On Being Generous with Grace

[Greg Long] Ed, thanks for your article. I taught through the Sermon on the Mount and although I don’t have anywhere near the knowledge you do, I benefited greatly from researching the rabbinical backgrounds of the teachings Jesus was addressing. It was very interesting and enlightening.

Thanks, Greg. And thanks Susan, too.

I have really been amazed at how understanding that much of the New Testament is an interpretation and application from the Old clarifies texts so much. This is especially true with the Sermon on the Mount.

God bless! :)

[B L Wilkins] Thank you for the article. It is very good and stimulates thought concerning the context of what our Lord was saying and how we are then to interpret it. I, too, hope more will be forthcoming. As to the little debate that is going on, how are we to understand Phil. 4:6? It’s the same word. If we are not to think at all about whatever might be on our hearts, how can we then even bring our perceived needs and requests before God? I just cannot see how worry does not fit the context in the portion of the Sermon under discussion. Seems to fit very well.

I am of the opinion that there is such a thing as holy worry. The command to be anxious about nothing is a principle, an axiom that must sometimes be weighed against other axioms, not a complete teaching. Sometimes I think I wrote my book, The Midrash Key, just so I could copy and paste stuff on SI :) But here goes:

The reader must remember that Jesus is reducing detailed teaching down to general, “hands on” principles. He is demonstrating how Torah passages could be expanded and applied to life in his day. These condensed, black and white generalities provide a starting point, not necessarily an ending point. They are not complete treatises, but wise sayings which sometimes must be weighed against other wise sayings.

and then a footnote:

Matthew 7:6 (KJV) suggests that it can be wasteful to expend our efforts: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Like Proverbs 26:4-5 (KJV), there are situations where one must discern an approach depending upon the character of the individual with whom we are interacting: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.”

As far as worry (and fear, which is the bigger category under which worry is a sub-category), we are first afraid/worried, and then we process our fear/worry. Psalm 56:3 presents the logical order:

When I am afraid, I will trust in you.

I think we should be as casual and honest about fear and worry as Paul was in I Thessalonians 3:1-5

1So when we could stand it no longer, we thought it best to be left by ourselves in Athens. 2We sent Timothy, who is our brother and God’s fellow worker[a] in spreading the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you in your faith, 3so that no one would be unsettled by these trials. You know quite well that we were destined for them. 4In fact, when we were with you, we kept telling you that we would be persecuted. And it turned out that way, as you well know. 5For this reason, when I could stand it no longer, I sent Timothy to find out about your faith. I was afraid that in some way the tempter might have tempted you and our efforts might have been useless.

[B L Wilkins] I agree with your above post. On more than one occasion, in fact, the Apostle Paul voiced concerns that we would say at least border on our concept or present usage of worry. My only point was that “take no thought” has more the idea of anxiety and worry, as especially seen in Phil. 4:6 and that idea, in principle, fits very well in the context of the Sermon where the same termonology is used. I don’t think the idea of “don’t think about it at all” or “don’t bother with it at all” really can be born out from the word or context. One can say that and still believe the SOM has relation to the coming Kingdom (in what way exactly can be and is debated among even Dispensationalists) by interpretation and still have relevance and application to our day today. The hour is late so I better stop typing lest I really start to ramble. Anyway, thanks again for the article.

I agree with you. I think something like Phil. 4:6 is more about limiting worry, containing it. When I have needed Philippians 4:4-8 most, I have found that I have to keep returning in prayer for more doses of peace. It is not so much a cure as a treatment that can be repeated time and time again.

I think the sad part about relegating the SOM to the Millennium — however, even if we draw applications — is that the true interpretation is lost. You are not going to probe into a text as deeply if you believe its main use is for believers perhaps yet to be born. Those who interpret as non-midrash end up substituting application for interpretation, or view the ethical issues involved as the averaging out of positions, with Jesus being on one extreme and either the OT or Paul on the other. What I have tried to do in my book is demonstrate that if we study Jesus’ words in the context of the OT verses he is elaborating upon, we find they harmonize beautifully with both the Old Testament and Paul.

