The Temple Setting of the Sermon on the Mount in the Book of Mormon: A Hermeneutical Key?

The Temple Setting of the Sermon on the Mount in the Book of Mormon:

A Hermeneutical Key? Latter-day Saints and the Bible session, Society of Biblical Literature, Nov. 21, 2014

Robert M. Bowman Jr.1

The most controversial part of the account of Jesus’ appearances to the Nephites in the

Book of Mormon is the report of Jesus preaching to them the Sermon on the Mount almost

exactly as it appears in the Gospel of Matthew (3 Nephi 12-14, cf. Matt. 5:3-7:27). This paper

will not, however, be concerned with the Book of Mormon version of the Sermon at all. Instead,

it examines John Welch’s proposal that the temple setting of the Nephite sermon, which he has

dubbed the Sermon at the Temple, provides a kind of hermeneutical key to the proper

understanding of the biblical Sermon on the Mount as a temple or ritual text. Welch views his

discovery in 1988 of a temple pattern in the Sermon at the Temple as a challenge to the view that

the presence of the Sermon in 3 Nephi is the Achilles’ heel of the Book of Mormon.2 It would

show, he argues, that the Sermon on the Mount owes little or nothing to Matthew but originated

in form and wording from Jesus.3 This would then make it more plausible to believe that Jesus

delivered essentially the same sermon to the Nephites. Moreover, if the Sermon at the Temple

provides a revolutionary insight into the coherence and meaning of the Sermon on the Mount,

this would be difficult to explain as the work of the young, uneducated Joseph Smith—turning

the seeming liability of the Sermon in the Book of Mormon into an asset.4

To test Welch’s hermeneutical key, in this paper his arguments for viewing the temple as

the dominant theme or motif of the Sermon on the Mount will be examined.5 His temple-text

model or paradigm for interpreting the Sermon will be compared with an alternative interpretive

framework, here designated the Messianic-kingdom model.

The Mountain Setting of the Sermon on the Mount

The location of Jesus’ sermon on a “mountain” (Matt. 5:1) has long been regarded as

suggesting a typological comparison of Jesus to Moses, who had received the Torah on Mount

1 Robert M. Bowman Jr. is the executive director at the Institute for Religious Research in Grand Rapids,

Michigan, and recently completed the Ph.D. in biblical studies at South African Theological Seminary.

This paper is adapted from a section of his dissertation, “The Sermon at the Temple in the Book of

Mormon: A Critical Examination of Its Authenticity through a Comparison with the Sermon on the

Mount in the Gospel of Matthew.”

2 John W. Welch, “Seeing Third Nephi as the Holy of Holies of the Book of Mormon,” Journal of the

Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 19 (2010): 53.

3 John W. Welch, The Sermon on the Mount in the Light of the Temple, SOTSMS (Farnham, England,

and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009), 211.

4 John W. Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple & Sermon on the Mount: An Approach to 3

Nephi 11-18 and Matthew 5-7 (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 126.

5 Welch’s Sermon on the Mount in the Light of the Temple will be the basis for this examination.

Bowman/Temple Setting of the Sermon on the Mount in the Book of Mormon—page 2

Sinai. Welch argues at length that the mountain setting recalls primarily Moses on Sinai, with the

mountain functioning as a prototypical temple.6

Matthew draws a number of explicit comparisons between Jesus and various Old

Testament figures, including Jonah (12:38-41), Solomon (12:42), John the Baptist (11:16-19;

16:13-14), Jeremiah (16:13-14), but above all David (1:1, 6, 17; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31;

21:9, 15; 22:42-45). Yet although Moses is mentioned in the Gospel (17:3-4; 19:7-8; 22:24;

23:4), nowhere in Matthew is a comparison between Jesus and Moses made explicit.7

In Matthew 5:1 Jesus “went up on the mountain” (ESV; anebē eis to oros), an expression

in the Torah referring to Moses going up Mount Sinai (Exod. 3:1; 19:3, 12; 24:12, 15, 18; 34:1,

4; Deut. 5:5; 9:9; 10:1, 3).8 However, without denying that Moses and Sinai form part of the rich

tapestry of religious associations implicit in Matthew 5:1,9 an allusion to David and Zion is more

likely. For example, in Psalm 23:3 LXX (24:3) David asks, “Who shall go up into the mountain

of the Lord?” (anabēsetai eis to oros). Several sayings of the Sermon on the Mount contain

possible allusions to this Psalm: Jesus’ promise of God’s act of mercy, his reference to the “pure

in heart,” and his warning about swearing (Matt. 5:7, 8, 33-37; cf. Ps. 23:3-5 LXX). There is also

the prophecy found in both Micah and Isaiah that “many nations” will “go up into the mountain

of the Lord” (anabōmen eis to oros), to the house of the God of Jacob (Micah 4:2/Isa. 2:3). These

texts do refer to the temple, so if one views Matthew 5:1 as alluding to them, the temple would

be part of the allusion. However, the focus would be Davidic, not Mosaic, and Zionist, not

Sinaitic. Moreover, the theme would be centered on the kingdom of God, not on temple ritual

(note Ps. 23:7-10 LXX; Micah 4:3/Isa. 2:4).

