Tag: Law

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 9

What about 1 Timothy 4:1-5? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am once again quoting from the Complete Jewish Bible.

The Spirit expressly states that in the acharit-hayamim some people will apostatize from the faith by paying attention to deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come from the hypocrisy of liars whose own consciences have been burned, as if with a red-hot branding iron. 3 They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods which God created to be eaten with thanksgiving by those who have come to trust and to know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing received with thanksgiving needs to be rejected, 5 because the word of God and prayer make it holy.

The acharit-hayamim is what you would likely recognize as something such as “The last days.”

This seems like a clear statement. We can eat most any food we want. Right? As long as we receive it with thanksgiving, it is holy. Right?

“Not so fast”, says 119 Ministries.

This means that the false teachers whom Paul gives his warning about are not people teaching obedience to God’s dietary laws. Think about it. If they were, then Messiah Yeshua would be a false teacher when he affirmed the validity of the dietary laws as part of the Torah and said that his followers will do and teach the least of the commandments (Matthew 5:17-20). Paul likewise would be a false teacher since he said, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). That indicates that Paul believes the dietary laws in Scripture are profitable for “training in righteousness.” So Paul cannot be saying those who teach obedience to God’s dietary laws are false teachers since he would be putting himself into the same category.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 116-117). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

So what is the argument?

It reads as if they are saying, “Yes. If we read it as it is, it does seem to go against our position, but keep in mind that Paul holds that all Scripture is God-breathed and keep in mind what Jesus said about the Law.”

Which means there is no exegesis of the text itself. It is then circular reasoning. Their reasoning of the text must be correct because their reasoning of the other texts must be correct. As I have said earlier throughout this book, I find them lacking and again, I have one simple question about this if that is what they think.

“What about sacrifices?”

After all, the Law contained commands for animal sacrifices and Jesus’s statement in Matthew 5 doesn’t read, “Not one letter will disappear from the Law, except for that stuff about animal sacrifices because I am going to do away with them.”

Thus ends our look at this book. It is sad that in a book that is all about defending the Law, what we did not see at all was, well, a defense of the Law. We didn’t see exegesis of the Law. We didn’t get anything on animal sacrifices or anything of the sort.

Again, there’s a reason this stuff is not convincing.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 8

What about Ephesians and Colossians? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The first passage 119 Ministries wants to bring up is in Ephesians 2 and I am using the Complete Jewish Bible.

For he himself is our shalom — he has made us both one and has broken down the m’chitzah which divided us 15 by destroying in his own body the enmity occasioned by the Torah, with its commands set forth in the form of ordinances. He did this in order to create in union with himself from the two groups a single new humanity and thus make shalom,

The idea is that the case for hostility between Jews and Gentiles has been broken apart by Christ. Here is why 119 Ministries thinks that doesn’t work.

First, aren’t Christians—both Jews and Gentiles—supposed to be set apart (holy) and different from the world?

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 108). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Yes, and they are both holy and different because they are both members of the same covenant now which could not have been said before. Any Gentile was always welcome in the covenant, but they had to become Jewish first. Now, they don’t.

Second, if Ephesians 2:14-15 is saying that Yeshua abolished God’s Law, then it contradicts Yeshua’s own words: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). So, if we accept the traditional interpretation, then we have Paul directly contradicting Yeshua. Everything we have covered in this book shows that Paul agreed with the Messiah’s teachings, so any interpretation that causes Paul to contradict Yeshua is unacceptable.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 108). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

But this assumes that your prior interpretation is true. That case has been found to be flimsy.

Their third point is that the Law was never a point of division between Jews and Gentiles as Gentiles were always promised to eventually be in the covenant people. Yes. Eventually. Until then, the Law was something that set Jews apart from Gentiles.

The other passage we’ll look at is in Colossians 2.

