defense ofo God's Law
BY THIS
STANDARD
BY THIS
STANDARD
The Authority of
God’s Law Today
Greg L. Bahnsen
Institute for Christian Economics
Tyler, Texas
Copyright @ 1985
Institute for Christian Economics
Seeond printing, October 199}
Printed in the United States of America
Cover As&n by Gtmge Grant
CO.?V7 i.uu.flmtio?l b Rangy Rogen
Published by
The Institute forcatl” ‘“ Economics
P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, Texas 75711
Lil=ry of congress Catidoging-in-mticati Data
Bahnsen, Greg L.
By this standard : the authority of God’s law
today / Greg L. Bahnsen.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-930464-06-0:$4.95
1. Law (Theology) 2. Dominion theology.
3. Theonomy. 4. Law and gospel. 5. Ghureh
and state. I. Tide.
BT96.2.B32 1991 91-21921
241’.2–de2O CIP
This book is affectionately
dedicated to my parents
Robert and Virginia Bahnsen
who first taught me
respect for the law
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROLOGUE by Gary North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..xi
FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..xxvii
INTRODUCTION
1. Specification of Purpose and Position. . . . . 1
Part 1: THE AUTHORITY OF GODS LAW
A, The All-Encompassing Standard of Scripture
2. Gods Word is Our Norm . . . . . . . . . . . . ...13
3. The Entire Bible is Today’s Standard . . . ...21
4. The Scope of True Obedience. . . . . . . . . .29
B. Cardinal Doctrines of the Faith
5. The Covenant’s Uniform Standard of
Right and Wrong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..37
6. The Father’s Unchanging Holiness ., . ...45
7. The Son’s Model Righteousness . . . . . . ..53
8. The Spirit’s Dynamic for Living . . . . . . . ...62
C. Motivational and Consequential Perspectives
9. A Motivational Ethic Endorses
the Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .,.71
10. A Consequential Ethic Endorses
the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. .78
D. Old Testament Law in the New Testament Age
11. The New Testament Explicitly
Supports the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...85
12. New Testament Ethical Themes
Endorse the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..93
13. New Testament Moral Judgments
Endorse the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...118
14. The Categories of God’s Law. . . . . . . . . . ...132
E. Summary of Old and New Testament
Views on God's Law
15. Continuity Between the Covenants
on the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...139
16. Discontinuity Between the Covenants
of the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...154
F. The Functions of God's Law
17. God’s Commandments are a Non-
Legalistic Rule of Obedience. . . . . . . ...169
18. New Testament Opposition to the
Abuse of God’s Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...177
19. What the Law Cannot Do . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l84
20. What the Law Can and Should Do . . . . ...190
21. The Traditional “Three" Uses of
the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...201
Part II: APPLICATION OF GOD’S
LAW TO POLITICAL ETHICS
22. The Political Implications of the
Comprehensive Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . ...210
23. Law and Politics in Old Testament
Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222
24. Law and Politics in Nations Around
Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..233
25. Law and Politics in the New
Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...245
26. Crime and Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . 270
27. Church and State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...285
Part HI: ANTAGONISM TO GODS LAW
28. Autonomy and Antinomianism . . . . . . ...293
29. Arguments Against the Law’s
General Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..303
30. Arguments Against the Law’s
Political Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
CONCLUSION
31. The Authority of God’s Law Today. . . ...341
GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...351
INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...363
ADDITIONAL BOOKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...373
PROLOGUE
by Gary North
The book which you have before you is a kind of
lawyer’s brief. It is tightly reasoned, yet clear. It
covers the basic outline of the New Testament’s case
for the continuing validity of Old Testament law.
Argument by argument, Dr. Bahnsen refutes the
supposed biblical arguments against the continuing
validity of the Iaw of God.
That there is today an unrecognized crying need for
a book such as this one testifies to the theological deprivation
that the church of Jesus Christ has suffered
for almost two millennia since the death of her
Founder. Nevertheless, that such a book should now
appear at what seems to be the final crisis of the humanist
era of Western civilization indicates that the
timing is near-perfect. The thinking of at least a minority
o f American church leaders has begun to
shift. There is a market for this book (in my entrepreneurial
view) which did not exist two decades
Xii BY THIS STANDARD
ago. Indeed, this market barely existed as recently as
five years ago. Fundamental changes in perspective
have taken place within the American Christian
community, and are now accelerating— changes that
Christian news media recognize even less clearly
than the secular press does.
There are numerous reasons for this shift in perspective,
In the United States, the most important
historical incident in this shift was the decision of the
United States Supreme Court to strike down state
laws against abortion, the infamous Roe v. Wade decision
of 1973. That decision made philosophy a lifeand-
death issue. It brought to the forefront the inescapable
reality of a philosophical position that Dr.
Bahnsen and other defenders of biblical law have
long argued, namely, that there is no such thing as neutrality.
The issue of abortion has graphically illustrated
the truth of this conclusion. Either the unborn
child is left alone to mature in the womb, or else it is
executed — in this case, by a state-licensed medical
professional. (It is illegal, at present, to commit an
abortion for a fee unless you are a licensed physician;
to do so would involve practicing medicine
without a license, and the Supreme Court would uphold
your being sent to jail for such a crime against
humanity – “humanity” being defined as an exceedingly
profitable medical monopoly. ) There is no
third possibility, no neutral zone between life and
death: except for the rare case of an aborted child
who somehow survives the executioner initially, and
is born alive in the abortionist’s office. This medical
possibility has created havoc for humanism’s legal
PROLOGUE xiii
theorists. 1 It has been called by one medical authority
‘the ultimate complication.” Once out of the
womb, must the abortionist regard the baby as a
legal person, or can he legally destroy it?
A legal dilemma such as this one can only arise
in a civilization which has turned its back on God
and His law. Humanist lawyers need humanistic
principles of ‘casuistry” – the application of permanent
general laws to concrete cases — in order to deal
with such dilemmas, just as surely as Christian legal
thinkers need biblical principles of casuistry. Yet
Christian casuistry has been ridiculed by secular historians.
We should not forget: it is never a question
of casuistry vs. no casuistry; it is always a question of
which kind of casuistry?
What has become clear to a growing minority of
Christians with respect to the “medical and social
neutrality” of abortion is also becoming clearer with
respect to such social evils as pornography, inflation,
officially neutral tax-supported education (“values
clarification”), homosexuality, globalism, the “New
World Order, New Age humanism, and contemporary
Western theories of national defense (mutually
assured destruction, or MAD). When the principle
of neutrality is exposed as fraudulent in one area, it
tends to become increasingly suspect in other areas,
especially political areas. Thus, step by step, a radi-
‘tally defective heritage of Christian pietism and re -
treatism is being overcome.
1. Franky Schaeffer, Bad News for Modern Man: An Agenda for
Christian Activism (Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1984),
pp. 3-6.
Xhf BY 11-llS STMDARD
Biblical Law and Evangelism
As Christians rediscover that at one time in
American history, this was a Christian nation, and
Western civilization was once Christian civilization,
the question then arises: What makes a Chtitzizn socie(v
appear visib~ dz@rent from any other kind of society? The
answer today is exactly what it was in Moses’ day: ethic.
In Moses’ day, as today, ethical systems were at war
with each other, and a God-given and man-enforced
ethical system was required as a form of international
evangelism. As we read in Deuteronomy 4:
Behold, I have taught you statutes and
judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded
“me, that ye should do so in the land
whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and
do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding
in the sight of the nations, which
shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this
great nation is a wise and understanding people.
For what nation is there so great, who bath
God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is
in all things that we call upon him for? And
what nation is so great, that bath statutes and
judgments so righteous as all this law, which I
set before you this day? (w. 5-7).
God is glorified when His law is enforced by
those who honor Him. Similarly, God is outraged
when men turn their backs on His law, for in doing
so, they turn their backs on the social and legal
restraints that alone keep man from destroying himself
and the creation. Someone has called God’s law
PROLOGUE XV
a “user’s manual” for the creation, but it is more than
this: it is a user’s manual. for life, God’s laws, when
imparted to men redeemed by grace through faith in
Christ, are the laws of life.
Faith without works is dead (James 2: 20). Christians
without faithful works are equally. dead, and
therefore unfaithful. The question is: How do we
test the faithfidness of any man’s works, or any civilization’s
works? In short: By whut stundard?
Apologetics
Dr. Bahnsen studied apologetics (the philosophical
defense of the faith) and theology under Dr. Cornelius
Van Til, the eloquent defender of the absolute
sovereignty of God and the absolute sovereignty of
the Bible. No Christian philosopher in the history of
the church has ever attacked the myth of neutrality
more confidently or more effectively than Dr. Van
Til, When R. J. Rushdoony wrote a book on Van
Til’s thought, he titled it, By W%at W&dad? This was
appropriate, for it has been Van Til, more than
anyone in church history, who has thrown down the
challenge to self-prdairned autonomous man to defend
his standards apart from God, while Van Til
has continued to defend the Bible in terms of the
Bible. There is no philosophical strategy that can
work, and there is no strategy that ever has worked,
except this one: to challenge the lost in terms of the
revelation of God hi His Bible. The autonomous
Emperor has no.clothes. Covenant-breakers have no
internally self-consistent philosophical response. By
what standard can man know anything truly? By the
Xld BY THIS STANDARD
Bible, and on@ the Bible, Van Til answered – in
volume after erudite volume.
Dr. Bahnsen is certainly a spiritual and intellectual
heir of Van Til, as Van Til recognized early in
Dr. Bahnsen’s seminary career. Dr. Bahnsen is a
trained philosopher and a rigorous logician; indeed,
he writes more precisely than Van Til. There is a
price to pay for this precision, however, both for the
author and his readers. The author suffers from a
narrower market, and readers must think precisely
in order to follow the arguments. Not that many
readers are sufficiently self-disciplined to take up the
challenge.
It is -not that Dr. Bahnsen’s exposition is difficult
to follow; it is that one must pay attention in order to
follow him. This requires @viewing and reviewing.
It also requires readers to remember the outline of
the arents that have been presented in earlier
sections. (Read and reread pages 345-47.) Dr.
Bahnsen requires of his readers the ability and willingness
to pay attention, not a high IQ. His glossary
provides definitions for technical terms. Use it.
His performance in this book is admittedly unexciting.
He considers the standard arguments that
have been used against the idea of the continuing
validity of biblical law, and he exposes them, one by
one, as illogical, anti-biblical, and productive of
great harm. He shows not onIy that these arguments
are wrong logically but also that they are wrong
morally. He wraps his opponents in an exegetical
net. The more they struggle, the more ensnared they
become. He never names them, but you can hear
PROLOGLIE XVit
them screaming anyway.
His performance could also btwmmpared to a man
who ‘milksn a poisonous snake h operates methodically,
without visible emotion, and precisely. Eventually,
the snake is rendered harmless. Temporarily.
Until the poison is again manufactured by its system.
Then it’s another round of “milking: with yet another
argument being squeezed dry of logical and biblical
content, until the snake is exhausted. On and on it
goes, until the snake finally dies or has its fangs extracted.
To appreciate the technician’s efforts, however,
the observer must recognize the danger of the
poison and the seriousness of the operation. The
observer also should not be surprised that from start
to finish, there is a lot of outraged hissing going on.
What is notable about Dr. Bahnsen’s previous
writings on biblical law has been the dearth of published
criticism. Theonomy in Christian Ethics appeared
in 1977, and it received considerable verbal criticism.
Murmurings might better describe the response. But
there was not much published criticism, and what
there was cannot be described as a serious threat to
Dr. Bahnsen’s case. A few critical essays appeared,
but only one was of any academic significance, Dr.
Meredith Kline’s, and Dr. Bahnsen’s subsequent
response ended the debate. Z Whenever I reread the
2. Meredith G. Kline, L+btmin.ster Theologd Journal, vol.
XLI, No. 1 (Fall 1978); Greg. L. Bahosen, ‘M. G. Kline on
Tbeonomic Politics: An E.afuation of His Reply: Joumul of
Chnsttin Reconrttitsbn, VI, No. 2 (Winter 1979-80). The latter
\,olume is available from Chafcedon Foundation, P. O. Box 158,
%’allecito, Califomla 95251.
x-w BY -MS STANOARO
two essays, I am reminded of that 5-second “underground”
cartoon, “Bambi Meets Godzilla.” Bambi is
skipping through the forest, when a giant reptilian
foot squashes him. End of cartoon. In the case of Dr.
Kline, end of debate. There was no rematch. (The
most amusing aspect of this historic confrontation is
that “Bambi” initiated it. )
Bullies and Weaklings
This book’s inlmxluction to the question of the continuing
validity of Old Testament law is not definitive.
It is only an inmoduction. It should not be regarded
as a final statement of the theonomic position.
Z%mnomy in Chrz&zn Ethics is an extended defense of
the case which is presented in this book. Rushdoony’s
Institutes of Bibkcal LQW, James Jordan’s l-au of the
Covenant, and my own economic commentary on the
Bible, lle hminiun Covenant, are “alsm examples of
how biblical law can be successfully applied to contemporary
social issues and policy-making.
There are those in the Christian community who
will immediately reject Dr. Bahnsen’s thesis, but
their voices are growing increasingly shrill because
of their desperation. They are under siege: from
Bahnsen on their right and from secular humanism
on their left. Their numbers are thinning even more
rapidly than their hair. A younger generation of
Christian activists is in no mood to take seriously
lame traditional excuses for not challenging humanist
civilization in the name of biblical principles.
These younger men are tired of being pushed
around by God-haters. More sigrdicantly, they have
PROLOGUE XIX
begun to recognize that the church is not culturally
impotent, and God’s law does not lead to impotence.
Unlike the comic book advertisement for Charles
AtIas’s ‘dynamic tension” program, where the
200-pound bully kicks sand in the face of the
98-pound weakling, Christians in the twentieth century
have been the 200-pound weaklings who have
been pushed around by 98-pound bullies, Like Samson
without his hair, Christians without God’s law
are impotent, and have been regarded by Philistine
throughout the ages as drudges to be misused and
humiliated publicly, if the opportunity presents itself.
What Dr. Bahnsen is proposing is that we flex
our muscles and knock the pillars out from under
humanism’s temple. But this time, we should push
from the outside of the arena, not pull fkom the inside.
When it comes to social collapse, let the
Philistine of our day be inside. Let us pick up the
pieces.
The much-abused traditional slogan, “we’re
under grace, not law,“ is increasingly recognized by
“intelligent Christians as an ill-informed and even
perverse theological defense of a perverse cultural
situation: “We’re under a God-hating humanist legal
structure, not God’s law, and there’s nothing we can
do about it.” But there X something Christians can
do about it: they can start studying, preaching, and
rallying behind biblical law.
It is unlikely that antinomian critics of biblical
law can be successful much longer in withstanding
the pressures of our era. A growing minority of
Christian leaders now recognize that they must
l
XX BY THIS STANDcorne
up with ualid soczizl ahnatiues to-a collapsing humanist
civilization — a humanist order which they now
seek to embarrass and even destroy, if possible — if
they are to escape the fate of those who now live
under the self-declared sovereignty of selfproclaimed
autonomous man.
The Bus Will Crash, Unless. . . .
There is an old political maxim that says: “You
can’t fight something with nothing.n The wisdom of
this maxim has been demonstrated for over half a
century: Christians have been impotent to stop the
drift into social disintegration. Now at last they are
feeling the cultural pressure. Their children are at
last being visibly assaulted by the perversions of this
age. Zb”r churches are now being threatened by
some federal bureaucracy. They are now becoming
aware of the fact that they can no longer remain as
silent participants in the back of humanism’s bus,
unless they are willing to go over the cliff. They are
slowly beginning to understand that they can’t get off
this speeding bus, although a theology of “back door
escapen has been popular until quite recently. But
“Rapture fever- is steadily cooling. So there is now
only one alternative: they must persuade the other
passengers to allow them to take over at the wheel.
Christians alone possess a valid road map: the
law of Gtd. This map is rejected by the present
driver, and if the other passengers (including confused
and psychologically defeated Christians) continue to
assent to this driver, then the bus will crash. It may
even explode.
PROLmUE XXi
The humanists’ tiee ride at the wheel is coming
to an end. They are going to have to fight for continuing
political control. There are millions- ,of Christians
in the back of humanism’s bus who are not impressed
by the driveds skills any more, They may
not have all the answers yet, but they are getting
restless. And then along comes Dr. Bahnsen with his
road map. We paid our taxes, too, he argues, and
we should prepare ourselves to challenge the humanists’
control over the driver’s seat.
This book is a preliminary defense of the continuing
reliability of the road map which God’s people
were given at Sinai. More than this: it is a defense of
the idea that there zs only one road map which ZS aa-w-ate.
There are many, many other maps that are -being
sold to Christians and humanists alike, but they all
have one thing in common: they are inaccurate. It is
astounding that a majority of Christians in our day
have implicitly and even explicitly claimed that any
road map is adequate, and that Christians can live
tolerably well under the political and social administration
of institutions governed by various humanist
law-orders. Anything ‘will do, we are told; we can
learn to live with any social order, except one. Only
one is categorically rejected by an older generation
of Christian social thinkers as invalid in New Testament
times: God’s law.
Christians’ Inferiority Complex
Why have so many Christians, especially theologians
and professors at Christian colleges, proclaimed
such a monstrous social philosophy, a phiXXtt
BY THS STAMMRD
losophy of “anything is politically acceptable except
the Old Testament”? I believe that one reason above
all is at the root of the problem: C/iAium hme been
afraid h tuwrcise dwninwts. They have been bullied into
submission by professional humanist guilt-manipulators
who have persuaded Christians that Christianity,
when apped to politics, has led to tyranny
and war. As an example, they cite the 800-year-old
story of the medieval crusades, where a few thousand
professional soldiers went off to fight the Muslims.
And who is complaining loudly today about
the evil Crusades? Defenders of humanism whose
various representatives have launched twentiethcentury
wars and revolutions in which as many as
150 million. people died from 1901 until 1970.3
These same critics have complained repeatedly
about the Roman Catholic Church’s burning of the
occult magician Bruno4 or Calvin’s approval of the
burning of unitarian Servetus (with the enthusiastic
approval of the Catholics, who were also after him,
and who tipped Calvin off when Servetus came into
Geneva), four centuries ago. Compare these two
events with the atrocities of Stalin, who killed 20 to
30 million Russians in his purges in the 1930’s, including
a million Communist Party members,5 plus
3. Gil Eliot, Twentz2th Cmtwy Book of the Dead (New York:
Scribners, 1972).
4. That Bruno was an occultist rather than a scientist is
proven conclusively in Miss Frances A. Yates’ Giomhno Brww and
the iYermetiL Tradition (New York: Vintage, [1964] 1969).
5. Robert Conquest, The Great Tmor: Stalin’s Pures of the i“&-
tzk (New York: Collier, [1968] 1973), p. 710.
PROLOGUE XXiii
an additional ten million who died unnatural deaths
during the famines produced by his forced collectivization
of agriculture. G Then there is the continuing
atrocity of the Soviet Union’s concentration camp
population, which has probably included about onethird
of the Soviet population over the years, with at
least one percent of the entire population” in the
camps at any given time. 7
This slaughter took place in the 1930’s without
any significant criticism in the prestige liberal humanist
press for the next twenty years. Malcolm
Muggeridge, a reporter for the Manchester Guardtin in
this era, says in the first volume of his autobiography
that Western reporters and liberals knew what Stalin
was doing; they approved of his ruthlessness. Even
in our day, some apologists still exist. (“Stalin,
despite certain excesses, was a progressive force in
his day, and we must understand that it is not easy to
bring a backward society into technological maturity,
blah, blah, blah.”) Yet these same ideologues
taunt Christians about the Salem witch trials in the
1690’s, in which all of 20 people were executed, and
which never happened again. In one year, Mao’s
policies killed 30 million’ Chinese.8 Spare Christians
the guilt trips, please.
Christians have until recently been humbled into
6. Paul Johnson, Modem Tim- The World from the Tx,entitx to
the Etghfses (New York: Harper & Row, 1982), p. 272.
7. Vladimir 13ukovsky, To Bu”U a Cut[e: My L$e as a Dissenlzr
(New York: Viking, 1978), p. 318.
8. Stephen Mosher, Bro.kzn Earih i7e Rural Chinae (New
York: Free Press, 1983), pp. 263-64.
XXiV BY w STMDARO
submission by state-licensed, profit-seeking medical
psychopaths who tell us that abortion is a morally
valid way to control population growth and to solve
marital and financial di5culties. A renewed interest
in biblical law will lmhumbIe” Christians soon
enough. It already has.
People may ask: Wouldn’t biblical law lead to
tyranny? I answer: Why should it? God desied it.
God mandated it. Was Israel a tyranny? Or was
Egypt the real tyranny, and Babylon? Tyamy w
what God visitid upon His people wkwz th~ turned thez”r
backs on biblicai law.
But to be practical about it, I cannot imagine a
successful modern tyranny that is lirmnced by less
than ten percent of national income. I can easily imagine
many tyrannies that are coercively financed by
five to seven times the tithe. So can you. In this
bloody humanist century, this takes very little imagination.
A history book is all it takes. Or a
subscription to the Nm York Times.
Pipers and Times
He who pays the piper calls the tune. The humanists
have taxed our money away from us in
order to hire pipers to play their tunes. But they
weren’t satisfied with direct taxation; they debased
the money, and the pipers are in revolt. Now they
are borrowing the money (with the ‘full faith and
credit” of the federal government) to keep the pipers
playing, but when those who lend the money finally
run out of patience and faith, the piper-payers will
be in big, big trouble. So will their pipers.
PROLOGUE XXV
When that day comes, Christians had better be
ready with the biblical answer: voluntary charity,
the tithe to finance the church, and all levels of civil
government combined limited by Constitutional law
to under ten percent of the people’s income. The
state is not God, and is therefore not entitled to a
tithe. Christians will pay the pipers voluntarily, and
pipers will play our tunes. Humanists can ordy
cough up enough money to pay pipers when they
have stolen the money with the balIot box, by means
of the politics of guilt and pity, and the politics of
envy. The gospel of Christ, when accompanied by
faith in biblical law, destroys the psychological foundations
of political guilt, pity, and envy. The humanists’
political end is in sight, and they are outraged.
Psalm 2 tells us what God thinks of their outrage,
and how much good it does them.
Conclusion
I will put it bluntly: no theologian of repute (or
even disrepute) has successfully challenged Dr.
Bahnsen’s defense of biblical law during the last
eight years. I will go farther: no theologian or Christian
social thinker in our generation is capable of
successfidly challenging Dr. Bahnsen’s general
thesis, because it is correct. I will take it one step farther:
we will not see any prominent Christian philosopher
even attempt it, because enough of them know
what happened to Meredith Kline: he was cut off at
th; knees in full view of anyone who bothered to
read Dr. Bahnsen’s response. Nobody is excited
about the prospects of going up against Dr. Bahnsen
Xd BY THIS STANDARD
in print. It leads to excessive humiliation.
Yet if someone from at least one modern theological
camp does not respond, and respond soon — dispensationalist,
neo-evangelical, Reformed, Roman
Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox – then the intellectual
battle is very nearly won by the theonomists. It
does no good for defenders of an older world-and-life
view to pretend that they can safely ignore a brilliant
case presented for any new position, let alone the
biblical position. If the establishment theologians remain
silent for another eight years, the theonomists
will have captured the minds of the next generation
of Christian activists and social thinkers. Once the
younger activists and intellectuals are won over, the
fight is in principle over. To the victors will go the
spoils: the teaching positions, the satellite T.V. networks,
and shelf space in the Christian bookstores —
and maybe even secular bookstores, until they finally
go bankrupt or go Christian.
Now, who will be the sacrificial lamb? Who
wants to attempt to prove in print that this little book
is the work of a heretic, or an incompetent? Who will
be the person to try to prove that this book’s thesis
cannot be sustained by an appeal to the New Testament?
Who will then go on to refute Theonomy in
Christzim Ethics? A lot of very bright young men are
waiting to hear from you, and then to hear from Dr.
Bahnsen.
Stay tuned for “Bambi Meets Godzilla, Part 11.”
FOREWORD
“But that’s what the OLd Testament said! We live
in New Testament times .“
Whether spoken out loud or not, this is the reaction
that many Christians have to any suggestion
that we should conform to some requirement of the
law of God. A common working assumption is that
New Testament believers are not expected by God to
live according to Old Testament stipulations. It is erroneously
thought that their ethical attitude. and
standard should be limited to the New Testament,
almost as though the Old Testament is now nothingbut
a historical curiosity — rather than a revelation
which is stiLl profitable for “instruction in righteousness”
(2 Tim. 3:16-17). This book is written to stimulate
Scripture-guided reflection on the question of
whether the Old Testament law is still binding as a
moral standard today. Such a question can prove
controversial, and one will find there exists a large
XXViii BY lNiS STANDARD
number of different answers posed for it. This book
is by no means the last word on the subject, and it is
not intended to be so. But it is a word which strives
diligently to be faithfid to the full scope of Biblical
teaching about the law of God. Hopefully the reader
will find the book helpful in organizing issues,
presenting convincing proposals, and forcing him or
her to check all opinions by the written word of God.
The various chapters which make up this book
were first composed as short articles, most of which
appeared in my monthly newsletter, Biblica[ Ethizs
(published by the Institute for Christian Economics
of Tyler, Texas). These studies ran from September,
1978 to July, 1982. Their order of appearance has
been slightly changed for book form, and in some
cases more than one month’s material has been combined
into single chapters for this book. The “Biblical
Ethicsn series — and now this book — aimed to distill
for a wider reading audience the more extensive
discussions of the validity of God’s law which can be
found in my book, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (2nd
ed,, Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1984), Tbon -
omy sets forth the basic position which it seems to me
the New Testament takes toward the Old Testament
law.
The present book is an attempt to set forth a summagJ
of Theonomy, as well as of the forthcoming book,
Deba& Over God’s Lau, a detailed rebuttal of the published
criticisms of Z7zeonomy. It does not aim for the
depth of coverage or minute detail of argumentation
which characterizes these other publications. It is
anticipated that this will render the present publicaFOREWORD
XXiX
tion more useful for a broader audience of readers —
those who have, as Christians, a natural interest in
the questions of Biblical ethics. After becoming
familiar with the position regarding God’s law which
is presented herein, readers who have a greater interest
in the subct, or who have more questions
about it, or who might have further challenges to
raise regarding what is said, should get hold of my
other book.
My prayer is that through these books Christians
will become convinced of the wisdom and authority
of God’s commandments, learning to say from the
heart: “O how love I thy law!” (Ps. 119:97).
*
As I send this book to press, I wish to express my
gratitude to a number of people who have made the
publication possible and helped me in its production.
I extend thanks to Dr. Gary North of the Institute
for Christian Economics for initiating this project
and underwriting its costs, like a “Theophilus” of
the modern age. I also want to thank R. E. McMaster,
whose generous contribution helped to finance the
publication of this book. I am grateful to my friends
in the Sovereign Grace Reformed Church (Ashland,
Ohio) who have faithfully supported my teaching
ministry while these studies were being composed.
Those who have criticized theonomic ethics are to be
thanked for helping me to show the common misunderstandings
o; erors about the theonomic position
which called for attention in a book such as this. In
XXX BY THIS STANDARO
preparing the text for publication, I have been greatly
aided by the editorial and proofreading efforts of Mr.
Doug Jones and my lovely wife, Cathie. Their insights
and corrections have been a service to both me
and the reader. Finally, I want to thank my parents,
to whom this book is dedicated, for the patient and
nurturing love which led me to see life and conduct,
not in terms of arbitrary opinion, but in terms of reliable
guiding principles.
Rev. Greg L. Bahnsen
M. Diu, , Th.M, Ph.D.
Covenant Community Church
Placentia, Cal#omia
INTRODUCTION
1
SPECIFICATION OF PURPOSE
AND POSITION
“Over against the autonomous ethical philo~
phles of men, where good and evil are defined
by sinful speculation, the Christian ethic gains
its character and direction from the revealed
word of God.”
Throughout the history of the Christian church,
believers have asked what their attitude should be
toward the commandments of God that are revealed
in the Old Testament. A large variety of positions
have been taken regarding God’s law – stretching-all
the way from saying that there have been no changes
in how the law .shotdd be observed (so that, for instance,
animal sacrfices would be continued) to saying
that eue@ing h been chmged because of the
change of dispensation (so that the Christian ethic is
totally restricted to the New Testament). Between
the two extreme poles numerous other positions or
2 BY TINS STANDARO
attitudes (some pro-nomian, some antinomian) can
be found, with subtle variations distinguishing one
school of thought from another in many cases.
Against the background of this welter of opinions, it
would be well to specify and summarize the position
regarding God’s law which is taken in these chapters.
The Basic Thesis
Fundamental to the position taken herein is the
conviction that God’s special revelation — His written
word — is necessary as the objective standard of
morality for God’s people. Over against the autonomous
ethical philosophies of men, where good and
evil are defined by sinfid speculation, the Christian
ethic gains its character and direction fi-om the revealed
word of God, a revelation which harmonizes
with the general revelation made of God’s standards
through the created order and man’s conscience.
When we explore what the Bible teaches about
the character of God, the salvation accomplished by
Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit in making us holy
in heart and conduct, or the nature of God’s covenantal
dealings with men, we see why the believer
should take a positive attitude toward the commandments
of God, even as revealed in the Old Testament.
Indeed, the Bible teaches that we should @-
sume contz’nui~ between the ethical standards of the
New Testament and those of the Old, rather than
abbreviating the validity of God’s law according to
some preconceived and artificial limit.
Because He did not come to abrogate the Old
Testament, and because not one stroke of the law
WE12mAT10td OF PUR POSE AND POSmON 3
will become invalid until the end of the world, Jesus
declared: “Therefore, whosoever bre-dcs one of these
least commandments and teaches men so, shall be
called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt.
5:17-19). Given this instruction, our attitude must be
that all Old Testament laws are presently our obligation
unkss fhrther revelation from the Lawgiver
shows that some change has been made.
The methodologtia[ point, then, is that we presume
our obligation to obey any Old Testament commandment
unless the New Testament indicates
otherwise. We must assume continuity with the Old
Testament rather than discontinuity. This is not to
say that there are no changes from Old to New Testament.
Indeed, there are — important ones. However,
the word of God must be the standard which defines
precisely what those changes are for us; we camot
take it upon ourselves to assume such changes or
read them into the New Testament. Gods word, His
direction to us, must be taken as continuing in its
authority until God Himself reveals otherwise. This
is, in a sense, the heart of “covenant theology” over
against a dispensational understanding of the relation
between Old and New Testaments.
To this methodological point we can add the substantive
conclusion that the New Testament’ does not
teach any radical change in Gods law regarding the
standards of socio-politicai morali, God’s law as it
touches upon the duty of civil magistrates has not
been altered in any systematic or fundamental way
in the New Testament.
Consequently, instead of taking a basically an4
BY THIS STANDARD
tagonistic view of the Old Testament commandments
for society and the state, and instead of taking
a smorgasbord approach of picking and choosing
among those laws on the basis of personal taste and
convenience, we must recognize the continuing obligation
of civil magistrates to obey and enforce the
relevant laws of the Old Testament, including the
penal sanctions specified by the just Judge of all the
earth, As with the rest of God’s law, we must presume
continuity of binding authority regarding the
socio-political commandments revealed as standing
law in the Old Testament.
Discontinuity (Change) Has Not Been Denied
What has been said above is simply that the
presumptwn_ should be that an Old Testament law is
binding in the New Testament. This does not in any
way preclude or reject many radical differences between
the Old and New Testaments. Changes do indeed
come through the course of redempti~e history,
so that there certainly are exceptions to the general
continuity that characterizes the relation between
Old and New Covenants. God has the right to make
alterations for the New Age. In the transition to this
Ne\v Age we observe that advances are made over
the Old Covenant, with some laws laid aside and
some laws observed in a new fashion.
Given the progress of revelation, we must be
committed to the rule that the New Testument should
interpret the Old Testmwnt for us,” the attitude of Jesus
and the Apostles to the Mosaic law, for instance,
must be determinative of the Christian ethic. Thus a
SPECiFICATION OF PURPOSE AND POSITION 5
simplistic equation between Old and New Testament
ethics — one that abstractly absolutizes the
New Testament teaching about continuity with te
Old Testament (not recognizing qualifications revealed
elsewhere) — is not advanced by the position
taken here, What is maintained is that our obligation
to God’s Old Testament law should be interpreted
and qualified by the New Testament Scripture, not by
relative human opinion which can cite no Biblical
warrant for departing from God’s stipulations.
It should be recognized that certain aspects of the
Old Covenant are not authoritative today. For instance,
in addition to the standing laws by which the
Jews were always to live, God gave certain Localized
im@rativ~ to them — commands for specified use in
one concrete situation, not principles with the continuing
force of law from generation to generation.
An example would be the command to go to war and
gain the land of Palestine by the sword; this is not an
enduring requirement for us today.
Likewise, there were cultural detuds mentioned in
many of God’s laws so as to illustrate the moral principle
which He required (for example, the distinction
between accidental manslaughter and malicious
murder was ihstrated in terms f a flying axhead).
What is of permanent moral authority is the Principle
illustrated, and not the cultural detail used to illustrate
it. Thus we ought not to read the case laws of
the Old Testament as binding us to the literal wording
utilized (for example, flying sickle blades and
faulty car brakes are also covered by the law dealing
with the flying axhead).
6 BY THLS STANDARD
In addition to localized imperatives and cultural
details of expression, we would note that certain administrative
a2tai/s of Old Testament society are not
normative for today (for example, the type or form
of government, the method of tax collecting, the location
of the capitol). These aspects of Old Testament
life were not prescribed by standing law, and
they do not bind us today.
Other discontinuities with Old Testament life
and practices would pertain to the topological foreshadows
in the Old Testament — replaced according
to the New Testament with the realities they typified.
For instance, we have the ceremonial laws of
sacrifice which served during the Old Testament as
‘weak and beggarly” shadows of the perfect sacrilice
of Christ which was to come. We can also think here
of the provisions regarding the land of Palestine.
With the coming and establishment of that kingdom
typified by the “promised land,” and with the
removal of special kingdom privileges from the Jews
by Christ, the laws regulating aspects of the land of
Canaan (for example, family plots, location of cities
of refuge, the levirate institution) have been laid
aside in the New Testament as inapplicable.
Other examples could perhaps be given, but
enough has been said by now to demonstrate the
point that the position taken herein is not that every
last detail of Old Testament life must be reproduced
today as morally obligatory, but simply that our
presumption must be that of continui~ with the standing
laws of the Old Testament (when properly, contextually
interpreted).
-.
SPECIFICATION OF WRPOSE AND POSITION 7
We need to be sensitive to the fact that interpreting
the Old Testament law, properly categorizing
its details (for example, ceremonial, standing,
cultural), and making modern day applications of
the authoritative standards of the Old Testament is
not an ea+y or sire@ task. It is not always readily apparent
to us how to understand an Old Testament
commandment or use it properly today. So the position
taken here does not make ever@ing in Christian
ethics a simple matter of looking up obvious
answers in a code-book. Much hard thinking —
exegetical and theological homework — is entailed by
a commitment to the position advocated in these
studies.
What Is NOT Being Attempted.or Advocated
The aim of these studies is to set forth a case in
favor of the continuing validity of the Old Testament
law, including its socio-political standards of justice.
It is advocated that we should presume the abiding
authority of any Old Testament commandment until
and unless the New Testament reveals otherwise,
and this presumption holds just as much for laws
pertaining to the state as for laws pertaining to the
individual. As already noted, such a presumption
does not deny the reality of some discontinuities with
the Old Testament today; it simply insists that such
changes be warranted by Biblical teaching, not by
untrustworthy personal feeling or opinion.
So then, the position taken here does not pretend
to be a totul view of Christian ethics, touching on its
many facets. Only one perspective in Christian
8 BY THIS STAND#i9
ethics is taken up — namely, the normative perspective
dealing with the question of standards for conduct.
Motivational and consequential perspectives
(touching on inner character and goal in ethics) are
not equally treated, nor is the vital area of producing
and maintaining moral behavior.
Moreover, the one aspect of ethics which is the
focus of attention in these studies, the question of
law, is presented with a view toward avoiding certain
serious emms that can be made about God’s law. Obedience
to God’s law is not the way a person gains justification
in the eyes of God; salvation is not by meritorious
works but rather by grace through faith. And
while the law may be a pattern of holy living for
sanctification, the law is not the dynamic power
which enables obedience on the part of God’s people;
rather, the Holy Spirit gives us new life and strength
to keep God’s commands. The externalistic interpretation
of God’s law which characterized the Pharisees
is also repudiated herein; the demands made by
God extend to our hearts and attitudes so that true
obedience must stem from a heart of faith and love.
It is not found simply in outward conformity to (part
of) His law.
What these studies present is a position in Christian
(normative) etktis. They do not logically commit
those who agree with them to any particular school
of eschato[ogual interpretation. Premillennialists,
arnillennialists, and postmillennialists can all harmonize
this normative perspective with their views
of history and God’s kingdom. While the author has
definite views in eschatology, they are not the subject
SPECIFICATION OF PURPOSE AND POSITION 9
matter of these studies either explicitly or implicitly.
It can be added that the ethical position taught
here is of afoundational character. It dials with a f&-
damental issue, the validity of God’s law, and does
not answer all questions about detailed application
of God’s law to our modem world. The specific interpretation
of God’s commandments is not taken up
and discussed at length. Indeed, those who agree
with the foundational conclusion of these studies —
that God’s law is binding today unless Scripture
reveals otherwise — may very well disaqee among
themselves over particular matters in interpreting
what God’s law demands at this or that point, or that
may disagree over how these demands should be followed
today. These studies do not aim to settle all
such matters. They simply argue that God’s law cannot
be ignored in making decisions in Christian
ethics. To say this, is rwt to endorse eveg abuse that has
been or is being made by believers regarding the requirements
set forth in the Old Testament commandments.
Furthermore, it should be observed that these
studies do not advocate the imposition of God’s law
by force upon a society, as though that would be a way
to “bring in the kingdom .“ God’s kingdom advances
by means of the Great Commission – evangelism,
preaching, and nurture in the word of God – and in
the power of God’s regenerating and sancting
Spirit. While these studies take a distinctive position
regarding the law of God and the modern state, they
do not focus upon a method of political change, The
concern is rather with the standard of political ustice.
10 BY TMS STA?tVARU
Thus it might be well to a’ert misconceptions
here by repudiating any thought of the church taking
up the sword in society, any thought of rebellion
against the powers that be, and likewise any thought
of mindless submission to the status quo in one’s society.
Our commitment must be to the transt-orming
power of Gods word which reforms all areas of life
by the truth, Ignoring the need for socio-political
reform or trying to achieve it by force both contradict
the church’s reformational responsibilities.
Errors pertaining to the socio-political use of
God’s law can be discarded in advance here. Not all
sins are crimes, and thus the civil magistrate is not
obligated to enforce the entire law of God. Rulers
should enforce only those laws for which God revealed
social sanctions to be imposed (not matters of
private conscience or personal ‘piety). It is obvious
that not all political leaders are in fact seeking to
guide their deliberations and actions by the revealed
law of God. What these studies contend is that magistrates
ought to submit to the law of God for sociopolitical
affairs: they will answer to God ultimately
for their disobedience to His standards.
Of course, when magistrates do come to the decision
to enforce the commandment(s) of God in a particular
area — whether because they have personally
been converted or whether they simply see the wisdom
and justice of those laws as unbelievers – they
are obliged to do so in a proper and fair manner. The
Christian does not advocate ex post ftio justice
whereby offenders are punished for offenses committed
prior to the civil enactment of a law prohibiting
SPECIFICATION OF PURPOSE AND POSmON 11
their actions. Nor does the Christian advocate the
punishment of criminals who have not been convicted
under the fill provisions of due Process in a
court of law. Those who believe that God’s law for
society ought to be obeyed must be concerned that
all of God’s laws for society be obeyed, touching not
only the punishment of offenders but their just treatment
and conviction as well.
Finally we must distance ourselves fkom the
mistaken impression that because these studies pay
attention to a particular subsection of Christian
theology and ethics they intend to portray that area
of the truth as more important than other areas of
Biblical teaching. All discussion will of necessity narrowly
consider one topic instead of another, for not
everything can be discussed simultaneously. To
write about the virgin birth, for instance, is not to
offer a slight to the doctrine of Christ’s coming again;
it is merely to take up one of many important matters
of Christian theology.
Likewise, to set forth a position regarding the
validity of God’s Old Testament law and to argue
that its standards of political justice bind us today (so
that civil magistrates ought to enforce the law’s penal
sanctions) is to focus attention on just one aspect of
the total picture of Christian theology and ethics. It
is not to say that the most important emphasis in our
lives and thinking should be the Old Testament law
of Moses. It is not to say that political ethics is more
vital than personal ethics or that the cultural mandate
is more crucial than the evangelistic mandate of
the church. And it most certainly is not to contend
12 BY TNIS STANDARU
that capital punishment is the most significant topic
in Christian ethics or even in Christian social ethics.
By taking up a study of the Mosaic law and the
validity of its penal sanctions we are simply pointing
out that these are aspects of Biblical teaching —
indeed aspects which serve a beneficial purpose and
as such are included in God’s revealed word — and
should not be misunderstood or ignored in deciding
what the whole Bible has to say to us about our lives,
conduct, and attitudes. By paying attention to the
question of God’s law in Christian ethics we are simply
being consistent with the Reformed conviction
that our Christian beliefs should be guided by SOLZ
S@tura and tots Scr@ura –only by Scripture and by
all of Scripture.
ParC 1: THE AUTHORIN OF GOD’S fAW
A. IWE ALL-ENCOMPASSING
STANDARD OF SCRIPTURE
2
GODS WORD IS OUR NORM
‘Will your life be founded upon the sure rock of
God’s word, or the ruinous sands of independent
human opinion?”
Day by day we make decisions on how to act, we
form attitudes and cultivate emotions, we set goals
for ourselves and try to attain them. We do these
things individually, as well as in various groups: our
family, friends, church, community, occupation,
state. In all of these contexts the kind of people we
are, the kind of goals we have, and the kind of rules
we observe in decision-making are ethical matters.
AU human behavior and character is subject to appraisal
according to moral value; every one of our attainments
(whether they be aims that are fulfilled or
character traits that are developed) and every one of
our actions (whether they be mental, verbal, or bodily
behavior) expresses an unspoken code of right and
wrong. AU of lzfe is ethical.
14 BY TNIS STANDARD
But there are many moral values which are recommended
to us. There are numerous implicit codes
of right and wrong. We go through every day in the
midst of a plurality of ethical viewpoints which are in
constant competition with each other. Some people
make pleasure their highest value, while others put a
premium on health. There are those who say we
should watch out for ourselves first of all, and yet
others tell us that we should live to be of service to
our neighbor. What we hear in advertisements often
conflicts with the values endorsed in our church.
Sometimes the decisions of our employers violate
laws established by the state. Our friends do not
always share the code of beha~ior fostered in our
family. Often we disaee with the actions of the
state. AU of life is ethical, but making ethical decisions
can be confusing and difficult. Every one of us
needs a moral compass to guide us through the maze
of moral issues and disagreements that confront us
every moment of our lives.
To put it another way, making moral judgments
requires a standard of ethics. Have you ever tried to
draw a straight line without the aid of a standard to
follow, such as a ruler? As good as your line may
have seemed initially, when ‘you placed a straightedge
up to it, the line was obviously crooked. Or
hae y& ever tried to determine an exact measurement
of something by simple eyeball inspection? As
close as you may have come by guessigg, the only
way to be sure and accurate was to use a proper
standard of measurement, such as a yardstick. And
if we are going to be able to determine what kinds of
GoD’swoRD lsoul+Noflu 15
persons, actions, or attitudes are morally good, then
we will need a standard here as well. Otherwise we
will lead crooked lives ‘and make inaccurate evalua~
tions. What should our ethical standard be? What
yardstick should we use in making decisions, cuhivating
attitudes, or setting goals for ourselves and
the groups in which we move? How does one know
and test what is right and wrong?
Yardsticks” -for Civilization
In ancient Greece and Rome the city or state was
taken as the ultimate authority and yardstick in ethics.
Caesar was lord over dl when moral questions
were raised, Over against the totalitarian, divinized
state the early church proclaimed the Lordship of
Jesus Christ. The ‘ruling authorities” (Rem. 13:1)
were told that “all authority in heaven and earth” resided
in the resurrected Messiah (Matt. 28:18). Accordingly
the apostle John portrayed the political
%east” of Revelation 13 as requiring that his own
name be written on men’s foreheads and hands (\w.
16-17 ), thereby symbolizing that the state’s law had
replaced the law of God, which was to be written on
the forehead and hand (cf. 6:8). That is why those
who stand in opposition to the beast are described as
“those who keep the commandments of God and the
faith of Jesus” (Rev. 14:1, 12). God’s people insist that
the state does not have ultimate ethical authority, for
God’s law is the supreme standard of right and
wrong.
The medieval church, however, came to foster
two yardsticks of ethics: a standard for religious
16 BY THIS STANDARD
ethics found in the revealed scriptures, and a standard
for natural ethics found in man’s reason as it
examined the world. Of course that left some ethical
decisions or evaluations independent of the word of
God, and those religious issues which remained
under the umbrella of the Bible were ultimately decided
by the Pope. Thus the medieval world was ripe
for tyranny in both a secular state and despotic
church.
Over against this, the Refoi mers challenged the
traditions of men and reasserted the full authority of
Gods word, declaring sola Scriptura and tots Scriptura
(only Scripture and all of Scripture), The final
standard of faith and practice, the yardstick for all of
life (personal as well as social morality), was the
Bible. That is why the Puritans strove to let Gods
word form their lifestyle and regulate their behavior
in every sphere of human endeavor. A holy God required
them to “be holy in all your conduct” (I Peter
1:15), and the standard of holy living was found in
God’s holy law (Rem. 7:12). Accordingly the Puritans
even took God’s law as their yardstick for civil
laws in the new land to which they eventually came,
and we have enjoyed the fi-uits of their godly venture
in this country for three centuries now. The attitude
of the Reformers and Puritans is nicely summarized
in Robert Paul’s painting which hangs in the
Supreme Court Building, Lausanne, Switzerland; it
is entitled “Justice Instructing the Judges” and portrays
Justice pointing her sword to a book labeled
“The Law of God.”
-WORD IS OUR NORN 17
Autonomy
NevertheIess, with the coming of the alleged “Enlightenment
,“ the yardstick of &hics proessively
shifted from the law of God in the Bible to human
laws fostered by independent reason and experience.
A neutral or critical ‘attitude toward the inspired
Scripture undermined its recognized authori-over
all of life, and modern ethics has come to be characterized
by an autonomous spirit – an attitude of
“self-law.” The yardstick of ethics would be found
within man or his community. Bishop Butler located
it in man’s conscience, Kant in man’s reason, and
Hegel in the Absolute state.
The one thing shared by all schools of modem
ethics is an antipathy to taking moral direction from
the Bible, for to do so is viewed as outdated, ignorant,
unreasonable, prejudicial, undemocratic,
and impractical. Being uncomfortable and irritated
by the holy requirements of God’s law for every aspect
of human conduct, “modern” men reject this
shackle upon their personal liberty and desires, and
they ridicule its provisions for social justice. The predictable
result in Western culture is the tension between
an unrestrained, tyrannical state on the one
hand and the liberated, unrestrained individual on
the other, Statism and anarchy pull against each
other. The immoral policies of the state are matched
by the immoral lives of its citizens.
In earlier ages this kind of situation was redressed
by the church-as it served the function of preservative
“salt” in the earth (Matt. 5:13). But today vast
numbers of theologians have thrown away the bibli18
BY THIS STANDARD
cal yardstick of ethics and have substituted something
else for it. The outcome has been the loss of
any respectable, vigorous, reforming ethic in the
contemporary church. ‘Thus said the Lord” has
been reduced to “it seems to me (or us) .“ Bonhoeffer
said that “God is teaching us that we must live as
men who can get along very well without Him.”1
Not only does Frank Sinatra sing out modern man’s
testimony for Western culture, “The record shows I
took the blows, and did it my way,” but the German
theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg delivers the modern
churchs response: “The proclamation of imperatives
backed by divine authority is not very persuasive
today.”z The Bible no longer directs all of life because
its requirements are deemed stifling and are
viewed in advance as unreasonable.
Men repudiate the “interference” in their lives
represented by God’s commandments. .This attitude
of lawlessness (1 John 3:4) unites all men because of
their sin (Rem. 3 :23). Even theologians today pretend
to be ethical authorities in their own right who
_lmow better than the Bible what is right and wrong.
In Christian Ethics and Contempora~ Phi[oxqbhy Graeme
de Graaff says, There is no room in morality for
commands, whether the y are the father’s, the schoolmaster’s
or the priest’s. There is still not room for
them when they are God’s commands .“s The leading
1. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers From Prison (London,
SCNI Press, 1953), p 164.
2 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Thmlo~ and the Kingdom ojCoG! (Phd -
adelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), pp. 103-104.
3. Graeme de Gra5, “God and Morality,” in Chrirttin EtiizJ
GOD% WORD IS OUR NOfW 19
advocate of situation ethics in our day, Joseph Fletcher,
tersely concludes that ‘Law ethics is still the enemy.”
And these lawless attitudes continue to filter down to
the local level. A ‘liberated” woman writes in 7% Re-
&nwdJoumal (1975): “1 thank God that as a reformed
Christian I worship a God of grace and not a God of
rules.”
The Biblical Attitude
By contrast the biblical attitude is expressed by
the apostle John when he says, “The love of God is
this, ‘that e keep His co&nandments; and His
commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3).
Believers in Jesus Christ do not wish to live as a lawunto-
themselves, unfettered by external divine requirements.
They welcome and love the biblical
standard of right and wrong — no matter what it may
stipulate for any aspect of life. God’s holy law is not a
burden to them, and they are not constantly searching
for substitutes which will be more pleasing to the
autonomous attitude of their age. They do not prefer
self-law to God’s law, for they recognize that it is impossible
to draw straight lines and make accurate
measurements in ethics without the infallible yardstick
of God’s word.
All of life is ethical, I have said. And all ethical
judgments require a dependable standard of right
and wrong. Jesus said, having just declared that He
will eternally reject all those who practice lawlessand
Cont@mray Philosophy, ed, Ian T Ramsey (London: SCM
Press, 1966), p. 34.
20 BY THIS STANOARO
ness, “Therefore everyone who hears these words of
Mine and does them may be compared to a wise
man, who built his house upon the rock” (Matt.
7:24-27). Will your life be founded upon the sure
rock of God’s word or the ruinous sands of independent
human opinion? Will your ethical decisions be
crooked and inaccurate, following foolish and lawless
standards, or will you wisely employ the yardstick
of God’s revealed word?
THE ENTIRE BIBLE IS
TODAYS STANDARD
“God expects us to submit to His every word,
and not pick and choose the ones which are
agreeable to our preconceived opinions.”
All of life is ethical, and all of the Bible is permeated
with a concern for ethics. Unlike the organization
of an encyclopedia, our Bible was not written in
such a way that it devotes separate sections exclusively
to various topics of interest. Hence the Bible
does not contain one separate, self-contained book
or chapter that completely treats the subject of ethics
or moral conduct. To be sure, many chapters of the
Bible (like Exodus 20 or Remans 13) and even some
books of the Bible (like Proverbs or James) have a
great deal to say about ethical matters and contain
very specific guidance for the believer’s life. Nevertheless,
there will not be found a division of the Bible
entitled something like “The Complete List of Duties
22 BY THIS ST-ARO
and Obligations in the Christian Life .“ Instead, we
find a concern for ethics carrying through the whole
word of God, from cover to cover — from creation to
consummation.
This is not really surprising. The entire Bible
speaks of God, and we read that the Iiving and true
God is holy, just, good, and perfect. These are attributes
of an ethical character and have moral implications
for us. The entire Bible speaks of the works
of God, and we read that all of His works are performed
in wisdom and righteousness – again, ethical
qualities. The world which God has created, we
read, reveals God’s moral requirements clearly and
continuously. History, which God governs by His
sovereign decree, will manifest His glory, wisdom
and justice. The apex of creation and the key figure
in earthly history, man, has been made the image of
this holy God and has God’s law imbedded in his
heart. Man’s life and purpose take their direction
from God. Every one of man’s actions and attitudes
is called into the service of the Creator — motivated
by love and faith, aimed at advancing God’s glory
and kingdom. Accordingly the entire Bible has a
kind of ethical focus.
Moreover the very narrative and theological plot
of the Bible is governed by ethical concerns. From the
outset we read that man has fallen into sin — by disobeying
the moral standard of God; as a consequence
man has come under the wrath and curse of God —
His just response to rebellion against His commands.
Sin and curse are prevailing characteristics, then, of
fallen man’s environment, history, and relationships.
TNE 134Tlm SIBLE IS TODAYS STANDARD 23
To redeem man, restore him to favor, and rectify
his wayward life in all areas, Gocl,promised and provided
His own Son as a Messiah or Savior. Christ
lived a life of perfect obedience to qualify as our substitute,
and &en He ied on the cross to satisfi the
justice of God regarding our sin. As resurrected ,and
ascended on high, Christ rules” as Lord over all,
bringing all opposition into submission to His kingly
reign. He has sent the Spirit characterized by holiness
into His followers, and among other things the
Holy Spirit brings about the pracice of righeousness
in their lives. The church of Christ has been
mandated to proclaim God’s good news, to advance
His kingdom throughout the world, to teach Christ’s
disciples to observe everything He has commanded,
and to worship the Ti-iune God in spirit and in truth.
When Christ returns at the consummation of human
history He will come as universal judge, dispensing
punishment and reward according to the revealed
standard of God’s word. On that day all men will be
divided into the basic categories of covenant-keepers
and covenant-breakers;” then it will be clear that all
of one’s life in every realm and relationship has
reflected his response to God’s revealed standards.
Those who have lived in alienation fkom God, not
recognizing their disobedience and need of the
Savior, will be eternally separated from His presence
and blessing; those who have embraced the Savior in
faith and submitted to Him as Lord will eternally
enjoy His presence in the new heavens and earth
wherein righteousness dwells.
It is easy to see, then, that everything the Bible
24 BY THIS STANDMO
teaches from Genesis to Revelation has an ethical
quality about it and carries ethical implications with
it. There is no word from God which fails to tell us in
some way what we are to believe about Him and
what duty He requires of us. Paul put it in this way:
‘Every scripture is inspired by God and Projtable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness, in order that the man of God may be
perfect, thoroughly fiu-nished unto every good work”
(2 Tim. 3:16-17). If we disregard any portion of the
Bible we will – to that extent – fail to be thoroughly
furnished for every good work. If we ignore certain
requirements laid down by the Lord in the Bible our
instruction in righteousness will be incomplete. Paul
says that every single scripture is profitable for ethical
living; every verse gives us direction for how we
should live.
The entire Bible is our ethical yardstick for every
part of it is the word of the eternal, unchanging God;
none of the Bible offers fallible or mistaken direction
to us today. Not one of God’s stipulations is unjust,
being too lenient or too harsh. And God does not unjustly
have a double-standard of morality, one standard
of justice for some and another standard of
justice for others. Every single dictate of God’s word,
then, is intended to provide moral instruction for us
today, so that we can demonstrate justice, holiness,
and truth in our lives.
It is important to note here that when Paul said
that ‘every scripture is inspired by God and
profitable” for holy living, the New Testament was
not as yet completed, gathered together, and existing
THE ENTIRE BIBLE IS TODAYS STANDARD 25
as a published collection of books. Paul’s direct reference
was to the well known Old Testament scriptures,
and indirectly to the soon-to-be-completed New
Testament, By inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul
taught New Testament believers that every single
Old Testament writing was profitable for their present
instruction in righteousness, if they were to be
completely furnished for every good work required
of them by God.
Not one bit of the Old Testament has become
ethically irrelevant, according to Paul. That is why
we, as Christians, should speak of our moral vie\vpoint,
not merely as “New Testament Ethics,” but as
“Biblical Ethics .“ The New Testament (2 Tim,
3:16-17) requires that we take the Old Testament as
ethically normative for us today. Not just selected
portions of the Old Testament, mind you, but “every
scripture .“ Failure to honor the whole duty of man as
revealed in the Old Testament is nothing short of a
failure to be complete~ equipped for righteous living.
It is to measure one’s ethical duty by a broken and
incomplete yardstick.
The Whole Bible
God expects us to submit to His every word, and
not pick and choose the ones which are agreeable to
our preconceived opinions. The Lord requires that
we obey everything He has stipulated in the Old and
New Testaments – that we “live by every word that
proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4), Our
Lord responded to the temptation of Satan with
those words, quoting the Old Testament passage in
26 BY THIS STANDARD
Deuteronomy 8:3 which began “All the commandments
that I am commanding you today you shall be
carefid to do” (8:1).
Many believers in Christ fail to imitate His attitude
here, and they are quite careless about observing
every word of God’s command in the Bible.
James tells us that if a person lives by and keeps
every precept or teaching of God’s law, and yet he or
she disregards or violates it in one single point, that
person is actually guilty of disobeying the whole
(James 2:10). Therefore, we must take the whok
Bible as our standard of ethics, including every point
of God’s Old Testament law. Not one word which
proceeds from God’s mouth can be invalidated and
made inoperative, even as the Lord declared with
the giving of His law: Whatever I command you,
you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor
take away from it” (Deut. 12:32). The entire Bible is
our ethical standard today, tlom cover to cover.
But doesn’t the coming of Jesus Christ change all
that? Hasn’t the Old Testament law been either
cancelled or at least reduced in its requirements?
Many professing believers are misled in the direction
of these questions, despite God’s clear requirement
that nothing be subtracted from His law, despite the
straightforward teaching of Paul and James’ that
every Old Testament scripture — even every point of
the law – has a binding ethical authority in the life of
the New Testament Christian.
Perhaps the best place to go in Scripture to be rid
of the theological inconsistency underlying a
negative attitude toward the Old Testament law is to
THE ENTIRE BIBLE IS TODAYIS STANDARD 27
the very words of Jesus himself on this subject, Matthew
5:17 -19.. Nothing could be clearer than that
Christ here denies twice (for the sake of emphasis)
that His coming has abrogated the Old Testament
law: “Do not think that I came to abolish the law or
the prophets; I did not co-me to abolish .“ Again,
nothing could be clearer than this: not even the least
significant aspect of the Old Testament law will lose
its validity until the end of the world: “For truly I say
to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the
slightest letter or stroke shall pass away from the
law. ” And if there could remain any doubt in our
minds as to the meaning of the Lord’s teaching here,
He immediately removes it by applying His attitude
toward the law to our behavior: “Therefore whoever
annuls one of the least of these commandments and
teaches others so, shall be called least in the kingdom
of heaven .“ Christ’s coming did not abrogate anything
in the Old Testament law, for every single
stroke of the law will abide until the passing away of
this world; consequently, the follower of Christ is not
to teach that even the least Old Testament requirement
has been invalidated by Christ and His work.
As the Psalmist declared, “Every one of Thy righteous
ordinances is evwidng” (Ps. 119: 160).
So then, all of life is ethical, and ethics requires a
standard of right and wrong. For the Christian that
yardstick is found in the Bible – the entire Bible, from
beginning to end. The New Testament believer
repudiates the teaching of the law itself, of the
Psahns, of James, of Paul and of Jesus Himself when
the Old Testament commandments of God are ig28
BY THIS STANDARD
nored or treated as a mere antiquated standard of
justice and righteousness. “The word of our God
shall stand forever” (Isa. 40: 8), and the Old Testament
law is part of every word from God’s mouth by
which we must live (Matt. 4: 4),
4
THE SCOPE OF TRUE OBEDIENCE
“Obedience must be from the heatl, and yet
obedience must not be restricted to the heart.”
A number of common moral mistakes are made
by believers, even after they come to the realization
that God holds them accountable to His revealed
commandments. Among those mistakes two can be
focused upon here as the root of many other misconceptions.
On the one hand, people often fail to see
that God’s law requires obedience from the heart.
On the other hand, people make the mistake of
thinking that it is sufficient if their obedience is
restricted to matters of the heart. Both of these
errors — opposite in character but equal in destructive
force — are addressed by God’s word, showing us
the full dimensions of true obedience to the Lord.
Obedience from the Heart
In Matthew 5:20 Jesus taught something which
must have been shocking to His hearers. He said,
30 OY mts sTANDAm
“Except your righteousness shall exceed that of the
scribes and Pharisees, you shall by no means enter
into the kingdom of heaven.” The shocking thing
about this was that the scribes and Pharisees had a
reputation, one which they themselves were anxious
to promote, for a deep commitment to obeying even
the minor details of the law, But the fact of the matter
was that the Pharisees were jar from living up to
the true demands of God’s commandments. They
had distorted the law’s requirements, reading them
in a perverse, self-justifying, and extemalistic
fashion,
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus exposed the
shallow obedience of the Pharisees for what it was,
pointing out that God is not satisfied with anything
short of fidl, heart-felt obedience to His law as comprehensively
interpreted. By contrast, the Pharisees
had appealed to the law in a way calculated to escape
God’s true and original demands, placing a
hypocritical veneer of “piety” upon all of their actions.
The Pharisees made a religious show of adhering
to the law, but Christ saw that it was a mere facade.
He said to them, Tou hypocrites, Isaiah was right
when he prophesied of you, saying These people
honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far
from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching as
their doctrines the precepts of men’ “ (Matt. 15: 7-9).
The Pharisees actually overlooked the weightier
matters of the law, such as justice, mercy, and faith
(Matt. 23:23-24). They were blind guides who trimmed
down the requirements of God’s law so that it
THE SCOPE OF TRUE 09EOIEMCE 31
could be made to appear conformable to their cultural
traditions. “And He answered and said unto
them, Why do you also transgress the commandment
of God for the sake of your tradition? For God
said. . . . But you say. . . . So you have made void
the word of God for the sake of your tradition’ “
(Matt. 15:3-6, 14).
So it is quite possible to take an avid interest in
the commandments of God and still have a heart
that is far from the Lord — still have a lifestyle which
is anything but pleasing to God since our attitudes
and motives are out of line with the moral guidance
of Scripture. We can take a concern for the fine details
of the law, and we should, but not in such a way
that we miss the main point in it all: namely, the display
of such godly attitudes as are mentioned listed
in “the fruit of the Spirit” — love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, and self-
-control, against which there is no Zaw (Galatians
5:22-23).
Back in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew
5:20 ff. ), after Christ declared that only a righteousness
exceeding that of the scribes and Pharisees
would gain entrance into the kingdom of heaven, He
went on to deliver a series of illustrations of how the
scribes and Pharisees held to a diminished understanding
of God’s requirements. He set their approach
to various commandments over against His
own interpretation of God’s demands, thereby restoring
the full measure of God’s purpose and requirements
to the Old Testament law. His illustrations
began with words like these: You have heard it
32 BY THIS STANDARD
said by those of old . . . , but I say unto you .“ In
such sayings Jesus was not personally dissenting
. from the law of God but from the Pharisaical understanding
and undervaluating of the law of God.
After all, if the Pharisees really were living up to
the law, and Jesus added to the law’s demand, then
His ex post facto condemnation of the Pharisees for
not living up to His additions would be quite unfair!
Rather, Jesus indicted the Pharisees for not living up
to what God originally required. ‘You have heard it
said by those of old” refers to the rabbinic interpretations
of the law passed down from one generation to
another; the scribes commonly appealed to the traditional
interpretations of the ancient rabbis as a way
of teaching the law. The amazing thing to the crowds
who heard Jesus, though, was that he taught as one
having authority in Himself, and not as one of the
scribes, always appealing to others (Matt. 7:28-29).
