Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 75:299 (Jul 1918)
Article: Is The Sermon On The Mount Homiletically Defensible?
Author: Edward Norman Harris

BSac 75:299 (July 1918) p. 331

Is The Sermon On The Mount Homiletically Defensible?

Edward Norman Harris

Although the Sermon on the Mount as recorded in the First Gospel has probably been more assiduously studied than any other portion of the New Testament, yet the opinions entertained as to its internal structure are most diverse. Schmiedel, for instance, regards it as little more than a jumble of contradictions and of fragmentary ideas torn out of all connection of thought. Others, as Holtzmann, Weizsacker, Heinrici, Ibbeken, think it is a curious conglomeration, a collocation of various sayings of Jesus arbitrarily arranged and grouped together by the evangelist in parts with more, in parts with less, of skill. Still others, as Calvin, Semler, Pott, Kuinol, Strauss, Baur, Achelis, Neander, Tholuck, Godet, Bleek, Weiss, de Wette, Votaw, Bacon, Allen, variously find in it, indeed, a genuine discourse of Jesus, but mixed with so much of extraneous material, including parts of other discourses, disconnected sayings, and sayings referable to entirely different historical situations, as seriously to mar its unity. A few, as Meyer, Olshausen, Lange, Morison, Broadus, Steinmeyer, Hugo Weiss, Nosgen, Plummer, conceive of it as one continuous, closely connected discourse, but when they attempt an analysis of it, do not profess to develop a true homiletical scheme. As for the Sermon on the Mount being considered a model for the imitation of the modern preacher,

BSac 75:299 (July 1918) p. 332

one may search in vain the homiletical treatises of Christlieb, Fenelon, Vinet, Dale, Blaikie, Stalker, Robertson, Watson, Porter, Kidder, Alexander, Armitage, Robinson, Broadus, Pattison, Burrell, Phelps, Garvie, Hoyt, for a study of it. Yet it is evident that, if there is a single line of thought consistently pursued from the beginning to the end of this discourse, a clear perception of that thought and of its development will be invaluable for a right understanding of the Sermon as a whole and may be helpful to a right interpretation of individual passages in it.1

BSac 75:299 (July 1918) p. 333

The Presumption Of Unity

If now the question be raised as to whether there really is a unity of plan and purpose to be traced throughout the Sermon, it would seem that the burden of proof should rest, not on those who maintain, but on those who deny, the existence of such unity. That so long a discourse represented as being delivered in so authoritative a manner at such an important period in the Lord’s history should be composed of miscellaneous and heterogeneous, unrelated elements, is not a natural supposition. And this conclusion is not affected by the question of the genuineness of the Sermon. ...