Introduction to the Sermon on the Mount Steve Moyise

Throughout the centuries, the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:3-7:27) has been seen as the epitome of what Christianity is all about. Teaching like ‘turn the other cheek’ (5:29), ‘love your enemies’ (5:44), ‘no one can serve two masters’ (6:24) and ‘do to others as you would have them do to you’ (7:12) represent an ethical stance that has been foundational for Western civilisation. As the closing parable puts it: ‘Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock’ (7:24). The name ‘Sermon on the Mount’ (SoM) comes from Mt 5:1-2, where Jesus ‘went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. Then he began to speak, and taught them’. It calls to mind Israel’s great law-giver, Moses, who also went up a mountain and came down with teaching from God (Ten Commandments) and this is reinforced by the so-called ‘antitheses’ (5:21-48) where six times Jesus begins a discourse with ‘You have heard that it was said … But I say to you’ (5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43).1 It is one of five sermons or discourses that punctuate Matthew’s (chs 5-7, 10, 13, 18, 23-25) and is perhaps intended to mirror the five books of Moses.

Graham Stanton, in his fine book, A Gospel for a New People,2 suggest five pertinent questions to ask of the Sermon on the Mount: (1) Is Jesus interpreting the law or offering a radical new teaching? (2) How do the demands of the SoM relate to Paul’s gospel of grace? (3) Is the Sermon aimed at everyone or just committed disciples? (4) Is everything in the Sermon to be taken literally? (5) Are its radical demands to be explained because time is running out? This study has been guided by these questions, though the presentation is different.

1. The Beatitudes (5:3-12) The SoM begins with eight/nine3 beatitudes, traditionally translated, ‘Blessed are …’, from the Greek word makarios. The version used beatus, hence the ‘beatitudes’. Some of them deal with godly characteristics, such as ‘hunger and thirst for righteousness’ (5:6), ‘merciful’ (5:7) and ‘pure in heart’ (5:8) and it is therefore no surprise that God’s blessing rests upon them. Others, however, are about people in distress (poor in spirit, those who mourn, the persecuted, those who are reviled) and it is not clear in what sense they are blessed. This is made even more difficult in the Good News Bible, which thinks that ‘blessed’ is no longer part of conversation and so renders makarios with ‘happy’. Hence we have the paradoxical, ‘Happy are those who mourn’ and ‘Happy are those who are persecuted’. The problem is that ‘happy’ usually refers to the emotions and it is difficult to

1 Note also the transfiguration, where Moses and Elijah are with Jesus but the disciples are told: ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!’ (Mt 17:5). 2 G. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Westminster: John Knox, 1993). 3 The word makarios occurs 9 times but the final saying (‘Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you’) is a continuation of the eighth (‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake’).

1 understand how one can be both happy and mournful at the same time. For religious people familiar with the word ‘blessed’, it speaks of something objective: God’s blessing is upon you, whatever you happen to be feeling. On the other hand, Jesus tells those who are being persecuted to ‘rejoice and be glad’ (5:12), which is not quite the same thing as ‘happy’ but does imply some emotional content as well.

The translation issue is connected with the question: When can the distressed expect to receive their blessing? Some of the promises appear to suggest that it will be after death, such as 5:12 (‘for your reward is great in heaven’) and perhaps also 5:5 (’for they will inherit the earth’). Others could refer to this life, as in 5:4 (‘for they will be comforted’), while 5:7 (‘for they will receive mercy’) and 5:9 (‘they will be called children of God’) could refer to either. Protestants have generally thought of ‘heaven’ as the locus of such blessings, with earth continuing to be a place of suffering, even for Christians (perhaps especially for Christians – Rom 8:36). But Tom Wright insists that this is a misunderstanding of what Jesus means by ‘heaven’ or the ‘kingdom of heaven’:

Heaven is God’s space, where full reality exists, close by our ordinary (‘earthly’) reality and interlocking with it. One day heaven and earth will be joined together for ever, and the true state of affairs, at present out of sight, will be unveiled. After all, verse 5 says that the meek will inherit the earth, and that can hardly happen in a disembodied heaven after death.4