The problem with the scribal or Pharisaical understanding
of the Old Testament law was that it
was trite and externalistic. Jesus had to point out, in
accord with Old Testament teaching (for example,
Prov. 6:16-18, 25), that hatred and lust were the root
sins of murder and adultery (Matt. 5:21-30). When
God commanded that His people not kill and not
commit adultery, He did not merely require abstaining
from the outward acts of assault and fornication;
His requirement went to the heart, requiring that
our thoughts, plans, and attitudes be free horn
violence and unchastity as well.
True obedience to the law, then, stems from a
heart that is right with God, a heart that seeks to
THE SCOPE OF TRUE lENCE 33
please the Lord – not simply by outward conformity
but by pure attitudes as well. We see, then, why the
“obedience” of the Pharisees was not acceptable in
God’s eyes. They were not truly obeying the law in
its comprehensive demand, inward as well as outward.
Any obedience which we are to render to
God’s law today which is going to be pleasing to
God, therefore, must be better than externalistic,
hypocritical, self-righteous Pharisaism. It must be
obedience from the heart.
Obedience Not Restricted to the Heart
A man who refrains from physical adultery while
cherishing lustful thoughts is self-deceived if he
thinks that he has obeyed the Lord’s commandment.
On the other hand, a man who thinks that he has a
pure attitude and motive, even though he engages
outwardly in an act which transgresses God’s law, is
just as self-deceived. God’s law does not place a
premium upon inwardness and attitudes of the heart
at the arfmzse of overt obedience to His requirements!
When it comes to obeying the Lord, it is not simp$
‘the thought that counts .“
Situational ethicists, who say a man can act out
of love to God and love to his neighbor when he
commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, still stand
condemned by God and His word on the final day.
This should be obvious to most born-again Christians.
They know that “walking by the Spirit” means
that, unlike those in “the flesh” (in the sinful nature),
they can keep the law of God (Rem. 8:5-10); it is “the
ordinance of the law” which is “fulfilled in us_ who
34 BY THIS STANDARD
walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit” (v. 4).
Those who have hearts made right with God,
those who have been given a new heart by God,
those who wish from the heart to please God, will
seek to walk according ‘to God’s commandments
(Jer. 31:33; Ezk. 11:19-20; 36:26-27). A proper heart
attitude” should lead to proper outward conduct as
well. Obedience cannot be restricted to the heart.
Jesus not only wanted the Pharisees to realize the z’nward
values of mercy and faith; He did not want
them to leave undone the minor outward matters of
tithing garden vegetables (Matt. 23:23).
Just as obedience cannot be restricted to the
heart in the sense of forgetting the need for outward
conformity to God’s stipulations, it can likewise be
said that obedience — if it is genuine Biblical obedience
— cannot be restricted to a concern for our own
personal conduct. Full obedience embraces an interest
in the obedience of those around me to the laws of
God. The Christian must assume the responsibility
to exhort those in his home, church, society, etc. to
keep the commandments of the Lord. David wrote,
“restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, and uphold
me with thy free Spirit. T&n will I teach transgressors
thy ways, and sinners will be converted unto thee”
(Ps. 51:13). The Great Commission laid upon the
church by Christ calls for us to teach the nations
whatsoew Christ hm commanded (Matt. 28:18-20),
Anything less than this concern for the obedience of
those around us is disloyalty to the Lord and fails to
qualify as true obedience to his law. John Murray
wrote:
THE sCOPE OF TRUE OBEDIENCE 35
The least of God’s commandments, if they bind
us, bind others. We must resist the virulent
poison of individualism which tolerates in
others the indifference and disobedience which
we cannot justfi in ouxselves. . . . The moment
we become complacent to the sins of
others then we have begun to relax our own grip
on the sanctity of the commandments of God,
and we are on the way to condoning the same
sin in ourselves. 1
Heart-felt obedience to God’s law will lead us to
promote obedience to that same law on the part of
others.
Ti-ue saints have indignation for those who break
God’s law (Ps. 119:53), and they are not ashamed to
promote that law publicly (v. 13). If they would keep
silent in the face of disobedience, then they would
become culpable for the sins they witness. As Psalm
50:18 says, W/hen you saw a thief, then you consented
with him” by keeping your peace. Ephesians
5:11 exhorts the believer to refwove the unfruitful
works of darkness. Scripture, then, is quite clear in
teaching that the requirement of full obedience to
God’s commands extends to the active promoting of
obedience to those commands in others.
The Scripture-guided believer is in a position to
offer genuine counsel and help to others and to his
society; he knows the purity of God’s law. He is “able
to admonish” (Rem. 15:14), and so to be quiet in the
1. Principles of Conduct (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans,
1957), p. 154.
36 By THS STANDARD
face’ of transgressions would be a guilty silence.
Christ directed His followers that they were to be
“the light of the world” — which is impossible if our
light is placed under a basket (Matt. 5:14-15). Consequently,
true Christian obedience to the law of God
will take us beyond a concern for ourselves to a concern
for the obedience of those around us. Churches
which preach (either intentionally or by default)
“moral individualism” are failing to proclaim the
whole counsel of God. The sins of our society cannot
be ignored or swept under the church carpet.
This short study does not by any means touch
upon every facet of obedience to God’s commandments,
but it does point out two very important
aspects of genuine obedience. We see howfar-reachin.g
God’s demands “are when we keep in mind that obedience
must be from the heart, and yet that obedience
must not be restricted to the heart.
B. CARDINAL DOCTR/NES
OF THE FAITH
r-:,
5
THE COVENANT’S UNIFORM
STANDARD OF RIGHT AND WRONG
‘My covenant I will not violate, nor will I alter
the utterance of My lips” (Psalm 89:34).
If something was sinful in the Old Testament, it
is likewise sinful in the age of the New Testament.
Moral standards, unlike the price of gasoline or the
changing artistic tastes of a culture, do not fluctuate.
In the United States, there was a time when driving
your car at 65 miles per hours was permissible; now
any speed above 55 is illegal. But God’s laws are not
like that: just today, unjust tomorrow. When the
Lord makes a moral judgment, He is not unsure of
Himself, or tentative, or fickle. Unlike human lawmakers,
God does not change His mind or alter His
standards of righteousness: “My covenant I will not
violate, nor will I alter the utterance of M y lips” (Ps.
89:34). When the Lord speaks, His word stands firm
forever. His standards of right and wrong do not
38 q Y THIS STANDARD
change from age to age: “All His precepts are trustworthy.
They are established forever and ever, to be
performed with faithfulness and uprightness” (Ps.
111:7-8).
Accordingly Jesus spoke with unmistakable clarity
\vhen He said, “It is easier for heaven and earth to
pass away than for one stroke of the law to fail”
(Luke 16:17). The coming of God’s righteous Son
surely could do nothing to change the righteous
character of God’s laws, even the least of them, for
then they would be exposed as unjust and less than
eternal in their uprightness. So Christ issues this severe
warning: Whoever annuls one of the least of
these commandments and so teaches others shall be
called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt, 5:19).
The advent of the Savior and the inauguration of the
New Age do not have the effect of abrogating the
slightest detail of God’s righteous commandments.
God has not changed His mind about good and e’il
or what constitutes them.
We can be veq glad that God sticks by His word
in this way. The authority of His word for human
life is as permanent as that word by which He created
and governs the world (cf. Ps. 19:1-14; 33:4-11).
If God’s word to us were not as stable as this, if He
were subject to moods and changed His mind from
time to time, then we could not rely on anything He
told us. If God’s law has a fluctuating validity, then
so might His promises! If we say that a commandment
given by God in the Old Testament is no
longer a standard of righteousness and justice for today,
then we can equally anticipate that a promise of
THE COVENANTS UNIFORM STANDARD OF MGNT AND WRONG 39
salvation given by God in the New Testament will in
some future day no longer be a permanent guarantee
of His favor toward us. But praise the Lord that
His word is stable! He never lets us down as did our
human parents and human rulers with commands
that are unfair and promises that are not kept.
Whatever God says endures and cannot be emptied
of validit y (cf. John 10:35). God’s gracious salvation
and the justice of His law shall not be abolished
but endure forever:
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 arms 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 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, and
the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness
shall be forever, and my salvation from
generation to generation “(Isa. 51:4-8).
The righteous law of God which condemns our
~ BY THIS STAND~
sin is as permanent as the good news from God
which promises salvation from sin’s judgment.
Covenant: Unity and Diversity
It is important to remember this, especially when
some would tell us that the coming of the New Testament
does away with our obligation to the Old
Testament’s commandments (or many of them
anyway). The division of the Bible into two
“Testaments” is better understood in the biblical
sense as two “Covenants .“ Prior to the coming of
Christ men lived under the Old Covenant which anticipated
the Messiah and His work of salvation;
after the coming of Christ and His saving work we
live under the New Covenant (cf. Lk. 22 :20; 1 Cor.
11:25).
Within the “Old Covenant” scriptures we find a
few particular covenants, such as those made with
Abraham and with Moses. The Abrahamic covenant
is often characterized in terms of promise, and
the Mosaic covenant is remembered for its strong
element of law. Now some people would say that
New Covenant believers are under the Abrahamic
covenant of promise today, but not the Mosaic covenant
with its laws. Howe\’er, that is far from the
outlook of the scriptural writers. In Galatians 3:21
Paul addresses this question to those who speak of
being under one or the other co’enant: “Is the law
contrary to the promises of God?’ And his inspired
answer is “May it never be !“ The fact is that all of the
covenants of the Old Covenant (that is, all of the Old
Testament covenants) are unified as parts of the one
THE COVENAN~ UNIFORM STANDARD OF RIGHT AND WRONG 41
overall covenant of grace established by God. Paul
spoke of Gentiles who were not part of the Old Covenant
economy which included the Abrahamic, Mosaic,
and Davidic cm’enants as “strangers to the covenants
of the promise” (Eph. 2:12).
There were many, progressively revealed aspects
to the single promise of God in the Old Testament:
many administrations of the one o’erall co’enant of
grace. Thus the various covenants of the Old Covenant
were all part of one program and plan. Not
only were they harmonious with one another, but
they are unified with the New Covenant which was
promised in Jeremiah 31 and is enjoyed by Christians
today (cf. Heb. 8:6-13). There is one basic covenant
of grace, characterized by anticipation in the
Old Co\enant and by realization in the New Covenant
(cf. John 1:17). Given the unity of God’s covenant
throughout histo~ and the Bible, then, is it
true that Christians living under the New Covenant
are not obliged to keep the Old Covenant law (the
commandments of the Old Testament, especiall)-
those given by Moses)? Every covenant established
by God– e’en the .%brahamic (Gen. 17:1) – not only
declares His gracious work on behalf of His people,
but lays down stipulations which they are to observe
as a sign of fidelity and love to Him. For instance,
the gh-ing of the law at Sinai (I!k. 20-23) was preceded
by God’s gracious deliverance of Israel from bondage
(cf. Ex. 19:4; 20:2). God identified Himself as
Lord of the covenant and rehearsed his gracious
dealings with His people (Deut. 1-4), and then with
that foundation and background He delivered His
42 BY THIS STANDARD
law (Deut. 5ff. ), The failure of the Mosaic generation
can be called a failure in obedtice (Heb. 6:4),
but this was identical with a failure of @th (Heb.
3:9). The righteousness of the Mosaic & was always
to be sought bj~aith, not works (Rem. 9: 31-32),
We see illustrated here that even the Mosaic covenant
characterized by law is a gracious covenant.
The law which we read in the Old Testament is a
provision of Gods grace to us (Ps. 19:29, 62-64).
Every covenant carries stipulations which are to be
kept, as we have seen. But prior to that we saw that
all of the covenants of God are unified into one overall
Co\enant of Grace, fully realized with the coming
of Christ in the New Covenant. So if there is one
cownant enjoyed by the people of God throughout the
ages, then there is one moral code or set of stipulations
which govern those who would be covenant-keepers.
Therefore, we must answer that of course New Testament
believers are bound to the Old Testament
law of God. His standards, just like His covenant,
are unchanging.
The Newness of God’s Covenant
This perspective is confirmed by the word of
God. When we inquire as to what is w! about the
New Covenant under which Christians now live, \ve
must allow the Lord to define the proper answer. We
cannot read into the idea of a “new Covenant” just
anything we wish or can imagine. The revealed terms
of the New Covenant are given to us in both Jeremiah
31:33-34 and Hebrews 8:8-12, and when we
look at them we find that the New Covenant is far
THE COVENANTS UNIFORM STANDARO OF RIGHT AND WRONG 43
from suppressing or changing the law or moral
standard by which God’s people are to live! Just the
opposite is true. Contrary to those who think that the
Mosaic law is not applicable to the New Testament
believer, Scripture teaches us: “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” (Heb.
8:10).
The establishment of the New Covenant does rzot
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 the u!eli known law of
God which He says He will write upon the hearts of
New Covenant believers. Unlike the Old Co\’enant
where God found fault with the people for breaking
His commandments (Heb, 8:8-9), the New Covenant
will give internal strength for keeping those
very commandments. It will write the law on believers’
hearts, for out of the heart are the issues of life
(Prov, 4:23). The Holy Spirit of God will indwell the
heart of believers, writing God’s law therein, with
the result that they will live according to the commandments.
“I will put lvly Spirit \vithin you and
cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be
careful to observe My ordinances” (Ezk. 36: 27). .M
Paul writes in Romans 8:4, those who now walk according
to the Spirit have the requirement of the law!
fulfilled within them. America’s twentieth-century
orthodox Protestant leader J. Gresham Machen
said, “The gospel does not abrogate God’s law, but it
~ BY THIS STANDARD
makes men love it with all their hearts .“ 1
Psalm 89:34 was cited above: “My covenant I
\vill not violate, nor will I alter the utterance of Aiy
lips.’” Go&s covenant law is one unchanging moral
code through Old and New Testaments. Once God
has spoken His law’ and expressed His righteous
standards He does not alter it. Indeed He pronounces
a warning and curse upon anyone who
\vould dare tamper with his stipulations in the slightest.
Times may change, human laws may be altered,
but God’s law is an eternally just and valid standard
of right and wrong.
One of the requirements of his lav, \vhich reflects
His holy character, is the prohibition of using a
double-standard (Deut. 25:13-16; Lev. 19:35-37). It
is ungodly to use one measure or yardstick with
some people, and then use an altered measure with
others. “Divers weights and divers measures, both of
them are alike abomination to the Lord” (Prov.
20:10). Accordingly God requires that we ha-e but
ont standard or moral judgment, whether it be for the
stranger or the native (Lev. 24: 22; Deut, 1:16-17; cf.
Num. 15 :16). He abhors a double-standard of right
and wrong, and we can be sure that He does not
judge in such a fashion. Something that was sinful in
the Old Testament is likewise sinful for us in the
New Testament, for God’s standards are not subject
to fluctuation from age to age. He has one uniform
standard of right and wrong.
1, J. Gresham hlachen, l+% k Fozth ? (Grand Rapids,
Nlichigan: Eerdmans, 1925), p. 192,
THE FATHER’S UNCHANGING
HOLINESS AND LAW
‘God’s permanent requirement over all of life is
God-imitating holiness. In all ages, believers are
required to display, throughout their lives, the
holiness and perfection of their God.”
There is a sense in which the aim of every man’s
life is to be like God. All men are striving to imitate
God in one way or another. Of course not all attempts
to be like God are honored by the Lord and
rewarded with His favor, for there is a radical difference
between submitting to the Satanic temptation
to be like God (Gen. 3:5) and responding to Christ’s
injunction that we should be like God (Matt. 5:48).
The first is an attempt to replace God’s authority
with one’s own, while the second is an attempt to
demonstrate godliness as a moral virtue.
The basic character of godly morality was made
manifest in the probation or testing placed upon
46 BY THIS STANDAm
Adam and Eve in the garden. God had granted them
permission to eat of any tree of the garden, save one.
They were forbidden to eat of the tree of the knowledge
of good and eril, but not because its fruit was
injected with some literal poison. This was rather a
test of whether they would live solely under the authority
of God’s word to them. God had forbidden it.
Would they, despite their empirical research and
personal desires, submit to his command on His
simple say-so? Would they do their duty on the sheer
basis that it was their duty? Or would they evaluate
the command of God on the basis of some external
standard of reasonableness, practicality, and human
benefit?
The outcome of the story is all too well known.
Satan beguiled Eve, denying-what God had told her.
She was led to assume the authoritative, neutral position
of determining for herself whether God’s
‘hypothesis” or Satan’s “hypothesis” was true. Satan
implied that God’s commands were harsh, too stringent,
unreasonable. He in effect condemned the supreme,
absolute, and unchallengeable authority of
God. He went on to suggest that God is in fact jealous,
prohibiting Adam and E\’e from eating of the
tree lest they become IiIce Him — lest they become
rivals to Him in determining what is good and evil.
Thus our first parents were led to seek a lifestyle
which was not bound by law from God; thus they
were tempted into deciding for themselves what
would cou-nt as good and evil: Law would not be laid
down to them by God, for they would lay it down for
themselves. Demonstrating sin’s lawlessness (1 John
THE FATHERS UNCHANGING HOLINESS ANO IAW 47
3:4) they became ‘like God – law-givers of their
own making and authority. God’s law, which should
have been their delight, became burdensome to
them.
Jesus and God’s Law
By- contrast, the second Adam, Jesus Christ, lived
a life of perfect obedience to the laws of God.
When Satan tempted Him to depart from the path of
utter obedience to God’s commands, the Savior
replied by quoting from the Old Testament law: you
are not to tempt the Lord your God, you are to worship
and serve Him alone, and you are to live by
every word that proceeds from His mouth (Matt.
4:1-11). Here we have the veq opposite of Adam and
Eve’s response to Satan. Christ said that the attitude
which is genuinely godly recognizes the moral authority
of God alone, does not question the \visdom
of His dictates, and obsen’es eve~ last detail of his
word. This is man’s proper path to God-likeness. To
lire in this fashion displays the image or likeness of
God that man was originally intended to be (Gen.
1:27), for it is living “in righteousness and true
holiness” (Eph. 4:24). Genuine godliness, as commanded
in the Scripture, is gained by imitating the
holiness of God on a creaturely level – not by
audacious attempts to redefine good and evil in some
area of life on your own terms.
Jesus concluded His discourse on God’s law in
the Sermon on the Mount by saying, “Therefore you
are to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”
(Matt. 5:48). Those who are not striving to become
48 BY THIS STANDARD
rivals to God by replacing His commands according
to their own wisdom will rather endeavor to reject
His moral perfection by obeying all of His commands.
John Murray has said,
We cannot suppress the generic character of
this statement, ‘Ye 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 the ethical life is conformity to
Gods perfection. And shall we say that this
standard can ever cease to be relevant? It is to
trifle with the 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. 1
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. As Murray says, this
standard of ethics ever binds the believer and never
ceases to be relevant. This standard is just as authoritative
and valid today as it was in the Old Testament.
1. John Murray, Pn”ruipies of Con&t (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Eerdmans, 1957), p. 180.
THE FATHEWS UNCHANGING HOLINESS ANO MW 49
The Holiness of God
According to the Old Testament ethic, God’s holiness
is the model for human conduct: you shall be
holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev. 19:2).
This is also the precise model of moral conduct for
the New Testament believer: “. . . 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’ “ (1 Peter 1:15-16). There has
been no alteration or reduction of the standard of
moral beha’ior between the Old and New Testaments.
God’s #m-mznmt requirement over all of life is
God-imitating holiness. In all ages, believers are required
to display, throughout their lives, the holiness
and perfection of their God. They ought to be like
God, not in the Satanic sense which amounts to lawlessness,
but in the biblical sense which entails submission
to God’s commands.
Ob\riously, if we are to model our lives on the
perfect holiness of God, we need Him to tell us what
the implications of this would be for our practical behavior.
We need a perfect yardstick by which to
measure holiness in our lives. The Bible teaches us
that the Lord has provided this guide and standard
in his Ao@ law (cf. Rem. 7 :12). The law is a transcript
of the holiness of God on a creaturely level; it is the
ultimate standard of human righteousness in any
area of life, for it reflects the moral perfection of
God, its Author.
The intimate relation which the law bears to the
very person of God is indicated by the fact that it was
originally written by the finger of God (Deut. 9:10)
~ BY THIS STANDARD
and deposited in the ark of the covenant which typified
the throne and presence of God in the Holy of
Holies (Deut. 10:5). Moreover, this law must be acknowledged
to have a very special place or status because
it has the exclusive qualities of God himself attributed
to it. According to Scripture, God alone is
holy (Rev. 15:4) and good (Mark 10: 18). Yet God’s
law is likewise designated holy and good (Rem. 7:12,
16; 1 Tim. 1:8), and obedience to it is the standard of
human good (Deut. 12:28; Ps. 119:68; Micah 6:8).
God is perfect (Deut. 32:4; Ps, 18:30; Maw. 5:48),
and the law which He has laid down for us is accordingly
perfect (Ps. 19:7; James 1:25). Every statute revealed
by God authoritatively defines the holiness,
goodness, and perfections which God’s people are to
emulate in every age.
The Puritan Heritage
The Puritans were zealous to live in the moral
purity which reflects God’s own. Consequently they
upheld the honor and binding quality of every command
from God. The feeling of Thomas Taylor was
typical of them: “A man may breake the Princes
Law, and not violate his Person; but not Gods: for
God and his image in the Law, are so straitly united,
as one cannot wrong the one, and not the other”
(Regzda Vitae, Z4e Ruk of the Luw umier the Gospel,
1631). If God turned back His law, said Anthony
Burgess, He would “deny his own justice and goodnesse”
( Vindicti Legis, 1646). Thus the Puritans did
not, like many modern believers, tamper with or annul
any part of God’s law. “To find fault with the
THE FATHERS UNCHANGING HOUNESS AND IAW 51
Law, were to find fault with God” (Ralph Venning,
Sin, the P/@.e of PIQ.gus, 1669). Therefore, in Puritan
theology the law of God, like its author, was eternal
(cf. Edward Elton, God’s Ho~ Minde Tomhing Matters
Moral[, 1625), and as such “Christ has expunged no
part of it” (John Crandon, Mr Baxters Aphorisms EXOTcized
and Authorized, 1654).
Unlike modern theologians who evaluate God’s
requirements according to their cultural traditions
and who follow the Satanic temptation to define holiness
according to their own estimate of moral purity,
the Puritans did not seek schemes by which to shrink
the entire duty of man in God’s law to their preconceived
notions. Verming concluded, “Every believer
is answerable to the obedience of the whole Law.”2
As usual, the Puritans were here eminently
scriptural. God’s holiness is the standard of moralit y
in Old and New Testaments, and that holiness is reflected
in our lives by obeying His every commandment.
“Sancti& yourselves, therefore, and be ye
holy, for I am the Lord your God. And ye shall keep
my statutes and do them” (Lev. 20: 7-8). And a life
that is truly consecrated to God, one which is genuinely
holy, respects every dictate from God. He
says that the way to “be holy to your God” is to
“remember to do all My commandments” (Num.
15: 40). To lay aside any of God’s law or view its
details as inapplicable today is to oppose God’s
standard of holiness; it is to define good and evil in
2. For these quotations see Ernest F Kevan, T/u Grace of Lau,
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, [1965] 1983).
52 BY THIS STANDARD
that area of life by one’s own wisdom and law, to
become a rival to God as a law-giver.
Of course this suppression of God’s own standard
of moral perfection — the law’s transcript of His holiness
— is a blow at the very heart of biblical ethics. It
is to be “God-1ike” in exactly the wrong way. It is to
seek moral perfection for some aspect of life which
was originally covered by God’s law but is now defined
according to one’s own determination of good
and evil. This was the untoward character of Adam’s
rebellion against God’s holy word: His own law
replaced God’s.
Conclusion
The law reflects the holiness of God, and God’s
holiness is our permanent standard of morality.
Moreover, God’s character is eternal and unchanging.
“I am the Lord, I change not” (Mal. 3:6), There
is no variableness in Him (James 1:17). From everlasting
to everlasting He is God (Ps. 90:2). Therefore,
because His holiness is unchanging, the law
which reflects that holiness cannot be changed.
Whether we read in the Old or New Testaments, we
find that a man’s attitude toward God’s law is an index
of his relationship to God himself (Ps. 1; Rem.
8:1-8). As John so plainly says, “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”
(1 John 2:4). Gods unchanging holiness and thereby
His unchanging law is an abiding standard of knowing
Him and being like Him.
THE SON’S MODEL
RIGHTEOUSNESS
“Christ perfectly obeyed the law of God, and
this has unavoidable implications for Christian
ethics- for imitating the Christ portrayed in the
Bible:
The Bible was written over many years, by many
people, and about many things. Yet central to the
Bible is the person of Jesus Christ. He is of paramount
importance throughout, We know that He
was, as the Word of God, active at the creation of the
world (John 13), and that He providentially upholds
all things by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:3).
After Adam’s fall into sin through disobedience to
God’s command, relief from the wrath and curse of
God was promised in terms of one who, as the seed
of the woman, would crush Satan (Genesis 3:15).
The entire Old Testament prepares for the coming of
this promised Messiah-the prophet (Deut. 18:15-19),
priest (Ps. 110:4), and king (Isa. 9:6-7), of God’s own
choosing.
The New Testament gospels tell us of His life
and saving ministry, and Acts tells us of the work He
continued to do through His church. The epistles are
letters written from Him through His chosen servants
(for example, Galatians 1:1) to his elect people,
who constitute His kingdom. The final prophetic
book of the Bible is “The Revelation of Jesus Christ.”
His church now labors to make all nations His disciples
(Matt. 28:18-20), and at the consummation of
history Christ will return again to judge all mankind
(Acts 17:31). From beginning to end, the Bible
speaks of Jesus Christ who is “the Alpha and the
Omega” (Rev. 22:13). He is the key to God’s special
revelation and the one who should have preeminence
in our lives (Col. 1:18).
It is easy to understand why. Because of our sinful
disobedience to God’s commandments, Christ
came to atone for our offenses and become our eternal
Savior. As such, He deserves our undying de\’otion
and gratitude. As the resurrected and ascended
Son of God, Christ is Lord over all and deserves our
obedience and service. Thus the lifestyle and ethic of
those who have been redeemed by Christ as Savior
and Lord will naturally center or focus on Him.
At many times in the history of the church,
Christian living has been understood most generally
as “the imitation of Christ.” Because Christ is the
central personage of the Bible, there is a sense in
which Biblical ethics can likewise be summarized as
imitating Christ — striving to be like Him, taking His
H SO= Mom RIGHTEOUWESS 55
behavior as the model of Christian ethics. Indeed, to
take upon oneself the name of “Christian” is to be a
disciple or follower of Christ (cf. Acts 11:26). Believers
take their direction from-the example and teaching
of Christ. Accordingly, Biblical ethics is the same
as Chn”st-ian ethics.
Jesus and God’s Law
What specifically can be said about a Christ-like
ethic of morality? If we wish to imitate the moral @rjiction
of Christ, what will this entail? A short survey
of Biblical teaching discloses that God does not save
His chosen people by lowering His moral standards;
the very reason why those people need His saving
mercy is because they have violated His moral
standards. If such-standards were expendable or arbitrary,
then God could choose to ignore their transgression
and save people by sheer fiat or decree of
pardon. However, the law could not be thus ignored.
To save His people, God sent His only-begotten Son
to die sacrificially in their place. In order to qualify
as the Savior, Christ lived a life of perfect obedience
to the commandments of God. In order to atone for
sins, Christ died in alienation fi-om the Father to
satisfi the law’s demand for punishment. Consequently
in His life and death Christ perfectly obeyed
the law of God, and this has unavoidable implications
for Christian ethics — for imitating the Christ
portrayed throughout the Bible.
The Scriptures regard the work of Christ as that
of obedience. In defining the purpose of His Messianic
advent, Christ said “I have come down fi-om
!% BY THIS STANDARD
heaven to do ‘the will of Him who sent Me” (John
6:38). The pivotai event in the accomplishment or
redemption was Christ’s laying down His life and
taking it up again — His death and resurrection; in
these things Christ was obeying His Father’s commandment
(John 10:17-18). His work of atonement
was performed in the capacity of a suffering servant
(cf. Isa. 52:13 – 53:12). As such He was subjected to
the law (Gal. 4:5) and justified us by His obedience
(Rem. 5:19). Obedience to the w-ill and commandment
of God was therefore crucial to the life and ministry
of our Savior. As our great High Priest He was
sacrificed to discharge the curse of the law against our
sin (Gal. 3:13; Heb. 2:17—3:1; 4:14–5:10). As the
prophet of the law, Christ rendered its proper interpretation
and peeled away the distorting traditions
of men (Matt. 5:17-48; 15:1-20). And because He
obeyed the law perfectly and hated all lawlessness,
Christ has been exalted as the annointed King (Heb,
1:8, 9). Therefore we see that Christ’s saving work
and His three-fold office are determined by His
positive relation to the law of God, the permanent expression
of His holy will.
As one could readily expect, since Christ is the
exact representation of Gods nature (Heb. 1:3) and
since the law is a transcript of the holiness of God,
Christ embodied the law perfectly in His own person
and behavior. Christ challenged His opponents
with the stunning — virtually rhetorical — question,
Which of you convicts me of sin?” (John 8:46). Of
course, no one could, for Christ alone was in a position
to declare, “I have kept my Father’s cornmandTHE
SOWS MODEL RIGHTEOUSNESS 57
ments and abide in His love” (John 15:10).
Christ was tempted at every point with respect to
obeying the commands of God, yet He remained
sinless throughout (Heb. 4:15). Because He kept the
law perfectly, Christ had no need to offer up sacrilice
for His own sins (Heb. 7 :26-28). Instead He offered
Himself up without spot to God, a lamb without
blemish as the law required, in order to cleanse us of
our sins (Heb. 9:14). As the Old Testament had foretold,
“righteousness will be the belt about His loins”
(Isa. 11: 5), and the Messiah could declare, “Thy law
is within my heart” (Ps. 40:7-8; Heb. 10:4-10).
We read in Galatians 4:4 that “when the fulness
of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a
\voman, born under the law, that he might redeem
them that were under the law.”’ Christ was neither
lawless nor above the law; He submitted to its eery
requirement, saying “it becomes us to fulfill all
righteousness” (Matt. 3 :15). He directed the healed
to offer the gift commanded by Moses (hlatt. 8:4),
kept the borders of his garments (9: 20; 14:36), paid
the temple tax (17 :24-27), attended to the purity of
the temple (21:12-17), etc. He directed His followers
to do those things which conformed to the law’s demand
(Matt. 7:12), told the rich young ruler to keep
the commandments (19: 17), reinforced the Old
Testament law by summarizing it into two love commandments
(22:40), indicted the Pharisees for making
God’s commandments void through traditions of
men (Mark 7:6-13), and insisted that even the most
trite or insignificant matters of the law ought not to
be left undone (Luke 11:12).
58 BY THIS STANDARD
Speaking of the moral teaching of Christ, Herman
Ridderbos says,
It is the ‘ethics’ of Obedtirzce in the full sense of the
w o r d . If, therefore, the question is asked
by what Jesus’ commandments are regulated,
the ultimate answer is only this: by God3 will as it
is reoeakd ZTZ his iaw. . 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,
and only the law, the meaning and purpose of
which is also the meaning and purpose of Jesus’
commandments. 1
In the light of these things, we recall how Jesus
severely warned His followers not even to begin to
think that His coming had the effect of abrogating
even the slightest letter of the law; teaching that even
the least commandment had been annulled would
eventuate in one’s demotion in the kingdom of God
(Matt. 5:17-19). Throughout His life and teaching,
as we have seen, Jesus upheld the law’s demands in
the most exacting degree.
hloreover, Christ submitted to the law of God
even to the very point of suffering its prescribed
penalty for sin. He died the death ofa criminal (Phil.
2:8), taking upon Himself the curse of the law (Gal.
3:13) and canceling thereby the handwriting }vhich
was against us because of the law (Col. 2:14). “He
1 The Comzng oj the Kugdom (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1962), pp. 290-91.
TNE SON’S MOOEL RIGHTEOUSNESS 59
was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised
for our iniquities. . . Jehovah has laid on him the
iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:4-6). Sin cannot avoid the
dreadful judgment of God (Nahum 1:2-3; Habakkuk
1:13), and therefore God does not save sinners without
righteousness and peace kissing each other (Ps.
85:9-10); He remains just, while becoming the justifier
of His people (Rem, 3:26). Accordingly the law’s
demands could not be arbitrarily pushed aside.
Christ had to come and undergo the curse of the law
in the place of His chosen people; He had to satisfy
the justice of God. That is why it can be said that the
death of Christ is the outstanding eidence that
God’s law cannot be ignored or abrogated. According
to the law there is no remission of sin apart from
the shedding of blood (Heb. 9:22; Lev. 17:11). aThei-efore
it was necessa~ that Christ offer up himself in sacrifice
for sin” (Heb. 9:23-26). The necessity of the
law’s continuing validity is substantiated by the saving
death of Christ on our behalf.
Imitating Christ
Christians should therefore be the last people to
think or maintain that they are free from the righteous
requirements of God’s commandments. Those
who have been saved were in need of that salvation
precisely because God’s law could not be ignored as
they transgressed it. For them to be saved, it was
necessary for Christ to live and die by all of the law’s
stipulations. Although our own obedience to the lav
is flawed and thus cannot be used as a way of
justification before God, we are saved by the imW
BY THIS STANDARD
puted obedience of the Savior (1 Cor, 1:30; Phil.
3 :9). Our justification is rooted in His obedience
(Rem. 5:17-19). By a righteousness which is alien to
oursel-es — the perfect rig-hteousness of Christ according
to the law — we are made just in the sight of
God. “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” (2 Cor. 5: 21).
It turns out, then, that Christ’s advent and atoning
work do not relax the validity of the law of God
and its demand for righteousness; rather they accentuate
it. Sal\-ation does not cancel the law-s demand
but simply the law’s curse: “Christ redeemed us from
the curse of the law. ha’ing become a curse for us”
(Gal. 3 :13). He removed our guilt and the condemning
aspect of the law toward us, but Christ did not
re’oke the law’s original righteous demand and
obligation. Salvation in the Biblical sense presupposes
the permanent validity of the law. Furthermore,
the Holy Spirit ind}velling all true believers
in Jesus Christ makes them gTow in likeness to
Christ –’to the measure of the stature which belongs
to the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13, 15; cf. Gal.
4:19).
Christian ethics is a matter of imitating Christ,
and for that reason it does not call us to flee from the
law but to honor its requirements. We are to have in
ourselves the attitude which was in Christ Jesus,
who humbled himself and became obedient (Phil.
2:5, 8). We are to follow in His steps of righteous behavior
(1 Pet. 2:21), showing forth righteousness
because the Holy Spirit unites us to Him (1 Cor.
THE SOWS MODEL RPGHTEOUSNE.SS 61
6:15-20). Therefore the Biblical ethic is the Christian
ethic of following after the example of Christ’s
obedience to God’s law. John expresses this point
clearly: “Hereby we know that we are in Him: he
that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to
walk even as he walked” (1 John 2 :5-6). And as we
have abundantly seen above, Christ walked according
to the commandments of God. We cannot escape
the conclusion that the Christian ethic is one of obedience
to God’s law. for Christ’s perfect righteousness
according to that law is our model for Christian
living,
From beginning to end the Bible centers on Jesus
Christ. From beginning to end His life was lived in
conformity to the law of God. And from beginning
to end the Biblical ethic of imitating Christ calls us
likewise to obey every command of God’s word:
8
THE SPIRll% DYNAMIC
FOR LIVING
“The Holy Spirit does not replace the law of
God in the Christian’s life, nor does He oppose
the law of God in our behavior:
We have seen previously that God’s holy
character, of which the law is the transcript, is unchanging
and beyond challenge; accordingly God’s
holy law cannot be altered today or brought into
criticism by men’s traditions. We have also observed
that Christ’s perfect obedience, which is the model
for the Christian’s behavior, was rendered to every
detail and facet of God’s commandments; accordingly,
every believer who makes it his aim to imitate
the Savior must be submissive to the law of God as
honored by Christ. The character of God the Father
and the life of God the Son both point to the law of
God as morally binding for Christians today. In addition,
the work of God the Spirit cannot be viewed
THE SPIRll=S DYNAMIC FOR UVlffi 63
as in any way detracting from our obedience to
Gods law; otherwise the unity of the Triune Godhead
would be dissolved and we would have three
gods (with separate wills and intentions, diverse attitudes
and standards) rather than one.
The truth is, as presented by Scripture, that the
Holy Spirit is the Spirit “of God” (1 Cor. 2:12) and is
given by the Father (John 14:16; 15 :26; Acts 2: 33).
He is likewise designated the Spirit “of the son” (Gal.
4:6; cf. Phil. 1:19; Rem. 8:9) and is sent by Christ
(John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; .4cts 2:33). The Holy Spirit
does not work contrary to the plans and purposes of
the Father and Son but rather completes them or
brings them to realization. The harmony of His
workings with the Father and Son is illustrated in
John 16:15, where we read that evething possessed
by the Father is shared with the Son, and in turn
whatever is possessed by the Son is disclosed by the
Spirit. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit work as
one. They are not in tension with each other. Consequently,
we should not expect that the work of the
Holy Spirit in our lives would run counter to the
character of the Father and the example of the Son.
We should not expect that this Spirit, who inspired
the writing of God’s holy law, would work contra~
to that law by undermining its validity, replacing its
function, or leading us away from obedience to it.
When we think of Biblical ethics or Christian behavior
we should think of a Spirit-filled and Spiritled
life. The Holy Spirit gives new life to us (John
3: 3-8), renews us (Titus 3 :5-6), and enables us to
make profession of faith in Christ (1 Cor. 12:3); in64
BY THIS STANDARD
deed, without the work of the Spirit, a person cannot
be a Christian at all (Rem. 8:9; Gal. 3:2). The Holy
Spirit illumines the believer (Eph. 1:17). leads him
(Rem, 8:14), and writes Gods word upon his heart
(2 Cor, 3 :3); by the Spirit we can understand the
things freely given to us by God ( 1 Cor. 2 :12-16). The
Spirit seals the believer (Eph. 1:13; 4:30), indwells
him \vith inner refreshment as an ever-flowing river
of living water (John 14:17: Rem. 8:9; 1 Cor. 3:16;
John 7:38-39), and constitutes the down payment
from God on our eternal inheritance (Eph, 1:14).
The “Spiritual” man – the believer as subject to
such influences of God’s Spirit — will show the
dramatic effects or results of the Spirit’s ministry in
his life.” By the Spirit he will put to death the sinful
deeds of his body (Rem. 8:13), for the Spirit produces
holiness in the lives of God’s people (2 Thess.
2:13; 1 Peter 1:2). Being filled with the Spirit (Eph.
5: 18), the believer’s life will manifest worship, joyful
praise, thanksgiving, and submission to others (w.
19-21). Christians are to walk by the Spirit (Gal,
5:16), thereby evidencing the harvest of love, joy,
peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness, and self-control (VV. 22-24). Christian
living and behavior can therefore be summarized as
“living by the Spirit .“
Sanctification
This has far-reaching consequences for believers.
In the first place it indicates that salvation
necessitates sanctification in one’s life, The believer
in Christ is not only saved from his moral guilt beTHE
SWWT’S LWNAMIC FOR LMNG 65
fore God, but he is also saved from the moral pollution
in which he formerly lived. Christianity is not
merely a matter of believing certain things and anticipating
eternal comfort; it does not start and end
with forgiveness for our sins because we have come
to Christ as Savior. Christianity likewise requires living
continually under the Lordship of Christ, eliminating
indwelling sin, and walking righteously before
God.
The Christian is one who has been freed not only
from the curse of sin but from the bondage of sin as
well. Christian experience extends beyond the moment
of belief and pardon into the daily exercise of pursuing
sanctification without which no one will see God (Heb.
12: 14), It entails life in the Holy Spirit, which can only
mean progressive holiness in one’s behavior. We are
saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) — unto a life
of obedience: %e are His workmanship created in
Christ Jesus unto good works” (v. 10).
If living by the Spirit indicates that salvation
must bring sanctification, then it means that salvation
produces a life of glad obedience to God’s law.
Salvation frees one from sin’s bondage so that he can
walk lawfully (James 1:25; Gal. 513-14), which is to
say lovingly (cf. 1 John 5 :1-3), for the leading
evidence of- the Spirit’s work in one’s life is love (Gal.
5:22). Those who have been saved by faith must be
diligent to exercise the good works of love (Titus
3:5-8; James 2:26; Gal. 5:6), and the standard of
good behavior and loving conduct is found in God’s
revealed law (Ps. 119:68; Rem. 7:12, 16; 1 Tim. 1:8;
John 14:15; 2 John 6).
66 BY THIS STANOARD
The Iz?o~ Spirit works in the believer to bring
about conformity to the inspired law of God as the
pattern of holiness. The “requirement of the law” is
“fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the
flesh, but’ according to the Spirit” (Rem. 8:4). When
God puts His Spirit within a person it causes that
person to walk in the Lord’s statutes and keep His
ordinances (Ezk. 11:19-20). Therefore, since salvation
requires sanctification, and since sanctification
calls for obedience to the commandments of God,
the New Testament teaches us that Christ “became
the author of eternal salvation unto all those who obg
Him” (Heb. 5:9). This does not contradict salvation
by grace; it is its inevitable outworking.
The Church and God’s Law
Sadly, the church today often tones down the demands
of God’s law out of a misconceived desire to
exalt God’s grace and avoid any legalism wherein
salvation is grounded in one’s own law-works.
Rather than finding the @@r place for God’s law
within the plan of salvation and pursuing its function
within the kingdom of Christ, the church frequently
promotes an “easy believism” which does not proclaim
the need for heart-felt repentance, clearly
manifest the sinner’s utter guilt and need of the Savior,
or follow up conversion with exhortation and
discipline in righteous living.
Of course without the law of God which displays
the unchanging will of God for man’s attitudes and
actions in all areas of life, there is a corresponding
de-emphasis on concrete sin for which men must reTHE
SPlRl15 DYNANIC FOR LIVINQ 67
pent, genuine guilt which drives men to Christ, and
specific guidelines for righteous behavior in the believer.
Taking Paul out of context, some churches
and teachers would make their message “we are riot
under law but grace .“ They would present evangelism
and Christian nurture as though mutually exclusive
of concern for God’s righteous standards as
found in his commandments. ‘They would focus on
the extraordinary work of the Spirit in a supposed
second blessing and the charismatic gifts. The whole
of the Biblical message and Christian life would be
cast into a distorted, truncated, or modified form in
the interests of a religion of pure grace,
However, Gods word warns us against turning
the grace of God into an occasion or cause of licentious
living (Jude 4); it insists that faith does not nullify
God’s law (Remans 3:31). One has to be dectjved,
Paul says, to think that the unrighteous could possibly
inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10).
Those who demote even the slightest requirement of
God’s law will themselves be demoted in the Lords
kingdom (Matt. 5:19).
‘The answer to legalism is not easy believism,
evangelism without the need for repentance, the
pursuit of a mystical second blessing in the Spirit, or
a Christian life devoid of righteous instruction and
guidance. Legalism is countered by the Biblical understanding
of true “life in the Spirit.” In such living,
God’s Spirit is the gracious author of new life, who
convicts us of our sin and misery over against the
violated law of God, who unites us to Christ in salvation
that we might share His holy life, who enables
68 BY THIS STAt+DARD
us to understand the @idance given by God’s word,
and who makes us to grow by God’s grace into people
who better obey the Lord’s commands.
The precise reason that Paul assefis that we are
under grace and therefore not una!a the condemnation OT
curse of the law is to explain how it is that sin does not
have dominion over us – to explain, that is, why we
have become slaves to obedience and now have lives
characterized by conformity to God’s law (Rem.
6:13-18). It is God’s grace that makes us Spiritual
men who honor the commandments of our Lord.
Spiritual Powers
The answer to legalism is not to portray the law
of God as contrary to His promise (Gal. 3:21) but to
realize that, just as the Christian life began by the
Spirit, this Me must be nurtured and perfected in the
power of the Spirit as well (Gal. 3:3). The dynamic
for righteous living is found, not in the believer’s
own strength, but in the enabling might of the Spirit
of God. We are naturally the slaves of sin who live
under its power (Rem. 6:16-20; 7:23); indeed, Paul
declares that we are dead in sin (Eph. 2:1). However,
if we are united to Christ in virtue of His death and
resurrection we have become dead to sin (Rem. 6:3-4)
and thus no longer live in it (v. 2).
Just as Christ was raised to newnesof life by the
Spirit’(l Tim. 3:16; 1 Pet. 3:18; Rem. 1:4; 6:4, 9), so
also we who have His resurrected power indwelling
us by the life-giving Spirit (Eph. 1:19-20; Phil. 3 :10;
Rem. 8:11) have the power to live new lives which
are freed from sin (Rem. 6:4-11). The result of the
THE SPIRll% DYNAMIC FOR UVING 69
Spirit freeing us from sin is sanctification (v. 22).
The gracious power of the new and righteous life of
the Christian is the resurrection power of the Holy
Spirit. Here is the antidote to legalism.
We must observe in this regard that the Holy
Spirit does not replace the law of God in the Christian’s
life, nor does He oppose the law of God in our
behavior. The gracious Spirit who empowers our
sanctification does not speak for Himself, git’ing a
new pattern for Christian behavior (John 16:13).
Rather He witnesses to the word of the Son (John
14:23-26; 15:26; 16:14). The Spirit is not an independent
source of direction or guidance in the Christian
life, for His ministry is carried out in conjunction
with the already giren word of God (cf. 1 Cor.
2:12-16).
In terms of our sanctification this means that the
Spirit enables us to understand and obg the objectioe standard
of GOES revealed law. It does not mean that Christians
who are indwelt by the Spirit become a law
unto themsel’es. spinning out from within themselves
the standards by which they li~e. What the
Spirit does is to supp~ what was lacking n the law
itself— the power to enforce compliance. ‘What the law
could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God
did: sending His- own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in
the flesh in order that the requirement of the law might
be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the
flesh, but according to the Spirit” (Rem, 8:3-4).
70 BY THIS STANDARU
Conclusion
C,od’s law is still the blueprint for sanctified behavior.
This is completely unailected by the Spirit’s
ethical ministry in the believer. The Holy Spirit does
not oppose that law in the slightest degree but, instead,
empowers obedience to it. “I will put My
Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes,
and you will be caref]l to observe My ordinances”
(Ezk. 36:27). Whereas the letter of the law
brought death to man because he was unable of himself
to comply with it, the Spirit of God enlivens men
so that they can conform to God’s standards (2 Cor.
3:6). Therefore the sure test of whether someone has
the Spirit abiding in him or not is found in askhig if
he ke@ the commandments of God (1 John 3:24). A Biblical
view of the work of the Holy Spirit reinforces
the validity of God’s law for the Christian, showing
how the law (as pattern) and the Spirit (as power)
are both indispensable to sanctification.
C. MOTIVATIONAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL
PERSPECTIVES
9
A MOTIVATIONAL ETHIC
ENDORSES THE LAW
“All of God’s people, throughout both testaments,
have a hearl which longs to obey the
commandments of the Lord, for the law is
established against the background of God%
mercy toward His people.”
Those who are genuine believers in Christ know
very well that their salvation cannot be grounded in
their own works of the law: “. . . not by works of
righteousness which we did ourselves, but according
to His mercy He saved us, . . . that being justified by
His grace we might be made heirs according to the
hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:5-7). The believer’s justification
before God is grounded instead in the perfect
obedience of Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:11; Rem. 5:19); it is
His imputed righieousnm that makes us right before the
judgment seat of God (2 Cor. 5:21). “A man is justified
by faith without the deeds of the law” (Rem. 3:28).
72 BY TIUS STANDARD
Consequently, a truth that is dear to the heart of
every Christian is the summary provided by Paul in
Ephesians 2:8, %y grace have you been saved
through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift
of God — not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Salvation is grounded in the grace of God, and the
instrumental means by which we gain it is saving
faith. The law does not save us but rather strikes us
dead (Rem. 7:9; 2 Cor. 3:6-7).
It is true, therefore, that the Christian life and
ethic should be characterized by the grace of God
and saving f%ith; the believer’s behavior ihould be a
reflection of his faith in the mercy of God. The
Christian ethic ought not to stand in opposition to
salvation by grace through faith. As Paul said, ‘%y
the grace of God we have had our behavior in the
world” (2 Cor. 1:12), and the Christian life can be
designated “the good fight of faith” (1 Tim. 6:12).
However, this does not mean that the Christian life
is one of antagonism to the law of God, as many people
seem to infer. It is too often thought that, since
the law condemns us and cannot save us, grace and
faith release us from any obligation to God’s law. .4
gracious ethic of faith, we are told, cannot tolerate
rules, regulations, or commands from God — that
would be ‘legalism,” it is said. But such thinking and
reasoning is not biblical. Such antinornian implications
must be corrected by God’s word.
Law and Grace Are Correlative
God’s law defines my sin and thereby my need
for the Savior. Christ has saved me horn the guilt
A MOTIVATIONAL ETNtC ENOORSES TNE LAW 73
and power of sin just because the law of God is so
important; it displays the kind of life required by
God, and the comequences ?f disobedience to it must not
be ignored. In being saved from the wrath of God
upon law-breakers, I will naturally (supernaturally)
desire now to keep the formerly transgressed standard
of Gods law. In that light we can obseme that
Scripture portrays law and grace as correlatire to
each other. God’s grace operates within the parameters
of His law — in justifying His people, God does
not violate His own justice (Rem. 3:26). .4nd God’s
law is gracious (Ps. 119:29). The two support each
other: the law promotes the fulfillment of God’s
promise (Rem. 5:20-21), and God’s grace works to
fulfill the law (Rorn. 8:3-4).
When Paul says that we are saved by grace
through faith, he immediately adds that as God’s,
workmanship we are expected to walk in good works
(Eph. 2 :10). Although it is popular today to look
upon the law as an intolerable burden for modern
man, the beloved apostle wrote that for the believer
God’s law is not burdensome (1 John 5:3). When the
Psalmist reflected upon the lovingkindness of the
Lord, he longed to be taught His statutes and rose at
midnight to render thanks for His righteous ordinances
(Ps. 119:62-64). Moses viewed the giving of
God’s law as a sure sign of his love for the people
(Deut. 33:2-4).
All of God’s people, throughout both testaments,
have a heart which longs to obey the commandments
of the Lord, for the law is established against the
background of God’s mercy toward His people (for
74 By THIS STANDARD
example, Ex. 20:2). Zke jirst-hand a@rience of Go#s
redemption k a strong motive for keeping the /Qw (Deut.
7:10-11). The grace of God, that is, brings men to exclaim:
“I long for Thy salvation, O Lord, and Thy
law is my delight” (Ps. 119:174). Paul, for example,
wrote, ‘I delight in the law of God after the inward
man” (Rem. 7:22). God’s law, you see, had been
graciously written upon his heart (Heb. 10:16).
In Remans 6, Paul discusses the implications of
being under Gods grace. He begins by asking
whether we should continue in sin (law-breaking) so
that grace might abound; his answer is a dramatic
“God forbid!” (w. 1-2). Those who have had their old
man crucified with Christ, those who are united with
Christ in his death and resurrection, those who have
risen with Him must walk in newness of life, no
longer in bondage to sinful living (w. 3-11). So Paul
exhorts us, “let not sin reign in your mortal body so
that you should obey its lusts; neither present your
members unto sin as instruments of unrighteousness
.“ Those who are saved by grace from the power
of sin should be finished with violating God’s law. Instead
they must, having been made alive from the
dead, present their members as instruments of righteousness
(w. 12-13).
Why is this? How can it be that we are obliged to
obey the righteous requirements of God’s law if we
are saved by grace? Paul answers: “Because sin shall
not have dominion over you: you are not under law,
but under grace” (v. 14). Ironically, although many
groups have used this declaration out of context to
support release from the law’s demand, the verse is
A MOTIVATIONAL ETHIC ENDORSES THE IAW 75
one of the strongest biblical proofs that beiieuem must
stn’ue to obey the lam of God!
Because we are no Ionger under the curse of the
law and shut into its inherent impotence in enabling
obedience — because we are under God’s mabling
grace, not under law – we must not allow violations of
the law (i. e., sin: 1 John 3:4) to dominate our lives.
It is in order that the righteous ordinance of the law
may be fulfilled in us that God has graciously put
His Spirit within our hearts (Rem. 8:4). “So then,
shall we sin because we are not under law but under
grace? God forbid!” (Rem. 6:15). “The grace of God
has appeared unto all men, bringing salvation, instructing
us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires
and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the
present age,” for Christ has “redeemed us from every
lawless deed” (Titus 1:11-14). God’s grace upholds
His law.
It is to be expected. therefore, that Paul would
ask the following question and supply the obvious
answer: “Do we then nulli@ the law through faith?
May it never be! On the contrary we establish the
law” (Rem. 3:31). Faith which does not bring obedient
works – that is, faith which is divorced from
God’s law – is in fact insincere and dead (James
2:14-26). This kind of faith cannot justify a man at
all .
The Westminster Confession of Faith .(1646) is
true to Scripture when it teaches that “good works,
done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the
fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith”
(XVI:2). By saving faith, the Confession says, a
76 BY THIS STANDARD
man will yield obedience to the commands of Scripture
(.XIV:2). Genuine saving faith always is accompanied
by heart-felt repentance from sin and turning
unto God, “purposing and endea~oring to walk w-ith
Him in all the ways of His commandments” (XV:2).
\h7e conclude, then, that the Christian’s life of grace
and faith is not one which is indifferent or antagonistic
to the Ia\v of God. God’s grace and saving faith
establish the raliditv of the law.
Christian Love and God’s Law
The same can be said for the basic Christian
ethic of love. Because God has shown His lo’e toward
us, we are now to lire in love to Him and our
neighbor (Eph. 5:1-2; 1 John 4:7-12, 16-21). On these
two love commandments — toward God and toward
our neighbor (as taught in the Old Testament [Deut.
6:5, Lev. 19:18]) – hang all the law and the prophets,
said Jesus (Matt. 22:37-40). Indeed, ‘love is the fulfillment
of the law” (Rem. 13:10). But in the thinking
of Jesus and the apostles, does this mean that Christians
can dispense with the law of God or repudiate
its details? Not at all. Moses had taught that loring
God meant keeping His commandments (Deut.
30:16), and as usual Jesus did not depart from
Moses: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments”
(John 14:15).
The love which summarizes and epitomizes
Christian ethics is not a vague generality or feeling
that tolerates, for instance, everything from adultery
to chastity. John wrote: ‘Hereby we know that we
love the children of God, when we love God and do
A MOTIVATIONAL ETHIC EFOXISES THE LAW ?7
His commandments. For this is the love of God, that
we keep His commandments” (1 John 5:2-3). Love
summuri.zes the law of God, but it does not abrogate
or replace it. As John Murray once wrote, “the summary
does not obliterate or abrogate the expansion
of which it is a summary.” 1 God’s commandments
give the specific character and direction to love as exercised
by the believer. Rather than being a law unto
itself (autonomous), love is a reflection of the character
of God (1 John 4:8) and must therefore coincide
with the dictates of God’s law, for they are the transcript
of God’s moral perfection on a creaturely level.
God has loved us in that He saved us by grace
through faith. Accordingly the Christian life ought
to reflect the principles of gtace, faith, and love;
without them it is vain and insignificant. However,
far from eliminating the law of God, a gracious ethic
of faith and love establishes the permanent validity
of — and our need for — the Lord’s commandments. . .
1. John Murray, F%inczlh o~ Condw-i (Grand Rapids, hlichigan:
Eerdmans, 1957), p. 192.
10
A CONSEQUENTIAL ETHIC
ENDORSES THE LAW
“It will be for our good, our neighboFs good,
and our society’s good, if all our actions and attitudes
are governed by an interest in the kingdom
of Jesus Christ.”
We have said earlier that all of life is ethical: people
are constantly making moral decisions, forming
attitudes, and setting goals. We have also noted that
there are many competing views of ethics. Let us
delineate three buic a@roaches to ethical decisionmaking
and ethical evaluating of ourselves, our actions,
and our attitudes. First, some people weigh all
moral issues and make their choices according to a
norm .or standard of good and evil. Second, others
will determine how actions and attitudes are to be
morally graded on the basis of one’s character— his
traits, intentions, or motives. Third, there will be
others who see the consequences which follow fkom a
A CONSEQUENTIAL ETHIC ENDORSES TNE LAW 79
person’s behavior as counting the most in ethical
planning and evaluating; if the effects which come
from some action (or the anticipated results) are
beneficial (or more beneficial than alternatives),
then the action is deemed morally good and acceptable.
In summary we can call these the normative,
motivational, and consequential approaches to
ethics. (Sometimes the technical designations are
rendered as the deontological, existential, and
teleological approaches to ethics. )
Now then, the Bible has afocus on ethics from beginning
to end, this interest is expressed along the lines of
all three of the ethical perspectives we have just outlined.
That is, the Bible looks to the standard which
we are to follow, encourages a certain kind of
character and motivation in us, and sets before us
goals or consequences we should pursue.
The normative and motivational perspectives have
been somewhat explored already. We have seen that
God has lovingly and graciously set down in His inspired
word a code of moral behavior for His creatures
to follow; the commandments or law of God
constitute the norm of ethics for all men, whether
they accept it or not. God’s law is found throughout
the Bible and is fully valid as a standard of morality
today. This is a uniform standard, binding all men
in all ages, for it reflects the unchanging holiness of
God. It was this law which Christ perfectly obeyed
as our Savior, thereby leaving us an example to follow,
and it is this law which the Holy Spirit fulfills in
us by sanctifying us daily. Thus the Bible gives us
the law of God as our normative approach to moral80
BY THIS STANDARD
ity; \vhen God the Lawgiver speaks, His voice is one
of authority and must be obeyed. His standard is absolute
— unqualified, all-embracing, and beyond
challenge.
We have also seen the kind of character which God
requires in those who meet His favor. The moral
man is one characterized by a holiness which reflects
the nature of God — as expressed in His revealed law.
The follower of Christ will attempt to emulate the
Savior’s virtues – as corresponding to God’s law. The
genuinely Spiritual man will follow the leading of
God’s Spirit, thereby walking in the paths of God’s
commandments. What we have seen is that the motivational
approach to ethics is not to be divorced
from, or set in contrast to, the normative approach
to ethics.
Christians will want the grace of God that saved
them to be manlest in their adions and attitudes; they
will want to live out every moment of life in a faithful
and loing way so as to be a witness to what God’s
faithful love has done for them. And again, when we
look at Scripture to find the implications of a gracious
lifestyle which is characterized by faith and
love, we learn that God’s law shows us our way. The
motivational and normative approaches to ethics go
hand in hand in the word of God.
The Benefits of Righteousness
Let us now turn to the consequential approach to
ethics according to the Bible. Consequences are important
when we evaluate our past actions or contemplate
future decisions. Paul communicates this
A CONSEGIJENTIAL ETHIC~ THE LAW 81
well in saying that we would have to be deceived to
think God could be mocked .- Evil living will not
bring about happiness and blessing, for then the justice
and holiness of our God would be a mockery.
Rather, says Paul, “whatsoever a man soweth, that
shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7). Those who live according
to their rebellious nature will suffer corruption,
while those who live by God’s Spirit will gain eternal
life (v. 8). And on that basis Paul exhorts believers,
“let us not be weary in well-doing.” Why? Because
“in due season we wdl reap, if we faint not” (v. 9).
It is noteworthy here that Paul focuses on the
benefits which will accrue to us if we engage in welldoing.
It is not – contrary to modern-day versions of
Christian asceticism – somehow ignoble or sub-ethical
for a Christian to be motivated by the thought of
reward for righteous living. God often sets before us
the prospect of divinely granted benefits as an incentive
for moral living.
For instance, Jesus said, “Seek ye first the
kingdom of God and its righteousness, and all these
things (daily provisions of life) shall be added unto
you” (Matt. 6:33). Paul taught that “Godliness is
profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the
present life and also for the life to come” (1 Tim.
4:8). The Old Testament prophet Malachi exhorted
God’s people that if they would obey Him (here, by
bringing in their tithes), God would open the windows
of heaven and pour out a blessing for which
there would not be enough room to take in (Mal.
3:10). Even earlier, the great leader of the Israelites,
Moses, had written that obedience to the Lord
82 BY TNIS STANDARD
would result in blessings on the society’s children,
crops, rain, herds, cities, and fields; it would bring
peace to the people from without and prosperous
economy and health from within (Deut. 7:12-15;
11:13-15; 28:1-14; 30:15, 19; Lev. 26:3-12). In ethical
decision-making, we should properly consider the
end, aim, or consequences of our behavior. Doing
the right thing or having a proper attitude will result
in benefits. But benefits for whom? Should our aim be
to benefit ourselves, the other person, or the society as
a whole? The Bible indicates that each of these is a
subordinate, but vital, interest that we should have.
For example, when Christ commands, Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 22:39), He tells
us to seek the benefit of the other jut m we seek our
own benefit. Hence Paul tells husbands to love their
wives (the other) as their own bodies (the self) precisely
because nobody hates himself (Eph. 5:28-29).
Egoism (note: not egotism) and altruism both
have a place in Christian ethics, as does a concern
for the wider collection of people in one’s society.
Thus, the Bible often exhorts the interest of the one
to be relinquished for the benefit of the many (for example,
2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 1:24). However, all of these
interests are subordinate to the one supreme goal for
all of our actions: the kingdom of God. Within that
kingdom the varying interests of one’s self, the other,
and the many are all harmonized.
Our Lord plainly declared that we were to “Seek
jirst the kingdom of God and His righteousness.” The
kingdom of Christ is to have top priority when we
contemplate the consequences of our actions, for
A CONSECAENTIAL ETHIC ENDORSES THE LAW 83
Christ has @e-eminence over all (Col. 1:18). It will be
for our good, our neighbor’s good, and our society’s
good if all of our actions and attitudes are governed
by an interest in the kingdom of Jesus Christ.
How do we pursue that kingdom? How do we
gain the bemjits which God promises to those who
will live according to His righteousness? Obviously,
by obeying the King and manifesting His righteousness
in our lives. God’s word shows us how to do just
that by setting down the law of the Lord for us.
Biblical law is a pathway to divine benefits – not an
ugly, dour, painful course for believers. It is not only
a demand, it is something to desire! As John said,
‘His commandments are not burdensome” (1 John
5:3). The y are the delight of the righteous man who
receives God’s blessing (Ps. 1). If we wish to have a
morality which promises blessed consequences,..then
our morality must be patterned after the law of God.
Consider what God’s word says about following
the commandments of God. It brings to us life and
well-being (Deut. 30:15-16), blessing and a strong
heart that does not fear (Ps. 119:1-2; 112:5-7). Obedience
produces peace and security (Ps. 119:28, 165,
175; Prov. 13:6; Luke 6:46-48). The Lords lovingkindness
is upon those who obey His precepts (Ps.
103:17-18), and they walk in liberty (Ps. 119:45; Jas.
2:25). As indicated already abo’e, keeping God’s
word results in prosperity with respect to all of our
daily needs and interests (cf. Joshua 1: 7). Moreover,
collective obedience will bring blessing upon a society
as well. “Righteousness exalts a nation” (Prov.
