Things That Are Above

Gospel Thinking for Gospel Living

Archive for the ‘New Testament’ Category

Finding True Happiness

leave a comment »

Having set the Sermon on the Mount (hereafter, “SM”) in its context in Matthew 4:23–5:2, we now turn to Jesus’ introduction to the SM:

“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.” (Matt. 5:3–12, ESV, as are all subsequent Bible quotations)

In this introduction to the SM, which we collectively call “the Beatitudes,” Jesus blesses those who are seemingly cursed.1 Jesus proclaims eternal happiness to people who temporally could very easily (and understandably) be sad. As John MacArthur has put it, “Jesus is in the business of providing people with happiness. … The word [‘blessed’] simply means happiness or happy and we may read these that way.”2 The world says that these people Jesus is blessing can’t be happy, but Jesus says that they’re precisely the ones who will be eternally happy and can thus draw on that happiness in the here and now. According to Jesus, true and everlasting happiness comes to those who look for holy happiness (vv. 3–6), to those who live in happy holiness (vv. 7–9), and to those who suffer hardships for being holy (vv. 10–12).

Look for happy holiness (vv. 3–6)

In the first four Beatitudes, Jesus teaches us the way to find true happiness is to look for true holiness, as opposed to false holiness. False holiness is hypocritical. In Matthew’s Gospel, the Pharisees are the prime example of people who live falsely holy lives (see Matt. 6:1–18 for a thinly veiled criticism of Pharasaical hypocrisy and Matt. 23:1–36 for an explicit denunciation). Holy behavior without holy belief is actually unholy. True holiness is both holy belief and holy behavior. Jesus begins the Beatitudes by explaining what holy belief looks like (Matt. 5:3–6). As D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones argues at length in his sermons on the Beatitudes, each one builds upon the last.3 Their order is intentional; rearranging the Beatitudes would negate their actual meaning: right actions come only after right emotional thoughts.

In Matthew 5:3–6, Jesus tells us how to find happiness: find holiness. Holiness comes to those who first are “poor in spirit” (v. 3). The poor in spirit enjoy happiness because “theirs is the kingdom of heaven”; the joy of the hope of eternal life in a new heavens and new earth gives them joy even in this life now. As we saw from the context to the SM, Isaiah 61 is one of its primary background texts. As prophesied by Isaiah, Jesus has come “to bring good news to the poor” and “to proclaim liberty to the captives” (Isa. 61:1, 2). In the broader context of Isaiah, these poor captives are the exiled Jews (see Isa. 40:1), who by Jesus’ day—though released from physical exile—were still in a spiritual exile. (Diverse Bible scholars make and develop this point. See, e.g., James M. Hamilton’s Exalting Jesus in Ezra-Nehemiah and N. T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God.) “The poor in spirit” whom Jesus blesses are thus people who recognize their spiritual poverty.

A truly holy recognition of spiritual poverty leads to sorrow over sin, so Jesus next blesses those who “mourn,” specifically over their sin (Matt. 5:4). Again, the echo of Isaiah 61 is helpful. According to Isaiah, Jesus comes “to grant to those who mourn in Zion”

the oil of gladness instead of mourning,
_____the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit;
that they may be called oaks of righteousness,
_____the planting of the LORD, that he may be glorified. (Isa. 61:2, 3)

To go from praising your sinful self to praising God, you must mourn over your sin. The first step to holiness is recognizing your spiritual poverty. Once you recognize your spiritual poverty, you mourn your sinfulness. God in his grace then gives you “the garment of praise” and makes you an “oak of righteousness.”

But wait—there’s more! Those who mourn over their sin immediately are meek toward God; such people “shall inherit the earth” (Matt. 5:5). Jesus here alludes to Psalm 37:11b, “the meek shall inherit the land.”4 In Psalm 37, the meek are specifically meek toward God.5 Those who are seeking holy happiness recognize their sin, mourn over their sin, and meekly humble themselves before God.

Consequently, these people “hunger and thirst for righteousness” (Matt. 5:6). Jesus says that those who do so “shall be satisfied.” This promise anticipates his later promise in the SM: “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you” (Matt. 7:7). This hunger and thirst for righteousness is first and foremost a great desire for God’s own righteousness credited to us through faith in Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross for our sins (Rom. 3:21–25). It is second and derivatively a great desire for becoming more righteous, more like Jesus (Matt. 5:20; Heb. 12:14).

Live in holy happiness (vv. 7–9)

This secondary meaning of “hunger and thirst for righteousness” brings us to the next three Beatitudes, in which Jesus proclaims eternally and truly happy those who live holy lives in accordance with their holy beliefs. Jesus teaches that truly and eternally happy people are “the merciful,” “the pure in heart,” and “the peacemakers.”

