With one more class to go, we looked briefly at the genre of Old Testament Law in Inductive Bible Study today. The textbook, Hays and Duvall, wants to take a covenantal approach to the topic--the Law of Moses no longer applies in the new covenant. See the NT for ethics. They find the "moral," "ceremonial," "civil" partition of the Law arbitrary and unhelpful.
Of course they are right that it is doubtful Paul or any Jew of his day would have divided the law into these categories. Philo treats all the smaller laws of the Law as subheadings within the Ten Commandments. The Ten commandments also divide roughly into duties toward God and duties toward fellow humanity.
Having said that, I wonder if Paul's way of dividing up the law did appear somewhat arbitrary to some of his fellow Jews. We can say "new covenant" in hindsight. But when the rubber hits the road, Paul retains certain ethical requirements and doesn't retain others.
First there is what Justin Martyr (I believe) called the moral law. These are elements of OT law that are fully retained in the NT. If we piece together comments in the NT, this includes:
1. The Ten Commandments (Exod. 20; Deut. 6; with the exception of the Sabbath legislation, at least for Gentiles)
2. Love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus; understood as a general summation of human to human ethics)
3. The sexual prohibitions of Leviticus 18 (at least insofar as they are mentioned in the NT)
From our later perspective, this list makes sense, although I'm not sure we could articulate why. One of the natural aspects to the lists is that these are things that apply easily to everyone, Jew and Gentile.
A second category that makes sense to us (but wouldn't have to Jews of Paul's day) is the category of ceremonial law. This list basically amounts to things that Paul does not retain for Gentiles (and they are largely things that separated Jew from Gentile).
1. circumcision (Galatians)
2. food laws (Mark 7; Acts 10; Colossians 2)
3. Sabbath observance (Romans 14; Colossians 2)
4. sacrificial laws (Hebrews)
A final category that is logically distinct is that of civil law. These are laws that relate to the governance of Israel as a nation.
For example,
1. laws of punishment for crimes
2. property issues, land distribution
3. "Eye for eye; tooth for tooth" (Matthew 5)
Christians debate in some respects the appropriateness of applying Israel's civil law to our contemporary world. Few would of course advocate stoning a disobedient son or stoning a person who engages in homosexual sex--indeed, few would think Jesus would advocate such a thing. But we can distinguish among Christians those who think the Sermon on the Mount decisively replaces the approach of OT law on these points (e.g., Yoder) to those who would take a very OT approach to governance if they could (Calvin, and he could ;-).
A snippet of IBS today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
xoiPerhaps my ignorance will be illustrated again, but in doing so, I hope the other responses will educate me. I have always (since becoming a Christian) understood the distinctions that you've made, but in light of the Virgina Tech shootings and our temporary move to D.C., I am thinking along the lines of law and what are my convictions.
I do believe that Americans, because we have been overall "protected" by the rule of law, do not know what it is like to live in a system where trust in not a "staple" of life. We, for the most part, live in a free and ordered society. The shock over the massacre at Virgina Tech only underlines my point. Of course, there are certain segments of our society who do not live by the "rule of law", but as a general rule, we do not live in chaos, as in the Middle East and other countries.
Because of our "trust", we are naive when it comes to "world solutions". We think that everyone thinks like we do. They don't. This is where I want to grow in the next year, international politics and law. I don't believe for one moment that if we as a NATION "turn the other cheek" we will be a "moral example" for peace and have a "world changing" impact for that cause. I do think that God commends us to seek peace and pursue it with all people if at all possible, but was this spoken to the nation of Israel or the Church? Sometimes pursuing peace is letting well enough alone.. We cannot be responsible for everyone's problems as a nation. (I just don't know right now where I am convinced of where those boundaries are.) So, as a nation, how does the "moral law" apply, except that it is the system whereby we "judge" individuals within our borders. How much of an influence can we have, as a nation, to the "world", whose cultures and values differ from ours? That is my question presently. But, I do know I will not play out where Yoder does, for I do not believe that a utopia is possible.
The civil law limited the expression of "the sin nature", as Calvin understood it. Because I do believe that we all have the tendency to "covet", "steal", etc (break the Ten Commandments), it is necessary to have the laws in place to be the standard to maintain "law and order". Does having the law in place necessarily limit some individual's "sin" in breaking it? NO! The conditioning of the child in the home, the Church, and society at large is necessary to train the child's conscience and educate the child's intellect. Again, will this necessarily prohibit the breaking of the law? NO! For the child must be educated to value society's values of law and order. Does this mean that a parent should never teach the child a way of redress concerning "rules and regulations" during the process of "growing up" and attaining adulthood, where the child ceases to need the outward rules to live by? No, for the whole process of our democracy allows there to be an appeal to law.
In the Scriptures, parents were commended to train their children in this way. But, what happens to those who have not been trained? Is this the "message of Paul" to the Gentile? That God isn't interested in "sin" so much as He is in realtionship? Does Paul use the "ceremonial law" as a means of grace instead of condemnation to the Gentile, by saying that Jesus death atoned for sin (symbolically speaking)? What God desires is a life lived before Him in "law and order". The Gentile, not having a "law" but being a law unto themselves, have "attained the laws" requirements. (I need to re-read Romans!). God is not a punitive nit-picking Judge, who demands obedience and punishes every mis-step. He longs to be gracious (and IS). It is by faith that we stand before Him!!! The Law did not bring us before Him, but gives us a "way to live" that is righteous. Righteousness (morality) is not the standard whereby we are judged (justified by faith) for the "Gentile", but is a way of life (holiness). Holiness is NOT about how one dresses, etc (ceremonial law), but in how one lives their life before God, with cleansed consciences, aware of Him, desirous of worshipping Him in all one does. It is not a will we seek but a way we live. It is ETHICS. And Ethics is law applied to relationship(s).
Actually some of the earlier Reformers held that the civil law was still in force today in as much as that which the law spoke to as requiring penality remained requiring penalty. Francis Turretin for example held this though he was willing to alter the penology required.
Personally, given Mt. 5:17 I don't know how the Church today can avoid having a high view of the whole law excepting what we have come to refer to as the 'ceremonial law.' The book of Hebrews for example clearly articulates that something like the ceremonial law is past while still insisting on the Moral Law (which includes the case law that applies IMO.)
The Church today is antinomian and continues to disregard the necessity to struggle with the proper relationship to the law. For example we continue in many quarters to speak of the evil of drink (though nothing in scripture prohibits Wine) while at the same time we advocate voting for Democrats and Republicans who hate God's law with all their being.
See Dr. Gregg Bahnsens's "Theonomy In Christian Ethics."
Odd times,
OAW
Post a Comment