Matthew 5:1-12
Oct 28, 2024
Matthew 5.1-12 and 5.13-7.29 Summary.pdf
Most of the chiastic structures on this site are the product of my own discovery and/or study, while a minority of others (such as this post), are my revisions from other sources. So, I want to make sure credit is given to two sources in particular:
1. Grammatical Chiasm of the Beatitudes (David Allen) drdavidlallen.com
Although I think this grammatically organized chiasm is legitimate, I will spend less time with this structure and basically relate Dr. Allen’s own observations, as follows below. I have used red font in the visual above (in the English translation) to highlight Dr. Allen’s observations.
- There is an enveloping present tense inclusio in 5:3 & 10 using the possessive concept (“Theirs is the kingdom…”)
- While 5:3-10 use third-person plural forms “they”/ “theirs,” 5:11-12 use 2nd person forms “you” and “your.”
- Future divine passives* (“they will be”) occur in 5:4, 9.
- Future verbs with direct objects. Future active occurs in 5:5 & future middle in 5:8 (both with direct object)
- In the center of the chiasm, 5:6-7 both utilize future divine passives. The idea of the blessedness of the present possession of the kingdom (5:3, 10) is developed primarily by stressing what God will do for disciples. (Future passive verbs in 5:4, 6, 7, 9) and secondarily by what disciples will do in response to what God does (future active and middle verbs; 5:5, 8).
David Allen notes that both halves of the chiasmus conclude with the concept of righteousness (5:6, 10).
He also notes alliteration with the Greek letter π (pi) in Matthew’s description of the blessed in the first half: poor, mourners, gentle, and hunger. (5:3-6).
Since the Beatitudes have been crafted as a chiasm, perhaps it may be worth exploring if, in like fashion, there may also be a structure within the body of the sermon. Maybe there is some truth after all to the observation that the Lord’s Prayer is at or near the center of Christ’s sermon on the mount.
2. Beatitudes-Sermon Chiasm (modified from that of James Millard Gibbs)
This chiasm will receive more attention in this post since I think there is greater value in this structure for interpretive purposes. Although I owe much to J.M. Gibbs, I do differ in several respects from his analysis. I assume the reader can/will examine Gibbs work to note the similarities and differences using the web.archive link above.
In this post I want to basically provide an outline that will serve to portray and delineate the boundaries of each unit in the beatitudes-sermon chiasm pericope. The following observations should serve to support the proposed structure.
The Beginning
To begin with, I have distinguished between the Pericope Introduction (5:1-2) and the Sermon Prologue (5:3-12). These initial sections correspond to two sections at the end of the pericope: the Sermon Epilogue (7:13-27) and the Pericope Conclusion (7:28-29). In fact, for me, it was the question of the placement of the material that comes after 7:6-11 (which is the last term corresponding to the first “poor in spirit” beatitude) yet before the more obvious formal conclusion (7:28-29), that occasioned further inquiry as its contents and correspondence. Further details will be explained in “The Ending” paragraph below. However, please note for “beginning” purposes, there is additional verbal and thematic correspondence matching with the Pericope Introduction that comes after the Pericope Conclusion (7:28-29). Oddly, this material is technically within the next pericope. So, for lack of a better term, I have designated this material (8:1-2a) to be an “Inclusio” of sorts, yet posted it in dark grey font to distinguish it as the next pericope.
The Ending
As mentioned above, the question regarding placement of the material in 7:12-27 (which comes after the last “poor in spirit” related term in 7:6-11, yet before the formal conclusion in 7:28-29) is what occasioned further inquiry regarding how and where this material might relate to the structure. Briefly, the answer focuses on examination of its contents such that we may distinguish two further rhetorical units within 7:12-27. First there is verbal and thematic repetition of “the Law and the Prophets” theme that is contained in just the one lone verse 7:12. This matches up exactly with “the Law & the Prophets in 5:17 (and Law is mentioned alone in 5:19). Then there is a chiastic unit in 7:13-27. The central components of that structure contain Jesus' teaching on “false prophets” in 7:15-23. False prophets should be seen in contrast, not only with Christ himself (the true and righteous "prophet like Moses" implicitly referenced in 5:2), but mainly with the true and righteous “prophets” explicitly mentioned in 5:12. Therefore I think 7:12 completes an inclusio from the beginning of the sermon body, such that 7:12 is an appropriate concluding summary for the body of the sermon. On the other hand, the Prophets / False Prophets parallel is decisive in helping to identify 7:13-27 as comprising the Sermon Epilogue.
