The Sermon on the Mount especially signifies the importance of the Torah in Matthew. This sermon holds a prominent position in the Gospel as the first of five great discourses. These discourses are the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5–7), the missionary charge (Mt 10:5–42), the parables discourse (Mt 13:3–52), instructions to the community (Mt 18:3–35), and the woes and eschatological discourse (Mt 23–25) (cf. Davies & Allison 2004a:60). Combrink (1983:61–90) identifies a chiastic structure between the discourses as indicated in Box 1.

The Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5–7) parallels the woes and the eschatological discourse (Mt 23–25). The missionary charge (Mt 10) parallels the community discourse (Mt 18). The parables discourse (Mt 13) is framed by the above-mentioned parallels.

Each of these discourses is followed by a narrative on the actions or sayings of Jesus that are related to the preceding discourses. These five discourses serve as main building blocks or the architectonical structure of the first Gospel. It seems that this fivefold structure could be a deliberate imitation of the Pentateuch to indicate the relation between Matthew’s Gospel and pentateuchal material (cf. Bacon 1930:48).¹

In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew alludes to Moses when presenting Jesus (cf. Allison 1993:137–270; Floor 1969:34). Right from the beginning of this carefully composed sermon, the Sinai typology is significant as Jesus went up the mountain to teach (Mt 5:1–2). This opening creates an anticipation of a new revelation to be delivered by a new Lawgiver (Loader 1997:165). This expectation is met when Jesus declares the purpose of his coming with his ‘I have come’-sayings with regard to the law in Matthew 5:17 (Osborne 2010:181)² and his repeated reference to the meaning and intention of the law in the sermon inter alia with his sixfold elaboration on stipulations of the law (on murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, retaliation and neighbourly love; Mt 5:21–47; cf. Osborne 2010:187)³ and his disapproval of hypocritical righteousness in charity, praying and fasting (Mt 6:1–18; cf. Weren 1994:73).⁴

In Judaism it was a well-known concept that the mosaic character could transmigrate to later legislators and teachers (e.g. Ezekiel). According to 4 Ezra 14 the scribe received the old revelation of Sinai plus additional new revelations (Allison 1993:185). Within this convention Jesus is portrayed as a teacher and revealer comparable to Moses.

Beyond the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus’ teaching on the Torah echoes in several other passages as well, for example Matthew 15:1–20⁵ and 22:34–40.⁶ Significantly the Gospel concludes with Jesus’ Great Commandment that his disciples should go and make disciples by teaching them to obey everything he has commanded them (Mt 28:18–20; cf. Meier 1976:168; Saldarini 1994:79). Jesus is depicted as the One who taught the law and commands his disciples to teach others the contents of what he taught.

Once the Matthean Jesus ended the Sermon on the Mount, with its strong emphasis on the meaning of the Torah, Matthew tells that Jesus came down from the mountain (Mt 8:1) as Moses once did from Mount Sinai (Ex 19:14; 32:1; 34:29). Matthew thus apparently draws a parallel between Jesus and Moses, and the Mount of Jesus’ sermon and Mount Sinai (Carter 2000:198; Davies & Allison 2004a:9; Luz 2001:5). The impressive and authoritative teacher of the law found in the discourse is subsequently presented in the narrative as going into action with a series of 10 miracles (Mt 8–9) to demonstrate how the law should be practiced. Grundmann fittingly describes the Sermon on the Mount as ‘das Wirken des Christus Jesus durch das Wort’ [the work of Christ Jesus through the word] (Grundmann 1971:111) and the miracles that follow as ‘das Wirken des Christus Jesus durch die Tat’ [the work of Christ Jesus through the deed] (Grundmann 1971:245).

Matthew links the Sermon on the Mount and the narrative describing Jesus’ 10 miracles with two summaries of the teaching and the miracles Jesus performed (Mt 4:23–25 and 9:35), forming some sort of compositional frame around them (Morris 1992:186; Senior 1998:94; Talbert 2010:109) as indicated in Box 2 (‘The summaries and composition of miracle stories in Matthew’).

The healing narrative describes a series of 10 miracle stories. Matthew tells a series of 9 healing miracles stories (Mt 8–9)⁷ and a nature miracle of Jesus stilling the storm (Mt 8:23–27), making a total of 10 (cf. Weren 1994:83). This block of 9 or 10 miracles, in sets of three, are separated by two discipleship sections (Mt 8:18–22; 9:9–17; Davies & Allison 2004b:6; Kingsbury 1988:59; Osborne 2010:332; Overman 1996:112) as outlined in Table 1.