So don’t let anyone pass judgment on you in connection with eating and drinking, or in regard to a Jewish festival or Rosh-Hodesh or Shabbat. 17 These are a shadow of things that are coming, but the body is of the Messiah.

To which they say that the problem was that the Colossians were not following the Law the way it was meant to be followed. As they say:

An alternative interpretation more consistent with the context of the chapter (and Paul’s teaching elsewhere in Scripture) is that these false teachers were not judging the Colossians for failing to keep the Torah; they were judging the Colossians for failing to keep the Torah according to how they taught it should be kept. This makes more sense in light of the next verse, which describes these commands as “a shadow of the things to come” (v. 17). In other words, these commands not only point toward Christ’s work on the cross, but ongoing to his future work. That is why they are a shadow of things “to come,” not just things that have already happened.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 113-114). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

And those things to come have already come. Again, this is basic interpretation.

There’s a reason that this position is a minority one in Christianity today.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox — Chapter 3

What makes Paul hard to understand? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

No Christian should say Paul is easy to understand. Our own Scripture in 2 Peter says that Paul writes many things that are hard to understand. It would be foolish to think we can do so easily. (Kind of like internet atheists do thinking they can just read the Bible and not bother studying it and know everything about it.)

119 Ministries at least agrees that Paul is hard to understand, but they think different things are hard to understand.

For instance, many Christians believe Paul taught that God’s Law has changed. However, it is impossible to come to that conclusion if you’ve read what the Old Testament says about the Law: “I will not violate my covenant or alter the word that went forth from my lips” (Psalm 89:34). Surely God himself cannot be wrong, so that means the traditional understanding of Paul must be revisited. Many also believe that Paul called the Law of God bondage (Galatians 5:1). But the front of the book says that the Law of God brings liberty (Psalm 119:44-45).

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 29). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

But as we say in an earlier post, the Law has changed. Note also that the Psalm never says the Law is unchanged. It says the covenant is, and yet even in Jeremiah and Hebrews we see talk of a new covenant. There is some degree of change going on.

As for Psalm 119, why should this be a problem? There is always freedom in following the path of God. Yet at the same time, when God gives the new path in Christ, one is to follow that path and not the old.

119 Ministries also goes on to talk about the tension that is often presented in Paul:

Are you feeling the tension between the traditional interpretation of Paul and what he actually lived and taught? There’s more: Paul says that he serves the Law of God (Romans 7:25). Why serve a Law that is supposedly ended or made void? Paul called the Law “holy and righteous and good” (Romans 7:12). He said he “delights” in the law of God (Romans 7:22). He taught that the Holy Spirit leads to obedience to God’s Law while the carnal nature of man is opposed to God’s Law (Romans 8:3-8). And this is only in Romans!

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 31). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Yet Romans 7 is a notoriously difficult passage to deal with and 119 Ministries gives no indication that they understand that. My contention is that Romans 7 is not Paul being autobiographical. We see no hint of him struggling in Philippians 3 to follow the law and no one doubts that is autobiographical. Also, Paul says that once he was alive apart from the Law, but when could an orthodox Jew like Paul say he was ever not only apart from the law, but apart from it and alive?

No. A better understanding is that this is speaking as Adam, who was referred to back in Romans 5. In this, once the law came to life for him, he was filled with a desire for coveting, which was seen as the sin in the garden, desiring wisdom for oneself apart from God. Had he kept the law, it would have meant life for him.

As for the verses from Romans 8, here they are in the Complete Jewish Bible.

For what the Torah could not do by itself, because it lacked the power to make the old nature cooperate, God did by sending his own Son as a human being with a nature like our own sinful one [but without sin]. God did this in order to deal with sin, and in so doing he executed the punishment against sin in human nature, 4 so that the just requirement of the Torah might be fulfilled in us who do not run our lives according to what our old nature wants but according to what the Spirit wants. 5 For those who identify with their old nature set their minds on the things of the old nature, but those who identify with the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 Having one’s mind controlled by the old nature is death, but having one’s mind controlled by the Spirit is life and shalom. 7 For the mind controlled by the old nature is hostile to God, because it does not submit itself to God’s Torah — indeed, it cannot. 8 Thus, those who identify with their old nature cannot please God.

