Since no intelligent source can be empirically detected within this article, empirical science must look to the chance processes of nature for its formation.  In other words, we must not allow ourselves to think that this article came about from a mind; for this would be unscientific.  Since it is not the result of a mind, it follows logically that this article is the result of chance.  The article has not been designed – it is not the result of some unseen conscious forethought.

Naysayers might suggest that this article bears evidence of design.  They might point out that it has a logical flow, that its sentences are coherent, and that it contains creative information.  True enough.  But this is only evidence of apparent design at best.  We must certainly grant that many articles appear designed, as if they had been planned by a mind and written with creative forethought.  But to assume that the design came from some unseen, undetectable author would be unscientific.

What then is the true origin of articles?  We know that articles can be copied.  Articles on paper can be duplicated using a Xerox machine, and electronic articles can be copied from one computer to another.  We also know that errors can occur in this duplication process.  A simple glitch in the computer can result in a letter being changed, or a sentence or paragraph being duplicated or removed.  Most of these random changes would make the article less readable than the original.  But such variations would not be copied.  (Who would bother to Xerox a bad article?)  And so eventually they would be lost.

We must assume that occasionally, very rarely, a mistake in the copy would actually improve the quality of the article – making it more readable and more interesting.  In such cases, the improved article would be much more likely to be copied than the original.  In this fashion, articles gradually improve, often growing in length, complexity, and interest.  It stands to reason, therefore, that all articles started out as a simple word, or perhaps even a single letter, which was gradually changed as it was duplicated due to errors in the duplication process and selection of the more readable variations.

It is also sensible to conclude that all articles have diverged from a common original article which itself consisted of nothing more than a single word.  This is obvious by virtue of the fact that all articles have certain things in common.  For example, all articles use words.  And in all cases these words are organized into sentences.  Many of the words used in many articles are exactly the same!  For example, the word “the” appears very commonly in almost all articles.  Are we to believe that this is just a coincidence?  Clearly not.  It is evidence that these articles share a common source.  They have each diverged from a common article in the distant past.

Naysayers argue that articles are written by people.  But would people use the very same words in different articles?  The common words, common grammar, and common sentence structure clearly point to a common origin for articles.  It is reasonable to conclude that articles which share more common words and sentences are more closely related than those that have fewer common words and sentences.  Clearly this extends to larger works of literature – books for example.  Books are the most advanced form of literary diversification, and so they must also be the most recent.

Critics of our position (“authorists”) might object that we have never seen one article transform into a completely different article.  In other words, all observed changes have been only minor transformations.  But is this really surprising?  After all, it would take a very long time for an article to have accumulated enough changes to be classified as a completely different article.  And people simply don’t live long enough for this to happen within our lifetime.  But the fact that all articles share common words is positive evidence that it has happened, even though the process is too slow to see it in its entirety today.  We do see minor transformations today.  And it is reasonable to conclude that these minor changes will add up to major changes over long periods of time.

Some readers might be bothered by the fact that we do not have a complete record of how the simpler articles diversified into the wide variety of complex articles in our present world.  But this does not in any way disqualify our basic thesis that articles do share a common original source.  After all, considering the trillions of variations that must have existed and been destroyed in the vast time necessary for this process, we would expect that the record of links in the chain would be fragmentary at best.  And we do know of some links.  For example, there are several minor variations of the book “the Hobbit.”  These are known to exist, and it is obvious they stem from a common original.  So it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that all works of literature share a common source.

Given the slowness of the diversification of articles, it is reasonable to conclude that articles are far older than “authorists” assume.  The process of an article becoming longer and more interesting likely takes millions of years – perhaps even hundreds of millions of years.  It may even happen in spurts, rapid diversification followed by long periods of relative stasis.  This may account for the fact that we find so few intermediate forms in ancient libraries.

One objection to our position is the idea that some sentences in some articles contain a degree of “irreducible complexity.”  This is to say that even a minor change of any kind would make the sentence unclear or unreadable.  However, this notion fails to consider that multiple simultaneous changes – though rare – can occur in the process of time.  The fact that we cannot conceptualize an intermediate sentence does not actually prove that no such intermediate is possible.  The process by which articles diversify from a common source is still being studied, and so we do not have the answers to every detail yet.  But this does not mean that such answers will not be forthcoming in the process of time.  The formation and diversification of articles from a common source is a scientific fact and well supported by the evidence even though some of the details are not yet understood.

