Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

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.

Bavinck on Matthew 24:34

by

The preterist interpretation of the Olivet discourse rests heavily on Matthew 24:34. Mathison says,

The key to understanding the entire discourse is found in verse 34, in which Jesus tells His disciples, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Jesus declares that his prophecy will be fulfilled before the generation to whim He is speaking passes away. In other words, the events of which he speaks in this passage will be fulfilled by A.D. 70, one generation from the date He made the pronouncement.”

Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, 111.

There are a number of hard passages for the preterist within the discourse (see Mathison 112-15 for his explanation of them), but Matthew 24:34 is the most difficult for the non-preterist. Bavinck’s explanation of Matthew 24:34 makes good sense:

The words “this generation” (ἡ γενεα αὑτη, hē genea hautē) cannot be understood to mean the Jewish people, but undoubtedly refer to the generation then living. On the other hand, it is clear that the words ‘all these things’ (παντα τυατα, panta tauta) do not include the parousia itself but only refer to the signs that precede and announce it. For after predicting the destruction of Jerusalem and the signs and his return and even the gathering of his elect by the angles, and therefore actually ending his eschatological discourse, Jesus proceeds in verse 32 to offer a practical application. Here he states that just as in the case of the fig tree the sprouting of the leaves announces the summer, so ‘all these things’ are signs that the end is near or that the Messiah is at the door. Here the expression panta tauta clearly refers to the signs of the coming parousia, not to the parousia itself, for else it would make no sense to say that when ‘these things’ occur, the end is ‘near.’ In verse 34 the words ‘all these things’ (panta tauta) have the same meaning. Jesus therefore does not say that his parousia will still occur within the time of the generation then living. What he says is that the signs and portents of it, as they would be visible in the destruction of Jerusalem and concomitant events, would begin to occur in the time of the generation then living.

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:687.