“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy” (Matt. 5:7). This verse gives us pause, not least because Jesus even more explicitly says later in the SM, “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matt. 6:14–15). Is Jesus teaching a works-based salvation, a salvation dependent upon our forgiveness of others? Hardly. Such a teaching would contradict the grace-based salvation that we see in the first four Beatitudes. Martyn Lloyd-Jones’s point about each Beatitude building upon the last is particularly helpful at this juncture:

It is a solemn, serious and, in a sense, terrible thing to say that you cannot be truly forgiven unless there is a forgiving spirit in you. For the operation of the grace of God is such, that when it comes into our hearts with forgiveness it makes us merciful. We proclaim, therefore, whether we have received forgiveness or not by whether we forgive or not. If I am forgiven, I shall forgive.6

And Jesus says that merciful people are happy. Eternally “they shall receive mercy.” But even in the here and now, such people are happy. Holding a grudge doesn’t hurt the person you’re mad at (even if you’re justifiably mad at him or her); holding a grudge hurts only you. As Matthew West puts it in his song, “Forgiveness,” “the prisoner that [forgiveness] really frees is you.” And don’t forget: Jesus in fulfillment of Isaiah 61 came to set prisoners free, and we enjoy the happiness of that freedom in forgiving others.

Jesus reinforces the importance of a holy heart as well as holy hands in the sixth Beatitude, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (v. 8). This theme gets further explication later on in the SM when Jesus applies it specifically to sexuality (Matt. 5:27–28). Later in Matthew, Jesus condemns the Pharisees for being a “brood of vipers”; he explains to them that they can’t “speak good, when [they] are evil” because “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (12:34). Only the pure in heart are truly pure. As the first four Beatitudes emphasize, it’s not just actions that Jesus is concerned about, it’s about the attitude of our hearts, as well. The pure in heart are happy “for they shall see God.” Isaiah’s blessed promise holds true for them: “Your eyes will behold the king [God in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ] in his beauty” (33:17).7

Just as the merciful are blessed, so are the peacemakers (v. 9). Peacemakers are those who strive to reconcile estranged parties. In the context of the SM, Jesus is referring specifically to those who make peace between two estranged people (Matt. 5:23–24; cf. Jas. 3:18), although Paul refers to evangelization as an attempt at making peace between a person and God (2 Cor. 5:16–6:2). Peacemakers are happy because they “shall be called the sons of God.” Whether the peacemaking attempt goes well or turns sour, peacemakers can take heart that God will vindicate them as his children when Jesus comes again.

Find Happiness in Hardships on Account of Holiness (vv. 10–12)

This final vindication is vital for Christ’s followers because they will be persecuted for their holiness, as the final two Beatitudes explain.8 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,” Jesus says, “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”; furthermore,

“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.” (Matt. 5:10–12)

Jesus’ disciples will be persecuted for being holy. Jesus’ disciples “are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” Persecutors “revile … and utter all kinds of evil against [the disciples] falsely on [Jesus’] account.” Persecution comes to those who put their “faith in action.”9 Just as all the prophets were holy, not only believing the right things about God and loving him but also living in light of that loving faith, and were persecuted for their holiness, so will Jesus’ disciples be persecuted for their holiness.

In the midst of the hardship of persecution for being holy, Jesus’ disciples can be happy. They can be happy because “theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” the charges brought against them are false, and their “reward is great in heaven.” Charles Quarles explains the reward of the kingdom of heaven well: “Those who have been oppressed and persecuted will be exalted to a place of authority and privilege when the kingdom comes in all its fullness.”10 For the faithful, knowing the falsity of the charges against you can impart an inner peace; Peter echoes the truth of Jesus’ words when he tells persecuted Christians to “rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings” (1 Pet. 4:13). And the reward for Christian martyrs is unsurpassable, as the book of Revelation bears out (e.g., 2:10; 3:10–11). Such future hope for eternal happiness undergirds present hope despite temporary hardship.

Conclusion

Jesus turns conventional wisdom on its head. In contrast to the world, which says that happiness comes from a loose lifestyle that selfishly pursues physical pleasure, Jesus teaches that true happiness comes from finding holiness through faith in him and then growing in holiness thereafter. Temporal happiness for Jesus’ holy disciples can even stand strong in the midst of hardships such as persecution because of the eternal happiness he promises believers by his grace and mercy. Who do we believe, Jesus or the world? Who do we trust, the God who created a perfect universe and has always set forth the way to live a fully happy life by living a fully holy life (see Gen. 1–2); or people who are under the power of the “prince of the power of the air,” Satan, who “comes only to steal and kill and destroy” (Eph. 2:2 and John 10:10)? Context is always king. Don’t forget that Jesus is the One greater than Moses because he is not only the Son of God but also God the Son (Matt. 5:1–2). True happiness only comes from finding holiness through faith in Christ and living a holy life in dependence upon his empowering Holy Spirit. The only happiness that can withstand hardship is a holy happiness that roots itself in the promise of future eternal happiness, which itself is grounded in the glorious promise of Isaiah 33:17, “Your eyes will behold the king in his beauty.”

Notes

1 According to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, “Beatitude” means “blessedness; felicity of the highest kind; consummate bliss; used of the joys of heaven” and “the declaration of blessedness made by our Savior to particular virtues.

2 John MacArthur, “Happiness Is…” (sermon, Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, CA, September 3, 1978), http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/2197/happiness-is (accessed September 2, 2014).

