Is the Sermon on the Mount for Today?

[LittleLambofJesus]

LoreneDD said: ↑
Exactly, Moses was the representative of the OT and Christ is the representative of the new.

Actually... Christ IS the new.

Exactly.

This parable in Luke 16 also depicts the OC [Rich man] and Lazarus[NC]

Luke 16:24 why is the rich man calling out to Father Abraham?

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

Afterward, speaking primarily to his disciples but with the Pharisees (and probably the crowd) still listening in, Yeshua related the parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16:1-13). The Pharisees, who were "lovers of money" (Luke 16:14), realized that the Messiah was alluding to them with this parable and took offense. They scoffed at Yeshua. The final part of his response to the derision of the Pharisees and scribes was the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.
We'll now examine this parable in detail to grasp exactly what the Messiah was teaching about the kingdom of God:

LUKE 16:
26 " 'And besides all this, between us[OC/Faith/Life] and ye[OC/Law/Death] there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.' "
27 "Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.' "
29 "Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' "
30 "And he said, 'No, father Abraham! but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
31 But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' "

 

[GenemZ]

Exactly.

He is the NT life.

"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life.
No one comes to the Father except through me." Jn 14:6​

Jesus is the Way into Life that the Law could never provide!

Men are no longer under Moses which was the school bus taking us to the classroom of our Teacher Jesus Christ.

Jesus did not say.... "I know the way." He said? I AM the Way!

We are in him by baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Baptism that saves!

John's baptism only indicated one was a believer. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit places us IN Christ and seats us above In Him.

We are now IN Him as Eve was in Adam before the Lord took from his side and built up her body.
That is why our body will be JUST LIKE HIS! Bone of His bones....Glorious flesh of His own! From His side! All shall receive a new body like he took a few loaves of bread and fed the multitude. His body being the few loaves. There is no limit as to how many can be given the resurrection body. Its going to be beautiful and lovely beyond what we are now capable of describing.

grace and peace!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

> Not wanting to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers, I gave up my musical career and began living the sermon on the mount (Matthew 6:24-34). Seeking first the kingdom of God as a career. To make a long story short, I began working unskilled labor part time as unto the Lord. <

I think this is wonderful. Still, I don't understand what's wrong in having a career. Is it that employees are required to obey their employers?

Most careers require sinning. (or is it just most people with a career sin? < shrugs > I don't know for sure)

 

[jamiec]

This is Scofield's position in his bible and the mindset of Dispies I've been around..

The Sermon on the Mount makes sense if the people being addressed are Palestinian Second Temple Jews, but it fits very poorly in the very different world of most centuries and cultures since. “Love one another” is useless advice in a world of ICBMs and other such weapons. And it is advice that Jesus Himself did not (always) live by.
The teaching of Jesus only makes sense if it is addressed to relatively small groups - it is totally inadequate when applied to international relations. In a relatively small group, one can take for granted that everyone will share a common moral position - that cannit be assumed if one is addressing international relations, or relations within a multi-cultural society.
The Sermon on the Mount works for a group of a few dozen or few hundred Jews, or Jewish Christians before the Destruction of the Temple.
It makes less sense if one’s hearers are Gentiles or Gentile Christians, with little or no Jewish background.
And it makes even less sense in the very different world and cultures of today. Teaching that is valid for late Second Temple Judaism, is not necessarily applicable anywhere else. Still less is it forever snd everywhere valid - regardless of who utters it. Its value must be judged by its content: not by who gives it, nor by whether it is or is not found in a sacred book.

 

[GenemZ]

Is the Sermon on the Mount for Today?


This is an important question because Matthew calls the Sermon on the Mount the doctrine of Christ (Matthew 7:28). And John says any who do not have the doctrine of Christ do not have God (2 John 9).

So how do we live the Sermon on the Mount today? In my experience, I gave up my career, skills and education to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” Matthew 6:24-34. And experienced God’s providence over my lifetime just as he promised. Enjoying all that people spend their life looking for, generously given to me while not looking for them. So it puzzles me when Churches host “College and Career Days” helping their young in many cases, to immerse themselves in the ways of the world instead of in Christ.

