Matt 5:1-7:29

The Sermon on the Mount (5:3 – 7:27), which makes up the first major discourse in GMatt, primarily gives instruction to those who claim to have repented and are looking to produce the fruit which validates it (cf. 3:8, 10).[1] This Sermon has much to offer in the way of explicating the Matthean presentation of the final judgment. Particularly important is the fact that, in the Sermon, the Matthean Jesus is laying down the principles and guidelines for the final judgment.[2]

The first section of the Sermon on the Mount (SM), the Beatitudes (5:3-12), presents a list of virtues which bring about some future blessing. While the time of blessing is not specified in the immediate context, it is reasonable to assume that the ultimate fulfillment of these blessings will take place at the coming of the Son of Man, at the final judgment.[3] Further, the inclusio formed by the words in the first and last beatitude addressed to third person entities (5:3b and 5:10b), ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, lends credence to an idea which most commentators do not articulate, namely, that the blessings enumerated in 5:3-12 are largely a synecdoche for the future[4] aspect of receiving the kingdom. Lastly, the theme of “reward in heaven,” (ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολὺς ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) a topic which will receive much greater treatment in the Sermon below (5:46; 6:1, 2, 5, 16), has now been broached: those who stand up underneath persecution through continued allegiance to Jesus and his teachings will have great reward in heaven (5:11-12).

The next section of the SM (5:17-48) serves to explain Jesus’ interpretation of the Torah, and that one’s obedience to it is the criteria by which one will either gain or forfeit entrance into the kingdom of heaven at the final judgment. Jesus is established firmly in the Torah (5:17-18), and he makes it clear that one’s obedience to the commandments of the Torah (as he will interpret them in the SM), determines one’s place in the kingdom of heaven (5:19). However, this should not lead one to surmise that obedience to the commandments is optional. Mὴ γένοιτο! Instead, Jesus instructs that one must exhibit righteousness that exceeds that of the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees in order to enter the kingdom of heaven at all (5:20; cf. 6:2, 5, 16; 23:13-33)![5] This “greater righteousness,” explained in 5:21-48, focuses beyond the mere letter of the Law to the true intent or spirit of the Law. Disobedience to Jesus’ interpretation of the Law promises to bring about eschatological disaster (cf. 5:22, 29, 30), whereas obedience to it brings eschatological reward (5:46). Further, Jesus’ interpretation of the Law calls for complete, whole-hearted (τέλειός) love for both one’s friends and enemies (5:43-48).[6]

Matt 6:1-34 continues Jesus’ treatment on the type of righteousness is required of all who have claimed to follow him (cf. 5:6, 10, 20). Hypocrisy, which is concerned only with being seen publicly and lauded by other people, is condemned again and again as behavior which only avails reward in the present (ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπέχουσιν τὸν μισθὸν αὐτῶν) from other people (6:1, 2, 5, 16). In place of hypocrisy, genuine obedience to the Father which takes care to avoid public accolades and brings reward from the Father is prescribed (6:4, 6, 18).[7] Given the contextual ties (Ν.Β. the use of δικαιοσύνη) between 5:3-12, 5:17-20, and 6:1-25, it is reasonable to conclude that the “reward” (μισθός) referred to in this section is none other than entering the kingdom of heaven along with all of its splendor (5:20; cf. 5:3-12). Again, it is worth emphasizing that it is one’s wholehearted obedience to God that merits reward. Something more than bald belief is required. This comes into clearer focus when one looks at Jesus’ stark words in Matt 6:14-15,[8] which echoes the Baptizer’s message that every “tree” that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire (cf. 3:7-12).[9] Likewise, Jesus taught that it is those who forgive others (which would, of course, be considered “good fruit”), whom the Father in heaven will forgive (ἀφήσει). In view of the parallels between John’s and Jesus’ teaching, the future tense most likely refers to eschatological forgiveness.[10] Further, the sins of those who do not forgive others will not be forgiven by their Father (οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἀφήσει τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν).[11] ##There is clearly a tension which must be dealt with, that in GMatt forgiveness is both through the blood of Jesus (26:28), but also contingent upon continuing obedience to his teachings (7:1-2, 15; 16:27; 18:23-35; 22:1-14; 24:45-51; ##25:1-46).[12]

