 119,120,123,
116, 117, 122 156,337,547
1,4,18-22,44,347-49, 126,129,146,461,462
Greek
372-73
Delphi ethics
image of Jesus
Delphic maxims 133, 138, 139, 225,
Babylonian Councils of 33-36
116,267,269 227, 228, 260-62,
Wisdom imitation of God
Delphic piety 265-66,304,305,306,
309 325,327,335,388,512,
113,333-34,345 307-08,311,325,
Birkat ha-Mazon 516,518-19,611-12,
Demeter 334-35,356,429-31,
313 97,122,617-18 613,614,619
512,586,587,588,
Birkat ha-Minim India, wisdom of
diatribe 592,596,600,602-6,
150,580 466,489 509
612,626
Book of the Dead Dionysos initiation
language
543 99 2, 19,29,31-33,36, 95-100, 122
disciple, see p.a671r~s 43,87,88,125, 126, instruction
catechesis do utdes 182 80-88
29,39,71-72,75-76,87 512,599,617 philosophy Isis
Christianity doxology 14,28,34,47,63-64, 99
1-3,14,29,33,37 414-15 73-86,96,102-3,114, Islam
ethics 115, 117,121, 122, 338
2-3, 214, 254-255, education 123, 133, 134, 144, ius talionis
281, 311-12, 338, 620-21,621-25 150, 167-73, 194, 195, 275-77,277-78,280-81,
512-13, 518,526, Egypt 235,265,267,272-73, 282,284,289,290,292,
597-98,611 literature 286-88,333-34,341- 293,490,512,513,518,
Gentile 365-66,368,434,543 43,369,394-96,436, 595
28-29, 38, 149-50, religion 437,438-39,441,
150, 326-27, 500, 74,92,93,304,365- 442-48,450,452,453, Jerusalem
540-41,546,549,551, 66,484,521,543,545, 463,464,470-74,484, 33,162,222,223,268,
553,556,566-67,580, 558,607,621 485,488,495,501-2, 269,270,360,521,523

