1997 Issue 2 - Sermon on Luke 6:17-49 - The Sermon on the Mount According to Luke - Counsel of Chalcedon

8/12/2019 1997 Issue 2 - Sermon on Luke 6:17-49 - The Sermon on the Mount According to Luke - Counsel of Chalcedon

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1997-issue-2-sermon-on-luke-617-49-the-sermon-on-the-mount-according-to 1/6

Introduction

.The ennon On the Mount in

Matthew 5-7 and Luke 6

Matthew

5-7

has

be

en called

The Sermon

on

the Mount and

Luke 6:17-49 has been called The

Sermon

on

the Plain,

as

if they

were two different sermons on two

different occasions. The reasons

given are basically three: (1). the

sermon

in Luke is much shorter

th

an the cine

in Matthew;

(2). Matthew

includes

things not

mentioned

in

Luke; Luke

includes

things

not

mentioned in

Matthew;

and

some of Luke's

statements are

different in

form

and

application

from those in

Matthew; and

, (3), whereaS'Matthew's has the

. sermQIl. taking place on the

mountain, . .

5:1,Luke s

takes place

·on a level

place, ' 6:17, after Jesus

cawe down from the mountain,

. 6:1:l

, l T.

. . .

.. -However, there .are several

reasons to believe that the accountS

of

Luke and

of

Matthew are of the

same sermon preached at the same

location;

and

furthermore, there

are reasonable answers to the

above objections.

(1).

The

beginning and ending of both

. discourses , as w¢ll as the general

course of thought of each, reveal a

t\lorough agree.ment with one

another. (2). The historical

circumstances which follow both

discourses are the same, Mat. 8:5;

Lk.7:1,2. (3). The differences

between the discourses of Luke

and Matthew do not appear as

obstacles to our view when it is

remembered that neither Luke nor

Matthew profess to give Christ's

sermon in its complete form, but

rather present

it

as a summary of

His teaching. Surely Christ

explained, illustrated and

elaboratec,l on His subject

just

as

any other teacher would do. The

variations of expression, and even

of

sentiment found in Luke are not

in any sense contrary to, much less

their system of theology and ethics,

nor

quote from their traditions, .

while Matthew fires every gun in

his armory against them and their

system, does not refute out view, .

because

it

is not always necessary

to cite an error in order to refute it .

It is often suffldent to set up, 0 '

even

to

state the trut

h,

and error

shrinks away from its clear shining

light. - Shearer 21. (6). It does not

surprise us that Luke adds things

Matthew does not include in. the

Sermon, because as we have seen

several times in our study of LUke s

Gospel, while Luke used Matthew .

as a resource, he also had other

resources possibly

not

a

va

ilable

to

'

Matthew, (7).

Lastly, Luke ·

. sends Jesus up

the mountain

in v, 12, and

He now comes

doWn only far

enough to

reach'a' level

place so that

all thl.sgreat .

. ' mass of people .

,; , can hear

him

: '

On a spot that

.Was raised a

M , ) f ;

e ~ I i ~ l l t l

i / , l \ . l i I

bit so chat all

might see Him

He sat down

(Matthew). It

is

contrary to the

ontradictory of, the words and

statements of Matthew,

but

they

both readily blend into a

harmonious whole. - Shearer, pg.

21. (4). It must also be

'remembered that Matthew wrote

especially for the Jewish people,

and Luke wrote especially for

non-Jewish, Gentile people. They

each used such weasure and forms

of

the words of Christ as suited

their respective purposes, without

any implication of garbling,

perverSion, distortion,

or

suppression of the truth. - Shearer,

pg.21. (5). The fact that Luke

does not mention the Pharisees or

facts to think of two sermons ...

;

,

Lenski.

he Purpose of the

Sermon On

the

Mount

The Sermon

on

the Mount is

an exhaustive discuSsion of

Phariseeism. Christ expounds the

Law against the tradition

l

of the

elders, and against PharisaiC

glosses and interpretations. It is

the refutation of the last great

heresy of the ages, and the

overthrow of the last great bulwark

erected by Satan agaiIist the

tiuth

,

that master stroke of'cunning by

4

~ l l I E - C ( ) U N S E t

of Chalcedon f February, 1997

..

