Hermeneutics: Paul and Moses

Posted on October 7, 2011 by Jay F Guin

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink. My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.
This entry was posted in Hermeneutics, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Hermeneutics: Paul and Moses

  2. Jerry Starling says:
    October 7, 2011 at 8:33 am

    I will “ditto” what David said!

  3. Tim Archer says:
    October 7, 2011 at 8:50 am

    Don’t know that it was original with him, but I remember being told by Dan Coker: “Most of our problems in the church come when take a system of grace and turn it into a system of law.”

    Grace and peace,
    Tim Archer

  4. Charles McLean says:
    October 7, 2011 at 9:36 am

    Has somebody around here been reading Frank Viola? 😉 Or just getting insight from the same Source?

    Good post, Jay.

  5. abasnar says:
    October 7, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    Hmm … What on earth does that mean? Well, that the Law points us to a greater, better reality found in Christ. Jesus changes everything.

    I’d like to stop here and suggest a better word, leading into a better direction: Jesus fulfilled everything.

    He is the body of these shadows – this means all of these shadows speak of Him. Therefore the law in its essence does not change, but is brought to it fullness in Christ! We exchange the shadow for the person! This is crucial!

    (Deu 14:21b ESV) “You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.”

    OK, this is a dietary law. One a quite a number of similar ones. No, Jay, quoting 1Pe 3:3 does not fit here at all. I’ll show you the parallel a bit later. First, we see in Col 2:16 that we are not bound by these dietary laws any longer. They served their purpose as soon as Christ as gloryfied.

    This means they must speak of Christ – whether we see it or are blind to this connection. Another very important aspect ofthese laws are that by them the people should learn to distinguish between clean and unclean, and to be separate from the nations.

    Isn’t it interesting that God start out in verse 1 with:

    Deu 14:1 “You are the sons of the LORD your God. …

    And all of these regulations that follow are under this promise! While we – by our carnal nature – object to all of these rules and restrictions, we overlook the purpose ofthem all: We are sons of God, and these are ways to express this truth. Yes, we are speaking of the shadows, but the command itself is still there. A far better NT-parallel to Deu 14:21 than 1Pe 3:3 is 2Co 6:14-18:

    2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
    2Co 6:15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?
    2Co 6:16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
    2Co 6:17 Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you,
    2Co 6:18 and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”

    This is the same theme, in’t it. Paul is quoting Moses and apllying it – not in the form of the letter and the shadow, but in its full meaning by contrasting the world with Christ. Tha law itself has not changed, the principles arethe same – the outward form ofthe command has been transformed from the shadow to the body.

    Alexander

  6. Johnny says:
    October 7, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    You sir are a blessing, what a gift it must be to have you as an elder

  7. Ellen says:
    October 7, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    I always felt there was something wrong with taking a young animal and cooking it in the milk from its own mother which is intended for the nourishment love and comforting of that very animal. It seems to my heart to be wrong because it’s such a gross disregard for the mothering relationship.

  8. abasnar says:
    October 8, 2011 at 3:22 am

    It might be worth to consider this command in the light of Mary and Jesus – I am really not sure about it. But the following verses are ort of pointers in that direction:

    Luk 11:27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!”
    Luk 11:28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

    Here we have – if we are so bold to draw a parallel – the milk and the Lamb. And or Lord constantly pulls himself away from His mother which sometimes seems rude. He called Her “woman” not mother. But that’s just a vague guess …

    But aside from that, Clement of Alexandria offers the following thoughts on this law:

    Stromateis k II, Ch XVIII:
    And Pythagoras seems to me, to have derived his mildness towards irrational creatures from the law. For instance, he interdicted the immediate use of the young in the flocks of sheep, and goats, and herds of cattle, on the instant of their birth; not even on the pretext of sacrifice allowing it, both on account of the young ones and of the mothers; training man to gentleness by what is beneath him, by means of the irrational creatures. “Resign accordingly,” he says, “the young one to its dam for even the first seven days.” For if nothing takes place without a cause, and milk comes in a shower to animals in parturition for the sustenance of the progeny, he that tears that, which has been brought forth, away from the supply of the milk, dishonours nature. Let the Greeks, then, feel ashamed, and whoever else inveighs against the law; since it shows mildness in the case of the irrational creatures, while they expose the offspring of men; though long ago and prophetically, the law, in the above-mentioned commandment, threw a check in the way of their cruelty. For if it prohibits the progeny of the irrational creatures to be separated from the dam before sucking, much more in the case of men does it provide beforehand a cure for cruelty and savageness of disposition; so that even if they despise nature, they may not despise teaching. For they are permitted to satiate themselves with kids and lambs, and perhaps there might be some excuse for separating the progeny from its dam. But what cause is there for the exposure of a child? For the man who did not desire to beget children had no right to marry at first; certainly not to have become, through licentious indulgence, the murderer of his children. Again, the humane law forbids slaying the offspring and the dam together on the same day. Thence also the Romans, in the case of a pregnant woman being condemned to death, do not allow her to undergo punishment till she is delivered. The law too, expressly prohibits the slaying of such animals as are pregnant till they have brought forth, remotely restraining the proneness of man to do wrong to man. Thus also it has extended its clemency to the irrational creatures; that from the exercise of humanity in the case of creatures of different species, we might practice among those of the same species a large abundance of it. Those, too, that kick the bellies of certain animals before parturition, in order to feast on flesh mixed with milk, make the womb created for the birth of the foetus its grave, though the law expressly commands, “But neither shalt thou seethe a lamb in its mother’s milk.” For the nourishment of the living animal, it is meant, may not become sauce for that which has been deprived of life; and that, which is the cause of life, may not co-operate in the consumption of the body.

