Michael Horton: A review of N.T. Wright’s latest book on Justification

If you will excuse a brief rant (you should be used to them by now!).  One of the problems with Anglicans is that we have so few living, accomplished theologians.  C.S. Lewis (dead but recent!), great apologist and tremendous author, would not and should not (by his own admission!) be included in a list of Anglican theologians.  Of recent note, we certainly the accomplished J.I. Packer, John Stott, and of course N.T. Wright.  I suppose one could include the RO crew of John Milbank and others but I suspect they will fail to make an impact at any other level than the highest ivory tower.  Of all the living Anglican theologians  N.T. Wright has emerged as a thoughtful and influential theologian both in the world of academia as well as at the popular level.  It is then perhaps a “perfect storm” of his popularity, mixed with the scarcity of accomplished Anglican theologians that causes many Anglicans to swallow him wholesale without really engaging his exegesis of Paul and his (mis) understanding of the Reformed tradition.  Don’t get me wrong, I am a great fan of N.T. Wright and very much enjoyed his Christian Origins and the Question of God series (I’m currently re-reading all three).  Nevertheless, his exegesis of Paul and his reading of the Reformers, particularly his understanding of Calvin’s exegesis of Paul needs to be read critically.  Often times Wright comes off as someone who has read about Calvin, but has not actually read much of Calvin.  John Piper tried to engage Wright on these issues and in my opinion was not able to rise to the challenge.  However, Michael Horton in the review posted below does a very fine job and the review is worth the read.  It provides a thoughtful balance to those folks who enjoy N.T. Wright but can’t read him critically because they do not have the necessary theological training to read him critically.  Of course the flip side of this coin are those folks who hear Michael Horton or John Piper pronounce a verdict and hop in place so as not to stray to far from the party line.  Read Wright’s new book for yourself.  Use Horton as a good response.  Go read your Bible.  Come to a thoughtful conclusion.  Horton’s review is found directly below:

Wright sees Genesis 15 as the background for everything that Paul says in Romans 4 (66). So too did the Reformers (especially Calvin) and the federal theologians who followed. Wright is even willing to speak of Abraham’s righteousness as “his right standing within that covenant, and God’s righteousness” as “his unswerving commitment to be faithful to that covenant—including the promise (Romans 4:13) that Abraham would inherit the world. Here we have it: God’s single plan, through Abraham and his family, to bless the whole world. That is what I have meant by the word covenant when I have used it as shorthand in writing about Paul” (67).

Wright does a great job of showing how Romans 4 is rooted in Genesis 15, Deuteronomy 27-30, and Daniel 9 (67). However, since he is only working with “one covenant” and his “single-plan” emphasis eschews any nuance between different types of covenants (a temporal-typological and an eschatological homeland) even within this one plan, he mistakenly assumes that Deuteronomy (the Sinaitic covenant) is just another form of the Abrahamic promise except for its ethnic exclusivism (esp. 67). Wright is most persuasive in his insistence that justification be interpreted in the light of God’s covenantal promise. This is something I never heard in mainstream evangelicalism, but have heard repeatedly from Reformed theologians. “As in Daniel 9, it is because of God’s faithfulness to the covenant that he must punish his faithless covenant people, and as a result their covenant failure (‘unrighteousness’) thus shows up his covenant faithfulness all the more” (68).

