ETHICS OF JESUS. Widely lauded, and variously interpreted, the ethics of Jesus constitute not only a standing reproach of human sin and moral weakness but also a vivid picture of the kind of people His followers should and can be.

Outline

I. Interpretation

A. Major schools of thought

1. Absolutist. A number of interpreters have understood the ethics of Jesus in ways that have emphasized the absolute nature of its demands. Though their ideas vary, they have in common that they take the teaching with the utmost seriousness. Yet, for the most part, they fail to relate it in its rigor to life here and now.

The following summary may be noted: (1) The view characteristic of Lutheran orthodoxy is that the ethical teaching is intended not so much as a guide to life but as a means of bringing us to repentance for our failure to live up to it. (2) The interim-ethic view put forward by J. Weiss and A. Schweitzer is that the rigor of Jesus’ ethics was conditioned by His conviction that the eschatological coming of the kingdom was imminent. The severity of His teaching is explained by the theory that it was intended only as “emergency regulations” for the brief interim period prior to its coming. (3) The extreme dispensationalist interpretation insists that the Sermon on the Mount, at least, is the ethics of the future kingdom of God, which is to be established on earth subsequent to the Second Advent (though it is conceived as having a secondary application to the Christian here and now). (4) Superficially similar to the foregoing is the view held by Dibelius and others that the teaching is a declaration of the divine will, unconditioned by any consideration of expediency. As such, however, it is designed to shock people into action. (5) Bultmann, in his view, asserts that the stark demands of Jesus constitute an existential call for decision. (6) Finally, there is the view expounded by scholars such as Windisch and more recently by J. Knox, that the teaching was intended to be rigorous, and that its severity should be taken seriously. It must be interpreted faithfully, and applied absolutely and universally. Of those who have attempted to practice it in its full rigor, the most celebrated is Tolstoi.

2. Modified. Other interpretations have, in one way or another, modified the ethical teaching of Jesus.

Early in the history of the Church, the idea of the “double standard” was applied to Jesus’ ethics. According to this view, whereas the basic commands apply universally, the advice given over and above these commands is relevant only to those who voluntarily apply them to themselves. Less is therefore expected of the rank and file than of those who, for example, embrace the “religious” vocation.

Luther, although strenuously repudiating the idea of a double standard, nevertheless argued strongly for the idea of “two realms,” in only one of which the rigorous teaching applies—the spiritual realm, by which he understood the sphere of personal relationships. In the temporal realm, that of the Christian-in-relation, special guidance is not needed. The law of the land and the natural law provide all the guidance that is needed.

In other ways the ethical teaching has been toned down. Some have so emphasized the fig., and esp. the hyperbolic nature of the language in which the teaching was given, as to modify it more or less drastically. Others have interpreted it in the light of the general tenor of Scripture, and have thereby reduced its severity. Some have simply toned it down to make it more practicable.

3. Reinterpreted. Remaining to be considered are methods of interpretation that view the teaching in a wider light than that cast by the words themselves.

Some regard Jesus’ teaching as commanding or forbidding not merely the particular acts specified, but also any other action of a similar kind. This application of the teaching in terms of acts tends to focus attention on the external side of morality.

Others see the particular acts commanded or forbidden as representing the outworking of inner attitudes. These, it is held, should be embodied, not only in the acts specified but also in others. This view has a similar effect to the previous one, but focuses attention on the inner attitude rather than the outer act.

B. Principal factors involved.

1. The setting. It is impossible to abstract the ethical teaching of Jesus from its total setting without seriously distorting it. T. W. Manson has shown that the idea of ethics as an autonomous discipline of thought is unbiblical. It is important therefore to give attention to some aspects of the religious setting of the ethics of Jesus—law, eschatology, and gospel.

a. In relation to the law. Jesus came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17, 18). This means, on the one hand, that He endorsed it. This He did, first, by yielding to it an obedience that was unique. Not only in moral matters but also in its wider connotation, Jesus abode by the law (Matt 17:27; 23:23; Mark 14:12). Second, He endorsed its teaching, subsuming all under the twofold head of love to God and neighbor (Matt 22:37-40).

