Vos: "The law must be satisfied, because apart from keeping it there is no life."

This past Saturday, at the Biblical Theology Study Center, the class engaged in an extensive discussion about the nature of the atonement (via the blog-post of an emergent-friendly theologian). Over the past 100-150 years, from liberal theology to the New Perspective on Paul to the emergent church, "justice", as inseparable and inherent to the nature of the atonement, has been either watered down or eliminated... leaving "forgiveness" as the sole, overarching paradigm for the work of Christ's atonement applied to the recipient. As important as forgiveness of sins is in our salvation, it is only half of the story. Justice is the other half. In fact, without the satisfaction of God's justice, there is no forgiveness to grant to the sinner. And, as Vos notes in his sermon on Ephesians 2, without the satisfaction of God's just demands exacted through the law, there's no "life" to breathe into the dead sinner:

"Can God justly bestow this benefit (new life, or spiritual resurrection; crb) on a sinner, dead in transgressions, by creating a new life in him?

"The answer to this must be a decisive "no." God cannot do such a thing. It is true that his love is great and his mercy rich, but his justice is inviolable. It requires that the sinner be punished and that only the one who fulfills the demand of the law be rewarded. Justice draws its rigorous line without making distinctions between persons; on the left it assigns eternal death to the transgressor of the law and on the right eternal life to the keeper of the law.

"If a person dead in transgressions is to be raised up, two conditions must be met first. In the first place, he must be relieved of the burden of his guilt which rests on him because of his sins. He must bear the threatened punishment and empty to its dregs the cup of God's holy displeasure. As long as this does not happen, despite God's great love and rich mercy, there can be no talk of God showing favor to the sinner.

"But suppose that the punishment has been borne, the cup emptied—even that by itself is not enough. The justice of the law must be fulfilled, that is to say, it must be perfectly obeyed and observed. Only to the one who does this can God restore life and impart his Holy Spirit.

"To understand this clearly let us imagine a criminal who must bear the punishment of imprisonment designated by the law. When he is released after serving his sentence, the law has been satisfied. But is the criminal's honor restored, have his civil rights been regained, can he count on all the privileges granted to someone who keeps the law without punishment? Of course not. Although the law cannot further require penal satisfaction from him, for the most part and all too often he finds himself without civil rights and honor, disgraced and an outcast in the midst of society.

"Exactly the same justice applies in the kingdom of God. Assume that the sinner is able himself to bear the punishment of his transgression, by bearing it completely so that nothing remains to be borne. This is not the case, but assume it for a moment. What then would follow? Would this be the end of the matter for the sinner? God's wrath would be removed, but his favor would not be regained. The person would still be without citizenship and rights in God's kingdom, he would still remain a beggar who has no claim to anything. The unyielding law, with its "Do this and you shall live," would still stand—with its accusation that it has not been fulfilled and its strict prohibition against giving life to the sinner.

"You can immediately see where the great difficulty lies here. The law must be satisfied, because apart from keeping it there is no life. As far as we know, God does not grant eternal life to either angels or men on any other condition than perfect keeping of the law. But man cannot keep the law, he is dead in transgressions, spiritually impotent. If he is ever again to attain to keeping the law, it must be preceded by a creative act of God, by an infusion of life from God, whereby he is again put in a position to live according to the commandments of God.

"Thus, two things are firmly established: (1) God cannot make man alive from his spiritual death in sin, unless he has first fulfilled the law. (2) As long as God has not made man alive, he cannot fulfill the law.

"This crying contradiction demonstrates how hopeless the situation with man was. There was no solution in sight and it seemed there was nothing left for God to do but to abandon man to his miserable fate. And, indeed, if help would have had to come from man's side, it would not have appeared, not even in an eternity!

"But through his great love God knew how to find a solution. He solved the riddle in a way that caused the angels to stare in wonder and the congregation on earth, in turn, to venture in joyful rapture before the heavenly authorities and powers. When the eye of God's love could find no resting place in all of sinful humanity, then it rested upon Christ Jesus, his only begotten Son, and saw in him the possibility of unraveling the sad riddle.

"The Lord could not make us alive. We had forfeited the right to be made alive. There was no one who was worthy to be made alive—unless it be that the Son of God became man, and by becoming such, restored the possibility that man be made alive and be saved. To make us alive with Christ—that was the answer that God's great love gave to the question raised by his mercy, otherwise there was no means by which sinners could be rescued from eternal destruction.

"The two conditions just discussed were present in Christ. He was able to wipe out the debt, and he did. At the same time, because he was not dead in transgressions, by his perfect keeping of the law he acquired the right to eternal life. Him God could raise up by his sublime power and bring back in immortality. And with that the great work was accomplished in principle. Certainly there was but one point of departure found for the spiritual resurrection, but that point lay in the Mediator Christ Jesus. With Christ it is therefore possible for God to raise us up also. He took upon himself the curse and the demands of the law, we reap the fruits together with Him. In his resurrection from the dead ours is given in fact and guaranteed by right. That new life, which he received as the reward for his obedience, passes over from him, by the working of his Spirit, to all that belong to him, so that they, awakened from the sleep of sin, let Christ shine on them, say "Amen" with a living faith to all God's words of life, hunger and thirst after the righteousness of life, and end by praising God's rich mercy, which, because of his great love, even when they were dead in their transgressions, made them alive with Christ, the Lord." -- Geerhardus Vos, "The Spiritual Resurrection"

Vos: "The Psalmists are convinced that God himself desires to enter upon close fellowship with man."

Ever thought of the gathering with Christ's people as a "refuge"? Vos here shows how the Psalmists spoke of "God's house", "tabernacle", and "God's dwelling place" as a "sanctuary", a "refuge", a "taking cover beneath his wings". Such is the deep-seated intimacy between Savior and people which occurs when we gather to feed on Christ. It is "covering" and "refuge" to take "sanctuary" in the fellowship and worship of His people.

Vos on the subject:

"Figures are borrowed from the intimacies of human life, nay of animal life; figures which in point of picturesqueness and forcibleness go far beyond that of a covenant or a secret counsel here employed by the Psalmist. Such is the figure of the common house in which the believer desires to dwell with Jehovah in order that there may be between God and him something of that same closeness and intimacy of fellowship as binds the members of one household together. Of course this attaches itself to the typical expression God had given the thought of religious fellowship with himself in the structure of the tabernacle or the temple. But after all it remains interesting that precisely in the Psalms this divine thought embodied in the sanctuary is most clearly apprehended and most eagerly responded to. "A day in thy courts is better than a thousand: I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness" (Ps. 84:10). "One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to inquire in his temple. For in the day of trouble he shall keep me secretly in his pavilion: in the covert of his tent shall he hide me" (Ps. 27:4,5). And even this is surpassed in a number of other passages where the Psalmist chooses figures based on physical, bodily contact in order to satisfy himself in describing his vivid experience of standing in real personal communion with God. The two modes of statement are joined together in the 61st Psalm where David first says, "I will dwell in thy tabernacle forever" and then adds by way of climax, "I will take refuge in the covert of thy wings"; as elsewhere we read the petition, "Hide me under the shadow of thy wings" (Ps. 17:8) and three times the avowal, "Therefore, men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings" (Ps. 36:7).

"Now it is to be noticed that, notwithstanding the concrete, realistic character of such expressions, the sentiment expressed remains well within the bounds of conscious, intelligent fellowship with God. There is no lapse into false mysticism here; no desire to lose one's self in God. What the Psalmist strives after is nothing more nor less than that mutual revelation of person to person, that grasping of God himself in the various forms of his approach unto us which is the culminating act of all religion. It is safe to say that both in the guarding of this idea from every kind of mystical excess and perversion and in the thoroughness on the other hand of its application within the proper limits imposed by the personality of God, the biblical religion stands unique among the religions of the world. You may find enough elsewhere of absorption into the deity as you may find plenty in other quarters of coordination between the gods and men as if the two had separated spheres of life. But you will find nowhere such a clear grasp upon the principle that from the very nature of religion man is designed to hold converse with God and to become practically acquainted with him. Nor is it merely a subjective aspiration of man which underlies this idea of religion. At the basis of it lies the conviction that there is in God himself the possibility, nay the desire for this. Notice how our passage expresses it. The secret intercourse of the Lord is with them that fear him and he will teach them his covenant.

"It is a condescension of God not an aspiration of ourselves which renders real this crowning act of religion. The Psalmists are convinced that God himself desires to enter upon close fellowship with man; that if he institutes a covenant for his servants, it is because he is in his very nature a covenant God. In the saints upon the earth is all his delight. We have no right to say that there was any lack or deficiency in God to be supplemented by the creation of man in his image and for communion with him for that would be inconsistent with his character as God. The Scriptures teach that he is all-sufficient unto himself and forever blessed in himself. Nevertheless having created man, it is natural in God to receive man as an inmate of his house and companion of his own blessed life. God himself takes pleasure in the immediate personal fellowship with us to which he invites us. There is that in him which corresponds to the highest in our religion. The prayer of his people comes like incense before him; the lifting up of their hands as an evening sacrifice. And it is because the Psalmists realize this that their own desire to meet with God and speak with God obtains that intensely passionate character to which reference has been made." -- Geerhardus Vos, "A Sermon on Psalm 25:14"

Of course, don't make too much of the theology.....

..... it's just fiction (sic).

http://www.sacredsandwich.com/advertisement21.htm

THE RUNAWAY BESTSELLER FOR CHRISTIANS WHO NEED TO RE-IMAGINE GOD IN THEIR OWN IMAGE!

Britton: "going organic is expensive"

"…contemporary sentiment has pretty much ruled against voluntary, wholehearted acceptance of authority in general, and Christians are hardly immune to contemporary sentiment.  The extreme alternative to structured authority in the church is an attractively organic non-structure, in which the common priesthood of the believers is celebrated without the 'Big Brother' feel of a church hierarchy…"

"…the 'organic' vision…(is one) in which the absence of designated leadership is lauded… if an organic church is planted properly, 'those believers will know how to sense and follow the living, breathing headship of Jesus Christ in a meeting.  They will know how to let Him invisibly lead their gatherings…[T]hey will minister out of what Christ has shown them -- with no human leader present!'  This is a self-consciously antiestablishment vision, charged with enthusiasm and anthropological optimism, and its promoters take pride in tracing its roots to the Anabaptists and the 'Radical Reformation.'  Anything short of a spontaneous, free, and authentic group experience of the Savior is, in their view, unbiblical and pagan.

"What do we lose if we jettison a structure of authoritative leadership in the church?  No slur on farmers intended, but what is true at the grocery checkout is true in the church as well: going organic is expensive.  Here the pinch is felt not in the wallet but in the health of the body of Christ.

"Ordination, as a commission and a covenant, sets apart from the congregation selected men who promise to love and guard that local expression of Christ's body… the elders' charge is to 'pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock…[C]are for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood" (Acts 20:28).  In church discipline, Sacraments, doctrinal matters, and instruction, the oversight of elders is intended to preserve, protect, and defend the faith and the people.  Without leaders who are set apart for and dedicated to this task, the church and its proclamation of the gospel are fair game for the ravening wolves without and the wayward saints within.

"Granted, ordination brings one into a position of visibility and influence that can be gravely abused.  But although every pastor or elder is just a jar of clay, God has seen fit to entrust designated human officers, answerable to God with his gospel and his church…those who govern our congregation are themselves governed by the Lord, the Word, and one another, and my understanding that their calling is a necessary gift to the rest of us." -- Paige Britton, "A Necessary Gift", Modern Reformation, September/October 2009, pp. 23-26

Not exactly a grim reaper...Owen: "death is a messenger sent of God"

Let us take heed of being surprised with death. This is that peculiar wisdom which God calls us all unto at this day. We know not how soon we may be called upon by death. It may not come in an ordinary course, by long sickness, and give us warning; nor when we have lived to the age of a man, which is “threescore years and ten,” as the psalmist speaks; but we may be surprised with it when we look not for it.

He that hath not learned it for himself from the dealings of God at this present in the world, and in this congregation, will not believe it if one should come from the dead and tell him so. Let this, then, be fixed upon our minds, that whatsoever be our state and condition, some are strong, young, and healthy, and some of us are old and feeble, going out of the world; but there are none of us but may be surprised with it.

Take heed, therefore, that you be not surprised in an ill frame. I hope there are none of you but do understand that there is great variety in the frames of believers; sometimes they are in a good frame, — grace is active and quick, — they are ready to take impressions by the word and warnings, delighting in holy thoughts; and sometimes, again, it may be the world, temptations, or selflove, comes in, or over-valuation of our relations, and indisposes them again, and they are very unfit and lifeless for the performance of duties with delight and vigor of spirit; and these they lose, though they keep up to all their duties. I persuade myself you will confirm this with your own experience.

There is no maintaining (though there may be impressions) of a quick, holy, lively frame, but by a sedulous contemplation and constant view of things that are above. Many will tell you, that when God hath been pleased to keep up their minds unto the thoughts of things above, and draw out their affections to cleave unto them, all things have gone well with them, — every prayer had life in it, and every sermon and duty, pleasure and joy; and their hearts have lain down and arisen in peace. But when they have lost their view of spiritual things, all other things continue, but there is a kind of deadness upon them. Why, then, our wisdom in this case is, to labor to keep up this spiritual view of eternal things, in a holy contemplation of and cleaving to them in our affections, or death will be surprising; come when it will, you will be surprised by it.

But if this be our frame, what comes this messenger for? Death is a messenger sent of God; he knocks at the door, and what comes he for? To perfect the frame you are in, that you may see heavenly things more clearly. He is come to free you from that deadness you are burdened withal, that darkness you are entangled with, and to set you at perfect liberty in the enjoyment of those things your souls cleave unto. How, then, can your souls but bid this messenger welcome? Pray, then, that God would keep up your souls, by fresh supplies of his Spirit, unto a constant view of heavenly things. And you must do it by prayer, that God would give you fresh oil, to increase light in your minds and understandings.

Some can tell you by experience, that, having made it their business with all their strength and study to live in that frame, they have found their own light decay, so that it would not be so fixed and constant towards heavenly things, nor so affect the heart as it had done before. Their light would work no more, until fresh supplies from the Holy Ghost gave quickness to it, and fresh oil to increase, to discern the beauty of spiritual and heavenly things. In plain terms, I speak to dying men, that know not how soon they may die. God advise my own heart of this thing, that I should labor and watch, that death might not find me out of the view of spiritual things! If it do, — if our bellies cleave unto the dust, and our eyes are turned to the ground, — if we are filled with other things, and death approaches, — do you think it will be an easy thing to gather in your minds and affections to a compliance with it? You will not find it so.

