It Is Written: “All the Prophets” of Scripture Alone | Acts 3:17-26

Acts 3 and the Prophetic Fulfillment of Christ

Go ahead and turn with me in your Bibles to Acts chapter 3, beginning in verse 17. Acts chapter 3, verses 17 through 26. This is the account of Peter's sermon in Solomon's portico. God's word says,. And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also.

But the things which God announced beforehand, by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he has thus fulfilled. Therefore, repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things, about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from ancient time.

Moses said, The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. To him you shall listen to everything he says to you, and it will be that every soul that does not heed the prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.

And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also proclaim these days. It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham,.

And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed. For you first God raised up his servant and sent him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways. This is God's word.

Amen. So, this has been an incredible eye-opening series on Scripture alone. At least for me, it has been. And I hope that it's been a blessing to you. To briefly recap last week's message, we saw how the New Testament frequently uses synecdoches.

Synecdoches, which is a part that refers to the whole. Or shorthand phrases like the law and the prophets, the law, the prophets, and all the prophets, often to denote the entirety of the Old Testament.

That's what we had seen last time. Or also the law and the prophets in the Psalms, like Jesus said in Luke 24. And this points to the Hebrew canon of the Jews. The 22 or 24 books, depending on how you group them, of the Jewish Tanakh.

The Torah, the Nevi 'im, and the Ketuvim. The law, the prophets, and the writings. And this agrees with our Protestant Old Testament as well. And so, you can see from the sermon title. I revised it a little bit, I think.

I'm going to continue focusing on the Old Testament as it is written, all the prophets of Scripture alone. All the prophets of Scripture alone. All the prophets and only the prophets of Scripture alone.

And this will focus on the prophets themselves, but also on their writings, particularly the Old Testament writings. And I also have a public service announcement for everyone. It's been a while since I've done that.

But I wanted to bring this to our attention because this is really important in our day. These issues that we've been dealing with, of understanding the canon of Scripture, what books are the Scripture.

These issues of the canon and of biblical authority are foundational differences between Protestantism and everything and everyone else. Including Romanism and Eastern Orthodoxy. These are foundational differences.

And you'll also find, I was watching this debate between a Protestant, a Roman Catholic, and an Eastern Orthodox. And you immediately see the biases where they come from. They all come from. And it's really important for us to recognize these biases.

Because the biases that stem from these conflicting views of how we view Scripture and the world lead to very divergent understandings of primary doctrines. Of what Scripture is and what it teaches. Of what the true church is and how she functions.

Of what tradition is and how it is used in and relates to the church. And of history. Even how you interpret history is either distorted or clarified by these lenses, these biases. And how it is interpreted in light of God's providence and church.

And so on. There's many more things that this leads to. But that's among the foundational, fundamental differences. Icons and worship and so on. The sacraments. So we must examine, beloved, we must examine our biases and our traditions.

And ensure that they are biblical. Because unlike Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, we do not claim that our traditions are infallible. They are all submitted and subordinated to and corrected by the Scriptures.

These other traditions claim that they are infallible. Either the magisterium or the pope or the church and its ecumenical councils and so on are infallible. But this, beloved, is not true. And saying it, claiming it, doesn't make it so.

And all you have to do is give it the Scripture test. Like Jesus and the apostles and the early church did. To find the truth of the matter. To see if those things are really so. Like the Bereans did.

The Berean test. So, and we all have biases. None of us can avoid biases. This is what the fundamentalists and people who believe in so low Scripture and nothing else, who claim that they have no other traditions, they are deceiving themselves.

Because we all have them. We all do. Humans are creatures of habit. And anything that you do repeatedly is a tradition by default. And that's not a bad thing. Tradition isn't necessarily a bad thing. It is a good thing if they help us to understand and apply the Scriptures rightly, faithfully, consistently throughout.

So, that being said, beloved, that was an extended public service announcement for us. I have some more today actually. But in this passage that we read today from Acts chapter 3, you will find, and as I alluded to in the sermon title, all the prophets, right?