He translates makarios as, ‘Wonderful news for …’, suggesting that the beatitudes are a ‘summons to live in the present in the way that will make sense in God’s promised future; because that future has arrived in the present in Jesus of Nazareth’.5 This is in part a reaction against a type of missionary preaching that promised the poor a glorious heaven but did nothing to alleviate their poverty (hence opium for the people, as Marx called it). Wright is not denying that these promises will only be fully fulfilled when ‘heaven and earth will be joined together for ever’ but insists that we should be working towards them in the here and now. In his Nazareth sermon, Jesus quotes Isa 61:1 (‘he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor’) as applying to himself (Lk 4:21). But lest that ‘good news’ be confined to ‘heaven’, he adds a series of ‘earthly’ freedoms: release of prisoners; sight for the blind; oppressed go free (Lk 4:18). Ulrich Luz says that ‘the salvation promised to the poor, the hungry, and those who mourn is already a reality in Jesus’ acceptance of the dispossessed, in his common meals with them, and in the joy over God’s love experienced in the present’.6

Some of the beatitudes clearly derive from Scripture. Ps 37:11 says: ‘But the meek shall inherit the land, and delight themselves in abundant prosperity’. Ps 24:4 answers its own question of who is worthy to worship in the temple with, ‘Those who have clean hands and

4 Tom Wright, Matthew for Everyone, London: SPCK, 2002 (electronic edition). 5 Ibid. 6 Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 189. 2 pure hearts, who do not lift up their souls to what is false, and do not swear deceitfully’. And as mentioned above, Isa 61:1 speaks of preaching good news to the poor, while in 61:3, God promises to ‘comfort all who mourn’. More generally, they show Jesus’ dependence on wisdom traditions. Ps 1 opens with a beatitude (‘Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked’ – NIV) and the Sermon ends with a parable about the wise and foolish builders.

Lastly, it has sometimes been a problem for the Church that Jesus does not stipulate that those who mourn or are persecuted need to have faith to receive God’s blessing. All people mourn the loss of a loved one and so God’s blessing would appear to be on everyone at some point in their life. Taking the lead from 5:6 (hunger and thirst for righteousness), 5:8 (pure in heart) and 5:11 (persecuted for Jesus’ sake), some commentators have given each of the beatitudes a ‘Christian’ meaning. Thus, those who mourn are mourning over their sins or perhaps the sins of the world. The ‘poor in spirit’ are those who recognise their ‘poverty before God’ and hence their need for God. Stassen and Gushee try and combine such interpretations with our role in helping the unfortunate. We are ‘humble before God, and identify with the humble, the poor, and the outcasts … (we) mourn with sincere repentance toward God, and comfort others who mourn’.7 Few would doubt that this is ‘good application’ but we should be careful on two fronts (1) The context for understanding Jesus in the first instance is the Judaism to which he belonged, not later forms of Christianity; otherwise we would need to continue obeying the food laws and offering sacrifices (5:17- 19). (2) Jesus elsewhere praises those who demonstrate particular qualities (even a dishonest manager) and so we should not impose restrictions without warrant from the text.

2. Should the SoM be taken literally? Commands like ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘go the extra mile’ are in common parlance today. During the covid pandemic, medical staff who have worked long hours are said to have ‘gone the extra mile’. And those who have faced verbal abuse from the very people they are trying to help have ‘turned the other cheek’, telling themselves that it is not personal but springs from fear and distress. It has been called a ‘counter-cultural’ response, eschewing the natural desire for revenge or even justice. However, a dark side to this teaching has emerged over the last few decades, where victims of abuse were either ignored or told not to make a fuss. Well-meaning Christians told battered wives to trust in God and remain loyal to their husbands. Bullies continued to make the lives of their victims a misery because no one reported them. Despite the widespread admiration of those who ‘turn the other cheek’ for a noble cause, there would also be widespread agreement that there are times when it is just not applicable.

For those of us who hold a Bishop’s license, some of these occasions have been taken out of our hands. If we become aware of an allegation of abuse, we report it. We are not to help the (alleged) victim come to terms with it or help the (alleged) abuser face up to what he or she has done. It is a police matter. But what if the abuse is against us? Clearly, we are

7 David P. Gushee & Glen H. Stassen, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context (Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 2016), 47.

3 not to seek revenge but do we have a duty to stand up to it, so that the perpetrator does not go on and do it to others? Another dimension to this question is highlighted in Joanna Collicutt’s book, The Psychology of Christian Character Formation.8 She points out that in such a situation, some personalities would naturally fight back, while others would naturally withdraw. Thus the desire to be faithful to Jesus’ teaching might involve some curbing their natural instinct to fight back, lest it spill over into violence, while others may need the courage to stand up for themselves.