685
Jesus Christ 238,239,245-48,252, 344,351,393,401,417, Plato, Platonism
as advocate 265,278-79,281-82, 554,556,559,563 16,108,117,121,135,
552-56 332,338,344-45,351, Merikare, Instruction of 272-73,286-87,305,
as Christian 354-55,389,406-7, 434 306,334,341-42,420,
33-34,36-37 410,442,488,515, Mithras 436,437,438-39,445-
as Galilean 545,560 462,523 48,452,496,596,630-31
18,36-37 Judaizing tendency 29, 30, monastic rules poverty and wealth
as Jew 37,39 9,76 111-17, 429-32, 458,
1,31-37 money-lending
572-76
as speaker Kaddish 602-9
psychology
1, 6, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 390-91 monotheism
232,234,239
23,24,27.29,30,33, 457,459
purity /impurity
34,36,41,80-88,83, law mystery cults
94 93,95,97,98,99, 100, 134-36
13, 16-18, 23, 30, 35, 41, Pythagoras, Pythagoreans
as teacher 47,64,167-73,177,178, 103,122,137,495
182, 186, 187 75,135,267,334,342,
179-81,185,206-7,214,
historical necessities of life 366,442-43,495,501,
216-17,218,229,244-
18,21,95, 109,113, 472-73,481 506,612
51,254,275-77,332,
152,172-73,209,210, 334,346 Neoplatonism
211, 212, 235, 236, 108 Q (Sayings source)
legalism
251-52,256,258,267, numerical symbolism 6-9,24-29,31-45,71,
169
281, 299, 309, 348, 13,23,45,46,62, 102, 80,109,212,213,214,
Luke, redaction and theology
349, 372, 373, 377, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 238,249,299-300,371,
1,6-7,20-21,22,23,24,
410,435 142,201,376,426,578 432,440,460,466,467,
26,28,30,31,32,40,41,
John the Baptist 468-69,494,503,524,
43-44,80,83,213,328,
349,364,373,418,489, Orphics 532,533,559,560,581
559
538 95,96-97,99,135,136, Qumran
Judaism 229,313,324,387,443, 74, 114, 115, 116, 139,
magic
ethics 522,544,549 140,144,210-11,252,
95,260,268,269,273,
190,202,227,602-7 Osiris 267,304
364,365,367,529,550,
religion 93,99
552,593-94
1-3,27,28,33-34,36, redaction-criticism
Mammon
38,39,44,63,64,70- Paul 4,6, 20-30,37-39,40,
458
71, 72, 74,87,88, 121, name of 42-44,48,76-77,109,
126, 134, 160-61, 163, Mani, Manichaeans
188-89 213-14
373-74 10,12,530,531,538,552 theology
Marcion, Marcionites righteousness, see OIKaLO<rvv7J,
apocalyptic 6, 16,30, 33,35,37,
10,37,176,200-1,530, ' '
£1TLELKEta
94-95, 100-2, 114, 88,96, 130,140,142,
132, 136, 140-41, 184, 599 149, 161, 164, 165,
Mark, gospel of secrecy
442,520,522,527, 179, 184, 188-89,193,
24-26,33,34 495-96
587 208,217,218,251,
materialism Sermon on the Mount, name
assimilation 253-55,281,285,293,
454-55,458,480 of
367,480 301,303,323,326-27,
Hellenistic Matthew, redaction and 344,356,485,500, 3,71
116,143,216,234-35, theology 529, 534, 537, 546, Shemoneh esreh
262, 264, 265, 279, 1, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 21, 22, 547,548,553,564-65, 313,390
306-7,332,340-41, 23,24-26,28,30-32,38- 566,567,584,609, Socrates
438-39, 442, 448, 41,43,45,80,83, 109, 610 116,117,118,126,133,
450-51,514-15,632 127, 130, 148-49, 150, Peter, church of 136,144, 145, 150, 179-
mystic 155, 156, 161, 164, 165, 563-65 81,267,272-73,306,
136 174, 175,187, 190-91, Pharisees 398,488,596
rabbinic 203,211,213,214,249, 17, 19, 22, 30, 173, 186, Son of man
94, 136, 144, 150, 152, 256-58,281,285,290, 187, 188,189,191, 192, 148,581,582
176, 196-97' 206, 292,302-3,304,319, 193,194,196,209,248, sons of God
207-9,223-25,235, 320,322-23,327-28, 262,347,541 140-42,324,457

686
soul
106, 108, 110, 118, 134-
36.461,469-71
source criticism
4-7,22, 24,27,40,43,
45,83
Stoics
121,122,133,217,264,
267,288,311,342-43,
394-96,447,452,453,
463,515,612,633
synthema
99, 100

talio, see ius talionis

telos-formula
60,146,352,428,481-84
teachers
82, 185, 186, 188, 189,
622-26
theodicy
313-15,408
Torah
167,170-71,173,177,
178, 182, 183,184, 187,
188,189,197,204,217,
218,517,518,541,553
(see also vol-'os)
tradition, oral
4-7,22,27,31-32,41,
71,83-84
translation mistakes
25, 37
two trees
530
Two Ways
8-9,10,75,81-82,203,
299,521-23,557

