#1: The word “Gospel” in Scripture always means the same thing. True or False
#2: Every New Testament book contains the word Gospel. True or False
#3: Every New Testament author uses the word Gospel. True or False
#4: The NT book that uses the word (and derivatives) the most is:
A) Romans B) Acts C) John D) Hebrews E) 1 Peter
#5: The NT book that uses the word least is:
A) Romans B) Luke C) John D) Hebrews E) 1 Peter
#6: The English word “Gospel” can be defined or restated by the following two words.
A) Great Preaching B) God Loves C) Good News D) Christ Died E) The Way
#7 What English word comes from the Greek word for “Gospel?”
A) Preacher B) Resurrection C) Witness D) Evangelist C) Truth
#8 A key scripture reference explaining the Gospel using the word “Gospel” is...?
#9 Complete the following sentence from Matthew 24.14 with the most common concept associated with the Gospel in Scripture: “This gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.” (word or phrase)
#10 A one sentence definition of the Gospel is: (Begin with “The Gospel is…”)
Make sure to make an effort to answer these on your own before looking at the answers below!
#1 (False) #2 (False) #3 (False)
#4 (B: Acts) #5 (C: John) #6 (C: Good News) #7 (D: Evangelist)
#8 (various) #9 (Kingdom)
#10 Example: The Good News is that Jesus Christ made a way for us to enter God's Kingdom by paying for sin by his death and resurrection, so that whoever believes in him can be free of sin and death.
How did you do on the Gospel Quiz? Did some of the answers surprise you?
#1 Hardly any word always means the same thing in every context, and this is especially important to keep in mind when studying Scripture. In Mark 1.1, the word "Gospel" refers to the whole story of Jesus Christ, but in 1 Corinthians 15.1-4 it narrows down to his death and resurrection as payment for sin. (See Lesson 2.2: Jesus, Paul and the Gospel)
#2-5 Isn't it interesting that the Gospel of John does not use the word at all? We often point unbelievers or new believers to this book as the most accessible presentation of the Gospel in Scripture, but the word is not there! Now, we could explain this by saying the author simply used different terms to say the same thing, but one could just as easily say that we are forcing distinct biblical concepts together to match our assumptions. (We will see that both of these prove partially true.)
Why is it important to think about these kinds of biblical "statistics?" Because we want to conform our thinking to the text of Scripture, not the other way around! When the biblical "data" surprises us, we should ask 'why?'... Why do biblical authors use different sets of words/metpahors to describe truth?
#6-7 The Greek word usually translated "gospel" or "good news" is "euangelion," and there are a related noun "euangelistes" (def: "gospel preacher") and verb "euangelizo" (def: "to preach the Gospel"). Together these terms appear 133 times in Scripture.
#8-10 Could you name a Scripture verse that uses the word "gospel?" 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 gives a very concise description, or you might have remembered Romans 1:16. In fact, the way we talk about the "Gospel" often reflects Paul's writing far more than it reflects the way that Matthew, Mark and Luke use the word. In these three "Gospels" (def: "the story of Jesus' life and what it means") the term is often associated with the idea of the Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven. Not that these are contradictory perspectives, but how can we claim to have a complete picture of the Gospel if we ignore the way that Scripture describes and defines the concept? The good news has something to do with God's Kingdom, but none of our definitions mentioned the idea! To be sure, some of us referred to "Heaven," which may be a related concept, but not necessarily the same thing.
If you’ve spent any significant amount of time in church, you’ve probably heard the word used quite a bit. But what does it really mean? Are you sure you know? Do our assumptions have anything to do with the way that we talk about the Gospel? Do we use the word the same way that the Bible uses it? How does our understanding of the Gospel influence the way we live our lives? How does it influence the way that we share our faith with others?
So how do we typically define the Gospel?
The Good News is that Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins.
What would be better?
The Good News is that Jesus Christ made a way for us to enter God's Kingdom!
Actually, neither of these definitions provides enough information to "save" anyone, that is, to "rescue" them from sin, since they do not explain how to be saved (belief in Christ). But the second statement more accurately describes the "good news" because it focuses on what we are saved to, rather than what we are saved from. It describes what will happen to us (joining the Kingdom) rather than what won't (punishment). Both statements focus on people, on how we as individuals benefit from Christ's work, but the latter points to God's broader purpose for salvation- creating a holy people for himself.
So how could these elements be combined?
The Good News is that Jesus Christ made a way for us to enter God's Kingdom by paying for sin by his death and resurrection, so that whoever believes in him can be free of sin and death.
Why does this matter?
Instead of looking backward at our pre-Christ situation, focusing on the good news that we can enter God's kingdom helps us understand what our new life as citizens ought to look like. Instead of thinking about salvation only as a transaction (Christ "pays" a "debt" to save me from a "penalty") this perspective directs us to the reason that Christ died and rose for us. It keeps us from thinking of salvation only in terms of "what happens to me," and reminds us that rejoining the fellowship of God and his people is the end-game of Redemption. Accepting Christ is not a private matter, however much it depends on an individual decision.
Last week, we noticed that we tend to define the Gospel narrowly, in terms of Jesus' payment for sin. Of course, there would not be any Good News without this fact, and so the atonement (as the concept is called) is a good place to start. However, we also noticed that we rarely use the word "kingdom" in association with the Gospel, even though NT authors often do so, which means we need to broaden our understanding of the Good News. In other words, we need to conform our thinking and speech to the patterns of the Bible. When we notice differences in the way that we talk and Scripture "talks," we must try to find out why. But as we observed before, even NT authors do not use the same set of words, metaphors or ideas— John does not use any form of the word "Gospel!" In this case, we need to try to figure out how their vocabularies and concepts are related, without allowing our own assumptions to force Scripture to say what we want. Surely there is a reason we have four NT books about Jesus life and many others about his importance. If they were all saying the exact same thing, why would they all be necessary!
A Tough Question
On that note, consider this question: Can you think of any Scriptures where Jesus clearly explains that his death will be a payment for sin? Rack your brain!
Still thinking...? We could name quite a few places where he predicts his death and resurrection (Mark 8:31, for instance), but does he explain to his disciples why? There are hints, but few clear statements. For example, in John 10, he reveals that "the Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep," but one would not necessarily get beyond the idea of protection in this metaphor. Payment for sin is not obvious. Dying on someone's behalf is not always the same as dying in his or her place, nor does even the latter conclusively lead one to the idea of atonement. However, in Mark 10.45 (cf. Matt. 20.28) Jesus describes himself as a ransom, which his own clear statement of purpose.
But the question remains, why didn't Jesus emphasize his payment for sin? Or a better question, what did he emphasize and why? He definitely did plenty of preaching. In fact, Matthew, Mark and Luke all explain that he preached "the Gospel." (Matt 4:23, Mark 1:14, Luke 3:18) So what was the content of his preaching?
As we saw in our Gospel quiz, it was the Gospel "of the Kingdom." But is this a special kind of Gospel, different from the one described elsewhere in Scripture? In Mark 1:14-15, we can see that phrase "The Gospel of God" and simply "The Gospel" both agree with the statement "The Kingdom of God is near."
So why do our Gospel definitions look so different? Are we way out in left field? Should we proclaim that the "Kingdom of God is near?" Kind of sounds like a homeless guy on a street corner, eh? (Which would not have been an inaccurate description of Jesus, by the way, at least according to appearances.) Where do we get our descriptions of the Gospel?
Enter the Apostle Paul
Look at Paul's rather concise definition of the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15.1-4. He points out that the essential content of saving faith, what he explicitly calls "the Gospel," is Christ's death and resurrection as payment for sin. Ahhh. So we are biblical!
Not so fast. Can we really say that Paul's definition is better than that of Jesus? Is one biblical and the other not? Actually, Jewish scholars today say this very thing. Many of them accept that Jesus was a good Jewish Rabbi, but claim that the Apostle Paul and others distorted his teaching to arrive at the crazy ideas of Christianity. They argue Jesus himself would never have encouraged the beliefs of Christians who follow Paul, pointing to the distinct language, metaphors and categories that the two teachers use, the very ones that are giving us all of this trouble.
