Sermon On the Mount: Just to Jews Under Old Covenant?

F

frog

Puritan Board Freshman
I heard a preacher recently arguing that the Sermon on the Mount does not apply to Christians. He said that you need to read the context, and Jesus is speaking to Jews and they're still in the old covenant. Since we're not under the old covenant anymore and we're not ethnic Jews, then it doesn't apply to us anymore. Thus, anything that is said about the law there doesn't apply to us.

This view seems quite damaging, as it would seem to almost put a big red X through anything prior to the inauguration of the new covenant at the Lord's supper.

I think the view is wrong and it's probably wrapped up in how the old and new covenants relate, and what it means for the old covenant to be obsolete, but I'm not sure how to address this view.

How would you address this view?
 
The New Testament asserts that the Old Testament is good for all sorts of instruction (2 Timothy 3:16), revealing Christ (Luke 24:44), promoting faith (2 Timothy 3:15), the gospel (Hebrews 4:2), worship (Hebrews 9:1ff), examples of faith (Hebrews 11) & the like. So it would be beyond the pale to hold that if the canon that the old covenant believer possessed is for the Christian today that any of Jesus' teaching would somehow be otherwise.
 
Lack of kingdom of God in what he said.

Further, Jesus is the new Israel. But I can’t expand on the implications of that here in response.
 
frog said:
I heard a preacher recently arguing that the Sermon on the Mount does not apply to Christians. He said that you need to read the context, and Jesus is speaking to Jews and they're still in the old covenant. Since we're not under the old covenant anymore and we're not ethnic Jews, then it doesn't apply to us anymore. Thus, anything that is said about the law there doesn't apply to us.

This view seems quite damaging, as it would seem to almost put a big red X through anything prior to the inauguration of the new covenant at the Lord's supper.

I think the view is wrong and it's probably wrapped up in how the old and new covenants relate, and what it means for the old covenant to be obsolete, but I'm not sure how to address this view.

How would you address this view?
Click to expand...
It is dispensationalism through and through and ought to be rejected and condemned emphatically.

It is a horrible error.
 
I’ve always thought the sermon on the mount is Jesus expounding on the law, taking it from mere externals to the heart. Of course, this is to show our inability to keep the law even if we stick to the externals.


Does the above fit the classic law-gospel hermeneutic in Reformed theology?
 
Last edited:
Yes, there are kingdom ethics that Jesus sets forth in his SOTM. If possible, his kingdom demands are greater than the demands Moses laid down in the Law he brought down from another mountain top; at the very least, Jesus announced that he came to fulfill that Law. The Pharisees' claims to keep that Law were not fulfillment, not enough no matter what they thought of themselves; and Jesus said the righteousness demanded of his citizens had to be more than theirs.

V1 of Mt.5 is more important than it seems, as it explains that Jesus disciples came to him, where he received them graciously even before he teaches them. Hearing him proclaim the arrival of the kingdom of heaven in his Person, hearing the lofty requirements, it must have made the most serious and devoted disciple realize: "I want nothing more than to remain with this Mediator, close to God, to be a member of his kingdom. However, in myself I cannot possibly be regarded as a rightful citizen. Honesty compels me to admit I am not righteous enough. Yet, Lord, if you will have me... I want a place here, forever beside you. I must have what I cannot earn, what I cannot deserve. I realize I must have YOU for my righteousness. Grace alone can make me part of your kingdom."

Of course, the SOTM is for Christ's New Covenant people. It is suitable for none other.
 
I grew up in dispensational circles and so this was not an uncommon view. But it is certainly interesting to see that the Scriptures already address such an argument.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17

"Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”" Luke 24:44


For circles that often pride themselves in "literalism" as a mark of interpreting Scripture, they did not always like to take Jesus' own words literally.

And of course many of the writings of the apostles in the letters then unfold what it means to see the law fulfilled and how that is summed up in Jesus' sermon on the mount. So many epistles address these very stances that dispensationalists bring up.

The law is not abolished but fulfilled in Christ. And if we, as new testament Christians, are united to Christ through the Holy Spirit, then we should love the law of the Lord, for he has fulfilled it, and the law is written on our hearts. Therefore, the law becomes a delight and not something to be cast away as if it has no relevance.

Letters such as Galatians and Hebrews and James (and many more), consider these objections and work through how we are in relationship to the law both in the old and new covenants. Much ink has been spilled on this very topic within Scripture. So, I find that is certainly one of the best places to turn when engaging in this discussion.


An aside, but if you want a good primer on covenant view of scripture, read: Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? by Keith A Mathison - It is a good primer for approaching dispensationalism and for introducing covenant theology. For me, the covenant view of scripture was what really allowed me to see Christ more surely and confidently through history in a way I had not prior. It helped many doctrines fall into place.
 
De Jager said:
It is dispensationalism through and through and ought to be rejected and condemned emphatically.

It is a horrible error.
Click to expand...
As part of our home school, I had all my kids memorize the Sermon on the Mount (so incidentally I did as well) by going around each one saying a verse until it was all done. While they each only said one of every five verses, they all heard the other four and waited for cues and so they basically learned the whole thing. I was very pleased with the idea.

A (reformed Pres Calvinist) brother visited one day and expressed negativity about me teaching them all such "legalism." I was quite dismayed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top