Paper for the Meeting of Asian Biblical Scholars

7/31/2019 Paper for the Meeting of Asian Biblical Scholars

1/43

1

The teaching of a wisdom teacher about God and Mammon (Matt 6:19-34)

Batara Sihombing

[email protected]

Divinity School of Silliman University, 6200 Dumaguete City, Philippines

Presented at the meeting of Society of Asian Biblical Studies (SABS), Hongkong 13-17 June 2010.

Preface

The phenomenon of corruption spreads in many Asian countries. It is like a disease that must

be killed; otherwise, it will bring about the bankruptcy of the nations or societies. This paper

intends to discuss the danger of greed for wealth in Matthew 6:19-34. The juxtaposition of God

and Mammon in the passage indicates that Mammon is a rival master that can entrap people to

become his or her slaves. Firstly, we will look at the background of wisdom sayings in Matthew

6:19-34 in Jewish Wisdom Literature especially in the Hebrew Bible and Apocrypha. Secondly,

we explore the theme of wealth and its danger in the passage. Thirdly, we will briefly discuss the

insatiable greed for money in terms of corruption in Asia and particularly in Indonesia. And

finally some conclusion will be drawn from what has been discussed.

I. Wealth and Wisdom in Jewish Wisdom LiteratureI.A. Proverbs 8: 17-21 Wisdom Grants Wealth

This chapter 8 serves as the principal text on the personification of Wisdom as the figure of

Lady Wisdom (Job 28; Prov 1,8,9; Sir 24; Wis 7-9; Bar 3:9-4:4).1

Unit 8:17-21 serves as an

extensive motivation of the invitation to hearken to Wisdom. Its main theme is that Wisdomgrants wealth. The unit itself (verses 17-21) is shaped by the term love (verses 17 and 21), that

1The attempts to determine the figure of Lady Wisdom among the scholars seem have generated complex debates.

R.N. Whybray, Wisdom in Proverbs (London: SCM Press, 1965), 72-98. In this thesis, I regard her as acommunication of God, through creation, to human beings. See Roland E. Murphy, Introduction to WisdomLiterature, in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, (ed. R.E. Brown et al.; London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1989),450. For a wider discussion concerning the figure see Claudia V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of

Proverbs (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985).
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/43

2

is, mutual love between Wisdom and her followers. While the opening sentence expresses the

mutual love, I love those who love me (v. 17a), the closing sentence affirms Wisdoms material

gifts to her lovers, endowing with wealth those who love me and filling their treasures (v. 21) 2.

The theme of reciprocal divine-human love could be behind the concept of mutual love of

Wisdom and human beings. While this concept of mutual divine-human love is biblical, the idea

of reciprocal divine-human love is never found in the Old Testament. Instead, the latter can be

found in the Egyptian sources, in which a god loves those who love him.3

Its main theme is that Wisdom grants wealth. The unit itself (verses 17-21) is shaped by the

term love (verses 17 and 21), that is, mutual love between Wisdom and her followers. While

the opening sentence expresses the mutual love, I love those who love me (v. 17a), the closing

sentence affirms Wisdoms material gifts to her lovers, endowing with wealth those who love

me and filling their treasures (v. 21)4. In addition to the mutual love saying Wisdom further

says, those who seek me will find me (v. 17b). To be receptive to Wisdom is not enough; rather,

one must actively and earnestly pursue it (cf. 2:4; 15:14; 18:15). This implies that persons with less-

wholehearted motivation will never find her but undoubtedly she will be found by those who seek her

earnestly. The theme of seeking and finding is distinctive in this verse.5 This is parallel with the

assurance given to Moses: you will seek the Lord your God and you will find him if you search after him

with all your heart and soul (Deut 4:29; cf. Wis 6:14-16). Even though the book of Proverbs is less clear

regarding seeking the Wisdom, by pointing to the book of Ben Sira (Sir 6:32-37; 14:20-15:10) and the

customary practice in the Egyptian sages, we may conjecture that it refers to studying Wisdom in its

totality, in speech and writing, in the book of Proverbs itself as well as in the entirety of the literature.6

Verses 18-21 assert the benefits of loving and finding Wisdom. She bestows riches, honor, prosperity

and righteousness on her followers. This is explicitly stated in verse 18: Riches and honor are with me,

enduring wealth and righteousness. Riches and honor are two earthly prestiges which are highly valued

2Patrick W. Skehan, Structures in Poems on Wisdom Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24, CBQ 41 (1979): 371.

3C. Kayatz, Studien zu Proverbien 1-9 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1966), 86,98-102,335 points out several parallel

sayings in the Egyptian sources. For example, it is said that Khonsu loves someone who loves him and Isis lovesthe one who loves her. He notes that the characteristics of loving and being loved are peculiar to Maat, theEgyptian goddess of justice and truth, who is usually co-related with Lady Wisdom. But in spite of this, there is

never found such kind of reciprocal saying from the mouth of Maat. See also M. Fox, World Order and Maat: ACrooked Parallel,JANESCU23 (1995): 44-47.4Patrick W. Skehan, Structures in Poems on Wisdom Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24, CBQ 41 (1979): 371.

5C.H. Toy, Proverbs (5

thed., ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1959), 168-169; R.E. Murphy, Wisdom and Eros in

Proverbs 1-9, CBQ 50 (1988): 600-603, points out that the terms of seeking and finding is part of biblicallanguage of love.6

M.V. Fox, Proverbs 1-9 (The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday, 1999), 276-277.


3/43

3

in the ancient society. There are two parallel pairs of phrases, riches and honor

(), and wealth and righteousness ().7 Both of

the second nouns in each pair explain the quality of the first nouns. This means that what Wisdom offers

is honorable wealth and great wealth justly gained. Thus, not all wealth brings honor, but only the wealth

bestowed by Wisdom, the possessions which are gained justly or honestly. Wealth is regarded as a

blessing from God as long it is subordinate to righteousness, justice and wisdom.8

That the concept of wealth is being linked to righteousness is further qualified by the next

verse. The fruits of Wisdom are better than fine gold and choice silver (v. 19). Here, we meet

with better-than sayings, which in Proverbs are intentionally used to teach the values that are

higher than wealth such as righteousness and justice. The statement in this verse is not meant to

reduce the quality of earthly materials since wealth itself is previously said to be part of

Wisdoms blessing (v. 18). Rather, Wisdom is saying that she bestows wealth with honor andjustice. It is not wealth itself which is the chief end of life. This can lead people to corruption.

But wealth must be subordinated to Wisdom so that it can be enjoyed as an aspect of welfare and

honor (cf. Prov. 16:8).

Verse 21 points out clearly, to grant wealth to those who love me and to fill their treasuries.

The term used to designate wealth in this verse is which is found elsewhere only in

Sirach 42:2. The usage of the term in the latter passage suggests that it refers to stable property,

and not just any valuable.9 Similarly, from the Akkadian point of view, Hurowitz has shown that

the term denotes possessions that are closely associated with the treasures in the storehouse. This

is rather different from the term negotiable wealth in verse 18 that

designates negotiable property that has a recognized commercial value equivalent at all places.

This might be equivalent with money or other commercial means in our present time.10

So, Lady

Wisdom will endow her followers with both kinds of wealth, the stable treasures and money.

However, we should not understand this unit as a guarantee of success since the sages do not

7The meaning ofis debated. As in verse 20, in verse 18 it means righteousness instead of

prosperity. However, several scholars take the latter meaning rather than the former. For instance, C.H. Toy,Proverbs, 169, argues that the term should be linked to verse 21b. God is just because he gives every man his right

in just measure. In the Old Testament just measure also relates to the good fortune in terms of material prosperity

rewarded by God to those who fear him (1 Sam 26:23; Joel 2:23; Isa 54:17).8

Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, Wealth and Poverty: System and Contradiction in Proverbs, HS 33(1992): 30-33; andsee also Gordon A. Chutter, Riches and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs, Crux 18 (1982): 24-25.9

M.V. Fox, Proverbs 1-9, 279.10

Victor A. Hurowitz, Two terms for wealth in Proverbs VIII in light of Akkadian, VT50 (2000): 252-257.


4/43

4

naively promise that all wise people will be materially rich.11

For the sake of serving as a strong

motivation to people to listen to Wisdom, the unit of 8:17-21 argues that material blessing is part

of the benefits given to those who love her.

I.B. Qoheleth 5:9-19 (5:10-20, English version) The Contentment With Wealth

We will approach the passage according to the theme that flows throughout the texts as

follows: 5:9-11 deals with people who cannot be satisfied by wealth, 5:12-16 describes people

who cannot enjoy riches, and 5:17-19 encourages people to know what is good.

The first unit (5:9-11) argues that the pursuit of money will never meet ones deepest

personal needs. In other words, wealth cannot give satisfaction to its owners. This is evident

from the two parallel clauses in 5:9, The lover of money will not be satisfied with money; northe lover of wealth with gain (NRSV). Most commentators see the two clauses as aphorisms.

The terms used in the aphorisms cover a wide range of wealth such as money or convertible cash

(), the kinds of riches from cattle to real estate (), and the lands bounty

().12 The problem is not with the wealth itself, but the insatiability of those who

love money. No matter how much money they have, there is always the desire to have more. So,

those who put wealth as the goal of their life will face a meaningless life. To understand the

meaning of the key term meaningless, vanity, or absurd in the verse, its

wider context should be borne in mind (5:9-6:9).

