Getting a handle on the Old Testament (part 2)
Click HERE for part 1’s videos
Here are the remaining videos from my seminar on understanding and interpreting the Old Testament called “Once Upon A Time”. This seminar took place at Good Shepherd Church in Charlotte on July 22nd, 2012.
Topics addressed in the following clips include:
- What was the point of the Exodus plagues?
- What is the overall story of Israel’s history and why does it matter for Christians?
- Why does God seem so angry in the Old Testament? Is He being petty or capricious?
- Who were the Prophets?
NOTE: If you enjoy these videos and would like to see more like them for free here at Disciple Dojo, PLEASE consider becoming a Dojo Donor! For more information on how you can do so, click HERE or email me via the contact page!
Categories: Biblical Theology, Blog, Hebrew Bible, Ministry, Teaching Products
I’d like to discuss this a little if it’s alright…
If I understand you correctly, it seems that you understand the “Old Testament” laws to be a “guide” for the Christian. I was hoping you could explain what you mean by this. Do you mean to say that they give us spiritual principals which we should follow?
by Jacob I. on Aug 7, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Sort of. But it needs a bit of unpacking, of course.
Torah was given to the Covenant people of Israel at Sinai as their national charter and social/ethical guide in living out their end of the Covenant agreement (which they pledged to uphold as a nation and individually, as standard practice of Covenant treaties in the Ancient Near East required). All who entered into the community of Israel (either by birth, or by faith conversion; i.e. Rahab, Ruth, Caleb, etc.) were required to live according to Torah’s stipulations.
However, with the coming of the New Covenant (which the Prophets foretold), the Covenant relationship would undergo significant change in terms of outward appearance. Laws written on tablets would give way to laws written on hearts by the Spirit of God. National/Ethnic ceremonial requirements which served to set Sinai-Covenant Israel apart from pagan gentile nations would give way to inclusion and transformation of gentiles through new birth faith in Israel’s Messiah. The Sinai Covenant would no longer be the binding Covenant of God’s people…instead, the heart of the Covenant would be instilled in Messiah’s people through the Spirit of God (as Yeshua declared in the Sermon on the Mount, for instance).
Of course while this would make the Sinai Covenant stipulations obsolete as the vehicle through which the Covenant was made effectual under the New Covenant, it would not in any way “abolish” Torah as the ongoing teaching of God for His people. It would, however, require Torah to be viewed through the lens of the appearance and ministry of the long-awaited Messiah (including His inauguration of the “New Covenant” made through His blood). Thus the New Testament writers continued to base their proclamation of the Gospel and Christian ethics on the principles embedded in and encapsulated by Torah’s laws…but applying those principles in their New Covenant settings as guided by the Holy Spirit. The example of Paul’s use of the “muzzling an ox” passage or the book of Hebrews appeal to OT passages as pointing forward to the reality that would arrive with the coming of Messiah, give us much-needed insight into how the first followers of Yeshua believed the Hebrew Scriptures were to continue to operate within this nearly-uncharted territory known as the New Covenant.
I believe two mistakes followers of Yeshua have made over the centuries are:
1) Dismissing or practically ignoring the Hebrew Scriptures as having any bearing on New Covenant faith, thus removing all traces of “Jewishness” from the faith (which is the sad history of much of the early Church)
or
2) Attempting to keep Torah’s laws as ongoing Covenant requirements (albeit extremely selectively!).
I would argue that both of these are ultimately unbiblical and fall far short of the teachings of the Prophets and Apostles (and Yeshua Himself most of all!).
by jm on Aug 7, 2012 at 8:40 pm
By the way, I really enjoyed the lectures. As always you present a well-thought-out intelligent theology and encourage people to think about things from a possibly new perspective. As you said, it’s important to understand the context of the 2000+ years of G-d’s dealing with Isreal and with the world before we try to understand the NT.
In regards to the discussion at hand, I would agree with both of your points (1&2 above). #1 as you know commonly results in “Replacement Theology” which I’m sure we both agree has been an historically destructive theological position.
#2 is a little more nuanced however. I agree with you that traditionally Christians have not known what to do with the Torah’s laws and have taken a pick-and-choose approach to the Torah where those things which fit into their societal norms are still mandated (read: prohibition against Homosexuality) but things like not having relations with your wife during her monthly cycle are conveniently done away with.
