6 antithesis sermon mount

The Sermon On The Mount

A commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. Posted backwards so it can be read like a normal text. (Note: One section is posted last misplaced. Sorry.)

Monday, April 23, 2007

Six antitheses-- matthew 5:21-48, 2 comments:.

Thank you so much for writing these kind regards.

Excellent commentary on this part of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus came to fulfill the law, and to give us a better understanding on how we should interpret it in our daily lives. Thank you for taking the time to write this

Post a Comment

• Faith & Life
• Marriage & Parenting
• Addiction Recovery
• Unveiling Mormonism

Select Page

The Six Antitheses of Jesus

Talking Points:

The law says don’t murder but Jesus says to be reconciled. Instead of being fueled by hatred, direct your energy towards peace. The law says don’t commit adultery but Jesus says to be radically pure. Get to the root of sexual sin and remove temptation before it leads to sin. Matthew 5:27-30, 1 Corinthians 6:18 The law says a man can divorce but Jesus says be selfless in marriage. Rather than looking for a loophole, spend your energy building a healthy marriage. Matthew 5:31-32 The law says don’t break a vow but Jesus says be a truth teller. Always tell the truth whether you’ve made commitments or not. The law says eye for an eye but Jesus says be a blessing. Rather than seeking revenge, find ways to bless others whether they deserve it or not. Matthew 5:38-44 The law says hate your enemies but Jesus says to be like Him. Choose love and grace for those that wrong you.

• Initial reactions to this topic? What jumped out at you?
• What do you think the audience was thinking hearing these antitheses?
• Read Matthew 5:17-18. What was the purpose of the law? What had the law become to the Jews?
• Read Matthew 5:27-30 and 1 Corinthians 6:18. What is Jesus’ point in these verses? What does Paul say about sexual sin?
• Read Matthew 5:31-32. Why was a decision to divorce selfish back then? What’s the better way to deal with a struggling marriage?
• Read Matthew 5:38-44. In your opinion, what does it look like to live out these words with your “enemies”?
• Is there a step you need to take based on today’s topic?

About The Author

The PursueGOD Podcast

The official faith and life podcast for the discipleship resources at pursueGOD.org. Great for families, small groups, and one-on-one mentoring. New sermonlink topics every Friday.

Next Step Bible Study

Take the NEXT STEP in studying the text of Scripture…!

Jesus and the Law, Part 3: The Antitheses and the Sermon on the Mount

Matthew 5:21-48 represents the first major section of the collection of Jesus’ teaching known as the “Sermon on the Mount” (chapters 5-7). These verses are typically referred to as the Antitheses , since they represent a series of six contrasting sayings. Before proceeding with a exposition of the Antitheses, it is recommended that you read and study carefully the preceding verses 17-20 ; I have previously discussed these in a separate note . Verses 17-20 present four statements by Jesus regarding his view of the Law (Torah)—principles which should be kept in mind when attempting to analyze and interpret what follows. Also important are the Beatitudes ( 5:3-12 ) which serve as an introduction (exordium) to the ‘Sermon’ as a whole; I have also discussed the Beatitudes in some detail in a separate exegetical study series .

The Antitheses each begin with the phrase h)kou/sate o%ti e)rre/qh (“you heard that it has been uttered/said…”), and once simply “it has been uttered/said” ( e)rre/qh ). In several instances this phrase is qualified with the expression toi=$ a)rxai/oi$ (“to the chief/leading ones”). The adjective a)rxai=o$ can be understood in the qualitative sense of leading or prominent people (i.e., elders, rulers, authorities), or temporally , those “at the beginning”, i.e. a long time ago. In other words, these are well-established sayings (or teachings) with some measure of authority and tradition behind them. The “leading men (of old)” ( oi( a)rxai=oi ) include venerable authorities on Scripture and the Law, extending all the way back to Moses and the Prophets—cf. Luke 9:8, 19 ; Philo Who Is the Heir §181, 283; On Abraham §1-6ff; On the Special Laws I.8; On the Sacrifices of Abel & Cain §79 (Betz, p. 215, 216).

In each instance, Jesus contrasts the customary/traditional saying with his own teaching— e)gw\ de\ le/gw u(mi=n (“but I say to you…”). As we shall see, Jesus’ argument differs in each Antithesis; the customary saying may reflect a distortion of the original meaning and intent of the Law, or he may argue that simply following the letter of the Law is insufficient. The six Antitheses may be divided as follows:

• On murder/anger (vv. 21-26)
• On adultery/lust (vv. 27-30)
• On divorce (vv. 31-32)
• On swearing (an oath) (vv. 33-37)
• On revenge/retaliation (vv. 38-42)
• On love for one’s enemies (vv. 43-47)

At first glance, there may seem to be no obvious pattern here; however, it is possible to view these as three (logical) pairs (see the concluding summary below).

1. On murder/anger (vv. 21-26 )

Customary saying[s] :

• “you shall not slay (a person) [i.e. murder]” and “who(ever) should slay (a person) will be held in (custody) for the judgment”

Jesus’ saying[s] :

• “every one that (is) angered by his brother will be held in (custody) for the Judgment” “who(ever) should say to his brother ‘Rêqa!’ {‘Empty-[head]!’} will be held in (custody) for the Council [lit. {place of} sitting-together]” “who(ever) should say (to him) ‘Dullard! [i.e. Fool/Stupid]’ will be held in (custody) unto the Ge-hinnom of Fire”

Relation to the Law:

The first of the customary sayings comes from the Ten Commandments ( Exod 20:15 [LXX]); the second saying does not come from Scripture, rather it is a basic formulation of how the law would be applied—one who commits murder/manslaughter will be charged and held for judgment (and punishment).

Jesus’ Exposition:

The validity of the law concerning murder/manslaughter is not questioned; rather, Jesus’ extends the principle to any angry outburst against another person (one’s “brother”, i.e. neighbor). While the customary saying refers to normal judgment in a human court, it would seem that Jesus moves this into the Divine/Heavenly realm, in sequence:

• the Judgment ( kri/si$ )—that is, the (end-time) judgment before God
• the Council ( sune/drion )—by a similar wordplay, this presumably is not a human judicial (or ruling) council, but the (heavenly) Council of God
• the ‘Ge-hinnom’ of Fire ( ge/enna tou= puro/$ )—the “valley of Hinnom” came to be a proverbial symbol of the end-time judgment, where the wicked/worthless ones will be punished (with fire, burned as refuse)

Example/Application:

This warning against anger is followed by two examples illustrating the importance and (practical) value of reconciliation:

• Vv. 23-24 : reconciliation with one’s neighbor takes precedence over fulfilling religious/ritual obligations
• Vv. 25-26 : if you do not try to reconcile you may end up facing the harsh judgment of the court (to say nothing of God’s Judgment!)

2. On adultery/lust (vv. 27-30 )

Customary saying : “you shall not commit adultery”

Jesus’ saying : “every one that looks (on) a woman toward setting (his) heart/desire/passion upon her already has committed adultery (with) her in his heart”

Relation to the Law : as with the first Antithesis, we have a simple citation from the Ten Commandments ( Exod 20:13 [LXX]).

Jesus’ Exposition :

His reply follows that of the first Antithesis: he does not deny the validity of the Law, but rather extends it to any lustful/passionate gazing upon a woman (naturally enough the reverse also applies—a woman gazing upon a man). Marriage (and at a very young age) was more widespread in the ancient Near East than in modern (Western) society—looking a woman typically meant looking at a married (or betrothed) woman; however, certainly the basic principle Jesus states is relevant even for unmarried men and women. The Greek word qumo/$ is somewhat difficult to translate in English; fundamentally it refers to a passionate/violent movement (as of wind or breath), which I prefer to render “impulse”, but (with human beings) can be understood in the general sense of “will”, “soul”, “mind”, “anger”, and the like. The verb e)piqume/w means to set one’s qumo/$ upon something (or someone); in English idiom we might say “set one’s heart (or desire)” upon someone/something, or simply to “desire”. Sometimes, as here, the verb is translated “lust (after)”—not a very literal rendering, but it does get the idea across.

Example/Application :

Verses 29-30 repeat a set of sayings by Jesus found elsewhere in Synoptic tradition (cf. Mark 9:43-48 ), told in provocative language—a crude (and graphic) warning to his followers to “cut off” any source of sin. As with the first Antithesis, the warning points to the end-time Judgment and punishment in “Gehenna”.

3. On divorce (vv. 31-32 )

Customary saying : “who(ever) would loose his woman [i.e. wife] from (him), let (him) give her a (document of) separation [lit. standing away] from (him)”

Jesus’ saying : “every one that looses his woman/wife from (him)—besides an account of porneia —makes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries (a woman) loosed from (her husband) commits adultery”

Relation to the Law : Deuteronomy 24:1-4 offers a provision for divorce—that is, for a man to divorce his wife (it is not clear that the woman is understood to have the same right). The acceptable justification for divorce is stated in vague terms, which Jesus clarifies: divorce is allowed only in the case of pornei/a ( porneía ). This Greek word is somewhat difficult to translate; originally it referred to sex for hire (i.e. prostitution), but eventually came to be used for any illicit sexual intercourse, and even to sexual immorality in general. Here it is generally synonymous with (but not strictly limited to) “adultery” ( moixei/a ).

Elsewhere in the Synoptic tradition ( Mark 10:1-12 par) Jesus discusses the question of divorce (and Deut 24:1-4 ) more extensively—the only instance in the Gospels where he addresses a specific Torah regulation at any length. There he explains that the provision in Deut 24:1-4 was written as (a necessary) accommodation to the people’s “hardness of heart”. He further cites Genesis 2:24 to affirm the sacred and binding nature of marriage. In the Markan account (vv. 11-12 ) he makes a statement nearly identical to Matt 5:32 here—but without the porneia -exception. Scholars have long debated whether or not the historical Jesus forbid divorce outright, as indicated in Mark 10:1-12; this would certainly be the more radical approach. The teaching in Matt 5:32 differs only moderately from the Torah regulation.

4. On swearing (an oath) (vv. 33-37 )

• “you shall not give a (false) oath” but (rather) “you shall give forth [i.e. give back, repay] your oaths to the Lord”

Jesus’ saying :

• “wholly not to affirm (by oath)”—i.e. “do not affirm/swear (by an oath) at all”

Relation to the Law :

The first customary saying generally relates to the commandments in Exod 20:16 / Deut 5:20 (also Lev 19:12 )—that is, against committing perjury (false witness which is taken on oath). For the expression in Greek, see LXX Zech 5:3-4 ; Wis 14:25; 1 Esdras 1:46, in Philo On the Special Laws I.235, etc., and esp. the Sentences of Ps.-Phocylides §16 (cf. Betz, p. 263). The second saying would seem to emphasize the binding, religious character of an oath (like a vow made to God)—see Deuteronomy 23:21 ff for similar language. It should be pointed out that the Torah does not require oaths (or vows), but simply gives instruction concerning them.

Jesus’ teaching on the matter requires a clear sense of the ancient concept of the oath and is easily misunderstood today. The Greek word here translated as “oath” is o%rko$ ( hórkos ); its etymology is uncertain, but it seems to have the fundamental meaning of something which encloses or limits, or otherwise binds a person. The verb e)piorke/w (with the related noun e)piorki/a ) also has an obscure origin, but the particle e)pi (“upon”) may indicate an action or gesture made “in addition to” the statement; however, the word (or expression) came to mean (giving) a “ false oath” (i.e. committing perjury). For early use of these terms, see esp. Hesiod Theogony 231-32, Works and Days 193-94, 282-83 (cf. Betz, p. 264). In the ancient world, the oath had a religious-magical quality—it was intended to guarantee reliability of speech and behavior by calling upon the divine powers (i.e. specified gods, including [commonly] heaven and earth, sun, moon, stars, etc). The “gods” or divine forces were witness to the oath and would thus punish any violation or transgression. Even in the monotheistic context of Israelite religion, we still see this usage of calling upon heaven and earth, etc. as witnesses ( Deut 4:26 ; 30:19 ; 31:28 ; 32:40 ; Isa 1:2 , etc). Of course, the monotheism of ancient Israel meant that oaths and vows were primarily made unto YHWH, or by His Name ( Gen 24:3 ; Jos 2:12 ; 9:18-29 ; Judg 21:2 ; 1 Sam 20:12 ; 24:21 , etc); and, according to the ancient religious mindset, the name of the Deity represented its very power and presence. It is this quasi-magical thinking that underlies the commandment in Exod 20:7 —against using the name of YHWH for a false or evil purpose. However, by the time of the New Testament, oaths by God (or his name) were to be avoided altogether, as expressed clearly by Philo in On the Special Laws II.1-38 (commenting on Exod 20:7). Philo urges that oaths be kept as simple as possible (beyond “yes” or “no”), but suggests that one may (in addition) call upon the earth, sun, stars, etc. It is such a view that Jesus speaks against in Matt 5:34-36 .