This is the third time Qoheleth speaks of the insatiable appetite of human beings. Since in

1:8 and 4:8 the similar observation has been made that the eyes were never satisfied with seeing

or with possessions. This means that the point of meaninglessness is not the wealth; rather, it has

to do with the greed of human beings that places wealth as the goal of life.13

The oppression and

11Ellen F. Davis, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (Westminster Bible Companion, Louisville: John

Knox Press, 2000), 64 rightly says that the sages never assume that all wise people are wealthy. But in spite of this,there are cases where virtue is being rewarded. This is to encourage people to believe that wisdom may bring

material wealth.12

James L. Crenshaw,Ecclesiastes (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1988), 121.13

With this interpretation wealth does not become the point at issue, but the greed of human beings. Qoheleth does

not put the blame on wealth; rather he/she attacks the insatiable appetite of human beings towards wealth. It is at

least evident from the fact that in the next verse Qoheleth exhorts people to enjoy their current possessions as the

gifts of God (6:19). This is against commentators who see the meaningless of wealth at verse 9 as well as in the

entire passage. For example, see Tremper Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes (NICOT; Michigan: Eermands,

1998), 160,165. It is worth noting that Daniel C. Fredericks, Chiasm and Parallel, 35, and Choon L. Seow,


5/43

5

injustice in court are mentioned (4:1; 5:8), alongside the lust for greed and ambition. It would

seem that Qoheleth was hinting that oppression and injustice were driven by greed and ambition.

Qoheleth even said directly, oppression makes the wise foolish, and a bribe corrupts the heart

(7:7).

The second unit (5:12-16) describes the people who cannot enjoy their wealth. Qoheleth

describes an unfortunate situation which is based on what he/she discerned. This unfortunate

situation has two sets of circumstances in which each is called a grievous evil

(; 5:12,15). The first set of circumstances describes a man who toils

and hoards his money, harming himself in the process and suddenly losing it all. He has a son but

there is nothing to give him. He is as poor when he leaves the world as when he entered it (5:12-

14). Qoheleth depicts the bad effect of wealth as well as the pain of its loss. This story of a rich

man who stores up his possession and then simply loses it all reminds us of Jesus parable

regarding a foolish rich man and his command not to store up treasures on earth ( Lk 12:13-20;

cf. Mt 6:19).

Qoheleth does not explain the reasons why the possessions got lost. It is simply

mentioned that it was be due to a bad venture.14 The essential point is that the money was lost.

This implies that the hoarding of money guarantees one nothing. The economic tragedy is more

painful to the owner because he has a son but has nothing in his hand to give the son.15

This is

the opposite of what Qoheleth tells elsewhere of people who work without having anyone to

inherit or share their wealth (2:18; 4:8). The painful experience of this man is further linked to

the reality of death where people can bring nothing of the material possessions they stored up

during their lifetime with them when they die. Qoheleth cites a popular saying similar to the one

Ecclesiastes, 218, underline that the emphasis on the inadequacy of wealth miss the point that enjoyment of riches is

a true blessing of God. Qoheleth addresses the problem of human insatiability and lack of contentment by calling for

enjoyment in the present.14

Norbert Lohfink, Kohelet und die Banken: zur bersetzung von Kohelet V 12-16, VT 39 (1989): 488-495,

argues that the man was the victim of a bank failure who lost everything that was kept for him in his account.15

The phrase he has nothing in his hands (5:13) poses an ambiguity since it could refer to either the father or theson. Here I follow the scholars who see it as referring to the father because it is the fathers loss of wealth that wasthe subject of story. See R.N. Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 100; Roland E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 54; Tremper Longman

III,Ecclesiastes, 166; Michael V. Fox, A Time to Tear Down, 238. Meanwhile, Robert Gordis, KohelethThe Man

andHis World(New York: Bloch Publishing Company, 1955), 243, sees it as referring to the son by arguing that

(in his hands) perhaps is a phoenetic misspelling of(for him; cf. Ezek 37:19;Isa 64:6; Job 8:4; 15:23; 27:11) but on the other hand he regards verse 14 as referring to the father; Graham Ogden,

Qoheleth, 83-84, regards verse 4:13b as referring to an independent situation which is not linked to the previous

phrase but to the following verse where the focus is on the son.


6/43

6

cited by Job, As he came from his mothers womb, so he shall go again, naked as he came

(5:14; cf. Job 1:21; Sir 40:1; 1 Tim 6:7). This underlines the point that ones material possessions

have no significance as one enters or leaves the world. After all, material goods are useful only

during ones lifetime. Therefore, it is pointless to hold on to what one has because the gain is as

elusive and unpredictable as the wind (5:15).

The following unit (5:17-19) is concerned with the appropriate way to enjoy wealth.

What Qoheleth observes to be good is that it is appropriate to eat, drink, and find enjoyment in

all of ones toil (5:17).16 This unit has similar ideas with what has been expressed in 3:10-15.

Being given a short time of life by God, there is a chance to enjoy it as the portion of human

beings (5:17b). It should not be lived out with misery and sorrow (cf. 5:15-16). The best human

beings can expect in life is to eat, drink, and enjoy their toil (cf. 2:24). It is worth noting that the

Egyptians were encouraged to enjoy their time by diverting their hearts. This phrase describes a

familial gathering for the enjoyment of drinking, eating, and listening to music (AEL 1.196)

which seems to be a parallel with what Qoheleth wants his/her followers to do.17

The point of goodness not only lies in the fact that God bestows wealth but he also

enables people to enjoy it (5:18). It is God who enables human beings to accept their lot and to

find enjoyment in their toil. This makes clear that wealth is not an evil in itself as people might

think from the previous units (5:9-11, 12-16). Riches given by God to be enjoyed are blessings,

whereas possessions which are sought desperately as the main goal of life will end in vanity and

darkness (5:9, 17). Verse 19 appears to give a conclusion which relates to the preceding verse by

the conjunction .18

Apparently, in the time of Qoheleth, apart from pursuing wisdom, the people went after

status and wealth. It is said that Wisdom is as good as an inheritance and the protection of

16

There is a debate over the phrase (good that is appropriate). RobertGordis, Koheleth, 245, translates it good and proper (cf. Hos 12:9). The weakness of this translation is thatis not a conjunction. Michael V. Fox, A Time to TearDown, 239, sees the phrase as similar to theGreek expression (good thing that is beautiful). However,in rabbinic literature has the sense of appropriateness (Pesah 99a; cf. Qoh 3:11), as noted by James L.Crenshaw,Ecclesiastes, 124 and R.N. Whybray,Ecclesiates, 102.17

Michael V. Fox,A Time to Tear Down, 239.18

Scholars see this verse not only as the conclusion of the unit 5:17-19. Choon L. Seow, Ecclesiastes, 223, for

example, says that verse 19 serves as the main point and the focus of the entire passage 5:7-6:9. R.N. Whybray,

Ecclesiastes, 103 sees it as the conclusion of the main thoughts set forth in the three units (5:9-11, 12-16, 17-19).


7/43

7

wisdom is like the protection of money (7:11-12). Money was regarded as the fulfillment of a

dream; so it was said, Money meets every need (10:9). On the other hand, wisdom was

pointless when the owner was poor. He/She seemed to criticize those who were busy making

money and accumulating wealth (2:18-23; 4:4-8; 5:12-16; 6:1-9). His or Her warning was firm,

The lover of money will be not satisfied with money; nor the lover of wealth, with gain. This is

also vanity (5:10, NRSV). All this shows that Qoheleth was addressing a group of people who

were very concerned about wealth, status, and power (cf. 12:12).19

I.C. Tobit 4: 5-11 The Right Way of Dispossessing Wealth

The passage 4:5-11 is part of 4:1-21 which deals with Tobits instructions to his son,

Tobias.20 Due to his old age, Tobit feels that it is the right time to tell his son about the money

that he has left in trust with Gabael in Media which was as much as ten talents of silver (4:1-2,

20). Basically, the passage 4:5-11 also admonishes almsgiving that consists of three parts: the

admonition of spending the days of ones life according to Gods commandment as the

introduction (4:5-6a), the admonition to practice almsgiving rightly and generously and its

benefits as the main contents (4:6b-10), and almsgiving as an excellent offering, which forms the

closing statement (4:11).

In the first part, Tobit admonishes his son to remember God in all his days. This advice

is expressed in two parallel sentences, Revere the Lord all your days my son, and refuse to sin

or to transgress his commandments. Live uprightly all the days of your life, and do not walk in

the ways of wrongdoing (4:5-6a, NRSV). The advice to walk in the way of righteousness as

obedience to Gods commandments is a peculiar emphasis in the wisdom tradition (cf. Prov

2:20-21; 10:2,9; 11:4-5).21

The admonition is supported by a reward statement, for those who

act in accordance with truth will prosper in all their activities (4:6a). This echoes the thesis of

19

See Robert Gordis, The Social Background of Wisdom Literature, HUCA 18 (1943/44): 116, and Choon L.Seow,Ecclesiastes, 22, points out many terms in relation to economic matter as used by Qoheleth that suggests that

her audience was a group of people whose primary concern is money and power. Meanwhile, C. W. Reines,

Koheleth on Wisdom and Wealth, JTS 5 (1954): 80-84, argues that the criticisms posed by Qoheleth against thelovers of money suggest that the wisdom-teachers in his or her time were not from the upper social classes. These

wisdom-teachers even might have been from a poor class who were dependent on the rich for their support.20

In spite of the fact that the book of Tobit as a whole does not belong to Wisdom literature, several passages (Tob

4:3-21; 12:6-13) are classified as wisdom tradition. See Frank Zimmermann, The Book of Tobit (New York:

Harper&Brothers, 1958), 68; Roland E. Murphy, Introduction, 447.21

Frank Zimmermann, Tobit, 68.


