Marcus Bockmuehl probes the issue with a question: “Is there perhaps some sense in which the living and lived word of Scripture shapes both exegesis and theology reciprocally, and in which dogmatics articulately engages and in turn illuminates the hearing of that word?” (Bockmuehl, in Scripture’s Doctrine and Theology’s Bible, 8; cf. Vanhoozer in DTIB, 20).

Theological interpreters answer Bockmuehl in the affirmative: interpreters must refuse to sequester theology from exegesis. This means the text is read as Christian Scripture by those within the Christian church. Furthermore, theological interpreters read the Scripture as addressed to them as Christians (and not merely addressed to communities in the past) for the purpose of spiritual transformation (and not merely as ancient texts to be analyzed) (see Gorman, 146f.).

Thus theological interpretation maintains two key emphases. First, it holds that exegesis should shape doctrine and that doctrine should influence exegesis. Second, it holds that theology is ultimately about faithful living.

Perhaps the section on judgment (Matt. 7:1-5) follows as Jesus brings the sermon to a close because those who take the high standards of the sermon seriously may be tempted to be judgmental toward those who don’t meet the Sermon’s standards. Jesus warns them to take stock first of their own condition before God.

Matthew 7:6 serves as a corrective toward any who read 7:1-5 as a rejection of all discernment.

The section on prayer (Matt. 7:7-11) is fitting toward the conclusion of a sermon that makes such high demands. Disciples will certainly need God’s aid if they are to live according to his expectations. Jesus’ words encourage his disciples that God is generous in answering his children’s requests. This kind of encouragement may be especially necessary because our progress in sanctification so often seems slow and our prayers for the mortification of sin may seem to go unanswered. Jesus assures us that if we ask, it will be given us; if we seek, we will find; if we knock it will be opened. Our heavenly Father gives good things to those who ask him.

The Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12) provides a fitting summary to the body of the Sermon. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 5:17). Here he says the Law and the Prophets can be summed up in this way: “Whatever you wish that others would do for you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” What comes between are the details of how this works out in the kingdom age.

These details are somewhat different than those of the Mosaic age. But the difference is not due to the abolishing of the law and the prophets. If anything, the Sermon outlines higher standards to which the Law and the Prophets pointed. The continuity is emphasized in that those who obey Jesus’ words in this Sermon in the end fulfill the second great commandment in which the whole law is fulfilled (Gal 5:14; Matt. 7:12).

Jesus’ announcement of the arriving kingdom evidently raised questions about the continuing place for the Law. This may have especially been the case if His hearers made the correct connection between the coming kingdom and the New Covenant, a covenant that Jeremiah said would not be like the covenant made at Sinai (Jer. 31:31-32).

Jesus’ clarification has been itself confusing for some interpreters. There are a number of false interpretations that can be cleared away at the outset.

First, when Jesus said that he did not intend to abolish the law, he was not saying that Christians would be obligated to obey every part of the Old Testament law until the end of the world. Hebrews 10:18 has made it clear that Jesus’ death brought an end to the sacrificial system. Jesus himself declared all foods clean, rendering the Old Testament food laws no longer binding on God’s people (Mark 7:19; cf. Acts 10:15). Even within Matthew 5, Jesus is going to make some changes to the Mosaic law (see for instance Jesus’ comments about divorce in light of Matt. 19:8-9).

Second, some people argue that when Jesus says that he is not going to abolish the law, he means the moral law rather than the civil or ceremonial law. But the moral, civil, ceremonial distinction was developed during the Middle Ages. It can’t be read back into the New Testament.

The key to understanding the passage is to understand what Jesus meant by “fulfilling” the law. Matthew uses this term fifteen other times in his gospel and in all but three he is referring to the fulfillment of the Old Testament. In these other passages Jesus doesn’t necessarily fulfill a direct prophetic prediction; but in every case he fulfills the Old Testament by being that to which it pointed forward.

In relation to the Law, Jesus fulfills the Old Testament by bringing about the kingdom in which it is possible to live in the way that the Old Testament pointed toward.

This means that the Old Testament retains its validity until heaven and earth pass away and all is accomplished even though it is no longer the binding covenant of God’s people. Thus one who “looses” an Old Testament commandment comes under God’s disfavor. What God actually demands for entrance into the kingdom of heaven is a righteousness far beyond that of Israel’s most scrupulous law-keepers.

