"But I Say Unto You"
Chapter Three
New Lawgiver or Master of Logic"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a women to lust after her hath already committed adultery in his heart." Mt 5:27 KJV
The actual words "Thou shalt not commit adultery" themselves are neither an addition to the Law of Moses nor a corruption of the teaching of Moses. Those are the exact words that God Himself wrote on the Tablets of Stone! Christ is using the exact words of the Seventh Commandment. How are we to understand this verse and the comparison that Christ makes between His teaching and the Seventh Commandment?
Commentators committed to Covenant Theology ignore the fact that the words Christ used are the very words written on the Tablets of Stone. Their whole position is built on treating these words as Rabbinical distortions of the commandment. This is not true for most other writers. William Hendriksen, himself an eminent Covenant Theologian, admits this fact in his comments on Mt 5:21.
The formula, "You have heard that it was said" presents a difficulty, since the following phrase, considered by itself, can be translated either "TO the men of long ago" (R.S.V.:"TO the men of old") or "BY the men of long ago." MANY translators and commentators prefer TO. Several others favor BY. According to the first view Jesus meant that Moses in the law said something TO the fathers, and Jesus now "assumes a tone of superiority over the Mosaic regulations (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol 1, p 44). J. Jermias.....expresses the same view in even stronger language when he states that "Jesus establishes a new divine law when he opposes his `But I say unto you' to the Word of Scripture.10
Hendriksen then proceeds to show why he disagrees with the majority of commentators, including A.T. Robertson. It appears that Hendriksen's Covenant Theology is dictating what the text has to mean. He may be right and men like Robertson, one of the greatest Greek scholars of his day, may be wrong. It may be correct that all Christ is doing in the Sermon on the Mount is refuting the misunderstanding of the Pharisees. In such a case, the text would mean, "You have heard the distortions of the Seventh Commandment given by the Rabbinical fathers." However, such a view is arrived at only by theological implication and not by exegesis of the Biblical texts. It assumes that Christ is not actually quoting the Seventh Commandment even though He uses the exact words ("Thou shalt not commit adultery"), but rather that He is really referring to the Pharisee's faulty application of the commandment. This is an assumption not drawn from the text of Scripture. It literally puts words into the mouth of both Christ and the Pharisees that Scripture no where mentions. If Robertson is correct, and the text means that Moses spoke to the Israelites (or gave them the law), then Christ was indeed adding to the Law of Moses and raising it to a higher level. Covenant Theology must first assume that the only thing Christ is doing in the Sermon on the Mount is giving a true exposition of what Moses really meant and then say, "Christ may have used the identical words written on the Tablets of Stone but He was really quoting the Pharisees' bad interpretation of the Seventh Commandment." We repeat, that may be correct, but it cannot be proven from the text. It must be assumed purely on the basis presumed theology.
If Covenant Theology is correct, then Christ is not claiming any unique or personal authority in His own statement. He is claiming no more authority than Moses. Any philosopher could have refuted the Pharisees just as easily as Christ did. All Christ would be doing is appealing to logic as the foundation of His statement and accusing the Pharisees of ignorance for not applying correct reasoning to the stated truth in the commandment. Christ would be merely the latest and the greatest Rabbi giving t he true interpretation of Moses. In no sense could He have been speaking with the authority of a new Lawgiver if this view is correct. Christ would be merely an interpreter of truth but in no sense a giver of new truth. He would be pointing us to Mose s, and not to Himself, as our final authority. Christ would be merely rubber stamping Moses.
If the Covenant Theology view of law is correct, the question could not involve what the law actually said, since it did indeed say, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The whole problem would merely revolve around what the Pharisees had supposedly added to the commandment. We repeat, if Christ is merely pointing out the Pharisees bad application of Moses, He would need no unique authority to say what He did if all that is involved is logic.
