Matt 5.13-16. When is salt not salt? When an expert explains it.

It is completely conceivable that salt can be non-salt and light can be non-light. Otherwise he wouldn't have said it.

---

Matthew 5.13-16

You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot.

You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.

Hagner, page 101-102

This key pericope is virtually a programmatic or summarizing statement for the importance of living according to the righteousness of the newly arrived kingdom. It is first of all an affirmation of the unique identity of the disciples, an identity that depends on the gracious activity of their heavenly Father. They and they alone are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. The emphatic “you yourselves” deliberately excludes all other groups claiming to have the truth, especially the Pharisees in Jesus’ time but also their rabbinic successors in the time of the evangelist. The disciples—the blessed recipients of the kingdom—are thus of vital importance for the accomplishment of God’s purpose in the world. They constitute the salt and light without which the earth cannot survive and remains in darkness. Their mission is accomplished, however, not only in word (cf. 10:7; 28:19–20) but in the deeds of their daily existence. Others observing their conduct will know that the priorities of these persons have changed—that before them is something of inestimable value, something that gives light and results in the glorifying of God. But to accomplish their purposes, salt must be salt and light, light. It is inconceivable that salt can be non-salt or light not serve its purpose of illuminating. The kinds of good deeds that enable light to be seen as light are now to be elaborated in the course of the sermon that follows. They are shown to be nothing other than the faithful living out of the commandments, the righteousness of the Torah as interpreted by Jesus.

There is almost nothing right in Hagner’s explanation. Why explain the passage by saying nothing more than what the passage says, adding in only personal thoughts that are not in the text?

He is wrong by saying the Pharisees are excluded. The Pharisees were also Israel. They were no less salt and light than the people on the mountainside listening to Jesus.

For Hagner to identify the disciples as “the blessed recipients of the kingdom” is unwarranted: only in verses 2 and 10 is the kingdom mentioned. In v 4 Jesus says the meek will inherit the earth and in v 13 he says “you are the salt of the earth”. Shouldn’t “the earth” therefore be given the same weight as “the kingdom” in Christ’s teaching?

Also, there is no reason to say that the crowds and the disciples are the same thing. Verse 1 insinuates they are not. Hagner goes too far, for no reason.

Hagner gives no hint what salt and light are (obviously the people of God are not actually salt and light!), really doing nothing more than repeating what Jesus said, but even then doing it poorly. Saying that “others observing their conduct will know that the priorities of these persons have changed” is lame. Who are the “others”? Why would “changed priorities” result in God being glorified? It is chatter. It means nothing.

Jesus does not say the world cannot survive without salt and light. That is Hagner’s addition. It’s possible that the world prefers life without salt and light. Finally, to say that the salt and light are “the faithful living out of the commandments, the righteousness of the Torah as interpreted by Jesus” is bizarre. In just a few verses Jesus will leave any mention of the Torah behind. The issue is not the Torah. The issue is going far beyond: so far that it can’t even be seen any more. Where is anything that Jesus talks about in chapters 6 and 7 to be found in the Torah?

How does anyone read Hagner’s explanation and know how to do what Christ says? A vague mention of salt and light, with no enlargement upon that so a person knows how to do it, is pointless. He just piles up words.

Hagner barely touches on is the warning, and in fact virtually dismisses it with “It is inconceivable that salt can be non-salt”. It’s not inconceivable: it’s a certainty! They were not being salt! Jesus makes the warning about as obvious as the demand. Why would Hagner throw the balance so far off?

He gives no hint what salt might be, or light. Or taste, or what “trampled under foot” means, what the city and the hill and the bushel and the house is, who the “others” are, why “light” and “good works” are equated, why light and salt are different, and why the scene suddenly changes from God blessing people to people glorifying God.

We want to know. Does Hagner know or not? If he does, why isn’t he telling us? If he doesn’t, why doesn’t he admit it so we can look somewhere else for answers?

The fact is, the “others” rarely give glory to God for the good works of his people. Truly: name ten instances of people saying anything good about God because of what his people have done. Franklin Graham started Samaritan’s Purse and it has been received well and has not met with any significant criticism, Dr. Paul Brand worked with lepers and made significant discoveries and treatment, Amy Carmichael rescued hundreds of unwanted and abused children, Mother Teresa ran hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS and leprosy and tuberculosis, Jimmy Carter started Habitat for Humanity... there are a few who have done “good works” that have stayed within the “good works” boundaries and have resulted in the people of God being portrayed in a good light, but...

— did the world give glory to God because of it?

— and how many other examples are there that brought anger and hatred against God?

All in all, if “others” are the people of the world, and we have to suspect that is what Jesus is talking about because it is part of his teaching on being “the light of the world”, then the people of God have brought far more hostility than glory to God. We can’t dismiss that by saying, “what do you expect if you cast your pearls before swine”, because Jesus says very clearly here: let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven. We can’t say it’s an impossible task when Jesus says it’s not only possible, but expected.

We have two issues. One the one hand, the person of God must be different enough to be able to be called salt and light, and to have that difference be the kind of difference that results in glory to God. And, the person of God must be aware of the goal in determining how salt is salt and light is light, because far too often the believer’s idea of salt and light is odious to the nonbeliever, and does not result in glory but disgust. And therefore the believer must understand that it is the unbeliever’s definition of “good” that matters here: we cannot force our idea of “good” upon them and expect them to accept it as good just because we tell them it is. And so Hagner’s discussion about “changed priorities” is suspicious, because the thing the world wants changed most is what the people of God regard as important. They are not impressed when a worldly man is saved and becomes unworldly. They are not impressed when the sports hero or music star gets saved and has a change of heart, because they always keep the bulk of their wealth. Nor is the person in prison who repents regarded well: it is seen as a ploy to manipulate the parole board.

