The Gospel

6 · Keller announces the sermon's governing structure: three effects the gospel produces—restructured heart identity, removed sin, and reversed values—which will be explored through Isaiah 53-54

And there are three results of the gospel that will flow into our lives. We've been talking about the gospel for a couple weeks, but this week I'd like to look at this passage in Isaiah and recognize there are three results of the gospel that flow into our lives. The gospel brings restructuring of your heart, removal of your sin, and reversal of your values. Restructuring of your heart, removal of your sin, and reversal of your values.

7 · Structural pivot from overview to first main point, directing attention to Isaiah 54's barren woman as the key to understanding heart restructuring

Let's take a look at these three things. The first, the restructuring of your heart, actually comes from the second page, the top, under the image of the barren woman.

8 · Keller highlights the shocking nature of God's command to a barren woman to sing and rejoice, setting up the need to understand ancient cultural context to grasp why this is so radical

This part of the prophecy of Isaiah is, as the Lord's speaking, starts off in a startling way. God says, sing, O barren woman, you who never bore a child. Burst into song and shout for joy.

9 · Keller unpacks the ancient cultural context where children determined economic prosperity, personal survival in old age, and national military security—making childbearing essential to individual and collective survival

We've got to stop right away, because if we're going to understand the message of this passage, we have to ask ourselves, what was the significance of childbearing in those ancient cultures? Now, let me put it in a nutshell. The more children you had, the better your family did. The more children you had, the more your land produced, the more your shop produced, because you had more labor. The more income you had, and therefore, your number of children completely determined the fate of your family, its status in society, its security economically, completely. And secondly, if when you got old, you didn't have adult children to live with, you literally starved to death. And if you wanted to have three adult children when you got to old age, you needed to have about eight to ten, because that's all the number that would live to maturity. And then thirdly, if your whole tribe, if your whole nation wasn't having lots and lots of children, the tribe next door would grow in population more, and therefore, they'd have a larger army, and they would come and conquer you.

10 · Hypothetical scenario illustrating how deeply childbearing was woven into ancient social fabric—limiting family size would be seen as threatening communal survival, not just personal choice

So you can see, if a bunch of women were around a well, you know, drawing water, and one of them said, I think I only want to have two or three children, the rest of them would say, do you have a death wish or something? And not only that, they would say, this isn't just about you, it's about all of us. Unless you have as many children as you possibly can, you're dooming us economically, militarily, politically.

11 · Keller transitions from cultural description to theological diagnosis: ancient cultures made family an idol by turning the good thing of childbearing into the ultimate source of worth and security

And therefore, a woman who bore children in those ancient cultures was a national hero. But, as we have been saying all month, the natural tendency of the human heart is to take good things and turn them into ultimate things. And in ancient cultures, and in non-Western traditional cultures today, the family is the ultimate thing. It is what we've been calling, essentially in those cultures, an idol.

12 · Keller shows the devastating consequence of making family an idol: women who couldn't have children internalized and experienced social worthlessness

And therefore, women who either don't have children because they're not married, or can't have children because of some physical impediment, felt worthless, and were regarded as worthless.

13 · Rachel's cry in Genesis exemplifies the desperation barren women felt in ancient cultures where childlessness meant worthlessness and social death

And so, if you want a perfect example of that, you go into the book of Genesis, where Rachel, the wife of Jacob, is seeking to have children, and she can't have children, and she says, give me children or I die. And that about sums it up, in those cultures.

14 · Keller anticipates the congregation's likely reaction (ancient cultures oppressed women) and uses it as a springboard to challenge modern culture's own forms of oppression

Now, some of you are saying, oh boy, that's right, I know about this. Those ancient cultures really oppressed women. And you're right. But I'm glad you brought that up, actually. And the reason I'm glad you brought that up is it gives me the occasion to ask you a question.