When David was in a good frame, he could say, “Thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth: O LORD, into thine hand I commit my spirit;” — “I am willing to come and lay down my tabernacle, and embrace this messenger. But David falls from his good frame, under some decays of spirit, Psalm 39, and there makes great complaint of it. Where is the readiness now of the good man, and where is his willingness of giving up his spirit into the hand of God? “Spare me a little, that I may recover my strength,” verse 13. Not his outward strength, but a better frame, fit to die in.

And if death overtake us in such a frame, the best of us will be found to cry so: “O spare me a little, to recover my strength.” — “O the entanglements that have been brought upon me by this and that temptation, and diversion; by this coldness and decay! O Lord, spare me a little.” There is mercy with God for persons in this frame; but if it were the will of God, I had rather it should be, “LORD, into thy hands I commend my spirit; for thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth.” -- John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Vol. 9, Sermon, October 10, 1680.

The Sermon on the Mount and the Old Testament: Part 3

There are a couple of questions that are pertinent to the relationship between the Old Testament and the Sermon on the Mount: How does Christ understand himself in light of the Old Testament, and how does Matthew understand Christ in light of the Old Testament? Again, there is much material in just the Sermon on the Mount that could occupy us for hours, so I’m going to simply look at a couple of words that occur in the thesis statement of the Sermon. There is one related question I think will be answered along the way: How does Christ understand himself not only in relation to the Old Testament, but especially the Law? I raise these questions because they are fundamental hermeneutical principles (see G.K. Beale, “Right Doctrine from the Wrong Text?”) that will help us understand the gist of the Sermon on the Mount.

In the Sermon on the Mount, we not only have Christ quoting the Old Testament, we also have him ascending the Mount and sitting down. This is no accident. This isn’t simply, as some like Davies would have us believe, Matthew writing about an event and couching it in the imagery of a king sitting down on a throne to make us think about David. Matthew isn’t simply using crowds following and Christ ascending and teaching “ethic” to make us think about Moses. Christ himself provides Matthew the opportunity to write those things because Christ himself is orchestrating the event to in a way that brings to mind the imagery of David and Moses. The very one who gave the law to Moses on the first mount, the very one who chose David over Saul, is the one who, in the fullness of times, ascends a mount and sits down to teach and dwell among His people.

Again, much ink has been spilled on the central thought of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:17-20. Entire movements and denominations are born and die over how this passage is interpreted. And to be honest, this presentation isn't going to solve an issue that has divided the church since Christ ascended to David's throne.

Of all of these issues that arise out of this passage, I want to briefly mention one and then look at the second. The first is what to do about the word "abolish". At this point, I'm really going to cut a lot of scholarship and debate off at the chase to suggest that when it comes to both "abolish" and "fulfill", we must take into account the point in redemptive history in which the statement occurred, even as we must take into account the point in redemptive history and revelation into which Matthew writes. The latter occurs much later than the former, and we must consider both if we want to get it right.

This is not a light matter. Even some who see Torah Incarnate in the Sermon on the Mount, especially Davies, Gibbs and Lloy, interpret Christ's statement here as reason to affirm Christ's reinforcement of the Law in the New Covenant. They stumble of the New Testament’s use of Old Testament law. And indeed most of the Reformed world in which we move and reside takes Christ's statement about not abolishing the law as a transcendent universal statement, good for all times, all ages, all people everywhere.

The question is this: is this how the rest of the New Testament understands Christ's relationship to the Law? The answer is no. For time sake, I really think the key to understanding "abolish" and the reality for us today is found in 2 Corinthians 3, Hebrews 8-9, and Ephesians 2 (the latter I believe is the defining statement about the abolishment of the law). If 2 Corinthians 3, Hebrews 8-9, and Ephesians 2 are saying what we affirm here them to be saying, what do we make of Christ's statement, especially since the scriptures are not contradictory. At the end of the day, what we're affirming (something I pressed back against for a long time) is that Christ says "I have not come to abolish" and in fact, in his death and Resurrection indeed did abolish the law.

There are two ways to answer this dilemma, either of which may be true at the same time. The first is to understand Christ's statement as non-universal and confined to that period of time in which the statement occurred redemptive-historically. At that point in Christ's ministry, his purposes did not included the abolishment of the law, although it isn't too long into the Matthean narrative that Christ proclaims himself to be Lord of the Sabbath. While at that time Christ's purposes were not to abolish the law, before it was all said and done, this is precisely what he had done. Christ is not being deceptive. He is merely affirming that as long as His ministry continued, by and large, He was going to submit himself to the law as under the law. I realize that's a point that not all of us agree on, but I believe this is one of the answers to the dilemma because of what I believe to be true about the word "fulfill", which I'll get to in a minute.

The other way to answer this dilemma I think is more fundamental, more basic to what we are proposing in New Covenant theology. And that's that there's a sense in which the law and the prophets, even as the Old Testament has been abrogated as obsolete, has been subsumed in the One who filled it up. There is a sense in which the law and the prophets, the Old Testament, has not been made obsolete because those types and shadows now find their home in the One who brought all of their meaning to fruition. This doesn’t mean there hasn’t been a change in form or hasn’t been a change in the way that we relate to the Old Testament or the law. It simply means that the Old Testament “lives on” so to speak in the Person who fulfilled it, and in that sense, we can say the Law or the Prophets have not been abolished.

This is also the answer to a fundamental question posed by those in Covenant Theology: how is it that David and other OT writers referred to the law as eternal, especially if we are going to insist that the law has faded away, been made obsolete, and has been abolished? There are places in the Old Testament where David and the prophets make reference to an eternal covenant that has been made with Israel, and their context for the statement is the Mosaic Law.

If the Mosaic Law has been abolished (Ephesians 2:15, 2 Corinthians 3, Hebrews 8-10, Galatians 3-4), how is it that it can be said to be eternal (also see Romans 3:19)? Much of Reformed theology, especially from Calvin onward, affirm the Mosaic law as still in force, in part because of some of the statements about the covenant being eternal. The three categories (civil, ceremonial, and moral) were invented as a means of dealing with this issue (they’re dubious attempts to “exegete” them from scripture notwithstanding).

The answer is that the Law, not in its form, not in its Old Covenant stipulations, but in its essence, that which revealed the eternal character of God, lives on in a Person who has filled up the law to its fullest measure. And it's interesting, on that point about the Law being Incarnate, Gibbs and Lloy and a host of others, do agree with us. The One who originally penned the law and wrote the law to begin with continues the Law in His Person, even as the terms and the form are changed in the New Covenant. The law has faded away and become obsolete, because the One who fingered the original law on the first Sinai has filled it up to its fullest measure. But as I argue in just a moment, this filling up the Law in the fullness of time is progressive; that filling up will not be complete until after Christ’s death and resurrection. Since it is progressive, there is a sense in which Christ can say, at this point in redemptive history, he has not come to abolish the Law. Such abolishment will not occur until his death and resurrection have been accomplished.

Christ is law Incarnate, and eternally so. I bring this up because I don’t think those of us in New Covenant theology have done a very good job at answering this question as to how the Mosaic Covenant or Law can be considered “eternal”, especially when he says here in the Sermon on the Mount, “I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I think NCT has had a tendency to simply wipe this issue under the rug. But I believe this question of the law’s eternality is a legitimate question. For instance, in Romans, in the context of a discussion about “law”, Paul says the law makes all men (meaning all men everywhere in all times and in all places) accountable (Romans 3:19) to God. How is that? We have our answer, which I will more fully develop shortly. Because the Person holding all men accountable *is* the Law. When the sheep and the goats are divided, Christ doesn’t have to whip out the Mosaic law from the Old Testament in order to judge men. Christ, by His very nature, Person, and work, provides the context for the division of the sheep and the goats.

In fact, I think we can argue that the finality of the Mosaic law’s form consummates a few years after Christ’s death. And a tip off to that thought occurs in Matthew. He has an allusion to the law becoming abolished. Now, I want to state up front that I’m not going to fully develop this thought. I just want to put it on the table and suggest that more work needs to be done in this area. “I have not come to abolish the law, I am here as a lawkeeper. But oh, by the way, there will come a point in time, sooner rather than later, in which the law will be abolished”.

Remember, this word “abolish” is the same word that is translated as “destroy”. The allusion is found in Matthew 27:40, and verse 40 is set up by verse 20:

Matthew 27:20: “Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus.” Matthew here is setting up a juxtaposition in this chapter.

Matthew 27:40: “And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” Now, unlike John, Matthew places this quote on the lips of his accusers.

This quote had shown up in Christ’s trial as an accusation (and not coincidentally, is the same accusation lodged against Stephen in his trial; compare Matthew 26:61 with Acts 6:14). We know the witnesses at Christ’s trial to be false witnesses in the sense that Christ had done nothing wrong; but the accusation in and of itself is completely accurate. We know this because of the account John provides us in John 2. And here on Golgotha the accusation shows up again in the form of mockery (it’s also another form of Satan’s temptation; compare Matthew 27:40 with Matthew 4:5).

The religious leaders who held the trial persuaded the crowd to “release Barabbas and destroy Jesus”. And the irony is in Matthew’s juxtaposition. Even as they “destroy” Jesus (as he had suggested in John 2), Christ is “destroying” the temple, or at least setting the stage for it to be destroyed (in A.D. 70). And certainly, this is how Stephen understood it, if we follow what he unpacks in his sermon (Acts 7).

Now, there is more than this simple juxtaposition taking place in Matthew. This thought of “destroying” temple is connected to the word “abolish” in Matthew 5:17. And this is where more work needs to be done. One cannot have “temple” without “law”. The two are inseparable. The giving of the law resulted in the creation of the tabernacle and “law” regulated everything that occurred in the tabernacle. This is reiterated when David dedicated the tabernacle after bringing the ark of the covenant back to it (1 Chronicles 17:40), it’s confirmed at Solomon’s dedication of the temple (2 Chronicles 6:14-17), and it’s a central thought in the entire account of Josiah’s “discovery” of the law in the temple (2 Chronicles 34:14ff). Temple and law were inseparably bound to each other. So much so, that in Matthew’s use of “abolish” and “destroy”, to “destroy” the temple is to “abolish” the law. What we have in the destruction of the temple, embodied in the “destruction” of Christ’s “temple”, is the ending of the Mosaic law (and covenant: the end of the temple signals the end of the Mosaic covenant). The old law has given way to a new One, Christ himself. And the upshot of Matthew’s connection between Matthew 5:17 and 27:40, for our discussion within and without New Covenant Theology, is that Christ’s statement in Matthew 5:17 cannot be understood as a universal. There is an eschatological trajectory to the 5:17 statement which is connected to Christ’s work on the cross. Christ is not positing a truism for all places, all people, and all time, at least at it relates to the Mosaic form of the law. It must be understood within and limited to the framework of his place and his ministry in that moment in redemptive history. -- crb, "The Sermon on the Mount and the Old Testament"

Owen: "Grow in that desire of coming to Christ, and you will conquer the unwillingness of death."

“Philippians 1:23…’Having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ… I have a strong bent and inclination of Spirit’.  The is that which in Scripture is used for ‘lust’ and ‘concupiscence;’ that is always working with strong bent and inclination.  ‘It is not a desire that sometimes befalls me, now and then, when in trouble, sickness, or pain; but I have a habitual, constant inclination.’  Unto what?  ‘…to depart’, to leave this body.  It is usually translated in the passive, ‘I have a desire to be dissolved.’  But the plain meaning of the word is this, ‘I do desire that contexture of my nature may be reduced unto its distinct principles, -- may be analyzed.’

"Now, analysis is the reducing of a speech from the present contexture into its proper, distinct principles.  Then, here lies the difficulty.  I told you the soul hath an aversation to this dissolution; and yet the apostle saith, ‘I have a continual strong inclination to it.’  To what?  Pray observe it, -- ‘To be with Christ.’  I have no inclination to be dissolved as the end, but only as the means for another end, that without it I cannot be with Christ.  There is my end.  And so far with respect to that end, that which is in itself no object of inclination becomes an object of desire. 

"Brethren, I know no man dies willingly, - no man living can have an habitual inclination to close cheerfully with this dissolution, -- but by looking upon it as a means to come to the enjoyment of Christ.  I tell you, your bodies are better to you than all the world, than all your goods, or any thing else.  But Christ is better to the soul than any thing: and therefore, unless it be for the enjoyment of Christ, let men pretend what they will, there is no man willing to part with the body, -- to be dissolved.  Grow in that desire of coming to Christ, and you will conquer the unwillingness of death."  -- John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Vol. IX, p. 349

The Sermon on the Mount and the Old Testament: Part 2

The following is from a presentation given at this week's New Covenant Theology think tank in Angola, New York at New Covenant Baptist Fellowship. This is part 2.

The Possibilities proposed for Old Testament

All sorts of possibilities have been proposed for understanding the Old Testament context for the Sermon on the Mount. Is this a "New Moses"? The prevailing thought for much of 20th century scholarship on the sermon has landed in this camp. Then along came Kingsbury and others who challenged that notion by putting forward the idea that Christ as the "Son of God" provides context for the Sermon. Liberal scholarship has tended toward seeing Jesus as the New, Great Rabbi teaching Israel about his view and interpretation of the Law, come to raise the standard of morality in Israel. Closely related to the view of Christ as the greatest of the Rabbis, is Christ as Wisdom, the one who both teaches and embodies the ancient wisdom of Israel in a fresh new way. And there are other views. Is Christ a New Israel re-enacting the Exodus from Egypt? Is the New Exodus a paradigm for Matthew? Is Christ a New Adam come to restore or renew the creative order? A New Moses come to rescue His people from Egypt? The Son of David come to claim His throne? Is this the Suffering Servant come to provide hope and healing to a nation? All of these ideas have their proponents, and most have some very good exegetical justification.

Then, once we have argued about how Matthew understands Christ in this context (or even how Christ understands himself for that matter), then the sparks begin to fly as we argue over just what Christ is doing with the Law in this Sermon. Is this a recapitulation or reinforcement of the Mosaic law with the ultimate, Divine stamp of approval? Is this reinforcement with the ultimate, Divine interpretation of the Law? Is Christ modifying the Law? Is He superseding the Law? Is he ratcheting up the Law's demands, making it more severe? Is He raising the bar? Is Christ giving us brand new law? Is Christ delivering New Torah in the Sermon on the Mount? Has Christ given us a new book of wisdom? Is Christ giving us a new perspective on the book of Moses?

