Ulrich Luz and Robert Sungenis on Matthew 5:20

 

For I tell you that unless your righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:20 NIV)

 

This text is problematic for many theologies, especially Protestantism, as it seems to go against sola fide and the traditional Protestant understanding of imputed righteousness. Commenting on this passage, biblical scholar Ulrich Luz noted:

 

■ 20* Verse 20* is the Matthean heading for the antitheses. What has been said about vv. 17–19* has not made its interpretation easier. The continuation with “for” (γάρ) makes clear that v. 20* wants to develop further the preceding ideas. Thus the greater righteousness that is now the subject does not eliminate the law. What is meant, however, by the “greater righteousness”? This verse offers no explanation of the term. It functions more as an “empty text” that the readers will then fill with content as they go on to read the antitheses. Nevertheless, v. 20* offers them some guidance in filling the empty text. As in 3:15*, δικαιοσύνη is righteousness that a person does. The comparative “shall exceed … more” (περισσεύειν … πλεῖον) is strange; μᾶλλον would be a more common word. Πλεῖον suggests a quantitative interpretation: if your righteousness is not present in a measurably higher quantity than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew defines himself here over against the leaders of Israel’s majority that was hostile to Jesus, and he tendentiously makes a negative judgment about their “righteousness.”¹⁰⁰ Thus there is in any case in the text a quantitative element in its comparison of the righteousness of the disciples with that of the Pharisees and scribes. It corresponds to the insistence in vv. 17–19* that the individual commandments of the law also be fulfilled. Based on vv. 17–19*, the better righteousness of the disciples thus at least means a quantitative “more” in their fulfillment of the law. Admittedly the text does not say of what this “more” consists.

 

That is clarified by the antitheses, at which we now take a brief advance look. The issue in them is not merely that individual OT commandments are radically intensified. It is equally important for Matthew that the love commandment becomes the center of these sharpened individual commandments. It is as if the first and last antitheses serve to frame all of the antitheses. On the basis of the antitheses the quantitatively greater righteousness of the disciples means at the same time that their lives, led by love, are qualitatively more intense before God. Verse 20* hovers as it were between these two ideas and faces one or the other depending on whether one reads it “from the front” or “from behind.” The verse has a transitional or hinge function not only in a literary sense but also in terms of content. (Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary [Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2007], 221-22)

 

Addressing the gymnastics many Evangelicals engage in to get around Jesus’ teaching on justification in this text, Robert Sungenis, responding to the Protestant assertion that, as the Pharisees are those who do not have faith in Christ and thus do not have works of righteousness, wrote:

Edmund Clowney's treatment of Mt 5:20 is a good example of this kind of biased exegesis. Dealing with the issue of how one's righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees, Clowney writes, "but if the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees is not adequate for the standards of the kingdom, what hope can there be for harlots, tax-swindlers, and open sinners? . . . The righteousness of the kingdom cannot be the achievement of proud human beings. It is the fruit of grace for those who know themselves to be sinners . . . The defrauding tax-collector prays in deep contrition, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner,' and goes home justified through divine forgiveness and acceptance (Lk 18:9-14)" (Right with God, "The Biblical Doctrine of Justification By Faith," p. 39). Rather than answering the challenge posed in Mt 5:20 by addressing the context of Matthew 5-6, Clowney chooses to ignore this information and proceeds right to Lk 18:9-14 which, albeit an important text, concerns only one aspect of righteousness. The context of Matthew 5-6 goes beyond the initial dimension of forgiveness of sins. It emphasizes the positive dimension of living a holy and obedient life before God as the means to attain righteousness that surpasses that of the Pharisees. Clowney simply ignores this aspect. We don't have to consider ourselves "proud human beings" if we obey the law to enter heaven, provided we understand that the ability to do such works, and their evaluation, come from the grace of God. That is all Jesus is asking for. Again, we see that if the passage in view does not fit the mold of faith alone theology, the Protestant theologian interprets the passage to make it fit. No matter what illumination the context provides, the overriding concern is to preserve the tenets of sola fide. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 186-7 n. 230)

Much of this horrendous interpretation (read: eisegesis) comes down to the false doctrine of imputation. For a discussion to a recent Evangelical Protestant attempt to defend this doctrine, see:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

Furthermore, as to Luke 18:9-14 and the publican and the Pharisee, such does not support sola fide. For more, see:

Does the Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14) Support Sola Fide?