{"id":394,"date":"2019-03-14T18:20:23","date_gmt":"2019-03-14T22:20:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/?p=394"},"modified":"2019-04-13T13:11:23","modified_gmt":"2019-04-13T17:11:23","slug":"irresistible-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/2019\/03\/14\/irresistible-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"The Sermon on the Mount Incorporates the Law into the Gospel: Part Three of a Review of Andy Stanley\u2019s \u201cIrresistible\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>
\nPastor Andy Stanley says in his book Irresistible<\/em> that Christians should \u201cunhitch\u201d the Old Testament from their Christian faith.\u00a0 These words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount seem to say the opposite, incorporating<\/em> the Old Testament law into the New Covenant:<\/p>\n

17<\/sup><\/strong> Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.\u00a0 <\/span>18<\/sup><\/strong> For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. <\/span>19<\/sup><\/strong> Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.\u00a0 (Matthew 5:17-19)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

Pastor Stanley justifies his position by focusing on the phrase \u201cuntil all is accomplished\u201d (v. 18):\u00a0 \u201cTo put what he said in uncomfortable contemporary terms, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy<\/em> may start disappearing once everything is accomplished.\u201d (108-109).\u00a0 Pastor Stanley is saying Jesus would be putting an end to the law when He would be resurrected.\u00a0 It doesn\u2019t make much sense, however, to say that \u201cI haven\u2019t come to abolish the law, but I will make the law disappear within three years.\u201d\u00a0 And if \u201cuntil all is accomplished\u201d means Jesus\u2019 resurrection within three years, then why even mention \u201cuntil heaven and earth pass away\u201d thousands of years later?\u00a0 That phrase becomes irrelevant.<\/p>\n

The best explanation of what Jesus means by \u201cuntil all is accomplished\u201d is given by Greg Bahnsen.\u00a0 Since the noun panta<\/em> (\u201call\u201d) does not refer to any particular nearby word (it does not agree in number or gender), the phrase<\/em> \u201cuntil all is accomplished\u201d is functionally equivalent to the phrase<\/em> \u201cuntil heaven and earth pass away.\u201d Jesus is saying the same thing two different ways for emphasis.[1]<\/a> Jesus\u2019 message is that the Law will never be abolished before the end of the world.<\/p>\n

As for the word \u201cabolish,\u201d ironically, one of the meanings is \u201cunharness\u201d as in \u201cunharness pack animals.\u201d[2]<\/a>\u00a0 Jesus says that He did not come to unharness the Law and the Prophets from His Kingdom.\u00a0 Pastor Stanley says Christians should \u201cunhitch\u201d themselves from the Law and the Prophets.\u00a0 I\u2019ll go with Jesus.\u00a0 Pastor Stanley defines \u201cabolish\u201d by saying, \u201cJesus did not come to abolish\u2014as in destroy\u2014the validity of, or undermine the credibility of, the law. Jesus came to bring it to a designated end\u201d (109).\u00a0 He says that the Law has become \u201cobsolete.\u201d (110)\u00a0 In other words, the Law has finished serving its purpose and is being retired by Jesus. \u00a0No hard feelings, but don\u2019t come back.\u00a0 Your security clearance in the Kingdom is hereby revoked. \u00a0\u00a0That\u2019s the most charitable position that Pastor Stanley takes toward the Old Testament.\u00a0 He certainly seems to \u201cundermine the credibility\u201d of the Old Testament by refusing to defend it against charges of \u201cthe misogyny, the scientific and historically unverifiable claims of the Hebrew Bible\u201d (290) and by saying that \u201cIn the Old Testament, God played by the rules of the kingdoms of this world.\u201d (163)\u00a0 But in addition to \u201cabolish\u201d meaning \u201cdemolish\u201d in a physical sense (as Jesus said would happen to the Temple: Matt. 24:2, Mark 15:29), the meaning of the Greek word for \u201cabolish\u201d (katalys\u0113<\/em>) can be \u201cto end the effect or validity of something,\u201d \u201cto cause to be no longer in force,\u201d and \u201cto bring to an end.\u201d[3]<\/a>\u00a0 That is exactly what Pastor Stanley says Jesus came to do to the law \u2013 \u201cbring it to a designated end.\u201d\u00a0 Jesus is emphatically denying that He is ending the Law.<\/p>\n

