Article 1: Joseph Prince, the double-talker strikes again, this time, regarding the Sermon on the Mount – By Rev George Ong (Dated 1 May 2023)


Joseph Prince, who uses social media extensively to preach his heresies, is a serial double-talker – Double-Talk No 3


Article 2: Joseph Prince’s dispensation doctrine is torn apart by John MacArthur, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Stott, Charles Spurgeon, DA Carson & Michael Brown – By Rev George Ong (Dated 1 May 2023)


Article 1 is probably my shortest so far.


Article 2:


Of the 6, don’t miss the insightful views of especially


John Stott, Martyn Lloyd-Jones and DA Carson,


who refute the dispensational teachings of Joseph Prince in great detail.


Note that John Stott, in his refute against dispensationalism,


also quoted much of the views of Martin Luther in his discourse.


This means Martin Luther is the 7th giant,


to refute Joseph Prince’s dispensation doctrine.


If these 6 giants of Bible exposition, and Martin Luther,


being the most significant figure in the Protestant Reformation,


have all torn Joseph Prince’s dispensation doctrine apart,


anyone who chooses to go along with the dispensation doctrine of Joseph Prince,


must have his or her head closely examined.


And also, not forgetting Joseph Prince’s faulty interpretation of Matthew 5:40,


as pointed out by Charles Spurgeon and DA Carson


in the Appendix.


(This article was also sent to Rev Dr Ngoei Foong Nghian, General Secretary, National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) office, and for the attention of the Executive Committee Members.)


Please click here


to view the entire video for Articles 1 & 2.


Article 1: Joseph Prince, the double-talker strikes again, this time, regarding the Sermon on the Mount – By Rev George Ong


Joseph Prince, who uses social media extensively to preach his heresies, is a serial double-talker – Double-Talk No 3


In a weekly Sunday sermon aired on YouTube 2 Sundays ago, on 23 Apr 2023, Joseph Prince said;


Please click here to view the 7-second video:


“But does that mean the Sermon on the Mount is not relevant for us?


No. There are elements you read about it. Love your enemies is still carried on in the New Covenant.”


In this video, Joseph Prince says that loving our enemies is part of the New Covenant under the Sermon on the Mount,


and therefore, it is relevant for us as New Covenant believers.


But, in the next video, Joseph Prince changes tact, and strongly implies that the Sermon on the Mount is under Old Covenant of law,


and it is almost impossible to love our enemies.


Joseph Prince said in a 12-second video;


Please click here to view:


“You know when Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount, He said, ‘Love your enemies.’ 


We’ve got problems loving our neighbour, let alone our enemies.” 


Has Joseph Prince no sense of shame?


After being caught by me so many times for double-talking, he is still unrepentantly and shamelessly doing it.


Can you believe this kind of behaviour can come from a world-renowned preacher of grace?


For Double Talk No 1,


Joseph Prince double-talks about his doctrines & makes Jesus a liar in the Sermon on the Mount


Please click on the link below to view:


For Double Talk No 2,


Joseph Prince’s shameless double-talk about whether Jesus’ disciples were saved before the cross


Please click on the link below to view:


Article 2: Joseph Prince’s dispensation doctrine is torn apart by John MacArthur, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Stott, Charles Spurgeon, DA Carson & Michael Brown – By Rev George Ong


In a weekly Sunday sermon aired on YouTube 2 Sundays ago, on 23 Apr 2023, Joseph Prince said;


Please click here to view the 40-second video:


“But there are some elements, some parts there (of the Sermon on the Mount)


is meant for the future when Jesus comes and reigns again because it’s the constitution of the kingdom.


And the part where it says if someone take your coat, let him have your inner coat also (Matt 5:40). Anyone done that? I don’t think so. But that one is for the future, I believe. I believe there are elements there.


It’s like when you preach on the Sermon on the Mount, the Old Covenant was passing away, the kingdom has come.


But later on, we realise that the kingdom was rejected because the king was rejected.


Then came the Church. And the ministry of the Church happened after Jesus was finally rejected by the Jews.


But Jesus came preaching the kingdom, not about the church age.”


Joseph Prince said in another 30-second video;


Please click here to view:


“They know this, but the Sermon that Jesus preached on the Sermon on the Mount is actually the laws, the constitution of the kingdom that He came to bring.


That’s another teaching altogether.


Alright, it is still not the dispensation of grace just yet, or the church age, yet. 


