Discourse on ostentation

The discourse on ostentation, . The word translated "trespass" here is different from that occurring in the prayer, and the brief commentary is often considered to have been appended to the prayer in order to make it possible to smoothly return to the discourse. The other possibility is that the "commentary" was the original, as for example claimed in [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=547&letter=L&search=Lord's%20Prayer Jewish Encyclopedia: Lord's Prayer] : "On closer analysis it becomes apparent that the closing verses, Matt. vi. 14-15, refer solely to the prayer for forgiveness. Consequently the original passage was identical with Mark xi. 25; and the Lord's Prayer in its entirety is a later insertion in Matthew. Possibly the whole was taken over from the "Didache" (viii. 2), which in its original Jewish form may have contained the prayer exactly as "the disciples of John" were wont to recite it."

See also Prayer in the New Testament.

Fasting

The third section of the discourse, concerning fasting, is the smallest. Fasting was seen as an important part of piety in this period, and all Jews were expected to fast on major holidays, such as Yom Kippur. Matthew describes Jesus as decrying those that make a public spectacle of their piety, and assures his followers that the only reward for such behaviour is public adulation, instead arguing that God will be able to see piety even if it is carried out in secret. Jesus is described as instructing people not to "disfigure their faces", which may refer to putting ash on the face, a Jewish practice to publicly announce that one is fasting, which is barely preserved in Christianity, only really occurring for Ash Wednesday. Indeed, Matthew describes Jesus as instructing people to go further and hide any discomfort by "anointing the head, and washing the face", which at the time were daily hygiene practices.

Materialism

The final section of the discourse, concerning materialism, is its biggest. It begins by pointing out the futility of amassing "treasure", when it erodes and decays, particularly moths destroying (natural) fabric, rust destroying (corrosive) metal, and thieves stealing what has been amassed. In that era, clothing was a major investment, and, since only natural fiber was available, its destruction by moths was quite a tragedy. The discourse asserts that spiritual investment cannot be threatened by others, and is hence secure, a somewhat rational argument similar to Pascal's Wager, though it neglects the consideration of evangelism, missionaries, and conversion, by other faiths. The metaphor of heaven as a storehouse for spiritual treasure is also found in several early first century Jewish works.

This is followed by a metaphor based on the ancient belief that the eye was the "window" of the soul. Essentially it states that a "haplous" eye will bring "light" into the body, while an "evil eye" will bring "darkness". "Haplous" literally means "single", but this leaves the metaphor quite obscure. "Haplous" can also mean "generous", and hence the metaphor would mean that a "generous" soul ("eye") receives light while a miserly one does not. In the Greek Septuagint, however, "haplous" is used to translate the Hebrew term which meant "singleness of purpose", and so scholars who disagree with a command to generosity generally believe the metaphor to be referring to "light" being received by people who did not deviate from focus on God. A few scholars think that it was deliberately ambiguous between the two meanings, to argue both for generosity and for religious devotion. The metaphor of light as holiness and darkness as an evil is found in much ancient literature from the early church, such as the Qumran literature and the Gospel of John. Quite why it is in the discourse on materialism if it does not refer to "generosity" has a tendency to be a question that isn't addressed.

After this metaphor, materialism is presented as the polar opposite to spirituality, using the argument that "no man can serve two masters", which has become well known. In Luke, this phrase is presented as a reference to servants, but in Matthew it uses terminology specifically pointing to slavery, and while labourers would frequently have more than one employer, it was more impossible for a slave to, hence Matthew's wording is generally seen by scholars as more plausibly the original. However, Acts mentions a slave that does have multiple masters, although reading the phrase as having the meaning "no man can be equally loyal to two masters" offers a way out of this counter argument, by arguing one master will eventually become the preferred one, this remains an implausible situation not an impossible one.

This argument is then spelt out explicitly as pointing to it being impossible for one to serve both "God and Mammon". Given the context, "Mammon" is clearly used as a reference to materialism, greed, and lust for money. Traditionally "Mammon" was believed to be the name of a foreign deity, synonymous with greed, but no evidence has ever surfaced pointing to such a deity existing. It has consequently become uncertain from where the word originated, but it does appear to have been used as a synonym for money and possessions in other Jewish literature, though as a neutral term, sometimes seen as a good thing, such as using "Mammon" to make donations, and at other times, such as in the Book of Enoch, as a negative contrast to pursuit of holiness. Not being able to serve "God and Mammon" has often been used to condemn excessive consumption, the pursuit of wealth, and in mediaeval arguments about whether it was right for Bishops and Monks to enjoy wealth and high living, but most Protestant capitalists generally disagree with this interpretation, instead viewing it as a condemnation of applauding the pursuit of wealth, not the pursuit itself.

The discourse then argues that there is more to life than food and clothing, and that focusing on such things would distract from focusing on God. While most modern translations mention concern over both food and drink at this point, several ancient manuscripts lack mention of drink. The discourse expresses food's lack of importance by pointing out that birds don't farm, and nor do they perform agriculture, but they are still able to feed. Quite what the discourse is advocating is disputed by various groups, with some, attacking the discourse, seeing it as an argument for idleness, and others viewing it as a call for self-sufficiency or an argument in support of Seneca's desire to return to "hunter gatherer" behaviour. Usually, however, scholars interpret it as advocating a degree of asceticism, much like that practiced by the essenes, a group bearing some similarity to how Matthew presents Jesus, and possibly including mendicancy. That the discourse advocates viewing cares about food as unimportant by making this metaphor and then stating "and are you not better than birds?" is often viewed as evidence that Jews of the period were anthropocentric, and Christian theology certainly developed along such lines for many centuries, however it could also have the opposing intent - as mockery of anthropocentrism - that by farming and agriculture people are not better than birds, who get food apparently (according to zoological knowledge at the time) without this degree of effort.

Clothing, or rather being concerned about clothing, is attacked in the discourse by reference to "lilies". Though the first few words of this attack have become a well known phrase - "consider the lily", and "lilies" is the traditional translation, the Greek word is more ambiguous, and could mean, amongst others, the autumn crocus, scarlet poppy, Turk's cap lily, "Anemone coronaria", "narcissus", "Gladiolus", or the iris. However, such dispute over the identity of a plant is unimportant, since it is not the type of plant but its supposed lack of "toil" and of "spinning" thread into clothes, that the discourse is concerned with. Although modern botany views the production of colour, leaves, and flowers, in plants, as a complex, and slow, bio-chemical and bio-mechanical process, this was not known at the time, and the sheer display of colour and shape by plants, regarded by the discourse as being greater than even the riches of Solomon's wardrobe, was considered effortless. "Consider the lily..." has since appeared frequently in art and literature: there is a film by this name; Keats' "Ode on Indolence" quotes the allegory; P.G. Wodehouse humorously uses the phrase "lilies of the field" to refer to the idle rich who do no labour; and writers such as Edith Wharton and A.M. Klein have directed the phrase at the rich and idle. The discourse though presents the supposed effortlessness of the lilies as a good thing, to be aimed for, though it points out that since grasses were burnt as fuel (in Palestine, at the time, wood was in short supply, while straw was more readily available), for bread, even the "clothes" that they produce for themselves are fleeting, and worthless on a larger scale.

In the discourse, anxiety itself is also attacked, by arguing that mere thought cannot add a "cubit" to one's "helikia". Cubits were the Jewish unit of measure for length, approximately half a yard in size, and "helikia" is a Koine Greek often used to mean "stature", hence several translators have this as a reference to worrying about one's height, when it isn't something that mere thought can alter. A cubit is quite a large amount on the scale of human stature, and so Fowler has argued that this reference is specifically directed to children desiring to be taller, rather than adults desiring to be giants, though it is possible that Jews were concerned by the greater average height of the Greeks, as Indo-Europeans had a greater statistical average height than Semitic groups, and frequently still do. "Helika" can also mean "life span", and most modern Protestant translations, take this reading, leaving a puzzle as to how one could measure life span, a period of time, by a unit of length. To resolve this issue, some argue that a "cubit of life" was an expression for the small amount of time to walk the distance of a cubit - i.e that the argument is that thought can't even extend life by a minuscule amount, and hence anxiety is worthless, a sentiment with which most modern psychologists would agree.

The discourse concludes by instructing that instead of being anxious about material things, such as food, drink, and clothing, one should seek the "kingdom of God", and since, according to the discourse, God knows that people need these things, God will provide them. Rather than "kingdom of God", in several early manuscripts, particularly those that are regarded as more accurate elsewhere, the text just reads that one should seek the "kingdom", though the significance of this is usually downplayed by scholars arguing that the two readings are essentially the same. In what appears to be a snipe at non-Jews, Matthew's version of the conclusion describes Gentiles as being anxious about such things, implying that their deities don't exist and so won't be able to provide for them, though some modern scholars, like Barclay, interpret that as implying that anxiety implies doubt in God, and hence is impious. Unlike Luke, Matthew adds that one ought also to seek God's "righteousness", though many feel that Matthew has added this to strengthen the case for legalism.

As for anxiety in general, while Luke makes no such conclusion, Matthew adds that one ought not be anxious about tomorrow as the evil existing today is enough to worry about. This is often seen to be a rephrasing of the ancient "carpe diem" principle, though a few scholars, like Luz, interpret it as implying that each day is so overbearing in itself that it would be excessive to worry also about the future, indeed a few, like Fowler, even argue that the verse is condemning the presumption that one would survive the night.

References

*Albright, W.F. and C.S. Mann. "Matthew." "The Anchor Bible Series." New York: Doubleday & Company, 1971.
*Augsburger, Myron. "Matthew." Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1982.
*Barclay, William. "The Gospel of Matthew: Volume 1 Chapters 1-10." Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1975.
*Beare, Francis Wright. "The Gospel According to Matthew." Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1981.
*Filson, Floyd V. "A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew." London : A. & C. Black, 1960.
*Fowler, Harold. "The Gospel of Matthew: Volume One." Joplin: College Press, 1968
*France, R.T. "The Gospel According to Matthew: an Introduction and Commentary." Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1985.
*Hendriksen, William. "The Gospel of Matthew." Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976
*Hill, David. "The Gospel of Matthew". Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981
*"Lilies in the Field." "A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature." David Lyle Jeffrey, general editor. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1992.
*Lewis, Jack P. "The Gospel According to Matthew." Austin, Texas: R.B. Sweet, 1976..
*Luz, Ulrich. "Matthew 1-7: A Commentary." trans. Wilhlem C. Linss. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989.
*Morris, Leon. "The Gospel According to Matthew." Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1992.
*Schweizer, Eduard. "The Good News According to Matthew." Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975