In a monograph description it is not possible to "weigh up" adequately the differences between Jesus' teaching and that of his contemporaries. There is reason then to study more carefully his "manifesto" and the specific points of emphasis he made. For the ancient Synagogue the Messiah was also to be a teacher. The Children of Israel were the People of the Book, and so the Messiah's teaching can only be weighed up with reference to the Book of Books, the Bible. 

The Jews generally taught that the Messiah would come with a new Torah or 'teaching', which for the most part would be identical with the that of Moses. For this reason Jesus sometimes said: "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me . . . If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me" (John 5:39, 46). 

The Rabbis said of this "new Torah" which the Messiah would bring, that it had already been expounded in the garden of Eden. Day by day, they maintained, God made new halakha propositions which would one day be revealed to the people by the Messiah. This does not mean that the course of God's will changes, but rather the issue concerns the new basis of the Law. These "fundamentals of the Torah", teamei Torah, will teach the people to appreciate and understand the causal connections between things. The Wise reveal eth ha-Nolad, the 'deep origins', and the Messiah will function in a similar way. 

There has for long been a tendency in the West to censor the words of Jesus: Could he really have said this or that? Such "improvements" to the gospel can really only be made by someone whose psychological and moral fibre can stand alongside that of Jesus. A 'scribbler of flowery phrases', as one Jewish critic put it, is just not capable of this. The teaching of Jesus and his contemporaries are best compared with each other by studying the "Sermon on the Mount" which contains the essence, as it were, of his teaching. 

The Sermon on the Mount:  Jesus' "manifesto". 

Matthew and Luke have recorded various details which give us the flavour of the outdoor sermon Jesus preached as his 'broadsheet for action' (Matt. 5-7 and Luke 6:17-49). Matthew tells us that Jesus "went up on a mountainside" when he saw the crowds of people flooding towards him. The disciples then came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. Luke says that he stood "on a level place" and "a large crowd of his disciples was there and a great number of people" followed him. Both descriptions fit the "Mount of the Blessed" near Capernaum. One tradition has placed the setting of the Sermon on the Mount in Keren Hattin, the 'Horn of Hattin', to the west of Tiberias, where Saladin in 1187 won his decisive victory over the Crusader armies. He set ablaze the dry grass on the slope upwind from his enemies and came upon them protected by this curtain of fire and smoke. There is a wide slope on the edge of the mountain which would also fit the description of the Sermon on the Mount. 

Jesus' audience was composed of his own disciples and of ordinary country folk, of whom the Rabbis used the contemptuous term am ha-Arets, the 'people of the land' or 'boors'. Jesus' sermons were not intended for the religious authorities but specifically for this "peasantry". It has been suggested that this "Sermon" is actually a condensation of several teaching sessions, but we might remember that Jesus often taught the people from morning to evening without a break. Matthew, writing for an audience of Jewish-Christians, depicts the Sermon as in the first place a kind of exposition of the Law. Luke, who was serving Gentile converts in particular, concentrates generally on the emphasis on love for one's neighbour. Matthew has nine Beatitudes, Luke contents himself with only four, and adds to the same section Jesus' "Woes" to the rich, the well-fed, those who make merry in the worldly hostelries, and to those who rely on their good reputation. The same teaching is nevertheless in the background. 

The Sermon on the Mount is in the main the exposition of commandments and spiritual directions. Jesus sets side by side what the teachers of the law demand from the people and what he himself asks of his disciples. He has not come to "abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfil them" (Matt. 5:17). We also find here exactly what was expected of the Messiah: Jesus reveals the Law's new motivating factor, the teamei ha-Torah, which involves a new, active responsibility towards one's neighbour, and a consistent demand for perfection carried right through to the end. The goal of this is "that we might be the sons of our Father in heaven". "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:45, 48). On first hearing such talk can sound unreal, even inhuman, as the Jews do indeed argue. Nevertheless, God's unconditional holiness gives the individual a new point of departure: the whole of our spiritual life is to be founded on forgiveness and grace. Jesus was in fact up against false self-sufficiency and mendacious complacency. His brother James calls this "the perfect law which gives freedom" (Jas. 1:25). Only when our self-righteousness is broken can we begin to live that which Christ is, which is what Jesus was driving at in his "manifesto". 

The background of the Beatitudes 

The Sermon on the Mount was once read on Finnish Radio by professional actors. One would be hard pressed to find a more majestic and comforting proclamation than that which the young carpenter from Nazareth uttered under the Galilean sky. He "opened his mouth and taught them, saying: 

Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven Blessed are those who mourn for they will be comforted Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they will be filled Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness for theirs is the kingdom of heaven Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven . . . But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort Woe to you who are well fed now for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now for you will mourn and weep Woe to you when all men speak well of you for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets!

