Journal: Journal of Dispensational Theology
Volume: JODT 23:66 (Spring 2019)
Article: Interpretations And Applications Of The Sermon On The Mount: A Historical Survey
Author: Daniel P. Wiley

JODT 23:66 (Spring 2019) p. 7

Interpretations And Applications Of The
Sermon On The Mount: A Historical Survey

Daniel Wiley

* Daniel Wiley, M.Div., Ph.D. student, Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania; adjunct professor, Grand Canyon University, Phoenix, Arizona

Mennonite theologian Clarence Bauman identified the Sermon on the Mount as “the most important and most controversial biblical text”1 in all Scripture. His remark is no exaggeration. Since one’s interpretation of the Sermon clearly illuminates one’s theological presuppositions and commitments,2 the importance of the interpretation of the Sermon and the theological tension it generates is undeniable. Perhaps no faction has suffered more scrutiny in the interpretation of the Sermon than dispensationalists. Dispensationalists are well known and stereotyped for their alleged rejection of the Sermon’s applicability in the present age.3 The critical consensus generally defines the dispensationalist interpretation of the Sermon as follows:

(1) Jesus came preaching the coming kingdom of God to the Jewish people.

(2) The Sermon on the Mount presented the ethical teachings of this coming kingdom.

JODT 23:66 (Spring 2019) p. 8

(3) The Jewish people rejected the kingdom and her King, and thus the kingdom was delayed.

(4) The kingdom will be established at the second coming and will be regulated by the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount as originally intended.

(5) Therefore, the ethics presented in the Sermon on the Mount are part of a different dispensation and not applicable to the church today.

Opponents of dispensationalism have been especially displeased with the final point in the preceding syllogism. George Ladd once remarked, “A system which takes this great portion of Jesus’ teachings away from the Christian in its direct application must receive penetrating scrutiny,”4 and critics have risen to the task. Some criticism has taken a lighter tone. For example, John Stott, rationalizing the conclusions of past dispensationalists, explained, “It is this . . . fear that the promises of the Sermon on the Mount depend for their fulfilment on human merit that led J. N. Darby to relegate them to the future ‘kingdom age. . . .’ But . . . the fears of the dispensationalists are groundless.”5 For Stott, the “dispensational interpretation” was simply an overreaction based upon theological commitmen...