On the other hand, since to fulfill includes in its meaning “to bring to fullness of completion” (J. F. A. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 15) Jesus reinterpreted and reapplied as well as reinforced the law. On His own authority, He rejected scribal interpretations not only of ceremonial matters, e.g. the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28; 3:1-6; Luke 13:10-17; 14:1-6), fasting (Mark 2:18-22), and ceremonial purity (Matt 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23; Luke 11:37-41), but also of moral issues (Matt 5:21-47). Furthermore, He reinterpreted the role of law in such a way as to elevate the moral law to a position of eminence greater even than that accorded it in the OT. He set aside the principle of ceremonial purity (Mark 7:15, 18-23); stripped away the traditions of men that served to obscure the moral demands of the law (Matt 15:3-9); and asserted the primacy of moral requirements within the law as a whole (Matt 12:1-8; cf. 23:23).

In the light of the insistence of the prophets on the worthlessness of ceremony apart from obedience to the moral law, and indeed on the primacy of the latter over the former, this is not altogether novel. But attention has been drawn by J. I. Packer in Our Lord’s Understanding of the Law of God (9ff.) to the new “depth of exposition” and “stress in application” in the ethical teaching of Jesus. The former—seen in the obligation to love enemies and to forgive and love others as oneself—arises from the fuller revelation of the character of God in the person of Jesus Himself. The latter—seen in the stress on qualities of character such as humility, meekness, and generosity, rather than on externally correct behavior alone—reflects the positive functions of the new covenant that Jesus had come to establish, in contrast to the largely negative functions of the old covenant.

The newness of the teaching of Jesus should not be overstated. Even the antitheses of Matthew 5:21ff. are concerned with correcting the oral law and drawing out the implications of the provisions of the moral law. W. D. Davies describes them in terms of exegesis rather than antithesis.

Deeply rooted in the law and the prophets, the ethical teaching of Jesus consists of authoritative pronouncements that draw out the deepest implications of the law of God in the light of a fuller revelation of the character of God. As such, they constitute a moral demand of the highest order, even though—as will be noted later—they are not to be thought of merely in terms of legal requirements.

b. In relation to eschatology. (1) Consistent. The theory of consistent eschatology, associated with Weiss and Schweitzer, marked a vigorous reaction against the depreciation of the eschatological element in the teaching of Jesus that was prevalent at the beginning of the 20th cent. In sharp contrast to the Ritschlian view of scholars such as Harnack who maintained that the eschatological element was merely formal, the shell within which lay the kernel of the moral teaching, it was asserted that “the whole of ethics lies under the concept of repentance—penitence for the past and the determination to live henceforward liberated from everything earthly in expectation of the Messianic kingdom” (Schweitzer). A rigorist ethic, such as Jesus taught, could only be relevant for the short interim period of life to be lived under “emergency regulations” before the apocalyptic coming of the kingdom.

This theory, as Dean Inge pointed out, “makes Christ a psychological monster and His character an insoluble enigma.” The Early Church did not so understand His teaching, doubtless remembering His parting words (Matt 28:18-20). Furthermore, it has been argued that the ethical teaching is not always directly colored by eschatological considerations. Indeed, as C. W. Emmet has pointed out, “where the contents of the teaching might be regarded as determined by the eschatological outlook, the eschatological motive is conspicuously absent” (Expositor [1912], 429). As already noted, the ethics of Jesus are deeply rooted in the ethical teaching of the OT.

(2) Realized. This reaction against consistent eschatology is based upon those statements and parables in the gospels that indicate that the kingdom of God has come in the person and work of Jesus. The ethical teaching is therefore set in the context not of the interim period prior to the coming of the kingdom, but of the kingdom itself.

This view is a necessary corrective to consistent eschatology, avoiding much of the naivety of the Ritschlian presentation of the ethics of Jesus. For it asserts that divine initiative has been put forward in the coming of Jesus that has fulfilled the scriptural prophecies. Nevertheless, it fails to do adequate justice to the evidence presented in the gospels that shows that Jesus spoke in terms of the Second Advent. Not even the modification of this view indicated by the revision of the term “realized eschatology” to “inaugurated eschatology” can deflect the cutting edge of this criticism.