Though not the only teacher who argued against the value of oaths (for examples from the Delphic oracle, Sophocles, Plutarch, Quintilian, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Diogenes Laertius, etc., see Betz, p. 267), Jesus’ blunt declaration in v. 34 that one should not affirm anything (by using an oath) at all is perhaps the most absolute and striking. As he states in the concluding verse 37, an emphatic “yes” ( nai\ nai/ ) or “no” ( ou* ou& ) should be sufficient—anything beyond/exceeding [ perisso\n ] this is “from the Evil (One) [ e)k tou= ponhrou= ]”. This would seem to be an especially strict teaching, forbidding any sort of oath, with, as I see it, two principles at work: (1) Jesus objects to the quasi-magical character of the oath, and (2) he wishes to emphasize that trustworthiness should stem (internally) from a person’s own heart and moral character, requiring no practical or external prop. Many commentators argue that Jesus’ teaching here does not relate to the modern practice of taking oaths (in a court of law, etc). I thoroughly disagree with such an interpretation—even though our modern oaths are largely routine and but a faint vestige of the ancient usage, the underlying principle is the same, as defined by Philo ( Spec. leg . II.10: “an oath is… to call God to bear witness in a disputed matter”) and Cicero ( De officiis 3.104: “an oath is an assurance backed by religious sanctity”) [cf. Betz, p. 261]. It is up to each believer to follow his or her conscience in such matters, but the teaching of Jesus here should not be carelessly set aside or neglected out of practical concern.

5. On revenge/retaliation (vv. 38-42 )

Customary saying : “eye against eye and tooth against tooth”

Jesus’ saying : “not to stand [i.e. do not stand] against the (one doing) evil”

The customary saying is taken from Exod 21:23-25 ; Lev 24:20 ; Deut 19:21 [LXX]. The Greek preposition a)nti (“against, opposite, over”) here has the meaning “in exchange, in place of”; the maxim is usually rendered in English “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. It is actually an ancient legal principle—the talio principle or lex talionis ( ius talionis )—which extends back even earlier than the Law of Moses (cf. §196ff of the Code of Hammurabi). Its fundamental purpose was to regulate the administration of justice and ensure that punishment was commensurate with the crime or the injury inflicted. It was also meant to curb the seeking of personal revenge, which can easily become excessive and devolve into blood vengeance. Over the millennia legal experts and philosophers have debated whether the principle should be taken and applied literally—many have thought so, but from the earliest time we also find the practice of providing monetary compensation to the injured person (proportionate to the injury). Jesus here apparently takes the maxim literally (for such a contemporary view, cf. Philo On the Special Laws III.181-204).

Jesus treats the underlying principle broadly, beyond the literal wording of the maxim itself; instead of specifically relating to a physical injury, he refers to any one who does evil. This is the best way to understand o( ponhro/$ (“the evil [one])” in verse 39—earlier in v. 37 it seems to refer to the Devil/Satan (“the Evil One”), but here the context requires “the one [doing] evil”. The verb a)nqi/sthmi (“stand against”, “set [oneself] against”) can be understood several different ways: (1) to oppose someone (generally), (2) to resist someone, (3) to retaliate against someone. While the first two senses may still relate to Christian ethics, it is the third which seems to be in view here—Jesus is telling his followers not to retaliate (strike back) when struck by another.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, Jesus goes beyond even this basic ethical principle with the examples which follow in vv. 39b-41 :

• Verse 39b: if someone slaps/strikes you on the right cheek (perhaps with the back of the hand, as an insult), turn your (left) cheek (inviting him to strike you there as well).
• Verse 40: if someone seeks your shirt/tunic in a legal judgment (i.e. lawsuit) against you, give your opponent even more than he is asking (give him your coat as well).
• Verse 41: if a soldier (or other authority figure) commandeers you and forces you to walk a mile, do even more than he asks (go with him two miles).

The principle of non-retaliation is thus extended—to willingly accept greater hardship and suffering rather than to resist or strike back. While ancient philosophers and wisdom writings often counseled showing kindness and fair treatment to one’s enemies, it is hard to find a similar example of such bold and radical teaching in this regard (cf. further on the sixth Antithesis below). Jesus also acted out the principle (in striking fashion), according to Gospel tradition— Matt 26:50-54 par; Mark 14:60-65 par; cf. also 1 Pet 2:21-23 ; 3:9-12 .

Verse 42 provides a maxim parallel to that in v. 39a: “give to the one asking of you, and do not turn away the one wishing to borrow from you”—the negative command has turned into a positive one.

6. On love for one’s enemies (vv. 43-47 )

Customary saying :

• “you shall love your neighbor [lit. the one near] and (you shall) hate your enemy [lit. the one hostile]”
• “love your enemies and speak out toward (God) [i.e. pray] over the ones pursuing [i.e. persecuting] you”

The saying is extracted from Leviticus 19:18 [LXX], a verse frequently cited in the New Testament ( Matt 19:19 ; 22:39 ; Mark 12:31 ; Luke 10:27 ; Rom 13:9 ; Gal 5:14 ; James 2:9 , cf. below); however here the phrase “as yourself” ( w($ seauto/n ) is not included as part of the citation, presumably to better fit the second part of the saying. The second half of the saying does not come the Old Testament Scripture at all, but should be regarded as a customary and natural (logical) extension—if one should love one’s friends and neighbors, the opposite would seem to follow: that we should hate our enemies. For the principle expressed in ethical-philosophical terms, see e.g., the Delphic aphorism (“to friends be of good mind [i.e. be kind], with enemies keep [them] away [i.e. defend against, ward off]”) and the famous maxim in Xenophon Mem. 2.6.35 etc. (“a man is virtuous [on the one hand] in prevailing [over] friends in doing good, and [on the other] [over] enemies in [doing] ill”).

Jesus flatly contradicts the conventional wisdom, commanding instead to love one’s enemies and to pray to God on their behalf. This relates both to personal enemies and to those who persecute [lit. pursue] Jesus’ followers (cf. in the Beatitudes, vv. 10-12 ). Of all Jesus’ statements in the Antitheses, this represents the most distinctive Christian teaching, and the one which is perhaps most difficult to follow. As in most of other Antitheses (see above), Jesus extends the Torah command and gives it a deeper meaning—in addition to loving one’s friends and relatives, one must also love one’s enemies.

As the basis for this command, Jesus cites as an example (verse 45 ) God the Father himself who:

• makes the sun to rise upon the ‘good’ and ‘evil’ people alike
• sends the rain upon the ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ people alike

In some ways this is a curious example, drawing from simple observance of natural phenomena, apart from any ethical or religious considerations—for certainly, we see many instances in Scripture where God brings evil and judgment against wicked/unjust people. However, the emphasis is here on the more fundamental nature of God as Creator—giver and preserver of life.

Verses 46-47 provide a clearer application of Jesus’ teaching, and is parallel to the statement in verse 20. The so-called “love command”, with its extension even to one’s enemies, proved to have immense influence in subsequent Christian teaching, even if the force of it was sometimes softened—cf. Rom 12:19-21 (citing Prov 25:21-22 ). In Galatians 5:14 Paul refers to the love-command (as represented by Lev 19:18 ) as “all the Law fulfilled in one word”. There are various forms of Jesus’ saying in verse 44 preserved elsewhere in early Christian writings, which may reflect independent transmission: Luke 6:27-28 ; Romans 12:14 ; Didache 1:3; 2 Clement 13:4; Justin Martyr First Apology 15.9; Athenagoras’ Plea for Christians 11.1; Theophilus of Antioch To Autolycus 3:14; cf. also 1 Corinthians 4:12 ; Justin Dialogue 35:8; 85:7; 96:3; Clementine Homilies 12:32.

Ultimately the purpose (and result) of following Jesus’ teaching is stated in verse 45a:

“how that [i.e. so that] you may come to be sons [i.e. children] of your Father in the heavens”

This demonstrates a clear connection with the language and imagery of the Beatitudes (esp. v. 9 ); by following God’s own example (in Christ), we come to be like him—the same idea which concludes the Antitheses in verse 48 .

By way of conclusion, we must consider the following:

• The relationship of the Antitheses to Jesus’ statements regarding the Law in verse 17ff
• How the Antitheses are summarized by Jesus in verse 48

Each of these will be addressed in a supplementary article.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Yale Divinity School

Yale bible study.

• New Testament

The Gospel of Matthew

Sermon on the mount – study guide, matthew 4-8: the sermon on the mount, with a focus on chapter 5.

Matthew’s account moves quickly from the story of the beginning of the ministry of Jesus (ch. 4) to the first great block of teaching (ch. 5-7), which is followed by stories of miraculous healing.

Withdrawal and Engagement

Prior to his public ministry, Jesus withdraws to the desert for forty days where he is tempted by Satan. Mark reports that action (Mark 1:12-13), but Matthew, like Luke (4:1-13), has a longer version of the encounter, with dialogue between Jesus and Satan, conducted with the aid of dueling scriptural texts. Satan’s efforts to tempt Jesus to betray his mission lend themselves to more sermonic application. He suggests that Jesus seek to fill his physical needs (4:3-4); to force God’s hand to protect him from any harm (4:5-7); and to gain wealth and power by worshiping him. After Jesus deftly responds, the devil departs.

After his experience, which echoes the experience of the wandering Israelites, Jesus, learning that John the Baptist has been arrested, goes to Galilee (4:12). Matthew marks that movement by one of his characteristic citations of scripture (4:15-16), construed as prophecy “fulfilled” in the events of Jesus’ life. The text that Matthew cites, from Isaiah 9:1, addresses the northern Israelite tribes of Zabulon and Naphthali, in “Galilee of the Gentiles,” on whom light has shone. The quotation from Isaiah does not reflect the situation in Galilee in the time of Jesus, when adherence to Jewish traditions was strong. Like the story of the gentile Magi, it does serve Matthew’s purpose in hinting at the universal implications of the message of Jesus.

The Sermon on the Mount

Teaching is for Matthew an essential dimension of who Jesus is and what his followers do. The cornerstone of that teaching is found in the great sermon that extends from 5:1 to 7:29. The sermon begins with an introductory section in three parts: a series of beatitudes (5:3–11), exhortations to be “light” and “salt” (5:13-14), and an explanation of the relationship of this teaching to the Mosaic Law or Torah, ending in a call to “higher righteousness” (5:17-20). The rest of the sermon also falls into three major sections. The first (5:21–48) consists of a series of “antitheses,” contrasting what was said in the Torah with what Jesus teaches. The second (6:1– 18) focuses on practices of piety. Then follows a series of ethical teachings reminiscent of the book of Proverbs and other traditional Jewish wisdom teaching (6:19–7:29).

The Introduction to the Sermon (5:3-19)

Beatitudes are words of praise and congratulations, declaring someone to be “blessed” or “happy” for some reason. The grounds for such positive declarations might be situations or conditions over which one has no control, or they might be habits or virtues that one might cultivate. Examples of both types of congratulatory formulas are found in Israel’s sacred writings. Ps 127:4-5 congratulates a man on having a large number of sons:

“Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the sons of one’s youth. Happy the man who has his quiver full of them. He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.”

The implication of this Psalm is “Lucky you, man with many sons!” The beginning of the Psalter (Ps 1:1), exemplifies the other, more hortatory, type of “beatitude”:

“Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked or take the path that sinners tread or sit in the seat of scoffers; but their delight is in the law of the Lord and on his law they meditate day and night.”

The implication of this latter beatitude is “Go meditate on the Law and abide by it!”

The beatitudes in Luke’s gospel (Luke 6:20-22) are more like the first type, congratulating those who are actually poor, hungry, or in mourning, because their condition will soon be changed, no doubt as the kingdom of God comes into being. Luke’s beatitudes are also paralleled by “woes” (Luke 6:24-26), which function as words of judgment on those who are wealthy, well fed, and prosperous by earthly standards. The beatitudes in Matthew, which do not have any corresponding woes, generally work like the beatitude in Ps 1:1. They encourage certain virtues or forms of behavior, poverty “in spirit,” meekness, thirst “for righteousness,” mercy, purity of heart, peacemaking. The virtues and actions encouraged here will be paralleled in the “antitheses,” which will give them further definition. The final two (Matt 5:10-11) depart from the pattern in offering words of congratulation on those who are persecuted, either “for righteousness” (v 10) or “because of me” (v 11).

Two vivid images continue the exhortation. Both “salt” (v 13) and “light” (vv 14-16) encourage disciples not simply to cultivate personal virtue, but to reach out and have an effect on others. Here as elsewhere in the gospel, mission is essential to the life well lived.

The introduction to the sermon concludes with a comment about how Jesus’ teaching relates to the Jewish Torah. This saying, found only in Matthew, probably reflects the concern of this evangelist to define himself and his community in relationship to his Jewish contemporaries. It strikes a note similar to the saying attributed to Jesus only in Matthew, at 23:2-3, which admonishes his disciples to do as the scribes and Pharisees teach, but not to do as they do.

Matthew’s recollection of Jesus, in other words, encourages disciples to be good observant Jews. Matt 5:17-19 makes the same point. Jesus did not come to abolish Torah but to “fulfill” it (v 17). The verb used here is the same as the one Matthew regularly uses to introduce scriptural texts that serve as prophecies “fulfilled” in the life of Jesus, but here “fulfillment” has a different sense. The requirements of Torah are, in effect, intensified, in the teaching of the rest of this chapter. As v 20 states, the “righteousness” required of followers of Jesus is greater than that of the “scribes and Pharisees.”