15 · Keller makes the provocative move of linking ancient family-based oppression with modern appearance-based oppression, arguing that all fallen cultures enslave people by defining worth through possession of certain objects

Why do you think, and I'm trying to, let me be as sensitive as I possibly can. Yes, those ancient cultures oppressed women. Let me ask you one question. Why do you think that in those cultures, women were not troubled with eating disorders at all? Why do you think that in those cultures, women were not troubled with eating disorders? Why am I asking you that? I'm trying to make a point. The Bible says that all cultures are fallen, and that all cultures oppress, because here's what they do. Every single culture puts in front of men and women certain objects, and says, if you don't have them, you're nothing. If you don't have them, you have no worth. If you don't have them, you have no significance. If you don't have them, your existence isn't justified. You must have them.

16 · Keller contrasts collectivist idols (ancient: family/children) with individualistic idols (modern: looks/career/money), showing both enslave people by defining worth through external achievement

And of course, ancient cultures and traditional cultures today make idols out of, how do I say, they have collectivist idols. They say to women, your worth depends completely on the family. You've got to have a family. You've got to be in a family. But modern Western culture has individualistic idols. And what they say, what modern cultures say, is your worth is completely dependent on your individual assets, looks, career, money. If you don't have, every culture is saying, if you don't have that, you're nothing.

17 · Keller universalizes Rachel's cry as a diagnostic of any identity built on anything other than God—failure to obtain the idol results in experienced death

When Rachel says, give me children or I die. When she says, childlessness means psychological and social death. It's very telling, because if you build your identity on anything more than God, and you fail to get it, it's psychological and sociological death.

18 · Keller claims all cultures function to enslave because they cooperate with the human heart's idolatrous desire for self-justification, pressing people into the ground through culturally specific means

And every culture that ever existed and exists today is telling you to build your identity on something. And therefore, every culture is going to press you, crush you into the ground, because every culture is cooperating with the part of our heart we were talking about last couple of weeks that wants to be its own savior and Lord, wants to justify itself. Every culture is therefore crushing us into the ground in different ways.

19 · Keller acknowledges the near-impossibility of escaping cultural enslavement when surrounded by it, but pivots to announce that God offers a way to both inner emotional freedom and cultural freedom

And it's almost impossible when everybody else is going after these objects, not to go along with them and be just as enslaved and crushed as everyone else in the culture is. I said almost impossible, because God says there's a way out. There's a way to emotional inner freedom and cultural freedom. And what is it?

20 · Keller returns to Isaiah 54:1, emphasizing God's radical command for the barren woman to sing as the answer to the problem of cultural enslavement just described

Well, let's go back to the text. Here's what God says. He says, into this ancient culture, sing, O barren woman, you who never bore a child. Sing, O barren woman.

21 · Keller identifies the radical nature of God's command: it offers simultaneous internal freedom (from shame) and external freedom (from oppressive cultural structures) by enabling joy apart from cultural performance markers

Do you know what is so culturally radical? What he is calling women to do. He's calling women to an inner emotional freedom from shame and a cultural freedom from external oppressive structures. He's saying, I can give you a freedom from men, from family, from what your culture tells you. I can get you to sing without children.

22 · Keller unpacks the deliberate paradox in Isaiah 54:1—the barren woman has more children than the fertile woman—which doesn't make literal sense but points to a different kind of fruitfulness

In other words, look at the paradox. He says, sing O barren woman, you who bore a child, never bore a child, because more are the children of a desolate woman than of her who has a husband. And what this is saying is now it's deliberately paradoxical. It's saying the woman who never had any children has more children than the woman who has had a lot of children.

23 · Keller resolves the paradox by explaining that children symbolize worth/value/beauty, and God is declaring that these qualities are available apart from children—a culturally revolutionary claim

That doesn't make sense, but it does make sense when you realize that children represent value and worth and beauty and honor. And God is saying there's a value and worth and beauty and honor available apart from children. This was utterly radical in that culture.

