Green Baggins

Some really great arguments as to why the authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith were right in saying that the entirety of the moral law was given to Adam before the fall.

Ephesians 5:1-2

No Audio Available

President Calvin Coolidge invited some people from his hometown to dinner at the White House. Since they did not know how to behave at such an occasion, they thought the best policy would be just to do what the President did. The time came for serving coffee. The President poured his coffee into a saucer. As soon as the home folk saw it, they did the same. The next step for the President was to pour some milk and add a little sugar to the coffee in the saucer. The home folks did the same. They thought for sure that the next step would be for the President to take the saucer with the coffee and begin sipping it. But the President didn’t do so. He leaned over, placed the saucer on the floor and called the cat. As James Baldwin said about children. “Children have never been good at listening to their elders, but they have never failed to imitate them.” Children imitate their parents all the time. Sometimes they know what their parents are doing. Sometimes, as in the case of Coolidge, they have the foggiest idea. But imitation is how children learn from their parents. Right now, our son James is imitating every word of ours that he can (which is usually the last two or three words of the sentence). Eventually, he will have the vocabulary necessary to speak complete sentences. It is all a part of growing up. Paul tells us here that we are to imitate our Heavenly Father as children imitate their parents. And the love that Christ has shown for us and to us is the same kind of love that we are to show one another. It is a sacrificial love.

First of all, Paul tells us to imitate God. Now, we could easily misunderstand what Paul is saying if we go the wrong way with this verse. Paul is not telling us that our imitation of God is supposed to be like Adam and Eve’s fall into sin, for instance. They wanted to be like God. They wanted to imitate God, but in a way that took God off of His throne and put themselves there instead. This is obviously the wrong way to imitate God. We do not imitate God by trying to trespass on what is only God’s. There are things about God that He will not share with us. He will not share his glory with anyone. So, we will not have God’s glory, but rather we will reflect God’s glory. Furthermore, we cannot share in God’s infinite power. We will not ever have that kind of power. It seems clear from this passage that the way in which we are to imitate God has much more to do with how we love one another than with who God is. The way in which we are to imitate God is the way in which God has loved us.

We can see that displayed for us in verse 2. How did God love us? He gave His Son as an atonement for sin. We should walk in love, Paul says. What does that mean? Walking refers to a way of life. It means all the choices that we make. It means what we allow to influence us. That is how we walk. And we are to walk in a way that shows the same kind of love for God and our neighbor as Christ showed for us.

Jesus Christ gave Himself on our behalf. This refers not just to Christ’s death, but to His entire life. His entire life was a prelude to His death, in which He walked in love. He did it so that He could be the perfect sacrifice for sin. That is so that we could believe in Him, and have everlasting life. However, what so often happens today is that people say that they believe in God and in Jesus Christ, but they don’t walk in that way. They do not walk in love. They may have a twisted idea of what love is. Or, they may walk in the way of self-gratification. Such people have no idea what it is to walk as Jesus walked. Walking in love means primarily self-sacrifice. It is helpful to point out here that the word love in the Bible does not primarily refer to an emotion. It includes our emotions. However, the primary meaning of love in the Bible is self-sacrifice: pouring out yourself for the sake of others as Jesus did. Paul says here that Jesus was a fragrant offering and a sacrifice to God. This is Old Testament language. The offerings that were burnt were said to have a savory smell to God. So also, Jesus was burned by the fires of hell for our sake, even though He was innocent. Such an action has a fragrant aroma in the eyes of God. This is not God abusing his son Jesus, as some writers have recently suggested. Rather, it is the love of God making a provision for us that we would not have to suffer the wrath of God.

The applications of this are almost endless, precisely because this verse really covers the entirety of the Christian faith. This is one of those great summary verses that tells us, in a nutshell, the entire Christian Gospel. The commands are to love God and to love one another. This means the entire law is present here. We are to have no idols but worship God alone. Furthermore, we are not to worship God in any way that He has not prescribed. The name of the Lord should be our delight, and we should use it reverently, as we ought. We ought also to delight in Sunday, and the opportunity to worship God on this day of rest. We are to love our parents and give them all respect. We are to protect the lives of other people, not putting anyone’s life at risk. This means safety on our farms. Safety should be a number one priority. That is a key way in which we should love one another in our farming culture. We should love our spouses as Christ has loved us. In fact, Paul is going to tell us a lot more about marriage in the rest of this chapter, so stay tuned. We should protect the property of others as well, treating it as carefully as we treat our own property. We should always tell the truth to one another. And we should be content with what we have, and not always try to get more. What I just did was summarize each of the Ten Commandments, though not in the words of the Ten Commandments. Remember that each commandment not only forbids something, but commands its opposite. So, if you are not to kill, then you are to protect life. Also, each commandment includes under it all of the lesser sins. The commandment only gives us the most extreme form of the sin. All the lesser sins are included underneath it. To walk in love means to obey the commandments. That is precisely what Paul means. Paul does not mean that we obey the commandments in order to obtain salvation. We always have to remember that and be reminded of it, since we are all legalists at heart. We all want to get to heaven on our own steam, as it were. Furthermore, we do not obey the law in order to keep our salvation either. We do not start with the Holy Spirit, and end with the flesh, as Paul says in Galatians. However, the law does not stop being relevant once we become Christians. Jesus plainly tells us this in the Sermon on the Mount. He tells us that the law still applies to us. Indeed, the law is still necessary to our Christian walk. It is the way in which we go. As David said in the Psalms, God’s law is our path. That might seem restrictive to us. It might seem as though God is trying to prevent us from having any fun in life. But that is not true. God knows that His way is the best way, and it is the most joyful way. For the end is an eternal life of joy with God, and seeing Him as He is.

We imitate God because our deepest desire is to see Him. Then we shall be as like Him as we possibly can be, for we shall see Him as He is. So says John. The principle here is that imitation leads to likeness. Are you a child of the King? Are you imitating God as much as you are able? That is, are you imitating God’s love and faithfulness? Are you loving God with all your heart? Are you loving your neighbor? That is your offering to God. Listen to these words of Paul, in closing: “Therefore, I urge, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodes as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God- this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is- His good, pleasing, and perfect will.”

Ephesians 4:29

Audio Version

Our culture is saturated with coarseness in our talk. Curse words are present in just about every movie that is made nowadays. Just to illustrate how far our culture has gone with this, here is the story of the movie Gone With the Wind. As you probably are aware, in the very last scene, Rhett Butler (played by Clark Gable) used the “d” word in one of his lines. It is the only swear word in the entire movie. What a lot of people don’t know is that the director David Selznick had to pay a $5000 fine for Clark Gable to say that word in a movie. That was a lot of money in those days. Nowadays, movies exist where every other word is a curse word. Common decency in language is not a very popular thing to talk about in today’s culture. Many people do not even view certain words as being a problem. The culture has shifted a great deal. Many people also do not think that the Bible has anything to say about what words we use. As a matter of fact, the Bible has an enormous amount to say about how we use our words.

Paul’s statement here is not limited to curse words. The word for “unwholesome” (which is a good translation in the NIV) is a very general word. It refers to anything that doesn’t edify. So, it would cover curse words, taking the Lord’s name in vain (which is to use the Lord’s name in a frivolous, care-free way), gossip, undue criticism of other people, failing to give praise where praise is due, and any other way of tearing people down when we should be building up those people.

