A fragment of the Holiness Code: Leviticus 17 – 26.
The code was intended to guide and sustain life.
The Wellspring of the Law
The Mistaken View of Law in Armstrongism
By Krischan
The Armstrongist view of Law, with a capital “L” and found in both the Old and New Covenants, is very different from that of Christian orthodoxy. And it is not just a contention over downstream application although that frequently emerges. The division in understanding begins at the beginning, at the point of origin, at the source.
Origin of the Law
The Law reflects the moral character of God. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, Law is the socialized implementation of God’s requirements governing behavior and conduct for human beings. When we speak of the eternal spiritual Law of God, this is nothing less than a codification of the nature and character of God himself. God would not institute Laws that violate his personal character. There are three major instantiations of the Law in the Bible for humankind:
1. The Law that existed before Moses.
2. The Law of Moses.
3. The Law of Christ.
The character of God existed before the creation of the Cosmos, of course. God is what he is. God is eternal and the Cosmos is a created artifact. There was a time when there was no Cosmos, if I may be loose and free with the term “time.” The three categories of Law listed above are categories of legislation based on the character of God. They are contingent on God just as the Cosmos is contingent and humanity is contingent. The Law of God for humanity on this planet coincides with the existence of humanity and does not have an eternal existence in its human relevant implementation details.
Christian orthodox dogma has a view called Ex Lex. This is Latin for “outside the Law.” God is viewed as not being the object of his own law. This does not mean that God can choose to be a transgressor. It means that the Law does not exist as an external force to which God must comply. The Law is a reflection of his inherent nature that he would naturally always be in compliance with it. But it is not an imposition. It is not like someone gave him a list of required behaviors that he has in a drawer and he pulls out once in a while to see what he must do. The statement “God cannot break his own laws” is a deficient and anthropomorphic concept. It detaches God from his Law. God is his law. He is the giver of law not the object of law. Prior to the existence of humanity, there must have already been a law for angels; also, a reflection of God’s nature. God may have instituted other laws for other sentient beings. God is the wellspring of Law. All such bodies of legislation are compatible with God’s character (Romans 7:12).
The Armstrongist Assertion of the Eternality of Torah
Armstrongist theology recognizes that the Law is eternal but they mistakenly believe that eternal, spiritual Law is the Torah. Herman Hoeh, in his 1971 article “Which Old Testament Laws Should We Keep Today?”, states: ”…God’s basic spiritual Laws existed from the beginning … This Law is summed up in the Ten Commandments … These Commandments existed from the very beginning – since creation.” Hoeh connects the initiation of the Law with the creation of the Cosmos. But what about the period prior to the creation? Lesson 17 of the Bible Study published in 1984 by the Worldwide Church of God states, “God's eternal, spiritual Law existed long before Adam and Eve were created.” Further reading of the surrounding text indicates that the term “Law” refers to the commandments, statues and judgments given at Sinai. The Armstrongist authors of the Bible Study retroject (chronological terms fail us) the Torah into the divine and timeless realm of God – what would from our perspective might simplistically be called the “eternal past.” So, God’s eternal, moral, and spiritual law is the Torah created for humankind.
In other words, Armstrongists would have us believe that the Sabbath existed in eternity as a Law before God ever created a Cosmos with the earth circling the sun tracing out a seven-day weekly cycle. They would have us believe that the concept of adultery existed before there were gendered human beings who enter into a marriage covenant. They would have us believe that the idea of stealing was forbidden before the material realm and the concept of ownership known to us was created. It is painfully obvious that the Torah was created for a certain people at a certain time and in a certain place. It is derived from the eternal Law of God but it is not the eternal Law of God.
Moral Content and Methodology
I believe that Armstrongists sense that there is something about the Torah that makes it required. And there is something. It is the moral content of the Law that is durable but not its implementation details or methodology. Circumcision is an excellent example. The physical surgery is no longer required but the changed heart of conversion that it symbolized is on the critical path to salvation. Circumcision lives on in its spiritual intent but not in his physical implementation. The Circumcision Party, that opposed Paul so energetically, was characterized by not being able to understand how Jesus magnified the Law. A sketch of three views of the Law follows:
Armstrongism retains the methodology, that is the physical implementation details, of the Law and this circumscribes and limits the scope of the Law. Jesus magnified the Law (Isaiah 42:21) by releasing the moral spirit of the Law and letting it expand out of its physical implementation container. He did this by revealing the unrestricted moral imperative behind the Law. The result of the retention of the restricting container is that Armstrongists can believe they are keeping the Law exhaustively and, in the spirit of Phariseeism, never lift a hand to perform a single charitable act. Fish food containing yeast may be righteously cast out during the Days of Unleavened Bread but an elderly neighbor who needs help can be ignored without the Armstrongist feeling uncomfortable about conformity with the Law. While many Armstrongists are charitable people, it is not their commitment to the Torah that makes them so. It is, rather, their exposure to the New Covenant with its emphasis on proactive love.
The Christian ideal is that the Law should be freed from its container but it retains its moral imperative. This is because the moral content of the Law is derived from the nature of God. And it is the moral content that is written on the heart. That morality is defined by love. God is love. But it is not free-form, draw-your-own-conclusion love but love conditioned by the witness of the Old Covenant (Hebrews 12:1).