Perhaps the question is not so much whether the SoM is to be taken literally but whether it applies universally.9 In Mt 6:25-34, we have a section where Jesus urges people not to worry about what they shall eat or what they shall wear but to trust God for such things. This is illustrated by two examples from nature. Birds ‘neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them’ (6:26). Lilies ‘neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these’ (6:28). The conclusion is that if we seek first his kingdom, God will give us ‘all these things’ (6:33). Many have found this speaks powerfully against materialism and losing sight of what is truly important in life. Choosing the ‘simple life’ is not only a way of helping to save our planet, it can also offer a pathway to a deeper spirituality. But is it applicable to a country facing famine? Could they not point to a flaw in Jesus’ illustration; unless birds build nests and hunt for food, they do in fact die.

I was leading a Bible study on this passage a couple of years ago when someone said: ‘Asking me not to worry is like asking me not to breathe’. For whatever reason (nature/ nurture), some people are worriers and some are more care-free. The subsequent discussion led to some interesting insights. It is often the worriers who anticipate possible problems and so put in place various contingencies. It is good to have such people on your team, even if they do need a lot of support. Care-free people are more able to act independently and produce creative results but can sometimes fail by not anticipating a possible problem. A sermon on this passage would need to be sensitive to the fact that you are likely to have both sorts in your congregation.

3. Jesus and the Old Testament In the so-called ‘antitheses’ (5:21-48), Jesus cites a command of Scripture (murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, retaliation, enemies) and responds with, ‘But I say to you’. The impression this gives (repeated six times) is that Jesus’ teaching is a replacement for the law. And this fits with a common understanding of the Gospels, where Jesus preaches love and forgiveness in contrast to the Pharisees’ pedantic emphasis on the minutiae of the law. It therefore comes as a surprise to read the following in 5:17-20:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. 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 is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever

8 Joanna Collicutt, The Psychology of Christian Character Formation (London: SCM, 2015). 9 Clearly the teaching on cutting off limbs if they cause offence is not to be taken literally (5:29-30), but this is more a case of recognising figurative language (as in the speck/plank in the eye illustration). 4

does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

As Gentile Christians, there are vast swathes of Old Testament law that we no longer keep (food laws, sacrifices, festivals) and so according to what Jesus says here, we will be ‘least in the kingdom of heaven’. Obedience to the law did not come to an end with the coming of Jesus, for the law remains ‘until heaven and earth pass away’, that is, for ever. Christians typically respond to this by quoting Paul in Rom 13:8, that love is the fulfilment of the law and hence keeping the minutiae of the law no longer matters. But that can hardly be the meaning here, since Jesus stresses the importance of every ‘letter’ and every ‘stroke of a letter’.10 He will later accuse the Pharisees of tithing small herbs but neglecting the weightier matters of the law (Mt 23:23) but his conclusion is not that the minutiae do not matter but that they should have been kept without neglecting the more important laws.

There is one clause in this passage that could lead to a different conclusion. Although initially Jesus says that the least letter of the law will remain ‘until heaven and earth pass away’, the sentence ends with the phrase, ‘until all is accomplished’. This is most naturally taken in parallel with the first clause (until all God’s plans for heaven and earth have been accomplished) but given the stress in Matthew’s Gospel on Jesus’ fulfilment of Scripture (1:23; 2:6, 15, 18, 23; 4:15 etc), an alternative interpretation is that it refers to his life, death and resurrection. This would then fit nicely with Paul’s teaching that Gentile converts do not need to take up the law (Gal 2:14). It would also give a possible way of interpreting the last verse here, namely, that the righteousness that we receive in Christ is superior to the righteousness gained by the law, for in Paul’s words, ‘no one will be justified by the works of the law’ (Gal 2:16).

As preachers, it is appropriate to try and show how one biblical text might relate to another (indeed the encourages it) but I have my doubts about interpreting Jesus in the light of Paul in this way. Jesus is preaching to his fellow Jews, as is clearly seen in the following two statements:

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Mt 10:6).

And his disciples came and urged him, saying, ‘Send her [Canaanite woman] away, for she keeps shouting after us.’ He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Mt 15:24).

Although Jesus occasionally meets a Gentile (centurion – Mt 8:5), his ministry is to the ‘house of Israel’ and even after the resurrection, Peter needs a special vision to convince him to speak to Gentiles (Cornelius - Acts 10). Of interest in this passage is that Peter initially resists the implications of the vision by declaring, ‘I have never eaten anything that is

