Dr Greg Bahnsen - Normative Ethics: The Validity of Old Testament Law (Part 10)

That genuine Christianity proclaims man's moral duties in the context of setting forth the good news of salvation by grace alone. We have further seen that these moral duties can be stated as laws or commandments which ought to be obeyed, despite the variety of literary expressions which underlie them. However, our attention has been focused for the most part on the New Testament, or at least we've left it an open question whether the Old Testament is still to be followed. So we come then, in this particular lecture to a consideration of whether the Old Testament moral duties, the Old Testament law, the commandments of God found revealed through Moses, whether these are binding on New Testament believers. The Scripture teaches us that the entire Bible, including the Old Testament, is the inspired word of God. Very few evangelicals, if any, and nobody in the Reform camp is going to deny that much. It's natural to ask, however, whether the moral duties that are revealed in that inspired Old Testament by way of exhortation, general command, illustrative application, precedent, etc. Whether these are likewise binding upon men today. It seems to me that the Apostle Paul clearly answered that question in the affirmative. For according to him, all Scripture is inspired of God, and accordingly is profitable for instruction in righteousness. 2nd Timothy 3:16. It was just because Scripture is inspired by God that it will be profitable for instruction in righteousness, not simply instruction in the way of redemption, not simply instruction in historical background, not simply instruction by way of promise and anticipation, but instruction for righteous living profitable for instruction in righteousness. And when Paul spoke of scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16, we must remember that he was referring first and foremost to the inspired Scripture of the Old Testament. The New Testament wasn't completed and compiled by that point. And speaking of the Scripture, Paul was referring to the Old Testament Scripture. And he said that this Old Testament Scripture, as inspired by God, was accordingly profitable for instruction in righteousness. Indeed, Paul taught that the ignoring of one's moral duties as revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures would actually leave a person inadequately equipped in terms of good works. So Paul went on to say in verse 17, that the man of God may be perfectly furnished unto every good work. Now, if that is one of the purposes and goals of the Old Testament, to see to it that godly men are perfectly equipped for good work. It stands to reason that if we reduce any of that Old Testament to that degree, we are going to have reduced the adequacy of of our righteous living. We will not be perfectly equipped for every kind of good work if we reduce some of the moral exhortation that Paul says, was given for our instruction in righteousness. And therefore the Christians moral duties, I maintain, are revealed throughout the Bible. We are not New Testament ethicists any more than we are Old Testament ethicists. We are biblical ethicists. We take the whole Bible into account when we decide what decisions we must make, not only in doctrine but also in life. Our duties are revealed throughout the Bible, old as well as New Testament. As Jesus said in Matthew 4, 4, man should live by every word that is proceed from the mouth of God. It's interesting that Jesus, in saying that in Matthew 4, was quoting the law of God, the book of Deuteronomy, precisely at a point that was questioning in Deuteronomy, the context of Deuteronomy, the willingness of God's people to obey everything that he has laid down for them in his law. Jesus, man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Now, a prominent portion of the Old Testament which is given over to the revelation of man's moral duties is the Mosaic Law, the commandments revealed through Moses in the Pentateuch. The commandments found in this section of the Bible would, on the very face of it, strike us as being quite relevant and obviously authoritative as moral duties for the Christian, a Christian whose faith and life are to be defined by the whole Bible. You see, there's just something theologically obvious about the binding force of God's commandments as they are found in the law of Moses. After all, and I think this is the salient question, why should it be thought that the unchanging God has now changed his mind about the ethical state, standard by which men should live? If it was immoral to trip a blind man in the Old Testament, as it was According to Leviticus 19:14, why would it become moral to do it in the New Testament? One must strain for some kind of imaginative, creative and speculative way to offer a reason why it's now all right to trip blind people, whereas in the Old Testament it wasn't. Why would God change his mind on a matter like that? Now, Jesus very simply assumed the moral authority of the Old Testament. Often enough he would respond to his opponents simply by asking the question, have you not received read? Example would be Matthew 19:4. Have you not read? When you have the Old Testament, you should know what to do. And Jesus often cited the laws of the Old Testament as binding upon his hearers. An example would be Matthew 19:17, 19. And he said unto him, why askest thou concerning that me? Why askest me concerning that which is good one There is who is good. But if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandment he saith unto him, which and Jesus said, thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, honor thy father and thy mother. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. So Jesus often quoted the Old Testament commandments both inside and outside the decalogue, by the way, not just the Ten Commandments. He sometimes would add, love your neighbor as yourself. In fact, he would summarize the law with that particular extra decological commandment. And sometimes he would add things like, don't defraud right in with the list of the moral duties of the Ten Commandments. But my point is that Jesus could respond to his opponents by saying, have you not read? He could cite the laws of the Old Testament as binding upon his hearers. And in similar fashion, Paul took it for granted that if something was revealed as a moral duty in the Old Testament, it was still a moral duty after the coming of Christ. Accordingly, he unreservedly clenched moral arguments by citing the Old Testament law. Sometimes he cited the law in general, as he did in First Corinthians 14:34. Doesn't the law itself tell you about a woman without long hair? Or in some specific form? He would sometimes cite the Old Testament law, as in First Corinthians 9, verse 9, where Paul cites the law, you shall not muzzle the ox as it treads. And he applies this quite authoritatively to the church. Now then, there are those today who tell us that while it's true the New Testament sometimes cites the Old Testament, that's just a way of showing us which of the Old Testament laws continue to be binding. We should assume that all of the Old Testament laws are not binding and only keep those that the New Testament happens to remain. Repeat. Well, nothing could be further from the Spirit. Of the passages that I have been citing. Nobody Jesus, Paul, or anybody else quotes the Old Testament in any kind of apologetic or selective way, saying, well now, in general, you wouldn't want to keep these Old Testament laws, but here's an exception or two for you. Jesus and Paul did not cite the Old Testament in order selectively to indicate to us which Old Testament laws are still binding. That is, they weren't making a discrimination for us. They didn't say, well, now these laws are binding. You don't get that spirit, that thrust. You certainly don't get any statement to that effect in any of the passages we're talking about where they Say now these laws out of the whole mass of the others still binding, there's no suggestion, no hint that they are trying to make certain archaic moral duties once again valid, as though they know they're passed away. And now they're trying to reaffirm those and put them back onto the statute book for God's people. Rather, they cite the Old Testament law just because it was taken as morally binding in the gospel age. They don't cite the law saying now only these laws should be kept. They simply say, you know what the law says. The assumption being that if it's in the law, you know you're supposed to keep it. You see, you have two approaches here. One says, well, if it's in the law, the assumption is you don't have to keep it. But now look, we'll choose these out from the midst of, of all the others and tell you to keep those. And I'm saying you don't find anything like that in these passages. Or you have, on the other hand, the simple assumption that if it's in the law, you must keep it. And that's why Paul could say, doesn't the law itself tell you you don't muzzle an ox when he treads? And after all, the point is, if it's in the law, you know you're supposed to be doing this. It's just because the law was taken as morally binding in the gospel age that they, they cited the Old Testament law in the way they did. The presupposition of that appeal to the Old Testament was the general authority of the Old Testament law for ethical matters, even as they assumed in the same way the general authority of the Old Testament in theological or historical matters. What I've been presenting to you here in these first few minutes of this lecture amounts to a prima facie answer to the question, are the Old Testament commandments binding today? And I've argued that in a prima facie way they would seem to be given Paul's statement that all scripture meaning Old Testament Scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness. Given the citation of the Old Testament by Jesus and Paul and the others, it certainly appears that the New Testament is using the Old Testament as a moral authority and specifically the Mosaic commandments. Now, as a second line of answering this question, what I'd like to do is to go to the Old Testament itself and try to inductively ascertain what the Old Testament tell us about the perpetual or non perpetual authority of the Mosaic commandments, the law of God. And so what I'd like to do is review certain basic premises about the law, as those premises are taught just in the Old Testament. Totally apart from what the New Testament commentary might be. What would a person be led to believe if he read accurately and fully the Old Testament on the question of the law of God and its validity? Well, in the first place, the Old Testament taught that God's law was perpetual in its principles. God's law