The Role of Torah in Modern Christianity I was two hours into my interview with the Rosh Yeshiva, the head Rabbi and director of the Conservative Yeshiva of Jerusalem in Israel. My hands had been sweating for over two hours at this point. In my application for the Yeshiva’s summer Hebrew Ulpan Aleph 2010 program, I explained that though I am Jewish by birth, I am Christian by persuasion. Obviously this raised some eyebrows! “Some of my Christian friends,” remarked the Rabbi, “have told me that I am unfulfilled because I haven’t accepted Jesus. What do you think? Am I unfulfilled?” This question sent my mind racing for an honest answer. What a challenging question! And the answer greatly influences the Christian’s life. The thrust of the question was in the context of the Jews’ continued gaze upon Torah as their earthly authority and blessing, as against the Christians’ gaze toward Jesus as fulfillment of Torah. But if I deem the Jew unfulfilled in light of their observance of Torah, does that mean that I, a Christian, no longer observe laws in the Torah? Would doing so not make me unfulfilled too? Or, if I do continue to observe Torah, why do I not observe all of it? What is the Christian’s basis for such subjectivity? This latter question intersects with one of the most important aspects of human life. For the Christian in making this interpretation is doing no less than constructing an ethical theory of moral values and duties, which will contribute to answering all “ought” questions of life, not to mention explaining why one does or does not practice a specific Torah commandment. In this survey of Law-Gospel models, I will argue for a kind of “salvation-historical” model supported by Don Carson and Douglas Moo. 1 This model can be imagined as God the Father, See DA Carson, From Sabbath to Lord’s Day (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999); Wayne G. Strickland, Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan). 1 shining his will brightly on God the Son in first century Palestine, casting shadows of divine will backward in time. A Litmus Test Any ethical system must not only be descriptive, but also prescriptive, or, “normative”. It must instruct what ought or ought not be done in life, otherwise it proves simply a sociological study, not an ethical guide.2 As we review models for the questions before us, some will be seen to make descriptive sense, yet I suggest only the “salvation-historical” model is sufficiently normative. Further, there are four questions any sound Law-Gospel model must answer. Why does the Christian follow some parts of Torah, but not others? Is Torah a single unity, or is it divisible? On what basis does each model instruct us? And finally, how does the Sabbath commandment 3 fit in each model? This latter question is of critical importance, as God designated the Sabbath as a “sign” of the Mosaic covenant. 4 Following Moo’s lead,5 the Sabbath question will serve as a litmus test in assessing the validity of each model. In the following pages, we will briefly examine the leading Law-Gospel models, and then apply our four questions to each model. Special attention will be given to Moo’s litmus test of Sabbath application. Before taking a birds-eye view of each model however, I would like to point out universal areas of agreement across each model. Points of Agreement Des ripti e ethi s is ot really a ra h of ethi s, ut a so iologi al, a thropologi al, historical or psychological ie a out ethi s. JP Morela d; Willia La e Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2003), 396. 3 Exodus 20:8-11. 4 Ex 31:12-17. 5 Strickland, Five Views, 88. 2 Among each model’s champion lies humility: the relevance of Torah to the Christian is a notoriously difficult question.6 And the Christian does well to keep an open mind, even in the case of confidence toward a particular model. Yet we can positively glean four points of agreement among each model. First, the Torah, or the Mosaic Covenant, ought to be looked at as a treaty between a King (God) and his citizens (Israelites).7 Second, the Torah, especially when viewed as a treaty, should not be seen as eternal and unchanging. Shortly after the law was given, the Torah itself underwent modification: in the Torah!8 Third, the law itself did not offer a way of salvation. 9 And finally, the “law of Christ” is not antithetical to the Mosaic covenant, any more than the Mosaic covenant was antithetical to the Abrahamic or Noahic covenant. With these similarities noted, let us depart now into territories of marked difference. Reformed In general, the Reformed view separates the law into three major sections: laws of morality, laws for the temple (Levitical), laws for governing the state (civil and penal). The latter three, Levitical, civil, and penal can be clearly seen as temporary, as neither priests nor states are eternal in essence. Moral laws, however, originate from God and therefore are potentially eternal. Within the Moral law is an important distinction between casuistic laws and apodictic laws. Casuistic are case-by-case laws, and are prefixed with “if” or “when”. For example, in Exodus 21:12-14, we see that “Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate.” The “if” of the second clause clearly denotes a casuistic moral law. These casuistic laws are to be taken as temporary injunctions, while apodictic are 6 Strickland, Five Views, 100. Ibid, 28, 84. 