Unsettled Christianity

One blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

February 28th, 2011

Moshe Weinfeld and Deuteronomy’s Wisdom

Image via Wikipedia

You know the drill….

Question:

Briefly discuss Weinfeld’s contributions to the discussion of the relationship between Wisdom and the book of Deuteronomy.

Answer:

Weinfeld, as Breklemans notes (Christensen:125), was not the first scholar to connect wisdom literature and the Book of Deuteronomy, but was, at the time, the most comprehensive. While first published in 1972, Weinfeld’s work, especially in the early of Wisdom and Deuteronomy has become the scholarly standard and does so well. In his various writings on the subject, Weinfeld is conservative in his connections between the last book of the Torah and the other wisdom writings which are in the Jewish canon. Further, he goes on to bring in period pieces, especially from the contemporary Egyptian wisdom literature, more so than post-exilic Babylonian works. I found it interesting, however, that in the essay dealing with this topic, he doesn’t tackle the issue of the personification of Wisdom. We see this explored in several places in Proverbs while in subsequent works personification such as Ben Sira[1] takes a much more incarnational form; however in Weinfeld’s dialogue with these works in which large amounts of connections between the various mentioned works are shown to exist and thus a correlation of thought is drawn out, the discussion of the personification of Wisdom is completely absent. With that said, however, Weinfeld serves to connect Deuteronomy not just with historical works, but ‘wise men’ community which was emerging at the time.

The wisdom writings of the canonical Jewish scripture portray simplistic material related to daily living and often times, are devoid of the supernatural. Non-canonical Jewish writings, such as Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom (of Solomon) often personify Wisdom as a divine attribute of YHWH. Deuteronomy, itself devoid of many of the miracles which precede it in the Torah as well as other similar stories in ANE literature[2], fits somewhere between the two groups[3]. Moshe Weinfeld[4] draws the connection between the two groups, notably Proverbs and Ben Sira, allowing that wisdom in Deuteronomy actually developed from pre-existing traditions found among the more educated scribal classes of the Jerusalem Court. Of the connections which he makes to assert his position is the use of several prohibitions, notably, those dealing with individual responsibly and those sins which would otherwise simply be known to the person.

For example, Weinfeld notes the similarity between Deuteronomy 19. 14 (cf 27.17) as well as 25.13-16 and Proverbs 22.28; 23.10; 11.1 and 20.23 (cf v10). What I particularly find interesting is that like the other sins, the prohibitions may in fact go unnoticed for generations, if discovered at all, and falls back to the notion of Jeremiah’s new covenant in 31.31-37. Along with these nearly undiscoverable, and unknown only to God sins, are those which detail the prevention of abuse of authority, such as Deuteronomy 1.17 (cf 16.19) which Weinfeld compares to Proverbs 24.23 (cf 28.21). Equally of note is wisdom in human affairs, such as Weinfeld’s comparison between Deuteronomy 23.15-16 and Proverbs 30.10, wherein he considers the latter to be the source of the former. In this last example, Weinfeld notes, which is especially interesting considering the treaty-like language of Deuteronomy, that unlike other Near Eastern documents, Deuteronomy expressly forbids the return of an escaped slave to his or her owner? Here, Weinfeld brings more to the front the humanistic tendencies of Deuteronomy which seems to be the concern rather than that of the supernatural exploits of the rest of the Torah. Weinfeld goes on to note the concern for justice and righteousness as the preservation of one’s life, which he labels as ‘an intrinsic idea of Biblical wisdom literature.’ (Weinfeld:272) This fits well into the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy in which the whole of Israel is commended to seek justice as a benefit to all Israel.

While I do not want to go too far into connecting Jeremiah’s new covenant with the expectations found in Deuteronomy ,Weinfeld almost allows for that speculation. In Jeremiah 31.34, YHWH speaks of the new covenant in which the heart will be the center of the covenant and that all will be teachers, requiring no centralizing expositor of knowledge. Weinfeld notes that during this epochal shift in the Near East, the Deuteronomist leaves behind the belief that wisdom is ‘cunning, pragmatic talent, or the possession of extraordinary knowledge’ but now comes to know that wisdom truly is ‘knowledge and understanding of proper behavior and with morality.’ (Weinfeld:255). Unlike the author(s) of Job (Job 42.3) and the Psalmist (139.6) who believe that real wisdom is too transcendent to attain, the Deuteronomist, according to Weinfeld, brings wisdom down to earth and excepts people to not only know the Torah but to do it. (Deuteronomy 30.11-14). Along with knowledge which is now to be attained[5], this knowledge is to be in the heart (cf Jeremiah 31.33; Deuteronomy 3.9; 30.11-14) (Weinfeld 258).

