The Old Testament Perspective of Matthew 5:19-20
And a Critique of the Armstrongist Interpretation
By Scout
Jesus in that sermon (Sermon on the Mount) said He did not come to destroy the Law or the prophets. He came only to fulfill. And I've shown you that according to the New Testament in James that we are commanded to fulfill the Law following in His steps — He set us an example that we should follow His steps and we too must fulfill the Law or else we are sinners and love is the fulfilling of the Law. And He said that not the dotting of an "i" or the crossing of a "t" would be removed from the Law until everyone is really fulfilling it. ― Herbert W. Armstrong, “Spirit of the Law”, Sermon, 1979
What if Israel really wanted to continue observing the Law? Well, it is simply impossible. There is no longer a priesthood, no temple, and no sacrificial system—all of which comprise the heart and essence of the Law. We cannot separate the Sinai covenant from the Law. The laws are merely an outgrowth of the covenant … Those who want to can only pick out a few laws to keep that are not related to the temple, the priesthood, or the sacrificial system.” ― Dr. Eitan Bar, “Reading Moses, Seeing Jesus: How the Torah Fulfills its Goal in Yeshua,” 2017.
Jesus spoke to Jews ― Jews of the Second Temple period. I am a bit Jewish so I can sympathize. I am descended from certain Sephardic Jews and history indicates that these Jews were from the Southern Tribes and fled Palestine in 70 AD. So, it is likely that my Jewish heritage is a mix of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi. While it is interesting to be genetically connected to these tribes, I have to solemnly consider that I am descended from people who may have heard Jesus and rejected him. I recognize that Jesus spoke to a very specific and demanding audience. But Jesus, I am certain, had no trouble with this audience. Because Jesus was an expert at “reading the room.” After all, he could read people’s minds. Jesus read the room with perfect precision and said exactly what was needed. So, it is important not to overlook the audience-related nuances in what his words tell us. As I examine two verses in Matthew 5, it will become obvious why this is important.
The Redemption Model in Matthew 5:19-20
Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount to his disciples and to a Jewish crowd purportedly on the Mount of Beatitudes near Lake Tiberias. Matthew 5 begins with, “When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain, and after he sat down, his disciples came to him.” Some have asserted that Jesus was not speaking to the crowd of Jews but only to the disciples. This is likely meant to support the idea that the Sermon on the Mount, with its references to Torah, was a thoroughgoing New Testament statement without Old Testament influence. But it is clear that Jews were a part of the audience because Matthew 7 ends with, “Now when Jesus had finished saying these words, the crowds were astounded at his teaching.” They must have all been close together to be able to hear the voice of Jesus.
I think the Jewish audience had an inkling of what was going to happen by the time Jesus reached verse 17 of Matthew 5. He had already talked about who would enter the Kingdom of Heaven in the Beatitudes and he did not mention once keeping the Torah. So, by this time the crowd was probably thinking, “This guy, this miracle worker, doesn’t believe in following the Torah.” He answered this unvoiced objection by stating pre-emptively that he would not abolish the Law and the Prophets (the Tanakh) but would himself fulfill its demands perfectly – every last word not just a selection. All the commandments, statutes, judgements, ordinances, rituals and ceremonies. In this, Jesus took a shot at the Pharisees. He would later accuse them of preaching but not doing what they preached (Matthew 23:3). He, further, explained that one had to not only teach but do the Law in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The Pharisees were teaching but not doing.
In the course of this, in Matthew 5:19-20, Jesus touched on the model of redemption that was relevant to this audience. He said,
“Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
There is a reason why I refer to this passage as a redemption model and not a salvation model. If you are familiar with Christian soteriology, by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), then Matthew 5:19-20 is informative. It tells you that Jesus is not speaking of salvation (“entering into the Kingdom of Heaven”) as we know it from Pauline theology. In the Pauline model of salvation, one does not enter the kingdom of heaven by achieving a certain level of righteousness. In this case, a level that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees – both groups ardent Torah keepers. That would be salvation by works. Jesus did not speak of New Testament salvation by grace through faith in this sermon. He spoke the Torahic concept of keeping the Law in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven as Jews understood the Kingdom idea. This was the idea that keeping the Torah would bring blessings in this temporal, earthly life (Leviticus 18:5, Deuteronomy 30:15-16). In Second Temple Judaism to “take upon oneself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven” meant consciously keeping the Torah, and submitting to God in this lifetime. Within the boundaries of this system, if you were good then you had a good life on earth but in the end everyone went to Sheol where they lived a diminished existence in a dim, subterranean shadow-world.
