What Did You Sign Up For? – Part 1
A Review of Herman Hoeh’s “Which Old Testament Laws Should We Keep Today?”
By Neo
This is a review of an article written by Herman Hoeh titled “Which Old Testament Laws Should We Keep Today.” The copy of the article that I will be reviewing is dated 1971. I have found no subsequent revisions. This document represents the vetted Armstrongist statement on this topic. It was written by Herman Hoeh under the aegis of Herbert W. Armstrong, regarded as an Apostle by the dispersed Armstrongist organizations. Followers of Apostle Herbert W. Armstrong cannot abrogate or revise his words or words he approved just as they cannot abrogate or revise the words of the Apostle Paul. So there is no need to review the writings of organizations derived from the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) on this topic. Any writing with standing in the Armstrongist theological and Apostolic tradition will be compatible with Hoeh’s article. Any article published by a denomination derived from the WCG that conflicts with this article will be a renunciation of Herbert W. Armstrong’s Apostleship.
Two Models of Biblical Jurisprudence
Hoeh emphasized the importance of this topic. He stated in the article “Everyone needs to understand in detail the answer to this question. Christian growth – ones very character – depends on understanding the answer to this question.” This analysis will begin by defining two models that provide a means of comparing the Hoehist view of the law with the Christian view.
Model 1: The Hoehist Model
1. The Old Testament litigation (OT) contains God’s spiritual law from the beginning.
Hoeh’s statement: “First, remember that God’s basic spiritual laws existed from the beginning. . . God will not alter his spiritual laws. The spiritual laws describe the very character of God. They enable us to know what God is like.”
2. Parts of the litigation in the Old Testament are still in force.
Hoeh wrote: “’Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel (Mal 4:4).’ This law we are not to forget. We are to keep it.”
3. The New Testament (NT) is a spiritual enhancement of the Old Testament.
Hoeh wrote: “The purpose of Christ’s teachings in the “Sermon on the Mount” was to magnify the Old Testament law, not annul it.”
Model 2: A Common Christian Model
1. God has an eternal law by which he lives. He is not subject to an external law but he is a law unto himself (sibi ipse ex).
2. The Old Testament litigation is an instantiation of the eternal law adapted for use by the ancient nation of Israel. The Old Testament is derived from 1 above and, therefore, in part resembles 3 below.
3. The New Testament litigation is an instantiation of the eternal law adapted for use by all of mankind under Christianity. The New Testament is derived from 1 above and, therefore, in part resembles 2 above.
The Eternal Law
During the Middle Ages there was a controversy in the church about God’s relationship to law. This was known as the Ex Lex Debate. Some concluded that God was subject (sub legi) to some kind of law. But this seemed to make this law superior to God. This debate was resolved with the conclusion that God is sibi ipse ex, a law unto himself. This eternal law was defined by Thomas Aquinas as follows:
“By “Eternal Law’” Aquinas means God’s rational purpose and plan for all things. And because the Eternal Law is part of God’s mind then it has always, and will always, exist. The Eternal Law is not simply something that God decided at some point to write (“Ethics for A-level”, Max Dimmock, Andrew Fisher).”
It is not clear what Hoeh meant in the term “from the beginning” in his description of the essential spiritual law in point 1 of his model. One might conclude from this that he is referring to the creation of the universe or the creation of Adam. But his statement, “The spiritual laws describe the very character of God” places this law in the category of the eternal law in the Christian model because God’s character is eternal. And in this Hoeh departs from orthodoxy.
The Old Testament Litigation was Implemented for Humans
Strategically, Hoeh has positioned the Old Testament litigation as the Eternal Law in his model. This seems to lock the Old Testament litigation into place and would prevent it from ever being superseded. Note that he states explicitly, “God will not alter his spiritual laws.” This sets up his later argument that the New Testament does not replace the Old Testament but extends it spiritually. But the Old Testament litigation is clearly an adaptation for human beings. It speaks of the seventh day, stealing, coveting, lying and adultery. These are human, earth bound activities and concepts. In the depths of timelessness, why would God have, as a part of his essence, a law against adultery when human sexuality had not yet been created? Why would we think that any temporary human concerns and attributes would be a part of his essential eternal law?
