William Edgar’s contribution to Resurrection and Eschatology deals with the view of culture espoused by Geerhardus Vos. In describing the Vosian view of culture, Edgar shows the differences that exist between the Reformed and the Anabaptists vis-à-vis the kingdom of God. Edgar does this masterfully by contrasting the Reformed reading of the Sermon on the Mount with that of Richard B. Hays in The Moral Vision of the New Testament—arguably the most influential work on ethics written in the past 50 years. Says Edgar:
“Contrary to Hays’s radical view, the point of the Sermon on the Mount is not to set up a special ethic for the church, but to proclaim a new world order, one where the kingdom of God has come, one where the blessedness of its members is for now, not just later. True enough, the sermon tells us about God’s radical love in Christ, a love that forgives enemies and gives good gifts to its children. But the sermon is neither ascetic nor revolutionary. There is no section of life to which it does not speak. The key to the sermon is Matthew 5:17, in which Jesus proclaims he has not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. His teaching explains the full extent of God’s law, and puts an end to casuistry.
To understand how the ethics of the sermon work, one can benefit from navigating the wisdom literature of the Bible. Like the Proverbs, the teachings in the sermon are cumulative. And as in the wisdom literature, there is not a single, comprehensive application of one part of the law that is not meant to be kept in balance with the rest. For example, in 5:16 Jesus tells us to let our light shine before men, whereas in 6:1 he warns against doing our righteousness before men. Again, in 7:1, he forbids judging another, whereas in 7:6 he tells us to identify dogs and swine. These are not contradictions. Only when we understand the depths of God’s love, and the radical claims of his kingdom, can we know when to make one application or another. Therefore, to ‘turn the other cheek’ is not a blanket rule for all of life, nor a better way for believers, as Hays would have it, but exactly the right response in the particular situation where one is tempted to enact vigilante violence.
Herman Ridderbos confirms this view in his wonderful book, When the Time had Fully Come. In the chapter on the sermon he states:
Put thus, we can understand that any attempt to dichotomize between the church as the most spiritual location for Christian living, and the world as a necessary holding pattern is not helpful. Believing that the different realms of creation in which we must somehow navigate are temporary support systems in which we must be careful not to overinvest, is simply sub-biblical. The best of the Reformed tradition, albeit with significant variants, has acknowledged a more holistic worldview approach which sees the state, and every other legitimate sphere of activity, as a place to live out the full reality of the kingdom of God.”
