Book Review: The Unbound Scriptures by Rick Norris

unboundHave you ever picked up a history book and just could not put it down? Even though you were familiar with that part of history, did that book bring so much information that you have never considered before? This is how I felt about The Unbound Scriptures.

History is long gone, especially 1611 England. Over the years, many have assumed certain things to be true of the King James translation. Without clear, historical documentation, many things were just assumed or misunderstood. Since true historical facts require documentation, it is absolutely critical to find those documents. Without the documents, historical revisionism creeps into our understanding.

Rick Norris shows a commitment to historical accuracy in his book, The Unbound Scriptures. The amount of sources he used is staggering. I would love to see his library. Norris includes well-known people and lesser known. His research is wide-ranging.

While the book has an encyclopedic feel to it, it is very readable. He provides prolific quotations throughout the text. There is no need for you to flip to the end of the chapter to read endnotes or glance up and down the page to see footnotes. Each point is sufficiently illustrated and proven with direct quotations from the source. In cases where there are open questions, Rick gives both sides of the argument.

This is not a book that you will leave on your shelf once you read it. You will revisit it over and over as an encyclopedic resource.

The King James Only idea is certainly controversial. It morphs with every generation. The book keeps pace with the current arguments and simply brings forth quotes of those who lived during the times of the translation, those who fought the Bible translation battles in the past and today’s voices. This is a must add to your library.

How do you get a copy?

Here is the ordering information:

The regular price for one copy of book The Unbound Scriptures–$18.00 plus $3.00 for shipping and handling and plus 7% sales tax for North Carolina residents. Shipping to foreign countries is more than $3.00. Future postage increases by the post office may result in higher shipping costs. Contact the author at the following email address: rick1560@juno.com or by mail at Rick Norris, 508 Westminster Drive, Statesville, NC 28677

1 Samuel 13:21: A Review of Will Kinney’s Claims

The KJVO Claim

Will Kinney suggests that 1 Samuel 13:21 causes confusion among those of us who prefer the modern versions. His claim is that the KJV uses the word “file” in this passage and that the modern versions create confusion by using “two-thirds of a shekel.” [Read more…]

Temptation

Temptation

Brad Anderson

The media has informed us about a spate of moral failures of late. Perhaps the most well-known is that of SC governor Mark Sanford and his adulterous relationship with an Argentinean woman. This is particularly surprising and shameful because Sanford claims to be a Christian and an ardent defender of family values. Now he’s the butt of jokes a prime example of hypocrisy for liberals to criticize.

Others have recently fallen into similar sins. Louisiana Senator David Vitter, who is married and has four children, admitted involvement with an “escort” service. Republican Senator John Ensign of Nevada, a leading conservative and potential presidential candidate, recently admitted an affair with a campaign staffer who was the wife of a close friend. John Edwards, former VP candidate, had an illicit affair while his wife was struggling with cancer. Former NFL quarterback Steve McNair was shot and killed recently, apparently by his 20-year-old girlfriend, a former waitress. McNair was 36 years old, married, and had four sons. He was known not only as a great athlete but also as a generous and caring man, an exemplary citizen. Yet he was carrying on an adulterous affair with this girl little more than half his age. McNair’s wife didn’t find out about the affair until she heard about her husband’s death.

In each of these stories, we find intelligent, talented, professional men who risked their careers and family lives for temporary pleasure. In McNair’s case, his philandering cost him his life. It remains to be seen how these adulterous affairs will affect the politicians involved. Years ago, such affairs would mean the end of their political careers (e.g., the name Gary Hart may ring a bell). Today, after 8 years of Bill Clinton as president, such affairs are mostly shrugged off and ignored by the public. People almost expect politicians to have affairs, and when they do, it’s no big deal. Personal lives and public lives are separate.

These men, and the women involved with them, gave in to temptation. Circumstances presented opportunities to them to gratify their passions and lusts, and they gave in.

Quote from Gene Lyons’ recent article: 1 [Mark Sanford] married [into] money, went into real estate, then politics. Like many South Carolina aristocrats, he’s an Episcopalian. However, like most Southern Republicans, Sanford talked like a biblical fundamentalist, piously condemning others’ sexual sins and boasting about his own righteousness. Such simple-minded certitudes often fail to survive exposure to the wider world. One dark-eyed temptress and it all comes undone.

It’s not only politicians and athletes who succumb to “dark-eyed temptresses” of the world. Self-professed Biblical fundamentalists, who piously condemn others’ sins, give in to temptation and ruin their lives as well. How many pastors have taken off with the church secretaries? How many have been ruined by pornography? E.g., Bob Gray in Florida.

None of us are beyond temptation— Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. 1Co 10:12

In light of these events, I thought it might be helpful for us to consider what the Bible says about temptation and how to deal with it.

  1. Define temptation
    1. Temptation is essentially a solicitation or enticement to sin.

James 1:13-14 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

    1. The biblical word “tempt” can refer to a trial or a testing of one’s faith. E.g., God tested Abraham’s faith when he told him to sacrifice Isaac. This was a test, not a solicitation/enticement to do evil. God never tempts anyone to sin, never entices anyone to sin.
    2. I’ll be using the word “temptation” in the sense of “enticed to sin,” not in the sense of a test or trial of faith. However, every solicitation to sin is a test or trial of our faith. Not every test/trial is an enticement to sin.
  1. Facts about temptation
    1. Temptation is universal. “Every man is tempted” (James 1:14). Temptation is “common to man” (1 Cor 10:13). We live with temptations every day. Even Jesus was tempted.

We perhaps think that we live at a time when temptation is more strong or powerful than ever before. But that’s not really true. Think of society under pagan cultures—Greeks, Romans, Chinese—east Asians, etc. In some cultures, there are virtually no limitations on immorality—it’s open, blatant, and expected. E.g., temple of Aphrodite at Corinth, 1000 prostitutes; fertility religions were common.

Temptation has been common in all cultures and times. Our own western culture is rather tame compared to some others. I admit that it’s getting worse all the time. But it’s not as bad as it could be.

    1. Temptation is not sin. Jesus was “tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin” (Heb 4:15). Yielding is sin.
    2. Temptation may be satanic. Satan is called “the tempter” (cf. Mt 4:3; 1 Thes 3:5). He is the father of temptation; he originated the idea.
      1. We often think of Satan tempting us, but there is only one of him, and he can be in only one place at a time.
      2. Can demons tempt us? I am unaware of any biblical text that suggests that.
      3. The emphasis in the Bible is temptation is the enticement to sin that corresponds to our own sinful nature, particularly, our desires. Satan is not involved in most instances of temptation.
      4. Nevertheless, temptation is satanic in origin.
    1. Temptation is closely associated with desire/lust. Temptation works by appealing to something inherent or organic within humanity.

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

      1. The passions of the flesh or our appetites, in and of themselves, are not wrong. They are God-given as part of humanity. E.g., we have a natural desire to eat and to sleep. But if we eat or sleep too much, it’s sin. We have a natural desire for companionship with the opposite sex. Marriage is God’s program to fulfill that desire. If we fulfill that desire outside of marriage, it’s sinful.
      2. In our sinfulness, we tend to corrupt God’s plan or program for fulfilling our natural desires. E.g., the men I mentioned earlier were all married, yet sought to fulfill their appetites outside of marriage.
      3. Our minds have a hard time controlling the lusts of the flesh. Our appetites can become so strong that they almost bypass our minds. Once we start giving in to the flesh, our appetites have the capacity to override our common sense.

E.g., Sanford—telling everyone he was hiking in the mountains when he was down in Argentina, thinking no one would find out??? That’s just plain stupid.

E.g., Eliot Spitzer, the former governor of NY, and the former DA of NY, allegedly met regularly with “escorts” for 1.5 years before he was identified and forced to resign.

E.g., Steve McNair carrying on with this 20-year-old when he had 4 kids and a wife at home.

Ridiculous, stupid, irrational. The appetites take over and the rational mind seems to shut down.

Read Prov 7:5ff (esp. vss. 22-23)

    1. Temptation usually follows a pattern.

James 1:14-15 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

      1. The process of giving in to temptation often starts in very small ways. First we make quite minor compromises before moving on to greater and greater sins.
      2. Quote: “Nearly every grave moral failure begins with a small sin. Because there comes a time, after we toy with sin, when one pull of the flesh causes us to cross the line, to disengage from reason, and to follow our appetites wherever they may lead.” 2

E.g., King David—he merely caught a glimpse of a woman, and it led to multiple sins—adultery and murder among them.

      1. It’s very easy to toy with sin these days. With all the different media outlets providing loads of ungodly materials, you have to be very careful to avoid exposure.
      2. So flagrant sin usually starts with small compromises. You being toying with sin, entertaining sinful thoughts, indulging the flesh in small ways. Soon you can tolerate more sin, you rationalize it away, and eventually your flesh overcomes all restraint. Your fleshly appetites overwhelm your normal self-control and you indulge in blatant sin with no regard for the consequences.
  1. Strategies to overcome temptation

We know that we will face temptations daily. We know that we struggle to control our natural human appetites. We know that flagrant sin often starts with small compromises. What else do we need to know to overcome temptation?

    1. Recognize and admit your human frailties and weaknesses.
      1. Mt 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed [is] willing, but the flesh [is] weak.
      2. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. 1Co 10:12
      3. We may think that we are somehow beyond temptation. That’s not true. Given the right set of circumstances and pressures, we very well might give in/yield to temptation.
      4. E.g., David, the “sweet psalmist of Israel,” the great king. No one would have expected him to do what he did. But given the right set of circumstances, he sinned grievously.
    2. Rely on God’s strength and the resources He provides. 1 Cor 10:13
      1. “God is faithful”
        1. The solution to the problem is God. God provides all the resources we need to overcome temptation.
        2. It follows, then, that the solution is not within ourselves. It’s not merely a matter of will power or self-control. We must bring God into the equation. We must rely on His power to get us thru temptations.
      2. God has promised not to allow temptations beyond our ability to withstand it. I.e., we are not victims. We can’t claim that we had no choice—“I was overwhelmed; I couldn’t control myself.” Not true.
        1. Remember that “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (Phil 4:13).
        2. Contrary to what some people tell us, we are not mere animals who must follow our instincts. With God’s help, we can control ourselves. Self-control is one of the fruit of the Spirit.
      3. God will provide a way to escape or a way to bear with the temptation.
        1. Escape is a good strategy for dealing with temptation. “Flee youthful lusts” (James 4:7). E.g., Joseph ran away from Pot’s wife.

E.g., How Steve McNair should have reacted: met this waitress at a restaurant, finds her attractive and interesting, feels his lust kick in. What should he have done? Leave the place and never come back. He should not have entertained the idea in his mind.

        1. Sometimes we can’t escape from temptations. We can’t flee from some circumstances. And I admit that persevering under a long-standing temptation is very difficult. But it’s not impossible.

Jas 1:12 Blessed [is] the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

Ge 39:10 And it came to pass, as [Potiphar’s wife] spake to Joseph day by day, that he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, [or] to be with her.

    1. Pray.
      1. Mt 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed [is] willing, but the flesh [is] weak.
      2. It’s not impossible, but it’s pretty hard to yield to temptation immediately after you’ve prayed and asked God to help you resist temptation.
    1. Resist. James 4:7
      1. Resist means, “To set one’s self against, to withstand, to oppose.”
      2. It suggests active opposition, not merely holding steady.

