This past week or two the question of a Christian’s involvement in politics has come up once or twice. For example, Dr. Clark wrote an article (found here) in support of the California Proposition 8, which added just a few words to our State’s constitution: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.”
My friend RubeRad wrote in support of Prop 8 using the WCF (found here). In this thread, you see Christians here wondering if it is okay to vote yes. There is mention of the opposing side’s rhetoric that voting yes would be “taking away a right” that homosexuals had (for a few short months. The prop was successfull.)
I’ll admit, I’m frustrated. These two particular blogs are home to proponents of a “2 Kingdom” theology that basically says Christians are citizens of a spiritual kingdom (Christ’s) and of a worldly kingdom (man’s). It further states that when we are acting in the sphere of man’s kingdom, like politics, that we must come to our conclusions of what is right and what is wrong by using the “Natural Law Theory.” I am still studying Dr. Clark’s particular flavor of this theory, since intellectual honesty is important to me, and knowing the truth is even more important to me. But, for now, I think I can give a basic explanation.
Dr. Clark’s Natural Law Theory basically seems to be saying that since all men are bearers of God’s image and have the moral law written on their heart, man can discover or at least ‘knows’ what is right and what is wrong through reason or general revelation. (Dr. Clark, feel free to correct me if I’m not correct). A Christian, therefore, doesn’t need to appeal to natural revelation when dealing in this civil sphere. He or she can reason with the unbeliever on common ground.
Anyway, all of this has got me to thinking about the following verse:
How is this verse interpreted from a “2 Kingdom” theology? What significance, if any, does it have for the Christian and the Church today? Why does Christ immediately after these words tell his followers NOT to think that He came to destroy the law? What did they think of when they heard Him say “law?” Why does he go on to give application with imperatives to them?
So, if you’re a 2 Kingdom guy out there, please, have at it. Explain it to me (and my two readers) please.
Kazoo
Kazoo,
From my 2K lights, salt and light references have to do with holding out the gospel to the unbelieving world, not immediately engaging it in order to make it better or carry out a project that is otherwise law-laden. Most seem to think salt and light has to do with some form of improvement: moral, spiritual, social, cultural, political, etc. But to my understanding it means to hold out Christ and him crucified and to proclaim his death until he comes again. If at any point that mission is compromised, such as by the law-laden projects mentioned, we are only fit to be “thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.”
By the by, I thought Scott had made clear that his post was not intended to shed light on answering any immediate political questions, but merely to shed light on the natural order of things?
Here’s my stab at it:
Our light is not our moral superiority (not even our God-given sanctification), but the gospel; the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes. For in it, the righteousness of God is revealed, beginning and ending in faith. The one who is righteous by faith, shall live.
And that’s what the “good works” are about. I’m sure you’ll want to stress that the good works are something others can see (cute title, by the way), but note that this notion reinforces natural law; how can the unbeliever recognize that good works are indeed good, if he does not have access to natural law via his conscience?
As for the infamous 5:17, I don’t know why that’s the next thing Jesus says. Maybe 5:17 shows us that 13-16 is supposed to be interpreted in a way that could easily be misinterpreted as antinomian (just like Rom 3:31 and 6:1 and instruct us that the proper interpretation of the preceding passages should naturally produce antinomian questions (which then need to be beat down)).
But as for the meaning of itself, Jesus later tells us exactly what he means when he talks about himself fulfilling the law and the prophets:
simul-post! Looks like Z and I are on the same page
Looks like my 2 readers have been here.
Z, have I read somewhere that you’re a minister somewhere? Or a layman?
Rube, I see you tried answering more of the questions posed than Z did. Thanks.
So, how about a little exegetical support from the whole passage? Take your time.
kazoo
Z is just one of us laymen. Hopefully you haven’t read anywhere that he’s a minister.
“Exegetical support from the whole passage?” Well, after carefully consulting available commentaries and the original greek, I offer the RMP* for v. 13:
*Rube’s Modern Paraphrase
Note that “astro” (star) dome follows from the many references to “light” in the following verses. Now that’s exegesis, baby!
Kazoo,
I am not a minister anywhere, but I am a mere layman everywhere. I’m not an exegete, so I don’t exegete. But I do like Rube’s exegetical exegesis.
The salt and light analogy seems also inextricably linked to communal living—that we are salt and light is to make people thirsty for Christ and his kingdom—our neighbors and those in our sphere of influence. Zrim hits it nicely—it isn’t a moral superiority but Christ’s superiority. And I mean communal more in the sense of they will know we are Christians by our love than by what government we can put forward—so that the words of the Gospel work well in Ancient Rome, Communist China or the USA. I would prefer one over the other certainly but the transcendent nature of the Gospel is that is held out for all men everywhere. The first call is to exhibit Christ to those around us—those to whom Ivan Karamazov argues are just the ones we can’t truly love, because we smell their breath, see their behavior, etc. That is why, in my mind, we are continually challenged, to consider others as better than ourselves, and to serve. Christ came to save the sick and as His body, we are called to point to Him.
