The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew's first and longest collection of Jesus' teachings, plays a fundamental role in the First Gospel. Just as Jesus' sermon at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30) is the frontispiece of Luke's two-volume work, setting the tone for the entire history, the Sermon on the Mount serves as the frontispiece of Matthew. It presents Jesus as Israel's ultimate, God-authorized teacher and sternly warns the readers that believing in Jesus means doing what he says (7:21-28). It thus anticipates the Great Commission with which the Gospel concludes, in which the apostles are charged: "Go, enlist all the Gentiles as disciples, . . . teaching them to observe everything I commanded you" (28:19-20). They are to be enlisted as disciples, not simply as believers, because their faith in Jesus must be actualized in their behavior.

The basic structure for the sermon was provided by Q, the double tradition used independently by Matthew and Luke (see Introduction). When Matthew's expanded version is compared with Luke's brief Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20-49), it is clear that their common source contained a five-part discourse:

Blessings (and Woes?)                Mt.5:1-12          Luke 6:20-26

Love of Enemies                      Mt. 5:38-48        Luke 6:27-36

Judging Others                       Mt. 7:1-5          Luke 6:37-42

Trees and Their Fruits               Mt. 7:15-20        Luke 6:43-45

Parable of the Builders              Mt. 7:24-27        Luke 6:46-49

From this outline it can be observed that nothing in the middle chapter of the Sermon on the Mount derived from the Q sermon. Certain passages, such as the Lord's Prayer, may have been drawn from elsewhere in Q, since they are found in other contexts in Luke.

The Setting (5:1-2)

Matthew's treatment of the Q sermon gives it more weight than it has in the Third Gospel. Luke places it at a less prominent point on his story line. Immediately following the appointment of the Twelve, Jesus comes down from the hills, stands "on a level place," engages in healing, and then addresses his disciples (Luke 6:17-20). By contrast, Matthew not only makes the sermon Jesus' first important act but he gives it a special significance by placing it on "the mountain." As we shall see in the comments on 28:16, the definite article is to be taken seriously in both passages. Although the Moses typology is not pressed by Matthew, because he regards Jesus as far greater than Moses, he apparently wishes his readers to see the Sermon on the Mount as a definitive interpretation of the Torah delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai.

The weightiness of the sermon is further emphasized by the introductory language: Jesus sits, the disciples approach him, and he opens his mouth and teaches. In these subtle ways Matthew indicates that he intends the Sermon on the Mount to be a christological statement. It not only tells Christians how to live but emphasizes the importance of Jesus. He is not simply "one of the prophets" (an opinion held by some, according to 16:14) but is the Messiah. He sits like a king on his throne, his disciples approach him like subjects in a royal court, and the king delivers his inaugural address, in which he lays out in considerable detail what life in his kingdom will be like.

It has consequently been proposed that the mountain of 5:1 is reminiscent of Zion, David's seat, rather than Sinai. Perhaps neither mountain is intended. In any event, it is important to recognize that Matthew does not represent Jesus as a lawgiver; Jesus does not annul the Mosaic law by substituting a new legal code. As we shall see in the antitheses of 5:21-48, the Matthean Jesus does not abrogate Torah but "fulfills" it by providing its proper interpretation.

If Luke 6:20-49 represents, as many scholars have argued, a short Q sermon, then Matthew 6 has been inserted into the middle of it, that is, between Luke 6:36 ("Be merciful, as your Father is merciful") and Luke 6:37 ("And do not judge, and you will by no means be judged"). The purpose of this added material is to provide further illustrations of what is meant by the better righteousness of Mt. 5:20. Having presented new interpretations of old laws in the antitheses, Matthew now turns to three religious practices by means of which the better righteousness can be exhibited: charitable donations, prayer, and fasting.

The first thing to notice about this section is that the religious practices here discussed are traditional to Judaism and are presented matter-of-factly, The passage does not exhort readers to give, pray, and fast but assumes that they will. What is urged is, rather, a particular manner of fulfilling these traditional obligations.

