Is the Sermon on the Mount for Today?

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

No, we are speaking of doing the opposite of what the law forbids. Do not steal = give instead.

Doing the opposite of not stealing is stealing...come on Dave, I understand what you are trying to say...

 

[Guojing]

But, don't you base everything on a hypothetical gap scripture knows nothing of, and take liberties with the rest of scripture?

We follow 2 Timothy 2:15

 

[Guojing]

If literally, all of the apostles would have been amputees. And we know this didn't happen.

Matthew 19:27
Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

Again, did Peter really meant what he said above or was he joking with Jesus? =)

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Doing the opposite of not stealing is stealing...come on Dave, I understand what you are trying to say...

...doing the opposite of what the law forbids. That's not the same as doing the opposite of the law. Don't argue against what a person never said. If the law forbids stealing, then what's the opposite of the forbidden thing? Stealing is the forbidden thing. What's the opposite of stealing?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

...doing the opposite of what the law forbids. That's not the same as doing the opposite of the law. Don't argue against what a person never said. If the law forbids stealing, then what's the opposite of the forbidden thing? Stealing is the forbidden thing. What's the opposite of stealing?

the law forbids stealing...so doing the opposite is to steal...it's not rocket science

 

[Contenders Edge]

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.

All of scripture is for today as it is for every generation. Anyone claiming otherwise is being used of Satan to cast doubt upon the authority of the Bible and doubting the authority of scripture leads to doubting the Gospel. And while I agree with much of your post, what it means to turn the other cheek is up for debate but that can be discussed in another thread.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

All of scripture is for today as it is for every generation. Anyone claiming otherwise is being used of Satan to cast doubt upon the authority of the Bible and doubting the authority of scripture leads to doubting the Gospel. And while I agree with much of your post, what it means to turn the other cheek is up for debate but that can be discussed in another thread.

Depends on what you mean by "for today".

Talked to any burning bushes lately? Are you getting manna for breakfast? Healed any sick and dying people with your shadow? Seen people in your church regularly falling DEAD ("There is sin that is mortal") for lying to the Holy Spirit or wrongly discerning the Lord's body?

Moses would have had to put Paul to death if he taught his "my gospel" back then.

It isn’t satanic to discern the different ways God dealt with people in different times. Lifting God's message to one group and placing it on another group is error, and results in endless confusion (if you want evidence, look around).

Rooted and grounded in the gospel of the grace of God (given to Paul for Gentiles), one can THEN enjoy all Scripture without raiding what is not for us today.

Ex: I love the Psalms, but know that the ending to 137 is not the stance I am to take today. I love God's "righteous rules" of 119, but know I am not under them for salvation in the way the psalmist was. Love Proverbs but understand Solomon was under the law too. "Saved by grace through faith, and this not of yourselves" was unknown to him/them.

Etc.

 

[Johan_1988]

Reject what truth again you are not stating your thought.

The Bible states either a person has believed in the promised Messiah for eternal life or they have not.

True there are many false or fakers out there. But are you saying you are judging that these false believers are weeded out or exposed because they do not have the doctrine of Christ.

I think these two scriptures will explain everything and what Dave L is trying to say:

Matt 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Matt 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

 

[d taylor]

I think these two scriptures will explain everything and what Dave L is trying to say:

Matt 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Matt 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

I think what he is trying to say, but just will not come out and say it. Is, He is judging a person and if they have salvation, on their actions (having or practicing the doctrine of Christ) , and not what their object of their faith is (trust in The Messiah for eternal life).

 

[food4thought]

My two cents worth, as a person who is loosely dispensational and exploring it to see if what I have been taught is true...

I have one question for those who think the sermon on the mount is entirely, directly applicable to the church today:

What do you do with Matthew 5:19?

Are we under the law of Moses as Matthew 5:19 says? Or are we not under the Law of Moses as Paul lays out in Galatians, and as the Apostles all agreed upon in Acts 15?

No other systematic theology can account for the apparent contradiction (at least I've never heard any other valid argument that reconciles the passages).

As for finding gaps in prophetic passages, how about noticing that Jesus found one...