In fact, Paul is going to repeat himself in the next chapter with a bit more detail. Verse 4 of chapter 5 says this: “Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.” Obscenity is talking about things we shouldn’t be talking about. Foolish talk is talk that doesn’t go anywhere or do anything helpful. Coarse joking is off-color jokes, and jokes about things that we shouldn’t even be talking about.

The ancient Greeks had a very helpful way of putting this. If there is something that you feel like saying, but you shouldn’t say, then, as the Greeks would say, don’t let it escape the prison bars of your teeth. They thought of the teeth as the keepers of the mouth. They act somewhat like prison bars. You can clamp them shut so that the words you were thinking about saying don’t actually come out of your mouth.

Of course, our tongues are very dangerous, aren’t they? Listen to what James says about the tongue: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways, and if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well. Look at the ships also: though they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell. For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so.” That is a fairly strong accusation against the tongue, isn’t it? At the very least, we should see just how much damage we can cause with our words. It is a lot more than we usually think. Oftentimes we can cause a great deal of harm without even realizing that we are doing so.

Fortunately, Jesus is the Living Word. All of Jesus’ words are life to us. Even when Jesus was blasting the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, even those words are life to us. Jesus is the Word. That Word was crucified on the cross for our sins, even the supposedly small sins of our mouths, what we say. Christ died for those sins as well. The Bible says that we will be judged for every single word we utter. I don’t know about you, but the idea of facing judgment for every single word I’ve ever uttered in my life would absolutely terrify me if I didn’t have the blood of Christ covering over all those bad things I’ve said in my life. Jesus never uttered an unwholesome word in His entire life. And in that righteousness we can all stand if we but trust in Him.

Now, it is not enough merely to refrain from unwholesome talk. We also need to speak words that build up one another. Paul uses a beautiful metaphor here. When you build a building (and let’s say you are using bricks), you lay one brick at a time. You don’t take those bricks that you have laid already, and take them out of the building. You don’t tear down the building that you are trying to build. Instead, you build it up one brick at a time. You are building a building. Another word for a building is an edifice. That word “edifice” comes from the same root as the word “edify.” It is the perfect word to describe what Paul means here. The NIV translates the phrase “building others up,” and that also is a good translation. A lot of this has to do with our attitude. Do we want to build others up, to edify them, or do we want ourselves to look good, and think that in order to accomplish that, we need to tear others down? We need to check our attitude to see which way we are thinking. We build up one another one good brick of encouragement at a time. Lay lots of those kinds of bricks. We should all be brick-layers for the kingdom of God. Let me tell you one thing about encouraging words as opposed to destructive criticism: the effect that an encouraging word has may not be as strong as a destructive word. I know in my own life, for instance, that encouraging words have to build up momentum to have a great effect. But one discouraging word weighs more heavily than all those words of encouragement. In other words, everyone in the Christian life needs far more encouragement than criticism. I think that oftentimes we think that we need to give out criticism and encouragement in equal measure. But they don’t have an equal effect. We need far more encouragement than criticism in the Christian life. At the same time, even if, on average, encouraging words do not have the same punch as destructive criticisms, you still don’t know what effect an encouraging word can have. Sometimes, at the right time, it can change a person’s life. Encouragement is a bit like research. You never know when you’re going to hit gold. Research is like looking for a needle in a haystack. You keep on looking and looking, and sometimes you find a bar of gold. Encouragement is like that. You may say many words of encouragement, and all of them are helpful. But sometimes, you say the right thing at the right time, and it changes a person’s life for the better. And don’t forget the ripple effect, either. If you hit gold on one of your words of encouragement, remember that the person you encourage may change so that they start affecting other people’s lives. So, ultimately speaking, encouragement has more power than criticism, even if not every statement of encouragement has the same amount of power. But I can assure you that statements of criticism are universally powerful. Don’t get me wrong. Sometimes criticism is necessary. If you see someon plunging headlong into self-destructive behavior, especially if it is one of your children, then a word of criticism can do a lot of good. But when we are talking about our friends, be slow to criticize, and quick to encourage. It may feel strange at first. But persevere in doing good and building up other people. A good rule of thumb here is that is what you are planning on saying isn’t going to help someone else, then don’t say it. As Calvin Coolidge once said, he has never been hurt by what he hasn’t said. And, as others say, it is better to say nothing and still be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. So often, we think of our words as being about us. It is about my image, and how I look to other people. The reality is that our words are communication to other people. Therefore, our speech should be for other people’s benefit. We are not to be selfish about our words, but are to consider what the other person needs to hear. And far more often does that other person need encouragement than criticism.

So, let no unwholesome talk escape the bars of your teeth. Rather, build up one another in the faith, one good brick of encouragement at a time.

Ephesians 4:28

No Audio Available

In his sermon on the eighth commandment, Phil Ryken shares the story of a painting that was done by Norman Rockwell for the Saturday Evening Post. A woman is buying a turkey, and as it is on the scale, she is looking at the butcher, who is looking back at her. They both seem pleased, and they both seem to be sharing some kind of private joke. However, the painting shows what they are doing: the butcher is pressing down on the scale with his thumb in order to make the turkey heavier. The woman is pushing up on the scale, trying to make the bird weigh less. The reason both of them look pleased is that neither one knows what the other one is doing! However, as Cecil Myers notes (whom Ryken quotes), both of them are stealing. Both of them would be quite offended if you suggested to them that they were stealing. However, that is exactly what both of them were trying to do. Neither would rob a bank, or write a bad check. However, neither of them saw any problem with trying to get the advantage of a few cents on the weight of that turkey. That is theft.

Paul here reiterates the eighth commandment. The eighth commandment tells us that we are not to steal. The immediately preceding verse told us not to give the devil a foothold. So today we are going to explore some relatively small ways in which we are often tempted to steal. You might not think of them as stealing, but they are.

One thing that we don’t normally think of as stealing, but is, is being late for an appointment. Time is money, as the saying goes. If you agree to meet with someone at a certain time, and you don’t show up until half an hour later, you are stealing 30 minutes of that person’s time. Would you want that other person to steal 30 minutes of your time? Wouldn’t that make you impatient? Of course, there are legitimate delays: flat tire, putting out a fire, things like that. So we should find out the reason why someone is late before we blow up at them. But being late simply for one’s own convenience, well, that’s theft of time.

Here’s another way in which we might be tempted to steal: putting the best grain where the elevator operator will see it and judge your whole truckload on the basis of that very good grain, whereas most of the grain isn’t of the same quality. That is theft, since you will get a better price for your grain than the grain is worth, and it was done be deception.

Do you cheat on your income taxes? Do you not report all your income? Well, that’s theft when you don’t. Or, if you claim more business expenses than you actually had, that’s theft, too. Of course, our government steals from us all the time. But that does not justify stealing right back. God will never honor that.

Do you borrow something and just happen never to bring it back? That’s stealing. If you borrow something, take it back once you’ve finished with it. It doesn’t matter whether you’ve “conveniently forgotten” about it or not.

Notice something about the text here. The opposite of stealing is not simply to refrain from stealing. The opposite of stealing is to work such that you can give. Ultimately, the opposite of stealing is giving. Jesus Christ shows us this principle when He came to earth not to be served, but to serve, and to GIVE His life as a ransom for many. Christ worked hard on earth, being completely obedient to the law, that He might have His perfect law-keeping to give to us, that we might not have to strive in order to achieve salvation. Instead, Christ has accomplished it for us. Now, we imitate our Master. We work hard so that we can have something to give to those who are needy.

