Smoodock's Blog

Jesus had been teaching his disciples from Matthew 5:3 to Matthew 7:11, and at this point in verse-12, he begins to wind up and conclude his discourse on the mount in Galilee. According to my previous studies in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was teaching his disciples during the season of the fall festivals. He was away from the villages and towns, celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles, which commemorates Israel’s coming out of Egypt and living in tents, as they wandered in the wilderness for forty years.

Here in Matthew 7:12, Jesus says that his sayings sum up the Law and the Prophets. If they sum up the scriptures that were given to the Jews (Exodus 23:4; Leviticus 19:18; Deuteronomy 15:7-8; Proverbs 24:17; 25:21), we can probably use the same to say that Jesus was summing up and concluding what he claimed during the time he taught his disciples (cp. Matthew 5:1). He tells them, “All things whatsoever you would that men should do for you, you do for them…” (Matthew 7:12), which, if taken seriously and at face value, one would expect thieves, murders, liars and adulterers to vanish from the earth. Yet, Jesus isn’t credited with originating the phrase. One of the Jews’ most beloved teachers, a Pharisee and rabbi, named Hillel, taught it similarly, but in the negative sense. He taught, “Whatsoever is hateful for you, don’t you do to your neighbor.” Even the pagans had a similar philosophy. When asked how we should treat our friends, Aristotle said, “…as we would wish they would treat us.” So, the principle of what is referred to as the Golden Rule was a widespread thought, but evidently not widely practiced.

In fact, traditionally, it was the Roman Emperor, Alexander Severus (AD 222-235) who is thought to have coined the title golden rule. He wasn’t a Christian, but he was so impressed with what Jesus said[1] that he had Jesus’ words inscribed in gold on the wall of his chamber.[2]

No matter what we think of the Golden Rule, itself, we need to put Jesus’ words in context. Aristotle’s version concerned how we ought to treat our friends. Rabbi Hillel’s version concerned how we should **not** treat our neighbor, meaning his words don’t imply a responsibility to treat our neighbor well, only that we don’t treat him wickedly. Jesus’ version is life changing. His disciples were to treat their enemies in contrast with how their enemies treated them. Jesus’ disciples were to witness, through their example, how men ought to treat one another, regardless of how they, themselves, were treated by other folks, folks who, contextually, may be persecuting them (cp. Matthew 5:11-12).

Jesus laid before his disciples two paths or ways to walk, one led to life, and the other led to destruction.[3] He said to enter life by the straight, meaning narrow, gate. Narrow is implied in the word straight, because, when it is contrasted the gate and the way that leads to destruction, he described them as wide and broad, respectively (Matthew 7:13). Moreover, in the next verse straight (G4728) is placed with narrow (G2346), and Jesus said that only the few find the way and the gate that leads to life (Matthew 7:14).

What is Jesus implying? Is he implying there are few to be saved? Is spiritual salvation dependent upon what I do, or what Jesus did? Was Jesus sent to save the few or the world (John 3:16)? The answers to such questions should be obvious to anyone who can read and has read the Bible. Some things are very simple, but they are complicated by folks who like to magnify the importance of the “wide” gate and the “broad” way, which is seeking to enter the Kingdom of God through observance of the Law. The Law, not wickedness, is the wide gate, and obedience to the Law is the broad way, not sinfulness. The folks on the broad way are seeking to enter the Kingdom of God, wicked and rebellious folks have no regard for the Lord. It is the Law observers who will cry out “Lord, Lord…” (cp. Matthew 7:21) in an effort to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The wicked folks have no interest in such things.

The fact is, Jesus was asked, if few were to be saved later in his public ministry, as he traveled toward Jerusalem (Luke 13:23). The question represents a gross misunderstanding of Jesus’ words. He never spoke in the terms this question represents. Rather, he spoke in the sense of who will enter the Presence of God; who will be given his Holy Spirit? Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount, have nothing to do with the question: “What must I do to be saved?” The Sermon on the Mount is all about who are in God’s Presence and who are not. Who has God’s Holy Spirit, and who does not? Who has entered the Kingdom of Heaven and who has not? Who actually live by the Golden Rule, and who do not?

________________________________________________________________

[1] It isn’t recorded that he was impressed with what Aristotle said, or what Rabbi Hillel said, implying their sayings were not as widespread as Jesus’ words.

[2] See R.T. France: The Gospel of Matthew; page 284.

[3] This doesn’t mean the way gave life. Only Jesus is able to give us life, the way, itself, could lead us to Jesus or it would lead us to destruction.