universalism
3,87, 164,165,382
Urmarkus
24,26
usury
608

vices and virtues

202-4

687
4. Names of Batey, R.A. Bornhauser, K. 156, 253 429 ' 308 861 '
Commentators and 356 195 221177 324 1006 , 435, 436,436 106 ,
Scholars Bauer,]. B. Bornkamm, G. 437,464 888 , 464"" 9, 468,
251410 48, 65, 72, 424f, 424 9, 470874, 482458, 552275,
Achelis, E. C. Baumbach, G. 424 18 , 425 27 , 426 28 , 520, 578 57 ,615225, 622285,
69,204"' 451f2"' 527 634400
Adamantius Baur, F. C. Bousset, W. Cohen, B.
176 21,22,24,25,26 545227, 58!86 280 649 , 281-82
Albertz, M. Behrends, 0. Branscomb, B. H. Coing,H.
3302 217 214 169-70
AUberry, C. R. C. Bellinzoni, A. Braun, H. Conzelmann, H.
552277 252, 257 468
532 112 251 408 ' 253-54, 272 602
Allen, T.G. Benedict of N ursia Broer, 1. Crossan,]. D.
543207 1312 99 , 213 106
9,76 5712
Allen, W.C. Bengel,]. A. Brox, N. Cullmann,O.
37 297 , 38, 39 376, 376'50 , 550 255 2322 82 , 507 158 80
Allison, D. C. Berger, K. Bucer, M.
Currie, S. D.
49, 65, 423 7, 440"', 251412 18, 81558 284681
450220,450221, 539184, Buchler, A.
Best, E. Cyprian
541 191 714 355 188
11
Alon,G. Bugenhagen, J.
Betz, H. D. Cyril of Alexandria
104 17
42, 72, 73, 543208, 554290 355
Alt,A. Bullinger, H.
Betz, 0.
2786'8 18
36 289 , 49 Dalman, G.
Ambrose of Milan Bultmann, R.
106, 111
Beyschlag, K. 206, 220 172
40, 48, 71 462 , 72, 123,
5 9,76 Daube, D.
Ambrosius 172"'. 212, 317 9"', 322990 ,
Beza, T. 110 ... , 173 41 , 206, 208-9,
254 452 330 2, 349'"9, 512 679 , 515,
Amram,D. W. 18 254, 257 468 , 278607, 280 65 2
517 70 •, 545
Bickerman, E. Dautzenberg, G.
226 228 ' 280 648 ' 282 Burchard, C.
Amstutz,]. 207 266,470 870
49,424
451228 Billerbeck, P. Davies, W. D.
Burkert, W.
22 62, 64, 214, 221176· 177,
Assmann,J. 268
93 Bischoff , E. 423,423 7
Athenagoras 22 Davison, J. E.
Calvin,].
297,298 Black, M. 17, 18, 23, 24,413577, 541'92, 553284
Augustine 159 07 , 602 101 575 27 , 608 de Wette, W. M. L.
3, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16,20, Blau,J. Cardascia, G. 22,24
23,45,46,70,71,76, 106, 282 276 DeiBmann, A.
107,293 774 , 359227,376, Bocher,O. Carlston, C. E. 28 2'"
400480,412565,413570, 535 73479 Delatte, A.
470~~510,511,531 Bohl,F. Carmignac, J. 75
344f 374,409, 410 5••. 412 565 Delitzsch, F.
Bacher, W. Bohlig,A. Chantraine, P. 23, 109
209 530106' 552277 93 6 Delling, G.
Bacon, B. W. Bolkestein, H. Charlesworth, J. 178 79
214 603 74 Denaux, A.
Baeck, L. Boll, F. Chemnitz, M. 52489
22 116188 17 Derrett,]. D. M.
Bammel,E. Bolten,]. A. Chromatius of Aquileia 2 2,474899
so•••, 255 442 493554 11 Diamond, A. S.
Banks, R. Bonhoeffer, D. Chrysostom, J. 276
183 114 574 11, 20, 470' 66 Dibelius, M.
Basilius of Caesarea Borg, M. Clement of Alexandria 40, 48, 72, 232 282, 2726° 2,
9,76 284680 11,71 468 ,86 606 ,87, 103 72 , 393, 613 208