However, we believe that, whatever differences that appear in emphasis or vocabulary in Scripture, there is a unity of Truth in Scripture. Biblical writers may talk about the same thing in different ways, or they may talk about different ideas, but they do not say different or contradictory things about the same idea!
Which leads us back to Paul and the Gospel. Actually, it's quite interesting that Luke describes the Apostle's ministry as "preaching the Kingdom" in Acts 28.31, which is after Paul had written all or most of his letters. Yet the Apostle Paul rarely used the word Kingdom in his writing— 14 times compared to 60 uses of "Gospel," a 4:1 ratio. How can we explain this, except to say that Luke sees a basic continuity between the two concepts. Which leads us back to 1 Corinthians 15...
Context is King(dom)
It's a cliche, but a worthwhile one: Context is King (meaning it is the "reigning" factor in how we interpret something). Why would Paul offer such a narrow definition of the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15? Look at the context! In v 12, Paul addresses a specific heresy (false teaching) that had sprung up: that there would be no resurrection for believers. It's hard to say where this idea came from, (cf. Acts 17:32; 23.6-8) but Paul wanted to point out that there is no Good News without resurrection, Christ's and ours. There is no forgiveness of sin without them. He's not saying "this is all there is to the Gospel" in 1 Corinthians 15.3-4 but "this is an essential bit of Gospel that you must agree with, or you don't have the Gospel at all." In other word, he talks about the Gospel in a way that meets the needs of the situation. But keep reading! Notice where the logic of the resurrection leads him in vv. 22-25... The Kingdom of God.
Look also at Colossians 1:13-14. Here Paul explains salvation ("rescue") as a transfer from one kingdom to another, which is made possible by the forgiveness of sins. In v. 21-22 this process of bringing people into the kingdom, of reuniting God and people, is called reconciliation, and it is the goal of salvation, and the essence of the Gospel.
What does all of this mean? On the one hand, it means that there is a basic continuity between what Jesus said about the "Good News" and what Paul and the other NT writers said about it. "Great!" You say. "I already knew that." Well, on the other hand, what all of this means is that our ideas and ways of presenting the Gospel may be lacking the depth that Scripture gives to the concept. We may be seeing the Gospel like an old black-and-white movie instead of in High Definition Color on a 52-inch plasma TV! Which picture do you think might better encourage faith in ourselves and others?
Last week we pointed out that Jesus rarely mentioned or emphasized his death as payment for sin. So the question remains for us, what did Jesus preach? I don't think any of us would want to say that Jesus was confused about his mission on earth, so how did he present his message? What was its content?
Which Gospel focuses most on Jesus Preaching? Matthew (Mark actually uses the words more often but Matthew includes more preaching content than Mark or Luke. John focuses on more on teaching conversations.)
What is a major episode in Jesus life that only Matthew pr esents? His flight from Herod Why do you think this might be? To present Jesus as King to rival all Kings. (though there are other reasons too.)
Can you summarize the message that John, Jesus and his disciples preached? The same fornula is given in Matt 3.2; 4.17; 10.7 : "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand"
What do you think this would have communicated to Jewish people? That an Israelite King would soon make a claim to Israel's throne, in defiance of Rome and the Herod.
Why would repentance have been a part of this message? Because the people needed to purify themselves for the reign of a righteous King. (3.3) They needed to prepare the way for the Lord by repentance (moral purity) and baptism (ritual purity).
Keeping all of this in mind, let's have a look at Jesus' first sermon, as recorded in Matthew. This is the well-known "Sermon on the Mount." Actually, this sermon may or may not represent one single discourse. Luke spreads out these elements throughout his Gospel, and it is likely that Jesus preached the same or similar messages many times. Notice the context in 4.17, 23- he is preaching the Kingdom.
What do all of these "Beautitudes" (declarations of blessedness = supreme happiness) have in common? Besides blessing, all of them focus on a future Kingdom or time of reward. Note that "mourning" is not an inherent good— neither is "poor" in Luke 6.20 (a parallel passage). The blessedness of the various groups belongs to the future, not the present.
What is the purpose of the Kingdom? To be a City on a Hill— To bring glory to God
What's question follows logically from this and how does Jesus answer? Who gets in! Astonishingly, only those who are more righteous than the Pharisees get in!
Why would Jesus need to say "I did not come to abolish...?" Because he proceeds to "contradict" the Law of Moses several times— "You have heard it said... but I tell you"
What does this imply about Jesus? He's greater than Moses! Look at Matt. 7.28-29. This may also be why Matthew records that he spoke from a mountain. (5.1)
Why all of these ethical demands? How do they fit in the Sermon? They are the guidelines or principles for living as a member of God's Kingdom. They focus on the thoughts and motivations behind our actions, rather than on just actions and their effects.
What is the point of the father/son language? The moral boundaries Jesus lays down describe true "sons of your Father in heaven" (v. 45) who have the same character and perfection as he does. In other words, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. On the other hand, the father/son terminology relates to the inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Do all these commands apply directly to us, or just Israel? This is a tricky one. After all, the sermon was addressed specifically to Jewish people expecting their Messiah, and this is before the Church was born. But wait. Who was the Gospel written for? Is it pure history? Of course not. It was written for first century Christians. Furthermore, Luke makes it clear that the message of the Kingdom did not end with Christ. Remember Matthew 24.14.
Let's look at what is called, The Lord's Prayer, but might also be called, "The Kingdom Prayer".
What are the characteristics of prayers that don't belong in the Kingdom? In Matt. 6.5, Jesus warns against prayers that are done for show, a prayer that is not honest. To guard against this, one must make sure to pray in secret. (Though this does not mean public prayer is wrong.) In Matt. 6.6, Jesus warns against prayers that are ritualized attempts to manipulate God. Such prayers assume God will answer 'Yes' if only he is coaxed and prodded for long enough. To guard against this, Jesus offers a model or pattern prayer:
Our Father in Heaven
May your name be honored
May your Kingdom come
May your will be done
On earth as it is in Heaven
Give us this day our daily bread
Forgive us our debts,
Just like we forgive our debtors
Lead us not into temptation
But deliver us from the evil one
What do the preceding two sorts of prayers (the ones Jesus rejects) have in common? They are focused on the here and now. They are focused on what the speaker wants- recognition and wealth.
How does the Kingdom Prayer address these two errors? It focuses on what God wants and on his Kingdom— on the increase of his rule among people (your kingdom come) and reverence for him as King (may your name be honored). It asks only for "today's bread," as an expression of trust in his provision and goodness, rather than attempting to manipulate his blessing. It expresses the worshipper's intention to demonstrate Kingdom values, but also his or her acceptance of the need for divine assistance and forgiveness.
What is the point of Matthew 6.19-21? What virtue lies behind "laying up treasure?" Wisdom. In the ancient world, a wise person is one who accumulates wealth and status as a result of wise living. Yet Jesus says that it makes little sense to aquire material wealth that is not permanent, especially since you aren't permanent. A truly wise person is one who stores up imperishable wealth in God's Kingdom.
How does v. 22-23 follow from this metaphor? What does a sick/healthy eye have to do with treasure in heaven? In 5.29, Jesus says, "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out!" The statement is intentionally misleading, in that it is the heart and its evil desires which causes the eye to "sin." But you can't gouge out your heart!... Which is kind of the whole point. Similarly, in 6.21 it is not a healthy or sick eye (both "healthy" and "sick" are words with double meanings) that is the real issue, it is the mind or "way of looking at things" that is diseased in people. They seek power, prestige, money and security rather than God's righteousness. They "focus" on the kingdom of here and now, the kingdom of this world, rather than on God's Kingdom.
What does "money" represent in v. 24? Not just wealth but the pursuit of wealth, prosperity, recognition and security, the principal goals of the citizens of the Kingdom of this world.