The word prophet is used frequently in Scripture. And I forgot to mention that this sermon will also be apologetic in tone, like it has been before, to focus on these differences and on properly understanding the Scriptures.

And I really appreciate the call to worship that we read today in Psalm 119 because it also gives us some relevant Scriptures here to today's message. Verse 41 in Psalm 119 says, May your loving kindness also come to me, O Yahweh, your salvation according to your word.

According to your word. So I will have an answer for him who reproaches me, for I trust in your word. Your word. Your word. Amen. Not in church councils, not in other things, but in your word. Your word.

Amen. And so we saw here from these passages and many other passages that I read from previously, the phrase the prophets and all the prophets is frequently used. So what does that mean exactly? What is a prophet?

Because you find today that is one of the most grossly misunderstood and distorted offices of the Bible, especially with the charismatic movement and many cults like Mormons, they use this word and completely misrepresent it and twist it to their own destruction.

We have to have a proper understanding of what the prophet means and is according to Scripture alone, ultimately. So turn back with me in your Bibles to Acts 3 in verse 17.

I'm sorry, I think I...

Oh, never mind. I'm sorry. I jumped ahead. First, we need to define what is a biblical prophet and what is the office of a prophet. And I appreciate the Reformed Baptist theologian Basil Manley Jr. in his book on the Bible Doctrine of Inspiration.

Excellent book that I highly commend to you. He says that the name of prophet and office of prophet, by the way, is given from the beginning to those who come as divine representatives, divine representatives who speak for God, who speak for God and who do this with supernatural divine aid, direction and authority.

Amen.

The Office of a Biblical Prophet

So now that's a very good general definition of the biblical prophet. Now regarding Old Testament prophets in particular, I have a quote here from Ligonier Ministries.

It says,.

It is true that the prophets foretold the future. Isaiah, for example, predicted that Cyrus would allow the nation of Israel to return from the Babylonian exile in Isaiah 45 verses 1 through 13. It would be a mistake, however, to think that foretelling the future was the primary or exclusive role of a prophet.

And that's where a lot of people get it wrong today, especially when you turn on the TV and you see all these televangelists and so-called prophets. Rather, the prophets were mainly sent by God to be his covenant prosecutors.

Now that's a word you wouldn't expect to find in light of today's church culture. They are mainly sent by God to be his covenant prosecutors. That's a strong word. But it is true. They were sent to remind the covenant people of their covenant obligations that they had so often forgotten.

They foretold. I'm sorry. They foretold. They foretold the will of God to the people in hopes that they would repent, trust in Yahweh, and fulfill their covenant obligations. They are covenant enforcers, in a sense.

Old Testament prophets. Now, in light of all of these definitions, yet there is far, far more to being a prophet than even all of this. For they also wrote down the divine will and words of God himself, including not just the Old Testament, but the New Testament as well.

And this, beloved, is fascinating. This blew me away. And I've hinted at this before in previous sermons, but I want to read from an excellent theologian by the name of Louis Gaussen. I think he's a Swiss theologian, a Reformed theologian, from his book called God Breathe, Or Theopneustia, The Divine Inspiration of the Bible.

This is an excellent book that I highly recommend to you all. In that book, he says, the whole tenor of Scripture places the writers of the New Testament in the same rank, in the same rank with the prophets of the old, with the prophets of the old.

The authors of the New Testament are also called prophets themselves. We have their writings called prophetical writings. And since we have seen that no prophecy ever came by the will of him that uttered it, which refers to all of Scripture, but that it was as moved and impelled by the Holy Spirit that holy men of God spoke, the prophets of the New Testament spoke, therefore, like those of the old and according to the commandment of the everlasting God, that like Romans 3, Romans 16 says, which we'll read later, they were all of them prophets.

Beloved, all of them were prophets. That's a that's a amazing reality.

To allow.

We need to let that sink in. That is amazing. What this means is that even the New Testament authors who are not apostles, so the apostles themselves are also prophetic. But even the ones who were not apostles, like Mark and Luke, who wrote the Gospels, nevertheless, are prophets of God.

They are prophets of God for they, too, are God's mouthpiece and pen because they wrote down God's words. All of the biblical writers are all of the biblical authors are including the ones who were not apostles.

