THE UNITY AND STRUCTURE OF THE
SERMON ON THE MOUNT
JAMES A. BROOKS
Jesus
is often described in the Gospels as a preacher.1 What has be-
come
his most famous sermon is recorded in Matthew 5-7 and Luke
6:17-49.
The former is usually referred to as the Sermon on the
Mount
(note 5:1), the latter as the Sermon on the Plain (note 6:17 KJV).
The
following study will be concerned primarily with the unity and
structure
of the Matthean sermon, but a necessary preliminary
is a
consideration
of the interrelationship of the two sermons.
The Interrelationship of the
Two Sermons
The relationship of parallel passages
is best studied in a synopsis of
the
Gospels where the passages are placed side-by-side to facilitate
comparison.2
Space limitations prevent doing that here, but a perspective
can
be obtained from the following list based upon Matthew's order.3
1 Matt 4:17; 11:1; Mark
1:14, 38, 39; and Luke 3:18; 4:43, 44; 8:1; 9:6; 20:1. Compare
Matt
11:5 and Luke 4:18; 7:22; 16:16. Actually only the verb “to preach” is used.
John's
Gospel
never indicates that Jesus preached. It describes him as a teacher, as also the
Synoptics do more often
than as a preacher. In the Gospels, however, there is not much
difference
between preaching and teaching, unless it is that preaching is always public
and
teaching sometimes private.
2 Probably the best for
most readers of the Criswell Theological
Review is
K.
Aland (ed.), Synopsis of the Four
Gospels: Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis
Quattuor Evangeliorum, 8th ed. (n.p.: United Bible Societies, 1987), which is available
through
the American Bible Society. A different method of presentation may be found
in
Horisontal Line Synopsis of the Gospels (Pasadena,
CA: William Carey Library, 1984).
3 Similar, but less
detailed, lists may be found in D. A
Mount (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1978) 140; R A Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount (
16
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Matthew's
Parallels in Other Parallels Parallels
Sermon
Luke's Sermon in Luke in Mark
5:3 6:20
5:4
6:21b
5:5
5:6
6:21a
5:7-10
5:11-12
6:22-23
5:13
14:34-35a
9:50
5:14
5:15
8:16;
11:33 4:21
5:16-17
5:18
(cf. 24:35) 16:17;
21:33 13:31
5:19-22
5:23-24
11:25
5:25-26
12:58-59
5:27-28
5:29
(cf. 18:9) 9:47
5:30
(cf. 18:8) 9:43
5:31
5:32
16:18
5:33-39a
5:39b-40
6:29
5:41
5:42
6:30
5:43
5:44
6:27-28, 35
5:45
5:46-47
6:32-33
5:48
6:36
6:1-8
6:9-10a,
11-13a 11:2-4
6:10b
6:13b
6:14-15
11:25[-26]
6:16-19
6:20-21
12:33-34
6:22-23
11:34-35
TX:
Word, 1982) 34; J. Lambrecht, The Sermon on the Mount (
1985)
36-37; and R T. France, Matthew:
Evangelist and Teacher (
Zondervan,
1989) 161.
James A Brooks:
UNITY AND STRUCTURE 17
Matthew's
Parallels in Other Parallels Parallels
Sermon
Luke's Sermon in Luke in Mark
6:24
16:13
6:25-33
12:22-31
6:34
7:1
6:37a
7:2a
7:2b
6:38c 4:24b
7:3-5
6:41-42
7:6
7:7-11
11:19-13
7
:12a 6:31
7:12b
7:13-14
13:24
7:15
7:16-17
6:43-44
7:18-20
7:21
6:46
7:22-23
13:25-27
7:24-27
6:47-49
The most obvious difference in the two
accounts is length. Mat-
thew's sermon is about
three and a half times as long as Luke's--to be
exact
107 verses vs. 30 verses.4 A second observation is that 23th of
Matthew's
verses are paralleled in Luke's sermon mostly in the same
order,5
33 are paralleled elsewhere in Luke, and 50 ˝ have no parallel
in
Luke. There is no comparable sermon in Mark--only scattered, sec-
ondary parallels.