Genesis 15:16 and Leviticus 18:24-25 indicates that placing the Canaanites under the ban was a judicial matter, but the Canaanites were put also under the ban so that Israel would not be adversely affected by the Canaanites (Deut. 7:1-4; 20:17-18). Israel would not be an effective priest to the nations (Ex. 19:6; Deut. 4:5-8) if it succumbed to the sins of the Canaanites.

Thus, ironic as it may sound, the extermination of the Canaanites seems to include a missionary motive.

The covenant theme also appears in the opening and closing of the book. In both places Israel is exhorted to keep the Mosaic Covenant.

The Ark of the Covenant is emphasized in chapter 3 with the crossing of the Jordan and in chapter 8 with the renewal of the covenant.

The roots of this theme reach back to the dominion blessing of Genesis 1:26-28. The ability to carry out dominion over the earth as intended by God was lost apart from redemption.

The promise of land was given to the Israelites as a part of God’s redemptive plan. Like the original dominion blessing, the promised land was given by God, but the recipients were to act on the gift to bring it to fruition.

Joshua shows the dominion blessing in the context of the Fall. The land must be conquered from human enemies who have corrupted the land with their sin. The sinners are to be exterminated from the land, and God’s people are to live in the land in accordance to God’s covenant regulations. In this way the nations will be able to see what a land under righteous dominion looks like.

Place in Redemptive History: Joshua advances the story of God’s plan of redemption by telling of the fulfillment of aspects of the land promise to Abraham and his seed. The land promise gave God’s people the space to live out the Dominion Blessing in a fallen world.

The sacrificial imagery of Revelation is apparent. Jesus is “a Lamb, standing as thought it had been slain” (Rev. 5:6). Throughout the book he is referred to as a Lamb. But he is a royal Lamb (he is “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David,” Rev. 5:5). 

God’s throne is another major theme of Revelation. θρόνος occurs 47 times in Revelation [This figure includes three times where the plural “thrones” is used of the elders thrones (Rev. 4:4; 11:16; 20:4) and twice where the reference is to the throne of Satan (Rev. 2:13; 13:2)] and is found in all but five of the book’s chapters. This pervasive motif highlights the theme of kingship.

Based on the reference to Jesus sitting “with my Father on his throne” after his resurrection (Rev. 3:21), some dispensationalists wish to distinguish the Father’s throne (on which Jesus currently sits) and David’s throne (on which he will sit in the future) (Thomas, 325f.). Bock responds to this line of argumentation by noting the Old Testament in places equates Yahweh’s throne and the Davidic throne (1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23) because Yahweh is the Father to the Davidic king who is his son (1 Chron. 28:6). In addition to this, Revelation in its earliest chapters describes Jesus acting with the prerogatives of the Davidic king (Rev. 1:5; 2:18; 2:26-27; 3:12). Most significantly, Revelation 5:5 links his Davidic claims to his conquering, which is precisely Jesus’ claim in Revelation 3:21: “I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne” (Bock, 111).

Jesus is introduced in the opening greeting as “the ruler of the kings of the earth” (Rev. 1:5). The book climaxes with the declaration: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever” (Rev. 11:15). This is the goal of the entire history of the world.

John recorded the fulfillment of this declaration terms that highlight all three of the Messianic offices. The King will ride down from heaven with his robe dipped in his sacrificial blood (Rev. 19:13) to defeat his enemies with the Word of his mouth (Rev. 19:15). “On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19:16). Revelation 20 records the thousand year reign that is the precursor of Jesus’ eternal reign. At the end of that reign Jesus will exercise his kingly judgment over mankind.

Following the judgment, heaven and earth will be remade and the New Jerusalem—the new City of David—will descend from heaven. There is no temple there, “for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb” (Rev. 21:22). There is a throne in the middle of the city (Rev. 22:3), and under the Lamb mankind will exercise the dominion intended for them “forever and ever” (Rev. 21:5).

Source:

Bock, Darrell L. “Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism.” In Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism. Edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999.

Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Moisés Silva. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.

Thomas, Robert L. Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1992.