Tuesday, July 13, 2021

What Did You Sign Up For? – Part 2

 



What Did You Sign Up For? – Part 2

A Review of Herman Hoeh’s  “Which Old Testament Laws Should We Keep Today?” 

By Neo

Part 1 of this article (link) was concerned with how Herman Hoeh’s Model of Biblical jurisprudence differed from the orthodox Christian model.   A case was built in Part 1, based on the historical Christian view, that the eternal, moral law of God, that reflects God’s essential nature, was the source for both the OT litigation and the NT litigation.  For this reason the OT and NT litigation share principles but not all implementation features.  But the theme in Herman Hoeh’s Model was that the NT was derived from the OT and much of the Mosaic Law is binding on Christians and in its original form.  As Hoeh wrote, “The purpose of Christ’s teachings in the “Sermon on the Mount” was to magnify the Old Testament law, not annul it.”

The Problem of Defining “The Law of Moses”

The Mosaic Law is the law mediated through Moses from Yahweh to Israel.  This uncomplicated definition notwithstanding, it is a myth that the OT litigation was written by Moses as if he sat down and churned out text.  The Torah may be in the spirit of Moses or it may originate in his experiences but it is not a monolithic body of text written by a single author.  The Documentary Hypothesis convincingly identifies, based on language, at least four different sources of contribution.  Somewhere in history, perhaps in Post-exilic times, these fragments were redacted into the Torah.  Further, in parts of the Torah, Moses is referred to in the third person.  This makes isolating a unit of text to which we can attach the moniker “Law of Moses” a great challenge.  What constitutes the law of Moses may be traditional rather than paleographic. 

The Torah encompasses the first five books of the OT and is referred to as Torat Moshe.  In Judaism and Christianity, it is common to see the Torah as a unit consisting of sometimes 613 laws, including 100 sacrifices. But in spite of its acknowledged unity in principle, the Torah is also a literary composite.  So Herman Hoeh’s interpretation, to be discussed in the next section, of the organization of the Torah as a particular kind of composite is based on his hermeneutics.  His interpretation is not something that is incontrovertible or the only possible interpretation.   In his article, he explains how he divides the Mosaic Law into its elements. 

How Herman Hoeh Deconstructed the Law of Moses

Hoeh, similar to most Christians, had a high view of the Ten Commandments. He states of the Decalogue, “The Ten Commandments constitute the basic spiritual law which regulates human life.”  He later draws a distinction between the Mosaic civil laws and the ritualistic law.  Of the civil law, he states, “These statutes and judgments magnify the Ten Commandments.”  The civil laws, in his view, have special status because they are derived from the Ten Commandments.  He concludes, “The civil law of Moses expounds the Ten Commandments by revealing how the ten basic principles are to be applied.  We are to keep this part of the law, not in the strictness of the letter, but according to its spirit and intent.”  For him, the civil laws comprise the component of the law of Moses that is still in force and binding on Christians under the New Covenant and Christians must observe these laws with a new and avid heart. 

Hoeh uncouples the ritualistic law, essentially the sacrifices, from the civil law of Moses.  He asserts that sacrifices were not originally part of the litigation but were added later (Gal 3:17).  This means that the rituals can be canceled without affecting the validity of the civil law of Moses.  There are a number of flaws in this view: 

1.     The existing format of the text does not support the putative historical addition of the sacrifices at a later date (430 years later).  Sacrifices are not segregated into a single text block appended to the already existing textual body of the Mosaic Law.  

2.     The sacrifices are scattered throughout the text of the Torah and some occur even in Genesis and Exodus, before Sinai and well before the 430-year milestone.

3.     The sacrifices are just as validly derived from the Ten Commandments as the civil law of Moses.  At a minimum, the sacrifices are part of the liturgical and ceremonial implementation of the First Commandment from the Decalogue.  

4.     The Jews considered the Torah a unity.  They did not separate out the sacrifices from the rest of the Torah.  The Jews would still be offering animal sacrifices but for the fact that there is no Temple - the only place where such sacrifices may be legitimately offered.  

5.     The idea that the sacrificial law was added because of “transgression” does not indisputably point to the Mosaic Law having already been in force 430 years earlier.  Hoeh himself supports the idea that the Ten Commandments were in force before Moses and wrote a booklet addressing this.  This early ethical code is likely what was transgressed not the later Mosaic Law. 

6.     Galatians 3:16-19 is referring to the Mosaic Law being added to the Abrahamic Covenant (3:16).  Nowhere does Paul equate the “added” law to the sacrifices. Hoeh asserts the equivalency with insufficient exegesis in this article.     