While the remainder of Matt 6 deals with a variety of issues, the theme is certainly that genuine, wholehearted obedience is that which God rewards. Hypocrisy is condemned (6:16), in favor of private, wholehearted obedience (6:17-18). Storing up treasure in heaven is held over against pursuing treasure on earth (6:19-21). Indeed, a person can only serve one master, God or money (6:24). The chapter concludes with a discussion on seeking first God’s kingdom and righteousness (6:33),[13] which pulls on the major theme of righteousness which has spans Matt 5 and 6:1.[14]

Matt 7 begins with another teaching that impacts one’s understanding the final judgment: Those who condemn others will be condemned by God (7:1-2). Though the text is not explicit that God is the judge or that the judgment in view is that of the final one, the use of the future passive κριθήσεσθε in 7:2 points heavily in this direction,[15] and, given the teaching regarding the judgment up to this point in GMatt, such should not be surprising.

Matt 7:13-14 helps one’s understanding of the final judgment in that it point to the fact that the way that leads to life is both narrow (στενὴ) and difficult (τεθλιμμένη), and there are few who find it. “Life” here certainly refers to eschatological, eternal life which is granted to the righteous at the final judgment.[16]

In speaking with reference to false prophets, Jesus references “good” and “bad” trees (7:15-20), something he likely picked up from John the Baptizer (cf. 3:10). Jesus notes that good trees produce good fruit, and bad trees, bad fruit. Like, the Baptizer, Jesus is clear that every tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire (7:19).[17] As mentioned above, in GMatt, fire represents eschatological punishment (cf. 5:22; 13:40, 42, 50; 18:8-9; 25:41). Again, in GMatt, the final judgment is based on the fruit one bears, rather than upon one confession or profession of faith alone.[18] That this is the case is further supported by 7:21-23, where only the one’s who do the will of Jesus’ Father in heaven get to enter into the kingdom.[19] In the context of the SM, “the will of my Father in heaven” refers to the Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon itself.[20] Lastly, in 7:22, the timing of this judgment is made clear. The referent of “that day” (ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ) is certainly the day of the final judgment.[21]

In 7:23, the criteria of judgment can be summarized as whether or not one has a genuine allegiance to Jesus, which inevitably will result in obedience to his teachings. The repudiation οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς (“I never knew you.”) basically means that Jesus never recognized them as belonging to his true family (cf. 12:50).[22] It is worth noting that, while these people have done many miracles and other great things in Jesus’ name, he calls them “lawbreakers” (ἀνομίαν),[23] possibly citing Psalm 6:9. These people lacked the good fruit which proved that their repentance was genuine in the first place (3:8,10; cf. 7:25-20). Thus, as was the case with John’s ministry before him, Jesus’ preached that, ultimately, it is on the basis of one’s fruit that one will be judged. That this is the case is further emphasized in the parable of the wise and foolish builders in 7:24-27, which concludes the SM.

The coordinating conjunction οὖν serves to connect the pericope in 7:24-27 with that which had just been said regarding the final judgment in 7:13-23. Two points need to be made with reference to this parable. First, the imagery of rain, floods, and raging storms should be seen not as the temporary trials of life,[24] but as the final judgment itself.[25] Second, again, it is the one who is actually obedient to Jesus’ teachings who survives this final judgment. This obedience may well spring from true repentance, but the criteria for this judgment is the obedience itself, not the repentance that brought it forth. Thus, there will be two types of people at the final judgment, those who actually did what Jesus commanded and those who did not.[26]

The teaching regarding the final judgment in the SM could be summarized thusly: Regardless of one’s supposed religious standing, whether to Jesus, Moses, or their God, the final judgment will separate those who have truly have repented and conformed their lives to Jesus and his teachings. In addition, in perfect harmony with the teaching of John the Baptizer (3:8-11), only those who actually bring for fruit which validates their repentance will be saved on the last day (7:15-27).

[1] [2] [3] On the eschatological character of these promised blessings, See [4] Note that, with the exceptions of 5:3b and 5:11b, each of the blessings are framed in the future tense. ##What accounts for the tense change with future being bracketed by the present tense?##

[5] Matt 5:20 reads, Λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ ὑμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.

[6] Matt 5:48 reads, ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν. The context makes clear that love for both friends and enemies is in view (5:43-47).

[7] Also, [8] Ἐὰν γὰρ ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν, ἀφήσει καὶ ὑμῖν ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος· ¹⁵ ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἀφήσει τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν.

[9] That Jesus’ message echoes John’s should come as no surprise given that Matthew has evidently labored to place their ministries parallel to each other (Note the verbatim agreement in 3:2, 10; cf. 4:17; 7:19).

