This is the third post in a series of posts looking at 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. Westmoreland-White describes “dodges” to the Sermon on the Mount, ways in which people seek to get around applying it today. (I might note that he is specifically discussing pacifism, so his comments at times focus on how the Sermon is applied at a national level)
Yesterday we looked at the Dispensational Dodge. Westmoreland-White calls the second view “The Preterist Dodge,” though he throws Albert Schweitzer’s views into the mix, so I don’t know that he’s talking about what I know as preterism. Anyway, this view is the view that Jesus’ teachings were only meant for the first century, for a church that expected the Second Coming to happen within their lifetime. Those holding this view argue that the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount are unsustainable over a long period of time and were only intended for the few decades following Jesus’ death.
Again, how we deal with the Sermon on the Mount really does reflect with how we deal with Jesus himself. If you follow the above argument to its logical extreme, we not only throw out the gospels, but pretty much the rest of the New Testament. While I’m not a big fan of slippery-slope arguments, I do get nervous any time someone starts discounting parts of the Bible, especially if they can’t give me firm parameters on when to ignore what the Bible says and when not to.
The fact that Christians of every generation become convinced that the Second Coming is right around the corner is undeniable. If you don’t believe me, check the billboards around this country. That fact shouldn’t change Christian morality nor Christian theology. We should be living the same way whether Jesus returns tomorrow or returns long after we are dead.
What has changed, I think, is the fear factor. We’re afraid to follow Jesus’ teachings. I know I am! Don’t worry about tomorrow, turn the other cheek… those things can lead you to be poor and oppressed. And they don’t preach well in a society of affluence. But that doesn’t keep them from being true.
Again I say, I don’t see how you can call yourself a Christian and not follow the teachings of Christ. God fearer, maybe. Christian, no.
Martin Lloyd-Jones calls the SoM “a protrait of a wise and godly man.” As a preterist, I see the SoM as the description of the saint who walks the streets of gold in the New Jerusalem. IOW, it is fully applicable AFTER the parousia, resurrection, judgment, which, as you point out, was expected to occur within the lifetime of the NT writers/recipiants.
Dan,
I may take up preterism in some future post. I hope you and other preterists would be willing to chime in. I’ve learned some about this view over the last few years, but need to learn more.
I’m glad that you agree that these teachings are still applicable today.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
If the first century followers of Jesus though his teaching was only for the first century, why did they pass it along? And why did the early post-apostolic generations of disciples pass his teachings on and eventually collect writings containing his teachings into a canon we call the New Testament when they surely would have known such teachings were only for the first century disciples?
And the question I would ask for those who want to make the Preterist move today… What’s to stop us then from saying the entire canon of New Testament scripture was not meant for only the first century? I believe any intelligent examination of how the canon of New Testament scripture came into being would undermine any notion of a Preterist claim.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Tim,
I have to agree with you that it is difficult to even imagine how someone who discounts the teachings of Jesus could claim to be His follower. You might claim that you follow in the sense of trying to keep abreast of the teachings and abreast of what His followers also teach, but that is certainly not discipleship. If I understand Luke’s writings correctly the matter of discipleship is key to being called a Chroistian – or at least it was when that term was first used.
I say that I ‘have to agree’ because I know no other basis upon which to make any claim about relationship with Jesus than through being led by Him. I understand following a leader, but am quite unfamiliar with claiming to be a follower of someone whose teachings I do not consider relevant at all to myself or others of my contemporaries. How does one even imagine a way to do that?
I have heard a lot of self-justifying arguments from folks who want to be able to claim to be ‘followers’ while ignoring one standard or principle or another as being intened only for a specific audience, but never anything remotely convincing. Even those things clearly spoken to a limited group of disciples were included when Jesus said, “go make disciples of all the ethnicities, immersing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you…” If all that Jesus taught them was to be passed down to the disciples they made (and it clearly was so intended), what is left to be ignored?
Blessings,
Grizz
Appreciate the input, Glenn. I am in agreement about the import of Matthew 28:19-20. Jesus’ teachings were meant to be taught to and obeyed by ALL nations.
What does it mean to be a Christian? By definition from what some have said it is to follow the earthly teachings. To be pure in heart, to be just and righteous, to repent, to go to church and become baptized, to tithe, to pray, to love one another, to turn the other cheek, to be meek, to take communion. To have faith and to show it thru works for James says faith without works is dead. My point is that there is a lot of doing
going on if this is your definition. If you want to stay in the gospels, John 3:16 would be a little contradictory to this. But I like the definition of You are saved by grace thru faith not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast. It is a gift of God. Eph 2:8-9
Now the gospels never mention the knowledge of the mystery, care to know why?
It was kept secret. It was given to Paul, there is a change in dealing with the believer.
Understanding this is the key to understanding the age of Grace Eph chapter 3
H.B.,
How can you pull verses out of Ephesians and not actually read what is there?
Read Ephesians 2:10 (don’t stop at 9). We were created for good works. Not in order to be saved. Because we are saved. Jesus’ teachings helps us know what those are.
Ephesians 3 says the mystery was revealed to the apostles. Two of the gospel writers were apostles. Two travelled with the apostles and learned from them. According to Paul, they had received the same mystery he had.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim: I guess we have a “bone of contention” Paul was expressly given by divine intercession of our risen Lord the knowledge of the mystery. I don’t know what particular event you are talking about. My point is that the knowledge of the mystery is that he should preach unto the gentiles Eph 3:1 and Eph 3:6 and contrast this with Matt. 15:23-28.
This is a very significant change in the approach of God’s plan of salvation.
It now includes gentiles as Paul states. Christ from his own mouth says he has come for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Verse 26 says “It is not right to take the children’s bread and cast it to dogs.” This is not symbolism this is exact wording coming from the Messiah. Not the risen Lord who Paul states has instructed him to go to the gentiles. In the gospels the offer is to Israel and no one else……..to sum up this point.
a. Offering of the kingdom is to Israel only
b. Gentiles in the gospels are look upon as dogs, Mark 7:27 Matt 7:6
c. knowledge of the mystery was given to Paul first and kept secret from the beginning of the foundation of the world.
in Eph 2:10 you have to read on in 11 and 12. Things have changed verse 12 says that the gentiles were cut off from the covenants of promise, strangers having no HOPE, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. This proves my point that a change has taken place since the gospels when the law was in place and Christ had only come to the lost sheep of Israel. Compare and contrast to see that a change had taken place.
The earthly ministry of Christ written in the 4 gospels is history of what took place during his time spent in Israel. He didn’t go to Rome, Egypt, or any other place for that matter. Why? to fulfill what the prophets had told Israel about THEIR Messiah and not the gentiles……
The Preterist view is a very interesting one. I didn’t know that this group actually was a formalized group until I went to investigate on line. The premise that everything occurred around the destruction of the temple deserves some consideration. When you look at what is in Revelation and how it ties in with the 4 gospels, what Christ was telling his disciples about his return that he says they will see, raises some valid questions.
Paul in his letters is pleading with the Jews to consider a new gospel, that a change has taken place and the law was fulfilled with the death and ressurection of our Lord.
Combine this with the offer to the gentiles and first the renting of the vail in the temple, then the complete destruction of Jeruselem, burning of the temple, and the enslavement of Jews and the dispersement that occurred after this cataclismic event.
Approximately 40 or so years after the cross, allows for discussion. Finally to further stimulate thought, what happened to the Christian movement right after this?
The preterist view is that a black hole occurred with out any Christian history until the second century. Where did the Christian movement go? Could there have been a rapture?
I am just raising some points here so don’t get all tense and hurt yourself.
Tim has peaked my interest on this. I for one don’t have church doctrine to deal with anymore as I have been thinking outside the box for some time…..Maybe its time to stretch out from our straight jackets and have some genuine dialogue about something we may think is beyond our safety net. Calm and intelligent dialogue never hurt anyone, has it?
H.B.,
Paul did have a ministry to the Gentiles. That’s not under question. The idea that he somehow received a different revelation than did the other apostles is what’s wrong. And Ephesians 3 is what contradicts that! Or is verse 5 one of those verses we’re not supposed to read?
Let’s see if quoting the passage helps:
“When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” (Ephesians 3:4-6)
The mystery had not been made known in other generations. But now (Paul’s now) it has been revealed to his holy apostles… plural. All of them. Not just Paul. In Paul’s generation, this mystery had been made known. It was announced at Pentecost, but not fully realized by Peter until he had the vision in Acts 10.
Now, on your points:
a. During Jesus’ ministry on earth, the kingdom was only announced within the borders of Israel, though some outsiders came to share in its benefits. Jesus then sent his followers to all nations, to announce the very same message. (Mt. 28:19-20; Mk 16:15-16; Lk 24:46-47; Jn 10:16; Acts 1:8)
b. Jesus used the common view of Gentiles in his teachings, just as he did the common view of tax collectors (Matt 5:46; 18:17; 21:31-32; Luke 18:13). One of the surprises of the Kingdom is how it includes those thought to be outcasts.
c. Again, read Ephesians 3:5. Paul himself says that the apostles received the same revelation.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
It looks like we are exchanging blows here and I don’t want people to have that perception. I rest on what the apostle Paul states about his own ministry. I rest on the fact that gentiles were not included in the ministry message of Christ. And as far as the kingdom is concerned I sight Psalms 22 and its depiction of the cross and the fact that the dogs encompass me v16. in reference to the(gentiles) Roman guards who pierced him and cast lots upon them. I don’t know how chrystal clear it has to be for someone to see this. To compare scripture with scripture ,to see how obvious it is, that something is quite different is going on. Between the gospels and the earthly ministry of Christ one must differentiate that a change has taken place with Paul and his ministry. It cannot be overlooked or ignored that dealing with sin has been consumed by the cross.
H.B.,
I like your last post: “I don’t want people to think we’re exchanging blows… so let me get in one last shot.”
You can’t explain away Ephesians 3:5. Paul places himself in the company of the “holy apostles” as far as the revelation he received. You can’t get away from his teachings about the Jews nor his utmost respect for the Law. You can’t even escape the fact that he himself continued to keep the Law long after his conversion. And you certainly can’t escape the fact that he expected people to be concerned about living in a godly way, even if you seem to see that as contrary to a belief in grace.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Your absolutely right Tim in that Paul in the latter part of Acts makes a Jewish vow. In the last chapter of Acts he is still pleading with Jews that another gospel is being preached.
But what his argument is, that the fact that the law is no longer valid. That gentiles no longer need to be prosylitized and that the Jews are on equal footing with gentiles.
Dispensationalists often argue the point of when salvation was being offered. I believe that it didn’t fully come till the end of Acts. But I must also point out that the miracles and healings were fading away. That the offering of the kingdom had finally ended. That the covenants that ran thru from Genesis to Revelation had ceased with the destruction of the Temple as the last significant action that God allowed to happen with Israel. That the literal, physical kingdom that Christ was initiating in the gospels had changed to a spiritual kingdom from the risen Christ.
Finally a change that included grace, forgiveness of sin and an end of any earthly relationship.
Paul never told the Jews that the Law was not valid for them. He had a much greater respect for the Law than you do.
If salvation wasn’t offered until the end of Acts, Jesus was wrong. And Peter. And Paul. Of course, you’d have to read parts of the Bible you don’t like to know that.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
P.S.—I’m done.