Further, Jesus states in verse 20 that someone can break laws, even the least of them, and teach others to follow this evil example and still be in the Kingdom of Heaven. The downside for that person is only that the person will be one of the least in rank. This does not sound like the dire consequences that Paul spoke of in reaction to the activities of the Circumcision Party when he said in Galatians 5:4, “You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”
This drives the conclusion that Jesus is not speaking about the Christian model of eternal salvation but the Jewish model of earthly blessing. The deeper picture is this: Jesus, who was under the Law, was speaking to Jews who were under the Law. Jesus had not been crucified and the grace he was to bring was not known yet. When Jesus mentioned the Kingdom of Heaven, the Jewish audience was not seeing the shining, mystical scenarios from the Book of Revelation because John of Patmos would not write until years later. There was no golden vision of the Parousia because Jesus was standing right in front of them and nobody could foresee his death and return, not even his own disciples. There is no discussion here of the Crucifixion, grace, faith, the Ekklesia and theosis. Instead, what was in view, was the earthly Judaic Kingdom of Heaven that meant for the future the coming of the Messiah militant and the exaltation of the nation of Israel and the casting down of Israel’s enemies. Even Jesus’ own disciples held this view (Acts 1:6, Luke 24:21). But some may see Matthew 5:19-20 not as instruction to a mixed audience of Jews under the Law and the disciples of Jesus but instruction solely to Christians under grace. That brings us to Armstrongism and the Circumcision Party.
The Armstrongist Interpretation and Its Similarity to Circumcision Party Belief
In the wake of the church planting work of Paul and bar-Nabus, a collection of Pharisees who had a different view on what Christ said, began to aggressively push a different message. They asserted that one had to be circumcised in order to be saved. They also asserted that one must keep the Law of Moses to receive salvation. This group of Pharisees is known to modern critics as the Circumcision Party. But they could just as accurately be referred to as the Torah Party.
The view of the Circumcision/Torah Party on salvation has a modern parallel among Armstrongists. The Circumcision/Torah Party and Armstrongists came to the same conclusion about the Torah’s relationship to salvation. The citation from a sermon by Herbert W. Armstrong at the beginning of this opinion piece underscores this. Armstrong drew the same conclusion that the Circumcision/Torah party drew – that the Torah is still a requirement for salvation. The difference is that the Circumcision/Torah Party, influenced by the Pharisees, promoted the Law of Moses with fidelity to the Tanakh. Whereas, Armstrongism promotes a streamlined, mini-Torah.
See Rod Meredith’s article, “Is Obedience to God Required for Salvation?” for how the argument supporting this Armstrongist doctrine is developed. We do not have, as far as I know, a record of how the Circumcision/Torah Party developed this conclusion. They may have simply misinterpreted statements like Matthew 5:19-20. In the statement of Herbert W. Armstrong’s position in 1979 cited at the beginning of this opinion piece, it is clear that Armstrongists are required to fulfill the Torah in the same way that Jesus fulfilled the Torah down to the jot and tittle level (though in 1956 Meredith, in his article previously cited, excluded the sacrifices and imposition of the death penalty). If Herbert W. Armstrong’s view were really true, we would all be capable of human earthly perfection in this life (this is a belief found among some Millerites called Spiritualizers) and the imputed righteousness of Christ would be rendered superfluous. So, the Armstrongist view leaves us with some unresolved issues.
Conclusion
The Sermon on the Mount is a significant part of what Christians view as the Law of Christ. But it was not delivered to Christians but to Jews of the Second Temple period, Jews who were under the Torah. While the Sermon on the Mount is bedrock Christian doctrine, it must be recognized that it was delivered in Jewish terms to a Jewish audience. Jesus read the room and spoke to his audience. During the course of the sermon, Jesus even mentioned taking a gift (Greek, doron, which is typically an animal sacrifice) to the alter, a sacrificial practice required under the Law but not in Christianity. We must recognize the coloration of Second Temple Judaism in the Sermon on the Mount and permit the words spoken by Jesus later through the Apostle Paul and the author of Hebrews to temper these Judaic views.
48 comments:
Yea the Torah Party that goes along with Armstrongism inculcates the British Israel pharisee doctrine along with their identification of literally coming out of Egypt. So there is a sense of duty within Armstrongism to keep the whole Torah/Law because of the ancestral Israel belief system.
The Armstrongist-Torah Party is still looking out for the “gates of our enemies” “the alien will rise above you” (even though we are to even love our enemies in Christianity), birthright blessings being fulfilled from Joseph till the early nineteenth century. The Torah Party continues to extract third tithes from its members. And it doesn’t like non “Israelite peoples” (according to them) coming into their “israelite-found” countries. Are they looking for an eternal inheritance?
You see a lot of OC the walls coming down in the book of Hebrews, “like we have no continuing city” (Heb 13:14), as well as sacrifices and High Priest role. And this is ironic as HWA did a solid on his Hebrew Series study, but couldn’t let some of the OC go. Another solid one by Scout!
Thank you Scout. A fine post. I have read a few books from Eitan Barr who you quoted here. Gives one an interesting take on Jewish thought and theology. Highly readable and educational. Jewish myself so I can identify with much of what is written here. I was raised secular but lived two years in Israel, fortunately lol, in a secular town. Where pork was readily available for the palate (I did not partake, and still don’t). Orthodox Judaism as practiced by the Hasidic communities leaves me cold. Rituals and tradition are the driving forces in these communities, and separate us from God. Those who manage to leave are ostracised, and many if not most suffer big time physiological and emotional trauma. Jesus said His yoke is light and burden is easy, a far cry from those who seek to bind us to the Law.Todah raba and cheers.
