The Sermon on the Mount is undoubtedly one of the best-known and most influential texts in the New Testament. More than almost any other, this text was and is read as an expression of the specifically Jesuan ethic. Such a way of reading certainly hits the nail on the head - and at the same time must be supplemented. For it is clear that the Sermon on the Mount is in dialogue with other texts and traditions in many respects. It cannot be understood without the context of Jewish traditions, in which it is embedded, which it takes up or continues. There are also non-Jewish traditions that are echoed in the Sermon on the Mount.
The Beatitudes
Even the opening of the speech composition is modelled on the Beatitudes in the Old/First Testament. The book of Psalms opens in Psalm 1 with the beatitude of people who adhere to God's instructions, act justly in the sense of the Torah and do not allow themselves to become involved in wicked and unjust machinations - and one may add: even if these may promise quick success or superficial happiness. These people are promised that they will lead a happy life, in accordance with the wisdom of the connection between actions and behaviour: Those who behave well should and will also fare well.
According to Ps 41:2f., ethical behaviour in accordance with the Torah is also rewarded with a happy life: "Blessed is he who takes care of the lowly; in the time of trouble the Eternal will save him." Similar sentiments can be found in other biblical and non-biblical early Jewish texts. For example, the non-canonised Slavonic Book of Enoch, probably from the 1st century AD, states: "Blessed is he who fears the name of the Lord and always serves before his face, and sincerely orders the gifts with fear in this life, and lives and dies righteously in this life. (...) Blessed is he who clothes the naked with a garment and gives his bread to the hungry. (...) Blessed is he who has mercy in his heart and gentleness in his heart." (SlavHen 42,6.8.13)
In a similar way, the Beatitudes at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount congratulate people who live according to the good instructions of God, the Torah, or according to the instructions of Jesus, who interprets the Torah with full authority. Specifically: people who are gentle or merciful, have a pure heart or are peacemakers. They are promised that they will inherit the land, find mercy, see God and be called children of God (Mt 5:5, 7-9). Similar to the beatitudes in the Old Testament, it is about acting in God's interests - and the good consequences this has. A comparison with Old Testament and early Jewish texts also makes it possible to understand the Matthean Beatitudes in terms of ethically imperative, Torah-compliant behaviour. They want to encourage and strengthen people to act in this way, even if there is much to be said against it and there is great resistance.
Against this background, the first beatitude can also be understood in an ethical sense (Mt 5:3). People who are "poor in the sight of God" - literally: "the poor in spirit" - can be understood as those who adopt the attitude of the poor and are therefore in solidarity with the poor. Similarly, people who "hunger and thirst for righteousness" (Mt 5:6) stand up for justice out of this hunger and thirst, so that the situation of the destitute and those who are actually hungry changes for the better.
Even this admittedly incomplete passage through the Beatitudes at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount shows parallels to Old Testament and non-biblical early Jewish texts in terms of both form and content. Matthew has his Jesus open the great discourse with a form of speech that is familiar to his readers. People who act in the spirit of God or in the spirit of Jesus are praised as happy. In terms of content, parallels can also be found in Old Testament and non-biblical early Jewish texts for almost every one of the beatitudes in Matthew's speech on the mountain.
The beatitudes of the mourners and the persecuted (Mt 5:4.10f.) form a certain exception. Here, people are blessed neither because of a Torah-compliant attitude nor because of a Torah-compliant action, but because they are now in a bad way, but are promised comfort and ultimate joy. This thrust corresponds to the beatitudes as found by the evangelist Matthew in his model in Proverbs Q (cf. Luke 6:20-23). Here, the poor, the hungry, the mourners and the persecuted are actually congratulated, i.e. people who are doing badly in their lives. They can rejoice because God has turned to them; for now the new time of God begins - the "kingdom of God". This unconditional devotion of God to people who now have nothing to laugh about seems to me to be a speciality of the Beatitudes, which presumably go back to Jesus.
Furthermore, this exact composition of content, as found in Matthew, does not seem to exist in any other text. The way in which the Beatitudes open Jesus' discourse in Matthew and create a basis for understanding the content that follows is also original, even if its function for what follows is remotely reminiscent of the opening of the book of Psalms with Psalm 1. In this respect, it is a great theological achievement on Matthew's part.
The so-called "antitheses"
The question of the originality of the Sermon on the Mount arises particularly urgently in the section that usually bears the title "Antitheses" (Mt 5:21-48). At first glance, the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount explicitly distances himself from a Jewish pretext in each of the sayings in this series and counters it with something different and new: "You have heard that it was said to those of old ... But I say to you ...".