8 “ee Zelophehad’s daughters i Nu ers 7: -11, where already a new law is introduced into the Torah. 9 Strickland, Five Views, 32, 96, 178, 234, 234. 7 permanent in nature. And these apodictic moral laws are to be seen as eternally binding, as they carry from covenant to covenant. At first blush, this distinction seems to carry great explanatory power not only in describing which laws carry from the Mosaic covenant to the Christian covenant, but also in instructing Christians which laws we ought to follow. Casuistic laws were temporary injunctions for a specific group of people, for a specific time. Only apodictic laws transcend people and time. It has therefore satisfied three of our four crucial questions: it describes why the Christian distinguishes binding Mosaic Laws, it shows the Torah as divisible, and it clearly instructs us. Unfortunately, however, it fails the Sabbath test. The Sabbath commandment is apodictic in nature (containing no “if”, “when”, or other derivatives), and therefore, on the Reformed model, ought to be seen as eternally binding. We are told that “the seventh day [Saturday] is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall do no work…” 10 But the Christian has not followed this commandment – to cease from working on Saturday – with very much faithfulness. Worse, it does not seem that the saints of the Church have either.11 Worst of all however, even Jesus worked on the Sabbath!12 We shall return to this latter point further on. A further problem under the Reformed view is that working for seven straight days hardly seems self-evidently wrong, in the same vein of murder, rape, and adultery as self-evidently wrong. Or to state it logically, it seems self-evident that in any possible world God might create, murder, rape, and adultery are always wrong. It seems impossible to imagine a world in which the acts of murder, rape, or adultery are morally good. Can the same be said for the fourth commandment? It 10 Exodus 20:8-11. Including Noah, Paul, etc. 12 Matthew 12. 11 seems entirely possible for God to create a world in which moral agents work for seven consecutive days and remain blameless. If this is possible, it does not seem that the Sabbath is a universal, moral norm, and therefore, the Reform view fails. Though the Reform view potentially carries great explanatory power, it is not consistent in interpreting the Law-Gospel question. Theonomic The Theonomic view builds on the divisibility of the Torah, but gives it a political flavor. “The kingdom that was once focused on the nation of Israel,” Theonomist Greg Bahnsen suggests, “has been taken away from the Jews and given to an international body, the church…” 13 As the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD, the ceremonial laws can no longer be performed. However, the moral, civil, and penal can, and ought to be performed by the church in its lands. The Theonomist therefore calls for a “reconstruction” of society on the basis of the Mosaic Law.14 Where the Reformed view went down in flames, the Theonomic goes down in a dramatic overture of explosions. Building on the same fallacious argument of divisibility in the Torah, Theonomy goes a step further in annihilating the Abrahamic covenant with the ethnic Jews, and calling for a sort of Mosaic-Shar’ia law. The practicing Jew would be well within his rights for finding this offensive. Of course, offense does not necessarily entail error. But how does the Theonomist deal with the historical miracle of the continued provision of the Jewish race? And if God has discontinued his program with ethnic Israel, how does the Theonomist deal with the remarkable re-establishment of the state of Israel in recent days? 15 How does the Theonomist deal with Jesus choosing death over 13 Strickland, Five Views, 105. Ibid, 171. 15 And possibly fulfilling prophecies such as Jer 31:8-9. 14 politics?16 Theonomy seems to suffer from two fallacious arguments, and as William Lane Craig notes, “Two fallacious arguments put together don’t make a sound argument.” 