While each of the points above could launch a useful study, point 6 above will now be examined further.  Paul writes in Gal 3:17:

“And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.”

If Hoeh’s model is correct then the term “covenant” refers to the Mosaic Covenant and “the law” refers to the sacrifices in this verse.  This approach has irremediable inconsistencies.  How then could the sacrifices make the law of Moses of none effect?  The sacrifices were an integral part of the Mosaic covenant, were the means of reconciliation with God under the covenant, and foreshadowed the sacrifice of Christ.  From the surrounding text, Paul’s “covenant” refers to the Abrahamic Covenant and the “law” refers to the Torah known as the Law of Moses.  It is the Mosaic Law that seems to challenge or “disannul” the Abrahamic Covenant because Israel could not keep the Mosaic Law.  The Mosaic Law became a failure point for Israel.  Paul is saying that Israel’s losses under the Mosaic Covenant will not disannul the promises under the Abrahamic covenant.   It is participation by Jew and Gentile in the faith of Abraham that makes Christianity to be salvation for all people and not obedience to the culturally and racially bound Mosaic Law.   And Galatians 3:19 should be read as follows. Notice the expiration condition assigned to the Mosaic litigation:

“Wherefore then serveth the law (the Mosaic litigation)? It was added because of transgressions (under the pre-Moses rendition of the 10 Commandments), till the seed should come to whom the promise was made (Jesus); and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator (Moses)”.

Herman Hoeh, by separating out and removing the sacrificial laws from the Torah deconstructed the holistic law of Moses.  Paul said the law was a unity – if you want to keep one part of it, you must keep all of it.  It may be a literary composite but it is an ideological whole.  The inevitable conclusion is that the sacrifices were abrogated because they were a part of the OT litigation and the OT litigation was abrogated and replaced with the New Covenant by Jesus bringing his sacrifice and better promises. 

Hoeh’s Disposition of the Non-Sacrificial Part of the Torah or What Did You Sign Up For?

According to Hoeh, we are to remember and keep the law of Moses comprised of the commandments, laws, statutes, and ordinances.  He also argues for the inclusion of the judgments. All of these are binding on New Covenant Christians because they are rooted in the Ten Commandments.  These are the laws that are written on the heart under the New Covenant.  In addition to this cataphatic statement, Hoeh also has an apophatic statement, “Any other laws not included in Hebrews 9:10 were not a part of the rituals added because of sin!”    Hebrews 9:10 mentions “only meats and drinks and diverse washings and carnal (flesh) ordinances, imposed until the time of reformation.”   All else is still binding. 

So how should this play in the average Twenty-first Century Armstrongist congregation?  A case to consider: If a woman is menstruating she becomes unclean and can transfer this uncleanness to other people and physical objects.  This is not an uncleanness that can be washed away.  Everything she touches incurs a ritual necessity to be cleansed.  Of this type of uncleanness, God states “Thus you shall keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness by defiling my tabernacle that is in their midst.”  If somehow this uncleanness generated by female menstruation gets transmitted to the Tabernacle, people will die.  In some branches of Judaism, the easiest solution is to have the woman isolate herself in a menstruation hut for the period of time prescribed to become clean.  In the Hoehist model, this is an example of a requirement of the law that must be written on the hearts and minds of Christians under the New Covenant.  It is an extension of the Ten Commandments.  We could go into the fact that this same law states elsewhere that it is legitimate to purchase and keep Hebrew slaves.  But the point has been made.  Armstrongists do not keep the law that Herman Hoeh determined is binding on them.  My guess is that it is also not written on their hearts and their salvation is in grim jeopardy by Hoeh’s standards.  Did you really mean to sign up for this?

Coda – Hoeh’s Sabbatarian Hermeneutic

First, let me say that I am not suggesting that the Ten Commandments be done away with.  That seems to be the false alarmist statement that Armstrongists resort to first.  I believe in the Ten although I hold to a spiritual form of the fourth.   I also still follow a modern version of the Levitical dietary laws though not for theological reasons.  So, I am also not suggesting antinomianism – that anybody can do anything they want to.  If you come away with these ideas you have not read this article thoughtfully.  

In researching this topic, I came to have a feeling about why Hoeh struggled so fiercely to include parts of the OT litigation in the NT.   I believe he was strategically trying to build a protective wall around the seventh day. If he could claim that parts of the OT litigation survived the change in covenants intact, Sabbatarianism could be preserved and, in consequence, Armstrongism could be legitimized.  I developed this feeling from observing the many times that the arguments made by Hoeh seemed artificial or teleological. 

