The True Practice of Righteousness (Mt 6:1–18)
From 5:21 onward, Jesus has set forth his position with regard to the Old Testament: he has placed over against the literal fulfillment in the old covenant a new fulfillment of the Law, which has its deepest foundation in pure disposition and in the noblest love of neighbor. Alongside this exercise of virtue, however, the performance of positive good works must accompany the disposition, so that deed stands beside intention. This, however, was so self-evident among the Jews that it was not necessary to exhort them to external works as such, but only to give instructions concerning the manner in which these were to be performed. Therefore Jesus does not exhort them to such works in general, but shows, by means of individual examples—almsgiving, prayer, fasting, which were the most customary good works (Tobit 12:8)—how good works must be carried out if one wishes to expect a reward from the Father in heaven.
Keim (2, p. 268) designates the first part as a critique of the theory of duties toward one’s neighbor, and this second part as a critique of Pharisaic worship, and wishes to separate it from what precedes, since, alongside the similarity and apparent connection, the difference is nevertheless too great. The righteousness in Mt 6:1, he says, is a completely different one from that in Mt 5:20. He is surprised that the independence of 6:1 ff. was not recognized earlier. Against this, however, according to Weiss, the section forms so clearly the counterpart required by Mt 5:27 to Mt 5:21–48 that no doubt remains about its belonging to the Sermon on the Mount; similarly Meyer, Keil, Schegg. Schegg (I, p. 224) connects Mt 6:1 with Mt 5:10–12 in so striking a way that it could not be overlooked. Jesus, after a short interruption, takes up again a principle previously expressed and develops it according to its further consequences. In the first main part of his discourse (Mt 5:3–15) he sets forth what messianic righteousness consists in; in the second (Mt 5:17–48), what its excellence is; and in the third, what foundation it has, from what root it springs.
Keim is right to this extent, that it is indeed not a matter here of carrying out the commandments of love of neighbor given in Mt 5:21–48, and that the reward in heaven comes into the foreground. Yet this reward is precisely, with reference to righteousness, already mentioned in Mt 5:12, whereby Keim himself, with Schegg, finds the connection indicated. This connection, however, is not of such a kind that one may, with Schegg, regard what follows as a mere interruption, especially since in v. 46, in τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε (“what reward do you have?”), the reward in heaven is presupposed as a contrast. Therefore one must proceed from Mt 5:20. Since, however, the exposition up to Mt 5:48 is directed not primarily against Pharisaic abuses, but against the letter of the Law, and from Mt 6:1 onward the discourse is no longer about the commandments there discussed but about works of virtue, one must recognize a progression here.
One must not merely say that the disciples must not only understand the demands of the Law better, but also must not fulfill it in such a way that, because it in reality pursues other purposes than the fulfillment of the divine will, it nullifies itself (Weiss); rather, one must recognize here the demand that, in addition to the more negative determinations of the previous exposition, the positive deed is also required—definite good works through which a person makes himself pleasing to God.
This progression, however, is already prepared for by the conclusion of the last section, where, in relation to the insulter, the unjust oppressor, and the borrower, not merely a purely passive behavior is commanded, but a positive readiness to meet the other halfway. Hence Justin (Apology I, 15, p. 62 D) and the Opus imperfectum connect the entire passage from αὐτοῦντι (“to him who asks”) onward with what follows, which is a proof of Christian beneficence. In this sense Ewald was not entirely wrong when he placed these three pieces under the viewpoint of the “means of virtue.” They did indeed form such in the Old Testament and especially among the Pharisees.
Nor could Jesus here highlight the contrast to the Old Testament, since he did not want to set other works in place of these, but only to warn against the externalism connected with the Old Testament standpoint, which indeed had found its strongest expression among the Pharisees—without one being justified, with Lutteroth (II, p. 110), in assuming in what precedes la fausse justice des scribes and in what follows celle des pharisiens.
