The Enduring Moral Law of God

A scribe for once asks a sincere question of Jesus. Which is the greatest commandment? Jesus's answer reveals much about His attitude toward Old Testament Law. The two great commandments summed up the entire Law and Prophets. There is no hint in this passage that Jesus is discontinuing the two great commandments, and so why would we think He was abolishing all the OT commandments that were summed up by the great two? Further, why would we think He was abolishing the OT Law when He specifically said in Matthew 5 that He did not come to abolish, but fulfill? And why would we think that fulfill meant to abolish, when the two verbs are contrasted as opposites? Why indeed? We might think so because we have been influenced by dispensationalism -- the hermeneutical principle conceived by John Nelson Darby and then passed to CI Scofield to Lewis Sperry Chafer to Dallas Theological Seminary and then to all of America. It is not a coincidence that as dispensationalism took hold in the 20th century, so did antinomianism. Dispensationalism has been in the air we breathe for over a century. We have never known anything different. Most professing Christians perceive it like they perceive the oxygen in the air. In this sermon, I explore the so called contrast between Christ's law and OT law -- "You have heard that it was said ... but I say to you." This has been greatly misunderstood. I also deal with the objection, "We are not under Law, but under grace," and the false interpretations of that passage. I deal with the classic categories of civil, ceremonial and moral law and argue that though the Bible does not explicity give us these categories, they are as valid as the word "Trinity."