17 Theonomy is therefore emphatically normative, however not properly descriptive. It also suffers from the previously addressed Sabbath commandment. At best, it addresses one of our four questions properly. Let us therefore continue. Forward-looking Messiah Walter Kaiser Jr. forms his own view, built on the same Torah-divisibility argument, but introduces an element of Messianic focus to Torah. As Kaiser rightly notes, the Mosaic Law was never to be a means of salvation for an unregenerate people, but rather a means of sanctification for a regenerate people. But if the Jews were not saved through Torah, then how? Kaiser suggests the Torah carried not only law, but also vicarious righteousness through the promise of the Messiah.18 For Kaiser, the Messiah was “the object of faith offered to sinners during the days of the old covenant.” 19 While interesting, this seems a farfetched claim. Of course the Messiah has been an element of historical Judaism, but a much more peripheral one. Which branches of Judaism think, or have ever thought, that the Jew would be made righteous through the Messiah? And which Messiah? Mashiach ben Josef? Mashiach ben David? Or one of the Essene’s three Messiahs? On which does the Jew place his faith? Further, the idea that we are born into sin and are in need of eternal salvation at the hands of Mashiach is simply foreign in Judaism qua Judaism. Unfortunately, Kaiser does not provide any references for this line of thinking. As in Reformed and Theonomic, Kaiser’s view also fails on the Torah-divisibility issue alone, if not also on the anachronistic Messianic view. 16 Matthew 4:8. William Lane Craig debate with Dr. Peter Atkins, Carter Presidential Center, Atlanta, Georgia, 1998. 18 Strickland, Five Views, 182-183, 186-187. 19 Ibid, 187. 17 Dispensational We find ourselves approaching firmer ground as we examine the Dispensational view, represented by Wayne Strickland. In general, dispensationalists emphasize distinct discontinuities, or cessations, in God’s programs with his people. While dubious in some theological areas, the dispensational view does seem to have validity in the Law-Gospel question. First, Strickland corrects the error of Torah-divisibility. Where many cite Matthew 23:23 as evidence that Jesus saw distinctions in the commandments of Torah, Strickland rightly shows this verse as evidence of unity in the Torah. Jesus indeed contrasts between the “heavier” and “lighter” commandments here, yet as Strickland notes, “Christ was not suggesting that any of the laws were expendable.”20 In other words, simply because there are lighter and heavier commandments, it does not therefore follow that some commandments ought to be ignored! As with the weight of biblical and Jewish thought, Torah must be viewed as a unity. Next, Strickland suggests “the new covenant has rendered the old covenant inoperative,” and “the old covenant has been explicitly abrogated.” 21 While this does not seem entirely accurate, it makes room for a proper explanation of law for the Christian. “The New Testament believer is governed by the law of Christ,” Strickland properly explains, “a law that is fulfilled by loving one’s neighbor.”22 However, where Strickland veers off course are in statements such as “the Mosaic Law is antithetical to the Gospel, and has no part in it” and “the old covenant has been terminated.” 23 These statements are certainly normative, in that they only allow for a new law – the “law of Christ” 20 Ibid, 261. Ibid, 262-263. 22 Ibid, 278. 23 Strickland, Five Views, 272-273. 21 (love). But as we will see next, such abrupt statements to the termination of the Mosaic covenant are not necessary, and just as in Bahnsen’s view, fail to answer too many questions regarding God’s standing relationship with Israel. Therefore Strickland’s view is properly normative, able to answer the Sabbath question (namely, the Saturday-rest requirement faded away with the entire Mosaic covenant), but is not properly descriptive. Let us now examine the only view which seems to properly address each of our three required questions. Salvation-historical Imagine the whole of human history spread out horizontally on a (fantastically) long sidewalk. Now imagine Jesus standing near the first-century area of the sidewalk. He is facing the future, forward. The sky is saturated with God’s perfect moral code. Beyond the sky is God, shining rays of His will through this sky, and onto Jesus. And Jesus’ figure casts shadows backward, toward the past. On this analogy, partially provided by scripture24 and supported by Douglas Moo, Don Carson, et al, we see Jesus as the covenant. The interweaving shadows which his figure cast back in time are seen as ‘covenant penumbras’, but clearly, they are derivative covenants – not foundational. This does not make them incorrect, false, or the like – any more than my own shadow is somehow incorrect. On the contrary, Jesus has been perfectly, providentially placed in such a position on the sidewalk as to provide just the right shade, at just the right places, for those behind him. He then reflects the glory of God’s perfect will forward. Most remarkable in this view is its interpretation of the Sabbath commandment. When found working during the Sabbath, Jesus is interrogated for his and his disciples’ actions by the Pharisees.25 His defense? “The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” In other words, he is the 24 25 Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 8:5, 10:1. Mark 2:23-28; Matthew 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5. Sabbath! This splits the Sabbath atom wide open. Not only do we see the true meaning of Sabbath worked out in the life of Jesus, but even further, if Jesus is the Sabbath, we have a greater understanding of that “rest” originally commanded of us: “There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works.” 