Matthew 5:20

[jay santos]

Matthew 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness
shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye
shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


What does this mean? I can't imagine Jesus meaning this literally. Was there some sort of sarcasm or double meaning?

Scripture scholars please help me out here. I'd really like an interpretation that supports my grace agenda.

My ward's Gospel Doctrine class can turn every lesson into a works and "we have to be more righteous" discussion.

[BarbaraGordon]

My (non-scholarly) take:

The pharisees taught that compliance with the law alone is sufficient for righteousness. They saw no need for salvation. Under the new covenant, righteousness is made possible through Christ.

"...Through the obedience of the One, the many will be made righteous." Romans 5:19

So, Jesus meant that only those that seek righteousness through Christ will enter the kingdom of heaven.

[MikeWaters]

It means that Jesus was telling the scribes and pharisees that they would not be going to heaven, and to the people, that they should not look to scribes and pharisees for salvation.

[jay santos]

So how do you combat the literal interpretation that the issue here is not reliance on Christ, but it's on ratcheting up your good works to exceed another group's, thereby gaining salvation? If I don't have other scriptures to set me straight, that interpretation seems pretty logical, given the words and the context and surrounding text.

Whenever I see the word righteousness in the New Testament, it usually is a reference to Christ's righteousness which we inherit, but this one doesn't seem to allude to that.

[Indy Coug]

Christ was fulfilling the Law of Moses and "raising the bar" where not committing adultery wasn't good enough if you still lusted after another woman.

Thus, the extreme letter of the law compliance advocated by the Pharisees wasn't going to cut it anymore (maybe it wasn't good enough beforehand either, but I'm not going to weigh in on that topic here).

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Christ was fulfilling the Law of Moses and "raising the bar" where not committing adultery wasn't good enough if you still lusted after another woman.

Thus, the extreme letter of the law compliance advocated by the Pharisees wasn't going to cut it anymore (maybe it wasn't good enough beforehand either, but I'm not going to weigh in on that topic here).

See that's the common interpretation, but it just doesn't jibe with Christ's other teachings (at least my understanding of them). And it leads to a doctrinal leaning on works that I find overbearing and depressing and becomes the foundation of everything I hate about church culture: self righteous, judgemental, guilt obsessed, etc.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Here’s another longwinded monologue:

Always keep in mind that Matthew is writing a polemical argument for the Jews to follow the Christian Jews (such as the Nazoraeans and the Ebionites) amidst the Roman oppression. It was written after 70 AD in the time when Jews were fleeing a ruined Jerusalem and their religious leadership was in question. The famous anti-semitic passages in Matthew 27 have been continuously misinterpreted. Matthew was not suggesting all Jews be held responsible for the death of Jesus, but rather certain Jewish sects. The passage is about internal Jewish strife and not about wholesale ethnic condemnation. More to the point, a passage that is perpetually ignored is Matt. 23:2-3 where Jesus says, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach." That’s right, according to Matthew, Jesus told people to follow the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees but not their actions (look up Josephus on this point too). Anyone who thinks that they can just cite Matthew 5:20 and set up a saved through works doctrine is not only engaging circular reasoning, but is ignoring the real tensions between NT writers on the faith-works issue.

Consider Romans 3:10

as it is written: "There is no one who is righteous, not even one;


And Romans 3:20-25

For "no human being will be justified in his sight" by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith.

And Romans 10:6-11:

“But the righteousness that comes from faith says, "Do not say in your heart, "Who will ascend into heaven?' " (that is, to bring Christ down) "or "Who will descend into the abyss?' " (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved.”

And Ephesians 2:8-10

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.

And 1 Peter 2:1-2

Rid yourselves, therefore, of all malice, and all guile, insincerity, envy, and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure, spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow into salvation if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

I could cite verses all day, but a position of works as the active reception of grace (opening the unearned gift, as it were) and as signifying deepening grace in one’s life, grace that will help one endure to the end, but not wherein works are the CAUSE OF SALVATION (i.e. Ephesian's assertion that it is "not the result of works") looks quite tenable to me.

Matthew and the epistle of James are well known for their "works bias" (Martin Luther famously called James the "epistle of straw") and, in my view, cannot be wholly reconciled to other scriptural writings (particularly to Paul's epistle to the Romans). A responsible approach would not be to simply pick verses that one interprets as agreeable to one’s views (whether in Matt. 5 or Romans 10 or whatever), but to put those passages in conversation with each other. Alas, trying to get a room full of Mormons to do this is not easy. The organization of the lesson manuals discourages this kind of healthy and worthwhile study, and many Church members are in the habit of picking verses they agree with (and ignoring others) instead of using the scriptures to search for truth.

In this spirit, look at the verses preceeding 5:20. In 5:17-19 Matthew writes:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew presents Jesus as the Jewish savior, the Messiah, the king of the Jews, and the people he is to save are the Jews. Matthew's Jewish Christians believe that following Jesus means following the "fulfilled" Jewish law that Jesus himself followed. All this is in sharp contrast with Luke's message of a universal, more gentile-friendly savior. In Matthew, Jesus was circumcised, observed the Passover, acknowledged the authority (although corrupted) of the Jewish religious authorities, fulfilled OT prophecies and so on, and his followers should do these things too. It is Matthew-esque Christian missionaries that have Paul so worked up in Galatians 2. It is fellow Christians whom Paul is condemning as "false teachers." The tension between Matthew’s and Paul’s takes on righteousness and the applicability of the Jewish law is what's at stake in Matt. 5:20, and not some broad sweeping assertion of salvation earned through works. A reasonable, but only partial, reconciliation of these tensions would be that the righteousness spoken of in Matt. 5:20 is the active acceptance of grace through sincere Christian living (Matthew would see this as Jesus-fulfilled Jewish living), something that we are created to do (ala Ephesians 2:8-10), but that we can never claim as our own righteousness in and of ourselves (Rom. 3:10). This looks to me like “gracefully” growing into salvation (1 Peter 1:1-2). Matthew and Paul would still disagree about how that grace should be evidenced.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jay Santos

Scripture scholars please help me out here. I'd really like an interpretation that supports my grace agenda.