The OT and NT are both adaptations of the eternal law to human conditions as the Christian model indicates. The OT and NT are based on the eternal law but they are not the eternal law itself. The eternal law is intelligible to us in some of its features because we are made in the image of God. God can instantiate other laws as needed. Perhaps, there are laws that pertain to angels that we would not even understand. God can also modify or revoke this litigation. That the OT is based on human circumstances and is not in the category of the eternal law is so self-evident that it cannot be denied by the rational mind.
The Ten Commandments will always exist as long as humans exist. They are meant for humans. When humans cease to exist as humans through resurrection, we cannot really expect these laws to continue. This clearly marks them as a special implementation of the eternal law not the law itself which will never go away. But there will be other laws for resurrected human beings. No doubt this litigation will have points in common with both the NT and OT because they are derived from a common source, God’s Eternal Law that reflects God himself.
Did God Have a Foreskin?
Did you sign up to observe the OT litigation? You are responsible for keeping the statutes, judgments, ordinances and laws in the OT according to Herman Hoeh. These are a part of God’s spiritual law which God will not alter. Although circumcision was implemented through an Abrahamic Covenant, it was later incorporated into the OT litigation and conveyed by Moses to Israel (Leviticus 12: 1-2). (A question to pose here is if circumcision is a part of God’s unalterable spiritual law, why did God alter it by making it spiritual in the NT? Apparently OT laws can be altered contrary to Hoeh’s assertion.)
Why would God make circumcision a part of his spiritual law that describes the very character of God from eternity as Hoeh claimed? Does God, in his essence, have a foreskin? The inclusion of circumcision in the Mosaic Law would suggest so. Hoeh states, “They (spiritual laws) enable us to know what God is like.” Here we collide with another troublesome area in Armstrongist theology concerning the Doctrine of God. The idea that God’s eternal law would include circumcision comports with the mistaken Armstrongist idea that God in his essence has a body. This means he would have always had a body, was always male and always had a foreskin in his essential being and circumcision would then have some kind of meaning. And the claim that the OT litigation is God’s eternal spiritual law exalts the OT to eternal, essential divine status and at the same to demotes God to a human-like bodily state. We understand circumcision to have been transformed into a spiritual condition under the NT but its inclusion in the part of the Mosaic Law to be kept leads one to a review of other eternal laws that one may have signed up to keep without being aware of it.
Coda - Part 1
The OT litigation, including the Ten Commandments, started within the created human sphere and will end within that sphere. Hoeh missed the boat. He did not understand that the OT was an instantiation of a higher divine law that reflects the nature of God himself. He mistakenly set up the human-oriented OT litigation as this Eternal Law and then proclaimed it inviolate and slid chunks of it into his formulation of the New Testament. If Hoeh made this kind of mistake, what are you really signed up for? But that is a topic that I will continue to examine in Part 2.
28 comments:
which takes us back to John 6:44.
there is no way to make you understand.....
NEO,
Great post! You clearly articulated the problems inherent in the Armstrongist view of the law. Armstrong and his followers always ignore the fact that Moses gave his law to ISRAEL (and that's not even addressing the fact that Moses was NOT the author of the entire Torah). Of course, from the Armstrongist point of view, why bother with that distinction since the English-speaking and Northwestern Europeans were Israel (and it has already been conclusively demonstrated that they were wrong about that too).
Armstrong always liked to frame the argument as one of "doing away with the law." In other words, he erected a straw man! Common sense dictates that the designation of OLD and NEW denotes change. For Christ, the eternal principles were love for God and each other. Moreover, the New Testament writings make plain that the surest way to demonstrate our love for God was by loving each other. Armstrong sought to portray his own position as one of law AND grace. The reality, however, was that the LAW was supreme for Armstrong and his followers - the dos and the don'ts were essential for "TRUE" Christians (even though they never came up with a reasonable explanation for why they had done away with certain provisions of the law).
Again, well done! Looking forward to Part 2.