[10] Also, [11] See below for this student’s attempt at reconciling Jesus’ teaching on forgiveness with Paul’s.

[12] ##This thesis will be evaluated throughout the paper as relevant passages are treated.

[13] ##This student is aware that some take the reference to τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ in 6:33 to represent God’s righteous character rather than the righteous standard which has been discussed throughout Matt 5 and 6. However, this student feels that the overwhelming context outweighs the said importance of αὐτοῦ with reference to τὴν δικαιοσύνην. Given the context, the phrase τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ could more naturally mean “his righteous [i.e. which he requires].”

[14] [15] Also, [16] Cf. 1 En. 40:9; 2 Macc 7:9, 36; Pss. Sol. 3:12; 9:4-5; 1QS 4:6-8; Matt 18:8-9; 19:16-17, 29; 25:46. Also, [17] Matthew has verbatim agreement (with the exception of John’s οὖν) between John’s and Jesus’ message that πᾶν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται. This further supports the notion that Matthew is presenting John and Jesus as having parallel ministries with reference to the announcement of the kingdom and of the accompanying judgment.

[18] ##Some interpreters may note that the good tree is that which produces good fruit. This may lead to the conclusion that the judgment is based not upon the good fruit per se, but on the fact that the tree was good in the first place. While this point is a good one, it is difficult to miss the explicit teaching in GMatt that it is the fruit itself that is the criteria for the judgment (cf. 3:8, 10; 7:19; 16:27; 25:31-46). ##Perhaps it might be more appropriate to state the relationship between one’s status as a “good” tree and one’s “good” fruit with regard to the final judgment thusly: In GMatt, while a change in status from bad to good, from unrepentant to repentant is necessary for salvation (cf. 3:8-12), it is the good fruit, faithful obedience to Jesus and his teachings, that will either vindicate or expose as false one’s claims to true repentance.##

[19] Note that Luke’s version has “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ yet you do not what I tell you” (6:46), whereas GMatt reads “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven – only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven” (7:21). Thus, Jesus teaching is set up as the very will of the Father in heaven. [20] Also, [21] Also, [22] This would seem to indicate that they never actually had true repentance, since they evidently did not bear the proper fruit (3:8-12; cf. 7:15-20).

[23] Throughout GMatt, ἀνομία is used with reference to general wickedness before God (cf. 13:41; 23:28; 24:12. [24] So [25] Elsewhere in Judaism, floods consistently refer to judgment (cf. Gen 6-7; Isa 28:2; 29:6:30:30; Ezek 13:10-16; 38:22; 1QH 3:14; Matt 24:39=Luke 17:27). [26] Clearly, the presentation in 7:24-27 is meant to serve Matthew’s purposes and is thus not to be taken as an absolute picture of the final judgment. There will obviously been those who have died, but who have not heard Jesus’ name, let alone his teachings from the SM (a topic that will take us too far a field to address in this setting). The simplicity of this presentation is for rhetorical effect and should be appreciated with this in mind.

Having laid a foundation for the concept of salvation in GMatt primarily connoting the final judgment, the text of GMatt will now be surveyed with reference to the topic at hand. Because of space limitations, only the most influential texts will receive sustained treatment.

Matthew 1:1 – 4:25

Of particular importance to the present discussion is the proclamation of John the Baptizer regarding the coming judge who was to follow after him in 3:1-12. John served as the prophet Elijah, preparing the way for the Son of the Man (17:11-12; cf. 3:2-3). His proclamation was simple: μετανοεῖτε· ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν.[1] The significance of this proclamation should not be underestimated for two reasons: (1) The same summary message is found on the lips of Jesus in 4:17. Thus, John’s message is also Jesus’ message. (2) The message of the coming kingdom would have served two purposes. First, it would have encouraged the righteous to persevere. Secondly, and most importantly, it would have served to warn the wicked that now is the time to repent[2] and turn to God because he will soon bring judgment.[3] To all who indicated that they had heeded his warning (those who came to his baptism), he warned that it was not enough to claim the lineage to Abraham. No, they themselves had to bring about fruit that was worthy of their claim of repentance (3:8).[4]

The immanency with which John saw this coming judgment was striking. He spoke of the ax already being laid at the root of the trees (ἤδη δὲ ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται·).[5] Each tree that did not produce good fruit would be cut down and thrown into the fire (3:10). This is the first glimpse of final judgment in Matthew’s gospel.