[Daniel] I hope you all don’t mind me just skipping the bulk of the posts to ask my question.

Ed, I am a little confused. Are you saying Jesus was teaching you have to go an extra mile, but only 1 extra mile? Or was it more of, I will go a mile and however farther I feel appropriate? In other words, was it about taking the law just another step (or hedge) or was it more of grace? Am I making sense? Did I misunderstand you?

No, I am not saying an extra mile is exactly one mile, but rather that we go beyond the minimum, but that we can also discern when enough is enough. Sometimes it may seem like we go an extra two miles! I was calling attention to the moderation, good-faith concept of walking the extra mile or giving a cloak and not just the tunic. Jesus did not say “70 times 7,” as he did in regard to forgiveness precluded by repentance in Luke 17.

Jack, almost all the words Jesus spoke were spoken to Jews, including John 14:6. The apostles were and remained Jews, as was Paul. Christianity was (and is, IMO), a “sect of the Jews,” even though gentile believers are grafted into the body as equals.

There is nothing in the text that tells us to distinguish what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount from his other public teachings. The Great Commission teaches us to observe ALL that he taught us, not just part (Matthew 28:20). This is the most NATURAL understanding, IMO. Trying to force a dividing screen of sorts of these texts seems strained at best.

As far as Matthew 5:18-20 goes, you have some good points. I do agree that the SOM is addressed completely toward Messianic Jews (early Jewish believers) and mostly to gentile believers as well. This explains why it is included in the Gospels in such great detail. Some aspects are uniquely Jewish (such as leaving your gifts at the altar), but most aspects are ethical and deal with anyone who would consider himself a disciple. The whole idea of being a disciple is to learn (by heart) the teachings of one’s rabbi and then to put it into practice. To say that Jesus’ followers should not obey his teachings but only those of the apostles or a few of Jesus’ teachings is to say that we are therefor not his disciples.

As far as justification/salvation, it sounds like you may not believe that salvation has always been and always will be by grace alone through faith alone. Because of your view (if I am correct in assessing it), you can divert some texts (like the Law, many of Jesus’ teachings — like the Matt.5 passage) and relegate them to a different dispensation. I am not sure that this is where you are coming from, but I am assuming it.

However, this does not offer an escape from the issue of apparent salvation by works. You still, however, need to deal with similar verses, like Romans 2:13-16 or Galatians 6:9. From the Midrash Key:

The Scriptures do maintain that our works are correlated with regeneration, even though they do not cause it. Good works are the sure evidence of New Birth. Obedience to God’s commands express the regenerate life within, but such obedience cannot create that life…

From a footnote in the same book:

➢ Many of us in the evangelical camp might ask, “Why didn’t Jesus simply say one could not be saved (inherit eternal life) by law-keeping? After all, salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.” The answer is that Jesus (and sometimes Paul, Peter, or John) does not distinguish between cause and correlation. Since loving God and others is the result and evidence of regeneration, there is no attempt made to distinguish the fruit from the tree that produces the fruit. This is a frustration to modern, western logic, but we must recognize that there is more than one way to reason. We have seen similar cases already in this book, for example Deuteronomy 5:29, 10:12-17, 11:13, and 30:6. Whose responsibility is what? The best reconciliation is that those whom God regenerates are guaranteed to exemplify the fruit He demands.