8/43

8

Deuteronomy which relates blessings as the rewards to those who walk in righteousness (Deut

7:12-15).22

The relationship of the righteous person to God is characterized by observance of the

law and Tobit himself is the primary example of the faithful observer (1:6-11). Thus he says to

his son, You have great wealth if you fear God and flee from every sin (4:21). The assurance of

Gods material blessings is then followed by the exhortation to share ones possessions with

others in need as a way of observing the righteousness.

The second part elaborates on almsgiving as the specification of the practice of

righteousness (4:6b-10). Here righteousness is closely related to almsgiving, To all those who

practice righteousness (4:6b)23

give alms from your possessions (4:7a). The primary topic of

Tobits instruction is almsgiving, which is also a major theme of the book. Generosity to the

needy is presented as a great virtue. The virtuous life which is learned through prayer and the

law, is a way to imitate God whose character is righteous, merciful, and truthful.24

It is worth

noting that in Jewish and Near Eastern Wisdom Literature, the protection of widows, orphans,

and the poor is regarded as a virtue. The protection of the weak is the will of the divine, which is

a virtue of gods, kings, judges. Giving alms to help the weak is understood as the correct way of

life (cf. Prov 14:31; 15:25; 19:17; 22:7,9; 23:10; 28:27; Job 24:1-4).25

Almsgiving () is prominently emphasized in both Tobits

farewell discourses (4:3-4,16-17; and 14: 9-11). The term occurs twenty two times in the book of

22The theology of Deuteronomy seems to have influenced the book of Tobit. Like Tobit 4:3-21 and 14:3-11, where

the head of the family gives instructions pertinent to the law to his children, parents in Deuteronomy are exhorted to

teach their children to keep Gods law (Deut 4:9-10; 6:7). See Steven Weitzman, Allusions, Artifice, and Exile inthe Hymn of Tobit,JBL 115 (1996): 49-61, who argues that the song of Moses, an allusion in Deuteronomy 32 hasbeen shaped by a larger allusive strategy in Tobit 13 that governs the book as a whole.23

The codex Sinaiticus (LXXS) does not have 4:7-18. This lacuna is filled in from other ancient witnesses such as

GI, (the recension represented by codices Vatican, Alexandrinus, Venetus, and a large number of minuscules based

on Septuagint), MS 319, and Old Latin. See Carey A. More, Tobit(AB 40A; New York: Doubleday, 1996), 53,56,

for the discussion of the Greek texts of Tobit, and also especially pages 161,165-166, where he discusses thepossible interpolation of Tobit 4:7-18.24

See A.A. Di Lella, The Deuteronomic Background of the Farewell Discourse in Tobit 14: 3-11, CBQ 41 (1979):386-387. Irene Nowell, The Book of Tobit (12 vols.; NIB III; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), 986-987, notesthat there are two virtues in Tobit that are extended to the wider kinship group, that is, almsgiving (1:3,8,16-18;2:2-

3; 4:5-11,16-17; 14:9) and hospitality (2:2; 5:10; 11:17-18).25

Helping the weak and the poor is not a virtue confined to Jewish people. It is a common among the surrounding

countries such as Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Ugarit. See F.C. Fensham, Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in AncientNear Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature, JNES 21 (1962): 129-139 and Bruce V. Malchow, Social Justice,120,122.


9/43

9

Tobit, more frequently than in any other book of the Old Testament. According to Griffin,26

there

are four categories of almsgiving in Tobit: 1) charitable deed (1:16; 14:10; cf. 1:3; 2:14); 2)

monetary alms and almsgiving (4:8b,16-17; 12:8); 3) as a characteristic of person, for

example Tobit (7:7; cf. 9:6; 14:11); 4) as a characteristic of God (3:2; 13:6). It is worth noting

that these four categories of almsgiving are also found in Sirach (cf. Sir 29:8-13). However, the

first two categories, charitable deeds and monetary alms appear to predominate in Tobit. Thus,

Griffin also regards almsgiving in the book as reflecting on theology of action.

In conjunction with the exhortation to give alms, the proper attitudes in extending

generosity are also set out (4:7b-8). There are two principles that are stressed here, willingness

and proportion. In terms of willingness, when one gives alms it is said, do not let your eye

begrudge the gift when you make it

(

; 4:7b,16b).27 With respect to this, in

Proverb 23:6 it is said, Do not eat the bread of the stingy. In the Hebrew this is

evil eye and it is used to denote stinginess. This may suggest that

jealous eye in Tobit 4:7,16 refers to the magical

evil eye in Proverb 23:6.28 The emphasis on willingness and kindness in giving appears to be

important in Tobit and this echoes Deuteronomy, Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do

so (15:10). This reminds us of Jesus sayings of being a generous giver to those who are in need

(Matt 6:20-21, 22-23; 25:35-36) and of Pauls exhortation to the Corinthians in contributing

willingly to the collection for the poor in Jerusalem (2 Cor 9:7). The book of Tobit, written only

a few centuries before the New Testament, provides the background of the Judaistic teachings in

the time of Jesus.29

26 Patrick J. Griffin, A Study of Elemosyn in the Bible with Emphasis upon its Meaning and Usage in the

Theology of Tobit and Ben Sira (M.A. diss., The Catholic Univesity of America, 1982), 2-5,60.27The Latin version, the Qumran fragments, and Greek 319 lack this statement in 4:7 but in 4:17 Greek 319, Vetus

Latina, and Vulgate MS X have it. See Vincent T.M. Skemp, The Vulgate of Tobit, 135,146.28

Carey A. Morey, Tobit, 166. In Jewish literature, especially in post-talmudic literature the concept of evil eye is

linked with magical power that can affect or harm other people. In the ethical realm, apart from being used to denote

stinginess, it also denotes selfishness and jealousy (1 Sam 18:9; Prov 29:22; cf. m. 'Avot 2:9,11; 5:13,19).29

See Irene Nowell, Tobit (IBC; Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1998), 687 -695,691 and D.C. Allison,The Eye is the Lamp of the Body (Matthew 6:22-23=Luke 11:34-36, NTS 33 (1987): 77, elaborates onevil eye which is the ethical vocabulary of Judaism (Deut 15:19;Prove 23:6: Tob 4:7; Sir 14:10; 31:13; T. Benj. 4:2,6; m. Abot 2:9,11; 5:19) as the antithesis of generosity:


10/43


11/43

11

storing up treasures appears to anticipate the day of need in the present life, So you will be

laying up a good treasure for yourself against the day of necessity, (4:6, NRSV). It assures help

or relief during the times of trouble in this life (cf. Sir 3:30-31). It does not denote the reward in

heaven, the afterlife, as expressed in the New Testament (Mt 6:19-20; 1 Tim 6:19). The idea of

reward after death does not seem to be raised when the book of Tobit was written, which is also

clear from the second benefit in the next verse (4:10).33

Verse 11 gives the meaning of almsgiving as a worthy offering or good gift to God that

serves as the conclusion of the passage (4:5-11). The same idea is recorded by Sirach (34:18-

35:4). The author of Proverb says, To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the

Lord than sacrifice, (21:3). According to R. Eleazars observation, the proverb means that

Greater is the act of one who gives alms than all the sacrifices (b. Suk. 49b). 34 Since Tobit

places great importance on practicing righteousness in the form of giving alms (4:6b-7a), as it

has been discussed above, this suggests that in Tobit the practice of almsgiving is also greater

than offering sacrifices. The practice of alms itself becomes a worthy offering to God and in fact

it cannot be reversed, an offering to God constitutes a practise of almsgiving.35

In the book of

Tobit the practice of almsgiving is central. With respect to wealth, it gives a proper way of

dispersing wealth.

I.D. Sirach 31: 1-11 The Difficulty of Being Rich

The passage which we are dealing with is part of the ethical and religious teachings in the

book of Sirach.36 Its content can be divided into three units: 31:1-2 deals with the anxieties of the

33See Mathias Delcor, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 476; Carey A. Morey, Tobit, 167; Irene Nowell, Tobit,

1015. However, scholars such as Frank Zimmermann, Tobit, 68, and Klaus Koch, Der Schatz im Himmel, in Leben Angesichts des Todes: Festschrift fr H. Thielicke (Tbingen: Mohr, 1968), 47-60, see Tobit 4:9 as

contributing to the idea of reward for the afterlife, in heaven, in the teaching of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. Whilethe former relates the verse to Matthew 5:20 where Jesus says, but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, thelatter relates the verse to Mark 10:21 where Jesus tells the rich young man, give the money to the poor and you willhave treasure in heaven.78, 92-96; Shannon Burkes, Wisdom and Law: Choosing Life in Ben Sira and Baruch, JSJ30 (1999): 260-261.34

Frank Zimmermann, Tobit, 68.35

Carey A. Moore, Tobit, 168, suggests that the allusion of offering here may refer to the postexilic concept of

qorban, the term for an offering to God in the Holiness code (Lev 1:2; 22:27; Ezek 40:43). A practice which is

unavailable to the Israelites in exile.36

See George W. E. Nickelsburg,Jewish Literature, 62.


12/43

12

rich,37

31:3-7 presents the dangers of wealth, and 31:8-11 deals with the praise of the righteous

rich. Having elucidated on how seeking after money affects the health and the soul (30:14-25),

Ben Sira proceeds to point out the moral dangers involved for those who seek wealth (31:1-7).

