Dr Greg Bahnsen - Normative Ethics: Foundations: Nomianism vs Antinomianism Pt 2 (Part 8)

Is characterized in large measures by desire to rid Christianity or the Christian ethic of external rules. In fact, one can hardly appreciate or do justice to the extent of the polemic against external rules in Christian ethics today. The very suggestion that we have to follow rules and regulations is dependent on many sides. The idea that these rules are external, they are pre existing, they can be put down like regulations in a rule book, is somehow disdained as being contrary to the spontaneity of the spirit and the true character of Christianity. And I want to take up this attitude and consider its adequacy. In this lecture, I'd like to offer what I consider a refutation of the view that Christianity does not have an ethic of external rules. And I'm going to do this in two steps. First of all, I'm going to deal with the notion that rules are not external. I want to deal with the notion that we have rules, perhaps, but they are not external rules. My first observation will be that if there is any rule of behavior that is to be followed at all, even if it's considered an internal rule, if there's supposed to be any kind of rule at all, then this rule must be, at least in principle, externalizable. If there's going to be any rule of behavior that governs a person, it must be an externalizable rule. Now, if people want to say they are internal rules that we follow, well, for right now we'll let that claim stand for what it is. But my point is that these rules must be externalizable. You must be able to express them in external dictates, some kind of explicit written formula. That is, any genuine rule can be stated in a way which allows it to be communicated to others. Any genuine rule must be able to be communicated to others. And of course, if it can be communicated to others, then it is externalizable. The notion of a completely private rule, I think, is really a muddled notion, or if somebody takes it seriously, is committed to the notion of private language, which I think is equally muddled. Let me stop and expand in each one of these thoughts. Somebody contends that they are following a completely private rule. The rule that they keep is a private rule. Well, it seems to me that's probably a misguided way of saying that they are following an inner disposition. By private they mean it's some kind of motivation or compulsion within them that is not evident to the public at large and therefore is an inner disposition. So that's not really a private rule at all. It's just talking about A subjective motivation. But if somebody says no, no, I'm not talking about what actually is leading me to do things or impelling me to behave in a certain way in the world. I'm talking about a rule. But it's private. Private. It's a rule that only I know. It's completely private to myself. Then that person must be thinking of a private language. It seems to me the idea that I'm speaking this rule to myself. But I'm not speaking this rule in English or in German or in French. I'm speaking it in a private language. It's my own subjective, internal private language. And that is muddled. That's a completely muddled idea. Because there is no such thing as private language. There could be no private language in the very nature of the case. Because language by nature is a public phenomenon. Language is something that's used to communicate and that requires two minds, two persons that aren't doing the communication. Even if I talk to myself, I must talk to myself in a way which is in principle externalizable. So that what I am saying can be judged by objective criteria as to whether it is consistent, whether it is uniform or not. Let's say that I have a private language where I tell myself apples are red. However, the words that I use for apple and red are used in other contexts in a completely different way. To say, rabbits run. But in a completely different context. Those words are used as exclamations. Completely different context. Those words are used as grammatical points or logical particles. It just seems that if you're going to have a language at all, it must be be something that can be checked for objective, consistent, uniform usage. The idea that you could talk to yourself, but it's not even in principle possible to check whether the language is uniform in usage is really muddled. That isn't what we mean by a language. And therefore there is no such thing as a completely mud private language. One which could not be written down and communicated to others, one which could only be used by yourself. It may be that we make up languages in our minds and play little mental games, but these languages are not somehow, in principle unable to be communicated to others. So my first point has been that the notion that rules are not accepted external must be rejected. Because in principle, all language must be externalizable. And rules are obviously the sorts of things which are stated in language. If there is any rule of behavior that is to be followed at all, even if you call it, in its first sense an internal rule, it must be, at least in principle, externalizable if you cannot write down on a piece of paper, this is the rule that I'm following or I'm committed to following so that others could read of it, then that is not a rule whatsoever. Now, my second point. My second point isn't so much logical and philosophical in character, but rather exegetical. One of the ways in which people try to defend the idea that we are beyond the law, beyond external rules today in Christianity is by appealing to the internalization of the law during the New Covenant. The Bible tells us that God is going to write the law on our hearts, that he's going to have his spirit dwell within us, that the New Covenant is coming, characterized by that very sort of ethical state of affairs. So