But what does "bliss" mean for the soul who is in Christ? It does not imply human happiness. "Blessèd " in the Bible signifies the blessing and approval of God. The word ashrei, 'blessèd' appears in the same basic form for both singular and plural. The Old Testament psalmody frequently repeats the exclamation, "Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven and in whose spirit is no deceit." "Blessed are those whose strength is in You." "Blessed is the man who fears the LORD." (Ps. 32:1, 84:5, 112:1 etc.) Blessèdness implies acceptance by God. It means almost the same as 'justified'. The corresponding Greek word makarios means 'happy' and 'worthy of congratulation'. The opposite of 'blessèd' in the Bible is not 'unhappy' but rather 'rejected by God'. 

In the light of this we can better understand the "woes" recorded by Luke. Only one acting with the authority of a prophet would address such words of condemnation to the people. The fifth chapter of Isaiah and the 23rd of Matthew contain such a proclamation in all its sharpness.¹ 

Those declared by Jesus to be "blessed" formed quite a cross-section of humanity: the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers and those who are persecuted because of righteousness. They were not 'worthy of congratulation' in their own right. Their happiness lay in the fact that the blessings of the kingdom of God was intended for such as they. They will be comforted, they will inherit the earth, they will be filled, they will be shown mercy, they will see God, they will be called the sons of God and theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 

It is significant that Matthew uses over thirty times the phrase "the kingdom of heaven" and speaks only once of "the kingdom of God". Mark and Luke, on the contrary, cultivate the phrase "the kingdom of God". Here too we can see Matthew's typical Jewish habit of avoiding mentioning the name of God where possible. The Rabbis preferred to speak of the "name of heaven", the "fear of heaven", the "things of heaven" and the "work of heaven" when there was mention of God. They worked for "the glory of heaven" and put their lives into "heaven's hands". Thus it is not very helpful to speculate overmuch on the possibility of a distinction between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God. 

The Sermon on the Mount is intended as consolation for the soul who humbles himself. Jesus does not begin to explain in more detail why those who are "poor in spirit" are acceptable to God. In Hebrew the words 'poor', 'humble' and 'harassed' come from the same root. In Numbers 12:3 where we read that Moses was "more humble" than anyone else on the face of the earth, the German translation depicts Moses as being "more harassed". God esteems "he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word" (Is. 66:2). 'Contrite in spirit', nekheh ruah, means literally 'wounded' in one's spirit -- in modern Hebrew nekheh means 'invalid'. Is. 57:15 promises further that God "dwells" with those who are "contrite and lowly in spirit". In Is. 42:3 we also read: "A bruised reed he will not break, and a smouldering wick he will not snuff out" (cf Matt. 12:20). The same theme comes out in the Psalms: "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise" (51:17). "The LORD is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit" (34:18). The phrase dak'ei ruah, 'beaten in spirit' is used for "crushed in spirit". 

Some Jews complain that the Rabbis today understand religion as a task in which credit is obtained by observing the law . . . and they lack the willing attitude of a counsellor. Jesus was in truth Menahem, 'Comforter', with words of compassion for the sorrowful, the maimed and the crushed in spirit. God often takes away from us someone beloved or removes us from our normal surroundings. Such divine "drying out" never feels good. Just as athletes sometimes stretch themselves to their limits a week before the sporting event with 'resistance training' so that they will be able to withstand the actual test of their endurance even better, so we are sometimes forcibly stripped and emptied of all we rely on. Self-sufficiency is incompatible with life in God. The Rabbis sometimes speak of the "law of the breaking of the vessel". God gives his full blessing to the fragments which remain of the broken life. Faith should not be "self-determined". It is through and through a gift from God. These principles are evident in the Sermon on the Mount. 

The general character of Jesus' teaching. 

Jesus set the standard for the spiritual life very high: "You are the salt of the earth". . ."You are the light of the world". . ."Let your light so shine". . ."Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." The demand for wholehearted commitment was not lacking from the law of Moses either; the orthodox Jew always has on his doorpost the mezuza, a little box containing strips of leather on which are written the words of Deut. 6:5 "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength" 

The main objective of the Pharisaic movement was to be an example to the people. They had devoted their whole lives to God's service. 

The name by which they were known , perushim, 'separated ones', aptly expressed this intention. For their day they were, nonetheless, quite progressive in their thinking. In addition to tithing, they gave up to a fifth of their income to voluntary works of charity. They stressed that the poor, orphans, and widows in their distress should not be overlooked, and that one ought to visit the sick, support young newly-wedded couples and liberate debtors from prison. They held it desirable to reserve in addition to the tithes at least 3% for these charitable deeds, and on the first occasion of giving it was not permitted to donate more than 20% of one's total substance for this purpose. Only when preparing for death would the giving of one's whole estate to charity come into the question. Furthermore, there was in the Temple a special "quiet room" where anonymous gifts could be made. The alms-giving of Islam is derived from these customs. 

