Do you reject the Sermon on the Mount as being applicable today?

[Bible Highlighter]

I have not read the Sermon on the Mount as a list of do's and don'ts. I see it in light of the impossibility to keep the commandments, since the commandments barely even touch the surface of divine righteousness. Jesus was talking to those under the Mosaic Covenant to teach them their need to for salvation that he offered.

As Christians, the Sermon on the Mount is a series of road signs for us to keep track of our walk with Christ. Christ fulfilled it, but those are his footsteps we walk in to keep up with him.

I believe it would be cruel on the part of GOD to tell us to do something that was impossible for us to do without any explanation. This would defeat the whole purpose of His sermon. Why would Jesus warn about how lusting after a woman can cause one to be cast into hell fire if it was not true? It would be a lie or useless scare tactic. Jesus meant what He said. Yes, he was using slang or metaphor like we do today like saying the word "cool" to mean awesome, etc. (Like in regards to taking out your eye, etc.), but that does not take away his literal statements on how sin can destroy a person's soul. In Matthew 19, we learn the rich young ruler walked away sad in the fact that he was not willing to give up his riches to follow Jesus. The disciples asked then who can be saved. Jesus replied with man this is impossible, but with GOD all things are possible. This means that while you and others may think obeying God's commands in the New Testament is impossible, with the Lord, all things are possible. For why else do you think GOD had the Israelites defeat their enemies in battle sometimes with them being so few in numbers and their enemies being so great in number? It is because with GOD, all things are possible. It's all about faith. Faith and trust in GOD.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Greetings,

No, I don’t. I can’t fathom how you disallow one thing while keeping the rest. My foundation is built on Christ. Not ill-formed legos that suit my whims and preferences.

~Bella

But the Sermon on the Mount came from Jesus Christ.

 

[Dave-W]

The Kingdom of God is here.

As you are of the Reform tradition, you should recognize the phrase “Already, but not yet.”

Or as the writer of Hebrews put it: “powers of the age to come.”

 

[bèlla]

But the Sermon on the Mount came from Jesus Christ.

The question was its rejection not the source. I replied no and affirmed Christ is my banner. I don’t cherry pick the Word. It’s all or none.

~Bella

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The question was its rejection not the source. I replied no and affirmed Christ is my banner. I don’t cherry pick the Word. It’s all or none.

~Bella

Ah, so you do accept the teachings of Jesus from the Sermon the Mount as being applicable to the believer today? Do you believe Jesus was really saying that a person can potentially be cast into hell fire if they look upon another in lust?

 

[Dave-W]

That's one view. I believe in Amillennialism as the biblical view. This is the best explanation I've found on Amillennialism:

As I understand amil theology, it is a byproduct of replacement theology which rejects the literal understanding of the OT prophecies to Israel.

I have a much more literalist view of prophecy. That includes a physical reign of a physical Messiah from a physical throne in physical Jerusalem.

 

[nolidad]

Do you reject the Sermon on the Mount as being applicable today?

If so, then what verses lead you to that conclusion?

~ (Also, please vote in the poll) ~

In a very technical sense- the beatitudes was for Israel and the announced kingdom Jesus came to establish (after He died and rose if Israel had accepted Him).

However when we look at the rest of the New Testament we see that these commands are given in part or full there as well.

So while the beatitudes themselves are directly for Israel and their kingdom- their principles are definitely for us as well.

 

[mkgal1]

As I understand amil theology, it is a byproduct of replacement theology which rejects the literal understanding of the OT prophecies to Israel.

I have a much more literalist view of prophecy.

Amillennialism affirms the fulfillment of the OT prophecies to Israel through His faithful Jewish remnant that formed the early church. It recognizes the connection between the early church and Judaism. Jesus sits on the throne of David in the heavenly realm (but it did manifest physically on earth in the destruction of the Temple and ancient Jerusalem in 70 A.D). But that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[bèlla]

Ah, so you do accept the teachings of Jesus from the Sermon the Mount as being applicable to the believer today? Do you believe Jesus was really saying that a person can potentially be cast into hell fire if they look upon another in lust?

I believe every morsel of the bible is for our edification and guidance. I don’t dwell on heaven or hell. I focus on God’s precepts and the work He’s called me to perform. If He desired me to immerse myself in biblical arguments I’d be a theologian not a designer.

I’m a bondservant. I don’t need to understand every iota of scripture to trust Him and walk the path He’s set. Questions like yours never cross my thoughts because I’m rooted in Him.

~Bella

 

[Dave-W]

Amillennialism affirms the fulfillment of the OT prophecies to Israel through His faithful Jewish remnant that formed the early church. It recognizes the connection between the early church and Judaism.

At what point in time was the western bank of the Euphrates river part of Israel proper? It is promised to Abraham, Moses and Joshua. THat has yet to be fulfilled.

And there is little difference between wat you said and the RT position that everything is now spiritually fulfilled to the Church which is the New Israel or the “spiritual” Israel.

 

[Dave-W]

Ah, so you do accept the teachings of Jesus from the Sermon the Mount as being applicable to the believer today?

As our Lord said (quoting Deuteronomy) “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word which proceeds from the mouth of God.”

Since those words proceeded from the mouth of our Lord, and He IS God, I think it qualifies.

Do you believe Jesus was really saying that a person can potentially be cast into hell fire if they look upon another in lust?

