1. Christian Ethics (CL3) Authority in Christian Ethics
Ross Arnold, Fall Lakeside institute of Theology

2. Christian Ethics (CL3) Oct. 1 – Intro to Ethics; Christian Ethics
Oct. 8 – Ethics, Morality and Religion
Oct. 15 – Authority in Christian Ethics
Oct. 22 – Duty Ethics (Deontology)
Oct. 29 – Mid-Term Break
Nov. 5 – Goal Ethics (Consequentialism)
Nov. 12 – Virtue Ethics
Nov. 19 – Conclusion; Final Exam

3. What is Ethics?
Ethics, or moral philosophy, is the branch of philosophy that deals with determining the proper course of action for humanity, involving systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.
Ethics investigates the questions “What is the best way for people to live?” and “What actions are right or wrong in particular circumstances?”
In practice, ethics tries to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, crime and justice.
Ethics is the branch of study dealing with what is the proper course of action for man. It answers the question, "What do I do?" It is the study of right and wrong in human endeavors. At a more fundamental level, it is the method by which we categorize our values and pursue them. Do we pursue our own happiness, or do we sacrifice ourselves to a greater cause? Is that foundation of ethics based on the Bible, or on the very nature of man himself, or neither?
As a branch of philosophy, ethics investigates the questions “What is the best way for people to live?” and “What actions are right or wrong in particular circumstances?” In practice, ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality, by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual enquiry, moral philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.
Why is Ethics important?
Ethics is a requirement for human life. It is our means of deciding a course of action. Without it, our actions would be random and aimless. There would be no way to work towards a goal because there would be no way to pick between a limitless number of goals.
We are ALL ethicists – we were all taught as children that some things are right and some are wrong, and what was considered acceptable in our group and in our culture. It was easy when we had parents or teachers to TELL US what we must do – but what about now, when we have no such immediate authority figures.
Even with an ethical standard, we may be unable to pursue our goals with the possibility of success. To the degree which a rational ethical standard is taken, we are able to correctly organize our goals and actions to accomplish our most important values. Any flaw in our ethics will reduce our ability to be successful in our endeavors.
The three major areas of study within ethics are:[1]
Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined
Normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action
Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action[1]