The first two verses of the first unit (31:1-2) describe the anxieties of the rich.38

The richs wakefulness over wealth wastes away their flesh and their anxiety for wealth

brings about insomnia. And in the end, a severe illness carries off sleep. The difficulty in

sleeping due to a bad conscience is well-recorded in Jewish wisdom literature (cf. Sir 40:5-8;

Qoh 5:11; Wis 17:11-15). In the preceding chapter, Ben Sira has stated that wealth is inferior to

bodily health, Better off poor, healthy, and fit than rich and an afflicted body, (30:14). Wealth

is contrasted with health, There is no wealth better than health of body, (30:16a) and the

contrast goes even stronger inasmuch as Death is better than a life of misery (30:17). Death is

regarded as eternal rest in accordance with Ben Siras view that there is no life after death, as

noted above.39

It is apparent how dangerous the anxiety about wealth is as it brings about illness.

It is understandable then, between these two passages concerning the dangers of health caused by

anxieties about wealth (30:14-17 and 31:1-4), that Ben Sira exhorts his readers to avoid sorrow,

Do not give yourself over to sorrow, and do not distress yourself deliberately (30:21). This

reminds us of Jesus sayings in Matthew 6:34, dealing with anxieties.40

The author then moves on to the dangers of wealth (31:3-7). The first section of the

second unit (31:2-3), contrasts the rich and the poor in terms of a common activity, toiling. The

former toils to accumulate riches, whereas for the latter the toiling only brings need (cf. 11:11).

37Due to the different versions of the book of Sirach it has led to some confusion in the enumeration of individual

verses. The pericope found in NRSV as 31:1-4 is listed by G.H. Box and W.O.E. Oesterly, Sirach, in ApocryphaandPseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (ed. R.H. Charles; vol. 1; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913),

268-517, as 31 (34):1-4, and by Ziegler as 34 (31):1-4, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta. Vetus

Testamentum Graecum XII.2 (2nd

ed.; Gottingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. Zieglers major edition laiddown norms which are generally followed, including NRSV. Richard J. Coggins, Sirach. Guides to Apocrypha and

Pseudepigrapha (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 17-18.38

The texts of these verses are uncertain. For comments see Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The

Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987), 380, 382, who call it a nearly hopeless jumble.39

It has been discussed in the previous section that in Tobit and Sirach there is no belief in life after death. John G.

Snaith, Ecclesiasticus (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 152. According to John G. Snaith,

The Importance of Ecclesiasticus,ExpTim 75 (1963/4): 66-69,69. The absence of the idea of the afterlife becomesone of the reasons why Ben Siras teachings were known in the Pharisees, the main stream of Judaism in Judea inJesus time.40

See Thomas H. Weber, Sirach (JBC; London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968), 541 -555 and Patrick W. Skehan andAlexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 381-382.


13/43


14/43

14

ultimate thing in life. They let themselves to be ensnared by it. This implies that wealth has

become the master of the foolish, the thing that is supposed to serve them. This again reminds us

of Jesus statement in the Synoptic Gospels that tells his followers not to serve wealth, No one

can serve two masters;You cannot serve God and Mammon (Matt 6:24; Luke 16:13). 47 Ben

Sira describes the life of the fool as being quite tragic. The fool despises discipline and

education, and ignore the Law (21:6,18-19; 32:15,17-18; 33: 2). This makes them to be unable to

possess the divine gift of wisdom that makes life worth living. They lack intellectual ability

(22:11b,13) as well as essential righteousness (22:12b; 34:1). Thus, Ben Sira says, the life of the

fool is worse than death (22:11b).48

Ben Sira argues that the potential pitfalls of wealth are not merely present in the process

of its acquisition. Moreover, once someone has wealth, he or she will face a number of

difficulties. Many who gain wealth become stingy persons (14:3,8-10). This is something that is

condemned by Ben Sira. The miser is a small-minded person who cannot appropriately hold

riches because he or she cannot use wealth properly. The miser is an evil person who disregards

his or her fellow human beings. The eye of a greedy person is never satisfied with his or her

share (14:9) and so, one who loves gold will not be justified (31:5a).49 Having asserted the

dangers of wealth, Ben Sira comes to praise the wise or righteous rich (31:8-11). This shows a

turning point in that the positive side of the rich is described. 50 That is to say, being rich is not at

all wrong as long as the wealth is gained justly. Such a kind of rich person deserves praise,

Blessed is the rich person, who is found blameless, and who does not go after gold (31:8).

Elsewhere, Ben Sira warns against the negative impact of gaining dishonest wealth. It would not

only be a helpless helper in the day of wrath (5:8) but also will dry up like a river (40 :13).

It is worth noting that the term used to designate wealth in this verse is the Hebrew word

whose Greek transliteration is . The word signifies resources,

47

Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 383, give two similar sayings, Richesserve a wise man but command a fool (English proverb) and There are men who gain from their wealth only thefear of losing it (Antoine Rivaroli,LEsprit de Rivarol, 1808).48

For more elaboration on this topic, the fool and folly in Ben Sira, see Alexander A. Di Lella, The Life of a Fool isWorse than Death: Sirach 22:9-15, in Treasures ofWisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book ofWisdom (ed. NuriaCalduch-Benages and Jacques Vermeyen; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), 159-168.49

Benjamin G. Wright III, The Discourse of Riches and Poverty in the Book of Ben Sira, SBL Seminar Papers,1998 (2 vols. SBLSP 37; Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1998), 2: 559-578.50

According to James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom, 147, this section (31:8-9) serves as evidence of Ben

Siras ambiguity upon wealth. His criticism on wealth indicates that wealth is no longer viewed as divine favor.


15/43

15

money, property, and possession. Generally speaking, the term represents the materialistic

wealth of the world. While the word is not found in the Hebrew canon, the book of Sirach

appears to be first amongst Jewish literature to use it (Sir 31:8; 1QS 6:2; 1Q 27:1,2,5; CD 14:20;

1 En 63:10; m.Abot 2:12; m. Sanh. 4:1; b. Ber. 61:6; etc.).

Recently, scholars have paid attention to honor and shame, a concept which is quite

prominent in Ben Sira (cf. 10:19-11:6; 20:21-23; 41:14-41:8).51 Honor is understood as the

ability of a man to control the defining attributes of his life over against the challenge of others to

subvert that control.52 The concept of honor and shame also determines the relationship of rich

and poor. Ben Sira admits that there is shame which leads to sin, and there is a shame that is

glory and favor (4:21). Despite wealth contributing honor to its owner, the true honor in Ben

Sira comes in the keeping of the law. This means that either the rich or the poor can obtain honor

as long they keep the law faithfully. It is knowledge and wisdom that bring honor to the poor

(10:30-31). So, it is clear that Ben Siras ethics is anchored in the ideal of the fear of God as the

main theme as well as the ideal sage in Ben Sira, an attitude that calls for humble submission

toward tradition or the commandments.53

Sirach 31:1-7 describes the anxieties and the

destruction that brings shame on the rich, while the passage 31:8-11 praises the wise rich person

that brings honor to the rich. That is to say, the concept of honor and shame is discernible in the

passage (31:1-11).

I.E. Wisdom 7:7-14 Wisdom is Greater than Wealth

The passage 7:7-14 belongs to the main concern of the book of Wisdom of Solomon. It

contains its core, which describes the nature and the power of Wisdom (6:22-10:21). The passage

(7:7-14) can be divided into three parts. The first part contains the statements of prayer for

wisdom (7:7), the second part describes the comparison of wisdom with other earthly values

51See for example, Claudia V. Camp, Honor and Shame in Ben Sira: Anthropological and Theological Reflection,

in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research:Proceeding of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28-31 July

1996Soesterberg, Netherlands (ed. Pancratius C. Beentjes; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 1-39.52

Claudia V. Camp, Honor and Shame in Ben Sira, 173.53

John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 78; Benjamin G. Wright III, The Discourse of Riches, 569 -570. Patrick W.Skehan and Alexander Di Lella, The Wisdom ofBenSira, 75-76, underline that Ben Siras primary theme is wisdomas fear of God, wisdom which is identified with the Law, can be achieved only by one who fears God and keeps thecommandments (cf. Sir 19:20). The phrase fear of God or its equivalent is found 55 to 65 times in Ben Sira.


16/43

16

(7:8-10), and the third part is concerned with the gifts that wisdom abounds (7:11-14). The theme

of the whole passage is that wisdom is greater than earthly values, including wealth.

The author who assumes the identity of King Solomon, who prefers wisdom above all

else. The concept of ideal kingship constitutes the main theme in this second part of the book

(6:22-10:21) in which King Solomon serves as the ideal figure of a wise king. 54The authors

great wish to pursue wisdom is declared in two parallel sentences (7:7). Through his prayer, God

granted him understanding or the spirit of wisdom.55

Thus, according to the author, wisdom is

from God. She is granted through prayer (cf. 8:21 and 9:1-18). Here the author seems to refer to

Solomons vision (1 Kings 3:6-15) and prayer (1 Kings 8:12-53). The preceding verses (7:1-6)

that assert the limitations of a human being, including his mortality, serve as a reflective

background as to why he pursues wisdom in his prayer. This reflection suggests that Solomon is

equal with everyone else. He does not have a special status that guarantees him special wisdom.

That is to say, the wisdom that he pursues is open to everyone. 56 The similar view on a human

beings limitation also appears in the episode of 1 Kings 3:1-5 where Solomon asks for an

understanding mind and the ability to discern between good and evil so that he is able to govern

the people of Israel.