I also shunned Military service and registered as a Conscientious Objector. This closed many doors of opportunity and brought family ridicule. But living a life of nonviolence according to the Sermon also meant God would provide all the gentiles seek after as they kill and bludgeon their way up the ladder. I had a boss who marveled about my lack of concern for money.

I know the Dispensationalists believe the Sermon is not for today. But this makes me think of the danger they are in if John is right about the doctrine of Christ.

Jesus taught as a rabbi. To Jews.

When doing so, it would still be called the doctrine of Christ. Just like they could have called someone else's teaching at that time the doctrine of rabbi Schlumberg. For rabbis had disciples that followed them around, just like Jesus did.

Besides, Matthew 7:28 does not mention the words "doctrine of Christ."

The teachings of Jesus (with the exception of a few passages pointing to the church in the future) was always directed to Jews, as a Jew.

He taught the Jews to love their neighbor as they love themselves. We are taught to love one another as Christ loved us. There is a difference. To love each other as Christ loved his disciples requires a grace be with us that the Jews did not receive.

I can go on, but I will desist. For some people will forever cheer for certain teachings with the same human ability as people do when they cheer for their favorite football team. That is not spiritual.

In Christ....

 

[jerry kelso]

Ya know if you think that the OT has nothing to say to people today as prophesy then that’s your problem. And if you think that anything in the NT is judicial law then that’s your problem too. The Lord sets His seal where He may, not where flimsy mankind does.
I don’t know what Pentacostle you claim to be from but your just another person to ignore in my estimation when it comes to placing Jesus under the law away from those who have benefited by His work. There’s no saving grace in that.

zao,

1. You misunderstand Jesus teachings under the Mosaic law context under the KoH and the KoG message only to the Jewish nation at that time.

2. Galatians 4:4 said Jesus was born of a woman made under the law.
Jesus was teaching the Mosaic law in its truest sense. Why? Because the leaders had mixed in doctrines of the commandments of men Matthew 15:29.

3. Jesus never taught the Jews to believe in the death, burial, and resurrection during his ministry. They were to believe in the Messiah and believe he would save them from their sins.

4. The gospel is Matthew 26:28 which is the blood when he was crucified.
This and Matthew 16:21-23 and John 6 was Jesus talking about the death and resurrection but even the disciples didn’t know what Jesus was talking about.
This was after the nation had rejected Jesus and the Kingdom message Matthew 23:37-39.
The Mosaic law wasn’t abolished till Calvary Hebrews 8:6-7.
Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law and when it had served its purpose Christ became the end for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Righteousness by faith according to the New Covenant is different according to the law of righteousness Romans 9:31.

5. I never said anything about that the Sermon on the Mount or any of Jesus teachings or Old Testament were not for us today.
One has to understand the historical context and the dispensational aspect before one can understand what it means in the big picture for another age.

6. Yes, we have the same morals like being meek and pure in heart and repentance etc.
Matthew 5, the Jews were backslidden and they had to repent and be pure in heart heart and be meek and the peacemakers in order to come back into their covenant, inherit the earth which is talking about the KoH reign. They were not peacemakers for they had 28 insurrections against the Romans. They hated their oppression.
Our morals today is supposed to be who we are not what we do. We are supposed to do because who we are in Christ and who he is.

7. Correct context is rightly dividing the word 2Timothy 2:15.
Understanding the historical and dispensational aspect helps to understand the overall picture of what is going on and how much better the better promises of the New Covenant is than the Old Covenant of law Hebrews 8:6-7.
Jesus did start preparing his disciples in John 13-15 and the New Law of Love John 13:34-35.
Jerrykelso

 

[Dave L]

The Sermon on the Mount makes sense if the people being addressed are Palestinian Second Temple Jews, but it fits very poorly in the very different world of most centuries and cultures since. “Love one another” is useless advice in a world of ICBMs and other such weapons. And it is advice that Jesus Himself did not (always) live by.
The teaching of Jesus only makes sense if it is addressed to relatively small groups - it is totally inadequate when applied to international relations. In a relatively small group, one can take for granted that everyone will share a common moral position - that cannit be assumed if one is addressing international relations, or relations within a multi-cultural society.
The Sermon on the Mount works for a group of a few dozen or few hundred Jews, or Jewish Christians before the Destruction of the Temple.
It makes less sense if one’s hearers are Gentiles or Gentile Christians, with little or no Jewish background.
And it makes even less sense in the very different world and cultures of today. Teaching that is valid for late Second Temple Judaism, is not necessarily applicable anywhere else. Still less is it forever snd everywhere valid - regardless of who utters it. Its value must be judged by its content: not by who gives it, nor by whether it is or is not found in a sacred book.