A third view is a kind of Marcionism – a belief that the God of the Old Covenant is an ogre. Marcion of Sinope believed that Yahweh was a demiurge and anything emanating from Yahweh was to be rejected. Marcion assembled his own Gospel and accepted a few of the Epistles of Paul and nothing else in what became the later canon. An extreme version of this view is that the Old Covenant has been proclaimed obsolete and that gives us now a blank slate on which we may write our personal proclivities as an auto-generated code of ethics. Both the moral content and the physical implementation are now obsolete, have been vacated, and can be expediently and imaginatively replaced. This is an antinomian heresy not because it lacks ethics wholly but because it rejects the Old Covenant based etiology of Christian ethics. The rejected etiology logically excludes God as the unchallengeable source of the Law who gives rise to the durability and consistency of the moral content of the Law. To assert that God abrogated both the methodology and the moral content of any given Old Covenant Law in the institution of the New Covenant is to declare God’s use of the concepts of good and evil to be arbitrary.
Summary Conclusion
The Torah is not the eternal spiritual Law of God as Armstrongists claim. The Torah is, rather, a specific instantiation of the eternal spiritual Law. The Torah is decreed legislation for a certain people in a certain time and in a certain place. Inherent in its very language are the humanistic and earthly details that support its tailored nature. But because the Torah reflects the nature of God, its moral content persists beyond any change in covenant. While the moral content of the Law is nonvolatile, the implementation details or methodology of the Law may be modified or become obsolete. The example of circumcision is canonical here for all Laws. Requiring zealous conformance to the physical surgery militates against the action of Jesus to make the Law honorable (Isaiah 42:21) by freeing it from physical constraint in order to bring it to its full spiritual stature. The entire Torah, in moral content, culminates in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:4).
46 comments:
Well then.....do I still have to observe at this present time, as I do now apart from any church group, the 7th day sabbath and the three festivals of Ex 23:14-16 by the present day Jewish Calendar?
Excellent article Krischan! This is the part of the law that the church sorely does not understand:
"It is painfully obvious that the Torah was created for a certain people at a certain time and in a certain place. It is derived from the eternal Law of God but it is not the eternal Law of God. "
When Christians examine the Armstrong-doomsday-cult, they see an unyielding dictator in the form of High School dropout HWA continually squashing attempts by academics to reform his Plagiarized-Booklet-theology
This reminds me of another dictator, Adolf Hitler, (also a High-school-dropout) constantly countermanding his generals, with disastrous military results!
"The Armstrongist view of Law, with a capital “L” and found in both the Old and New Covenants, is very different from that of Christian orthodoxy."
Your premise seems to be that "Christian orthodoxy" is correct, and you use a lot of words to try to persuade others that it is.
"Christian orthodoxy" came about much later, and is a deviation from the truth.
Since the details of the feasts represented all the prophesies Jesus was going to fulfill, it had to be holy and tight around them. No blind & sick offerings. To compare it to today, it would be like practicing over & over & over to do an amazing theater production. There is the cast, the different scenes, the objects, the words. Then the play is performed. There is a take away from the play--the message, the highlights, what needs to be remembered. Jesus was the lead.
The Jews still keep the feasts because God told them to. There are many major world events happening during the feasts and signs in the sky even today in Jerusalem. They are watching God's calendar. There are a lot more Messianic Jews today who found Jesus through the feasts.
There is only one feast required for Gentiles to keep in the future. Representatives from each country around the world will go to Jerusalem, or their countries won't receive rain. Gentiles aren't required to keep them right now, but it would be good to participate in to understand scripture better. I would love to go to Jerusalem and celebrate their feasts to make the OT become more meaningful. The Holy Spirit , the 3rd personality of the Trinity, is definitely in one of the feast.
Anonymous 3:40 "our premise seems to be that "Christian orthodoxy" is correct"
Referring to it as a "premise" is a form of unjustified diminishment. It is, rather, an exegeted fact - some of which I presented in this essay. And the counterpoint supported by Armstrongism is demonstrably invalid. But that was not the topic of this essay.
Just to make sure, I am not referring to the Orthodox Church such as the Eastern Orthodox Church. Although the Eastern Orthodox Church is an actual Christian church and its theology would not disagree with what I have written.
Krischan
In the OT there were blessings & cursings. In Galatians, it says we were redeemed from the curse of the law. Flip the pages back & forth saying, "I Am redeemed from _____.
It is a bit of a stretch to suggest that Armstrongism ever formulated anything approaching a coherent and comprehensive rationale for carrying some of the provisions of Torah into the Christian era. An article ("Which Laws in the Old Testament Have Authority Today?) by Herman Hoeh appeared in the October/November 1983 issue of the "Good News" magazine. The formula for cherry picking Torah which Hoeh advanced there was basically to exclude "sacrificial" and "ritual" laws and carry most of the rest forward. Hoeh also made a distinction between those laws which were already in effect prior to the institution of the covenant at Mount Sinai and those which followed and were more clearly a part of the implementation of that covenant. CGI's "Systematic Theology Project" identifies four different categories of laws in its determination of which Torah commandments still apply to Christians ("broad spiritual principles, civil regulations, laws of cleanliness and ritual purity," and "laws relating to the sacrificial system"). Bottom line, Armstrongists have realized that there must offer some kind of rationale for accepting some provisions of Torah and rejecting others (picking and choosing).
Unfortunately, it appears to me that Krischan has done the same thing in this article - that is he/she has presented a rationale for carrying PART of the provisions of the Torah forward into the New Covenant. Now, admittedly Krischan would carry FEWER of the provisions of the Torah forward into the Christian era than the Armstrongist - only those which he/she sees as having "moral content"; but we cannot escape the fact that this is yet another rationale for cherry picking Torah!
What's wrong with that? Jesus and his apostles viewed the law as a whole. If you kept all of the hundreds of dos and don'ts contained in Torah but one, you were still a lawbreaker! Indeed, Christ said that Torah could be comprehended and summarized by just two commandments: You must love God with all of your heart and soul, and you must love your neighbor as yourself. For Christ and his apostles, God is LOVE. This is the character of God which is reflected in all of the laws/commandments which originated with God. Hence, it is unproductive to offer any formula for cherry picking amongst the hundreds of commands of Torah. Christians do not need a list of dos and don'ts. If we internalize and follow Christ's commandments, we will have focused on the essence of God's character - LOVE!
The Gospel of Matthew contains more references to and direct quotations from Torah than any of the other three Gospels. In the fifth chapter of that book, Christ zeroed in on the moral responsibilities of Christians. Notice that he quoted several provisions of Torah as "you have heard this" BUT "I'm telling you that..." (I'm obviously paraphrasing). He reveals that the Torah provision for divorce was NOT in harmony with God's original intent. He said that being faithful to one's spouse entailed a whole lot more than simply refraining from sexual intercourse with someone who wasn't your spouse. Likewise, he said that refraining from the physical act of murder was also insufficient, that he expected his followers to avoid malicious anger. He also went on to reject the notions of oaths and revenge. Why? Because these things were inconsistent with the principles of loving God and each other! Is anyone going to seriously suggest that these are anything other than "moral content"?
Torah pointed to Christ. Christ fulfilled Torah for us. Christ summarized Torah and revealed God's original intent. And unlike Torah, Christ's commandments aren't just applicable to the children of Israel - They are applicable to both Jew and Gentile! In other words, unlike Torah, they are NOT confined to a people, place and time!
In the course of our actions in life, the WHY we do something is far more important than the WHAT we do.
It is certainly possible to do a "good thing" or practice a lifestyle restriction, and do it for glory, or out of peer pressure, which would be the wrong "WHY" we are doing it.
The 10 Commandments were written in stone, by the very finger of God, and were in the middle of the Ark. They are immutable standards that are timeless. The Torah does reveal the mind of God on many topics, although lots of them cannot be literally applied in todays culture. For instance, you are told to bury your human waste in the Torah. The mind and intent of God, is "deal with this, and dont just defecate anywhere". Thus, septic or sewer systems follow the "Spirit of the Law". Same applies with lusting being a type of adultery.
Legalism, Phariseeism and Perfectionism was a WCG plague. God is not antinomian, or an anarchist either. It seems that people love the ditches, and dont desire to use the Spirit to discern, and to properly apply the mind of God to many issues.
Krischan,
Fine article. I am looking for some clarity on one passage in your article.
" An extreme version of this view is that the Old Covenant has been proclaimed obsolete and that gives us now a blank slate on which we may write our personal proclivities as an auto-generated code of ethics. "
Hebrews 8 does say the Old covenant is obsolete. So, is it the second part that is the extreme version "a blank slate on which to write our personal proclivities"?
I suspect that is your meaning since you say that the Law was for a time, place, and people.
Would you take issue to comparing the Old Covenant and New Covenant with the Articles of the Confederation and the Constitution? There were many consistent values in each of the documents, but the Articles were established during the Revolutionary War and were in effect through the early part of the "nation" till 1788. Then the Constitution was ratified and became the contractual agreement that the nation followed.
In other words, the terms of the Articles of Confederation became obsolete, but the values and motivations largely lived on and were expressed with different terms in the Constitution. The Articles were good just as the Old Covenant Laws were good (and holy), but those terms are obsolete now. The Constitution has superceded the Articles and made them obsolete. Likewise, the New Covenant has better terms and promises and has made the Old Covenant terms obsolete despite there being overlap of values and motivations within the Two Covenants. The Old Covenant can be holy, just, and good while still being obsolete to the New Covenant which is BETTER.
One only has to look at the weekly sabbath, the annual sabbath, the annual holy days, and the various and sundry rules and regulations to realize the Old Covenant was meant for a people living in the middle east.
All of the Holy days are tied to the harvest cycle of the land of Israel. You only have to read the instructions on how grain offerings were to be offered during DOUB, Pentecost, and the FOT to see how obvious this was. It would be impossible to keep the feasts according to the rules in the law in many places of the world because the climate is too cold or too hot to allow the growing of grain. And the months long sun ups and sundowns in the northern and southern parts of the globe would make it impossible to keep a sundown to sundown weekly sabbath.
Many other laws in the Old Covenant don't make sense outside the middle east as well. The law about a fence on your roof makes sense if you have a flat roof like nearly every house in that part of the world has, but most houses in most parts of the world have slanted or sloped ones.
But the biggest reason why these laws were meant for a people living in the middle east is their historical character. All of these holy days pictured something that happened to the Israelites. DOUB, the deliverance from Egypt, Pentecost, the delivery of the Old Covenant, Trumpets, a reminder that God would save them from their enemies, Atonement, a reminder of sins commited and sent outside the camp, and the FOT, a reminder how they camped in the wilderness for 40 years, until they were allowed to enter the promised land. None of these things happened to us, unless we were descendants of those people. What happened to us, Jew or Gentile, is Jesus Christ entered into history. He shed his blood for our sins, and initiated a new covenant that would forgive sins, making the Mosaic rituals and their sacrifices obsolete. And four decades later, the Mosaic economy went up in flames in 70 AD, showing the New Covenant was now the only game in town, and was becoming a worldwide religion, not one that was confined to a geographical location. (Horrors, did I just say 'worldwide?!' I hope the Kitchen's don't get upset!)
Interesting article. I would only say that the "finger of God" is anthropomorphic language as well. God is spirit and as such, not corporeal. Also consider how were angels to honor father and mother or not commit adultery?
Jesus, as the Creator, is above the law. He is above everything and is Sovreign. He is not subject to anything. The law of God is written on our hearts, but only realized by a believer when sealed and indwelled by the Holy Spirit. We are no longer under the law, but under grace as Paul writes in Romans. Jew or gentile, nobody is under the 10 commandments or the rest of the Torah. The 10 were simply the words of the Old Covenant, simplified and were only for those Jews, for a certain time. That is why we read that they were the tutor or schoolmaster UNTIL Faith (Jesus) came. Paul calls them a ministry of death carved in stone. Cog leaders, members can deceive themselves into believing they are spiritual Jews and still beholden to the law (all 613 of them) if they want to live lives of misery and fully aware they are sinners, but Christians are free in Christ! We know we cannot possibly keep the law perfectly and put our full weight and trust in the finished work of Jesus. I wish these legalistic cults would see that. Come to the Cross of Calvary and leave Sinai behind!
Anonymous 9:13
"do I still have to observe ... the 7th day sabbath and the three festivals of Ex 23:14-16 by the present day Jewish Calendar?"
The operative words here are "have to." This derives from the erroneous Armstrongist view that the observation of the Torah is a pre-condition to salvation. You can keep any aspect of the Torah as much as you want. You just must understand that you are observing the jots and tittles of the Torah as a personal ethical practice and it is not required for salvation. Salvation comes by Jesus living in us by grace through faith. Circumcison, once again, is the model. If keeping the letter of the law were required for salvation, all Christian men would have to be circumcised according to scripture. This would be really difficult since most men in modern times have been circumcised in violation of scripture - some doctor did it however and whenever he wanted. What are we to do? Get a foreskin grafted in place so we can take another go at it - this time like it says it should be done in the Torah?
I believe the First Century Jeruasalem Church observed the Torah but they observed it as an ethical/cultural corpus of behavioral guidelines. Not as a pre-condition to salvation. They were already saved in Jesus. (Armstrongism uses the concept of "qualification" to suspend salvation and make it contingent on works.) If this were not the posture of the Jerusalem Church, it would have rebelled against the Jerusalem Council's decision in Acts 15. My point is that the Jerusalem Council did not and cannot undo the moral imperative behind the law. Circumcision is of the heart - who cares about foreskins. We find rest from sin in Christ not in the chronological seventh day. But the seventh day can still be instructive, for those who wish to acknowledge it, because it can still serve as a liturgical pointer to Jesus.
IMHO, Krischan
Tonto,
I always appreciate your comments. I have noticed that you have often pointed out that the 10 commandments were written by the finger of God. Does that necessarily make it eternal? The primary question I have is the role of the physical sabbath as it is the only one of the ten that does not necessarily flow naturally from a natural law that a believer in the Christian God would perform.
The Ten Commandments were in the Ark of the Covenant as you say, but all those items were associated with the Children of Israel. Nothing from Able, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob.
Jesus says that He is our Rest and then Matthew accounts how the Sabbath was made for Man, not man for the Sabbath. Jesus as our Rest is obviously greater than 1/7 of the physical rotations of our planet. I am only saying that to show that the Rest carries through into the New Covenant but perhaps as different from the Old Covenant teaching as is circumcision of the hearty is different from Old Covenant circumcision.
Part 1
The ideal: circumcision of the heart and flesh
Dt 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Lev 19:18b but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Heb 8:8a For finding fault with THEM,
“The truth of the matter was that Jeremiah found no fault with the Sinaitic covenant. Both Jeremiah and the later writer of Hebrews were emphatic in their assessment of the trouble with the covenant made in Moses’ day. THE PROBLEM WAS WITH THE PEOPLE, not with the covenant making God nor with the moral law or promises reaffirmed from the patriarchs and included in that old covenant. The text of Jeremiah 31:32 explicitly pointed the finger when it said, “Which covenant of Mine THEY broke.” So also did Hebrews 8:8-9: “His finding fault with THEM because they continued not in [His] covenant”...” (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Towards an Old Testament Theology, p.232).
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. 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).
Part 2
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.
"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, Vol. 2, p.513).
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.
Eze 46:9 “When the people of the land come before the LORD at the appointed feasts, he who enters by the north gate to WORSHIP shall go out by the south gate, and he who enters by the south gate shall go out by the north gate: no one shall return by way of the gate by which he entered, but each shall go out straight ahead. (ESV).
Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to WORSHIP the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
An uncircumcised person in the flesh, either Israelite or Gentile, will not be able to worship God in His temple during the New Covenant Kingdom of God.
1 Cor 9:21 .... I am not free from God's law
but am under Christ's law) ... (NIV).
“Paul ... is always under the authority of the true God and of His Christ...” (Norman Hillyer, 1 Corinthians, NBC 3rd. ed., p.1062).
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Gal 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
“Paul is reading the torah as a narrative has come to see Jesus as the decisive chapter in an otherwise unfinished story. He is the one to whom the torah is directed. But that does not mean a negation of the legislative dimensions of the torah, only a fresh perspective on it.
"He can call it "the law of Christ" (cf. 1 Cor 9:20-21). By that he does not mean a different code or document; it is the Mosaic law, but summed up in the command to love and interpreted in the light of Christ.
Earl, "Hebrews 8 does say the Old covenant is obsolete. So, is it the second part that is the extreme version "a blank slate on which to write our personal proclivities"?"
Right. The OC is obsolete. That is not extreme. What is extreme is to vacate the entire Torah of its moral imperative. And this leads to the extreme view of considering that we now have a blank slate. We do not have a blank slate because the Torah originated with God and has an ethical value. God did not just fabricate a bunch of laws in a baseless way and package them as the Torah.
Earl, "In other words, the terms of the Articles of Confederation became obsolete, but the values and motivations largely lived on and were expressed with different terms in the Constitution."
Yes. This is similar in my view. The original terms contain a physical expression that may be dropped in the NC. Like circumcison dropping the surgery and becoming a spiritual principle.
Krischan
Miller Jones, "Now, admittedly Krischan would carry FEWER of the provisions of the Torah forward into the Christian era than the Armstrongist - only those which he/she sees as having "moral content"; but we cannot escape the fact that this is yet another rationale for cherry picking Torah!"
No, I would not carry fewer of the provisions forward. I believe that each law has a moral imperative behind it. All should be carried forward at the moral/spiritual level. God did not fashion the Torah from a bunch of discards. Paul cites Moses in the statement in Romans 10:5 that "Moses, for his part, wries this concerning righteousness grounded in law: "The man who practices it shall gain life by it (Cassirer's translation)." The Torah was a legal package that led to and sustained Godly life. Only the Israelites could not keep it. So they were given a NC that in most cases vacated the physical requirements of the law but did not vacate its moral intent. Once again, we have circumcision as the canonical model. But circumcision is now not a surgery but a spiritual principle. Every other Torahic law can be taken through the same transformative process as circumcison - admittedly with some careful consideration and perhaps controversy. This is true because both the OC and NC laws are based on the moral character of God. Marcion, I think, believed that the OT was not inspired by God but by a demiurge called Yahweh. Hence, when Paul said the law was obsolete, it gave Marcion the pretext to vacate both the Torah's physical properties but also its moral properties. This is a heresy found in some social reform theologies.
Krischan
IN RESPONSE TO EARL ABOVE:
We see in the Books of Isaiah, and Zechariah, and others, that in the FUTURE , after the establishment of the Kingdom of God, there is not to be any pork eating, there will be a keeping of the Sabbath, and also the Feast of Tabernacles.
Krischan wrote: "I believe that each law has a moral imperative behind it. All should be carried forward at the moral/spiritual level."
What is the moral imperative behind the tattoo prohibition? And how is that carried forward at the moral/spiritual level?
4:29: It is: God said so. The phrase "I am the Lord" is in my view the most understated truth.
Miller Jones: "tattoo prohibition"
1. Violation of the sanctity of the body. We could draw a parallel with the church - the Body of Christ.
2. Violation of the body as a temple for the Holy Spirit.
3. The disturbance of the natural beauty God endowed the human body with.
4. The possibility of tattoos having a pagan religious significance.
5. The possibility of tattoos evoking pride in the self.
6. The possibilitly of introducing disease into the skin. 7
7. Tattoos are privative on the human body like evil is privative on good.
8. The possibility of looking like GTA.
Those are a few things. Tattoos have always seemed a little bizarre and garish to me. In general, the abuse or blemishing of some part of God's creation. I have never thought about it before. I am sure others can come up with more reasons for prohibition. Given the negative moral/spiritual associations, I don't know why anyone would want to get tattooed. If the issue were forced, I could imagine the Church, led by the ministry of the Holy Spirit, could prohibit tattoos even though the OC law against it is obsolete and it was never re-affirmed in the NC.
The fact is, God did not prohibit tattoos just because he was bored one day. To him the prohibition has a moral content then and now. Maybe you should figure out what that moral content is and how it affects you. In some ways it may be different for different people.
Krischan
Read Krischan's response to me. This is the epitome of Pharisaical legalism. For anyone who discerns the problems with Krischan's thesis on Torah (and for those who think his thesis is Scriptural, you may want to check out some of the recent posts on my blog: https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/
@Krischan
Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 7:10:00 AM PDT
Your premise is that it is fact. Historical fact is that present day "Christian orthodoxy" developed over hundreds of years and did not exist during the years of the early Church.
The fact is, it is a deviation.
Great article. Very logical and sound.
Many protestant groups would agree as well.
I do believe the Sabbath should be kept however.
In both Jeremiah and Ezekiel scripture speaks of a New Covenant replacing the existing Old one by the means of writing the Law on men's hearts and minds as opposed to just stone. This could only be referring to 10 Commandment Law which was written on stone. So the New Covenant Law is the same Law as the Old Testament which includes the Sabbath. If you are a follower of Christ in the New Covenant than Christ would be inside you keeping the same law that He kept. Which includes the Sabbath.
Overall, just a tremendous article.
As far as tattoos, tattoos relating to symbols and words of death are wrong, not words & symbols of life. I don't plan on ever getting a tattoo. I don't think they nice looking. If I wanted to hide a very noticeable birthmark.I would consider designing a little tasteful tattoo around it. God puts a mark on us on our forehead & hand so He started it. Depending on the business where you get the tattoo is important to prevent infection. When you get older, your skin wrinkles so it looks goofy.
Miller Jones:
Where in this chain of events do you find Phariseeism?
1. God is not an anonymous force but has eternal moral character.
2. He creates sentient creatures call humans.
3. For Israel he issues the Torah and it is based on his eternal moral character.
4. Israel is unable to keep the law.
5. Jesus brings us the New Testament which renders the Torah obsolete as to most physical implementation details but does not vacate its morality. (Jesus fulfilled the Law through compliance not through rebellion against its moral content.)
6. The moral, spiritual underpinning of the Torah is retained and reflected in the NC.
I think your specious charge of Phariseeism masks another issue. You want to vacate the moral underpinning of the Torah for whatever reason. But in so doing, you vacate the presence of God in your theological interpretations.
Krischan
Since the charge of Pharseeism has been leveled against me, let me do a little exposition. First, I think Pharseeism is probably a surrogate for Armstrongism in this context rather than the actual ancient practices of the Pharisees. So, let me draw a comparison, then, between Armstrongism and what I am saying:
1. Armstrongism: The Torah is still in force at the jot an tittle level and has actually been magnified by Jesus so that it is more extensive and restrictive that the OT rendition. The Torah is the eternal moral law of God. The full Torah (excluding the sacrifices and the ministration of death) is written on the heart of the believer. The Torah must be kept as a pre-condition to or qualification for salvation.
2. What I believe: The Torah is no longer in force but since it is based on the moral character of God, its moral foundation is not vacated. The Torah is not the eternal moral law of God but is a derivative of it for a certain people (Israel) at a certain time and certain place. The moral and spiritual content of the Torah is written on the heart of Christians but the overt legal implementation of the Law of Christ governing Christian behavior is contained in the pages of the NT. Since writing on the heart is a feature of conversion, observance of the Law of Christ is not a pre-condition for salvation but a product of already accomplished salvation. (I believe this is just orthodox, mainstream Christianity.)
Looking at these two characterizations, side by side, I think must lead to some sense that they are actually different and cannot both be subsumed under the single concept of Phariseeism.
Krischan
Something to ponder while taking one's three "S"es in the AM, but not necessarily the whole picture or ultimate truth.
Anonymous 5:50
No, you have it wrong. The history of the deviation can be found in Dugger and Dodd. Further, one can exegete the theological character of the deviation from the Bible. It is really uncontroversial.
Krischan
Krischan,
Your obvious intent is to protect Torah - to make its individual provisions binding on Christians. Moreover, to accomplish your objective, like the Pharisees before you, you have erected a contradictory and illogical intellectual edifice around Torah to protect and perpetuate it. You don't want to be personally saddled with Sabbath, Holy Days, clean and unclean meats; but you want others to be bound by its "moral character."
Whether you like it or not, Torah is a whole - a comprehensive piece of legislation designed to meet the specific needs of the children of Israel living in the Promised Land many hundreds of years before Christ. Scripture and nature reveal that God does have eternal moral character which is based on LOVE! That love is reflected in Torah, in Christ's fulfillment of Torah for us, and in the commandments/principles which Jesus Christ did carry forward into the New Covenant (love for God and each other). Torah points to Christ and his work. Instead of scrupulously following a list of dos and don'ts meant for another people, time and place, Christ has circumcised the hearts of his disciples and given them a piece of God's character (the Holy Spirit) - which he expects them to employ in discerning God's will and in living the new life going forward which HE has made possible.
The moral underpinning of Torah is love for God and each other, and that has been retained and is reflected in the New Covenant. The moral underpinning of Torah has NOT been vacated, but there is no longer any need for individual commandments about incest with one's mother, step-mother, sister, aunt or uncle - this behavior is excluded because of the harm and hurt that it would bring to the people touched by such behavior (because love does no harm to another). Once again, you CANNOT have it both ways - We are either operating under the terms of the Old Covenant, or we are operating under the terms of the New Covenant. We are either under Torah, or we are under Grace! The six hundred plus commandments of Torah are either still applicable to Christians, or they are NOT!
Krischan,
You wrote: "What I believe: The Torah is no longer in force but since it is based on the moral character of God, its moral foundation is not vacated. The Torah is not the eternal moral law of God but is a derivative of it for a certain people (Israel) at a certain time and certain place. The moral and spiritual content of the Torah is written on the heart of Christians but the overt legal implementation of the Law of Christ governing Christian behavior is contained in the pages of the NT. Since writing on the heart is a feature of conversion, observance of the Law of Christ is not a pre-condition for salvation but a product of already accomplished salvation. (I believe this is just orthodox, mainstream Christianity.)"
That sounds really good, but you have made very clear here that you have specific individual commandments in mind when you talk about "the moral and spiritual content of the Torah." I can embrace your statement with the understanding that "the moral and spiritual content of the Torah" is comprehended in Christ's identification of the two greatest commandments. Without that qualification, your statement of orthodoxy becomes heretical!
Someone above made this thoughtful post:
"I do believe the Sabbath should be kept however."
Ok, then, what day is the Sabbath in the New World? Of course, in the Old World, especially in the Middle East, the Seventh Day has been continuous since its creation. No question in that broad geographic region.
But when God created the earth, where did he want the International Dateline to be placed? Down the center of the Atlantic Ocean, or in the middle of the Pacific? If Sabbath observance has been obligated on all humans since they dispersed and settled the entire earth from the Garden of Eden, wouldn't people living in the New World in, say, 1491, be obligated to keep the local Sabbath? If that was so, the Sabbath in the New World began at sunset on today's Thursday evening. Today, calendars take into account the International Dateline, which in modern times has been arbitrarily placed in the middle of the Pacific (to accommodate commerce and communication)
So, from a strict Biblical standpoint, disregarding human manipulations of the dateline, Americans should observe the weekly Sabbath --- when it actually, Biblically starts --- at sundown each Thursday evening.
Think not? Then from scripture justify the placing of the dateline in the Pacific. Biblical history necessarily puts it in the Atlantic.
Of course, across the northern regions of the globe, with the Inuits in northern Asia and North America, along with the Sami in northern Europe, those peoples are necessarily condemned. For long periods of each year the sun in their regions never rises or sets. It's impossible for them to keep a seventh-day Sabbath. The Torah doesn't include them. They are necessarily condemned, no matter what.
Unless, of course, the seventh-day Sabbath was intended only for a specific people, in a specific region of the world, for a specific period of time.
I definitely would agree that some of the Armstrong COG7 groups are guilty of application of the law errors like the Pharisees. And definitely added to the law like the Pharisees and Catholics. But the most grievous errors were setting up pastors to be the policemen of their version of the law in people's lives.
However, proper application of the law is just and good.
Miller,
I cannot say that God's eternal moral character is displayed in the Law. But, still each law/statute does have some spiritual application. However, as a whole it was given to a people that God knew could not keep it...I'd initially think to say that that is a flaw, but it is described as holy, just, and good. The particulars of the Law do not warm my heart though maybe too jaded by COG law. COG law is very flawed; that much is sure.
1024, Or maybe it starts a couple hours before Dawn on Friday here in the U.S.
One thing people don't always get is that going by the international dateline there is 48 hours of Sabbath each week (somewhere on the planet).
The 10 commandments, the perfect law of God. The nation/people who observe them as their civil Laws, will be placed high above all other peoples.
Miller Jones, "Your obvious intent is to protect Torah - to make its individual provisions binding on Christians."
Artful dodge. But you just don't want to get it. Your obvious intent is to make sure that one particular prohibition is nullified under the guise of holding a NT view of the Torah or some defensive palaver about a morality of love. The church has been against your position for the last two millennia. The prognosis for your strategy is poor. There is so much mainstream dogma and testimony against your position that has been generated by the church, I do not feel I need to carry this backwater conversation further.
Krischan
Earl, "I cannot say that God's eternal moral character is displayed in the Law."
This is an interesting statement. If the law does not reflect God's eternal moral character, what does it then reflect? Is it just a package of discardable concoctions that have no meanining as the neo-Marcionites would have us believe? To assert that God instituted a baseless and meaningless law, that has no moral essence, is to accuse God of being a false witness. God is then purportedly decreeing a law that is not really a law, but a statement that falls into the category of fictional literary device. Yet God claims in the introduction in Leviticus 22 that the laws are intended to sustain life.
I believe that every legislation issued by God reflects his moral character in some way. I also believe that the Cosmos in the eschaton must reflect his moral character. Can it ever be otherwise for a God who is absolute, true and pure?
I don't mean to jump on your case. I know you were just making a rhetorical statement. But it is a good talking point for this debate.
Krischan
Krischan,
You are stating beliefs you have come to through what you believe to be logic. And, it may well be, but I am not required to believe that or spend time looking into it (not saying you are saying this).
Nevertheless, because we live in a fallen world that is not eternal, the Law that was made in part due to sin and the Fall was applied to this world which I believe to be a temporary or exclusive frame. An eternal God that is outside of this frame cannot be fully revealed in the Law nor can His character...obviously.
Are there elements displayed in the law? I would think so. But it is a rudimentary display at best. There are some crude elements of the Law that, while established by the Lord, are a response to this fallen world and could not be a part of the NC. New wine in Old wineskin. The Lord wants us to "die to the Law and serve in the new way of the Spirit". I believe the NC reflects God's nature far more than the OC. And, if that is so, then the OC (which is not fully compatible with the NC "new wine") has elements that are not compatible with the Lord reflected in the NC which is the better covenant. I could look more into this, but what really is the point. Can we gain from contemplating the OC law? Sure. But, contemplating the NC is better.
I compare this to the COGs thinking that there is so much meaning in their Holy Day plan. I'm sure others, but explicitly COGWA, even states you cannot be one who is called without understanding the Holy Day plan. Many Christian Churches believe what we claim about the holy days: Christ is our Passover, we must take of the true Bread to remove sin, we must receive the Holy Spirit as at Pentecost, Christ returns at the blowing of a Trumpet, then Satan put away (explicitly stated in Rev. 20), and the millennium begins.
My point being that associating the events of our conversion and the events surrounding Christ's return to the OC holy days is not necessary. Nor, is thinking the Lord's eternal character is revealed in the OC Law... what matters is that you know the Lord and His Spirit is in you...that will reveal more than anything else.
Earl,
I agree that the Law cannot fully reveal the nature of God. But I do believe that the Law, though a reduction of his glory, is fully compatible with God. I do not think he would otherwise have issued it. When Moses came down from Sinai, his face was glowing due to the glory of the Law. While I will use logic in describing my view, it will be based on citations from the Bible. God himself said in Leviticus 18:5, “You shall keep my laws and my rules, by the pursuit of which man shall live: I am the Lord.” He was saying that these are the words of life, leading to life and sustaining life. Psalm 119, which declcares the benefits and importance of the Torah, treats the Law as a single category. It does not discuss exception. There is nothing in the OC view that would make me think that some Law was withoug substantive moral content. It was an integrated corpus.
When Jesus was on earth, he did not speak negatively of the Torah, but spoke respectfully of it, saying that not one jot or tittle would pass away until all was fulfilled. So, I take the opposing view. I do believe that the Torah in toto reflected God’s moral nature. But it had a strong theocratic element because Israel was to live under a theocracy. And I believe that the same God who decreed the Torah also decreed the New Covenant with better promises. There was a quality difference between the Torah implementation and the New Covenant legislation. But there was no wholesale revoking of moral content of the Law.
Krischan
I don't see a dimes worth of difference in the major views expressed here. Whether expressed as "torah" or "love", it will ALL (commandments, statutes, judgements, and ordinances) be written upon the heart! Hebrews 8-10, Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27
The daunting question everyone fears, " what do I have to do now?" is a different matter altogether!
In conclusion:
Paul wrote of Jesus and his relationship to the Torah:
"For Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes."
Here, in context, Jesus is speaking of Israel and the Law pertaining to Israel. His statement is that every jot and tittle of the Law culminated in Jesus. Jesus was the "end" or goal of the Law. And in Jesus the morality of that law is mediated to us as righteouness. This does not paint a picture of the extinction of the law but a sublimation and retention of it.
Circumcision is the model for how The Law is transformed. It becomes obsolete in some sense. Through circumcision we see that the physical surgery is gone but the circumcision of the heart remains. But this transformation does not vacate the original morality of circumcision. This spirit or morality is what is written on the heart. And the ministry of the Holy Spirit does this writing. So, the Body of Christ must interpret what morality in the ancient Torah must now be mediated to us in Christ. Some aspects of this transfer are quite apparent through explicit re-affirmation in NT writings. Other aspects are more subtle or even controversial.
But to say there is not a "dimes worth of difference" is to miss the Elephant in the Room entirely. There is a great difference between those who observe the spirit of the Law and those who believe the the original physical implementation still pertains. The latter wholly misunderstand the transformation of circumcision. And there is a great difference between those who observe the spirit of the Law and those who wish to vacate its God-breathed morality and innovate a new morality outside the bounds of Judeo-Christian ethics. Much more than a dime's worth of difference. Rather, a total category difference.
Auf Wiedersehen,
Krischan
DW, Apr 25th, 10:19, above asks how the angels can keep the decalogue commands to honour parents and avoid adultery? Well, didn't you get his point? That the great spiritual law of God is not just understood in the letter but also in the spirit? The holy angels "honour their parents" by worshipping the Lord who created them and they do not serve anything else but the wishes of Christ their master. To do otherwise is adultery in the spiritual sense. Look at Israel for your example.
You also wrote that Christ isn't subject to anyone? Foolish one, you haven't read where Christ said, "My Father is greater than I"? (Jn 14:28) and that He will hand over the kingdom to Him in the last times? (1 Cor 15:24)
Krischan, good work in upholding the high moral law of God, that is the righteousness of the law (Rom 2:26), but you still fall short, though not as short as the other commenters above, when you agree that it is good, such as Sabbath-keeping, but refuse to endorse its practice or view it as necessary for salvation. If the Sabbath rest was made by God for man (not just the Jew), isn't that good enough for us to keep it? And if you are called to assemble on a day that God blessed and sanctified, what do you think the Lord would say if you refuse His invitation? Indeed this law will be instituted in the millenium. (Is 66:23)
Anonymous 1:10
I uphold the moral content of the Torah not its physical implementation. Once again, circumcision. It is not of the flesh but of the heart. And it is a rule that connects us to the Promises made to Abraham - something that critical has been transformed into a spiritual observance.
The law culminates in Jesus (Romans 10). He is the Sabbath and the rest we take is rest from sin. Observance of the seventh day is not required for salvation. It has always been just a foreshadow of Jesus. Keeping the Sabbath is not a foresaking of the NC. I would expect that the Jerusalem church kept the Sabbath - but in a traditional and cultural sense. But the physical seventh day observance was left of the decree of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.
The Torah is obsolete in its ceremonial observances and in its value in salvation. It has been replaced by the Law of Christ delivered in the Sermon on the Mount.
Krischan
Krischan,
With all due respect. I believe the Sabbath is an extension of the high moral law of God as best explained in Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary:
"After six days, God ceased from all works of creation. In miracles, he has overruled
nature, but never changed its settled course, or added to it. God did not rest as one weary,
but as one well pleased. Notice the beginning of the kingdom of grace, in the sanctification, or keeping holy, of the sabbath day. The solemn observing of one day in seven as a day of holy rest and holy work, to God's honour, is the duty of all to whom God has made known his holy sabbaths. At this time none of the human race were in being but our first parents.
For them the sabbath was appointed; and clearly for all succeeding generations also. The
Christian sabbath, which we observe, is a seventh day, and in it we celebrate the rest of God
the Son, and the finishing the work of our redemption."
Post a Comment