Notice that Paul says the Torah could not by itself bring righteousness. The idea in these passages goes along with the Law written on the heart in Romans 2. Because of the Spirit, we can keep the Law of God in the sense that we were meant to. Again, this is something 119 Ministries never addresses. Are we meant to offer sacrifices, for instance?

Unfortunately, 119 Ministries doesn’t really look at the best resources and ironically, in a chapter about misunderstanding Paul, demonstrate that they do indeed misunderstand Paul.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

The Pauline Paradox Chapter 2

Who was Paul? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, 119 Ministries seeks to introduce us to Paul. In looking at Acts 15, they say:

As scholar J.K. McKee explains: The yoke being placed upon these non-Jewish Believers in the Messiah was a legalistic perversion of the Torah which demanded that if you do not observe it and convert to Judaism (perhaps according to the particular sect represented) you cannot be saved. It is a yoke that keeps people out of God’s intention, rather than one that welcomes them in.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 19). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Like me, McKee does not have a PhD yet, so while I can respect his educational prowess, I hesitate to use the word scholar yet. No. I would not describe myself as a scholar either. I remain consistent. That being said, I do agree that the Council decided to not make everyone follow Judaism to receive salvation, but I go further saying that they never have to follow Torah at all.

The Jerusalem Council passe down four requirements for the Gentiles. That means no necessity to follow the Law. Right?

Right?

No, according to James, the Gentile believers were to be welcomed every Sabbath at the synagogue, where they would learn the rest of the commandments (Acts 15:21). So, rather than abolishing the Law for Gentiles, the Jerusalem council actually reinforced Yeshua’s teaching that the Law is perpetually relevant and is to be taught to “all nations”—just not as a means to salvation.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 20). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

The believers were to be welcomed in the Synagogue every Sabbath? Is that what it says?

Let’s go to the Complete Jewish Bible.

Ya‘akov broke the silence to reply. “Brothers,” he said, “hear what I have to say. Shim‘on has told in detail what God did when he first began to show his concern for taking from among the Goyim a people to bear his name. And the words of the Prophets are in complete harmony with this for it is written,

‘“After this, I will return;
and I will rebuild the fallen tent of David.
I will rebuild its ruins,
I will restore it,
so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
that is, all the Goyim who have been called by my name,”
says Adonai, who is doing these things.’

All this has been known for ages.

“Therefore, my opinion is that we should not put obstacles in the way of the Goyim who are turning to God. Instead, we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from fornication, from what is strangled and from blood. For from the earliest times, Moshe has had in every city those who proclaim him, with his words being read in the synagogues every Shabbat.”

All the text says is that Moses has been read every Sabbath. It says nothing about the believers worshipping on the Sabbath. Not so fast, says 119 Ministries!

After the Jerusalem council, we see that Paul continued to teach in the synagogues on the Sabbath (Acts 16:13). In fact, Scripture says this was his “custom” (Acts 17:2). He did it “every Sabbath” (Acts 18:4).

That clinches it, does it not? Paul was in the synagogue every Sabbath.

Sad that one has to explain this so frequently.

If you went to a Middle Eastern country and you wanted to speak to Muslims, you would go to your local mosque on Friday. Why? Not because you specifically observe Friday, but because Muslims do. IF 119 Ministries wanted to speak to evangelical Christians at churches about this, they would find them at church on Sunday. Why does Paul visit the synagogues on Sabbath?

Because his intended audience goes to synagogue on the Sabbath!

By contrast, look in Acts 20 again at the Complete Jewish Bible.

On Motza’ei-Shabbat, when we were gathered to break bread, Sha’ul addressed them.