Illus.: think of a tug of war (not a perfect analogy, but close) —you don’t merely stand steady; that’s not the goal. You pull in the opposite direction.

      1. Similarly, in a temptation, we actively resist and oppose the devil. We pull back—oppose, not merely try to hold steady.
    1. Consider the consequences of giving in to temptation.
      1. If you are tempted by a piece of pie, the consequences of eating it will likely be rather minor—perhaps an extra pound or two.
      2. If you are tempted to steal something, the consequences may be rather significant.
      3. If you are tempted to commit adultery, the consequences may be monumental. Read Prov 5:3-5, 9-11, 21-23
      4. What were the consequences for David?
        1. Child died.
        2. Trouble in his family the rest of his life; i.e., misery and sorrow.
        3. Worst consequence: 2 Sam 12:14 by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, …

The enemies of God have a field day when self-proclaimed conservatives and Christians fall into sin. That’s exactly what the liberal media has done to Sanford.

      1. What were the consequences for Eliot Spitzer? Lost his job as governor, potentially a bid for the presidency. Sanford was thought of as a presidential contender; no more.
      2. The appeal of the fleshly passions is so strong that a person is often willing to sacrifice virtually everything to fulfill that desire. If you give yourself over to fulfilling the desires of the flesh, you eventually lose self-control.
    1. Fill your mind with the Word of God.

Ps 119:9 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed [thereto] according to thy word.

Ps 119:11 ¶ Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

Jesus provides a good example for us. When Satan tempted Jesus, how did he respond? “It is written…” (Mt 4:1f)

    1. Fulfill your appetites in appropriate ways.
      1. God has provided proper means of fulfilling our passions and desires. The Bible gives us full permission to fulfill those desires in proper ways.
      2. Unfortunately, the human heart has almost infinite capacities for sin, so even if you are seeking to fulfill your desires legitimately, it does not shield you completely from temptations. But it certainly helps.
      3. E.g., Prov 5:15-18
      4. E.g., what should David have done after lusting over Bathsheba? I don’t want to be crass here, but he could have called one of his wives; he easily could have expressed his physical desire legitimately with a woman he was already married to.
    2. Take practical steps to protect yourself.
      1. Seek an accountability partner. Cf. Prov 13:20
      2. Be careful who you spend time with. “Friends” can be a significant source of temptation.
        1. Prov 1:10 “If sinners entice thee…”
        2. 1Co 15:33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.”
      3. Install safeguards like Internet filters and/or cable TV controls. Disconnect the cable at hotels.
      4. Keep yourself occupied. “Idol hands are the devil’s workshop.”
      5. Stay away from things that excite your lustful passions. E.g., the magazine rack in the book store, the TV, the computer, etc. cf. Prov 4:23 “Keep thy heart with all diligence…”
      6. Be sensitive about sin; don’t compromise or toy with it; don’t rationalize it or excuse it.
      7. If you do fall into sin, respond appropriately: confess the sin, forsake it, make amends for it if necessary, and put safeguards into place so you don’t give into temptation like that again.

Conc: We live in a world that is full of temptations. Dark-eyed temptresses abound, enticing us with the prospect of forbidden pleasures. Yet we must not give in to temptation. We must remember that “God is faithful” and he will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we can bear.

  1. Gene Lyons, “Hypocrisy All Around,” July 2, 2009
  2. Chuck Colson, BreakPoint Commentaries, “The Bewilderment of Sin,” 6/26/2009.

Salt and Light: The Sermon on the Mount

Lesson 3: Salt and Light (Mt 5:13-16)

The Sermon on the Mount

Part 1: The Subjects of the Kingdom (Mt 5:3-16)

The Distinctiveness of the Disciples:

Citizens of the Kingdom Have a Positive Influence

Jesus’ focus in the Beatitudes was primarily on interior, personal characteristics such as dependency, meekness, yearning for righteousness, mercifulness, authenticity, and purity. These personal traits are private, yet have public implications. Those displaying such characteristics will be noticeable. Thus, Jesus now shifts the emphasis to the external, public characteristics of citizens of His kingdom.

The poetic nature of Jesus’ sermon is clearly evident here. His statements “Ye are the salt of the earth” and “Ye are the light of the world” are obviously metaphorical expressions designed to highlight a comparison. Subjects of the kingdom are in some ways like salt and like light. Those who are not “salty” and those whose lights do not shine forth in the world are failing to live up to divine expectations. Thus, the passage serves as a warning to flavorless and unnoticeable believers.

  1. “Ye are the salt of the earth.”

    1. The significance of salt:

      1. Preservative—salt delays decay and retards deterioration; it’s an antiseptic. Without refrigeration, salting down food products was the best way to preserve them.1 The preservative quality of salt is likely Jesus’ primary idea here.

      2. Flavor enhancer—salt adds flavor.

      3. Other ideas associated with salt: the rabbis apparently used salt as a symbol of wisdom; whiteness; pungency; thirst-producing. OT meat offerings were always to be seasoned with the “salt of the covenant” (Lev 2:13).

    2. The comparison: citizens of the kingdom should have an influence in their world. They should suppress or halt moral decay and they should enhance the “flavor” of the culture. The presence of believers should restrain evil in the world.

“The world tends toward decomposition and is actually rotting away. When the world is left to itself, it festers and putrefies, for the germs of evil are everywhere present and active. … We live in a world that constantly tends toward decay. Some of the Christless structures of the world may look okay, but inside they are rotting away, and it is just a matter of time before they fall. … This suggests to us the function of the church: The church, as salt, functions as a retardant to decay and a preservative in a disintegrating world.”2

    1. A potential condition: the salt “have lost its savor.” The Greek word literally means “to become foolish,” but in this case means “to lose taste, to become inert.” I.e., the salt loses its capacity to do its job. Jesus seems to be talking about believers who lose their influence in the world. They become inert, “tasteless,” and inoffensive. Salt-less Christians are bland and tasteless, adding nothing to the community and doing nothing to stop moral decay. They may be practically indistinguishable from the surrounding culture. The secular world has a bigger affect on Christians than Christians have on the world. Examples: how are we different from the world when it comes to materialism? morality? honesty? compassion? entertainment?

    2. What kind of a world would we live in without Christian influence? Imagine how much worse condition the world would be in without the positive contributions and the restraining influence of Christianity.

    3. Salt has little or no effect if it is not applied to some other material. Salty believers must exert their influence throughout society in order for them to do any good. They must get “out of the salt shaker.” Christian isolationism is not biblical.

    4. A potential problem: Salt generally does not lose its saltiness; it does not become inert. Chemically speaking, salt is salt. It doesn’t break down unless it is impure or chemically changed.3 So it seems that Jesus is setting forth an impossible condition. Yet this sort of language is not foreign to Jesus’ teachings (e.g., a camel cannot go through the eye of a needle [Mt 19:24]). The statement is ironic or paradoxical—it doesn’t make sense on the face of it, which makes it memorable and causes the hearer or reader to pause and consider the statement more closely. “How absurd—salt losing its saltiness!” Thus, the hearers or readers should realize that, as salt, citizens of the kingdom should not lose their “savor,” that is, their influence in the world. Like salt, they cannot become un-salty. Such a notion is absurd.

    5. A potential result:

      1. Good for nothing—failing to fulfill their purpose, failing to live up to their responsibilities.

      2. To be cast out and trodden under foot—unwanted salt would commonly be thrown on to paths or roadways.

    6. The application:

      1. Beware lest you lose the distinctive Christian “flavor” and become just like the unsaved crowd. Christians who are the same as everyone else are in a sense “good for nothing” and worthy of chastisement. They are not distinctive and have little positive influence. They go along with the crowd and never restrain sin.

      2. Israel was the perfect example of salt that had lost its savor and was good for nothing, being cast out and trodden under foot (cf. Mt 8:12).

      3. The Christian church today, generally speaking, has lost much of its saltiness. Many segments of Christianity, especially in free and prosperous countries, believers are so worldly that they have few distinguishing marks separating them from non-Christians. The influence of the church on the western world is slowly fading. Thankfully, in many parts of the world, Christianity is having a remarkable impact.

Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

    1. Jesus is not implying that an un-salty believer may lose his salvation. This is a warning, not a threat. Further, remember that in wisdom literature you can’t press the literal meaning of the words too far. Focus on the main point of the comparison, not on every little detail and nuance.

    2. The main point of the comparison: retain your gospel witness and testimony in the world; be a good example to others; have an impact on society; be different (in a good sense); seek to retard moral decay; seek to be a positive influence.

  1. “Ye are the light of the world.”

    1. Significance of light: illumination, dispels the darkness, show the way, reveal the truth, etc. While salt has a negative function (preventing decay), light has a positive function (showing the way).

    2. God is light (1 Jn 1:5) and Jesus is “the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”(John 1:9). Jesus called himself “the light of the world” (John 8:12, 9:5), so it’s remarkable that he says of his disciples, “You are the light of the world.” In contrast, the world is a dark place. The people of the world “sit in darkness” (Luke 1:79), and “men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil” (John 3:19).

Light is a common symbol in the Bible. It represents purity, truth, knowledge, divine revelation, and God’s presence all in contrast to their opposites. The Israelites thought of themselves as lights in a dark world (Isa. 42:6; Rom. 2:19). However the Old Testament spoke of Messiah as the true light of the world (Isa. 42:6; 49:6). Jesus’ disciples are lights in the derived sense, as the moon is a light but only because it reflects the light of the sun.4

    1. Point of comparison: a light is visible, obvious, and noticeable; it shines forth. Citizens of the kingdom are “the light of the world.” They must be obvious, visible, and noticeable. There can be no such thing as a secret or invisible Christian.

    2. Positive examples

      1. A city situated on a hilltop cannot be hid; it is visible, obvious, clearly seen from a long distance, especially at night.

      1. A lamp5 on a lampstand gives light to all in the house.

    1. A negative example: a lamp put under a “bushel” (a clay container for dry foods, usually a bowl or vase, holding about two gallons). This is patently obvious—so absurd that it never happens. A lamp is to be displayed on a lampstand6 so that it may shine forth its light.

    2. The command: “let your light so shine before men.” Those who possess the light must transmit or shine the light. What a lamp is in a room, disciples of Christ are to be in the world. Followers of Christ are both visible and radiant.

[Believers] are the light lighted. He is the sun. They resemble the moon, reflecting the sun’s light. Apart from Christ they cannot shine. The electric bulb does not emit light all by itself. It imparts light only when connected and turned on, so that the electric current generated in the power-house is transmitted to it. So also as long as Christ’s followers remain in living contact with the original light they are a light to others (cf. John 15:4, 5).7

    1. The results:

      1. People see your good works.

        1. The assumption is that citizens of Jesus’ kingdom are doing good works. He doesn’t specify what kind of good works, other than the kind that others might observe.

        2. Jesus later tells us not do religious works (charity, prayer, fasting) before men, to be seen of them (see Mt 6:1, 5, 16). One should not do good works to gain personal prestige or status but to be a good testimony. So one’s Christian testimony should be plainly visible, but one’s private religious duties should be done very quietly.

