Jesus, the Old Testament, and You

Transcription

1 Jesus, the Old Testament, and You (Matthew 5:17 20) e have come to a new section of the Sermon on the Mount (5:17 48). In the section on the Beatitudes (5:3 12), third person 1 predominated: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (v. 3; emphasis mine). When Jesus expanded the eighth beatitude, He switched to second person: Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you (v. 11; emphasis mine). Second person continued through the section on influence (vv ): You are the salt of the earth ; You are the light of the world (vv. 13a, 14a; emphasis mine). In the third section (vv ), second person ( you ) continues to be used, but the emphasis is on first person ( I ). Read the opening segment (vv ) and see how frequently the word I is used: I came, I did not come, I say to you, and another I say to you. The underlying theme of Matthew 5:17 48 is Jesus relationship to the law of Moses (and the Jews misuse of the Law). The passage begins with an introductory segment (vv ), followed by five or six illustrations 2 or examples of the principles expressed in the introduction. In this lesson, we will consider the opening words. In the lessons that follow, we will study the examples. W 1 In English grammar, third person is used when talking about someone. Second person is used when talking to someone. First person is used when the speaker refers to himself. 2 Jesus used the words You have heard... but I say (or their equivalent) six times. However, if the teaching on divorce (vv. 31, 32) had been intended as part of the discussion on adultery (vv ), there are only five illustrations. JESUS RESPECTED GOD S WORD (5:17, 18) The Word to Be Fulfilled (v. 17) Our text begins with Jesus saying, Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets (v. 17a). The Law and the Prophets were two of the Jewish divisions of what we call the Old Testament. 3 The two terms were sometimes used to refer to the entire Old Testament (compare Matthew 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; John 1:45; Acts 24:14; 28:23), and that is the way they are used here. The word translated abolish (katalu/w, kataluo 4 ) has a variety of possible meanings, including do away with, annul, and make invalid. 5 The KJV has destroy. Why did Jesus think it necessary to say that He did not come to abolish or destroy the Law or the Prophets? He may have had a general purpose. It is possible that criticism of Jesus was already circulating. Matthew did not record any prior disputes between Jesus and Jewish religious leaders, but other Gospel Accounts indicate that He had already been involved in controversy over Sabbath traditions (see Mark 2:24; John 5:16, 18). Even if those incidents were still in the future, it was inevitable that Jesus would clash with the 3 There was a third division called the Writings. Since the Book of Psalms predominated the Writings, the threefold division was sometimes referred to as the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (see Luke 24:44). 4 The word is made of lu/w (luo, to loose ), strengthened by the preposition kata (kata, according to ). 5 Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, fourth rev. and aug. ed. by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952),

2 religious authorities and would sooner or later be accused of encouraging people to ignore the law of Moses. It was therefore important for Jesus, early in His ministry, to state clearly His position regarding the Law. More to the point was Jesus immediate purpose in stressing that He had not come to abolish the Law. He was about to make a series of startling statements, statements that could be taken to mean that He had no respect for the law of Moses. Before He made those statements, He wanted to establish that He had the highest regard for God s revealed will. That prompts another question: What did Jesus mean when He said He did not come to abolish the Law? Some take this to teach that the law of Moses in its entirety is still in force today but many Scriptures indicate otherwise. For instance, Hebrews 9 speaks of the first covenant and then says that Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant (vv. 1, 15; emphasis mine). The next chapter, still referring to the two covenants, says, He takes away the first in order to establish the second (10:9b; emphasis mine). Paul wrote, For [Jesus] is our peace, who made both groups [Jews and Gentiles] into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall [the law of Moses], by abolishing 6 in His flesh [on the cross] the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two [Jew and Gentile] into one new man, thus establishing peace (Ephesians 2:14, 15; emphasis mine). Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the Law, but Paul said that He did abolish the Law. How can these two statements be reconciled? Many denominational writers attempt to reconcile the contrasting statements by dividing Old Testament laws into three categories: ceremonial, judicial, 7 and moral. Proponents of this approach say that ceremonial laws and judicial laws were abolished, but moral laws were not. They suggest that in Matthew 5:17 Jesus only meant that He did not come to abolish the moral law. There are several problems with this approach. One is that the proposed threefold division of Moses law 6 Abolishing is from katarge w (katargeo), a word similar in meaning to kataluo. 7 Judicial laws refers to laws given to the Israelites to govern them as a nation. was unknown to Jews and early Christians. 