As Moses performed signs and miracles, so did Jesus. Jesus can therefore be regarded as the new Moses. As early as 1927 Klostermann (1927:72) has argued that Jesus’ 10 miracle stories allude to the 10 miracles of the exodus from Egypt (Ex 7–12) and can be interpreted as a new Moses typology.⁸ However, these healing and saving miracles of Jesus significantly contrast with the plagues in Egypt, which signifies God’s plan of salvation in and through Jesus. The miracle narratives depict the authority (ἐξουσία)⁹ of Jesus over illness, nature, demons, paralysis, disabilities and death (Osborne 2010:280).

Bearing in mind the religious world of the Matthean community, it seems that a reconsideration of the correct interpretation of the Torah was an important and contentious issue in those times. Rome destroyed Jerusalem, the temple and the temple service in 70 CE This left the Jewish community bewildered. The Jews struggled to come to terms with their loss and probably with the question of whether the earlier exile and recent destruction of the temple were the punishment of God for their sins. If the destruction was God’s punishment for sin, they had to consider how to know God’s will with certainty in order to avert similar disasters in future. This resulted in many significant reformulations of important theological ideas and religious practices. Various Jewish groups debated questions about the meaning and practice of the Torah and about the authority to interpret it (Carter 2000:140; Cohen 2006:123; Foster 2004:2; Saldarini 1994:5). Temple-based worship was replaced by small localised groupings with a mutual emphasis on Torah conservation and interpretation (Neusner 1979:42; Van Aarde 2011:46). The law therefore emerged as a central symbol in Jewish religion (Overman 1990:69).

It seems that Matthew firmly entered this debate on the importance of the Torah and its correct interpretation in terms of meaning and praxis.

Jesus makes a very significant statement in Matthew 5:17–20. He starts off with an emphatic statement about his mission. In Matthew 5:17 Jesus uses ἦλθον-sayings [I have come-sayings] in parallel form to firmly state that he did not come to abolish (καταλῦσαι) the Torah, but to fulfil (Πληρῶσαι) it. The Gospel teaches that Jesus brought and taught the intended meaning of the law. These words are probably both polemically and apologetically intended (Betz 1985:40). It seems that the message of Jesus became a matter of dispute. Matthew probably anticipated charges against his community’s understanding of the law. Davies and Allison (2004a:481) describe these verses as a prokatalepsis in anticipation of possible objections.

This statement is reinforced in Matthew 5:18 with a solemn declaration (ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν; [for I tell you]) about Jesus’ respect for even the seemingly insignificant parts of the law (ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία; [one jot or one tittle]). Matthew 5:19 presents a double Satz heiligen Rechtes with a warning about the negative implication of setting the Torah aside and teaching others the same (ἐλάχιστος κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν; [will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven]; Käsemann 1955:248; 1969:17). The warning is contrasted with the positive implication of practicing the commands and teaching others accordingly (οὗτος μέγας κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν’ [this one will be called great in the kingdom of heaven]). Matthew 5:18–19 form Talionisformel [reciprocity formulas] that deal with the eschatological activity of God (Van Aarde 2011:41). The Talionisformel couple the ethical behaviour with the corresponding eschatological reward or punishment.

The statement concludes with yet another solemn declaration in Matthew 5:20 with a Satz heiligen Rechtes, explaining the kind of righteousness that surpasses that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law (ἡ δικαιοσύνη Πλεῖον τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων; [greater righteousness than that of the teachers of the law and Pharisees]) required from disciples of Jesus. Matthew does not require a bigger and better pharisaism, or a more punctilious observance of the minute parts of the law. According to Matthew the wrong conduct of the scribes and the Pharisees¹⁰ is not the result of the quantity of their deeds, but because of their wrong understanding of the law and of a false attitude behind their deeds (Betz 1985:53). They should adhere to the different stipulations of the law, without neglect the more important matters, such as justice, mercy and faithfulness (Mt 23:23).

The requirement of greater righteousness (ἡ δικαιοσύνη Πλεῖον; Mt 5:20) confirms the continuing validity of the Torah. The word δικαιοσύνη fulfils an important role in the first Gospel, and Matthew uses this word primarily with an ethical meaning.

Jesus is depicted as the righteous One who is committed to fulfil all righteousness (δικαιοσύνη). Matthew 3:13–17 describes how John tried to dissuade Jesus from being baptised, but that Jesus demonstrated his determination to fulfil all righteousness (γὰρ ΠρέΠον ἐστὶν ἡμῖν Πληρῶσαι Πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην; [it is proper for us to fulfil all righteousness]; Mt 3:15). In the synoptic Gospels only Matthew describes how John tried to dissuade Jesus from baptising him, and of how Jesus responded with this determination to fulfil all righteousness (cf. Davies & Allison 2004a:325; Turner 2008:118). Jesus forms the prototype par excellence of one that is totally committed towards enacting God’s will. Such righteousness ‘characterizes proper human response to God, implying faithfulness, obedience, and ethical integrity’ (Senior 1998:55). Matthew describes how the impeccable Jesus and John, his messenger, are obedient to God’s will (Beare 1981:99).

The character of John demonstrates commitment to enacting God’s will. Later in Matthew’s narrative John is described as the prototype of a loyal follower of Jesus and δικαιοσύνη is identified as his distinctive attribute (Mt 21:32). John came in the way of righteousness (ἐν ὁδῷ δικαιοσύνης), an idiom that implies the full spectrum of proper response to God’s will. Jesus’ and John’s righteous act (Mt 3:15) is balanced in this passage (Mt 21:32) about John’s righteousness, forming a wide inclusio around the theme of δικαιοσύνη in the Sermon on the Mount (Talbert 1992:745).

As John has acted faithfully according to God’s will, Jesus’ disciples are required to do the same. This is apparent from the use of δικαιοσύνη in the Sermon on the Mount. This word plays an important role in this sermon and could be considered to express the essence of this sermon (Davies & Allison 2004a:499).

In the fourth beatitude Matthew’s Jesus mentions the intense longing for righteousness (μακάριοι οἱ Πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην; [blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness] as attribute of blessed ones (Mt 5:6). This implies a passionate and persistent longing for the ideal conduct in adherence to God’s ordinances (Davies & Allison 2004a:452; Spicq 2012:332; Strecker 1971:156; Turner 2008:151).

Δικαιοσύνη is mentioned again in the eighth beatitude, where the blessed ones’ adherence to δικαιοσύνη is the cause of persecution (Mt 5:10).¹¹ Matthew’s Jesus speaks of those who are committed to conduct that what is appropriate for people under God’s rule (Keener 2009:171).

In Matthew 6:1 Jesus urges his followers to practice their acts of δικαιοσύνη in a sincere manner, not to impress people as the hypocrites do, but to adhere to the will of the heavenly Father. Matthew 6:1 warns against the pitfalls of practising insincere δικαιοσύνη (Strack & Billerbeck 1965:386). Jesus contrasts the outward religious performances of the hypocrites to impress people with that of the disciples who aim to please their Father in heaven (Betz 1995:351; Davies & Allison 2004a:579; Sim 1999:122). Three examples central to Jewish piety are mentioned, namely doing charity (Mt 6:2–4), praying (6:5–15) and fasting (6:16–18; Weren 1994:73). These acts must continue, but not in a hypocritical manner.¹² The fact that sincere acts of piety are required while hypocritical acts are denounced, demonstrates that Matthew’s Jesus still regards such acts as important.

In Matthew 6:33 Jesus urges his disciples to put themselves under the rule of God and constantly seek to do his will (ζητεῖτε δὲ Πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν [τοῦ θεοῦ] καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ; [but seek first the kingdom {of God} and his righteousness]). This implies thoroughgoing determination to continuously obey the deepest intent of the law (Mohrlang 1984:113). Betz (1995:481) fittingly regards this sentence as the telos formula and culmination of the argument on δικαιοσύνη. Similarly Deines (2004:441) views this sentence as the summary of the message of the Sermon on the Mount.