To assume that articles have an author is a faith position.  It is a belief in something that cannot be perceived with the senses.  As such, it is unscientific and should be rejected.  If some people feel that they must believe in an author, that’s okay, but please remember that your view is religious and not scientific.  Please don’t force it on others or teach it in school.

Just think about it.  This very article which you are now reading is the result of countless copying errors which gradually increased its length and complexity over time.  How amazing that such a process of nature has resulted in so many wonderful works of literature!  Such literature is not the result of some mysterious, unseen, undetectable “author.”  It is simply the inevitable result of the mindless duplication process working over unimaginable periods of time.

I’m taking a break from the “God’s Law” series (which I do intend to continue in the near future) to get settled in at my new position here at the Institute for Creation Research.  ICR is the leading biblical creation research organization, and I have recently been granted the role of director of research.  I’m really excited about what is happening here, and you can expect to see some new resources coming from ICR very shortly.

The research taking place here is just so encouraging to those of us who hold to a biblical creation worldview.  I have seen some preliminary results of one project in particular that so compellingly confirm a “young earth,” that I honestly don’t know how secularists could deny it.  (Of course, I’m sure they will).  After this has been peer-reviewed and published, I will provide more details.

It is a great time to be a Christian!  And I am honored to be part of ICR and to work with such fine Christians.  Keep us in prayer.  And for more information about ICR, check us out at www.icr.org.  If you haven’t already done so, please sign up on the website for our *free* monthly magazine “Acts and Facts.”

Deuteronomy 22:8 states, “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you will not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone falls from it.”  It was common at the time in that part of the world for houses to have flat roofs upon which members of the household or guests could walk about for recreation, meditation, relaxation, or conversation.  God’s law therefore insists that such a roof should have a rail or fence around it, so that people would not accidentally fall.  If the home owner failed build a parapet and a guest falls from the roof, then the home owner is held responsible.

The general principle we are supposed to infer from this specific illustration is that we should take reasonable precautions to make our homes safe for family and guests.  And if a home owner fails to do so, then he or she is held responsible for injuries or deaths that happen as a consequence.  Does this law still apply today?  Yes, this is a moral law and thus the principle still applies.  Does this law mean that all modern homes must have a fence around their roof?  No—only those homes that have a flat roof or deck that is easily accessible to guests.  The law really isn’t about roofs and parapets; it is about the preservation of human life.

The specific, detailed requirements of this law (fence around a roof) only apply if the circumstances are the same (you have a flat roof that is easily accessible to guests).  But the general principle of taking precautions to make a home safe applies universally.  Perhaps a modern illustration of this biblical principle would be to build a safety rail next to a flight of stairs.  If a flight of stairs lacks sufficient safety railing, and a guest falls and is injured, the home owner is responsible.  The principle given in Deuteronomy 22:8 is easy to understand even when the specific circumstances differ.

Case laws may seem “backwards” to some people.  Why does God give us a specific illustration of a general principle, and not simply state the general principle directly?  Actually, He does both.  The Ten Commandments are given as general principles.  But without case laws, we might not always apply the Ten Commandments properly.  For example, the Sixth Commandment states, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13).  The word “murder” refers to an unlawful killing of a human being.  But how are we to decide which kinds of killing are unlawful?  For example, is it “murder” to kill an enemy soldier in combat?  Is it unlawful to kill in self-defense?  Is a person guilty of murder if his accidental actions result in the death of another person?  The Sixth Commandment does not (by itself) answer any of these questions.  We need the case laws of the Old Testament in order to properly apply the Sixth Commandment.