Unlike John, who baptized with water for repentance, the one who would follow after him would baptize with both the Holy Spirit and fire (ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί) (Matt 3:11).[6] Picturing the final day (cf. 13:24-30, 36-43; 25:31-46), the fields of God will be harvested, and the wheat will be kept, but the chaff will be burned up with inextinguishable fire (πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ) (3:12). It bears emphasizing that those who are “wheat” are contextually defined as those who produce good fruit (3:10), which is worthy of their repentance (3:7).[7] Therefore, contra popular thinking today, the basis of the judgment to which John referred is the production of good fruit (one’s ethical obedience to God and his statutes in light of the coming judgment), not merely a certain belief, theological conviction, or a claim to repentance.[8] Finally, as mentioned above, Jesus’ teaching is summarized as being in verbatim agreement with the Baptizer: μετανοεῖτε· ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (4:17). Indeed, it will become clear below that Jesus’ message of the final judgment is essentially the same as John’s, showing up in all five of the major discourses of GMatt. It is the first of those discourses to which the discussion must now turn…

[1] This is almost certainly a summary statement of the Baptizer’s preaching. Also, [2] On the nature and importance of repentance in the Judaism of the first century, See [3] [4] ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς μετανοίας

[5] The metaphor of trees for those who claimed to be righteous is quite fitting, since the imagery of the righteous as trees is quite common in ancient Jewish literature (Judg 9:7-16; Ps 1:3; Jer 17:7-8; Dan 4:20-22; 2 Bar 39:1-8; m ’Abot 3:18; Pesiq. Rab. 60b). [6] There is considerable debate as to the exact reference intended by ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί. However, it is clear that, elsewhere in GMatt, fire (πῦρ) always (with the lone exception 17:15, where the boy with seizures always throws himself into the fire) connotes eschatological judgment (5:22; 7:19; 13:40, 42, 50; 18:8-9; 25:41).

[7] The phrase καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς μετανοίας is an interesting one. Here, the term ἄξιον most likely refers to “having a high degree of comparable worth or value” (BDAG, 1.b.). The idea is that one’s fruit legitimates one’s repentance. There is, thus, an incredibly close correlation (one-to-one?) between actual repentance and “production” of good fruit (one’s changed behavior). Here, John’s point is that, if a person is to claim that they have repented, but they have not produced good fruit, then he or she has not actually repented in the first place. For such people, a final judgment of inextinguishable fire waits (3:12). [8] Others who recognize more than a cognitive basis for the judgment in this passage are: [1] GMatt portrays salvation as completely future. Every time the concept of salvation is dealt with,[2] the timeframe is future. Closely associated, though not synonymous, with salvation, is entrance into the kingdom. However, even when entrance into the kingdom is referenced, the timeframe is predominately future.[3] The only two exceptions are found in the entirety of the text of GMatt, in 7:13-14 and 23:13. In 23:13, Jesus castigates the Pharisees for not entering into the kingdom and for preventing others from doing so as well.[4] In 7:13-14, Jesus commands his audience to “enter through the narrow gate” (εἰσέλθατε διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης), which, given the context, is most likely synonymous with entering into the kingdom of heaven (cf. 5:20).[5] The aorist imperative εἰσέλθατε probably has an ingressive force,[6] which would support a present timeframe. However, with the reference to the narrow gate which leads to life (ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ζωὴν), the timeframe is firmly changed to the eschatological future.[7] Lastly, in both Second Temple Judaism, as well as GMatt, life (ζωή) refers to eschatological, eternal life, which is received at the final judgment,[8] rather than a present reality in a person’s life.[9]

In addition, the timing of this salvation is not merely some random future happening, but rather the coming of the eschatological Son of Man, who will judge both the righteous and the wicked (cf. Matt 24:39-41; 25:31-46). The time of his coming is unknown (24:44), but his coming will bring about a time of judgment, which in turn will usher in a new age (19:28).

So for Matthew, salvation was not conceived of in terms of present “justification,” but rather as final salvation from eternal punishment to eternal life, which takes place at the “coming of the Son of Man” (ἡ παρουσία τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) (cf. 24:39-41). Further, it is only the righteous, those who have responded with appropriate obedience to Jesus and his teachings, who will pass muster at this final judgment. For a defense of this thesis, the discussion will now turn to an exegesis of several relevant texts in GMatt.

[1] It will be argued below that Paul too has a very real future component to his view of salvation, but here it will suffice to point out that GMatt lacks a Pauline initial “justification by faith.”

