Jesus is talking to his disciples in Mt 24-25; and his discussion comes on the heels of his argument with Israeli officialdom in Mt 21-23 (and is his interpretation for his disciples of the upshot of Mt 21-23, particularly as culminated in Mt 23).

Jesus’ word to his disciples is “Be prepared; do not sleep!” Whatever his disciples need at that point, they do not need a warning not to persecute the church.

At the same time, they are not supposed to be just hanging around waiting for Jesus to return. That’s not watchfulness either.

How does the Church enact the Gospel? I.e., how do we live as in the Age to Come even though still in this Age? We seek to wipe every eye dry. It is an eschatological witness: There is no hunger in the Age to Come, so we feed the hungry in this age; there is no nakedness in the Age to Come, so we clothe the naked in this age; there are no sick or imprisoned in the Age to Come, so we go into hospitals and prisons and fellowship with those there, as if the walls did not exist.

Yeah, it’s foolish. But we are impatient for the Age to Come. The irony is that in serving those whom Jesus serves, Jesus serves us in those whom we serve.

Mike,

In Luke 16 Jesus seems to imply that Lazarus is drawn up into Abraham’s presence simply because he “received bad things” in life. Is this an example of the question you brought up?

Thanks once more for the measured response. I don’t think that I really disagree with anything that you’ve said there. I probably even agree (if I understand you correctly) with your comment about the Pharisees I therefore think you’ve probably nailed it – it certainly does seem that we agree on the fundamentals, but our hermeneutical approach is somewhat different.

The main difference between us seems to be whether we see Law & Gospel clearly present in the Sermon on the Mount. If that’s the biggest disagreement that I ever have with a brother in the Lord, then I suspect I could live with that.

For the record, I’m not a Lutheran. I believe all sorts of nasty Reformed-type things that they don’t like (such as WCF-style double predestination, and that Christ went to the cross with specific people in mind) – and I believe these things because I see them taught clearly in Scripture. But, nevertheless, I have found the Confessional Lutheran focus on Law & Gospel to be *incredibly* helpful in understanding the Scriptures in a way that enables me to see how they can fit together harmoniously.

By the way, I don’t know whether you’re on Facebook, but if you are, feel free to look me up there. You seem like you’d be interesting online company to keep

Finally, thank you again for conversing with me here so calmly. I find it really helpful to interact with Christians of other perspectives – there is nothing quite like having to defend one’s position in the face of reasoned opposition to help one think through the issues clearly.

I know what you mean, RonP. I would like to wear a small crucifix, but I feel in some ways I would do a disservice to the cause of the Kingdom of God with Jesus as King because I so often am not loving and I see people around me being much more loving. I know we are all sinners and not yet perfect, yet it pains me that I don’t see the intensity of the power of the Holy Spirit that we see in the Gospels and in Acts. Where have we gone wrong? Not enough prayer? Are we just plain too selfish? I don’t know. Pray for me that I will always be and act in the power and love of Jesus!

I am not claiming that Jesus is not talking about real good works in the Sermon on the Mount – works that His followers *are* to do and *will* do. It’s simply that I assert that these good works can in no way *produce* a righteousness that saves, but are instead the evidence of a new creation by the Holy Spirit in those who are doing them. They are the product of faith in Christ (and that the gift of God), not the cause of it.

This is what Paul says, and I don’t see how we can ignore his teaching when it comes to understanding Matthew. The same Holy Spirit inspired both Matthew and Paul. The Christ who spoke the words in the Sermon on the Mount is the same Christ who sent the Holy Spirit to lead Matthew into all truth and inspire Paul to write what he did. Therefore, it is entirely legitimate to read the ‘theology of Paul’ into Matthew, as they are not (and cannot be) in conflict, but are rather the consistent and harmonious inspired doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Paul’s epistles, and the other New Testament writings, are given precisely *to* help us understand the true meaning of the events and teachings recorded in the four gospels. If we try to read them independently, we shall almost certainly go astray.

I have no problem, therefore, with you talking about ‘our practical righteousness that is empowered and motivated by the Holy Spirit’, *if* by that you simply mean the good works that we are commanded, and expected, to do as those who have saving faith. But those good works of the law can never in any way give us a righteousness that saves, nor can they in any way contribute to our salvation. Can we not agree at least on this point?

And is it not precisely a righteousness that *saves* that Jesus is talking about in Matt. 5:20, when He talks about the kind of righteousness that is required to ‘*enter* the kingdom of heaven’? And is it not also this same righteousness that *saves* that is under consideration in our Matt. 25 pericope? There, those who are righteous (sheep) receive eternal life; those who are not (goats) go into everlasting punishment. How then is the topic anything other than saving righteousness? I cannot see how it is possible to read Matt. 5:20 in any way other than as referring to a salvific righteousness. It *must* therefore, in the light of Paul, be referring to Christ’s own righteousness imputed to us. To read it otherwise seems to me to be not merely to decline to read Matthew in the light of Paul, but to set up Matthew and Paul in direct opposition to one another – or, worse, Christ and Paul! May that never be!

From everything you’ve said, I’m sure that you are not intending to assert that Paul and Matthew contradict one another (right?), and I’d really like to grasp the nuances of your position, so perhaps you can clear up how you deal with this apparent opposition in your reading of the Sermon on the Mount?

And, of course, Jesus gives other clues in His sermon about what is really going on. Not least in his opening remarks (Matt. vv. 5:1-19), a careful reading of which I believe will show a setting up of exactly the Law/Gospel dichotomy that you assert is not there. But also in critical parts such as 6:33:

“But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.” (Matt. 6:33, NKJV)

Isn’t it precisely this same idea of ‘God and *His* righteousness’ (i.e. *not* our own, but Christ’s) that Paul is expounding when he talks about ‘the righteousness of God apart from the law’, and the ‘righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus’ in Romans 3:21-22? Thus, it seems to me that Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is elaborating upon exactly the same subject matter as Jesus here, and quite probably, the very words that Matthew also records for us in the Sermon on the Mount! For surely Paul would have been familiar with the content of this Sermon? Are we really to think that Paul is unaware of the apparent connections he is making with Christ’s words, and not deliberately intending to affect our understanding of them?

Furthermore, Jesus makes the point that ‘every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit’ (7:17). So the theme of good works being the fruit of faith, rather than its cause, is already made explicit there.

Finally, look at how Jesus uses the law in Matthew 5. He turns it up to an intensity that means that *no one* can possibly keep it. Fine, you’ve not committed an act of adultery. But you’ve looked lustfully at a woman. Yes, you’ve not actually committed a physical act of murder. But you’ve been angry with your brother without a cause. And so on. Yes, we are commanded do all of the things we find there. But I can’t! Where does that leave me? Seeking God’s righteousness, not my own. Trusting only in Christ’s righteousness put to my account (cf. Romans 7). And then seeking all the more, albeit imperfectly, to conform to the will of my heavenly Father who has shown me His abounding love and grace through His Son. Not to try to earn His favour, as I already have that in Christ, but flowing from the faith, gratitude and love that He has placed in my heart by the working of His Holy Spirit.

In other words, to turn around your assertion, I believe it would be very wrong *not* to read the theology of Paul back into the Gospel of Matthew.

I can see that I really ought to write another article, if only for my own benefit, dealing with the very interesting points that you’ve raised