1. Almsgiving (Mt 5:1–4)
In v. 1, Tischendorf reads, after B L Z, δέ after προσέχετε (“take heed”), which is also otherwise a common connecting particle (Mt 3:1), and could easily have fallen out after T E. Instead of δικαιοσύνην (“righteousness”), L Z A Rec read ἐλεημοσύνην (“almsgiving”), but this is an interpretive gloss, following Chrysostom, from v. 2. Finally, Tischendorf omits the article before οὐρανοῖς (“heavens”) after B D; cf. 5:45; but the attestation for this is too weak.
Mt 6:1 is an introduction. With προσέχετε (“take heed”), the Lord exhorts his own to be on guard that they do not perform righteousness from false motives. δικαιοσύνη must, as before (Mt 5:6, 10, 20), be taken generally as moral rectitude. But since it is specified by three examples and, because of ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων (“before men”), must be related to outward works, the old interpretation as ἐλεημοσύνη is too narrow, but nevertheless indicates what kind of rectitude is meant. One might translate it as “exercise of virtue.” That this presupposes virtue as right disposition is precisely what is required.
It is disputed whether the Hebrew צְדָקָה (ṣĕdāqāh, “righteousness/almsgiving”) occurs in this meaning; yet Daniel 4:24, Proverbs 10:2; 11:4; Tobit 4:10; 12:9 show, even according to Keil, that works-righteous Jews declared almsgiving to be a principal part of legal righteousness, and where δικαιοσύνη manifested itself in beneficence, they substituted ἐλεημοσύνη. Tobit 12:8 shows that prayer together with fasting and almsgiving were regarded as principal components of this righteousness. Since precisely these three points are mentioned in what follows, δικαιοσύνη here must be understood above all as external righteousness.
To εἰ δὲ μήγε (“otherwise”), προσέχετε is to be supplied (Winer 64.1, p. 543; Krüger 65.5; 12.62.4). μισθὸν οὐκ ἔχετε (“you have no reward”) distinguishes Christian recompense from the Old Testament one. In the earlier canonical writings, eschatology is only weakly developed. Only in the Book of Wisdom and in 2 Maccabees are definite statements given. A further development of these views took place under the influence of Hellenism. In the Book of Enoch there is a Hades in the far west and a paradise in the east beyond the Erythraean Sea. In Hades are the deceased sinners; in the earthly paradise the virtuous departed. Although these conceptions cannot be regarded as universally valid, other views can nevertheless be combined with them. In any case, in pre-Christian literature paradise is conceived in an earthly sense and only later transferred to heaven (Langen, loc. cit., p. 474).
In the New Testament, however, this is entirely different. The reward in heaven is not to be expected in an earthly paradise, but with the Father in heaven. With this, the great difference from the Jewish conception is expressed. The reward with God, however, can only be expected for works performed according to his will and to his honor; hence the members of the new kingdom are so urgently warned against vainglory, which lies so close to human nature.
ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων (“before men”) and πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι (“in order to be seen”) seem to be identical. But Chrysostom already calls attention to the distinction:
ἔστι γὰρ καὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ποιοῦντα μὴ πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι ποιεῖν, καὶ μὴ ποιοῦντα πάλιν ἔμπροσθεν πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι ποιεῖν· διόπερ οὐχ ἁπλῶς τὸ γινόμενον, ἀλλὰ τὴν γνώμην κολάζει καὶ στεφανοῖ.
(“For one can also do something before men and not do it in order to be seen; and again, one can not do it before men and yet do it in order to be seen. Therefore he punishes and crowns not simply the deed, but the intention.”)
Justin (Apology I, 15, p. 63 A) combines both: μὴ ποιῆτε ταῦτα πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (“do not do these things to be seen by men”).
Mt 6:2: μὴ σαλπίσῃς (“do not sound a trumpet before you”) is not to be taken literally, as some (Euthymius, Maldonatus, a Lapide, Wünsche, p. 77) suppose, but is a vivid expression by which everything that attracts attention in almsgiving is forbidden. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius. For explanation one may compare buccinator in Cicero (ad div. 16.21), οὐχ ὑπὸ σάλπιγγι μόνον ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ κήρυκι, Achilles Tatius, Prudentius (de Symmacho 2.68). No testimony is found for the use of a trumpeter at the giving of alms (Lightfoot, Schöttgen).
