Law and Stature in the Kingdom

[AThornquist]

A local pentecostal kid was saying that our stature in the kingdom is at least partially affected by how we keep the Torah. He did not make distinction between types of laws. He also used Matthew 5:18 to try and prove that the whole law should be observed, not for salvation but in determining least from the greatest in the kingdom.

How would you respond to this?

 

[Mushroom]

With a raspberry.

 

[jwithnell]

The pentecostal kid understands little of the grace given in justification, sanctification, and glorification. As we are sanctified, by grace, it makes sense that we would want more and more to conform to the standard that God set.

 

[Peairtach]

It's true that Matthew 5:18-19 reminds us to be careful not to, too quickly, relegate Old Covenant laws from the moral (always binding) category into other (Old Covenant provisional) categories.

But as the debate with the theonomists reminds us, it's not always easy to distinguish the permanent from the provisional, and that is still an ongoing task of Reformed scholars. Maybe the theonomists - whether we agree with theonomy or not - have at least helped to draw attention to this.

The scribes used to try and order all 613 Old Testament laws into greatest to least. Many believed that the least was the law that said that the mother bird was not to be taken for food with the eggs.

If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, [whether they be] young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: [But] thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and [that] thou mayest prolong [thy] days. (Deuteronomy 22:6-7)

How does this least of laws apply - if at all - to the Christian?

 

[Christusregnat]

I would suggest that appreciating context and the analogy of Scripture, we should rightly understand Matthew 5:18 as referring to the moral law of God.

Joshua,

What do you mean by moral? Are you referring to something non-civil, or merely the moral law as applied to all areas of life and government? Depending on what you mean by moral, you may be in conflict with some of the covenanters' understanding:

Rutherford:

3. Christ refuteth Socinians and Anabaptists, Matth. 5. 17. Think not I am come to destroy the Law, etc... 18. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass one jot, or one title shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled. But if Christ oppose his new Precepts to the Law of Moses as Volkelius saith, he must utterly destroy the Law of Moses, and substitute a more perfect Law in the place thereof. But Libertines, as John Baptist here, would have heresy forbidden in the Old Testament, and punishing of false prophesying commanded there. But heresy must be Innocency, and Righteousness in the New Testament, and to be punished for false teaching in the old was to suffer for ill-doing; but now in the New (saith Baptist) to be punished for false prophesying is to suffer for well-doing, and he citeth 1 Pet. 3. 17. as if it were the will of God, that Sectaries suffer for well-doing: that is, for Familism, Socinianism, Antinomianism, Popery, Idolatry, butchering of children to God, as some Anabaptist Parents have done, and for preaching Doctrine that eateth as a Gangrene, 2. Tim. 2. for blaspheming and denying the Resurrection of the dead, as Hymeneus did; for he that suffereth for all these, out of mere conscience, suffereth for well-doing, as Peter saith, if we believe John Baptist.

Gillespie (quoting from and augmenting Piscator):

2. Christ's words, Matt. 5.17, Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill, are comprehensive of the Judicial law, it being a part of the law of Moses; Now he could not fulfill the Judicial law, except either by his practice, or by teaching others still to observe it; [but it was] not by his own practice, for he would not condemn the Adulteress, John 8.11, nor divide the Inheritance, Luke 12.13,14. Therefore it must be by his doctrine for our observing it.

3. If Christ in his Sermon, Matt. 5, would teach that the Moral law belongeth to us Christians, insomuch as he vindicateth it from the false glosses of the Scribes & Pharisees; then he meant to hold forth the Judicial law concerning Moral trespasses as belonging to us also: for he vindicateth and interpreteth the Judicial law, as well as the Moral, Matt. 5.38, An eye for an eye, &c.

4. If God would have the Moral law transmitted from the Jewish people to the Christian people; then he would also have the Judicial law transmitted from the Jewish Magistrate to the Christian Magistrate: There being the same reason of immutability in the punishments, which is in the offences; Idolatry and Adultery displeaseth God now as much as then; and Theft displeaseth God now no more than before.

William Perkins and John Cotton likewise cite the passage in the same way.

Cheers,