24 · Keller identifies the source of this alternative worth: God himself becomes the woman's husband, providing the relationship that gives value and security

Well, what is the source of that? He says, here it is. Your maker is your husband. Your maker is your husband. Your maker is your husband.

25 · Keller contrasts all other religions' performance-based approach (try hard → eventual positive verdict) with Christianity's radically different structure, building on previous week's Colossians 3 teaching

Last week, Colossians 3, we looked at a very, very, kind of a long theological exposition. But here Isaiah sums up what Paul said in this incredibly beautiful image and metaphor. What did Paul say? What is Isaiah saying? What does the Bible say? The Bible says every other religion says life is about trying, trying, trying, trying hard to live up to standards. And if you really try hard at the end of your life, you'll have a positive verdict and you'll go to heaven or you'll meet God or you'll have nirvana or something. Every other religion says try, try, try, try hard, live up, get a good verdict, and you're in.

26 · Keller explains why marriage is the perfect metaphor for Christianity: it combines intense love relationship with immediate legal status—you're fully united the moment vows are taken, not after years of trying

But Christianity is absolutely different than that. Christianity is a legal standing. It's a standing. It's coming into something now. It's being united to God through Christ. And the perfect metaphor for it is marriage. Why? Because on the one hand, marriage is the most intense love relationship possible, and yet it's also a legal status, which the moment before you take your vows, you don't have at all. And the second you take your vows, you have completely. It's not like you try, try, try. Your maker is your husband.

27 · Keller claims Christianity's uniqueness: it offers immediate positive verdict and God's delight now through union with Christ, something no other religion dares promise

And this is what Christianity offers, something that no other religion dares to offer, and says that when you join to God through Jesus Christ, the verdict is in. Now you have the applause, the praise, the delight of God. No one else even begins to try to offer such a thing.

28 · Keller applies the barren woman passage: God offers himself as the source of value, freeing believers from enslaving cultural idols so they can finally love good things rightly without being enslaved to them

So what is God saying in this passage? Here's what he's saying. He says, don't look to anything else. I can be your value. And what greater value could you possibly have than to be delighted in and sacrificed for by the maker of the universe? He says, look at all these other things, good things that you're turning into ultimate things. Don't try to get your value and your beauty and your honor and your significance from them. Don't do that. You need freedom from them so you can love them. And you'll find that freedom only when your heart rests in me the way you rest in bed at the end of a long day. Only when your heart savors me the way you savor a glass of cold water in the middle of a desert.

29 · Keller describes the result of finding value in God: a restructured identity producing both cultural and emotional freedom—able to appreciate cultural goods without being enslaved by them

But if you have that, then you have a completely different sort of identity. You have cultural freedom. You have emotional freedom. You can live in your culture and every culture says these are good things. Every culture has its themes. Every culture has its emphases. Every culture has its strengths. But they won't enslave you anymore. They won't crush you. You'll be restructured in your heart and your identity.

30 · Keller voices potential objection (I believe but haven't experienced this restructuring) and uses it as a transition to the second main point about sin's removal

Well, now some people say that's very radical, but I think I believe in God. I think I believe in Christianity. And I don't know that I've ever undergone anything quite like that. Okay, let's keep going.

31 · Keller establishes the logical connection: heart restructuring flows from understanding sin's removal, and just as the barren woman image revealed restructuring, the suffering servant image will reveal how sin is removed

The restructuring of the heart flows from an understanding of how the gospel also tells you about the removal of your sin. And as we look to the image of the barren woman to understand the restructuring of the heart, we look to, in the first part, page one, this image of the suffering servant to understand the removal of our sin.

32 · Keller frames Isaiah 53 as the most controversial Old Testament passage, setting up its shocking nature by noting it appears to contradict other biblical teaching

Now, this passage is very famous, but I also want you to know it probably is the most shocking and controversial passage in all of the Hebrew scripture, in all of the Old Testament. It has been fought about and it has been debated for centuries. And the reason is because it seems to be so shocking because it seems to contradict all sorts of other things in the rest of the Bible.

