Matt 5.1-5. You are blessed! Repent!
- samuel stringer
- Jul 30, 2020
- 26 min read
Updated: Feb 26, 2022
Hagner says we must step into the past to understand the original listeners. He says Jesus pronounces the people blessed by God and tells them they are the recipients of the coming Kingdom. My reply: no, no, and no.
Kannun Hall in ruins, Bangalore, India.
Donald Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary
Introduction, page xliii
The supreme responsibility of the commentator is to the text as it is. For the exegete, the text is an autonomous datum. The autonomy of the text here does not mean that the text warrants any interpretation of it whatsoever. Such a view can only undermine the text. On the contrary, the text is meant to be sovereign over the interpreter, and the exegete is first and foremost the servant of the text—i.e., of the meaning of the text, or what the text wants to be and to say.
Hagner might sound as if he is concerned about scholarly distance: that he wants to keep himself out of the process. But he is very much a part of it. He is part of it because he is part of the lineage. He was taught by the people he trusted and believed, he teaches people who trust and believe him (and their agreement reinforces what he believes), he reads people who live and teach within the lineage... he is an academic product wholly and solely created inside one train of thought.
The reaction might be: sure, he’s not Catholic or Orthodox or liberal or heretic, or even overly conservative. He’s a reasonable, reasoned, thoughtful, highly educated, devout person who has devoted 15 years to studying the Sermon on the Mount. What’s wrong with that? Plenty.
First, he is afraid of the right answer. He claims to be a mediator but he is in fact a facilitator. People want to see a certain thing in the text and he obliges them. He says his first and main purpose is to discover what the text meant in its original setting, but what he actually means is to master the language, society, and history. Hagner thinks that a person fluent in the languages with a deep understanding of how the people lived, the social movements of the day, other cultures, the history leading up to the time, and all the other factors qualifies him to explain what those people were thinking when Jesus spoke. Possibly true. But, does that mean Hagner knows therefore what Jesus was thinking? How does a person know that by studying? We assume we know by virtue of having the Spirit. We convince ourselves that our minds are renewed and transformed: that we are able to discern the will of God. We convince ourselves that God is at work in us, enabling us to will and to work for his good pleasure. We convince ourselves we are not infants: that we can handle solid food.
Hagner claims that the exegete is first and foremost the servant of the text, that the text is sovereign over the interpreter. But then in his first explanation of the text, in 5.1-2, he says that “this is probably a deliberate attempt on the evangelist’s part to liken Jesus to Moses.” How is this exegeting the text? Jesus doesn’t say it, Matthew doesn’t say it, there is no hint of it from the disciples or the crowd or the critics... only Hagner says it. And he says it because he’s stumped. He has to come up with something so he comes up with that. Just to be a bit novel, or to appear more academic, or to place himself within the stream of other academics: but not to exegete the text.
What’s the harm? Possibly he is looking at the entire picture and the book of Hebrews or something in the Old Testament. No one expects Hagner to exegete Matthew 5.1-2 from just Matthew 5.1-2, right?
Right. But possibly he could exegete the text before he starts inventing. He posits the Moses idea not for the sake of the text but for the sake of his commentary, and by doing that—and then also focusing on the Torah—he sends himself on a trajectory that will not bring him to the text. He wants to see Moses and Torah, so he does, and he stays there.
Why not explore reasons that Jesus would sit down? Does it mean something? Does it link him to Moses? Did Moses sit to teach? Did Moses have disciples? Did crowds follow Moses to hear him teach? Where is the similarity? Is it something about being on a mountain? But God told the Israelites to stay away from the mountain, and to not even touch it. Is this is a new, friendly mountain? Moses, who was only a man, was allowed up a sacred mountain but Jesus, God in the flesh, picks a regular, non-holy mountain?
Hagner might be right, but he has no argument for why he says what he says. He asserts he is a servant to the text and then pays no attention to it. He says the text is sovereign over the exegete and then says whatever he wants, even though the text says no such thing.
If he is off the path on the first two verses, what chance is there of him leading us in the right direction?
His assertions are just words: assurances that he knows what he’s doing and where he’s taking us. He repeats what all other exegetes say, because it’s expected. But he doesn’t actually do it. Not in 5.1-2. Not in the verses following.
Hagner was sets on the trajectory by his teachers and will not change course. He will not say his teachers were wrong; he will not say his heroes are wrong. He is on a tree with no branches and will not change unless he somehow, with great effort and pain and loss, sprouts a branch that heads in at least a 90 degree direction away from the others.
Exegesis is simple. What the text wants to be and to say is "do it". If you don't understand what it says, fine, don't do it. If you don't understand how Jesus could send out the Seventy with no purse, bag, or sandals, and why he told them to greet no one on the road, fine: don't do it. God can wait. But, it is not necessary to understand what a lawyer or Levite or a Samaritan is, what "inherit eternal life" means, how much two denarii is in today's money, of how far Jericho is from Jerusalem in order to obey. Jesus said "Go and do likewise". Understanding Luke 10.25-36 is not necessary for you to do what verse 37 says.
It is not important to understand everything before doing anything. Do what is understandable. God will be happy with that. What he doesn't like is the person who says it can't be done until the questions are cleared up. Don't wait to clear it up; go on to the next chapter and do that.
About Hagner's contention that we must step into the past to understand the original writer and the original reader:
The commentator must help the reader as much as possible to step into the past by providing at least the rudimentary knowledge necessary to comprehend what the original writer said to the original readers and then lead the readers to a line-by-line understanding and appreciation of that meaning as well as, of course, of the work as a whole.
Wrong. Wrong. Really, really, really wrong. For oh so many reasons. First, assume that you were able to step into the past and watch Jesus on that mountain, and the people, and stand behind Matthew years later as he wrote, and be in the church as they meet to read his letter to the group. If you were fluent in Aramaic and Greek, knew first-hand the first century Jewish and Roman culture because you were there to see it, and listened in as people listened and questioned, what would it change? If you saw and heard Jesus on the mountain, and watched Matthew pen his gospel, would that change how you live? Would you give to everyone if you heard Jesus actually say it? Would you not worry about your food and clothing and your life if you were in that crowd on the mountain?
You shouldn't answer that question. If you say you would be changed, then you're admitting you don't really believe that Scripture is the word of God.
Second, everything you need to know is in Scripture, is simple words. You don't need to understand what they thought about the Kingdom or salt or light or the law or the altar or prison or swearing oaths or almsgiving or anything else. You can do everything God expects without knowing any first-century history and culture. You say you need to know because learning is a justifiable reason for never taking that first step.
Third, when you agree to step with the commentator into the past you are agreeing to head in his direction. He was set on his path by his pastors and teachers. Now that he is a pastor or teacher, he will set you on the only course he knows: a lifetime of always learning but never arriving. Learning is not the important thing. Doing is the important thing. If you set out on the path of learning, you will almost certainly stay there.
Fourth, the commentator is not so interested in telling you what Scripture says. He wants to tell you what he knows. He has been studying for years, decades, and is desperate for other people to make it all worthwhile. He wants you to understand him. He is a teacher and his drug is finding an outlet for all his knowledge—and you're it. If you think that's unfair, go on to point 5.
Fifth, the proof that learning all this stuff will never put you onto the path of Christ is that he spent years learning all these things and he's not there. He thinks his education obliges upon him to teach others. Once people get a graduate degree, they consider their education too valuable to not pass on. So what we have is one class of the super-educated who see themselves too educated to do the work, and another class who are think they are not educated enough to do it. What level of education is it that equips you for the work but not so much that you are too valuable to do it? It is a desperately fine line.