: . .', . -

I

. _. - . ' ; : . '.. ,



which he substituted the

deceitfulness of sin

in

place of holy

living,

and

a refuge of lies in place

of

the

Divine Law."- Shearer, pg.

16f.

In this sermon Jesus'exposes

and refutes the four characteristics

of Phariseeism: Literalism, Mat.

5:21-48, ForrrWism, Mat.

6:1-113,

Covetousness, Mat. 6:19-34, and

Censoriousness, Mat, 7:1-6.

The Expose and Refutation o

the

LiteJ lllism

o the

PI.arisees

(Mat. 5:21-48)

"In the narrower sense,

literalism substitutes the letter

of

the law for its spirit. In the

broader and proper sense, it

is

a

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT,

pgs.50-53.

Jesus refutes this Literalism of

the Pharisees

under

eight

sub-heads:

(1).

PersonalEthics,

5:21-30; (2) . Family Ethics,

5:31-32; (3). Social Ethics,

5:33·37; (4). Private Revenge,

5:38,39; (5). True Honesty, 5:40;

(6). True Loyalty, 5:41; (7). True

Generosity, 5:42; and (8).

The

Law

of Love, 5:23-48.

The Expose and Refutation

o

the

Fonnalism o tlte Pharisees

(Mat.

6:1-18)

"Literalism and Formalism are

kindred heresies, and

we may

expect to find the Literalist to be

also a Formalist.

We

have seen

worship

in its

place.

"- Shearer, pgs.

92-93.

Jesus refutes Formalism

under

three head (1). almsgiving, Mat.

6:2-4: (2). prayer, Mat. 6:5-15; arid

(3). fasting, Mat. 6:16-18.

The Expose and Refutation oj ti,e

Covetousness o the Pharisees

Mat. 6:19-34)

The third characteristic of

Phariseeism

that

Jesus exposes

and

refutes is CovetousneSs. "The

covetous

man

seeks some worldly

good to which

he

is

not

fairly

entitled, and

he

scruples at nothing

to obtain' it. Covetousness is the

inspiration of the hypocrite and

the

counterfeiter alike. They

both

expect to make

something

out of

alse philosophy

of

rMrals, which

destroys all real moral

distinctions. This false

philosophy was the source of

l ' . ,

,

, ,

, Y >

c,[,Earthly"

l'eaSU1 e$'ib,:aYe

;;,

their

devices. -- Covetousness

and

hypocrisy make the bigot

in large measure.... We have

seen that the worship of the

Pharisees did

not

rise above

the rewards of this world, an(

those of a most ephemeral

kind---mere

human

applause,

all the viciouS teachings of the

Pharisees. --- (1). It makes

written law the basis

and

limit

of moral obligation . --

(claiming) that a thing is right

only because God commands

~ ~

t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

: : ~ ~ ; ,

.

:.

-; . .

.-: - ~ - , ; . '.,., -<

) · ~ - . : - ~ - : I ·

; - - -

it, and has the power to enforce it.

-- Against all this, the tlue theory

is that God's holy law

is but

the

expression of the divine holines.s.

---- (2). Literalism ignores motives

and dispositions, and makes sin to

consist only in actions. -- Under

this theory self-righteousness takes

no account of the heart, \IIId finds '

it easy to minimize the debits

and

.

maximize the credits,

and

to

bling

down a balance largely

in

its own

favor .

" (3). Literalism excuses

natural appetencies., (strong

cravings

and

deSires),

and

denies

that they have any moral character.

--- (However) it is easy to ,see that

sin may and does change the

complexion of

them

all. --- These.

sin-perverted appetencies become

ruling d i ~ p o s i t i o n 5

and

if these

be

ignored

or

condoned,

it

is but

an

easy step to

~ e

utter destt:uction of '

all moral d i s t i n c t i o n s . ~ - Shearer,

that Literalism substitutes the letter

for

the

spirit; Formalism

substitutes the form for the

substance. The former deals

with

law as a rule of righteous living;

the latter .deals only with

ordinances of worship."- Shearer,

pg.92.