Another noteworthy Old Testament text relevant to Matthew’s narrative introduction to

the Sermon on the Mount is Isaiah 52:7: “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him

who brings good news [euangelizomenou], who publishes peace, who brings good news

[euangelizomenos] of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns

[basileusei]’” (Isa. 52:7; cf. Rom. 10:15). Isaiah 52:7 is the only Old Testament verse in which

expressions of “good news” and God’s rule or kingdom occur together.10 In the narrative

introduction to the Sermon, Matthew reports that Jesus brought the good news of God’s kingdom

(Matt. 4:17) in the mountains (Matt. 5:1). Arguably, then, the mountain setting in Matthew 5:1

has more to do with Jesus fulfilling the vision of Isaiah 52:7 (see also Isa. 40:9) than it does with

Jesus acting as a new Moses. Matthew 4:23, which states that Jesus was “proclaiming”

(kērussōn) “the gospel” (to euangelion) of the kingdom, clearly alludes to Isaiah 61:1, where the

speaker says that he is anointed “to bring good news” (euangelisasthai) and “to proclaim”

6 Ibid., 17.

7 Dale C. Allison Jr., who defends a Moses Christology in Matthew, acknowledges this point in The New

Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 137-38.

8 Cf. ibid., 174-75, though some of Allison’s citations are inapplicable.

9 Cf. David D. Kupp, Matthew’s Emmanuel: Divine Presence and God’s People in the First Gospel,

SNTSMS 90 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 70.

10 Robert D. Rowe, God’s Kingdom and God’s Son: The Background to Mark’s Christology from

Concepts of Kingship in the Psalms (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 116; cf. Ps. 96:2, 10.


(kēruxai) liberty to the captives. Thus, Matthew presents the Sermon on the Mount as Jesus’

proclamation of the good news of the Messianic kingdom.11

Determining the Theme of the Sermon on the Mount

It would be a mistake to deny the presence of significant allusions to the temple in the

Sermon on the Mount. The problem with Welch’s model is that it stretches the evidence in order

to demonstrate not only the presence of such motifs but their centrality or unifying function in the

Sermon. Any recurring theme in the Bible—such as creation, holiness, love, land, or temple—

might potentially be explored as a way of illuminating a particular text and discovering

overlooked aspects of its meaning. However, such exercises should not be confused with

determining the main theme of a text.12 Thus, while it is legitimate to mine the Sermon for

allusions to the temple, one should be careful not to force the text to fit a temple-oriented

straitjacket or to make the theme of the temple overwhelm its actual focus and message.

Since the purpose at hand is not to discount all temple allusions in the vocabulary of the

Sermon on the Mount but to show that temple motifs are not central or dominant, it is not

necessary here to attempt to examine all of Welch’s examples. Such an undertaking is

impractical here since Welch adduces some 120 temple themes throughout the Sermon.13 Instead,

the Beatitudes will be examined in some detail as a test passage to see which of the two models

being compared here (temple-centered versus Messianic-kingdom) best illuminates the passage.

The Theme of the Beatitudes

Most biblical scholars agree that Isaiah 61 is the primary Old Testament text to which the

opening Beatitudes allude.14 The speaker brings good news “to the poor [ptōchois]” (Isa. 61:1, cf.

Matt. 5:3), “to comfort [parakalesai] all who mourn [penthountas]” (61:2, also 61:3; cf. Matt.

5:4). God’s people will “inherit the land” (klēronomēsousin tēn gēn, Isa. 61:7, see also 60:21; cf.

Matt. 5:5). And three times the speaker announces the coming blessing of “righteousness”

11 See further Terence L. Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology, JSNTSup 8

(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 114-18, 202.

12 Vern Sheridan Poythress, Symphonic Theology: The Validity of Multiple Perspectives in Theology

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan—Academie, 1987), 31-33, 44.

