In order to get B, I first need to do A. I can’t do A. But that’s OK, that is why B is offered to me. (Repeat ad infinitum)

In order to receive the atonement, I need to conquer all my sin. I can’t conquer all my sin. But that’s OK, that’s why the atonement is offered to me. (Repeat ad infinitum)

In order to receive grace, I need to do all I can do. I can’t do all I can do. But that’s OK, that’s why grace is offered to me. (Repeat ad infinitum)

This is madness. This is not gospel.

“In order to eat my dessert, I need to first eat dinner. I can’t eat all my dinner, but that’s OK, that’s why we have dessert.”

If a child spoke this way at the dinner table, we would say, “You’re not thinking clearly.”

God created the world good, but humanity plunged into sin. We deserve everlasting abandonment and punishment.

But the “Word became flesh and dwelled among us”, experienced suffering with humanity, and paid the price on the cross for humanity’s sin. Showing he was the true Son of God, and showing that his work was finished and his words were true, Jesus Christ rose from the dead. He even ate fish with his disciples.

Now, anyone who stops trusting in themselves or false gods, and instead trusts in Christ alone, is given the free and immediately-starting gift of eternal life, forgiveness, justification, rebirth, the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Their life begins anew and God transforms them to love their enemies and to forgive as they have been forgiven. Now they are to go throughout all the world declaring the authority and work of Jesus Christ, awaiting his return.

“I want to live in a world of a marketplace of ideas where everybody is busted on their [crap] all the time because I think that’s the way we get to truth. That is also what respect is. What we call tolerance nowadays, maybe always—I’m always skeptical about the “nowadays” thing. I don’t think things get that much different. What we call “tolerance” is often just condescending. It’s often just saying, “Okay, you believe what you want to believe that’s fine with me.” I think true respect… it’s one of the reasons I get along so much better with fundamentalist Christians than I do with liberal Christians because fundamentalist Christians I can look them in the eye and say, “You are wrong.” They also know that I will always fight for their right to say that. And I will celebrate their right to say that but I will look them in the eye and say, “You’re wrong.” And fundamentalists will look me in the eye and say, “You’re wrong.” And that to me is respect. The more liberal religious people who go “There are many paths to truth you just go on and maybe you’ll find your way”… is the way you talk to a child. And I bristle at that, so I do very well with proselytizing hardcore fundamentalists and in a very deep level I respect them and at a very deep level I think I share a big part of their heart. I think in a certain sense I’m a preacher. My heart is there. (Penn Jillette, “Why Tolerance is Condescending”)

The Gospel of Matthew does not support the ethos and zeitgeist of modern liberalism. Jesus:

• Amplified Old Testament ethics on divorce and lust — contrary to modern culture’s mockery of Biblical ethics on sexuality, marriage, divorce.
• Reinforced the marriage ethic of God joining together a male and a female into a one-flesh union not to be separated.
• Extolled celibate singlehood for the sake of the kingdom — instead of treating celibate singlehood as a curse.
• Told a man to skip his father’s funeral because the kingdom was more important.
• Repeatedly emphasized the coming dichotomous judgment of eternal torment/punishment and eternal life for the wicked and repentant — instead of demanding that God’s goodness implies universalism.
• Endorsed the ministry of the abrasive John the Baptist, who found himself in jail over publicly preaching repentance over the sexual ethics of a public leader (Herod).
• Prioritized the spread of the word/message as the primary way of growing the kingdom — instead of seeing the kingdom as chiefly spread through silent acts of charity. Miracles and works complemented, demonstrated, and supported the more fundamental message.
• Over time (strategically not too early), increasingly provoked the Jewish leaders to escalation and offense — something modern culture would decry as divisive and combative.
• Spoke of self-denial as the life of true discipleship — instead of changing your personal identity to suit your desires.
• Promoted direct confrontation of professing believers when sin occurs in the body of Christ, and even excommunication — instead of unqualified “acceptance” or “tolerance.”
• Harangued the Pharisees in a way that today is considered “unchristlike.”

• Asking a question because you don’t have the courage to make a statement.
• Calling an issue complex or complicated when it is sufficiently simple.
• Feigning a mere “conversation” when you’re really trying to promote a position.
• Appealing to matters of “emphasis” to avoid affirmation and denial of contradictory ideas.
• Giving a disclaimer to avoid taking responsibility.
• Using obscure and pedantic language to sound smart so that people won’t realize how dumb and thin your line of thinking really is.
• Preferring the stimulation of “clever” over the pleasure of knowing simple truth.

The logic of Jesus in Matthew 12:1-8:

– The temple is greater than the Sabbath.
– Jesus is greater than the temple.
– Therefore Jesus is greater than the Sabbath.

“If the temple service warrants suspension of the Sabbath, how much more the presence of one greater than the temple?” (Keener, 356)

Also:

If exceptions were made for king David, then how much more appropriate is it for exceptions to be made for Jesus and his companions?

1. In Matthew 21:23-27 Jesus is asked about his own authority by none other than the “chief priests and the elders of the people.” Jesus replies by asking if the baptism of John was from heaven. This is an odd question if it could simply be settled by asserting John’s birthright to the Aaronic priesthood.

