(tl;dr is at the bottom of the page)

I have been reading criticisms of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount that are being made by the Evangelical right. I first became aware of these criticisms a couple of years ago from an interview with Russell Moore, the editor-in-chief of Christianity Today, where he recounted conversations with pastors where congregants have called Jesus' words, "liberal talking points" and express the notion that his teachings do not work in today's society (Russell Moore on 'an altar call' for Evangelical America, 2023).

I had forgotten about the interview until recently when I started seeing some of these sentiments pop up in my social media feeds. I find it shameful that there are professed Christians in the world doing what they can to invalidate the teaching of Christ; to be a Christian is literally defined as "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ" (Christian, n.d.), therefore, to believe that the teachings of Jesus are irrelevant is inherently antichrist. The views and beliefs held by those speaking out are in direct contradiction to biblical principle and Christ's teachings, including from the Sermon on the Mount where he states:

"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (New American Standard Bible [NASB], 1960/2020, Matthew 5:18-19)

In these verses, Jesus is teaching that those who diminish, disregard, or teach others to ignore God’s commands place themselves in a position of lesser honor, while those who faithfully obey and teach God’s Word are recognized as great. The emphasis is not on legalistic rule-keeping but on reverent submission to God’s revealed will, properly understood through Christ. He is literally calling out the behavior that is so troubling within segments of the church. In Matthew 5:18, he makes abundantly clear that not even the smallest detail of Scripture is insignificant or temporary by human judgment.

It is understandable where some of this sentiment comes from as sinners living in a fallen world. Much of the teachings that Jesus conveyed in the Sermon on the Mount are in direct conflict with our fallen nature and our worldly desires as well as with much of the political rhetoric of our current political climate which is nearly impossible to escape. The following are the teachings that I see take the most criticism and the dangers of falling into a mindset of disobedience to the teaching.

Turn the Other Cheek

First, let's look at Matthew 5:39 where Jesus instructs: "But I say to you, do not show opposition against an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other toward him also" (NASB, 1960/2020). To better understand this teaching, it is important to understand its historical context and to make some theological clarifications.

The history of the slap on the right cheek is important to understand to put this teaching into proper context. It is widely understood that in the ancient world, whether Jewish or Gentile, a slap on the cheek indicates humiliation rather than physical violence and that this phrasing indicates that the teaching is how to respond to that humiliation rather than commanding passive submission to physical abuse (Cook, 2014). In this context then, we can understand that Jesus is teaching that the Christian response to dishonor, humiliation, or degradation is to endure without retaliation.

It is also important to understand some key theological clarifications of this scripture. This scripture is not a command to endure abuse or against self-protection, a rejection of civil laws and courts, or a mandate for pacifism. Instead what is at the heart of this scripture is a call to not take personal vengeance, but to trust in God's justice and to exemplify God's gracious character.

So, why do some see this teaching as a liberal talking point? The criticism that I have most often seen is that it is too socially progressive because it encourages opposition to policing and resistance to military force. If the history and theology of this passage is not understood, one can understand why it may be viewed to have these connotations rather than being an instruction of personal ethic.

Further review of scripture shows that the beliefs of this teaching being too socially progressive are negated many times throughout further Scripture, for example, Ecclesiastes 3:8 makes clear that there is "A time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace" (ESV, 2001). In Psalm 144:1, David writes "Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle" (ESV, 2001). It is even clear to the authority of the government and adherence to the law; Paul writes:

Every person is to be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a servant of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. (NASB, 1960/2020, Romans 13:1-4)

Clarifying that all authority is appointed by God and that resistance to authority is in direct opposition to the will and command of God. He further calls out that the government has the tools and authority to punish those who do not submit to the appointed authority—chiefly police and the courts.

To call this teaching "too liberal" or "socially progressive" seems to indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of the scripture. If one understands the context, theology, and supporting scripture, it is clear that this is not a societal command, but a command specifically to Christians on how they are to behave which Christ exemplified through his life and death; "He who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being abusively insulted, He did not insult in return; while suffering, He did not threaten, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously" (NASB, 1960/2020, 1 Peter 2:22-23)

Love your Enemies

The concept of loving our enemies is difficult for humans to grasp, but Jesus explicitly teaches us to "...love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (NASB, 1960/2020, Matthew 5:44). Many wonder why this is the case, why we are instructed to love our enemies and those who wish to persecute us and do us harm, well, Paul makes the case in writing to the Romans that:

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous person; though perhaps for the good person someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (NASB, 1960/2020, Romans 5:6-8)

Paul’s writing establishes that divine love is not conditioned upon righteousness or moral worth. Rather, God’s love is demonstrated precisely toward those who stand in opposition to Him. This reality provides the ethical grounding for Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. If believers are called to follow Christ, they must also conform to His example. In His atoning death, Christ perfectly fulfills the very ethic He proclaims; loving enemies not in sentiment alone, but through sacrificial action.

Jesus further clarifies the purpose of this radical command, explaining that believers are to love their enemies “so that you may prove yourselves to be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (NASB 1960/2020, Matthew 5:45). Love for enemies, then, is not merely an ethical ideal but a mark of spiritual identity. It reflects the character of God Himself, whose grace extends indiscriminately to all humanity. In practicing such love, believers bear witness to the transformative power of the kingdom of God and the redemptive pattern established by Christ.

Claims that I have seen against this teaching are that it is not compatible with national security and policing. Again, this stems from a lack of understanding that these commands are not to society, but rather directed at individuals to be internalized. Further, I think that there is a misunderstanding as to the meaning of "love" in this passage; Matthew uses ἀγαπάω (agapaō) here which unlike φιλέω (phileó) does not have a connotation of friendship, affection, or tenderness, but rather refers to a love in a broader moral sense and is the same word choice used frequently when discussing love broadly outside of the family of Christ (25. agapaó, n.d.; 5368. phileó, n.d.). Jesus is not commanding emotional warmth or friendship toward enemies, which would be psychologically unrealistic and ethically incoherent. Instead, he commands a chosen posture of benevolence expressed in action meaning that we are to seek their good, refuse retaliation, and pray for their welfare and wellbeing (in a moral sense).

Through this command, Jesus is not commanding us to abandon our moral boundaries, justice, or defense. He gives us an example of this in The Parable of the Good Samaritan from Luke 10 where the Samaritan—who were considered ethnic, religious, and political enemies of the Jews—was the only passerby to offer compassion to the man that was robbed, stripped, and beaten. He did this at cost to himself without mention or implication of any affection, emotional bond, nor future relationship/friendship. At the end of the parable, Jesus commands us to "...go and do the same" (NASB, 1960/2020, Luke 10:37). This shows us that it is not a command for affection, but an action that refuses to let hostility dictate righteousness.

Give to Whoever Asks

Matthew 5:38–42 is often mischaracterized as a political or ideological manifesto, particularly as a “liberal” ideal advocating passivity, permissiveness, and erosion of justice while in fact, it is not a theory of government, public policy, or social reformation at all. Jesus is commanding us to break cycles of escalating oppression and opposition that were seen in the culture of his time on Earth that was based in retaliation, debt, and honor, and calling the audience to a radically different moral posture.

This can best be understood today in our current political environment that is marked by extreme polarization, grievance, economic uncertainty, and escalating retaliation—interpersonal, communal, institutional, and international alike—by challenging the assumption that power must always answer power in kind. In this environment, the command to "give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you" (ESV, 2001, Matthew 5:42) often framed by critics as a call for indiscriminate application that promotes dependency, discourages work, justifies expansive welfare states or redistributionist economic models, and undermines personal responsibility.

The criticisms lack grounding in scripture and miss the actual message of these verses which is to internalize a coherent ethic aimed at breaking cycles of domination and resentment. To “give to the one who asks” is not a naïve endorsement of unlimited access to one’s resources, but a rejection of the instinct to harden oneself against all claims out of self-protection or grievance; Jesus’ command confronts the moral calculus that asks first, “What will this cost me?” and instead asks, “What does faithfulness require of me in this moment?”