Maybe the problem is you're trying to shoehorn a scripture to fit an existing agenda.

If anything, Matthew 5 puts LESS emphasis on works, and MORE emphasis on becoming Christ-like. People can do many of the works advocated by the commandments of God without truly being changed in their heart.

Christ is trying to get the point across that the motivation is more important than the act, IMO.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

So how do you combat the literal interpretation that the issue here is not reliance on Christ, but it's on ratcheting up your good works to exceed another group's, thereby gaining salvation? If I don't have other scriptures to set me straight, that interpretation seems pretty logical, given the words and the context and surrounding text.

Whenever I see the word righteousness in the New Testament, it usually is a reference to Christ's righteousness which we inherit, but this one doesn't seem to allude to that.

He doesn't say "if you exceed the righteousness of the pharisees you will attain salvation." He effectively says "if you aren't more righteous than the pharisees, you CAN'T obtain salvation."

He is simultaneously saying you need to be righteous and be saved by grace (I think).

[pelagius]

Jay, as always, I am not a scholar of this stuff but I will put in my 2 cents anyway. I don't think Jesus is being sarcastic here, but I don't think the focus here is that the new Christian community is subject to impossible ideals and even more negative prohibitions than than Mosaic law. The point of Matthew chapter 5 (at least how I read it) is on Jesus' ability to deliver and transform us. Let's use verse 21 through 26 as an example (note my thinking on the Sermon on Mount is heavily influence by the following article: Stassen, Glen, 2003, The Fourteen triads of the Sermon on the Mount, Journal of Biblical Literature, 267-308).

Matthew 5:21-26:

21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of
hell fire. 23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. 25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Note: Raca is basically an untranslated Greek word. Strong's has the following for the Greek word, Rhaka:
1) empty, i.e. a senseless, empty headed man
2) term of reproach used among the Jews in the time of Christ

Looking through these verses what kind of imperative statements (gives a command or makes a request) does Jesus make?


The first sentence contains the imperative that ``thou shalt not kill.'' Of course, Jesus is quoting or summarizing the traditional teaching on murder from Exodus 20:13. Verses 23 through 26 are loaded with imperatives: (1) Leave your gift, (2) go thy way, (3) be reconciled to thy brother, and (4) agree with thine adversary. Stassen points that there are 5 imperatives in the Greek in verses 23 to 26.

Strangely, statements involving becoming angry and the use of insults are not imperatives. There is no explicit imperative to not get angry. In other words, Jesus does not make it a command not to get angry. There are also no imperatives in the underlying Greek;\footnote{Stassen, Glen H., 2003, The Fourteen Triads of the Sermon on the Mount, Journal of Biblical Literature, 267-308.} So I don't think we can chock this up to a translation problem.

What can we learn from the use or placement of the imperative? What does the structure of the imperative and declarative sentences tell us about the focus of the passage?

The focus is on the imperatives. Jesus never tells us not to get angry, but he does tell us to do a lot of other things in this passage. Now think about the structure. How are these different parts related to each other. I like to follow Stassen and I see the structure as the following:

I. Traditional teaching on murder

a. You have heard of old that it was said
b. You shall not kill;
c. and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment

II. Jesus’ teaching on the vicious cycles that lead to murder/judgment

a. being angry - you shall be liable to judgment.
b. uttering insults - you shall be liable to the council.
c. uttering you fool - you shall be liable to hell.

III. Jesus’ teaching on transforming initiatives that deliver us from the vicious cycles

a. If you remember someone has something against you, go be reconciled
b. Make peace with your accuser if going to court.
c. Explanation: otherwise you shall be liable for judgment.

There are a lot of triadic structures in Matthew. The last element of the triad is the most important. Jesus' focus is on deliverance; he imparts positive imperatives that will deliver us from a vicious cycle that starts with anger and leads to judgment. The focus of sermon is not on high ideals and difficult discipleship, but about transforming grace that allows us to come closer to these high ideals.

To me this provides context for the previous verse. We indeed have to be more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees but the way or the path of righteousness is the transforming initiatives described in the Sermon on the Mount.

Let me conclude with Stassen's commentary of this pattern and how it affects are understanding of Matthew 5:48 (be ye therefore perfect):

This climatic triad ends the first six triads with a summarizing explanation: ‘You will be complete as your Father in heaven is complete’ (or perfect or all-inclusive). It does not mean to live up to an ideal of moral perfection, as if one could say that god lives up to an ideal of perfect virtue. It points to God’s creative care for the just and unjust, giving sunshine and rain to all. It is no legalistic demand, no idealistic self-perfection. ‘It means to launch out with the love of God and for the enemy, which goes out to all.’ It points to being whole, complete, or all-inclusive in love toward others, including enemies, as God is inclusive in love toward the just and unjust alike. [p. 282]