"Formalism grows into a

self-righteousness, because its

value depends

on

the

sum

of the

good works done, set over against

the shortcomings and sins that

need an offset. Formalism seeks to

furnish a surplus of opus operatum

acts of fonnal worship. The larger the

surplus the greater

the

righteousness.

Thi,s

is self-lighteDusness, pure and

simple.

Formalism also

tends to

ostentation

and self-righteous parade

.

--

(}iowever)

He

shows,Jurther, that

their

Ponnalism vitiated and

destroyed

all

true worship.

Besides,

He

sets up the true

doctrine

of

It would, therefore, seem

impossible for their aims

and

purposes

to

rise ~ o v e

an

absorbing pursuit of the good

things

of

this life,

and the

acquisition

of

riches

at

all

hazards." - Shearer, pg. 120.

Jesus refutes their covetousness

and gives the cure for

it by

contrasting earthly and heavenly

treasures, 6:19-20, and thereby

shOwing the

supreme

folly

of

covetousness. Earthly treasures

have no permanency. They are of

no value beyond earth. They

"engage the heart but do

not

satisfy

the soul."- Shearer, pg. 121.

Heavenly treasures cannot be

destroyed. They

remain

forever.

(And it must

be kept in

mind that

Jesus does

not

discourage the

acquisition of ~ r t h l y treasures as

well as heavenly treasures.) He

shows

that

the results ,of

covetousness are worries and

February, 1997 THE COUNSEL

ofChalcedon

5



aDXletIes. Then, Jesus gives the

antidote for

wony

, anxiety

and

covetousness in Matthew 6:21-34.

The Expose and Refutation of

the Censoriousness of the

Pharisees (Mat. 7:1-6)

Finally, after charging the

Pharisees

with

invalidating the

Word

of God

by

their traditions,

rebuking them as hypocrites

because of their self-righteous

formaliSm, and denouncing their

covetousness, Jesus exposes and

refutes their censorious and .

fault-finding attitude. .

"Censoriousness is the other pt.le

of self-righteousness. Pride looks

down on others, often in a most

s u p e r i l i ~ u s

way

.Spiritual pride is

more

intense

than

ordinary

pride

,

for it is woven into the very web

and woof of self-righteousness. It

must needs vihdiciile and prove its

claims to

superior

holiness ,

and it

does so by tearing

down

the claims

of others. It is by false and

censorious

judgments

of others

that

i t secUres

the largest

self-laudation

and

comfort. --- Do

we need proof

that

censoriousneSs

was the malignant side of the '

Pharisee's character?

Th

ey purSued

Christ Himself with malignant .

criticism."- Shearer, pg. 133.

Jesus refutes and rebukes the

censoriousness of the Pharisees'by

shOwing its absurdity. 'We are

now prepared to see tha t

Formalism, Covetousness arid .

CensoriousnesS constitute the

bigot---the religious bigot. Add

Literalism

and we

have the

Pharisee."- Shearer, pg, 137 .

The Theme of the Sermon

On

the Mount·

The theme

verse oCthe Sermon

on

the Mount is Matthew

5:20 For 1say to you,

that

unless

your righteousness

surpasses

that of

the scribes

and Pharisees,

you shall

not enter thehingdom ofheaven.

"

The focus ofJesus in this verse and

throughout the Sermon, is on the

righteousness of the Pharisees, and

its total inadequacy.

"The

poor

in spirit belong to the

kingdom, but not the Pharisees.

The victims of the ir persecutiol)S

belong to the kingdom,

but

not the

persecutors. Many other teachers'

a low place in the kingdom;

because

of

defective d o t r i n ~ and

practice; but the Pharisees

had

no

place. Christ vindicates this bold

atid startling proposition by

an

eXhaustive analYsis and discussion

ofPhariseeism."- Shearer,

pg

. 44.

