Dr Greg Bahnsen - Normative Ethics: The Validity of Old Testament Law Pt 2 (Part 11)

We have come to the. Our Heavenly Father. Again, we thank you that we have opportunity to study your Word, to do so unmolested. We thank you that you have given us your Holy Spirit, that we might understand your Word and it might not be obscure to us. We pray that that Spirit might indeed strengthen us today to be obedient servants of the Word of God, that we wouldn't simply be hearers of it, but doers as well. For it's in Jesus name we pray. Amen. We've come to the point in our outline of normative ethics where we are considering the Old Testament law of God, the commandments of God revealed throughout the Old Testament, and whether they would be valid for Christians living in the era of the New Testament or the New Covenant. And my approach has been to begin with the prima facie answer to this question. First of all, looking at passages like second Timothy chapter three, where Paul teaches us that every Old Testament Scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness, and inductively considering the practice of New Testament writers, the practice of Jesus and Paul in particular, in quoting the Old Testament to their opponents or to their followers. It would seem from this practice, as well as Paul's general statement, that the law is valid today. Then we secondly step back to the Old Testament. Considered the theology of law in the Old Testament and the premises that were brought out there all pointed to the fact that the law was understood and essentially the way it should be understood today. And as part of that understanding in the Old Testament, the theology of the Old Testament taught the law's perpetual validity. God had not given just an arbitrary code of morality that could be easily superseded or set aside that God had given eternal principles of justice, right and wrong. Our third step, which is the last lecture we had, was to consider the explicit evidence of the New Testament. That is to consider the passage Matthew 5, 17, 19, where Jesus takes up the specific question of his relationship to the Old Testament law of God, its commandments. And we saw there that Jesus twice denied that he had come to abrogate the law of God. He asserted the eternal validity of the principles of God's law, each and every one of those principles, every jot and tittle, and then made application of this, warning people against even teaching that the least of the commandments could be broken with impunity. So thus far we've had three lines of evidence that would seem to support the continuing validity of God's law in our day. Matthew 5, especially verse 19, it seems to me, shows us without any question that we must presume that Old Testament standing laws continue to be morally binding in the New Testament until they are rescinded or modified in application by further revelation. It isn't as though the Old Testament sacrificial laws or dietary laws cannot be changed or their application altered. It's simply that we don't have the prerogative to do that, that any such change must rest upon the specific revelation of the Lawgiver Himself. Now I'd like to take things a step further today by considering a fourth line, what I consider a confirmatory line on the three previous ways of answering our question. And that will be to consider various theological theses which undergird the validity of the law today. And I'll be looking specifically at the covenant as it's understood in terms of the triune God. First of all. Then, if we look at the triune God, we begin with God himself and a consideration of his character. Character. We've said before that there's a sense in which our lives are to aim at being like God. We are to strive to be like God. However, there are two ways to strive to be like God. One is the Satanic way of striving to be like God. Remember how Satan tempted Adam and Eve to become gods, determining for themselves good and evil by eating of the fruit that God had forbidden them from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So that is a way of becoming like God, which of course is not endorsed in the Scripture or recommended. The second way to be like God is patterned after the second Adam, not the first Adam. It's patterned after Jesus Christ, who led a life of perfect obedience to God, who came to do the will of God. Jesus Christ, when he was on earth, taught that we were to live by every word that proceeded from the mouth of God. He recognized that when God spoke, men must obey that those who are made in the likeness of God must imitate God. By being like God in holiness, they are to submit to the will of God. In Hebrews 4:24 we see that the renewed image of God that Jesus Christ makes possible for the Christian is indeed being made over in righteousness and true holiness. Therefore, instead of audacious attempts to be like God as we see the satanic temptation, Jesus Christ taught that men should be like God by submitting to the will of God. In Matthew 5:48, Jesus said, Therefore you are to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect. John Murray, in commenting on this passage and principles of conduct, says, we cannot suppress the generic character of this statement. You therefore shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect. It covers the whole range of divine perfection as it bears upon human behavior, and it utters the most ultimate consideration regulative