A Salty City of Light (Mt 5:13-16)

So now that I’ve wrapped up a couple weeks on the beatitudes, it’s time to finally move on to the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.  Following the beatitudes, Jesus moves on to comparing his disciples to salt, a city on a hill, and a lamp.  These three verses are a favorite for missional theologians and thinkers.  The usual application is something along the lines of saying that the images of salt, a city, and light in reference to disciples shows that a disciple is to stand out in crowd and penetrate culture with the Gospel.  It’s the whole being “in the world but not of the world” bit.

The “traditional” understanding is good and respectable.  But as I’m going through this and thinking about how these verses fit into the overall picture (you know, that constant big picture/little picture thing I keep doing), I’ve been struck by the connection of verses 13-16 to the beatitudes.

I mentioned in the previous post that verse 12, with it’s two imperatives, acts like the application of the beatitudes.  In a sense, what have going on, beginning with verse 3, is Jesus stating some characteristics of disciples, followed by a personal application to “rejoice and be glad” (5:12), and then a second application stating the missional results of a disciple (5:13-16).

Sermon on the Mount: Rejoice & Be Glad (Mt 5:11-12)

Ordinarily, an inclusio designates the end of a pericope (section).  However, Matthew goes on to include one last blessing.  There are several things worth noting about this last beatitude:

1. The tone has shifted from a broad address to a specific audience.  In the beatitudes of verses 3-10, there’s what’s called an understood “you.”  While the word “you” is never actually used, it’s non-verbally understood that Jesus is referring to a group of people who are present and sitting/standing before him.  For the first time in verse 11, the 2^nd person plural pronoun (“you,” as in “you all”) is used.  The question that arises in my mind is: Why is Jesus/Matthew all of sudden being so specific?
2. Perhaps more subjective than anything else, these verses “feel” like a summary statement of sorts.  I say this because persecution and prophets have already been mentioned or alluded to (5:10) and there’s a built-in kingdom of heaven reward theme in all the other beatitudes.  Aside from the two imperatives (commands), this beatitude doesn’t seem to add anything not already said in verses 3-10.
3. Speaking of imperatives, the only ones found in the beatitudes as a whole are found here in verse 12.  So often the beatitudes are preached with a clear “call to action” or application.  But the funny thing is, the text doesn’t include an application for the beatitudes; they’re merely statements about what will happen to the various groups or people mentioned.  Whatever application may arise out the text, is implied, not directly stated.  But in verse 12, we’re suddenly given a two-part application with the commands “Rejoice and be glad…”

Sermon on the Mount: The Persecuted (Mt 5:10)

Verse 10 and verse 3 make up what’s called an inclusio.  In rather simplistic terms, an inclusio is the repetition of a sentence, phrase, or idea.  It’s considered a stylistic device that assists in identifying the point of what comes between the two statements.  So it’s a bit like the old Baptist sermon: “tell them what you going to say, say it, then tell them what you said.”  With an inclusio, you have the initial statement, then that statement is elaborated on, then the repetition of the summary statement.  Perhaps you can already pick up on this, but the value of an inclusio to Bible study is that it’s tips you off as to the larger focus or purpose of a section.  Because of the inclusio of verses 3 and 10, we can conclude that the beatitudes, at least all but the last one of verses 11-12, are intended to say something about the kingdom of heaven or those who are citizens of the kingdom or something along those lines.

The early Church revered martyrdom, something I suspect they inherited from Judaism.  There was something inspiring about hearing stories of those who believed in a cause or God so deeply that they were willing to go to the death for it.  It’s typically the prophets who were looked upon in this light, however some great military and religious leaders were also looked up to (Boaz, the Maccabees, etc).  Remaining faithful in the face of persecution is a form of martyrdom.

Sermon on the Mount: Peacemakers (Mt 5:9)

Theologically, I consider the doctrine of imago Dei (image of God) to be one of the most important doctrines in Christianity.  The imago Dei informs our concept of humanities relationship to God and one another.  Depending on your understanding of the imago Dei you either treat all with complete equality and respect, or you show selective favor to certain people, possibly even going so far as to demonize or dehumanize certain groups or persons.  Another side of imago Dei informs our understanding of how we relate to God and can lead to certain conclusions/convictions about marriage.  In short, imago Dei usually has a much greater impact on our worldview and relationships than most realize or admit.

I start here in picking up conversation about the seventh beatitude because of the phrase “sons of God” (huioi theou)

Blessed are the peacemakers because they will be called sons of God.

First, by way of observation, the phrase is idiomatic referring to God’s people in general.  Although gender is present in the Greek and most of the more popular translations, the reference is actually to a broad group that includes both men and women.  I’ll give the TNIV some credit (which I rarely do on this point) for translating the Greek as “children of God.”

Sermon on the Mount: Pure in Heart (Mt 5:8)

The commentaries have not betrayed me this time!  But I need to attack tradition and western culture/thinking.  So far in the beatitudes, Jesus has been teaching all about what is expected of his disciples in terms of personal attributes.  And so far, what he’s laid out has felt fairly attainable if we would just stay disciplined and grounded in him.  But with the 6^th beatitude, he throws something out that seems darn near impossible for even the best person to accomplish.  I think I’d even argue that it doesn’t just seem impossible, it actually is impossible…unless you take figuratively – which is the way western culture is inclined to go with it.

The hinge-piece for this verse I think lies in what we understand by “pure in heart.”  The western Church is highly influenced by Greek culture and thought (logical, philosophical, “heady”), but Christianity has it’s roots in eastern Judaism (holistic, emotional, lively).  Ask the average person you meet on the street (or even yourself and probably every person in your local church) what “pure in heart” means, and what you’re likely to hear is a description of someone who’s motives are right and true, who genuinely cares for those around them, who can be trusted, etc.  It doesn’t get much more Greek/Western than that…

Sermon on the Mount: Mercy/Hesed (Mt 5:7)

Blessed are the merciful, because they will be shown mercy.

This beatitude is bit of a case of “you reap what you sow.”  To those who show mercy, mercy will be shown to them.  It’s reminiscent of Jesus’ words later in the book when he says, “…all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Mt 26:52).

I get the sense as I meditate on these words that the concept really isn’t all that shocking – quite common sense, really.  But at the same time, it seems like it would be shocking in light of the fact that Jesus was speaking to a crowd with at least a few Zealots who were far more inclined to pull their swords and fight to the death over a loaf of Hallah than they were to show mercy to anyone.  So while Jesus’ words in chapter 26 would have made sense and resonated with this crowd, all this talk about mercy would have felt a bit…hippy?

Sermon on the Mount: Hunger & Thirst (Mt 5:6)

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, because they will be satisfied.

I rarely consult commentaries when I study a text.  It’s not because I think I’m smarter than the people who write commentaries, but because I want to avoid being influenced as much as possible and try to see the text as the text reveals itself.  I also find that simply by translating, analyzing, and study the text, tends to bring out plenty of material for me to work off of when writing sermons.

That said, I have been looking at a couple commentaries while going through the beatitudes largely just to get a feel for where the commentators are going.  On this particular beatitude, I’ve been a bit surprised at what I’m finding.  Generally I tend to see much the same things as the commentaries, but this time, it seems like the ones I’m looking at are taking things a bit too literally and missing the bigger picture, and the point.