Lonnie
The ten commandments apply equally to angels. In the OT, God often calls departing from his laws adultery. So human marriage is a design parallel to being faithful to God's way. The Sabbath would also apply to spirit beings. Dedicating a day a week to draw close to Gods ways makes sense.
This author like the ACOGs, shys away from certain fundamentals. Such as the preciousness of life, the ultimate value. And that Christ expanded this when He pointed out that the purpose of a moral code is to "save life, and do good." That is, the preservation of life and the achievement of success. The ACOGs reject this this since they informally believe in bully morality. Bully morality says that they have all worth and others have no worth. They have all rights and others have non. To implement tyranny, church members are treated as if it's a crime they they are alive.
It's bully morality, exploitative rule rigging, blind rule following, and some truth, that defines the Herb churches.
Btw, God tells the wicked in the OT (Isaiah 55:7) to forsake their thoughts, so Christ teaching to not even think adultrous thoughts and similar, is not new.
Anonymous (5:42)
I appreciate your comment and hope I can get you to see this. You correctly identify that adultery has an essential ethical meaning. It has to do, in some respect, with loyalty. Adultery is an act of disloyalty. Angels can be disloyal and this is an evil act.
The Eternal Law of God is, then, concerned in principle with loyalty and disloyalty as a spiritual condition. God used this eternal law to create a law for angels and a law for human beings. In the OT context, that law was the 10 commandments. In the angelic realm that law was another instance of the eternal principle involving loyalty and disloyalty but suited to angels. But neither the 10 Commandments or the Angelic Law are God's Eternal Law. They are both downstream derivatives of God's Eternal Law.
Both the law against adultery in the 10 Commandments and the law against disloyalty for angels are derived from the Eternal Law of God and are, therefore, similar. But they are separate applications of the same Eternal Law. It is clearly not the case that the 10 Commandments in the human realm apply to angels in the angelic realm. Angels do not marry and, hence, do not commit adultery. Humans have the potential for that misbehavior.
This may seem like an insignificant nuance of wording but it leads to people observing OT laws when they don't have to and to a forsaking of Christianity.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
I believe our Lord Jesus came to his people with a message about the kingdom of God and believers are called to a life of obedience to God and if you came with a message then obviously you are a messenger. Remember that Jesus prayed to God and that God sent him, he didn't send or pray to himself, so Jesus was just a messenger.
The ideal: circumcision of the heart and flesh
Dt 10:15 Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.
Dt 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
“Here, Moses also makes it clear that it [lasting contentment] is not to be found simply in religious ceremonies either. The Lord is specially concerned about those things which cultivate the inner life of the individual believer and the covenant community to which he belongs. The covenant’s first obligation, clearly stated in this passage (10:12), is not that they obey the rules but that they fear the Lord. Moses’ reference to the Lord’s electing-love for their forefathers (10:15) naturally recalls the story of how the covenant-sign of circumcision was given to the patriarchs” (Raymond Brown, The Message of Deuteronomy, BST, p.139).
Jos 5:4a And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise:
Jos 5:5b all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised.
Jos 5:10 And the children of Israel [and the children of the mixed multitude?] encamped in Gilgal, and kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month at even in the plains of Jericho.
“Here, however, as the people are about to enter the land promised to the patriarchs, Moses tells them that it is far more important to circumcise their hearts (10:16; 30:6) than their bodies. In the teaching of this book, attitudes and motives are of greater spiritual value that correct ceremonial observances. R.E. Clements has pointed out that the ‘personalising and spiritualising of worship is a very marked feature’ of Deuteronomy. ‘Loving’ God (11:22) is infinitely preferable to performed rituals. Love for the Lord is to be genuine and earnest: with all your heart and with all your soul - a recurrent phrase in Moses’ teaching (4:29; 6:5; 10:12; 11:13; 13:3; 26:16; 30:2, 6, 10)” (Raymond Brown, The Message of Deuteronomy, BST, p.139).
Jer 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem...
Ro 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter
“circumcise yourselves (4). To which the answer might well have been, ‘We are already circumcised’. But Jeremiah insists like Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:16, that this must be circumcision of the heart (an idea that was not invented by Paul, though he gladly used it)...