It’s not an abstract point that Paul is making, Wright correctly insists, but one that is bound up with the covenant history of Israel. “The point of Romans 3:1-8 is not a general discussion about God’s attributes and human failure,” he properly contends. Nevertheless, again we meet an example of a good point swallowing other important things whole: “Likewise, the unfaithfulness of the Israelites is not their lack of belief…The point is that God has promised to bless the world through Israel, and Israel has been faithless to that commission” (67). Paul expressly says in Romans that his countrymen according to the flesh were condemned for refusing to place their faith in Christ rather than in their own works (Rom 9:32). The writer to the Hebrews says that the wilderness generation was barred from entering the promised land because they did not respond in faith to the preaching of the gospel (Heb 3:16-19). As covenant theology has emphasized, the covenants with Adam and Israel are indeed a commission to bring God’s righteous kingdom to the ends of the earth. However, it is not only a commission to global mission, but a specific kind of commission to fulfill all righteousness. Adam and Israel were entrusted with God’s law, on trial in God’s garden, and both probations ended in the failure of the covenant partner. This is the bleak backdrop of Jesus’ identity as the Last Adam and True Israel. However, for Wright there is no distinction between covenants: judgment on the basis of Sinai (Dt 27-30), with deliverance on the basis of the Abrahamic promise (Gen 15).

 

Remarkably, Wright accuses the old perspective (or at least Piper) of down-playing the law-court metaphor (68). This is highly ironic, given the fact that the grounding of justification in the law-court (imputation rather than infusion) has been the heart of the debate between Reformation and Roman Catholic interpretations. As in his other books, Wright mistakenly assumes that the Reformation view argues that God’s essential righteousness—in other words, his own attribute of righteousness—is somehow given to believers. But this overlooks the crucial role of Jesus Christ as mediator in the traditional view: It is not God’s attribute of righteousness, but the right-standing that results from a complete fulfillment of God’s law, that is imputed to believers. It is Christ’s obedience, not his essence, that becomes ours. Further, Wright appears to argue against the “old perspective” as if it were the very opposite (viz., the Roman view). In this context, Wright insists, “righteous” doesn’t mean “virtuous,” but in right standing (68). “That ‘finding in favor,’ that declaration, is ‘justification’; the result is that Bildad is now ‘righteous,’ that is, ‘in the right.’ This does not mean, primarily, that Bildad is virtuous, certainly not that he has a special concern for the glory of the judge” (69). Why does Wright keep criticizing justification as “making virtuous” as if it is the Reformation view, when it is precisely the view that the reformers rejected?

Paul Williamson: Abraham, Israel and the Church

One of the obvious contrasts between the Old and New Testaments is that in each the people of God are different. In one God’s saving activity focuses primarily on a national entity (i.e. ethnic Israel); in the other such focus centres on an international community (i.e. the global Church). It is clear, however, that New Testament writers considered the national entity to be in many respects a type or foreshadowing of the international community. [1] Yet some New Testament authors, in particular the Apostle Paul, seem to go much further – suggesting that the reality of the Christian Church was not merely foreshadowed in Israel but was in fact the ultimate climax and goal of the promises made to Abraham. [2] In other words, the promises made to Abraham concerned more than the physical nation of Israel; their supreme focus was on something far greater and more extensive: the international community of faith. [3]

An important question naturally arises from this: ‘How has this gulf between the nation of Israel and the Church of Jesus Christ been bridged?’ Did New Testament interpreters such as Paul perform exegetical somersaults to cross the divide? Indeed, must the modern interpreter do likewise in any attempt to defend their hermeneutics? Or is it exegetically defensible to find in the promises given to Abraham the Church of Jesus Christ not merely foreshadowed, but actually anticipated?

To answer these questions three things must be carefully examined:
1. the promises made to Abraham and their development in the book of Genesis;
2. the way these promises are interpreted and refined in the rest of the Old Testament; [4]
3. the way these promises have been reinterpreted and extended in the New Testament.

