It has often been asserted that in the sermon on the mount, Jesus added to or broadened the scope of the Old Testament Law. It is falsely claimed that the Old Testament Law did not address the heart, but Jesus broadened the law to include this. Thus, it is said, rather than nullifying the law, Jesus confirmed and expanded it. A variation of this argument is that Jesus did abrogate the law, and immediately replaced it with the law of Christ – a new law, which in contrast to the Old Testament Law, was focused on the heart and not merely external behavior. But such arguments misunderstand what Jesus actually said, and they ignore the historical context of his words. In the words of Jesus that follow Matthew 5:20, Jesus did not actually add to the law; rather, he defended the original meaning of the law as given by God through Moses against the legalistic additions to, and corruptions of, the law by the Scribes and Pharisees. Jesus was not antinomian. The moral law was not defective or insufficient as a guide for righteous living. Rather, the law was perfect, but it had been corrupted by the current teachers of the law. And Jesus now was going to clarify the original divine meaning and rescue it from the corrupt additions and perversions of men. The key to understanding the context of his words is verse 20 of Matthew 5: “For I say to you, that except your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven.” In light of this statement, we can understand the following statements of Jesus. Henry comments on this verse
This was strange doctrine to those who looked upon the scribes and Pharisees as having arrived at the highest pitch of religion. The scribes were the most noted teachers of the law, and the Pharisees the most celebrated professors of it, and they both sat in Moses’ chair ch. 23:2 ), and had such a reputation among the people, that they were looked upon as super-conformable to the law, and people did not think themselves obliged to be as good as they; it was therefore a great surprise to them, to hear that they must be better than they, or they should not go to heaven; and therefore Christ here avers it with solemnity; I say unto you, It is so.[1]
And Calvin writes
But it deserves inquiry, whether he does not rather blame the corrupted manner of teaching, which the Pharisees and Scribes followed in instructing the people. By confining the law of God to outward duties only, they trained their disciples, like apes, to hypocrisy. (393) They lived, I readily admit, as ill as they taught, and even worse: and therefore, along with their corrupted doctrine, I willingly include their hypocritical parade of false righteousness. The principal charge brought by Christ against their doctrine may be easily learned from what follows in the discourse, where he removes from the law their false and wicked interpretations, and restores it to its purity. In short, the objection which, as we have already said, was unjustly brought against him by the Scribes, is powerfully thrown back on themselves.[2]
And the commentary of Gill is worth quoting from here:
He mentions the Scribes, because they were the more learned part of the people, who were employed in writing out, and expounding the law; and the Pharisees, because they were the strictest sect among the Jews for outward religion and righteousness; and yet, it seems, their righteousness was very defective; it lay only in an external observance of the law; did not arise from a purified heart, or the principles of grace; nor was it performed sincerely, and with a view to the glory of God; but for their own applause, and in order to obtain eternal life: besides, they neglected the weightier matters of the law, and contented themselves with the lesser ones; and as they were deficient in their practice, so they were very lax in their doctrines, as appears from the foregoing verse. Wherefore Christ informs his hearers, that they must have a better righteousness than these men had, if ever they expected to enter into the kingdom of heaven. [3]
And Poole writes
What the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was we cannot better learn than from St. Paul, who was himself a Pharisee, and bred up at the feet of Gamaliel, a great doctor amongst them, Acts 23:6 26:5 Philippians 3:5. That it was a righteousness of works appeareth from Philippians 3:1-21, and the whole Epistles to the Romans (Romans 1:1-16:27) and Galatians (Galatians 1:1-6:18); and their not owning Christ as the Messiah, nor believing on him, John 7:48, made it impossible that it should be any other. That they looked upon their mere obedience to the ceremonial law as their righteousness cannot be proved, yea, the contrary is enough evident by their obedience to the moral law, according to the interpretation they put upon it. But their interpretation of the moral law was so short and jejune, that it is manifest that their righteousness was not only a righteousness not of faith but of works, but works that were very imperfect and short of what the true sense of the law required, as our Saviour afterward proveth. That is to say, it was no righteousness, for he that keepeth the whole law, if he be guilty in one point, is guilty of all, Jam 2:10.[4]
Jesus’ statement would have come as a shock to his listeners since the Pharisees and scribes were known as meticulous law keepers. How could anyone be more righteous than the Pharisees, they would have thought? But Jesus did not leave them in suspense, and he quickly explained what he meant. As before stated, it is often assumed in the following words of Christ that he was either expanding or replacing the law of Moses. But this is not the case. And to understand what was happening one must understand the historical context of his words, as before stated.
To adapt and make the Law of Moses relevant for the Jewish people upon their return to Jerusalem, the rabbis, with Torah as their point of reference, interpreted and applied the law (i.e., casuistic or case law) to resolve issues, controversies and conflicts that arose as during the intertestamental period as the Jewish people intermingled with and confronted the legal and spiritual challenges posed by Greco-Roman culture. These expositions and applications of Torah were known as Halakah. In some instances, Rabbis claimed these new case laws were transmitted from Moses via “oral tradition.”[5]
It is this oral law of the rabbis, which the Pharisees and Scribes set on a par equal with Scripture, and though ostensibly an exposition and application of it, which Jesus addressed, not the Old Testament law itself. Jesus began his rescue of the law from rabbinic tradition with “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.” The phrase Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time is a reference to the rabbis mentioned in the above quote. Gill explains
[T]o hear… was along with the recital of the text, to receive by tradition, the sense the elders had given of it: of this kind is the instance produced by Christ…That “it was said”, or “it hath been said”; this is also a Talmudic form of expression; often is this phrase to be met with in the Talmud…”it has been said”…not to the Israelites in the time of Moses, but to the ancestors of the Jews, since the times of Ezra; by the elders, who were contemporary with them; and who by their false glosses corrupted the law, when they recited any part of it to the people; or “by the ancients”, the ancient doctors and commentators, which preceded the times of Christ, whom the Jews often call…”our ancients” [6]
The phrase be in danger of the judgment was an oral addition to the law of God. The Pharisees taught the abstaining from the outward act alone was sufficient to follow this law. Indeed, so legalistic were they in regard to this detail that they actually believed that only a person that killed using his own two hands was to be brought to justice. If one hired another to do the deed, he not actually performing the murder, he was guilty before God, but before men innocent of any crime. This is evidenced by the following quotes from the oral law of the Rabbis:
everyone that kills his neighbor with his hand; as if he strikes him with a sword, or with a stone that kills him; or strangles him till he die; or burns him in fire; seeing he kills him in any manner, in his own person, lo! such an one must be put to death , “by the house of judgment”, or the Sanhedrin ”
“if a man hires a murderer to kill his neighbor, or sends his servants, and they kill him, or binds him, and leaves him before a lion, or the like, and the beast kills him, every one of these is a shedder of blood; and the sin of slaughter is in his hand; and he is guilty of death by the hand of heaven, i.e. God; but he is not to be put to death by the house of judgment, or the Sanhedrin [7]
This was directly at odds with Scripture. In Numbers 35:9-28 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13 it is inferred that in the case of a man who killed another man, his hate, if visible to his fellow Israelites could be a factor in judging whether he was guilty of murder of manslaughter.