Before engaging in that teaching, Matthew has Jesus offer a word of criticism of anyone who “breaks” one of the least commandments of the Torah and teaches others to do so (v 19). It is interesting that such a person is not condemned or expelled from the fellowship of disciples, but is only to be “called least in the kingdom of heaven” (v 19). It is possible that the evangelist, writing sometime late in the first century, has in mind here teachers such as the apostle Paul, who famously taught that gentiles did not need to become circumcised in order to become part of God’s new people.

The principle defined in this passage raises an interesting historical problem. How is it that Matthew’s gospel, whose message seems to reaffirm traditional Jewish observances, became a gospel respected and valued by a Church that by the second century was composed predominantly by Gentiles who did not observe laws of kashrut or circumcise their children? We shall have to consider that question again as we learn more about Matthew’s understanding of the Church.

The Antitheses

One answer to the question of what practices followers of Jesus should observe might be provided by the next section of the Sermon, which opposes a series of verses from scripture and teachings of Jesus. The opposition seems at first sight to contradict the principle of v 17 that Jesus came to “fulfill” the law or that of v 20 that a “greater righteousness” is required of his disciples. Yet the opposition does not generally deny the validity of the requirement of Torah. It instead enacts a principle of rabbinic teaching, enshrined in the Mishnah, a compilation of rabbinic teaching from the first centuries of the common era, produced in the early third century. Mishnah, Tractate Pirqe ’Avot (“Sayings of the Fathers”) 1:1 reads:

Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua    to the elders; the elders to the prophets; and the prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Torah.

The teachings of Jesus in this section of the Sermon “make a fence around the Torah.” Abide by his teachings and one will never transgress the Torah. One will never murder (Exod 20:13, cited in v 21) if one does not get angry or speak ill of another (v 22). One will not commit adultery (Exod 20:14, cited in v 27) if there is not lust in the heart (v 28). One will not swear falsely (Lev 19:12, cited in v 33) if one does not swear at all (vv 34-37).

Each of these first three antitheses is expanded with other sayings that enlarge on the basic principle. So the prohibition on anger is expanded with a call to reconciliation, which must take precedence over cultic observance (vv 23-26). Here too, Matthew presents Jesus teaching a principle enshrined in the Mishnah, in its reflection on what should happen on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Mishnah, Tractate Yoma 5:9, reports the opinion of R. Eleazar ben Azariah:

“From all your sins you shall be clean before the Lord” (Lev 16:30). – for transgressions that are between man and God, the Day of Atonement effects atonement; for transgressions that are between a man and his fellow, the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow.

Similarly the prohibition on lust, which will prevent adultery, is expanded with two other more general principles, an arresting saying that one should “cut off” a part of the body that causes offence (v 27–30). The second is a prohibition on divorce (vv 31–32).

The sayings that are added to the basic principle of the “fence” all probably enshrine traditional teachings that in some form go back to Jesus himself. The highly provocative, even hyperbolic saying about the offending member displays a characteristic feature of the teaching of Jesus and has an intriguing parallel in the saying about eunuchs in Matt 19:10–12. That Jesus prohibited divorce is attested in all the synoptic gospels (Matt 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18), and is a principle known to Paul as well (1 Cor 7:10–11). All of those who passed along Jesus’ strict saying wrestled with it in some way. Paul does so most explicitly, when in direct contravention to Jesus, he allows divorce in the case of the failed marriage of a believer and an unbeliever (1 Cor 7:12–16). Matthew, here and in ch 19, provides an exception clause; divorce is allowed in the case of “unchastity,” whatever precisely that means.

The last two antitheses seem to work in a slightly different way from the first three. Against the principle of retaliation, an “eye for an eye” (Exod 21:24–25), Jesus teaches that one should “turn the other cheek” and “walk the extra mile” (vv 38–42). The antithesis seems to be stronger here than in the first three cases, but the difference is more apparent than real. The principle articulated in Exodus is one of limited retaliation. One can only demand an “eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth.” Any danger of surpassing that limit is avoided if one follows the advice of Jesus.

Unlike the others, the final antithesis does not involve a prohibition or a limit not to be exceeded. The command to “love your neighbor” (Lev 19:18, cited in v 43) from the Holiness Code of Leviticus, is connected with a command not found in scripture to “hate your enemy.” While that is not a part of the teaching of Torah, it may reflect the long history of Israel and its struggles against its various hostile neighbors. Furthermore, the command to love the neighbor in Leviticus is focused on the people of Israel (Lev 19:18). The response attributed to Jesus is a command to love even enemies and pray for them (v 44), imitating the divine beneficence (v 45). The final line of the chapter also evokes the opening summons of the Holiness Code (Lev 19:2), which called on Israelites to be holy as God is holy. Matthew, perhaps also echoing the call to be perfectly loyal to God in Deuteronomy 18:13, has Jesus challenge his disciples to be “perfect,” that is to live by the “higher righteousness” that the Sermon enshrines. Luke reports a similar saying (Luke 6:36), but understands it as a call to be “merciful.”

The Practices of Piety

The admonitions about pious practices are framed by a concern to avoid ostentation. One must give alms, but in secret (6:1–4). One must pray, but in private (6:5–6). One should fast, but not with a clean face (6:16–18). The central admonition is expanded with a model prayer, the Lord’s prayer, in the form widely used in Christian worship today (6:9–13), which appears in a shorter form at Luke 11:2–4. Luke’s version of the wording of the petition in v 12, “forgive us our sins (or trespasses)” is often substituted for the Matthean “forgive us our debts,” which uses an image for sin common in Jewish tradition.

Proverbial Wisdom

The rest of the sermon consists of proverbial sayings and evocative images, many of them with parallels in Luke, but not in his Sermon on the Plain. Many call on disciples to keep their priorities right, to amass “treasures in heaven” (6:19-21 // Luke 12:33-34), or to choose which master to serve (6:24 // Luke 16:13). The image of the lilies of the field grounds the admonition not to worry about earthly matters (6:25-34 // Luke 12:22-31). Somewhat more mysterious is the image of the eye as the “lamp” of the body (6:22-23 // Luke 11:34-36), but the admonition to keep the eye sound resonates with the overall theme of keeping proper values.

The teaching continues with more explicit admonitions, not to be judgmental, with its image of the mote and the beam (7:1-5 // Luke 6:37-42); to pray, with the imagery of the knock that opens the door (7:7-11 // Luke 11:9-13). At the heart of this list stands the golden rule (7:12 // Luke 6:31), expressed in the positive terms of doing to others as you would have them do you.

Warnings balance the positive admonitions. Disciples should not cast “pearls before swine” (7:6). If Jesus or the evangelist had an identifiable group in mind, he does not say so. Disciples should beware of false prophets, trees that do not bear fruit (7:15-20). Matthew may have in mind the messianic revolutionaries who emerged during the years before the revolt of the Jews against Rome, who are probably in view in Matt 24:4-7. Yet the lack of specificity in these warnings has enabled various applications throughout the history of the church. Disciples should also avoid simply bearing lip service to the principles of Jesus. As is generally true for Matthew, actions speak louder than words (7:21-23).

The sermon ends with a reassuring image of the obedient disciple as a house on a solid foundation (7:24-27 // Luke 6:47-49).

Take Notes on this Lesson Cancel reply

Modal title.

• < Previous

Home > Calvin Theological Seminary > Student Scholarship > PhD Dissertations > 41

CTS PhD Doctoral Dissertations

The antitheses (matthew 5:21-48) in the sermon on the mount: moral precepts revealed in scripture and binding on all people.

Amos Winarto Oei , CalvinTheological Seminary

Date of Award

Document type.

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

First Reader

Calvin P. Van Reken

Second Reader

Third reader.

David E. Holwerda

Fourth Reader

Douglas J. Schuurman

While many may agree that the Sermon on the Mount is the epitome of Jesus' ethics, many also recognize that the Sermon is often a riddle. The vastness and variety of literature demonstrates that the interpretation of the Sermon is subject to many disagreements. At the heart of the Sermon of the Mount, the antitheses (Matthew 5:21-48) become one source of polemics in the study of the Sermon. The purpose of this dissertation is to contribute to the scholarship of the Sermon on the Mount by addressing two problems in the study of the antitheses. The first concerns the nature of the moral demands in the antitheses. The second deals with their scope. The intention of the dissertation is not to expose all possible misunderstandings of the interpretation of the antitheses but to examine some of the hermeneutical options to see how the nature of their presuppositions predetermines the logic of their conclusions. I will inspect two aspects of the antitheses which are basic in the interpretations that are given by the Roman Catholics, Helmut Thielicke, John Howard Yoder, Leonardo Boff, and John Calvin. These are (1) the universality (the nature) and (2) the individuality (the scope) of the moral demands in the antitheses. I will then demonstrate that the antitheses constitute moral teaching, which God specially reveals to Christians in Scripture, and as such are universal and binding on each human person. They are also intended to prescribe moral conduct of individuals and not of States.

Recommended Citation

Oei, Amos Winarto, "The Antitheses (Matthew 5:21-48) in the Sermon on the Mount: Moral Precepts Revealed in Scripture and Binding on All People" (2012). CTS PhD Doctoral Dissertations . 41. https://digitalcommons.calvin.edu/cts_dissertations/41

Since March 11, 2022

Included in

Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately, you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.

• Collections
• Disciplines

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS

Author Corner

• Calvin Seminary Doctor of Philosophy Program

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

04-Sermon on the mount- the 6 antitheses

More from best sermon ever (bible study).

Preaching Source

• Conferences

The Most Often Abused Verses in the Sermon on the Mount and How to Treat Them Right

Craig L. Blomberg  |  Southwestern Journal of Theology Vol. 46 - Summer 2004

It is true that the “poor in spirit,” “those who mourn,” and the “meek”-the subjects of the first three beatitudes-can be and have been taken as embodying character traits often deemed undesirable. But ancient moralists, Jewish and Greco-Roman alike, regularly approved of the next five: “those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,” “the merciful,” “the pure in heart,” “the peacemakers,” and even those “persecuted because of righteousness.” Willard also ignores the positive OT background to the first three beatitudes in Isa. 61:1 -2 and Ps. 37: 11, in which these traits characterize those who are explicitly serving Yahweh­ scarcely lacking even a “wisp of religion.” Thus Willard’s approach proves highly implausible, and I know of no contemporary NT scholar who agrees with his overall synthesis.

Matthew’s closing words, after Jesus has stopped teaching, can be misleading. The amazement of the crowds concerning Jesus’ authority, not like that of “their teachers of the law” (7:28-29), does not mean that the scribes or Pharisees had no authority. But the later codification of the oral Torah in the Mishnah makes it clear that their authority rested on regularly being able to quote either scripture or previous rabbis for support. Jesus never does the latter; and, in the sermon at least, does the former only to reinterpret the Law in radical fashion. While most turn to the sermon to understand Jesus’ ethical teachings, at least as presented by Matthew, we must recognize an implicit Christological claim here as well. More specifically, with D. A Carson, Jesus’ entire approach in the Sermon on the Mount is not only ethical but messianic-i.e., christological and eschatological.

Jesus is not an ordinary prophet who says, “Thus says the Lord!” Rather, he speaks in the first person and claims that his teaching fulfills the OT; that he determines who enters the messianic kingdom; that as the Divine Judge he pronounces banishment; that the true heirs of the kingdom would be persecuted for their allegiance to him; and that he alone fully knows the will of his Father. . . . Jesus’ authority is unique, and the crowds recognized it even if they did not always understand it. [80] D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984): 195-96. jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_2580_1_80').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_2580_1_80', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top right', relative: true, offset: [10, 10], });

The question that Jesus would later explicitly raise-“Who do you say I am?” (16:15)-presses itself on us already here, even if only implicitly. It is Matthew’s conviction that our answer to that question and the concomitant life of discipleship that the right answer requires is the most important issue for humanity to address in any era, with eternal implications. To stop short of this application with mere analysis might well be the ultimate abuse of the sermon!

References [ + ]

Category: Journal Article Tags: Gospel & Acts , Matthew

Southwestern Journal of Theology To download full issues and find more information on the Southwestern Journal of Theology , go to swbts.edu/journal .

Preach the Word. Reach the World.

Home | Admissions | Academics | Campus Life | Alumni

All content copyright © 2024 Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Fort Worth, Texas. All rights reserved. Subscribe | RSS | Privacy Disclaimer

Matthew 6:25-27 Lexham English Bible

The sermon on the mount: anxiety.

25  “For this reason I say to you, do not be anxious for your life, what you will eat, [ a ] and not for your body, what you will wear. Is your life not more than food and your body more than clothing? 26  Consider the birds of the sky, that they do not sow or reap or gather produce into barns, and your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth more than they are ? 27  And who among you, by [ b ] being anxious, is able to add one hour [ c ] to his life span?

• Matthew 6:25 Some manuscripts add “or what you will drink”; other later manuscripts add “and what you will drink”
• Matthew 6:27 Here “ by ” is supplied as a component of the participle (“being anxious”) which is understood as means
• Matthew 6:27 Or “cubit”

2012 by Logos Bible Software . Lexham is a registered trademark of Logos Bible Software

• Navigate to any page of this site.

• In the menu, scroll to Add to Home Screen and tap it.