of human disposition and conduct. The reason of the biblical ethic is God's perfection. The basic criterion of ethical behavior is God's perfection. The ultimate goal of ethical life is conformity to God's perfection. And shall we say that this standard can ever cease to be relevant? It is to trifle with sanctities which ever bind us as creatures of God made in his image to think that anything less than perfection conformable to the Father's own could be the norm and the goal of the believer's ethic. See Murray sees here that God expects of his people nothing less than full conformity to his holy character in all of their thoughts, words, and deeds. They must emulate his perfection in every aspect of their lives. Now where do we find the standard of God's perfection? Where do we see the holiness of God displayed in full for us? In Leviticus 19:2, God says that his holiness is the model for human conduct, as that conduct is directed by the law. God says, you shall be holy for I, the Lord your God am holy. That is precisely the model that is laid down for us in 1st Peter 1:15 16. For Peter says, but like the Holy One who called you be holy yourselves also in all your behavior, because it is written, you shall be holy for I am holy. There can be no reduction of the holiness of God, no reduction of the holy standards of God in any age. That is the permanent requirement of God for all men. Now when we think about the holiness of God and the perfection of God as being a moral standard and one that is an unmitigated moral standard, and we look at the Old Testament law of God, considering whether it might be a norm for Christian living, it seems to me that the alternatives are to say either that that Old Testament law was not a model of God's holiness, that is, it was requiring more than his holiness would require, or that it was requiring less than his holiness would require, and that therefore the New Testament rectifies that deficiency or excess or on the other hand, we have to say that the New Testament is less than holy because it departs from the Old Testament law of God. Or we can say that the New Testament upholds the same standard as the Old Testament and that that same standard in both testaments is one of perfect holiness. Now, the theological deficiencies of the first two alternatives should be rather clear, because either in the Old Testament or in the New Testament on those two alternatives. What you have is God, who is perfect, giving us something that is less than perfect, either overbearing in its demands or lenient in its demands, and therefore not giving us a guide. Not that will enable us to emulate his perfection. So if we just consider the permanent requirement of emulating God's perfect character, and if we consider the holiness of God, we have to come to the conclusion theologically that the New Testament ethic is going to be identical with the perfect Old Testament ethic. The Bible teaches us that the Lord has provided a guide and standard for living in what Paul deems in Romans 7:12, the holy law of God. The law is a transcript of the holiness of God on a creaturely level, being the ultimate standard of human righteousness in any area of life, for it reflects the moral perfection of its author, God. The intimate relation which the law bears to the very person of God was indicated in the Old Testament by the fact that the law was originally written by the finger of God and then deposited in the ark of the covenant, which typified the throne and the presence of God in the holy of holies, or the holiest place. According to the Bible Revelation 15:4, God alone is holy. Only God can be called holy. Jesus says in Mark 10:18 that only God can be called good. And yet in the Bible God's law is called both holy and good. And as such, obedience to the law must be a permanent standard of human good and human holiness. God is perfect according to the Scriptures, Deuteronomy 32:4. His ways are perfect. And yet in Psalm 19:7 we are told that the law of the Lord is perfect as well. Every statute revealed by God authoritatively defines therefore the holiness, the goodness, and the perfection which God's people are to emulate in every age. The very character of God must point us to the fact that the law revealed in the Old Testament continues to be binding today. Leviticus 27:8 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy for I am the Lord your God, and ye shall keep my statutes and do them. A life that is truly consecrated to God, Moses said, is one which genuinely in holiness performs every dictate revealed by God. That is the way in which one is holy unto God, by remembering to do all my commandments, to use the language of Numbers 15:40. Now the law reflects the holiness of God, and God's holiness is our permanent standard of morality. The only question that might remain is, might God's character perhaps change between the Old and the New Testaments so that the law of the Old Testament, which perfectly reflected the perfect character of God. That law might become outdated or inappropriate in an age where God has changed his mind or his attitude, or God's moral character has somehow undergone a transformation. But as you can see just by the way I'm presenting this, this is really an utter impossibility from a theological standpoint. Malachi 3, 6. God declares, I am the Lord, I change not. That is one of the crucial theses, it seems to me, of Protestant and indeed Reformed theology, that God is an unchanging God. He is immutable. You see, if God were a mutable God, then there'd be. It isn't simply that we would lack an ever abiding law, abidingly valid law from God. We would lack confidence in God's plan of salvation as well. You see, to say that God can change his mind in the way things are to operate, the principles by which he is going to relate to humanity, is to challenge whether we can have any security of our salvation today. For God says that if we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved. However, for all we know, God could change his mind on that. If he's not immutable. God could decide that isn't the way of salvation or that that's inadequate as a way of salvation. And we could find out later that because of the fickle character of God, that our salvation was in jeopardy and is not reality. It's not certain at all. But nobody wants to say that about God when it comes to the good news of salvation. Surprisingly, some people want to say it when it comes to the standards of God by which he judges that we need to be saved. However. However, if God is immutable with respect to his promises, he is immutable with respect to his law as well. There is no variableness to be found in God. James 1:17 tells us, from everlasting to everlasting. He is God, David says in Psalm 92. And therefore, because God's character and holiness are unchanging, the law which reflects that holiness cannot be changed either. And that's why the Bible so often presents man's attitude toward God's law as an index of man's relationship with God himself. In Romans 8:1:8, Paul presents the contrast between those who walk according to the flesh or the sinful nature. Those who walk according to the Spirit, he says. Those who walk according to the Spirit have the ordinance of the law fulfilled within them, whereas those who are in the flesh cannot please God. The mind that is set on the flesh is in enmity with God. And so the basic difference between men today and Paul's way of putting it is whether they are hostile to the law of God or whether they keep the law of God based upon the Holy Spirit working in their lives. First, John 2, 4 puts it very plainly. The one who says, I have come to know him and does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. You know, that's awfully strong language. We might have expected John to be a little more polite. Might be the word that is used, might be a little more concerned with public relations. He might not have been so strong as to say that a person who doesn't keep the commandments of God and claims to be a Christian is a liar. He might simply be a little misled. He might be in need of further instruction. And John says, no, there's something. There's a basic deception involved in claiming to know the Lord and not being willing to follow the pattern of holiness laid down God's commandments. So the first line of theological confirmation of our answer, whether we're under the Old Testament law today as a norm for living, the first line of confirmation has been to consider the very character of God as the standard of morality, and that is an unchanging, holy, perfect character which is reflected in his law. The second line that I'd like to pursue, the second subordinate point, is to consider the nature of God's covenant with man. How does God relate to man in terms of salvation? What kind of arrangement has God made with men? I think that we should see the commonsensical nature of the premise that if something is sinful in the Old Testament is likewise sinful in the New Testament. And that's because moral standards are in a category very much different from, say, gasoline prices or artistic taste and all sorts of standards which are fluctuating in our age. God says in Psalm 89:34, My covenant I will not violate, nor will I alter the utterance of my lips. When God says something, when God lays down this is a principle by which he will relate to mankind, he does not alter the utterance of his lips. When the Lord speaks, his words stand firm forever. Psalm 111, 7, 8. All his precepts are trustworthy. They are established forever and ever to be performed with faithfulness and uprightness. God's precepts are established eternally, and therefore they must be performed in uprightness. In Luke 16:17, Jesus confirmed the very same perspective when he said, it's easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of the law to fail. The coming of God's Son did not do anything to change the righteous character of God's laws. When Christ came. It isn't as though the law of God became unrighteous or inadequate. Indeed, Christ came precisely to redeem us from our violations of that perfect law of God. As I've said, we can be very glad that God sticks by his word, that he doesn't alter the utterance of his lips, that he does not violate his covenant, because if he did, then his promises would not be sure, and that would include his promises of salvation to us today. John 10:35 Jesus tells us that whatever God says endures and cannot be emptied of validity. For the Word of God cannot be broken. He cannot break the Word of God. Think of a glass drinking cup. If you were to take a hammer and to break the glass, then you could pick and choose from between the shattered pieces of the glass which ones you wanted to keep, which ones you wouldn't want to keep. However, Jesus says, you can't do that to the Word of God. The Word of God cannot be broken. It cannot be emptied of validity. Obviously, a shattered glass doesn't hold water, and a broken scripture wouldn't hold water either. Jesus says, the Word of God cannot be broken. Isaiah 51:4 8 Hath said, Hearken unto me, my people, and give ear unto me, O my nation. For a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest. For a light of the people. My righteousness is near, my salvation is gone forth, and mine arm shall judge the people. The isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust. Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath. For the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner. But my salvation shall be forever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished. Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness. The people in whose heart is my law, fear ye not the reproach of men. Neither be ye afraid of their revilings, for the moth shall eat them up like a garment, for the worm shall eat them like wool. But my righteousness shall be forever, and my salvation from generation to generation. Notice how God's righteousness and its permanence is tied together with his salvation, enduring from generation to generation. The promises and the law the promises and the justice of God are equally permanent. This may very well be, by the way, Background to Old Testament Background to Jesus own study about the permanence of God's law. For here we see the declaration that the earth may pass away, but the justice of God will be permanent. And that's precisely what Jesus said when he said that heaven and earth may pass away, but God's word would not pass away. That indeed not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the law until everything else is finished. The Bible is divided into two testaments, as it's obvious to anybody who's read it. And yet the word testament is a bit misleading. It might be better to say that the Bible is divided up into the document of two covenants. Two covenants. Prior to the coming of Christ, men lived under the old covenant which anticipated the Messiah in the work of Satan salvation. Whereas after the coming of Christ and his saving work, we live under the new covenant. Luke 22:20 the Lord sucker Jesus made clear that what he instituted for his church was the sacrament of the new covenant. This is the new covenant in my blood, Jesus said. Now, within the old covenant scriptures, that is what we call the Old Testament, we find a few particular covenants, such as their covenant made with Abraham or with Moses or with David. The Abrahamic covenant is often characterized in terms of promise, whereas the Mosaic covenant is remembered for its element of law. There are those today who would tell us that new covenant believers are under the Abrahamic covenant of promise, but they are not under the Mosaic covenant with its laws. Now, in Galatians 3:21, Paul takes up that possibility that we'd be under one or the other of these covenants. And he says quite pointedly, is the law contrary to the promises of God? And his answer was, may it never be. He says that a covenant that was made 430 years cannot be disannulled by a covenant following it. Now that's interesting, because Paul is giving a principle about the relationship of covenants, isn't he? He says covenants do not operate to supersede one another. What they do is they supplement one another. So that the Mosaic covenant did not conflict with the Abrahamic covenant. It simply developed the Abrahamic covenant. It served the Abrahamic covenant. The fact that the Mosaic log is seen in harmony with the with the Abrahamic covenant in Paul's inspired outlook tells us that we cannot pick and choose between the covenants. The one coming 430 years later did not disannul the previous covenant. It developed the previous covenant. It's part of that covenant and it's out working through history. Paul spoke of Gentiles who were not part of the old covenant economy, which included the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants as strangers to the covenants of the promise. Ephesians 2:12. Paul says, Gentiles are strangers to the covenants of the promise. I want you to notice the plurality and singularity in that phrase. The covenants of the promise singular. There were many progressively revealed aspects to the single promise of God in the Old Testament. The covenants to which the Gentiles were strangers clearly included the Abrahamic, the Mosaic, and the Davidic covenants in Paul's theology. In fact, any reading of the Old Testament will show you that those covenants were made with the Jews. And so the covenants of the promise, the covenants plural would be Abraham, Moses, and David. And yet these are all called covenants of promise, of the singular promise. They are all developments of the one promise made to Abraham. I will be your God, you shall be my people. They are many administrations, if you will, of the one overall covenant. That's precisely what we mean by the covenant of grace, that all the covenants of God are unified under the one promissory character or one covenant of promise that God had made to save his people. The various covenants of the old covenant were all part of one program and one plan. Not only were they harmonious with one another, they were unified with the new covenant presented in Jeremiah 31, that covenant that is enjoyed by Christians today, according to Hebrews the eighth chapter. And we know that they are unified with the new covenant because the new covenant says that the terms of the new covenant will be that the old covenant law will be written upon the heart. So we can see quite clearly from beginning to end, God has one covenant, is all worked together, all the various administrations of that one promise. The various covenants work together as one covenant. Given the unity of God's covenant throughout history, then it's true that the Christian living under the new covenant is obligated to keep the law of the old covenant. And the reason for that is that if these are one and the same covenant, the stipulations of the covenant must be the same. Every covenant established by God not only declares his gracious work on behalf of his people, but it lays down stipulations which they are to observe as a sign of fidelity and love to him. That's why the giving of the law at Sinai. In Exodus 20:23, we see first of all the declaration of God's gracious deliverance of Israel from bondage. God identifies himself as the Lord of the covenant, rehearses his gracious dealings with his people in Deuteronomy 1:4 before he goes on to lay down the law. So the background of obedience to the law is God's deliverance. And there we see how clearly the Mosaic covenant was a gracious covenant. I think that in one sense I have already dealt with it quite clearly. The covenants of the one promise is a phrase that deals with that. But I'll be coming back today. That as well. Just as an aside here, I think for the most part what John Zen's attacks is not even crucial to covenant theology. The idea of a supra temporal agreement between the Father and the Son, the pact of redemption, if you will. Although I have no difficulty with that idea, it certainly is not essential to what separates dispensationalists and covenant. The theologians. The whole issue is how you relate the Old and the New Testament in terms of their legal principles or the provisions for the sacraments and inclusion in the covenant matters like that. But yes, we will be coming back to this, Okay, by seeing that the law of God is presented against the background of redemption. What we see illustrated is that even the Mosaic covenant was a gracious covenant. The law which we read of in the Old Testament was called a provision of God's grace in Psalm 119, 29, 62, 64. Every covenant carries stipulations which are to be kept, And yet there is one basic covenant of grace. And therefore if there is one covenant, it would be inferred by good and necessary deduction that there would be one set of stipulations that are to be followed. That's why it's not at all surprising that Jeremiah 31 tells us that the revealed terms of the new covenant are that we are to keep the law of God. And it doesn't say a new law of God, a substituted law of God, an altered law of God, but the well known law of God, the law that was known in Jeremiah's own day as the Mosaic stipulations. This is the covenant that will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord, I will put my laws into their minds, and I will write them upon their hearts. So the establishment of the new covenant does not imply the abrogation of the Mosaic law or its depreciation in any sense. The idea of a new law is ruled out altogether, for it is a well known law of God which he says he will write upon the hearts of the new covenant believers. Psalm89:34 My covenant I will not violate, nor will I alter the utterance of my lips. We come back to that and see then provisions for the sacraments and inclusion in the covenant, matters like that. But yes, we will be coming back to this, Okay, by seeing that the law of God is presented against the background of redemption. What we see illustrated is that even the Mosaic covenant was a gracious covenant. The law which we read of in the Old Testament was called a provision of God's grace in Psalm 119, verses 29, 62, 64. Every covenant carries stipulations which are to be kept. And yet there is one basic covenant, covenant of grace. And therefore, if there is one covenant, it would be inferred by good and necessary deduction that there would be one set of stipulations that are to be followed. That's why it's not at all surprising that Jeremiah 31 tells us that the revealed terms of the new covenant are that we are to keep the law of God. And it doesn't say a new law of God, a substituted law of God, an altered law of God, but the well known law of God, the law that was known in Jeremiah's own day as the Mosaic stipulations. This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord, I will put my laws into their minds, and I will write them upon their hearts. So the establishment of the new covenant does not imply the abrogation of the Mosaic law or its depreciation in any sense. The idea of a new law is ruled out altogether, for it is a well known law of God which he says he will write upon the hearts of the new covenant believers. Psalm89, 34. My covenant I will not violate, nor will I alter the utterance of my lips. We come back to that and see then that God is a covenant keeping God, that God's covenant law is one, and he will not alter the utterance of his lips. He will not alter his covenant, and that is to say, he will not alter the stipulations of his covenant either. Times may change and human laws may be altered, but God's law is eternally just. It is a valid, permanently valid standard of right and wrong. In fact, one of the standards laid down. One of the stipulations laid down in the law of God is that his people were not to have a double standard that they used in measuring things. Deuteronomy 25, 13, 16, Leviticus 19:35, 37. God teaches that it is ungodly to use one measure, a yardstick with some people and Then use an altered measure with others. Proverbs 20:10. Divers weights and divers measures, both of them are alike. Abomination, toe vah to the Lord. That's one of the strongest words possible to express God's deprecation for something. The idea that there would be a double standard, diverse weights and measures is an abomination in the eyes of God. And if it's an abomination for God's people to use a double standard, you can be sure that it would be abominable to suggest that God himself has a double standard of morality. God abhors the double standard because he believes that justice requires judging people on a par. God will judge a rapist that lived in Old Testament Israel in the same way that he will judge a rapist who lives in 20th century New York. God does not have two standards of morality. His covenant he will not alter. So we've seen the character of God, his perfection, his unchanging holiness. We've seen God's covenant is one covenant. He does not alter the utterance of his lips. The third subordinate theological principle that I'd have us look at in confirmation of the conclusion of to which we've come already is that Christ's perfect righteousness is a model for our behavior, and yet that righteousness was a righteousness found in utter fidelity and obedience to the law of God. The Scriptures regard the work of Christ, the work of Christ as that of obedience. In defining the purpose of his own Messianic advent. Christ said in John 6:38, I have come down from heaven to do the will of him who sent me. The pivotal event in the accomplishment of redemption was God's laying down his life and taking it up again. And in doing this, According to John 10, Christ was obeying His Father's commandment and as a suffering servant. The suffering servant of Isaiah 52 and 53, Galatians chapter four tells us that Christ was subjected to the law so that we might be, According to Romans 5:19, justified by his obedience. Obedience to the will and the commandment of God was crucial in the life and the ministry of our Savior. After all, how could he be our Great High Priest? How could he be the sacrifice that would discharge the curse of the law against our sin? If he were imperfect, if he himself were a law breaker, as the prophet of the law, Christ rendered its proper interpretation. He tore down the distorting traditions of men that had been built up around it. And Christ has been exalted now as our King, the Messianic King as well, and as the king, he is enforcing the law of God. We might readily expect this all to be true, since, According to Hebrews 1, Christ is the exact representation of God's nature. Since the law is a transcript of the holiness of God, Christ as the exact representation of God's nature would embody that law perfectly in his own person and behavior. And thus Christ challenged his opponents in a way which would be shocking for any other person when he questioned them, which one of you can convict me of sin? And of course not one could. Christ alone could declare, as he did in John 15:10, I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. Christ was tempted in every point with respect to obeying the commandments of God. And yet Hebrews 4:15 says, being tempted in all points, even as we are, he was yet without sin. Christ was the perfect lamb of God, the perfect priest, the perfect prophet, the perfect king. As the Old Testament had foretold in Isaiah 11, 5, righteousness will be the belt about his loins. And the Messiah could declare, thy law is within my heart. That according to Hebrews 10 quoting Psalm 40. And so we read in Galatians 4:4, that when the fullness of time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law. Christ was not above the law. Christ was not lawless. Christ was submissive to the law. That's why in his life he directed people to keep the law of God. When he healed people, he told them to offer the gift commanded by Moses. He kept the borders of his garment. The Scripture tells us. He even had the tassels that were required with the law of God. On his garment. He paid the temple tax. He regarded the purity of the temple. He directed his followers to be conformed to the laws of demands. He told the rich young ruler to keep the commandments. He reinforced the Old Testament law with his summary of the two love commandments from the law itself. He indicted the Pharisees for making God's commandments void through the traditions of men. He insisted that the most trite or insignificant matters of the law should not be left undone. That's why Herman Ritterboss is so to the point when he says of the teaching of Jesus, it is the ethics of obedience in the full sense of the word. If, therefore, the question is asked by what Jesus commandments are regulated, the ultimate answer is only by God's will, as it is revealed in his law. Jesus ethical preaching does not have a deeper ground than the Law as the revelation of God's will to Israel, the people of the covenant. Again and again it is the law as and only the law, the meaning and purpose of which is also the meaning and purpose of Jesus Commandments. Ritterbaugh says that in his book the Coming of the Kingdom, pages 290 and 291, Christ submitted to the law of God even to