3 D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976 [1959–1960]), chs. 3–13.

4 The New Testament was originally written in Greek, and first-century Jews read the Old Testament in Greek, as well. The Greek word translated “earth” in Matt. 5:5 is the same Greek word translated “land” in Ps. 37:11.

5 Charles Quarles puts this well: “Psalm [37] describes the meek as those who ‘trust in the LORD’ (vv. 3, 5), ‘take delight in the LORD’ (v. 4), ‘wait expectantly for’ the Lord (v. 7), and ‘put their hope in the LORD’ (v. 9)” (Sermon on the Mount: Restoring Christ’s Message to the Modern Church, NACSBT 11 [Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2011], 55).

6 Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, 88.

7 The promise of Isaiah 33:17 is the verse that undergirds the main argument (and is the source of the title) of Thomas R. Schreiner’s recent whole-Bible biblical theology, The King in His Beauty (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013).

8 NT scholars debate the number of Beatitudes Jesus spoke. Since “Beatitude” is the Anglicization of the Latin translation for the Greek word that the ESV translates “blessed,” the fact that Jesus says “blessed” nine times indicates that there are nine Beatitudes. Admittedly, the ninth Beatitude is an extension of the eighth Beatitude, but its longer form and direct address do not necessitate subsuming it under the eighth Beatitude. Nevertheless, I will treat the two Beatitudes together and interpret each in light of the other. For a more thorough defense of reading Matthew 5:11–12 as a ninth Beatitude, see Dale C. Allison Jr., “The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount,” Journal of Biblical Literature 106.3 (1987), 429 n. 17.

9 Gregory C. Cochran, “Christian Persecution as Explained by Jesus (Matthew 5:10–12),” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 18.1 (2014), 13.

10 Sermon on the Mount, 75.

Advertisements

Written by Jordan Atkinson

September 2, 2014 at 9:06 PM

Posted in New Testament, Sermon on the Mount

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Sermon on the Mount in Context

leave a comment »

Tonight I’m starting a new Bible study with my youth group on Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (hereafter SM) in Matthew 5–7. My lessons with the youth will closely (but not exactly) follow Dale C. Allison, Jr.’s outline for the SM.1 Following Allison’s outline of the SM, tonight’s lesson focuses on the context of the SM in Matthew 4:23–5:2, where we read:

And he [Jesus] 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: (ESV)

In Matthew 4:23–5:2, we see Jesus ministering in Galilee (4:23), famous in Syria (4:24–25), and seated on the mountain to teach (5:1–2).

According to Matthew 4:23, Jesus’ ministry in Galilee consisted of teaching in synagogues, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every affliction. Luke 4:16–21 fills out the content of Jesus’ teaching in synagogues: Jesus taught that he is the Servant of the Lord prophesied about in Isaiah 61:1–2.2 That Jesus taught in synagogues also reinforces that in his humanity, Jesus was a first–century itinerant Jewish rabbi.3 Furthermore, while Jesus taught in the synagogues, he was simultaneously preaching the gospel of the kingdom, which demands repentance in response (Matt. 4:17). Finally, to teaching and preaching Jesus added miraculous healing, which “pointed to the validity of his message.”4

Jesus’ miracles earned him a wide following early in his public ministry, as we read in Matthew 4:24–25. Jesus’ followers, broadly speaking, included both Jews and Gentiles: Jews from Galilee, Jerusalem, and Judea; and Gentiles from Syria and the Decapolis. Melvin Tinker rightly notes that the presence of Gentiles in the crowds following Jesus points to the fact that Jesus is a light for salvation not only to Jews but also to Gentiles.5

Jesus “went up on the mountain” because he saw these large crowds following him, and he took this opportunity to teach them what has come to be called the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:1–2). Matthew 5:1–2 tells us three important things about Jesus:

  1. Jesus is a new Moses.
  2. Jesus is his disciples’ authoritative rabbi.
  3. Jesus speaks with the authority of God himself.6

First, Jesus is a new Moses. Jesus “went up on the mountain” (Matt. 5:1). As Charles Quarles notes, this phrase from Matt. 5:1 is “an exact verbal parallel” to Moses’ ascension of Mt. Sinai as recorded in Exodus 19:3.7 Jesus is “a new Moses who leads a new exodus for a new Israel replete with a new Sinai, all pointing forward to the new covenant.”8

Simultaneously to being a new Moses, Jesus is his disciples’ authoritative rabbi. His seated position on the mountain was “customary” for Jewish rabbis at the time.9 Furthermore, Jesus refers to himself as a rabbi in Matthew 23:8, and he accepts this ascription both from Nicodemus and Mary Magdalene in John’s Gospel (3:1–2 and 20:16).

Of course, Jesus is more than a new Moses, more than a new rabbi, and this fact brings us to our final point: Jesus speaks with the authority of God himself. Following the SM, we read that “the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes” (Matt. 7:28–29). Jesus’ authority exceeded that of the highest human religious authority for first–century Jews. Whose authority is higher than the highest human authority but God’s? Unlike Quarles, I do believe that Matt. 5:2, with its emphasis on Jesus not only teaching and “saying” but also “open[ing] his mouth,” echoes Matt. 4:4 in which authoritative words are “from the mouth of God.”10 According to Matthew 5:2, when considered in its context within Matthew as a whole and indeed of the Bible as a whole, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount—as are all Jesus’ teachings—is a sermon directly from God himself.