8 A second problem is that Jesus said nothing about abolishing a moral law. He said He did not come to abolish the Law. In verse 18 Jesus indicated that He had in mind all the Law, including the smallest letter or stroke. A third problem might be expressed like this: Who has the right to decide whether a law is ceremonial, judicial, or moral? Many who propose the three categories speak of the Ten Commandments as the heart of the moral laws in the Old Testament. If that is the case and those moral laws are still binding, we should be observing the seventh-day Sabbath instead of having the Lord s Supper on the first day of the week. If one religious group has the right to retain Old Testament Sabbath observance, who has the right to tell another group they cannot retain another Old Testament practice? The three-category approach creates more problems than it solves. The solution to the apparent conflict is found in carefully considering all that Jesus said in Matthew 5: His opening sentence concluded with these words: I did not come to abolish [the Law or the Prophets] but to fulfill (v. 17b). The Greek word translated fulfill (from plhro/w, pleroo) basically means to fill, complete. 9 In verse 17 several shades of meaning are possible. It can be understood as: 1. fulfill = do, carry out or 2. bring to full expression = show it forth in its true [meaning] or 3. fill up = complete. 10 If we confine ourselves to the context (the examples that follow the opening statement), the primary meaning of fulfill would seem to 8 8 The threefold division probably does not antedate Aquinas (D. A. Carson, Matthew, The Expositor s Bible Commentary, vol. 8 [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Regency Reference Library, Zondervan Publishing House, 1984], 143). Thomas Aquinas was a Roman Catholic scholar who lived A.D Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abr., ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Abridged in One Volume (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985), Bauer,

3 be the middle meaning just listed: bring [the Law] to full expression, to show it forth in its true [meaning]. For instance, in verses 27 and 28, Jesus said, You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery ; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. The purpose of the Law included defining, exposing, condemning, and discouraging sin (see Galatians 3:19a). 11 The commandment You shall not commit adultery was to discourage adultery. What many did not realize was that if adultery is wrong, then that which leads to adultery is also wrong. Jesus made this clear in Matthew 5:27, 28. In a sense, therefore, He brought the commandment regarding adultery to full expression. All to Be Accomplished (v. 18) We cannot confine ourselves, however, to one definition of fulfill. Look now at verse 18: For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. I want to focus on the phrase at the end of this sentence, but, first, let me briefly comment on the other terminology in this verse: Truly is from the Greek word aómh/n (amen). Truly I say to you is Jesus own signature: no other teacher is known to have used it. Matthew records it 31 times, John (with a double Amen) 25 times. It serves... to mark a saying as important and authoritative. 12 I say to you is the keynote of the rest of chapter 5 (vv. 22, 26, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44). The Law the phrase as used here is parallel with the Law and the Prophets of the previous verse. It refers to the entire Old Testament. Until heaven and earth pass away is less a specific note of time than an idiom for something inconceivable. 13 Compare these words with the expression in the 11 In Romans 7 and other places, Paul pointed out that the Law did not accomplish that purpose. The problem was not the Law, but the perversity of mankind and the weakness of the flesh. 12 R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter- Varsity Press, 1985), Ibid., 115. parallel passage in Luke 16:17: It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail. Jesus was not saying that the law of Moses would be in effect until heaven and earth passed away. Rather, He was emphasizing that there was no way the Law could be annulled until it was fulfilled and all was accomplished. The smallest letter is translated from i w ta (iota), the smallest letter in the Greek alphabet (i). There is probably an intended reference to the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet, the yod (y). 14 The word translated stroke 15 is from the word for horn (kerai a, keraia). This term was used to denote the small stroke distinguishing one Hebrew letter from another. 16 The two terms refer to the tiniest parts of the Old Testament revelation. I have heard Jesus words paraphrased like this: Not a dotting of an i or the crossing of a t will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. That brings us to the conditional phrase until all is accomplished. Is accomplished is from the past tense (aorist) of the common Greek verb gi nomai (ginomai, I become 17 ). The idea is until all things come to be. The KJV and NKJV refer to all things being fulfilled, while other translations have accomplished (ASV; NASB; RSV; NIV). The word accomplished includes the fulfill of verse 17, but it involves more. The law of Moses was to be in force until all things regarding the Law were accomplished. When and how did that happen? Regarding the Old Testament revelation, all things were accomplished through Jesus partially through His teaching, as already suggested, but completely in His person. One reason Jesus came to the earth was to bring to fruition all that the Law was in- 14 The KJV has jot. 15 The KJV has tittle. Tittle is from a Latin term. Jesus was referring to a very small mark in writing. 16 W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr., Vine s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985), 635. This might be compared to the little stroke that distinguishes an e from a c. 17 D. F. Hudson, Teach Yourself New Testament Greek (London: English Universities Press, 1967),