Laziness is also a form of theft. It is stealing against yourself. You might wonder how that is. Here is a story that will help illustrate: Zig Ziglar tells of a thief, a man named Emmanuel Nenger. The year is 1887. The scene is a small neighborhood grocery store. Mr. Nenger is buying some turnip greens. He gives the clerk a $20 bill. As the clerk begins to put the money in the cash drawer to give Nr. Nenger his change, she notices some of the ink from the $20 bill is coming off on her fingers which are damp from the turnip greens. She looks at Mr. Nenger, a man she has known for years. She looks at the smudged bill. This man is a trusted friend; she has known him all her life; he can’t be a counterfeiter. She gives Mr. Nenger his change, and he leaves the store. But $20 is a lot of money in 1887, and eventually the clerk calls the police. They verify the bill as counterfeit and get a search warrant to look through Mr. Nenger’s home. In the attic they find where he is reproducing money. He is a master artist and is painting $20 bills with brushes and paint! But also in the attic they find three portraits Nenger had painted. They seized these and eventually sold them at auction for $16,000 (in 1887 currency, remember) or a little more than $5,000 per painting. The irony is that it took Nenger almost as long to paint a $20 bill as it did for him to paint a $5,000 portrait! It’s true that Emanuel Nenger was a thief, but the person from whom he stole the most was himself. When you work, are you putting forth your best effort? Or are you just trying to get by? If you are just trying to get by, then you are stealing from yourself. You should be earning enough so that you can start saving money for your retirement. And, if you are saving money for retirement, then you should also have money to give to those in need.

Do you rob God? You might ask, “how could I possibly rob God?” It is quite possible to rob God. Malachi 3:8-10: “Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me, the whole nation of you. Bring the full tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need.” A tithe is a tenth. I remember the only other time this has come up in a sermon, I made the mistake of recommending that we all tithe ten percent of our gross income. Well, that plain and simply doesn’t work for farmers. But let me ask you this question: could you tithe ten percent of your net profit? You might think that you won’t have enough money to go around if you do that. Do you believe the Bible? Specifically, do you believe Malachi? I always find that if I regularly tithe ten percent of my income, there is always enough money for our expenses, for saving, and for gifts. When I don’t tithe regularly ten percent, there never seems to be enough money. This is the only place in all Scripture where God tells us to test Him. You see, ultimately, stealing is a form of unbelief. Stealing is saying that I don’t believe that God will provide. And not giving a full tithe is just one way we say that we don’t trust God. Stealing is a form of idolatry, also. It takes God off His throne, and puts money there instead. But money is not even a good idol. As Proverbs tells us, wealth takes wings and flies away. About all it takes is a little bad news on Wall Street, a drop in the price of grain, a thief in the night, and poof, there goes the money. Let us not put our trust in money. Let us put our trust in the Lord, who made heaven and earth. It all belongs to Him anyway. Let us praise our Lord.

Some today have posited that the Lutheran view of the law only has the first two uses (to restrain evil, and to act as a pedagogue to point us to Christ). However, it is clear that not all Lutherans rejected the third use of the law. In fact, the evidence rather points to the opposite conclusion. Take this section from the Form of Concord (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, III, pp. 130-131):

Article 6. Of the third use of the law. Statement of the Controversy. Since it is established that the Law of God was given to men for three causes: first, that a certain external discipline might be preserved, and wild and intractable men might be restrained, as it were, by certain barriers; secondly, that by the Law men might be brought to an acknowledgment of their sins; thirdly, that regenerate men, to all of whom, nevertheless, much of the flesh still cleaves, for that very reason may have some certain rule after which they may and ought to shape their life, etc., a controversy has arisen among some few theologians concerning the third use of the Law, to wit: whether the Law is to be inculcated upon the regenerate also, and its observation urged upon them or not? Some have judged that the Law should be urged, others have denied it.

The rest of the article clearly and explicitly affirms the third use of the law. The last sentence quoted here, however, might be a reasonable explanation as to why this misperception of Lutheranism has arisen: some Lutherans may have denied the third use of the law.

Posted by Lane Keister

Posted by Bob Mattes

The phrase “strong presumption of guilt” in the Presbyterian Church in America’s Standing Judicial Commission’s case summaries for cases 2006-2 and 2007-8 have garnered considerable, if poorly informed, posts and discussions on the blogs in recent weeks. Where does this phrase in the BCO, especially BCO 31-2, originate? Over at the PCA Historical Center, there is a series entitled Historical Development of the Book of Church Order. This has some great information on the history of our Presbyterian Church in America polity.

For reference, BCO 31-2 says:

31-2. It is the duty of all church Sessions and Presbyteries to exercise care over those subject to their authority. They shall with due diligence and great discretion demand from such persons satisfactory explanations concerning reports affecting their Christian character. This duty is more imperative when those who deem themselves aggrieved by injurious reports shall ask an investigation.

If such investigation, however originating, should result in raising a strong presumption of the guilt of the party involved, the court shall institute process, and shall appoint a prosecutor to prepare the indictment and to conduct the case. This prosecutor shall be a member of the court, except that in a case before the Session, he may be any communing member of the same congregation with the accused. [my bold emphasis]

The Historical Center article observes that this paragraph has remained virtually unchanged since its first draft of the PCA BCO in 1973. Perhaps even more interesting is that the phrase goes way back to the PCUS Canons of Discipline, V- 5, in 1867:

It is the duty of all church-sessions and presbyteries to exercise a proper care over those subject to their authority; and they shall, with due diligence and great discretion, demand from such persons satisfactory explanations concerning reports affecting their Christian character. This duty is the more imperative, when those who deem themselves aggrieved by injurious reports shall ask an investigation.

If such investigation, however originating, should result in raising a strong presumption of the guilt of the party involved, the court shall promptly appoint a prosecutor to conduct the case. This prosecutor shall be a member of the court, except that, in a case before the session, he may be any communicating member of the same congregation with the accused. [my bold emphasis]

That should sound very familiar. The Historical Center also has an excerpt from F.P. Ramsay’s Exposition of the Book of Church Order (1898, pp. 185-186), on RoD, V-2:

A strong presumption means a belief by the members of the court that evidence as then known to them would indicate that guilt probably exists, unless evidence to the contrary can be produced not then known to them.

The court institutes process by appointing a prosecutor. It is the duty of the prosecutor thus appointed to prepare the indictment and to conduct the case ; that is, the court, after the appointment of the prosecutor, is simply a judge, and the whole responsibility of representing the Church as an accuser is on the prosecutor.

So, the concept isn’t an injustice invented by the PCA to use against hapless Federal Visionists as some blogs seem to tout, but goes back to the very early days of the Presbyterian Church on the North American continent.