Matthew 4:23–5:2 thus sets the SM into its context, without which we cannot appreciate the SM in all its fulness. Matthew 4:23–5:2 presents Jesus as the herald of the gospel of the kingdom, which calls on everyone to repent in light of Jesus’ life, sacrificial death, and triumphant resurrection. This text also presents Jesus as a new Moses with an authority greater than his fellow rabbis because Jesus is not only fully human but also fully God. As we begin to look at the Sermon on the Mount, before we even get to Jesus’ actual words there, may we submit ourselves to him as the rightful King of God’s kingdom, which covers the whole universe of his creation, through repentant faith that he died to save us from our sins, “to enable us to live the Sermon on the Mount,” to use the phrase of D. Martyn-Lloyd Jones.11

Notes

1 Dale C. Allison, Jr., “The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount.” Journal of Biblical Literature 106.3 (1987): 423–445.

2 Melvin Tinker notes that Isaiah 61:1–2 also “lies behind the commencement of Jesus’ public ministry in Matthew as represented by the Sermon on the Mount” (“The Servant Solution: The Co-ordination of Evangelism and Social Action,” Themelios 32.2 [2007], 12).

3 At the conclusion of his article, Allison argues that the SM, particularly in Matthew 5:13–7:12, “addresses the three things upon which, according to Simeon the Just, the world stands [the Law—Matt. 5:21–48; Temple service—Matt. 6:1–18; and godly social behavior—Matt. 6:19–7:12], and it addresses them in precisely the same order” (“Structure,” 443).

4 Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, Word Biblical Commentary 33A (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1993), 81.

5 “The Servant Solution,” 11.

6 These three observations were inspired by three observations Hagner makes about Matthew 5:1–2 (Matthew 1–13, 85). My three points, however, are more explicit than Hagner’s.

7 Charles Quarles, Sermon on the Mount: Restoring Christ’s Message to the Modern Church, NACSBT 11 (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2011), 22.

8 James M. Hamilton Jr., God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 369.

9 Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 86.

10 Quarles, Sermon on the Mount, 38 n. 8, citing Robert Gundry for this position.

11 D. Martyn-Lloyd Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976 [1959–1960]), 12.

Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Part I) (Review Thursday #3)

with one comment

Paul and the Faithfulness of God (hereafter, PFG) is N. T. Wright’s 2-book fourth volume in his series, Christian Origins and the Question of God. I thus think it is appropriate to give an honest caveat at the beginning of this series of reviews of this book (a 1600+ page tome deserves extensive interaction): I am a newcomer both to this series and to its author. I have not read the first three volumes in this series (though I hope to read them in the future), and I have only before read (and this past winter, at that!) Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision out of Wright’s seemingly endless body of work. Wright, of course, is (in)famous for being the public face of “the New Perspective(s) on Paul.” Why read this book then? I am reading this book (I have just begun reading Part III) for two reasons:

  1. This book is the fruit of Dr. Wright’s 30+ years of researching and writing on various aspects of Pauline theology. Since I hope to research and write on Pauline theology in-depth during my time in seminary and since Paul’s letters will be a significant part of my preaching ministry as a church pastor, Lord willing, this book will be an important one for me to have read so that I can interact with its arguments.
  2. To quote Dr. James Hamilton, who himself is following the advice of Dr. Thomas Schreiner (both pastors in Louisville, KY, and professors at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary): “even when I expect to disagree … I’ve learned that sometimes you learn most from folks like N. T. Wright.”

In other words, this book’s value is (or at least can be) high both academically and pastorally. Having read Parts I and II, I can attest that PFG is a worthwhile read, both intellectually and spiritually. Because each Part of PFG is long enough to be its own separately bound book, I will review each Part individually. Below is my review of “Part I: Paul and His World.”

The first Part of the four-Part PFG gives us the background and contexts to Paul’s theology, which is treated fully in Part III. Part I alone is over 300 pages long—justifiably so, to Wright: a “reasonably detailed … description of Paul’s multiple contexts—Jewish, Greek, Roman—” is “essential” (xv). Perhaps. Certainly the Jewish background to Paul is helpful because Paul’s theology intersects with that of Second Temple Jews, most notably Jews who were “zealous” as Paul was prior to his conversion. Chapter 2 is rightly the longest chapter of this section. However, nearly 200 pages deal with Paul’s Greco-Roman context. Of these chapters, the fourth on Roman religion and culture seems most superfluous (perhaps in part because Wright himself admits that Peter Rodgers “nudged” him into writing this chapter [xxii]), although I feel like sections 2-3 of chapter five, which are a narrative of Roman history to AD 70, are also overkill. Despite feeling the need to skim read these sections of Part I, on the whole this section of PFG is not only an enjoyable but also edifying read.

