About two weeks ago at bible study I shared about spiritual milk vs spiritual meat. “Milk” is the word used for the basic doctrines mostly everyone knows and loves, such as John 3:16 – “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

Meat, on the other hand, are the deeper issues that inevitably result from milk: Who is God? Is He (or maybe she?) the same as Allah or the God of the Mormons or Jehova’s Witnesses? What does “only begotten” mean? Was Jesus created? Was he man or God or is he both? If so, how much of each is he? 50-50? Was the virgin birth necessary? Did he have to be God? Did he have to be human? Can God die?

It could (and did) go on and on. One topic we touched on was that of the different dispensations (yes, I am a dispensationalist). I mentioned specifically that the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), for example, was not directed at the church and in fact doesn’t even talk about the church, prayer in the name of Christ, and doesn’t mention the Holy Spirit once.
Before you cry out in agony, let me assure you that yes, there are great applications to be drawn here for the church and every single Christian. I do believe murder, adultery, divorce, etc, are all sin. I do agree that forgiveness, giving, prayer, are all important.

However, there is no way this passage can be interpreted literally (or normally) and refer to the church. This is the passage I was looking for at bible study for Sean and couldn’t find it, so here it is: Matthew 5:42. It says: “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.”
Now that sounds really good, but looking around today, there is really no one who does what it says. Naturally, that doesn’t prove it’s right or wrong, but it would be a serious serious flaw for Christians today if we are supposed to do it but don’t. It really wouldn’t work out for Christian business men or Theological Seminaries if they were supposed to give free of charge to everyone who asked of them.

Charles Ryrie, professor emeritus at Dallas Theological Seminary, says this: “[John McArthur, Jr.] asserted that the Sermon ‘is pure gospel, with as pointed an invitation as has ever been presented.’ Granted, the discourse contains several pointed invitations, but invitations to what? To believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again? Impossible to prove. To repent? Definitely. Who were to repent? The Jewish people to whom He was speaking. About what were they to repent? About their disobedience to God’s Law. What law? The law of Moses. That repentance was with a view to what? To entering the kingdom of heaven, which was at hand. What would those people have understood the kingdom of heaven to be? The Messianic, Davidic kingdom on this earth in which the Jewish people would have a prominent place.” (Ryrie 97)

Clearly the Sermon on the Mount can only be interpreted literally and consistently by saying it doesn’t refer to the church. Again, this is not to say that one cannot apply its principles to the church. ALL Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for correction, for reproof, for training in righeousness (2 Timothy 3:16), including the Sermon on the Mount; we just need to realize it’s not for the church but can be applied to it.

I mentioned ‘to interpret literally’ several times above. I might talk about what that means and why it’s important in the near future.

Christoph

Citations:
Ryrie, Charles. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

Related posts:

1. Hermeneutics
2. Not just doing, but attitude