My question to you however is, if all of these laws, are no longer “ongoing Covenant requirements,” what do we make of Acts 21 (brackets and emphasis mine)…
20 …Then they said to Paul, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs [read: the “National/Ethnic ceremonial requirements”]. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. THEN EVERYBODY WILL KNOW THERE IS NO TRUTH IN THESE REPORTS ABOUT YOU, BUT THAT YOU YOURSELF ARE LIVING IN OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
It seems to me that this passage, if we read it with no preconceived opinions of what it is saying, indicates that thousands of Jewish followers of Jesus including Paul were still keeping the “National/Ethnic ceremonial requirements” as proscribed by the Torah. Am I mistaken?
by Jacob I. on Aug 8, 2012 at 12:11 am
I should have included verse 26…
26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
by Jacob I. on Aug 8, 2012 at 12:43 am
No Jacob, I don’t think you’re mistaken at all. That’s precisely what they were doing.
But what we must be careful to notice is how Paul (and the rest of the NT authors) responded to this issue. It seems that for Paul, Peter, Jacob (James) and the author of Hebrews, it was never a question of “whether Jews should continue to keep Torah”…but rather, “is Torah-keeping of any salvific value now that Messiah has come?”
As staunch a Pharisee as Paul, who kept many of the requirements for proprietary and witness reasons when among his fellow Jews, was adamant that 1) for Jews the keeping the laws of Torah was no longer a means of salvation or right-standing with God and 2) for gentiles who were never under the Sinai Covenant to begin with, it was adding a layer of obligation that ran counter to the Gospel.
Of course devout Jews had trouble with this entire concept (as they should have!) because it felt like capitulation to gentile living and brought back horrible memories of the days of Antiochus, no doubt. I believe this is why God went out of His way to give Peter the vision of the unclean animals and had him stay at a tanner’s home (a ritually unclean place under Sinai Covenant law). The days of keeping Torah as a measure of one’s right-standing relationship with the God of Abraham had been brought to their intended completion by Israel’s Messiah (which would shortly be realized with the destruction of the Temple, as He had sorrowfully predicted) and the long-awaited New Covenant of Jeremiah and Ezekiel and Joel had been introduced to the world (and is still continuing to spread and be more fully realized–though not completely until Messiah’s return).
by jm on Aug 8, 2012 at 3:55 pm
If you’ll forgive me, I don’t completely understand your position. If the Torah is only written on our hearts and therefore each of us has to seek G-d and determine for ourselves how to live our lives in a Holy way (as you and Chris seem to say in the Q&A video), what does that mean practically? Can I murder? Can I commit adultery? Can I have relations with my wife while she’s having her monthly cycle? How do I know? What if G-d “tells” me something different from what He “tells” you? Who’s to say who’s right??
by Jacob I. on Aug 9, 2012 at 4:32 am
That’s a fair question, Jacob. And that’s why I included the quote from Stuart…and why I believe we MUST study Torah even though we no longer live under its covenant stipulations.
Here’s the fuller quote that I think sums it up beautifully:
“How can the employee please the boss if they employee does not take the trouble to learn what the boss wants done and what the boss has prohibited? In the new covenant, believers please God by following Christ with the help of God’s Spirit, who prompts and prods thinking and action that would otherwise be merely human with all its sinful limitations. Can the Holy Spirit use our knowledge of the Old Testament law to inform our perspectives and give us not only examples but a general framework for sensing what sort of thinking and behavior would please God under the new covenant? Of course he can – and indeed, that is just how he, the author of the old covenant law, expects us to view the material that he authored via his prophet Moses…
“That is, then, what the Old Testament law does for us as the Spirit uses it. Those who follow Christ must recognize that the Pentateuchal law is not our Covenant Law (that is, most of it has not been brought over into the new covenant from the old and therefore its commands that were direct commands to the Israelites are not direct commands to us). But this does not mean that the law somehow ceases to be the Word of God for us. On the analogy of the way that Old Testament narratives or Old Testament wisdom teachings guide us even though they don’t necessarily contain direct commands to us, the law continues to have direct relevance and usefulness even though we are under a newer covenant…
“Especially important is the fact that the law is a place where we can find out the kinds of standards that the same God who currently expects us to know him and obey him originally placed before his chosen people so that they might know him and obey him. In other words, the principles of the law have not become irrelevant to the life of the believer just because of the passage of time. What the law continues to do for us is to give us principles about what God expects in human behavior, principles that are hugely helpful in guiding us as we listen to the Holy Spirit’s leading to follow Christ…”
Taken from Dr. Douglas Stuart’s chapter on ‘Preaching from the Law’ in Gibson, Scott, ed. “Preaching the Old Testament”. Baker, Grand Rapids. 2006. pp. 87-99
So, to answer your questions directly, if someone claims that the Spirit is leading them to do something that not only goes against original Torah stipulations, but also goes against the principles behind those stipulations AND the teaching of Jesus and His Apostles in the New Testament, then we can be sure it is not the Spirit that is leading them.
by jm on Aug 9, 2012 at 4:25 pm
I actually really appreciate this perspective as it’s more nuanced than most Christians (although I had no doubt your perspective would be).