That's a powerful reality that we need to digest carefully. So now to complement Manly Junior's definition a little bit more. All the prophets, all the prophets of God, including the New Testament prophets, are divine representatives who speak for they speak for and beginning with Moses, right for right for God with supernatural aid, direction and authority.

Amen.

They speak for and they write for God and they draw lines. They draw the lines towards God's people and say, what side do you stand on? Are you on the Lord's side or on the world side or the enemy side or the devil side?

So and further,.

The New Testament prophets explicitly proclaim and prophesy about Jesus the Christ. We just read that as the truly God, truly men, anti type fulfillment that was promised in the messianic types in shadows, which the Old Testament prophets foreshadowed and prophesied,.

Right?

That's very important that we grasp that the New Testament prophets explicitly proclaim and prophesy about Jesus the Christ as the truly God, truly men, anti type fulfillment, the anti type that fulfills the type that was promised in the messianic types and shadows, which the Old Testament prophets foreshadowed and prophesied.

And that is what the awesome catechism question that we read today summarizes in essence. Question 35 of the Baptist larger catechism. How is the old covenant related to the covenant of grace to the new covenant?

The old covenant is historically and typologically related to the covenant of grace. Historically, the old covenant promised that the nation's promised that the nation's would be blessed through Abraham, the seed of Abraham, that the Messiah would be the physical seed of Abraham and that the Messiah would be an everlasting king over his people.

Moreover, the old covenant progressively revealed the covenant of grace through types and shadows, types and shadows, which pointed to Christ and the covenant of grace. Yet it is only by the covenant of grace that all descendants of Adam that ever were saved did obtain eternal life.

For the old covenant imprisoned everything under sin in order that the only means to obtain the promise inheritance was through faith in Christ alone.

Amen.

That is an awesome summary of what this is all about. Beloved of what the prophets why God ordained and called prophets to speak for him and write his words down to be his spokesperson, his mouthpieces and his pens.

So then the prophets also admonished us to believe in him, the Lamb of God, and follow him. Believe in him and follow him beloved. That is the church's call in every age to believe in God and in the promised Messiah that is Jesus the Christ, the anti type that takes away the sin of the world of his people.

Now, now let's turn back over to Acts chapter three to to reread the the account of Peter's sermon in Solomon's portico. And I'm going to add some some comments as we read through it in Acts chapter three, verse 17.

God spoke and wrote these words down for us, beloved. And now, brothers, fellow Jews, I know that you acted in ignorance just as your rulers did also. But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of who?

The mouth of all the prophets by the singular mouth. Notice that in one voice because it's ultimately God's voice that the prophets speak that his Christ would suffer. He has thus fulfilled. These are parallel phrases, just as Christ also taught us in the Gospel of Luke and chapter 24 and in other places.

Therefore, repent and return so that your sins may be wiped away. Again, the exact same message that we previously saw that the apostles also spoke and preached in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, just as Christ also said, and that he may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, prophesied for you, foretold for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things, about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from ancient time from ancient time.

Wow.

Amen.

Now notice, too, that it says who whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things. So Christ sat down at the right hand of the Father. Christ, the God man, is up in heaven. So he is not physically present with us, which is also refutes the understanding that Roman Catholics have of the Lord's Supper.

Christ is not physically present here. He is in heaven, but he is spiritually present with us. So very important that we rightly understand these things, beloved. Very important. God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from ancient time.

Moses, the prophet, said in the law, in the Torah, Deuteronomy 18, 15 and 18, the Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me, like Moses from your brothers to him. You shall listen to everything he says to you.

And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people. And notice how emphatic this sermon from Peter is, what he emphasizes. And likewise, all the prophets, once again, who have spoken, who have spoken and by extension written, just like Luke 24 also says from Samuel and his successors onward also proclaimed these days.

They prophesied them. They foretold them. It is you, fellow Jews. He's talking to fellow Jews in the portico who are sons of the prophets. Again, the emphasis note that and of the covenant which God made with your fathers saying to Abraham and in your seed, all the families of the earth shall be blessed for you first.

