2.1 Walter Grundmann and Günther Bornkamm

Walter GrundmannFootnote ⁶ and Günther BornkammFootnote ⁷ are two of the strongest proponents for the Lord's Prayer as the centre of the Sermon. Both argue that the Sermon's structure revolves around the ordering of the Prayer's petitions. In his commentary Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, Grundmann argues that the first half of the Sermon (Matt 5.1–48) corresponds to petitions 1–3 (Matt 6.9–10), and and its latter half (Matt 6.19–7.23) to individual petitions of the Prayer (Matt 5.1–2 and 7.7–12 to petition 1; Matt 5.3–16 to petition 2; Matt 5.17–48 to petition 3; Matt 6.19–34 to petition 4; Matt 7.1–6 to petition 5; Matt 7.13–23 to petitions 6 and 7).

Bornkamm, in his helpful article ‘Der Aufbau der Bergpredigt’, amended the argument of Grundmann by reducing the Prayer's structuring to the latter portions of the Sermon (Matt 6.19–7.11).Footnote ⁸ If the first half of the Sermon (Matt 5.1–6.18) is intricately structured, Bornkamm reasoned that the latter half (Matt 6.19–7.6) must also be tightly structured. By comparing Matthew's arrangement of his prayer teachings (Matt 6.9–13; 7.7–11) with Luke's arrangement (Luke 11.1–13), Bornkamm argues that Matthew has split the teaching on prayer (Matt 6.9–13 and 7.7–11) to form an inclusio around 6.19–7.6. Within this inclusio, Matt 6.19–24 (teaching ‘treasures not on earth but in heaven’) connects to the first three petitions, Matt 6.25–34 (teaching on ‘worry’) connects to the fourth petition, Matt 7.1–5 (teaching on ‘judging’) connects to the fifth petition, and Matt 7.6 (teaching on ‘dogs, pigs, and holy things’) connects with the last two petitions. To establish these connections between the Sermon and Prayer, Grundmann and Bornkamm point out the similar vocabulary and shared thematic elements (Table 1).

Table 1. Lord's Prayer as Structuring Agent

Grundmann and Bornkamm both have noted an important point concerning the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord's Prayer. I agree with the argument for the centrality of the Lord's Prayer, but the Prayer does not structure the latter sections of the Sermon. While this solution is intriguing, it presents two major problems. The first of these is the disproportionate arrangement that occurs when each scholar assigns the Sermon's content to its respective petition. One will notice from the chart that one petition will parallel large sections of verses while multiple petitions will parallel a single verse. For example, both proposals assign the bread petition to a single petition, while the temptation and evil petitions cover the Sermon's conclusion in Grundmann and a single verse in Bornkamm. In Bornkamm's proposal, Matt 6.19–24 parallels the first three petitions, while the rest of the Sermon is split among the remaining petitions. Second, many of the exegetical parallels between the Sermon and the respective petition are tenuous. Examples include: (1) the connection of Matt 7.6 in Grundmann's proposal to the forgiveness petition,Footnote ⁹ and (2) in Bornkamm, connecting Matt 6.19–24 to God's will being accomplished.Footnote ¹⁰

2.2 Michael Goulder and H. Benedict Green

In Midrash and Lection, Goulder argues that Matthew is employing the use of triads and reverse ordering.Footnote ¹¹ Goulder reasons, ‘The eighth beatitude is plainly expounded in the first verses of the main body of the Sermon.’Footnote ¹² If the beginning of the body of the Sermon (Matt 5.11–12) starts to explain the last Beatitude, the Beatitudes must then be a kelal for the entire Sermon. In what follows, Matthew has adopted the rabbinic practice of triple illustration throughout the Sermon body to correspond to each of the Beatitudes.Footnote ¹³ As Table 2 illustrates, the Sermon's structure simply follows the ordering of the Beatitudes.

