INTRODUCTION
The Sermon on the Plain (6:20-49) is the
first Preaching/Sermon of Jesus to occur in the Gospel of Luke. It is so called
“on the plain” because of the explicit reference of the Scenery in 6:17 . This Sermon is the counterpart
and a shorter version of Jesus’ sermon which is also found in Matthew 5-7 often
called the Sermon on the Mount. It contains blessings and woes, Jesus’ love
commands, the need to inculcate nonjudgmental attitude towards others, sharing
of possessions etc. In short, the Sermon contains radical teachings of Jesus
addressed to the disciples and would be disciples. This paper deals with a
brief study and deals from its literary analysis to its theological
significance.
1.
LITERARY ANALYSIS OF THE SERMON
Betz holds that the literary
genre of the Sermon on the Plain is that of an “epitome”[1]
presenting the theology of Jesus in a systematic fashion. Correspondingly, its
function is to provide the disciple of Jesus with the necessary tool for
becoming a ‘Jesus-theologian.’ Hearing and doing the sayings of Jesus,
therefore, it means enabling the disciples to theologize creatively along the
lines of the theology of the master.[2]
1.1
Source of the Sermon: Majority of the Scholars recently have agreed
that Luke has retained the order of the traditions in ‘Q’; yet, having freedom
in modifying, omitting some verses and then adding a few verses. Luke might
also have got a copy of Markan Gospel (cf. Mk.1:35-39 & Lk.6:12-19) A small
number of scholars, however, still believe that Luke is the first interpreter
of Matthew’s Sermon. This opinion is not persuasive. On the other hand, some
take the position that Luke drastically abbreviated Matthew’s Sermon and
included many of the omitted traditions in his Gospel.[3]
However, Wrege claims that the difference between Matthew and Luke cannot be
explained in terms of their editing a common source, but demands the
postulation of independent oral sources.[4]
This view stands poles apart from the attempts to explain all the Q materials
in terms of Matthean and Lukan redaction of one common written source. While
arguments scintillate, a proper study of the individual pericopes which form
the Sermon suggests that while many differences between the Gospels can be
explained in terms of the redaction of the evangelists, it fails to provide an
adequate explanation. A careful consideration must be given to the possibility
that the Q material was available to both Matthew and Luke in different
recensions. Basic traditions may well have passed through various stages of
transmission, both oral and written, before they were framed in the Gospels.
This theory better explains why some Q materials used by both the evangelists
were virtually identical in wording while, some appears in very different
forms.[5]
1.2 Evangelist’s
Redaction of the Sermon: Fitzmyer specifically proposes those
passages which are derived from ‘Q’ as;
vv.20b-23, 27b, 28b-33, 35b-36, 37a, 38b, 39c, 40-42, 43-45, 46-49, and
that vv.24-26, 27a, 28a, 34-35a, 37bc, 38a, 39a are additions by Luke.[6]
Comparatively, Luke does not reshape the Q Sermon like the way Matthew does,
but some emphases are clear and important. In four places Luke has added “now”
to the traditions: to the beatitude and corresponding woe on hunger (Lk 6:21a
and 25a) and to the beatitude and woe on mourning and laughing (Lk 6:21c and
25c). This emphasis reveals the evangelist’s concern for Christian life here
and now. In Luke, there are four woes which correspond precisely to his four
beatitudes (cf. Lk 6:20-21 and 24-26). Most scholars accept that Luke has added
the woes to the Q Sermon, either from the independent traditions or on his own
initiatives to delineate the contrast between those in desperate situations and
those who are self satisfied and complacent.[7]
Also, the second person address in the beatitudes and the woes peculiar in the
Sermon on the Plain are in all instances meant to address the disciples for
whom the text was composed.[8]
Luke’s redaction also occurs in vv 27c, 28a, 34-35a, 37bc, 38a, 39a. In vv
34-35a, 37bc, 38a, Luke makes a reference to sharing of possessions which are
hardly commands one gives to the poor disciples. Rather they are commands given
to people with possessions.[9]
2. AUDIENCE OF THE
SERMON
The question of who are the audience demands a proper consideration
because there is a fluidity between disciples (6:20a) and people (6:17, 19, 27;
7:1). Although Luke explicitly says in 6:20a that Jesus is speaking to his
disciples, it is hard to understand that the same disciples are addressed in
6:24, for they are hardly “rich”. Luke tells us that a large crowd was present
(6:17, 19). But 6:27a (“but to you who listen I say”) seems to specify
listeners while 7:1 says that Jesus spoke the words of 6:20-49 to the people.
Thus the division between people and disciples cannot be final; however, a
better understanding of the emphasis could be that discipleship must be
constantly renewed through hearing and responding to the words of Jesus.[10]
Although the Sermon on the Plain is designed from a Jewish-Christian
perspective, its addressees were in all likelihood disciples of Jesus coming
from a Greek cultural background. The language, conceptuality, and ideas, as
well as the construction of the arguments, conform to Greek presuppositions.
For instance, Lk. 6:40
(salvation comes to these disciples) as an extension of Jewish eschatological
promises.[11]
In Luke 6:12-16, Jesus goes up to the mountain in order to elect the
twelve and in 6:17 -19, all
comes down to the plain and meet with the people. So according to 6:20a, disciples
and people are present. Yet Jesus makes his speech “fixing his eyes on his
disciples.”[12]
According to Talbert, the audiences in the sermon were the apostles, a crowd of
disciples, and a great multitude of people.[13]
TakaTemjem sees the social setting in Luke’s Gospel as a whole is consisting of
both rich and poor.[14]
Philip Francis Esler concluded that Lucan Community composed of majority
Gentiles and a good number of Jewish Christians as well.[15]
So one can visualize and conclude that the audience consists of various social
stratums which Lasetso calls it “the rich and the poor”.[16]
3. SCENE OF THE SERMON
In the case of the topographical scene, as its customary title suggests,
Luke’s Sermon was delivered after Jesus descended to a level place (Luke
6:16-17). However, the word τόπος (topos) more usually signifies a generic
place, e.g. Matt 14:35; Luke 2:7; 14:22;
John 11:48; Rom 9:26; John 20:25, or an
isolated place, e.g. Matt 14:13, 15; Mark 1:35, 45; 6:31, 32, 35; Luke 4:42;
9:12 (Swanson 1997, GGK5536). Its translation as plain in this case is
something of an inference from the fact that Jesus has just come down from an ὄρος
the same word used in Matt 5.1. Luke depicts the Sermon on the Plain (6:20-49) to
fall within the Galilean ministry. After introducing and establishing the
person and identity of Jesus, the evangelist presents Jesus as teaching his
disciples with authority. The inaugural sermon of Jesus about the “good news to
the poor” (4:16-30) is followed by the demonstration of the nature of that “good
news” which brings healing to ill men and women and which conquers the forces
of evil. In 5:1-11 Jesus is depicted as calling disciples for the kingdom
ministry. In 5:17-6:11 Luke describes the controversy between Jesus and
religious leaders and establishes the authority of Jesus. In 6:12-16 Jesus is
portrayed as selecting the twelve disciples to symbolize the reconstituted Israel . After
this Luke fittingly portrays Jesus as teaching the gatherings the way of the
kingdom in the Sermon on the Plain (6:20-49).[17]
4. OUTLINE OF THE
SERMON
Various Commentators have divided the Sermon into three or more divisions
in order to make meaningful for the readers. According to Betz, the sermon
falls into three parts:
i) the exordium[18]
(6:20b-26), ii) the main body containing rules for the conduct of the disciples[19]
(6:27-45), and iii) a peroration[20]
(6:46-49).
Joseph A. Fitzmyer however, outlines the Sermon into five groups –
i) four beatitudes and
woes (vv.20-26), ii) love even your enemies (vv.27-36), iii) judge not one
another (vv.37-42), iv) the role of good deeds (vv. 43-45), v) the need to act
on the words with a parable (vv.46-49).[21]
Following Heinrici, Klostermann and Hauck, Howard Marshall (so also John
Nolland) has divided the Sermon into (1) a prophetic section (6:20-26); (2) a
paraenetic section (6:27-38); and (3) a parabolical section (6:39-49) and summarizes
the Sermon into six, almost the same with that of Fitzmyer except that he
divides vv. 36-42 into two, as vv. 36-38 speak of a command not to judge others,
and vv.39-42 about giving freely and thus receive accordingly from God.[22]
5.
STRUCTURE OF THE SERMON
5.1
Beatitudes and Woes (6:20-26)
In this section Jesus declares the blessed state of the poor, who in
their poverty and need (not blinded by riches) have been opened for the action
of God at the cost of hatred and exclusion.[23]
It includes four beatitudes with contrasting four woes. It describes the poor
as hungry and weeping and the rich as gourmandizing and laughing indecorously. Betz
claims that this description conforms to a social typology, used here to
identify the disciples’ experiences of discrimination and harassment of the
faithful and to warn against seeking the approval of opportunists and
flatterers (6:22, 26). Amidst the beatitudes and woes there is a call for joy
of reward between for those who stand on the side of the poor.[24]
The four woes are satirical sketch of the figure of the rich and juxtaposed
with the poor in the beatitudes. But who is addressed in the woes? The
disciples appeared to be the immediate addressees. Therefore, Betz maintains
that “woes” can only be a warning. Just as the disciples are expected to
conform to the image of the poor (20-22), they should dissociate themselves
from the lifestyle of the rich (24-26).[25]
The rich who are castigated are the literally rich but that they are not
addressed against their riches but against those whose material prosperity has
warped their orientation towards God and their fellows.[26]
In
the Lucan Community, the poor people comprise the largest portion in a society.
In terms of language or racial composition, after having studied the different
views of Scholars concerning the community of Luke – Acts,
Philip Francis Esler concluded that Lucan Community composed of majority
Gentiles and a good number of Jewish Christians as well. And also the
assumption that Gentiles are predominant and the Jews comprise a very
insignificant minority is ruled out by Esler.[27]
What is peculiar in Luke’s
Sermon is that the first three beatitudes and Woes are corresponding to one
another. The fourth beatitude and the fourth Woe, though take different form
than the previous ones, are yet parallel to each other. Besides, the second and
third beatitudes and woes have an added “now”. Most probably Jesus here stresses
the immediacy or actuality of the poor and the rich respectively.[28] It
concerns daily existence like poverty, hunger, grief, hatred and ostracism. The
beatitudes and the woes also imply an eschatological dimension less radical
than the Matthean form. We also see an implied future in the light of the
present moment.[29]
5.2
The Call to Love of Enemies and Nonjudgmental Generosity (6:27-38)
The discourse on love and mercy which must be shown by the disciples
found expression in this section. Talbert alludes that this is
the integral part of early Church’s instructions for Christian living (Rom
12:14-21; I Pet.2:18-25).[30] In
the first subsection (6:27-31) the accent is on the showing of love to those
who despise and persecute the disciples. This “love of enemies” section
consists in its first half of an opening statement of the principle (vv 27-28),
followed by concrete illustration of its application (v 29), broadening out in
the generalizing verse 30, and given its widest scope in the golden rule’s
practical definition of love in verse 31.[31]
In its second half love of enemies (vv 32-35), there are three parallel
statements indicating that a simple reciprocal goodness go no further than the
common practice even of sinners. These are followed by a threefold command to
go beyond such minimal reciprocality, so that disciples may have a heavenly
reward and become like children of God.[32]
Verse 36 concludes the entire arguments above with a positive ethical maxim to
imitate the mercy of God, at the same time introduces a paraenesis of
nonjudgmental attitude and generosity.
The nonjudgmental section consists
of a fourfold parallelism enjoining a generosity f spirit towards others as
necessary for those who wish God to deal in a generous spirit of mercy towards
them (vv37-38a). The section comes to an end with an impressive verbal image
describing the good measure of grain (v 38b), leading to a concluding principle
about giving and receiving.[33]
5.3
The Inward Character of Disciples (6:39-49)
The last section of the sermon deals with the kind of inward character
which produces the type of behavior outlined in the earlier sections. Verses
39-42 describes that the disciples are in themselves blind until they are
enlightened by their leader and should not judge others. Some scholar see this
section as a polemic against false teachers, warning disciples against
following any other way than that of Jesus while some others view that the
section is addressed specially to the leaders among the group of disciples. In
Matthew the sayings appear in the context of an attack on the Pharisees,
addressed to the disciples before their mission. However, it is hard to fit Luke
6:41ff. into this pattern since Luke appears to be addressing directly to the
disciples. Luke may have included vv 39-42 here because of its relevance to the
question of judging and the pre-Lukan tradition may have belonged to Jesus’
instructions to the twelve.[34]
Betz maintains that this section is foremost a school rule which defines
firstly the relationship between the student and the teacher within the church
and not about the relationship between the disciples and their master, and
secondly the need for self examination and self correction.[35]
Verses 43-45 teaches the
general principle that a person of bad character cannot produce good deeds or
words, and in its context stresses the need for the disciples to rid themselves
of the speck in their own eyes before they can live lives of outward goodness.
The warning is applied to false teachers in Matthew 7, but here the thought is
rather that the disciples cannot bring forth the good deeds and words that are
required of them unless they themselves are good and have good treasures in
their hearts.[36]
Verses 46-49 form a conclusion
to the whole Sermon. Here it is address to all those who profess discipleship
but settle for a less demanding way than proposed by Jesus. Its main purpose is
to stress the importance of obedience to what has been heard. Lk 6:46 has a
parallel in Mt 7:21. Though both are spoken in different context, both warn of
the danger of calling Jesus “Lord” without obeying him. Albeit the parable of
the two houses has the same general structure in both Luke and Matthew, the
difference in imagery of wording is considerable.[37]
This led scholars to conclude the postulation of two different form of the
parable in the tradition. However, despite the difference in detail both the
parable advocate wisdom and diligence in building, and make the point that it
is as foolish to hear the sayings of Jesus without obeying them as to build a
house without taking care how it is built.
6.
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT
The relationship between the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew
and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke represents a problem that has been frequently
addressed. Darrell L. Bock sees that many of the statements from that Sermon in
Matthew are scattered throughout Luke’s Gospel. This has produced many views on
the relationship between two texts. Luke has reduced the Matthean version,
removing elements that relate to concerns about the law. Matthew’s Sermon is an
anthology that brings together in one place what Jesus taught throughout his ministry,
as Luke’s examples illustrated.[38]
Those who are skeptical of biblical criticism have suggested
that Jesus preached the Sermon on more than one occasion and that this accounts
for the differences in the length, content, and setting of the respective sermons
in Matthew and Luke. Critical scholarship, however, has attempted to explain
the literary relationship between Matthew and Luke and to analyze the sources
of the respective sermons. The scholarly consensus is that the passages are not
independent but bear a close relationship to each other. Except for minor
discrepancies in order and phrasing, Luke's Sermon on the Plain is contained almost
entirely in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. One possible explanation for these
similarities is that Matthew's Sermon on the Mount represents Jesus' original
discourse, which Luke shortened by omitting some material and dispersing other
portions throughout his Gospel. A more widely held view is that both Matthew
and Luke drew on a common written source or sources.[39]
This source consisted of three major sections: It began with the Beatitudes,
followed with a series of admonitions, and concluded with the parable of the
two builders.
One can infer that the discrepancies occurred was because of
the material was written for a specific purpose, i.e. the community’s needs.
According to this view, the sermons in Matthew and Luke are not discourses of
Jesus that they “remembered” but, rather, compilations of Jesus’ sayings. Thus
the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain are not sermons which, before
either evangelist wrote them, there was an all probability a primitive
framework.[40]
7.
COMPARISON WITH SERMON ON THE MOUNT
Despite the vast similarity that one could expect from the two parallel
Sermons there are many differences as well when studied carefully, such as,
source, the setting of the context of a particular saying, emphasis etc. For
instance, Howard Marshall opines that the most refined attempt at
source-analysis is that of H Schu?rmann
(Das Lukasevangelium, 1969) who
maintains that two originally independent collections of sayings, 6:27-38 on
love for neighbors and enemies, and 6:39-45 directed against the Pharisees,
have been joined together and furnished with an introduction (6:20-26) and
conclusion (6:46-49).[41]
In this case, the same basic source was used by Matthew but added considerably
to it.[42] In
Luke, Jesus is portrayed as coming down from the mountain to the leveled place
(6:17a) which is reminiscent of Moses coming down from Mount Sinai after receiving
the Law. However, Matthew portrayed Jesus as going up on a mountain to deliver
the Sermon. The Lucan Sermon is considerably shorter than the Matthean Sermon
(5:3-7:27). Luke’s Sermon consists of a mere 30+ verses, whereas Matthew’s has
at least 107 verses. Another difference is that Lucan Sermon is on the Plain
and Matthew Sermon is on the mountain. Some other significant differences are
highlighted below:-
1. Matthew differs from Luke’s order in placing the
“Golden Rule”. In Luke it appears as part of the “love your enemy” section;
however, Matthew pushes it further as part of the climax of the Sermon to 7:12.[43]
2. One remarkable difference between the two sermons
lies in the human society each presents. The Sermon on the Mount sees the
surrounding world with the optic of Jewish thought separating people into group
of righteous and unrighteous and defining the righteous as “the poor in spirit”
(Mt 5:3). On the other hand Sermon on the Plain divides human society into the
“rich” and the “poor”. This division reflects the thoughts of the Hellenistic
moralist who tend to view the positively while castigating the rich.[44]
There is more of an ethical emphasis in Matthean beatitudes turning the
beatitudes into a programme of higher righteousness. However, Luke beatitudes
describe what the disciples really are and bring out the social concern
inherent in the message of Jesus.[45]
3. The Sermon on the Plain also differs from the Sermon
on the Mount in addressing the listeners. In Luke, the beatitudes and woes are
stated in second person plural whereas Matthew states them partly in the third
and partly in second person plural. There is no ground for arguing greater
originality for either formulation although such attempts are continuously
made. [46]
4. The whole of Luke’s Sermon on the Plain is found in
Matthew’ Sermon on the Mount except in three aspects. They are:-
(i) corresponding to Luke 6:20-26 which have four
beatitudes and four woes, Matthew 5:3-12 contain eight (or nine) beatitudes
with no woes;
(ii) the saying about the blind guides which Luke
inserted in his Sermon is found outside the Sermon in Matthew Gospel (Mt
15:14); and
(iii) the saying on the disciple-teacher relationship is
also found outside of the Sermon in Matthew Gospel (10:24).[47]
8.
THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SERMON
Although the Sermon is designed
from a Jewish Christian perspective, its addressees are in all probability
disciples of Jesus coming from a Greek cultural background. The linguistic
style, conceptualities, ideas as well as argumentation conform to Greek
presuppositions.[48]
The major theological emphases of the Sermon are described below.
8.1 Riches and Poverty: The juxtaposition of the poor with the
rich and the reference to the prophetic message (cf. Is 29:19; 57:15; 61ff.)
and to the proclamation of Jesus (Lk 14:18-19; 21:7, 22; 10:9, 11, 23-24) lead
one to deduce that a way of life as a whole is envisaged and not merely
economic conditions. Marshall
maintains that the description of the disciples as being persecuted for the
sake of the “Son of Man” also conveys that, the thought is not simply of those
who are literally poor and needy, nor of all such people, but of those who are
disciples of Jesus and hence occupy a pitiable position in the face of the
world.[49]
This teaching is motivated by his interest in the repentance of the rich and
the concern for the poor.[50]
The rich are not attacked because they are rich nor does the Sermon pity the
poor against the rich, rather Jesus’ woes are directed against the complacency
and self satisfied attitude of the rich who does not consider the welfare of
others.[51]
8.2 Reward and Judgment: The beatitudes convey salvation but the
woes threaten eternal condemnation. This doctrine is a belief common to both early
Christianity and Judaism. Between the promise and final salvation lies the
disciples earthly conduct of life and the final test of the last judgment. The
disciples task is to live on the basis of that salvation while moving toward
salvation; life final goal.[52]
Here Danker maintains that “your reward is great” is intended for consolation
rather than to motivate one’s conduct (cf. 17:7).[53]
The motif of the woe is that one should see the lifestyle of the rich in
contrast to the given lot of the poor. The reason for these warnings is the
eschatological reversal of roles, which has “mourning” and “weeping” for those
who laugh now. Woes are also intended to change the attitudes of the would-be
disciples towards wealth as means rather than an ends in itself.[54]
8.3
Love and Discipleship: The
central ethical demand of Jesus is to love one’s enemies. This command conforms
to God’s philanthropy and mercy, both of which are key terms in Greek
philosophy and ethics. It commands the disciples to go beyond the normal human
“sinful” relationship in order to receive what God has promised in return.[55]
On the other hand, Danker maintains that the love expresses a principle of
non-retaliation and not non-violence especially because Lukan community found
themselves subject to social and religious persecution. This is because
retaliation would defeat their profession of faith.[56]
The theme of discipleship runs through the Sermon because it is primarily
an address to the disciples. Betz maintains that the Sermon on the Plain
conceives of discipleship in terms of Greek education (paideia) by which the ethics of Jesus is learned as a way to
realize oneself and as a means of survival in an evil and dangerous world.[57]
Through the Sermon of Jesus, Luke preaches to his audience that wealth,
stomachs filled with select foodstuffs, carefree times, and being held in high
esteem by others are ephemeral comparing to following Jesus and his kingdom
message. Discipleship is not only an end in itself; however, it is a discipline
that enables the Christian to stand against the calamities and vicissitudes of
life.[58]
CONCLUSION
The Sermon consists of varieties of
themes and independent units which makes it difficult to conclude the Sermon as
teaching about one theme. The first unit pronounces blessings and woes to two
contrasting group of people – the rich and the poor. Here we get a glimpse of Lukan
usage of poor that has two different meanings - that
poverty in economically and backward in the society and that with
reference to Old Testament understanding, it also denotes poor people who are
pious and humble before God. This also qualifies Luke often being called the
social Gospel because of its sympathy with the poor and its emphasis on the
duty of kindliness of spirit. This social interest is especially prominent in
the Sermon. Here the Beatitudes deal with social differences (which in Matthew
they refer to spiritual conditions) and all that deal with social relations,
such as those on the Golden Rule, the duty of universal love, the equality of
servant and master, and the obligation of a charitable spirit and these all
suffice to prove Luke to be a true contextual theologian.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Betz, Hans Dieter. “Sermon
on the Mount” in the Anchor Bible
Dictionary, Vol. 5, David Noel Frredman et.al. New Toork: Doubleday,1992.