33 · Keller begins unpacking the first shocking element—the violence of the Messiah's death—by establishing the background expectation: messianic prophecies throughout the Old Testament predicted a figure who would bring peace and justice

Let's take a look at it. First of all, it's shocking because of the violence of this death, the violence of this death. All through the Old Testament, there have been prophecies about a Messiah, a messianic figure, someone who's going to come and bring God's peace back to the world, someone who's going to come and bring God's justice back to the world. And all the way from the book of Exodus, all the way up through the early chapters of Isaiah, we see this prince, this meshiach, this anointed prince, this person, this figure, who's in prophecy going to return.

34 · Keller traces the development of the servant songs in Isaiah 40-53, building to the shocking reversal in chapter 53 where the one who should end violence instead becomes violence's victim

Now you get, though, to the middle of Isaiah, you get into chapter 40 and afterwards, and the servant of the Lord appears. And this person again appears and he brings salvation to the nations. And this has been spoken of in chapter 42 and 47 and 50. So there are a number of these prophecies about this servant of the Lord who's going to bring salvation to the nations. But when we get to chapter 53, suddenly the most appalling thing happens. The Messiah, the servant of the Lord, who is supposed to bring an end to violence, is instead the victim of violence. Who's supposed to bring an end to injustice is instead the victim of injustice.

35 · Keller provides close exegesis of Isaiah 53:5,8, explaining the Hebrew terminology for violent death and piercing to emphasize the extreme physical suffering described

Look at verse 8. By oppression and justice, he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living. And that cut off from the land of the living is a Hebrew term that means a violent death. And verse 5 says he was pierced for our transgressions. Literally, that word says pierced through. It's a verb that means to be run through. It means to have something come in the front of your body and go out the back. It is a term that describes the most painful and excruciating possible death.

36 · Keller articulates the theological problem: how can the Messiah accomplish his mission of ending violence and injustice by himself becoming the victim of violence? This is the first shocking contradiction requiring explanation

Now, this seems to contradict everything else we know about the Messiah. It seems to contradict everything else that we see. How could this be the Messiah? How could the Messiah possibly bring an end to violence and bring an end to injustice and bring an end to the brokenness of the world by being broken to bits himself? That makes no sense at all. So that's the first thing. The first thing that's shocking is the violence of this death.

37 · Keller moves to the second shocking element—vicariousness—by examining Isaiah 53:10's description of the servant as a guilt offering, explaining the Old Testament sacrificial system background

The second thing that's shocking, even more shocking, is the vicariousness of this death. Look at verse 10. It was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer. And though the Lord make his life a guilt offering, whoa, stop, wait, what? The Bible talks a lot about offerings, guilt offerings, in the tabernacle, in the temple. They were animal sacrifices. When someone was guilty, you did an animal sacrifice and an animal was slain and offered up and that took away the guilt. And many, this is all through the Bible.

38 · Keller identifies the second shocking contradiction: the servant is described as a human guilt offering, yet the Bible absolutely forbids human sacrifice everywhere else

But one thing is absolutely and totally clear in the Bible that never, ever, ever, ever was there to be a human sacrifice. Human sacrifice was in no uncertain terms condemned. Everywhere else in the Bible. And yet that's what this is. He was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. Our punishment has gone to him. His peace has come to us. He's a guilt offering. And yet the Bible says everywhere, you must not do human sacrifice.

39 · Keller identifies the third shocking element: the servant voluntarily takes on suffering and death, yet suicide is condemned throughout the Bible

So first, the violence of the death is shocking. Secondly, the vicariousness of the death is shocking. And last of all, the voluntariness of the death is shocking. Look at verse four. He took up our infirmities. He carried our sorrows. Literally, that means he picked them up and put them on himself. He's voluntarily dying. But everywhere in the Bible, suicide's a sin.

