"As I Have Loved You"
Chapter Four
The Rightful Focus of the Believer's obedience:
The Work and Words of Christ
The Work of Christ
Every new Christian faces this important question: now that I am "in Christ," how must I please God in my daily living? This question immediately, whether consciously or unconsciously, leads to the relationship of gospel and law. This issue soon arose in the early church (Acts 15:1-6). What is the standard of my conduct as a Christian; with what perspective am I to approach the demands on my life; how do I determine what is pleasing to God? The writer would like to examine a number of Scriptures with a view toward seeing the New Testament structure of Christian ethics. As the writer has studied the matter of Christian obedience, one thing has become increasingly apparent: we must be content with the clear structure which emerges in the New Testament, and not expect to construct an exhaustive system of Christian ethics. As Helmut Thielicke puts it, "in theological reflection the distinction between law and gospel does not admit of any conceptual perfection and completeness.1
It is the Lord Jesus Christ who stands as the focus of our obedience. Our union with Him--the One Who spoke words of life and finished a redemptive work--is that out of which our obedience flows. "The imitation (of Christ) was rooted in the fellowship and union with Christ and sprang forth from it . . . . The "ought" arises from what their Lord has done for them."2
Because of its foundational character, our beginning point will be John 13:34-35. In this passage we are confronted with one commandment that flows out of the redemptive work. All other commandments are related to this "new" demand, a demand which is intimately connected to His "obedience unto death" (Phil. 2:8).
John 13:3--"love one another as I have loved you"
There is a certain "specialness" attached to these final discourses of our Lord in John 13-17. They are His last words on earth. It is apparent that just before His "hour" came (13:1), Jesus is confronting His inner circle with matters of critical importance. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to pay close attention to Jesus, words.
The Lord Jesus was Lord of all (13:3). At this point in time, He could have rightly commanded worship of His person from these men. But, no, the King of Kings "took a towel and girded himself . . . and began to wash the disciples' feet" (13:4-5). Wonder of wonders, the King takes the position of a lowly servant! Does not this action highlight the lesson our Lord is communicating here? He wants them more than anything else to see that loving servanthood is foundational in His kingdom. Our Lord does not act here as an aloof King who is ministered unto, but does not minister; rather, He calls His disciples to do what He has just performed before their eyes (13:14-16). This action of Christ stands as a constant "example" which is to serve as a model for Christian behavior until the end of the age.
Would we be "happy?" Then we must be captured by this "singular" action of Christ and live in light of its demand among our brothers and sisters (13:7). The only way to Christian blessedness is to be a servant (Matt. 20:26).
However, the "example" of Christ is not done in a vacuum. This humbling of the Son is symbolic of the imminent baptism of suffering to occur at Golgoltha.3 This is brought out in John 15:12-13. After repeating the "new commandment," Christ connects the "as I have loved you" with the laying down of His life for His friends.
This supreme act of love on the cross clearly becomes the reference point, the starting point, and the touchstone of all Christian obedience. Our love to one another is not just a reaction to the general love of God; rather it is specifically a love which is related to the act of God in giving Christ for us (I John 4:9-11). The multifaceted commandments which inform the Christian of his duties (John 14:15) are to be approached through the singular commandment to "love one another, as I have loved you."
If we miss this point, we miss everything. If we come to any duty, any commandment, apart from the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Spirit (Rom. 5:5), we have either landed on, or are dangerously close to the shores of legalism. Jesus reveals that the most important perspective to grasp is that the pervasive demand on the life which the gospel brings must be carried out in love--a love that has arisen in the heart in reaction to God's love for us in Christ. It is this kind of love alone which provides the impetus for Christian duty. It is this display of love on the cross that is "sufficient incentive" to restrain Christians from sin and to move them toward holy living.4
"By this shall all men know you are my disciples"
The importance of this love perspective is further borne out by Christ's words in 13:35. The characteristic which He isolates as being the most necessary in terms of the world visibly observing the reality of Christ is brotherly love. Not our sound doctrine, not our creeds, not our persuasive preaching, not our impressive buildings, not our elaborate denominational programs, not our huge numbers--but concrete love among Christians. Historically in the Reformed tradition the three "marks" of a "true church" are: (1) the Word preached; (2) the ordinances properly administered; and (3) discipline practiced. But we could have all those "marks" and miss the "mark" that Christ says is the only one that really counts. Without love, all is vain (I Cor. 13:1-3). We need the love our Lord described in 13:34 more than anything else.
This love of God manifested in Christ's crucifixion constituted the sealing of a covenant, the new covenant (I Cor. 11:25). The old covenant had been "broken" (Jer. 31:32). The New Covenant is put into effect legally on "better promises."