That phrase refers to the ending of the Sabbath, on Saturday night. If the new Christians worshipped on the Sabbath, why did Paul start this service on the night of the Sabbath towards the ending of it? We know this marked the start since he went on to preach so much that someone fell asleep and Paul had to revive him when he fell from a window.

The writers also talk about how Paul took a vow that fits the description of a Nazarite vow in Acts 18:18. What of it? Paul never condemns following Jewish Law. He condemns the idea that Gentiles have to follow it. Much like the circumcision of Timothy, this could be an act done to not offend the Jews he wanted to reach.

They then quote a later part of the passage:

When they asked him to stay a longer time with them, he did not consent, but took leave of them, saying, “I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem; but I will return again to you, God willing.” And he sailed from Ephesus. (Acts 18:20-21, NKJV)

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 20-21). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

I decided to look this up when I read it and strangest thing, I couldn’t find a reference to the feast in most translations. Fortunately, as a seminary student, plenty of professors come by who know this and the head of our textual research department came by just then. He looked it up and did say it was a textual variant, which one needs to ask why 119 Ministries did not mention this.

Not only that, look at what the Complete Jewish Bible says:

20 When they asked him to stay with them longer, he declined; 21 however, in his farewell he said, “God willing, I will come back to you.” Then he set sail from Ephesus.

No feast mentioned.

Strange.

When Paul comes before the high priest, 119 Ministries explains it saying:

The high priest, Ananias, ordered Paul to be struck on the mouth. Paul reacted by calling out Ananias as a hypocrite: Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” (Acts 23:3) Interestingly, Paul appeals to the Law of God, which says only someone found guilty can be beaten (Deuteronomy 25:1-2), as his basis for calling Ananias a hypocrite. If the accusations that Paul taught against the Law were true, why would he appeal to the Law?

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 23-24). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Followed by:

Notice that Paul did not try to justify his evil speech against Ananias, the high priest. Rather, he agreed with the Law of God and acknowledged his mistake. It wouldn’t make sense for him to appeal to the Law of God in his acknowledgment of his error if he believed the Law had been done away with.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 24). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Why indeed? How about this?

Paul shames the high priest for violating the law in doing this. He takes the authority that he knows the high priest holds and points out his violation of it. In making an apology for it, Paul in essence says “I am being more faithful than you are even though you are the one who claims to be under the Law.” Paul would have certainly recognized the high priest after all!

So far then, 119 Ministries has presented nothing strong backing their case.

We’ll continue next time asking why Paul is so confusing.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 1

How do we start this one? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Give credit where credit is due. This book starts with an excellent opening.

Fact: every pastor, theologian, and Bible teacher on the planet holds on to doctrinal error to some degree. An honest teacher will readily admit the possibility they are in error on some things. It’s foolish to think that we, or anyone else, has everything figured out or has all of the answers.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 7). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Indeed. We all do. I would like to think everything I teach here is correct, but I am sure it isn’t. While I would like to always be right, I would hate it if you think I am always right and don’t need to check up on what I say. Something I have learned in the PhD program here is the importance of teachability. My professors would agree with my natural intellect, but I think they also admire that I am willing to go to them for advice despite that. There is always something to learn.

Salvation is received by faith in Yeshua (Ephesians 2:8). We are not saved by anything we do. Our works cannot and never will have any causal relationship with our status as saved sons and daughters of God. However, though no causal relationship exists, works and salvation do correlate. The Bible is very clear on this (James 2:14-26). Works do not save us, but a true saving faith will produce works. We strive to be honest, give to the poor, etc., because of our salvation, not for our salvation. The same holds true for every commandment of God. Keeping God’s commandments is evidence that we have faith in God—that we believe his Word and follow it. Again, obedience to God’s commandments is the evidence of our saving faith, not the cause of it. It is correlational, not causal.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 7-8). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

This is again an excellent point. I would hope that 119 Ministries would not see what they teach as an essential. For instance, if you do not observe the Sabbath on Saturday or if you are a man, get circumcised if you are not, then you are not a Christian. I am of the persuasion that if you are a Christian and want to follow the Law, suppose for instance being a Messianic Jew and having a deep respect for the tradition, then have at it. As soon as you make it necessary for salvation, we have a problem.

Everyone that has the Holy Spirit dwelling within them should always be in the process of learning. Everyone is both a teacher and a student in some capacity. The only thing we can do—and certainly should do—is to test others and ourselves to the Word of God. We should love being corrected. Correction humbles us and helps us to know our Father in greater depth. Those are both wonderful things.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 9). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Again, another great statement. This is also why I ask people what was the last book they read they disagreed with. If you just read what you agree with and stay in your echo chamber, you will not do much learning.

Not too much further along, they quote Mark 7 in saying:

He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’

You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Interesting in a book about the Law and what Jesus taught about it, they left out the following verses:

Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”

After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

But that being said, their point is that the Pharisees were very wrong in their doctrine and that nullifying what Moses wrote is a very bad thing. Of course, I presented some questions about this in yesterday’s post. This assumes that when Jesus rises from the dead, the Mosaic covenant is still in play. I contend that the destruction of the temple in 70 AD shows that that covenant has been replaced with a new one where the sign of the covenant is not the Law, but faith in Christ.

That being said, there is not too much disagreeable in this part of the book. We’ll see if that holds up as we go on through the book.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox — Opening

Should we be following the Law today? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am taking a brief hiatus from the look at God changing His mind to deal with this book.

The Pauline Paradox is a book that is put forward by 119 Ministries trying to argue that Christians should follow the Torah. I decided to get it because there are a number of people on the Jehovah’s Witnesses debate group on Facebook that have bought into this and go on and on about the Law of God. Rarely will you ever see these people say anything about Jesus.

This book is looking at the question that many Christians have when they hear about an organization like this? Isn’t Paul the grand teacher of the idea that we don’t follow the Law because we’re under grace? Indeed, this has been Christian teaching for hundreds of years. Even nowadays, much of New Testament scholarship has abandoned any idea that Paul invented Christianity. I will not be dealing with that latter claim here anyway, but I will contend that Paul is certainly right in line with His master Jesus.

Before looking at the book and what it talks about, I want to mention what it doesn’t talk about that is quite surprising.

That is the Law itself.

Oh, sure. We have a lot of talk about what Paul said about the Law and what Jesus said about the Law. That’s fine. We do not have much said about what the Law itself is. What is its purpose? How is it to be followed today?

You’ll see that Jesus said that until Heaven and Earth disappear, not one bit of the Law will pass away. Unfortunately, you won’t see a lot of sustained exegesis on that passage. Consider what Craig Blomberg by contrast says about Matthew 5:18.

Verse 18 reaffirms the absolute authority of all of the Scriptures down to the smallest components of individual words. They will endure for all time but with the important qualification “until everything is accomplished.” With the coming of Christ, many aspects of the law are brought to complete fruition (e.g., the need for sacrifices, on which see Hebrews). In other instances certain requirements of the law endure until Christ’s coming again (e.g., classically, love of neighbor and God). In short, Christian application of the Old Testament must always take into account both the continuities and the discontinuities with the New Testament. Given this hermeneutic, correct teaching and practice of all “these commandments” (v. 19, almost certainly referring back to the Old Testament law just mentioned) are crucial. Jesus will give six illustrations of such correct interpretation shortly (vv. 21–48).

Craig Blomberg, Matthew (vol. 22; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 104–105.

What actually happens is that Jesus in His interpretation is giving us a law that is even harder. Consider that the Law says “Do not murder.” Okay. Well, let me take a brief life-review here and think back…..yep! I’m good! Haven’t murdered anyone! That’s one of the big ten! Doing good!

“But I say to you, do not hate your brother.”

“Oh.”

All of a sudden, I realize I have done that and that that can still be a struggle.

“You have heard that it was said ‘Do not commit adultery.’ ”

Let’s see. I am divorced now, but I saved sex for marriage and I don’t do pornography and I have remained celibate while being divorced. Hey! Look at that! I’m doing good again!

“But I say to you, do not lust after a woman in your heart.”

“Okay. Not doing so good.”

Also, if we are to follow the Law, do we not have to offer sacrifices? That was a big part of the Law after all. Consider how Matthew 5 also says this:

23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

What is the gift but a sacrifice? If the Law is still in full effect, should we not offer sacrifices?

In Exodus 12, the people were commanded to eat the Passover in their own homes. In Deut. 16, it was in the place God chose for them. In Lev. 17, meat was to be brought to the tabernacle. In Deut. 12, this is done away with because some people would live far away from the tabernacle and not get to eat meat at all.

Also, if Moses was the final word, then what about what came after? What about the Prophets? What about celebrations like Purim? Jesus is in the temple area during the Feast of Dedication which celebrates the Maccabean revolt which certainly did not show up in the Law.

What about something like slavery? Are we allowed to have slaves again? These are systems that had their place in the times of the Bible, but not so today. This is not to say that Orthodox Jews, for instance, can’t follow any of the Law, but certainly not all of it is possible.

So before we even begin looking at the very first chapter, I have questions. It is quite surprising that a book all about how Christians should follow the Law, really says very little about the Law.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Sexuality and Shrimp

How do we handle the law today? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This is not an easy topic as thousands of pages have been written on the topic of the role of the law in the life of the Christian. Much of the epistles in the New Testament is all about this problem really as Paul and others have to quote the Old Testament often to establish their points. Jesus Himself in the Gospels had to explain how the Old Testament was being misunderstood so it is not a shock that we today can struggle with it at times.

For instance, we have all these rules on sexuality, but then we have rules on not eating shrimp. What’s going on with that? Shrimp is an abomination and so are two men sleeping together. Why do we forbid the latter and yet happily go to a place like Red Lobster and dine our hearts out?

As I’ve said, I should not be expected to be the final word and answer all questions, but I do want to give some general guidelines.

First, we must always remember that the Law was given to Jews in a specific time and a specific place. The Law was never given to the church in the sense that God directly covenanted with the church through the Law. The covenant with the church is done through Jesus.

However, this does not mean that we dispense with the Law entirely. Paul tells us in the New Testament that everything that was written was written for our benefit. Even if we are not bound by it, we can still learn from it.

Second, the Law often had meanings behind the surface level. Paul uses this in 1 Cor. 9 where he quotes about not muzzling an ox while it’s treading the grain. God’s principle concern is not with the ox, but with the idea that one who works should get to partake in some fruit of the work.

Let’s consider another idea. What about building something on the roof of your house to serve as a barrier? In this case, this was done because the roof was often treated as a separate room and people would regularly go up there. You build a barrier to make sure no one falls off and suffers injury or death. We don’t do this today because we don’t use our roofs this way, but if you have an apartment complex with a balcony of some sort, there will be a barrier to prevent falling.

So what about mixed fabrics and clean and unclean animals? The animals could be because some of them contained a mixture of different locales in that they were creatures of earth and water or water and air or air and earth. We might not know the reason entirely, but they did. Mixed fabrics were to avoid a similar mixture and remind the Israelites of purity. We are to take this as having moral purity.

Third, most all of us follow the Law to some extent. Last I saw, many atheists are not going out and championing murder since the Bible says “Do not murder.”You can be an atheist and think the idea of “Love your neighbor as yourself” is a beautiful command and should be followed, but it comes right between Leviticus 18 and 20 with its sexual rules. Atheists accusing Christians of picking and choosing can be just as guilty. Both sides can easily use prooftexts for their own benefit.

Fourth, we can see how the New Testament handles this. While John 8 with the woman caught in adultery was not likely written by the author of John, I do think it shows a real event in the life of Jesus. In it, Jesus never questions the statement of the law that an adulterous woman should be stoned, but he does say that if you want to play that game, how many of you deserve a punishment as well?

In 1 Cor. 5, we have a man sleeping with his stepmother. The couple could have had a similar punishment, but this time Paul says to remove the man from the church. It’s worth noting in that day the man could not just go down the block to another church. The exclusion was to make him come to his senses.

Paul as a good Pharisee knows the law, but while he still upholds that sleeping with your stepmther is wrong, he doesn’t uphold the punishment of the Old Testament. It’s not because he’s opposed to the Old Testament. It’s because he sees things through the lens of Christ now instead.

Several times in the epistles, homosexual practice and sex outside of marriage is condemned. There’s no hint that these have changed. Yes. I have read some of the revisionists trying to say otherwise and I just find their cases extremely weak.

Let’s also return to Leviticus 18. In the final section, God tells the people that for these kinds of practices, the people are being driven out. This means that they should have known better.

In the same way, in Romans 1, Paul speaks about general revelation and says “Because of that, people should have known idolatry was wrong.” Why? Looking at the universe, you should be able to tell that it was made by something greater than something like an animal.

After a vertical error, he then moves to a horizontal one. Just like people got the nature of God wrong, they got the nature of God wrong and same-sex relations were his prime example. We should be able to look and tell that male and female go together and no other combination does.

These are just some general guidelines. Does this answer everything? Of course not. There are many books on these subjects. For homosexuality in particular, I recommend Robert Gagnon and books where he does take part in a counterpoint discussion are some of the best.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Fulfilling the Law

What did Jesus mean when He said He came to fulfill the Law? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This is one of the most debated passages really. It leads to debates about the view of the Law in the Old Testament and its place in the life of Christians today. Let’s look at the verses. It’s Matthew 5:17-18.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

Okay. Well did Jesus abolish the Law for us? One thing to keep in mind is that Gentiles were NEVER under the Law to begin with. This was a debate in Acts 15 and yet these words of Jesus were never brought up.

Okay, but what about Jews? Jews were under the Law and yet Paul and Peter both apparently lived like Gentiles at times at least. Why would they do that?

This gets us to the idea of the fulfillment of the Law. Jesus is not doing away with the Law. He is fulfilling what God really wanted. God really wanted righteousness in His people. The Law could change their outward behavior and while that can change hearts eventually, that normally doesn’t last long term. What is needed is a heart change.

This is what Jesus came to bring about. What He is describing in His kingdom is what happens when that heart change takes place. When we see the Kingdom coming, we will see more than just outward motions. Jesus’s commands in the sermon constantly talk about the status of the heart over the actions.

Jesus fulfilled the Law in that He met its righteous requirements. That doesn’t mean the Law is useless to us today. We see the nature of God revealed in the Law and there are still moral principles in the Law most everyone holds to today. Most of us do agree that you should not steal or you should not murder, for example.

In future entries, we will look at the righteousness that is demanded in the Kingdom. It won’t be my favorite part to look at either. We all fall short.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Who Gives The Sermon on the Mount?

Who is it that is giving this sermon? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In looking at eschatology in the Gospels, one thing to establish is Jesus’s view of Himself as the king of Israel and yet also as the priest of Israel. I said last time that we would be looking at the Sermon on the Mount. Today, I am going to really start off by looking at that sermon.

Now the question of who gave it sounds like a no-brainer. Jesus gave it. If that’s all we’re really asking by the question, then this blog is pretty much done. The question though is more how did the person who gave it see Himself and also how is Matthew presenting Him?

Matthew constantly presents Jesus in a style that is very Jewish. His book is laid out in a fivefold format much like the Pentateuch would have been seen in. It’s split between teaching and acting. At the start, we have Jesus going to John the Baptist to be baptized going under the water. After going through the water, He enters the wilderness for 40 days and nights to be tempted.

Does this sound like any story a Jew would know? Definitely. It sounds like Israel passing through the waters of the Red Sea (In a miraculous way, of course) and then going into the wilderness where they were tempted for forty years. What comes in all of that? The giving of the Law. Lo and behold, what do we find in chapter five?

Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him.

2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:

It might seem like a given to say He opened His mouth to teach them. What else is He going to do? Sign language? However, Matthew chose to point this out for a reason. What is that? To make us think about the Law coming from the mouth of YHWH in the Old Testament.

Jesus then gets up and He starts expounding the Law. He starts explaining what is meant by it. We can say this is consistent with Jesus because one thing historical Jesus scholars note about Him is that He never really pointed to anyone else’s authority aside from God Himself. Jesus did not need to address any other rabbis. If all you had was the Gospels, you wouldn’t even know other rabbis existed.

Jesus is treading on sacred ground. He is handling the Law and saying that He alone has the authority. He alone can go up on the mountain and deliver the law to the people. He is the new Moses leading His people. He is the new priest. He is the new king.

He will also speak as what He says has divine authority and if He really thinks that, then how does He see Himself? You could say that any prophet in the Old Testament would do the same, but Jesus never goes “Thus sayeth the Lord.” He says quite the opposite. He says “You have heard it was said…., but I say to you.” The prophets didn’t speak like that.

So as we go through the sermon, let’s remember this is the priest telling us how to live and this is the king looking at His subjects saying this is how my reign is going to be. What will it be like? Looking at the sermon in future installments will tell us.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Torahism

What do I think of R.L. Solberg’s book published by Williamson College Press? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

There are many things that bring the Christmas season home to me and make the holiday so special. Getting to put up decorations, going out and looking for lights, getting together with friends and family and exchanging gifts, hearing Christians tell me that Christmas is pagan, good times. No holiday season ever seems complete without that last group showing up.

So it is that when R.L. Solberg had a friend say the same thing on Facebook, he engaged with the post and found himself caught up in something greater. As a result, he wrote Torahism asking if Christians are to keep the law of Moses? Torahism can often go beyond that as some people like this deny the Trinity and the deity of Christ and are definitely very anti-Catholic.

So looking at Solberg’s book, I’ll start with the things I liked about it and then suggest areas I’d like to see improved.

First, I’m glad that the book has been written. There are too many people who are Christians and not Torahists who also have questions about the Law of Moses. There are too many atheists that present the Law as if it was to be a perfect guide for all time and be the perfect moral system. Both need answers to their questions.

Second, the book is easy to understand. You don’t need to have a Seminary background to understand what is being said here. Solberg writes in simple language and does not use complex terminology.

Third, each chapter is stand alone so you can look at each section that is relevant to what you’re talking about and getting it from there. Of course, you could read straight through like I did, but it’s not necessary. The information is really easy to find.

So what we have is good, but there are some changes I would like to see Solberg make for future editions.

First, more engagement with the scholarship in the field, especially Old Testament scholars like John Walton, Tremper Longman, Michale Heiser, Walter Kaiser, and others. It would have been good to see what scholars in the field say about the Law. I am especially thinking about Walton’s book The Lost World of the Torah.

Second, in the section on the deity of Christ, I would have liked more answers on such questions like “How could Jesus die on the cross if God can’t die?” I would have liked to have seen more on the Trinity. With this, a work like How God Became Jesus would be great.

Third, one point I was surprised to not see mentioned was that of slavery. Would Torahists like to have some kind of system like this? Along those same lines, would Torahists be open to allowing a man to have more than one wife?

It is always good to see people filling a niche in the apologetics world. A group like the one called Torahism is one that needs some responding to. I am thankful Solberg took the time to answer them and I hope that there will be further expansion on this work.

In Christ,
Nick Peters