The Jewish concept of “The Kingdom Of God” does not always refer to heaven. Sometimes it refers to the Millennium, and sometimes it refers to entering into a time of Torah Study. The Jewish rabbis (including Jesus), ranked commands (light vs. heavy) for a variety of reasons. For example, the Sabbath Command was no work. The Passover required a lot of work. What happens if the Passover falls on a Saturday? The rabbis ruled that then the Passover command took precedent. But sometimes they used “lighter” and “heavier” paradigm as an excuse from obeying the lighter commands, even when they were not in conflict with the heavier commands. We are catching a bit of the debate about this in Jesus’ words.

i can tell that you can think, Jack, and I appreciate that. I would argue that Bible interpretation is a messy business, but whatever problems we have interpretationally in the SOM are found elsewhere.

Regarding the Jewish understanding of the Kingdom, here is yet one more quote from The Midrash Key:

➢ The Torah and the Kingdom of Heaven (God)

Torah study was a privilege because when one studied, he “entered the Kingdom of Heaven,” “took the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven,” or came “under the wing of heaven.” Note the words of Hillel and the Talmudic commentary that follow those words:

He [Hillel] would stand at the gate of Jerusalem and meet people going to work. He questioned them, “How much will you make at work today?” One person would answer, “A denarius.” Another replied, “Two denarii.” Then he would ask them, “What will you do with your earnings?” They would reply, “We will buy what we need to live.” Then he challenged them, “Why don’t you come follow me and acquire knowledge of the Torah. Then you will receive life in this world as well as life in the future world?” In this way Hillel lived all his days and was able to bring many people under the wing of heaven.

Dr. David Flusser comments regarding the sages of Bet Hillel:

In their opinion, what mattered was not whether one accepted Roman rule or rejected it; for the Kingdom of Heaven could come about at any time, once the people repented and took upon themselves the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven – and once that happened, no nation or tongue would hold sway over them. Only then would God fulfill his promise to rule over Israel…the kingdom of Rome would vanish once the people had taken upon themselves the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven…The Sages believed that even when a man recites “Hear O Israel,” he is taking upon himself the Kingdom of Heaven and is living under it…Jesus developed the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven in a personal manner…It is reasonable to assume that…Jesus thought that he was not only at the center of this process, but that he was himself the Messiah, who was bringing the Kingdom of Heaven upon Israel.”

Brother Jack,

You need to understand that this article was written after I wrote an entire book, much of which addresses our perspective on interpreting Jesus’ words in the SOM, as well as elsewhere.

The article was material I did NOT include in the book, but is based upon the premises of the book. I would encourage you to get a copy of The Midrash Key if you want more extensive material that addresses some of your concerns.

About Jesus turing the other cheek, are you suggesting that he was not a Jew? Or that this happened before Pentecost? Then why did he not obey his own command?

My interpretation is as I said before. Turning the other cheek is an expression for insult, and Jesus ruled that you should not sue for insult, but turn the other cheek. When he was slapped, he obviously did not sue or take someone to court. I have zero problem with it. How do you answer it?

I Without recapping the entire book, let me paste another excerpt that sets forth my paradigm from the Midrash Key, one that contrasts my view (below) with the more typical viewpoints.

 An Alternate Scenario

The above scenario is what many Christians have believed and were taught. Reading the Bible apart from its historical and Jewish context can birth such a belief system. We could point out specific verses that seem to bolster some of these misunderstandings. In addition, the prejudices and anti-Semitism espoused by important church leaders throughout the centuries have embedded these misunderstandings deep into the theology and viewpoint of much of Christendom. Here is my alternative scenario. I have noted the distinctions between mine and the previous scenario through use of italics:

Yeshua came to his own people, and preached out against the hypocrites within Judaism, as did many other Jewish rabbis and leaders; most of the Jewish people agreed that the problem was real. This is why Jesus was able to get away with turning over the tables in the temple courtyards on two occasions: many people experienced similar frustration with their corrupt leaders who were in collaboration with their Roman oppressors.