• In the menu, scroll past any icons and tap Add to Home Screen .

The Sermon on the Mount in Latter-day Scripture

Gaye strathearn , thomas a. wayment , and daniel l. belnap , editors, the sociocultural context of the sermon on the mount, amy blake hardison.

Amy B. Hardison, “‘The Sociocultural Context of the Sermon on the Mount,” in The Sermon on the Mount in Latter-day Scripture , ed. Gaye Strathearn, Thomas A. Wayment, and Daniel L. Belnap (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 24–41.

Amy B. Hardison is an instructor at the East Valley Institute of Religion in Mesa, Arizona.

Of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, the four Gospels are probably the most read and the best understood. With minimal instruction in first-century history, politics, and geography, one can be profoundly moved by reading the Evangelists’ accounts of the ministry and teachings of the Savior. Because of our familiarity with the text and the relative ease of understanding it (as opposed to books like Isaiah or Revelation), we may assume that for the most part we understand it . However, most of us read with twenty-first century eyes and impose the values of a modern, postindustrial society. We assume universality based on common humanity. This is an erroneous assumption.

The first-century Mediterranean world differed vastly from our world today and the difference is not only one of technology. We have different core values, which means that to some degree we actually think differently and feel differently than a citizen of the ancient Mediterranean world. To fully understand the New Testament, we must bridge this sociocultural gap. To this end, this chapter examines the ancient Mediterranean world in terms of honor and shame, patronage, and a limited-goods society, particularly as these things influence the meaning of Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. This chapter also touches on some physical features of the Holy Land and on how the people of Jesus’ time would have viewed this extraordinary sermon.

Honor-Shame

We can determine the core values of a society by asking what concerns predominately influence its decision making, what words and issues dominate the value vocabulary, and what is most disruptive if lost. [1] In the ancient Mediterranean world, the value that pervaded all society and influenced all social interactions was honor. It was honor that gave social standing and clout. It was familial honor that determined whom one could marry, with whom one could do business, what functions one could attend, and what religious roles one could play. No one would freely associate with a person, particularly in a covenant relationship, unless that person’s honor was good. [2] Consequently, a person’s good name (his reputation or his honor rating) was his most important asset.

Honor can be defined as “the value of a person in his or her own eyes (that is, one’s claim to worth) plus that person’s value in the eyes of his or her social group.” [3] This two-pronged dimension of honor means that honor is not simply self-esteem. It does not and cannot exist without a group to affirm it. This is a difficult concept for many who live in the United States, which is primarily an individualistic rather than a collectivist culture. [4] In the United States, we place great value on individuality, independence, and autonomy. The individualism that characterizes us “was perhaps totally absent from the societies represented in the New Testament.” [5] Instead, these societies had a strong group orientation, deriving their identity from the group to which they belonged. The group—be it family, clan, or village—communicated what was expected and proper. In fact, the group served as a kind of external conscience. A meaningful existence depended upon being embedded in and respected by the group. Additionally, the needs of the group were primary to the needs of the individual. K. C. Hanson and Douglas E. Oakman state, “This is not rooted in totalitarianism or Orwellian ‘group-think,’ but in survival; a peasant family and village cannot sustain itself if everyone ‘does their own thing.’” [6] Thus, it is no surprise that the core value of honor required a group to affirm it and even make its existence possible. “Honour is not honour unless publicly claimed, displayed and acknowledged.” [7]

In an honor-shame society, it would appear that shame is the antithesis of honor. However, it is not that simple. There is both positive and negative shame. Honor is a male virtue. Positive shame is the corresponding female virtue; it is the concern for one’s own reputation and sensitivity to the things that might bring disgrace. [8] “To have shame in this sense is an eminently positive value.” [9] On the other hand, negative shame is not meritorious. It is the antithesis of honor. It is not having shame, but being shamed. When a person is shamed, that person loses honor. In an honor-shame society, being publicly humiliated is a devastating and injurious experience.

Ascribed and Acquired Honor

How does one obtain honor? It can be both ascribed and acquired. Ascribed honor is the honor one inherits at birth. A child inherits the combined honor of his father, which comes from his social eminence, and the positive shame of his mother, which comes from her ethical goodness, particularly her sexual purity. [10] In addition, a child inherits the acquired honor of his ancestors, which is passed from generation to generation. This inherited honor must be maintained and defended by the current generation at all costs. Honor can also be ascribed to a person later in life by a notable person of power, such as an aristocrat, a king, an emperor, or God. This is done by public declaration. At Christ’s baptism, God the Father declared, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17). Malina and Rohrbaugh note that “designating Jesus as ‘Son of God’ is an honor declaration of the highest sort.” [11] In addition to public declaration, a person of substantial honor could ascribe honor to another through such things as grants of citizenship, adoption, and the bestowal of an office. The Roman emperor Augustus was adopted posthumously at the age of eighteen by his great-uncle Julius Caesar, an action that not only made him Caesar’s heir but also significantly increased his honor rating. [12] God the Father ascribed honor to the resurrected Christ by granting him an exalted office, a position of authority signified by sitting at the right hand of God. In terms of honor, this is significant. Christ had been crucified. This was not only an excruciating death; it was an intentionally shaming one. Moreover, it was nearly inconceivable that one who had suffered the ignominy and shame of crucifixion could be the Messiah (see Deuteronomy 21:22–23). Thus, Jewish leaders had likely pushed for crucifixion (see John 18:31–32) not only to get rid of Christ but also to discredit him. However, by raising Jesus from the dead and giving him a place at his right hand, God reversed the honor assessment of the world, affirmed Christ’s role as Messiah, and granted him transcendent honor.

In addition to ascription, honor can also be acquired. One way to acquire honor is through good works. Within the Jewish culture, a fundamental expression of good works was obedience to the law. An honorable man or woman was Torah observant. In the ancient Mediterranean world, good works also included financial contributions for constructing and maintaining public buildings and for sponsoring festivals, public games, and dramatic performances. [13] Wealthy individuals in the ancient Mediterranean world made lavish endowments to their cities because they viewed wealth as a means to honor. Honor was acquired through beneficence, not through possession.

In response to municipal endowments, cities would show their gratitude through public recognition: through proclamations of gratitude, seats of honor at a theater, public inscriptions, or in exceptional cases a statue of the giver. Even with smaller, personal gifts, public acknowledgment was an essential element of a grateful response. In this context, Christ’s statement in the Sermon on the Mount, “Do not your alms before men, to be seen of them . . . . Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: that thine alms may be in secret” (Matthew 6:1–4), would have been shocking. Christ negated the very reason for giving alms and challenged the conventional expression of a core value.

Acquiring Honor through Challenges

Acquired honor is also obtained through a social contest of challenge and riposte. “Challenge and response is a sort of constant social tug of war, a game of social push and shove.” [14] Because this contest existed in all social interactions outside of one’s family, anthropologists call the Mediterranean culture an agonistic culture. (The word agon is the Greek word for “contest.”) The challenge-riposte contest begins with a challenge—any word, question, gesture, or action that seeks to undermine another person’s honor. The challenged person must make some sort of response. [15] If the challenged person cannot or does not respond, he faces a devastating loss of honor. It is the role of the bystanders to determine if the challenged person has successfully defended his honor.

There are specific rules that govern challenge-riposte. First, challenge-riposte takes place outside of one’s family or kin group. Honor is always presumed to exist within one’s family, among all those who are blood relatives. All others are presumed dishonorable unless proved otherwise. It is with these that one must engage in challenge-riposte. [16] In addition, challenges must be public. The challengers must both be males and social equals. Someone who has a lower position on the ladder of social status does not have enough honor to resent the affront of a superior. Conversely, the honor of someone who has a higher status is not challenged by the affront of an inferior. The lower-status person’s affront is merely impudence.

Honor challenges may be positive or negative. Positive challenges take the form of gifts or compliments. Though a positive challenge is congenial, it is nevertheless an attempt to enter into the social space of another and to share in some way that person’s honor. In such a society, honorable people of equal status never compliment others. As with negative challenges, a positive challenge must be answered or there is a loss of honor. The man who addressed Jesus as “Good Master” (Matthew 19:16) may have issued a positive honor challenge. Bruce J. Malina explains, “Jesus repudiates that compliment, as any honorable man would: ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone’ (Mark 10:17–18).” [17]

Negative challenges include insults, dares, verbal challenges, and physical blows—almost any word, gesture, or action that seeks to undermine the honor of another person. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warns that calling another “raca” puts one in danger of trial by the Sanhedrin and that those who say, “Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:22). Some have suggested that “raca” and “fool” were so opprobrious that they merited extreme punishments. [18] However, it is more likely that these were ordinary insults. Raca literally means “empty head” and is equivalent to us calling someone stupid. “Fool” is an expression of contempt, similar to “scoundrel” or “jerk.” These were condemned not because they were opprobrious and vile terms but because they were insulting and thus challenges to honor. This suggests that God would prefer a community where hearts are knit together in love over an agonistic community constantly at strife.

A physical assault is a most serious challenge to one’s honor. Unless the assaulted person publicly retaliates, his honor is permanently lost. Even the slightest injury must be avenged or honor is severely impugned. Once again, Jesus’ directives in the Sermon on the Mount would be astounding to a person in an agonistic society. If someone smites a person on the right cheek, which would require a doubly insulting backhanded slap, the aggrieved person is to offer the left cheek for another blow (see Matthew 5:39). To understand the enormity of Christ’s directive, we must remember that challenges are “never, ever, under any circumstances, run from or ignored.” [19] Thus the assaulted disciple is not simply to return hostility with humility; he is to willingly capitulate in the honor game. He is to forfeit his honor, his most important asset, for the sake of peace.

To further illustrate the point, Jesus stated, “If any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also” (Matthew 5:40). It was highly dishonorable to go to court for it was a tacit admission that the persons could not deal with the situation through the normal channels of challenge-riposte and were thus lacking in honor. This was especially the case when the two parties were of the same social status. Thus, legal procedures were primarily used to dishonor someone perceived to be of higher, more powerful status. [20] Jesus told those who were sued at the law (presumably someone of higher status) to willingly give the plaintiff (presumably someone of lower status) his coat and his cloak, indicating he has lost the honor challenge. This concession would be almost unimaginable to a New Testament audience.

Jesus also states in the Sermon on the Mount, “Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform [fulfill] unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool. . . . But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay; nay” (Matthew 5:33–35, 37). Old Testament law did not prohibit the swearing of oaths but did require that a person fulfill the oaths he had taken. By the time of Christ, there was a concern “about the devaluation of oaths through their indiscriminate use and a growing tendency to ‘weasel out’ of oaths by swearing by less sacred things.” [21] Christ categorically denounced all such loopholes. He declared that a person’s word—a plain yes or no—should be so reliable that no oath was necessary. This is the heart of the matter. However, it is worth noting that swearing an oath is equivalent to giving a word of honor. Thus, even though integrity is the core issue, honor is involved.

In an honor-shame society, oaths are important because telling the truth is not an absolute virtue. Lying and deception can be honorable and legitimate if the person lied to is an outsider, one who has no right to the truth. “The right to the truth only exists where respect [honor] is due (in the family, to superiors, and not necessarily to equals with whom [one] compete[s] or to inferiors).” [22] To be misleadingly ambiguous, to hedge the truth, and even to brazenly lie to a member of an outgroup is to dishonor and humiliate him, but it is not morally wrong. In a society where lying is not categorically wrong, an oath would be an important attestation.

Declarations of Honor

The Sermon on the Mount begins with the Beatitudes, the “blessed are” statements. Pronouncing a person “blessed” (makarios) is a declaration of honor. [23] What is particularly interesting about these declarations is that those Christ pronounces as honorable are they who would not rank high on the honor scale of the ancient Mediterranean world. For instance, those who have all manner of evil spoken against them (see Matthew 5:11) are those whose name has been dishonored. The poor (see Luke 6:20; Matthew 5:3) would also not be considered honorable. To understand this we must first know that “the poor” were not those who had few worldly goods. Such was the condition of the vast majority of the people of the ancient Mediterranean world. Although most peasants labored to exhaustion and had barely enough to live, as long as they had enough to survive they were not poor. The truly poor were those who were destitute of all resources and were reduced to begging. Even more to the point, they were poor because in such condition they had lost their honor and had plummeted on the social scale. Thus, the word “poor” is connected with but is not primarily about economics. It is about honor. Christ’s beatitude “blessed be ye poor” (Luke 6:20) [24] is an oxymoron. It says in essence, “How honorable are those who suffer a loss of honour.’” [25] Essential to understanding this enigmatic statement is determining why those whom Christ blesses have lost their honor.

The Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain are not directed to the general populace but to Christ’s disciples. Jerome Neyrey suggests that the four beatitudes in Luke (which he considers to be more original than Matthew’s) all together describe the “fate of a disciple who has been ostracized as a ‘rebellious son’ by his family for loyalty to Jesus.” [26] In the ancient Mediterranean society, the family was everything—the source of one’s identity and honor and the means of one’s survival. In such societies, “the organizing principle of life is belongingness.” [27] To be cut off from one’s family was to experience a tragic and total loss of honor. In such a condition, one was truly poor. Additionally, “if a son were driven away from the family land, he would immediately experience the loss of access to the grain, vegetables, fruits etc. which were the daily food of peasants; no doubt he would literally be ‘hungry and thirsty.’” [28] To be cut off from family and sustenance would unquestionably be cause for weeping. Thus, the first three beatitudes in Luke, “blessed be ye poor,” “blessed are ye that hunger now,” and “blessed are ye that weep now” (Luke 6:20, 21), all describe the calamitous consequences of being cut off from one’s family.