In addition, the Pharisees and scribes put such an emphasis on the outward act of murder alone, that they did not think that the hatred that underlay murder was a problem, only the physical act of a murder alone. But Jesus set them straight with his next words by telling them that mere anger with someone was murder in the heart, and that to reduce murder to a mere external act, while neglecting the heart sins of hate and anger was not sufficient to obey this law. The Pharisees had corrupted the law by reducing it to the external to the neglect of the internal. And it was this corrupt teaching that murder was prohibited in the sixth commandment, but not anger, that Jesus corrects. “But I say unto you, That whosever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Matthew 5:22)
The judgment referred to here is a judgment of God. The phrase without a cause establishes that there are times when anger is not a sin and is biblically justified. Only when a cause is lacking is a person liable to the judgment. The word fool as used in the Bible is very serious word that is far more serious than the typical meaning of the word fool as used today. It is used to refer to a man that is thoroughly wicked and reprobate, foolish because he is utterly lacking in biblical wisdom which Proverbs 1:7 establishes comes in its seed form with the fear of the Lord. To call a man a fool in the biblical sense of the word is a very serious matter, and so treated by the Lord. Such a man has committed such a serious sin (in contrast to the casual indifference of the Pharisees to matters of the heart), that he is danger of the fires of hell itself. Poole paraphrases:
so as the sense is this: I say unto you, that if a man doth but in his heart nourish wrath and anger against another without a just cause, and lets it grow up into malice, and thoughts and desires of private revenge, though he be not by it obnoxious to courts of justice, who can only determine upon overt acts, yet he is accountable to God, and liable to his judgment: but if men suffer their passions to break out into reviling terms and language, such as
Raca, ( signifying a vain person), or, Thou fool, ( speaking this from anger or malice), they are not only liable to the eternal vengeance of God, compared to the fire of Gehenna, but ought to be subjected to the punishment of the civil magistrate. Every civil government being by the law of God, in order to the prevention of quarrels or bloodshed, (which often followeth revilings of each other), obliged to punish such offences, as being the beginnings of murder, provocations to it, and indications of murderous hearts, hearts full of that which in the eye of God is murder. [8]
He is to leave his gift and attempt to make things right with his brother before presenting his offering. He then goes on to address a situation in which the man with a grudge against another has undertook legal proceedings against, the other man, and states that the man to whom this has happened should seek to settle the matter out of court, lest he found guilty in the court and thrust into prison until he should make restitution. (Matthew 5:25-26)
Next, Jesus addresses another perversion of the law of God by the pharisees, their perversion of the law of God relating to adultery. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say to you, That whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28) These two verses are strong arguments in favor of our thesis that Christ was restoring the law of God from the corruptions of the Pharisees, rather then improving the law or nullifying it entirely in favor a brand-new law. The phrase ye have heard that it was said by them of old time refers not to Moses and the seventh commandment, but rather, again, to the Jewish scribes and teachers and their oral law. For if Jesus had meant to quote Moses and the Pentateuch, he would have said “It is written,” not “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time”. Note these exact words. Instead of It is written which would refer to the written text of the Pentateuch, he says ye have heard that it was said. Note that word said, which establishes that Jesus is referring to instruction that is verbal, rather then literary. The Pharisees and scribes, the teachers of the law, taught that one need only abstain from the physical act of adultery (defined very narrowly by them as sexual intercourse between two people, one of whom was married to someone else). They did not under this commandment forbid lust. Henry comments that the Jews had been taught by the rabbis regarding the seventh commandment:
that the sense of it, which had been given to their ancestors, by the ancient doctors of the church, was, that this law is to be taken strictly, as it lies, and only regards the sin of uncleanness in married persons; or, what was strictly adultery, and that actual; so that it had no respect to fornication, or unchaste thoughts, words, or actions, but that single act only.[9]
And Gill explains:
the meaning of our Lord is, not that the then present Jews had heard that such a law had been delivered “to the ancients”, their fathers, at Mount Sinai; for that they could read in their Bibles: but they had received it by tradition, that the sense of it, which had been given to their ancestors, by the ancient doctors of the church, was, that this law is to be taken strictly, as it lies, and only regards the sin of uncleanness in married persons; or, what was strictly adultery, and that actual; so that it had no respect to fornication, or unchaste thoughts, words, or actions, but that single act only.[10]
As does Poole:
This law (saith our Saviour) your doctors expound, You shall not carnally lie with a woman that is not your wife; but there is a great deal more in it than so, for he that but secretly in his heart desireth such a thing, or taketh pleasure in such thoughts, and casts his eyes upon a woman in order to such a thing, is in the sight of God an adulterer.[11]
The law of God was not an imperfect code that Jesus was improving on, rather it is described as perfect. (Psalm 19:7) Indeed, lust was already a sin under the Old Covenant. (Job 31:1, Proverbs 6:25, Exodus 20:17) Therefore, we know that Jesus was not improving upon the Old Testament Law, he was restoring the law from the false interpretations given by the oral teaching of the rabbis, which had corrupted it. Jesus goes on in the next two verses to state the seriousness of sin, (in this case, adultery); better even to lose an eye or a hand, than go to hell. (Matthew 5:29-30) Of course, Jesus is using hyperbole here, as is well known. He is not prescribing actual physical bodily mutilation as a solution to heart sins, but he is using exaggeration to make a point. He does this to stress the utter seriousness of sins of the heart, specifically, in this context, lust.
Jesus then goes on to clarify the meaning of the law of God in regard to divorce. It hath been said, Whosever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but, I say unto you , That whosever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32) Again, the phrase, it hath been said, refers to the oral teaching on the law by the rabbis, and not the law itself. Jesus is not quoting Moses here, or he would have said “It is written, not it hath been said.” The law here referenced by the Rabbis is Deuteronomy 24:1-4. It should be noted, however, that Jesus is not quoting Deuteronomy 24:1 verbatim. He is quoting what perverted oral teaching of the Rabbis in regard to this verse. However, it must also be noted that Christ does not say It has been said by them of old, you have heard it said, but rather it hath been said. What is the significance of this? Unlike the previous clarifications of the law by Christ, which involved the oral law and Rabbinical traditions passed down by the Rabbis for generations and had gradually been elevated on a par with divine revelation, and which had corrupted Scripture, the Rabbinical corruption of this law was of far more recent origin. Hence, Christ puts his words differently when attributing the source of this corruption of God’s law. The historical context of this verse is the controversy between the Rabbinical schools of Shammai and Hillel, contemporary to the time of Christ. The former taught that divorce was only permissible for adultery, the taught a much more permissive and liberal attitude about divorce. The school of Hillel maintained that what was required here was only that a bill of divorce be presented to the wife; they alleged that the phrase some uncleanness referred to anything the husband might not like in his wife. Thus, they claimed that it was permissible for a man to divorce a woman for almost any reason whatsoever, including such trivial ones, as burning his dinner, not being as attractive as someone else, or for talking too loud.[12] The interpretation of the school of Hillel was quite popular in the time of Christ. Jesus here took the side of the school of Shammai, in resolving this Rabbinical dispute. Against the Pharisaical interpretation of this passage (which was in line with the school of Hillel) he clarifies the law in according to its original meaning. He says “But I say unto you, that whosever shall put away his wife, saveth for the cause for fornication, cause her to commit adultery, and whosever shall marry her that is divorced commiteth adultery.” Gill comments on this and explains:
But I say unto you; that whoever puts away his wife
Christ does not infringe, or revoke the original grant, or permission of divorce; only frees it from the false interpretations, and ill use, the Pharisees made of it; and restores the ancient sense of it, in which only it was to be understood: for a divorce was allowable in no case,saving for the cause of fornication;
which must not be taken strictly for what is called fornication, but as including adultery, incest, or any unlawful copulation; and is opposed to the sense and practices of the Pharisees, who were on the side of Hillell: who admitted of divorce, upon the most foolish and frivolous pretences whatever; when Shammai and his followers insisted on it, that a man ought only to put away his wife for uncleanness; in which they agreed with Christ. For so it is written ,“The house of Shammai say, a man may not put away his wife, unless he finds some uncleanness in her, according to ( Deuteronomy 24:1 ) The house of Hillell say, if she should spoil his food, (that is, as Jarchi and Bartenora explain it, burns it either at the fire, or with salt, i.e. over roasts or over salts it,) who appeal also to ( Deuteronomy 24:1 ) . R. Akiba says, if he finds another more beautiful than her, as it is said, ( Deuteronomy 24:1 ) “and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes.””[13]
And Poole explains:
The Pharisees had extended this toleration which God gave husbands amongst the Jews to other cases, besides that of uncleanness or adultery; so as they put away their wives upon every slight occasion, interpreting those words, that she find no favour in his eyes, separately from the following words, because he hath found some uncleanness in her, and gave a liberty for men upon any dislike of their wives to put them away, provided that they first gave them a bill of divorcement; and that in these cases it was lawful for the parties, thus separated from each other, to marry to whom either of them pleased; and this is expressed in terms in their form of those writings of divorcement, in Josephus and other writers. [14]
However, Jesus’ limitation of the right of divorce to unfaithfulness was not an addition to the law, but harmonious with its original intent. No new standard was being set here. The phrase some uncleaness did not, as the school of Hillel maintained, refer to anything a husband might dislike regarding his wife, but rather referred to sexual unfaithfulness of some sort. The word used ervah, denotes not simply adultery, but literally nakedness, of a shameful nature. Of course, this would include adultery, but would also include such things as posing for pornographic pictures or acting in pornographic movies. It refers to gross sexual impurity that it is not limited to adultery alone, although it certainly includes it. The word fornication used by Jesus is porneia, from which we obtain our English word pornography. The meaning of fornication is broader than adultery, and like ervah, denotes shameful conduct, especially of exposure of the genitals, and especially refers to shameful exposure and nakedness. The meaning of porneia is almost identical then, to the word ervah. As Bahnsen explains “…the two terms and their cognates are virtually coextensive in their applications.”[15] The point of this word study is to demonstrate that Jesus in Matthew 5:35 was not setting forth a new and higher standard, but rather reaffirming the original meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1 against the perversions of the law by the oral tradition of the Pharisees.[16] Before moving on to the next clarification of Jesus regarding the Law, we should note that this passage has sometimes been used to claim that Jesus was setting aside the Old Testament Law’s penal sanction of the death penalty for adultery in favor of divorce. In response, we can note a couple of points. First, the word fornication here, as we just noted, is not limited to adultery, but would include other acts of gross sexual impurity, not all of which would come under the penalty of death. Second, Israel was at this time in subjection to Roman rule; they lacked the authority to put anyone to death. (John 18:31) This made divorce the only recourse for adultery available at that time. As Calvin explained in commenting on Matthew 19: 9:
But the exception which Christ states appears to be superfluous. For, if the adulteress deserves to be punished with death, what purpose does it serve to talk of divorces? But as it was the duty of the husband to prosecute his wife for adultery, in order to purge his house from infamy, whatever might be the result, the husband, who convicts his wife of uncleanness, is here freed by Christ from the bond. It is even possible that, among a corrupt and degenerate people, this crime remained to a great extent unpunished; as, in our own day, the wicked forbearance of magistrates makes it necessary for husbands to put away unchaste wives, because adulterers are not punished. It must also be observed, that the right belongs equally and mutually to both sides, as there is a mutual and equal obligation to fidelity. For, though in other matters the husband holds the superiority, as to the marriage bed, the wife has an equal right: for he is not the lord of his body; and therefore when, by committing adultery, he has dissolved the marriage, the wife is set at liberty.[17]
In the passage on which Calvin wrote, Matthew 19, Jesus provides further insight into the correct view of divorce.