Jesus said that unless our "righteousness" exceed that of the religious élite we will not make it. By 'righteousness' is meant primarily 'uprightness' and 'charitability'. The 23rd chapter of Matthew contains an extensive admonition addressed to the Pharisees. In v 23 Jesus defines the fundamentals of the law as being "justice, mercy and faithfulness" -- of prime importance are uprightness, an attitude of mercy towards one's neighbour and lasting dependability. This definition brings to mind the words of Micah 6:8: 

"He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

"You must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practise what they preach" (Matt. 23:3).

They also spoke of the importance of mercy. The Talmud records the words "He who shows mercy to a creature will be shown mercy by heaven; He who does not show mercy to a creature will not be shown mercy by heaven".² In Jewish circles Jesus too is considered a Pharisee on account of the methods and even the content of his teaching. 

The Pharisees' cardinal error is most clearly apparent when comparison is made of their doctrines with those of the Sadducean priesthood. Josephus compares the two parties as follows: 

"The Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers; and concerning these things it is that great disputes and differences have arisen among them . . ."³

The Pharisees, on the other hand, invented for their interpretation means of circumambulating the bald demands of the law, although they otherwise demanded moral unimpeachability. Jesus did not, of course, accept such human props and artifices where the will of God was concerned. It was possible, for example, to be released from the obligation to support one's parents in their old-age by making a corban offering to the Temple. Jesus sternly disapproved of this, saying, "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men" (Mark 7:8-13). Neither did he approve of their custom of swearing various degrees of oaths which were then binding before God to correspondingly varying extents. Believers were to be truthful in every respect even without any oaths. 

After the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 the Sadducean sect ceased completely to be, and Judaism began to develop along the lines of the oral traditions of the Pharisees into a real "religion of law". The Rabbis assumed an ever more significant rôle as the spiritual leaders of the people. All who differed with them or opposed them were said to be resisting the Spirit of God, and the student who cited the words of his Rabbi was considered an organ of the Holy Spirit.⁴ 

The demands which Jesus set may have looked impossible from a human point of view. This is evident in, for example, his well-known saying that, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." "Who then can be saved?" the disciples quite justifiably asked on hearing this (Matt. 19:23-6). Some have explained that Jesus was referring to an entrance into Jerusalem called the "Camel gate". George M. Lamsa writes in his study "The Gospels from an Aramaic perspective", that in Aramaic the word gamla means both 'camel' and 'rope', and even 'wooden post'⁵ Threading a rope through the eye of a needle may seem to border on the limits of the possible, but the learned Jews used similar expressions as, for example, that one could not conceive of "an elephant going through the eye of a needle".⁶ There is the beautiful picture in the Midrash to the Song of Songs which tells us that, 

"God said to Israel, 'My children: open up for me an aperture for repentance the size of the eye of a needle, and I will open up for you doors through which one could drive chariots."⁷

Jesus, the explainer of the commandments. 

The Sermon on the Mount was a kind of "catechism class" in which Jesus first spoke of the fifth and sixth commandments (5:21-26 and 27-32) and then of the second and the eighth, along with giving general spiritual guidelines. The exposition of these commandments came to a climax with his words about love for one's enemies. 

The Rabbis frequently use a form of presentation in which the words of the Bible and those of the Wise are set side by side. Nevertheless, Jesus' way of comparing the sayings of his contemporaries with his own words is unique. We hear in those words the ego majestatis, the 'royal I': "You have heard it said . . . but I say to you"; "truly I say to you". 

In his adaptation of the fifth commandment Jesus extends his prescription to our everyday behaviour: 

"I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca', is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

"The powers of hell control all those who allow anger to get the better of them, as it is said: 'Take away the hatred from your heart and the evil from within you'. All evil is from hell."⁸

In Jesus' day the word raca (or properly reikah), 'empty-headed fool', was used so much that it appears in the Greek NT in that form, untranslated. In both Hebrew and Aramaic its fundamental meaning is 'empty'. The human dignity of one's neighbour should not be disparaged. The Hebrew verb 'to curse', lekallel, comes from the root kal or 'light'(in weight). In practice the humiliation of another is tantamount to cursing him. There is no-one who is 'empty-headed' and completely worthless. 