Chapter One is Wright’s introduction to the whole book. Wright’s reading of Philemon, Paul’s shortest letter, was on the whole persuasive. Especially beneficial to my own understanding of Philemon was Wright’s contrast of it to a contemporary Roman official’s letter on the same subject (a runaway slave returning to his master). Wright highlighted how Paul turned Roman social custom on its head because of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and this exposition of Philemon motivates me to see even “worldly” aspects of my life (such as college) more clearly and more fully in light of the gospel. For that I am grateful. However, Wright’s passing interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21 as referring to reconciliation of people to people rather than of people to God is way off the mark. I am looking forward to reading his full treatment of this verse in Part III so that I can engage his arguments more fully.

Chapter Two is a comprehensive treatment of Paul’s Jewish background and context. Most helpful were Wright’s historical and sociological overview of Second Temple Judaism. Once again, however, I encounter an unhelpful quirk of Wright’s overall argument. One of Wright’s foundational arguments is that God meant the Jews to be the solution to the problem of sin but because of their own sinfulness Jesus then had to come and serve as the True Israel to rescue the world from sin. I cannot but disagree with this specific argument. As early as Gen. 3:15, we read of God’s plan to save the world (hundreds of years before he even called Abraham to be the first Jew!) through the singular “seed” of the woman, and this hope for a singular Savior is repeated throughout the Old Testament, famously in Isaiah 53. This argument emerges again in Part II and even more extensively in Part III, so I will interact with this theological flaw of the book more fully in reviews of those Parts. On the whole, chapter two was my favorite of Part I, perhaps in part because of the wealth of information I learned about Second Temple Judaism, which is the first century background with which I am most unfamiliar.

Chapter Three is a necessary but thankfully shorter chapter on Paul’s Greek philosophical context. In Wright’s own words, “this chapter is important” because Tarsus—Paul’s hometown—was known for “export[ing]” Stoic philosophers, in particular (199). As a historian, Wright is top-notch. Throughout these chapters on Jewish beliefs, Greek philosophy, and Roman imperialism, I could find nothing wrong with Wright historically. Chapter Three is thus excellent, and Chapters Four and Five, though way too long in my opinion, were also factually sound and will be helpful, I’m sure, in the future, for cultural and historical background to the New Testament.

Wright identifies Part I as the structural foundation of PFG. In the Preface, he depicts PFG as a chiastic staircase, with Parts II and III on the top floor (Part III being the ultimate climax). Chapters One through Five are thus important first steps for understanding Wright’s understanding of Paul (and Paul’s understanding of “the faithfulness of God”). These chapters build a historically sound foundation for the chapters to come. Theological errors, though present, are neither numerous nor threatening to the historical foundation of Wright’s book. I can only wish that this opening section was not so long so that I could get to what I consider the heart of the matter, Paul’s theology, faster. But before Paul’s theology, for Wright, comes not only Paul’s contexts but also Paul’s own worldview, which is the subject of Part II and will thus be the subject of the next post in my review of Paul and the Faithfulness of God.

“Why Jesus?” A Sermon on Romans 10:5-13

leave a comment »

In the midst of editing my research paper on Romans 9-11, I had the privilege to preach on Romans 10:5-13. This text is the heart of Romans 9-11, this section’s main point. In his recent Pauline theology, N. T. Wright convincingly argues that Romans 9-11 is a chiasm, the center of which is 10:5-13, most specifically 10:9 (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1161-1176). (Wright’s book was published subsequent to my initial writing of the paper, and my initial reading of its section on Romans 9-11 allowed me to cite Wright solely for his explicit rebuttal of theologians who try to argue that Jews can be saved by Jesus without believing that he is the Christ. Although I find Wright’s chiastic structure of Romans 9-11 compelling, I do not agree with some of his interpretations concerning Romans 9-11. Once I read this mammoth tome in its entirety I hope to engage its many arguments in more detail.) Because Romans 9-11 is chiastic, the central text is central to the section’s meaning. The basic problem of Romans 9-11 is how God is faithful despite many Jews’ rejection of Christ’s gospel and thus exclusion from the people of God. Romans 10:5-13 solves this problem: “confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead” (Rom. 10:9) is the only way for God to be faithful and save people.

In the broader argument of Romans 10:5-13, Paul maintains that no one has ever been saved by keeping the law because no one (except Jesus) keeps the law (Rom. 10:5). In fact, the law itself has always pointed to the need of Jesus to save us from our lawlessness (Rom. 10:6-10). Finally, the law has always called all people to believe in the Messiah, who we know is Jesus of Nazareth, for salvation (Rom. 10:11-13).

So my sermon on Romans 10:5-13, “Why Jesus?” answers the question, “Why trust Jesus for salvation?” Romans 10:5-13 gives us three good reasons:

  1. Put your faith in Jesus because you can’t save yourself (v. 5).
  2. Put your faith in Jesus because the law calls you to trust him for salvation (vv. 6-10).
  3. Put your faith in Jesus because anyone can be saved by faith in him (vv. 11-13).