The following cannot be seen in the
above list, but if Luke's ser-
mon is taken as the basis of
comparison, 23 of his 30 verses are paral-
leled in Matthew's
sermon, one is paralleled elsewhere in Matthew,
and
six have no parallel in Matthew. Only one-half of a verse is paral-
leled in Mark.
A third observation is that the
wording of the parallel passages is
sometimes
very close and sometimes quite different, which of course
is
true of synoptic relationships in general both in the double or Q
tradition
(Matthew and Luke as here) and the triple tradition (Mat-
thew, Mark, and
Luke). This cannot be seen above but must be ob-
served
in a synopsis, preferably a Greek synopsis. First two examples
4 The introductions and
conclusions are not included in the count or in the above list
5 The exceptions are Matt
5:44 // Luke 6:27-28, 35 and Matt 7:12a // Luke 6:31.
18
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
of
close--but not exact--agreement and then two of loose agreement
must
suffice.6
"And
why do you look at the "And
why do you look at the
speck
that is in your brother's speck
that is in your brother's
eye,
and do not notice the log eye,
but do not notice the log
that
is in your own eye? Or that
is in your own eye? Or
how
can you say to your how
can you say to your
brother,
'Let me take the brother,
'Brother, let me take
speck
out of your eye,' and out
the speck that is in your
behold,
the log is in your own eye,'
when you yourself do
eye.
You hypocrite, first take not
see the log that is in your
the
log out of your own eye, own
eye? You hypocrite, first
and
then you will see clearly take
the log out of your own "
to
take the speck out of your eye,
and then you will see '
brother's
eye." (Matt 7:3-5) clearly
to take out the speck
that
is in your brother's eye."
(Luke
6:4-42)
“Therefore
everyone who "Everyone
who comes to Me,
hears
these words of Mine, and
hears My words, and acts
and
acts upon them, may be upon
them, I will show you
compared
to a wise man, who whom he
is like: he is like a
built
his house upon the rock. man
building a house, who
And
the rain descended, and dug
deep and laid a founda-
the
floods came, and the tion upon the rock; and when
winds
blew, and burst against a
flood rose, the torrent burst
that
house; and yet it did not against
that house and could
fall,
for it had been founded not
shake it, because it had
upon
the rock. And everyone been
well built. But the one
who
hears these words of who
has heard, and has not
Mine,
and does not act upon acted
accordingly, is like a
them,
will be like a foolish man
who built a house upon
man,
who built his house the
ground without any foun-
upon
the sand. And the rain dation; and the torrent burst
descended,
and the floods against
it and immediately it
came,
and the winds blew, collapsed,
and the ruin of
and
burst against that house; that
house was great." (Luke
and
it fell, and great was its 6:47-49)
fall."
(Matt 7:24-27)
6 Because of the
desirability of employing a very literal translation in order best
to
represent the Greek text, all Biblical quotations in this study are from the
New
American
Standard Bible.
James A. Brooks: UNITY AND
STRUCTURE 19
"Blessed
are the poor in spirit, "Blessed
are you who are
for
theirs is the kingdom of poor,
for yours is the king-
heaven.
Blessed are those dom of God. Blessed are you
who
mourn, for they shall be who
hunger now, for you
comforted.