Do you know Matthew calls the Sermon on the Mount "the doctrine of Christ"?
“And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.” Matthew 22:33 (NCPB)

And John says if anyone does not have it, they don't have God.
“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” 2 John 9 (NCPB)

Are these people saved?

 

[com7fy8]

all the gentiles seek after as they kill and bludgeon their way up the ladder.

"Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us." (Romans 8:37)

Our ways get us better than what conquerors try to get. So, yes we seek first God's kingdom, and even practically He provides better. It not only takes care of us, but supplies us for practical loving.

You might feed on how the LORD took care of Joseph > Genesis 37-50 > even in his horrible situation, God used that with Joseph to help many people, plus to improve his relating with his own brothers who had betrayed him. And Joseph got his own wife and children. So, there was family sharing and caring which came with how God provided. Now, by the way, I do not mean that material things produce family loving, but I mean that God did not only take care of Joseph's physical needs, but in blessing Joseph we see how also others were blessed in loving ways and not only physical ways.

I know the Dispensationalists believe the Sermon is not for today.

Well, the first thing Jesus talks about in His Sermon on the Mount is how to be >

poor in spirit

meek

merciful

pure in heart

This is how God's love has us become in our character. I would say, then, that this is for today. And how God has us become is most important so we become capable of understanding and applying and living all Jesus means by the Sermon on the Mount.

 

[jerry kelso]

Do you know Matthew calls the Sermon on the Mount "the doctrine of Christ"?
“And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.” Matthew 22:33 (NCPB)

And John says if anyone does not have it, they don't have God.
“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” 2 John 9 (NCPB)

Are these people saved?

Dave,

1. Jesus taught the Mosaic law and 3 John is under the New Covenant.

2. Hebrews 6:1 says to leave the principles of the doctrine of Christ and go onto perfection.
Hebrew Christians were that the resurrection of the dead and baptisms etc. were Old Testament doctrines.
Colossians 1:16-17 they are a shadow for the Jewish nation in the church age till the Kingdom age.
Just because they have the same words doesn’t mean it is the context.
That is not proper contextual hermeneutics or even sound reasoning in everyday language. Jerrykelso

 

[Dave L]

Dave,

1. Jesus taught the Mosaic law and 3 John is under the New Covenant.

2. Hebrews 6:1 says to leave the principles of the doctrine of Christ and go onto perfection.
Hebrew Christians were that the resurrection of the dead and baptisms etc. were Old Testament doctrines.
Colossians 1:16-17 they are a shadow for the Jewish nation in the church age till the Kingdom age.
Just because they have the same words doesn’t mean it is the context.
That is not proper contextual hermeneutics or even sound reasoning in everyday language. Jerrykelso

Matthew calls the Sermon on the Mount the "Doctrine of Christ". Is it not? And John says any who do not have his doctrine does not have God.

Do you practice the Sermon?

 

[jerry kelso]

Matthew calls the Sermon on the Mount the "Doctrine of Christ". Is it not? And John says any who do not have his doctrine does not have God.

Do you practice the Sermon?

Davel,

1. It was the teaching of Christ according to the ethics of the law of Moses.

2. John taught the doctrine of abiding in Christ and if you are not abiding in Christ
you don’t have God.
Read 1 John 2:23-25 and you will see that keeping salvation has a condition.
God will not violate a person’s freewill choice whether it deals with salvation or in everyday decisions in your Christian life.

