By Lewis Sperry Chafer
Throughout the Bible the prophet may win his title either by foretelling or by forthtelling. Christ was in both respects a Prophet. He was the One of whom Moses spake (cf. Deut 18:15, 18–19; John 1:21), and none ever answered more completely to all that belongs to the perfect service of the prophet than did the Christ of God. He taught and ministered the Word of God accompanying it with His mighty works, and He also gave the most direct and determining predictions of any prophet who ever walked on the earth. In truth, the predictions of Christ should be studied closely by every student of Eschatology, remembering that these are the infallible words of the Son of God. It is also important that the merest fraction of all that Christ said in three and a half years has been recorded in the Gospels; for that recorded may be read in as many hours as there were years of His ministry. Of this John writes, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25). However, that which is presented in the Sacred Text has been selected by the Holy Spirit with that divine wisdom and perfection which characterizes all the works of God. These chosen records serve to tell all that it is God’s purpose to disclose to succeeding generations and are, therefore, all that is needed for a right understanding of every aspect of the truth which belongs to the sphere of the four Gospels. Matthew, guided by the Spirit, has selected such records as present Christ as the King of the Jews. Mark, thus guided, has selected such records as present Christ as Jehovah’s Servant. Luke, in turn, has been led to present Christ in His humanity, while John, by the same divine Spirit, portrays Christ in His essential Deity. It is probable that no uninspired writer having the story to tell that presented itself at the close of Christ’s ministry—including His supernatural birth, His childhood, His teachings, His mighty works, His death, and His resurrection—could have compressed his message into the limits which are claimed by the four Writers. In this there is evidence of the working of the divine hand as the Author of these marvelous and priceless documents. While much vital truth is found in those snatches of conversation which are recorded and in the brief sayings reported in the later portions of the New Testament (cf. Acts 20:35; 1 Thess 4:15–17; 1 John 1:5) and particularly in the post-ascension declarations reported in the Revelation—chapters 1–3 and 22, the indicative teachings of Christ are found in three major discourses—the Sermon on the Mount, the Olivet Discourse, and the Upper Room Discourse.
I. The Major Discourses
Before attempting an examination of these discourses separately, it may be well to observe that they present the widest possible latitude in subject matter. This fact has not only been greatly overlooked, but can be accounted for only when dispensational distinctions are recognized. If critical scholars assume it possible to claim two Isaiahs on the evidence afforded in the difference in style and subject matter which the two parts of Isaiah’s writing set forth, there would be more conclusive proof by far of at least three Christs. It seems not to occur to a certain group of theologians that these discourses not only introduce principles which, from a doctrinal standpoint, are irreconcilable, but also happen to be addressed to classes which are differently related to God and to Christ. No proof of this assertion respecting the varied character of the discourses is needed other than the suggestion that they be given attentive study by placing them in comparison to, or over against, each other. If such a study has been pursued actually and to a reasonable degree of completeness, the distinctions which will be advanced in this thesis would be received as true. These discourses represent the doctrine which Christ taught, and it will be found that every major division of Systematic Theology is not only represented, but, more frequently than is generally realized, a final word is spoken by the Son of God. That so much of His teaching is couched in a narrative form and simplified to the last degree has misled some into supposing that Christ did not teach doctrine, that the presentation of doctrine was left for the later writers of the New Testament—especially Paul. Christ’s utterances in doctrine were often presented in germ form and these were extended into wider fields by the later writers. However, it becomes the serious-minded student to investigate most diligently the actual teachings of the Son of God. It is the intention of this thesis to attempt a comprehensive scrutiny of that which is involved.
1. The Sermon on the Mount. The treatment of this discourse by writers of the past and present often reveals the extent of their comprehension of the present divine economy under grace. Apparently, the root difficulty is the failure to recognize what is rightfully a primary and what is rightfully a secondary application of this teaching. When the primary application is given to this Scripture, it is usually on the supposition that the Church is the kingdom and therefore passages related to the kingdom are addressed to her. Let it be dogmatically asserted at this point that those who hold such views either have failed to recognize the hopeless, blasting character of the law which this discourse announces and from which the Christian has been saved (Rom 6:14; Gal 5:1), or they have failed to comprehend the present position and perfection in Christ which is the estate of every believer. Apparently the two great systems—law and grace—become so confused that there could be no order of thinking possible. Distortions of the divine revelation are due, it would seem, to a slavish adherence to traditional interpretation and not to any unbiased personal investigation into the problems that are involved.