14:34), giving it health, food, financial well-being,
84 BY THIS STANOARD
peace, andjoyouschddren.
In short, we-see that a con.seqwnttil approach to
ethics cannot be functional without the normutive approach
as well; the two work together because the
way of blessing is diligent obedience to the law of
God. Seeking first the righteousness of Christ’s kingdom
requires heart-felt obedience to the dictates of
the King, and in response to that He grants us every
blessing for this life and the next. We see again why
the validity or authority of God’s law cannot be dismissed
today. Without that law we would be lost
when it comes to pursuing the beneficial consequences
for ourselves, others, and our society in all
of our moral actions and attitudes. As God clearly
says, He has revealed His law to us for our good
(Deut. 10:13). Opponents of God’s law, therefore,
cannot have our good genuinely in mind; they wittingly
and unwittingly mislead us into personal and
social frustration, distress, and judgment (Prov.
14:12).
D. OLD TESTAMENT LAW IN
THE NEW TESTMENT AGE
11
THE NEW TESTAMENT EXPLICITLY
SUPPORTS THE LAW
“The New Testament message and morality are
squarely founded on the validity of God’s law.
Without that foundation the gospel would be
expendable, and the Christian walk would be
aimless and self-serving.”
In previous chapters we have traced numerous
lines of biblical thought which teach and require the
validity of God’s commandments — all of them
throughout Old and New Testaments – and their
continuing authority in our lives. Because we live in
an age which is so antagonistic to God-given directives,
and because such vast portions of the current
church are likewise disinclined toward God’s revealed
stipulations, it is crucial that we pay close attention
to the precise teaching of God’s inspired,
unerring, and authoritative word. Bibliczd ethics is
not opposed to the law of God; rather, that law is
86 BY TNIS STANDARD
essential to Christian morality. The wise man will
establish his moral perspective on the rock-foundation
words of Christ in Scripture. Therein we are instructed
that God is unchanging in His standards for
righteousness, not altering them fi-om age to age or
from person to person. Since God’s law defined righteousness
in the Old Testament, it continues to define
righteousness for us today. C,od has no double-standard.
Whether the Christian strives to imitate the
holiness of God, to model his behavior after the life of
Christ, or to be led by the Spirit, he will invariably be
directed by Scripture to heed the law of God; the law
is a transcnpt of God% unchanging holiness, the standard of
righteousness followed by the Savior, and the Pattern of
sanct!$cation empowered by the Spirit.
The continuing authority of God’s law today is
inherent to a biblically based theology. Time does
not change or wear out the validity- of God’s commands,
and a change of geography or locality does
not render them ethically irrelevant. With the coming
of the New Covenant and the spreading of the
church throughout the world, we still read in Scripture
that the law of God is to be wrz”ttin on our hearts,
and we are to disciple all nations and teach them to
observe whatsoever the Lord has commanded. The
Biblical doctrines of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit,
and the Covenant of Grace all harmonize in pointing
to the abiding validity of God’s inspired law.
The Three Approaches
If one takes a normative appoach to ethics, a
motivational approach to ethics, or a consequential
TNE NEW TESTAMENT EXPLICITLY SUPPORTS TNE LAW 87
approach to ethics, he is always brought to the same
conclusion: God? law is authoritative for contempora~
ethics.
The norm which God has given to direct our
lives and to define our sin is revealed in His law, a
law from which we are to subtract nothing; since the
Lawgiver has not altered His law – indeed, the Son
of God has confirmed that law for His followers — it
must remain valid for us today.
If we turn to the motivational approach to ethics,
our concern will be to live in a way appropriate to
our gracious salvation; we will want to be the kind of
people who are characterized by faith and love.
Scripture shows us that those who are grateful for
God’s grace will strive to live in obedience to His
commandments; rather than canceling the commandments
of God in ethics, faith establishes the
law, and love is a summary of the law’s requirements.
So then, a motivational approach to
ethics — like the normative approach — declares the
current validity of God’s law.
Finally, the consequential approach to ethics
evaluates actions and attitudes according to their
beneficial results or comparative lack thereof. Christ
teaches us in his word that the primary goal of our
moral behavior is the kingdom of God; when we
make it that, every temporal and eternal blessing
will be ours. The righteousness of this kingdom is
defined by the law of the King, and thus Scripture
promises that obedience to the law of God will eventuate
in outstanding blessing for ourselves, our
neighbors, and our society. In short, the law of God
88 BY THIS STANDARD
was revealed for our good.
Therefore, the validity of God’s law has been
substantiated in previous chapters by the cardinal
doctrines of the Christian faith and by all of the major
perspectives on ethics. The present authority of
the Lord’s commandments is inescapable on any
honest reading of God’s word.
Moreover the validity of God’s law extends to all
of His righteous commandments. None can be subtracted
from the stipulations which bind us without
His authority, and such subtraction has no biblical
warrant. Both Old and New Testaments teach God’s
people to live by mwy word from God’s mouth, for
God does not alter the words of His covenant. Every
one of His ordinances, we are taught, is everlasting.
Accordingly, Christ emphatically taught that His advent
did not in the least abrogate one jot or tittle of
the Old Testament law; according to His teaching,
even the minor specifics of the law were to be
observed — as a measure of our standing in the
kingdom of God.
Paul maintained that every Old Testament scripture
has moral authority for the New Testament
believer, and James pointed out that not one point of
the law was to be violated. Reflecting the unchanging
righteousness of God, every commandment has
abiding validity for us. To subtract even the least
commandment is to transgress God’s explicit prohibition
and to be least in the kingdom of God.
Hence the morality of the Old Testament is identical
with that of the New.
TNE NEW TESTAMENT EXPUCITLY SUPPORTS l_l+E l-#iW 89
New Testament Ai%rrnations
There are many ways in which the New Testament
undergirds the summary statements that have
been rehearsed above. Attention to the teaching of
the New Testament will disclose the emphatic endorsement
it gi’es to the Old Testament law of God.
For instance, the New Testament is concerned that
men who are guilty of sin be redeemed by Christ and
learn to live without sinning by the power of the
Holy Spirit, Because sin is defined as transgression
of God’s law (1 John 3:4; Rem. 7 :7), the thrust of the
New Testament message presupposes the validity of
God’s law for today. Throughout the New Testament,
the believer’s perpetual moral duty is that of
[ooe, and yet love is defined by the New Testament in
terms of God’s law (Matt. 22:40; Rem. 13:10; 1 John
5:2-3). Consequently the New Testament message
and morality are squarely founded on the validity of
God’s law.- Without that foundation, the gospel
would be expendable, and the Christian walk would
be aimless and self-serving.
We can briefly summarize a number of other
ways in which the New Testament indirectly but forcibly
indicates the authority of all of God’s law for
this age.
The Teachings of Jesus
Oftentimes the people who are introduced in the
New Testament as blessed or favored by God are
characterized as obedient to God’s law in particukw
– for instance, Elisabeth, Zacharias, Joseph, and
Mary (Luke 1:6; 2:21-24, 27, 39). During his
~ TNE NEW TESTAMENT EXPLICITLY SUPFORTS TNE LAW
ministry on earth Christ often appealed to the law of
God to bolster his teaching (John 8:17), vindicate his
behavior (Matt. 12:5), answer his questioners (Luke
10: 26), indict his opponents (John 7:19), and give
concrete identity to the will of God for men (Matt.
19:17). He taught his disciples to pray that God’s will
would be done on earth (Matt 6:10), and after his
resurrection He directed them to teach all nations to
observe whatsoever He had commanded (Matt.
28:18-20). In all of these ways – without elaborate introductions
or explanations for departing from a
general principle or perspective – the New Testament
simply a..ssunzes the standing authority of every
command of the Lord found in the Old Testament.
If the Old Testament law were invalidated by the advent
or work of Christ, the preceding examples
would be incredibly out of character and call for
some convincing explanation. Yet none was needed.
Jesus affirmed with solemn authority that not
even the least commandment of the entire Old Testament
was to be taught as without binding validity
today (Matt. 5:19), for according to his perspective
“Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Accordingly
Christ reaffirmed elements of the decalogue,
for example “Thou shalt not kill” (Matt. 19:18). He
also cited as morally obligatory, aspects of the Old
Testament case law: for instance, “Do not defraud”
(Mark 10:19), and “Thou shah not test the Lord thy
God” (Matt. 4:7). He even cited with approval the
penal code of the Old Testament with respect to incorrigible
delinquents (Matt. 15:4).
Jesus expected the weightier matters of the law to
THE NEW I%STAMENT EXPLICITLY SUPPORTS THE LAW 91
be obsemed without leaving the minor details undone
(Luke 11: 42). ~ He was concerned that His own
behavior be correctly seen as in accord with God’s
law (Mark 2:2 5-28), and He directed others to live
by the law’s regulations (Mark 1:44; 10:17-19). None
of this could make sense except on the obvious
assumption that all of the Old Testament law continues
to be an authoritative standard of morality in
the New Testament era. Because that law is indeed
our standard of ethics, Christ the Lord will one day
judge all men who commit lawless deeds (Matt.
7:23; 13:41).
The Teaching of the Apostles
The apostolic attitude toward the law of the Old
Testament parallels that of Christ. The keeping of
the law is greatly significant (1 Cor. 7:19), for the
believer is not without the law of God (1 Cor.
9:20-2 7). Law-breaking is not to have dominion
over the believer (Rem. 6:12-13; 1 John 3:3-5), for
the Holy Spirit fulfills the ordinance of the law
within him (Rem. 8:4). The law is written on the
New Covenant believer’s heart (Heb. 8:10), so that
those who loyally follow Christ are designated by
John as those “who keep the commandments of God
and hold the testimony of Jesus” (Rev. 12:17; 14:12).
The apostles often supported their teaching by
appealing to the law (for example, 1 Cor. 14:34; Jas.
2:9) – its general precepts found in the ciecalogue
(for example, “Thou shalt not steal,” Rem. 13:9), the
case law applications of those details (for example,
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treads ,“
92 BY THIS STANDARD
1 Tim. 5:18), the penal code (for example, ‘if I am an
e’ildoer and have committed anything worthy of
death, I refuse not to die,” Acts 25:11; cf. Deut.
21:22; Rem. 13:4), and e-en “holiness” requirements
in the ceremonial law (for example, 2 Cor. 6:14-18).
Conclusion
We must conclude that anyone whose attitude toward
the Old Testament law is informed by the
teaching and practice of the New Testament must
maintain the law’s full and continuing validity today.
Those }vho, in the name of a distinctive “New Testament
ethic ,“ downgrade or ignore the Old Testament
law are sternly warned by the Apostle John: “He that
saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments,
is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John
2:4). In genuinely Biblical ethics, the Old Testament
will not be pitted against the New Testament at any
point.
12
NEW TESTAMENT
THEMES ENDORSE THE LAW
“The presupposition of the New Testament
authors is continually and consistently that the
Oid Testament law is valid today.”
The New Testament utilizes a large number of
expressions and concepts in communicating moral
instruction to God’s people — so large that one short
study cannot mention them all. The uatity of themes
found in New Testament ethics helps to drive home
to our hearts God’s message and demand. It covers
our moral obligation from many perspectives, offers
us numerous models and motivations for a proper
reamer of life, and facilitates the production and
maintenance of ethical maturity in us. “
Yet the large variety of New Testament ethical
themes does not imply a correspondingly large
diversity of ethical s ystems of convicting expectations.
God is consistent and changes not (Mal. 3:6); with
~ BY THIS STANDHim
there is no variableness or turning (Jas. 1:17).
His word does not equivocate, saying “yes” from one
perspective but “no” from another (2 Cor. 1:18; cf.
Matt. 5:37). Therefore His standards of conduct do
not contradict each other, approving and disapproving
of the same things depending upon which theme
in New Testament ethics we are considering. The
Lord prohibits us from following conflicting authorities
(Matt. 6:24) and requires our behavior in the
world to reflect ‘godly sincerity” — that is, unmixed
attitude and singleness of mind or judgment (2 Cor.
1:12).
New Testament ethical instruction thus shows a
diversity of expression but a unity of expectation.
This is simply to say that all of the various moral
themes in the New Testament are harmonious with
each other. As we survey a few of these New Testament
themes, it will be siificant to note how they
consistently assume or explicitly propogate the
standard of God’s Old Testament law — which, given
the unchanging character of God and the consistency
of His ethical standards, is not at all surprising.
God’s law is woven throughout the ethical themes of
the New Testament.
Kingdom Righteousness
The central demand of Jesus in the Sermon on
the Mount is that of a righteousness befitting the
kingdom of God. Righteousness and God’s kingdom
are intimately related: persecution for the sake of
righteousness is rewarded in the kingdom (Matt.
5:10), and the Lord requires a righteousness exNEW
TESTAMENT ETHICAL THEMES ENDoRSE TliE UW 95
ceeding that of the scribes and Pharisees in order to
enter the kingdom at all (Matt. 5:20). Just as Moses
delivered a divine pronouncement from the hount,
assert ing God’s standard of righteousness, so also
.Jesus speaks from the mount with God’s requirement
of righteousness, confirming every detail of
even the least commandment in the Old Testament
(Matt. 5:19). He proclaimed, “Seek first the kingdom
of God and His righteousness!” (Matt. 6:33). How is
such kingdom righteousness to be accomplished?
Jesus explained in the Lord’s prayer: when we ask
“Thy kingdom come ,“ we are praying “Thy will be
done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). The
doing of God’s will, which Jesus found in the Old
Testament law, is crucial to the New Testament
theme of kingdom righteousness.
God is portrayed in the New Testament as a God
of righteousness (John 17:25), and the fruit that He
brings forth in people is that of righteousness (Eph.
5:9). “If you know that He is righteous, you also
know that everyone who practices righteousness has
been begotten of Him” (1 ‘John 2:29), and “whosoever
does not practice righteousness is not of God” (1
John 3 :10). As Paul says, we are not to be deceived:
“the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God ,“ and as examples of the unrighteous he lists
~iolators of God’s laii (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Kingdom
righteousness, then, is demanded of all believers.
“Follow after righteousness” can serve for Paul as a
short summary of Timothy’s moral duty (1 Tim.
6:11).
But where is the character of this kingdom right96
BY THIS STANDARD
eousness to be found for New Testament writers?
What does righteousness entail in behavior and attitude?
Paul tells Timothy that an all-sufficient “instruction
in righteousness” is found in e.wy scripture
of the Old Testament (2 Tim. 3:16-17), thereby encompassing
the law of God found therein. In fact,
speaking of the Old Testament law, Paul categorically
declares that “the commandment is . . . righteous”
(Rem. 7:12). Kingdom righteousness, therefore,
cannot be understood as contrary to the righteous
commandments of the King. In Paul’s perspective,
it is “the doers of the law” who shall be accounted
righteous (Rem. 2:13).
Righteousness in the New Testament is portrayed
as having absolutely no fellowship with lawlessness
(the Greek word for “iniquity,” 2 Cor. 6:14).
To love righteousness is precisely to hate all lawlessness
(Heb. 1:9). God’s law cannot be discarded or
despised by those who would practice the righteousness
of God’s kingdom according to the New Testament
understanding of ethics. That entails, as we
have seen, every last commandment in every scripture
of the Old Testament — “uprightness” allows no
deviation from perfect conformity to God’s rule (cf.
Deut. 6:25).
The Way of Righteousness
In his second epistle Peter describes New Testament
Christianity as “the way of righteousness”
(2: 21). “The Way” was an early designation for the
Christian faith (for example, Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23;
22:4; 24:22), probably stemming from Christ’s own
NEW TESTAMENT EIwCAL TNEMES ENGQRSE Tt+E MW 97
self-declaration that He was “the way” (John 14:6).
The expression is adapted throughout the New Testament,
where we read of “the way of salvation”
(Acts 16:17), “the way of God” (Matt. 22:16; Acts
18:26), “the way of the Lord” (Acts 13:10), “the way of
peace” (Luke 1:79; Rem. 3:17), “the way of truth” (2
Peter 2:2), and “the right way” (2 Peter 2:15). However,
the distinctive terminology of 2 Peter 2:21 is
“the way of righteousness,” and Peter treats the
phrase %-he holy commandment” as interchangeable
with it in this verse. Professing Christians who know
the way of righteousness and then turn back from
the holy commandment are the apostates. Michael
Green says in his commentary here that it is “a fair
inference from the text that the first stage in their
apostasy was the rejection of the category of law. . . .
Rejection of God’s law is the first step to the rejection
of God, for God is a moral being.” 1 The “way of
righteousness” describes the true kingdom of God in
the New Testament. Thus New Testament Christianity
cannot be set over against the law of God, opposing
its standard, for such opposition would amount to
turning away from the holy commandment delivered
by our Lord and Savior (cf. 2 Peter 3:2).
Christ himself spoke of ‘the way of righteousness”
in connection with the ministry and message of John
the Baptist: “John came unto you in the way of righteousness”
(Matt. 21:32). Of course John was preem-
1. Michael Green, l% &xmd Epirtle of Pett-r and the Epistle <f
Jude, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed, R. V. G.
Tasker (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968), p. 120.
98 BY THIS STANDARD
inently a righteous preacher belonging to the era of
the law and prophets (Matt. 11:11, 13). He proclaimed
that the coming of God’s kingdom demanded repentance
(Matt. 3:2), the confession of sirI (3:6), and
bringing about the good fruit worthy of repentance
(3:8, 10). As the last preacher in the era of the law
and prophets (and forerunner of the Lord), it must
be obvious what the standard of sin, repentance, and
good fruit would have been for John and his hearers
— the Zaw of God. Confirmation of that is found in the
details of his preaching where the requirements of
God’s law were expounded (Luke 3:10-14, 19; Mark
6:18).
John came in ‘the way of righteousness,” applying
God’s law. This was only to be expected of the
one who fulfilled the awaited coming of Elijah to restore
all things (Matt. 11:14; 17:10-13). The angelic
message of John’s coming birth makes it clear that
the ministry of Elijah which John would perform was
according to the pattern of Malachi’s prophecy: “Remember
the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded
unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes
and ordinances. Behold, I will send you Elijah
the prophet before the great and terrible day of
Jehovah comes” (Mal. 4:4-5; cf. v. 6 with Luke 1:17).
John’s preaching in ‘the way of righteousness” was
anything but antagonistic to the law of the Lord
found in the Old Testament. Likewise, those who
belong to “the way of righteousness” today must recognize
the important place which the law of God has
in Christian ethics.
Of course, whether we consider the righteousNEW
TESTAMENT ETNICAL TNEMES ENDORSE TNE LAw 99
ness of God’s kingdom or the way of righteousness,
our attention must be focused on God Himself as the
model of all righteousness. The faithfhl descrii in
Revelation 15 who have been victorious over the
Beast are portrayed as singing to the Lord, “righteous
and true are Thy ways, Thou King of the ages”
(v. 3). Those who extol the righteousness of God
here are believers who resisted the Beast’s attempt to
replace God’s law with his own (cf. Rev. 13:16 and
Deut. 6:8), and the song which they sing is designated
“the song of Moses, the servant of God” — a
phrase reflecting Joshua. 22:5, “Ordy take diligent
heed to do the commandment and the law which
Moses the servant of Jehovah commanded you, to
love Jehovah your God, and to walk in all his ways,
and to keep His commandments, and to cleave unto
Him, and to serve Him with all your heart and with
all your soul.”
The righteousness of God is expressed in His law.
Accordingly, the kingdom righteousness demanded
by Christ and the apostles and the “way of righteousness”
encompassing the Christian faith both assume
and apply the law of God. Whenever these themes
appear in New Testament ethics, they are expressive
of the standard of God’s commandments as found
throughout the Old Testament. Such was the understanding
of the New Testament writers themselves.
Holiness and Sainthood
A Biblical concept closely related to that of
righteousness is the concept of holiness. While the
former emphasizes a just and upright conformity
100 BY THIS STANDARO
with a standard of moral perfection, the latter lays
stress on utter separation from all moral impurity.
However, the norm for both is the same in Scripture.
An unrighteous man cannot be deemed holy, and an
unholy person will not be seen as righteous.
Abo\e all God is “the Holy One” (1 John 2:20; as
applied to Christ, Mark 1:24; John 6:69; Acts 3:14:
Rev. 3 :7). When He saves us and draws us to Himself,
He makes {s /to&— that is, “sanctifies” us-as
well. We were chosen in Christ before the foundation
of the world “in order that we should be holy
and without blemish” (Eph. 1:4): from the beginning
God chose us to be saved in believing the truth and
in holiness (sanctification) produced by the Holy
Spirit (2 Thes. 2:13). By His own sacrifice and the
work of reconciliation accomplished by his death
(Heb. 10:I4; Col. 1:22), Christ sanctifies the church,
aiming to present it as holy and without blemish before
God (Eph. 5:26-27). It is God who makes us holy
(1 Thes. 5:23), especially through the ministry of
the Holy Spirit in us (1 Peter 1:2).
Holiness is thus an important ethical theme in
the New Testament. Believers are called by God precisely
to be holy ones — that is “saints” (Rem. 1:7; 1
Cor. 1:2). Christians in a particular locality or
church are customarily designated as God’s “saints”
(Acts 9:13, 32; Rem. 15:25; 2 Cot-. 1:1; Phil. 4:22);
these holy ones are those for whom the Holy Spirit
makes intercession (Rem. 8:27), to whom God
makes known His mysteries (Col. 1:26), and for
whom we are to show acts of love (Col. 1:4; Rom.
12:13: Heb. 6:10; 1 Tim. 5:10). They have been
NEW TESTAMENT ETNICAL THEMES ENDORSE THE LAW 101
chosen, redeemed,, and called to be “sanctified,”
which is to say set apart, consecrated to God’s service,
or holy before Him. .
The inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s redemptive
kingdom means that they have become “fellowcitizens
with the saints” (Eph. 2:19) in the “commonwealth
of Israel” (2:12). Accordingly, the church is
made up of those sanctified in Christ Jesus and caIled
to be /zo$ ones or “saints” (1 Cor. 1:2). Christians are
the “holy brothers” (Heb. 3:1), a “holy temple of
God” (1 Cor. 3:17: Eph. 2:21), purged vessels of
honor “made holy for the Master’s use” and ready for
every good work (2 Tim. 2:12).
Any conception of New Testament ethics which
skirts holiness or encourages anything contrary to it is
in diametric opposition to the text of God’s word. Holiness
of life is an inescapabk requirement for God’s people.
They must present their bodies as holy sacrifices
(Rem. 12:1) and their members as semants of righteousness
unto sanctification or holiness (Rem. 6:19).
God has called them to holiness rather than uncleanness
(1 Thes. 4:7) and freed them from sin so that they
might produce the fi-uit of holiness (Rem. 6:22).
As believers we must establish our hearts unblamable
in holiness before God (1 Thes. 3:13) and
see to it that our behavior in the world is in holiness
(2 Cor. 1:12). Everywhere we turn in the New Testament,
the ethical theme of holiness keeps reappearing;
its demand is constant. Paul’s stirring exhortation
summarizes this demand well: “let us cleanse
ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting
holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1).
102 BY THIS STANOARD
What is the character of this holiness which the
New Testament takes as a pervasive moral theme?
By what standard is holiness measured and where is
concrete guidance in holiness found? The fact that
Christians are to be holy is so often stated in the New
Testament that we must certainly assume that the
7iorm or criterion of holiness was already well known; little
needs to be said to explain to New Testament readers
what this holiness requires. The suggestion is unavoidable
that the Old Testament standards of morality
already sufficiently defined the holiness which
God sought in His people. Hebrews 12:10 indicates
that God chastens us so that we may become “partakers
of His holiness ,“ and thus New Testament holiness
is nothing less than a reflection of God’s character
on a creaturely level.
How does one who is a sinner in thought, word,
and deed come to know what God’s holiness requires
of him? Peter makes it clear what is implicit in the
pervasive New Testament theme of holiness when he
writes, “even as he who called you is holy, be
yourselves also holy in all manner of living; because
it stands written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy’ “
(1 Peter 1:15-16). Here Peter quotes the Old Testament
law from such places as Leviticus 11:44-45;
19:2, and 20:7, where it is evident that God’s people
would be sanctified and be holy by following all the
statutes of God’s revealed law. Christ was surely including
the Old Testament in His reference, when
he prayed that His people would be sanctified by His
word of truth (John 17:17). Indeed, Paul explicitly
says that the Old Testament law is our standard of
NEW TESTAMENT ETHICAL THEMES ENDORSE THE LAW 103
holiness today even as it was for the saints of Israel:
“So then the law is ho, and the commandment holy,
and righteous, and good” (Rem. 7:12). In the bok
of Revelation, John leaves no doubt about the place
of God’s law in the holiness of Gods people. He defines
the “saints” (holy ones) precisely as “the ones
keeping the commandments of God and the faith of
Jesus” (14:12; cf. 12:17).
In the moral theology of Jesus, Peter, Paul, and
John, the concept of holiness explicitly conforms to
the law of God found in the Old Testament word of
truth. We therefore see again that New Testament
ethics cannot be pitted against God’s law without doing
damage to a central theme of the New Testament
scriptures.
Separation from the World
Another ethical theme in the New Testament,
one which is closely allied with that of holiness (i. e.,
“separation” unto God and away from defilement), is
the theme of separation from the world. Of course,
this does not denote a desire to withdraw from the
affairs of life or the community of men. Christ made
this abundantly clear in praying for us in this
fashion: “I do not pray that you should take them out
of the world, but that you should keep them from
evil (or the evil one)” (John 17:15).
When the New Testament speaks of separation
from the world, the term ‘world” is medfor the ethtial condition
of sinful rebe[ion against God. The “course of this
world” is Satanic and makes one a disobedient child
of wrath (Eph. 2:2-3). “Friendship with the world is
li)4 BY TwS STANDARD
enmity with God,” says Jarnes (4:4), and therefore
true religion is “to keep oneself unspotted from the
world” (1: 27). The “world” is understood as the locus
of corruption and defilement (2 Peter 1:4; 2:20).
John puts it dramatically and clearly when he says,
“the whole world lies in the evil one” (1 John 5:19) –
even as his gospel continually shows that “the world”
is understood as the domain of disobedience, disbelief,
and ethical darkness (John 1:29; 3:17, 19; 4:42;
6:33, 51; 8:12; 9:5; 12:46, 47; 16:8). John says elsewhere
that “all that is in the world” is “the lust of the
flesh and the lust of the eye and the vainglory of life”
(1 John 2:15-17).
Hebrews 12:14 exhorts us to “follow after . . . the
sanctification without which no man shall see the
Lord,” indicating that those who are acceptable to
God must be “set apart” (sanctified) unto Him and
“separated” from the sinful pollution of the world.
This entails cleansing from defilement (2 Cor. 7:1),
leading a spotless life (2 Peter 3:14) – language reminiscent
of the purity and sacrificial laws of the Old
Zkstament. Second Timothy 2:19 summarizes the
New Testament theme of separation from the world:
“Let every one that names the name of the Lord depart
from unrighteousness .“
How is this to be done? What is the nature of
such separation from unrighteousness and defilement?
By what standard does the New Testament
Christian separate himself from ‘the world”? James
instructs us that the word of God — which for James
surely included the Old Testament scriptures of his
day – is the key to this ethical separation: “. . . putNEW
TESTAMENT ETHICAL THEMES ENDORSE THE IAW 105
ting away all filthiness and overflotving of wickedness,
receive with meekness the implanted w-oral,
and not hearers only, deluding your own selves”
(1: 21-22). fz can put away wodd$ vice and corruption b}
doing t!hat is stipulated in the word of God, including the
stipulations of the Old Testament and its law:
‘. he that looks into the perfect law of liberty and . . .
continues, not being a hearer who forgets it but a
doer that practices it, this man shall be blessed in his
doing” (1:25).
Paul’s theology agrees with this. “For the grace of
God has appeared to all men, bringing salvation, instructing
us to deny ungodliness and \vorldly desires
and to lire sensibly, righteously, and godly in the
present age”- looking for the appearance of Christ
who “redeemecI us from evev lawless deed” (Titus
2:11-14). Sal\ation provided by Christ enables us, by
avoiding law[ess behavior, to deny the unethical di--
rection of worldliness. In his commentary on this
passage, Calvin wrote, “The revelation of God’s
grace necessarily brings with it exhortations to a
godly life. . . In God’s Law there is complete perfection
to which nothing else can ever be added.”
Paul exhorts us to ‘have noyellowship with the unfruitful
works of darkness” (Eph. 5 :11), and it is evident
that for Paul the Old Testament law directed
God’s people as to how they could avoid such evil fellowship.
Citing the law at Deuteronomy 22:10, Paul
said “Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers, for
what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness?”
(2 Cor. 6:14). Further citing the Old Testament
regarding the laws of holiness by which Israel was
1~ BY TlilS STANOARD
“separated from” the Gentile nations, Paul goes on to
write: “Come out from among them and be separate,
says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; and I
will receive you” (v. 17).
An example of these Old Testament laws which
separated Israel from the world is found in Leviticus
20:22-26, where we see that the observation of such
laws (for example, distinguishing unclean from
clean meats) was but symbolic of separation horn
worldy customs. All meats are now deemed clean
(Mark 7:9; Acts 10:14-15), yet God’s people are still
obligated to separate themselves fi-om worldliness
(Rem. 12:1-2) and union with unbelievers (2 Cor.
6:14-17). How was holy separation accomplished, according
to Leviticus 20? ‘You shall therefore keep my
statutes and all mine ordinances and do them” (v. 22).
The Good, Well-pleasing, and Perfect Will of God
A passage expressing the ethical themes of holiness
and separation fi-om the world is Remans
12:1-2. Paul there says, “Therefore I beseech you,
brothers, by the mercies of God to present your bodies
a living sacrifice, holy, well-pleasing to God,
which is your reasonable service; and do not be conformed
to this world (age), but rather be transformed
by the renewing of your mind, so that you may
prove what is the will of God, the good and wellpleasing,
and perfect.” Going beyond the themes of
holiness and separation, Paul speaks of the good,
well-pleasing, and perfect will of God. These same
concepts are combined in the benediction at the end
of the book of Hebrews: “Now the God of peace . . .
NEW TESTAMENT ETFNCAL TNEMES ENDORSE THE IAW 107
make you perject in every ood thing to do His will,
working in us that which is well-pleasing in His sight,
through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory for ever
and ever. Amen” (13: 20-21).
Perhaps the most fundamental ethical concept in
either the Old or New Testament is that of the will of
God. All ethical decisions and moral attitudes of
God’s people must be in accord with the will of the
Lord by which He prescribes what is good, or wellpleasing,
or perfect in His sight. Anything conflicting
with that will is immoral and displeasing to God,
quite naturally. Jesus said that His “meat” was to do
the will of the Father who sent Him (John 4:34), and
that those who did the will of the heavenly Father
were His “brother and sister and mother” (Matt.
12: 50); we manifest whose children we are by our
righteous behavior or lack of the same (1 John 3:1).
Christ taught His disciples to pray, “Thy will be
done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). Doing
God’s will is not merely a matter of words but of concwti
acts of obedience (Matt. 21:28-31); the will of God
must be done from the heart (cf. Eph. 6:6). Therefore,
not those who cry “Lord, Lord,” but only those
who do the will of the Father in heaven will enter
into the kingdom (Matt. 7:21); those who know the
Lord’s will and fail to do it will be beaten with many
stripes (Luke 12:47). On the other hand, if a man
does the will of God, he will be able to discern the doctrine
which comes from God (John 7:17), and his
prayers will be heard (John 9:31; cf. 1 John 5:14).
While the world and its lusts pass away, he who does
the will of God abides forever (1 John 2:17). Conse108
BY THIS STANDAm
quently, Paul can encapsulate New Testament ethics
in one stroke, saying “be not foolish, but understand
what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). Indeed, we
are to aim to stand perfect, fully assured in all the
will of God (Col. 4: 12).
The Source of Alan k Standards
Where do we learn, understand, and become
assured of God’s will? The New Testament offers little
by way of an explicit ansver to such a question.
We learn that the will of God stands over against the
lusts of men (1 Peter 4:2), and in a very few cases we
are told what the will of God specifically requires (for
example, abstaining from fornication and giving
thanks in all things, 1 Thes. 4:3; 5:18). However,
there is no detailed discussion of the requirements of
God’s will, and concrete guidance in God’s will as
such is not systematically explored. Why not?
Especially since the will of God is such a crucial
ethical theme, we might have expected different y.
The answer lies in recognizing that the common
conviction of the inspired New Testament writers is
that the will of God has already been given a specific
and sufficient explication in the Old Testament. It is
simply assumed that one can speak of “the will of
God” without explanation because it is obvious that
God’s will traces back to the revelation of His will in
the law previously committed to Scripture. Accordingly,
1 Samuel 13:14 can be quoted about David, “a
man after My heart who will do all My will” (Acts
13: 22), and it is expected that the reader will recall
that in the Old Testament setting of this statement
NEW T=TAMENT ETNICAL TNEMES ENDORSE TNE LAW 109
David is contrasted with Saul precisely with respect
to the keeping of God’s commands.
Paul convicts those who glory in God and claim
to know His will, and yet transgress the law, thereby
dishonoring God (Rem. 2:17-18, 23). And John
would add, “And hereby we know that we know
Him, if we keep His commandments. He that says,
‘I know Him,’ and keeps not His commandments, is
a liar and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:3-4). In
the New Testament, God’s will is assumed to be
found in His law and commandments.
The Good
The good, goodness, or “good works” is also a key
theme in New Testament ethics. John says, %eloved,
imitate not that which is e-il but that which is good.
He that does good is of God; he that does evil has not
seen God” (3 John 11). Paul declares, “Faithful is the
saying, and concerning these things I desire that you
affirm confidently, to the end that they who have believed
God may be carefid to maintain good works”
(Titus 3:8). Although guarding diligently the truth
that si=dvation is by grace through faith, Paul nevertheless
taught that “we are His workmanship, created
in Christ Jesus unto. good works, which God before
prepared that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10).
By what standard, then, do we judge what is ethically
good? Again, the New Testament is here resting
on the revelation of God’s law for its understanding
of the ethical theme of the good. When asked
what good thing should be done to inherit eternal
life, Jesus responded: “If you would enter into life,
110 BY THIS STANDARD
keep the commandments” (Matt. 19:16-17) – and He
makes it crystal clear that He is referring to the Old
Testament law (w. 18-19). Likewise Paul could state
without qualification that ‘the commandment is
holy, and righteous, and good. . . . I consent unto
the law that it is good” (Rem. 7:12, 16). Elsewhere he
expresses the common outlook of the Christian faith,
“we know that the law is good” (1 Tim. 1:8).
Plasing God
Another concern of New Testament ethics is to
realize what is “well-pIeasing” unto God. Paul says,
‘we make it our aim . . . to be well-pleasing unto
Him” because all will appear before His judgment
seat to receive the things done in the body, whether
good or bad (2 Cor. 5:9-10). Elsewhere Paul identifies
the kingdom of G&l with righteousness, peace,
and joy in the Holy Spirit, “for he that herein serves
Christ is well-pleasing to God” (Rem. 14:17-18).
Those who have no fellowship with the unfruitful
works of darkness but who walk rather as children of
light, the fruit of which is all goodness, righteousness,
and truth, are actually “proving what is wellpleasing
unto the Lord” (Eph. 5:9-11).
Thus it is basic to New Testament morality that
our actions and attitudes should be well-pleasing in
the. sight of God, but how can we make them so?
How does anyone know what pleases God or not? It
is unusual for Paul to give a speciiic or concrete instance
(for example, Phil. 4:18) for this broad concept.
However, at one point when he does so, it is
not difficult to see what his ethical standard was. In
NEW TESTAMENT ETHICAL THEMES ENDORSE THE LAW 111
Colossians 3:20 Paul instructs children to obey their
parents, “for this is well-pleasing in the Lord.” The
commandments of the law, therefore, can serve and
did serve as detailing what is well-pleasing to God,
even in New Testament morality.
Perfection
Perfection is another moral theme of the New
Testament which deserves our attention. Paul would
have believers “stand perfect and fully assured in all
the will of God” (Col. 4:12). John discourses against
fear because it is inconsistent with being made
perfect in love (1 John 4:18), and for John love is
tested by adherence to Gods commandments (cf.
5:2-3). James teaches that steadfastness through
trials will have “its perfect work,” so that we are lacking
in nothing (1:2-4), and he sees every perfect
gift – in contrast to sin – as coming from God abov~
(1:17). With an insight into the special power of sins
of the tongue, James tells us that if an y man does not
stumble in word he is a perfect man (3:2).
Studying perfection as a moral concept in the
New Testament, we once again are taken back to the
standard of God’s law. Christ taught that our perfection
must be modelled after the heavenly Father:
“Therefore you shl be perfect, as your heavenly
Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). Significantly, this exhortation
follows and summarizes a discourse on the
full measure of the Old Testament law’s demands
(VV. 21-48). When Christ was later approached by
one who presumed to be obedient to the law, Christ
taught him that to be perfect he would need to re112
BY TNIS STANDARD
nounce every sin against God’s commandments and
every hindrance to complete obedience to them
(Matt. 19:21). Accordingly, we learn that Gods law
is our standard of moral perfection today. James instructs
believers that the man who is blessed of God
is the one who is a doer of the word, having “looked
into the perfect law” (Jas. 1:25).
Summaiy
We may return now to Romans 12:2, where
Paul’s ethical guidance to the New Testament believer
is to follow the will of God, that which is good,
well-pleasing, and perfect. We have seen that the
New Testament consistently assuma as common
knowledge (and explicitly applies the truth) that t/ze
commandments of 6WS iaw in the Old Testument are a
suj%timt and valid standard of Godi will, of the good, of the
lell-pleasing to the Lord, and of pe@ection. Whenever
these themes appear in the New Testament scriptures
the authority of God’s law is repeatedly being
applied. Our obligation to that law is reinforced
many times over when Paul summarizes the ethical
standard for New Testament morality as “the good,
well-pleasing, and perfect will of God.” God himself
is to receive the glory for bringing our lives into conformity
with this unchallengeable norm for Christian
conduct. He is the One who, through the ministry
of His Son, makes us “perfect in every good thing
to do His will, working in us that which is wellpleasing
in His sight” (Heb. 13:20-21).
Every attempt to reject the law of God in the
New Testament era meets with embarrassment beNEW
TESTAMENT ETNICAL TNEMES ENDORSE TNE LAW 113
fore the text of the New Testament itself. The righteousness
of God’s kingdom, the way of righteousness,
holiness and sainthood, our separation from
the world, and the good, well-pleasing, perfect will
of God, all require that our behavior conform to the
standard of God’s commandments as revealed once
and for all in the Old Testament. This standard is
woven implicitly throughout New Testament ethical
teaching.
Spiritual Freedom
Further important ethical themes in the New
Testament would include freedom in the Holy
Spirit, love, the fi-uit of the Spirit, and the golden
rule. Jesus declared, “Everyone who commits sin is
the sla’e of sin” (John-8:34), and only the Son of
God can truly set us free from that bondage (8:36).
He does this by applying the redemption which He
has accomplished for us in His death and resurrection
— applying redemption through the Holy Spirit,
who frees us from the bondage of sin and death
(Rem. 8:1-2). This Spiritual freedom does not give
us the prerogative to live or behave in just any way
we please; Spiritual freedom is not the occasion of
moral arbitrariness. Paul says, “Being made free
from sin now, and become servants to God, you have
your fi-uit unto sanctification” (Rem. 6:22). The Holy
Spirit does not give us the freedom to sin – that is,
the freedom to transgress God’s law; rather, the
Spirit gives us the freedom to be the slaves of Chn”st
and produce holy behavior. The regenerate man is
happy and willing to “serve the law of God” (Rem.
114 BY THIS STANDARD
7:25). The very bondage from which the Spirit releases
us is described by Paul as precisely the sinful
nature’s inabili~ to be subject to the law of God (Rem.
8: 7). Obviously, &eedom from this inability must
now mean bez”ng subict to the law of God! This freedom
does not turn the grace of God into licentiousness
(cf. Jude 4) but inclines the heart of those once
enslaved to sin to the Spirit-given law (Rem. 7 :14).
The “ordinance of the law” is to be “fi-dlilled in us
who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit”
(Rem. 8:4). Therefore the Bible makes it quite clear
that our Spiritual freedom is not liberty from God’s
law, but liberty in God’s law. James calls the commandments
of God ‘the perfect law of liberty”
(2:25), thereby combining two descriptions of the
law given by the Psalmist: “The law of the Lord is
perfect” (Ps. 19:7) and “I will walk at liberty, for I
seek Thy precepts” (Ps. 119:45). Genuine freedom is
not found in flight from God’s commands but in the
power to keep them. God’s Spirit frees us from the
condemnation and death which the law brings to sinners,
and the Spirit breaks the hold of sin in our
lives.
However, the freedom produced by the Spirit
never leads us away from fulfilling God’s law: “For
you, brethren, were called for freedom; only use not
your freedom for an occasion to the flesh, but
through love be servants one to another. For the
whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, You
shall love your neighbor as yourseW (Gal. 5:13-14).
When Paul teaches that “where the Spirit of the Lord
is, there is liberty” (2 Cor. 3:17), it is taught in the
NEW TEST~ ETNICAL TNEMES ENDORSE TNE LAW 115
context of the Spirit’s New Covenant ministry of
writing God’s law upon the believer’s heart and
thereby enabling obedience to that law (2 Cor.
3:3-11; cf. Jer. 31:33; Ezk. 11:20). Consequently, the
ethical concept of Spiritual freedom in the New Testament
is anything but indifferent to the law of God.
The Spirit frees us from law-breaking for the purpose
of law-keeping.
Love
One of the most conspicuous ethical themes in
the New Testament is that of love. Indeed, the New
Testament is a story about love – God’s love for sinners
(John 3 :16) and their subsequent love for Him
and others (1 John 4:19). One of the most sustained
ethical essays in New Testament literature is in fact a
discourse on the necessity, supremacy, and characteristics
of love (1 Cor. 13). Love is at the heart both
of the gospel and of Christian behavior (1 John
4:10-11). Few who are knowledgeable of the New
Testament writings will deny that love summarizes
in one word the Christian ethic.
It is noteworthy that the New Testament writers
demonstrate the ethical authority of love by
reference to the Old Testament law. Why is love so
important? What gives love its ethical preeminence?
Why must the dictates of love be respected? What
makes love such an authoritative standard? Precisely
that it communicates the substance of the law? demands! In
summarizing our moral duty in love, Christ actually
quoted the love commands from the Old Testament
case law (Matt. 22:37-39). He said that love to God
116 BY THIS STANDARU
and neighbor were crucial because “On these two
commands hang the whole law and prophets” (v. 40).
Love is a moral necessity for Paul precisely because
it fulfills the law (Rem. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14).
Love for your neighbor means that you do not commit
adultery with his wife, steal his car, or slander
him behind his back–just as the law requires. Likewise,
James considers love the fulfillment of the
royal law (2:8), and .John specifically writes, ‘This is
the love of God, that we keep His commandments” (1
John 5:3). The assumption of the New Testament
writers and the development of their thought is that
Gbdls law k moml~ authm”tativ; because love expresses
and follows that law, love too is a fitting standard of
moral guidance. The foundational authority of love
cannot be isolated from the law of God.
The Fruit of the Spirit and the Golden Rule
The same can be said for other New Testament
summaries of our moral duty. A prominent pattern
of godly living is set forth by Paul in the list of “the
fruit of the Spirit,” which Paul sets over against the
fi-uit of the sinful nature (or flesh) in Galatians
5:16-24. The attitudes or character traits mentioned
by Paul as the outcome of the Spirit’s work in a
believets life (“love, joy, peace . . .”) are a model for
Christian morality. Yet Paul makes it clear that the
ethical authority of these traits rests on the underlying
authority of God’s law. Having listed the Spirit’s
fruit, Paul explains why these traits are so important
in Christian ethics: “. . . against such there is no
law” (v. 23). In the same way we can observe that the
NEW TESTAMENT STNICAL TliEMES ENDORSE TNE MW 117
popular and pervasive summary of New Testament
living known as the “golden rule” – or whatever you
vould have men do to you, do even so unto them — is
presented as morally authoritative by Christ just
bcause “this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7 :12).
The golden rule communicates the essential demand
of the law of the Old Testament, and as such it is a
standard of ethics which we must respect. Thus we
observe that the most common summaries of New
Testament morality – whether love, the fruit of the
Spirit, or the golden rule – derive their importance
and binding character from the law of “God which
they express. The presupposition of the New Testament
authors is continually and consistently that the
Old Testament law is valid today.
Conclusion
Any attempt to speak of New Testament ethics
apart from kingdom righteousness, or the holiness of
Christ’s saints and their separation from the world,
or the good, well-pleasing, perfect will of God, or the
stature of Christ, or resurrection life, or Spiritual
freedom, or love, or the fruit of the Spirit, or the
golden rule, is bound to be inadequate. And any attempt
to understand these concepts apart J-em the
Old Testament law is bound to be inaccurate.
13
NEW TESTAMENT MORAL
JUDGMENTS ENDORSE THE LAW
“The attempt made by some Christian teachers
today to reject or circumscribe the authority of
the Old Testament law will over and over again
meet with embarrassment before the text of the
New Testament.”
The Old Testament law of God gives definitive
substance to many of the central themes of New Testament
ethics — as we have illustrated before. When
we ask what it means to follow the will of God or to
be holy, as the New Testament requires, we find that
the law of God defines these ethical themes. Likewise,
the law of God is assumed in notions like kingdom
righteousness or the golden rule. The law functions
as a standard and a guide when we heed New
Testament exhortations to attain the stature of
Christ or demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit. New
Testament ethical themes quite often take for
NEW TESTAMENT MORAL JUDGMENTS ENDORSE TNE LAW 119
granted the validity OF God’s Old Testament commandments.
The complete, continuous, and thuscontemporary
validity of the Old Testament law which is assumed
without challenge in manv thmw.s of New Testament
ethics is brought out explicitly in mord”udgnmt~ which
fill the pages of the New Testament. In particular
circumstances, when some kind of moral e~aluation,
direction, or exhortation is called for, New Testament
preachers and writers often show that they
stand firmly on the Old Testament law in making
their judgments. They treat and utilize the standing
rules of ethics as found in the Old Testament as
though these rules were meant for them to keep —
even though these rules were given a great many
years earlier, before the advent of Christ our Savior.
Particular instances of ethical decision-making in the
New Testament illustrate once again that the commandments
of God found in the Old Testament hare
not been discarded, repudiated, or ignored as somehow
no longer authoritative and valid.
Use and Validity
Imagine that you wake up some morning to an
exasperating problem: the plumbing under the kitchen
sink needs repair, and a pool of water sits on
the floor. After you mop up the mess, you stop and
take thought as to what should be done to solve your
plumbing problem. You think about calling a
plumber, but reject that plan as too expensive and
perhaps unnecessary. Upon reflection, you come to
believe that you might very well be able to repair the
In BY THIS STANDARD
plumbing yourself– if only you had some good
direction. Therefore, you conclude that you will go
down to the public library this morning and check
out a self-helfi book on kitchen plumbing. Add one
more feature to this scenario, namely, that you are
reasonably informed as to the operating procedures
of a public library. That is, you realize that the
library is not open all of the time and that only those
with libray cards may have the privilege of checking
out books.
So then, let us go back to your decision to check
out a self-help book on plumbing this morning.
What does such a decision tell us about your current
beliefs? Among other things it tells us that you
believe (rightly or wrongly) that the public library is
open this morning, that you have a library card
there, and that the library card is still valid. If you
decided to use the library’s self-help plumbing book
this morning but knew either that the library was
closed, that you had no card, or that your card was
expired, you would most likely be irrational or a
crook. People do not normally plan to use things
which are closed down (for example, the library),
non-existent, or expired (for example, your library
card).
Likewise when you wait in line at the Mobil Oil
gasoline station, fill your car’s tank with gas, and
then hand the attendant your credit card, you are
expecting that the card is still valid. Whether you
scrupulously check the expiration date on the credit
card before submitting it for payment to the attendant
or not, the very fact that you use the card
NEW TESTAMENT MORAL JUOGMENTS ENDORSE THE LAW 121
reveals the assumed ~alidity of that card. And the attendant’s
acceptance of that card shows that he too
believes it to be a valid one. When something has expired
or is no longer valid, we do not have the authority
to use it. Dishonesty aside, an expired libral~
card or invalid credit card is useless. On the other
hand, the use of something indicates its validity.
UhJ
Much of the same can be said regarding rules.
Invalid or expired rules ha-e lost their authority and
as such are useless (except for purposes of historical
illustration). A professor may draw laughs from his
class by reading some of the city ordinances which
were on the books a century ago, but a policeman
would be out of place in tqing to enforce them. A
rule which has been repealed, amended, or replaced
is no longer authoritaive and cannot be used as a
rule any longer. Thus if a rule is put to use, the
assumption must be that it is (or is thought to be) a
valid rule. k$rhen a football referee allows a
touchdown to count which was accomplished by
means of a forward pass, it is futile for the other
team to complain against the pass on the grounds that
the forward pass was once illegitimate in football.
The old prohibition against the forward pass has
been repealed, and football is now played by slightly
different rules. When a baseball umpire does not
allow a designated hitter to bat for the pitcher, it is
evident that the umpire is taking National League
rules to be valid instead of American League rules.
The we of the particular rule instead of alter1=
BY THIS STANDARD
native rules demonstrates the current authon”ty and ualidi~
of the particular rtde. For this reason a driver who
is stopped by a highway patrolman for traveling
sixty-five miles per hour will not avoid a ticket by appealing
to the former law which set the maximum
speed at sixty-five. The use of the fifty-five mile per
hour speed law by the courts and the police establishes
the validity of this law o’er against the older
one. We do not use expired rules if we are informed
and honest. Looking at library cards and credit
cards, and reflecting on civil rules and sports rules,
we have seen that the use of them assumes their validity.
Invalid cards and rules are unauthoritative.
We can now apply this reasonable insight to the
practice of the New Testament speakers and writers.
Like policemen and umpires, the inspired speakers
and writers of the New Testament were called upon
to make decisions on the basis of rules; they needed
to draw moral judgments in particular situations.
When that time came, which rules did they utilize?
Did they – being infallibly informed in their utterances
— ignore the moral rules (commandments) of
the Old Testament as though they were expired, inapplicable,
or invalid? What does New Testament
usage of the Old Testament law tell us about that
law’s authority today?
Antinomian Doctrz”nes
The current validity of the standing rules of Old
Testament morality is either challenged or drastically
reduced by many within the Christian church today.
We find some who teach that the New Testament
NEW TESTAMENT MORAL JUOGMENTS ENOORSE TNE LAW 123
Christian has nothing whatsoever to do with the law
of the Old Testament; the believer, it is said, is not
bound to the law at all. We find others who would
put stiff limits on the extent of the Old Testament
law’s validity; the believer, they say, is bound to follow
oniy a portion of the Old Testament moral code
(usually the ten commandments).
But what does the inductively ascertained practice
of the New Testament speakers and writers reveal
about this? Do they ignore the law in moral
judgments? In ethical decision-making do they restrict
themselves to the Decalogue? Simply put, the
answer is “No .“ The New Testament speakers and
writers themselves are more than willing to put the
Old Testament law – Decalogue and extra-Decalogue
— into service in critical moral judgments. They do
not treat the Old Testament commandments like an
expired library card or a repealed speed limit. Just
the opposite is the case! They make free and unexplained
use of the Old Testament law, thereby
assuming its moral authority for the New Testament
age (extending from Christ to the consummation).
Moreover the use of the Old Testament law in
New Testament moral judgments is quite thorough.
It is not limited to a single New Testament writer
(although that would be enough to establish the law’s
authority), to a single New Testament book (although,
again, the authority of one infallible document
is sufficient), or to one restricted Old Testament
source. In contexts of moral application, New
Testament citations and allusions are taken from
portions of Genesis, Proverbs, Psalms, Isaiah, Jere124
BY THIS STANDARD
miah, Habakkuk, and Zechariah; however, even
more frequently and consistently does the New Testament
make moral judgments on the basis of the
La\v portion of the Old Testament, citing Exodus
20, 21, 22, 23, Leviticus 11, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25,
Numbers 18, 30, and Deuteronomy 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13.
15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27. The moral use of
these Old Testament passages will be found scattered
throughout Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
Remans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians,
1 Timothy, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, and
Revelation. Therefore, the attempt made by some
Christian teachers today to reject or reduce the authority
of the Old Testament law will over and over
again meet with embarrassment before the text of
the Ne\v Testament.
New Testament Moral Judgments
Let us examine some New Testament texts
where moral judgments can be found; they illustrate
how the Old Testament law was regarded as a valid
ethical standard. Specifically, we can see how the
current authority of the law was not viewed by them
as restricted to the Decalogue (ten commandments).
Jesus Z’J. His Opponenti
We can begin for convenience with the discussions
of Jesus with His opponents and inquirers. Of
course His greatest opponent was Satan, the tempter
who had led Adam astray from obedience to God.
Christ, the second Adam, directly encountered
Satan in a forty day period of temptation in the
NEW TESTAMENT MORAL JUDMENTS ENDORSE TNE IAW 125
wilderness. Satan repeatedly tempted Jesus to
depart from the course of redemption laid down by
the Father, and each time Jesus overcame the temptation
by citing the authoritative word of God. For
instance, Satan tried to entice Jesus into a test of
God’s care and fidelity, challenging Him to leap from
the pinnacle of the temple. Many years earlier,
Israel – also in the wilderness – had been lured into
testing the care and fidelity of God (Ex. 17:1-7). As a
result, the law of God recorded: “You shall not put
Jehovah your God to the test, as you tested Him at
Massah” (Deut. 6:16). Such a law would surely seem
conditioned by its historical setting and restricted to
its Jewish recipients. Yet in the face of the Satanic
temptation Jesus cited this very commandment to
thwart His adversary: “Jesus said unto him, ‘Again it
stands written, You shall not make a test of the Lord
your God’ “ (Matt. 4:7). Clearly the law of God was
deemed valid and was not restricted to the ten commandments.
Of course Jesus also deemed the ten commandments
to be authoritative — but not uniquely so.
When He was asked to judge which commandments
should be kept in order to enter eternal life, He
made use of a portion of the Decalogue (Matt.
19:16-19; Mark 10:17-19). However at the same time
He included the relevant case law, “Do not defraud”
(Mark 10:19, from Deut. 24:14), and the summary
command, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt.
19:19, from Lev. 19:18). He used the extra-
Decalogical commands just as authoritatively as the
Decalogue’s own requirements. Indeed, when asked
126 BY THIS STANDARU
to judge which was the greatest commandment in
the entire Old Testament, Jesus did not go to the ten
commandments at all, but chose rather two laws
outside of the Decalogue: love God with all of your
heart, and love your neighbor as yourself (Mark
12:28-31, from Deut. 6:4-5 and Lev. 19:18).
Distilling the Old Testament’s moral demand
into these two particular extra-Decalogical laws was
apparently already known and discussed in Jesus’
day (Luke 10:25-28). It was a commonplace among
the rabbis to distinguish between “heavy” and “light”
commands in the Old Testament, the heavier laws
being those from which moral commands could be
deduced from others. Such rabbinic efforts can be
traced to the Old Testament itself, where its precepts
are summarized in a diflerent number of principles
by various writers: eleven by David (Ps. 15), six by
Isaiah (Isa. 33:15), three by Micah (Micah 6:8), and
one by Amos (Amos 5:4) and by Habakkuk (Hab.
2:4).
According to Jesus the “greatest” commandments
— the “first of all” — on which “the whole law
hangs” were the extra-Decalo@cal love commandments
(Matt. 22:33, 36; Mark 12:28, 31). The problem
with the Pharisees, said the Lord, was precisely
that they attended to the minor details of the law
(tithing) and “have left undone the weightier matters
of the law —justice, and mercy, and faith” (Matt.
23:23), that is, “the love of God” (Luke 11:42). It is
important at just this point that we pay attention to
Jesus’ words, for He does not encourage exclusioe attention
to the weightier love commandments of the
NEW TESTAMENT MORAL JUDGMENTS ENDORSE TNE IAW 127
Old Testament law. He says quite precisely, “these
you ought to have done and not to have left the other
undone .“ Our obligation to the weightier matters of
the law does not cancel our obligation to the minor
details.
Consequently the practice of Jesus does not encourage
a disregard for the details of God’s law, as
though New Testament moral duty is bound to a
small sub-section of the Old Testament law. Jesus was
often challenged by the traditionalists (who took their
authority horn outside of the Scriptures) about His
activities on the Sabbath. In His defense He \vould
respond, “Have you not read in the law . . . ?“
(Matt. 12:5; John 7 :23), citing the Sabbath activity
of the priests. Had the law been outmoded by His
coming, of course, such a \’indication of His beha\’-
ior would have been baseless. Over and o’er again
Jesus could show that the traditionalists – whose
boast was in the details of the lav – were actually
violating and twisting the law’s demands (for example,
Matthew 5:21-48). On an occasion when
Christ’s disciples were accused by the Pharisees of
violating their traditions, Christ replied that the traditionalists
actually transgressed the commandments
of God in order to preserve their traditions instead
(Matt. 15:3, 6-9).
It is striking to note the specific illustration which
Jesus chooses to use (among many available ones) in
this particular moral judgment. He says that while
the law of God requires honor for one’s parents and
death for those who dishonor them, the Pharisees
allow a subterfuge by which one can withhold
128 BY THIS STANDARD
financial aid to his parents (Matt. 15:4-5). The Mosaic
law which Christ holds up as valid — the standard
by which to judge the Pharisaical performance – is
the detail of the law (commonly ridiculed today)
\vhich requires the death penalty for cursing one’s
parents !
Jesus’ Instructions to the Church
Another illustration of Jesus’ use of the Old Testament’s
moral standards (outside the Decalogue)
can be found when He lays down instructions for the
new organization of the people of God. As the
church replaced national Israel in the plan of
redemption, it needed its own operating instructions,
for instance regarding discipline. In the moral
judgment delivered by Christ regarding this matter
He asserted the demand of the Old Testament law:
“at the mouth of two or three witnesses eve~ \vord
may be established” (Matt. 18:16, cf. John 8:17,
based on the law at Deut. 17:6 and 19:15)– the same
Old Testament law of legal evidence promoted by
Paul (1 Tim. 5:9).
Sexual Ethics
The use of the Old Testament law in matters of
sexual relations, payment to workers, and revenge
toward enemies further substantiates the New Testament
dqiwndace on the iawk va[idip. When Paul prohibits
marrying an unbeliever, he cites the Old Testament
requirement that unlike animals are not to be
yoked together (2 Cor. 6:14, from Deut. 22:10). “Be
not unequally yoked together” is a well-known verse
NEW TESTAMENT MORAL JUffiMENTS ENDORSE TNE W 129
used by many pastors to discourage their young people
from marrying outside the faith, and yet many of
these same pastors will elsewhere insist that the believer
is not under the requirements of the Old Testament
law !
When Paul was confronted with the wicked situation
of incest within the church, his moral judgment
on the matter was taken from the Old Testament prohibition
(1 Cor. 5:1, based on Lev. 18:8 and Deut.
22: 30). Ask just about any evangelical pastor today
whether incest is immoral from a biblicaJ standpoint,
and he will surely insist that it is — thereby enlisting
the moral standards of the Old Testament, even if he
proclaims elsewhere (and inconsistently) that they
are repealed and invalid. Or ask him about homosexuality.
He may refer to Paul’s words in Remans.
However, when Paul delivered this apostolic judgment
as to the immorality of homosexuality, he simply
reiterated the standard of the Old Testament
(Rem. 1:26-27, 32, from Lev. 18:22 and 20:13).
Economic Ethics
Turning from sexual to economic ethics we again
find that the New Testament makes unhindered use
of the Old Testament commandments in Christian
moral judgments. Paul’s argument that congregations
should pay their pastors is especially enlightening
as to the extent of the law’s validity. He argues
from the case law principle of the Old Testament
that ‘You shall not muzzle an ox as it treads” (1 Cor.
9:9, from Deut. 25:4), thereby revealing the assumed
contemporary authority of the laws outside the Deca130
BY nils sTAMDAm
logue. An invalid rule would be useless here. But
even more striking is Paul’s willingness to appeal to
the moral principle embodied in one of the ceremonial
laws ! Pastors should earn their livelihood from the
gospel ministry because priests derived their
sustenance horn the altar (1 Cor. 9:13-14, based on
such texts as Lev. 6:16, 26; 7:6, 31ff.; Num. 5:9-10;
19:8-20, 31; Deut. 18:1). Pastors who wish to teach
consistently the invalidity of the Old Testament law
might accordingly stop drawing pay from their congregations.
In a related economic matter James delivered a
moril judgment regarding the rich who fraudulently
withhold their workers’ pay, basing his judgment on
the Old Testament law requiring prompt pay for
workers (’James 5:4, from Lev. 19:13 and Deut.
24:14-15). In financial matters, no less than in sexwal
matters, the New Testarne-nt practice was to utilize
the Old Testament moral standards of God’s law.
Intqbtmonal Re[atwnshi@
The same is true for interpersonal matters. Few
Christians will dkpute the New Testament standard
that we ought not to avenge ourselves but rather go
to the one who wrongs us and show him his fault
(Rem. 12:19; Matt. 18:15), and yet this standard is
taken over directly from the Old Testament law at
Leviticus 19:17-18. Another commonly endorsed
New Testament ethical judgment which is in fact
based on the Old Testament law is the injunction to
care for one’s enemies (Matt. 5:44; Rem. 12:20,
rooted in the illustration of Ex. 23:4-5). As often as
NEW TESTAMENT MORAL ENDORSE THE IAW 131
Christians condemn private vengeance and hatred of
one’s enemies, they reaffirm the continuing authority
of God’s law (even if unwittingly).
Conclusion
One cannot escape the authoritative use of the
Old Testament law in New Testament moral judgments.
Upon reflection, one should recognize that
such use teaches the full validity of God’s law today,
Invalid rules might be used in fallacious moral judgments
— but not in inspired ones.
14
THE CATEGORIES OF GODS LAW
“By recognizing the various categories of God’s
Old Testament law we can readity understand
the continuing validity of evev stroke of God’s
commandments for today.”
The law of the Lord is fully and forever valid; as
such it holds moral authority over all men today, just
as it did previously during the Old Testament era.
This biblical truth has been substantiated in numerous
ways in past studies — from cardinal doctrines of
the Christian faith, direct assertions of God’s word,
and all three of the major perspectives on ethics:
normative, motivational, and consequential (standard,
mot ive, and goal). Christ spoke. clearly and
forcefully on the subject when He said, “Do not
think that I have come to abrogate the law or the
prophets: I have come not to abrogate, but to fhlfill.
For verily I say unto you, until heaven and earth
pass away, until all things have come about, not one
THE CATEGORIES OF GOO’S IAW 133
letter or stroke shall by any means pass away from
the law. Therefore, whoever breaks the least of these
commandments and teaches men so shall be called
least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:17-19).
Those who oppose keeping the law or paying attention
to its details today have a great deal to explain
and defend in light of the teaching of God’s
word — for instance the strong affirmation of the
Lord quoted above. If the validity of the law (or a
portion thereof) has expired in the New Testament,
as some claim, then what are we to make of scriptural
assertions that God does not alter His covenant
word, does not allow subtraction from His commandments,
is unchanging in His moral character
(which the law reflects), and does not have a doublestandard
of right and wrong? Why then is the writing
of the Old Testament law on our hearts central to
the New Covenant? Why does the Bible say His
commandments are everlasting? Why do New Testament
writers say that the entire Old Testament is
our instruction in righteousness and to be obeyed?