40 · Keller summarizes the three contradictions—Messiah's power, human sacrifice prohibition, suicide condemnation—posing the interpretive problem that demands resolution

So this contradicts what the Bible says about the power of the Messiah. This contradicts what the Bible says about the forbiddenness of human sacrifice. It contradicts what the Bible says about the sinfulness of suicide. How do we make sense of this?

41 · Keller presents and then begins to critique the symbolic interpretation that reads the suffering servant as a personification of the nation's suffering rather than an individual

Now, some people have really tried very hard to make sense of it by saying it's all a symbol, it's figurative, it's poetry. And the servant here is a poetic, symbolic personification of the sufferings of the nation, of the sufferings of the people. This is just talking about the people of God, the nation of God, and how they suffered.

42 · Keller refutes the symbolic interpretation by showing the passage's logic requires substitution—the servant suffers instead of the nation, which is impossible if the servant is merely a symbol of the nation

Okay, but there's a huge trouble with this. Even poetry still has to have a point. And what is the point of this passage? The point of this passage is that the servant suffers instead of the nation. The servant suffers so the nation doesn't have to suffer. And so if the servant is just a symbol for the nation, how can the nation suffer so the nation won't suffer? How can the nation suffer in place of the nation? No. This is a human being. This is an individual human being. But who?

43 · Keller pivots from the interpretive problems to the solution: the passage's meaning depends entirely on correctly identifying who the suffering servant is

How can we make any sense out of it? Well, it all depends on who this is. Who is it?

44 · Keller begins the extended Acts 8 narrative illustration by introducing the Ethiopian eunuch who traveled to Jerusalem to worship and is now reading Isaiah on his return journey

Centuries later, after this was written, the book of Acts, chapter 8, tells us a story, an account of something that happened many years later. It tells us about an African, an Ethiopian, and we're told that he had gone all the way to Jerusalem in order to worship God, and now he was coming back reading the scroll of Isaiah.

45 · Keller unpacks the eunuch's spiritual desperation (traveling enormous distance seeking God) and the devastating rejection he experienced (turned away from the temple despite the journey because of his castration)

Now, even that little introduction tells us an awful lot about what happened to this man. Because first of all, in those days, even today I'm sure, but in those days the trip from Ethiopia to Jerusalem was enormously long, incredibly dangerous, and terribly difficult. And the only possible reason an individual would go all the way from Ethiopia to Jerusalem in order to worship is if this person was deeply spiritually dissatisfied, that he was searching, he was seeking, that there was a great spiritual need, longing, emptiness, let's say. And the first thing we know is that. The second thing we know is now that he's on his way back, he would have been turned away. Do you know why he would have been turned away? He was a eunuch. And the Mosaic law made it very clear that nothing deformed and nothing diseased could go into the presence of God. And this man had been castrated, and anyone who had been castrated was absolutely forbidden to go into the temple. After all those miles, hundreds, thousands, I don't know how, after all that way he went and he was turned away, unfit, unclean.

46 · Keller explains the cultural background of the eunuch's castration (required for royal officials) and its devastating significance in a culture where descendants meant everything, possibly driving his spiritual search

The reason he was castrated was because he was an official. And in those days in almost all of the royal, in all of the kingdoms, if you were an official who was going to work in close quarters with the royal family, the requirement was castration. And of course it was a terrible price to pay in a culture in which having descendants meant everything. And maybe that was one of the reasons why he was spiritually searching, I don't know, but he'd been turned away.