(3) Futurist. The view of some dispensationalists that the ethical teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, if not the ethical teaching of Jesus as a whole, is related to the future millennial kingdom to be set up on earth after the Second Advent, would seem to indicate another presentation that fails to do justice to the scriptural data. Only strained exegesis can deny the force of Matthew 12:28, which asserts that the kingdom of God “has come.” The references in the sermon to the malevolent activity of persecutors (Matt 5:11, 12, 44) and the whole context of life in a mixed society cannot be accommodated to the millennial kingdom. The proffered explanation that there is a secondary reference to the life of the Christian in contemporary society is more ingenious than convincing.

(4) Suggested approach. Though none of the above-mentioned views commends itself as adequate, each contains some element of truth. Taken together, these point the way to an understanding of the relation between the ethics of Jesus and the kingdom of God.

There is surely a sense in which the ethic is rooted in the idea of the kingdom as an eternal fact, independent of all earthly contingencies—nothing less than the sovereignty of God. This explains its absoluteness and the magnitude of its demand: “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48).

At the same time, “realized eschatology” has some contribution to make to the understanding of the teaching. It is evident that it was given for action here and now. Attested by significant signs, the presence of the King was a sure indication that the kingdom of God had come. As the teacher par excellence, Jesus expounded with the full weight of His divine authority the moral principles of the kingdom to those who recognized Him for what He was.

It is equally clear that the consummation of the kingdom was—and is—still future. Present in the world and dynamically active among men, the kingdom has not yet filled the sphere of human society, and there are inadequate grounds for believing that it will do so, apart from direct divine intervention.

Therefore, Jesus’ ethics can best be interpreted in terms of the dynamic concept of God’s rule that has already manifested itself in His person, but will come to its consummation only as a result of new eschatological action (see G. E. Ladd).

c. In relation to the Gospel. There are many who see the ethical teaching of Jesus as the heart, if not the sum and substance of the Christian message. This has been particularly true of liberal Protestantism, as exemplified in A. von Harnack and the exponents of the “social gospel.”

A necessary corrective to this has been provided by the distinction drawn by C. H. Dodd between κήρυγμα, G3060, and διδαχή, G1439, &--;even if the distinction has been overdrawn at times. Religion and ethics, though closely linked, are not to be confused, still less identified. Just as OT ethics had a religious basis and law was a function of covenant; so in the NT ethics and religion are not to be confused, for teaching followed preaching of the Gospel. Does the teaching of Jesus bear out the contention—which needs to be raised not only against liberal Protestantism but also against the New Morality adherents—that Christian ethics is essentially ethics for disciples? There are clear indications that it does.

Attention must be drawn, in the first place, to the fact that the ethical teaching of Jesus is essentially personalistic. He taught on the basis of His own authority (“I say to you”); called men to follow Him; and evoked a response on the basis not of compulsion nor even of compliance with legal requirements, but of loving and glad obedience to Himself (John 14:15). In His teaching, “for righteousness’ sake” (Matt 5:10) and “on my account” (5:11) are interchangeable terms. Although He taught moral imperatives and His very precept of love was formulated as a command (John 13:34), and despite the fact that He took His stand on the Mosaic law, yet He was no mere lawgiver, a new Moses and no more. Whereas the law of Moses derived its sanction from the fact that it was also the law of God, the law of Christ (Gal 6:2) stands in its own right in dynamic relationship to His person.

Furthermore, in His ethical teaching, Jesus called for a radical transformation of character. “Repent and believe in the Gospel” was His first command, and response to it was, and is, the essential prerequisite. Since He taught that the heart of man is the source of moral defilement (Matt 15:19, 20), it is hardly surprising that He called for the transformation of character at its source (12:33). The tree must be made good if its fruit is to be good.

The ethical teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount is clearly set in a context of grace. Addressed to disciples, the ethical demands are preceded by the beatitudes that, far from being rewards promised for virtuous behavior, are compelling expressions of divine grace. True, the form critics see this context as the work of the Early Church; Jeremias, for example, regards the sermon as an early Christian catechism in which scattered sayings of Jesus were gathered together in what he agrees is a context of grace. Such a setting is, however, in perfect harmony with the general setting of the ethical teaching, which—as the ethics of the kingdom—is the ethics of the new covenant, the way of life of the people of God, and the ethics of the new heart and the new spirit. Only those who have repented and committed themselves to discipleship, those who are the followers of Jesus—as T. W. Manson points out in Ethics and the Gospel—are the proper objects of His teaching.

