The Old Testament Perspective of Matthew 5:19-20 And a Critique of the Armstrongist Interpretation

 

The Mount of Beatitudes Where Jesus May Have Preached the Sermon on the Mount

The Old Testament Perspective of Matthew 5:19-20

And a Critique of the Armstrongist Interpretation 

By Scout

 

Jesus in that sermon (Sermon on the Mount) said He did not come to destroy the Law or the prophets. He came only to fulfill. And I've shown you that according to the New Testament in James that we are commanded to fulfill the Law following in His steps — He set us an example that we should follow His steps and we too must fulfill the Law or else we are sinners and love is the fulfilling of the Law. And He said that not the dotting of an "i" or the crossing of a "t" would be removed from the Law until everyone is really fulfilling it.  ― Herbert W. Armstrong, “Spirit of the Law”, Sermon, 1979  

 

What if Israel really wanted to continue observing the Law? Well, it is simply impossible. There is no longer a priesthood, no temple, and no sacrificial system—all of which comprise the heart and essence of the Law. We cannot separate the Sinai covenant from the Law. The laws are merely an outgrowth of the covenant … Those who want to can only pick out a few laws to keep that are not related to the temple, the priesthood, or the sacrificial system.” ― Dr. Eitan Bar, “Reading Moses, Seeing Jesus: How the Torah Fulfills its Goal in Yeshua,” 2017.

Jesus spoke to Jews ― Jews of the Second Temple period.  I am a bit Jewish so I can sympathize.  I am descended from certain Sephardic Jews and history indicates that these Jews were from the Southern Tribes and fled Palestine in 70 AD.   So, it is likely that my Jewish heritage is a mix of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi.  While it is interesting to be genetically connected to these tribes, I have to solemnly consider that I am descended from people who may have heard Jesus and rejected him. I recognize that Jesus spoke to a very specific and demanding audience.  But Jesus, I am certain, had no trouble with this audience.  Because Jesus was an expert at “reading the room.”  After all, he could read people’s minds.  Jesus read the room with perfect precision and said exactly what was needed.  So, it is important not to overlook the audience-related nuances in what his words tell us.  As I examine two verses in Matthew 5, it will become obvious why this is important.   

The Redemption Model in Matthew 5:19-20

Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount to his disciples and to a Jewish crowd purportedly on the Mount of Beatitudes near Lake Tiberias. Matthew 5 begins with, “When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain, and after he sat down, his disciples came to him.”  Some have asserted that Jesus was not speaking to the crowd of Jews but only to the disciples. This is likely meant to support the idea that the Sermon on the Mount, with its references to Torah, was a thoroughgoing New Testament statement without Old Testament influence.  But it is clear that Jews were a part of the audience because Matthew 7 ends with, “Now when Jesus had finished saying these words, the crowds were astounded at his teaching.”  They must have all been close together to be able to hear the voice of Jesus.

I think the Jewish audience had an inkling of what was going to happen by the time Jesus reached verse 17 of Matthew 5.  He had already talked about who would enter the Kingdom of Heaven in the Beatitudes and he did not mention once keeping the Torah.  So, by this time the crowd was probably thinking, “This guy, this miracle worker, doesn’t believe in following the Torah.”  He answered this unvoiced objection by stating pre-emptively that he would not abolish the Law and the Prophets (the Tanakh) but would himself fulfill its demands perfectly – every last word not just a selection.  All the commandments, statutes, judgements, ordinances, rituals and ceremonies.   In this, Jesus took a shot at the Pharisees.  He would later accuse them of preaching but not doing what they preached (Matthew 23:3).  He, further, explained that one had to not only teach but do the Law in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  The Pharisees were teaching but not doing.  

In the course of this, in Matthew 5:19-20, Jesus touched on the model of redemption that was relevant to this audience.  He said, 

“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. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

There is a reason why I refer to this passage as a redemption model and not a salvation model.  If you are familiar with Christian soteriology, by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), then Matthew 5:19-20 is informative. It tells you that Jesus is not speaking of salvation (“entering into the Kingdom of Heaven”) as we know it from Pauline theology. In the Pauline model of salvation, one does not enter the kingdom of heaven by achieving a certain level of righteousness.  In this case, a level that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees – both groups ardent Torah keepers.  That would be salvation by works.  Jesus did not speak of New Testament salvation by grace through faith in this sermon.  He spoke the Torahic concept of keeping the Law in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven as Jews understood the Kingdom idea. This was the idea that keeping the Torah would bring blessings in this temporal, earthly life (Leviticus 18:5, Deuteronomy 30:15-16).  In Second Temple Judaism to “take upon oneself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven” meant consciously keeping the Torah, and submitting to God in this lifetime.  Within the boundaries of this system, if you were good then you had a good life on earth but in the end everyone went to Sheol where they lived a diminished existence in a dim, subterranean shadow-world.