47 · Keller narrates Philip's encounter with the eunuch, who is reading Isaiah but unable to understand it without help, inviting Philip to explain

And now he's on his way back and he's reading the book of Isaiah. And Acts 8 tells us that Philip, a minister of the gospel, a minister, a missionary, finds this man, and this is what happened. We're told, Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah. Do you understand what you're reading? Philip asked. How can I? He said, unless someone explains it to me. So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

48 · Keller shows the powerful connection between the eunuch's condition (cut off from descendants) and the passage he's reading (servant cut off from descendants), creating an electrifying moment of identification

Now, this was the passage that the eunuch was reading. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. And as a lamb before her shears his silence, so he did not open his mouth. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living. Imagine how electrifying this must have been for a man who'd just been turned away from the house of God because he couldn't have descendants. And yet here's this servant of the Lord who's voluntarily taking this condition on.

49 · Keller reaches the climax of the narrative: Philip reveals that the suffering servant is Jesus, the answer to all the riddles in Isaiah 53

And so the text goes on. The eunuch asked Philip, tell me, please, who is this prophet talking about? Himself or someone else? And then Philip began with that very passage of scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. It's Jesus.

50 · Keller shows how Jesus' identity as the incarnate Son of God resolves the first riddle: it's not suicide because God has the right to lay down his own life, unlike humans who don't own their lives

And you know what? That's the answer to all the riddles. If this figure, this suffering servant, is the son of God, come down from heaven in human form, that begins to unravel the riddles. First of all, that shows this is not the sin of suicide. You know why? You and I, we did not give ourselves life. And therefore, we can't take our own lives. Our lives don't belong to us. They belong to God. But God's life is his own. And he laid it down for us.

51 · Keller introduces Bonhoeffer's principle that forgiveness requires suffering—the forgiver bears the cost rather than exacting payment—establishing the logic of substitutionary atonement at the human level

And secondly, it explains the vicariousness of it. Dietrich Bonhoeffer has written, forgiveness is a form of suffering. Do you know what that means? If someone has really, really wronged you, you've got to forgive them. You've got to forgive them. If you don't forgive them, you'll be eaten up with bitterness and you'll become part of the endless cycle of retaliation that makes the world the mess of a place that it is. So you've got to forgive. But Bonhoeffer's right. Forgiveness is agonizing. When you want to pay somebody back, but you don't pay them back, you'll pay. When you want to make them suffer, but you don't make them suffer because you're trying to forgive them, you suffer. Real forgiveness always entails suffering. There's no such thing as forgiveness without suffering, not if you've really been wrong.

52 · Keller extends the forgiveness-requires-suffering principle from human to divine level: if it's true for us with flawed justice, how much more for God's perfect justice—God must suffer to forgive

And if that's true for us, with our minuscule sense and flawed sense of justice, how much more is we to be true of God? And the Ethiopian eunuch realized this is God suffering in order to forgive us. If God was not going to pay us back, he had to pay, just like with us.

53 · Keller contrasts the emotionally flat moralistic response to God (try hard, earn approval) with the gospel's transformative power, showing why moralism doesn't produce deep change

And when the eunuch realized that this is God suffering in order to forgive him and receive him, it changed his life. And here's why it changed his life. I want you to think about this. We've said the gospel is not moral conformity or self-discovery. It's not moralism or relativism. Because you see, moralistic people have a God who's sort of holy and demanding. And the way you have a relationship with this God is you try very, very hard. But when people who have a God who's basically holy and demanding and they're pleasing through moral behavior, when they think of their relationship with God, it doesn't move them to tears. It doesn't galvanize them, electrify them. It doesn't change them from the inside out. They just say, yeah, yeah, of course I know God. I work very hard, you know.

54 · Keller contrasts the emotionally flat relativistic response to God (he loves everyone anyway) with the gospel's transformative power, showing why cheap grace doesn't produce deep change

And then there's people, New Yorkers, basically, who think, you know, if there is a God, I believe he loves everyone. He excludes no one. He accepts everyone. Yeah, I have a relationship with God. I'm spiritual because God loves everyone. But if that's what you believe in a God who just accepts and loves everyone, you know, no matter what, if that's what you believe, when you think of your relationship with God, it doesn't galvanize you. It doesn't move you to tears. It doesn't electrify. It doesn't change you from the inside out. You say, well, of course he loves everybody.