Luke 4:16-21 NASB And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. (17) And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, (18) "THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED, (19) TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD." (20) And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. (21) And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."​

And when one looks at the passage in Isaiah that He was quoting, one finds that Jesus stops mid-sentence, showing that the rest of that verse had yet to be fulfilled. Here is the entire passage in Isaiah:

Isaiah 61:1-7 NASB The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners; (2) To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn, (3) To grant those who mourn in Zion, Giving them a garland instead of ashes, The oil of gladness instead of mourning, The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting. So they will be called oaks of righteousness, The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified. (4) Then they will rebuild the ancient ruins, They will raise up the former devastations; And they will repair the ruined cities, The desolations of many generations. (5) Strangers will stand and pasture your flocks, And foreigners will be your farmers and your vinedressers. (6) But you will be called the priests of the LORD; You will be spoken of as ministers of our God. You will eat the wealth of nations, And in their riches you will boast. (7) Instead of your shame you will have a double portion, And instead of humiliation they will shout for joy over their portion. Therefore they will possess a double portion in their land, Everlasting joy will be theirs.​

Note that Jesus ends mid-sentence... "the day of the vengeance of our God" is yet future even now. And who is this passage given to? Jews. And who was Jesus speaking to? Yep, Jews. That's right, the rest of this passage has never been fulfilled in history (although there may be an ongoing partial fulfillment today as Israel has returned to their ancient home and is rebuilding), and yet it will be fulfilled completely and literally, just like the 1st half of the passage was fulfilled by Jesus during His earthly ministry.

Just a little food for thought...

 

[Guojing]

I think what he is trying to say, but just will not come out and say it. Is, He is judging a person and if they have salvation, on their actions (having or practicing the doctrine of Christ) , and not what their object of their faith is (trust in The Messiah for eternal life).

I agree. He is trying to mix Paul and James together, using some version of the popular cliche, salvation is by faith alone but the true faith that saves is "never alone". =)

 

[Guojing]

My two cents worth, as a person who is loosely dispensational and exploring it to see if what I have been taught is true...

I have one question for those who think the sermon on the mount is entirely, directly applicable to the church today:

What do you do with Matthew 5:19?

Are we under the law of Moses as Matthew 5:19 says? Or are we not under the Law of Moses as Paul lays out in Galatians, and as the Apostles all agreed upon in Acts 15?

No other systematic theology can account for the apparent contradiction (at least I've never heard any other valid argument that reconciles the passages).

As for finding gaps in prophetic passages, how about noticing that Jesus found one...

Luke 4:16-21 NASB And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. (17) And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, (18) "THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED, (19) TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD." (20) And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. (21) And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."​

And when one looks at the passage in Isaiah that He was quoting, one finds that Jesus stops mid-sentence, showing that the rest of that verse had yet to be fulfilled. Here is the entire passage in Isaiah:

Isaiah 61:1-7 NASB The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners; (2) To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn, (3) To grant those who mourn in Zion, Giving them a garland instead of ashes, The oil of gladness instead of mourning, The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting. So they will be called oaks of righteousness, The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified. (4) Then they will rebuild the ancient ruins, They will raise up the former devastations; And they will repair the ruined cities, The desolations of many generations. (5) Strangers will stand and pasture your flocks, And foreigners will be your farmers and your vinedressers. (6) But you will be called the priests of the LORD; You will be spoken of as ministers of our God. You will eat the wealth of nations, And in their riches you will boast. (7) Instead of your shame you will have a double portion, And instead of humiliation they will shout for joy over their portion. Therefore they will possess a double portion in their land, Everlasting joy will be theirs.​

Note that Jesus ends mid-sentence... "the day of the vengeance of our God" is yet future even now. And who is this passage given to? Jews. And who was Jesus speaking to? Yep, Jews. That's right, the rest of this passage has never been fulfilled in history (although there may be an ongoing partial fulfillment today as Israel has returned to their ancient home and is rebuilding), and yet it will be fulfilled completely and literally, just like the 1st half of the passage was fulfilled by Jesus during His earthly ministry.

Just a little food for thought...

Yep, and those people who are "obsessed" with the Great Commission are usually unclear about the Matthew instructions that goes in v20

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

When I pointed out to them that it also includes passages like what you quoted, Matthew 5:19, many of them just ignore that passage.

 

[~Zao~]

Christ isn’t an example of the perfect Jew. He’s an example of the perfect New Creation.

What used to be the old law He made even more difficult concerning the law of the kingdom people. "You have heard and yet I say” wasn’t destroying the morality of the law, He was lifting it away from the letter to the spirit, expressed specifically in the final statement “‘Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets “ Matthew 7:12

The position that all before Acts 2 is Law of Moses and cannot be bound on men today is not only shallow, but spiritually repulsive. Such a view would relegate Jesus’ breathtakingly marvelous sermon to a place of inapplicability. The sermon contains many indigenously correct statements, "moral laws," notwithstanding the fact that it was admittedly delivered in the canopy of the Law of Moses (Matthew 5:23-24, cp. Galatians 4:4). Jesus’ teaching about divorcement and marriage to another, fornication being the only cause, restores the original moral law of Genesis 2 (see Matthew 19:4f., Matthew 5:31-32, 19: 9). There is a marked difference between Jesus "fulfilling" (Greek, pleroma) the Law and destroying it. Jesus was "the end" (Greek, telos) to the Law in that he was the substance of the shadows and his New Covenant teaching provided all that the Law of Moses could not and was not designed to supply (cp. Romans 10:4, Matthew 5:18, Hebrews 7:10). Jesus lived under the Law and taught it in its purity (Galatians 4: 4). "But I Say Unto You"​

 

[food4thought]

Yep, and those people who are "obsessed" with the Great Commission are usually unclear about the Matthew instructions that goes in v20

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

When I pointed out to them that it also includes passages like what you quoted, Matthew 5:19, many of them just ignore that passage.

One problem with that view... Matthew 28:19 states that the people being evangelized are the "nations" (ethnos). Us. So, according to the great commission, we are to "observe all that I commanded you".

I have some serious soul searching to do.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Depends on what you mean by "for today".

Talked to any burning bushes lately? Are you getting manna for breakfast? Healed any sick and dying people with your shadow? Seen people in your church regularly falling DEAD ("There is sin that is mortal") for lying to the Holy Spirit or wrongly discerning the Lord's body?

Moses would have had to put Paul to death if he taught his "my gospel" back then.

It isn’t satanic to discern the different ways God dealt with people in different times. Lifting God's message to one group and placing it on another group is error, and results in endless confusion (if you want evidence, look around).

Rooted and grounded in the gospel of the grace of God (given to Paul for Gentiles), one can THEN enjoy all Scripture without raiding what is not for us today.

Ex: I love the Psalms, but know that the ending to 137 is not the stance I am to take today. I love God's "righteous rules" of 119, but know I am not under them for salvation in the way the psalmist was. Love Proverbs but understand Solomon was under the law too. "Saved by grace through faith, and this not of yourselves" was unknown to him/them.

Etc.

“Depends on what you mean by ‘for today’”.



What I mean by “for today” is relevancy. There is nothing within the scriptures that is without an everlasting relevancy.



“Talked to any burning bushes lately? Are you getting manna for breakfast? Healed any sick and dying people with your shadow? Seen people in your church regularly falling DEAD ("There is sin that is mortal") for lying to the Holy Spirit or wrongly discerning the Lord's body?”



All the above are accounts of how God has, whenever He has deemed necessary, interjected Himself into the affairs of men and has demonstrated His power to accomplish His Will and to carry out specific purposes. But aside from the ridiculous remarks, clearly you deny that God presently interjects Himself into the affairs of men, therefore calling Him a God of change when He has declared that He does not change. (Mal. 3:6, Heb. 13:8)



“It isn’t satanic to discern the different ways God dealt with people in different times. Lifting God's message to one group and placing it on another group is error, and results in endless confusion (if you want evidence, look around).”



It IS satanic to cast doubt upon the authority of scripture as it eventually overthrows faith in Christ to whom the scriptures point us. Therefore to claim that any portion of scripture is without relevance or less authoritative than another portion of scripture does cast such doubt.

Satan has always either twisted or cast doubt upon the Word of God from the very beginning in order to turn people away from God and to overthrow the faith of the saints and he continues to do so in more ways than one.

While it is undeniable that God has dealt differently with different people in different times, He has still given everyone the same message, the same plan of salvation, the same doctrine, the same set of standards, and the same set of scriptures. He has never given one group of people a message and creed different from another.

What is in error is to believe otherwise, for it is written that God “is not the author of confusion” (1 Cor. 14:33) nor is He subject to change. (Mal. 3:6, Heb. 13:8)


“Moses would have had to put Paul to death if he taught his ‘my gospel’ back then.”


Paul would not have done that any way if he had existed at the same time as Moses because the Gospel had not yet come to pass. Instead, he would have taught everyone to look forward to its coming and Moses would have understood this.


“I love the Psalms, but know that the ending to 137 is not the stance I am to take today.”


That Psalm is speaking specifically about a coming judgment upon Babylon and applies only to that event. Anyone can recognize that. Bad rhetoric will not avail you.


“I love God's "righteous rules" of 119, but know I am not under them for salvation in the way the psalmist was. Love Proverbs but understand Solomon was under the law too. "Saved by grace through faith, and this not of yourselves" was unknown to him/them.”


The above I can respect more. Nevertheless, despite being under the law, there was an understanding that the just, even then, lived by faith (Hab. 2:4) and that is a consistent theme from beginning to end.

 

[Grip Docility]

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.

The sermon on the mount is paramount to followers of Christ. It eludes to the upcoming dispensation of the New Covenant, Post DBR.

Scofield is not the originator of Dispensationalism. He simply wrote on his opinions.

The Jewish Focused NT writings go hand in hand with the gentile focused writings, but a lack of contextual understanding confuses people.

It is for today. Galatians must be fully comprehend to gather it’s full New Testament application.

 

[Guojing]

The sermon on the mount is paramount to followers of Christ. It eludes to the upcoming dispensation of the New Covenant, Post DBR.

Scofield is not the originator of Dispensationalism. He simply wrote on his opinions.

The Jewish Focused NT writings go hand in hand with the gentile focused writings, but a lack of contextual understanding confuses people.

It is for today. Galatians must be fully comprehend to gather it’s full New Testament application.

The sermon is on how the Jews can reached their promised physical kingdom of God, and the price they must pay to reach it, at a possible cost to even their body parts.

This physical kingdom was prophesied by many of their ot prophets such as Isaiah, Zechariah and Micah so Jews were very well aware of it.

The gentiles were never promised a physical kingdom by Paul.

 

[Grip Docility]

The sermon is on how the Jews can reached their promised physical kingdom of God, and the price they must pay to reach it, at a possible cost to even their body parts.

This physical kingdom was prophesied by many of their ot prophets such as Isaiah, Zechariah and Micah so Jews were very well aware of it.

The gentiles were never promised a physical kingdom by Paul.

This is true. Yet Paul builds a bridge between the Jewish implications and the Gentile implications... that allows all of the words to have deep meaning towards the BOC.

Do not forgot, All scripture is good for teaching and reproof, Brother.

 

[Guojing]

This is true. Yet Paul builds a bridge between the Jewish implications and the Gentile implications... that allows all of the words to have deep meaning towards the BOC.

Do not forgot, All scripture is good for teaching and reproof, Brother.

Yes all scripture is for us to learn but not all are directed to us, Nor about us.

I look at the Sermon on mount and I marvel at God’s different and unique plan for us gentiles which he kept hidden throughout the 4 gospels.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

“Depends on what you mean by ‘for today’”.



What I mean by “for today” is relevancy. There is nothing within the scriptures that is without an everlasting relevancy.



“Talked to any burning bushes lately? Are you getting manna for breakfast? Healed any sick and dying people with your shadow? Seen people in your church regularly falling DEAD ("There is sin that is mortal") for lying to the Holy Spirit or wrongly discerning the Lord's body?”



All the above are accounts of how God has, whenever He has deemed necessary, interjected Himself into the affairs of men and has demonstrated His power to accomplish His Will and to carry out specific purposes. But aside from the ridiculous remarks, clearly you deny that God presently interjects Himself into the affairs of men, therefore calling Him a God of change when He has declared that He does not change. (Mal. 3:6, Heb. 13:8)



“It isn’t satanic to discern the different ways God dealt with people in different times. Lifting God's message to one group and placing it on another group is error, and results in endless confusion (if you want evidence, look around).”



It IS satanic to cast doubt upon the authority of scripture as it eventually overthrows faith in Christ to whom the scriptures point us. Therefore to claim that any portion of scripture is without relevance or less authoritative than another portion of scripture does cast such doubt.

Satan has always either twisted or cast doubt upon the Word of God from the very beginning in order to turn people away from God and to overthrow the faith of the saints and he continues to do so in more ways than one.

While it is undeniable that God has dealt differently with different people in different times, He has still given everyone the same message, the same plan of salvation, the same doctrine, the same set of standards, and the same set of scriptures. He has never given one group of people a message and creed different from another.

What is in error is to believe otherwise, for it is written that God “is not the author of confusion” (1 Cor. 14:33) nor is He subject to change. (Mal. 3:6, Heb. 13:8)


“Moses would have had to put Paul to death if he taught his ‘my gospel’ back then.”


Paul would not have done that any way if he had existed at the same time as Moses because the Gospel had not yet come to pass. Instead, he would have taught everyone to look forward to its coming and Moses would have understood this.


“I love the Psalms, but know that the ending to 137 is not the stance I am to take today.”


That Psalm is speaking specifically about a coming judgment upon Babylon and applies only to that event. Anyone can recognize that. Bad rhetoric will not avail you.


“I love God's "righteous rules" of 119, but know I am not under them for salvation in the way the psalmist was. Love Proverbs but understand Solomon was under the law too. "Saved by grace through faith, and this not of yourselves" was unknown to him/them.”


The above I can respect more. Nevertheless, despite being under the law, there was an understanding that the just, even then, lived by faith (Hab. 2:4) and that is a consistent theme from beginning to end.

I reread my post and cannot see how you culled what you did out of it, but it happens all the time between believers. I do not accept your accusations:

"clearly you deny that God presently interjects Himself into the affairs of men, therefore calling Him a God of change..."

and

"...to claim that any portion of scripture is without relevance or less authoritative than another portion of scripture does cast such doubt..."

That does not reflect my heart at all concerning Scripture, nor reflect the intentions of my comments.

Doesn't matter, we just disagree.