. . . Blessed are shall
be satisfied. Blessed are
those
who hunger and thirst you
who weep now, for you
for
righteousness, for they shall
laugh. Blessed are you
shall
be satisfied Blessed when
men hate you, and os-
are
you when men cast insults tracize you, and cast insults
at
you, and persecute you, and at
you, and spurn your name
say
all kinds of evil against as
evil, for the sake of the
you
falsely, on account of Me. Son
of
Rejoice,
and be glad, for so day,
and leap for joy, for be-
they
persecuted the prophets hold
your reward is great in
who
were before you." (Matt heaven;
for in the same way
5:
3-4, 6, 11-12) their
fathers used to treat the
prophets." (Luke 6:20b-23)
"Therefore
you are to be per- "Be
merciful, just as your Fa-
fect, as your
heavenly Father ther is merciful." (Luke 6:36)
is
perfect." (Matt 7:48)
What conclusions may be drawn from the
above about the rela-
tionship of the two
sermons? By the nature of the case there are three
possibilities:
Matthew was dependent upon Luke; Luke was depen-
dent
upon Matthew; and Matthew and Luke were dependent upon a
common
source.7 Before one can make a decision about the relation-
ship
of the two sermons, however, a decision must be made about syn-
optic
relationships in general, i.e., about the synoptic problem, and a
brief
survey of the major theories is necessary.
Augustine (d. 430) argued that the
Gospels were written in the or-
der in which they are found in
modern Bibles.8 More particularly,
Mark
is a condensation of Matthew, and Luke used both Matthew and
Mark
as his sources.9 This theory dominated until the first half of the
7 A fourth possibility
would be an unmediated inspiration of the Holy Spirit so
that
the Gospel writers did not need or use sources. One who holds a high view of
in-
spiration would not deny
the possibility of this, but it is contrary to the fact that God
usually
uses human means where available (e.g., to preach the gospel) and to the ex-
plicit statement in
Luke 1:1-3 that the author collected sources.
8 This is
probably the strongest argument for the theory. The argument is weak-
ened, however, by
the fact that the Gospels are found in nine different orders in the an-
cient manuscript
tradition (B. M Metzger, The Canon of the
New Testament [
Clarendon,
1987] 296-97). For arguments against the theory, see below.
9 de Consensu Evangelistarum
1.2-3.
20
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
19th
century when the full extent of the synoptic problem was first rec-
ognized and began to be
studied scientifically. During the 19th century
a
host of solutions were proposed, and late in the century one came to
dominate,
at least in Protestant circles.10 It is usually referred to as the
two-document
hypothesis. It holds that Mark was the first Gospel to be
written
and that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark and a
collection
of the sayings of Jesus (Q11) as their primary sources.
The priority of Mark is supported,
first, by the length and con-
tents
of that Gospel. It is only 60% as long as Matthew and 57% as
long
as Luke. About 92% of Mark is paralleled in Matthew, 48% in
Luke,
and 95% in Matthew and/or Luke. Mark contains relatively lit-
tle of the teaching and preaching of
Jesus and no resurrection appear-
ances.12
Nor does it have such things as the birth narratives, the ,
Sermon
on the Mount/Plain, and the parables of the Good Samaritan
and
the Prodigal Son. It is very easy to see why Matthew and Luke, if
they
were later than Mark, would add these items, but it is difficult to
see
why Mark, if he were later than Matthew and/or Luke, would
omit
them and at the same time expand their individual accounts
which
he retained, as is indeed the case. In fact it is difficult to see
why
Mark would ever have been written if its author knew Matthew
alone
(the Augustinian hypothesis, above) or Matthew and Luke (the
Griesbach hypothesis,
below). Second, the priority of Mark is indi-
cated by the
inelegant language in which the Gospel is written. It is
easy
to conceive of Matthew and Luke polishing Mark's rough Greek;
it
is more difficult to believe that Mark debased the language of his
source(s).
Third, Mark contains a number of statements which could
be
misunderstood and cause offense--statements about Jesus' emo-
tions and ignorance
and the disciples' dullness. Most of these state-
ments either do not
appear at all or are without problems in Matthew
and
Luke. Again it is understandable that Matthew and Luke would
tone
down or omit such statements but not that Mark would create
them
if working from earlier source(s). Fourth, Mark contains seven
Aramaic
terms as opposed to only one or two in Matthew and none in
Luke.
Especially in view of the probability that Mark wrote for Gen-
tile
Christians and Matthew for Jewish Christians, this fact and many
other
Aramaisms in his Gospel would seem to indicate that
he was
10 Until they were freed
in 1943, Roman Catholic scholars were required to em-
brace
the Augustinian theory, although some modified it considerably.