13 Welch, Sermon, 183-89, especially his table on 184-87.

14 E.g., William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel

According to Matthew, Vol. I: Matthew 1-7, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 436-39; Hans Dieter

Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Including the Sermon on

the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49), ed. Adelo Yarbro Collins, Hermeneia (Minneapolis:

Fortress Press, 1995), 113, 121; D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, rev.

ed., Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, eds. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 160; Charles

Quarles, Sermon on the Mount: Restoring Christ’s Message to the Modern Church, NAC Studies in

Bible & Theology, E. Ray Clendenen, series ed. (Nashville: B&H, 2011), 52-54, 56, 61-62; Craig A.

Evans, Matthew, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012),

103-106.


(dikaiosunē, Isa. 61:3, 8, 11; cf. Matt. 5:6). In short, the first four Beatitudes all allude to Isaiah

61, a text that also figures elsewhere in Jesus’ ministry (Matt. 11:4-6; Luke 4:18-21).

Welch omits any reference to Isaiah 61 in his treatment of the Beatitudes. Instead, for

example, he associates the first Beatitude with Psalm 69:32-33, where the Septuagint says, “let

the poor [ptōchoi] see and rejoice” (68:33 LXX), because earlier the psalmist tells the Lord, “zeal

for your house has consumed me” (Ps. 69:9 [68:10 LXX]). In this way Welch seeks to connect

the first Beatitude to the temple.15 Yet one may wonder whether anyone hearing Jesus’ statement

about the poor in spirit would associate it specifically with Psalm 69, let alone go on to make the

connection with the temple (particularly in view of the distance between verse 9 and verses 32-

33).16 Ironically, the last Beatitude does allude to Psalm 69 (cf. Matt. 5:11 with Ps. 69:7-9 [68:8-

10 LXX]), an allusion Welch misses.17 This allusion reflects Jesus’ understanding of Psalm 69 as

a Messianic psalm anticipating his mission, which marked the impending end of the Jewish

religious system centered on the Jerusalem temple—as a result of which defenders of that defunct

system would persecute Jesus’ followers.18 Thus any New Testament allusion to or quotation

from Psalm 69, though it may include reference to the temple, is interpreting Psalm 69 as a

Messianic text.

Another passage in Isaiah to which multiple Beatitudes appear to allude comes in an

earlier “Servant song,” in which Isaiah prophesies: “They shall not hunger [peinasousin], neither

shall they thirst [dipsēsousin]…but he that has mercy [eleōn] on them shall comfort [parakalesei]

them…. Rejoice, ye heavens; and let the earth be glad [agalliasthō]…for the Lord has had mercy

[ēleēsen] on his people, and has comforted [parekalesen] the lowly ones of his people” (Isa.

49:10, 13). As many as four Beatitudes (Matt. 5:4, 6, 7, 12) display verbal similarities with this

short passage in Isaiah. Here again, the passage in Isaiah is understood Messianically elsewhere

in the New Testament (cf. Isa. 49:6 with Acts 13:47; Isa. 49:10 with Rev. 7:16-17).

Thus a strong case exists for understanding Isaiah’s Messianic texts as the dominant

background to the Beatitudes, especially in view of Matthew’s narrative introduction to the

Sermon. Of course, the Beatitudes also echo various passages in the Psalms, such as the allusion

to Psalm 24:4 (23:4 LXX) in Matthew 5:8. David affirms that the pure in heart may go up to

Zion to God’s presence and then announces that the King of glory, the Lord himself, is coming

(24:7-10). It would be a mistake to pit temple themes against kingdom themes here; both are

15 Welch, Sermon, 49; and following him Andrew C. Skinner, “Israel’s Ancient Psalms: Cornerstone of

the Beatitudes,” in The Sermon on the Mount in Latter-day Scripture, ed. Gaye Strathearn, Thomas A.

Wayment, and Daniel L. Belnap, 39th annual BYU Sidney B. Sperry Symposium (Salt Lake City:

Religious Studies Center, BYU, and Deseret Books, 2010), 67.

16 Welch (Sermon, 49 n. 33) cites Herman Hendrickx as connecting Matt. 5:3 to Psalm 69; Herman

Hendrickx, The Sermon on the Mount (London: Chapman, 1984), 19-20. However, Hendrickx mentions

Psalm 69 only as part of the broader OT background; he connects Matt. 5:3 primarily to Isa. 61:1-2,

pointing out that Isa. 61 stands behind several of the Beatitudes; Hendricks, Sermon, 14, 19, 21, 25.