And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan, and great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female. And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and the two shall become one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, why did Moses then command to give a waiting of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commiteth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Matthew 19:1-9)
The Pharisees certainly got the memo the first time Jesus spoke on the subject. Their intention here, was not to ask a legitimate question, to which they already knew his answer, but to entrap him. Their intention here, as usual, was to trap Jesus into making a verbal gaffe. Gill explains their strategy by asking him if it was lawful to divorce a wife for any cause
be it ever so trivial, as said the school of Hillell: for there was a difference between the school of Shammai and the school of Hillell about this matter; the former insisted that a man might not put away his wife but in case of uncleanness; but the latter allowed putting away for very trifling things; as if she spoiled her husband’s food by over roasting, or over salting it; and, as one of the doctors say, if he found another woman that was more beautiful than her… This question being now agitated in the schools, they artfully put to Christ; not for information, but with a view to reproach him in some way or other; and that he might incur the resentment of one party or another, as he should answer. They might argue thus with themselves, and hope to succeed in this manner; should he be on the side of the school of Shammai, which was the weakest side, and less popular, as they had reason to believe he would, he would then expose himself to the resentment of the school of Hillell, and all on that side the question; should he take the part of Hillell, he would make the school of Shammai his enemies; should he forbid putting away of wives, which Moses allowed, they would then traduce him as contrary to Moses, and his law, which could not fail of setting the people against him; and should he consent to it, they would charge him with contradicting himself, or with inconstancy in his doctrine, since he had before asserted the unlawfulness of it, but in case of adultery; and should he abide by this, they might hope to irritate the men against him, who would think their liberty granted by Moses was entrenched on; as, on the other hand, should he, according to the question, admit of putting away for every cause, the women would be provoked at him, who would be left to the uncertain humour and caprice of their husbands; so that either way they hoped to get an advantage of him.[18]
Jesus however, being God and having all wisdom, was too wise to fall into their trap. In his answer, Jesus inferred that they already should know the answer to the question (Have ye not read…?” (Verse 4) Of course, the Pharisees had read; they were experts in the law of God, and the question was probably taken by them as almost insulting. Jesus did not create a new law; instead, he referred to the Pharisees to God’s will as it had been from the beginning and stated that man should not divide what God had joined. The Pharisees, preoccupied as they were with the exceptions to the rule rather than the rule itself, missed the point. They assumed that Jesus was contradicting the law rather than clarifying it. “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” They asked. (Verse 7) Jesus answered, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” It is important to understand here that Jesus was not modifying the Old Testament Law in regard to divorce. As we saw in our study of Matthew 5: 31-32, Jesus words there are in agreement in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. So then, Jesus here is not repealing Deuteronomy 24:1-4; rather, he is explaining Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
Though this statement is taken by many as a repeal of that law, it is important to note exactly what Jesus said. He states that from the beginning it was not so. Remember that this judicial law is a case law application of the seventh commandment, part of the moral law that derives from his very nature and is hence unchanging. What Jesus is saying therefore, is that God’s design has all along been for marriage for life. The exception for divorce is not because the Israelites were too stubborn to accept what God really wanted in the way of marriage, forcing him to give them a way out of their marriages. The key to understanding this is the phrase from the beginning it was not so. It was not so in the beginning because there was no sin in the world at that time. The reality of human sin made it necessary to include divorce legislation. Jesus is saying that the reason divorce legislation is in the law is because sin made it necessary to include it. Thus, in his teaching on divorce, Christ was not at odds with Moses.
After clarifying the law in regard to divorce, Jesus clarified the law in regard to oaths and oath taking. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all: neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair whit or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea: Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. (Matthew 5:33-37) Note once again, the phrase said by them of old time. This is a reference to the oral law as verbally passed down from the rabbis and considered on a par with divine revelation. In this case, the saying is not heterodox in and of itself, and it may lead one to wonder what Jesus found offensive about it. Indeed, it the saying is the same as that stated in Exodus 20:7 and Leviticus 19:12. To properly understand this, one must look again to the historical context. As William Hendriksen explains
In other words, in the thinking of the scribes and their forerunners an oath sworn “to the Lord” must be kept; on the contrary, an oath in connection to with which the name of the Lord was not expressly mentioned was of lesser significance. One did not need to be quite so conscientious about keeping it. And so in daily conversation oaths began to multiply “by heaven” and “by the earth” and “by Jerusalem” and, according to 23:16, 18 even “by the temple” and “by the altar.” In order to make an impression a person might utter such an oath, “talking big” and dispensing enormous promises. If the affirmation which he had made was a lie or if the promise was never meant to be kept, that was not so bad, as long as he had sworn “to the Lord.” [19]
The Pharisees and Scribes considered an oath binding only if it was sworn by the Lord’s name. They considered other oaths, sworn against such lesser things as heaven, the earth, the temple etc, to be less binding. Jesus was addressing this matter here.
First, the Pharisees had misemphasized the focus of these passages on oaths. In every case, the divine emphasis was on truthfulness. That was the point being stressed. Oaths must be meant, and they must be kept. The Pharisees had attempted to come up with a system that would enable them to abide by the law of God, while breaking the eighth commandment.
Second, God had already commanded that when the Israelites swore, they swear by his name. (Deuteronomy 6:13) The Pharisees had nullified the law of God by their Rabbinical tradition of swearing by things lesser then God.
Barnes explains
It appears, however, from this passage, as well as from the ancient writings of the Jewish rabbins, that while the Jews professedly adhered to the law, they had introduced a number of oaths in common conversation, and oaths which they by no means considered to be binding. For example, they would swear by the temple, by the head, by heaven, by the earth. So long as they kept from swearing by the name Yahweh, and so long as they observed the oaths publicly taken, they seemed to consider all others as allowable, and allowedly broken. This is the abuse which Christ wished to correct. “It was the practice of swearing in common conversation, and especially swearing by created things.” To do this, he said that they were mistaken in their views of the sacredness of such oaths. They were very closely connected with God; and to trifle with them was a species of trifling with God. Heaven is his throne; the earth his footstool; Jerusalem his special abode; the head was made by him, and was so much under his control that we could not make one hair white or black. To swear by these things, therefore, was to treat irreverently objects created by God, and could not be without guilt.[20]
Christ says “to swear not at all” His point here is that Christians must be so distinguished by keeping and telling the truth that swearing for them would be unnecessary. Their word would and should be sufficient to settle the truthfulness of a matter, without recourse to oaths. The phrase swear not at all cannot be taken as a blanket prohibition of all oaths, because God himself swears oaths ( ) In regard to judicial and civil oaths, it should be remembered that Christ himself answered under oath that he was the son of God, when placed under such by the high priest (Matthew 26:63-64) We should understand Christ’s prohibition to be one only of swearing by things other then God’s name. This is demonstrated by the text itself, for in context Christ says Swear not at all, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne, nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great king. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head…but let your communication be Yea, yea, Nay, nay…” Christ’s concluding remark that whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil, I believe, is a reference to the Pharisaical intent to make oaths they would not be obliged to keep by swearing such oaths. Such oaths are the result of an evil heart that is not distinguished by truthfulness. In conclusion, we once again see that Jesus is not abolishing the Old Testament Law in favor of a new law, but rather clarifying the law from the rabbinical misinterpretations and faulty applications of the law.