[2] The broad topic of “salvation” in GMatt can be explored through an investigation of relevant keywords of the Evangelist. When σῴζω is used in soteriological contexts, it is used universally in GMatt within a future timeframe (cf. 10:22; 16:25; 24:13; 24:22). In addition, entering into life (εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ζωὴ) is referred to twice (18:8-9; 19:17; cf. 25:21, 23 where “joy” is used in place of “life” [εἴσελθε εἰς τὴν χαρὰν τοῦ κυρίου σου]). In both instances, eschatological life is in view, and the context makes the future timeframe clear. Likewise, the language of “reward” (μισθός) is also used universally to refer to that which is to be obtained from God in the future (5:12; 10:41, 42; 20:8). Even where it is used of that which one possesses (or lacks!) in the present, the expectation is that the final reception of this reward awaits a future consummation (Matt 5:46; 6;1, 2, 5, 16). Another important word is ἀποδίδωμι (“I reward” or “I repay”). Again, whenever God is rewarding or repaying for good or evil, respectively, it is universally used within a future timeframe (cf. 6:4, 6, 18; 12:36-37; 16:27). Lastly, the concept of “departing” (ἀπέρχομαι), whether into eternal life (25:46b) or into eternal punishment (5:30; 25:46a), is used within a future timeframe. Thus, in GMatt, the eschatological perspective of salvation, reward and repayment, entrance into life/joy/eternal punishment, and the like, are all future realities, which await fulfillment at the return of Jesus, the eschatological Son of Man (cf. 25:31-46).

[3] For the use of εἰσέρχομαι with βασιλεία, see Matt 5:20, ##7:13-14 (βασιλεία is not explicitly mentioned here, though it is implied by the connection to 5:20), 21, 18:3, 19:23-24; 23:13.

[4] ὑμεῖς γὰρ οὐκ εἰσέρχεσθε οὐδὲ τοὺς εἰσερχομένους ἀφίετε εἰσελθεῖν.

[5] Also, [6] [7] Stanley takes this as support for viewing eternal life in the Synoptics (and the rest of the NT) as “a road to be traveled.” [8] Cf. 1 En. 40:9; 2 Macc 7:9, 36; Pss. Sol. 3:12; 9:4-5; 1QS 4:6-8; Matt 18:8-9; 19:16-17, 29; 25:46

[9] The differences in the presentation of John’s realized eschatology with reference to eternal life, and that of GMatt must be acknowledged, but a treatment of those matters at this point would take the discussion too far a field.

From my reading in the area (both of primary and secondary resources), the data points to two bases: (1) Divine Election, and (2) Obedience to Torah as variously interpreted by the particular Community. Interestingly, that certain individuals were “elect” did not obfuscate their responsibility to Torah obedience…if they hope to pass muster at the final judgment, which is universally according to obedience.

Among the various sects, that of Qumran (represented by the Dead Sea Scrolls) is distinct in two ways: (1) the emphasis on divine enablement that produces the obedience, and (2) the reconfiguring Torah obedience around allegiance to the Teacher of Righteousness and his halakah. This should sound familiar…

Stay tuned for how GMatt treats the final judgment.

I have been doing some reading on the views of the final judgment in the various sects of Judaism (as represented by the vast amount of Second Temple literature). This research has taken me to a scholar named Chris VanLandingham (author of Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul, Hendrickson, 2006), whose comments regarding his approach to biblical scholarship have left me thinking (dangerous, I know!). He may or may not claim allegiance to Jesus, but he seems to be a thoughtful scholar. In any case, in an interview over at Chris Tilling’s, Chrisendom, Dr. VanLandingham wrote:

“My approach is entirely secular; I write as an historian, not a theologian. Nevertheless, I don’t think my conclusions are anti-Jewish or anti-Christian at all. But, and this is an important point, if my conclusions happened to be anti-Jewish or anti-Christian, I would still be willing to let the chips fall where they may. I do exegesis as if nothing is at stake. If I can’t do this, then I need to find another occupation. I intend to seek the truth despite the consequences of what that truth may hold. Such intent doesn’t mean I will find the truth, but my chances of finding the truth are better than those who think they already know the truth before they seek to find it. By analogy, the archaeologist who a priori is unwilling to admit that the bones he or she may find belong to Jesus is not really an archaeologist, but a blind apologist. I am aware that many who read my book cannot do history or exegesis as if nothing is at stake because they are being paid by a church or religiously-oriented university that mandates certain theological positions. Thus when a professor signs a “statement of faith” as a precondition for employment, one wonders how credible that person’s research is that always supports that signed “statement of faith.” When our livelihoods depend on us not seeing the moons of Jupiter through Galileo’s telescope, how can we expect to have 20/20 vision?” [emphasis added]