οἱ ὑποκριταί (“the hypocrites”) in classical usage are interpreters, rhapsodists, actors; in the New Testament, hypocrites. Here these are the Pharisees, who had carried hypocrisy to the furthest extent. Jesus does not name them, however, because he is not attacking the persons but the matter itself. Since he later calls them hypocrites without reserve, this may indeed be taken as a sign of the early date of our discourse, according to Keim—although such signs are doubtful, and the Pharisees are already mentioned in 5:20.
In the synagogues, especially on the Sabbath, alms were collected and then distributed to the poor in the evening. Likewise, beggars sat at street corners and at palace gates to ask for alms (Lightfoot; Vitringa, De Synagoga 3.1.13; Schöttgen, who, however, understands ῥῦμαι as places in the temple and synagogues through which one can walk). The Old Testament frequently exhorts to almsgiving (Deut. 15:7; Ps. 41:2; 112:5; Prov. 11:25; 19:17; Isa. 58:7–8), and the Lord does not warn here against giving, but against the wrong motive.
ῥύμη, from ῥύω (“rush, flow”), means a place of movement, later a narrow alley; otherwise στενωπός. τὸν μισθὸν αὐτῶν (“their reward”)—they have received their reward, since they sought nothing more than human praise.
Mt 6:3 The placing of σοῦ (sou, “your”) at the beginning emphasizes the contrast. μὴ γνώτω κτλ. (“let not [your left hand] know, etc.”) is a proverbial mode of expression. Almsgiving is to be carried out as secretly as possible. The symbolic interpretations, according to which the “left hand” is to be understood as the wicked or the unbelievers, were already rejected by the Fathers, Chrysostom and Augustine. The modern explanation—that one counts the money in the left hand before giving it with the right (Paulus, de Wette)—is ridiculous. Another explanation, likewise related to thriftiness and favored by many, Augustine designates as tam absurda quam ridenda (“as absurd as it is laughable”).
Mt 6:4. Tischendorf reads, following א B D A, ὅπως ἡ σου ἐλ ᾖ (“so that your alms may be [in secret]”), an alteration which very naturally suggested itself through understanding the first ἡ as an article. αὐτός (“himself”) would serve for emphasis, but is too weakly attested by D E M A L. The same applies even more to ἐν τῷ φανερῷ (“in public”), E K L M al., which also appears in vv. 6 and 18. Lachmann and Tischendorf strike it everywhere; Meyer wishes to retain it in vv. 4 and 6. The addition is occasioned by ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ (“in secret”), to which the public recompense at the Day of Judgment (2 Cor 5:10) will correspond, though this does not exclude a private one occurring immediately after death.
Alms given in this manner are truly good works, because the feelings of the poor are spared and God is given the honor. ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ (“he who sees in secret”), that is, God—nothing remains unknown to him, and he will recompense you for it. Fritzsche explains this as “he who has eyes in secret,” which Arnoldi, quite characteristically, Schegg finds inverted, since one can have eyes and yet not see.
2. Prayer (Mt 5:5-15)
The Mosaic Law contains no ordinance concerning prayer, and from the earliest period there is also a lack of reports concerning public prayer. Prayer appears to have been left to private practice and was cultivated there from early on (Gen 18:23; 20:17; 1 Sam 1:10; 2:1; 8:6, etc.). The confession of sins on the great Day of Atonement (Lev 16:21) and the thanksgiving at the offering of the firstfruits (Deut 26:3–14) can be designated as beginnings of public prayers, but they are nevertheless not proper prayers. On the other hand, from Solomon there has been preserved for us a magnificent prayer spoken at the dedication of the Temple (1 Kings 8:56 ff.).