2. The form. a. Literary. There is no evidence to suggest that the ethical teaching of Jesus was delivered systematically. Certainly in its recorded form it bears the character of scattered sayings; even the Sermon on the Mount is not an ethical treatise. Furthermore, since the sayings were often given in response to questions on particular issues, or in the context of situations in life, they express “with dazzling finality one aspect only of eternal truth, and that the aspect which on the particular occasion needed to be emphasized” (S. Cave, The Christian Way, p. 45). It is patently obvious that the teaching thus given was frequently expressed in fig. language. Metaphor and hyperbole, together with simile, parable and paradox, were used with great effect to give force to the teaching. One may attempt to rationalize a camel going through the eye of a needle, but the speck and the log, the gnat and the camel are not easily interpreted literally. Nor is the command to cut off the offending hand or foot, or to pluck out the eye that causes sin.

It is a cardinal principle of literary interpretation, Biblical as well as secular, that due attention should be paid to the literary form employed. This is not to say that the meaning is to be toned down, but that it should be understood in accordance with the mode in which it is expressed. It is therefore necessary to recognize metaphor, hyperbole, and the rest, and to interpret accordingly, without in any way lessening the intended force of the teaching. Not always is it easy, esp. for occidentals, to recognize oriental use of fig. language. L. Dewar’s suggestion, that the teaching should be interpreted metaphorically when to understand it literally involves a reductio ad absurdum, remains a subjective criterion. Nevertheless, despite the difficulties, it is clear that, just as “seventy times seven” is not to be understood mathematically, so the command to pray in secret is not to be understood so as to forbid public prayer.

b. Didactic. Not only the literary form of the teaching needs to be taken into account, what might be called the didactic form must also be recognized. The suggestion made by Anderson Scott that the ethical injunctions fall into different categories is worthy of serious consideration.

Not only formally expressed but also underlying the ethical teaching as a whole, Anderson Scott discerned a single commandment—love to God and neighbor. Alongside this mandate are numerous examples that serve to illustrate specific ways in which love may come to expression. The sayings about turning the other cheek, giving the cloak as well as the coat, going the second mile, and giving to all who ask, are therefore illustrations of the length to which love is prepared to go in typical situations. It would clearly run contrary to the general tenor of the teaching of Jesus to interpret such sayings merely as legal requirements to be interpreted literally and obeyed formally. Rather, they would seem to be examples of the kind of response that those obedient to the command to love will be prepared to give in provoking circumstances. The guidance provided by such examples, must, however, be balanced by other guidance given. For example, it can hardly be disputed that there are circumstances in which we are expected not to “give” (cf. Matt 7:6).

In addition to the mandate and examples, Anderson Scott finds consilia that he regards as sayings giving urgent advice to particular people in particular circumstances. They are, therefore, not to be taken as necessarily incumbent upon everyone. Jesus’ command to the rich young ruler to sell his possessions and give all to the poor was addressed to him personally in the light of his particular spiritual condition and is not to be generalized.

This distinction should not be confused with the distinction between basic commands incumbent upon all and additional advice that is voluntary. The latter has served only to produce a double standard with its concomitant, the acquisition of merit for going beyond obedience to the commands laid upon all. The former is an aid to seeing more clearly the central thrust of Jesus’ ethical teaching and the kind of practical application that may be given to it.

The emphasis upon love as the central and governing factor in Jesus’ ethics is sharply distinct from the view maintained by exponents of the New Morality who advocate that “love” is the guide to moral decisions. For the love of Jesus’ teaching is the love of the Father, which demands religious expression as well as ethical activism; there is no religionless ethic in the gospels.

