Zens Beloved 3

After much study in the standard systematic theologies and books dealing with the Ten Commandments, I must conclude that justice has not been done to an obvious emphasis in the New Testament. The Ten Commandments are usually isolated in Exodus 20 as the “abiding will of God” and treated as an ethical unit which provides the “rule of obedience” for the Christian.

While this method certainly ends up saying many necessary and practical things for the believer*s conduct, it fails to reckon seriously with the redemptive-historical shift from Old Covenant to New Covenant. For example, Samuel Bolton says, “while you are in the wilderness of this world, you must walk under the conduct of Moses” (p.76). But I find in the New Testament that the norms for Christian behavior are to be located in the words of Christ. Let us examine some pertinent Scriptures.

Matthew 7:24-29 — “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of mine (in the context, He means 5:3-7:23) and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock (v. 24). When Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his teaching for he taught as one having authority and not as the scribes.”

Since the context indicates that Christ has 5:17-18 among “these sayings,” it is imperative to emphasize at the outset that His teaching is in no way set against Moses’ law. But Christ*s teaching in 7:24 is set up as the standard for ethical behavior. John Gill points out how the term “Lawgiver” applied to Christ —

“The Son of God . . . is King of saints, and Lawgiver in his house, and has given out commandments to be observed, and laws of discipline for the right ordering of his house and particularly the new commandment of love, which is eminently called the law of Christ” (vol. 2, p. 798).

“. . . the temptations of Satan, the persecutions of the world, the corruptions of a man*s own heart, and the errors and false doctrines of men, from all which a man is safe, who is built upon the rock Christ Jesus . . . the wind of divers and strange doctrines may blow hard upon him, but not cast him down” (vol. 1, p. 61).

Thus it is the man who builds his life on the sayings of Christ who is unshakable when the trials of life come upon him (Luke 6:48). Does this not, then, indicate that the Christian*s attention is particularly directed to the words of Jesus Christ?

In 7:28-29, the authority of Christ as a teacher is manifested. John R.W. Stott describes the Rabbinic method which was void of real authority –

“They conceived their duty in terms of faithfulness to the tradition they had received. So they were antiquarians, delving into commentaries, searching for precedents, claiming the support of famous names among the rabbis. Their only authority lay in the authorities they were constantly quoting” (Christian Counter Culture: The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, IVP, 1978, p. 214).

“This [authority] chiefly regards the method he used in preaching, which was by delivering truths of himself in his own name and by his authority . . . he spoke as a lawgiver, as one that had authority from heaven . . . Scarce ever would they (rabbis) venture to say anything of themselves, but said, ‘The ancient doctors say this and that’ . . . one Rabbi speaks in the name of another, but our Lord spoke boldly of himself and did not go about to support his doctrine by the testimony of the elders” (vol. 1, p.62).

These verses at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount clearly reveal that the source of authority was Christ. It was now His sayings that constituted the focus of attention in the new age. We must understand these words of Christ in connection with the Rabbinic context in which Jesus functioned.

In this Rabbinic tradition “God himself is conceived of as tied to the Torah, studying it and observing it,” and the Torah is viewed “as the one and only mediator between God and man, indeed between God and the world” (Gutbrod, pp.73-74)

Thus in this context our Lord is indicating that the reference point for behavior is to be found, not in the Torah, but in His words. As Bandstra observes, “there was a widespread Jewish tradition that with the coming of the Messiah the law, in its old form, would either terminate, or be radically altered” (p. 179).

Also, as D.E.H. Whiteley points out, in the Rabbinic writings it was said that “the Torah which a man learns in this life is vanity compared with the Torah of the Messiah” (The Theology of St. Paul, Basil & Blackwell, 1964, p. 86). Thus, as Gutbrod observes –

“For the disciples their relationship to the Torah, for example, is replaced by their relationship to Jesus as his disciples, and this finds its appropriate expression in the law of love. Thus in so far as Jesus as the Son of God takes the place in every respect of all the other mediators and so of the Torah too, the Torah is thereby at the same time abolished and fulfilled” (pp. 133-134).

Matt. 17:1-9 – “While he yet spoke, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear him.’ And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, except Jesus only” (cf. Mark 9:2-9).

In this significant passage two of the most revered Old Testament figures appear with Christ to these three apostles (v. 3). Moses the great leader is associated with the giving of the law; Elijah the great prophet is associated with a powerful sign ministry. But Deuteronomy 18:15, 18 is ultimately in view: “The Lord your God will raise up to you a prophet from the midst of you, of your brethren, like unto me, to him you shall hearken.”

Peter saw this passage fulfilled in the ministry of Christ (Acts 3:22-23). But what is the conspicuous focus which is revealed concerning this final Prophet? It is His words “him you shall hear in all things (cf. Matthew 28:20], whatsoever he shall say to you” (Acts 3:23).

The Transfiguration of Christ taught the apostles something epochally significant, namely, that they were to listen to Him as the Prophet God had sent in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18:15, 18 (cf. Bandstra, p. 113). In order to be obedient to the focus on the words of Christ, must we not likewise find in His teachings the specific norms for our conduct?

It would seem to me that any presentation of Christian ethics which would seek to be Biblical must have as its starting point the perspective set forth in the Transfiguration. We must do justice to the redemptive-historical shift from the authority vested in Moses to the absolute authority now vested in Christ (John 17:2). We have been commanded by the voice of the Father from heaven to listen to His beloved Son. Dare we, then, lend our ears to any other source for sufficient and authoritative ethical commandments?

Matthew 28:20 – “Teaching them to obey all things whatsoever I have commanded you and, to, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

As the gospel, beginning with the Jews first, ultimately goes forth to all the nations, what is pointedly designated as the content in evangelism? What are faithful ministers of the New Covenant to proclaim? Again, our Savior who possesses all authority in heaven and earth (28:18) tells us that we have warrant to be blessed in preaching all that He has commanded. This does not mean that we have nothing to do with Moses, but it surely means that we must see Moses as he is viewed in the light of redemptive-historical progress. As Herman Ridderbos puts it –

“The law no longer has an unrestricted and undifferentiated validity for the church of Christ. In a certain sense, the church can be qualified as ‘without the law.’ The continuing significance of the law can be qualified as ‘being bound to the law of Christ’ (ennomas Christou).” (Paul — An Outline of His Theology, Eerdmans, 1975, p. 284).

John 12:47-48 – “And if any man hear my words, and believes not, I judge him not for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.”

What will be the touchstone of judgment in the final day? Are the Ten Commandments specifically stated to be the standard? No. The authority of judgment has been placed in Christ*s hands (John 5:22, 27). While the judgment will certainly be in line with the greatest commandments in Moses (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18), we must do justice to the fact that the words of Christ are the final standard.

Not the Mosaic law, but the gospel is clearly stated to be the criteria of judgment in the last day (Romans 2:16, 2 Thessalonians 1:8). This distinction, keep in mind, is not so much one of content, but one that comes because of the advance of history to a “better covenant”: “the new creation brings a new canon, a new standard of judgment, along with it. This is above all redemptive-historical in character” (Ridderbos, p. 286).

John 14:15, 21, 23 – “If you love me, keep my commandments . . . He that has my commandments, and keeps them, he it is that loves me . . . If a man loves me, he will keep my words.”

In light of the passages we have surveyed, I trust you can now appreciate where the emphasis falls in the New Covenant. Our attention is to be riveted to the words of Christ, who is our all-sufficient Prophet in the new age. These words in John 14 further confirm this emphasis.

Not that the commandments of Christ are contrary or opposed to Moses: God forbid! But because a better covenant has been ratified, the Christian is to consciously direct his heart to the commandments of Christ, not to that economy of Moses which is no longer in force as a covenant administration (2 Corinthians 3:13).

The treatments of the “moral law” in Reformed theology generally omit the relevance of the perspective presented in these passage. For example, Fairbairn states that the “ . . . moral law, as revealed in the Old Testament, had with the apostles of our Lord a recognized place in the Christian Church, and was plainly set forth by them as the great test of excellence, and the authoritative rule of life” (p. 275).

While our Lord was certainly in harmony with the law, I cannot, in light of the centrality Christ gives to His own commandments, accept the position that the Mosaic “moral law” is the Christian*s “authoritative rule of life.” Is not the authority now vested in the Prophetic office of Christ? Moses himself would plead with us to listen to that Prophet of whom he spoke in Deuteronomy 18:15, 18.

If we grasp this redemptive-historical shift from Moses to Christ (John 1:17), I think many of the tensions present in Calvinistic treatments of the relationship of law to the believers would be alleviated. An example of this tension is set forth by Samuel Bolton –

“It is a hard lesson to live above the law, and yet to walk according to the law; to walk in the law in respect of duty, but to live above it in respect of comfort” (pp. 2l9-220).

If we see our duties as resting in the words of Christ, and not, as Bolton put it elsewhere, “under the conduct of Moses,” then this unnecessary tension of being both under the law of Moses for conduct, but not under it as a covenant unto justification evaporates.

Furthermore, Reformed theology has usually isolated the Mosaic “moral laws” as “the special instrument . . . for keeping alive in men’s souls a sense of duty” (Fairbairn, p. 289). But in the verses we have studied in this section, love to Christ is supplied as the central and sufficient motive for attachment to His commandments (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:14). Our sense of duty is wrought by the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5), not by the constant “reminder” of the Mosaic code. F.F. Bruce summarizes this beautifully by saying –

“The ‘law of Christ’ is a repromulgation of the injunction of Leviticus 19:18, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ (Galatians 5:14). But when ‘law’ is used in this way, it cannot be understood ‘legally’: the law of love is incapable of being imposed or enforced by external authority. Rather, it is the spontaneous principle of thought and action in a life controlled by the Spirit of Christ; it is willingly accepted and practiced. Paul was persuaded that the freedom of the Spirit was a more powerful incentive to a good life than all the ordinances or decrees in the world” (Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, Eerdmans, 1977, p. 187; cf. also p. 201).

Love, of course, in the New Covenant is never commandment-less (1 John 5:3). But the eyes of the Christian are to be focused on the Lord*s commandments (John 13:34, 2 John 5-6), not on the Mosaic administration of law.

While we are on the subject of commandments, some have wondered if the position I espoused in the “Crucial Thoughts” article did not border on antinomianism. More will be said on this later, but it is appropriate here to cite Samuel Bolton in this regard. He delineates the following position as one which some held in his day. As far as I can tell, it accurately represents my position. Bolton*s reaction to this position is very interesting –

Others say that we are freed from the law, as given by Moses, and are tied to the obedience of it, as it is given in Christ: and though, they say, we are subject to those commands and that law which Moses gave, yet not as he gave it, but as Christ renews it, and as it comes out of His hand and from His authority . . . I shall not much quarrel with this” (p. 57, emphasis mine).


	Restoration Ministries \| home "This Is My Beloved Son; Hear Him" Chapter Three The Rightful Focus of the Believer's Obedience: The Teaching of Christ _____________________________________________________ After much study in the standard systematic theologies and books dealing with the Ten Commandments, I must conclude that justice has not been done to an obvious emphasis in the New Testament. The Ten Commandments are usually isolated in Exodus 20 as the “abiding will of God” and treated as an ethical unit which provides the “rule of obedience” for the Christian. While this method certainly ends up saying many necessary and practical things for the believers conduct, it fails to reckon seriously with the redemptive-historical shift from Old Covenant to New Covenant. For example, Samuel Bolton says, “while you are in the wilderness of this world, you must walk under the conduct of Moses” (p.76). But I find in the New Testament that the norms for Christian behavior are to be located in the words of Christ. Let us examine some pertinent Scriptures. Matthew 7:24-29* — “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of mine (in the context, He means 5:3-7:23) and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock (v. 24). When Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his teaching for he taught as one having authority and not as the scribes.” Since the context indicates that Christ has 5:17-18 among “these sayings,” it is imperative to emphasize at the outset that His teaching is in no way set against Moses’ law. But Christs teaching in 7:24 is set up as the standard for ethical behavior. John Gill points out how the term “Lawgiver” applied to Christ — “The Son of God . . . is King of saints, and Lawgiver in his house, and has given out commandments to be observed, and laws of discipline for the right ordering of his house and particularly the new commandment of love, which is eminently called the law of Christ” (vol. 2, p. 798). The rain and the flood in 7:25, says Gill, represent – “. . . the temptations of Satan, the persecutions of the world, the corruptions of a mans own heart, and the errors and false doctrines of men, from all which a man is safe, who is built upon the rock Christ Jesus . . . the wind of divers and strange doctrines may blow hard upon him, but not cast him down” (vol. 1, p. 61). Thus it is the man who builds his life on the sayings of Christ who is unshakable when the trials of life come upon him (Luke 6:48). Does this not, then, indicate that the Christians attention is particularly directed to the words of Jesus Christ? In 7:28-29, the authority of Christ as a teacher is manifested. John R.W. Stott describes the Rabbinic method which was void of real authority – “They conceived their duty in terms of faithfulness to the tradition they had received. So they were antiquarians, delving into commentaries, searching for precedents, claiming the support of famous names among the rabbis. Their only authority lay in the authorities they were constantly quoting” (Christian Counter Culture: The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, IVP, 1978, p. 214). John Gill, then, shows why Christs method was so striking – “This [authority] chiefly regards the method he used in preaching, which was by delivering truths of himself in his own name and by his authority . . . he spoke as a lawgiver, as one that had authority from heaven . . . Scarce ever would they (rabbis) venture to say anything of themselves, but said, ‘The ancient doctors say this and that’ . . . one Rabbi speaks in the name of another, but our Lord spoke boldly of himself and did not go about to support his doctrine by the testimony of the elders” (vol. 1, p.62). These verses at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount clearly reveal that the source of authority was Christ. It was now His sayings that constituted the focus of attention in the new age. We must understand these words of Christ in connection with the Rabbinic context in which Jesus functioned. In this Rabbinic tradition “God himself is conceived of as tied to the Torah, studying it and observing it,” and the Torah is viewed “as the one and only mediator between God and man, indeed between God and the world” (Gutbrod, pp.73-74) Thus in this context our Lord is indicating that the reference point for behavior is to be found, not in the Torah, but in His words. As Bandstra observes, “there was a widespread Jewish tradition that with the coming of the Messiah the law, in its old form, would either terminate, or be radically altered” (p. 179). Also, as D.E.H. Whiteley points out, in the Rabbinic writings it was said that “the Torah which a man learns in this life is vanity compared with the Torah of the Messiah” (The Theology of St. Paul, Basil & Blackwell, 1964, p. 86). Thus, as Gutbrod observes – “For the disciples their relationship to the Torah, for example, is replaced by their relationship to Jesus as his disciples, and this finds its appropriate expression in the law of love. Thus in so far as Jesus as the Son of God takes the place in every respect of all the other mediators and so of the Torah too, the Torah is thereby at the same time abolished and fulfilled” (pp. 133-134). Matt. 17:1-9 – “While he yet spoke, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear him.’ And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, except Jesus only” (cf. Mark 9:2-9). In this significant passage two of the most revered Old Testament figures appear with Christ to these three apostles (v. 3). Moses the great leader is associated with the giving of the law; Elijah the great prophet is associated with a powerful sign ministry. But Deuteronomy 18:15, 18 is ultimately in view: “The Lord your God will raise up to you a prophet from the midst of you, of your brethren, like unto me, to him you shall hearken.” Peter saw this passage fulfilled in the ministry of Christ (Acts 3:22-23). But what is the conspicuous focus which is revealed concerning this final Prophet? It is His words “him you shall hear in all things (cf. Matthew 28:20], whatsoever he shall say to you” (Acts 3:23). The Transfiguration of Christ taught the apostles something epochally significant, namely, that they were to listen to Him as the Prophet God had sent in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18:15, 18 (cf. Bandstra, p. 113). In order to be obedient to the focus on the words of Christ, must we not likewise find in His teachings the specific norms for our conduct? It would seem to me that any presentation of Christian ethics which would seek to be Biblical must have as its starting point the perspective set forth in the Transfiguration. We must do justice to the redemptive-historical shift from the authority vested in Moses to the absolute authority now vested in Christ (John 17:2). We have been commanded by the voice of the Father from heaven to listen to His beloved Son. Dare we, then, lend our ears to any other source for sufficient and authoritative ethical commandments? Matthew 28:20 – “Teaching them to obey all things whatsoever I have commanded you and, to, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” As the gospel, beginning with the Jews first, ultimately goes forth to all the nations, what is pointedly designated as the content in evangelism? What are faithful ministers of the New Covenant to proclaim? Again, our Savior who possesses all authority in heaven and earth (28:18) tells us that we have warrant to be blessed in preaching all that He has commanded. This does not mean that we have nothing to do with Moses, but it surely means that we must see Moses as he is viewed in the light of redemptive-historical progress. As Herman Ridderbos puts it – “The law no longer has an unrestricted and undifferentiated validity for the church of Christ. In a certain sense, the church can be qualified as ‘without the law.’ The continuing significance of the law can be qualified as ‘being bound to the law of Christ’ (ennomas Christou).” (Paul — An Outline of His Theology, Eerdmans, 1975, p. 284). John 12:47-48 – “And if any man hear my words, and believes not, I judge him not for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” What will be the touchstone of judgment in the final day? Are the Ten Commandments specifically stated to be the standard? No. The authority of judgment has been placed in Christs hands (John 5:22, 27). While the judgment will certainly be in line with the greatest commandments in Moses (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18), we must do justice to the fact that the words of Christ are the final standard. Not the Mosaic law, but the gospel is clearly stated to be the criteria of judgment in the last day (Romans 2:16, 2 Thessalonians 1:8). This distinction, keep in mind, is not so much one of content, but one that comes because of the advance of history to a “better covenant”: “the new creation brings a new canon, a new standard of judgment, along with it. This is above all redemptive-historical in character” (Ridderbos, p. 286). John 14:15, 21, 23* – “If you love me, keep my commandments . . . He that has my commandments, and keeps them, he it is that loves me . . . If a man loves me, he will keep my words.” In light of the passages we have surveyed, I trust you can now appreciate where the emphasis falls in the New Covenant. Our attention is to be riveted to the words of Christ, who is our all-sufficient Prophet in the new age. These words in John 14 further confirm this emphasis. Not that the commandments of Christ are contrary or opposed to Moses: God forbid! But because a better covenant has been ratified, the Christian is to consciously direct his heart to the commandments of Christ, not to that economy of Moses which is no longer in force as a covenant administration (2 Corinthians 3:13). The treatments of the “moral law” in Reformed theology generally omit the relevance of the perspective presented in these passage. For example, Fairbairn states that the “ . . . moral law, as revealed in the Old Testament, had with the apostles of our Lord a recognized place in the Christian Church, and was plainly set forth by them as the great test of excellence, and the authoritative rule of life” (p. 275). While our Lord was certainly in harmony with the law, I cannot, in light of the centrality Christ gives to His own commandments, accept the position that the Mosaic “moral law” is the Christians “authoritative rule of life.” Is not the authority now vested in the Prophetic office of Christ? Moses himself would plead with us to listen to that Prophet of whom he spoke in Deuteronomy 18:15, 18. If we grasp this redemptive-historical shift from Moses to Christ (John 1:17), I think many of the tensions present in Calvinistic treatments of the relationship of law to the believers would be alleviated. An example of this tension is set forth by Samuel Bolton – “It is a hard lesson to live above the law, and yet to walk according to the law; to walk in the law in respect of duty, but to live above it in respect of comfort” (pp. 2l9-220). If we see our duties as resting in the words of Christ, and not, as Bolton put it elsewhere, “under the conduct of Moses,” then this unnecessary tension of being both under the law of Moses for conduct, but not under it as a covenant unto justification evaporates. Furthermore, Reformed theology has usually isolated the Mosaic “moral laws” as “the special instrument . . . for keeping alive in men’s souls a sense of duty” (Fairbairn, p. 289). But in the verses we have studied in this section, love to Christ is supplied as the central and sufficient motive for attachment to His commandments (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:14). Our sense of duty is wrought by the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5), not by the constant “reminder” of the Mosaic code. F.F. Bruce summarizes this beautifully by saying – “The ‘law of Christ’ is a repromulgation of the injunction of Leviticus 19:18, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ (Galatians 5:14). But when ‘law’ is used in this way, it cannot be understood ‘legally’: the law of love is incapable of being imposed or enforced by external authority. Rather, it is the spontaneous principle of thought and action in a life controlled by the Spirit of Christ; it is willingly accepted and practiced. Paul was persuaded that the freedom of the Spirit was a more powerful incentive to a good life than all the ordinances or decrees in the world” (Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, Eerdmans, 1977, p. 187; cf. also p. 201). Love, of course, in the New Covenant is never commandment-less (1 John 5:3). But the eyes of the Christian are to be focused on the Lords commandments (John 13:34, 2 John 5-6), not on the Mosaic administration of law. While we are on the subject of commandments, some have wondered if the position I espoused in the “Crucial Thoughts” article did not border on antinomianism. More will be said on this later, but it is appropriate here to cite Samuel Bolton in this regard. He delineates the following position as one which some held in his day. As far as I can tell, it accurately represents my position. Boltons reaction to this position is very interesting – Others say that we are freed from the law, as given by Moses, and are tied to the obedience of it, as it is given in Christ: and though, they say, we are subject to those commands and that law which Moses gave, yet not as he gave it, but as Christ renews it, and as it comes out of His hand and from His authority . . . I shall not much quarrel with this” (p. 57, emphasis mine). __________________________________________________* Introduction Letters and Opening Remarks Chapter One The Rightful Focus of the Old Testament: The Person and Work of Christ Chapter Two The Rightful Relationship of Christ to the Law: Fulfillment and Setting Aside Chapter Four The Rightful Identification of the Law in the History of Mankind Chapter Five The Rightful View of Law in Paul: Fulfill the Law of Christ Chapter Six Conclusion and Bibliography