We learn from the case laws that accidental deaths are not considered murder (Deuteronomy 19:4–6), unless the death resulted from avoidable negligence (Deuteronomy 22:8).  Public executions for capital crimes are not considered murder; they are permitted (Deuteronomy 13:6, Leviticus 20:15–16).  Killing in combat in a just war is also permitted (Deuteronomy 13:14–15).  However, the premeditated killing of an innocent person is murder, and warrants capital punishment (Exodus 21:14, 23:7).  So the case laws of the Old Testament are not contrary to the Ten Commandments.  Rather, they help us to understand and properly apply the Ten Commandments.

God gives case laws because He knows that the human mind is often able to extrapolate general principles from specific instances more easily than if we had been given the general principles directly.  Human beings possess the ability (given to us by God) to learn by example.  Case laws help us understand how to apply the general principles given in the Ten Commandments.

Perhaps some people are inclined to say, “Well, if Jesus fulfilled the law, then we don’t have to obey it anymore.”  But this misses the meaning of the word “fulfill.”  The Greek word translated “fulfill” in this verse is “pleroo.”  This word means “to confirm in full measure”, or to “establish” or “re-establish.”  It has the sense of filling up a cup: in this case, the cup of God’s law that had been “emptied” by the Pharisees and scribes.  Jesus was undoing what the Pharisees and scribes were doing.  They were abrogating the law of God; Jesus came to re-establish it.

Even without consulting a Greek lexicon, it should be very obvious that the word “fulfill” as it is used in Matthew 5:17 cannot possibly mean “abolish”, or anything that implies a setting-aside of the law of God.  For if it did then Jesus would be contradicting Himself.  If “fulfill” means “abolish” then Jesus is essentially saying, “I did not come to abolish but to abolish”—which would make no logical sense.

In fact, it should be clear that “fulfill” must in some sense be the opposite of “abolish” since Jesus contrasts one with the other.  For example, fill in the following sentence: “I did not come to make peace, but rather to make _____.”  A good answer would be “war” or some similar term of division since such a term contrasts with peace.  A bad answer would be “pancakes”, because that doesn’t contrast with peace.  Even though that answer would be grammatically possible, it wouldn’t fit the context.  Of course the worst possible answer would be “peace”, because then the sentence would be self-contradictory.  Therefore, when Jesus says that He “did not come to abolish [the law] but to fulfill,” it is clear that in fulfilling the law He is doing something that sharply contrasts with abolishing the law.  Christ came to establish the law in full measure.  In the beatitudes, Christ gives a fuller explanation of the moral law, showing that it goes beyond the shallow, minimalistic, and externalized view of the Pharisees.

In the next verse (Matthew 5:18) Jesus goes on to say, “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”  He is emphasizing His previous statement by pointing out the permanence of the moral law of God.  Not even the smallest letter (In Hebrew this is a “jot”) or even a fraction of a letter (a “stroke” or “tittle”) of the law of God will pass away until heaven and earth do!  In putting it this way, Jesus is indicating that God’s law is more permanent than the universe!  The Greek phrase “until all is accomplished” literally means “until all has come to pass.”  It’s another way of emphasizing that God’s law will outlast human history.

Jesus gives us the “bottom line” in the next verse.  Having already indicated that He did not come to annul (set-aside) the law of God, that the law of God will outlast heaven and earth, Christ goes on to say that there are consequences for setting aside one of God’s standing laws.  In Matthew 5:19 Jesus states, “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”  As we have seen previously, God Himself may add to or subtract from His law.  And many of the Old Testament ceremonial laws are examples of something that God Himself tells us are not binding on believers in the New Testament.  The Law-Giver may do this.  But we dare not set aside a law of God, lest we be considered very “small” in the kingdom of heaven.

This verse should motivate us to be very careful if we tell others that they don’t need to obey a particular biblical law.  We had better be certain it’s a law that God Himself has set aside in later revelation.  The result of setting aside a law of God (one that God Himself has not set aside) and teaching others to do the same is an eternal one; being considered “least” in the kingdom of heaven.  You might think that the person who teaches others to keep all the standing laws of God would then be considered “great” in the kingdom of heaven.  But that’s not quite what God’s Word teaches.  Jesus tells us that those who teach and keep them shall be considered great.  It’s easy enough to teach God’s laws, but we can all do better when it comes to obedience.

The Pharisees and scribes at the time of Christ’s earthly ministry were characterized by this sin.  They had substituted their own standards—their traditions—for the law of God.  They criticized Jesus by saying, “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” (Matthew 15:2).  Jesus rebuked them: “And He answered and said to them, ‘Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?’” (Matthew 15:3).  Notice that Jesus is not criticizing the Pharisees and scribes for having traditions.  Rather, He rebukes them for following traditions that are contrary to the law of God, and teaching those traditions as law.

Jesus then gives a specific example of how the Pharisees and scribes were teaching human commandments in place of (and contrary to) the law of God.  In Matthew 15:4–9, Jesus states:

For God commanded, saying, “Honor your father and your mother”; and, “He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.”  But you say, “Whoever says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God’—then he need not honor his father or mother.” Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: “These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”

The Pharisees and scribes were teaching that it is acceptable to take the money that should have been used to help their elderly parents, and give it instead to the temple, as “a gift to God.”  In doing so, they were violating the fifth commandment: “Honor your father and your mother…” (Exodus 20:12).  Jesus quotes the fifth commandment and shows how the Pharisees and scribes were transgressing that commandment and replacing it with their sinful tradition.  They were “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”

Notice the basic form of Christ’s rebuke: “God said [one thing].  But you say [something else].  Hypocrites!”  In violation of Deuteronomy 4:2, the scribes and Pharisees were trying to subtract from and add to the law of God.  In doing so, they had “emptied” the law of God; they had made it “of no effect.”  Their worship of God was insincere: honoring God with their lips, but their heart was far from Him.  So it is with all those who make no attempt to honor the law of God (Luke 6:46, Luke 7:21-23).

The Pharisees and scribes were using their own arbitrary tradition as if it were the standard for correct behavior.  In doing so, they were in violation of God’s law which is the true standard for correct behavior by which God will judge us.  And Jesus rebuked them for it.  The Pharisees and scribes were like the Israelites in the time of the judges, when “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).  They had replaced the law of God with their own arbitrary opinions of morality.  Is our society today all that different?

Ceremonial laws are different.  Ceremonial laws included instructions on animal sacrifice (Exodus 20:24), circumcision (Genesis 17:10), ceremonial feasts (Deuteronomy 16:10), dietary restrictions (Leviticus 11:4–8), and so on.  Such laws pointed forward in time to Christ’s atonement for sin on the cross.  They gave the Israelites hope of a future Savior, who would pay for their sins.  But we no longer look to the future for Christ to pay for our sins.  That is now a part of history.  Therefore, we do not practice the Old Testament rituals that point forward to Christ’s first coming.  Paul explains in Galatians 3:24–25, “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.  But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”

In this context, what does Paul mean by “the law?”  Does he mean that all Old Testament laws have been set aside?  Are we now free to murder, kidnap, lie, steal, and so on?  Clearly not (Romans 6:15).  Paul is using synecdoche: “the law” in this context is referring to the ceremonial law.  This is clear because it is the ceremonial law which was a “tutor to lead us to Christ.” Does God’s moral law lead us to Christ?  No, rather, it shows us that we are sinners.  But it does not tell us how to be redeemed.  Rather, it is the ceremonial laws which showed the need for blood atonement (Leviticus 17:11).  It was these ceremonial laws that foreshadowed the coming of Christ—the Lamb that would take away the sins of the world (John 1:29).  Now that the object of our faith has come (Christ), we are no longer under a tutor (the Old Testament ceremonial laws).

Animal sacrifices were only a symbol of the salvation that Christ would provide (Hebrews 9:9, 10:1); they did not actually provide salvation in themselves.  Hebrews 10:4 states, “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”  Salvation has always been by God’s grace received through faith (Romans 4:3, Hebrews 11:1–40).