11 Q is simply the first
letter of the German word Quelle which means
"source."
12 This statement assumes
that Mark 16:9-20 was not a part of the original, as is
recognized
by most conservative scholars and most conservative translations (ASV,
NASB,
NIV, Berkeley/Modern Language Bible, and Living Bible).
James A Brooks:
UNITY AND STRUCTURE 21
nearer
to the early, Aramaic sources.13 Fifth, Matthew and Luke
never
agree against Mark in the order of their accounts and only
rarely
and then only in trivial matters in their wording. The best--al-
though
certainly not the only--explanation of this phenomenon is that
Mark
was written first and that Matthew and Luke independently
used
it as a source of information.
If for no other reason than it does
not now exist, the evidence for
the
use of Q by Matthew and Luke is not as strong as that for their
use
of Mark. Nevertheless there are about 250 verses common to these
Gospels
but not in Mark for which an explanation is needed. These
verses
contain mostly discourse, i.e., the teaching of Jesus, rather than
a
narrative of his deeds. The wording is often so close that depen-
dence upon oral
tradition appears to be an unsatisfactory explanation.
Of
course it is possible that Luke was dependent upon Matthew or
Matthew
upon Luke for this material.14 If so, why did the one who
was
dependent leave out so much that was so good in his source? And
if
Luke were dependent upon Matthew, why has he broken up the or-
derly discourses in
Matthew and scattered the material throughout
his
Gospel? In the Q tradition Luke places the sayings of Jesus in
different
contexts from those of Matthew. Is this likely if he were us-
ing Matthew? It is most significant
that in the triple tradition where
Matthew
has something not in Mark, Luke does not have the addi-
tional material. This
consideration is strong evidence that he did not
use
Matthew. The presence of "doublets" in Matthew and Luke also
seems
to indicate that they used Mark and another source.15
Certainly there are difficulties with
the Q hypothesis, but there
are
even greater difficulties with the alternative that Luke was depen-
dent
upon Matthew.16 As a result most students of the synoptic
13 Inasmuch as Aramaic
was the language of the common people in first-century
guage. Therefore all
of his words in the Greek NT are probably a translation. Just as
modern
English versions vary considerably from one other, it is probable that the
early
translations
of Aramaic accounts varied greatly. This is one explanation of the different
versions
of the sayings of Jesus.
14 The latter has been
argued so rarely and unconvincingly that it need not be
considered
15 A doublet consists of
two accounts of the same event or saying. According to J. C.
Hawkins,
Horae Synopticae (
1968)
80-107, there are 22 of these in Matthew, eleven in Luke, but only one on Mark.
Only
four of these appear in Mark and twice each in Matthew and Luke and therefore
support
the above claim.
16 It needs to be
recognized clearly that there are difficulties with all the theories
of
synoptic relationships and that therefore one must deal in terms of
probabilities, not
certainties.
Probably synoptic relationships are more complex than any of the theories.
22
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
problem
have concluded that Matthew and Luke, in addition to using
Mark,
independently used a common source
called Q. Whether Q was
a
single document or several documents is uncertain. It has been
objected
that it is unlikely that such an amorphous collection of the
sayings
of Jesus even existed, but in 1945 another collection of disor-
ganized and independent
sayings, some of which are paralleled in the
canonical
Gospels, was discovered in
Thomas.