God raised up his servant, his messianic suffering servant and sent him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways. Notice, too, how so many people equate God's blessing with money or health or possessions.

And that in some sense is true. I'm not saying that God, you know, and I think second or third John, it says, beloved, I wish that you be in good health and you prosper even as your soul prospers. It's not necessarily a bad thing to be blessed with material possessions and wealth and health.

But notice that Peter, Peter's preaching here says that his servant sent him. God sent him to bless you.

How?

By turning every one of you from your wicked ways. The blessing is repentance.

Beloved,.

It is repentance from unbelief and from sin to the living God. God blesses us with repentance. That's the first act of the believer. In essence is to repent to change his mind about the gospel, to accept and receive the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior.

That is how God fundamentally, first and foremost, blesses his people by turning every one of you from your wicked ways. Like he did Saul. He was going on his way to persecute the church and bam, he shows up, knocks him out, blinds him and says, now you go that way.

That is how God blesses his people.

First and foremost,.

Through repentance, beloved, just as Jesus himself had also preached to them and to us, but the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets that his Christ would suffer, he has thus fulfilled.

It was prophesied and it was fulfilled, ultimately, in the person and work of Christ alone.

Now,.

This is very much, this is an equivalent to what Jesus draws out in Luke 24, like we've been seeing, including the road to Emmaus encounter where Jesus said to the two disciples, O foolish ones and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken.

Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?

Then,.

Beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things concerning himself.

In what?

In all the scriptures, all the scriptures, the sum totality of the scriptures are all that the prophets have spoken of old, the Old Testament prophets, the law, the prophets, the writings.

So,.

By all the prophets, then Peter also refers to all of the Old Testament scriptures just as Christ does, but then he focuses on Moses, Samuel and his successors. The reference to Samuel is made because of Nathan's prediction, the fundamental prophecy respecting the seed of death of David, because the king, he's the king.

Christ is the root and seed of David and the king, like 2nd Samuel 712 says, which foretells that mercy shall not be taken away, even in the midst of punishment. That's from the expositors Greek Testament.

So there is a sense in which every genuine prophets spoke and eventually wrote down directly or indirectly, directly or indirectly of the coming Messiah and his kingdom with divine authority, with divinely sanctioned authority, and no prophecy stands outside of this drama of redemption of this redemptive thread that is prophesied all the way back to Genesis 315 that the prophesied seed of the woman would crush the serpent.

That is the virgin birth of the Messiah, the sinless substitute that is foretold even in the types and shadows of the sacrifices,.

The feast,.

All of the rituals that the Old Testament Jews participated in, anticipated and look forward to Christ. They were types of the one who was to come.

Now,.

This is also tremendously helpful quote from Basil Manley Jr. that I've mentioned before because he does an excellent job of explaining the progression of the Old Testament prophets which Peter's sermon also refers to in his book The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration.

Successive stages may be traced in the development of prophecy, but there is no essential change of the nature of the office. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Melchizedek, each in his own age and own way stands forth in God's name, but their words for the most part are not recorded.

Hence, they pass away as oral utterances naturally do except as preserved and transmitted by tradition. The dispensation then changes to a more permanent form. Written prophecy begins with Moses, and that's why Peter also refers to Moses.

He stands at the head of this new prophetic line whose words are to be recorded and preserved for posterity's sake, including us. These things were written of old for whose instruction, beloved? For our instruction.

Amen?

So, with Samuel, a revival of the prophetic order is established.

From him,.

A continuous series of prophets is kept up for centuries, but not until the days of Hosea and Isaiah does it attain its full development. Only then do the prophetic communications generally receive the written and permanent form which enables subsequent ages to profit by them.

And that is what enabled also Peter to quote them in his sermon. That is what preaching is all about. It's about preaching the written prophetic words of God himself by which holy men of God spoke through the moving of the Spirit of God.

And these permanent writings of all the prophets, all of them, became the Old Testament of Scripture alone and eventually the New Testament of Scripture alone. So now this brings us back, beloved, to our remembrance that we need to keep in mind that there were two primary competing criteria that the early church had used to identify the books of the Old Testament.

