Criswell Theological Review 6.1 (1992) 3-14
Copyright © 1992 by The
APPLYING THE SERMON ON THE
MOUNT: ONCE YOU HAVE READ IT
WHAT DO YOU DO WITH IT?
DAVID CRUMP
Immanuel
Christian Reformed Church
Introduction
Christians,
indeed scholars of all sorts, never seem to tire of study-
ing the Sermon on the Mount.1
The wealth of literature dealing with
these three chapters in Matthew's gospel is
overwhelming. J. Car-
mignac's study on the Lord's
Prayer concludes with an 84 page bibli-
ography on that part of the
Sermon alone.2 W. S. Kissinger lists nearly
150
pages of bibliography on the Sermon.3
The interested Bible student can
easily feel himself crushed be-
neath this avalanche of
material, not all of it necessarily helpful, for
once all of the critical investigations are
finished, one still has to reach
1 The reader will notice
that this article lacks the extensive notation found in
others in this issue. The reason for this is the
comparative lack of literature directly ad-
dressing the issues involved in the practical,
contemporary application of the Sermon
on the Mount. Cursory comments are sometimes made
in the better commentaries,
R
Guelich, The
Sermon on the Mount, (Waco, TX: Word, 1982) is a good example of this.
But,
as one would expect, the space constraints and exegetical emphasis of such
works
prevent any principal analysis and thorough
outworking of the details of real applica-
tion. More popular
treatments offer more extensive practical discussions but seldom, if
ever, reflect upon or justify their own
presuppositions or method; for example, see
D.
M. Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on
the Mount, (
1959,
1960);
Christian
Counter-Culture,
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1978).
2 Recherches sur le "Notre Pere"
(Paris: Letouzey & Ane,
1969),
3 The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography
(Metuchen: Scarecrow, 1975).
4
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
some conclusions about what you do with the Sermon on the Mount.
At
least, this should be the important question for those followers of
Jesus
who believe his teaching continues to make demands upon their
lifestyle today. How is the Sermon to be applied
now, not just in
vague generalities, but specifically? Does it really
demand nonresis-
tance of all disciples in all
situations? Should I actually be willing to
surrender all my belongings to anyone who wants to
sue me?
This article will attempt to offer
some suggestions for answering
these sorts of questions, indicating how Christians
can continue to
take the ethics of the Sermon seriously while
avoiding the two most
common extremes of: 1) absolutizing
isolated sayings of Jesus by ig-
noring their broader canonical
context, or; 2) flatly ignoring or ex-
plaining away Jesus' teaching as
being unrealistic.
As the writer of Ecclesiastes said,
"There is nothing new under
the sun." Modern approaches to the Sermon's
application can best be
understood by briefly looking at the history of its
interpretation. Space
limitations require focusing only on major trends,
but this will be ad-
equate for our purposes.
History of Interpretation
The Church Fathers
Prior to the medieval period it is
clear that the Sermon on the
Mount
was viewed as a straightforward presentation of Christian
ethics. Beginning with the Didache
through the apostolic and post-
apostolic fathers, this teaching was held to
represent the Lord's expec-
tations of his disciples. Much
of the discussion focused upon Jesus'
relationship to the OT law, but
regardless of how one might answer
that question, and irrespective of the exegetical
method used (whether
Chrysostom's Antiochene
straightforwardness, or Origen's
Alexan-
drian allegory), there was no
suggestion that Jesus' teaching was unre-
alistic, or that it might
relate only to some future era of the coming
kingdom. Origen's
youthful castration, by his own hand, performed in
obedience to Matt 5:27-30, shows how seriously
Jesus' teaching could
be applied by some (though later in life Origen regretted his sponta-
neity, and would have
interpreted this passage differently).
The Middle
Ages
The medieval theologian, Thomas
Aquinas, introduced a major
development in the popular interpretation of the
Sermon on the
Mount
through his great treatise, the Summa Theologica. Here
Aquinas
claimed that there were two levels of significance to Jesus'
teaching: one which was relevant for all
Christians; and a second
David
Crump: APPLYING THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 5
which applied only to a few. This was his distinction
between com-
mandments (also called precepts)
and counsels (also called evangelical
counsels or counsels of perfection). Jesus'
commandments must be
obeyed by anyone who hoped to inherit eternal life.
But the precepts
were additional, optional instructions which brought
the disciple
closer to perfection and facilitated the true
imitation of Christ. These
precepts covered three areas: poverty; chastity;
and obedience. Conse-
quently, there were now two
"types" of Christians (generally, the laity
and those involved in the various priestly/monastic
movements), and
the Sermon was believed to teach some things which
were too diffi-
cult for the average believer.
The Reformation
The Reformation saw three basic
trains of thought develop
among those who shared in the reawakened
understanding of salva-
tion by grace alone. Martin
Luther developed a view of Christian eth-
ics defined by the presence
of "two kingdoms" in this life, the
in both. Behavior must be determined not only by
personal convic-
tions, which for the
Christian are largely shaped by the presence of
God's
kingdom, but also by public obligations and responsibility,
shaped by the laws of the land.
In forging this ethical system
Luther was interacting with two
different "opponents." First, Luther was
rejecting the works righ-
teousness approach to Christian
living fostered by Aquinas' theology
of the counsels of perfection. For Luther, all of
the Sermon on the
Mount
was relevant to all believers. No one could escape its radical
demands because it was Christ's word to his
church, but neither
should anyone feel the need to escape this part of
Jesus' teaching;
there was no hierarchy of salvation because all were
saved by grace.
Secondly, Luther was also rejecting
the enthusiasm (as it was
called) of the various Anabaptist groups who insisted
upon a very
strict, literal application of all facets of the
Sermon's teaching (see be-
low). Luther saw the Anabaptist rejection of any
Christian participa-
tion in society as an
abdication of Christian responsibility, as well as a
misunderstanding of Jesus' intention. In
Luther's mind, life in the
mon's demands in the personal
life of every believer. This required
behavior which was simply the overflow of a heart
filled with the love
of Christ.
4 For a good introduction
to Luther's view of the two kingdoms, see P. Althaus,
The Ethics of Martin
Luther
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972).
6
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
On the other hand, a Christian's
responsibilities in the world may
at times demand behavior which, on the surface,
appears to be in
conflict with the ethics of God's kingdom. But
such apparent conflicts
are only superficial. As long as the Christian
maintains a heart of love,
he can fulfill his outward duty to society while
inwardly conforming to
the expectations of Christ. For example, when a
Christian judge pun-
ishes some wrongdoer,
outwardly he may not be "turning the other
cheek" (Matt 5:39), but if he loves the criminal
with the love of God, he
is being a faithful citizen of both the heavenly
and earthly kingdoms.
The second stream of Reformation
interpretation was found in
the Anabaptist movement. The Anabaptists read the
Sermon on the
Mount
as the central piece of biblical teaching for all believers. It was
to be interpreted and applied literally. As
citizens of the new King-
dom of God, the Anabaptists
withdrew from participation in civil gov-
ernment and rejected all
notions of a state church. Consequently,
Christian
ethics were for Christians alone; not only could they not be
applied to society at large, but it would be
damaging for any Christian
to attempt such an application. You cannot
successfully participate in
civil government and live according to the principles
of "loving your
enemies," "judging not lest you be
judged," etc. Therefore, since all as-
pects of Jesus' teaching were
to be strictly followed, the Christian had
no choice but to withdraw from any participation
in this world order.
The
related to one another.
The third approach to applying the
Sermon among the Reform-
ers was articulated by such
leaders as Huldreich Zwingli and John
Calvin.
These men sought to establish Christian, theocratic states in
the Swiss cities of
chitects of a reformed
world-view which strived to see all aspects of
life brought under the domain of Christ, including
the state and civil
authority. They rejected both the two-kingdom
ethic of Luther, as
well as the isolationist conclusions of the
Anabaptists. For these men
there was only one realm of existence, the
Christians
were obligated to apply this perspective to all aspects of
life in this world, including business and government.
However, Zwingli and Calvin were not
naive. They realized that,
at certain points, strict, literal application of
some facets of the Ser-
mon's teaching were
incompatible with the successful enforcement of
civil law. The Sennon's
teachings on nonviolence, nonresistance, pass-
ing judgment and swearing
oaths were particularly troublesome is-
sues; hotly debated among all branches of the
growing Reformation
leadership. Though Zwingli and Calvin had slightly
different meth-
ods of arriving at their
conclusions, they both, in effect, made the
David
Crump: APPLYING THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 7
needs of civil order an overriding presumption in
their method of in-
terpretation. Consequently, those
features of the Sermon's teaching
which appeared incompatible with effective government
were mod-
erated in one way or another.
Reformed Scholasticism
The post-reformation Protestants
began a process of codifying
the various tenets of the different branches of
reformed thought
which came to be known as reformed orthodoxy or
scholasticism. The
Puritans
would be the progenitors of the long term influence of this
theology in the English speaking world. The
important development,
as far as the present study is concerned, is what
Kissinger has called
"the Paulinizing" of the
Sermon on the Mount.
It had long been suggested
(beginning with the Church Fathers)
that Jesus originally preached this Sermon as a New
Moses bringing a
New Law to God's people. Since reformed
orthodoxy understood the
primary purpose of the law to be the conviction
of the sinner's con-
science, preparing him for the forgiveness of
the gospel, the Sermon
on the Mount was naturally interpreted in this
light as well. Jesus'
teaching presented such an unrealizable ethic that
anyone who took
his words seriously could only find himself broken
by the conviction
of sin and driven to the acceptance of Christ.
Just as the grace of sal-
vation offered through Christ
in the New Covenant was greater than
that of the Old, so too was this new implement of
the sinner's convic-
tion and repentance. This
explained why the New Law of the Sermon
was typically interpreted as an intensification of
mosaic legislation.
This view of the Sermon continues to
be reiterated in different
quarters today, modern representatives being
found in men such as
Carl
Stange ("Zur Ethik der Bergpredigt,"
1924) and Gerhard Kittel
("Die Bergpredigt
und die Ethik des Judentums,"
1925).
Protestant Liberalism
Numerous forces converged in the
19th century to give rise to a
new theological movement known as Liberalism.
Without going into
all the details, the primary articulation of this
new school was put for-
ward by Adolf von Harnack in his book What
is Christianity? Ac-
cording to Harnack,
when we scratch the surface of the church's
teachings about Jesus in order to discover the
actual teachings of
Jesus,
we find an ethic summarized in the tenets of the universal
fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, most
succinctly pre-
sented in the Sermon on the
Mount. According to most spokesmen for
this new liberalism (although, as in all things,
there is some variety in
approach, the goal of interpretation is not to
turn the Sermon into a
8
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
new legalism by stringent application of all the
details, but the dis-
covery of a new, radicalized
love for both God and neighbor blooming
in each person's heart.
Individualized decisions are to be
guided by this new heart of in-
discriminate love; and this new love
is to guide all decisions in life,
whether private or public. In this sense, the
concerns of 19th century
liberalism were somewhat similar to the goals of
the theocratic
reformers, in that the ethic of Jesus was to be
applied to all of life.
Each
was an attempt to forge a wholistic worldview, even
though the
outworking of that perspective was radically
different in the two
movements.
Traditional Dispensationalism
The final approach to interpreting
and applying the Sermon to be
reviewed in this study is that of traditional dispensationalism. We use
the modifier "traditional" in recognition
of the ongoing evolutionary
character of contemporary dispensational thought.
Traditional dispensationalism
begins its study of the Sermon by
sharing an important assumption with protestant
orthodoxy: the teaching
in this Sermon knows nothing of God's grace; it is
entirely a new law.
Therefore,
to apply its teaching to the church, which lives under grace, is
a major mistake. The Sermon on the Mount is not
church teaching but
kingdom teaching, and is strictly relevant only
to the Jews who will reign
with Christ in the coming kingdom age on this earth.
Although some
would insist upon an exemplary aspect of the Sermon's
love ethic which
does offer a model for Christian living today, this
simply points the be-
liever towards God's perfect
expectations for the future; one cannot hope
to fully realize such obedience today.
Summary
This is hardly an exhaustive review
of the history of the Ser-
mon's interpretation. There
are many other movements and individu-
als which might be
discussed. But, as R. Guelich has pointed out, a
detailed history of the Sermon's interpretation
has yet to be written,
and there is no need to attempt such a work here.5
This brief survey
has revealed enough of the major issues and the
basic contours of the
debate to ensure that new attempts at answering
questions of applica-
tion will be reasonably well
informed about the pitfalls and obstacles
that await and how others have dealt with them. This
may help us to
avoid old "mistakes" (although, admittedly,
one person's mistake is an-
other's solution--something the reader may feel
more strongly before
5 The Sermon on the Mount, 14.
David
Crump: APPLYING THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 9
the end of this article). And if we choose to
occupy an old pitfall, we
should at least know the company we keep.
We should now be able to recognize
the major issues which must
be addressed by any attempt to apply the Sermon on
the Mount to
modem living:
1. Does the Sermon offer
"entrance requirements" for the Kingdom?
Is
it addressed to disciples who are being given instructions for Chris-
tian living, or does is
address the seeker who finds in the Sermon a
means of gaining salvation?
2. What is the Sermon's relationship
to grace? Is it entirely "law"
(whether old or new), or is there some element of forgiveness
to be
found?
3. More particularly, is the
Sermon's sole purpose to drive the sinner
to repentance? Is it Jesus' articulation of the
Pauline view of law
found by some interpreters in Gal. 4:1-7?
4. Perhaps the Sermon has no
relevance to this present era at all?
5. Depending upon one's answer to
the preceding questions, we
might still want to ask whether the Sermon is to be
applied to society
at large? If so, is obeying this ethic incumbent
upon unbelievers?
How
would that be enforced? Or does it simply regulate the Chris-
tian's behavior? In which
case, is the Christian to make any distinc-
tion between private and
public applications of the Sermon's ethic?
How Do We Apply the Sermon Today?
To fully document all the
argumentation offered below would re-
quire more space than is available in this article.
Therefore, we will
only briefly sketch proposed answers to the
questions raised and offer
one example from the Sermon (Matt 5:38-42) to
illustrate its current
application.
Basic Principles
The starting point for any proper
reading of the Sermon on the
Mount
is the understanding that it is instruction given to disciples
who have already made the commitment to follow
Jesus. Its teaching
is not for "outsiders" (which is not to
deny that everyone would
benefit if they followed its teaching, whether
they believed in Jesus
or not). This is Kingdom teaching in the sense
that it outlines the obe-
dient lifestyle expected of
anyone who has entered the Kingdom of
God by submitting to Christ. This is the general
consensus of schol-
arly opinion today, and a
quick survey of various features on the Ser-
mon will make it clear:
10
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
a) Matt 5:1
demonstrates that the primary audience of this teaching
was Jesus' disciples. Though the surrounding crowds
benefit as well,
Jesus
was speaking directly to those who had already left everything to
follow him. He is not telling people how to get into
the Kingdom, but
instructing them in how they should live once they
are inside it.
b) The beatitudes (5:3-10) describe
the process of entering this
Kingdom,
what heart attitudes are necessary, and the blessings that
one gains as a result of such repentance. A clearer
description of ac-
ceptance by grace could not be
found anywhere. Jesus' teaching is
offered to those who know that they do not
deserve anything from
God;
they are in the Kingdom only because they have humbled them-
selves, acknowledged that they are spiritually
bankrupt, and have ac-
cepted salvation as God's
gift.
c) Various present tense promises illustrate
the current benefits
of discipleship: the Kingdom is already theirs
(5:3, 10); they are the salt
and the light of the world (5:13f); God has already
made himself their
Father
(5:16). This list could be greatly expanded, but the point is
plain. Jesus is talking to those who are already
members of his family.
With this fundamental principle established,
the remainder of
the questions raised above begin to answer
themselves.
1. The question of whether the
Sermon offers a new law is some-
thing of a red herring, at least as far as questions
of practical applica-
tion are concerned (which is
not to deny that deciding whether or not
Jesus
presents himself as a New Moses bringing a New Torah is a
significant issue). It is clear that, however we
answer this question,
the Sermon does not present a way of earning
salvation. Aquinas'
"counsels of perfection" must go.
But, aside from that obvious
conclusion, it is also clear that the
Sermon
points us to a new way of living; it is not simply condemnatory,
as reformed orthodoxy would have us believe. Even
in the Old Testa-
ment, the law was offered as
God's instructions for godly living to his
people who had
already entered into his covenant of grace, e.g.,
stood at the base of
fore. E. P. Sanders' lengthy studies into
"covenantal nomism" have ex-
plained this traditional
Jewish--and biblical--understanding of the
law at length.6 Of course, to say this
is not to deny that such kingdom
instruction can also convict the disciple's
conscience, nor is it to assert
that any disciple will ever experience a day when he
or she will obey
the Lord's teaching completely. But these things
are true of any ethi-
cal teaching found in either testament. The
Christian's struggle in
6 For example, see Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1977);
Jesus and Judaism, (London: SCM, 1985).
David
Crump: APPLYING THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 11
sanctification is the result of the
"already/not yet" tension inherent in
the Kingdom's coming: it has come in part, but not
completely. This is
the true explanation of the disciple's ambiguous
relationship to Jesus'
expectations in Matthew 5-7.
Arguments concerning grace vs. law in
the Sermon set up a false dichotomy and avoid the
real issues pertinent
to the Sermon's application.
2. Obviously, if the Sermon on the
Mount is addressed to disci-
ples, then it must be taken
seriously now; it offers neither a future
ethic that can be deferred, nor an unreasonable ethic
that can be
avoided or watered down. The demand of present
obedience is made
clear in the Sermon's conclusion (7:21-27).
3. Finally, if this Sermon is Jesus'
teaching for his followers, then
it is not to be applied as a universal ethic to
society at large. This is
not a blueprint for social, political and economic
reform. It does not
provide a new code for civil law or the
guidelines for how we can in-
augurate a utopian culture in
this world. Admittedly, any individual
can experience this breathtakingly radical ethic of
love and find his or
her own private part of the world amazingly
transformed as a result.
And
there is no doubt about the fact that our society can be (and, in
the past, has been) radically reformed when enough
of its members
experience this life changing gift of God's grace.
But such private ren-
ovation happens only through a personal
encounter with Jesus. It is a
change from the inside out. It cannot be legislated.
It cannot be im-
posed. Perhaps this is the greatest weakness of any
interpretation
which would view the Sermon on the Mount as a new
law. Laws can-
not legislate attitudes or dispositions. No human
court can prosecute a
man for lust, or sentence a woman for failure to
love.
Let's not be confused about this
issue. To argue for the "privitiza-
tion" of the Sermon as
described here is not to side with Anabaptist
isolationism. To say that the ethics
of the Sermon on the Mount can-
not successfully be applied indiscriminately to
society at large is not
to say that individual Christians are excused from
applying these eth-
ics to all areas of their
own lives within that society. It is, however, to
suggest that movements which seek to establish
modern "theocratic
states"--whether the architects are Zwingli,
Calvin or current recon-
structionists--misunderstand the
nature of the
thus the force of the Sermon's personalized ethic.
Any attempt at the
universal imposition of the ethics of the Kingdom
will inevitably be
unfair to both the unbelieving citizen and the
Sermon's true meaning,
for invariably the cutting edge of Jesus' expectations
will be compro-
mised (as we saw in Calvin),
and the expectations of Kingdom living
will be gutted of their true import as the responsibilities
of individual
conscience are transferred to the state.
12
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
One Example
Before illustrating these principles
by looking at Matt 5:38-42,
one more matter of interpretation needs to be
clarified. The Sermon
on the Mount is not the only piece of ethical teaching in the
Bible.
This
would seem to be a fairly obvious point, and one may wonder
why we even bother stating it. However, many of the
debates re-
viewed above stem from the failure to remember this
simple fact. For
example, early Anabaptist radicalism was
admirable in that they
wanted to take their Lord's teaching seriously,
whatever the personal
cost. But their attachment to the Sermon on the
Mount was misguided
insofar as they transformed these three chapters
of Matthew into a
"canon within the canon"; that is, in practice they
behaved as if this
Sermon
nullified all other ethical teaching in the Bible. This is a seri-
ous mistake.
Matt 5:38-42 is a key passage in any
debate concerning the Ser-
mon's applicability; it is
probably the most important text for anyone
who is looking for a biblical justification of
pacifism, nonviolence and
nonretaliation. The teaching seems
clear: disciples are not to engage
in violence, including self-defense. Even unjust
oppressors are not to
be resisted. When taken at face value it is not
difficult to see how the
Anabaptists
might conclude that withdrawal is the only course open
to Christians in this world. But when we remember
that the Bible
also offers other bits of instruction, covering
other circumstances, the
picture begins to change.
People are social beings. We live in
a context of relationships
defined by various degrees of interdependence.
Individuals are not
only accountable for themselves, but heads of
families are account-
able for (and to) other family members; neighbors
are accountable for
(and to) others in their communities; community
accountability is not
only personal, i.e., friend to friend, but can also
be public, such as
"office holder to constituency." The Bible has something
to say about
all of these aspects of our relationships, but they
are not all found in
the Sermon on the Mount.
For example, the Bible has a great
deal to say about the care of
the more defenseless members of society: widows;
orphans; and the
dispossessed. Widows are to be cared
for (Deut 14:28; 16:11; 24:29f;
26:12f;
27:19). Judges are to execute their responsibilities with fairness;
the rich should not be able to buy their judgments
against the de-
fenseless (Deut 27:19; Isa 1:23; Jer 7:6; Zech 7:10; Mal
3:5; all concern-
ing widows). Both private
and public righteousness requires care for
these members of our community (Isa
1:17).
Consequently, how one responds to
any given situation is deter-
mined by the nature of the inter-relationships
between the various
David
Crump: APPLYING THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 13
parties involved, and one's own role as a
private or public figure. An
lustration will help. Imagine you are walking down
a city street alone
after dark (never mind how you got yourself into this
predicament). A
man walks up to you, hits you over the head and
begins to take your
wallet. You may well begin to yell for help; you may
even try to run
away if you can, or defend yourself in some
reasonable manner, but
you do not begin to plan how you are going to track
this man down,
have him arrested and seek legal redress by having
him prosecuted to
the fullest extent of the law. The teaching of the
Sermon strictly for-
bids such retaliation. "Turning the other
cheek" means that the disci-
ple surrenders his or her
rights to legal compensation.7 This is where
Jesus'
teaching applies to your own personal decision making concern-
ing your own private
person. Jesus says, "turn the other cheek. . . let
him take your cloak as well." These are
non-negotiable expectations
for individual, Christian behavior. When it comes
to personal applica-
tion, we must all be
Anabaptists. To compromise this level of applica-
tion, as some reformed
interpretation has done for example, is to
eviscerate Jesus' teaching of all real
significance. The Sermon would
simply become a wax nose, to be reshaped any way we
like; and when
push comes to shove most of us do not like the
personal demands of
Christian discipleship.
But imagine that the very next
evening you notice the same man
breaking into your neighbor's house. This
neighbor is a good friend of
yours; she is an elderly widow who lives alone. What
do you do? Do you
sit back and think, "I hope she turns her
other cheek as easily as I did,
and surrenders her cloak as well"? No. You
call the police and do what
you can to aid in the burglar's arrest in defense
of your neighbor. This
is also God's command. How the neighbor lady
responds to this thief is
another matter altogether; Jesus would ask her
to be free of all venge-
ful interests. But Jesus'
instruction is that each individual turn his or
her own cheek when struck, not that we all turn our
heads when our
neighbor's cheek is being struck. There is a big
difference between the
two. You can defend your neighbor without
disobeying the Sermon.
Now imagine again that you are a
judge. Several days later this
very same criminal is brought before your bench
charged with bur-
glary. What do you do? Do you free the man without
even hearing the
case because the Sermon on the Mount forbids legal retaliation?
No.
You
hear the case and give him the proscribed punishment once he is
proven guilty. Why? Because as a public figure you
also have the re-
sponsibility before God to see that
justice is exercised in society. This
too is God's command.
7 See Guelich,
251.
14
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Initially, this may look like the
reintroduction of Luther's two
kingdom theology, but this would be a
misunderstanding. Luther had
an important insight in recognizing the difference
between private
and public roles in society and the tension created
within any Chris-
tian who tries to apply the
same ethic across the board in all situa-
tions. The dilemma has been
resolved here, not by recourse to two
different kingdoms, but by simply applying the full
range of biblical
teaching to the diversified situations of life.
Different responses are
required depending upon the shifting dynamics of
each new set of re-
lationships. The Sermon on the
Mount is only one part of the equa-
tion. This is not a new way
of watering down Jesus' demands. Quite
the opposite! It is the way of ensuring that his
expectations are ap-
plied as straightforwardly as possible.
Obviously, this is only one of many
possible examples. The key to
applying the Sermon on the Mount to real life is
not reading an arti-
cle which catalogues every
possible response to every possible permu-
tation of life. Lifetime,
obedient application consists of first knowing
Jesus
as the Lord of your own poor spirit who has replaced your old
heart with his new heart of love, and then measuring
your response
to life by the whole counsel of God.
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt
at: