Please read Matthew 5-7. Matthew's gospel shows well why Christians often ended up needing to defend themselves. Much ow what's here challenges "religio" of both the Jewish and gentile types. But there is also much here that might have tied nicely to some of the ideas of the philosophers. Cite examples of both challenges to traditional "religio" and philosophically attractive ideas from the Sermon on the Mount.
In Matthew 5:20, Jesus says "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of even the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Here, Jesus tells the Pharisees that even with all their extreme obedience to the law, they're STILL not good enough to get into Heaven. This challenges the religio of the Jews that benefits the Pharisees.
ReplyDeleteOne of the more philosophically attractive portions of the Sermon on the Mount is the "Ask, Seek, Knock" passage, Matthew 7:7-12. Jesus tells us that He will take care of us like a father takes care of his children. All we have to do is ask for something, and He will provide. That sounds appealing to pretty much anybody.
Claire DeMilia
As I read the passages others picked out, the challenges to religio at the time are starting to "Mount" up...pardon the pun...no not really. All three blog posts have shown a different way this sermon was radical for its time and would really ruffle some feathers.
DeleteI've always enjoyed the Beatitudes. Here, Jesus takes a very unconventional approach, giving blessings then teaching to the crowd. Also, the verse that Claire cited above (Matthew 7:7-12) challenge the religio because both the Pharisees/Sadducees were focused on works (Golden Rule, Good works, Stuff to be noticed and recognized by men) when Jesus specifically calls them out on it and then says all you need to do is rely on Him.
ReplyDeleteKent Johnsen
There’s no doubt that Matthew is a powerful book. The message is strong and straight forward. Lots of Red on these pages reinforces their importance. It was fun to look at the Sermon on the Mount in a more overarching, historical context rather than the more spiritual way. Doing this I found a couple things interesting, disturbing, and leaving me with more questions than answers. You don’t have to go far to see by this sermon is different with 8 blessings aright at the beginning. But how about these radical blessings, (Matt. 5:11) “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.” And it doesn’t stop there, Turn the other cheek (Matt. 5-39) and Pray for your enemy (Matt. 5:44). These were radical new concept at the time, definitely challenging the religio of ancient times.
ReplyDeleteJesus challenges Jewish tradition of adultery and divorce in verse 27-32. Maybe a hint of the first Woman’s Lib., improving women’s rights/status…saying we need to treat them better that’s for sure.
A major challenge to the religio of the time was this transfer to “Secret” worship. I’m sure this had just as much root in the protection of early Christians as any other reason, but Jesus sure makes secrecy sound rewarding. No need to show off haw much money you donated, no need to pray the loudest, the most, or even in public. Do it in the closet. This would challenge the Pharisees, the political elite, the priest…the man, who thrive on image and persuasion.
This message appeals to Philosophers too. I found Matthew, Chpt. 6:25 appealing to the Greek thinkers. Paraphrasing but, don’t worry about food or clothes, not because they’re not important…you need those things to live…but what is Life? Isn’t it more than food and clothes? Philosophical for sure…but I’m not sure I’ve ever been that hungry either
In these chapters, I saw Jesus warning his followers not to give public displays of piety but to do so in secret. What is the purpose of that? I think the reason is that it prevents people from doing public good in order to win the support of the people but secret wickedness to obtain an advantage. Like politicians pushing one set of values to the public while performing secretly receiving campaign donations big businesses.
ReplyDeleteAlthough not in the assigned reading, one of the ironies I see in the Sermon on the Mount is the Lord’s Prayer. Jewish prayers are almost all based on the same formula such as this one for candle lighting on the Sabbath: “Blessed are you, Lord, our God, sovereign of the universe Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to light the lights of Shabbat.” The prayer begins with the blessing for the Lord, followed by the statement of sanctification, and then with the commandment being followed at the end. This standard formulation led to prayers said as rote memorization without conscious thought about the true meaning of the prayer. Jesus gave the Lord’s Prayer as an example of how people should pray, without the ritual formulation but today recitation of that very prayer is a ritual where the people saying it do not even have to pay attention to the words.