To their credit, those whose views that have gained the most traction in the evangelical community have attempted to provided the exegetical support for their positions. Some of these ideas have more warrant than others in the text. In fact, other than the totally "divineless" Great Rabbi of liberal apostates, most of the attempts at understand the Old Testament context for Christ in Matthew arise from thoughts that are present in Matthew, if not the whole of the Gospel Witness in the synoptics and John. So the question isn't really about which one isn't here, but which view or views seem to be best reflected in the text. It is with this last question in mind that we proceed. This is not about proving one thing to the exclusion of all others, but attempting to allow the text to speak to us about the Old Testament context.

Before we move on I will state up front, for those who get really irritated at speakers who leave the main things for last, that what I believe is the context for the Sermon and for the book of Matthew is "the Son who would be King". This isn't to say that the idea of Moses isn't present. This isn't to say that the idea of Rabbi or Wisdom isn't present. But this book moves from David's geneology to Magi-King to Baby King to the inscription over the cross, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews" to "all authority has been given to me".

Old Testament backdrop: use of OT

It would also be really easy to spend a lot of time developing the Old Testament backdrop for the book of Matthew; and in a very real way, one must do this at some point to arrive at the context being used by Matthew in narrating for us the Sermon on the Mount. We are not going to do that here, but we will briefly mention four important details for our study.

The first is that Matthew begins his gospel with "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David". It's interesting. This language is almost verbatim from the toledots in Genesis, leading some to conclude that Matthew is beginning to chronicle here the new creation. I concur insofar as Matthew 1 sets up the birth of Christ as a new beginning, a new era. However, this new creation doesn't begin with Adam, but Abraham, and its trajectory is David.

And David is where Matthew is headed. He develops the genealogy along David's ancestry, and ultimately lands the story in Bethlehem, the city of David. It is here that Magi-kings bestow king gifts to a baby, "born King of the Jews". It becomes hard to ignore the idea that Matthew wants us to believe that Jesus is heir to David's throne and recipient of all the covenant promises that were given to David. Were it not for the fact that Christ ascends a mount to deliver ethical discourse, those who are inclined to see Moses would probably be more inclined to see David here.

Come walk with me through Matthew:
o Matthew 1:1: "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
o Matthew 1:6: "…and Jesse the father of David the king…"
o Matthew 1:17: "So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations."
o Matthew 1:20: "But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
o Matthew 2:1-2: "Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
o Matthew 2:3-5 "When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet: “‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’”
o Matthew 4:17: "From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (More on this in a minute).
o Matthew 4:23: "And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people."

From the very beginning of his eyewitness account of the Christ, the Messiah, Matthew is bent on us (and those in the early church) reading his account understanding that this Messiah *is* the Promised King who is the final heir to David’s throne.

The second detail important for us is found in Matthew 2:15 where Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1, in speaking of Joseph fleeing to Egypt, "out of Egypt I have called my son." Again, much could be said here. But as Matthew develops the story of this new Son of David, something much bigger is in play: Christ as the One who will live out Israel's story as the Son of God, even as Israel was a "son of God" (unlike John's "Son of God, which places Christ's deity in the foreground, and Luke's "son of God" which places Christ as the New Adam into the foreground, here, "son of God" places Christ as the New Israel in the foreground). This Son of God also moves through the Matthean text in a trajectory to the cross where on the lips of the Roman centurion, "truly this was the Son of God".

Matthew chronicles for us that Israel’s champion, Israel’s incarnational representative, is miraculously brought up out of Egypt, and then… if we were to follow Matthew's narrative further into chapter 3, this Son that has undergone an Exodus from Egypt, then moves through the Red Sea, through the baptismal waters, into the desert where he is tested and tempted for 40 years; just kidding… 40 days; So that by the time we get to chapter 5, this one who has been brought up out of Egypt, through the baptismal waters, in the desert, has now ascended a mountain. And it is on this mountain that one better than Moses beckons Israel to draw near; it is on this mountain that THE Son of David ascends and sits down, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom (4:23).

The third thing we need to see is that this book not only moves from the genealogy of David to the King of the Jews, and the son called out of Egypt to the Son of God, but also moves from the promised One, Emmanuel, God with us in Matthew 1 to Matthew 28, I am with you always, to the end of the age. The heir to David's throne has come to reside with His people forever, and through His death and resurrection brings it to pass. This Emmanuel not only takes up his residence with Israel, but this Emmanuel lives out the history of Israel as a Son bringing about the justice and peace that Israel could not.

Again, this is not to say that Moses or Wisdom or any of the other typological motifs are being used in Matthew. This is only to say that wherever we turn in this book, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, we are going to see one or two or three of these being highlighted in the text.

There is a fourth, which is related to Christ being the Son of David, that we will spend the next few moments looking at...

Old Testament backdrop: use of OT (Isaiah 9)

While the main body of the book of Matthew begins in 4:17, with the Sermon on the Mount being the first big event in that portion of the book, the verses preceding 4:17 contain an Isaianic prophecy that gives context to the rest of the book, especially the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 4:8-17
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “ ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’ ” Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him. Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. And leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles— the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned.” From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

It would be really easy to limit this prophecy to Matthew's immediate concern, that of Christ's explicit fulfillment of Isaiah in moving from Nazareth to Galilee. Further, it would also be really easy to limit the scope of Matthew's use of Isaiah.

Matthew 4:15-16 quotes Isaiah 9:1-2 nearly verbatim. Christ's move to Capernaum from Nazareth is understood in light of the words of Isaiah: "But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined." This One come to save His people from their sins is moving into new territory. Having conquered Satan through testing in the wilderness, this Son come from Egypt is tracing new boundaries, boundaries that include both Jew and Gentile.

But the move to Capernaum is more than predictively noteworthy. Matthew once again uses the word "fulfilled" in quoting Isaiah (see Matthew 1:22, 2:15,23, 3:15, and 5:17). This Jesus who has conquered Satan in the wilderness and is now moving the theatre to Capernaum is one who is filling up to its fullest measure and bringing to fruition the intended purposes of Isaiah 9. In the fullness of redemptive history's climax (Galatians 4:4), it is this child who has been born, this Son who has been given, who is a light to the nations. This Jesus emerging victorious from the wilderness, moving from Nazareth to Galilee, is the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace whose government is on His shoulder… bringing justice to Jew and Gentile alike.

This one moving from Nazareth to Capernaum isn't simply one making predictions come true. This promised Messiah, the One who will save His people from their sins, is the promised heir to the Davidic throne, the Davidic heir promised in Isaiah 9. The Davidic anticipation from Isaiah 9 comes to fruition in the One born in Bethlehem, "king of the Jews". It is the One moving from Nazareth to Capernaum, this One who will be identified with the Galileeans, is heir to a Davidic throne where the government shall be upon his shoulder, (whose) "name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." This Jesus, moving from Nazareth to Capernaum, is the heir to the throne of David and David's kingdom, of which the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end. This beloved Son in whom the Father is well pleased, moving from Nazareth to Capernaum, the Galileean is the very same One who not only is heir to the throne of David, but will establish that throne and will uphold that throne with justice and with righteousness from Matthew's time and forevermore. No, this isn't simple predictive history coming true. This is Christ filling up Isaiah 9 to its fullest measure as the One of whom, for whom, and through whom Isaiah 9 was written.

Old Testament backdrop: use of OT (Isaiah 42)

However, more than Isaiah 9 is in play here in Matthew 4, and this becomes important as we move to the Sermon on the Mount in chapter 5. In the move from Nazareth to Capernaum, Matthew sees the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, the heir to David's throne who will bring justice.

It swings on the turn of a word. Matthew doesn't simply quote Isaiah 9. In the ESV which we use @ Clearcreek Chapel the English word chosen for this passage in Matthew, the right one I think, masks the literal definition which provides "nuance" to the Emmanuel idea in view here. This one coming will not simply dwell among his people, but will "sit" among his people. The word is "to sit", and this phrase isn't taken from Isaiah 9, but from Isaiah 42, where we read, "I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness. I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other…"

There you have it, right there in the purview of Matthew 4 and ultimately Matthew 5. This Jesus moving from Nazareth to Capernaum, this Jesus who comes preaching and teaching the gospel of the kingdom, this Jesus who takes up residence as he sits among his people is a Covenant given to the people, a light for the nations, giving sight to the blind, and giving freedom to the shackled. This Jesus, who is being followed by great crowds, ascends the Mount and "sits down" among His people.

Matthew's use of Isaiah in chapter 4, pulling in Isaiah 9 and 42 as he leads into the Sermon on the Mount, pushes us to see the Suffering Servant, the heir to the Davidic throne, as the One who delivers the Sermon on the Mount. The language of Isaiah 42 has already set Matthew up for this… the Suffering Servant, the Israel of God (Isaiah 49:3), is the heir to David's throne (Isaiah 9:7). And it's this Davidic heir who will be a covenant, inaugurating a new covenant: Isaiah 55:1 says this: “Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food. Incline your ear, and come to me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David."

There is so much to be said here but so little time. We begin to hear echoes of the Sermon on the Mount. Those who "hunger and thirst for righteousness" will be forever satisfied. The one who has ears to hear, "incline your ear; listen diligently". The Suffering Servant, the Covenant for the People, the One who is wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities, the One who was crushed and put to grief, ascends the Mount, sits down on his throne among His people, and begins what will be the making of a Covenant with His people, satisfying their most basic longings, cravings, and appetites.

It is this Suffering Servant, this manna from heaven (Matthew 4:4), satisfying the hunger and thirst of those who seek God's righteousness, who ascends another mountain at the end of the book of Matthew, and as the New David, proclaims to His disciples, that He has been given all kingdom authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). It is this Davidic King, who has been granted all authority in His resurrection, who in Matthew 29 (ha!), ascends to His rightful throne as David's heir.

Sermon on the Mount OT: Rabbi?

At this point a couple of things should be said about two other ways to see the typology of Christ being put forth by Matthew. The first is this: Many commentators have suggested that, in ascending the mount, sitting down, and beginning to teach his disciples, that Christ here is assuming the posture of a Jewish rabbi who dispenses wisdom, divinely inspired wisdom, with his students. W.D. Davies and others have pointed out that this is not likely, though still part of the imagery here. It's not likely because in Matthew, the only ones who refer to Jesus as Rabbi are the skeptics and unbelievers. Those who are his disciples, other than Judas, assign other titles and labels to Christ, especially "Lord", again a reference to Christ's claim to David's throne. As an aside, the fact that Judas is the only disciple to refer to Christ as Rabbi is a tip off that Matthew is number Judas among those who are not kingdom citizens. However, we must grant that the imagery here, among other things does suggest that of a great rabbi, although I would propose that the Jewish Rabbi is not in view here. Again, keeping the Son of God/Son of David in front of us here, there is one greater than Solomon who sits on that mount, perfecting and fulfilling the Son who is to know wisdom in the fear of the Lord. This is never more apparent than Christ's story of the wise man and foolish man, which has shadow/fulfillment of Proverbs written all over it.

Sermon on the Mount OT: Moses?

The other one we must comment on is Moses. By far, most of the literature and most of the scholarship centers on Christ as a Moses figure, especially in light of the Israel in the Red Sea and wilderness imagery of chapter 3. And certainly, it is hard to escape the image of One ascending a mount, dispensing ethic, and using some of the finer points of the law in contrast and comparison as Christ does in the antithesis of Matthew 5:21ff. Christ specifically interacts with the Law in chapter 5:18. And those like Davies who want to dismiss the Moses imagery are unable to do so altogether because the witness of the text is playing against them. Kingsbury, Cater, and others dispense with Moses entirely, and I find that problematic.

The answer to this problem, is this Moses or is this David, is found in understanding the nature of typology in the Old Testament and how that typology is fulfilled in Christ in the New. Without going off on a rabbit chase about how this occurs, one thing we must keep in front of us is that Christ is the Yes and Amen of Revelation, the All in All of scripture. Very often, the New Testament authors, and Christ himself… in fact, he does this as much as any of them, are conflating and collapsing imagery of the Old Testament into One Person, Jesus Christ. In this sense, we must avoid the either/or trap that seems to occupy so many. It really is a both/and. It is both David and Moses. However, Moses is not the dominant image here. David is. The problem here is that too many do not readily see the dispensing of ethic (again, this is the way the Sermon is commonly portrayed) as an idea attached to a King. Yet over and over again in the Old Testament, especially the prophets, this is precisely connected to the Ruler that is coming… someone who will give wisdom, someone who will promote justice and righteousness. That, among other things, *is* ethic. This coming Ruler is greatly interested in the ethics of His people; it's why He is going to give them a new heart. It's why He is going to give His Spirit and cause them to obey.

For lack of a better term, it is good for us to see here a David-Moses. This is the “son of David”, the One born “king of the Jews” assuming the posture of One who has authority, and as the Sermon unfolds, One who has ultimate and supreme authority. Moses had authority because it was he that the Israelites considered to be the giver of the law. Moses was revered because he was assumed to have divine authority (especially after the little spat with Miriam and Aaron). But this Moses on the Mount in Matthew is invested with Davidic authority, the authority of a throne. This David Moses isn't simply giving ethic. This David-Moses is describing the kingdom citizen and the kingdom citizen's life. At the bookend of this sermon Matthew tells us that the “crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority and *not* as their scribes”.

This king, this David-Moses comes proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, a kingdom that is not of this world, a kingdom that imposes itself on this world, a kingdom that does not look like the kingdoms of this world. This David Moses comes offering a righteousness that the original Moses could not provide. -- crb

The Sermon on the Mount and the Old Testament: Part 1

The following is from a presentation given at this week's New Covenant Theology think tank in Angola, New York at New Covenant Baptist Fellowship.

Introduction

I am convinced more than ever that a proper understanding of the Sermon on the Mount is fundamental to New Covenant Theology. This study has been a blast. There are things here in this text in Matthew that I've seen for the first time. And I've become convinced that much of the error surrounding this passage occurs simply because people don't allow the text to speak for itself.

The Sermon on the Mount's Old Testament backdrop is as controversial as it is colorful. If the Sermon is the most argued about passage in the scriptures, one fundamental reason is the wide diversity of opinion regarding it's place in redemptive history. How one understands this Sermon's relationship to the Old Testament has a fundamental impact on just about every facet of the Christian experience, from one's understanding of redemptive history to how one worships on Sunday to how one relates to God, brothers and sisters in Christ, the unbelieving neighbor, and the world at large. Simply put: a Christian's view of the Sermon's relationship to the Old Testament is bound up with his or her self-identity and worldview.