According to the Talmud, with the morning and evening sacrifice certain prayers were connected; cf. also Ps 73:20; 136. In the Exile, the morning and evening prayer took the place of sacrifice, to which soon the afternoon prayer was added—thus at the third, sixth, and ninth hours. Scholz (Alterthümer 2, p. 347) conjectures this already for the time of David from Ps 55:18. One prayed standing, kneeling, bent to the ground, or stretched out on the ground (cf. Scholz 2, p. 345 ff.; Schäfer, p. 147 f.; Keil, Archäologie, p. 362 ff.; Schürer, p. 498 ff.).
Mt 6:5. Instead of προσεύχῃ and ἔσῃ (“you pray / you are”), προσεύχησθε and ἔσεσθε (“you pray / you will be”) are to be read (א B Z Min. Verss. Fathers; Lachmann, Tischendorf). The singular is conformed to what precedes and follows. φιλοῦσιν (“they love [to]”) means “they are accustomed to,” “they like to do,” often of lifeless things as well among classical authors; in the New Testament only here with the infinitive (Isa 56:10 LXX). ἑστῶτες (“standing”) refers to the customary posture of standing during prayer (1 Sam 1:26; Dan 9:20; Mark 11:25; Luke 18:11, 13; Philo, De vita contemplativa, opp. II, p. 481; Wünsche). Only in extraordinary cases were the other postures chosen. Among the Rabbis there was even the saying: stare nihil aliud quam orare (“to stand is nothing other than to pray”) (Lightfoot, p. 298). Therefore no ecstatic state is to be thought of here.
The hypocrites sought to make themselves very noticeable on the way to the temple or synagogue for the performance of the daily prayers, or they would remain standing in the street to perform their prayer when they happened to be overtaken by the prayer hour (Wünsche, p. 81).
Mt 5:6. Here also Jesus adds to the prohibition of practicing righteousness from vainglorious motives the command for its right practice. καὶ τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ πολλαχοῦ τῆς διδασκαλίας αὐτοῦ κέχρηται (Euthymius: “and in this manner he has often made use of this in his teaching”). ταμεῖον, more correctly ταμιεῖον, as several codices also read (Winer 16.2, p. 90), from ταμιεύω, is the storeroom and treasure chamber (Deut 28:8; Prov 3:10; Luke 12:24), then the inner room of the house, Hebrew חֶדֶר (ḥeder, “inner chamber”), Gen 43:30. It does not denote (as in Mt 16:9, 12) something else. In contrast to the public synagogues and streets, it expresses quiet withdrawal (Matt 24:26; Luke 12:3; Tobit 7:15), so that one need not think exclusively of the upper room (ὑπερῷον), where prayer was indeed often offered (Dan 6:11; Judith 8:5; Tobit 3:12; Acts 1:13). κλείσας τὴν θύραν (“having shut the door”) heightens still more the notion of seclusion.
Prayer is to be communion with God, and therefore the one praying must be free from everything that draws him away from God. But if he is in this disposition of soul, he can also pray rightly in the midst of an assembly. Thus, as the context already shows, Jesus is not so much setting public and private prayer over against one another as ostentatious and humble prayer, and he does not in itself forbid common prayer. The Apostle Paul says that in every place one may lift up pure hands to God in prayer (1 Tim 2:8).
Since it is a matter of disposition alone and not of place, many Fathers (Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Opus imperfectum) interpreted the whole passage mystically, of the withdrawal of the senses into the spiritual realm: Claudendum ergo est ostium, i.e. carnali sensui resistendum est, ut oratio spiritualis dirigatur ad Patrem, quae fit in intimis cordis (Augustine: “Therefore the door must be shut, that is, resistance must be made to the carnal sense, so that spiritual prayer may be directed to the Father, which takes place in the inmost parts of the heart”).
Mt 6:7. While among the Pharisees good will was lacking, among the Gentiles right understanding was lacking. βαττολογεῖν (Tischendorf: βατταλογεῖν) means to stammer, to stutter, and since stutterers tend to repeat the same word and the same syllable, it comes to mean to use many words, to babble. Yet πολυλογία (“much speaking”) does not seem to be identical with βαττολογία (“babbling”), but rather a consequence of it.