55 · Keller presents the biblical alternative: God is simultaneously infinitely holy and infinitely loving, which makes grace costly and therefore emotionally transformative in a way moralism and relativism cannot match

But the biblical God, the God of the gospel, the God of Isaiah, the God of the African eunuch, is infinitely holy and infinitely loving. And that's the reason why God's grace is costly. It's so costly, that's why it's so moving.

56 · Keller articulates the gospel's unique psychological power: simultaneous humbling (God's holiness required Christ's death) and affirmation (God's love made him glad to die) produces freedom from both pride and self-hatred

In other words, God's grace is infinitely costly and melts your heart when you realize that God was so holy he couldn't shrug evil off, but he was so loving he couldn't just punish us for it. And not until you're humbled down into the dust because he's so holy he had to die for you, and not until you're affirmed and valued into the sky because he loves you so much that he was glad to die for you, will you be humbled out of the pride that makes you look down on other people, and will you be affirmed out of the self-hatred that makes you look down on yourself at the same time?

57 · Keller claims that only understanding the cost of sin's removal produces the restructured identity free from both inferiority and superiority—this transformation is impossible through any other means

In other words, only when you see what it costs God to remove your sin will you finally have the death of all inferiority and the death of all superiority, and you'll be able to have freedom, the restructured identity that no one else has. It's impossible to have it any other way.

58 · Keller contrasts moralism's oscillation between pride (when succeeding) and self-hatred (when failing) with the gospel's stable identity of simultaneous humility and boldness

Sure, if you're a moralist then you feel good, you know, when you're living up, but you're proud, or you feel bad when you're living up, you know, but you hate yourself. But here this is proud is gone, and self-hatred is gone, because the gospel says you're so humbled because you're a sinner, and you're so bold because you're absolutely loved at the same time. It gives you a radically new identity.

59 · Keller summarizes the connection between understanding costly grace and transformation: when Christ's substitutionary death is both intellectually grasped and emotionally melting, life change happens

It's the removal of sin and the costliness of it. When the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ is intellectually coherent and existentially melting to your heart, that's when the changes happen. And that comes only when you see God is not just holy and demanding, or not just loving and accepting everybody, but infinitely holy and infinitely loving at once, and therefore his grace is costly. And when that melts your heart, that changes you.

60 · Keller narrates the climactic scene from A Tale of Two Cities where Sidney Carton forcibly substitutes himself for Charles Darnay, taking Darnay's punishment while Darnay receives Carton's freedom—a literary illustration of substitutionary atonement

You know Charles Dickens' novel A Tale of Two Cities. It's about Sidney Carton and Charles Darnay, and they both love the same young woman, but she marries Charles. And then they start, you know, they get married and they start having children. But this is the French Revolution, and so Charles Darnay is arrested, and he's taken to prison, and he awaits his execution. And on the night before his execution, Sidney Carton, who looks quite a bit like Charles Darnay, steals into the prison and says, look Charles, you have a wife, you have a child, let's switch places. Let's change clothes. I'll die in your place. And Charles Darnay says, no way! Are you kidding? I will never let you do such a thing. So what does Sidney Carton do? He smacks him over the head and knocks him out cold. He puts his clothes on him. Sidney's peace passes to Charles. Charles' punishment passes to Sidney. And he has some people take Charles, who's now out cold, and take him out, and he assumes his place in the prison waiting to be executed.

61 · Keller continues the Tale of Two Cities narrative to show how even the seamstress—not the direct beneficiary—is strengthened to face death by witnessing Carton's substitutionary sacrifice

And there's a little seamstress young woman who is also about to be executed, and she knew Charles Darnay previously. When she hears he's there, she seeks him out and comes up and starts talking. It's, oh, you remember this, and you remember that. And of course, Sidney Carton is looking away, hoping that she doesn't look too closely, and suddenly she sees. And she realizes it's not Charles Darnay. And her eyes get big. And she says, are you dying for him? And he says, yes, and for his wife and children. And she says, stranger, I don't think, I have been feeling I'm not going to be able to face my death, but could I hold your hand? Because if someone as brave and as loving as you holds my hand, I think I'll be okay. And Sidney Carton says, all right.