4 tended to accomplish. Jesus fulfilled the Law in that He kept it perfectly. (He was the only One who ever did so.) He was a Jew born under the Law (Galatians 4:4), subject to its demands. He had little respect for man-made Jewish traditions, but He showed the utmost respect for God s law. His attitude toward doing God s will is expressed in His words at His baptism:... it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15). Jesus demonstrated the kind of life the Law was intended to produce. When He was on trial, no one could point to any commandment He had failed to keep (see Mark 14:55 59). Jesus fulfilled the Law in that He was the antitype of the types (shadows) in the Law (see Colossians 2:16, 17; Hebrews 8:4, 5; 10:1) and the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the Messiah (see Luke 24:27). 18 He began His personal ministry with the message The time is fulfilled (Mark 1:15). Regarding His earthly ministry, it was constantly stated that this or that took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet (Matthew 1:22; see 2:23; 3:3; 4:14). Above all, Jesus fulfilled the Law in that He brought the solution for the problem of sin and its punishment. The Law had been given to highlight the problem of sin but was powerless to do anything about it (see Romans 8:3). When Jesus died on the cross, He took the punishment for our sins upon Himself (see 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13). His final cry on the cross was It is finished! (John 19:30). Not only was His life finished, but also His mission to be sacrificed for the sins of mankind (1 Corinthians 15:3) was complete. Jesus therefore also fulfilled the Law in the other two senses previously mentioned: fulfill = do, carry out and fill up = complete. When He fulfilled the Law in all three senses, all was accomplished. As a fulfilled agreement, the old covenant could then be legitimately set aside and His new covenant introduced. Paul wrote that the Law.... was added because of transgressions... until the seed would come, and He made clear that the seed was Christ (Galatians 3:19, 16; emphasis mine). Again, Paul said that the Law has become our tutor to lead 18 If Jesus had come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, He would have been abolishing some of the strongest evidence that He was indeed the promised Messiah. us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor (Galatians 3:24, 25). Harold Fowler wrote, regarding the Law,... all things have already been (actually or potentially) accomplished by Jesus, for He set in motion, either in His life, message, suffering, glorification, Church or His glorious reign, all those principles which would accomplish all of God s [Old Testament] predictions and standards. 19 Jesus abolished the old covenant in His flesh (Ephesians 2:15) when He took it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross (Colossians 2:14). At the same time at His death His new covenant went into effect (see Hebrews 9:15 17). Someone may protest: Wait a minute! You said that Jesus did not come to abolish the Old Testament, but to fulfill it. But now you are saying that when Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament, it became abolished. It sounds to me like the result was the same, so what difference did it make? The difference is one of attitude toward God s Word, and it is a most important difference. Imagine that you and I make a contract. In that contract I agree to pay you so much a month for services rendered until a certain amount is paid. Now imagine the following scenario. What if I announced that I do not intend to fulfill the contract, that I will do everything I can to nullify the agreement? Maybe I even come to you and tear up the contract before your eyes. What would this say about me? What kind of respect would this show for you and what we agreed on? Now imagine a second scenario. A rumor spreads that I intend to do away with the contract, so I come to you and assure you that I have every intention of fulfilling our agreement. Further, I do fulfill my part of the contract and pay you every cent promised. Keeping these two scenarios in mind, consider this: When I fulfill the contract, it ceases to be binding. Therefore, the end result in both cases is the same, or at least similar: I cease to make the payments. However, can you not see a vast difference in my attitude? In the first instance, I have no respect for our agreement, but in the second I have the utmost respect for it. After the Old Testament became a fulfilled 19 Harold Fowler, Matthew I, Bible Study Textbook Series (Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1968),

5 covenant, it would cease to be binding on God s people. In the meantime, however, Jesus wanted everyone to know that He had the utmost respect for it. God s law is an expression of His nature. 20 One cannot respect God and disrespect His law. Jesus was therefore committed to fulfilling its demands. WE SHOULD RESPECT GOD S WORD (5:19, 20) Bad and Good Examples (v. 19) Jesus encouraged all His listeners to respect the Law as He did. In verse 19 of our text, He continued, Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Annuls is from the same root 21 as the word translated abolish in verse 17. In verse 19 the KJV has break. When one shows disrespect for a law by deliberately breaking it, he is demonstrating that, to him, that law is unimportant. By his actions, he has abolished it. The phrase one of the least of these commandments may need some explanation. In the law of Moses, Jewish rabbis had counted 613 laws. It was difficult to remember 613 laws, much less keep all of them, so they divided the laws into heavy ( weighty, great ) and light ( lesser ) laws. They emphasized what they called the heavier, weightier, or greater laws. Jesus used that type of terminology when He told the Pharisees, For you... have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23). This was the kind of thinking behind the lawyer s asking Jesus, Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law? (Matthew 22:35; see vv ). When Jesus spoke of one of the least of these com mandments, He was referring to any commandment His listeners might characterize as lighter or lesser. In effect, He was saying that all God s commandments are important and 20 Robert H. Mounce, Matthew, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), Both annuls and abolish are from lu/ w (luo, to loose ). we should not deliberately break any of them. Some may wonder why Jesus put emphasis on keeping the law of Moses since, in a few years, that law would be superseded by His own teaching. One reason was that those with no respect for Moses law were likely to have no respect for Jesus commandments. 