      2. People glorify God. This is no guarantee that unbelievers will turn to God based on your good works, but it does suggest that the believer’s good works may be helpful in leading others to Christ. Read Ephesians 5:8-9 and Philippians 2:15.

Tertullian (c. a.d. 200) wrote: “But it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. ‘See,’ they say, ‘how they [the Christians] love one another,’ for they themselves [the non-Christians] are animated by mutual hatred; ‘see how they are ready even to die for one another’” (Apology XXXIX).8

“Brighten the corner where you are.”

Conclusion: Let’s commit ourselves to being salt and light in our community. As salt, we want to be a force against moral decay and a source of “flavor” to our world. As light, we must shine forth brightly in a dark world with the gospel message and with a positive Christian testimony.

1 Interesting note: the body of the great missionary David Livingstone was shipped from Africa back to England after his death packed in salt.

2R. Kent Hughes, The Sermon on the Mount, 78.

3 Some have suggested that the salt of that time was often impure, and in certain conditions the salt itself would leach away, leaving a worthless residue. This may be true, but seems overly complicated for the analogy.

4Tom Constable, Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Galaxie Software, 2003; 2003), Mt 5:14.

5 The word “candle” (KJV) refers to the small, portable lamp, a clay vessel burning olive oil, not a wax candle.

6 A lampstand might be a shelf extending from the pillar in the center of the room (the pillar that supported the large crossbeam of the flat roof), or a single stone projecting inward from the wall, or a piece of metal conspicuously placed and used similarly. Many houses of this time were usually rather simple, having only one or two rooms, so one lamp could illuminate the whole building. William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, vol. 9, New Testament Commentary.

7William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, vol. 9, New Testament Commentary.

8Quoted in William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, vol. 9, New Testament Commentary.

The Beatitudes: The Sermon on the Mount

Lesson 2: The Beatitudes (Mt 5:1-12)

The Sermon on the Mount

Part 1: The Subjects of the Kingdom (Mt 5:3-16)

The Character and Blessedness of Citizens of Christ’s Kingdom

The Sermon on the Mount begins with the Beatitudes, statements Jesus made regarding the blessedness of the inhabitants of the kingdom.

  1. The Setting (Mt 5:1-2; Luke 6:17-19)

    1. The contents of Matthew’s record of the Sermon and Luke’s record of it are very similar.1 There is little doubt that the two writers are recording the same sermon. We can’t totally rule out the idea that Jesus preached the same sermon twice, but it seems unlikely.

    2. One problem in reconciling the two accounts is that Matthew says the Sermon occurred when Jesus went “up into a mountain” (5:1), while Luke says Jesus “came down with them, and stood in the plain” (6:17). Possible solutions:

      1. Jesus went into a mountain but found a level spot to speak from. The word “plain” literally means “level place,” which can be found even on mountains. And the mountains in that region are more like hills. However, this does not explain how Jesus “came down.”

      2. Perhaps Luke does not mention that Jesus went up into a mountain before giving the Sermon. Jesus “came down” (Luke) then “went up” (Mt) sometime later. The text doesn’t say that this occurred, but it could have.

  2. Theme and Background

    1. The Beatitudes are the collection of blessings Jesus spoke at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount. There are other Beatitudes (“blessed be …”) but this is the most elaborate list in the Bible.

    2. These statements are called Beatitudes based on the Latin translation of the word “blessed” – be?tit?d?, meaning “perfect happiness.”2 However, the word “blessed” is not exactly synonymous with “happy.” Happiness is a feeling that comes and goes depending on one’s circumstances. The term “blessed” is a term of congratulation and recommendation. The blessing here is based on God’s approval, not on a temporary happy feeling. The word “refers overwhelmingly to the distinctive religious joy which accrues to man from his share in the salvation of the kingdom of God.”3 (Compare Ps 32:1.) MacArthur describes the blessed condition as “the divinely-bestowed well-being that belongs only to the faithful.”4

    3. These qualities are to be envied and emulated; they make up “the good life.” Each is followed by a reason, pointing out that no one will be the loser by following this way of life, however unpromising it may appear in the short term. The rewards are at the level of spiritual experience and relationship with God rather than of material recompense. The key phrase, which opens and concludes the series, is theirs is the kingdom of heaven. This refers to the people who acknowledge God as their King and who may, therefore, confidently look forward to the fulfillment of his purpose in their lives.5

    4. Note the paradoxical (seemingly illogical) nature of these statements, and how they contrast with the world’s view of happiness. In Jesus’ kingdom, it’s not the wealthy, powerful, and selfish who enjoy God’s approval, but the downcast, the meek, and the merciful. One’s inner attitude is much more important than his outer condition.

    5. The Beatitudes are more than just descriptive. They should motivate us to pursue the blessings associated with each statement. Also, the statements are more like exclamations than simple declarations of fact. “How blessed…!” is the idea.

    6. What kind of people enjoy God’s approval? What does God value in a person? What type of person pleases God? What characteristics describe those who inhabit Christ’s kingdom? What does God’s value in His people? The Beatitudes answer these questions.

  3. The Beatitudes—Characteristics and Blessedness of Citizens of Christ’s Kingdom (Mt 5:1-12)

Mt 5:1-2 Jesus sat down to teach. Rabbis in that age typically sat to teach while the audience stood to listen. There is no consensus regarding where this took place. It could be a mountain or just a small hill. There is a place on the northeast side of the Sea of Galilee where tradition suggests the Sermon occurred, but this is uncertain.

The values reflected in the Beatitudes stand in stark contrast to those taught by the Jewish leaders of the day (scribes, Pharisees). They often focused on external standards and rule keeping, while Jesus here focuses on inner attitudes and commitments. The qualities that Jesus taught are not the product of external, formal religion, but of a genuine relationship with God.

    1. Blessed are the poor6 in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

      1. In the OT, the “poor” or “meek” are the oppressed people of God who, nonetheless, trust in him for deliverance.7 Thus, the poor in spirit are those who recognize that they have no innate ability to please God. The poor in spirit admit that they must depend fully on God, not on themselves. They see themselves as spiritually bankrupt, weak, and broken before God, having nothing to offer, claiming no merit.

      2. The poor in spirit have become convinced of their spiritual poverty. They have been made conscious of their misery and want. Their old pride has been broken. They have begun to cry out, “O God, be thou merciful to me, the sinner” (Luke 18:13). They are of a contrite spirit and tremble at God’s word (Isa. 66:2; cf. 57:15).?? They realize their own utter helplessness (Rom. 7:24), expect nothing from self, everything from God.8

      3. Those who fit this description have (present tense) a place the kingdom of heaven. In order to be saved, one must recognize his own spiritual bankruptcy and failure.

      4. This statement prohibits that kind of self-confident pride that is so common in our culture. It runs contrary to what people today value—self-esteem, assertive self-promotion, and positive self-image.

    2. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

      1. The context here suggests that the mourning occurs as one acknowledges his poorness of spirit, i.e., his spiritual poverty and utter dependence upon God. The mourner is broken, downcast, and burdened. Any distressing situation in life may cause mourning, but the poor in spirit recognize that sin is the cause of most grief.

      2. Although Jesus doesn’t specify who is doing the comforting, it seems reasonable that God is the one bringing comfort to the mourner. God draws nigh to those who seek Him in their times of grief (read Ps 34:18; James 4:8-10).

      3. Jesus is the great high priest who is able to sympathize with our weakness, having experienced human sorrow himself (Heb 4:14-16).

    3. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

      1. This is perhaps the most quoted of the Beatitudes. It’s also an ironic statement—it doesn’t seem reasonable, strikes us as odd. Jesus seems to delight in turning the tables and upsetting the conventional wisdom of the time. This is an approximate quotation of Psalm 37:11.

      2. Meekness is humility or gentleness, the opposite of self-reliant pride. It is nearly synonymous with being poor in spirit.

      3. Meekness doesn’t imply that one never stands up for himself or that one allows others to abuse him. Meekness is the result of placing one’s confidence in God rather than in oneself.

      4. Meekness is not spinelessness, the characteristics of the person who is ready to bow before every breeze. It is submissiveness under provocation, the willingness rather to suffer than to inflict injury. The meek person leaves everything in the hand of him who loves and cares.9

      5. Jesus described himself as “meek and lowly in heart” (Mt 11:29). Followers of Christ will also exhibit this characteristic.

      6. When will the meek inherit the earth? In a sense, they have it now (Mt 6:33; 1 Cor 3:21). But the full expression of this promise awaits the millennial reign of Christ and then the eternal state.

      7. Meekness is a very rare characteristic in our culture. We often value those who put themselves forward, who assert themselves. The world seems to belong to the proud, the ambitious. But in Christ’s kingdom, the meek inherit the earth.

    4. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

      1. God approves of those who have a deep spiritual appetite, who desire to live a righteous life. Life is full of injustice and unfairness, but God blesses those who have a strong personal desire for righteousness.

      2. The contrast with our world could hardly be more striking. Most people have little regard for personal righteousness, allowing themselves much moral flexibility. But God gives us an objective standard of righteousness—God himself and his word.

      3. Those who yearn for righteousness will be filled. That is, they will experience what they seek—true righteousness. This is the result of justification; God declares the guilty sinner to be righteous. Salvation yields full spiritual satisfaction.

      4. Righteous living is the natural and necessary result of a righteous standing before God. The two are inseparable.

    5. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

      1. Mercy is withholding deserved punishment (cf. Ps 103:10). Mercy is love for those in misery and a forgiving spirit toward the sinner. It embraces both the kindly feeling and the kindly act. We see it exemplified in the parable of The Good Samaritan (Luke 10), and especially in Christ, the merciful High priest (Heb. 2:17).10 Every person has experienced God’s mercy.

      2. Merciful people extend mercy to others (cf. Mt 18:23-35). Anyone who has experienced God’s mercy must be merciful. Merciful people sympathize with those who fail and fall.

      3. It’s interesting that Jesus places mercy next to righteousness. Those who demand adherence to a righteous standard may become hard-nosed, inflexible, and demanding. But our desire for righteousness must be combined with merciful love and understanding.

    6. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

      1. Read Psalm 24:3-4. Pure in heart suggests authenticity, not putting on a show, not living a lie, not hypocritical, but genuine and sincere. It also implies a single-minded devotion to God. One’s motives are pure and genuine, not put-on.

      2. Further, pure in heart suggests inward cleansing from sin through faith in God’s provision and a continual desire to keep one’s “account” clean.

      3. One’s heart must be clean in order to “see God.” Cleansing from sin comes only through the application of the blood of Christ. Only those who experience Christ’s cleansing power will be welcomed into God’s presence.

      4. Again we see the importance of a true, inner, personal relationship with God. We should regularly be asking God to search our hearts and cleanse us from sin (Ps 139:23-24; 1 John 1:9). Also, when the inside is clean, outer purity will not be far behind (Mt 23:26). It’s a mistake to expect external purity from those whose hearts have not been cleansed from sin.

    7. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

      1. Peacemakers attempt to bring calm and order to a chaotic situation. Peacemakers have an inner peace with God and desire to be instruments of God’s peace. Having experienced the peace of God through faith in Christ (Rom 5:1), peacemakers seek to help others know God’s peace.

      2. Such people reflect the characteristics of the Father. God made peace with us through Christ. God is the ultimate peace maker. In this way we resemble God, showing our relationship to him (Gal 3:26, 4:6-7).