He taught that the entire system was not corrupt, encouraging his followers to obey the rulings of the rabbis who “sat in the seat of Moses.” He taught that the Law was good; he had not come to abolish it, but to fulfill (properly interpret and apply)it; he came to restore Judaism to its foundation, based upon loving God and loving one’s neighbor, an old concept from Deuteronomy embraced by many rabbis at that time. He had a special love for the Jewish people, and he wept over the judgment that awaited them because of their unbelief, yet he prophesied about a future time when the Jewish people would welcome him as Messiah.

Because the corrupt and powerful Jewish leaders rejected him, and because most Jews were uncertain about him, Jesus accumulated those Jews who did believe in him, and began his Messianic- Jewish church (assembly) with this remnant. Later, in the book of Acts, he revealed that this assembly would include gentile believers as well.

In resentment (and fear that the Romans would view Jesus as a political threat and bring more oppression to Judea) of him, the corrupt Jewish minority who held the power secretly called an illegal trial. They selectively invited leaders they assumed would embrace their dubious scheme. They collaborated with the Romans and – while the Jewish people were distracted celebrating Passover– crucified him.

The Jewish people, as a whole, would not have approved of his trial or crucifixion. Whereas they were not necessarily convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, they did view him as a notable rabbi and a good man. While many were undecided, the Palm Sunday crowd who had come from the north (Galilee) and Bethany remained faithful to the Lord. Later, in the Book of Acts, many priests (Acts 6:7) and Pharisees (Acts 15:5) came to believe in Yeshua.

Some of the same powerful leaders who hated Jesus persecuted the church, while the godly leaders, like Rabbi Gamaliel, opposed persecution (Acts 5:33-39). God’s anger burned against Jewish unbelief. Allowing one generation’s time for repentance (40 years), Yahweh brought about the destruction of Jerusalem and grafted many gentile believers into the church to make Israel jealous. God will one day fulfill the promises he had made to that nation, because he is faithful, sovereign, and not dependent upon human fickleness. He has not replaced the Jews with the church. Believing Jews as well as believing gentiles are part of the Body of the Messiah, the church. When it comes to salvation, God covenants on an individual basis (John 1:11-12). Unbelieving Jews are lost and in need of salvation, just as unbelieving gentiles are lost and in need of salvation. But God has a special destiny for the generation of Jewish people living in the “end times.” The church is connected to and draws her sustenance from Israel, yet God’s promises to the genetic descendents of Jacob stand. Jews are, at times, a stubborn and stiff-necked people and make wonderful examples of God’s grace to the undeserving.

 Others Have Already Documented A Similar Paradigm

Messianic Jewish and Jewish Roots authorities have produced a wealth of volumes and articles to argue the case above. Especially noteworthy are Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospel by David Stern, Jesus, the Jewish Theologian by Brad Young, Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church by Ron Moseley, and They Loved the Torah by David Friedman. In this volume, I hope to build upon these assumptions and put them to practical work. I will elaborate upon some of the above in later chapters and footnote in greater detail.

I believe when Yeshua preached to the Jewish crowds, he did so out of love and respect. To the Samaritan woman at the well, Jesus was transparent about his view of the Jewish people and Judaism, “You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.” Note that Jesus used the term “we,” thus including himself as a Jew.

He cherished the Law and sought to apply it to his listeners, and he fully engaged in the debates of his day. Yeshua was unlike any other rabbi, yet he was more like his rabbinic peers than most Christians imagine. He validated the rulings of other rabbis; he sided with one particular school of rabbis most times, but not always. He talked about what fellow rabbis talked about, the “hot issues” of the day. Sometimes he found himself caught in the crossfire between competing schools of thought (the conflict between the School of Hillel – Bet Hillel, and the School of Shammai – Bet Shammai). Most of his teachings were consistent with mainstream Judaism.