10 The Greek speaks of one iota (the smallest letter in the Greek alphabet and corresponding to the Hebrew ‘y’) or one keraia (a short dash or mark that is added to some letters in Hebrew). 5 profane or unclean’ (10:14). In other words, ‘I was brought up not to eat unclean food, I never did when I was with Jesus, and I haven’t done since’. And there are plenty like Peter. When Paul visits Jerusalem after his second missionary journey, James takes him aside and says: ‘You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law’ (Acts 21:20). It is to such people that Matthew is thought to have written his Gospel. He presents Jesus as a law-abiding Jew with a mission to his fellow Jews. He is against hypocrisy in matters of giving alms (6:2-4), prayer (6:5-8) and fasting (6:16-18) but assumes that these will continue to characterise discipleship. Mark thinks differently. In the discussion about clean and unclean, he adds a parenthesis that is not in Matthew:

Mk 7:18-20 Mt 15:17-18 ‘Do you not see that whatever goes into a ‘Do you not see that whatever goes into person from outside cannot defile, since it the mouth enters, not the heart but the stomach, enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?’ and goes out into the sewer? (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, ‘It is what comes out of a But what comes out of the mouth proceeds person that defiles …’ from the heart, and this is what defiles …’

Mark is writing for a Gentile audience and draws an implication from Jesus’ teaching; the food laws do not need to be kept (as in Paul). But Matthew is writing to Jews who have not abandoned the food laws and see no reason why they should. This of course is significant for whether the Jewish SoM can act as a blueprint for the (predominantly) Gentile church today.

4. Does the SoM teach pacifism? We have touched on this question in our discussion of whether the SoM should be taken literally but it has (naturally) led to much discussion down the ages. In addition to ‘turn the other cheek’, two verses have been especially significant:

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer (5:38-39a).

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (5:43-44).

Richard Hays, in his excellent book, The Moral Vision of the ,11 argues that these verses are in perfect accord with both the way that Jesus lived his life and the centrality of the cross in Christian theology. There may be occasions when an abused victim should walk away or indeed notify the police but it is never correct to send them back with an axe. Violence always begets violence and this is the teaching of the rest of the New

11 Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997). 6

Testament: ‘Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them … Do not repay anyone evil for evil … if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink … Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good’ (Rom 12:14- 21). It is easy to think that this hardly applies to our world of international terrorism but we should remember that Paul is writing to Rome, where Christians will shortly be thrown to the lions.

Pacifism was the universal stance of the Church until Constantine in the fourth century, with Christians refusing to be involved in the military or capital punishment. Augustine’s ‘just war’ theory changed all that but there have always been Christians (Anabaptists, Mennonites, Quakers) and individuals (St Francis, Tolstoy, Gandhi, King) who have maintained such a stance. Against the obvious question of what would have happened if Christians had refused to take up arms against Hitler, Hays replies: What would have happened if German Christians had refused to go along with Hitler?

A different approach was taken by Walter Wink in his book, Engaging the Powers. Wink argues for what is commonly called ‘non-violent resistance’. He thinks the ‘passive’ interpretation of ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘go the extra mile’ misses the point. Jesus is himself part of an oppressed people and his illustrations show how one can maintain one’s dignity in difficult situations. Thus it was common for a Roman soldier to demand that someone carry their baggage for a mile (cf. Simon of Cyrene and the cross). By offering to carry it a further mile changes the dynamic between them. Indeed, the soldier now has to ask for his baggage back! Wink says: ‘The humor of this scene … could scarcely have been lost on Jesus’ hearers, who must have regaled at the prospect of thus discomforting their oppressors’.12 Matthew’s particular mention of the ‘right cheek’ draws attention to the nature of the violence; it was a backhanded slap (by a right hander) designed to humiliate an inferior. By offering the other cheek, the oppressed effectively says: ‘Hit me again if you life but now you will have to do it as an equal’.

These are interesting suggestions but how do they square with the command in Mt 5:39: ‘Do not resist an evildoer’? Surely even ‘passive resistance’ is a form of resisting an evildoer, in this case, through humiliation. Wink’s answer to this draws on the linguistic background of the Greek verb anthistemi. The verb does mean ‘resist’ but in a number of its uses in the OT, the context suggests its meaning is more specifically ‘resist violently’. Thus the Good News Bible translates Mt 5:39 as, ‘do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you’ and the Contemporary English Version as, ‘do not try to get even with’. Wink notes that the rest of the NT (Rom 12:17; 1 Thess 5:15; 1 Pet 3:9) understood this teaching as ‘do not repay evil with evil’ and not a blanket ‘Do not resist an evil doer’.

5. Does the SoM ask us to renounce all possessions? ‘Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you’ (5:42). As in the pacifism example, it is easy to put forward a case where it would be unwise to give money to a beggar who is a drug addict or alcoholic. However, that should not detract from the challenge of the SoM to renounce wealth and possessions and seek to live a simple life:

12 Walter Wink. Engaging the Powers, 25th Anniversary Edition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017 [1992]), 192. 7

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (6:19-21).

