In his book “But I say unto you…,” John Reisinger frames the issues of the believer’s relationship to the law of Moses by a series of pointed questions which he poses in the first chapter. For the sake of our future discussion, I will list a summary – but only a summary – of those questions here.
“How are we to understand Christ’s teaching on the sermon on the mount? Is Christ contrasting His teachings with the law of Moses, or is He only contradicting the Pharisee’s interpretation of Mosaic law?”
“Is Christ really setting up a ‘new system’ of controlling personal behavior?”
“Is the entire thrust of the sermon on the mount merely Christ giving us the true and spiritual meaning of what Moses really meant, or is Christ also contrasting His teaching and authority with the laws and authority of Moses?”
Relentlessly drilling down to the crux of the matter, Reisinger asks:
“Is Christ [in the sermon on the mount: my note] establishing a totally new kingdom based on grace and giving a new and higher canon of moral conduct, or is both the foundation and canon of moral conduct of Christ’s kingdom the same as that of theocratic Israel?”
Drilling down even more tightly, Reisinger asks:
“Is Christ saying exactly the same thing that Paul said in Romans 6:14, “You are not under law but under grace?”
Leaving no stone unturned, Reisinger asks two more probing questions:
“Is there really no contrast at all in the sermon on the mount between law and grace?
“Are both Israel and the church under different administrations of the same covenant and therefore the same moral canon of conduct, or did Christ establish a new covenant that demands much higher and more spiritual conduct from His people?”
It is almost axiomatic that how one answers these questions will depend on the particular theological system and biblical hermeneutic the interpreter has adopted. Yet at this point in the discussion, we are not accusing anyone of anything, but rather trying to explain how new covenant theology has arrived at its understanding of the teaching of the sermon on the mount. For instance, traditional classical [Scofieldian] dispensationalism concludes that the sermon on the mount is not for the believer today at all, but is the rule of life for some future kingdom to be established at the appearing of Christ.
New covenant theology, to the contrary, believes that the sermon on the mount is a vital and integral part of the Christians rule of life NOW, TODAY.
Secondly, new covenant theology does NOT teach that Jesus in the sermon on the mount is contradicting Moses in any way that shows Moses to be wrong. NCT as much as any system of interpretation believes in the unity of Scripture and thus does not teach that one part of the Scriptures contradicts another. Often, covenant theology has been ruthless in their accusations against NCT along this very line, despite the denial and counter arguments made by proponents of NCT. I might properly call for a more civil discourse on this issue which refuses to demonize anyone that might differ with us.
Though Jesus does not contradict Moses as wrong in any way, Jesus DOES promulgate new and higher standards of moral conduct than Moses ever did, or for that matter, could ever give under a covenant of laws. But from this no one can charge or imply that NCT throws Moses under the bus, as the saying goes.
Yet it DOES mean that Christ is literally a new and superior lawgiver than Moses because He administers a “new and better covenant based on better promises,” (Hebrews 8:6). It surely DOES mean that a covenant of grace can – and does – make higher demands than any external law did or ever could!
Why can we claim this as true? Why can a covenant of grace appeal to higher motives and demands of believers today? We have arrived at the crux of the matter and an issue that I have come to believe that classical CT gets wrong, or at least minimizes: the ministry of the Holy Spirit of God under the new covenant of grace. Under the new covenant of grace the believer is enabled to do what the law could never do; by the Holy Spirit the new covenant believer is empowered to fulfill the new and higher demands.
A third distinction that NCT makes about the contrast between the sermon on the mount and the Mosaic code is that under a legal system, we cannot regulate and punish the thoughts and intents of the heart. A system based solely on external laws cannot, indeed, is unable to legislate, regulate and punish the thoughts and intents of the heart.
But God by the Holy Spirit under the new covenant can.
Under grace and the new covenant, the Holy Spirit is the personal guide [pedagogue] of every believer. The Holy Spirit can deal with the thoughts and intents of the heart in a way that the magistrates could not under the old covenant Mosaic law.
We can make some preliminary conclusions, then, as to what new covenant theology does in fact teach. We conclude that in the sermon on the mount Christ is saying much more than “This is what Moses actually meant.” He is saying that He is giving His disciples new laws that make moral and spiritual demands that are based on grace instead of old covenant external laws.
Thus we avoid either of the two extremes that lead to serious error. First, we protect the unity of the Scripture by showing that Christ is not blatantly contradicting Moses as if Moses had been wrong. Yet on the other hand, we will not limit the authority of Christ by making Him a “rubber stamp” of Moses. We will allow Christ to be the new lawgiver, “that prophet” prophesied to come, who can and does give new and higher truth than Moses did or even could give.
A bit later in his book, Reisinger uses the phrase that I chose as a title to my series of sermons and lesson on the sermon on the mount: “Moses is finished.”
We do not mean this in any derogatory sense, but only to say that Moses has been replaced by “that prophet” (Deut. 18:15; John 1:21; Acts 3:26) who would supersede Moses as the new and final lawgiver. This new lawgiver has established a new covenant, a new and better covenant with new and higher laws. He is NOT just a new administrator of the old covenant.
“And it came to pass when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine; for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes.” (Matt. 7: 28,29)
3 comments:
It seems to me that Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount is delivering the law that is to govern those under the New Covenant.
It also seems to me that it is similar to Old Covenant law, but with some obvious differences.
It seems to me that the CT folks actually minimize Christ in an attempt to keep people under the 10 and OT law.
It also seems to me that the CT folks actually minimize the severity of OT law by dividing it into 3 categories. I remember arguing with one person who insisted that the OT Sabbath was eternal moral law because of the death penalty attached to the violation of the Sabbath.
He had no real answers when I pointed out that many of the ceremonial laws also had a death penalty attached to the violation of those laws.
Why are we free to remove whole sections of God's law, but not free to cast the whole bondwoman out?
Well, these are the kinds of questions that got me into trouble. ;-)
God bless you, Vic, and thanks for these posts,
Your dear Auntie Nomian
I love your spirit, Auntie! And in fact, I love your questions, too. I have been asked to deal with the issue of the Sabbath, but I have not had time to compose that response. I will do so in the near future, but right now I am taking a bit of a vacation to visit my grandsons and spend time with family.
I would appreciate your view on the Ramm quote when and if you get the time.
I will talk to you when I get home from our vacation.
The gospel has not come into the world to set aside the law. Salvation by grace does not erase a single precept of the law, nor lower the standard of justice in the smallest degree; on the contrary, as Paul says, we do not make void the law through faith, but we establish the law. The law is never honored by fallen man till he comes from under its condemning rule, and walks by faith, and lives under the covenant of grace. When we were under the covenant of works we dishonored the law, but now we venerate it as a perfect display of moral rectitude...
...What the law could not do because of the weakness of the flesh, the gospel has done through the Spirit of God, Thus the law is had in honor among believers, and though they are no more under it as a covenant of works, they are in a measure conformed to it as they see it in the life of Christ Jesus, and they delight in it after the inward man. Things required by the law are bestowed by the gospel. God demands obedience under the law: God works obedience under the gospel. Holiness is asked of us by the law: holiness is wrought in us by the gospel so that the difference between the economics of law and gospel is not to be found in any diminution of the demands of the law, but in the actual giving unto the redeemed that which the law exacted of them, and in the working in them that which the law required...
Charles Spurgeon [taken from a sermon on Jeremiah 31:33 entitled, The Law Written on the Heart]...
Post a Comment