read the whole thing here

Desmond Alexander: Royal Expectations from Genesis to Kings

As an academic discipline Biblical Theology is especially interested in the organic unity of the writings which comprise the Old and New Testaments. This raises two important and closely related issues. First, there is the question of the relationship between the two testaments. David L. Baker outlines well the nature of this problem: Christianity has the New Testament as the record and testimony of the life, death and resurrection of its founder, Jesus Christ, and of the formation of the Christian church. One of the most fundamental questions which has faced theology and the church in every age and still demands an answer today is whether or not Christianity also needs an Old Testament. Is the Old Testament to be thrown away as obsolete, or preserved as a relic from days of yore, or treasured as a classic and read by scholars, or used occasionally as a change from the New Testament, or kept in a box in case it should be needed some day? Or is the Old Testament an essential part of the Christian Bible, with continuing validity and authority alongside the New Testament? [1] Such questions highlight well the important and unresolved issue of the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament. Second, fundamental to the New Testament understanding of Jesus of Nazareth is the idea that he fulfils Old Testament expectations regarding a divinely-appointed royal saviour or messiah. While Christians, by definition, are those who believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the messiah predicted in the Old Testament, there has been a growing tendency since the eighteenth century to challenge the validity of this claim. This trend, which may be traced back to the writings of the Deist Anthony Collins, [2] has depended heavily on the observation that many of the supposedly messianic Old Testament proof-texts quoted in the New Testament are not messianic according to the ‘plain meaning’ of the Hebrew text. As a result there has arisen a substantial scholarly consensus (a) that many Old Testament passages previously assumed to be messianic actually relate to ordinary kings, and (b) that the expectation of a future messiah originated first in the post-exilic period, following the demise of the Davidic dynasty [3].

read the whole thing here

C.J. Mahaney: On the Cup of Christ

Trinity Men! What is the difference between David and Saul’s leadership?

Every Thursday morning several Trinity men get together to study God’s Word.  We are currently reading through 1st and 2nd Samuel and we have talked extensively about the differences between David and Saul.  I’m putting this article up from TheResurgence to contribute a bit further to our conversation.  Check it out here.

In his stirring book David: Man of Prayer, Man of War, Walter Chantry contrasts the life and leadership of David and Saul. I’m not a big fan of moralistic character studies in the Bible. All too often, they are poor interpretations of Scripture. However, Chantry’s little book is an exception, packed with practical and gospel insights for leaders. I love his emphasis on the Spirit.

David vs. Saul: What’s the Difference?

Consider the following differences between two kings of Israel, David and Saul, taken largely from 1 Samuel 16-17:

David

• Unimpressive stature
• Inexperienced
• Heart after God
• Repentant
• God-reliant
• Spirit-filled

Saul

• Impressive stature
• Experienced
• Hardened heart
• Resistant
• Self-reliant
• Spirit-possessed

God uses the unexpected, unimpressive, and inexperienced to accomplish remarkable things. Saul was a head above most men. David was ruddy and smaller in stature. Saul was driven by an evil spirit and died a crazed, God-forsaken man. David drove an evil spirit from Saul with the sound of his lyre. Saul hid out in his tent when Goliath taunted the Israelites. David stood up for his people and God and defeated Goliath. What made the difference between these two leaders?

The Spirit of the Lord

The Holy Spirit made all the difference between these two men. The chronicler of Israel’s history reveals the primary difference between these two kings. He writes: “And the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David from that day forward. And Samuel rose up and went to Ramah. Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul…” (1 Sam. 16:13-14).

The ultimate contrast between these men was not their appearance or experience; it was their spirit. We’re told that the Spirit rushed upon David, while the Spirit departed from Saul. One man was Spirit-filled and led. The other was Spirit-devoid and distrusting. David would plead with God not to take his Spirit (Ps 51:11). God, on the other hand, would take his Spirit from Saul.

“Lifting High the Cross”

preached by Peter Moore on 10-18-09

For the full text of Peter’s sermon simply

From the L.A. Times: This Prof Makes the Bible Real

a cool and unexpected article from the L.A. Times. Notice how Professor Creasy recognizes scripture as one, uninterrupted whole rather than separate books. He recognizes how important it is that we grasp the narrative of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. Very good, passionate stuff

By WILLIAM LOBDELL
June 17, 2000

Before UCLA professor Bill Creasy started working on his doctorate in medieval literature, a friend warned him, “Don’t waste your career being the world’s leading expert on a third-rate Victorian poet. Choose a major author or a major work.”

