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 ...
Chapter 1Introduction1.1 BackgroundMatthew 6:19-34 forms a coherent unit within the first of the five major discoursesfound in Matthew. This first discourse in Matthew is famously known as the Sermonon the Mount (=SOM). A reading of the SOM can be confusing. While believerstoday remain captivated by the SOM, it’s pertinence for the believing communityremains somewhat elusive and perhaps misunderstood. To further aggravate theattempt to understand this infamous sermon, the fact exists that of all the Sermons inthe history of the world, this one has been given the most attention. Ergo there is amaze of scholarly literature available. This doesn’t necessarily help in a believer’squest to grasp its content.Of all the approaches to the interpretation of the Sermon there are several mainviews which stand out as the most significant. Firstly, there is the view that says theSOM cannot be followed. Allison (2005:127) believes the sermon puts out what lookslike impossible demands, for example Matthew 5:48 asks sinful people to be perfect.Justin Martyr said, “I am aware that your precepts in the Gospel are so wonderfuland so great, that I suspect no-one can keep them; for I have carefully read them.”According to Allison, Karl Barth and Eduard Thurneysen both saw the Sermon on theMount as a self portrait of Jesus, i.e. it was something Christ alone could embodyand practice.Amongst those who believe the SOM cannot be followed there is the typicalLutheran view (Blomberg 1992: 94; Carson 1994: 165; McArthur 1978:17). This viewsees the SOM as something like the law; something which shows up human
sinfulness and pushes people towards Christ as saviour. The Sermon would be whatRobert Frost called a “beautiful impossibility.” This view does not take seriously anexegesis of the text (Carson 1994: 165). While the demands of the SOM may bringto light a person’s need for salvation, the Sermon is presented as one of fivediscourses in Matthew which followers of Christ can, and are expected to, obey(Hendrickx 1984:6; Mtt 28:19-20). The argument for the SOM as a sermon expectedto be obeyed by Christian disciples will be expanded below when the chosenapproach to interpreting the SOM is expanded.Secondly, the sermon is seen as apocalyptic and therefore as containing some sortof temporary ethical demands (Blomberg 1992:94; Carson 1994:163; Pelikan2001:45). Johannes Weiss is credited as being one of the main proponents of thisview. Weiss (1971:84) asked the question as to when Christ’s second coming wouldbe. He proposed that understanding what Jesus taught about the second comingonly made sense if Jesus believed He would return within the lifetime of the peopleamong whom He worked (p.91). This view essentially states that Jesus was incorrectin his thinking (Blomberg 1992: 94; Carson 1994: 163; Pelikan 2001:45).Jesus thought that the world was about to end and so he was advocating a radicalinterim ethic to be practiced right before the end of the world and the consummationof His Kingdom (Carson 1994:163; Pelikan 2001:45). Thus the SOM is notsomething for all people in all times. Other than the fact that this view doesn’t takewhat the rest of scripture teaches to be true of Christ (i.e. Christ wouldn’t have beenincorrect it in his thinking), this view also ignores the tone of Christ’s sermon bymissing the fact that the sermon was recorded in Matthew after the death of Christwith the expectation that it be followed by believers to whom the book was beingaddressed (Matt 28:28-30).Thirdly, there is a dispensational view of the Sermon. This view says the Sermon willbe applicable in the future during Christ’s millennial reign, but is not relevant for now(Blomberg 1992:94; Carson 1994:167; Chafer 1976:98; Lloyd-Jones 2006:18).Chafer (1976:98), a well known Dispensationalist, believes that the Bible containsthree sets of rules for human behaviour; one set for a past age, one for this present2
- Page 1 and 2: A BIBLICAL-THEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF
- Page 3 and 4: ACKOWLEDGEMENTSI am eternally grate
- Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTSCHAPTER 1: Introdu
- Page 7: 6.2.5 Discipleship and Community…
- Page 11 and 12: discourses in Matthew, is meant to
- Page 13 and 14: Christian disciple and money was an
- Page 15 and 16: NT text actually did occur and did
- Page 17 and 18: to have used it as a source (France
- Page 19 and 20: almost no evidence outside of the N
- Page 21 and 22: addressed.Jesus says things in the
- Page 23 and 24: The Jewish community was taxed very
- Page 25 and 26: finding the origin and purpose of M
- Page 27: instruction for the believing commu
- Page 31 and 32: Matthew will have continued pertine
- Page 33 and 34: Chapter 3Literary Analysis - Struct
- Page 35 and 36: etween 6:19-24 and 7:1-11 that is c
- Page 37 and 38: would not have ever found such a li
- Page 39 and 40: and 7:7-11 are worth noting:a) Both
- Page 41 and 42: appealing. He seems to at times ack
- Page 43 and 44: three parts.While the literary appr
- Page 45 and 46: Chapter 4Literary Analysis - Matthe
- Page 47 and 48: common to a teacher like Jesus woul
- Page 49 and 50: treasures would be, but agrees that
- Page 51 and 52: Blomberg (1992:123) shows that the
- Page 53 and 54: Talbert (2006:122) argues this by r
- Page 55 and 56: for God’s kingdom, it is in a bad
- Page 57 and 58: The statement that one cannot serve
sinfulness and pushes people towards Christ as saviour. The Sermon would be whatRobert Frost called a “beautiful impossibility.” This view does not take seriously anexegesis of the text (Carson 1994: 165). While the demands of the SOM may bringto light a person’s need for salvation, the Sermon is presented as one of fivediscourses in Matthew which followers of Christ can, and are expected to, obey(Hendrickx 1984:6; Mtt 28:19-20). The argument for the SOM as a sermon expectedto be obeyed by Christian disciples will be expanded below when the chosenapproach to interpreting the SOM is expanded.Secondly, the sermon is seen as apocalyptic and therefore as containing some sortof temporary ethical demands (Blomberg 1992:94; Carson 1994:163; Pelikan2001:45). Johannes Weiss is credited as being one of the main proponents of thisview. Weiss (1971:84) asked the question as to when Christ’s second coming wouldbe. He proposed that understanding what Jesus taught about the second comingonly made sense if Jesus believed He would return within the lifetime of the peopleamong whom He worked (p.91). This view essentially states that Jesus was incorrectin his thinking (Blomberg 1992: 94; Carson 1994: 163; Pelikan 2001:45).Jesus thought that the world was about to end and so he was advocating a radicalinterim ethic to be practiced right before the end of the world and the consummationof His Kingdom (Carson 1994:163; Pelikan 2001:45). Thus the SOM is notsomething for all people in all times. Other than the fact that this view doesn’t takewhat the rest of scripture teaches to be true of Christ (i.e. Christ wouldn’t have beenincorrect it in his thinking), this view also ignores the tone of Christ’s sermon bymissing the fact that the sermon was recorded in Matthew after the death of Christwith the expectation that it be followed by believers to whom the book was beingaddressed (Matt 28:28-30).Thirdly, there is a dispensational view of the Sermon. This view says the Sermon willbe applicable in the future during Christ’s millennial reign, but is not relevant for now(Blomberg 1992:94; Carson 1994:167; Chafer 1976:98; Lloyd-Jones 2006:18).Chafer (1976:98), a well known Dispensationalist, believes that the Bible containsthree sets of rules for human behaviour; one set for a past age, one for this present2
Change language