Wisdom is incompatible with earthly values such as scepters, thrones, wealth, gems,

gold, silver, health, beauty, and light (7:8-10). Even though to the ungodly (2:7-9) these qualities

are highly esteemed, Solomon prefers wisdom to such social and physical prestige. The idea of

comparing wisdom to riches, honor, and gems in favor of wisdom is common in the wisdom

tradition (Job 28:12-19; Prov 3:13-18; 8:10-11,19). This technique runs parallel with the

intention of the book that exhorts his readers to pursue wisdom.57

The first comparison is that wisdom is superior to power and wealth, I preferred her to

scepters and thrones, I accounted wealth as nothing in comparison with her (7:8, NRSV). While

54Given the fact that the author lived in the Hellenistic age and the Hellenistic community of Alexandria, he seems

to be influenced by the Hellenistic kingly ideal. Hellenistic treaties On Kingship often referred to the kings as themodels of human perfection. See James M. Reese, Hellenistic Influence of the Book of Wisdom and its

Consequences (AnBib 41; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), 71-88.55

Both words, understanding and spirits of wisdom here are synonyms. Thomas H. Weber, Wisdom (JBC;London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968), 561; Ernest G. Clarke, The Wisdom of Solomon (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1973), 51.56

See Michael Kolarcik, Wisdom (NIB 5; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997), 497.57

George W.E. Nickelsburg,Jewish Literature, 56.


17/43

17

the second comparison asserts the superiority of wisdom to precious stones such as gems, gold,

and silver (7:9), the third comparison states the superiority of wisdom to health, beauty and light

(7:10). In Ben Sira health is superior to wealth (Sir 30:14-16), but here the author of Wisdom

sees both wealth and health as inferior to wisdom. The preferable choice of wisdom to light here

refers to the explanation given in 8:29-30. While the light of wisdom never sleeps or is

unsleeping (7:10b), the light of the sun lasts only during daytime since it is succeeded by the

night. It is worth noting that Philo speaks of the unsleeping eyes: the unsleeping eyes of justice,

the assessor of God (Spec. 1.49; 4.201) and heaven is an eternal day because it is kept in

unsleeping wakefulness by active forces which do not err or stumble (Ios. 146 -147).58

However, at the same time, through wisdom, all good things come to the author (7:11-

14).59

Wisdom provides abundant gifts that make him rejoice in them all (7:12a). Like a mother,

wisdom actively engenders happiness for human beings. The author did not know before that

wisdom is the mother of these good things (7:12b).60

There is a sense of surprise that the author

regards this as beyond his expectations. This indicates that the authors pursuit of wisdom is not

motivated by an ambition to gain external goods, the things that are highly sought after by the

ungodly (2:6-9). Rather, by giving priority to the pursuit of wisdom, good things including

material things are bestowed on him. This is also true in the case of King Solomon (1 Kings

3:10-13). When he asks for wisdom, God also grants him what he did not request: riches and

honor. The gifts make the author rejoice. This indicates that happiness is a result or gift from

58See Ernest G. Clarke, The Wisdom of Solomon, 51 and David Winston, The Wisdom ofSolomon, 169.

59According to David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 167-168, there is an echo of Greek philosophical debates

in this passage with respect to the relative importance of external goods (health, wealth, honor, beauty, power) for

the happy life. On the one hand, for the Stoics, virtue constitutes self-sufficient happiness (SVF 1.187; 3.29-45, 49-

67; D.L. 7.101) but on the other hand, Aristotle proposed the triple good as the condition where happiness could be

found: the outside world, the body, and the soul (Nicomachean Ethics 1098b). Meanwhile according to Philo,

happiness and bliss can be obtained when there is welfare outside us, welfare in the body, welfare in the soul, thefirst bringing ease of circumstance and good repute, the second health and strength, the third delight in virtu e (Heir

285-286). Apparently, the author of Wisdom has a pretty close position to Philos opinion that one should seekwisdom first and all other goods are granted, For those who possess stored up in heaven the true wealth whoseadornment is wisdom and godliness have also wealth of earthly riches in abundance (Praem. 104; cf. 119).60

The author refers to wisdom as the engenderer of human goods. The Greek word used is (mother), the feminine form ofwhich means the begetter or father. This first occurs heresince the image of the mother is a rare metaphor for wisdom (cf. Prov 7:24; 8:32; Sir 15:2). The author appears to

like to describe wisdom by means of female substantives (cf. 7:21; 8:4). Philo depicts wisdom as a mother and nurse

(Drunkenness 31). The idea of forming feminine substantives from their masculine counterpart was popularly

practiced by late Hellenistic writers. See David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 170; Michael Kolarcik,

Wisdom, 498.


18/43

18

wisdom, something which is not meant to be evaded.61

It appears that the point is not that one is

wrong and the other is right; rather, a man should have a sense of value and know which should

come first place in his designs.62 Thus, this reminds us of what Jesus says, But strive first for

the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and these things will be given to you as well (Mt

6:33, NRSV).

Summary

The exploration of the passages from Jewish wisdom literature show the issues relating to

wealth. These issues show close resemblance to those found in Matthew 6:19-34. There are

several key themes which can be identified.

First, the believers are asked to know the important of wisdom (Prov 8:17-21). She loves

righteousness and justice. Those who love wisdom and make priority for her will be offered

wealth. Wisdom clearly says that she gives riches, honor, and prosperity to her followers. This

idea runs parallel with Jesus sayings in Matthew 6:33.

Second, it has to do with the greed for wealth. It is obvious that there is no statement from the

passages explored that wealth is wrong. Wealth is not wrong. It is greed and the making of

wealth as the goal of life. Wealth brought about by wickedness is worthless in the end (Prov

8:17-21). The pursuit of money will never satisfy the needs of the greedy people (Qoh 5:9-11).

Since wealth cannot give satisfaction to its owner, those who put wealth as the goal of their life

will face a meaningless life. (Qoh 5:9,17; Sir 31:5). The term which is used to designate wealth

is mammon (Sir 31:8), which is also used in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 6:24; Luke 16:13). All

the above wisdom sayings which voice the danger of love of money may shed light on Jesus

sayings for not making wealth or money as the final destination in human beings life (Matt

6:19-21; 6:24).

Third, sharing possessions with others in need is strongly encouraged as the symbol ofrighteousness (Tob 4:6). Generosity to the needy is understood as the right deed. Apart from that,

the proper attitudes in extending generosity are elucidated (Tob 4:7,16). People should give

61The call to enjoy life and the gifts of God, as admonished by Qoheleth (Eccl 2:24; 3:13; 5:18; 8:15; 9:7-9; 11:9),

finds an echo in the Wisdom of Solomon.62

John Geyer, The Wisdom of Solomon (London: SCM Press, 1963), 82.


19/43


20/43

20

Mount (Matthew 5-7), that is, Q as the major source and M as material unique to Matthew.65The

Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 is one of the best-known sections of the New Testament.

The dominant view argues that the Sermon on the Mount was composed by Matthew with Q as

its basic source.66

The passage Matthew 6:19-34 belongs to the main section of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt

5:13-7:12) which deals with social issues (Matt 6:19-7:12). It comprises two sections, God and

mammon (Matt 6:19-34), and the attitude towards neighbor (Matt 7:1-12). That is to say, the

theme of the passage deals with what I should do with and about wealth or mammon. 67 As the

section dealing with wealth, Matthew 6:19-34 contains two parts, the first part (Matt 6:19-24)

speaks of a triad on true treasure, while the second part (Matt 6:25-34) encourages people to

ignore or to face anxiety. The first part (Matt 6:19-24) comprises three units. It begins with an

exhortation to gather treasure not on earth but in heaven (Matt 6:19-21). This is followed by the

sayings about the eye (Matt 6:22-23) and the sayings about two masters (Matt 6:24). Afterwards,

the second part comes (Matt 6:25-34) as an extended section that offers encouragement.

We can see that Matthew 6:19-34 contains one long section and three shorter sections which

Matthew has put together. Two of the four sections belonged together already in Q but in a

reverse order (Matt 6:25-33, 19-21 = Luke 12:22-31, 33-34). The third section (Matt 6:22-23)

comes from a Q context which Matthew had used already and this means that it was familiar to

Johann Griesbach in the late eighteenth century. According to the Griesbach-Farmer hypothesis, the presence of

most of Mark in Matthew and Luke does not advocate Markan priority but only an intermediary role for Mark.

Likewise, the verses which Matthew and Luke share in common does not indicate the existence of Q; rather, it

shows that Luke uses Matthew. That is to say, according to this hypothesis, Matthew was the first gospel, followed

by Luke who knew Matthew, and then Mark who used both. Other scholars, (A. M. Farrer and his pupil M. D.

Goulder) retain Markan priority and dispense with Q by arguing that Luke has used Matthew.65

Jan Lambrecht, The Sermon, 37, says in other words, that Matthew has brought three kinds of material in his

sermon: first, the Q-material that is also present in the Lucan parallel; second, the Q-material that is dispersed

elsewhere throughout Lukes gospel; and third, his own material, his Sondergut.With respect to this, Hans D. Betz,Essays on the Sermon; The Sermon on the Mount and Q: Some Aspect of the

Problem, in Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings: In Honor of James M.Robinson (eds. J. E. Goehring et al.;Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1990), 19-34; The Sermon on the Mount, 43-45, proposes a different view from thedominant view of the SMs sources. He argues that the Sermon on the Mount is a presynoptic composition, formedin Jerusalem around 50, before Q but later incorporated into a form of Q. See D. C. Allison, A New Approach tothe Sermon on the Mount, ETL 64 (1988): 405-414; C. E. Carlston, Betz on the Sermon on the Mount ACritique, CBQ 50 (1988): 47-57; U. Luz, Matthew 1-7. A Commentary (trasn.Wilhelm C. Linss; Ediburgh: T&TClark, 1989), 213.66

See Warren Carter, Some Contemporary Scholarship on the Sermon on the Mount Current in Research: BiblicalStudies 4 (1996): 184.67Dale C. Allison, The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount,JBL (1987):435-439; U. Luz,Matthew 1-7, 393.