688
Diels, H. 583 106 , 585 129 , 603114, Guelich, R. Hill, D.
267 542 6142 17 , 6162", 618252, 49,178 76 , 183" 4, 220 173 , 534 131
Dietzfelbinger, C. 619 261 ,623,637 8 221" 6, 235 311 ,290750, Hippolytus of Rome
284 682 , 3312, 347129 Flusser, D. 302 808 , 304 824 , 582 99 11, 31 7"". 268 560. 496 5"
Dihle,A. 558 12 , 561'0 Gundel, W. Hirsch, E.
286-88, 309 865 , 340, Francis of Assisi 313 40,41
509 651 ,512,513,514, 76 Gundry, R. Hirzel, R.
515,599 Frankel, H. 239546 260-61,264,267-71
Diller, H. 398 Hobbes, T.
529 95 Frankemolle, H. Haacker, K. 509 648
Dillon,]. and]. Hershbell 36289 234 Hofmann,]. C. K. von
506 689 Fridrichsen, A. Hahn, F. 23
Dinkier, E. 399 542 198 Holtzmann, H.J.
139 Friedlander, G. Harder, G. 22,24,25
Dirlmeier, F. 22
172" Hommel, H.
286-87,306 Frymer-Kensky, T. Harms, W. 340,470
Dodds, E. R. 276 522 15 Horbury, W.
461 Fuchs, E. Harnack, A. von 580 76
Dolger, F.J. 35288
31,32,33,34,35,36,37, Hossfeld, F.-L.
367296
38,39,40,41,42, 70, 201
Dorrie, H. Gaiser, K.
596' 8 Howard, V.
366 290 273-74
Haupt, W. 209
Duchrow, U. Gallo, St.
46350 41" 6 Huber, H.
48
Heinemann, I. 221' 77
Dupont,]. Gerhard, G. A.
261 488 ,366 292 ,481450, Hubner, H.
48,572 471'82
483470 48, 178 78 , 190 159 , 209
Gerhardsson, B.
83575, 33957 Heinemann J.
Ebeling, G.
58 361' 44 , 370f 320 , 373f, Ingenkamp, H. G.
Giesen, G.
374" 9 630"'
Egger, W. 262, 264 505
49 Heinrici, C. G. F. Irenaeus
Gigon,O.
Eichhorn,]. G. 396 442 27,28,34,466,466' 45 , 9, 11
25,47 Gladigow, B. 487, 487 489 , 483 469 , 495,
Epiphanius 103 496, 507 646 , 529, 550255 Jackson, B. S.
115"', 200 4, 253, 268560, Gnilka,J. Heller,]. 227. 278, 169 16
496 57 ' , 498 58 •, 552277 409542 Jacob, B.
108, 376 350
Erasmus, D. Goldin,]. Hellholm, D. 282672
13, 14,34,45,46,47,71, 423 49 Jeremias,].
257 460 , 605 128 Goulder, M. D. Hellwig, A. 27, 162 68 , 163, 213,
Ernst,]. 71 456 • 3 71326 272-74 370 820 , 372, 373"', 374,
349 148 Grasser, E. Hengel, M. 374541 , 388, 398, 410 553 ,
Eusebius 391400 36289, 124242, 130296, 414,494,515,523
535"" Grawert, F. 131 299 ,291758 Jerome
Euthymius 48 Herder,]. G. 11, 398, 398 468 , 623 29 '
20 Greeven, H. 18, 19, 80 554 Johansson, N.
Ewald, H. 469' 6' Hermann, K. F. 554 298
21,22,23,26 1 ~. 108 Gregory of Nyssa 286 693 Jospe, R.
2,72" 0 ,87, 106,376 Herrmann, W. 515690
Falk, H. Grotius, H. 35288
248 389 , 279 640 18 Hefl,J.J. Kahlefeld, H.
Fitzer, G. Grundmann, W. 19,20,23 69
583108 36, 108, 263, 263 49 7, Higgins, A. J. B. Kahler, M.
Fitzmyer,J. A. 393 416 , 424, 424 12 , 572 5, 409 587 35288. 125252
252 419 · 421 , 336 38 , 5712, 580 76 , 582 97 , 582 104 , Hilary of Poitiers Kant, I.
578 55 , 579 72 , 580 81 , 582 10 4, 585 129 11 510