17 Welch, Sermon, 61-64.

18 Ps. 68:10 LXX [69:9], cf. John 2:17; see also Ps. 68:5 LXX [69:4], cf. John 15:25; Ps. 68:22 LXX

[69:21], cf. Matt. 27:34, 48.


involved. However, in the Sermon allusions to the Psalms form part of the announcement of the

Messianic kingdom associated with David, the Psalter’s main author.19

Two key terms in the Beatitudes are “the kingdom of heaven,” mentioned in the first and

eighth Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3, 10), and “righteousness,” mentioned in the fourth and eighth

Beatitudes (5:6, 10). Attention has already been drawn to the three references to righteousness in

Isaiah 61. The repetition of the term in the fourth and eighth Beatitudes is yet another indication

of the primary importance of Isaiah 61 in the Beatitudes. Another relevant allusion is Isaiah 9,

quoted by Matthew in his narrative run-up to the Sermon (Matt. 4:13-16, cf. Isa. 9:1-2 [8:23-9:1

LXX]), and containing the famous Messianic prophecy of the child whose rule “on the throne of

David and over his kingdom” would bring “peace” and “righteousness” (Isa. 9:6-7 [9:5-6 LXX]).

The conjunction of “righteousness” and “kingdom” in this Messianic context, in a passage

already quoted by Matthew, marks Isaiah 9 as a key text for understanding the significance of the

Beatitudes. They are quite clearly an announcement of the Messianic kingdom that is now, as

Matthew 4:17 says, “at hand,” about to be inaugurated.

The Beatitude promising the peacemakers that they will be called sons of God (huoi

theou klēthēsontai, Matt. 5:9) clearly echoes Hosea 1:10, the only Old Testament text in which

these words appear. Those who do accept and support the good news of peace that Jesus as the

Messianic Servant brings on the mountains (Isa. 52:7) will be God’s children, whether they are

Jewish or not (cf. Rom. 10:25-26). This is a far more plausible context for understanding

Matthew 5:9 than Welch’s claim that it refers to deification of initiates through their temple

experience, buttressed with Old Testament references to heavenly beings as “sons of God.”20

The Book of Daniel was a major influence in the teaching on the kingdom of God in the

New Testament.21 Daniel prophesied that “the God of heaven [tou ouranou] will set up a

kingdom [basileian] that shall never be destroyed” (Dan. 2:44). This statement is one of the

clearest Old Testament antecedents to the New Testament terms “kingdom of God” and

“kingdom of heaven,” the latter expression found exclusively in Matthew. Daniel’s apocalyptic

vision of the inauguration of the eternal kingdom of “one like a son of man” (7:13-14) is clearly

the basis for Jesus’ self-designation “the Son of Man” and colors his teaching about the kingdom

he came to bring (e.g., Matt. 10:23; 13:41; 16:27-28; 19:28; 24:27-44; 25:31; 26:64; 28:18-19).

Recognizing the significance of Daniel 7 sheds significant light on the first and eighth

Beatitudes, both of which have as their promise, “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:3,

10). One Old Testament text is the likely allusion here: Daniel’s prophecy that the kingdom of

the “one like a son of man” will also belong to “the saints” (Dan. 7:18, 27).

19 As Craig Evans points out, “The appearance of allusions to Isaiah and the Psalms in these beatitudes

should occasion no surprise when it is remembered that in late antiquity the Psalter was regarded as

prophetic.” Evans, Matthew, 103, emphasis in original.

20 Welch, Sermon, 58-61, citing Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Deut. 32:8; Ps. 2:6-7; 82:6; 89:3-4, 7. Psalm 2:6-7 is

actually about the Davidic Messiah.

21 Adelo Yarbro Collins, “The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament,” in Daniel: A Commentary on

the Book of Daniel, by John J. Collins, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1993), 90-123; Craig A.

Evans, “Daniel in the New Testament: Visions of God’s Kingdom,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition

and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, VTSup 83 (Leiden: Brill 2001), 2:490-527.


Table 1. Temple-Centered vs. Messianic-Kingdom Models of the Beatitudes

Beatitudes (Matt. 5) Temple Motif Messianic-Kingdom Motif

blessed (makarios) celestial beatification (Ps. 1:1,

etc.)

Blessed are those who trust in the Son,

the Davidic king (Ps. 2:12; cf. 119:1-2)

poor in spirit (5:3) beseeching and bowing down

(Ps. 69:32)

Good news for the poor (Isa. 61:1)

through the Davidic king (Ps. 132:15)

kingdom of heaven

(5:3, 10)

God as eternal king (Ps.