21/43

21

him (Luke 11:34-36). It is also similar with Matthew 6:24 which has a correspondence in Q

(Luke 16:13). The analysis will show that Matthew followed the source not only in the order of

material but also in the formulation. That is to say, he is a conservative redactor. The whole

pericope of Matthew 6:19-34, therefore, offers almost exclusively Q tradition with only a brief

segment (Matt 6:34) which is from non-Q. The theme which is emphasized by Matthean

composition is the relation of the disciples to possessions. It is worth noting that the four sections

of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 6:19-34 have parallels in Luke but outside the Lukan

Sermon.68

Given the fact that Matthew 6:19-34 is from Q tradition it means that it contains wisdom

materials. The form of Q as a whole is that of wisdom literature.69

With respect to this,

Harrington70

says that Matthew 6:19-7:12 has no obvious structure. Rather, it is put together like

a wisdom book (see Proverbs, Sirach, Qoheleth) in which short units are placed side by side

because of their similar content or because of external principles. It features commands,

illustrations, reflections, and a summary of conclusions (Matt 7:12). In this line, Jesus is seen as

a wisdom teacher. The point is: was Jesus portrayed as a Jewish wisdom teacher or cynic

wisdom teacher?.71

This unit contains wisdom admonition which formulates the attitude towards

wealth. In the ancient world, to attack wealth, property, family status and honor would be quite

enough to gain reputation for cynicism.72 That is to say, the wisdom admonition in this unit

would be appropriate to make Jesus sayings appear cynical. However, to connect Jesus with the

68G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospels According to St Matthew (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946), 21-22;

Ulrich Luz,Matthew 1-7. A Commentary (trans. W. C. Liss; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990), 390; Robert A. Guelich,

The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding (Dallas: Word, 1982), 323. 69

See James M. Robinson, Jesusas Sophos and Sophia: Wisdom Tradition and the Gospels, in Aspect of Wisdomin Judaism and Early Christianity (Ed. Robert L. Wilken; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), 1;

John S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q (SAC; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 238-244; R. A. Piper, Wisdom

in the Q-Tradition (SNMTMS 61; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 12,162-170.70

D.J. Harington, The Gospel of Matthew (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1991), 104.71B. Fiore, Cynic Epistles; Cynicism and Skepticism, DNTB: 239, 243 -244, describes that Cynicism is aphilosophical movement whose aim was to extricate people from a life of vice and set them on the road of virtue. It

was a fourth-century B.C. philosophical movement which lost its prominence after 200 B.C.. It was revived in thefirst century A.D. Cynics claimed no attachment to any city for a city is against nature. But they regarded

themselves as citizens of the world. They belonged to the community of wise persons and expected a commonality

of all goods as humanitys common patrimony. There were three aspects of their life: itenarant begging withknapsack, cloak and staff; the slogan be countercultural; the Cynic literary genres such as Bions diatribes andplayful satire of Monimus, Crates, Metrocles and Menippus.72

F. Gerald Downing, Deeper Reflections on the Jewish Cynic Jesus, JBL 117 (1998): 97-104. Leo G. Perdue,The Wisdom Sayings of Jesus, Forum 2 (1986): 32, infers that the substantial presence of wisdom sayings in Qand Mark, aphoristic and proverbial, suggests that our earliest sources for the sayings of Jesus point to a teacher

engaged in the creation and transmission of wisdom.


22/43

22

cynics is not so simple.73

What could be said is that what Jesus expressed in this unit has some

similarities with what cynics expressed in their attitude towards wealth.

In this case, I follow the view which sees Jesus as a Jewish wisdom teacher .74 The

understanding of Jesus as a wisdom teacher in early Christians is quite clear. Matthew uses the

metaphor of Lady wisdom to interpret the significance of Jesus and his teaching (Matt 8:18-22;

11:2-13:58; 19:1-25:46).75

Matthew portrays Jesus as personified wisdom, and describes him as a

sage. According to Suggs,76 Matthew identifies wisdom with Jesus. That is to say, Jesus is

wisdom incarnate. The metaphor ofwisdom is used to show the significance of Jesus life, work,

death, and resurrection. This can also be seen in Paul77, implicitly in Q78, and in Johns Gospel.79

Further, Matthew portrays Jesus as teacher, both in the context of the wisdom passages and in the

entirety of gospel. For one thing, Matthew uses the verb (teaching) in such

a way as to suggest the primacy of Jesus teaching role (Matt 8:18-22; 10:24-25; 23:8). This

73The Cynic Jesus thesis has been an ongoing debate among the scholars. On the one hand, scholars such as F.G.

Downing, Cynics and Christians, NTS 30 (1984): 584-593; Christ and the Cynics: Jesus and Other RadicalPreachers in First-Century Tradition (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988); Deeper Reflections on the Jewish Cyn icJesus, JBL 117 (1998): 97-104; John S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient WisdomCollection (SAC; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987); Open Healing and Open Eating Jesus as a Jewish Cynic?, BRXXXVI (1991): 6-18; A Dog Among the Pigeons. The Cynic Hypothesis as a Theological Problem, in FromQuest to Q (ed. J.M. Asgeirsson et al.; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 73-117; B.L. Mack, Q and theGospel of Mark: Revising Christian Origins, Semeia 55 (1992): 18; L. Vaage, Galilean Upstarts: Jesus FirstFollowers According toQ (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press, 1994); Q and Cynicism: on Comparison and SocialIdentity, TheGospel Behind the Gospels. Current Studies on Q (ed. Ronald A. Piper; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 199-230;D. Seeley, Jesus and the Cynics Revisited,JBL 116 (1997): 704-712, with their various arguments see Jesus as aCynic.

On the other hand, scholars such as H. Dieter Betz, Jesus and the Cynics: Survey and Analysis of a Hypothesis,JR 75 (1994): 453-475; P.R. Eddy, Jesus as Diogenes? Reflections on the Cynic Jesus Thesis, JBL 115 (1996):449-469; C.M. Tuckett, A Cynic Q, Biblica 70 (1989): 349-376; James D.G. Dunn, Jesus: Teacher of Wisdom orWisdom Incarnate, Where Shall Wisdom Be Found.Wisdom in Bible, the Church and the ContemporaryWorld(ed. Stephen C. Barton; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), 84-85, regard the view that Jesus was a Cynic as

problematic. It includes some general problems of definition, date, and provenance.74

James D.G. Dunn, Teacher of Wisdom, 84-85, for example, argues that describing the radical social critique ofJesus as belonging to cynicism would mean that he has a cynic strand in his teaching. But if the claim is that Jesus

was influenced by current traditions of cynic teaching, that is another question. According to him, the evidence for

such influence is sketchy at best.75

C. Deutsch,. Wisdom and Matthew.NovT32 (1990):14-16;Lady Wisdom, Jesus, and the Sages. Metaphor andSocial Context in Matthews Gospel(Valley Forge: Trinity Press, 1996), 9-12, 42-45; James D.G. Dunn, Teacher ofWisdom, 77-82; Elisabeth S. Fiorenza, Jesus Messenger of Divine Wisdom, ST49 (1995): 231-252.76

M. Jack Suggs, Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthews Gospel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press, 1970), 58.77

H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (trans. J.W. Leitch;

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 45-46.78

J. Kloppenborg, Wisdom Christology in Q,LTP 34 (1978): 129-147.79

R.E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1996), cxxii-cxxv.


23/43

23

obviously reflects Matthews understanding of Jesus as teacher.80 Indeed, the Sermon on the

Mount (Matt 5:1-7:29) is concluded with a summary that attests to Jesus being a teacher: Now

when Jesus had finished saying these sayings, the crowds were astounded at his teaching, for he

taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.81 The statements point back to the

teaching contained in the Sermon on the Mount which contains the polemic between Jesus the

teacher and their scribes. These statements distinguish Jesus the sage, who teaches as one who

has independent authority, from the scribes (Matt 7:29). The point is twofold: 1) Jesus is not

merely a scribe; and 2) the problem is not with scribes per se but their scribes in terms of

referring to the scribes of the Jewish people at that time, as recorded by Matthew 7:29. 82 It is

clear that the famous Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) portrays Jesus as a wisdom teacher. The

activity of teaching is displayed obviously from the beginning (Matt 6:1-16) until the end of the

Sermon (Matt 7:29).

Jesus as a Jewish wisdom teacher can also be seen from the beatitudes of the Sermon on the

Mount (Matt 5:3-11).83

The term is found in the New Testament (Acts

26:2) and Jewish wisdom literature (Sir 25:8-9). Since Jesus appears in the Sermon on the Mount

as a teacher, the general, wisdom signification can be applied to the Matthean series of

beatitudes. This would turn our text into wisdom teaching and Jesus into a wisdom teacher.

Apart from this secular meaning, the word also has an eschatological sense in the New

Testament (cf. Luke 10:23-24). In Matthews Gospel, wisdom teaching can be expressed as

eschatological proclamation with eschatological claim. Conversely, eschatological assertions

appear in the form of wisdom instruction. Jesus is the teacher who speaks with eschatological

authority (cf. Matt 7:29).

80William A. Beardslee, The Wisdom Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,JAAR (1967): 238.

81

C. Deutsch, Jesus and the Sages, 82-110, notes that the sayings were taken from Mark. She also underlines thatbeing a teacher, Jesus is portrayed by Matthew much as do teachers in other texts of this period. That is, he is a

prophet, calling people to repentance. He is a wonder-worker, healing, exorcising, and raising people from the dead.

