Landmark Baptist

I have a couple questions about context regarding the Sermon on The Mount:

1. Do you believe Matthew 5-7 [sermon on mount] is directed to the Disciples (Church)?

2. Do you believe the Family of God is the salt and light of the earth or do you believe the Church is salt and light?

Most Baptists believe that the "family of God' is inclusive of all saved people. If they are the light of the world, the light has long since gone out, since any truth shared among them has given way to contradictions. If they are the salt of the earth, it has long since lost its savor and is good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot. , for the same reason. The context of the Sermon on the Mount is clear. Jesus removed himself from the crowd and when His disciples came to Him, He taught them..... This, according to the rules of interpretation, is church context. No apologies offered. This is my understanding of the questions asked. Does anyone have a differenct take on them? If so, I join your interest in knowing what it is.

My understanding is that Jesus is calling His church the light and salt. Notice the mention of candlestick, which I take to mean a church. It seems that it is quite possible that the multitudes were within earshot however based on this passage at the end of the sermon:

Matthew 7:28-29 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.

I see it as the same as a typical Sunday morning service. The church is gathered to worship together and be fed, and often there are visitors present as well. When the visitors hear the Word taught and preached in a true New Testament church, they often recognize a difference in the preaching and teaching in the area of authority. It is as if the Holy Spirit is authenticating what they are hearing.

But I believe the Sermon on the Mount was directed to the church.

My thoughts

And, while this early sermon was especially designed to teach His disciples how His ekklesia was going to operate on much different principles than what Judaism had become, the others who were listening were still part of Israel and thus still part of God's elect people until the time of the cross.
So, the other Jewish listeners needed to hear the "true meaning of the Law" Matthew 5:17-48 and either conform their practices as Jews or better, become converts to the ekklesia of Jesus where the true principles were to be practiced right from the start.

I have come to believe part of the purpose of this early sermon was to show the contrast of the old way versus the new way, thus giving Israel right from the start of this new ekklesia in their midst a clear choice of accepting their Messiah as the ultimate Lawgiver and follow His ways or holding on to their (wrong and perverted) conception of the Law given to Moses.
The Sermon on the Mount, as an inaugural sermon to the newly formed ekklesia of Jesus, was also an outreach to the rest of Israel, proclaiming the truth the book of Hebrews was written for many years later - that a better High Priest and a better Lawgiver and a better Mediator had arrived.

As to your original question, certainly even lost people who live by the main principles of this sermon would produce a better society than the principles most societies, families and individuals live by currently.
But, many references in this sermon clearly allude to truths that later in Jesus' ministry and in the epistles are more fully developed within strictly a church framework.

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.
24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
25 And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.
Matthew 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

We have in this passage five verses in a row that begin with the word “and.” I cannot contextually see how any of them are to be considered independently from the rest. A great crowd was following, his disciples came close to him, and Jesus began to teach “them” – the multitude and his disciples. What was he teaching about, the church? That seems to me a strange concept, since the passage said he was preaching the “gospel of the kingdom.” I read through the Sermon on the Mount and I don’t see the word “church” anywhere; but I do see several references to the Kingdom. Does the content of the Sermon on the Mount demand that only church members can perform its instructions? Is it only church members who can pray, fast, give alms, or lay treasures up in heaven? Jesus concluded with the following:

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

So is it only baptized church members who get to enter the kingdom of heaven? Some might suggest such a thing – but I would boldly deny it. The will of the Father that must be done in order to enter the kingdom of heaven is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ: (John 6:40) And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Sermon on the Mount is about the Kingdom. The Kingdom includes the church, but the Kingdom is not the church – and I for one believe that is a pretty important distinction to maintain.

Rich

The account in Luke 6:20 says, "And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor......."
While many of the multitude might well have been listening and could learn and be benefitted from what Jesus said, the primary focus was on His disciples, His new church.
Bro. Hamlin, when you said, "I cannot contextually see how any of them are to be considered independently from the rest"
meaning the multitude from His disciples, are we to say nothing Jesus spoke until the word "church" is used in Matthew 16:18 can be primarily directed toward them if any non-disciple onlisteners were present, especially when you said, "I read through the Sermon on the Mount and I don’t see the word “church” anywhere...?"
Is there little direct or primary application to His new church in His ministry, since "church" is used only in two passages, Matthew 16:18 & 18:17?
So, while much of what Jesus spoke had applications to all, since He spoke in a way that addressed different needs in the same words, one of His main purposes was to train His disciples, His new church, so that they could be properly prepared to preach and teach after He left - "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" Matthew 28:20.

Plus, I repeat the idea that in His ministry, Jesus was also reaching out to His elect nation, Israel, hoping they would repent and become what they were called to be, a holy nation unto God. Giving the true meaning of the Law in the "Ye have heard it said.....but I say unto you" examples in Matthew 5 is partly an attempt to open their eyes to how far they had strayed from truth. Matthew 23:37, also shown in the "limited commission."

It would appear that the term “disciples” was used in it's broader sense of “follower” during those days of Jesus’ ministry, for Luke would also say: (Luke 7:11) "And it came to pass the day after, that he went into a city called Nain; and many of his disciples went with him, and much people." John would also tell us, (John 6:66) "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." To equate the usage of the term “disciple” with the word “church” would seem to be quite a stretch at this point – even to conclude that everyone who was called a “disciple” was truly saved would seem a stretch in light of John 6:66. It is true that in all the gospel records there are only two passages that use the word "church" -- Matthew 16:18 and 18:17. I said that the church is not mentioned at all in the Sermon on the Mount in response to these statements:

G. Michael Coulter wrote:My understanding is that Jesus is calling His church the light and salt. Notice the mention of candlestick, which I take to mean a church.

W. A. Dillard wrote:Jesus removed himself from the crowd and when His disciples came to Him, He taught them..... This, according to the rules of interpretation, is church context. No apologies offered. This is my understanding of the questions asked. Does anyone have a differenct take on them? If so, I join your interest in knowing what it is.

I do have a different "take." Jesus was born, lived, and died as the King of the Jews. He would rise from the dead and ascend to glory as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords to be revealed in “His times” (1 Timothy 6:15). The Sermon on the Mount has a Kingdom context, as Matthew specifically said Jesus was during this time preaching the “gospel of the kingdom” which is easily seen by a review of the subjects he addressed and the applications he made:

Matthew 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:20 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.
Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Matthew 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

If one were to say that since the Sermon on the Mount has a Kingdom context, and since the church is a part of the Kingdom there are parts of it that refer to the work of churches, I could agree with that. In fact, I’ve preached it that way myself.

Rich

richhamlin wrote:If one were to say that since the Sermon on the Mount has a Kingdom context, and since the church is a part of the Kingdom there are parts of it that refer to the work of churches, I could agree with that. In fact, I’ve preached it that way myself.

Hello Bro. Hamlin,

Are you saying that the sermon was primarily directed to the multitudes, yet some of it specifically pertained to the church? And your reasoning for this understanding is that it has such an emphasis on the kingdom? I am wanting to understand you clearly.

Also, what parts are specific to the work of the church? Do you see the term candlestick as indicative of churches?

Thanks.

Bro. Coulter,

Matthew identifies two groups, "the multitudes" and "his disciples" who were a part of the audience Jesus addressed that day. The original question asked if the Sermon on the Mount was directed to the church, and it was answered several times in the affirmative. It appeared to me that the effort was being made to give this passage an exclusive church-member application as we have seen happen on many occasions on this forum. Neither the context nor the content of the Sermon on the Mount justifies that kind of thinking. Jesus was teaching about the Kingdom. Its instructions apply to anyone who is a subject of that Kingdom, including church members but not exclusively so.

Rich

Bro Hamlin,

Thanks. I follow your line of thought.

Do you see the term candlestick as referring to a New Testament church in light of the following passages? :

Revelation 1:12-13 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks [one] like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

and

Revelation 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

Bro. Coulter,

If one were to interpret the passage that way, then it would seem that all church members would always have shining lights and salty salt -- but I don't think that is the case necessarily. I would think it possible to say that many church members have their lights hidden very effectively behind the walls of the buildings -- even preacher-type church members can fall into that trap. Jesus applied the passage as "let your light so shine before men....." A lit candle under a bushel is still burning and still giving forth light, but the light isn't doing anyone any good. Make that candle a person with the "light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ". Let that person be baptized and join a church -- does that mean his light is always shining?

The gospel is still hidden. It is hid to those that are lost. The God of this world has blinded them -- but the light of the glorious gospel can pierce that darkness. "Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine."

Rich

Bro. Hamlin,

Just because church members are not letting their lights shine (going out and being a witness for the Lord) doesn't in any way take away from the fact that the candlestick represents the church. Many may not even be saved. Although I agree with you that we must never make all parts of the Sermon on the Mount refer exclusively to the church (for example in many kingdom references), we must never downplay the church: "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." (Ephesians 3:21) Furthermore, I have found in the Revelation passage, the church as the candlestick undergirds our teaching of the church being local only. There were seven separate lampstands (seven churches of Asia) and not one lampstand with seven candles.

Matthew 5:1 (KJV)
1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

I gather from this passage that Jesus came away from the multitude into the mountains. Thus, his disciples "came unto him".

Bro. Hamlin, you said: If one were to interpret the passage that way, then it would seem that all church members would always have shining lights and salty salt -- but I don't think that is the case necessarily. I would think it possible to say that many church members have their lights hidden very effectively behind the walls of the buildings -- even preacher-type church members can fall into that trap. Jesus applied the passage as "let your light so shine before men....." A lit candle under a bushel is still burning and still giving forth light, but the light isn't doing anyone any good. Make that candle a person with the "light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ". Let that person be baptized and join a church -- does that mean his light is always shining?"

Your logic must also be applied to your interpretation that all the saved would always have shining lights and salty salt too.

The fact is, Jesus is teaching what SHOULD be. We see in Revelation, His churches are not always what they SHOULD be.

I had stated earlier that I believe the Sermon is primarily directed to His newly formed church and these words of wisdom and truth from Jesus provides their inaugural address to get them started in the right direction. This right direction was to be a total contrast to what Judaism had become.
In a sense, Jesus had two elect groups side-by-side that He was working with to help:
1. His disciples
2. The multitude of disciples of the Jewish leaders, blinded in their religion but still of Israel.
His disciples were also part of the nation of Israel, so His disciples were ones leaving the system Judaism had become and identifying themselves with this new Rabbi, their Messiah. Thus, their Rabbi needed to give them a new set of instructions to operate by - the Sermon on the Mount.

One way Jesus hoped to gain disciples from within Israel was to convict them of their departure from true godliness and He did this partly by showing the contrast in what they had become to what God had intended for them to follow all along - also the role of the Sermon on the Mount.

Thus, kind of a dual purpose - 1) a description of how far they had strayed from truth and thus conviction of the nation to repent and be converted back the truth of God's calling for them and 2) a training manual for the ones who chose to follow Him. Both of these purposes were part of the theme of this great Sermon.

So, in Matthew 5 He chooses certain parts of the Law and first states how they (mis)understood it and (mis)practiced it then giving the correct version of the same law from God's viewpoint.
Then, in ch. 6 He deals with the overwhelming hypocrisy in their alms, their prayers, their fasting and their giving of money and in ch. 7 of their judging.

Jesus' Sermon was both a rebuke and correction of the wrongs of the religion as it was being practiced and a means of training His disciples in the "better way."

We must remember all of this was within the nation of Israel and until the cross, and esp. early in HIs ministry, Jesus reached out to them while at the same time developing His new group - His ekklesia.

He was up to both tasks!

Bro. Melton, I've often heard that when Jesus said, "Take my yoke upon you" he was speaking of baptism/church membership. One may make that application, but there is little contextual support for it. Similarly, there is little if any contextual support for the interpretation that the candlestick in this passage "represents" the church. One may make that application. Having said that, I must also say that nothing in my discussion downplays the church. As I've said many times before, there is more than one way to be wrong on the church, and overplaying it's role is just as dangerous as going in the other direction if not more so.

Bro. Desertpreacher, If the candlestick represents the church, then as long as the "candle" is on the "candlestick" they have been obedient to the passage's instructions. Do we honestly want to say that every member of every church is letting their light "so shine before men" as Jesus intended? Is that really all he intended to say, "Make sure your church membership is kept active?" It seems to me that Jesus is making the point that anyone who has the light needs to let it shine openly; and if that doesn't mean spreading the gospel in a sin-darkened, Satan-blinded world, then I don't have a clue what it does mean.

Bro. Howard, you said, "In a sense, Jesus had two elect groups side-by-side that He was working with to help." I'm not sure what all you were thinking of with that statement, but it sounds kind of like what I meant when I said the passage had a "Kingdom context."

Rich

Jesus was not only speaking about the what ("let your light so shine before men...") but the where ("candlestick") for individual "candles."

Since Jesus was just starting His public ministry and since He was laying down essential principles that would be developed more fully with time and since He chose His words carefully with precision and since He is the Author of the remainder of the words of the NT and since this same Jesus told John in Rev.1:20 that the "seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches," the only conclusion I can reach is Jesus was not only speaking in Matthew 5 about what the "candles" are to do, but also where they were to be connected - to the candlestick.

I see this as similar to the "lively stones" being joined together into a "spiritual house" in 1Peter 2:5
The individual saved person is to unite with other saved persons in a corporate capacity for proper and full use by the Master.
They were a "candle" before the being placed on the "candlestick" but the candlestick was still the designated place for them to shine.

Understood this way, we present basic Baptist doctrine - individuals are saved first and are thus "candles" and "lively stones" but are to then go on and become part of a corporate ekklesia - the "candlestick" and the "spiritual house." Being part of the corporate does not mean they automatically shine or are spiritual, but it doesn't change the purpose of God for individuals to direct their worship and service through the corporate institution nonetheless.
Too bad for us the design is not often enough the reality in our lives.

So, Bro. Howard, I suppose you apply the same exact logic to this passage:

Luke 11:32 The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
33 No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.
34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.
35 Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.
36 If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.

It would take a lot of twisting to try and force this passage into a discussion of joining a church -- even more so than in Matthew 5. Why not just take the passages for what they are -- simple parables. Lighted candles aren't hidden in secret places or under bushels but put on candlesticks where they do some good. Period. Fanciful interpretations of parables made by connecting them to unrelated scriptures has led to a lot of error over the years.

Rich