And Reuben, I think Joel Osteen as the example of moralism is off the mark a bit—he barely requires moralism, and certainly no law. Maybe the RMP is like the NIV in some ways! ;>)
So we are the peanuts, and Christ is the beer?
As for Osteen, true enough. But as far as “Christless Christianity,” I think he’s got ‘em all beat hands down.
“God intends us to penetrate the world. Christian salt has no business to remain snugly in elegant little ecclesiastical salt cellars; our place is to be rubbed into the secular community, as salt is rubbed into meat, to stop it going bad. And when society does go bad, we Christians tend to throw up our hands in pious horror and reproach the non-Christian world; but should we not reproach ourselves? One can hardly blame unsalted meat from going bad. It cannot do anything else. The real question to ask is: where is the salt?” – John R.W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, pg. 65.
And Kazoo,
If you don’t mind me jumping in, Matt 5:13 is not a command, “go and be salt” it is a statement of fact, “you are the salt of the earth.” What were the disciples doing when Jesus made this statement? Planning on penetrating Roman government to change it? No – they were sitting on a mountain listening to their Savior! In other words, the very fact that God has his elect living in this dark world means judgment will be held off, the world preserved for the spread of the gospel (salt), and the world able to have the gospel among them as a witness by the life of the community of the saints (light).
Blessings,
Todd
Todd & Dave,
It’s nice to have some new blood participating here with us. Thank you for your comments. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to mention the function of salt in context with Jesus’ times. Sorry Court, but I don’t think the thirst thing quite works.
I am writing from the soccer field using my phone, so I will hold off a little longer adding my insight to this passage.
Maybe I should have put all my questions in a bulleted numbered form. Or, maybe I asked too many questions assuming too much of my two reader’s ability to focus, pay attention, and answer.
kazoo
Or assuming too much of your authority to submit us to examination…
Nahhhh
Hey, since I’m new to this blog, what is the significance of the blog owner being without a kazoo?
My last name is Lithuanian: Kazules. It is pronounced: kazoo less.
kazoo
Ah, cool name!
Thanks
It is cool, man. But I think less of musical intsruments and more of that cool little green dude over Fred Flinstone’s shoulder, you know, the guy who had magical powers. I’ll refrain from making a connection between that and the assumptions of theonomy, even though it would be fun.
My last name is Yugoslavian: Zrmc. It is pronounced: Zrimec. I know, the Americanized verison doesn’t help much. But think of “ceramic,” it helps a tad, but you still have to tweak the initial Z and the middle vowel.
Todd says:
Todd, yes, that is true. It is an indicative statement. But Jesus does give is an imperative in light of the indicative:
Continuing to read Jesus wants to make clear to his followers that they aren’t to think that He came to destroy the law (vs 17). In fact, he makes that statement twice and then gives us a contrast: “I came to fulfill.” Now, this can be a bag of worms, and someday I might actually post on this, but most of the time you hear people talking about Jesus fulfilling the law, it has some sense of reducing or getting rid of our obligation to it. But that would only make Jesus contradict himself (I came not to destroy the law but to get rid of the law). See?
But in the next few verses you see that Jesus re-emphasizes his statement by clarifying that it won’t pass away until the end of time. And then just to be clear again, he goes on and explains that anyone in the Kingdom who slackens the law, even by just a little bit, will be called least in the Kingdom.
After that section, you have the rest of the sermon on the mount, where Jesus is teaching his followers the proper understanding of the moral obligation of God’s law.
So, I say cool beans for Todd and Dave for at least getting the understanding of what salt was in the context of the day Jesus was speaking (a preserving agent), and also the light. (Let’s remember that the ungodly hate the light, just like roaches.) But His purpose for this introduction wasn’t to teach about His substitutionary atonement, which I certainly ascribe to. His purpose was to teach His followers that the moral obligations of God’s law have been and always will be binding. If that weren’t the case, then there would have been no need for His substitutionary sacrifice to satisfy God’s justice.
Grace and Peace,
Kazoo
Kazoo,
I think you are missing the redemptive-historical focus on this section of Matthew. Jesus was not returning us to the Law of Moses; the Sermon on the Mount does not clear up the misunderstandings of the Law – here Jesus is changing the Law according to the New Covenant; he is introducing the Law of Christ and the indicative-imperative of the New Covenant. Here is my take on that passage. http://www.opcfw.com/sermons/matthew_5_17-20.html
Todd
Todd,
I’ll have to look at your link later on after work.