that internalization is the order of the day. Some people have used these biblical indicators as a way of proving that we don't have external rules as Christians any longer, but rather we live by an internal ethic. Well, the difficulty here is that that's really a misunderstanding of the passages, the relevant passages that are cited to prove this point about the internalization of Christian ethics. The internalization of the law in the New Covenant does not mean the annihilation of the law as an objective, external, authoritative rule of behavior. It does not mean the annihilation of the law as objective, external and authoritative. Rather, internalization of the law in the New Covenant refers to the empowering of an individual necessary so that he might obey that well known law. The internalization of the law means the empowering necessary to obey the well known law. And we need to look at some passages of Scripture to see this. In Jeremiah 31, verse 32, we see the dissimilarity of the New covenant and the dissimilarity between old and new covenants with respect to the law of God. Jeremiah 31 at verse 32, I'll begin reading. In verse 31. Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my covenant they break, although I was a husband unto them. Say it's Jehovah. Jeremiah tells us, this is the differentiation between old and new covenant. This is the way in which the new covenant will not be like the old covenant. He says the old covenant was constantly broken by the people. Unlike the Old Covenant, the new covenant will not be broken. And so the internalization of the Law in the new covenant points to the fact that the law will now be kept. The covenant will now be kept. Compliance will be given to the dictates of the covenant, the stipulations of the covenant, rather than the covenant being broken and its law spurned. And that specifically is the evidence of Scripture. That's the dissimilarity between the two covenants. The old covenant was broken. The new one will not be broken. Indeed, the external law which had been given previously had already called for this internalized enablement, the law. Let's look at Deuteronomy 30:14. But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. The word is nigh close to us. It's brought near. It's actually in our mouth and in our heart, just so that we may do it. The internalization of the law, you see, serves the doing of the law. The reason the law must be in our heart is because out of the heart are the issues of life, and therefore the law will now be done. We can Compare here Proverbs 3:1,3. Proverbs chapter 3, and verse 1. My son, forget not my law, but let thy heart keep my commandments. Let thy heart keep my commandments. When the law is not forgotten or tucked away in the heart, then the commandments are kept. Let not kindness and truth forsake thee. Bind them about thy neck. Write them upon the tablet of thy heart. Scripture had always required that the law be in the heart so that men would actually be able to do it. The external law had previously called for this internalized enablement. Therefore, Moreover, in Ezekiel 36, 26, 27, we see an explanation of the internal change that is going to come about Ezekiel 36, verses 26 and 27. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you. And I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh. And I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statue. And you shall keep mine ordinance and do them. Ezekiel 36 explains the internal change which the new covenant will bring. It will bring a new heart that is indwelt by the Spirit of God. And this new heart, now able to function and to throb, indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God. This living, vibrant heart will bring about obedience to God's law. That obedience which God had originally desired, will now be accomplished. In the day that Ezekiel is prophesying of a new heart, I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you, taking away the stony heart out of your flesh. I will give you a heart of flesh, and I will put my spirit within you, and then here it is, causing you to walk in my statutes. So the internalization of the new covenant is an internalization meant to empower or enable obedience to the law of God. And this interpretation, which is based, as you can see, in the dissimilarity taught in Jeremiah 31 between the covenants and the understanding of the law of God itself, when it speaks of internalization and indeed the very prophecy of Ezekiel as to what that will bring about. This Old Testament interpretation of the internalization of the new covenant is confirmed in 2nd Corinthians 3, verses 6 to 8. 2nd Corinthians 3, verses six to eight. Paul, speaking of God, says that he made us also sufficient as ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look steadfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face, which glory was passing away, how shall not rather the ministration of the Spirit be with glory? The Holy Spirit in the new covenant enlivens where the Mosaic and external tablets brought death, the old covenant brought death. The letter brought death, the written law condemned it, was administration of death. But the new covenant will give life, will be administration of the Spirit and life. Clearly the new covenant enlivens men so so that their disobedience to the external law of God, which in fact is what wrought death within them, will now be turned around. What was a power of death, that is, disobedience to the law has now made life. Obviously, if it's disobedience to the law that brought the death, life means we're now going to keep the law. And that's why in Romans 8:4, Paul says that the Spirit brings about obedience to the ordinance of the law, Romans 8:4, that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, not after the sinful nature which brings death, but rather walk after the