The next section explains how members of God's Kingdom ought to relate to material wealth— they are not to "worry" or "pursue" these things. Ironically, their emphasis on a future Kingdom allows them to live in the moment in a way that members of the world order cannot. It does not make sense to live for tomorrow when one's life could end at any time, (see the Luke 12 Parable of the Rich Fool) but it makes a lot of sense to pursue righteousness, which is the trade language of God's kingdom. None of this negates the necessity of work or even planning, it simply raises the issue of one's true priorities.
How does the section about judging fit into the whole sermon? Why might one be tempted to judge? Are there similarities to other parts of the sermon? The finalization of the Kingdom comes with judgment (note 7.21ff). It would be easy to start handing out verdicts once one feels that one is safely part of the Kingdom, but Jesus advises caution. Members of the Kingdom mirror the values of the King, and in 6:14-15 one of the chief values of the King is forgiveness. One who is unable to forgive has never truly experienced forgiveness. That passage, as well as Matthew 5.25ff assume guilt on the part of all hearers. We had best attend to our own pursuit of righteousness (and flight from sin), worrying about our own entrance to the Kingdom rather than try to play the gatekeeper, deciding who is worthy of it. Note the reappearance of the "eye" as a symbol of correct thinking. Our own sin blinds us, it keeps us from properly assessing the lives of others.
What is the point of 7.6? What do dogs and pigs represent? The warning not to judge does not mean member of the Kingdom cannot evaluate people and their actions. We are told to in 7.15-20! But imposing Kingdom ethics on citizens of this world (gentiles, pagans = dogs, swine) will not turn out well. Proverbs 26.4-5 makes a similar point. While a basic sense of morality and justice is necessary for any human society to function, we should not expect this world to respond kindly to the standards of the kingdom.
What is promised in Matthew 7.7? Primarily that those who truly want to be part of the Kingdom are invited— they will not be turned away at the door. It ISN'T saying that we can have anything we want if we just believe and ask! The three actions ask/seek/knock are all parallel... They are essentially the same request. Notice that further down (7.13-14) Jesus talks about the entrance to the Kingdom as a narrow "gate"— presumably the one to be knocked on— but few "find" it. Why? Because they are looking for something else.
Explain the statement in Matthew 7.12: What does Jesus mean by "This IS the Law...?" Laws are meant to establish order within relationships— between a person and God and a person and other people. The "Golden Rule" focuses on interpersonal relationships within the Kingdom. It represents the Kingdom ethos, and fulfills the intent of the Law of Moses.
Why the sudden talk of false prophets? Jesus has been talking about two kingdoms and two gates. Here, acting as a prophet himself, he points out that other prophets stand opposed to him, ready to lead people through the other gate. Why would they be described as ravenous wolves? Because their intent to prey or benefit from gathering followers. They don't care about the sheep, except as a means to an end. What is the "fruit" by which they can be recognized? Their actions and the results. Remember Jesus' statement about laying up treasure in heaven— ones actions display ones priorities. (See 2 Kings 5) When evaluating a leader of God's people, look at his or her record. With which kingdom do that person's choices seem consistent?
Why won't Jesus accept the people he describes in 7.21-23? What is wrong with their actions? Again, it is important to connect this statement with what comes before— Jesus has been talking about false prophets. That is, leaders who have deceptive motives, those that are in it for self aggrandizement. Notice that the actions that they have performed or claimed to have performed are all impressive, public displays of righteousness and power. They do not boast about visiting the poor and sick, or loving their brothers, or remaining faithful in spite of persecution, they can only appeal to their showy demonstrations. And these, as we learned in Matt 6.5, yield no Kingdom reward because they are done in pursuit of public recognition. Notice the irony and insecurity revealed in the thrice-repeated phrase "in your name." In whose name/reputation were they really interested? Compare to the three-fold declaration in the Kingdom Prayer: your name... your kingdom... your will. In fact, Jesus has subtly reminded us of the Prayer in vv. 21: only he who "does the will of my Father in Heaven" will enter. Further irony arrives in the beginning of ch 8 when Jesus miraculously heals a leper, only to tell him to keep quiet about it!
In what sense are these people "workers of lawlessness?" (A literal translation of Matt. 7.23... The NIV compresses the phrase to "evildoers") They have never progressed beyond external righteousness, so they have never truly fulfilled the intent of the Law, even if, by great effort, they may manage to keep the commandments to the letter. They do not belong in the Kingdom, because their relationships with their Father and Brothers are poisoned. (Note the distancing language in the Parable of the Two Sons— Luke 15. 29-32.) The phrase may reflect Psalm 6.8, in which King David sends away his enemies.
What other aspect of vv. 21-23 would have astonished Jesus' audience? He assumes his own role as the gatekeeper! "Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord..." He also claims a special relationship to "my Father in Heaven." One cannot escape the conclusion that he is establishing his own place as King, alongside the Father. Who else gets to decide who may enter except the King? On the one hand, it is those who do the Father's will who "get in," but on the other hand, Jesus sends them away because "I never knew you."
Why is this important? Don't we already believe Jesus is King? Sure, but it is significant that in this first sermon of the book of Matthew, Jesus is already claiming this. There is a mainstream movement among scholars to argue that Jesus' claims for himself have been wildly exagerrated. That he was nothing more than a wise rabbi, a teacher far ahead of his time. The claim is that Jesus' disciples elevated him to divine status after he died, and that the things that were written about him and words attributed to him reflect a theology that developed long after his death. But here, Jesus claims a special place in Heaven for himself and a special relationship to God. He revises the Law of Moses without batting an eye. He sets himself up as King. And all this in a supposedly ethical sermon about loving one's brother. The so-called Golden Rule is not a reminder for people to be nice to each other, it is the Law of his Kingdom. Scholars who want to edit all the exceptionalism out of Jesus' words to try to arrive at a "moral system" will end up with very little content. Jesus' identity— as the Gospels present him— is essential to his message.
What is the point of the metaphor of the two houses? Permanence vs. transience. Just like the pursuit of the Kingdom of this world yields fleeting rewards, so too a life established only on external righteousness will not endure judgment. Notice that it is the "wise" man who builds on the rock— a reference back to vv. 19-33. (Note the mention of Solomon.) Pursuit of God's Kingdom leads to stability, while pursuit of the Kingdom of this World leads to futility and ruin.
What is it about Jesus' sermon that amazes his audience? Why? They are astonished at his authority, because he does not bother to quote the rabbis or any source of authority or expertise beyond his own. He has firsthand experience of the Kingdom of God, and needs no text or scholar to validate him.
We began this study by recognizing that Jesus talked a lot about the Kingdom of God— that this concept had something vital to do with the Gospel. Over the past weeks and months, we've been looking at the details of the Sermon on the Mount. Now it's time to put our observations together to get a coherent picture of the whole thing. Actually, we'll need a bit of historical context in addition to our observations to understand Jesus' message.
Who is the audience for this sermon? It was delivered by Jesus to Israelites, but shaped by Matthew for the early Church, and used by the Spirit to teach us. So in a way, there are three audiences! When interpreting this complex sermon, it sometimes becomes critical to keep this reality in mind.
Remember the summary phrase of Jesus' message in Matthew is...? "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand!" What might this mean to a Jewish/Israelite audience? That their dreams of restoring their nation under a Davidic King were about to come true. Was this what Jesus meant by the statement? No! Although God's Kingdom includes the nation of Israel. (The relationship between Israel and the Church is much-debated and complex, which we will avoid at this point.)
So, in a way, the Sermon on the Mount represents Jesus' explanation of that statement of the nearness of God's Kingdom. Now, a person without any biblical or historical background might ask a number of follow up questions to it. Can you come up with some? (After all, asking the right questions is nine-tenths of understanding.)
| 1: What is the Kingdom of God? | 4: Who is the King? |
| 2: Who is allowed in? | 7: Where is it? |
| 3: How does one get in? | 6: What is it like? |
As we've seen, Jesus answers these, but why doesn't he just lay out them out in plain sight? Why all of the parables, cryptic sayings and shock-value statements in the Sermon? Consider the old "if-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest" question; the point is not the answer to the question per se, the point is to force the hearer to contemplate the nature of sound. It compels people to reconsider something with which they are familiar, but have not truly understood. Does this remind you of a particular passage of Scripture? It should! Let's look at Isaiah 6:9-10. Now look at Matthew 13:10-16. Now do you see?