      3. Some initiate trouble and conflict—we call them troublemakers. Peacemakers do just the opposite—they initiate peace and order.

      4. Jesus is not advocating a peace-at-any-price attitude. Jesus said that following him may result in conflict and persecution (Mt 10:34-36).

    8. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

      1. Jesus is the ultimate example of one who was persecuted for righteousness sake. Those who follow the core values that Jesus advocated can expect persecution.

      2. People displaying these qualities will naturally stand out in a wicked culture and would become the targets of criticism and abuse.

    9. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

      1. Note the change from “they” to “you.” This becomes more personal. One is persecuted “for righteousness sake” and “for my sake,” not for political or social reasons (Mt 10:22).

      2. It was a rather common idea among the Jews that all suffering, including persecution (see Luke 13:1–5), was an indication of God’s displeasure and of the special wickedness of the one thus afflicted. Christ here reverses this view, but only with respect to those who endured persecution for the sake of righteousness and for the cause of Christ.11

      3. The proper response to persecution—rejoice and be glad because your reward is great in heaven. You’re in good company—that’s how they treated the prophets (e.g., Jeremiah, Daniel and friends, Amos, etc.). Read Acts 5:41.

      4. When you live the way Jesus describes here, the unsaved world will not appreciate it. But God does appreciate it, and those who suffer in this way can be confident of a great reward.

We must value what God values. If you want to enjoy God’s blessing, these attitudes and behaviors must exist in our lives. All citizens of Jesus’ kingdom should be striving to apply this teaching.

Note well Jesus’ emphasis on the inner qualities of the heart—dependency, meekness, yearning for righteousness, mercifulness, authenticity, and purity. These are not things that can be merely put-on. They are inner qualities, not external traditions. Jesus no doubt is taking aim at the externalism and ritualism so common among the Pharisees, which is also very common among religious people today.

1 Luke omits various matters of special interest to Matthew’s Jewish readers (e.g. Matt. 5:17-42), and other matters that he himself will give elsewhere (e.g. Luke 11:1-4; 12:22-31); while Luke has a few sentences (as ver. 24-26, 38-40), which are not given by Matthew. Robertson, Harmony of the Gospels.

2 Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1).

3Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin.; ed. Gerhard Kittel et al.;, electronic ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976), 4:367.

4John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible: New American Standard Bible. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2006), Mt 5:3.

5D. A. Carson, New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition (Rev. ed. of: The new Bible commentary. 3rd ed. / edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970, 4th ed.; Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), Mt 5:3.

6 The primary sense of the word “poor” (??????) implies one who is completely destitute, deprived of every means of self-support, one reduced to begging; helpless and powerless.

7D. A. Carson, New Bible Commentary.

8William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, vol. 9, New Testament Commentary.

9William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, vol. 9, New Testament Commentary.

10William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, vol. 9, New Testament Commentary.

11William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, vol. 9, New Testament Commentary.

Introduction to the Sermon on the Mount

Lesson 1: Introduction to the Sermon on the Mount

The Sermon on the Mount is recorded in Matthew 5-7 and Luke 6. It is one of the most beloved, well known, and frequently quoted portions of the Bible. It’s also the longest single unit of Jesus’ personal teaching recorded in Scripture, “the most concentrated yet comprehensive portion of His ethical teaching.”1 Some think of it as “the most profound section of the entire New Testament and the whole Bible, … the most penetrating section of God’s Word.”2 Unfortunately, it’s also a very misunderstood passage. Thus, it is beneficial for believers to carefully and thoughtfully study the Sermon. Our goal should be not only to learn what Jesus said and meant, but also to apply the lessons from the Sermon on the Mount to our own lives personally.

We’ll be studying the Sermon from Matthew’s account (mostly). Before launching out into a detailed study of the Sermon itself, it may be beneficial to consider some introductory matters.

  1. Definition: What is the Sermon on the Mount? The Sermon as recorded likely does not contain everything that Jesus said on that occasion. It’s probably a condensation or summary of a teaching session that perhaps lasted an hour or longer (as recorded in the NT, the Sermon takes only a few minutes to read). It was common at that point in history for a teacher (rabbi) to sit in a prominent place, gather his disciples around him, and teach. This is the setting of the Sermon.

  2. Literary style: The Sermon on the Mount has much in common with OT wisdom literature, reading much like the Book of Proverbs especially. This is important in that, like OT wisdom literature, the Sermon on the Mount contains poetic material that must be carefully and thoughtfully interpreted. If we seek to apply a strictly literal interpretive approach, we’ll end up cutting off our hands, plucking out our eyes, and giving away all our possessions, among other things. The Sermon contains poetic imagery that the Jews of the time were familiar with, and modern interpreters should keep this in mind as they seek to interpret Jesus’ words.

  3. Theme: The unifying theme of the Sermon is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew places the sermon immediately after two verses insisting that the primary content of Jesus’ preaching was the gospel of the kingdom (4:17, 23). This theme brackets the Beatitudes (5:3, 10) and appears in 5:17-20, which details the relation between the OT and the kingdom. It returns at the heart of the Lord’s Prayer (6:10), climaxes the section on kingdom perspectives (6:33).3 While some of his listeners recognized Jesus as the King, others must be exhorted to enter the kingdom (7:13-14) and to evaluate whether they are genuine citizens of Jesus’ kingdom (7:21-29). As a summary, we can suggest that the Sermon describes the character, requirements, and conditions of entering and living in the kingdom.

  4. The Audience: Whom did Jesus intend as the audience of the Sermon?

    1. The disciples. This would include the twelve as well as a good number of others.

Mt 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him.

    1. The multitude. Jesus often taught his disciples while others listened (Luk 20:45). Perhaps only a small group of disciples gathered to listen when Jesus began speaking, but by the time He finished, many people had joined them.

Mt 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

    1. Thus we find some of the material directly applicable only to believers and some directed to unbelievers.

  1. Interpretation: One can find at least a dozen different schemes various groups have used throughout the history of the church to interpret and apply the Sermon on the Mount. This reveals that it is not an easy passage to understand. Jesus’ words may seem straight-forward and clear, but thoughtful consideration of the Sermon will reveal the depths of its teaching and the difficulty of understanding some of the statements.

    1. Some have taken the Sermon in a woodenly literal way without allowing for metaphorical expression or poetic imagery. If you eye causes you to lust, you really should pluck it out. Pacifists (e.g., Amish) take Jesus’ command to “resist not evil” to prohibit any form of self-defense and/or military engagement.

    2. Roman Catholics have historically applied the Sermon as standards for the clergy (not the laity). This set up a double-standard.

    3. Lutherans have suggested that the Sermon is Jesus’ exposition of the OT law, and His intent was to drive men to repent of sin and cry for grace.4 While the Sermon certainly may have this impact, the overall theme of the Sermon goes beyond this.

    4. Some have argued that the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount is a sort of moral road map toward social progress. This is the view of classic liberalism. But the Sermon is far more than a list of rules and regulations. And we cannot apply Jesus’ teaching to society without the citizens of society being members of Jesus’ kingdom.

    5. Some see the Sermon as a description of how to enter the kingdom. They suggest that those who obey Jesus’ teaching will be saved. Such an approach amounts to salvation by works, which obviously contradicts the rest of the NT. “It is evident from the clear teaching of the rest of the New Testament that the Lord’s purpose was not to address the unbelieving world in this discourse to show them the way of life, either individual or social.”5

    6. Some see the Sermon as a description of how church life ought to be. However, the church is never mentioned here—no clear gospel presentation, no baptism, no indwelling or baptism of the Holy Spirit, no prayer in Christ’s name—no mention of the church at all. Further, Jesus taught these principles well before the church existed. No one in the original audience would have been thinking about life in the church while they listened to Jesus’ address.

    7. Similarly, a common approach is to think of the Sermon as a description of essential Christian discipleship. One could look at it as “the outward manifestations of character and conduct of the true believer and genuine disciple,….the greatest statement of true Christian living”6 St. Augustine, for example, described it as “a perfect standard of the Christian life.”7 This comes close, but seems to neglect the kingdom implications of the Sermon. Further, if the Sermon is meant to describe the normal Christian life, most Christians come far short.

    8. Dispensationalists have held various positions on the Sermon.

      1. Some dispensationalists hold that the Sermon applied specifically only to the original audience when Jesus was offering the kingdom to Israel.8

      2. Some hold that the Sermon applies until the beginning of the millennial kingdom, during the interim period between the first and second advents.9

      3. Some hold that the standards of the Sermon applied only to the future millennial reign of Christ, not to the church age. Many dispensationalists today would affirm that the Sermon’s primary application awaits the millennial reign of Christ, but they would also assert that the Sermon applies to believers today.10

It seems obvious that some aspects of the Sermon do not fit a millennial kingdom context. Pentecost notes that “the presence of evil and evil men, the existence of poverty, famine, hunger, and need, are all contrary to the predictions made in the Old Testament concerning the character of the kingdom. … We thus conclude that the Sermon on the Mount cannot be made to apply to conditions on the earth after the establishment of the [millennial] kingdom.”11

    1. Perhaps the best way to approach the Sermon is to see it as Jesus’ description of life in the kingdom (see definition of this concept below). It’s not a description of how to enter into Christ’s kingdom, but an invitation for unbelievers to enter (cf. Mt 7:13-14) and a guide for those who are already a part of His kingdom. Further, as noted above, the Sermon contains poetic material that must be carefully and thoughtfully interpreted. It seems unlikely that a strictly literal application of the Sermon is what Jesus had in mind. The Sermon has more in common with OT wisdom literature than with a modern newspaper report.

If we view Matthew 4:17 as an introduction to the Sermon, then perhaps the message of the Sermon on the Mount can be captured by the phrase, “What it means to repent and belong to the kingdom of heaven.”12

Mt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Note several reasons the Sermon applies to believers today:13

  1. Jesus expected his listeners to obey what He’s teaching (see 7:24-28).

  2. Nothing in the passage or anywhere else suggests that what Jesus said was not applicable to the original audience or to succeeding generations.

  3. Jesus commissioned his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel and to teach converts to observe whatever Jesus had commanded (Mt 28:18-20). Part of what Jesus commanded is found in the Sermon.

  4. The rest of the NT repeats many of the themes from the Sermon, which suggests that the material applies to church-age believers.

  1. The Kingdom: In order to make sense of the Sermon, we must determine what Jesus meant by “the kingdom.”

    1. As noted above, references to the kingdom abound in the Sermon: Matt 5:3, 10, 19, 20, 6:10, 13, 33, 7:21. Thus, we must seek to understand what Jesus had in mind. What is Christ’s “kingdom”?

      1. God is a universal king over all creation (Acts 17:24). This is not the kingdom Christ has in mind here.

      2. The kingdom Jesus has in mind is the earthly, physical, literal kingdom of God mediated by the Messiah—the Messianic kingdom, the rule of Christ on the throne of David. This is the kingdom the Jews of Jesus’ day were expecting. This is the kingdom Jesus announced was “at hand” (Mt 3:2, 4:17). Jesus Himself is the king in God’s kingdom, and where He reigns, there the kingdom of God is already present. So it seems that the first coming of Christ initiated the kingdom.

