In previous chapters, we argued for covenantal discontinuity by making the claim that some things are considered sin under the New Covenant that were not classified that way under the Old Covenant. We supported this claim by examining the status of divorce under each covenant. According to the law of Moses, divorce was legal on the grounds of uncleanness, which excluded adultery. Jesus, however, taught that adultery was the only legitimate ground for divorce in his kingdom. Divorce serves as an invalidating example that falsifies Covenant Theology’s claim that there is but one canon of conduct (or ethics) for all people in all ages, and this canon is the contents of the Decalogue. While we agree that the morality contained in the Ten Commandments does not change with a shift from one redemptive era to another (e.g., the categories of adultery and idolatry are condemned under both; the attitude of worship of the Creator is enjoined under both), we must point out that the contents of the Ten Commandments do not unanimously qualify as moral. We cannot assert that the Ten Commandments are THE moral law of God; indeed, we cannot state with certainty that such a term is even biblical at all.

One record of Jesus’ teaching on divorce is in Matthew 5-7, where it forms part of a larger series of lessons that he set before his disciples. We often refer to this passage of Scripture as the Sermon on the Mount. Many writers characterize this section as the best known and least understood of all that Jesus taught. A clear understanding of the Sermon on the Mount, however, is essential to the discussion of continuity and discontinuity. Some theologians view texts within the Sermon (such as Matt. 5:17: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets…but to fulfill them”) as emphatically teaching the continuity of the law of God, which to them means the Ten Commandments given to Moses at Sinai. These theologians emphasize that Jesus specifically denied abolition of law, and asserted fulfillment. 

From one perspective, Jesus’ statement certainly seems to establish continuity between his teaching and that of Moses. Yet from another perspective, his statement demonstrates discontinuity. The words Jesus uses—abolish and fulfill—allow for more than one connotative meaning. If we understand abolish to mean to destroy by treating the Law and the Prophets as useless and worthless, then Jesus’ assertion that he did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets proves continuity between the scriptural status of his teaching and the earlier teaching to which he compares his teaching. This is precisely the point we made earlier when we marked the distinction between testament and covenant. When we are referring to God’s trustworthy revelation of himself to his people, we find complete continuity between the earlier revelation (the Old Testament) and the newer revelation (the New Testament). Jesus did not come to treat the Law and the Prophets as though they were no longer scripture. 

This understanding of abolish allows us to view Jesus as the fulfillment of Scripture, as that revelation to which all earlier revelation pointed. This fulfillment, however, entails a connotative meaning of abolish that establishes discontinuity. In order to fulfill Scripture, Jesus had to replace the Old Covenant, in its entirety, including the Decalogue, with a new and better covenant. Jesus did not abolish the Law and the Prophets in the sense of destroying them, but in order to fulfill them, he had to abolish them in the sense of setting them aside. Paradoxically, the non-abolition/fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets requires the abolition of the Law and the Prophets.

The Sermon on the Mount offers further support for inspirational continuity and covenantal discontinuity. Immediately after setting up the expectation of fulfillment (vv. 17, 18), Jesus contrasts his new teaching with the law of Moses in six you have heard it said/but I say unto you passages (vv. 21-48). This contrast prepares the groundwork for us to view Jesus as replacing Moses as lawgiver in exactly the same way that he replaces Aaron as priest. In this way, we have the continuity of offices (prophet and priest; lawgiver and mediator) at the same time that we have the discontinuity of the covenants that govern those offices. Further support for discontinuity of the law comes from Paul, who more than once (e.g., Rom. 6:14 and 10:4) clearly speaks of the end of the law and of Christians being not under the law but under grace. It would seem that the question is not “either/or” but “both/and.” The question is not, “Are Christians under the law,” but in what sense are they under the law and in what sense are they “free from the law.” Understanding what both Jesus and Paul actually meant is to go a long way in understanding the continuity or discontinuity of the law of God given to Moses. Our theology must explain and reconcile both Matthew 5:17 and Romans 6:14.

We will better understand the Sermon on the Mount if we are aware of how Jesus’ audiences perceived him. Jesus was radically different from his teaching contemporaries in both the content of his message and the authority with which he taught. Matthew comments that when Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law (Matt. 7:28, 29 NIV).

On another occasion, Mark mentions a similar response:

Jesus…went into the synagogue and began to teach. The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law (Mark 1:21b, 22 NIV).

Luke mentions yet another occasion when our Lord was preaching in the synagogue and the congregation was astounded at his message: All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips (Luke 4:22a NIV). Their amazement was not merely that he spoke with authority, but that he spoke the message of sovereign grace. It was the truth of the “gracious words” that amazed the hearers. 

John also points his readers to the gracious aspect of Jesus’ words and contrasts those with the content of what Moses spoke: For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17 NIV).

John MacArthur, in his commentary on Matthew, provides a clear synopsis of what Jesus was doing with his words in the Sermon on the Mount.

Here is the manifesto of the new Monarch, who ushers in a new age with a new message. …The greatest preacher who ever lived preached the greatest sermon ever preached.… He quoted no sources, no ancient rabbis, no revered tradition. What He spoke, He spoke on his own authority. That was unheard of among the Jews, who always derived their authority from recognized sources.^[1]

MacArthur rightly sees Jesus as the promised king, or monarch, bringing in the new age. In Jesus, God has established the promised new age, and he has proclaimed a new message—he has fulfilled the promises made to the fathers. Jesus is the new and final king who has established the new and everlasting kingdom with new laws that are appropriate for the subjects of that new kingdom of grace.

Our understanding of the Sermon on the Mount must include recognition of Jesus’ respect for the law of Moses. Our Lord never stated or implied that Moses had failed to accurately transmit God’s revelation to Israel. Jesus added to what Moses said, and changed some things that Moses said, but never, in any way, did he imply that Moses had been wrong. Again, MacArthur has summed it up well.

And as God’s own Son, Jesus declared unequivocally that He did not come to teach or practice anything contrary to that law in even the slightest way, but to uphold it entirely.^[2]

Not everyone will agree with MacArthur’s comments. Most Covenant Theologians will object to the idea that Jesus came with a new message. From the perspective of a Covenant Theologian, MacArthur would seem to be contradicting himself when he states Jesus gives a new message while at the same time declaring unequivocally that he did not come to teach or practice anything contrary to the law given to Moses in even the slightest way, but to uphold it entirely.

I agree that on the surface that may sound like a contradiction, but I think there is an explanation that rescues it from the charge of incoherency. John MacArthur is too clear a thinker and a too careful an exegete of Scripture to contradict himself so openly. I think the solution lies in understanding that comparing two different things and showing that one is better than the other one is not the same as teaching one thing is contradicting the other. 

MacArthur is not saying that Christ’s new message contradicts Moses’ old message. MacArthur sees the seventh- day Sabbath fulfilled and done away in Christ, and thus no longer binding on Christians, but he does not see that as contradicting Moses.^[3] That is indeed a clear change, but it is not a contradiction. This is a clear example of fulfillment. Our Lord not only fulfills the Sabbath; he is the Sabbath! Christ, by becoming our Sabbath rest, does not imply that Moses was wrong in keeping the seventh day holy; instead, his fulfillment demonstrates that the Sabbath was a type of Christ. Keeping Sabbath with God under the New Covenant means resting in Christ. New Covenant Sabbath-observance is more demanding than merely not picking up a few sticks or not lighting fires on one day of the week. Thus, Messiah, when he came, did not abolish/destroy the true Sabbath; rather, he fulfilled it and so abolished/set aside the old manner of observing Sabbath.

Covenant Theology, rather than viewing Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount as something new and greater, views the six contrasts in the Sermon on the Mount as Jesus’ refutations and corrections of the Pharisees’ wrong interpretation of the Mosaic law. In Covenant Theology, the law of Moses was, is, and always will be, the highest moral standard ever given. The revelation of morality was complete when God finished dealing with Moses. Nothing can be added to or taken away from Moses’ words. That has to be true if there is one unchanging moral canon for all men in all ages. Change in the law of Moses would result in two canons of conduct: one for Israel and a different one for the church. To allow change of any kind in the law of Moses is to destroy Covenant Theology’s view of that law. As you read the following quotations from some well-known Covenant Theologians, notice their strong insistence that Jesus made no changes in the law of Moses.^[4] Arthur Pink states forcefully that it is wrong to perceive the moral standard of the New Covenant as superior to that of the Old Covenant:

Christ is not here [Mt 5:28-42] pitting Himself against the Mosaic Law, nor is He inculcating a superior spirituality. Instead He continues the same course as He had followed in the context, namely to define that righteousness demanded of His followers, which was more excellent than the one taught and practiced by the Scribes and Pharisees; and this He does by exposing their error and expounding the spirituality of the moral law.

…our Lord’s design in these verses has been misapprehended, the prevailing but erroneous idea being held that they set forth the vastly superior moral standard of the New Covenant over that which was obtained under Judaism.^[5]

We agree with Pink that “Christ is not here [Mt 5:28-42] pitting Himself against the Mosaic Law.” In no sense is Christ against the law. He is not impugning it in any way. Jesus’ attitude toward the law of Moses was that it was the very kind of law that a nation primarily consisting of hardhearted sinners needed (Matt. 19:8). As long as the law governed a nation that comprised both regenerate and unregenerate people, it functioned according to its design. In the thought-world of Jesus’ day, anything that functioned exactly the way it was designed to function was excellent. This is what Paul means when he refers to the law as holy, and the commandment as holy, just, and good (Rom. 7:12). Jesus is not in any way suggesting that the law of God given to Moses was no good. It was perfect—for the people among whom Moses lived.

We disagree with Pink when he claims that Jesus is not “inculcating a superior spirituality” or that the New Covenant does not have a moral standard superior to the Old Covenant. That is exactly what Jesus is claiming for his teaching. God’s new spiritual nation consists entirely of regenerate people. The Holy Spirit indwells every child of grace who lives under the New Covenant; therefore, the law given to Moses is far too low a standard for them. Jesus is saying that his new law is better than the law of Moses was, because his law is better suited to the constituency of his kingdom. 

I am sure it was not Pink’s purpose to minimize the glory of the New Covenant, but he could not have done more to set Moses and the Old Covenant as superior to Christ and the New Covenant if he had tried. When you deny “the vastly superior moral standard of the New Covenant and Christianity over the Old Covenant and Judaism,” you treat Christ as a mere rabbi or scribe, but not as a lawgiver. True, according to Pink’s view, he is the greatest interpreter of Moses, but he is still only an interpreter. Rather than refer to the Sermon on the Mount as the “new message by the new Monarch,” as MacArthur does, Pink’s perception implicitly posits that teaching as the midrash of Jesus.^[6] We believe that Christ is more than just the greatest rabbi or commentator on Moses; he is a new lawgiver who replaces Moses in that function exactly as he is a new high priest who replaces Aaron in that function. 

Walter Chantry is another theologian who emphasizes that there is nothing new in the Sermon on the Mount.

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.^[7] 

We agree with Chantry that our Lord did not give a complete list of rules for his kingdom. We disagree with Chantry, however, over the reason for that incomplete list. We cannot determine from the text that it was Jesus’ intention to correct prevailing misconceptions, but even if we grant that, it would not seem to have been his primary intention. That intention was to proclaim the difference between a rule by law and a rule by grace. He was showing the difference between the Old Covenant, which was based on law, and the New Covenant, which is based on grace. Both kinds of rule and their administrative covenants are good, and both serve the same ultimate purpose of God. 

Greg Bahnsen was an ardent Theonomist and articulate writer and preacher. He not only refrained from labeling Jesus’ teaching as new, he also abstained as much as possible from using the term Old Covenant. Instead, he refers to Older Testamental law. In Bahnsen’s Covenant Theology (some would say his view is consistent Covenant Theology), there are not two distinctly different covenants, an Old and the New; rather, there is one covenant with two administrations. Both Israel and the church are under the same covenant (the Covenant of Grace), and both are under the same canon of conduct. There is no true New Covenant in Bahnsen’s theology. There is only a new administration of the same covenant. Notice also that for Bahnsen, the law of Moses becomes the pattern for Christian sanctification. In this, Bahnsen directly opposes Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who, in his introduction to his commentary on Romans 7, explains that not only can the Mosaic law not nurture holiness, it actually hinders it. We believe that Bahnsen’s understanding of the contrasts that Jesus made between himself and Moses misses the point entirely.

Christ’s primary concern at this point [Mat. 5:17-48] was the validity and meaning of the older Testamental law. From the antitheses listed in verse 21-48 we see that Christ was concerned to show how the meaning of the Law was being distorted (and thus its fine points overlooked).

These radical commands (Mat. 5:21-48) do NOT supercede the older Testamental law; they illustrate and explain it.… In six antitheses between His teaching and the Scribal interpretations Christ demonstrates His confirmation of the Older Testamental law…

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 application 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.^[8]

The authors quoted above claim that Jesus was correcting pharisaical misinterpretations of Moses, but none of those authors support that claim with evidence. Six times in the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord compared his teaching with that of old. To what did he refer when he used that phrase? With whose words did he compare his words? By Jesus’ day, the Pharisees had been established as a sect within Judaism for about one hundred years; Moses, of course, had a much older provenance. Either one would qualify as older when compared to Jesus. Covenant Theology insists that our Lord could not possibly be comparing his teaching with the teaching of Moses; that explanation does not fit within their scheme of “one covenant, one redeemed people, and one canon of conduct.” The problem is that their alternative explanation (pharisaical distortions of Moses) is not supported by evidence from the text. There is no indication in the text that Jesus is referring to the Pharisees’ interpretation. In all six instances of contrast, our Lord is comparing his words with the Hebrew written record of what Moses said. Our Lord is comparing his words with the law of Moses recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures. There is not a shred of textual evidence to say that “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago” (Matt. 5:21, NIV) means “the pharisaical misinterpretation of Moses.” 

Let me outline a few problems for Covenant Theology’s understanding of “you have heard it said to/by those of old, but I say unto you.”

First, there is the question of the correct translation of Matthew 5:21 and 33, the verses where the qualifier “to/by those of old” occurs. I have emphasized the salient words that the King James Version and the New International Version translate differently.

NIV: “You have heard that it was said TO the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’” “Again, you have heard that it was said TO the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’”

KJV: “Ye have heard that it was said BY them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.” “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:” 

The NIV concurs with the majority of translations: “it was said to.” If this is the correct translation of the preposition, then we understand Jesus to be saying that Moses “said TO the people long ago.” Jesus is comparing his teaching with the teaching of Moses. This is supported by the immediate context, which in every case includes a direct quotation from the law of Moses. There is not the slightest hint about any so-called pharisaical distortions of Moses in the texts.

The King James translation, “You have heard that it was said ‘by’ them of old time,” would have Jesus reminding his hearers that the Pharisees promoted a vigorous adherence to the law. But in that case, there is no contrast between Moses and the Pharisees. The pharisaical teaching conforms exactly to the words of Moses preserved in the Old Testament Scriptures. Not only is there no evidence to support Covenant Theology’s claim that Jesus is correcting prevailing misconceptions, the evidence that does exist refutes their claim. William Hendricksen, a committed Covenant Theologian, understands the issue and admits that the interpretation upon which Covenant Theology builds its case is the minority opinion. 

The formula, “You have heard that it was said,” presents a difficulty, since the following phrase, considered by itself, can be translated either “TO the men of long ago” (RSV: “TO the men of old”) or “BY the men of long ago.” Many translators and commentators prefer TO, several others favor BY. According to the first view, Jesus meant that Moses in the law said something TO the fathers, and Jesus now “assumes a tone of superiority over the Mosaic regulations” (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, 1:44). J. Jeremias…expresses the same view in even stronger language when he states that “Jesus establishes a new divine law when he opposes his ‘But I say unto you’ to the Word of Scripture.”^[9]

A. T. Robertson, whom Hendriksen quotes, was the greatest Greek authority the Southern Baptist Convention ever produced. Many consider his Word Pictures to be the classic work on the subject. In no sense could we justifiably label him antinomian, even though he rejects Covenant Theology’s understanding of this text. Although it is dangerous to build a doctrine on a debatable (albeit, legitimate) translation, we ought not to lightly dismiss the scholarly comments of someone of Robertson’s stature. Notice the similarities between Robertson’s understanding, cited above by Hendriksen, “Jesus now ‘assumes a tone of superiority over the Mosaic regulations’” and that of MacArthur, quoted earlier in this article: “…a new message… [from][t]he greatest preacher who ever lived.…”

Let me briefly restate the important points for us to remember as we read the Sermon on the Mount. 

1. We want to be careful to preserve the unity of the Scriptures (inspirational continuity) while at the same time, acknowledge the discontinuity of the covenants. If Jesus, or indeed any writer in the New Testament Scriptures, stated that Moses was wrong and needed correction, then we have lost the unity of the Scriptures. Whatever Jesus meant in the Sermon on the Mount, he did not mean that Moses was wrong. 

2. The law that Moses had transmitted was all of God’s law for the nation of Israel. It continues as part of God’s law for Christians, but only as Christ and his apostles interpret and apply it. The law of Moses was “holy, just, and good.” It served its purpose well. The “new message” of Jesus, however, changes and raises the standard in the law that God gave to Moses. This change is a comparison that demonstrates the superiority of Christ’s law; it is not a contradiction that demonstrates any supposed error in the law of Moses. When the writer of Hebrews teaches that Christ has fulfilled and rescinded Aaron’s ministry, he is not implying that Aaron’s priesthood was wrong. Christ’s priesthood is better than Aaron’s was, but that does not mean that Christ’s ministry is good and Aaron’s bad.

3. The covenant of Christ, like the covenant of Moses before it, is holy, just, and good. The covenant of Christ, because it is founded on better promises, is better than the covenant given to Israel. The better promise on which the covenant of Christ rests is the promise of grace—of someone doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves. When we compare law and grace and show how much better grace is, we in no way suggest that law is no longer good. The law of God given to Moses was, is, and always will be holy, just, and good, despite the fact that it has been rescinded as covenant terms and has been replaced by a better covenant based on better terms. The changes that Jesus made in the law of Moses strengthen and raise the moral standard therein. If we fail to recognize these better terms, we fail to see that grace can, and does, both demand and produce higher standards than law ever could.

4. God gave the law of Moses to govern and control hardhearted sinners (Matthew 19:8), but the New Covenant people of God do not have hard hearts. They have new hearts upon which Christ has written his new law—the law of love. 

Christ bases his demands upon grace and the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Who will deny that grace and the Holy Spirit can accomplish what the law never could? The law of Moses was perfect for accomplishing God’s purpose in the dispensation of the theocratic kingdom. If, however, we attempt to assign to the law of Moses a function that God never intended it to have, nothing but confusion can follow.

In our next chapter, we will look at the remainder of Matthew 5:17-20.

---