That the Old Testament and the Old Covenant have an interest in the Sermon on the Mount we will treat as a given here. One need look no further than those statements found in chapter 5 which theologians have labeled "the antitheses". All six of the antitheses are predicated in Old Testament law. Each of the "you have heard it said" statements employs an Old Testament quote before moving on to the "but I say to you" addendum, the interpretation of which has enflamed so much controversy. There are other quotes and allusions to the OT in the Sermon, but the so-called antitheses are certainly the most notable.

More important is Christ's statement in Matthew 5:17, where Christ says "do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Here Christ brings the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament to bear on the entire Sermon. And it is this statement, I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, that gives rise to the antitheses in the verses following, which themselves arise from the Law of the Old Testament. So the Old Testament not only provides context for the Sermon on the Mount, it's actually being quoted in the Sermon on the Mount.

The question then becomes, how does Christ understand his own Sermon in the context of the Old Testament? And the second, closely related, is how does Matthew understand Christ and His sermon in the context of the Old Testament? Before those questions can be answered, the structure, context, and purpose must be considered.

The Structure of the Sermon

While proposals for the Sermon's structure are as diverse as the interpretations of it, I'm of the opinion that its structure can be fairly easy to ascertain, while at the same time, making sense of the structure is a little more difficult.

Introduction: 4:23-5:1
Beatitudes: 5:2-10
Salt and Light: 5:11-16
I have come to fulfill: 5:17-20
Antitheses: 5:21-48
Father who sees in secret (Lord's Prayer): 6:1-18
Laying up Treasures: 6:19-24
7 imperatives: 6:25-7:23
Those who hear these words of mine: 7:24-27
Conclusion: 7:28-8:1

I am not convinced that the Sermon can be easily sectioned into 5 books of Moses, as some commentators have proposed, much like some have proposed that the book of Matthew is also divided into 5 books (although there seems to be a "panel" structure to Matthew following along the series of "when he had finished" statements… 7:28, 11:1, 13:53, 19:1, 26:1). Nor am I completely convinced that a chiasm is present here in the Sermon on the Mount, although there are tell-tale signs of one. Both the introduction and conclusion have parallelisms, as do the Beatitudes and the wise man/foolish man parable. There is also parallelism with the "Law or Prophets" of 5:17 with "Law and Prophets" of 7:12. At the very least, the introduction and conclusion make the Sermon very easy to section off from the rest of the book of Matthew, especially when the conclusion includes the first of the "when he had finished" statements.

If this is a chiasm, then the midpoint of this sermon, its "climax", is 5:48 (unlike many chiastic proponents who see the Lord's Prayer as the point of the climax). And there are a couple of reasons why this makes sense: it is reflective of not only a recurrent theme in the Sermon (5:6, 5:20, 6:33, 7:23 - in reverse), but also the main theme of the Sermon (5:20). 5:48 is the imperative form of the main theme found in 5:20… the necessity of having a righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.

Thus the righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees, the righteousness the blessed man hungers and thirsts after, the righteousness we are to pursue, the righteousness that sets itself over against all lawlessness, is to *be* perfect, even as the Father in heaven is perfect. Like much of the Sermon that reveals an indicative-imperative rhythm, 5:48 is the imperative form of what is stated in the indicative form in 5:20.

Structure of Matthew: Perfectly finished

Not only does 5:48 sit at the center of the Sermon's thrust, it is unpacked throughout the rest of the book. The greek word for "perfect" is the same word used in the literary markers that set off the 6 panels in Matthew: "finished".

Let's look at those statements:

7:28-8:1: "And when Jesus finished (perfected) these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching,… when he came down..."

11:1: "When Jesus had finished (perfected) instructing his twelve disciples, he went from there to teach and preach in their cities."

13:53-54: "And when Jesus had finished (perfected) these parables, he went away from there, and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogues, so that they were astonished."

19:1: "Now when Jesus had finished (perfected) these sayings, he went away from Galilee…and large crowds followed him, and he healed them there."

26:1: "When Jesus had finished (perfected) all these sayings, he said to his disciples…" Don't miss the word "all" here… there is an intention of Matthew to show that the finality of Christ's perfection of his work and teaching is coming.

Most of the main elements of 4:23 and 7:28 are present in the rest of these literary markers (the words or thoughts of "finished", "he went", and "teaching/preaching", "healing"). Listen to 4:23: "(Jesus) went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease… great crowds followed him". 7:28: "the crowds were astonished at his teaching", 11:1, Jesus "instructed" and "went to teach and preach", 13:53-54, Jesus "taught them in their synagogues" and "they were astonished", 19:1, "large crowds followed (Jesus) and he healed them…".

The first thing we can say is that these markers are completing what was begun in 4:23. Understood in light of the fulfillment talked about in Matthew 5:17, these literary markers point to an ongoing progressive fulfillment in the ministry and teaching of Jesus Christ.
What was started in 4:23 is continued and "perfected" through the rest of the book… this "perfecting" of what was started in 4:23 has everything to do with "being perfect, as *His* heavenly Father is perfect, with a "righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees". What was started in 4:23, and is being perfect throughout the rest of the book has everything to do with perfecting the righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees, a righteousness after which we hunger and thirst. This perfecting throughout the book of Matthew has everything to do with providing kingdom citizens with the satisfaction of our deepest longings, cravings, and appetites (Charles Dennison).

Thus, the theme of Christ's righteousness is tied to the unfolding of the events of the book of Matthew, especially in regards to those literary markers, the teaching of Christ. 5:48 helps provide interpretive context for the series of "finished" statements.

One final note about 5:48. It too has an Old Testament backdrop. We will say more about this later. But not enough attention has been given to Christ's use of Leviticus 11:45 in the Sermon, especially with 5:48 sitting at the point of the chiasm like it is.

The Context of the Sermon

The immediate context of the Sermon is found in Matthew 4 verses 23ff. In fact, there is such fluidity between these 3 verses and the Sermon, one would not be mistaken to think that the entire Sermon canopy begins in 4:23.

Matthew 4:23ff… this is what Jesus Christ proclaims to his people through His Word:
And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them. And great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis, and from Jerusalem and Judea, and from beyond the Jordan. Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." -- Matthew 4:23-5:20

In the development of the Sermon on the Mount as an important passage for understanding the New Covenant, little attention is given by commentators, pastors, and theologians to the passage immediately preceding the Sermon. And this is unfortunate, for it is there that we find the historical and theological context for the Sermon, as well as allusion to its Old Testament underpinnings.

The first thing we can say about this immediate context is that Christ has the ear of the whole Jewish world. The whole world is his stage, even if it is Israel who is the intended audience. Note the parallels: "he went throughout all Galilee" and "his fame spread throughout all Syria". These two are simultaneous events. As Christ does one, the other is being accomplished. And note the language as to *who* takes note of Christ "going" all over Galilee and his fame being spread through all of Syria: "great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis, and from Jerusalem and Judea, and from beyond the Jordan". North, East, West, and South… this is a description of what had been the land of the twelve tribes of Israel. Even as Christ's fame has spread beyond the borders of old Israel, Israel itself has taken notice of this one named Jesus.

The second thing we must note is Christ's activity… and this becomes important as we consider the Sermon and its relationship to the OT. Verse 23: And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people." This activity that has Israel's ear, is threefold: teaching, proclaiming, and healing. Much, much more could be said about how this threefold activity of Christ unfolds throughout the rest of the book of Matthew. And there will be more to say about how this activity drips with Old Testament significance and fulfillment. But, what we need to see at this point of our discussion, is that it is this activity that leads into Christ's ascent of the mountain to deliver his Sermon. Christ ascends the mount to teach. What he delivers is the gospel of the kingdom, and in bringing the gospel of the kingdom to his people, brings healing to those who have ears to hear. And he does it in didactic, unilateral or unidirectional, and incarnational form. Christ teaches the gospel of the kingdom in dialogue. Christ preaches the gospel of the kingdom in unidirectional monologue. And Christ incarnates the gospel of the kingdom in healing the sick. That threefold activity consumes Christ throughout the course of his life on earth.

The third thing of note here are the "crowds". Not only do the crowds provide a linchpin between this last part of chapter 4 and the Sermon on the Mount, but the crowds also provide a bookend to the end of the Sermon. Notice the language: "great crowds followed him…" and "seeing the crowds"…. And chapter 8 verse 1: "great crowds followed him…" What we have leading into the Sermon in the immediate context is a total engagement of Israel with this phenomenon named Jesus. What occurs here and throughout the rest of the book of Matthew hasn't been confined to one subgroup of Israel. It hasn't been relegated to a select few. This Person from Galilee has gathered and united Israel with his proclamation of the kingdom.

And the last thing to note is the content of that proclamation: the gospel of the kingdom. More on that in just a moment.

The Purpose of the Sermon

We've only begun to note the context of the Sermon in Matthew, and it's probably a little early in the discussion to posit the purpose of the Sermon, at least in the fullest sense of purpose. To flesh out all of the questions regarding the Matthean use of the Sermon and why it occurs where it does in Matthew is beyond the scope of this presentation. In order to get at its purpose, we must ask questions such as 1. How does the Sermon serve the larger purpose of the book of Matthew? 2. What is the purpose of the book of Matthew? 3. Why does it occur earlier rather than later in the book? 4. What is the relationship between the Sermon and chapters 4 and 8 of Matthew, those chapters and events that immediately precede and follow the Sermon? And there are other contextual questions we could ask that would help us understand the purposes of the Sermon on the Mount.

The question we will attempt to contain ourselves to in this presentation is this: 5. How does the use of the Old Testament (by both Matthew and Christ) help us understand the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount? In order to get at "purpose", though, we must begin with the Sermon and its immediate context itself. The structure of the Sermon should serve up for us, a cursory stab at the goals and intent of Matthew and Jesus in the Sermon.

There are four items of note in regard to structure and immediate context:

The good news of the kingdom

Chapter 4, verse 23: And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.

The first thing that we want to see is that the Sermon on the Mount is the good news of the kingdom. It contains the gospel. The Sermon unfolds for us just what it is that Jesus is teaching and proclaiming. Look at verse 2: And he opened his mouth and taught them. At the very least, Matthew is linking the sermon to Christ's activity of "teaching" in 4:23. But he also goes to the pain of describing Christ as "opening his mouth", a description that over the course of the scriptures portrays proclamation. So this Sermon is an unpacking of the content of Christ's teaching and preaching (4:17 as well) the gospel of the kingdom.

And this isn't simply the "gospel". This is the "gospel of the kingdom". The Sermon has everything to do with the ushering in of a new world order, a new era. This message was on John's lips in Matthew 3:2, "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." And Jesus picks up John's message and carries it himself, in Matthew 4:17, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." This Sermon on the Mount is the message of the in-breaking of a kingdom that is not of this world.

As one who had authority

Just as the beginning of the Sermon helps us see purpose, so too does the end. Verse 28: And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority and not as their scribes. When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. Much has been written about what this is telling us about Jesus and the Sermon, and we won't unpack that here; but this very last phrase, "great crowds followed him" is identical to chapter 4:25 and the lead-in into the Sermon. Matthew here, among other things, is providing a bookend to the proclamation and teaching of the gospel of the kingdom.

Some commentators would prefer to say that the Sermon constitutes a collection of Christ's sayings throughout the course of Christ's ministry, collated by Matthew to serve Matthew's theology, ecclesiology, and history. But the bookend won't let us go there. "When Jesus finished these sayings" implies the end of an event. It is most likely that what we find in the Sermon does reveal the content of Christ's teaching and preaching over the course of his ministry, especially if one is inclined to believe the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:17ff) is not one and the same with the Sermon on the Mount. Even if it is true that this Sermon summarizes Christ's teaching, this Sermon is a singular unit. The bookend, among other things, forces us to conclude that this Sermon is an event. At an early stage of Christ's ministry, Christ delivers this Sermon to a people, Israel, in a singular and very significant *event*. This *event* is important to the life of Israel and to the church in redemptive history.

Thus, the structure not only helps us see the content of the proclamation and teaching of the gospel of the kingdom, but also helps us see the proclamation and teaching of the gospel of the kingdom as a significant event in redemptive history.

An exceeding righteousness

I've already alluded to a series of statements that occur within the Sermon itself that serve up for us the trajectory where Christ is taking both his immediate and extended audiences. These also help form the substructure to the sermon: 5:6, 5:20, 5:48, 6:33, and 7:23.

Let's look at those verses… these statements are all interconnected, helping unfold and unpack the Sermon:

5:6: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. This, not coincidentally, is the center point around which the rest of the Beatitudes revolve. The thrust of the Beatitudes, as blessing upon the kingdom citizen from the mouth of the King, is found in this: the satisfaction for those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, a righteousness, the later statements tell us is outside of the crowd's grasp, a righteousness that is not theirs.

5:20: "…unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven". I preached an entire sermon on this a few weeks back, so I would refer you to it on my blog. If there is a thesis statement to be found in the Sermon on the Mount, it is found in 5:17-20. The entire Sermon swings on this question about the kind of righteousness characteristic of the kingdom citizen. This righteousness is beyond the grasp of the kingdom citizen. It is not self-generated. Jesus comes proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, a kingdom that is not of this world, a kingdom marked by a righteousness that can only come from above. The crowds, who have come from North, South, East, and West in the land of old Israel, lack righteousness. And this Jesus who sits on the mount tells his people that unless their righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees, the kingdom is not for them (chapter 5 verse 20).

5:48: "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Not only is this a righteousness outside of their grasp, the demands of the law have not changed. The law demanded complete obedience. 5:48 occurs here as the imperative form of the indicative in 5:20. Those who gain entrance into heaven, must have a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. In order to have that righteousness which exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect."

6:33: "…seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." Just as 5:48 functions as an imperative form of 5:20, so too 6:33 functions as an imperative form for the indicative found in 5:6. The thrust of this verse is "hunger and thirst" after the kingdom of God and his righteousness. And it is here that we find the solution/resolution to the dilemma of 5:20 and 5:48. The righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees, the perfect righteousness demanded by God can only be found in God alone, or, more importantly, the One sitting before you on the Mount.

7:23: "…depart from me, you workers of lawlessness" (or anti-righteousness or unrighteousness). Here, "workers of lawlessness" function as the antithesis for those who are "blessed", hungering and thirsting after righteousness. Again, more on this in a moment.

So… along with the parallelisms noted earlier that help us see some semblance of a chiastic structure, this series of statements within the Sermon itself function like glue holding the structure of the Sermon together. Further, the repetition of the common theme here points us in the direction of Christ's intended purpose of the Sermon and connect the Sermon to the rest of the book of Matthew.