      3. The earthly, millennial kingdom is obviously not currently in operation, or at least not fully operational. Jesus is not reigning over the earth from the throne of David in Jerusalem. The promises from the OT have not yet been fulfilled. The Jews rejected Jesus as their king and Messiah. The kingdom, in its fullest sense, has not come yet. This facet of the kingdom is still future.

      4. While the full expression of the kingdom awaits Jesus’ return, the kingdom has been initiated or inaugurated by Jesus. There seems to be more than one phase or expression of Christ’s kingdom. Between the first and second comings of Christ, the “mystery” form of the kingdom prevails (see Mt 13). This phase of the kingdom may be thought of as Jesus’ spiritual reign over His people. Today, one enters the kingdom by being born again (John 3:3-7; Col 1:13). Believers are citizens of Christ’s kingdom, but not in a physical, earthly sense, but in the sense of Christ’s spiritual reign or rule over his people. Christ is king, and believers enter his kingdom when they get saved.14

Note on the kingdom: It’s important for us to recognize that certain elements of kingdom life await the millennial reign of Christ. The physical aspects of kingdom life—reigning with power, overthrowing enemies, ruling over a land and a people, etc.—awaits a future time. Some Christians seek to apply the promises from the earthly, physical, Messianic kingdom (the millennium) to the church age. This is a mistake. The mystery form of the kingdom overlaps with the church age, but the church and the kingdom are not identical.

    1. Thus, the Sermon pertains to Christ’s kingdom, whether the present mystery form of it or the future millennial form. Certain elements of the Sermon seem to apply more directly to the present and other parts to the future. In any case, Christians of any age should thoughtfully seek to apply the principles from the Sermon.

Note the Quote: [T]he Sermon on the Mount … is intended for the guidance of regenerate persons in an unregenerate world. And because the gifts and empowerment of the Gospel are his who trusts and serves His Lord, these words of Christ stand. Their revelation has never been withdrawn: they set forth the true standard of Christian morality. They describe the conduct produced by the life of Christ in His believing people: they abide in full moral applicability to us: they are [timeless] and reveal the moral laws upon which the judgments of the Day of Christ are founded. Thus they should be studied and taken to heart by the follower of Christ who would learn of Him who is meek and lowly in heart.15

  1. Overview of the Sermon on the Mount — see the title page16

Conclusion: Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount calls all His followers to a very high level of discipleship. Anyone claiming to be a follower of Christ must seriously consider how well he is obeying Jesus’ words here. Living the Sermon on the Mount means, fundamentally, submitting to the authority of Jesus. It means coming to Him, taking His yoke, and learning from Him (Mt 11:28-30).17

The Sermon on the Mount is a profound and rich passage, the “greatest of all sermons having to do with human conduct.”18 In the following weeks, we’ll be looking in depth at this Sermon and seeking to understand what Jesus said, what He meant, and how we should respond. Every student would benefit from reading through the Sermon (Matthew 5-7) as we progress.

1Harry A. Sturz, “The Sermon on the Mount and Its Application to the Present Age,” Grace Journal Volume 4 (Grace Seminary, 1963; 2002), 4:3.

2R. Kent Hughes, The Sermon on the Mount: The Message of the Kingdom (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2001), 16.

3 Expositor’s Bible Commentary.

4 MacArthur asserts that the Sermon is “a masterful exposition of the law and a potent assault on Pharisaic legalism.” The MacArthur Study Bible (Dallas: Word Publishing), 1997.

5J. Dwight Pentecost, “The Purpose of the Sermon on the Mount,” Dallas Theological Seminary, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 115 (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1958; 2002), 115:130.

6 Liberty University Bible Commentary

7 Hughes, The Sermon on the Mount, 15. Augustine likely coined the title “Sermon on the Mount” for this passage.

8 J. Dwight Pentecost reflects this position. “[T]he Sermon on the Mount is to be connected with the offer of the kingdom to Israel at the first advent of Christ, so that its primary application is to that day and time, and must be so interpreted.” Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 115 (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1958; 2002), 115:212.

9 Tom Constable, Expository Notes on the Bible, reflects this position.

10 Ryrie asserts that the “primary fulfillment of the Sermon and the full following of its laws” relates to “either the offering or the establishment of the Millennial kingdom.” Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 100. He affirms that the Sermon is applicable and profitable for believers of this age.

11Sturz , Grace Journal Volume 4 (Grace Seminary, 1963; 2002), quoting Dwight Pentecost, “The Purpose of the Sermon on the Mount,” Bibliotheca Sacra (April, 1958), p. 135. Sturz gives a long list of conditions mentioned in the Sermon that do not seem to fit with a millennial context. Both Sturz and Pentecost are dispensationalists.

12 Following Deffinbaugh/Ellis. www.bible.net

13 From Sturz, Grace Journal 4:3.

14 The spiritual kingdom “refers to the kingdom into which all believers have been placed (Col. 1:13), and it is entered by the new birth. The Ruler is Christ; in this concept of the kingdom He rules over believers only; and the relationship exists now.” Ryrie, Basic Theology, 398.

15 C. F. Hogg and J. B. Watson, On the Sermon on the Mount (London: Pickering & Inglis Ltd., 3rd printing, 1947), pp. 18,19. Quoted in Struz.

16 This scheme follows the breakdown from the NIV Study Bible notes with the main sections coming from Deffinbaugh/Ellis. Some modifications by the author.

17 Deffinbaugh/Ellis.

18 H. A. Ironside, Expository Notes on the Gospel of Matthew (New York: Loizeaux Bros., Inc., Bible Truth Depot, 1943), p. 44. Quoted in Sturz, Grace Journal 4:3.

The Sermon on the Mount: Introduction

The Sermon on the Mount

Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Mt 4:17)

Contents:

  1. Introduction: Background and Interpretation

Part 1: The Subjects of the Kingdom (5:3-16)

  1. The Beatitudes (5:1-12)

  2. Salt and Light (5:13-16)

Part 2: The Precepts of the Kingdom (5:17–5:48)

  1. The Fulfillment of the Law (5:17-20)

  2. Murder (5:21-26)

  3. Adultery and Divorce (5:27-32)

  4. Oaths (5:33-36)

  5. Retribution (5:37-42)

  6. Love for Enemies (5:43-48)

Part 3: The Righteousness of the Kingdom (6:1-7:12)

  1. Giving to the Needy (6:1-4)

  2. Prayer and Fasting (6:5-18)

  3. Treasure in Heaven (6:19-24)

  4. Worry (6:25-34)

  5. Judging Others (7:1-6)

  6. Ask, Seek, Knock (7:7-12)

Part 4: The Tests of the Kingdom (7:13-29)

  1. Straight Gates and False Prophets (7:13-20)

  2. A Warning about False Profession, the Blessedness of Obedience, and Epilogue (7:21-29)

Resources:

Robert Deffinbaugh, “The Sermon on the Mount,” Biblical Studies Press, 2006. www.bible.org.

William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, vol. 9. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973).

R. Kent Hughes, The Sermon on the Mount: The Message of the Kingdom (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001)

Jeff Miller, “The Sermon on the Mount” sermon series. http://www.bible.org

Others as noted

This material produced in 2008 by Brad Anderson, Liberty Baptist Church, Antigo, WI.

The Conservative Baptist Association: "Winning the World"

Lesson 13: The Conservative Baptist Association: “Winning the World”

The Northern Baptist Convention had firmly set its direction towards liberalism. Though the Baptist Bible Union attempted to establish a new movement outside of the NBC, internal problems led to its demise. The only organized voice for orthodox theology was that of the Fundamental Fellowship.

The Fundamental Fellowship firmly desired to stay within the NBC and provide a dissenting voice to the onslaught of liberalism. The fundamentalists believed that the Convention was becoming liberal. In reality, however, the NBC was always dominated by the liberals, established liberal schools, and sent liberal missionaries. The fundamentalists tried to use their influence and capture the convention. However, it was not to be.

The fundamentalists tried to get the NBC to adopt a confession, it failed. The fundamentalists moved for the NBC to investigate their schools for liberalism. The NBC reported that their schools were “doing a work of which the denomination may well be proud.” The fundamentalists shifted their attention to the missionaries. Attempting to proceed with their investigation, the NBC hindered their progress by claiming that the files were confidential. Not satisfied with the answer, W.B. Riley did his own investigation and found that many missionaries denied the authority of the Bible, the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc. Rather than “winning the world” to Christ, the fundamentalists found the liberals socializing pagans. So, “winning the world” became the fundamentalist agenda.

The situation which led to the formation of the CBA

In 1924, the NBC adopted the “evangelical policy.” With that policy, the liberals claimed that they would appoint only evangelicals to the mission field. What is an “evangelical?” The liberals attempted to cover their liberalism by using vague terminology. The fundamentalists called the policy the “inclusive policy” since it included liberals in missions.

The fundamentalists called for four stipulations at a decisive conference in Grand Rapids, Michigan (1946). The stipulations were:

  • That the record of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ as stated in Matthew 1 and Luke 1 and 2 is true and trustworthy.

  • That the record of the Resurrection of Christ as stated in Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20,21, is true and trustworthy.

  • That the record of the miracles of Jesus as given in the Gospels is true and trustworthy.

  • That the New Testament is inspired of God in all its contents and all the acceptance of its historical facts, revelation, teachings, and doctrines are obligatory in Christian faith and practice.

The liberal Winfield Edson followed Woelfkin’s procedure of offering the substitute motion: “We reaffirm our faith in the New Testament as a divinely inspired record and therefore a trustworthy, and authoritative, and all-sufficient rule for our faith and practice.” It was adopted.

The liberals were again attempting to cover their unbelief. Shelley well notes:

“Such creeds, it was charged, violated Baptist practice and belief in liberty of conscience. But the reply asserted that this charge is based upon a misunderstanding of soul liberty. “Logically, our Baptist fathers announced their principle of soul liberty as a protest against the coercive ideas of their age . . . They never meant by that principle that a man could believe anything and be a Baptist, nor did they believe that the signing of a confession of one’s own will contradicted that principle.”1

Formation of the Conservative Baptist Foreign Mission Society.

In 1943, the fundamentalists found that they could no longer support the missionaries of the NBC. In Chicago, Illinois, they convened to establish another mission society within the NBC, one that was fundamentalist driven.

It was an impressive beginning. In the first four and a half months of its existence, the CBFMS had received over $42,000 with a constituency of over 200 churches.

The aim of the CBFMS was foreign missions. It is this aim which became the driving force in the CBA.

Formation of the Conservative Baptist Fellowship of the Northern Baptists

Three years after the founding of the CBFMS, a new committee (the Committee of “Fifteen”2 met at Winona Lake, Indiana to discuss the events that transpired at the Grand Rapids Conference. They moved to form of a new association which should be called the Conservative Baptist Fellowship.

They resolved to form a new association. Yet, like its sister, the CBFMS, they purposed that the churches remain in the NBC. The CBF announced its intentions to stay within the NBC and provide a voice for fundamentalism. However, different from the NBC, each church in the CBF had to subscribe to a confession.

Gabriel Guedj, the Chairman of the CBF stated the group’s desire to remain in the NBC.