The fourth beatitude, “Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake” (Luke 6:22), is the culmination of the beatitudes in Luke. Each of the four statements expresses the disastrous results of social estrangement. Luke’s first statement, “when men shall hate you,” may or may not include the strong emotions we associate with hate. Rather, hate and love have to do with group attachment and group bonding. To be hated is a formal rejection. It is to be cut off. The second statement, “when they shall separate you from their company,” means the disciple is outside the social group. When belonging is a dominant value, this is a grievous condition. The third statement, “and shall reproach you,” designates an act of shaming. The fourth statement, “and cast out your name as evil,” means to have one’s reputation maligned and one’s name denigrated. Christ specifies that these grave misfortunes are “for the Son of man’s sake.” It is likely that consequent to following Christ, this man has been disinherited by his father and shunned by his family. His village or community would not be sympathetic to his plight for he has rebelled against family tradition. He has become shameful in the eyes of the village. Thus he is estranged from family and community.

The alienated disciple has suffered a true and total loss of honor and status, yet Jesus pronounces him honorable. In doing so, Jesus does not challenge the construct of honor but makes some significant changes in who constitutes the court of opinion. It is God’s assessment, not man’s, that matters. Moreover, for those who suffer a crisis of kinship because of their discipleship, Christ promises “they shall be called the children of God” (Matthew 5:9). In other words, with baptism they are received into a new family—the family of God—and receive all the blessings of belonging to this new family, including the honor rating of the most honorable family in existence.

Patronage is another concept that dominated the social landscape of the ancient Mediterranean world. Like honor and shame, it is a concept to which many Americans may have a hard time relating. In the United States, we value fairness, equal rights, and equal opportunity. “Where patronage occurs (often deridingly called nepotism: channeling opportunities to relations or personal friends), it is often done ‘under the table’ and kept as quiet as possible.” [29] In the ancient Mediterranean world, patronage was expected, essential, and publicized.

The world of the New Testament was one of a significantly limited access to goods. A small, elite group controlled the greater part of the property, wealth, and power. Common, everyday goods were bought and sold in the market, but for everything else, one approached the person who controlled the resource, entered into a special relationship with that person, and thereby received as a favor that which he wanted or needed. This system of patronage was as fundamental to the ancient Mediterranean world as using money as a basis for exchanging goods and services is in ours. The players in this system are known as patrons and clients.

A patron is a person of high status who can provide benefits to others based on his superior power, influence, reputation, position, and wealth. A client is a person of lesser status who enters into a relationship with a patron in order to obtain certain benefits. These benefits might include plots of land, money for a business venture, debt relief, work, food after a crop failure, appointment to a government post, citizenship, freedom from taxes, protection against enemies, or support in a legal case. Sometimes the most important thing a patron could offer was access to another patron who had power over the benefit sought but to whom the client had no access due to the disparity between their social statuses. This intermediary patron has been called a broker, a mediator, and an advocate.

In Josephus’ writings we see the variety of ways in which he, a client to three successive Roman emperors, benefited from imperial patronage. His emperor-patrons arranged a marriage for him, granted him Roman citizenship, set him up in Rome with an apartment and a pension, gave him land in Judea, granted him freedom from taxes on his Judean estates, freed his family, friends, and acquaintances who were prisoners of war, had three of his friends taken off crosses, and protected him against false accusations. [30] Josephus was a client not only to the Roman emperors but also to the Herodian aristocracy. This was not unusual. It was common for a client to have several patrons. Consequently, a person would have to be careful not to have two patrons who were enemies or rivals. If this were to happen, a client would ultimately have to choose between the two patrons, proving loyal to one and disloyal to the other. Such would be the case if a person entered into a patron-client relationship with God and with mammon. He simply could not be loyal to both (see Matthew 6:24).

Patronage was a reciprocal relationship. Though patrons doled out gifts, privileges, protections, and support, the relationship was not one-sided. The patrons benefited equally, though not materially. Primarily, clients increased their patron’s honor and power base. A client was expected to do everything in his power to enhance the patron’s name (i.e., his reputation) and honor. He offered public praise and bore public witness to the patron’s goodness. This was so incumbent upon a client that its omission would have been an incredible gaffe. This may have been the reason the two blind men whom Jesus healed and then charged to tell no one still “spread abroad his fame in all that country” (Matthew 9:31). They simply could not disregard the entrenched convention of returning praise and honor for benefaction. The phrase in the Lord’s Prayer, “Hallowed be thy name” (Matthew 6:9), reflects the appropriate response of an honorable client committed to seeing his patron’s name reverenced, honored, and extolled.

In addition to enhancing the name and honor of his patron, a client was to be grateful. According to Cicero, a patron could freely choose whether or not to give a gift, but an honorable person had no choice but to respond to the gift with gratitude ( De Officiis 1:47–48). Gratitude was an absolute duty. Ingratitude was to be avoided by an honorable person at all costs. Gratitude was expressed not only by public declarations of thanks but also through good works. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells his disciples to be lights to the world and cities set upon a hill. In other words, as clients of God, they are to show their gratitude by living a life of conspicuous goodness [31] so that others “may see your good works, and glorify [or give honor to] your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). Gratitude, whether of words or works, was not only the honorable response; it was also the response that guaranteed future benefactions from a patron. When selecting beneficiaries, patrons would seek out those who knew how to be grateful. [32]

A final element of a client’s expected and honorable response to his patron’s benefactions was trust or faith. The client had to trust that his patron could and would perform what he had promised. For all but the rich, who constituted less than ten percent of the population, [33] existence in the ancient Mediterranean world was precarious at best. Peasants lived at survival level, which meant that a drought, a plague of locusts, or crop failure could threaten their very existence. The possibility of an agricultural misfortune along with unrelenting and onerous taxes made debt bondage a constant specter. It was to such people that Jesus said, “Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body. . . . Behold the fowls of the air: for . . . your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?” (Matthew 6:25–26). In this, the Lord was asking a people for whom concerns of physical survival were dominant to have faith and trust in the divine Patron. He was asking them to trust that God was well aware of his clients’ needs and would provide for their physical and spiritual well-being.

In the Gospels, Jesus often acts as broker, putting people in contact with their heavenly Patron. [34] A broker was a patron in and of himself, but was also one who offered access to another patron, one to whom the client has no access because of the disparity between their social statuses. As a patron, the broker was to defend his client at court. In the ancient Mediterranean world, it was difficult for commoners to find justice without the support of a patron. [35] A patron would serve as a character witness for the client and also offer his own honor and merits on behalf of the client. This may well be the background of Matthew 7:22, which begins, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Hans Deter Betz suggests that in this scene large groups of people are appearing before the throne of God. One group has already been rejected by the divine judge. They turn to Jesus, believing him to be their broker. They plead, “Lord, Lord have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?” (Matthew 7:22). By citing the good words they have done (the appropriate response of honorable clients), they are claiming that they are the Lord’s legitimate clients. [36] Jesus says that He “will profess [declare publicly [37] ] unto them, I never knew you” (Matthew 7:23). “I never knew you” is a renunciation formula and “belongs to the context of legal representation. An advocate cannot represent a client whom he or she does not know personally.” [38] With this renunciation, Christ not only denies knowing the persons but also denies having any responsibility for them. He is not their patron and will not plead for them or vouch for their character in this court. He will not seek favor for them based on his honor or merits. He will not facilitate an association with the heavenly Patron.

Wealth in a Limited-Goods Society

As previously noted, wealth was not primarily valued as a resource for luxuries or as a way to obtain security; rather, its primary value was within the context of honor. Of course, wealth was appreciated as a way to obtain elegant clothing and expensive jewelry and to put on sumptuous banquets. Truly, wealth provided such things, but these things were important because they were tangible evidences of honor. As also noted above, the poor were not those lacking in wealth, for the vast majority of people were in this situation, but those not able to maintain their honor and status because of some unfortunate circumstance such as debt, sickness, accident, or death of a spouse. [39] The poor were the oppressed, the miserable, the dependent, the humiliated. “People who are maimed, lame, blind, and the like are ‘poor,’ regardless of how much land they might own. Similarly, a widow owning millions of denarii worth of anything, yet having no son, is always ‘a poor widow.’ It is social misfortune rather than economic misfortune that makes a person poor.” [40]

To these insights, we must add one more. The modern westernized world is a world of abundance. In contrast, the ancient Mediterranean society was a society of limited goods. They believed all desirable things in life, “such as land, wealth, prestige, blood, health, semen, friendship and love, manliness, honor, respect and status, power and influence, security and safety—literally all goods in life—exist in finite, limited quantity and are always in short supply.” [41] Moreover, this limited supply has already been distributed. This means that if one person increases in wealth, another must decrease. Thus the accumulation of wealth was looked down upon. Greed was dishonorable. Only those beyond the pale of public opinion—the elites, the governors, and the kings—could accumulate wealth with impunity.

This cultural context provides background for the enigmatic statement, “The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness” (Matthew 6:22–23). “Single” is the translation of the Greek word haplous, which may also be translated as “healthy” or “good.” Thus, the phrase in the Sermon on the Mount could legitimately be read, “If therefore thine eye be good, thy whole body shall be full of light.” Marvin R. Wilson explains, “In rabbinic literature, if you have a ‘good eye’ you are a generous person.” [42] On the other hand, an “evil eye” is an idiom for envy and greed. [43] Thus, it is completely appropriate that Christ’s comment about having a good eye appears between his statements “Lay not up for yourselves treasure upon earth” (Matthew 6:19) and “Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24). A person with an evil eye—a person who was miserly, stingy, and jealous—would have a low honor rating. Moreover, he would be considered “full of darkness” (Matthew 6:23). In a society that equated light with joy, happiness, and the triumph of good over evil, this was no small thing. No wonder Jesus warned, “If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!” (Matthew 6:23).

The Physical Setting

Understanding the Sermon on the Mount in its sociocultural context extends to understanding certain physical aspects of the Holy Land. For instance, Jerusalem sits atop the Judean hills. It is, no doubt, the city Jesus’ listeners thought of when he proclaimed, “A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matthew 5:14). [44] This city, though mentioned by name only once in the sermon (see Matthew 5:35), makes several subtle appearances. [45] For instance, when Jesus said, “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, . . . for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you” (Matthew 4:11, 12), many first-century Jews would have thought of Jerusalem, where many prophets had been killed (see Matthew 23:37). Jerusalem, as a type of the heavenly Jerusalem, may also be the city to which the strait gate and the narrow road (or “way”) led (see Matthew 7:13–14). [46] In Matthew 6:5, Jesus says, “When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.” Though synagogues, streets, and corners are not unique to Jerusalem, Betz suggests that this vignette of city life is probably describing Jerusalem. [47]

Because the temple was located at Jerusalem, the city was likely the setting for the alms that are to be offered without recognition (see Matthew 6:2) and for the sacrifices that are to be brought to the altar (see Matthew 5:23–24). The implications are important. Christ exhorts his listeners, “If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” (Matthew 5:23). The Sermon on the Mount was delivered in Galilee. The altar where one would bring his gift or offering was in Jerusalem. In order to comply with Christ’s charge, a Jew from Galilee would likely have to undertake the rigorous, hundred-mile journey back to Galilee, reconcile with his brother, and then return to Jerusalem. Understanding this is integral to understanding the physical, emotional, and spiritual distance to which Christ would have us go to be reconciled with an offended brother, wife, or neighbor.

Another instance in which understanding the physical features of the Holy Land illuminates the Sermon on the Mount is the parable of the houses built upon the rock and the sand. In the Middle East, most rivers are not ever-flowing but are dry washes called “wadis.” They become rivers only during the rainy season when a heavy rain sends a flash flood surging down the normally dry wadi, sometimes with devastating consequences. One traveler to Arabia noted: “A temptation exists to build villages to cater for the needs of the caravan traffic in wadis . . . which are thought to have permanently dried up.” [48] Since dry wadis are usually sandy, such a village could be described as “houses built upon the sand.” However, houses in wadis are in great danger if torrential rains fall and flash floods ensue. The aforementioned traveler witnessed this very thing. He said, “Recently, after many years of drought and consequent security, one such village near the Yemen road was suddenly obliterated when the wadi filled once again with a raging torrent of water from the mountain.” [49] No doubt it could be said of this village that which Jesus said of the house built on the sand: “And great was the fall of it” (Matthew 7:27).