Why then sacrifice animals?  It was a reminder of the consequences of sin (Hebrews 10:3) and foreshadowed the coming Savior (Hebrews 10:1).  That is why the animal had to be without blemish—a symbol of the sinless Christ (Ezekiel 46:13, Deuteronomy 17:1, Hebrews 9:14).  Scripture implies that God Himself initiated animal sacrifice when Adam and Eve fell into sin; the Lord provided (animal) skins of clothing. (Genesis 3:21).  This action did not remove the shame from Adam and Eve—it simply “covered” it.  It was not the solution to sin.  Rather it indicated that the solution to sin would come in the future.  Ceremonial laws also showed the separation of God’s redeemed people from the Gentiles in the Old Testament.  But in the New Testament, salvation is extended to the Gentiles as well (Romans 11:11, Acts 28:28, 11:18, 13:46–48,  Matthew 21:43, 8:11, 12:21).

It was the ceremonial laws that taught the Israelites about salvation in Christ.  But we no longer need these shadows, because we now have the substance to which they pointed (Colossians 2:16–17).  The New Testament makes it clear that we are no longer bound by Old Testament ceremonial laws (Colossians 2:16–17, Galatians 5:2,6, 4:9–11, 3:24–25, 2:11–13, Hebrews 7:18, Acts 11:1–9).  However, there is a sense in which we do “keep” the ceremonial laws, by receiving Christ as Savior—the substance to which all these shadows pointed.

Sincere Christians may sometimes disagree on which laws fall into which category.  The Old Testament does not separate moral laws from ceremonial laws in terms of where they are found in Scripture.  But that doesn’t mean there is no difference.  It just means we will have to do our homework.  The Bible does indeed distinguish between those moral laws which are binding “until heaven and earth pass away” (Matthew 5:18) and those ceremonial laws which pointed forward to a better covenant and have been set aside in the New Testament.

There are several questions we can ask to help distinguish between the laws, such as, “Does this law symbolize the separation of Jews and Gentiles in the Old Testament?” or “Does it point forward to Christ’s atonement on the Cross?” If so, then God reveals in the New Testament that it is not binding on us (Galatians 3:24–25, 4:9–11, Colossians 2:16–17).  However, if the law is moral in nature and is nowhere rescinded in Scripture, then to disobey it would be sin (1 John 3:4, Deuteronomy 4:2, Matthew 5:18–19).

Most Christians recognize that Old Testament laws such as “you shall not murder” and “you shall not bear false witness” still apply today.  And yet, there are some distinctions now that we have the New Testament.  As one example, we do not offer animal sacrifices anymore as was required by Old Testament law.  In addition, there are “case laws” which illustrate a general principle by a specific example; and there is some confusion as to how these may apply today.  There are some issues where Christians disagree on which laws apply today and how to apply them.  “Should we observe a Sabbath Day rest on Saturday, on Sunday, or at all?  Should we employ Old Testament penalties for crimes?”

There are a variety of opinions on the topic; but these are not of primary importance.  What matters is what God’s Word teaches.  Our goal is not to impose an interpretive scheme on the Scriptures that matches our (often sinful) intuition as to what ought to be done.  Rather our goal should be to allow the Scriptures to correct our thinking (2 Corinthians 10:5).  We are to align our way of thinking with God’s Word, and not try to distort God’s Word to match our feelings or cultural traditions.  I have found that I sometimes need to repent of some of my opinions and my “positions”—those that do not align with the Bible.

Let’s begin with some general principles before we look into specifics.  A good place to start would be to study what the law of God itself says about the law of God.  Consider the words of Moses in Deuteronomy 4:1–2, “Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I am teaching you to perform, so that you may live and go in and take possession of the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you.  You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”

In verse 2, God (through Moses) told the Israelites that they are not to add to or take away from God’s commandments. We saw in the previous entry that these laws apply not just to Israel, but were an example for all nations (Deuteronomy 4:6–8, Leviticus 18:24–25).  Thus, we may not add to or subtract from God’s law.  Notice that it does not give an expiration date.  It does not for example say, “until the coming of Christ, and then you can add or subtract whatever you like.”  The law itself indicates that we may never add or subtract from it (repeated in Deuteronomy 12:32).  But also notice what it does not say.  It does not say that nothing can ever be added to or subtracted from the law of God.  It simply says that “you shall not.”  God as the Law-Giver is free to add or subtract from His law.  It is, after all, His law.  But we may not add to or subtract from it, and it is the law itself that tells us this.  It follows therefore that God’s law is binding upon us unless and until God says otherwise.  Only the Law-Giver may modify His law.