The Middle
A natural rhetorical question arises as to where the beatitudes end and where the body of the sermon proper begins. The answer determines the division point between the two H terms of the structure. One significant difference between my own view and that of Gibbs (or Farrer, referenced below) is the turning point after the beatitudes. Like me, J.M. Gibbs understood 5:11-12 as part of the beatitudes. Yet, we differ in that he viewed those verses in parallel with 5:13-16 in the sermon. In his view of the chiasm (moving backward in the beatitudes), he understood 5:10 as corresponding with 5:17-20 in the structure. My presentation does not split up 5:13-20 into two parts. Rather, I see 5:13-20 as a small chiasm and therefore preserve it as a unit. While addressing the question regarding the chiastic center, it is worth noting that Gibbs credited Austin Farrer (and his book, “St Matthew and St Mark”) for also proposing a beatitudes-sermon chiasm. Farrer differed in that he viewed the central turn of the chiasm as occurring after 5:10. While I disagree with Farrer’s conclusion (and will explain why below), his observation is commendable since it recognizes the consistent two-part structure of all eight beatitudes. I have more to say about that below. However, regarding Farrer’s specific structural proposals, I did not find his suggestions as to chiastic parallels between the beatitudes and the sermon to be convincing. (So, they will not be restated in this post.)
If God wills, I intend to post brief studies on the structures found in each of the main sections of the sermon body. Suffice it to say, briefly, that 5:13-20 forms a structure that is definitely part of the body of the sermon with correspondence to the last beatitude. I have summarized the main aspects of that structure in the outline above. The outline also shows the inter-relatedness and cohesiveness of 5:10 with 5:11-12. Just as each of the beatitudes is formed in two parts, so also the last beatitude is further doubled to form a distinct two-part parallel structure (1. 2. / 1’ 2’). Farrer does well to note the change from third person to second person in 5:11-12. We agree that, after communicating the eight beatitudes to the crowd, it seems as if, at this point, Jesus began to address them more directly, possibly shifting so as to make eye contact with those in front of him, to ensure his message was being received. It is because of this change to second person address that Farrer placed the beginning of the sermon after the completion of the eight proper beatitudes. Farrer made a good point. Yet, while granting the validity of this observation, I think Farrer was not technically correct to conclude this as the dividing point. First, observe from the outline that vs 11-12 forms its own small chiasm (with “rejoice and be glad” as the center). While this little unit could stand alone at the beginning of the sermon, the terms within this unit (5:11-12) run parallel and exactly mirror the terms in 5:10 (i.e., persecution and righteousness, along with heavenly reward). In my opinion, 5:10 is thus decisively cohesive with 5:11-12, which therefore should be seen as the second half of the last beatitude. As I will show in the next post, the first section of the sermon on the mount begins in 5:13. While that pericope (5:13-20) evidences both verbal and thematic parallels with the material in 5:10-12, I plan to demonstrate that it also has its own ABBA chiastic structure (shown in the outline above) which differentiates it from what precedes in 5:10-12. Thus, long story short, I would place the turn of the structure after the beatitudes (after 5:12). This conclusion acknowledges that Jesus does indeed begin to elaborate in vs 11-12, yet that elaboration technically comes in the form of doubling and extending his last beatitude. It is only then that, continuing his second person form address, Jesus began his more diverse exposition of the beatitudes in an orderly reverse direction.
Since it relates to the relationship between the beatitudes and the sermon body, I wanted to bring attention to one last observation from Farrer’s commentary. This is where he reasoned that, just as the Covenant Law section is an exposition of the Decalogue, so also the whole sermon (after the Beatitudes) is an orderly exposition and application of the Beatitudes. This point was well made and worth consideration. Yet, since it remains to be seen how much exposition of the Decalogue is actually contained in the Covenant Law section of Exodus 21-23, I would put it a different way. Better to say that the two sections are complementary to one another. Just as the apodictic law of the Decalogue is appropriately followed by the casuistic/case law of the Covenant Law section, so also the general beatitudes are followed by the more diverse and specific subject matter in the sermon. Note that the body of the sermon is actually so diverse and specific, that it the very idea of a chiastic structure between it and the beatitudes will likely be met with appropriate reservations and skepticism. Granted, there are a few correspondences that will not be readily obvious. Yet, I think the student who purposely investigates this proposed structure (looking for correspondence, while remaining as objective as possible to guard against reading into the text) will be convinced. Just as a jig saw puzzle that is only half-completed, the more ambiguous parallels are revealed based on what is already known and only after closer examination. As we will see, sometimes the relationship is just in one respect and may be the exact opposite, conceptually, when compared with its corresponding beatitude. Thus, the prologue/beatitudes may have served as an artfully crafted sermon outline. This is definitely not that the Lord needed it, nor likely even for the sake of the original hearers, but rather for the sake of those who would later be blessed to read and study - and then do what our Lord said (“these words of mine” 7:24).