It is in connection with the blood of the New Covenant that Jesus issues the "new commandment." It is imperative for us to see that with a covenant comes a demand upon the covenant people. The Old Covenant was consecrated with blood (Heb. 9:18), and with it came he requirements upon Israel. Can we not rightly see also that the new covenant, sealed by the blood of God's spotless Lamb, brought with it the "new commandment" to love one another?
It is impossible to grasp what is "new" about the New Commandment unless the historical element in John 13:34 is considered. The command to love is old (Lev. 19:18). But the command for brethren to love as Christ loved them at the cross is new. In other words, in the text it is a strictly historical factor that renders the command to love new. The Old Covenant brought with it a law (Exod. 20); the New Covenant brought with it a "new commandment" (13:34-, 15:12). This command flows out of the death of Christ: "love . . . as I have loved you."
Thus, as Rudolph Stier pointed out, "to a covenant belongs a law-giving."5 The "law of Christ" is the law of love (Gal. 6:2). The Christian is to order his life in the light of the all-encompassing demand of love (I Cor. 13:47).
To graphically see the relationship of covenant and law, we can compare the redemptive events which separated Israel and the church to God. The mighty exodus out of Egypt is singled out as that which is prior to the demands on Israel (Exod. 20:2). The gracious act of God comes before the covenant commandments. But the Egyptian exodus was typical of an exodus which would be accomplished in the Messianic age. F.F. Bruce observes:
Jesus' contemporaries freely identified Him as a second Moses--the expectation of a second Moses played an important part in popular eschatology at the time--and with the expectation of a second Moses went very naturally the expectation of a second exodus.6
Thus, it should not surprise us that with the mighty deliverance effected by Christ in His death, burial and resurrection, came a pervasive call to loving servanthood (John 13:14-17; 15:12-13). Arising out of the loving act of Christ is the summons to love.
John 13:7b--"What I do you know not
now;
but you shall know hereafter"
It was not until after the resurrection of Christ, and specifically after the giving of the promised Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, that the apostles came to more deeply and concretely understand the implications of Christ's washing of their feet (John 2:22). John in his First Epistle exhorts his readers in terms which echo the John 13 example of Christ. "Hereby we perceive the love of God, because He laid down His life for us (redemptive event]: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren [moral demand]" (I John 3:16). "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because God sent His only begotten Son into the world . . . to be the propitiation for our sins [redemptive event]. Beloved, if God so loved us [at the cross], we ought to love one another [moral demand] (I John 4:9-11).
Is it not clear enough that when the New Testament writers wish to press duties upon Christians, their starting point is the cross--"as I have loved you?" This is not the sole approach to unfold duty in the New Testament, but it is certainly the most basic, foundational and important approach. We can say such a thing because Jesus taught this perspective at the end of His earthly ministry. Bruce Kaye summarizes all of this by saying:
The fundamental idea of the Christian as someone in relationship with Christ provides not only the best way to see the basis of the Christian's ethical life, but also the form and content of that life.7
Perhaps in light of John 13:34-35 we can understand why so much material in the Gospels focuses on the final "hour" of Christ. John Blanchard points out that two-fifths of Matthew, three-fifths of Mark, one-third of Luke, and about one-half of John "record the events surrounding the week Jesus was crucified."8
After much study in the standard systematic theologies and books dealing with the Ten Commandments, this writer concludes that justice has not been done to an obvious emphasis in the New Testament. The Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 are usually isolated as the "abiding will of God" and treated as an ethical unit which provides the "rule of obedience" for the Christian. While this method certainly ends up saying many necessary and practical things for the believer's conduct, it fails to reckon seriously with the redemptive-historical shift from Old Covenant to New Covenant. For example, Samuel Bolton says, "while you are in the wilderness of this world, you must walk under the conduct of Moses."9 But the New Testament teaches that the norms for Christian behavior are to be located in the words of Christ.
Therefore whoever hears these sayings of mine [in the context He means 5:7-7:231 and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock (v. 24) . . . . When Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his teaching: for he taught as one having authority and not as the scribes.
Since the context indicates that Christ has 5:17-18 among "these sayings," it is imperative to emphasize at the outset that His teaching is in no way set against Moses' law. But Christ's teaching in 7:24 is set up as the standard for ethical behavior. John Gill points out how the term "Lawgiver" applied to Christ:
The Son of God . . . is King of saints, and Lawgiver in his house, and has given out commandments to be observed, and laws of discipline for the right ordering of his house . . . and particularly the new commandment of love, which is eminently called the law of Christ.10
The rain and the flood in 7:25, says Gill, represent
the temptations of Satan, the persecutions of the world, the corruptions of a man's own heart, and the errors and false doctrines of men; from all which a man is safe, who is built upon the rock Christ Jesus . . . the wind of divers and strange doctrines may blow hard upon him, but not cast him down.11
Thus, it is the man who builds his life on the sayings of Christ who is unshakable when the trials of life come upon him (Luke 6:48). Does this not, then, indicate that the Christian's attention is particularly directed to the words of Jesus Christ?