Betz, Hans Dieter. The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the
Sermon on the Mount including the Sermon on the Plain. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1995.
Bock,
Darrell L. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Leicester: Inter Varsity
Press, 1994.
Danker,
Frederick W. Jesus and the New Age: A
Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.
Esler,
Philip Francis. Community and Gospel in Luke – Acts : the Social and Political
motivations of Lucan Theology, New
York: Cambridge University press, 1987.
Fitzmyer,
Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke (Garden City: Doubleday & Company,
1980.
Karris,
Robert J. “The Gospel According
Luke”, in The New Jerome Biblical
Commentary, edited by R. E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and R. E. Murphy.
Bangalore: TPI, 2001.
Kissinger,
W.S. “Sermon on the Mount” in Dictionary of Biblical interpretation, ed.,
John H. Hayes. Nashville: Abington Press, 1999.
Lasetso,
Razouselie. The Nazareth Manifesto: The Theology of Jubilee and Its Trajectories in
Luke-Acts. Delhi: ISPCK, 2005.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1978.
Mounce, R.H.
“Sermon on the Mount” in New Bible
Dictionary, eds., I.H. Marshal, A.R. Millard, J.I. Packer & D.J.
Wiseman. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1982.
Nolland,
John. Luke 1-9:20: Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 35 A. Dallas: Word
Books, 1989.
Stanton, G. N. “The
Sermon on the Mount/Plain”, in Dictionary
of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and, I.
Howard Marshall. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Prsee, 1992.
Takatemjem, The Banquet is Ready: Rich and Poor in the
parables of Luke. Delhi: ISPCK, 2003.
Talbert, Charles H. Reading Luke. New York: The Crossroad
Pub. Com. 1982.
Tannehill,
Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Philadelphia
Fortress Press, 1986.
[1]
The epitome is a composition carefully designed out of saying of Jesus grouped
according to thematic points of doctrine considered to be primary importance.
Its characteristics include brevity and precision in selection and formulation.
But the epitome is not simply a collection of selected passages. Rather, the
author has systematic goals and looks at the work to be epitomized as a whole.
What he or she selects and composes into the new literary unit is intended to
be a systematic synopsis. In composing the epitome, the author has considerable
freedom to be creative, to reformulate, to transpose, to add and omit as
necessary in view of the overall demands of the genre and purpose. See in Hans
Dieter Betz, “Sermon on the Mount” in the
Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5, David Noel Frredman et.al. (New Toork:
Doubleday,1992), p.1107.
[2]
Hans Dieter Betz, “Sermon on the Mount” in the
Anchor Bible Dictionary, p.1107.
[3]
G. N. Stanton, “The Sermon on the Mount/Plain”, in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by Joel B. Green, Scot
McKnight and, I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Prsee,
1992), 737.
[4]
I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A
Commentary on the Greek Text (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1978), 245.
[5]
I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 245.
[6] Joseph
A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke
(Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1980), 627.
[7]
G. N. Stanton, “The Sermon on the Mount/Plain”, in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 737.
[8]
Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the
Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount including the Sermon on the
Plain (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 571-572.
[9] Robert J.