Can we trace the concept back further? Indeed, otherwise why would I ask? Check out Barbara J. Shapiro’s “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” and “Probable Cause”: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1991 1991. On page 138, she shows that this phrase dates back at least to 1716:

Hawkins’s authoritative Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown (1716) is particularly important in facilitating and formalizing the transfer of the causes of suspicion from examination to arrest. Unlike the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century authors of the justicing handbooks, Hawkins places a list of the causes of suspicion in the arrest portion of his treatise, and from that point onward it became a standard part of the arrest canon of the English and the American handbook tradition. Hawkins’s treatise illustrates how concepts and criteria might migrate from one procedure to another. Hawkins’s treatment of the causes of suspicion that justified arrest included the familiar “common fame” and life-style. The former ought to have “some probable ground,” and the latter might be gained from the suspect’s living a vagrant and idle life with no visible means of support. Keeping company with known offenders at the time of the offense, and more generally associating with those of scandalous reputation, was also an appropriate cause of suspicion. Social and economic status thus had an important role in determining the legitimacy of an arrest. Circumstantial evidence that indicated “a strong presumption of guilt” was another cause of suspicion. Here Hawkins employed the famous presumptions that arose from being found with a bloody sword in hand, leaving the house of a murdered person, and being in possession of stolen property. Behavior which “betrays a consciousness of guilt,” for example, flight, was also numbered among the causes of suspicion.[73] These passages were garnered from materials from Crompton, Lambarde, Dalton, Coke, and Hale, with their sources duly noted. When these passages of Hawkins were retransferred to the justicing handbooks and placed in chapters dealing with arrest, the citations were dropped. They thus floated free from their more distant Romanocanon and rhetorical origins and their proximate pretrial examination associations. The most influential justicing handbook of the eighteenth century was that of Richard Burn. Burn, and most of the English and American handbooks modeled on Burn’s work, followed the Hawkins treatment and provided a list of appropriate causes of suspicion which might engender arrest.[74] [my bold emphasis]

Sorry for the long block of text, but that’s the way it appears in the original. I bolded the phrase in question to provide a quick reference.

The bottom line is that the phrase “strong presumption of guilt” and the concept go back to at least 1716. It wasn’t invented by the PCA or even by Presbyterians in general. Some Federal Visionists have touted this phrase in the SJC case reports as a gross injustice hatched against them. Far from it, and now you know the unvarnished, historically accurate truth.

Posted by Bob Mattes, who isn’t a lawyer but has stayed at Holiday Inn Expresses a number of times.

Ephesians 2:14-16

A Christian man used to drive a bus in the poorer sections of the old South. And in these poor sections, he would drive both black kids and white kids to school. This set of kids could not get along. Finally, the bus driver got tired of all the squabbling that was going on, and he pulled the bus over one day, and said to the white boys, “What color are you?” The boys said, “White.” The driver said, “Nope, you’re green.” Then he asked the black boys what color they were. They said, “Black.” The driver said, “Nope, you’re green, too. There are only green people on this bus.” This seemed to work at first. However, later on the bus driver heard the kids in the back saying, “All right, light green on this side, and dark green on that side.” One cannot solve race issues so easily as telling kids that they are a new color. However, Paul here in Ephesians tells us that there is a whole new race called the Christian race. This new race transcends all racial boundaries. Christ has destroyed the boundary markers, and has thus given us a new race in Himself. In order to do that, Christ had to abolish the covenant of works by fulfilling it. What do we mean by this?

Well, first we need to discuss the meaning of the law. The moral law was originally given to Adam as a covenant of works. What that means is that God made an agreement with Adam that if Adam obeyed God, then God would give him everlasting life. But Adam had to obey in order to get this eternal life. That is called the covenant of works, since by works would Adam enter into eternal life, not by faith. However, Adam did not keep that covenant. He broke that covenant. He did not obey his Lord. Therefore, God made a new covenant, called the covenant of grace. In this new covenant, God would do all the saving and all the work in order for mankind to obtain eternal life. However, there always existed the hypothetical possibility that a person could earn his way to eternal life. If a person obeyed the law perfectly, then he could obtain eternal life. Many Jews believed that this was the way to go. What they failed to reckon with was the fact of our sinful fallen state. No one is able to obey the law perfectly, since everyone is a sinner. After the Fall, then, the law shows us the standard, which is perfection, and it shows us that we cannot keep the law at all, because of our sin. However, the law also points us to Jesus Christ, who DID keep the law perfectly for us. Jesus Christ fulfilled that hypothetical possibility that someone could keep the law perfectly, and so enter into eternal life. The wonderful thing about this is that Jesus Christ did not do this for Himself primarily. The reason He came to earth was for us. He came to fulfill the moral law so that we would not have to fulfill the law in order to obtain eternal life. That is what we mean when we say that Christ fulfilled the Covenant of Works. There is no more striving needed for us to do.

Before Christ, the law was a sticking point in Jew/Gentile relationship. The Jews called themselves the circumcision, and they called the Gentiles uncircumcision, as we saw last week. Jews and Gentiles both hated each other. There was no hope for each of them ever to get along. Unless someone came along and made a whole new race. And that is precisely what Jesus Christ has done. The new race is not green, but it is in Jesus Christ. The text says explicitly that Jesus Christ has made one new man out of the two old men. This does not mean that Jesus took what was best from the Jew and what was best from the Gentile and fashioned that into one new person. Rather, it means that both Jew and Gentile were together taken into one new race in Christ. You might remember that Adam was the beginning of the human race. Well, Christ is the new beginning of a new race. And the race is that of “Christian.” The Jew could remain a Jew outwardly, but be transformed into a Christian inwardly. The Gentile could remain a Gentile outwardly, but inwardly he was a new man, a Christian. How does this happen? It happens through peace-making. And that peace-making is of two kinds.

The first (and most important!) kind of peace is the peace that comes between God and man by means of the blood of Christ shed for the forgiveness of sins. There was hostility between man and God. Man didn’t like having God rule over his life. And God certainly didn’t like the fact that we were sinners. We were under His wrath, as the beginning of this chapter shows so well. We hated God, and God was exercising His wrath against us. But then, Someone came in-between the wrath of God towards man and the hatred of man towards God. That Someone was Jesus. He took on Himself the wrath of God towards man, thus deflecting it away from us. And, when that salvation is applied to our lives by the Holy Spirit, then we lose all our hatred towards God. Truly, then, Jesus is our Peace, as verse 14 states. Christ is our Propitiation. That is a long word. Let me explain it. God’s wrath against sinners is such that eternal punishment in hell is the certain result if that wrath is not deflected away from us. What we need is Someone to take that wrath upon Himself for us. That is what we mean, then, when we say that Jesus Christ propitiated God’s wrath when He shed His own blood for us. It is Christ’s blood that is the propitiation for our sins. God’s wrath is appeased. Of course, we do not mean that God the Father was somehow unwilling to have His wrath appeased. Indeed, He sent the Son. But in order to do appease the Father’s wrath, Jesus had to obey every jot and tittle of the law. The very last command had to be obeyed. Otherwise, Jesus would be a blemished lamb. He would not be the perfect sacrifice for sins that we need. No, we need Someone who has perfectly fulfilled the law. That way, Christ can actually be a substitute for us, and take on God’s wrath. That is our first peace, and by far and away the most important.

But the necessary result of that first peace is the second peace, which is peace between us and our neighbors. In the text, there was a sticking point between Jew and Gentile. That was the law. The Jews had the law and the Gentiles did not. The Jews thought of their law as a fence that kept out the Gentiles. Again, as we saw last week, a visual picture of this is the temple. The court of the Gentiles was completely separated from the inner courts. The penalty for disobedience on this issue was death. In fact, there were plenty of warnings posted around the court of the Gentiles that told them that if they went any farther in, they would have only themselves to blame for their deaths. This was very serious business! And the Gentiles didn’t like the Jews much either. They thought of the Jews as rather barbarous and primitive, hating true culture, and being atheists in the world, again, as we saw last time. But what happens when God makes peace between Himself and man? What happens is that peace is then possible between man and man. For instance, to take a modern day example, many people think that mere discussion and talks will lead to peace in the Middle East. This is naïve and extremely foolish thinking. Such discussions may result in a temporary cease-fire. But permanent peace cannot come between the Arab and the Jew unless they are made into a new man in Christ Jesus. Peace between man and man is utterly impossible without peace between God and man happening first. But what is equally true is that if peace between God and man has happened, then peace between man and man must happen.

So, have you made your peace with God? Have you dealt with your hatred of God? Have you thrown yourself on the mercy of the courtroom of God, and asked for pardon? You need the propitiation of God’s wrath against your sin! You need that more than you need anything else in this entire world. You need it far more than wealth, a good planting and harvest season, more than you need a wife or husband, and more than you need physical life itself. This is man’s greatest need, to be reconciled to God. And it can only happen through Jesus Christ.

Have you made your peace with man? And by that I don’t mean just mankind in general, but with those people who are so different from you? Have you made peace with Native Americans who have come your way? Have you offered them the peace of the Gospel? Have you made peace with that family member who thinks so differently from you? Remember, if you peace with God, then you MUST have peace with your brothers and sisters in Christ. That is not optional for the believer. Indeed, if you cannot live in peace with your brother and sister in Christ, then it is highly doubtful that you have really made peace with God.

But how does one make peace with someone who is different from you? Well, you need first to recognize that your similarities are far greater than your differences. You have far more in common when you are both in Christ Jesus than what is different between you. So, that is a mindset you need to adopt. Secondly, you need to be humble. Pride is a peace-killer first class. In fact, nothing kills peace like pride. The desire to prove yourself correct is a hideous thing all too often. Are you even open to the possibility that you might be wrong? And stop saying to yourself, “Oh this is such a good message for my neighbor to hear.” No, this message is for you, not your neighbor. So, recognize what you have in common, be humble, third pray for reconciliation, and fourth, be willing to take the first step. This is related to pride. If we are proud, then we expect the person who has wronged us to come to us to take the first step. We cannot do this. If we have something against someone, then we need to go to that person and say so gently. How do you know that the other person even knows that he has offended you? You cannot assume anything. Fourthly, talk about the issue itself, not about the person’s character. If it is a specific action that offended you, then talk about that specific action and what it did to you. Don’t start going on and on about how bad that person is. In other words, don’t attack the person. Instead, focus on that particular action. And lastly, be quick to admit your own fault. I don’t know of a single person who thinks that a person is better if he never admits to being wrong. Instead, I see that most people think much better of a person who is humble enough to admit his own faults and apologize for them. It is actually a sign of greater strength than weakness.

So, in conclusion, we are a new body in Christ, a new race, called Christians. We have been reconciled to God by the blood of Christ, who is the propitiation for our sins, and who turns aside the wrath of God. That means that race is no longer a boundary to us. Being a Christian transcends racial boundaries. And that means that we are called to be peacemakers, both with God and with our fellow man.

In this post, I am summarizing the findings of Wes White in another article of his entitled “Does the Concept of Merit Merit Abandonment?” FV proponents loudly proclaim that the idea of merit should be abandoned. For instance, Norman Shepherd says that the problem of evangelical Protestantism is that they have not always rejected the concept of merit itself, and thus are unable to challenge Romanist concepts of salvation at its very roots (see Call of Grace, pp. 61-62). Is this the case? Absolutely not. Everyone was talking about merit in the days of the Reformation, even about Adam. Merit was neither distinctive to Roman Catholicism, nor repugnant to Reformation theology.

There are three kinds of merit that everyone was talking about: condign merit means something that intrinsically deserves a reward that is in proportion to that something; congruent merit means something that deserves a reward, but is rewarded to a greater degree than it deserves; covenant merit, or merit by pact, is something that has no intrinsic value, but is rewarded because of a promise.

Here is the ultimate problem with Shepherd’s position on merit: if we chuck merit entirely, then sin does not merit hell. The view of the law given in the WS is that obedience and disobedience are the flip sides of the law (see LC 99). A command has the corresponding opposite negative prohibition, and, furthermore, the threat has the corresponding opposite positive promise. This is absolutely vital to understanding the Covenant of Works. Now, Wes’s position is that sin condignly merits hell. Sin is intrinsically meritorious of hell. I agree with this. However, I also think that sin merits hell by pact in addition to condignly meriting hell, since it was part of the covenant that God made with Adam. The question, then, is this: how can a negative prohibition in Genesis 2 coupled with a threat of punishment for disobedience amount to a positive promise, as well as a positive command? Or, to put the question in Shepherd’s own terms, “How does a command not to do something demonstrate that by a lifetime of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience Adam will earn or merit the right to eternal life?” (see response 3, pg. 1). This is answered for us in LC 99: how do we interpret the moral law? The moral law was certainly given to Adam (see WCF 19.1-3). Therefore, the way in which the WS interpret the Ten Commandments applies also to the moral law as given to Adam. The nature of Adam’s sin was fundamentally idolatrous. That was the nature of the temptation, explicit in Genesis 3:5. Therefore, the nature of the corresponding, opposite obedience, would have been of a God-honoring pactum merit nature. As the WCF itself says, Adam’s could never have merited anything condignly. Adam owed obedience to God as his liege-Lord. However, God had promised (by the law of interpretation given in LC 99) eternal life based on the pactum merit of Adam’s perfect and personal obedience. This is why the WS interpret the CoW the way they do. It is because they see fundamental continuity between the stipulations of the CoW as given to Adam, and the Ten Commandments as given to Israel. That continuity justifies the interpretation of the Ten Commandments being valid also for the CoW. So, contrary to Norman Shepherd, the Reformers have **never** said that Adam’s merit to eternal life would be a matter of “simple justice” (Call of Grace, pg. 26). This is simply irresponsible historiography. It is not a matter of condign merit, but of pactum merit. I see that Norman Shepherd makes the same historiographical errors in his response to the OPC study committee report (see his inexplicable citing of Thornwell as indicative of a representative treatment of the CoW in response 3, pg. 2: I have never seen Thornwell’s ideas anywhere else). I have not read Horton’s work (which Norman Shepherd blasts for using ANE background as helpful in understanding the CoW). However, I would be willing to bet that Horton has considerably more exegesis than Shepherd is willing to allow. There seemed to be very little in the way of contextual quotation of Horton.

One final issue needs to be addressed, and it is the perennial issue of whether such a reading as the above reads into the text something that isn’t there. Shepherd raises this issue ad nauseum in his response to the OPC report (section 3). The issue here is whether or not later texts of Scripture will be allowed into the exegetical discussion. I believe that every “Do this and live” passage has a bearing on the question, since that phrase captures the essence of the pactum merit Covenant of Works. He makes the claim that the Covenant of Works is a later Reformed development (section 3, pg. 3), and that it is not present in the HC or the BC. This is the basis on which he says that the OPC should dump the WS, and hold to the BC and the HC. So much for theological development. Even if Shepherd is right in this claim, the watchword of the FV has been onward and upward progress in theology. If the CoW is a progression in Reformed thought, then why reject it? It certainly has exegetical basis, both in Genesis 2 (as I have pointed out above) and in the “Do this and live” passages. However, I do not agree with Shepherd’s claim that this is a later development. What he is doing is making the word/concept fallacy. “The term ‘covenant of works’ is not present, therefore, the idea is not present.” As Richard Muller points out, the first Reformed theologian to use the term was probably Dudley Fenner, who used the term foedus operum in his Sacra Theologia of 1585 (see MAJT ‘2006, pg. 21). However, as Wes White has proved rather conclusively, John Calvin, in his exegesis of the “Do this and live” passages, exposits the substance of the CoW.

On Leviticus 18:5. It is a remarkable [verse], and contains general instruction, from whence Paul derives his definition of the righteousness of the Law (Rom. 10:5) it seems to me to come in very appropriately here, inasmuch as it sanctions and confirms the Law by the promise of reward. The hope of eternal life is, therefore, given to all who keep the Law; for those who expound the passage as referring to this earthly and transitory life are mistaken… But Scripture does not therefore deny that men are justified by works, because the Law itself is imperfect, or does not give instructions for perfect righteousness; but because the promise is made of none effect by our corruption and sin…The law requires works for the attainment of salvation, whilst faith directs us to Christ, that we may be delivered from the curse of the law. Foolishly, then, do some reject as an absurdity the statement, that if a man fulfils the Law he attains to righteousness; for the defect does not arise from the doctrine of the Law, but from the infirmity of men, as is plain from another testimony given by Paul (Romans 8:3). We must observe, however, that salvation is not to be expected from the law unless its precepts be in every respect complied with; for life is not promised to one who shall have done this thing, or that thing, but, by the plural word, full obedience is required of us. The pratings of the Popish theologians about partial righteousness are frivolous and silly, since God embraces at once all the commandments; and who is there that can boast of having thoroughly fulfilled them? See Calvin’s commentaries, volume 3.1, pp. 204-5.

On Ezekiel 20:11. [Ezekiel] took this testimony from Moses, and we shall see immediately that he cites it in a different sense. Moses there pronounces that th life of man rests on the observance of the law; that is,- life was surely to be expected through satisfying the law. Some think this absurd, and so restrict what is said to the present life, taking “he shall live in them” politically or civilly: but this is a cold and trifling comment…Since, then, it pleased God to descend so far as to promise life to men if they kept his law, they ought to accept this offer as springing from his liberality. there is no absurdity, then, if men do live, that is, if they deserve eternal life according to agreement. See Calvin’s Commentaries, volume 12.1, pp. 297-298.

On Matthew 19:17. This passage was erroneously interpreted by some of the ancients, whom the Papists have followed, as if Christ taught that, by keeping the law, we may merit eternal life. [N.B. Calvin is referring to sinful humanity ("we") as the Papists view humanity, not to the hypothetical reality of eternal life by law-keeping, as will become clear later in the quotation: emphasis original] On the contrary, Christ did not take into consideration what men can do, but replied to the question, ‘What is the righteousness of works?’ or, ‘What does the Law require?’ And certainly we ought to believe that God comprehended in his law the way of living holily and righteously, in which righteousness is included; for not without reason did Moses make this statement, ‘He that doeth these things shall live in them,’ and again, ‘I call heaven and earth to witness that I have this day showed you life.’ We have no right, therefore, to deny that the keeping of the law is righteousness, by which any man who kept the law perfectly-if there were such a man- would obtain life for himself…I acknowledge, therefore, that, as God has promised the reward of eternal life to those who keep his law, we ought to hold by this way, if the weakness of our flesh did not prevent; but Scripture teaches us, that it is through our own fault that it becomes necessary for us to receive as a gift what we cannot obtain by works. See Calvin’s Commentaries, volume 16.2, pp. 394-395. I will also refer folk to Calvin’s commentaries on Romans 10:5 (volume 19.2, pp. 385ff) and Galatians 3:12 (volume 21.1, pp. 90-91).

Matthew 5:21-26
Someone has said that when he gets into an argument with his wife, she doesn’t get hysterical, she gets historical. She simply recounts all his past misdeeds in his hearing so that the husband is shamed by his current behavior. She holds grudges, and is bitter against him because of all these past actions. We probably do the same thing. I dare say that when most of us look at the sixth commandment, which reads, “Thou shalt not kill,” we come with a sigh of relief. Most of us have not killed anyone. We haven’t murdered anyone. On to the next commandment. We allow room for those thoughts of anger to harbor themselves in our hearts.

That is exactly how the Jews thought. They thought that the worst offense against the sixth commandment was to actually murder someone in cold blood. So they added to the law. Jesus is quoting in the first verse not the OT law alone, but the OT law as it had been interpreted by the Jewish rabbis. The key part of this is the second half of the verse. There the Jewish rabbis said that the person who murders someone else is liable to judgment. That implies that the lesser sins are not liable to judgment. If murder IS liable to punishment, then anger is NOT. The Jewish rabbis thus lessened the punishment due to sin, because they misinterpreted the sixth commandment. Instead of misinterpreting the sixth commandment, we have to realize how to interpret them.

The Ten commandments are meant to state the most severe case. Murder is obviously the most severe case covered under the sixth commandment. But all the lesser commands are included under it as well. Listen to what the Heidelberg catechism says in its questions concerning the sixth commandment: 105 Q. What is God’s will for you in the sixth commandment? A. I am not to belittle, insult, hate, or kill my neighbor- not by my thoughts, my words, my look or gesture, and certainly not by actual deeds- and I am not to be party to this in others; rather, I am to put away all desire for revenge. I am not to harm to recklessly endanger myself either. Prevention of murder is also why government is armed with the sword. 106 Q. Does this commandment refer only to killing? A. By forbidding murder God teaches us that he hates the root of murder: envy, hatred, anger, vindictiveness. In God’s sight all such are murder. 107 Q. Is it enough then that we do not kill our neighbor in any such way? A. No. By condemning envy, hatred, and anger God tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves, to be patient, peace-loving, gentle, merciful, and friendly to them, to protect them from harm as much as we can, and to do good even to our enemies.

The WCF has more to say. Not only do the Ten Commandments contain the severest forms, and therefore imply all the lesser sins, but also the opposite to murder is required. Q. 135: What are the dutes required in the sixth commandment? A. The dutes required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away of the life of any; by just defence thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, medicine, sleep, labour, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peacable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succouring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defence; the neglecting or withdrawing of the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarelling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.

So, just in case any of you thought for one minute that you have been keeping this commandment, I am here to tell you that you aren’t. All the lesser sins are condemned, and the opposite virtues are commanded. Jesus is here raising the standard of what the law requires. Remember, Jesus just finished saying that that our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees. Otherwise, we will never enter the kingdom of God. Last time we discovered just what that meant. It meant that we need a perfect righteousness to clothe us before the infinitely holy God. But it also means that our actual behavior needs to be better than the scribes and the Pharisees.

So Jesus goes on to say here that insults, and hatred is ALSO liable to punishment. In other words, it is no longer merely a matter of what happens in our behavior: it is a matter of the heart. Let me repeat that: it is no longer merely a matter of what happens in our behavior: it is a matter of the heart. Now, I am NOT saying that the OT is merely outward, and the NT is inward and spiritual. I am saying that the scribes and the Pharisees were more concerned about outward behavior, and neglected the inward aspect of the heart. The contrast is not between the OT and the NT, but between the Pharisees’ interpretation of the law, and Jesus’ interpretation of the law.