Sixth, Christ took his disciples from the uneducated and warred against the experts. Paul, who was an expert, walked away and called it all garbage. Paul understood his culture and people perfectly—and got as far away from it as he could. He was a Hebrew of Hebrews, Pharisee, a Roman citizen. If he called it garbage and walked away in order to gain Christ, why do we think we'll gain Christ by walking in?
Seventh, the people Hanger wants us to study spoke Aramaic and Greek better than him, they were intimately familiar with first-century culture, and they saw heard and touched Christ. And they didn't do it! What do we need to know about them except they didn't do it?!
Eighth (I said there were a lot of reasons), he can't give it up. If he had to spend 10 years in some far off place where no one cared how much he knew, or worse: treated him like nothing, he would shrivel. He needs his doctorates. He needs his students. He can't imagine a situation where he would not be regarded as an authority. His path is restricted to what fits his education, which is the strongest proof that, just like his wealth, he should get as far away from it as he can. A thousand people could do his job but there are a thousand jobs no one does. He is equipped for anything but chooses the thing God doesn't need.
Ninth, it is not true that learning the languages, historical setting, politics, and culture will help to understand the original writer and the original reader, and therefore better understand the text. Learning French and studying 19th-century culture, warfare and politics does not place you into the mind of Napoleon. Knowing English and studying the slave trade does not make you an expert on the American Civil War. Why people do things is complicated. Their culture and political situation is part of it, but the simple fact is that people almost always do what they want and don't do what they don't want.
Tenth, even if traveling into the past that might help you understand the original reader, it does not help you understand the original writer. Scripture was written by people who did it. They didn't invent the letter as they wrote it: they wrote what they were living. Not once did they finish a paragraph, sit back, and exclaim, "Wow, I didn't know that!" They knew it. They knew it because they were doing it and their motivation was to get other people to do it. They would have been horrified to find out people were conducting study sessions to discuss what it meant. To claim we can understand the writers by studying their writings is absurd. You get into their minds by doing what they did.¹
Last, being an expert on languages, hermeneutics, history, and culture does not qualify to lead people. It only makes you an expert on languages, hermeneutics, history, and culture. We need people who know these things, but they absolutely must stop teaching once they reach the end of what they know. The person who leads soldiers into battle is the one who has done it, not someone who studies history. The person who coaches ice skaters and gymnasts and boxers for the Olympics is the one who does it, not someone who knows languages. Telling people how to do something is legitimate only if you do it. Most teachers and professors have never been outside the classroom. That is not doing it, and it expressly disqualifies them from telling people how to do anything except succeeding in school.
You set out to write a commentary and struggle to find something to make you different (but not too different, because people on the fringe are ridiculous). You're a pastor and every week you hit the same wall: writer's block. You can't bore your people. You want to say something new, but there's not much in your commentaries and theologies that is both new and within the borders.
Quit your job. Spend 14 years doing anything but teaching. Tell no one of your education. Change the subject if anyone asks. Find out what it's like to not worry about health insurance and life insurance and savings and pensions. Find out what it's like to give to anyone who asks. Find out what it's like for people to treat you like they treat God: like you have treated God. When you come back, if you come back, you’ll have plenty to say.
That's absurd, you say. Why give up all this for no reason? Because you already spent 14 years getting what you wanted (four years of Bible school, four years of seminary, six years for your first doctorate) and your intention is to pile on a couple more degrees. Stop. You got what you wanted. Now give God what he wants.
Matthew 5.1-2
When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying:
Hagner, page 86
There is probably a deliberate attempt on the evangelist’s part to liken Jesus to Moses, especially insofar as he is about to present the definitive interpretation of Torah, just as Moses, according to the Pharisees, had given the interpretation of Torah on Sinai to be handed on orally. The evangelist, however, does not press the Moses typology. For him, Jesus is far more than a new Moses, and his teaching is not to be construed as a new law. Indeed, Jesus can teach as he does because of his unique identity as the Messiah, the Son of God. His teaching alone, and not that contained in the Pharisaic oral tradition, penetrates to the full meaning of God’s commandments. Thus Jesus majestically assumes his authority as teacher and begins in a definitive manner to expound the way of righteousness to his disciples.