C. Pointers to proper interpretation. The ethical teaching of Jesus was clearly intended to be taken seriously. With all the weight of His messianic and divine authority, Jesus reasserted the fundamental moral principles of the OT law and prophets. In doing so He focused OT imperatives with a new intensity, showing that these extended to thought as well as act, to motive as well as deed. With striking clarity, He revealed the moral demands of the kingdom of God that was now active in His person, and He portrayed with bold strokes the character as well as the conduct appropriate to His followers. Couched in pictorial and vivid language of the Orient, its interpretation calls for a proper understanding of its literary and didactic form. Furthermore, the Christian who reads it in the gospels as part of the completed revelation of Scripture is duty bound to interpret it in the light of the overall teaching of Scripture.

II. Contents

A. Negative teaching. The ethics of Jesus includes His forthright denunciation of evil. The call to repent (Mark 1:15), to deny the self (Mark 8:34) and to follow Jesus involves the repudiation of one way of life in favor of another.

By comparison with the teaching of Paul, little is said in condemnation of sexual sins. This was undoubtedly because of the relatively high standard of teaching and practice among the Jews. Nevertheless, enough is said to show that Jesus regarded as fundamentally evil such things as fornication, adultery, and licentiousness (Mark 7:21-23), and, in addition, lustful desire (Matt 5:28).

Theft, murder (including the angry thought or word of Matt 5:22), and malicious acts of any kind are also condemned, as also is slander or abusive speech (Mark 7:21, 22). A number of attitudes and dispositions also find their place in Jesus’ denunciation of evil. These include thoughts that are mental processes calculated to expedite malicious acts—covetousness, or the insatiable desire to have more; deceitfulness; jealousy; arrogance; and moral insensibility (7:21, 22).

Some of the sins denounced by Jesus can only be described as sins of a religious complexion. Religious observances undertaken in such a way as to foster pride received His condemnation (Matt 6:1-5; 23:5-7). Nor did He spare the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (Matt 23). Modern research that shows that the Pharisees were, by and large, as outwardly righteous as they claimed to be has caused some to question the rightness of Jesus’ denunciation of them. Their hypocrisy, however, lay not so much in conscious deception as in the moral blindness and self-righteousness that blinded their sensibilities. Theirs may not have been conscious hypocrisy, but it was hypocrisy nonetheless.

B. Positive teaching

1. Personal ethics. In His summary of the law, Jesus provided also a summary of His positive ethical teaching. This is found in the command to love God and neighbor (Matt 22:37-39) and the Golden Rule (7:12). Despite parallels in Judaism, such teaching was nonetheless unique. Here alone, love to God and love to neighbor are specifically linked together and related to each other. Furthermore, the command to love is given unprecedented preeminence in the teaching of Jesus. Rabbi Akiba may have quoted the OT (Lev 19:18) as the summation of the teaching of the law, but he saw it as standing alongside the rest of the law, both written and oral. Hillel may have used the Golden Rule, but only in its negative form. Moreover, Jesus radicalized love by revealing love in its fullest meaning—not only in His teaching, but also in His life. In particular, He universalized the meaning of love by specifically extending the term “neighbor” beyond the bounds of those who have a claim upon us (Luke 10:29-37; cf. Matt 5:43-47). This He demonstrated in His own life through His compassion.

Love to God is a command that is absolute and unqualified. It involves all the heart, soul, and mind. Such a love overrides all other claims, and demands the subordination of every lesser love. By comparison, therefore, love for father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, is hatred (Luke 14:26; cf. Matt 10:37). Since no man can serve two masters, the love and service of God entails lack of concern for material possessions and prospects. Such things are to be regarded as expendable items in the service of the kingdom of God, and their supply is not to be a matter of excessive concern, but can safely be left in the Father’s hands (Matt 6:19-34; Luke 12:13-34).

Love for neighbor is inseparably linked with love for God, though it is no substitute for it. John 15:12 indicates the extent love must go in the context of the fellowship of Christ. Love in the ethical teaching of Jesus is not merely a sentiment of affection; indeed, sentiment is not of primary importance. The parable of the Good Samaritan and the injunctions to do good without counting the cost (Matt 5:42; Luke 6:38) show that in essence is the performance of good to others.