It takes several books to address all these issues thoroughly. But I will say this:

The School of Hillel (and Jesus usually agreed with this school) taught that gentiles could be saved if they turned from their sin to the true God and demonstrated their repentance by living under the covenant of Noah (not the Law, which was given to Israel). The School of Shammai (which prevailed in Jesus’ day) taught that gentiles had to be circumcised and obey the Law in order to be saved (like we see in Galatians). The Jerusalem council, in Acts 15, besides making it clear that turning to God meant believing in Jesus, affirmed the Hillel position (that saved gentiles only had to live by the standards of the 7 Noahide commands…you can look these up on the internet). Their ruling against blood and immorality parallels those commands.

So I am saying that believing Jews continued to be Jews and observed the Law (not for salvation, but to identify as God’s nation, Israel), including eating Kosher (which is why Peter could not understand his vision, even though it was quite a while AFTER Pentecost, and the goal of the vision was not about food, but, as Peter said, that he should consider no MAN unclean). So believing Jews WERE expected to observe the rulings of those who sat in the seat of Moses, as Jesus said.

Alternatively, Nehemia Gordon, a Karaite Jew, has written a book titled, “The Hebrew Yeshua Vs. the Greek Jesus” and he argues that this statement (obeying those who sit in Moses’ seat) is actually a textual corruption based on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. I do not agree with that position, but it is an interesting alternative.

You make a big mistake when you take things which were spoken to Jews who were living under the Law and attempt to apply those same things to those in the Body of Christ, where there is neither Greek nor Jew (Col.3:11) and where no one is under the Law.

Jack, the same verses, like Galatians 3:28 teach we are neither Greek nor Jew teach that there is neither female nor male in Christ. There is a difference between our relationship to and status before Christ and our daily or church lives. For example, women are not allowed to teach men in the church, even though there is neither male nor female. So we have to say that there is a sense in which we have neither female or male in Christ, and there is a sense in which male and female are distinct.

The Jewish believers were clearly zealous for observing the Law. What could be more clear than Acts 21:20

20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.

Yet the gentiles were not responsible to keep the Law (Acts 15:20), though they were to learn it, as per Acts 15:21

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

Jack, the common elements between Jewish believers were (1) a common trust in Christ alone for salvation, and (2) a common commitment to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. Being a disciple, by definition, meant learning (usually memorizing) and then practicing the command of a rabbi. In this case, all who followed Jesus learned and kept the commands as relevant. Since gentile believers were grafted in years later, Jesus did not address the relationship of gentile believers to the Law, but did so later via the apostles.

As far as literalness goes, the whole point of my book and article is that the SOM is a series of short summary statements, and that to really understand their teaching, you need to go back to the first testament verses that the text is expounding and the issues of the day. I have suggested and documented that one debate of the era was whether one could sue another for insult, as in the case of a slap on the cheek. In the case of Matthew 5:25-41, these issues are in the context of legal rulings. I am saying that a slap on the cheek is typical for all sorts of insults or prosecutable offenses. This is not talking about persecution here, as is the case when Jesus was arrested. The SOM is filled with figurative language or cases taken to the extreme (this is called the rabbinic “hot and cold” method). For example, one man has a large beam jutting out of his eye while another has a speck. A camel goes through the eye of a needle elsewhere.

If you try to interpret the SOM with the idea that this is ALL Jesus said at the time, you will come out with a perspective that says, “contradiction.” And thus the interpreter is forced to relegate the SOM to a different dispensation, which still carries with it the same problems, only for a different group of people. The Millennium will not be a perfect time because people will be sinners, but the issues of Matthew 5:11-12 is for now, not the Millennium. To the contrary, during the Millennium it is more like Zechariah 8:23,

This is what the LORD Almighty says: “In those days ten men from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, ‘Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you.’ “

As far as Jesus’ response when slapped, I Peter 2:23 makes the point:

23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.

I do not think that turning the other cheek really refers to this, IMO; this is bearing up under persecution. I still think turning the other cheek is about the issue as to whether one should sue for insult, and Jesus is teaching we should give people space before we bring in the authorities or sue. If you want to think that turning the other cheek refers to persecution, I do not have trouble with that. But I stand by my article.