However, a second glance at the immediately preceding passage shows how much Jesus' entire discourse, and thus also this series of sayings, is explicitly embedded in a Jewish context and is to be understood within this horizon: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Torah and the Prophets! I have not come to abolish, but to fulfil." (Mt 5:17) This series of sayings can therefore neither be about the abolition of the Torah nor about an actual "antithesis", but rather about the correct interpretation of the Torah. In the perspective of our text, this is "naturally" done by Jesus. But here, too, the question arises: is not this interpretation of the Torah by Jesus, as presented by Matthew, already embedded in a Jewish context of discussion? Are there not already models for Jesus' interpretation?
Fair behaviour towards enemies in the Jewish tradition
This can be exemplified by the last of the so-called antitheses, the love of enemies (Mt 5:43-48). Loving one's enemies is generally regarded as particularly typical of Jesus. Even in the early days of Christianity, it was seen as something specifically Christian that set Christians apart from others - especially from Jews, but also from everyone else. For example, the church writer Tertullian (ca. 160-ca. 220 AD) wrote around the year 212 on the occasion of a persecution: "For our system of teaching (disciplina) commands us to love even our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us, and in this consists our peculiar and perfect goodness, which is not the ordinary kind. For to love one's friends is the custom of all; to love one's enemies is the custom of us Christians alone." (Ad Scapulam 1,3)
So what about the originality of the commandment to love one's enemies?
The introductory thesis in Mt 5:43 refers to Lev 19:18: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself. I am the Lord." Matthew refers to the commandment to love your neighbour from Lev 19:18 in two other places in his book. There he quotes it in full with the qualifier "as yourself" (Mt 19:19; 22:39). He omits this in Mt 5:43 and instead adds: "... and hate your enemy."
In order to find a reference for this addition, reference is occasionally made to Deut 23:4-7; Ps 139:19-22; Sir 12:1-6 or the community rule from Qumran 1QS 1:3f.9f. In addition, there are non-Jewish vulgar ethical maxims that say that one should do good to one's friends and harm one's enemies as much as possible. An early example of this is Plato's dialogue Menon, in which Menon puts forward the maxim that it is the virtue of a man to "do good to his friends but harm to his enemies". (Menon 71E)
It is therefore quite possible that Matthew's thesis takes up such apparently widespread ideas. However, it should be expressly noted that an explicit and general prohibition to hate one's enemies is not to be found anywhere in the Old Testament scriptures. On the contrary: in the immediate context of Lev 19:18, hatred of a fellow citizen who has transgressed is even expressly forbidden. Although he is not an "enemy", he is no longer an unbroken "brother" (Lev 19:17). Revenge or other vindictive behaviour is also forbidden (Lev 19:18a). Instead, those addressed are advised to rebuke the offenders. This is immediately followed by the commandment to love one's neighbour. The scribe Matthew was undoubtedly well aware of this context.
In his final "antithesis", Matthew thus draws on the Old Testament commandment to love one's neighbour from Lev 19:18 and supplements it with a maxim that is presumably widespread but not based on the authoritative scriptures, namely to hate one's enemy. He has his Jesus take a pointed stance against this maxim: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may become children of your Father in heaven, for he makes his sun rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
This also interprets the commandment to love one's neighbour in a determined manner. However, as already mentioned above, the immediate context of the commandment to love one's neighbour in Lev 19:18 had already demanded that no hatred be harboured towards a neighbour who has brought guilt upon himself and thus almost prepared the ground for practising such an attitude towards enemies as well.
The enemy comes explicitly into view in a demand from the book of Proverbs, according to which the enemy should also be granted help in an emergency: "If your enemy is hungry, give him food; if he is thirsty, give him drink; then you will heap coals of fire on his head and the Eternal will reward you." (Prov 25:21f.; cf. also Prov 24:17; Sir 10:6; 28:1-6)
A collection of laws in the Book of Exodus, the Book of the Covenant, also calls for concrete help for the enemy when he is in distress: "When you meet your enemy's stray ox or donkey, you shall bring the animal back to him. If you see your enemy's donkey collapsing under its load, do not abandon it, but help it." (Ex 23:4f.)
Although there is no literal reference here to "loving" the enemy, it is about concrete actions that should benefit the enemy in an emergency situation. What is required is not love in an emotional sense, but a concrete action that should also be given to the enemy in need. It is not specified who the enemy is supposed to be.
The two texts from the Book of Proverbs and the Book of the Covenant have found many echoes in early Jewish biblical exegesis. A midrash on Prov 25:21 takes the idea further and shows how positive action can even persuade the enemy to make peace: "R. Chama b. Chanina said: 'If your enemy who wants to kill you comes to your house hungry and thirsty, give him food and drink, and God will bring peace.
put it in his heart."