I apologize, I hope I don’t seem like I’m beating a dead horse here, I’m just still confused about how this works out when it’s not on paper (or blog).
The way I understand it you’re making a negative case for Torah. In other words, we’re not required to follow what the Torah says, but whatever we do decide to do can’t violate the principals laid out in the Torah or the deeper meanings behind them or the teachings of Jesus. Is that what I understand?
Maybe it would help if we just use practical examples…
1. Can you, James-Michael, murder someone (for the sake of simplicity let’s clarify that this is NOT self-defense and you weren’t just way better than them at martial arts and accidentally killed them).
2. Can you worship idols?
3. Can you get a tatoo?
4. Can you have relations with your (future) wife during her monthly cycle?
by Jacob I. on Aug 9, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Oops, I misspelled principles.
by Jacob I. on Aug 9, 2012 at 7:56 pm
No horses being beaten at all, man. 🙂 These are perfect questions that flow from the logical extension of the theological principles I’m suggesting.
To be clear, I’m not making “negative case for Torah”…because I’m only referring to the stipulations of the Sinai Covenant between God and Israel (Torah encompasses more than this, of course). So I don’t use “law” or “Torah” interchangeably as many Christians have regrettably done in the past.
In fact, the Hebrew verb from which “Torah” derives means “to teach, to instruct” (as I’m sure you know, but readers may not). It doesn’t mean “law.” It does, however, contain laws…laws that Covenant national Israel was to live under as a society and individually.
But as Paul and James both point out, there was a moral “law” (so to speak) before the giving of the Sinai Covenant. Thus God’s moral “law” cannot be synomymous with Sinai Covenant Law (though Sinai Covenant Law was a reflection of God’s moral “law” to His Covenant people at that point in their Covenant history with Him).
I just want to make clear that (I would claim) I’m actually arguing for the upholding of God’s true “Torah”, as I believe Yeshua was doing in the Sermon on the Mount and Paul was doing in his letters such as Romans, Colossians and Galatians, and as the author of Hebrews is doing throughout that entire sermon. This true Torah is God’s moral law written on human hearts through God’s indwelling Spirit and the community of believers together in Covenant with Messiah…and it is the means by which God keeps His Covenant promises to Abraham’s seed (both Jew and Gentile together) even though Israel as a nation broke the Sinai Covenant under which they were to live, as Jeremiah explicitly proclaims in ch.31 of his book.
As for your questions, I’ll answer them as briefly and directly as possible…but I’m doing so from the perspective of one who was never under the Sinai Covenant to begin with, but rather, was “grafted in” to the family of Abraham and has become a “co-heir” to the promises of Israel through faith in Israel’s Messiah (Eph.2):
1. No. Murder was prohibited long before Sinai and is a direct assault on the Image of God. It is a breaking of BOTH of the 2 greatest commandments.
2. No. Worshiping any other God was also a sin before Sinai and one cannot keep the greatest commandment and still participate in it. The New Testament specifically commands believers to reject and flee from actual idolatry in whatever form it may take for them.
3. Yes. The only prohibition of tattoos is found in the Sinai Covenant and (I would argue based on context and vocab) is an admonition to avoid Canaanite magical/idolatrous/religious practice. Marking the body in and of itself is not presented as an immoral practice (and God Himself even used the image of such in describing His steadfast commitment to His people in Isaiah 49:16–albeit using a different term than Leviticus 19 does). HOWEVER…as with all kinds of ethical decisions in the New Covenant, one’s conscience is to be the final arbiter. If someone can glorify God and love their neighbor by getting a tattoo (as I believe to be very possible–and why I got mine, actually!) then they are free to do so. But if one does it out of impure motives, or their tattoo intentionally communicates a message that is opposed to the Gospel in any way, then for them to get one would be a sin. For a Jewish follower of Yeshua, I believe this would be a more difficult decision because of the cultural practice of their historical ethnic/religious community…but so would things like not eating kosher (as both Peter and Paul did).
