Fifth Sunday after Epiphany – 2026
Matthew 5:13-20
Marian Free
In the name of God, Earth-maker, Pain-Bearer, Life-Giver. Amen.
Context is everything. If someone says to you that: “it was really dark”, they could mean a number of things. They could be saying that it was a moonless night, that they had read a book or seen a film with a depressing theme, or that it was an especially dark chocolate that they had eaten. The only way to know for certain what they mean is to know the context of the sentence – either by paying attention to what was said previously (were they talking about a time or place or were they referring to something they had read or seen) or by noticing their physical surroundings (is there evidence that they have just eaten a piece of chocolate?)
There is no reason why we should imagine that the gospels would be any different. On Sundays we hear only small segments of the gospels, but to fully understand what we hear, we have to read the text surrounding our mornings’ set piece and we have to have some understanding of the social, historical, geographical and political context of the writer and/or the community whom the writer is addressing.
I find this particularly important when it comes to the gospel of Matthew. Read in isolation, Matthew’s gospel can appear to be harsh and legalistic. In fact, in the first year of my ordained ministry I struggled to preach on Matthew. It seemed so oppressive and so lacking in the grace that I found elsewhere in the gospels, setting standards that few but the most holy among us could achieve that it was difficult for me to find something inspirational and encouraging to say.
Take for example the last saying from this morning’s gospel. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but 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 I accomplished. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt 5:17-18, 20).
At first glance the emphasis on the law, in particular on keeping the letter of the law, contradicts what we know about Jesus’ general antagonism towards the law, and his general disregard for laws that had become burdensome rather than liberating. (His insistence on working on the Sabbath being just one example.)
So what is going on the background of this gospel, that the author of Matthew should be so insistent that Jesus had demanded that the law in its entirety should be kept if one is to enter the kingdom of heaven?
As I often tell my students, the only way we can build up a picture of the situation in which and into which Matthew is writing, is through the clues that we find in the gospel. While the social/historical situation at the time of writing can provide us with some background, there is no external evidence for the life of Jesus or the life of the Jesus’ communities.
It is generally agreed that all the gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE. Jerusalem had been destroyed by the Romans and with it the Temple. Any who survived the slaughter were forced to leave the city and to begin life again. Without a Temple, there was no central focal point for the Jewish faith and no place in which to practice the sacrifices and rituals that were the established means of expressing and maintaining a relationship with God. As a consequence, there developed a reliance on the law as a replacement for the Temple – a practice which had already begun with the Pharisees (who rejected the Temple) and which, after the destruction of Jerusalem developed into what we know as Rabbinic Judaism. The development of Rabbinic Judaism explains a post-Temple emphasis on the law, but not why this emphasis impacts on the Matthean community, for this we have to turn to the gospel itself.
From the way in which the gospel is written, and from certain sayings and inclusions, it is possible to discern that the author of Matthew was writing for followers of Jesus whose origin was Jewish. For instance, unique to Matthew is an emphasis on the ways in which Jesus fulfills Jewish scriptures, Jesus’ genealogy which goes back to Abraham, the father of Judaism, (not Adam as in Luke), Matthew’s use of the title ‘Son of David’ for Jesus and the comparison of Jesus (new law-giver) with Moses (the giver of the law), not to mention the command “to go only to the lost sheep of Israel”.
Historically, there is some evidence that post 70CE a number of Pharisaic Jews found a home in a place called Jamnia. Here they were able to pursue their focus on the law unimpeded. Scholars believe that a community who believed in Jesus likewise found a refuge in Jamnia and that these two “Jewish” groups both claimed to be the true continuation of the historical Israel and in some small way competed with each other for that title.
It is this that helps us to make sense of Matthew 5:17-20. “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees” could well be an incentive for the Matthean community to prove themselves as the true Israel by being more righteous than the Pharisees whom they viewed as their competition.
When it comes to reading the scriptures we should not be naïve or simply take the words at face value. We should do all that we can to understand what is really being said and why. The alternative to this spirit of inquiry is at best to risk misinterpretation, but at worst is to impose burdens on ourselves and others that were never intended by Jesus.
Faith is not a competition, but a relationship, a relationship based on God’s unconditional love as revealed by Jesus, a gift to be received not earned. Any other reading of scripture risks being coercive and even abusive.
We owe it to God, to ourselves and others to delve beyond the surface into the truer meaning.
Tags: context, History, Jamnia, law, Matthew, Pharisees, Rabbinic Judaism
Swallowsrest 