689
Kasemann, E. Lachs, S. T. Luther, M. Meier,]. P.
36 289 , 141, 210 88 2 2, 12424 1, 355 18 ', 36426 7, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23, 375 546 , 190160, 250407
Katz, S. T. 400477 376,412565,469366, Melanchthon, P.
150491 Lagrange, M.-J. 518 711 , 550 255 , 623 16
Kautsky, K. 616 252 Luz, U. Merkelbach, R.
115169 Lambdin, T. 5 9, 42,108,109,113 152 , 100, 549 252
Kieffer, R. 440127 148461 , 14946 4, 151494, Merklein, H.
9416, 9418 Lambrecht, J. 151499 , 153 518 , 153520, 36289
Kierkegaard, S. 49, 69, 5712, 573 14 177 67 , 178 78 , 183ll 4, Merx, A.
460,460 504 ,474 59 8,4764 14 Lapide, C. C. a 189 1"', 193 173 , 212, 352 159 , 599 75 , 605 123 ,
Kilpatrick, G. D. 18 213 112 , 214 123 , 236 513 , 627 53 4, 639 28
214 Lategan, B. 288718, 289, 290748, 750, Metzger, B. M.
Kirk, G. S. 485486 292 768 , 304, 304 825 , 322 990 , 148 456 ,401 482 ,469 365 ,
444 Latte, K. 323 99 ', 347 129, 351'51, 605 124
Kissinger, W. S. 233291 356 185 , 359 223 , 368 30 4, Meyer, E.
36
Lausberg, H. 370 520 ,371 528 ,375 54 4, 349 145
Kittel, G. 389 386 , 39442 5, 416 593 ,
206-7 Michaelis, C.
2 2, 559 16
Layton, B. 418 61 4, 422 650 , 424 9, 109
Klausner,].
468 549 , 504 621 , 530 104 432f75 , 484 478 , 49051 9, 494, Michel, 0.
22
Leibniz, G. W. 516 698 , 520 3, 526 61 , 528 82 , 579 68
Klein, G.
510 532 113 , 532 114 , 532 115 , Mikliszanski,]. K.
355185
Leonhard, R. 535 186 , 539 18 4, 544 211 , 282666
Klein, P.
254455 552 271 Milgrom,J.
5712
Lessing, G. E. 223-24
Kloppenborg,].
371'20 Maier,]. Mommsen, T.
74
Leumann, M. 17664 346125
Klostermann, E.
264510 Maldonatus, J. Montefiore, C. G.
108, 349 159 , 354, 486 488,
Leutsch, E. L. 18 22
574 15 , 574 19 , 581" 9, 618 250
529 92 Mani Moule, C. F. D.
Knox,].
619261 Levine, E. 10,12,530,531 409f
474599 Manson, T. W. Mussies, G.
Kohler, L.
159 56 , 4985 85 Levy, F. A. 214 324-25
Kohler, W.-D. 282 Manson, W.
510, 716, 8", 928 Lichtenstein, A. 578 60 Nagel, W.
Koester, H. 196 Marcion 352160
716, 224208 Lichtenstein,]. 10,37 Nauck, W.
Kostlin, K. R. 17879 Marguerat, D. 157 20
108 Lieberg, G. 520 5, 539 184 Neirynck, F.
Koschorke, K. 63450 Marquardt, G. 612
507 Lightfoot,]. 48 Nembach, U.
Kraft, R. A. 19 Marshall, I. 245566
450221 Lindemann, A. 619261 Neudecker, R.
Kramer, S. N. 494 559 Massaux, E. 248389
480445 Locke,]. 510 Neuhausler, E.
Kruger, F. 510 Mattill, A.J.,Jr. 4915 55
1494 Lohmeyer, E. 52667 Nicolaus of Lyra
Kuchler, M. 108,235511,251409, Maurer, C. 12
74 372 531 ,413 578 483470 Niebuhr, K.-W.
Kurzinger,]. Lohse, E. Maxwell-Stewart, P. G. 71,74
48 206, 208"· 74, 555296, 495563 Niederwimmer, K.
Kuhn, K. G. 555297 McEleney, N.]. 235 511 , 236 512 , 239 349 ,
176 Luhrmann, D. 167 1, 355 183 253-55
Kuhn, P. 41, 42,191165,213106, Mees, M. Nilsson, M.
491 555 297,300 436 540188

