Christians and the OT Law

Here are 10 quick tips on how to apply and understand the Old Testament Law as Christians.

1. The Law isn't just commandments. The Jewish word usually translated "law" - Torah - actually refers to the first 5 books of the Bible. What we read as commandments are set within the context of story, and are inseparable from it.
2. The Law was always about how to respond to salvation. Just before the 10 Commandments are given comes the wonderful Exodus 19. The Law, for the people of Israel, was about how to respond to the fact that God had already saved them, and how to continue as God's saved people.
3. The Law was given to the nation of Israel - it was given in a specific time and context to a specific group of people to show them how to respond to God saving them from slavery in Egypt. It wasn't given to 21st century Gentile Christians living in the UK (or anywhere else). So it doesn't apply directly to us.
4. The Law was given in the knowledge it wouldn't be kept. Just after the commandments finish, in Deuteronomy 32, comes a wonderful song from Moses responding to the law. And in it, he recognises that the people won't keep the law and will need saving again. Jesus isn't therefore a Plan B, he is part 2 (or 3, or whatever) of Plan A. The Law shows us that we are incapable of keeping it, despite the best possible carrots and the worst possible sticks. The problem is the human heart.
5. Jesus is the perfect Law-keeper. But Jesus kept the Law perfectly. He did what we could not do.
6. Jesus embodies the character of God as revealed in the Law. He doesn't just fulfil the Law by not breaking it - he shows us more clearly the God who gave the Law.
7. Jesus is the answer to the problem posed by the Law. The problem the Law shows is that even if God rescues us, we still can't live up to it. Jesus solves that by rescuing us from our own inadequacy, from God's right anger against that inadequacy, and by giving us his Spirit to live in us and transform us.
8. The Law reveals the character of God our Father, especially in the importance of love - loving God and those around us, as well as showing us worked examples of what that love looks like in the culture of the time. We can therefore apply it to how we should respond to God's greater salvation in Jesus, but to do that takes work. There's a great outline of how to go about it in CJH Wright's book Old Testament Ethics for the People of God.
9. The Law leads us to God the Son, and shows us our need of his sin-bearing sacrifice.
10. The Law shows us our need for transformation by God the Holy Spirit. In New Testament thought, the Spirit replaces the Law. That is why there are so many parallels between Pentecost and Sinai.

What have I missed off? Anything important?

Coping with Bible Disagreements

There are a few areas where the Bible doesn't seem to speak with a single voice on a topic. Examples are the nature of hell, remarriage after divorce and the order of events at the end of the world. It isn't so much that what the Bible says is unclear – but that it seems to clearly say different things in different places.

When that happens, we get to choose how we respond.

• The non-Christian response is to say that the Bible just contradicts itself and ignore it. Some Christians try that response, but I don't think it's helpful or productive. Neither do I think Christians should try it, unless they've tried the other options and found them wanting.
• The response of the busy Christian is to accept that there is probably an answer out there somewhere, but that it isn't particularly relevant to my life now, and so ignore it. That's what I did for many years on the question of the role of the Jews after the time of Jesus. It wasn't relevant to what I was doing, so I used what I knew and didn't worry too much about the rest.
• The proof-texting response is to take one set of verses and passages, usually the ones closest to the view which we'd want to take anyway or which our group takes, and make them the basis for our view on the issue, then either ignore or re-interpret the verses which seem to put forward other views to explain why they are wrong. That's what tends to happen when the debate is split down party lines, as with the debate on the nature of hell.
• My preferred response is to try to find an answer which fits all the passages which discuss the issue, and explains why they seem to say what they say. The ideal is that you find a point of view where all the passages that we have are legitimate ways of explaining it for the contexts that they are written to. Once you've done that, I think you've got good reason to think that you're probably right on one of those issues, but not otherwise.

Same-Sex Marriage

Here's my response to the government consultation on same-sex marriage:

The essence of marriage is that it is two different people committing themselves to be together for life. The experience of having to live with, and committing yourself to love, someone who is fundamentally different from yourself, is one of the key drivers for personal growth. It is within the context of two people committed to love the other "for better for worse" that children are best raised, because the couple have learned to accept each other. That is the best societal basis for tolerance.

The most fundamental distinction between people is gender, as recognised on passports and just about everywhere else. Marriage unites two people of opposite gender, who are thus very different and so as they learn to accept each other, so they learn to accept people who are fundamentally different from themselves. The same is not true of "same-sex marriage". It would be a union of two people who are the same at the fundamental level of gender (and of orientation). It therefore is a very different thing from marriage, and hence a different word should be used. It does not provide the same basis for transformation, or for growth in tolerance and acceptance of the other.

Review - Gunning for God by John Lennox

I recently finished reading Gunning for God - why the new atheists are missing the target by John Lennox. Lennox has already written quite a bit on the scientific arguments against Christianity - notably in God's Undertaker. So in Gunning for God, Lennox tackles the non-scientific arguments - "Is Religion Poisonous?", "Can we be Good Without God?" and so on.

John Lennox spends a lot of time thinking about and working on these questions, and it really comes across. He understands the arguments in detail, how they fit into the wider context of Western history and philosophy and so on. He's got the depth of knowledge and reading that a non-expert just couldn't develop without a lot of work.

I don't necessarily agree with him on everything though. For example, when discussing morality, he points out that atheists do not have a consistent basis for absolute morality, and hence they cannot claim that Christianity is immoral. However, I don't think that's quite true. It is still possible to claim that Christianity is internally inconsistent by judging it by its own morality even if one struggles with the problem of morality oneself. The counter to that argument is partly to demonstrate the internal consistency of the Christian worldview and partly to point out that there isn't any consistent alternative morality proposed, but I don't think the argument is quite as strong as Lennox tries to make it. That aside, it's still a very good handling of a difficult question.

Lennox isn't just reactive though - he spends a while thinking about related questions such as "Is Atheism Poisonous?" and "Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?" I've read quite a few books dealing with the arguments for and against God, and this is one of the best. I'd recommend it to anyone wanting to understand the area in more detail, whether they are a committed Christian looking to explain their faith more clearly or a non-Christian wanting to find out the truth.

Review - OT Ethics for the People of God by Chris Wright

I used to dream of one day writing a book about how Christians should understand the Old Testament Law. It wouldn't make the mistake of saying the OT Law was a covenant of works rather than grace, nor would it make the mistake of assuming either that we should obey the OT Law or that we could ignore it. Instead, it would see what it meant for the OT Law to be Israel's response to God saving them by grace, and then apply it to us today. Only I'm not going to bother now, because I've discovered that Chris Wright did it years ago and did it much better than I could ever do.

Wright goes beyond the usual bounds of thinking about OT ethics. He stresses the importance of understanding the society and community as a whole (rather than just the rather Western individualism) and of understanding the ethics not just from the statute law but also from the more theological and narrative sections.

The distinctiveness of Old Testament ethics is ... the distinctiveness of a whole community's ethical response to unique historical events in which they saw the hand of their God.

Wright is superb on so many topics - the politics and economics of OT Israel, the role of family life, the implications for fellowship in the Church, attitudes to slavery, etc.

If I were to criticise the book, I would say that it is too short at (only!) 500-odd pages. He doesn't have space to think about how the New Testament handles the OT Law, or to go into much detail in areas like sexual ethics, feminist critiques of Israel, the implications of the OT village elders for church eldership, ... Having established his principles, he only has the space to pick a few examples and apply them. But given all that, this is a magnificent place to start to think on a deeper level about the ethical implications of the Old Testament for the church, and to engage with more academic scholarship on the issue.

The most fun (and encouragement, and challenge, and encounter with God) I've had reading an academic book for years!

Abortion v Infanticide

An interesting article here.

My conclusion: Ethics fail.

Their logical conclusion "killing babies no different from abortion" is quite possibly valid, but not new - Peter Singer has been arguing it for years, and it was basically the Roman position thousands of years ago. However, their ethical implications are deeply skewed.

Having demonstrated that abortion and infanticide are morally equivalent, they have three options:

• They could try asserting that ethics are societally defined and conclude "isn't that interesting?" but maintain that one can be wrong and the other right.
• They could use the widespread revulsion against infanticide to say that abortion is therefore not just an issue of women's rights and is (at least in most cases) wrong.
• They could use the widespread acceptance of abortion as a product of women's rights to say that infanticide must be correct too.

Of course, I'd take the second option. We think infanticide is wrong because it is - that's what our consciences tell us. I strongly suspect that the reason that the proponents of abortion are so shrill and so irrational in their defence of it is that deep down they know it to be wrong as well.

Sexual Revolution: Defend It, If You Can

This is a brilliant article, which argues from good old-fashioned ethics that the sexual revolution has been and continues to be a Bad Thing. Here's his conclusion - I'd love to see an attempt at a response from someone who disagrees...

In other words, let the sexual revolution be justified on grounds of the common good. I believe it fails that test miserably, with evidence that is weighty, obvious, manifold, logically and anthropologically deducible, and clearly predictable by wisdom both pagan and Christian. Let them make their case, rather than asserting a principle that, in reality, would destroy the very idea of the common good. For if we cannot appeal to the common good in a matter so fundamental, I do not see how we can appeal to it in any other.

It's worth adding that I know we are now living after the sexual revolution, and there's no point trying to pretend otherwise.

Incest and Homosexuality

In an interesting article, Albert Mohler argues that the normal justifications for homosexual relationships apply equally to incest. (Of course, being Albert Mohler, he also shows that the commonly used societal arguments against incest apply equally to homosexuality...)

More Bits and Bobs - Abortion and the Titanic

This is a very interesting article (HT to Anglican Mainstream).

A large majority of French women say that there are too many abortions in their country, and that abortions "leaves psychological traces that are difficult for women to experience" according to a recent national poll.

The study, which was done at the behest of the French Right to Life Alliance (l’Alliance pour les droits de la vie - ADV), found that 83% of women believe that abortion does lasting psychological damage, and 61% believe that there are too many abortions in France.

Sixty-seven percent said that women should be educated about the possibility of putting their children up for adoption as an alternative to abortion.

Unrelatedly, Al Mohler wrote an interesting article about why so many women and children survived the Titanic (and why the film was wrong), but so few survived the Lusitania.

Put plainly, on the Lusitania the male passengers demonstrated “selfish rationality.” As TIME explains, this is “a behavior that’s every bit as me-centered as it sounds and that provides an edge to strong, younger males in particular. On the Titanic, the rules concerning gender, class and the gentle treatment of children — in other words, good manners — had a chance to assert themselves.”

Note carefully the assumption here that “the rules concerning gender, class and the gentle treatment of children” are ascribed to “good manners” and “socially determined behavioral patterns.” In other words, the male decision to give priority to the welfare of women and children is just a learned behavior, a social convention.

Is that all there is to it? There is a huge question looming in this — is it right for men to act with care and concern toward women and children, or is this just an outmoded relic of Victorian morality?

Funny Quotes

Some people say that there is a God; others say that there is no God. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.
W.B. Yeats

The Bible tells us to love our neighbours, and also to love our enemies - probably because they are generally the same people.
G.K. Chesterton

Both are from "If My Preaching's Bad, Try My Jokes" by David Pytches.

Bonhoeffer - Not Speaking

Often we combat our evil thoughts most effectively if we absolutely refuse to allow them to be expressed in words... It must be a decisive role of every Christian fellowship that each individual is prohibited from saying much that occurs to him.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The Dark Knight

I don't think I've ever seen a superhero film as dark as this, the sequel to Batman Begins. It is complex, brooding and all the characters are morally ambiguous in a way that is very unusual. But Batman always was the Dark Knight, even if that wasn't how he was portrayed on screen. The exception in terms of moral ambiguity is the Joker, who is a fairly clear mix of evil, insane and very clever.

The special effects are good, but the focus is rather on the large number of moral cans of worms opened in the film, with questions like "Does the difference between what people deserve and what people need legitimate lying?", What is the difference between the "good" people and the "evil" people in the film? How does that work out with reference to e.g. Harvey, the groups of people on the ferries? Is the Joker really that different after all?

I think where it all ends up is remarkably close to GK Chesterton's classic Father Brown stories, though without the strong redemptive theme there. By all means watch the film - it's a good, entertaining, well made, and thought-provoking time. But don't expect it to be happy.

Is there a Right Thing to do?

I was put onto this interesting point by reading Raymond Brown's commentary on Nehemiah, which I might review on here in a few weeks.

Roughly speaking, Ezra and Nehemiah were in very similar situations. Ezra, out of faith in God, did one thing. Nehemiah, out of faith in God, did exactly the opposite. And both were right.

Ezra 8:21-23

Then I proclaimed a fast there, at the river Ahava, that we might humble ourselves before our God, to seek from him a safe journey for ourselves, our children, and all our goods. For I was ashamed to ask the king for a band of soldiers and horsemen to protect us against the enemy on our way, since we had told the king, "The hand of our God is for good on all who seek him, and the power of his wrath is against all who forsake him." So we fasted and implored our God for this, and he listened to our entreaty.

Ezra, out of faith in God, does not take a band of soldiers on his expedition from Babylonia to Jerusalem.

Nehemiah 2:5-9

And I said to the king, "If it pleases the king, and if your servant has found favor in your sight, that you send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers' graves, that I may rebuild it.”... So it pleased the king to send me.

And I said to the king, "If it pleases the king, let letters be given me to the governors of the province Beyond the River, that they may let me pass through until I come to Judah... And the king granted me what I asked, for the good hand of my God was upon me... Now the king had sent with me officers of the army and horsemen.

Nehemiah, out of faith in God, asks the same king for protection on his expedition from Babylonia to Jerusalem.

So which was the right thing to do? Quite clearly, both.

Why? Because the key is acting out of faith in God, in submission to his word and after appropriate prayer (and in both cases, fasting too). And if we do that in good conscience, we're doing what is right, even if it's different to what someone else would do in the same situation.

Assault

How come hitting someone is a criminal offence, but breaking a covenant obligation to your spouse isn't, even though the latter does far more damage and causes far more pain?

Is it Wrong to Steal a Bible?

Or, put more clearly, if someone who is used only to a life of crime becomes interested in Jesus and steals a Bible so they can find out more about him, is that wrong? I remember hearing someone speak who did just that - it may have been Tal Brooke, but I'm not sure, so I'll call the person Jimmy. Once they became a Christian, they later returned the Bible.

Argument that it is wrong

The Bible quite clearly says "Do not steal". It's in the 10 Commandments, Jesus repeated it, Paul repeated it. Stealing is wrong.

Counter-argument

Romans 2 is clear that the law applies only to those who know it, and those who don't are judged by what is seen of God's Law in their own consciences. Jimmy may honestly not have known that God didn't want him to steal the Bible. And yes, that probably means that Jimmy is guilty of stealing an awful lot of things previously, but in this case it's not actually his fault.

Furthermore, Paul says that "everything that does not come from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23). If we take that as a definition of sin, which it works well as, the stealing the Bible could actually be from a nascent faith and hence be the best thing Jimmy has yet done in his life.

Funny Link

The discussion was spawned by mention of this magnificent song, which was of course released for free download...

Homosexuality

Hmmm.... No time to write much on this, though there is a huge amount to say, but was talking about it again last night, in the context of discussing homophobia and stuff and so thought it would be a good idea to record some controversial thoughts on it.

• No-one goes to hell for being gay.

• Homophobia (especially a fear of being thought to be gay) is deeply ingrained in large parts of British culture and in large parts of the church
• To treat homosexual sex outside marriage differently from hetereosexual sex outside marriage seems to be an example of homophobia.

• Sexual "orientation" is both continuous and fluid, though to varying degrees in different people.
• To define one's identity by sexual orientation (whether straight, gay, bisexual, 3 on the Kinsey scale, whatever) is unhelpful and flawed. We do not link our preference for sweet or sour foods to our identity - why should we link our preference for sex with men or sex with women?
• In light of the previous two aphorisms, the concept of orientation itself is in some ways deeply flawed and certainly unhelpful in debate.

• The Biblical doctrine of sex is intrinsically linked to the Biblical doctrine of marriage. To understand what the Bible teaches on the issue in the light of the new covenant, we need to approach the issue through the doctrine of marriage rather than by arguing over which OT laws do or don't apply
• A clear distinction needs to be drawn between temptation and sin. Temptation is fine. Jesus was tempted, quite possibly in homosexual ways (e.g. Hebrews 4:15). Sin is not fine.
• The primary Biblical mandate for how Christians are to act is to love rather than to judge.
• I see no reason why non-Christians should accept arguments based on "the Bible says..."

• In the light of that, it seems to me that Biblically, marriage is meant to be heterosexual and lifelong, and that sex belongs inside marriage and not elsewhere.
• If there are three men talking, then one of them goes away and has sexual fantasies about a woman, another goes away and has sex with a man, and the third goes away and is proud that he has controlled his sex life, Jesus would be most likely to condemn the third one. And the first and second are pretty much morally equivalent if we take Matthew 5:27 seriously.

Father Christmas

A random not-especially-seasonal post today. I was in a coversation a few days ago where the topic came up and I realised I should write some more on it.

I was quite traumatised as a child over the whole Santa Claus thing. Here's how it happened.

My parents, in a well-meaning but ultimately misguided way, had told me that Father Christmas existed. They told me that he came down the chimney and put presents in my stocking. My stocking certainly went from being empty to being full of presents overnight, and many of the presents claimed to be from Father Christmas.

Having a fairly scientific mindset, I wanted to know how this worked. Specifically, I was bothered about the fact the chimney was bricked up and wasn't sure about the level of communication that seemed to take place between Father Christmas and my parents. So I stayed awake one year - I guess I was about 6 - and waited to see what would happen. As my parents were going to bed, I heard my mother come into the room, so I said hello. She seemed surprised, mumbled something about checking if I was asleep so Father Christmas could come, and went out. I figured I'd better pretend to be asleep the next time, and true to form, my mum filled my stocking with presents.

The next morning, I mentioned this to my parents, and they still tried to maintain that Santa existed, but came up with some much less plausible story, which I didn't believe. I know now that they meant well, but I also know that I lost a lot of respect for my parents that Christmas. I stopped regarding what they said as true just because they said it - I stopped trusting them. It felt as if they were lying to me, and thinking I was stupid to believe the lies.

Why do I say this? Because lies, however well-intentioned, damage relationships.

I think there are some situations where lying is ok - for example if I was hiding a load of Jews in Nazi Germany and the SS came looking. One thing that Daniel Hill has been pushing me on a fair bit lately in when I think it is ok to lie and when I think it isn't. I guess the key issues there are an understanding of the big picture, a knowledge of how others would respond to your statement, and issues of informed and humble consciences. If my parents had understood how lying about Santa would affect me, they wouldn't have done it.

Bad Language

There's an interesting discussion going on over on internetmonk.com about the American Evangelical reaction to bad language and cultural Pharisaism. It's a discussion that needs to be had, and which I think I might need to reference later.

• about how the easily offended sometimes end up being tyrants
• looking at where the balance is in the Bible
• thinking about the historical roots and some of the consequences
• looking at the relevant bits of Ephesians

Here is an older item on the same subject and the same site. FWIW, I think I agree with it.