There has been a push in recent years to rediscover the Jewish side of Paul. He was, after all, a Pharisee who trained under Gamaliel, and it turns out that if you start to see his writings from a rabbinic Hebrew mindset they begin to make a lot more sense. The traditional view on Paul has placed him in a sort of Greek philosophical box and this messes up our understanding of him more so than even his contemporaries dealt with at the time. This has led to a host of theological presumptions that are so widespread, they aren’t even questioned. We never dream that the words of Peter could apply to us:
15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. – 2 Peter 3:15-17
These words were written while Paul was possibly still alive, and we can confirm from other places in Scripture that Paul’s writing and teaching were misunderstood almost from the beginning of his ministry, both by the content of his own letters that frequently address these misconceptions, as well as by scenes like the one in Acts 21:17-24:
17When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. 18On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. 22What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. (emphasis mine)
It is interesting to note that Peter indicates that those who “twist” Paul’s words in error are “lawless people,” in light of this other passage in Acts. Apparently the notion that Paul taught that the Law was “done away with” or “canceled out” in some way was circulating before he was even martyred for his faith in Jesus Christ. Scripture calls this charge against Paul false here in Acts 21, yet some will try and do hermeneutic gymnastics to wave away the problem and end up agreeing instead with Paul’s accusers in charging that Paul was “against the Law.” This has also created an uncomfortable tension for many between Paul and James, particularly in a supposed contradiction between Paul’s proclamation of salvation by grace through faith apart from works and James adamant insistence on faith shown by works; or to state it in shorter form grace vs. works.
The problem with this particular conundrum is that it actually finds Paul in contradiction with himself in his own writings. In Romans for instance, Paul makes some rather startling statements about “works”:
6He will render to each one according to his works: 7to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. – Romans 2:6-8
For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. – Romans 2:13
But then of course, Paul goes on to say that all have sinned (i.e. no one keeps the Law anyway) and so it is argued that these earlier statements don’t mean what they appear to mean at face value (which is to say that obedience to God is important in some way), despite the fact that Paul concludes chapter 3 with an affirmation of that very idea:
Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Is Paul self-contradictory? When he states in 1 Corinthians 7:19 that, “For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God,” is he just blowing smoke again? Or do we have a bad handle on what Paul is trying to say as a whole perhaps?
I have spent a lot of time lately reading the letters written by Paul that make up a great deal of our New Testament. I embarked on this with great care after encountering a couple of paradigm-shifting insights that came from two different sources. One is an excellent book called Paul the Jewish Theologian by Brad Young; and the other is a 29 part sermon series from D. T. Lancaster of Beth Immanuel, which you can listen to by following the link (I recommend you listen in order although many of them stand alone very well also). The information I have gleaned from these two sources have made reading Paul a much more understandable affair. He is indeed difficult to understand without context and effort, but the work that is put into understanding him correctly is well worth it. Paul’s epistles line up well with all of the other writers of the New Testament, once you understand his idioms and his perspective as a messenger, an Apostle, to the Gentiles.
Paul’s letters are written to Gentiles primarily as instruction, that they do not need to convert to Judaism to become a part of God’s people (see Romans 9-11); and his frequent admonitions against the “works of the law” are in most cases a rebuke of those who tried to convince the Gentiles that their justification would only be complete by conversion to a legal Jewish status i.e. “works of the law.” They are not an admonition to Gentiles to forsake obedience to the instructions given by God in the law that pertain to holiness (being set apart from the world). This is why Paul sees fit to include much in his letters that amounts to instruction in righteous living, instruction that is completely in step with the commandments of the Torah as regards a life that is pleasing to God. The Law was never given for salvation (not even to Israel as some seem to think). In fact, the idea that salvation could be obtained by obedience to the Law is not taught anywhere in the Old Testament and yet some people seem to think that is what the Israelites believed and taught. In reality, their problem was a stubborn conviction that as God’s chosen people, they were automatically immune to any need to obey or follow His instructions (an attitude that shows up in many churches today), because God would forgive them no matter what they did. Paul dispenses with this notion for the Jews and consequently on any Gentile believer who might think that justification comes from some sort of “membership” in Romans 11:20b-23:
They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
Paul is very direct in warning the Gentile believers not to be cocky about their new-found position within the people of God. This is sobering stuff and Paul continues to talk about this as he winds down the book of Romans:
14I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another. 15But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God 16to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. 17In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. 18For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed
-Romans 15:14-18
Paul’s own words of what Christ accomplished through his ministry is that the Gentiles were brought to obedience by word and deed. Two thousand years removed, there are still some who wish to diminish Paul’s message and ministry as they have done since the beginning “to their own destruction.” Let us not be like that, rather “take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:17b-18)
We’ve had humorous, controversial, and thoughtful. Now, we delve into the theological.
This subject should be good for some interesting discussion.
By the way, I am going to be on the road to Fargo tomorrow and am going to be down there through Sunday evening so I will try and participate as much as I can in the discussion. I may have to play catch up after the weekend.
Brother Jeff,
Good post. How would you interpret Romans 10:1-4 and 2 Cor. 3? I’m only curious because the texts you quote in your post seem selectively chosen at the expense of others. I don’t think you meant to do that, and I’m sure in your mind the texts I’m thinking of and the ones you quoted reconcile. I’m just curious how they do in your understanding.
They are not an admonition to Gentiles to forsake obedience to the instructions given by God in the law that pertain to holiness (being set apart from the world). This is why Paul sees fit to include much in his letters that amounts to instruction in righteous living, instruction that is completely in step with the commandments of the Torah as regards a life that is pleasing to God.
While I do not believe that Paul was “against” the Mosaic Law (it pointed forward to Christ for one thing), I do believe He was free from being directly bound to it and was instead “within” (good job new HCSB) the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:20-21).
I also believe that there are “moral norms” (as Tom Schreiner calls them) that are transferred from the Mosaic law over into the New Testament that Christians are to follow (Romans 13:9).
However, I think one of the problems of advocating Christians to go back to the Law of Moses for direct obedience is that this approach inevitably introduces a disunity into that law. And I think Paul is pretty clear that the law of Moses is a unity (Galatians 3:10, 5:2).
In other words, there is going to be talk of saying things like “we are directly bound to not steal from that law, but not bound to commandments concerning food from that same law (for example)”.
I don’t think there is a problem making distinctions in the law of Moses for the purpose of clarity if someone wants to highlight a portion of the law in theological discourse. However, we should not divide biblical unities (Trinity, marriage, Mosaic Law, etc).
