Last week I received from Netflix one of those high-brow videos, Weird Al Yankovic’s greatest videos. I enjoy Weird Al’s sense of humor and wanted to watch the videos, but not enough to actually buy the DVD.
One of those songs was meant to be a parody of the 80s techno bands, like Devo. The song is called “Dare To Be Stupid,” and is filled with admonitions to do stupid things: take wooden nickels, bite off more than you can chew, etc.
In the middle of the song, there was a line that really caught my ear: “You can turn the other cheek.” For most of the famous aphorisms, the “stupid” advice was to do the opposite of what common wisdom advised. So why did Jesus’ teaching become an exception to the rule?
Because for most people, it sounds stupid. Turn the other cheek? How ridiculous is that?
Over the next few days, I want to share some things that I read last year on a blog by Michael L. Westmoreland-White. I want to spend time discussing how Christians typically deal with the Sermon on the Mount, because, as Westmoreland-White says, “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.”
Just to let you know where we’re headed, Westmoreland-White names five “dodges” to get around the Sermon on the Mount (and he acknowledges both John Howard Yoder and Glen Stassen as sources):
- The Dispensationalist Dodge
- The “Preterist” Dodge
- The Public/Private Split
- The “Inner Attitudes” Dodge
- The “All That Matters Is The Atonement” Dodge
For now, I’d like to hear your thoughts on how most Christians react to the Sermon on the Mount. Do you think they see it as applying to them? Do you think they think the teachings are hyperbolic, reflecting things beyond our reach? Do most people pick and choose which parts to cling to? Or do they join the “Dare To Be Stupid” song and condemn Jesus’ teachings as foolish?
My biggest concern is when people mistake the Sermon on the Mount for the Gospel. Talk about making grace void! “Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect.” Ya, let me get right on that. (not that our attitude in sanctification by the Spirit shouldn’t be toward this goal, but it is an impossible ethic while in our bodies of corruption). The Sermon on the Mount is not the Gospel. Usually those who take it as such go the other edge of “all that matters is the atonement” and say “the atonement doesn’t matter at all.” Just more law. More dos and do nots. But I’m sure Westmoreland will have something to say on that. :)
I believe beyond showing a perfect ethic that we are to strive for, the Sermon shows us how corrupt we really are. My favorite line to prove this is (paraphrase) “when you look at a women with lust you have committed adultery.” OK, so every single man alive is an adulterer. There is not one man (sans Jesus) who is not an adulterer. Not a one. Using this example, the Sermon shows how much we need Him and what He came to do (in this it is effective in a Gospel message). We will never match up to what God demands; which is why Jesus is so crucial, and where His perfect life imputed is essential in any Gospel message. Yes, ultimately it points to the atonement.
Finally, I do think it is interesting that Mark makes no mention of this Sermon, and Mark was most likely based on the preaching of Peter to the earliest Christians. Also, Luke rips it to shreds in his copy, and of course John is John. It is also interesting that in all of Acts, there is not a mention of these teachings in their presentation of the Gospel message, which further shows how the Sermon is not the Gospel itself. This is not to say the Sermon is not important (of course not!) but it should not be confused with the Gospel message to unbelievers except to show the demands of God and how Christ kept them all. As Ephesians 2:10 says, “for we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” We were first create in Christ Jesus (saved) FOR the good works.
So yes, we should walk in the light of the Sermon; but not rest in that it is what saves us or gains us favor with God. Only Christ does that.
Grace be with you –
Jr
Jr,
It’s always tough to find a way to talk about improving our Christian walk without sounding like you believe in salvation by works. I’ve considered posting a permanent disclaimer to the front page of my blog: “Yes, I believe in salvation by grace. Yes, I also believe Christians are called to imitate Christ.”
To your comments:
(1) Mark’s gospel says little about the teachings of Jesus. His was a different emphasis. I’m actually a Mark fan, because I tend to be “short winded” in my writing and speaking.
(2) I personally don’t believe that Luke and Matthew are relating the same incident. It’s not surprising that Jesus would say similar things on more than one occasion.
(3) That said, Jesus’ teachings are not the gospel, but certainly fall under the “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” from Matthew 28:20.
Amen to that!
Simply put, I think we often view the Sermon on the Mount as New Testament Proverbs.
In other words, they’re good advice but we conveniently don’t view them as terribly binding when we feel a given situation requires a response that would run contrary to those teachings.
Robert, I think your description of “good advice” is very good. We think they offer one more piece of advice to add to other bits that we receive.
Tim:
1) You are correct, and I’m a Mark fan as well! I find it interesting that the earliest Gospel was so atonement focused (Messianic Secret; 6 of 16 chapters taking place the last week; etc.).
2) I agree with you here. It would not surprise me at all if the Sermon or pieces of it were preached by Jesus dozens of times during his 3-year ministry.
3) Again, I agree. Gospel imperatives are necessary for those in Christ. However, Gospel imperatives are pointless and powerless without the Gospel indicative (as you have said in other ways).
Grace be with you –
Jr
Jr.,
The Sermon on the Mount is certainly not the sum total of the gospel but it is part of the gospel. Your reasoning as to why there is little mention of the Sermon on the Mount teaching elsewhere in the NT is skewed. Beyond the Gospels, the NT writers really do not quote Jesus in the same way the OT is quoted, so we don’t find the NT writers saying something like “this is what Jesus taught.” But that hardly means that the teachings of Jesus, including the Sermon on the Mount, does not shape the remaining content of the NT. Where are we to assume that Paul’s “love” ethic taught in Romans 12-13 came from? My assumption is that Paul had learned of the things taught by Jesus even if he doesn’t directly say this is from Jesus.
Also, the English word “perfect” is not the only choice we have for rendering that term “telos”. Another option is the word “complete” or “whole”. I don’t have the sources readily available at the moment but I do know there have been a few articles published among NT studies suggesting this translation.
Any ways, I know it was not your intent but upon reading your first comment, you appear to be almost making a dichotomy between the moral teachings of Jesus and the gospel. While moral/ethical teachings can never be regarded as the sum total of the gospel, they must remain part of the gospel. Otherwise, it makes no sense for John the Baptist to demand fruit-bearing repentance (Matt 3.7-10) in preparation for the gospel of/about Jesus Christ nor for the Apostle Paul to be striving for “the obedience of faith” (Rom 1.5; 16.26) among the Gentiles in whom he was charged with preaching the Gospel too. If some say that becomes a works-based Gospel, I would reply that it is us who must find a way to proclaim a faith-based Gospel that includes moral/ethical obedience since scripture is able to do so.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Best book I’ve read on the SOTM is by Dallas Willard–THE DIVINE CONSPIRACY.
Rex: You referenced the incorrect Greek root used in Matthew 5:48. The root is not τελος but τελειος and in the verse in question it means to be “perfect,” or “fully developed.” More specifically it means, “to be fully developed in a moral sense.” (see 3rd ed. of BDAG, pages 995-996).
The only part ethics and morals (i.e. the Sermon) play in regards to a Gospel message is to show how we are so far away from being “fully developed in a moral sense” with the announcement that this moral perfection is exactly what a Holy God requires. Only then does the actual Gospel message come in to play; that Jesus lived that perfect life and substituted His perfection for our unrighteousness so that by grace through faith individuals may not only be justified by His propitiatory death but also be justified with His perfect righteousness. We are “clothed” in Christ.
I would never deny the morals and ethics of a person who claims to be in Christ. As I have written before, 1 John 1:6 spells this out clearly enough for me and is well enough to be “the obedience of faith.” But again, “the obedience of faith” is not the Gospel. The only obedience that should ever pertain to a Gospel message is the obedience of Christ. The Gospel is about what God has done and not about what we do. There is a (big) difference between justification and obedience/sanctification.
The perfect text for this is Ephesians. Notice in chapters 1-3 it is all about what God has done in Christ. These chapters are caked with what God has done (predestined) in Christ before the world began. It shows us who we once were and who we become by grace through faith in Christ and how unworthy anybody is of it. Only after this Gospel presentation does Paul begin chapter 4 with a “therefore…walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called.” Only after the Gospel do moral and ethical imperatives have any place (“therefore”).
Grace be with you –
Jr
Jr,
I would caution against going too far with the rejection of obedience in our conversion. I find it to be very biblical to speak of obedience as regards coming to God.
A prime verse would be 2 Thessalonians 1:8: “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” There is an aspect of the gospel that is to be obeyed. That also seems to be meaning of Romans 1:5 and 16:25-26.
In the same way, those who are not converted are referred to as “disobedient,” like Paul’s description of the Gentiles before their conversion in Romans 11:30. Even in the section of Ephesians which you reference. Paul speaks of the unconverted as “those who are disobedient” (Ephesians 2:2). [See also chapter 5]
God has commanded men to repent; failure to do so is disobedience. Failure to do so excludes us from the salvation God offers.
I’d also commend to your study the case of Cornelius. His prayers and gifts to the poor came up before God while he was still in an unsaved state. I’m not saying that he was saved because of these things, but these things led God to send someone to preach to him, at least according to Luke’s account in Acts 10.
Abraham’s obedience was a part of the faith that allowed him to be reckoned as righteous. We are called to the same kind of obedient faith.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
This might be the confusion: Is obeying “the Gospel” – and – “the Gospel” the same thing?
I see obedience as only possible within the context of Christ. Those outside Christ are, as the text cited says, disobedient (as we all are by nature, Eph 2:3). There is nobody who is truly clothed with Christ who, in the judgment, will be called disobedient. To the opposite end, there is nobody who is not clothed in Christ who, in the judgment, will be called obedient (no matter what they’ve done).
In regards to Abraham, his obedience proved out his faith. And was accounted to Abraham as righteousness was his belief (or, faith) in God (Gen 15:6, Rom 4:3, Gal 3:6, James 2:23). His works put his faith on display.
“Obedience of faith” is what follows in the life of one who is truly justified. All obedience is a fruit of faith.
1) God’s grace enables obedience
2)faith is the way we rely on that grace, so
3)obedience is the fruit of faith
Take repentance. I think we would all agree that repentance is certainly a necessary act of obedience. We would be right to question anybody who claimed faith yet refused repentance. But does repentance precede faith or is it a fruit of true faith enabled by God’s grace? It is certainly the latter.
Grace be with you –
Jr
Jr,
It seems to me that the problem comes from starting with certain assumptions about depravity, etc., then working from there, rather than starting from the text and working out.
Perfect example right there. Start with that assumption, and then you’ll make everything you see fit that assumption. Cornelius is a perfect example of someone that doesn’t fit that assumption, yet you change the story somehow to make it fit.
No. Obedience is a part of faith. Look at Hebrews 11. You can’t separate the two. If there is no obedience, there is no true faith. Faith doesn’t exist in some abstract apart from obedience.
Again, you’re superimposing this on the text. In the book of Jonah, the people of Nineveh repented from their sin and God relented from the punishment He had announced that He was going to bring on them. Try and lay aside prior assumptions and read Jonah chapter 3. I know it’s difficult, just as I struggle with my own prejudices. But read that chapter, and think about what went on there. God had a plan, man did something, and God was willing to change based on that action. We must have the courage to give God the sovereignty to act in the way that He sees fit.
Can you say “false dichotomy”? I thought you could. Here, I’ll pose one for you: “Does repentance precede faith or does man choose to believe and thereby enter in God’s grace?” Do such dichotomies help us reason? The problem isn’t just that you pose them to others; the problem is when you use them in your own reasoning.
It’s my conviction that faith is belief coupled with response, with action, with obedience. Without those things, it’s mere belief, like the Jews in John 12:42-43.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
The question “Is the sermon on the mount stupid?” I never really thought about this as something stupid. I never really thought about this at all. You see I don’t spend a lot
of time in the gospels. From a dispensational point of view, its not for us in this age of grace. I don’t think it to be stupid…….
Jr.,
Thanks for clarifying the correct word ‘teleios’ and not ‘telos’. I was just going from memory rather since I did not have my Greek Bible with me at the time. As you see, my memory is not without error. Nevertheless, there are still some options on how to translate this exceedingly difficult verse of Matt 5.38 (e.g., perfect, complete). However we translate, it seems to be a call to embrace a moral/ethical life as God embraces. That doesn’t mean we will do that flawlessly but it does mean that we obedient strive for a moral/ethical life as God ordains rather than creating our own terms such as the so-called ‘just-war criterion’ that has developed because the ethic of non-violence seems implausible (as though we are better judges than God).
Also, you said, “All obedience is a fruit of faith.” That separates obedience from faith. I am far from a NT Greek expert but from what I do know, the genetics construct of Romans 1.5 and 16.26 will not allow such a separation. That is why even though I liked the TNIV translation as a whole, I disagree with the translating of that genetive phrase as “faith and obedience” as though faith and obedience are two separate items.
Grace and Peace!
—————————–
This is a great dialogue and I enjoy the challenging discussion of all.
– Rex
Heavenbound,
How can we accept the grace of God that comes through Jedus Christ as for this age but then not accept the teachings of Jedus Christ as for this age?
Grace and Peace,
Rex
K. Rex: Grace comes by the cross as it is unmerited favor. I think those that spend too much time trying to understand obedience fail to consider that there is none righteous no not one. It is only thru the grace that God bestows on us that we even begin to have a relationship. Remember Christ is faithful where we are faithless.
Its thru the faith of Christ not the faith in Christ that saves. Only he can save and only he can bathe us in grace. It is what he did that abolishes sin in the eyes of God. Remember what happened when Christ says on the cross, why has though forsaken me? Talking with the Father, he could not look at the vileness sin brought upon the savior. Its all him and none of what we do that completes us. We are complete in Him. You won’t get this information in the gospels. Its not until Paul’s letters do we understand what grace is and how grace is imparted. Remember the blood still covered the holy of holies in the temple in an answer to sin in the gospels…….no longer is blood required…….from what Paul tells us
Heaven Bound,
You said, “its not until Paul’s letters do we understand what grace is and how grace is imparted.”
Matthew 1.21-23; John 1.14-18; Acts 2.22-41;…just to name a few passage in the Gospels/Acts which seem pretty clear about what grace is and how it is received. The simple fact is, if you throw out the teachings of Jesus you must throw out everything he said and did to be consistent. You do that and there is no grace! You do that and you remove the very cornerstone upon which salvation stands.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
It doesn’t become grace till we have a risen lord. Some one had to pay for the sin debt.
Grace is unmerited favor. Favor in whose eyes, God’s of course. Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel hear these words, it didn’t include any gentiles, did it. Pentecost is all Jewish,
the so called nations were aliens to the covenants and blessings that had been bestowed upon Israel. Progressive revelation is all thru the book of Acts and as we all know using Acts really shouldn’t be used as a proof text. It is a transitional book that takes Israel away from their position of favor and allows the gentiles to be included in the offer of salvation. Until Christ paid for sin on the cross, the sacrifice of animals and the temple was the only place for grace and of course we know that was only a foreshadow of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice.
H.B.,
Start with the Bible and work outward, and you’ll see a different story.
Pentecost was Jewish. It was a Jewish feast. It was a sermon given at the temple. Of course the audience was Jewish.
But the message of Pentecost wasn’t merely Jewish:
“And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,” (Acts 2:17)
“And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Acts 2:21)
“For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:39)
As we all know, we don’t “all know” the things that you want to impose on the text. Progressive revelation was a theory developed in the 19th century that has little to nothing to do with what the Bible actually says.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
P.S.—I’m done.
Tim: I really don’t think we are too far apart…
When I wrote “obedience as only possible through the context of Christ” I was making the point (as the rest of that paragraph went) that in the end, there is nobody who is outside of Christ who will hear the words “well done good and faithful servant.” Paul in Romans 2:14-16 tells of those who do not know God but still are accused by what they do know in their hearts. Cornelius, no matter how many prayers he sent up and alms he gave, would not be saved; which is why God sent Peter to him to tell Him that it is through Christ the King that salvation happens. Thus, Cornelius was saved when he believed. If he died not believing in Christ would God have said to Cornelius “well done good and faithful servant” because he said some prayers and gave some money (i.e. was “obedient?”).
You wrote, “If there is no obedience, there is no true faith.” I agree 100%! (again, 1 John 1:6 and other passages). As Francis Schaeffer said, “Love of the creature toward the Creator must include obedience or it is meaningless.” But where there is no faith, there is no obedience unto salvation.
Where I differ from you and Rex is that I see faith not as something unregenerate people come to on their own without the Spirit’s effectual choosing. It is not a false dichotomy to ask if you believe someone can repent prior to faith or if repentance comes from faith. Not in the least!
Faith is knowledge, assent, and trust. Repentance and obedience are fruit of the faith, done in faith empowered by the grace of God. If change of life does not follow pronouncement of faith then, as you have said, it is false faith. And as James said, without deeds of faith the faith is dead! I think we 100% agree on this point.
Appreciate the discussion. Grace be with you –
Jr
Jr.,
I think you stated well where the disagreement is. I think we can all agree though that we are glad that on the day of judgment we will need to pass a true or false exam on the perspectives of classic Calvinism vs. Arminianism and the later Classic Reformed Theology vs. The (so-called) New Perspective.
As always…it has been a great dialogue.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Pingback: What about the second mile? | Tim Archer's Kitchen of Half-Baked Thoughts