One manifestation of love esp. emphasized by Jesus is readiness to forgive others their trespasses (Matt 6:12, 14, 15; 18:21-35; Mark 11:25; Luke 11:4; 17:3, 4). This is to be viewed not as the cause but as the result and the assurance of having received divine forgiveness. It is to be exercised without limitation of any kind, though its effect will be conditioned by the degree of willingness on the part of the offending party to receive it.

A forgiving spirit combines with the attitudes of humility, meekness, and service as characteristic of the true disciple of Jesus. The meek who inherit the earth (Matt 5:5) have a capacity to absorb evil and to overcome it with good (5:38-41; Luke 6:27-29). Anderson Scott has suggested that most of Jesus’ injunctions can be grouped under two headings—“Do not press for your rights,” and “Do more than your duties.”

2. Social ethics. That there is little explicit social teaching in the gospels is not necessarily because Jesus had a foreshortened view of the future. It does indicate that Jesus was more concerned with the fundamental matter of personal ethics than with the construction of a blueprint or even the enunciation of principles designed to lead to the transformation of society. This is not surprising if He did not come to establish the kingdom in its fullness and if its consummation still awaits His second coming. It is not without significance that attempts to give full form to the kingdom of God on earth have unfailingly ended in disillusionment.

At the same time, since the kingdom is at work in the world, its presence must make itself felt, even as the presence of salt and light cannot be hid (Matt 5:13-16). This should be true at the physical and material levels of ministry as well as the spiritual, even as the presence of the kingdom in the person of Jesus touched all levels of human need. Granted that Jesus held aloof from political and military affairs, He nevertheless enunciated general principles of love and service within the community of His disciples (Mark 9:33-37; 10:35-44) and to any who are in need (Luke 10:30-37), and made pronouncements on several specific issues within the field of social ethics.

a. Duty to the state. The question raised by the Pharisees and Herodians regarding the payment of taxes was clearly designed as a trap to ensnare Jesus (Matt 22:15-22). His answer not only defeated their purpose but also clearly revealed the duty of His followers to discharge such debts as they owe to the state as well as those they owe to God. In this way Jesus distinguished the secular and the sacred without dividing them, and united the two spheres in which disciples have to live without unifying them (R. V. G. Tasker). Possible tension between the twofold duty was not resolved by this pronouncement, but the implication is clear that duties to the state must not take precedence over duties owed to God, and it can hardly be doubted that Peter and John acted in accordance with this principle (Acts 4:18-20).

b. Marriage and divorce. Another testing question prompted the teaching of Jesus on this subject (Matt 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; cf. Matt 5:31, 32; Luke 16:18). Again He avoided involvement in current wrangles, this time by taking His questioners back to the creation ordinance (Gen 2:24), thus showing marriage to be a lifelong union not to be dissolved by man. In answer to a rejoinder, He explained the Mosaic concession as necessitated by the “hardness of heart” of men. If Matthew’s account is compared with Mark’s, it may be seen that further teaching on the subject was given “in the house” in reply to questions from the disciples. The Matthaean exception was therefore given to the disciples rather than to the Pharisees. This averts the force of the argument that Jesus would hardly have allowed Himself to become embroiled in the Hillel-Shammai controversy by aligning Himself with one school—the stricter—that argued that divorce was permissible only in the case of unchastity in the wife.

Some scholars, usually anxious to preserve the absolute indissolubility of marriage, deny the dominical authority of the Matthaean exception—but without any objective evidence. Those who accept its genuineness differ in their interpretation of the meaning of πορνεία, G4518. Some regard it in the light of its use elsewhere in the NT (1 Cor 5:1), as referring to “marriage” contracted within the prohibited degrees, or understand it to mean prenuptial unchastity. In both these cases, the indissolubility of marriage can be maintained, since in neither case can the “divorce” envisaged be understood as other than a declaration of the nullity of the “marriage” from the beginning. On the other hand, a considerable number of scholars—evangelicals among them—take πορνεία, G4518, to mean postmarital unchastity, and therefore envisage a situation where the marriage bond is so ruptured as to be beyond repair. In such circumstances, divorce and remarriage are not to be regarded as constituting adultery.

If this seems to be a striking conclusion, so too is the recognition of the equal rights of the sexes (Mark 10:12). Here is something without parallel in Judaism.