Curious as to your thoughts on this from Jared Wilson's book: The Imperfect Disciple: Grace for People Who Can’t Get Their Act Together.
"We are idiots when it comes to the Sermon on the Mount. And, in fact, the Sermon on the Mount makes us idiots. We come up against it and see what it makes of our striving, our ambition, our jockeying for position, and it puts us in our place. But rather than humble ourselves before it we try to co-opt it and spin it, turn it into a set of Christian fortune cookies."
"No, the Beatitudes are not laws. They aren’t steps or tips. These blessings are good tidings! They are announcements of something happening, not instructions of things to do. The Beatitudes are beautiful entailments of the good news of God’s kingdom, which has come in and through the person and work of Jesus Christ—that is to say, they do not come in and through the strategies of therapeutic Christian moralizing.
We just don’t get the Sermon on the Mount, or Jesus’s ministry in general, like his immediate hearers did. Jesus wasn’t turning things upside down. He was turning them right side up.
This is why the good news is good news for those at the bottom. Think of every category of person spoken to in the Beatitudes:
The spiritually impoverished.
The emotionally devastated.
The psychologically weak.
The culturally oppressed.
The inwardly pure.
The relationally calm.
The physically abused.
The personally accused.
Culturally speaking, do we cherish these people? Are these the kinds of people we typically feature on magazine covers or in awards shows?
What about Christian culture? Do we buy these people’s books by the millions? Do we go to conferences to hear them? Do we podcast them? Do we listen to them on the radio?
No. We’re too busy being played by those who’ve learned to game the system. We don’t really care to hear from these people. They’re messy, a little weird, socially awkward, kind of needy, and not very put together. What can they teach us? I mean, what can they teach us about what we really want? They aren’t winners. We don’t want a word from them.
And we don’t typically have a word for them.
And yet these people are exactly the ones Jesus is speaking to. His words are especially designed for and specifically targeted at . . . well, losers.
Reading the Beatitudes as either hyper-spiritual law-deliverance or hippie-spiritual law-avoidance are equally adventures in missing the point. The Beatitudes are instead a shot across the bow at worldly and traditional cultural values.
Wait. No.
The Beatitudes are a shot right into the side of these cultural values, a heat-seeking missile into the rusty hull of that worn old battleship, the SS Works Righteousness. They are an alien invasion, a monolith dropped right out of the other dimension like the thing in 2001 that drove all the apes crazy. Some got smarter, some got meaner, but they all got different because the landscape of reality had been changed. That’s what the Beatitudes do. They change reality."
Those individuals sound like the prophets v12. as they exemplified. This is why they were persecuted in the world and Christ mentioned them right after the Beatitudes.
The Imperfect Disciple, Grace for People Who Can’t Get Their Act Together……….well NO2HWA, that perfectly sums all of us up. Imperfect, unless you are within Armstrongism lol. Who bounded us with do’s and don’ts, The Law in other words.Yes we don’t get it about GRACE. As it is written in Acts, ‘everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law’. ‘We are saved by Grace and that through faith and that not of yourselves…’ Simple. And to the Armstrongites reading this, it is not a license to go and murder commit adultery steal..etc etc etc………you don’t get it if do you, lol. Good posts here, cheers.
NO2HWA
I am not familiar with Wilson’s book. I will look around for a copy. I do have response to a point he made.
Wilson wrote, “We come up against it (Sermon on the Mount) and see what it makes of our striving, our ambition, our jockeying for position, and it puts us in our place.” My experience, from the belly of the whale, was that Ambassador College Big Sandy was the antithesis of the Beatitudes. It was a rigidly hierarchical institution – much like many secular institutions – and the people involved related to each other through that hierarchy. Your value as a person was assessed instantly, as if you were carrying a card, based on where you fit in the pyramidical hierarchy. Human value in this system ranged from the extraordinarily important at the pinnacle to the virtually non-existent at the base. I do not believe that this was a product of the Holy Spirit’s activity in the lives of these people.
The issue then is, how does one run an organization efficiently without defaulting to a hierarchy? I don’t think it’s possible. The church at its earliest stages was hierarchical. There were Apostles in charge. The challenge, then, is how does one run a hierarchical organization without the hierarchy becoming the autocratic means by which human value is determined. A Christian organization should be based on love with the hierarchical structure simply as a necessary organizational tool which is dominated by servant leadership. Easily said but not easily done. AC went in the other direction. Instead, of regarding the hierarchy as a mere tool, the hierarchy became the substance. This was bolstered by the fact that some taught that the hierarchy of the WCG would be mapped into the Kingdom of God.
My guess is that this slide into autocracy afflicts many denominations. Humans are tribal. Only the Holy Spirit can override that natural tendency.
Scout
NO2 HWA writes, "the Beattitudes are not laws, They are not steps or tips, or instructions of things to do".
Amen to this! These are not only true statements but they plainly declare what the truth of the Gospel is (and isn't) and what the true focus of NT Scripture is really about. Hint . . .it's not about " law".