“So I chose God and the Bible,” Creasy says. “God’s a world-class poet.”

By day, Creasy, 52, is a popular English professor at UCLA. By night–and early mornings and weekends–he’s a tireless Bible scholar and teacher with a vision: to teach the Good Book cover to cover, verse by verse to as many people as he can.

“The curtain goes up in Genesis and goes down in Revelation. It’s a very linear story,” Creasy says. “You can’t possibly understand Revelation without reading the 65 books before it.”

Ten years ago, he launched his first Bible study in the basement of St. Paul the Apostle church in Westwood. Today he logs more than 2,500 miles a month driving across Southern California (plus flying to Arizona on Fridays) and teaching nine weekly Bible classes to more than 3,000 people.

In Orange County, he lectures Monday nights at a packed Trinity United Presbyterian Church in Tustin. In September at Mission Parish Church in San Juan Capistrano, Creasy will be starting a class that also will be broadcast over the Internet (http://www.logosmin.org).

Creasy uses rich storytelling, encyclopedic knowledge and a good dose of humor to teach the Bible as literature. His goal is to get his students “inside the narrative,” just as they would with any book, instead of “standing outside the text.”

“The people in the Bible are as real to me as you are,” Creasy says. “And I think I make them come alive in class.”

The problem that most people have studying the Bible, Creasy contends, is that they read it in bits and pieces.

“It’s like listening to a Beethoven symphony a few bars at a time in random order,” Creasy says. “It’s pretty, but . . . “

read the whole thing here

Another helpful reminder from Iain Boyd

from Iain’s blog Metamorphmind

As I hear people debate how to move the church forward, whether in light of our current Episcopal controversies, or just simply debating how to structure our church for tomorrow, it worries me to hear what the primary concerns can be for most people.  In the opening chapters of John’s Revelation, Jesus speaks to the visible churches.  He encourages some to persever and others to repent.  It is, in fact, the last direct word from Jesus given to the Church Catholic before He returns.  He knows that for centuries His people will be being slaughtered.  He knows His church will be constantly tempted to sloth and compromise.  He knows that at times she will be overrun with corruption and other times she’ll be conquered by heresy.  He knows of every schism she’ll ever face.  More importantly, He knows exactly what His church needs.  So, what does He tell Her?  This is J.C. Ryle’s commentary on those seven letters

But I want you to observe that you will not find the Lord, in any of the epistles, dwelling upon church government or ceremonies. He says nothing about sacraments or ordinances. He makes no mention of liturgies or forms. He does not instruct John to write one word about baptism, or the Lord’s Supper, or the apostolical succession of ministers. In short, the leading principles of what may be called ‘the sacramental system’ are not brought forward in any one of the seven epistles from first to last.

Now why do I dwell on this? I do it because many professing Christians in the present day would have us believe these things are of first, of cardinal, of paramount importance.

There are not a few who seem to hold that there can be no church without a bishop, and no godliness without a liturgy. They appear to believe that to teach the value of the sacraments is the first work of a minister, and to keep to their parish church the first business of a people.

Now let no man misunderstand me when I say this. Do not run away with the notion that I see no importance in sacraments. On the contrary, I regard them as great blessings to all who receive them ‘rightly, worthily and with faith’. Do not fancy that I attach no value to episcopacy, a liturgy and the parochial system. On the contrary, I consider that a church well administered, which has these three things, and an evangelical ministry, is a far more complete and useful church than one in which they are not to be found.

But this I say, that sacraments, church government, the use of a liturgy, the observance of ceremonies and forms, are all as nothing compared to faith, repentance and holiness. And my authority for so saying is the whole tenor of our Lord’s words to the seven churches.