The three subsections share a common structure. Each begins with a negative example involving the practice of "the hypocrites" and their reward and concludes with a suggestion for the proper fulfillment of the obligation, together with a promise of heavenly reward. To the whole is prefixed a general introduction (v. 1). The repetitive pattern serves to reinforce the basic principle enunciated in the opening verse: the manner in which religious obligations are fulfilled is more important than the fulfillment itself. That is, the passage does not intend to suggest that giving, prayer, and fasting are the most important acts of a proper piety but simply offers these three as illustrations of the principle, which can then be applied to other religious practices.

The principle is very simple. True religion consists in acknowledging that God alone is God. True piety, therefore, comprises practices that give form and substance to this acknowledgment. Giving, prayer, or fasting, if undertaken for the praise it will win from others, is basically irreligious, and the practitioner who pretends to be seeking to glorify God but in fact is intent only on seeking self-glory is a hypocrite.

Charitable Donations (6:1-4)

In contrast to the surrounding Greco-Roman society, Jews regarded giving money to the poor as a religious obligation and not merely a humanitarian one. This perception was grounded in the Torah (Deut. 15:11).

In many societies, ancient and modern, the ability to give away money or possessions in significant amounts is perceived by all as a sign of power. The "biggest man" (or woman) is the one who can give away the most. It was only natural that many in Jesus' day, as in our own, were eager to have others in the community observe their largesse and ascribe to them a social status befitting their benevolence. The times and places of giving were chosen with visibility in mind (v. 2). Using a hyperbolic metaphor, Jesus declared that such persons announced their gifts with a trumpet blast, as when announcing the presence of the king (see 2 Kings 11:14). They get what they want; their public service is paid for in full by the adulation of the witnesses. It is hypocritical, however, to claim that such giving is a religious act. Those who wish to honor God by their giving must exclude this secular reward by striving for secrecy. Again Jesus employs a powerful illustration: "Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing."

The promise "Your Father . . . will reward you" troubles some readers, because it seems expressive of salvation by merits. Two considerations count against such an understanding. First, the implicit context of this and other sayings in the Sermon on the Mount is the gospel of the kingdom (4:23). The imperative is based on the indicative, not on the promise of reward. Second, the language of rewards is not to be taken in so literalistic a fashion. It really says no more than the parabolic affirmation, "Well done, good and faithful servant; . . . enter into the joy of your master" (25:21). The one who gives secretly will receive approbation from the God who seeks such acts of worship.

There appears to be a tension between this passage and the verse that sounds the theme for 5:17—7:12: "Let your light so shine before others, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven" (5:16). The tension disappears when we recognize that 5:16 uses the second person plural, not the second singular as in 6:1-4. Since individuals may be tempted to glorify God by letting their good deeds be visible, it is better to let the community accept responsibility.

Private Prayer (6:5-15)

Despite the reference to the synagogues in verse 5, this passage is concerned not with corporate worship but with private prayers. It was customary for Jews to pause in whatever they were doing about 3 P.M. in order to offer prayers in conjunction with the evening sacrifice in the temple. The structure and the content of such prayers were not prescribed, since they were essentially private. The "hypocrites" are reproached for performing their prayer obligation in the most visible way on a wide street where there will be many passersby. Apparently their private prayers are ostentatious even within the synagogue. In effect, their prayers are directed not to God but to their human audience, and from humans alone will they get their reward.

The allusion to the "inner room" in verse 6 is therefore not at all intended to suggest that Jesus was opposed to corporate worship in the synagogue. Nor should it be taken in a literalistic fashion, since many of his hearers lived in simple homes that lacked such a private room. The point is clear: private prayer must be directed to God alone.

Verses 7 and 8 are probably taken from a different source; they disturb the pattern by adding a second negative example, that of the Gentiles who "pile up empty phrases" or "babble," because they think there is greater effectiveness in wordy prayers. What is here castigated is not length and repetition as such (Jesus is represented as repeating his prayer in Gethsemane, 26:39-44) but a mistaken attitude that regards prayer as a magical means of manipulating God into doing our bidding. Such prayer is truly pagan, unmindful of the nature of God. "Be not rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven, and you upon earth; therefore let your words be few" (Eccl. 5:2; cf. 7:14). Authentic prayer acknowledges that God is concerned about our needs before we ask him (see v. 32).