“Fundamentalists must also be loyal to the fellowship of Baptists known as the Northern Baptist Convention or they forfeit the right and the privilege of exerting their influence in the right direction. Those who have left the Northern Convention have on the one hand, cut themselves off, from any influence (or vote) which might have been instrumental in bringing our denomination direction and testimony back to where it historically belongs; and they also have weakened the hands of those who still strive to maintain that testimony true to the Word.3

By 1950, the CBF fell into financial straits. One member, Dr. Tulga, published two books (”The Case Books”) which enjoyed a large printing. The large sales revived the CBF and gave it the distinction of being the publications arm of the CBA.

Formation of the Conservative Baptist Home Mission Society

Realizing that the Conservative Baptists had organized a foreign outreach, and a publications venture, the home front needed to be established with like-minded churches. Hence, the CBHMS was developed in the late 40s. It formally organized in 1950 when the CBHMS saw success.

Formation of the Conservative Baptist Association

The same year that the CBHMS was formally organized, the Conservative Baptists combined their efforts into the Conservative Baptist Association.

The CBA became a well organized, fully endowed organization. It produced Sunday School literature. It also had foreign and home missions agencies. The movement had momentum.

As the CBA was formed, talk of establishing a Conservative Baptist seminary became evident. A budget was adopted, faculty was secured, and a forty-room estate in Denver, Colorado was purchased. This was organized as the Conservative Baptist Seminary. During the 50s, the Conservative Baptists had established many seminaries:

  • Western Baptist Seminary, Portland, Oregon (established in 1927 added “conservative” to its title in 1953)

  • Central Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis, Minnesota (1956)

  • San Francisco Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary (1958)

By 1953, one decade after the CBMFS was established, the CBA became a powerful machine. Note the following:

  • The CBFMS boasted 301 foreign missionaries, 1.25 million dollars, 1,632 affiliated churches.

  • The CBHMS boasted an increase of 46% in income, 124 affiliated churches, and 64 new church plants.

The internal problem of the CBA

Too broad of a doctrinal statement

The CBA, CBFMS, CBHMS, and CBF all shared the same constitution. The constitution was typical in format. It had nine articles including articles of purpose, doctrine, and amendment.

The doctrinal statement was conservative, but like the Fundamental Fellowship statement, it failed to include statements on important doctrines such as premillinealism, separation, and election.

Another carryover from the Fundamental Fellowship was the adopted motion:

“Moved, seconded, and passed – That we recommend to the Fundamental Fellowship that when the new society is incorporated that the doctrinal statement be included in the articles of incorporation with the provision that they shall never be changed, altered, modified, or revoked except by unanimous vote.”

To maintain the doctrinal position of the CBA, this clause was placed in Article IX.

Constitutions as well as confessions of faith are not static documents. They are written in a certain time by fallible men. They should never be protected with such a clause. As future generations face theological error, they will have to amplify, or narrow, their doctrinal statement to oppose the errors/heresies.

It should be noted that the CBA’s doctrinal statement, one page in length, was far too broad. In 1648, the Second London Baptist Confession was produced. It was over 110 pages and covered many other important doctrinal matters including (Creation, election, Hell, sanctification, eternal security).

A broad theological constituency

Since the doctrinal position of the CBA was broad, it only follows that the constituency was varied theologically.

The New Evangelicals were on the rise. Many in the CBA sided with new evangelicalism which prefers a broad doctrinal position. However, the more fundamental group (CBF) desired a more narrow theological document. The two groups were labeled “Soft Core” and “Hard Core” respectively.

ladd-tenny-discussion The first controversy centered around the doctrine of the Last Things. The CBF men desired a more narrow confession that included a statement on premillinealism. That is the belief that Christ will return before the millennium to take his saints (Rev 3.10, 1Th 5, Mt 24). Later, this doctrine was more correctly named as “pretribulationalism.”

The CBF wanted this added to the constitution. Each year (1954–1958), the CBF presented this issue for constitutional amendment. Knowing that a change to the Doctrinal Section of the Constitution required a unanimous vote, the CBF moved that a 2/3rds vote be all that is necessary. That motion was tabled in 1958 by the presiding officer, Rev. W.H. Bisgaard. He moved that the motion was “illegal” though no statute had been identified as violated.

In fact, Bisgaard was a “Soft Core” following in “lock step” with the National Association of Evangelicals and Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary in Denver Colorado. The “Soft Core,” generally speaking, did not subscribe to premillinealism. Though some were premillineal, the “Soft Core” crowd did not want the matter to “become a test of fellowship.”4

To strike a compromise, the following year, the C.B.F.M.S. added to the purpose article that they would not send out any missionary that did not subscribe to premillinealism. The C.B.F.M.S. further stated that the board was not in favor of “keeping the door open for amillennialists or postmillennialists.”5 It should be noted that the C.B.F.M.S. said nothing of “mid-tribulationalists,” the position of the Dr. Merrill Tenny, dean of the graduate school of Wheaton College.6

Going separate ways

As a result of the premillinealism controversy, the CBA would no longer give the CBF men time at the annual program. They also found it difficult to find space to display their materials at the annual meetings. The CBF men found themselves practically forced out of the CBA.

Furthermore, at the CBA meetings in 1962 (Detroit, Michigan), the CBA removed the following italicized portion from their constitution:

“To provide a fellowship of churches and individuals upon a thoroughly Biblical and historically Baptistic basis, unmixed with liberals and liberalism and those who are content to walk in fellowship with unbelief and inclusivism.”7

Four years later, a group of fundamentalists left the CBA and formed the New Testament Association of Independent Baptist Churches (1966). The following year, the CBF became the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (1967).

 separation-pfaff

Illustration by Don Pfaffe appearing in the Central Conservative Baptist Quarterly (Summer 1960) p. 12.

Local regions developed their own association. In Illinois, the Association of Independent Baptist Churches of Illinois as formed in 1968. As late as 1979, the CBA group in Michigan formed the Independent Fundamental Baptist Association of Michigan.

Lessons we can learn

1. A broad confession of faith does not protect doctrinal purity and leads to splits.

2. The New Evangelicals fear a “narrowing” of one’s doctrinal position. In their quest to “win the world,” they believe that a broad doctrinal confession produces evangelistic efforts. Actually, the opposite is the case. Allowing for liberalism and theological error to remain in one’s movement will move it away from the gospel.

3. Doctrinal purity must be safeguarded. Working together for a common cause demands a common theology. One cannot expect to accomplish the mission of the church8 if there is no common confession.

1 Shelley, Conservative Baptists, p. 51.

2 There were actually 18 men on the committee. The chairman and two alternates were not included in the number.

3 cited in Shelly, p. 46.

4 Conservative Baptist, a publication of the C.B.F.M.S. (July–August, 1954), 3.

5 C.B.F.M.S. April 1956

6 In 1968, the CBA moved its headquarters to Wheaton, Illinois. This was the center of New Evangelicalism.

7 Beale, In Pursuit of Purity, 293.

8 The mission of the church is to reproduce itself doctrinally and philosophically. See Lesson 6.

Baptists: Influence or Separate?

Lesson 12: Baptists: Influence or Separate?

The Baptist Bible Union and the Fundamentalist Fellowship, two case studies in doctrinal purity

The Northern Baptist Convention was established to combine the resources of eight societies. “Efficiency” was the word of the day. The societies competed for funds and duplicated tasks. Hence, to achieve “efficiency” it was a logical move to bring all of the societies under the umbrella of one organizational structure.

According to Shailer Matthews, a spokesperson for the liberal contingency of the NBC, said the convention was established “to lead the denomination into larger sympathy with the modern world.” That is, the liberals sought to reign in and dominate the Baptist denomination for their liberal causes. As they adapted to the world, they denied the authority of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, and other cardinal truths. Rather than influencing the world, the liberals succumbed to it. Hence, there was no practical distinction between an unbeliever and a liberal, except the liberal wore the clergy garb.

descent-of-modernism

How was a persevering Baptist believer to respond to the onset of liberal domination? He had many options. 1) He could stay in, influence his friends, and perhaps rescue the denomination from liberalism; 2) He could take the radical steps of separation and remain independent; or 3) He could begin a new organization. This lesson will examine how two groups of persevering believers united against the liberal NBC – the Fundamentalist Fellowship and the The Baptist Bible Union

Fundamentalist Fellowship

Hoping that the liberals would be driven from the Convention, fundamentalists began to implement a strategy in 1920 to that end.

wb-rileyW.B. Riley

W. B. Riley was born in Greene County, Indiana, grew up on a tobacco farm in Kentucky, and accepted Christ at age 17. He wished to pursue the legal profession, but God called him to preach. After graduating from Hanover College (Presbyterian) in Indiana, he attended Southern Seminary (Southern Baptist) in Louisville from 1885 to 1888. . . . He served several churches in his early ministry before accepting what was to become a 45-year pastorate at First Baptist Church of Minneapolis, beginning in 1897. The 2,640 seats were filled regularly. Under his expositional preaching the church grew from 585 to 3,660 in membership by the time of his death. At the time of his retirement in 1943, one tenth of all the Baptists of Minnesota belonged to his church. Riley had a phenomenal ministry. by Gerald Priest, Ph.D.

This task would not be easy for as early as 1893, W.B. Riley identified Unitarianism among the Baptists. Also before the 1900s, many were denying the deity of Christ and proposing new forms of the psychology.

In 1920 W.B. Riley, John Roach Stratton, Frank Goodchild, and J.C. Massee gathered the fundamentalist contingency for a two-day rally at Buffalo, New York before the NBC convention meeting. This pre-convention strategy sought to “do battle royal” for the Baptist cause.

The fundamentalists lost some key issues in 1920, however they did succeed in pulling the NBC out of the Interchurch Movement. Momentum began to build and the fundamentalists from then on began meeting for two–three day pre-convention meetings. As we saw last week, the fundamentalists lost in 1920, 1921, and 1922. However, the fundamentalists established the Fundamentalist Fellowship and remained in the NBC.

Why did they remain in? The reasons are varied:

  • This group was composed of two varieties of Fundamentalists – those who were of “generous spirit” (Massee, Goodchild, and Stratton) and those who were considered “radicals” (Riley). It seemed to many that pulling out of the NBC was a radical step.
  • The NBC gave grants to many churches which indentured them to the convention. Those churches who accepted the grants were at risk of losing their property.
  • The NBC gave retirement pensions to pastors in the NBC. Pulling out meant these pastors would lose their retirement savings.

It was not until 1947 that they left the Convention. Rather, they were forced out for establishing the Conservative Baptist Foreign Mission Society in 1943. Having left the NBC, the Fundamentalist Fellowship organized into the Conservative Baptist Fellowship.

T. T. Shields
1873–1955

T. T. Shields was born in Bristol, England and emigrated to Canada where he became an outstanding preacher of the gospel. He had begun preaching in 1894, three years after his conversion. Like Spurgeon, he had no formal educational training, but was self-taught. After several pastorates, he accepted the ministry of Jarvis Street Baptist Church in Toronto, where he preached for 45 years. He began in 1922 a periodical, The Gospel Witness in defense of Fundamentalism. His most bitter controversy involved McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. He was on the board of the school and forced to resign because of his outspoken criticism of modernism in the faculty. In 1926, he established the Toronto Baptist Seminary in the facilities of Jarvis Street. He also helped to found that year the Regular Baptist Missionary and Educational Society of Canada. After his church was ousted by the liberal-oriented Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, he led Fundamentalists in forming the Union of Regular Baptist Churches of Ontario and Quebec. He was chosen president of the BBU, a position he occupied until 1930. His amillennial position was undoubtedly one reason for the disavowal of a premillennial statement in the BBU confession. Shields’ involvement in the Des Moines University debacle brought discredit to the BBU. by Gerald Priest, Ph.D.

he CBF established the Conservative Baptists of America, hoping to influence those within the NBC. They did not require churches to withdraw from the NBC to participate in the CBA.