was perpetual in its principles. After Adam fell into sin, we see that God immediately began to reveal certain commandments, certain moral duties. There was law in the world between Adam and Moses. God even gave laws to be kept to Abraham. He gave laws to Noah before that and to Abraham after him, and expected these statutes and laws to be observed. Genesis 18, verse 19. One indication of that. For I have known this is God speaking to Abraham. For I have known him to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of Jehovah to do righteousness and justice to the end that Jehovah may bring upon Abraham that which he has spoken of him. Or Genesis 26, verse 5, Because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes and my laws. So God was giving laws between Adam and Moses and and there's no suggestion when we finally get to the Mosaic Law, that God is now changing his moral order. Rather, the Mosaic Law seems to be nothing more but a specification. Further refining and precising of the implications of the laws earlier revealed an illustration. Prior to the giving of the Mosaic Law, God had destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality. Now, in the Mosaic Law, we find out that homosexuality is a capital offense, that God condemns homosexuality and it is to be publicly punished. It would appear, then, that the Mosaic Law is nothing more but a further elaboration on the moral standards God had been revealing all along. Or think also about the stipulation given to Noah that a murderer is to be executed. A man who takes another man's life is to have his blood be shed by man. In the Mosaic Law, we read that murderers are to be executed. However, we learn further there through progressive revelation, that a distinction is to be drawn between those who accidentally take another man's life and those who deal with premeditation and malice. So the Mosaic Law seems to be an elaboration upon, rather than substitution for the previous moral standards God had been given giving. There were laws revealed to men between Adam and Moses, and those laws were consistent with and were elaborated upon in the Mosaic commandments So God's law appears to be perpetual in its principles, given the way the Old Testament presents these laws. And indeed they should be seen as perpetual because they reflect the character of God himself, who is an unchanging God. Leviticus 20, verses 7 to 8 declare be holy, for I am Jehovah your God, and you shall keep my statutes and do them. This is how God's people sanctify themselves, becoming holy even as God is holy and imitating his perfection. Now the Old Testament taught that the law of the Lord was perfect. Psalm 19:7 says that it was holy, just and good, even as God himself is holy, just and good. Deuteronomy 12:28 and Nehemiah 9:13. So the first thing that the Old Testament would seem to teach us is that there is continuity between the revelation of God's commandments, between the pre Mosaic and the Mosaic period. That that continuity I could have added extended into the prophetic period as well, because the prophets brought their lawsuits against the people based on the Mosaic law that they were to be keeping. So there was continuity between the pre Mosaic, Mosaic and post Mosaic revelation of God's will. And that's exactly what an Old Testament saint would expect, given the fact that the principles of God's law are perpetual, seeing that they reflect the character of the unchanging God. The attributes of God's law in the Old Testament are the attributes of God himself. God's law reflects God's character, and God's character is unchanging. Therefore you would be led to believe that the law of God in its binding authority would be unchanging. So God's law is perpetual in its principles. Secondly, the Old Testament saints would have understood that God's law is thorough in its extent, perpetual in its principles, and thorough in its extent. God's commandments applied to matters of the heart and not simply to external affairs. In the Old Testament, God required his people to seek him with all their hearts and to circumcise their heart. Deuteronomy 4:29. But from thence ye shall seek Jehovah thy God, and thou shalt find when thou searchest after him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. The commandments of God expressed heartfelt religion. They were internal in their scope as well as external, and they applied to every area of life. Deuteronomy 6, verses 4 to 6 expresses this very graphically. Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy might and these words which I command thee this day shall be upon thy heart and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shall talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, when thou walkest by thy way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up, thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand they shall be for frontlets between thy eyes thou shalt write them upon the doorpost of thy house, and upon thy gate. In every aspect of life, whether you're leaving home or coming home, whether you're rising, whether you're sleeping, eating, drinking, whether you're relating to your children or to others, whether you're working or thinking with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind and might, every aspect of life is to be affected by the law of God, To keep the law of God at night and at day, at home and away from home, in plot and indeed, indeed man was to live by every word from God's mouth. Deuteronomy 8:36 says, Moreover, God's law was meant as a standard for all nations, not simply for Israel in the old Testament. Deuteronomy 4, verses 6 and 8 clearly taught that the commandments delivered by Moses to Israel were to be for Israel her wisdom in the sight of the nations, and that these nations would explain what nation is there, what great nation is there that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law? Because the nations which once occupied Canaan had violated the standard standards of God's law. God says in Leviticus 18, verses 24 to 27, that he will expel them from the land, even as he would expel Israel if she violated his laws. Deuteronomy 30, verses 17 and 18 God had the same moral standards for the Jew as he did for the Gentile. That's why Proverbs Proverbs 14:34 could say, Sin is a reproach to any people. So at least three things would have been known totally apart from anything said in the New Testament. Three things would have been known by the Old Testament saints who studied the Scriptures. They would have known that the law of God was meant to be perpetual in its principle, that it was to be thorough in its extent and thirdly, as we can see from these, that it was to be complementary to salvation by grace. It was to be complementary to salvation by grace. The Old Testament did not present God's law as a way of justification. Indeed, Psalm 143 says, In God's sight no man living is justified. Habakkuk 2:4 taught that just the opposite the just shall live by faith. So the Psalmist says in Psalm 32:10 2:10 of Psalm 32: Blessed is the man unto whom Jehovah imputes not iniquity he that trusts in Jehovah lovingkindness will compass him about. The Old Testament presented not only stipulations defined the justice of God, showing how God's people should live, but the Old Testament laid down sacrificial ceremonial laws to take care of the sinfulness of men, that sinfulness being defined by violation of the other laws of God. So the law did not teach or present a way of justification. In fact, the ceremonial law taught very clearly by way of shadow and symbol that justification came through faith, through the alien righteousness of a substitutionary sacrifice. Therefore, the Old Testament Jew would have known if he understood the teaching of Scripture and the rituals that he was going through would have known that obedience to God's law harmonizes with grace and saving faith. The Old Testament indicated that God's law was specifically revealed to Israel in the context of God's redeeming Israel and delivering his people from bondage. Exodus 19:4 God has delivered his people on eagle's wings, Exodus 20:2 he's brought them up out of the house of bondage, and therefore they are to keep all these laws. The law was based on God's grace, and therefore David in that very same line of thought could sing, grant me thy law graciously. There was no tension felt between God's grace, God's deliverance, God's promise, and God's laws. Those who were justified by faith in the Old Testament, like Abraham and Rahab, were those who were so renewed by God grace that they were willing to obey God's commandments. Their justification, their living faith, was seen in their obedient lifestyle. So the Old Testament saints knew they were not saved by obeying the law. They were saved in order to obey the law. God's law complemented salvation by grace. A fourth principle that we can discern through an inductive study of the Old Testament alone is that the law of God is central to the covenant of grace. And that covenant of grace is one first of all, the law could epitomize or stand for the covenant itself. In Genesis 17 we read that circumcision represented the very covenant itself that God made with Abraham. In a very similar in a parallel way, the stipulations of the Mosaic law could be used to stand for the covenant itself, as we see in Exodus 24:3,8. Just as circumcision is the covenant. So the law of God is the covenant. And that's why the tables of the law and commandment which God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai could be called the tables of the covenant. In Deuteronomy, chapter 9, verses 9, 11 and 15, the tables of law are the tables of the covenant. And so when Jeremiah speaks of the new covenant which is to come, the new covenant, not like the covenant made previously, he says that the law of God will be central to the provisions of that covenant. Jeremiah 31:33 I will put my laws into their mind, and on their heart will I write them. And so the law epitomized. It stood for the covenant itself. Moreover, the law that was given through Moses served the Abrahamic covenant of promise. It was not antithetical to the Abrahamic promise. According to the Old Testament. It was precisely as the God of Abraham and just because of the covenant made with Abraham that God dealt with Moses in his covenantal fashion. We'll see that in Exodus 2, verse 24 and 3, verse 6, Exodus 2:24, the continuity between Moses and Abraham is very plain. Exodus 2:24 and God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham. Exodus 3, verse 6. God speaking. Moreover, he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Jacob, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his faith. God comes as the covenant keeping God. In order to serve the Abrahamic covenant. God deals with Moses and eventually provides the Mosaic covenant. The Exodus, or the deliverance which was granted to the Israelites through Moses, was a realization of the promise made to Abraham. According to Exodus 6, God had promised in the Abrahamic covenant to be a God to Abraham and to his seed who would become God's people. And that is precisely the promise that is held out before the Israelites in Exodus 6:7. In particular, the Abrahamic promise would be to reward the people for conformity to the mosaic law. Leviticus 26 says, if you walk in my statutes and keep my commandments and do them, I will be your God, and you will be my people. So the Old Testament did not recognize an antagonism between the Abrahamic covenant of promise and the Mosaic covenant of law. Moreover, the Abrahamic promise and the Mosaic Law served each other in the Old Testament. The Old Testament perspective was that the people who enjoyed the promise of God ought to obey the law of God. It was expected that when Israel received what the God of your fathers has promised unto you, the people would then keep all his statutes and his commandments as revealed to Moses. Deuteronomy 6, verses 1 to 3. So my point here is that God's law was central to the covenant. And that covenant was seen as one unified covenant. The law could stand for the covenant and the covenant was the same between Abraham and Moses. There was one basic covenant of grace. So thus far the Old Testament already has shown us that God's law is perpetual in its principles, thorough in its extent, complementary to salvation by grace and central to the one unified covenant. Our fifth point will be that God's law was a was taken. And God remembered his covenant with Abraham. Exodus 3, verse 6 God speaking. Moreover, he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Jacob, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face. God comes as the covenant keeping God in order to serve the Abrahamic covenant. God deals with Moses and eventually provides the Mosaic covenant. The Exodus, or the deliverance which was granted to the Israelites through Moses was a realization of the promised made to Abraham. According to Exodus 6, God had promised in the Abrahamic covenant to be a God to Abraham and to his seed who would become God's people. And that is precisely the promise that is held out before the Israelites in Exodus 6, verse 7. In particular, the Abrahamic promise would be to reward for to reward the people for conformity to the most mosaic law. Leviticus 26 says, if you walk in my statutes and keep my commandments and do them, I will be your God and you will be my people. And so the Old Testament did not recognize an antagonism between the Abrahamic covenant of promise and the Mosaic covenant of law. Moreover, the Abrahamic promise and the Mosaic Law served each other in the Old Testament. The Old Testament perspective was that the people who enjoyed the promise of God ought to obey the law of God. It was expected that when Israel received what the God of your fathers has promised unto you, the people would then keep all his statutes and his commandments as revealed to Moses. Deuteronomy 6, verses 1 to 3 so my point here is that God's law was central to the covenant, and that covenant was seen as one unified covenant. The law could stand for the covenant and the covenant was the same between Abraham and Moses. There was one basic covenant of grace. So thus far the Old Testament Testament already has shown us that God's law is perpetual in its principles, thorough in its extent, complementary to salvation by grace and central to the one unified covenant. Our fifth point will be that God's law was taken by God's people as a token of their redemption and a token of their delight in God. God's law was taken by his people as a redemptive token and delight. God's people did not despise the law, but they rejoiced in the law. We've made reference to this already. David says, oh, how love I thy law. It is my meditation. He says, grant me thy law graciously. More to be desired are God statutes than gold and honey. So quite clearly the law was looked upon as a pleasurable thing, a blessing. Moses said, God has commanded all these things to say for your good. Therefore we should receive the law as something that brings delight to our lives. The sixth point that we can find in the Old Testament about God's law is that God's law was eternal in character and therefore not to be altered in a day. When many view the law of the Lord as arbitrary, expendable, or somehow temporary in its authority for the life of man. It's rather valuable to observe the outlook of Moses, who wrote that forever it would go well with God's people to observe the commandments which he had revealed. Deuteronomy 12:28 David exclaimed in Psalm 111, verses 7 and 8. All his precepts are sure. They are established forever and ever. Indeed, the eternal authority of God's commands characterizes each and every one of them. Every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth forever. David says in Psalm 119, 160. Looking unto the fearful day of the Lord, when the wicked will be consumed with fire, the prophet Malachi pronounces as one of the final words of the Old Testament, remember the law of Moses, my servant. Malachi 4:4. So the Old Testament presents the commandments of God as having an eternal character about them, and these commandments