George Lamsa, who speaks Aramaic as his mother-tongue, points out that reikah suggests derivation from the root rok which means in both Hebrew and Aramaic 'to spit'. In the East, utter contempt for someone is shown by spitting in their face . . . as was done to Jesus when he was subjected to the nocturnal interrogation. Worse than this, Jesus held, was to call someone a "fool". This is a common insult amongst the Jews and the Arabs. Disagreements must always be settled while they are still fresh. They create an atmosphere in which, the Wise say, the Holy Spirit does not take pleasure. The Jews have a beautiful illustration connected with Exodus chapter 19. They describe how the Israelites were encamped "as one" around Sinai. "Behold," God said to them, "The time has come to give the words of the law to my children, because they are one." Such a unity of hearts prevailed in the church at Pentecost when we are told that "All the believers were one in heart and mind" (Acts 4:32). 

In his exposition of the sixth commandment, Jesus joins with the emphases of the OT and the teachers of his time. He was nevertheless more uncompromising than the learned Jews in that he could not accept the high-handed way in which wives were treated in the marriage regulations of the time. Orthodox men then as today had fringes of red and blue threads on the borders of their outer garments, to remind them constantly of the commandments of the Lord so that they would not prostitute themselves by going after the lusts of their own hearts and eyes (Num. 15:38-9). The Midrash even underlines the fact that "he also who commits adultery with the eye is an adulterer".¹² The Muslims too speak of the "sins of looking". 

The Rabbis acknowledged Jesus' uncompromising stand on morality and the insolubility of marriage. In the 19th chapter of Matthew we read about the Pharisees coming to Jesus and "testing" him with the question, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" The Pharisees had arranged things so as to facilitate divorce. If the wife spoke ill of her husband, burnt the food, spun thread publicly in the street or spoke to a strange man in a public place, or even if her husband found "another more beautiful woman", he could draw up a letter of divorce.¹³ Nevertheless, some Mediaeval guidelines say of marriage: "Let not a man enter into wedlock with the thought of divorcing his wife, but if he makes it clear beforehand that he is marrying her for a certain period of time, let it be permitted."¹⁴ The words "for every and any reason" used by the Pharisees in Matthew's text correspond to what we know of the New Testament period. 

Only the man was allowed to write a bill of divorce. Women could in some cases demand divorce if, for example, her husband became leprous. The bill could be written on parchment, papyrus, horn, the hand of a slave, or even on an olive leaf. It had to consist of the names of the man and the woman, the administrative area in which they lived, the man's explanation of the reason for divorce, and two witnesses, who might even be Samarians. In addition, the statement was to be made that the woman was free to remarry. 

Jesus said that Moses allowed men to reject their wives because of the hardness of their hearts, "but it was not so at the beginning". In the Creation God had made "man" male and female, and marriage was therefore the fulfilment of that intention: "What God has joined together, let man not separate". Only adultery and the rejection of the other party are regarded in Jesus' teaching as lawful reasons for divorce. 

Matthew 19:9 explains in its final section that if someone marries a person who has been divorced or rejected because of adultery, they too are guilty of adultery. Jesus did not, then, approve of the remarriage of someone who was legally divorced . . . although the one rejected, the victim of unfaithfulness, was, according to the bill of divorce of that time, free to marry again. Mark 10:10 underlines this still further: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her." Malachi 2:15-16 says of the divorce of the "wife of one's youth": "Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his . . . 'I hate divorce', says the LORD." On the question of guilt Jesus was unflinchingly stern, even though he also forgave the sins of those who had commited adultery. 

The thematic fields of the second and eighth commandments were often interconnected in real life. The name of God was not to be "taken in vain" and in this way belittled, neither was "false witness" to be given of one's neighbour, by slander or taking an oath. There is a special section in the Talmud concerned with oaths and "voluntary vows".¹⁵ Jesus taught that we should never swear an oath, rather our speech should be of single straightforward truthfulness as "yes is yes, and no is no". The Talmud further gives eg. the words of Rabbi Abbaye: "Let no-one say one thing with his mouth and another with his heart."¹⁶ Nevertheless, in practice the people swore by the Temple or by the hairs of their own head . . . nowadays it is customary to say, "By your life", which is no doubt safer! 

The Rabbis distinguished between three types of oaths: the false oath, the oath in vain and the wanton oath, shebuath bittui. Of the last it is said: 

"If someone has sworn a wanton oath and regrets his vow and sees that he will suffer from the keeping of the vow, and if his thoughts since making it have changed or if circumstances have come about which did not obtain at the time of making the vow and they make him regret it, let him ask one of the Wise, or three laymen [Hebrew 'idiots'], if a learned man cannot be found in the vicinity, and let them absolve him from the vow. Then it is permissible to do that which he had vowed he did not do or would not do, which he had vowed to do. And this is called the rescindment of a vow. Nothing is said of this in the written law, but Moses taught so according to the oral tradition." '¹⁷