What Did You Sign Up For? – Part 1
A Review of Herman Hoeh’s “Which Old Testament Laws Should We Keep Today?”
By Neo
This is a review of an article written by Herman Hoeh titled “Which Old Testament Laws Should We Keep Today.” The copy of the article that I will be reviewing is dated 1971. I have found no subsequent revisions. This document represents the vetted Armstrongist statement on this topic. It was written by Herman Hoeh under the aegis of Herbert W. Armstrong, regarded as an Apostle by the dispersed Armstrongist organizations. Followers of Apostle Herbert W. Armstrong cannot abrogate or revise his words or words he approved just as they cannot abrogate or revise the words of the Apostle Paul. So there is no need to review the writings of organizations derived from the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) on this topic. Any writing with standing in the Armstrongist theological and Apostolic tradition will be compatible with Hoeh’s article. Any article published by a denomination derived from the WCG that conflicts with this article will be a renunciation of Herbert W. Armstrong’s Apostleship.
Two Models of Biblical Jurisprudence
Hoeh emphasized the importance of this topic. He stated in the article “Everyone needs to understand in detail the answer to this question. Christian growth – ones very character – depends on understanding the answer to this question.” This analysis will begin by defining two models that provide a means of comparing the Hoehist view of the law with the Christian view.
Model 1: The Hoehist Model
1. The Old Testament litigation (OT) contains God’s spiritual law from the beginning.
Hoeh’s statement: “First, remember that God’s basic spiritual laws existed from the beginning. . . God will not alter his spiritual laws. The spiritual laws describe the very character of God. They enable us to know what God is like.”
2. Parts of the litigation in the Old Testament are still in force.
Hoeh wrote: “’Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel (Mal 4:4).’ This law we are not to forget. We are to keep it.”
3. The New Testament (NT) is a spiritual enhancement of the Old Testament.
Hoeh wrote: “The purpose of Christ’s teachings in the “Sermon on the Mount” was to magnify the Old Testament law, not annul it.”
Model 2: A Common Christian Model
1. God has an eternal law by which he lives. He is not subject to an external law but he is a law unto himself (sibi ipse ex).
2. The Old Testament litigation is an instantiation of the eternal law adapted for use by the ancient nation of Israel. The Old Testament is derived from 1 above and, therefore, in part resembles 3 below.
3. The New Testament litigation is an instantiation of the eternal law adapted for use by all of mankind under Christianity. The New Testament is derived from 1 above and, therefore, in part resembles 2 above.
The Eternal Law
During the Middle Ages there was a controversy in the church about God’s relationship to law. This was known as the Ex Lex Debate. Some concluded that God was subject (sub legi) to some kind of law. But this seemed to make this law superior to God. This debate was resolved with the conclusion that God is sibi ipse ex, a law unto himself. This eternal law was defined by Thomas Aquinas as follows:
“By “Eternal Law’” Aquinas means God’s rational purpose and plan for all things. And because the Eternal Law is part of God’s mind then it has always, and will always, exist. The Eternal Law is not simply something that God decided at some point to write (“Ethics for A-level”, Max Dimmock, Andrew Fisher).”
It is not clear what Hoeh meant in the term “from the beginning” in his description of the essential spiritual law in point 1 of his model. One might conclude from this that he is referring to the creation of the universe or the creation of Adam. But his statement, “The spiritual laws describe the very character of God” places this law in the category of the eternal law in the Christian model because God’s character is eternal. And in this Hoeh departs from orthodoxy.
The Old Testament Litigation was Implemented for Humans
Strategically, Hoeh has positioned the Old Testament litigation as the Eternal Law in his model. This seems to lock the Old Testament litigation into place and would prevent it from ever being superseded. Note that he states explicitly, “God will not alter his spiritual laws.” This sets up his later argument that the New Testament does not replace the Old Testament but extends it spiritually. But the Old Testament litigation is clearly an adaptation for human beings. It speaks of the seventh day, stealing, coveting, lying and adultery. These are human, earth bound activities and concepts. In the depths of timelessness, why would God have, as a part of his essence, a law against adultery when human sexuality had not yet been created? Why would we think that any temporary human concerns and attributes would be a part of his essential eternal law?
The OT and NT are both adaptations of the eternal law to human conditions as the Christian model indicates. The OT and NT are based on the eternal law but they are not the eternal law itself. The eternal law is intelligible to us in some of its features because we are made in the image of God. God can instantiate other laws as needed. Perhaps, there are laws that pertain to angels that we would not even understand. God can also modify or revoke this litigation. That the OT is based on human circumstances and is not in the category of the eternal law is so self-evident that it cannot be denied by the rational mind.
The Ten Commandments will always exist as long as humans exist. They are meant for humans. When humans cease to exist as humans through resurrection, we cannot really expect these laws to continue. This clearly marks them as a special implementation of the eternal law not the law itself which will never go away. But there will be other laws for resurrected human beings. No doubt this litigation will have points in common with both the NT and OT because they are derived from a common source, God’s Eternal Law that reflects God himself.
Did God Have a Foreskin?
Did you sign up to observe the OT litigation? You are responsible for keeping the statutes, judgments, ordinances and laws in the OT according to Herman Hoeh. These are a part of God’s spiritual law which God will not alter. Although circumcision was implemented through an Abrahamic Covenant, it was later incorporated into the OT litigation and conveyed by Moses to Israel (Leviticus 12: 1-2). (A question to pose here is if circumcision is a part of God’s unalterable spiritual law, why did God alter it by making it spiritual in the NT? Apparently OT laws can be altered contrary to Hoeh’s assertion.)
Why would God make circumcision a part of his spiritual law that describes the very character of God from eternity as Hoeh claimed? Does God, in his essence, have a foreskin? The inclusion of circumcision in the Mosaic Law would suggest so. Hoeh states, “They (spiritual laws) enable us to know what God is like.” Here we collide with another troublesome area in Armstrongist theology concerning the Doctrine of God. The idea that God’s eternal law would include circumcision comports with the mistaken Armstrongist idea that God in his essence has a body. This means he would have always had a body, was always male and always had a foreskin in his essential being and circumcision would then have some kind of meaning. And the claim that the OT litigation is God’s eternal spiritual law exalts the OT to eternal, essential divine status and at the same to demotes God to a human-like bodily state. We understand circumcision to have been transformed into a spiritual condition under the NT but its inclusion in the part of the Mosaic Law to be kept leads one to a review of other eternal laws that one may have signed up to keep without being aware of it.
Coda - Part 1
The OT litigation, including the Ten Commandments, started within the created human sphere and will end within that sphere. Hoeh missed the boat. He did not understand that the OT was an instantiation of a higher divine law that reflects the nature of God himself. He mistakenly set up the human-oriented OT litigation as this Eternal Law and then proclaimed it inviolate and slid chunks of it into his formulation of the New Testament. If Hoeh made this kind of mistake, what are you really signed up for? But that is a topic that I will continue to examine in Part 2.