No, the believer’s idea of good works is a far distance from the unbeliever’s idea of good works, and for good reason: the unbeliever is more right. They have a more realistic appraisal. The believer has a vested interest in having their good works noticed, is more proud of his good works than they deserve, and invariably has a religious attitude towards good works that spoils the effort.

Why does God want the world to give glory? Jesus doesn’t say, and it’s not important that we ask the question. What is important is that it annoys him strongly when he is regarded badly because of the antics of his people. Rom 2.17-24 is a close parallel to what Jesus is saying about salt and light, and also shows what God thinks when his people not only lose their taste, but become abhorrent:

If you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of your relation to God and know his will and determine what is best because you are instructed in the law, and if you are confident that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth, you, then, that teach others, will you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You that forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You that abhor idols, do you rob temples? You that boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

God does not have to say the viewpoint of the unbeliever is right in order to point out the faults of his people. No, we cannot trust the values of the unsaved, but when even they know our values are perverted, what explanation do we have? How bad is it that not just the people of God, but the enemies of God, scoff?

So, what good God gets from the praise of the world is uncertain, but we know he is outraged when his children act so badly that they embarrass him. So possibly Christ’s words are to be taken primarily in the sense of God insisting that his people stop the nonsense. Hagner emphasizes the salt and light, but Jesus places equal emphasis on the salt that has lost its taste and the light that refuses to shine. Jesus is talking to the crowds: the Jews: the people of God. Yes, he is gentle with them, but he also has some complaints, and this is one of the big ones: not just that the Jews have treated the Gentiles as being unworthy of the grace of God, but that they regard themselves as the only people of God, no matter how they act. Here Jesus says no, you, the people of God, have both privilege and responsibility, and if you abuse that privilege and shirk that responsibility, then you will be thrown out and trampled into the ground. Those are not nice words. They should be taken seriously, because it happened to them, and Paul warns the Church, strongly, it can happen to us as well if we act like them.

For the Church to regard the viewpoint of the nonbeliever with contempt is both illogical and counterproductive. If the nonbeliever can adopt, or really even appreciate, the values of the believer, then Christ died for nothing. If we say that the work of the Spirit is what changes the unsaved into people who can be pleasing to God, then how can we expect the unbeliever to understand, appreciate, or accept our values? God says they can’t; God has given the Spirit so his people can. If the world can accept God’s values just by being told they must, then why does the Spirit exist? Yes, our values seem completely right to us, but if we can insist that everyone else live by them, then we completely demean the role of the Spirit. Who needs him if the unbeliever can believe by bring told they must?

The unbeliever cannot believe without first becoming a believer. No matter how loud and long we tell them, they will never accept our values, because not even we accepted our values before we became believers. That is why we’re called believers: because we believe. And that is why they’re called unbelievers: because they don’t.

When Jesus says that we are to be a light so that others can see our good works and give glory o God, our good works cannot be the works that only we appreciate. As necessary as the pro-life movement is, it is not something that causes the world to give glory to God because it is not an idea that they agree with. They don’t give glory: they rage. The pro-life view is rooted in Scripture and those who do not accept Scripture will never accept the argument that life is sacred just because Psalm 139 says it is.

The world is not impressed with Christian attorneys or politicians or activists because the things these people stand for are offensive to the world. The world is not impressed with preachers and evangelists because they care nothing for what they do. The world is not impressed with the Westminster Confession or the Pentecostal movement or Christian rock or what-would-Jesus-do bracelets or prayer or church services—not because they are wrong but because they have nothing to do with the unbeliever’s values. And certainly the world is not impressed with the trillions of dollars tied up in churches and cathedrals and properties and theme parks and private jets, because they’re wrong and everyone knows it.

What the world is impressed with is giving a hungry person a meal, a homeless person shoes and a coat, or a single mother a place to stay. But even then we mess it up. Why do we insist that they pay for their food by listening to a sermon? Why can’t we give a bowl of soup without the word from our sponsor? Our motives are transparent and not so honorable: if you’re hungry, we’ll feed you, so long as you stay for the sermon. Why? Why can’t we just feed them because they’re hungry?! That would bring glory to God. Why do we insist on spoiling it?

Yes, I know: because of the Great Commission. But where does Jesus say that you save people by giving them a sandwich? That’s not the Great Commission. The Good News is not that I will give you something to eat! We must keep them separate. Evangelism is one thing: good works is another. Mixing them ruins both.

Does that mean we don’t feed them? Certainly not! It simply means we do good in such a way that it is obviously a free gift, given by the people of God, upon people in need, and because of that the people of God look good in the eyes of the world and therefore God looks good. We feed and clothe and care for people, no matter who they are, with no strings and no repayment. It’s not just Scriptural: it’s a demand. If we don’t do it, then God is dishonored, and if he is dishonored, then we will punished, or even discarded. We don’t know why it is so important to him, but that fact that he threatens to throw us out if we don’t do it should be warning enough.

What is salt and light? What it isn’t is our self-serving notion of what it should be. Salt that disgusts is disgusting, so when we say that salt preserves from decay and make it our job to rid the world of decay, then we are attacking instead of helping and the world certainly does not give glory to God when they are annoyed with God's people. If our definition of light is exposing evil and we make it our job to point out everything we think is wrong, then we have made ourselves obnoxious and they will not give glory to God.

Jesus tells us how to be salt and light: Don’t insult or demean, do what is right towards everyone, keep your word, don’t retaliate, give to everyone who asks, help your enemies, keep your intimacy with God private, don’t seek after wealth and possessions, don’t judge, and in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you.

There is not a hint of evangelism in there, but there is a ton of salt and light. Make their lives better.