"The Pharisees, by their

traditions,

sought

to modifY,

pervert, and destroy,

bu t

·Christ

vindicates its,

(O .

T. moral law), old

and

accredited meaning, as we

shall see. n His ethical and moral

. teaching is in exact accord with

Moses

and

the prophets, through

whom

He had delivered the Law, '

and interpreted and enforced. t,

under His own theocratic rule

.

Shearer, pg . 46.

Jesus "puts the blow-torches" to

the theology and ethics, the

doctrine

and

practice of

Phariseeism for this reason: a .

person Hiles like he lives, because

he thinks like he thinks---"as a man

thinketh in

hiS

heart

so is

he:

"A

right law, rightly interpreted, is

determinative of right action. If a

man put light for darkness, and

darkness for light: his life will

correspond

with

his creed. There

is no place for the popular

utterance that it makes no .

difference

what

a man believes if

only he will do What is right., Ifhi$

moral and ethical

judgments

are

perverted, his practice will

correspond;

but

if they are in

accord with a righteous law, we

may expect his.life to illustrate the

same

"Christ charges'that

th e

.

righteousness of the stribes

and

.

6 HE COl)NSEL

of

chalcedoll February, 1997

Pharisees is wholly inadequate,

both

their doctrine and their

practice, betause

of

their

traditions. They break all the

commandments, and 'teach

men so.

He , therefore, arraigns their

traditions, the precepts and

practices of which we call

Phariseeism

in

its complete

and

well-rounded sense."- Shearer, pg.

46-47. .

Tile Outline of the

Sermon

On

the Mount

The Sermon

on

the Mount can

be outline<;i. as follows: I. (Mat.

5:3-19) The Introduction; n. Mat.

5:20) The Theme; III. (Mat.

5:21-7:6) The Body of the Sermon;

and, IV. (Mat. 7:7-27).The

Conclusion. .

In His INTRODUCTION, Mat.

5 :3-19, Jesus does not expl citly s.et

forth his theme, but he approaches

it by setting forth a contrast.--"a .

contrast so skillfully made as to

arouse no antagonism, or even

suspicion of hostile intent at the

beginning,

but

.a contrast.apparent

to all when He unfolds His.theme.

"The introduction cousists of

five parts, each importatit as He

approaches His subjdct: (1) . He

conciliates the best

part

of His

audience with the Beatitudes, vs.

3-9 . (2). He fortifies His disciples

against the antagonisms which His

teaching would excite,

vs

10-12.

(3) : He shows the importance of

the

subjectto

His disciples under '

two figures. vs .'13"15, with '

an

appropriate exhortation, vs. 16.

(4) . He <;lefines His own relation to

the subject, vs. 17,18.(5). He then

states His own sense of

responsibility, and the

responsibility

of

all teachers in

handling such a subject, vs. 19."

Shearer, pg.

27.

In·Mat. 5:20 He sets forth His

THI ME; contrastirtg the

inadequate righteousness of the



Pharisees with the righteousness in

the lives of all who are true citizens

of His kingdom.

In the

BODY

OF THE

SERMON, Mat. 5:21-7:6,]esus

analyzes and refutes this great

heresy of the ages under four

headings, (according to Shearer):

a.

Uteralism,

Mat.

5:21-48; b.

Formalism, Mat. 6:1-18; c.

Covetousness, Mat. 6:19-34; and

d. Censoriousness, Mat. 7:1-6.

The 'CONCLUSION

of

the

Sermon contains six applications,

Mat.

7:7-11; 7:12; 7:13-14;

7:15-20; 7:21-23; and 7:24-27.

The Reasons t

tudy

the

Sennon On the Mount

In his book, STUDIES IN THE

SERMON

ON

THE

MOUNT,

Martyn Lloyd-] ones

gives

three important reasons why

we should studyJesus'

sermon: en Jesus elied to

enable us to live the Sermon

on the Mount, Tit.

2:1+. (2).

Nothing shows us our

absolute need of the new

birth and of the Holy Spirit's

work within us·so much as the

Sermon on the Mount.