But you’re kidding about “changing the law,” right? The law always pointed to Christ and justification through faith in Christ. God’s law doesn’t change (look at the tag line of my blog). The administrations of the covenants may change, but the one promise was never changed and was to Abraham and His seed: Christ (and therefore those IN Him).
So, in the mount sermon, what is it that you think was in the law that Jesus changed?
Kazoo
K,
Well, an obvious example of the law changing is from earthly temple to heavenly temple. Another is from OC easy divorce to NC heightened imperatives on marriage. When covenants change, the law changes. I’m not speaking of ethical continuities that remain the same, but we are not under the Mosaic Law like Israel was, that is a basic of the new covenant and theology.
TB
Rev. Bordow,
As a sidenote, I absolutely LOVE being a Presbyterian! I finally went to your link and read your sermon. But, the very first thing I saw was that it was by REVEREND Todd Bordow. And, being a Presby and knowing the strict licensing requirements and such to become such in the OPC or PCA, etc., I immediately sensed an increase of respect and carefulness before I read your sermon. I really really love the sense of ‘safety’ the LORD gives to us, his sheep, when in a true church. Hallelujah!
I’ll leave this comment as is, so that it stands out, and I’ll respond to your sermon and your comments in the next comment I make.
Praise the LORD for the brethren!
kazoo
Todd,
Regarding your sermon, there is much within it that I agree with and even find edifying. In fact, most of what you say I find myself agreeing with. However, I think there are a few problems as well, and I hope you’ll let me briefly interact with you on them, in a brotherly manner. (Too often, especially in the blog world, since there isn’t a face to face interaction, much can easily be misinterpreted as hostile and antagonistic, and it also become easy to write in such a way purposely). So, let’s start this relationship giving each other the benefit of the doubt, and assume that we both meant to put honey in our writings, okay?
Now, I’m not going to go through the entire sermon and pick it apart bit by bit. Frankly, I don’t have the time or energy, as much as I wish I did. (I really do love discussing the Word of God). But I’m going to highlight a couple of things that I think will get to to the heart of our disagreements.
1st thing, and most important I think is this quote:
Being a minister in the OPC, the same denomination that Bahnsen was a minister in, and that Roger Wagner is currently ministering in, I’d like to assume that you’ve read some of the primary sources from the actual teachers of “theonomy.” But, this quote, respectfully, makes me question that. I guess one of these days I’m going to have to write a short post explaining what theonomy proper actually *is* and *is not.* Anyway, I’d like to know if you have read Bahnsen’s book “Theonomy in Christian Ethics.”
That being said, this quote is not an accurate representation of theonomy. In fact the rest of your sermon is mostly in agreement with what theonomy actually teaches. You are correct, that the word “established” was suggested by Bahnsen as a possible interpretation. But his thesis doesn’t live or die on that translation. He also offered “confirm” as a possible understanding of πληρῶσαι and gives near a dozen references of theologians over many years offering the same understanding to show that this isn’t some ‘new’ thing that Bahnsen came up with himself.
But, other than that statement, the rest of what you say theonomy teaches is incorrect. Theonomy does *not* teach the exact opposite of dispensationalism. Nor does it teach that ‘we’ (whoever ‘we’ are) are still under the ‘civil’ law given to Israel. On the contrary, theonomy teaches much of what your sermon went on to say, namely:
So, in your sermon there is much agreement with theonomy when properly understood, and it could have done very well even if you just deleted that paragraph that misrepresents theonomy.
Secondly, with regard to the ‘civil’ laws, theonomy teaches that there are moral aspects to the judicial laws given to the Israelite polity. It teaches that we don’t need to put a railing around our roof anymore, but the moral aspect of that law still abides; the moral aspect being adhering to the 6th commandment and protecting life since the culture of that day was one in which they would entertain on roofs. A modern implementation of that law would be putting a fence around a swimming pool to protect life (toddlers especially). And, that’s pretty much it. I think it just tends to be more consistent with biblical exegesis instead of arbitrary.
With regard to the pharisees’ ‘righteousness,’ the OT saints righteousness, and our righteousness, I have to disagree with you. I think I might get more to that when I respond to your comment from this morning regarding the temple and divorce. But, Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Our confession tells us that the OT saints were justified the same way that we are justified. They just looked *forward* to the coming savior, as the law tutored them to do so in the rudiments of the law (i.e. the *administration* of the Mosaic covenant through sacrifices, etc.) and we look backward to the cross and resurrection. The pharisees on the other hand ignored the law, changed it by their tradition, and outwardly *appeared* righteous to their followers, but really they were white-washed tombs with no righteousness at all, because they didn’t obey the law *at all.* Remember, part of the *Mosaic* law was to love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.