Spirit. Paul's point in 2nd Corinthians 3 is that while the law is glorious, while the law is without flaw, it is a flawless law. The gospel nevertheless exceeds in glory by virtue of the power the gospel has to bring about obedience to the law. The law could not secure compliance with its requirements Whereas grace brings about salvation because of our disobedience and empowers new obedience through the law. Therefore, I conclude that it is entirely incorrect to say that Christianity is not an ethic that deals with external rules. It may be correct to say that Christianity is not merely an ethic of external rules. Certainly Christianity is a matter of personal holiness and accomplishing consequences which glorify God. Christianity is more than an absolute of law, to be very, very sure. But it would be incorrect to say that Christianity is without external rules. It would be incorrect to say that Christianity is devoid of external rules altogether. As I've said, the notion that you cannot have anything but an internal rule is muddled because all rules must be externalizable in the nature of the case. And secondly, from an extra standpoint, where the Bible speaks of internalization of the law, it doesn't mean that the law is being done away with, but rather that the law is now being empowered or we are being empowered so that we can keep the law. Do you have any questions you want to ask about the notion that rules are not external, that you can have rules that are not externalizable rules, either philosophical or exegetical questions on that? Well, the next step in my argument has to do with the notion that Christian ethics is not one characterized by rules. We've already said that if you are going to have rules, they must be externalizable rules. It's ridiculous to speak of rules that are not externalizable. The Bible doesn't speak that way. But the question remains, do we have any rules at all? Granted, if we do, they must be externalizable. But do we have them? Does Christianity offer an ethic of rules? Well, I'm going to take the premise that Christian ethics is not characterized by rules and try to offer a reputation of it. My reputation begins. Let's see, we're going to have about six points to make in this reputation. My reputation begins with the statement that this misunderstands the three, three basic perspectives in biblical ethics. The notion that Christian ethics is not characterized by rules misunderstands the personalistic, the consequential, and the normative perspectives in biblical ethics. In the first place, it misunderstands the personalistic or motivational existential perspective in ethics. When the Bible speaks of love, love is not presented as some kind of formless ideal. Love is not without content or form or concrete direction. Love can be described, it can be characterized, it can be defined and precisely defined. Indeed, the Bible tells us that's exactly what God was doing when he Gave the law he was defining love. Law defines what love demands. So by its very nature, love seeks out its responsibilities, love seeks out its obligations. Love tries to do that which is right and cannot be then antagonistic to God's law. Jesus said, if you love me, keep my commandments. And so anybody who proposes that Christian ethics is not characterized by rules, anybody who does that does not understand the motivational side of Christian ethics, does not understand love and the fruit of the Spirit, the Beatitudes, all of which point us to compliance with God's law. Moreover, a person who says Christian ethics is not characterized by rules misunderstands the situational, teleological, a consequential approach to ethics. This person certainly misunderstands the situation in which we find ourselves, because our situation, our very setting today, even as we are in this class, has been structured by is in the context of redemptive history. We have been created by God. We are fallen individuals. Christ has become incarnate. Christ has been raised from the dead. The Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost. The Holy Spirit is redeeming us. The Holy Spirit is guiding his church. Christ is coming again in judgment. God is present, especially in the Scriptures themselves. If we understand the situation which we live, where history is going, where history has been been, all the factors of our situation, the presence of God, the coming of Christ, the presence of the Bible to guide our lives, the influence of angels, our social obligations, our individual duties before God, nature itself, and natural revelation. If we look at the facts all around us, we're going to be driven to keep the law of God. We're going to pursue the kingdom of God in all things, things, as Jesus tells us to do when he says, seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness. We must know what the king requires us to do, and that will then be a law from the king. So anybody who says Christian ethics is not characterized by rules, anybody who says that not only misunderstands the motivational or personalistic perspective, that person misunderstands the situational and consequential perspective of ethics as well. And we can add to this that the person misunderstands the normative perspective in Christian ethics. God's law is presented in the Bible not as some kind of burden, some kind of pain, some kind of punishment. God's law is not presented in the Bible as God's way of torturing us, but rather the law of God is presented as a delight of those who are righteous, those who are redeemed, those who belong to the Savior. And want to keep his covenant. John tells us in First John, Chapter 5, that this is love, that we keep his commandments and his commandments are not burdensome. David could say, oh, how love I thy law. It is my meditation all the day. God's law is the believer's delight. In fact, it's presented as his way of life. It's