Jesus indicated in reply to the disciples’ further question, three categories of those who are exempt from the divine plan for men and women (Matt 19:12). These may be paraphrased as those constitutionally unfitted for marriage; those involuntarily prevented from marrying; and those who refrain from entering that estate to give themselves unreservedly to the work of the kingdom of God. This is however, no elevation of celibacy over marriage, or vice versa, but a statement anticipatory of Paul’s aphorism, “Each has his own special gift from God” (1 Cor 7:7).

III. Sanctions

The ethical teaching of Jesus is far more than good advice. It is authoritative to the highest degree, and its authority involves sanctions. The most striking of these is the appeal to rewards and penalties of an eschatological nature.

Rewards are offered for enduring persecution (Matt 5:12), practicing love (Matt 6:14; Luke 14:13, 14; 18:22), humility (Luke 14:10, 11), and renunciation (Mark 10:29, 30). Rewards appear to be offered as a quid pro quo and are sometimes graduated according to the extent to which a duty is performed (Luke 19:17, 19). Punishment is similarly threatened and sometimes graduated (12:47, 48).

It has often been pointed out that all this serves to underline the gravity of moral choices, and some have asserted that the rewards offered by Jesus are the inevitable issue of goodness, just as victory is the reward for success in battle. The prominence given by Jesus to the theme of reward still seems reminiscent of Judaism, with its tendency to think of virtue as meritorious.

The problem is eased when it is noted that Jesus promised rewards only to those who were prepared to follow Him from some other motive. The righteous will be astonished by their reward (Matt 25:31-46); the reward will far outweigh any claim that might conceivably be made (20:1-16); and in fact the most faithful service represents no more than our duty (Luke 17:7-10). “Reward, in fact, is not reward, but grace” (K. E. Kirk, The Vision of God, 144). The essence of the reward is the kingdom itself (Matt 5:3, 10) and the privilege of discipleship (Luke 14:26, 27, 33), so it is hardly likely to appeal to the self-centered. Kirk’s further suggestion that the prominence of the idea of reward is a warning against undue emphasis on “duty for duty’s sake” that can only lead to self-satisfaction and pride, is also worthy of notice.

The eschatological element is prominent in the sanctions of Jesus’ ethics, and it will not do to regard this as purely formal, as Wilder does. Since Jesus’ ethic is that of the kingdom of God that awaits its final consummation, the life of the disciple is to be lived in the light not only of His first advent but also of His second. The “futurist” eschatology of the gospels, as well as the “realized” element, is ethical through and through. The Olivet Discourse has as its primary object the exhortation to spiritual and moral watchfulness (Matt 24; cf. 25). The pure will of God lies at the heart of the matter, but this is related by Jesus not only to the past revelation of that will in the law and the prophets, and to its present manifestation in His person and mission, but also to the future consummation when “he will repay every man for what he has done” (16:27).

Bibliography T. Walker, The Teaching of Jesus and the Jewish Teaching of His Age (1923); C. A. Anderson Scott, New Testament Ethics (1930), 1-72; K. E. Kirk, The Vision of God (1931), 140-146; T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (1931); W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah (1943); L. H. Marshall, The Challenge of New Testament Ethics (1947), 1-215; L. Dewar, An Outline of New Testament Ethics (1949), 1-121; S. Cave, The Christian Way (1949); A. N. Wilder, Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus rev. ed. (1950); C. H. Dodd, Gospel and Law (1951); H. Windisch, The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount, Eng. tr. (1951); P. Ramsey, Basic Christian Ethics (1952); A. M. Hunter, Design for Life (1953); C. F. H. Henry, Christian Personal Ethics (1957); T. W. Manson, Ethics and the Gospel (1960); J. Jeremias, The Sermon on the Mount (1961); H. K. McArthur, Understanding the Sermon on the Mount (1961); W. Lillie, Studies in New Testament Ethics (1961); J. Knox, The Ethic of Jesus in the Teaching of the Church (1962); J. I. Packer, Our Lord’s Understanding of the Law of God (1962); J. A. T. Robinson, Honest to God (1963), 110-121; W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (1964); G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom (1964), 274-300.