4. Most religions have an ethical component Buddhism Confucianism Taoism
Religious Ethics
Most religions have an ethical component
Buddhism
Confucianism
Taoism
Hinduism
Islam
Christianity
Most religions have an ethical component, often derived from purported supernatural revelation or guidance. Some assert that religion is necessary to live ethically. Blackburn states that, there are those who "would say that we can only flourish under the umbrella of a strong social order, cemented by common adherence to a particular religious tradition".[3]
Ethics in Buddhism are traditionally based on the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings who followed him. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics.[4]
According to traditional Buddhism, the foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is the Pancasila (or Five Precepts) : no killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, or intoxicants. In becoming a Buddhist, or affirming one's commitment to Buddhism, a layperson is encouraged to vow to abstain from these negative actions. Buddhist monks and nuns take hundreds more such vows (see vinaya).
The sole reliance on traditional formulae or practices, however, can be questioned by Western Buddhists whose main concern is the practical solution of complex moral problems in the modern world. To find a justifiable approach to such problems it may be necessary not just to appeal to the precepts or the vinaya, but to use more basic Buddhist teachings (such as the Middle Way) to aid interpretation of the precepts and find more basic justifications for their usefulness relevant to all human experience. This approach avoids basing Buddhist ethics solely on faith in the Buddha's enlightenment or Buddhist tradition, and may allow more universal non-Buddhist access to the insights offered by Buddhist ethics.[5]
The Buddha provided some basic guidelines for acceptable behavior that are part of the Noble Eightfold Path. The initial percept is non-injury or non-violence to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans. This precept defines a non-violent attitude toward every living thing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism, but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.
Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism
Both emphasize the maintenance and propriety of relationships as the most important consideration in ethics. To be ethical is to do what one's relationships require. Notably, though, what you owe to another person is inversely proportional to their distance from you. In other words, you owe your parents everything, but you are not in any way obligated towards strangers. This can be seen as a recognition of the fact that it is impossible to love the entire world equally and simultaneously. This is called relational ethics, or situational ethics. The Confucian system differs very strongly from Kantian ethics in that there are rarely laws or principles which can be said to be true absolutely or universally.
Confucius stresses honesty above all.
Daoist ethics
Laozi and other Daoist authors argued for an even greater passivity on the part of rulers than did the Confucians. For Laozi, the ideal ruler is one who does virtually nothing that can be directly identified as ruling. Clearly, both Daoism and Confucianism presume that human nature is basically good. The main branch of Confucianism, however, argues that human nature must be nurtured through ritual ,culture and other things, while the Daoists argued that the trappings of society were to be gotten rid of.
Hindu ethics
Ahimsa - non-violence in action, words and thoughts - is considered the highest ethical value and virtue in Hinduism.[8]
Ethics is called Nitisastra in ancient texts of Hinduism.[10] Ethics and virtue are a much debated[11] and an evolving concept in ancient scriptures of Hinduism.[12][13] Virtue, right conduct, ethics and morality are part of the complex concept Hindus call Dharma - everything that is essential for people, the world and nature to exist and prosper together, in harmony.[14] Ethics are explained in Hindu philosophy as something that cannot be imposed, but something that is realized and voluntarily lived up to by each individual.
For example, Apastamba explained it thus: "virtue and vice do not go about saying - here we are!; neither the Gods, Gandharvas, nor ancestors can convince us - this is right, this is wrong; virtue is an elusive concept, it demands careful and sustained reflection by every man and woman before it can become part of one's life.[15]
Ethics that constitute a dharmic life - that is a moral, ethical, virtuous life - evolve in vedas and upanishads
Islamic ethics
Main article: Islamic ethics
The foundational source in the gradual codification of Islamic ethics was the Muslim understanding and interpretations of the mankind has been granted the faculty to discern God's will and to abide by it. This faculty most crucially involves reflecting over the meaning of existence, which, as John Kelsay in the Encyclopedia of Ethics phrases, "ultimately points to the reality of God." Therefore, regardless of their environment, humans are believed to have a moral responsibility to submit to God's will and to follow Islam (as demonstrated in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, or the sayings of Muhammad) [Quran 7:172]).[35]
This natural inclination is, according to the Qur'an, subverted by mankind's focus on material success: such focus first presents itself as a need for basic survival or security, but then tends to manifest into a desire to become distinguished among one's peers. Ultimately, the focus on materialism, according to the Islamic texts, hampers with the innate reflection as described above, resulting in a state of jahiliyya or "ignorance."[35]
Muslims believe that Muhammad, like other prophets in Islam, was sent by God to remind human beings of their moral responsibility, and challenge those ideas in society which opposed submission to God.
Christian ethics
Main article: Christian ethics
See also: Sermon on the Mount, The New Commandment and Ministry of Jesus
Based on Jewish ethics, PLUS Jesus… A passage of the Torah, "Love your neighbour as yourself"[12] was taken up by Jesus and then by the writers of the New Testament and made part of the theological centrepiece of Christian ethical stance. The New Testament lets Jesus teach that all the commandments of Jewish religious law could be summarised in the two rules, "Love God and love your neighbour" (Mark 12:28-31). This is illustrated with the Parable of the Good Samaritan, which praises action to help any human in need.
Christian ethics in general has tended to stress the need for love, grace, mercy, and forgiveness because of sin. With divine assistance, the Christian is called to become increasingly virtuous in both thought and deed, see also the Evangelical counsels (or counsels of perfection in Christianity are chastity, poverty (or perfect charity), and obedience). Conversely, the Christian is also called to abstain from vice.
Christian ethical principles are based on the teachings within the Bible. They begin with the notion of inherent sinfulness, which requires essential atonement. Sin is estrangement from God which is the result of not doing God's will. God's will can be summed up by the precept: "Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself", commonly called the Great Commandment. Christian ethics are founded upon the concept of grace which transforms a person's life and enable's one to choose and act righteously. As sin is both individual and social, so is grace applied to both the individual and society. Christian ethics has a teleological aspect—all ethical behavior is oriented towards a vision of the Kingdom of God—a righteous society where all live in peace and harmony with God and nature, as envisioned in the Book of Isaiah. Specific ethical behaviors originate in the Old Testament’s Ten Commandments, and are enriched by teachings in the Psalms and morals contained in historical accounts, see also Biblical law in Christianity.
Christian ethics is not substantially different from Jewish ethics, except in the exhortation to love one's enemy. Perhaps the greatest contribution of Christian ethics is this command to love one's enemies. It has been argued (see Chet Meyer's Binding the Strong Man, and John Yoder's The Politics of Jesus) that Jesus was waging a non-violent campaign against the Roman oppressors and many of his sayings relate to this campaign--turn the other cheek, go the second mile, etc. Understanding these commands as part of a larger campaign makes it impossible to interpret Christian ethics as an individual ethic. It is both an individual and a social ethic concerned with life here on earth.
Other tenets include maintaining personal integrity and the absence of hypocrisy, as well as honesty and loyalty, mercy and forgiveness, rejection of materialism and the desire for wealth and power, and teaching others in your life through personal joy, happiness and Godly devotion.
There are several different schema of vice and virtue. Aquinas adopted the four cardinal virtues of Aristotle, justice, courage, temperance and prudence, and added to them the Christian virtues of faith, hope and charity (from St.Paul, 1 Corinthians 13). Other schema include the Seven Deadly Sins and the Seven virtues. For more see Christian philosophy and Biblical law in Christianity.