The first being that the Hebrew canon was that the Hebrew canon which the Jews used and which Christ and his apostles affirmed was the Old Testament. And the second criteria were the books that the early churches read in church and considered to be edifying.

And this led to the larger canons of the Old Testament like in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. But remember again, there's a reason why the early church used the Hebrew canon of the Jews because there's several scriptures that point to the Jews like Romans 3, 1 through 2 which I read last time as well.

Then what advantage has the Jew? As opposed to the Gentiles, non-Jews? Or what is the value of circumcision? Great in every respect, first of all and foremost that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

That's why it was the most important criteria to determine the Old Testament canon. But this brings us to another another question. However, right? Because doesn't the New Testament also quote other books including apocryphal books?

Does it not also quote these other books as well? And this we need to be very careful to understand and to distinguish because a lot of people, a lot of Protestants and a lot of evangelicals who are not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox are almost completely ignorant of this.

And we have to guard ourselves against this ignorance because it can be used very easily to take advantage of our ignorance if we're not careful. Okay, now the first thing we have to note something very important to distinguish.

There is a difference between quoting something directly and alluding to something. There is a difference there and also between loosely resembling something as opposed to consciously alluding to it. So there are levels of directness.

There's quoting something directly, which is that's a direct quote, a citation. And then there is alluding to something. So you're not quoting it directly, but you're alluding to it. And then there's resembling something.

It's a parallel, but it's not necessarily even being explicitly alluded to. Okay, there's many instances of these kinds of quotations and allusions and resemblances in the New Testament and even in the Old Testament.

Now, what this means is that the New Testament does make allusions to some of the apocryphal books. It does, but it does not really quote them directly. Okay, it doesn't quote them directly and it does not quote them as God breathes Scripture either, such as it is written, right?

Whenever you see a lot of Jesus or the apostles, the prophets of the New Testament or even in the Old Testament, they will say it is written or the Scripture speaks, the Scripture says, which we just saw in the earlier passages that I read from, right?

God spoke, the prophets, the, yeah, thus saith the Lord, right, like the Old Testament, nor does it refer to them as any of the threefold division of the Hebrew Bible, which is the law, the prophets, and the writings, right?

So again, this is why it's important to distinguish this. Now I want to read from F .F. Bruce's book. Once again, it's very, very helpful to help us wade through these matters of how the New Testament uses these books.

He says this in his book on the canon of Scripture. The apocryphal book of wisdom was possibly in Paul's mind as he dictated part of the first two chapters of Romans, but that would not give it scriptural status.

If he does allude to it, he probably contradicts it here and there. The writer to the Hebrews probably had the martyrologies of 2 Maccabees 6, 18 -7, 41, or 4 Maccabees 5, 3 -18, 24 in view when he spoke of the tortures and other hardships which some endured through faith.

In the hall of faith, in Hebrews 11, 35 -38. And he also talks about a greater resurrection, which I think in these apocryphal writings, it also refers to. And when he says in the same context that there were some son and two, he may allude to a document which described how the prophet Isaiah was so treated.

And that book is known as the Ascension of Isaiah, which is another apocryphal writing around the second, anywhere from the second to the later after Christ in the early centuries after Christ, which I think is not, we don't have anymore.

It's lost. And there are other similar allusions to these old apocryphal writings like there's the book of Ecclesiasticus, 1131 and 2 John 10 or Ecclesiasticus 11, 18 -20 compared with Christ's parable of the wealthy farmer in Luke 12, 19.

And even Jesus' statements about making the eye, making the whole body dark in Matthew 6, 22 may allude to again Ecclesiasticus 14, 8 -11. So there are these allusions. It's clear that the Old Testament, that the New Testament authors were aware and familiar with these apocryphal writings.

But that doesn't mean that they refer to them or believe that they were scripture because these writings were also a part of the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. These writings were in different groups.

Some of them were found in some versions of the Old Testament, the Old Testament Septuagint. So it was part of what the apostles had quoted and used as the Old Testament because they primarily quoted the Old Testament Septuagint, the Greek Septuagint for their citations and allusions in the New Testament because that's what they had available.