The non-canonised 4th Book of Maccabees, which was probably written around the same time as the Gospel of Matthew and presumably also in Syria, refers to Ex 23:4f. and uses the example of helping enemies to show how the power of judgement has the passions under control: "And please do not think this is a paradox, since the power of judgement is able to overcome enmity with the help of the law itself. It refrains from destroying the crops of the enemies of war by cutting down trees (cf. Deut 20:19f.), it saves the (stray) cattle of personal enemies from perishing and helps them when they die (under their burden).
and then gets back on his feet." (4 Macc 2:9b)
In an appendix to his interpretations of the individual laws, the Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria (ca. 10 BC - after 40 AD) devotes a large part of his explanations to the virtues of philanthropy and explains that this is a central basic value of Moses' legislation. This love of mankind also includes the benevolent behaviour towards enemies commanded in the Torah (De virtutibus / On the virtues 109-120). As a special case, he uses the example from Ex 23:5 that, "when the donkeys of enemies succumb and sink under the pressure of the burdens they have to bear" (116), one should not pass by, "but lighten their burden and help them up" (116). From this we should learn "that we should not rejoice at the misfortune of our haters; for schadenfreude, as he well knew, is a feeling of irreconcilable resentment, related and at the same time opposed to envy." For Philo, such a vice is incompatible with a virtuous character and, in his view, virtuous behaviour should also be displayed towards the enemy. At a somewhat later point in the work, he recalls the wisdom of the ancients to always see the enemy as a potential friend (151f.) and concludes by calling on Moses to imitate God: "... if you do similar good deeds." (168) In his questions on the book of Exodus (Quaestiones in Exodum 2:11-12), Philo characterises the return of the animal as a "work of love", thereby revealing that his interpretation is inspired by the commandment to love one's neighbour in Lev 19:17f.
Similar interpretations can be found in numerous other Jewish writings, for example in the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus or in the testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. These examples show how deeply rooted in Jewish tradition is the conviction that it is in accordance with God's instructions to behave benevolently and kindly towards one's enemy, not to take advantage of their plight - and, in principle, that it is not appropriate for God-honouring people to repay evil with evil.
Fair behaviour towards enemies in the non-Jewish tradition
Similar convictions can also be found in non-Jewish texts. In various contexts, the vulgar ethical maxim that doing good to one's friends and harming one's enemies is called into question and calls for alternative behaviour.
Cicero (106-43 BC), for example, demands: "We should not listen to those who hold the opinion that we should be violently angry with our enemies and consider this the duty of a brave and high-minded man. For nothing is more praiseworthy, nothing more worthy of a great and distinguished man than conciliation and clemency." (De officiis 1,25,88)
The Greek philosopher Epictetus (ca. 50-138 AD) even says of the Cynics: "He must be maltreated like an ass and still love his maltreaters, as father of all, as brother." (Dissertationes III 22,54)
Finally, Seneca (1-65 AD) states in his book on benefactions: "'If you imitate the gods', it says, 'then do good even to ungrateful men; for the sun rises even on criminals, and the seas are open even to pirates'." (De beneficiis IV 26,1)(Neuer Wettstein 530f No. 18 on Mt 5,45.)
Love of enemies as something specifically Christian?
These few selected examples have already brought to light some interesting similarities to the commandment to love one's enemies in the Sermon on the Mount, both in the Jewish and non-Jewish world. Although there is no literal parallel to the formulation to "love one's enemies", and there is also no evidence that it is clothed in the linguistic form of the "antithesis", the demand is attested in many ways. And, as the extensive collection in Neues Wettstein shows, the series of examples could go on for a long time. However, a closer look also reveals that the concrete argumentation and objective can be accentuated differently in each case.
Accordingly, the commandment to love one's enemies in the Sermon on the Mount is by no means unique in the discourse of antiquity. Rather, it is embedded in early Jewish discourse and has parallels in non-Jewish literature. Nevertheless, the Matthean Jesus does not simply repeat a general conviction of the time. After all, it has also been shown that there were also opposing voices. With the commandment to love one's neighbour in the Sermon on the Mount, the Matthean Jesus thus positions himself in a decided manner. He takes up the commandment to love one's neighbour from the Old/First Testament and takes it further in a distinctive way by taking the side of those who demand benevolent behaviour towards enemies in the discourses of the time, and he expresses this pointedly in the linguistic form of the antithesis.
Matthew also sets his own accents in the way he justifies his theological arguments. The love of enemies is an expression of faith in the one God, who as Creator also bestows his favours on the wicked and unjust. In view of the basileia that is now dawning, the reign of God or the kingdom of heaven, as Matthew puts it, God offers a new opportunity for salvation that applies to everyone, including sinners. Anyone who accepts this should and can act in accordance with this boundless goodness of God - he or she can "act like God"! The boundless goodness of God therefore has ethical consequences for those who refer to this God - whereby this imitation of God is also already laid down in the book of Leviticus, significantly at the beginning of chapter 19, which characterises our topic: "You shall be holy, for I, the Eternal, your God, am holy." (Lev 19:2; cf. also Lev 20:26; 21:8)
Both texts are about a basic attitude of holiness or perfection that is oriented towards God's behaviour, as well as about actions that arise from this attitude.
