Wolters on Mosaic Law
I'd like to bring out one more of the important aspects of Albert Wolters' book Creation Regained. Wolters deals with the subject of the Mosaic law and how we are to apply it today. This portion of the book comes after a long explanation of the eternal nature of God's law in the creation order. I have provided this selection from the book hoping that it will be of interest to those who have discussed the subjects of the law as well as tithing here as well as on other blogs recently.One final point should be made about the revelation of God's law in Scripture and in creation. We noted earlier that the Mosaic law was the divinely accredited implementation of creational law for ancient Israel. This means that the law of Moses is fixed between two reference points: creational law and ancient Israel, the universal and enduring principles of creation and the historical situation of a particular people (Israel) in a particular place (Palestine) at a particular time (the centuries between Moses and Christ). Because of this double reference, the coming of Christ also involves a "fulfillment" of the law in a double sense. On the one hand, the law is fulfilled in that the shadow is replaced by the substance, and Jewish law is no longer binding for the people of God. On the other hand, the law is fulfilled in that Christ reaffirms its deepest meaning (see Matt. 5:17). In other words, insofar as the Mosaic law is addressed to a particular phase of history of God's people it has lost its validity, but insofar as it points to the enduring normativity of God's creation order it retains its validity. For example, the legislation concerning the year of Jubilee, applying as it does to an agrarian society in the ancient Near East, is no longer binding for the New Testament people of God, but in its reflection of a general principle of stewardship as a creational norm it should continue to function as a guide for the new Israel. The provision for a bill of divorce is no longer in effect, but it sill stands as God's own reminder to us of a basic principle of justice: there must be legal guarantees to minimize the effects of the hardness of the human heart. The same could be said concerning the laws for tithing, protection of the poor and sojourners, and so on.
Another way of saying this is that God did the implementing for his people in the Old Testament, while in the New he in large measure gives us the freedom in Christ to do our own implementing. That is the point of Paul's letter to the Galatians. But in both cases he holds us to the blueprint of the law of creation. In the Old Testament the explanations he gave included detailed instructions for the implementation of the blueprint; that was by way of apprenticeship. In Christ we are journeyman builders - still bound to the architect's explicit directions, but with considerable freedom of implementation as new situations arise.
Just a thought: could this freedom to "do our own implementing" of the specific laws in light of the eternal law of the creation order be considered natural law? Again, just a thought. If you care to comment, please don't feel the need to restrict your response to this question. There are plenty of worthwhile thoughts in this whole passage.
posted by Andrew Stout | 2:23 PM
4 Comments:
I find the resistance to God's law by most believers in our times to be fascinating, but not surprising, considering the anti-Christ, immoral swamp in which we live today.
For example, same sex-sodomy is "legal," as is the murder of pre-born babies, theft by Caesar (excessive taxation), "no-fault" divorce, rampant fornication, oath-breaking by public officials, false witness in the church, etc., etc.
For those who choose to relegate
Mosaic moral laws (all based on the Ten Commandments) exclusively to ancient Israel, please inform those who disagree where in the Bible you can show us that these
standards of ethical behavior have been abrogated.
What are God's guidelines for justice by the civil magistrates that He appoints in accordance with Romans 13:1-7, if they are not to be based on His perfect law
(Ps. 19: 7-9)?
To what laws was Jesus referring in Matt. 5:17-20 -- Nero's?
When Paul wrote of ALL scripture
in 2 Tim. 3:15 - 4:5, did he intend
that the Ten Commandments and moral case laws be ignored -- that ALL doesn't mean ALL? Of course, there was no "New Testament."
As we learned in Genesis, man has two choices: to obey God; or to be his own god.
No neutrality -- no comfortable, fuzzy, middle ground (e.g., natural law, whatever that means).
The Body today is infected with a tri-partate malignancy:
1.) Arminianism
2.) antinomianism; and
3.) dispensationalism.
All three tumors are a result of negligence regarding sovereignty theonomy and the future of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ (see Is. 33:22)
In the God-ordained process of healing and restoration, this cancer will be excised, if not in our generation, then surely by some future band of prophetic warriors! (see Eph. 4: 11-16)
Call them "Holy Ghost oncologists."
They are coming ... to take dominion
over the lawbreakers and those who aid and abet them.
Not by might, nor by power, but by
His Spirit and His Law-Word, in the advancemnent of the Great Commission!
Rhema and Logos. -- Amen.
Centurion,
Thank you for your comments. To deal with what Wolters says specifically, it seems that his explanation of Jesus affirming the deepest meaning behind the Mosaic law while releasing us from the cultural specifics of the demands is the same example that we are given by Paul.
In 1 Cor. 9:8-10, Paul uses the Mosaic law of unmuzzling the ox while he treads the grain as a picture to show that pastors should be paid for their work in the Church. It seems that this is a specific example of the type of approach that Wolters is speaking of. By being used as a picture, the eternal principle of the law is affirmed even though the cultural specifics have drastically changed.
Andrew reminds us:
" ... the eternal principle of the law is affirmed even though the cultural specifics have drastically changed."
Yes, and sin is sin is sin is sin.
And Kingdom jurisprudence (in all spheres of the culture) must include the oaths, laws and sanctions prescribed in the Law-Word of the King (see Deut. 28).
What other moral standards are acceptable? Who is sovereign and whose law is stipulated?
Dispensationalists hate those questions; and they mumble about
"natural law" and state worship,
while anticipating the "imminent
rapture" to bail them out.
Covenant people do not accept the
discontinuity of the antinomians
among us, though they are legion.
There is much here that I agree with, although for the sake of ease of expression I’m going to come at it sideways:
Some people try to vary the importance of the law in Lev etc to make it easier to implement as the new Israel, but I can't help thinking that this reminds me of the way some rabbi's and the old Gnostics tend to interpret scripture: "In my understanding of these verses, they contradict, so one will overrule the other" This misses out the hidden assumption, that you are interpreting it right!
I think a good way to deal with the law is as Gods righteousness as revealed to a fallen people, which is now fulfilled in Christ. It's also said that the law is like a far off glimpse of Gods plan which we now have in full (paraphrasing obviously), furthermore it is said that gods plan is a mystery that was only made plain in Christ. Do you see what I'm trying to get at here?
It seems to me that Christ is the missing peace that should transform the law from regulation that brings death to teaching that enables us not to sin (I carry your law in my heart that I might not sin etc). I think we always have to hold the balance between disregarding the law as obsolete and following it as if Christ had never come (apart from adding breaking of bread!). Now I'm sure most Christians would agree with this, but I also think we should give all the law (and indeed all of scripture) equal weighting, and our exegesis should be based fundamentally on Jesus: We should hold him and his teachings in mind when we interpret the law, even when we agree with the passage! And we shouldn’t use get out clauses when we don’t like a verse, I really do believe that when we see contradictions we should shift, although obviously not in a 2+2=5 kind of way (that equation is so horrible to write!). What do you think?
Having said all that however, here are some things to think about, just little scattered thoughts that are more divergent:
Jesus himself did actually rank the laws, but perhaps only because you could derive all the other laws from the ones he mentioned.
Tithing occurred before the Law of Moses, as did the offering of sacrifices (Abraham, both). While Sacrifice as an activity in itself is clearly condemned in the prophets (Sacrifice you did not desire ... but a body you prepared for me/I desire obedience not sacrifice), Tithing gets no such condemnation (as far as I can find), it actually is endorsed!
And finally, here's an interesting thing a friend of mine discovered, every day out of the creation week in genesis includes the phrase 'and it was evening and morning, the ___ day' apart from the seventh! Unlike all the others it is undefined in time, is this rest the same as the rest the Israelites were denied? If so, does the "revealed" version of honouring the Sabbath mean something to do with honouring heaven, or the peace which transcends understanding, or maybe something else? I don't have much of an answer to that, but I do notice that when Paul quotes about the Israelites not receiving Gods rest, he makes an odd comment about “Today”, if were reinterpreting days, that seems to important to miss!
Post a Comment
<< Home