Another idea I became aware of was the derision that Armstrongists have for Christians.  Hoeh stated in this article, “Few religionists recognize the eternal binding authority of the Ten Commandments.”  It is a calumny against Christian denominations to claim that they do not recognize the Ten Commandments when all of mainstream and evangelical Christianity does.  But Armstrongists no doubt would claim that Christians do not recognize the Decalogue because they leave out the seventh-day sabbath.   So once again the seventh day becomes pivotal in the Armstrongist dissension from Christianity.

The answer to the question “Which Old Testament LAWS Should We Keep Today?” is “Only those that Jesus and the NT writings approve.”  Not the ones that Herman Hoeh supported through special pleading. 

Note:  Herman Hoeh, now deceased, became a Christian late in life as I understand.  The reviewed article is a version that was distributed in 1971.  My guess is that Herman Hoeh would not support the substance of his article after becoming a Christian.  I take Hoeh’s becoming a Christian all the renunciation of the article that is needed. 

In Christo Solo!

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

An inconvenient truth exsist that your group does not want to face. That is in Mathew 5 Christ said He came not to do away with the law. If one does not believe that then they are calling the father and Christ a liar. As usual you won't publish this because don' agree with it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (12:57) you wrote "That is in Mathew 5 Christ said He came not to do away with the law."

You picked out only a portion of what Christ said. This is what he actually said:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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."

Jesus said he came to fulfil. He states that nothing will change about the law until all is fulfilled. He then lived his life and fulfilled the law just as he said he would. So now the Mosaic rendition has passed away and has been replaced by the New Covenant litigation. Am I missing something?

Jesus said he would fulfil it and he did and now its gone - all in the span of two verses. And this comports with Pauline Theology.

You need to read my post. Seriously.

******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer

Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix said...

Anonymous 7/13 @ 12:57,

Part 1 of 2:
In both parts of this series, NEO has done an excellent job of explaining why Herman Hoeh's teachings regarding the applicability of the dos and don'ts of the Torah to Christians are flawed and unsustainable. Unfortunately, Armstrongists always resort to the fifth chapter of Matthew as their go-to scripture when their legalism is challenged. Even so, this scripture does not provide the safety net for their views which they imagine!

I don't mind facing this scripture, because it doesn't present any inconvenient truths for me (Neo, or any other Christians). After running through the behaviors which God values (and will reward) in his people (Matthew 5:3-12), Christ explains that his followers must be a good example to others. We read: "“You are the light of the world—like a city on a hilltop that cannot be hidden. No one lights a lamp and then puts it under a basket. Instead, a lamp is placed on a stand, where it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your good deeds shine out for all to see, so that everyone will praise your heavenly Father." (Matthew 5:14-16) Christ wanted his followers to be DIFFERENT from the Jews of his day.

Take just a moment to let that sink in - Christ was definitely NOT advocating for a continuation of their attitudes relative to the Torah. He rejected the obsession of the Pharisees with the dos and don'ts. He rejected the obsession of the Sadducees with the temple and its sacrifices and rituals. He rejected the monk-like isolation of the Essenes, and he rejected the notion that Jews should take up arms to protect their observance of the Torah. Indeed, in all four of the canonical gospel accounts, Christ continually preached against a perpetuation of Jewish attitudes toward the Torah.

With that background, we come at last to the verses which Armstrongites like to employee as their last defense regarding the obligation of Christians to observe the tenets of the Torah. We read that Christ told his disciples: "“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19)

Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix said...

Part 2 of 2:

Christ said that he didn't come to abolish anything - he came to accomplish its purpose (to fulfill or fill it to the full)! Moreover, he makes clear in the verses which follow that he expects much more from his followers than the Jews had ever done with the Torah (Matthew 5:20-48). Indeed, he went on to tell them that it wasn't enough not to physically murder a person - his followers must not allow anger and bitterness toward another person to reside in their hearts (verses 21-26) Likewise, he told them that he expected much more from his followers than simply refraining from sleeping with people who were not their spouse, being scrupulous in the performance of unreasonable vows or exacting the appropriate punishment on someone who has sinned against another person (verses 31-42).

Christ wanted his followers to understand the principles behind the dos and don'ts. That is why he summarized the law as encompassing two great principles: Love for God and Love for neighbor. Indeed, Christ and Paul made clear that love accomplishes/fulfills/fills to the full the purpose/function/intent of the law. Moreover, because Christ perfectly fulfilled ALL of the requirements of the Torah and then paid the penalty for the failure of both Jews and Gentiles to do the same and was then resurrected to sit at the right hand of God and serve as our Advocate with the father, our past and continuing failures to observe the dos and don'ts has been resolved! In other words, Christ's work has made our work easier and possible!

