Think! Is the statement below, by an alleged “Bible teacher” who has tens of thousands of enthusiastic followers, true?

“The Sermon on the Mount isn’t directed at people who trusted Jesus. The whole point is to take what He said literally so the hearer would repent from Law observance toward believing Him instead.”

Premise #1: “The Sermon on the Mount isn’t directed at people who trusted Jesus.”

First, it should be noted that the Bible teacher’s phrase, “people who trusted Jesus,” is a reference—albeit an inadequate one—to believers. The reason it is inadequate is because the word “in” is missing from between the words “trusted” and “Jesus.” I won’t elaborate on that subtle yet important difference now, but I do want you to see that this teacher is claiming that Jesus spoke His Sermon on the Mount to unbelievers. Is his claim true?

The only details we know about the rich man—whose story Jesus told in Luke 16—are what Jesus revealed. And Jesus revealed all that He felt was necessary to make His point.

For example, Jesus gave us no idea how the rich man gained his wealth. It is possible that he gained it legitimately, providing value to willing customers. But we don’t know, and Jesus didn’t say. Jesus did reveal, however, that the rich man was self-indulgent and self-absorbed. He dressed in very expensive clothing, “joyously living in splendor every day” (Luke 16:19).

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? (1 Cor. 3:1-3, NASB).

It is from this passage that the modern doctrine of the “carnal Christian” has been derived, which promotes the idea that one can be a true Christian but be “carnal,” and thus be behaviorally indistinguishable from unbelievers. The KJV translates 3:3: “For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” We are often told by advocates of this doctrine that we can’t judge those who, although they profess to be Christians, demonstrate no evidence of being born again, because some genuine Christians are “carnal Christians.”

If you’ve ever read Jesus’ chapter-long denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees found in Matthew 23, you can more appreciate the grace He extended to a Pharisee named Simon who invited Him to dine at his house (Luke 7:36). Jesus, the pure and holy Son of God, amazingly visited the home of a proud, judgmental legalist who was likely leading people astray by his pharisaical teaching. To visit his house and have a meal with him was pure grace on Jesus’ part.

Simon didn’t believe in Jesus. Beyond that, he didn’t even respect Him enough to extend the common cultural courtesies that any guest would have received. Not only did Simon not wash Jesus’ feet or have a servant do it, he didn’t even offer Jesus a bowl of water to wash His own feet. And no “greeting kiss” or “oil-anointing” of His head.

Although it is said by many modern preachers that our redemption was accomplished by Jesus’ death on the cross, the apostle Paul would have disagreed. He wrote:

If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins (1 Cor. 15:17).

Obviously, Jesus’ resurrection was an essential component of redemption. Had He not been resurrected, our faith would be “worthless,” and we would all still be “in our sins.”

Note Paul’s choice of words to describe our tragic state if Christ had not been raised. We would “still be in our sins.” Did he mean that if Christ had not been resurrected, the penalty for our sins would not have been paid? No, that was accomplished by Jesus’ death (1 Cor. 15:3; Col. 1:20; 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:24).

Did Paul mean that if Christ had not been resurrected, forgiveness of our sins would not be possible”? No, again, the penalty Jesus paid by His death for our sins made our forgiveness possible.

So what did he mean?

“He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him” (John 14:21, NASB).

Jesus promised to “disclose” Himself (or “reveal” or “manifest” Himself, as other Bible versions translate it) only to certain people, namely, those who keep His commandments. Why? The revelation of Himself is a reward for loving Him, something which is manifested by keeping His commandments. Very simple.

It does seem odd, in light of the fact that salvation is “by grace through faith” (according to Ephesians 2:8-9 and many other New Testament verses), that the Gospels don’t record a single instance of Jesus using the word “grace” in any of His teachings or conversations. Although John wrote that Jesus was “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14) and that “grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17), during His earthly ministry, Jesus never used the word “grace” or declared that salvation is “by grace.”^[1]

When the Twelve returned from purchasing food in the town of Sychar, in Samaria, they were “amazed” to find Jesus talking with a woman (John 4:27). Apparently, such a thing was culturally inappropriate. That, however, didn’t stop Jesus. More specifically, it didn’t stop His amazing grace, because He offered a “gift of God”—which He called “living water”—to a woman who had likely been divorced and remarried five times and who was currently living with her boyfriend (John 4:10). That’s grace. But was Jesus’ gracious gift “unconditional?” Could she receive His gift without changing her behavior? Was Jesus offering her a license to continue in fornication?

Which is worse, adultery or murder? Both were forbidden by the Ten Commandments (see Ex. 20:13-14). Both were punishable by death in the Mosaic Law (see Ex. 9:6; Lev. 20:10-12; 24:17; Num. 35:30; Deut. 22:22). Although both are grievous in God’s eyes, I think most people would agree that murder is more grievous.

We all deal with personal biases, so it should not surprise us that Bible-translation scholars do as well. When they hold themselves to the discipline of “word-for-word” translation, as in the NASB (New American Standard Bible) for example, there is less room for personal bias to sneak in. When they employ “phrase for phrase” translation, such as in the NLT (New Living Translation), there is more room for personal bias to sneak in. This is not to say that there aren’t advantages to “phrase for phrase” translation, advantages that can create better understanding in the minds of readers.