I preached Sunday morning on the topic of the law of Christ, and more specifically from Jesus’ statement in the sermon on the mount that our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees if we want to enter the kingdom of heaven. I’d like to relay ten propositions from the passage:1. Jesus’ claim to fulfill the law rather than abolish it is then clarified by his statement that those who do and teach the law will be called great in the kingdom of heaven, indicating that Jesus’ fulfillment of the law takes the form of our obedience to it.
2. Our superior righteousness to that of the scribes and Pharisees, therefore, is something that is actually accomplishable rather than merely hypothetical (in other words, this is not an example of the “first use of the law”).
3. Jesus’ conclusion of his six antitheses with the command to love our neighbor is not accidental, since he teaches elsewhere, as does Paul, that love is what fulfills the law.
4. Jesus’ statement following his command to love our neighbor that we must be perfect is another way of saying that our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees.
5. The demand for perfection cannot mean a sinless perfection that can withstand the scrutiny of God’s inflexible law, since that is both impossible and contradicts the entire tenor of the sermon, which calls us to new obedience.
6. To insist that the call to perfection or to superlative righteousness is unattainable is to admit that the law of Christ suffers from the same flaw as the law of Moses, namely, that it commands without empowering.
7. This contradicts the prophecy of the New Covenant in Jer. 31, as well as Paul’s claim in Rom. 8 that it is the law of the Spirit of life that has set us free from the law of sin and death.
8. If the commands of the law of Christ found in the sermon on the mount are not hypothetical but are to be obeyed, then this is only possible if God judges us from a gracious, rather than a legal, perspective.
9. God can only judge us from a gracious rather than legal perspective by doing so in the light of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross for our sins, and the merit provided by that sacrifice.
10. Therefore, the sermon on the mount as a whole teaches us that we can only enter the kingdom of heaven by availing ourselves of the power of the Spirit of the risen Christ, who pours into our hearts the love by which we can love God and neighbor, thereby fulfilling the law.
Thoughts?
Love the pic! You need to see the movie Cedar Rapids just for Isiah Whitlock's two lines name-dropping The Wire.
ReplyDeleteI found Glenn Stassen's article on triadic structures in the sermon very helpful in supporting many of your propositions. Interestingly, he argues against the antithetical exegesis, and stresses the new initiative that Christ wants us to do, stopping vicious cycles. See Journal of Biblical Literture (2003)267-308 "The Fourteen Triads on the Sermon on the Mount"
ReplyDeleteConfOut: He does do a pretty convincing "Omar."
ReplyDeleteEric: Thanks for the recommend. I sometimes scratch my head over how the law was always to obeyed from the heart by love of God and neighbor, but how that technically this was not possible until the gift of the Spirit under the NC, but then again, people under the OC clearly did exhibit this love and obedience. I've never been completely satisfied with the answers I hear on this.
A clarifying question: So, are you saying that when Jesus said that our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, he wasn't getting at the need for forensic righteousness (e.g., in the sense that Paul uses the term "righteousness" in Romans 3-5); but rather, he was getting at the need for new (i.e., Spirit-empowered) obedience?
ReplyDeleteI confess I have never worked through the SOTM so I don't have a lot of detailed thoughts. More questions than anything.
ReplyDeleteI am curious what covenant you see the Law of Christ as being (if any)?
Do you see the Law that Jesus came to "fulfill" in v. 17 as the "Law of Christ" to which Paul refers in 1 Cor 9:21 and Gal 6:2?
Is this what James refers to as the "Law of the Liberty"? The "law of the Spirit? in Romans 8?
Simply put, you refer in #1 to the Law that Jesus came to fulfill, then in #2ff you begin to talk about our righteousness and appear to continue the use of the same "law." In #7 you make reference to the New Covenant (I assume in contradiction to the Old Covenant/Law) as proof that the Christians will obey God better than the scribes and pharisees. If the Law which Christ came to "fulfill" is the same Law that the Christian is under, does that mean that his obedience did not need to be perfect, since the Christian's does not (cf. #5)? How would you state these propositions covenantally? Thanks.
Brett
David,
ReplyDeleteSo, are you saying that when Jesus said that our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, he wasn't getting at the need for forensic righteousness (e.g., in the sense that Paul uses the term "righteousness" in Romans 3-5); but rather, he was getting at the need for new (i.e., Spirit-empowered) obedience?
I think one could read Jesus' statements about the need for righteousness and perfection in a forensic way, but I think it's a bit foreign and unnatural to the text itself. The entire sermon is about OUR obedience ("He who hears these sayings of mine and does them... Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord,' but he who does the will of my Father...."). So comparing Scripture with Scripture, it seems pretty obvious that Jesus is referring to the (admittedly flawed yet Spirit-wrought) obedience we offer under the new covenant.
Brett,
ReplyDeleteI am curious what covenant you see the Law of Christ as being (if any)?
I think that all law comes as a part of a covenant, and that the law of Christ is the law of the New Covenant in particular.
Do you see the Law that Jesus came to "fulfill" in v. 17 as the "Law of Christ" to which Paul refers in 1 Cor 9:21 and Gal 6:2?
No, I don’t think Jesus fulfills his own law. He refers in v. 17 to “the Law and the Prophets,” which tells me he is talking about the Mosaic law (which is why he goes on to quote from it six times).
Is this what James refers to as the "Law of the Liberty"? The "law of the Spirit? in Romans 8?
I for sure think that the law of Christ is what Paul is referring to in Rom. 8 when he says, “The law of the Spirit of life has set me free from the law of sin and death.” I’ve never been totally certain about James’s use of “the royal law” and “the perfect law of liberty,” though. But I tend to think that he, Paul, and Jesus are all talking about the same thing (the law of Christ), but that creates a bit of a problem for me where James goes on and talks about failing in even one point of the law. I want to take that as the Mosaic law, but I don’t know if that’s legit.
If the Law which Christ came to "fulfill" is the same Law that the Christian is under, does that mean that his obedience did not need to be perfect, since the Christian's does not (cf. #5)?
Going back to what I said before, I don’t think that the law of Christ is what Jesus came to fulfill. When Jesus talks in 5:17 about fulfilling the law, I don’t think he is referring to his own law-keeping at all. As he immediately makes clear, the way that Jesus fulfills the law is by enabling the members of his Body to actually exhibit the fruit of the Spirit by which THEY fulfill the intent of the law by loving God and neighbor (which I think is exactly what Paul is getting at when he says in Rom. 8 that the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us, who walk after the Spirit).
Yes, Jesus’ own obedience needed to be perfect in order to qualify as a sacrifice and thus procure the Spirit whom he pours into our hearts.
How would you state these propositions covenantally?
I would do it exactly how Jeremiah did and say that the New Covenant God has made consists of his writing his law upon our hearts and minds, or exactly how Paul did by saying that there is NOW no condemnation in Christ, because the law of the Spirit has freed me from the law of sin and death, God accomplishing in Christ what the law could not, its righteous requirement now being fulfilled in us through the Spirit.
This is what the NC is all about, I think.
Alright...so a few thoughts... I like the general tenor of it in that I think the emphasis on the sermon is upon the obedience of God's NC people, but I think I need to hear you fill out the statement "indicating that Jesus’ fulfillment of the law takes the form of our obedience to it." I could be mis-understanding you somewhat but it seems like you are saying that the form of 5:17 is entirely that which Jesus by means of his Spirit accomplishes in the lives of his people and not what Jesus fulfills himself in terms of the righteous requirements of the law. If that is correct, I think it needs qualification. I don't disagree with the former but think it must be grounded in the later.
ReplyDeleteOf course you've focused entirely on "the law" and not really done much with the "or the prophets" part. Granting that he goes on to speak of the Law I think they hang together and we need to think of the fulfillment of the one in light of the fulfillment of the other. A quick search of pleraow in Matthew shows that Jesus himself is fulfilling/the fulfillment of the words of the prophets. It seems to me the same must be true of the Law (I don't suspect you'd deny this). If we can think of Vos' triangle of revelation with respect to the Law I think we may say that Jesus incarnates the law as he incarnates the temple or the sacrificial system. He is the embodiment and exemplar of God's righteous requirements which were enshrined in a covenantally appropriate form (ten commandments) in the OC. The covenantally appropriate form in the new is the revelation of the one who comes to do the will of the father perfectly and to Spirit-enable a people who will do the same.
I also would like to see you give some attention to the overlap of the ages. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with an imperfect perfection. I think the perfection in view is sinless perfection or why say "as your heavenly Father is perfect." It seems to me this is answered by the overlap of the ages. It is in this present stage of the kingdom a righteousness of faith which will give way to sight and glorification in the age to come. So that the full attainment awaits the consummation of the kingdom and is only begun by its inauguration."
Joel,
ReplyDeleteI think I need to hear you fill out the statement "indicating that Jesus’ fulfillment of the law takes the form of our obedience to it." I could be misunderstanding you somewhat but it seems like you are saying that the form of 5:17 is entirely that which Jesus by means of his Spirit accomplishes in the lives of his people and not what Jesus fulfills himself in terms of the righteous requirements of the law. If that is correct, I think it needs qualification. I don't disagree with the former but think it must be grounded in the later.
For the sake of argument I’m going to bite the bullet whenever I can (by which I mean I will dig my heels at all times, but I’m only doing it to see if my position holds up). So with that said, I don’t see anything in the SOTM about Jesus’ own law-keeping on our behalf. In fact, immediately after saying that he has come to fulfill the law and prophets he says, “Therefore whoever does and teaches the commandments will be called great in the kingdom,” and then explains that we will not enter unless our righteousness exceeds the scribes and Pharisees. So the passage seems to be focusing solely on our law-keeping and not Christ’s.
Of course you've focused entirely on "the law" and not really done much with the "or the prophets" part. Granting that he goes on to speak of the Law I think they hang together and we need to think of the fulfillment of the one in light of the fulfillment of the other. A quick search of pleraow in Matthew shows that Jesus himself is fulfilling/the fulfillment of the words of the prophets. It seems to me the same must be true of the Law (I don't suspect you'd deny this).
I question whether Jesus is using the second part of “the law and the prophets” to be referring to actual prophecies he fulfills. Later in Matthew he says that on the two commands to love God and neighbor “all the law and prophets depend,” and about the Golden Rule he says that “this is the law and the prophets.” It doesn’t seem to me that he is referring to specific prophecies that he fulfills, which makes me doubt whether the idea of Jesus’ own prophecy-fulfillments can serve as a lens through which to understand what his own law-fulfillment looks like.
I also would like to see you give some attention to the overlap of the ages. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with an imperfect perfection. I think the perfection in view is sinless perfection or why say "as your heavenly Father is perfect."
I got the whole “imperfect perfection” thing from Luke 1, which says of John the Baptist’s parents, “And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.” Whatever this means, it certainly cannot mean that they were sinlessly perfect, and it also doesn’t appear to mean that they were perfect due to imputation of alien righteousness, since Luke goes out of his way to attribute their righteousness to their own law-keeping, which could not have been anything but imperfect.
Plus, we can’t insist that the perfection of which Jesus speaks must be a sinless perfection based on his concluding phrase “as your Father in heaven is perfect,” since that would prove too much. We will never be perfect in a divine way, but only in a creaturely way. If this is correct, then it lends weight to my thesis, namely, that the Spirit enables us to obey the law of Christ in a way that renders us perfect in a sense that makes sense of a mere creature.
Jason, What does your position do for the structure of Matthew in which Jesus embodies the life of Israel? There is a mass murder of male-Jewish-infants, he hides in Egypt, comes up through the waters, spends 40 in the wilderness and then ascends the mountain to discuss the Law. How can his discussion of his fulfillment of the Law in v. 17 be anything but his perfect Law keeping (contrasted to Israel's law-breaking) if he is the one being presented as the True Israel?
ReplyDelete"I don’t see anything in the SOTM about Jesus’ own law-keeping on our behalf. In fact, immediately after saying that he has come to fulfill the law and prophets he says, “Therefore whoever does and teaches the commandments will be called great in the kingdom,” and then explains that we will not enter unless our righteousness exceeds the scribes and Pharisees. So the passage seems to be focusing solely on our law-keeping and not Christ’s."
ReplyDeleteI think we could base his personal fulfillment of it upon Matthew's presentation of Jesus as the true/greater Israel who is called out of Egypt (ch.2), baptized in the Jordan to fulfill all righteousness (ch.3), led into the wilderness where he stands under trial (ch.4), constitutes a new nation/twelve under his righteous rule (ch.4), then ascends the mountain where he sits down (is enthroned as it were) and speaks. He is the new Israel who fulfills the law and then speaks in a way anticipating the day when he will not come down the mountain (28:16).
"It doesn’t seem to me that he is referring to specific prophecies that he fulfills, which makes me doubt whether the idea of Jesus’ own prophecy-fulfillments can serve as a lens through which to understand what his own law-fulfillment looks like."
I guess I've been inclined to take "law and prophets" as shorthand for the whole old order of things from which he can draw out specifics (so pleraos use in 1:22; 2:15; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4). The requirements of the law seem to have a "prophetic" fulfillment as much as do the pronouncements of the prophets. This seems especially true if we include its civil and ceremonial aspects.
"I got the whole “imperfect perfection” thing from Luke 1, which says of John the Baptist’s parents, “And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.”"
I'll need to think about that but it seems to be similar to Paul's "blameless under the law" comment in Phil. 3:6 no?
"Plus, we can’t insist that the perfection of which Jesus speaks must be a sinless perfection based on his concluding phrase “as your Father in heaven is perfect,” since that would prove too much. We will never be perfect in a divine way, but only in a creaturely way."
I think Jesus is simply speaking of perfection in a moral sense not in an ontological sense. (1 Pet. 1:16; 2:19-21 cf. Lk. 6:32-36). We will in the age to come be confirmed in the sinless perfection of the glorified state, but will still certainly be creaturely. Again I think the present overlap of the ages helps to make a lot of sense of what is going on.
LOL...Brett...you preempted me. My thoughts exactly. Then again maybe they were your thoughts all along.
ReplyDeleteHahahaha... wait.. Joel and I have the same response? There's a shock!
ReplyDeleteIt helps to translate "perfect" as "mature". We are to grow up, to be mature, like our Father by loving our enemies.
ReplyDeleteBrett/Joel,
ReplyDeleteWhat does your position do for the structure of Matthew in which Jesus embodies the life of Israel? There is a mass murder of male-Jewish-infants, he hides in Egypt, comes up through the waters, spends 40 in the wilderness and then ascends the mountain to discuss the Law. How can his discussion of his fulfillment of the Law in v. 17 be anything but his perfect Law keeping (contrasted to Israel's law-breaking) if he is the one being presented as the True Israel?
Those are good questions and I’ve been thinking about how best to try to answer them. First, I think we need to be careful of allowing some external factor to steer our exegesis of a particular text. Of course, there’s no way to completely escape this, but I think we always need to recognize when we’re doing it. The way I would apply this to our discussion is by asking whether something like our understanding of “the structure of Matthew” should be the determining factor in what Matthew 5:17ff means. I think I have demonstrated from the actual context that the entire sermon, and 5:17ff specifically, are not about Jesus’ law-keeping but ours. I don’t think it is legitimate to ignore that and appeal to some broad thing like the structure of Matthew (incidentally, people do this with Rom. 2:13 as well, and I think it’s just as problematic there).
But that aside, perhaps the idea of our union with Christ can help here. God’s covenant-making with Israel was designed to bestow the sacred bonds of kinship, which is why Israel is called Yahweh’s “firstborn son.” Of course, Israel failed to live up to its filial obligations and was disinherited. Then Jesus comes on the scene as the true Israelite whose job is NOT just to obey in our stead, but also to reproduce his own divine life and sonship in us his people. Thus it is a false dilemma to pit Christ’s obedience against ours, since we are members of his mystical body and share in his sufferings as well as in his triumphs (“I am crucified with Christ, but I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me,” etc).
So my point is there’s nothing damaging to the structure of Matthew to say that just as Moses failed to produce an obedient people, Jesus as new Moses has succeeded in doing so. Therefore saying that the SOTM is about our obedience doesn’t minimize Christ’s obedience, it’s just that the sermon isn’t about that—it’s not about Jesus personally lived-out obedience, but about that obedience reproduced in us by the Spirit (it’s just what Paul echoes in Rom. 8:1-4).
JDF,
ReplyDeleteI wrote, "I got the whole ‘imperfect perfection’ thing from Luke 1, which says of John the Baptist’s parents, ‘And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.’"
And you responded: I'll need to think about that but it seems to be similar to Paul's "blameless under the law" comment in Phil. 3:6 no?
I would say no, these are not talking about the same things. Jesus’ indictment of the Pharisees is scathing, and I think it would have applied to Paul but not to Zechariah and Elizabeth. In other words, I don’t think there’s any way that the Spirit would have inspired Luke to write of Saul of Tarsus that he was “righteous before the Lord, walking in all the commandments of the Lord perfectly.” Rather, he was a white-washed tomb whose exterior was pure but whose interior was filled with corruption and death. There’s no indication that this was true of John the Baptist’s parents. The text seems to suggest the exact opposite.
I think Jesus is simply speaking of perfection in a moral sense not in an ontological sense. (1 Pet. 1:16; 2:19-21 cf. Lk. 6:32-36). We will in the age to come be confirmed in the sinless perfection of the glorified state, but will still certainly be creaturely. Again I think the present overlap of the ages helps to make a lot of sense of what is going on.
Do you see the demand for perfection as epexegetical of the need for a superlative righteousness to that of the scribes and Pharisees? Because I do, and that leads me to believe that these are needed in this life, not just in the next. The reason I think this is that Jesus makes our superior righteousness a requirement for entering the kingdom, not something that will only be true once we have entered it already.
Put it this way, the guy that Rom. 8 describes is the person who is “perfect” in Matt. 5:48. He stands uncondemned, for the law of the Spirit has freed him from the demands and curse of the law of Moses, and moreover, the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in him by the Spirit.
I think that structure and meaning go hand in hand. I think that the sabbatical structure of Matthew's genealogy is a perfect example. In any case, I never intended to "pit the obedience of Christ against ours" and my initial statement was one of agreement in that I believe the emphasis in the sermon is on the obedience of the NC people. I don't believe you have made the case however that Jesus means to limit the form of his "fulfilling of the law and the prophets" to only that obedience which he accomplishes through us but is grounded in that which he himself accomplishes for us which I believe to be borne out by the structure and the primary intent of "I have not come to abolish but to fulfill." You're comments on union seem to soften somewhat and better qualify what I thought you were saying.
ReplyDeleteAs for our righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees, yes I believe that it is necessary in this life (age) as well as in the age to come. But I would say that in this life and as a means of entrance into the kingdom it is the righteousness of God that depends on faith. We do not gain entrance into the kingdom because of our perfections or because God graciously judges an imperfect perfection (not that I think you are saying this), but because God judges us graciously on account of having judged Christ legally. Paul as a Pharisee is case in point "...that I may be found in him not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness of God that depends on faith."
JDF,
ReplyDeleteI think that structure and meaning go hand in hand.
In one sense I agree, but with the proviso that the structure of a book arises from what the individual texts actually say. Therefore to arrive at an understanding of a book’s structure that is independent of the exegesis of its passages, and then to exegete those passages in light of the book’s structure, is a pretty big problem. Not that you’re doing that, I’m just saying.
… my initial statement was one of agreement in that I believe the emphasis in the sermon is on the obedience of the NC people. I don't believe you have made the case however that Jesus means to limit the form of his "fulfilling of the law and the prophets" to only that obedience which he accomplishes through us but is grounded in that which he himself accomplishes for us which I believe to be borne out by the structure and the primary intent of "I have not come to abolish but to fulfill." You're comments on union seem to soften somewhat and better qualify what I thought you were saying.
But where in the text does he even mention his own law-keeping? Right after talking about fulfilling the law he talks about OUR doing the law, which is what he keeps on talking about for the entire sermon. That’s why it seems like you’re imposing an alien idea onto the text.
We do not gain entrance into the kingdom because of our perfections or because God graciously judges an imperfect perfection (not that I think you are saying this), but because God judges us graciously on account of having judged Christ legally.
If I had a mind to ratchet up my devil’s advocate-playing to an even more annoying level, I would ask why Jesus seems to teach the exact opposite in the SOTM, insisting that those who enter the kingdom are those who do the will of his heavenly Father, but I won’t….
Paul as a Pharisee is case in point "...that I may be found in him not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness of God that depends on faith."
Do you see a distinction between a righteousness that comes through faith and a righteousness that comes through loving God and neighbor? If so, how do you understand this passage:
You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love…. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
"But where in the text does he even mention his own law-keeping? "
ReplyDeleteI did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but (I) came to fulfill (the law and the prophets). Perhaps we are at an impasse.
"If I had a mind to ratchet up my devil’s advocate-playing to an even more annoying level, I would ask why Jesus seems to teach the exact opposite in the SOTM, insisting that those who enter the kingdom are those who do the will of his heavenly Father, but I won’t…."
He doesn't seem to be teaching just the opposite to me. And he teaches elsewhere that "this is the will of the Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life."
"Do you see a distinction between a righteousness that comes through faith and a righteousness that comes through loving God and neighbor?"
A distinction, yes. A separation, no.