Hence, it is misleading to say that Traditional Christians believe that the law has been abrogated or "done away with." We believe that Christ has fulfilled and transformed those laws - has made them infinitely more meaningful than all of those dos and don'ts contained in the Torah! Christ made it possible for his followers to rest from their own works and immerse themselves in God's love. The law, Sabbath and Promised Land which are available to us under the terms of the NEW covenant are as superior to those which were available to the Israelites under the terms of the OLD covenant as Christ is superior to us!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (12:57)

I retract the response (3:43) I made to your comment. While I think Jesus is speaking about his fulfilling the law and when he is done the law goes away, I cannot make a lexical argument pivoting on the word "fulfil" in the way I did. Those two occurrences of "fulfil" are two different words in Greek. My view might have had a better supporting argument if Jesus had used the same Greek word in both places. The real sense of Jesus' statement is clarified by later Pauline theology. But, alas, I did not appeal to Pauline theology.

I stand by Miller Jones' explanation.

******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer

Anonymous said...

Well, looks like you just bore false witness.

Anonymous said...

MJ noted: "So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19)"

So if you don't mind being "least" and have no asperations anyway to being "called Great", at least you made it.

Anonymous said...

The Hermaneutics is perceived a putative apophatic jurisprudence uncoupled from orthodoxy and without validity, has no equivalency with irremediable liturgical litigation, is teleological and paleographic questionable, but to avoid calumny no monolithic coda is made, just cataphatic appended thoughts without redactions. Just joking.

Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix said...

Anonymous 7/13 @ 8:50,

Do you follow ALL of the commandments (no tattoos, no mixed-fabric clothing, gathering branches for the Feast of Tabernacles, no trimming beard corners, etc.) in the Torah? Do you ignore any of the least commandments? And, in response to your comment, I will be content to be a part of God's Kingdom in whatever capacity "He" sees fit to place me! Moreover, if you think that scrupulously following the dos and don'ts of the Torah will earn you the appellation of "Great" in the Kingdom, I'm afraid you're going to be in for a rather unpleasant surprise!

Anonymous said...

The Christian theory of theology is fraught with controversy.
That's because it started with a vision (uh-oh!)(Gal 1:11-12)
Since then, anyone is free to try and make sense of it.
You can even take a shot at sorting it out yourself, many have:
Tom Aquinas, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, Ellen White, HWA, Hoeh...

Anonymous said...

it's going to be somewhat amusing watching all of these pseudo-intellectuals make their arguments to Jesus at his return....

Anonymous said...

"Hence, it is misleading to say that Traditional Christians believe that the law has been abrogated or "done away with." We believe that Christ has fulfilled and transformed those laws - has made them infinitely more meaningful than all of those dos and don'ts contained in the Torah! Christ made it possible for his followers to rest from their own works and immerse themselves in God's love. The law, Sabbath and Promised Land which are available to us under the terms of the NEW covenant are as superior to those which were available to the Israelites under the terms of the OLD covenant as Christ is superior to us!"


so, does a follower of Jesus keep the Sabbath or not?
you're talking in circles...saying that the law was not done away, yet we don't really have to keep it (or, we keep it spiritually, whatever that means).....which is it?

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:28 They/solo are always bearing false witness.

Anonymous said...

The issue of "bearing false witness" needs to be put aside. That is a sophomoric attempt to stifle debate when logical argument formation fails. Resorting to gratuitous calumny is the redoubt of the superficial. I do not believe Herman Hoeh bore false witness when he presented his view of this complex topic. Neither did I when I presented my view. Reasonable minds can differ and it is in the cross examination that understanding is sharpened.

******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer

Anonymous said...

I hate the "if you disagree with my point of view, you are calling God a liar" ploy. It's coercive.
Where's respect for not lording it over others faith?

Anonymous said...

"Nature to be commanded, must be obeyed."- Francis Bacon. This is the source of why a moral code, and endless do and do nots. For instance, car tyres must be kept at a certain pressure and cars need to be serviced at regular intervals. Another example is the thousands of gardening rules. The "Christ did it all for us" will not result in healthy plants if not properly attended to.
So a moral code stems from honoring metaphysics, ie the basic nature of reality. This is what was behind Satan asking Jesus to throw Himself off a tall building. Christ honored reality by saying no.
Btw, "love" in the bible is a verb, ie love means fulfilling others physical and mental needs.

Anonymous said...

Am I missing something?

Yes, the meaning of fulfil. It does not mean "done away" it means "stand up (in fullness)".
And just where are the terms of the "New Covenant" spelt out in all this detail you talk about. I don't see it. Deuteronomy and Revelation both say NOT to "add to or take from" what is written - don't add new laws, don't cancel old ones. So you say Jesus abolished ALL the law - so you live in anarchy?

Anonymous said...

"The Hermaneutics" -- haha! The hermeneutics of Herman Hoeh!

Anonymous said...

Jesus said "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

If this is interpreted as the Armstrongists interpret it, it is the death knell for all of us, Armstrongist and Christian alike. Armstrongists would say this is unassailable proof that the Torah should be perfectionistically kept. Do they even know what they are saying? Because nobody keeps the Torah. Peter, the man that Paul described as living like a Gentile, said, "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (Acts 15:10)" The 1971 Herman Hoeh, apparently, would have had to correct Peter on that matter.

Anybody can pick up the Bible and flip through a few pages and find a ready example of where Armsrongists do not keep the Mosaic Law. And the greater condemnation falls upon Armstrongism because Armstrongists believe, if they follow the words of Hoeh with HWA's imprimatur, that they should observe the Torah. And they believe it should be kept in meticulous and exhaustive detail - not some mash-up of part the OT litigation and part of the NT litigation in modified, modernized form as espoused by the old WCG Church Administration Department. This attenuated version of the Torah is taught from the pulpits of Splinterdom every seventh day. On the other hand, Christians sincerely and honestly and with theological ground do not believe that the Torah is still binding. (Let me hasten to add, Christians do, that is DO, believe that the Ten Commandments in the context of New Covenant litigation is still binding - to stanch the tired and fabricated argument that Christians believe the Ten are done away.)

This is getting long. In this passage Jesus was condemning the Pharisees. The Pharisees did not follow Torah completely and added to it their own traditions. But they were rigid legalists. And they taught this legalism. Jesus was, in fact, speaking of the Torah. And the standard he gave was impossible to keep (Acts 15:10). The ancient Israelites didn't keep it, the Pharisees didn't keep it and modern Armstrongists do not keep it. So what is the escape valve? - Jesus fulfilled the law and made it honorable and brought better promises.

I like this because it is making Armstrongists think about Jesus.

******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer

Anonymous said...

8:40 very precise NEO, Have you read Brinsmead's (contra Adventism) papers on the Reformation?

Trypho said...

"Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (Acts 15:10)"

The context of this verse is the meeting in Jerusalem to decide how to treat Gentiles. Specifically, the big question was, Must Gentiles go through ritual conversion to become "Jews" or is it sufficient that they follow the Jewish Messiah?
We know the Pharisees had very strict "fences around the Torah", which can be compared in a way to "Sunday Blue Laws". While Jesus accepted some of the rules ("Give thanks before eating bread") He rejected others ("Eating bread without washed hands is like prostitution"). There were also rules called "The 18 Measures" that described how Jews related to Gentiles, and they were also very strict.
To "become circumcised" (go through ritual conversion) one must agree to keep all the Laws - Torah, Oral Law, and "Traditions of the Elders". That, Peter realized, was too much to ask - it was hard enough for Jews to keep all these extra rules. But both Moses and John wrote that the Law (Torah) was not too difficult to obey. So, God-given rules were not the problem, but man-made additions were just too much to handle.

Anonymous said...

Law 101 for today: Rest, don't work Fri sunset-Sat sunset. Observe Torah sex laws. Don't cut or mark yourself. Trim beard to be neat if you have one. Wear clothing with twisted thread at edges but don't have to wear tassels or blue thread. Observe three feasts: Nisan 14-20, Pentecost on 7th Sunday after Sunday during Nisan 14-20, Tishri 15-21. Observe annual sabbaths Tishri 1, 10, and 22. Avoid clothing mixed with linen and wool but other mixes OK. Observe Torah clean/unclean meat/food laws. No tithing necessary, were laws associated with the Levitical Priesthood which has now been removed. Observe the other nine commandments. Observe Torah animal and land laws where applicable if you own land and/or animals. Celebrate the FOT with tree parts if you want but don't have to build anything with them. Do good when you know you should.

I'm missing something of course but the above very brief law 101 summary is not bad, right?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
it's going to be somewhat amusing watching all of these pseudo-intellectuals make their arguments to Jesus at his return....

My experience tells me that the charge of "pseudo-intellectuals" is thrown around when others disagree with their own interpretations. I'm was never sure what constituted a real intellectual in the Churches of God or among the piously convicted. Not anyone that disagrees with them, I can tell you that!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (8:32)

I wish Matthew had had an editor. The term fulfil in Greek is plēroō. It can mean both fulfill in the sense of (1) to perform a matter of duty or (2) to make full or cause to abound. Here is why I think Jesus used "fulfil" with the first definition. In Matthew 5:33-37 Jesus renounced swearing. He didn't magnify swearing and make it honorable. He simply said "But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all . . ."

If we assume that the Armstrongist view is correct, that "fulfil" means that Jesus is going to expand the Mosaic law into a more demanding spiritual law throughout, then Jesus' treatment of the issue of swearing is not consistent with the Armstrongist view. He removed at least an iota or a tittle from the law by totally renouncing it. Also, when his disciples plucked corn on the sabbath, Jesus did not resort to the Torah to justify this. He went to an example from the life of David.

Jesus did establish a New Covenant litigation in the Sermon on the Mount. And the entire body of New Covenant litigation makes the entire Old Covenant litigation to be magnified and honorable. In other words, it is a replacement in toto and not a point by point retention and updating. For instance, where did Jesus magnify and make honorable the laws pertaining to female menstruation? Where did Jesus magnify and make honorable the laws that state that Hebrews may be enslaved or that anybody can be enslaved? Why don't we have a complete repetition of the Torah in the NT with each law given a magnification and new honorability? We don't have that. Because that was not what Jesus was talking about.

Jesus was talking about the fact that as the Messiah he would keep the law perfectly. Nobody had ever done that before. Or since. And then he would retire it (Pauline theology). But before he retired it, not one jot or tittle would be deleted. Armstrongists circumvent this by claiming wherever the law sounds like it is getting retired that it pertains only to the ritualistic laws or the sacrifices without supporting exegesis.

I have to go work on my car.

******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer


Anonymous said...

Anonymous (8:32), you wrote "And just where are the terms of the "New Covenant" spelt out in all this detail you talk about. I don't see it."

There is an argument current among Armstrongists that I have encountered several times before. It goes like this. There is no covenant language in the NT. There are no laws in the NT. There are no terms in the NT. Hence, the NT must be all about the OT and the OT is still in force. I have never been able to figure out how this theory could have any validity. And the proponents have never convincingly cited what they are lookng for as a new covenant.

The Sermon on the Mount contains a implementation of new litigation. It contains behavioral requirements just as the OT contained behavioral requirements. There are outcomes in the NT just as in the OT. There is a quid quo pro in John 3:16. And Jesus said "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." Apparently Jesus thought that he had inaugurated something new and it was complete enough to be called a testament. Everytime you take the Eucharist you sign up to this.

The first thing Jesus said on the Mount was "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." That is a condition connected to an outcome. That is a term. So I don't know what you are looking for.

******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer

True Christian said...

I believe the old testament we should try to keep it.

Hoss said...

Armstrongist New Covenant argument

Remember the HWA's rush to "get the church back on track"? He turned the Worldwide News into another method of getting regularly to the wayward congregation. In one front page story, he said that we were in the New Covenant, but it hadn't yet been "signed, sealed and delivered" or something like that. We were, apparently "between the covenants".
I remember reading Ron Dart's booklet "Laws and Covenants" (I think that was the title) in which he seemed to say what the terms were, but wasn't sure about some matters, and with no sufficient Biblical references to back him up. I remember pondering over that being my last, strained link of any hope in a WCG splinter.
In an early version of Bob Thiel's Which Laws Are Done Away... -- which included Dr Hoeh's Which OT Laws Should We Keep Today? it was clear he didn't understand a number of points, including the 613 mitvot - which he said he wanted to write about, giving his judgement on each one. In one version, he exclaimed how good it was to be under the New Covenant - which is not exactly what HWA taught. His current version states "Christians truly are under the new covenant" - but I don't think he gives a clear, well-presented and sound argument - but then, does he ever?

E said...

Appropriate response.

Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix said...

Some more thoughts on the terms of the New Covenant:

https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-new-covenant.html

Ronco said...

"The Hermaneutics is perceived a putative apophatic jurisprudence uncoupled from orthodoxy and without validity, has no equivalency with irremediable liturgical litigation, is teleological and paleographic questionable, but to avoid calumny no monolithic coda is made, just cataphatic appended thoughts without redactions."

'Awesome!', as Ronald Weinland might say.

E said...

So, Neo, am I oversimplifying Matt. 5 when I point out that much of the Law changed, much more than a jot or tittle.
Matt 5: 17-18 says that no jot or tittle will be removed till all is fulfilled. COGs focus on the idiom "until heaven and earth pass away", but it an idiom that is subject to "until all is fulfilled."

I hesitate to oversimplify, but it seems painfully obvious to me that Matt 5 only damages the position of the partial/selective law keepers. I continue.

With the end of the levitical priesthood, with the end of circumcision, with the end of physical sacrifices, it's obvious that much more than a jot or tittle has been removed from the Law. So, somewhere between Christ's statement of Matt. 5:18 and the end of these practices in Acts, all was fulfilled. Right? What happened between these two times...Christ's crucifixion when He proclaims, "It is finished." or basically in the context of Matt. 5 -- "all is fulfilled" because His work was done except for the Resurrection which was a foregone conclusion at this point.

And, because all was fulfilled, the idiom "till heaven and earth pass" becomes moot as all was indeed fulfilled.

Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix said...

E,

I think you're right. We should, however, continue to stress that Christ FULFILLED all of those things - that they are carried forward into the New Covenant as TRANSFORMED by Christ and his work. Yes, the individual dos and don'ts were NOT carried forward as provisions of the New Covenant, but the spiritual principles which underpinned them were recast into better provisions for the New Covenant (as Neo's analysis of the underlying litigation makes clear). If we fail to accommodate Christ's statement that he didn't come to do away with the law, we have absolutely NO prospect of redeeming these legalists (and we are in danger of distorting our own perception of the law).

--Lonnie

Stephen Schley said...

I'm no scholar but until I'm capable of listening to the Bible again I'm going to go by what little I do know...
God say's keep the 7th day and from what I can remember there is no end date on 1st tithe or the holy days but then thats just what a screwed up man-child thinks feel free to frag me if I'm seeing things wrong.

Thanks NEO for the articles

Anonymous said...

E:

You make a very good point. In that time span the covenants changed. When Christ made the statement in Matthew 5:18, the sacrifices were still integral part of the Mosaic covenant. Then in the Passover service Christ replaced the Mosaic sacrifices with his own sacrifice. This sealed his intent to remove the original Mosaic sacrifices when he said "It is finished." As he said in the Sermon on the Mount, "...till all be fulfilled." Theologians may debate the sequence of events but it is clear, as you said, that something happened in that time span. All was fulfilled so that much more than a jot and much more than a tittle could be deleted from the Mosaic covenant.

Thank you for pointing that out.

******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer



E said...

Yes, you are right Lonnie. Yet, still, we can say the law was changed (more than a jot and tittle) or why does Jesus indicate that once all is fulfilled there will be a change in the Law? Carried forward and transformed for sure, but circumcision "on the 8th day" and levitical changes, and no longer sacrificing including the details of sacrificing on the holy days CHANGES the Law.

I fully get your point about helping legalists, though. And, agree with you more than my comment may sound. It's just that Jesus did not come to "simply" destroy the Law...He came to fulfill it even by subjecting Himself to it. He could have come and said, "the Law is destroyed. It's of no purpose."
However, instead He subjected Himself to it and used it by performing it perfectly that He might take onto Himself the sins of the world. No, indeed, He did not simply come to destroy the Law, but by fulfilling it, perhaps He did?

I should be able to write this better, but maybe it is similar to:
What is the best way to destroy your enemy? Make him your friend.

But, I take your point and agree with it substantially. Further, Law that is changed, is still law. Law that is unenforced, is still law. Law put aside, is still law. Old rules/laws my parents had may never be seen again. But, they are still rules/laws despite the dust that has settled on them and they really aren't destroyed are they?

Anonymous said...

Stephen Schley:

I am not a pastoral type. I don't feel I am in a position to advise anyone. But I keep the Levitical dietary laws. The important point is that I do not see observation of the laws as linked in any way to my salvation. And I think that is the important point for you. While the Mosaic Law cannot carry anyone to salvation, it can be a code of ethics. The downside is that it may make some people believe they are working for their salvation.

Even HWA did not think that breaking the dietary laws was bad. In his mind they fell into a separate class of sin - physical sin. I do not believe in physical sin. But the article I wrote can be complicated by yet another layer of Armstrongist belief: spiritual sin vs. physical sin. Since HWA is not around any more to further the concept of physical sin, I doubt that anyone will ever sort that out.

******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer

Anonymous said...

Some Peter Enns’ observations may be of interest:

Ex 18:15b ... the people come unto me to inquire of God:
Ex 18:16 When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws [torah].

"The reference to commands and decrees at this stage in the journey is admitted vague, but consider two approaches. (1) We should not assume that Israel had no law until Sinai. This seems especially true in 16:23, where the Sabbath day is mentioned explicitly for the first time in the Old Testament. Although the command to keep the Sabbath is explicitly given only in 20:8-11 (the fourth commandment), this does not mean that God's will for his people to keep the Sabbath was unheard of until then.

"It is reasonable to assume that the Ten Commandments as they are given on Mount Sinai are not new but a reiteration of things that the Israelite (and probably other ancient Near Eastern peoples) already new. After all, are we to think that the command to honor one's parents or the prohibition against stealing, murder, or adultery are unheard of before Sinai? The Israelites most likely have known something of God's laws before Sinai, even though we are not told what they know or how they came to know it...

“The "giving" of the law at Sinai is not the first time Israel hears of God's laws, but is the codification and explicit promulgation of those laws (allowing, of course, for the implosion of additional laws at Sinai)...

Ps 40:8 I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.

“The flow of the narrative is plain. The people want to know what must be done in order to settle their disputes; they are coming “to seek God’s will” (v.15)...

“The concern is not just in chapter 18 but elsewhere in the Old Testament. God is in the process of raising a people, as a father raises his child, to know him... What is at stake is not simply knowledge about God in an academic or detached sense, but actually knowing him. The law is not some legalistic mumbo jumbo but the expression of God’s will and character to his people. Hence, in order to know God, the law that comes from God’s “inner being” must be in us.

Dt 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

“This is the refrain we find in Deuteronomy... While the law was not merely external at Sinai, now all of a sudden [in the plains of Moab] it must be on the heart...

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

“Jeremiah does not see the Sinai covenant as essentially useless because it was written and therefore in desperate need of being superceded by a more “spiritual” version of the law, one written on the heart. Such a view ignores the witness of the Old Testament ... the necessity of having the law on one’s heart. In other words, this is no preview of a supposed law-grace dichotomy. Rather, Jeremiah is saying that the covenant with Israel at Sinai will be taken to an even greater level of intimacy; it will be “taken to heart” more deeply. In other words, we have here a glimpse of the ultimate realization of what the law all along has required - heart assent.

“... this new covenant is not to be contrasted absolutely with the old. It is rather a heightening and full realization of what the Old Testament had always required. God wants us, all of us. He wants our devotion... Christian now have in them not the law in a legalistic sense. What we have is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who will guide us in the proper path and enable us to have a true heart for God.

“This is what Jesus was zeroing in on the Sermon of the Mount.

Anonymous said...

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God (Matt 5:8)
“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart (5:28)
“For where our treasure is, there your heart will be also. (6;21).

“Through out the Gospels, Jesus makes it clear that it is the heart that he is after (e.g., Matt 13:15, 19; 15:8, 18-19, and parallels). We should not thing of statements such as these as innovation. Jesus is calling the people back to the standard of morality that the Old Testament itself call for, a message that may have been obscured in the religious climate of the day.

“God’s purpose has always been to make a people who have an intimate knowledge of him, a knowledge of the heart that leads to proper behavior, not simply knowing about God. Exodus 18 is the first concrete step God uses to give his people such knowledge...

“Law is more than precepts. Even in the Old Testament, it encompasses Israel’s story, what God has done to and through his people. In this sense, law is much more than we normally take it to mean... Law in the broader sense is the expression of God’s character. It is a story of how he cares for his people.

“In other words, to have the law on our hearts is to know God, which ultimately means to have his grace clearly imprinted in us. This is the essential element to living the Christian life.

“... in Exodus 18 knowing God’s will was for the express purpose of behaving correctly...

“Unlike the Israelites of Exodus, the law, in Christ, is truly written on our hearts. But like the Israelites, we still need to discern daily what God wants us to do...

“That God has put the law on our hearts means, if anything, that our wills are being conformed to his own because, as we live day by day and struggle in our decisions, we are getting to know him more and more. We learn to lean towards him, as a flower leans towards the light. It is in the process of this desire to do right that we seek God with our whole hearts. We seek him because we, like the Israelites, want to do his will. And because of the spirit of Christ dwelling in us, that quest is never in vain” (Exodus, NIVAC, pp.371-83).

“... the principles underlying the OT are valid and authoritative for the Christian, but the particular applications found in the OT may not be. The moral principles are the same today, but insofar as our situation often differs from the OT setting, the application of the principals in our society may well be different too...” (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, p.35).