At this point it might be well to remind ourselves that the Word of God was not written just for Philosophers who know all of the rules of human logic. It was written for the common person, for housewives, truck drivers and others, so that they all mig ht know how to live in real life situations. What the Bible actually says and what is "philosophically implied" may be two different things that only the philosophic elite seem to be capable of discerning. The Bible was written for understanding by bot h the educated and the uneducated.
Covenant Theologians use some fairly standard rules of logic for extracting additional truth out of specific commandments. We will quote from Thomas Watson as an example. In his book on the Ten Commandments, he gives eight rules to apply when studying a commandment. Here is a sample of Watson's rules:
RULE 2. In the commandment..........more is intended than is spoken.
(1) Where any duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden. When we are commanded to keep the Sabbath-day holy, we are forbidden to break the Sabbath..........
(2) Where any sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded. When we are forbidden to take God's name in vain, the contrary duty, that we should reverence his name is enjoined..........RULE 3. Where any sin is forbidden in the commandment, the occasion of it is also forbidden. Where murder is forbidden, envy and rash anger are forbidden, which may occasion it..........
RULE 5. Where greater sins are forbidden, lesser sins are also forbidden. Though no sin in its own nature is little, yet one may be comparatively less than the other. Where idolatry is forbidden, superstition is forbidden, or bringing innovation int o God's worship, which he has not appointed.
RULE 7. God's law forbids not only the acting of sin in our own persons, but being accessory to, or having any hands in, the sins of others.
How and in what sense may we be said to partake of, and have a hand in the sins of others?..........
We become accessory of the sins of others by not hindering them when it is in our power. qui non prohibit cum potest, jubet [The failure to prevent something, when it lies within your power, amounts to ordering it]. If a master of a family sees his servant break the Sabbath, or hear him swear, and does not use the power he has to suppress him, he becomes accessory to his sin..........11By applying rule 3 and rule 4, we can logically make the Seventh Commandment teach that it is a sin to lust in our heart. We agree that all of Watson's rules are logical and philosophically true. However, that is not the point at issue. Thomas Watson was not making "rules for the Church living in a pluralistic society," he was writing laws that would be used by both individuals and civil magistrates in a "Christian" nation." The laws governing the conscience were one and the same with the laws that were implemented with the power of the steel sword! Is it possible for a magistrate and a covenant of law to apply and punish the internal implications of an external commandment? Of course not. What is logically and philosophically true cannot always be turned into a law to be used in government. This was the heart of the issue between Roger Williams and John Cotton in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It was the constant struggle whenever men tried to enforce the "first table of the Law" with the sword.
Only God Himself can judge the thoughts and intents of the heart. Imagine a judge putting a man in jail for day dreaming in his arm chair at home about either adultery or revenge on an enemy. The question is not philosophy and logic, but how the commandment was applied under the Law of Moses! We may apply all of the logic to an external law that we choose to, but we cannot punish what is only internally implied in the commandment. Man can only measure and punish what can actually be observed.
Watson's rules may all be applicable for an individual seeking to understand how God looks at his heart and life. However, to use those rules to build a system of ethics with which to govern and punish men in society is disastrous. Rule 5 certainly applies to me as an individual in the sight of God. God can and does deal with me on the basis of what is in my heart. However, under a system of pure law, another human being can only deal with the overt acts simply because he cannot see my heart (Jer 1 7:9). The Law of Moses could not deal with the heart or with motives simply because that is beyond the ability of a purely objective law.
We must not allow "logical deductions" of stated external laws to be turned into a system of governing and punishing people. Historically, this approach has often created great difficulty and brought reproach on the Church of Christ. This has come about when sincere men, like Thomas Watson, had the civil authority to make the "clear truth of God" (which they logically "deduced" as the "good and necessary consequence" of their Covenant Theology) into the law of the land. In reality, they were adding the commandments of men to the words of God by treating their logical deductions as texts of Scripture. "God spoke" the Puritan's interpretation of the Word of God just as clearly as He spoke the words recorded in Scripture.