the very point of suffering the prescribed penalty of the law for sin. He died the death of a criminal, taking upon himself the curse of the law, according to Colossians 2, thereby canceling the handwriting which was against us because of the law. Isaiah 53 had predicted that he would be wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities. Jehovah would lay on him the iniquity of us. All sin must meet the dreadful judgment of God. And God does not save sinners without righteousness and peace kissing each other other. And so Christ in dying four law breakers. The one who had not broken the law in becoming sin, the one who was the righteousness of God, that we might become the righteousness of God in him. Christ was seeing to it that God was both just and the justifier of his people. The very fact that Christ had to die is one of the most stirring and dramatic evidences that the law of God cannot be laid aside. If the law of God could have been laid aside, God could have atoned. God could have saved his people apart from blood atonement. If the law of God could simply be canceled. If God could just say, well, we'll just call it off now. Let's just pretend that that's not necessary any longer, that you not steal and not kill, and you're not false witness and all the rest. Then God could in that way abrogate the judgment that would come upon those who violate those standards. But God could not abrogate those principles. And therefore Christ had to die. As Hebrews 9:23 26 says, it was necessary that Christ offer up himself in sacrifice for sin. It was necessary. It wasn't just God trying to influence our morality or draw out our sympathy. It was rather necessary in terms of God's character that his Son should die. Our justification according to Paul is rooted in the obedience of Christ. Romans 5, verses 17 to 19. He made the one who did not know sin to be sin on our behalf in order that we might become the righteousness of God in him. So quite clearly Christ had to keep the law. Christ did keep the law, and otherwise we would not be saved. Now the Bible tells us that with the Holy Spirit now indwelling Christ's people, the Holy Spirit now indwelling believers, we are to grow up to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. Ephesians 4:13, 15 Christian ethics is in a sense a matter of imitating Christ. Imitating Christ Paul tells us, let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. Jesus who humbled himself in obedience. Philippians 2 indeed, 1 Peter 2, 21 says that we are to follow in the steps of his righteous behavior. 1st Peter 2:21. For hereunto were ye called because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps. We should follow in the steps of Jesus Christ. We are united to Jesus Christ and therefore should be holy people according to First Corinthians 6. Now John expresses the point very clearly, the point that I'm driving at in First John 2, verses 5 and 6 when he says, hereby we know that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk even as he walked. Let's bring together this evidence. How did Jesus walk? Well, he had to make the standard of his life the law of God. If he didn't, he would not be a perfect sacrifice. If he didn't, if he didn't necessarily die according to the law's demands and we would not be saved. To be our Savior, Jesus had to be lawful rather than lawless. And John says we should walk in his steps. Peter says we should walk in his steps. We are united to Christ and therefore should imitate his lawful behavior. As a fourth step in this theological confirmation, we consider the work of the Holy Spirit as well. When we think of Christian ethics, we should think of a Spirit led and Spirit filled life. We've already seen that in our course on personalistic ethics, the Holy Spirit gives new life to us According to John 3. He renews us according to Titus 3 and enables us to make profession of faith in Jesus Christ. According to 1st Corinthians 12, the Holy Spirit illumines the believer according to Ephesians 1, leads him in Romans 8, writes God's word upon his heart in 2 Corinthians 3, so that by the Spirit we can understand the things freely given to us by God. It is this same Spirit which seals believers Ephesians 1 and Ephesians 4, indwelling the believer with an inner refreshment, an ever flowing river of living water, John 14, Romans 8 and others. Indeed, the Spirit is the very down payment of our eternal inheritance before God. Ephesians 1:14 so the Christian can be characterized as a spiritual man, Spirit led spirit guided man by the Spirit, the Christian is to put to death the sinful deeds of his body. Romans 8:3 for the Spirit produces holiness in the lives of God's people. If the Christian is filled with the Spirit According to Ephesians 5:18, his life will manifest worship, joyful praise, thanksgiving and submission to others. Christians, According to Galatians 5, before the fruit of the Spirit is laid down, are to walk by the Spirit. And when they do, they will evidence the harvest of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. Christian living is living by the Spirit. But now when the Spirit brings forth this fruit, what is the standard that we are to understand that we are following? Obviously we pursue the ideal, these personality traits of love, joy, peace and all the rest. But it's interesting that Paul immediately adds, the reason these things are our ideals is because against such there is no law. Galatians 