Karris, “The Gospel According Luke”, in The
New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by R. E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer
and R. E. Murphy (Bangalore: TPI, 2001), 694.
[10] Robert J.
Karris, “The Gospel According Luke”, in The
New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 694.
[11]
Hans Dieter Betz, “Sermon on the Mount” in the
Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1110-1111.
[12]
Hans Dieter Betz, “Sermon on the Mount” in the
Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1106.
[13]
Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke (New
York: The Crossroad Pub. Com. 1982), 68.
[14]
Takatemjem, The Banquet is Ready: Rich
and Poor in the parables of Luke (Delhi: ISPCK,2003), 54-60.
[15]
Philip Francis Esler, Community and
Gospel in Luke – Acts : the Social and Political motivations of Lucan Theology, (New York: Cambridge University
press, 1987), 44.
[16]
Razouselie Lasetso, The Nazareth
Manifesto: The Theology of Jubilee and Its Trajectories in Luke-Acts
(Delhi: ISPCK, 2005), 145.
[17] Robert J.
Karris, “The Gospel According Luke”, in The
New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 694.
[18] It combines
four Beatitudes with four contrasting threads (woes). The former describes to
poor and hungry and weeping and the rich as suffering their stomachs and
laughing indecently (6: 20b-21, 24-25b). Between the beatitudes and the threats
lies a call for joy (6:23), formulating a doctrine of reward in the last
judgment for sufferings endured.
[19] It is the main
body containing rules for the conduct of the disciples (6:27-45). The rules for
the conduct of the disciples in the body of the Sermon on the Plain can be
divided into two subsections, the first dealing with the outside world
(6:27-38) and the second with specific guidelines for education (6:39-45).
[20] The concluding
section begins with a rhetorical question describing the typical behavior of
immature students (6:46) and concludes with the double parable of the two
builders portraying the successful and the failed disciples.
[21]
Fitzmayer, Luke, 629.
[22] I.
Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 244.
[23] John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20: Word Biblical Commentary, vol.
35 A (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 274.
[24] Hans Dieter
Betz, “Sermon on the Mount/Plain”, in The
Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1109.
[25]
Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 574-575.
[26]
John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, Word Biblical Commentary, 289
[27]
Philip Francis Esler, Community and
Gospel in Luke – Acts: the Social and Political motivations of Lucan Theology, (New York: Cambridge University
press, 1987), 44.
[28]
Fitzmyer, Luke, 634.
[29]
Takatemjen, The Banquet is Ready, 297.
[30]
Talbert, Reading Luke, 73.
[31]
John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20: Word Biblical
Commentary, 293.
[32] I.
Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 258.
[33]John
Nolland, Luke 1-9:20: Word Biblical
Commentary, 293.
[34] I.
Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 268.
[35]
For further reading refer to Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount
including the Sermon on the Plain, 622-627.
[36] I.
Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 244.
[37]
John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20: Word Biblical
Commentary, 310.
[38]
Darrell L. Bock, The IVP New Testament
Commentary Series (Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 1994), 119.
[39]
W.S. Kissinger, “Sermon on the Mount” in Dictionary
of Biblical interpretation, ed., John H. Hayes (Nashville: Abington Press, 1999), 462.
[40]
R.H. Mounce, “Sermon on the Mount” in New
Bible Dictionary, eds., I.H. Marshal, A.R. Millard, J.I. Packer & D.J.
Wiseman (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1982), 1078.
[41] I.
Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 245.
[42]
Matthew 5:3f., 6, 11f., 39b-42, 44-48; 7:1-6, 12-18, 20f., 24-27.
[43]
G. N. Stanton, “The Sermon on the Mount/Plain”, in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 736.
[44]
Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount,
572.
[45]
I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 246.
[46]
Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the
Mount, 571-572.
[47]
G. N. Stanton, “The Sermon on the Mount/Plain”, in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 736.
[48]Hans
Dieter Betz, “Sermon on the Mount/Plain”, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1110.
[49] I.
Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 246.
[50]
Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity
of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation (Philadelphia Fortress Press,
1986), 128.
[51]
Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New
Age: A Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1988), 142.
[52]
Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the
Mount, 574.
[53]
Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New
Age, 141.
[54]
Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the
Mount, 578.
[55] I.
Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 258.
[56]
Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New
Age: A Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel, 144.
[57]
Hans Dieter Betz, “Sermon on the Mount/Plain”, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1111.
[58]
Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the
Mount, 637.
No comments:
Post a Comment