We’re looking at how people work to get around applying Jesus’ teachings to their lives, especially the Sermon on the Mount. I’ve referenced a blog by Michael L. Westmoreland-White that got me to thinking about these specific points; he in turn credits John Howard Yoder and Glen Stassen.
The first “dodge” that Westmoreland-White points to is the Dispensationalist Dodge. This simply says that Jesus’ teachings were given not for the age of the church, but for the future realized kingdom. In our fellowship, with a generalized rejection of pre-millenialism, it’s more common to hear the argument that Jesus’ teachings were meant to tell the Jews how to live during those 3 years of his public ministry; after his death on the cross, those teachings became null and void. You especially hear this from people who don’t want to have to wrestle with Jesus’ teachings about divorce.
As regards the pre-millenial view, as Westmoreland-White says, even if we accept their viewpoint about the coming Kingdom, much of what is described in the Sermon on the Mount doesn’t fit such a time period. The problems with strife between brothers and sin in general shouldn’t be present after Jesus’ return. It just doesn’t make sense. (I wrote an earlier post about the chronology of the Kingdom, if you’re interested in discussing that).
As for the “these teachings only applied to Jews” or “these teachings only applied before the cross” views, neither of those fit with the reality of what the gospels are. Just because they are placed before Acts in our New Testament, doesn’t mean that they were written before the events in Acts took place. The gospels are Christian literature, written by Christians for the use of the church. Do they contain Jesus’ teachings just as a novelty? “Look at the tough things Jesus said while he was here.” Why would Christian writers go to such lengths to preserve Jesus’ teachings if they weren’t relevant to their readers?
If we want to be called Christians, we must strive to follow Christ’s example and Christ’s teachings. Not as a means of salvation, but as a means of being who we were called to be. Can I believe in Christ and not believe that his teachings about how we should live represent the best way to live? Can I say that I follow Christ, yet show no concern about living the way he said we should live?
We won’t do it perfectly. Surely we all know that. But only by striving after that goal can we be truly transformed into his image, by the power of God’s Spirit.
It seems to me that the “dispensational dodge” opens a can of worms or a pandora’s box. For it seems the dispensational argument can be pressed to do away with all of Jesus’s teaching and even his authority for this age. Of course, I don’t know of any professing Christian who would want to take such an extreme as to do away with all of Jesus’ teaching and authority which is what makes the dispensational argument so incoherent. How does a person evade one set of teaching by a person but accept another set of teaching by the same person?
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Rex,
Surely we Christians wouldn’t be inconsistent in how we apply Scripture, would we? ;-)
Gets us back to Westmoreland-White’s quote: “Since the Sermon on the Mount is the largest block of Jesus’ teaching we have recorded in the Gospels, how we treat it is a strong indication of how we’ll treat Jesus altogether.”
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Good thoughts here, particularly regarding the preservation of Jesus’ “earthly” teachings for the early church. Remembering that the primary Scriptures of the first century church were those we now call the “Old Testament,” there’s a lot I think needs to be reconsidered about how we handle the canon.
Of course we need to know our place in history and to whom and for what purpose any specific passages address, but at the same time we need to consider that it truly was all given for a reason and is useful to us now for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16 NIV).
One dodge I often used for years regarding the teachings of Jesus was to restrict them only to the church. I reasoned that since it is the present manifestation of God’s reign in Christ, these instructions only apply to it, and not the world. In recent years I’ve had to begin reconsidering that, given that Jesus is Lord not only of the church, but reigns now as the world’s true Lord.
Ok, since I am an ultra dispensationalist I will bite on this one. Yes the sermon on the mount is absolutely NOT for us in this age of Grace. Yes you can use this text to gain an understanding, but to use it as a reference for living today, IMHO, no. The main reason for this is the fact that the wall of partition was still in place. The temple, the law. As Christ says in Matt. 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill. This fact reinforces the truth that the separation was still in tact and any offer of salvation to anyone other than the Jew was non existant. Why would you want to claim anything to yourself that has no legitimacy. Jews at this time didn’t claim anything that was gentile as theirs, why should we claim anything Jewish?
Think of it this way. John the baptist announces that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Christ says, “Theirs is the kingdom of heaven” In verse 10 he mentions
“Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness sake for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”
12 he says “Rejoice and be exceedingly glad for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets who were before you”
No cross, no grace, no body of Christ, not until Paul and his apostleship is established from the heaven by the risen Christ are the gentiles even considered. Remember what is said in Paul’s letters. We who were aliens of the covenants and promises of God are now made righteous thru the shed blood of Christ Jesus. The law was hung on the tree. Now as you can see this is a very distinctive change in how God views man and his relationship with man. It all changed at the cross. So to use the sermon on the mount as a guide for living in this age, it just doesn’t work. No need for works in this dispensation, its ALL GRACE my friends.
Wow, H.B. Where do I start?
The last time I mentioned Ephesians 2:14, you stomped off in a hissy fit. I’ll just say that it completely contradicts what you’ve said. Read it, reading the verb tenses and thinking about the fact that you yourself said that the temple was still standing when it was written.
I choose to be an imitator of Christ, heir of the promises made to Abraham, grafted into the tree of God’s people. Like the Apostle Paul taught.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Aren’t we discussing the sermon on the mount. Regardless of when the writer puts it down on paper, he is giving us an actual account of time, place, and author.
Place Jerusalem, time, Ministry of Christ to the Jews, What he said, sermon on the mount. I gave you reasons why, reasons, for my position why its not for us. I thought my position was very factual, very exact, I am not trying to persuade you to my positon of thought. What I am trying to get you to see, is that there is substance to my point of view thats a position based on the facts.
I’ll admit that the when isn’t all that important, but the WHY is extremely important. Why did Christians writers go to such lengths to write what Jesus taught if it only applied to the people that first heard the teaching?
Before you say “that was just Matthew writing for the Jews,” Luke, Paul’s travel companion, also recorded large amounts of Jesus’ teachings, including the vast majority of what is found in Matthew 5-7. Had Luke shared your views, he would have seen no reason to do so. At some point, you’ve got to come to terms with the fact that the gospel writers were mere journalists or historians. Nor were they ignorant regarding the gospel and the Kingdom of Christ. They, like Paul, had received the revelation of the mysteries of Christ. (Ephesians 3:4-5) Paul had no advantage over the other apostles in that respect. (Only two gospel writers were apostles, but Mark learned from Peter and Luke learned from Paul)
Luke understood that Jesus was speaking not only to a group of Jews, but to a group of disciples. They were forming part of the new Kingdom community, which would know no distinction between Jew and Gentile. They were part of the people of all nations whom were to be taught all that Jesus had commanded, per his instructions.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
BTW, your comments about grace being all that matters today will be addressed later, since that is the fifth “dodge” mentioned in the article I’m referencing.
Tim: How in the world can anyone get above the cross? How can it be that any one human being can think for one second that what we do or say can overshadow the cross.
The ultimate sacrifice that a loving God did for humanity, with that idea in view we absolutely cannot be held accountable. That is what grace is all about. Do you really think that anything you do or say can wipe this out? I surely don’t think of myself in the light of losing my salvation or anyone for that matter. The only thing one can be sure of is total forgiveness in the completed work of Christ. I can’t wait for your grace article.
Did you defend the sermon on the mount as being for us?
H.B.,
The problem is you’re talking about justification, and I’m talking about sanctification. I’m talking about what we do BECAUSE we’ve been saved, not what we do in order to be saved.
“For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.” (Titus 2:11-14)
I’m talking about being a people zealous for good works, not trying to earn salvation, but living up to the grace that trains us to renounce ungodliness and to live godly lives.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Good points Tim. But I still raise the point that it is the announcement of John the Baptist, the last Jewish prophet brought by God to Israel for that announcement, that finally, the offering of the kingdom is at hand. No prophet had come to Israel since Malachi, over 400 years prior. Additionally, Christ is letting people know that they fit the description he was preaching that they needed to bear up, that the kingdom of heaven was indeed at hand. Christ was getting Israel ready thru miracles, teaching, and those that see him, see the Father. Let me put it this way. If you had been the writer, it wouldn’t change what the information was, who it was to, and who said it. Your asking proof from a dispensational point of view and I gave you very substantial reasons why the information was for Israel only.
My question is why would I want this to apply to me anyway?
Did the Jews have any way of complete redemption?
Did the Jews have the sabbath? Did the Jews have the law to contend with?
Was the blessing covenant still in place even with the Roman boot on their necks?
According to the King James Schofield study bible all the gospels and letters were written before the destruction of the temple with exception of John’s gospel and his writings.
Finally, Paul had the rapture in view, he believed that he and the people he preached to were going to be taken away. This was of course well before the revelation that John received. Paul is the apostle to the gentiles, he magnifies his own office, no man appointed him to this position, but the risen Lord.
The gospels gives us a direction where from which we came. Paul’s letters takes us gentiles to a place of prominance and equality since there now is no difference between Jew and Greek. God is not a respector of persons. Again from a dispensational point of view
H.B.,
You are forgetting three important WHOs in your analysis. Because of that, you seem to think (a) that the kingdom of heaven is merely a Jewish concept; and (b) that the fact that Jesus’ followers were Jews at that time means that his teachings were only for Jews.
You need to remember WHO was speaking: Jesus, the pioneer of our faith.
You need to remember WHO was writing: one of the holy apostles who had received the same revelation that Paul had, according to Paul
You need to remember WHO was going to read this material: Christians, some of them not Jews (which explains why the gospels explain many Jewish elements)
Thank you for shedding light on the dispensational view. It helps me see where a lot of your interpretations come from. I still think you would profit greatly by laying all of that stuff aside and reading the Bible for what it is: the Word of God.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Yes Tim the bible is the word of God. It is the living breathing word. But I must remind you that the word became flesh. It seems you want to spend a lot of time on Christ’s presence on this earth and less time on what his presence has been for 2000 years since his earthly ministry of 3 years. His earthly ministry saved no one. It was his physical presence on the cross that saves. It was his ressurection that wiped the wage of sin which is death. He now is a savior. He was not your savior while he walked this earth, nor mine. He was the Jewish Messiah. We hold no claim to that now do we?
If we have no claim on the Jewish Messiah, we have no claim on his atonement. If we are not heirs to the promises made to Abraham, we are not children of God.
You give lip service to the Bible being the Word of God, but I see it as nothing more than that. In your opinion, you understand much more than the apostles did about what God’s message is.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
P.S.—I’m done.