5 says, There is no law against them. That's what gives them their permanent validity and importance. Romans 8:4 tells us that the requirement of the law is fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. So it's quite clear that the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit brings about lawful behavior in the Christian. The holiness produced by the Holy Spirit is the holiness of conformity to God's never changing law. Ezekiel 36:2027 had prophesied this. God said, I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you will be careful to observe my ordinances. First John 3:24 we get the sure test of whether someone is abiding the Spirit is abiding that person or not. First John 3:24. And he that keeps his commandments abides in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us by the Spirit which He gave us. Here's how we know the Spirit that He gave us, and the Spirit that He gave us leads us to keep his commandments. So it seems that first of all, God's holiness is the standard of our living, is the norm, and yet that's an unchanging holiness reflected in his law. Therefore his law would be our abiding standard today. God's covenant is unchanging. He does not alter the utterance of his lips. If God makes covenant, and that's an unchanging covenant. One covenant of grace the stipulations would be the same today as they were previously. Jesus Christ came necessarily keeping the law in order to be our Savior and his life. His lawful life is the pattern of our conduct today. And fourthly, the Holy Spirit sanctifies us so that we will keep the ordinance of the law. God's Spirit dwells within us that we might walk in his statutes. The fifth and final confirmation that we can add here is that virtually every evangelical Christian will grant that Christians must live by faith and by love. Today, Christians must live by faith and by love. However, if we understand the principles of faith and love, we'll see that both of these as the central principle principles of the Christian's life point to his obligation to keep the law of God. The Christian ethic is one characterized by the grace of God. Second Corinthians 1:12 says, by the grace of God we have had our behavior in the world. And in First Timothy 6:12 we read that we are to fight the good fight of faith. So God's grace and faith, our faith toward God, are characteristics, central characteristics of the Christian's life. And yet the Bible says that God's grace operates within the parameters of God's law. In justifying his people, God does not violate his own justice. God's law is a gracious law, and the two support each other. Romans 3:26 Psalm 119:29 God's grace is lawful and God's law is gracious. After Paul tells us in Ephesians 2 that we are saved by grace through faith, he immediately adds, we are God's workmanship expected to walk in good works, so that although it's popular for many people to look at the laws and inter intolerable burden upon those who live by grace. First John 5:3 says that it is not burdensome to God's people at all. The law is my delight, David said in Psalm 119 and Paul wrote in Romans 7, I delight in the law of God. After the inward man God's grace leads us to support the law of God. Titus 2:11 14 tells us that when Christ came into this world, when the grace of God appeared, bringing salvation to us, it teaches us to renounce every lawless deed. Moreover, if the Christian is to live by faith, we must remember that Romans 3:31 teaches, do we then nullify the loss through faith? May it never be. On the contrary, we establish the law. Faith establishes the law. And that's why James 2 is not difficult for a theonomist to understand. James says that justification indeed can be by obedience, because faith and lawful obedience are part of one complex. Faith without works is vain. It is dead. Now we can say the same thing with respect to the Christian ethic of love. That if we really understand the biblical concept of love, that will lead us to keep the law of God. Indeed, when Jesus summarizes all of the duty of man in terms of the two love commandments, it's interesting that Jesus himself says that our duty can be found in the law of God. Jesus says, you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart. Jesus also says, love your neighbor as yourself. And in saying this, he was quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus, quoting two laws of God. So the summary command of love is itself part of the law of God. To say that God's law is abrogated today would be to say that the love commandment is abrogated today. You can't have love without law, because love indeed is an expression of the law of God. And indeed the Bible tells us that love leads to the keeping of all the law. Jesus says, if you love me, keep my commandments. So by way of summary here at the end of this lecture, we can see that a theological study of the covenant made, the covenant of grace made by the triune God, that the principles involved that theological complex point us to the ever abiding validity of God's commandments. God's holy character does not change his covenant stipulations. He does not alter. His Son came providing a pattern for lawful living for us. His Holy Spirit empowers the keeping of God's law and the principles of faith and love confirm establish the law of God in the life of the the believer. Christians cannot be antinomian either in the licentious, mystical or dispensational ways.