He gathers disciples and defines himself as the lowly one, over against the oppositions teachers. And he is also avisionary, who takes three disciples with him to ascend the mountain.82

Ben Witherington III, Jesus the Sage. The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 344-345. See

also Donald Senior, Invitation to Matthew,Invitation tothe Gospels (eds. Donald Senior at al.; New York: PaulistPress, 2002), 25, 24-46.83

G. Strecker, The Sermon on the Mount. An Exegetical Commentary (trans. O. C. Dean; Nashville: Abingdon

Press, 1988), 30-31.


24/43

24

Like the Gospel of Thomas, Q presents Jesus as a teacher. Scholars currently regard Q as part

of sapiential literature like Proverbs and other texts, which in its oldest form probably only

contained wisdom material. This means that one of the oldest ways of viewing Jesus was to see

him as a wisdom teacher who gave instruction and admonition.84

From the viewpoint of first-

century Jewish theology it is undoubtedly possible that Jesus could have been a wisdom teacher

who was interested in instructing people on how to cope with life and pursue ethical conduct.

Willem S. Voster85 argues that what kind of teacher Jesus was can be seen from the form and

content of his teaching. A great deal of Jesus teaching was done in aphoristic form, short pithy

sayings, expressing a general truth and embedded in different contexts (Matt 6:19-34). The

sayings of Jesus often contain values for ethical conduct and the pursuit of a lifestyle, which is

worth following. This aphoristic nature of the teaching of Jesus reminds one of the Proverbs of

the Old Testament and other wisdom texts. Although the New Testament does not have an

example of wisdom literature the phenomenon is definitely not absent. Jesus was regarded as a

sage (Luke 11:31) and much of his teaching was given in aphoristic form. So, both the form and

the content of the teaching of Jesus make it possible for us to regard him as a wisdom teacher.

II.B. The Theme of Wealth in Matthew 6:19-34

Matthew 6:19-34 deals with the issue of wealth. The first unit, Matthew 6:19-21, expresses a

warning on the idea of hoarding treasure for its own sake. This is a wrong goal of life (cf. Qoh

5:9-11; Sir 31:5). Rather, one should seek the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness (Matt

6:33). The treasure is not in the heart itself, but eschatological (Matt 6:21). The commandment in

Matthew 6:19a warns against the storing up of treasures on earth (). The

hoarding that takes place on earth refers to its futility since the earth is the place of perishability

(cf. Matt 5:5,13,14-16; 6:10,25-34; 7:24-27). The where-clauses in verse 19bc describe the

stupidity of such hoarding because moth and rust consume the treasures and thieves break in andsteal them.

84John S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient WisdomCollection. Studies in Antiquity and

Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 87.85

Willem S. Vorster, Jesus: Eschatological Prophet And/Or Wisdom Teacher,? in Speaking of Jesus. Essays onBiblical Language, Gospel Narrative and theHistoricalJesus (ed. J. Eugene Botha; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 310-314,

317.


25/43

25

The idea of treasures in heaven was commonplace in Jewish wisdom at that time (T. Job 9-

13, 44-45; Tob 4:9; Sir 29:10-11; 4 Ezra 6:5). The Sermon on the Mount points to the same idea,

your reward will be great in heaven (Matt 5:12b). Likewise, the laying up ofheavenly treasures

which is performed by good deeds, particularly by sharing ones possessions with others (Mark

10:21; 1 Tim 6:18-19), was taken over from Judaism (2 Bar 14:12; 3 Bar 11:8-9; 14:2; T. Job 9-

13,44-45; Tob 4:9; 4 Ezra 6:5; Sir 29:10-11; also Philo, Spec.leg. 4:74).

The word (heart) appears to stress ones total loyalty which serves as the

key word (Matt 6:21).86In the biblical concept heart serves as the total person. This means that

Matthew 6:19-21 is not meant to offer a call to better or more lasting treasures but rather to ones

total faithfulness. To store up treasures in heaven means to submit totally to that which is in

heaven, Gods sovereign rule. This motif flows in subsequent units in Matthew 6:22 -23,24,33.

Apart from the conclusion of Matthew 6:19-21, verse 21 also serves as the controlling motif for

the entire unit. Strecker87

says that verse 21 serves as the determining factor for ones existential

orientation. If the treasure is an earthly one, the person becomes lost in earthly things. If it is a

heavenly one, the person lives with an orientation toward heaven.

The idea of total allegiance in the unit (Matt 6:19-21) is also emphasized by Betz.88 He

regards the section Matthew 6:19-34 as demonstrating the necessity of the right decision and the

divine demand of wholeness. The anthropological concepts of(heart) and

(eye; Matt 6:19-21, 22-23) exemplify that wholeness. The two-way

schema is clear in the whole context and it expounds the necessity of making the right decision.

The unit Matthew 6:22-23 is about the sound eye. The parallel to this unit is found in Luke

11:34-36 with a different context, audience, and ending. The thesis sentence,

(the eye is the lamp of the body), which appears to be a proverb, has become a

controversy since it could give rise to two possible interpretations. On the one hand, somescholars89 hold the intromission vision of theory. That is to say, the eye is understood to give

86Robert Guelich, The Sermon, 328.

87G. Strecker, The Sermon, 132.

88Hans D. Betz, The Sermonon the Mount(Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 429.

89E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew (trans. David E. Green; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975),

163 ; R. Guelich, The Sermon, 329; Hans D. Betz, The Sermon, 449-451.


26/43

26

light to the body. On the other hand, some scholars90

prefer to apply the extramission theory of

vision. This means, an eye reveals what is within a person. By looking at ones eye one gets to

know what is inside the person. So, the point of issue is how should

be taken, as an objective or a subjective genitive. In fact, the proverb does not give any idea how

the eye operates its function either physiologically or conceptually. This has led scholars to offer

different suggestions. With respect to this, two scholars must be mentioned here: Betz91 and

Allison92.

In Betzs explanation of Matthew 6:22-23, the light is not in the eye, but somewhere else in

the body. He says that the origin of the thesis the eye is the lamp of the body comes from Greek

philosophy, especially from the pre-Socratic philosopher Empedocles. The commentary verses

(v. 22b-23b) reject the concept that the eye itself sees. The eye not only facilitates vision but also

prohibits it. The source of the light is found in Matthew 6:23b, If then the light in you is

darkness, how great is the darkness. The phrase the light in you or light within is a well-

known concept in Greek philosophy dealing with vision and epistemology. However, the internal

light here is not identical with the soul or intellect, as commonly found in the Greek philosophy.

The texts says that the light within you may even become darkness. This may serve as a

corrective against Platonic-Stoic anthropology, which never regards the lumen internum as

darkness, but it cannot be regarded as the ultima ratio which can be relied upon in its battle

against the desires caused by the senses. The eye is not the real cause of sin, but the light within

when it itself has been turned into darkness. The result is, what a darkness! On the other hand,

when the light within shines, then the eye can illuminate the body. It qualifies the eye

(generous, healthy, single) and thus enables it to function properly.

While Matthew 6:22b-23a serves as a commentary on the eye, Matthew 6:23b serves as a

commentary on the image of lamp.93

90F.C. Fensham, The Good and Evil Eye in the Sermon on the Mount, Neotestamentica 1 (1967): 51-58; Dale C.

Allison, The Eye, 73-78; The Sermon, 142-145; W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, Matthew, 635-638; G. Strecker,The Sermon, 133; U. Luz,Matthew 1-7, 398; Donald Hagner,Matthew 1-13 (Texas: Word Books, 1993), 58.91

Hans D. Betz,Essays, 71-86; The Sermon, 442-448.92

D.L. Allison, The Eye, 61-83; The Sermon, 142-145.93

Hans D. Betz, The Sermon, 444, 449-450.


27/43

27

Allison94

, meanwhile, develops the extramission theory of vision, which was not only

confined to the Greeks. Rather, it was also a common theory of pre-modern peoples. He

discusses the materials that display the eye as a source of light in Jewish writings. Two Old

Testament passages (Dan 10:2-9; Zech 4:1-14) and several Jewish texts (b. Sabb 151b; 2 En

42:1; T. Job 18:4) are used as the pertinent materials to illuminate the concept of the eye in

Matthew 6:22-23. Daniel describes his vision of a glorious man as follows, his eyes like flaming

torches (Dan 10:6). Similarly, Zechariah tells of a vision in which he saw a lampstand made of

gold with a bowl on its top, and seven lamps (LXX: ) on it. Then, verse 10

concludes by stating that the seven lamps are the eyes of the Lord, which range throughout the

whole earth. The word , which is used here is the very word used in Matthew

6:22 (Luke 11:34). Allison emphasizes that Jewish sources are more relevant for the

understanding of a saying in Q than is a parable from the Greek philosopher Empedocles. 95

Allison96

gives several arguments to show that the eye was regarded as the window which

channeled light into the body, following the intromission theory of vision, but this is

anachronistic and unacceptable for understanding Matthew 6:22-23. The lamp is not a medium,

which channels light from one source to another place. The lamp is rather its own light source.

Accordingly, the saying the eye is the lamp of the body is not a new thesis that needs to be

explained by verses 22b-23. On the contrary, ones understanding of this opening line determines

the meaning of what follows.

This unit obviously appears to emphasize a moral or an ethical tone. The paraenetic

conclusion (Matt 6:23b) indicates that the concern is not the eye. Rather, the crucial factor is

about the light within: whether it is light or dark. Further,

is an ethical term in Judaism. Its immediate

context, storing up treasures (Matt 6:19-21) suggests that it is linked to an ethical realm.

