Our Lord used the phrase, But I say unto you, six times in the Sermon on the Mount. The meaning of this phrase as he used it in Matthew 5 is the subject of disagreement among many sincere Christians. Everyone agrees that Christ is contrasting his teaching with someone else’s teaching. Disagreement arises over the identity of that someone else. With whose teaching is Christ contrasting his teaching? Evangelical theologians generally adopt one of two possible interpretations: One, Christ is contrasting his teaching with Moses’ teaching; or two, Christ is giving the true meaning of Moses and contrasting that with the distortions of Moses by the Pharisees. Which of these positions is correct? The answer we accept directly affects our entire system of theology. All agree that the But I say statements are deliberate contrasts, but there is strong disagreement over the point of contrast. Two Southern Baptist writers, one historical and one contemporary, highlight the two answers to the question:

Jesus now [In ‘the But I say’ statements] assumes a tone of superiority over the Mosaic regulations.^[1]

Throughout Matthew 5 Jesus is seeking to restore the real meaning of the moral law^[2] when he says repeatedly, But I say … (see vv. 22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44).^[3]

The first view sees Christ as the new lawgiver who replaces Moses in exactly the same way that Christ, as the new high priest, replaces Aaron. The second view sees Christ as only correcting pharisaical alterations to the Mosaic law, thus restoring Moses’ true teaching and affirming Moses as the true, final, and greatest lawgiver. Is this just another case of in‐house theological wrangling with no practical ramifications? What is really at stake in the argument? Among other things, the validity of one of the basic presuppositions of Covenant Theology is at stake. The final answer to this debate will either establish or destroy the foundations of Covenant Theology’s view of law and grace.

The three elementary maxims of Covenant Theology are: (1) There is one unchanging Covenant of Grace in all ages for all people; (2) there is one redeemed people of God under the one Covenant of Grace; and (3) there is one unchanging canon of conduct, the Ten Commandments, for that one redeemed people of God. If any of these maxims are proved wrong, then Covenant Theology’s view of law collapses. In that system, Israel and the church must be under the same covenant; it is essential that Israel be the redeemed church; and the Ten Commandments, as written on the Tables of the Covenant at Sinai (Ex. 34:27, 28; Deut. 9:9‐11), must be the unchanging moral law of God. The last tenet, one unchanging canon of moral conduct, is threatened in the first view of the But I say statements. To change in any way or to add to the law of God given to Moses is to have two different canons of conduct, one for Israel and one for the church. Covenant Theology must view and condemn all who hold such a view as guilty of the sin of antinomianism. We will develop this idea more carefully in a later chapter.

This is no ivory tower debate among academics far removed from the life of the church and individual Christians. Its crucial point addresses the identity and content of the final authority over the Christian’s conscience in matters of morality.

Is Moses the greatest lawgiver that ever lived? Is Christ indeed merely the true and final interpreter of Moses? Or, is Christ a new lawgiver with the inherent right to give higher laws? Does he replace Moses as lawgiver in exactly the same way that he replaces Aaron as high priest?

Are the Ten Commandments, as written on the stone Tables of the Covenant at Sinai, the highest moral standard ever given? Or, does our Lord give us even higher standards in the Sermon on the Mount and the rest of the New Testament Scriptures?

These vital questions speak to the heart of the issue. They ask whether (1) the law of Moses, which was holy, just, and good, is the highest unchanging expression of law that God ever gave, or (2) if the laws of the kingdom established by Christ, based on grace and equally holy, just, and good, are much higher laws?

The two different views have nothing to do with whether the Christian is under clear, concrete, objective moral absolutes as a rule for his or her life. The claim that we who believe that Jesus is the new lawgiver pit law against love is not at all close to the truth. Christians are under the laws of the New Covenant, and those laws are specific, definite, and objective. God, in the Old Covenant, gave Moses concrete, nonnegotiable laws for the people of Israel, and Christ, in the New Covenant, has done the same for the church. He has given us laws that are just as non‐ negotiable, definite, and objective as those given to Moses were.

The argument turns on one primary point: Where does the Christian find his or her final authority for morality? One view insists that a Christian’s morality begins and ends with the cross and the New Covenant Scriptures; the other view insists that biblical morality begins and ends with Moses and the Tables of the Covenant.^[4] The first view regards Christ as the new lawgiver who (1) takes some of the laws of Moses to a higher level, (2) adds some new laws to those Moses gave, and (3) changes others. The second view regards the Decalogue, or Tables of the Covenant, as THE unchanging moral law of God. Richard Barcellos has succinctly expressed the latter view.

The Reformed view of the Sermon on the Mount sees Jesus as introducing a contrast between a true understanding of the Law and the false one of the scribes and Pharisees. Christ is not altering the Law or supplanting it with another.^[5]

Walter Chantry, another contemporary theologian, has written extensively for Banner of Truth on this subject.

Our Lord Jesus Christ himself did not give a condensed and definitive code of morality. In his great sermon on kingdom righteousness (Matt. 5), the greatest prophet produced no new standard. He merely gave clear exposition of the old statutes. These were selected, not to make a complete list of duties, but to correct the prevailing misinterpretations of the hour.^[6]

All agree that any change at all in the law given to Moses demonstrates that there are indeed two canons of conduct: one for Israel, and another for the church. That pulls the third building block, the necessity of there being only one canon of conduct for Israel and the church, out of the system of Covenant Theology and threatens its coherence as a viable systematic theology.

The dispute over the nature of the Sabbath stems from this necessity of one unchanging canon of conduct. Why is there such a heated controversy over the Sabbath? To deny that the Sabbath is an eternal, unchanging, moral law is to deny Covenant Theology. The issue is theological and has nothing to do with specific behavior. It is imperative to believe that the Sabbath commandment is part of the unchanging moral law of God simply because that belief is essential to the third maxim of Covenant Theology. The fourth commandment must be part of the unchanging moral law of God or we have two different canons of conduct.^[7]

According to contemporary Covenant Theology, the only way a person can sin against the Sabbath commandment is to deny it as a moral absolute and regard it instead as the ceremonial sign of the Old Covenant (Ex. 31:14‐18). Sunday activities such as eating at a restaurant, watching football, swimming in your backyard pool, or other specific actions are absent from a “not‐permitted‐on‐the‐Sabbath‐list” simply because there is no such list. Specific behavior is entirely up to the conscience of the individual believer. It is his or her business alone as to whether he or she eats out on Sunday or watches football on Sunday. All that is essential is to confess that the Sabbath is a moral commandment. The manner in which each individual observes the Sabbath is dictated by his or her Christian liberty. I call this view “Sabbatarian Antinomianism.” Covenant Theology preaches the Sabbath as a moral absolute, but in practice, they treat it as a flexible principle left up to each individual’s conscience.

The thesis of this book is one of the foundation stones of a theological position called New Covenant Theology. We believe that our Lord is more than a scribe or rabbi who merely interprets Moses; he is a true prophet. He is “that Prophet,” promised as the new lawgiver who would replace Moses (Deut. 18:15‐19). In the Sermon on the Mount, the new lawgiver contrasts^[8] his teaching, based on the gracious covenant he established, with the teaching of Moses, based on a covenant of law. God is the originator and author of both covenants, and he designed both to serve the same ultimate end. He used both covenants to reveal his character: the laws given to Moses were a partial revelation only, while Christ came as the full revelation of God—the exact representation of his being (Heb. 1:3). The end for which God gave the first covenant was conviction of sin and preparation for grace. The goal of the second covenant was forgiveness of sin and, through assurance of that forgiveness, grace for holy living. The law covenant given to Moses was a ministration of death, and the gracious covenant given through Christ was a ministration of life (2 Cor. 3).

We will establish that Christ is more than merely the true and authoritative interpreter of Moses; he is God’s final and full lawgiver. He replaces Moses in exactly the same way he replaces Aaron. The Sermon on the Mount is not merely “the Talmud of Jesus,” which is all it can be if Christ gives only the true interpretation of Moses. In the New Covenant Scriptures, our Lord is the new lawgiver who (1) does indeed give a true understanding and application of Moses and the entire Old Testament; (2) changes some of the old laws; and (3) adds new and higher laws. Since these truths are irreconcilable with Covenant Theology’s view of law, many who hold to Covenant Theology may vilify us as antinomian. How can our belief in a higher law that replaces a lower law in any sense be anti‐law? We hold that grace can, and does, demand more of a New Covenant believer than the Mosaic law demanded of an Old Covenant believer. How is that antinomian?^[9]

As believers living under the New Covenant, we must look to Jesus Christ as the final revelation of God’s character and will, and allow him alone to set the standards that mark the life of the people of God. We must take seriously the Father’s message, “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him” (Mark 9:7).

---