Introduction to the Sermon on the Mount

Spiritual Insights Page

What does the Sermon on the Mount teach us?

CHAPTER 1

PRECEDING CONTEXT OF THE SERMON

The outline of the portion preceding the Sermon on the Mount can easily be determined by observing differing structures. The genealogical material of Matthew 1:1-17 is obviously biographically structured. The numerous chronological connectives of 1:18-4:16 (especially de and tote) disclose a chronological structure. Starting with 4:17, there is a minimum of chronological connectives; however, the material seems to exhibit a construction around events--historical structure. An investigation of 1:1-4:16 discloses a common purpose: to prove that Jesus was the King because his genealogy and His preparation were Messianic. Matthew 4:17-25 seems to introduce a portion which concerns Jesus' ministry and which includes the Sermon on the Mount.

Argument of Matthew 1:1-4:16: Proof of Jesus' Kingship

Genealogy (1:1-17)

It is obvious that the key to this section is the repetition and priority placement of David. Matthew was concerned with proving that Jesus is the King because His lineage may be traced through David and Solomon. This lineage is a proof since the Messianic King was to be a descendant of David through his son, Solomon (1 Chron. 22: 9-10).

Preparation (1:18-4:16)

Not only was Jesus' genealogy proof of His kingship, but the events and personalities encountered in His preparatory period were proof His Messianic office.

Birth (1:18-25). Jesus was the King because He was born supernaturally in accordance with Messianic prophecy.

Magi (2:1-12). Jesus was King because members of a Gentile electoral college (19) came to bestow royal worship upon Him since Judean government officials were irreverent.

Persecution (2:13-23). Jesus was the King because the Judean governmental persecution and the resultant residence of the holy family was in accordance with Messianic prophecy.

Testimonies (3:1-4:11). In this subsection, three personalities testify to the fact that Jesus was the King. It was John the Baptist's work to exhort Israel to repent since the kingdom was about to be installed by the King. He would destroy the unrepentant Jews with fire but would baptize repentant Jews with the Holy Spirit (3:1-12). Besides fulfilling all righteousness, Jesus' baptism provided a vehicle for God's identification of Jesus as the King (3:13-17). The devil testified to Jesus' kingship by failing in his attempt to cause Jesus to live counter to God's will for Israel (4:1-11).

Capernaum (4:12-16). Jesus was the King because He fulfilled Messianic prophecy when He settled in Capernaum upon the imprisonment of John.

Argument of Matthew 4:17-25: Jesus' Ministry

This portion begins an extended section (through 13:52) which considers Jesus' ministry. In His ministry He taught that the authentic offer of the King for entry into the millennial kingdom via repentance would be rejected--but this rejection would not damage the plan of God's rule over the world. Below we will consider 4:17-25 because this passage is the transition to the Sermon on the Mount.

lntroduction (4 : 17)

This verse indicates that Jesus assumed responsibility for John's message of repentance due to the nearness of the kingdom, once John had been disabled by imprisonment.

Followers (4:18-25)

Those who followed Jesus did so because they were attracted by His ministry and by His promises of participation in His ministry. Peter, Andrew, James and John immediately left their vocations and followed Jesus when He promised to make them evangelists (4:18-22). The multitudes of Gentiles and both Galilean and Judean Jews followed Jesus as a result of His teaching, preaching and healing ministry (4:23-25) .

Differing Views of the Argument

In a broad sense, all four positions are in agreement concerning the argument of Matthew 1:1-4:16.

Representing the Kingdom Law position, Dr. Campbell states, "Christ's legal and moral right to kingship have been established, and both John and Christ have proclaimed the kingdom near at hand (20)."

Dr. Toussaint states the interim Law agreement:

Matthew has carefully presented the legal genealogy of the King, His supernatural birth in fulfillment of prophecy, His confirmation of prophecy by His childhood, His forerunner, His baptism, and His temptation. In every detail the King is qualified--legally, scripturally, and morally (21).

The Meritorious Salvation position proposed by Mr. Sinclair is revealed in a thesis dealing with legalism in the Synoptic gospels and so he does not treat the sermon, especially its preceding context, thoroughly. However, he understands that Biblical accounts prove that Jesus was the King, so we may reasonably assume agreement with the argument that has been presented (22).

Dr. Pentecost and the Entry Requirements position are also in agreement:

The Old Testament had promised the coming of the King-Redeemer, who would remove transgression from the nation and institute a reign of righteousness in which He, as a King, would rule from sea to sea . . . John came to introduce the coming Messiah to the nation Israel (23).

However, in a specific sense, none of the four positions are in agreement.

The proofs of kingship in Matthew 1:1-4:16 were not of a private nature. The genealogy was a public record (24). The visit of the Magi was known by Herod's court and probably the Jewish religious leaders. Herod's murder of the children was at least known to the population of Bethlehem. John's ministry was well known. It is possible that Jesus' second temptation and His response was known in Jerusalem which was its setting. Jesus' own ministry was well known (Matt. 4:18-25). Furthermore, Israel was equipped to accurately interpret Messianic indications as is shown by the response of the chief priests and the scribes to Herod's Messianic question concerning the location of the birth of the King. Certainly some of the population of Israel was qualified to put evidence and prophecy together and conclude that Jesus could validly claim to be the Messianic King.

But the four positions are in disagreement as to what need, of those who had understanding, was being fulfilled by the Sermon on the Mount: In the Kingdom Law position, the people with understanding needed to know how their life should be regulated once the King instituted the kingdom. In the Interim Law position the people with understanding needed to know how their life should be regulated until the King instituted the kingdom. In the Meritorious Salvation position, the people with understanding needed to know how to be saved. In the Entrance Requirements position, the people with understanding needed to know if their righteousness was sufficient to qualify them for entrance into the kingdom

All of these possibilities have merit. But the most critical need is established by the last possibility. That need to know is foundational. Those with understanding needed to know if they qualified for entrance to the kingdom before they would have become concerned with the regulation of life in the kingdom. They needed to know if they qualified for citizenship before they would have become concerned about the regulation of the lives of future kingdom citizens. They needed to be impressed with their lack of qualification to enter due to unrighteousness before they would become concerned about being saved to become righteous.

Logically, the Entrance Requirement position seems best especially in view of the fact that righteousness was a qualification for citizenship in the Messianic kingdom. This is proved by passages like Psalm 24, Malachi 3, etc. (25). The argument of Matthew 4:17-25 will be considered more thoroughly in the next chapter when the recipients of the sermon are discussed.