I have been thinking about this approach a lot lately. As most of my previous posts and conversations on this blog up to this point will confirm, I have been reluctant to intentionally bring a theological system or isolated doctrine to bare on a biblical passage under investigation. However, doing so can be a scary (reckless?) thing. So that’s my question: Is Dr. VanLandingham’s approach, as described above, reckless? It seems that, if the topic under investigation was not directly related to the Bible (e.g. the Punic Wars, the governmental structure of ancient Egypt, etc.), then the answer is certainly that one should check their presuppositions at the door and attempt to do purely historical research. So what is different about the Gospels, Paul, the OT, etc? Though they are in fact divine, they are thoroughly human documents. Shouldn’t they be treated as such? But this can get dangerous. Should we really approach the biblical text as historians more than (to the exclusion of?) as theologians? Should we hold “justification by faith,” the bodily resurrection, indeed the resurrection of Jesus, with a loose grip, remaining open to the possibility that the evidence may not lead us in that direction? I don’t know about you, but that makes me pretty uncomfortable. But is my comfort any reason to reject this method? After all, aren’t we after truth at any cost? We are…aren’t we?

Please let me hear your thoughts on this. I have no well-formed opinions on this matter, only questions.

So, for starters, here’s my working thesis: GMatt presents future salvation as contingent both upon God’s mercy and our personal righteous obedience to Jesus and his teachings. This in no way subtracts from the necessity of the death and resurrection of Jesus, nor does it minimize or ignore the necessity of the enablement of the Spirit.

Any thoughts?

I’m currently taking a class on the study of the Greek text of Matthew. The class has been awesome so far, because I have no academic experience in the Synoptics (and hardly any in John). Some issues that are currently bouncing around in my head are:

1. The genre of Matthew (I take it to be Βίος (See Richard A. Burridge, What are the Gospels?) and its implications for a accurate understanding of what the Evangelist is doing. More on this in a later post.
2. The ethical challenges of Jesus (e.g. his “Sermon on the Mount” – Matt 5-7) and their intended role in the larger story that the Evangelist presents.
3. The pericope of the Rich Young Man (Matt 19:16-30).
4. The role of the Law and Matthew’s theology of judgment according to deeds/obedience to Jesus’ teachings (which seem to be mostly authoritative interpretations of the Law).
5. Reconciling Matthew’s soteriology with Paul’s.
6. The role of redaction and literary criticism in the study of the gospel (specifically Matthew’s).
7. The traces of (or lack there of) New Perspective thought in the gospels (specifically Matthew’s).
8. The implications of all of the above on the way the gospels are taught in our churches (They are being taught, aren’t they?).

I hope to address all of these issues during the course of this semester. You may want to subscribe to the feed though, because Hebrew keeps me pretty occupied.

It should now be clear that, at least in Rom 4:1-12 (especially vv. 3-9), Paul is not teaching that God gives the righteousness that belongs to Jesus to those who believe in him. Rather, he is teaching that to all who have faith in Jesus, their faith will be reckoned to them as righteousness. God does in fact become the one who justifies the ungodly (τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ) (Rom 4:5). How is this possible? How can God possibly set right the ungodly when he has promised to punish the guilty throughout the OT (e.g. Ex 23:7)? It is possible because Paul sees himself living in a different era, the eschatological period inaugurated by the death and resurrection of the Messiah, who was punished as a representative for the whole world. Only through the death of Jesus is this possible. It allows him to declare the ungodly to be righteous and not himself be unjust in doing so.[9] In Paul’s terminology, only Jesus’ death allows God to be both just and the one who justifies (Rom 3:26).

The objection will no doubt be brought forth, “If, for the sake of argument, the above interpretation is true, then why the language of giving something to the worker that is outside the worker in Rom 4:4-5? Does this not correspond to the righteousness which belongs to Christ which God has given all those who have faith in Jesus?”