Of course. Sin which is not repented of will not be allowed.

That said, (and not wanting to derail the thread) I do believe the bar for reaching “lust” in that verse is much higher than we generally understand. But that is a topic for another thread.

 

[Anguspure]

Do you reject the Sermon on the Mount as being applicable today?

If so, then what verses lead you to that conclusion?

~ (Also, please vote in the poll) ~

Like the 10 commandments, the Sermon on the Mount has deeper meaning that makes its applicability valid for all people at all times.

 

[Anguspure]

The problem comes when people read instructions on how we are to live and how to relate to each other and turn it into some kind of salvation formula.

In the current Chosen People newsletter, (vol XXV ed8) Dr Dru Johnson writes on page 6:

For example, I have four teenagers, and if you had written down everything i said to them in a day when they were younger, it would give you a very distorted perspective on my view of fatherhood. You would think I see it as a bunch of “dos” and “do nots.” That is the statutory view. But the truth is I was trying to keep them from killing themselves, or each other, or burning down the house. It was out of a deep and profound live that I was willing to patiently guide them over the years.

That is the rule of Law in the Hebrew bible. God was trying to keep Israel from burning the house down.​

Yes, the word we translate as "Law" (Torah) is actually a mistranslation. The word would be better translated as "Instruction":
"A hebraic definition of Torah is "a set of Instructions, from a father to his children, violation of these instructions are disciplined in order to foster obedience and train his children". What is Torah? | AHRC

 

[Hammster]

As you are of the Reform tradition, you should recognize the phrase “Already, but not yet.”

Or as the writer of Hebrews put it: “powers of the age to come.”

Which doesn’t mean that this is the millennial that’s referred to.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe every morsel of the bible is for our edification and guidance. I don’t dwell on heaven or hell. I focus on God’s precepts and the work He’s called me to perform. If He desired me to immerse myself in biblical arguments I’d be a theologian not a designer.

I’m a bondservant. I don’t need to understand every iota of scripture to trust Him and walk the path He’s set. Questions like yours never cross my thoughts because I’m rooted in Him.

~Bella

Then why does Scripture tell us to, “continue in God’s grace”? Or to “continue in the faith”? Or to “continue in his goodness, unless we are cut off”?

Besides, why would Jesus warn against looking upon a woman in lust and being cast into hellfire if things are as you say? This makes it appear like a portion of the sermon on the amount is not applicable for us today.

 

[Hammster]

Ah, so you do accept the teachings of Jesus from the Sermon the Mount as being applicable to the believer today? Do you believe Jesus was really saying that a person can potentially be cast into hell fire if they look upon another in lust?

Of course. He said it, so it’s true.

 

[Apex]

Why would Jesus give a crowd of people a teaching that does not apply to them?

I agree. The sermon was meant for those in the crowd. As such, I think the key interpretive question is: Who was Jesus' audience?

The crowd was largely (if not entirely) first-century Jews. This sermon took place before Jesus' death/resurrection which means these people were all under the Mosaic Law. No one in the audience (not even the disciples) were born-again or filled with the Holy Spirit.

So, to reframe your question. Why would modern Spirit-filled, born-again, New Covenant Christians believe this message is applicable to them?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Like the 10 commandments, the Sermon on the Mount has deeper meaning that makes its applicability valid for all people at all times.

I agree, except for the Saturday Sabbath and the Sermon on the Mount command to the man in regards to animal sacrifice and forgiving his brother. Obviously some things are for the OT only like the Saturday Sabbath and animal sacrifices. But the rest of the Sermon is still applicable today in a literal sense.

Note: I am aware of slang used on the Sermon on the Mt. (like the gouging out of one’s eye) but this was not the basic standard style that was used throughout Jesus’s whole sermon. Neither did such slang negate his literal warning on hell for a person lusting with one’s eyes after another (outside of marriage).

 

[bèlla]

Then why does Scripture tell us to, “continue in God’s grace”? Or to “continue in the faith”? Or to “continue in his goodness, unless we are cut off”?

We are told to abide in Him. That’s an active state. It isn’t stationary. We’re meant to keep pressing. Lest we become lukewarm and stagnant.

Besides, why would Jesus warn against looking upon a woman in lust and being cast into hellfire if things are as you say? This makes it appear like a portion of the sermon on the amount is not applicable for us today.

Coveting is a sin. That is the root of lust.

~Bella

 

[Anguspure]

i agree accept for the Saturday Sabbath and the Sermon on the Mount command to the man in regards to animal sacrifice and forgiving his brother. Obviously some things are for the OT only like the Saturday Sabbath and animal sacrifices. But the rest of the Sermon is still applicable today in a literal sense.

Note: I am aware of slang used on the Sermon on the Mt.

I on the other hand would prefer to recognize a day of rest, in recognition of the created world and the 6 days of creation (the Sabbath is about telling the truth about YHWH, that He is Creator), rather than recognizing the god Saturn (not that I do, my profession dictates 7 day work weeks). On the other hand we are instructed to rest in Yeshua our saviour and that He is our Sabbath rest, so the instruction of the Sabbath is (literally) fulfilled in Him, as a greater truth than creation itself, that He died for the sins of the world.

Of course it is also clear that the animal sacrifices were looking forward to His sacrifice and so after His death these were also fulfill in Him.