One theory that was set forth late in
the 18th century when the
synoptic
problem first began to be studied was that of J. J. Griesbach.17
Soon,
however, it fell into disfavor. In recent years, however, it has
been
revived by W. R Farmer18 and others. The Griesbach-Farmer-
two-Gospel
hypothesis is that Matthew was the first Gospel to have
been
written, that Luke was dependent upon Matthew, and that Mark
condensed
and conflated both Matthew and Luke. It does have the ad-
vantage
of support of part of the ancient tradition,19 something which
the
two-document hypothesis cannot claim. It is best able to explain
the
minor agreements in wording of Matthew and Luke against Mark,
although
there are other ways to explain these. It can also explain the
order
of accounts in the Synoptics, but not as well as can
the two-doc-
ument hypothesis. Of
course it has the advantage of not having to em-
ploy
a hypothetical source (Q). But it is not able to explain
satisfactorily
why Mark was ever written or why Matthew and Luke
appear
to improve upon Mark at various points (above). Furthermore
very
little redaction criticism20 has been done of the basis of
Matthean priority,
whereas much has been done on the basis of Mar-
conflation
are compatible. The latter usually results in a longer, not a
shorter
account (e.g., Tatian's
Diatessaron).21
recognize.
Once they were written there may have been a period of comparison and in-
terchange before their
texts began to be stabilized, probably about the middle of the
2nd
century when they began to be recognized as Scripture.
17 For a list of Griesbach's works in which he developed the theory, see W.
R
Farmer,
The Synoptic Problem (New York:
Macmillan, 1964) 7, n. 8.
18 Synoptic Problem.
19 Clement of
6.14.5.
Clement claimed that the Gospels with genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were
written
before those without (Mark and John). Of course the other part of the ancient
tradition
is that of Augustine (above), and, although it does support the priority of
Mat-
thew, it does not
support the order Matthew, Luke, Mark.
20 Redaction criticism
attempts to distinguish a writer's sources from his own
composition
in order to determine his theological motivations.
21 It should be noted
that many of the arguments against the Griesbach
hypothesis
apply
equally against the Augustinian.
James A. Brooks:
UNITY AND STRUCTURE 23
Therefore the most likely view of
synoptic relationships in gen-
eral is the
traditional, two-document hypothesis that Mark was the
first
Gospel and that Matthew and Luke used it and Q as their pri-
mary sources. A
study of the relationships of the Sermon on the
Mount
and the Sermon on the Plain confirms part of this theory. Inas-
much
as there are no significant parallels with Mark, nothing can be
determined
about the relationship of Matthew and/or Luke to Mark.
Something
can be determined about the relationship of Matthew and
Luke.
Because most of Luke's sermon is paralleled in Matthew--most
of
it in the same order and in similar wording--it is reasonably cer-
tain that one or the
other was dependent upon a written source and
that
the two did not independently compose their entire sermons. If
Luke
were dependent upon Matthew, it appears most unlikely that he
would
have reduced Matthew's sermon to less than a third of its size
to
produce his own sermon and then to have scattered about 40% of
the
remainder throughout much of his Gospel. It is much more likely
that
Matthew and Luke independently used a
sermon in Q, that Luke
altered
the Q sermon comparatively little, and that Matthew greatly
expanded
it with material found elsewhere in Q and material from
other
sources.
The preceding is in keeping with what
Matthew appears to have
done
elsewhere in his Gospel. The most distinctive feature of Mat-
thew is five large
discourse sections, of which the Sermon on the
Mount
is the first. None of these appears to be one sermon delivered
on
a single occasion but a collection of Jesus' sayings on a subject. The
mere
length of the discourses is not a problem. Even the longest, the
Sermon
on the Mount, can be read aloud in the average time of a
modem
sermon, and ancient sermons were probably much longer.
The
problem with the idea that the discourses were originally one
sermon
or one teaching session is the variety of the material in all of
them.
Such variety is tolerable in a written compilation but not in an
oral
account. There is nothing improbable or immoral about such top-
ical, as opposed to
chronological, arrangement. It in no way questions
the
authenticity of any of the teaching attributed to Jesus.22
It is likely therefore that Q
contained an account of a famous ser-
mon of Jesus about the blessedness
of the godly person and about
22 Carson (Sermon on the Mount, 143-45) argues that
Jesus preached the same ser-
mon on different occasions,
lengthening or shortening it and adapting it in other ways
depending
upon the hearers and situation. Matthew reports one version of a sermon;
Luke
another.
sis
of representing "a full-fledged teach-in” which "undoubtedly. . .went
on for hours,
with
Jesus preaching the equivalent of many of our sermons” (143). He repeats this
ex-
planation in his commentary
Matthew: The Expositor's Bible
Commentary, 12 vols. (ed.