Jerry Taylor
In Matthew 7:28-29 Jesus is preaching about the fact that his words are law and that the laws that are preached in those days where not the same as his. This idea of Challange really didn't sit well with the rabbis during those times because they follow the words of Moses. They don't believe that Jesus the son of God has the authority but rather the books and scrolls they follow are the words that we as people need to believe in. This is one way that the word of God is challenge by different religious groups such as Judaism.
ReplyDeleteJewish religion goes hand and hand almost to Christian ideals. The main philosophical difference to me even though it's not referenced much in the book of Matthew is the idea of Law. In the book Christians has a set of rules similar to Jews with the 10 commandments that they were given by Moses. In Matthew 5:20 he warns the people "But I warn you unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious laws and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This idea or warning really didn't strike a favor with the religious leaders of those times which where the early teachings of the Jewish faith. You can see why the ideologies as well as philosophies of both religions Jewish faith and Christianity are similar but are different in many ways.
One of the things that I noticed in the Sermon on the Mount that seems to challenge the traditional religion is in Matthew 5:29-30. "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members then that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell." This challenges it because before this, adultery, lust, and sexual immorality was something that was looked down upon, but never something that somebody would have to lose one of their bodily members over. This most likely would have driven people away from the faith rather than to it, since it was saying that if you should commit self mutilation if you sin.
ReplyDeleteSomething that is philosophically attractive in the sermon on the mount is written in Matthew 6:2-4. "Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, so not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you." This would help people to understand that they can give to people in need, but they need not flaunt it and that they will receive rewards from God the Father in heaven. This also could mean that they can give to the needy and feel good about it, but don't make a big scene over it.
This blog post is particularly intriguing, combining philosophers' thinking with the Sermon on the Mount. So, I would Like to point to the message held within the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount. There is a philosopher I would particularly like to point to concerning philosophical reason, but I would like to show where he was wrong in his reasoning. The philosopher I would like to use is Aristotle because he used justification as to what type of life is most beneficial to the mortal man.
ReplyDeleteThe beatitudes can be seen in many ways, but essentially they were shot at the leaders of the Jewish leaders. The Jewish leaders would have been seen as the pinnacle of spiritual life as a follower of God. However, they would all have had one very similar thing: many were well off. They had connections that eased their struggles, which would have placed them in the upper class, at least among Jewish believers. In contrast, all other Jews would have been among the lowest low for citizens.
This is where I would like to bring in Aristotle, as he believed most strongly in a solid middle class. The middle was best, and the farther toward wealth or poverty an individual traveled, the more despicable they became. This is, in contrast, definitely to what Jesus speaks about in the Beatitudes, saying the worst off are those who have the most blessings to receive. These messages were close because Aristotle and Jesus desired to bring the same news: truth; they came close in delivery. However, here is the separator man, Aristotle stopped at a place of comfort in the middle. While God Jesus went all the way knowing the truth, those worse off have the most to gain. Both men's messages, while quite different in retrospect, served the same purpose: the fact that blessings in life in abundance lead to the deprivation of one's inner life.
Tanner Simon
One area where this message would of challenged the norms of the day is the statement "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." In a culture that was based on an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, a society centered on justice and hierarchy. Not only is Jesus saying to love people that have wronged them, but to actually pray for them. In many peoples eyes this doesn't seem to be fair, but in the way of Jesus it is exactly what is commanded.
ReplyDeleteOne area where the philosophers would've been in favor, especially men like Diogenes, is to "store up treasure in heaven." We don't need to worry about the material world, but rather life after it.
Oftentimes, not just today but in the Bible, people will go to worship God in temples. They are seen publicly praising the Lord, showcasing that they are his ever-faithful servants, and that they are willing to do anything to earn their place in Heaven.