Why do they cite its stipulations with authority and
use them to bolster their own teaching? Why are we
expected to model our behavior on Christ’s, while we
are told that He obeyed the law meticulously and
perfectly? Why does the sanctifying work of the Holy
Spirit entail the observance of God’s law? Why does
love summarize the law in particuk? Why does
faith establish the law for us to keep, and why does
God’s grace teach us to walk in the law’s path of
righteousness? Why are we told in numerous ways
that the ‘law brings blessings to those who heed it?
134 t3Y mls sTANDAm
Why are the law’s requirements never criticized or
explicitly repudiated in the New Testament? Why
are those who do not keep the law but claim to know
the Sa\’ior called liars? God’s inspired word says all
of these things and more. What reply can the detractors
from God’s law today make in the face of such
insurmountable evidence of the law’s full validity?
The reply that is commonly, albeit fallaciously,
made is that we lind details in the Old Testament
law which are somehow too strange or harsh to obey
today, or we find particular requirements in the law
which we in fact do not and should not observe in
our day. Of course, such replies as these do not face
the issues raised above. Surely God was completely
aware of the law’s details when He revealed those
truths in His word which, as observed above, contradict
the relaxing, ignoring, or disobeying of His
law. If Scripture does not make an exception for us,
we do not have the moral prerogative to make exceptions
for ourselves when it comes to the law’s authorit
y over us. No extra-biblical standard, reason, or
feeling can be legitimately used to depart from the
law of God, for God’s word has supreme and unchallengeable
authority. If the Lord says that His commands
are to be kept, no creature may draw His
word into question. So then, the attempt to belittle
obedience to God’s law today by pointing to allegedly .
odd or harsh requirements in that law is doomed to
theological failure. It also borders on disrespect for
the Lawgiver whose holiness is transcribed for the
creature in God’s law. “O man, who are you who replies
against God?” (Rem. 9:20). It is never our
THE CATEGORIES OF QOD’S L4W 135
place to become judges of the law, for our calling is
to be doers of-the law (Jas. 4:11).
Nevertheless, there do seem to be Old Testament
requirements which are not kept by New Testament
Christians, and there are some le,gal provisions
which seem culturally outdated or at least inapplicable
to our modern world. How are we to accommodate
that fact – without becoming judges of the law and
without disregarding Christ’s declaration that every
minor detail of the law has enduring validity? The
answer lies in recognizing the nature of the various
Old Testament laws, seeing the kind of categories
into which they fall. That is, it is necessary to understand
the laws of God according to their own character,
purpose, and function. Only in that way will the
law be ‘lawfully used” (cf. 1 Tim. 1:8).
Moral and Ceremonial Laws
The most fimdamental distinction to be drawn
between Old Testament laws is between moral laws
and ceremonial laws. (Two subdivisions within each
category will be mentioned subsequently. ) This is
not an arbitrary or ad hoc division, for it manifests
an underlying rationale or principle. Moril laws reflect
the absolute righteousness and judgment of
God, guiding man’s life into the paths of righteousness;
such laws define holiness and sin, restrain evil
through punishment of infractions, and drive the
sinner to Christ for salvation. On the other hand,
ceremonial laws — or redemptive provisions — reflect
the mercy of God in saving those who have violated
His moral standards; such laws define the way of
136 BY T+MS STANDARD
redemption, typify Christ’s saving economy, and
maintain the holiness (or “separation”) of the redeemed
community.
To illustrate the difference between these two
kinds of law, the Old Testament prohibited stealing
as a moral precept, but it also made the provision of
the sacrificial system so that thieves could have their
sins forgiven. When Christ came He obeyed perfectly
every moral precept of God’s law, thereby qualiing
as our sinless Savior; in order to save us, He laid
down His life as a sacrificial lamb in atonement for
our transgressions, and thereby giving substance to
the Old Testament foreshadows of redemption.
While the moral law sets forth the perpetual obligation
of all men if they are to be perfect as their Father
in heaven is perfect, the ceremonial law is “the gospel
in figures,” proclaiming God’s way of redemption for
imperfect sinners.
The ceremonial law can be seen to have sub-divisions:
(1) laws directing the redemptive process and
therefore ppting Christ – for instance, regulations
for sacrifice, the temple, the priesthood, etc., and (2)
laws which taught the redemptive community its separationfiom
the unbelieving nations — for instance, prohibitions
on unclean meats (Lev. 20:22-26), on unequal
yoking of animals (Deut. 22:10), and on certain
kinds of mixing of seed or cloth (Deut. 22:9, 11).
None of these laws is observed today in the manner
of the Old Testament shadows, and yet they are
confirmed for us. The Pn”nc@le they taught is stiIl
valid. For instance, the ceremonial law prescribed
the necessity of shed blood for atonement (Lev.
THE CATEGORIES OF GOG’S IAW 137
17: 11), and accordingly when Christ made atonement
for our sins once for all, “it was therefore naasag”
that He shed His blood for us (Heb. 9:22-24); the
Old Testament redemptive system called for a Passover
lamb to be sacrificed, and Christ is that lamb
for us (1 Cor. 5:7; 1 Peter 1:19). The ceremonial law
separated Israel from the nations by requiring a separation
to be drawn between clean and unclean
meats and by prohibiting the unequal yoking of animals:
in the New Testament the outward form of
such laws has been surpassed — the spreading of the
redeemed community to the Gentiles renders all
meats clean (Acts 10), and the sacrifice of Christ has
put the system of ordinances which separated the
Jews and Gentiles out of gear (Eph. 2:11 -20}–but
their basic requirement of holy separation from the
unclean world of unbelief is still confirmed and in
force (2 Cor. 6:14 – 7 :1). The ceremonial law is there:
fore confirmed forever by Christ, even though not
kept in its shadow--form by New Testament believers.
The moral law of God can likewise be seen in two
subdivisions, the divisions having simply a literary
difference: (1) general or summary precepts of morality
– for instance, the unspecified requirements of
sexual purity and honesty, “thou shalt not commit
adultery” and “thou shalt not steal,” and (2) commands
that specify the general precepts by way of illustrative
application – for instance, prohibiting incest,
homosexuality, defrauding one’s workers, or
muzzling the ox as he treads.
The Puritans termed these case-law applications
of the Decalogue “judicial laws ,“ and they correctly
la BY THIS STANDARD
held that we are not-bound today to keep these judicial
laws as they are worded (being couched in the
language of an ancient culture that has passed away)
but only required to heed their underlying principles
(or “general equity,” as they called it). The Old Testament
required that a railing be placed around
one’s roof as a safety precaution, since guests were
entertained on the flat roofs of houses in that ancient
society; with our sloped roofs today we do not need
to have the same literal railing, but the general underlying
principle might very well require us to have
the fence around our backyard swimming pool –
again, to protect human life.
There is abundant evidence that the New Testament
authoritatively cited and applied these caselaw
illustrations to current situations. To use examples
mentioned above, the New Testament echoes
the Old Testament law in prohibiting ficest (1 Cor.
5:1), homosexuality (Rem. 1:26-27, 32), defrauding
employees (Mark 10: 19), and muzzling the ox as he
treads (1 Tim. 5:18). Many more examples of ethical
injunctions outside of the Decalogue being enforced
in the New Testament are available. Therefore, we
conclude that Jesus has forever confirmed the moral
laws of God, their summary expressions as well as
their case-law applications.
By recognizing the various categories of God’s
Old Testament law we can readily understand the
continuing validity of every stroke of God’s commandments
for today. It is simply a matter of properly
reading the law itself.
E. SUMMARY OF OLD AND NEW
TESTAMENT VIEWS OF WDS LAW
15
CONTINUITY BETWEEN THE
COVENANTS ON THE LAW
“Gods eternal and rghteous law is unalterable,
according to the joint teaching of the Old and
New Testaments.”
The purpose of the next two chapters will simply
be to compare and contrast the outlook on the law of
God which we find in the Old and New Testaments.
Granted, there are many ways to summarize the
theology of law in either testament; the present is
only one among many. However it hopefully serves a
useful purpose: that of stressing the continuity between
Old and New Testaments regarding God’s
law – over against contrary misconceptions fostered
by some teachers – and of indicating slient points of
discontinuity – over against the baseless fears of
some that those who acknowledge the continuing
validity of God’s law today suppress or ignore important
differences.
~~ BY THIS STANDARD
Continuity Between the Testaments
1. God? law is Perpetual in its principles.
(A) The commandments of God are not deemed
a uniquely Mosaic administration but as obliging
man from the beginning.
(1) Bejore rnank fall into sin, God delivered to
him commandments which \vere his moral obligation,
for instance the creation ordinances of marriage
(Gen. 2:24), labor (Gen. 2:15), and the Sabbath
(Gen. 2:1-3), as well as the cultural mandate of
dominion over creation (Gen. 1:28). Paul too would
view the standards of morality as in force from the
very beginning, being constantly communicated
through general revelation (Rem. 1:18-21). In particular,
the creation ordinances (for example, Matt.
19: 5) and cultural mandate (for example, 1 Cor.
10: 31) are applied in the New Testament.
(2) The Old Testament shows that, as the
New Testament teaches (Rem. 5:13-14), between
/ldarn and Moses, law was in the world. The Adamic
covenant establishes a marital order (Gen. 3:16) and
the requirement of labor (Gen. 3:19) which are both
authoritative in the New Testament (1 Tim. 2:12-14;
2 Thes. 3:10). The Noahic covenant reaffirmed the
cultural mandate (Gen. 9:1) and revealed God’s
standard of retribution against murderers (Gen.
9:6), which are again valid in the New Testament
(for example, Rem. 13:4). In the Abraharnic covenant
we see that Abraham had commandments,
statutes, and laws to keep (Gen. 18:19; 26:5), and the
New Testament commends to us Abraham’s obedient
faith (Jas. 2:21-23; Heb. 11:8-19).
coNnNurrY BETWEEN TNE COVENANTS ON TNE blW 141
Moreover, prior to the special revelation of the
Mosaic law we can see the perpetual validity of its
moral standards in the example of God’s judgment
on Sodom (Gen. 19), which was punished for \’iolating
the case law against homosexuality y (Lev. 18:23)
– for their “lawless deeds” according to the New Testament
(2 Peter 2:6-8). Indeed, according to Paul,
all men know God’s moral standards through general
revelation — showing “the work of the law written
in their hearts” (Rem. 2:14-15). This universal
communication of God’s law is as broad as His ethical
demands, not being restricted narrowly to the Ten
Commandments (for example, Rem. 1:32, where
condemned homosexuals are said to know “the ordinance
of God”).
(B) The principles of God’s law are perpetual because
they reflect the character of God, who is unchanging.
Leviticus 20:7-8 declares, “Be holy, for I am
Jehovah your God, and you shall keep My statutes
and do them”; this is how Gods people sanctify themselves
– becoming holy as God is holy (1 Peter 1: 15-16)
or imitating His perfection (Matt. 5:48, in the context
of the law’s demands). The Old Testament teaches
that the law of God is perfect (Ps. 19:7), being holy,
just, and good like God (Deut. 12:28; Neh. 9:13), and
the New Testament viewpoint is the same: the law is
perfect (Jas. 1:25), holy, just, and good (Rem. 7:12).
II. God law is thorough in tts extmt.
(A) His commandments apply to matters of the
142 BY THE STANDARD
heart, and not simply to external affairs.
In the Old Testament God required His people
to seek Him with aIl their hearts (Deut. 4:29) and to
circumcise their hearts (Deut. 10:16), even as the
New Testament continues to show that we are to
love Him with all of our hearts (Matt. 22:37) and
submit to His law in our thoughts, attitudes, and intentions
(for example, Matt. 5:21-48).
(B) Gods law applies to every area of life.
The commandments of God called His people to
love Him with everything they had (Deut. 6:4-6),
throughout the day (v. 7), at home and away from
home (v. 9), whether in thought or deed (v. 8). Indeed,
man was to live by every word from God’s
mouth (Deut. 8:3, 6). Likewise the New Testament
requires that every aspect of man’s life and being be
given over to the love of God (Matt. 22:37) and that
God’s people demonstrate their holiness “in all manner
of li’in< (1 Peter 1:15-16).
(C) God’s law k a standard for all nations (not
simply Israel).
Deuteronomy 4:6, 8 clearly taught that the commandments
delivered by Moses to Israel were to be
her wdorn in the sight of the nations, who would exclaim
“what great nation is there that has statutes
and ordinances so righteous as all this law?” Similarly
Paul indicates that the standards of God’s law are declared
through natural revelation and are binding
upon all men (Rem. 1:32; 2:14-15). Because the nations
once occupying Canaan violated the standards
CONTINUITY BETwEEN THE COVENANTsoNmEIAw 1 4 3
of Gods law, God would punish them by expelling
them from the land (Lev. 18:24-27) — even as He
would expel Israel if she violated His laws (Deat.
3(k17-18). The moral standard and the judgment on
disobedience were the same between Israel and the
nations.
Accordingly, Paul teaches that all men, Jews and
Gentiles, have sinned by violating God’s law (Rem.
2:9; 19-20), and Jude declares that God will judge
all ungodly men for all of their ungodly deeds (Jude
14-15). Where the Old Testament taught that “Righteousness
exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any
people” (Prov. 14:34), the New Testament teaches
that whatever Christ has commanded is to be propagated
to the nations (Matt. 28:20). God3 /aw binds all
men at ail tirmn in allplazes. To this point we have seen
that the Old and New Testament agree perfectly that
the law of God is perpetual in its principles —not being
uniquely Mosaic, but reflecting the eternal character
of God — and thorough in its extent — touching
matters of the heart, applying to all areas of life, and
binding all mankind to obedience. At this juncture it
will be important to add that:
111. God?s law h com@mrntaV to saluation by grace.
(A) The law was not to be used as a way ofjustification.
The Old Testament teaches that in God’s sight
“no man living is righteous (or justified),” for if God
marks iniquities no man can stand (Ps. 143:2; 130:3).
Instead, “the just shall live by faith” (Hab. 2:4). The
Psahnist saw that “Blessed is the man unto whom
144 By THIS STANDARD
Jehovah imputes not iniquity,” and “He that trusts in
Jehovah, Io\ringkindness will compass him about”
(Ps. 32:2, 10). Old Testament saints were not saved
by law--obedience but by faith in the coming Savior,
typified in the sacrifices of the Old Testament system.
Likewise the New Testament declares in no uncertain
terms that “by the works of the law shall no
flesh be justified in His sight” (Rem. 3:20). Indeed,
“if righteousness is through the law’, then Christ died
for nothing” (Gal. 2:21). God’s law is the standard of
righteousness, but because sinners cannot conform
to that standard their salvation must come by- Gods
grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). This was true in
both Old and New Testaments.
(B) Obedience to God’s law is harmonious with
grace and saving faith.
The Old Testament indicates that God’s law was
specially revealed to Israel in the context of His redeeming
and delivering His people from ‘bondage
(Ex. 19:4; 20:2); those who “were willing to keep His
law had already been shown His grace. In this vein
David could sing, “Grant me thy law graciously” (Ps.
119:29) – feeling no tension between a proper use of
God’s grace and law. Those who were justified by
faith in the Old Testament, such as Abraham and
Rahab, were those who were so renewed by GoA gnue
that they were willing to obg Hti demands (cf. James
2:21-25). Those who werejustiiied and living by faith,
due to the grace of God, desired to obey the commandments
of God out of respect for His authority,
love of His purity, and gratitude for His salvation.
CONTINUIN BETWEEN THE COVENANTS ON THE LAW 145
The same holds true for saints in the New Testament.
Paul says that we have not been saved by good
works, but we have been saved for good works — that
is, in order to live obediently before God (Eph. 2:10).
God’s grace teaches us to renounce lawless deeds
(Titus 2:11-14), and by faith we actually establish–
rather than nullify — what was taught in the law of
God (Rem. 3:31).
IV. God!s law is central to His one covenant of grace.
(A) The law can epitomize or stand for the covenant
itself. We read in Genesis 17:10, 14 that circumcision
could represent the very covenant itself that
God made with Abraham. In like manner, the stipulations
of the Mosaic law could be used to stand for
the covenant itself, as in Exodus 24:3-8 (cf. Heb.
9:19-20). Just as circumcision is the covenant, so also
is the law God’s covenant. This is why the tables of
iaw and commandments which God gave to Moses
on Mount Sinai (Ex. 24:12) can actually be called
“the tables of the couenant” (Deut. 9:9, 11, 15). Accordingly,
when Jeremiah speaks of the New Covenant
which is to come. he indicates that the law of God is
central to its provisions: “I will put my laws into their
mind, and on their heart will I write them” (Jer.
31:33). This is quoted when the New Testament reflects
upon the character of the New Covenant (Heb.
8:10), using these words as a summary for the whole
(Heb. 10:16). Concern for the covenant, then, entails
concern for the law of God in both Old and New
Testaments.
Iti BY THIS STANDARD
(B) The law given through Moses served the
Abrahamic covenant of promise, rather than being
antithetical to it.
According to the Old Testament, it is precisely as
the God of Abraham, and it is just because of the
covenant made with Abraham, that God dealt with
Moses in a covenantal fashion (Ex. 2 :24; 3:6). The
exodus or deliverance granted to the Israelites
through Moses was a realization of the promise
made to Abraham (Ex. 6:1-8). God had promised in
the Abrahamic covenant to be a God to .Abraham
and his seed, who would become God’s people (Gen.
17: 7-8). This same blessing was held forth in God’s
deliverance through Moses (Ex. 6:7). In particular,
this .4brahamic promise would be the reward for
conformity to the Mosaic law: “If you walk in my
statutes, and keep my commandments, and do
them, . . . I will be your God, and you shall be my
people” (Lev. 26:3, 12). The Old Testament did not
recognize an antagonism between the Abrahamic
covenant of promise and the Mosaic covenant of
law. Neither does the New Testament.
Paul reflects with inspired accuracy on the relationship
between the Abrahamic promise and the
Mosaic law (cf. Gal. 3:17) and asks, “1s the law then
against the promises of Chd?” His answer is decisive:
“May it never be !“ (Gal. 3:21). The law rather seined
to bring about the fulfillment of the promise made
with Abraham (Gal. 3:19, 22, 29). The Mosaic law
which established the commonwealth of Israel at
Sinai is deemed by Paul as one of “the covenants of
the rornise” (Eph. 2:12). Throughout Scripture the
CONTINUH-Y BETWEEN TNE COVE?4ANTS 0?4 TNE LAW 147
law is congruent with the promise.
(C) Likewise, the Abrahamic promise which is
realized in Christ serves the purposes of the Mosaic
law.
The Old Testament perspective was that the peo-
#de who enjoyed thepromtie ought to obg the law oj God. It
was expected that when Israel received what “the
God of your fathers has promised unto you ,“ the people
would Weep all his statutes and his commandments”
as revealed by Moses (Deut. 6:1-3). Likewise
the New Testament sees those who belong to Christ
– the one to whom Abraham’s promise was given
(Gal. 3:16) – as the seed of Abraham and heirs according
to promise (Gal. 3:7, 29). They receive the
promise by faith and thus should not desire to be
under the law as a way of justification lest they fall
from grace (Gal. 3:2, 6-14, 24-26; 4:21; 5:4).
However, those who enjoy the Abrahamic promise
in Christ do so by a faith working through love
(Gal. 5:6), which is to say a faith that obqp the law
(Gal. 5:13-14) – a faith that walks by the Spirit and
thereby does not violate the law (Gal. 5:16-23).
God’s Son of promise makes us to walk after the
Spirit so that we keep the ordinance of the law
(Rem. 8:3-4). Therefore, we observe that the promise
serces he law, even as the law saves the promise, and this
reciprocal relation is revealed in both the Old and
New Testaments alike. The law plays an integral
role throughout God’s one covenant of grace.
V. Go&s law is taken by His people as a redemptive token
~ BY TwS STANDARD
and delight.
The preceding discussion of the law of God has
focused on its objective character and function. It is
important that we also take note of the subjective attitude
which is expressed toward the law of God in
both Old and New Testaments. The negative polemic
against the law which is often heard today cannot
be squared with the feeling and evaluation of the
inspired biblical writers. .4ccording to them:
(A) Obedience to the law is their token of redemption,
proof of their love, and sign of their dedication
to the Lord.
The Old Testament taught that the very meaning
of God’s law and obedience to it was that God
had delivered His people (Deut. 6:20-25; for example,
5:15). Indeed, not keeping the commandments
of God was identified as forgetting one’s redemption
(Deut. 8:11-17), and it was clear that salvation was
far from those who did not desire God’s statutes (Ps.
119:155). Similarly in the New Testament, where life
eternal is to %now Christ” (John 17:3), we indicate
that “we know him if we keep his commandments,”
and it is a lie to say that one knows Christ who does
not keep his commandments (1 John 2:3-4).
The Old Testament said that those who love the
Lord will obey His commandments (Deut. 10:12-13),
and New Testament love for the Lord is proved in
the same way (John 14:15; 1 John 5:3). Dedication to
God and His purposes was signaled in the Old Testament
by adherence to God’s law (Deut. 26:17;
Joshua 22:5). Things are not different in the New
CONTINUITY SETWEEN TNE COVENANTS ON TNE IAW 149
Testament, where those who choose to follow Christ
rather than the beast are identified as ‘those who
keep the commandments of God and the faith of
Jesus” (Rev. 12:17; 14:12). In either Old or New Testament
it would be unthinkable for a redeemed
saint, who loved the Lord and was dedicated to
Him, to spurn, criticize, or disobey the law of God.
(B) God’s law was to be loved as a delight and
blessing.
Although men may scoff, the delight of the godly
man is found in the law of the Lord (Ps. 1:2; 119:16);
that man is happy, said the Old Testament, who
greatly delighted in God’s law (Ps. 112:1). Paul’s New
Testament viewpoint was identical: “I delight in the
law of God after the inward man” (Rem. 7:22). To
John the law of God was such a joy that he could
declare, “His commandments are not burdensome”
(1 John 5:3 b). It is sin – that is, according to both
testaments, violation of God’s covenants (Joshua
7:11; Isa. 24:5; 1 John 3:4) – that is detested by God’s
people, for it brings death (Rem. 6:23). Apart from
man’s sinful inability, the law itself is graciously ordained
rather unto life (Lev. 18:5; Neh. 9:29; Ezk.
20:11, 13, 21; cf. Prov. 3:7-8).
It is not the Old Testament only that recognizes
this fact. Paul discerns the connection between obedience
to the law and life in the Spirit (Rem. 8:2-4,
6-7, 12-14) and confesses that, apart from his sinful
corruption, the law L- meant to communtiati [Zfe (Rem.
7:10). Anything that is against the law’s demands,
then, is also against health-giving (sound) doctrine,
1~ BY THIS STANDARD
according to 1 Timothy 1:8-10 (cf. 6:3). God gave us
His law for our good, and for that reason Old and
New Testament writers rejoice in it. It is to our
shame if we do not emulate their attitude.
VI. Gk#s law is eternal and is not to be altered.
In a day when many view the law of the Lord as
arbitrary, expendable, or temporary in its authority
for the life of man, it is highly valuable to observe the
outlook of the inspired writers. Moses wrote thatjhever
it would go well with God’s people to observe the
commandments which He revealed (Deut. 12:28).
David exclaimed that “All his precepts are sure; they
are established forever and ever” (Ps. 111: 7-8; cf.
119:152). Indeed, the eternal authority of God’s commands
characterizes each and every one of them:
“Every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth forever”
(Ps. 119:160). Looking unto the fearfhl day of
the Lord when the wicked will be consumed with fire
(Mal. 4:1), the prophet Malachi pronounces as one
of the final words of the Old Testament, “Remember
the law of Moses my servant” (4:4).
However, in the pages of the New Testament we
hear the words of one who is far greater than Moses,
David, or any prophet of old. Their testimony to the
eternal authority of God’s law is pale in comparison
to the absolutely clear and utterly unchailengeable
declaration of Jesus Christ that God’s commandments
— each and every one — is everlastingly valid:
“Ti-uly I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass
away, until everything has come about, one letter or
one stroke shall by no means pass away from the
CONTINUITY SETWEEN TNE COVENANTS ON TNE lAW 151
law” (Matt. 5:18). The Old and New Testaments
unite in this doctrine.
The voice of the two Testaments is further united
in saying that God’s law is not to be altered. David
recognized that God commands only what is just
and right, and thus to depart from His commands is
to deviate from moral integrity. “I esteem ail thy precepts
concerning all things to be right, and I hate
every false way. . . . All thy commandments are
righteousness” (Ps. 119:128, 172). To change or ignore
any of God’s commands is necessarily to create
an unrighteous or unjust pattern for behavior.
Therefore the law itself guards against alterations
within 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” (Deut. 4:2; cf. 12:32). No man
has the prerogative to tamper with the requirements
laid down by God. Ordy God himself, the Law-giver,
has the authority to abrogate or alter His commandments.
Yet the testimony of God incarnate in the New
Testament is that the law is not to be changed, even
with the momentous event of His coming: “Do not
think that I came to abrogate the law or the prophets.
. . Therefore whoever shall break one of the
least of these commandments and shall teach men so
shall. be called least in the kingdom of heaven”
(Matt. 5:17, 19). God’s eternal and righteous law is
unalterable, according to the joint teaching of the
Old and New Testaments.
VH. T&rore, we are obli’atid to ktzp the whole law toe@.
152 BY THIS STANDARD
Anyone who suggests, without authorization
from the word of God, that some law of the Old Testament
is not binding upon our behavior today
would fall under the double censure of both the Old
Testament and New Testament writers. Such a suggestion
would contradict the perpetuity and extent of
God’s law as taught in both testaments; it would evidence
forgetfidness of God’s mercies, violate the covenant,
and deprive God’s people of one of their delights.
Such a suggestion would stand diametrically
opposed to the externality and immutability of the law
as set forth in the Old and New Testaments. To challenge
the law without Biblically revealed direction
from the Lord is to grieve and challenge Him, so
that those who do so will be demoted within God’s
kingdom.
Unless Scripture itself shows us some change
with respect to God’s law or our obedience to it, the
principle which governs our attitude and behavior
should be the same as the Bible’s categorical assumption
— namely, that our instruction in righteous behavior
is found in every Old Testament Scripture (1
Tim. 3:16-17), every point of the law (Jas. 2:10),
even the least commandment (Matt. 5:19; 23:23),
every word (Matt. 4:4), and every letter (Matt.
5:18). This is clear from the major points – to which
both Old Testament and New Testament give
assent — that have been reviewed about the law
above. Given these agreed-upon points, we have no
reason to expect that the New Testament would
categorically or silently release the believer from his
moral duty to God’s law.
CONTINUITY BETWEEN THE COVENANTS ON THE IAW 153
Conclusion
To summarize: we must assutne continuity of
moral duty between the Old Testament and New
Testament: Accordingly, by operating upon this biblical
assumption, the burden of Scr@tural proof lies direct(>
l and heauily upon anyone who wou[d deny the oalidity
or the re[euant authori~ of some particular Old Testanumt
st@ulation -for our day. The next time you hear someone
say, “we need not follow that commandment
because it is the Old Testament law,” you should say
to yourself (if not also to him). “That kind of assertion
will require some explanation and clear biblical
proof before any faithful Christian can accept it .“
Faithful and inspired authors of Scripture – both
Old and New Testaments – wrote to just the opposite
effect.
16
DISCONTINUITY BETWEEN THE
COVENANTS ON THE IAW
“The New Covenant surpasses the Old in glory,
power, realization, and finality.”
What has been said above does not in the least
deny that there are some forms of discontinuity between
the Old Testament and the New Testament —
that is, between the Old ovenmt and the New
Cooenunt – regarding the law of God. What it does indicate
is that any such discontinuity must be taught
by GWs word an-d not be brought “as a categoric-al,
theological assumption to God’s word. We can turn
now to such Biblically grounded discontinuities between
the Old and New Covenants. Because the law
of God plays a central role in His covenantal dealings
with His people, it is altogether appropriate that
the contrast between these two covenants should
have a bearing on our relationship to that law.
DISCONTINUING SETWEEN TNE COVENANTS ON TNE IAW 155
1. The New Cownant sur-a.sses the Old Covenant in glo.
(A) While the Old Covenant was fundamentally
a ministration of condemnation and death, the New
Covenant is a ministration of righteousness and life.
Paul reflects upon the distincti’es of the New
Covenant in 2 Corinthians 3, proving that anyone
who exalts the law over the gospel (as did the legalistic
Judaizers) — anyone who is so absorbed in the
commandments that he obscures or overlooks the
good news of redemption – has made a grave mistake.
The New Covenant, teaches Paul, far outshines
in glory the law of the Old Covenant. The law
certainly has its glory (2 Cor. 3:9, 11), but despite
that glory, what stands out in the Old Covenant is
the feature of condemnation which brings death
(3:6, 7, 9).
The law is good – indeed, ordained unto life.
However, the sinfulness of man works through the
good law to produce death (Rem. 7:12-16). The outstanding
feature of the Old Covenant to Paul’s mind
was the external tables of the law which, although
they commanded good things, could not confer good
things. These external ordinances necessarily condemn
all unrighteous men and demand their death:
as Paul said, “the letter kills” (2 Cor. 3:6). There is
no way that sinful men can be justfied by doing the
law (Gal. 2:16; 3:11).
When Moses returned from receiving the law his
face shone with the glory of God, and after reading
the law to the people, he needed to put up a veil over
his face for the sake of me people (2 Cor. 3:7, 13).
Paul sees in this fact the double character of the Old
1= BY THIS STANDARD
Covenant: (1) it was glorious, but (2) it continually
accused and condemned those who, due to sin, could
not endure to behold the glory of Moses’ face.
Nevertheless, when Moses appeared wth Christ
on the Mount of Transfiguration, it was only the face
of the Savior which shone with God’s glory. Christ,
the mediator of the New Covenant, “has been
counted worthy of more glory than Moses” (Heb.
3:3). The Old Covenant law condemned and killed,
but by contrast Christ takes away the curse of the
law by enduring its penalty and gives His lifeproducing
Spirit to create an obedient heart in us.
Accordingly, the New Covenant is distinctively “a
ministration of the Spirit” or “a ministration of
righteousness” (2 Cor. 3:8, 9) which “imparts life”
(3:6). Christ “has done what the law, weakened by
the flesh, could not do” (Rem. 8:3). Accordingly,
Paul says that, in contrast to the covenant epitomized
by tables of stone, the New Covenant “exceeds in
glory” (2 Cor. 3:9).
The Old Covenant law commanded good things,
but only the gospel could fi.dly confer them; the
righteousness demanded by the law was only supplied
with the redemptive work of Christ. Thus, the
New Covenant has a greater glory than the Old. The
old declared the law and thereby condemned. The
new satisfies the law and makes us right with God.
The leading and far greater glory of the New Covenant
is that it secures the righteousness of God’s people
through God’s Son and Spirit, rather than serving
primarily to condemn sinfidness. The latter
function required only the glory, genuine though it
LMCONTWUITY SEIWEEN THE COVENANTS OU THE IAW 157
be, of stone tablets; the former required God to
manifest the glory of His only-begotten Son, fi.dl of
grace and truth (John 1:14). Hence Calvin said, “the
law, however glorious in itself, has no glory in the
face of the gospel’s grandeur” (Commentary at 2
Cor. 3:10). As such the approach of the New Cm’enant
believer to God’s law is s gnificantly different
from that of the Old Covenanz believer. Since the
threat of the law has now been decisively removed
through Christ?s expiation and the Holy Spirit’s indwelling,
the law can be more idly a delight to the
believer today.
(B) The New Covenant provides the believer
with a greater confidence in approaching God.
The Old Covenant law promised forgiveness to
the sinner on the basis of animal sacrifices, but the
tentativeness of this arrangement was evident from
the fact that mere animals were offered up and from
the fact that sacrifices were repeated over and over
again (Heb. 10:4ff. ). There was still some distance
between the believer and God, for only the High
Priest could come before the very presence of God in
the Holy of Holies once a year. A veil separated the
people from their God. But wit.~ the sacrificial work
of Christ which cleanses New Covenant believers the
veil has been tom in two (Mark 15:58; cf. Heb.
10: 20). Through Christ, the mediator of the New
Covenant, we can have bold access to the throne of
grace. The way into the holy place was not manifest
under the Old Covenant (Heb. 9:8), but under the
New Covenant we have “boldness to enter into the
158 BY THIS STANDARD
holy place by the blood of Jesus” (Heb. 10:19; cf.
4:15-16; 6:18-20). The assurance of forgiveness, the
purity of the believer, and the nearness of God are
far greater in the New Covenant than anything the
Old Covenant law could secure. So Calvin rightly
remarks: “The person who still holds to or wishes to
restore the shadows of the law not only obscures the
glory of Christ but also deprives us of a tremendous
blessing, in that he puts a distance between us and
God, to approach whom fkeedom has been granted
us by the gospel” (Commentary at Heb. 7:19).
(C) Unlike the Old Covenant, the New Covenant
has a permanent and unfading glory.
In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul likens the glory of the
Old Covenant with its law to the glory which shone
in Moses’ face after receiving that law (VV. 7, 13).
What Paul repeats over and over again is that this
glory was “passing away” (w. 7, 11, 13) and had to be
veiled (w. 7, 13-16). But the New Covenant has a
transforming glory seen in the face of Christ (3:18;
4:4, 6); this glory is beheld with unveiled face, permanently
and progressively making us over into the
same image “from glory to glory.” Moses mirrored
the glory of God only intermittently with a fading
glory – such was the excellence of the Old Covenant
law. We constantly mirror the unfading glory of
Christ who is the very image of God. Indeed, “we rejoic~
in our hope of sharing the glory of God” (Rem.
5:2). Dktinctive to the New Covenant is a glory surpassing
the law, a glory which can be gazed upon, as
well as mirrored, without interruption.
DISCONTINUITY BETWEEN THE COVIWANTS ON THE LAW 159
What we have found is that the New Testament
writers can set the New Covenant over against the
Old Covenant by taking the law as their point of departure.
Believers today have greater benefits than
Old Covenant believers could have in their relationship
to the law. The law stood for -he threat of death,
God at some distance, and a fading glory. In the
New Covenant the threat is removed, God draws
nearer, and the glory is permanent. This provides us
with a different context wii-hin which to use the law
of God and determines the attitude with which we
must approach the law. To be content with the law
itself or to emphasize it over and above the gospel
would evidence a terribly perverted sense of judgment.
The New Covenant puts t le law into proper
perspective by showing us a far greater glory than
the law possessed.
II. The New Covenant surpasses the Old Couenant in
power.
(A) The New Covenant provides us tvith firther
and stronger motivations to obey the law.
Everything found in the Scripture is for our instruction
in righteousness and our spiritual discipline
(cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17), and thus we cannot be perfectly
furnished unto all good works without paying
attention to all aspects of scriptural revelation — its
history (for example, 1 Cor. 10:6, 11), its promises
(for example, John 14:16-18), its wisdom (for example,
Jas. 3:13-18), its prayers (-or example. Acts
4:24-31), its praise (for example, Re\’. 5:9-14), etc.
Each of these aspects functions to equip us better for
1~ BY THIS STANDARD
righteous living.
The New Covenant provides us with krther
Scripture that tells us of God’s redemptive work with
its accomplishment and application. It should serve
to make us ever more grateful for what God has
done. Redemption, new creation, indwelling of the
Spirit, unity of the body – these and many more
themes in the New Covenant’s revelation are motivations
for godliness which go btyond the motivations
available to Old Covenant saints. Ethical exhortations
in the New Testament are commonly founded
on consideration of these New Covenant benefits.
(B) Unlike the Old Covenant law, the New Covenant
empowers obedience to the revealed pattern of
righteousness.
Looking again at 2 Corinthians 3, where Paul
contrasts the Old Covenant with the New, we read
that Paul’s New Covenant ministry had the effect of
changing the hearts of his hearers — as though Christ
himself had written upon their hearts (v. 3). God had
written the law with His own finger upon two tables
of stone at Mount Sinai, but Jeremiah looked forward
to the day of the New Covenant when God’s
law would be written upon men’s hearts (Jer. 31:33)
– hearts made of responsive flesh rather than stone
(Ezk. 11:19-20; 36:26). Proverbs teaches that “out of
the heart are the issues of life.” With the law written
upon man’s heart he would finally be able to walk in
God’s commandments and do them.
Although the Spirit worked in the lives of Old
Covenant believers to help them obey the law of
DISCONTINUITv SETWEIW Tt+E COVIWANTS 0?4 TilE LAW 161
God, He did so in a way which was both limited and
provisional – looking ahead to the great day of Pentecostal
power. Paul in 2 Corinthians 3 notes that the
Spirit is the agent of the writing done upon the New
Covenant believer’s heart (v. 3). The letter of the
Old Covenant brought death, but the Spirit of the
New Covenant communicates life and righteousness
(\-v. 6:8-9, 18). What was once external and accusing
(the law written on tables of stone) is now internal
and activating (the law written on tables of the
heart). We are told that ‘the law made nothing
perfect” (Heb. 7:19), but the new and “better covenant”
has %etter promises” — in particular the internalization
of the luw by means of Christ’s sacrificial
and priestly work so that the law is kept (Heb.
8:6-10). The “eternal covenant” makes us perfect in
every good work to do God’s will (Heb. 13:20-21).
We find here one of the most dramatic differences
between the Old Covenant law and the New Covenant
gospel. The New Covenant accomplishes what
the law required but gave no ability to perform. P. E.
Hughes expresses the point well: “The ‘fault’ of the
Old Covenant lay, not in its essence, which, as we
have said, presented God’s standard of righteousness
and was propounded as an instrument of life to those
who should keep it, but in its inability to justify and
renew those who failed to keep it, namely, the totalit
y of fallen mankind. The New Covenant went literally
to the heart of the matter, promising man, as it
did, a new and obedient heart and the grace truly to
love God and his fellow man (Ezk. ll:19f. ) .“1 In the
1. Philip E. Hughes, A CommentaV on flu Eptstle to the Hebwu,,s
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1977), pp. 297-98.
162 q Y THIS STANDARD
preceding outline we already find highly significant
discontinuities between the Old and New Covenants
regarding the law of God. -The New Covenant surpasses
the Old Covenant law, according to the New
Testament scriptures, both in glory and power. The
New Covenant puts the law into perspective and
puts it into practice – overcoming its basic threatening
character, insecurity, and fading glory by providing
further motivations to obedience as well as
the power to comply with the law’s demands.
III. T/w New Covenant Reali~ Superse&s the OZd C’ovenant
Shadows.
(A) The New Covenant secures the redemption
foreshadowed in the Old Covenant.
One of the greatest points of dissimilarity between
the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is
found in the area of redemptive rituals, for example
the Old Testament sacrifices, priesthood, temple,
covenant signs, etc. The way in which the laws pertaining
to such redemptive ritual were observed
prior to the coming of Christ is much different than
the way in which they are observed today. By bringing
in the substance foreshadowed in the Old Covenant
and realizing the hope anticipated in the Old
Covenant, the New Covenant gives us a new
perspective on the laws which regulated expiation,
priestly service, and the like.
Whereas the Old Covenant believer looked
ahead to the work of the Savior and showed faith by
observing the redemptive ritual of the Old Covenant,
the New Covenant believer looks back upon
DISCONTINUITY S13WEEN THE COVENANTS ON THE IAW 163
the finished work of the Savior and shows faith by
clinging to Him for salvation totally apart from the
old ceremonies. From Scripture it is evident that the
New Covenant arrangement is better than the Old
Covenant pertaining to redemption, and accordingly
those redemptive laws have been made outwardly
inoperative. Here is a discontinuity between the
Covenants which can be supressed only at the cost of
totally misunderstanding the teaching of the New
Testament.
The logic of the writer of Hebrews is that, if a
New Covenant has been given, then it must be a better
covenant which as such makes the Old Covenant
outmoded. Moses himself witnessed to the previsionary
glory of the administration of God’s grace found
in the Pentateuch by looking beyond the shadow and
promise to the realization to come (Heb. 3: 5b).
Likewise, Jeremiah spoke for God of a “New” covenant
to come, and that very fact (according to the
author of Hebrews) indicated that already the
Mosaic administration was deemed obsolete and
passing away, ready to vanish (Heb. 8:13).
Saying this leads the author of Hebrews right
into a discussion of the first covenant’s ritual ordinances
(9: lff. ). The work of Christ is in every way
superior to these. He is ‘the surety of a better covenant,”
“a better hope” (7:22, 19) because His
priesthood is everlasting (7:21, 24-25), and His
sacrifice of Himself is totally efficacious (7:26-28).
The very repetition of the Old Covenant sacrifices
demonstrated that they were temporary and imperfect
(Heb. 10: 4ff. ). The superiority of Christ’s
164 BY lWS STANDARD
ministry over the Old Covenant’s Levitical minim-y
is found in the fact that Christ’s priestly work is exercised
in the true, heavenly tabernacle rather than in
the earthly, shadowy one (Heb. 8:2-5). The priestly
work carried on in the earthly tabernacle was
figurative or anticipatory (Heb. 9:19), whereas
Christ’s ministry is the realization carried on in a
greater tabernacle in heaven (9:11-12, 23-24). The
Levitical ritual of the Old Covenant revealed by
Moses was parabolic of the present order in the New
Covenant (9:9a). In themselves the priestly rituals of
the Old Covenant could not perfect the conscience as
Christ does (9:9b); thus they were necessarily temporary,
used until the time that everything is made
right (9: 10). The Old Covenant saints greeted the
promises of God from afar (Heb. 11:13). By contrast,
Christ fidiills the promises and secures redemption,
the promised inheritance, and transforming power
by His saving work (9:15; cf. 8:6-10). The redemptive
rituals of the Old Testament law, then, could-not
perfect the believer; they were but a shadow of the
good things to come (Heb. 10:1).
With the accomplished work of the Redeemer
now in the past, we no longer use or apply the Old
Testament laws regulating sacrifices, the priesthood,
etc. in the same way. Discontinuity is definitely to be
observed. And it is precisely the word of God which
instructs us to see an altired application of those laws;
indeed, we are warned against reverting back to the
imperfection of the outmoded administration of
God’s grace in the Old Testament Levitical system. It
is not surprising that the earliest Christians were acDISCONTINUITY
BETwEEN THE COVENANTS ON Tl+E IAW 165
cused of opposing the temple and the h’losaic law’s
rituals (for example, Acts 6:14; 21:28). The New
Co\enant word teaches that some of God’s Old Covenant
ordinances were not intended to be continuously
observed in the same manner throughout redemptive
histo. With the coming of the Savior and
His perfect priestly work, necessarily the Levitical
priesthood has been changed (Heb. 7 :12). Hence the
sacrifices, feasts, etc. of the old order are not binding
upon the believer today in their shadow forms (cf.
Col. 2:13-17). They are observed toda~ byfaith in Christ.
(B) The New Covenant Redefines the Covenant
People of God.
Under the Old Covenant order, Israel was constituted
as a nation and adopted as the people of
God, but under the New Covenant the people of
God is an international body comprised of those who
have fai~ in Christ. The kingdom has been taken
from the Jews (Matt. 8:11-12; 21:41-43; 23:37-38; 1
Cor. 14:21-22), and the church is nov “the Israel of
God” (Gal. 6:16), “the commonwealth of Israel”
(Eph. 2:12), the “kingdom of priests” (1 Peter 2:9),
the “twelve tribes” of the Dispersion (Jas. 1:1; 1 Peter
1:1), and the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:7, 29). Faithful
Israel of old is included within one household of God
comprising the church (Heb. 3:1-6); Israelites and
Gentiles are separate branches, part of one olive tree
of faith (Rem. 11:17-18). Thus, the New Testurnerd
church is the respiration of Israel (Acts 15:15-20), and the
New Covenant to be made with Israel and Judah is
actually made with the apostles who are found a166
BY THtS STANDARD
tional to the church (Luke 22:20; cf. Eph. 2:20).
This biblically grounded redefinition of the people of
God brings with it some corresponding alterations in
the application of the Old Testament law.
(1) Because the New Covenant does not define
God’s people as an earthly nation among others,
it does not require political loyalty to national Israel
as did the Old Covenant (Phil. 3:20). Christ’s kingdom,
urdike Old Testament Israel, is not to be defended
with the sword (John 18:36; cf. 2 Cor. 10:4).
(2) Because the significance of Canaan as the
promised land of inheritance has passed away with
the establishment of the kingdom which it foreshadowed
(cf. Gal. 3:16; cf. Gen. 13:15; Heb. 11:8-10;
Eph. 1:14; 1 Peter 1 :4), Old Covenant laws which are
directly concerned with this land (for example, division
of the land into family portions, locati&s of the
cities of refuge, the Levirate institution) will find a
changed application in our day.
(3) The separation from unholy peoples required
by God through the dietary laws, which symbolized
this separation by a separation made between
clean and unclean meats (cf. Lev. 20:22-26),
will no longer be observed by avoidance of the Gentiles
(Acts 10) or typified by abstaining from certain
foods (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:15; Rem. 14:17). For the
Christian, this now requires separation from any
ungodliness or compromising unbelief anywhere
they may be found (2 Cor. 6:14-18).
I V . 7?u New Cownant surfxzcses the Ofd Couenant i n
haiip.
DISCONTINUITY BETWEEN TNE COVENANTS ON TNE UW 167
(A) Itsurpasses the Old Covenant lawincfari.
With the giving of further relevant information
in the scriptures of the New Covenant, Gods moral
requirements are made even clearer to us. For instance,
Christ corrects misinterpretations and narrowing
of the law’s demand (Matt. 5:21-48). Moreover,
His own life is an illustration of what the law
would have us do and thus is a new example of what
love requires. The radical character of love is so
dramatically displayed in the atonement that the old
commandment of loving one another can be considered
a ‘new command”; Christ’s explanation of
love surpasses that of the Old Covenant when he
says that His people are to love one another “even as
I have loved you” (John 13:34-35; cf. 15:12-13; 1 John
2:7-11; 3:11-18, 22-24; 4:7-11).
(B) The New Covenant surpasses the Old in its
e$cimcy.
Through the Old Testament God’s moral demand
was progressively revealed and explained; a
revelation of His requirements would be followed by
later revelations which amplified the first. However,
with the coming of the New Covenant, the law of
God would never receive further additions. The
canon is complete and closed. Once and for all God
has set down the moral standards which we are to
faithfully apply to our lives. Everything needed for
complete equipping in righteous li’ing has now been
given (2 Tim. 3 :16-17).
(C) The New Covenant brings greater responsi16a
BY THIS STANDARD
bility for obedtie.
With the giving of new light and new power in
the New Covenant, the responsibility of men to obey
the voice of God is increased. To” whom much is
given much is required (Luke 12:48). G& no longer
overlooks any people’s disobedience but requires all
people everywhere to repent because of His appointed
Judge and Day (Acts 17: 30-31). The revelation
of the New Covenant is even more inescapable
than that of the Old Covenant (Heb. 12:25), and to it
we should give “the more earnest heed” (Heb. 2:1-4).
Conclusion
Our study of the New Covenant scriptures has
shown us, in summary, that there &e definite
discontinuities between the New Coveflant relation
to the law and that of the Old Covenant. The New
Covenant surpasses the Old in glory, power, realization,
and finality. There is no textual indication, however,
that the New Covenant brings a new si%ndard of
moral conduct, and there is no tix&l indication that
the Old Covenant standard has been categorically
laid aside. The Covenantal administratz;m are
dramatically different – in glory, power, realization,
and finality — but not as codes dejinin~ right and
wrong behavior or attitudes.
E THE FUNCTIONS
OF GOD’S LAW
17
GODS COMMANDMENTS ARE
A NON-LEGALISTIC
RULE OF OBEDIENCE
“The law sends us to the Gospel that we may
be justified; and the Gospel sends us to the law
again to inquire what is our duty as people who
are justified.”
The Law Valid from Every Angle
Previous chapters have explored the subject of
Gods law in Christian ethics from a variety of perspectives.
We have learned that there is every theoio,gtial
reason to affirm that believers continue to have
an obligation to obey the law of God today. When we
ask what the whole Bible has to say about the standard,
motive, and goal of Christian morality, the
Scripture’s answer consistently points to the validity
of God’s law in our lives.
From the normative perspective the Bible teaches
that the entire written word of God is our standard of
170 BY mlS STANDARO
conduct, that God’s covenantal dealings with men
(inclusive of His stipulations for His people) are essentially
one, that God’s unchanging holiness is
transcribed for us in His law, that God’s Son set an
example for us of keeping the law, and that Gods
Spirit conforms believers to the pattern of righteousness
found in the law.
From the personal or motivational perspective the
Bible shows us that grace, faith, and love all operate
to produce compliance with the holy standard of
God’s commandments.
From the teZeologkai or consequential perspective
the Bible explains that the law of the Lord was revealed
for the good of His people, and thus a promised
blessing rests upon individuals and societies
which submit to God’s stipulations for their attitudes
and actions.
The theological conclusion that God’s law continues
to be a valid rule of life today enjoys the specific
support of New Zstument texts which bear on the subject
as well. We have explored the way in which New
Testament authors treat the legal requirements of
the Old Testament, only to find that further endorsement
is given to the law’s validity today. This has
been observed in the use of the law found in the
teaching of Jesus and the apostles, the assumed authority
of the law in key New Testament ethical
thaw, and the application of the law incorporated
into New Testament moral &&w-nts.
Finally, an extensive comparison of what the Old
Testament had to say about the law of God with corresponding
concerns in the New Testament revealed
GOD’S COMMANDMENTS ARE A NON-LEtiUSTIC RULE OF OSEOIENCE 171
that there was a common attitude toward the law and a
presupposed continui~ between th covenants as to God’s
moral standards in the law — despite the fact that the
New Covenant introduced important elements of discontinuity
regarding the believer’s relationship to the
law. Ln the age of the New Covenant the Old Covenant
law of the Lord retains its binding authority.
So then, both theological insight and specific
New Testament teaching agree in supporting the law
of God as a standard of conduct. If a person wishes
to please the Lord, then he must seek to bring his
thoughts, words, and deeds into conformity with the
norms laid down in the law of God. Christian ethics
is surely concerned with more than the law of God
(for instance. it considers issues like ethical enablement,
motivation, maturation, discernment, insight,
application), but it cannot be concerned with
less than the law of God – for the law supplies a pattern
and criterion of godly living.
The La-w Is Natural, Universal
Because that pattern and criterion is an unchanging
one, the law continues to be a major concern of
Christian ethics today. The standard of holiness revealed
by the law is not peculiar to Old Testament
Jews, nor is it somehow uniquely for those redeemed
by God. That standard is universally binding on all
created men, being “natural” in the -sense that it is
appropriate to the Creator-creature relation, and in
the sense that it is revealed as binding to all mankind
(either through the created realm and conscience, or
through special written revelation).
172 BY THIS STANDARD
The standard of the law remains unmitigated in
its demand on our behavior as God’s creatures.
Failure to comply with it makes us sinners. Christ
came, not to remove the standard which constitutes
us as sinners, but to atone for the sin which we commit.
The Spirit which He supplies to believers works
to bring obedience to the previously spurned standard
of righteousness in the law. At the final judgment,
all men will be judged in the light of that same
unchanging standard. In whuteuer age, state, or circumstance
man is found, his norm of godliness rmins the
revealed [aw of God.
Accordingly, in 1774 John Newton, the theologian,
hymn writer, and former slave ship owner
turned abolitionist, wrote: “It is an unlawfid use of
the law, that is, an abuse of it, an abuse of both law
and Gospel, to pretend, that its accomplishment by
Christ releases believers from any obligation to it as
a rule. Such an assertion is not only wicked, but absurd
and impossible in the highest degree: for the
law is founded in the relation between the Creator
and the creature, and must unavoidably remain in
force so long as that relation subsists. While he is
God, and we are creatures, in every possible or supposable
change of state or circumstances, he must
have an unrivaled claim to our reverence, love,
trust, service, and submission.”1
1. Letters of John Newton (London: Banner of Tiuth Trust,
1960, p. 46).
.
QOD’S COMMANDMENTS AREA NON-lE=USTtC FtULE OF OWZDIENCE 173
The Law Upheld in the Westminster Tradition
One of the commissioners to the Westminster
Assembly was Samuel Bolton, a reverent Reformed
Scholar who was disturbed by the claims being made
in his day by those called “antinomians” (those who
were against the law of God as a rule of obedience ~
on the alleged ground of God’s free grace in the New
Testament). In 1645, while the Westminster
Assembly was still at work, Bolton published a
treatise entitled, The Tme Bounal of Christian Freedom. Z
In it he laid out arWment upon argument from
Scripture to prove that we are not free today from
the moral obligations of the law of God and that the
law was compatible with God’s grace. The thrust of
Bolton’s treatise is summarized in these words from
it: ‘We cry down the law in respect of justification,
but we set it up as a rule of sanctification. The law
sends us to the Gospel that we may be justified; and
the Gospel sends us to the law again to inquire what
is our duty as those who are justified.”J
Speaking of Matthew 5:17-18, Bolton said, “this
seems to be very full and very plain for the continuance
of and obligation to the law,” and he went on to
buttress his observation by appeal to Remans 3:31;
7:12, 22, 25; James 28; and lJohn 2:4; 3:4. “Therefore,
since Christ, who is the best expounder of the
law, so largely strengthens and confirms the law
(witness the Sermon on the Mount, and also Mark
10: 19); since faith does not supplant, but strengthens
2. Reprinted, London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1964
3. lbrd.> p. 71.
174 BY THE STANDARD
the law; since the apostle so often presses and urges
the duties commanded in the law of God in his
mind, and that he was under the law of Christ (1
Cor. 9:21); I may rightly conclude that the law, for
the substance of it, still remains a rule of life to the
people of Ged. . . . If Christ and His apostles commanded
the same things which the law required, and
forbade and condemned the same things which the
law forbade and condemned, then they did not abrogate
it but strengthened and confirmed it. And this is
what they did: see Matt. 5:19. . . . But he that
breaks the law does sin, as says the apostle: ‘Sin is
the transgression of the law’ (1 John 3:4). and ‘Where
no law is there is no transgression’ (Rem. 4:15).
Therefore Christians are bound, if they would avoid
sin, to obey the law.”+
Bolton recognized, of course, that the Old Testament
corpus of law was easily categorized into
moral, judicial, and ceremonial laws — that is, general
principles, illustrative applications, and the way
of atonement. Bolton saw the ceremonial law as providing
the Jews with a way of worship which both
anticipated the saving work of Christ and established
a separation between God’s people and the world
(the Gentiles). The judicial law provided “a rule of
common and public equity~ in civil matters. 5
It is evident from chapter 19 of the Westminster
Confession of Faith – especially in light of the Larger
Catechism’s exposition of God’s law – that the au-
4. hi., pp. 61, 62, 66.
5. Ibii., p. 56.
GOD’S COMMANDMENTS ARE A NOWLEGAUSTIC RULE OF OSEDIENCE 175
thors of the Confession saw eye to eye with Bolton in
these matters. The law of God as delivered to Moses
expresses the same perfect rule of righteousness
which was binding upon man as created, even prior
to the fall (19:1-2).
The corpus of law contained ceremonial laws
typifying the saving work of Christ and certain
moral instructions pertaining to the holy separation
of God’s people from the unbelieving world (19:3). It
also contained judicial laws particularly worded for
the ancient Jewish civil state, the general equity of
which continues to bind men (19:4). Although the
law is not a way of personal justification, it continues
to be a rule of life both for the saved and the unsaved;
Christ in the Gospel does not dissolve but
rather strengthens this obligation (19: 5-7).
This is Not “Legalism”
We must agree with the Publisher’s Introduction
to the Banner of Truth reprint of Bolton’s work
against antinomianism: “The slur of legalism’ often
cast upon those who framed the Westminster Con-
-- fession of Faith finds no justi6cation in this instructive
and edifying work.”G To maintain the full authority
of God’s law today – a conclusion to which
every line of Biblical study drives us — will be unpopular
in some degree with many people today, and it
will be maligned as qegalism.” To that charge John
Murray could simply answer: “It is strange indeed
that this kind of antipathy to the notion of keeping
6. Ibd , p. 12.
176 BY THIS STANDARD
commandments should be entertained by any believer
who is a serious student of the New Testament.”?
Rather than deal with the numerous lines of textual
and theological support for the law’s validity today,
some would rather effortlessly dismiss the idea
by blindly attaching the label of “legalism” to it. The
label will not stick. Nor will the substance of our
moral duty before God disappear by the mere incantation
of a word.
7. Princi@s oj Conduct (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans,
1957), p. 182.
NEW TESTAMENT OPPOSITION TO
THE ABUSE OF GODS LAW
“Paul’s words imply that there is an unlawful
use of God% law, a use which mns counter to
the law’s character and intent, so that the law’s
good nature might be pverted into something
evil.”
The New Testament, as does the entire Bible,
surely supports the continuing validity of God’s law.
To say this is simply to submit one’s thoughts to the
Lawgiver Himself– it is not ‘legalism.” And yet the
New Testament contains passages which certainly
seem to be taking a decidedly negative attitude toward
the law of God. Paul declares that he ‘died unto
the law that I might live unto God” (Gal. 2:19). He
says, “you are not under the law, but under grace”
(Rem. 6:14). Again, “we have been discharged from
the law” (Rem. 7:6). For those who believe, we can
conclude apparently, Whnst is the end of the law”
178 BY llUS STMDARD
(Rem. 10:4). In light of such passages, some believers
are led to see promotion of the law of God as our
standard of morality as legalistic bondage. How can
Scripture’s seeming ambivalence toward God’s law
be understood in a way which absohres it of contradiction?
How can the Bible contain two completely
different evaluations of the law of God?
Paul himself supplies the resolution to the apparent
problem when he delivers his categorical conclusion
regarding the status of Go&s law for the
Christian today. He says, We know that the law is
good, ifa man uses it lawfidlfl (1 Tim. 1:8). It is indisputable
and well established that the law is a good
thing, reflecting perfectly the righteous standards of
OUr holy God, the Creator of all men and Redeemer
of His chosen people. Paul says ‘we know” that the
law is good. It should be common knowledge that a
positive - attitude and submission to the law of God
are called for in us. The law is indeed good! To follow
it and endorse obedience to its dictates cannot be disapprobated
as bad. The law of which Paul speaks is
clearly the Old Testament commandments, as the illustrations
mentioned in verses 9-10 demonstrate.
These commands are known by all to be good (cf.
Rem. 2:14-15; 7:12).
Yet Paul immediately qualifies his endorsement
of the good character of God’s law. He says that the
law is good ifit is used lawfil. That is, when the law
is used according to its own direction and purpose —
when the law is lawful~ applied — it is a perfectly
good thing. However, Paul’s words imply that there
is an unlawful use of God’s law, a use which runs
NEW TESTAMENT OPPOSITION TO TNE ABUSE OF GOD% LAW 179
counter to the law’s character and intent, so that the
law’s good nature might be perverted into something
evil. The abuse of the law is indirectly condemned
by Paul.
Examples of Abuse
What might such an abuse be? Where do we find
an unlawful use of the law? We need not look far in
the pages of the New Testament. Throughout the
ministry of Christ and persistently in the epistles of
Paul we encounter the Pharisaical and Judaizing attitude
that one can, by performing works of the law.
find personal justification before God. .4mazing
pride and self-deception led the Jews to believe that
they might appear righteous in the judgment of a
holy God if they but strove diligently to keep the
commandments (or at least their external requirements).
The Pharisees liked to justify themselves before
men (Luke 16:15); they trusted in themselves
that they were indeed righteous (Luke 18:9) – so
much so that they had no more need for a Savior
than a healthy man needs a physician (h4att.
9:12-13). However, God knew their hearts all too
well. Despite outward appearances of cleanliness
and righteousness, they were inwardly foul, spiritually
dead, and fdl of iniquity (Matt. 23:27-28).
Because they went about trying to establish their
own righteousness, the Pharisees could not submit to
the righteousness of God (Rem. 10:3).
Within the early church there soon arose a party
from among the Pharisees that insisted that the Gentiles
could not be saved without being circumcised
and keeping in some measure the law of Moses (Acts
15:1, 5). Justification may be by grace, they would
teach, but not completely so; works of the law were
also necessary. Because they would compel the Gentiles
to live as Jews in this sense (Gal. 2:14), they
were designated ‘Judaizers .“
Paul himself could understand this mindset, for
it had been his own prior to conversion. He was
brought up as a Pharisee concerning the law (Phil.
3:5); at the feet of Garnaliel he was “educated according
to the strict manner of the law of our fathers”
(Acts 22:3). His own testimony was this: “I advanced
in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my
people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions
of my fathers” (Gal. 1:14). He made his boast in the
law (cf. Rem. 2:17-20, 23), and from the perspective
of one spiritually dead he could claim that “as to
righteousness under the law” he was — in a word —
‘%lameless” (Phil. 3:6). He was once, apart from the
law, so deceived as to think he was spiritually alive
and righteous, but under the influence of God’s
Spirit the commandment came home to his consciousness
and killed his self-righteous complaency.
‘I was alive apart from the law once, but when the
commandment came, sin revived and I died” (Rem.
7:9).
Paul’s Response
What Paul discovered is that he had simply not
understood the law correctly in the first place. That
is why in the midst of his most earnest writing
against the Judaizers he can appeal repeatedly to the
NEW TESTAMENT OPPOSITtON TO THE ABUSE OF GOD’S LAW 181
Law itself (for example, Gal. 3:6-14, alluding to
Gen. 15:6; 12:3; Deut. 27:26; Hab. 2:4; Lev. 18:5:
Deut. 21:23).
The Old Testament, seeing that in God’s sight no
man could be justified (Ps. 143:2), promised justification
grounded in ‘the-Lord-our-righteousness”
(Jer. 23:6). Righteousness had to be imputd een to
the great father of the Jews, .4braham (Gen. 15:6).
Thus, the Old Testament, abundantly testifying that
God’s saints were men of faith (cf. Heb. 11), taught
that the just shall live by faith (Hab. 2 :4). Isaiah proclaimed:
“In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be
justified. . . . This is the heritage of the senants of
the Lord, and their righteousness is of men, saith the
Lord (45:25; 54:17).
The ceremonial law deliered by Moses made
these truths manifest over and over again during the
Old Testament era. hlen were not righteous in
themsehes but needed to be circumcised. Even in
their most natural habits, their sinful pollution
called for ceremonial cleansings. To be found just in
the sight of God they had to abhor their sinfulness
and seek forgiveness through sacrificial substitution
and priestly intercession. In such things the law possessed
“a shadow of the good things to come” with the
saving ministry of Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:1).
By the regenerating and enlightening work of the
Holy Spirit, Paul-came to realize that the law never
intended for men to seek personal justification by
meritorious works or the law. The law itself presented
salvation as a gift rather than as wages. Accordingly,
those who prided themselves in the law
182 BY TNIS STANDARD
were in truth the most extreme violators of the law!
“Is the law against the promises of God?” Paul asks.
Does it teach a method ofjustification contrary to the
gracious way of salvation found in God’s promises?
Paul’s reply is “May it never be!” (Gal. 3:21), “for if
there had been a law given which could make alive,
verily righteousness would have been of the law. But
Scripture shut up all things under sin in order that
the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given
to them that believe .“ Far from distracting from justification
by grace through faith, “the law became
our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be
justified by faith” (v. 24).
So let us return to Paul’s declaration in 1 Tim.
