Criswell Theological Review 6.1 (1992) 15-28.
Copyright © 1992 by The
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)
This material is cited with gracious permission
from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: