Editing Sermon on the Mount (section)

==Interpretation==<!-- This section is linked from [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] -->
{{See also|Biblical literalism|Biblical law in Christianity}}
[[File:Sermon-on-the-mount-tiffany.jpg|thumb|The Sermon of the Mount depicted by [[Louis Comfort Tiffany]] in a [[stained glass window]] at [[Arlington Street Church]] in [[Boston]]]]
A central debate over the sermon is how literally its high ethical standards are meant to be applied to everyday life. Almost all Christian groups have developed non-literal ways to interpret and apply the sermon. North American Biblical scholar [[Craig S. Keener]] finds at least 36 different interpretations.<ref name= Keener160 >{{cite book |title=The Gospel of Matthew |first=Craig S. |last=Keener |year= 2009 |isbn= 978-0-8028-6498-7 |pages= 160–2 |chapter=The sermon's message |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans |chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=8C2Y_HaL5W0C&pg=PA160}}</ref> Biblical scholar Harvey K. McArthur lists 12 basic schools of thought:<ref name="McArthur">{{cite book |last1=McArthur |first1=Harvey K. |title=Understanding the Sermon on the mount |date=1978 |publisher=Greenwood Press |location=Westport, Conn |isbn=978-0313205699}}</ref>
#The ''Absolutist View'' interprets the Sermon on the Mount as conveying an unambiguous message regarding moral perfection and enduring persecution. For instance, [[Anabaptists]] claim to adhere to a literal interpretation, directly applying the sermon's teachings to their lives.<ref>{{cite web|title= Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online (GAMEO) |url= http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Sermon_on_the_Mount|location=first paragraph|quote= Whereas Luther emphasized salvation by faith and grace alone, the Anabaptists placed emphasis on the obedience of faith.}}</ref>
#Other Christians have addressed the issue by ''Modifying the Text'' of the sermon. In antiquity, this modification was sometimes achieved through the alteration of the text itself to render it more acceptable. For example, some early scribes altered {{Bibleverse|Matthew|5:22}}, changing the phrase "whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment" to the softened, "whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." Similarly, the phrase "Love your enemies" was changed to "Pray for your enemies," among other revisions.
#The ''[[Hyperbole]] View'' asserts that certain statements in the sermon are to be understood as exaggerations. A prominent example is {{bibleverse|Matthew|5:29-30}}, where believers are commanded to gouge out their eyes and cut off their hands if these body parts lead them to sin. However, there is some debate regarding which parts of the sermon should be interpreted figuratively.<ref name="McArthur"/>
#The ''General Principles View'' maintains that Jesus did not provide specific instructions but rather offered broad guidelines for behavior, outlining general principles of conduct.
#The ''Double Standard View'', widely accepted in the Middle Ages,<ref name="Mahoney"/> posits that the teachings of the sermon can be divided into general precepts and specific counsels. According to this view, the precepts apply to the broader population, while the specific counsels are directed toward a select group, typically the [[piety|pious]] few. This view reserves a "higher ethic" for clergy, especially those in [[monastic order]]s.<ref name="Mahoney">{{cite web |last= Mahoney |first= Jack |title= Catholicism Pure and Simple |url = http://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/living-the-sermon-of-the-mount/|location= 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs|date= February 2012|quote= The most widespread and notorious of these strategies was the double standard approach which developed by the time of the Middle Ages, requiring the sermon to be taken seriously by only some members of the Church.}}</ref>
#The ''[[Two kingdoms doctrine|Two Realms]] View'', associated with the [[theology of Martin Luther]],<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cahill |first1=Lisa Sowle |title=The Ethical Implications of the Sermon on the Mount |journal=Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology |date=April 1987 |volume=41 |issue=2 |pages=144–156 |doi=10.1177/002096438704100204 |s2cid=170623512 |quote=The notion that the Sermon is impossible of fulfillment, but has a pedagogical function, is usually associated with Martin Luther or, as Jeremias puts it, with "Lutheran orthodoxy." However, Luther himself maintained that faith is active in works of love and that it is precisely faith which loving service presupposes and of which it is a sign. For this reason, Jeremias's own hermeneutic of the Sermon carries through Luther's most central insights. The Sermon indicates a way of life which presupposes conversion; the Sermon's portrayals of discipleship, while not literal prescriptions, create ideals and set burdens of proof for all concrete embodiments.}}</ref> separates the world into the religious and secular realms. According to this perspective, the sermon applies exclusively to the spiritual realm. In the secular world, individuals' obligations to family, employers, and society may require compromises. For instance, a judge may be compelled to sentence a criminal to death, but inwardly, he should grieve for the criminal's fate.
#The ''Analogy of Scripture View'' suggests that the more stringent precepts of the sermon are moderated by other parts of the New Testament. For instance, both the Old and New Testaments hold that all people sin, so the command to "be perfect" cannot be taken literally, and even Jesus himself did not always obey the command to refrain from being angry with one's brother.
#The notion of ''Attitudes not Acts'' asserts that, while complete adherence to the Sermon on the Mount is unattainable, the focus should be placed on one's internal attitude rather than external actions.
#The ''Interim Ethic View'' holds that Jesus was convinced the world would end imminently, thus rendering material well-being irrelevant. In this view, survival in the world did not matter, as the end times would render earthly concerns obsolete. Although it was known earlier, [[Albert Schweitzer]] is particularly associated with popularizing this view.<ref name="McArthur"/>
#The ''Unconditional Divine Will View'', presented by [[Martin Dibelius]], posits that while the ethical teachings of the sermon are absolute and unyielding, the [[fall of man|fallen]] state of the world makes it impossible for humans to fully live according to them. Despite this, humans are still bound to strive towards this ideal, with the realization of the Kingdom of Heaven expected to bring fulfillment of these teachings.
#The ''Repentance View'' holds that Jesus knew that the precepts in his sermon were unattainable, and that it was meant to stimulate [[repentance]] and faith in the Gospel, which teaches that we are saved not by works of righteousness, but faith in the [[atonement in Christianity|atoning]] death and resurrection of Jesus.
#Another ''[[Christian eschatology|Eschatological]] View'' is that of modern [[dispensationalism]], first developed by the [[Plymouth Brethren]], which divides human history into a series of ages or [[Dispensation (theology)|dispensations]]. According to this view, while the teachings of the sermon may be unattainable in the current age, they will become a prerequisite for salvation in the future [[Millennialism|Millennium]] (see [[inaugurated eschatology]]).<ref name="McArthur"/>