No. Matthew says nothing about Jesus as Moses: new or better or any way else. Matthew says nothing of it, much less press it. Sitting down is not the sign of Moses. Was any teacher who sat on a hillside a new Moses?
Nor is the Sermon on the Mount a definitive interpretation of Torah, or a refutation of the Pharisaic oral tradition that “penetrates to the full meaning of God’s commandments” (yuk), nor is Jesus majestically assuming his authority as teacher. What silliness. Israel is a nation of slaves and things are about to get worse. Much worse.
The people want to be delivered, but they don't want Jesus (they didn't want Moses either). They want the Romans drowned in the sea, but Jesus says they are the ones who will have a millstone put around their necks and thrown into the sea. The problem is not Rome, the problem was not Egypt, the problem was not Babylon.
Yes, Jesus came to save his people. Yes, he would bring good news to the poor, release the captives, bring sight to the blind, and let the oppressed go free. But, they are their own oppressors. They are blind because they have blinded themselves. The problem is not they they don't like being slaves of Rome; the problem is that they don't like being slaves of God.
This is not a gentle sermon. Jesus would never sooth the people with gentle words when they face extinction. He said “you are the salt” as an accusation, not a commendation. God made them the salt of the earth: an awesome honor, and they tramped it underfoot. So now God will use their actions against them. God made them the light of the world, and they hid that light. They were granted the opportunity for the whole world to glorify God because of them. What a remarkable privilege! They didn't do it so God has sent the Light to them. They cannot avoid it. They must look. God insists what was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah is fulfilled in their faces, with no way to shut their eyes, with no way to say they couldn't have known: the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light.
Christ says “be perfect” because they aren’t. He says “do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth” because they are storing up treasures on earth. He says “enter though the narrow gate” because they are standing outside, waiting to just walk in. The people of God are far away from God.
Jesus began his work by proclaiming, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” In chapter 4 he tells them to repent and in chapter 5 tells them the kingdom is theirs?! Impossible. Jesus is not undermining his own message (and John's) by telling the people everything is fine. Everything is not fine. He is telling them they will be destroyed if they continue following their thousands of teachers. There is only one Teacher. one Shepherd, one Way. One solid rock.
This is not a calm man sitting in the shade of a tree with a blue sky and puffy white clouds in the background. He is not speaking gently to people who smile at the person next to them and nod and hug in agreement. They are in deep, deep trouble. The only way out is through the narrow gate: the gate almost none of them will take. The narrow gate is the gate that takes them away from their religion and everything they know to be true and safe. The narrow gate is the start of a long, difficult path back to God.
Yes, their teachers are wrong, and yes, Jesus confronts them head on, but his words are not “the definitive interpretation of Torah.” Is it really a new reading of the Torah to tell us we should not commit adultery? Do we really need a new Moses to tell us we shouldn’t be hypocrites? Did the Messiah really need to come for the people of God to be know they should act like the people of God?
They need to be confronted, shown the evidence, declared guilty, given their sentence—and then offered an alternative: three years in rehab, the rest of your life in unpaid community service, and no falling off the wagon. Refusing the alternative, they will serve their sentence. The sermon on the mount is that: a last-chance intervention. It is not a cross-stitch wall hanging.
Matthew 5.3-8
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Hagner, page 96
The beatitudes are a bold, even daring, affirmation of the supreme happiness of the recipients of the kingdom proclaimed by Jesus. They are thus based upon—their truth depends upon—the fulfillment brought by Jesus and already stressed by the evangelist. Indeed, it is a part of this fulfillment that the good news comes to the poor and oppressed, the grieving and humbled, those who hunger so much for the revelation of God’s justice.