In both Jeremiah and Deuteronomy, the heart as the center of morality versus the Law for the covenant is a key factor in attaining the fear of God, another key trait which Weinfeld notes is present in Wisdom Literature. Weinfeld notes that in wisdom literature, the phrase ‘ fear of God’ represents real wisdom, then notes that in Deuteronomy, while the basic understanding of it is covenantal loyalty, for the Deuteronomist, they are also joined together (Weinfeld:274). Returning to an earlier depiction of wisdom by Weinfeld, we can begin to see how the scholar saw the covenantal requirements of Deuteronomy. These requirements were not ritualistic in nature, as an outward sign, but required not only knowledge, but pursuing justice while walking humbly enough in realizing that it was their duty to keep Deuteronomy’s words in their hearts.

As mentioned previously, with all of the talk of the connections between the Book of Deuteronomy and the Wisdom Literature being developed at the time, there is nothing mentioned by Weinfeld of the personification of Wisdom which is prevalent in Ben Sira and mentioned at least twice in Proverbs. Further, Weinfeld is able to make the connection of the new position which Wisdom holds, as something to be grasped and dealt with in a humanistic fashion, but he doesn’t mention anything this section about Jeremiah’s futuristic covenant wherein the covenant will rest in the heart and promulgated by constant teaching. His work must give exegetes and scholars a pause, not only in dating Deuteronomy and other books, but in understanding the richness of Israelite culture during this time. If, as many scholars believe, Deuteronomy is written as a treaty[6], I have to wonder what part the refusal to extradite slaves back to their foreign masters (such as the Egyptians or the Assyrians, or even the Babylonians) might have played in external politics.

[1] I would add to this list Wisdom of Solomon and Baruch

[2] See Weinfeld’s theory regarding Solomon’s dream as being redacted by the Deuteronomist to focus more on receiving wisdom than some supernatural revelation, Weinfeld:253-254

[3] Admittedly, Proverbs, in several places, personifies Wisdom as a feminine attribute of God, but such examples are fewer than what we see in both Sirach and Wisdom.

[4] I am using three sources for this brief discussion: Freedman, David Noel (1992). The Anchor Bible dictionary. Anchor Bible; Christensen, edited by Duane L. (1993). A Song of power and the power of song. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns; Weinfeld, Moshe (1972, reprinted 1992). Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

[5] I note that Baruch, Sirach and Wisdom both claim the ability to attain knowledge in such a way that it can be seen as predating later theological development which producing the doctrine(s) of the Holy Spirit.

[6] Albeit, a treaty with God.

Tags: classwork, Deuteronomist, Moshe Weinfeld, torah, Wisdom literature
Posted in Other Posts | No Comments »

December 30th, 2010

Reclaiming the Old Testament for Christian Preaching: Chris Wright and the Law

Click to Order

Christopher J.H. Wright writes,

So then, we should preach the OT law for human benefit. We should highlight the law’s own priorities for the weak and needy and ask our people to reflect on what these could mean in today’s society – not least within the church itself. There is plenty of material in the law that shows the heart of God for the needs of human beings, especially the vulnerable, those who are socially, economically, ethnically, or sexually disadvantaged in our fallen world. Such material can be preached with powerful ethical impact – so long as (to repeat) it is connected to the character and saving grace of God, so that it does not merely become an exercise in legalistic guilt or sentimental idealism (p57)

This entire section is eye-opening and reflective. Wright is detailing how – and why – to preach from what I would consider the most boring parts of the entire bible – the Law. I mean, next to Leviticus, even a book on learning Hebrew is like an action packed novel. Except he is using Deuteronomy, the better law book, which, as he points out, included the reasons of the law before the law is given. As the title of the book suggests, he is connecting it – or maybe showing that the connection already, readily, exists – between the Law and the New Testament and not in a system of legalistic codes but a real example of Grace.

I liked what he says about sentimental idealism. Liberals are well known for their moral crusades to help the down trodden in life, but I have to wonder if some of it is not exactly that – sentimental idealism. Do we not strive help those who are without in order to maybe make ourselves feel better? And in doing so, to what end are we really helping the poor and otherwise disadvantaged out? Do we know them? Do we give them the tools to help themselves? Or is it that we take a little time and do things for them, thereby keeping them relying upon us? The Law was not about oppression – Year of Jubilees to name one example – but about lifting people out of the human condition. It gave them the tools to respond to God in holiness. I wonder why we don’t do the same?

Tags: Christopher J.H. Wright, torah
Posted in Books, Old Testament | 6 Comments »

October 27th, 2010

Leviticus as the Center of Jewish-Christian Interfaith Dialogue

: Image via Wikipedia

Part of the assignment in Old Testament class is to write a response to Erich Zenger‘s article (warning, PDF) on the above mentioned issue. How can I response to Zenger? But, this is my rough draft, which I thought I might share:

____

There is little doubt that Fr. Zenger is right that Christians rarely see anything more in Leviticus than a ‘what we are not’ view; however, I am unsure that we can so roundly disconnect ourselves from the holiness codes contained therein in our modern world. We know that Leviticus is absolute on its requirements to put to death homosexuals (Lev 20.13), patriots (Lev. 20.2-3, LXX), and unruly children (Lev. 20.9), and while Zenger makes good points that the idea of purity can and should be extended to ecological concerns, I am unsure as to the feasibility of taking one passage of a book as relevant and another passage of the same book as irrelevant. Granted, while the whole notion of a canon-within-a-canon is reprehensible, it is easily enough seen that we make one for ourselves. But, can Leviticus, the center of the Torah and ancient-Jewish cultic life draw Christians and modern Jews together?

While I think that the purity codes of Leviticus may serve to show a mutual connection to one another, especially in the area of stranger/foreigner and how we treat Creation, I think that the book serves to further the dialogue of just what our center pieces mean as well as our interpretation of Scripture. For my faith, I see Christ as the Incarnation of Torah and within Him the fleshing out, if you will, of the holiness codes which establish boundaries of righteousness and unrighteousness. Christ doesn’t remove those boundaries (Rev 22.11), but by His act of faithfulness creates a means to cleanse the unrighteousness not just maintain separation. By examining the cultic practices of Leviticus, I believe we see the central role which God played for the Jews, and more than that, the roll in which their active and ongoing daily responses to YWHW played. It was a grand liturgy with God as the leader and the congregation clearly marked and defined by their responses, which generally was physical instead of verbal. Zenger notes that many assume Christianity to be led ‘as a system of dogmas.’ Perhaps by examining Leviticus and understanding that for this community of Jews, the Law was not something to be examined one day a week, but lived daily. This might lead to a revolution for many Christians and encompass what a friend of mine once wrote, “Real Christianity is a life that is lived according to the doctrine of which our faith consists.” (Mike Radcliff, 2008). Christianity is not a set of dogmas, but a life to be lead daily as a response to the call of a holy God, just as Leviticus shows us.

Secondly, and maybe even more importantly, reading Leviticus with the Jews in our Scriptural community, or us with them, will help us in determining better interpretative methods for ‘hard words.’ As I noted before, there are calls for sanctions that we would find rather ruthless by modern standards and yet, Leviticus is every bit a part of our common canon. Further, the cultic sacrifices expressly applied to the Jews are simply not fulfilled and yet Judaism no longer wrestles with them. Further, for many Jews, Leviticus is less than literal but every bit as historical. For more conservative Christians, reading Leviticus in a community which included Jewish contributors might help us to understand better these portions of Scripture and those such as Genesis 1-9 (a section which Zenger notes several times as important to Leviticus). This inter-faith dialogue should prevent a closer communication between them and us, us and them, and more ecumenicalism, something I think that the late priest would have hoped we would take from his article.

While I disagree with some of Zenger conclusions, over all I do think that Leviticus can serve to draw the two communities together without sacrificing our own cultic practices.

Tags: ecumenical, Erich Zenger, holiness codes, ritual purity, torah
Posted in Leviticus, Old Testament | No Comments »

October 26th, 2010

Noah, Abraham, and Israel – Three Covenants

: Image via Wikipedia

This is a rough draft of a discussion of the OT class. For some reason, I don’t like writing something and not posting it:

Three major covenants (Noah and God, Abraham and God, Israel and God) have been discussed so far in your reading. How are these covenants different from each other? How have they shaped the biblical texts and the history of ancient Israel?

Noah received the promise of safety and security from destruction by the waters of chaos, but not just him, the animals and birds as well. Further, Noah, unlike Adam, was able to eat of the animals. Murder, either by man or animal, would be a crime and one punishable by a restitution equal only in the death of the offender. What is interesting here is that in the LXX, God seems to imply that instead of the law applying to animals (as we would later see in the Mosaic Law), the animals play a part in holding the murderer accountable. (Genesis 9.5, LXX). But, this covenant was about establishing the Image of God, expressly and God’s duty to humanity. For Abraham, it was about selecting a family and showcasing God’s control of the destiny for that family. With Israel, it was about preserving the purity of the family, redemption, and rescue. Cogan notes the Decalogue as a type of a treaty, which I think is solidified by the commandment against using the name of God ‘in vain’. In this treaty with the God of Heaven’s Armies, Israel is to remain faithful and pure, as a bride, to that God. As the Torah expanded, we see a system of blessings and curses built in for correction and ultimate punishment, and yet, God is never far off from Israel.

In the covenant of Noah, I find much in the notion that our lifeblood will be reckoned (Orthodox Study Bible), which calls to mind the notion of the bloodguilt suffered by David (Psa 15.14) and his life spent repenting for it. Further, there is the notion that God’s wrath is containable with destruction being limited and temporary. It is as if God values humanity, even in the worse of situations. We see this exemplified throughout the Prophets who promise destruction and redemption. In Abraham, we see ideal faith exhibited, even through thoroughly human terms, as a man leaves all that he knows with blind faith, and continues to disobey and fall short of God’s promises. It is odd that a man who could leave his family for a destination unknown simply because one of a hundred gods who claimed to be the God told him to do so could fail so miserably at times and yet, the covenant with Abraham is the one which is sought throughout the Tanakh and into the New Testament. It is the covenant of God based in God’s foreknowledge of human weakness requiring only faith. However, this covenant is possibly what held together Israel, North and South, Pharisee and Sadducee, and kept, for a lack of a better cliché, hope alive. While the covenant between Israel and God expressed through the Law established ritual purity and a system for cleansing of sins, it is Abraham’s hope which the Psalmist uses to be remembered. It is, however, the overall (classical) myth of the Covenant descending from Mt. Horeb which forged Israel’s national identity as one beholden to God as a tribal nation. Regardless of Leviticus or other purity Codes, this simple law of God first, and not just any God, but the national God of Israel would give rise to the ethical monotheism which would shape the entire text of Scriptures, and indeed, much of our notion of civilization.

The descending of the Covenant at Sinai, in which all the world shook, stopped and bowed to that mountain in the desert, is mimicked at Pentecost and seen in the distant memory of Scripture as the Golden Age of the Covenant. Even though Israel had been caught with a Golden Calf, God still chose Israel as His paramour. We see this covenant return to important as Israel is destroyed, wracked because of the guilt of sin. The Prophets claim it and name it as God’s boundary marker. A King ‘finds’ it and calls for a national revival, albeit too late. A Scribe and a Cup-bearer used it to cleanse Israel of all impurity, even racial, contrary to the story of Ruth. It shapes all of Israel because it creates a foundation which arises from Abraham, for unity, not only among the tribes of Israel, but so too Israel and God, no matter the Diaspora Israel faced. It created a nation out of strangers, foreigners, and illegal immigrants and served to hold together the Jewish people as the People of the One True God, even in the darkest days of exile, pogrom, and holocaust.

Tags: Covenant, israel, noah, torah
Posted in Old Testament | No Comments »

February 11th, 2010

A Jewish View on Creation

I was revisiting a few of my older posts, trying to clean up a few things, and came across this post which links here:

The creation of the Universe is described in order to establish that the Universe is a lawful, harmonious product of the will of a transcendent God who put it into motion.

The creation of Man is explored in order to enlighten us as to the peculiarities of the human condition – being a part of the natural world yet capable of transcending our natural drives, possessing biological instincts as well as an intellect, struggling both with our environments and within ourselves. Unlike the elegance and harmony reflected in the cosmos, the human realm is messily complicated, and the challenges that face Man, with his unique combination of heavenly and earthly characteristics, are daunting.

Tags: creation, creation account, genesis one, judaism, torah
Posted in Genesis | 1 Comment »

January 25th, 2010

Women take on the Torah

The Hebrew scriptures had been interpreted for thousands of years – by men. But one woman decided it was time that women’s voices be added in significant form to the Jewish people’s ongoing conversation about their covenant with God.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: judaism, torah
Posted in Scholarship | No Comments »

December 12th, 2009

Will Israel Return to the Law of Moses?

Things seem to be rolling for something big, politically speaking, next year in Israel.

Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman took to the Knesset podium Tuesday to try to calm the political storm he caused this week when he said that “step by step, Torah law will become the binding law in the State of Israel.” Neeman made his controversial remarks Monday evening at a convention on Jewish law in Jerusalem.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: biblical law, israel, knesset, Messianic Judaism, rabbi, Rabbinical Court, torah
Posted in Controversial | 50 Comments »

March 14th, 2009

Jeremiah 3.1-5: Thoughts on Israel's Divorce

Would not that land be greatly polluted? But you have played the harlot with many lovers; Yet return to Me,” says the LORD. “Lift up your eyes to the desolate heights and see: Where have you not lain with men? By the road you have sat for them Like an Arabian in the wilderness; And you have polluted the land With your harlotries and your wickedness. Therefore the showers have been withheld, And there has been no latter rain. You have had a harlot’s forehead; You refuse to be ashamed. Will you not from this time cry to Me, “My Father, You are the guide of my youth? Will He remain angry forever? Will He keep it to the end?’ Behold, you have spoken and done evil things, As you were able. (Jeremiah 3:1-5 NKJV)

I want to speak a bit more about the divorce of God and the children of Israel.

Humanity has never had a steady walk with God. Throughout the covenants established by God with His Creation, God has never broken His promises while those on the other side have on a regular basis. During the past few weeks, there has been a conversation going on on this blog concerning the Law and Grace. I and others have taken the position that we are under Grace, and because of this we are no longer required to obey the Law, specifically the ceremonial Law detailing the sacrificial system, the holy days, and the holiness code of physical cleanness.

I have attempted to put forth a previous argument concerning another view of the Cross of Christ, and I will take this time to add to it.

The Book of Jeremiah was God’s bill of divorce to Israel and Judah. It laid out the reasons why God had now been forced to withdraw from the Covenant (the Law) that He had made, as in reality, the Covenant was broken many times over. But a mere withdrawal was not enough for our righteous God.

Below is a passaged from Romans 7.1-6 (NKJV) with some slight modification

Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the Torah),

Paul was speaking to the Jews.

that the Torah has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the Torah to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the Torah of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that Torah, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.

We already know that the marriage between a man and wife is a motif that represents the relationship between God and Israel as well as Christ and His Church. Paul is not creating a new allegory, but using something very familiar to his Jewish audience. Ideally, a man and a woman would stay married until the end of life – how rare that seems to be today – but if a divorce occurred for ungodly reasons , then it took a death to finalize the agreement.

Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the Torah through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another–to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the Torah were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. But now we have been delivered from the Torah, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

Paul is speaking, I believe directly to the Jews, and indirectly to the entire Church when he says ‘my brethren.’ We have become dead to the Torah because of the body of Christ. This is not the Church or the communion, but the death of Christ on the Cross. Yes, Christ was a substitution for us, in that we could not offer a sacrifice for our sins, but it was also the end of the Old Covenant. The day that Christ died, the Torah’s letter ceased to exist as a means of salvation.

Are we free from the law? Yes, we are under grace instead (6:14). Does this mean sin is irrelevant, that we can be indifferent to the distinction between sin and virtue (6:15)? No, as slaves of God we are still under absolute obligation to obey his commandments (6:16-23).

In the body of Christ, we can find peace because the enmity – the Law – has been removed,

For he himself is our shalom – he has made us both one and has broken down the m’chitzah which divided us 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, and in order to reconcile to God both in a single body by being executed on a stake as a criminal and thus in himself killing that enmity. (Ephesians 2:14-16 Complete Jewish Bible)

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. (Ephesians 2:14-16 NKJV)

Chapter 7 of Romans is not a new and complete conversation, but a continuation of chapter 6. Death to sin is accomplished by baptism,

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Far be it! Seeing that we have died to sin, how can we live any longer therein? Are you ignorant that all we who were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried together with him through baptism into death, and just as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, so also we should walk about in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of his death, certainly we shall also be sharers of his resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man was crucified together with him, that the body possessed by sin might be destroyed, that we should no longer serve as a slave to sin: For he that has died in baptism, stands free from sin. Now, if we died with Christ, we know that without a doubt that we shall also live with him, Knowing that Christ having been raised up from the dead, no longer dies; death has no more dominion over him. (Romans 6:1-9 CTV-NT)

For more in this category, click here.

Tags: body of christ, Christianity, church, God, grace, israel, Jesus Christ, jews, judaism, Law, law of moses, Messianic Judaism, torah
Posted in Controversial, Romans | No Comments »

March 14th, 2009

Do Christians really deny the Old Testament?

While cruising AlphaInventions today, I ran across this post. He starts,

In a few of my recent posts, numerous Christians have argued that most of the Old Testament should be viewed as allegories or metaphors and not factual historical accounts. And the Bible has inaccuracies because it was written by men that occasionally misquoted god.

He has the bullet points,

Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired
Jesus continually quoted Old Testament scripture to teach his disciples and criticize the Jewish pharmacies.
Jesus also confirmed many of the historical accounts in the Old Testament,
Jesus even confirmed the most often rejected Old Testament stories,

And ends,

If Christians have to discount Old Testament stories to believe in Jesus, than they are not Christian. If Jesus believed it, Christians must believe it. Otherwise how can you honestly call yourself a follower of Jesus? He would say to you, “are you not in error because you deny the Scriptures?”

So, you can understand my worry – until I read a comment,

Jesus did not come to remove the curse of the law:

Matthew 5:17-19
“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. I tell you the truth, 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. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Go ahead and ignore the law if you want to be called “least in the kingdom of heaven”.

So it started making sense. I for one, who is dead to the Law through the body of Christ (Romans 7.4), do not view the Old Testament as mere allegory or metaphor, but as the very word of God; however, I also see that the Law was fulfilled in Christ, and because of the divorce at Calvary, we are no longer required to obey the Law of Moses.

Why is it that people dismiss the entire corpus of the New Testament, when we are supposed to interpret the Old with the New?

Tags: allegory, bible, God, grace, Messianic Judaism, New Testament, Old Testament, religion, torah
Posted in Controversial | 13 Comments »

March 11th, 2009

Augustine on Contradictions, Grace, the Letter, and Liberty

For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. — Letter of St. Augustine to St. Jerome, Letter 82, Par. 3

Therefore so far are the law and grace from being the same thing, that the law is not only unprofitable, but it is absolutely prejudicial, unless grace assists it; and the utility of the law may be shown by this, that it obliges all whom it proves guilty of transgression to betake themselves to grace for deliverance and help to overcome their evil lusts. For it rather commands than assists; it discovers disease, but does not heal it; nay, the malady that is not healed is rather aggravated by it, so that the cure of grace is more earnestly and anxiously sought for, inasmuch as The letter kills, but the spirit gives life. 2 Corinthians 3:6 For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. Galatians 3:21 — St. Augustine, *On the Grace of Christ* chapter 9

There are other things, however, which are different in different places and countries: e.g., some fast on Saturday, others do not; some partake daily of the body and blood of Christ, others receive it on stated days: in some places no day passes without the sacrifice being offered; in others it is only on Saturday and the Lord’s day, or it may be only on the Lord’s day. In regard to these and all other variable observances which may be met anywhere, one is at liberty to comply with them or not as he chooses; and there is no better rule for the wise and serious Christian in this matter, than to conform to the practice which he finds prevailing in the Church to which it may be his lot to come. For such a custom, if it is clearly not contrary to the faith nor to sound morality, is to be held as a thing indifferent, and ought to be observed for the sake of fellowship with those among whom we live. — St. Augustine to Januarius (Ep. 54)

Tags: Augustine, bible, canon, God, grace, liberty, religion, torah
Posted in Quotes | No Comments »

March 2nd, 2009

The Death of Christ – Divorce and the New Covenant

Over the past few weeks, I have posted a few articles on Messianic Judaism, and have been met with some resistance from a variety of those that hold to that belief. Let me state that I see nothing wrong with Jews who convert to Christianity hold to their traditions, to a point, and that point is Grace; likewise, I see nothing wrong with Christians discovering the Jewishness of the Gospels, and the cultural context of Paul. There is a point, however, when this exploration turns to false doctrine and a false view of the interaction of the First Covenant and New Covenant. (As a primer to this discussion go here and then here .)

I want to tackle this issue, that the Law and First Covenant has been completed, in a manner consistent with a motif that underscores many biblical situations – Marriage and Divorce. We have to remember that many times, the relationship between God and Israel was pictured as marriage:

God’s union with the Jewish nation
Isaiah 54:5; Jeremiah 3:14; Hosea 2:19-20

Christ’s union with his church
Ephesians 5:23-24; Ephesians 5:32

We know that God is a righteous God, and will go to great lengths to prove that righteousness, even surpassing His own Law.

God had given Israel (the Ten Northern Tribes) a bill of divorce:

Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. (Jeremiah 3:8 NKJV)

They had broken the marriage covenant by committing adultery with other Gods, but Judah refused to listen. We know that Israel was divorced from God, because they had been taken captive by other nations. (Jeremiah 3 is Israel’s bill of divorce and a call to her sister to repent). It one of the most dramatic passages in the Hebrew bible, God grieves openly for the divorce that is pending (reminding us, my friends, of the hurt that is produced by this destruction). Remember, loose the 1600 years of neo-platonic views of God, and remember that God is passable, suffering, and can suffer the hurt that we force upon Him.

Jeremiah 8.18-9.22 paints an image of God of a mourning King, broken hearted for a Queen that had departed from Him. God is declared to be the speaker of these 8.1 and 9.3, 6, 17, 22 of Jeremiah.

The Lord said to me,

“Tell them, ‘The Lord says, Don’t people get back up when they fall down? Don’t they turn around when they go the wrong way? Why, then, do these people of Jerusalem keep turning away from me in continual apostasy?

They hold fast to their mistaken beliefs. They refuse to turn back to me. I have listened to them very carefully, but they do not say what is right. None of them feels sorry for the evil he has done.

None of them asks, “What have I done wrong?”

All of them follow their own wayward course like a horse charging recklessly into battle. Even the stork knows when it is time to move on. And the turtledove, swallow, and crane follow the normal times for their migration.

But my people pay no heed to what I, the Lord, require of them.

How can you say, “We are wise! We have the law of the Lord”?

The truth is, those who teach it have used their writings to make it say what it does not really mean. Your wise men will be put to shame. They will be dumbfounded and be brought to judgment. Since they have rejected the word of the Lord, what wisdom do they really have?

So I will give their wives to other men and their fields to new owners.

That is because, from the least important to the most important of them, all of them are greedy for dishonest gain. Prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit. They offer only superficial help for the hurt my dear people have suffered.

Then I said, “There is no cure for my grief! I am sick at heart. I hear my dear people crying out throughout the length and breadth of the land.

They are crying,

‘The Lord is in Zion, isn’t he? Her divine King is still there, isn’t he?’

They cry, ‘Harvest time has come and gone, and the summer is over, and still we have not been delivered.’

My heart is crushed because my dear people are being crushed. I go about crying and grieving. I am overwhelmed with dismay. There is still healing lotion available in Gilead, isn’t there? There are still doctors there, aren’t there? Why then have my dear people not been restored to health?

We see an image not merely of separation, but of Divorce, not of Israel, but of Judah. Paul admits that the divorce did happen,

For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
(Romans 11:15 NET)

We know that God has never let down on one of His promises, and further, we know that Judah was preserved in some form until Christ came, because of the prophecy given by Jacob concerning his sons.

The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him shall be the obedience of the people. (Genesis 49:10 NKJV)

The divorce of Judah did not occur until Christ, and more specifically, until Calvary. I saw this, because I draw from Paul this,

A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:39 NKJV)

Because of the death of the Husband, the wife (Israel-Judah) was freed from the marriage (Torah); because of the death of the Will-maker, there was a New Covenant put into place:

For where there is a last will, it is necessary for the death of the will-maker. For the last will is valid over dead people, since it never in force while the will-maker lives. Therefore, not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. (Hebrews 9:16-18 CTV-NT)

Because of this, we are now His people who were not His people,

But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy. (1 Peter 2:9-10 NKJV)

God put away Israel in a divorce during the Assyrian Exile, and because Judah sought to follow her sister, God began to put her away as well, but because a simple divorce would not do, the Husband died annulling the marriage contract and creating a new one.

Discussion?