145:11-13)

Good news of the coming of God’s

reign (Isa. 52:7); Messiah’s kingdom

(Isa. 9:6-7), of the Son of Man, given to

the saints (Dan. 2:44; 7:13-14, 18, 27)

mourn (5:4) sadness over covenant

breaking (Ezra 10:6)

Good news: comfort to those who

mourn (Isa. 61:2-3; 49:10, 13)

comforted (5:4) comfort and joy (Ps. 94:19)

meek (5:5) Like Moses, waiting on the

Lord (Ps. 76:2-9; Num. 12:3)

God’s meek people suffering under the

wicked will inherit the land/earth (Ps.

37:9-11; Isa. 61:7; also 57:13; 60:21) inherit the earth/land

(5:5)

receiving peace and prosperity

(Ps. 37:9, 11, 18)

hunger and thirst (5:6) seeking righteousness and God

(Ps. 37:19; 42:2; 63:1; 107:9)

God will bring righteousness for those

who desire it (Ps. 107:4-9; Isa. 49:10)

righteousness (5:6) divine justice (Ps. 17:15) Messiah will rule in righteousness (Isa.

9:7; 11:4-5; 61:3-11; Ps. 45:6-7; 72:1-4)

filled (chortazō) (5:6) beholding God’s glory (Ps.

17:15)

God satisfies the needs of his people,

especially through his anointed one (Ps.

107:4-9; 132:15)

mercy (5:7) through covenantal fidelity

(Ps. 5:7)

Judgment coming: God desires mercy,

not sacrifice (Hosea 6:6)

pure in heart (5:8) entrance and purity

requirements (Ps. 24:4)

David: The pure in heart may go up the

mountain of the Lord (Ps. 24:3-4)

seeing God (5:8) encountering God’s glory (Ps.

17:15; 24:6; 63:2)

God is coming as the King of glory to

bring salvation (Ps. 24:5-10)

peacemakers (5:9) peace of complete atonement

(Ps. 147:14)

Messiah will bring peace (Isa. 9:6-7);

good news of peace (Isa. 52:7)

sons of God (5:9) sonship, angels, deified beings

(Ps. 2:7; 82:6)

Those who were not God’s people will

become his children (Hos. 1:10)

persecuted (5:10, 11) deliverance from persecution

(Ps. 7:1; 31:15; 35:3)

Those who persecuted David and his

people will be defeated (Ps. 109:16)

reviled on my account;

evil said about them

(5:11)

imprecations; swearing of

oaths (Ps. 119:86, 161)

David was reviled on the Lord’s

account (Ps. 69:7-9); false witnesses

spoke against him (Psa. 27:12)

rejoice and be glad

(5:12)

cultic joy, exultation, singing

(Ps. 5:11; 32:11)

Shouting for joy at the righteousness

and satisfying of the poor through the

Davidic king (Ps. 132:15-16)

reward (misthos) in

heaven (5:12)

source of heavenly rewards

(antapodosis, Ps. 19:11)

Good news for Zion: God is coming to

rule and to bring his reward (misthos,

Isa. 40:9-10; 62:11)

prophets were

persecuted (5:12)

Temple priests scoffed at the

warnings of the prophets (2

Chron. 36:16)

Jews chastised for not heeding the

prophets’ warnings of judgment (e.g.,

Jer. 7:25-26; Dan. 9:6, 10; Zech. 1:4)


The evidence surveyed here shows rather conclusively that the dominant theme of the

Beatitudes is the Messianic kingdom anticipated prophetically in Isaiah, Daniel, and the Psalms.

The temple is never far from this theme because it was the central physical location and structure

associated with the Jewish religious system. However, the Beatitudes are focused on the

announcement of the blessings of the Messianic kingdom, mentioned explicitly in the first and

eighth Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3, 10), and drawing on a wealth of Old Testament passages throughout

all of the Beatitudes. Table 1 provides a simple comparison of how the Beatitudes are viewed in

Welch’s temple-centered model and in the Messianic-kingdom model defended here.22

In most cases the Old Testament texts Welch cites in support of the temple-centered

model are at best part of the larger background, not texts to which the Beatitudes clearly allude

(the exceptions are Psalm 24:3-4 and 37:11, where there is some overlap between the two

models). By contrast, most of the Old Testament texts cited in support of the Messianic-kingdom

model are texts to which the Beatitudes clearly allude (especially Ps. 69:7-9; 132:15-16; Isa.

49:10, 13; 52:7; 61:1-3; Hos. 1:10). The fact that in several cases three or four of the Beatitudes

allude to the same short text (most of all to Isaiah 61) is another reason to favor the Messianic-

kingdom model for understanding the Old Testament theological context of the Beatitudes.