his very life, this law of God. God's grace saves us precisely for a life of holiness and good works and fellowship with our righteous God. And for that reason, those who are saved by grace will seek the law of God and not see it as a burden out of gratitude, they will want to keep it. Obviously, much more could be said on each one of these sub points. But my first observation about the claim that Christianity is not characterized by rules is that that misunderstands all three of the perspectives, the basic perspectives on Christian ethics. Each one of the necessary and sufficient conditions of good works has been misunderstood in some form, in some manner, by those who want to rid us of rules. And my second observation, by way of refutation, is to point out that the very claim that Christianity is not characterized by rules is self refuting. That very claim is self refuting. Stop and think about that. It's quite illogical to say that Christianity cannot be characterized by rule if no ethical decision is to be made out of obedience to a rule. If no rule is understood to be universally binding on the Christian, then we as a matter of fact have created something of a paradox for ourselves. Because what we have said is, what we have done is we have laid down the prescription, never act on the basis of a rule. There are no rules, and one should never act on the basis of a rule. Christians are without rules. But of course, that prescription is what it is, a rule. It is a rule that rules out rules. Never act on the basis of a rule is itself a rule, and therefore it rules itself out. Consequently, the claim that Christianity is without rules is self contradictory. And at that point virtually nothing else has to be said. You just can't believe that. But I'm going to go on and present other considerations. Let's ask ourselves now, what would be the source of such a claim? If somebody says Christianity is without rules, how would they know that? Where would they get that information? What would the source of that claim be if someone were to conduct an exhaustive survey of every situation and of all the peculiarities of each individual who has ever lived in this world, so that that person knew everything about every conceivable situation in life and knew Every factor about every individual who ever lived, then that person, with all of that information we might think would could be in a position to claim that there are no rules to be followed. That person might be able to say that might then have a basis for claiming that there are no rules to follow. But of course to be in that position would require omniscience or at least revelation from an all knowing God. Now the critics of rules in Christianity or rules in Christian ethics, those who criticize the idea that we have rules have not examined every situation, have not found out everything there is to know about every individual who's ever lived, and they are not omniscient. So how do they know that there are no rules to be kept? Scripture certainly has not found favored that approach. They didn't get that information on the basis of revelation. Clearly the judgment that Christians should not be governed by rules and their behavior then is not an empirical claim. It's not based on evidence or experience, research or facts. It's not an empirical claim. It's rather a prescription. Rather than being a description of the world, it is a prescription for the world. And having seen the logical status or character of this outlook, we have to say who has the right to lay down this kind of rule? Who is it that has the right to rule out rules? Well, anybody who claims to be able to rule out rules, anybody who consistently makes that kind of claim is really playing at being God. Autonomous ethical thinking has become the source of their guidance. They have made their own rule to dispense with God's rules. My first point has been that those who don't want rules in Christian ethics don't understand the three perspectives, goal, motive or standard. Secondly, those who say there are no rules in Christian ethics are self refuting. And thirdly, those who make this claim are trying to play at God for what would be the source of that claim other than their own opinions. Fourthly, it needs to be pointed out however, that the fact remains that most who make this kind of claim against rules in Christian ethics, those who want to make these claims against rules have some positive principle that they say should be followed. They usually substitute something in the place of rules. For instance, they'll claim that we should follow love, or we should let the Spirit guide us, or we should try to imitate the life of Christ or the behavior of Christ. You see what's going on. These people say there are no rules to follow and then they'll turn right around and they'll lay down rules that we are supposed to follow. There are no rules. But then they will tell us, here are rules that you must love the Spirit imitation of Christ. Now, their point is usually. Their point is usually that this rule or principle is a New Testament rule or principle rather than an Old Testament rule. That is, we should follow the law of Christ rather than the law of Moses. So when they say we are without rules, they mean we're without Mosaic rules. We have the one very simple, generalized and ambiguous rule. To be like Christ or to follow love, to be guided by the Spirit. And we need to ask about this. These substitute principles. Whether the principles have defined content according to Scripture, love and the work of the Spirit and Christlikeness do have specific content. Substitute something in the place of rules. For instance, they'll claim that we should follow love, or we should let the Spirit guide us, or we should try to imitate the life of Christ or the behavior of Christ. You see what's going on? These people say there are no rules to follow. And then they'll turn right around and they'll lay down rules that we are supposed to follow. There are no rules. But then they will tell us, here are rules that you must love the Spirit imitation of Christ. Now, their point is usually that this rule or principle is a New Testament rule or principle rather than an Old Testament rule. That is, we should follow the law of Christ rather than the law of Moses. So when they say we are without rules, they mean we're without Mosaic rules. We have the one very simple, generalized and ambiguous rule. To be like Christ or to follow love, to be guided by the Spirit. And we need to ask about this. These substitute principles, whether the principles have definable content according to Scripture, love and the work of the Spirit and Christlikeness do have specific content. These things are not compatible with just any kind of behavior whatsoever. A person can't say, well, I'm going to love my neighbor, so that means I can commit adultery with his wife. No, love is not compatible with just anything you want to do, nor is being guided by the Spirit, nor is trying to imitate the life of Christ. So then it seems to me that those who tell us we are not to have rules of Christian ethics, but just the simple principle of love or what have you. Either of these principles are in fact rules which always must be obeyed and have definite direction to them, in which case they are just like the law of God and function like the laws of God. The only question remaining is whether they conform to the law of God or violate the law of God. So either these rules, these principles are just like normal rules that are not compatible with anything. Or else they are mere empty phrases which allow people, in the name of law, in the name of being guided by the Spirit, to act in ways which are extremely unloving, contrary to the Spirit and contrary to Christlike behavior. So these phrases are either empty, in which case you can do things contrary to the biblical understanding of love and the Spirit and imitating Christ, or else they are full of content and concrete direction, in which case they're just like rules. So a person who says we don't have rules, we have love, either doesn't understand love or his concept, or else contradicts himself. A fifth comment to be made in response to the ruleless approach to Christianity is that the ruleless approach to Christian ethics allows for some very unethical and anti humanistic behavior. The reason for this is that when you set aside God's rules, what you are doing is replacing them with man's rules that allows you to impose your own will on people as you arbitrarily see fit. When God's rules are put aside because we don't want rules and ethics, then we're going to eventually have to have some principle by which we live, and that's going to have to be our own rule. And when you follow your own will and you're going to impose that arbitrarily as you see fit, and people will suffer for it. For instance, the rule less approach to Christianity permits men to be extremely cruel to other men in order to achieve whatever goals are set by their principles. Let's say the principle we have is that of love, so that we want to have a very loving society. Well, if we don't follow the rules set down by God, then our principles, that is to be loving, could conceivably lead us to kill, for instance, segregationists in order to achieve the loving society that we envision. That is, we can do some very unloving things in the name of love, some very unpeaceful things in the name of peace. Once God's law is set aside for vague principles, human law will become absolutized and will in principle, and I think also in history, always lead to tyranny and oppression. You simply cannot do away with rules altogether. To reject the lordship of Christ expressed through revealed rules is to be placed under the dominion and sway of someone's whims, or at best the authorized interpreters of those vague Christian principles as they are applied to our situations in life. So point five has been that the rule less approach to Christianity opens the door to unethical and anti humanistic behavior. And my sixth point finally is that the ruleless approach to Christianity, the idea that Christian ethics is devoid of external rules, ironically turns out to be inspired, which I'll get this right. The ruleless approach to Christianity is ironically inspired by the desire to avoid legalism that ends up by introducing its own form of legalism, the legalism that substitutes man's law for God's law. The person who says we don't have rules in Christian ethics doesn't want to be a legalist. We don't want to get into laws and regulations, external restraints, but in the end that person reintroduces a form of legalism, the legalism that puts in the place of God's direction, man's own direction. And so this permits repression, permits arbitrary government. It means that we set up our own rules or applications of the principles. We set up our own rules and like the Pharisees, then require people to follow our rules. And that of course is the worst sort of legalism will worship. So on the one hand we see that those who don't like rules and Christianity ethics are very antinomian. And yet on the other hand they are also very legalistic. And that's certainly an odd combination. They are antinomian legalists. They reject rules, God's rules, thereby being antinomian, only to replace them with human rules, thereby being legalistic. So you have antinomian legalist. I trust then that we have refuted the view that Christianity does not have an ethic of external rules. It's difficult to take even this short amount of time and to deal with this subject and then to go on, because we need to appreciate the fact that in our day and age, this outlook is just not understood, it's not appreciated, it's not endorsed and followed, it's not applied, it's not played out, it's not the prevailing and guiding mentality or understanding. The vast majority of Christian writers are against external rules in Christian ethics, thinking that that isn't what characterizes the Christian lifestyle and behavior. And yet we see that in the first place, if there are any rules at all, they must be externalizable rules. And in the second place, we have seen that you can't get rid of rules in Christian ethics. And therefore external rules are in fact characteristic of our approach to ethics. Any questions now on this major premise or building block of our normative course in Christian ethics? Christian ethics must be characterized by external rules. It must be possible to lay down rules that can be put in writing rules that people are to keep. Even in the age of the New Covenant, with the internalized power of the Holy Spirit, we must have rules to keep. Okay, well, then, let's look at what rules God has given us to follow. In our past courses, we have put emphasis on the goal of Christian ethics. We have put emphasis on the motive of Christian ethics. And we have studied these things, first of all, so that it would be very clear, not only to others, but to ourselves, that we are not wooden legalists in our study of God's law, that when we go about getting norms for Christian ethics, we are not by any means suppressing or forgetting, ignoring or downplaying or somehow despising the idea that the fruit of the Spirit, the Beatitudes, love seeking, God's kingdom, my neighbor's well being, my own well being, none of these things have been set aside. The law of God is understood in the context of the kind of people we should be and the kind of changes we should be trying to make in our world. So we have studied the situation, we have studied motivation for ethics, just so it'd be clear that when we finally do get around to looking at the law of God, it's seen in its proper context. And you can tell from my introductory remarks already this morning that I'm trying to make very clear that our understanding of the law of God is an understanding in terms of Christianity being uniquely a religion of salvation by grace, grace alone, and that the Christian understanding, the unique Christian understanding of salvation by grace alone, uses godliness and grace as interrelated concepts, that the two must mutually work with one another to present a truly biblical or Christian understanding of salvation by grace. I've taken time to point out now that we have to have external rules and ethics. I would remind you also that as we begin to look at the law of God, we are not talking about some kind of dry and boring casuistry. We're looking at a law rather, that is for our good. As we've seen in the situational approach or teleological or consequential approach to ethics. The law is for our good, and therefore we should delight in it. Moreover, as we saw in the motivational and personalistic perspective, the law is the definition of love, and so we should rejoice in that as the expression of love. The law, therefore, is not dry or dull or boring or wooden. The law is for our good, and it's something that shows us how to love. Indeed, Psalm 19, I think, sets before us very well the attitude we should have, as we approach in a very positive and concrete way, the question of God's word and the norms for living as they are found in God's law. The heavens declare the glory of God. The firmament shows his handiwork, Day unto day utter speech, and night unto night shows knowledge. There is no speech nor language, their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoices as a strong man to run his course. His going forth is from the end of the heavens and his circuit to the end of it. There is nothing hid from the heat thereof. The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul. The testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise and simple. The precepts of of Jehovah are right Rejoicing the heart, Rejoicing the heart. The commandment of Jehovah is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of Jehovah is clean, enduring forever. The ordinances of Jehovah are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yes, than much fine gold, sweeter also than honey in the droppings of the honeycomb. The precepts of Jehovah are to be desired, desired more than honey to the taste, more than gold in terms of its value. And so we aren't going to approach the law with any kind of apologetic attitude that. Well, as a matter of fact, I guess we have to look at the law of God. It's our delight, it's our desire to have the law of God. It is no burden to us. It restores our soul, causes us joy, and is a source of wisdom and reward for us. In fact, the law, we believe the law of God will actually facilitate an ethic that is truly personalistic and consequential, one that brings us personal delight and factually accomplishes God's purposes in the world. A full and a complete view of the law will lead inevitably to. To the other perspectives themselves. To understand the normative approach to Christian ethics, we must begin with the revelation of God in general. In one sense, we want to say that the basis for. For our life, the norm for our living, is going to be the revealed will of God. That means we need to look at general and special revelation. And then we need to take up the whole question of Scripture as it reveals to us more particularly the character of God, so that revelation and the character of God will be our ultimate norm. And then we'll see how these ultimate norms finally come to gain expression in specific precepts of the law of God. And then we'll be dealing with attacks on the law of God as binding in ethics today. But this is the convenient place. And so, though it's a few moments early, we'll stop and come back and then study revelation and God himself as the norms for our living.