We can also learn from the context that not ending the obligation to obey the Law is exactly what Jesus was talking about. \u00a0He explains what He means in verse 19:\u00a0 His disciples should do and teach even the least commandment of the Law. \u00a0In fact, the word translated as \u201crelaxes\u201d in verse 19, also translated as \u201csets aside,\u201d \u201cbreaks,\u201d \u201clooses,\u201d or \u201creleases,\u201d is lys\u0113<\/em>, which is the same root as the word for \u201cabolish\u201d in verse 17, katalys\u0113<\/em>, creating a wordplay between the two statements. The wordplay that links verse 17 and 19 strengthens the case that \u201cabolish\u201d in verse 17 means to no longer teach that the Law is obligatory and to no longer obey the Law.\u00a0 Jesus came to do the opposite \u2013 teach that the Law and the Prophets should still be taught and obeyed.<\/p>\n

In verse 18, Jesus plays on two meanings to the word \u201cpass\u201d or \u201cpass away\u201d (parerchomai<\/em>).\u00a0 It can mean to \u201cpass out of sight,\u201d as could happen to heaven and earth.\u00a0 But another meaning is \u201cto lose force\u201d or \u201cbecome invalid,\u201d[4]<\/a> which is how Jesus applies it to the Law:\u00a0 \u201cnot an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law.\u201d \u00a0The issue is the enduring authority of the text \u2013 exactly what Pastor Stanley is denying.<\/p>\n

Pastor Stanley says that fulfill<\/em> \u201cmeans to bring to a designated end.\u201d (109)\u00a0 It can have that implication, but it is a word with a wide variety of meanings and applications.\u00a0 Regarding prophecy, fulfillment can mean bring to an end or begin something new, depending on the content of the prediction.\u00a0 Jesus ended animal sacrifice by His once-for-all-time sacrifice of His own body.\u00a0 But other Old Testament prophecies begin to occur with Jesus\u2019 resurrection and continue throughout the New Covenant era.\u00a0 Jesus\u2019 resurrection began the fulfillment of the gospel being taken to all nations.\u00a0 Jesus\u2019 fulfillment of the moral law (e.g. don\u2019t murder, don\u2019t steal), as opposed to sacrificial laws, is like the gospel (and part of the gospel \u2013 people who trust in the Messiah should live more moral lives, like no longer murdering and stealing).\u00a0 Some of these prophecies are the following:<\/p>\n

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.\u00a0 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.\u00a0 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.\u00a0 (Eze. 36:25-27)<\/p>\n

My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd.\u00a0\u00a0 They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes.\u00a0 (Eze. 37:24)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And this greater obedience to God\u2019s law will extend to every nation on earth:<\/p>\n

It shall come to pass in the latter days
\nthat the mountain of the house of the Lord
\nshall be established as the highest of the mountains,
\nand shall be lifted up above the hills;
\nand all the nations shall flow to it,
\nand many peoples shall come, and say:
\n\u201cCome, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
\nto the house of the God of Jacob,
\nthat he may teach us his ways
\nand that we may walk in his paths.\u201d
\nFor out of Zion shall go the law,
\nand the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
\nHe shall judge between the nations,
\nand shall decide disputes for many peoples;
\nand they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
\nand their spears into pruning hooks;
\nnation shall not lift up sword against nation,
\nneither shall they learn war anymore.
\n(Isa. 2:3-4, cf. Mic. 4:1-4)<\/p>\n

Give attention to me, my people,
\nand give ear to me, my nation;
\nfor a law will go out from me,
\nand I will set my justice for a light to the peoples.
\nMy righteousness draws near,
\nmy salvation has gone out,
\nand my arms will judge the peoples;
\nthe coastlands hope for me,
\nand for my arm they wait.
\n(Isa. 51:4-5)<\/p>\n