26 The Christian thus participates in that eternal rest which God participates in: both in this life and the next. Of course, this understanding permeates like a live yeast in our lives, and consecrates not just one day, but every day, as a Sabbath day to the Lord. And the Christian, in accepting his Holy Spirit, is enabled to do so. As the Sabbath commandment was the “sign” of the Mosaic covenant, 27 our new understanding ought then to penetrate throughout the Mosaic Law in describing its relevance to the Christian, as well as prescribing what we ought to do to live morally good lives. Going back to our sidewalk, we recall God’s will shining onto Jesus through the moral sky. We see then God’s moral will fully clarified in Jesus. Vestiges of this moral will are found in ages past; not discontinued, terminated, or abrogated: but in shadows. As Jesus himself notes, “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law.” 28 How does this then describe the Mosaic Law? Simply stated, Mosaic Law is further illumined in light of its creator’s teaching on it, which is basically Love for God and Love for Neighbor. These two simple commands sum up the entirety of the Mosaic Law. 29 We see an explosive answer for the Sabbath question, and a consistent description of the Law-Gospel question, but is this view consistently normative? Bahnsen here vehemently objects. 30 If we look only to Jesus’ teachings for moral instruction, then what becomes of those commandments 26 Hebrews 4:9-10. Exodus 31:12-17. 28 Matthew 5:18. 29 Matthew 22:37-40. 30 Strickland, Five Views, 387. 27 on which Jesus is silent, such as cursing a deaf person (Lev. 19:14) or bestiality (Ex. 22:19)? But Jesus is not silent here. Cursing a deaf person certainly violates the message of love, and bestiality is in clear violation of Jesus’ teaching on marriage in Mark 10. Bahnsen anticipates this response, and attempts to twist it to support Theonomy: “such a line of thinking would concede that the New Testament concepts of fornication and love are defined by the details of the Mosaic Law, thus presupposing the continuing validity of that law.” 31 But this only goes to show is that Bahnsen has utterly failed to understand the model; in fact, he seems to have it backwards. On the salvationhistorical model, the concepts of fornication and love are not defined by the details of the Mosaic Law: the details of the Mosaic Law are defined by the Law of Christ – love! We have before us a model which finally answers our three requisite questions. How is it descriptive? The Mosaic Law was a shadow of the first-century covenant. How is it normative? We are to follow the covenant which illumines shadows: the law of Christ. How does it answer the Sabbath question? Jesus claimed not only to be the authoritative Lord of the Sabbath, but that the intended Sabbath rest is to be found in him: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” (Matthew 11:28-29) Conclusion My response to Rabbi G.’s question was agnostic, though most of all, reserved for God. This did not seem wholly pleasing to the Rabbi. “Well, I wish you the best in your life, and hope you find meaning in your spiritual quest,” his parting words to me after hours of discussion. As his words suggested, I would not be accepted. But this interview set my mind racing for years over the LawGospel question. Scripture, of course, provides the answers. Why do I not follow all of the Torah? 31 Ibid. “The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.” 32 Then do I, a Christian, no longer observe laws in the Torah? In characteristic emphatic form, Paul answers, “Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not!” 33 But if I follow the laws of Torah, am I, in Rabbi G.’s words, “unfulfilled?” No, for as Paul says, “love is the fulfillment of the law.” 34 Incidentally, I found myself awestruck in Jerusalem the day following my interview. I awoke to my e-mail account littered with orientation and registration e-mails from the Conservative Yeshiva of Jerusalem: I was somehow accepted. A warm shiver of adrenaline ran through me as God and I prepared for the experienced of a lifetime. 32 Hebrews 10:1. Galatians 3:21. 34 Romans 13:10. 33