Further, Jesus states in verse 20 that someone can break laws, even the least of them, and teach others to follow this evil example and still be in the Kingdom of Heaven.  The downside for that person is only that the person will be one of the least in rank.  This does not sound like the dire consequences that Paul spoke of in reaction to the activities of the Circumcision Party when he said in Galatians 5:4, “You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”

This drives the conclusion that Jesus is not speaking about the Christian model of eternal salvation but the Jewish model of earthly blessing.  The deeper picture is this: Jesus, who was under the Law, was speaking to Jews who were under the Law.  Jesus had not been crucified and the grace he was to bring was not known yet.  When Jesus mentioned the Kingdom of Heaven, the Jewish audience was not seeing the shining, mystical scenarios from the Book of Revelation because John of Patmos would not write until years later. There was no golden vision of the Parousia because Jesus was standing right in front of them and nobody could foresee his death and return, not even his own disciples.   There is no discussion here of the Crucifixion, grace, faith, the Ekklesia and theosis.  Instead, what was in view, was the earthly Judaic Kingdom of Heaven that meant for the future the coming of the Messiah militant and the exaltation of the nation of Israel and the casting down of Israel’s enemies.  Even Jesus’ own disciples held this view (Acts 1:6, Luke 24:21).  But some may see Matthew 5:19-20 not as instruction to a mixed audience of Jews under the Law and the disciples of Jesus but instruction solely to Christians under grace.  That brings us to Armstrongism and the Circumcision Party. 

The Armstrongist Interpretation and Its Similarity to Circumcision Party Belief

In the wake of the church planting work of Paul and bar-Nabus, a collection of Pharisees who had a different view on what Christ said, began to aggressively push a different message.  They asserted that one had to be circumcised in order to be saved.  They also asserted that one must keep the Law of Moses to receive salvation.  This group of Pharisees is known to modern critics as the Circumcision Party.  But they could just as accurately be referred to as the Torah Party. 

The view of the Circumcision/Torah Party on salvation has a modern parallel among Armstrongists.  The Circumcision/Torah Party and Armstrongists came to the same conclusion about the Torah’s relationship to salvation.  The citation from a sermon by Herbert W. Armstrong at the beginning of this opinion piece underscores this.  Armstrong drew the same conclusion that the Circumcision/Torah party drew – that the Torah is still a requirement for salvation.  The difference is that the Circumcision/Torah Party, influenced by the Pharisees, promoted the Law of Moses with fidelity to the Tanakh.  Whereas, Armstrongism promotes a streamlined, mini-Torah.

See Rod Meredith’s article, “Is Obedience to God Required for Salvation?” for how the argument supporting this Armstrongist doctrine is developed.  We do not have, as far as I know, a record of how the Circumcision/Torah Party developed this conclusion.  They may have simply misinterpreted statements like Matthew 5:19-20. In the statement of Herbert W. Armstrong’s position in 1979 cited at the beginning of this opinion piece, it is clear that Armstrongists are required to fulfill the Torah in the same way that Jesus fulfilled the Torah down to the jot and tittle level (though in 1956 Meredith, in his article previously cited, excluded the sacrifices and imposition of the death penalty).  If Herbert W. Armstrong’s view were really true, we would all be capable of human earthly perfection in this life (this is a belief found among some Millerites called Spiritualizers) and the imputed righteousness of Christ would be rendered superfluous.  So, the Armstrongist view leaves us with some unresolved issues. 

Conclusion

The Sermon on the Mount is a significant part of what Christians view as the Law of Christ. But it was not delivered to Christians but to Jews of the Second Temple period, Jews who were under the Torah.  While the Sermon on the Mount is bedrock Christian doctrine, it must be recognized that it was delivered in Jewish terms to a Jewish audience.  Jesus read the room and spoke to his audience.  During the course of the sermon, Jesus even mentioned taking a gift (Greek, doron, which is typically an animal sacrifice) to the alter, a sacrificial practice required under the Law but not in Christianity.  We must recognize the coloration of Second Temple Judaism in the Sermon on the Mount and permit the words spoken by Jesus later through the Apostle Paul and the author of Hebrews to temper these Judaic views.