    Alexander

  9. abasnar says:
    October 8, 2011 at 3:43 am

    Now, Jay for the OT parallel to 1Pe 3:3. There are two things that are quite important:

    First, the Israelites were not to dress and groom like the nations around them:

    Lev 21:5 They shall not make bald patches on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts on their body.
    Lev 21:6 They shall be holy to their God …

    Deu 22:11 You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together.
    Deu 22:12 “You shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself.

    BTW Jesus also submitted to this law and had tassels on His clothes (Luk 8:44). These were distinguishing marks – and we also should be distinguisehd from the world. How is this applied in 1Pe 3:3?

    1Pe 3:3 Do not let your adorning be external the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear

    It’s about fashion, sensuality and displaying wealth – about the things after which the nations seek (Mat 6:32). Modesty, shamefacedness are appropriate for women (and men) of God – this sets us apart as light in the world.

    There is a second aspect: the contrast between outward and inward. I’ll make this very short: There is a consistent pattern in the shift from the OT to the NT: bloody sacrifices turn into spiritual sacrifices; a temple of dead stines turns into a temple of living stones; circumcision ofthe flöesh into circumcision of the hart … outward beauty to inward beauty.

    Read this from Psalm 45:

    Psa 45:9 daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.
    Psa 45:10 Hear, O daughter, and consider, and incline your ear: forget your people and your father’s house,
    Psa 45:11 and the king will desire your beauty. Since he is your lord, bow to him.
    Psa 45:12 The people of Tyre will seek your favor with gifts, the richest of the people.
    Psa 45:13 All glorious is the princess in her chamber, with robes interwoven with gold.
    Psa 45:14 In many-colored robes she is led to the king, with her virgin companions following behind her.

    Here we see a prophetic picture of the bride of Christ, the church. nd God obviously rejoices in her outward beauty, the gold the expensiv clothes – did that suddenly change in the NT? Did the taste of God somehow change? Not at all, but these descriptions are a hadow of the real beauty:

    1Pe 3:3 Do not let your adorning be external …
    1Pe 3:4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.

    The Gold in the temple spoke of God’s unperishable glory – the gold the bride of the Messiah wears speks of the same, of a spiritual beauty! Here we have the same move from the shado to the body!

    So, did Christ end or change the Law or did He bring it to its fullness (to fulfill – Greek: pleromai – to bring it to its fulness)?

    Therefore it is – I think – a bit misleading when you say that in the NT we are not under rles anymore. We are under the same rules but on a higher level, on a spiritual level.

    Alexander

  10. abasnar says:
    October 8, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    I’m absolutely certain that the Israelites who heard Deuteronomy from the lips of Moses understood the logic behind the command. Maybe it was a pagan ritual. Maybe there was some other symbolism in the act that violated love for God or offended bronze age sensibilities. But over time, and after an exile, the reason was forgotten.

    Here is a crucial point, Jay. First of all there are a lot of maybes in your thoughts. And all of these maybes turn our attention away from the reasons God himself gave for these different commands.

    Let’s stick with Deuteronomy 14 for brevity’s sake. I’ll highlight all the reasons God gave for his various commands there:

    Deu 14:1 “You are the sons of the LORD your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead.
    Deu 14:2 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
    Deu 14:3 “You shall not eat any abomination.
    Deu 14:4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat,
    Deu 14:5 the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep.
    Deu 14:6 Every animal that parts the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat.
    Deu 14:7 Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cloven you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not part the hoof, are unclean for you.
    Deu 14:8 And the pig, because it parts the hoof but does not chew the cud, is unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch.
    Deu 14:9 “Of all that are in the waters you may eat these: whatever has fins and scales you may eat.
    Deu 14:10 And whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you.
    Deu 14:11 “You may eat all clean birds.
    Deu 14:12 But these are the ones that you shall not eat: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture,
    Deu 14:13 the kite, the falcon of any kind;
    Deu 14:14 every raven of any kind;
    Deu 14:15 the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind;
    Deu 14:16 the little owl and the short-eared owl, the barn owl
    Deu 14:17 and the tawny owl, the carrion vulture and the cormorant,
    Deu 14:18 the stork, the heron of any kind; the hoopoe and the bat.
    Deu 14:19 And all winged insects are unclean for you; they shall not be eaten.
    Deu 14:20 All clean winged things you may eat.
    Deu 14:21 “You shall not eat anything that has died naturally. You may give it to the sojourner who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. “You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.
    Deu 14:22 “You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year.
    Deu 14:23 And before the LORD your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.
    Deu 14:24 And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there,
    Deu 14:25 then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses
    Deu 14:26 and spend the money for whatever you desire–oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.
    Deu 14:27 And you shall not neglect the Levite who is within your towns, for he has no portion or inheritance with you.
    Deu 14:28 “At the end of every three years you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in the same year and lay it up within your towns.
    Deu 14:29 And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your towns, shall come and eat and be filled, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do.

    So which of your “theories” (maybes) can be found in the reasons givenm by God Himself? None! And that’s a very important question to your approach to hermeneutics! Consider the reasons given by God:

    You are the sons of the LORD your God.

    For you are a people holy to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

    For you are a people holy to the LORD your God.

    … that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.

    None of these reasons can be traced to any cultural or regional custom, that the first hearers might have been aware of but which later generations have forgotten. None. (Remember: The Israelites spent a few generations in Egypt and have not yet entered Cannan? They knew almost NOTHING of the Canaanite customs (first hand).)

    All of God’s reasons are all eternal and transcultural in nature: All of these commands teach us to fear the Lord and live as the Holy People He has chosen for His name.

    I hope that the Israelites learned this lesson when they listened to Moses, and I hope we get it as well. For instance – just as a NT parallel in thought:

    1Co 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
    1Co 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,

    The reason for uncovering our heads (as men) is to honor Christ. There are no hints in this text to any local custom – and yet all commentaries are full uf USELESS and DISTRACTING SPECULATIONS. The only lesson we should glean from it is how to honor Christ. And we do it when following the way He wants to be honored. Of course, uncovering your head is a symbol – but it contains this important lesson: We just do as He said, and by this He will be honored (and the more we dig into it the better will will grasp the wisdom of this symbol).

    Jay, for the Israelites the Law was pretty simple: Just do it, and glorify God by doing it! Thus – although going beyond the letter – the Jewish familiy you mentioned did get it right not wrong!

    (for a reminder the words Im referring to)

    You see, the most conservative Jews, to be absolutely certain they don’t violate Deuteronomy 14:21, cook meat and milk in two different kitchens. This means their boiled meat won’t even touch a molecule of milk! What zeal for God. What inconvenience and expense they suffer to honor Torah! And it’s just wrong.

    It’s only wrong from a NT perspective, as Christ brought the fullfillment of the Law, being the body of the shadow. But as for their zeal (if done in faith) it was perfectly all right! And I wish for such zeal and love for God among our churches!

    You take a wrong turn when trying to figure out the cultural situation that led to a specific commandment. God never argued this way. Christ never argued this way. The Apostles never argued this way. When God says something we should not start “rationalizing” His words, but just – in childlike obedience – do as He said. Speculating about ancient custom is not childlike obedience, rather it is a fruit of the enlightment (which is a philosophy of this world we should flee at lightspeed!).

    (Other aspects of your long post will be addressed in seperate replies)

    Alexander

  11. abasnar says:
    October 8, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    2. Seeking salvation through the Law is destined to failure, because it cannot be done.

    This is not quite right, Jay. The Law could be kept, although it required a lot of discipline. To keep the Law did not even require a sinless life, because included in the Law was Grace: Sin-offerings!

    Think of the parents of John the Baptist:

    Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.

    Was Luke kidding? Didn’t he know Galatians yet (most suppose that the Gospel of Luke was written after Galations)? Didn’t he – the companion of Paul’s mission-journeys not listen to the essence of his sermons?

    No, the matter is quite simple: Zechariah and Elisabeth indeed walked blamelessly in ALL the commands and statutes of the Lord. This verse alone is questioning the core assumption of Protestant theology: “It’s impossible to keep the Law.” No it isn’t.

    But we are not saved by keeping the letter of the Law. We are saved by faith, even in the Old Testament. A verse quite often quoted by Paul confirms this:

    Hab 2:4 “Behold, … the righteous shall live by his faith.

    This has not changed under the Law. The Law did not change the promise to Abraham, and it did not change salvation by faith. In fact, living by faith means walking with God and living (or striving to live) blameless lives.