In verse 23, we see the principle that applies to us especially in the Lord’s Supper. We no longer offer actual animals on the altar. Otherwise, we might get the irony in what Jesus says. How practical would it be to leave an animal on the altar, before you had even killed it, and go somewhere else to be reconciled with your brother? Jesus’ point here is that forgiveness is more important than sacrifice. You cannot be reconciled with God unless you reconciled with your brother. That is so important that I will say it again: you CANNOT be reconciled with God unless you are reconciled with your brother. Don’t come and offer tithes to God if you are angry with your brother. And don’t come to the Lord’s Supper if you have something against someone else. But Jesus required something more. Maybe you don’t have something against anyone else, but maybe they have something against you. In that case, you are ALSO to go to that person and ask their forgiveness before proper worship can take place.

Now, verse 25 is usually taken to mean that we should reconcile with even non-believers before going to court. This is true. We are to do everything we can to live at peace with all people. However, there is a great deal more to say about this verse. This verse is really talking about the final judgment. The accuser is the law, and the court is God’s court, and the judgment is the final judgment. If we realize that what we owe is everything, then the last warning there should absolutely terrify those who are not justified before God. You will never get out until you pay the last penny. Hat means that you will never get out, because no one has the wherewithal to pay what they owe in hell. So this advice works on many levels. Be reconciled to your brother, be reconciled to your enemy, and be reconciled to the law. How does one do all this? We must go back to the cross. Jesus underwent the cross, because of God’s wrath against sin and against sinners. God’s anger, of course, is a righteous anger, because He is angry at sin, which is a breaking of God’s law. Any breaking of God’s law results in God’s holiness and perfection being attacked. God must answer if He is to be a just and holy God. And so He answered it with the death of His own son. He has put to death the enmity that existed between God and us. That is, Jesus propitiated God’s wrath. That is a big word. Let me explain it. God is wrathful against sin, because of the law. That wrath needs to be appeased somehow, if we are to be restored to fellowship with God. That is what Christ did. He propitiated God’s wrath. He appeased God’s wrath. This word is used several times in the NT, and so we need to aware of what it means. So do you trust in Christ’s work of propitiation? Do you trust that Jesus has made peace between God and you?

Then you need to extend forgiveness, not anger to other people. How often do we insult other people. How do we do that? Well, we gossip. That is a terrible problem in our congregations. We call someone else a fool behind their back. Jesus’ command is not limited merely to calling someone a fool to their face: it also applies to gossip. We want to learn a dirty little secret of someone, and so we listen. We are all tempted. But that is killing someone. Gossip is a lesser form of murder. Do you think of gossip that way? Well you should.

Another way this applies to us is that we tend to hold grudges against someone else. Holding a grudge is another way we kill someone. It doesn’t matter whether the grudge is long-standing or recent: either way, holding it is killing that person in your heart.

What about protecting someone else’s good name. It is not the case that if you merely refrain from gossip that you have kept the Lord’s command. You must also actively seek to preserve someone else’s reputation. Just as to preserve someone else’s life is to obey the sixth commandment, so also to preserve someone else’s reputation is a matter of life and death. If you destroy someone’s good name, you have destroyed that person.

This is a command to love as God has loved us. This is a command to take care of our anger as God took care of His anger against us. God is not asking us to do anything that He has not done Himself. The great difference between God’s anger and our anger is that God’s anger is completely justified. We totally deserve to be on the receiving end of God’s anger. However, our anger is usually not holy. And yet God takes care of His own anger anyway, even though we so richly deserve it. So cannot we take care of our anger, when it is usually unjustly bestowed? That is the question for us tonight.

So this week, work on how you talk to your spouse, children, or siblings. Don’t cut them down, or insult them. Instead, build them up in love. When you work with your coworkers, don’t listen to gossip. Instead, you should stick up for the person who isn’t there to defend himself. Have the courage to do that. God will call you blessed. But above all, forgive someone else. After all, God has forgiven you more than you can ever repay. You can surely afford to forgive someone else. Indeed, there is great reward for those who forgive as God forgives. Look forward to it. That is what Jesus calls us to do today.

Tags: kill, killing, anger, murder, hatred, wrath, insults, gossip, grudges, love

Matthew 5:17-20
There is a common miscon- ception out there about the OT. Probably some of us here have held to it from time to time. That miscon- ception goes like this: a particular command came from the OT. Since we are no longer living in the OT time period, therefore I do not have to obey that law. That is a misconception, and the words of our Lord Jesus here confirm that. Why is this important? Because God wants us to obey His holy law as part of being a good Christian. And the OT is where we find a good bit of that law. The OT is extremely valuable for knowing how God wants us to live. Jesus certainly valued the OT highly, and so should we.

Jesus starts off by responding to an objection. Someone was looking at what he did on the Sabbath and was saying, “This guy wants to abolish the law and the prophets. He does nothing but upset all the OT law.” Jesus is here responding to such a person by saying that the law is something he upholds. In fact, far from abolishing the law and the prophets, Jesus came to fulfill them. What Jesus is against is not the law, but all the additions to the law that the Pharisees had added to the law. For instance, with regard to the Sabbath, the Pharisees had said that no one should walk outside their house more than 50 paces, unless it was to go to the synagogue. Burdens more than a certain weight were not to be carried. Both of these activities constituted work, according to the Pharisees. Now, what the Pharisees were trying to do, according to their own account, was to make the law doable. But what they actually succeeded in doing was to make the law impossible. They laid heavy burdens on the people, but did not lift up a single finger to help the people. So Jesus wants to strip all that away, and concentrate on the weightier matters of the law, if you will pardon the pun. So that is how Jesus objects to this imaginary persecutor.

The second thing Jesus does here is to state what He actually came to do. Jesus here answers the question, “Why did Jesus come to earth? What is the reason for the incarnation?” The answer is that Jesus came to fulfill the law. Now, before we get into what exactly that means, we must note that it does NOT mean that Jesus came to fulfill and thus end the law. We know that from what He says immediately after this: not a jot or tittle (or, as the NIV says, “the least stroke of a pen”) shall pass away from the law until all is accomplished. Let me illustrate what Jesus is saying here. Turn to page 960 in your church Bible. Right over verse 73 is the Hebrew letter Yodh. That is what a “jot” means. The NIV translates it in Mat 5 as “the smallest letter.” This is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It is the same letter in the Greek alphabet “iota,” which is the smallest letter in that alphabet as well. And now turn to page 959 in your church Bible. Right above verse 41, we see the Hebrew letter Waw written in Hebrew and English. Then, right over verse 49, we see the Hebrew letter Zayin. The difference between these two letters is a very small extension on the top of the letter. That small extension is called a tittle. That is what the NIV translates as “the least stroke of the pen.”Now, the Hebrews took extremely good care of the manuscripts of the OT. If any mistake was found in the manuscript, then that entire page had to be thrown away. They had ways of testing the accuracy of the text. For instance, they would make sure that the same word in the parent manuscript was on the same place in the copied manuscript. They would count the words on the page, and the same number of words had to be there in the parent and in the child manuscript. Well, that same level of care for the manuscript is what Jesus is talking about here. In no way will the smallest detail perish from the law until everything is accomplished.

Notice the severity of the punishment that will come on those who teach that the law is no longer in effect. In verse 19, Jesus says that anyone who relaxes the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. There is a punishment that fits the crime. The law is so important that the smallest of the commands of the law carries a whopping punishment in the event of its being broken. The person who does it will be called least. Their status will match the law that they broke.

Now, by this time, you are probably wondering to yourself whether or not we should bring back the sacrificial system which was so obviously part of OT law. And you might also be wondering about those OT laws that applied to OT Israel alone. Be patient, we’ll get there. But first, I want us to feel the weight of what Jesus is saying here. The law is NOT something that we can dump into the garbage and expect God to be happy about it. That simply cannot happen.

Now, as Reformed folk, we need to realize a vital principle of how to interpret Scripture. And that principle is that Scripture interprets Scripture. What one Scripture says has to be laid alongside of another Scripture passage on the same topic. What happens when we do that? One Scripture tells us what the other Scripture means. This principle of interpretation is called the analogy of faith. Scripture interprets Scripture. A point of application here. If we do not know what Scripture means in a particular place, then we must go to other Scriptures that are more clear. We use those texts that are clear to interpret those texts that are not so clear.

That being said, we know from other Scripture that the law is not all the same in how it applies to us. The sacrificial system is fulfilled and comes to an end in Christ. We no longer sacrifice. We know this for an absolute certainty from the book of Hebrews, which tells us that Christ made a sacrifice once and for all. The very purpose of the OT law concerning sacrifice was to point to Christ. Since the purpose of that is now fulfilled, that part of the law is no longer binding on us. Indeed, if we were to reintroduce sacrificing animals today, we would be spitting on Christ’s sacrifice of Himself. Instead, we are to offer a sacrifice of praise, to offer up our bodies as a living sacrifice. That is how we now fulfill the OT law of sacrifice. The OT sacrificial laws still apply to us, but they are filtered through Christ, as it were.

The same is true of the national laws of Israel. Israel was to eat certain foods, and not other foods. From Acts, in the vision given to Peter in Acts 10, we learn that God has made all foods clean now. Those OT laws about not eating pork no longer apply the same way to us. We are not to eat food sacrificed to idols. That food is unclean. But pork is now clean. We can see that Acts 10 interprets the OT for us.

But now we come to the Ten Commandments. Many people think that we can just put those Ten Commandments into the same category as the other two categories of sacrificial and national laws. In fact, some go so far as to say that these are now the Ten Suggestions, rather than the Ten Commandments. But what does Jesus do with the Ten Commandments? Does He not actually re-establish their application to us? Look at what he does to the Ten Commandments in the rest of Matthew 5. Jesus says that murder is bad, but hate is the same as murder. Jesus says that adultery is bad, but so also is lust.

We need to notice here something about how Jesus is talking. It was common for Jewish rabbis to say, “It is written in the law,” or they would say, “Rabbi so-and-so says.” They would never take to themselves any authority. But Jesus is saying, “the law says this, but I say unto you.” Jesus is putting Himself on the same level as the law. We see that in verse 20. Verse 20 is quite remarkable. Jesus here is saying that His interpretation of the law will either allow a person into the kingdom, or shut them out of it. So Jesus claims ultimate authority here.

So Jesus interprets the law for us. We will see in coming weeks just what that means about these laws. All of what Jesus says in the next couple of chapters relates to the Ten Commandments. Jesus does not abrogate ANY of the Ten Commandments.

Now, I wish to focus just a little bit on one of the Ten Commandments that has been systematically abrogated in America, and that is the fourth commandment. I am talking about this one because Jesus does not address it directly in the Sermon on the Mount.

There is this idea floating around out there, including some people in our very own churches, that the Sabbath was only an OT law. We are not in the OT period anymore, and so we do not have to honor that law anymore. Let’s take a look at what Jesus would say about that. First we notice that He heightens the requirements on all the other Commandments. So, in order to say that the Sabbath law is finished, we would have to say that all the Ten Commandments retain their force except this one. Surely, just because Jesus does not mention specifically the fourth commandment in the Sermon on the Mount does not mean that Jesus is abrogating it. We should interpret Jesus to be saying that what He says is representative of how all the Ten Commandments should be interpreted. That means that the Sabbath command is still in full force.

I can hear you asking the next question, “Well then, why don’t we worship on Saturday?” That is a good question, not a stupid question. Let’s look a little bit at the reasons for the Sabbath command in the OT. We see in Exodus 20 that the reason given for the command is because God had created the world in six days. In Deuteronomy 5, the reason is that God brought them out of Egypt. In other words, there are two reasons for the Sabbath command, the creation reason and the redemption reason. In the NT, Jesus offers us a new creation, and a new redemption. 2 Cor. 5:17 says this, literally: “If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation.” God brought order out of chaos both at creation and at the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the start of the new creation. Secondly, we are well aware that we are redeemed by Jesus from the power of sin and death by Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. Do you see how this argument is shaping up? There were two reasons for the Sabbath: creation and redemption. There are two things that happened at Jesus’ resurrection: new creation and new redemption. Jesus’ resurrection happened on Sunday. Therefore Sunday is the new Sabbath day. Sunday is the Christian Sabbath. Let me repeat that. Sunday is the Christian Sabbath. How is the day to be spent? In worship to our God, and in acts of mercy to other people, and in acts of necessity that we must do to live.

Here again, the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture is helpful to us. Jesus and his disciples picked heads of grain on the Sabbath day, because they were hungry. One needs to eat on Sunday. Therefore, meal preparation, and things you need to do in order to live are entirely appropriate on Sunday. Jesus also says that helping another person in a life or death situation is appropriate on Sunday. He says that we can get out neighbor’s ox out of the ditch on Sunday. That is appropriate. What is not appropriate is normal work activities, unless they fall into the category of acts of mercy, such as working in the nursing home. Is recreation appropriate on Sunday? I do not think so. Here is why: Isaiah 58:13 says this: “If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the Lord honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; then you shall take delight in the Lord, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” Since we have already said that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, then this passage in Isaiah applies to Sunday today. Now, lest you think that Sunday is more about you can’t do than about what you can, let me say that there are many activities that we should be doing on Sunday that we are not. For instance, we should be visiting the sick and the elderly. We should be visiting other people in the congregation. We should be going into our community and talking to those people we know who don’t know Jesus. We should be reading the Bible and good Christian literature. There are a myriad of things to do on Sunday that honor the Fourth Commandment. However, we should not be approaching this commandment thinking to ourselves, “What can I get away with?” That is not the proper attitude. Instead, we should be thinking about how God would want us to honor the day. We have two worship services on Sunday in the summer time. We should attend both of those faithfully, since worship is the most important thing we do. So that is an example of how Jesus interprets the Ten Commandments. We use the information about how He interpreted the other Commandments, and then apply that to the Fourth commandment. Next time, we will see how Jesus interprets the other Commandments.

If you have never thought of these things before, and now consider yourself to have broken the Sabbath Commandment countless times in your life, then join the group. We all sin and break God’s law. The point that we must remember now is that God forgives us on the basis of the perfect Sabbath-keeper, Jesus Christ, if we trust in Him. That is the good news for us.

Tags: Jesus, law, Sabbath, Sunday