The Lord's Prayer (6:9-13). The symmetry of the thrice-used pattern of 6:1-18 is marred by the insertion at this point of the Lord's Prayer. In terms of content, however, the insertion is apt. Matthew quite properly regards the Lord's Prayer as a model for private prayer. There is not the slightest suggestion that this prayer was presented by Jesus to his disciples as a substitute for the corporate prayers of the synagogue. Eventually the fledgling religion developed its own distinctive liturgy (albeit one heavily dependent on Jewish antecedents), and in this liturgy the Lord's Prayer later had its place, but it was not so in the beginning. When Didache 8:3 instructs readers to recite the Lord's Prayer three times a day it undoubtedly reflects the Jewish practice of engaging in private prayer in the early morning, midafternoon, and at sunset (cf. Dan. 6:10).

In Luke's introduction to the Lord's Prayer a disciple asks Jesus, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples" (Luke 11:1). Since it must be assumed that Jesus' disciples were not irreligious renegades, we can take for granted that they had been taught Hebrew and how to read the synagogue prayers. What Luke's introduction suggests, therefore, is that Jesus was asked to provide his followers with a model for private prayer, just as other leading teachers and John had done. The possession of such a prayer would distinguish Jesus' disciples from others.

The most noticeable characteristic of the Lord's Prayer is its Jewishness. Almost every phrase has its parallel in Jewish literature. Conspicuously missing are distinctively Christian elements, such as a prayer for the return of Jesus Messiah or a supplication for his church. There is not even an appended "In Jesus' name we pray." For this reason it has been proposed that the Lord's Prayer can be prayed by both Jews and Christians. Indeed, one rabbi has said that the prayer might well have become a part of the synagogue liturgy had Jesus remained a charismatic Jewish teacher. This is not at all to suggest, however, that the Lord's Prayer is simply a collage of borrowed liturgical phrases. It has its own integrity, reflective of the teaching of Jesus. In this sense it is genuinely Christian.

The prayer divides itself into two main sections, consisting of "you" and "we" petitions respectively. The opening lines establish the context in which the requests of the second part are to be understood. The opening words of Matthew's version of the prayer, "Our Father, the one in the heavens," can be found in formal Jewish prayers. Luke's simple one-word address, "Father," reflects Jesus' characteristic way of addressing God as abba (see Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The term was an affectionate one used by small children, but it was also employed occasionally by adults when speaking to a respected older man. It seems not to have been used in prayer. A growing consensus of scholarship maintains that, while Jesus' idiosyncratic use of abba cannot be used to demonstrate that he regarded himself as the Father's "Son" in a unique sense, it does bespeak his theology of the gracious Father who had sent him to eat with tax collectors and sinners. If there had been nothing unusual or significant in Jesus' use of abba, Mark and Paul would not have bothered to transliterate it for their Gentile Christian readers. Although Matthew here elaborates the address, he by no means intends to obscure Jesus' emphasis on the gracious Father. He uses "Father" for God more frequently than any other New Testament writer.

The opening petition, "Hallowed be thy name," is in some respects the most difficult to understand and appropriate. "Name," of course, is simply a way of referring to God. When Deut. 12:11 alludes to "the place which the LORD your God will choose, to make his name dwell there," the author means that God will dwell in Jerusalem. The problem resides rather in the verb. Most English versions, from Wycliffe to the latest translations, employ the subjunctive mood, which is in itself ambiguous. Does the subjunctive express a wish or a hope, just as "Long live the king!" means "I hope the king lives to a ripe old age"? Or is it simply a polite way of expressing an indirect command? Whatever the intentions of the translators, the Greek is clearer than the English. Matthew and Luke employ not the subjunctive but the indirect imperative: "Let your name be sanctified." This indirect command should be taken as a strong entreaty, just like the direct command "Give us this day our daily bread."

