The Book

Differences in Interpretation

Sermon on the Mount

The dispensational interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount really provokes an emotional reaction, and this reaction is one of the reasons that dispensationalists are often deemed heretics (albeit very conservative heretics). It definitely made me initially wary of dispensation interpretation, although I ultimately concluded it really much more scriptural than the typical view.

Typically, the Sermon on the Mount is viewed as a great gospel sermon. It is, but not of the gospel of my salvation, rather of the "gospel of the kingdom." Jesus gave it to Jews, long before he even revealed to his disciples his death, burial and resurrection (which is part of the gospel of my salvation). Thus, it is quite reasonably interpretated as being part of the Law era, not the Grace era. Am I heretical? Let's look at the Holy Record, my bolding added:

Matthew 4:23
And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
Matthew 4:25-5:3, 6:9-10.
And there followed him great mutitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan. And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: and he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for their's is the kingdom of heaven...therefore pray ye...Thy kingdom come.
Matthew 16:21
From that time forth [after the disciples acknowledged him as the Christ, the Son of the living God] began Jesus to shew unto his disciples that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Simply "running the verses" demonstrates that the Gospel of the Kingdom had nothing explicit about Jesus' deity, death, burial and resurrection, at least in early Matthew. In other words, simple context ("right division") suggests the Gospel of the Kingdom is not the gospel of my salvation. This position is only reinforced by noting that Jesus was a "minister of the circumcision" [Romans 15:8] "made under the law." [Galations 4:4].

From this vantage, the Sermon makes more sense, and I can read

Matthew 6:14-15
[Jesus said in the Sermon] 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.
without fearing for loss of my salvation. It also makes the corresponding Parable on Forgiveness more understandable, exactly as it reads:
Matthew 18:21-23, 34-35
Then came Peter unto him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. [One of whom he forgave, but that servant would not forgive another of his servants. And when this was told to the king] And his lord was wroth, and delivered him [the first forgiven, but unforgiving, servant] to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
Quite a pointed contrast with Christ's words [through Paul] to Christians today:
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 Book Back to the Bible rootpage.

June 06, 1997