Darby,
You are correct in interpreting my intentions. I didn’t attempt to do a full-blown treatise of all of Paul’s writings in one post. It felt a little longish as it was. I will be glad to respond to issues that come up or questions. The two passages that you mention are in harmony with what I have presented.
I will start with Romans 10:1-4. In verse 3, Paul buttresses my point when he says, “being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.” This indicates that the problem with the Jews that Paul is referencing isn’t that they think that they can obey the Law for salvation; it is that they aren’t obeying the Law at all in preference to their own way of keeping it or doing it. Paul says they are ignorant of the righteousness of God. That righteousness comes by faith from the beginning (Romans 1:16 quoting Habakkuk 2:4). This is a problem that Jesus identified when He rebuked the Pharisees for “voiding the commandment of God in favor of their own commandments.”(Mark 7:8).
Romans 10:4 might be a perfect example of a verse where English does no justice for either the Greek behind it or the meaning Paul intended. I wrote an entire post on this one verse at my blog almost two years ago, so I don’t want to repeat all of that here. I will just quote a small bit that might shed some light for purposes here.
I admit that I am not a Greek scholar so I may be flawed in my understanding and I would invite correction in that area if someone has light to shed on where I might be wrong. Christ said he didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it(Matthew 5:17). These are rabbinic terms for incorrectly interpreting the Law and correctly interpreting respectively(if you read any rabbinic arguments of some of His contemporaries you will see them use the same terms) and that mindset fits in line with this interpretation of Paul’s statement here in my view. Just to clarify and tie this together. Romans 10:4 has to be held in some tension together with Paul’s earlier statement in 3:31 that we uphold or establish the Law by faith. Thus, Jesus is the realization of what the Law has always been intended for, not a means of obtaining righteousness (which comes by faith), but a way of recognizing what righteousness looks like both as a means of identifying the Messiah when He arrives and as a way of walking according to God’s standard, however imperfectly we might do so as we walk by faith.
I can tell that this comment is getting really long already, so if you want me to expound further on 2 Cor. 3 please say so, but here is the short version. Paul is using imagery here that is directly tied to Ezekiel 36:26 specifically, but it would be a mistake to isolate that one verse from its surrounding context in Ezekiel. The passage is about the new covenant and describes the giving of the Spirit. It further states that the function of the Spirit in this new covenant is to “cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.”(Ezekiel 36:27) If you tie this to the images from Jeremiah 31 regarding the new covenant and how the Spirit writes God’s Law on our hearts, you can start to see where Paul is going with this. Which is to say that God’s way of salvation is there in the Scripture already for those who see with the eyes of faith and exercise faith toward God. The New Covenant isn’t only in the New Testament; it is already present in the Old Testament. He says that we are being transformed into the “same image” as the Lord. It shouldn’t have to be said here, and Paul didn’t say it, but Jesus obeyed the Law and followed it perfectly. This is the path that He calls us to as well. A path of obedience for those who are of the house of faith.
Three thoughts…
1. Benji’s comment above reflects a better understanding of this issue than the original post, in my view.
2. I don’t think Paul’s writings are that hard to understand on most of these issues. I think it is unfortunate that sometimes now this discussion is being framed in something like… “My eyes have been opened afresh to the meaning of Paul’s writings… I had never really understood them before…” Gleaning the good aspects of the NPP yields some helpful nuance, but does not greatly alter the traditional understanding.
3. “Works of the law” certainly in some instances means specifically Jewish covenant markers but there are many others that it does not—one of the serious over-reaches of the NPP. This is a point that really stands out to me as I’ve just finished preaching through Rom. 3-4.
Just in response to your third point about Romans 3-4. I would agree with you as regards 3:20 but in 3:28, it is painfully obvious that Paul is using “works of the Law” to refer to Jewish status because the very next phrase is “or is God the God of Jews only?”
I think Romans 4 is the epitome of Paul’s “eureka” moment regarding justification by faith apart from circumcision and Jewish status. Galatians was probably written before Romans, but it contains the same seed of this idea as well, that Abraham was justified by faith, then later was given the sign to signify it. In Paul’s day, the sign was confused for the salvation itself. I see a similar error in groups that teach that baptism=salvation.
Benji,
I agree with most of what you have said here, particularly the aspect of unity for the Law. The Christian doctrines that teach the abolition of the Law or the passing away of the Law do great harm to that unity in my opinion.
One of the problems is that we have whiffed on the fact that Paul continued to remain obedient to Torah throughout His life and advocated that other Jews do the same. This wasn’t even up for discussion. In Acts 21:24 that I cited above, James says to Paul, “Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.” The idea that Paul disregarded or gave up his Torah lifestyle is presented as a false charge against him repeatedly in Acts, but many in the modern church have instead perpetuated the charge and agreed with Paul’s accusers against him and his own word.
The problem, at least for us today, stems from the fact that we are reading most of Paul’s writings through a prism that is shaped by centuries of church teachings about him and not letting him speak for himself or understanding context. I can cite countless examples of it, but I will focus on Galatians 5, since it is one of the passages you mention.
I presume that we can agree that the target audience of this epistle is Gentile believers in Christ. So let me point out that verse one doesn’t mean what most of us have traditionally been told it means. Paul isn’t talking about returning to slavery under “Jewish Law.” As Gentiles they weren’t under Jewish law, so they couldn’t possibly be “returning to it.” This is a statement about idolatry. As Gentiles, these believers were caught between two worlds. They weren’t Jewish converts so they didn’t receive an exemption from the Roman requirement to participate in idol worship, but as believers in Christ, they no longer wished to participate in these things. This left them in an uncomfortable position and explains the allure of the arguments from those who are trying to persuade them to be circumcised (i.e. convert to legal Jewish status). It wasn’t just about some legalism thing, rather it was more about legal status. The so-called Judaizers were teaching that legal Jewish status was necessary to “seal your salvation” for these Gentile God-fearers. In all likelihood, many of them were Jewish proselytes themselves.
Paul’s gospel is that Gentiles are included, not by legal conversion via circumcision, but by faith in Christ (Romans 11). Thus verse two is worded this way, because any Gentile who undergoes conversion to become a “son of Abraham” in the flesh, even though they are already a “son of Abraham” by faith, is saying by their action that faith in Christ wasn’t good enough to include them in the nation of Israel. Hence Christ is of “no advantage” to them. He adds to this in verse three.