This policy undermined the doctrine of separation. Hence, twenty years after establishing the CBF, the fundamentalists found themselves having to establish themselves as the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship of America (1967).

Baptist Bible Union

Some men were not content to organize themselves within the NBC. Though some of them remained in the NBC, they organized a separate organization on May 10–15, 1923 called the Baptist Bible Union.

This was predicted by W.B. Riley when he said: “The Northern Baptist Convention at Indianapolis will declare for the fundamentalists of the Christian faith, or immediately following the Convention there will be a new movement, thoroughly Baptistic, and ready to do business on the same basis that gave birth and centuries of efficiency to the great Baptist cause.”

This group of spirited men saw that working within the organizational structure of the NBC was futile. These men had great intentions to influence the NBC from the outside through the means of pre-convention meetings. Note the following excerpts from T.T. Shields article in the Watchman-Examiner dated August 9, 1923:

The Baptist Bible Union is what its name implies – a union of Baptists who believe the Bible to be the Word of God.

. . . The Baptist Bible Union exists to defend “the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” and believes this can be done only by taking the offensive and by declaring war on modernism everywhere.

.

J. Frank Norris
1877–1952

J. Frank Norris was born in Dadeville, Alabama and grew up in Texas in a drunkard’s home. One of the most controversial preachers in American history. . . . He graduated from Baylor University and Southern Seminary. Afterwards he accepted the pastorate of McKinney Ave. Baptist Church (Dallas) and then, in 1909, the First Baptist Church of Fort Worth. There he created a sensation by preaching against local vices. He “permanently adjourned” the Ladies Aid and fired the deacon board. When certain members of the church tried to have him ousted, he began holding revival services and gathered his own flock . . . His paper, the Searchlight (later the Fundamentalist, after 1927) was outspoken in its criticism of modernism in both the Northern and Southern Baptist Conventions. . . . Known as the “Texas Tornado,” [Norris] was the outspoken leader of Fundamentalists in the South. The super church concept came into being with the Norris empire. After assuming the pastorate of the Temple Baptist Church in Detroit in 1934, he saw vast crowds attend his services. “First Baptist, Fort Worth, went from an average attendance of 500 in 1909 to 5,200 twenty years later. Temple Baptist, Detroit, had 800 members when he arrived and over 8,000 nine years later. In 1946, the two churches had a combined membership of 25,000″ (Robert Allen, ”J.Frank Norris: Church Builder,” Fundamentalist Journal [October 1982], 33). In 1928, Norris began the World Baptist Fellowship and the Bible Baptist Seminary in Fort Worth in 1928. Toward the end of his ministry Norris became even more dictatorial and offensive. He alienated or attacked nearly every friend he once had. by Gerald Priest, Ph.D.

. . Therefore, by resolution at the Kansas City meeting, the Bible Union decided to encourage its members absolutely to refuse longer to contribute money to any educational institution or missionary organization which refuses to avow its allegiance to the fundamentals of the faith.

. . . In closing this article I desire to emphasize the fact that the Baptist Bible Union is not a divisive movement. On the contrary, it is a Union which proposes the only possible basis of union and of cooperative action for true Baptists, namely, an acceptance of the Bible as the inspired and authoritative Word of God. For when Baptists abandon belief in the Bible as God’s Word they have surrendered the last logical reason for their separate existence.

The membership consisted of “All those who endorse the aims and doctrinal basis of the Union, as set forth herein, shall be eligible for membership and such membership is in no wise intended to disturb existing Baptist affiliations.

They resolved to accomplish several aims; some of which follow:

  • . . . to present a united witness that the Bible is the very Word of God.
  • . . . to promote a deeper fellowship and a closer co-operation in all Christian activities among believers who hold a like precious faith and not to create a new convention or association.
  • . . . to promote such missionary work as represents and advocates clear Bible teaching.
  • . . . to approve, patronize and support such denominational schools and theological seminaries as unequivocally show themselves to be loyal to the inspiration and authority of the Bible and all the consequent fundamentals of our confession. . .
  • . . . Inasmuch as it has been widely stated that fellowship in the Baptist Bible Union is restricted to premillennarians, be it resolved that we here declare that the Baptist Bible Union welcomes to its membership all Baptists who sign it s confession of faith, whatever variation of interpretation they may hold on the millennial question consistent with belief in the personal, bodily second coming of Christ according to the Scriptures.

Hence, the BBU laid out its resolutions. The resolutions are a strong, militant call to the Bible’s authority. Modernism and liberalism were strongly denounced. The BBU would only financially support mission work, educational institutions, and ministries that issue forth a clear call for the innerancy and infallibilty of the Word of God.

The Growth of the BBU 1924–1926

For three short years, the BBU was growing phenomenally and mustering the fundamentalists into a strong union.

Financially it grew

When the BBU was birthed, it did not have a dime. By the close of the first year, it gained $5,404.22 of which they nearly entirely disbursed.

Motivationally it grew

Conferences and rallies were held. The Union men traveled around the country and were in great demand as special speakers. For example, it was common for T.T. Shields to be on the road all week and to arrive at his church just before the morning services on Sunday. In 1926, he traveled 40,000 miles for the cause of the Union.

The “big three,” Norris, Shields, and Riley, all published newsletters which received wide distribution.

They organized a missionary society and established headquarters in Chicago. The Union also set about the task of producing Sunday School materials.

With the conferences, rallies, literature, and missions emphasis, the BBU experienced three great years.

The Decline of the BBU: 1926–1927

As strong as the BBU seemed, it had many fatal problems. Beale, in his history of fundamentalism describes one fiasco as a “comedy of errors.”

They resolved not to separate

The BBU did not separate from liberalism. It sought to convert the Convention. Delnay quotes T.T. Shields reluctance to separate.

“The Baptist Bible Unionists are not going to leave the Denomination in the South or in the North, or in Canada, until they are compelled to; and it will be the fault of other people if they do.”

The BBU did not separate from those who had the wrong eschatology. T.T. Shields was an amillinealist. Amillinealism denies that the Kingdom of God is future. As such, this belief undermines the philosophy of church ministry. For more discussion on how a wrong view of eschatology denies a biblical philosophy of ministry, see “Permeating Postmillinealism” on pp. ff.

The movement had run its course

The BBU could not muster the votes to overthrow liberalism and modernism from the NBC. As the defeats came, discouragement settled in. Their energies and motivation started to wane.

The Dexter Chipps incident did not help matters

This was the “first nail” in the coffin lid of the BBU. Norris, no stranger to controversy. His caustic spirit colored the BBU in such a way that serious problems developed for the Union. One such incident was his shooting of Dexter Chipps.

Norris, (who was referred to as the “Texas Tornado”) used his pulpit in Fort Worth Texas, and paper to attack, “Rum and Romanism.” Fort Worth’s mayor, a Roman Catholic, became the subject of frequent attacks. In his paper, Fundamentalist, Norris said that the mayor was not “fit to be manager of a hog pen.” His paper was widely distributed in the streets. Norris vowed to preach on this issue that Sunday.

This was typical “Norris style.” To give you an idea of how caustic Norris was, he called Southern Baptist leadership as “the Sanhedrin.” One pastor he called, “the infallible Baptist pope”, “the Great All-I-Am”, and “the Holy Father”, “the Old Baboon.” He preached a sermon called, “The Ten Biggest Devils in Ft. Worth, Names Given.”

After his “manager of a hog pen” statement hit the streets, a friend of the Mayor, Dexter Chipps, went into Norris’ study and exchanged some harsh words. After the discussion, Chipps turned to leave and started to turn around. Norris pulled a gun out of his desk drawer and shot Chipps dead in his office. Norris claimed that Chipps “swung around and reached into his back pocket. In Texas, that gesture means only one thing.” Chipps was found buy the authorities to be unarmed.

During the trial, Norris was claimed he was “innocent” and produced a silver pistol claiming it was Chipps. Norris “knew” that the authorities would be against him and not use this evidence. The jury found Norris “innocent.”

This incident received the world’s attention. Norris agreed to leave the BBU so that his reputation would not further scar the BBU’s cause.

The “comedy of errors” at Des Moines University

On June 1, 1927, T.T. Shields agreed to take over Des Moines University. Shields, desiring to establish a fundamentalist college jumped at the opportunity. He “took the school virtually sight unseen” and did not take to heart the advice of a long time friend who said “don’t – don’t – DON’T – DON’T.” [his emphasis]

The school was a liberal arts school offering a wide variety of degrees. The 377 students came from all kinds of denominational backgrounds: Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Brethren, Christian Science, Christian, Congregational, Reform, Evangelical, Lutheran, Friends (Quakers), Episcopal, Federated, Catholic, Latter Day Saints, Pentecostal, and Jewish. The faculty were a diverse group of Moderates, Liberals, and Fundamentalists. Instead of firing the faculty and beginning fresh, Shields tried to use the faculty and perhaps influence them toward the BBU cause.

Since Shields was a pastor in Canada, he had strong Canadian loyalties. His secretary at the school was also Canadian. The Canadian sentiments were not accepted well for Shields did not prefer that the Star Spangled Banner be sung in chapel, rather God Save the King. On one occasion, Shield’s secretary refused to stand while the Star Spangled Banner was sung in chapel. Shields also tried to remove the American flag from the flagpole. Resentment led to the hazing of certain Canadian students.

Needing to find a more permanent president, Shields hired Harry Wayman. This appointment was made in haste. It was only 2–3 weeks from the time his name was proposed til he became president. To further conflict the issue, Wayman was lettered with the A.B., A.M., Th.B., Th.M., Th.D., Litt.D (twice), and D.D. degrees from such places as Oxford University. Research proved, later, that many of these degrees were bogus. This did not set well with the students. For, Shields, only one month before this revelation had preached against the liberal Baptist Canadian Union for entertaining men with bogus degrees.

The situation at Des Moines was electric. Moderates on the faculty were not pleased with the fundamentalist regime. Shields filled the chapel pulpit with fundamental preachers, raising considerable angst among the liberal faculty and students.

Knowing that the situation called for an overhaul, Shields moved that the entire University reorganize by firing all administrators and faculty. He resolved that any who wanted a position had to reapply by filing an application with his secretary.

Word of this purge reached a student’s ear. That student, right before chapel, gave a flaming discourse of the situation which ignited a mob action against Shields. The following was recorded in the Des Moines Register:

“When the mob broke into the office, perhaps a hundred strong, they swarmed through the place. Opening the washroom door they found the one Trustee standing. With the cry of “Here is one of them,” they pulled him into the crowd. But as soon as the cry was raised it was answered with cries of “Beat him up,” “Beat him up,” “Get Shields.” When they found this particular Trustee was not the President of the Board, they said, “This is not the man we want,” and he was conducted to safety.

At this point we may report that only today a certain man read to us a letter from one of the students who had participated in the riot – and who boasted of having done so – in which he said that if the mob could have got their hands on Shields, that night they would undoubtedly have murdered him . . . Even the administration building was swarmed with rioters when the police walked in, and though they had broken windows and forced the doors and were in a place where they had no legal right to be at such an hour, not a single arrest was made.

The campus was shut down and laid deserted. The BBU would never recover from the incident.

Conclusion

The BBU fiasco brings disdain on the movement of fundamentalism. Personalities like Norris and the administrative folly of Shields tend to overshadow the great causes of fundamentalists.

Lessons we can learn

1. Fundamentalism is not divisive, rather it seeks to unify those who subscribe to the Bible’s teaching.

2. The right cause must be carried out the right way.

3. The authority of Scripture must be defended and proclaimed.

4. As David Beale notes: “. . . the pursuit of holiness is a pilgrimage that no truly spiritual person or movement can claim to have attained in this life.” Holiness is a pursuit that is carried out by fallible believers.

5. Movements cannot survive if they allow compromise on biblical issues. The cardinal doctrine must never be abdicated. Neither should other important doctrines be overlooked which have a large volume of testimony in Scripture (e.g., premillineal eschatology).

McBeth, 568f.

Statement by Curtis Lee Laws in the Watchman-Examiner.

Terms used by McBeth, History, 577.

Ibid, 35.

By-Laws and Resolutions of the Baptist Bible Union of America, Watchman-Examiner, May 24, 1923.

Delnay, 82.

David Beale, “In Pursuit of Purity (BJU Press, 1986), 232.

Delnay, 67.

Delnay, 147.

Delnay, 158.

Cited in Delnay, 172.

Those doctrines which are necessary for salvation.

The Northern Baptist Convention

Lesson 11: The Northern Baptist Convention

During the mid 1800s, America faced two crisis. The Civil War devastated the South, leaving it in “political turmoil” and “economic devastation.”1 In the North, immigrants amassed bringing with them new challenges. Unfortunately, the North experienced its own devastation – compromise.

The Baptists in the North made some fatal errors: 1) They changed their evangelistic strategy, adopting what is commonly called the “Social Gospel.” 2) They became enamored with the educated German liberals and adopted their theology. Many Baptists went to Germany to receive their education. These factors set the stage for the downgrading effects of liberalism among Baptists.

Entering the 1900s, the Baptists were faced with certain obstacles (financial and organizational) so they developed the Northern Baptist Convention. Unbeknownst to the majority, Liberals and Moderates had their own agenda to dominate and control the Baptist denomination.

However, among the Baptists were some who “rocked the liberal boat.” They stood against the liberal theologians and strongly opposed their institutions. They began the Baptist Bible Union.

 german-rationalism

Reasons for the formation of the Northern Baptist Convention

In the last lesson we looked at the rise of certain societies – American Baptist Missionary Union (Triennial Convention), American Baptist Publication Society, and the American Baptist Home Mission Society. These were the strongest three of eight societies which existed in the north. The other societies were the Education Society, Woman’s Home Mission Societies (east & west), the Foreign Bible Society, and the Young People’s Union.

As you could expect competition developed between the societies. Every society wanted more financial backing. Two of the larger societies were in great financial indebtedness. Add to that, many of these societies overlapped in their functions. To fix this problem, it seemed logical for the societies to ban together and form one organization to pool their resources. That idea was implemented by organizing the Northern Baptist Convention in 1908. “Virtually every account of the founding of the Northern Baptist Convention prominently mentions the demand for organized, coordinated financing.”2

The compromises of the NBC

Hindsight would show that a major underlying reason for combining was so that the liberals could control the Baptist denomination. The NBC was doomed from the beginning.

They were a doctrinal melting pot.

Among the Baptists were various strains of belief (and unbelief). Many leaders spoke of a “New Theology”. Though not new, it was old German rationalism which denied the deity of Christ, his atonement, Creation, and the inerrancy of the Bible. The Arminian Freewill Baptists were added to the convention in 1911.

They were liberally educated

shailer-matthews Of the seven Baptist universities, only two would present themselves as orthodox. The University of Chicago (Divinity School) was the first to be recognized as a liberal university. “Shailer Matthews [president of the University of Chicago], in his ‘New Faith for OId’ gave the impression that the University, and particularly the Divinity School, was openly liberal from the very beginning in 1892.”3

The remaining schools were liberal by 1918.4

They were concerned about adapting to their culture.

Speaking of organizing the NBC, Shailer Matthews said:

“On the other hand there were those of us who sought by gradual and educational processes to lead the denomination into larger sympathy with the modern world . . . In other words, we had to develop a socialized religious attitude as far as possible without arousing controversy.”5

Today, liberal pundits have not changed their message, only their words. In the 1900s they said they wanted to be at “larger sympathy with the modern world.” Today, they want to “be relevant with the modern world.”

Shailer Matthews: The “master mind of the Convention”

As dean of the University of Chicago Divinity School (1908–1933) and leader in the Chicago Baptist Association, he wielded great power. He was an ardent liberal and advocate of the social gospel. He served as president of the Federal Council of Churches (1912–16) and president of the NBC (1915). Mathews was also responsible for much of the content of the new convention’s constitution. His book, The Faith of Modernism (1924) is a classic defense of the social gospel. While claiming in this work that modernism is evangelical, he teaches universalism, and makes “science,” rather than the Bible, the final authority for man. by Gerald Priest, Ph.D.

They were morally lax

Four years before the convention was formally organized, Augustus Strong noted that “membership was lagging, that laxity and worldliness were becoming evident, and that Baptists were becoming wealthy far beyond what their giving would indicate.”6

They were subsidized by non-believing benefactors

rockefeller-hall-university-chicagoThe Rockefellers were members of the Park Street Baptist Church in New York. They were very generous in their giving to the schools. A large pledge by  Rockefeller was used to begin the University of Chicago. Nearly every Baptist school in the North received a gift from the Rockefellers.7 It would seem as if charitable gifts were given with “no strings attached.” However, their influence was felt and made known at certain times.

The resulting problems

One can imagine the number of difficulties an orthodox believer would have in this environment. Here are some problems:

  • Liberals and Moderates controlled the speaking platforms and key positions in the convention.8

  • Liberals and Moderates comprised the majority of members in the convention.

  • Liberal institutions and projects received financial support, whereas the orthodox did not.

The key defeats of Fundamentalists

The Fundamentalists were against an immovable obstacle. The Liberals and Moderates were far too numerous. The key problems were “heresy in the schools,” “heresy among missionaries,” and “heresy in the literature.” The Fundamentalists smartly began to have pre-convention strategy meetings to combat these problems. Beginning in 1920, the Fundamentalists began their fight, only to lose in the end.

1920 Buffalo, New York

jc-massey At the pre-convention meeting, the fundamentalists determined that J.C. Massee handle the floor at the Convention. The Fundamentalists wanted to “sell The Baptist” a liberal magazine. Since the magazine was losing money and discouraged Modernists would likely side with the Fundamentalists on the issue, it was a flawless strategy, so it seemed.

When it came time for Massee to make the motion, he “caved in.” He said, “Well now look, brethren, we ought to show ourselves to be Christians, and let’s not be radical. Let’s give it to the committee and let them study it and wade through it, and bring it back next year.” This change on the floor discouraged the Fundamentalists.

Massee also made a motion to investigate the schools for heresy. This brought on a vicious debate (”hissing” and “stomping”). By the end of the day, Massee had agreed to a series of substitute resolutions which effectively nullified his motion to investigate. A committee was established to do the investigation, however, the committee was made up of liberals and moderates.

1921 Des Moines, Iowa

It was difficult to distinguish between the Moderates and Liberals, so, the pre-convention strategy was to have the Convention adopt a confession of faith. However, the fundamentalists did not bring the motion to the Convention floor. The reason? Curtis Lee Laws wrote: “The fundamentalists had no desire to plunge the Convention into controversies of this kind.”

It was no surprise to the Liberals and Moderates that the Fundamentalists would urge a Confession upon the Convention. However, it was a surprise when the matter was dropped. It became clear that the Fundamentalist leaders were not separatists. This conciliation led to the Des Moines defeat.

Back to the committee on heresy in the schools . . . The committee reported, the schools “are doing a work of which the denomination may well be proud.” Again, another loss to the Fundamentalists.

1922 Indianapolis, Indiana

Again, at the pre-convention meeting, the Fundamentalists agreed to present the motion to the Convention to adopt a confession of faith, namely the New Hampshire Baptist Confession.

When the resolution hit the floor, Cornelius Woelfkin, a liberal pastor from New York, said, “The Northern Baptist Convention affirms that the New Testament is the all-sufficient ground of our faith and practice, and we need no other statement.” How could a Baptist deny this?

The sly Woelfkin used this paradigm to confuse the issue. The statement sounds true, however, it has serious problems in this context:

  • It is a disingenuous statement to come from a liberal. Liberals deny the authority of the New Testament in matters of faith and practice.

  • It pits the New Testament against the use of confessions. The apostles used confessions and encouraged their use.

  • It is a cover for unbelief. If Moderates do not have to subscribe to a statement of belief, it is difficult to prove their belief system. Confessions describe one’s understanding of the Bible. They are also tools to protect against apostasy. Hence, simply affirming that the New Testament is the ground is a cover-up for unbelief.

Woelfkin’s substitute motion was passed, 1,264 to 637.9

Conclusion

Perhaps W.B. Riley said it best “The Northern Baptist Convention at Indianapolis will declare for the fundamentalists of the Christian faith, or immediately following the Convention there will be a new movement, thoroughly Baptistic, and ready to do business on the same basis that gave birth and centuries of efficiency to the great Baptist cause.”10

Lessons we can learn

1. You cannot attempt to work together for the cause of Christ when there are theological differences. The NBC brought Baptists of various stripes under the umbrella of one Convention. Matthews was either naïve or insincere when he stated that he did not arouse controversy.

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. (Jude 3–4)

2. The mission of the church is not to “lead into more sympathy with the world, or remain relevant with the world.” This love talk leads to doctrinal deviation.

You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. (Jas 4.4)

How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. (1Jn 3.1)

Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you. (1Jn 3.13)

3. Place only tested, faithful people in leadership positions. On more than one occasion Massee “dropped the ball.” When it was time to stand and fight for truth, he did not stand. This failure led to at least two sound defeats for the Fundamentalists in the NBC.

Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them. (Ac 6.3)

4. Many cliches and quotes used by Christians today did not originate with conservative, Bible-believers. For instance, the statement “We do not use creeds, only the Bible” is often used by those who want to cover their apostasy. We must use confessions to guard ourselves from apostasy.

1 McBeth, 392.

2 Robert Delnay, A History of the Baptist Bible Union (Piedmont, NC: Piedmont Bible College Press, 1974), 7.

3 Ibid, 8.

4 Rochester by 1912, Newton by 1914, Crozier by 1915, and Colgate by 1918.

5 Delanay, 13.

6 Ibid, 8.

7 Ibid, 17.

8 That is not to say that Fundamentalists did not get to speak. When they did, they were the majority. In many cases, they were “hissed.” On one instance, a Fundamentalist spoke on the errors of liberalism. After his speech, he was applauded, not because the people were in favor of him, but because he listed their beliefs.

9 Delnay, 35.

10 Ibid, 35.