Is the Sermon on the Mount for Today?

[Contenders Edge]

You wove several accusations against me into your reply, all of which I refute and deny. 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, because they do not reflect my heart at all concerning Scripture.

Anything I have written was based upon the content of your response. If you feel that anything I have said in my counter response post is not accurate, you may wish to clarify exactly what you were trying to say so as to clear up any misunderstanding in case other readers also misunderstand your intent.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Anything I have written was based upon the content of your response. If you feel that anything I have said in my counter response post is not accurate, you may wish to clarify exactly what you were trying to say so as to clear up any misunderstanding in case other readers also misunderstand your intent.

Sorry, I edited my reply. If you could re-read it.

 

[def]

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...

Matthew 5:19 is mid-stream of a teaching. The topic starts in verse 17 and can go back a bit further if required. In verse 17, Jesus said that He had come to fulfil the law. How?

Jesus death and resurrection paved the way for the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. Believers receive the Spirit and are born again, they follow the leading of the Holy Spirit and thus fulfil the law (Galatians 5) because the Spirit cannot lead one to sin.
----
Jesus stopped when He had made the required proclamation, and that is, He had come to fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah. The so called ignored part are the outcomes of the fulfilled prophecy, which the rest of NT addresses. There is a time and place for those teachings, such as the Sermon on the Mount which addresses the comfort for those who mourn.

 

[def]

The best part about being a so called "dispensationalist" is that you can interpret Bible passages literally, instead of trying to say things like, "Oh what Jesus actually meant was blah blah and blah", as if Jesus or James or anyone else, were such bad communicators that they would need us to explain for them what they were trying to say.

Herein, lies the problem. Parables are non-literal stories, they cannot be taken literally and therefore, a literal only approach will have to ignore all of Jesus' teachings, which are mainly in parables.

 

[def]

Literal interpretation would mean that Jesus is the gate and the door. And only sheep can be saved.

 

[def]

Amazon lists over 900 books with the Sermon on the Mount as a title or sub-title. The volume suggests a variety of views on the Sermon.

 

[Guojing]

Herein, lies the problem. Parables are non-literal stories, they cannot be taken literally and therefore, a literal only approach will have to ignore all of Jesus' teachings, which are mainly in parables.

True for parables but the instruction to pluck out your eyes did not come from one

 

[def]

True for parables but the instruction to pluck out your eyes did not come from one

A literal interpretation will require that you pluck out the offending eye. That won't do, who would join such a church? Solution, fob-off Jesus' teachings to the Jews.

The complexity approach - The Sermon on the Mount is a framework for organising the gospel. All teachings outside the SOM can be traced to the Sermon or to the new Covenant.

Jesus' topic is on spiritual adultery. The eye is the metaphor for differentiating light from darkness. This metaphor draws in teaching regarding the children of light and walking in the light.

To cut a long explanation short, this topic is connected to "Blessed our they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.

People who commit spiritual adultery have one eye on Christ and the other on other gods. God is a jealous God and would not share His glory with others. God will not fill such a person with his righteousness.

Note, if the offending eye is plucked out, then, only Jesus is in focus.

 

[Guojing]

A literal interpretation will require that you pluck out the offending eye. That won't do, who would join such a church? Solution, fob-off Jesus' teachings to the Jews.

The reason that won't do is not because of that. Its because the offer of a physical kingdom has already been withdrawn by God, after what happened in Acts of the Apostles.

You have read my earlier reply about this point to Dave in this thread right? Anyway its below

Jesus meant it literally because when he was preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, it requires faith AND works to get saved/inherit the kingdom.

Thus, what he is saying is that it is better for the Jews to make it into the Kingdom by fulfilling the law, even if they have to lose a body part. Since he will be their King, he can easily heal them and restore that lost body part once they managed to get in.

 

[def]

Jesus meant it literally because when he was preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, it requires faith AND works to get saved/inherit the kingdom.

Thus, what he is saying is that it is better for the Jews to make it into the Kingdom by fulfilling the law, even if they have to lose a body part. Since he will be their King, he can easily heal them and restore that lost body part once they managed to get in.

The handling snakes instruction in Mark 16:17 is also literal, since Jews need to have signs to believe. But like the sermon of the mount, it is not meant for us Gentiles.

1. Works have been thrown around a lot, what works are you referring to?

2. I have explained that SOM is a framework to draw in teachings. It outlines and organises the topics to be studied. There are twenty topics in SOM. Jesus' topic to fulfil the law draws other teachings to explain how one can fulfil the law, and it is by following the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit cannot sin, even if He asks you to steal.

3. Jesus restore their lost body parts, scripture please.

4. Mark 16:17 does not mention snake. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

 

[def]

The reason that won't do is not because of that. Its because the offer of a physical kingdom has already been withdrawn by God, after what happened in Acts of the Apostles.

You have read my earlier reply about this point to Dave in this thread right? Anyway its below

Agree, the physical kingdom has been withdrawn, SOM is for the spiritual kingdom. The spirit enters the kingdom of God, rule of God, and the mind sets on the spirit knows the desires of the Spirit and those desires are carried out into the World to bring glory to God.

The SOM provides the topics to learn about the kingdom, and God inspired various people to teach these topics and their teachings explain in depth the workings of the kingdom.

 

[Guojing]

1. Works have been thrown around a lot, what works are you referring to?

2. I have explained that SOM is a framework to draw in teachings. It outlines and organises the topics to be studied. There are twenty topics in SOM. Jesus' topic to fulfil the law draws other teachings to explain how one can fulfil the law, and it is by following the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit cannot sin, even if He asks you to steal.

3. Jesus restore their lost body parts, scripture please.

4. Mark 16:17 does not mention snake. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

1 Matthew 5:19 sums it up

3 Why do you think Jesus was healing so much when he was on Earth? When John the Baptist disciples wanted him to confirm whether he was truly the Messiah, Jesus quoted the Isaiah prophecy Isaiah 35:3-6.

No one will be sick or lame once Jesus is ruling over the Earth from Jerusalem. Even Christians believe this will happen to them when they are raptured.

4 Verse 18 (I thought this Mark's version of the GC is well known but I guess not)

 

[thomas15]

Dispensationalists traditionally say the Sermon is not for today. So that is why I'm concerned for them.

The question is do dispies believe that the Sermon on the Mound is for today? A better question to ask is to whom are the directives of the sermon intended for and what do we do with it? Let’s say that the dispies or any other group say that “ye must live the sermon in absolute obedience” is for those living in the 1000 years Kingdom and thus future, this means that members of the modern preterists movement and some Covenant A-mills should live the sermon because they think we are living in the Kingdom right now.



William L. Pettingill was an editor on the Scofield Reference Bible and Dean of (what became) the Philadelphia School of Bible. He was a tier 1 dispie. I could summarize his thinking on this topic as follows: Those who preach that the sermon is for strict rules for Christian life are really “preaching the ethics of Jesus instead of the blood of Jesus as a way of life.” (The Gospel of the Kingdom pg. 55-no date Dunham Publishing co.). He goes on to say that “The bloody Gospel is an offense to your modern refined Pharisee. (pg. 57). He also points out that the Church had not been established at the time the sermon was delivered, rather it was given to Jews living under the law. He does not advise throwing out this part of Scripture nor any other part of scripture for that matter as he states it is all “God Breathed”.



James Montgomery Boice, was a reformed Presbyterian and well known pastor and writer (not a dispie), wrote in his book The Sermon on the Mount 1972 Baker Books (pg.7), right in the preface states “Before we get on with that, however, it may be well to state at the onset the basic principle underlying these studies: that in dealing with the Sermon on the Mount we are dealing with the need for a new life rather than with a legalistic system of morality”.



D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones In his 2 volume “Studies on the Sermon on the Mount” Erdmans-1959-pg. 14 states that the dispies teach that the sermon “has nothing whatsoever to do with modern Christians”. He basically accuses the dispies of not taking the teaching of Jesus seriously. He then goes on to give a tortured expose on how the dispies don’t really believe the Bible. To summarize Lloyd-Jones, the reason we study the sermon (as opposed to living it) is to see the need for the “new life” and “for blessing” (pg.18). The astute reader of Lloyd-Jones might see a parallel in that thinking and with Paul’s teaching on the Law. As harsh as he is on the dispies, he doesn’t say that we are to live the sermon to the 9th degree either.



Ironically, modern dispie (and everyone favorite punching bag) John MacArthur in his commentary on Matthew 1-7 (1985 Moody Press) states on pg. 132 basically the same thing as Lloyd-Jones “The Old Testament law demonstrates man’s need of salvation, and the New Testament message offers the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord had to begin with a proper presentation of the law, so the people would recognize their sin-then could come the offer of salvation. The Sermon on the Mount clarifies the reasons for the curse and shows that man has no righteousness that can survive the scrutiny of God. The new message offers blessing, and that is the Lord’s opening offer.”



So what are my beliefs on the matter? First, while Lloyd-Jones mischaracterizes the dispies on the Bible in general and the Sermon in particular, his actual thinking is the same as theirs. Second, the preterists, some covenant A-Mills and for that matter Roman Catholics, those among us living in The Kingdom of Christ right now as we speak, are to apply the teaching of the sermon to their lives and live it. Third, since it is in this time period just as impossible to live the Sermon as it was to live the Law before the Sermon, I believe we are to apply the teaching to our lives the same as we are to apply the Law of Moses to our lives. Fourth, the preterists and some Covenant A-Mills apply want to apply the Sermon as binding and yet dismiss certain prophetic books as impossible to understand or not relevant today, forgetting that Jehovah offers a “blessing” to those who read and try to apply/understand the book of Revelation in their lives. Fifth and final, it is our personal belief in the shed blood of the risen Christ that saves not the keeping of any precepts, rules or regulations. It would appear that some like to use the Sermon as a sledge hammer to bash opposing theological viewpoints and thump their chest rather than proclaim our risen Savior Jesus.

 

[Dave L]

The question is do dispies believe that the Sermon on the Mound is for today? A better question to ask is to whom are the directives of the sermon intended for and what do we do with it? Let’s say that the dispies or any other group say that “ye must live the sermon in absolute obedience” is for those living in the 1000 years Kingdom and thus future, this means that members of the modern preterists movement and some Covenant A-mills should live the sermon because they think we are living in the Kingdom right now.



William L. Pettingill was an editor on the Scofield Reference Bible and Dean of (what became) the Philadelphia School of Bible. He was a tier 1 dispie. I could summarize his thinking on this topic as follows: Those who preach that the sermon is for strict rules for Christian life are really “preaching the ethics of Jesus instead of the blood of Jesus as a way of life.” (The Gospel of the Kingdom pg. 55-no date Dunham Publishing co.). He goes on to say that “The bloody Gospel is an offense to your modern refined Pharisee. (pg. 57). He also points out that the Church had not been established at the time the sermon was delivered, rather it was given to Jews living under the law. He does not advise throwing out this part of Scripture nor any other part of scripture for that matter as he states it is all “God Breathed”.



James Montgomery Boice, was a reformed Presbyterian and well known pastor and writer (not a dispie), wrote in his book The Sermon on the Mount 1972 Baker Books (pg.7), right in the preface states “Before we get on with that, however, it may be well to state at the onset the basic principle underlying these studies: that in dealing with the Sermon on the Mount we are dealing with the need for a new life rather than with a legalistic system of morality”.



D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones In his 2 volume “Studies on the Sermon on the Mount” Erdmans-1959-pg. 14 states that the dispies teach that the sermon “has nothing whatsoever to do with modern Christians”. He basically accuses the dispies of not taking the teaching of Jesus seriously. He then goes on to give a tortured expose on how the dispies don’t really believe the Bible. To summarize Lloyd-Jones, the reason we study the sermon (as opposed to living it) is to see the need for the “new life” and “for blessing” (pg.18). The astute reader of Lloyd-Jones might see a parallel in that thinking and with Paul’s teaching on the Law. As harsh as he is on the dispies, he doesn’t say that we are to live the sermon to the 9th degree either.



Ironically, modern dispie (and everyone favorite punching bag) John MacArthur in his commentary on Matthew 1-7 (1985 Moody Press) states on pg. 132 basically the same thing as Lloyd-Jones “The Old Testament law demonstrates man’s need of salvation, and the New Testament message offers the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord had to begin with a proper presentation of the law, so the people would recognize their sin-then could come the offer of salvation. The Sermon on the Mount clarifies the reasons for the curse and shows that man has no righteousness that can survive the scrutiny of God. The new message offers blessing, and that is the Lord’s opening offer.”



So what are my beliefs on the matter? First, while Lloyd-Jones mischaracterizes the dispies on the Bible in general and the Sermon in particular, his actual thinking is the same as theirs. Second, the preterists, some covenant A-Mills and for that matter Roman Catholics, those among us living in The Kingdom of Christ right now as we speak, are to apply the teaching of the sermon to their lives and live it. Third, since it is in this time period just as impossible to live the Sermon as it was to live the Law before the Sermon, I believe we are to apply the teaching to our lives the same as we are to apply the Law of Moses to our lives. Fourth, the preterists and some Covenant A-Mills apply want to apply the Sermon as binding and yet dismiss certain prophetic books as impossible to understand or not relevant today, forgetting that Jehovah offers a “blessing” to those who read and try to apply/understand the book of Revelation in their lives. Fifth and final, it is our personal belief in the shed blood of the risen Christ that saves not the keeping of any precepts, rules or regulations. It would appear that some like to use the Sermon as a sledge hammer to bash opposing theological viewpoints and thump their chest rather than proclaim our risen Savior Jesus.

The big problem is these do not understand the Sermon or how it relates to Christian ethics. It's not about when, it's about recognizing it throughout the NT as the backbone of Christianity.

 

[thomas15]

The big problem is these do not understand the Sermon or how it relates to Christian ethics. It's not about when, it's about recognizing it throughout the NT as the backbone of Christianity.

So then it's settled. You Dave L, are the example, the perfect Christian. We must follow your perfect example, study your perfect doctrine, live our lives the same as you since you are doing what most would say is impossible, that is living our life in accordance and in full compliance with the Sermon on the Mount. I'm quite impressed with you Dave L.

 

[Dave L]

So then it's settled. You Dave L, are the example, the perfect Christian. We must follow your perfect example, study your perfect doctrine, live our lives the same as you since you are doing what most would say is impossible, that is living our life in accordance and in full compliance with the Sermon on the Mount. I'm quite impressed with you Dave L.

Are you sinning if you reject the Sermon?

 

[thomas15]

Are you sinning if you reject the Sermon?

Are you keeping the all of the precepts of the Sermon Dave L.? Do you live your life in perfect accordance with the entire 66 books of the Holy Bible?

Are you sinning if you are depending on nothing but John 1:12 "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name" .....for your salvation?

 

[Dave L]

Are you keeping the all of the precepts of the Sermon Dave L.? Do you live your life in perfect accordance with the entire 66 books of the Holy Bible?

Are you sinning if you are depending on nothing but John 1:12 "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name" .....for your salvation?

In the Sermon, "perfect" means mature. A mature Christian follows Jesus according to the Sermon.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Fifth and final, it is our personal belief in the shed blood of the risen Christ that saves not the keeping of any precepts, rules or regulations.

This glorious truth somehow gets lost in all our chit chat.

That makes my heart SING! Bless you.

 

[thomas15]

In the Sermon, "perfect" means mature. A mature Christian follows Jesus according to the Sermon.

In the English language, "perfect" means: conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type....excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement.

Dave L. as a mature Christian, do you live your life in strict definition of the Sermon on the Mount as would be considered in the English "perfect"?

Dave L. does this apply to your life?
Mat 5:19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

I can say personally that I'm a flawed individual and the only thing I'm depending on is my faith in Jesus my Savior who died on a cross, rose again and is seated at the right hand of the Father, interceding day and night on my behalf. Not because of anything I have or could possibly do, but only on what He did on The Old Rugged Cross.