12.07.2015 Views

O'Donoghue MTh_Thesis-FinalCopy.pdf - South African Theological ...

O'Donoghue MTh_Thesis-FinalCopy.pdf - South African Theological ...

O'Donoghue MTh_Thesis-FinalCopy.pdf - South African Theological ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

the saying of the good and bad eye.b) 6:24-34 – the traditional teaching would be found in 6:24ab where Jesusinforms His audience that one cannot serve two Masters as he will hate theone and love the other. The vicious cycle begins in 6:24c informing thedisciple that she or he cannot serve God and Mammon. The vicious cyclecontinues with the command not to worry in 6:25 (p.286).Stassen (p.287) notes that this vicious cycle has an exception to the rule, asin the previous triads an imperative is found in the transforming initiative. Inthis triad there is an imperative found in Jesus saying, “Therefore I say to.”The transforming initiative is found in 6:26, 28 and 33. Jesus saying that eachday has enough trouble is seen as the explanation to the initiative.Stassen (2003:286) rightly notes that most scholars see 6:24 as grouped with 6:19-23, but would not work well with his thesis as it would require a traditional teaching tobe found in 6:25-30 and as such would contain three imperatives which do not fit thestructure of the triads found throughout the SOM.While Allison, Davies and Stassen’s triad approach does at times “work,” there aretimes when exceptions to the rules either exist or must apply. Or as in Stassen’scase, when he groups 6:24 with 6:25-7:12 it appears as if he is forcing a rigidstructure that the text does not always present for itself.3.3 The Working ModelBrooks (1992:27-28) offers a suggestion. In light of the vast amount of disagreementover the Structure of the SOM, Brooks suggests that Matthew did not have as a rigidstructure as scholars are looking for. It is obvious that Matthew grouped things inthree, but he may not have rigidly followed such a structure. Thus to understand thestructure of the text purely in triad form may be to miss some of what Matthew istrying to portray.In acknowledgment that it should be taken into account that Matthew liked to groupthings in three, Talbert’s (2006:26) proposed structure presents itself as the most33

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!