Hagner gets off on the wrong foot with his flowery depiction of the crowds. “Supreme happiness”? How? Where? If Jesus is here affirming them as recipients of the Kingdom, then there was no reason for him to be on that mountain. Some of them will abandon him when he makes too unsettling claims about himself. Some of them will be in the mob yelling for him to be crucified. Most will not enter through the narrow gate. Most will not survive the destruction just 40 years away. "Those who hunger so much for the revelation of God’s justice"? What is Hagner talking about? The revelation of God's justice will be their destruction! The harsh future they face is being persecuted by their own people or being killed by the Romans. Both are bad, but nowhere in Jesus' teachings is there a hint that God is going to reveal his justice in their favor! That's insane.
There is no hint that Jesus is characterizing the people as meek, merciful, and pure. Jesus says that such people are blessed, but he does not say—not at all!—that these people are!
Jesus is telling them what the expectation is, not congratulating them that they had met it. He doesn’t even use the word “you” until v.11. Until then he says “they” and "theirs" and "those": impersonal terms that speak not to you, but to someone else. This is not good news. His Kingdom does not welcome them as they are.
Hagner, page 96
A turning point has been reached. The time is at hand, and these needy people, so dependent upon God, will now have their needs met. For this reason they are pronounced happy, blessed. The reality of the kingdom causes this new, unexpected joy.
Really? Jesus is saying that the time is at hand, that the poor will now have their needs met? How? The much more straightforward reading of the text is that their needs will not be met. In every case Jesus says “will”. It is a strange interpretation of “will” to mean “now”, for in its most common usage it means “not now”. And, he tells them that they could face persecution—with the warning that until now the prophets were treated badly, so they should not expect better treatment.
There is nothing in Hagner's remarks that comes even close to the text.
Hagner, page 96
And that kingdom sets these people upon the way of righteousness, peacemaking, and inner purity.
Nonsense. Inner purity? Where? Certainly not in his own home. Who? The Twelve? Jesus’ brothers? Mary? Hagner his playing the “Jesus of Nazareth” movie in his mind and sees Olivia Hussey gliding through the scene with a fixed expression on her face.
Christ reverses the expectation and Hagner reverses it back. Christ points to the narrow gate and Hagner says everyone is getting in.
No, they're not!
Christ says the kingdom is for people who are poor in spirit and who are persecuted for righteousness' sake. Hagner says no, the kingdom is yours: it sets you on the path of righteousness, peacemaking, and inner purity. These are very much not the same thing.
It is not those who want peace who get in, but those who make peace. It is not the righteous who get in, but those who hunger and thirst for it. It is an easy thing to find peace if you're in a place of peace. It is an easy thing to find purity if you're in a place of purity. But God wants people who make peace in the midst of mayhem, who keep themselves pure in the midst of filth, who remain poor in the midst of wealth. He wants people who stand against the world, not people who live in it, and certainly not those who embrace it.
His Kingdom is pure because only the pure get in. The quality is confirmed at the door, not bestowed once everyone floods in. It is his Kingdom, and he protects it passionately. There is one Door, and he insists that people use it. It is his Law, and not one jot or tittle will be compromised for people who think it is too strict.
You can build your own kingdom with your own rules if you like, but if you expect to be in his, you do it the way he says.
Hagner, page 96
What must be stressed here, however, is that the kingdom is presupposed as something given by God. The kingdom is declared as a reality apart from any human achievement. Thus the beatitudes are, above all, predicated upon the experience of the grace of God. The recipients are just that, those who receive the good news. Because they are the poor and oppressed, they make no claim upon God for their achievements.
Well, sort of. He starts off okay but then veers off. We can agree it is given by God (though Jesus doesn't say so here), and also that it is apart from human achievement (though again, Jesus doesn't say so here), but we get a bit off-kilter when we say it is "predicated upon the experience of the grace of God". That's the problem with explaining Scripture with ideas not in the text. He is preaching, not explaining the text, and when the preaching overpowers the explanation we get into trouble.