Let's back up... Why had the Israelites "lost" their Kingdom in the first place? They failed to obey the Law of God given through Moses, which had very specific consequences written into it. (cf. Deut. 28:58-63)
Why had they failed to do so? Was the Law unclear or too difficult? (cf. Deut. 30.11-15) No. They were simply rebellious. They refused to obey. That is to say, their hearts were hard. Remember, they had a sacrificial system in place to deal with sin, so it wasn't like they could never miss a step.
Would any other people or people group have done better? Why/why not? Not likely. We noted Jesus' quotation of Isaiah earlier— look also at Isaiah 5 and Matthew 21:33ff. The Israelites had every possible advantage, but they could not produce righteousness. Why? Because their hearts were evil. This is an important point to make. Actually, it is the point of the whole Israelite experiment: external righteousness cannot be imposed on wicked people. Or, if it can, it certainly won't stick.
How does this point relate to the historical situation of the Sermon on the Mount, to Jesus' immediate audience? This was a people obsessed with external righteousness— and not without reason. As a people who had been scattered among the nations, and as a people who had to endure the sight of foreigners in their streets and market places every day, following the external requirements of the Law was the visible sign of "belonging" to God's chosen people. The ability to stand out among Gentiles, by custom, dress, physical appearance (circumcision) and ceremony, provided a badge of membership in God's "Kingdom" as they understood it.
What is the problem with this mentality? It focuses on the periphery of the Law rather than its core, it's reason for being: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself." As we have mentioned before, the basic point of any law is to order interpersonal relationships... To provide the basis for one's interaction with God and other people. Yet one can follow all sorts of rules or codes of conduct with truly loving or expressing love for God or his people. In fact, the pursuit of external righteousness can become the same sort of game as the pursuit of wealth or recognition. Focusing on the external goodness inevitably leads to measuring one person against another, but only God knows the heart. It is a false measure, and it leads people to think they understand righteousness, when they have missed the whole point. Preaching to the choir can be the toughest sort of preaching, because the choir usually feels pretty good about itself!
How does Jesus target his preaching toward this people? Rhetorically, he follows the Isaianic pattern in giving parables and difficult sayings, to weed out those who aren't really looking. He defamiliarizes his audience with his subject, but uses everyday, commonsense examples to reteach them rather than elaborate proofs or quotations of authority. He confronts and instructs the the people in the manner of the OT prophets. He draws sharp contrasts between the Kingdom of God and that of the World.
Bringing It All Together
Repent
What they would have heard: Return to God by faithfully practicing the Law of Moses... Keep the Covenant, and God will restore the Land to you as per Deut. 30.1-5. This is the impulse behind the work of John the Baptist, who was to "Prepare the way for the Lord" by purifying (baptizing) them to show their eagerness to obey.
What Jesus meant: Someone greater than Moses is here (Deut. 18.18-19, 34.10; Matt. 13.57, 21.11, 23.37; John 1.17, 1.25, 6:14, 7.40, 9.29; Acts 3.22... Note the particular miracle that Jesus performs in John 6 which leads the audience to conclude that he is "The Prophet.") Repentance means listening to the One whom God has sent, the one whom Moses predicted. It means "turning" to God with all of one's heart and mind, not just reinstituting religious rituals. (Deut 30.10)
The Kingdom of God
Present and Future: On the one hand, the blessings described in the Beauttitudes describe a a future kingdom and a future state of happiness. ("...for they will inherit the kingdom...") Furthermore, the Kingdom prayer uses the future tense— "May your Kingdom come..." And yet the next line "May your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven" expresses the same basic desire: that God's commands are obeyed as perfectly and completely by people as they are by angels. God's Kingdom extends to all places and peoples in which he rules. The Kingdom of God will only be fully realized when God rules the earth through Christ, who will be present physically and in person
Salvation: The Old Testament says very little about life after death, being primarily concerned with the relationship between God and Israel (although cf. Daniel 12), which led some Jews to think there wouldn't be one. Jesus affirms both the existence of punishment and reward after death, (Matt. 5.30/6.20) and equates entry into God's Kingdom with salvation (the way we use the term).
Individual or Collective? Jesus makes it clear that God's Kingdom does not include all of Israel. In fact, he points out that many of the religious elite will not enter, (Matt. 5.20) even those who have made impressive displays of "righteousness." (Matt. 6.5, 7.22) All of this means that simply being a descendant of Abraham will not suffice. (cf. Matt. 3.9) God's promise to save all Israel does not extend to lawbreakers, who are not part of true Israel.
Righteousness: True righteousness is internal, not external. While the Law of Moses included strict rules for ritual purity and formality, these were only meant to demonstrate the internal purity of the lawkeeper. Without love for God and his people, ritual is useless, or actually worse than useless, since it provides a counterfeit righteousness. Jesus makes this point with the paradoxical idea that one ought to cut off an offending hand or eye... As if sin comes from the physical body rather than a person's corrupt mind and will.
Is At Hand
Near in Time or in Proximity? By itself, the phrase could mean either, although seems to make little sense to think of a Kingdom coming closer physically. So one can understand why the Jews assumed Jesus meant it was near in time, that it was about to happen. But actually, both the Sermon and the way that Jesus uses the phrase show that it has more to do with proximity after all, at least metaphorically. The Kingdom is "at hand" in the sense that it is within their reach (though the wordplay is a coincidence of English). It is available to those who repent. And there is another sense in which the Kingdom is physically near, in that the King is physically present among them!
Entering the Kingdom: Curiously, the Jesus does not use the word "repent" in the Sermon— instead, it is those who ask, seek and knock who gain entry. This does not pose any problem though, since the basic idea behind "repentance" (metanoeo) is "changing one's mind." Jesus' call to repent is inherent in his attempt to change their thinking, (the way they "see" things, remember?) and believing him in some sense is repenting. As far as prerequisites go, only those who are truly seeking God's Kingdom, whose righteousness matches his perfection will be allowed entry. Outward shows of righteousness too often prove to be an indirect way to pursue the World's Kingdom by enhancing the fame and pride of the one who performs them. One's actions will reveal which kingdom one is truly seeking— where are you storing up treasure? If your choices demonstrate that your overriding concern is material success or recognition, then your true king is Money (and therefore yourself), not Jesus.
Theme Statements for the Sermon on the Mount
Another Way To Summarize The Message
On several occasions, we have pointed out the differences between the way that Jesus talks about the Gospel and the other NT writers do. Kingdom terminology dominates Jesus' sermons and discussions, whereas these words seem to fade in later discussions of the Gospel. How can these be reconciled?
What NT person three times refers to "my gospel?" Paul (Romans 2.16, Romans 16.25, 2 Timothy 2.8) Why do you think this might be? Keep reading!
Which of Paul's letters deals primarily with the appearance of a false gospel? Galatians! As we will see, a dispute about the nature of the Gospel arose among the Galatians, and Paul was compelled to correct their thinking (and acting). This is fortunate for us, because we get to see Paul clarify and restate his understanding of the Gospel in his letter to the Galatian Christians.
Let's turn there! Though, before we begin our survey of Galatians, which may be the earliest of Paul's epistles (letters), can you say where the earliest presentation of the Gospel is in Scripture? Genesis 12, unless you count Genesis 3:15, sometimes called the "proto-Gospel." Compare Genesis 12.3 and Galatians 3:8. In what sense can that phrase be called the Gospel? Keep reading!
But first, a Brief Parenthesis:
If for some reason, you were separated from your family for a year or more, and you had no phones, no email, and were allowed only one letter of 1,000 words or less for the entire time, how carefully do you think you would craft that letter? How much time would you spend planning it out? My point is pretty obvious, if somewhat extreme— ancient people put a similar amount of care into their letters, for the same sort of reason. Paper was rare and expensive, travel was sketchy, and drafting took much more time without typewriters or computers.