Verse three flatly demonstrates Paul’s view of Jewish obligation to Torah that I highlighted previously. Jews are responsible to continue in their covenant with God, not for salvation (because salvation never came from status or membership in the covenant) but because it is their act of worship for God. Paul is warning the Gentiles who are thinking of converting that they will be “obligating” themselves to a higher standard if they do undergo conversion, a standard that Paul and the other Jewish believers already held to (Acts 21:20). By saying this, the inverse is true. The Gentile believers are held to a different standard according to God’s Law. This isn’t a radical concept as the Law itself differentiates between groups of people and their obligations. Paul finishes chapter 5 with some practical “Torah instruction” for Gentiles based on what he sees as “obvious” matters that everyone should both avoid and follow.
His warning in verse 4 is a harsh one and it gives every indication that Paul is saying Gentile believers who convert to try and gain a salvation by legal status that they already posses through faith are in danger of losing it. They are tough words and may be for effect or he may mean it literally. What these words certainly don’t mean is that seeking to obey or keep God’s commandments is forsaking grace, which is what I have heard taught on many occasions.
Verse 5 is Paul indicating that the Jews, including himself (represented by the we) are in the same place with Gentiles by faith. As verse 6 says, neither being Jewish nor being Gentile counts for anything, rather faith working through love. I believe this is a similar statement to the one he makes in 1 Cor. 7:19. For Paul, the commandment to love is the summation of the entire Torah(Gal. 5:14), which is exactly what Jesus taught as well.
If the commandment to love God and love our neighbor is the essence of the whole Torah (or Law), then keeping those commandments are all ways of demonstrating love for God and our fellow man. For Gentiles and even for Jews, they are an invitation from God to live life His Way.
“The idea that Paul disregarded or gave up his Torah lifestyle is presented as a false charge against him repeatedly in Acts, but many in the modern church have instead perpetuated the charge and agreed with Paul’s accusers against him and his own word.”
So Paul continued to offer sacrifices, observe food laws, and keep festivals and sabbath?
If we are to believe his own testimony from his epistles and the book of Acts, then I would have to say yes. Acts 21 shows him not only preparing to offer sacrifices in the Temple (for what is apparently a Nazirite vow that he personally undertook while on one of his missionary journeys), but also paying for four others to do so. This may sound strange, unless you consider that the sacrifices aren’t about getting forgiveness for sin (Hebrews 10:4).
If you can find a passage that you believe shows that Paul broke kosher diet, I am willing to discuss it (please take note that Peter didn’t break kosher either as far as we know since Acts 10 shows him refusing to eat and never shows him eating anything unclean). We tend to be unaware that the Gentile God-fearers who inhabited the synagogues and made up the bulk of the early converts to the faith would have been observing Jewish dietary laws in order to be allowed in fellowship in the synagogues themselves.
As for the festivals, we find Paul celebrated Passover with the believers in Philippi (Acts 20:6), and hurries to Jerusalem to get back before Pentecost(Acts 20:16). As for Sabbath, we see him repeatedly in Acts, meeting in synagogues on the Sabbath and preaching the gospel to Jews and God-fearers. In fact, it is harder to find an instance where he isn’t worshiping on the Sabbath in Scripture. He was careful to caution Gentiles against letting others judge them (Gentiles) on their obedience to these things(Colossians 2:16) but he doesn’t tell the Gentile believers that they shouldn’t or can’t do them.
Jeff, what about Galatians 2:11-14? Would you say that Peter was only eating with the Gentiles, but not eating what they were eating? If so, that would seem a little unnatural to me.
I am sure he was eating what they were eating, but the question is “what were they eating?” As I mentioned before, Gentiles who participated in synagogues would have kept kosher out of respect for the Jewish customs they were interested in learning and following. The church in Antioch was meeting in a synagogue when we see them as such and this is where this happened.
Two other supports as evidence that the Gentiles kept some kind of standard of kosher or clean meat. One is the Acts 15 decision itself. It is aimed at promoting fellowship together and specifically targets food at one point. Distinction is made between “things with blood” and “things strangled” which would seem to be a redundancy. “Things strangled” have blood in them after all. The reason for the repetition can be easily understood if you recognize that “strangling” as a means of slaughter renders unclean(in the sense of impure) an otherwise clean animal’s meat. If you have another reason for them to make such a distinction, I would love to hear it and discuss it.
The other piece of evidence is extrabiblical, but instructive. The Didache (which is late 1st or early 2nd century) teaches believers on several matters, but in chapter 6 it deals with this:
I think the only reason we assume that the Gentile were eating unclean meats is because we are reading backwards from today rather than understanding the conventions of the time. Greek has distinctive words for unclean and simply common or impure, and we don’t see the Jewish apostles partaking in unclean foods.
Paul’s rebuke of Peter stems from the fact that he pulled back from them because they were Gentiles, not because of what they were eating. Remember it was “forbidden” for a Jew to even eat with a Gentile no matter what they ate. If Peter rebuilds that wall of separation between Jew and Gentile, he voids all that the church has already decided in the matter and makes the Jews, like himself and Paul, hypocritical at best and sinners (for doing something they shouldn’t have been doing by eating with Gentiles) at worst. (Gal. 2:18).
So Jeff,
I suppose you won’t be having pork chops tonight for dinner? 🙂
As I said before, the Gentiles are held to a different standard by Paul and I am not trying to suggest that anyone has to stop eating pork. But I think God blesses those who chose to “take Him at His word.”
And I don’t know what we will be having tonight, but I am hoping Chili’s. 🙂
Let’s just sit down over some baby back pork ribs and hash this out, guys!
Well, you guys can. I can’t be fully certain I’m clean of Jewish blood somewhere back the line. So… it’s Hebrew National franks for me until I find out for sure.
Darby,
I think you are being a little legalistic about this pork thing. 🙂
The idea of the Law as a ‘unity’. Good job, guys!
Especially this: “For Paul, the commandment to love is the summation of the entire Torah(Gal. 5:14), which is exactly what Jesus taught as well.”
Yes, yes, yes !!!
You know you’re on the right track when the resident Catholic celebrates your theology. 🙂
The Catholic with the dear Southern Baptist grandmother, of blessed memory . . . 🙂
Or not.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 😛
No offense Christiane, it is meant in humor.
Jeff,
I think we agree that this Mosaic Law is a unity, but disagree on whether or not that unified law is directly binding upon Christians.
I think that the Law of Moses was a part of the entire shadowy O.T. which pointed forward to the Messiah who fulfills. Accordingly, I think in the N.T. there is this “inbreaking” of newness (new covenant/commandment/wineskins/creation, etc.) into this age that is a foretaste of the end in which “all things” will be made new.
Therefore, I think to “go back” to the Mosaic Law is to take a trip back into the realm of oldness (Old Covenant for example). I do not think Paul intends for the movement to be a boomerang–movement to the new, then movement back to the old. I think the movement is toward that which is better so that when we taste the [eschatological] newness we desire to taste the rest (in the new earth).