The NT has much to say about "law" but it is not really about "law". The law is FORM, not SUBSTANCE. The law is instruction in righteousness but not the instrument of righteousness. " Form" has its place in the life of the believer, but it is not the focus. Paul said, "I had not known sin , but by the law" (Romans 7:7). When he was in need of physical support, he instructed the Gentile Corinthians out of the law of Moses (form) as to his needs (substance).
The thrust of NT salvation is "becoming" something, NOT "doing" something. Salvation has more to do with the heart than action, and the actions that best describe the redeemed heart are the beattitudes.
The young rich man approached eternal life from the standpoint of the carnal mind, "doing". Christ pointed out that that approach was a dead end street, for that required one to do it ALL, which no man can do. The conclusion? " if thou would be PERFECT, come and follow me" (Matthew 19:21).
The beattitudes are substance, not form. They are qualities of character produced in the new man by the spirit of God. They are evidence of WHO are saved, not HOW to be saved. They are a description of the values and principles of the kingdom of God, which stand in contrast with the values of this world system. Like Christ himself, they are a shot across the bow, and those who demonstrate such, can impact reality.
Both Scout and NO2HWA have given excellent contrasts on the righteousness of the kingdom of God verses the righteousness of this world system. The hierarchies of this world care little about anything other than power, control, wealth, and the praise of man. They need foot soldiers to do the heavy lifting and financial support, but by and large that's it. The beattitudes mean nothing in this system for it was "this system" that crucified the giver of the beattitudes.
Without a doubt Armstrong fits this category, for in every imaginable way he sowed to the physical glories of this world. But since God is not mocked, this was also his downfall. He is long dead and gone, and the relics of his personal kingdom are not only in a state of irrelevance, but also on the verge of disappearing altogether. The splinters know this but they are powerless to do anything about it.
Yea the Holy Spirit is the key. As Christ did actually give one special commandment and that's to love one another. And WCG/RCG wasn't able to do that They chose the "lord it over you" system, and Christ told His disciples not to do that.
And this blog does exactly the same "Lord it over people" with vilest insults.
Disappearing BP8 ? Don't think so, when was the last time you observed a Feast of Tabernacles? Or even stepped foot inside an Sabbath Church service? Easy to be a keyboard warrior at home cursing the COG.
Is this an introduction before the main article on the subject ? Not once do you delve into the actual words of Jesus's Sermon on the mount in scripture. All you, nothing of Jesus.
I disagree, and guess what I can't kick you out of this blog. But if you disagree with a ACOG minister, you'll be branded and kicked out of the org. See the difference. 10:05
Anonymous 11:24
It was not my intent to do a commentary on the entire Sermon on the Mount. My focus, as the title indicates, is on Matthew 5:19-20. While I started with a personal note, my writing was not "all me." You seem to have read only the first few sentences. There are many excellent publications by Christian authors on the entire Sermon on the Mount.
Scout
Cool down 1008, I'm not cursing anyone, just making a valid observation. Because of their rigid hierarchical system and anticipation of the coming world collapse, the church never bothered to cultivate their young people, and because of this one thing among others, sooner or later they will die out. When you old timers are gone, the church is finished, history! It's just a matter of time.
And that “rigid hierarchical system and anticipation of the coming world collapse” cannot come fast enough for the seventy-five year old and older crowd. He must come during their watch, because “they are the only true church” and they knew God’s end time apostle.
The way the American Secretary this week sold Euro's (instead of dollars) to support the Yen and not tell the ECB was not illegal, there is no law against it. Yet is initiates the total destruction of the American Empire and the underlying structure supporting it. The things that are not seen, trust, faith, resilience....the way of give.
nck
Not for want of trying 6:17. Many on here play an biased game to always win. Google tracking helps work out who's who for blog elite.
Herbert and Garner Ted & co lying and hypocrisy is called out, but blog elite lie through their teeth too and hypocrisy abounds.. You all fight to win just as Herbert and Ted & co did.
No wonder Jesus asked for the end of the age will he find faith on earth when he returns. No one is good except God.
What I am doing with this opinion piece is emphasizing a hermeneutic. The hermeneutic is actually the last sentence of the piece:
“We must recognize the coloration of Second Temple Judaism in the Sermon on the Mount and permit the words spoken by Jesus later through the Apostle Paul and the author of Hebrews to temper these Judaic views.”
This hermeneutic exists among Christians already but it needs to be underscored for people who have escaped Armstrongism. After you leave Armstrongism, one of the capabilities that you must reacquire is thinking analytically. That ability atrophies in the constant storm of sound bites. That is a technique that comes from the advertising world. Jesus spoke to Jews in a specific context. He was not speaking to Gentile Christians in the post 70 AD period. The ministry of Jesus was circumscribed by race, geography, culture, the Temple, the Priesthood and the Torah. It was Judaism and the Judaic society of the Second Temple period. This means terms, vocabulary and narratives used in the Gospels will be rooted in this religious and sociological substrate.
This is not a problem for most theologians. They understand the Judaic inclination of the Gospels. The Judaic inclination is clearly there in the text and for this reason, it is important to understand that Jesus spoke twice. First, during his lifetime, then, later, through the New Testament authors.