The custom of the Gentiles in prayer to name all the names of their gods, so as not to offend any, already led to πολυλογία. The derivation from a proper name, Battus, borne by a stuttering Cyrenaean king (Herodotus 4.155) or by one known as a versifier, is no more than a fancy of ancient grammarians. Just as little does the derivation from the Hebrew בדּים בּטא have any foundation. Hence it is to be explained onomatopoetically, like βατταρίζειν, βατταρισμός, βατταριστής (Hesychius: κατὰ μίμησιν τῆς φωνῆς, “by imitation of the sound”). The nickname of Demosthenes, βάτταλος (Dem. De cor. p. 288, 17; Aeschines In Timarchum 51), is an allusion to βατταρίζειν, since in his youth he could not pronounce the rho (ρ). But even about this the ancients are uncertain; cf. Westermann, De cor.
The Gentiles believed that in prayer everything depended on the word, and as a consequence of their polytheism they failed to recognize the omnipotence and omniscience of God; cf. 1 Kings 18:27. ἐν τῇ πολυλογίᾳ αὐτῶν (“because of their much speaking”), i.e., because of their loquacity (Winer 38.3, p. 362).
Against this mode of thought—which is based on good will but poor understanding—Jesus does not oppose longer prayer in a right disposition of soul, nor the repetition of the same meaningful formula. Augustine says: Absit ab oratione multa locutio, sed non desit multa precatio, si fervens perseveret intentio (“Let much talking be far from prayer, but let not much supplication be lacking, if a fervent intention perseveres”) (Ep. 130.20 [al. 121]). He appeals for this to the example of the Lord (Luke 6:12; 22:43), to which may be added that of the apostolic Church (Acts 1:13 f.; 12:12). Jesus and the Apostles often exhort to persistent prayer (Luke 18:1 ff.; 1 Thess 5:17, etc.).
The omniscience of God therefore does not render longer prayer nor petitionary prayer in general superfluous. Already St. Chrysostom says that one does not pray in order to inform God, but to make him gracious and in order oneself to be humbled and reminded of one’s own sins. St. Augustine finds (De sermone Domini in monte 2.3.13) a double reason why Jesus, despite the warning against pagan babbling, nevertheless requires verba quamvis pauca (“words, though few”): first, because he wished thereby to remind us of the things quas animo gerimus, quibus memoriae mandatis eas ad tempus orandi recordemur (“which we carry in our mind, so that, having committed them to memory, we may recall them at the time of prayer”); and second, because ipsa orationis intentio cor nostrum serenat et purgat, capaciusque efficit ad excipienda divina munera, quae spiritualiter nobis infunduntur (“the very intention of prayer clears and purifies our heart and makes it more capable of receiving the divine gifts which are spiritually poured into us”). Fit ergo in oratione conversio cordis ad eum qui semper dare paratus est, si nos capiamus quod dederit (“Thus in prayer there takes place a conversion of the heart to him who is always ready to give, if we receive what he gives”).
That Jesus did not have in view here a merely Pharisaic contrast is sufficiently indicated, according to Bleek, by the reference to the pagan abuse, even if this is not to be regarded as proof that the saying does not belong in this anti-Pharisaic discourse (Weiss). To a large extent all Jews participated in Pharisaic righteousness, because the Law emphasized the external act above all, and thus they could easily have come to the view that Jesus preferred to them the well-known pagan abuse. Moreover, in v. 6 only one side—the vainglorious motive—is rejected; for the necessity of the humble disposition, which of itself prevents external ostentation and places the chief value in the interior of the person, the contrast of βαττολογία and πολυλογία was especially well suited.