To such an objection I would respond thusly: If in fact there is commercial imagery in Rom 4:4-5, it is supportive to 4:3, rather than prescriptive of it. Paul’s point in Rom 4:4-5 is not how the righteous status is received, but why it is received. Further, it seems that a far more natural conclusion from Rom 4:4-5 would be that the righteous status is that which comes from outside the person. This is in keeping with the overall point of Rom 3-4, which deals with how the people of God are defined. God makes no distinction between peoples, namely, the Jews and the Gentiles (e.g. 3:22-24). In my view, he is combating not legalism, or some type of (semi-) Pelagianism, but those Jewish Christians who are trying to use trademark Jewish boundary markers which were part and parcel with what it meant to be Jewish (i.e. circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws) to exclude Gentile Christians from the fellowship. Paul calls on Abraham to support his argument for two primary reasons: (1) He was highly respected within the Jewish community, and (2) he was accepted by God on the basis of faith before he was circumcised. Paul’s line of thinking is a good one: If Abraham didn’t have to be circumcised in order to be considered righteous before God, then neither did the Gentile Christians (Rom 4:9-12).

In addition, even if my explanation of the relationship between Rom 4:3 and 4:4-5 falls short, any critics will need to deal with the Semitic influence on the ἐλογίσθη εἰς + accusative construction, as well as the original context of Gen 15:6 upon which Paul draws.

It is worth noting once again that the only two occurrences of the ἐλογίσθη εἰς + accusative construction outside of a quotation of, or an allusion to, Gen 15:6 are found in Rom 2:26 and 9:8. In each of these cases, the subject is considered to be that which it is not. Uncircumcision as circumcision. Non-physical descendents as physical descendents. In Romans 4:3 (and elsewhere), Paul uses this construction to show that God considered the faith of Abraham (and others) to be that which it is not, namely, righteousness.

I’m sure that, to the careful reader, the above post will bring up many questions, especially in relationship to certain aspects of Reformed theology. Still, the question should never be, “How does this or that interpretation mesh with a certain system of theology?” But rather, “Does it match with the grammar and syntax of the passage? Does it fit the context? Is this what Paul taught? Is this in fact what Scripture itself teaches?”

Of course much more could be said here, but this will have to suffice for now.

[9] Ben Witherington and Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Cambridge, UK; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 125.

This post arises from a conversation that Jay and I have been having in the comment section of a previous post. In Romans 4:3-5 does Paul teach that the righteousness that belongs to Jesus is given to those who have faith in him? (NOTE: The reality of the doctrine of imputation is not under scrutiny in this post, that will have to wait for another time. For now, we are only looking at whether or not it is found in Romans 4 (esp. vv 3-5).).

If I remember correctly John Piper’s defense of Imputation, Counted Righteous in Christ, has been hailed as the best defense of the doctrine in recent years (see the back cover). For this reason, his arguments, published in Counted Righteous in Christ (CRC), will be referenced and evaluated whenever I deem it relevant. And now…here we go!

Establishing an Accurate Translation

First, before we can begin to interpret the passage we must come to an accurate understanding of what Paul actually said, especially in Rom 4:3.

The text of the NA-27 reads plainly with no significant variants:

τί γὰρ ἡ γραφὴ λέγει; ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην.

Of primary importance to our discussion is the precise translation and meaning of the final phrase ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. The reason for this is that proponents of the traditional view (Imputation) understand the meaning of ἐλογίσθη to be something like “credited,” “counted,” or “imputed,”[1] and they take the preposition εἰς to take its usual meaning of “unto,” “for,”[2] thus showing the purpose for the faith being “imputed.” Thus, faith is imputed for the purpose of bringing about righteousness. The result is a translation which goes something like this: “For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God and it was credited/imputed/reckoned for righteousness.” However, a closer look at the Greek text tells a different tail.

Piper and others who take his view on this passage fail to understand that the εἰς + accusative construction (i.e. εἰς δικαιοσύνην) is often used in OT quotations and, due to Semitic influence (Hebrew ל), it functions with verbs such as γίνομαι, εἰμί, and λογίζομαι as a substitution for a predicate nominative.[3] For those who need a memory jogger, the predicate nominative is approximately the same as its subject.[4] If this is the case, then Paul is approximating faith with righteousness, rather than showing than one is a means to another. Still, let’s not just take the grammarians’ words for it. What do we find in the NT itself?

Similar ἐλογίσθη εἰς + accusative constructions are found a total of eight times in the NT. In the immediate context, it shows up in Rom 4:3 in 4:5, 9, 22. Elsewhere in Romans, Paul uses this phrase in 2:26; 9:8. Outside of Romans, the ἐλογίσθη εἰς + accusative construction shows up in Gal 3:6, and outside of Paul altogether in James 2:23.