690
Norden, E. Riedweg, C. 476 412 , 494 347 129 , 348 155, 349159,
93 11 , 376 495 Schweitzer, A. 37P 27 , 37P 29 , 37655o,
Novatian Riesenfeld, H. 389586 402, 402487' 405507' 412565,
11 429,43267 Schweizer, E. 415£592, 416602, 417605,
Riesner, R. 184 117,424, 559 18 4226 50 , 424 9, 479 459 ,
Olsthoorn, M. F. 49, 65 459' 65440' 83575 Seeberg, A. 484 478 , 489 515 , 490 519 , 494,
476 412 Ruger, H. P. 71 497, 516 698 , 532 11 4, 532" 5,
Opelt, I. 49 }552, 491555 Sevenster,J. N. 539 185 , 542 198 , 546, 552271,
76 Rupert of Deutz 579 71 559 15 ' 559 17' 58075
Origen 13 Singer, M.G. Streeter, B. H.
11, 20, 81 557 , 303 811 , 370, 509648' 509654' 510655 37297, 38, 39, 40
376, 399467,401 482,468, Salomon, M. Sjoberg, E. Stuhlmacher, P.
482458' 550254 169 14 439 125 36 289 , 190 159
Osiander, A. Sanders, E. P. Skeat, T. C. SuB, W.
18,23 2 2, 212 99 477 575 28
Ostwald, M. Satake, A. Smith, M. Suggs, M.J.
553285 148 459 213 106 , 26652 8
48,206
Otto, A. Sauer,J. Soiron, T. Szczygiel, P.
472' 86 290 748 ' 30079•' 30 }798
69 48
Schaller, B.
Spicq, C.
256456
Patton, C. S. 226 226 , 603 108 , 603" 6 Tannehill, R.
38 Schattenmann,J.
Spittler, R. P. 28972 6, 595"
238•..
Pestman, P. W. 450221 Tertullian
Schmithals, W.
607 Stlihlin, G. 11' 200 2, 251 410 , 3118 82,
42540
Pines, S. 239 546 , 603 111 , 603 116 376, 378, 393 41 9, 406514,
543204 Schnackenburg, R.
Stanton, G. N. 412,412 56 5,413,42412,
158'0
Plummer, A. 73479, 73480, 7854' 608
Schneidewin, F. W.
60512>, 6162> 2, 624 Stanton, V. H. Theiler, W.
529 92
Polus, M. 37,38,39 343
Schoeps, H. J.
18 Statts, R. Theissen, G.
204
Pott,D.J.
Schottgen,J. C. 201 431 65
47 Staudinger,]. Theophylactus
19
Powell,J. E. 48 20
Scholem, G.
476£418 Stegemann, H. Tholuck, A.
345" 0
Pringsheim, F. Schrage, W. 35 288 21,22,6~ 108,355 18 5,
17024 620270 Stendahl, K. 376,414,427 54 ,493554
Procope,J. Schrenk, G. 30482°, 424 Thom,J.
307-12 226225 Stier, R. 75, 376' 55 , 428' 8, 455264
Przybylski, B. Schurmann, H. 20,21 148 ,23 Thomas Aquinas
190160 69, 376, 376 ... , 572, Stoll, B. 107, 108
Puech, E. 574 19 , 575, 576.., 576", 3 7, 12 Tigay,J.H.
102 62 576 40 ,577,578 60 , 57965, StrauB, D. F. 233291
58076, 581, 582, 582 10 4, 26 Tilborg, S. van
Quispel, G. 595", 59658, 601" 6, 602100, Strecker, G. 128, 371m, 400480
436,436 110 605127, 609162, 614217, 36 289 , 42, 49, 81 556 , 10582, Tolstoy, L.
614 220 ,614222, 6162>7, 108, 130290, 146 444, 487
Rad, G. von 6192 61 ,620 274 ,623 295 ,624, 148 46 ', 149 46 4, 151 49 4, Torrey, C. C.
161, 16266 626 .. 9, 627'", 627" 9, 15617, 165, 183"4, 440 1"
Radbruch, G. 628 ..1, 637 8 190159, 160, 212104,213-14, Towner, W. S.
171 Schulz, S. 214 122, 219 155 , 235" 1, 10364,170,171, 172• 6
Reiner, H. 167-68, 168 7,274627, 239>49, 265 518 , 266, 26652 9, Troeltsch, E.
511,512,513 371' 25 , 440"' 267 5.. , 268, 2816 61 "66 4, 34
Ricoeur, P. Schwarz, G. 290742, 291752,751, 292769, Tyndale, W.
514 16049 , 397, 398 460 , 40}4 85 , 300, 301' 94 , 32J976, 17