The Sermon on the Mount in the midst of Jewish discourse
What has been shown by the commandment to love one's enemies can also be seen in other texts from the Sermon on the Mount. For example, in the first "antithesis" in his interpretation of the Decalogue commandment "Thou shalt not kill / murder", Jesus demands: "Everyone who is even angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement, and whoever says to his brother, 'You fool,' shall be liable to the judgement of the high council; but whoever says to him, 'You fool,' shall be liable to the fire of hell". (Mt 5:21f.) There is a parallel to this in the Jewish tractate Derech Erez Rabba, the basis of which probably dates back to the Mishnaic period. Here Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, a contemporary of Matthew, is quoted as saying: "Whoever hates his fellow man, behold, he is one of those who shed blood." (THE 11:14)
In the second "antithesis", Jesus updates the Decalogue commandment not to commit adultery by putting a stop to adultery in advance and already problematising the covetous gaze of men on women (Mt 5:27f.). The danger of the covetous gaze is also addressed in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, when the departing Issachar, looking back on his life, says of himself: "Apart from my wife, I recognised no other; I did not lust by lifting up my eyes." (TestIss 7:2)
In the fourth "antithesis", Jesus interprets the commandment not to swear perjury in such a way that one should not swear at all. In his interpretation of the Decalogue, the Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria says: "It would be best, most salutary and most rational not to swear at all if a person learnt to be so truthful in every statement that the words could be considered oaths." (De decalogo 84) "But if a certain necessity compels (to swear)" (85), for example in the legal system, he recommends the second best solution: "to swear truly" (84) and to show the greatest restraint and care in doing so (84-95).
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (Bellum 2,169-174; Antiquitates 18,269-274.284) reports harrowing examples of non-violent resistance by Jews against Roman arbitrary measures in the fifth "antithesis".
There are parallels to the Lord's Prayer, the prayer of Jesus (Mt 6:9-13), in the Jewish prayer tradition, particularly in the 18 petitions prayer and in the Kaddish, which presumably dates back to before 70 AD. Similar to the beginning of the Lord's Prayer, it reads: "Exalted and hallowed be his great name in the world, which he has created according to his will. Let his kingdom reign in your life and in your days and in the life of the whole house of Israel, in haste and in the near future."
The Our Father also takes up a common theme of Jewish prayers with the petition for forgiveness, as exemplified in the sixth petition of the Eighteen Prayer: "Forgive us, our Father, yes, we have sinned. Forgive us, our King, yes, we have acted unfaithfully."
There are also Jewish and non-Jewish parallels to the Golden Rule (Mt 7:12), to the two ways (Mt 7:13f.) and to numerous other aspects of Jesus' teaching on the mountain.
All of this makes it clear that Matthew draws on a rich tradition of Jewish scriptures and their interpretation. Throughout his work, but also and especially in his speech on the mountain, Matthew proves to be an excellent expert on the Torah, the prophetic writings, the Psalms and other writings that are part of the Bible today. He probably did not know every single one of the other writings I have referred to. But these writings are an expression of Jewish discussions about the interpretation of scripture that were taking place in his time and which he deals with.
Within these discussions, Matthew presents his Jesus in this well-composed speech as a convincing Jewish teacher, who presents his interpretation of God's will in contrast to other interpretations of scripture and also takes a pointed stance. His roots in the Jewish tradition and his engagement with the Jewish tradition seem more clearly recognisable than a direct engagement with non-Jewish ethical positions. However, it should again be noted that the Jewish discussions were not conducted completely independently of non-Jewish discussions and vice versa.
If we look for particular accents of Jesus' teaching on the mountain in Matthew, then they seem to me to lie above all in the specific composition of the speech with its rhetorical design, in the way in which Jesus takes a stand in the midst of the discussions and above all in the way it is categorised in the message of the dawning kingdom of God. For if God's new world is now in the process of coming, and if God is now turning to people in a special way, then this kingdom of God can (and must) be acted upon. In his teaching on the mountain, the Matthean Jesus explains how this works. The fact that not everything has to be reinvented is shown by the astonishing fact that the term "new" does not appear anywhere in Mt 5-7 - not even in the conclusion of the discourse in Mt 7,28f. This is all the more astonishing given that in Mark's original version of these final verses (Mk 1,22.27), Jesus still spoke of a "new teaching". This aspect is not included in Matthew.
So perhaps it is not Matthew's intention at all to present Jesus' teaching as new and unprecedented. Rather, what Matthew probably writes about himself as a scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven applies to the Torah teacher Jesus to a much greater extent: that he "brings out of his treasure things new and old" (Mt 13:52). New things - yes! But the treasure is the treasure of the Torah and the prophets, the treasure of the Jewish scriptures and the tradition of their interpretation.