Benji,
Again, I agree with you. The distinction we need to make still is Jewish believers and Gentile believers. I do not think the law is binding on Gentiles in the same way that it is on Jews (Galatians 5:3) otherwise Paul’s statement here is extremely odd. God’s covenant’s are progressive and built on one another, and a newer one doesn’t annul or cancel an older one (Galatians 3:17). The Law was given for Israel, not for salvation but as a distinctive. If we command Jews for forsake the Law or imagine that Paul or Jesus did either, we forfeit the right to speak to them based on God’s Word (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).
I would be interested to know what you think of the passage in Deuteronomy in particular. God specifically said that no matter what signs or wonders or whatever a person does, if they try to get the Jews to forsake Torah they are to be considered evil. How would you get around that to suggest that Jewish Christians should no longer obey the Torah and still remain true to God’s Word? Did God cancel Himself out?
Jeff,
The covenant that Galatians 3:17 is referring to is the Abrahamic covenant in particular. And the law of Moses (which was wrapped up with the Old Covenant) will not undermine the Abrahamic covenant from being fulfilled.
However, the Old Covenant has now passed away (Hebrews 8:13) and I think the final nail in the coffin to it was the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.
While the Old Covenant was in force, Deuteronomly 13:1-5 was directly binding upon the Jews. However, the O.C. no longer exists and a New Covenant has been established at the cross so that Jews need to believe upon the Messiah [that the law pointed forward to in the first place] and enter into the same covenant that believing Gentiles are now a part of.
And praise God that some have!
I really think you should check out the New Covenant. It is found in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Read what it says about the Law. Or you can look at it right there in Hebrews 8:8-12. If you look at verse 8 you will find that the fault isn’t with the Law; it is with them i.e. the people of Israel. That is why God makes us a new creation and puts His spirit within us to enable us to walk according to His ways (Ezekiel 36:26). The New Covenant still contains the same instructions given in the old, it just promises a new man who has the Spirit of God enabling him to walk in it. Why does that seem so strange really?
Did God ask Israel to walk in His ways without the Spirit but then gives His Spirit and tells people not to bother anymore?
Jeff,
I don’t disagree with you in that it was not the law’s fault. It was sin in the hearts of Israelites that used the law.
Concerning the passages you mentioned, I think there can be disagreement amongst folks who are familiar with those passages.
I personally think the O.T. imagery that is used concerning the N.C. points forward to greater things than what had been experienced in the Old Covenant.
For example, part of the imagery used in talking about what it will be like in the N.C. is that neighbors will no longer talk to each other about knowing the Lord.
Now, I think that is taking literal imagery concerning literal Israelite neighbors in the O.C. to point forward to members [who might not be literal Israelite neighbors] of the N.C. not having to evangelize one another since all N.C. members already have a relationship with Christ.
Dave Miller is not my Israelite neighbor. However, I do not evangelize him because of the nature of the N.C. that he is a part of (which uses Israelite neighbor imagery).
And I think the imagery of the “law” being placed on the inside has to be interpreted in the same kind of way. I do not think it is fulfilled with literal Israelite laws being placed on the inside of N.C. Gentile believers (for example).
I think the imagery signifies that among N.C. members there is an internal sensitivity to the will of God that was not there (generally speaking) in the O.C.
If you see this figuratively, then what does it mean? What guidelines are we given? Did God have to come up with a better set of instructions. Since Jesus said the whole Law is summed up by love God and love your neighbor, and we are commanded to do both of those things directly, is it really odd to think that the Law might be instructive for even us Gentiles on how to live an upright life in the Spirit?
Honestly, I think we are pretty close to one another here, I am just throwing out some honest queries for your opinion.
Jeff,
Here is my interpretation of the flow of thought in Romans 6-8 in relation to your post.
In Romans 6 Paul explains that the believer “cannot” live in sin since the old man in Adam died with Christ and a new man in Christ emerged. Hence, now the believer is in union with Christ and not under sin & the [unified] law of Moses.
In Romans 7 Paul explains that a shift has happened in history with a one’s death to the Mosaic law [through Christ’s crosswork) so that one is now “released” from being directly bound to this impotent husband and is thus able to marry a potent husband named “Jesus”.
(I think our disagreement hangs on whether there has been this shift in salvation history of not)
7:5 talks about being in the flesh. 7:6 talks about being in the Spirit.
7:5 is elaborated in 7:7-25. I agree with Doug Moo that Paul is showing himself to be a representative Jew in the flesh. In this framework Paul explains that there was a relationship between sin and the Mosaic Law in which sin used the Law to produce sin and thus ultimately condemnation. On one level Paul sincerely wants to obey the law. On another level he can’t because he is in the flesh.
I think this is seen in Israel’s history. Israel receives the law. Sincerely [I think] says they will obey it. Calf.
7:6 is elaborated on in Romans 8:1-27. Here Paul speaks of being in the Spirit in contrast to being in the flesh. Being in the Spirit comes through Christ’s death so that one is now able to please God and kill off sinful desires by the Spirit (among other things).
I think being in the flesh and under Mosaic Law was a part of being in the Old Age that Christians are not to move back to. I think Christians are to live in harmony with the salvation “shift” that has happened away from the Law of Moses and to union with Christ in which Christ’s produces [good] fruit through the indwelling and life-giving Spirit.
Benji,
My main point of disagreement with what this is simply that it appears that the Spirit is being set in opposition to the Law in some manner. That is far from Paul’s intent. The flesh is speaking of our sin nature, but it is not speaking of the Law of God.
Specifically, I am thinking of Paul’s statement in 8:7:
The flesh is contrasted against the Law here and Paul goes on to say that the Spirit helps us do what the flesh cannot and will not do, walk in God’s ways. Paul had just finished making this basic point in the previous verses:
This idea isn’t Paul’s original thoughts. He has pulled them directly from Torah itself. You will probably recognize the quote:
I fail to see why we would need to turn to the NPP heresy to understand the errors of antinomianism. Also I noticed that there were no warnings given, which is unfortunate; younger Christians may read this blog, and, lacking necessary discernment, fall into the errors of the NPP. NPP teachings such as covenant badges and covenant faithfulness are disgustingly unbiblical, and constitute a denial of justification by faith alone.
Chase,
This isn’t a blanket endorsement of all things NPP. Would you care to make specific charges rather than vague ones. What have I presented that denies justification by faith alone?
I am not talking about a salvation issue here, I am talking about standards for a Christian walk for someone who is saved. There is a difference.