The Theme of the Sermon on the Mount

A comparatively brief analysis of the Sermon as a whole will show that the Messianic

kingdom is its controlling theme not only in the Beatitudes but from start to finish. Explicit

references to the kingdom appear at critical junctures in the Sermon: in the first and last

regularly-formed Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3, 10), three times at the end of Jesus’ general comments

about the Torah (5:19-20), at the center of the Sermon in the Lord’s Prayer (6:10), at the climax

of the discourse unit concerning anxiety over material needs (6:33), and toward the end of the

Sermon in the warning that not all professed disciples will enter the kingdom (7:21).

Every part of the Sermon on the Mount relates in an important way to this theme of the

Messianic kingdom announced in the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3-12). Those to whom the kingdom

belongs are called to bring its light to the rest of the world (5:13-16). The Messianic kingdom

does not overturn the values of the Torah but entails their fulfillment (5:17-48). Its religiosity is

not about social status and recognition but about honoring the Father in heaven and advancing his

kingdom by doing his will here on earth (6:1-18). Those who would be part of that kingdom must

value God’s rule and righteousness even over their material needs (6:19-34). Faithfulness to

God’s kingdom calls for a balance of humility and discernment, trusting God for one’s own good

and seeking the good of others (7:1-12). The way to God’s kingdom is not easy or popular, and

some who profess to represent the kingdom are false prophets (7:13-24). The only safe way to

God’s kingdom is to accept Jesus’ message and base one’s life on it (7:24-27).

Two of the most important motifs in the Sermon on the Mount are righteousness (Matt.

5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33) and God as Father in heaven (5:16, 45, 48; 6:1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18, 26, 32;

7:11, 21). As has already been shown, righteousness is explicitly associated in the Old Testament

with the Messianic kingdom (Ps. 45:6-7; 72:1-4; Isa. 9:6-7; 11:4-5; 61:3, 8, 11). The same is true

22 The descriptions in the middle column and the OT texts cited in support are all taken directly from

Welch’s table in Sermon, 184, except for the last line, which because it is omitted from his table is drawn

from his earlier exposition (64).


of the motif of God as Father. Isaiah begins with the declaration that God had called Israel to be

his “sons” but they had rebelled against him (Isa. 1:3-4). Toward the end of the book, the prophet

asks God to “look down from heaven” and redeem his people because he is their “Father”

(63:15-16; 64:8). The fulfillment of this hope for reconciliation to God as Father comes through

the Messiah, the descendant of David (Isa. 9:6-7; 11:1-3), honored elsewhere in the Old

Testament as God’s “son” and even “firstborn” (2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7; 89:26-27). In the coming

kingdom innumerable people will become God’s “sons” (Hos. 1:10, cf. Matt. 5:9).

In short, the central, organizing theme of the Sermon on the Mount is the Messianic

kingdom that Jesus, the Messiah, has come to inaugurate. The temple is part of the background to

this message of the kingdom, but the temple itself is not the focal point of the Sermon.

Comparing the Temple-Centered and Messianic-Kingdom Models

In addition to the claim that the temple is the unifying theme of the Sermon on the Mount,

one may discern five other aspects to Welch’s view of the Sermon as a temple text. (1) The

temple provides the key to an esoteric, deeper meaning of the Sermon meant only for initiates

beyond its exoteric, moralistic message.23 (2) The Sermon derives its authority from its temple

context.24 (3) The temple is the key to the Sermon’s structure. It takes initiates up through 25

stages and three major levels corresponding to the three parts of the Temple, with the third part

of the Sermon corresponding to the Holy of Holies.25 (4) The genre of the Sermon was an ascent

text in which initiates were ritually guided from their mundane condition to the apex of entering

God’s presence.26 (5) The Sermon reflects Jesus’ agenda of restoring true temple worship, at first

in the existing Jerusalem temple and later in a future rebuilt temple for all people.27

The foundation of Welch’s model is his view that temple motifs dominate the text of the

Sermon on the Mount. Having shown that the central idea of the Sermon is actually better

represented by the Messianic-kingdom model, that model may then be contrasted with Welch’s

temple-text model as laid out in the five claims just mentioned.

(1) The problem with moralistic interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount is not that

they are exoteric but that they are superficial misunderstandings of the Sermon in its historical,

religious context. Such readings are unable to account for the way Jesus makes himself the issue

at critical points of the Sermon (Matt. 5:11; 7:21, 23) or the centrality of “the kingdom of

heaven” in the discourse (5:3, 10, 19-20; 7:21). The Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12) is not an esoteric

statement that can only be fully understood by initiates. Rather, such statements are

misunderstood if they are not read in their quite accessible context of Jesus’ kingdom message.