Behold my servant, whom I uphold,
\nmy chosen, in whom my soul delights;
\nI have put my Spirit upon him;
\nhe will bring forth justice to the nations. . . .
\n[A] bruised reed he will not break,
\nand a faintly burning wick he will not quench;
\nhe will faithfully bring forth justice.
\nHe will not grow faint or be discouraged
\ntill he has established justice in the earth;
\nand the coastlands wait for his law. . . .
\nThe Lord was pleased, for his righteousness’ sake,
\nto magnify his law and make it glorious.
\n(Isa. 42:1,3-4, 21; cf. Mat. 12:20)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Moral\/Ceremonial Distinction<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now, of course, not all Old Testament laws continue into the New Covenant.\u00a0 Sacrificial laws and dietary laws, for example, are nullified by the changes brought about by Christ\u2019s sacrifice.\u00a0 While the continuation of God\u2019s law is predicted in the Messianic Age of the New Covenant, certain aspects of God\u2019s law in the Old Testament are said to have a lower and temporary status.\u00a0 Consider this passage from the Psalms:<\/p>\n

In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted, but you have given me an open ear.\u00a0 Burnt offering and sin offering\u00a0you have not required.\u00a0\u00a0 Then I said, \u201cBehold, I have come;\u00a0in the scroll of the book it is written of me:\u00a0 I delight to do your will, O my God;\u00a0your law is within my heart.\u201d\u00a0 (Psalm 40:6-8)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As the author of Hebrews explains (Heb. 10:5-10), this passage teaches that the Messiah who had been predicted will do God\u2019s will in a way that that sets aside sacrifices and burnt offerings. \u00a0The Messiah follows God\u2019s law<\/em> (\u201cyour law\u201d) in a way that sets aside an aspect of God\u2019s law <\/em>because the Old Testament taught that these kinds of laws would be set aside in the future. \u00a0The Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would be the Lord God Himself and a king and priest forever in the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:1-7), of the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10; Isa. 11:1) rather than of the tribe of Levi, which indicates a change in the law concerning priesthood\u00a0 (Heb. 7:11-16) and the end of the need for any human priests after Him (Heb. 1:5-13; 7:21-28). \u00a0The importance of the Ark of the Covenant would end (Jer. 3:16), and the special holiness of the temple would end and break out into all creation under the New Covenant (compare Exo. 28:36-38 with Zech. 14:20-21).[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

These passages indicate that God\u2019s law in the Old Testament contains different categories of law.\u00a0 Some laws have universal moral validity, and some were meant to be temporary.\u00a0 This is contrary to Pastor Stanley\u2019s claim that \u201cThe old covenant, like the new covenant, is an all-or-nothing proposition.\u201d\u00a0 (143)\u00a0 In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is concerned with the moral law.\u00a0 As the Messiah, he knows that He came to fulfill the prophecies about increasing obedience to God\u2019s law throughout the world. \u00a0Those laws that should be obeyed worldwide would be the moral law.\u00a0 Those passages teaching the future worldwide obedience to God\u2019s law would be the ones that Jesus is referring to when He says that He came to fulfill the Law by having it taught and obeyed down to the least commandment. Yet during the time that He walked the earth, the Pharisees were held up as the models of law-keeping even though they were actually hypocritical and lawless in many ways.\u00a0 Jesus needed His disciples to set a different example of obedience to the universal moral laws of the Old Testament.\u00a0 He wants the world to see His disciples\u2019 \u201cgood works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven\u201d (Matt. 5:16).\u00a0 He says that He wants His disciples to live by the universal moral standards that require avoiding unrighteous anger, lust, frivolous divorce, deceitful oaths, vengeful retaliation in personal affairs, loving only those who love you, and hypocritical giving, prayer, and fasting \u2013 just to be seen by men rather than in genuine service to God and fellow humanity.<\/p>\n

Theologians tend to like their theology systematic, so they often make Jesus into their own image by assuming that Jesus is giving a systematic exposition of God\u2019s law in the Sermon on the Mount.\u00a0 They try to stuff all categories of law into Jesus\u2019 words in the Sermon \u2013 both ceremonial and moral law, both judicial law and personal morality.\u00a0 But while, like anything in the Bible, there are applications of the text that are universal and that apply to all Christians, the Sermon on the Mount is more of an occasional sermon, addressing pressing issues at the time it is given, than theologians usually consider. Careful attention to the text shows that how priests carried out ceremonial laws and or how civil rulers carried out judicial laws were not Jesus\u2019 main concern in the historical circumstance that He was addressing, which was the egregious behavior of the Pharisees.\u00a0 The opinions of the Pharisees, who were neither priests nor civil rulers, concerning ceremonial and judicial laws were either agreeable to Jesus or not the highest of His concerns to correct at that time.\u00a0 My best attempt to reconcile, on the one hand, Jesus\u2019 statement that the jots and tittles of God\u2019s law in the Old Testament have abiding validity with, on the other hand, the clear New Testament teaching that many laws in the Old Testament, particularly the ceremonial laws, become obsolete under the New Covenant, is this:\u00a0 When Jesus talks about the jots and tittles having abiding validity, He is talking about the moral law that the Old Testament predicted would be obeyed worldwide, not the ceremonial law, which the Old Testament said would pass away.\u00a0 Furthermore, Jesus concentrates on the personal ethics of the Pharisees and not judicial ethics in the Sermon on the Mount.\u00a0 Some inferences can be drawn about whether the judicial law, in part or in whole, continues to be authoritative under the New Covenant, but it is not an issue that is addressed directly.\u00a0 Consequently, much care needs to be taken in drawing implications about judicial and ceremonial law from what Jesus incidentally says about them in the Sermon. \u00a0We must check our inferences by tota scriptura<\/em>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Law and the Prophets and the Golden Rule<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the last post, I argued against Pastor Stanley\u2019s position that the Golden Rule is new to the New Covenant and a repudiation of the Law of Moses.\u00a0 I can strengthen that argument from the Sermon on the Mount.\u00a0 In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus equates obeying every jot and tittle with the Law and the Prophets in Matthew 5:17-18; and near the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus equates the Golden Rule with the Law and the Prophets:\u00a0 \u201cSo whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets\u201d (Matt. 7:12). \u00a0Since A = B and B = C, then A = C.\u00a0 The Golden Rule from the Old Testament (Lev. 19:18) is used by Jesus and the authors of the New Testament to encapsulate the meaning of the Old Testament law, and thus \u201clove one another\u201d is used in the New Testament as shorthand for obeying God\u2019s law down to the smallest details.\u00a0 When Jesus and the authors of the letters of the New Testament say over and over to \u201clove one another,\u201d they are saying the same thing as Jesus is saying when He says to obey every jot and tittle of the Old Testament law (Matt. 5:17).<\/em>\u00a0 \u201cLove one another\u201d is a summary of the Old Testament law (Matt. 22:36-40; Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:13-14, 6:2).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
A<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Obey every jot and tittle of the Law<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

=<\/td>\n

B<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Fulfill Law and Prophets<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

=<\/td>\n

C<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Golden Rule\/ Love Others<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

(Matt. 5:17)<\/td>\n(Matt. 7:12)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cYou have heard it said\u201d \u2013 Oral Tradition Against God\u2019s Law<\/strong><\/p>\n

Since Jesus is not abolishing the obligation to obey God\u2019s moral law in Matthew 5:17-19, the antitheses (You have heard it said. . . , but I say to you. . .\u201d) in the following section of the Sermon on the Mount are not overturning God\u2019s law but explaining how God\u2019s law should be understood and obeyed.\u00a0 When Jesus quotes the Old Testament as it should be understood, He says \u201cit is written,\u201d such as when He quotes the Old Testament to defeat the temptations of Satan in the wilderness (Matt. 4:4,6,7,10; cf. Matt. 11:10, 21:13, 26:24; Mark 7:6, 9:13, 14:21, 14:27; Luke 7:27, 19:46, 24:46).\u00a0 The phrase \u201cyou have heard it said\u201d refers to the oral traditions of the Pharisees<\/em> that distorted God\u2019s law.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Murder, Anger, and Insults<\/strong><\/p>\n

Pastor Stanley says, \u201cYou can\u2019t but something handed down by Moses!<\/em> But he did.\u201d (106)\u00a0 No, He didn\u2019t. It is particularly clear in the first antithesis that Jesus is not contradicting the Old Testament law:\u00a0 \u201c\u201cYou have heard that it was said to those of old, \u2018You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.\u2019 \u00a0But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insult his brother will be liable to the council. . . \u201d (Matt. 5:21-22).\u00a0 Jesus says nothing against the Old Testament demand of judgment for murder that He referenes.\u00a0 Jesus is saying that it is not enough merely to not murder your brother to be counted as someone who obeys God\u2019s law.\u00a0 The basis for punishing murder is that the person is made in God\u2019s image (Gen. 9:6).\u00a0 If you do is not murder your brother, but you have a continual, vengeful anger against someone (as the Greek implies[6]<\/a>), you have violated the basis for the command against murder, which is that man is made in the image of God, so God\u2019s image should not be attacked (also see James 3:9-10).<\/p>\n

The next thing Jesus says is, \u201cSo if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift\u201d (Matt. 5:23-24).\u00a0 Pastor Stanley comments on this passage:\u00a0 \u201cAnd the crowd went wild. Actually, they probably shook their heads in disbelief. . . .\u00a0 This was new.\u201d (179-80)\u00a0 Pastor Stanley is jubilant in his confidence that he found a contradiction between Old Testament ethics and New Testament ethics here, but he is completely wrong.\u00a0 This would be funny if it weren\u2019t such a negligent handling of the word of God.\u00a0 Jesus is emphasizing the requirement of Leviticus 6:2-7, that a person should confess his crime to his victim and pay restitution to his victim before he brings his guilt offering to the priest:<\/p>\n

If anyone sins and commits a breach of faith against the Lord by deceiving his neighbor in a matter of deposit or security, or through robbery, or if he has oppressed his neighbor or has found something lost and lied about it, swearing falsely\u2014in any of all the things that people do and sin thereby\u2014 if he has sinned and has realized his guilt and will restore what he took by robbery or what he got by oppression or the deposit that was committed to him or the lost thing that he found or anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full and shall add a fifth to it, and give it to him to whom it belongs on the day he realizes his guilt.\u00a0 And he shall bring to the priest as his compensation to the Lord a ram without blemish out of the flock, or its equivalent for a guilt offering.\u00a0\u00a0 And the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things that one may do and thereby become guilty. (Lev. 6:2-7)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Quick reconciliation with a person whom you have wronged is also the advice given in Proverbs:\u00a0 \u201cif you are snared in the words of your mouth, caught in the words of your mouth, then do this, my son, and save yourself, for you have come into the hand of your neighbor:\u00a0 go, hasten, and plead urgently with your neighbor\u201d (Prov. 6:2-3).<\/p>\n

Pastor Stanley makes this ignorant claim as well:\u00a0 \u201cYou\u2019re familiar enough with Old Testament stories to know Israel never, ever, turned the other cheek.\u201d (107)\u00a0 Wrong.\u00a0 God gives Israel the same command in Lamentations when they came under Babylonian rule, a similar situation to Israel being ruled by Rome in Jesus\u2019 time:\u00a0 \u201clet him give his cheek to the one who strikes, and let him be filled with insults\u201d (Lam. 3:30).<\/p>\n