691
Unnik, W. C. van 312 888 , 312889 , 323 998 ,
311882, 600 76, 603 351 151 , 545 225
Usener, H.
73 Zahn, T.
108, 355 18 •, 370!17, 389S86,
Vermes, G. 412565, 482458, 483466
360 Zeller, E.
Vielhauer, P. 2917 58 , 299 784 , 3481S6,
79551 422 65 0, 4315 9,435 100,
Visotzky, B. L. 563 47
16374 Zuntz, G.
Voobus,A. 95, 96, 229 256
594 21 Zwingli,H.
16
Wacholder, B. Z.
210-11
Weber,M.
376, 396 44 •
Weismann,].
284678
WeiB,B.
21,25
WeiB,H.
48
WeiB,J.
580 75
Weisse, C. H.
26199
Wellhausen,J.
31,32,33,34,35,36,37,
69, 108, 125, 128279,
129285, 129288, 439124,
487,574, 580 8•, 5821°4,
584 12°,624
Wendland, P.
481 450
Wengst, K.
139
Wernberg-Mplller, P.
219
Wernle, P.
1494 ,28,29, 30, 31, 34
West, M. L.
304
Wettstein,].].
18, 232 284 , 602 105 ,618 249 ,
619 259 , 623 29 •, 633' 96
Whittaker, J.
600 76
Windisch, H.
138, 139
Wolf, E.
168-69
Wrege, H.-Th.
27,28,213,297,300,