I never can believe, if a certain form of church government was so very important as some say, that the great Head of the church would have said nothing about it here. I should have expected to have found something said about it to Sardis and Laodicea. But I find nothing at all. And I think that silence is a great fact.

You can read the rest here

John Woodhouse: “Unity that Helps and Unity that Hinders”

Clear and truthful thinking with regard to “unity” should focus our vision and shape our policies as we labour for the gospel in these days. Similarly, confused and mistaken ideas of unity are bound to lead to misdirected efforts.

Currently there is considerable confusion.

The confusion is evident in the way in which “divisiveness” has become a comprehensively negative category, applied absolutely to evaluate words, actions, policies and even persons. If a statement, a strategy, a proposal is judged to be “divisive,” then it is unwelcome and likely to be rejected for that reason. For example, in my part of the world the Anglican Diocesan Synod has proposed that appropriate lay persons should be authorised to administer the Lord’s Supper in church,3 just as lay persons may be authorised to preach God’s Word. The proposal is opposed by many Anglicans around the world for a variety of reasons. Some evangelicals oppose it for only one reason: it would be divisive. For some this is the only objection, but it is sufficient. Because it would be divisive (it is said) it ought not to be pursued (at this time).4 Likewise many other proposals, statements and actions are rejected chiefly because of their potential to divide.

This is confused thinking, because it assumes that division is always to be avoided.

This confusion is probably influenced by today’s culture of “tolerance.” There is a tendency to welcome whatever unites and reject whatever divides. Unity is good. Division is bad. Perhaps some who are determined not to be shaped by the world take the opposite position and think that division is good and unity is bad! This, too, is confused thinking.

We need to understand that
• there is a unity that is godly (Jesus’ prayed for it: “that they may be one as we are one” [Jn 17:11, 22]) and
• there is a unity that is ungodly (“Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” [Gen 11:4]).

There are policies, actions and words which promote and express the unity that pleases God. And there are policies, actions and words which advance a unity which God hates.

Likewise
• there is division which is godly (the one who prayed “that they may be one” also said “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth. No, I tell you, but division.” [Lk 12:51]) and
• there is division which is ungodly (“watch out for those who cause divisions” [Rom 16:17]).
There are policies, actions and words which cause division and in the process honour God. There are policies, actions and words which cause division and thereby grieve the Holy Spirit of God (Eph 4:30-31).

read the rest here

Leading for Unity: An Evangelical Articulation of the Unity of the Church in Preparation for Diocesan Clegy Day

Leading for Unity

by the Revs Iain Boyd and Robert Sturdy

• Jump ahead to the section on Scripture by clicking here
• Jump ahead to the section on historic Anglicanism by clicking here

Over the past few months, because of various events (Gafcon, ACNA, GenCon 09’) the issue of the unity of the church viewed through the lens of an Anglican context has come up with increasing regularity.  In the conversations we have had with fellow priests and even in statements from men and women serving at a very high level of leadership in the diocese we have noted two things.  The first thing we would note is that while the individuals themselves are, for the most part trained theologians and men and women of great theological depth and Biblical faithfulness they have failed to publicly reflect with any great depth on the situations we are now presented with. The second thing we have noticed about the discussion of the unity of the church in an Anglican context is that the evangelical understanding of the unity of the church is poorly represented amongst the highest levels of leadership in the Diocese of S.C.

Our desire in presenting this is to facilitate a discussion on some very difficult matters.  We also wish to form the discussion along certain lines that we do not believe have played a significant enough role in the corporate discernment of the Diocese.  We wish to form this discussion first and foremost not in terms of any one theological tradition, but rather we wish to center this discussion within the confines of the Biblical witness of the church in the New Testament.  We understand that our theological tradition will no doubt inform our reading of the New Testament, nevertheless we seek first and foremost to honor God by submitting to his Word as best as we are able before entering into any discussion based on Anglican tradition.  This leads to our next point. We wish to demonstrate the understanding of Christian unity in early Anglicanism as it applied to the multiple expressions of Christian churches in England during the period of the Reformation.  As it will be seen, we do not present an understanding of Christian unity in early Anglicanism that is at odds with the Biblical witness, but rather one that fits quite comfortably within it.