ReplyDeleteThis typically included providing money, as much as they possibly could. Unfortunately for the less-fortunate, they had vastly less to give and therefore must have felt that they were not giving enough. Such insecurity would no doubt be the gossip of those who witnessed it. For those who are richer, what they provided gave them perks and made them feel superior even if it shouldn't have.
Either by means of social boosting, a statue or section of the church made in their honor - anything that could show they gave plenty of money to the church was shown off.
In Matthew 5-7, Jesus directly calls out that people, especially those of poorer economic means, often make up for this 'imbalance' with their spiritual connection to the Lord. In a sense, this can be comforting to hear. If you do not have monetary means, then you can give the Lord through spiritual means. You are no less valuable to the Lord just because you didn't give enough money.
Additionally, Jesus cites that people should seek to pray and be loyal to the Lord in private. Not only would this keep them safe, as Christians were persecuted, but they would be safe from the criticism of others.
Jesus even includes that what we have on Earth is materialistic, that it will not be brought with us to Heaven, so we should seek to do good to others rather than amass our wealth.
For those who are richer and feel that they are validated only by showcasing their wealth, it would hopefully have sank in for them that they won't be entering Heaven just because they gave enough money for the temple to have a new wing or a new art installation.
For someone like myself, hearing these would bring me comfort. I'm not generally a social person, so if I had felt pressured to attend church Or Else, I may have lost faith. But given Jesus's words, I can feel comfortable praying to the Lord in my own home, away from prying eyes and not feel ashamed for my choice. Others could have felt the same way.
The Sermon on Mount really showed the revolutionary ideas Jesus would advocate, in a way that many people overlook. Matthew 5:43-44 was a complete inversion of all that proceeded this sermon, and much that followed. Ethics became a humanitarian project, losing it's origin in group survival. Matthew 6:19 dismantles many philosophically attractive ideas through its rejection of life. It is a complete rejection of the philosophical frame of thought, pertaining to Homer through Nietzsche, the rejection of life with it's wealth and power, for the everlasting life of heaven. This would run counter to religio of any major empire or nobility throughout history. During it's inception, Christianity would be a religion of the destitute and slave classes, due to it's revolutionary ideas. Defending themselves would be an obvious outcome of such novel and new ideas in a hostile and hierarchical world.
ReplyDelete-Daxton Harmon
Jacob Geppert
ReplyDeleteThe Sermon on the Mount presents teachings that challenge the traditional "religio" of both Jewish and Gentile audiences while also echoing themes that would have resonated with contemporary philosophers. For example, Jesus redefines righteousness not through strict law-following but through inner transformation, saying, “You have heard that it was said... but I say to you” (Matthew 5:21–22), which directly challenges the legalistic religiosity of Jewish tradition. Likewise, his call to “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44) would have sounded radical to both Jewish law and Gentile honor cultures. Yet, philosophers like the Stoics might have found Jesus’ emphasis on humility, self-mastery, and the value of inner virtue deeply appealing. Teachings such as “Blessed are the meek” (Matthew 5:5) and “Do not worry about tomorrow” (Matthew 6:34) reflect a mindset that values detachment from worldly anxieties something Stoic and Cynic thinkers can admire. In this way, the Sermon on Mount both confronts traditional religious structures and taps into universal philosophical ideals.
Reading Matthew 5–7 really helped me understand why Jesus' teachings were so controversial. He challenged both Jewish and Gentile "religio" by focusing more on the heart and intentions than on outward rituals. For example, when He says that even being angry with someone is like committing murder (Matthew 5:21–22), it shows how deep His moral standards go beyond the law. That must have been hard for both religious leaders and regular people to accept.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I can see how some parts of the Sermon on the Mount would appeal to ancient philosophers. The idea of loving enemies (5:44), not judging others (7:1–5), and storing up treasures in heaven (6:19–21) all seem to connect with Stoic and even Platonic ideas about virtue, humility, and the soul. It's interesting how Jesus' teachings could both disrupt tradition and attract deep thinkers at the same time.