He came to bring the kingdom of God to Israel.


Alright, that is now in abeyance; and now the kingdom of God becomes spiritual.


But have they received Jesus then, the kingdom of God will have come to earth in Israel.


So that was the constitution of the kingdom.”


Joseph Prince teaches that the Sermon on the Mount is about the Old Covenant laws of the kingdom for the Jews and not about the New Covenant grace for the Church.


But the Jews rejected the message of the kingdom that Jesus came to preach.


Had the Jews accepted the message of the kingdom, the kingdom of God would have come to earth in Israel 2,000 years ago.


But since they rejected the kingdom, the Church came into being.


And the ministry of the Church happened only after Jesus and His kingdom were finally rejected by the Jews.


Since the Jews rejected the kingdom, it is now held in abeyance or suspended.


This kingdom will be finally instituted again in the future when Jesus comes again and reigns over the Jews, because the Sermon on the Mount is the constitution of this future millennial kingdom.


John MacArthur


refutes the dispensational teachings of Joseph Prince.


John MacArthur said in a 30-second audio;


Please click here to listen:


“Traditionally, dispensationalism says the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7 has nothing to do with us.


So, we don’t need to worry about it.


When I went through the Sermon on the Mount, writing my commentaries as well, I pointed how foolish that is.”


“I don’t believe there are 2 different kinds of salvation.


I don’t believe there are 2 different covenants.


I don’t believe there is a difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven.


I don’t believe the Sermon on the Mount is for some future age.


I don’t believe you can hack up New Testament books, some for the Jews and some for the Church.”


John MacArthur, in ‘The Gospel According to the Apostles,’ wrote;


“I disagreed with dispensational extremists who relegate whole sections of Scripture


– including the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord’s Prayer – to a yet-future kingdom era.”


John MacArthur, in ‘The Gospel According to Jesus,’ wrote;


“Some dispensationalists teach that “the gospel of the kingdom” Jesus proclaimed (Matt. 4:23)


is distinct from “the gospel of the grace of God.”


“Lewis Sperry Chafer wrote that the gospel of the kingdom was for the nation of Israel only


“and should in no wise be confused with the gospel of saving grace.”


Another early dispensationalist writer declared that the gospel Jesus preached


had nothing to do with salvation but was simply an announcement that the time had come to set up the kingdom of Christ on earth.


That may fit neatly into a particular dispensational scheme, but Scripture does not support it.


We must not forget that Jesus came to seek and to save the lost, not merely to announce an earthly kingdom.”


“It is a mistake of the worst sort to set the teachings of Paul and the apostles


over against the words of our Lord


and imagine that they contradict one another or speak to different dispensations.


The Gospels are the foundation on which the Epistles build.


The entire book of James, for example, reads like a commentary on the Sermon on the Mount.


Those who want to consign the sermon (on the Mount) to another age must still deal with the fact that all its principles


are repeated and expanded upon by later New Testament writers.”


“… Virtually every detail in the Sermon (on the Mount) is repeated in the Epistles.”


Michael Brown


refutes the dispensational teachings of Joseph Prince.


Michael Brown said in a 1-minute video;


Please click here to view:


“Interviewer: But I’m wondering what particularly about dispensationalism you disagree with?


Third thing, I reject the strict separation that are made between Israel and the Church.


I do recognise that the Church consists of saved Jews and saved Gentiles.


I recognise that.


But I recognise that God has been working in Israel all the time that He has been working in the Church.


The dispensational idea that there is a divine parenthesis that we’re in the age of grace, the church age,


and then when the church is taken out, then God begins to deal with Israel once again,


is obviously false,


in terms of God has been dealing with Israel all this time.”


“In its (dispensationalism) earliest form, in its (dispensationalism) most radical forms,


it (dispensationalism) very much rejected much of the gospels – that was just for the Jews in the first century.


Or the Sermon on the Mount is the constitution for the millennial kingdom.


So, it’s gotten less radical after that.”   


Charles Spurgeon


refutes the dispensational teachings of Joseph Prince.


Charles Spurgeon, in ‘Matthew’s Commentary,’ wrote regarding the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount:


Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:3).


“The King’s first statutes are Benedictions.


He begins his teaching with a largess of blessings.


The Old Testament ended with “a curse”:


the New Testament opens with “Blessed.”


This word is by some rendered “happy”; but we like blessed best.


Our Lord brings to men true Beatitudes by his teaching, and by his kingdom.”


Charles Spurgeon has clearly stated that the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount


is, at least, for the present as it is not placed under the Old Testament but the New,


contradicting Joseph Prince’s doctrine that the Sermon is the constitution of the millennial kingdom for the future.


John Stott


refutes the dispensational teachings of Joseph Prince.


John Stott, in ‘The Message of the Sermon on the Mount,’ wrote;


“Are these blessings present or future?


Personally, I think the only possible answer is ‘both’.


Some commentators, however, have insisted that they are future, and have emphasized the ‘eschatological’ nature of the beatitudes.


Certainly, the second part of the last beatitude promises the persecuted a great reward in heaven, and this must be future (Matt 5:11).


Certainly, too it is only in the first and eighth beatitudes


that the blessing is expressed in the present tense, ‘theirs is the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt 5:3, 10);


and even then, this verb was probably not there when Jesus spoke in Aramaic.


The other six beatitudes contain a verb in the simple future tense (‘they shall’).


Nevertheless, it is plain from the rest of Jesus’ teaching that the kingdom of God


is a present reality which we can ‘receive’, ‘inherit’ or ‘enter’ now.


Similarly, we can obtain mercy and comfort now,


can become God’s children now,


and in this life can have our hunger satisfied and our thirst quenched.


Jesus promised all these blessings to his followers


in the here and now.


The promise that we ‘shall see God’ may sound like a reference to the final ‘beatific vision’, and no doubt includes it.


But we already begin to see God in this life both in the person of his Christ and with spiritual vision. 


We even begin to ‘inherit the earth’ in this life


since if we are Christ’s, all things are already ours,


‘whether … the world or life or death or the present or the future’. 


So then the promises of Jesus in the beatitudes have both a present and a future fulfilment.


We enjoy the firstfruits now; the full harvest is yet to come.


And, as Professor Tasker rightly points out,


‘The future tense … emphasizes their certainty and not merely their futurity. The mourners will indeed be comforted, etc.’


“It is this same fear that the promises of the Sermon on the Mount depend for their fulfilment on human merit


that led J. N. Darby (a dispensationalist) to relegate them to the future ‘kingdom age’.


His dispensationalism was popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible (1909) which, commenting on (Matthew) 5:2,


calls the Sermon (on the Mount) ‘pure law’,


although conceding that its principles have ‘a beautiful moral application to the Christian’.


But… the fears of the dispensationalists are groundless.


Indeed, the very first beatitude proclaims salvation by grace not works,


for it pledges the kingdom of God to ‘the poor in spirit’,


that is, to people who are so spiritually poverty-stricken that they have nothing in the way of merit to offer.


The reader can guess with what hot indignation (Martin) Luther repudiated the suggestion made by some in his day


that the Sermon on the Mount teaches salvation by merit!


He (Martin Luther) added to his exposition a long ten-page Postscript in order to counter this monstrous idea.


In it he (Martin Luther) castigated ‘those silly false preachers’


who ‘have drawn the conclusion that we enter the kingdom of heaven and are saved by our own works and actions’.


This ‘abomination of the sophists’ so turns the gospel upside down, he (Martin Luther) declares, that it ‘amounts to throwing the roof to the ground, upsetting the foundation, building salvation on mere water, hurling Christ from his throne completely and putting our works in his place’.


How, then, can we explain the expressions which Jesus used in the beatitudes, indeed his whole emphasis in the Sermon on righteousness?


The correct answer seems to be that the Sermon on the Mount as a kind of ‘new law’, like the old law, has two divine purposes, both of which (Martin) Luther himself clearly understood.


First, it shows the non-Christian that he cannot please God by himself (because he cannot obey the law) and so directs him to Christ to be justified.


Secondly, it shows the Christian who has been to Christ for justification how to live so as to please God.


More simply, as both the Reformers and the Puritans used to summarize it,


the law sends us to Christ to be justified,


and Christ sends us back to the law to be sanctified.”


“(Martin) Luther is even more clear about the second purpose of the Sermon (on the Mount):


‘Christ is saying nothing in this Sermon about how we become Christians, but only about the works and fruit that no one can do unless he already is a Christian and in a state of grace.’


The whole Sermon (on the Mount) in fact presupposes an acceptance of the gospel (as Chrysostom and Augustine had understood),


an experience of conversion and new birth, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.


It describes the kind of people reborn Christians are (or should be).


So the beatitudes set forth the blessings which God bestows (not as a reward for merit but as a gift of grace) upon those whom he is working such a character.

“… (Martin) Luther himself also gave this second explanation, suggests that the Sermon was used as ‘an early Christian catechism’ and therefore presupposes that the hearers were Christians already:


‘It was preceded by the proclamation of the Gospel; and it was preceded by conversion, by being overpowered by the Good News.’


Thus, the Sermon (on the Mount)


‘is spoken to men who have already received forgiveness, who have found the pearl of great price, who have been invited to the wedding, who through their faith in Jesus belong to the new creation, to the new world of God’. 


In this sense, then, ‘the Sermon on the Mount


is not Law, but Gospel’.


To make the difference between the two clear, he (Martin Luther) continues, one should avoid terms like ‘Christian morality’ and speak instead of ‘lived faith’, for ‘then it is clearly stated that the gift of God precedes his demands’.


Professor A. M. Hunter helpfully sets this matter in the context of the whole New Testament:


‘The New Testament makes it clear that the early Church’s message always … had two aspects – one theological, the other ethical:


(i) the Gospel which the apostles preached; and


(ii) the Commandment, growing out of the Gospel, which they taught to those who accepted the Gospel.


The Gospel was a declaration of what God, in his grace, had done for men through Christ;


the Commandment was a statement of what God required from men who had become the objects of his gracious action.’


The apostle Paul commonly divided his letters in this way, with first a doctrinal, then a practical section.


‘But in this’, A. M. Hunter continues,


‘Paul was only doing what his Lord had done before him. Jesus not only proclaimed that the kingdom of God had come with himself and his work; he also set before his disciples the moral ideal of that kingdom … It is the ideal adumbrated in the Sermon on the Mount.’”


Martyn Lloyd-Jones


refutes the dispensational teachings of Joseph Prince.


Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in ‘An exposition of Ephesians 3, The Unsearchable Riches of Christ,’ said;


‘If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be follow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.’ Ephesians 3:2-7


“I am aware that there are those who use certain ‘Bibles’ in which are contained ‘notes’ which lay much stress on this particular statement, and out of it construct a whole outlook and scheme of teaching.


I am referring to the teaching which is commonly known by the name of Dispensationalism,


and I know that there is always a danger, when you find notes in a Bible, of believing, unconsciously that the notes are as inspired as the text (referring to Scofield Study Bible; Scofield is a dispensationalist).


We tend to swallow it all and to take it as authentic. We are driven therefore to glance at this statement from that particular standpoint.


The Dispensational teaching asserts that all the promises which you find in the Old Testament were made to the Jews and apply only to the Jews; that is to say, they do not apply to the Church;


it is asserted that the Christian Church is something which has ‘come in’ – such is their term – as a kind of ‘parenthesis’.


Dispensationalists maintain that when the Lord Jesus Christ came into this world, He came to offer the kingdom of heaven to the Jews,


and it was only because the Jews refused it that the idea of the Church was introduced.


If the Jews had accepted the kingdom, they say, there would never have been a Christian Church at all.


But the Jews having rejected the kingdom, the Church has come in as a new dispensation, as a kind of parenthesis.


The Church will come to an end, and then once more there will be a restoration of the Jews as a nation and Christ will set up His kingdom among them.


They draw a sharp line of division between the Church and the kingdom.”


“Then they proceed to argue that these words make it perfectly clear that the ‘mystery’ pertaining to the Church was not known under the old dispensation;


indeed, until it was revealed to the Apostle Paul.


Some, indeed, even venture to say that the Old Testament nowhere teaches that Gentiles would be saved


There is only one answer to give to such teaching.


If its exponents would read the Old Testament without prejudice, they would find many references to the matter in dispute between us.


The promise was made to Abraham, as Paul reminds us in the third chapter of Galatians:


‘In the shall all nations be blessed’ (Gal 3:8).


In Isaiah there are reference to ‘the isles’ and the ‘Gentiles’ and so on.


That is the simple answer.


But there are other answers and these are most important by way of reply


to those who say that the Church as such was not known under the old dispensation.


Here is a quotation from the Notes of a well-known ‘Bible’ (that promotes Dispensationalism):


‘The Church corporately is not in the vision of the Old Testament prophets’, and then, in brackets to prove that contention, ‘(Ephesians 3:1-6)’.


Ephesians 3:1-6, according to that statement, indicates that the Church corporately is not in the vision of the Old Testament prophet.


That quotation is found in the introduction to the prophetic books of the Old Testament in those particular Notes.


I perhaps might add, in order to make my statement complete, that there is a system of Ultra-Dispensationalism associated with the name of Dr Bullinger which goes so far as to say that


it is only in the Epistles that we really have the New Testament Gospel which applies to us.


Dr Bullinger taught that the gospels have nothing to do with us, that they were for the Jews only;


it is here in Ephesians chapter 3 that we have the message for this age for Jews and Gentiles in the Church.


What is the answer to this teaching?


Surely the doctrine concerning the Church was clearly taught by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself.


Consider what transpired at Caesarea Philippi when the Lord said to Peter,


‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’.


The famous Notes have to admit that He did so speak but they say that He did not elaborate it.


But the fact is that He did say it: so this truth concerning the Church is not only revealed to Paul, it had been revealed before. Our Lord Himself taught it.


Furthermore, Peter preaching on the Day of Pentecost said,


‘Repent, and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to as many as are afar off’.


That clearly is a reference to the Gentiles.


In the same way Peter and John obviously understood this principle


when they recognized that the Samaritans, who were not Jews, had also received the benefits of salvation, and so laid their hands upon them that they might receive the Holy Ghost.


Again, Peter in the dramatic event that took place before he went to the house of Cornelius was brought to see the same truth.


It took a vision from heaven to make Peter see it.


As a Jew he could not understand this.


In spite of the fact that he was a saved man and had passed through the experience of Pentecost the idea that the Gentiles should become joint-heirs with Jews was, in his view, impossible.


But having seen the vision and witnessed the falling of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius and his household, he saw this truth once and for ever, and so admitted the Gentiles into the Church.


He was attacked for doing so and defended himself as we are told in chapters 11 and 15 of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles.


So, it is clear that before Paul had become the apostle to the Gentiles


this truth had already been preached.


But in fact, this truth is found in the Old Testament.


There are clear passages, such as Ezekiel 36 and elsewhere, which show this picture of the Church.


And as Paul argues in the third chapter of Galatians, in the promise to Abraham it is clearly implicit.


How important it is that we should realize the danger of starting with a theory and imposing it upon the Scriptures!


(George Ong’s interjection: Martyn Lloyd-Jones is referring to the doctrine of Dispensationalism in the above.)


What the Apostle actually says is,


‘Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men’ – then comes not a full stop but a comma – ‘as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit’.


The Apostle is not saying that it had never been revealed before.


What he is saying is that it was not revealed before


‘as’, ‘to the extent that’, it is now revealed.


It was there in embryo;


it is now in full bloom and development.


It was there in shadow as a suggestion;


it is now fully revealed.


The expression is, ‘As it is now revealed …’


How extraordinary are the subtleties of the human mind, even when it is Christian, and when it has received the Holy Spirit!


It is not a matter of dishonesty.


I am but indicating that our human minds are fallible, and that therefore we have to be careful as we study the Scripture


lest we elaborate a whole system of teaching upon one text or the misunderstanding of a text.”


“We must draw two very important conclusions at this point.


How terribly wrong it is for those who call themselves Dispensationalists


to say that the Christian Church was a mere afterthought in the mind of God, that He had never really intended it in eternity,


that the Lord Jesus Christ came to earth to preach the gospel of the Kingdom to the Jews,


and that it was because they did not receive it that God introduced the Church as an afterthought.


The greatest thing in the universe, the greatest manifestation of God’s own wisdom, an afterthought!


Thus, we deny Scripture by our theories.


The Church, far from being an afterthought, is the brightest shining of the wisdom of God.


It is equally wrong to say that the Church is only temporary, and that a time will come when she will be removed and the gospel of the kingdom will again be preached to the Jews!


There is nothing beyond the Church.


She is the highest and the most supreme manifestation of the wisdom of God;


and to look forward to something beyond the Church is to deny not only this verse but many another verse in the Scripture.


The Church is the final expression of the wisdom of God, the thing above all others that enables even the angels to comprehend the wisdom of God.”


Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in ‘An Exposition of Ephesians 1, God’s Ultimate Purpose,’ said;


“Our Lord taught the same message.


Take, for instance, the statement found in the eleventh chapter of Luke‘s Gospel, and especially in verse 13, which reads:


‘If ye, being evil, know how to give gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him.’


That is our Lord’s own teaching concerning a giving of the Holy Spirit by the Father; and note that it is in the context of importunity in prayer.


There are those who teach that, on dispensational grounds, this no longer applies to us. They exclude from us altogether most of the teaching of our Lord as it is recorded in the Gospels. The Sermon on the Mount does not apply to us, much in the Gospels does not. They were for the Jews at that time, and will apply again in some coming age.


But surely that is quite unacceptable.


The teaching of our Lord is for all of us.


He told His apostles as He was about to leave them that they were to teach and preach all the things that He had said;


‘And lo’, He said, ‘I shall be with you even unto the end.’


He gave them the Spirit to enable them to obey His Commands.


And among the teachings He gave them is,


‘How much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him!’ (Luke 11:13).”


Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in ‘An exposition of Ephesians 4:17-5:17, Darkness and Light,’ said;


“Our Lord Himself said the same thing in the Sermon on the Mount:


‘Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven’ (Matthew 7:21).


This is New Testament Christianity.


We are not thinking now about our own happiness or subjective feelings, are we?


Here is the great, objective, eternal statement.


There is a city to enter, and if we want to enter that city, then we must remember that it is a holy city and that the entrance to it is controlled by this category of holiness.


Scripture speaks about holiness without which no man shall see the Lord.”


DA Carson


refutes the dispensational teachings of Joseph Prince.


DA Carson, in ‘Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount and His Confrontation with the World: A Study of Matthew 5-10,’ wrote;


“There is one more theological interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount that needs to be mentioned, if only because it is so popular, especially in North America.


It is the view of dispensationalism.


This view rigidly distinguishes


the period of law (Sinai to Calvary)


from the period of grace (Calvary to the second advent).


When Jesus came proclaiming the kingdom of heaven, he was in fact offering a millennial kingdom to Jews.


The Sermon on the Mount is seen as the law which pertains to that millennial kingdom.


However, because the Jews as a whole did not accept Jesus as their King and Messiah,


Jesus went into a second plan, hitherto utterly unforeseen by Old Testament revelation and known only to the secret counsels of God.


In pursuit of this secret plan, Jesus delayed the coming of the millennial kingdom and introduced an age of grace, the “kingdom in a mystery.”


This kingdom may be designated the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of heaven.


As a result of this theological structure,


the Sermon on the Mount has no immediate relevance or application to the Christian.


but its real intent is to serve as law during the coming millennial reign.”


“… I (DA Carson) find myself quite definitely opposed to its overall structure.


As this is not the place to enter into prolonged debate,


I shall simply offer a short selection of reasons


why I cannot accept the dispensationalism interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount.


First: The dispensational interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount depends so heavily on the structure of accepted dispensationalism that it is insensitive to the text itself.


In other words, the movement imposes its theological construction onto the biblical data…”


“As a result, a certain rigidity is frequently observed, the total dispensational package becoming equivalent to orthodoxy itself as far as many of its proponents are concerned.


In dispensationalism, the interpretation of Matthew’s Gospel is one of the crucial support pillars of the theological structure.


Remove it (or any one of a dozen other pillars), and the structure collapses.


Dispensational theologians say that up to Matthew 12, Jesus offers the millennial kingdom (=the kingdom of heaven) to the Jews.


Unfortunately, however, they reject him; and so, toward the end of Matthew 12, he rejects them.


In Matthew 13 Jesus is found unfolding the “secrets of the kingdom,” the kingdom hitherto hidden from view, but more or less equivalent to the kingdom that I have expounded.


More recent dispensational writers admit that “kingdom of heaven” and “kingdom of God” are frequently interchangeable,


but still insist that there is enough difference between them to sustain the view


that the former refers to the millennial kingdom


and the later to the hidden, saving reign.


This I cannot accept.


“Kingdom of heaven” is Matthew’s preferred use,


“kingdom of God” the preference of other New Testament writers (cf. Matt. 4:17; 10:6f.; Mark 1:15; Luke 9:2).


Not only are the two expressions found in synoptic parallels, but there is a broader historical consideration.


Why is the millennial kingdom = kingdom of heaven concept offered during the early part of Jesus’s ministry in only Matthew’s Gospel?


If, for example, any harmonization between John and Matthew is possible, then John 3 must precede Matthew 5-7;


yet John 3 is already talking about the kingdom of God in such categories of salvation as new birth, belief, and the Spirit.


Moreover, to argue that the Sermon on the Mount is law in the sense that it is a legal prescription for the millennium is to confuse certain basic issues.


To pit law, righteousness, and peace as kingdom concepts against grace and belief as salvation concepts


is to create an antithesis that the New Testament writers will not tolerate.


According to Paul, for example, salvation has always been by grace,


even when God’s people were under the Mosaic legislation.


And salvation, however construed,


has always demanded the conformity to the will of God portrayed in Matthew 5-7.


Hence, to take, say, Matthew 6:14f. as evidence of legal prescription as opposed to grace


is, biblically speaking, unjustifiable.


Second: A close study of the Sermon on the Mount suggests that


Jesus has in view just such a world as our own as the sphere in which to work out his demands.


The Sermon (on the Mount) presupposes a world


in which there is persecution of all followers of Jesus without exception,


gross insults, anger, personal litigation, adultery, lying, vengeful attitudes, malice, religious hypocrisy, insincere prayers,


love of money, worry, judgmentalism, false prophets, and much more.


As Carl F. H. Henry puts it,


“An era requiring special principles to govern face-slapping and turning the other cheek (5:39)


is hardly one to which the term ‘millennium’ is aptly applied.”


Matthew 5-7 (Sermon on the Mount) envisions our world,


not a reign of millennial splendor.


Third: A close study of the Sermon on the Mount


gives the impression that Jesus Christ is repeatedly emphasizing the lasting validity of his words,


rather than indicating that their main concerns may well have to be postponed.


The Sermon overflows the present imperatives, with the refrain


“But I say unto you,”


indicating the importance of continued obedience.”


After perusing the views of these 7 great men of God, who are competent Bible teachers:


John MacArthur, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Stott, Charles Spurgeon, DA Carson, Michael Brown and Martin Luther,


who have all resoundingly refuted the dispensational teachings of Joseph Prince,


anyone who continues to trust Joseph Prince and his teachings,


only proves that he or she has stubbornly chosen


to idolise Joseph Prince and be blinded by this charlatan.


Rev George Ong




Joseph Prince said in the sermon 2 Sundays ago, on 23 Apr 2023;


“But there are some elements, some parts there (of the Sermon on the Mount)


is meant for the future when Jesus comes and reigns again because it’s the constitution of the kingdom.


And the part where it says if someone take your coat, let him have your inner coat also (Matt 5:40). Anyone done that? I don’t think so. But that one is for the future, I believe.”


Joseph Prince said that Matthew 5:40


refers to something that will only happen in the future millennial kingdom.


Both Charles Spurgeon and DA Carson


in their exposition of Matthew 5:40 indicate otherwise


– that Matthew 5:40 was not a future issue but a present reality


that the Jews and Christ’s disciples were faced with.


And it is also an apt reminder and appropriate application for contemporary Christians,


who may be tempted to insist on their rights in any contestation.


Charles Spurgeon, in ‘Matthew’s Commentary,’ wrote;


And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also (Matthew 5:40)


Let him have all he asks, and more.


Better lose a suit of cloth than be drawn into a suit in law.


The courts of our Lord’s day were vicious;


and his disciples were advised to suffer wrong sooner than appeal to them.


Our own courts often furnish the surest method of solving a difficulty by authority, and we have known them resorted to with the view of preventing strife.


Yet even in a country where justice can be had, we are not to resort to law for every personal wrong.


We should rather endure to be put upon than be for ever crying out, “I’ll bring an action.”


At times this very rule of self-sacrifice may require us to take steps in the way of legal appeal, to stop injuries which would fall heavily upon others; but we ought often to forego our own advantage, yea, always when the main motive would be a proud desire for self-vindication.


Lord, give me a patient spirit, so that I may not seek to avenge myself, even when I might righteously do so!”


DA Carson, in ‘Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount and His Confrontation with the World: A Study of Matthew 5-10,’ wrote;


“The second example concerns a lawsuit in which a man is likely to lose his “tunic,” a long garment which corresponds to a modern dress or suit of clothes.


The follower of Jesus will throw in the outer coat as well, even though this latter garment was recognized by Jewish law to be an inalienable possession (Exod. 22:26f.).


It is unlikely, of course, that a lawsuit would be fought over a suit of clothes.


But at stake here is a principle: even those things which we regard as our rights by law we must be prepared to abandon.


In another context, Paul enlarges on this principle when he insists that followers of Jesus will prefer to be wronged rather than to enter litigation with another follower of Jesus (1 Cor. 6:7f.).”