Table 2. Goulder on Matt 6.19–7.2 (Goulder, Midrash and Lection, 269)

Green, in his work Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes, follows very closely the proposal of Goulder, but with some stylistic differences. Green argues that the eight Beatitudes should be split in half and read together as parallel units. The first Beatitude is paired with the fifth, the second Beatitude with the sixth, and so on. After proving the parallel structure of the Beatitudes, Green shows how each pair interacts with the rest of the Sermon.Footnote ¹⁴

The difference in these proposals is that Goulder handles the Beatitudes individually, while Green sees each pair of Beatitudes as corresponding to a section of the Sermon. Just as Goulder expressed the connection of 5.11–12 as a Midrash on the eighth Beatitude, Green similarly starts his analysis here. The thematic material in verses 11–20 connects with the eighth/fourth Beatitude. This is displayed in the chart above. What is interesting is the linking verse/paragraph that appears in each larger section noted by the parentheses. These linking verse/paragraphs connect to the next section of Beatitudes. For instance, in the larger section of 5.11–20, Green argues that the linking verse is 5.13 (seen in the second column). In 5.13 (teaching on ‘salt’), Green argues that Matthew is borrowing from the tradition behind Mark 9.50: ‘Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.’ As Mark combines ‘salt’ and ‘peacemaking’, so Matthew uses the salt metaphor as a major emphasis in the larger section and implicitly moves the reader to the next set of Beatitudes (vii/iii), which begins with ‘peacemaking’.Footnote ¹⁵ This pattern continues throughout the sets of Beatitudes. There are verbal links in each section that move the reader forward so as to form a circular pattern through the entire Sermon.

Goulder and Green share a flair for creativity and an acknowledgement of the poetic beauty of the Sermon. The main problem lies in the lack of connectivity between some of the passages and their respective Beatitude. In regard to Goulder, Warren Carter has pointed out three passages that are especially troubling: Matt 5.13–16, 7.1–6 and 7.6.Footnote ¹⁶ I will discuss the last two as they are the most problematic and related to the current section under investigation. First, Matt 7.1–6 speaks of judging others and contains the strange passage concerning dogs and pigs. It is a difficult stretch to connect mourning and an admonition against judging others without any specific verbal links. Goulder attempts to make the connection by appealing to the internal connection between verses 1–5 and verse 6. He argues that both passages concern judging. Therefore, when judging is done improperly, it can be a cause of mourning.Footnote ¹⁷ As Goulder admits, the passage on dogs and pigs is notoriously difficult to interpret.Footnote ¹⁸ It does not immediately lend itself to judging and, therefore, may not be linked to mourning. At best, the connection is symbolic, but in the lack of verbal specificity, mourning and dogs/pigs can only be connected tenuously with Goulder's proposed parallels. This difficulty leads to the second issue. Goulder interprets the dogs/pigs passage as one addressing ‘backbiting’. While the second half of the verse may be instructing against such behaviour, the first half is a command to withstand putting important things before unworthy recipients. As I will argue, the verse concerns apostasy and is not reducible to ‘backbiting’.

In Green's analysis, each verbal clue takes the reader to the first Beatitude in the set of two (5.13 links to Beatitude vii; 5.27–37 links to Beatitude vi, etc.). In the last set, the verbal clue takes the reader to the second Beatitude in the set of two (6.33, 7.7–11 to Beatitude iv). Why in this last case does the patterning change? In previous examples, the verbal clue always links to the first Beatitude and not the second. Green provides an answer to this question, but his tight and narrow methodology does not allow the sort of flexibility he needs to assert this change in parallels.

2.3 Dale Allison and Glen Stassen

When it comes to the structure of the Sermon on the Mount, no one is perhaps more published than Dale Allison.Footnote ¹⁹ Allison has defended a triadic structure for the Sermon. In the passage under discussion, Jesus follows up a section on Jewish piety (Matt 6.1–18) with a section on social issues. Like Matt 5.17–48 (21–6, 27–30, 31–2//33–7, 38–42, 43–7[8]), Matt 6.19–7.11 also contains two triads. Each of the two sections in Matt 6.19–7.11 begins with an exhortation (Matt 6.19–21//7.1–2), followed by a parable on the eye (Matt 6.22–3//7.3–5), and parabolic conclusion (Matt 6.24//7.6).Footnote ²⁰ Matt 6.25–33 and 7.7–11 are labelled as ‘encouragements’ in regard to the demands of the previous exhortations. Allison presents the structure as is laid out in Table 3.

