There is a passage in the Sermon on the Mount that is crucial for understanding Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus, as I’ve taught for years, without, though, being able to get my mind around it completely. It doesn’t seem consistent with itself. Here’s Matthew 5:17-20 in the New Revised Standard Version (Updated Edition):
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 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. 19 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. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
The problem I’ve had with understanding the passage is in v. 19, both in and of itself, and in relation to v. 20.
It is clear that Jesus is emphasizing the importance of keeping the law of Moses. None of his followers should
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Dear Dr Ehrman-Over the years, if I understand your view correctly, you have portrayed Jesus as apocalyptic preacher and messianic claimant. If I may ask, would this imply in your view that Jesus truly believed that the fallen world would end in his lifetime, and that he likely believed that he would rule as King in the eschatological Kingdom of Heaven to Come?
Yup!
I’ve thought that Matthew 19:21 “ …. and you will have treasure in heaven…” also implies a differentiated afterlife experience.
Are there any manuscripts or other evidence, that show tampering in relation to doing things like, inserting Jesus referring to an old testament passage, any evidence of this kind of tampering ?
I’m afraid I’m not quite sure what you’re asking.
Dr. Ehrman, let me clarify my question.
Is there any textual or manuscript evidence suggesting that early Christian scribes altered the Gospels to insert references to Old Testament scriptures into sayings attributed to Jesus?
In other words, are there examples where earlier manuscripts lack an Old Testament quotation or allusion attributed to Jesus, but later manuscripts include it?
I’m particularly interested in whether some of Jesus’ apparent references to Old Testament scripture could have been later scribal interpolations rather than part of the original Gospel texts.
Ah, I get it now. No, I don’t believe there are scribal changes like that.
I’m a dual salvationist (and a universalist). So when I read this stuff, the “kingdom of heaven” is precisely that…a spiritual realm. Non-material. “God is spirit” (his son, however, becomes incarnate and is connected to his father).
I have no trouble with how heaven manifests on earth because heaven is heaven, and earth is earth. Christ saves the world/earth. He also judges and allows people to get “unto the Father” (in Heaven). This judgment is why he “brings a sword”. But sure, the earth will (eventually) get fixed up and perfected. Sure, people that wish to be incarnate will be there. But we’re not talking about the earth. We’re discussing The Kingdom of Heaven. Apparently there’s a hierarchy there, among the angels, maybe even among the Elohim (sons of God), and those of us that “make it there”.
IDK what if any hierarchy there will be in “the world to come” but apparently God’s chosen people, the Jews, play a significant role there. I understand that Jehovah’s Witnesses have a dualist view also.
I enjoyed your layout of the logic, and the critique of the religious leaders. And I’m glad you’ve resolved the dilemma.
Concerning Matthew 5:17-20: I’ve sometimes wondered if starting at verse 19: “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. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” isn’t referring to the Antitheses, which Jesus states next, rather than the previous two verses. The Antitheses are about how to do the Law better than the scribes and Pharisees.
Technically speaking, and considering the way the Jews preserve and copy their texts, it is possible that “not one letter, not one stroke of a letter” has passed “from the law” over all this time. Here I’m just referring to the letters and the texts, and the writing itself. There also seems to be a bunch of very orthodox Jews (Hasidics?) who do keep the full law down to the letter and stroke. It hasn’t passed away. It’s just that not everyone is doing it.
What is the Therefore Therefore in verse 19? 🙂
Yes, it’s clearly continuing with what was said in the preceding verse(s). Jesus affirms and fulfills the law, and his follwers are to keep it.
On the Christian side of things, it always seems to be about how much of the Law Christians are supposed to keep, or at least how much of it non-Jewish Gentile Christians are supposed to keep it.
Christians pretty much, or even very much, tend to stick with the 10 Commandments, which, it’s my understanding, are part of the Law.
In Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus is first talking about the Law, and then he is talking about the Commandments. Are they the same thing?
Is Jesus saying keep the Commandments, or is he saying keep the full Law?
Yes, for all practical purposes they can be used synonymously.
Hello Bart,
Slightly off-topic – in relation to the ‘life to come”, the Sadducees questions about the resurrection in Matthew 22:23-33 / Mark 12:18-27 / Luke 20:27-40 came to my mind, where Jesus says those who are worthy of a place and are resurrected from the dead “neither marry nor are given in marriage”. Assuming Jesus believed life in the world to come was not up in the heavenly realm but down here on earth, do you think he thought there would be no more procreation ie no need for sex / family etc, no new life/no death and that was it for ever in terms of people in the resurrected world here on a material earth (as opposed to the non-material heavenly “spirit” realm Christians think of now), or do you think these were words put on his lips?
Thanks as always, Andrew
I tend to think he really said it, and yes, since there is no death there will be no need to replace the deceased.
There is no problem with equality here. Matthew’s Jesus simply says that some people will be called great and others called least (when discussing their pre-kingdom life). In the kingdom of heaven all people can be equal but, when discussing what they did on Earth before entering the kingdom, it will be remembered that some people were, in those times, of a greater spirituality than others. So, they can be called greater or lesser when remembering how they were back then. But now, in the kingdom, they are all equal.
Think of it like this. We have two football teams. One team beats the other when playing their football game. But, at some later time, both teams become equally good at playing football. At that later time, the team that won can be called out for having been greater back then than the other team. That’s because they are discussing the past (not the present).
Paul’s account of being caught up to the “third heaven” suggests that he may have envisioned heaven as having multiple levels, although what Jesus himself thought remains unclear.
My question, however, concerns the boundary between heaven and hell. If moral differences among people exist along a continuum, why should their eternal destinies be divided so sharply into heaven and hell?
Suppose someone who stole two loaves of bread went to heaven, while someone who stole three went to hell. Would their radically different eternal destinies ultimately depend on a single loaf of bread?
This makes me wonder whether both heaven and hell might have numerous degrees rather than being two entirely separate destinations. Of course, I realize that debating how the afterlife ought to be structured may be pointless.
Interestingly, Buddhism describes elaborate levels of existence, including various heavenly and hellish realms. I find this easier to understand than a strict heaven-or-hell dichotomy.
How have Western Christian thinkers historically addressed this apparent paradox? Have some proposed more graduated understandings of the afterlife?
I would greatly appreciate your historical perspective.
Yup, there have been many views of hell, including that it’s equally awful for everyone but in different ways (Apocalypse of Peter) and that it is layered (Divine Comedy). Depends if you think some sinners are worse than others.
Jesus sets behavioral criteria for entry into the kingdom, and clearly some people follow God’s law better than others (unlike Paul’s view that since no one is worthy of salvation, no one is more worthy of praise than anyone else). So, what would be Jesus’s idea of a “reward” for the “greatest”? What is the “treasure in heaven” (Matt 19:21)? I suggest Jesus sees it as God’s esteem, not some tangible reward or outwardly imposed feeling of joy. “Greatest” means greatest in God’s eyes. Perhaps it could also include a seat of honor (Matt 20:20-28) or more responsibility (Matt 25:14-30), but to Jesus, what could be a greater reward than God’s approval? Certainly not a shiny crown or bigger mansion.
Just as Jesus didn’t need to advocate strict economic equality (see your prior posts), he didn’t need to advocate a strict equality of experience/reward in the Kingdom, and while that might be surprising to us, I don’t think it’s inconsistent with Jesus’s other teachings. If you are happier in the Kingdom than I am because you followed God’s law better and God thinks that’s “greater,” what’s wrong with that?
It’s intersting that in some early Christian texts, such as the Apocalypse of Paul, Christians on lower levesl of heaven are eating their hearts out in envy….
I have long thought that the Matthaean Christians, rather beleaguered in their Syrian fastness, regarded the Pauline mission with grudging acceptance – the pint-sized man who was playing fast and loose with the Law was indeed bringing many people to recognise Jesus’ messiahship and was raising much needed money. But when the Kingdom arrived they would be put firmly in their place. Maybe this would not be a permanent Dante-style graded paradise, maybe just a sharp lesson
The resurrection of the righteous is sometimes imagined not merely as coming back to life, but as being transformed, illuminated, exalted, and made to resemble the heavenly beings.
In Daniel 12:2-3 “Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.”
In 1 Enoch 104:2, the righteous are promised that they will shine like the lights of heaven.
4 Ezra 7:97–98 the righteous undergo a process of exaltation in which their faces shine like the sun and they resemble the light of the stars.
Matthew 13:43 has a celestial connection: “Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.”
I would distinguish astral glorification from astral relocation. The righteous might become like the stars without the central point being that they physically relocate to the heavens. But do you think Jesus’s distinction between those who will be “great” and “least” in the kingdom of heaven might allude to the “greater” and “lesser” lights in Genesis 1:16? That celestial brightness somehow represents the glory and status of God’s people in the age to come?
Possibly, yes, that may have been the ultimate basis for the comparison.
Perhaps slightly off topic, but if Jesus was not the Son of God he was a person like the rest of us, though no doubt an impressive person. Like us he would not always have been consistent and his thoughts would have changed from time to time. Perhaps this humanness would have contributed to some of the differences of reporting we find in the gospels.
“Levels” imply that even the lowest level of Heaven is far superior to earth.
But that seems to imply that if a god could create levels in one Realm that did not include evil or damnation, it could have done the same thing on earth.
Yes, he could have, and in these traditions, he did create a sinless world, but people messed it up
As a famous example, one well-known “solution” to what the law commands involves creditors. The law (Deuteronomy 15) requires individuals to cancel debts owed them every sabbatical year (i.e. every seventh year).
How long does a negative credit report appear in your credit history? Seven years. That explains that.
Does Matthew 5:17-18 mean that all of the commands in the Hebrew Bible are to be followed, including commands such as killing witches and Jews who work on the Jewish Sabbath, etc.? It sounds like they are, but I’m not a Bible scholar. Thanks!
Apparently so!
Thank you very much for answering my question.
Would this apply to Matthew 15:1–9 and Mark 7:1–13 when Jesus was upset with the Pharisees regarding the Pharisees not killing children who curse their parents which violates Jewish commands/law?
I don’t think Jesus ever urges Pharisees to kill disobedient children.
In my reading of these verses (which I think are critical for understanding Matthew’s theology regarding Torah), Matthew’s Jesus supports Matthew’s view: Torah has not been superseded. Its observance remains of central importance. This is the hard path and the narrow gate, the light you are to let shine, the saltiness you are to exhibit. The teachings of those who would relax even the least stroke of a letter (much less circumcision re. Paul or dietary restrictions re. Luke) … have lesser authority. The surprising thing to me is that Paul and Luke are acknowledged as belonging to the kingdom, but accorded less authority. The highest authority in Matthew’s world, after Jesus, is given to Peter who is given the power to “bind” and “loose” — to make judgments within the church regarding the Torah.