are not to be changed. David recognized that God commands only what is just and right, and thus to depart from God's commands is to deviate from moral integrity. Psalm 119, verses 128 and 172 I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right, and I hate every false way all thy commandments are righteous. To change or to ignore any of God's commandments was necessarily to create an unrighteous or unjust pattern for behavior. And therefore the law itself guarded against the law being altered. There was a self preserving provision written right into the law, where the law says about itself, you shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it in order that you may keep the commandments of Jehovah, your God. Deuteronomy 4:2. No man had the prerogative to tamper with the requirements laid down by God. Only God the lawgiver had the authority to abrogate anything he had said. So God's law in the Old Testament was presented as perpetual in its principles, thorough in its extent, complementary to salvation by grace, central to the one unchanging covenant, a redemptive token and a delight for God's people, and eternal so as not to be altered. Therefore, I think we have to conclude that the Old Testament teaches that the law of God will always be binding. In some sense. The law of God must be understood as perpetual, eternal, always valid for God, God's people in all ages and in all circumstances. Unless God the lawgiver, says otherwise, unless God shows a different application, unless God himself alters it, man may not tamper with his law. Well, the prima facie answer that I've given to our question about the Old Testament commandments is that, well, we should keep the Old Testament commandments because Paul says all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable. All Old Testament Scripture is profitable for instruction and righteousness, which would seem to account for Jesus and Paul citing the commandments of the Old Testament so obviously in the New Testament and without embarrassment using them on the assumption that they are morally authoritative. We've seen that if you study the Old Testament, the Old Testament teaches the perpetual character and the binding, the uniform binding character, God's law. So that if the New Testament should teach otherwise, you would have the New Testament actually contradicting the legal theology of the Old Testament. The Old Testament presents the law as always being binding and being changed only at God says. So if the New Testament were to say other than that, then it would be conflicting with the theology of the Old Testament. And that's why I don't think it's any surprise that in our prima facie answer we found Paul saying the Old Testament Scriptures are profitable for instruction in righteousness. But now, thirdly, we must pursue a specific New Testament answer to our question. What does the New Testament say about the binding authority of the law of God? Now, we have seen that there are illustrations of the New Testament using the Old Testament commandments. We've seen a prima facie answer in the Apostle Paul, but we need something more specific. We need the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament and to tell us what general attitude we should take for the question of the validity of the Old Testament commandments. Where is it that that issue is addressed in the New Testament. So happens that that issue is addressed in the fifth chapter of Matthew and it's addressed quite explicitly in Matthew 5, verses 17 to 20. Now in the context of Matthew 5, Jesus is teaching somewhat as a new Moses. He's gone up to a mount and is giving a sermon, a sermon touching on the lifestyle of his disciples. Much in the same way as Moses went up on Mount Sinai to get a law from God to govern the lifestyle of those who followed the Lord in that day. Moreover, Jesus has begun to speak about the lifestyle of his followers and to talk about the good works they must do when he says so let your light shine before men that they see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven. Well now, what defines good works for the New Testament follower of Jesus Christ? How do we know what good works are? The question is naturally going to arise in the hearers minds. Jesus hearers mind. How about the Old Testament law? Does the Old Testament guide good works today? It had been thought by some people that Jesus was some kind of young Turk, you know, a new teacher coming in an iconoclastic way and breaking down the Old Testament simply because he opposed the laws and, and the religiosity of the Pharisees. And so Jesus, having spoken of good works, goes on to say, don't begin to think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. Jesus cautions people from even beginning to think something. The aorist has an aggressive force here in the Greek. Don't even begin to think that I came to do something. He says, don't begin to think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. Now obviously the word here isn't to be taken in a physicalistic sense that Jesus came to tear up all the copies of the Old Testament that he could find. Don't think I came to destroy in that way. No. Jesus is talking about the abrogation of the Old Testament. The word that is used, kataluo, is used in other kinds of context in Greek literature to talk about annulling or repealing a law. He says, don't think I came to abrogate or to repeal the Old Testament. And that means the entire Old Testament. He uses the phrase the law or the prophets ways of capturing the entire covenantal document of the Old Testament. He says I didn't come to destroy. And now notice that he repeats this a second time for emphasis. I did deserve come to annul. I did not come to destroy. I did not come to abrogate or repeal, but just the opposite. The word used in the Greek here for but is Allah, which is the strongest form of expressing the adversity in the Greek language. And it means something just the opposite. For instance, in a parallel passage, a passage that is syntactically parallel to this one in Matthew's Gospel, Jesus says, think not that I came to cast peace on earth. I came not to cast peace, but a sword. So it's sword over against peace. Just the opposite of what's being spoken of. Jesus says, I did not come to abrogate, but just the opposite. And I believe that the word plera here can best be translated confirmed. Now it's from perfectly alright to translate it fulfilled. There's no difficulty with that translation as far as accuracy. However, there is some difficulty as to precision because fulfill can mean a number of things. Fulfill can be taken in a number of ways. For instance, we fulfill our Jesus fulfilled prophecy as well. Now, is that what Jesus is talking about here? That he came to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament? If he is, and as some have suggested, then he's doing what he's saying is completely introduced out of the blue. There is nothing in this passage that refers to the messianic work of Jesus, his need to lay down his life for sinners. There's nothing here talking about the prophecies of the Old Testament, the foreshadows of the Old Testament, the fulfillment of the promises of the Old Testament. This whole passage is ethical in its scope and its essence application. So Jesus says, I came not to fulfill and we can improve upon that. Or as if you will give a precising definition of fulfill by suggesting that he means fulfill in the sense of confirm the Old Testament over against repealing the Old Testament, which he has just denied doing. Some people understand fulfill as fulfill and do away with. And I'm suggesting that in context that just because he's not abrogating the law, fulfill must mean fulfill in the sense of confirm. Now any other suggestion, any other suggestion that leads to the conclusion that Jesus by fulfilling the law was ending the application of the law. Its authority for today makes the verse contradictory. Because if fulfill in one way or another leads to the implication that the law is repealed, you have Jesus saying, I came not to repeal the law, but to do something which repeals the law, Quite clearly you have a contradiction then. And we wouldn't want to attribute that to our Lord. Jesus is emphatically saying, you shouldn't even begin to think that he came to repeal the Old Testament in any sense. He came not to repeal, he came rather to confirm. Now verse 17 is backed up with a rationale provided in verse 18, Jesus gives the for truly I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law until everything has happened in the Greek, until everything has come about. The reason why Jesus did not come to destroy the law of the prophets is because every jot and tittle of the law has eternal sanction. He says that the physical cosmos must pass away before the law of God could pass away in its validity. Notice here that there's a progression in thought from verses 16 to 18. Verse 16 talks about good works in general. Jesus defines those in terms of the law or the prophets. But in verse 18 we know that of the law of the prophets he's thinking about the ethical content of the Old Testament because he speaks of here the jots and tittles of the law. In verse 19 he will talk about the commandments. So good works, law. Commandments make very clear that by the law and the prophets, Jesus is not talking about promise and prophecy. He's talking about ethical content, the will of God expressed in commands. Well, verse 18 shows us the eternal validity of the law and that of all of the law. Jesus could hardly have used a metaphor that would better express the full details of the law. Every jot and tittle, not the slightest stroke of a pen, as some translations put it. Now, verse 19 applies verses 17 and 18. Jesus doesn't come to abrogate the Old Testament law. He comes to confirm the Old Testament law. Because every aspect of the Old Testament law has eternal validity, will not pass away. And I take it that until all things have happened this parallel till, until heaven and earth pass away, verse 19 makes the application. Therefore, as I said before, every time you see the word therefore, you should ask what it's there for. Therefore indicates this is the transition on the basis of the theological premises just laid down. This is the way you must behave. This is the warning. Jesus says, whoever shall bring break one of these least commandments. Which commandments would he be talking about? The commandments of the law and the prophets. Anybody, anybody who tries to reduce this to the ten Commandments is obviously reading into the passage something that Jesus explicitly denies. In verse 19, where he says every jot in tittle, where verse 17 says the law or the prophets, it's the entire Old Testament, not just the decalogue. Jesus says, whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach me, and so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. The scribes and the Pharisees entertained themselves by debating as to which of the commandments of the Old Testament would be the least in importance or scope or significance. It was thought by many of them that the law that you shouldn't kill a hen with her chicks was perhaps the lightest commandment of the Old Testament. From it you learn the very least about morality, at least comparatively. There are other commandments from which many other moral duties could be deduced. They would be the heavier commandments, the greater commandments. But the least commandment of all would be the one about the Henninger chicks, whether Jesus was referring to that commandment or not. Jesus says one, whatever the least commandment is, you can't even break that one. And not only can you not break it, you dare not teach men that they have the right to break it. And therefore we must say with all humility, with all concern that those, for instance, in the Reformed Baptist movement today, those who are in Presbyterian churches today, those who profess to be Calvinists or evangelicals or Christians, anybody who dares to teach it is permissible to break the Old Testament law at any point without God say so. Anybody who teaches you can go ahead and break the Old Testament with impunity is going to be made least in the kingdom of God. That is quite a warning, and I want to reinforce that. Whatever you may make of the Greek exegesis of verses 17 and 18, there's a lot of debate about those things, although I don't think that it overthrows the exegesis I present in my textbook on the law. Nevertheless, whatever you make of 17 and 18, verse 19 makes the application clear. You dare not teach the breaking of the least of God's commandments in the Old Testament. Well, now, immediate problem arises in our minds, I would imagine, because immediately we're going to think to ourselves, well, now, but there are commandments that we don't keep today. Well, here's some red herring illustration. We don't put a railing around the roof of our house. Well, again, I've already explained that. You have to understand that the Old Testament, just like the New Testament, expresses our moral duty in many literary ways. In one way is by way of illustration. We don't have to follow the precise illustrations. We have to follow the duty that it illustrates. And therefore, that's why we don't put a railing around the roof of our house. Well, we don't have to go to war against the Canaanites and engage in holy war today. But that's because if you understand the Old Testament properly, the Old Testament never taught that as a standing or perpetual duty. It was a localized positive law for that particular setting. Well, we don't offer animal sacrifice. And to that we answer. The only reason we don't is because God the Lawgiver tells us that we don't have to. Anybody who reads the book of Hebrews understands that the once for all sacrifice has been given already and Jesus Christ has fulfilled the shadow of the Old Testament law by becoming the reality, the full sacrifice for sin. The reason we do not keep the Old Testament sacrifices is not because it just doesn't seem wise to us anymore because we've just figured out that's not necessary. We don't keep the Old Testament sacrifices because God explains that we aren't to keep them. Well, how about the Leviran institution or the laws governing the plots of land in the Old Testament promised land of Canaan? Well, we don't follow the Palestinian oriented laws because the New Testament teaches that there's been a change with respect to the significance significance of the land of Palestine. So in all of these illustrations, first of all, you must understand the Old Testament properly. You must do your hermeneutical homework, understand the Old Testament. Secondly, you must look for any qualifications the New Testament will make. Jesus doesn't take up all these qualifications in Matthew 5 and he need not do so. Jesus Simply in Matthew 5 tells us what the governing presumption must be. We must presume that Old Testament standing laws continue to be morally binding in the New Testament until these laws have been rescinded or modified in application by further revelation. Our presumption is that of continuity rather than discontinuity. Clearly there are discontinuities and we'll talk about some of those in our next lecture. But those discontinuities then themselves must be based upon the jots and tittles of God's special revelation and not brought to bear simply from our own reasoning, our own culture, our own prejudices. God's word alone must govern our ethic. Sola scriptura, but tota scriptura. Only Scripture, but all of Scripture. And when you take that attitude, then in agreement with the Old Testament, our view will be we may not subtract from God's law unless God himself does so. As Jesus said, at least by way of presumption, not one jot or tittle will pass away till all the heaven and earth pass away. And therefore we will not. In terms of our normative ethic teach that we have the right to break even the least Old Testament commandment. For that reason, every scripture of the Old Testament is profitable for instruction and righteousness. And the New Testament practice of citing Old Testament laws makes perfectly good sense.