Armstrongism seems to have neglected this hermeneutic. A case in point, is Matthew 5:17-20. This is often quoted by Armstrongists, reduced to sound-bite level, in isolation. But Jesus has much more to say about the issue of the Torah but Jesus does it through Paul and the author of Hebrews. Neglecting or misunderstanding this Second Discourse of Jesus on the Torah has led HWA to assert that all Christians must keep the Torah down to the jot and tittle. I have quoted him. And the fact is none of his followers do that. They are all followers of the mini-Torah that was packaged by the WCG for denominational use.
Scout
AMAZING breakdown Scout 7:27!!!
“Armstrongism seems to have neglected this hermeneutic. “Jesus does it through Paul and the author of Hebrews. Neglecting or misunderstanding this Second Discourse of Jesus on the Torah”
___________________________________________________________________
The message or discourse had to be further understood for future followers because not only would His ministry be cut short, but also a 70ish AD thing would happen in the real world, leaving the faith in other regions or cultures in the world. As the first century church would end up in Asia Minor (Rev 2-3) leaving the jewish culture in the rubble.
Armstrongism does mention how the Lord spoke to the patriarchs or prophets as the book of Hebrews mentions (Hebrews 1:1-2) as that would be the preincarnate Christ and then Christ, then it would later be like how Christ spoke to Saul (Paul) and other apostles. As you mention there are plenty of examples in the book of Hebrews that get into the second discourse.
But one of the greatest examples of the breaking away of the Torah Party, is Paul’s example and attitude found in Philippians 3:4-6. Nothing is more Torah than circumcised the 8th day, stock of Israel, tribe of Benjamin, Hebrew, A Pharisee, law blameless. But what does the apostle say in Philippians 3:7-8?
Philippians 3:7-8 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ
Armstrongism is in conflict with this actual second discourse.
Excellent work Scout!
There are some who fight to win all the way to the bank to make “merchandise of people” like Herbie & Garner Ted Co. Not everybody wants to win that way. Some people want to win via the ways of words. “We won’t charge you anything.” Perhaps some of us lie and are hypocrites but at least we don’t have to put on a suit and tie and travel around to do so in people’s faces. I am 6:17 Have a wonderful sabbath.
This version is easier to read. The previous version, on my laptop, did not space correctly. Scout
What I am doing with this opinion piece is emphasizing an hermeneutic. The hermeneutic is actually the last sentence of the piece:
“We must recognize the coloration of Second Temple Judaism in the Sermon on the Mount and permit the words spoken by Jesus later through the Apostle Paul and the author of Hebrews to temper these Judaic views.”
This hermeneutic exists among Christians already but it needs to be underscored for people who have escaped Armstrongism. After you leave Armstrongism, one of the capabilities that you must reacquire is thinking analytically. That ability atrophies in the constant storm of sound bites. That is a technique that comes from the advertising world. Jesus spoke to Jews in a specific context. He was not speaking to Gentile Christians in the post 70 AD period. The ministry of Jesus was circumscribed by race, geography, culture, the Temple, the Priesthood and the Torah. It was Judaism and the Judaic society of the Second Temple period. This means terms, vocabulary and narratives used in the Gospels will be rooted in this religious and sociological substrate.
This is not a problem for most theologians. They understand the Judaic inclination of the Gospels. The Judaic inclination is clearly there in the text and for this reason, it is important to understand that Jesus spoke twice. First, during his lifetime, then, later, through the New Testament authors.
Armstrongism seems to have neglected this hermeneutic. A case in point, is Matthew 5:17-20. This is often quoted by Armstrongists, reduced to sound-bite level, in isolation. But Jesus has much more to say about the issue of the Torah but Jesus does it through Paul and the author of Hebrews. Neglecting or misunderstanding this Second Discourse of Jesus on the Torah has led HWA to assert that all Christians must keep the Torah down to the jot and tittle. I have quoted him. And the fact is none of his followers do that. They are all followers of the mini-Torah that was packaged by the WCG for denominational use.
Scout
No need to post it twice, seriously the spacing isn't the problem. The opinion article is.
It is shockingly incorrect, you seem to have fallen fowl to the modern trend afflicting the church of using scripture like a trampoline, bouncing high in the sky with your imagination and not being rooted in the reality of scripture.
Only Jews listening to Jesus Sermon on the Mount ? Really? Then your opinion is woefully incorrect when compared to scripture.
Is Matthew 4:25 to be thrown in the bin? Matthew, an real Apostle wrote: "Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him."
This is vital because God has inspired Matthew to write the different areas as they contained different people, Jesus taught the Sermon on the Mount to a mixed multitude. The Sermon on the Mount event was a mirror of when Jesus spoke on the Mountain to Moses with the 70 elders on the lower ledge in Exodus.
The way Matthew has used the word Decapolis is important and not to be ignored as it included people from various heritages because of it's trade links.
Jesus, as supported by many biblical historians from many different denominations and even many different hollywood films over the decades shows, spoke the Sermon on the Mount to a mixed multitude audience and not only Jews.