Saying it is "predicated upon the experience of the grace of God" (which Jesus definitely does not say here) insinuates it has something to do with human achievement. Saying it is the grace of God full-stop is fine (though again, we're preaching, not explaining), but adding "the experience of" makes it no longer the "grace of God" because the grace of God isn't enough: people also need to experience it. What is this experience? An emotional one? Some proof that God has blessed you? Such as the sun warming you and the rain watering your crops? Scripture seems to say that the gifts of God are his, and he makes sure everyone experiences them. Possibly Hagner means a special kind of experience, but again: once we start preaching we get into murky territory. Jesus says nothing about it and it doesn't square with what Jesus says later in the same chapter.
Hagner says that "the recipients are those who receive the good news", which we need to agree is a starting point but not the end. We are not forcing Hagner to give a full definition in just one paragraph, but still: he wants to make it not about achievement and so he lists the poor and oppressed as examples of people who make no claim upon God. But is Jesus concerned about the kingdom not being based upon achievement? Is Jesus saying that the kingdom is predicated upon the experience of the grace of God?
The quick answer is no. Hagner is not explaining: he's preaching, and so he is making it complicated and unclear. We need to get back to the point. The point is this: It's not about you! The kingdom if God's kingdom. He can bring in whomever he wants, regardless of experience or poverty or anything else. That is the clear, loud, shouting message of Scripture! God does it, as he wants, with no regard for who was born first or second, or anything else. Defining for him what he means is always a dangerous thing. Defining it badly is risky territory indeed.
Hagner has a knee-jerk reaction against works. He insists it is faith alone, grace alone, an unmerited gift, and so on, and so on: words he finds in the word of God to tell God how things are going to be. He explains the kingdom from his perspective and so it requires a lot of explanation. From God’s perspective, things are simple: He gives the kingdom to whomever he wants. Jesus is not making rules. He is telling us what God is like. Seriously, he is. He says so, at the end: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." The point of everything up to that final verse is to tell us what makes God happy. Not doing them makes God unhappy. The point is not that God wants happy people in his kingdom; the point is that God wants to be happy. It is good if we are also happy, but he wants people to first be like him. If they do that, then yes, they will also be happy, but right now God is not happy and the happiness of the people on that mountain is his least concern.
Saying that the poor and oppressed make no claim upon God for their achievements is a noble native view of things: the rich are corrupt and deceptive; the poor are innocent and simple. No. The poor can be every bit as corrupt and deceptive as the rich (work with the poor for 10 or 20 years if you don't believe me). They are poor because they don't have as much money as the rich, but they are cut from the same cloth. They would take the money if they had a chance.
Jesus was not looking for people who were poor by accident of birth or the bad fortune of life. There is nothing sacred about poverty or oppression. It's a better starting point for the work of God than wealth, but people can go any direction regardless. "Poor in spirit" is someone who is poor and knows the necessity of staying there. A person who is poor while awake but rich in his dreams is not the same thing.
A rich man might be honest enough to use what God gives him the way God wants, but chances are, he won't. He won't because he already has wealth and has kept it. A poor man might be honest and use what God gives him as God wants, but chances are, he won't. But, at least the poor man starts fresh, with no addiction. He can become addicted once it is put into his hand, but the rich man needs his wealth. He cannot get clean without an extended, painful, wrenching rehab.
It is impossible for a rich man to be poor in spirit because he's not. It is possible for a poor man to be poor in spirit, but it's not a given: it's just a better beginning point. The Twelve gave up their homes to follow Jesus, but that wasn't wealth. They gave up the comfort of coming home at the end of the day, but the house itself wasn't much. Jesus had to teach them how to be poor in spirit, and a large part of that was living with him, but still: they started poor. The distance from poor to poor in spirit was not as far as for the rich young ruler, for instance.