As One Having Authority

At the close of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew records, “The people were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matthew 7:28–29). “The Greek verb ekpl?ss? [astonished] carries the meaning of being ‘filled with amazement to the point of being overwhelmed.’” [50] While we ourselves may be astonished, even overwhelmed, at commands to become perfect and not to judge or become angry, the listeners of Galilee had other reasons to be astonished that might escape us. First of all, Jesus of Nazareth, the consummate teacher and theologian, did not have the credentials of a teacher according to the customs of his time. “Those recognized and entitled teachers were typically individuals who taught in the formal educational system. Such instructors taught at either the bet hasefer (house of the book), bet talmud (house of learning), bet haknesset (house of assembly or synagogue), or bet midrash (house of study). It was at the bet midrash that exceptional students became teachers and were awarded the rank and title of rabbi. Jesus, as far as we can determine, was never a student or a teacher at bet midrash .” [51]

Secondly, not only did Jesus not teach with the authority of the teachers of the day, he did not teach like the teachers of the day. The New Testament world was one that embraced the adage “Older is better, oldest is best.” [52] The more ancient someone or something was, the more credibility it had. Thus, it is common to find in rabbinic texts, “Rabbi X said in the name of Rabbi Y, who had it as a tradition from Rabbi Z.” This was an authoritative way of substantiating a statement. [53] However, Christ did not cite previous rabbis. Moreover, he did not speak as prophets, who often said, “Thus saith the Lord.” [54] With bold audacity, he declared, “I say unto you,” asserting his word to be the final authority and holding precedence over the law, its commonly held interpretation, and the customs of the day.

Finally, what gave people authority to act in public was their honor rating. Lower-born people (like the son of a carpenter) were not expected to lead in public, to perform miracles, or preach with great wisdom. Yet Christ preached with power, boldness, and unsurpassed wisdom. No wonder the masses were astonished. Jesus Christ, the son of a carpenter, spoke as though he were the son of a king.

There is a great chasm between the ancient Mediterranean world and our modern, Western world. It is not merely a chasm of time or technology. It is a chasm of culture and values. But understanding the sociocultural context of the ancient Mediterranean provides a bridge to the divide. To walk into the New Testament world, we must both think and feel like a person from the ancient Mediterranean. We must feel the critical need for belonging and the horror of experiencing a loss of honor. We must feel the constant, underlying hostility due to the incessant threats to honor that must be parried and returned. We must sense the obligations we would feel to a patron and the scarcity of a limited goods society. Only then do we understand how very much Christ asks of his followers. Only then do we begin to see how life altering and soul changing are his teachings in the Sermon on the Mount.

[1] K. C. Hanson and Douglas E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 6.

[2] Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World (Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1993), 38.

[3] Malina, The New Testament World , 31.

[4] Other countries that are generally individualistic are England, France, Ireland, Italy, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. For further study on individualism, see Malina, The New Testament World , 63–73; see also “Individualism versus Collectivism,” http:// www.via-web.de/ individualism-versus-collectivism/.

[5] Malina, The New Testament World , 67.

[6] Hanson and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus , 8.

[7] Jerome H. Neyrey, “Loss of Wealth, Loss of Family and Loss of Honour,” in Modelling Early Christianity , ed. Philip F. Esler (New York: Routledge, 1995), 141.

[8] Malina, The New Testament World , 50, 55.

[9] Malina, The New Testament World , 50.

[10] Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 26; see also Malina, The New Testament World , 49–50, and John J. Pilch and Bruce J. Malina, eds., Handbook of Biblical Social Values (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 107.

[11] Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary , 40.

[12] David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000), 28.

[13] James S. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999), 63.

[14] Malina, The New Testament World , 34.

[15] If the challenged person is of superior higher status, he may brush aside the challenge with scorn. If the challenged person is of the same status, he may respond with a counterchallenge or may even up the ante by responding with a more serious challenge.

[16] Malina, The New Testament World , 38.

[17] Malina, The New Testament World , 99.

[18] See James Talmage, Jesus the Christ (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1970), 234.

[19] Richard L Rohrbaugh, “Legitimating Sonship—A Test of Honour,” in Modelling Early Christianity , ed. Philip F. Esler (New York: Routledge, 1995), 185.

[20] Malina, The New Testament World , 45.

[21] Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James , The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 232–33.

[22] Malina, The New Testament World , 43.

[23] deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity , 67.

[24] Matthew’s version has “blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matthew 5:3), placing the focus on spiritual poverty.

[25] Neyrey, “Loss of Wealth,” 144.

[26] Neyrey, “Loss of Wealth,” 145.

[27] Malina, The New Testament World , 30.

[28] Neyrey, “Loss of Wealth,” 148.

[29] deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity , 95.

[30] Hanson and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus , 74.

[31] deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity , 143.

[32] The favors or reciprocity of patrons and clients was described with the word “grace.” Grace could be used in three different ways. First, grace meant the willingness of a patron to grant a favor or gift to his client. In this sense, the word reflects the generosity and willingness of the patron. Second, grace could be used to refer to the gift, favor, or benefaction itself. Third, grace could be used to describe the client’s grateful response. “The fact that one and the same word can be used to speak of a beneficent act and the response to a beneficent act suggests implicitly what many moralists from the Greek and Roman cultures stated explicitly: grace must be met with grace; . . . gift must always be met with gratitude” (deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity , 105; see D&C 93:12–20).

[33] Richard A. Horsley, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999), xxiv.

[34] Malina, The New Testament World , 102.

[35] Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World , 299.

[36] Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount , Hermeneia, ed. Adela Yarbro Collins (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 549.

[37] Betz, The Sermon on the Mount , 551.

[38] Betz, The Sermon on the Mount , 551.

[39] Malina, The New Testament World , 106.

[40] Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels , 48.

[41] Malina, The New Testament World , 95.

[42] Marvin R. Wilson, Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 121.

[43] It is worth noting that in ancient thought, the eye was not looked upon as an organ that sends visual stimuli to the brain, but as an agent that had thoughts and motives of its own, independent of the brain. Thus, the eye could hate, envy, pity, and be kind (see J. Duncan M. Derrett, “The Evil Eye in the New Testament,” in Modelling Early Christianity , 67).

[44] Betz, The Sermon on the Mount , 161.

[45] Betz, The Sermon on the Mount , 161–62.

[46] Betz, The Sermon on the Mount , 162.

[47] Betz, The Sermon on the Mount , 162.

[48] Norman Lewis, Sand and Sea in Arabia (London: Routledge, 1938), 16, quoted in Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon , vol. 6 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1988), 262.

[49] Lewis, quoted in Nibley, Approach to the Book of Mormon , 262.

[50] Frank F. Judd Jr., “The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount,” in The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ , vol. 1., ed. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Thomas A. Wayment (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005), 316.

[51] Matthew O. Richardson, “Jesus: The Unorthodox Teacher,” in Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior , ed. Paul H. Peterson, Gary L. Hatch, and Laura D. Card (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2002), 230.

[52] John H. Elliott, 1 Peter , volume 37b of the Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 370.

[53] Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2002), 37.

[54] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew , The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 109.

185 Heber J. Grant Building Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 801-422-6975

Helpful Links

Religious Education

BYU Studies

Maxwell Institute

Articulos en español

Artigos em português

Connect with Us

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

The Comprehensive Guide to Moscow Nightlife

• Posted on April 14, 2018 July 26, 2018
• by Kings of Russia
• 8 minute read

Moscow’s nightlife scene is thriving, and arguably one of the best the world has to offer – top-notch Russian women, coupled with a never-ending list of venues, Moscow has a little bit of something for everyone’s taste. Moscow nightlife is not for the faint of heart – and if you’re coming, you better be ready to go Friday and Saturday night into the early morning.

This comprehensive guide to Moscow nightlife will run you through the nuts and bolts of all you need to know about Moscow’s nightclubs and give you a solid blueprint to operate with during your time in Moscow.

What you need to know before hitting Moscow nightclubs

Prices in moscow nightlife.

Before you head out and start gaming all the sexy Moscow girls , we have to talk money first. Bring plenty because in Moscow you can never bring a big enough bankroll. Remember, you’re the man so making a fuzz of not paying a drink here or there will not go down well.

Luckily most Moscow clubs don’t do cover fees. Some electro clubs will charge 15-20$, depending on their lineup. There’s the odd club with a minimum spend of 20-30$, which you’ll drop on drinks easily. By and large, you can scope out the venues for free, which is a big plus.

Bottle service is a great deal in Moscow. At top-tier clubs, it starts at 1,000$. That’ll go a long way with premium vodka at 250$, especially if you have three or four guys chipping in. Not to mention that it’s a massive status boost for getting girls, especially at high-end clubs.

Without bottle service, you should estimate a budget of 100-150$ per night. That is if you drink a lot and hit the top clubs with the hottest girls. Scale down for less alcohol and more basic places.

Dress code & Face control

Door policy in Moscow is called “face control” and it’s always the guy behind the two gorillas that gives the green light if you’re in or out.

In Moscow nightlife there’s only one rule when it comes to dress codes:

You can never be underdressed.

People dress A LOT sharper than, say, in the US and that goes for both sexes. For high-end clubs, you definitely want to roll with a sharp blazer and a pocket square, not to mention dress shoes in tip-top condition. Those are the minimum requirements to level the playing field vis a vis with other sharply dressed guys that have a lot more money than you do. Unless you plan to hit explicit electro or underground clubs, which have their own dress code, you are always on the money with that style.

Getting in a Moscow club isn’t as hard as it seems: dress sharp, speak English at the door and look like you’re in the mood to spend all that money that you supposedly have (even if you don’t). That will open almost any door in Moscow’s nightlife for you.

Types of Moscow Nightclubs

In Moscow there are four types of clubs with the accompanying female clientele:

High-end clubs:

These are often crossovers between restaurants and clubs with lots of tables and very little space to dance. Heavy accent on bottle service most of the time but you can work the room from the bar as well. The hottest and most expensive girls in Moscow go there. Bring deep pockets and lots of self-confidence and you have a shot at swooping them.

Regular Mid-level clubs:

They probably resemble more what you’re used to in a nightclub: big dancefloors, stages and more space to roam around. Bottle service will make you stand out more but you can also do well without. You can find all types of girls but most will be in the 6-8 range. Your targets should always be the girls drinking and ideally in pairs. It’s impossible not to swoop if your game is at least half-decent.

Basic clubs/dive bars:

Usually spots with very cheap booze and lax face control. If you’re dressed too sharp and speak no Russian, you might attract the wrong type of attention so be vigilant. If you know the local scene you can swoop 6s and 7s almost at will. Usually students and girls from the suburbs.

Electro/underground clubs:

Home of the hipsters and creatives. Parties there don’t mean meeting girls and getting drunk but doing pills and spacing out to the music. Lots of attractive hipster girls if that is your niche. That is its own scene with a different dress code as well.

What time to go out in Moscow

Moscow nightlife starts late. Don’t show up at bars and preparty spots before 11pm because you’ll feel fairly alone. Peak time is between 1am and 3am. That is also the time of Moscow nightlife’s biggest nuisance: concerts by artists you won’t know and who only distract your girls from drinking and being gamed. From 4am to 6am the regular clubs are emptying out but plenty of people, women included, still hit up one of the many afterparty clubs. Those last till well past 10am.

As far as days go: Fridays and Saturdays are peak days. Thursday is an OK day, all other days are fairly weak and you have to know the right venues.

The Ultimate Moscow Nightclub List

Short disclaimer: I didn’t add basic and electro clubs since you’re coming for the girls, not for the music. This list will give you more options than you’ll be able to handle on a weekend.

Preparty – start here at 11PM

Classic restaurant club with lots of tables and a smallish bar and dancefloor. Come here between 11pm and 12am when the concert is over and they start with the actual party. Even early in the night tons of sexy women here, who lean slightly older (25 and up).

The second floor of the Ugolek restaurant is an extra bar with dim lights and house music tunes. Very small and cozy with a slight hipster vibe but generally draws plenty of attractive women too. A bit slower vibe than Valenok.

Very cool, spread-out venue that has a modern library theme. Not always full with people but when it is, it’s brimming with top-tier women. Slow vibe here and better for grabbing contacts and moving on.

High-end: err on the side of being too early rather than too late because of face control.

Secret Room

Probably the top venue at the moment in Moscow . Very small but wildly popular club, which is crammed with tables but always packed. They do parties on Thursdays and Sundays as well. This club has a hip-hop/high-end theme, meaning most girls are gold diggers, IG models, and tattooed hip hop chicks. Very unfavorable logistics because there is almost no room no move inside the club but the party vibe makes it worth it. Strict face control.

Close to Secret Room and with a much more favorable and spacious three-part layout. This place attracts very hot women but also lots of ball busters and fakes that will leave you blue-balled. Come early because after 4am it starts getting empty fast. Electronic music.

A slightly kitsch restaurant club that plays Russian pop and is full of gold diggers, semi-pros, and men from the Caucasus republics. Thursday is the strongest night but that dynamic might be changing since Secret Room opened its doors. You can swoop here but it will be a struggle.

Mid-level: your sweet spot in terms of ease and attractiveness of girls for an average budget.

Started going downwards in 2018 due to lax face control and this might get even worse with the World Cup. In terms of layout one of the best Moscow nightclubs because it’s very big and bottle service gives you a good edge here. Still attracts lots of cute girls with loose morals but plenty of provincial girls (and guys) as well. Swooping is fairly easy here.

I haven’t been at this place in over a year, ever since it started becoming ground zero for drunken teenagers. Similar clientele to Icon but less chic, younger and drunker. Decent mainstream music that attracts plenty of tourists. Girls are easy here as well.