Table 3. Allison on the structure of 6.19–7.11

Following on the heels of Allison's structural proposal is the work of Glen Stassen.Footnote ²¹ Stassen has created an ethics textbook working from the concept of ‘Transforming Initiatives’, which he finds as the driving force in the body of the Sermon.Footnote ²² According to Stassen's presentation of the structure of the Sermon, the follower of Christ is relieved from the rigid demands and high idealism of traditional readings of the Sermon, and given the gift of God's grace and deliverance.Footnote ²³

Like Allison, Stassen argues for a consistent use of the triad; the difference is in its location and use. Whereas most structural proposals comment on how the various periscopes are grouped together, Stassen argues that each pericope has a triadic nature within itself.Footnote ²⁴ The internal triadic structure consists of a teaching on ‘traditional righteousness’, the ‘vicious cycle plus judgment’ and the ‘Transforming Initiative’.Footnote ²⁵ These are classified as follows:Footnote ²⁶

1. (a) The Traditional Righteousness is presented as coming from Jewish tradition. It occurs first in a triad and does not begin with a particle. Its main verb is usually a future indicative or a subjunctive with an imperatival function, as is typical in Matthew for may citations of Old Testament commands; its mood apparently varies with the received tradition.

2. (b) The Vicious Cycle plus Judgement is presented as Jesus’ teaching, with authority. It diagnoses a practice and says it leads to judgement. Its main verb is a participle, infinitive, subjunctive or indicative, but not an imperative. It begins with ‘but’, ‘for’, ‘lest’ or ‘therefore’ (δέ, οὖν, Διὰ τοῦτο, μήποτε), or a negative such as μή or οὐκ; and often includes λέγω ὑμῖν (‘I say to you’).

3. (c) The Transforming Initiative is also presented as Jesus’ teaching, with authority. Its main verb is a positive imperative – an initiative – not a negative prohibition, calling for a practice of deliverance from the vicious cycle and to participation in the reign of God. It usually begins with δέ and ends with a supporting explanation: that is, ‘he may deliver you to the judge’.

Stassen sees fourteen such triads that occupy the main section of the Sermon, 5.21–7.12.Footnote ²⁷ They are as follows:Footnote ²⁸

1. 1. On being reconciled (5.21–6: 21, 22, 23–6)

2. 2. On removing the practice that leads to lust (5.27–30: 27, 28, 29–30)

3. 3. On divorce (5.31–2: 31, 32a–b (no Transforming Initiative))

4. 4. On telling the truth (5.33–7: 33, 34–6, 37)

5. 5. Transforming Initiatives of peacemaking (5.38–42: 38, 39a, 39b–42)

6. 6. Love your enemy (5.43–8: 43, 44–5, 46–7, 48 (summary))

   [Introduction to next section: 6.1]

7. 7. Almsgiving (6.52–4: 2a, 2b, 3–4)

8. 8. Prayer (6.5–6: 5a, 5b, 6)

9. 9. Prayer (6.7–15: 7a, 7b–8, 9–15)

10. 10. Fasting (6.16–18: 16a, 16b, 17–18)

11. 11. Storing treasures (6.19–23: 19a, 19b, 20–3)

12. 12. Serve first God's reign and justice (6.24–34: 24ab, 24c–25, 26–34)

13. 13. Judge not, but take the log out of your own eye (7.1–5: 1, 2–4, 5)

14. 14. Place your trust not in gentile dogs, but in our Father God (7.6–12: 6a, 6b, 7–12)

Stassen argues that each of the triads displays roughly the same form and this new understanding of the text makes the most sense of the Sermon's structure.

In regard to these triadic proposals, each has its inherent strengths along with its weaknesses. From the start of the Sermon until Matt 6.19, Allison has pointed out a consistent thread of triads, but in the last sections of the main body, he starts to deviate from his prior consistency. The insertion of the ‘encouragement’ sections Matt 6.25–33 and 7.7–11 particularly stands out. They follow on the heels of proposed triads but stand alone in their structural connection. Carter notes: ‘While there is no dispute that these sections offer encouragement, that function may have more to do with the content and imperatival style than with the absence of a triadic pattern.’Footnote ²⁹ Additionally, Stassen has shown that Allison's naming of the particular elements of Matt 6.24–7.11 is tenuous.Footnote ³⁰ They do not clearly illustrate what the text says and seem contrived in order to maintain the triadic scheme.