Further, it is worth noting that Jesus does not say, “be stripped of everything,” nor does he deny the legitimacy of wisdom, boundaries, or justice elsewhere in Scripture such as:

Wisdom

One gives freely, yet grows all the richer; another withholds what he should give, and only suffers want. Whoever brings blessing will be enriched, and one who waters will himself be watered. (ESV, 2001, Proverbs 11:24-25)

Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed. (ESV, 2001, Proverbs 19:17)

Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. (ESV, 2001, 2 Corinthians 9:7)

Boundaries

But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (ESV, 2001, 1 Timothy 5:8)

For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. (ESV, 2001, 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12)

Justice

Seek good, and not evil, that you may live; and so the Lord, the God of hosts, will be with you, as you have said. Hate evil, and love good, and establish justice in the gate; it may be that the Lord, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph. (Amos 5:14-15)

Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy. (ESV, 2001, Proverbs 31:8-9)

But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. (ESV, 2001, Luke 11:42)

What he confronts is the instinct to withhold generosity as a means of preserving control, status, or retaliation. He is not contradicting scripture and other commands but instead defining the Christian ethic to be internalized by believers.

Avoid Lawlessness

Throughout the sermon, Jesus reminds us multiple times of the difficulties that we will have getting into Heaven, but encourages us to put aside our wants and submit to the will of the Father, for if the will of God is forsaken we will not see Heaven. Jesus states:

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ (NASB, 1960/2020, Matthew 7:21-23)

Clarifying that abandoning the law, which in this context is not the law of the land, but rather the commands of the Father, will result in a denial from the throne.

The criticism that Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount are unrealistic, politically motivated, or incompatible with modern society ultimately fails because it misunderstands both the purpose and authority of Christ’s words. Jesus never presents obedience to the Father’s will as contingent upon cultural feasibility, political alignment, or personal comfort. Rather, he consistently frames discipleship as a call to submission which is often costly, frequently countercultural, and fundamentally at odds with fallen human instincts. To dismiss these commands as impractical or irrelevant today is a moral judgment placed above Christ himself.

The Sermon on the Mount is therefore not a political manifesto, nor an abstract moral ideal, but a definitive articulation of kingdom ethics grounded in God’s unchanging will. To follow Christ is to accept that his authority extends beyond personal preference and cultural sensibility. Any theological framework that seeks to affirm Jesus while functionally rejecting his teachings collapses under its own contradiction. Christ’s words leave no room for selective obedience: the path he lays out is narrow, demanding, and unmistakably binding on all who would call him Lord.

tl;dr

Criticisms labeling Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount as “liberal,” impractical, or outdated stem from a misunderstanding of its purpose and audience. Jesus’ commands—to turn the other cheek, love enemies, give generously, and avoid lawlessness—are not political prescriptions for society or government, but binding moral imperatives for individual disciples. Properly understood in their historical, theological, and biblical context, these teachings do not negate justice, authority, or wisdom; rather, they call Christians to a countercultural ethic of obedience, trust in God’s justice, and faithful submission to Christ. To dismiss these commands as irrelevant is not a neutral critique, but a rejection of Jesus’ authority and a form of the very lawlessness he warns against.

Works Cited

25. agapaó. (n.d.). Bible Hub. Retrieved December 25, 2025, from https://biblehub.com/greek/25.htm

5368. phileó. (n.d.). Bible Hub. Retrieved December 25, 2025, from https://biblehub.com/greek/5368.htm

Cook, J. G. (2014). Matthew 5.39 and 26.67: Slapping Another's Cheek in Ancient Mediterranean Culture. Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, 10(3), 68-89.

Christian. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster. Retrieved December 22, 2025, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Christian

New American Standard Bible. (2020). BibleGateway. https://biblegateway.com/ (Original work published 1960)

Russell Moore on 'an altar call' for Evangelical America. (2023, August 5). NPR. Retrieved December 22, 2025, from https://www.npr.org/2023/08/05/1192374014/russell-moore-on-altar-call-for-evangelical-america

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. (2001). BibleGateway. https://biblegateway.com/