22 Habits of disobedience would carry over into the new covenant. Jesus not only condemned those who annulled one of the least of these commandments by their actions, but also those who taught others to do the same. When one deliberately violates a law, he generally tries to justify his actions. He may say, That law doesn t make any sense, so it doesn t matter whether or not we obey it. By example and by word, he teaches others to ignore the law also. Jesus said this kind of individual shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. In contrast with that example is the one who keeps and teaches the commandments, whether great or small. This type of person, Jesus said, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Kingdom of heaven refers to the kingdom that Jesus said was at hand (4:17) in other words, the church which he [was] about to establish. 23 What did Jesus mean when He said that some would be called least in the kingdom and some would be called great? R. T. France suggested that the thought is of quality of discipleship, not of ultimate rewards. 24 The terms are used for dramatic contrast: The one who annuls the least commandment is called least, but the one who does the opposite is called the opposite: great. We can make the following application. Anyone who does not obey God s law and teaches others to disobey it is, in God s sight, the least [worst] of teachers. We should never allow that kind of person to teach in the church. One who keeps God s law and teaches people to keep it is great in God s sight. This is the kind of teacher we need in the Lord s church. Very Bad Examples (v. 20) When Jesus mentioned those who annulled 22 Jesus intended that His commandments be obeyed (see Matthew 7:26, 27). 23 Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark, ed. Robert Frew (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1970), France,

6 the commandments and taught others to do the same, He was reminded of some whom the Jews held in esteem as teachers. Christ s next words would have been surprising and even shocking to those who heard Him: For I say to you that unless your righteousness 25 surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven (5:20). The word translated scribe (grammateu/ß, grammateus) basically means one who writes (from gra mma, gramma, that which is written ). 26 In Jesus day, the scribes were the professional students and teachers of the Law. 27 Pharisee is a transliterated Greek word that indicates one who is separated. 28 The Pharisees had separated themselves and dedicated themselves to the keeping of the thousands of legalistic rules and regulations of the law of Moses and the traditions related to it. When Jesus referred to the scribes and Pharisees, He was speaking of the most learned and the most zealous individuals in the nation of Israel. They were models of righteousness, both in their own estimation and in that of the people. 29 Those in Jesus audience must have wondered, How could our righteousness possibly surpass theirs? Consider John R. W. Stott s suggestion. Our right eousness is to exceed that of the scribes and the Pharisees in kind rather than in degree. Jesus was not saying that the scribes and the Pharisees kept 230 commandments, so we must keep 231. Rather, His desire is for our righteousness to be deeper, being a right eousness of the heart. 30 Jesus exposed the shallowness of the so-called righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees on a number of occasions. You can look at the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18:9 14, or you can read Jesus scathing rebuke in Matthew 23. However, you need go no further than the Sermon on the Mount. In the next chapter, every time you read hypocrites (6:2, 5, 16), you could substitute the words scribes and 25 Righteousness here means doing right. Specifically, the word refers to obeying the Law. 26 The Analytical Greek Lexicon (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1971), They were the lawyers of Palestine in the first century (compare Matthew 22:35 with Mark 12:28). 28 Vine, McGarvey, John R. W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, The Bible Speaks Today series (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter- Varsity Press, 1978), 75. Pharisees (compare Matthew 23:13, 14, 15). From the references just given and others, we could list a number of failures on the part of the scribes and the Pharisees. They were more concerned about rites and rituals than about being morally upright. They were more interested in keeping man-made traditions than in obeying the laws of God (see Matthew 15:3 6). They glorified themselves rather than God. They were selfsatisfied. They had little concern for others. However, the ultimate failure of the scribes and the Pharisees was that they emphasized the outward to the neglect of the inward (see Matthew 23:25 28). In Luke 16:15 Jesus told them, You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God. In the examples in the last part of Matthew 5, not