    What did Jesus say to the pharisees?

    Mat 23:23 (MKJV) You have left undone the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mercy, and faith.

    Being saved by faith does not mean not being bound by the Law of Moses (in OT times) or by the Law of Christ (in Nt times). THerefore the dualism set up between faith and law is not correct. It#s about the shift from the OT to the NT! We are not going back to the shadows ofthe Mosaic Law, but we have to follow the essence of the Law, the body, Christ.

    I know this is hard to grasp for us all who have grown up in a Protestant tradition (and the churches of Christ stem from that tradition). Nonetheless, it’s the truth!

    You made one remarkably true and inportant statement:

    It’s not about rules but being transformed — because it’s only by being transformed that we can truly keep the rules.

    That’s it. I fuklly agree!
    Yet on the other hand you say:

    Therefore, the work of the Spirit in us eliminates the need for the Law.

    This comes so close to “antinomism” that hardly fits to your other statement. I know what you mean: You say love is the fulfillment of the Law. This is true. But love does not eliminate rules, but gives meaning to the rules!

    1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I have become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.
    1Co 13:2 And though I have prophecies, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so as to move mountains, and do not have charity, I am nothing.
    1Co 13:3 And though I give out all my goods to feed the poor, and though I deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, I am profited nothing.

    And again the pharisees failed in their law-centeredness:

    Luk 11:42 “But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

    But Christ did not say: “Just love and forget about the details!” On the contrary: These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

    You say something different, Jay:

    The particulars of the commands are secondary to our hearts because if our hearts are right — in faith — we’ll obey the commands plenty well enough.

    Do you notice the difference yourself, Jay? Maybe I read more into your words than you put into it; but I don’t think so, because in the end you actually downplay positive NT commands:

    When we interpret the particular commands about braiding hair and wearing head coverings as positive commands (not about love but just because God said so) rather than examples of “love your neighbor” as applied in Paul’s cultural context, we turn the New Testament into a new Law of Moses.

    Is it not also an expression of love for God to just do as He told us to do? Or is it rather love to say to Him: “We love you with all of our hearts, so don’t expect us to show it with such an inferior symbol as the headcovering” Jay, 1Co 11:2-16 has absolutely nothing to do with local customs, but rather with God’s eternal authority and glory befory which even the angels veil themslevs with their wings (in the LXX the same Greek word is used in Isa 6 as in 1Co 11)! Oh, and we are so enlightend and educated, that we can downplay a positive NT command by saying, we don’t to become like the pharisees!

    Jay, the more I read your lenghty post, the more I was puzzled about the number of uncritical Amens in the first comments to it. Not that all was bad what you wrote, but the direction is completely wrong. Your assumption of cultural commands ignores – persistently – the reasons God, Christ and the Apostles give for the varoius (also NT) commands.

    Alexander

  12. David P Himes says:
    October 8, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    Alexander,
    Given your initial premise regarding Zachariah & Elizabeth, please reconcile that premise with the passage that says “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”?

  13. abasnar says:
    October 8, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    I said, blamelessness in all of the statutes of the Law does not mean sinlessness (only Christ was sinless), since the Law provides sin-offerings. And: Salvation is by faith (even in the OT) not by law-obedience only.

    Alexander

  14. Jay Guin says:
    October 8, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    Alexander wrote,

    Jay, for the Israelites the Law was pretty simple: Just do it, and glorify God by doing it! Thus – although going beyond the letter – the Jewish familiy you mentioned did get it right not wrong! …

    It’s only wrong from a NT perspective, as Christ brought the fullfillment of the Law, being the body of the shadow. But as for their zeal (if done in faith) it was perfectly all right! And I wish for such zeal and love for God among our churches!

    I couldn’t disagree more.

    (Mat 9:13 ESV) 13 “Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

    The zeal to build fences around the law evidenced by many modern Jews is the kind of zeal that Jesus condemned.

    (Mat 23:4 ESV) 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.

    Peter said,

    (Act 15:10 ESV) 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

    Yes, zeal for God is admirable, but ignorance of the God’s true nature is not.

    (Rom 10:2-3 ESV) 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.

    And God never intended that Jews, ancient or moderns, have two kitchens so they could be among his people.

    Alexander said,

    When God says something we should not start “rationalizing” His words, but just – in childlike obedience – do as He said. Speculating about ancient custom is not childlike obedience, rather it is a fruit of the enlightment (which is a philosophy of this world we should flee at lightspeed!).

    Really? Again, read Jesus’ debates with Pharisees regarding the Sabbath. He argues about intent. They argue about the letter.

    Read the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is interpreting, not legislating, and yet he finds non-literal meanings there by looking through the Law to the Author of the Law.