2. Jesus saw himself as above the priests of Aaron and the temple priesthood system. In Matthew 12:1-8 Jesus likens himself to David, who had, as the Anointed King, implicit authorization to enter the temple — something otherwise expressly prohibited. David “entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests.” (12:4) In verse 6 he says, “I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.” Implicit: Something greater than the priesthood is here. Move along, Pharisees. The boss of the temple is here and he is also boss of the Sabbath.

3. In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus’ whole life is seen as a giant parable. He is the Immanuel born of a virgin (1:23). He is the Son who travels to Egypt and is called out of Egypt (2:15; think of Abraham and Israel). He is the one over whom the wicked leader kills the baby boys (Matthew 2:16-18; in addition to fulfilling Jeremiah 31:15, this reminds us of Exodus 1:22). He grows up in Nazareth to fulfill the words of the prophets (Matthew 2:23). The flow of Jesus’ pre-ministry life smells like the Old Testament.

4. In addition to literally smelling, John’s life parabolically smells like the Old Testament too. He ate bugs and wore an “Elijah custume” [1], with “a garment of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist.” (Matthew 3:4) Jesus confirms that John was the Elijah to come:

> “‘Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.’ Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.” (Matthew 17:11-13)

John had jettisoned Jerusalem and went “back” to the Jordan River and the desert, showing he believed the Jews were still wandering and needed another “circumcision.” This reminds us of when Joshua led the Israelites out of the wilderness across the Jordan River to begin the conquest. After a generation of rebellion, Israel’s re-circumcision was a sign of repentance and covenant-renewal. John the Baptist’s baptism of repentance at the Jordan River is no coincidence. Instead of doing baptism near the temple under the direction of the priesthood regime, John was spurning the temple/priesthood regime and ushering the arrival of the kingdom with repentance.

5. John the Baptist tells us why he ultimately baptized[2], and that is to reveal Jesus to Israel:

> “I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.’ And John bore witness: ‘I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’” (John 1:31-33)

6. John himself thought the baptism should have been reversed! (Matthew 3:13-17) “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” Jesus insisted, wanting to fulfill all righteousness. This insistence is humble, because the baptism is otherwise a baptism of repentance. Jesus didn’t need to repent. And it certainly wasn’t clear to John that Jesus needed John’s authority. If anything, John felt the opposite: “He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me!” (John 1:15)

Summary: Jesus saw himself as above the temple priesthood system, was fulfilling a parabolic life, was intersecting with John’s parabolic life, was illustrating humility, was revealing himself to Israel through John, was honoring John as the promised Elijah to come, was endorsing John’s rejection of the temple/priesthood regime, and was endorsing his ministry of repentance. He was fulfilling all righteousness. He was not, however, receiving or depending on authority from another human being.

—

[1] I love this phrase. I got it from my friend Ariel.

[2] Thanks to Jeff for pointing this out to me

—

Addendum: Craig S. Keener on the baptism of Jesus and his “fulfill[ing] all righteousness”:

> John’s location suggests that the biblical prophets’ promise of a new exodus was about to take place in Jesus. So significant is the wilderness (3:1) to John’s mission that all four Gospels justify it from Scripture (3:3; Mk 1:3; Lk 3:4); some even suspect that John himself used this text (Is 40:3) to explain his own sense of mission (Jn 1:23; Robinson 1962: 13). The meaning of John’s location would not be lost on Syro-Palestinian Jews. Israel’s prophets had predicted a new exodus in the wilderness (Hos 2:14–15; Is 40:3; later interpreters properly understood such passages as applicable to the time of Israel’s restoration—e.g., Ps. Sol. 11:1)…

> Although Jesus alone did not need John’s baptism—he was the giver of the true baptism (3:11)—he submitted to it to fulfill God’s plan (3:14–15). In a traditional Mediterranean culture where society stressed honor and shame, Jesus relinquishes his rightful honor to embrace others’ shame. After Jesus’ public act of humility, God publicly identified Jesus as his own son (3:16–17; cf. 2:15)—that is, as the mightier One whose coming to bestow the Spirit John had prophesied (3:11–12)…

> Jesus humbly identifies himself with John’s mission… Jesus “fulfills all righteousness” by identifying with his people (3:15)… Matthew’s readers familiar with the Scriptures would already understand that Jesus sometimes “fulfilled” the prophetic Scriptures by identifying with Israel’s history and completing Israel’s mission (2:15, 18). This baptism hence represents Jesus’ ultimate identification with Israel at the climactic stage in her history: confessing her sins to prepare for the kingdom (3:2, 6). Jesus’ baptism, like his impending death (cf. Mk 10:38–39 with Mk 14:23–24, 36), would be vicarious, embraced on behalf of others with whom the Father had called him to identify. This experience prepares Jesus for testing by the devil (4:1–11)—perhaps part of what it means for Jesus to fulfill all righteousness. No less plainly, this text makes Jesus an example of humility (cf. 11:29; 12:19; 21:5).”

Keener, C. S. (2009). The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (116–117, 131, 132). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Combining Matthew 7:15-20 and Matthew 12:33-37, Jesus considers our spoken words — particularly the kind that eventually leak out — to be among the most telling of fruits:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:15-20)

“Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:33-37)