“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:27-28)

“Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” (Matt. 5:31-32)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.” (Matt. 5:43-44)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” (Matt. 5:38-39)

How are we to understand the teaching of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount as it affects our present relationship to the law of Moses? Is Christ, in any sense, contrasting his teaching in the above verses with the law of Moses, or is he only exposing the Pharisees’ distorted interpretations of the law of Moses?

Are we, as Christians, to urge our govern­ment to write into the law of the land today the eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth system of justice that God gave to Israel? Some would answer yes, because they believe it is part of the unchanging moral law of God. How, then, can we reconcile such a system with the turn-the-other-cheek words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount? Does Christ really set up a new system of standards for personal behavior, or is that a false conclusion reached by an incorrect under­standing of what he actually meant in the But I say unto you contrasts?

The answers to these questions turn on a clear identifi­cation of the person, or persons, with whom Christ con­trasts himself when he says, But I say unto you. How are we to understand the radical differences set forth in these contrasts? It is obvious that Christ is making a clear con­trast between his teaching and some former teaching. Is the law of Moses part of that former teaching, or is Christ con­trasting his teaching only with the rab­binical leaders’ wrong interpretation of that law? Is the point in the Sermon on the Mount merely the true and spiritual meaning of Moses, or is Christ contrasting his teaching and authority with the laws and authority of Moses? Is Christ actually adding to the law of Moses and asserting that he is a new lawgiver?

The central question is this: Is Christ giving the church a new canon of moral conduct, or is he merely reaffirming the law of Moses? Is Christ establishing a new kingdom based on grace and thus giving a new and higher canon of moral conduct, or are both the foundation and actual canon of moral conduct of Christ’s kingdom the same as that of theocratic Israel? Did the law of Moses that established and governed the theocracy demand the same kind and identi­cal degree of holy living that Christ demands?^[1]

This question will ultimately involve the relationship between the nature of law and the nature of grace. Is Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount, saying the same thing that Paul taught in Romans 6:14: “… you are not under law, but under grace”? Does Christ actually contrast the demands that grace can, and does, make of those under its rule with the demands that law, even the holy law of God, cannot make? Alternatively, is there really no contrast at all in the Sermon on the Mount between law and grace? Are Israel and the church merely under different administrations of the one and same covenant and therefore under the same moral canon of conduct, or did Christ establish a new and totally different covenant that demands much higher and more spiritual conduct from his people than the law of Moses demanded of the Israelites?

Many theologians deny that grace has a teaching power in its own right. This is why they are convinced that without law there can be no holiness. They insist that without clear law to instruct us, neither grace nor love can teach us how to live.^[2] This seems to contradict Titus 2:11-15 and 1 John 3:1-3. These texts teach that the grace of God in a believer’s heart has a teaching power just as the hope of seeing Christ has a teaching and constraining power that changes one’s life. It is only half-correct to say that love without law is blind. When Luther said, “Love God with all your heart and do as you please,” he was also half-right. If we could love God with all of our hearts, we would not need any laws. The problem is that we are still sinners and cannot love God with all of our hearts. We sinners need objective laws to keep us from twisting and misusing the grace of God. However, we must blame neither love nor grace for the problem. When, in our glorification, Christ removes all our remaining sin, we will be able to love God with all of our hearts, and we will not need external instruction. In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul writes with clarity on the power of love. Why does true love think, feel, and act in the manner Paul describes? Is it because the law of God demands that kind of behavior from love? Or, is it because it is the very nature of love to think, feel, and act in the manner de­scribed? Love is kind, but not because the law threatens punishment if it is not kind. Love is automatically kind simply because it is the very nature of love to be kind. Love teaches, without any help from law, the lifestyle described in 1 Corinthians 13.

Thoughtful readers must consider all of the foregoing questions as they seek a correct understanding of the Ser­mon on the Mount. Usually, the particular theological system that one has adopted dictates the answers to these questions. The reader filters the content of the passage through a pre-existing grid, answering these questions according to theological information imported into the text, and arriving at a conclusion consistent with his or her theological system. We have not followed that procedure; our purpose in this book is to set forth how we found the answers to the questions raised and how we arrived at the following three conclusions:

One: The Sermon on the Mount is an integral part of the Christian’s rule of life today; it is not a set of rules for a future Jewish kingdom. Therefore, we disagree with the Dispensational view as expressed in the first edition of the Scofield Reference Bible.

Two: Christ never contradicts Moses in the sense that Moses was in any way wrong. We believe in the unity of the Scriptures. Christ does give the church new and higher standards, or rules of conduct, than Moses ever gave, or could have given, under the law, but this in no way means or implies that Moses was wrong. It means that Christ is a new and superior lawgiver because he administers a new and “better covenant based on better promises …” (Heb. 8:6). It means that grace can, and does, make higher demands than law can make simply because of the nature and power of grace and the weakness of law. Not only can grace appeal to a higher motive and make higher demands; it also can empower the fulfillment of those demands. Grace can, and does, accomplish what the law of Moses never could. That is the glory of the New Covenant. We must remember that the Old Covenant carried a footnote that said, “Batteries not included.” The New Covenant remedies that deficiency by the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Three: Under a covenant based on law, administrators cannot legislate and punish the thoughts of the heart. God has both the right and the power to condemn a person for immoral daydreaming in his tent, but neither Moses nor the legal covenant that he administered could stone some­one to death for having wicked thoughts. It is clear that God punished Israel for the sin of covetousness (Isa. 57:17; Jer. 6:13-15); however, this was a direct sovereign act of the God who sees into the heart, and not punishment at the hands of the magistrate who administered the law. Under the New Covenant, the Holy Spirit functions as both the personal pedagogue and the paraclete of every believer, in­forming the conscience and empowering the life, and he can deal with the heart in a way that the magistrate, under the Old Covenant given through Moses, could not.

It seems evident that Christ is saying far more in the Sermon on the Mount than merely, “This is what Moses really meant.” Christ is saying, “I am in no way destroying or criticizing Moses. I am interpreting and applying his com­mand­ments in an area and in a manner that neither he nor his covenant ever could have done. I also am giving my disciples new and higher laws that make moral and spiri­tual demands that are based entirely on grace instead of on the Old Covenant of law.”

In establishing these points, we will avoid the two ex­tremes that lead to serious and opposite errors. (1) On the one hand, we will protect the true unity of the Script­ures and will not have Christ contra­dicting Moses. Contrasting two things and showing why one is superior to the other is not at all the same thing as contradicting something and saying it was wrong. The writer of the letter to the He­brews is not saying the New Covenant contradicts the Old Covenant simply because the new and better covenant replaces the old one. (2) On the other hand, we will not limit the authority of Christ as the new lawgiver by making him to be a mere rubber stamp of Moses. We will allow Christ to give new truth that is higher than Moses ever gave.

We will see that Christ is clearly contrasting the legal rule of Moses (which was holy, righteous, and good) with his own gracious rule (which is higher and better) in such a way that establishes that Christ is indeed “that Prophet” who was promised (Deut. 18:15; John 1:21; Acts 3:22-26). He is not merely the greatest scribe or rabbi since Moses. God had promised to send a prophet who would replace and supercede Moses as the new and final lawgiver over his people; clearly, Christ is the fulfillment of that promise. The New Covenant established by Christ is a new and better covenant with new and higher laws, and not just a new administration of an older covenant and the same laws.

Some preachers and writers ask trick questions that en­able them to label, package, and dispense with you as a heretic if you disagree with them. One such question is, “Do you believe the Ten Commandments are the rule of life for Christians today?” Any answer but an unqualified yes earns you the odious label of antinomian. Sometimes, tongue in cheek (even though it is an accurate answer), we say, “Oh, my no, those commandments are far too low a standard for a redeemed child of God, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and living under a gracious covenant.” However, a more definitive answer would be, “We believe the Ten Commandments, as interpreted and applied by our Lord in his teaching and in the Holy Spirit-inspired New Covenant Scrip­tures, are a very vital part of our rule of life. The entire Bi­ble, all sixty-six books, as it is interpreted through the lens of the New Covenant Scriptures, is our rule of life.” This is the essence of New Covenant Theology’s hermeneutic concerning law.

Many writers who oppose our position will say almost the same thing I have just stated. It seems to me that they contradict themselves. On the one hand, they will insist that the Ten Commandments, as written on the Tables of the Covenant (Ex. 34:27-29), are, in and of themselves, “the unchanging Moral Law of God.” They will, however, then proceed to qualify that and will say exactly what we have said. Compare our statement, repeated below, with exam­ples from two men writing against New Covenant Theol­ogy:

We believe the Ten Commandments, as interpreted and ap­plied by our Lord in his teaching and in the Holy Spirit-inspired New Covenant Scriptures, are a very vital part of our rule of life. The entire Bible, all sixty-six books, as interpreted through the lens of the New Covenant Scriptures is our rule of life.

Ernest Reisinger opposes our position, but writes the following:

The Decalogue must be understood as all Scripture must be understood: according to the explanation and application that the Prophets, Christ, and the Apostles have given it.^[3]

That is what we believe and teach. The question we would ask is this: Does Christ (or do his writing apostles) ever offer an explanation and application of the law of Moses that in any way raises those laws to a higher level? Does Christ (or do his writing apostles in the Epistles) ever give any laws that demand either a new or a higher spiri­tual duty for New Covenant Christians? That is the core issue; Ernest Reisinger’s quotation answers it as we do. The Decalogue is not transcovenantal, nor is the understanding and application of it divorced from the rest of Scripture.

Richard Barcellos is another writer expressing opposi­tion to New Covenant Theology who, at times, makes statements that express exactly what we are saying:

The law of the Old Covenant is simply assumed into the New Covenant law and applied as such by the New Testa­ment. It must be granted that the redemptive-historical change brought on by Christ’s death and the inauguration of the New Covenant causes the application of the law to differ …^[4]

Barcellos’ statement here is very close to the thesis of this book. Apart from his imaginary distinction between ‘the Law’ and ‘the Law of the Old Covenant,’^[5] we would agree entirely with the above statement. We say: “The Ten Com­mandments, as interpreted and applied by Christ and the apostles.” Barcellos says: “The inauguration of the New Covenant causes the application of the law to differ.” Ernest Reisinger says: “The Decalogue must be understood … according to the explanation and application that the Proph­ets, Christ, and the Apostles have given it.” I find no es­sential difference between the three statements. We believe that the Ten Commandments, as interpreted and applied by Christ and the apostles, have been assumed into the New Covenant and have become part of the rule of life for a believer today. What is the real, if any, difference between Barcellos’ statement and ours? The problem arises in the latter half of the last sentence of Barcellos’ quotation, which we did not cite. Barcellos wants to make the Ten Com­mandments the unchanging moral law of God and then somehow make those same commandments transcove­nantal. He sees no distinction between the Ten Command­ments as the so-called moral law and those same Ten Commandments as the Tablets of the Covenant containing the terms of the covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai (Ex. 34:27, 28). Here is the continuation of the above quota­tion:

… but this is not to say that the law is canceled in all re­spects. The law is the same; its application is modified to fit the conditions brought on by the death of Christ and the in­auguration of the New Covenant.^[6]

If Richard Barcellos and Ernest Reisinger, and others of like persuasion would work out the clear implications of what they are saying, they would realize that they are saying the same thing we are. The holy, just, and good law of God never changes in its essence. We agree with Barcel­los that the “law is the same.” If he would only flesh out what he means by “the law’s application is modified” and define what he means by the “conditions brought on by the death of Christ and the inauguration of the New Cove­nant,” he would clearly see that we are on same page!

The law functions to reveal the character of God, and since God does not change in his character, the law in its essence does not change. However, the partial revelation of God’s character that Scripture calls the law of Moses is canceled completely as a covenant. Both the writers quoted above openly admit that the “application” of the law “is modified” because of the redemptive work of Christ, but they then will argue that this “modification” does not con­stitute a change. The word modify means to change, so how can a modification not be a change? How can you possibly modify something without changing it?

This book will develop and prove the thesis that Jesus Christ, as the fullest revelation of God’s character, does indeed change, or if you prefer, modify, some of what Moses taught. The But I say sections of the Sermon on the Mount contrast Jesus’ teaching with that of Moses, and not merely with pharisaical distortions of Moses. However, having said that, we immediately add that Christ’s con­trasting his teaching with Moses is not at all the same as his contradicting Moses. Christ indeed contrasts his teaching with that of Moses and raises it to a higher level, but he never says Moses was wrong. If Christ contradicts Moses, we have lost the unity of the Scripture.

In this study of some of the But I say unto you contrasts in Matthew 5-7, we will develop the following points:

First, Christ never says or implies that one single law given by Moses was wrong in and of itself. That which was good and essential for a nation consisting mostly of rebel­lious sinners does not necessarily apply to a church of regenerate believers. The contrasting nature of Israel and the church are part of the conditions changed by Christ’s redemptive work. The church comprises only regenerate believers; the nation of Israel consisted mostly, but not entirely, of unregenerate, self-righteous rebels. Laws de­signed to govern lost sinners cannot be, in their very na­ture, identical to laws designed to govern believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Remember that the God of Moses who spoke the law at Sinai is the same God who spoke his grace at Calvary in our Lord Jesus Christ. John writes, “The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17); but in both cases it was the same God, speaking and working toward the same goal, even if the rule of Moses and the rule of Christ contain different canons of conduct for different kinds of people during different peri­ods of time.

Second, in our zeal to be sure that Christ does not con­tradict Moses, we cannot have Christ merely rubber-stamping Moses as an equal or superior teacher of God’s law. Any system of theology that leaves Moses as the final ruler in the conscience of a believer today has not heard and correctly understood the Father when he says, “This is My beloved Son, listen to Him” (Matt. 17:5). The But I say unto you contrasts in the Sermon on the Mount can have some new truth that Moses never gave without demeaning Moses in any way. In their eagerness to protect their views of the unity of the covenants and the perpetuity of the so-called moral law, some well-meaning people have lost the unique and final authority of Christ as Lord and lawgiver over the church.

We must see that Moses is finished as a lawgiver just as Aaron is finished as a priest. Aaron was replaced with a new high priest who is greater and better (Heb. 6:20-8:6). Moses has been replaced with a new lawgiver who is greater and better. The covenant of law that God gave through Moses has been replaced with a new covenant that is greater and better, simply because the old one was ob­solete (Heb. 8:6-13). Moses did his job and he did it most faithfully. Both he and the covenant he administered were good and glorious (Rom. 7:12; 2 Cor. 3:7-11). Moses was faithful in God’s house (Heb. 3:2, 5) as the pedagogue (Gal. 3:24), but his ministry or service in the house is finished. The children have come of age and are now full-fledged sons (Gal. 3 and 4); the faithful pedagogue has been dis­missed because his role is finished. A greater-than-Moses is here, and he has built the new and true house of God promised to David (1 Chron. 17:10b-12). Our Lord, the Son in whom God has spoken full and final truth (Heb. 1:1-3), has replaced Moses, the servant through whom God had spoken partial and preparatory truth.

Christ supercedes and replaces Moses as the true and fi­nal law­giver in the same way that he supercedes and replaces Aaron as the true and final high priest. We would no more send a Christian back to Moses as the final au­thority over his conscience than we would send a Christian back to Aaron to have him sacrifice a lamb. The Covenant Theology mantra that says, “Moses will drive you to Christ to be justified and Christ will lead you by the hand back to Moses to be sanctified” is worse than bad advice; it is a denial of the lordship of Christ over the conscience of the Christian.

Christ does not contradict Moses any more than he con­tradicts Aaron, even though he has replaced both men and their ministries. Both Aaron and Moses were faithful and godly men, but neither of their ministries could cleanse the conscience (Heb. 9:14, 15; 10:1-4) and effect the goal of redemption. Their ministries reflected the weaknesses involved in the Old Covenant arrangement (Heb. 8:6-13). Both Aaron and Moses, along with their respective minis­tries and the covenant upon which those ministries were founded, had to be replaced by our Lord Jesus Christ and the New Covenant that he established. Moses could no more give a complete and full canon of moral conduct before the advent of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost than Aaron could offer a final and complete sacrifice for sin before the death of Christ on the final Day of Atonement.

Christ replaced Moses in the same manner that Paul and the other apostles replaced John the Baptist and the other Old Testament prophets. In fact, Paul, by inspira­tion of the Holy Spirit whom Christ had promised to send (John 14:12-15), adds to the earthly ministry of Christ himself (1 Cor. 7:10-12ff.) by giving additional law. One of the express purposes for which our Lord sent the Holy Spirit was to reveal things that Christ could not tell his disciples while he was with them on earth because they were unable to grasp them at that time. Should we understand the words of Christ in John 16:12-13 literally? Or, does “guide you into all truth” only mean that the Holy Spirit would “rightly interpret what Moses really meant?”

Paul is not contradicting Christ when he adds another ground for divorce, besides adultery, to the teaching of Matthew 19:1-9. He is covering a situation that could not have existed prior to the establishment of the New Cove­nant church. Paul’s authority for writing, and for the new laws that he wrote, did not in any way come as logical deductions from either the law of Moses or from the words of Christ in the Gospels. It was new revelation. Paul gave the church a distinctly new rule concerning divorce that added to what Christ had taught. In so doing, Paul was tacitly claiming that apostolic authority was all he needed to add to the law of God and change the rules of divorce. Moses had given rules for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Christ changed those rules (Matt. 19:1-9); now Paul makes further changes from Christ’s changes (1 Cor. 7:10-12). Must we strangle progressive revelation in order to hold on to a wrong view of the so-called unchanging moral law of God?

I will continue to insist that it is essential to see that Christ never contra­dicts Moses. A contrast is not at all the same thing as a contradiction. It is also essential that we see that Christ did indeed replace Moses. Christ sometimes takes the same laws that God gave to Moses as the basis for a covenant and raises them to a higher level than Moses ever could have. The same laws take on a new and unique character when the hands that bring them have holes, in­stead of a sword, in them. Under the New Covenant, Christ also gives new laws of behavior based on grace that Moses could not have given under his covenant. When we say that Christ gives new laws, we accept the tenet that the inspired words of the writing apostles are equally the words of the risen and enthroned Christ. Jesus Christ, through his direct speech and through his inspired writing apostles, presents himself as the new lawgiver of the new age: the full and final revelation of God’s character and his laws for his redeemed people.

---