Lloyd-Jones confesses, These

Beatitudes cruS[l me to the ground.

They show me my utter

helplessness. Were it not for the

new birth, I am undone. (pg. 18).

(3). The more we live and try to

practice the Sermon on the Mount,

the more we shall experience the

blessings of God prOmised in it, If

you want to befilled, don't seek

some mystic blessing; don' t rush to

meetings hoping you will get it.

Face the Sermon

on

the Mount and

its implications and demands, see

your utter neeel, and then you will

get it. It is the direct road to

blessing. (pg. 18)

The Misinterpretations of tlte

Sennon

On

the Mount

The Liberal View

This view says that the Sermon

on the Mount is full of good moral

advice which all people of all

religions should and can follow,

because its basic morality is

generally the core of all religiOns

of

man. Jesus was an astute Galilean

wise-man of the first century,

whose moral principles are mostly

worth following.

However, as we shall see, this is

a misinterpretation ofjesus and the

Sermon

on

the Mount. It is a

sennon addressed to the followers

of Jesus;

and

it is a sermon only

God incarnate could preach. Why

do we say this? Because in this

sermon]esus makes several

concrete claims to Deity: (1). He

determines who may and who may

not enter the kingdom ofheaven,

Mat. 5:3, and who may be

identified as the children of God,

Mat. 5:9. (2), He sets his

clarification of the Law of God on

par with the Law of God itself,

Mat.

5:22f. (3). He detmnines

who will and who will not be

forgiven of His sins, Mat. 6: 14f.

(4). Someday everybody will stand

before Him and He will judge all

people, determining their eternal .

destiny, Mat. 7:;21. 5). He makes

His words the foundation of life

and submission to His words the

condition

of

salvation , Mat. 24f.

The ispensational View

Consistent dispensationalism

teaches that the Sermon on the

Mount has nothing to do with

Christians today. ] esus came to

establish His Jewish kingdom on

the earth, and the Sermon

on

the

Mount destribes life

in

that

kingdom. Unfortunately, however,

the Jews did not beljeve His

teaching on the kingdom, They

called for His crucifixion and so

Jesus could not establish His

kingdom among them,

..

therefore, almost as a

kind

of

afterthought, the death on the

cross came in, and as another

afterthought the whole Church and

the whole Church age came in,

and

that will persist

up

to a certain

point

in

history. Then our Lord

will return wi th the kingdom

and

again the Sermon on the Mount

will

be

introduced

.

- Lloyd-Jones,

pg.14.

Therefore, according to

consistent dispensationalism,

the Sermon on the Mount is

meant for the thousand-year

kingdom age , i.e. , the

Millenium,

when

Jesus

returns to earth to set up a

literal, p redominantly Jewish

kingdom on earth with its

capital

in

Jerusalem; from

Which He will reign ov er this

kingdom. The Sermon on the

Mount is exclusively for that age,

and

not

for Christians

or

for the

Church in the meantime. If this is

true,

then we need

not concern

ourselves with this Sermon, hor

should we feel guilty if we are not

domg what it commands. It is not

a Christian sermon, if consistent

dispensationalism is correct.

However, the Sermon on the

Mount was clearly preached to

Christ's diSciples, Mat. 5:1, telling

them what they were to .

do in

this

world, not only while He was

there, but after He had gone.

It

was preached to people who were

meant to practice it at that time

and ever afterwards. - Lloyd-Jones,

pg.

15.

Moreover, there is no '

doctrinal nor ethical principle in

the Sermon on the Mount which is

February

1997 THE COUNSEL

of

Chalcedon • 7



not found in the Epistles of the

New Testament, well as

ip

the

Old Testament. Therefore, it is a

perfect picture of life in the

Kingdom of Christ, which dawned

in

history with His appearance in

the world two thousand years ago,

Mark

1:15; Mat. 3:2; 4:17; 12:28;

Lk. 10:9;

17:2L

The

"Higher Law"

View

This is the view that jesus came

to s

upplant or

to i m p r o v ~

upon

the

ethics of the Old Testament, which

taught a moral system thai was

inferior to that Otthe New

Testament. He came

to

abrogate

the law of the Old Testament

and

to replace

it

with the ;'higher

law of the New Testament.

'orthodox' pulpits a disparagement

of the Old and the exaltation of the

New, either directly or by

implication. They mistake the

historic consummation of the

doctrines and facts of redemption

for a new and better way,

and

assume a higher and purer

morality

under

Christ than under

Moses, under the Gospel than

under the Law. - Shearer, pg. 13.

Jesus Himself made it absolutely

clear at the beginning of Matthew's

account of the Sermon on the

Mount: "Do

not think

that I came

to

abolish the

Law

or the Prophets; I

did

not

come to

abolish,

but to fulfill,

(confirm). For truly I say to you,

own person in the sinner's place.

Shearer, pg. DE. Hence, jesus

could say, Do

not

think that

came

to

abolish

the Law or the

Prophets;

I

did

not

come. o

abolish,

out toJulfill.

In the days of His humiliation,

under the law

as

'a subject and as a

servant, occupying' the sinner's

place

under

the law, it

wasnot

competent fat. Him to modify the

law in any way, either to exalt or to

lower its demands. --: He was

the

Law-giver on

MOUJjlt

Sinai, and the

law-expounder on the MO\lnt.

n

Galile

e:'-

Shearer, pg. 14

Because the,Pharisees

invalidated theYVord of God by

There are two

major

ptoblemswith

this view.

The

Unitj of

the

Old Testament and

the New Testament

There

((111

be

110

elhi((ll

.- svsteI11-iii}njased

on-

--

their trad;ti\lTIs,Mark 7:13,

jesus sought to overturn

their traditions. Let no

one think that in so doing

He overthrows or destroys

the Law; nor

in sO

doing

does He propose to alter or

modify the

Law

one jot or

one tittle. We have already

seen that itwas not

competent for-rInn to do

theology.

If the I

heology

is

The theology oithe Old

Testament

is

the theology of

the NeW Testament , Heb.

4 :2;

and

theology

is

the

true, the

ethics is

sound.

If

the theology is false the

eth ics is

perverse. "

so, because He came under

the Law; and not as a

asis of ethics. There can be

no ethical system not based

on

theology. If the theology is true,

the ethicsis sound. If·the theology

is false, the ethics is perverse.

Therefore, since the theology of

both.testaments is one, the ethics

of both testaments is one.

Moreover, ethics of Oivine origin is

necessarily perfect, Mat. 5:17f,

Gen. 18:25; Rom. 7:12; Psa.

19:7-1L ;'There is

no

place, then,

for sitting in

judgment on

any code

of morals of Divine origin. -

John

Shearer, THE SERMON ON THE

MOUNt, pg.114

W):ly is it, .then, that

,so

me do

criticize and slander Ola Testament

laws

and

institutions?

it

s because

they do not understand the laws

and

institutiOnS

which

they

criticize. Nothing

ismore

cominon thah

to

hear from

until heaven and

earth pass

away,

not

the

smallest

letter

or

stroke

shall

pass

away from

the

Law ,

until

all in

history)

is

fulfilled, Mat. 5: 17

The Relation ofJesus

to

God's

Law in

His Humiliation

But when the fulness of time

came, God se

nt forth

His Son,

born

of

a woman, BORN UNDER THE

LAWoo., GaL 4:4, jesus was born

under God's Law

as

a subject. He

took upon Himself the form of a

servant,

and

in

so doing took the

sinner's place under the Law of

God. He obeyed that law with a

personal, perfect and perpetual

obedience which the sinner could

not render,

and

so wrought a

perfect righteousness for the

sinner;

and

then He bare the

penalty of the broken law

in

His

8 T H COUNSEL.

of

Ch<l\ccd,on FchJ:\lary,

1997

Law-giver. He was the Law-giver

at Sinai, and the Law He then gave .

was holy, just and good, the

expression of His own holiness.· It

therefore needed:no improvement

because of ethical and o r ~ l

imperfections, It was necessary to

brush aw;ty the traditions which

made the Law of none .effect.

Shearer, pg. 4l.

The

LegalistiC

View

Some have interpreted the

Sermon on he Motmt legalistically.

They

have made

it

into a sennon

teachingsalvation by works .and

human merit. . they tell us that the

Sermon on the Mount s ~ y s Lve

like this and you w i ~ become a

Christian. However, as'we s h ~ l l

see, the Sermon. is a gospel of grace

teaching -us; e c a u s e you are a

Christian by g r c e ~ r o u g h faith,



this is the way you will

live. This is the way

Christians are meant to live

in the kingdom of Christ.

(TO BE

CONTINUED)

lAs will become

obvious, my interpretation

of the Sermon on the

Mount is heavily

influenced by

John

Shearer's book, THE

SERMON ON THE

MOUNT: A STUDY,

originally printed

in

1906

by the Presbyterian

Committee of Publication,

Richmond, Va., and

reprinted

in

1994

by

the

Greenville Presbyterian

Theological Seminary

Press, P.O. Box 9279,

Greenville, S.c., 29604.

'Where and

when

did

these traditions Originate?

They took form in the

intermediate period

between the Old and the

New. They were evidently

a growth by accretion,

(augmentation), and

usurpation;

and

pious

frauds helped to give them

their validity and authOrity .

-- This tradition carried

with it supreme and

infallible authority ...

Though unwritten, its

main features were far

better known and far

oftener quoted than the

Scriptures themselves.

These constitutions, or

traditions of the elders,

were reduced to writing

some time in the earlier

centuries of the Christian

era---first the Jerusalem

Talmud

and

then the

Babylonish Talmud, which

expounded the Jerusalem

Talmud. These two,

under

the names of Mishna and

the Gemara, have practiCally

superseded the Bible for the

Jews .... -]. Shearer, pg. 16.

'''Opus operatum gives

spiritual value to the mere correct

performance of an outward

. ordinance of worship.

4For an excellent explanation of

the perfection and unity of the

moral law of the Old Testament

and the New Testament see Greg

Bahnsen's,

BY

THIS

STANDARD

and NO OTHER STANDARD.

Third Annual

CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW

STUDENT CONFERENCE

July 7-12, 1997

Virginia Wesleyan College Campus

Norfolk, Virginia

George Grant

A

uthor

Educator

Author

of

over 20 books

on

a wide

range

o subjects, he

brings

a wealth of

knowledge

to

share. As

an

avid reader

and director

of

King's Meadow Study

Center, applying Christian thought to all

areas of life is a top priority. He will

speak on Biblical leadership and

servanthood.

Tom

Rose

Professor Emeritus Author

Writer

of economic and business

textbooks, he will set forth priuciples

and practical application

of

God' sWord

on these topics and as they

relate- to

personal fmances.

investing

entre

prenu.nal endeavors. etc.

Steve Wilkins

Pastor

Historian

Not simply history, but a biblical

approach to it, makes for valuable

learning. He will set forth the practical

integration of God's truth in all of life

as evidenced in the Puritans.

Joe Kikasola

Law

Professor

Knowledgeable

on international

policy.

he

will lecture

on

the Middle East, a

Scriptural understanding o languages.

nations, etc.

Herb

Titus

Attorney former

Law

School

Dean

Returning from the

political

arena as

a

vice-presidential candidate with the

U.S. Taxpayers Party,

he

will speak

on

the current political scene and what

Christians can do to serve Christ in this

area,

Doug Wilson

Pastor Author

Educator

Aiming

to

assist students in Ulking

every thought captive to Christ, he will

lechlre in

the

area of apologetics and

the

application of Christianity to culture.

Churches, parents,

high

school and

college students

may

request,

brochures from:

.

Calvary Reformed·

Presbyterian Church

.403 Whealton Road

Hampton, VA 23666

757) 826-5942

(757)825-5843 FAX

February, 1997 i THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon i 9

Documents

1997 Issue 2 - Sermon on Luke 6:17-49 - The Sermon on the Mount According to Luke - Counsel of Chalcedon