See? He ‘confirms,’ ‘establishes,’ ‘fulfills,’ ‘restores,’ the law here, just as you say in your sermon, but with different language. He doesn’t ‘destroy’ the law. He affirms the ‘ethical’ or ‘moral’ requirement of the law here, but shows us that the Pharisees were unrighteous. They ‘unlawfully’ used the law, by trying to gain God’s approval through their works, which (again) was *never* the way the law was ever to be used. Galations 2:21: “I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”
So, that will have to be that for now on this comment. Good stuff though!
Blessings,
Kazoo
Todd,
As to your reference to divorce, which is your only reference from the sermon on the mount, I think even that can be shown as Christ correcting the Pharisees wrongful teaching of the law. I will stick to my guns here and repeat that Christ no-where in the sermon on the mount contradicted or slackened the actual law, he ‘restored’ it to its rightful place. I am ‘not’ saying that progressive revelation throughout the NT more fully explains what Christ *did* and *did not* mean, so don’t get me wrong here.
Quote from Bahnsen in “Theonomy in Christian Ethics,” third edition, pages 99 & 100, in the chapter entitled: “Pharisaism Reproved.”
He goes on to show just how the whitewashed tombs got the law regarding divorce incorrect. It’s a good read. If you don’t own the book, buy it and read it. It is well worth the price. In the back it comes with a CD with PDF versions of all his Theonomy books, and several articles, plus 20 mp3 audio files of Bahnsen teaching on the subject. The CD alone is worth the price. I have it linked on my blog here somewhere, but just for ease, here is a link to the website where you can purchase it: CMFNOW. I just went there to find the book and it looks like they’re updating their website. I couldn’t find it (which is a first!), so search Amazon or Google, etc.
Blessings,
Kazoo
K,
There is much to respond to – I’ll try to get to it tomorrow.
Thanks,
Todd
K,
First, your respect for ordained ministers is refreshing, and I am a fellow poker player. As for your comment, “Being a minister in the OPC, the same denomination that Bahnsen was a minister in, and that Roger Wagner is currently ministering in, I’d like to assume that you’ve read some of the primary sources from the actual teachers of “theonomy.” But, this quote, respectfully, makes me question that. I guess one of these days I’m going to have to write a short post explaining what theonomy proper actually *is* and *is not.*”
I have read the primary sources. When mentioning an errant view in a sermon, you don’t have time to distinguish nuances within a position, or divergent views within a tradition, unless the whole sermon is on that issue. Surely the general understanding of theonomy from Bahnsen has something to do with the continuing application of the civil law to the state. Yes, I am fully aware of the general equity “roof to pool” view of Bahnsen, see my paper critiquing theonomy here: http://www.opcfw.com/papers/theonomy.html.
But the dispensationalist could also argue that I didn’t represent them rightly, they might be progressive dispys, but I was using the classic Scofield definition. Anyway, I have read both Bahnsen’s books; you’ll just need to relegate such a brief, open-ended description to the purpose and limits of a sermon.
More coming,
Todd
K,
I this discussion it is crucial that you distinguish between the ordo saludis(OS)and the historia salutis (HS). The first refers to the application of individual salvation to each of the elect from Adam to the last believer. In this sense there is complete continuity between the testaments. But often the NT speaks of the HS, not the OS. For example, John 7:39 says “the Spirit had not yet been given.” In the OS sense we know that no one can be saved apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit. But in the HS, the Spirit had not yet been poured out on God’s people in the Old Covenant. But he was in the NC.
Now when you approach Matt 5, you must remember this important distinction between the OS and HS. Jesus is dealing in HS differences in Matt 5. The Law as it related to OT Israel in the land is now changing because of the coming of Christ. For example, in 5:33-37, Israel had been under system of oaths and vows to guarantee their honesty but with the coming of Christ and pouring out of the Spirit there will be no more need for those oaths and vows, our word will be enough. Yes, the Pharisees found supposed loopholes in the system, but Jesus is changing the law, in a sense heightening it, because of the coming of the Spirit of truth.
This is where Bahnsen misreads the divorce change from Old to New. Yes, from the beginning marriage was to be permanent. But because of Israel’s hardness of heart the OT divorce laws for Israel in the HS did not represent God’s eternal value of marriage. If the Deut laws reflected God’s s perfect standards for marriage, there would be no need to then say the law was given because of their hard hearts; that wouldn’t even make sense. The Deut 24″1-4 passage is a provision to protect the women of Israel.
As Calvin wrote on this provision: “Although what relates to divorce was granted in indulgence to the Jews, yet Christ pronounces that it was never in accordance with the Law, because it is directly repugnant to the first institution of God, from whence a perpetual and inviolable rule is to be sought.”
So you see, Christ in Matt 5 is announcing an end to easy divorce, as well as to the system of oaths and vows Israel was bound to to guarantee their honesty. The death of Christ and puring out of the Spirit makes these provisional, old covenant laws unnecessary in the new covenant. That is how to understand all the changes from old to new in Matt 5, in the HS sense.
Peace,
Todd