After clarifying the law in regard to oaths, Jesus next clarifies the law in regard to the lex talionis principle of justice. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
This clarification of the law is one that has often been woefully misunderstood. It is often held up as the repeal of the lex talionis principle by Christ; in the case of the Anabaptists, their dispensational and antinomian (in their case, almost Marcionite) hermeneutic is used to posit an interpretation of Jesus’ words which puts him very much at odds with the teaching of the Old Testament. Many modern day Christians have bought into this Dispensational and antinomian understanding of the text, although they have rightly repudiated much of the applicational excesses of the Anabaptists. To properly understand what is occurring in this passage, we must once again keep in mind the historical context in which Jesus is speaking; he is correcting Rabbinical misinterpretations of Old Testament Law and repudiating the oral law of the Rabbis, by which they had nullified the law of God itself. Since as we have seen, Christ has done this in regard to the law of God itself, and then its application to anger, adultery, divorce, and oaths, it would be most strange if he were now to suddenly turn and repudiate the law and uphold a new moral and ethical standard radically different than the one under the Old Covenant. To properly understand what Jesus is saying, we must look at the historical context, and what Jesus actually says. Only by interpreting Scripture using the grammatical-historical hermeneutic, may we arrive at a correct understanding of Jesus’ words here. First note the words Ye have heard that it was said. Once again, we see Jesus using this phrase, which as we saw before, refers to the oral law of the Rabbis, and not to Scripture, which, if Jesus wished to quote, he would use the alternate phrase It is written. Thus, we can see that Jesus is not quoting the lex talionis principle itself from the law, but the oral law as given by the ancient Rabbis. Note that he uses the word said. He is referring to what was verbally stated, not to divinely inspired Scripture. However, it should be observed that the phrase an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, is Scripturally accurate, which is a point that dupes many into thinking that Jesus is here abrogating this principle of lex talionis. The source of this statement is found in three passages of Scripture.
The first is Exodus 21:22-23: If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth, for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Also, in Leviticus 24:20: And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man so shall it be done to him again. (Leviticus 24:19-20)
And also, in Deuteronomy 19:21, in regard to the punishment of perjurers. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:21)
Note that all these laws deal with the judicial punishment of crime; they establish a rule for civil magistrates to determine that the penalty for a particular crime may be. The penalties they administer must be fair. They must fit the crime. The severity of the penalty must be proportionate to the harm done to the victim. It would therefore be unjust to execute a person for slapping another in the face. It would be unjust to let a murderer off with a ticket or citation, of with a warning as a traffic officer might do with a person who has committed a violation of a traffic ordinance. It is important to note that Jesus is not repealing the lex talionis principle as it applies in his context to civil magistrates. He is not saying that magistrates no longer have a benchmark for determining the just punishment for crimes, and that now such punishments are up to the arbitrary whims of the judge who may be more lenient or harsh, depending on the remorse of the victim, or the mood he might happen to be at a particular time of the day. Such an abrogation would eliminate the ability of civil magistrates to determine what justly should be the punishment for offenses, especially personal injuries. This spells social and judicial chaos, not the administration of the New Covenant. The problem that Jesus addressed here was that the Rabbis had taught the people that this these laws could be used as a justification for taking personal revenge. They could use it as an excuse to get even; to retaliate for petty wrongs and grievances done to them. Barnes points out
In these places [The Scriptural verses on the lex talionis principle] it was given as a rule to regulate the decisions of judges. They were to take eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, and to inflict burning for burning. As a judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ finds no fault with the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take upon himself to repeal it. But instead of confining it to magistrates, the Jews had extended it to private conduct, and made it the rule by which to take revenge. They considered themselves justified by this rule to inflict the same injury on others that they had received. Our Saviour remonstrates against this. He declares that the law had no reference to private revenge, that it was given only to regulate the magistrate, and that their private conduct was to be governed by different principles.[21]
And Poole points out
This was the commandment of God to the magistrate, in case a woman with child were struck, and any mischief came of it, Exodus 21:24; in case of damage done to a neighbour, Leviticus 24:20; and in the case of false witness, Deu 19:21. But in the mean time God had said to private persons, Leviticus 19:18, Thou shalt not avenge; and it is said, Proverbs 24:29, Say not, I will do to him as he hath done to me. The Pharisees had interpreted this law of God into a liberty for every private person, who had been wronged by another, to exact a satisfaction upon him, provided that he did not exceed this proportion of taking an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, doing no more wrong to another than that other had done to him.[22]
It should be noted that the Rabbinical and Pharisaical interpretations of these Old Testament passages were contrary to the Old Testament Law itself. The Old Testament Law specifically forbade such private revenge and retaliation, as Poole points out. The parallel passage to this one is Romans 12:17-21. “Recompence to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore, if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12: 17-21) The Old Testament specifically forbade private vengeance. It is often forgotten that in this Romans passage, Paul quotes from Proverbs 25:21-22 “If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: for thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee.” (Proverbs 25:21-22) It should be noted also that in the next chapter, after telling the Christians at Rome not to seek revenge, Paul describes the civil magistrate as God’s avenger. (Romans 13:4) The context of this section of the letter is that Christians should not take revenge on their enemies, because God has instituted the civil magistrate to take vengeance, and has delegated him the authority to do so. All revenge that the civil magistrate is not to administer belongs to God, and we must bear our grievances patiently, entrusting them to God to avenge us in his time himself. Paul also quotes from Deuteronomy 32:35 “To me belongeth vengeance and recompense; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall upon them make haste.” We see then that the Old Testament teaches nothing different than what Christ and the New Testament teach. Christ did not abrogate the Old Testament teaching of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. He clarified the law from the perverted applications of it given by the Rabbis in the oral law.
Poole summarizes:
That it is the will of their Lord that they should not take any private revenge, but leave the avenging of their injuries unto God, and to the public magistrate, who is God’s viceregent, before whom, notwithstanding any thing here said, they may seek a just satisfaction.[23]
Jesus goes on to say that if one is struck on the right cheek, they are to turn to the striker the other cheek as well. (Matthew 5:39). A slap on the cheek is not a life-threatening blow. The Jews of Christ’s day considered it an insult to be slapped in the face. What Christ is here saying is that we must not avenge ourselves when slandered or insulted, but must leave this to God, and when applicable, the civil magistrate. Jesus goes on to give two examples of his point. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy coat also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Calvin explains Jesus’ first example
Christ now glances at another kind of annoyance, and that is, when wicked men torment us with law-suits. He commands us, even on such an occasion, to be so patient and submissive that, when our coat has been taken away, we shall be prepared to give up our cloak also. None but a fool will stand upon the words, so as to maintain, that we must yield to our opponents what they demand, before coming into a court of law: for such compliance would more strongly inflame the minds of wicked men to robbery and extortion; and we know, that nothing was farther from the design of Christ. What then is meant by giving the cloak to him who endeavors, on the ground of a legal claim, (416) to take away our coat? If a man, oppressed by an unjust decision, loses what is his own, and yet is prepared, when it shall be found necessary, to part with the remainder, he deserves not less to be commended for patience than the man who allows himself to be twice robbed before coming into court. In short, when Christians meet with one who endeavors to wrench from them a part of their property, they ought to be prepared to lose the whole.[24]
Barnes explains Jesus second example.
The word translated “shall compel” is of Persian origin. Post-offices were then unknown. In order that the royal commands might be delivered with safety and despatch in different parts of the empire, Cyrus stationed horsemen at proper intervals on all the great public highways. One of those delivered the message to another, and intelligence was thus rapidly and safely communicated. These heralds were permitted to compel any person, or to press any horse, boat, ship, or other vehicle that they might need for the quick transmission of the king’s commandments. It was to this custom that our Saviour refers. Rather, says he, than resist a public authority requiring your attendance and aid for a certain distance, go peaceably twice the distance.[25]
To this we can add this statement by Hendriksen: “Now what Jesus is saying is that rather than to reveal a spirit of bitterness or annoyance toward the one who forces a burden upon a person, the latter should take this position with a smile.”[26]
Jesus then states that we should give to those who would ask and lend to those who would borrow of us.