In Matthew 5:20 δικαιοσύνη is described in the six halakhic statements in Matthew 5:21–48. This form of debate urges norms of conduct with a series of theses, each introduced by variant forms of ἐκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις [you have heard that it was said to or by the people long ago]; Mt 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43), followed by variant forms of ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν [but I say to you]-statements by Matthew’s Jesus (Mt 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44; Weren 1994:70).¹³ With an inattentive reading of this sixfold antithetical argument of Jesus, the conclusion can be drawn that Jesus disregarded at least some of the stipulations of the Torah. While it is clear that Jesus sharpens the meaning of the Torah in the first antithetical argument (on murder in Mt 5:21–26) and in the second (on adultery in Mt 5:27–30), there is some scholarly concern (e.g. Bornkamm 2009:16; Strecker 1971:146) that Jesus in other arguments replaces at least some of the stipulations of the Torah. However, upon careful consideration of the contextual setting of these arguments, this does not seem to be the case.

Following his foundational statement on the continuing validity of the law and its fulfilment (Mt 5:17–19), and his call for a higher form of righteousness (Mt 5:20), Jesus proceeds by arguing how the Torah continues to be valid and what this higher form of righteousness means in practice. It rather seems that Jesus objects to a literal and narrow interpretation of the Torah, since it causes the true intention of some stipulations of the law to lose their meaning (Barth 1963:93). The argument is rather that Jesus with his antithetical statements reinforces the actual and original intention of the Torah (Patte 1987:78).

Though it might seem that Jesus with his third argument (Mt 5:31–32) objects to the order of Moses to a formal certificate in case of a divorce, Jesus rather argues that the certificate was intended to protect women within the harsh reality of men who abused them, and not as a means to easily dissolve a marriage (Luz 1990:301). Jesus alludes to Deuteronomy 24:1. It is important to recognise that in this latter text divorce is assumed and not approved (France 1985:127). Moses had restricted this permission to cases where divorce de facto already has occurred. The aim of Moses’ legislation ‘is not to condone divorce as such, but to mitigate its evil consequences’ (Stonehouse 1944:204). The original intention of Deuteronomy 24:1 was that if a man indeed divorced his wife, he was commanded to give her a certificate of the divorce. However, in due time it seems that not only the certificate as such, but also the divorce itself was regarded as demanded by Moses (cf. Mt 19:7).

Though it might seem as if Jesus in the fourth argument (Mt 5:33–37) objects against Moses’ rules for the taking of oaths, it is rather that Jesus argues that the taking of oaths is only necessary in unjust societies. In the ideal and truthful society, the taking of oaths should not be necessary.¹⁴ As the necessity of taking oaths was associated with the problem of unrighteousness, it explains Jesus’ total rejection of oaths for his followers, who are supposed to be righteous¹⁵ (Foster 2004:116; Morris 1992:125).

Though it might seem as if Jesus in the fifth argument (Mt 5:38–42) objects against Moses’ regulation on fair (the restriction of excessive) retaliation, Jesus argues that retaliation should rather be avoided and be replaced by benevolence. The thought is not that evil should remain unopposed, but that evil should be answered with good (Osborne 2010:208). Followers of Jesus must refuse to stoop to the level of the aggressor by returning evil with evil (Foster 2004:125; Hagner 1993:132).

Jesus objects in the sixth argument (Mt 5:43–47) to an interpretation of the commandment of neighbourly love, which was understood in such a way that enemies could be hated.¹⁶ Jesus argues that such an understanding proves a misinterpretation of this commandment. Love even for enemies is required. The fundamental motivation for Jesus’ command for enemy love is the mercy of God (Piper 1979:173). Plummer (1982:89) remarks: ‘To return evil for good is devilish; to return good for good is human; to return good for evil is divine.’

The antitheses are concluded with an admonishment to be perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect (Ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ Πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν; Mt 5:48). With this concluding statement Jesus shows that his explication of the Torah, as described in the preceding six halakhic arguments, illustrates perfect adherence to the Torah (Osborne 2010:214). He therefore argues that believers should adhere to the true meaning of the Torah perfectly. This imperative links up with the call for greater righteousness in Matthew 5:20. The opening δικαιοσύνη ([righteousness]; Mt 5:20) and the closing τέλειός ([perfect]; Mt 5:48) form an inclusio of the series emphasising Matthew’s calling for a higher ethic for his community. This standard is set by the authoritative interpretation of the law by Jesus (cf. Weren 1979:72).