    “You shall not kill” does not literally say “Don’t call your brother ‘Fool.'” Child-like obedience would be not to kill. But Jesus calls us to an even higher standard. He insists that we learn the heart of God and study his purposes — so we can understand what the Law truly teaches. He teaches us to go behind the letter to the heart.

  15. Jay Guin says:
    October 8, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    Alexander wrote,

    So which of your “theories” (maybes) can be found in the reasons givenm by God Himself? None! And that’s a very important question to your approach to hermeneutics! Consider the reasons given by God:

    You are the sons of the LORD your God.

    For you are a people holy to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

    For you are a people holy to the LORD your God.

    … that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.

    None of these reasons can be traced to any cultural or regional custom, that the first hearers might have been aware of but which later generations have forgotten. None.

    Obviously, obedience to any correctly understood command of God points in the direction of holiness and the fear of God. Of course, those are reasons for the Jews to obey those commands. The same is true of all God’s commands.

    But the fact that obedience does this thing — which is always true — hardly tells us why God issued these commands. Are they artifices, arbitrary rules given to test faith? Or did they speak to love of God and love of neighbor?

    In some cases, how the command derives from love of neighbor is obvious, such as the command to care for the orphan, widow, and sojourner.

    In some cases, it’s really hard to follow the logic. I cannot claim to understand the laws of clean and unclean animals. But I understand that Jesus was right to condemn the Pharisees for expanding the cleanliness laws to require that hands be washed before eating — for fear that some dust on the hands might have touched something unclean.

    See how Jesus dealt with the question —

    (Mar 7:14-23 ESV) 14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 16 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

    Notice how radically Jesus interprets these same commands, while the Law was fully in effect.

    Was he repealing the Law? Interpreting the Law? Applying the Law in a context where the distinctions between clean and unclean no longer carried cultural significance?

    If we take Matthew seriously, Jesus said in Matthew 5 that wasn’t going to abolish as single word of Moses. Therefore, he wasn’t repealing the Law. And yet his reading is not merely expanding Moses (as in the SOTM) but to reach an entirely difficult conclusion. Why?

    Well, because the clean/unclean rules spoke to a bronze age culture long dead and forgotten. And so Jesus read through the commands and applied them in the First Century culture.

    If I’m wrong, what’s right?

  16. Bruce Morton says:
    October 8, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    Jay:
    I want to keep this simple. The Law was an expression of God’s grace too. Correct? The issue is not the Law (even the dietary regulations, contra one post), but instead darkness that twisted how people approached the Law, tried to keep the Law. That is what is behind Paul’s frequent phrase “works of the Law.” Correct?

    I am hopeful that all who visit this webforum realize that the Lord is not saying in Hosea 6:6 that the Hebrews can forget that the sacrifices even exist! I have seen people think in those terms as they hear the prophets and by doing so they miss another message in the prophets: the graciousness of every aspect of the Law.

    Jesus’ ministry was itself a powerful illustration of the war of Satan versus the graciousness of the Law. Paul continues the message by his phrase “works of the Law” versus his emphasis in Romans 7:7ff.

    Tom Olbricht emphasizes that message in his excellent study of the OT entitled He Loves Forever.

    In Christ,
    Bruce Morton
    Katy, Texas

  17. Bruce Morton says:
    October 8, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    Jay:
    Separately, I appreciate your highlighting the threat of paganism. I am convinced we will benefit from giving greater attention to seeing how the power of darkness challenged the Lord’s people in every age. Israel faced such; Jerusalem faced it; Roman Asia faced it. So do we. Indeed, the gracious gift of the Law was given to guide Israel to live differently.

    In Christ,
    Bruce Morton
    Katy, Texas

  18. abasnar says:
    October 9, 2011 at 1:43 am

    Alexander said,
    When God says something we should not start “rationalizing” His words, but just – in childlike obedience – do as He said. Speculating about ancient custom is not childlike obedience, rather it is a fruit of the enlightment (which is a philosophy of this world we should flee at lightspeed!).
    Really? Again, read Jesus’ debates with Pharisees regarding the Sabbath. He argues about intent. They argue about the letter.
    Read the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is interpreting, not legislating, and yet he finds non-literal meanings there by looking through the Law to the Author of the Law.
    “You shall not kill” does not literally say “Don’t call your brother ‘Fool.’” Child-like obedience would be not to kill. But Jesus calls us to an even higher standard. He insists that we learn the heart of God and study his purposes — so we can understand what the Law truly teaches. He teaches us to go behind the letter to the heart.