Jesus says to turn the other cheek in contrast to the \u201ceye for an eye\u201d law of the Old Testament.\u00a0 But He is correcting the misuse of this Old Testament command, not abolishing it.\u00a0 It means that the punishment should fit the severity of the crime, which is considered the cornerstone principle of modern penology:\u00a0 \u201cToday, the idea that the punishment must fit the crime is ubiquitous; it has attained the status of a \u2018general principle of law common to all civilized nations.\u2019\u201d[7]<\/a>\u00a0 Nevertheless, the Pharisees had the misunderstanding, shared by many modern people, that the Law of Moses allowed personal vengeance according to the \u201ceye for an eye\u201d rule.\u00a0 But this is specifically condemned by the Law of Moses:\u00a0 \u201cYou shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people\u201d (Lev. 19:18).\u00a0 Proverbs 20:22 says, \u201cDo not say, \u2018I will repay evil;\u2019 wait for the Lord, and he will deliver you.\u201d\u00a0 And Proverbs 24:29 says, \u201cDo not say, \u2018I will do to him as he has done to me; I will pay the man back for what he has done.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 David took what is equivalent to a cheek slap without returning personal vengeance when he let King Saul escape when David could have killed him (1 Sam. 24:6-7).\u00a0 Jesus\u2019 statement here no more undermines the Mosaic Law than do these passages from the Old Testament itself.\u00a0 Any physical punishment for a crime was to be carried out at the direction of a court \u2013 \u201cas the judges determine\u201d (Exo. 21:22).\u00a0 Ronald Worth accurately comments:\u00a0 \u201cWhat was intended to restrain and eliminate retaliation becomes the \u2018authority\u2019 for inflicting it!\u00a0 No wonder Jesus could contrast his own teaching with such a misuse of the Mosaic Law!\u201d[8]<\/a><\/p>\n

Paul teaches the same thing as the Old Testament in Romans 12 and 13.\u00a0 The individual is to follow this rule: \u201cBeloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God\u201d (Rom. 12:19), and then Paul quotes Deuteronomy 32:35 as support.\u00a0 The wrath of God, however, is to be carried out by the civil ruler: \u201cBut if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer\u201d (Rom. 13:4).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Swearing Oaths<\/strong><\/p>\n

One other teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount that is often interpreted to be a clear contradiction of Old Testament law, even though Pastor Stanley doesn\u2019t address it in his book, is the one about not taking oaths (Matt. 5:33-37).\u00a0 Superficially at least, Jesus seems to forbid all oaths in the passage, which would include judicial oaths.\u00a0 But this interpretation is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture and Christ\u2019s own actions.\u00a0 God Himself swears (Ps. 110:4; Heb. 6:13), and the Old Testament commanded<\/em> swearing oaths by God\u2019s name in certain circumstances (Deut. 6:13; Isa. 19:18, 65:16; Jer. 12:16; Exo. 22:10-11).\u00a0 The word \u201cvain\u201d in the third commandment (Exo. 20:7) means \u201cfalsely,\u201d meaning that we should not swear by God\u2019s name to affirm a falsehood; and this allows for true oaths.\u00a0 Those who claim that Jesus is changing the Old Testament rules here run into the problem of scripturally approved oaths made after the Sermon on the Mount.\u00a0 When Christ is on trial, He is put under oath by Caiaphas, and Christ speaks in compliance with the oath (Matt. 26:63-64).\u00a0 Christ speaks in accordance the requirement of Exodus 22:11, that an accused swear an oath before the judge of their innocence. The Apostle Paul utters oaths in Scripture (Rom. 1:9; Phil. 1:8; 2 Cor. 1:23; 1 Thess. 2:5, 2:10, 5:27).\u00a0 The Old Testament and the New Testament are in agreement about oaths:\u00a0 Oaths are appropriate in certain circumstances, and when used, they should be to affirm the truth rather than falsehoods.\u00a0 The deceptive use of oaths, which is what the overuse of oaths tends to support, is in violation of the Golden Rule that is found in both the Old and New Testaments.<\/p>\n

Jesus\u2019 point is that in normal circumstances, our word of \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d should be enough to assure someone that we speak truthfully without adding an oath to it.\u00a0 The example of swearing cited by Jesus in this passage indicates that He is talking about non-judicial oaths.\u00a0 As Ronald H. Worth rhetorically asks:\u00a0 \u201cDid any culture ever have individuals swear judicial oaths by their hair?\u201d[9]<\/a>\u00a0 Nowhere in this passage is swearing by God\u2019s name mentioned, which would have been used in the formal, judicial-type of oath.\u00a0 The Pharisees used these creative types of oaths to give their speech the appearance of truthfulness while asserting falsehoods. As Jesus says in Matthew 23:16:\u00a0 \u201cWoe to you, blind guides, who say, \u2018If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 These types of creative oaths would not have been used in a formal, judicial setting but in private interactions, like in the marketplace or with other private, oral contracts.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Sermon on the Mount and the Great Commission<\/strong><\/p>\n

A comment that Pastor Stanley makes about the Great Commission is relevant to the Sermon on the Mount.\u00a0 Here is Jesus\u2019 Great Commission:<\/p>\n

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.\u00a0 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.\u00a0 (Matt. 28:18-20)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Pastor Stanley says, \u201cAs you read them this time [the words of the Great Commission], count the number of references to Moses or the law. . . .\u00a0\u00a0 That would be none.\u201d (113) But since the Sermon on the Mount is the largest block of teaching in the book of Matthew, and since Jesus teaches in the Sermon on the Mount that the Law of Moses has continuing authority, at least an aspect of it (the moral law as opposed to the ceremonial), then the reference in the Great Commission to \u201cteaching them to observe all that I commanded you\u201d most certainly means that the Law of Moses should be taught to the nations, just as the Old Testament predicted would happen in the Messianic Age.\u00a0 To faithfully carry out the Great Commission requires faithfully teaching obedience to the Law of Moses.\u00a0 A watered-down, antinomian attempt to carry out the Great Commission, which characterizes Pastor Stanley\u2019s church as well as most others in our day, is unfaithful to Jesus and will produce conversion results far short of \u201cirresistible.\u201d\u00a0 Jesus will be \u201cwith you always\u201d to carry out His<\/em> Great Commission, not the cheap imitation of the Great Commission that pretends that mature Christian disciples can be made by ignoring God\u2019s law in the Bible.<\/p>\n

_______________________________________________________\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/a>\u00a0 Bahnsen, No Other Standard<\/em> (Tyler, TX:\u00a0 Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), p. 279, 280 (online<\/a>).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a>\u00a0 \u201c\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c9,\u201d definition 4, in W. Bauer, F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature<\/em>, 3rd<\/sup> ed. (University of Chicago Press, 2000).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a>\u00a0 \u201c\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c9,\u201d definition 3, in W. Bauer, F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature<\/em><\/p>\n

[4]<\/a>\u00a0 Charles Quarrels, Sermon on the Mount: Restoring Christ\u2019s Message to the Modern Church<\/em> (Nashville, TN:\u00a0 B&H Publishing Group, 2011), p. 95.\u00a0 For the definition of \u201cpass away\u201d Quarrels cites \u201c\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9,\u201d in W. Bauer, F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature<\/em>, 3rd<\/sup> ed. (University of Chicago Press, 2000), p. 776; and for the definition of \u201cdestroy\u201d he cites \u201c\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c9,\u201d Ibid., p. 521-22 (definition 3).<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a>\u00a0 See \u201cThe O.T. Foretold its Own Demise,\u201d http:\/\/www.christianciv.com\/eschatology_bs_Sect4.htm#OT_Demise<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a>\u00a0 Quarrels, Sermon on the Mount<\/em>, p. 109.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a>\u00a0 Alan Tzvika Nissel, \u201cEquality or Equivalence: A very brief\u00a0 survey of Lex Talionis<\/em> as a concept of justice in the Bible\u201d in International Law: Routledge Critical Concepts, <\/em>Joseph Weiler and Alan Nissel, eds., Vol. 6, 355 (London: Routledge, 2010)\u00a0, p.118.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a>\u00a0 Roland H. Worth, Jr., The Sermon on the Mount:\u00a0 Its Old Testament Roots<\/em> (New York:\u00a0 Paulist Press, 1997), p. 241.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a>\u00a0 Roland H. Worth, The Sermon on the Mount<\/em>, p. 198.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Pastor Andy Stanley says in his book Irresistible that Christians should \u201cunhitch\u201d the Old Testament from their Christian faith.\u00a0 These words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount seem to say the opposite, incorporating the Old Testament law into … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/394"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=394"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"http:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/394\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":407,"href":"http:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/394\/revisions\/407"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=394"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=394"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=394"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}