62 · Keller applies the illustration: if Carton's sacrifice (not even for the seamstress) strengthened her profoundly, how much more should Christ's sacrifice for us transform every dimension of our lives if we allow it

Now, he wasn't even dying for her, but his substitutionary sacrifice strengthened her to her roots. How much more will the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ for you absolutely change you and strengthen you if you would just let it have its way with you in your memories, in your attitude, in your personality, in the way in which you look at the world, in the way in which you look at life?

63 · Keller states the theological principle connecting the second and first main points: understanding the cost of sin's removal (section 2) produces heart restructuring (section 1)

To the degree you understand the holiness and the love of God that makes the grace so costly, and that you understand what it cost God to remove your sin, that will create that restructuring of heart.

64 · Structural pivot from the second main point (removal of sin) to the third main point (reversal of values)

And one more thing it'll create, and that is a complete reversal of values.

65 · Keller introduces the third main point by noting Isaiah 54 contains two images flowing from chapter 53: the barren woman (already discussed) and the afflicted city God promises to rebuild with precious stones

Very briefly, I must say that we not only have out of the flowing of the removal of sin in chapter 53 comes chapter 54, and we have two images in chapter 54, a barren woman who is singing for joy, and a deserted city, an afflicted city. This is talking about a city that is poor, that is devastated, and God says, I will rebuild your walls, and I will rebuild your gates, and I will rebuild your battlements and your towers, and I'll rebuild them out of sapphire, and out of rubies, and out of diamonds.

66 · Keller unpacks the significance of the jeweled city: it represents complete flourishing across all dimensions—military security, economic prosperity, and aesthetic beauty

Now, imagine a city like that. Do you realize that a city that would have been made out of diamonds, and sapphires, and rubies would have been, first of all, absolutely militarily and politically secure, because nobody could break down walls made of that. Secondly, it would have been incredibly economically prosperous, because it would be the most valuable and wealthy city in the world. And then thirdly, it would also be a place of aesthetic beauty. Its artistic life, and its economic life, and its political life would be flourishing.

67 · Keller notes the literal fulfillment never occurred, posing the interpretive question of what Isaiah is actually prophesying

And of course, this has never happened, we don't think, right? I mean, you know, Jerusalem was rebuilt after the exile, but it wasn't built like that. What is Isaiah foreseeing?

68 · Keller connects Isaiah's jeweled city prophecy to Revelation's vision of the new Jerusalem descending from heaven at the end of time

You have to go to the book of Revelation, where it depicts the end of time, and we see coming out of heaven this city with sapphires, and rubies, and diamonds at its base.

69 · Keller interprets Isaiah and Revelation's vision as God's promise to renew the entire world at the end of time, removing all brokenness and restoring it to original design

And what is that vision all about? What is Isaiah talking about? What is the book of Revelation talking about? It's talking about the fact that at the end of time, this heavenly power will come down to renew the world, create the world to be the way God meant it to be. He didn't want disease. He didn't want suffering. He didn't want death. He didn't want poverty. He didn't want racism. He didn't want injustice. He didn't want any of those things, and in the end, he's going to make the world renewed the way it ought to be.

70 · Keller poses the question of how believers participate in the coming renewal and notes God's consistent pattern of choosing the weak and excluded—eunuchs, barren women, unlikely candidates

How can we participate in that? Through the gospel. Because why do you think God always seems to be working with eunuchs and barren women? Why Sarah over Hagar? Why stupid Jacob over Esau? Why little David over all the big strapping older brothers? Why? Why does he always do that?