It is our honest intention to honor Christ by humbly submitting this reflection.  We wish to contribute to the current discernment that up until now has only been done by a select few.  The format of this paper will be an overview of both parts followed by an extended discussion on both Christian unity in the N.T. as well as how it was understood in early Anglicanism.

William Bell Scott: “The Rending of the Veil”

Below is a painting from the Victorian period by William Bell Scott.  Based off of the following passage found in Matt 27.45-51:

Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour.  And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, “This man is calling Elijah.” And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink.  But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.” And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split.

The veil in the Temple was meant to separate God who dwelt in the Most Holy Place  from the people.  Only the high priest would come behind the veil, only once a year and not without blood (Heb 9.2-7).  Jesus sacrifice on the cross is a sacrifice that permanently removes the barrier between God and the people forever.  The significance of the veil being torn testifies to this fact.  As you can see from the painting, Scott is keen to stress this as a mighty wind appears to be rushing out from the Most Holy Place into the world much to the surprise and terror of the priests.  Note the sacrificial lamb on the altar as well as the crucifixion taking place just above the walls on the upper right hand side of the painting.  For an extended treatment of this topic in scripture see Heb 9.11-10.22.   How could you even begin to preach on this?  The sheer weight of the ancient plan of God unfolding in the seconds after Jesus’ death is too staggering for words.  This painting, for me, is the best attempt I’ve seen outside of Scripture to give the proper weight to that fearful, glorious, and joyful moment. 

William Bell Scott's "The Rending of the Veil"

The Source of Christian Joy

As Easter approaches I thought this might be a helpful little paragraph to prepare for that great day with a little reflection. The following is an excerpt from Paul Beasley-Murray’s The Message of the Resurrection from the Bible Speaks Today Commentary Series (as a side note, if lay people are looking into making an investment in a commentary set, this would be the one for you).

“On Easter Sunday 1960 the great Methodist preacher W.E. Sangster lay speechless and helpless. He was able, however, to write a message to his daughter, Margaret: ‘It is terrible to wake up on Easter morning and have no voice with which to shout , “He is risen.” But it would be still more terrible to have a voice and not want to shout.”
-Beasley, The Message of the Resurrection pg 15

Rob Sturdy: Imago Dei A Worshipping Image

As many of you know I have been working on an Masters of Theology from Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando Fl.  Below is my most recent essay for any one who is interested.

“The central theological framework of radical orthodoxy is ‘participation’ as developed by Plato and reworked by Christianity because any alternative configuration perforce reserves a territory independent of God.”[1]  This excerpt from Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology demonstrates both the breadth of the agenda of Radical Orthodoxy as well as the mechanism through which RO seeks to accomplish its goals.  Briefly put, RO reads the history of Western cultural movement since the Enlightenment as an ever increasing secularization.  Overtime, the abstract philosophy behind the secularization of the West worked itself out in a dangerous nihilism, systematically devaluing embodied life, self-expression, sexuality, aesthetic experience, human political community etc.[2]  A revaluing of such things, argues RO, will take a framework that both denies the secular as well as grounds the immanent upon a platform that can give it ultimate meaning and eternal stability.  This is done through RO’s theological framework of participation, which understands the material world as suspended from the transcendent in the same manner that a bridge is suspended above the nothingness beneath it.