3. I could state something you say verbatim and say you meant one thing when you meant something else.
And you could say that not what I meant. Why? It would be because of context which means that more would have had to be read.
That is the way people put words in other people’s mouth.
Paul said, I die daily in 1 Corinthians 15:30. Is it spiritual or physical? Think about it?
I don’t practice it under the Mosaic Law ethic. They had to do those things before the Spirit came and the law of sin and death took advantage of the law of Moses that was Holy and Good but made them live unto self effort and live in the frailty of man more than overcoming in the power of God Romans 7. Food for thought. Jerry Kelso

 

[Dave L]

Davel,

1. It was the teaching of Christ according to the ethics of the law of Moses.

2. John taught the doctrine of abiding in Christ and if you are not abiding in Christ
you don’t have God.
Read 1 John 2:23-25 and you will see that keeping salvation has a condition.
God will not violate a person’s freewill choice whether it deals with salvation or in everyday decisions in your Christian life.

3. I could state something you say verbatim and say you meant one thing when you meant something else.
And you could say that not what I meant. Why? It would be because of context which means that more would have had to be read.
That is the way people put words in other people’s mouth.
Paul said, I die daily in 1 Corinthians 15:30. Is it spiritual or physical? Think about it?
I don’t practice it under the Mosaic Law ethic. They had to do those things before the Spirit came and the law of sin and death took advantage of the law of Moses that was Holy and Good but made them live unto self effort and live in the frailty of man more than overcoming in the power of God Romans 7. Food for thought. Jerry Kelso

Let's say this. Matthew calls it the doctrine of Christ. And John says any without don't have God.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I have been re-reading this thread...

The issue I have is that there is no part of scripture that I do not feel to be accountable to.

However, to single out one passage and push it even to making it's compliance a salvation issue is like taking the NT and turning it back into Law....

My experience is that He can speak through any part of scripture at any time...

However as Dave said, he was personally convicted to drop a commitment to a career, give Jesus a clean page and follow His leading daily to do as He wills.

This attitude to me is fundamental to discipleship but Jesus may not require all to drop their careers.

So frankly we are in danger of being judgemental trying to require all to follow what Jesus has personally required of is.

Now pushing this one passage has led us on a merry theological dance.

I see this so often - one hears His voice and obeys then expects others to comply to what was a personal word to them.

Dave seems to have made this His mission and further has moulded it into a theology to give it spiritual clout.

At the end of the day we will all be accountable to Him and the Words spoken to us by His Spirit.

We wont be able to make the excuse - the Pastor said this or Dave said that.

So let's rejoice in what Jesus did in Daves life and move on.

By all means prayerfully re-read the sermon on the mount and respond to whatever conviction He gives.

Love you all...

 

[jerry kelso]

Let's say this. Matthew calls it the doctrine of Christ. And John says any without don't have God.

davel,

1. The argument is not whether it is the doctrine of Christ.
Jesus taught the Mosaic Law and lived the Mosaic law in Matthew for the New Covenant didn’t come till Calvary Hebrews 8:6-7.
Hebrews 16-17 shows that the testator had to die first in order for the testament to be good.
I already showed why they are not the same in Matthew and John. Did you not understand it and why? Jerrykelso

 

[jerry kelso]

I have been re-reading this thread...

The issue I have is that there is no part of scripture that I do not feel to be accountable to.

However, to single out one passage and push it even to making it's compliance a salvation issue is like taking the NT and turning it back into Law....

My experience is that He can speak through any part of scripture at any time...

However as Dave said, he was personally convicted to drop a commitment to a career, give Jesus a clean page and follow His leading daily to do as He wills.

This attitude to me is fundamental to discipleship but Jesus may not require all to drop their careers.

So frankly we are in danger of being judgemental trying to require all to follow what Jesus has personally required of is.

Now pushing this one passage has led us on a merry theological dance.

I see this so often - one hears His voice and obeys then expects others to comply to what was a personal word to them.

Dave seems to have made this His mission and further has moulded it into a theology to give it spiritual clout.

At the end of the day we will all be accountable to Him and the Words spoken to us by His Spirit.

We wont be able to make the excuse - the Pastor said this or Dave said that.

So let's rejoice in what Jesus did in Daves life and move on.

By all means prayerfully re-read the sermon on the mount and respond to whatever conviction He gives.

