Sermon on the Mount

[Reactionary]

How do you interpret it? After so much time, I still struggle with understanding its proper context and meaning. While I find some lessons and morals very meaningful and profound, some simply confuse me. I personally think those are greatly exaggerated with the use of hyperboles - it's not that Jesus never used that method. But on the other hand, I know that interpreting something as symbolic can lead to relativism.

Matthew 5:22 - All of us have been angry at some point, it's a natural emotion. Even Jesus himself showed signs of anger on occasions, and I think He even used the word "fool" somewhere. So why mention the dangers of hell?
Matthew 5:29-30 - I'm sure this wasn't meant to be literal. Throwing parts of body away makes no sense, especially because sin originates from the mind.
Matthew 5:39,40,41,42 - I see this as a general rule. I don't think we should, if assaulted, let the attacker take everything without resistance. Or, give everything to anyone who asks, because we'd be left with nothing in no time. Is it then exaggerated because people of the time were prone to seeking revenge?
Matthew 6:25-34 - Hmmm... An entire paragraph about "not worrying about tomorrow". Well, as someone who likes to plan at least 5 years ahead, I find this confusing. Would this be an irresponsible lifestyle? If taken literally, I'm sure it would. Is it then a mere warning about the dangers behind being obsessed with the material?

I'd appreciate some thoughts on this.

[cheezerrox]

Some really good observations and questions here. Jesus really had a knack for saying things that kinda make us do a double take. Hopefully I can contribute something to the study of His Words, and we can all walk away with a fuller way of understanding and applying the Words of the Mashiach.

- For Matthew 5:22, I've thought the same thing. Yeshua displayed some pretty fiery righteous fury during His ministry (John 2:15-16), and indeed called certain people fools, as seen in Matthew 23:17 (not to mention His choice words in verse 33; ouch). Paul called people fools as wll, like in Galatians (all over). So how are we supposed to take this part of the Sermon? I'd say it's more about NURSING anger (as it's taken in the CJB translation). I'd say it's about having contempt for people, and bearing grudges. As you said, anger is an emotion, and not something we can help. But, we still can choose to forgive, and to stop kindling the flames of that anger so that it will die away on its own. We can also choose not to act out of this anger. As far as Yeshua's displays of anger and use of the term, "Fool," one might say that being the Judge of all flesh kinda gave Him a free pass. Or maybe that simply because His judgement was without a doubt true and He Himself was guilty of nothing, it wasn't wrong, whereas it is for sinful men. But, overall, I'd say that He's simply stating that holding onto anger and acting on it, and showing hostility and unkindness to your brother are sin, worthy of condemning you as all other sins are.

- Then with Matthew 5:29-30, I'd agree that it most definitely was figurative. As a hand or an eye can not truly be the CAUSE of someone's sinning, I believe it was more of a metaphor of cutting out certain things that we know are temptations in our lives, such as hanging with certain people or at certain places, no matter how important those things may be to us, as your spiritual health and life are worth much more than whatever you may deem important as a sinful, transient human being.

- Matthew 5:39-42 is a very interesting`paragraph. I'll go verse by verse because of it's length.
I'd say that I actually take it to be quite literal, but, that we should only take what it says and not read more into it. By this I mean that when the Lord says, "If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well," it really is meant literally. But, note, if someone were to smack you (or hit, depending on the translation), that doesn't sound like an attempt to really injure you. It's not as if someone is assaulting you with the intent to do major damage or worse. It's simply a sign of disrespect, a single blow that's not meant to be a brawl. If someone were truly seeking your life or to harm you badly, then I don't think that it's wrong at all to defend yourself. There's even a provision for self-defense in the Torah (Exodus 22:2). But if someone were simply to deliver a single blow, while still obviously wrong and immature among other things, it does not merit physical retaliation, and the Mashiach even charges us to offer the other cheek also (although I wouldn't recommend doing this verbally to said attacker, as they may take this as a taunt, lol). He instructs us to be meek and to react to injustice with submission and without aggression, although not to the point of serious harm to us or others. Although this may seem counterintuitive, it's a command that Yeshua gave us, as well as being the words that He lived by when He was executed.

Matthew 5:40 isn't necessarily about a robbery, although I personally believe it applies to that situation as well, but says that when someone SUES you for your shirt (the garment worn next to the body), then to offer your cloak (an outer garment) as well. Again, this is a command to meet injustice with humility, gentleness, and most centrally, I believe, without a sense of entitlement. It's written in Deuteronomy 32:35-36 that vengeance and justice is Hashem's responsibility, and this is what Jesus is reiterating. Although, again, I wouldn't say that we are to take this to the extreme, such as if someone were trying to rob us of everything that we have, as that isn't what Yeshua said. Also, especially if we have a family, then we have a responsibility to take care of them, and this means protecting our ability to do so. So, I would take it literally, but I would also say not to read too much into the text.

Matthew 5:41 addresses a common practice of the time, which was during the Roman conquest, where a Roman soldier could force subjects to do his work for him. Jesus again supports and commands humility and the purposeful neglect of thought for oneself. In fact, this statement, as well as the previous ones, can be seen as a direct application of His words in verse 16 of the same chapter, "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father in Heaven."

Lastly, Matthew 5:42 I take very literally. Again, I wouldn't take this to mean to give to people until all that you have is gone, but is simply the idea of having an 'ayin tovah, or a good eye, which in Hebrew means "having a good eye," and in Judaism means to be generous (whereas 'ayin ra'ah, having a bad eye, means to be stingy. cf. Deuteronomy 15:9, Matthew 6:23). Again, it's about putting others first and focusing not on the riches of this world and more on the riches of the Hereafter.

- Finally for Matthew 6:25-34, I'd say again that this is meant to be taken literally, but that it's not saying anything more than what it plainly does. Yeshua tells us not to WORRY about these things; not to worry about whether we can eat or drink tomorrow, or about having clothing, and basic things such as this. Not to WORRY about tomorrow. He doesn't tell us not to plan, or to be prepared, or to think ahead, but not to be anxious about these things. He tells us that G-d provides. Not just for us, but even for the birds and for the`"lillies of the field." So, if the Lord provides for them, how much more does He care for us? And if He cares for us that much more, how much more will He be sure we have what we need? Yeshua sums it up pretty will with verse 27, "Can any of you by worrying add a single hour to his life?"

So, I'd say it's pretty much more about how we take the word, "worry." When He says worry, He doesn't mean "be concerned with," but, "be anxious about."


Hope I helped a little bit.

[narnia4]

Not a thorough exegesis here, but just a few thoughts.

For myself, in cases like this its helpful to try to discern the spirit in which these things were meant to be taken (and I know that sounds pretty obvious). Like "Don't worry about tomorrow". Does that mean "no planning"? That doesn't seem to fit. I would take it more as a "trust in God" type of thing. Take the example of a student who needs to take an important exam. He should "worry" as little as possible, he shouldn't get agitated. A Christian student can even turn the situation over to God. He can do that AND study for the test and make sure he gets there on time and is overall prepared well, etc. So I don't take it as some sort of "live in the moment" thing, but more of a control issue. Do all you can, but "que sera sera".

That's one example, the others are various examples of sound principles that are, as you say, exaggerated or illustrating general principles. Matthew 5:22 is interesting, might comment on that later on.

[Reactionary]

You've helped both. Thank you for your time, guys.