Fasting (Mt 6:16–18)
Fasting, to which Jesus now turns after prayer with δέ (“and”), was regarded among the Jews as a particularly good work and formed an essential part of religious observances. In general, the peoples of the ancient world placed great value on fasting, inasmuch as they saw in it a means of appeasing the deity and a preparation for divine inspirations. It was the expression of humiliation before God in heavy, heart- and soul-oppressing situations of life (1 Sam 1:7), in mourning over misfortune and deaths (1 Sam 20:34), over threatening divine judgments (2 Sam 12:16; 1 Kings 21:27), over great sins (Ezra 10:6), or for the averting of severe calamity (Esth 4:1 ff.; Keil, Archäologie, p. 353).
It was accompanied by weeping, prayer, and kneeling (Judg 20:26; 1 Sam 7:6; Dan 9:3 ff.; Ps 35:13, etc.), and served for the suppression of sensual desires (Philo, De septenario, II, p. 296). Therefore it was regarded as a chastisement of the soul and had to be joined not merely with the rending of garments, but with the rending of the heart (Joel 2:13; Scholz, loc. cit., 2, p. 337; Schäfer, p. 147 f.).
By the Law only one fast was prescribed, for the celebration of the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:29; 23:27). The prophet Zechariah knows of four fast days for the whole nation, in remembrance of disastrous events (Zech 7:3, 5; 8:19). Private fasts increased especially from the time of the Exile onward. Some fasted every Friday; the Pharisees on Monday and Thursday. The Essenes (Josephus, Bell. Jud. 2.8.2; 2.15) and the Therapeutae (Philo, De vita contemplativa, II, p. 471 sq.) fasted with particular strictness.
The one-day fast consisted in complete abstinence from food and drink. To intensify penance, signs of mourning were joined to fasting, such as tearing of garments, wearing sackcloth, and sprinkling with ashes.
Mt 6:16. σκυθρωπός, from ὤψ (“face”) and σκυθρός (“gloomy, morose, ugly in appearance”), σκυθρωπὰ ὄμματα (Aeschylus, Choephoroi 738), πρόσωπα (Herodian 4.3.16), Gen 40:7; Sir 25:31. Here it refers to the gloomy appearance which an unwashed face and disordered hair produce. The same sense has ἀφανίζουσιν (“they disfigure”): they disfigure the face because they neglect ordinary care (Chrysostom: ἀφανίζουσι, τουτέστι διαφθείρουσιν, ἀπολλύουσιν — “they disfigure, that is, they ruin, they destroy”). Philo raises a similar reproach, probably against the Essenes.
φανῶσιν (“that they may appear”) forms a wordplay with ἀφανίζουσιν (“they disfigure”): to make invisible / to appear.
Mt 6:17. ἄλειψαι (“anoint”). The anointing of the head in the East, like washing, was a matter of propriety and was practiced especially before meals (Ps 23:5; Luke 7:46). When it was omitted during fasting (Isa 61:3; 2 Sam 12:20; Dan 10:3), this made fasting outwardly recognizable. Therefore nothing is to be omitted which withdraws fasting from human notice. But this does not mean that fasting is forbidden, nor that it is to be regarded as purely inward, as Keil strangely infers. Rather, this is to express the avoidance of every outward display in fasting and to present it as a purely inward humbling of the heart before God, which is invisible to men and becomes manifest only to God who sees in secret.
Accordingly, the same would also have to be said of almsgiving and prayer. The prohibition of ostentation nowhere strikes at the matter itself. Manifestum est his praeceptis omnem nostram intentionem in interna gaudia dirigi, ne foris quaerentes mercedem huic saeculo conformemur (Augustine, loc. cit., 40: “By these precepts it is clear that our whole intention is to be directed to inward joys, lest, seeking reward outside, we be conformed to this world”).
The command to anoint refers to the concrete circumstances in which anointing was customary, but of course does not bind universally and always. The Fathers explain it figuratively: Intellegendum est hoc praeceptum ungendi caput et faciem lavandi ad interiorem hominem pertinere (Augustine; Chrysostom; Opus imperfectum: “This command to anoint the head and wash the face is to be understood as pertaining to the inner man”).
Mt 6:18. Instead of ἐν κρυπτῷ (“in secret”), ἐν κρυφαίῳ (“in the hidden place”) is to be read (& B D 1, 22).
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment