The Sermon on the Mount (SOM) is regarded by biblical scholars as the greatest distillation of Jesus’ teachings. This collection of commandments, pithy sayings, and wisdom traditions is found in Matthew 5-7. Here we find challenge and comfort. We are confronted with the awesome demand for discipleship as well as the amazing grace which comes to those who choose to trust and follow this One in whom God speaks and reveals the Divine Self.
It’s interesting to observe how different Christian traditions and denominations understand, interpret, and appropriate the SOM.
It’s interesting to observe how different Christian traditions and denominations understand, interpret, and appropriate the SOM. I grew up in a tradition which was selective in its focus on the SOM. Teachings that focused on adultery and divorce were emphasized as well as those verses which warned about the destructive force of lust. On the other hand, those sayings which spoke of loving our enemies, hungering for justice/righteousness, recognizing the lethal dangers of materialism and greed, and appreciating the necessity of forgiveness were rarely discussed or taken seriously.
I later discovered that within very conservative Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christian circles, there is a completely different approach to the SOM. According to this interpretation, Jesus never intended his followers to take this collection of teachings seriously. The logic behind this assumption is this: Jesus gave these teachings for us to recognize how lost and hopeless we sinners are in this world. He knew there was no way we could live this way and be perfect (sinless). So, he bombarded us with demands he knew we could never fulfill. Out of fear, guilt, and desperation we would accept him as our Lord and Savior, ask for forgiveness, and trust that his death in our place will appease God’s wrath and secure our place in heaven after death. This reasoning is why many Christians in some Evangelical churches rarely hear sermons from the SOM (except, of course, for those dealing with sex, adultery, and divorce).
With one stroke of “logic” we can excuse ourselves from having to take seriously the “cost of discipleship” (except, of course, those teachings on sex, adultery, and divorce)!
I must admit that I was mystified and appalled when I was first presented with this approach to the SOM. There are actually Christians who dismiss the greatest collection of Jesus’ teachings with this kind of reasoning. I’ve met some of them and even had ministers of the gospel argue supporting this understanding of the SOM. Of course, it’s very convenient to see the SOM in this light. With one stroke of “logic” we can excuse ourselves from having to take seriously the “cost of discipleship” (except, of course, those teachings on sex, adultery, and divorce)!
My question regarding this novel and convenient treatment of the SOM is whether the rest of the New Testament affirms such an approach. I will restrict myself to the Gospels as I examine the evidence.
1. Jesus ends the SOM with four different ways of saying that what he has just taught is critical to one’s ultimate salvation.
- Matthew 7: 13-14 talks about the choice of entering a narrow gate or a wide gate. The wide gate is chosen by many, is easy, and leads to destruction. The narrow gate is chosen by few, is hard, and leads to life. Rabbis also spoke of entering wide or narrow gates when referring to following the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures.
- Matthew 7: 15-20 warns of the false prophets who wear sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. Jesus said we will recognize them by their fruits. In other words, we will know them by the way they live. Will their lives reflect the kind of existence Jesus has presented in the SOM?
- Matthew 7: 21-23 is perhaps the most damaging refutation of this approach to the SOM which so many conservative and fundamentalist Christians propose. Jesus says that on the day when people must give an account of their lives, many will call him “Lord, Lord” and brag about prophesying in his name, casting out demons in his name, and doing mighty works in his name. But Jesus will say that he has no knowledge of them. They were not his followers. Why? Because they did not do the will of his Father who is in heaven (See verse 21). And what is the will of his Abba? He just spent three chapters outlining that will. It’s called the Sermon on the Mount! And if that’s not clear enough, we have the closing verses of the SOM.
- Matthew 7: 24-27 speaks about another choice. We can build our house on solid rock or shifting sand. If we choose sand, our “house” will be completely destroyed when the rains and winds beat against it. If we choose rock as our foundation, our “house” will stand against the most destructive of storms. These last words of the SOM begin this way: “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who builds his house upon the rock. . .” Evidently Jesus did not believe that his teachings were optional or negotiable. They are essential to our salvation.
Evidently Jesus did not believe that his teachings were optional or negotiable. They are essential to our salvation.
2. In Luke 10: 25-37 we are told that a lawyer (in Judaism a lawyer was an expert in the religious law which also served as a basis for Jewish civil law) asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. (That question should pique the interest of any conservative or Fundamentalist Christian.) Jesus asked the lawyer what was written in the law and how the lawyer would answer the question. (After all, the lawyer was the “expert.”) The lawyer quoted part of the Shema, the most important passage of Scripture in the Hebrew Scriptures according to the Jewish faith: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength” (Deuteronomy 6:4-5). And then the lawyer threw in a quote from another passage in the Hebrew Scriptures: “and your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). Jesus responded, “You have answered right; do this, and you will live.” The lawyer, accustomed to arguing the fine points of the law and wanting to place limits on whom he had to regard as his neighbor, asked, “And who is my neighbor?” It was at this point that Jesus told his famous parable of the good Samaritan. Needless to say, for a Jew to regard a Samaritan as not only a neighbor but also as an example of model, godly behavior (which, by the lawyer’s own admission, was the path to eternal life} was shocking and unheard of. But what I want to focus on is how this passage ends. Jesus tells the lawyer that if he wants to inherit eternal life he was to “Go and do likewise” (Verse 37) Somehow, inheriting eternal life has to do with showing compassion to our neighbor—even or especially to those we prefer to exclude from our neighborliness. In other words, eternal life is connected to the way we live. And the way we are to know how to live as disciples of Jesus is defined best and most in the Sermon on the Mount.
3. Matthew 25 contains the only place in the Gospels where Jesus gives a detailed teaching regarding the criteria to be used in what we mistakenly call ‘the Last Judgment.” Those who enter the Kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world are those who fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, welcomed the stranger, clothed the naked, visited the sick, and ministered to those in prison. And they are told that when they loved such people in concrete, tangible ways, they were also loving Jesus. “When you did it to the least of these, you did it to me.” However, those who neglected to show this kind of compassion are not allowed into the Kingdom. The kind of life Matthew presents which leads to eternal life is precisely the kind of life Jesus taught in the SOM. Even in the moderate Southern Baptist church in which I grew up, I never remember hearing a sermon preached on this passage—the only passage in the four Gospels in which Jesus presents the criteria used in the “Last Judgment.” You would think a denomination which was all about saving souls and getting into heaven would gravitate toward this passage on a frequent basis. The reason they did not focus on this critical teaching is because it did not fit their conservative, man-made Evangelical theology. They could not reconcile “once saved always saved” with the SOM or Scriptures like Matthew 25 which present faithful and costly discipleship as essential to one’s “salvation.”
4. Eighty-seven times in the Gospels Jesus says to those surrounding him, “Follow me.” He even says on one occasion, “Take up your cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). As we have seen elsewhere in the blog, “taking up our cross” refers to the price we pay for being faithful to the will and Kingdom of God in a world hostile to the ways of God. And where do we find the ways of God and the paths we are to take in following Jesus? THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
I despair of those Christians who still insist that Jesus did not mean what he said when he spoke about the cost and path of following him.
I have a long list of other passages in the Gospels we could look at as well as many parts of the rest of the New Testament which affirm the kinds of teachings we find in the SOM as essential to our “salvation,” inheriting eternal life, and our identity as faithful children of God. But we have looked at enough to see how important the teachings of Jesus are in our faith. I despair of those Christians who still insist that Jesus did not mean what he said when he spoke about the cost and path of following him. To allow the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory, which is itself very suspect, to dismiss the teachings of Jesus which are presented repeatedly as essential to our salvation is simply a convenient but heretical and dangerous path to take in our faith. Following that “fake” understanding of the Gospel has allowed much of American Christianity to lose it ethical sensitivity and moral grounding in God’s unconditional love, demand for justice, and primary example of compassion. We disregard the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ other teachings at our own peril.
[Some may wonder if this article could be interpreted as a call to embrace some type of Christian legalism. My next article will address any such concern. In this article I wanted to make a strong case that we cannot understand Jesus, his death, or his resurrection without looking at his life and teachings. Together they comprise the whole gospel. If any one part is missing, we are stuck with a truncated gospel which can never “save”/”make whole” any of us or any part of this world God so loves.}