One of the upshots of this discussion to this point, is this: as much as we want to talk about ethic and the commentators want to posit the Sermon as "ethic" (and for good reason), don't miss the righteousness, the larger purpose the ethic is serving. We would be hard pressed to deny that an "ethic" is being delivered by Christ on the Mount. Some might want to go there. I don't think we can dismiss that thought. But even once we've agreed that there is ethic here, the question becomes (amid all sorts of controversy) is "what kind of ethic?" Regardless, while there is ethic, the structure of this Sermon points us away from coming to the conclusion that *ethic* drives the motivations of Christ (and Matthew) in the delivery of this Sermon and its incorporation into the text of Scripture.

The thought that runs to the heart of intent isn't "ethic" (contra the utilitarian or moralist worldviews that dominate a lot of the commentaries), but "righteousness". In this Sermon, "ethic" serves the purposes of "righteousness". "Ethic" flows out of "righteousness." Some who have understood this have charged Matthew (and Christ)himself with being "unfair" and even "unethical". Understood as subservient to the righteousness that God requires, this "ethic" becomes most severe, and indeed it is, outside of the One sitting at the top of the mount. But the "ethic" unpacked in the Sermon on the Mount *is* the answer as to what kind of righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees. It begins to form the "content" of that righteousness which exceeds the Pharisees. It's a vicious cycle… in order to have this kind of righteousness, one must live out the ethic. But the only way to live out the ethic, is to have the righteousness which exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. This "righteousness" dominates the landscape, and even the "ethic" delivered on the Mount serves its purposes.

"Blessed is the man"/"depart from me"

And the last bit of structure to briefly mention is one that occurs in the parallelism already mentioned. I briefly mention it here because I think we must keep this idea in front of us. Without going into all of the elements that make up a biblical covenant, other than the identification of the parties and the promises involved, the most notable elements of a covenant are the blessing and cursing elements. Blessing is promised upon the recipient based on certain conditions, and cursing is threatened upon the recipient based on certain violations of the agreement.

We have those elements present in the Sermon on the Mount, raising the possibility that this gospel of the kingdom, this ethic of the kingdom citizens, is laying the groundwork for the New Covenant. What we have in the Beatitudes constitute a "blessing" upon those kingdom citizens whose righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees. And what we have in the judgment of the Day of the Lord (*that day* is a reference to the "day of the Lord") are the curses of the covenant: "depart from me, I never knew you" and "great was the fall" of the house of those "who hear my words and do not do them". Given the fact that Christ completes all the terms and obligations contained in this Sermon, and given the fact that both the blessings and cursings of this Sermon fall on the One giving the Sermon, what we have in the Sermon are the beginnings of Torah and Covenant Incarnate. -- crb

Long Live the King

Luke 24:44-49:
Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.”

Acts 1:1-11:
The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”


Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”


Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

Throngs line the streets of London. Those who have not joined the tumult, like the little man Zaccheus in Christ’s day, have sought a better view from higher up… hanging out of win-dows, peering over rooftops. The buzz of anticipation courses through the humanity crowd-ing the roadway from London’s Tower to Westminster Abbey. For many, this is a once in a lifetime event. There will be no day like today. From the Tower to the Cathedral it is ALL about the procession. Soon, the buzz gives way to a roar… anticipation gives way to the thrill of the moment… the confetti, the streamers, and the music fill the senses with wonder and awe; the pomp and pageantry of a processional line bedazzles children and parents alike.

But it’s not the pomp and pageantry causing emotions to swell, throats to lump up, or tears to flow. No, the impetus and the cause for controlled bedlam is riding in the midst of the extravagant processional… this is a glorious ride, a ride of little boys and little girls dreams that ends, eventually, at the altar of Westminster Abbey. Awaiting the subject of the proces-sional and the cause for celebration is the Archbishop of Canterbury, who then commences with a swearing of an oath, a promise of allegiance from the nation's great and small. With great ceremony, that one who is cause for celebration, the one who has sworn to protect and defend the people is bestowed an orb, a scepter, and finally, a crown. But more important than the display of magnificent grandeur that speaks to the occasion, the recipient of the crown is no longer heir, but is in fact the beneficiary of a kingdom, the kingdom of the Brit-ish Crown, a kingdom that is worldwide in its scope. A king, his subject, and a kingdom crescendo with thunderous applause from the tumult: Long live the king. This, my friends, is a coronation day in England.

But this is also a day that we know very little about, nor do we hold in much esteem. It’s not just the fact that we are too young to remember the last coronation day in Britain. It really doesn’t matter much to us (other than amusing ourselves at the spectacle). You see, we are Americans and proudly so. And for the past 232 years, we have -- rightly or wrongly -- tossed aside the shackles of a monarch and the monarcy. And in doing so, while we seem to have avoided the tyrannical oppression of an abusive dictator by opting for a democratic republic that has been unmatched in history, I'm afraid we also have lost some of the significance of "king" and "kingdom". If we really understood them well, crowns, scepters, kings and kingdoms are earthly copies of a reality bigger than themselves (and interestingly enough, this connection between earth and heaven is engrained in the pomp and ceremony of the British coronation).

Understanding the Book of Acts

I bring this up for this reason... when it comes to the book of Acts and understanding the church's mission as it is described in Acts, we tend to miss the grand theme running through its narrative simply because we are Americans. How many of us, in reading this passage, think first of the kingdom language? Would it surprise us to find the kingdom and its mes-sage as a recurring theme through the book of Acts?

What Luke says about mission and kingdom doesn't mean all that much to us because it doesn't resonate with who we are as an American people group. In these opening pages of Luke’s second volume to Theophilus, we are confronted with this fact that though we are not people of the British Crown, we are most certainly people of A Crown. Yet more often than not, when Acts 1 is brought to our minds and we consider Christ’s commission of his church, a monarchy is quite distant from our thinking. But it is here in Acts 1. Christ spoke to his disciples “things pertaining to the kingdom”.

Now, the story of Acts 1 is a familiar story to most of us. Etched in many of our memories is the flannel graph picture of Jesus ascending in a cloud with a two angels promising a re-turn in the clouds. And if we were paying attention, we also heard the great commission all over again, this time with the promise of the Holy Spirit and a prediction that seemingly comes true: from Jerusalem to the end of the earth. And that’s all there is to this, right? Acts is the book about the gift of the Spirit because Jesus is gone, now his disciples are left to evangelize the world, and the church age gets underway, and for good measure… there are a bunch of miracles thrown in to help the people believe the disciples… right? Isn’t this what we’ve been told about Acts? Often we are led to believe that Acts is “what happened after Jesus left the building”.

But there’s more to the book of Acts than this. In fact, if this is what the book of Acts is about, and indeed if this is all there is to the church’s commission, then we have not really understood Luke at all.

There are some details in these opening paragraphs that we cannot miss if we are to rightly understand Luke and what he chronicles about the church’s mission.

Acts is a continuation

The first thing we need to see is that the book of Acts is a continuation of the book of Luke. Some have wondered if Luke is one book with two halves, two volumes that make up one series, or two distinct books written at two different times with Acts as a sequel. I tend to believe that what Luke is describing in these opening verses is the second in a series of two volumes that are to be understood as a complete unit. When Luke says, “In the first book, O Theophilus” and then moves on to what he has else to say to Theolophilus, he is connecting Acts to the Gospel of Luke in a very concrete way. So much so, that the first few verses of Luke not only function as an introduction to the Gospel of Luke, they function as an intro-duction to the book of Acts as well. Turn to Luke 1:1-4:

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

Just two things to note from Luke 1 for our study this morning from this passage. First, Luke says the content of his gospel is both “an orderly account” of and based on “eyewit-ness” accounts of Christ’s ministry, death, and resurrection. This is important because the witnesses of Acts 1 are the very witnesses from whom Luke has received his account. Luke is the beneficiary of those who become witnesses from Jerusalem to the end of the earth. And it isn’t merely Luke who is a beneficiary. Theophilus himself has been taught the same gospel of which the disciples were eyewitnesses.

The second thing we need to see here is that the certainty that gave rise to Luke’s motivation in writing his gospel is the same consideration for the book of Acts. Acts’ has in its purview not merely an accounting of what Theophilus is taught, but a certainty that is inherent to the very gospel being proclaimed by the eyewitnesses. Acts isn’t simply a record, nor does it merely contain patterns for the church *to do*. The book of Acts is life-giving gospel. Wo-ven into the very fabric of Luke’s account of the beginning of the church is the gospel; in fact it is the gospel that brings the church to life.

Christ’s continued mission

The literary connections between the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts lead us to the second major consideration of our Acts 1 text this morning. The book of Acts is Christ’s continued mission. Do not, and I repeat, do not miss the clever language chosen by Luke to link his gospel with the book of Acts: “In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach”. Here he does not say in the gospel he dealt with what Christ *did* and *taught*. No, the first book was just the beginning. The beginning of what? The beginning of Christ’s activity and teaching on earth. What you have in the gospel of Luke, Theophilus, is only the beginning of what Christ is doing and teaching on the earth. The inbreaking of heaven into the Bethlehem night sky announcing the Incarnation, God become man, is just the beginning. It’s not the end. There’s more, so much more that Christ is doing on the earth and here is the book of Acts as an accounting of it. In fact, while the disciples were witnesses to Christ’s ministry, death, and resurrection, I Luke, am an eyewitness of what Christ has been doing on the earth since that time. Christ’s activity of gathering a people for himself and His work on behalf of that people did not end with his death, resurrection, or even ascension. No, Christ has continued to be active in the affairs of His people. Thus, the book of Acts is not really the Acts of the Apostles as it is traditionally rendered. It is better understood as the Acts of Christ through His Spirit, or as John Stott so eloquently puts it, “The Continuing Words and Deeds of Jesus by His Spirit through His Apostles”.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that because Christ is no longer visible on earth that His activity has gone dormant, or, as we may be tempted to think, that Christ has passed the torch to the Spirit and now it is the Spirit’s turn to work. Acts is primarily about Jesus Christ. This doesn’t mean that this is not the age of the Spirit, for it indeed is that. But the Spirit has descended because Christ ascended and the Spirit is at work doing the deeds of Christ.

Christ’s continued kingdom message

And this point leads us into our third major consideration of our passage as we look forward to the rest of the book of Acts... because Acts contains the continuation of what Christ began to do and teach while he was walking among men, Christ’s kingdom message in Acts is a continuation of what was begun in the gospel of Luke. In the brief 40 days between Christ’s resurrection and ascension the body of Christ’s continuing education of his disciples is apparently two-fold: the kingdom of God, and wait for the promise of the Father, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The latter of these two things becomes more apparent in the last half of chapter 1 here and in chapter 2 of Acts… the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost becomes a foundational event in the church as a new creation of Christ in the New Covenant. But… we are not going to take up this part of the discussion this morning.

The first part of Christ’s message to his disciples is what we are looking at… verse 4… Chr-ist taught the kingdom of God, something that was true of his ministry on earth from the very beginning. Curious, isn’t it. If you had 40 days with the disciples before leaving their physical presence, what topic would you choose? Would it have been “kingdom”? Christ reaches for the very essence of who he is and what he has accomplished. This subject of kingdom doesn’t merely reach back to the early days of his ministry, or his cousin John the Baptist’s for that matter: repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. No, this reaches back to the very Messianic nature of the Incarnation. This reaches back to the very earliest of those grand promises, and indeed back to the garden. The gardenic mandate that had been forsaken in the fall was for man to have “dominion” over the earthly kingdom of God… and, as redemptive history unfolds beyond the garden, it isn’t long before Joseph is having dreams about a “ruler” to which all the other heavenly bodies will bow, and Jacob is prophesying that a scepter will come from Judah’s line. These prophets know that there would come One who would re-establish the dominion abdicated by Adam. There would come One who would perfectly fulfill that dominion mandate.

And this Messianic Ruler, as redemptive history moves along, is then tied to David and So-lomon… the House of David is promised a kingdom and a king whose rule and reign is FOREVER so that when the time comes for the Lord Adonai to descend Jacob’s ladder and take on human garb, Luke records for us in chapter 1 of his gospel: “…in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” And as has been promised since the days of Jacob and Joseph and now to Mary, sure enough in a Bethlehem manger is born One who is accompanied by angels who announce to shepherds: For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. The Messiah, the Warrior King has been born to the house of David, a house that will reign forever and ever.

But this isn’t a throne that is merely handed to the Messiah. The heir to David’s throne emerges as a champion for his people in a journey to secure and win His throne. Luke notes in Luke 4 that Christ’s kingdom is at the heart of the devil’s temptation. The devil offers Christ the kingdoms of the world; Christ resists the temptation, and later in the same chapter preaches another kingdom, a kingdom that is set over against all of the kingdoms of the world: the people sought him and came to him, and would have kept him from leaving them, 43 but he said to them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.” 44 (Luke 4:42-44).

Having beaten the illegitimate claim to the throne, Luke tells us that Christ went “through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God.” And at other times Christ sent out the disciples to proclaim the kingdom of God. The preaching and teaching of the kingdom of God is mentioned 9 times in the book of Luke; the subject of king and kingdom is referenced another 31 times, meaning the gospel of Luke alone has more than 40 references to the kingdom of God; the kingdom is central to Luke’s account of the Christ event. Theophilus cannot understand the nature of who Christ is and what He came to accomplish, he cannot even ponder the manger scene, without the rule and reign of “Messiah” permeating that understanding. This kingdom that long ago had been foretold, this kingdom that long ago had been promised to the Messiah is finally and fully coming to its fruition in Jesus Christ.

This emergence of a King and his kingdom continues in Acts. 7 times in Acts… almost the same number of times as the gospel of Luke… the preaching and teaching of the kingdom is highlighted. In the opening verses of Acts 1, Christ preaches the kingdom in the 40-day in-terval between the resurrection and ascension. This will be the task of the disciples as the King ascends to and is exalted on his throne. And not only does Acts begin with Christ teaching the kingdom of God to his disciples, but the book ends with the same note… Paul is in a house in Rome, where (Acts 28:23ff) “... many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets... Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house, and received all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him.” The book ends precisely where it began: the preaching and teaching of the kingdom of God.

Christ’s continued kingdom

Is it any wonder then, with kingdom being a central theme of Christ’s message and life work, that the storyline in the book of Acts that continues what Christ began to do and teach swings on a question about the kingdom? And that’s our fourth consideration this morning: Acts is about Christ’s continued kingdom. Everything that happens in Acts not only intersects with the popular verse we’re used to hearing (Acts 1:8), but the context of that verse in the first place: verse 6ff: “Therefore (whenever we see therefore, we understand it is explaining the results of something…. As a result of Christ preaching the kingdom) when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

The disciples ask, “will you at this time restore the kingdom?” and Christ answers, “you will be witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” They are asking “kingdom”, and Christ is answering “Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, to the end of the earth”. Acts 1:8 is the answer to the question posed in 1:6. How many of us have heard a sermon or sat in a Bible study over Acts 1:8 and have never considered verse 6?