Rule 7 is philosophically true. It is indeed our duty to do all in our power to keep other people from sinning and not be a "partaker of their wicked deeds." However, in order to apply this particular Rule in reference to the Sabbath (which Watson use s as an example) a master or magistrate must force everyone under his jurisdiction to attend worship services. For a master or magistrate to allow a person to sleep in on Sunday and not attend worship would clearly break Watson's rule and make the man i n authority to be himself guilty of sinning in the sight of God for not using his "God given responsibility" to keep others from breaking God's clear commandment. "The Word of God clearly declares (according to my logical application) that it is our God ordained duty to force servants to go to church" was considered a "truth clearly revealed in the Word of God" according to Watson's rules of interpreting God's commandments.
It is easy to see why anyone using this method of interpretation can (most sincerely) literally "add the commandments of men to the Word of God" and then (again, most sincerely) commit nearly any form of persecution and tyranny and think that he is doing God a service as well as "helping his fellow man" because he sincerely "loves his soul?" The more sincere and devoted such a person is to that method of interpreting the Bible, the more dangerous and vicious he can be, and all in the name of "honoring God's Holy Law?" It would be literally impossible to avoid a system of legalistic despotism that would destroy Christian liberty and freedom of conscience. Under such a method of understanding and "sincerely" applying this kind of "Biblical truth," me n could be, and have been, put to death in the cruelest manner, and those who killed them could sincerely believe that they did it out of love to God and His truth.
This is not caricature. All we have to do is read of the instances where the New England Puritans, and others, did those very things. If Watson is correct, then the Puritans were not only justified, they were actually duty bound by "God's Holy Law" to send the Sheriff around to get you out of bed and haul you off to the church service. God save us from men who use their version of "God's unchanging moral law" in this manner!
We simply must see that Law can only measure and punish outward acts of behavior. It cannot deal with the heart and inward motives. This is the heart of the issue that we are discussing in this book. This is always the real question when there is an honest discussion of "law and grace." The question is not whether a Christian is responsible to obey "objective laws" or simply follow an emotion called "love." The question concerns whether the Law of Moses, even correctly understood, can deal with th e heart and motives, or whether this can only be accomplished by the indwelling Holy Spirit given at Pentecost.
The Tablets of Stone cannot be the foundation of the Christian's rule of life. However, this is not because the Tablets contain "laws" and t he Christian is somehow against laws just because he is "not under law but under grace." That is nonsense. Nor is the problem that the Law of Moses is too high a standard for a Christian today. The heart of the difficulty is that the laws on the Tablets of Stone are not high and spiritual enough for a full fledged son of God living under the New Covenant. Those laws are great for the purpose for which God designed and gave them. However, conviction of sin that leads to justification by faith is not the goal of the laws of Christ given to people who are already justified.12
Once we settle how and why the commandments were applied under the law covenant, then the next obvious question concerns whether Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount, is making new and higher demands based entirely on grace or merely giving a lesson in logic by exposing the Pharisees' misunderstanding of the Law of Moses. It seems clear that the texts are showing that Christ was giving new and higher truth. In essence Christ was saying:
"Moses was quite correct under a covenant of law. However, my Ekklesia is not going to be `under the law but under grace.' In the kingdom of Grace, the law will be written on the heart. The Holy Spirit will indwell every believer as the new and personal Pedagogue sent to take My place. He will point every believer to the Cross and not to a sword, and this will move their hearts to love and obey My new (objective) laws!"
This is the heart of the issue. This is the difference between the Old Covenant of law that governed the nation of Israel and the New Covenant of grace under which the Church lives! Both covenants have objective laws or commandments, but the laws of t he New Covenant make higher demands because they appeal to the cross. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" has a higher and deeper meaning when applied by Christ under the New Covenant than it could have ever had when merely written on stone. The appeal to the cross is a higher motive, and the ground of both the motive and the duties enjoined are embodied in the truth and power of grace that comes to us through the New Covenant established by the redemptive work of Christ.
The correct way to approach Mt 5:27 is just let it mean exactly what it says. Let it really contrast the difference between rule under covenant law and rule under grace without in any way suggesting that Moses and the law were "wrong." Let Christ be truly greater than Moses without demeaning or depreciating either Moses or his law. Allow Christ to make laws that are morally higher and more spiritual than the Law of Moses. Don't push the Sermon on the Mount forward into the "kingdom age" under the pretense that it "opposes grace." And likewise, don't try to push Christ's new law back into the Old Testament by using the logical deductions of a theological system that in practice takes priority over the contextual meaning of Bible texts. Let the Lo rd Jesus Christ have the right and ability to give His New Covenant people new and higher truth than Moses ever gave to Israel!
Regardless of what view we take, we must admit to certain facts. If Christ is only showing the true intention of the Law of Moses in Mt 5:27 as it concerns adultery, then He is claiming neither Scriptural authority nor any unique personal authority for His statement. He is merely showing the Pharisees their mistake in logic. Christ does not quote the Old Testament Scriptures in His contrast nor does He state that He is refuting a "wrong interpretation" of Moses. If Christ is only refuting a distort ion of Moses by showing what Moses actually taught, then why does He not quote from another part of the law and prove what Moses really did mean? This is what Christ did in Matthew four with the Devil. When the Devil misapplied an Old Testament Scripture, our Lord responded by quoting an Old Testament text that clarified what God really meant. Would He not have done the same thing here if the Law of Moses taught the same thing that He was teaching? This would be doubly appropriate if Christ's primary purpose in the Sermon on the Mount was only to correctly interpret Moses.
We must see and accept the truth that Christ is actually contrasting the difference between a legal rule and a gracious rule (And both kinds of rule were ordained by God in their own time). This passage (Mt 5:32,32) means that Christ is not only appeal ing directly to His own authority as the Son of God to interpret and apply Old Testament Scripture in a new and higher manner, He is also giving new Scriptures that contain new truth. Christ is declaring His own authority as the new Lawgiver. He is neither appealing to the Old Testament Scriptures for either His authority or for His message nor is He merely using good logic to prove His point. Christ is literally giving us new and additional Scriptures that reveal new and higher truth not found anywhere in Moses! This is a key point in this whole discussion and the bottom line is nothing less than the full and final authority of Christ as the new and final Lawgiver.
One of the weaknesses of Covenant Theology is treating the New Testament Scriptures as if they were nothing more than the correct interpretation and application of the Old Testament Scriptures. Even Christ Himself cannot give any real new moral laws under that system of theology. However, the New Testament Scriptures clearly show that Christ is more than just an interpreter and applier of Old Testament law. He is the Giver of new law. He is the new Moses as well as the second Adam.
We simply must see Christ as "That Prophet" that was to replace Moses as God's Lawgiver. To view Christ as merely the "true interpreter of Moses" is to destroy Christ's unique authority and reduce Him to being only equal to Moses or else the greatest student and interpreter that Moses ever had. The New Testament Scriptures will not allow us to exalt Moses and minimize the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ in such a manner? Moses dare not be the ultimate and final authority over either Christ or His disciples.
The essence of Christ's claim in the Sermon on the Mount, as well as Paul's clear declaration in his epistles, is that Moses has been done away and replaced by the new and final Lawgiver. We repeat, in no sense does this mean that Christ is contradicting Moses. Christ is not destroying Moses, but He is most certainly replacing Moses in the same sense that He replaced Aaron. We do not demean Moses anymore than we demean Aaron when we emphasize that both of their ministries are done away because they are fulfilled in Christ. We do not minimize or cast off a moral law by allowing Christ to raise that law to a higher level.
10 Gospel of Matthew--NT Commentary, by William Hendriksen, Baker Book House, p 295.11 Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments, Banner of Truth, p 44-48.
12 Abraham's attitude and actions toward Lot are one example of this fact (Gen 13:6-9). However, Abraham could not have been judged to have "broken God's law" if he had not acted as he did. Law and justice can demand honest and fair actions but they cannot demand gracious actions. Likewise, law and justice cannot punish ungracious behavior.