(2) The Sermon on the Mount derives its authority from Jesus himself as the Son of God

in his Messianic, divine-royal status, not from a temple context. Welch states, citing Matthew

7:28-29, that the people “wondered by what authority he was able to make such statements,” but

23 Welch, Sermon, xi.

24 Ibid., 190.

25 Ibid., 157, 183.

26 Ibid., 205.

27 Ibid., 211, 217.


that “by the end of the Sermon, Jesus openly answered that inevitable query.”28 Yet it was,

according to Matthew, when Jesus had “finished” his speech that the crowds were “astonished” at

his “authority.” Jesus had just asserted that in the Day of Judgment he will determine who will

enter the kingdom (7:21-23). He would rule over the whole world and judge all humanity from

God’s throne (cf. Matt. 28:18). He spoke with authority as the Messianic King, the divine Son of

God come to announce the kingdom and destined to bestow its blessings on some and refuse

them to others in the Last Day. This is the real import of Jesus’ “authority” and it explains the

crowds’ astonishment. They expected a scribe; what they heard was the Son of God.29

(3) Welch’s progressive ascent analysis of the structure of the Sermon (see Table 2 for a

graphical representation) leads to some implausible interpretations of its sayings. For example, in

Matthew 6:14-15 Jesus warns that the Father will forgive only those who forgive others. Welch

tries to argue that this teaching represents a higher level of righteousness than what came before

in Matthew 5:23-24, where, he says, the disciple was only required “to know that your brother or

sister holds no hard feelings against you.” Now in 6:14-15 the disciple must purge any “residue”

of “incomplete forgiveness.”30 Yet Matthew 5 not only instructs disciples to seek reconciliation

with their brethren but also to love their enemies (5:44-47). It is implausible to suggest that

forgiving one’s enemies represents a higher order of righteousness than loving them. Likewise, it

is difficult to see how the Golden Rule of treating others as one would like to be treated (Matt.

7:12) could be regarded as a higher level of spirituality than loving one’s enemies.

Table 2: John Welch’s Temple-Based Analysis of the Sermon on the Mount

Stages 17-25: Holy of Holies: Completing the ascent (6:25-7:27)

Stages 11-16: Holy Place: A higher order through sacred ritual (5:48-6:24)

Stages 2-10: Courtyard: Initiation into the new covenant (5:13-47)

Stage 1: Promises of blessings for those who complete the program (5:3-12)

The structure of the Sermon on the Mount has nothing to do with a temple-oriented

program of progressive spiritual development or advancement. Its structure began with a simple

sermon preached by Jesus in Galilee, probably looking much like the Sermon on the Plain (Luke

6:20b-49). It was then expanded into a lengthier and more rhetorically complex discourse by the

28 Ibid., 191.

29 According to Triplet-Hitoto, the audience at the Sermon on the Mount was astonished because first-

century Jews in the Old World “had lost an understanding of…continuing revelation.” “Audience

Astonishment at the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon at the Temple,” in Sermon on the Mount in

Latter-day Scripture, ed. Strathearn, Wayment, and Belnap, 46. Whereas Welch in effect proposes that

the crowds were surprised because Jesus spoke like a priest instead of a scribe, Triplet-Hitoto argues that

they were surprised because he spoke like a prophet instead of a scribe (47-49). The fact is that the Jews

in Jesus’ day were quite aware of and accepting of the concept of prophets and prophecy. As Matthew

reports, that John the Baptist was a prophet was a view popularly held at the time (Matt. 11:9; 14:5;

21:26), and for a while the crowds also accepted Jesus as a prophet (16:14; 21:11, 46).

30 Welch, Sermon, 134.


Evangelist using sayings of Jesus originally delivered on various occasions, all thematically

relevant to the Messianic kingdom message of Jesus’ historical Sermon. Table 3 presents a viable

outline that exhibits the inner coherence and ancient literary structure of the Sermon using its

own dominant language of the kingdom, righteousness, the Father, and the Law and the Prophets.

(4) As just explained, the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew is a literary anthology of

Jesus’ proclamation and teaching concerning the values of the Messianic kingdom, composed

around the core of a public didactic speech given by Jesus.31 Although elements of the Sermon

were later put to use in catechetical and liturgical contexts (most notably, of course, the Lord’s

Prayer), the Sermon as a whole was not produced as an ascent text or other ritual text.