Stassen's proposal is careful and well documented but not without fault. One concern of Stassen's work is his dismissal of dyads. He is quick to point out that the use of dyads is atypical for the Gospel of Matthew.Footnote ³¹ Arguably, one of the major themes in the entirety of the Gospel is the dyad of heaven and earth. Matthew is also very keen to use the literary device of comparisons (a dyadic structure).Footnote ³² Before getting to the Sermon, Matthew compares Jesus with John the Baptist and Moses. In the Sermon, the disciples of Jesus are compared to the scribes and Pharisees. After the Sermon, Jesus is compared to his own disciples, Jonah, Solomon and the temple. A complete reading of the Sermon reveals that there are two groups of people hearing Jesus’ teachings: the disciples and the crowds. The first major section is filled with dyads: two sets of four Beatitudes and the twin metaphors of salt and light. Also, the Sermon ends with various comparisons: the wide gate vs the narrow gate, good fruit vs bad fruit, and rocky foundations vs sandy foundations. Although these sections fall outside Stassen's exegesis, they are still vital parts of the Sermon's message.

In terms of finding triads among the commonly viewed dyadic section of 5.21–48, Stassen seems to give way again to his own presuppositions. As mentioned, he is convinced that placing weight on the prohibitions (‘You have heard that it was said …’) gives the Sermon a negative orientation that prohibits grace. His triadic structure gives a means of deliverance through the ‘Transforming Initiative’, in which case Jesus’ words fulfil the traditional teachings.Footnote ³³ This is an interpretive decision that maligns the use of the prohibition in 5.21–48. Although one can agree that Jesus’ teaching brings an added dimension to this set of six Old Testament commands, this does not mean that the prohibition must take a secondary role. In fact, Jesus has just made clear that he does not intend even an ‘iota’ or ‘dot’ to pass from the Law's presence (5.17–20). In this case, the triadic structure is not warranted. It ignores the clear structural markers that dominate 5.21–48: ‘You have heard that it was said …’ and ‘But I say to you.’ A close reading of Stassen reveals that in the teaching on divorce, a ‘Transforming Initiative’ is in fact missing, creating an apparent dyad. Also, Stassen overlooks the grace that is already being elicited in the Beatitudes. This would form a nice introduction to and juxtaposition with Jesus’ teaching on the Law, but Stassen begins his evaluation in 5.21.

The last critique of Stassen's work concerns his refusal to acknowledge particular markers in the text that function as summarising verses. There are at least three passages/verses that seem to function as transitional verses or summations. The first is 5.48: ‘Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect.’ Ulrich Luz comments, ‘Verse 48 brings the entire series of antitheses to a close.’Footnote ³⁴ Traditionally, this verse would cover all six of the antitheses mentioned in verses 21–47. Although Stassen does acknowledge this function of verse 48, his structural proposal only allows it to apply to the sixth transformative initiative. Second, Stassen takes liberties in arranging 6.1. It is a summary verse that introduces the traditional teachings concerning practices of piety throughout chapter 6. Interestingly, Stassen sets it as an introduction to a section without any formal connection to a specific triad. The third example of breaking from the triadic structure is Stassen's assignment of 7.12. He argues that it fits into the fourteenth triad but serves as the ‘climax of the whole central section’.Footnote ³⁵ As with the other examples, Stassen does acknowledge the summarising function of these verses, but the question remains of whether his triadic scheme allows that. Either the triadic scheme is binding, or it is not. If it is not binding, then some of the hermeneutical decisions made by Stassen become more questionable.

Stassen clearly lays out his intentions to be exegetically consistent, but upon closer examination, he takes creative liberties. These liberties are less guided by the texts under consideration, and more by Stassen's interpretive presuppositions. Stassen does draw attention to some interesting features of the main body of the Sermon, but his methodology cannot be applied evenly across the entirety of the text and does not fit with the subtle nuances that the author of the Sermon implements. His insistence on emphasising certain verses and de-emphasising others takes away from the fullness of the Sermon as a compositional unit.

3.1 General Observations

The structures surveyed, although ultimately incomplete, are not without merit. Each proposal helps to highlight aspects of the Sermon's literary beauty. As Grundmann and Bornkamm have rightly argued, the Lord's Prayer is at the centre of the Sermon. Luz is more correct in seeing the Prayer as the structural centrepiece of the Sermon without the petitions structuring the Sermon's material. Bornkamm also rightly assumes that the structure of the first half of the Sermon should continue into its second half. Goulder and Green have drawn attention to the Sermon's dependency on the Old Testament and the poetic beauty of the Lord's Prayer. Allison and Stassen highlight the use of triads, an important feature throughout the Sermon.Footnote ³⁶ From these proposals, the following comments address the broadest observations concerning the Sermon's structure:

1. 1. Matthew's most common literary devices throughout the Sermon are dyads, triads, inclusiones, kelals and verbal repetition.

2. 2. The Sermon has a macro-structure and the individual parts exhibit micro-structures.

3. 3. The Sermon's parts form a cohesive message. Although some of the individual parts stand alone, Matthew creates a panoramic view for the reader/listener. In other words, each thematic unit is threaded together by the author.

4. 4. As with other places throughout the Gospel, Matthew consistently uses structuring and literary devices to present two contrasting ways of life. In his verbiage, one is either a child of the Father in heaven or a citizen of the kingdom of man.

3.2 ‘Rag-Bag’ or Editorial Genius?

My own proposal closely resembles that of Luz, who offers a concentric scheme for understanding the Sermon's structure, with the Lord's Prayer as the centre. In his proposal, Luz draws attention to the parallel between Matt 5.21–48 and 6.19–7.12.Footnote ³⁷ His overarching justification for paralleling 5.21–48 and 6.19–7.12 is that each section occupies fifty-six lines in the Nestle-Aland. In other words, Luz's structural proposal for Matt 6.19–7.12 rests on simple size comparisons with 5.21–48. It is my conviction that more can be posited than mere line equivalence and that reading the parallels between the two blocks of texts gives further insight into understanding 6.19–7.12. In what follows, I will show how the sections are parallel with the intention of demonstrating how these observations reveal an inner logic to Matt 6.19–7.12.

First, both sets of texts share the same rhetorical vein. Jesus’ teaching on the Law employs the wording ‘You have heard it said … but I say to you’ to emphasise that his own teaching goes beyond simple obedience. The Law is sufficient and good, but following Jesus compels one to deeper understandings of the Law's demands. In 6.19–7.12, there is a similar flow of thought. In the individual teachings, Jesus drives to the depths of each issue. Beginning with treasure (6.19–21), Jesus insists that earthly treasure is not sufficient, but that one must strive for heavenly rewards. This pattern continues through 7.12.Footnote ³⁸

Second, the two sections display the same basic structural integrity. Both begin with a kelal and end with a summary clause.Footnote ³⁹ In the case of 5.17–48, Jesus begins with remarks on his fulfilment of the Law (5.17–20) and concludes with a summary clause on perfection (5.48). Matt 6.19–7.12 starts with a kelal to seek heavenly treasure (6.19–21) and ends with the summary clause in 7.12. Being in the last section in the Sermon's body, the Golden Rule summarises not only 6.19–7.11 but also the Sermon's entire message.

In addition to the parallels between headings and summation verses, both sections display parallel micro-structures. Matt 5.21–48 splits nicely into two sections of three (5.21–6, 27–30, 31–2//33–7, 38–42, 43–7[8]). Although 6.19–7.12 does not retain the internal consistency of 5.21–48, it does exhibit the same basic split into two sections. The first section consists of 6.19–34, while the second comprises 7.1–12. The first block of texts begins with some general statements about possessions (verses 19–24) that become more precise in the succeeding verses (25–34).Footnote ⁴⁰ Interestingly, the initial verses here, 6.19–21, give this section an eschatological perspective that becomes more grounded in earthly realities in verses 25–34. The beginning of this first major section speaks of the duality of heaven and earth and uses abstract references to the eye, light and the body. The next section (verses 25–34) uses natural examples to explain the cure for anxiety while also emphasising the themes of heaven and earth.

The next major block is 7.1–12. There are essentially three parts to this section. The first of these, 7.1–5, is clear: be careful how you judge others. The next verse in the section, 7.6, is one of the more difficult verses to interpret in Matthew's Gospel. It does not immediately fit with what precedes and with what follows, thereby providing no contextual clues. Matthew brings the body of the Sermon to a suitable close in 7.7–11. Picking up on the theme of prayer, he explains the importance of persevering in seeking God. As 6.19–34 has the themes of heaven and earth, so the closing to this section of the body contrasts the gifts of earthly fathers with the heavenly Father.

It is also worth noting that these parallel sections (5.21–48//6.19–7.12) have a relatively similar word length. In terms of word count, 5.21–48 has 508 words with the inclusion of one variant word that is disputed in verse 39. On the other hand, 6.19–7.12 has 513 words with two minor variants.Footnote ⁴¹ As noted above, Matt 5.21–32 and 5.33–48 are parallel sections and a closer look reveals the first three paragraphs have 258 words (1,131 letters), while the second three paragraphs have 244 words (1,130 letters).Footnote ⁴² The importance of this word count could be seen as analogous to the proposed word count in the parallel in 5.21–48 and 6.19–7.12.

Third, the parallel sections address one broad topic. As 5.21–48 addresses Jesus’ teaching on the Mosaic law, so 6.19–7.12 considers issues of daily life. As Betz comments, ‘[t]he third and last section of the body of the SM (6.19–7.12) concern … the human response to God's generosity in the affairs of daily life’.Footnote ⁴³ For Betz, those areas are ‘On gathering treasures’ (6.19–21), 6.22–3 (‘On vision’), ‘On serving two masters’ (6.24), ‘On worrying’ (6.25–34), ‘On judging’ (7.1–5), ‘On profaning the holy: a cryptic sentential’ (7.6) and ‘On giving and receiving’ (7.7–11).Footnote ⁴⁴ Although slightly disagreeing as to the arrangement of the units, Davies and Allison see various sections in 6.19–7.12 dealing with ‘how to behave in the world at large’.Footnote ⁴⁵

Jonathan Pennington has argued persuasively that ‘heaven’ and ‘earth’ are important theological terms throughout Matthew's Gospel.Footnote ⁴⁶ As I will argue below, Matthew's emphasis on heaven and earth should inform what we call the final section of the Sermon. In this section, the theme is particularly focused. The internal logic of Matt 6.19–7.12 examines the duality of heaven and earth. The section begins with the contrasting rewards of treasures on heaven and on earth (6.19–21). The next contrast is found in the healthy eye versus the evil eye (6.22–3), followed by the contrast between God and mammon (6.24). The section on worry and anxiety presents those who display earthly worries versus trust in the Father in heaven (6.25–34). Matt 7.1–5 is a bit more of a stretch but refers to the way we judge on earth and its relationship to injustice resulting in divine retribution. In verse 6, the ‘sacred’ and ‘pearls’ appear to be the message of the kingdom of heaven. The verses depict these words as being given to earthly apostates who will reject the message (‘dogs’/‘pigs’). Finally, verses 7–11 explain the relationship of the Father in heaven to those on earth who ‘seek’ him.

Given the above parallels and the inner logic of heaven and earth, the question remains, why is this section of the Sermon so disjointed in comparison with the other sections of the Sermon's body (5.21–6.18)? Although the origin and explanation of source material is beyond the scope of this article, the difficulty of structuring Matt 6.19–7.12 may be due to Matthew's source material. Matthew may have structured the section as ‘tightly’ as possible without betraying the integrity of the material. Table 4 shows how Matthew and Luke handled their sources. Luke retains the same ordering as Matthew in regard to the Sermon's conclusion (Matt 7.13–8.1//Luke 6.43–7.1).Footnote ⁴⁷ The teachings on judging and the Golden Rule are juxtaposed in both Sermons but inverted in their order. As the table illustrates, the majority of Matt 6.19–7.11 is distributed throughout Luke in other chapters. Notwithstanding the source-critical question, it appears from that evidence that Matthew is aiming to keep the material together (even among the perceived ‘rag-bag’) in his latter section whereas Luke distributes his to be included as thematical parallels with other sections throughout his Gospel.Footnote ⁴⁸ We can infer from this ordering that Matthew recognised, recorded and enhanced the traditions at his disposal.