Accompanying this inattention to the exact character of doctrine is, too often, the blind assumption that the student who does observe the patent character of this discourse and who therefore cannot give it a primary application to the Church is striking hands in agreement with the destructive critic who boldly rejects Scripture altogether. To give this discourse a primary application to the Church means that it is made to be, word for word, the rule of life prescribed for the child of God under grace. A secondary application to the Church means that lessons and principles may be drawn from it, but that, as a rule of life, it is addressed to the Jew before the cross and to the Jew in the coming kingdom, and therefore not now in effect. At this point it cannot be too definitely emphasized that this entire discourse presents a complete rule of conduct and is not subject to that destructive method of interpretation which accepts one portion of it while rejecting another portion of it. If the Christian believes he is saved from hell fire through the measureless grace of God, he will recognize that he has no relation to those warnings—three times uttered (Matt 5:22, 29–30)—concerned with the danger of hell fire; but he must also observe that he has no primary relation to a system in any of its parts which could at any place or under any circumstances expose him to the danger of hell fire. If there are some portions of this discourse which are more gracious in character, these, it will be seen, are found also in the grace system, and it is not necessary for one to assume the inconsistent position which presumes to select or reject at will from that which, being a unit in itself, stands or falls together. It is precisely this impossible freedom to choose one portion and reject another which has kept a great company of men from coming to a clear understanding of the most elementary distinctions between the two systems—law and grace—as governing principles in daily life.
The Bible provides three complete and wholly independent rules for human conduct—one for the past age (there was no need of recording such rules as held good for people who lived before the Bible was written) which is known as the Mosaic Law and is crystallized in the Decalogue; one for the future age of the kingdom which is crystallized in the Sermon on the Mount; and one for the present age which appears in the Gospel by John, the Acts, and the Epistles of the New Testament. The Bible is God’s one Book for all ages, and it should be no more difficult to recognize that there are portions which belong to a future age than it is to recognize that there are portions which belong to a completed past age. A moment’s reflection would convince a candid mind that there were age-tranforming events which serve as a cleavage between the conditions which obtained under the Mosaic system and those which obtain in the present age. “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (and not by His birth, but by His death). Relationship to God could not be the same for His saints after Christ’s death, His resurrection, His ascension, the advent of the Holy Spirit, the placing of Jews along with Gentiles under sin, and the inauguration of a new system by which the chief of sinners may be justified forever through justice—who does no more to that end than to believe in Jesus—as it was before. Nor could it be the same in a coming age after the removal of the Church to heaven, the glorious appearing of Christ to reign on the earth, the judgment and restoration of Israel, the judgment of the nations with the termination of man-made institutions, and the binding of Satan—as it has been in this age. All this is obvious, yet there are those who shrink from such distinctions under the impression that being deprived of the law’s curse and of the kingdom’s danger of hell fire they are losing some priceless treasure. Neither the curse nor the hell fire is desired, but there are features of these systems which are more attractive, and these are claimed while the undesirable is rejected. It may well be restated that none of these attractive elements are lost, for they are incorporated into the grace system and belong to those who are once-for-all perfected in Christ Jesus.
It therefore stands as well founded that the Sermon on the Mount both by its setting in the context and by its doctrinal character—which assertions will yet more fully be demonstrated as true—belongs for its primary application to the future kingdom age. It was addressed to the people before Him, and concerned the requisite preparation on their part for admission into the kingdom of heaven then being published as “at hand.” It likewise declared the manner of life that would be demanded within the kingdom when once it is entered. This attempted analysis of this discourse may be advanced under three general divisions—(a) its setting, (b) its distinctive character, and (c) the delay in its application.
a. Setting. As the Old Testament closes with the predictions regarding Israel’s coming Messiah-King unrealized (Mal 4:1–6), Matthew’s Gospel, as the introduction of the New Testament and the bond of connection between the Testaments, opens with the announcement of the presence of the Messiah among His people. All prophesied requirements are met by Him. He is of the tribe of Judah, of the house of David, born of a virgin in Bethlehem of Judea. His coming is in “the fulness of the time,” that is, at God’s appointed time. His predicted forerunner preceded Him, and the kingdom described in the Old Testament by the prophets and foreseen throughout the Scriptures as Israel’s hope is announced as “at hand”—subject, however, to the choice of the people, whether or not they would receive their King. In this matter of choice there is a strong contrast set up when compared with His final advent, when the kingdom will be ushered in with no reference to human determination, though He will have wrought in the hearts of His earthly people not only to receive Him as Joseph’s brethren received Joseph in Egypt, but also to enter their land, the land of promise, and their kingdom with everlasting joy and gladness. The important fact to be noted by all who would comprehend the Synoptic Gospels, and Matthew in particular, is that the kingdom was offered to Israel at the first advent with the latitude granted to receive or reject it. Had it been in the “determinate counsel” of God (Acts 2:23) for that nation to enter then her covenanted kingdom, they would have done so (and as they yet will do under the sovereign hand of Jehovah). The “determinate counsel” concerning the first advent was rather that He should be rejected and put to death and that the kingdom should be deferred until the unforeseen intercalary age of the Church should run its course. Those who do not discern the Israelitish kingdom purpose or who suppose that the Old Testament hope is realized in the Church are, because of insuperable problems which their theory engenders, not much given to exposition of Matthew’s Gospel, nor can they be rated as safe expositors of either Testament.
The Gospel by Matthew opens with an introduction of the Christ, first, as Son of David and, second, as Son of Abraham. Though this is the reverse of what would be the natural order, it conforms to the plan of Matthew’s Gospel which first presents the King as the Son of David, the consummator of the Davidic Covenant, Israel’s Messiah, and later turns to the world-wide blessings which are related to the death and resurrection of Christ as the fulfiller of the Abrahamic Covenant expectation. In this Gospel Christ’s birth as the fulfillment of much prophecy is recorded. He is baptized at thirty years of age, He is filled with the Spirit without measure, His humanity is tested by Satan, and He Himself takes up, with the disciples whom He has chosen, the message of His forerunner John—”Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (cf. Matt 3:1–2; 4:17; 10:5–7). He suffers His disciples to preach this message to none but Israel. This prohibition is of vital importance, since in all His instructions respecting kingdom preaching (cf. Matt 10) this direction stands first. It is written: “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 10:5–7). After this, restricting His own ministry for the time being to that one nation, He said, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). The Apostle reveals his own clear understanding of this specific Israelitish ministry which was to be followed by the age of grace when he said, “Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy” (Rom 15:8–9). Apart from a recognition of a dispensational distinction at this point, there can be little understanding of these imperative discriminations. It is here that the student should note that, as there was for a time a restricted Israelitish purpose in the ministry of Christ, there was, at the same time, a peculiar and appropriate Israelitish message which John, Christ, and His disciples declared. This message, if given any worthy consideration, would not be confused with a world-wide proclamation of saving grace which became possible and exclusively authoritative by divine provision through the death and resurrection of Christ. It is strange, indeed, that men who have won honors as theologians of the first magnitude do not see the difference between the proclamation of an earthly kingdom addressed to one elect nation to be established on legal grounds, and the proclamation of a grace message which concerns only individuals with Jews and Gentiles, on an equal footing, under sin and offers in sovereign grace to the one who believes on Christ that he will be made meet to be a partaker of the inheritance of the saints in light. It is a serious doctrinal bondage so to be committed to a one-covenant theory with its supposed one divine purpose that these immeasurable dissimilarities must be obliterated in meaningless generalities.
During His three and a half years of ministry on earth Christ had in view the three major ages already mentioned—the Mosaic age which closed with His death; the future kingdom age which was the reasonable hope of the instructed Jew, but which, being postponed, will begin with His second advent; and the present unforeseen age which began with His death and will end with His return. Christ lived under the Mosaic system and therefore was Himself conformed to it and upheld its requirements. He proclaimed the kingdom age as “at hand” and gave instructions on its character and the terms of admission into it. Likewise, while His rejection as King grew in force, He anticipated the present age and gave explicit teaching about its relationships and doctrines. The accuracy of this brief analysis of the whole ministry of Christ need not be further defended here.
With reference to the setting, then, it is to be seen that the Sermon on the Mount was given in the midst and as a feature of the kingdom proclamation which first occupied the ministry of Christ on earth. It constituted the authoritative edict of the King relative to the character of the kingdom, its requirements, and the conditions of admission into it. It had to be restricted to Israel for it belonged to them alone, and it must be legal in character—though greatly advanced as such over the Mosaic system (Matt 5:21–48)—for prediction was given by Moses respecting the legal character of that kingdom when he said, “And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day” (Deut 30:8; cf. Jer 31:31–34). The subject matter contained in the Sermon on the Mount not only sustains the contention that it is legal in character, but also asserts that it pertains to the kingdom as the surrounding context so clearly relates it. With all this in view, namely, (1) that Christ’s early ministry was itself restricted to Israel and their covenanted kingdom, (2) that its character is legal and accords with the predictions in this respect, (3) that by its own subject matter it relates itself to the kingdom, and (4) that that which goes before as well as that which follows this sermon in the context is in every particular of the kingdom, it would be exceedingly difficult to relate this great rule of life to any other age than that of the Messianic reign of Christ on the earth. This discourse is no more related to the Church than the Messianic, Davidic, earthly kingdom is related to the Church, and those who apply it to the Church seem little aware of the problems which are involved. Some of these problems will be considered in connection with that which follows.
b. Distinctive Character. The analysis of this discourse constitutes a theme of such surpassing importance that it should be considered here somewhat fully. It is a formal declaration—unlike so many of Christ’s teachings which were broken into by conversation. Nothing is gained by the modern notion that this is a compilation of “single sayings which Jesus spoke at various occasions to different people,” and that “these sayings were connected with each other to form a continuous discourse partly by Matthew, partly by the author of his source.”[1] By so much the plain assertion that Christ spoke all these words on one occasion is discredited and the accumulative force of the message is assigned to Matthew rather than to Christ. It was addressed to His disciples, evidently as detailed instruction to those who were then serving as preachers of the kingdom message. The address closes with the words, “And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matt 7:28–29), which indicates that the multitude were present and heard, though it was spoken to His disciples (5:1). Though these disciples were soon to be brought into the Church and into this new age, the address to them, like the offer of the kingdom to Israel, was in good faith. Well did Christ know that these men would not enter the kingdom, but that they would be saved into the Church when His rejection was complete. Well did He know, also, that the kingdom itself would be refused and delayed until His second advent. There is no small advantage in keeping in mind the fact that this was the address of a Teacher to teachers, that it was to His disciples.
On the general character of the address and its application, Dr. C. I. Scofield writes: “Having announced the kingdom of heaven as ‘at hand,’ the King, in Mt. 5–7 ., declared the principles of the kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount has a twofold application: (1) Literally to the kingdom. In this sense it gives the divine constitution for the righteous government of the earth. Whenever the kingdom of heaven is established on earth it will be according to that constitution, which may be regarded as an explanation of the word ‘righteousness’ as used by the prophets in describing the kingdom (e.g. Isa 11:4, 5; 32:1; Dan 9:24). In this sense the Sermon on the Mount is pure law, and transfers the offence from the overt act to the motive (Mt. 5:21, 22, 27, 28). Here lies the deeper reason why the Jews rejected the kingdom. They had reduced ‘righteousness’ to mere ceremonialism, and the Old Testament idea of the kingdom to a mere affair of outward splendour and power. They were never rebuked for expecting a visible and powerful kingdom, but the words of the prophets should have prepared them to expect also that only the poor in spirit and the meek could share in it (e.g. Isa 11:4). The seventy-second Psalm, which was universally received by them as a description of the kingdom, was full of this. For these reasons the Sermon on the Mount in its primary application gives neither the privilege nor the duty of the Church. These are found in the Epistles. Under the law of the kingdom, for example, no one may hope for forgiveness who has not first forgiven (Mt. 6:12, 14, 15). Under grace the Christian is exhorted to forgive because he is already forgiven (Eph 4:30–32). (2) But there is a beautiful moral application to the Christian. It always remains true that the poor in spirit, rather than the proud, are blessed, and those who mourn because of their sins, and who are meek in the consciousness of them, will hunger and thirst after righteousness, and hungering will be filled. The merciful are ‘blessed,’ the pure in heart do ‘see God.’ These principles fundamentally reappear in the teaching of the Epistles.”[2]
Matthew 5:3–12. This sermon opens with a proclamation of the blessedness of those who in personal merit meet certain requirements. To the poor in spirit there is promise of the kingdom of heaven—the Davidic, Messianic, earthly, millennial kingdom. The agencies of human authority will not then prevail in that kingdom. A vast change will have come over this world when the humble in spirit will be honored by the possession of the kingdom. Through Isaiah Jehovah anticipated this priceless characteristic when He said, “For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word” (66:2). Those that mourn shall be comforted. Doubtless this is a constant provision throughout that glorious age, but it is especially true that Israel when saved into that kingdom will be saved from that mourning which is theirs in the tribulation. The King Himself at His second advent will “comfort all that mourn.” He will “appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness” (Isa 61:2–3). This mourning is described by Christ when in relation to His return He said, “And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Matt 24:30). Of the meek, Christ said that they shall “inherit the earth.” This again, is far removed from earth conditions of today. The meek and poor in spirit arise to honor and to authority over men, but such a reward does not concern the Christian who has no right or citizenship on the earth. It would be thought-provoking if Christians who repeat the Decalogue and the Beatitudes with application to themselves should be required to designate “the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee” (Exod 20:12) or to defend their title to the earth. An instructed believer is not looking for long life; he is waiting for his Lord from heaven. He is not looking for a land or a place in the earth; his citizenship is in heaven. The Jew alone can respond to the promise of Psalm 37:3 which reads, “Trust in the Lord, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed.” The meek among Israel shall inherit the earth. Hunger and thirst after righteousness shall be the experience of those in the kingdom upon whose hearts Jehovah has written His law (cf. Deut 30:6; Jer 31:33) and that hunger and thirst shall be satisfied. This is the promised tranquillity of the children of the King. The proclamation that the merciful shall obtain mercy introduces one of the strongest contrasts between the governing principles of law and grace; and the persistent determination to retain this portion of this discourse as applicable to the Christian has, next to Matthew 6:12, wrought more confusion among believers than almost any other misapplied Scripture. The declaration that the merciful shall obtain mercy requires no labored adjustment to make it seem to fit into the grace relationship to God. It cannot be thus fitted in. It belongs to an age when the beatitude which is clearly stated will be perfectly true. Wide, indeed, is the difference between the conception of individual meritorious mercy and the words about mercy addressed to the Christian of this age: “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins” (Eph 2:4–5). Unmerited and limitless mercy shall yet be the portion of the nation Israel in the day of their salvation (Ps 103:8–11). It is true that the pure in heart always see God; and since peace and righteousness are the essential features of life in the kingdom, those who promote peace and those who are persecuted—before or in the kingdom—for righteousness’ sake shall be rewarded. Record of that reward due is kept in heaven (cf. Mal 3:16–17).
Matthew 5:13–16. The second section of this address represents the saints of the kingdom and those worthy to enter it as “the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world.” All of this is revealing since it intimates the responsibility men are to assume in that coming age. None will deny that believers of this dispensation have similar obligations; but the mere paralleling of truth does not place Christians in Israel’s kingdom, nor does it place inside the Church Israel as a nation.
Matthew 5:17–48. The next section should be classed as one of the most determining portions in this great discourse. It discloses Christ’s own upholding of the law then in effect, and presents the legal aspect of the kingdom requirements in their clearest light. This portion should be pondered with utmost care and its drastic features taken seriously. To those who comprehend but little of that “grace and truth” which came by Jesus Christ, who have had no other thought of themselves than that they are under law, obligation to these requirements is not, naturally, disturbed by the assumption of this “yoke of bondage,” and those of such a legal mind will easily discredit as destructive critics any who consider that through grace they are under no obligation to these and other legal requirements. Pure doctrine cannot be guaranteed by following tradition whether it be of Protestantism or of Rome, nor are mere habits of interpretation a safe guide. All of these legal utterances of Christ’s were in full divine force when they were spoken, but the child of God of this age has been saved from the entire merit system. The believer is delivered from and dead to the law (Rom 7:4, 6). The Apostle when defending the positions and privileges of grace not only asserted that the law is “done away” (2 Cor 3:11; Gal 3:23–25), but he declares that the Christian is not under law (Rom 6:14). To contend that Christians are under law obligation simply because Christ enforced it upon Jews, to whom it alone belonged and that before His death, is to contradict directly the grace teaching regarding freedom from the law—as cited above. This division of this discourse opens with the assurance that He had come to fullfill both “the law and the prophets,” that is, He fills all the place assigned Him in the Old Testament. E. Schuyler English in his book Studies in the Gospel According to Matthew states, “Think not that He came to destroy the law. He was made under the law (Gal 4:4); He lived in obedience to the law (1 Pet 2:21); He fulfilled the types of the law (Heb 9:11–28); He bore for us the curse of the law (Gal 3:13); and He redeemed us from the position of servants of the law to that of sons of God (Gal 4:5).” It is evident from Deuteronomy 30:8, which reads, “And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day,” that the kingdom rule is the Mosaic system which, as Christ indicated (Matt 5:21–44), has now been extended to realms vastly more demanding; and the standing of men will be measured by their personal adherence to the law that then reigns. It is no small feature of the kingdom that some shall be called “great” (Matt 5:19; 11:11). The declaration regarding human greatness is followed by the words, “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (5:20), and here it is certain only personal rectitude is in view. No reference, here or elsewhere in this sermon, is made to imputed righteousness. The kingdom saints’ righteousness under Messiah’s reign will exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. Indeed, such personal quality and merit is demanded for entrance into that kingdom at all. Many Jews will be judged unworthy to enter the kingdom, and those who will be judged will include Jews of the past dispensation who are raised to this judgment (cf. Dan 12:1–3) as well as the last generation living who will enter that judgment. A reminder at this point may be in order, which asserts again that the believer is provided in this age with righteousness which is a gift from God made possible through the sweet savor aspect of Christ’s death and on the ground of the believer’s position in Christ. Of the Christian it is said, “But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:4–5). Such wide differences should not go unheeded as, too often, they do. Still continuing the emphasis which He placed upon the law, Christ goes on to state that the kingdom law, while introducing no new subjects of regulation, does, nevertheless, extend the obligation beyond the act to the motive. The phrase “Ye have heard that it hath been said”—the Mosaic declaration—is followed by the phrase, “But I say unto you”—the kingdom demand. Thus throughout Matthew 5:21–44 the contrasts are drawn. The scribes and Pharisees attended upon the law in their age, but a greater or more perfect righteousness than theirs will be demanded of those who enter the kingdom. The former prohibition against murder with its extreme penalty is advanced to apply to those who are angry without a cause. The one who says, “Thou fool,” shall be in danger of hell fire. The most exacting demand rests upon the one who does not agree with his adversary quickly. The penalty is no less than that he be cast into prison and that without relief or mercy. The judgment which should fall upon the adulterer is imposed without grace upon the one who casts a lustful glance. The offending member is to be sacrificed lest one be cast into hell fire. Divorce will be restricted to the one cause of unfaithfulness. Communications shall be free from every oath. The other cheek must be turned when smitten. The cloak must be given to the one who by law takes away the coat. A second mile is to be added. Gifts are to be made to all who ask, and none are to turn from those who would borrow. Enemies are to be loved, those that curse are to be blessed, good is to be done to those that hate, and prayer offered for those who persecute. All this is required since it represents the character of the Father. A moment’s reflection will convince the mind that such a standard as this belongs to another social order than the present one. It is designed for a day when the King reigns upon His earthly throne and when Satan is in the abyss. Of the reign of the King, Isaiah writes, “And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; and shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: but with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins” (11:2–5). The undiscerning may feel it their duty to uphold and place such requirements upon those who are forever perfected in Christ, but this would be due to the failure to understand what it means to be in Christ and perfected forever. Even those who apply these requirements in sincerity to themselves and to others utterly fall short of the fulfillment of them. The present superabounding grace of God does not merely forgive the one who breaks the law; it saves one from any obligation to a merit system and enjoins him to walk worthy of the position which is his in Christ Jesus. What, then, does the Apostle mean when he said, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Gal 5:1; cf. Acts 15:10; Col 2:8)? Who but the most prejudiced Arminian can incorporate into his scheme of doctrine the threefold-warning against hell fire which is found in this portion of Matthew? The believer “cometh not into judgment” (John 5:24, R.V.); “they shall never perish” (John 10:28); “there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1). If the warnings respecting hell fire do not fit into the grace system—and they do not—it is because the entire kingdom program of relationship and conduct is far removed from that which belongs to grace. The kingdom rule of life is an extension of the Mosaic system in the direction of a more drastic law; it is not the modification of law in the direction of grace. To say as some have done that they accept the Sermon on the Mount as the rule of their lives but omit those portions which threaten hell fire, is to disregard the revealed truth respecting the law, namely, that the one who assumes the least portion of it is a debtor to do the whole law (cf. Gal 5:3; James 2:10).
Matthew 6:1–18. This, the next section of this Sermon, concerns the mere outward pretense in the giving of alms, of prayer, and of fasting. It is in the midst of this portion respecting prayer that the so-called “Lord’s Prayer” is introduced, which prayer at once becomes a most difficult portion of this address for many to release to the kingdom system. In fact, like Matthew 5:20 which proclaims the terms of admission into the kingdom for the Jew, the “Lord’s Prayer” is the divinely prescribed petition for the coming of that kingdom on the earth. “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” It is probable that of the many who repeat these words but few have pondered their far-reaching significance. Not every mind can grasp so vast a theme; and it may not, when repeated, express a personal desire that arises within the individual’s own conception of need. Especially is it true of those who have no understanding of that which is meant in the Scripture by the word kingdom. The kingdom will come and the Father’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven, but only by virtue of the returning Messiah. The point of difficulty in the prayer, however, is not the petition in behalf of the earthly kingdom, which kingdom will come with the second advent and was “at hand” when the prayer was given to the disciples, but it is the one petition, “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” This being the only portion of the prayer which is taken up by Christ for special elucidation, it evidently, in His mind, called for such remarks as might keep it from misunderstanding. As it is—in spite of the clarifying comment which the Lord added—there is much disregard for all that He emphasized and a determination to bend this legal condition into some conformity with grace. His comment is as follows, “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (6:14–15). It cannot but be recognized that this one portion—meaning what Christ insists it means—is directly opposed in principle to the grace ideal as set forth in Ephesians 4:32, which declares, “And be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.” Such is also the restatement found in Colossians 3:13, “Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.” The truth that God is “rich in mercy” even when we were “dead in sins” is one truth concerning which the child of God should be jealous with a great passion of soul. On that truth his only hope depends. Sad, indeed, is the spectacle when Christians assume that the Sermon on the Mount represents the high calling of the Church and attempt to modify the character of sovereign grace to the end that it may conform to a merit system. When it is recognized that this petition and this entire prayer is not only embedded in the kingdom manifesto but is itself a plea for the kingdom to come, difficulties are removed. Added to the conclusive character of the prayer is the fact that it is not “in the name” of Christ. Prayer for the Christian is upon a new and infinitely higher basis than any could be in any other age or relationship. In His last words to His disciples, Christ opened to them the new ground of prayer which is in His name (John 14:14), and declared that hitherto prayer had not been offered in that name (John 16:24). Again the child of God may well be jealous with a great passion respecting this new and marvelous approach to God in prayer. When the Lord said “Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name,” He contemplated all previous prayers—including the “Lord’s Prayer”—as in no way to be compared with that new ground of prayer then opened unto believers.
Matthew 6:19–24. Devotion to God is the theme discussed in this division of the discourse. Treasures may be laid up in heaven in the sense that the record of faithfulness is preserved in heaven (cf. Mal 3:16). In this there is something similar to the grace relationship.
Matthew 6:25–34. What is deeply devotional follows, surpassing anything found in the Old Testament presentation of the Mosaic system. To those who feel that Matthew 6:19–34 presents truth so rich and helpful that it must be claimed for their own portion as Christians, it may be restated that all Scripture is profitable, and accordingly this material, though also directly taught under grace, may be employed on the basis of a secondary application. It yet remains that these truths belong to the address in which they are found. It is not right or commendable for believers to claim Israel’s richest blessings, but refuse her penalties and curses.
Matthew 7:1–6. Nothing more drastically legal or based on human merit will be found than the teachings in this portion of this Sermon. Here it is written, “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again” (vss. 1–2). With this there is a scathing rebuke for those who assume to judge others when self-judgment has been neglected.
Matthew 7:7–11. Christ here returns again to the subject of prayer, with the assurance that prayer will be answered that God is in infinite goodness more willing to give good gifts to them that ask Him than earthly parents are to give good gifts to their children.
Matthew 7:12–14. In this section those among Israel are reminded that to enter the kingdom a surpassing righteousness is required. The time of entering and of judgment is “in that [prophesied] day.” The common ethics of moral men is proclaimed in the so-called “Golden Rule,” which rises no higher than what is human self-interest. This rule is a standard for “just men” of the Old Testament order. By such faithfulness, measured by one’s own self-interest, entrance would be made into the “strait gate.” There is a “wide gate” that leads to destruction and a strait and narrow way that leads to life. Here “life” is not presented as a present possession of the Jew, as it is now of the Christian (cf. John 3:36; 10:28; Rom 6:23; 1 John 5:12), but it is presented as an expectation, an inheritance, that is to be bestowed (cf. Luke 10:25–28; 18:18). Life, in its kingdom aspect, is at the end of the path which leads unto it. The nation Israel, to whom these words are spoken, are to come up for a final judgment when some will enter the kingdom and some will not (cf. Ezek 20:33–44; Matt 24:37–25:30). “The strait and narrow way” is an outworking of personal merit and righteousness and is far removed from salvation, which provides a perfect and eternal justification based on an acceptance in the Beloved. The Christian has been saved by an act of faith and not by relentless persevering in a narrow path. Luke reports this same saying of Christ’s—perhaps upon another occasion—when he records Christ as saying, “Strive to enter in at the strait gate” (Luke 13:24), and the word here rendered strive is ἀγωνίζομαι, which could well be translated agonize. There is no rest here in the finished work of Christ (cf. Heb 4:9); all is personal merit as the basis of hope for entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 7:15–20, 21–29. This portion presents two warnings and with these the discourse ends. The first is against false prophets and unveils the method by which they may be detected. The second is against mere professors who render lip service, who say “Lord, Lord” but do not the will of the Father. Merely to call on the name of the Lord (cf. Rom 10:13) or to have done wonderful works in that name will not suffice. The same drastic demand is again stated by Christ, and in connection with the same situation, in the parable of the ten virgins. Of those shut out of the marriage feast (note R.V. on Matt 25:10) the Lord will say, “Verily I say unto you, I know you not” (25:12). The life that is given over to the keeping of those sayings of Christ—set forth in this Sermon and when the kingdom objective is before Israel, whether in the days of Christ’s ministry on earth or when the King returns—is building on a rock; but this is purely a matter of individual merit. It is “he that doeth” and not “he that believeth.” The people heard this address and were astonished at His doctrine, for He taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes. This authority was that of the sovereign God and King. It breathed in every portion of the address. “I say unto you” above and in the place of the Law of Moses was that which no other would assume to declare. The Originator of all things—greater than Moses and the Author of all that Moses said—had no occasion to refer to any other than Himself. What He proclaimed would transpire simply because He said so. No man ever spoke as this Man spoke.
The conclusion growing out of this analysis of this discourse is that it is the direct and official pronouncement of the King Himself of that manner of life which will be the ground for admission into the kingdom of heaven and the manner of life to be lived in the kingdom. It relates itself backward to the Mosaic Law and the prophets and not forward into the then unknown spheres of sovereign grace. When considered with this interpretation in mind, this Sermon is full of meaning and free from insuperable problems. It will be borne in mind, however, that there is no divine objective in the present age unto the setting up of that earthly kingdom. The offer of the kingdom, together with all situations and teachings related to it, was withdrawn for this age and will be renewed when the Church has been removed and the King is about to return in power and great glory.
