Concerning the Sermon on the Mount
From here:
But the Sermon is not just ethics, and even the ethics need to be taken in context of the whole book of Matthew. Who in Matthew loves his enemies? Who in that book doesn’t strike back at his enemies, but loves them? If you answered “Jesus,†give yourself a gold star. Hence, a lot of the prescriptive elements aren’t “This is as good as you need to be to merit God’s favor, and obviously you can’t fulfill that, so wait for Paul to explain justification by faith to you;†they’re “This is who I am, and if you follow me, this is what you will become.†According to Jesus in the Sermon, the Church’s lot in the world is poverty and persecution, and it is ruled by love. Jesus is telling people what the Church is, what it looks like, and how life in it is going to be. That’s why Matthew wraps the thing up with:
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.â€
Now if you agree with that at all this has implications for the following:
- Western (European and American) style church buildings and cathedrals.
- Politically minded Christians - demanding our rights, or that people be forced to do what we want, whether that’s gay marriage, AIDs relief, welfare or abortion.
- The idea that ministers and preachers should be a respected office with a special status afforded to it by society.
- Treating any group or individual as an enemy that must be marginalized, disrespected, verbally abused, disenfranchised, ignored, degraded or destroyed. This includes groups like bullies, Republicans, Democrats, illegal immigrants, liberal Christians, fundies, retail employees, abortion doctors, homosexuals, Muslims, members of your church and any other group or person out there.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Perhaps you can explain more on how or what those implications would be. For example, on church buildings, is the implication that we should not have certain kinds of church buildings–large, ornate, or whatever? Or that Christians should not bother about influencing the leaders of whatever country they are in?
February 14th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Yeah, Tim, I really don’t get the point. Can you help me out?
February 14th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Tim, I think I know some of what you are thinking and probably wholeheartedly agree. But this isn’t one of those things you can be brief with (as evidenced by the previous comments) because not everybody is where you are in their reading, thinking, development, etc. Bring us along in your journey and discovery. Even if you aren’t at the end uf it, bring us up to date so that we can have a better conversation about it.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I was focusing primarily on that line and focusing it on the items in the numbered list.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Very correct.
the sermon on the mount isn’t the ideal, it is the standard.
Far too often, the sermon on the mount is treated as some lofty ideal that no one can reach, but hey we are saved by grace anyway, so no biggie, right?
Did Jesus really mean what he said in Matt 5-7?
If the answer is YES then what does that say about American Christianity?
Bruce
February 14th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
That we’re hypocrites.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I would encourage everyone to look at Dallas Willard’s take on the Sermon the Mount. I really think his view makes a lot more sense than the way it’s traditionally taught.
He basically says Jesus is proclaiming the start of the Kingdom of God, announcing that it is available to the poor, the meek, etc. The latter part of the sermon is descriptive of life in the Kingdom opposed to life under the law of the Pharisees.
The main point is that it descriptive rather than prescriptive. It’s not Jesus piling on new rules or instituting a new law, as I’ve heard some make it out to be.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Well there is…”The Law of Christ”…
But that’s pretty simple.
Joe
February 14th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Phil,
Correct.
It is “this is what a follower of me looks like”
It is real esy to allow the discussion to get into a law vs. grace debate……..but the only questions for me has been:
does the Sermon on the Mount apply to me?
Did Jesus really mean what he said?
If the answers are YES, YES then I have to look in the mirror and say……..so then what kind of Christian am I?
In my dispensational days it was easy to get around the Sermon on the Mount. Old Covenant. Before the Cross. Meaningless after the Cross. Paul, he da man!
Bruce
February 14th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
If we believe that Paul was Christ’s chosen revelator to the church, then his writings are the ecclesiastical interpretation of the New Testament. Jesus said many things that if taken literally would prsent a problem in application and an paradox to the writings of Paul. Justification by faith itself is blurred in the gospels until Paul’s wrintings, and even those disciples who lived and listened to Jesus still had problems with understanding after Pentecost.
Many time Jesus spoke to the Jews, many times our Lord spoke with metaphorical majesty, and many times He spoke in mysteries. He calls everyone to forsake all and yet who ascribes literallness to that? He called His disciples physically away from their lives but who leaves, as Jesus said, family and land and money to follow Him today?
Paul is to the church as moses was to Israel and without rightly dividing the Word we all can grasp the elephants tail and claim complete revelation. The sermon on the mount is a great message from Christ to His people, but its application must be understood within the context of Paul.
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2006/10/unique-calling-of-apostle-paul-in.html
February 14th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Rick,
So are you saying I shouldn’t take Jesus literally?
What does Paul teach that would invalidate anything in the Sermon on the Mount or cause us to not accept Christ’s teaching just as it is given?
Why would we set Paul up as the superior interpreter rather than the other way around? Maybe Paul got it wrong?
Or maybe our interpretation of Paul is wrong? Or maybe some of what Paul wrote is only date/time/circumstance specific?
BTW, Rick I think Jesus really did mean for us to forsake all. We have to interpret it, but he did mean it.
What I find interesting in most discussions on Matt 5-7 is that we spend most of our time discussing why it doesn’t apply or why it doesn’t mean what it says, etc rather than discussing how to live out what Jesus did teach. When do we cross the line to where we are simply living in disobedience to what Christ taught?
Bruce
February 14th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I’ve been preaching through the sermon on the mount for the last year and a half. My favorite resources have been Willard’s ‘Divine Conspiracy’, and even better, Glen Stassen/Stan Gushee’s ‘Kingdom Ethics’ (wonderful, wonderful book).
February 14th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
What if some preacher was saying that in order to be saved you must sell all that you have and give it to the poor, would we consider him doctrinally sound? That is exactly what Jesus told a man who asked how he could inherit eternal life. So how do we interpret what the Lord said since not many receive it literally?
That is my point. Jesus was extremely hard on divorce, even calling some who remarry “adulterers”. Would you or I encourage that talk today? The gospels are narratives and the words of our Lord were either literal or metaphors and parables that taught literal truths. But the epistle are teaching to the church, ordained by Christ, and given through his servants and especially Paul.
Jesus says if you eye sins pluck it out, Paul says reckon yourselves dead unto sin. By the way, Jesus said on the sermon on the mount that we should rejoice when persecuted. Yea, we all take that literally don’t we?
Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God. Without some Pauline teaching that provides doctrinal revelation to the church what does that mean? Peacemakers are the children of God? Does that mean FDR, or Kissinger, or the members of the United Nations? Of course not, and when we incorperate the teaching letters to the church we can see what true peace is in Christ, the Prince of Peace.
Paul is as Moses was.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Rick,
Quite Frankly I am amazed.
Jesus meant what he said about divorce.
Can a man be a follower of Christ if he refuses to repent? If that repentance means leaving /selling all that he has? In repentance, everyone of us comes to that place where we must turn from and turn to. That point is different for everyone of us.
I think we are so far apart on this I can’t think of any way to find a common ground? You basically dismiss all of the teachings of Christ in favor of Paul’s spin on them. If Paul didn’t address it do we THEN take Jesus at his word? On what authority would Paul change ANY of the teachings of Christ?
I am utterly, totally, dumbfounded here. Really.
Bruce
February 14th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Rick,
I kind of confused to what you’re saying exactly. Don’t you think the people who were in the original audience knew what Jesus was talking about for the most part? Sure there were some things they clearly misunderstood, but I think the most part he was communicating something that made sense to them.
Also, Paul didn’t have the written gospels at his disposal when he wrote his epistles, so it’s doubtful he knew everything they contained. He probably knew some of the stories that had been passed down through oral tradition, but I don’t think he would think of himself as clarifying things Jesus said.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Paul’s doctrinal teachings interpret the teachings of Christ. You can spin the divorce teaching Bruce but that is NOT what Jesus said and you know it. Phil, Paul did not need the written gospels, he learned at the feet of Jesus Himself. Paul says he did not learn anything from the other apsotles, He learned it directly from Jesus post resurrection. Waht other apostle says that?
Even Peter claimed Paul’s authority and acquiesced to him in Acts. Peter says Paul’s teachings are so deep they are hard to comprehend. Paul’s teachings are not at odds with the teachings of Jesus, as a matter of fact they are all the teachings of Jesus. Man put His words in red, but the entire Bible should be in red.
Jesus ordained Paul before he was born (Corinthians) in order to further define his teachings. I am saying Paul is the conduit that helps define the truth of Christ. Jesus even told His apostles that He would tell them many things after the Holy Spirit came to guide, so even our Lord revealed a coming teaching ministry to the church through the New Testament. I remember one group who based their entire belief system of what Jesus said, they are called The Way International and they sold all and preached everywhere. Why are they wrong?
I will tell you why they are wrong - the teachings of Paul.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Rick,
Please stop.
Jesus was dead and gone before Paul became an apostle. Acts 9
Basically, we are the Church Paul built.
Sorry, but I have to stop.
Bruce
February 14th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Gal.1:11-12 - But I certify you, brethren, that the gosepl which is preached of me is not after man. For I neither recieved it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal.1:15-18 - But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by His grace to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter…
“Jesus was dead and gone before Paul became an apostle. Acts 9″
?
February 14th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Jesus was dead and gone before Paul was converted in Acts 9. (where he was called by grace)
Bottom line, while Jesus was on earth Paul did not sit at his feet. Until his conversion on the Road to Damascus he was an active persecutor of the followers of the Way.
Bruce
February 14th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Bruce and others…
I think we need to listen to Rick instead of always sticking to our guns and never actually saying “you know what…you might be saying something true, I might have to actually change my initial stance…” That barely ever happens…and I’m inclined to agree with what Rick is saying. He’s not saying anything wrong. I think he’s being unfairly disregarded and his argument hasn’t been addressed well at all.
Just saying.
Joe
February 14th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
So Bruce, you are denying that Paul was taught by revelation of Jesus Christ?
Another proof that you don’t believe the Gospel, which was lived by Christ, completed by His death and resurrection, and communicated to us so that we could understand it by the Apostles, including Paul. Are you claiming that Paul was not an apostle? Are you claiming that the risen Christ sis not teach Paul?
February 14th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
And that line that the whole Bible should be in Red Letters?
Brilliant.
February 14th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Woa…PB…you took that way too far. Jeeze.
I hope Jesus is pleased with what you said…(I’m not).
February 14th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
We must never elevate Paul to the status of the divine Christ, howver Jesus Himself had a plan to guide and teach the church and at the forefront of that plan was Paul. Just as Jehovah met face to face with Moses so it was with Paul. And Paul even admits that God allowed him to be attacked by a thorn in the flesh because of the abundance of the revelations given to Paul.
And the great apostle still says he is the greatest sinner and the least of the apostles. Why didn’t the Lord use Peter to write thirteen epsitles, after all, he sat at Jesus’ feet while he was on this earth? Why did God sovereignly whisk Paul away on the road to Damascus? Why did God speak to Moses in the burning bush and Paul in the burning sun?
Brothers, the words of Christ are elevated and lifted up in the teachings of Paul, for in reality, they are the teachings of Christ as explained by God’s Spirit. Read the parable of the sheep and goats by the Lord and without the teachings of Paul you can erroneously arrive at a social gospel. (When I was hungry, etc.) There is a perfect harmony to the entire Word of God.
February 14th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Pastorboy,
I am trying real hard to be nice here. and I ain’t smiling. I am tired of you accusing me of denying the gospel. You are publicly discrediting me and are lying about it. So stop. If you can’t stop then it is time for me to avoid CRN.info. I have had enough of your type of Christianity.
Now to your questions, albeit not realy questions, accusations.
Yes Paul was an Apostle. Did I say otherwise?
Paul was NOT an apostle when Jesus was alive on earth. He was a Christ hating, Christian killing Jew. I n30 years of preaching I have never heard on person suggest Paul was an apostle while Jesus was alive on earth.
I think the Scripture is clear. It was not the Resurrected Christ that taught Paul but the Ascended Christ. Get your theology straight.
BTW,I believe ALL of the Bible is the Word of God and to suggest otherwise is dishonest. Just because I don’t subscribe to your version of inerrancy does not mean that I do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Evidently I believe the NT has 4 more books than some do.
That’s all I have to write to you Pastorboy. End of discussion. Yes, you have finally succeeded in getting under my skin.
Happy Valentines Day.
Joe C,
I am sorry but I disagree. I find Rick’s contentions far outside the norm of orthodoxy on this issue. I am baffled at how anyone could think otherwise.
But, the bottom line is this………..Rick is using this argument to negate his responsibility to follow the teachings of Christ as they were given by Christ himself.
Bruce
February 14th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
“Rick is using this argument to negate his responsibility to follow the teachings of Christ as they were given by Christ himself. ”
Wow…
February 14th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
PB,
Climb own off your ladder — the point was that claiming Paul’s words as somehow incongruent with, or superseding, those of Jesus is just plain wrong.
Jesus’ words make a great deal of sense, and he did mean what he said, though when we take them too literally (in Western/Greek style), then we don’t interpret them correctly.
Example:
Actually, the teaching is most accurately interpreted to be that if a woman divorces a man because of another man, and then marrys the other man, THAT is condemned as “adultery”… The rendering of Hebrew to Greek and (primarily) the further move from Greek to English has blurred it…
Certainly Paul was an apostle and his words to the churches are inspired, but that does not mean that they somehow “trump” what Jesus said, or that we should emphasize them above the words of the Messiah…
February 14th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
“Certainly Paul was an apostle and his words to the churches are inspired, but that does not mean that they somehow “trump†what Jesus said, or that we should emphasize them above the words of the Messiah… ”
Come on, Chris. No one ever implied that. My simple point was that Paul’s teachings were further revelations of Christ’s teachings. I never would say “trump”, I say reveal and explain. A major difference.
February 14th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
And the word “trump” implies incongruency which there is not.
February 14th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Bruce, friend…
That’s not what Rick is saying. He is basically saying we must interperet the Bible with the Bible, and consider it’s total context, of all the books, when discerning one teaching from another. To do otherwise…kinda skews things.
This was unnecessary and mean. It’s not even true. Where did Rick SAY we should negate the responsibility to follow Christ? What you did here is what we accuse the ODMs of doing. Blatently. But everyone makes mistakes, its OK.
But really, what Rick IS saying, I think, is that we are to follow Christ’s teachings, and we need to understand them in the context of all of God’s revelation. And at a fundamental level, this MUST be true.
Don’t act like we’re outside of orthodoxy on this Bruce, that’s just a form of false logic…I don’t know what it’s called…I think it’s something like “making a ridiculous statement to discredit”, and using explosive language like “I am baffled” etc to make us look stupid. =(. I don’t understand how considering the Bible as a whole is outside of orthodoxy. Paul does explain many of the things Jesus taught, and that can’t be discounted.
That’s how I feel. Respect my feelings. lol.
Joe
February 14th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
But Rick,
It seems like you ARE implying “trumping” when you say things like:
Jesus parable is EXACTLY about one of the primary responsibilities of the Gospel - the aspect of voiceless compassion - which Paul echoes in Ephesians 2:10 and elsewhere. Unfortunately, many take Paul’s words regarding evangelism (i.e. the Great Commission) as an argument against the Second Greatest Commandment…
February 14th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Joe and Rick - I agree that we have to take the WHOLE of scripture, but I think that too often we become careless with the red letters…
February 14th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Joe C,
I make no judgments about Rick, you, or anyone else. Not my job.
My statement was not ridiculous. As I am reading Rick’s position that is the conclusion I come to. I may be wrong, but please don’t put words in my mouth. You don’t know me well enough……
Rick believes, best I can tell that we are not to take any of the teachings of Jesus at face value. They ALL must be interpreted through the grid of Paul. I don’t believe that and I have never encountered such teaching in 30 years of ministry.
As New Covenant people we are people of the New Testament. ALL of it.
So Jesus says one thing on divorce and Paul says another? Rick says, I am going with Paul. I say I am going with both of them and will try my best to understand the nuances and differences between the two.
I see Rick’s position as this………….the teachings of Christ are sucked up into the teachings of Paul. Paul is the final word. I don’t believe that.
Here is what I want from Rick. Please give me the teachings of Christ that you believe are countermanded, superseded or explained differently by Paul? Perhaps that is where the argument lies, in exegeting the verses properly.
Bruce
February 14th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Yeah I see that too Chris, with the red letters, but I’m definitely NOT advocating ignoring the ‘red letters’ at all. I’m trying to imply, like Rick did, that the whole Bible is “red letters”.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Bruce, I’m sorry if you thought I put words in your mouth. Didn’t mean to. Forgive me…
I don’t believe any part of the Bible supercedes another. I don’t believe Jesus needs to be interpreted through the grid of Paul because I believe what Paul wrote was from Jesus, ie, Jesus approved. I’m not sure what else to say. I’m definintely in agreement with you here:
I’m just saying…like Rick was saying…and Chris L was saying….we should consider the whole context of Scripture, without discounting the ‘red letters’ of course, which are no more or less inspired than what Paul or Peter wrote.
I’m not saying you disagree with that either, Bruce. Thanks for your time.
Joe
February 14th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
“Please give me the teachings of Christ that you believe are countermanded, superseded or explained differently by Paul?”
There are none. For instance, the sheep and goats parable must mean that these acts validate true sheep not are what saves them. Jesus did not expain that theology, but Paul did. Of course Christ does give hints at it (i.e. Jn.3:16), but there are many, and I mean many, who have taken Jesus’ expressions of compassion to the least of these and turned them into works theology.
But when understood in the context of the epistles, we see what the Lord was saying. It is wrong to also downplay Paul as if Jesus words are not Paul’s. To whom was the law given? Moses. Are we to elevate the words of Moses above Jehovah’s words in the Old Testament, no, Moses was God’s mouthpiece. Same with Paul.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
BTW - These are the most productive kind of conversations when we can avoid personal invectives. This is what we need. We are not talking about people or who is getting a divorce or Ken Silva or Rob Bell, etc., we are comparing Scripture with Scripture and if you do not agree with me at least you were chaleged to defend and dig deeper about your own beliefs.
Iron sharpens iron, no?
February 14th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Good point Rick. No one can set up the false logic of “Do you think Paul’s words need to interpret what Jesus said”….that assumes that Jesus didn’t approve of what Paul said…that assumes that what Paul said isn’t what Jesus said….it makes it seem like Paul wasn’t as divinely inspired as the people who recorded Jesus earthly ministry by the same guidance of the Holy Spirit. It just makes for weirdness of logic, I think.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
I never said Paul’s teaching superceded Jesus’ teaching. I said Paul was taught directly by Jesus and Paul’s writings expanded and on and explained Jesus’ teachings, but all the teachings came from Jesus. Paul was a mouthpiece.
And Bruce, you asked for me to show when you are departing from the Gospel. I simply pointed out another one. The whole scripture is God-breathed- not just your red letters.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Pastorboy,
Where did I say only the red letters are inspired? Actually, I asked you to write an article showing my denial of the gospel. You couldn’t come up with anything so I you posed ten questions. I answered. All orthodox answers. You speak with lying lips to suggest otherwise.
Joe,
Sorry I don’t buy the logic that Jesus said __________in AD 33 and by AD 52 Jesus told Paul he meant this, or that he wants to supersede his original command with a new one. I am thinking of the divorce issue here. Remember Jesus appealed to Moses. So Paul supersedes Moses and Jesus?
Once again I am saying ALL the Bible is God’s Word. Paul doesn’t contradict Jesus. Paul doesn’t supersede Jesus.
So what do we do with the contradictions between Jesus and Paul?
1. We can accept Rick’s position
2. We can accept both teachings as true and try to harmonize them, believing that the Scripture is not the problem but our understanding is.
Is everything that Paul wrote binding on us today? I hope no one says YES. Some of what Paul wrote was his personal conviction (or opinion). Some of what Paul wrote was date/time/circumstance specific. (women head coverings, women silent in the Church) Some of what Paul wrote was culturally specific (i.e owning slaves) So, this is hardly a simple matter.
Paul must be interpreted just as all Scriptures must be interpreted..
Bruce
February 14th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Dude…no.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
that was to PB…
February 14th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I still reject the “supercede” characterization. I believe the teachings of Paul are the ecclesiastical skeleton which hold the New Testament together. Let me provide another example.
When Jesus was washing the disciple’s feet He said He was givng them an example that they should do as He had done. So why do some churches command foot washing and most do not? If Paul had mentioned foot washing we all would be doing it, but because Paul makes no refernce to it we then can assume and understand the Master was teaching something more than foot washing. Servanthood.
See, Paul’s teaching do not supercede the teachings of Christ, they illuminate them.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
The problem is, Rick, that we are dealing with a generation of ‘white space christians’ who want to mix their own interpretations of what Jesus didn’t say, rather than allow for the fact that Paul could possibly have been inspired by God and taught by Jesus. They want to deny the teachings of Paul because it isn’t comfortable to them that homosexuality is a sin, and that women have a specific role in the church. They believe that the social gospel saves and brings the kingdom to earth, rather than Jesus’ blood saving and that there will be a new heaven and new earth that will come by God.
They are vain philosophers, like the ones Paul spoke with on Mars Hill They hang out in places like Solomon’s Porch in minneapolis, talking about ‘non identical repetition’ rather than the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ.
Thank you, Rick, for your brilliant insight.