Table 4. The Sermon's Order in Matthew and Luke

3.3 Heavenly Priorities in the Kingdom of Earth

On having surveyed the flow of Matt 6.19–7.12 and drawn conclusions from the parallels with 5.21–48, one additional matter remains. Not only has the structure of Matt 6.19–7.12 caused problems for the Sermon interpreter, but also the perceived randomness has caused division over nomenclature. Following the lead of Allison, many interpreters simply call Matt 6.19–7.12 ‘Social Issues’. Allison finds a historical parallel in the writings of Simeon the Just after the events of Jamnia: ‘Upon three things the world standeth: upon Torah, upon Temple service and upon deeds of loving-kindness (m. ‘Abot 1.2)’.Footnote ⁴⁹ Allison states: ‘The first evangelist, one is tempted to conclude, arranged his discourse so as to create a Christian interpretation of the three classical pillars’.Footnote ⁵⁰ In other words, Matthew's account of Jesus’ teaching is a counter-Jamnia in an effort to understand their new life moving away from Judaism.

This interpretation has some appealing elements but is difficult to establish with certainty. The subject matter in the relevant sections consists of issues common among first-century Jews, making the parallels difficult to substantiate. The parallels with Simeon the Just and Jamnia are equally difficult without any direct references.Footnote ⁵¹ Luz has pointed out that Allison's parallel of Matt 6.1–18 to the Temple is also unclear.Footnote ⁵² This critique would cause further harm to Allison's historical parallels. As I have shown, Matt 6.19–7.12 has a strong financial theme, an emphasis on rightly placed priorities and an emphasis on heaven and earth.

Pennington has recently argued that a better title for 6.19–7.12 is ‘Greater Righteousness in Relation to the World’.Footnote ⁵³ Matt 6.19–21 functions as the introduction. Matt 6.22–34 describes relations to the goods of this world, while 7.1–6 describes relations to the people of this world. Matt 7.7–12 serves as the conclusion. Pennington uses the major theme introduced in 5.17–20 and reiterated in 6.1 to emphasise ‘greater righteousness’ and uses the two major themes in 6.19–7.6 to split this section into two. I mention this suggestion because Pennington's methodology and, further, nomenclature are similar to mine yet with some revision.

A possible explanation for the concluding section of the Sermon on the Mount may be found in the Lord's Prayer. The justification for this connection lies in the centrality of the Lord's Prayer to the Sermon. The third petition reads, ‘your will be done on earth as in heaven’. The emphasis of this petition is an ethical exhortation to live in a heavenly way while on earth. The one engaged in prayer petitions God for the power to do so. In many ways, Matt 6.19–7.12 is an answer to the petition's request. How can we make God's will known on earth? By following the prescriptions of this last section, the eschatological future meets the eschatological now and vice versa. Matt 6.19–21 functions as an eschatological kelal which becomes more grounded in what follows (6.22–7.12). Jesus gives instruction on accumulating heavenly treasure while on earth. This accumulation of treasure means an earthly life which avoids duplicity (6.22–3), resists the enslavement of money (6.24) and relies on the Father for the earthly needs of food, drink and clothing (6.25–34). Additionally, disciples reflect the Father when they judge but do not condemn (7.1–5), guard the Gospel against apostasy (7.6), seek the Father persistently and trust in his provision, and treat others with the Father's love (7.12). Thus, this final section details ‘Heavenly Priorities in the Earthly Kingdom’.Footnote ⁵⁴

This title draws attention to the dialogical and spatial aspects of Matt 6.19–7.12.Footnote ⁵⁵ The proposed title intends to reflect the relationship between the Father and the supplicant. First, by using the language of the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon's sections are read in light of the Prayer's centrality and according to the nature of the Prayer.Footnote ⁵⁶ It also appears significant that this section of the Sermon ends with prayer (Matt 7.7–11). Second, the doing of God's will and the coming of God's kingdom (i.e. prayer language) are executed in the realm which will be the new heaven and the new earth. God's will has been accomplished in heaven and the disciples’ interim lifestyle on earth reflects that accomplished reality. Obedience to the Father in heaven is a reflection of being part of the family of God while on earth. Third, the suggested title takes into account the structure proposed here with Matt 6.19–21 (‘treasures on earth/heaven’) as a kelal dictating the theme for what proceeds.