Jesus’ response to the Pharisees’ objection that he ate with tax collectors and sinners (Mt 9:13) remarkably demonstrates his regard for God’s will. The introductory words, Πορευθέντες δὲ μάθετε τί ἐστιν [but go and learn what it means], represent a rabbinic formula to urge pupils for careful Torah study. This means that they should ‘go and discern the sense of Scripture’ or ‘go and make a valid inference from the scriptural statement’ (Davies & Allison 2004b:104; Hill 1978:111; Osborne 2010:337).¹⁷ Jesus argues that the fact that the Pharisees accuse him of eating with the marginalised proves that they do not understand the true meaning of the Torah. In contrast he argues that what he is doing demonstrates the praxis of true adherence to God’s will.

Jesus makes a similar remark about the ignorance of the Pharisees in Matthew 12:7, εἰ δὲ ἐγνώκειτε τί ἐστιν [if you had known what this means]. Jesus expresses his disappointment with the fact that the Pharisees do not understand the meaning of Scripture. Green (1975:125) remarks: ‘the Pharisees were so anxious to study what Scripture said that they could not hear what Scripture meant’. Jesus declares that he actually demonstrates the true intention of the Torah in the way he observes Sabbath in contrast to the ignorant interpretation of the Torah by the Pharisees, who cause a burdensome yoke on people (Mt 11:25–30).¹⁸

Jesus’ response to the Pharisees and the teachers of the law after they have accused the disciples for breaking the tradition of the elders (Mt 15:2) once again demonstrates reverence to the commands of God. The Παράδοσις [tradition] was a technical term referring to the collection of Jewish traditions. These traditions went beyond what was written in the Torah¹⁹ (Baumgarten 1987:66).

Jesus begins his response with ‘and why do you break (Παραβαίνετε) the command of God (τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ)?’ (Mt 15:3). Jesus contrasts the tradition (Παράδοσις) of the Pharisees with the command of God (ἐντολὴ) and the Word of God (λόγος). This juxtaposition intensifies the contrast between God’s commandments and man-made legislation (Repschinski 2000:159). Matthew’s Jesus therefore argues that his disciples do not follow the tradition of the Pharisees, because the Pharisees do not follow the commandment of God (Oliver 2013:270). The command of God is referred to as something that God said (ὁ γὰρ θεὸς εἶΠεν; Mt 15:4a and 6b). The divine origin of the commandment is emphasised and contrasted with the man-made tradition. Ironically the Παράδοσις [tradition] was intended to form a fence around the written Torah (Hagner 1995:430; Osborne 2010:585), but Jesus accuses the Pharisees of the fact that this very fence causes them (διὰ τὴν Παράδοσιν ὑμῶν, [for the sake of your tradition]) to break God’s commandments. Jesus argues that man-made commandments cannot substitute divine commandments. God’s commandments should be respected.

It is therefore clear that Matthew is firmly committed to the adherence of the Torah in its true meaning. He does not intend to present a Jesus who brought a new or a differing law, but one for whom the Torah remains valid and important.

It seems that in the post 70 CE period newly formed Jewish groups used the Torah to justify their parting from other groups and to define their alternative norms of existence. Their rivalry very much centred on claims to the correct interpretation of the Torah. Because of the importance of the Torah in Judaism, the interpretation of the Torah became a feature of the division. The different groups studied the law in minute thoroughness (Carter 2000:140; Cohen 2006:123; Foster 2004:2; Saldarini 1994:5). Yet, this desire to meet the specific obligations of the law, resulted in competitive disputes as to what the commandments mean in practice. Obviously this implied that other groups were doing it wrongly:

In Matthew the evangelist similarly developed a subtle dialectic with his opponents. Matthew describes Jesus as the One who brought the definitive interpretation of God’s will (cf. Foster 2004:28). Jesus superseded current understandings of the law with his reinterpretation thereof. Matthew narrates the story of Jesus and his disciples seemingly to defend and establish the respectability of the seemingly deviant behaviour of his community (Overman 1996:50). The Gospel challenges the conventional standards and delegitimises the religious leaders who controlled the definitions of what is considered to be normal and deviant.

Jesus’ alternative teaching of the Torah is particularly noticeable in his pronouncements on righteousness and his halakhic argument in the Sermon on the Mount.

Besides his alternative teaching of the Torah, the Matthean Jesus also enacts the Torah differently. The following two short narratives serve as significant examples of this.