Sort of a Coyote Ugly (the real one in Moscow sucks) with party music and lots of drunken people licking each others’ faces. Very entertaining with the right amount of alcohol and very easy to pull in there. Don’t think about staying sober in here, you’ll hate it.

Artel Bessonitsa/Shakti Terrace

Electronic music club that is sort of a high-end place with an underground clientele and located between the teenager clubs Icon and Gipsy. Very good music but a bit all over the place with their vibe and their branding. You can swoop almost any type of girl here from high-heeled beauty to coked-up hipsters, provided they’re not too sober.

Afterparty: if by 5AM  you haven’t pulled, it’s time to move here.

Best afterparty spot in terms of trying to get girls. Pretty much no one is sober in there and savage gorilla game goes a long way. Lots of very hot and slutty-looking girls but it can be hard to tell apart who is looking for dick and who is just on drugs but not interested. If by 9-10am you haven’t pulled, it is probably better to surrender.

The hipster alternative for afterparties, where even more drugs are in play. Plenty of attractive girls there but you have to know how to work this type of club. A nicer atmosphere and better music but if you’re desperate to pull, you’ll probably go to Miks.

Weekday jokers: if you’re on the hunt for some sexy Russian girls during the week, here are two tips to make your life easier.

Chesterfield

Ladies night on Wednesdays means this place gets pretty packed with smashed teenagers and 6s and 7s. Don’t pull out the three-piece suit in here because it’s a “simpler” crowd. Definitely your best shot on Wednesdays.

If you haven’t pulled at Chesterfield, you can throw a Hail Mary and hit up Garage’s Black Music Wednesdays. Fills up really late but there are some cute Black Music groupies in here. Very small club. Thursday through Saturday they do afterparties and you have an excellent shot and swooping girls that are probably high.

Shishas Sferum

This is pretty much your only shot on Mondays and Tuesdays because they offer free or almost free drinks for women. A fairly low-class club where you should watch your drinks. As always the case in Moscow, there will be cute girls here on any day of the week but it’s nowhere near as good as on the weekend.

In a nutshell, that is all you need to know about where to meet Moscow girls in nightlife. There are tons of options, and it all depends on what best fits your style, based on the type of girls that you’re looking for.

Related Topics

• moscow girls
• moscow nightlife

The Top 3 Cities in Ukraine for First Timers

• Posted on July 7, 2018 August 4, 2019

You May Also Like

• Uncategorized

The Best Expat Blogs for Moscow

• Posted on May 31, 2020 June 1, 2020

Finding a Russian Bride: How and Where to Meet Her

• Posted on August 9, 2019 August 9, 2019

Meeting Women in Moscow: Dating Perspectives on the World’s Most Beautiful Women

• Posted on August 5, 2019 August 9, 2019

Meeting Russian Women: Top 5 Locations

• Posted on August 3, 2019 June 1, 2020

Moscow vs St. Petersburg – Which One to Visit?

• Posted on July 31, 2019 August 3, 2019

Hot Russian Girls – Where to Find & Date Them

• Posted on March 30, 2019 March 30, 2019

A Guide to Teaching English in Russia

• Posted on August 11, 2018 October 9, 2019

How to Attract Russian Girls

• Posted on July 15, 2018 August 4, 2019

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Drone attacks in Moscow’s glittering business district leave residents on edge

People stroll at embankment of the Moscow River in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Aug. 1, 2023, with the “Moscow City” business district in the background. The glittering towers of the Moscow City business district were once symbols of the Russian capital’s economic boom in the early 2000s. Now they are a sign of its vulnerability, following a series of drone attacks that rattled some Muscovites shaken and brought the war in Ukraine home to the seat of Russian power. (AP Photo/Dmitry Serebryakov)

A couple sit in a park in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Aug. 1, 2023, with the “Moscow City” business district in the background. The glittering towers of the Moscow City business district were once symbols of the Russian capital’s economic boom in the early 2000s. Now they are a sign of its vulnerability, following a series of drone attacks that rattled some Muscovites shaken and brought the war in Ukraine home to the seat of Russian power. (AP Photo/Dmitry Serebryakov)

Police officers stand near the Red Square in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Aug. 1, 2023. The glittering towers of the Moscow City business district were once symbols of the Russian capital’s economic boom in the early 2000s. Now they are a sign of its vulnerability, following a series of drone attacks that rattled some Muscovites shaken and brought the war in Ukraine home to the seat of Russian power. (AP Photo/Dmitry Serebryakov)

People stroll at the Red Square in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Aug. 1, 2023. The glittering towers of the Moscow City business district were once symbols of the Russian capital’s economic boom in the early 2000s. Now they are a sign of its vulnerability, following a series of drone attacks that rattled some Muscovites shaken and brought the war in Ukraine home to the seat of Russian power. (AP Photo/Dmitry Serebryakov)

People sit in a cafe in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Aug. 1, The glittering towers of the Moscow City business district were once symbols of the Russian capital’s economic boom in the early 2000s. Now they are a sign of its vulnerability, following a series of drone attacks that rattled some Muscovites shaken and brought the war in Ukraine home to the seat of Russian power. 2023. (AP Photo/Dmitry Serebryakov)

A view of the damaged building is seen in the “Moscow City” business district after a reported drone attack in Moscow, Russia, early Tuesday, Aug. 1, 2023. Ukrainian drones again targeted Moscow and its surroundings early Tuesday morning, the Russian military reported. Two of three launched were shot down outside Moscow, while one crashed into a skyscraper in the Moscow City business district, damaging the building’s facade. (AP Photo)

Investigators examine an area next to damaged building in the “Moscow City” business district after a reported drone attack in Moscow, Russia, early Tuesday, Aug. 1, 2023. Ukrainian drones again targeted Moscow and its surroundings early Tuesday morning, the Russian military reported. Two of three launched were shot down outside Moscow, while one crashed into a skyscraper in the Moscow City business district, damaging the building’s facade. (AP Photo)

• Copy Link copied

The glittering towers of the Moscow City business district dominate the skyline of the Russian capital. The sleek glass-and-steel buildings -- designed to attract investment amid an economic boom in the early 2000s – are a dramatic, modern contrast to the rest of the more than 800-year-old city.

Now they are a sign of its vulnerability, following a series of drone attacks that rattled some Muscovites and brought the war in Ukraine home to the seat of Russian power.

The attacks on Sunday and Tuesday aren’t the first to hit Moscow — a drone even struck the Kremlin harmlessly in May. But these latest blasts, which caused no casualties but blew out part of a section of windows on a high-rise building and sent glass cascading to the streets, seemed particularly unsettling.

“It’s very frightening because you wake up at night hearing explosions,” said a woman who identified herself only as Ulfiya as she walked her dog, adding that she lived in a nearby building. Like other Muscovites interviewed by The Associated Press, she did not identify herself further out of fear of retribution or for her personal safety.

Another resident, who gave her name as Ekaterina, said Tuesday’s blast “sounded like thunder.”

“I think for the first time, I got really scared,” she said. “I don’t understand how people in a war zone can live like this every day and not go mad.”

The Russian Defense Ministry said it shot down two Ukrainian drones outside Moscow and had electronically jammed another, sending it crashing into the IQ-Quarter skyscraper that houses government offices like the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Digital Development and Communications, and the Ministry of Industry and Trade — the same building that was hit Sunday.

A cordon went up around the building and personnel from the fire department and the Russian Investigative Committee were at the scene. Hours later, residents strolled through the district along the Moscow River or sat on benches in the sunshine. By about 1 p.m. Tuesday, workers were already starting to replace damaged windows.

The business district, a 10-minute subway ride west of the Kremlin, is home to some of Moscow’s flashiest restaurants, offering far-reaching views of the capital and a menu of upscale fare like three types of caviar, shellfish from Russia’s Far East and French cuisine.

But there was no escaping the grim news.

While Russian state television has largely played down the strikes, one channel sandwiched a segment on how Moscow’s air defenses successfully intercepted the drones in between reports highlighting Russian attacks on Ukraine.

Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, said in Ukraine that Moscow “is rapidly getting used to a full-fledged war,” without confirming or denying Kyiv’s involvement in the drone attacks that in recent days have struck from the capital to the Crimean Peninsula .

After Sunday’s strike, the Kremlin said security would be ramped up.

Still, the size of the drone that hit the Moscow City district led analysts to question the effectiveness of the capital’s air defenses, suggesting it could have been launched from Ukraine.

“If this is the case, this would be rather embarrassing for Russia’s air defenses. If a drone has been in Russian airspace for hours, air defenses should have picked it up earlier and shot it down earlier,” said Ulrike Franke, an expert in drones and military technology at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

While they haven’t caused much physical damage, bringing the drone campaign to Moscow “blows holes in Russia’s narrative that the war on Ukraine is successful and that it is being prosecuted far away from any consequences for the Russian people themselves,” said Keir Giles, a Russia expert at the Chatham House think tank in London.

“That is something which is going to be harder and harder for Russia’s propaganda machine to explain away,” he said.

A Muscovite who identified himself to the AP only as Eldar summed up the strikes this way: “We attack them, they attack us. And it’s obvious that they will succeed somewhere, and we will succeed somewhere. We should try to strengthen the defense.”

In Odintsovo, where some of the drones were downed about 30 kilometers (18 miles) southwest of the capital, some residents discussed the events on their local Telegram channel.

One woman talked about hearing noises that turned out to be a car or improperly closed trash containers, and seeing what she thought were drones but actually were a flock of birds, a plane and a wind-blown plastic bag.

“How is it possible to live like this?” she asked the group.

“Stop creating panic,” one member admonished her.

“If you hear a noise, be happy because it hasn’t hit you,” added another.

Burrows reported from Tallinn, Estonia.

Follow AP’s coverage of the war in Ukraine at https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine

Moscow concert attack: More than 60 reported dead; ISIS claims responsibility

This live blog has ended. For the most recent updates, please click here .

What we know about the Moscow concert attack

• Men in camouflage broke into a Moscow concert hall and opened fire, shooting an unknown number of people, Russia’s prosecutor general said.
• The terror group ISIS has claimed responsibility but did not provide proof of the claim, which was made on ISIS-affiliated news agency Amaq on Telegram.
• Russia's Investigative Committee said that more than 60 people are dead after the attack at Crocus City Hall. Officials have said more than 100 others were injured.
• A fire also started inside Crocus City Hall, a large concert venue northwest of central Moscow. Firefighters have evacuated about 100 people from the basement of the building and efforts are underway to rescue people from the roof, Russian emergency officials said.
• Russia officials said they were investigating the attack as a terrorist act.
• A popular rock band was scheduled to play what appeared to be a sold-out show at the venue, which has a maximum capacity of more than 9,000 people.

Three children among those killed, state media reports

Chantal Da Silva

Three children were among the more than 60 people killed in yesterday's attack at Crocus City Hall, Russian news agency RIA Novosti reported, citing the Russian Ministry of Health.

Officials have warned that the death toll connected to the deadly incident may increase as the investigation continues.

Xi sends condolences to Putin

Chinese President Xi Jinping sent condolences to Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday after a deadly shooting at a concert hall near Moscow, saying China opposes all forms of terrorism and strongly condemns terrorist attacks.

China firmly supports the Russian government’s efforts to maintain national security and stability, Xi said, according to CCTV state television. 

Moscow bloodshed comes two decades after some of worst attacks in Russia

Phil Helsel

The shooting attacks in Moscow are the latest in a series of deadly terror attacks in the country since the 2000s.

In 2004, militants from Chechnya and elsewhere took hostages at a school in Beslan in southern Russia.

The militants demanded a withdrawal from Chechnya. Hostages were kept in a gymnasium, and 334 died — half of them children — when gunfire and explosions erupted when it was stormed. Hostages’ families were critical of the rescue operation. Russian prosecutors later cleared authorities .

Two years prior, in 2002, Chechen separatists attacked the Dubrovka Theater in Moscow and took more than 700 people hostage. Russian forces used gas, and 129 hostages died. The attackers were killed.

More recently, in 2017 a suicide bomber from Kyrgyzstan killed 15 people as well as himself in an attack on a St. Petersburg subway. In 2013, two bombers killed a combined 34 people in attacks on a railway station and a trolleybus in Volgograd.

The group Islamic State, also known as ISIS, claimed responsibility for the attacks Friday at the Crocus City Hall venue.

Putin wishes victims well, deputy prime minister says

President Vladimir Putin is thinking of those injured in today’s attack and thanked doctors, a Russian government official said according to state media.

State media TASS reported that “Putin wished all those injured in the emergency at Crocus City Hall to recover and conveyed his gratitude to the doctors, Golikova said,” referring to Tatiana Golikova deputy prime minister for social policy, labor, health and pension provision.

More than 60 dead, and death toll could grow, Russian agency says

Russia’s Investigative Committee said Saturday that more than 60 people have died in the attack, and warned the number may increase.

“The bodies of the dead are being examined. It has been previously established that more than 60 people died as a result of the terrorist attack. Unfortunately, the number of victims may increase,” according to the Investigative Committee, which is a federal state agency.

Russia's Ministry of Internal Affairs and the security agency FSB are continuing to investigate, the committee said in a statement, and weapons and ammunition have been found.

U.S. warned Russia about planned terrorist attack in Moscow, NSC says

Monica Alba

The United States shared information about a potential terrorist attack in Moscow with Russia’s government earlier this month, a spokesperson for the National Security Council said.

