The Sermon on the Mount is a message of how to live to please God in His Kingdom. Outward lawkeeping isn't enough, inward heart attitudes are just as relevant. The sermon was given under the Old covenant dispensation. While man could not obtain righteousness by the Law, that was the focus of the spiritual message at that time, since the New Birth was not available to change their hearts from within until the Resurrection and outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Thus, observation of the Law was emphasized to help fence in man's sinful nature, until Christ could become an Indwelling presence.

"All these things" being added to us refers to the temporal blessings of life and even under the New Covenant I think we acknowledge that disobedience may cost us in the physical. He wasn't talking about salvation. Right behavior doesn't earn us salvation; it never has. Though the Bible teaches that "he that keepeth the law shall live (have relationship with God) thereby" (Gal.3:20), no one but Christ could actually do that. So, though we can't obtain eternal life by keeping the law, obedience is important in maintaining our salvation. On this matter, Peter wrote "IF you DO these things, you make your calling and election sure" and Jesus said it's not enough to say "Lord, Lord", but that "he who does the will of my Father will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Yeah, the "interpretations" that almost all the modern translations make, including the NIV, are why I now only use the NKJV and NASB with the ESV as a cross check. 

Not every "interpretation" that is made is wrong, however, translators are primarily not supposed to make those when avoidable; they're supposed to render as closely to the original as linguistically possible. 

I can't say I agree that, as born again Christians, we "can't live righteously"- that seems to contradict the very nature of God's promise in Christ- but I do agree it is not right of the NLT translators to translate that sentence the way they did. 

Being that most versions of the Bible are translations from the original, it's good to look at multiple translations to get what the Author(s) really wanted to say.   Good points all around.

I don't get a works righteousness doctrine from the NLT. It merely says "and live righteously." I can see that if that's all someone how to go off of, they could easily make the mistake of a work righteousness doctrine, but taking in the context of the rest of Scripture (epescially Habakkuk, Romans, and Hebrews), one should understand that "living righteously" means living by faith.

@dustysojourner@xanga - I know we go around and around over this distinction when there really is no need.   I think we actually agree - pretty much.   Christ in us does enable us to live a spirit-filled life, and the fruit of the Spirit is from the Spirit, not from our efforts, so that we can never glory in our righteousness.  The righteousness that God desires- demands is that which He has given us.   We cannot hold a candle to the brightness of His glory.   But, if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves....it is not true that we don't sin.   Also, we cannot say that we keep it all "cleaned up" either.  Some things slip by us, and in other things we cut ourselves too much slack.   Based on our efforts we would be doomed because we can never live perfectly the righteousness that we have already received by His grace.

What Christ has accomplished in our behalf on the cross is such a magnificent, glorious, stupendous, gigantic feat.  He has conquered death and hell for us forever!   We couldn't get one inch closer to Him by our "righteous living" without His reckoning it to be our gift - from Him!  But He is pleased when we show our love by also reckoning ourselves to be dead to sin and alive to righteousness.

The NLT is a dynamic equivalent (so is the NIV, although here it follows the original more closely in this instance), meaning that it is seeking to convey the meaning more so than just the technical wording, so it is not necessarily out of line here. I'd imagine the committee thought that "seeking his righteousness" was a little too abstract and opted for a more concrete rendering of the idea. I think it was an unnecessary tweaking, but I don't think it's tantamount to teaching a "works righteousness."

The contrast Jesus is setting up is to that of the pagans who run around consumed with what they'll eat and wear, whereas Jesus wants his followers to be occupied with pursuing godly interests. That is very much reflected in the lives we live.

I believe one could argue that "seeking his righteousness" refers to trying to attain to that standard (with an understanding that we can't attain it on our own) or to pursuing God's imputed righteousness in an abstract way, although I think the former is more in line with the sermon on the mount as a whole. Regardless, I think that seeing this as a works salvation issue is reactionary. Don't forget, Mt 5 ends with, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect."

Sometimes I think the sola fide chip on people's shoulder skews their vision because they're so averse to any hint of good works, even if it's biblical.

[NB: I'm not arguing that we earn our salvation in any way.]