1:8, We know that the law is good, if a man use it
lawfully.” By implication there is an unlawfil, distorting
use of the thw — one which abuses it, even while pretending
to honor the law. Paul would surely identifi
the abusive use of the law as the Pharisaical and
Judaizing attempt to make law-works the ground of
one’s own justification before God. “If righteousness
is through the law, then Christ died for nothing”
(Gal. 2:21). But “no man is justified by the law” (Gal.
3:11). The fact that God justifies the ungod~ (Rem.
4:5) plainly shows that justification must be grounded
in the alien righteousness of Jesus Christ (by His shed
blood and resurrection, Rem. 4:25; 5:9); His righteousness
is imputed to those who believe upon Him
(Rem. 4:3-5; 5:1-2; 2 Cor. 5:21). Indeed, the aim or
goal (“end”) of the law’s teaching was Christ, who
brings righteousness to all who believe (Rem. 10:4).
NEW TESTAMENT OPPOSITION TO TNE ABUSE OF GOWS LAW 183
Conclusion
As we have seen, passages in Paul’s writings
which seem to take a negative attitude toward the law
of God can be correctly harmonized with Paul’s
equally strong endorsements of the law by distinguishing
at least two (among many) uses of the word “law”
in \Paul’s epistles. I The revelatmy use of aw” is its
delaration of the righteous standards of God; in this
th~ law is good. The l<galtitic use of “law” refers to the
attkmpt to utilize the works of the law as a basis for
I saying merit; this is an unlawful use of the law and
+“- re ewes Paul’s strongest condemnations. Paraphrasing
1 Timothy 1:8, Paul says that we know the law—
as a revelation of God’s unchanging will — is good, as
long as one uses it qawfully” (as it is meant to be
used) instead of legalistically.
Cf. Daniel P. Fuller, ‘Paul and the Works of the Law,” t$ist- -.
minskr TheologualJoumal, XXXVII1 (Fall 1975), pp 28-42 For a
mdem statement of the covenantal position rhat the Old Testament
did not teach justification by law-works (legalism), see
Fuler’s fine exegetical study, (%spd and Lau,: Contrat M Contm -
uutn (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Etrdmans, 1980).
19
WHAT THE LAW CANNOT DO
“The law could not accomplish the remission of
sins, but only witness to its coming reality.”
We have seen that even the good law of God can
become an evil thing when abused – when put to a
use which is contrary to its character and purpose. It
will prove beneficial to try and summarize just what
the law cannot do in itself so that we might not fall
into the error of using the law unlawfully.
(1) In the first place, as discussed just previously,
the law cannot contribute anything toward the personal
justification of one who stands under its curse
for violating its precepts. Before the standard of
God’s law the sinner will always stand condemned
rather than being judged righteous. “By the works of
the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight” (Rem.
3:20). Those who hope to find acceptance with God
on the basis of their own good deeds cannot find His
favor. “You have been discharged from Christ whoWHAT
THE IAW CANNOT 00 185
soever of you are justified by the law; you have fallen
away from grace” (Gal. 5:4). The \rery attempt to
gain justification in this manner is futile, for “a man
is not justified by the works of the law but through
faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal. 2:16).
(2) Nor can the law break the stranglehold and
power of sin in a person’s life. The principle of
C1-,rist’s Iife-gi\’ing Spirit set Paul free from the principle
of sin and death. Thus he said, “For what the
la~ could not do, in that it was weak through the
flesh, God sending His own Son . . . condemned sin
. . . in order that the ordinance of the lav might be
fufilled by us who walk not after the flesh, but after
thy Spirit” (Rem. 8:3-4). By the “flesh” Paul means
the sinful nature within man \vhich is at war with
Gd and rebellious against His righteous standards
(cfj. VV. 6-8). The law of God simply could never
o’rthrow this sinful nature and bring about conformit
y to its pattern of righteousness. The law could
not empower obedience and put a decisive end to the
power of disobedience.
The law could show what was right, but the faulty
character of the sinner prevented the right from being
performed. In the face of this failing, the law was
helpless to amend the situation. However, God did
codemn sin and destroy its dreadful power by sendin~
His own Son to save sinners. The Son supplied
H s Spirit to belierers to give them the enabling
power of obedience to the law. Where they were once
impotent, they are now empowered. We must ever
remember that the law is a pattern ordy; it cannot
supply the power to follow the pattern.
186 BY Tl#S STANDARU
Paul elsewhere expressed this truth by saying,
‘You are not under law, but under grace” (Rem.
6:14). The pezson who is “under iaw” is one whose ?esource-s
and powers are deternuned exclu.siue~ by the law. The context
of Paul’s declaration is the key to understanding
it correctly. Being ‘under law” takes a parallel position
to having sin reign within oneself (v. 12), to sin
having dominion over oneself (v. 14a), to being a servant
of sin (v. 17). Instead of being “under law” and
by its impotence enslaved to sin, Paul sees the believer
as ‘under grace“ instead— that is, under the
determining power of God’s merciful and mighty
work of salvation. This grace makes one over into a
semant of righteousness and obedience (VV. 13,
16-18).
One is now under the enabling power of God’s
grace @st so that one can obey the previously transgressed
law of God. This conception of Paul’s meaning
helps us to see his declaration’s appropriate place
and function in its local context. Ln its full form,
Paul’s point is this: “Sin shall not have dominion
over you because you are not under law but under
grace. What then? shall we sin since we are under
grace and not under law? God forbid!” (VV. 14-15). In
context it is clear that being unhr law is a position oj
powt=riessness wherein the bondage to sin remains unbroken,
whereas being under grace supplies the spiritual
strength to break off from sinning and now to
obey the righteous standards of God (found in His
law).
(3) Finally, it is important to remember that the
law delivered by Moses never could actually make
WHAT THE IAW CANNOT 00 187
aything perfect (Heb. 7:19). While it beautifully
foreshadowed the saving ministry of Jesus Christ in
its ceremonial enactments, the law could never by its
ipeated sacrifices secure the eternal redemption
neded by Gods people (Heb. 9:11-12; 10:1-12). Only
te coming of the promised Savior, His atoning
dath, and justifying resurrection could accomplish
t
t ‘ e hoped for salvation of believers. The law could
n t accornp[ish the remission of sins but only witness
t6 its coming reality. Accordingly, the ceremonial
prtion of the Old Testament law was never meant
t~ be literally followed forever in the same manner as
i$ was by Old Testament saints. It was “imposed unt~
a time of reformation” (Heb. 9:10).
\ With the coming of the Savior, the shadows are
left behind. The ceremonial system is put out of gear
Ad made inoperative. To insist on keeping these ordinances
in the same way as did Old Testament believers
would be to disclose in oneself a legalistic attitude
toward salvation (Gal. 4:8-10; 5:1-6). It would
be retrogressive and disdainful of Christ, to whom
t.le Old Testament ceremonies pointed.
“Urider Law”
In 1 Corinthians 9:20, Paul describes himself as
‘not being myself under the law,” even though he
became to the Jews as one who was under the law in
c/rder that he might win some Jews to Christ. In the
next verse, he continues to describe himself, now as
“not being without law to God, but under law to
Christ .“ If nothing else, this verse refutes any idea
lat Remans 6:14 (“you are not under law, but under
188 BY THIS STANDARD
grace”) can be interpreted as implying that the person
under grace has been released from moral obligation
to the law of God. Paul affirms his submission
to the law of Christ and thereby to every detail of the
Old Testament law as well (Matt. 5:17-19). Indeed,
he was not at all without the law of God (cf. Rem.
3:31; 7:22; 8:4). What then does he mean when he
says in 1 Corinthians 9:20 that he is not “under the
law”?
It would appear that this expression (“under
law”) is not being used in the same manner in both
Remans 6:14 and 1 Corinthians 9:20. In the former
passage it implies bonohge to thepower of sin, and this is
far from what Paul is saying about himself in the latter
passage ! Those enslaved to sin are tizw.kss, but
Paul unmistakably asserts that he is not without
God’s law in Christ. The phrase “under law” in
Remans 6:14 applies indiscriminately to all unbelievers,
but in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 it applies to only
one category of unbelievers — while “without law”
describes the remaining category of unbelievers.
What then does Paul mean in 1 Corinthians .9:20
by asserting that he himself is not “under the law”?
Paul is showing how he became all things to all men
for the sake of the gospel (m’. 22-23). “To the Jews I
became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews” (v. 20).
When with them he acted ‘as though under the law,”
even though with others he acted ‘as though without
the law.”
Does Scripture help us understand how Paul was
not thereby acting inconsistently, immorally, and
with duplicity? Yes, it does. The unbelieving Jews
WHAT THE LAW CANNOT Cm 189
iad not recognized as yet the dramatic change brought
in by the redemptive realities of the New Testament.
kthough Christ had realized all that the Mosaic
eremonial law had anticipated, unbelieving Jews con-
-.inued to follow these rituals. In dealing with such
men, Paul accommodated himself to these customs to
gain a hearing for the gospel, even though he fhlly
@ew that they were not in themselves obligatory any
nger. The shadows had given way to the Savior. For
r
stance, Paul would carry out putication rites (for
xample, Acts 21:20-26) and take certain vows (for ex-
ple, Acts 18:18) which he knew to be morally
ndifferent, and he did so to preserve a hearing for the
gospel among the Jews. Among the Gent iles, however,
le behaved % though without the law.” There was no
advantage to pursuing the ceremonies in their presence.
They were not like the Jews in this respect — not
lcept in ward under the law before faith came,” “under
a tutor” until arriving at the maturity of sons — such as
hew Testament believers, who enjoy freedom from
*at tutor of the law (Gal. 3:23-26).
The Jews lived under the ceremonial rituals
landed down by Moses. In 1 Corinthians 9:20 Paul,
ecognizing that these rituals could not actually ac-
mplish salvation and that they were rendered
inoperative by the atoning work of Christ, says that
\ nevertheless he acted as though “under the law” in
order to gain the Jews for Christ. With some men he
conformed to these rites, but with others he did not.
He was all things to all men – without ever losing
sight of the fact that he was “in-lawed to Christ” and
thus not at all failing to submit to God’s law.
20
WHAT THE LAW
CAN AND SHOULD DO
“Within the life of the believer the law receives
its proper due; indaed, it is established by
faith:
Our study of what the law cannot do has found that
the law (1) cannot contribute anything to a man’s
justification, (2) cannot relieve the bondage of sin
and enable obedience, and (3) cannot actually accomplish
the full salvation foreshadowed by the ceremonial
ritual. A thorough study of the literature of
the New Testament will show that its depreciatory or
negative remarks about the law of God will each and
e’ery one be associated with an oversight of the three
mentioned inabilities of the law. Failing to see what
the law cannot do and was never intended to” do,
men have tried to use works of the law for personal
justification, have vainly sought to obey &e law’s
precepts without God’s gracious empowering, and
I
WHAT THE IAW CAN AND SHOULD ~ 191
have continued under the outmoded shadows of the
Mosaic ritual after the advent of the Savior. It is to
such unlawful uses of the law that the New Testament
speaks with firm antipathy.
Yet none of the well known New Testament passa~
es which speak against the abuse of the law go on
to release believers from moral obligation to the pattern
of righteous living revealed in the law. The
standard of the law remains valid, showing us what
is good in the sight of God. Paul’s evaluation has
proven ery helpful in resolving the apparent conflict
over the status of the law within the pages of the
New Testament. Paul explained, “We know that the
la$ is good, if a man uses it lawfully” (1 Tim. 1:8).
Wlhat are the lawfid uses of the law?
Proper Uses of the Law
Before Adam fell into sin, obedience to the law
would bring to him life and well-being. Since the
fal, however, the law became to sinners a way of
condemnation and death; the law cannot bring
about obedience in the sinner and cannot be used as
a ay of justification. The ceremonial shadows of the
O\d Testament – the gospel in figures – gave promis~
that God himself would graciously accomplish
fidl .salva’tion fr His people, justifi them from sin
add reakkhe power of rebellion in their lives. God’s
rihteousness is effective in those who have experienced
a transition from wrath to grace in their persohal
lives, so that grateful obedience to God’s good
la,v becomes a way of life and well-being. No longer
is God’s law ignored. No longer is it replaced with
192 BY THIS STANDARD
the commandments and wisdom of men. No longer
is it misused for the purposes of self-righteousness.
Within the life of the believer the law receives its
proper due; indeed, it is estublfihed by faith (Rem.
3:31). By. it we can be blessed.
According to Scripture, the law has many legitimate
fimctions. We can try to summarize them in
the following list.
(1) The law declares the charactir of God and so reveals
His glory.
The kind of lifestyle and attitudes which the Lord
requires of His people tells us, of course, what kind
of God He is. If you wish to see the contrast between
the pagan deities and the living and true God of the
Bible, simply observe the difference between the
things which they command. Moloch demanded
child sacriiice, while Jehovah commanded the care
and nurture of children — to take but one example.
Psalm 119 extensively applies the attributes of God
(perfection, purity, righteousness, truth) to the precepts
of God. Throughout the law God reinforces the
authority of His commands by following them with
the declaration, “I am the Lord .“
In showing the true and radical demand of the
law’s requirements (Matt. 5:21-47), Christ was
showing us the perfection of God which is desired in
us (v. 48). John Newton wrote:
When we use the law as a glass to behold the
glory of God, we use it lawfully. His glory is
eminently revealed in Christ; but much of it is
WHAT THE LAW CAN A!WS.HOULDDO 193
with a special reference to the law, and cannot
~ otherwise discerned. We see the perfection
yd excellence of the law in his life. God was
lorified by his obedience as a man. What a perfect
character did he exhibit! yet it is no other
‘&an a transcript of the law.” 1
(2) The law displays the demand of God upon our
lives as men. By revealing the character of God, the
law quite naturaUy expresses what is required of
men if they are going to imitate their Creator. The
law’s commands show how we are to be like God by
propounding the will of God for us. Before deliver-
&the summation of the law in the Decalogue, God
soke to Israel with these words: “Now therefore, if
ydu will obey my voice indeed, and keep my coven~
t, then you shall be my own possession from
arpong all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you
sHall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy natibn”
(Ex. 19:5-6). Obedience to the law is obedience
tc/ the voice of the King, the Lord of the covenant,
ahd as such it shows us what it means to be His subje~
ts and servants. For us to pray “Thy kingdom
c6me,” is likewise to pray “Thy will be done on earth”
(Matt. 6:10). And God’s will is communicated by
Eis commandments, telling us what His holiness
means on a creaturely level (Lev. 20:7-8).
(3) The law pronounces blessing upon adherence to
1. Letters of John Newton (London: Banner of Truth Tiust,
t950), p. 47.
1~ BY THIS STANDARD
its demands. God’s commandments were laid down
for our good (Deut. 10:13), and obedience to them is
the pure delight of the righteous man (Ps. 1:1-2).
Such obedience brings prosperity (Ps. 1:3-4) and
good success (Joshua 1:7). The Lord’s lovingkindness
is upon those who keep His precepts (Ps.
103 :17-18), blessing them and their cultures (cf.
Deut. 7, 11, 28, 30). Indeed, Paul taught that “godliness
is profitable for all things, since it holds promise
for the present life and also for the life to come” (1
Tim. 4:8). Seeking the righteousness of God’s kingdom
above all will be rewarded by the supply of
every need (Matt. 6:33). The law hsures that when
men are just and righteous, they enjoy the life and
blessing which imitation of God constitutes. Thus
the commandment was ordained unto life (Rem.
7:10), and the man who does the things of the law enjoys
life within their sphere (Gal. 3:12).
(4) The law provides a dg$nziwn of sin.
By shoiving us what God is like and what God
demands, the law likewise delivers a standard for
sin. Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). In delineating the
righteousness wh-ich pleases God, the law simultaneously
provides the norm of waywardness and rebellion
against God. Where there is no law, there can be
no tr’ansgression (Rem. 4: 1“5; 5:13). By the law men
come to know what sin is (Rem. 3:20; 7:7).
(5) The law exposes iny%tions and convicts of sin.
The law is more than simply an objective code of
right and wrong by which, if one is interested, he
WHAT mE LAW CAN AND Sk+DUm DO 195
can judge his performance. The law, being Spiritual
(Rem. 7:14), is part of that word of God which is living
and active — sharper than any two-edged sword,
so as to pierce deeply into the recesses of man’s heart
and bring to the light his darkest character. The law
judges the thoughts and intents of the heart (Heb.
4:12) and produces a conviction of our sinfulness (for
example, Rem. 7 :9-13).
(6) Even more, the law works to incite rebellion in
sinful men.
Not only must we recognize that the law cannot
enable us to obey its demands, we must also see that
the law actually works in the contrary direction —
exciting within the rebel further and further expressions
of disobedience. Because the mind of the flesh
(sinful nature) is unable to be subject to Gods law
(Rem. 8:7), God’s law serves to conjrrn one’s bondage to
sin by provoking intemstjied rebellion. Thus, Paul can see
in the law the very power of sin (1 Cor. 15:56). To understand
this one need only reflect on the sad fact
that the best way for an owner of a plate glass window
to get it broken is for him to post a sign prohibiting
the throwing of rocks at it. The very prohibition
incites rebellion in the heart. By means of the commandments,
then, man’s sinfid nature “becomes exceedingly
sinful” (Rem. 7:13), working in us all manner
of sin (Rem. 7 :8), causing the trespass to
abound (Rem. 5:20).
(7) Consequently, the law conakrnm all transgression
as deserving God’s wrath and curse.
1= BY THIS STANDAJW
The statement of Galatians 3:10 is blunt and terri~
ing: “. . . cursed is every one who does not continue
in all things that are written in the book of the
law to do themm(cf. Deut. 27:26). James intensifies
the threat, saying “Whosoever shall keep the whole
law and yet stumble in one point has become guilty
of all” (2:10). Every infraction of the law brings
wrath upon the sinner. All men will be judged for
their ungodliness (Jude 6), judged according to their
deeds whether good or evil (2 Cor. 5:10), and if
found guilty cast into the eternal perdition of second
death (Rev. 20:12-15). The wages of sin will be death
(Rem. 6:23). Therefore, the law works wrath (Rem.
4:15) upon those who are, by their sinfd natures,
children of wrath (Eph. 2:3).
(8) The law drives us to Christ for salvation.
Thus fir we have noted the unmitigated, absolute,
unchanging demand of the law which reflects
the holiness of God and thus sets out the evil of man
by glaring contrast. Those who would have hoped in
their own righteousness for acceptance before God
are shown the futility of this hope by looking at the
high standard of the law. The law speaks, and this
shuts every mouth by bringing all the world under
God’s judgment (Rem. 3:19). Sinners apart from
Christ have no hope in this world (Eph. 2:12). The
sinner’s only recourse must be to the free mercy of
God’s promise. Enlightened as to his guilt, he cries
out with Paul, “wretched man that I am! who shall
deliver me from the body of this death?” (Rem.
7:24). God’s gracious answer is Jesus Christ (3:25),
WNAT TNE IAW CAN AND SNOULO DO 197
who manifests a righteousness of God apart from our
obedience to the law (v. 21) and who justilies us by the
free gift of faith (Rem. 3:22-26; 5:18-21; 6:23). In this
way the law serves an important function in bringing
men to salvation. It demonstrates their need and
leaves them no honest option but God’s offer of salvation.
“Before faith came we were kept in ward
under the law, shut up unto the faith which should
afterwards be revealed. So that the law is become
our tutor to bring us unto Christ that we might be
justified by faith” (Gal. 3:23-24). This passage is customarily
cited for the wording which suggests that
the law drives us along to Christ.
(9) The law guides the anctfication of the believer.
Since the law sets down the pattern of God’s holiness
for our lives, since the law was our obligation
from the beginning, and since it is precisely the violation
of the law which brought about the death of
Jesus Christ for sinners, it only stands to reason that
those delivered from sin’s guilt and bondage should
now desire to follow the previously spurned law.
Those who have seen the glory of God in His law
and have thereby been convicted of their own sin,
being driven to Christ for salvation, should stri’e to
bring their thoughts, words, and deeds into conformity
to the glorious standard of the law. God says,
“You shall keep My statutes and practice them; I am
the Lord who sanctifies you” (Lev. 20:8).
Christ gives His Spirit to believers “in order that
the ordinance of the law might be fi.dfilled” (Rem.
8:4). The law offers guidance and discernment to the
believer (cf. Ps. 119:24, 66, 105; Prov. 6:23) so that
he can walk in the light of God’s moral perfection
rather than in darkness (1 John 1: 5-7; 2:3-6; cf.
3:4-10; 5:2-3). Christians ought not to sin but rather
to evidence love toward God and neighbor. The first
epistle of John tells us that sin is violation of the law,
and that love is seen in keeping God’s commandments.
Accordingly, Christians are properly guided
in their lives by the law of God.
John Newton wrote:
-Another lawful use of the law is, to consult it as
a rule and pattern by which to regulate our
spirit and conversation. The grace of God, received
by faith, will dispose us to obedience in
general. but through remaining darkness and
ignorance we are much at a loss as to particultis.
We are therefore sent to the law, that we
may learn how to walk worthy of God, who has
called us to his kingdom and glory; and every
precept has its proper place and use. Z
Such an outlook led men like Newton to find
another use of the law closely associated with its
function of guiding sanctification. They often spoke
of the law serving “as a test whereby to judge of the
exercise of grace .“3 Such a concept, although unpopular
in our day of ‘easy believism,” was very much
on the mind of the Apostle John, who wrote “Hereby
we know that we know Him, if we keep His com-
2. Ibzd
3. Ibui
WNAT TNE LAW CAN AND SNOULD DO 199
mandments” (1 John 2:3). Obedience to the commandments
was for John also a mark that one loved
God and loved God’s children (1 John 5:2-3).
It thus appears appropriate that believers should
use the law of God as a benchmark by which to gauge
and evaluate their growth by God’s grace in holiness of
character. Because Bolton viewed the law as “a direction
of life, a rule of walking to believers,” he went on
to find that God’s law functioned ‘as a glass (mirror) to
reveal the imperfections in our performance of duties ,“
“as a reprover and corrector for sin, even to the saints ,“
and as ‘a spur to quicken us to duties.”~
(10) The law also serves to rejtrain /he euii of the
unregenerate.
Although only believers will appreciate aright the
glory- of God’s character revealed in the law, be convicted
of their sinful pollution by comparison, and
seek to be conformed to the righteous standard of the
law, the law also serves a function in the life and experience
of the unbeliever. Even if the unbelie-er is
not duly driven by the condemning finger of the law
to the arms of a faithful Savior, the law should be
utilized within a civil society to restrain the outward
evil of ungodly men.
Indeed, in the very passage where Paul tells us
that the law is good when used lawfully, the precise
lawfid use of the law which he has in mind is its
restraining function upon ,rebellious men: “knowing
4. Samuel Bolton. The True Bounds of Chrzstian Freedom (London.
Banner of Tmth Trust, 1964), p. 83.
- BY TlilS STANDARD
this, that the law was not enacted for a righteous
man, but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly
and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for
murderers of fathers and mothers, for manslayers,
for fornicators, for homosexuals, or menstealersj for
liars, for fhlse swearers . . .” (1 Tim. 1:9-10). This
may not be a sanctifying effect in the unbeliever’s
life, but it is nevertheless a preservative function
within society which is honored by God. It was intended
as one of the proper functions of the law
when God revealed it — both through the created
realm and through the medium of written legislation.
21
THE TRADITIONAL “THREE
USES” OF THE LAW
“When the known ordinances of Gods law are
spurned by a culture, it experiences the wrath
of God revealed against it in the progressive
breakdown of social order and moral decency.”
My preceding survey has aimed to delineate
many facets of the legitimate function of the law as
discussed in Scripture. However, traditional Reformed
thought has tended to summarize all of these
various fhnctions under the heading of three main
uses of the law. The Reformers recognized quite
clearly that the law had not been abolished in the
New Testament age, and yet they were -keenly aware
of the abuses of the law to which the medieval Roman
Catholic Church was prone. Therefore, against antinomians
they argued for the law’s validity, and in
order to prevent falling into error in the use of the law
they set down the law’s proper fimctions.
202 BY THIS STANDARD
The “first use” of God’s law, they believed, is “the
politial use of the law.” They believed that the enforcement
of God’s law by the civil magistrate is necessary
for the proper and legitimate restraining of
ungodly behavior by ungodly men.
The “second use” of the law which they identified
was called “the pedagogti use of the law.” By providing
conviction of sin and creating a sense of spiritual
need in the sinner, the law was a tutor which brought
him to Christ. In his well known Commmtagl on the
Book of Galatians Luther wrote:
The right use and end, therefore, of the law is to
accuse and condemn as guilty such as live in security,
that they may see themselves to be in
danger of sin, wrath, and death eternal. . . .
The law with this office .helpeth by occasion to’
justification, in that it driveth a man to the
promise of grace (at Gal. 2:17 and 3:19). ——
Certainly no evangelical belie’er can gainsay that
the law properly serves such an end.
The “third use” of the law identified by the
Reformers was its “didmtic use,” whereby the law
supplies a rule for life to believers. Calvin wrote,
“The law is the best instrument for ‘enabling
believers daily to learn what that will of God is which
they are to follow.” 1 Although some modern
Lutherans have wished to distance themselves from
this use of the law, there can be no doubt but that it
is endorsed by Luther and by the Formula of Con-
1. ktituks of the Christian RA@on, 2,7.12
THE TRADITIONAL l+lREE USES-OF THE LAW 203
cord. Luther said that apart from appealing to the
law for justification, ‘we cannot sufficiently praise
and magnify those works which are commanded of
God (Conun.mtmy at Gal. 3 :22). To remove the law
from the believer, thought Luther, ‘is a thing impossible
and against God.”2 Accordingly Luther’s Small
Catechism begins with an exposition of the Deca-
Iogue. The Formula of Concord declared, We belie’
e, teach, and confess that the preaching of the
Law should be urged . . . also upon those who truly
believe in Christ, are truly converted to God, and regenerated
and are justified by faith” (Article 1’1. 2).
Although the Calvinist branch of the Reformation
stresses the law as a good gift of God’s grace, -and the
Lutheran branch stresses it as a constraint, they both
agree that the law is to be used to form the life of the
regenerate believer.
The Controversial “First Use”
Traditionally, Reformed thought has summarized
the proper use of the law into three specific functions.
It drives the convicted sinner to Christ (the second
use) and provides a pattern of sanctification for the regenerated
believer (the third use). Some debate has
surfaced in the past over the ‘third” or didactic use of
the law, but the Reformed faith has still persisted in
the Biblical affirmation that the law retains its binding
validity for the conduct of believers.
More recently disagreement has arisen with respect
to what the Reformers called the “first use” of the
2. Tablz Talk, 286
204 BY TNIS STANDARD
law, which they took to be its “political use” in restraining
the ungodly behavior of the unregenerate
within socie. The Reformers were sure enough of
this proper function for God’s law that they could
call it the first and most obvious use for it. In fact,
the very passage where Paul suggests that there are
both lawful and unlawfd uses of the law of God– 1
Tim. 1:8 – goes on immediately to illustrate a lawful
use of the law as that of curbing the outward civil behavior
of unruly men (w. 9-10).
The law provides an external standard of justice
which can be applied within the civil sphere, as is
evident from Paul’s mentioning of transgressions
that can particularly be given cognizance by human
law. The law was enacted or laid down, says Paul,
for the unruly – such as murderers, kidnappers,
homosexuals, perjurers, and the like. The law by its
ve~ nature aims to restrain the misconduct of lawless
men.
In the Publisher’s Introduction to the Banner of
Truth reprint of Samuel Bolton’s marvelous work,
The TW Bounds of Christian Freedom, the civil importance
of God’s law is pinpointed nicely:
Grievous and alarming is the present-day deterioration
in the moral condition of society. For
this decay the Church is partly blameworthy
because, as the preseming salt of the community,
she has largely lost her savour. Modem
theology has defected. It has cut itself adrift
from the ancient landmarks. and present-day
society reaps “the evil thing and bitter” which is
THE TRAOITIONAL THREE US= OF THE LAW 205
the inevitable consequence. The present prevailing
theology has not been able to elevate society
and halt its moral decline, and unquestionably,
one explanation of this is its misunderstanding
of the place of the law and its usefulness
in the service of the covenant of grace .“3
When men fail to see that God’s law is meant to
operate as external discipline within society, when
they doubt and oppose the “political use” of the law,
their societies inevitably suffer the accursed consequences.
Carl F. H. Henry puts the matter this way:
Even where there is no saving faith, the Law
serves to restrain sin and to preserve the order
of creation by proclaiming the will of God. . . .
By its judgments and its threats of condemnation
and punishment, the written law along
with the law of conscience hinders sin among
the unregenerate. It has the role of a magistrate
who is a terror to evildoers. . . . It fuliills a political
function, therefore, by its constraining influence
in the unregenerate world.q
Biblical Law and Civil Government
This political function of the law is undeniable in
the Old Testament, where God delivered statutes
pertaining to civil matters for His people. These
3. Samuel Bolton, The Tm Bounds of Chnsttin Freedom (London.
Bamer of Truth Trust, 1964), pp. 10-11.
4. Christum Persomrl Ethics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans,
1957), p. 355.
206 BY THIS STANDARD
stipulations were integral to the law and order of Old
Testament society, and if Paul’s New Testament declaration
in 1 Timothy 1:8-10 is to be heeded, these
stipulations of God’s law are still valuable in modern
political ethics.
We cannot dismiss these glimpses of the means
of law and order in the Old Testament without
remembering that this God-given tradition is
emphasized and not abrogated by the Christian
gospel. . . . Though under grace we are under
the Law of God and are still accountable to him
and responsible to our fellow men that justice
and peace prevail. 5
The law of God continues to have an important
political function within the New Testament order,
as Donald Guthrie recognizes in saying:
In the New Testament a standard of justice is
assumed and there is a clear differentiation between
what is right and what is wrong. There
are echoes of the Old Testament view of social
justice. . . . The approach to law in general in
the New Testament is intricately bound up with
the Mosaic Law, which makes extensive provision
for social justice. . . . The importance of
this evidence of the sanctity of the law is that it
provides a sound basis for social action. For a
stable society law is indispensable. G
5. D. J. Wiseman, “Law and Order in Old Testament
Times; Pin Evungelica, VIII, p. 19.
6. Donald Guthrie, The New Testament Approach to Social
Responsibility: ibid., VIII. pp. 53-54
lHE TRADllTONAL THREE US= OF THE LAW 207
An ironic situation has arisen in our day. Evangelical
Christians who might be considered to lean
toward a more ‘liberal” position in politics, and
Evangelical Christians who might be thought to
favor a more “conservative” position in politics, have
at least this one unwitting area of significant agreement:
they both wish to make principled and authoritative
use of the Old Testament law for social justice.
Recent publications which have promoted an
active involvement by the belie’er in relieving the
needs of impoverished people around the world have
made noteworthy appeal to the law of Jubilee, while
many books and articles written to protest the tolerance
of homosexuality andlor abortion in our day
have made clear and unapologetic reference to the
Old Testament prohibitions against them.
The law is recognized has having a continued
political significance by present-day believers, even
when they do not systematically work out a
theological foundation for the appeals which are
made to the law’s authority in contempora~ society,
and even when they might elsewhere unwittingly
contradict that assumed foundation. That foundation
is the continuing validity of God’s law, even in
its social or political relevanm. Strangely enough, it
is often those who are heirs to the Reformation tradition
of maintaining the political use of the law that
raise objection to that notion today.
In resisting the political use of God’s law, in
detracting from its political relevance, and in encouraging
either ind-ifference to questions of social
justice or else alternative standards for it, such men
208 BY TIUS STANDARD
are not aligned with their Reformation forefathers.
Luther and Calvin were fully in agreement that
God’s law was an instrument of civil government,
functioning to restrain crime and to promote thereby
civil order. Luther taught that
the first use of the law is to bridle the wicked.
This cil restmint is very necessary, and appointed
of God, as well for public peace, as for
the preservation of all things, but especizdly lest
the cause of the Gospel should be hindered by
the tumult and seditions of wicked, outrageous
and proud men (Commentq at Gal. 3:19).
Calvin concurs:
The first use of the law is, by means of its fearfd
denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment,
to curb those who, unless forced, have
no regard for rectitude and justice. Such persons
are curbed, not because their mind is inwardly
moved and affected, but because, as if a
bridle were laid upon them, they refrain their
hands from external acts, and internally check
the depravity wh{ch would otherwise petulantly
burst forth (Institutes, 2.7.10).
This continued to be the view of Reformed
thinkers through the centuries. At the time of the
Westminster Assembly, Samuel Bolton wrote:
First of all, then, my work is to show the chief
and principal ends for which the law was promulgated
or given. There are two main ends to be
observed, one was political, the other theologiTHE
TRAOtTtONM -REE USES-OF THE LAW 209
cal or divine. The political use is hinted at by
the apostle in 1 Tim. 1:8-9. . . : that is, it was
made for them in such fashion that, if it were
not their rule, it should be their punishment.
Such is the political use of the law. T
Conclusion
The political use of the law is admittedly negative
and merely detarent in character. It does nothing
to regenerate the sinner or make him right with God;
it does not touch his heart or bring him any closer to
the Savior. Nevertheless, this function of the law is
crucial for man’s society. When the known ordinances
of God’s law are spurned by a culture, it experiences
the wrath of God revealed against it in the
progressive breakdown of social order and moral
decency (Remans 1). Because this important political
use of the law of God is unpopular in many circles
today, and because many people who are educated
in the secular environment of our society carry
confused conceptions of what this political function
entails, the next few, chapters will focus on the
Biblical doctrine of civil government and Biblical
law’s place therein. We will see that “Righteousness
exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people”
(Prov. 14:34), in which case, we dare not dismiss the
political relevance and use of the Biblically revealed
law of God.
7. Bolton, p. 78.
Part : APPL/CATION OF GODS
LAW TO POLITICAL ENDS
22
THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE GOSPEL
“If we must glorify God even in our eating and
drinidng, then surely we must also glorify Him
in the way that we vote and thereby encourage
statesmen to ruie our society.”
It used to be the case that when a Bible-believing
author wanted to write on some aspect of social morality
or political policy, he had to give an introductory
apologetic and defense for entering into such an
area of discussion. Given the background of liberal
or modernistic involvement in politics, given the
threat of the social gospel, and given the evangelical
withdrawal from the world encouraged by churchcentered
pietism and law-denying dispensationalism,
anyone who wrote on subjects of political or social
ethics would easily be suspected of compromise or departure
from the faith. So reticence characterized
evangelical and Reformed publications in these areas.
THE POLITICAL lMPLICAS OF THE COMPM3+ENSWE GOSPEL 21t
Times have obviously changed.. if we pay attention
to the avalanche of books whih have begun to
be published over the last few years on the Christian
(evangelical or Reformed) approach to politics and
social ethics. The pendulum has swung back so far
in the other direction, in fact, that some measure of
suspicion is likely to be felt toward any Klble-believing
author who renounces or completely ignores
“ such a vital concern. Trusted writers in the conservative
tradition of theology have taken to penning their
opinions about political morality. Men with visible
political connections have written about their conversions
and their Christian involvement in society’s
leadership. Pressing problems in the governing of
the state – from tolerance toward homosexuality to
legalized abortion – have forced an end to the policy
of Christian silence on social issues of the day. Increased
interest in the notion that Christianity pertains
to the whole man (not simply his inward, “spiritual”
destiny), that its principles touch on all areas
of life (not merely an hour of worship on the Lord’s
Day), and that the coming of Christ’s kingdom has
implications for the renewal of the entire creation
(and not only the saving of souls from hell’s fire) has
naturally worked itself out in an increased interest in
the Christian view of science, art, economics,
politics. and everything else. So, due to many factors,
Christians have more and more in the last
generation become politically aware and active.
None of this should legitimately suggest, of
course, that Christianity is primarily or most importantly
a political position. It ought not to minimize
212 BY TH3s STANDARO
the centrality and indispensable truth of the good
news that Christ came to save His people from the
curse of sin and the penalty of final judgment for
their rebellion; the cross and resurrection, the
regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, and the necessity
of justification by faith have not been forgotten
or subordinated. However, the full implications of
these truths are being appreciated again – even as
they have been appreciated in previous days of the
church’s existence.
King Jesus
In 1719, Isaac Watts wrote a now famous hymn
which expresses some of these implications, a hymn
which Bible-believing Christians have sung
(especially at “Christmas” season, and thus being
joined even by many unbelievers) for over two and a
half centuries:
Joy to the world! the Lord is come:
Let earth receive her King;
Let every heart prepare him room,
And heaven and nature sing.
Joy to the earth! the Saviour reigns:
Let men their songs employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains
Repeat the sounding joy.
No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make his blessings flow
Far as the curse is found.
TNE POUTICAL lMPLtCATiONS OF THE COMPRENENSJVE GOSPEL 213
He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of his righteousness
And wonders of his love.
The church has sung of the “political” implications
of the gospel for years now! It has sung that
earth must receive her King — a reigning Savior who
rules the worId, making the nations prove His righteousness.
And this King is interested in more than
the inward souls of men and their heavenly existence
in the hture. .4s a Savior from sin, Chrkt is interested
in eu~ aspect of lz@ injected by sin at man’s fall. ‘He
comes to make his blessings flow, Far as the curse is
found.” Just because man’s social existence and his
political efforts ha’e been cursed by sin, Christ the
King proves His righteousness in the realm of
human politics, even as he reigns over every other
department of man’s thoughts, life, and behavior.
The early church was well aware of the political
implications of being a Christian. To be a
“Christian” – a disciple or follower of Christ (Acts
11: 26) – meant to confess Jesus Christ as Savior,
Messiah, and Lord. Christians declared that Jesus
was their Savior or soter (Greek), as we see in Acts
5:31 and 1 John 4:14 (We have beheld and bear witness
that the Father has sent the Son to be Savior of
the world”). Despite the fact that Roman coins of the
day often depicted the Emperor’s face with the inscription
of sots (or “only Savior” in some cases), the
earliest Christians declared the name ofjews was the
one and on~ name given among men whereby we
214 BY THS STAMD4RD
must be saved (Acts 4:12).
It was also essential for a Christian to “believe
that Jesus is the Christ” (or Messiah), as it says in 1
John 5:1. Because Jesus admitted openly that He
was the Christ, the Sanhedrin brought Him before
Pilate for trial, where Pilate too inquired and found
out that Jesus considered Himself a King (Luke
22:67–23:3), in which case He was deemed to be
speaking out against Caesar himself (John 19:12). Finally,
theew Testament shows us that it is characteristic
of all Christians that they confess with their
mouths that ‘Jesus is Lord” (Rem. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12),
meaning that their allegiance in all things belongs to
Him as “Lord of lords and King of kirigs” (1 Tim.
6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16)–even as he battles against
the political power of the Beast and the kings of the
earth. So then, like it or not, the earliest Christians
comprehended that being a Christian had political
ramifications. Paul and the Christians at Thessalonica
were charged with political crimes because of
their confession of Christ; it was alleged: “these all
act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that
there is another King, one Jesus” (Acts 17:7).
We know that one day King Jesus will require all
kings of the earth to give an account of their rule to
Him as their sovereign Ruler and Judge. All thrones
were created for Him, who is to have preeminence in
all things (Col. 1:16-18). Kings who have been so unwise
as not to serve the Lord with fear and kiss the
Son will experience His wrath, perishing in the way
(Ps. 2:10-12). Therefore, we can see how important
and legitimate it is for Christians — Bible-believing
TNE POLITICAL lMPLICAllONS OF TNE COMPREHENSIVE GOSPEL 215
Christians who want to submit to Scripture from beginning
to end – to maintain God-glonfiing attitudes
and beliefs about politics and social ethics. If we must
glorify God even in our eating and drinking (1 Cor.
10: 31), then surely we must also glorify Him in the
way that we vote and thereby encourage statesmen to
rule our society! Indeed, we must seek first the Kingdom
of God and His righteousness (Matt. 6:33) so
that His wiil is done on eutih (Matt. 6:10).
Uncertain Trumpets
But what h His will for political ethics? This is the
critical question; yet it is the question that modern
Christian writers on politics and social morality find
so difficult (if not impossible) to answer clearly and
specifically. With the renewed interest we are seeing
in our day for Christians to rush into the political
arena with a complete world-and-life-view which
touches on everything of human interest, with the
flood of books and articles which are now being published
on “the Christian” approach to politics. \vhat
would happen if the world were all of a sudden to
stop short and simply say: “.Ml right, we see how humanism
has failed so desperately. What do you
Christians say we should do in matters of political
ethics?” Once given the opportunity to speak out with
the Christian perspective, would evangelical and
Reformed writers have anything to say beyond generalizations
and ambiguous platitudes? There is reason
to doubt that they would. The explanation of
that likely failure is not hard to find.
The reason why Christians who want to write or
216 BY THIS STANDARD
take a stand on issues of political ethics have usually
failed to produce distinctive and helpful answers
which are clear and specific is to be found in their reluctance
to endorse and publicize the law of God,
precisely where the Lord has revealed definite answers
to the socio-political problems of men and
their civilizations.
What kind of good news or “gospel” does the
Kingdom of Jesus Christ bring according to many
Christian groups?
The Social Gospel
A “social gospel” is dominated by modernists and
liberals, as most any Bible-believing Christian
knows today. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, the higher critical movement in
scholarship challenged much of the Biblical teaching
and undermined the most basic theology of the
Christian church. Thus the work and message of
Christ were reduced, so that He performed no
priestly work by His death and resurrection and
secured no eternal salvation for men.
The modernistic approach to man became evolutionary
and naturalistic, further denying the Christian
message about man’s unique dignity as God’s
image and special creation by His hand. As a result,
modernism turned away from the verities of Biblical
Christianity and concentrated almost exclusively on
moralistic themes and interests, especially matters
touching on the “brotherhood of all men” as seen in
social relations. So liberal theologians felt no hesitation
to propagate humanistic solutions to political
THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS Of THE COMPREHENSIVE GOSPEL 217
questions, all in the name of Christianit y. We must
remember, however, that the fault with the “social
gospel” was not that it was social, but that it was modernistic
and Bible-denying.
The Fundamentaltit Response
In reaction to liberalism, Fundamentalism in the
twentieth century preached an ‘individualistic
gospel” by extreme contrast. The emphasis fell upon
saving men’s souls from eternal damnation and
changing men’s hearts for church-oriented living,
waiting for the imminent return of Christ to this
hopelessly degenerating world. Ironically, for all the
effort to distance itself from liberalism’s errors, the
commendable insistence on certain key fundamental
doctrines of the Bible in Fundamentism tended to
create a short-sightedness to the full implications of
Christianity. Once again, the work and message of
Christ were reduced, for the full salvation which
Christ accomplished was narrowed to the “spiritua~
aspects of man and the present kingdom and rule of
Christ were postponed to a later date (when sociopolitical
matters would again appear on the agenda).
Redemption was not seen as applying as far as sin’s
curse is found, and godliness was narrowIy defined
by abstinence from worldly abuses (like drinking,
smoking, movies, dancing, etc. ).
The conservatism of Fundamentalism was sorely
needed in theology, of course, but the social effects
were less than beneficial. Jesus said that if the salt
has lost its saor, it is god-for nothing but to be cast
out and trodden under by the feet of men (Matt.
218 BY THIS STANDARU
5113). To the extent that this happened to Fundamentalism,
it was because it did not proclaim the
whole counsel of God, even for socio-political morality.
Paul’s ethic was not exclusively focused on the
future life in heaven or the individualistic behavior
of the present. He said ‘godliness is profitable for all
things, having promise for the life which now is, and of
that which is to come” (1 Tim. 4:8).
Luthoanism and Romaniwn
Side by side with the social gospel of modernism
and the individualistic gospel of Fundamentalism we
can place the “dichotomistic gospel” of Romanism
and Lutheranism. The Lutheran church, to be sure,
stands firmly opposed to the theological errors of the
Roman Catholic Church. Luther, we recall, inaugurated
the Protestant Reformation of the church by
insisting on the doctrine of justification by faith, over
against the Romanist notions of righteousness
through works of the law. Yet strangely enough, the
Lutheran outlook on socio-political matters has developed
into a parallel perspective to that of Rome.
The Roman Catholic church reduces the work of
Christ (leaving the completion of salvation to priests
and to human efforts), while the Lutheran church
tends to reduce the message of Christ (drawing a
strong opposition between law and gospel and laying
nearly exclusive stress on the latter). The Roman
Catholic outlook over the years has been that there is
a distinction to be drawn between the realms of
1. Condign or congruent.
THE POUTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE GOSPEL 219
nature and of grace; some matters pertain to one,
while different matters pertain to the other. Political
questions are natural to man and his social existence,
and thus the perspective of grace (special revelation)
is not directly pertinent to them. In that case,
man’s self-sufficient and natural reason becomes the
arbitrator in issues of political ethics. In parallel
fashion, classic Lutheran doctrine teaches that there
is a kingdom of the right hand and a kingdom of the
left hand, one pertaining to salvation and the church
while the other pertains to creation and society. As a
result, when believers enter into political reasoning,
they do so on a common platform with unbelievers.
Neither Romanism nor Lutheranism have a
direct and specific word from God on political matters,
but only on matters concerned with grace and
salvation. As a result they both promote a neutral attitude
tovard politics which cannot offer distinct
guidance from Scripture for society. The
dichotomies which are central to these theological
perspectives screen out a fully Biblical orientation to
political ethics.
Neo-Otihodoy
Rocking to yet another extreme, neo-orthodoxy
and subsequent radical theologies have proclaimed
the “unsure gospel” which addressed special problems
in society and politics, but with no clear and
specific word from God. Karl Barth was confident
that the commands of the Bible were not universal
truths, applicable to every age and culture, but
merely time-bound witnesses to the will of God.
220 BY THIS STANDARD
Emil Brunner went further to say that the Bible
could not, in the nature of the case, provide us with
pre-established norms of conduct, for our obligations
(he thought) could only be determined by the
situation in which we hd ourselves — opening the
door wide to the development of Joseph Fletcher’s
situational morality, where moral duty is relativistic.
Neo-orthodoxy promoted nothing more than cheap
grace which did not require men to be converted, to
repent of specific sins, and to be sanctified according
ta an unchanging pattern of holiness. Neo-orthodoxy
could not offer anything but a nebulous gospel
to men, for according to it God did not communicate
in infallible verbal propositions. So it was only to be
expected that the neo-orthodox approach to social
problems was ambiguous, unclear, and unauthoritative.
It has no sure word from God by which to
judge and guide the social affairs of men.
The Comprehensive Gospel
Cher against the social gospel of modernism, the
inclh’idealistic gospel of Fundamentalism, the dichotomistic
gospel of Romanism and Lutheranism, and
the unsure gospel of neo-orthodo.xy and radicalism,
we find the blessed and refreshing comprehen.n”ue gospe[
of Reformed theology, which is the heritage of
Biblical Christianity. The good news of Christ’s
kingdom is that Jesus Christ graciously and powerfully
saves man in the fulness of his created and sinfhl
existence. He is a prophet, declaring God’s will
for ignorant men. He is a priest, interceding to God
on behalf of polluted sinners. And he is a king, rulTHE
POLMCAL lMPLICATtONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE GOSPEL 221
ing over all men and all areas of life. The coming of
the Kingdom, therefore, brings the progressive rule
of Christ over the world, the flesh, and the devil (1
Cor. 15:25).
The Reformed churches have always stood for
the proclamation of sob Scriptura and tots Scn$tura.
Scripture alone must be the standard of our theology
and ethic, and we must preach all Scripture in its
total relevance to the life of men. Only Scripture,
but totally Scripture ! Consequently we observe that
the preaching of the New Testament is not apolitical.
Jesus rebuked Herd as a vixen, and John the Baptist
called his behavior unlawful. Paul warns against
a political ruler who is “the man of lawlessness,” and
John calls him “the Beast .“ Over against these evil
rulers, Christians are to stand for the law of God (cf.
Revelation 12:17; 14:12) because Paul taught that the
civil magistrate was obligated to be a “minister of
God” who avenges His wrath against evildoers who
violate God’s law (Rem. 13:4). Since the New Testament
is not apolitical, neither is the comprehensive
preaching of the Reformed churches.
However, in recent years there has been a steady
ckinclination to maintain the “political use” of the
law of God when it comes to declaring God’s will for
socio-political morality. Accordingly we take up the
question of whether the civil magistrate today should
obey and enforce the Old Testament law of God.
23
LAW AND POLITICS IN
OLD TESTAMENT ISRAEL
When those who rule for God depart from His
laws, then they must be judged by God. The
very foundation of civil order was undermined
when judges did not discern between good and
evil.”
Many Christians want to take a distinctive stand
with res”pect to issues of socio-political morality.
However, this has become very difficult once the
political use of God’s law has been forgotten or rejected.
Unfortunately, even writers in the general
Reformed tradition of theology have repudiated that
use of God’s law lately. In response, we ask whether
the Bible teaches that civil magistrates ought to obey
and enforce the relevant portions of the Old Testament
law.
In one sense, previous studies have already
offered us an apparent answer to this question. We
LAW AND Pm-In= IN OLO TESTAMENT ISRAEL 223
have seen that the whole Bible is our standard of
morality today, for God does not have a doublestandard
of justice. Instead, the law reflects the
Lord’s unchanging holiness, being perfectly obeyed
by Christ (our example) and enforced \vithin the believer
by the Holy Spirit (our power). We have seen
that the Old and New Cmenants have a uniform
view of the law of God, and that Christ Himself
declared that every stroke of the Old Testament continued
to ha~e validity after His coming to earth to
sa’e sinners. Repeatedly the New Testament
authors assume the standard of the law in their
ethical themes and make application of the law in
their moral judgments. Eve~ scripture, e’e~ point,
every word, and indeed eve~ letter of the Old Testament
law is upheld in the New’ Testament.
Therefore, it would seem obvious that the sociopolitical
aspects of the Old Testament law would retain
their validity today — that they are authoritative
for civil magistrates of all ages and cultures. Just as
parents, farmers, merchants, and others have moral
duties laid upon them in the Old Testament law, so
also ciril rulers have duties enjoined for their official
business in the law of the Lord.
Yet not e’eryone is willing to endorse the current
applicability of the Old Testament law in the particular
domain of civil politics. The whole law may be
endorsed in the Old Testament, it it thought, but
there has come about in the New Testament a different
attitude toward the ci’il magistrate. The view
taken seems to be that because the magistrate in Old
Testament Israel was in various ways unique – being
224 BY TIUS STANDAUD
chosen by God in a special way, being a foreshadowing
of the person of Christ, etc. — the law by which
this magistrate was to govern society must also have
been unique, meant only for Israel to follow. In
short, there was an extraordinary doctrine of the
office of civil magistrate in the Old Testament revelation
for Israel, and thus what was the moral duty for
Old Testament Jewish rulers should not be taken as
the standard for political ethics today.
The fallacy embodied in this line of thought is the
assumption that if two entities m-e in some ways
diiTerent, then they are in ali ways different. What
has been overlooked is the distinct possibility y of simz’-
iarz”~ – not total identity and not complete difference,
but elements which are the same between two things
and elements which are distinct. A tank and a sports
car are similar with respect to their running on
wheels, but they are different in their speed, power,
and appearance. Likewise, it may very well be that
Old Testament Jewish magistrates were different
from Gentile magistrates in some respects, and yet
very much like the others in further respects.
The Civil Magistrate
The Bible appears to teach that one way in which
all civil magistrates are alike – whether they are Jewish
or Gentile, Old Testament or New Testament —
is in the stundarh oj]”ustice which are laid upon them
by the Creator. God does not have a double-standard
of justice. Thus, the laws which He stipulated
for Old Testament Jewish magistrates to follow are
just as applicable to pre-consummation issues of
UW AND mums IN OLD TESTAMENT ISRAEL 2 2 5
crime and punishment today as they were in Old
Testament Israel. Now as then, society needs to
know how to cope with attacks upon human dignity,
freedom, safety, and honor. Magistrates in all ages
need guidance for dealing with murder, kidnapping,
rape, perjury, and the like. And in this respect, the
magistrate in Old Testament Israel would be just
like any other magistrate – subject to the unchanging
justice and continuing validity of Gods revealed
law for socio-political affairs.
We can see this if we study the biblical teaching
about civil magistrates in Old Testament Israel;
Gentile nations surrounding Israel, and then in the
New Testament. Not only do we see, then, the continuing
validity of the Old Testament law in general,
but we see the basically uniform outlook on civil rule
which is taught in God’s word. Rulers have the same
obligations and have the same standards of right and
wrong in all cultures. Having surveyed this situation
in Scripture, we can turn to the questions of churchl
state separation and penoloW. Our survey begins by
outlining basic theses in the Biblical view of the civil
magistrate in Old Testament Israel.
1. Godk afipointid rwkrs are not to be resistid.
God was recoized in the Old Testament as the
One who ordained and removed rulers in Israel.
There was no authority in Israelite society except by
God, and those who ruled were ordained to such
leadership by God. On the one hand the people
selected and acknowledged their rulers (as in 1 Kings
12:20 or 2 Kings 9:13), and on the other hand there
226 BY l’ws STANOARO
was a corresponding divine decree which sovereignly
established the ruler (as in 1 Kings 11:31 or 2 Kings
9:1-2}. God’s sovereign power of appointment is
made quite clear in Hosea 13:11, “I have given you a
king in ‘my anger, and have taken him away in my
wrath .“ In Old Testament Israel, the powers that be
were ordained of God.
For that reason it was strictly forbidden that people
resist the authority of their political leaders.
Honor had to be given to whom it was due. So the
law of God prohibited any reviling of the ruler (Ex.
22: 28), and Paul himself appealed to this standard in
his own case (Acts 23: 5). It was because Saul was the
Lord’s annointed that David dared not lift his hand
against him (1 Sam. 24:7, 11; 26:23). The king’s exalted
position was such that one should obey his
command, not oppose his rebuke, not defi his
power, and not renounce allegiance (Etc. 8:2-5).
Old Testament citizens were accordingly taught that
they were to be subject to the higher authorities, not
resisting the powers ordained by God.
2. Bearing religiou titles, rulers were avengers f divine
wrath.
In the Old Testament political arrangement, the
sons of the king were often political counselors at his
side (cf. 1 Chron. 27:32-33). Ln 1 Chronicles 18:17 we
read of the political office designated as “heads with
respect to the power of the king,” and the parallel
passage in 2 Samuel 8:18 informs us that this ollice
was filled by David’s sons. What is of interest to us
here is that in the latter verse, these political officers
LAW AND POLITICS IN OLD TESTAMENT ISRAEL 227
are called “priests .“ The same Hebrew word for the
cultic ofice of priest was used of these political rulers
— even as it was applied in similar fashion to David’s
officer, Ira the Jairite (1 Sam. 20:26; cf. 2 Sam.
23:38). In 1 Kings 4:2-6 we find a list of Solomon’s
officers, where Zabud is called a “priest ,“ and the text
immediately explains this office as “the king’s friend”
(his continual adiser). The head of the political
“priests” – the priest (or prime administrator of the
kingdom) – is named as Azariah in the same
passage.
What we learn, then, is that the rulers of state in
the Old Testament were viewed as so intimately concerned
with the affairs of Gods word and so strictly
subject to His command, that they could be given
customary religious titles. The magistrates in Israel
were genuine ministers of God, authorized to rule
according to His just standards as his representatives
in society.
Old Testament civil rulers were ordained by
God, were not to be resisted, and bore religious titles
as the representatives of God in society. Their main
function was that of avenging God’s wrath against
violators of His law for social justice.
Over and over again the Old Testament associated
the swoi-d of judgment with God, who brought
historical punishment upon the rebellion of men.
Even Israel was threatened with the judgment of the
sword if she broke the law of the Lord (for example,
Lev. 26:25, 33, 36-37) – a threat carried out in its
climax when Jerusalem fell by the edge of the sword
according to the word of Christ (Luke 21:24). The
228 BY THS STANDARD
sword of vengeance belongs to God. And yet the
sword is repeatedly associated with God’s will for
civil rule as well. Human government is symbolized
by the sword, whether it is wielded by Pharaoh (Ex.
18:4) or by Saul (2 Sam. 1:22). The sword’s proper
function is that of executing criminal violators of
God’s law (for example, 1 Kings 1:51; 2:8; etc.).
Whenever the sword is used autonomously – whenever
men use political power and punishment as a
law unto themselves – it is used in a sinfid manner
(for example, 1 Sam. 22:19). The wielding of the
sword is accordingly vain if it is not used in conformity
to God’s law. The magistrate in Israel had no
right to slay men independent of God’s guidance and
word.
We can observe further that wrath and uengeance are
constint(y attributed to God in his pun’ty and”ustice. They
are retribution expressed against those who dare to
profane the covenant of the Lord (Ps. 54:20-21), to
violate His laws (for example, Deut. 11:17), or to sin
(for example, Num. 11:1). When the civil magistrate
is said to express wrath and vengeance in the Old
Testament, then, it is only natural to expect that the
ruler is expressing the wrath of (%d in mmgeance upon eoildoers
(for example, Josh. 7:25; 22:20; 2 Kings 12:5).
The Old Testament declared that vengeance belonged
to God, that He would repay (Deut. 32:35,
41). It nevertheless taught that the civil magistrate
was under orders to carry out vengeance against
transgressions of God’s law for social behavior (for
example, Exodus 21:20-21; Deut. 18:19). Vengeance,
you see, must be based upon the holiness of God (Ps.
LAW AND POLmCS IN OLO TESTAMENT ISRAEL 229
98:8); it is occasioned, therefore, by sinning against
His law (for example, Ezk. 7:27; 9:1; 20:4; Hosea
1:4; 2:13; Zech. 5:3). As an agent of God’s wrath, the
civil magistrate was seen in the Old Testament as
Gods vicegerent or deputy in the state.
The God of the Bible is a God of law and justice
(Isa. 33:22; Deut. 32:4), not one who acts in capricious
or arbitrary ways. He always judges with righteousness
(Ps. 96:13); and expects others to do likewise
(Lev. 19:15). To do righteousness and justice.
one must keep the way of Jehovah and follow His ordinances
(Gen. 18:19; Deut. 33:21). Moses confidently
declared to Israel: What great nation is there
that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all
this law which I set before you this day?” (Deut.
4:8). Now, above everything else, God required that
the civil rulers of Israel would demonstrate justice or
righteousness in all of their decisions. ‘Tou shall do
no unrighteousness in judgment . . but in righteousness
shall you judge your neighbor” (Lev. 19:15;
cf. Deut. 16:18). Amos the prophet cried out so that
God’s people would ‘establish justice in the gate”
(5:15) and thereby qet judgment run down as waters
and righteousness as a mighty stream- (5:24).
Clearly, if the God of justice requires earthly rulers
to govern with justice, then those rulers are obligated
to observe the law of God in all of their judgments.
Even as God does not justifi the wicked (Ex.
23:7), they must not justify the wicked (Deut.- 25:1).
Thy must judge as He judges.
Of God it was said in the Old Testament, “Righteousness
and justice are the foundation of His
230 BY TwS STAMDARD
throne” (Ps. 89:14). The earthly king’s throne was
likewise to be established on justice and righteousness
(Ps. 72:1-2), which it would be if the king did
not turn aside from God’s commandments (Deut.
17 :18-20). So the Lord, we see, set kings upon their
thrones “to be king for Jehovah thy God . . . to do
justice and righteousness” (2 Chron. 9:8). In their
decisions, “the judgment is God’s” (Deut. 1:16-17),
and for that reason civil judges could be designated
“gods” (Ps. 82:1, 6). When they punished evildoers
according to the penal sanctions of the law of God,
judges made manifest that they were imaging God
(Gen. 9:5-6). As God’s deputies in society– representatives
of His- justice and vengeance — civil
magistrates were bound to wield the sword according
to God’s own direction and law.
3. Magistrate must de.kr euil by ruling according to Godi
law.
In the Old Testament, those who showed themselves
worthy were safe, but the wicked would die
(for example, 1 Kings 1:52). So “the wrath of the king
is as messengers of death” (Prov. 16:14). The civil
magistrate was accordingly called to be a terror to
evildoers. But, then, if civil rulers in Israel were ordained
by God as His deputies who were to be a terror
to evildoers (but no threat to the righteous), is it
not obvious that they had to rule according to God’s
law? If they rested on their own wisdom and moral
discernment, they would easily have judged with
partiality, leniency, and harshness rather than the
purity of God’s justice. For even civil rulers among
LAW AND POLITICS IN OLD TESTAMENT IWAEL 231
Gods chosen people were sinners who needed the
guidance and correction of God’s revelation, especially
in official decisions they made which affected
the nation and its uprightness.
Thus, the Old Testament taught that justice is
perutid .wheneuer the iaw C$ God was s[ackened (Hab.
1:4). Since judges were required to execute justice
and righteousness (Jer. 22:3), God said: “And in a
controversy they shall stand to judge; according to
mine ordinances shall they judge it: and they shalJ
keep my laws and my statutes” (Ezk. 44:24). Kings
were forbidden to frame mischief by a law (Ps.
94:20), receiving the charge to “keep his [God’s]
statutes, and his commandments, and his ordinances,
and his testimonies, according to that
which is written in the law of Moses” (1 Kings 2:3).
Over and over again, the rulers of Israel pleased
the Lord by dedicating themselves to keep His commandments
(for example, Josiah and Ezra’s reform).
The reason why kings were to stay sober was just so
they would not “forget the law and pen’ert
judgment” (Prov. 31:5). Daily they were to read
God’s law (Deut. 17;19), and morning by morning
they were to punish the workers of iniquity (Ps.
101:8).
It follows, of course, that those rulers who spurned
the law of God in their official capacity as civil
magistrates were subject to the judgmental wrath of
God. Isaiah cried out, “Woe to those who enact evil
statues, and to those who constantly record unjust
decisions” (10:1). Psalm 82 teaches that God Himself
stands in the law court of the “gods” (judges) so as to
232 BY THIS STANDrebuke
unjust judgments passed there. When those
who rule for God depart horn His laws, then they
must be judged by God. The very foundation of the
civil order was undermined when judges did not discern
between good and evil (cf. 1 Kings 3:9).
The Old Testament abounds with illustrations of
God’s judgment upon kings, rulers, and judges in
Israel who departed from the just standards of His
law in their governing of society. Note especially
King Ahab, who for his own selfish ends engaged in
false witness, theft, and even murder (1 Kings
21: 1-22). These matters were recorded by the historian
for posterity and as an example, in-dad of Ahab’s
feats in battle which are known from secular accmnts
of the period! It was of crucial importance in
Israel that rulers abide by the law of the Lord. Those
who, like Jeroboam and Jehu, departed from God’s
commandments and made the people sin, had evil
brought against their own houses by (.kd, and were
swept away (1 Kings 14:8-10; 16:2-3). When princes
became unrighteous and rebellious, the whole city
was characterized as unrighteous (Isa. 1:21-28), and
God ahvays eventually judged the injustice. When
the Jews returned from years of exile and captivity,
they confessed that their kings had not kept the law
of God (Neh. 9:34-37), and in restored Jerusalem
the magistrates determined to execute true and
peaceful judgments in the law courts (Zech. 8:16).
Law and politics in Old Testament Israel revolved
around God’s law for the civil magistrate. But what
about the Gentiles? Did their governments have
dijirent moral standards from Israel’s? To this question
we must now give attention.
LAW AND POLITICS IN
NATIONS AROUND ISRAEL
“God did not exempt nations around Israel from
the claims of His righteousness, but rather held
them accountable for moral degeneration.”
Law and politics in Old Testament Israel revolved
around God’s law for the civil magistrate. That
much would be granted by virtually any Christian
who takes an interest in a Christian political stand
and who has read the Bible. In the “theocracy” of the
Old Testament God obviously gave laws for His people
to obey in the political sector of life.
Nevertheless, it is often thought, those ‘theocratic”
laws given to Israel for her political life are of
little help to Christian political theory today. Why?
Were Old Testament laws about crime and punishment
km inspired than prophecies about the coming
Messiah? Well, no, we will be told. Were Old Testament
laws about crime and punishment less of a rg?ec234
BY THE STANDARD
tion of God’s unchanging ho~ character than commandments
about the attitude of one’s heart toward his
neighbor? Well, no, we will again be told. Were Old
Testament laws about crime and punishment caemonzizl
(or restorative, redemptive) in character like
the sacrificial system, foreshadows to be replaced by
the reality of the coming Messiah and his work? Well
no, once again we will be told. Why then are “theocratic”
laws pertaining to the political sphere thought
to be of little guidance and help to Christian political
theorizing today?
The answer which is offered over and over again
today is that the political laws given by God to Israel
as a “theocracy” were for Israel alone to obey. Only
Israel was given a written revelation of these laws, to be
sure. All will grant that. But that fact alone does not
imply that only Israel was bound to obey the moral
standards expressed in such written revelation. After
all, through Paul, God wrote to the Ephesian and
Colossian churches that children should obey their
parents (Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20), and nobody seriously
takes that fact to imply that on~ children of Christian
parents are under moral obligation to obey their
parents. Therefore, the fact that only Israel was
gi’en a special revelation of certain political laws
would not imply that only Israel was bound to keep
such laws.
Gentiles Were Under God’s Law
What God revealed in writing to His chosen,
redeemed people about their moral duties was also
revealed by God — without writing out words — to all
LAW AND POLITICS IN NATIONS AROUND ISRAEL 235
other created people as well. The Gentiles who were
not given the law still have the work of the law written
on their hearts, thereby condemning their sinful
behavior. This is Paul’s testimony in Remans
2:12-16, and it is a truth which is foundational to the
universal gospel of salvation which Paul goes on to
elaborate in Remans. All people are under obligation
to the standards of God’s law — in whatever form
it has been received, written or not — and thus all
have sinned and are in need of Christ’s redemption
(Rem. 3:23). God is no respecter of persons here.
He has the same standard for all men whom He has
created. And all men know those standards in virtue
of their creation as God’s image, in virtue of living in
God’s world, and in virtue of God’s clear work of
general and special revelation. Nevertheless, there
are Christians who maintain that with respect to a
special subclass of the laws revealed to the Jews in
the Old Testament, those laws were meant for only
Israel to keep. These laws were political in characte.
The kings and judges of Israel were bound to obey
them, we are told, but not the rulers in other nations.
All children-Jewish or Gentile —were under
moral obligation to obey their parents, it is thought,
but on@ Jewish rulers (not Gentile) were under
moral obligation to punish crimes (for example, assaulting
one’s parents violently) in the way specified
by the Old Testament law. That is, according to this
outlook, some laws from God were universal in
obligation, and other laws were localized.
Is such a delineation of universal and localized
laws made in the text of the inspired Old Testament?
236 BY THIS STANDARO
Well, no, it must be admitted. Is such a delineation of
universal and localized laws made in Pauii teaaiing
about the general or universal revelation of God’s
moral standards? Well no, it must again be admitted.
In fact, the Roman epistle states quite clearly
that those who commit abominable misdeeds such as
homosexuality know from “the ordinances of God
that those who practice such things are worthy of
death” (Rem. 1:31).
There does not seem to be any obuiou~ Biblical
support for the opinion that political laws in the Old
Testament were intended only for Israel to obey. Just
about every line of theological consideration would
incline us in the direction of the opposite conclusion:
the Creator of all men, who has an unchanging
moral character, has revealed the standards of his
law to every nation of men and will hold men accountable
for their behavior in all areas of life. including
politics. If His standards have been given
clear, written expression to a special group of men —
the Jews — then it would seem reasonable for all men
to pay attention to those written laws and strive to
conform to them.
When we turn from theological themes to a
specific reading of the Scripture, this is the viewpoint
which we find definitely decreed. In special blessing
God gave the Jews a written expression of His law
(for all areas of life), and that written law was intended
as a model for all nations — not simply
Israel – to follow. In giving Israel Gods law to be
kept in the “theocratic” land, Moses was inspired to
say: “Behold, I have taught you statutes and orIAW
AND POLITICS IN NATIOFS AROUND ISRAEL 237
dinances, even as Jehovah my God commanded me,
that you should do so in the midst of the land
whither you go in to possess it. Keep therefore and
do them; jo~ this isyouT wisdom andyour understanding in
the sigh of the peopks, that shall hear all these statutes
and say, surely this great nation is a wise and understanding
people. . . . And what great nation is
there, that has statutes and ordinances so righteous
as all this law which I set before you today?” (Deut.
4:5-8). Israel’s law was a model for all the nations
round about. And it was such a model with respect
to all the statutes delivered from God through Moses
— including, then, the statutes touching on political
matters like crime and punishment.
When we considered the Biblical teaching about
law and politics in Old Testament Israel, we in summary
found that: (1) God’s appointed rulers are not
to be resisted; (2) Bearing religious titles, rulers were
avengers of divine wrath; and (3) magistrates must
deter evil by ruling according to God’s law. A sun’ey
of what the Old Testament teaches about the rulers
in Gentile nations will lead us to make the same
three summary points about non-Jewish nlagistrates.
The doctrine of the civil magistrate’s moral
duties, therefore, is uniform in the Old Testament.
The fact that God was dealing with Israel in a
redemptive and covenantal fashion, and not setting
His electing love upon any other nation (cf. Amos
3:2), did not introduce a disparity or difference in
moral standards between Israel and the nations. All
those who wander from God’s statutes – indeed all
the wicked of the earth – are condemned by God, ac238
BY TNIS STANDARD
cording to Psalm 119:118-119. Accordingly, there was no
reco@tion of differing laws for differing kinds of people
(Jewish, Gentile) in the Old Testament. There
shall be one standard for the stranger as well as the
native, for I am the Lord your Go& (Lev. 24:22). With
respect to politics, as with all things, God did not have
a double standard of morality. The justice of His law
was to be established as a light to the Gentiles (Isa.
51: 4). Indeed, the prophetic hope was that all nations
would flow into Zion, saying “Come and let us go up to
the. mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of
Jacob; and he wdl teach us of his ways, and we will
walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law,
and the word of Jehovah fi-om Jerusalem” (Isa. 2:2-3).
The Old Testament perspective was that God’s
law had international and civic relevance. Its binding
character was not confined to the borders of
Israel. Accordingly, the Wisdom literature of the
Old Testament (for example, the book of Pro\-erbs)
made wise and practical application of the law of
God, and it was written for the entire world. The
wisdom of Proverbs had universal bearing, expressing
axiomatic truths for all men. Rather than being
localized and nationalistic, the Wisdom literature
was intended for use in cultural interaction with
other peoples. God’s law – Israel’s wisdom in the
sight of others (cf. Deut. 4:6, 8) — was designed for
the moral government of the wodd.
Gentile Civil Magistrates
Biblical teaching about the civil magistrate in
Gentile nations during the Old Testament period,
IAW AND POLITICS IN NAllOF&S AROUND ISRASL 239
reflecting paraUels with the teaching about magistrates
in Israel, begins with the truth that:
1. Gods appointed rubs are not to be resis,k?d.
The leaders of the foreign powers around Israel
were seroants of God3 will. Pharaoh had to learn the
lesson that God \vas unsurpassed in all the earth in
terms of power and authority (Ex. 19:14-16). Gentile
kings were subject to Gods reproof (Ps. 105:14). All
ci’il magistrates owed their authority to God’s so\ereign
disposition of history, and as such they were
subject to His rule, being set up or brought down according
to His decree (Ezk. 17:24).
God gave the earth to those unto whom it seemed
right to Him (Jer. 27 :5). It was God who would
either break the yoke of the Babylonian king or
establish it as iron (Jer. 28:1-14). He \vas “Most
High” over the earth (Ps. 9:2; 83 :18), setting the
course of nations subject to His rebuke (Ps. 9:4-8;
83:9-12). E\’en “beastly” rulers hae been giwn their
authority by God (Dan. 7:6). Daniel, a Jew in exile
who would gain political honor, wrote that God
“removes kings and sets up kings” (2:21); “the most
High rules in the kingdom of men and gives it to
whomever he will” (4:25). Both Nebuchadnezzar
and Belshazzar, Gentile leaders, had to learn this
truth under the aweful hand of God’s judgment
(Dan. 4:28-34; 5:18-28). The nations round about
Israel were to know that God is the one who
sovereignly appoints and removes rulers. Indeed,
having learned this lesson, Nebuchadnezzar sent a
decree to all nations so that they might also
240 BY THIS STANDARD
recoWize that God dominates the political affairs of
men (Dan. 4:1-3). The Old Testament, then, taught
that with respect to Gentile magistrates “the powers
that be are ordained of God” (cf. Rem. 13:1).
Such rulers were to be given submission and respect.
God prohibited resistance to their proper authority.
Those who respected God should give honor
also to the king (Prov. 24:21). Opposition to God’s
ordained rules_will bring punishment from the ruler
and fi-om God (w. 21-22). Peter alluded to these
verses in penning 1 Peter 2:13-14 for New Testament
Christians living under non-Christian rule rs.
Likewise, in the Old Testament, the instruction to
seek political peace (Ps. 34:14) was taught as applicable
even when Gentile rulers are in power over God’s
people: ‘%eek the peace of the city whither I have
caused you to be carried away captive, and pray unto
Jehovah for it; for in the peace thereof you shall
have peace” (Jer. 29:7). Parallel to this injunction is
Paul’s instruction to offer prayers for kings and high
officials in order that a peaceful Iiie might be possible
(1 Tim. 2:1-2). God’s people in “dispersion” (1 Pet.
1:1) must seek peace even under the threat of
persecution (1 Pet. 3:10-14, again citing Ps. 34:14).
So then, if God has decreed that Nebuchadnezzar
come to power, “It shall come to pass that the nation
and the kingdom which will not serve the same
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, - and that will not
put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon,
will I punish, says Jehovah” (Jer. 27:8). Those who
resist God’s appointed rulers will receive judgment,
even as Paul taught in Remans 13:2.
LAW ANO POUTICS IN mnow AROUND ISRAEL 241
2. Bearing religiom ttles, rulers were to avenge diline
wrath.
In Israel the titles of “My Semant” and ‘My
Shepherd” had clear religious overtones because of
their topological significance, pointing to the coming
Messiah (for example, Isa. 53:11; Ezk. 34:23). What
is of interest to us is that such religiously significant
titles are applied to political rulers outside of Israel.
Nebuchadnezzar was called by God ‘My servant”
(Jer. 25:9, etc.), and Cyrus was called “My shepherd”
(Isa. 44: 28). Indeed, Cyrus is even designated
“My annointed one” (“My Christ” in Greek translation)
by Jehovah in Isaiah 45:1. Such titles show how
religiously important the office of magistrate was
even in Gentile lands, according to Gods word.
It was appropriate, then, that Gentile magistrates
be expected to avenge God’s wrath against
evildoers, for the magistrates were representatives
and servants of the Most High. For instance, the
Assyrian king was to be ‘the rod of My anger, the
staff in whose hand is My indignation” (Isa. 10:1).
God gave “charge” to Assyria to do His work of vengeance,
and when Assyria overlooked its servant
status under God, it was punished for its stout heart
and self-sufficient arrogance in attacking Israel (Isa.
1:12-13). In Old Testament perspective, therefore,
God was viewed as enthrorud over a[[ nations (Ps.
47:2, 7, 8), making all Gentile rulers the deputies of
God. “The shields [rulers] of all the earth belong unto
God,” declared the Psalmist (47:9). Civil rule in
all the nations is secondary and subordinate to God’s
rule. God reigns among the nations in righteousness
242 BY THIS STANDARD
according to the Old Testament (Ps. 93:1-2, etc.).
As appointed deputies of the Most High God,
Gentile rulers were under moral obligation to ruk according
to Go#s standarh. The Proverb indicated, “the
throne is established by righteousness ,“ and “the king
establishes the land by justice” (Prov. 16:12; 29:4).
Thus the ‘throne of any magistrate is to be fashioned
after God’s throne, founded on righteousness and
justice (Ps. 97:2). The guidance and decisions made
by civil magistrates – even among Gentiles – should
have reflected Gods conception of justice for social
affairs, and that conception was found in God’s law.
So it was an abomination for any magistrate among
men to justi& the wicked or condemn the righteous
(Prov. 17:15).
3. Thus, magistrates must deter evil by ruling according to
Go#s Law.
In the New Testament, Paul would teach that
magistrates were to bring praise to the good and terror
to evil men (Rem. 13:3). The same perspective
was advanced in the Old Testament Proverb: “The
execution of justice is joy to the righteous, but is terror
to the workers of iniquity” (21:15). But how can
this truly be the case unless the magistrate, whether
in Israel or not, judges and punishes according to the
standards of God’s law? When tyrants rule among
men, even righteous citizens need to fear the judgments
of the ruler, for he does not adhere to proper
standards; likewise, with a magistrate that does not
honor the law of God, a wicked citizen need not necessarily
fear the ruler’s decisions. Gentile magistrates
LAW AND POLITICS IN NATtONS AROUND ISRAEL 243
were thus required in the Old Testament to keep the
law of God for political affairs.
One Moral Standard
God did not exempt nations around Israel from
the claims of His righteousness, but rather held them
accountable for moral degeneration. Proof of this
statement is sufficiently found in the stories of
Sodom (negatively) and Ninevah (positively). But
the most dramatic proof that God’s law was valid
outside of Israel is found in Lev. 18:24-27. God there
required His people to avoid the abominations
against His law which were practiced by the Canaanites
of the land, and He threatened to punish
Israel in the same way as he would punish the Gentiles
for these offenses. Clearly God had one moral
standard for all societies. For that reason the indictment:
Woe to him that builds a town with blood and
establishes a city- by iniquity,” was voiced against
Israel (Mic. 3:10) as well as against the Babylonians
(Hab. 2:12). It is obvious from these observations
that God expected Gentile magistrates and citizens
to honor his standards of righteousness and justice
just as much as he expected it of Israelite magistrates
and citizens. As the Proverb taught, “Righteousness
exalts a nation, but sin is a disace to any people”
(14:34).
The axiomatic political truth taught by the Old
Testament was that “it is an abomination for kings to
commit wickedness” (Prov. 16:12) — any king whatsoever!
Correspondingly, Ezra could praise God for
putting it into the heart of the pagan Emperor, Ar244
BY TwS STANDARD
taxerxes, to have God’s law enforced (even to the
point of its penal sanction of death) throughout the
region surrounding - Israel (Ezra 7:11-28). Indeed,
David himself declared that he would take God’s law
for Israel and speak it before other kings (Ps. 119:46).
And he warned that the kings and judges of the earth
who would not fear Jehovah and serve Him would
perish in the way (Ps. 2:10-12).
The Old Testament evidence is quite abundant,
then, that expectations for civil rulers outside of
Israel were often the same as they were for rulers in
Israel. They were appointed by God to avenge His
wrath by enforcing the law of the Lord. The political
aspects of Gods law, therefore, were certainly not intended
for the exclusive use of the Jews in their
‘theocratic” situation. The political justice God required
in Israel was required of all nations as well. It
was not racially or geographically relative.
LAW AND POLITICS IN
THE NEW TESTAMENT
“If no divine law is recognized above the law of
the state, then the law of man has become
absolute in men’s eyes-there is then no logical
barrier to totalitarianism.”
Recent years have brought a renewed concern
among evangelical and Reformed Christians for a
distinctively Christian attitude* and approach to all
areas of life and behavior, including socio-political
ethics. So we have asked what the standard of that
distincti’e perspective would be for a Bible-believing
Christian. In the Old Testament it is evident that
God’s chosen people, Israel, were to govern their
political activity according to the revealed law of
God which was given through Moses and expounded
by the prophets. Upon examination, it turned out
that even the Gentile nations around Israel were
held accountable by God for obedience to His law in
246 BY Tl#S STANDARD
the Old Testament era. God’s law touched on all aspects
of life, including criminal justice, and that law
was not presented by the Lawgiver as a racist or
tribal standard of right and wrong. It was God’s universal
and eternal standard of righteousness for
human affairs.
In a sense, we have already offered an implicit
answer to our question about the standard for a distinctive
Christian outlook on political ethics. God
has spoken to issues of social justice and public policy
toward crime in His law. There is a divine point
of view on politics,- and it has been expressed in the
law of the Old Testament. Two things are to be said
about that law. First, it continues to be the general
standard of ethical conduct today according to the
Scripture –as we have seen many times over in previous
chapters. Second, Old Testament law did not
have a moral validity restricted to the Jewish race; it
has intended to be the standard of conduct outside
the redeemed community as well as within it. Consequently,
if the Old Testament law of God expresses
(among other things) God’s view on political morality,
and if that law has universal and abiding validity, we
should expect that the New Testament perspective
on law and politics would likewise affirm the standard
of God’s law for public policy. Differences in
time and locality, differences in dispensation and
race, differences in culture and redemptive status do
not demand or imply differences in moral standards.
We would thus expect that the distinctive Christian
approach to political ethics would be defined by
the entire word of God, inciusz’ue othe law of God reLAW
AND POUTICS IN TNE NEW TESTAMENT 247
vealed through Moses and expounded by the prophets
in the Old Testament. When we turn to study the
New Testament writings themselves on this question,
this is precisely what we find to be the case.
There is definite continuity between the political ethics
of the New Testament and the political ethics of
the Old Testament. There is complete harmony between
what Paul says about the state, for instance in
Remans 13, and what we found to be taught in the
Old Testament – namely:
1. As appointed by God, rulers are not to be
resisted.
2. Bearing religious titles, rulers are
avengers of divine wrath.
3. So rulers must deter e~il by ruling according
to God’s law.
These very points, made by the Old Testament
with respect to Jewish and Gentile (redeemed and
non-redeemed) magistrates both, are clearly expressed
by Paul in Remans 13:1-6. They are
premises upon which a distinctie Christian attitude
toward public justice can and ought to be formulated.
Remans 13
If the three points laid out above are each taken
seriously, then perhaps we can avoid falling into the
unfortunate excesses of two conflicting interpretive
approaches to the teaching of Remans 13 about the
248 BY THIS STANDARD
state. On the one hand we have Bible interpreters
who contend that Remans 13 should be read &scrifitiOe@,
thus laying nearly exclusive stress upon Paui’s
practical exhortation to Christians. That is, when
Paul says that the civil magistrate “is a minister of
God, an avenger of wrath to evildoers” (v. 4), some
interpreters take him to be giving an actual description
of all earthly rulers in their real character and
function. All statesmen would then be described as
God’s ministers who avenge wrath on the evil element
of society — regardless of the actual quality and
conduct of the particular ruler one may have in
mind. Even Hitler and Idi Amin would be described
as genuine ministers of God. In that case, Paul’s
practical thrust in Remans 13 would simply be to in-
truct believers that they must submit o-&diently to
whate’er magistrate God has placed over them in
society (with the proviso, of course, that they cannot
obey men when human rulers order them to disobey
God: Acts 5: 29).
On the other hand we have Bible interpreted
who argue that Remans 13 should be read prescn”ptiue,
thus emphasizing that Paul was giving the
moral standard for civil mastrates and thereby indicating
which rties were to be given submissive obedience
by the Christian. That is, when Paul says that
the magistrate is ‘a minister of God, an avenger of
wrath to evildoers” (v. 4), some interpreters see him
as laying down a moral prescription for civil rulers —
telling them what they ought to be. Magistrates are
to be ministers of God who avenge wrath on evildoers.
Consequently, the prescriptive approach to
LAW AND POLITICS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 249
Remans 13 does not stress practical submission on
the part of the believer; it raher stands in evaluative
judgment over dl magistrates, showing the Christian
which ones are deserving of their submission
and obedience. Both of these interpretations of
Remans 13 have tended toward practical consequences
which are pretty clearly unacceptable, given
the rest of what Scripture says to Christians about
morality and politics. The descriptive view of Remans
13 has led many believers in past history to be indifferent
to concrete political wrongs and even to
comply passirely with the injustices of political
tyrants, like Hitler. On the other hand, the prescriptive
view of Romans 13 has often encouraged a rebellious
spirit toward the civil magistrate, leading
believers to take lightly the Biblical injunctions
against revolution or civil disobedience.
It can be said in defense of each approach that
these practical consequences are in fac( abu.ws of the
respective views — abuses that do not take into account
other Biblical teaching, qualifications made,
and the full context. This may be, but if one keeps in
mind the Old Testament background to Paul’s instruction
about the civil magistrate in Remans 13, it
is possible to interpret the passage in a way which
does justice both to the Christian’s need to resist
political injustice and to the Christian’s obligation to
be in submission to the powers that be.
When Paul says that the ruling powers are
ministers of God who avenge wrath against
evildoers, he is explaining what civil magistrates
ought to be and simultaneously explaining why
250 BY THIS STANDARD
believers must maintain a submissive attitude toward
their rulers. The three points outlined above
demonstrate this dual explanatory role of Paul’s
teaching by summarizing what the apostle says in
Remans 13. The Christian must not have a rebellious
attitude toward the civil magistrate, because
the magistrate is appointed by God. Appointed for
what purpose, however? Appointed to be avengem of
dizine wrath, in which case magistrates can bear religious
titles like ‘minister of God .“
If this is true, then rulers must honor good citizens
and deter evil by punishing the criminal element
in society, using the standard of God’s law as
their guide (as to good and evil). This explains why
Christians must nearly always be submissive to the
civil ruler: that ruler is obligated in his public capacity
to serve the Christian’s Lord, and thus loyalty to the
Lord requires loyalty to the king. However, when
such service is repudiated by the king (or other ruling
authority) and the law of the Lord is violently
and persistently transgressed, so that good citizens
are terrorized by the ruler and evil men tolerated or
exalted, the Christian must not comply with the
tyrant’s policies but rather work for reform in the
name of the Lord and divine standards of public justice.
The fact that God’s law is binding on present-day
civil magistrates explains both why the Christian
should shun rebellious attitudes toward rulers and
why Christians may not cooperate with unjust
regimes. Absolute submission under any and all circumstances,
or absolute inde@na!ene of the magIAW
AND POLITICS IN TNE NEW TESTAMENT 251
istrate regarding each and every decision he makes,
may be simple and easy positions to understand or
follow, but the more complex attitude of general submission
for the sake of the Lord but resistance when
God’s law is outrageously violated is more faithful to
Scriptural teaching and truer to political realities. It
is this balanced approach which Paul presents in
Remans 13 and which is summarized in the three
points outlined earlier.
Remans 13:1-7 states what God requires of belieo -
ers regarding their ciil leaders, and it states what
God requires of rulers regarding their civil function.
Submission to superiors is essential to both statements
of duty. The Lord expects His people to submit
obediently to their rulers, for the Lord expects
those rulers to submit obediently to His law. For
conscience’ sake, then, Christians can submit to
their civil authorities, knowing that indirectly they
are submitting to the moral order of God Himself.
1. As appointed by God, rulers are not to be resisted.
Paul begins with the generalization that civil
government is a divine institution: “there is no
power (authority) but of God” (Rem. 13:1). God has
actually “ordained” the powers that be. Obviously,
then, supremacy belongs to God and not to the state.
Respect for the rulers of state ought never to reach
such proportions that the believer gives the state that
unquestioning obedience which should be resen?ed
for God alone. Paramount in Paul’s mind is the fact
that, even if Christians are under orders from the
state, the state itself is under orders from God above.
252 BY Tl+lS STANDARD
Since God has ordained the magistrates who rule in
the state, those magistrates have been put not only
in authority over others, but also under the authority
of God. Magistrates are under moral obligation to
the prescriptions of the Lord. John Murray observed:
The civil magistrate is not only the means decreed
in God’s providence for the punishment of
evildoers but God’s instituted, authorized, and
prescribed instrument for the maintenance of
order and the punishing of criminals who violate
that order. When the civil magistrate
through his agents executes just judgment upon
crime, he is executing not simply God’s decretive
will but he is also fulfilling God’s prescriptive
will, and it would be sinful for him to refrain
from so doing. 1
Since all civil magistrates have no power unless it
has been given to them from above – as Christ declared,
even while standing before Pilate (John 19: 11)
– thty are responsible to reverence and obty AlrnighY God.
When they, as with Herod, accept praise as a god,
they come under the terrible wrath of God and can
be deposed from power: “Upon a set day Herod arrayed
himself in royal apparel, and sat upon the
throne, and made an oration unto them. And the
people shouted, The voice of a god, and not of a
man.’ And immediately an angel of the Lord smote
1. The Epz.stie iG the Roman.r, 2 vets. (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Eerdmans, 1965), H, p. 149.
LAW AND Pouncs IN TNE NEW TESTAMENT 2 5 3
him. because he gave not God the glory; and he was
eaten of worms and gave up the ghost” (Acts
12:21-23).
T7ie /Mo@r aim of all ethical conduct is the g[or} of God,
and civil magistrates, being ordained by God to rule,
are not exempt from the moral obligation to rule for
the glory of God. Those appointed by God will be
answerable to Ckd for the kind of rule they render in
society. This is nothing else but the doctrine of the
Old Testament, whether we consider the rulers of
Israel or the rulers of Gentile nations around Israel.
Paul’s teaching is grounded in the Old Testament.
Both the Old and New Testaments, then, begin their
“philosophy of state” within the supremacy of God,
to whom all rulers owe reverence and obedience.
Submission and Prayer
In that context Paul goes on to insist that civil rulers,
as God’s appointees, are not to be given resistance.
“The one resisting the authority has opposed
the ordinance of God, and they who oppose will receive
to themselves judgment” (Rem. 13:2). The Old
Testament background to this statement by Paul is
the best commentary on the verse. Parallel statements
are also found in the New Testament at Titus
3:1 (“put them in mind to be in subjection to’ rulers”)
and 1 Peter 2:13 (“be subject to every ordinance of
man”). Throughout Scripture, we see that God does
not approve of a rebellious, disrespectful, or disobedient
spirit concerning those who have been ordained
by God as our civil leaders. Honor is to be
rendered to whom honor is due, Paul says (Rem.
254 BY TWS STANDARD
13: 7), and since the Old Testament law stipulated
“I”ou shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your
people” (Ex. 22:28), Paul himself displayed a repentant
spirit when he had (unfittingly) spoken evil of a
ruler (Acts 23:5).
Old Testament believers were told to pray for
their unbelieving, Gentile rulers (Jer. 29:7; Ezra
6:10). When captive in Babylon, they were to seek
the peace of Babylon. This would clearly contrast
any attitude of resistance. Likewise, in the New Testament,
God’s people are exhorted to pray for kings
and all that are in high places (1 Tim. 2:2), and Peter
writes to Christians in “Dispersion” (1 Pet. 1:1) who
faced imminent persecution from the Roman high
command (1:6; 4:12; 5:13) that they should imitate
the godly pattern of peace-seeking as found in Psalm
34:14 (1 Pet. 3:10-14). Over and over again we find
definite continuity between the Old and New Testaments
regarding political ethics. Here that continuity
is evident in that saints under both the Old and
New Covenants were to respect civil rulers as appointed
of God, praying for them, and seeking peace
within their societies. God’s people have always had
the obligation to submit to their magistrates, knowing
that those same rulers were ordained as part of
God’s moral rule over creation. Just because the
ruler stands under the authority of God, those who
profess allegiance to God must respect the ruler. It is
not simply out of praatic expediency that the
Christian obeys the civil authorities –“not simply
because of the wrath” which they can express against
dissenters (Rem. 13:5a). He must obey aho “for the
LAW AND POLITICS IN TNE NEW TESTAMENT 255
sake of conscience” (Rem. 13 :5 b). That is, out of regard
for the Lord Himself who stands oer the civil magistrate,
His deputy, the Christian must submit to the
ruler — and in so doing submit to the supreme Ruler.
Comfciiwce
It should be obvious, despite the short-sightedness
of some commentators. that the subnksion
gi’en to civil magistrates must be in dw context qf the
magistrate ministering for God, for this submission
is explicitly prescribed by Paul for comc2e72c’ sake.
Paul frequently uses the word ‘conscience ,’ meaning
conscience toward God (for example, Acts 23: 1; ‘2 Cor,
4:2; 2 Tim. 1:3). “God alone is Lord of the conscience
and therefore to do anything out of conscience
or for conscience’ sake is to do it from a sense
of obligation to God” (John Nfurray. Epst/c to t}w
120mans, vol. 2. p. 154). Moreo\er. Paul always qual- -
ified the obedience that must be rendered to mcn as
obedience given for godly ends — obedience given in
the context of submitting first and foremost to the
moral demands of God Himself.
Charles Hedge expressed this insight:
In like manner, Paul enforces all relative and
social duties on religious grounds. Children are
to obey their parents, because it is right in the
sight of God; and semants are to be obedient to
thir masters, as unto Christ, doing the will of
God from the heart, Eph. 6:1, 5, 6.Z
2. .4 Comrnentay on Rornans (London: Banner of’ Truth Trust,
[1835], 1972), p 408
256 BY THIS STANDARD
This is made quite clear in 1 Peter 2:13, where we
read that we ought to %e subject to every ordinance
of man jor du Lords sake. ” Thus believers submit to
the civil magistrate for the sake of conscience– which
is to say, for the Lords sake —just because the magistrate
is to be submissive to the Lord, seeking His glory,
and obeying His commands.
Conscience cannot permit a rebellious spirit
against the Lord3 appointed ruler, even as it cannot
permit compliance with dictates of the ruler which
defy the law of the Lord. Paul’s teaching ever places
Christ as Lord om all, even as in the first commandment
of the Decalogue.
The Suprerna~ of God
Therefore, the supremacy of God is a key for correctly
understanding the view of the state advanced
by Paul in Remans 13:1-7. Just as taught in the Old
Testament, Paul also teaches that believers are
under strict obligation to obey the civil magistrate
because the Most High God, who is supreme over
all, has ordained the rule of the magistrate. Just
because the ruler is conceived of as under orders
from God who appointed him, the Christian must
respect the ruler, as a way of showing submission ultimately
to God Himself. Because God is supreme
over all and has given authority to those who exercise
rule in society, such civil magistrates are not autonomous
agents, free to do as they wish, and answerable
to nobody. As deputies of God they must
serve His purposes. When and if they defy the will of
God, acting in a sinful and satanic fashion with their
IAW AND POLITICS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 257
brute power, the Christian’s ‘conscience before the
Lord” cannot go along with them.
Since the Lord is the supreme Judge, the Christian
must not resist those who are appointed by God
and minister for Him. For the same reason, the submission
given to rulers by the Christian is qualljed by
his primary allegiance to the Lord, and by the understanding
that submission to the state is for the
sake of the Lord, whose will the magistrate ought to
pursue
2. Bearing religious titles, rulers are aoengers of divine
wTatll.
The supremacy of God as the preconditioning assumption
of Remans 13:1-7 comes to expression in
the titles assigned to civil rulers by Paul. In Old Testament
Israel statesmen were sometimes designated
“priests, ” and e~en in the Gentile nations around
Israel civil leaders were occasionally called by God
“My servant,” “My shepherd,” and “My annointed
(Christ).” This tendency to see the office bearer in
the state categorized as a religious official – someone
answerable to God Almighty — carries over into the
New Testament, once again demonstrating the continuity
which exists between the Old and New Testament
regarding the powers that be.
The idea of a secular state, one which divorces its
authority and standards from religious considers- -
tions about God and His will, is completely alien to
Biblical revelation. Indeed, it was alien to much of
the ancient world in general. All politics is the expression
of a moral point of -iew, which in turn is the
outworking of a theological conception of man, the
world, and God. The modem world is no different;
its political philosophies are simultaneously political
theologies, and its civil rulers are often seen in a religiws
light (even if religious vocabulary is
shunned).
Magistra@s as Minirters
Paul, following the Old Testament, had a religious
conception or understanding of the civil magistrate.
In Remans 13 he twice categorized the magistrate
in society as a “minister of God” (VV. 4, 6). If
you ask the ordinary Christian today where one can
find Gods “minister,” he will point you to the pastor
of the local church. He will not think to point you to
the city, state, or federal magistrate, for he has capitulated
to the mentality of humanistic secularism.
Paul had not done so, even though the Roman emperors
of his day were far from ‘religious” in the commendable
sense of that term. Whatever the C aesars
may have thought of themselves, Paul thought of
them as Go#s rru”nistm. They were God’s prescribed
instruments for maintaining order and punishing
evildoers according to God’s will.
In Remans 13:6 Paul used the title of eitourgos”
to describe the magistrate as God’s “minister.” In the
ancient world this term was used for work done to
. promote the social order, work performed in the service
of the divine-state. So Paul used the term with a
theological twist. The magistrate is not a minister of
the divine-state, but rather the state is th minister of
God Himself. In the Greek translation of the Old
IAW AND POUllCS IN M NEW TESTANENT 259
Testament (the Septuagint), this term is used to describe
the ministry of angels, priests, and prophets —
and yet it is likewise used for civil leadership.
In Remans 13:4 Paul’s term is “diakonos” or “deacon
.“ Outside the New Testament the term is used in
the title, “deacon of the city,” an office which aimed
at the education of good citizenship. Within the New
Testament the term is clearly laden with religious
comotation, being applied to the “ministry” of
Christ (Matt. 20:28), of Paul (1 Tim. 1:12), and of an
office within the church (Acts 6:1-6). Even as there
are deacons within the church, Paul declared that
there are deacons in the state: namely, men who are
appointed by God to minister justice in His name.
By utilizing these two terms for “minister,” and
by making clear that the ruler is a minister of God,
Paul unequivocally teaches the religious character
of the civil leader’s office. In the perspective of the
New Testament, magistrates must be deemed servants
of God. His rule is supreme, and their rules are
subordinate. Civil magistrates must be understood
to be deputies of God Himself, not free and independent
despots who can simply do as they please.
The Ministry of the Sword
What is it that God requires of his ordained
“ministers” in the state? How are they to render service
to Him? The power of the civil magistrate, in
distinction horn all other authorities (the family, the
church, the school, etc. ), is the power of compulsion;
the civil magistrate has the right to punish those who
do not conform to his laws, and punish them with
260 BY lHS STANDARD
external aillictions: financial fines, bodily pains
(labor or scourging), and even death.
Other sectors of society may in various ways impose
penalties on offenders, but never capital punishment.
Parents cannot execute, pastors cannot execute,
employers cannot execute — but the civil magistrate’s
authority clearly stand out as the authority to
execute criminals. The power of the magistrate is
thus appropriately symbolized in the power of- the
sword. ‘The most extreme penalty has been placed at
the disposal of the civil magistrate, the death penalty.
Paul speaks of the magistrate in Romans 13:4 as
one who ‘carries the sword.” (For the meaning of this
symbol one can consult Matt. 26:52; Acts 12:2; Heb.
11:37; Rev. 13:10).
The civil magistrate, according to Paul’s teaching,
must be seen as a minister of God, one whose
activities include the use of the sword in the punishment
of offenders. Civil rulers have a God-given
ministry of the sword. Is this to say, however, that
God tfiows the blanket of His endorsement over any
and all uses of the sword by any and all civil magistrates
throughout history? Hardly! There have
surely been men who were bloody tyrants, men who
abused the power placed in their hands, men who
executed capital punishment where it was immoral
to do so. Power, arrogance, bribery, jealously, lust,
and prejudice have corrupted the ministry of the
sword as it has been expressed in the reign of many a
magistrate in the course of history.
It is here that we must pay attention to Paul’s
wording in Remans 13:4. He does not describe any
LAW AND POLITICS IN TNE NEW TESTAMENT 261
and all uses of the civil sword as the ministry of God
in a society. Paul rather distinguishes (implicitly) be=
tween a proper and .an improper use of the sword,
speaking of “bearing the sword in vain.” Even as common
sense arid historical experience would tell Usj
some magistrates have wielded the sword in a way
which is empty of value as far as a ministry for God
is concerned. Some have made a futile use of the
sword, a use which God never intended it to have.
Some have carried the sword in vain, Over against
such vain uses of the sword, Paul describes in Remans
13 the magistrate who truly ministers for God.
Paul sets before us in Remans 13:4 the model of
God’s civil minister, one who “bears not the sword in
vain .“
The Wrath of God
What is the “minister of God” who ‘bears not the
sword in vain” to do in the service of God for society,
according to Paul? Paul says that he is to be ‘a
minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him who
works evil” (Rem. 13:4). Whose wrath is the
magistrate to avenge? Surely not his own, for it is
just in such self-serving displays of wrath that the
sword has been vainly used throughout history.
Rather, Paul indicates that the magistrate must
avenge the wrath of God. In his paragraph just
preceding the one now under discussion, Paul had
exhorted believers to be at peace with men and not
to avenge themselves of wrongs suffered. Remans
12:19 said, “Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give
place unto the wrath of God: for it is written,
262 BY THtS STANOAm
Vengeance belongs unto me; I will recompense, says
Me Lord.” Two words stand out here: vengeance and
wrath. God Himself will avenge wrath upon offenders,
so believers need not take such a task into their
own hands. But how will God avenge His wrath
upon offenders? Romans 13:1-7 answers that natural
question. God has ordained a ministry of the sword
in society. Those whom He has placed in authority
are to be “avengers for wrath” — that is, avengers of
diuine wrath for the One who declares that all \rengeance
belongs to Him. The minister of God in the
state, the one who bears not the sword in vain, will
work to avenge the wrath of God against offenders —
against “the one who practices evil” (Rem. 13:4).
This is an important part of the description of the
civil magistrate. He must see to it that good citizens
have nothing to fear from his rule and that the
criminal element of society has much to fear. As Paul
says, “Rulers are not a terror to the good work, but
to the evil. . . . He is a minister of God to you for
good, but if you do what is evil, be afraid” (Rem.
13: 3-4). The magistrate is under obligation correctly
to distinguish virtuous and vicious activities \vithin
siiety. He must reward the one and punish the
other.
Those who are to undergo his judicial wrath as
he bears the sword for God are described as
“evildoers” by Paul in Romans 13:4. If we skip down
just six verses to Remans 13:10, we read that low
works no evil to one’s neighbors. It is precisely these
citizens — those who urdovingly transgress the commandments
of God which are designed to protect the
LAW AND POLITICS lN TNE NEW TESTAMENT 263
life, liberty, and property of neighbors – who are the
“evildoers” that Paul would have the magistrate punish,
even to the point of death (where appropriate).
In Pauline perspective, the civil magistrate today
bears religious titles, being called to be an avenger of
divine wrath against law-breakers.
Old Testarnmt Concepts
The New Testament attitude toward law and
politics as it is found in Remans 13:1-7 has turned
out to. correspond at crucial points with the Old Testament
attitude, whether pertaining to Jewish or
Gentile magistrates. Paul’s underlying assumption
was the supremacy of C&l over all. Taking this for
granted, Paul could portray rulers as appointed by
God and therefore not to be resisted. Indeed, Paul
could go on to repudiate any secularized notion of —
civil rule by calling those who rule in the state “ministers
of God ,“ appointed by God to avenge His
wrath against evildoers who violate His laws. .4s
seen previously, this was precisely the doctrine of the
Old Testament. According to it, one can formulate a
distinctive - Christian view of public justice. Peter
summarizes much of the Old and New Testament
teaching regarding the civil magistrate when he describes
rulers as “through Him [God] sent for vengeance
on evildoers” (1 Pet. 2:14). Such a description
can lead to only one conclusion:
3. RU&TJ must deter evil by ruling according to God? law,
This conclusion has been seen to be the consequence
of the Old Testament teaching about civil
264 BY THtS ST-MD
rulers in Israel, as well as the consequence of the Old
Testament perspective on civii rulers outside of
Israel. Since civil rulers are appointed by God, since
they -bear religious titles, since the y are sent to be
avengers of God’s wrath, since they must punish
those who are genuine evildoers, the only proper
standard for their rule in society — the only proper criterion
of public justice — would have to be the law of
God. Those who are ordained by God must obey
His dictates, not their own. Those who are called
“ministerx of God” must live up to such a title by
serving the will of God. Those who are to avenge
God’s wrath must be directed by God Himself as to
what warrants such wrath and how it should be expressed.
Those who are to punish evildoers must
have a reliable standard by which to judge who is,
and who is not, an evildoer in the eyes. of God.
So everything points to the obvious conclusion
that the civil magistrate, according to Remans 13:1-7
(even as in the Old Testament), is under obligation
to obey the stipulations of God’s law as they bear on
civil leadership and public justice. Within its own
literary context (especially 12:19 and 13:10), Remans
13:4 specifically teaches that God’s law ought to be
the guide for the magistrate who is not to bear his
sword in vain. The law of God defines those who are
truly evildoers, and it indicates those upon whom
God’s wrath must come.
What Bet& Standard?
Those who do not favor taking God’s law as the
ultimate standard for civil morality and public
L4W AND POLITICS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 265
justice will be forced to substitute some other criterion
of good and evil for it. The civil magistrate cannot
function without some ethical guidance, without
some standard of good and evil. If that standard is
not- to be the revealed law of God (which, we must
note, was addressed specifically to perennial problems
in political morality), then what will it be? In
some form or expression it will have to be the law of
man (or men) — the standard of self-law or autonomy.
And when autonomous laws come to govern a
commonwealth, the sword is certainly wielded in
zain, for it represents simply the brute force of some
men’s will against the will of other men. “Justice”
then indeed becomes a verbal cloak for whatever
serves the interests of the strongmen in society
(whether their strength be that of physical might or
of media manipulation).
Men will either choose to be governed by God or
to be ruled by tyrants. Because of the merciful, restraining
work of the Holy Spirit in societies, we do
not see at every stage in histoy these stark polarities
coming to expression; most societies will to some
measure strive for conformity to God’s law, even
when it is officially denounced. However, in principle
the choices are clearly between God’s law and man’s
law, between life and death for a society. If no divine
law is recognized above the law of the state, then the
law of man has become absolute in men’s eyes –
there is then no logical barrier to totalitarianism.
When God’s law is put aside, and the politician’s
law comes to reign in its place, we have “the beast”
described for us by the Apostle John in Revelation
266 BY THIS STANDARCF
13. Regardless of one’s eschatological school of
thought, and regardless of the overall interpretive
structure one has for the book of Revelation, all
Bible readers must agree that “the beast” is the wicked
civil magistrate par excelkmce. He is the very opposite
of what Paul described in Remans 13, and thus it
comes as no surprise that the book of Revelation
comrnod Christians for resisting the dictates of the
beast – even though Remans 13 condemns resistance
ordinarily.
It will prove insightful to note how John describes
the evil magistrate known as ‘the beast .“ IrI
Revelation 13:16-17 we read of “the mark of the
beast,” which must be placed upon one’s forehead
and hand if he is to engage in commerce in the marketplace;
the mark identifies the name or character
of the beast himself. In order to have a viable place
in society, the beast requires that his name and
authority – his law— direct the thinking and behavior
(head and hand) ~ of all citizens. Those familiar
with the Old Testament will readily catch John’s
allusion to Deuteronomy 6:8, where God said that
His law was to be bound upon the forehead and the
hand of His people. The beast is portrayed as taking
away God’s law and rep.!ucing it with his own human
law. Staying in harmony with this portrayal, Paul
himself describes the beast in 2 Thessalonians 2 as
“the man of lawlessness. ”
The paradigm of a wicked political leader in the
Bible, as we have seen, is one who rejects the law of
God as the standard of public justice and turns to an
autonomous standard instead. John makes it quite
LAW AND POLITICS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 267
clear who can be counted upon to resist the beast,
the man of lawlessness. Those who resist him are described
in Revelation: 12:17. as those “who keep the
commandments of God and hold the testimony of
Jesus ,“ and in 14:12 as those who “keep the commandments
of God and the faith of Jesus.” The opposition
between the saints and the beast thus clearly
pivots on the law of God.
Paus Political Morali@
The magistrate who wins the appro’al of Paul in
Remans 13 is the one who is a minister of God “for
the good,” but a ‘terror” to those who “practice evil.”
In saying such things Paul was clearly not departing
from his pattern of defining good and evil according
to the law of God. Indeed, when Paul stood before
the Sanhedrin of the Jews protesting his innocence,
he declared that he had done nothing ezil (Acts 23:9
and 25:11) — nothing contrars to God’s law — or else
he would be quite willing to ‘accept the justice of his
execution. For Paul, political morality was to be
evaluated by the norm of God’s revealed law. He did
not take a dispensational attitude toward social
justice, seeing the standards of the Old Testament
laid aside regarding matters of public policy, crime
and punishment, in the era of the New Testament.
God has one unchanging standard of good and evil.
even with respect to political ethics.
In terms of God’s one standard for political
morality, it is not surprising to find that New Testament
preaching and writing was anything but
apolitical. John the Baptist preached against the
268 BY mls STANDARO
unlawfulness of Herod’s marriage (Mark 6:18), and
Jesus called Herod a “vixen” (Luke 13:32), a cutting
denunciation. John told soldiers of their obligations
to God’s law (Luke 3:14), and Jesus required that
Zacchaeus make restitution for false tax-gathering
(Luke 19:1-10). Paul preached “contrary to the decrees
of Caesar, saying that there is another King—
Jesus” (Acts 17: 7), for which he was banished from
Thessalonica. In writing back to the church there, he
alluded to the city council’s antagonism to him as the
hindrance of Satan (1 Thes. 2 :18). In all of these incidents
we see that the New Testament is not silent
about political wrongs, and that it weighs these
wrongs in the balances of God’s revealed law. At the
most practical and applied level, the distinctive
standard for Christian political morality was-found
in the well-known commandments of God.
Conclusion
Recent years have witnessed a revival of Christian
political concern. However, that revival has not
frequently been associated with a clear-cut. Biblical
conception of socio-political morality. The distinctive
standard of Christian politics has been overlooked.
By studying the Old Testament regarding
Jewish and Gentile magistrates and by studying the
New Testament revelation regarding law and
politics, we have discovered complete harmony on
these three essential points:
1. As appointed by God, rulers are not to be
resisted.
LAW AND POLITICS IN TNE NEW TESTAMENT 269
2. Bearing religious titles, rulers are avengers
of divine wrath.
3. So rulers must deter evil by ruling according
to God’s law.
This provides us with a foundation for Christian
involvement in political philosophy and practice.
From this platform a distinctive contribution can be
made.
26
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
“If some ruler thought that stealing two pennies
deserved death, while killing an innocent child
deserved the fine of two cents, many Christian
teachers woutd have no objective way to demonstrate
the injustice of this arrangement.”
Scripture has taught us that a distinctively Christian
approach to political morality calls for recognition
of the civil magistrate’s obligation to rule according
to the dictates of God3 reoealed law We have
likewise observed that the key .finction of the civil
magistrate, as God Himself presents it in His written
word, is that of bearing the sword as an avenger of
wrath against evildoers. Ci<d rule is a minis&y of
justice, aiming to punish criminals in accord with
the revealed will of God. When we combine this connection
with the Biblically based belief that God’s faw
is binding in evay detail until and unless the Lawgivo
reveals otherwise, we come to the conclusion that the
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT 2~
civil ma@strate today ought to apply the penal sanctions
of the Old Testament law to criminals in our
society, once they have been duly tried and convicted
by adequate evidence. Thieves should be made to
offer restitution, rapists should be executed, perjurers
should suffer the penalty they would have inflicted
on the accused, etc.
Quite simply, civii magistrates ought to mete oti the
punishment which God has prescribed in His word. When
one stops to reflect on this proposition, it has an alltoo-
obrious truthfulness and justice about it. “Shall
not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis
18: 25). If civil magistrates are indeed “ministers of
God” who avenge ‘His wrath against evildoers, who
better would know what kind and degree of punishment
is appropriate for every crime &an the Lord?
And where would He make this standard of justice
known but in His word? The penal sanctions for
crime should be those revealed in the law of the
Lord. That makes perfectly good sense.
The Necessity, Equity, and Agency of Punishment
God has not only laid down certain stipulations
for how people should live in society together (for example,
forbidding stealing), He has also backed up
those stipulations – rendering them more serious
than divine recommendations – with penal sanctions
to be imposed on those who disobey His dictates (for
example, offering restitution). A law without such
supporting penalties would not be a law at all. Now,
in the case of certain Old Testament commandments,
there was laid down a dual sanction against the
272 BY TtUS STANDAMI
offender. A murderer, for instance, would not only
undergo the eternal wrath of God after his death, but
he would also need to undergo the tmzoral and social
penalty which God prescribed for the civil magistrate
to apply (in this case, the death penalty). Not all of
God’s commandments carried this dual sanction, for
not all sins are likewise crimes within the state. It is
wicked to lust after a woman, but the civil magistrate
can neither convict nor punish for lust. When lust
becomes adultery, however, then God has stipulated
certain measures to be taken by His ordained deputy
in the state.
Where God has prescribed it in His word, such
civil punishments for crime are quite necessary. ndeed,
Paul can say that the law of God was enacted
precisely for dealing with public criminals – murderers,
perjurers, homosexuals, and the like (1 Tim.
1:8-10). The destruction of the wicked is a proper
goal of a godly magistrate (Ps. 101:8) so that he may
root out evil (for example, Deut. 17:12; 19:19) and
protect the righteous of the land (Ps. 125:3; Prov.
12:21). Such civil penalties against crime are to be
executed without mercy or pity to the criminal
(Deut. 19:13, 21; 25:12; Heb. 10:28), lest judges become
respecters of persons, looking upon the face of
criminals and deciding according to some standard
other than strict justice who should pay the price of
his wrongdoing. Besides, when judges let proven
criminals go unpunished, they in effect punish those
who have been wronged by the criminaI in the first
place. As Luther once wrote: “If God will have
wrath, what business do you have being merciful?
. . . What a fine mercy to me it would be, to have
mercy on the thief and murderer, and let him kill,
abuse, and rob me!” So Scripture teaches that civil
penalties are necessary. The magistrate is not to
carry his sword in vain.
Not only are such penal sanctions necessa~ in society,
they must also be equituble. The measure of
punishment according to the just Judge of all the
earth is to be an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
life for a life – no less, but no more (for example, Ex.
21:23-25; Deut. 19:21). The punishment must be
commensurate with the crime, for it is to express retribution
against the offender. Especially when one
compares the Biblical code of penal sanctions with
those in other ancient civilizations does it become
apparent how just and wise God’s laws are; they are
never overweighted, lenient, cruel or unusual. Far
from being arbitrary, they are laid down with a view
to perfect justice in social affairs. lndiwct, these
penal sanctions will become a deterrent to crime in
others (for example, Deut. 17:13; 19:20), but they are
designed to punish a person retributively, “according
to his fault” (Deut. 25:2). That is why, for instance,
those who commit capital crimes are said in the
Bible to have “committed a sin worthy ojdwth” (Deut.
21: 22). God always prescribes exactly what a crime
deserves; the stringency of the penalty is proportioned
to the heinousness of the deed. His punishments
are thus always equitable.
The agency which God enlists for executing His
just and necessary penalties -in society for crimes is
the civil magistrate. The reason why, by mm, the
blood of offenders may be shed is given in Genesis
9:5-6, name] y because man was created in the image
of God. Men can reflect the judgments of God against
criminals because men — those appointed to this task
— are the image of God, able to understand and apply
His standards of civic rectitude.
Paul descrihd the civil magistrate as ordained
by God, one who “bears not the sword in vain”
became he is “a minister of God, an avenger for wrath
against evildoers” (Rorn. 13:1-4). Without such authorization,
the punishment of one man by another
would be pure presumption, the perpetration by one
group of a misdeed against another individual or
group. The very notion of pubh’c justice (“the right”
surpassing considerations of “might”) is rooted in the
assumption that God?s direction stanh behind thenction
of the ciuii rnagtitrate in soctip. Given that fact, it is only
natural that the standard by which the magistrate
should mete out penalties to criminals ought to be
the revealed law of God.
Unwillingness to Endorse the Law
Yet not all Christian teachers are willing to g-rant
that point. Those who deny the validity of the penal
sanctions found in the revealed law of God, however,
rarely have cogent and clear altmatiues to offer.
When they do, these alternatives rarely stem from a
Chtitian standpoint. Moreover, those advocating
criminal penalties apart from God’s revealed law
hardly ever show a willingness to stand behind or defend
the fairness and justice of their specc proposals.
In short, those who demur at the idea of havCRIME
AND PIJNISNMENl 275
ing current day magistrates follow the penal sanctions
of God’s law usually leave us with the position
that there are no perrnanent~ just sturuz%rds of punishment,
for magistrates are left to themselves to devise
their own penal codes autonomously. If some ruler
thought that stealing two pennies deserved death,
while killing an innocent child deserved the fine of
two pennies, many Christian teachers would have no
otjectiue way to demonstrate the in@ice of this arrangement.
Their failure to produce a God-glorifying,
Scripturally-anchored, method of knowing what
justice demands in particular cases of criminal acti\-
ity would in principle leave us at the mercy of magistrate-
despots.
When there is no la~ above the civil law, restraining
and guiding its dictates, then human will
becomes absolute and fearsome. Before any reader is
tempted to turn away from the all-too-obvious proposition
that God’s revealed law should be followed by
the civil magistrate when it comes to crime and punishment,
let the reader be clear in his or her own
mind just what the alternatives are. In many cases
those who criticize the use of God’s penal sanctions
objectively known from the Scriptures have either no
alternative or arbitrary ranny to offer in its place.
In addition to asking for the alternative ‘which
the critic of God’s law has in mind, the reader should
make a point of requesting some ’ustzfiing evidence
jYom Scr@ture for this rejection of the Old Testament
law’s penal sanctions. This is highly important, for
Jesus warned that anyone who taught the breaking
of even the least commandment of the Old Testament
276 BY mIB BTA?K)ARD
(and the penal commandments are surely commandments
found among the Law and Prophets) would
be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matt.
5:18-19). Unless those who advocate the abolition of
these penal sanctions can offer justification for their
-attitude from the word of God, then their position
comes under the heavy censure of Christ Himself.
Moreover, Paul taught that the law of God was /aw-
~ used to restrain criminals today, being the standard
God expected His ministers in the state to use
when they wielded their swords (1 Tim. 1:8-10; Rem.
13: 4). To reject those standards would appear on the
face of it to be speaking against the word of the Lord
Himself on the subject.
Are the Penalties Culturally Variable?
What reason might someone offer for refusing to
endorse the present applicability of the penal sanctions
of God’s law? It is sometimes suggested, without
due reflection, that since the penal sanctions of
the law are found among the case laws of the O1d
Testament – laws whose cultural details are not
universally binding — these laws simply teach us that
certain crimes should be punished but not what the
punishment should be. Therefore, Vou shall not
allow a sorceress to live,” and Whosoever lies with a
beast shall surely be put to death” (Ex. 22:18, 19)
simply teach that those who practice witchcraft or
bestiality should be punished in sovw way, not that
they must be punished in a particular way. The
underlying principle is alleged to be merely that
these acts are punishable; the death penalty is but a
CRtME AND PUNI.SNMENT 277
variable, cultural detail.
As attractive as this suggestion may sound in
abstract (after all, it would make it much easier to
promote Gods law within a secularized culture), it is
clear that the suggestion cannot be defended in the
face of particular textual and theological realities.
For instance, the two texts rehearsed above are specifically
worded so as to require more than just any
kind of punishment for those who practice witchcraft
and bestiality. What is prohibited in Exodus 22:18 is
that a witch should be allowed to liue. A magistrate
who merely fines a witch (i. e., a genuine witch as
Biblically understood) would transgress this prohibition,
allowing thereby what the text forbids — namely,
the allowing of a witch to live. Exodus 22:19 used an
idiomatic Hebrew expression to communicate the
cerkzin~ of the death penalty for someone committing
bestiality: “shall sure~ be put to death.” The whole
point here is that this crime is so heinous that only
the death penalty is its just recompense.
The arbitrariness of some commentators here is
perplexing. For example, R. A. Cole writes, “Our
attitude to perversions of God’s natural order can
hardly vary from those of the law, while our treatment
of offenders will be very different today.” 1 Yet
the Hebrew text teaches that our treatment of this
crime must not vary: “surely” such an offender is to be
put to death. If that is not the justice which we en-
1. R. A, Cole, Exodus (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries),
edited by D. J. Wlseman (Downem Grove: Inter-Varsity
Press. 1973), p.”174.
278 BY l19S STANDARO
dorse, then indeed even our affituak toward the perversion
itse~ has varied from that prescribed by
God’s law!
Someone might convincingly argue that the
method of execution (for example, stoning) is a variable
cultural detail, but the text simply will not support
the thesis that the law’s penal sanctiom are culturally
variable. It will not support teaching an openended
approach to penology — that is, teaching simply
that criminals should be punished, without saying
what the punishment must be. The principle
taught in such case laws is that the relevant crimes
are worthy of this or that specified treatment.
The various alternatives for treatment may not
be changed around — as though a murderer could be
fined, and a thief could be executed. It is precisely
the equi~ of God’s penal sanctions which precludes
any shifting of them around; yet this shifting of penalties
is what the suggestion before us would allow
(by saying that the case law teaches no set sanction but
only that there should be some kind of sanction).
Such shifting violates the principle of an eye for an
eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life, etc. We have
already seen above that equity characterizes the
penal sanctions of God’s law. Crimes have meted out
to them precisely what justice says they darer-w. This
is the Biblical approach to penology, and to depart
from it is to welcome (in principle) arbitrariness,
tyranny, and injustice into one’s society.
No More, No Less
Biblical penalties, we are observing, are never
too lenient and never too stringent, for the cases
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT 279
which they address. Consequently, if a magistrate
departs from the strict justice and equity of the Biblically
prescribed penalties for crimes, then the nagistrate
must either require more or require less than the
law of God. Either way he will depart from the norm
of equity — meting out what a crime desemes — and
thus will be w@t in his judgments, being either too
hard or too easy on criminals. Hebrews 2:2 tells us,
contrary to the mistaken assumption of many, that
the Old Testament penal sanctions were not “heightened”
or ‘intensified” punishments, going btyond
what strict justice for society would dictate. The
verse declares, as foundational to an a jiiytiori argument
for the eternal justice of God toward apostates,
that according to the Mosaic law (“the word spoken
through angels ,“ cf. Acts 7:53) “every transgression
and offense received a ]“ust rcompmse of reward .“
God’s penalties were not overbearing there, and thus
His judgment must be seen as fair toward apostates
as well. God never punishes in an unjust manner,
one that is too lenient or too harsh; He always
prescribes exactly what equity demands. He can be
counted on to stipulate a]”ust recompense of reward for
et’ery crime. Those who depart from God’s penal
sanctions, then, are the ones who are unjust.
If God says that some crime is to be punished by
the magistrate with death, then the crime in question
is indeed ‘worthy of death,” to use the Biblical phrase
(for example, Deut. 21:22). One of the strongest endorsements
of the justice of the law’s penal sanctions
is found in the words of the Apostle Paul at Acts
25:11. When he was accused of many grieious
280 BY THIS STANDARD
things by the Jews, Paul responded: “If I am an evildoer
[cf. the same expression in Remans 13:4] and
have committed anything worthy of &th [the law’s
designation for a capital crime], then I rejise not to
die .“ Paul did not argue that these Old Testament
penal sanctions had been abrogated, nor that they
were appropriate only for the Jews of the theocracy.
He rather insisted that they applied at the present
time, and he would not seek to avert their requirement.
He was willing to submit to divine justice, the
justice of God’s law – provided, of course, that he
had truly transgressed that law. We too endorse the
justice of God’s penal code, if the Bible is to be the
foundation for our Christian political ethic.
Invalid Attempts to Sidestep Biblical Penology
Some Christians have attempted to escape the
Biblical requirements regarding penal sanctions on
crime. Without answering the positive considerations
which have been laid out above, they have suggested
various reasons why we should not endorse
the penal sanctions of the Old Testament law. We
can quickly survey some of these reasons.
Some say that the use of the death penalty would
cut short the possibilities for evangelism. That may
be true, but we must avoid portraying God’s word as
in conflict with itself (as though the evangelistic commission
of the church could override the justice
demanded by the state). “The secret things [for example,
who will be converted] belong unto Jehovah
our God; but the things that are revealed [for example,
the law’s requirements] belong unto us and to
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT 281
our children forever, that we may do all the words of
this law” (Deut. 29:29).
Others appeal to emotion, saying that the penal
sanctions of the Old. Testament would lead to a
bloodbath in modern society. Such a consideration is
by its nature a pragmatic concern, rather than a consideration
for truth and justice. But more importantly,
it directly contradicts the Bibk’s own teaching
as to what the effect would be of following God’s
penal code. Far from leading to numerous more executions,
such a practice wouId make others “hear
and fear” (for example, Deut. 17 :13) so that few will
commit .such crimes and need to be punished. Gods
sanctions bring safety, protection, integrity, and life
to a community — not a blood bath.
Some teachers have likened the Old Testament
penal sanctions to the ceremonial laws of the Old
Testament, no longer followed in the same way as
the y were previously because of the work of Christ.
However, ‘such penalties were not ceremonial in
character, foreshadowing the person and work of the
Redeemer (for example, like the sacrificial system);
they were not redemptive in purpose or religious in
character. While the New Testament shows that the
sacrifices, temple, etc. have been laid aside, the New
Testament endorses the continuing use and authority
of the penal sanctions. They simply are not in the
same theological category as the ceremonial laws.
The social penalties prescribed by the Old Testament
law cannot be seen as fulfilled in the death of
Christ, the excommunicating discipline of the
church, or the final judgment — for none of these
282 BY TI+IS STANDARD
deal with social justice within history. Christ did not
remove the penalties for social misdeeds, or else
Christians could argue that they need not pay traffic
fines! The discipline of the church does not remove
the need for the state to have just guidelines for penalties
in society. .And far from confirming social penalties,
waiting for the final judgment removes social
penalties for crime altogether. Even if one could
argue (with Biblical indicators) that the penal sanctions
of the Old Testament foreshadowed the final
judgment, it would be something else to argue tha,t
those penalties did nothing else but foreshadow final
judgment. After all, they also dealt with historical
‘maters of crime and punishment, and so they could
continue to do so today (while still foreshadowing
the coming final judgment).
May We Abrogate All but One?
If the above arguments have proven awkward in
the light of Biblical teaching and logical consistency,
one can understand how much more difficult it
would be to defend the position that the penal sanctions
have been abrogated today, except for one
(namely, the death penalty for murder). Such a position
fails to show that the penal sanctions have been
laid aside in general. At best it appeals to a fallacious
argument from silence, saying that such social
penalties were not mentioned, for instance, by Paul
when he spoke to the Corinthian church about an incestuous
fornicator. Of course, neither did Paul
dispute those sanctions, seeing that he was speaking
to the church about its response to the sinner (not the
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT 283
magistrate’s response). Does his silence challenge or
support the validity of the sanctions? Neither, really,
for a consideration of silence is logically fallacious.
What is important is the presumption of continuing
validity taught elsewhere by Christ (Matt. 5:19) and
Paul (Acts 25:11; Rem. 13:4; 1 Tim. 1:8-10; cf. Heb.
2:2). Silence cannot defeat that presumption, for the
presumption can be turned back only by a definite
word of abrogation.
Conclusion
There is no general repudiation of the penal sanctions
in the New Testament. And Z~ tfwre were, there
would be no textually legitimate way to salvage the
penalty for murder. The attempt to limit our moral
obligation to the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:6) is misconceived,
not only because the New Testament recognizes
no such arbitrary limitation (see Matt.
5:17-19), but also because the Mosaic law is necessary
to understand and apply fairly the Noahic stipulation
about murderers (for example, the distinction
between manslaughter and murder is not drawn
in Genesis 9). That Paul in Remans 13 was not
limiting the power of the sword to the guidance of
Genesis 9 is clear from the fact that Paul recognizes
the right of tzmation, which is unmentioned in
Genesis 9. If the Old Testament sanctions have been
abrogated (and we have no reason to think they have
been), then there appeam to be no way to salvage the
death penalty for murder either. Yet very few
evangelical will be content to accept that conclusion,
especially since it leaves Paul’s words about the
~ BY THtS STANDARD
magistrate’s “sword” without any application.
We must conclude that God’s word, even concerning
matters of crime and punishment. is ciependable
and unchanging. Without His guidance,
the magistrate would indeed wield ‘the sword in
vain.”
27
CHURCH AND STATE
“It is in fact impossible not to have some religious
presuppositions whenever a law maker
takes a stand one way or another on an issue?
We have observed that a distinctively Christian
position with respect to law and politics will call for
promoting the comprehensive gospel advocated by
the Reformed faith – a gospel which has political
implications because Christ has established God’s
kingdom (with its influence in every area of life) and
now rules as King of kings over aU mankind. Time
believers pray that God’s kingdom will more and
more come to expression through history, and that
God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Study
of Scripture has shown that God’s will for public
justice and politics has been revealed in the permanent
standards of God’s law. Therefore, Christians
ought to work to persuade others of their obligation
to the commandments of God, including the civil
286 BY THIS STANDARD
magistrate of his duty to enforce the penal sanctions
of God’s law against criminal activity in society.
Without God’s law, the Christian may take an interest
in politics, but he has nothing to contribute in the
way of concrete guidance that could not just as well
be contributed by autonomous social wisdom. God’s
law is the key, then, to the Christian attitude toward
socio-political morality.
A complaint which is often heard in our secularized
society (and even heard from Christians who
have succumbed to the pressures of secularization) is
that we cannot recognize God’s law as the standard
for political morality because of the “separation of
church and state .“ We need to explore this complaint
from many angles in order to see just how weak it is.
The Separation in the Old Testament
First of all, there are people who reject God’s law
as the standard for present-day political ethics
because they believe that the Old Testament social
arrangement did not, as we do today, recognize any
separation of church and state. The thought seems to
be this: since the Mosaic law was intended for a
situation wherein church and state were merged,
those commandments would be ethically inaPPro/uia&
for a dz@rent situation like ours where church and
state are separated.
This line of thought maybe common, but it is invalid
nonetheless. We can begin by taking note of
the fact that the Old Testament surely did recognize
many kinds of separation between the culticreligious
and civil-political aspects of life. Kings
CHURCH m STATE 287
were not priests in Old Testament Israel, and priests
were not civil leaders (as in the pagan cultures
around Israel). Indeed, when a king like Uzziah
presumed to take upon himself the religious tasks of
a priest, he was struck with leprosy from God for
daring to break down the recognized separation of
“church” and “state” (2 Chron. 26:16-21). There was
a clear difference between the office and prerogatives
of Moses and Aaron, between those of Nehemiah
and Ezra. The Old Testament social arrangement
did not, then, “merge” the religious cult and the civil
administration.
We read that Jehoshaphat set the chief priest
over the people “in all the king’s matters” (2 Chron.
19: 11). A functional separation between king and
priest – both answerable to God – was known and
followed. Thus, kings and priests had different
houses, different officers, different treasuries, different
regulations, and different forms of discipline to
impose .- The alleged merger of church and state in
the Old Testament is simply based on little familiarity
with Old Testament realities as presented in
Scripture.
Recently it has been suggested by one Old Testament
seminary instructor that the membership of the
Old Testament Jewish state was coextensive with
that of the Old Testament Jewish church, for (he
claims) circumcision and participation in the passover
were required of all citizens in Israel. Despite
prima facie force to this suggestion, \ve will find it acceptable
only if we neglect to read the actual Biblical
account of the Old Testament social situation. As a
208 BY THIS STAHDARD
matter of fact, there were indeed citizens of Israel
(members of the state) who were not circumcised
(bearing the mark of belonging to the covenant community),
namely the women. But even more importantly,
there were men in Israel who enjoyed the
privileges and protections of citizenship, and yet
who were not members of the “church” — who were
not circumcised and did not partake of the redemptive
meal of passover. These were the “sojourners” in
Israel. They had the same law (Lev. 24:22) and same
privileges (Lev. 19:33-34) as the native Israelite, but
unless they were willing to undergo circumcision
and join the religious community, they did not take
passover (Ex. 12:43, 45, 48).
In many ways this parallels the situation today.
All men live under the same laws and privileges in
our state, but only those who assume the covenant
sign (baptism in the New Testament) would be
members of the church and free to take the Lord’s
Supper (the redemptive meal). Even at this level we
do not find a situation in ancient Israel that is
altogether different from our own. Church and state
were not merged in any obvious way in OId Testament
times.
Of course there were many unique aspects to the
situation enjoyed by the Old Testament Israelites. In
many ways their social arrangement was not what
ours is today. And the extraordinary character of
Old Testament Israel may very well have pertained
to some aspect of the relation between religious cult
and civil rule in the Old Testament. Nevertheless,
we will search in vain to find any indication in the
CNURC+I AND STATE 289
Scripture that the validity of the Mosaic law for society
somehow depended upon any of these extraordinary
features of the Old Testament social arrangement.
Despite the uniqueness of Israel, its law-code
was held forth as a model for other nations to imitate
(Deut. 4:6-8). What was not extraordinary or unique
was the’u.stice embodied in the law of God; its validity
was universal, applying even to nations which
did not in every respect parallel the social (or
church-state) situation in Israel. Consequently, even
if we were to point out that today our social arrangement
differs somewhat from that of Old Testament
Israel’s, we would not thereby be justified in concluding
that the law revealed to Israel is not morally
valid for our present day society. Whatever the
precise church-state relation was in Israel, the law
revealed to Israel ought to be obeyed even by societies
which have a slightly different church-state relation
today.
A consideration of the separation of church and
state (or lack thereof) in Old Testament Israel does
not, then, invalidate the authority of the Old Testament
law for current American society. Christ
taught that we should render unto Caesar the things
that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are
God’s (Matt. 22:21). There is a difference beeen
Caesar and God, to be sure, and we must obey both
with that distinction in mind. And yet while we owe
obedience to the powers that be (Rem. 13:1-2), the
civil magistrate owes allegiance to God’s revealed will,
for he is the “minister of Go& (Rem. 13:4).
To admit that the church is separate from the
state is not the same as saying that the state is separated
horn obligation to God Himself and His rule.
Both church and state, as separate institutions with
separate functions (i. e., the church mercifully ministers
the gospel, while the state justly ministers public
law by the sword): serve under the authority of God,
the Creator, Sustainer, King, and Judge of all
mankind in ail aspects of ttir lives.
Different Senses of This “Separation”
When people today speak of their commitment to
the separation of church and state, we need to realize
that this commitment can be taken or interpreted in
man y ways. “1 believe in the separation of church
and state” may be the answer to one or more logically
distinct questions. For instance, we might ask
whether the church should dominate the state (for
exampie, the Pope dictating to kings) or the state
should dominate the church (for example, Congress
dictating church policy), and the answer might very
well be that we should hold to the separation of
church and state — namely, that neither institution
should dominate the other. We should have a free
church in a free state.
A second question might be whether the state
should establish one denomination over others as the
statechurch (or tax the population for financial support
of the ministers of one particular church or
denomination), and the answer again might very
well be that we should hold to the separation of
church and state — namely, that all churches should
be supported simply by voluntary offerings, and one
CHURCH AND STATE 291
denomination should not be favored above others by
the state. This, as a matter of historical fact, is what
the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution laid
down when it prohibited the “establishment” of religion.
It did not prohibit the expression of religiouslybased
views by politicians or their supporters; nor
did it prohibit obedience to the Bible by public
officials. It merely prohibited the establishment of
one denomination as the state-church.
Finally, in recent days, it has come to be asked
whether a distinctive religious system or revelation
should be the standard for individual lawmakers as
they determine public policy. In previous ages people
would have been wise enough to see through
such a question, for it is in fact impossible not to have
some religious presuppositions wheneuer a lawmaker
takes a stand one way or another on an issue. The
only question should be which religious beliefs ought
to guide him, not wlhdwr religious beliefs should
guide him ! However, today those who favor the
pseudo-ideal of religious neutrality when it comes to
politics tend to express their position as a commitment
to the “separation of church and state .“ By this
they mean the separation of morality (or religiouslybased
morality) from the state; they favor instead
secular or autonomous laws in society. Those who
believe that magistrates are bound to the law of God
are (mistakenly) accused of violating the separation
of church and state — which should mean the separation
of two institutions and functions.
292 BY mts STANDARO
Conclusion
We must be careful to understand how people
are using their terms. The Christian who promotes
obedience to the law of God within his societ?~ is not
violating any Biblical understanding of the separation
of church and state. Indeed,, it. iS hoped that believers
would strongly ahocak sue-h a separation –
meaning that neither institution should dominate
the other in any official capacity, and that no denomination
should be established as the state church.
However, the Christian may very well be violating
‘the separation of church and state” when secular humanism
uses that as a catch-phrase for religious neutrality
in public policy. But at that point our concern
is not for loyalty to an ambiguous slogan but for
loyalty to the King of kings. “Let God be true,
though every man is a liar” (Rem. 3:4). We must be
faithfid to Scripture’s requirements, including the
obligation of the civil magistrate to God’s law, rather
than to the popular dictates of our age. In short, “we
must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
Parf Ill: ANTAGONISM
TO GOD’S M
28
AUTONOMY AND ANTINOMIANISM
“Autonomous reasoning may reject our
endorsement of the law of God for ethics, but
autonomous ethics has nothing finally to offer
in its place.”
The theological perspective which has been advanced
in these chapters has not been formulated or
determined by popular opinion polls, a desire to synthesize
the wise variety of human attitudes, or eren
by seeking a ‘middle of the road” position among
evangelical Bible teachers and pastors. Our aim has
been to be faithful to the full range of Biblical revelation
concerning the validity of God’s law in ethics today;
we have tried to be true to the word of God and
not the traditions of men. If this effort has enjoyed
any significant measure of success — that is, if we
have in fact taught what Scripture teaches about
God’s moral standards — then it would come as no
294 BY THIS STANDARD
surprise that there exist a number of other positions
on God’s law or on the norm for ethics which stand
in opposition to what has been set forth herein.
Many erroneous theories of ethics are flourishing today
(and always have. actually). Some are n-torr dangerous
than others, of course, but to some extent all
depart from what God says about His law.
The Autonomy of the Unbeliever
The most stark antagonism to the law of God
which we encounter will naturally be voiced by those
who do not have faith in Christ and who refuse to
submit their reasoning and behavior to the re~ealed
word of God. Unbeliei-ers do not in principle seek to
conform to the commandments of God, and they do
not in principle have the conviction that they are
under obligation to God’s law. Yet unbelievers are
nerer without ethical assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes.
Consequently, the thoughtful unbeliever \rill
strive to formulate a philosophy of ethics for himseIf
(if not for others), and his ethical reasoning will be
characterized as autonomous,
The word “autonomy” derives from two Greek
words: autos (meanin<g “self’) and nontos (meaning
“law”). To operate autnomously is to become a la;
unfo yourse[$ The autonomous philosopher presumes
that he can define good and eil according to his own
unaided, self-sufficient powers of reasoning. He is
not subject to the authority of another (especially
that of God) but rather believes that he can competently
exercise his own authority in moral matters.
The unbeliever seeks to set aside God’s law so that he
AUTONOMY AND ANTINOMIANLSM 295
can establish self-law in its place.
Remans 1:18-32 and 2:12-26 teach that nobody
who has ever lived in God’s creation has been unaware
of the Creator’s standards of conduct. All
men, even those who have never heard of the Bible,
hinder the truth by means of their unrighteous lives.
Yet even though they may not have been privileged
to receive a written revelation of the law of God
(e.g., the “oracles of God” given LO the Jews: cf. 2:17,
27; 3:1-2), “the Gentiles who have not the law . . .
show the work of the law written on their hearts”
(2:14-15). In their innermost selves all men know the
requirements of God’s law, but they seek to escape
that condemning knowledge and to construct substitute
theories of ethics for themselves. “The natural
man receives not the things of God’s Spirit” (1 Cor.
2:14), and indeed the mind controlled by the sinful
nature “is not subject to the law of God, and neither
can it be” (Rem. 8: 7). By nature the unbeliever must
oppose the concept of the law of God which this book
promotes. Like Adam their father, unbelievers seek
to %e like God ,“ determining for themselves what
will be good and evil — setting aside God’s selfattesting
revelation in nature and Scripture, and
proceeding down the road of sinful rebellion toward
the demise of ethics.
Plato and Sartre
Plato taught that ethics is independent of
religion, for the form (or essential idea) of goodness
and piety exists apart from the thinking of the gods,
who approve of actions by looking above themsel’es
2% BY THIS STANDARO
to the absolute, unchanging standards for goodness
and piety. Such a view rescued ethical theory,
thought Plato, from both skeptical relativism (since
the form of goodness was unchanging and absolute,
not depending upon fluctuating human experience
or opinion) and dogmatic religion (since goodness or
piety did not receive their character from what the
gods said about them). But by securing absolute authority
for ethics in this way, Plato simultaneously
lost ethical relevance, for how is anyone living
through the changes of history supposed to know
what this absolute standard of goodness requires in
day-to-day experience? We never encounter the unchanging
form of goodness in our ordinary experience
and so by observation can know nothing of
it (and especially nothing of its concrete application
to particular moral problems and questions). Plato
had a ‘heavenly good” which was ‘of no ea.rddlr
value.” He said that men could know “the good” by
rational intuition; but that only plunges ethics into
chaotic relativism once we realize that men differ
radically in what they “intuit” as being good or evil.
In many ways the existential philosophy ofJean-
Paul Sartre is quite incompatible with ancient
Platonism. Both Sartre and Plato, however, sought
to free ethics from the dictates of dogmatic religion.
Sartre’s starting point was the non-existence of God,
from which he inferred that there exist no fixed
values whatsoever. Man is totally free to determine
for himself what will constitute good and evil. There
is no essential idea of goodness which precedes his
decisions and stands in judgment ot’er them. WhatAUTONOMY
AND ANTINOMIANISM 297
ever values come into one’s life must be freely chosen
and defined by him on his own. Unlike Platonism,
then, existentialism makes ethics very relevant; far
from being unattainable, the standard of right and
wrong is immediately accessible to the indi’idual,
being completely under his voluntary control ! He
can readily know what to do in particular ethical
situations, for he himself decides what is right and
wrong in each case. Of course this ethical relevance
is purchased at the extremely high price of forfeiting
an absolute authority in ethics. For Sartre every
choice made by man is absurd, but every choice
(providing it “was genuinely a free choice) is
justifiable. There are not good and bad choices, only
choices. What is chosen as right by one individual in
a speciiic situation does not govern what should be
seen as right by another individual in a similar situation.
Everyone “does what is right in his own eyes ,“
and consequently there is no universal, binding
standard of conduct which can guide and correct our
living.
Plato had ethical absolutes without relevant applications.
Sartre had relevant applications without
an ethical absolute. Both problems – ultimately
destructive of ethics in their own ways – stemmed
from a rejection of God’s i-evelation of His divine law
for huinan behavior. By contrast, the Christian ethic
has absolute authority, “being based on the revelation
of the Lord’s will. It also has relevance, for what the
all-knowing and all-controlling God says pertains
quite specifically to our day-to-day lives and problems;
God has clearly revealed unchanging stand298
BY THJS STANDARD
ards for even the most specific aspects of living. Autonomous
reasoning may” reject our endorsement of the
law of God for ethics, but autonomous ethics has nothing
finally to offer in its place. Autonomy spells the
death of an absolute and relevant ethical standard.
Varieties of Antinomianism
The opponents of God’s law in Christian ethics
are not restricted to the world of unbelieving
thought, and so we must continue our survey of antagonism
to the perspective advanced in these
studies. Many believing Christians would likewise reject
the idea that the law of God is now norrnatie for
ethics. They would in one way or another, to one
degree or another, and for one reason or another,
repudiate the binding authority of the revealed commandments
of God. Those who do this are generaIly
known as cantinomians” because they are against
(“anti-”) the law (“nomos”), although we must
carefully recognize that a wide variety of different attitudes
(not all sharing the same problems) fall under
this label. We need to draw distinctions.
Licentious antinomianism – the most serious form
of antinomianism — maintains that since we have
been saved by grace, apart from works of the law, we
have been set free from the need to obsene aq)
moral code whatsoever. Laws or rules ha’e no place
in the Christian life, and thus in principle the door is
open to complete license in the way a believer lives.
Such thinking hardly squares with New Testament
teaching. Paul not only insisted that salvation was
not @ works, he also went on to say salvation is for
AUTONOMY AND ANTINOMLANISM 299
the sake of doing good works (Eph. 2 :8-10). He recognized
that God’s grace instructs us to live righteous@
in this world (Titus 2:11-12). John pointedly said,
“sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4).
Spirzlwd antinomianism would admit that the
Christian needs guidance for the holy- living expected
by God, but it would deny that such guidance
comes from a written (or verbally defined) code.
Ethical direction is rather found in the internal
promptings of the Holy Spirit. Thus this position is
against insisting upon the normativity of God’s re-
\’ealed law, finding such insistence a stifling of the
spontaneous work of the Spirit within us. Quite expectedly,
such thinking leads quickly to subjectioijm
in Christian ethics, with each man doing whatever
he claims ‘the Spirit” has prompted him to do –
despite the fact that it conflicts vith what the Spirit
has prompted others to do and (worse) vith what the
Spirit has re-ealed once-for-all in the Scriptures.
The Bible teaches us that the Spirit works through
the word, not speaking or directing from Himself
(John 16:13-15). The Spirit works to fulfill the law in
us (Rem. 8:4-9). The abiding of the Spirit in
believers brings obedience to God’s rommandmenfi (1
John 3:24).
Dispensational antinomianisrn \vould freely grant
that God has revealed standards for living (contra~
to licentious antinomianism), and revealed them in
written form to be kept (contra~ to spiritual antinomianism).
Howe\er, it would be against the Old
Testament law of God as the present-day norm of
Christian conduct. This form of antinomianisrn is
300 BY THIS STANDARD
called “dispensational” because it stands opposed to
the law of the previous dispensation (the Old Covenant
law of Moses); today, we are told, Christians
should govern their lives by the commandments of
the new dispensation (the New Covenant).
Such a perspective suggests some rather unacceptable
theological implications: for instance, that
God’s holy character is not reflected in the law, or
that His character has changed (so that the law has
changed). Moreover, this perspective surely does not
comport with the widespread practice of the New
Testament writers who rely unapologetically upon
the presumed authority of Old Testament commandments.
Then again, we have the explicit endorsement
of the Old Testament law in statements
like Matthew 5:19, “whoever breaks the least of these
commandments and teaches men so shall be called
least in the kingdom of heaven,” or in 2 Timothy
3:16-17, James 2:10, etc.
One wonders also about ethical norms of the Old
Testament which the New Testament had no occasion
to repeat: are they no longer definitive for good and
evil (say, the prohibition of bestiality)? However, the
most obvious dificulty with dispensational antinomianism
is that it does not do justice to the very
wording of the New Covenant which it seeks to exalt.
According to Gods word, the New Covenant
would mean, not the replacing of God’s law or its
abrogation, but rather its Spiritual empowering
within us. This is the New Covenant: “I will put my
law in their inward parts” (Jer. 31: 33) – not a new law,
but “my law,” the well-known law revealed and known
AUTONOUY AND ANTRJOM IANI.SM 3ol
through Moses and the other Old Testament writers.
Fi&lly, we can mention latent antinomianism as
an incipient brand of opposition to God’s law. Latent
antinomians are not explicitly antagonistic to the
law; instead they would broad~ endorse the Old
Testament commandments. But at this point they
would take a smorgasbord approach to the collection
of laws found in the Old Testament, accepting some
and rejecting others as binding today on some other
basis t?tan specz$c reuealed teaching. The latent antinomian
is opposed to sorru laws in the Old Testament,
and he has no Biblical warrant to offer for his rejection
of them. This is not an outright rejection of
the category of law, nor of written law, nor of Old
Testament law. It is only incipiently antinomian
because at heart it opposes the binding authority of
certain Old Testament commandments on non-
Biblical grounds; if the principle of this practice were
carried out consistently and self-consciously, it would
amount to genuine antinomianism.
Latent antinomians usually want the Old Testament
law, but not certain catqories of it (e. g., civil) or
not its full detui.ls (e. g., case laws or penal sanctions).
If those who felt this way could offer some attempted
Biblical justification for setting these portions of the
law aside, then they might be theologicaNy
mistaken, but they would not be latently antinomian.
It is the failure to let God’s wod govern
which laws we take as binding and which laws >ve see
as set aside that makes this position latently antinomian.
Jesus said that man must live by every
word that proceeds from God’s mouth (Matt. 4:4).
302 BY THS STANDARD
We cannot subtract from God’s law, then, without
His authorization (Deut. 4:2).
Over against the unbelieving attitude of autonomy,
these studies have promoted theonomy (God’s
law). Instead of being antinomian (in either licentious,
Spiritual, dispensational, or latent ways), they
have taken a pronomian stand. In ethics we pTesunM
that Go&s law from the Old Testament remaks normative
for conduct until the Lawgiver reveals otherwise.
Self-law and opposition to God’s law are both
incompatible with genuine ethical theory and practice.
29
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE
LAWS GENERAL VALIDITY
“To insist that we are New Covenant believers
or that the Mosaic commandments must come
to us through Christ is not to subtract anything
from our obligation to the Old Testament law.”
These studies have found extensi’e Biblical
evidence for the position that God’s law is fully binding
for modern ethics (unless alterations have been
revealed). We have seen that one must preswm continuity
of moral standards with the Old Testament,
and this presumption holds for socio-pohtica[ portions
of the law as much as with personal portions of the
law. Only God’s word has sufficient authority to alter
our obligation to previously revealed commandments
from God.
Some Christian teachers or writers would contend.
however. that the Iaw of God does not have a
gewwzf ualidi~ in the age of the New Testament. They
~ BY THIS STANDARD
would attempt to marshal] arguments against the
conclusions to which we have been driven by our
study of Scripture. In all fairness we need to survey
some of the main reasons which people offer for saying
that the law of God is not generally valid in the
New Covenant dispensation, asking whetha such
considerations genuinely disprove what we have said
herein.
Matthew 5:17-19
A “passage of Scripture which clearly seems to
teach the presumption of moral continuity today
with the Old Testament commandments is Matthew
5:17-19. Yet some write as though this passage says
nothing of the sort. They argue, for instance, that
verse 17 deals not with Christ’s attitude toward the
Old Testament law, but rather with Christ’s life as the
prophetic realization of everything in the Old Testament
canon.
It is true, of course, that the scope of Christ’s declaration
here is the entire Old Testament (%he Law
and the Prophets”). However, there is absolutely
nothing in the context of the verse or its wording
which touches on the life of Christ (in distinction
fi-om His teaching) or on prophecy-typology. The
focus of attention is obviously the moral stanakh by
which Christ would have us live, and in particular
the question of the Old Testament commandments is
taken up. Verse 16 speaks of our “good works .“ Verse
17 twice denies that Christ abrogates the Old Testament
revelation — in which case any interpretation
which makes “fuliill” imply the abrogation of the law
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE LAWS GENERAL VAUDITY 305
simultaneously renders the verse self-contradictory.
Verse 18 speaks more specifically of “the law,” and
in \’erse 19 Jesus referred back to the object of His remarks
in ~erses 17-18 as “these commandments .“
Verses 20 and following speak to the question of
righteousness and how the Pharisees have distorted
the requirements of God’s -commandments. It is
quite evident that we find in this passage a direct
statement by Jesus on the validity of the law, and
w-hat He said was that not the least commandment —
not the smallest stroke of the law — had been
abrogated or would pass away until the end of the
spatio-temporal world.
It might be suggested that the word %ut” in Matthew
5:17 need not bespeak direct contrast between
“abrogate” and “fulfill.” However, Greek has two adversatives,
and it is the stronger of the two which appears
here. Jesus does not speak merely of general
contrast, but of direct antithesis between abrogating
and fulfilling. It might then be suggested that the negation
(the “not”) in verse 17 need not be one of absolute
character, for elsewhere we read phrases in the
New Testament which have the same form (“not this,
but that”) and the obvious sense is one of rehtizle negation
(i. e., “not so much this as that”). Howe\’er, in
such cases we have something of a paradoxical introductory
formula, where something is affirmed
and then denied, only then to have the contradiction
resolved by the relative negation (for example,
‘Whoever receies me does not recez”ve me, but [even
more] the One who sent me ,“ Mark 9:37). This is
not what we find in Matthew 5:17.
306 BY nils STANDARV
Instead of something being affirmed and then denied,
we have something denied twue in a row: “Think
not that I came to abrogate the Law or the Prophets;
I came not to abrogate.” This is not a paradoxical introduction
but a downright emphatic denial of something!
Matthew 5:17, along with the vast majority of
instances of “not this, but that” statements in Matthew’s
gospel, expresses strong contrast or antithesis,
not relative negation.
Others who oppose the general validity of the law
in the New Testament might hope to come to terms
with Matthew 5:17-19 by arguing that the subordinate
clause “until all comes to pa# in verse 18
limits the validity of the law to the obedient ministry
of Jesus Christ on earth. To do so, they have to read
a great deal into a very colorless phrase with little
distinctive character; the phrase in Greek says litt~
more than “until everything happens .“ The structure
of the verse seems to make this phrase parallel to one
which went before, one which specifically stated “until
heaven and earth pass away.” The interpretation
before us, then, would mdce the verse selfcontradictory
by saying that the law was both valid
until the end of the world and valid until Jesus had
kept it all (in which case it is now both set-aside and
not set aside). Besides, this interpretation takes “all”
in the phrase “until all things happen” as referring to
all of the “jots and tittles” of the law mentioned in
veme 18. But this is grarnmaticaly incorrect, seeing
that “W and “jot and tittle” do not agree in gender or
number according to the Greek text.
There appears to be no escape from the thrust of
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE LAWS ERAL VALIDITY 307
Matthew 5:17-19. We must presume a general validity
for the Old Testament law today. Even if someone
wants to point out (quite correctly) that the teaching
here must be qualified by New Testament revelation
elsewhere, our point would remain. Our presumption
is that the Old Testament law is binding until the
New Testament teaches us otherwise. If a commandment
is not altered or set aside by the New Testament,
we must assume an obligation to keep it.
Alleged Dismissals of the Law
in the New Testament
Although it overlooks the extensive positive evidence
which has been presented in this introductory
book and in my more comprehensive treatment,
T/wonomy in Christian Ethics (2nd edition, 1984), one
procedure for arguing against the general validity of
the law is to point to isolated New Testament
passages which appear to dismiss the Old Testament
law for today. The treatment giren such verses
elsewhere in this book demonstrate that such
passages do not in fact contradict the general validity
of the law; at least they can be understood legitimately
in a non-contradictory fashion. Those who
insist on reading them in another way — so that they
conflict with clear endorsements of the law’s validity
in the New Testament — create a theological tension
where one need not exist.
Acti 15
A few New Testament passages seem to appear
quite often in the polemics of those who oppose the
308 BY TIiis STANDARD
law’s general validity today. Acts 15 is commonly
cited, as though the Apostolic Council’s decree were
intended to delineate precisely those laws and m~
those laws which remained valid from the Old Testament.
But such a view is incredible. According to it,
since the Council did not forbid blasphemy and
stealing, such behavior would be condoned today —
the prohibition of these things not carrying over into
the New Testament !
1 Con’nthians 9:20-21
In 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 Paul says that he was
“not under the law” and could behave as one “without
law.” However, these remarks come in the context
of saying that he beha’ed one way among the
Jews and behaved another way among the Gentiles.
The difference here was surely not one which pertained
to moral rnattem (as though Paul was a thief
among some people, but not a thief among others!),
but it had to be a difference pertaining to laws which
separated Jews and Gentiles. Thus, Paul would be
speaking here of the cerenr.omhl laws which created a
middle wall of partition (cf. Eph. 2:13-16).
Lrr order to minister to all men, Paul obsen’ed such
laws among the Jews, but disregarded them among the
Gentiles. All the while, he declares, he was “not without
law to God, but under law to Christ.” Obviously,
then, Paul is not dismissing the law of God. He kept
the law unuk t/u autiori~ of Christ, and Christ Himself
— we know from elsewhere (for example. Matt.
5:17-19) – taught that every least commandment of
the Old Testament was binding today.
AmUMENTS AtilNST THE IAW’S GENERAL VAUDITV 309
Gaklthns 3-4
In Galatians 3 -4, Paul speaks of an historical
epoch wherein the law served as a prison-master and
as a tutor until the object of faith (Jesus Christ) came
and made believers mature sons who no longer need
such a tutor. Some people have seized such metaphors
and statements and jumped to the hasty conclusion
that the entire law of God– which Paul
called “holy, righteous, and good” in Romans 7:12 —
is nothing but “weak and beggarly rudiments” (Gal.
4:9) which have now passed away. However, a better
reading of Galatians will pay attention to the historz’-
cal context: Galatians is a polemic against the Judaizers
who insisted on the keeping of the ceremonial law
as a way ofjusttjfcation (cf. Acts 15:1, 5; Gal. 5 :1-6).
The portion of the Old Testament law which
Paul speaks of in Galatians 3:23-4:10 was a “tutor
unto Christ” which taught that “we should be
justified by faith” (v. 24). The morai law (for example,
“l-ou shall not steal”) does not see this function; it
shows us God’s righteous dema7ui, but it does not indicate
the way of gracious salvation for those who
violate the demand. On the other hand, the
ceremonial law was indeed an instructor in salvation
by grace, typifying the redemptive work of Christ.
No\v that the object of faith has come, however, we
are no longer under this tutor (v. 25). We are mature
sons who enjoy the reality which was previously only
foreshadowed. When we were but children, we were
under “the rudiments” – “the weak and beggarly
rudiments ,“ (4:3, 9). Paul spoke in Colossians
2:16-23 of “rudiments” and “ordinances ,“ explaining
310 BY TNIS STANDARD
that they were but “a shadow of the things to come,
but the @dy is Christ’s” (cf. Heb 10:1).
Paul was speaking of the ceremonial law which
foreshadowed the work of the Redeemer, but which
was weak and impoverished in comparison to the reality
brought in by Christ. If this is not evident
enough from the historical context (Judaizing insistence
on circumcision), from the very vocabulary
chosen by Paul (“rudiments”), and from the fimction
assied to the specific law which Paul had in mind
(po&ting instrucively to Christ and to justification
by faith), it should be obvious from the example
which he immediately offered at the end of our
passage. In Galatians 4:10, Paul specifies what he
mean; by the illustration of observing the
ceremonial calendar. Galatians dismisses the
shadows of the ceremonial law, but it endorses the
continuing demand of the moral law of the Old
Testament, as we see in 5:13-14, 23b, where love and
the fruit of the Spirit are demanded in order to conform
to the law.
Hebrew 7:11-25
Another passage to which appeal is commonly
made by those who oppose the law’s general validity
today is Hebrews 7:11-25, for it speaks in verse 12 of
a necessa~ “change of the law-.” If we consult the
passage carefully, howe~er, it will be clear that the
change which is in mind here is a particular or
singular change pertaining to a requirement for the
priesthood. The priesthood has been changed from
the Levitical order to the order of Melchizedek (vv.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST TNE UWS GENSRAL VALIOITV 311
11-12), which obviously points to the fact that the
priest spoken of in Hebrews need not come from the
particular tribe of Levi, chosen in the Mosaic law to
serve the altar (VV. 13-14). Instead the great High
Priest, Jesus Christ, came in the likeness of Melchizedek
— “not according to the law of a fleshly requirement
[namely, Levitical family origin]” — so that
there has been “a setting aside of a foregoing commandment
,“ in order that the better hope promised
in Psalm 110:4 might be realized (VV. 15-21). This
singular change in the law is, first, one which pertains
to the ceremonial law, and thus it does not contradict
the general validity of the Old Testament law
as presented in this book. Second. this change is said
to be a anecessa” change, arising from its ceremonial
character and from the Scriptural teaching th?t the
final High Priest would come after the order of
Melchizedek. This kind of necessity does not prove
that any other lay of God has been changed unless it
too is ceremonial in nature and dictated by the word
of God Himself. Consequently. Hebrews 7 does not
stand in opposition to the presumption that the Old
Testament law is binding today until Gods \vord
teaches us otherwise.
Theological Considerations About
Revelation and the Covenant
If we turn now from arguments against the law’s
general validity which arise from consideration of
specific passages of Scripture, we come to a I’ariety
of theological considerations which are meant to
militate against the perspective which has been
312 BY THIS STANDARD
taken in these studies.
There are some who would betray misconceptions
of what our position is by saying that we need
to pay corrective attention to the >rogress of revelation”
pertaining to redemptive history. The difficulty
is that our position has been formulated by studying
what the New Testament says about the Old Testament
law, along with what the whole Bible reveals
about the character of ethical norms. Consequently,
\ve have been very mindful of progressive revelation
which has brought us to the conviction that Old
Testament commandments must be taken as binding
until changes are declared by the word of God itself.
Those who vaguely appeal to “progressive
revelation” as supposedly a sufficient recitation of
the position taken in these studies seem to have confused
progress of revelation about God’s law with
ethical euoiution of God’s standards themselves.
Another theological consideration which has been
advanced in the debate over the generaI validity of
God’s law is the observation that Jesus Christ is the
mediator of the New Covenant, the ape-x of God’s
revelatory work, and the Lord of our lives — in which
case we must listen to Him and pattern our lives after
His life if we are going to have a Christian ethic. Of
course, there is nothing we need to contradict in
such observations. Our obligation is indeed to the
word and example of Jesus Christ. The question that
remains, however, is whether Christ by His word
and example taught us to honor the authority of the
Old Testament commandments. Since He dzd, as
abundant evidence demonstrates, then the suggesARGUMENTS
AGAINST TNE IAWS GENU VAUDITV 313
tion that we should follow Jesus and not Moses is a
misleading and false antithesis. Since the New
Testament endorses the moral standards of the Old
Testament, we are not forced to choose between an
Old Testament ethic and a New Testament ethic. We
are to follow them both, for they constitute one
unified moral standard.
Is it true, as some claim, that since we live under
the New Covenant today we should formulate our
Christian ethic on the basis of the New Testament
Scriptures exclusively, seeing the standards of the
Old Covenant as obsolete? If we pay attention to the
very terms of the New C,ovenant, our answer must
be No. Jeremiah 31:33 stipulated tliat when God
made a New Co\renant He would write His lav on
the hearts of His people — not that He would
abrogate His law, replace His law, or give a nev law.
Consequently, to live in submission to the New’
Covenant is to rejoice in the law of the Old Covenant.
for it is written upon our hearts, out of which
are the issues of life.
Promises and Demands
Those who suggest that the establishment of the
New Covenant nullifies the general validity of the
Old Testament law appear to have confused the
sense in which the Old has become obsolete (Heb.
8:13) and the sense in which it continues the same
(Heb. 10:16). All of God’s covenants are unified.
They make the same moral demands and focus upon
the same promises. However, the promises call for
historical fulfillment – the change from anticipation
314 BY THIS STANDARD
to realization — in a way which the demands do not;
there is a difference in perspective between Old and
New Covenants regarding the promises of God,
while the moral standards of both are absolute and
unchanging. Thus the Old Covenant administration
(sacrifices, coenant signs, temple) can be set aside
for the New Covenant realities, even though the Old
Covenant moral law remains fundamentally the
same. Historical events are crucial regarding the
promises, whereas they are irrelevant to the
demands. Indeed, the need we had for Christ to
come and historically fulfill God’s redemptire promises
arises precisely because God’s just standards
cannot be set aside. Hebrews specifically teaches
that the New Co\renant is a “better covenant” because
it is enacted on %etter promises” (8:6) — not a
better lam Rather, the Old Covenant’s law is written
on the heart of the New Covenant believer (IT. 10).
Therefore, we live under the rea!izcd promises – the
fulfilled realities – of the New Covenant, not the Old
Testament shadows of redemption, and yet we live
under the sumt essential couenant as did the Old Testament
saints because all of God’s covenants are one.
They constitute “the covenants of the promise” (Eph.
2:12), progressive outworkings of the one promise of
salvation. W’ithin these Old Covenant administrations,
the law was not against the promises of God
(Gal. 3:21). This very same law is written on the
heart in the New Covenant’s fulfillment of the promise
(cf. Heb. 8:6-12).
Therefore, the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord of
the New Covenant and that His example is the
ARGUMENTS ACWNST THE LAW’S GSNERAL VAUDITV 315
model foi- Christian ethics, and the fact that the New
Covenant is the administration of God’s single
promise under which we now are privileged to live,
do not imply in any logical or Biblical way that the
moral standards of the Old Testament have been
laid aside as invalid today. To insist that we are .N2u
Covenant belierers or that the Mosaic commandments
must come to us iroug/z Christ is not to subtract
anything from our obligation to the Old Testament
law, as interpreted and qualified by the advanced
revelation of the New Testament.
Remarks Relevant to the Law’s Categories
Finally, we can survey a few’ popular arawments
against the general validity of the Old Testament
law, all of lvhich relate to the categories commonly
recognized by theologians (namely, moral Ia}v,
judicial law, ceremonial law).
First, there is the argument that the Bible neer
speaks of such categories, in which case the Ia\v must
be viewed as an indivisible whole. If the law has
been laid aside in an} sense, then accordingly the
ztlhole law has been laid aside, it is thought. Such
thinking is simplistic and fallacious.
To begin with, the Bible can often be correctly
summarized in ways which are not actually spoken of
in the Bible itself (for example, the doctrine of “the
Trinity”), and so the convenient categorization of the
law is not unacceptable in ad’ante. It all depends on
whether the categories and their implications are
true to Scriptural teaching. Secondly, there i~ a sense
in which the law stands together as a unit; indeed,
316 BY THiS STANDARO
the Bible does not carefully classify laws for us according
to some explicit scheme. We should bear this
fact in mind if our ,temptation is a ptiori to ignore a
whole segment of the Old Testament law as nullified
in virtue of our own classification schemes; commandments
cannot be easily pigeonholed for dismissal.
Thirdly, Biblical teaching does, nevertheless, demand
our recognition of a fimdamental difference
between moral laws and cubic-symbolic-redemptive
laws. God implied that category differentiation when
He declared “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Hos.
6:6); the differentiation is also clear from the New
Testament’s different handling of Old Testament
commands — some are reinforced as our duty, while
others are laid aside as outmoded shadows.
Some laws in the Old Testament had a redemptive
purpose, looking forward to the work of the Savior
(for example, the sacrificial and priestly codes), but
it would be erroneous to assert that all laws (for example,
“You shall not steal”) had that character or
aim. Thus, we should not repudiate the notion that
there is a ceremonial division within the law (perhaps
better called “restorative laws”). Moreover, the
ceremonial laws, which in their veq nature or purpose
imposed a separation between Jews and Gentiles,
were designated by Paul ‘the law of commandments
contained in ordinances” (Eph. 2:15: cf. Col.
2:14,17 for “ordinances”). He recognized a system of
laws “in ordinances” (a special category of commandment)
which had been abolished by Christ’s redemptive
works.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST TNE LAWS GENERAL VAUDIN 317
The Case Laws
Another category-related argument against the
general validity of the Old Testament law today
maintains that the applications and illustrations of
the Decalogue which we find in the case laws (or “judicial
laws”) of the Old Testament are not perpetually
binding. Some people say this and mean no
more than the obvious truth that the cultural examples
and applications of God’s standards will be
different between ancient Israel and modern America.
However, others seem to be claiming something
fi-n-ther: namely, that the principles revealed illustratively
in the case laws of the Old Testament must be
flexibly reapplied today in a new way – in a way
which is personal or geared to the new church-form
of God’s kingdom, and that their current application
must be restricted to these domains alone.
This latter view is erroneous. Consider the following
example. Keeping the skth commandment
(“you shall not kill”) once meant, among other
things, not being careless where human life could be
endangered (for example, chopping with an ax that
had a loose head). To say that this defining specification
of the sixth commandment means is no longer
applicable — that is, to say that carelessness when life
is endangered is now morally acceptable (for example,
one may legitimately drive with poor brakes) –
is in fact to alter the very meaning and requirement
of the sixth commandment. It is to tamper with what
God intends by His commandments. If we change
God’s case-law explanations and applications (the
principles they illustrate or teach), then we will have
318 BY THIS STANOARU
to answer for tampering with the intended meaning
of His word. To say that the sixth commandment is
perpetually binding, but not the related judicial or
case laws, is to render “You shall not kill” an arbitrary
label which covered one kind of conduct in the
Old Testament but is pasted over a dt@rent kind of
conduct in the New. -
Since the case law’s principles dejine the
Decalogue, the case law’s principles (in their full
scope: personal and social, ecclesiastical and civil)
are as Perpetual as the Decalogue itself. Thus, the
New Testament practice which we have previously
observed is to cite the case laws of the Old Testament
as readily as — and right along with — the ten commandments
(for example, Christ’s list of moral
duties rehearsed for the rich young ruler in Mark
10:19 includes “Yoq shall not defraud” “right along
with the Decalogue).
Conclusion
We have examined specific New Testament texts
and have reflected upon various theological themes,
but in none of them have we yet to find any convincing
evidence which runs counter to the perspective
formulated in this book. There maybe isolated Bible
verses that, when read out of literary theological
context, give a passing impression that “the lati no
longer binds our behavior. Upon closer look, however,
not a single New Testament text says that the
standards of conduct taught in the Old Testament law
are now immoral, outdated, or incorrect in the way
they define godliness. We know that the law is
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE IAW’S GENERAL VALIDITY 319
good: said Paul (1 Tim. 1:8).
In a similar fashion, there may be certain concepts
or theological considerations that initially suggest
a passing away of “the law’” of the Old Covenant.
When correctly understood and Biblically
analyzed, however, none of these theological themes
logically implies the repeal of the moral standards of
the Old Covenant. If they did, we could have no
principled objection to situationisrn or cultural relativism,
We would forfeit the objective, absolute, universal
authority of Biblical morality. Paul’s presupposition
was clear: “Now we know’ that \vhatsoe\er
things the law says, it speaks to them who are under
the Ia\v in order that ezIcy mouth may be stopped and
all the world may be brought under the judgment of
God’ (Rorn. 3:19).
Cogent arguments against the goodness and universal
validity of the moral standards taught in the
Old Testament law have simply not been found.
Critics have failed to offer us a non-arbitrar, Scripturally
grounded. unambiguous prmcip[c by which
they may aitogdh disregard the Old Testament’s
definition of good and bad behavior or attitudes – or
(even tougher) by which they can distinguish bet~
veen ~alid and invalid portzon~ of the Old Testament
moral instruction. The general validity of God’s la}v
for our day, apart from particular Biblically-based
qualifications on it, cannot successfully be evaded.
30
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE
LAWS POLITICAL USE
“ ‘Theonomists’ preach and promote biblical
law’s authority and wisdom, praying that citizens
will be persuaded willingly to adopt God’s
standards as the law of the land.”
Even when they grant that the law of God has a
general validity in the New Testament age, some
Christians nevertheless believe that it is wrong to
maintain that this validity and use of the law extend
to the political realm. They say: “The law of God
may be generally binding in personal, ecclesiastical,
and interpersonal social affairs, but it should not be
the standard for political justice and practice in the
modern world .“ Since this attitude conflicts directly
with the conclusions to which we have been brought
by our study of Biblical teaching regarding the law,
we need to listen to the reasons which are offered for
a negative attitude toward the political use of God’s
ARGUMENTS AGAINST TNE uWS POLITICAL USE 321
law today. Are they of sufficient weight to overthrow
our understanding of the Biblical requirements? It
would not seem so.
Arguments Pertaining to God’s Law and the State
1. Direction[ess Rewiation
Some would have us believe that Gods New Covenant
revelation has no direction for political morality,
for (it is thought) social reform in an unbelieving
society is not a proper task for the Christian. This
truncated view of Christianity, however, is what
stands opposed to New Covenant re’elation. Christ is
now “King of kings,” and in the future He will judge
all magistrates for their rule. Christians are to be
“holy in all manner of life,” even in their relation to
the powers that be. The Church has been conwnissioned
to teach the nations whatsoever Christ has
commanded, and that includes His words pertaining
to socio-political morality and the validity of the Old
Testament lav. Christianity is to be salt that influences
the earth and light which is not put under a basket.
Indeed, Christianity is a complete world-and-lifeview,
not simply a narrowlv “religious” message about
the afterlife. God is no~ the God merely of the
churches. He is the living God over all creation. So
what standard for political morality should God’s people
adopt today, if not God’s reealed lam? Does not
their political opposition to “the man of lavlessnessn
tell us where they find their guidance by contrast?
2. The Uniqueness of Cowwant Israel
Some have argued that it is mistaken to see the
322 BY lHIs STAMARD
civil aspects of the Old Testament law as binding on
modem states because such a view overlooks the
context of the Old Testament law as given only to
Israel as a redeemed nation placed in national covenant
with God. Since modern nations are not in the
same place or situation as Old Testament Israel (i. e.,
not being redeemed for a national covenant with the
Lord), it is thought that “imposing” God’s civil law
on those who do not participate in redemptive covenant
with God — on those who have not been converted
or joined the church — would be to overlook
the only proper context for such a law.
In reply, we need to remind those who voice this
criticism that we are not advocating the forcible “imposition”
of God’s law on an unwilling society.
“Theonomists” preach and promote biblical law’s authority
and wisdom, praying that citizens will be@-
suadkd willingly to adopt God’s standards as the law
of the land. As secularists campaign and debate to
see their convictions influence civil law, so Christians
should work to have God’s word influence civil law instead.
We do not advocate any modern ‘%oly wti or
use of force to compel submission to God’s standards.
Not everything about ancient Israel is to be made
part of our modern political experience, as the above
indicates. We are concerned simply with the standing
laws Of civd justice. “Holy war” during Israel’s conquering
of the promised land was by Gods direct
and specific command, for a set time and place, concem~
g particul~ abominable cultures of that day;
it was not standing civil policy for all men’ (any more
than was the specific order for Samuel to anoint
ARGUMENTS AGAINST TNE LAW’S POLITICAL USE 323
David king of Israel at a set time and place). The
laws that God revealed in the Old Testament concerning
general types of situations (for example,
murder, rape, perjury) had a standing or policy
character, over against special imperatives for particular
occasions. Accordingly, ancient Israel experienced
from time to time a variety of different kinds
of political administration: tribal heads, city elders,
liberator-judges, the monarchy, ruling council, etc.
From this we see that God has not prescribed a particular
administrative form for political government.
We are not obligated today to abolish the three
branches of civil g&ernment”in the United States, or
the British Parliament, or the monarchy of Jordan,
etc. What is proposed here is that all civil governments,
whatever their structure, should be encouraged
to submit to and apply the standing laws of Old
Testament Israel.
Still, some would criticize @is proposal, claiming
that even the standing laws pertaining to civil go\’-
ernment were uniquely for Israel as a nation redeemed
by God and in national covenant with Him.
What such arguments imply is that modern political
policy for “secular” nations ought not to be learned
from the principles of the Mosaic law for “covenanted”
Israel.
So then, does God’s word teach that the Old Testament
civil law was rti?trict.ed in validity to Israel as a
nation in redemptive covenant with God? Previous
chapters have clearly shown that it does not. God
judged nations outside of Israel for transgressing the
standards of His law, and in His revelation to Israel
324 BY THIS STANDARD
He encouraged the spreading of the law to the Gentile
nations. In the New Testament, Christ endorsed
tuery jot and tittle of the law of God (unless qualified
by- Sripture elsewhere): and Apostolic writers acknowledged
the law of God as the standard for polit ical
ethics — even in the day of pagan Roman emperors.
The redemptive history and national covenant enjoyed
by Israel certainly set the Old Testament Jews
apart from modern nations as significantly unique.
But this does not mean that Israel was in evqy respect
different from her neighbors or from nations today.
Paul teaches in Roma& 1 and 2 that the same moral
standards revealed to Israel through “the oracles of
God” were more generally reve-ded to all men
through general or natural revelation. Israel did not
have a unique moral code, as though God operated
with a double standard for Israel and the Gentiles.
Moreover, Israel was not completely different
from modern nations or her Gentile neighbors, for
like these others, Israel faced historical (pre-consum -
mation) problems of crime, social justice, and punishment.
The law of the Lord directed Israel as to
the requirements of divine justice in such situations,
and that law ought to be the standard of justice for
crime and punishment everywhere else as well (even
in nations that did not or do not have a corpo-rate,
redemptive covenant with God) — for social justice in
God’s eyes is not racially variable or different from
nation to nation. Justice is absohd. If the civil aspects
of God’s law were meant only for Israel, as the critic
says, then he should be asked to explain the New
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE LAWS POLITICAL USE 325
Testament’s apparent practice of taking the standards
of political ethics from God’s law — and asked
what the New Testament standard for political justice
is, if not God’s commandments. Those who restrict
the validity of the Old Testament law to Israel
may not realize it, but their philosophic outlook is
that of “cultural relativism,” where what counts as
justice is adjusted from culture to culture.
Those who press the argument that modern
states are not bound to the civil aspects of God’s law
since it was given in a national and redemptive covenant
with Israel, will find that they cannot long
maintain with consistency any of the Old Testament
commandments today. Not only were the civil
aspects of the law revealed in the same context of a
national covenant, so also were the personal and interpersomd
aspects of the law. If the passing away of
the national covenant means the invalidation of
those moral standards revealed within it, then we
would lose even the ten commandments! If the judicial
laws of the Old Testament are thought to ha~e
expired when God’s purposes for the Jewish nation
were complete — that is, if only the “national” aspects
of the national covenant ha’e passed away — then we
would be overlooking the @stice of those laws and
their full purpose, which included of being a model to
other nations (Deut. 4:6-8). Besides, God?s word never
draws such a distinction between the “personal”
aspects of the law and the “political” aspects, as
though the one were any more or less a reflection of
God’s unchanging holiness than the other. Who are
we to draw such a distinction on our own, with the aim
326 BY THIS STANDAm
of evading or laying aside a portion of those duties
revealed by God? To read this into the text (rather
than taking itfionz the text) is to lord it over the word
of the Lord!
3. Israeh ‘Heightaed Puri@’
The direction God gave to Jewish society was not
a “heightened” standard of purity and did not embody
a ‘unique severity” – it was not an ‘intrusion”
of the standards of Final ,Judgment into the course of
ordinary history. Heightened and unique standards
would hardly be a model of justice and could not
fairly be applied to other nations, and yet the Old
Testament presents God’s law as such a model and
applied its standards to other nations. Moreover, if
the civil law of the Old Testament really were a reflection
of the standards of the Final Judgment, then
all sins would have been crimes and ail would have
been punishable by death, neither of which was true.
Even-if the penal sanctions of God’s law are topological
foreshadows of Final .Judgment in some sense,
they are not rrwre~ such foreshadows; they are ako
God’s direction for justice in matters of crime and
punishment Przor to the Final Judgment. To hold
that laws with a symbolic or topological aspect to
them have been invalidated today would be to surrender
the validity of more than certain civil commandments
of the Old Testament. It would be to invalidate
even the laws pertaining, for instance, to
marriage and sexual purity, for they symbolize the
relation of God to His people!
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE MW’S POLITICAL USE 327
4. Multiple Morai Standards
Some who criticize the perspective taken in this
book say that magistrates (past or present) who are
outside of Israel’s “theocracy” should rule according
to the moral standards of general revelation, not
those of God’s law. The faulty assumption here, of
course, is that God has two moral standards, one revealed
through nature and conscience and a different
one revealed in the Bible. The Biblical perspective
is that the law ret’ealed to the Jews in spoken
form has been revealed in unspoken form to the
Gentiles, and the MO moral codes are co-extensive.
Paul did not somehow restrict natural revelation to
the Decalogue (see, for example. Rem. 1:32), even ~
we could see how the ten commandments might be
understood apart from their explanations and applications
in the case laws.
5. Ignoring the Elidmce
Others who have disagreed with the perspective
ad~anced herein have wanted to mitigate the force of
subordinate aspects or observations in the arguments
put forward (for example, disagreeing with
the claim that Old Testament Jewish and Gentile
rulers had religious titles). Even if we left such details
undefended, however, the main lines of argumentation
in favor of the position taken on the political
use of God’s law would be unaffected by these
minor criticisms. Thus such details need not be defended
here, for they are not crucial to the case
made.
Others who have disagreed with the case made in
328 BY TtiiS STANDARD
this book have complained that it is made ‘%y inferences”
from Scripture — apparently, instead of by direct
and explicit statement of the political validity of
God’s law. But since the same misguided complaint
could be made about major doctrines of the faith (for
example, the Trinity, the hypostatic union), it is
hardly a telling point against our position here on
political ethics.
Another argument has been that if we temporarily
set aside the major New Testament evidence that is
enlisted in support of the perspective taken in these
studies, and if we then read the New Testament
without that evidence present, then we would not get
the impression that God’s law, in its political aspects,
is valid today. It is thought that the purported evidence
in favor of our position has been mistakenly
interpreted in a way that does not harmonize with
the rest of the New Testament.
This line of criticism shows how desperate some
can become in trying to refute the thesis that the
political use of God’s law is valid today. In the first
place, if we subtract the positive evidence for the
thesis, the rest of the New Testament is not contray to
the thesis; it is simply silent on the subject. In the second
place, it is hardly a legitimate complaint
against a position that it has no support when its
main lines of support are put to the side! A lawyer
who argued for his client by merely asking the jury
to ignore the evidence presented by the prosecutor
would not long retain his job. Until definite negative
evidence against the thesis can be adduced from-the
New Testament we should acknowledge that ScripARGUMENTS
AGAINST THE LAWS POLITICAL USE 329
ture teaches the political use of God’s law. Such
negative evidence has yet to be produced by any
published critic of the perspective taken in these
studies. Appeals to the “New Testament emphasis” or
to “the impression made by the New Testament” are
simply too vague and subjective to have-any critical
weight in theological decisions.
Arguments Centering on Church-State Relations
1. A2w I’7stament Dij%rencm
Those who disagree with the political use of
Gods law sometimes argue that because the relation
of church to state is different today from what it was
in the Old Testament, the laws governing society
must likewise be different. It is hard to see what rationale
one could have for such a line of thought,
however. Since the equity, validity, and authority of
Old Testament civil laws were not somehov made dependent
upon some spec& ?e[ation of church to state
(that is, Moses never conditioned the obligation of
civil magistrates upon a special church-state interaction),
whatever changes in that relationship ha’e
been introduced in the New Testament would be
ethically irrelevant to the justice of the civil code
which magistrates were required to enforce. There is
not one kind of justice for a rapist when the churchs
relation to the state is .X, and another kind of justice
for a rapist when the churchs relation to the state is
Y. Rape is rape, and justice is justice – regardless of
the intimacy of church with state or the lack thereof.
Old Testament magistrates – not priests, let us be
reminded — juciged and punished rapists (and other
criminal offenders), even as New Testament magistrates
must also deal with the criminal problem of
rape. The extraneous relation of these magistrates to
priests (or to the church) is not pertinent to their
relation to the criminal, nor does it tiect what
justice demands in the case of crime; the churchstate
question is really to the side.
The common claim that the religious and the
civil aspects of community life were fused in Old
Testament Israel simply will not square with a
reading of the Old Testament text, as previous
chapters have pointed out. This is not to say or
claim, as some critics have thought, that the churchstate
relation in the Old Testament is identical in
every respect with the church-state relation in the
New; such a premise is not indispensable to the position
taken herein. The position does stand opposed
to the inaccurate argumentation often heard, which
says that there was no separwn of church and state in
Israel. The Old Testament cult was clearly a
separate authority and function from the Old Testament
civil rule. (This observation, it must be explained
to some critics, does not imply that the Old
Testament cult is taken as wholly identical with the
New Testament church; there is a parallel or analogy
however, as Paul indicates in 1 Cor. 9:13 -14.) Kings
could not sacrifice, and priests could not execute, in
the Old, Testament situation; the state and the
church had separate functions and directions.
Nevertheless, some writers have believed that
there are significant (morally significant?)
differences between our situation today and the
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE IAWS POLITICAL USE ~
church-state situation in Old Testament Israel.
Israel was a priest~ nation then, whereas the
church — not America — has that status today. This is
correct: the religious mission of the corporate body
(the priestly fhnction of the community as a whole)
has now been assumed by a different kind of body,
the international community of faith, rather than a
particular nation. However, this says nothing about
the relation of church to state within the nation of
Israel, and it certainly does not belie the legitimate
separation between the two which we read of elsewhere
in the text.
2.. The “Theocra” Argument
It has been claimed that the Old Testament
church-state (the sense given to ‘theocracy”) has now
been replaced with an international church (minus
state) in the New. This flounders on the mistaken a.ssum@
on that the Old Testament was a church -statp. As explained
previously, priests and kings had separate
authorities, and the membership of the state was not
coextensive with the membership of the religious
body (for example, the sojourners in Israel).
3. The “Redemptive Communi}>’ Argunwnt
The claims that the Old Testament state was a
“redemptive” community and that the state existed
for a ‘religious purpose” are too ambiguous – being
obt’iously correct on some interpretations (for example,
that the state arose out of God’s redemption of
the people from Egypt and served the religious aim
of punishing social evil), yet irrelevant to the annul332
BY THIS STANDARD
ment of the civil aspects of the law of God. Such a
%edemptive state” viewpoint is obviously so mistaken
with respect to other interpretations (for example,
that the civil laws had a redemptive effect, or
that the state authorities were the cultic or religious
heads as well) – that it cannot be of any service as an
argument. Similarly, claims to ihe effect that the Old
Testament state punished “religious” crimes (for example,
blasphemy) overlook the “religious” character
of other crimes as well (for example, murder,
adultery). Such arguments are based on a false notion
of the secuar/sczred dichotomy which is promoted
by modern humanism, and they are therefore
unhelpful in theological argumentation.
What the opponents of Biblical law need to demonstrate
— but do not — is that “religious” crimes like
blasphemy are of no continuing relevance or importance
for social justice in the modern state. Is it contrary
to the church’s evangelistic mission for Christians
to promote the political use of God’s law, if this
means the state will punish blasphemers and open
idolaters? Such a conflict would be possible only if
we first assumed that God’s word could contradict itself
(teaching one thing regarding civil ethics and a
contradictory thing about evangelism). Promoting
the punishment of blasphemers is no more contrary
to evangelistic concern than is the promoting of
punishment of murderers. ,
Arguments Relevant to the Penal Sanctions
1. On~ fOT Israel
Against the political use of God’s law today some
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE LAWS POLITICAL USE 333
urge the consideration that the penal sanctions of the
law were given only to Israel. Since the Bible
teaches, however, that the whole law of God was the
moral obligation of nations existing outside of and
prior to Israel (for example, Sodom. the Canaanite
tribes), zdwre is the qualifying exception retealed
which says the @nal sanctions were excluded from this
obligation? It is not to be found. The argument before
us is read into the Bible, not takenfionz the Bible.
The Bible praised pagan rulers for enforcing the sanctions
of God’s law (for example, Ezra 7:25-27).
2. Israd as Church On~
Some critics claim that the Old Testament penalties
were revealed to Israel as th~ church, rather than
as the state, and that on~ the church today should
punish “religious” otienses. Scriptural support for
such reasoning is totally lacking, however. It was the
ma.gistras of Israel who enforced the requirements of
restitution and retribution, for those requirements
were revealed for them, not the priests, So it was not
Israel as the church, but rather Israel as a ciuz’1 stat,
which punished thieves, rapists, and blasphemers. If
oniy the “religious” crimes in the law are resemed
(allegedly) for the discipline of the church
today — leaving at least some offenders to be dealt
with by the state — then we will need a principled,
Biblically defined way of distinguishing “religious”
from “non-religious” crimes. Apart from that, the
argument before us is simply unworkable or arbitrary;
worse yet, it is without Scriptural warrant.
The premise that on@ the church is called upon to
334 BY llilS STANDARD
deal with “religious” offenses today (whatever they
might be) is one that will need Biblical backing,
given the New Testament endorsement of the law of
God in general, as well as the ‘New Testament doctrine
that magistrates should enforce the law of God
(for Whom they are a “minister: avenging wrath
against evildoers). Is blasphemy less heinous in
God’s eyes today, or less destructive of social justice,
or less relevant to the concerns of “God’s minister” in
the state? It is perfectly true, as some point out, that
the “evil” which Paul says the magistrate should punish
(Rem. 13:4) must be rtn-trz”cd, since not all sins
are crimes. But the reasonable thing seems to be to
restrict it according to the law of God, not to make it
more restrictive than the law of God! The basic problem
with most arguments against the position taken
in this book is that these arguments have no Biblica[
warrant and authority. God’s ople must then set
them aside as without force.
3. The “Seueripn of the hw
To say that the penal sanctions of the Old Testament
are “too severe” for a period of “common grace”
is to overlook at least two important points: (1) Israel
of old enjoyed God’s common grace (at least as
defined in Gen. 8:22), and was still required to enforce
His law, and (2) God’s political laws serve to
preseroe the outward order and justice of a ciilization
and thus are a sign of God’s “common grace” — rather
than detracting from common grace. If “common
grace” really conflic~ with God’s law, then the critic
will need to demonstrate that what he means by “comAffiUMENTS
A9AtNST THE LAWS POLITICAL USE 335
mon grace” is actually taught in Scripture and logically
implies the law’s abrogation. This has yet to be
done. The parable of the wheat and the tares (Matt.
13:24-30, 36-43) teaches that the generaI execution
of unrighteous unbelievers awaits the Final Judgment,
not that civil magistrates ought never to e;ecute
those individuals guilty of civil crimes (more
specific than general unbelief) — or else there would
be no penal sanction of death (even for murder), and
the specific purpose of the state (the power of the
“sword”) would vanish.
4. The Absence of Explicit Sanctions
It has been suggested – without due reflection –
that the Old Testament penal sanctions did not render
what crimes really and fully deserve punishment
(namely, -eternal damnation), and thus today it is acceptable
for magistrates to punish in a way less than
what justice of the law requires. But in the first place
the Old Testament law did give what every offense
justly deserved (Heb. 2:2) within the realm of cizil
justice. That is wh?r thieves were punished dijerent~
from rapists, even though both thieves and rapists
will suffer in Hell eternally. In the second place, if
the law of God prescribed less than what full justice
demands for criminals, how would that fact justify a
magistrae requiring emn less than what the law
prescribed? Such a magistrate would simply be
guilt y of a failure to do what God ordered him to do,
not even living up to the (allegedly) limited penal severity
of the law.
336 BY THIS STANDARD
5. Tb Argurmmt Jrom Silence
Three last arguments may be quickly mentioned,
all of which are guilty of notorious fallacies in
reasoning. First, there is the “argument from silence”
that the New Testament does not call for us to campaign
for the penal sanctions of the law, as in the
case of the incestuous fornicator (1 Cor. 5:1-5). Well,
there may not be a specific illustration available
(given the character of the society and magistrate in
those days), but the principles are inalxd taught — as we
have discussed in previous studies. Paul need not say
anything further about the magistrate’s duty regarding
incest, for instance, since the Old Testament and
natural revelation were already adequate. What he
needed to reveal was the disciplining procedures required
of the church – to whom, after all, the Corinthian
epistle was written (not the civil magistrate).
Given the Biblical doctrine of the law’s continuing
validity (Deut. 4:2; Matt. 5:17-19), we need more
than silence to nullify God’s commands.
6. The Argunwntfiom Abu.re
Second, there is the argument from abuse – the
argument that unsaved magistrates have abused
God’s law by trying to enforce it in the past, leading
to such horrors as the Inquisition. But of course God
never commanded these abuses in his law (for example,
He did not grant the magistrate the right to
judge heretics in the first place), and so this argument
is actual] y an argument in fauor of our thesis.
Since these abuses violate God’s law, God’s law
ought to be endorsed as valid in order authoritaARGUMENTS
AGAINST mE LAWS FOLITICAL USE 337
tively to condemn the abuses of personal freedom,
dignity, and life. If abuses of law by the magistrate
are corrected by removing any law to abuse, then
there will be no law for the magistrate to enforce except
his own, arbitrary will — which is the surest way
to achieve tyranny!
7. The Argurmmt from Tradition
Third, there is the argument from tradition, the
claim that the perspecti-e advanced in these chapters
has never been advanced by any of our respected
forefathers in theology. Such an argument is
theologically futile, however, if our obligation is to
believe what Scripture (only and completely Scripture)
teaches rather than our fallible traditions (cf.
Matt. 15:3-9). If one cannot show that Scripture does
rtot actually endorse the position advanced herein,
then he will have to choose between God’s word and
his theological tradition. Those who are submissive
to the Lord’s authority will know which one they
must choose. But beyond this we can briefly indicate
that there is abundant evidence that respected theologians
of the past have taught and promoted the
perspective taken herein toward the political use of
God’s law. In my other books on this subject one can
pursue indications from Bucer, Calvin, Bullinger,
Latimer, Cartwright, Perkins, Gillespie, Bolton.
Ames, Cotton, and many others who have recognized
the general authority of Gods law and the political
use of it today. It has been a mainstay of Reformed
politicaJ ethics for centuries.
338 BY mls STANDARtI
8. The La@ Resort
Since none of the common or published
arguments against the position which we have taken
herein succeeds in disproving the general validity of
God’s law or its political obligation today, the only
thing left for one to do, if he wants to continue to
resist the position, is to point to certain ‘horrid examples”
of what God’s law requires, appealing to our
emotion or autonomous reason that such things simply
cannot be accepted today into our morals. That
is, the critic resorts to ridiculing the moral orders revealed
by God to Israel. One is left with the choice
between following the wisdom and evaluations of
men who have no Biblical standard (and who actually
disagree with the Biblical norms) and following
wholeheartedly the dictates of God’s law. Shall our
feelings correct the Bible, or should the Bible correct
our feelings? Which will have supreme authority, the
thinking of sinfid men or the infallible word of the
Lord? “Let God be found true, though all men are
liars” (Rem. 3:4). “Choose this day whom you will
seine!” (Josh. 24:15).
Conclusion
In chapter 29, we found no successful rebuttal to
the general validity of the Old Testament law. and in
this chapter we have seen that this general validity of
the law applies just -as much to political affairs as to
private, family, and ‘“ecclesiastical ones. God is
offended by all expressions of injustice and unrighteousness,
including (if not especially) by those
placed in positions of civil rule over their fellow men.
ARQUMENTS AGAINST TNE LAWS POLITICAL USE 339
If they re!k.e to submit to the Lord (Ps. 2), they will
eventually answer to “the King of kings” (I Tim. 6:15)
for their rebellion. This means that there are standards
of justice to which they will be answerable.
If those standards are not found in the Old Testament,
then why not? Then where else? Such questions
recei’e no cont,incing and theologically consistent
answer from those who reject the political use of
the Old Testament law. Do these critics of theonomy
believe that political rulers are free to do whatever
seems right in their own eyes?
We have seen attempts made to disprove the
validity of the socio-political laws of Moses by appealing
to some special feature about Old Testament
Israel. However, such a special feature is never
clearly defined. The segment of the law which is
thought to be invalidated is never delineated on the
basis of explicit principle; specific laws are rather included
or excluded from the segment arbitrarily and
subjectively by the person advancing such an argument.
The alleged unique feature is often not even
actually true about Old Testament Israel. And
finally, no demonstration is forthcoming, grounded
upon Scripture, that the validity of this intended segment
of the Mosaic law rested entirely upon that
unique feature of Old Testament Israel in the first
place. Other kinds of arguments against the modern
use of the Old Testament in politicaf ethics appeal to
considerations which are utterly irrelevant to the
truth or falsity of that idea — arguments from silence,
subjective impression, abuse, tradition, and
ridicule. In short, those who have argued against the
34(t BY lWIS STANDARO
political use of the Mosaic law today have fallen into
errors and fallacious reasoning which no Christian
scholar can find acceptable.
In the end, one does not find good reasons being
g-h-en for turning away from the moral standards for
socio-political affairs found in the Old Testament
law. When the poor reasoning is stripped away, what
is left as the core of opposition to those standards is
personal jceiing– the pmsonal feeling that those standards
are too harsh or tyrannical for our pluralistic
age.
Of course, to be intellectually honest, one is then
compelled to stop and ask whether God’s law should
change pluralism, or whether pluralism ought to
change God’s law. That question should not be begged
(though it usually is). If magistrates are indeed “ordained”
as the public “ministerx of God” (Rem. 13:1,
4), does Jehovah morally permit them to serve many
gods, or does He require them to submit to His rule
alone?. This may seem despotic to some minds, but
the alternative is just another kind of despotism, one
that is infinitely worse – the despotism of those civil
rulers who deem themselves free from the objective
standards of God’s holy law. Then we get the worst
kind of tyranny imaginable, whine polzlical might is not
restraind by wti h morally, ob]ective~ ri@t.
For this reason, we must see the failed arguments
examined in this chapter as more than simply illustrations
of fallacious reasoning in the intellectual
sphere. We must see them as ultimately dangerous
(even if unwittingly so) to the wellbeing of Christian
civilization.
CONCLUSION
.
31
THE AUTHORITY OF
GODS LAW TODAY
“The question is this: by what standard are
moral judgments to be made? How do we determine
in any particular case what godliness
requires of me or my society?”
There is much more to the study of Christian
ethics than has been discussed in this book. There
are foundational issues about the perception and
production of godliness in ourselves and in our society
which have not been touched. Nearly all of the
specific moral questions which surround us have
been given no applied answer. A lot has been left unsaid,
and a lot more study is required. Nevertheless,
the issue addressed by this bok is systematically
basic to Christian ethical reasoning. It asks a question
which is impossible to avoid and which influences
every other aspect of one’s ethical theory. People
may not reflect explicitly upon the question, and
342 BY TIW STAND~
people may not answer it well. But everyone proceeds
upon some answer or another to that inevitable
question in Christian ethics.
The question is this: by what stundard are moral
judgmad.s to be made? How do we determine in any
particular case what godliness requires of me or my
society? Other questions may be interesting and
even important. But the Christian ethics — which is
itself a reflection of the Christian faith — cannot be
cogently developed and practically employed without
an answer to the question of criteria. How
should we live? What must we do? What kind of
people should we be? It all depends upon the standard
we use. Better: it all depends upon the standard
that God Himself uses for judging good and evil. If we
would know the divine norms of righteousness, then,
Christian ethics will naturally depend upon God’s
self-revelation and the proper understanding of His
word.
Has His word been correctly interpreted by those
who “turn the grace of our God into lasciviousness”
and argue that we may “continue in sin that grace
may abound”? Not at all (Jude 4; Rem. 6:1-2).
There should be no doubt whatsoever about the
premise that New Testament believers, those who
have experienced the grace of God, must “live soberly
and righteously and godly in this present world,” being
“zealous of good works” (Titus 2:11, 14). Gods
grace has created us in Christ Jesus “for good works
that God has prepared that we should walk in them”
(Eph. 2:8-10). The New Testament does not eliminate
the call for holiness (I Pet. 1:15). Saving faith
THE AUTHORl~ OF 000’S LAW TODAY 343
must be a living, acti’e, and working faith (Jas.
2:14-26). Therefore, we can assert it as beyond question
that those who love the Sa\rior must demonstrate
lives characterized by obedience (Heb. 5:9;
John 14:15).
Should this obedience extend to the Old Testament?
Should those saved by grace have anything at
all to do with God’s law? And if they should, can the
Old Testament commandments still be the standard
of moral obligation for socidj) and the stat< as well? If
Christian ethics cannot aroid answering the normative
question, as claimed abore. then Christian
ethics will eventually be forced to ansver these questions
of Biblical interpretation as well. The disturbing
thing is that so many Christian teachers and
\vriters answer them without sufficient Biblical proof
or concern for consistency. It is as though personal
feeling gies them a conclusion from the outset for
which they subsequently seek some kind of “reason. ”
Many Christians will just take the word of such respected
teachers for <granted on these matters —only
later to find, upon reflection and examination, that
their teachers had not been thinking clearly about
the issues involved at all.
The many negative opinions about the law of
God as a standard for Christian obedience in our
day represent a setback from the theological insights
of past generations of Christian scholarship, notably
the tradition of the Puritans and the Westminster
Standards. What is taken for granted today as the
common and “obvious” answer to whether we should
obey the Old Testament in modern civil affairs, for
% BY THIS STANDAm
instance, did not always enjoy that status in the eyes
of earlier Christians. The winds of common opinion
have shifted. Why? Has some radical new turn or discoveq
in Christian scholarship, some brilliant exegesis
and persuasive reasoning, intenened between
the Puritan age and our own today so as to account
for this shift in widespread sentiment about the use of
God’s law in the Christian life? If so, it is hard to point
to just what it might have been. It is rather cfumged
soctil circumstances and opinzims, not advances in
scholarship, which have brought about the difference.
“But the word of the Lord abides forever” (I Pet.
1:25; Isa. 40: 8). If our Reformed and Puritan forefathers
were basically correct in their approach to the
Old Testament law of God, as I believe, then the
truth of that position is still discernible in the objective
revelation of God’s word, even if it is an unpopular
truth in a secularized age. Whether congenial
to popular opinion today or not, the conclusions
to which we have been driven in our study of
God’s unchanging word indicate that the standard
by which Christians should live is not restricted to the
New Testament, but z’ncluuks the law of God revealed
in the Old Testament. ‘Scripture cannot be broken”
(John 10:35). With God “there can be no variation,
neither shadow that is cast by turning” (Jas. 1:17).
- Our studies have pointed to the conclusion that
New Testament believers ought to maintain a @onomian,
rather than antinomian, attitude. They
should seek to purge themselves of “autonomous”
ethicaj reasoning in favor of a %eonornic” approach
to moral issues. They should presume that the comTHE
AUTHORITY OF GOVS LAW TODAY 345
mandments revealed by God in the Old Testament
are definitive of righteous living for themselves and
their society, being careful not to “speak against the
law and judge it” (Jas. 4:11). Those who teach that
we may break even the least commandment in the
Law and Prophets will be least within the Kingdom
of God (Matt. 5:19).
The theonomic and pro-nomian approach which
we have taken in this book to the normati’e questions
about Christian living and the Old Testament
law is conveniently summarized in the following ten
theses:
1. Since the Fall, it has always been unla\\’ -
ful to use the law of God in hopes of establishing
one’s own personal merit and justification, in
contrast or complement to salvation by way of
promise and faith; commitment to obedience is
but the lifestyle of faith, a token of gratitude for
God’s redeeming grace.
2. The word of the Lord is the sole,
supreme, and unchallengeable standard for the
actions and attitudes of all men in all areas of
life; this word naturally includes God’s moral
directives (law).
3. Our obligation to keep the law of God
cannot be judged by any extrascriptural standard,
such as whether its specific requirements
(when properly interpreted) are congenial to
past traditions or modern feelings and practices.
4. We should presume that Old Testament
346 BY THIS STANDAm
standing laws 1 continue to be mot-ally binding
in the New Testament, unless they are rescinded
or modified by further revelation.
5. In regard to the Old Testament law, the
New Covenant surpasses the Old Covenant in
glory, power, and finality (thus reinforcing former
duties). The New Covenant also supersedes
the Old Covenant shadows, thereby
changing the application of sacrificial, purity,
and “separation” principles, redefining the people
of God, and altering the significance of the
promised land.
6. God’s revealed standing laws are a reflection
of His immutable moral character and, as
such, are absolute in the sense of being nonarbitrary,
objective, universal, and established
in advance of particular circumstances (thus applicable
to general types of moral situations).
7. Christian involvement in politics calls for
recognition of God’s transcendent, absolute, re-
\’ealed law as a standard by which to judge all
social codes.
1, ‘Standing law” is used here for ,00hq directives applicable
over time to classes of individuals (e. g , do not Ml. children.
obey your parents; merchants, have equal measures; nlagistrates,
execute rapists), in contrast to particular directions for an
inditldual (e. g., the order for Samuel to anoint David at a particular
time and place) or positive commands for distinct mcldents
(e. g.. God’s order for Israel to extemlinate certain Canaanite
tribes at a certain point in histo).
THE AUTHOR(TV OF GOCKS LAW TODAY 347
8. Civil magistrates in all ages and places
are obligated to conduct their offices as ministers
of God, avenging divine wrath against
criminals and giving an account on the Final
Day of their service before the King of kings,
their Creator and Judge.
9. The general continuity which we presume
with respect to the moral standards of the
Old Testament applies just as legitimately to
matters of socio-political ethics as it does to personal,
family, or ecclesiastical ethics.
10. The civil precepts of the Old Testament
(standing “judicia~ laws) are a model of perfect
social justice for all cultures, even in the punishment
of criminals.
These propositions highlight the essential points
and distinctive features of the position developed in
this book. The precious truth of salvation by grace
alone (#1 ) is the context within which every other
thesis is developed and understood. “Theonomic”
ethics is commited to developing an overall Christian
world-and-Me-view (#?) according to the regulating
principle of sola Scriptura (#3) and the hermeneutic
of covenant theology (#4).2 The new and better
covenant established by Christ does offer Biblical
warrant for recognizing changes in covenantal ad-
2. By contrast, dispensational theolo~ holds that Old Covenant
commandments should be deemed abrogated unless repeated
in the New Testament, See Charles Ryn-ie. ‘The End of
the Law,” Bzbliotha Sarra, Vol. 124 (1967) 239-242.
348 BY mlS STANDARD
ministration (#5), but not changes in moral stand-
, ards, lest the divinely revealed ethic be reduced to
situationism or relativism —just one tribal perspective
among many in the evolutionary history of ethics
(#6). Righteousness and justice, according to
Biblical teaching, have a universal character, precluding
any double-standard of morality.
“Theonomic” ethics likewise rejects legal
positivism aid maintains that there is a qaw above
the (cid) law” to which appeal can be made against
the tyranny of rulers and the anarchy of overzealous
reformers alike (#7). Since Jesus Christ is Lord over
all (cf. #2), civil magistrates are His sewants and
owe obedience to His revealed standards for them
(#8). There is no Biblically based justification (cf.
#4) for exempting civil authorities from responsibility
to the universal standards of justice (cf. #6) found
in Gods Old Testament revelation (3). Th@ore, in
the absence of Biblically grounded argumentation
which releases the civil magistrate from Old Testament
social norms (cf. #4, #5), it follows from our
previous premises that in the exercise of their offices
rulers are morally responsible to obey the revealed
standards of social justice in the Old Testament law
(#lo).
In light of the theses leading up to it, the above
conclusion does not seem so controversial after all. It
makes perfectly good, ethical sense for a Christian.
Besides, that conclusion has a great deal of practical
value in our day. It is not accidental that the glaring
socio-political and criminal problems of the late
twentieth century concern matters where our society
THE AUTHOR~ OF GOO’S LAW TOOAY 349
has turned against the specific directives of God’s
law. Humanim has been-taught in our schools and
media; it has been practiced in economics, medicine,
politics, and our courts. And the results haw been a
social disaster. Human life is treated as cheap. Sexual
purity is an outdated concept. Truth and honesty
have little place in the ‘real world” of business or politics.
Repeat offenders and crimes which go completely
unpunished belittle the criminal justice system.
Prison reform is desperately needed. In short,
humanism has proven its ineffectiveness in case after
case. Where can we turn for socio-political wisdom
which can effectively counter the degeneration and
disintegration of our culture? The only acceptable
answer will be to turn to God’s directives for social
justice, and those are (for the most part) found in the
‘Old Testament commandments to Israel as a nation,
a nation facing the same moral problems about life,
sex, property, and truth which all nations must face,
including our own.
Christians who claim that our ethical standards
are restricted to the New Testament cannot, if consistent,
deal with the full range of moral issues in our
day. Ask them whether it is now immoral to have
sexual relations with animals. They will gasp at the
thought, but find nothing forbidding it in the New
Testament scriptures. At best they can say “fornication”
is condemned, only thereby presupposing what
they originally denied — namely, that New Testament
morality is identical with the standards of the
Old Testament (in which case “fornication” applies to
= BY THtS STANDARD
the same outlawed acts in both dispensations). J Ask
them whether it is now immoral for a woman to
marry her father. They may say yes, but they will
not find that specific case of incest dealt with in the
New Testament scriptures. Ask them whether rape
is a punishable crime. Again, no New Testament directive
covers it. Ask them what the equitable punishment
should be for rape. No New Testament answer.
Ask them whether they can et’en show that
murder should be a capital crime today. Once more
they will find no specific New Testament answer to
that question, despite the fact that many conservative
believers assume that it is there.
It becomes ever so clear that it is easy to say one
holds only to “New Testament ethics,” but nearly
impossible to systematically and consistently maintain
that position. In actual fact, Christians do not
find it a workable policy to follow, departing from
the espoused position whenever it seems con-enient
or necessary to do so. But that simply opens the door
to arbitrariness.
The preceding book has attempted to provide a
principled, systematic, and consistent approach to
the question of whether and how the Old Testament
law constitutes a standard for making moral decisions
today.
3. Cf. treatment of this Issue in The Bahnsen-Feinberg
Debate ,“ a tape avaifable from Covenant Tape hlintry (4155
San Marcos Lane, Reno, IW’ 89502). The debate was sponsored
by the Evangelical Theological .%ciety at Its annual
meeting for 1981 in Toronto.
ABROGATE – to abolish or nullify a law by authoritative
action
ABSOLUTE – unconditioned by qualifications or
limitations
AD HOC– only for the particular case at hand, not
systematically taking into account other relevant issues
or wider application
A FORTIORI – drawing an inference with even greater
force or conviction than in a lesser case
ALTRUISM – the ethical view that one ought to act
out of regard for the interests of others
AMILLENNIALISM – the eschatalogical view that ‘on
earth before the return of Christ there will be no age
of military rule by Christ (contrary to premillennialism)
nor an age of great blessing and success for the
gospel (contrary to postmillennialism); at Christ’s return
the general resurrection of the righteous and
352 BY TNts STANDARD
unrighteous will take place, followed immediately by
the final judgment
ANTINOMIANISM —a view which is in some fashion
against the law
APOLITICAL – without interesf in or consequences
for civil go-ernment
ASCETICISM – the ethical view that holiness or purity
is achieved by mandatory abstinence from bodily
comforts and material pleasures (e. g., food, alcohol,
sleep, sex, money)
AUTONOMY – the state of being a “law unto oneself,”
independent of outside authority
AXIOMATIC – characterized as a primary conviction
from which all other conclusions are drawn or
proven
CEREMONIAL LAW – those Old Covenant commandments
which regulated rituals and symbolic actions
pertaining to the redemption of God’s people
and their separation from the unbelieving world,
rather than prescriptions about matters which were
intrinsically moral
CONSEQUENTIAL PERSPECTIVE – a distinctive approach
to ethics which emphasizes and makes decisions
in terms of the consequences, goals, or situational
factors of one’s conduct
CONTINUITY – the relation between two things of
GLOSSARY 353
essential identity similarity, coherence or harmony;
the lack of change from one principle or regime to
another
COVENANT– a mutually binding compact between
God and His people, sovereignly transacted by the
Lord, wherein a promise is made by God which. calls
for trust on the part of His people and entails obligations
of submission which are sanctioned by blessings
and curses
COVENANT THEOLOGY – the position that all of the
post-fidl covenants made by God are essentially one,
centering on God’s gracious promise in Jesus Christ,
with each successive covenant expanding on previous
ones, rather than disgarding them or running
parallel to the others; the covenants prior to Christ
were marked by anticipation and administered by
foreshadows, while the fulfillment or substance was
found in Christ’s person and redemptive \vork, establishing
the New Covenant today
CULTIC–(as used here) pertaining to special religious
ritual
CULTURAL MANDATE – God’s authoritative order
for man to replinish and subdue the earth, developing
and governing the created order under God’s dominion,
and thus working to make e’ery area of life
serve the glory of God
DISCONTINUITY – the relation between o things
of difference, dissimilarity, incoherence or dishar-
BY THIS STANDARD
mony; the change from one principle or regime to
another
DISPENSATION – a distinct administration of God’s
covenantal relation with man or the age characterized
by such
EGOISM – the ethical view that one ought to act out
of regard for his own benefit or welfare
EGOTISM – the sinful, personal trait of behavrng as
though one’s own interests were of supreme or sole
importance
ESCHATOLOGY – the doctrine of the “last things”
pertaining to the individual (death, afterlife) or to redemption
(the coming, course, and consummation
of Christ’s kingdom, the millennium) or to the world
(Christ’s return,’ the resurrection, final judgment,
the eternal state)
EVANGELICAL MANDATE — God’s authoritative
order for His people to preach the gospel to lost sinners,
seek their conversion, bring them into the sacramental
fellowship of the church, nurture them in
the Christian life, and thus make the nations to be
disciples of Christ; the “Great Commission”
EXEGEHCAL – pertaining to the detailed analyiis
- and linguistic meaning of specific texts of Scripture
E)( POST FACTO – applied “after the fact,” thereby
disregarding the previous circumstances, status, or
legal character of an event
GENERAL EQUITY – (expression used by Reformed
or Puritan theologians to denote:) the underlying
substance, principle, or point of a law — over against
the specific case or cultural setting mentioned by it
GENERAL REVELATION – God’s revelation of His
person, glory, and attributes to all men in all ages
through nature, conscience, and history, so that they
are without excuse for not worshipping Him correctly
and leading righteous lives; unlike special revelation,
it is not verbal in character or redemptive in
content .
HERMENEUTIC – a method of interpreting Scripture
or the principles for doing so
INDUCTIVE – characterized by studying particular
cases (factors, evidences) one by one in order to arrive
at a generalization
JUDAIZERS – a Jewish heretical party in the early
church which held that, in addition to faith in
Christ, one must conform to Jewish customs (e.g.,
the ceremonial law of circumcision, the Old Covenant
festivals) in order, through such self-effort and
law-works, to be justified and sanctified
JUDICIAL LAW – (tradition theological expression
for:) those commandments in the Mosaic law which
deliver judgments on cases pertaining to socio-political
relations, policy, or rule (e. g., Exodus 21-22)
JUSTIFICATION – Gods gracious act of forgiving
sinners and treating them as if they had never sin=
BY T1-RS STANDARD
ned, based on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness,
and appropriated by living faith
LEGALISM – the view that one is saved by the merit
of his own efforts to performs works of the law
LEGAL POSITIVISM – the imperative theory of law
which claims that all laws are merely commands of a
human sovereign, so that there is no conceptual or
necessary connection between law and justice; in
this case those within a legal system are unconditionally
obligated to obey its laws, however immoral
they may be
MOTIVATIONAL PERSPECTIVE – a distinctive approach
to ethics which emphasizes and makes decisions
in terms of personal motivation and character
traits
NORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE – a distinctive approach
to ethics which emphasizes and mqkes decisions in
terms of duty, rules, or moral standards
OBJECTIVE – the quality of having a public nature,
independent of our thoughts or feelings
PEDAGOGIC – pertaining to teaching, instruction,
or education
PENAL SANCTION – a coercive, civil punishment
which honors and enforces a law by being imposed
on those who violate it
PENOLOGY – the study or theory of punishment,
especially the punishment
PHARISEES – a separatist
OLOSSARY 3 5 7
of criminals by the state
and self-righteous sect in
Judaism which prided itself in strict adherence to the
Mosaic law, but which attended only to external and
trifling details and actually nullified the law by adding
to it human traditions
PLURALISM – the view that civil policy should balance
the rights of various social spheres (e. g., family,
school. church, business) and protect the rights of all
conflicting viewpoints within the society, thereby not
being based upon- or fa’oring any one distinctive religion,
philosophy, party, or sphere of life
POSTMILLENNIALISM – the eschatological ’iew that
Christ will return “after the millennium”; Christ has
established His Messianic kingdom on earth, it is
growing in numbers, area, and influence by means
of the preaching of the gospel and Christian nurture,
and it will have visible, worldwide. and blessed success
before Christ returns at the general resurrection
for final judgment
PREMILLENNIALISM — the eschatological vielv that
Christ will return “before the millennium’” in order to
resurrect the saints (the “first resurrection”), establish
a military rule from Jerusalem over the rebellious
nations (the battle of Armageddon). and usher
in a thousand year period of material peace andprosperity;
at the end of this period the nations (still
in natural bodies) will rebel and make war against
Christ and the resurrected saints (the battle of Gog
= BY THIS STWAm
and Magog), who will be saved by fire from heaven,
followed by the second resurrection – now of unbelievers
– and the final judgment
PRIMA FACIE – on first appearance
PRO-NOMIAN – characterized by favoring, supporting,
or defending the law
PURITY PRINCIPLES – those truths taught or symbolized
by ceremonial laws of outward cleanliness,
such as the pollution of sin and its repugnance to a
holy God, so that only one untainted by defilement
may approach Him (e. g., laws dealing with purification
for priests, issues of blood, disfigurement, leprosy)
REDEMPTIVE HISTORY – the special, unified course
of historical events by which God prepared, accomplished,
and applies redemption for His people and
thereby advances His saving kingdom
REDEMPTIVE LAW – ceremonial laws which taught
or symbolized the way of atonement or God’s saving
presence among His people (e. g., laws dealing with
sacrifice, the priesthood, the temple)
REFORMED –(as used in theology:) characterized by
agreement with or adherence to the doctrine, worship,
ethic or polity of the Protestant Reformation,
more particularly the Swiss or Calvinist branch thereof
(in distinction from Lutheranism, Anabaptism)
RELATIVISM, CULTURAL – the view that what is
GLOSSARY 359
morally right or wrong is not absolute, but internally
adapted to a specific culture, being determined by
that particular society’s attitudes, folkways or tribal
values; thus “justice ,“ for instance, actually changes
from culture to culture (not simply beliefs about justice)
and cannot be defined transculturally
RESTORATIVE IAW – those Old Covenant commandments
which regulated rituals and symbolic actions
pertaining to the restoration of sinners to Gods
favor and their separation as God’s redeemed people
from those still under His wrath (see “ceremonial
law”)
RETRIBUTIVE – pertaining to recompense to a guilty
party according to what the offense deserves
SACRIFICIAL PRINCIPLES – regulations on sacrifices,
offerings, and priests or the underlying general
truths taught or symbolized by them (e. g., there is
no atonement for sin without shed blood)
SANCTIFICATION – God’s gracious and powerful
work of making sinners holy in heart and conduct
through the internal ministry of the Holy Spirit, applying
the death and resurrection of Christ to them,
so that they increasingly die to sin and live unto
righteousness in the whole man
SEPARATION PRINCIPLES – those truths about the
separation of God’s people from sin and the unbelieving
world which were symbolized or taught by
certain ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant (e. g.,
= BY TNIS STANDARO
the distinction between clean and unclean meats, the
prohibition of mixing seeds or types of cloth)
SITUATIONISM – the ethical view that right and
wrong cannot be defined in advance for general
types of circumstances and actions, so that moral decisions
should not be based upon laws; the “loving”
thing to do must be determined by the situation itself,
using a utilitarian approach (seeking the greatest
pleasure or happiness for the greatest number of
people)
SOJOURNERS – those who are alien to the people of
a land but reside with them
SOLA SCRIPTURA – (Latin expression meaning:)
Scripture alone
SPECIAL REVELATION – God’s verbal and (usual)
redemptive revelation of Himself to specific people
at specific times; special revelation is communicated
to us today through its inscripturation in the Bible
STANDING LAW – policy directives applicable over
time to classes of individuals (e. g., do not kill; children,
obey your parents; merchants, have equal
measures; magistrates, execute rapists), in contrast
to particular directions for an individual (e. g., the
order for Samuel to anoint David at a particular
time and place) or positive commands for distinct incidents
(e. g., God’s order for Israel to exterminate
certain Canaanite tribes at a certain point in history)
SUBJECTIVISM – the view that truth or morality is a
GLOSSARY 361
matter of the individual’s personal feelings or attitudes
and do not have an objective nature
SYMBOLIC LAW – pedagogic laws which communicated
certain truths by symbolic means, rather than
(or not primarily) in explicit fashion (e.g., sacrificial
laws, purity laws. separation laws)
TELEOLOGICAL – pertaining to a goal, aim, or purpose;
teleological ethics emphasizes and makes decisions
in terms of the proper goal of man or the kingdom
of God as man’s highest good, etc. (cf. “consequential
perspectilre”)
THEOCRACY – literally ‘the n-de of God,” hovever
this is thought to be expressed (e. g., by His revealed
principles. by His chosen leaders, by Himself in the
person of the Son, etc.); the word is variously used
by writers for different intended conceptions, some
using it as a code word for uniqueness of Old Testament
Israel, others using it for any sociaI system
where the church rules the state (or is not separated
from it), and still others for a civil government which
strives to submit to the socio-political standing Ia\vs
revealed by God (in Old or New’ Testaments)
THEONOMY — literally “God’s law,” but recently applied
o a particular view of its normativity for today
TRANSCENDENT– pertaining to what “goes
beyond” man, the creation, or ordina~ experience
(thus used in theology to stress the mysterious, sovereign,
or unique character of God)
362 BY THIS STAtQARD
TYPOLOGICAL – pertaining to a ‘type,” something
intended to foreshadow a later historical reality
UNREGEb ERATE – not born again or spiritually renewed
by the power of the Holy Spirit; pertaining to
the ‘natural man” who is lost in sin, unable to do
God’s will or to understand the things of the Spirit
WESTMINSTER STANDARDS – the Westminster
Confession of Faith and Catechisms (Longer and
Shorter) which were composed 1643-1647 at the request
of &e English Parliament and which, since
that time, have served as subordinate doctrinal
standards in presbyterian churches; deemed a model
of “Reformed” doctrine
abortion, xii, .wi~, 211
abuse of the law. 336-37
Abraham, 40, 146-47
acti’ists. xviii
Adam, 46, 52, 140, 295
adultery, 32
Ahab, 232
altruism, 82
anarchy, 17
antinomianisrn, 85, 122-24,
175, 298-302
.Apostles, 91
Apostolic Council, 308
atheism, 296
Atlas, Charles, xix
atonement, 136-37
attitude, 19-20, 31, 92
authority, 32, 47
autonomy
antinomianism i%, 293-98
Bible’s ethics vs. 2, 19,
51-52
civil law, 265, 275
Empereror’s clothes, w,
ethics &, 17
Eye, 46
Holy Spirit, 69
low. 77
axhead, 5, 317
Babylon, xxiv, 254
Barth, Karl, 219-20
beast, 15, 99, 214, 221, 221.
265-266
behavior, 13, 65
benefits (see rewards)
Bible
ethical concerns, 22
hostility to, 17-18
whole, 25-27
Biblicai law (see
“law”)
blasphemy-. 332, 334
blood, 274
blueprint, 70
boldness, 157
364 BY THIS STANDARD
Bolton, Samuel, 173, 199,
208.9
Bonhoeff r, Dietrich, 18
Burgess, ‘knthony, 50
Caesar, 14, 289
calendar, 31O
Calvin, John, 208
Canaanites. 243
canon, 167
case laws, 137-38, 317-18
casuistry, xiii
Catholicism, 218-19
ceremonial law. 135-38, 187,
191, 281, 308, 311, 316
character, 78 (see God:
charac;er)
charity. xxv
children, 235
China, xxiii
choices, 297
church, 66-68, 100-1, 128,
165 I
church-s\ate, 286. 290-92,
329, 330-31
circumcision, 181, 287-88,
310
d civil ma istrates
autonomy, 275
beast, 266
deacon , 259
descrip tive, 248-49
deterrkce, 230-32, 242
Gentile, 238-44
judgment, 252
justice, 224
minister, 248, 258-59
New Testament, 248-53
resistance to, 225-26,
239-40, 250% 266
sword, 259-61, 274
wrath, 226-27
code of law, 289
coercion, 9-10, 322
coins, 213
Cole. R. A., 277
common grace, 334-35
confidence. 157-58
conscience, 255
consequences, 78, 80-84, 87,
170
continuity, 2-3, 254
courts, 11
covenant. 40, 42, 145, 314,
325
covenant (national) 325
Crandon, J.. 51
credit card, 120-21
crime, 252, 271, 324
Crusades, xxii
cultural mandate, 140
culture, 276-8o
curse, 44. 75, 156, 196
darkness, 35
deacon, 259
death, 155.159
death penalty, 273, 279-80
decisions, 13
de Graaff, E., 18
INDEX 365
diet, 166
discipline, 282
discontinuity, 4-5
di.spensationalism, 299-300
dominion, xxii
double standard, 44, 86,
324
due process, 11
duty, 173
dynamic, 68
economics, 129-30
efficiency, 167-68
egoism, 82
Et, xxiv
Elton, E., 51
Enlightenment, 17
equity, 271-74,
278
eschatology, 8
ethics, 13, 342
3 approaches, 78-79
life &, 20-21
New Testament, 124-31
perfection, 48
situation, 33
standard, 14
evangelism, xiv-xv, 67,
280
Eve, 46
evidence, 328
evil, 47
existentialism, 297
ex post @to, 10
eye for eye, 273
faith
Biblical law &, XV, 42, 181,
343
obedient life, 65, 72-75,
144-45, 343
salvation, 72-75
fall of man, 140
feeling, 340
fellowship, 105, 110
finality, 167
flesh, 185
Fletcher, Joseph, 19, 220
force, 9-10
forehead, 266
Formula of Concord, 203
freedom, 113-14
Fundamentalism, 217
general revelation, 141
Gentiles, 101, 106, 240-42
glory, 155-57, 158, 163, 192
goal, 82
God
changeless, 93-94
character of, 80, 102, 141,
192, 300
creation, 321
glory, xiv, 192, 215, 253
holiness, 22, 49, 50, 79,
86, 100
imitating, 45, 49, 193
judgment, 232
justice, 228
kingdom of, 67, 82, 83,
94-95
366 BY& STANDARO
mercy, 265
perfect, 48
pleasing, 110-11
promises of, 38, 40, 41, 81
T
supre acy, 256-57, 263
venge ce, 228, 262
Wdl of 66, 107, 108-9, 215
Wrath of, 261-63
good, 10-10, 156, 296
goodness 296
i
gospel, 1 5, 220-21
grace, 6 , 68, 72, 80,
143-44 186
Great Commission, 9
guilt, xxii, 66
Guthrie, D. 206
heart, 2$32, 84, 133, 142,
160, 313
Henry, Carl F. H., 205
hermeneutics, 7, 270
Herod, 452, 268
history,
1
2, 165.265, 312
Hitler, 2 8
Hedge, Charles 255
holiness, 22, 49-50, 52, 79,
99-103
holy W&. 322
Holy Spirit (see Spirit, Holy)
homosexuality, 129
humanism, xi, xviii, xx, 215
hypocrisy, 30
image of God, 47
impotence, xix
incest, 129, 138
individuzdisrn, 35, 217
Israel, 101, 166.236, 264,
32P22, 326
Jehoshaphat, 287
Jesus
authority, 32
centrality, 53, 54
covenant, 314-15
fixed law, 38
king, 212-15, 268
law &, 30, 47-48, 76,
196-97
Lordship, 65
obedience to, 66
Satan vs., 124-25
slaves to, 113-14
Jordan, James, xv
joy, 212
Judaizers, 180, 309
judges, 229, 272
judgment, 23, 194-95, 227,
252, 342
judgments, 119, 123-31
justice
New Testament, 206-7
civil government, 224,
231, 274
Israel, 322
theocracy, 234
tyranny of autonomy,
265
justification, 8, 71, 173, 179,
182, 309
INDEX 367
Kant, I., 17
Kevan, E. 51n
kingdom, 67, 82, 83,
94-95
King Jesus, 268
Kline, M. xvii, xxv
Law (at the end of this
index)
lawlessness, 96, 266, 321
lawyers, xiii
legalism, 66, 68, 72, 175,
178, 183
liars, 134
Iibertv, 83, 113-14
library, 120
life, 20-21, 83
love, 76-77, 100, 115-15, 126
Luther, Martin, 203, 208,
218, 272-73
Machen, J. Gresham,
43-W
magistrates, 10
manslaughter, 5
McMaster, R. E., xxix
meats, 106, 136, 137, 166
media, xii
medicine, xii
Melchizedek, 310-11
Middle Ages, 15-16
ministers, 248, 258-59
model, 49, 237, 289, 325
modernism, 216
MoIoch, 192
morality, 2, 37, 45-46, 83,
88, 107
moral judgments, 123-31
moral law, 137, 316
motivation, 73-74, 87, 170
Muggeridge, Malcolm, xxiii
murder, 283
Murray, John, 35, 48, 77,
175, 176, 252
nation, 83, 142-43. 166,
236-37, 241, 325
natural man, 295
Nebuchadnezzar, 240
neo-orthodoxy, 219-20
neutrality, xii, xiii, 17, 291
New Testament
afFirmations, 89
assumption, 90-91. 112
better, 163
canon, 167
continuity, 43, 139-53, 254
discontinuity, 155-68
ethical themes, 93
ethics, 25
finality, 166-68
glory, 155-57, 158, 163
God’s law, 94
God’s will, 108
hermeneutic, 3-4
holiness, 100
judgments, 119, 123-31
Old Testament &, 3
perfection, 111-12
permanent, 158
368 BY THIS STANOARD
power, 159-62
promises, 37
righteousness, 95-99
rulers, 247
rules. 122
silence, 336
standard,368
writers, 123-24, 133, 324
Newton, John, 192-93, 198
Noah, 140
norm, 78, 84, 87, 102, 169-70
obedience
cultural 34
heart, 2 -33
P kingdo~ of God, 193
Old Testament era, 160-61
outwarc, 33-36
perfect, 47
speci6c, 107
whole Bible, 25, 343
Old Testament
abrogated?, 26-27, 43, 90
administration, 314
church & state, 286-90.
330-311
confidence, 157
continuity, 2
covenants, 40-41
death, 155
discontinuity, 4-6
ethics, 25-49
fellowship, 105
grace, 1-42
holiness, 102
love, 76
Jesus &, 3
Patti on, 88
sanctions, 271
shadows, 136, 162-68
standard, 36
ordinances, 316
Pannenberg, W., 18
parents, 234
passover, 288
Paul, 41, 67, 73, 81, 92, 105,
180-81.267
penal sanctions, 11-12, 92
perfection, 47, 48, 111-112
Peter, 102
Pharaoh, 240
Pharisees, 8, 30-32, 127, 179,
305
pietism, xiii
Pilate, 252
pipers, xxiv-xxv
plate glass, 195
Plato, 295-98
plumbing, 119-20
pluralism, 14, 340
politics, 211-12
Israel, 222-32
Israel’s administration,
323
morality, 267-68
political ethics, 11
Pope, 16
polytheism. 340
power, 68, 159-62, 185, 186
INDEX 369
prayer, 254
priesthood, 164-65, 210-11
promises, 38, 40-41, 68, 81,
146-47, 182, 313-15
prosperity, 83
punishment. 271-72
Puritans, 16, 50-52,
137-38
purity, 326
rape, 329
rebellion, 195, 250
redemption, 23
redemptive state, 331-32
Reformation, 16
relativism, 296, 319, 325
resistance, 225-26, 239-40
restitution, 271
revelation, 312, 321
rewards, 81
salvation, 8, 39, 105, 213.
309
Samson, xiy
sanctification
law as pattern, 8, 69, 86,
197
holiness &, 51, 86, 100, 102
Old Testament law. 102,
104, 173, 197-98
salvation &, 64-66, 100
Spirit-empowered, 69.86
sanctions, 271-72, 276-80,
333, 335
Sartre, J. 296-97
Satan, 46, 124-25
Saul, 226
savior, 213
scripture, 24
separation, 106, 136, 137,
290, 292
righteousness, 24, 42, 68, 71, Sermon on Mount, 30, 31,
“95-99
ritual, 164, 189
road maps, sx-xxi
Roe v. W&, xii
roof, 138
rulers, 10, 15, 241 (see also
‘civil magistrate”)
NkS, 121-22, 240, 248
Rushdoony, R. J.. xv
Sabbath, 127
sacritice, 161, 163, 192
sacrifices, 136
sainthood, 99-103
94-95
servants, 241, 259
sex, 129
shadow. 181
shadows, 136, 162-68, 191
silence, 283, 336
situation ethics, 33, 319
Sin, 65, 68, 74, 194
slavery, 113-14
smorgasbord, 4, 301
social action, 207
social gospel, 216-17
Sodom, 141
sojourners, ’288
370 BY TWS STANOARU
Spirit, Holy
antinomianism, 299
!leedom, 113-14
fi-uit of, 16-17
indwellir/g, 43
life &, 67, 162
hearts of men, 43, 75
law &, 43, 66, 70
love &, 65
power &, 68, 185, 186
sin vs., 64
understanding, 69
walking in, 33-34, 64, 80
work of, 69
spirituality, 64
speed limit , 37, 122
Stalin, xxiii
standard, 49, 98, 102,
297-298, 318-19
stoning, 218
state church (see
‘church- 1 tate”)
statism, 17
1
subjectivism, 299
summary of book, 345-47
Switzerland, 16
sword, 227-28, 259-61
tabernacle, 164
Taylor, T. 50
ten commandments, 123, 125
testing, 45-46
thief, 35
theocracy, 233-34, 327
theologians, 18
theonomy, xxvi, 302,
322, 345
thrones, 214
tithe, xxv
token, 148
tradition, 337
traditionalists, 127
tree, 46
trumpets, 215-20
typology> 6.136, 326
tyranny, xxiv, 265.275, 340
USSR, xxii-xiii
Uzziah, 287
Van Til, Cornelius, xv-m-i
vengeance, 228, 262
Venning, R. 51
Watts, Isaac, 212-13
way of righteousness, 96-98
wealth, 130
weights, 44
Westminster Confession,
75-76, 173
W~ of God, 107
window, 195
Wiseman, D. 206
witchcraft, 277
witnesses, 128
works, xv, 65. 71, 73, 109,
145, 304, 342
world. 103-4
yardstick, 15, 44
INDEX 371
law
abrogated?, 132-33, 305-6
abuse of, 177-83, 336-37
administration. 323
alterations, 151-52
Apostles, 91
application, 164
attitude toward, 1
authority, 87, 122-23
autonomy. 265
before fall, 140
blasphemy, 332, 334
blessing, 194
bond, 143
bondage, 188
burden of, 73, 83
case, 137-38. 317-18
categories, 315-18
ceremonial, 135-38, 187,
191, 281, 308, 311
change, 31O-H
changes in, 3
church &, 128
civil, 3
civil government, 205-9
code, 7, 79, 289
common grace, 334-35
consequences, 170
continuity, 2-3
covenant, 145
curse, 44, 75. 156, 196
death penalty. 273, 279,
280
delight, 149
desirability of, 83
details, 47, 76, 133, 134,
301
deterrent, 209
didactic use, 20!2
diet, 166
discontinuity, 4-5
economics, 129-30
equity, 278
eterrd, 150
evangelism, xiv-m
eye for eye. 273
H pm-fytito, 10
faith &, 42, 144-45
fixed. 37, 42.79, 86
forehead, 266
freedom &, 114
fulfilled, 27
God’s will, 108-9
goodness of, 178
mce &, 673 68. 72-76,
143-44, 186
grace of, 41
harshness, 134
heart, 43, 84, 142, 313
holiness &, 49
impotence &, 186
internalization, 161
Jesus &, 196-97
judgment, 194-95, 227
justice, 206-7, 224, 231,
265, 274, 324
justification, 179, 182, 309
lawful, 276
lawful use, 178-79, 191-200
letter of, 70, 161
373 Br rifts STANDARD
liberty &, 83, 113-14
love &, 76-77, 115-16, 126
man’s he+22
model, 289
moral. 137, 316
motivatio, 73-7+. 87, 170
nation, 83
nations, 1!1243
natural. 171-73
obedience to, 193
outward, 33
pattern, 70, 185
pedagogic use, 202
penal sanctions, 11-12
penalties, 276-80
Pharisees, 127-28
politicaJ use, 202, 204-5
principles of, 126
promises, 146-47, 181,
313-15
prosperity &, 83
punishment, 271, 272
rebellion, 195
relative, 276-80
restraint, 199
rewards, 81
rulers &, 10
salvation, 316
sanctification, 173, 197-98
sanctions, 333, 335
sex, 128-29
sin, 194
slavery &, 114
social acnon, 207
standard, 235, 243, 264
summary, 169-71
time uses, 201-9
transcript, 86
tripartite, 174-75, 315-18
tutor, 309
typology, 326
‘under,” 186, 187-89
un-demeath, 74-75
unity of, 44
universal, 171-73
users’ manual, x’
validity, 132
validity of, 76
wrath, 226-27
(see also norm, standard)
Theonomy in Christian Ethics
Greg L.. Bahnsen
This profound and challenging work created a sensation
among evangelical scholars and pastors when it was first
published. Regarded by many as the definitive work on the
subject of Biblical law, it has set the agenda for debate
around the world. Bahnsen argues: “The biblical Christian
knows that society’s crying demand for ‘love’ as well as ‘law
and order’ is only satisfied in a genuine sense by the law of
God. . . . As obedience to it is empowered by the Holy Spirit,
the law of God establishes righteousness in human affairs
and human hearts. The ethical dilemmas facing individuals
and nations are resolved by the Christian, not by searching
for answers basedon his autonomous reason, but by going
to the authoritative law of God; there alone are adequate
answers found for the moral anarchy of the day.”
In this thoroughgoing defense of ‘the abiding validity of
Gods law [theonomy] in exhaustive detail,” Bahnsen begins
with a lengthy, closely reasoned exegetical examination of
Jesus’ most crucial statement about His own relationship to
the law: the Sermon on the Mount. Bahnsen goes on to explain
how the Christian’s obedience to the law is related to
faith, love, and the work of the Holy Spirit. Concluding with a
clear exposition of God’s laws for state and society, Bahnsen
points out the inevitable blessings which will follow a consistently
theonomic approach to ethics in every area of life.
652 pp., indtaed, appendkes, hb., $1795
Presbyk-rian and Rejorrmd Pubilshin,g Co.
P (1. BOX 81~ Philh)xburg, NJ 08865
The Institutes of Biblical Law
Rou.sa.s hhn Rushdoony
In this magnificent work, Dr. Rushdoony has laid the
foundation for what may well become the flowering of a
Christian c vilization. The institutes– meaning first principles
–of the Bi )Ie’s divinelyrdained social order are clearfy set
forth, catq orized under the general headings of each of the
Ten Comrr andments. Here are practical, workable expositions
of what God’s word says about work, marriage and the
family, criminal law, the arts and sciences, civil government,
the church, and much more.
Rushdoony emphasizes that it is impossible to understand
either the Bible or the development of Western civilization
apart from a solid grasp of biblical law. In fact, he points
out, all law is religious in origin, in every culture; and “in any
culture the source of la w is the god of that society.” But there
is only one true God, and this means that the Bible is the
only sour+ of true law; the nations are required to be Christian.
The Bible is our final standard in everything.
If we believe the Bible, we cannot escape the fact that
God requires universal obedience. His law governs us in
every area of life, and He commands that He be glorified in
all ‘creation. The Christian can do no less than to become
educated and adept in the worldwide application of biblical
principles. All things, large and small, are to be placed under
the dominion of Christ.
The Institutes of Biblical Law is helping Christians around
the world f Jlfill this mandate. It has become the standard reference
work for scholars and activists in every field.
890 pp., inakwd, ap@ndices, hb , $24.00
Presbyterzim and R#orrrwi Publishing Co.
PO. Box &J~ Phillipsbur, NJ 08865
The Dominion Covenant:
Genesis
Gay North
This is the first volume of a multi-volume commentary on
the Bible. It is specifically an economic commentary– the
first one ever published. What does the Bible require of men
in the area of economics and business? What does the Bible
have to say about economic theory? Does it teach the free
market, or socialism, or a mixture of the two, or something
completely different? Is there really an exclusively Christian
approach to economics?
The Dominion Covenant: Genesis answers these questions,
and many others, by setting forth the biblical foundations
of economics. It offers the basis of a total reconstruction
of economic theory and practice. it specifically abandons
the universal presupposition of all modern schools of
economics: Darwinian evolution. Economics must begin
with the doctrine of creation.
The Dominion Covenant: Genesis represents a self-conscious
effort to rethink the oldest and most rigorous social
science in terms of the doctrine of creation. Every social
science requires such a reconstruction. The “baptized humanism”
of the modem Christian college classroom must be
abandoned by all those who take seriously God’s command
that Christians go forth and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28).
The message of this groundbreaking work is that God
has given us c!ear, infallible standards of righteousness–
practical guidelines by which Christians are to reconstruct
civilization.
496 Pp., indxtd, bibliograph~ hb., $14.95
Institute for Chrzstian Economics
PO. BOX 8000, Qh, TX 7571.1
Moses and Pharaoh: Dominion
ReligiGn Versus power Religion
Ga~ North
In the fifteenth century before the birth of JestJs, Moses
came before ‘haraoh and made what seemed to be a minor
request: Pharaoh should allow the Israelites to make a threeday
journey in order to sacrifice to their God. But this was not
a minor request; given the theology of Egypt, it was the arrnouncement
of a revolution —an anti-humanist revolution.
The confl ct between Moses and Pharaoh was a conflict
between the ‘eligion of the Btble and its rival, tie religion of
humanism. It is not common for scholars to identify Egypt’s
polytheism with modem humanism, but the two theologies
share their most fundamental doctrines: the irrelevance of the
God of the B ble for the affairs of men; the evolution of man
into God; the impossibility of an infallible word of God; the
nonexistervx of permanent laws of God; the impossibility of
temporal judgment by God; and a belief in the power of man.
What Bib e commentators have failed to understand is
that the conf ict between Moses and Pharaoh was at heart a
conflict between the two major religions in man’s history, dominion
religion and power religion, with the third major religion
– escapisl religion — represented by the Hebrew slaves.
What they have also failed to point out is that them is an in?-
plicit alliance between the power ?eIigion and tfre escapist
religion. This alliance still exists.
This boo f is a detailed study of the conflict between
Moses and ,>haraoh. It discusses the implications of this
conflict in sbveral areas: theology, politics, sociology, and
especially economics. This book is Parl One of the second
volume of a multi-volume set, An Economic Commentary
on the Bib/e. The first volume, The Dominion Covenant:
Genesis, wa published in 1982.
7
432 pp., ino$xed, ph., $12.50
Institutz for hristian Economics,
PO. BOX 8000, h> TX 757Ll
God and Government
GaT DeMar
These two volumes together comprise the most comprehensive
treatment available on the biblical principles of government.
Beginning with the proper foundations in selfgovemment
and the structure of the family, Gary DeMar develops
a well-rounded view of the purpose and function of
civil government in Scripture.
The first volume, subtitled A Bibica and Historical Study,
contains a concise but excellent introduction to the U.S.
Constitution and the problems connected with the relationship
between Church and State. “While there is a functions/
separation between Church and State found in the Bible,
there is certainly no absolute separation. Both institutions
have a common authority; they are both under God and accountable
to His revealed word.”
The second volume, subtitled Issues in Biblical Perspective,
begins with an exposition of the biblical world view, and
shows its practical outworking in questions of sovereignty,
dominion, and ownership. DeMar then turns to a more indepth
look at the biblical view of economics and the issues
of poverty and care for the poor.
God and Government is a valuable work on several levels.
First, it is an important work in its own right, as a muchneeded,
enlightening, and superbly written contribution to
an increasingly significant area of discussion. Second, it
constitutes a marvelous summary of other Reconstructionist
works, studded with helpful references. Finally, Its workbook
format makes it absolutely ideal for indepth study by individuals
and groups alike.
Two UOLS., 435 @., bib[wgraph~ lage paperbacks,
$21.90 for tie set
American Viswn Press
PO. BOX 720515, AduntQ, GA 30328
Unconditional Surrender:
God’s Program for Victory
Ga~ North
There is a war on. The war is between God and Satan. In
our day, we sqe it most clearly in the conflicts between Christian
institution s and the institutions of secular humanism. It
7 is a war that s not going to go away. There will be a winner.
Unconditional Surrender is an introduction to this conflict.
It covers the fundamenta~ issues of the wac 1) What is the
nature of G&? 2) What is the nature of man? 3) What is the
nature of /aw ? If we can begin to answer these questions,
then we will be able to recognize the nature of the battle.
Does Christianity make a difference in life? Does Christianity
offer real-life solutions to the basic issues of life? Unquestionably,
the answer is yes. But if we answer in the
affirmative, then we have to start getting specific. Exactly
how does Ch ‘istianity make a difference? What kind of society
would Christianity bring forth? In what ways would such
a society be different from the society we live in today, the
society of huanism? Is there a specifically biblical system
of social ethi$s? What practical difference should Christianity
make in the life of a ruler, businessman, judge, teacher,
or scientist?
This boo { introduces people to the fundamentals of
Christianity, ncluding app/ied Christianity. It is thoroughly
biblical. It provides evidence taken directly from the Scrip
tures. It offers suggestions for further reading, as well as the
names and addresses of independent Christian organizations
that are equipping Christians for the battles they face
today.
264 pp., inxed, bibliography, ph., $9.95
Geneua A4ini+ries
PO. BOX 8376, h, TX 75711
Backward, Christian Soldiers?
An Action Manual for
Christian Reconstruction
Gay North
Jesus said to “Occupy till I come.” But if Christians don’t
control the territory, they can’t occupy it. They get tossed out
into cultural “outer darkness,” which is just exactly what the
secular humanists have done to Christians in the 20th century:
in education, in the arts, in entertainment, in politics,
and certainly in the mainline churches and seminaries. Today,
the humanists are “occupying: But they won’t be for
long. This book shows why.
For the first time in over a century, Christians are beginning
to proclaim a seemingly new doctrine, yet the original
doctrine was given to man by God: dominion (Genesis 1 :28).
But this doctrine implies another: victory. That’s what this
book is all about: a strategy for victory.
Satan may be alive on planet earth, but he’s not well.
He’s in the biggest trouble he’s been in since Calvary. If
Christians adopt a vision of victory and a program of Christian
reconstruction, we will see the beginning of a new era
on earth: the kingdom of God manifested in every area of
life. When Christ returns, Christians will be occupying, not
hiding in the shadows, not sitting in the back of humanism’s
bus.
This book shows where to begin.
3.20 pp., indexed, ph., $4.95
Institut< for Christian Economics
PO, Box 8000, b, TX 7.5711.
Paraiise Restored: A Biblical
Theology of Dominion
Daoid Cl)iitort
In rece It years many Christians have begun to realize a
long forgoiten truth: God wants us to have dominion over
the earth, just as He originally commanded Adam and Eve.
By His ato lement, Jesus Christ has restored us to Adam’s
lost position,” guaranteeing that God’s original plan will be
fulfilled. God will be glorified throughout the world: 7he
earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the
waters cover the sea.” Isaiah 11:9.
In orde” to demonstrate this truth from Scripture, David
Chilton be~ ins at the beginning, in the Garden of Eden. He
shows how God established basic patterns in the first few
chapters o’ Genesis-patterns which form the structure of
later Biblical revelation. In the course of this book on eschatology,
the “eader is treated to an exciting, refreshingly Bibica
way of reading the Bible. Avoiding the pitfalls of speculation,
Chilto I shows how even the most obscure prophecies
can suddenty come alive with meaning to those who have
grasped the Paradise Theme.
Building on a solid foundation of New Testament escha.
tology, the author deals at length with the message of the
Book of Revelation–often with surprising results. Throughout
the volume, the reader is confronted with the fact that
our view of the future is inescapably bound up with our view
of Jxius Christ. According to the author, the fact that Jesus
is now Kin$ of kings and Lord of lords means that His Gospel
must be victorious: the Holy Spirit will bring the water of
life to the ends of the earth. The Christian message is one of
Hope. Christ has defeated the devil, and we can look forward
to increasing triumphs for His Kingdom in this age.
Pentecost was just the beginning.
3.52 pp., indexed, bibliopaph~ hb , $14.95
Reconstmction Press
PO. Box 7999, h, 7X 75711
Productive Christians in an Age
of Guilt-Manipulators
Daz!id Chilton
One of the most insidious attacks upon orthodox Christianity
has come from the so-called “Christian Left.” This book
answers the “bible” of that movement, Rich Christians in an
Age of Hunger, by Ronald Sider.
David Chilton demonstrates that the “Christian Socialism”
advocated by Sider is nothing more than baptized
humanism –the goal of which is not charity, but raw, policestate
power.
The debate between Sider and Chilton centers on one
central issue: Does the Bible have clear guidelines for every
area of Me? Sider claims that the Bible does not contain
%Iueprints” for a social and economic order. The catch, of
course, is that Sider then provides his own %Iueprints” for
society, calling for a taxation system which is completely
condemned by Gods infallible word. Chilton answers that
the socialist “cure” is worse than the disease, for socialism
actualty increases poverty. Even when motivated by good intentions,
unbiblical “chari~ programs will damage the very
people they seek to help.
Combining incisive satire with hard-hitting argumentation
and extensive biblical references, Chilton shows that
the Bible does have clear, forthright, and workable answers
to the problem of poverly. Productive Christians is most importantly
a major introduction to the system of Christian
Economics, with chapters on biblical law, welfare, poverty,
the third worfd, overpopulation, foreign aid, advertising,
profits, and economic growth.
4.58 pp , inakxed, bibliography]; ph., $9.95
Institti for Christian Economics
PO. BOX 8000, ~ TX 75711
The Law of the Covenant:
An Exposition of Exodus 21-23
Jams B. Jordan
How relevant are the laws of the Old Testament for today?
God said that Israel was to be a light to the nations (Isaiah
42:6). That someday all nations woulc.come to Jerusalem to
receive the Law (Micah 4:2). That in His Law, “every transgression
and disobedience receives a just , recompense”
(Hebrews 2:2). That all peoples would marvel at the wisdom
and justice of Lsraers laws (Deuteronomy 4:6-6).
Yet, w’th the change from the Old to the New Covenant,
there. are clearly changes in the Law, Yor when the priesthood
cha lges, there must also take place a change of lav#
(Hebrews 7:12). How, then, are we to approach the many
laws found in the Old Testament Do they apply to Christians?
If so, how?
In this book, Mr. Jordan provides four introductow chapters
on the nature of Biblical law, on the redemptive historical
context in which the law was first written, and on the
overall changes in the law system which the New Covenant
brings. Ten, moving to the concrete, Mr. Jordan provides
the first trly in-depth commentary on the case laws of Exodus
21-23, the Book of the Covenant. The laws are taken
up one at a time. In each ease, the question is asked, What
did this law mean to the people of the Old Testament age?”
Then the question is asked, “What relevance might this law
have for t le Christian faith today?” Finally, the question is
asked, “How does this law shed light on the work of Jesus
Christ, of whom all Scripture speaks? That is, how can we
preach Ct rist from this law?”
In his preface, Mr. Jordan states that he has not tried to say
the last word on these chapters of Scripture, but that he has
tried to sa~ a first word, and to challenge the Church to lk further
into these versm to find wisdom for today. No preacher
and no student of the LMxd can afford to be without this study.
310 pp., indexed, hb., $17.50
[nstzttijo} Chrutian Economics
PO Box 000, ~ TX 75711
ludces: God’s War
“Aga;nst Humanism
armm B. Jordan
The lessons of the book of Judges come to us through
stories, stories known to every Christian child. The stories of
Deborah, of Gideon, of Jephthah, and of Samson are, however,
not just captivating stories of faith. They are also, and
primarily, theological revelations of the ways of God and
men.
In this book, Rev. Jordan examines each story with a
view to its theological and practical meaning. What is the
command and promise of God? How do men respond?
What IS the evaluation of the Lord? What are we to learn
from this, as we face similar situations today? How does this
story display the work of Christ and the work of His Church?
These questions, and the answers to them, enable the
reader to see the stories of the judges in a new and thrilling
light.
Nor does Rev. Jordan shrink from the hard questions.
Should the Church today sing the bloodthirsty Song of
Deborah? Did Jephthah really burn his daughter? Was Samson
in sin when he offered marriage to the Philistine girl?
Was it right for Israel vwtually to destroy the tribe of Benjamin?
These and other difficult questions are thoroughly
explored, and the ways of God are vindicated in the face of
the criticisms of men.
Written in a non-technical, highly readable style, Judges:
Gods War Against Humanism is an absolute must for the
library of every pastor and Christian worker.
355 pp., hb., $16.95
Geneva Alm istries
PO. Box 8376, fib, TX 75711
75 Bible Questions Your
Instructors Pray You ‘Won’t Ask
Ga~ North
Unle= you’re “one in ten thousand” as Christians go,
you’ve been misled. Maybe it hasn’t been deliberate on the
part of your Bible teachers, but it’s true. in Christian college
classrooms, pulpits, and Sunday Schools throughout the
land, people are being misinformed about Christianity, year
after year.
Subtitled How to Spot Humanism in the Classroom or
Pt.dpit, this hard-hitting little volume of pointed questions exposes
many of the doctrinal compromises which modern
Christian leaders are making with currently popular forms of
Baal worship. People who think they are hearing Yhe good,
old-time religion” are being indoctrinated by well-meaning
(and sometimes not so well-meaning) teachers who are
either outright humanists or who have been compromised
by some of humanism’s most important doctrines.
75 Bible Questions covers three crucial battlefields in the
war between Christianity and humanism:
1. Sovereignty: Gods or Man’s?
2. Law: God’s or Man’s?
3. Kingdom: God’s or Man’s?
Warning: This is probably the most controversial Christian
book you will ever read. Some humanist/Christian colleges
would expel a student for even owning a copy. Packed with
Scripture references and helpful suggestions about organizing
study groups, this valuable book also contains special
sections on how to- stay out of trouble while reading it. 75
Bible Questions will change your thinking – permanently!
300 pp., appendices, bibliograph~ ph., $4.95
S@rgeon Press
PO Box 7999, Qh, TX 75711
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dr. Gary North
Institute for Christian Economics
F! O. Box 8000
Tyler. T.X 75711
Dear Dr. North:
I read about your organization in Greg Bahnsen’s
book, By Thu Standard. I understand that you publish
several newsletters that are sent out for six
months free of charge. I would be interested in receiving
them:
q Biblical Economics Tod@l, i%tmakers. Christian
Reconstruction, and Preface
Please send any other information you have concerning
your program.
name
addrr .s
Cl[y, Nate. Zlp
q I’m enclosing a tax-deductible donation to help
defray expenses.
I
II
I
WHY IS THIS
TEAR-OUT-SHEET
STILL IN THIS BOOK?
Tear-out sheets are supposed
to be torn out and mailed in.
STOP
PROCRASTINATING!