Although the petition is addressed to God, the passive voice of the verb leaves it unclear whether God or humans are to sanctify the name. Scholars are probably correct in seeing here an instance of the divine passive, where God is the assumed subject of the action, but this is not made explicit because of a desire to show due reverence (see Mt. 16:21, where "be raised" can only mean "be raised by God," as in Acts 2:24). Support for this position is found in the parallelism between this line and the next, "Let your kingdom come."

It was the theologian Karl Barth who most forcefully insisted that the idea so dear to liberal Christians of building the kingdom of God on earth is an expression of bad theology. The biblical writers make it clear that only God can bring his kingdom; our task is to pray for it and wait. In response to Barth's theology Robert McAfee Brown produced a fine parody of a familiar hymn (The Bible Speaks to You, p. 211):

Despite the parody, Barth's point remains valid. We cannot build the kingdom of God on earth, because even our best efforts toward peace, justice, and community are compromised by sin. Only God can bring the ultimate transformation that includes the radical annulment of sin.

If the petition "Let your kingdom come" urges God to establish his rule on earth, it is probable that "Let your name be sanctified" is aimed in the same direction. It could be restated in more direct language as "Sanctify your name." It entreats God to demonstrate his holiness by compelling all to acknowledge his sovereignty. Since God's holiness is sometimes mentioned in passages that deal with his activity as judge (e.g., Ezek. 38:22-23), it is even possible that in this first petition of the Lord's Prayer, Jesus taught his disciples to implore God the judge to tarry no longer: "Exhibit your holiness by calling the court to session! Let the last judgment begin!"

Like the first two, the third petition is eschatological in its scope. While the prayer "Help us to do your will" is one that every Christian should pray daily, that prayer should not be confused with the entreaty that God act in accordance with his ultimate will for the world.

Because of the eschatological focus of the first half of the Lord's Prayer, some scholars argue that the second half should be seen in the same light: the bread for which petition is offered in verse 11 must be the renewed manna of the end time, or perhaps the bread of the messianic banquet; the forgiveness of verse 12 is acquittal at the last judgment; the testing of which verse 13 speaks is that of the messianic woes which will precede the golden age. This interpretation of the "we" petitions has not won many followers. It seems far more probable that the prayer for bread should be taken in its most literal sense because of its emphasis on today: "Give us today our bread for the morrow." While the first half of the prayer anticipates the grand reversal at God's termination of history, the bread petition addresses the very real need of the poor in the meantime. Ulrich Luz reminds us that this prayer had in mind not all classes of people in Palestine but more especially the day laborers, whose pay, received at the end of each working day, enabled their families to eat on the following day. If they were not hired (see Mt. 20:1-16), their families went hungry. How shall economically secure Western Christians pray such a prayer today? Not by allegorizing the bread and allowing it to stand for all of our material needs. The only authentic way for us to pray this petition, Luz insists, is by identifying with the poor, especially those of the third world, for whom subsistence is a daily concern (Luz, Matthew 1-7, p. 383).

Standing behind the supplication for forgiveness is the centuries-old conviction that the God of Israel is a forgiving God (Ex. 34:7), a conviction that found eloquent expression in the synagogue liturgy of Jesus' day. When the author of Psalms 103 counted up the blessings for which his soul should bless God, forgiveness of iniquity was placed first on the list. Psalms 130:4 observes that God's readiness to forgive is cause for awe. Despite this celebration of God's forgiving nature, however, both the Hebrew Scriptures and later Jewish tradition were fully aware that divine forgiveness is not automatic. God is not indulgently tolerant of moral failure, as when a doting grandfather smiles at the childish pranks of beloved grandchildren. Moreover, forgiveness is not unconditional; it assumes repentance on the part of the recipient. There is no point in a man begging for divine forgiveness for having beaten his daughter in a drunken rage if he has no intention of dealing with his drinking problem. Behind actual forgiveness, however, lies readiness to forgive, an attitude that is constant in God but inconstant in us. Our determination not to forgive another is a form of impenitence that blocks the flow of divine forgiveness. The Lord's Prayer and the attached commentary (vv. 14-15) do not suggest that God's pardon is doled out in proportion to the number of times we have forgiven; it is, rather, that we must genuinely repent our hardness of heart before expecting to receive God's mercy (see Eccl. 28:1-6 and Mt. 18:21-35).

In Jesus' eschatological prayer the petition for forgiveness, like the prayer for the poor, concerns "in the meantime." In the interim between Jesus' announcement of the kingdom and its final arrival those who follow him and pray "Thy kingdom come!" must anticipate the full establishment of God's rule by manifesting God's readiness to forgive.

The third of the "we" petitions is likewise for the meantime. It has sometimes been treated as an eschatological entreaty: "Bring us not into the severe testing of the messianic woes" (see Rev. 3:10). This interpretation should be rejected, because the word that means "testing" or "temptation" lacks the definite article. Taken at its most literalistic level, "Lead us not into temptation" is decidedly misleading. As James insists, "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire" (James 1:13-14). Moreover, it is unrealistic to pray "Let me not be tempted." The Gospels testify that Jesus himself was put to the test at the Jordan and in Gethsemane, and the Epistle to the Hebrews affirms that our Master "in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning" (Heb. 4:15). To be human is to face temptation daily. Many temptations, having been dealt with, no longer exercise any real power over us, but others remain troublesome throughout our lives: And there are unanticipated temptations that catch us off guard and find us vulnerable. It is probable, therefore, that the way most Christians have understood this petition, while in tension with its surface meaning, is nonetheless correct: "Grant me strength to resist temptation."

The complement to the third "we" petition, "but deliver us from evil," since it is missing from Luke's version, is probably an early attempt to understand the puzzling line "Lead us not into temptation." It can be understood to mean "Rescue us from the evil one," since the same words are used to designate the devil in Mt. 13:19, 38, and the devil is known as the tempter (Mt. 4:3). Another attractive proposal is that reference is here made to the Jewish doctrine of the evil impulse, a power within us all that lures us into doing what we know to be wrong. It is more likely, however, that "evil" is used here in a very general sense. Such seems to be the understanding of Didache 10:6: "Remember your church, Lord, to deliver it from all evil."

Nineteen centuries have elapsed since Jesus first gave us this prayer which entreats God to sanctify his name by establishing his kingdom and compelling all to conform to his will, and the prayer remains unanswered. Unless humans are so foolish as to destroy the world by nuclear warfare or unrepentant pollution, it seems likely that human history will continue for centuries to come. Does this render Jesus' kingdom prayer irrelevant? The solution to the puzzle is provided by Mt. 12:28: "But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." Jesus believed that the full establishment of God's rule lay in the future, but the assurance of that future event lay in the present. In his ministry the kingdom of God had already dawned. Barth was right; we must not be so foolish as to think that we can bring in the kingdom. But we can be signs of the kingdom. Only God can truly and ultimately sanctify his name, but we can anticipate God's action by marching to a different tune than the secular world around us. God's name is hallowed as we witness to his nature by caring for the poor, forgiving those who have trespassed against us, and resisting temptation. Implicit in the direct prayer, "Thy kingdom come!" is the indirect prayer, "Let thy will be done in, through, and by me, that I may become an effective sign of the dawning kingdom."

Fasting (6:16-18)

The third illustration of the correct attitude in religious observances is provided by fasting. Among Jews, fasting had an ancient and honored position as a means of exhibiting humility before God and thus securing his favor. David fasted in the hope that God's anger might be averted and the offspring of his adultery with Bathsheba would be allowed to live (2 Sam. 12:22). Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, required fasting of all (Lev. 16:29; see Acts 27:9). It became a general practice for Palestinian Jews to join in regular community fasts when the fall rains did not appear on schedule; the later the rains, the more frequent the fasts.

The teaching of verses 16-18, which assumes that fasting will occur, may refer to the fasts for rain as well as to Yore Kippur. Even in the context of community obligations a religious practice must be engaged in for religious motives and not for the sake of winning the community's approval. The true fast is invisible, because it involves the inner self, in accordance with the advice of Joel 2:13: "Rend your hearts and not your garments."