Good Theology, Bad Hearts: The Story of the Church in Ephesus

The Revelation to John

Dec 15:                        A Love Grown Cold                 (Rev 2.1-7)

 

“They that see God cannot but praise him.  He is a Being of such glory and excellency that the sight of this excellency of his will necessarily influence them that behold it to praise him.  Such a glorious sight will awaken and rouse all the powers of the soul, and will irresistibly impel them, and draw them into acts of praise.  Such a sight enlarges their souls, and fills them with admiration, and with an unspeakable exultation of spirit” –Jonathan Edwards, “Praise, One of the Chief Employments of Heaven” (Thanksgiving Sermon, Nov 7, 1734)

 

We begin today’s class with an important principle from Jonathan Edwards, namely that in beholding the excellency of God we are drawn into acts of praise that affect the deepest and most remote compartments of our soul.  That is why we do Bible study. That is why we take Bible study one step farther and do Biblical theology, and farther still to systematic theology.  These are an attempt to behold God, grounded in the revealed word that he has given us, that we might behold him and be given “an unspeakable exultation of spirit.”  I have said this many times before, and I say it again.  THE KEY to spiritual growth lies not in applying Biblical principles to your life, but in beholding God and having his majesty and the depth of his love, mercy, kindness and righteousness transform the heart and reorient our desires. 

 

And yet even this pursuit can be corrupted and turned from its original end, as we shall see in our reading today, we see a church whose love has grown cold.  What is striking about this, is that their love grew cold when they were so well equipped to behold the majesty of God.  So there is a lesson for us here.  When knowledge of God becomes more important than God himself, then our doctrine has become our idol, replacing our “first love” with cold dogma.  May God save us from this!  Let us see what Jesus has to say to the church in Ephesus, and see how we might be turned from this sad situation.

The Christ to Come Part IV (Preached 12.21.08): He Came with Righteousness and Salvation

During the first week of our series, “The Christ to Come” I spoke on why Jesus came.  Namely, he came to fulfill the law.  The second week, Messianic Jewish Rabbi David Levine spoke on where Jesus came from.  He came from the Jewish people, in fulfillment of the prophesies for the Jewish Messiah.  A promise, he was quick to remind us, for the whole world.  Last week Iain spoke about who Jesus came for.  We learned that Jesus came as a light for those walking in darkness.  Today I would like to speak on how Jesus comes, why it is significant, and what application we can render from it for our lives.  

 

How did Jesus Come?

One of the most important tenets of ancient Roman law was that the republic was to be protected by military coup.  The way the senate protected the republic was by forbidding the military to cross the river Rubicon in force.  Crossing the Rubicon on foot, by yourself, was of course entirely legal and would spark little interest.  However, crossing the Rubicon with an army signaled intentions of rebellion and was of course highly illegal.  In January of 49 B.C., Rome was facing a civil war between two military commanders, Pompey and Caesar.  Trying to avert a civil war, the senate declared Caesar a public enemy and ordered him to lay down his command or face criminal charges.  Rather than lay down his command, Caesar led his 13 legions to the Rubicon, and he and his army waited patiently on the banks.  Turning to his army, Caesar spoke: “Even yet we may draw back; but once across that little bridge, and the whole issue is with the sword.”  Seeing no opposition from his army, Caesar is said to have muttered under his breath, “alea iacta est,” or “Let the die be cast.”  With these words, he crossed the Rubicon, thus signaling open war with the Roman republic. 

 

Jerusalem had its own Rubicon, and there was a particular way to cross it.  Jerusalem’s Rubicon was the Mount of Olives, and it was significant for several reasons.  The first reason is that after Israel’s greatest King, King David, returned from a forced exile he returned over the Mount of Olives (2 Sam 19.20).  It was a long held tradition that when Israel’s coming King, the Messiah came, he would come over the Mount of Olives.  Secondly, in Ezekiel’s prophesy, he sees a vision of the Holy Spirit departing the temple because of the people’s sin (Eze 11.23).  When the Spirit returns to bring God’s righteous rule to the people of Israel once more, he does so by passing over the Mount of Olives (Eze 45.1-5).  So the Mount of Olives is significant in Jewish history, because it is the place by which both the Messiah and God’s Spirit will one day return to Israel.  It is Jerusalem’s Rubicon.