Page 48 - Biblical Ethics Course

Biblical Ethics of the New Testament

The Greek word hagios is used in connection with the Spirit of God nearly a
hundred times. The conception of holiness and sanctification, however, is no
other in the New Testament than it is in the Old. In the former as well as in
the latter holiness is ascribed in a derived sense to man. In the one as well as
in the other ethical holiness is not mere moral rectitude, and sanctification is
never mere moral improvement. These two are often confused in the present
day, when people speak of salvation by character. A man may boast of great
moral improvement, and yet be an utter stranger to sanctification.

The Bible does not urge moral improvement pure and simple, but moral
improvement in relation to God, for God’s sake, and with a view to the service of God. It insists on sanctification.
Sanctification may be defined as that gracious and continuous operation of the Holy Spirit, by which He delivers
the justified sinner from the pollution of sin, renews his whole nature in the image of God, and enables him to
20
perform good works.

The Gospels. Jesus’s message was not only one of salvation but also of righteousness. He was concerned about
the peoples’ eternal purpose and their present lifestyle. Jesus showed great respect for the OT moral law; he
came not to abolish but to fulfil it (Mt. 5:17.). But he did not teach as a legislator himself. Though he phrased
much of his moral teaching in imperatives (Mt. 5:39,Mk. 10:9), and taught with a law-giver’s authority ( Mt.
7:24; Mk. 1:22), it was not his purpose to lay down a comprehensive code of rules for moral living. Law
prescribes or forbids specific things; Jesus was more concerned to set out and illustrate the general character of
God’s will. Law deals in actions; Jesus dealt far more in character and in the motives that inspire action.

Jesus’ internalizing of the law’s demands is well illustrated in the Sermon on the Mount. The law forbade
murder and adultery. As in the Old Testament, so for Jesus ethics derives from a right relationship with God,
rendering obedience filial. Yet not all live as sons; some are disobedient, wayward, lost. But God remains Father,
and sonship remains available; the Father welcomes their return. In such a context legalism must wither, and
the moral life gain new motivation, quality, and tone.

One implication of sonship is likeness: Resemblance proves relationship. The peacemakers, the merciful, those
who love their enemies and persecutors, being as impartial and inclusive in their love as God is, those who do
good, and lend, hoping for nothing again—all are, and are recognized as, children of the father (Matt. 5:9, 44–
48; Luke 6:35–36). By this simple domestic simile Jesus initiates the supreme Christian ideal of Christlikeness, the
imitation of God as beloved children, conformed to the image of his Son (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 5:1).

Second, the language of sonship is relentlessly plural. Such brotherliness forbids insult, and criticism, though
brotherly rebuke may be necessary (Matt. 5:22; 7:1–3; Luke 17:3). It requires initiative toward reconciliation and
understanding, and ready forgiveness (Matt. 5:23–24; 18:21, 35), and, in any need, service as for Christ (Matt.
25:40). At all times the duty of brethren is to strengthen each other (Luke 22:32).

The teaching of the Sermon on the Mount is overwhelmingly and terribly penetrating. Jesus Christ does not
simply say, “Thou shalt not do certain things”; He demands that we have such a condition of heart that we never
even think of doing them, every thought and imagination of heart and mind is to be unblameable in the sight of
God. Our Lord’s first requirement is a personal relationship to Himself, and then obedience to His principles. The

20 L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 531–532.

47