“Repentance involves a radical new beginning with God, with a fresh surrender of heart, mind and will, of worship and life, to him as covenant Lord...” (Christopher J. Wright, The Message of Jeremiah, BST, pp.89-90).
“Paul’s observation in Rom 2:28f is not some new spiritual insight but an authentic articulation of the ethos of the Torah itself” (Christopher Wright, Deuteronomy, NIBC, pp.151-52)
Jer 6:10b behold, their ear is uncircumcised [aperitmetos, [LXX], and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it. (Cp. aperitmetos in Acts 7:51)
Dt 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
"Another objection also came to the author's attention and must have cut deeply into the message of hope. Its essential thought line ran: Even granting that all that is said about the covenant, its law, and its promise for the future, does not the covenant itself, backed up by the entire past history of Israel, show that the same disasters would overtake the nation again? If disobedience to the law carried such terrible consequences, and if the nature of Israel in the future remained what it had been in the past, would not the same consequences befall Israel yet again? One way or another the nation was doomed!
The ideal: circumcision of the heart and flesh - Part 2
"This serious objective is counted by the words of 30:6: "God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live." God would transform the inner mind and spirit of Israel by "circumcising" the hearts of the people in order to implant the will to obey the commandments. The theology is virtually identical to that expressed in Jer 31:33-34 and Ezek 36:25-27. By a spiritual transformation the power of God would create a new spirit of obedience within every Israelite. God would give the power and the willingness to obey" (Ronald E. Clements, The Book of Deuteronomy, NIB, p.513).
(Note: Clements dates Deuteronomy to the later time of the Kingdom of Judah - centred around Josiah. The "entire" history of the 40 year wilderness period, with one broken and renewed covenant would not have been encouraging for Moses if not for this promise of God).
Ex 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised [aperitmetos, LXX] person shall eat thereof.
Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised [aperitmetos, LXX] in heart, nor uncircumcised [aperitmetos, LXX] in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary [miqdash], of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.
"... Yahweh takes the first step to safeguard the holiness of the temple and its cult: he bars all who are outside the covenant community from the sacred precinct (v.9). Obviously answering to the offenses described in vv.7-8, Ezekiel reaffirms the Mosaic restrictions (Exod 12:43-51) on access to the sanctuary. Resident foreigners who had not identified with Israel physically and spiritually were prohibited entry" (Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel - Chapters 25-48, NICOT, p.626).
Under the OC the ideal of being circumcised in both flesh and heart was unrealized; in the NC the ideal of being circumcised in both flesh and heart will be realized; that is, if your understanding is that when Jesus Christ restores the kingdom to Israel (cp. Acts 1:6) the Ezekielian Torah applies and God fulfils the promise made to transform the people when the covenant was being renewed on the plains of Moab nearly forty years after Horeb.
An aside:
Dr. Motyer's compact description of the psalmists - that they were people who knew far less about God than we do, yet loved him a great deal more -is a crucial guide for interpreting the anguished cries, shouts of praise, and declarations of love we meet in God's own Prayer Book. It is clear at some points that we are reading authors who were writing about God's salvation before the "fullness of time" had come and the Cross laid bare God's plan for saving the world. And yet the psalmists-with their less granular understanding of the outworkings of it all-did indeed grasp the gospel of salvation by grace, substitutionary atonement, and faith. Across the 150 psalms we see virtually every human condition and emotion set before God and transfigured by prayer. The authors' love for God convicts, uplifts, and instructs us as nothing else can. Through Motyer and Kidner I was ushered into a new stage in my journey toward fellowship with God...” (Tim Keller - thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/
j-alec-motyer-1924-2016/).
Each side can find strong scriptural support for their position - law required and law not required.
This is because the bible was written over a long period of time by different authors with different points of view that they were promoting.
Take a single topic like what happens after you die.
Are you dead?
Waiting for a resurrection?
In heaven?
Alive in a resting place?
In torment if you lived a bad life?
You can find scriptures to support any of these positions, but then you have to explain away or ignore the scriptures that disagree with you.
Or you can perform magic tricks to focus your followers attention on trivial matters like explaining how Jacob came to Egypt with both 70 and 75 people.
NEO put together an argument that some scholars would run with - such as Philo of Alexandria, some of the Ante-Nicene fathers, anyone steeped in pagan Greek philosophy. But if the Apostolic Scriptures (NT) do not fit hand-in-glove with the TaNaKh (OT) then the Jews who rejected "Christianity" were correct, and would accuse your "good news" as fake news.
Sorry, but, leaving on a positive note, I appreciate the effort you put into your work, but I can't agree with it.
Trypho, you wrote "But if the Apostolic Scriptures (NT) do not fit hand-in-glove with the TaNaKh (OT) then the Jews who rejected "Christianity" were correct"
If you wish to see the NT as a kind of clone of the OT, then you have a conundrum to deal with. Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount repeatedly departed from the Torah. Jesus would say words like "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time. . ." and then give his alternative to the Torah. In your disagreement do you reject Jesus also?
While the Greek philosophers may have influenced Jewish thinking, was their influence received without the necessary adaptation to the scriptures by adherents of the Judeo-Christian Tradition? Pointing out that God is a spirit and has no body was not simply accepted prima facie but has been subsumed with appropriate deliberation into NT theology by the Jesus Movement. Its basis in rationality is so secure, that the burden would be on you to demonstrate that it makes sense that the anthropomorphisms of the OT refer to God's in his true essence.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
So Jesus did not do away with God's laws and we must obey God this clear from reading the bible.
Laws added because of transgressions - Gal 3:17-19 - may now be removed, whereas the transgressions indicate laws were existing before more laws were added, and the laws existing before addition of more laws may not now be removed.
NEO wrote "ye have heard"
Although literacy in the first century was very low (I think Bart Ehrman estimated about 10%) "hearing" has been accepted to mean "oral tradition". The "jot and tittle" is referring to the written word.
As for Greek exegesis of scripture, I heard at least one commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Prof Ehrman again) that interpreted some passages regarding shadows using Plato's Cave. That is unlikely to have been the intention of the author, although Paul had made reference to Greek poetry.
Anonymous (12:54)
Paul in Galatians 3 is speaking of the Abrahamic promise and the Mosaic Law. He is saying that the Mosaic Law ( the whole package) was added 430 years after the giving of the Abrahamic Promise because of trangressions of God's eternal law which is always in force. This is not a reference to sacrifices being added to the Mosaic Law as the context of Galatians 3 indicates. That was a little sleight of hand. Read it for yourself. And show me where it explicitly states where the rituals were the added law. When Paul says The Law, he means he Mosaic Law.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
After reading NEO's succinct summary (as contrasted to Bob's deluge of deluded diatribe) I didn't feel like adding my 2c. But some of the anonymice had good comments that goaded me to chime in.
Armstrong's Angels messed up plan A, so God pulled out plan B. Okay, okay, some say plan B worked, and some say it didn't. The latter required Jesus, who was "a prophet like unto Moses (who was not Gerald Flurry)" to come up with plan C. Some say to complement plan B (C for Completeness) and some say C for Cancel plan B, Jesus' real plan all along.
Then Jesus said He wasn't speaking His words, He was saying the Father's words. The Pharisees were on to Jesus for not adhering to all their "Blue Laws" on the Sabbath, and COVID care about hand washing. But they didn't, to His face, blame Him for breaking Torah - until His trial, where accusers made stuff up to convince Pilate.
Okay, Paul gets the the same treatment - he's breaking Torah, according to the mobs in Jerusalem. Then Paul says he's kept ALL the Torah Law, and ALL the Oral Law. But (as Peter warned) his epistles get twisted into things they don't really say, or else he was lying to his accusers. Did he just put on a bulls and goats act (ending a Nazarite vow) to save his neck? And who were all the Jewish believers who were still "Zealous for the Law"?
Sorry, I overspent on adding my 2c and chiming in turned into a Big Ben. I actually feel like going on but I don't want Bob to say I'm being a hypocritical copycat. Or ditto dog. Sorry NEO.
NEO, no, I don't reject Jesus as Messiah, I just feel most forms of Christianity (including chunks of Armstrongism) misrepresent His message and purpose. It's another quest for "The Real Jesus" or rather, the real message of Jesus. As one pastor summarized Jesus and the Law, He came not to remove the Law, He came to remove the Loopholes.
With the Law, and the NT rendering in English, Law can mean Torah, Oral, natural, manmade, tradition, the "18 measures (how Jews are to treat Gentiles)" and so on. The sage Avraham Heschel lamented that when the Septuagint was written, the Greek word nómos was used for ALL of those "laws" - so in a way, the Apostolic scriptures in Greek muddied the waters - those with the Platonic edge will have a different exegesis than those of Hebraic scholarship.
Hmmmmm. Paul advised Titus to avoid foolish questions, and genealogies (BI?), and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
Hmmm (I'm not 9:03)
"The Sermon for today is How Sin Separating Us From God" (Yeah! Good topic! Stop sinning!)
"Sin is transgression of the Law" (KJV)
"The Sermon for today is How The Law Brings Us Closer To God" (Boo! Hiss! Legalist!)
Matt 5:17-19
Choose wisely
Trypho churches like Yahweh restoration ministry, WCG splinters, True Jesus Church, the seventh-day Adventist, Seventh-day Baptist, and messianic Judaism are the closest you are going to get the truth. Let's make something clear the true church always had the name church of God and always kept the seventh-day Sabbath.
Trypho, you wrote "He came to remove the Loopholes"
In a way that sound bite makes sense. Christ did back people into a corner labelled "love." His dealing with the law is just a subcategory under that heading.
It is maddening that Paul did not qualify the term Law when he used it. I just ran into that. Another commentor mentioned the addition of the law 430 years afterward. This is from a verse in Galatians. Almost everyone, maybe everyone other than Armstrongists, recognizes the added law to be the Mosaic Law itself, that is, the Torah.
Paul is writing about the Abrahamic Covenent and then explains that the Mosaic Law was added because of sin. If you read Galatians 3 you can see this from context. But because he does not specifically write "The Mosaic Law," Armstrongists find enough looseness in terminology to claim that this refers to added sacrifices and only sacrifices. Even though there are sacrifices scattered throughout the Mosaic Law. They are not sequestered away in a single cohesive textual unit that was appended at some later date. Paul could have done s all a favor here and just said "the whole law of moses" but he thought things would soon be over anyway.
And if you ask them why the added laws could not be the Mosaic litigation, the whole package, they will say because the Mosaic covenant was not done away with - just the sacrifices. This is a classical flaw in logic called "begging the question."
I could play Justin Martyr to your Trypho but this has been an active day and I am shot.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
"He came to remove the Loopholes"
I heard that saying too, from our pastor John "The Original Greek" Comino! W.C. Fields, on his deathbed, was reading the Bible. When asked why, he said "Looking for a loophole".
NEO, that's fine, Justin was actually a mean spirited rascal when it came to Jews, just like Martin Luther and others.
Unless it you will address this in part 2, I would like your opinion on the four rules laid down for Gentiles in Acts 15, with regard to your categorization of "Law". For example, which were moral, ritual, Abrahamic covenant, etc. Or do the four rules cover a broader scope than just four commands?
And what is to be made of the statement that Moses is read in the synagogue each week? I would take that to mean, the Gentiles hear the Torah portions each week, and can become familiar with all the (613) laws, obviating the need to write them as well.
Trypho:
Hoeh wrote the following about the four points that came out of the Jerusalem Council:
1. "These four points were originally part of the civil law of Moses."
2. "They were also included later with the added ceremonies to regulate the typical sacrifices." (from Hoeh's article.)
Hoeh asserts that the Jerusalem Council was only about the "added" ritualistic laws - not the Mosaic Law. (I would contend that the sacrifices are a part of the Mosaic Law.) And the civil laws of Moses continued to be in force after the Jerusalem Council and are a part of the New Covenant litigation. We must, then, ask ourselves why these laws, if the occurred in two places in the Torah, were repeated as the conclusion of the Jerusalem Council deliberations. If the civil laws of Moses were still in force and these laws were included in those civil laws, there is no need to pick them out and repeat them. All the council had to do is say, "Follow the Mosaic Law and you'll be fine." The clear context is that the four points were all that the Gentiles had to observe (in addition to the broader scope of the Sermon on the Mount) from the Old Testament litigation.
James observes that ". . . Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.” The Council had to make legislation not only for the Gentiles but also the Jewish Christians. The Jewish Christians wanted to see traditions and customs continue, even though they did not have the same force and relevance under the NT. They were not a pathway to salvation but they were a good ethical code. What James is saying is that even though there is no need for the Gentiles to keep the Mosaic traditions, Jewish Christians may continue to access these traditions for there is an active reservoir of Judaic culture in the synagogues. There will be no curtailment or loss of the Judaic culture by the Council's decision for Gentiles.
Had the Council meant to support the perpetuation of the Law of Moses through this statement, then the Apostle Paul was a heretic. And, further, Armstrongists would be totally out of compliance because they follow only select laws from the total civil Mosaic litigation which Hoeh says is still in force. Paul says those laws are a package. There is no halfway.
One of the arguments that Hoeh uses is that the 10 commandments are still in force. (Sidebar: This is true because the Decalogue was verified in the NT with the single exception that commandment four was transformed, much like circumcision was transformed.) But Hoeh goes further and says that all the laws derived from the 10 commandments are still in force, that is, the laws, statutes, ordinances, judgments and whatever else that form the Mosaic civil law. Only the rituals and sacrifices have been blown away. But the weakness in this argument is that the rituals and sacrifices, too, are derived from the 10 commandments. They are the liturgical implementation of commandment one from the Decalogue.
-- Justin Martyr the Latter
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Law is dynamic and adaptable - Part 1
Perhaps why some think that the sacrifices are done away with is that they do not understand the need for them in the past and in the future.
Looking, for example, at tabernacle and temple cleansing under the Old Covenant and New Covenant:
Mosaic Torah
Lev 23:27a The tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement.
Lev 16:33 and make atonement for the Most Holy Place, for the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and for the priests and all the people of the community.
Ezekielian Torah
Eze 45:18a This is what the Sovereign LORD says: In the first month on the first day
Eze 45:20a You are to do the same on the seventh day of the month
Eze 45:20b so you are to make atonement for the temple. (NIV).
The cleansing of the earthly tabernacle and temple can only be cleansed by animal blood. Under the OC this yearly cleansing occurred in the seventh month but in the NC this will occur in the first month. (Since impurity, generated from certain sins and severe ritual impurity, is dynamic and contagious it is drawn to the dwelling of God, requiring atonement - which involves the twin functions of ransom and purification. Ransom is still required for sin that does not generate sancta impurity).
Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Perhaps, from a modern western reading, that "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law" gives the impression that the law is "static and rigid".
But the "law is dynamic and adaptable rather than static and rigid" (Gane), that is, it can, according to ANE thinking, be "revised to fit changing social and historical circumstances" (Patrick Miller), without being in conflict with the law delivered at Sinai.
For example, nearly forty years later at the renewal of the covenant in the plains of Moab, with the wilderness generation, there is an "updating" of the law for a new "historical circumstance".
Sinai Torah
Lev 17:3 What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp,
Lev 17:4 And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD ... that man shall be cut off from among his people:
Lev 17:5 ... the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices ... unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest, and offer them for well-being offerings unto the LORD.
Moab Torah
Dt 12:21 If the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after.
Dt 12:15b ... the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as if it were the roebuck, and as of the hart.
Roy Gane explains:
"... Lev. 17 requires Israelites who wish to eat meat of domestic sacrificable animals to offer them as well-being offerings at the central sanctuary (vv.3-9). By contrast, Deut 12 allows them to slaughter and eat such animals at any of their settlements, without sacrificing them, them, provided that they drain out the blood (vv.15-16, 20-25). The difference is not a legal contradiction or polemic between two schools of authorship, because the law in Lev. 17 regulates the wilderness setting during the journey from Sinai to Canaan, where all the Israelites camped around the sanctuary (v.3, "the camp"; cf. Num 2-3), but the law in Deut. 12 is to apply once they have spread out in the land of Canaan, where they may dwell too far away from the sanctuary to go there every time they want to eat meat of a sacrificable animal (vv. 20-21; cf. chap.6)" (Roy E. Gane, Old Testament Law for Christians, p.35).
Law is dynamic and adaptable - Part 2
Mal 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Ernest Hengstenberg explains the intent this way:
"The law is referred to here (and this is the very point which has been overlooked), not according to its accidental and temporary form, but according to its essential character, as expressive of the holiness of God, just as in Matt. 5:17... The laws, which were afterwards given in the plains of Moab, are also included in the expression "in Horeb." For they were merely a continuation and further development; the foundation was fully laid at Sinai" (Christology of the Old Testament, Vol.4, pp.190-91).
Jerusalem Torah
Eze 43:12 This is the law of the house; Upon the top of the mountain the whole limit thereof round about shall be most holy. Behold, this is the law of the house.
The implication is that the Ezekielian Torah, revealed to Ezekiel in vision in Jerusalem ("on a very high mountain"), is an "updating" for the NC, which is in accordance with the Sinai foundation.
"Ezekiel's program is a revision - and up-dating and a rectification - of selected topics of existent priestly legislation and practice very similar to, if not identical with, that of the Pentateuch..." (Moshe Greenberg, "The Design and Themes of Ezekiel's Program of Restoration," pp.233-35).
If it is accepted that the Law is indeed dynamic and adaptable it can be open to changes that are not expressive of its essential character.
Nu 28:9 And on the sabbath day two lambs of the first year without spot, and two tenth deals of flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and the drink offering thereof:
Nu 28:10 This is the burnt offering of every sabbath, beside the continual burnt offering, and his drink offering.
Eze 46:4 And the burnt offering that the prince shall offer unto the LORD in the sabbath day shall be six lambs without blemish, and a ram without blemish.
Eze 46:5 And the meat offering shall be an ephah for a ram, and the meat offering for the lambs as he shall be able to give, and an hin of oil to an ephah.
"Ezekiel 46:4-5 mandates a sizeable increase in Israel's Sabbath offerings (see Num 28:9). It adds a ram, an extra four lambs, and an extra four-fifths of an ephah of gain" (Stephen L. Cook, Ezekiel 38-48, AB, p.249).
Eze 20:12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths [plural of the seventh day], to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.
Eze 37:28 And the mations shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.
"Rather than "contradicting" Mosaic Torah, Ezekiel 46 aims at intensification... The Sabbath ... has a central place in the ... understanding of God's program to sanctify and ennoble Israel (Exod 31:13 HS; Ezek 20:12, 44:24)" (Stephen L. Cook, Ezekiel 38-48, AB, p.249).
The Old and New Covenant with Israel the Kingdom the Sabbath was/will be on the seventh day of the week.
So for the record, though I believe that Christ's resurrection was on the first day of the week, I do not believe that keeping Sunday as the Sabbath, is in accordance with the Sinai foundation; just as the "feast" [AV; hag] of the eight month instituted by Jeroboam for the people of God of the northern kingdom was not of the essential character of Sinai.
The southern and northern kingdoms of Israel picture typologically Sabbath-keeping and Sunday-keeping people of God respectively; and just as both kingdoms went into exile so both Sabbath-keepers and Sunday-keepers are tribulation-bound.
Acts 15: apparently gentiles drank blood, ate unclean and strangled animals/meat, fornicated. The apostles thought it was necessary to stop these transgressions immediately for the sake of the gentile’s health and life but the other laws, not all 613 but those applicable after Christ’s death, could be learned every sabbath in the synagogue.
Anon 545 "drank blood" - not necessarily - people still eat blood sausage (like blutwurst, sanguinaccio), black (blood) pudding, and other dishes containing blood.
"not all 613" - not all 613 were actually applicable to everyone - some laws were specific only to men, to women, to priests, to inhabitants of Eretz Israel, and so on.
Post a Comment