5. Jewish Ethics
The origin of “Ethical Monotheism”
Predates Socrates, Plato and Aristotle
Bases for Jewish ethics:
Torah/Tanakh (Written & oral Hebrew Bible)
Halakhah (Talmud/Rabbinic religious literature)
Influence of Greek ethics
esp. Maimonides’ interpretation of Aristotle
“Justice, Peace and Truth”
Chesed (“loving-kindness”)

6. The Issue of Authority
What should be the sources of authority for Christian ethics? That is, from where should Christians derive needed insight and direction for shaping their ethics?
How should we properly invoke and interpret Scripture with regard to Christian ethics?
In seeking to answer these questions, we must:
Consider the Old Testament, as prophetic and biblical tradition of the people of Israel.
Consider the New Testament witness, especially as it records the teaching and practices of Jesus.
The Issue of Authority in Ethics
From where should Christians derive insight and direction in shaping their ethics? What should be our sources of authority?
How should we interpret Scripture with regard to Christian ethics?
To address these questions, we must consider:
The prophetic and Old Testament biblical tradition of the people of Israel.
The New Testament witness, especially as it records the teaching and practices of Jesus.
Ethics is not an exclusively Christian enterprise. In fact, Christian ethics – like the Christian religion – and so may be understood as an extension of the revelation God began with the Hebrew people, as revealed in the Old Testament. This is consistent with the fact that Christians have always looked to the Bible as our foundation for living and – at least in the earliest Christians – this included or even was primarily focused on the Old Testament.
This is appropriate, as the Bible is the instrument through which the Holy Spirit guides us into godly living. Indeed, a central goal of the Bible is to instruct believers about ethical living. In this way, Scripture MUST be foundational to any Christian ethics.
But exactly what does it mean to say that Christian ethics rests on the Bible? What is a biblical ethic?
Some might assume (from a duty or deontological perspective) that Scripture is full of prescriptive instructions – what we can and cannot do, spelled out in clear commandments, and that these commands ARE the basis of all biblical ethics.
But this view is far too limited. The ethics of the Bible are presented to us in the context of narrative – a story. The redemptive story of how God has interacted with his people and the world throughout history. So to properly understand the bibilical (including the Christian) basis for ethics, we must understand it in the context of story.