Matthew 6:22-23 is not concerned with the effect of the eye on somebody else, but only of its

94D.C. Allison, The Eye, 66-70.

95Hans D. Betz, The Sermon, 450 n. 221, comments that the two Old Testament passages (Dan 10:2-9; Zech 4:1-

14), do not engage in theory but state popular views.96

D.C. Allison, The Eye, 74.


28/43

28

effect on the owner of the eye. It is concerned with the disposition of a person, which is reflected

by the character of the eye.97

The term used to designate the sound eye is

. The word coulddenote two categories, the physical and the ethical. In the physical realm it means healthy and

in the ethical realm it means single, referring to single-minded, sincere, undivided attention

(Job 1:1; T. Lewi 13:1). The term denotes sincerity of heart (Barnabas 19:2) and mind (cf. 1

Clement 23:1).98 According to Filson,99 the word is the reflection of the

Hebrew word the meaning of which is singleness of purpose or undivided loyalty. One

who divides his interest, between God and possession, will have no clear vision, and is without

clear orientation and direction. Thus, the term single in this unit appears to serve as a transition

to the next point, the impossibility of being divided (Matt 6:24).

Figuratively, denotes generosity

(Prov 22:9; Qoh 32:8,10; T. Iss. 3:4; Sir 32:8). A similar meaning can be found in other New

Testament texts (Rom 12:8; 2 Cor 8:2; 9:11; Jas 1:5). This meaning seems to be more probable

on the basis that the antithesis of is

, which is fixed expression for the selfish spirit, a

usage also found in Matthew 20:15. The terms is

from the ethical vocabulary of Judaism which literally means bad eye or evil eye. It refers to

the antithesis of generosity: selfishness, covetousness, an evil and envious disposition (Deut

15:9; Prov 23:6; T. Benj. 4:2,6; Tob 4:7; Sir 14:10; 31:13).100

This means that this unit functions

to stress the danger of covetousness of wealth.101

The teaching on covetousness serves as the

preparation for the saying repudiating anxiety over material needs which follows in Matthew

6:25-34. It also provides the way, which is demanded by Matthew 6:19-21, to lay up heavenly

treasures by sharing possessions with others. Matthew 6:22-23 encourages the readers to be

generous givers with what they have (cf. Tob 4:6-7,16; Deut 15:14; 16:17). Those who have the

97F.C. Fensham, The Good andEvil Eye, 56.

98W. Bauer,BDAG, 86.

99F.V. Filson, The Gospel, 100.

100D.C. Allison, The Eye, 76-77; The Sermon, 143. According to Bauer, BDAG, 690, the terms could also mean a

sick eye. C.S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Michigan: Eermands, 1999), 232 n. 201, says that

the terms could refer to magical dangers against its victim.101

Ronald A. Piper, Wisdom, 96-97.


29/43

29

healthy eyes are they who, through generosity (Matt 6:22-23), store up treasure in heaven (Matt

6:19-21) and serve God instead of mammon (Matt 6:24).102

Matthew 6:24 is the third unit which points out the impossibility of divided service. The

faithfulness or loyalty of a servant towards his master is emphasized. Thus, the children of God

should faithfully serve God instead of mammon or wealth. Here mammon is juxtaposed with

God, as a potential master to be served other than God (Matt 6:24//Luke 16:13). The readers are

warned against the danger of wealth which is personified in the form of mammon.

The term mammon comes from the Aramaic nounwhose emphatic state is

(mamona) which the Greek transliterates . The word

signifies resources, money, property, and possession. The overall understanding of the

term represents the materialistic wealth of the world. The word itself does not exist in the

Hebrew canon. Rather, it appears in other Jewish literature (Sir 31:8; 1QS 6:2; 1Q 27:1-2,5; CD

14:20; 1 En 63:10; m. Abot 2:12; m. Sanh. 4:1; b. Ber. 61:6). 103 According to Nestle,104 the term

mammon originates from the root which means the thing in which men trust or what is

entrusted to men, or that which supports and nourishes men. Brown105 takes one side of the

meaning, that is, something to trust or believe. There is the connection of mammon with

Amen as the total reliability of God expressed in the appellation God of Amen or God of

Truth (Isa 65:16; 25:1), as argued by Groenewald.106 Similarly, in Revelation 3:14, there is a

self-appellation of Christ as the Amen. The posing of the alternatives, God and mammon,

indicates that both sides may be related to the Amen. While God is the true Amen, mammon is

the pretender Amen.

102D.C. Allison, The Sermon, 145.

103F. Hauck, TDNTIV: 388; C. Brown, ,NIDNTT2: 876-877; HansD. Betz, The Sermon, 458 n. 297.104

E. Nestle, Mammon,Encyclopaedia Biblica 3:2912-2915.105

C. Brown, NIDNTT2:837; J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel, 1109, says that mammon, is a maqtal noun type of theroot , in which its causative form isheeminto trust. Its closeness to the word amen is apparent. From theform amen it shifted to maman, and with the changes of vowels it becomes mammonwhich means that in whichwe put trust. With a semantic shift, it is easy to understand how the meaning of the word becomes money orpossession. In Greek it would be an aramaized word on loan from Hebrew. Another popular opinion is proposedby Ruger, , ZNW 64:127-131. He argues that the origin of the term comes from the rootprovision, stored goods. His rejection against the root lies in the fact that the emphatic statuson the word makes clear that mammon originally comes from Aramaic not Hebrew. TheAramaic term is a Canaanite loanword which entered Hebrew and Aramaic.106

E.P. Groenewald, God and Mammon,Neotestamentica 1 (1967): 62.


30/43

30

In the later usage, the term mammon has a negative connotation.107 The pejorative sense of

the term is particularly found in the Targum. The term is used to designate dishonest gains such

as bribe-money (Tg. Num 35:31; Tg. Ams 5:12; Tg. Prov 15:27), profit accumulated in a

cunning way (Tg. Exod 22:12; Tg. Gen 37:26; Tg. Jug 5:19), and ransom imposed by the judge

(Tg. Exod 21:30). The negative tone in the term is further clarified when it is linked with the

word dishonest. There are several passages in Targum where the phrase

dishonest wealth is found (Tg. Num 35:31; Tg. Am 5:12; Tg 1

Sam 12:3; Tg. Isa 33:15; 45:13). It is worth noting that the Aramaic phrase

is equivalent with the phrase

unrighteous mammonin the Gospel

of Luke (16:9,13), referring to possession gained dishonestly. Elsewhere, the term is used in a

neutral sense. Thus, Brown108 rightly says that in itself the term may be neutral but it obtained a

negative connotation when it was used in negative contexts.

Usually commentators agree that the use of the Semitic form, transliterated in Greek as

(Matt 6:24c), was personified or deified as a potential master.109

According to Allison,110

this Semitic loan-word is left untranslated due to its position of being

almost an idol, that is, the idolatry of serving mammon. The contrast of mammon with God as an

object of service in Matthew 6:24 shows that here Jesus applies the principle to one o f the

greatest temptations: the idolatry of materialism.111 In antiquity it had been recognized that the

relentless pursuit of money and possession was similar to the worship of a pseudo-deity (cf. T.

Jud. 18:1-19:1). This also explains the special qualities of wealth or mammon that serve as

captivating forces upon a person (cf. Sir 31:5-7). One of the reasons why people serve mammon

is that of seeking surrogate immortality. Accumulating wealth is done as a means of providing a

sense of security. In the context of the Sermon on the Mount it is generated by emancipation

from the anxiety of death as expressed in the Beatitudes.112

107This is contra Schweizer, The Good News, 164, who claims that money or mammon in Jewish usage has no

bad connotation. See F. Hauck, TDNT2: 389-390.108

C. Brown,NIDNTT2: 837.109

W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, Matthew, 643; Hans D. Betz, The Sermon, 458 n. 298; P.W. Van Der Horst,

Mammon,DDD, 1012-1013.110

D.C. Allison, The Sermon, 145.111

C.S. Keener,A Commentary, 233.112

A. Kojak, A Structural Analysis of the Sermon on theMount(Berlin: Mounten de Gruyter, 1986), 125-128.


31/43


32/43

32

of Solomon with all of his wealth had become proverbial (1 Kgs 3:13; 9:26-10:29; 2 Chr 9:13-

28; Qoh 2:1-11; 1 Esd 1:5). Verse 30 provides the conclusive point of the lesson. Since God so

wonderfully clothes what is transitory and worthless, that is, the grass or the lilies, how much

more true it must be that God will provide clothing for his people. Again, the reason of anxiety

for those who serve God is pointless. Here, the disciples are categorized as having little faith,

the favorite phrase in Matthew (Matt 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; 17:20).115

In the Hebrew Bible the comparison of the human being to flower or grass often underlines

the brevity and fragility of human life. It is said that All people are grass, their constancy is like

the grass of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades (Isa 40:6-7; cf. Job 8:12; 14:1-2; Ps

37:1-2; 90:5-6). But in the Sermon on the Mount it is otherwise. Flower and grass do not convey

the fleeting life of human beings; rather, they show how God takes care of them despite their

short existence. With respect to this, Allison116

says that for the first-century Jew the sayings of

Matthew 6:26-30 would have been ironic and provocative because they draw conclusions from

the birds and flowers which are opposite to those others had sometimes drawn.

Second, the readers are provided with the arguments which highlight the problem of anxiety

by contrasting the Gentiles and the Fathers children (Matt 6:32). The Gentiles or the pagans,

, (Matt 5:46-47; 6:7,32) are identified as pursuing material goods. The

Gentiles, who do not trust the God of Israel, strive

Documents

Paper for the Meeting of Asian Biblical Scholars