Now FF Bruce continues here in a very helpful explanation here of these issues. The Nestle-Allen edition of the Greek New Testament, it's a critical edition, which shows a lot of the variations and stuff between the manuscripts, has an index of Old Testament texts cited or alluded to in the New Testament followed by an index of allusions, not only to the Apocrypha, but also to several other works not included in the Septuagint.

Many of these last are resemblances rather than conscious allusions. So a lot of times they're not even allusions like he was saying. Only one is a straight quotation explicitly ascribed to its source.

That is the quotation from Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam in Jude 14. This comes recognizably from the apocalyptic book of Enoch or first Enoch. Earlier in Jude's letter, the account of Michael's dispute with the devil over the body of Moses may refer to another work called the Assumption of Moses or the Ascension of Moses.

But if so, the part of the work containing this incident has been lost. So these are things that we also need to be aware of. Beloved, and this brings me to my next public service announcement now that we also need to bear in mind because the reality is that some of the Old Testament books that are actually part of the Old Testament canon are not explicitly quoted in the New Testament either.

Okay?

And there's a number of them that are not explicitly quoted such as the Song of Solomon, Esther, First and Second Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ruth, Ecclesiastes. So these are not really directly quoted in the New Testament.

And yet, nevertheless, they were still part of made up the Old Testament because God himself entrusted the Jews with the Old Testament oracles of God which is partly why many in the early church understood the Old Testament to be the Hebrew canon.

Okay?

That's very important to understand. And it also was because of who wrote them. Who wrote the books? Because if you wrote a book of the Old Testament, you were considered a prophet, a message from God.

And that's also important that we do not allow ourselves to be misled or deceived by not being aware of these things. And yet still, nevertheless, the overwhelming testimony of the Jews was that they held to a 22 or 24 book canon of the Old Testament which matches our Protestant canon.

Apart from any infallible authority or counsel canonizing them.

Okay?

This is very important because in God's providence, this is how it worked out.

So,.

And some people try to claim, well, there's Palestinian Jews and there's also Alexandrian Jews. But even that distinction is pretty much arbitrary because they all still considered the evidence from their writings still considered the same canon, the same books, and only those.

So,.

We must therefore continue to contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints and show others who have a different Old Testament that they are contradicting the biblical principles and criteria and means that God gave us to identify the Old Testament.

Which was the same criteria that many of the early church leaders likewise used. And Christ and the Apostles pointed to.

Right?

The Law, the Prophets, the Writings, the Psalms. Now, FF Bruce here gives us a really good summary of the different Jewish sects and what they held to. What scriptures they held to.

He says,.

It is probable indeed that by the beginning of the Christian era, the Essenes, including the Qumran community, the Essenes were the ones who had the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were discovered earlier in the 1940s, I think 50s.

They were Old Testament books and some other books. They were in substantial agreement with the Pharisees and the Sadducees about the limits of Hebrew Scripture, the canon of Hebrew Scripture. There may have been some differences of opinion and practice with regard to one or two of the writings.

Right?

The third part of the Old Testament canon.

But,.

The inter-party disagreements remembered in Jewish tradition, like the Talmud and the Mishnah and all that stuff, have very little to do with the limits of the canon. Because again, the Talmud, the Mishnah, all of these pointed to the same 22 -24 books.

They're the same. The idea that the Sadducees, like the Samaritans, acknowledge the Pentateuch only as Holy Scripture is based on a misunderstanding. And you'll find many people say that the Sadducees only held to the Torah, the first five books and not the other books.

But that's not correct. When Josephus, for example, he was the first century historian and Pharisee, says that the Sadducees admit no observance at all apart from the laws.

Right?

The law of Moses.

Implied.

He means not the Pentateuch to the exclusion of the prophets and the writings. That's not what he meant. But rather, the written law of the Pentateuch to the exclusion of the oral law. The oral tradition or the Pharisee interpretation and application of the written law, which, like the written law itself, was held in theory to have been received and handed down by Moses.