7. Morality and Hebrew Scriptures
The Church came out of the ancient people of Israel, seeing themselves as an extension of the Old Testament story, and Jesus as God at work at a new and higher level in human history.
However, there really was no “Old Testament ethics” in any abstract, philosophical sense.
The ancient Hebrews had no philosophical discourses on morality, and no codified, theoretical systems of ethics.
Instead we have a story… of a people called forth and existing as the Chosen People of God in the world. OT ethics grew out of that story and what it meant to the Hebrew people.
The Church came out of the ancient people of Israel, seeing themselves as an extension of the Old Testament story.
Early Christians saw Jesus as God at work at a new and higher level in human history, and so interpreted everything – including the teaching of Jesus – in the historical context of what had begun in ancient Israel.
But while our biblical ethics must begin with the Old Testament, we must realize there really was no such thing as an “Old Testament ethics” in the sense of an abstract, philosophical sense. The ancient Hebrews had no philosophical discourses on morality, and no codified, theoretical systems of ethics.
Instead we have a story – the story of Israel being called forth and existing as the chosen people of God in the world. It was through the Hebrew understanding of what it meant to be God’s people in the world that any ethical principles we may derive must be identified in and drawn out of that story. It is this understanding that later provided the basis for the ethical teaching of Jesus.

8. Morality as an Aspect of Covenant
The theme of covenant relationship is foundational to any ethics or ethical life for the Hebrew people.
Covenant, for the Hebrew people, meant their conviction that Israel was called into a unique relationship with God. That conviction provided the foundation for their ethical life.
The covenant between God & Israel’s was understood to be entirely a product of God’s divine grace – exemplified in the Exodus event.
Because of this unilateral outpouring of divine grave, Israel was left with certain obligations, which might be summed up as being called “to be holy, as God is holy.”
The theme of covenant relationship is foundational to whatever we might think of as ethics or an ethical life for the Hebrew people.
The whole of the bible is about the story of covenant between God and his people, beginning at the creation of the heavens and the earth, reflected in the making of Adam and Eve, renewed through Noah, and articulated most specifically to Abraham and his offspring, through whom all the world would be blessed. (Gen. 12:1-3).
Covenant, for the Hebrew people, meant their conviction that the nation of Israel was called to have a unique relationship with God. And this conviction then provided the foundation for the ethical life of the ancient Hebrews.
At the core of the covenant idea was the understanding that Israel’s relationship to God was entirely a product of divine grace. This was exemplified in the greatest act of God for the Israelites – their salvation from slavery through the miracle of the Exodus. This event became the basis for all future relationships between God and the Israelites, as stated repeatedly, including before the giving of the 10 Commandments:
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Ex 20:2
Because the Israelites received God’s call and blessings as an outpouring of divine grave, this put certain obligations on Israel, so that “Old Testament ethics is concerned with the manner of life that the older covenant prescribes and approves.” (Walter Kaiser)
To be in covenant relationship with the Holy God, the people of Israel likewise were called to be holy. And this holiness involved obedience to the God of the covenant, as the only appropriate response, motivated by love and gratitude.
So, unlike the Greek philosophers later on, the Hebrews were not motivated by a desire to find “the good life” as a fulfillment of human purpose and existence. Nor were they focused on cultivating certain virtues as a means to be “good.”
The Old Testament people of God were concerned with righteousness, as an act of obedience to the righteous God who had created them, called them, protected them, and guided them.

9. Ethical Consequences of Covenant Relationship
Covenant obedience to God required the Israelites to be separate from all that was profane & defiled.
It further required the Israelites to be upright in their human interactions – family life, commerce, concern for the less fortunate, limits on vengeance, truthfulness, and even proper treatment of animals.
No division of religious practice from daily life.
A clean heart was demanded – but also “clean hands.”
Holiness was not blind obedience to imposed laws, the responsibility that came of being a recipient of divine grace. The covenant law marked Israel as being different from all other nations.
This covenant obedience to God involved the Israelites separating themselves from all that was profane and defiled.
Being in covenant with God demanded that the Israelites be a holy community, a people who knew that covenant status must translate into proper conduct towards others. Included were all aspects of human interaction – family life, commerce, concern for the less fortunate, limits on vengeance, truthfulness in all things, and even required the proper of animals. *Deut. 22:1-4)
There was to be no separation of daily life from temple worship – proper relationship with Yahweh on the Sabbath required both a right attitude towards God and proper conduct during the week. Not only a pure heart, but also clean hands. (Ps. 24:3-4)(Ps a5, Ps 51:5; 66:18; 118:20; 141:2-4)
Holiness was not perceived as blind obedience to externally imposed laws, but as accepting the responsibility that came as a result of being a recipient of divine grace. The covenant law served as a marker of what made Israel different from all other nations.
The law, then, was not a means by which the Israelites could BECOME God’s covenant people, but a means for them to understand and live out the implications of them BEING in the covenant relationship with God – to be as a people the covenant partner with God.
“The covenant aims to establish a personal relationship, not a code of conduct in the abstract.” Walter Kaiser.
It was the relationship that was important – the conduct was simply supposed to be a reflection of that relationship, a patterning of their lives according to the holiness and righteousness of God with whom they were in relationship.
God’s covenant people were to be holy because the covenant-making God had shown himself to be holy. (Lev. 18:5-6, 19:2-4)
God had reveled his divine character, and in so doing had shown Israel what it meant to be good – as clearly refelect in the prophets of the OT, who consistently called the Israelites to fulfill their obligations to a righteous God.

10. Ethical Consequences of Covenant Relationship
“The covenant aimed to establish a personal relationship, not a code of conduct in the abstract.” Walter Kaiser
It was the relationship that was important – the conduct simply reflected the relationship; a patterning of their lives according to the holiness and righteousness of God with whom they were in relationship. They were to strive to be “like” God in how they lived.
This covenant theme – that God had chosen to enter into a covenant relationship with Israel – establishes THE theological foundation for understanding ethics in the Old Testament, as it creates an indissoluble link between inward belief and outward conduct.
This also the “wisdom” theme prominent in the OT – wisdom understood as knowing the proper way to live and as a result living properly.
“The covenant aimed to establish a personal relationship, not a code of conduct in the abstract.” Walter Kaiser.
It was the relationship that was important – the conduct was simply supposed to be a reflection of that relationship, a patterning of their lives according to the holiness and righteousness of God with whom they were in relationship.
God’s covenant people were to be holy because the covenant-making God had shown himself to be holy. (Lev. 18:5-6, 19:2-4)
God had reveled his divine character, and in so doing had shown Israel what it meant to be good – as clearly reflected in the prophets of the OT, who consistently called the Israelites to fulfill their obligations to a righteous God.
In being called to be “like” God, the Israelites were being called to be:
Compassionate (“the compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love and faithfulness” Ex. 34:6 ). God’s love, compassion and mercy are perhaps THE central theological affirmation of the Old Testament.
The covenant theme establishes THE theological foundation for understanding ethics in the Old Testament, and so cannot be overstated.
The conviction that God had chosen to enter into a covenant relationship with Israel created an indissoluble link between inward belief and outward conduct.
This is the source of the “wisdom” theme prominent in the OT – since wisdom is understood in the practical sense to be knowing the proper way to live and as a result living properly.
It was the conviction that God has initiated a covenant with Israel that defined their understanding of “good,” which was a reflection of the revealed character of God – as opposed to the Greek assumption that human moral life was to be based on human moral capabilities. (“It is not just up to me and what I decide to do; it is up to God and who He is and what He has decided to do.”) Thus the “good life” is always connected to the idea of a life lived in covenant relationship with God.
This is reflected in Jesus’ statement “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” (Mt. 6:33) This summarizes the Hebrew understanding – God first, then everything else, including good actions. Versus the Greek idea of the PURSUIT of righteousness entirely by our own efforts.

11. Sin as Failure in Relationship
With God as the standard for holiness, there was among the Israelites a profound sense of their own failing.
Sin was understood as failure to live up to covenant obligations; not just as an outward transgression of the law, but as rebellion against God – an understanding later reflected in the teachings of Jesus.
As David confessed, “Against you and you only have I sinned.” Psalm 51:4
Though the expectations inherent in the covenant relationship with God were codified into the Law, OT authors did not see obedience to the law as the goal of human existence – but rather it was to be a faithful covenant partner to God. The law simply helped clarify what that covenant relationship required – especially since the covenant existed long before there was a codification of the law.
With God as the standard by which their holiness was to be judged, there was among the Israelites a profound sense of their own failings.
Sin was understood, simply, as a failure to live up to their covenant obligations. Instead of imitating God’s righteousness in their personal relationships, the Israelites did not act justly. As a result they came to a deeper awareness of the nature of sin – which would later be reflected in the teaching of Jesus – as being not just an outward transgression of the law, but a rebellion against God and as such a defilement (David confessed, “Against you and you only have I sinned.” Ps. 51:4)
Still, even though the expectations inherent in the covenant relationship with God were codified into the Law, the biblical authors still did not see obedience to the law as the goal of human existence – but rather that the goal was to be a faithful covenant partner to God. The law was simply to help clarify more exactly what that covenant relationship required – especially since the covenant relationship existed long before there was a codification of the law.
The Israelites also (unlike most moderns) had a keen sense that their covenant obligation was applicable to both individual and corporate life. Regarding fulfillment or transgression of the covenant, what one person did affected the group; what the group did affected each individual. (Though God always would maintain a “remnant” during times of mass rejection of the covenant.)

12. Remembrance and Anticipation
The foundation of OT ethics lay in God’s past action of establishing and confirming Israel as his covenant people.
But the story did not end in the past – the Israelites had a keen sense of future, & of God’s promise to bring renewal, even to those who failed in covenant.
This eschatological perspective is repeated often in the Prophets. The very essence of prophetic vision & proclamation was a call to an ethical response now from Israel (and even the surrounding nations), in preparation for God’s future kingdom work.
This meant present moral decisions had consequences for the future, and that even if God did not act now, they were sure there would be a divine response at the end of the age.
The foundation of OT ethics lay in God’s past action of establishing and confirming Israel as his covenant people.
But the story did not end in the distant past – the Israelites had a keen sense of the future, and God’s promise that he would bring renewal to the covenant people, despite their failure in keeping the covenant.
This eschatological perspective is repeated often in the Prophets, as they called for right living in the presence as they awaited God’s future activity.
In fact, the very essence of prophetic vision and proclamation was a call to an ethical response from Israel (and even the surrounding nations) in the present, in preparation for God’s future kingdom work.
This meant that present moral decisions clearly had consequences for the future, and that even if God did not act now, they were sure there would be a divine response at the end of the age.

13. Remembrance and Anticipation
The Hebrew people looked for a time when God would act decisively on their behalf. The New Testament evangelists declared this had happened with the coming of Jesus.
For us, the centerpoint for all Christian ethics must be God’s saving act in Jesus. It is only from a Christological perspective that we now can understand what it means to live as God’s covenant people.
Jesus saw the Hebrew Bible as the primary source of authority in life, especially with regards to ethics.
“It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter of the law to be dropped.” Luke 16:17
Over against the authority of Scripture Jesus compared the inadequacy of “human tradition” in his strong criticisms of the religious leaders of his day.
The Hebrew people expected that a time would come when God would act decisively on their behalf, and the New Testament evangelists declared this had happened with the coming of Jesus.
For us, the centerpoint for all Christian ethics must be God’s saving act in Jesus. We now believe it is only from a Christological perspective that we can truly understand what it means to live as God’s covenant people.
FIRST… Jesus – like other Jews Hebrew before him – saw the Hebrew Bible as the primary source of authority in life.
“It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter of the law to be dropped.” Luke 16:17
The Hebrew Scriptures for Jesus were especially authoritative with regards to ethics.
SECOND… over against the authority of Scripture Jesus compared the inadequacy of “human tradition” in his strong criticisms of the religious leaders of his day. Jesus constantly disagreed with the religious leaders of his day, insisting they were missing the true meaning of what it meant to live in relationship with God. (These disagreements eventually led those leaders to plot his death.)
For Jesus there was a very clear distinction between the Word of God and the “traditions of the elders,” (Mk. 7:3) as he continued to announce the authority and validity of “the law and the prophets.”
But Jesus did NOT disagree with his enemies about the fundamental importance of the law as found in Hebrew Scriptures fore the covenant community. But he FID disagree with how these reflected God’s will (His purpose for giving the law), on the nature of true righteousness, and on how the law should be interpreted and lived out.
That is not to say Jesus was against religious traditions – he clearly cherished the Jewish traditions, but insisted they must be subordinate to Scripture and to God’s creative and redemptive purposes. His emphasis was not on the righteousness or wrongness of isolated acts, but on the heart of the doer – not as much WHAT should be done, as what was in the heart of the person doing it.
If we are to follow Jesus, we must follow his lead in affirming the supremacy of Scripture in all matters – and especially as the authoritative source of Christian ethics.

14. Law Versus Covenant Grace
Jews of Jesus’ day thought God would reward them for scrupulous, literal observance of the letter of the law. But Jesus was clear – no acts of righteousness can make a person worthy before God.
To Jesus, God’s people are NOT those who appear on the surface to be righteous, but rather those who are penitent, who humble themselves and cry for mercy. (“God rejects the proud, but accepts the humble of heart.”)
The Jews thought the ethical life was to satisfy God through strict obedience to the law, versus to be true to our relationship with our heavenly Father whom we love, trust and obey with gladness of heart.
For Jesus, the ethical life arises as our response to God’s unilateral demonstration of love, grace and favor towards us – which he has already given freely – rather than our attempt to win his favor. In this way Jesus reoriented the direction of ethics.
The Jews of Jesus day thought God would reward them for scrupulous, literal observance of the letter of the law. But Jesus was clear that no acts of righteousness can make a person worthy before God. God bestows his grace freely on us as a divine favor, and IN RESPONSE, we can be righteous.
To Jesus, God’s people are NOT those who appear on the surface to be righteous, but rather those who are penitent, who humble themselves and cry for mercy. (God rejects the proud, but accepts the humble of heart.)
So Jesus and the Jewish leaders of his day had a fundamental disagreement about the intent of the law. The Jewish leaders were focused on outward acts which conformed meticulously to legal standards; while Jesus focused on the inward dimension of people as of sole importance – the character, motivation and heart of a person. (Wrong understanding of the covenant relationship with God, and therefore of the law, led to wrong actions by the scribes and Pharisees.)
Jesus repeatedly bemoaned the actions of the Pharisees and scribes as having impeccable actions, but with hearts that were cold, callous and deceitfully wicked. Inward piety and NOT outward observance of the law was the true sign of obedience to God.
God was not really concerned with how far you traveled on the Sabbath, but rather an observance of the Sabbath because of a heartfelt desire to please God and do what he desires. God wanted people who shared his heart as covenant partners, not reluctant slaves.
The Jews thought the ethical life was an attempt to satisfy God through strict obedience to the letter of the law, versus to be true to our relationship with our heavenly Father whom we love, trust and obey with gladness of heart.
For Jesus, the ethical life arises as our response to God’s unilateral demonstration of love, grace and favor towards us – which he has already given freely – rather than our attempt to win his favor.
In this way Jesus reoriented the direction of the ethical life – away from slavish and often begrudging obedience, and towards an intimate relationship with God who is the Father and the source of all goodness and truth.
This is one reason Jesus uses stories and parables rather than logical proofs and legal arguments to tells us what God wishes from us.

15. The “Good Life” Versus Covenant Grace
For Jesus the “good life” is not the quest for happiness, but the pursuit of God’s Kingdom; a life under God’s reign, in accordance with his will, and accepting of his great love.
Jesus summarized God’s will in the double command to love – the “core and climax of the whole of moral doctrine.” (Rudolf Schnackenburg)
The central Christian ethical principle is heartfelt love for God, followed immediately by love for others. True citizens of the Kingdom are those who love God from their hearts and who love others as themselves, as reflected in humble service to both God and neighbor.
“The real ground of moral obligation is the perceptible saving act of God in Jesus’ coming and activity, his revelation of redemption, which is both historical and eschatological, and which guarantees the accomplishment which is to come.” R. Schnackenburg
For Jesus the “good life” is not the quest for happiness, but the pursuit of God’s Kingdom. The good life is a life under God’s reign, in accordance with his will, and in submission to his great love.
Goodness, then, begins with the heart, which is the wellspring of all action.
Jesus summarized God’s will in the double command to love – the “core and climax of the whole of moral doctrine.” Schnackenburg
The central ethical principle of the ethics of the kingdom is heartfelt love for God, followed immediately by love for others. True citizens of the Kingdom are those who love God from their hearts and who love others as themselves, as reflected in humble service to God and their neighbor.
“The real ground of moral obligation is the perceptible saving act of God in Jesus’ coming and activity, his revelation of redemption, which is both historical and eschatological, and which guarantees the accomplishment which is to come.” Rudolf Schnackenburg