In 7:28-29 the authority of Christ as a teacher is manifested. John R.W. Stott describes the Rabbinic method which was void of real authority:
They conceived their duty in terms of faithfulness to the tradition they had received. So they were antiquarians, delving into commentaries, searching for precedents, claiming the support of famous names among the rabbis. Their only authority lay in the authorities they were constantly quoting.12
John Gill, then, shows why Christ's method was so striking:
This [authority] chiefly regards the method he used in preaching, which was by delivering truths of himself in his own name and by his authority . . . he spoke as a lawgiver, as one that had authority from heaven . . . . Scarce ever would they [rabbis] venture to say anything of themselves, but said, "the ancient doctors say this and that" . . . one Rabbi speaks in the name of another; but our Lord spoke boldly of himself . . . and did not go about to support his doctrine by the testimony of the elders.13
These verses at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount clearly reveal that the source of authority was Christ. It was now His sayings that constituted the focus of attention in the new age. We must understand these words of Christ in connection with the Rabbinic context in which Jesus functioned. In this Rabbinic tradition "God himself is conceived as of tied to the Torah, studying it and observing it," and the Torah is viewed "as the one and only mediator between God and man, indeed between God and the world."14 Thus in this context our Lord is indicating that the reference point for behavior is to be found, not in the Torah, but in His words. As Bandstra observes, "there was a widespread Jewish tradition that with the coming of the Messiah the law, in its old form, would either terminate, or be radically altered."15 Also, as D.E.H. Whiteley points out, in the Rabbinic writings it was said that "the Torah which a man learns in this life is vanity compared with the Torah of the Messiah." 16 Thus, as Gutbrod observes:
For the disciples their relationship to the Torah, for example, is replaced by their relationship to Jesus as his disciples, and this finds its appropriate expression in the law of love . . . .Thus in so far as Jesus as the Son of God takes the place in every respect of all the other mediators and so of the Torah too, the Torah is thereby at the same time abolished and fulfilled.17
While he yet spoke, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said; "this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear him" . . . . And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, except Jesus only" (Mark 9:2-9).
In this significant passage two of the most revered Old Testament figures appear with Christ to these three apostles (v. 3). Moses the great leader is associated with the giving of the law; Elijah the great prophet is associated with a powerful sign ministry. But Deut. 18-15, 18 is ultimately in view: "the Lord your God will raise up to you a prophet from the midst of you, of your brethren, like unto me; to him you shall hearken." Peter saw this passage fulfilled in the ministry of Christ (Acts 3:22-23). But what is the conspicuous focus which is revealed concerning this final Prophet? It is His words: "him you shall hear in all things (Matt. 28:20), whatsoever he shall say to you" (Acts 3:23). The Transfiguration of Christ taught the apostles something epochally significant, namely, that they were to listen to Him as the Prophet God had sent in fulfillment of Deut. 18:15, 18. In order to be obedient to the focus on the words of Christ, must we not likewise find in His teachings the specific norms for our conduct?
It would seem to this writer that any presentation of Christian ethics which would seek to be Biblical must have as its starting point the perspective set forth in the Transfiguration. We must do justice to the redemptive-historical shift from the authority vested in Moses to the absolute authority now vested in Christ (John 17:2). We have been commanded by the voice of the Father from heaven to listen to His beloved Son. Dare we, then, lend our ears to any other source for sufficient authoritative ethical commandments?
Teaching them to obey all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.
As the gospel, beginning with the Jews first, ultimately goes forth to all the nations, what is pointedly designated as the content in evangelism? What are faithful ministers of the New Covenant to proclaim? Again, our Saviour who possesses all authority in heaven and earth (28:18) tells us that we have warrant to be blessed in preaching all that He has commanded. This does not mean that we have nothing to do with Moses, but it surely means that we must see Moses as he is viewed in the light of redemptive-historical progress. As Herman Ridderbos puts it:
The law no longer has an unrestricted and undifferentiated validity for the church of Christ. In a certain sense, the church can be qualified as "without the law" . . . . The continuing significance of the law can,be qualified as "being bound to the law of Christ.18
And if any man hear my words, and believes not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
What will be the touchstone of judgment in the final day? Are the Ten Commandments specifically stated to be the standard? No. The authority of judgment has been placed in Christ's hands (John 5:22, 27). While the judgment will certainly be in line with the greatest commandments in Moses (Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18), we must do justice to the fact that the words of Christ are the final standard. Not the Mosaic law, but the gospel is clearly stated to be the criteria of judgment in the last day (Rom. 2:16; II Thess. 1:8). This distinction, keep in mind, is not so much one of content, but one that comes because of the advance of history to a "better covenant": "the new creation brings a new canon, a new standard of judgment, along with it. This is above all redemptive-historical in character." 19
If you love me, keep my commandments . . . . He that has my commandments, and keeps them, he it is that loves me . . . . If a man loves me, he will keep my words.
In light of the passages surveyed, you can now appreciate where the emphasis falls in the New Covenant: our attention is to be rivited to the words of Christ, who is our all-sufficient Prophet in the new age. These words in John 14 further confirm this emphasis. Not that the commandments of Christ are contrary or opposed to Moses; God forbid! But because a better covenant has been ratified, the Christian is to consciously direct his heart to the commandments of Christ, not to that economy of Moses which is no longer in force as a covenant administration (II Cor. 3:13).
The treatments of the "moral law" in Reformed theology generally omit the relevance of the perspective presented in these passages. For example, Fairbairn states that the
moral law, as revealed in the Old Testament, had with the apostles of our Lord a recognized place in the Christian Church, and was plainly set forth by them as the great test of excellence, and the authoritative rule of life.20
While our Lord was certainly in harmony with the law, this writer cannot, in light of the centrality Christ gives to His own commandments, accept the position that the Mosaic moral law is the Christian's "authoritative rule of life." is not the authority now vested in the Prophetic office of Christ? Moses himself would plead with us to listen to that Prophet of whom he spoke in Deut. 18:15, 18.
If we grasp this redemptive-historical shift from Moses to Christ (John 1:17), many of the tensions present in Calvinistic treatments of the relationship of law to the believers would be alleviated. An example of this tension is set forth by Samuel Bolton:
It is a hard lesson to live above the law, and yet to walk according to the law. . . to walk in the law in respect to comfort.21
If we see our duties as resting in the words of Christ, and not, as Bolton put it elsewhere, "under the conduct of Moses," then this unnecessary tension of being both under the law of Moses for conduct, but not under it as a covenant unto justification disappears.
Furthermore, Reformed theology has usually isolated the Mosaic "moral laws" as "the special instrument . . . for keeping alive in men's souls a sense of duty." 22 But in the verses we have studied in this section, love to Christ is supplied as the central and sufficient motive for attachment to His commandments (II Cor. 5:14). Our sense of duty is wrought by the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5), not by the constant "reminder" of the Mosaic code. F.F. Bruce summarizes this beautifully by saying:
The "law of Christ" is a repromulgation of the injunction of Leviticus 19:18, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Gal. 5:14). But when "law-' is used in this way, it cannot be understood "legally": the law of love is incapable of being imposed or enforced by external authority. Rather, it is the spontaneous principle of thought or and action in a life controlled by the Spirit of Christ; it is willingly accepted and practiced. Paul was persuaded that the freedom of the Spirit was a more powerful incentive to a good life than all the ordinances or decrees in the world.23
Love, of course, in the New Covenant is never commandment-less (I John 5:3). But the eyes of the Christian are to be focused on the Lord's commandments (John 13:34; II John 5-6), not on the Mosaic administration of law.
1)
2) Willis P. DeBoer, The Imitation of Paul (Kampen: J.H. Kok: kampen, 1962), pp. 55-57.
3) DeBoer, p. 55.
4) Dennis Winter, "Motivation in Christian Behaviour," Law, Morality and the Bible (Downers Grove: IVP, 1978), eds. Bruce Kay and Gordon Wenham, p. 212.
5) Rudolph Stier, The Words of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1865), p. 161.
6) F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 197b), p. 49.
7) Bruce Kay, "Law and Morality in the Epistles of the New Testament," Law, Morality and the Bible (Downers Grove: IVP, 1978), eds. Bruce Kay and Gordon Wenham, p. 84; p. 85.
8) John Blanchard, Right with God (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978, p. 80; DeBoer, p. 67.)
9) Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom (London: Banner of Truth, 1964), p. 76.
10) Gill, Vol. 2, p. 798.
11) Gill, Vol. 1, p. 61.
12) John R. W. Stott, Christian Counter Culture: The Message of the Sermon on the Mount (Downe s Grove: IVP, 1978), P. 214.
13) Gill, Vol. 1, p. 62.
14) W. Gutbrod, Law (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1962), pp. 73-74.
15) Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World: An Exegetical Study in Aspects of Paul's Theology (Kampen: J.H. Kok, l964), p . 179.
16) D.E.H. Whiteley, The Theology of St. Paul (London: Basil & Blackwell, 1964), P- 86.
17) Gutbrod, pp. 133-134.
18) Herman Ridderbos, Paul--An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 284.
19) Ridderbos, p. 286.
20) Fairbairn, p. 275.
21) Bolton, pp. 219-220.
22) Fairbairn, p. 289.
23) F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), pp. 187, 201.