The U.S. Embassy in Russia on March 7 warned U.S. citizens to avoid crowds and said it was monitoring reports that extremists might attack large gatherings in Moscow.

“Earlier this month, the U.S. Government had information about a planned terrorist attack in Moscow — potentially targeting large gatherings, to include concerts — which prompted the State Department to issue a public advisory to Americans in Russia,” NSC spokesperson Adrienne Watson said.

“The U.S. Government also shared this information with Russian authorities in accordance with its longstanding ‘duty to warn’ policy,” Watson said.

Putin recently dismissed ‘provocative’ warning about potential attacks

In remarks that aired three days ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the West of “provocative statements” about potential terror attacks in Russia, and dismissed them.

“I’ll remind you of recent, let’s say directly, provocative statements of certain official Western structures about potential terror attacks in Russia,” Putin said.

“All of this looks like obvious blackmail and an attempt to intimidate, destabilize our country,” he said before the state security agency FSB.

Putin in those remarks did not specify a country or warning. The U.S. embassy in Russia on March 7 warned U.S. citizens to avoid crowds .

“The Embassy is monitoring reports that extremists have imminent plans to target large gatherings in Moscow, to include concerts, and U.S. citizens should be advised to avoid large gatherings over the next 48 hours,” the U.S. embassy warned.

Guards at concert hall didn't have guns, state news says

The Associated Press

Guards at the concert hall didn’t have guns, and some could have been killed at the start of the attack, Russian media reported.

Some Russian news outlets suggested the assailants fled before special forces and riot police arrived.

Reports said police patrols were looking for several vehicles the attackers could have used to escape.

U.S. had been gathering intelligence that ISIS could attack Russia

Ken Dilanian

The U.S. had been gathering intelligence for months that ISIS could mount a mass casualty attack in Russia, two U.S. officials confirmed to NBC News.

That information led to a March 7 warning issued by the U.S. embassy in Russia about possible extremist attacks, including at concerts, urging people to stay away from large gatherings, one of the officials said.

That official said the claim of responsibility today by ISIS appears to be genuine, though no final assessment had been made about who was responsible.

Some Moscow concertgoers filmed events as they unfolded Friday night, when gunmen opened fire inside a theater and people ran to take cover in fear for their lives.

Witness says gunfire was first thought to be construction noise

A witness to today’s armed attack on Moscow’s Crocus City Hall told a state news agency that they first mistook the gunfire for sounds of an installation being dismantled.

“First, we started hearing typical loud pops, but it was impossible to understand that they were gunshots. We thought that something was falling, as exhibitions were being dismantled at that moment, and someone seemed to be dropping something large,” Mikhail Semyonov told TASS .

“Then, the bangs were getting more and more frequent. Suddenly, there was a scream, and the bangs started to be heard as bursts. Then it became clear that it was shooting,” he said.

ISIS claims responsibility for attack but does not provide proof

The terror group Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attack in Moscow.

The group, also known as ISIS, did not provide any proof of its claim, which came from ISIS-affiliated news agency Amaq on Telegram.

The group’s members have carried out a number of terror attacks, including the 2015 attacks in Paris that killed 130 people.

Children among the victims, Russia's children commissioner says

Yuliya Talmazan

Russia’s commissioner for children’s rights, Maria Lvova-Belova, said children were among the victims of tonight's attack.

"Information about their condition is regularly updated," Lvova-Belova said on Telegram. "Any additional assistance will be provided immediately."

She later told Russia 24 TV channel that at least two children had been injured, including one boy with a gunshot wound.

Earlier, Russian officials released a preliminary casualty toll of at least 40 people dead and more than 100 injured.

France, U.K., Germany condemn attack

Officials from France, the U.K. and Germany were among those who expressed their condolences to the victims of the attack at the Crocus concert hall.

"The images of the terrible attack on innocent people in Crocus City Hall near #Moscow are horrific," Germany's Foreign Office said on X . "The background must be investigated quickly. Our deepest condolences with the families of the victims."

"We condemn the terrorist attack in the Crocus City Hall near Moscow," the U.K.'s embassy in Russia said . "This is a terrible tragedy."

Meanwhile, France's foreign ministry called for "full light" to be shed on "these heinous acts."

Public events across Russia called off after attack

Several regional leaders across Russia, including in the annexed Kherson region of Ukraine, have canceled public events this weekend over security considerations after the deadly concert attack in Moscow.

Shortly after the attack, Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin canceled all sports, cultural and other public events in Moscow this weekend. State news agency TASS also quoted Russia's cultural ministry as saying that mass and entertainment events in federal cultural institutions have been canceled in the coming days.

Zelenskyy adviser speaks out about attack

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s adviser denied that Ukraine was involved in the deadly Crocus concert hall attack.

“Ukraine certainly has nothing to do with the shooting/explosions in the Crocus City Hall (Moscow Region, Russia),” Mykhailo Podolyak wrote on X. “It makes no sense whatsoever.”

No evidence has emerged to suggest Ukraine may have been involved, but Ukrainian officials may be trying to pre-empt accusations, as some Kremlin hawks have already started pointing at Kyiv. 

Asked whether the shooting was at all tied to the war in Ukraine, U.S. National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said: “There is no indication at this time that Ukraine, or Ukrainians, were involved in the shooting, but again, this just broke. We’re taking a look at it, but I would disabuse you at this early hour have any connection to Ukraine.”

Videos posted to social media appear to show chaos inside Moscow's Crocus City Hall during and after a terrorist attack.

Some videos include what sound like gunshots and show men with rifles, as concertgoers frantically try to exit the venue.

State Department issues warning to Americans in Moscow

Jason Abbruzzese

The State Department said that the U.S. Embassy in Moscow is aware of the terrorist attack on Crocus City Hall and that U.S. citizens should avoid the area and follow the instructions of local authorities.

"The U.S. government’s ability to provide routine or emergency services to U.S. citizens in Russia is severely limited, particularly in areas far from the U.S. embassy in Moscow, due to Russian government limitations on travel for U.S. embassy personnel and staffing, and the ongoing suspension of operations, including consular services, at U.S. consulates in Russia," the State Department said in a message posted to its website .

'What a nightmare in Crocus,' Widow of opposition leader Alexei Navalny condolences about concert attack

Yulia Navalnaya, the widow of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny who died in prison last month, expressed her condolences about the attack Friday.

"What a nightmare in Crocus," Navalnaya wrote on X. "Condolences to the families of the victims and quick recovery to the injured. Everyone involved in this crime must be found and held accountable."

320 firefighters, 3 helicopters working to put out fire

Russia's Ministry of Emergency Situations said the number of rescue crews responding to the attack is growing and now includes more than 320 firefighters, 130 emergency vehicles and three helicopters dumping water on the burning concert venue.

Moscow regional governor says 40 dead, more than 100 injured

Moscow Regional Governor Andrei Vorobyov said on Telegram that at least 40 people are dead and more than 100 injured in the terrorist attack, confirming figures previously reported by Russian state news.

Putin informed about concert venue attack 'in the first minutes,' Kremlin spokesperson says

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said President Vladimir Putin was informed about the shooting at the Crocus concert hall "in the first minutes" of the attack, Russian state news agency RIA reported.

The president is receiving information about what is happening and the measures being taken through all relevant services and is giving necessary instructions, Peskov said according to RIA.

Russian journalist was inside concert venue when gunmen entered

Russian news agency RIA Novosti said on Telegram that one of its reporters was inside the venue when gunmen entered and began shooting concertgoers.

The journalist said that at least three unmasked gunmen in camouflage entered the hall a few minutes before 8 p.m. Moscow time. They shot people point-blank and threw incendiary bombs, according to the journalist.

Russia's foreign ministry spokesperson calls incident 'bloody terrorist attack'

Maria Zakharova, spokesperson for Russia's foreign ministry, called the Friday night incident at the Crocus City Hall in Moscow a "bloody terrorist attack" as she called for "strong condemnation" from the international community.

"Now, as the Russian authorities have stated, all efforts are being devoted to saving people," Zakharova said. "The entire world community is obliged to condemn this monstrous crime!"

U.S. national security spokesperson says embassy has told Americans to avoid large gatherings in Moscow

Kyla Guilfoil

National Security Council Spokesman John Kirby addressed the attack in Moscow at a White House press briefing Friday afternoon, calling it a “terrible, terrible shooting attack.”

“The images are just horrible and just hard to watch and our thoughts obviously are going to be with the the victims,” Kirby said.

Kirby added that the U.S. embassy has notified all Americans in Moscow to avoid large gatherings, concerts, shopping malls, etc., and “stay put where they are” for their safety.

Russian media says 40 dead, more than 100 injured at concert attack

TASS, Russia's state-owned news agency, and RIA Novosti are reporting that Russia's FSB security agency has put the preliminary casualty count at 40 dead and more than 100 injured by a terrorist attack on a Moscow-area concert venue.

NBC News has not confirmed those casualty numbers.

Roof of concert venue at risk of collapse, Russian media says

Russian news agency RIA Novosti said on Telegram that the roof of the building near the concert venue's stage has begun to collapse.

Video posted to Telegram by RIA Novosti showed fire continue to blaze inside the venue.

Moscow area governor says more than 70 ambluances at scene of attack

Andrei Vorobyov, Moscow's regional governor, said on Telegram that more than 70 ambulances have been dispatched to the scene of concert venue attack.

“Everything is being done at the scene to save people," he wrote in the Telegram message. "The Special Rapid Response Unit (SOBR) has been deployed. There are over 70 ambulance carriages near Crocus, doctors provide the necessary assistance to all victims."

Nigel Chiwaya

Russia’s prosecutor general office says number of victims still being determined

Russia's prosecutor general said on Telegram that officials are working to determine how many people have been killed or hurt in the concert attack.

“On behalf of Igor Krasnov, the prosecutor of the Moscow region has gone to the scene of the incident at Crocus City Hall to coordinate the actions of law enforcement agencies," the prosecutor general's Telegram account posted. "Tonight, before the start of the event in the concert hall in Krasnogorsk, unknown men in camouflage clothes broke into the building and started shooting."

"The number of victims is being determined, a fire started in the entertainment center building, and citizens are being evacuated."

Moscow's mayor cancels weekend events

Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin said on Telegram that he was canceling all public events in Moscow this weekend.

"I have taken the decision to cancel all sports, cultural and other public events in Moscow this weekend," he said. "I ask of you to treat this measure with understanding."

Popular rock band was to play sold-out venue that can hold 9,500

Tim Stelloh

A popular rock band was scheduled to play what appeared to be a sold-out show at the Moscow concert hall where there were reports of gunmen in combat fatigues opening fire.

Picnic, formed in 1978, was to play at Crocus City Hall, west of central Moscow.

The multilevel facility in Krasnogorsk has a maximum capacity of 9,527 people. Booking sites show the event was sold out.

Russia's aviation agency says additional security added to Moscow airports

The Russian aviation agency Rosaviatsiya said that additional security measures are being introduced in Moscow airports

"Due to increased security measures, we ask passengers to arrive at Sheremetyevo, Domodedovo, Vnukovo and Zhukovsky airports in advance," the agency said on the Telegram messaging app.

Moscow's emergency ministry says it is working to extinguish fire

Moscow’s emegency ministry said it was working to extinguish a fire that began at the music venue.

The ministry said about 100 people were evacuated from the building, and it was working to rescue people from the roof.

Russian media says state security taking action

Russia's news outlet RIA Novosti said that the country's security agency, the FSB, is taking measures to respond to the shooting at a concert hall near Moscow.

Videos posted by Russian media show men with rifles moving through area

Extended rounds of gunfire could be heard on multiple videos posted by Russian media and Telegram channels. One showed two men with rifles moving through a concert hall. Another one showed a man inside the auditorium, saying the assailants set it on fire, with incessant gunshots ringing out in the background.

Andrei Vorobyov, the governor of the Moscow region, said he was heading to the area and set up a task force to deal with the damage. He didn’t immediately offer any further details.

Russian media reports said that riot police units were being sent to the area as people were being evacuated.

Russian news outlets report gunman opened fire at Moscow concert hall

Several gunmen in combat fatigues burst into a big concert hall in Moscow on Friday and fired automatic weapons at the crowd, injuring an unspecified number of people, Russian media said.

Russian news reports said that the assailants also used explosives, causing a massive blaze at the Crocus City Hall on the western edge of Moscow. Video posted on social media showed huge plumes of black smoke rising over the building.

Russia’s state RIA Novosti news agency reported that at least three people in combat fatigues fired weapons. The state Tass news agency also reported the shooting.

U.S. warned of imminent Moscow attack by ‘extremists,’ urges citizens to avoid crowds

Patrick Smith

U.S. citizens in  Moscow  had been warned to avoid large gatherings earlier this month because of heightened fears of a terrorist attack.

The U.S. Embassy in the Russian capital said it was “monitoring reports that extremists have imminent plans to target large gatherings in Moscow, to include concerts, and U.S. citizens should be advised to avoid large gatherings over the next 48 hours.”

U.S. citizens should avoid crowds, monitor local media for updates and “be aware of your surroundings,” it said in a brief  online update .

Read the full story here.