No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth. Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? (6:24-25).

As in the Lord’s prayer, we may legitimately pray for our ‘daily bread’ (6:11) but not to fill our (metaphorical) barns (6:26). Jesus alludes here to Israel’s wilderness wanderings when they could only gather enough manna to last one day, teaching them to trust God for the following day. What is it that strangles the Word sown within us? The ‘cares of the world and the lure of wealth’ (13:22). And what does Jesus say to the man enquiring about eternal life? ‘If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ (19:21).

Unlike pacifism, which was the norm until the fourth century, this teaching was diluted and rationalised at an early stage. Thus according to Luz, early interpretations assumed that ‘mammon means not money but attachment to money, covetousness, and greed’, so that, ‘It is one thing to have riches, another to serve riches’.13 It is a question of moderation and attitude: ‘The rich man who does not have his heart set on riches is happy to give his possessions away, but of course in moderation so that enough is left for his family’ (which is regarded as a sacred duty). One might say that certain stories (eating with Zacchaeus), parables (talents) and teaching (make wise use of money) have trumped the emphasis on renunciation in the SoM. We now leave that to nuns and monks.

6. Words of Matthew or words of Jesus? Luke has a shorter version of the SoM (Lk 6:20-49), which agrees with the order of topics (beatitudes, love of enemies, do not judge, speck in eye, tree and its fruit, house on rock) but has some surprising differences.14 Most notable is that instead of eight/nine beatitudes, there are now only four but these are followed by four woes. The four beatitudes correspond to Matthew’s first (poor in spirit), second (mourn), fourth (hunger for righteousness) and eighth (persecuted). However, Matthew’s ‘poor in spirit’ and ‘hunger for righteousness’ are now literally the ‘poor’ and ‘hungry’ in Luke, and this corresponds with the target of his woes:

But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who are laughing now, for you

13 Luz, Matthew 1-7, 335. 14 It is known as the ‘sermon on the plain’ (SoP), since after going up the mountain in 6:12, he descends to a ‘level place’ in 6:17. The fact that it comes just before the healing of the centurion’s slave (Lk 7:2/Mt 8:5) shows that it is a record of the same event. 8

will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets (Lk 6:24-26).

If Luke is an abbreviation of the SoM (29 verses compared with 106), then he has increased the emphasis on the poor and added a criticism of the rich and comfortable. This would be a valuable insight, as it shows how Luke at least understood these verses (and suggests we shouldn’t go further and understand ‘mourn’ as ‘mourn for our sins’). However, we also find blocks of the SoM in (prayer), 12 (do not worry), 14 (salt and light) and 16 (mammon) and so an alternative theory is that Matthew gathered together this material to create the first of his five sermons (chs 5-7, 10, 13, 18, 23-25). The issue is important for two reasons (1) We generally enquire of the context when trying to interpret Jesus’ teaching but this will be different for those passages found in the later chapters of Luke. (2) It will not always be clear whether a particular emphasis comes from Jesus or is due to one or other of the Evangelists. For example, we have already discussed the difficult teaching in Mt 5:17-20 that every letter of the law must be obeyed. We can be fairly sure that Jesus spoke about the law remaining while heaven and earth remain as Lk 16:17 has a similar saying. But Luke does not continue with the necessity to keep the minutiae of the law or that one’s righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. Has he omitted these teachings for the sake of his Gentile readers or has Matthew added them (perhaps from elsewhere) to speak to his Jewish readers?15

The dominant view today is that much of this material was part of a collection of sayings that scholars have designated by the letter Q. Matthew used most of it to construct the Sermon on the Mount, whereas Luke settled for a mini-Sermon at that point and used the rest topically in chs 11-16. No solution to the Synoptic Problem16 is without its counter examples but this does explain why many of the sayings are almost verbatim, while appearing in different contexts. The classic example is the use of the Greek word epiousios in the Lord’s prayer, which is otherwise completely unknown in all of Greek literature. It is just about impossible to believe that Matthew and Luke independently made up the same word to translate whatever Jesus said in his native . They have either copied from one another (as Mark Goodacre suggests) or used the same source (the majority of scholars).

Questions To test your understanding of this essay and the accompanying video, try jotting down an answers to the five questions raised by Stanton on page 1.

15 Also significant is the fact that Lk has placed the saying directly after the words, ‘The law and the prophets were in effect until John came’ (16:16), which affects the meaning of the saying. 16 That is, how both the similarities between Matthew, Mark and Luke and the differences are best explained. John is recognised as very different and can’t be explained in this way. 9