Love you all...

carlemerson,

1. We are to be accountable for rightly dividing the word 2 Timothy 2:15.

2. It is true that one passage doesn’t necessarily prove a context as one across the board. If it was there would be no purpose for context.

3. There is no questioning Dave’s experience or what he felt convicted of at all or whether it is valid or not.
God uses Old Testament scriptures to help people in their daily lives all the time.
There are eternal spiritual truths such as Jeremiah 29:11; For I know the thoughts that I think toward you , saith the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
In that day Israel had an on hand theocracy with the Lord God through the Mosaic law their Covenant not the better promises of the New Covenant of the finished work of Christ.
The spiritual truth for the nation of Israel is the same as each individual of the church and the church as a whole.
What is different is the mechanics of each Covenant.
Read Romans 7; 9:30-33; 10:4-5.

4. We can rejoice with Dave and others and ourselves when God inspires or helps us grow in our daily lives for the better.

5. We should be convicted when we sin but the Jews were sinning according to their covenant by not mourning as the poor in spirit. They were to be meek and pure in heart and peacemakers etc.
This should be our character and we do because of who we are in Christ and the finished work of the cross.
Jesus taught do, do, do. . Today it is what Christ did, what Christ did.

6. What davel was trying to prove was that Matthew calling the doctrine of Christ was the same as John’s phrase doctrine of Christ when the context is different from each other.
The context of spiritual truths in daily life is separate from the historical and dispensational context.
Many have read and understood the gospels wrong and brought the spirit of the law upon them and have live defeated and many wrong extreme doctrines such as some prosperity messages have come from not understanding the historical and dispensational context. There’s more but I’ll stop here. Jerrykelso

 

[Dave L]

davel,

1. The argument is not whether it is the doctrine of Christ.
Jesus taught the Mosaic Law and lived the Mosaic law in Matthew for the New Covenant didn’t come till Calvary Hebrews 8:6-7.
Hebrews 16-17 shows that the testator had to die first in order for the testament to be good.
I already showed why they are not the same in Matthew and John. Did you not understand it and why? Jerrykelso

You are changing word definitions to prove a pet idea that ends in a damnable heresy.

 

[jerry kelso]

You are changing word definitions to prove a pet idea that ends in a damnable heresy.

davel,

1. You don’t believe in the historical context?

2. Since you made such a brave accusation explain what word definitions are changed and what your pet idea you think is being shown and why it ends up in a damnable heresy. Jerrykelso

 

[Dave L]

davel,

1. You don’t believe in the historical context?

2. Since you made such a brave accusation explain what word definitions are changed and what your pet idea you think is being shown and why it ends up in a damnable heresy. Jerrykelso

Doctrine = doctrine no matter the writer. If you do not have the Sermon on the Mount, you do not have God according to John.

 

[jerry kelso]

Doctrine = doctrine no matter the writer. If you do not have the Sermon on the Mount, you do not have God according to John.

davel,

1. I never said anything about not having the Sermon on the Mount.
The whole Bible is for us in the proper perspective.
According to your reasoning we could live the Mosaic law like the Jews and it would be doctrinal.
Do you think you can live the 613 laws and 1200 and more statutes and commandments.

2. Now you may argue about things you understand and that are clearly stated such as the ceremonial law etc. but past that you may get into trouble.

3. You are not being fair to biblical hermeneutics or even human language about context.
You also could not answer your accusations about wrong word definitions, pet idea and damnable heresy.
So your evidence is lacking. Jerry Kelso

 

[Dave L]

davel,

1. I never said anything about not having the Sermon on the Mount.
The whole Bible is for us in the proper perspective.
According to your reasoning we could live the Mosaic law like the Jews and it would be doctrinal.
Do you think you can live the 613 laws and 1200 and more statutes and commandments.

2. Now you may argue about things you understand and that are clearly stated such as the ceremonial law etc. but past that you may get into trouble.

3. You are not being fair to biblical hermeneutics or even human language about context.
You also could not answer your accusations about wrong word definitions, pet idea and damnable heresy.
So your evidence is lacking. Jerry Kelso

Are you a Dispensationalist?