Jesus then goes on to address a final clarification of the Old Testament Law; one that is related to the one just given. He says You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neignbor, and hate thy enemy But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of the Father which is in heaven: for he maketh the sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if you salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:44-48) Again, note the phrase Ye have heard that it was said. This establishes that Jesus is again referring to the oral law of the Rabbis, not the Old Testament law itself. God’s law does command for love for neighbors, (Leviticus 19:18) it nowhere commands hate for enemies, and in fact commands just the opposite, love, even for them! (Proverbs 25:21) The New Testament is in full agreement with the Old Testament law on this point. Jesus makes clear that the New Testament definition of neighbor did not encompass Jews alone, but even the hated Samaritans! (Luke 10:25-37) This is not a difference from the Old Testament. When one reads this passage on the good Samaritan, one will see that the question the lawyer put to him was regarding the very definition of neighbor as defined by the law of God itself! Jesus goes on to instruct his followers to bless them that curse them, do good to them that hate them, and pray for those who persecute and despitefully use them. These instructions are in full accord with Proverbs 25:21-22. Thus, Jesus was not abrogating the Old Testament law and replacing it with one of his own. He was clarifying and substantiating the Old Testament law against the Rabbinic misinterpretations and oral laws which effected to nullify the law of God itself. Bahnsen writes of this passage:
The final antithesis of Matthew 5 probably best shows the nature of the Pharasaiaical interpretation of and distortion of God’s law; it also strongly confirms our thesis that Jesus is reproving the scribal view of the law and not abrogating the law itself in the antithesis of Matthew 5. Whereas the law specified that God’s people were to love each other, it did not command them to hate their enemies. The scribes had affixed this manmade commandment to hate your enemies to God’s law of loving neighbor. Not only was this an improper inference and gross failure to understand the nature of God on the part of the scribes, it was in blatant contradiction to the word of the Older Testament! Proverbs 25:21 says “If you enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; and if he is thirsty give him water to drink.” The Pharisees were not even close to approximating the loving attitude; rabbinic teaching even commanded hate in certain instances, as well as demonstrating an unloving disposition and attitude and practice. Jesus confirms the true intent of the Older Testamental law and restores its proper interpretation. Christians are to be as loving and fair as is their Heavenly father; this is what the law requires. Hence, this is what Christ requires. So we see in Matthew 5:21-48 examples of how Christ confirms the Older Testamental law and reproves the Pharisaical use of it; the antitheses are case law applications of the principle enunciated in Matthew 5:17-20. Christ did not come to abrogate the law; far from it! He confirmed it in full measure, thereby condemning scribal legalism and showing us the pattern of our Christian sanctification.[27]
Scripture records that the people were “astonished at his doctrine, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes.” (Matthew 7:28-29). When the scribes taught, they constantly were appealing to the oral laws of previous generations of the Rabbis and were constantly buttressing their statements by citing and quoting from the Rabbis of old. But Jesus taught the people in a different manner. He repudiated the oral law of the rabbis and taught as one having authority, for indeed, he was the God himself, and there no was no one better qualified to teach or who had greater authority to do so.
Thus, we see from the teaching of Christ himself here that his coming did not abrogate the law of God, but simply clarified and renewed it against the Scribal misinterpretations and misrepresentations of it. The Law of God is in full force and in full effect in the age of the New Covenant.
Jesus further clarifies Old Testament Law after Sermon on the Mount
The Plucking of Grain on the Sabbath by his Disciples: In this account, Jesus further clarifies the Old Testament Law against the perversions of the Pharisees, in this case the ones relating to the Sabbath.
At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were ahungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was ahungered, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the palace and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day. (Matthew 12:1-8)
And it came to pass that he went through the cornfields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they do that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was ahungered, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat, but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The Sabbath is made for man, and not man for the sabbath: therefore, the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. (Mark 2:23-28)
“And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the cornfields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye do that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath days? And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when he himself was ahungered, and they that were with him; how he went into the house of God, and did take the showbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone? And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” (Luke 6:1-5)
In this account, recorded in the three of the Gospels, Jesus clarified the Sabbath law against the Pharisees. As Jesus and his disciples were walking through the cornfields, his disciples, being hungry took plucked the ears of the corn, rubbed them in their hands and ate them. The Pharisees, seeing this spoke to Jesus and the disciples and demanded why they did what was unlawful at the sabbath. Jesus answered the accusation of the Pharisees by appealing to how King David and his men ate of the showbread when David was fleeing from Saul. His point is that the preservation of life by the consumption of food is a higher law then that of the ceremonial one relating to the showbread. Ahimelech the priest was showing mercy to David by allowing him to eat of the showbread. This blamelessness of this act is shown by God when he proclaims that he desires mercy over sacrifice (Hosea 6:6) Jesus also pointed that the priests “profaned” the sabbath and were blameless. What Jesus was referring to here was the fact that on the Sabbath the priests performed work in the temple, or prior to that the tabernacle, much of it hard physical work, such as butchering and skinning sacrificial animals, yet because they were performing this necessary ecclesiastical function relating to the worship of God, they were not liable for breaking the Sabbath, though they were not strictly resting in the physical sense. Indeed, they also had to light fires to burn the sacrifices and yet kindling fires was strictly forbidden to the Jews. (Exodus 35:3) It should also be recognized here that the disciples were not working. They were simply picking corn husks from the stalks of corn they passed on the way to worship at the synagogue. It was the oral law of the Pharisees that categorized this act as work and prohibited it on the Sabbath; nowhere in the law was this act forbidden on the sabbath. Indeed, the law expressly stated that it was lawful to do this, as long as a sickle was not used on the standing crops. (Deuteronomy 23:25) To merely pluck a few ears of corn to satisfy ones’ hunger was hardly harvesting, but the Pharisees were so preoccupied with keeping the Rabbinical tradition that they criticized the disciples to Jesus for this alleged act of harvesting; they had forgotten that the law of God was not meant to be a noose around the neck, but a joy and a delight.
The Healing of the Man with the Withered Hand:
After this incident, when Jesus had entered one of their synagogues, he was encountered by a man with a withered hand. The Pharisees demanded if it was lawful to heal on the sabbath day, their answer of course being in the negative. Their purpose in doing so was to accuse him. Already they regarded him as a threat to their social standing in the Jewish community.
And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: and behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? That they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold of it, and lift it out? How much more then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him. (Matthew 12:9-14)
And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. And he said unto them. Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? To save life or to kill? But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him. (Mark 3:1-6)
And it came to pass also on another sabbath that he entered into the synagogue, that he entered into the synagogue and taught and there was a man whose right hand was withered. And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him. But he knew their thoughts and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth. Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? To save life, or to destroy it? And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other. And they were filled with madness and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus. (Luke 6:6-11)
The purpose of their question as put to Jesus was not to get an honest answer, but by his answer to have some charge with which they could take before the Sanhedrin and condemn on some pretense. Jesus addressed the Pharisees and boldly addressed their hypocrisy. He pointed out that even the Pharisees would rescue a sheep that had fallen into a pit on the sabbath. Using a lesser to the greater argument, Jesus stressed that if doing good was acceptable on the sheep in regard to a sheep in distress, how much more was it acceptable in regard to a man in distress! He asked them a series of rhetorical questions concerning the matter. Was it lawful to do evil or good on the sabbath? To save or destroy life? The Pharisees had no answer to these questions, for the obvious answer to them all was that Jesus was correct, but of course they could not admit this. They could only angrily storm away and plot how they might murder him. (More evidence that they were not meticulous and sincere practitioners of the Mosaic law, which prohibited murder). From these two encounters with Jesus concerning the Sabbath, we can note, for our purposes, that Jesus did not abrogate the Sabbath. He did not argue with the Pharisees that his disciples could pluck corn or that he could heal because the sabbath was abrogated. Instead, he defended the teaching of the Old Testament against the legalistic and extrabiblical sabbath regulations of the Pharisees, which Jesus did not consider binding and would break with his disciples.
Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for neglecting weightier matters of the law:
In Matthew 23:23, Jesus, in the midst of a strong denouncement of the Pharisees and scribes to his disciples and to the multitude, said “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not leave the other undone.” He adds “Ye blind guides, which strain at gnats and swallow a camel. (23:24). Jesus does not condemn the Pharisees for meticulous observance of the law of God; to the contrary, he adds that their careful and tedious tithing of herbs should have been performed. The problem was that the Pharisees paid very careful mind to tithing in the minutest things while being unjust, unmerciful and unfaithful, much more major matters. They strained at a gnat (careful tithing on herbs) and swallowed camels (neglected to be faithful, just, and merciful). Faith, justice, and mercy are the weighty matters of the law. Given a choice, God would rather have that. (Hosea 6:6) However, lest we get the wrong idea, God expressly states in Matthew 23:23 that it is not a case of either/or. God wants us to be faithful, just and merciful, but he also wants us to meticulously tithe as well. “…these ought ye to have done, and not leave the other undone.” (23:23) We do not have an option of only doing one or the other. We must obey the law in it’s big overarching duties and also its little requirements. Note here that Christ adds judgment to his list of weightier matters. Civil judgment is a weightier matter of the law. Earlier in his denouncement, Jesus commanded his followers to follow the teachings of the Pharisees and scribes insofar as they sat in the seat of Moses. To the extent, they actually taught the law of God, and as far as they were faithful to the law revealed to Moses, they were to be obeyed. But his followers were not to follow their hypocrisy, or the self-righteous pride they took in their careful obedience to the minor matters of God’s law. Nor were they in bondage to follow their man-made rabbinical traditions, which they placed on a par with divine revelation.
Jesus upholds the capital sanction of an Old Testament case law. One of the strongest arguments for the continuing validity of the Old Testament judicial law in the New Covenant is that Jesus expressly and explicitly rebuked the Pharisees for nullifying one of the Old Testament case laws, a capitol one at that, by their traditions. This is a landmark passage for capping the evidence to the case we have been thus far presenting. That Jesus considered the law of God still binding in the New Covenant unless abrogated by the Scriptures.
Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when the eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, honor thy father and mother and, he that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosever shall say to his father or mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightiest be profited by me; and honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus, have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, this people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:1-9)
Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all of the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they came from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands. He answered and said unto them, Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said Honor thy father and thy mother; and Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: but ye say, If a man shall say to his father of mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightiest be profited by me, he shall be free, And ye suffer no more to do aught for his father or his mother; making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Mark 7:1-13)
The Pharisees’ Corban system meant that one could make a freewill offering to God with money that otherwise would have been used for the taking care of his parents. In Hebrew culture, It was the responsibility of the eldest son to take care of his parents in their old age. Because the money was used for God’s work, he was effectively absolved by the Pharisees of his responsibility to keep the fifth commandment. Jesus told them that their traditions included many such laws that effectively nullified the law of God. This is important for understanding the Pharisees. They did not oppose Jesus because he was abrogating the law; they opposed him because was vindicating and defending the law against their manmade additions to that law which served to nullify that law. Jesus statement about the Pharisees helps us understand his statements on the sermon on the mount. Plainly, Jesus’ problem with the Pharisees was not that they kept the law of God, and he was instituting a new law which rendered the first one null and void so that keepers of it were now legalists. Rather, his problem with the Pharisees was that they had legalistically added manmade commandments and traditions of the elders to the commandments of God and corrupted the law. Human additions to the law of God were strictly forbidden. (Deuteronomy 4:2)
That is what Jesus opposed here. The Pharisees were not meticulous law keepers; they were self-righteous legalistic hypocrites who had substituted divine revelation for human revelation. And what laws of God they did keep faithfully they did not out of love for God, but for the admiration and praise of men, so that others would see how holy they were. (Matthew 6:1-18, 7:1-5) They were the quintessential legalists. Note however, that in rebutting their legalism, Jesus upholds not only the fifth commandment, but also the case law of the rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) It should be noted that this case law is one of the most despised in the Bible. It has often been held up as the quintessential and ultimate example of the utter barbarity and injustice of the Old Testament law. It has been brought up as if the very fact of this law is proof positive that theonomy is a horrific idea that should be banished into the same dustbin with other ancient and barbaric law codes like the code of Hammurabi, or Sharia, still in practice in some parts of the world. Such critics only slander both the law which is “holy, just and good” (Romans 7:12) as well as God the Father and God the Son. None of God’s laws are barbaric, unjust, or horrific, rather they apply in the New Covenant today or not.
Christ upholds a second case law:
Kenneth L. Gentry explains
In Mark 10, Christ includes a case law alongside a sampling from the Ten Commandments when he directs the rich young ruler to obedience “You know the commandments, ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery. Do not steal, Do not bear false witness. Do not defraud. Honor your father and your mother. (Mark 10:19) The command “do not defraud” derives from Deuteronomy 24:14. Thus, this case law is placed on par with the fundamental law found in the Ten Commandments.[28]
For our purposes, we can note, however, that Christ not only upheld the fifth commandment (the moral law) but he also upheld the case law (the law of the rebellious son) as well. He also upheld the case law of Deuteronomy 24:14. Clearly then, Christ did not consider his coming to abrogate such case law applications (the judicial laws) with the ceremonial ones. Not only however, did Christ uphold an Old Testament case law, but he upheld one with a capitol sanction. Christ in no way implied that the sanction of this law was abrogated, but the law itself retained. Indeed, the very statement Jesus actually made was that “he who curses father and mother, let him die the death.” To subtract the last phrase from the first would be to make the former statement grammatically meaningless. One cannot claim that Jesus was not vindicating the civil penalty here, without also saying that he was not vindicating the rest of the law. This passage illustrates for us what Jesus must think of modern law codes and their substitutes for the judicial law. Is not prison, for example, a tradition of men that makes void God’s command for restitution to be paid to victims? Is not natural law a tradition of men that makes void biblical law? Cannot the same be said of legal positivism? In conclusion, therefore, we can make two observations.
First, Christ emphatically upheld the Old Testament Law “every jot and tittle” as binding in the New Covenant and specifically stated that his purpose was not destroy the law. This point cannot be overstated. Jesus was crystal clear in telling his followers that his coming did not annul the law; it is still valid as an ethical standard in the New Covenant. Jesus after making this categorical statement then proceeded to clear away misapplications of the law. Rather then present a new law, Jesus clarified and reaffirmed the old. Since Christ explicitly stated that every jot and tittle of the law is still valid until heaven and earth pass away, we must not assume as the dispensationalists do, and take a hermeneutic of discontinuity in regard to the law; in other words, we must not assume that a law is annulled because it is not repeated in the New Testament. Rather, we must take a covenantal hermeneutic of continuity in regard to the law; we must assume that it is still valid, according to Jesus’ words unless it is specifically abrogated by later divine revelation.
Second, Jesus clarified the law in its details. After making this categorical statement about the law, Jesus presented six instances in which the law’s meaning had been distorted by the traditions of the Rabbis. He repudiated such rabbinical corruption of the law and clarified its meaning. In so doing, he did not add to the law or expand its scope from what the law already addressed. He simply made this more apparent.
Third, Jesus strongly rebuked the Pharisees for corrupting the law of God. Jesus took the law of God seriously and strongly denounced the Pharisees for adding human traditions to the law. Such additions were forbidden already by the law itself. (Deuteronomy 4:2)
In light of this then, how can be said that Jesus was opposed to God’s law or that his coming meant that the law has passed away in its entirety. This cannot be. We see then that Jesus upheld the law of God as a moral and ethical standard in the New Covenant.
Otherwise, during his ministry, Jesus merely clarified and did not abrogate the law of God. Several incidents in his ministry regarding the Pharisees illustrate this.
The Plucking of Grain on the Sabbath by his Disciples: In this account, Jesus further clarifies the Old Testament Law against the perversions of the Pharisees, in this case the ones relating to the Sabbath.
At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were ahungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was ahungered, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the palace and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day. (Matthew 12:1-8)
And it came to pass that he went through the cornfields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they do that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was ahungered, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat, but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The Sabbath is made for man, and not man for the sabbath: therefore, the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. (Mark 2:23-28)
“And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the cornfields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye do that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath days? And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when he himself was ahungered, and they that were with him; how he went into the house of God, and did take the showbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone? And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” (Luke 6:1-5)
In this account, recorded in the three of the Gospels, Jesus clarified the Sabbath law against the Pharisees. As Jesus and his disciples were walking through the cornfields, his disciples, being hungry took plucked the ears of the corn, rubbed them in their hands and ate them. The Pharisees, seeing this spoke to Jesus and the disciples and demanded why they did what was unlawful at the sabbath. Jesus answered the accusation of the Pharisees by appealing to how King David and his men ate of the showbread when David was fleeing from Saul. His point is that the preservation of life by the consumption of food is a higher law then that of the ceremonial one relating to the showbread. Ahimelech the priest was showing mercy to David by allowing him to eat of the showbread. This blamelessness of this act is shown by God when he proclaims that he desires mercy over sacrifice (Hosea 6:6) Jesus also pointed that the priests “profaned” the sabbath and were blameless. What Jesus was referring to here was the fact that on the Sabbath the priests performed work in the temple, or prior to that the tabernacle, much of it hard physical work, such as butchering and skinning sacrificial animals, yet because they were performing this necessary ecclesiastical function relating to the worship of God, they were not liable for breaking the Sabbath, though they were not strictly resting in the physical sense. Indeed, they also had to light fires to burn the sacrifices and yet kindling fires was strictly forbidden to the Jews. (Exodus 35:3) It should also be recognized here that the disciples were not working. They were simply picking corn husks from the stalks of corn they passed on the way to worship at the synagogue. It was the oral law of the Pharisees that categorized this act as work and prohibited it on the Sabbath; nowhere in the law was this act forbidden on the sabbath. Indeed, the law expressly stated that it was lawful to do this, as long as a sickle was not used on the standing crops. (Deuteronomy 23:25) To merely pluck a few ears of corn to satisfy ones’ hunger was hardly harvesting, but the Pharisees were so preoccupied with keeping the Rabbinical tradition that they criticized the disciples to Jesus for this alleged act of harvesting; they had forgotten that the law of God was not meant to be a noose around the neck, but a joy and a delight.
The Healing of the Man with the Withered Hand:
After this incident, when Jesus had entered one of their synagogues, he was encountered by a man with a withered hand. The Pharisees demanded if it was lawful to heal on the sabbath day, their answer of course being in the negative. Their purpose in doing so was to accuse him. Already they regarded him as a threat to their social standing in the Jewish community.
And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: and behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? That they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold of it, and lift it out? How much more then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him. (Matthew 12:9-14)
And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. And he said unto them. Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? To save life or to kill? But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him. (Mark 3:1-6)
And it came to pass also on another sabbath that he entered into the synagogue, that he entered into the synagogue and taught and there was a man whose right hand was withered. And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him. But he knew their thoughts and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth. Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? To save life, or to destroy it? And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other. And they were filled with madness and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus. (Luke 6:6-11)
The purpose of their question as put to Jesus was not to get an honest answer, but by his answer to have some charge with which they could take before the Sanhedrin and condemn on some pretense. Jesus addressed the Pharisees and boldly addressed their hypocrisy. He pointed out that even the Pharisees would rescue a sheep that had fallen into a pit on the sabbath. Using a lesser to the greater argument, Jesus stressed that if doing good was acceptable on the sheep in regard to a sheep in distress, how much more was it acceptable in regard to a man in distress! He asked them a series of rhetorical questions concerning the matter. Was it lawful to do evil or good on the sabbath? To save or destroy life? The Pharisees had no answer to these questions, for the obvious answer to them all was that Jesus was correct, but of course they could not admit this. They could only angrily storm away and plot how they might murder him. (More evidence that they were not meticulous and sincere practitioners of the Mosaic law, which prohibited murder). From these two encounters with Jesus concerning the Sabbath, we can note, for our purposes, that Jesus did not abrogate the Sabbath. He did not argue with the Pharisees that his disciples could pluck corn or that he could heal because the sabbath was abrogated. Instead, he defended the teaching of the Old Testament against the legalistic and extrabiblical sabbath regulations of the Pharisees, which Jesus did not consider binding and would break with his disciples.
The Apostles and God’s Law
The Apostles likewise upheld the Old Testament Law as valid in the New Testament age. Indeed, when reading the epistles, one will see that validity of the law is often merely assumed. Generally speaking, the apostles considered the fact of the abiding validity of God’s law so obvious that they did not even try to prove it, but merely wrote of the law being still valid. However, in a few cases, they did go to great lengths to stress the abiding validity of the law. An exhaustive examination of the apostolic and especially Pauline, treatment of the law is beyond the scope of this chapter. We will simply consider examine several New Testament texts in Acts, Romans, 1 Timothy, and Hebrews that will be enough to show that the Apostles taught nothing different regarding the law then Jesus did, as we saw previously.
And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him [Paul] to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? (Acts 23:2-3) Note that Paul, when standing before the council, appealed to the law as if it was still binding. He obviously considered the law of God to be still in effect after the coming of Christ. Paul was not shy about boldly pointing out the hypocrisy of this ecclesiastical leader, who presumed to judge Paul by the law, while commanding that Paul be struck in violation of that same law. Paul had no problem being judged according to the Old Testament law (Acts 25:11) Paul, upon being told that this was the high priest, then said “I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of they people.” (Acts 25:5) The Scripture to which Paul alludes is Exodus 22:18. Obviously, Paul considered this Scripture to be in effect and applicable even after the coming of Christ and in the New Covenant, though it is Old Testament law, a case law application of the fifth commandment. It should be noted before moving on that Paul’s statement here was not an apology. Paul did not confess that he was wrong in rebuking Ananias so. Although some have come to that conclusion, it is rather unlikely considering the fact that the office of high priest was abolished with the death of Christ. There is no reason to think that Paul the apostle would continue to respect an office which was now invalid, null and void. It should also be noted that the law to which Paul appealed had direct reference to civil rulers, not ecclesiastical ones. Paul’s statement should be probably taken as a cutting refusal to recognize the authority of the high priest. Paul would be saying then “I did not know he was the high priest because I recognize the current high priest as Christ.” An alternate meaning is that Paul meant that because of Ananias’ blatant violation of the law, Paul was saying that he was so far from the righteousness and holiness expected in that office holder, that he would have had no way of knowing that Ananias occupied that office. But this interpretation still has Paul recognizing a defunct and abrogated office, and so the former interpretation should be preferred. In effect, Paul was paying Ananias a back handed compliment. Considering the strong language that Jesus used against Herod in calling him a vixen (Luke 13:32) and the strong language that the prophets of Israel used against the civil and ecclesiastical rulers in their day, and it is difficult to come to the conclusion that Paul was here repenting of the words he had just spoken. (He would not, of course, believe it wrong to do what the prophets and Christ had done before him).
In Acts 25:11) Paul recognizes the authority of the Old Testament capital sanctions. “Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong as thou very well knowest. For if I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them, I appeal to Caesar.” Note that Paul does not consider the law abrogated and its sanctions now null and void. He continues to regard the capital sanctions in force, and applicable to himself, should he have committed any crime worthy of death. Some have tried to avoid this argument by claiming that Paul was referencing not Jewish law, but Roman law. Steve C. Halbrook lays to this rest this assertion:
The term is worthy of death is also used in Deuteronomy 21:22 in regards to any capital sanction authorized by God. (See KJV) Moreover, the offenses Paul refers to as being worthy of death are offenses against the Jews, for in verse 10 paul days during his traal, “To the Jews I have done no wrong…” Thus, Paul affirms the O.T. civil code, and Paul acknowledges that violating it is worthy of death, not unworthy of death, which would be the case if these sanctions no longer apply. [29]
Paul’s statement “anything worthy of death” indicates a plurality of capital sanctions, not just one. Furthermore, if Paul had regarded the Old Testament law annulled, this would have been an excellent time to rebuke the injustice of using the Old Testament civil law against him. And had Paul considered it now unjust in the New Covenant to implement Old Testament civil law, he would not have urged its use against him had he transgressed that same law.[30]
Wherefore, the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” (Romans 7:12)
If the law is good, and just, then how can it be wrong to use it as a basis for the law of modern states? If the law is holy, then how can any system of law that differs from this law be holy as well? And if any system of law differs and is thus unholy, then it is insufficient for use for modern nations.
1 Timothy 1:8-10.
This is one of the most important texts in the New Testament on the applicability of the Old Testament Law in the New Covenant, especially in regard to the judicial law.
In Hebrews, when discussing apostasy, the author (probably Paul, but we are not entirely sure who wrote the book of Hebrews)“For if the word spoken through angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord was confirmed unto us by them that heard him…” (Hebrews 2:2-3) This is an argument of the lesser to the greater. If those guilty of transgressing the Old Testament laws received a just penalty, then how much more will those who apostatize from the faith? Furthermore, the author says that the word spoken through angels was steadfast. It was unalterable, and there was no escape from it. How much more so will eternal punishment be? Notice here that the author states that the penalties bestowed by the Old Testament law are just. And it is upon this point that he grounds the justice of the penalty of apostasy. Another passage in Hebrews, 10:28-29, makes this same argument: “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: how much sorer punishment, suppose ye shall he be though worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:28-29) This is another lesser to the greater argument. It cannot be said that everlasting punishment replaces temporal human punishment because those that were put to death under the law of Moses suffered eternal punishment as well. (Provided such people were unsaved, which nearly all were. Righteous men who were put to death under the Old Covenant, such as Naboth by Jezebel, were not put to death under the law of Moses, but rather in spite of it; the law of Moses would not have executed Naboth or others like him, like Isaiah the prophet). Hebrews 10:29 makes the lesser to the greater argument even more explicit when it uses the words “of how much more punishment will be though worthy…” The Old Testament civil laws are established and validated by this line of thought. For if the civil penalties can be abrogated or annulled, perhaps eternal punishment can be as well. But this is precisely the point. God’s eternal punishment is final and unalterable; just as the law of Moses is final and unalterable, only much more so! [31]
Several other passages that bulwark and defend the theonomic position as revealed in 1 Timothy 1:8-10 are several verses in the book of Acts.
And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him [Paul] to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? (Acts 23:2-3) Note that Paul, when standing before the council, appealed to the law as if it was still binding. He obviously considered the law of God to be still in effect after the coming of Christ. Paul was not shy about boldly pointing out the hypocrisy of this ecclesiastical leader, who presumed to judge Paul by the law, while commanding that Paul be struck in violation of that same law. Paul had no problem being judged according to the Old Testament law (Acts 25:11) Paul, upon being told that this was the high priest, then said “I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of they people.” (Acts 25:5) The Scripture to which Paul alludes is Exodus 22:18. Obviously, Paul considered this Scripture to be in effect and applicable even after the coming of Christ and in the New Covenant, though it is Old Testament law, a case law application of the fifth commandment. It should be noted before moving on that Paul’s statement here was not an apology. Paul did not confess that he was wrong in rebuking Ananias so. Although some have come to that conclusion, it is rather unlikely considering the fact that the office of high priest was abolished with the death of Christ. There is no reason to think that Paul the apostle would continue to respect an office which was now invalid, null and void. It should also be noted that the law to which Paul appealed had direct reference to civil rulers, not ecclesiastical ones. Paul’s statement should be probably taken as a cutting refusal to recognize the authority of the high priest. Paul would be saying then “I did not know he was the high priest because I recognize the current high priest as Christ.” An alternate meaning is that Paul meant that because of Ananias’ blatant violation of the law, Paul was saying that he was so far from the righteousness and holiness expected in that office holder, that he would have had no way of knowing that Ananias occupied that office. But this interpretation still has Paul recognizing a defunct and abrogated office, and so the former interpretation should be preferred. In effect, Paul was paying Ananias a back handed compliment. Considering the strong language that Jesus used against Herod in calling him a vixen (Luke 13:32) and the strong language that the prophets of Israel used against the civil and ecclesiastical rulers in their day, and it is difficult to come to the conclusion that Paul was here repenting of the words he had just spoken. (He would not, of course, believe it wrong to do what the prophets and Christ had done before him).
In Acts 25:11, Paul recognizes the authority of the Old Testament capital sanctions.
“Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong as thou very well knowest. For if I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them, I appeal to Caesar.” (Acts 25:11)
Note that Paul does not consider the law abrogated and its sanctions now null and void. He continues to regard the capital sanctions in force, and applicable to himself, should he have committed any crime worthy of death. Some have tried to avoid this argument by claiming that Paul was referencing not Jewish law, but Roman law. Steve C. Halbrook lays to this rest this assertion:
The term worthy of death is also used in Deuteronomy 21:22 in regards to any capital sanction authorized by God. (See KJV) Moreover, the offenses Paul refers to as being worthy of death are offenses against the Jews, for in verse 10 Paul says during his trial, “To the Jews I have done no wrong…” Thus, Paul affirms the O.T. civil code, and Paul acknowledges that violating it is worthy of death, not unworthy of death, which would be the case if these sanctions no longer apply. [32]
Paul’s statement “anything worthy of death” indicates a plurality of capital sanctions, not just one. Furthermore, if Paul had regarded the Old Testament law annulled, this would have been an excellent time to rebuke the injustice of using the Old Testament civil law against him. And had Paul considered it now unjust in the New Covenant to implement Old Testament civil law, he would not have urged its use against him had he transgressed that same law.[33]
Wherefore, the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” (Romans 7:12)
If the law is good, and just, then how can it be wrong to use it as a basis for the law of modern states? If the law is holy, then how can any system of law that differs from this law be holy as well? And if any system of law differs and is thus unholy, then it is insufficient for use for modern nations. In 1 Corinthians 9:8-9, Paul writes “Say I these things as a man? Or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.” Doth God take care of oxen? (1 Corinthians 9:8-9) Paul here cites an Old Testament case law (found in Deuteronomy 25:4) and applies it to the issue of financial support of preachers of the gospel. Clearly then, Paul considers the general equity or underlying principles of this case law to be valid in the New Covenant. In his warning against partiality (strongly condemned in the Old Testament judicial law), James writes
“If ye fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.” (James 1:8-13)
James’ point is that the law of God is a seamless whole. One cannot arbitrarily choose to follow some laws and reject others. For if he breaks merely one law, he has broken them all. Someone might allege that this passage does not allow for categorizing the law into ceremonial, moral, and judicial laws, but requires the dispensational approach that sees the law of God as one whole body of law that is altogether abrogated with the coming of Christ, which puts the believer under the ethical precepts of the New Testament alone. Such an interpretation fails to note the obvious in the passage itself. In the passage, James mentions moral commands. He mentions adultery and murder, which are moral laws. He does not mention any of the abrogated ceremonial laws. Thus, we can see that James obviously considered the moral law to be still binding in the New Covenant.
In Hebrews, when discussing apostasy, the author (probably Paul, but we are not entirely sure who wrote the book of Hebrews)“For if the word spoken through angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord was confirmed unto us by them that heard him…” (Hebrews 2:2-3) This is an argument of the lesser to the greater. If those guilty of transgressing the Old Testament laws received a just penalty, then how much more will those who apostatize from the faith? Furthermore, the author says that the word spoken through angels was steadfast. It was unalterable, and there was no escape from it. How much more so will eternal punishment be? Notice here that the author states that the penalties bestowed by the Old Testament law are just. And it is upon this point that he grounds the justice of the penalty of apostasy. Another passage in Hebrews, 10:28-29, makes this same argument: “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: how much sorer punishment, suppose ye shall he be though worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:28-29) This is another lesser to the greater argument. It cannot be said that everlasting punishment replaces temporal human punishment because those that were put to death under the law of Moses suffered eternal punishment as well. (Provided such people were unsaved, which nearly all were. Righteous men who were put to death under the Old Covenant, such as Naboth by Jezebel, were not put to death under the law of Moses, but rather in spite of it; the law of Moses would not have executed Naboth or others like him, like Isaiah the prophet). Hebrews 10:29 makes the lesser to the greater argument even more explicit when it uses the words “of how much more punishment will be though worthy…” The Old Testament civil laws are established and validated by this line of thought. For if the civil penalties can be abrogated or annulled, perhaps eternal punishment can be as well. But this is precisely the point. God’s eternal punishment is final and unalterable; just as the law of Moses is final and unalterable, only much more so! [34]
Bahnsen summarizes the apostolic teaching:
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. 9:20-27). Law-breaking is not to have dominion over the believer (Rom. 6:12-13; 1 John 3:3-5), for the Holy. Spirit fulfills the ordinance of the law within him (Rom. 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 ofJesus” (Rev. 12:17; 14:12). The apostles often supported their teaching by appealing to the law (for example, 1Cor. 14:34; Jas. 2:9)-its general precepts found in the decalogue (for example, “Thou shalt not steal,” Rom. 13:9), the case law applications of those details (for example, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treads,” Tim. 5:18), the penal code (for example, “if I am an evildoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die,” Acts 25:11; cf. Deut. 21:22; Rom. 13:4), and even “holiness” requirements in the ceremonial law (for example, 2 Cor. 6:14-18)[35]
[1] (Retrieved January 5th, 2022) https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/matthew/5.html
[2] (Retrieved January 5th, 2022) https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/matthew-5.html
[3] (Retrieved January 5th, 2022) https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-5-20.html
[4] Retrieved January 5th, 2022) https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/matthew/5.htm
[5] Larry DeBruyn The Bible Beseiged: Scripture and the Emergent Church, Charismatic, Hebrew Roots, Evangelical Contemplative Movements (Dublin, California: First Love Publications 2015) p. 52
[6] (Retrieved January 5th 2022) https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-5-21.html#t
[7] Cited in Ibid
[8] (Retrieved January 5th, 2022 https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/matthew/5.htm
[9] (Retrieved January 6th, 2022) https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-5-27.html
[10] (Retrieved January 6th, 2022 https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-5-27.html
[11] (Retrieved January 6, 2022) https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/matthew/5.htm
[12] Greg L. Bahnsen Theonomy in Christian Ethics 2nd Edition. (Phillipsburg: New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company 1984) p. 99
[13] (Retrieved January 6th, 2022) https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-5-32.html
[14] (Retrieved January 6th, 2022) https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/matthew/5.htm
[15] Greg L. Bahnsen Theonomy in Christian Ethics 2nd Edition (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company 1984) p. 106
[16] Divorce falls under these definitions as well, lest we make the Apostle Paul inconsistent with Christ. “Fornication which Jesus taught to be the sole ground for divorce, must be inclusive of desertion unless you (wrongly) assume that Jesus and Paul can contradict each other, for in 1 Corinthians 7:15 Paul establishes desertion as a legitimate cause for divorce.” Greg L. Bahnsen Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company 1984) p 108-109
[17] (Retrieved January 6th, 2022) https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/matthew-19.html
[18] (Retrieved January 6th, 2022) https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-19-3.html
[19] New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House 1973) p. 307-308
[20] (Retrieved January 12th, 2022) https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/bnb/matthew-5.html
[21] (Retrieved January 12th, 2022) https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/bnb/matthew-5.html
[22] (Retrieved Janurary 12th, 2022) https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/matthew/5.htm
[23] (Retrieved January 12th, 2022) https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/matthew/5.htm
[24] (Retrieved January 12th, 2022) https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/matthew-5.html
[25] (Retrieved January 12th, 2022) https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/bnb/matthew-5.html
[26] William Hendriksen Exposition of the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House 1973) p. 311
[27] Greg L. Bahnsen Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company 1977) 2nd Printing, 1984) p. 118-119
[28] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. God’s Law Made Easy (Chesnee, South Carolina: Victorious Hope Publishing 2020) p. 38
[29] Steve C. Halbrook God Is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws 2nd Edition (Theonomy Resources Media 2011) p. 383
[30] Ibid
[31] Greg L. Bahnsen No Other Standard: Theonomy and its Critics (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics 1991) p. 179
[32] Steve C. Halbrook God Is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws 2nd Edition (Theonomy Resources Media 2011) p. 383
[33] Ibid
[34] Greg L. Bahnsen No Other Standard: Theonomy and its Critics (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics 1991) p. 179
[35] Greg L. Bahnsen By what Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today (Nacodoches, Texas; Powder Springs, Georgia: Covenant Media Press; American Vision Press 2008) p. 67
[36] Greg L. Bahnsen Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presybterian and Reformed Publishing Company 1977) [2nd Edition 1984) p. 221
[37] Ibid
[38] Ibid
[39] Ibid
[40] Ibid
[41] Ibid