Many Christians have the impression that they are free to subtract from God’s laws (at least those found in the Old Testament) unless God renews them like a library book in the New Testament.  But this is exactly the opposite of what God’s law itself teaches.  God’s moral laws do not come with an expiration date.  Jesus indicates the permanent nature of His moral standard in Matthew 5:18, “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

God did give ceremonial laws in the Old Testament (such as animal sacrifices), which pointed forward to the work of Christ on the Cross, and therefore are no longer binding on believers today. But did Christ’s work do away with moral laws?  Once again, a moment’s reflection reveals the absurdity of the notion that morality can change with time.  Can what is morally wrong on Tuesday be morally right on Wednesday?  God is beyond time.  So it follows logically that what is wrong in the eyes of God at one time must be wrong at all times.  Moral principles follow from the character of God.  Since God does not change, moral principles cannot change either.  The moral principles of the Old Testament are the same as in the New.

It is theologically crucial that God’s standards do not change; if the moral law could be set aside, then Christ died needlessly!  Think about it: we need salvation because we do not live up to God’s moral standard.  If (hypothetically) God could change His moral standards for us, then He could simply lower them to the level of something we could actually do.  But that is not the case.  God’s moral standards stem from His perfectly Holy character, which is why we cannot live up to them (Romans 3:23).  It was precisely because God’s moral standards cannot be set aside that Christ’s death on the cross was necessary for our salvation.  The basic principles of ethics are unchanging because they are rooted in the Holy perfection of the unchanging God.

Of course, specific circumstances may change—and God as the Law-Giver is free to modify His specific commands to deal with those circumstances.  For example, there was no need for divorce legislation before man fell into sin.  God gave laws concerning divorce to deal with the new circumstances that came with sin, as Jesus explains in Matthew 19:8.  It’s not that God’s standards changed; circumstances changed.  God gave new laws to deal with the sinful nature of mankind.  This is His right as the Law-Giver.

In light of these considerations, if we are going to be truly biblical, we cannot add to or subtract from God’s law.  We are to obey every commandment of God (whether in the Old Testament or in the New Testament) unless there are biblical reasons to think that it is no longer binding on us.  Of course, there are biblical reasons to believe that some Old Testament laws are no longer binding on us.  In the next entry, we will deal with those Old Testament laws that the Bible itself tells us have been set aside in the New Testament—the ceremonial laws.

Civil laws (those laws established by the local government) do vary from one location to another.  The maximum speed limit in Colorado is higher than the speed limit in Ohio.  Thus, what is legal in one state can be illegal in another.  But are moral laws that way?  Can what is right in one state be wrong in another?  I suggest that the notion that moral standards can vary from one location to another or from one people-group to another is absurd on the face of it.

Consider a man on trial for murder.  There is no doubt of his guilt; several people witnessed the crime, and it was even caught on camera.  But then the judge learns an interesting fact.  The murder actually happened in the kitchen, not the living room.  So he finds the man ‘not guilty’ and explains, “had you murdered the victim in the living room, you would be guilty of course.  But since you were in the kitchen at the time, you have done nothing wrong and are therefore free to go.  Case dismissed!”  Wouldn’t that be an absurd ruling?  Likewise, if the judge let the man go simply on account of his ethnic background, wouldn’t that be just as ridiculous?  Either a particular action is right in the eyes of God or it isn’t.  The location or ethnicity of the person involved is logically irrelevant.

God does not have a double standard (Romans 2:11, Deuteronomy 10:17).  He detests a double standard (Proverbs 11:1, Proverbs 20:10, Deuteronomy 25:13–14) and commands us to treat people without partiality (Deuteronomy 1:17, Proverbs 24:23, James 2:9).  Therefore, it is fundamentally impossible for God to have one standard for Israel, and another standard for everyone else, for that would violate His Holy character.  God holds all people to the same moral standard.  Israel was blessed with a written revelation of God’s law, and that is a wonderful gift indeed!  But the other nations also knew about God’s law from their own conscience; it was “written in their hearts” (Romans 2:14–15).  And God held them accountable to the same standard.

God’s law is the universal standard of justice for all groups of people on earth.  Israel was supposed to be an example of righteousness for the other nations to emulate.  Moses clearly teaches this in Deuteronomy 4:5–8 “See, I have taught you statutes and judgments just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do thus in the land where you are entering to possess it.  So keep and do them, for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as is the LORD our God whenever we call on Him?  Or what great nation is there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as this whole law which I am setting before you today?”

Some people try to get around this by saying that the Ten Commandments applied to all cultures, but that the other Old Testament laws were only for Israel.  This separation is artificial and arbitrary.  Actually, the Ten Commandments are not alternatives to the other laws, but are simply summary generalizations of those laws; we will deal with this in a later entry.  But notice that the claim is specifically refuted in verse 6 above.  “ALL these statutes” were to be an example for the nations, not “some of these statutes.”  Granted, some laws are only binding in certain situations: for example, the ceremonial laws only applied to God’s redeemed people.  But the point is that God’s standard of right behavior (His moral law) is universal; it doesn’t depend on location or nationality.

Although Israel was blessed with a written revelation of God’s standard, He nonetheless holds all people to the same standard, whether they have read the Scriptures or not.  The city of Sodom was known for its pervasive sin of homosexual behavior (Genesis 19:4–5); and God judged that city for its sin (Genesis 19:13,24–25).  Notice that this happened long before God gave a written prohibition against homosexual behavior (Leviticus 20:13).  God expected people to know what is right based on their conscience (Romans 2:14–15) and creation (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4–5), and He held them accountable to His law even before it had yet been physically inscribed.

God has the same moral standard for all nations and He applies the same penalty for disobedience as well.  God punished the pagan nations for their disobedience to the law by giving their land to the nation of Israel.  In Leviticus 18:24–25 God states, “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.  For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.”  And what does God promise to do if Israel disobeys His law?  He’ll do exactly the same thing!  In Leviticus 18:26–28 we read, “But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations…  so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you.”

God promised to treat the Israelites exactly the same way as the other nations if they behaved the same way as the other nations (Leviticus 20:22–23)!  He does not have a double standard.  God is fundamentally fair, and His law is for everyone.  The apostle Peter states it well in Acts 10:34–35, “Opening his mouth, Peter said: ‘I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.’”

While it is true that Christ paid for all our sins, this doesn’t imply that we should now ignore God’s law.  Most Christians would recognize licentious antinomianism as an extreme and unbiblical position; and yet there are traces of antinomian thinking in many Christians.  Few Christians bother to really study the details of God’s law (particularly those aspects of the law contained in the Old Testament such as in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) because they subconsciously believe that it does not really apply today.

I am going to argue that we are indeed supposed to obey God’s law.  But before I make my case, I want to introduce an important point of clarification so that there is no misunderstanding later on.  There are some Old Testament laws that pointed forward to Christ’s work on the cross (animal sacrifices, for example).  Some Old Testament laws symbolized the separation of Jews and Gentiles before the coming of Christ.  These are often called “ceremonial laws.”  The New Testament tells us that the ceremonial laws were a “shadow” (Hebrews 10:1) and a “tutor” (Galatians 3:24) that pointed to Christ; but now that Christ has come in the flesh, we no longer need such symbols (Galatians 3:25).  We do not need to hold to the laws that symbolically pointed forward to the coming of Christ since we now look back to Christ’s work on the cross as recorded in the New Testament.

But notice that it is the Bible itself that tells us we are no longer bound to the Old Testament ceremonial laws.  So it would be irrational to conclude that since the Bible has set some laws aside that we don’t need to obey any of God’s laws. In a later entry, we will deal with this in more detail.  Right now, I simply wish to refute the claim that “we don’t need to obey any of God’s laws because we are not under the law but under grace.”  In general, we are indeed supposed to keep biblical laws (“You shall not murder”, etc.) unless there are biblical reasons to think otherwise (which there are in the case of ceremonial laws).  Even though Christ has paid for our sins, we still have a moral obligation to obey God.

When the Bible tells us that we are not “under the law,” this does not mean that we are under no obligation to obey the law.  Rather, to be “under the law” means to be under the curse of the law.  Galatians 3:10 states, “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them.’”  It is this curse of the law from which Christ has freed us—not obedience to the law.  Galatians 3:13 states “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us.”  The curse of the law—the penalty for disobedience is death (Romans 6:23).  But Christ took our penalty upon Himself.

The New Testament defines sin as lawlessness (1 John 3:4).  Yes, we are “under grace.”  But does this mean that we can now break the law of God (are we free to sin)?  The Bible specifically answers this question in Romans 6:15.  “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!”  The apostle Paul emphatically denies antinomianism.  The grace of God has covered our sin.  “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?  May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” (Romans 6:1–2).

The freedom that Christ provided for us is the freedom to obey His law—not freedom to sin (Galatians 5:13).  When Jesus forgave the adulteress in John 8, did He then tell her not to be concerned with obedience since she was now under grace?  Of course not.  He told her to “go and sin no more” (John 8:11).  In Romans 6:12–13 the apostle Paul states, “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.”

Being saved by God’s grace through faith in Christ should prompt us to obey God’s law out of gratitude.  The kind of faith that saves is the faith that leads to obedience (James 2:14–17).  So faith is not contrary to the law of God.  In Romans 3:31 we read, “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.”

The person who finds God’s law to be off the mark (too harsh or too lenient) must have some way of knowing what the mark is.  As one example, what is the right penalty for a given crime?  And how do you know?  Many people appeal to their own subjective feelings of what they think to be right.  But that is completely arbitrary; it’s a mere opinion without any rational foundation.  What if two people disagree on what is morally right?  How would they decide who is correct?  Clearly, they must appeal to some greater standard that ultimately determines what is morally right.  What is that standard?

Some people believe that morality is that which achieves a certain goal, such as the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.  The problem here is that not everyone agrees on what the end result should be.  Why this particular goal and not some other?  Once again, we are back to an arbitrary opinion.  We need an objective standard if we are to have objective morality and not just conflicting subjective opinions.

Some people believe that morality is determined by majority vote.  But that criterion leads to absurd results.  After all, if the majority of people could be convinced that it’s okay to murder people, would that really make it morally acceptable?  History is full of examples of the majority of people doing what is morally wrong.  But that couldn’t be if the majority determined what is right.  Appealing to the majority simply shifts an arbitrary opinion from one person to a group of people.  It does not make the opinion any less arbitrary.  After all, why should I do what the majority says?

None of the above opinions can make the leap from what is to what should be.  Only God’s law can do this.  God is our Creator and will hold us accountable for our behavior.  Therefore, we all have a very good objective reason to behave as God has commanded in His law.  Any standard for morality apart from God’s Word is arbitrary, and therefore irrational.

“Good” is that which corresponds to the will of God (Romans 12:2, Hebrews 13:16, 3 John 1:11).  God’s law is good because it corresponds perfectly to His will.  When a person thinks that a law of God is not good (e.g. too harsh), this does not indicate a problem with the law of God.  Rather, it indicates a problem with the person.  It shows that the individual does not truly understand what morality is.  Such a person is trying to appeal to his own subjective feelings of right and wrong rather than the supreme and unchanging Word of God.  This is sin.

In the days of the judges this sin characterized Israel.  Consider the words of Judges 17:6, “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.”  The Lord commands us not to behave in such a way (Deuteronomy 12:8).  God’s law reveals what is right; it shows us God’s standards.  When a person disagrees with God’s standards, He is trying to judge the law by some greater standard.  But there is no greater standard.  In such a case, the person is not thinking biblically.  He is relying on inward feelings rather than God’s objective standard to decide what’s right.  He is acting foolishly (Proverbs 12:15)

People may be uncomfortable with God’s law because they (1) misunderstand the law of God, or (2) disagree with the law of God.  In the former case, the solution is education.  In the latter case, the solution is repentance.  Rather than trying to tell God why He got it wrong, we should have the humility to allow God’s Word to instruct us in what is right (2 Timothy 3:16).