Hagner, page 96
They [the poor and oppressed] do not merit God’s kingdom; they but await his mercy.
If the rich await God’s mercy, are they also qualified? Who says the poor await God's mercy? Maybe they await getting rich. This is all supposition and makes no sense.
Hagner, page 96
This emphasis on God’s mercy is essential at the beginning of Jesus’ teaching, especially at the beginning of the present discourse with its description of the righteousness of the kingdom, which has all too often been taken as involving a new nomism. But here, as throughout God’s dealings with humanity, grace precedes requirements. It is true that the beatitudes contain implied ethical exhortations. Indeed, the traits of those who are proclaimed “happy” could well be taken as a description of the behavior of Jesus himself. Yet this ethical side of the beatitudes remains distinctly subordinate to the indicative aspect that is directly related to the announcement of the kingdom.
These declarations of happiness are to some extent a manifestation of realized eschatology. The remarkable tension throughout is, caused by the temporary delay of the final consummation. In this interim period those who may appear to enjoy anything but the favor of God are paradoxically pronounced blessed. In their present condition, and even as they experience intense persecution, they are already accounted as supremely happy. Salvation has begun; their time has come, and this assurance of the future is meant to transform their present existence.
Hagner says "this emphasis mercy is essential at the beginning of Jesus’ teaching." No, it's not. Jesus talks about God's mercy here in 5.7, and in 9.13 and 12.7 (I desire mercy, not sacrifice). Jesus accuses the people of not showing mercy (18.33: "Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?" and 23.23: "you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith"), but three direct statements and a couple more oblique ones does not constitute an emphasis. In might more accurately be called a lack of emphasis. "Adultery" and "adulterous" occurs nine times and no one would say that was an emphasis in Jesus' teaching.
Hagner is afraid to mention the word “works”. He says that “grace precedes requirements” (for no reason: why must he flinch at the words of Christ?) and follows it up with “this ethical side of the beatitudes remains distinctly subordinate to the indicative aspect” to push any human involvement as far down as possible. Nonsense.
Hagner sees the work of God from a human standpoint. He sees grace as a gift, with people for the rest of their lives steering themselves far away from the boogie man of "works", because we all know what happens then! Oh no!
Relax. God does what he does because he wants to. He is impressed neither with grace nor works. There are things he wants to accomplish and he offers people the opportunity to do that. But thinking we please him by huddling dead-center in grace and far from the disease-ridden boundary of works is silliness. God, Christ, or Paul never said anything like that. We invented it.
Hagner admits there are “ethical exhortations” but call them “implied”, even though they outnumber and outweigh his so-called “indicative aspect to the announcement of the kingdom”. He offers no support for his self-proclaimed emphasis on mercy. He is a grace-plus-nothing fan and has an automatic reaction to the thought of grace plus something.
The tone of Jesus’ words, here and later, is this: What is wrong with you!? You have been the people of God for two thousand years. Can you still not get it right?
God told Abraham that he would bless him. Paul said Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Hagner says the crowds are “accounted as supremely happy”. Find the place in Scripture that says Abraham was supremely happy. When did that happen? As he raised the knife to slay his son? As he was on the hill overlooking Sodom, pleading that if even ten were righteous the city could be saved? Sending his son Ishael away? Telling his servant to go find a wife for Isaac so Isaac wouldn’t leave?
Hagner has no idea what the blessing of God entails. The one thing it doesn't entail is happiness. Hagner says that "the traits of those who are proclaimed “happy” could well be taken as a description of the behavior of Jesus himself" with not one word of evidence that Jesus was happy. Was he happy when he went home and was rejected? When he was in the wilderness for 40 days? When soldiers were sent to arrest him? When he was in the Temple flogging the money changers? Exactly when was it (not counting movies!) that Jesus is said to be happy?!