Anonymous 12:41
“…you seem to have fallen fowl…”. I would typically let that pass. But I don’t know if I should become offended because I don’t know what bird you’re referring to.
Certainly, there were other peoples in Palestine at the time. Maybe some of them had even converted to Judaism. But the fact is Jesus is speaking to the Jews in his audience who were no doubt the majority. The logic that Jesus was talking to Gentiles and, therefore, was making wholly New Testament statements without a Jewish context is a dog that won’t hunt. When he said, when you “bring your gift to the altar” that is clearly a reference to Torah-based Judaism of the Second Temple period. We know his train of thought. Why quibble over a few Gentiles in the audience?
Moreover, you have taken issue with the entire article and then only made a statement about a peripheral topic concerning who was in the audience. Is that all you have to say?
Scout
Peripheral! This article devotes over 40 sentences to drive the message home that the audience was wholly jewish. You even write about your jewish ancestors!
You do not know the audience had ' a few gentiles' that is you trampolining into the sky away from scripture.
Matthew 4 shows what Jesus was doing healing the sick and his fame had spread as far as Syria.
The decapolis was ten cities teaming with all different nationalities. There is a reason why Matthew included the regions people travelled from to hear, see and be healed by Jesus.
12:41 I think the opinion piece is quite interesting. Because in my “opinion” “some of” the message of the Messiah was cut off when he was crucified.
So for instance the correction of Peter by the Apostle Paul would have never took place in the Old Testament or Old Covenant and that involved that “circumcision party”. Also as well, the Lord had to give the vision three times to Peter, not to call any man common or unclean (Acts 10) and that too probably doesn’t take place in the OC. That’s the Lord continuing the message. Also I believe Paul’s visions especially to the third heaven most likely in Arabia (Gal 1:17), to receive more of the gospel message not from the original apostles but from the Lord (Gal 1:12). And that Arabia (Sinai) is likened to Moses and also Elijah going to Mount Horeb as well. Paul had to get it through to the gentiles that if you have the holy spirit, that this represents the temple of God not the actual temple in Jerusalem. Not to mention the main vision John received in the last book of the canon. Christ still wanted to clear up things for everybody before things were sealed up. That’s what I got from the Scouts message.
Tank
Foul.
Tank wrote, “That’s the Lord continuing the message.”
I agree though my terminology is non-standard. I think of the two discourses of Jesus. The First Discourse is comprised of his direct words in the Gospels and Acts. The Second Discourse consists of his inspiration of the various authors in the New Testament. The actual terms used by theologians are, respectively, the dominical words of Jesus and the inspired or plenary words of Jesus. Google AI says the following:
“In Christian theology, the direct earthly speech of Jesus is often called dominical words (from the Latin dominus, meaning "Lord"), while the broader communication through the biblical writers is designated under the doctrine of plenary inspiration or divine inspiration. Rather than viewing these as separate tiers of truth, orthodox theology treats both as fully authoritative expressions of the single Word of God.”
In the future, I will seek to follow the standard terminology. I appreciate the last sentence in the quotation above.
Scout
Isn’t this Martin Luther’s view? Luther interpretation of the Sermon was an application of his teaching on justification and the Law. The sermon was viewed as a Law that promised justice in return for works and was considered inferior to the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith.
Zippy 2:36
That kind of conclusion is the problem if a division is made between the dominical words of Jesus and the inspired words of Jesus. There are not two justifications if Luther actually believed that.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus declared that it is possible to keep the letter of the Torah with an unchanged heart. So, he explained the Spirit of the Torah to the crowd. But he does not delve into soteriology. He hints at salvation in the Beatitudes where he points out examples of people entering into the Kingdom of Heaven without the Torah being on the critical path.
As Christians we benefit from understanding the Spirit of the Law in the words of Jesus. But when it comes to full bore soteriology, we must look at what Christ said through Paul. If anyone counterposes the dominical against the inspired words of Jesus, confusion is going to happen. He is the one Word of God.
Scout
This is all fluff and nonsense, an emperors new clothes high brow intellectual debate about what other high brows think of the Sermon on the Mount to fit into their pre-conceived beliefs.
This is nothing to do with the actual teachings of Jesus sermon he delivered on the mountain. All yourselves, nothing of Jesus.
It is all prideful debate to show off whilst ignoring the plain truth of Jesus words. Especially verse 17 when Jesus said " Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
You cannot get around that so you ignore it and think you can intellectually debate it away.
You all behave exactly the same as the religious leaders who watched Jesus say the actual sermon live, not to accept him but to intellectually debate about him with zero interest in the actual treachings.
Anonymous 11:39 wrote, “This is all fluff and nonsense…”
Do you think that your personal salvation is “fluff and nonsense”? HWA is saying that you must keep the Torah down to the jot and tittle. Do you do that? Do you stay in a brush arbor at the Feast of Tabernacles? Or do you follow the Armstrongist mini-Torah instead of the inspired Torah that Jesus referred to in the Sermon on the Mount? Do you believe that Jesus spoke through the Apostle Paul and the author Hebrews?
These issues are all bound up in my article. If these issues are not important to you then Christianity is not important to you. (You might be an atheist. You have given no indication of what you are.) You need to gather your forces on this. The business about whether or not Jesus was speaking to Jews is just a red herring. You might as well argue about something as insubstantial as what the weather was when Jesus spoke. If you have a theological objection to what I wrote then you need to bring it, clearly and concisely. Otherwise, bye.
Scout
Oh go away you false accuser of the brethren. You accuse christians of being morons, retards and now atheist's.
All you do is argue and wrangle over scripture and gain nothing in character.
Your the one who wrote over 40 sentences about the audience only being jewish.
All you want is yes people to cheer you on.
11:39 & 9:24 Didn’t these things (below) change? The Apostle Paul would have conflict with the Torah.
Exodus 12:43-44 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it. But every man’s servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it.
Deuteronomy 23:3 “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord forever,
The Holy Spirit changes things.
Anonymous 9:24 wrote, “Oh go away you false accuser of the brethren.”
No thanks. I believe I’ll stick around. One has to have a sense of humor to write for a blog that deals with Armstrongism. Armstrongism itself is no joke but some of the people who support it can come up with some funny, trollish stuff. I find it especially comedic when they arm-wave but never make a single logical argument. It’s as if emotion carries the day instead of reason. That’s what happens to people who live in a constant storm of sound-bites from the pulpit. But for those of us who have escaped Armstrongism, we have to have empathy. If we were still in the sound-bite cyclone, we would find ourselves benumbed to reason as well.
Scout
They tell us to go away, but isn't it interesting they come over here to this blog.
Tank
Not one word of interest in Jesus's actual words from the Sermon on the mount. Now that is telling. All you, nothing of Jesus.
As i wrote elsewhere you always rig the game to always win.
You decree like a 'My way Monarch' what comments are "sound bites" and what are "logical arguments".
You wrap charm up with rude ice-coldness and decide which comments are 'approved' and which ones are to be 'despised'.
You nit-pick or deride the 'despised' comments, encouraged by others, but it is always one rule for you and another for others.
You cannot sway people's beliefs so easily, as you and your cronies are your own worst adverts for changing beliefs and living a double life.
Anonymous 9:24 wrote, “Your the one who wrote over 40 sentences about the audience only being jewish.”
I began my article by stating, “Jesus spoke to Jews ― Jews of the Second Temple period.” I stand by this statement. But this is not a statement about demographics but is, rather, a statement about the purpose and intent of Jesus. Jesus said in Matthew 15:22-23:
“But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
When Jesus spoke, his intended audience was the Jews. This is what I am saying. It is obvious that neither you nor I know who was actually there listening. (We know there was at least one Gentile Roman Centurion who responded to his message.) We have no demographic data available to us. But we know who Jesus was talking to. We know that Jesus was speaking to the Jewish population.
Paul made the famous statement, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is God’s saving power for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.” This meant the preaching of the Gospel went to the Jews first in its intent and purpose. Later there was a mission to the Gentiles. Maybe one day you can upbraid Paul to his face and tell him that he was a liar because you know that there were Gentiles in the audience when Jesus spoke.
This is easily understood but I think you want to make an issue of it for other, unrelated reasons. You think I am a UCG minister. I am a Christian lay member and have never set foot in a UCG congregation. The UCG minister that you fantasize that I am is probably somebody who has not given you the attention you want. I think you have a serious problem and need help. I don’t know how you are going to get it. If you counsel with you a UCG minister it is likely that you will be disfellowshipped. You might think about seeing a private counselor.
Sorry about this. I will not be responding to any more of your comments, if I can recognize that you are the author. I think for other readers and commenters on this blog, we must recognize that some people who show up here have been seriously damaged by Armstrongism. What they write may be a plea for help.
Scout
Whatever.
Not one comment here mentions UCG Ministry. You kept writing comments keeping the discussion going not I. The article did have a large portion about the audience.
Showing your skill off here for successfully spiritually murdering people's reputations.
When you've finished tearing people down guess what scriptures build them up. Jesus's Sermon on the Mount.
Brush arbors are not commanded. Take of trees to rejoice, on the first day, a sabbath. Nothing is read to construct anything - Lev 23:40. Ezra found in the law they are to dwell in booths, but although tents as booths were OK - Hosea 12:9, Israel made in Ezra's time booths from trees to PROVIDE booths, as it is written (booths) - Ezra 8:14-17. Again, where's the law to make, build, construct booths if tents were available? In Ezra's time the booths were provided in permanent locations: the roof of the owner's house, in courts including the house of God, in streets.
Anonymous 6:54 wrote, "Brush arbors are not commanded."
Herbert W. Armstrong was always an advocate of letting the Bible interpret itself. So, I will do that in this case. The word suka, translated as booths, means “thicket”. It definitely has an arboreal connotation. In Nehemiah 8:13-15, we find this statement:
“On the second day the heads of ancestral houses of all the people, with the priests and the Levites, came together to Ezra the scribe in order to study the words of the law. And they found written in the law which the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month: And that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying, Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, TO MAKE BOOTHS (SUKA), AS IT IS WRITTEN.”
