FM2

1.1.2 The continuity of the Old and New Testaments

If the Bible is the word of God, is it a self-consistent message? Yes! Some sincere Christians
believe that the New Testament overturned the Old Testament rendering the Old Testament
obsolete. But this is false.

The New Testament did not change or overturn the moral principles of the Old Testament. It
simply clarified, developed, added to, or fulfilled them.

Look at what Jesus Christ said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the
Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, unto heaven
and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen, will by any means
disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18). Several things
should be noted about these two verses.

First, Jesus did not abolish what the Old Testament said. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus
did not contradict anything said by the Old Testament. Rather than abolishing the law against
murder, he went beyond it to prohibit hatred (Matthew 5:21-22). He did not abolish the law
against adultery but went beyond it to prohibit lust (Matthew 5:27-28). He did not abolish the
principle that punishment by the state should be limited to "an eye for an eye" but simply
corrected the abuse of this legal principle of justice by forbidding personal vengeance
(Matthew 5:38-39) which the Old Testament also forbids (Deuteronomy 32:35). And he did
not negate any Old Testament law by telling us not to hate our enemy because this was a
tradition of the scribes found nowhere in the Old Testament (Matthew 5:43-44).

Whenever Jesus wanted to justify his actions or establish a truth, he did it by quoting the Old
Testament, not by denying it. Even when he said that loving God and loving our neighbor are
the greatest commandments, he was quoting Old Testament commandments that were still in
effect. The fact is, the law is still in effect and binding today. "For whoever keeps the whole
law and yet stumbles at one point is guilty of breaking all of it" (James 2:10).

Second, Jesus did come to fulfill the Old Testament. In Colossians 2:16-17 the apostle Paul
says, "Therefore, do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a
religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the
things that were to come; the reality, however is found in Christ." So it is true that some things
in the Old Testament no longer apply to us because Jesus has fulfilled them. But it is only
ceremonial aspects of the law that were changed, not the moral aspects. And whatever was
finally fulfilled by Jesus Christ was replaced by something better.

The religious festivals of the Old Testament pointed to Jesus Christ and his death and
resurrection (1 Corinthians 5:7). The Old Testament priesthood was fulfilled in Jesus Christ,
who is our High Priest and replaced by the priesthood of all believers (Hebrews 7:23-24). The
Old Testament physical temple was fulled in Jesus Christ and replaced by the spiritual temple
of the church. The Old Testament sacrificed were fulfilled once and for all by the death of
Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:27). There is no such thing as something in the Old Testament which
was abolished without being substituted by something better in Jesus Christ.

Third, the whole law remains binding until the end of the world. Nowhere did Jesus or the
apostles ever change or do away with any moral law or principle of the Old Testament. We
have already seen that Jesus based his morals on the Old Testament. Furthermore, the New
Testament emphasis on love is not instead of the law but the essence of it.

Paul wrote, "Let no debt remain outstanding except the continuing debt to love one another,
for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'Do not commit
adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandment
there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does
no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:8-10). Just
because we are filled with Christian love does not mean that we can now sleep around,
murder, steal, and covet. Indeed, our love makes us do what the Old Testament law
commands.

The relationship of the Old Testament law to salvation

This brings us to the question of why Paul deprecates the law and good works (Roman 3:20,
Galatians 24, Ephesians 2:8-10, etc.). Nowhere does Paul deny the validity of the moral laws
for determining what is right and wrong and for guiding our everyday lives. Like Jesus, his
arguments and teaching were always based on the Old Testament itself (Acts 17:2-3,
Romans 1:17, Romans 3:10-18, etc.). What Paul denies is the validity of the view that
obedience to God's laws can save us. As sinners, we are incapable of full obedience to the
law and therefore cannot please God (Romans 3:20, Romans 8:6-8). So we must depend
upon the grace of God in Jesus Christ to be forgiven (Romans 6:23).

But this was nothing new! Obeying God's laws did not save anyone in the Old Testament
anymore than in the New Testament, and grace did not save anyone any less. No one in the
Old Testament was forgiven or saved because they obeyed the law; the law simply made
them aware of their sin just as in the New Testament (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7-8, Galatians
3:24).

The Lord looked with favor or grace on Abel (Genesis 4:4) who made his offering in faith
(Hebrews 11:4).
Noah found favor (grace) in the eyes of God (Genesis 6:8) because of his faith (Hebrews
11:7).
Abraham was saved by faith (Genesis 15:6) in the gospel of Jesus (Galatians 3:8) and is a
pattern for our faith (Romans 4:1-10).
Moses found favor in the eyes of the Lord because God is gracious, not because Moses
obeyed the law (Exodus 34:6-9, Psalm 103:7-8).
David depended on God's mercy for forgiveness (Psalm 51:1-5).
The point of all this is that the Old and New Testaments are equally valid and totally
consistent in teaching what is right and wrong. Anyone reading the Old Testament will easily
recognize the fact that it does not condemn violence or war when it is justified by biblical
principles. Abraham rightly fought to rescue his nephew Lot from invaders (Genesis 14). God
gave ground rules for conducting warfare (Deuteronomy 20). The book of Judges is basically
a history of heroes and patriots who fought against the tyranny of invading armies and
ungodly rulers. David was the greatest king of Israel as well as one of its best soldiers (1 and
2 Samuel). Nothing in the New Testament changes any of these facts.

1.1.3 Jesus Christ was not a pacifist

Of course, Christ's emphasis on love is sometimes perceived to imply that he was a pacifist
who condemned all violence and war. But this is a misunderstanding.

A close look at the Bible will show that Jesus Christ was not a pacifist and will demonstrate
that he approved of the justified use of deadly force.

Neither John the Baptist, nor Jesus, nor the apostles condemned soldiering.

"Then some soldiers asked him, 'And what should we do?' He replied, 'Don't exhort money
and don't accuse people falsely -- be content with your pay'" (Luke 3:14). John the Baptist did
not tell soldiers that being soldiers was immoral per se, but simply condemned the abuse of
their position as soldiers.

Jesus did not rebuke the centurion for being a soldier, but commended him for the faith that
came from his understanding of authority in the military (Matthew 8:5-13; see also Acts
10:1-48).

Jesus Christ both permitted and commanded his followers to be armed.

"He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a
sword, sell your cloak and buy one'" (Luke 22:36). Now that the apostles had learned the
lesson of trusting in God (Luke 10:4), they were to be prepared to defend themselves as they
travelled through dangerous areas to take the gospel to the whole world.

"Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off
his right ear. Jesus commanded Peter, 'Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the
Father has given me?'" (John 18:10-11). Notice that Jesus allowed Peter to have the sword
both before and after this incident. The problem was not that defending someone is wrong;
the problem was that it was inappropriate at this time since Jesus wanted to die for our sins
(Mark 10:45).

"'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the
sword'" (Matthew 26:52). Again, Jesus did not necessarily condemn using the sword. He told
Peter to put it back in its scabbard, not to get rid of it. What Jesus is saying is that anyone
who fights risks his life in doing so. This is a matter of fact, not of ethics.

Jesus Christ used just force.

"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He
overturned the tables of money changers and the benches of those selling doves" (Matthew
21:12).

"So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle;
he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables" (John 2:15).

"When Jesus said, 'I am he,' they drew back and fell to the ground." He used his divine power
against aggressors (John 18:6).

Jesus Christ would have been justified in defending himself.

On several occasions Jesus Christ evaded an angry crowd rather than giving in to their intent
to kill him (Luke 4:28-30, John 8:58-59, John 10:35-39). It was not yet the time for him to
sacrifice himself for the sins of many. When the time did come, and his disciples tried to
defend him, Jesus said, "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at
my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?'" (Matthew 26:53). Jesus was quite capable
of taking care of himself if he wanted to be defended. And his statement that he could call on
the Father did not only mean that he had the ability to defend himself, but that he was morally
justified in doing so as well. He was under no inherent obligation to die, although he and the
Father did plan for him to die.

Jesus Christ will someday use deadly force on a wide scale.

All through the Bible we read of the day when Jesus will return to set things straight. At his
second coming he will throw the wicked into the fiery furnace (Matthew 13:41-43). He will
separate the righteous from the wicked and send the latter into the eternal fire (Matthew
25:41). He will bring destruction upon unbelievers (1 Thessalonians 5:1-3, 2 Thessalonians
1:6-10). He will lay waste to the present heavens and the earth (2 Peter 3:10). And with
justice he will judge and make war on the evildoers of the earth (Revelation 19:11-21). This
all demonstrates that Jesus is not absolutely opposed to the deadly punishment of
wrongdoers. Indeed, there will come a day when he brings it about on a universal scale. But
for now, he is delaying his just wrath while giving mankind a chance to repent of their wicked
deeds (2 Peter 3:9).

Jesus taught that force was a last resort.

Of course, it is true that violence is not always -- indeed rarely -- justified. "Jesus said, 'My
kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the
Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place'" (John 18:36). So Christians should not use
force to establish or maintain the kingdom of God or impose their religious beliefs on others.
But this does not mean that Christians should never use force. Jesus implies that if the
situation was different, if his kingdom was an earthly kingdom, then force would be acceptable.

Jesus also said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9) showering that our goal
should always be to seek peaceful resolutions if at all possible (see also Romans 12:17-19).
Later he said, "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39). Slapping the right cheek was not a
life-threatening attack, but a personal insult similar to spitting on someone. So Jesus was
teaching that we should not resort to force when we face minor personal insults and
mistreatment. But he was not condemning self-defense when our very lives are threatened as
we have already seen.

Finally, Christ tells us, "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute
you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:44-45). How can we love our
enemies and kill them at the same time? Clearly Jesus is saying we should harbor no hatred
towards anyone. Our actions should never be motivated by hatred or vengeance but only by
justice. Judges can and do justly sentence criminals to prison while having compassion on
them. God can and does desire a sinner's repentance as he condemns him forever. So also it
is possible and necessary for us to love our mortal enemies, to pray for their souls and seek
to change their minds and behavior, even when we are forced to take up arms against them.