We’re in the era of the charismatic movement and superstar church pastors so Hagner must take on their air if he wants to sound modern. But there is not a hint in Scripture of any person blessed by God who was supremely happy. Find one. Noah? Job? Abraham? Isaac? Jacob? Joseph? Moses? Joshua? Samuel? David? Jeremiah? Daniel? Ezekiel? Ezra? Nehemiah? Malachi? John? Jesus? the Twelve? Paul? The list of heroes in Hebrews 11?
What utter nonsense. With no evidence (against all evidence!) he pronounces supreme happiness on everyone who calls themselves followers of Christ and and places the expectation in our face: you should be supremely happy! If you’re not, maybe something is wrong.
The blessings of God are not for our benefit! The blessings of God are for those who endure the persecutions. Where is the happiness in that?
Yes, Jesus uses the words “blessed”, but it is to assure them that if they follow God they will be the apple of his eye, that even if they lose everything (they will) or die (they might) they will not suffer loss but will join the great cloud of witnesses that God delights to put on display.
Jesus finishes the beatitudes with: Rejoice and be glad, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. That remark is pivotal. Why does Hagner skip past it? Jesus tells the people that if they get close to God they will suffer for it. Jesus says your history is and now your destiny. You honor Samuel and Jeremiah and Daniel, but do you remember what their lives were like? Where would we be if they had run away from danger? It is through their persecution that you have come this far. Do you expect God to change how things work just because you're special: you're a child of God? Are you saying they weren't?
When Jesus gets to the next pericope (salt and light) he is not emphasizing that they are the salt, but that they have made themselves worthless, and not that they are light, but that no one in his right mind lights a lamp and then puts it under a basket. The tone of Jesus’ words are strong: what are you thinking?! You have been chosen by God as his special nation and you have made yourself tasteless and useless?
Hagner’s abhorrence with nomism is exactly opposite of Jesus’. Jesus is wanting the people to look back, to see that they are children of Abraham, to remember that their heroes suffered, and were even regarded as traitors. Jesus is saying get up! Do what they did! Embrace your heroes. You have fallen badly. The most honored people on earth, God's salt and light, have squandered that gift.
Look around. Do you think you are under the boot of Rome for no reason? You want a Messiah... but for what? So you can do even less?
The point of the sermon on the mount is not to comfort the people but to confront them. They are not the people that God wants! They are not law abiding: they not even good. What decent person doesn’t know that it’s wrong to hate and slander and lie? This is not radical or new. The people of God are living far below the requirements of their law: below even those who have no law. It’s bad enough that the people pay no attention to God, but it’s downright pathetic when they are worse than the Gentiles.
Hagner is far off point when he speaks of nomism and mercy and grace. Man exists for God, not God for man. Hagner’s concern for grace vs works is silly. God gave them his gift of salt and light and they did nothing with it. That's the charge that he now brings against them: they took the gift of God and did nothing.
Salt that isn't salt is useless. Light that isn't light is useless. One day Christ might ask what good mercy was when we did nothing with it, what good the Spirit was when we played games with it.
The issue, the only issue, is whether God has a people who will do what he says or whether he needs to start over.
#Donald_Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary
#Luke_10.25-37 #the_Good_Samaritan
#Phil_3.5-6 a Hebrew of Hebrews, Pharisee, a Roman citizen
#Matt_18.1-9 #millstone
#Matt_5.13-16 #salt_and_light
#Nomism (From the Greek word nomos: law. Another term for #legalism. Judaism wanted to bring every aspect of life into conformity to the Law, which was a good thing if done rightly (Matt. 23.23) and a horror if done badly (Matt. 23.24). Pejoratively, it means a religion that is mere #formalism, or the belief that outward correctness is a substitute for, or proof of, the approval of God. Christians are inclined to interpret it in a negative sense.)
#Torah (Most commonly (and here), it refers to the Jewish written law consisting of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. The #Pentateuch. The Five Books of Moses.)
Comments