Table 3: Messianic-Kingdom Literary Analysis of the Sermon on the Mount

A. Promises of the Blessings of the Kingdom (5:3-12)

B. Goal of the Kingdom: Fulfilling the Law and the Prophets (5:13-20)

C. Righteous Practice in the Father’s Kingdom (5:21-48)

D. Righteous Prayer for the Father’s Kingdom (6:1-18)

C.’ Righteous Pursuit of the Father’s Kingdom (6:19-7:11)

B.’ Ethic of the Kingdom: This is the Law and the Prophets (7:12)

A.’ Warning of the Judgments of the Kingdom (7:13-27)

(5) Jesus’ “agenda” was the inauguration of the Messianic kingdom in which the temple

would be replaced by that which it at best typified, the unmediated presence of God among his

people. This can be seen, for example, in the theologies of Paul, Peter, John, and the author of

Hebrews.32 In Matthew, the locus of the presence of God is no longer the man-made temple in

Jerusalem but is the person of Jesus Christ. He is “God with us” (Matt. 1:22-23). He is present

wherever two or more gather in his name—location and building do not matter (18:20). He is

with his disciples to the end of the age (28:20). “By these means Matthew asserts in a distinctive

way that Jesus as ‘God with us’ was the embodiment in his own person of that which previously

had been signified by the shekinah in the Jerusalem Temple.”33 Jesus’ claim to be greater than

the temple (Matt. 12:6) comes in the context of his call for Israel to find the eschatological

31 E.g., Lioy, Decalogue, 92; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 162.

32 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 6:16-18; Eph. 2:19-22; Gal. 2:9; 1 Peter 2:4-10; John 1:14; 2:19-22; 4:21-26;

Heb. 4:16; 7:11-8:13; 9:15; 10:19. For the NT writers, “the Temple had become superfluous as a locus of

the divine presence even if it continued to offer the language by which that divine presence in the world

could be articulated.” Christopher Rowland, “The Temple in the New Testament,” in Temple and

Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. John Day, Library of Hebrew Bible/OT Studies 422 (London: T&T Clark,

2005), 481, emphasis added.

33 Peter W. L. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 31.


Sabbath rest in him (Matt. 11:28-12:8).34 His action in the temple (Matt. 21:12-13), commonly

called the “cleansing” of the temple, also marks it as on its way to becoming obsolete.35

To be sure, Jesus did not condemn the temple or its rituals in the Sermon on the Mount.

His references to the altar (Matt. 5:23-24) and to Jerusalem as “the city of the great king” (5:35)

presuppose the divine origin and authority of the Mosaic covenant and the priesthood system that

were centered in the temple. While they still stood—and especially while Jesus was still living on

earth prior to his redemptive sacrificial death (Matt. 20:28; 26:26-28)—the continued validity of

the temple system was unchallenged, even if the priestly aristocracy in control came under fire.

Yet a shift away from the temple-centered religion of the old covenant is already being

anticipated. Jesus stands on a hill in Galilee and proclaims the good news of the kingdom that

traditionally was expected to find its center on Mount Zion. Jesus’ disciples, wherever they

happen to be, are the city on a hill (Matt. 5:14). The rock on which the house of his disciples is to

be built is the rock of his teaching (7:24-27). N. T. Wright comments on this ending parable to

the Sermon: “The real new Temple, the real house-on-the-rock, will consist of the community

that builds its life upon Jesus’ words. All other attempts to create a new Israel, a new Temple

(remember that Herod’s Temple was still being completed in Jesus’ lifetime), a pure or

revolutionary community, would be like building a house on the sand.”36

Conclusion

In all six aspects of the Sermon explored in this study—its themes, interpretation,

authority, structure, genre, and agenda—a Messianic-kingdom model proves superior to a

temple-centered model for understanding the Sermon as a whole. Much can be learned about the

Sermon by studying carefully its many rich associations with the temple theme, and in this regard

Welch’s work on the Sermon has made a valuable contribution. However, the temple theme is

not a long-lost hermeneutical key to the Sermon on the Mount.

34 See Gregory L. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling

Place of God, New Studies in Biblical Theology, D. A. Carson, series ed. (Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 2004), 178. Jesus’ claim to be greater than the temple in Matthew 12:6 “implies not

only that the current temple has in some sense been made redundant on his coming, but also that the

functions typically predicated of that temple have now been either transcended or devolved onto Jesus

himself.” Nicholas Perrin, Jesus the Temple (London: SPCK; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 60.

35 See, e.g., Steven M. Bryan, Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgement and Restoration, SNTSMS 117

(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 206-235.

36 N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is (Downers Grove, IL: IVP

Academic, 1999), 46-47.

The Temple Setting of the Sermon on the Mount in the Book of Mormon: A Hermeneutical Key?

Documents

Transcript of The Temple Setting of the Sermon on the Mount in the Book of Mormon: A Hermeneutical Key?