The audio for this sermon was recorded at Calvary Baptist Church on March 23, 2014. You can listen to the sermon here by clicking play on the on-screen Flash player. May God use this sermon to bring non-Christians to faith in Jesus for salvation by his death and resurrection, and may he use it to encourage us Christians to continue confessing and believing Christ firm to the end.

Romans 9-11 and Christian-Jewish Relations

leave a comment »

In fall 2013, I took a class on Jewish-Christian relations for my religious studies minor at The University of Alabama. The class was interesting, especially since I was learning Jewish-Christian relations from a Jewish perspective. (My professor for that class, Dr. Steven L. Jacobs, also serves as the rabbi of Tuscaloosa’s only Jewish congregation, Temple Emanu-El.) The class was valuable for me as a Christian youth pastor because it helped me to clarify and to sharpen my own thoughts regarding how Christians should relate to Jews (and all non-Christians, for that matter). The class culminated in an 8-10 page research paper on Jewish-Christian relations, and I wrote my paper on Romans 9-11, where Paul personally deals with this problem extensively.

In my paper, I defended the exclusivity of the Christian gospel in Romans 9-11. Paul had “great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart,” he wrote, because so many of his fellow ethnic Jews were proving not to be spiritual Jews by their rejection of Jesus as the promised Savior Messiah (Rom. 9:2). This rejection is damning because Jesus the Messiah is not only human but also God: from the Jewish race, “according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all” (Rom. 9:5). Because of their unbelief in Jesus as the Christ, Jews are not saved, so Paul’s “desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved” (Rom. 10:1). Paul hopes to save some Jews by making them jealous of Gentile Christians (Rom. 11:13-14), but he knows that a majority of Jews will not become Christians “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in,” when “‘The Deliverer will come from Zion'” and “‘will banish ungodliness from Jacob'” (Rom. 11:25, 26).

Despite arguing that the only way for all non-Christians, my Jewish professor included (!), to be saved, to escape an eternal hell of separation from God, Dr. Jacobs gave me top marks on my paper. Even more surprisingly–praise God and to him be the glory!–over the winter break Dr. Jacobs invited me to present my paper at the religious studies department’s upcoming inaugural undergraduate research symposium. Throughout January and February, I edited my paper, further sharpening and clarifying my original thesis that everyone, even Jews, must believe in Jesus as the Messiah Savior in order to enjoy God for eternity, and delivered it weekly to Dr. Jacobs for practice. I praise God for the opportunity thus to share the gospel weekly with Dr. Jacobs leading up to the symposium. Dr. Jacobs remains the rabbi of Temple Emanu-El and proud of his distinctly Jewish (not Christian) identity, but seeds were sown, and I continue to pray that by God’s grace they may one day produce the fruit of faith in Jesus as his Savior and Lord (see Mark 4:1-20, 26-29).

I am glad to make my edited paper available in its entirety online. You may view and download my paper, “The Implications of Romans 9-11 for Modern Christian-Jewish Relations,” here. May God use this paper for his glory by giving non-Christians faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and by emboldening us Christians to build relationships with the non-Christians around us in order to share the gospel both urgently and respectfully.

The First Century Ephesian Church and the Twenty-First Century American Church

leave a comment »

What is the most pressing problem that the American church currently has? Some might identify the twenty-first century American church’s biggest problem as the ongoing sexual revolution in our society. Respected Christian leaders have consistently decried the sexual slippery slope that our society is racing down, especially with the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA earlier this summer. Others might identify the church’s worst problem more broadly as the anti-religious liberty tendencies of President Obama’s administration or the anti-Christian bias of both news media and pop culture. I deny neither that these problems exist nor that they are pressing; however, I would identify a different problem as the most pressing problem that the twenty-first century American church faces.

The other proposed pressing problems all share this common trait: they are problems that are pressing the church from the outside. I believe that the church’s most pressing problem presses her from the inside. This problem is not new. It is a problem that has plagued the church since New Testament times. The most pressing problem that the twenty-first century American church faces is false teaching.

False teaching espouses both wrong doctrine (heterodoxy) and wrong practice (heteropraxy). Any combination of the two can constitute false teaching, and a combination of one or both of these elements of false teaching has threatened the gospel integrity of churches since the first century. For this study, I shall examine the first century Ephesian church as described in Acts, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Revelation. In the mid-first century, Paul warned the Ephesian elders of false teaching that was to come. Within ten years, that false teaching had arrived in Ephesus, and it was marked both by heterodoxy and heteropraxy. By the end of the first century, the church at Ephesus had corrected its doctrinal problems but was still threatened by practical problems: they no longer loved the Lord. Whatever varieties of false teaching are prevalent in your specific local church, bad doctrine and bad living are the most pressing dangers your church faces in America right now.

Coming False Teaching

Paul founded the Ephesian church gradually. He first visited Ephesus with Aquila and Priscilla as recorded in Acts 18:18-21, but he did not remain in Ephesus long enough to establish a church there. The first Christian convert in Ephesus was actually  Apollos, who himself was from Alexandria. Aquila and Priscilla evangelized him while Paul was away from the city (Acts 18:24-26). Apollos did not spend a long time ministering in Ephesus, either. He traveled on to Achaia and Corinth, where he exercised a fruitful ministry (Acts 18:27-28; 19:1; cf. 1 Cor. 3:5-9).

Like Aquila and Priscilla before him, Paul found disciples of John in Corinth. As Aquila implicitly had done with Apollos, Paul explicitly “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” the disciples of John that he evangelized (Acts 19:5). Paul remained in Ephesus there building up the church through preaching and healing people for over two years until he left Ephesus following a riot (Acts 19:8-41; 20:1). Before traveling back to Jerusalem, Paul summoned the elders (the leaders who labored in preaching and teaching) of the Ephesian church to Miletus so he could deliver a farewell address to them because he would never see them again (Acts 20:17, 25, 38). The theme of Paul’s farewell address to the Ephesian elders was the contrast between coming false teaching and his previous sound teaching.

And when they came to him, he said to them:

“You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. Pay careful attention to yourselves and to al the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night and day to admonish everyone with tears. And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.'” (Acts 20:18-35)

Paul begins his farewell address to the Ephesian elders by reminding them of his faithful ministry in Ephesus. He reminds them that he faithfully preached the gospel and urged people to repent and believe for salvation (vv. 20-21). Despite the hardships he had faced and the hardships for him yet to face, Paul was determined to faithfully complete his ministry as an apostle (vv. 19, 22-24). In contrast to Paul’s concern for others, the false teachers will be concerned for themselves (vv. 29-31). Paul rightly prays that God would make the Ephesian elders faithful as they faced the false teaching once it arrived (v. 32), even though he knew that some of them would join the false teachers (v. 30). He thus rightly concludes his farewell address by reminding the elders of his own faithfulness and generosity, which should motivate them to be faithful and generous, as well (vv. 33-35).

Paul founded the Ephesian church on the true gospel of Jesus Christ. He had faithfully modeled a Christian lifestyle for the Ephesian believers to emulate. His three years of faithful gospel preaching and gospel living, by God’s grace, would be sufficient for the Ephesian Christians to withstand the false teaching to come.

Rampant False Teaching

Sadly, not everyone in the Ephesian church were true Christians. Unregenerate church members, now as then, sow false teaching in the church both in doctrine and in practice. Within a decade of bidding the Ephesian elders adieu, Paul’s prophecy had come true. False teachers had arisen in Ephesus. Paul has already excommunicated two Ephesians, Hymenaeus and Alexander, for their participation in the heresy (1 Tim. 1:19-20). False teaching is a prominent (if not the prominent) theme of 1 Timothy, and Paul bookends this epistle with extended charges to Timothy to correct the false teaching that was rampant in the Ephesian church (1 Tim. 1:3-20; 6:3-21). This false teaching espoused both false doctrine and false practice.

As a false teaching, the Ephesian heresy of the mid-first century taught false doctrine. This false doctrine was devoted “to myths and endless genealogies” (1 Tim. 1:4). The false teaching was essentially a “vain discussion” about the law, which the false teachers had no understanding about “either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions” (1 Tim. 1:6, 7; cf. Titus 3:9). Since the Ephesian heresy concerned the Jewish law, it seems that the myths and genealogies were also Jewish constructs. Paul similarly warned Titus in Crete of “the circumcision party” (Titus 1:10) whose members “devot[ed] themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth” (Titus 1:14). Although Paul had excommunicated Hymenaeus before he wrote 1 Timothy, in 2 Timothy, we read that Hymenaeus continued to teach false doctrine in Ephesus: he taught that “the resurrection has already happened” (2 Tim. 2:18). The false teachers led “foolish, ignorant controversies” that Timothy was to “have nothing to do with” because “they breed quarrels” (2 Tim. 2:23; cf. 1 Tim. 6:3-5). The false doctrine that the false teachers taught in Ephesus seems to be an odd admixture of Jewish legalism and antinomianism. They insisted upon following the Jewish law of circumcision, but they participated in and encouraged greed, ecclesiastical disunity, and sexual immorality because they denied a future bodily resurrection. Mounce rightly characterizes this false teaching as not being “a well-thought-out, cohesive system of belief” (William D. Mounce, The Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary 46 [2000], lxix).

In responding to the false teaching, then, Paul emphasizes how the false teachers’ false gospel results in false living.

Paul must deal with the Ephesian opponents differently from those in Galatia who had a formulated teaching that could be described and evaluated. Paul cannot logically and theologically argue against empty chatter and quarrels about words. He must focus on the opponents’ behavior, which reveals the error of their teaching. (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, lxxv)

In 1-2 Timothy, Paul warns Timothy that the Ephesian heterodoxy was so dangerous because of its heteropraxy. Consider Hymenaeus as a case study. In 2 Timothy 2:16-18, Paul warns Timothy:

But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.

Why should Timothy “avoid irreverent babble”? Why should he not join the false teachers in “saying that the resurrection has already happened”? Because such talk “lead[s] people into more and more ungodliness.” It upsets their faith. False teaching is dangerous because it leads people into false lifestyles that ultimately lead people astray into hell. Paul made this point specifically regarding greed:

But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. (1 Tim. 6:9-10)

As I have argued previously, “destruction” refers to eternal punishment. Wandering away from the faith, by extension, likewise results in eternal punishment because it shows that the apostate was never truly saved (cf. Mark 4:14-20; 1 John 2:18-19). False teaching is dangerous because it results in behavior that contradicts sound doctrine (Titus 1:9; cf. Titus 1:10-16). Behavior that contradicts the gospel is dangerous because it results in condemnation because it shows that such a person was never truly saved (2 Cor. 5:17; Heb. 10:39).

Within a decade of Paul warning the Ephesian elders of the coming false teaching, it had arrived and was rampant in Ephesus. In 1-2 Timothy, Paul tells Timothy, whom he had “urged” to “remain at Ephesus” (1 Tim. 1:3), to combat this false teaching both doctrinally and practically. The over-realized eschatology of the Ephesian false teachers excused them to indulge abuse of their power in the church by greed and sexual immorality. However, they insisted upon their followers getting circumcised. Timothy was to combat these doctrinal and behavioral errors in Ephesus so that the church would return to “the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness” (1 Tim. 6:3).

The Residual Dangers of False Teaching

Timothy apparently enjoyed success in Ephesus to an extent. By the end of the first century, the Ephesians had corrected many of their doctrinal and behavioral problems. In the letter that he dictates to the apostle John, Jesus writes to the church in Ephesus:

“‘I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name’s sake, and you have not grown weary. (Rev. 2:2-3)

The Ephesians had rooted out (and kept out) the false teachers for a few decades. They even “hate[d] the works of the Nicolaitans,” (Rev. 2:6) who ate meat previously sacrificed to pagan deities and practiced sexual immorality (David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5, Word Biblical Commentary 52A, 148). Since the false teachers in the late 50s/early 60s were sexually immoral, the Ephesians’ double rejection of earlier false teachers and the current Nicolaitans demonstrates genuine repentance of false teaching, both doctrinal and behavioral.

However, all was not well in Ephesus despite the Ephesians’ return to sound doctrine. “But I have this against you,” Jesus wrote them, “that you have abandoned the love you had at first” (Rev. 2:4). As John MacArthur has commented:

the clear penetrating laser vision of Christ found a fatal fault that probably nobody else saw. Their hard hearts, that labor of passion and fervor was becoming the cold orthodox function. That was deadly, dangerous. The service had started to become mechanical.

Bad doctrine and bad works are always dangerous, but even good doctrine and good works are dangerous when they are done by someone who doesn’t love Jesus. We can depict this truth with the following diagram:

Love Spectrum

Genuine love for Jesus results in good doctrine and good works, but those who don’t love Jesus are either legalists (good doctrine and good works) or antinomians (bad doctrine and bad works), both of which are condemned for eternity. Paul had earlier warned the Ephesians of the antinomian danger of false teaching in Acts 20 and in 1-2 Timothy, but Jesus now decries the legalistic danger of false teaching in Revelation 2. Good doctrine and good works must flow from a genuine love for Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, or else it is false. To put this truth another way, the gospel does not merely command faith that results in works; the gospel commands loving allegiance to Christ that manifests itself by faith and works. As Paul said in Galatians: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6). As he put it even more succinctly for the Corinthians: “So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor. 13:13).

Implications for the American Church of the Twenty-First Century

False teaching is rampant in the twenty-first century American church. Depending upon your local church context, you may battle false teaching more at the doctrinal level, the behavioral level, or the motivational level. Whatever form false teaching takes in our contexts, it is the most pressing danger we American Christians face. Maybe for you the temptation is more legalistic, for another it may be more antinomian. Whatever form false teaching takes in your situation, be on guard against it because the consequences of false teaching are eternally disastrous.

Jesus warned the Ephesian church, “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent” (Rev. 2:5). “This is nothing less than a threat to obliterate the Ephesian congregation as an empirical Christian community” (Aune, Revelation 1-5, 147). “Christ threatens to ‘come’ to them (not in the Parousia but in an act of temporal judgment; see 2:16) and blot their community out of existence” (ibid., 155). Jesus had indeed promised his disciples that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against” the church (Matt. 16:18), but Jesus was referring to the universal church, not to local churches. Local churches, as not only Revelation 2-3 but also history and, all too often, personal experience testify, are subject to dying from unrepentant false teaching, whether coldly legalistic or passionately antinomian.

May we in our twenty-first century American churches take to heart the lesson the first-century Ephesian church is trying to teach us. False teaching is inevitable (Acts 20:17-38). False teaching may be antinomian in that it tells us to deny the faith and to live in sin (1-2 Timothy), or false teaching may be legalistic in that it tells us to keep the faith and do good works but apart from genuine love for Jesus (Rev. 2:3-5). Either way, unrepentant false teaching results both in eternal condemnation for apostate Christians (1 Tim. 6:9-10) and in the temporal nonexistence for apostate churches (Rev. 2:6). Nevertheless, Jesus ends his letter to the Ephesians with a note of resounding hope: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To throne who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God” (Rev. 2:7). “And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32).

%d bloggers like this: