Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

The Embattled Bible: Four More Books by Robert Yarbrough

by

The newest issue of Themelios contains an excellent review article by Robert Yarbrough. He carefully critiques three recent proposals among some self-identified evangelicals to revise the doctrine of Scripture (Bowald, Rendering the Word in Theological Hermeneutics; McGowan, The Divine Authenticity of Scripture; Sparks, God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship). He also positively reviews Richard Gaffin’s God’s Word in Servant Form.

Well worth reading.

Matthew 7 in Context

by

Matthew 7 does not, at first, glance seem to flow from what precedes. The scene shifts quickly from a discussion of wealth and provision to a section on judgment, to a section on prayer, to the Golden Rule.

Perhaps the section on judgment (Matt. 7:1-5) follows as Jesus brings the sermon to a close because those who take the high standards of the sermon seriously may be tempted to be judgmental toward those who don’t meet the Sermon’s standards. Jesus warns them to take stock first of their own condition before God.

Matthew 7:6 serves as a corrective toward any who read 7:1-5 as a rejection of all discernment.

The section on prayer (Matt. 7:7-11) is fitting toward the conclusion of a sermon that makes such high demands. Disciples will certainly need God’s aid if they are to live according to his expectations. Jesus’ words encourage his disciples that God is generous in answering his children’s requests. This kind of encouragement may be especially necessary because our progress in sanctification so often seems slow and our prayers for the mortification of sin may seem to go unanswered. Jesus assures us that if we ask, it will be given us; if we seek, we will find; if we knock it will be opened. Our heavenly Father gives good things to those who ask him.

The Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12) provides a fitting summary to the body of the Sermon. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 5:17). Here he says the Law and the Prophets can be summed up in this way: “Whatever you wish that others would do for you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” What comes between are the details of how this works out in the kingdom age.

These details are somewhat different than those of the Mosaic age. But the difference is not due to the abolishing of the law and the prophets. If anything, the Sermon outlines higher standards to which the Law and the Prophets pointed. The continuity is emphasized in that those who obey Jesus’ words in this Sermon in the end fulfill the second great commandment in which the whole law is fulfilled (Gal 5:14; Matt. 7:12).

Righteousness exceeding that of the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 5 and 6

by

It seems that a good bit of the Sermon on the Mount flows from Jesus’ statement: “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20).

The remainder of chapter 5 provides Jesus’ hearers with six examples that demonstrate the common understanding of the Law did not rise to Jesus’ expectations of righteousness. (In some cases this was due to a mishandling of the law [e.g., Matt. 5:33-37, 43-47]; in other cases this is due appreciating only the external aspects of the law [e.g., Matt. 5:2-26, 27-30]—something Israel’s prophets condemned; in other cases this is due to a failure to see that the law pointed beyond itself to a higher ethic [e.g., Matt. 5:38-42; 31-32; with Matt. 19:8-9]).

The expected standard is stated in Matthew 5:48: “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Chapter 6 continues the focus on righteousness. It begins with the governing statement: "Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.” [Note the interesting connections between this verse and Matt. 5:12, 16.]

What follows (Matt. 6:2-4, 5-15, 16-18) are three examples: Don’t give alms to be noticed; don’t pray to be noticed; don’t fast to be noticed.

Jesus and the Law in the Sermon on the Mount

by

This is an attempt to understand Jesus’ teaching about the Law in Matthew 5:17-20.

Jesus’ announcement of the arriving kingdom evidently raised questions about the continuing place for the Law. This may have especially been the case if His hearers made the correct connection between the coming kingdom and the New Covenant, a covenant that Jeremiah said would not be like the covenant made at Sinai (Jer. 31:31-32).

Jesus’ clarification has been itself confusing for some interpreters. There are a number of false interpretations that can be cleared away at the outset.

First, when Jesus said that he did not intend to abolish the law, he was not saying that Christians would be obligated to obey every part of the Old Testament law until the end of the world. Hebrews 10:18 has made it clear that Jesus’ death brought an end to the sacrificial system. Jesus himself declared all foods clean, rendering the Old Testament food laws no longer binding on God’s people (Mark 7:19; cf. Acts 10:15). Even within Matthew 5, Jesus is going to make some changes to the Mosaic law (see for instance Jesus’ comments about divorce in light of Matt. 19:8-9).

Second, some people argue that when Jesus says that he is not going to abolish the law, he means the moral law rather than the civil or ceremonial law. But the moral, civil, ceremonial distinction was developed during the Middle Ages. It can’t be read back into the New Testament.

The key to understanding the passage is to understand what Jesus meant by “fulfilling” the law. Matthew uses this term fifteen other times in his gospel and in all but three he is referring to the fulfillment of the Old Testament. In these other passages Jesus doesn’t necessarily fulfill a direct prophetic prediction; but in every case he fulfills the Old Testament by being that to which it pointed forward.

In relation to the Law, Jesus fulfills the Old Testament by bringing about the kingdom in which it is possible to live in the way that the Old Testament pointed toward.

This means that the Old Testament retains its validity until heaven and earth pass away and all is accomplished even though it is no longer the binding covenant of God’s people. Thus one who “looses” an Old Testament commandment comes under God’s disfavor. What God actually demands for entrance into the kingdom of heaven is a righteousness far beyond that of Israel’s most scrupulous law-keepers.

Gardening and Culture

by

Gardening marks, as clearly as any activity, the joining of nature and culture. The gardener makes nothing, but rather gathers what God has made and shapes it into new and pleasing forms. The well-designed garden shows nature more clearly and beautifully than nature can show itself.

Alan Jacobs, “Gardening and Governing,” Books and Culture (March/April 2009): 18.

Alan Jacobs on Philip Jenkins

by

Alan Jacobs wrote an excellent critique of Philip Jenkins’ work, The Lost History of Christianity. (Jacobs actually critiques a Boston Globe essay by Jenkins, but the Globe essay was “a kind of preview” to Jenkins’ new book.)

Here’s an excerpt:

And if I do give up on the uniqueness of Jesus, what do I retain? I think we get a clue in this passage from Jenkins:

By the twelfth century, flourishing churches in China and southern India were using the lotus-cross. The lotus is a superbly beautiful flower that grows out of muck and slime. No symbol could better represent the rise of the soul from the material, the victory of enlightenment over ignorance, desire, and attachment. For two thousand years, Buddhist artists have used the lotus to convey these messages in countless paintings and sculptures. The Christian Cross, meanwhile, teaches a comparable lesson, of divine victory over sin and injustice, of the defeat of the world.

But these lessons are not comparable at all; they are quite dramatically at odds with each other, which may help to explain why attempts to reconcile them—if indeed that was really what was going on—have not succeeded. Christianity, being anything but Gnostic, does not believe that the material world is evil, but rather good: the glorious creation of a personal God. Christianity does not teach the innocence or purity of the soul, but rather the corruption of the will and the resulting involvement of the body in sin: As the Body says in a poem by Andrew Marvell, What but a Soul could have the wit / To build me up for Sin so fit? Christianity does not believe in nonattachment, but rather teaches precisely the opposite, that we should weep with those who weep and rejoice with those who rejoice. The Buddha says, “He who has no love has no woe”; St. John says, “He who does not love abides in death.”

 

The whole article is well worth reading.

Thoughts on Judges – (1:1-20)

by

Judges opens as though the great victories recounted in the book of Joshua will continue. Before the chapter ends, however, failure after failure becomes apparent.

A close look at the opening of the chapter reveals that all was not well even in Israel’s successes. Though Judah conquered Bezek and Jerusalem, Bezek was treated in the same manner as the Canaanites treated their captives. He was not put to death as the law demanded (Deut. 7:1-4).

Nevertheless, “The LORD was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron” (Judg. 1:19). This looks, at first, like a statement of success.

But the final part of the sentence raises a question. Why would iron chariots matter? God had promised that he would deliver nations mightier than Israel over to his people (Deut. 7:1-2). Joshua told the people of Ephraim and Manasseh that they would triumph over enemies with iron chariots (Josh 17:16-18). Within Judges itself, Sisera’s nine hundred iron chariots (Judg. 4:3) posed no problem when God had determined to give Israel the victory.

Judah’s inability to drive out the inhabitants of the plain is thus a subtle indicator that not all is well with Judah.

Thoughts on the Theology of Joshua – Leadership

by

The book emphasizes Joshua as the godly successor to Moses. Joshua was not the Prophet like Moses, but he was a leader like Moses. The close of the book that notes that Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua and the elders who survived him foreshadows that Israel stopped serving him when no leader like Moses followed. Judges concludes by noting the need for a king, which of course has a messianic implication.