It is clear that this refers to brush arbors. This is how Ezra and the august body of authorities read the scripture. This dwelling is something that you make yourself with your own hands, is temporary, and for the express purpose of observing Sukkot. The Sherton does not fit this profile in the least. The people who dwell in hotels, motels and rented houses for the FoT, do not comply with the Torah at the jot and tittle level that HWA says is required. Re-read his statement at the top.
The really comedic aspect of this is that I have heard people at the Feast of Tabernacles in Big Sandy who were living in hotels, not authorized by the Torah, criticize AC administrators and faculty members for not moving out of their housing on Faculty Row, also not authorized by the Torah, during the Feast.
In fact, the Torah on this issue will never be observed. Can you imagine what would happen if an Armstrongist minister told his wife that she is going to help make a brush arbor and live in it for eight days. You would see a mass exodus from the Armstrongist denominations. The brush arbor is in the inspired Torah in the Tanakh. The Sheraton is in the uninspired mini-Torah used by Armstrongists. Nobody in the Armstrongist realm actually observes the Torahic Feast of Booths which is theoretically written on their hearts.
Scout
Anonymous 6:54
Further, for those who say a brush arbor is a superfluous condition that can be easily dropped. Dr. Eitan Bar, an Israeli Jew, states:
"The practice of building and living in sukkot—simple structures crafted from branches and foliage—carries profound symbolic meaning. It brings to life the reality of human frailty and transience, reinforcing the truth that ultimate security is found not in human achievements but in God's enduring care. Sukkot is a festival of sensory richness. The waving of the "Four Species" (etrog, lulav, myrtle, and willow) during prayer symbolizes unity and the blessings of creation. The festive meals shared under the open sky, the storytelling, the songs—all foster a deep sense of community, humility, joy, and gratitude. It is a festival where theology becomes tactile, where faith is not merely professed but lived and experienced."
Scout
Oops....Neh 8, not Ezra 8. Again, where did Ezra read booths must be made out of tree stuff?
Does God care about brush harbors (1 Corinthians 9:9)? OR are there more important aspects concerning the feast of Tabernacles for the NC Christian to consider than where he is going to lay down for the night?
I don't believe the new covenant requires us now to become carpenters in order to celebrate the acts of Christ. If you want to go to Jerusalem or build a hut, have at it. But staying at home or in a hotel works too!
BP8 2:35
Paul’s interpretation of the muzzled ox law is that it has a deeper meaning and Paul explains that. As a Christian I do not object to the physical details of the Torahic laws having a deeper meaning. Jesus modified principal laws of the Torah in the Sermon on the Mount. I even believe that the Torah as a cohesive and articulated body of legislation was set aside. I would call this view the Mutable Torah model, where mutability includes not only change but also obsoleting.
My point is that HWA did not believe in the Mutable Torah model. He believed in the Torah as an immutable, eternal law to which Christians must conform down to the jot and tittle. Re-read his statement at the top of the essay. I believe that most Armstrongists are not aware of HWA’s belief on this. They simply follow the customs of their Armstrongist denomination. It is a custom to stay in the nicest hotel you can justify at the Feast. And the Armstrongist ministry leads the example of Torah rejection by reserving the very best for themselves. They use as the justification for this custom the innovative idea that the Feast portrays the abundance and prosperity of the Millennium. But the Torah, which founds and defines the Feast of Tabernacles, says nothing about the Millennium. And it does specifically state that the keepers of the Law must build and stay in a brush arbor. Not staying in a brush arbor is just as much a violation of the Torahic Law of the Feast of Tabernacles as working on the seventh day is a violation of the Sabbath by the implications of Armstrongist theology.
My two cents…
Scout
Scout
As always, I appreciate your 2 cents.
The opinions I express here, whether it be on the law, the Godhead, salvation or whatever, are my own and they come directly out of my personal systematic theology project. They are not an endorsement of the Armstrong model, although they may parallel him in a few areas.
The arguments I present regarding certain concepts (sabbath, holydays, etc.) are in support of the validity of the concept, not the Armstrong version of the concept. I realise that this is an anti-Armstrong blog and it's not really practical for me to expect those here to make that distinction, but that's ok, I can work around it. I think in time, sooner or later, most will see where I am coming from.
Concerning your comment at 709, Christ tells us in John 4:21-24 that PLACE (which would include many other rules and directives necessary for the administration of a collective) are not the main concern for true worshipers of the new covenant, but they that worship him must worship in spirit (substance) and truth (form). I believe many scriptures out of Paul's theology collaborate this.
This in no way invalidates the true substance of the law but clarifies what God deems to be the important issue, the point He wants to be understood, the reason the law exists in the first place, which only those having the spirit can truly understand and discern. As we have all previously professed, the holydays point to and are about Jesus Christ, not building materials, or crackers and sweepers! Christ is the substance, the bread of life, the one who tabernacled among men. The administrative aspects of the law may serve a purpose under certain circumstances, but for the new covenant Christian they are irrelevant.
Post a Comment