The Sermon on the Mount: Its Scope and Purpose

But, it will be said, the Sermon on the Mount abrogates the Mosaic law both in the letter and the spirit of it. So far is this from the truth that it gives a wholly new sanction to the Mosaic law.* ‘The objection, moreover, is based on a total misconception of the scope and aim of the Sermon on the Mount. It is not intended, as the objector supposes, to unfold a system of government. Under such a code, indeed, all governent would be impossible. It is teaching for the guidance of the disciples;

primarily for the time 5
“as

and ultimately for the era of “the kingdom of the heavens,” when righteousness will prevail, and divine principles of government will be openly enforced by divine power on earth.

Of course, I do not expect the reader to believe that such a state of things will ever be realised. But let him not forget our compact, that I am to be allowed, for the sake of argument, to assume that Christ is divine and the Bible true. And there is no doubt as to what

* Matthew v. 17-19.

‘

Christ taught and the Bible says on this subject. Most people seem to regard it as a matter of course that God should remain passi amidst the activities of evil and wrong an

Se ee gard such a cae of t S altogether abnormal. And the infidel acce hat the God of the Bible i yth. Nor is this

peculiar to this age, in which God is silent in a special sense. “Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is their God?” was the ery of the psalmist.* And again: “As with a sword in my bones, mine enemies reproach me; while they say daily unto me, Where is thy a oe ester OR Or as meee shall yet make His presence and power felt in the government of the world, but that He delays to do this. But the time is coming when “the mystery of God shall be finished;” when, in the sublime language of the Apocalypse, “the sovereignty of the world shall become our Lord’s and His Christ’s, and He shall reign.”

He rules by delegation now. For “there is no power but of God.” The police officer and the ériminal judge are as really “ministers of

* Psalm xxix. 10. + Psalm xiii. 10.

God” as is the preacher of the gospel.* His is

the mini of grace, their’s the ministry of law. And the two istinct: e

principles of divine government are not abrogated by the proclamation of grace in the gospel. The union of the two ministries in the same individual may give rise to difficulties; and even the ordinary Christian may at times be in doubt whether, for example, he ought to forgive an offender or to prosecute him. If: the wrong done has relation to the fact of his being a Christian, he will probably act in grace. But, in all ordinary circumstances his course is simple; “the powers that be are ordained of God,” and he will hand over the offender to be dealt with by those powers.

The case of the tribute money may seem to conflict with this principle,f but not when rightly understood. The question there put by the Jews was not the statement of an honest difficulty, but a mere trick, intended to bring the Lord into conflict with the Roman authorities. And so He took them on their own ground, and left them entangled in the very net they sought to spread for Him. If there

*See Rom. xiii. 5. + Harnack, pp. 104, 105.

was, indeed, the conflict they supposed between God and government, their question answered itself. “Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites?” He indignantly exclaimed. “Render unto Cesar the things that are Cexsar’s,.and unto God the things that are God’s.*

A similar instance is supplied by the case of the adulteress taken in the act.+ The law

decreed her death; what was His decision ?.-

Would He stand by the law, or (as His enemies would say) throw off the mask, and take sides with the transgressor and against the law? Here again, with matchless wisdom, He refused the snare they laid for Him. The law, He declared, was right, and must be vindicated. But by whom was the sentence to be executed? The woman should be stoned; but let him that was without sin among them cast the first stone.

But the question will be pressed, perhaps, Are not the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount binding upon us? Let me answer this by a test case: “Give to him that asketh

* Matthew xxii. 16-21. The case dealt with in xvii. 24-27 was wholly different, the tribute there being the usual contribution to the temple.

+John viii.

thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.”* If Christians in London were to act thus they would soon gravitate to the poorhouse, and during the process they would be social pests. But under the divine law there was short shrift for “the glutton and the drunkard,” and all who refused to work were left to starve. Idle tramps and professional beggars would be impossible under such a system, and the very fact of poverty or need would pima facie be a claim for ‘pity ard help.

The precept, therefore, must be taken in its proper setting. It is not a reversal of the

Mosaic law,.but a corollary upon that lam. adeuately and justly administered. The principle witsr-undenies it las oF course, its lesson for us, for principles are eternal. But that is not the question here. Many divine commands were given to meet temporary circumstances; but, being based on a principle, they have a lesson for us. “Thou shalt not mar the vorners of thy beard,”+ for example, embodies a principle that is as much needed by Christians to-

* Harnack, p. 97. + Leviticus xix. 27; cf. Jeremiah ix. 26, R. V.

day as any commandment in the Decalogue.

was because the h trimmed their hair in this fashion in honour of their gods that the-practice-was-forbidden. Though perfectly harmless in itself, it might become a snare to the Israelite and an encouragement to the idolater. But Christians nowadays seem to delight in copying the practices of those whose principles they profess to abhor.