Note: For an answer from my friend and leading Messianic OT scholar Dr. Michael Brown on the subject, see the following podcast beginning at the 8:40 min mark: http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2009/11/24/november-24-2009/
4. Honestly, this one is one that my mind is still not 100% made up on…but I lean toward answering “yes…but only if it is mutually consensual and uplifts, loves, and encourages her–which, not being married or being a woman who experiences menstruation myself, I cannot speak authoritatively on! The reason I say I’m not totally convinced one way or another is because of where within Torah this prohibition is found (namely, the Holiness Code’s description of sexual ethics). The prohibited practices that this prohibition is surrounded by, contextually, are all seen as grounds for God’s anger against both the Egyptians and Canaanites. But at the same time, some of the practices prohibited in that section (incest) were not prohibited from the beginning (i.e. Adam and Eve’s offspring most likely practiced it to a degree…though the text does not tell us specifics and I don’t want to base an ethical decision too heavily on speculation). Since the New Testament does not mention this practice (as it does with the other sexual practices in the Holiness Code) I believe the practice of consensual marital sex during menstruation would fall within the “meat offered to idols” category of New Covenant ethics and Spirit-filled believers could come to different personal conclusions based on their consciences and individual experiences. Perhaps some would label this answer as a “cop-out” but I believe that there are some areas of gray…and it seems the Apostles did as well.
by jm on Aug 9, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Now we’re getting somewhere! So one last question…
What then do you make of Acts 15 and 21 where James and Peter specifically forbid Gentile followers of Yeshua from…
1. eating meat sacrificed to idols
2. eating blood
3. committing sexual immorality
4. eating meat that was killed by strangling
And what does this mean for modern day Christians?
by Jacob I. on Aug 9, 2012 at 9:56 pm
I believe they their letter to the Gentiles must be read in balance with Paul’s words to Gentile believers, of course (Peter vouching for Paul’s writings as Scripture in his 2nd letter is huge in this regard). If we take this as a blanket statement to all believers for all time then Paul certainly is guilty of charges by his opponents that he was leading people away from Torah and the God of Israel!
Contextually, I believe the Jerusalem Church was giving pastoral guidance to new gentile converts to break away from their pagan religious practices (which I would argue each of these prohibitions reflects) in order to remove any obstacle or unnecessary barrier for the watching Jewish communities coming to faith in Messiah. They were standing on the precipice of history and the paradigm shift taking place within their midst should not be overlooked. The Holy Spirit was moving and guiding them as a community transitioning from the Sinai Covenant to the Messianic New Covenant.
The Epistles in the rest of the New Testament provide the lens through which this narrative in Acts must be interpreted, rather than vice versa (especially since most of the Epistles pre-date Luke’s account and provide a window into the earliest followers of Yeshua’s lives and ethics).
by jm on Aug 9, 2012 at 10:06 pm
“then Paul certainly is guilty of charges by his opponents that he was leading people away from Torah and the God of Israel! ”
Be careful! If you reread Acts 21, it wasn’t that they were accusing him of leading PEOPLE away from Torah and from the G-d of Israel, but that he was leading JEWS away from Torah and the G-d of Israel. Very important difference.
by Jacob I. on Aug 9, 2012 at 10:59 pm
I’m not convinced that it is though. The author of Hebrews seems to agree with Paul’s approach, but is writing to Jews. Likewise, Paul himself was a Hebrew of Hebrews, yet did not put salvific value in keeping Sinai stipulations…though he did recognize cultural/missional reasons for doing so.
by jm on Aug 9, 2012 at 11:15 pm
Ahh… this is where we see things differently.
(We can tackle Hebrews later, for simplicity let’s stick with Paul for now).
1. I agree Paul clearly states that keeping of the stipulations of the Sinai covenant is of no salvific value. But as far as I can understand, his argument in Romans and Galatians is that it was NEVER of any salvific value. He says specifically (Romans 4) that Abraham had faith in G-d and that was counted to him as righteousness and that this came BEFORE he was given circumcision. So Paul himself says that Abraham’s righteousness could not have been a result of circumcision or commandment keeping. So if it was never of any salvific value to begin with, why was he given circumcision at all? Paul says (Rom. 4:11) that it was a sign of his righteousness, a seal. I understand this to mean that now that he has been “saved” (to use an anachronism) by faith, he should live a holy life by circumcising himself and his family and following the commandments of G-d. This is the same argument Jacob (James) makes in his Epistle.
The problem is when we assume that because Paul says the law is of no salvific value that he is saying it is no longer beneficial. In my opinion this is why we see all the Jewish followers of Jesus, including Paul, continuing to follow the stipulations of the Sinai covenant. Not unto salvation, but, for lack of a more eloquent phrase, because G-d said so.
2. Which brings us to your second statement that Paul “recognized cultural/missional reasons” for keeping the Law. Where do you see evidence that this was his reason his observing the Law?
by Jacob I. on Aug 10, 2012 at 12:06 am
Yes, Jacob, we definitely see it differently. 🙂
I believe Paul’s argument is that one’s salvation is entirely by faith, even in the Hebrew Scriptures…but I don’t believe it follows that one’s continued standing among the people of God under the Sinai Covenant does not require keeping the Sinai commandments. Indeed, while one’s entry into the People of God (Israel) was initially by faith (even if they were gentiles, i.e. Rahab, Ruth, etc.)…one would be “cut off” from the People of God if they rejected the keeping of Sinai Covenant stipulations. In other words, by not keeping the Sinai commandments, one was demonstrating that their faith was not (or no longer) genuine.
[BTW, This is where I see much continuity with the New Covenant and the “faith vs. works” issue. In the New Covenant, one’s salvation is not initiated by good deeds…but as Jacob (James) makes emphatic, a lack of good deeds reveals one’s faith as not (or no longer) genuine, and they stand in danger of God’s judgment against sin and evil and wickedness on the final Day of the Lord.]
I somewhat agree with this…but it must take into account the completion of the Sinai Covenant and the inauguration of the New Covenant. Abraham did not keep Sinai’s commandments (obviously!) because they were still 400+ years away. Rather, he was obedient to God’s commands to him and the revealed moral law of God he had through his relationship with Him. Only with the arrival of Exodus 20 do the Sinai Covenant stipulations become requirements for God’s people to keep.
Similarly, once the Sinai Covenant was broken (repeatedly), and God promised to send a New Covenant that was not like the Sinai Covenant (as both Jeremiah and Ezekiel emphasized), with the arrival of this New Covenant and the sending of the Holy Spirit to all who enter into Covenant with Him through Messiah, the commandments of Sinai are no longer the required commandments of God’s People. Of course people are free to continue keeping various ones of them for a variety of reasons and depending upon their conscience and social situation (as Paul taught the mixed Jew-and-Gentile congregation in Rome), but Sinai commandments are no longer a badge of one’s standing in Covenant relationship to God.
So to answer your 2nd question, I believe the entire tenor of Paul’s ministry demonstrated that he did not believe keeping Sinai’s commandments had a continued bearing on one’s standing before God in righteousness. If Paul did believe that he was still required to keep the commandments in order to maintain obedience or righteousness before God it’s hard to imagine he’d write the following to followers of Jesus (Jew and Gentile):
Similarly in Acts 16 Paul has Timothy circumcised, it seems, for entirely pragmatic/missional reasons rather than out of any requirement that Timothy conform to Sinai’s (or even Abrahamic) regulations. And again in Acts 21 Paul’s making the purification vow seems to be done entirely for missional purposes rather than out of his own sense of obedience or it being necessary.
In fact he explains this strategy to the Corinthian believers:
From dietary requirements, to sabbath observance, it seems that Paul believed continued keeping of those by Jews was perfectly fine, but not required of them for membership within the Kingdom of the Messiah, where they would stand alongside Gentiles who were grafted in to full-standing within the Covenant People of God (Rom.9-11, Eph.2, Gal., etc.).
Of course with the destruction of the Temple (as Yeshua prophesied), it would no longer even be possible to observe the actual Sinai Commandments in full. They would have to be modified severely (as Rabbinic Judaism did, and as it seems you are in favor of…though I may be hearing you wrongly, so please feel free to clarify).
by jm on Aug 10, 2012 at 1:27 am
[…] lives of followers of Jesus. (You can read our discussion in the comments section at the bottom of THIS post to catch up!) Jacob is a Jewish follower of Jesus and a good friend of mine who I respect, even […]
by Disciple Dojo – JMSmith.org » Dojo Dialogue with a Jewish friend coming soon! on Aug 10, 2012 at 5:35 pm