only will the outward expression of sin be condemned, but also the attitude of heart behind the expression. Jesus denounced not only murder, but also the anger that generally precedes it (Matthew 5:21, 22). He not only said that adultery is wrong, but He also declared that lust is sinful (vv. 27, 28). Two final notes about Matthew 5:20 are in order. First, in verse 19 Jesus spoke of those already in the kingdom (the least and the great ), while in verse 20 He referred to entering the kingdom. To enter the kingdom (the church), it is not enough for you to observe outwardly certain forms (confess that you believe in Jesus and be immersed). You must be obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed (Romans 6:17; emphasis mine). Second, Jesus less-than-complimentary remark about the most influential religious groups in Judaism the scribes and the Pharisees set the stage for His clashes with those powerful leaders. For all practical purposes, Jesus signed His death warrant when He made that statement. Jesus literally put His life on the line to warn us against religion that is only skin deep. CONCLUSION In our study we have seen that Jesus had the utmost respect for God s Word and that we too should have a profound respect for all that God has revealed. As I close, a few additional words might be in order regarding our attitude toward the Old Testament in general. Some, upon learn- 6

7 ing that the Old Testament became a fulfilled and completed covenant when Jesus died on the cross, decide they have no need for it. They do not read or study it. Keep in mind, however, that Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount only a short while before the Law and the Prophets were fulfilled. He was surely aware that this was the case, but that did not lessen His respect or love for the Old Testament. Two extremes should be avoided. One extreme says, There is no difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. They are equally binding on Christians today. The other extreme says, The Old Testament has nothing to say to Christians today. We may as well discard it. It is true that the Old Testament was at the heart of the old covenant between God and the Jews, but that does not mean it has no value for Christians (see Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11). As we continue to study Matthew 5, we will see a close relationship between the old covenant and what Jesus said. Many of Jesus teachings have an Old Testament background. Often a key to having a full appreciation for what Jesus said comes from understanding that background. Christians in the first century did not have the aversion to the Old Testament that some have today. For years, until the formation of the New Testament, the only Bible they had was the Old Testament Scriptures. If you have read the New Testament, you have surely been impressed with how often the Old Testament is quoted. Someone has said that the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed while the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. The New Testament should receive greater emphasis since it expresses the terms of our covenant with the Lord. At the same time, let us take care not to neglect the Old Testament. Preaching and Teaching Notes When you use this presentation, you will want to emphasize what the New Testament teaches about salvation (Mark 16:15, 16; Acts 2:36 38). This study has details and information that are good for you to know as a teacher/preacher, but which will not necessarily benefit your students/listeners. Always adapt and apply your lessons to the needs of those who hear you. If you want to teach this series in thirteen weeks, this lesson and the next should be combined with two major divisions: (1) An Introduction (5:17 20) and (2) An Illustration (5:21 26). Other lessons can be drawn from our text. For example, Jesus believed what is revealed in the Old Testament. Some today do not believe it. They say that the Old Testament is full of myths. Do we believe as Jesus did? A few more notes on the moral law may be in order. Certain basic moral principles are recognized by most people, whether or not they have heard of the Bible. We could think of these principles as rising from the nature of things, or we might think of them as being woven into the fabric of the universe. For instance, most societies prohibit murder and theft. Such moral principles are found in both the Old and the New Testaments, but it is best not to think of them as being brought over from the Old Testament since they existed long before it was given. When Cain killed his brother, he was punished (Genesis 4:8 13) even though the commandment You shall not kill was still thousands of years in the future. Universal moral principles were incorporated as part of both the Old and the New Testaments. Jesus expanded and sharpened our understanding of them as we shall see when we continue our study in Matthew 5. Abolishing vs. Fulfilling Various illustrations can be used to explain Jesus fulfilling the Law instead of abolishing it. Marriage is a fulfillment of courtship. 31 A finished manuscript is a fulfillment of preliminary notes. 32 My favorite illustration (mentioned by several writers) uses the acorn. The difference between abolishing and fulfilling is the difference between smashing an acorn with a rock and planting it in the ground. In both cases, the acorn ceases to exist; but in the first instance the acorn is destroyed, while in the second case the acorn fulfills its purpose. David Roper 31 Jack P. Lewis, The Gospel According to Matthew, Part I, The Living Word Commentary series (Austin, Tex.: Sweet Publishing Co., 1976), Frank L. Cox, Sermon Notes on The Sermon on the Mount (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1955), 13. Copyright, 2008 by Truth for Today ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 7