Jeff,
I am not accusing you of denying justification by faith alone or supporting NPP, so I apologize for not being clearer. I was merely expressing concern that some could get the wrong idea, as your blog post seemed, at least to me, to portray NPP in a more positive light than it deserves. I do not intend that there are no things that we can learn from NPP, but such work must be undertaken with discretion, which I am sure you possess; but many do not. Anyone who was not aware of the issues, and decided to research NPP, could very well find themselves in a large mess, and will certainly come across the NPP position on soteriology, even if it wasn’t mentioned in your post.
Chase,
Fair enough. I went back and forth about the title. I specifically used learning a “thing or two” because I feel there is some things we can learn from understanding Paul more as a rabbi than as a Greek philosopher. He didn’t fare so well in Greek philosophy in Acts 17 by his own estimation after all.
Jeff,
Thanks for the interaction brother. If you are interested, I plan on coming back on Tuesday.
God Bless,
Benji
Benji,
I have enjoyed the discussion as well. Iron sharpens iron after all, and I enjoy talking about the Word of God and learning from it.
Blessings,
Jeff
Jeff,
Concerning the O.T. texts you mentioned on the New Covenant, I think imagery was used that the Isrealites would have been familiar with in order to communicate the new nature and the new benefits of the New Covenant that was in the future.
I think to take all of these things literally would be hard to square with the N.T. as a whole.
To take everything literally would lead us to have to say:
1. That the new covenant is for the literal house of Israel and Judah. If so, then why isn’t literal Israel living out the New Covenant now.
2. That there will be a literal stone taken out of literal Israelite hearts with a literal fleshly heart placed in.
3. That literal Israelite neighbors will not evangelize one another.
In contrast to this approach, I think it is more in harmony with the shadow/fulfillment nature of Scripture to see it this way:
1. The house of Israel/Judah imagery pointed forward to the N.C. being made with spiritual Israel (believing Jews/Gentiles) who have this indentiy by virtue of being grafted into the seed of Abraham–Jesus.
2. The law upon the heart imagery pointed forward to the internal sensitivity of N.C. members to please the Lord. (it is interesting that Hebrews alters the O.T. language to say “laws”–plural–instead of “law”–singular).
3. The members of the N.C. would not evangelize one another since all would know the Lord in contrast to literal Israel who had plenty of unbelieving O.C. members
Benji,
Good points to bring up. Let me take a slightly different tack with them and see what you think.
The reason that the debate regarding circumcision (i.e. Gentile conversion) was such a hot topic in the NT, was specifically because it was preached that Gentiles were “brought near” or “grafted in” to the nation of Israel in order to be made partakers in this very literal covenant of God’s promises. The scandal and offense of Paul’s Gospel isn’t that people are set free from the Torah, it is that the Gentiles are not obligated to become Jews.
As for part two, the anti-semitism of the early church actively despised Jewish things and forced later Jews who “converted” to Christianity to renounce their Jewishness. There are many Israelites who are living out the New Covenant even today, and many more who will join them, since God’s promises are faithful and true. For centuries, a large portion of the biblical promises to the Jewish people were allegorized by most theologians in the church as meant for some “spiritual” people deeming that the church had superseded or replaced Israel and/or the Jewish people. This was terrible theology, but it has persisted in some forms even to this day. Paul gives a pretty clear expectation that God isn’t done with the Jews in Romans 11.
This is obvious metaphor unless you know someone with a literal stone heart. I imagine you are exaggerating a bit here, but the fact that a metaphor is inserted into a passage doesn’t make everything before and after the metaphor a metaphor as well. I am much more in tune with your interpretation of that in any case. As I have already mentioned, the fact that the Gentiles are held to a different standard is sort of obvious. Just the fact that we are given a pass on circumcision makes that clear. The real question is how we determine what is expected of us by God. That is a discussion worth having as well.
This part of the promise is still future for us in some sense as I believe it shifts into the final Kingdom of Heaven where sin is no longer present. But in a real sense, there is a part of this that is already operative, and I think Paul uses this when he tells us:
I think we need to take care as believers to proclaim the truth and let the Holy Spirit do the work of convicting and changing others, and I think that this is part of the sentiment in the referenced passage in Jeremiah. It anticipated this time when the Lord would put His Spirit within us to instruct us and correct us.
Jeff,
I do not think it is allegory to say that literal Israel pointed forward to spiritual Israel. I think that is typology, not allegory.
However, I do not think that literal Israel pointed forward to the church directly
I think literal Israel pointed forward to Jesus Christ who is the new Israel and those who belong to Him are spiritual Israel by virtue of being in Him.
Literal Israel was a fruitless vine that pointed forward to…finally…a fruitful Vine…the true Vine [John 15] and branches in this Israel are now a part of Israel (Jesus).
And I think this approach is in harmony with Christ saying that the Old Testament pointed to Him…the O.T. lamb, prophet, priest, king, tabernacle, temple, and Israel point directly to Jesus in my opinion.
And this is why the church [in Christ] is called in the N.T. the circumcision and the seed of Abraham.
Also, there is no indication in the book of Hebrews that any part of the New Covenant is not now in force. Therefore, I don’t think the nonevangelization of N.C. members (a part of N.C.) can be pushed forward into the future.
The move you are making reminds me of what some[?] Presbyterians do, if I’m not mistaken, concerning pushing [at least a part of] N.C. fulfillment into the future. However, I think both you and them are doing this to fit your theology without justification from the text of Scripture.
Isaiah 5 is where the fruitless vine is talked about. Good fruit, that is.
Jeff,
Concerning the Law and Spirit, I do not see this as a contrast between bad (Law) and good (Spirit).
I see the contrast as being between ineffective (Law) and effective (Spirit).
The O.T. text you cited had to do with God revealing His law to them so that they did not have to search high and low for it–it was there staring them in the face, if you will.
Paul communicates (in Romans 8:7 for example) that people who lack the indwelling Spirit cannot obey the law. And O.C. Israel lacked the indwelling Spirit. The Spirit came upon Israelite individuals, but the Spirit did not indwell O.C. Israel as a whole. And their behavior is evidence of this.
They lived in the flesh and under the Law and the law was ineffective to produce righteousness because of the power of the flesh.
I think one of the texts in Acts (and others) that you have mentioned may need to be interpreted in the light of 1 Corinthians 9:20-21. Paul had a “flexible” relationship to the Mosaic law in the he could come under it (to not put up an unnecessary hindrance to evangelizing the Jews) or he could come out from under it to evangelize the Gentiles.
However, what Paul did not have a flexible relationship towards was the Law of Christ. He was “within” that.
So, I see the movement as going from the ineffective (law) of the old age to the effective (indwelling Spirit) of the new age.
I also think the “fulfillment” of the Law spoken of in Romans 8 may be referring to love (which is spelled out in more detail in Romans 13:9).
However, to try and say that any Christian (Jew or Gentile) is under the entire law seems to turn the book of Hebrews, for example, on its head in my opinion.
This is a subtle mistake, but I wanted to address it. It isn’t the Law that is ineffective, it is us, particularly our flesh or sin nature. The Law is perfect and is holy and good, by decree of Scripture itself. I am not trying to nitpick, because you more or less say this a couple of paragraphs later, but then repeat the earlier statement about the law being ineffective.
Let me give you a puzzle regarding the Law. Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment and He said it was “love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.” Then He added that the second commandment was like it, “love your neighbor as yourself.” In Matthew, it is recorded that He said the whole law “hangs” from these two commandments(Matthew 22:40), which is to say that all of the law is summed up by these two. This teaching pervades the NT, probably since it came straight from Jesus; but how often do we consider the implications of this.
If this is literally true then all of the laws of the OT are about either loving God or loving one another. We have a tendency to divide them into civil, ceremonial and moral, but Jesus made no such distinction. I found that most of our confusion about following or keeping the Law stems from not really learning anything about it. Let me throw out a statement and get your reaction to it.
Jesus did not do all of the commandments of Torah. Would you agree or disagree?
Jeff,
I agree with you on the error of believing in a threefold “division” of the Mosiac Law.
Don’t worry about being perceived as nitpicky about this. I do not think saying the law is ineffective is a subtle mistake at all.
Paul calls the law “weak” [i.e. ineffective] because of the flesh (Romans 8:3). Righteousness will never come through the law. The Law itself [not the supposed legalistic interpretations of the law] is a ministry of death and not righteousness.
I do not think Paul’s conceptual framework allows for thinking in terms of any Christian being both under the law and in the Spirit. I think folks may try to combine these things, but I think that is a misreading of Paul. BTW, since you believe that the Law is a unity, then how do you interpret Paul when he says that those in Christ are not under the law?
I think your last question is not the easiest to answer, but I think I may know what you are trying to get at. On the one hand, Jesus came under the law and fulfilled it. On the other hand, he claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath (and seemed to act like it too)…Moo, I think, talks about Jesus “stretching the law”, if I’m not mistaken.
I suppose I would lean towards stretch, but not break.
However, I think one also has to take into account that Jesus had not yet established the New Covenant until the cross. If what you are getting at is that if Jesus obeyed the entire law and we are supposed to be like Jesus, then we must obey the entire law as well, then I think what I said above needs to be taken into account.
For example, Christ told one man to “go thy way” and “shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.” (Matthew 8:4).
Now, how is any modern Christian able to do something like that today? Jesus is the High Priest. There is no ladder to heaven unto Him now apart from death.
Also, I lean towards the idea that Galatians teaches this:
The Law of Moses was a “babysitter” [not a “tutor”] that micromanaged Israel in her immature state (this was not bad, children need babysitters to stay on their case).
But now that believers are “adult” sons of God, we are no longer under that babysitter. We are instead led by the Spirit with obvious objective boundaries as to what is and is not pleasing to the Lord (immorality is out, serving others is in for example).
I think you have to be very careful with Paul. The vast majority of his usages of the phrasing “under the law” have to do with Jewish converts or broader Jewish status depending on context. The passage you refer to is one of the exceptions, at least I assume you are talking about Galatians 5:18 as I didn’t find anything else that was close to this phrasing. If this isn’t the passage you were thinking of then please point me to the right one.
Let’s consider a couple of ways of looking at it. The most popular is probably that Paul means if you are led “by the Spirit” you are no longer subject to having to obey the Law as such. This is problematic. There is a whole other thread on this blog about people claiming to have God “talking to them” being debated as such. What does it mean to be led by the Spirit? How do you know that it is the Spirit? Paul sees this as a real danger and addresses it as such. Verse 19 immediately launches into a group of specific prohibitive “commandment” type of statements that concludes with the phrase, “those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God,” in verse 21. That doesn’t sound very “grace-like,” if you ask me.
Here is the key in my opinion and the other way of looking at this. Paul’s letter to the Galatians isn’t for the Jewish believers in Galatia. It is written to Gentiles who are being pressured to convert. It would be dangerous to proscribe Paul’s arguments or instructions here to Jews. This is what many no doubt did in the first century and why the charge against Paul arose that he was leading Jewish people away from obedience to Torah. Furthermore, the idea that Torah has different instructions for different people is not well understood. This was part of the reason for my question regarding Christ and the Law. I was pretty careful how I phrased the question, because it shows a weakness in our typical understanding of the Law. I wasn’t talking about those times when it appears that Jesus “stretches” the legal limits of the Law; rather I was hinting at commandments that He literally had no way to do at all.
The fact of the matter is that the Law contains many commands that are specific only to certain groups of people or certain circumstances or places and so on. There are laws that can only be kept by women and subsets of those that can only be kept by childbearing women or women of childbearing age even. There are laws that are only for the priests and even only for the high priest. There are laws that are only in effect in the land of Israel or only apply in Temple/Tabernacle service. If you or I were to try and do any of these things; it would be a violation of those commandments.
We still take our cues from the instruction of Torah, as you alluded to at the end of your comment. I find that it takes very little faith to walk according to those commandments of God that most people seem to agree with (like say do not lie or do not steal), it takes a person of faith to take God at His Word in all things that He says and actually rewards obedience to some of those other commands that aren’t as obvious perhaps. But this is the life of faith after all (Hebrews 11:6). We seek Him by learning His Word and His Ways. It is the walk of life(Gal. 5:16).
Jeff,
Paul’s teaching that we are not under the law is in both Romans 6:14 & Galatians 5:18.
I actually was not intending to say that we take our cues from the Torah at the end of my comment.
For example, Paul talks about the works of the flesh being “manifest” or clear in Galatians 5:19. This is an example of there being objective boundaries for those led by the Spirit.
It is not that someone could claim that they were led by the Spirit to do anything because there are these boundaries of not only what not to do [Galatians 5:19-21], but what to produce [Galatians 5:22-23].
Christians are not free from the law to sin, but to serve [Galatians 5:13]. And they are able to do this now because they are led by the Spirit.
So strong is the work of the Spirit in the new covenant age that the Ezekiel 36:27 talks about the Spirit causing obedience to God.
The law could neither cause nor enable someone to obey God.
Now, when you talk about there being rewards for obedience, I’m not sure what you are talking about.
There is a sense in which believers will be rewarded in glory for their faithfulness. However, I do not believe there is any such thing as being rewarded based on the “if you obey, then you will be blessed…if you disobey, then you will be cursed” structure of the Mosaic Law of the O.C.
That covenant has passed away and a new covenant has been established. In fact, we are legally blessed based upon Christ’s obedience and not our own in the N.C.
I would like to know on what basis you would justify that statement then. I am referring specifically to this from your comment before:
How do we determine those “obvious objective boundaries” apart from the Torah? Paul based his own teaching on Torah standards in Galatians 5.
The real sticking point is this. How do you define what it means to “walk in the Spirit” without resorting to the objective standard of righteousness that is supplied by and in the Torah? This is the crux of what I am getting at. The Torah defines what it looks like when we “walk in the Spirit.” That very term “walk” is a Jewish idiom referring to halachah, meaning the “way we walk.” This is the very reason the early believers referred to the Way, in fact when describing themselves. Torah marks the path that we walk on; both then and now.
Just as a small sampler of this:
The term is also used in reference to the prophetic aspects of the Kingdom and the New Covenant as well.
For a nice mind bender, look where the seed of Jesus’ offer to take on His yoke(a rabbinic idiom for Torah) and find rest can be located:
Take that last one and reference Paul’s argument in Romans 11:17-24 and ponder the implications for a moment.
This isn’t just an OT concept. Paul uses this idiom almost constantly about walking God’s way. The concept is thoroughly Jewish and is repeated throughout the OT. I cited just a few examples. Paul uses this expression often and you can be sure that he means it in this manner.
He isn’t the only one to say it either. Look at how John puts this in light of these and other passages from the OT:
This isn’t a new thing for them or for us. God’s Word is the only standard we have for defining what it even means to “walk in the Spirit.” It means to walk the way Jesus walked in the paths that He walked.
If we can’t or shouldn’t determine our path from the Torah, how else would you suggest that we know that we are walking according to the Spirit and in a manner “worthy of God?”
Jeff,
I think instead of allowing the O.T. to point you forward to that which is better in the N.T., you are instead trying to bring alot of O.T. shadows into the N.T. church.
Everything is better in the N.T.: Better Covenant, Priest, Prophet, King, Tabernacle, Temple…even better Law.
I think your interpretation of the “new/old commandment” that you reference is an example of where you are going wrong IMO.
It is not old in the sense that it is in the Torah or any place other than the N.T.
In fact, it is nowhere in the Old Testament
I agree with Augustine’s position–It is old in the sense that those Christians had heard it from the beginning of their Christian walk (1 John 2:7).
It is new in the sense that Jesus gave a new commandment as the new lawgiver (John 13) in harmony with the New Covenant age.
Christ gave the commandment (13:34). He did not rubber stamp or interpret Moses here. He is not scribe. He is lawgiver.
There is nowhere in the Old Testament that you will find a love commandment based on the sacrificial love example of Christ because Christ had not come and died on the cross yet.
Therefore, I think anyone who tries to “equate” love thy neighbor with the new commandment is off.
The prophet Moses gave the 10 commandments. The prophet like Moses gives the New Commandment.
I think the prophet like Moses goes up on a “mount” like Moses and gives commandments that are “higher” than Moses [Matt. 5]:
“Ye have heard that it was said [here come a Mosaic command]…But I say unto you [here comes a Christological command].”
He is not interpreting [i.e. showing us the “spirit” of the Law]. He is lawgiver, not scribe.
Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law/prophets and thus the Torah is far from being excluded. It is filled full by Jesus.
Therefore, to go back and submit directly to Moses is to go back to shadowland instead of living in the land of fulfillment (the N.T.).
It is the Apostles and [New Testament] prophets according to Ephesians 2 that are the foundation of the church, not the Torah.
The Torah is the precious word of God that points forward to Jesus.
Jeff,
I think these are three helpful things to look at:
1 Corinthians 9:21. To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law [anomos] to God, but under [Greek–“in”] the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
Notice that Paul defines “not” being antinomian with being in the realm of the law of Christ.
Matthew 7:23-24. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity [anomia]. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Notice, that Jesus connects antinomianism with “His” sayings. I think this shows that those who do not hear and do Christ’s commands are antinomian.
1 John 2:2-3, 3:4. And he [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep “his commandments”…Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth…the law [anomia]: for sin is the transgression of the law [anomia].
Notice that 1 John first refers to “Christ’s commands” and then later moves into talking about antinomianism.
Accordingly, I see the New Testament as defining antinomianism as rejecting Christ’s law in the New Covenant age.
“Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests (Heb. 7:11-14).
When there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. I could repeat it over and over, or we could just let it say what it says.
Darby,
I am perfectly content to let it say what it says, which is precisely that Jesus’ priesthood is not valid on earth, rather it operates in the Heavenly Tabernacle only. Jesus isn’t qualified to “be a priest” in the Temple on earth because He isn’t a Levite. Therefore, His priesthood is based on something else. Hence the whole need for the order of Melchizedek to be cited and explained.
This is the reason that the Levitical priesthood continued to operate until the destruction of the Temple and why Paul was perfectly fine going into the Temple to offer sacrifices in Acts 21 through the Levitical system and priests. There is no difficulty here if you understand it right, only if you think that Jesus canceled out the Levites priesthood, that was promised to them forever. That would create a problem indeed.
You earlier referred to Christ as the lawgiver not a scribe, which I totally agree with. What is causing you to feel the need to separate the Law that is present within the confines of the OT from the Law that Christ gave, in whatever place you want to cite in the NT. Did Christ give contradictory laws between the two or are they in harmony together?
I think you are mishandling what Jesus is doing in the Sermon on the Mount entirely. That is the typical way to understand what He is saying and the way I was always taught to think of it, that Jesus was “upping the ante” on the Law if you will.
It was common for a rabbi of that day (and still is really) to expound on the meaning of Torah and more importantly to “provide fences” for the Torah to help their followers in walking in that way. Jesus’ words just prior to beginning this section you are talking about is phrased like this:
I have covered the terms “abolish” and “fulfill” previously as rabbinic terms for interpreting the Law wrongly and rightly respectively, so hear what He is saying. He is about to lay out rabbinic style instructions in Torah for His disciples.
You have heard it said…but I say… is Jesus providing fences for the commandments. Let me take just one as an example. You have heard it said “do not commit adultery” (OT commandment), but I say to you “everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”(NT “Jesus commandment according to your view).
Jesus isn’t declaring that lust is a sin here, rather He is telling us that the source of the sin of adultery starts in the heart with lust and that we should root it out from there rather than being worried about “keeping up appearances.” I can show this by pointing to something else that Jesus said:
Putting this together by the way, explains the meaning of Matthew 5:20 above much better. The problem with the “righteousness of the Pharisees” was that it was completely focused on the external at the neglect of the heart.
I hate to break it to you, but we still are living in “shadowland” as long as we remain on this earth. Paul talking about “seeing through a glass darkly” and such applies to now. We have yet to see the full realization of the “land of fulfillment” (as that would be Heaven itself where sin is no longer present at all). We need those instructions precisely because we are an unclean people in the midst of an unclean people and they are the only defining characteristics that separate the holy from the common.
The Holy Spirit is given to us as a deposit and a foretaste of the good things to come beyond this land of shadow, but we only experience that insomuch as we submit to His Ways and not our own devices.
Jeff: We have Christ himself as an image to follow. It is one reason Christ’s life and ministry were written about so extensively. We are to be conformed into the image of Christ, not the image of the Law.
Debbie,
Fair enough, so let me ask a simple question. Did Jesus walk in obedience to the Law or not?
If He walked in obedience to the Law and we are supposed to walk in the way that He walked (1 John 2:6), what do you think that means?
Jeff,
I do not think Jesus contradicts Moses. I think Jesus was who Moses was pointing forward to all along so that Jesus fulfills and thus sets Moses aside.
Moses is not bad. Moses points to Jesus.
I would say the same thing concerning Jesus’ relationship to Aaron [priest] and David [king].
Concerning shadowland, there is a sense in which there is overlap between the ages. The new age has broken into this present age. There is a sense in which believers have been delivered from this present age [Gal. 1] and yet there is a sense in which they have not made it home to the New heavens and the New earth.
However, while I grant this, I still do not think the movement of Scripture is a boomerang: From shadowland [O.T.] to the land of fulfillment [N.T.] and then back to shadowland [O.T.].
I think the shadows [Moses, David, Aaron, Melchizedek, etc.] get “swallowed up” in Jesus as fulfiller.
Now, I am not clear on what you believe concerning some things. So, let me ask you some questions.
Do you believe that there is a time coming in the future in which Israel will practice the entire Mosaic Law?
Do you believe that there will come a time when Jesus will be a High Priest in heaven and Levitical priests will be serving in a literal temple on earth?
Jeff,
One more question: In what sense do you believe Jesus fulfills Moses as the prophet like Moses?
If you are simply asking if Jesus is the prophet like Moses, then the answer is an easy and short yes. If you have some other meaning behind using the word “fulfills” in that question though you will have to elaborate.
I am not trying to argue for a boomerang back to the OT either. This forum makes it difficult to communicate completely because there is so much to say. I will try and just answer your questions briefly and see if we can close some of the loops.
Many of the prophets describe exactly this, but I am not sure how this will look. There is a prophecy in Zechariah 8 that I would like to get your take on that would be relevant here:
This context of this passage is generally considered to still be future tense as much of the events described here have not happened. What do you think Zechariah is talking about here?
A few chapters later Zechariah refers to them looking on the “one they have pierced,” and in chapter 14 he suggest that all of the nations will be required to come and celebrate the Feast of Booths. Is this all allegory or is this going to happen in some real way?
This has already been the case at least once, during the first century the Levitical priests continued to perform sacrifices, and Christians (Paul and the other 4 men with him, plus the thousands of other Jews who were “zealous for the Torah”) participated in the worship and sacrifices there. Many of the priests were even believers according to Acts. If we take the prophecies of a rebuilt Temple to be true (and I find that most people do), then this situation will likely be repeated, although Hebrews indicates that Jesus’ priestly duties have been completed (hence he sat down), so that may not be accurate to say in that manner.
Jeff,
Thank you for your response. I plan on coming back next Tuesday if you want to interact some more.
God Bless,
Benji
Benji,
Sure. I have enjoyed the conversation and I love the way God uses these things to get us to think about Him and what it means to follow Him.
Blessings to you,
Jeff
Jeff,
Let me first provide a working definition of what I mean by typology [verses allegory] and fulfillment.
I agree with Anthony Thiselton (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 730) that typology is “grounded in history” whereas allegory is not.
For example, a typological interpretation of Adam interprets Adam as an actual historical figure who points forward to Christ [who is the antitype or fulfillment].
Accordingly, I believe in the typological interpretation of Scripture.
Now, when it comes to fulfillment, I agree with what Geerhardus Vos says concerning its meaning:
“the ‘telos’…is the end in the sense of final purpose, that in which the revelation-process seeking its goal comes to rest.” (The Idea of ‘Fulfillment’ of Prophecy In the Gospels)
Here is an example that I think is in harmony with what Vos is saying about “fulfillment”:
When Ezekiel 43:23 speaks of David coming back [after he died] to engage in Shepherding, I see that Davidic typology as being fulfilled in Jesus.
In this way what the type was anticipating comes to rest in Jesus so that it does not continue looking for something else for fulfillment [like a literal David].
Seeking to continue with another comment below…
Jeff,
In harmony with what I said above, I would interpret what the book of Zechariah is saying typologically with some “ultimate” fulfillments being seen in the book of Revelation.
1. The historic Jerusalem was a type that finds its fulfillment in the New Jerusalem.
Zechariah 2:4And said unto him, Run, speak to this young man, saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein: 5For I, saith the LORD, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and will be the glory in the midst of her.
Revelation 21:23And the city [New Jerusalem] had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
2. The historic Temple was a type that finds its fulfillment in the Father-Son:
Revelation 21:22And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Now, if there is no literal temple in the New Jerusalem that descends from the sky to the new earth [i.e. heaven coming to earth], then this excludes the idea that literal Levitical priests will be doing service in a literal temple.
Benji,
I am not sure that I would disagree with anything that you have put forth here. I think we are speaking in two different time frames though. I anticipate that another Temple will be built based on prophetic language and it is in that Temple that the Levitical priests will serve. When you speak of a New Jerusalem, I would assert that this is based on a time when this current earth is no longer standing. This is taken from Hebrews:
To borrow from your terms above, this should be seen as a typological example that will not be concluded until this current heaven and earth are done away with. The writer of Hebrews wrote this while the Temple still stood, but he wasn’t speaking merely of the Temple. This present age refers to the earth as it now stands. Your references in Revelation point to the time beyond this present age.
For that reason, I don’t disagree with what you are saying regarding the New Jerusalem. I just don’t think the types are completely done yet.