Having presented this somewhat limited summarization of the Sermon on the Mount, it remains to investigate that which is excluded from this discourse. It is in this connection that the inattention of many is revealed. It will be discovered that the most vital elements of the believer’s relation to the Persons of the Godhead—such relationships as are set forth in the Upper Room Discourse—are all wanting in this address; but the disappointing feature is disclosed when so many embrace a system demanding super-merit requirements and seem not to recognize that the priceless things pertaining to both a perfect standing and eternal security in Christ are omitted. A dominating jealousy for those things on which Christian reality depends would at least be reasonable and natural.
There is in the Sermon on the Mount a recognition of the Father and the Messiah-Son, but no reference will be found to the Holy Spirit whose indwelling and limitless ministry is so great a factor in this age of the Church. There is no reference to the death of Christ with its redemption, reconciliation, and propitiation values. There is no regeneration and no mention of the faith principle as a way into the saving grace of God. There is a reference to faith as a life principle (Matt 6:25–34), but this is in no way related to salvation from sin. The great truth of a New Creation procured and secured through the resurrection of Christ is wholly wanting in this address. The phrase in Christ with its infinite meaning relative to positions and possessions is not present, nor is even one of those positions or possessions hinted at throughout its more than one hundred verses. No enabling power whereby these great demands both in character and conduct may be realized is intimated. It represents a human responsibility. The great word justification could not possibly be introduced nor that imputed righteousness upon which justification is founded. How far removed is a mere man-wrought righteousness, which exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees (Matt 5:20), from the “gift of righteousness” bestowed on those who receive “abundance of grace” (Rom 5:17)! And how great is the difference between those who hunger and thirst after righteousness (Matt 5:6) and those who are “made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor 5:21)! Thus, also, great is the difference between those who are in danger of hell fire (Matt 5:22, 29–30) and those who are justified on a principle of perfect divine justice who have done no more than believe in Jesus—even the ungodly (Rom 3:26; 4:5). Thus, again, note should be made of the divergence between those who obtain mercy by being merciful (Matt 5:7) and those who have found everlasting mercy even when dead in sins (Eph 2:4–5), likewise between those who hope to be forgiven on the ground of their own forgiveness of others (Matt 6:12–15) and those who for Christ’s sake have been forgiven (Eph 4:32, Col 3:13). And, yet again, consideration must be given to a distinction between those who follow a course—strait and narrow—with the goal in view that they may find life at the end of that path (Matt 7:14) and those to whom eternal life has been given as a present possession (John 3:36; Rom 6:23; 1 John 5:11–12). Finally, far removed is a situation in which some hear the Lord say, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt 7:23) and an assurance that one trusting in Christ “shall never perish” (John 10:28; Rom 8:1). With these and many other contrasts in view, agreement cannot be accorded Professor Martin Dibelius in his book The Sermon on the Mount wherein he says, “The Sermon on the Mount is not the only program of Christian conduct in the New Testament. The New Testament contains many other sayings of the same kind, especially the instructions for the disciples, the well-known similes and parables and the admonitions, found in the Epistles. But the Sermon on the Mount overshadows all of these and thus has special symbolic value as the great proclamation of the new righteousness.” Apparently Professor Dibelius does not lack in the matter of appreciation of the high moral standards set forth in the Sermon on the Mount; he does lack, however, the understanding of that which enters into the whole divine undertaking of saving grace, nor does the Professor, as many a theologian in his class, distinguish between the earthly Jewish purpose of God which is consummated in the Davidic, Messianic kingdom of heaven and the heavenly purpose of God which is consummated in the Church and her destiny in heaven.
c. Delay in Its Application. Nothing new is introduced under this division of the discussion. It has been repeatedly demonstrated in previous pages that as certainly as the kingdom itself was postponed, so certainly all that appertains to it was postponed until the present unforeseen intercalary age has run its course. The rule of life looking to and governing in that kingdom was, with respect to its application, postponed. Suffice it to say that the kingdom requirements presuppose the kingdom as present. The social order in the earth which the kingdom prescribes must be such as will make possible this super-manner of life. The King Himself must be present and reigning, Satan must be bound, the law of God must be written in the heart, and all Israel must know the Lord from the least unto the greatest (Jer 31:31–34).
Dallas, Texas
Notes
Notes
- Martin Dibelius, The Sermon on the Mount, p. 105.
- Scofield Reference Bible, pp. 999-1000.
No comments:
Post a Comment