The sermon on the mount and Old Testament law

From time to time, debates arise about how we as Christians should view the Old Testament. This is not surprising. The two main parts of the Bible take place in different historical contexts and represent different eras of God’s great plan of salvation.

Virtually all Christians agree that there are things commanded in the Old Testament that we as Christians are not obliged or even encouraged to adhere to. A clear example of this is the circumcision of newborn boys, but the same can be said about the laws concerning clean and unclean foods.

The Christian’s relationship to the Old Testament law is a big topic, and here I will limit myself to a single chapter in the New Testament – namely, the first part of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.

All Evangelical Focus news and opinion, on your WhatsApp.

In particular, I am thinking of an expression that Jesus uses several times in his sermon, that I believe is one of the most misunderstood in the entire Gospel: ‘You have heard that it was said ... But I tell you’ (Matt 5:21–22, etc.).

Many people who come across these words read them as a criticism of Old Testament teaching. Almost as if there was a duel between Jesus and Moses: ‘Moses said this, but he didn’t really understand God’s will – I, on the other hand, have access to God’s true revelation. Therefore, you can put the Old Testament on the shelf and listen only to me.’

As already mentioned, this issue is complicated by the fact that there are indeed things in the Old Testament that have had their day. But should this be interpreted as meaning that Moses cannot be trusted?

And more specifically: Does it mean that Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, makes statements against the teachings of the Old Testament as such?

I believe that both of these questions must be answered with a resounding ‘no!’ There are several reasons for this, and I will here follow the Anglican theologian John Stott in his book The Message of the Sermon on the Mount (BST). 

The first reason to dismiss the ‘rejection hypothesis’ is that a close reading of the text shows that it is not the commandments per se that Jesus criticises, but how they were interpreted by the Pharisees.

To be specific, Jesus never questions the prohibitions against murder, adultery, swearing of oaths, etc.; rather, he deepens our understanding of what the commandments are actually about. In a way similar to the last commandment of the Decalogue (‘you shall not covet ...’), he emphasises the matters of the heart rather than just the outward actions.

Stott further points out that this is confirmed by Jesus’ choice of words. Normally, when he quotes the Old Testament, he uses the expression ‘it is written’ (Greek gegraptai). But in his criticism of the Pharisees, he says instead ‘it was said to the people long ago’ (Matt 5:21, 33) or simply ‘it has been said’ (Greek errethe).

What Jesus is discussing, then, is not the law as such, but its interpretation; in connection with this, he claims that it is his interpretation, rather than that of the Pharisees, that is authoritative. 

The third argument from John Stott comes from the immediate context.

The fact is that Jesus begins this entire section of the Sermon on the Mount by affirming his respect for the Law of Moses. ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets,’ he says; “I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished’ (Matt 5:17–18).

One could of course argue (once again) that there are parts of the Old Testament that are no longer binding for us as Jesus’ disciples.

But in these verses, the Lord clearly confirms the authority of the law – not by claiming that you and I are obliged to keep all the Old Testament commandments, but by himself living up to their original intention.

As the Apostle Paul summarises it: ‘But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship’ (Gal 4:4–5).

Jesus’ perfect fulfilment of the law – in itself a confirmation of the authority of the law – means that the blessing of the law is passed on to all who by faith accept Jesus’ work. ‘He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit’ (Gal 3:14).

Last but not least, John Stott points to Jesus’ general example in the four Gospels. Time and again, he quotes Old Testament texts, and he does so with the claim that these are God’s inspired words.

The fact of the matter is that he can even say that ‘Scripture cannot be set aside’ (John 10:35). Not to mention that he continues his earlier argument in Matthew 5:17–18 with the words: ‘Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practises and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt 5:19).

Generally speaking, it is interesting that Jesus has in certain circles gained a reputation for being theologically liberal, especially on ethical issues.

A close reading of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount shows that, if anything, he makes the commandments more rigorous (although the above review shows that he rather confirms and deepens them).

In doing so, he makes it clear that what saves us from judgment is not that God turns a blind eye to sin and tones down the demands of the law, but that Jesus fulfils the law in our place and offers his grace to repentant sinners.

Law and grace can thus be described as different, but in both cases God-given, paradigms. Both affirm God’s holy standard, but only God’s grace points the way to salvation for a humanity fallen into sin.

Even after we have received God’s grace and forgiveness, however, our call to a holy life remains. Not by trying, as the Pharisees did, to earn entry into the kingdom of God on our own merits.

But as a response to God’s grace and in the power of the Holy Spirit. As the apostle Peter puts it: ‘Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming. As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy”’ (1 Peter 1:13–16).

It is against this background that we should understand Jesus’ quite shocking words from the same part of the Sermon on the Mount: ‘unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt 5:20).

Here, Jesus is talking about a righteousness that grows out of the Holy Spirit’s work in our own hearts – from the inside out. The righteousness of the Pharisees, on the other hand, begins on the outside and lacks the ability to live up to the intentions of the law.

To compensate for this, they took liberties with God’s commandments – either by compromising the principles of Scripture or by building ‘fences’ around the law so that, with the help of human commandments, they could avoid going against the letter of the law. 

This is what Jesus criticises in the Sermon on the Mount. At the same time, he makes it clear that it is he and no one else who has the final say in interpreting God’s law.

Basically, he affirms that he is God himself. Only if we approach the Gospels with this understanding we will be able to comprehend what the New Testament wants to teach us about law, grace and Christian sanctification.

Olof Edsinger, general secretary of the Swedish Evangelical Alliance.