    You should not mix two things: Expanding the letter of law and teaching the letter of the law. The fence is a problem – but listen to Paul what the fence is:

    Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
    Eph 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility
    Eph 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

    I suppose you weren’t referring to this passage, but here the word fence is used by the Holy Spirit to describe the Law of Moses. I tried to point that out earlier – but again:

    Abolished was the Law
    of commands (genitive)
    expressed in ordinances (description)

    He did not abolish the commands themselves, but only their outward form. It’s like breaking the shell of a walnut in order to get to the nut. Or like the butterfly leaving its cocoon – the transformation from the OT to the NT is actually very similar to the transformation of a caterpillar to a butterfly. The insect is still the same, but it dramatically changed its appearance – it came to its fullness, as Christ brought the Law to its fullness.

    But read Paul again: The Law in the OT-form was a fence, a divider between Jews and Gentiles – and that was one of the purposes for which God gave the Law.

    Now, what you obviously mean is expanding the rules to make them more precise. A lot of this has to do with applications. I know you like to talk about “principles” rather than “positive commands”, but I fear (and observe) that such an approach seldom leads to consistent application but rather to arbitrary picking and choosing as to how and if a principle is being acted out. In the Declaration and Address Campbell also spoke of the necessity of making inferences as to the exact time and manner we have to perform certain commands – and I am totally with him in his cautiousness. But basically, that’s it.

    The Pharisees tended to be overscrupulous, the tried to define how many steps on a Sabbath would be work, how far you may go from your own soil, if and how you may give a beggar food on Sabbath without working. You (and in part I) scoff at such an approach, find that ridiculous. Did Jesus, too?

    There are two lines of criticism in the words of our Lord:

    Mat 23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith(fullness). These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

    We went through this one very often in this discussion. But please understand that Christ did NOT criticize their detailed application of tithing, but their neglect of justice, mercy … even faith(!). That was the point! And please memorize his last sentence here: These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. Christ did NOT criticize their application of the Law, but rather commended them for this! Another example?

    Mat 23:3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you …

    Again the problem was not their strict application, but rather: Yes, do it. The problem was on a different level:

    Mat 23:3 … but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.
    Mat 23:4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.
    Mat 23:5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long,

    Hypocrisy – an abomination before the Lord. Double standards. Abuse of religious authority.

    The problem with expanding is the same as with our inferences: We humans tend to put our inferences on the same level as scripture – that’s wrong. And Jesus addressed it clearly:

    Mar 7:9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!
    Mar 7:10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’
    Mar 7:11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”‘ (that is, given to God)–
    Mar 7:12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,
    Mar 7:13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

    You certainly understand what that means: Christ did not say we don’t need to obey the Law of Moses (honouring father and mother), but warns us that our interpretation of scripture does not overrule the Law of Moses which He here calls “the commandment of God” and “the word of God”. He was pointing to the divine origin and authority of the Law.

    So this was the second major point he held against the Pharisees – and we find this one in the Sermon on the Mount as well, when the Lord speaks about prayer, giving alms and fasting in Mat 6. And note there also: Christ did NOT say we need not pray, nor give alms, nor fast! We shall do it! Fasting is as much a … command … as prayer or giving alms is. And what do we do with this one? We shove it under the rug! But aside from that: Is Christ viewing His own words as commands? I bet He is! Why? Because those who won’t do what He said won’t inherit the Kingdom.

    Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
    Mat 7:24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
    Mat 7:25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.
    Mat 7:26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
    Mat 7:27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

    Lawlessness! Those who won’t do what He said are doers of lawlessness! Jay, dio you grasp the weight of these words? Do you know how often I heard Christians arguing away the “positive commands” of the Sermon on the Mount? Oh, we shall love our enemies, but of course we may shoot them as soldiers! Or: Oaths are perfectly all right, Christ did not mean each and every oath! And we divorce and remarry as we please as if Christ had not even hinted to this subject! Jay this is terrible! Do you at least admit this?

    And it’s exactly this wrong approach to law and obedience you present in this Blog that – in the end – bears these ugly fruits. Christ is a lawmaker, because He is King. His laws are as much laws as His kingdom is a real kingdom.

    Alexander

  19. abasnar says:
    October 9, 2011 at 1:56 am

    Alexander

    But the fact that obedience does this thing — which is always true — hardly tells us why God issued these commands. Are they artifices, arbitrary rules given to test faith? Or did they speak to love of God and love of neighbor?
    In some cases, how the command derives from love of neighbor is obvious, such as the command to care for the orphan, widow, and sojourner.
    In some cases, it’s really hard to follow the logic. I cannot claim to understand the laws of clean and unclean animals.

    But Jay, why do you even try to find “external” reasons beyond the reasons God explicitly said? Isn’t that another kind of (un)necessary inferences you sop often criticize?

    But think a little further: the Law of Moses: Was it given only for this generation that had the knowledge of the original cultural background? NO! It was meant to be binding UNTIL another prophet like Moses cam: Christ. We speak of a time-span of ca. 1400 years, Jay! We speak of tremendous cultural changes in Israels neighbourhood. After they to a large degree erased the Canaanite culture, the cultural landscape was dominated by the super powers that followed each other. We see strong Egyptian influences in Palestine, but also Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes and Persians, Greeks and Romans had their impact on the peoples that lived in the region. But no prophet ever adapted the Law of Moses to better fit the new cultural situation. Not one.

    And even Christ wore these tassels on his garments that had been commanded ca. 1400 years before His birth. He never questioned one Iota of the Law.

    Are these laws “arbitrary”? No, because God issued them. If they don’t make sense to you, then this doesn’t mean that they are without meaning. Yesterday I read a lot in the ECF about the clean and unclean animals – and (no wonder) they understood the figurative meaning of these laws. They found wisdom in them, because they expected to find wisdom.

    Even if the Law and the prophets can be summed up in these two commands “Love of God” and “love of your neighbour” this does not mean that both aspects of love need to be in each and every command. Some laws are just given to learn to fear the Lord – by not questioning, but simply doing as He commanded.

    Of course you can do everything without love also. But Christ first wants that we love Him and do what He said:

    Joh 14:21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”

    Just to make you think: The double command of love (living God and your neighbour) is the summary of the OT-law. But the NT adds:
    Loving Christ & the new command: Loving each other as Christ has loved us.

    Loving Christ means to do what He … commanded! Jay, we speak of positive commands that cannot be reduced to an abstract summary. Love shall be the heart of our obedience, but our obedience is following the various commands Christ has given. And these commands are handed down to us by the Apostles. So the whole NT contains a number of rules, ordinances, commands and examples to follow that are binding because they originate with Christ. None of these is just a reaction to ancient customs or culture, but all of His commands are binding until He returns. Just as the Law of Moses was binding until Christ came the first time.

    That’s the main reason why the whole quest for “cultural reasons” behind God’s commands leads in a completely wrong direction.

    Alexander

  20. abasnar says:
    October 9, 2011 at 11:01 am

    To go a little deeper:

    “You shall not kill” does not literally say “Don’t call your brother ‘Fool.’” Child-like obedience would be not to kill. But Jesus calls us to an even higher standard. He insists that we learn the heart of God and study his purposes — so we can understand what the Law truly teaches. He teaches us to go behind the letter to the heart.

    Childlike obedience inthe OT is not to kill. And that’s enough to be blameless accordingto the Law and its statutes. God honors such obedience, yes seeks it. But that’s OT.

    NT-obedience is impossible before Christ came, because it requires the New Covenant in which the Law is being trasformed by by written onto our hearts. Childlike obedience in the NT is not calling a person “Fool” – not, because this is evident from the letter of the OT Law, but because it is clear from Christ’s “But I say to you”.

    Did you get the caterpillar-butterfly ananlogy? The OT is the caterpillar, but since Christ came the Law has been transformed to a butterfly. You cannot expect a caterpillar to fly, which would be expecting from an OT Jew to undertand and live by the deeper meaning of the Law. And you must not force a butterfly to crwl on its belly again and chew on leaves, which is the case when you bind the letter of the OT Law on Christians.

    But the caterpillar and the butterfly are one and the same being – such as each body has only its own shadow. I don’t walk around and cast the shadow of my wife; I only cast my own shadow. The OT Law therefore is the shadow of the same Christ. It comes from the same God and the same Spirit.

    Now we find a number of quotes from the OT in the NT applying the Law of Moses in different ways in the light of the New Covenant. The reason for this is, htat the essence of the Law remains the same; therfore each Iota and the least commands in Moses’ (!) Law are important. But – normally – not according to the letter.

    Some commands are still taken over to the New Covenant literally:

    Honoring Father and Mother
    Abstaining from idolatry … expanded by including Mammon in the list of idols
    …

    Many commands are only relevenant in a figurative sense

    The commands for priests and Levites, the temple, the sacrifices, the instruments and incense, …
    The laws on clean and unclean
    The laws concerning the lepers
    Circumcision
    …

    Many Laws are prohetic in nature and speak about Christ

    The animal sacrifices
    The laws concerning slaves
    The laws concerning the High Priest
    The festivals
    …

    Some make a distinction between moral laws and ceremonial laws; but this is not sufficient, because even part of the moral laws are taken to a far higher level: Oaths e.g. were commanded in the OT because people are liars; but following Christ who is the truth, we don’t use oaths anymore because they belong to the evil where they come from.

    So – try to understand Christ in what He actually says in Mat 5:17-20 – we have to read and teach the OT Laws in the light of how Christ and His apostles interpreted it. And this means there is still a lot to follow and to obey, because when the Law is written on our hearts by the Spirit (which is the key to understanding the New Covenant) the Law does not stop being a Law; we are still under a number of positive commands we have to learn, do and understand.

    In order to be saved? No, we are saved by faith – this is true in both covenants! But are we really faithful if we deliberately loosen the Law or cut it out of our theology completely? WE don’t have to fear judgement if we strive for obedience, but fail out of our weaknesses or a lack of knowledge. We LEARN to obey ALL Christ has commanded. Learning includes failures. BUT: When we start loosening the least of God’s commands we’ll get into trouble:

    Mat 5:19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, …

    You present a cunning way of relaxing, which does not work: You seek for cultural reasons behind the commands – but the scriptures don’t give such. If there were cultural reasons (so your logic) the commands and applications must change with the change of culture. As I said earlier: Christ wore the tassels Moses commanded 1400 years earlier in a Canaanite world, although He Himself liven among Greeks and Romans. The Law of Moses was binding regardless of cultural changes in the neighborhood.

    Christ said:

    Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
    Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
    Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

    All authority
    All nations
    All commands
    Always

    In all times and in all cultures we follow the same Christ and obey the same commands. There are no reactions to and reflections of ancient culture in the NT-commands, other than side remarks.

    Alexander

  21. abasnar says:
    October 9, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Well, because the clean/unclean rules spoke to a bronze age culture long dead and forgotten. And so Jesus read through the commands and applied them in the First Century culture.

    If I’m wrong, what’s right?

    In case in all the mny words I made – I tried to put the in answer in my previous posts. But your question sums up your assumption very neatly. But what if I am right and the clean/unclean commands are neither a reaction to nor a reflection of the bronze age culture; but rather a reflection God#s Holiness and a shadow of Christ?

    After all that’s what God in Moses and Paul in Colossian say.

    A wrong turn is taken when speculating about bronze-age feelings hile the scriptures say nothing of that sort. And this wrong turn leads us to all these misinterpretations of headcoverings, modest dress and hairstyles, women in ministry, … where we so often disagree.

    Even more: It leads us to conformity to our culture rather than to separation.

    Alexander

  22. abasnar says:
    October 9, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    And so Jesus read through the commands and applied them in the First Century culture.

    I have read and reread this and then I realized … Do you mean the sermon on the Mount is made to make the priciples of the Mosaic Law fit to 1st century palestine culture?

    More precisely: Is “love your enemies” a cultural command?
    Or is “don’t even call you brother a fool” something we have to restate in order to make it fit 21st century US/European culture?

    You are the first one I know who makes such a claim, if I got you right here!

    Alexander

  23. abasnar says:
    October 10, 2011 at 12:15 am

    Another analogy:

    My brother is a teacher of chemistry. Last Saturday we talked about the atomic theories, and he said to me that we can say about atoms are theories. We use models that help us to understand the microcosm.

    The OT types and shadows are also such models that help us to understand Christ and God’s will. They were once preparing God’s people for Christ’s first coming; and after His ascension the Apostles used this types and shadows in order to show them Christ and the deeper meaning of the Law.

    The problem is: We don’t do this anymore, or at least if that very very seldom. We practically reduce Christ to what is written about Him in the NT and some selcted prophecies, and it’s no wonder that we miss out on a lot. The OT remains a sealed book to us, while for the apostles it became unveiled in Christ:

    2Co 3:14 But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.
    2Co 3:15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts.
    2Co 3:16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.

    Now isn’t that an invitation to dig into the writings of the OT? Indeed it is, but not like a post-enlightment Westerner, looking fur external cultural refernces in order to explain the OT. WE must look for Christ in order to understand it. Because: ONLY THROUGH CHRIST the veil is lifted – not through “recent scholarship”, not through “cultural history”.

    When we go back to the models we see CHrist from different angles and perspectives, which even His appearance in flesh could not fully reveal. We see the necessity of being clean and holy before God in ways a simple straight-forward command could never convey. Just see how Paul or Hebrews do this! How they speak of God’s jalousy or that He is a consuming fire! How they urge us to fear and tremble! And how did they learn this? By understanding the OT types and shadows. By studying the models.

    I see from our numerous discussions that you have not yet come to this understanding of the scriptures, Jay. It took me some years, too. It is like a paradigm shift, especially when you come from a more ore less “critical school” (which is the source of your reasoning, whether you are aware of it or not). Most contemporary Christians are very far away from the way Christ and the Apostles read und applied the OT in the light of the NT.

    And since we are so different than those, how can we be so confident that our approaches would lead us to the correct understanding? We speak of hermeneutics, don’t we? But we don’t follow the Apostolic hermneutics.

    Alexander

  24. Pingback: One In Jesus » Hermeneutics: Jesus and Moses, Continued

Comments are closed.