This is stunning. Against the backdrop of the gospel of Luke and its 40 mentions of the kingdom of God, including 9 mentions of the proclamation of the kingdom – including proc-lamation by the disciples, the question posed in verse 6 is stunning. John Calvin quips in his Institutes, “there are as many errors in (the disciples’) question as words”. An exaggeration for sure, but the point is made. Even in Christ’s final days on earth, even as he spends his time, again, reinforcing what has been taught concerning the kingdom of God… in light of His death, and resurrection, no less… like the disciples on the road to Emmaus who had hoped that Christ was “the one to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:21), the disciples misunderstand not only the nature and scope of Christ’s mission and work, but the nature of their own mis-sion and message. They were looking for something political and visible. They wanted something they could taste, see, and touch. It’s hard not to view this question in light of another point of debate in the gospel of Luke with which Theophilus was already familiar: who among us is the greatest?

Luke does not chronicle for us whether or not Christ was dismayed at their question. Yet, as is Christ’s gracious teaching habit, he does not answer their question in a way they (or we, for that matter) would have expected, while at the same time answering the question decidedly. We could spend another or two sermons trying to unpack all there is to unpack in verse 8, but for our kingdom purposes this morning, we must be content in understanding verse 8 as the answer to the question in verse 6.

Christ’s kingdom scope

And this is the fifth point of consideration this morning: the scope of Christ’s Kingdom is the entire world. The disciples ask a question that betrays their continued lack of under-standing about Christ’s mission and in verse 7, he first tells them that it is not for them to know the times or the seasons the Father has fixed by his own authority, a statement quite similar to one that he has already made… that the Son himself has not been privy to such information (Mark 13:32ff). And then he answers, more directly, their question. Don’t miss the significance of the English word “but” at the beginning of verse 8. That word “but” points to the subtle rebuke and contrast Christ makes between his answer and their expectations. The disciples were still thinking way too small in terms of the scope of the kingdom, and too fleshly in terms of the nature of the kingdom. This kingdom is not what they thought it was supposed to be. They ask a question in terms of a nation and land. Christ answers with a different kind of nation, land, and kingdom, a kingdom that will eventually expand to fill the entire earth. The disciples may be myopic in their focus and their expecta-tions, but Christ certainly isn’t. A kingdom beginning in Jerusalem? Yes, that was to be expected, given what the prophets had said about the Messiah’s kingdom. You can almost hear the disciples nod approvingly… certainly there we expect Christ to rule from Jerusalem… but the nods begin to slow when Christ adds “all Judea” and then “Samaria”, and as the scope of Christ’s kingdom is widened, the truth begins to sink in. Christ, the Good and Gracious Shepherd even to the end, is reorienting their hearts and their eyes of faith to that which cannot be seen, a kingdom that is not of this world.

If there were any doubts among the disciples about the nature and scope of Christ’s kingdom and his message, he erases them with his final kingdom boundary marker: to the end of the earth. Once again, Christ wants his disciples to see beyond the finiteness and limitedness of Moses. Here he is invoking the Abrahamic covenant; Remember the promise to Abraham that through him all the nations would be blessed? Welcome to Christ’s kingdom, the fulfillment of that promise. Christ the Warrior-King has been given a kingdom that spans the entire globe. The “all nations” of that promise to Abraham find their blessing in King Jesus and His realm. This is picked up in Luke 24, where we have the other link between Acts 1 and the book of Luke: Christ says “this death and resurrection were necessary…that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you.” This language of Luke 24 is the language of Acts 1:8... you are witnesses of my death and resurrection to all nations beginning at Jerusalem.

But it’s not just the Abrahamic Covenant in view here. Even here in Luke 24 and Acts 1:8, Christ is reaching back even further to the mandate in the garden… there in the garden the dominion mandate was to fill the earth and subdue the earth and to have dominion over eve-rything that moves on the earth. The original dominion mandate for Adam was to have dominion over the entire earth. Now, a second Adam has come and has inaugurated his king-dom… a kingdom that begins in Jerusalem, moves out to Judea, and then to Samaria… this is a kingdom that is going to expand until it fills the entire earth. And this commission is given to disciples who will carry that kingdom message over the expanse of the globe. Chr-ist’s answer to the disciples question in Acts 1:6 is simply this: the kingdom they expected, a kingdom that is grounded in the original mandate to Adam to fill the earth with God’s image bearers, is fulfilled as the church fulfills its commission.

Christ’s kingdom trajectory

Acts 1:8 then is Christ’s kingdom trajectory. Much has been made by commentators and theologians and pastors throughout church history as to the relationship between Acts 1:8 and the rest of the book of Acts. It’s pretty obvious that the rest of the book of Acts follows this Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, “to the end of the earth” trajectory. The church is birthed at Pentecost in Jerusalem and before Acts closes Paul is in Rome, not quite the end of the earth, but certainly well beyond Samaria. And in that day and age, Rome was considered “the end of the earth”. But what has been missed by too many is that this trajectory from Jerusalem to the end of the earth is characterized as “kingdom expansion”. And if we were to follow the trajectory through the storyline of the book of Acts, we would find that this kingdom expansion occurs as Christ from the heavens orchestrates the increase of the Word and the increase of his church (Acts 2:41,47, 6:7, 9:31, 12:24, 16:5, 19:20).

Christ’s kingdom expansion

Indeed the entirety of the book of Acts is the answer to the disciples’ question. Luke writes the narrative of the entire book in such a way that the book begins with Christ teaching the disciples the kingdom of God and the disciples follow-up question and ends with Paul in a house in Rome expounding to anyone within earshot “testifying to them the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets”, just as Christ had done with the disciples on the road to Emmaus. Acts begins with kingdom and ends with kingdom following the storyline provided in Acts 1:8: “from Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth”.

The means by which the kingdom is expanded is the increase of the word and the constant addition of numbers to the church. The increase of Christ’s Word and the increase of Christ’s church is the kingdom rhythm of Acts… the Word is preached, and as the Word is preached, Christ increases His Word and multiplies His church. Kingdom expansion occurs as the gospel is faithfully proclaimed by Christ's witnesses, and this expansion moves from Jerusalem to Judea and Samaria and Asia Minor… and ultimately to Rome and the entire earth. Kingdom expansion occurs, as Christ redeems for himself a people, and gathers to himself a church as redemptive history unfolds through the book of Acts and beyond.

Thus, the story contained in Acts is Christ’s expansion of his kingdom from heaven by His witnesses, the church, through the Spirit. This kingdom promised to the Messiah would be noted for its outpouring of the Spirit and indeed this is what we find in Pentecost. It is the Spirit who effects Christ’s rule and reign among his people in the ever expanding kingdom.

Christ’s kingdom witnesses

This brings us to the eighth consideration of this passage. The kingdom expansion is accompanied by witnesses who have been empowered by the Spirit. Without witnesses, there is no trajectory. Christ will accomplish his kingdom purposes through His witnesses. Just as the disciples had proclaimed the kingdom throughout Christ’s ministry, so now also they will be proclaiming the kingdom through His Spirit as witnesses to Christ’s death and resurrection and coming shortly, his ascension. This should give us much pause in our day when some are suggesting that the proclamation of the word is not necessary for kingdom growth. Such an idea is foreign to scripture. The proclamation of the word is necessary for kingdom expansion. This is why Paul later will say, I know nothing, I preach nothing but Christ and Him crucified.

Christ’s Kingdom ambassadors

And that brings us to our last consideration… these witnesses of Christ’s exaltation become the king’s ambassadors to all of the nations. Verse 9: “While they watched, he was taken up”. Lost in the nice little children’s Bible Story about Christ’s ascension into heaven is the significance of Luke’s language and imagery of how it took place. This isn’t merely Christ riding away in a puff of clouds. Twice Luke uses the words “taken up” to describe Christ’s ascent into heaven. These words are deliberately chosen to invoke the image of Elijah being taken up into heaven in a whirlwind in a chariot of fire. This would not have been lost on Theophilus or the early church. This is no ordinary cloud. This is the glory-cloud familiar to Israel symbolizing God’s presence. Theophilus and the church see more than Jesus in a cloud. This is none other than a new and better Elijah being carried into heaven in shekinah glory. And just as Elijah is taken up, Elisha becomes the new ambassador. Like Elisha, the witnesses watching the New Elijah disappear in the glory-cloud are tasked with furthering the mission of the New Elijah who has been taken into glory. The church, the New Elisha, becomes the ambassador for the king and his kingdom, proclaiming the King’s name from Jerusalem to the end of the earth.

Christ’s kingdom coronation

But this is not the only image being invoked by Luke or by God’s divine orchestration of Christ’s ascent. Certainly, a bookend is what we are seeing here in Acts 1. In Luke 2, the exalted One descended heaven and took his residence in a lowly earth-bound manger with the proclamation about the heir to David’s throne on the lips of angels suspended above the earth. Now, the babe in the manger has been exalted up to the heavens and it is the angels on earth heralding an eventual return. The divine humiliation is over. Christ has ascended in shekinah glory. He has been, according to verse 11, “taken up into heaven”. They aren’t merely looking up, they are, like Stephen “gazing up into heaven”. Heaven is mentioned 4 times in the space of one verse. These disciples aren’t simply looking up into the sky. They are gazing *into* heaven. As the glory-cloud ascends, the disciples are given a glimpse of heaven’s throne room. Christ hasn’t merely ascended, but he has ascended to heaven where Peter will say seven days later he was exalted at the right hand of the Father. These disciples on that hillside are now witnesses to nothing other than the Messiah’s majestic coronation.

Oh, if they hadn’t understood it before, they surely understood it now. How they were foolish and slow of heart. They had been looking for an earthly restoration of glory to Israel and now they were witnesses to Christ’s heavenly exaltation in glory. It is no longer shepherds who will carry that message to the streets of Bethlehem. It is Christ-commissioned witnesses who will carry that message to the end of the earth. Without the ascension, there is no mission.

Just what was it that the disciples witnessed? We are given a very brief glimpse in the Old Testament. I had not considered this passage until I read a few weeks back that a passage from 2 Kings forms the underpinnings of England’s coronation ceremony. 2 Kings 11:4-12:

“…in the seventh year Jehoiada sent and brought the captains of the Carites and of the guards, and had them come to him in the house of the LORD. And he made a co-venant with them and put them under oath in the house of the LORD, and he showed them the king’s son. 5 And he commanded them, “This is the thing that you shall do: one third of you, those who come off duty on the Sabbath and guard the king’s house 6 (another third being at the gate Sur and a third at the gate behind the guards) shall guard the palace. 7 And the two divisions of you, which come on duty in force on the Sabbath and guard the house of the LORD on behalf of the king, 8 shall surround the king, each with his weapons in his hand. And whoever approaches the ranks is to be put to death. Be with the king when he goes out and when he comes in.” 9 The captains did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded, and they each brought his men who were to go off duty on the Sabbath, with those who were to come on duty on the Sabbath, and came to Jehoiada the priest. 10 And the priest gave to the captains the spears and shields that had been King David’s, which were in the house of the LORD. 11 And the guards stood, every man with his weapons in his hand, from the south side of the house to the north side of the house, around the altar and the house on behalf of the king. 12 Then he brought out the king’s son and put the crown on him and gave him the testimony. And they proclaimed him king and anointed him, and they clapped their hands and said, “Long live the king!”

It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to see beyond the coronation of young Joash to un-derstand the significance of that glory cloud on a Jerusalem hillside. Throngs lined the streets of heaven. Heaven’s citizens were hanging out of windows, peering over rooftops. The buzz of anticipation coursed through the throngs of saints crowding the celestial roadway from the hillside to the throne room. Oh, for those saints, even those disciples… there was be no day like that day. Soon, the buzz gives way to a roar… anticipation gives way to the thrill of the moment… the confetti, the streamers, and the music fill the senses with wonder and awe; the pomp and pageantry of a processional line bedazzles the Redeemed.

But it’s not the pomp and pageantry causing emotions to swell, throats to lump up, or tears to flow. No, the impetus and the cause for controlled bedlam is riding in the midst of the shekinah glory-cloud… With great ceremony, that One who is cause for celebration, the One who has sworn to protect and defend and redeem His people is bestowed an orb, a scepter, and finally, a crown. But more important than the display of magnificent grandeur that speaks to the occasion, the recipient of the crown is no longer heir, but is in fact the benefi-ciary of a kingdom, the kingdom that had been promised to a Son, a kingdom that is worldwide in its scope. Behold in the midst of the throne stood a Lamb as though it had been slain... and He came and took the scroll out of the right hand of Him who sat upon the throne… and they sang a new song, And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth.”

A king, his subject, and a kingdom crescendo with thunderous applause from the tumult: Long live the king who has been crowned with all glory, honor, and power. This, my friends, was Christ’s coronation day in heaven.

Reflection and Response

So what is our response?

First, we must see Christ actively expanding His kingdom from His throne on high through His Spirit. How often have we heard Acts 1:8 preached as if it were an imperative? It is not. You *will be* my witnesses from Jerusalem to the end of the earth. It is a matter of fact. It *will* happen. Christ’s work on the cross and His resurrection guarantee that His plan will not be thwarted. We will be His witnesses… ambassadors of the king.

Second, we must see ourselves as participants in the text and in so doing, see ourselves both as beneficiaries of Christ’s work in expanding His kingdom from Jerusalem to Dayton and Springboro, and as participants in that mission. The message of the kingdom has transversed time and space to give us life, make us a new creation in the New Covenant, and transform our lives. As a transformed people we continue the mission as we ourselves give witness to Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension.

Third, we must see ourselves as recipients of the royal commission in preaching the kingdom. Like those disciples, we are witnesses to the end of the earth with the message of Christ’s death, resurrection, and exaltation. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. He rules and he reigns over His church from His throne on high. And he effects the expansion of that kingdom through the proclamation of the word through witnesses. To paraphrase what Peter tells the crowd in Acts 2, “let all the world know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus who was crucified”. Let us be about the proclamation of that message, and in so doing, be participants in Christ’s mission to expand his rule and reign through the increase of the word and the increase of disciples to His church.

Do you desire, do we desire for Christ to expand His kingdom through His church? Let us participate in Christ’s mission as witnesses proclaiming His name wherever His kingdom is not visibly found. The book of Acts is about the continuing of Christ’s mission on earth by the church. As we participate with Theophilus in that mission, Christ will expand His king-dom through the power of His Spirit as He increases both His Word and those who call him Lord. -- crb

When being biblically defensible isn't enough

Hats off to Jason Stellman, who has admitted for all the world to see what some of us have been saying is true about American Presbyterians for some time: some would prefer to defend their beliefs from the confession rather than the text of scripture.  Notice I said "some" American Presbyterians. While it's not true of all of them -- some of them have been quite influential on my own hermeneutics, when it comes to handling challenges to certain areas of their theology, too often the habit is to retreat back into the confession rather than providing a robust defense from scripture itself.

Here's how Stellman frames the issue: "Say what you will about Peter Leithart, but when it comes to his theology, the man just plain ol' doesn't care about anything other than that it is biblical.  Is this a bad thing? When the study committee which he and I petitioned the Northwest Presbytery of the PCA to form began its work, Leithart's only request was that, in addition to comparing his views to the Westminster Standards, we also take the time to engage his work from the vantage point of Scripture. It was obvious that this latter concern far outweighed the former in his mind.  The conclusions of the minority report that I authored were that Leithart's positions, though biblically defensible to a certain degree, were nonetheless clearly contrary to the system of doctrine found in our Confession and Catechisms. The problem, the minority argued, was that he failed (or was unwilling) to read the Bible through the lens of the doctrinal standards of the PCA. And Leithart's response, in a nutshell, was "Isn't being biblical enough?""

I'm not sure which is more troubling or appalling: the admission that Leithart's position may have some grounds in the scripture OR that the doctrinal standards of the PCA are the prescribed lens for the Bible.  Doesn't the latter imply that the text is subservient to the confession?  Of course it does... and the subsequent discussion following Stellman's post bears that out, with fellow Presbyterians wrestling with the implications of Stellman's admission AND a recently Protestant-turned-Catholic poster boy pointing out the glaring inconsistency.

It's not my intent to get into the whole Leithart situation out there in the Northwest or his unbiblical views of justification, but I have to wonder: where is the exegetical bravado in the PCA?  In the opinion of this blogger, Leithart's position can be beaten with robust exegetical work.  Where's the mano y mano, my (our) exegesis can beat your exegesis, defense of the gospel here?  The failure to respond with exegesis highlights two other possible implications from Stellman's post, both of which aren't all that cheery: 1) Leithart's position has more grounds in the scripture than the confession's position OR 2) we (the PCA presbytery in the Pacific Northwest) don't know how to exegete.

As a friend of mine has pointed out, the unfolding scenario in this particular presbytery out in the Seattle area highlights the difference between the value of a confession and the dangers of confessionalism.  Confessions, though fallible, have been tools used by the church through the ages to guard the entrustment of the gospel, defending and propagating the faith once for all delivered to the saints.  It's when those confessions become the authoritative means by which the scripture is interepreted (notice I did not merely say "means") that confessionalism becomes a danger to the very sola scriptura idea the confessions seek to defend.

Some may think it's a bit of grandstanding for a baptist to comment on an intramural debate.  Maybe.  But this baptist found Stellman's admission stunning.  As one who has engaged Presbyterians on all sorts of issues, confessionalism is a source of frequent frustration.  Yes, all of us have our hermeneutical presuppositions that we bring to the text.  That's not what this is about.  This is about an all-too-frequent tendency that I have noticed for *some* Presbyterians to run and hide in the confession (and its proof texts) rather than engaging the text.  It's as if the divines have done all of the exegetical work... no further exegesis necessary.  Of course, no one ever says that out loud.

But the apparent calcification of the confession against an exegetical challenge (such as the one put forth by Leithart) raises this additional implication: the confession is infallible.  And of course, no one *ever* says that out loud either.  The qualification to the apparent calcification usually goes along the lines of, "well, it's the best possible defense of the gospel humans have been able to produce".  That's a fine sentiment and probably not so far from the truth, but again, the implications raise a question: So, the confession cannot be wrong?  The implied answer: theoretically "yes"; pragmatically and ecclesiologically, "no".

*That* is confessionalism.  If the ecclesiology of any said denomination has no mechanism by which the confession itself is subjected to the rigorous demands, propositions, and hermeneutics of The Word, what is it in that said denomination which holds the highest place of authority?  It's the confession, not The Word.  And if it's not The Word, it's not THE WORD.  And therein lies the biggest problem of all.

The Exceeding Righteousness of the New Covenant

Matthew 4:23-5:20:

And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them. And great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis, and from Jerusalem and Judea, and from beyond the Jordan.

Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. -- Matthew 4:23-5:20

Introduction: a world of self-reliance

A conflicted Maria has returned to the Abbey. It wasn’t supposed to turn out this way. She had left the Abbey brimming with confidence, off to be the governess of seven children whose mother had passed away and whose father was busy with his own military and social interests. Yet with music, charm, and a supreme confidence in herself that could not be shaken, a household had been transformed. But she hadn’t been counting on that curious thing called love.

Life throws Maria a curveball, and so… here she is, back at the Abbey, confidence in tatters, but seemingly wiser for having had the experience. Maria renews her vows at the convent and spends the rest of her life at the convent fulfilling the vows she had made to God and to her order. Right? Of course not! Rogers and Hammerstein know better. When things are darkest, what is it that Maria needs more than a confidence and morale booster? Enter Mother Abbess who proceeds to give Maria a bit of inspiration sent from heaven we are assured: “Climb Every Mountain, Ford ev'ry stream, Follow ev'ry rainbow, 'Till you find your dream.” Armed with that bit of honey from heaven, or so we’re led to believe, Maria returns to be the governess of the children again… and of course, we know the rest of the story.

The plot for the Sound of Music swings on the morsel of worldly wisdom: climb ev’ry mountain; exert some effort; make life happen for you; persevere through the bad times, because the sun will come out tomorrow (to borrow another choice morsel from another story we all know well); face your fears; have confidence in yourself; create your own destiny; just do it… till you find *your* dreams. Thus, the underlying philosophy driving one of the greatest musicals ever penned is the triumph of the human spirit and the self-created destiny. Your dreams, your *heaven* is yours for the taking. It’s up to you and no one else… all you need is a little confidence in yourself.

This kind of philosophy isn’t all that surprising coming from the moral philosophers of our culture with names such as Rogers and Hammerstein and Walt Disney. But visit your Christian bookstore, go online to any number of evangelical websites, listen to, or watch any number of evangelical personalities, and you’ll find wholesale adaptation of Mother Abbess’ moral virtue. Oh certainly, many evangelicals would not claim that their ultimate destiny depends on their tenacity and spiritual fortitude. However, they live the so-called “victorious Christian life” as if it were so. While it’s seemingly accepted that the rugged American individualism and Christian machismo won’t get one into the kingdom, it is quite apparent that one maintains the kingdom by climbing every mountain, fording every stream, following every rainbow until we find the kingdom dream. In the end, it might strike us as uncanny how the kingdom dream isn’t all that much different from the American dream. And in fact, some might even conclude that one can have both.

The Sermon on the Mount, though, depicts a kingdom life quite different from that of Rogers and Hammerstein. Life in the New Covenant has a different orientation. It is other-worldly. It is both counter- and contra- culture. It is of another kingdom, the kingdom of heaven. Most importantly, life in the New Covenant has its source in a Person. Not the person who climbs the mountain, but the One who has climbed the mountain for those who know they cannot, and now sits on His throne.

The Old Covenant

Surely, how different a picture this One on the mountain was painting for the Israel who had gathered to listen at his feet. This life being offered by the One named Jesus was radically different from the one that they knew in the Old Covenant. For the crowd who gathered to listen, their reality was still dictated by the old order that had been given on another mountain to the first and greatest of the prophets, Moses.

This was an Israel under the weight of an oppressive law they could not keep, and shackled to a covenant routinely broken. The etching from the first tablets of God’s law wasn’t even dry and Israel had broken the covenant and its moral code with a golden calf. At the sight of the calf Moses threw down the tablets; those broken tablets at the base of Mount Sinai not only symbolized broken law and broken covenant, but Israel’s inability to keep either law or covenant.

This Israel, gathered at the foot of Jesus on the mountain, is in need of a righteousness beyond her grasp. “Do this and live” were the terms of the covenant, terms broken early and often by a people seemingly bent on disobedience. Not only was this Israel without a righteousness, this was a people who year in and year out, the prophets warned, were confident in their own righteousness. So confident were they of their own righteousness, when they were reminded of their wickedness, more often than not, it was the prophets, not their iniquities, who were laid on the altar for execution.

This Israel, gathered at the foot of the mountain, was not only lacking an awareness of her sin, she also lacked a kingdom. Destroyed by Assyria and banished by Babylon, Israel never regained the kingdom that had been sworn to David and his posterity. Instead, Israel was merely a Roman territory, occupied by invaders who barely tolerated them.

And… lacking a kingdom, Israel had no king. More than 580 years had passed since a son of David had occupied the throne in Israel, and Herod Antipas was neither Jew nor king. And finally, this Israel that had gathered at the foot of Jesus on the mountain knew nothing of the dwelling presence of God in their midst. The temple had been rebuilt. Herod the Great, to gain favor with the Jews, gave it a bit of dressing up. But no amount of renovation, no amount of temple expansion could mask the glaring absence of God’s visible presence among his people.

This crowd, gathered at the foot of Jesus on a mountain, was sheep without a shepherd, citizens without a kingdom, worshipers without God’s presence, sinners without a righteousness.

The Promise of a New Covenant

What a paltry existence this was. What a sorry lot were these people of God. Defiant, disobedient, unable to keep the covenant and completely unaware of their need for a righteousness. But God, in his mercy and grace, gave the promise of a coming day when things would be different for his people. The old order would give way to a new order of things. In Isaiah, Israel is promised a new covenant in the form of a person; Isaiah 42, verse 6; notice all of the “I wills”. These “I wills” collectively form the terms of a new covenant:

“I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness.

And again in Isaiah 49:8, God promises to send Israel a new covenant in the form of a Person:

Thus says the LORD: “In a time of favor I have answered you; in a day of salvation I have helped you; I will keep you and give you as a covenant to the people, to establish the land, to apportion the desolate heritages, saying to the prisoners, ‘Come out,’ to those who are in darkness, ‘Appear.’ They shall feed along the ways; on all bare heights shall be their pasture;

In Jeremiah 31, Israel is told about a new covenant… in verse 31… again, notice all of the “I wills”...

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Not only is Israel promised a new kind of law and a new covenant, but a new heart that will keep covenant forever. And this new covenant culminates in the highest expression of covenant that first appeared with Abraham: I will be their God and they will be my people. Jeremiah was not the only prophet pointing to a new covenant; Ezekiel 11:

Therefore say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: I will gather you from the peoples and assemble you out of the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.’ And when they come there, they will remove from it all its detestable things and all its abominations. And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

Exekiel 36:23

And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them….I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

And Ezekiel 37:

(verse 5) Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live… (verse 12) Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will open your graves and raise you from your graves…And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I am the LORD; I have spoken, and I will do it, declares the LORD…(verse 21) Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land…And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be king over them all…They shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions. But I will save them from all the backslidings in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God. “My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes…I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them…My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

These are the terms of a New Covenant. If you want to know just what has been and is being accomplished in the New Covenant, just follow the “I wills” of these passages. Almost from its inception as a nation coming out of Egypt, Israel had been breaking covenant. Unrighteous covenant-breakers was the legacy of Israel. But in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, God says he will take care of Israel’s infidelity once and for all by giving them a new heart, a new law, his own Spirit within them that will cause them to obey, a new covenant, a new covenant Incarnate, a righteousness, a king and kingdom, and then, the promise that he will fully and finally dwell with and among His people: “I will be their God, and they will be my people”. Israel is carted off to Babylon, they return to the land… and they wait… for more than 500 years.

The anticipation of a new covenant

We come to the book of Matthew and from the very beginning there is a sense of anticipation about what is to come, chapter 1 verse 1: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David…(verse 17) all of the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ fourteen generations.” From the very beginning of his eyewitness account of the Christ, the Messiah, Matthew is bent on us and those in the early church reading his account understanding that this Messiah is the Promised King who is the final heir to David’s throne.

Israel needs a Savior; in chapter 1:21, Gabriel tells Joseph that the son born to Mary is to be named Jesus “for he will save his people from their sins”.

Israel no longer enjoyed God’s dwelling presence among them; in chapter 1:23, this one named Jesus is fulfillment of the promise of God through Isaiah, “Behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a *son* and they shall call his name Immanuel”, which means God with us. Months later, a shekinah-glory-like star leads wise men from the east to “came to rest” over the place where the child was. Immanuel has come to dwell among his people.

This crowd at the feet of Jesus on the mountain lacks righteousness; Christ submits to John’s baptism because it is fitting for Jesus to fulfill all righteousness.

Israel lacks a kingdom; Jesus comes out of the wilderness and begins to preach, “repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Israel lacks a king, they are sheep without a shepherd; in chapter two there come wise men from the east asking “where is he born king of the Jews?” The answer for the wise men is found in Micah and quoted by Matthew, “from you, Bethlehem, shall come a ruler who will *shepherd* my people Israel”.

Israel needs someone who can accomplish and fulfill all of the terms of the covenant and the law that it failed to do. Matthew chronicles for us that Israel’s champion, Israel’s incarnational representative is miraculously brought up out of Egypt, through the baptismal waters, into the desert where he is tested and tempted for 40 days, and now we come to chapter 5 and this one who has been brought up out of Egypt, through the baptismal waters, in the desert, has now ascended a mountain. And it is on this mountain that one better than Moses beckons Israel to draw near; it is on this mountain that THE Son of David ascends and sits down, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom (4:23).

The Sermon on the Mount

While many commentators have suggested that Christ is assuming the posture of a Jewish rabbi who dispenses wisdom with his students, Matthew is doing much more than that here. This is the “son of David”, the One born “king of the Jews” assuming the posture of One who has authority, and as the Sermon unfolds, One who has ultimate and supreme authority. At the bookend of this sermon Matthew tells us that the “crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority and *not* as their scribes”.

This king comes proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, a kingdom that is not of this world, a kingdom that imposes itself on this world, a kingdom that does not look like the kingdoms of this world. This is the upside down kingdom with kingdom citizens living life upside down with an orientation toward the heavens.

This upside down kingdom’s citizens are marked by those things which are foolish in the eyes of the world. These kingdom citizens are poor in spirit, those who mourn, those who are meek. Contra a Jewish culture wrapped up in asserting its own righteousness, the kingdom citizen hungers and thirsts for a righteousness that only the King can satisfy… they seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and in doing so will find that He satisfies the desires of their soul. These kingdom citizens who are merciful, pure in heart, and peacemakers find themselves persecuted for the sake of that very same righteousness, a righteousness that had cost the prophets their very lives.

But this righteousness is beyond the grasp of the kingdom citizen. It is not self-generated. This king comes proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, a kingdom that is not of this world, a kingdom marked by a righteousness that can only come from above. Israel lacks righteousness. And this King tells his people that unless their righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees, the kingdom is not for them (chapter 5 verse 20).

One must feel the weight of this. The kingdom citizen hungers and thirsts for a righteousness that cannot and will not be his own. The demands for entrance into the kingdom have not changed… in fact, the ultimate standard of obedience to the law, “be holy as I am holy” is interpreted by Jesus as “be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect” (chapter 5 verse 48). What a severe imposition.

And as we track just what it is that exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees through the rest of the Sermon on the Mount we might be driven to the point of depression. By highlighting the heart issues, which we will get to in a minute, the strict code of the law isn’t simply brought to bear, but the intent behind the code as well. This Sermon on the Mount proposes an ideal so high and unattainable, Christianity’s critics have scoffed at the ethic here, suggesting such severe demands are unjust and even unethical. No one can live up to the standard proposed by this king on this mountain. And they are right.

An exceeding righteousness

How is it that one could be more righteous than those who dedicated their entire existence to promoting their own righteousness? These Pharisees are those who have championed obedience to God’s law on their own terms, and in so doing, have come to have confidence in their own righteousness. The righteousness of their kingdom is attainable. These are they who sing “climb every mountain, ford every stream”, confident that the kingdom rewards the kind of righteousness applauded by men.

If entrance to the kingdom requires a righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees, those paragons of Jewish virtue, how can anyone enter? How is it possible? The answer is found in the very same passage. Matthew 5:17-20 form the thesis statement, if you will, for the entire Sermon on the Mount, landing on verse 20. The entire Sermon swings on this question of the kind of righteousness demanded by the King for entrance into the kingdom of heaven. But it is a righteousness that this King himself provides. This king comes to the mountain having been baptized by John in order to fulfill all righteousness.

That same word “fulfill” is found here in verse 17 of chapter 5. The One fulfilling all righteousness is the One fulfilling the Law and the Prophets. Thus, the righteousness needed by this crowd at the feet of a King on the mountain, the righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees, must come from the One who has satisfied not merely the demands of the law, but has fulfilled the entire Old Testament. “Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them”.

This king proclaiming the good news of the kingdom fulfills, or fills up to the very last measure, everything foreshadowed in the Old Testament. From the law to the prophets, comprehensively from Moses to Malachi, what was contained in law and in prophecy, Christ came to fulfill all that anticipated Him.

This word “fulfilled” isn’t simply about making all of the predictions in the Old Testament come true. This is the typical way “fulfill” is often preached or taught in our evangelicalism. No, the word used here, pleroo, has the idea of “filling up completely” or “filling up to the last measure”… so… this King doesn’t merely make the predictions about the coming Son of David come true; Christ here is saying that he is the final subject and object of that which had been foreshadowed and promised throughout all of the Old Testament. Christ is the sum and substance of all Old Testament revelation, the sum and substance of its history.

And this fulfillment includes all of the law (Matthew 5:18). In filling up the full measure of all that was foreshadowed in the law, in obeying the law to its fullest extent, Christ embodies the Law and becomes the standard by which all holiness is measured. In becoming the sum and substance of law by filling up the law to its fullest measure, in fulfilling all that had been foreshadowed in the law, this king sitting on the mount is the full and final Torah, he is The Law of the New Covenant invested with all of its authority and glory.

It was Christ all along to whom the Old Testament had been pointing. And it is this Christ, this king fulfilling all righteousness, who becomes righteousness for His people. This Christ, who sits on the mountain, dispenses to His kingdom citizens a righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees. This king who is proclaiming another kingdom proclaims that the righteousness necessary for entrance into the kingdom is a righteousness that comes from above, a righteousness given by another.

How does Christ’s fulfillment of the law become righteousness for us? Because this King, is the Blessed man of the beatitudes. In fulfilling the law and the prophets, this king has, on behalf of his people, has been poor in Spirit, This King is one who mourned. This King is one who in purity of heart was persecuted for righteousness sake. This Son of David, this new Israel delivered out of Egypt, affirmed in the waters of baptism, and tested in the wilderness, in meekness hungered and thirsted after that righteousness necessary to provide salvation for His people. On this mountain, this King, this Lawgiver, proclaims a kingdom that will be won by filling up the very last measure of a law that enslaved those who broke it. In obeying all of the demands of the Old Testament, this King, this Lawkeeper, gives life to those who seek first his kingdom and that righteousness only He can provide.

The New Covenant

This Israel, at the feet of Jesus on the mountain, lacks a covenant that is not and cannot be broken. And this king who comes proclaiming the advent of the kingdom of heaven comes bringing a New Covenant for his people. If we were to trace the storyline of Matthew’s unfolding of the kingdom of heaven that is imposing itself onto the stage of this world in the Person of Jesus Christ, we would eventually come to an upper room, where this One who is fulfilling all righteousness holds up the cup to His disciples and declares that this new kingdom, ushered in through His death and resurrection, inaugurates a new covenant, a new covenant ratified by His blood and personified in Christ himself. Fulfilling Isaiah 42 and 49, this King becomes The Covenant himself, his own promise and guarantee to His people, bestowing all the rights and privileges of kingdom citizenship. Entry into this kingdom, must be through the One who is Covenant Himself, the only One with the authority to bestow the rights and privileges of kingdom citizenry.

In this New Covenant, a great exchange has taken place: Israel’s unrighteousness for Christ’s righteousness. The heart of stone is replaced with a heart of flesh. God’s people, those of us who knew nothing but disobedience, have been given new heart that not only desires to obey, but we have been given a Spirit that causes us to obey. In fulfilling the tablets of stone, the kingdom citizen no longer lives under the specter of an external law that condemns, but lives the life of the Spirit, an internal law that produces obedience in the kingdom citizen.

Thus, in this New Covenant, the principle of inversion, a principle that has been prophesied in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, becomes the order of the day. And at the outset of the kingdom, this principle of inversion is being proclaimed in the Sermon on the Mount by the king who sits on the mount. That which the world thinks is mighty really is weak. That which seems wise is foolish. What seems right to the average person is wrong. What seems to give life brings death. And being meek, waiting on the Lord, is now that status quo. Mercy rules the day. The foolishness of this world is wise. Peacemaking, not winning, not war, is the mark of the kingdom citizen. Self-reliance is out; utter dependence on someone else for favor with God and overcoming life’s difficulties is the mark of the kingdom citizen.

Everything Israel understood to be reality has been flipped on its head. The emphasis of the Old Covenant had been an external code written on breakable stone tablets. The emphasis has shift from a law demanding perfect conformity to an external code, or that which seemed wise to the law abiding Israelite, to a new order in which being poor in spirit, meek, merciful, pure in heart, hungry and thirsty after righteousness is the mark of the kingdom citizen.

If we were to read a little further in the Sermon on the Mount we would find that the emphasis of the New Covenant is on internal righteousness that flows out of the heart. In a series of 6 statements in chapter 5, Christ juxtaposes the law over against the intent of the law, which is aimed at the heart. Sitting in the backdrop of the external code of the Old Covenant are issues of the heart. “You have heard that it was said in the law, thou shalt not murder… but I say to you, those who hate are guilty of murder. You have heard it say, don’t commit adultery. But, I say to you, if you lust after a woman who isn’t your wife, you’re guilty of adultery.” This New Covenant inverts the emphasis on the fruits of obedience to the tree that gives rise to the fruit (Matthew 7:16-17).

Heart issues were certainly part of the Old Covenant. God’s people are condemned for having hearts that are far from him. Heart issues are implicit in the first and last commandments… having no idols before God and not coveting. Heart issues are certainly inherent to the greatest commandment which summarizes the law: loving the Lord your God with all heart, soul, and strength. But the identity of the Old Covenant was wrapped up in external code and law keeping. The external code dominated the Old Covenant landscape. Do’s and don’ts dominated the Israelite’s worship. “Do this and live” was at the forefront of everything that happened in the Old Covenant.

But in Christ’s fulfillment of the law and prophets, in Christ’s fulfillment of “do this and live”, the New Covenant he makes with his people is characterized by the internal, the new heart of flesh and its corresponding Spirit, that does not break Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31ff). In the Sermon on the Mount, the king who is proclaiming the kingdom of heaven, places the heart front and center because it is the heart out of true worship, true love, and true obedience flows.

This is why the kingdom citizen lays up treasures in heaven (Matthew 6:19-21). His affections are oriented toward a righteousness that the world cannot give, and toward a kingdom that cannot be seen. The fleshly heart of the kingdom people in the New Covenant is oriented toward this King sitting on the mountain as the only thing that can satisfy. This is why the kingdom citizen need not be anxious about life (Matthew 6:25). Those with eyes of faith are not anxious over the provisions in this world; indeed, these kingdom citizens recognize that the King sitting on the mountain dispenses bread that gives life (Matthew 4:4).

Conclusion

The King has come to the mountain proclaiming the good news of the kingdom. The crowds who gather at the foot of Jesus on the mountain are offered life in a righteousness only the One who fulfills the law and the prophets can provide. They are offered the kingdom of heaven in the Person who is born king of the Jews, the One who has an authority that is not of this world.

This sermon ends where we must end. Chapter 7 verse 28: “When Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes. When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him.” If we are to find ourselves among those kingdom citizens to whom Christ feeds himself and gives life, we must find ourselves following Christ’s footsteps.

Kingdom citizens, this morning we meet at the foot of Mount Zion. We feast at the feet of the One who has been enthroned. We eat of the bread that He offers freely in his word. We find our satisfaction in One who has fulfilled all righteousness on our behalf. All that we lack, He provides.

These crowds who followed Jesus off of the mountain, most of them, if not all of them, were unaware that if they continued to trace the steps and path of *this* king, it would lead them to another hill where this king would inaugurate the New Covenant with his blood, beneath a sign that read, “This is Jesus, King of the Jews” (Matthew 27:37). The one who is born “king of the Jews” in Matthew 2 dies as the king of the Jews in Matthew 27. This king came proclaiming a kingdom in humility and meekness; this king came into Jerusalem not riding a white horse, but a donkey; and this king died inaugurating the kingdom with his own blood. If we are to follow this king, we must trace his footsteps in meekness and humility and mercy and being poor in Spirit to our own possible crucifixion.

As citizens of a new kingdom living under a new covenant with new hearts of flesh and the Spirit living within us, we live by the inversion principle. We eschew and forgo the climbing every mountain self-reliance and self-righteousness. The king proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom on the mount is determined to drive every bit of self-reliance out of us. We are fools to the world, living with our eyes focused on a kingdom that is not of this world, to the point of being persecuted for righteousness sake.

As we feast on Christ, as we find our satisfaction in the One who sits enthroned, as we pursue the expansion of a kingdom that is not of this world, we trace the footsteps of the king in mercy, in meekness, in purity of heart, to the point where we too are persecuted for righteousness sake. At the risk of being falsely accused because of His name, we orient our hearts toward our reward in heaven, a Reward who has exceeded the righteousness of the Pharisees. -- crb

Dennison on the "faithmeister's" gospel: "I Have Confidence in Confidence"

"There is a popular variety of faith that finds itself expressed almost universally. It even communicates its message in the most innocent way, presenting itself most attractively. In our own time, there is the popular form of faith that asserts itself in our culture.

"..There is that form of faith, that popular expression of faith that is spread abroad through Hollywood and its products. And I have in mind one of the most sacred products that Hollywood has ever produced. I have in mind “The Sound of Music”. We find that popular form of faith expressed in this musical as Julie Andrews is on her way to Christopher Plummer’s house, skipping down the road singing “I Have Confidence in Confidence”, or “I have faith in faith”.

"The form of faith expressing itself here is the type that rises up from within the person who is confessing that faith or giving expression to it. And invariably in this form of faith, the object of that faith is very much connected to an aspect of personality. In some cases, it’s actually genetic. Some individuals are born just a little more optimistic than others. Some are even relentlessly optimistic. But even where it isn’t genetic, we learn from the “faithmeisters” of our time that we all have within us these seeds of potentiality, and if we can just tap into that, then we’ll rise above all the storm and stress of life and our existence will be a perfect calm. Here, the form of faith is nothing less than sheer willpower. It is built upon an appeal to our inner potential, and we, having tapped into our inner potential can even congratulate ourselves for having tapped into it.

"And then, we can go on to congratulate ourselves some more, because with this faith that we now have in tow, we have developed a remarkable stick-to-it-iveness and perseverance that is especially suited to help us face the ups and downs of life. In fact, our stubborn optimism may even win us some awards. We might get some recognition. And that, from the “apostles and prophets”, the “faithmeisters” of our day -- those who are the exponents of the faith in faith gospel -- we might even become the headliners at an Amway convention or get to tell our story in the pages of Guidepost magazine.

"Let me assure you that there is nothing at all of this form of faith in true biblical religion. And let me assure you, equally, as hard as it for some to take it and accept it, there is nothing of Rodgers and Hammerstein's “I Have Confidence in Confidence” in the biblical gospel. Still, it is pursued by literally millions.

“...you may be perceiving in it the patterns of that age-old 'faith game' in which genuine faith, so-called or so-described, is measured by its ability to gain for you what you want. And such faith is even thought of as having the power to procure for you what you want.

"In the 'faith game', faith is no longer a receiving and resting upon Jesus Christ or upon the works of God as they are presented to us in the gospel. Faith is no longer a trust in God’s sovereignty and His righteousness as revealed to us in the scripture. According to the “faith game”, faith is just another form of manipulation. Faith is a form of voodoo. It’s a form of witchcraft, by which we manipulate our destinies to our own liking.

"If there is any of this paganism in Habakkuk, God is determined to rid him of it, and that in order by the end of his prophecy, he might be both a spokesman for true faith and a living example of what it’s all about." -- Charles Dennison, Sermon on Habakkuk 1:1-17, 2-19-1995, Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Sewickley, PA

Beale headed to WTS

I guess this means Wheaton was "already/not yet".... and since he already had been serving as part-time faculty at WTS, what was temporary has been made permanent. :-)

Westminster Bookstore Blog » Archive » Greg Beale Appointed Professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary

Big picture: Beale replaces Enns. :-)