Each occurrence of the ἐλογίσθη εἰς + accusative (with the exceptions of Rom 2:26 and 9:8) shows up in a quotation or allusion to Gen 15:6. In the noted exceptions, a certain man’s uncircumcision is considered to be circumcision (ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ εἰς περιτομὴν λογισθήσεται, Rom 2:26), and the “children of the promise” are considered to be physical “descendants” (τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας λογίζεται εἰς σπέρμα, Rom 9:8). Thus, in both of the occurrences outside of the ones in question, the ἐλογίσθη εἰς + accusative construction is unequivocally functioning as a predicate nominative, rather than a purpose clause.[5]

Therefore, while Piper argues correctly that the normative way of taking the preposition εἰς is “unto” or “for,” he fails to adequately deal with the Semitic influence of the ἐλογίσθη εἰς + accusative construction that is consistently (without exception), in the NT, taken as a predicate nominative (which could be adequately translated by using the subordinating conjunction “as”).

What about the meaning of the verb ἐλογίσθη? Piper and others contend that it means “impute,” “credit,” or “count.” This is usually picked from the proposed imagery of a commercial transaction in Romans 4:4-5. This imagery is then used to explain 4:3, so that Rom 4:3 is seen as a showing as a sort of commercial transaction in which God gave Abraham that which would ultimately be seen as Jesus’ own righteousness when he believed in him (If this is not a correct representation, I expect you Reformed folks out there to correct me on this.). The trouble with this logic is that it is foreign to the original context of Gen 15:6 on which Paul is drawing (cf. Rom 4:1-2), not to mention the text of Romans. Paul’s word choice is not driven by a commercial metaphor, but by the wording of Gen 15:6.[6]

In the context of Gen 15:6, Abraham’s faith that God will in fact provide offspring for him is received and treated as though it was that which is was not, namely righteousness.[7] Any idea of the righteousness of God or Jesus being given to Abraham is simply foreign to the text. It is Abraham’s faith that God decides in his grace to treat as righteousness. The NET Bible captures this idea in their translation, “Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD considered his response of faith as proof of genuine loyalty” (Gen 15:6).

The result of the above study would yield a paraphrastic translation of Rom 4:3 along the following lines:

“For what does Scripture say? Abraham believed God and God reckoned his faith to him as though it were righteousness.”[8]

[1] John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2002), 54.

[2]Ibid., 54, 62.

[3] Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. ##Revised and edited by Frederick William Danker, 3d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000), s.v. εἰς, 8.a, Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, and Robert Walter Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961), 80 (§145), A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 3d. ed. (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919), 457-58, Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 47.

[4] Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 40.

[5] Note also the uses of this construction in the LXX (Wisdom 2:16; 3:17; Hosea 8:12; 1 Macc 2:52; 1 Sam 1:13). The idea is not that God gave something to Abraham, but that he looked upon Abraham’s faith and considered it to be righteousness. Note especially the parallel construction where uncircumcision is considered to be that which it is not, namely, circumcision (Rom 2:26: οὐχ ἡ ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ εἰς περιτομὴν λογισθήσεται; (cf. Rom 4:9: ἐλογίσθη τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ἡ πίστις εἰς δικαιοσύνην)).

[6] Garlington, Imputation or Union with Christ? A Rejoinder to John Piper, 5. This article is also found in Don B. Garlington, In Defense of the New Perspective on Paul: Essays and Reviews (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Pub., 2005).

[7] One could take it a step further and point out that is not until Gen 22:10-18, when Abraham actually tries to kill his own son in obedience to God that he actually proves that he is “righteous.” [NOTE: At this point, its crucial to understand that “righteousness” in the OT was essentially consistent covenant-keeping obedience. A defense of this view is of course a topic for another post at another time.]

[8] For further evidence that it was in fact Abraham’s faith that was considered to be righteousness, see the exact wording of Rom 4:5, 9.

[9] Ben Witherington and Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Cambridge, UK; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 125.

Elsewhere on the web, Scot McKnight, over at JesusCreed, has completed a new series on the New Perspective that is well worth your time. He has some very insightful comments without really coming out to take a side. Especially helpful is his contention that Augustinian anthropology is at the core of the Reformed problem with much of what the New Perspective has to say (See Part 5).

If you have not already done so, you should check out the lengthy conversations Jay Bennett and I have been having in the comment sections of the posts below.

Next on the docket are some comments about Romans 4 and the traditionally held understanding that Paul is teaching that the righteousness that belongs to Christ is given to us when we believe in Jesus.