This sermon is from the Rev. Charles G. Dennison sermon archive, part of the “Sermon on the Mount” series, and was preached at Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Sewickley, PA, during a worship service on Sunday, September 20, 1987.

Neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne, nor by the earth, for it is His footstool, neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black, but let your communication be yea, yea, and nay, nay.

For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evils.” He has heard that it has been said, and I for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him plain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. He hath heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven. For he maketh his son to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so?

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven.” is perfect. Then from Philippians chapter three, beginning with verse eight. Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but done, that I may win Christ and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.” that I may know him, the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death, if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.”

Father, how many servants have you raised up to carry your word? How has your church prayed that there may be those servants raised up equipped? Truly our own church, our own denomination, is in great need with regard to those servants, blessed of you, who have drunk deeply of your word. So, Lord, give us many fine proclaimers of the word, that our pulpits may be filled with sounds of glory, with those preaching Christ who because of their love for Him have counted all things lost in view of His excellence. Hear us, Lord, for Jesus’ sake. Amen.

Well, what do you think of Robert Bork? You see, I can be relevant. You’ve probably caught bits and snatches of the goings-on in Washington concerning Judge Bork’s confirmation. And I suppose that you have grasped hold of the fact that Judge Bork represents a particular view on the law. But it seems that not everybody shares that view. In the proceedings, however, he may extract from you your sympathy as you witness what he has to go through. It may well be that he also engenders within you a bit of admiration.

We are arguing, it seems, about what is called original intent. I think that we all know what that is by now. It has to do with the original intent of the Constitution and Mr. Bork’s position with regard to that original intent. Now I say that he might have extracted from us our admiration because we are traditional people. We are, after all, orthodox Presbyterians. We sort of venerate and revere things that are old, right?

So we can understand judge works interest devotion to interest in and devotion to the Constitution along the lines of. Original intent what did the writers of the Constitution originally. So yes we. May well be able to resonate. To judge work as he goes through this confirmation and identify with his basic philosophy, we having similar convictions along a religious line.

We also, however, may be driven in our admiration for him because of his position generally with regard to the judicial branch of government. We all remember our ninth grade civics class and our instruction in the basics of government and checks and balances. Various branches of our government intended to check and balance one another. But Judge Bork may well gain our admiration because of his resistance to the notion that the judicial branch is above checks and balances. He does not believe that the Constitution supports such a position as an unchecked judicial branch.

But even further than that, you see. Judge Bork is standing against. That interpretation of the court. Whereby that court no longer sees itself as an interpretive. Entity and institution, but rather an originating or creating institution that is to say. that it is the court’s business to create law. Not simply to interpret it but to create it. And therefore you see.

There are many in opposition to Judge Bork who wish. Us to go beyond what he has called the Constitution’s original intent. In order to Establish create invent. Law. You can see how dangerous that is according to Judge Bork. If in fact the checks and balances have been destroyed. Many have been yelling shouting over the last 10 or 15 years. That’s. The court has been out of control Everyone else has a check. But it seems that the court is not. Well there are those philosophical reasons for admiring judge for.

We also may admire him for his tenacity under pressure before cross examination. If you’ve watched him on television, you realize that he is oftentimes struggling to keep himself under control. And you can imagine why, because you see, it’s not enough for one senator to ask him a question. Every senator has to ask him the same question. So he has to go through it one more time, one more time. It reminds me of that good old General Assembly adage. Everything has been said, but not everybody has said it. All right.

You might be thinking we’re in dangerous waters here because he started out with our admiration and he’s certain to go on with something else. All right, we start out with our admiration, and it may be that because of our own commitments, our admiration is even a bit grudging. But as we move through the process and we observe this whole proceedings, we might also be struck with a bit of skepticism. Admiration, yes, but skepticism also. Skepticism that is pushed upon us because of our own inherent integrity, and our resistance to political manipulation, and our desire to get beyond rhetoric. We have observed, for instance, Judge Bork at those times where there have been embarrassing silences, as if he himself were struggling, struggling with his own philosophy and how to respond specifically to questions that have been raised.

For there have been those charges hurled at him, usually politely. in which Senators have contended that the original intent, idea, and philosophy actually becomes a shield, a protective device, very useful in serving particular interests. We cannot at all be blind to that. And we cannot ignore it. We must be honest with regard to it. And I think that Judge Bork’s hesitancy, his pauses, the struggle that maybe is going on inside of him has to do with that specific point.

But you see, there’s another side to the whole question. It’s not just the man who’s being questioned. It is those who are supplying the questions. For if there are special interests or certain interests that seem to be shielded, protected by the philosophy of original intent. There are also certain interests, special interests, that are protected by the philosophy of law that is embraced by those who are interrogating the man. So, while the senators are working very hard in questioning the judge, it may well be that you have noticed this as well, there seems to be a great degree of smugness that has settled over Capitol Hill. This guy Bortwell, we know about him. But he’s in the chair and we’re not. He’s the one who’s being interrogated.

There’s a certain amount of smugness as if those who were questioning were somehow immune from the philosophical liabilities of their own position. As if they weren’t culpable as well. If there are weaknesses in Ford’s position, what about reversing What about the weaknesses on the other side? Smugness? I don’t usually dabble in politics from this pulpit. But I think there was a certain Republican senator from Pennsylvania that was especially smug.

Where does that leave us? Well, if Bork isn’t without his faults, but neither is the opposition, what do we do? What alternative is there for us? Where do we look? How do we respond to a situation where, on the right, a view of law seems, in some ways, crippled? On the left, it seems crippled as well. What do we do?

There was a great French writer earlier in the century. I say great, not because he is great in Christian circles, but he certainly had a way with him and an ability to get at the heart of an issue. Now, I don’t know whether you have read any Albert Camus lately, that’s C-A-M-U-S. I don’t expect that he is ordinarily picked up by Orthodox Presbyterians and read. Maybe you know that he was a renegade French existentialist.

That certainly raises red flags before your eyes. Nevertheless, nevertheless, Camus saw the problem. He saw the problem, and he tried to deal with it. He tried to deal with smugness, smugness in the law, smugness by the law, self-righteousness, as it is attached to the law and to the institution, of course. in his nation and international. He tries to deal with that problem in his novel, The Fall, which probably is the greatest twentieth-century novel.

It’s short. You can get through it. The Fall is written in two parts. It is written from the perspective of a judge. And in the first part of that novel, the judge reflects the smugness of which we have been speaking, the self-righteousness before the law, and his own self-confidence, and how life has treated him so well. But then comes the transition mid-novel, and the second part of the novel, it’s as if you have descended from the exterior. and its charade into the interior of the heart of the man, there to catch a glimpse of the hell that exists inside. The veneer is taken away, the external is removed, and you see then a broken, thus the title, the fall, man coming to grips with himself and his condition.

And of course, you see, the conclusion of the novel is, well, then, if this reputable, this fine European specimen cannot judge, if he cannot be trusted on the bench, who then can you trust? If he can’t judge, who can judge? Nobody can judge. So, you see, if you have viewed the proceedings in Washington and recoiled from them a bit and said, well, I’m distressed by the smugness, but yet I’m distressed by the fact that there are weaknesses on both sides. It can lead, you see, as it did in Camus, to a position of cynicism. You don’t trust anyone. You don’t do anything. The law and the courts are utterly useless. You have no confidence in them. Everybody is tragically flawed. So where do we turn? Where do we turn? As always, we turn to Jesus. always return to Jesus. Your response is, that’s no answer at all!

Let me tell you. Jesus is your salvation from smugness, and he is also your salvation from cynicism. He is your deliverance from self-righteousness, and he is your deliverance from the attitude, well, what the heck, who cares? What difference does it make in the end, anyway? You can’t trust the courts, judges, you can’t trust the law. Because it’s always useful for special interests. Jesus Christ, then, and the law. Now, I want you to understand something right away here as you move through Matthew five.

We’re not dealing with any law here. We’re not even dealing with the great law of the Roman Empire. We’re not even dealing here with the Constitution of the United States. We’re dealing here with the law of God and the things that Jesus says about it. So we’re dealing with the best.

As Jesus speaks concerning this law, what he has to say, because he is dealing with the greater, takes into consideration all law that is of a lesser kind, and in that I do, in fact, include the Constitution of the United States. It is not, after all, the sixty-seventh book of the Bible. presses original intent. Jesus presses original intent.

You can’t get away from it, as you read through Matthew 5. The scribes and the Pharisees have come up with their interpretation, modern retranslations of the law of God, and Jesus comes along and he cuts through all of it and he gets to the heart of the law of Moses, the law of God. And therefore, Jesus comes as one whose intent is not to destroy the law, but to fulfill You read through the seventeenth verse to the twentieth verse, and the comments made by Jesus, they are clear. He’s here upholding the law and its intention. You read through verses twenty-one through forty-eight, and the various cases that Jesus puts before his disciples.

Again, it is the same. The original intent of the law of Moses is there put in front of you. It’s not enough simply to keep yourself from raising your hand murderously against your fellow man. The intent of the law of God is the prohibition not just against the outward act, but also the inward intent. Anger itself. being outlawed here, and that in keeping with what the law has said.

But you see, while Jesus is pressing the original intent, he’s by no means satisfied with that, and this is precisely why every legal system in the world fails. Every institution of law fails. It is what was observed by Camus as being fundamentally wrong with law, the legal institution, with its practice. You see, Jesus is aware of the law’s fundamental underlying, fundamental weakness.

And even when you press it, an inherent deception within the law, because the law has the ability to shield one within it who is not complying. Do you understand? The law has the ability to shield one within it who is not complying. the law then becomes a defense. And one by merely keeping the externals of the law can satisfy himself that he has kept the law where he can use the law in the interests of his own particular concerns. The law says don’t steal. And he can use that law to protect himself in a way.

That prescribes against charity that exalts property, makes it sound as if property is life, its preservation is what is meaningful. So it is then we move down through these six case studies by Jesus twenty one through forty eight if you. Have noted them before note them again. Each one of the cases is put before you by formula you have heard it that was said of those of old times such and such but I say and he is six times that formula is repeated and here you have six case studies in Jesus treatment of the law. Within these case studies, it becomes clear to us, abundantly clear, that Jesus here is not someone who is simply introducing original intent.

We see his perspective is carrying us beyond, far beyond that administration of Moses, that administration of God from Sinai, he is carrying us into the heavens he is carrying us into that circumstance and into that reality that pertains above, and that is what he has in mind when he speaks about the righteousness of the Thrives and Pharisees, a righteousness which, in fact, his disciples must have in excess.

A righteousness that far exceeds the scribes and Pharisees. What righteousness might that be? That righteousness is the veritable righteousness of God, which is given to faith. And it is beyond the limits of an earthly administration of law, beyond the limits of any institution of law. It carries you into the regions of the righteousness of God by faith, in distinction from any righteousness that can be conferred by law.

With law in the world, in its institutions, maybe it is that we are doing the best that we can, but we cannot turn the law into a god, nor its institutions into a shrine. And if we do, there is no answer. For in our integrity, we will end up precisely where Camus ended up. The unfortunate thing is that most people in the United States are not as honest as Albert Camus. These statements that Jesus gives you here then. The first three. The first one dealing with anger, the second with lust, and then the third with infidelity.

Jesus here speaks of crimes that no earthly court can try. How are you going to prosecute anger? How are you going to prosecute lust? And the way in which Jesus deals with divorce, how is any case like that ever going to stand up in a court of law? It won’t. And it doesn’t. Jesus speaks out here against crimes against no earthly judge or earthly court, but the heavenly judge and the heavenly court. The crimes that he has in mind our crimes, no earthly court can try.

And beyond that, in verses thirty three to forty eight, you have him here presenting to you in the cases that he reviews for you absolute integrity. My yes is yes, my no is no. Absolute mercy before the court I’ve been struck, and I turn the other cheek now. Before the court, I’ve lost my coat, but now I give my coat as well. And lastly, as it pertains to loving our enemies, absolute love. virtues that no earthly law or institution can cultivate or instill. Now, if Jesus is saying these things about the Mosaic laws, how much more for the legal administrations of the world? Christians do not need laws. Christians do not need love. Except for sin.

What you see already breaking in upon you is the perfection of which Jesus speaks in the very last verse. Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is. That’s what’s breaking him apart. The righteousness then that far exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees is already at work in you. It is a righteousness out of heaven. The righteousness of which Paul speaks in Philippians 3, that righteousness of God which is by faith, that is already your possession. It is at work in you. Now hear me out.

The very interesting thing about Jesus’ statements here is that he does not become smug. He doesn’t say anything about the uselessness of courts and the law. But rather, his statements are calculated to respect both, even as he is respected most Therefore, Jesus is not a revolutionary. He is not a revolutionary. But neither is Jesus a cynic. Though we may step back with Camus for a moment and delight with him for a bit, we have to move past him. Because we, like our Savior, are not cynics either.

As Jesus revered and respected Moses and the institutions of that law, so now we are called upon to respect law and its institutions in our world. To understand that you as the people of God have been given a righteousness that far exceeds the righteousness prescribed by laws, extolled by the institutions of law in our world. It is the very righteousness of God by faith. Our Father, we would humble ourselves before you, for surely we understand the dilemma that faces mankind, especially before the law. And we ask, our Father, that we, your people, would delight in the provision that is given us in Christ. And Father, as we have delighted in it and in that righteousness that is by faith, we plead with you Lord that we also may be respectful, that we might honor law and its institutions in the world. and not allow ourselves to slip into a smug self-righteousness or a cynicism that is so utterly destructive and contrary to your will. Guard our spirits and souls, we pray. Do encourage us, Lord, as we would rehearse again the marvelous, magnificent blessings that Christ has given to us not the least of which is a righteousness that far exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, a righteousness that far exceeds even that of the law.

The sermon text provided above is derived from the sermon audio recording making use of generative tools. It has not been manually edited. While transcription tools have a high degree of accuracy, the output may include generative textual, punctuation, and/or formatting errors.