This means that we ought to expect Paul to write with care, not wasting words or saying something unnecessary. We can also expect a well-organized, thematic letter that addresses a specific idea or situation. When an author seems to be rambling, it means that WE have missed his point, not that HE has missed his point. When he seems irrelevant or tangential, the same goes. We need this reminder from time to time, so that we take pains to carefully observe the details of Scripture.
What point does Paul unexpectedly emphasize in v. 1? Why? He goes out of his way to stress that his calling came from God, not any particular person, probably because his authority has been called into question. After all, he never walked, talked or ate with Christ as did the other apostles. By the way, usually if something gets mentioned in the beginning of a letter of Paul's, it gets unfolded more completely later. (Hence the parenthesis above.)
Incidentally, what does the word "apostle" mean? It comes from the Greek verb "to send," so it means "sent one," "messenger," or "ambassador."
Why is Paul upset with the Galatians in vv. 6? They have exchanged the Gospel for another Gospel.
What does he mean by "it isn't really another Gospel?" He means that it is a distortion, not really something different, and especially that it is not good news at all. Does he name or describe this other Gospel? Not yet
Why v. 10? Remember v. 1? Paul seems to have been accused of trying to please a certain person or groups of people, as if to validate his calling.
What was Paul set apart for, according to Galatians 1.15-16? To preach among the Gentiles... (cf. Romans 1.5; 16.25, the only two verses where appears the phrase "the obedience of faith.")
So, after being a more enthusiastic Jew than anyone else (which meant hating Gentiles more than anyone else), Paul becomes the Missionary Apostle, especially commissioned to bring in Gentiles! No one can say God has no sense of irony!
Why does Paul distance himself— physically and psychologically— from James and Peter in Galatians 1, even though he notes that they approved of him and his mission in 1.17-2.10? He wants to show that, while he desires the support and fellowship of the twelve apostles, his apostolic authority derives from the vision God gave him. While he appreciated the "right hand of fellowship" (as opposed to the right foot of fellowship, which is considerably more unpleasant), he did not consider Peter and James to be giving him authority or validity— they merely recognized it. Paul did not want to be drawn into the orbit of Jerusalem in his mission.
Why then does he worry that he might have been running "in vain" in v. 2, after more than a decade of ministry? What is his specific fear? As Apostle to the Gentiles, he had been preaching the good news that they too were welcome into the Kingdom as Gentiles. They did not need to become Jews or "act Jewish" or follow the requirements of Moses to be included as first-class citizens of God's Kingdom. But, prompted by God to return to Jerusalem, Paul worried that this was not consistent with the message of the "Mother Church" in Jerusalem. That his efforts to include Gentiles were being undermined at the source. His fear of wasted effort ("running in vain") does not imply that Paul doubted the truth of his message, though this is possible too. (even John the Baptist had doubts fairly late in the game.) Paul worried that Jewish Christians were not ready to accept Gentile Christians, unless they followed the Law. Yet he gladly notes that his Greek protege Titus was not pressured to do so.
Why does Paul consider Titus' freedom to be a defense of "the truth of the Gospel?" (2.5) Because he saw that freedom from the Law of Moses (or any other Law) is a core concept of the Gospel. Christ fulfilled the Law, so that all peoples of every kind are welcome to come to him without reference to it.
What comes out of Paul's private meeting with the "Pillars" of Jerusalem? They accept him and his mission as valid, recognizing that God has included the Gentiles in his Kingdom, apart from the Law of Moses. The only "work" they asked Paul to promote among new converts was that of charity toward the poor.
Why does Paul oppose Peter openly and publicly in 2.11-14? Because, here again, it is the truth of the gospel that is at stake. Peter, James and John have already acknowledged that God accepts Gentiles as Gentiles, and they have already "broken faith" with the Law of Moses by eating with Gentiles.
Why is eating together such a big deal? In the ancient world (and even today, to a lesser extent), eating with someone symbolizes fellowship or kinship with them. A good Jew would never eat with a Gentile, or even enter his house, lest he be guilty by association or infected with uncleanness. (cf. Matthew 11.19)
How could Peter have possibly justified his hypocrisy? Well, ultimately, he couldn't. There isn't any record that he tried. However, we must remember that many Jews still considered the Law as applicable to them, even though it did not apply to Gentiles. We must not think that religious Jews of this time period thought of the Law as a burden... They loved it. (This is still a source of misunderstanding between Jews and Christians today.) So, it was perfectly appropriate for a Jewish Christian to keep kosher, keep the Sabbath and participating in other Jewish rituals, which is why Paul had no problem doing so in Acts 21.17-26 (probably long after Galatians was written). As a mere cultural distinction, Paul had no problem with this. Probably, Peter's reasoning followed similar lines. However, what he was actually communicating by refusing to eat with Gentiles was that they were unclean, a sort of subspecies of Christian. His actions declared that the difference between the two groups was NOT merely cultural, it was theological. It was an attack on the Gospel, the good news of God's all-inclusive Kingdom. (2.14-15) This message had been introduced by Christ and confirmed by the Holy Spirit in Acts.
Why would Jewish or Gentile Christians want to follow the Law of Moses? We have said that Jews loved the Law which set them apart as God's people, but there may have been additional social pressure on the Galatians to act Jewish. That is, The Roman Emperor had recognized Judaism as religio licita = legitimate (lawful) religion. As such, Jews did not have to participate in state-sponsored religious events, including idolatrous sacrifices, emperor worship, and etc. However, the status of Christians was unclear. Were they a sect or offshoot of Judaism, still protected under Roman Law. Or were they part of an unauthorized, "atheistic" religio illicita that was angering the gods and undermining Roman prosperity? The temptation for Gentile and Jewish Christians to associate with Judaism as much as possible might have been extreme, since this would have kept their families, assets and reputations safe from the mob. Jews, on the other hand, wanted to throw the Christians under the Roman bus, and be rid of the troublesome sect.
It's hard to say what kind of pressure this may have exerted on the Galatians or Peter, but it may have been a factor in his actions. Let's not paint him as an angel or a monster, but try to understand the reasons for his hypocrisy, so we can avoid it!
But Peter definitely knew better? Yes, but one does not need to take Paul's word for it! (though I hope you do) Let's look at how the Gospel spread to the Gentiles in Acts. Actually, this is a major component of the Luke-Acts storyline. In Luke, Jesus homes in on Jerusalem like a missile. In Acts, the explosion of the Gospel radiates outward. Let's take a detour in Acts...
In the first seven chapters of Acts, the action all takes place in Jerusalem. It's worthwhile to note that the dispute in chapter 6 is between Hebrew and Greek speaking Jews... Generally, all Christians are Jews at this point. But after Stephen's incendiary speech in Acts 7, persecution causes Christians to scatter. Suddenly, the good news is being preached to the Samaritans in Acts 8, who are sort of half-breed Jews, who practiced their own version Judaism. (cf. John 4) The Apostles arrive and validate the mass Samaritan conversions, and the Holy Spirit puts God's seal of approval on the event. But remember, the Jews and Samaritans were cousins, however much they hated each other. Gentiles were a different matter. Acts 9 gives the record of Paul's miraculous conversion, which seems like an interruption to the story, which has been following Peter up to this point, and continues after. However, as we shall see, the placement of chapter 9 makes good sense in light of what happens to Peter in chapters 10-11.
Who is the principal actor in Acts 10.1-23? The Holy Spirit is working from both ends of the equation to draw Peter and Cornelius together.
What does this tell you? Well, for one, that God is bringing it about, not man. But also, it helps us see how vast was the gap between Jews and Gentiles... It took an act of God to bring them together! Notice that the Gentile messengers know better than to step into the yard of a Jewish man in v. 17, despite the fact that the man was a tanner. The man scrapes dead animal hides with chemicals, probably animal urine or brain fluid being one of them, and yet Gentile men feared to make the place unclean by entering!
What is Peter's realization in vv. 34-36? That God is no longer only a Hebrew God, or rather, that he never was only a Hebrew God. Notice Peter's summary of the Gospel in v 36, which is what this whole study is about, after all!
Peter's definition of the Gospel: "... peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all."
Peace = the restoration of fellowship between God and people, as well as between people groups. A reversal of the conflict begun by sin.
Through Jesus Christ = by means of his faithful obedience to God in his life and death, including his fulfillment of Moses' Law and the sacrificial, sin-destroying nature of his death
Who is Lord = Who reigns as King by virtue of his resurrection and subsequent coronation, who earned the right to rule (even though it was his to begin with).
Of All = Of all people and people groups, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. Jesus is the King of a new Kingdom that encompasses and dissolves all others.
Is this description of the Gospel and Jesus ministry unique to Peter? No! Paul outlines Jesus' Work in a very similar fashion in Ephesians 2.11-18. Let's take a look!
What is the keyword in this passage? Peace! And who are the two groups between whom this peace has been made? Jews/Gentiles, Circumcised/Uncircumcised, Near/Far Away And what was God's purpose for doing so? To reconcile (make peace between) the newly formed humanity (Jews+Gentiles) and God. To heal both the Divine-human relationship, and human/human relationships.
What is the point of Eph 2.18— what is the Holy Spirit's role? To provide the same sort of access to God for both Jews and Gentiles. To validate their unity and protect it by His power. How does this relate to the Spirit's presence in Ephesians 1.13? Ephesians 1-2 explain how salvation came to the Gentiles (note the pronouns you, us and we) and v. 13 points to the proof of this event— that the Holy Spirit descended on them with a demonstration of supernatural power in the form of speaking in foreign languages, flames of fire and earthquakes. We don't know if Paul is talking about the events of Acts 8 and 10 specifically, or if similar displays of the Spirit's power appeared in Ephesus when the Gentiles there accepted Christ as King. Regardless, the point is that the supernatural events that surrounded the Gentile conversions serve to prove that God had indeed accepted them. The Spirit is the "down payment" or first installment of the benefits that come to all heirs of God's Kingdom, to which Gentiles now belong.
Why would this kind of supernatural proof of membership be necessary? Let's go back to Acts 11!... Why did the Jews criticize Peter when he returned from Joppa? Because he went to (into the house of) Gentiles and ate with them... Sound familiar? They still see Gentiles as outsiders to God's Kingdom and unclean people.
How does he respond? He points out that the Holy Spirit directed him to go to Cornelius, and directed Cornelius to send for him. Furthermore, the Spirit prepared Peter for the experience with a puzzling vision, whose interpretation became clear when the Spirit descended on the Gentiles with supernatural gifts similar to those that had fallen on the Jews in Acts 2. In other words, at all points, it was the Holy Spirit who determined the course of events, not Peter himself. (Pretty tough to argue with that one, eh?) Also, Peter points out that Jesus had predicted, or rather, prepared them for something like this. Does this satisfy his countrymen? Yep. (vv. 17-18. They realize that this movement or expansion of God's kingdom was predestined. (Romans 1.16 is chronological) The narrator (Luke) then notes that the Gospel began to spread through both Jewish and Gentile communities. (The Greek verb for "preaching" in v. 20 is our word evangelizing or "gospeling.")
So where are we at now? We are back in Galatians 2, with a fresh look at why Peter's actions were so damaging. And why were they? Because what he did amounted to a step backward in salvation history, or if you prefer, in the movement of the Gospel. In fact, Peter had explicitly argued on behalf of the Gentiles, defending his own decision to eat with them! He had, by his actions, implied that the demonstrations of power by the Holy Spirit in confirming the Gentiles as part of God's Kingdom were worthless or void. This comes perilously close to the "unpardonable sin," (Matt 12.32; Heb 6.4-6) though of course, Peter was doing so subconsciously and out of fear rather than as an open rejection of God's work. On the other hand, fear itself can be a very serious offence against God, since it belies a lack of trust in his power and goodness. The command to "Fear Not!" is one of the most common imperatives in the Bible, followed closely by "Be Strong." Sons and Daughters of God are not allowed to let fear control them, though, of course, everyone feels afraid at some point.
How does Paul respond to Peter's sin? First, he initially charges him with hypocrisy, since everyone beside the visiting Jews knew that Peter ate with Gentiles, possibly on a regular basis. (Gal. 2.14) However, it is second response that proves most relevant for us.
What is the contrast that Paul draws in vv. 15-21? Don't answer too quickly... you may be wrong! (Paul was a tricky fellow.) Part of the difficulty may come from your Bible's translation of a phrase that appears Gal 2.16. Note the differences.
NIV: "[we] know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ."
NAS: "..knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus"
ESV: yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ
KJV: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ"
NET: "Yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ"
Aside from the two prepositions "by" and "through," what is the key difference you see? The first three translations make it clear that this hypothetical "man" (person) is the one believing in Christ. It is he (or she) who exercises faith. But the KJV seems to suggest that Jesus might be doing the "believing" or exercising faith in the phrase. There is an ambiguity in the grammar of the KJV that reflects an ambiguity present in the original Greek text. (Don't you love grammar?) We encounter a similar difficulty when we see the phrase "the love of God." Does it mean God's love for us, or our love for him? As for Galatians 2.16, the NET flatly contradicts the NIV, NAS and ESV, interpreting the phrase to mean that Jesus is the one exercising faith or "acting faithfully."
This last understanding is most likely (but not absolutely certainly) correct. Which isn't to deny that Paul teaches that it is our faith/belief in Christ by which we are saved... He does. Right in the middle of the verse actually. All we are saying is that that isn't his main point right here. (cf. Phil 2.5-11; 3.9 where the phrase appears again.)
Now, if your eyes aren't rolling back into your head yet, (grammar has that effect!) you may be asking why this matters. Okay, why does this matter? Well, it changes the meaning of Paul's defense of the Gospel. The primary contrast he wants to draw (that was the original question, remember?) is not between Works and Faith, it is between Human Effort and Christ's Effort. Or Law and Christ, two possible sources of righteousness. He points out that human attempts to fulfill the Law of Moses ultimately fail and will continue to do so. He uses Psalm 143.2 to make this point, significantly adding the phrase"no flesh" in v. 16. On the other hand, Christ fulfilled the Law by his faithful obedience to God. (our phrase) His work was succesful, where the Jews' works were not.
So...? So the point here is that it is only because of Christ's faithfulness, his perfect obedience, that Jews (or anyone else) can be pronounced righteous in God's sight. Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses, so that no one else had to. Indeed, no Jew really could ever keep the Law well enough to attain the degree of righteousness necessary to be admitted into God's Kingdom. Only by "piggybacking" on Christ's faithful obedience can anyone be rid of their own sin.
What is going on in Galatians 2.17-18? Paul probably isn't saying that just because Christians sin, that doesn't mean Christ is the one who encourages it. Aside from being obvious and hardly worth saying, the claim is irrelevant to the passage. Again the translation proves tricky...
We might retranslate Galatians 2.15-18 (with paraphrase added for interpretation) as follows:
15 Even those of us Christians who were born Jews and therefore not among the sinner-Gentiles (as we're used to thinking of them)—
16Even we realize that people are aquitted of sins by the faithful obedience of Christ, who fulfilled the Law of Moses, and not by our own faithful observance of that Law. That's why even we have put our faith in Christ rather than in our ability to keep the Law, since no human, Jew or Gentile, will be aquitted by good lawkeeping.
17But if by seeking aquittal in Christ rather than the Law of Moses we are "found" to be sinner-Gentiles by some people, then logically, according to them, Christ is the promoter of sin. This is dead wrong!
18Actually, if I tried to rebuild the wall between Jews and Gentiles to demonstrate my faithfulness to the Law, I would only be proving myself a lawbreaker, not a lawkeeper.
Note that this is the same "wall of separation" we see in Ephesians 2.14-15, which describes the barriers between Jews and Gentiles built into the Law's framework. Paul basically charges Peter with trying to reraise this wall of separation, negating the Gospel of Peace (Reconciliation) between humanity and God and between human groups, nullifying God's grace and Christ's faithfulness. This cannot be tolerated.
So, as we have seen, Christ has united all people groups into one kingdom by his faithful obedience to God. This fact that all people groups relate to God equally through Christ is an essential part of the Gospel message, one that Paul would not allow Peter to undermine. Both Jews and Gentiles may be reconciled to God on the basis of Christ's obedient life and death, but not on the basis of their own obedience to the Law of Moses.
Let's look at Galatians 3.1-4.7, which an expansion of Paul's answer to Peter, and try to discern Paul's exact meaning. Caution, this passage is very complex! Read it several times through carefully before attempting to work out the tricky parts. Paul can be very difficult! (cf. 2 Peter 3.16)
Paul bitterly remarks that the Galatian Christians seem "bewitched" by those who say the Law of Moses remains in effect. He realizes that his say-so may not wake them up to the truth, so he sets out to prove his point— first from experience, second from Scripture.
What role does the Spirit play in 3.2-5? To provide supernatural confirmation of the Gospel, specifically the fact that the Law is void and that Christ is the true source of righteousness. Note that these were unmistakable miraculous demonstrations of power. What then is the point of these verses? If the Spirit was given after they demonstrated faith in Christ, the Faithful One, it makes no sense to think that they can relate to God in the same way as people did before Christ came— through their own effort to keep the Law. In other words, their shared experience of the Spirit only makes sense if righteousness comes by belief in Christ.
What is v. 4 talking about? What sufferings? Why would they be "in vain?" There are a couple ways to take this: 1) The sufferings refer to their painful efforts to keep the Law, which would be in vain because they hadn't even learned what the Law was meant to teach— the futility of trying to keep it... OR 2) The sufferings refer to persecution that came as a result of identifying with Christ (from Jews or Romans), which would prove useless if they turned around and went back to identifying with the Law. Maybe Paul means both. Maybe not. The phrase "in vain" reminds us of Gal. 2.2 (though it is a different word in Greek), suggesting that option #2 is preferable. Also, the idea of co-crucifixion, co-suffering and co-inheriting with Christ is central to Paul's writing, which adds further weight to #2.
So is Paul saying that the people who have suffered "in vain" have lost their salvation? No, though Paul would probably not understand this question at all, because 1) He is thinking more in terms of groups, rather than individuals, and 2) he places far less emphasis on salvation as a point in time ("the moment when I accepted Jesus") than modern Christians tend to. The New Testament idea of "falling from grace" (cf. Hebrews 6.4-6) applies specifically to Jews who abandon Christ and return to the Law of Moses, people who had seen the Spirit come upon Jews and Gentiles alike by faith in Christ's faith, but refused to follow him into a new (spiritual) Promised Land. If pressed, Paul would probably say that these people never really possessed Christ, or were possessed by him.
What is so important about Abraham's example in 3.6-7? That his aquittal (justification) came before the Law was given, which means that the first Jew was saved by faith apart from the Law. In other words, the Law never had the power to save anyone from the consequences of sin. In fact, righteous standing before God has always been granted on the basis of faithful belief in his promises, however dimly that the Israelites understood this. In fact, it has always been granted on the basis of one specific promise: that of blessing through Abraham's descendant. In other words, Paul points out that the Scripture bears out and validates their experience of the Spirit: that righteousness comes by belief in Christ.
What's with the quotes in 3.11-12? Paul sets two OT quotes side-by-side to highlight the differences between Faith and the Law. He observes that both offer the means to live or survive— the term does not refer to daily life here but to one's life being preserved from judgment. (So this verse is not describing a lifestyle of dependence of God, though of course, that is part of Christian holiness.) Those who belong to the community of the Law must keep it completely to escape judgment, whereas those who belong to the community of Faith (Christ's and ours) must believe to escape judgment, since their faith will be calculated as righteousness, just like Abraham. In other words, righteousness comes from faith, whereas the Law does not recognize faith, only action.
Note that Paul pretty much assumes that those in the Law-bound community are all guilty or "accursed"— that they have not kept it. How does he know all individual Jews are lawbreakers? Well, on the one hand, he is not talking primarily about individuals here, he's talking about the whole community's failure to keep the Law. (read the Old Testament) The curse falls on all Jews equally, as their history of persecution shows. On the other hand, he knows, better than most, that no Jew has ever perfectly kept the Law.
So then, the Law only has the negative power to condemn violaters, whereas Faith has the positive power to make sinners righteous. Were you and I under the curse of the Law before we believed (vv. 13-14)? By Paul's logic, no, since this is a specific curse related to the covenant between God and the Israelites. Of course, all people begin life under the curse of sin, but you and I were never OT Israelites. The "us" in the verse probably refers to Paul's fellow Jews, the same ones he addresses beginning in Gal. 2.15. (Contrast this to 3.22, where everyone and everything is under sin.) Note that Christ was "born of a woman, born under the Law" in Gal 4.4; which seems to mean that he was able to redeem not only all of the woman-born (humans) but especially Law-bound Jews, being a descendant of Abraham.
So what is the blessing of Abraham in v. 14? At first glance, we might be inclined to say that Christ is the blessing of Abraham (and there is a sense in which this is true) but that is not the point of this verse. (the grammar won't work) Christ is the means by which the blessing of Abraham comes to all people. And what is that blessing? Go back to v. 5— the fact that Gentiles may enter God's kingdom by faith, that righteousness is available to those who believe, apart from the Law. The blessing is that the way to God is open for all people. As a corollary benefit, all of this was necessary for the Jews to receive the promise of the Spirit (cf. Joel 2.28-32; Acts 2.17-21), which might also be identified as this "blessing."
What in the world is going on in Galatians 3.15-18? Paul points out that once a promise is made or a deal is struck, its precise wording binds both parties to its terms. He points out that the word "seed" (or "descendant") is singular in Genesis 12.7, meaning that a specific individual will be the heir of God's promises to Abraham. (Though this was not necessarily the way OT scribes understood it... The Hebrew noun "zera" and the Greek noun "sperma" are collective singular nouns meaning "seed," much like the way the English noun "salmon" can refer to one or many creatures.... (sorry, had to!) In other words, Abraham believed in Christ, without knowing about him.
What is the role of the Law in Galatians 3.19-23? Paul is somewhat obscure on this point. He merely notes that "it was added because of transgressions." This might mean that the Law was meant to bring sins out into the open, to make it clear to all that the Jews were sinful people, or it might mean that the Law was given to somehow address their already sinful condition. (Scripture discusses other aspects to the role of the Law, but we are concerned with Paul's point here.) I tend to favor the latter, seeing the Law as God's way of keeping the Israelite people in check, a means of preventing sin from getting out of hand. This idea harmonizes with Paul's analogy of the Law as a "guardian" in v. 24. (Not "tutor" or "schoolmaster," as older commentaries and translations have it.) The term refers to the Greco-Roman practice of a father choosing an elderly slave man to protect and discipline his son (not teach him). We must be careful not to stretch the metaphor too far, but it seems clear that Paul makes the comparison to show that the Law 1) was temporary and 2) was a restraint against sin. (It may be significant that "guardians" were often old, crippled slaves who could serve no other useful function.)
Who is the mediator in 3.19-20 and what does Paul mean by v. 20? Moses. Christ is the "seed" in this analogy, not the mediator. Paul seems to want to emphasize several things: 1) the difference between the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenant. The latter is a contract, while the former is a promise. 2) God dealt directly with Israel when he spoke to Abraham, while the Law of Moses required a middleman, as well as angels. In other words, the Law was inferior to the Promise because God was more distant in its inception. 3) The Law created disunity by separating Jews from Gentiles, yet the oneness of God implies the new oneness of his people... Jews and Gentiles.
Why would somebody think that the Law and the Promises contradicted each other? Paul poses this hypothetical question because he sees an objection coming: If the blessing of Abraham is righteousness for all people, why did the Law create a wall between Jews and Gentiles? Paul answers this by reminding readers that the Promise was meant to bring righteousness, while the Law never had this purpose. In other words, they are NOT two different ways of doing the same thing! The Law was acting to preserve the Israelites until the coming of Christ, when the promised blessing of God (righteousness) would be universalized. Hence, v. 24 refers to the Law's role as a protector of Israel while the world waited for the Faithful One.
What does Paul mean by saying "Now that faith has come?" Well, for starters, he CAN'T mean that belief/trust/faith is now the new means of salvation, because he had already pointed out that Abraham was saved by faith. In other words, faith has always been the means of being righteous before God. So in what sense can he say that faith has "arrived?" How is it here in a way that it wasn't before? This question gets more puzzling the longer you think about it! The answer comes from our earlier discussion of the difference between faith in Christ and the faithfulness of Christ several weeks ago. (See the NET for a helpful translation.) Paul's point is that Christ's faithfulness (meaning his faithful actions— his redemptive death and resurrection) has marked the dawn of a new era. Faith has "come" in the twin sense that God's unprecedented act of faithfulness has become the new object of our belief. (You might even substitute "Christ" for "faith" in vv. 23-25.) Abraham believed in the future fulfillment of a promise, but now the fulfillment, the object of his faith, the descendant, has come! This means that the Law is obsolete. It has served its purpose, just as a "guardian" gives up control of a son when he becomes a man. In v. 26, Paul explains that this is exactly what has happened. Jews and Gentiles are sons and heirs in Christ.
How is Paul using phrase "in Christ" in vv. 26-29? Books have been written about this phrase, which is pretty much unique to Paul. It is purposefully mysterious, and has many facets, but the main idea is one of close association or identification. (The Greek wording of the phrase "faith in Christ" at the end of v. 26 is different than in v. 22.) To be "in Christ" means to be so closely linked to him as to be compared to his own body. Legally speaking, believers "are" Christ, in that they inherit with him!
What precisely is the point of v. 28? Paul is saying that all believers are equally saved and equally valuable to God. They all approach him by the same means, on the same terms. The fact that Christ is one means that all are one in him. In other words, it would make no sense to ask which part of Jesus' physical body, his arm or his leg, were more or less "him." Both are equally part of his body, participating in the same life. So too, all believers participate equally in Christ's life and righteousness. There is no distinction based on lawkeeping, nor based on prosperity, or age, or gender, or ethnicity. No distinctions of value that humans draw apply to those who believe in Christ.
This is NOT to say that there are no differences in the roles that believers play. Just as arms and legs do not look or function alike, so too, believers have diverse parts to play in Christ's body. In other words, this verse says nothing about distinctions of function— Paul is an apostle, and I am not. That IS a distinction that exists "in Christ." However, we are both saved by the same means on on the same basis. It may help to make an analogy to the Trinity here, That is, the Father, Son and Spirit are all equally God, equal possessors of the divine nature, yet each person fulfills different roles. The Son and Spirit obey the Father.
Note the three pairs of groups Paul singles out in Galatians 3.28: Jews/Gentiles, Male/Female, Slave/Free. We have noted before that Jewish men sometimes thanked God not to have been born a woman, a slave or a Gentile... Perhaps Paul meant specifically to undermine this mentality. In any case, he declares once and for all that all of us are equal citizens in God's Kingdom. How incredible is that!
We've come a long way in our study of the Gospel, and actually, we've really only studied the concept from one perspective: that of the Kingdom of God. We began by tracing the use of the term throughout the New Testament, noting that the idea of God's Kingdom does not tend to come into our definitions. And yet the "Good News" refers almost exclusively to the message of the Kingdom in the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. (Doesn't appear in John, remember?) Is it possible that we have missed a vital emphasis of the Gospel?
We usually go to Paul's writings when we want to talk about the Gospel. He seems clearer and more accessible to us at times, (although we have seen that Paul is trickier than he first appears). However, do we really understand Paul if we can't point out the similarities and continuities of his message with that of Jesus in the Gospels? We have mentioned in our study that unbelieving scholars have claimed that Paul created a new religion, alien to the message of Jesus and his disciples. How can we refute this claim, if we don't investigate the differences and seek to harmonize them?
To address these questions, we've looked at two major sections of Scripture. The first one, the Sermon on the Mount, (Matthew's version) represents the high points of Jesus' teaching. We observed that the short form of the good news message, "repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand," gets unraveled and explained in the Sermon on the Mount. The second passage of Scripture we've focused on is Paul's letter to the Galatians, which was written to address a controversy about the Gospel. Now it's time to compare these two. Then we will consider one final question: What does all of this mean for us?
Thematic Points of Comparison between the Sermon on the Mount and Galatians 1-3
Let's start with our thinking about the Gospel. On a personal level, we tend to focus on escaping the punishment for our sin, which is death. We emphasize the means of escape, which is faith, believing in Christ and his work. Now, all of this is great, but we can't stop there, or we miss the point of our salvation! God did not save us to keep us from dying, he saved us to restore our relationship to Him and to each other. He saved us to remake us into someone who can joyfully participate in his Kingdom.
On a theological level, we tend to focus on Christ's substitutionary death and resurrection when the subject of the Gospel comes up. Partly, this may be because many have tried to deny this event and its significance in the past (and that significance is quite breathtaking). Nevertheless, we miss out on the purpose of God's work in Christ if we stop there! Christ was raised as King of a new Kingdom, a new race of people loyal to God and disloyal to the world. He destroyed the barriers between us and rendered the Law null and void. This kingdom is not just something that will come about one day, it is something that exists here and now, wherever there are people who belong to him.
This has huge implications for how we present the Gospel. First of all, it is almost useless to try to say anything about the good news of the kingdom if the kingdom does not exist in any observable way. In other words, if someone cannot see the vibrancy of the Christian community, he or she will probably not be convinced that it represents God's kingdom, no matter how eloquent an explanation is given. If you and I can't get along with each other any better than unbelievers, how can we claim to have one Spirit uniting us? Do churches organized around similar interests, economic or ethnic groups really display the power of God? (admittedly, a difficult and sensitive question... anecdote time!)
Second, we are much more faithful in presenting the Gospel to emphasize its goal rather than just its means, or worse, it's occasion (sin). Ever tried unsuccessfully to convince someone they are a sinner while trying to share the Gospel? While it is true that all humans are born inherently sinful, I suggest that we will meet with less hostility if we begin by explaining why God saved us. To paint a compelling picture of a kingdom of unity, peace and joy— that is the beginning of a good Gospel presentation. Our job is to help someone want to be a part of that kingdom. From there, it is a relatively simple matter to explain how sin has robbed us of it, and what God has done to open the way in. In fact, explaining sin as an alternate, rival kingdom is a very useful way to help someone understand why they may not feel like a sinner, or perceive the gravity of their sin.
We have the ultimate story! Why would we try to reduce salvation to a transaction? This is how we come across some times— as if it's a divine deal where I believe and my sin gets erased in return. As if Christ paid a debt for me and that settles the matter. (In some variations of this way of thinking, you must feel guilty or obligated to do something in return at least twice a week... As if you could repay him!) The Gospel is about God inviting us into his new Kingdom.
What about Kingdom thinking in our daily lives? First, how can we live as members of a kingdom whose core value is forgiveness (grace) and yet fail to forgive? If love is the overriding principle of Kingdom interaction, those who claim to belong to it ought to be able to give proof of citizenship! Yet Christians can be quite difficult to get along with at times. (I know I can.) Why is that? Thinking back to the Sermon on the Mount, I wonder if self-righteousness doesn't play a big part in our little feuds. Jesus made it clear that outward displays and measurements of righteousness are a good way to be shut out of God's kingdom.
Second, being part of a Kingdom which is here now, but not complete ought to eliminate serial worrying from our lives. You cannot truly believe that you are an heir with Christ if you constantly stress out about your situation in this life. A conscientous citizen simply can't get worked up about the ups and downs of our circumstances here if he or she is focused on the future age, when Christ's rule is made visible and physically present. Of course, we all lose sight of his coming at times, but it ought to become less of a problem as we mature. Now, this is not to say we don't feel worry or fear, just that we don't let it control us, or dictate our decisions. We don't put all our effort into our comfort and security.
What other implications does the message of the Kingdom have for us? Your thoughts please!