24
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
virtues
to be pursued and vices to be avoided in order to enjoy such
blessedness.
Luke reproduced this sermon with comparatively few al-
terations. The most likely
Lukan addition is the woes of 6:24-26. It is
possible
that he may have omitted a little of what is in Matthew and
that
both Matthew and Luke may have omitted a little of the Q ser-
mon, but there is no way to determine
this. Matthew, however, greatly
expanded
the sermon by adding material found elsewhere in Q and
perhaps
also in other sources.
The Unity of Matthew's Sermon
If most of the previous conclusions
are correct, the matter of the
unity
of Matthew's sennon may be treated briefly. Everything
de-
pends upon what one
means by "unity." If "unity" means a single ser-
mon preached on one occasion by
Jesus, Matthew 5-7 is not a unity.
If,
however, the word "unity" may be applied to a carefully arranged
and
edited compilation of Jesus' teaching on a particular subject, the
Sermon
on the Mount is a unity. There is no indication of interpola-
tions by later
editors. The only problem is to determine a dominating
theme
and a clear structure which constitute unity. The former will
be
done in the remainder of this section, the latter in the final section.
Theme
is tied up with purpose. What purpose did Matthew have
in
bringing together various sayings of Jesus in his first discourse sec-
tion? There has been
no shortage of theories. The most important are
conveniently
summarized by Carson.23 Lutheran interpreters have
tended
to understand the sermon as an exposition of the law to show
people
their need of grace. Neither grace nor law, however, dominate
the
sermon. Classical liberalism saw in the sermon an ethic for all peo-
ple of all ages. Nevertheless much
of the discourse is irrelevant to those
who
are not already disciples of Jesus. Many contemporary liberals see
in
the sermon nothing more than the ethical standards of Matthew's
own
church. This view denies that most of the teaching goes back to
Jesus
and that Jesus intended his teaching to have continuing validity.
F.
E. Gaebelein;
himself
from time to time as every preacher and teacher does, and therefore the expla-
nation
is possible. It is not probable, however, as it ignores the likelihood that
both re-
ports
of the sermon are highly condensed It is not likely that two versions of the
same
sermon
would have been remembered and kept distinct in the tradition. One may occa-
sionally explain the
different accounts of Jesus' teaching by conjecturing that he said
similar
but not identical things on different occasions, but if one does this very
often the
explanations
become absurd.
23 Sermon on the Mount, 151-57; and Matthew, 126-27.
James A. Brooks:
UNITY AND STRUCTURE 25
The
Anabaptist-Mennonite tradition applies every element of the ser-
mon to all Christians of all ages in
such a way as to justify pacifism and
withdrawal
from secular society and to depreciate public prayer. No
portion
of Scripture should be made absolute in such a way as to elimi-
nate interpretation
and individual application. Existentialism finds in
the
sermon as well as the Bible generally merely a summons to "au-
thentic"
existence. There is some truth in the view as far as it goes, but
it
fails to reckon with the specific ethical requirements of the discourse.
Albert
Schweitzer described the sermon as an interim ethic for the
brief
period between its proclamation and the expected end of the
world.
Of course the world did not end as Jesus supposedly expected,
and
therefore the sermon has little continuing validity. Nineteen centu-
ries of history have
proved, however, that the sermon does have lasting
validity.
Some evangelicals describe the sermon as an intensification of
the
law, but this makes too much of 5:17-20 and ignores other passages.
Classical
dispensationalism conceives of the sermon as an ethic
for 1he
millennial
kingdom and therefore of minimal relevance for the church
age.
Why, however, would a code of law be needed during the millen-
nium when at least
most of the participants are perfected saints?
If none of the above adequately
describes the purpose and/or
theme
of the Sermon on the Mount, what is it? One should note that it
follows
closely after the programmatic statements that Jesus went
about
proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom of heaven (4:17, 23). The
term
"kingdom of heaven" appears six times and the word
"kingdom"
alone
three times at strategic places in the sermon. The sermon is
therefore
a description of the virtues which should characterize those
who
belong to the kingdom of heaven. This kingdom is the reign of
God
in the lives of people in Jesus' day, during the apostolic era, and
in
every age since those times. The sermon deals with the personal
life
of those who belong to the kingdom. Other aspects of their life
are
dealt with in other discourses, e.g., mission in chapter 10. Those
who
belong to the kingdom could be described simply as disciples-a
term
which appears at the beginning of the sermon (5:1). Therefore
the
sermon has a consistent theme, and this theme constitutes part of
its
unity. Another part is supplied by its structure.
The Structure of Matthew's Sermon
There are almost as many outlines of
the Sermon on the Mount
as
there are commentaries on it. This essay, however, must be limited
to
scholarly studies which seek to determine the structure intended
by
the author himself. Still further it will be limited to what its writer
26
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
considers
to be the most important study on the subject: Dale C. Alli-
son,
Jr., "The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount.”24
Allison begins by surveying and
criticizing previous studies of
structure:
that of Farrer who views the remainder of the sermon
as a
commentary
on the Beatitudes; that of Davies who thinks that the ser-
mon is based upon the three pillars
of Simeon the Just; those of
Grundmann, Schweizer, Bornkamm, Gundry, and
perhaps Lambrecht
who
find the organizing principle in the Lord's Prayer; and those of a
number
of other scholars which cannot be summarized here simply
and
briefly.25 Allison then proceeds to set forth his own proposal.26
The
most important element in Allison's analysis of the structure
is
the presence of numerous triads, something he finds in the other
Matthean discourses as
well.27 Many of these can be seen in the fol-
lowing
abbreviated description of Allison's structure.
There is clearly an introduction and
conclusion which consist of
4:23-5:2
and 7:28-8:1 respectively and which correspond to each other.
Note
the correspondences: "great crowds followed him" (4:25 and 8:1);
the
crowds (5:1 and 7:28); the mountain (5:1 and 8:1); "going up" (5:1)
and
"going down" (8:1); "teaching" (5:2 and 7:28); and,
"opening his
mouth"
(5:2) and "when Jesus finished these words" (7:28).
The sermon proper therefore just as
clearly consists of 5:3-7:27. It
also
has opening and concluding sections which correspond: the nine
(3
x 3) Beatitudes in 5:3-12 and the three warnings in 7:13-27.
The core of the sermon therefore
consists of 5:13-7:12 and deals
with
the task of the people of God in the world. It has a heading or in-
troductory summary
(5:13-16) which provides a transition from the
blessedness
of the future (5:12-13) to the demands of the present
(5:17-7:12).
Then 5:17-7:12 clearly divides into Jesus and the Torah
(5:17-48),
the Christian cult (6:1-18), and social issues (6:19-7:12). Matt
5:17,
however, is more than an introduction to the section on the To-
rah;
it is also an introduction to 5:17-7:12 and corresponds to the con-
cluding summary in
7:12.
The section on Jesus and the Torah
(5:17-48) begins with a state-
ment of general
principles (5:17-20) and then contains two triads of
antitheses:
5:21-32 on murder (5:21-26), adultery (5:27-30), and divorce
24 JBL 100 (1987) 423-45. A much briefer account of the structure may be
found in
W.
D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gos-
pel According to Saint Matthew, 3 projected
vols.. The International Critical Commen-
tary (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1988-) 1:61-64.
25 Allison,
"Structure," 424-29.
26 Ibid., 429-45.
27 Ibid.. 438-40.
James A Brooks:
UNITY AND STRUCTURE 27
(5:31-32);
and 5:33-48 on swearing (5:33-37), turning the other cheek
(5:38-42),
and loving enemies (5:43-48).28
The section on the Christian cult
(6:1-18) consists of a statement
of
general principle (6:1) and three areas of specific instruction on
almsgiving
(6:2-4), prayer (6:5-15), and fasting (6:16-18). The second
can
be further subdivided using additional triads.
Unlike some other scholars, Allison
does not find the section on
social
issues (6:19-7:12) to be without discernible structure. It consists
of
sections on God and mammon (6:19-34), and one's neighbor (7:1-12),
each
of which contains first a triad consisting of exhortation and two
parables
and then a concluding encouragement.
As indicated above, the golden rule in
7:12 does more than close
the
section on one's neighbor (7:1-12) and/or the larger section on so-
cial issues
(6:19-7:12); it also closes the entire central section (5:17-7:12).
It
summarizes the law and the prophets and therefore corresponds to
the
introductory statement in 5:17 about the continuing validity of the
law
and the prophets.
How should one evaluate Allison's
analysis of structure? It is cer-
tainly a careful and
thorough study of the subject, perhaps the best
that
has ever been made. It is certainly correct to recognize the prom-
inence of triads.
There is no doubt that Matthew had a fondness for
grouping
things by threes. This would naturally aid the memory in
learning
the material. It is one thing, however, to recognize the prom-
inence of triads; it
is another to claim that their use determines the
structure.
Some of them are forced, e.g., exhortation, parable, and sec-
ond parable m both 6:19-24 and
7:1-12 (exhortation and parables are
not
parallel). There are too many instances in Allison's analysis where
there
are two divisions rather than three. It is doubtful therefore
whether
the recognition of triads is the key which unlocks the struc-
ture of the sermon.
In view of the widespread disagreement
about the structure and
the
problems with all analyses, one cannot help but wonder if Mat-
thew himself
employed a rigid structure. If he did, it still has not
been
discovered even after 19 centuries of searching. On the other
hand,
the sermon certainly is not a miscellaneous collection of the
sayings
of Jesus without any structure at all. There is some topical
28 Allison's
justifications for two triads of antitheses rather than merely six antith-
eses are the word
"against in v 33, the presence in the first three but absence in the last
three
of the word "that” following "but I say unto you,” the presence of “you
have heard
that
it was said to the men of old” at the beginning of the first and fourth, and
the de-
scription of legal
ordinances in the first three but the use of imperative verbs in the last
three
("Structure,” 432-33).
28
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
arrangement
and some arrangement in groups of threes, resulting in
a
coherent discourse which is easy to read and follow and a unity
which
commends itself to most readers.
Because the author himself did not
impose a fixed structure upon
the
sermon, modern readers therefore may adopt any outline which is
helpful,
as long as it is realized that it is not the only possible one.
The
present writer submits the following for consideration. Of course
many
of the items could be further subdivided.
Introduction:
the setting of the sermon (5:1-2)
1. The blessedness of disciples
(5:3-12)
2. The character of disciples
(5:13-16)
3. The new law for disciples (5:17-48)
Introduction: Jesus'
attitude toward the law (5:17-20)
(1) About murder (5:21-26)
(2) About adultery (5:27-30)
(3) About divorce (5:31-32)
(4) About oaths (5:33-37)
(5) About retaliation
(5:38-42)
(6) About love of enemies
(5:43-48)
4. The practice of piety by disciples
(6:1-18)
Introduction: the evil of
ostentation (6:1)
(1) By almsgiving (6:2-4)
(2) By prayer (6:5-15)
(3) By fasting (6:16-18)
5. The avoidance of materialism by
disciples (6:19-34)
6. Warnings to disciples (7:1-27)
(1) Against judging (7:1-5)
(2) Against sacrilege (7:6)
(3) Against failure to pray
(7:7-12)
(4) Against worldliness
(7:13-14)
(5) Against false teachers
(7:15-23)
(6) Against hearing but not
acting upon the word (7:24-27)
Conclusion: the effect upon the
hearers (7:28-29)
:
The
www.criswell.edu
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium