Hermeneutics - Lesson 17

The next biblical literary genre that we’re going to look at is law. And as New Covenant believers, what are we to make of the law passages? When I think about law, I’m thinking about the Mosaic Law, the Old Testament law. The distance between us today on this side of the cross and the people of Israel back then, it seems really great, enormous. After all, as evangelical Christians we’re committed to Scripture as our authoritative guide in all matters. And therefore, we just want to naturally use the Bible in all of our ethical decisions, right? But consider the following from the law. Do you eat ham and bacon? Well, I love pork products. Well, what about Leviticus 11:3 and 7?

“Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. The pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven footed but does not chew the cud is unclean to you.” 

Do you have a railing around your roof? I don’t. I don’t at all. Well, what about Deuteronomy 22:8? 

“When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it.” 

Do you wear cotton and polyester blend clothes? Well, what about Leviticus 19:19? 

“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.” 

How were we supposed to understand these laws? 

Now, probably you were thinking, “Yeah, but that’s Old Covenant, this is New Covenant.” And in making that answer, especially if you want to justify your love for bacon, you have to give some sort of hermeneutical response, you have to give an answer why there’s a clear prohibition in the Bible that you don’t need to heed. 

Well, that’s the task of right biblical interpretation. I think you are right to love bacon and I see no sin in eating lots of bacon as long as you’re not a glutton about it. That’s not always easy when it comes to bacon. 

How are we to understand these Old Testament laws? And the key to understanding, I think it’s twofold. One, we have to understand the nature of the covenants. What is a covenant? Who makes covenants? With whom are covenants made? Are those covenants binding? When are they not? 

And then second, we have to be able to place both ourselves and the covenants correctly on the timeline of redemptive history. Think of it like a big mall map, if you will. This is the task of biblical theology. The only time I ever go to a mall is when I want to go to Cinnabon or if I’m with my wife and she promises that we can go to Cinnabon. That’s when I go to a mall. And so, the first thing I do when I get to the mall is I go to the mall map and I look for the Cinnabon. And knowing exactly where the Cinnabon is in the mall does me no good unless I find that arrow that says, “You are here.” And then I can make my way effectively to the Cinnabon. 

Well, it’s kind of that way when it comes to biblical theology and this understanding of the Law. We need to be able to place the covenants in the right place, and then we need to know where we are at on the timeline of redemptive history. So, this is where I am and this is where I need to go, or this is where I need to interpret. And there’s going to be some distance there. 

Okay, so let’s go back to that first one. The nature of the covenants. There’s a form to the covenants. There’s bilateral covenants or parity covenants. These are usually covenants among equals. There are suzerain and vassal covenants. These are usually unidirectional. They are not covenants between equals. 

The thing I want to point out here is that these covenants had a particular form and the order of the form is very important and I think it’s an accommodation of the Lord that when he made covenants with his people, he made them look like the covenants that they were used to seeing out in the world. They would have made sense to them. They might not always make sense to us, but we’re not part of the Ancient Near East where those kinds of covenants are made. 

The covenant is based on God’s graciousness. We have to remember that. The stipulations or commands are made because of God’s graciousness and then obedience hopefully will follow. We need to recognize always, and it’s always been this way, even during the Mosaic Law, that we stand before God on the basis of grace. 

Now, we might want to ask, “How can I please the Lord?” But we need to remember that even in the covenants, there’s a relationship that’s established in the covenant that always precedes the stipulations. 

So, we might be tempted to look at the Mosaic Covenant and think, “Oh, this is just a guide for how to please the Lord or how to be God’s people,” but that would not be correct. The Mosaic Covenant starts with the establishment of the people of Israel as the people of God. And then there are stipulations for how the people of God are supposed to behave. But implicit in that is they’re already the people of God. 

Your typical order of—or what a covenant would look like, there would be some sort of preamble. We see this like in Exodus 20:1. This isn’t a long preamble, but it’s “And God spoke all these words saying…” 

And then typically in Ancient Near East covenant, there would be some sort of historical prologue. And we find this in Exodus 20:2, “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” So, the historical prologue establishes the basis for the relationship between the king and his people, the suzerain and his vassals. It might have said in the Ancient Near East something like, “I am king such and such, who destroyed your people and took you all as slaves, but now I am going to be merciful and kind to you.” That’s the historical basis for their relationship, one of overthrow and domination. 

Then you would find stipulations. In the Ancient Near East there’d be all sorts of commands, This is what you have to do. And we find that in the Exodus 20:3-17, that’s the Ten Commandments or the Decalogue. These are the commands that God gives to his people. 

After the stipulations there were usually some sort of provisions made for continual reading. We find that in Exodus 24:7, “Then he took the Book of Covenant (Moses) and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, ‘All that the Lord has spoken we will do.’” We will be obedient, they promise. But there the Word of God is read to them. 

Oftentimes there’s usually witnesses that are called down. This makes it legal. The witnesses aren’t always people. Sometimes it’s like the moon and the stars and the sky. But there are people who are, entities that are, witness to the making of this covenant. And we see this in Exodus 19. And then in the verse we just read, “All the people answered together and said, All that the Lord has spoken, we will do. And Moses reported the words of the people to the Lord.” And then the same thing happens five chapters later in Exodus 24:7, “All the words of the Lord has spoken we will do.” 

Because there’s witnesses then it’s legal and there can be blessings and curses. And so, if you keep the commands, then God says, “I will bless you in this way. But if you fail to keep the commands, if you violate them, I will bring these curses upon you.” We find that in Exodus 24 also. 

And then Deuteronomy 28, I think is one of the most important passages in the entire Bible, because there Moses has gone through the whole Law again. And he gets to the end now, with this second generation that’s about to go into the Promised Land and he delivers them 14 verses of promises of blessing for obedience, followed by, I think, 54 promises of cursing if they disobey. 

And of course, that establishes everything that’s going to happen in the rest of the Old Testament. They fail to keep the covenant and all of those curses come upon them in very gory detail. You could almost skip reading the Old Testament and just read the curses of Deuteronomy 28, and you’ll see exactly what happens throughout the rest of the Old Testament. 

What is the nature of the Law, though? What do we have to remember? Underlying the entire genre of law is the essence of what the Law does. It establishes the boundaries of the covenant. That is, you will know whether you are in or out of the covenant if you obey the law. Now, we need to remember, of course, that the Israelites were already part of the covenant. Therefore, if they obeyed the Law, that didn’t put them in the covenant, but that’s how they maintained their standing within the covenant as the covenant people of God. 

So, in one sense, the Law is a guide for pleasing God. It establishes the rules that the covenant people of the Lord were to obey. It establishes the rules that govern the relationship between the Lord and his people. And God was committing himself to respond in a certain way to certain behaviors of the Israelites. 

But in another sense, it is not a list of directions for how to please God. The Book of Deuteronomy makes it clear that the Israelites were not chosen because of their piety or because of their numbers. God was keeping promises previously made. So, we always have to remember that despite its law-like nature, and it definitely is law-like and it has the language of law, covenant was made purely on the basis of grace. 

Now, when people look at the Law, they often see that there’s like a three-fold nature to it. There’s a moral dimension, a cultic or ceremonial dimension, and a civil dimension. It would be really tidy and handy if, in the giving of the Law, it was broken down that way. First the moral law, then the civil law, then the ceremonial law. But it’s never that way, and it’s hard to differentiate those laws at other times. Is this a civil law or a ceremonial law? I can’t tell. And aren’t all the moral laws, or aren’t all the civil and ceremonial laws moral in nature? What if you disobey them? You’re going to find out pretty quickly there’s a moral dimension to this because God takes your disobedience to the civil and the ceremonial law as very moral. 

Nevertheless, sometimes it’s helpful to think in those terms, especially when it comes to what are we supposed to do with these laws today? Just remember that when people talk about the moral law or the civil law or the ceremonial law, that’s us placing categories on top of the Law. Those categories are not explicit in the law itself. 

What are these? Well, there’s the moral law or the moral dimension of the Law. That would involve moral aspects that flow freely or more directly from the nature of God. Perhaps the 5th through the 10th Commandments would be a good example of these. 

The cultic, or the ceremonial laws, these are the rules for worship that were given to the people of Israel. Sacrificial system, feasts, cleanliness codes, things like that. 

The civil law. Well, those are the laws by which Israel as a geopolitical entity were to govern themselves. And those, as you’re reading through the laws and you come upon something that’s like, “How am I supposed to obey that? This looks like how a theocracy is supposed to be managed, and I’m just an individual living in Portland, Oregon, how am I supposed to obey that?” Well, that’s where it’s helpful to recognize, “Okay, this is civil law and it’s particular in its immediate application to Israel as a geopolitical entity.” But that doesn’t mean that it’s irrelevant. And we’ll talk about why that is here in a moment. 

The laws, the civil laws, they assume a theocracy. This was how Israel was to govern itself. And they include prescriptions for punishments, for justice, cities of refuge, things like that. 

Now in interpreting and applying the Law, a lot of really interesting questions and difficult questions are raised. This entire discussion is framed by the question, I think, “How much continuity is there between the Old Testament Israelite and the New Testament Christian?” If there’s complete continuity between there, then we should just obey everything that we read in the Old Covenant. If there’s no continuity whatsoever, then perhaps the Old Covenant laws, they’re not relevant to us at all. They don’t apply. Or is there something in between? Do we have to make better interpretive judgments than that? And that’s where I’m ultimately going to land. 

When we ask the question how much continuity, how much discontinuity is there, we’ll also ask, what’s the distance between the original audience and myself? We always have to ask. Remember that mall map illustration that I use? “Where am I in redemptive history? Where’s that X that tells me I am here versus where the covenants are? What bearing does where I sit in redemptive history have on my application of these laws?” Another way of asking that would be, “What impact does the cross of Christ have on my understanding and application of these Old Testament laws?” 

So, Axiom #16 is my law axiom here. It reads this way: The Lord gave the Law to Israel to govern them as the covenant people of God, preparing them for Messiah. The New Covenant either implicitly or explicitly abrogates many of the Old Covenant stipulations. Now, way more could be said, but a lot of what I want to say is right there. 

Let’s think about continuity between Old Covenant and New Covenant. Let’s think of it in terms of a continuum of continuity. Total continuity on one side between Old Covenant and New Covenant, Old Testament, New Testament, and absolute or total discontinuity on the other end. 

We’ll start with total continuity. There are people who argue for a lot of continuity. These would be those who call themselves “theonomists” or “reconstructionists.” The basic hermeneutical principle here is this. Well, they call themselves theonomists: the-onomy, theos-nomos. God’s law. 

It maintains, theonomy maintains, that God’s revealed law or basically all of Scripture applies to all of our ethical decisions today and is the ethical norm. And that’s true of both the New Testament and the Old Testament. All of law flows from God’s moral character. God is unchanging. Nothing has changed in his moral character. Therefore, obey everything in the Law. Nothing could be abrogated. Nothing could be done away with if it flows from God’s character. 

Unless Scripture shows changes with respect to Old Testament Law, New Testament believers are to assume that it is still in force. Because the Law is all of one piece. The distinction between moral, ceremonial, or civil, again, that’s something that’s layered on top of it. If you break one law, you break all of it. And they would argue even the ceremonial law, even as New Covenant Christians, it’s still in force. Now, how can that be? 

Well, the ceremonial law, the ceremonial ordinances of the Old Testament Law, they typified Christ and his sacrifice. (We’ll talk about typology in a moment.) And Christ does not abrogate their meaning or intention. Rather, he makes their old manner of observation irrelevant for circumstances have radically changed. 

Thus, the Old Testament—I’m sorry, the death of Christ does not abolish the Old Testament ceremonial law, but it reminds us that the requirements of that particular law have been fulfilled in Jesus, and hence how it was observed in the Old Testament is outmoded. 

So, we might think about something like circumcision in the Old Testament. That mode is now outdated. But with Jesus, we have something different. We’re still observing this practice that set apart the people of God. Now we do baptism instead of circumcision. 

The moral law. Well, they flow from the character of God. And so, the general precepts, they still apply today without alteration. We might not be bound to keep the specific applications as worded because they might be culturally relative, but we are responsible to always obey the underlying principle. So, we might not have to have a railing around a roof, but we have to, in love, protect others from harm when they’re on our property. And however you do that, wherever you live, is what you’re required to do. 

The civil law? Well, the political law still applies. I should say the political use of the law still applies today. And the Old Testament really should form the basis for ruling societies today, that is the moral and civil law should be legally enforced. Now, we might think, “Why would you say that?” And this is how they would respond, “There’s only been one time in all of human history where God has said to a nation, ‘This is how I want you to govern yourself. These are the laws. And these laws will demonstrate just how righteous I am.’ Since that’s the case, why would we today not look to the Old Testament Law to get some hints about how we ought to govern ourselves? There’s only been one time in human history where God has said, ‘This is what I want you to govern yourselves as a nation.’ Seems foolish to ignore that.” That’s the kind of argument that they would bring. 

Now, does that mean that we’re supposed to stone prostitutes and that sort of thing? Well, not necessarily. But the state is to punish those who break the moral and civil law of God that was given to Moses and endorsed by Jesus. Governing authorities are always required to obey and enforce right standards of justice. And those right standards of justice can really only be found in God’s revealed law. 

So, summary: all of the Law as found in Scripture (and this has particular reference to the Law of Moses) it remains in force and is to be our authoritative guide in our ethical decisions today. So absolute continuity. So if we’re thinking going from Old Testament, (I should do it this way for the camera) Old Testament through the cross of Christ to us today. We think of the cross of Christ as like an open window where everything just passes straight through. Everything still applies. It might be altered a little bit in how we observe it. But all commands, because they flow from God’s character and God is unchanging, they still apply today. So, open window. 

Let’s think of the opposite of absolute continuity and let’s talk about absolute discontinuity. The major proponents of this would be those who hold to a more of a classic dispensational theology. They would see total discontinuity between the Old Covenant and the New, the Old Testament and the New Testament. The basic hermeneutical position is that the Old Testament Law is not applicable at all today. The Law of Moses, which is part of the Mosaic, the Old Covenant is no longer in force. 

Now, why would they say this? They would appeal to Matthew chapter 5:17-18, which reads, “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.” 

Now I’ll pause right there and point out if we stopped right there, that’s exactly what the absolute continuity people would say: “Jesus didn’t come to abolish the Law. It’s still in force today.” But the absolute discontinuity people will say: “No, keep reading. ‘I haven’t come to abolish them, but to fulfill them for truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away not an iota, not a dot will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.’” Jesus introduces a new “until,” “until all is accomplished.” The accomplishing of the Old Covenant took place during the ministry of Jesus Christ. What were Jesus’ last words on the cross? “It is finished.” 

Therefore, what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 about he hasn’t come to abolish, but to fulfill them, and that not a stroke will depart from the Law until all is accomplished. Well, once Jesus dies on the cross, all is accomplished at that point, and we no longer have to obey the Law. 

So, you might ask, “What does this even mean? Does that mean that, like the Ten Commandments are out? I don’t have to obey them?” And the answer to that is, “Yes, that is true.” Well, I’m not supposed to go around killing people. I’m not supposed to go around committing adultery. That’s also true to the absolute discontinuity person. Well, so what’s the point? 

The point is this. The reason that you as a Christian, don’t commit adultery and don’t go around murdering people and don’t go around lying, it has nothing to do with those tablets that Moses lugged down from Mt. Sinai, has absolutely nothing to do with that. The reason that you as a New Covenant believer, don’t go around murdering and lying and stealing and committing adultery is because Jesus said, “Don’t murder and lie or steal or commit adultery.” That’s why. 

And so, to go back to our illustration of what passes through, going from here to here, you have the Old Testament Law, Mount Sinai, it passes through the cross, except it doesn’t. The cross is like a brick wall. And all of those Old Testament laws stop right there. And then Jesus gives us some new laws, and a lot of the laws are the same. We would expect that. If you’re an absolute discontinuity person, that’s to be expected because it’s the same God after all. They would affirm the same thing the theonomist affirms. That is, that much of the moral law flows from the righteous character of God, and that’s unchanging. So, of course, of course we’re going to have the same laws. But the reason that we don’t kill people, murder people, the reason we don’t commit adultery has nothing to do with Mount Sinai. It has everything to do with what Jesus or one of his apostles said. So that is absolute discontinuity. 

Absolute continuity: an open window. Absolute discontinuity: a brick wall. 

Let’s look at it at an intermediate position. Moderate continuity or depending on your perspective, maybe moderate discontinuity. There’s some subtle differences between these, but I’m going to combine them for the sake of simplicity here. 

The basic hermeneutical principle is this: since the Old Testament is God’s revelation of truth, whatever was true and binding during the Old Testament times, it still applies during the New Testament and New Covenant era, which would be our era, unless the New Testament either explicitly or implicitly abrogates it. 

Now, abrogation is our fancy word for saying this law no longer applies. We don’t have to obey it anymore. Jesus Christ is the one who determines what of the Old Testament Law has continuing validity today and what has been abrogated. So, when Jesus says that he came to fulfill the Old Testament, he views the entire Old Testament as anticipating and looking forward to his coming. His authoritative new teaching does not constitute an abandonment of the Law, he did not come to abolish it, but it expresses that which the Law was all along intended to anticipate. Verse 17 is key for this. The Old Testament Law continues to be valid and useful when seen in light of its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. It must continue to be taught, but interpreted and applied in light of its fulfillment in Christ. Romans 10:4, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” 

Christ as the end, as the telos of the law. Well, that could mean several things. It could mean end or goal or a combination of the two. Christ being the telos of the Law means that he is the point of culmination for the Mosaic Law. He is also its goal in the sense that the law has always anticipated and looked forward to Jesus. He is the end in that his fulfillment of the Law brings to an end that period of time when it was the key element in the plan of God that governed his relationship with his people. Thus, Christ is that to which the Old Testament lies has been pointing. 

Now that he has come a whole new situation with respect of the place of the Law in the life of the people of God exists. Certain aspects of the Old Testament Law are no longer binding today. These include, among other things, the dietary laws, the sacrificial system, theocracy. But other aspects of the Old Testament Law continue to be valid today. These include things like loving one another. Negatively we are not to commit adultery or murder or steal or covet. James tells us that also. And we are to obey and honor our parents, both in the Mosaic Law and in Ephesians 6:1-3. So, this is how the law functions. 

And we have to ask ourself, “How am I to interpret this, and then how am I to apply it?” Remember that 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is God-breathed.” And normally when the New Testament authors are using the term “Scripture,” they’re thinking about what we call the Old Testament. So here from Paul, you get this testimony that the Scripture of God is, all of it, all of it, is God-breathed and all of it is therefore useful. 

We might ask, “If it’s been abrogated, how can it still be useful?” Well, there may be principles that are at work. It might teach us something about who God is. It might teach us something about his holiness. It might teach us how during Old Covenant times, God wanted to set his people apart and how they were to be holy or consecrated for his service. And then we would have to ask ourselves, “So today God desires a holy people. God names us as holy people. We are, after all, in New Testament vernacular, saints of the living God. So how are we to behave? How do we set ourselves apart?”

In Old Covenant Israel, the manner of being set apart for many was how they ate, how they dressed, how they talked, how they worshiped, how they farmed. Certainly, from a national perspective, how they were set apart was their justice, their social justice, how they took care of the refugee, the widow, and the orphan. 

In New Covenant times, how we are sanctified, how we are set apart, it doesn’t have as much to do with what we eat or how we talk or how we dress, or certainly—it probably still applies to how we worship. We are those who worship in Spirit and truth. That’s what Paul said in Philippians 3, “We are the ones who worship by the Spirit of God.” 

No, more than how we eat, we are sanctified, set apart, by how we behave, how we think, how we talk, and also our mission as well. It’s often helpful to think about some of these moral laws, which we would think would still be in force today, but maybe how they are written out might not apply to us. 

And here I think that Walt Kaiser’s principalization is helpful. How do we use the Old Testament? He says that laws fall on a scale of particularity, that the more particular it is, the more culturally relative it might be, but the more general it is, then the more universal it would be. And underlying any particular law is a general law. 

So, let’s use the example of putting a roof or a railing around your roof. We would look at that and say, “Well, that’s very particular and it’s very culturally relative because people lived on their roofs in the Ancient Near East, and no one, especially where I live, that would be foolish to have a flat roof in Oregon, where it rains often. No one needs to put a railing around the roof because we don’t live there.” So that’s probably very, very particular. 

So, let’s go down that ladder of particularity until we get to something that’s general enough that we can apply it to our own context. Now, we could go too far down that ladder and say, “Put a railing around your roof.” The general principle there is love your neighbor. Or we could go way down to the bottom and just say, “Love God.” But “Love God” is so general that it’s almost meaningless in terms of application. “What am I supposed to do? Anything and everything. Right?” And so, we’ve gone too far. Even “Love your neighbor,” that’s too general as well. Well, I want to love my neighbor, but how do I do it? 

Okay, well think of the general principle of “put a railing around your roof,” might be to care for others when they’re on your property. It could be something like that. That’s a good way to love your neighbor but it’s more specific, more particular. But it’s also a general principle still. 

And then we can move across to our time, if we want to think of there’s an Ancient Near East ladder and there’s a ladder for our time. And then we would go up the ladder of particularity in our own context, which might be for us, like shoveling the snow off your sidewalks in front of your house or whatever it takes for you to keep people safe when they’re on your property. That might be a legitimate application of a general principle that we find in the Old Testament Law. 

Those are some of the ways that we might think about, “How am I supposed to apply these Old Covenant commands even though we are under the New Covenant?” 

Student: Can I ask a question? 

Dr. Miles: Yeah, sure. 

Student: On this mediating position, how does it handle Galatians 3:25? “The Law was here to lead us until the time of Christ. And now that faith has come, now that Christ has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the Law,” which sounds pretty sweeping. 

Dr. Miles: It does. It does. I think that’s a good question. I would argue this, that Paul describes the Law even in Galatians as like a tutor that points us to Jesus. And so, there is going to be a lot of discontinuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. I think even in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount teaching, for example, Jesus is assuming the New Covenant in the Sermon on the Mount. I mean, imagine if you are an Old—well, you’re an Israelite and you’re listening to Jesus preach and you’re yearning for Messiah to come. And maybe you’ve been listening to the Pharisees who might be saying something along the lines of, “The reason that we’re still in exile is because we didn’t keep the Law.” 

And then here comes this guy who you think, “Hey, he might be all that,” and you go listen to him preach. And he says, “You have heard it said, ‘Do not commit adultery. But I say to you, anyone who looks at a woman, lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart.’” 

And if I’m there and I’m hopeful, I’m losing a lot of hope at that point because I’m thinking, “We couldn’t even keep ‘Don’t commit adultery.’ Well, how on earth are we supposed to keep ‘Do not lust’? I mean, we’re still under Roman oppression. We went into exile to begin with because we couldn’t keep ‘Do not murder.’ And now you’re saying I can’t even get angry? There’s no chance, no chance.” 

So, I think that the Law in Galatians, yeah, it is very sweeping and Paul makes some statements that it is a tutor that is driving us and preparing us for Christ at which point there’s like a new man in town, we’re under new management. But, it’s not just a new Law, but we get the blessing of the New Covenant, which is that the Law is now written in our hearts. We’ve been given a new spirit. 

I think, for example, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount assumed the New Covenant, where we would be given the Spirit of the living God that then enables such things. So, I would agree with you that there is a lot of discontinuity there.