692
 Designer's Notes

In the design ofthe visual aspects of Hermeneia, Half-titles to introduce the volume in question are
consideration has been given to relating the fonn to further derivations from the main title and may
the content by symbolic means. include other expressive or pictorial elements.
The letters of the logotype Hermeneia are a fusion of Horizontal markings at gradated levels on the spine
forms alluding simultaneously to Hebrew (dotted will assist in grouping the volumes according to these
vowel markings) and Greek (geometric round shapes) conventional categories.
letter forms. In their modern treatment they remind The type has been set with unjustified right margins
us of the electronic age as well, the vantage point from so as to preserve the internal consistency of word
which this investigation of the past begins. spacing. This is a major factor in both legibility and
The Lion of Judah used as visual identification for aesthetic quality; the resultant uneven line endings are
the series is based on the Seal of Shema. The version only slight impainnents to legibility by comparison. In
for Hermeneia is again a fusion of Hebrew calligraphic this respect the type resembles the handwritten
forms, especially the legs of the lion, and Greek manuscripts where the quality of the calligraphic
elements characterized by the geometric. In the writing is dependent on establishing and holding to
sequence of arcs, which can be understood as scroll-like integral spacing patterns.
images, the first is the lion's mouth. It is reasserted and All of the type faces in common use today have been
accelerated in the whorl and returns in the aggressively designed between A.D. 1500 and the present. For the
arched tail: tradition is passed from one age to the biblical text a face was chosen which does not arbi-
next, rediscovered and re-formed. trarily date the text, but rather one which is uncom-
"Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its promisingly modem and unembellished so that its feel
seals ... ." is of the universal. The type style is Univers 65 by
Then one of the elders said to me Adrian Frutiger.
"weep not; lo, the Lion of the tribe of David, The expository texts and footnotes are set in
the Root of David, has conquered, Baskerville, chosen for its compatibility with the many
so that he can open the scroll and brief Greek and Hebrew insertions. The double-
its seven seals. • column format and the shorter line length facilitate
Rev. 5:2,5 speed reading and the wide margins to the left of
To celebrate the signal achievement in biblical footnotes provide for the scholar's own notations.
scholarship which Hermeneia represents, the entire
series will by its color constitute a signal on the Kenneth Hiebert
theologian's bookshelf: the Old Testament will be
bound in yellow and the New Testament in red,
traceable to a commonly used color coding for
synagogue and church in medieval painting; in pure
color tenns, varying degrees of intensity of the warm
segment of the color spectrum. The colors inter-
penetrate when the binding color for the Old Testa-
ment is used to imprint volumes from the New and
vice versa.
Wherever possible, a photograph of the oldest
extant manuscript, or a historically significant docu-
ment pertaining to the biblical sources, will be dis-
played on the end papers of each volume to give a feel
for the tangible reality and beauty of the source
material.
The title-page motifs are expressive derivations from
the Hermeneia logotype, repeated seven times to form a
matrix and debossed on the cover of each volume.
These sifted-out elements will be seen to be in their
exact positions within the parent matrix. These motifs
and their expressional character are noted on the
following page.

694
 Category of biblical writing,
key symbolic characteristic, .
and volumes so identified.

,....,..,.
le ,....,..,. . Law
5
New Testament Narrative
I
h0r~<='~<:'ic...
(boundaries described) (focus on One)
I ,....,..,. Genesis Matthew
I ,....,..,. Exodus Mark
I ,....,..,. Leviticus
Numbers
Luke
I ,....,..,. Deuteronomy
John
Acts
I
2 6
,....,..,. History Epistles
,....,..,. (trek through time and space) (directed instruction)
,....,..,. • I""\ Joshua Romans
Judges 1 Corinthians
.. ~<:'~ Ruth 2 Corinthians
,....,..,. • I""\ • ~<:'~<:'1 1 Samuel Galatians
<='r~<='~<='l~ 2 Samuel Ephesians

h0r~<='~<='IC... 1 Kings
2 Kings
Philippians
Colossians
1 Chronicles 1 Thessalonians
. . . -.
,.._.,r.'\
\.;" 2 Chronicles 2 Thessalonians
h r Ezra
Nehemiah
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
<:' Esther Titus
. .<:'. . Philemon
3 Hebrews
Poetry James
(lyric emotional expression) 1 Peter
Job 2 Peter
Psalms 1John
<:' . . <:'. .<:' Proverbs 2John
<:' . <:'. .<:' Ecclesiastes 3John
<:' <:' . .. Song of Songs Jude

" ..
r.'\ •
4 7
Prophets Apocalypse
(inspired seers) (vision of the future)
Isaiah Revelation
Jeremiah
Lamentations 8
Ezekiel Extracanonical Writings
Daniel (peripheral records)
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

695