We are currently doing an Old Testament Survey Bible study on Wednesday nights at SCBC. We look at a different book every week. Last night we looked at Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy means “second law”; not in the sense of an additional law, or better law, but in the sense of restating the first law. I love the book of Deuteronomy because it is basically Moses retelling the covenant/law with the background of 40 years of wondering in the wilderness. The nation of Israel is poised to take possession of the promised land, and Moses takes time to remind, encourage, rebuke, and challenge the people to keep the covenant that God so graciously gave to them 40 years prior. Last night at Bible study, after we had looked at the outline of the covenant in Deuteronomy, I read chapter 14 and asked if these food stipulations still apply to us today. What about the tithing stipulations too? Or, chapter 15 the Sabbath stipulation? How are we to think about these things? I then pushed the question even further, “what about chapter 5?” Moses restates the 10 commandments in chapter 5, and says in verse 2 “The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb”. I then asked “how many covenants are there in Deuteronomy?” The answer is one and it includes the 10 commandments, the greatest commandments (chapter 6), and the rest of the rules, statutes, commandments that the LORD commanded Moses to tell to the people of Israel. So, which rules, statutes, commandments of the LORD do we keep now? Do we sacrifice to cover sin? Do we avoid eating pigs, and rock badgers? Do we tithe 10% of everything we have? Do we take an entire year off every seventh year?
Here is the problem. If you ask three different people in the Church this question, more than likely you will get three different answers. Here are a few that I have heard or read:
1. The 10 Commandments are affirmed by the Apostolic witness, and therefore still apply for the Church
2. Christ and the Apostles declare that the food laws are no longer binding on the Church
3. The law is no longer binding, but is still useful for sanctification
4. The law is still for the Church
5. Christ fulfilled the Law, but still requires obedience to some of the laws
Usually the Covenant/law books (Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) get abused by our pet, moralistic crusades. They become a cache of proof texts to justify what we feel is right or wrong in current debates. Take homosexuality for example. Most evangelical Christians, will, at some time appeal to the “homosexuality is wrong because it is against God’s Law” proof text. Then our unregenerate friends, family, and society says “So is eating pig and rock badgers”. Then we respond with “those food laws do not apply any more, but the homosexuality one does”. To which, they respond (and rightly so) “how do you decide which laws do and don’t apply”. This is when we should just throw some glitter in the air, and walk away, since most of us have no idea why some of the Law applies to us, and why other parts of the law does not apply to us. We end up looking like what we are, confused. (by the way, the glitter thing comes from Acuff’s book)
That is when we ran out of time. We’ll work on it next week.
"This is when we should just throw some glitter in the air, and walk away, since most of us have no idea why some of the Law applies to us, and why other parts of the law does not apply to us."
ReplyDeleteAlthough you raise a difficult question and in some sense has always been a challenge in every generation, the question you raise (pertaining to homosexuality in particular) is only as difficult in the modern context because of the Dispensation framework.
Nobody in past generations would have taken seriously the modern argument that one can't cite The Law because we don't know which laws are to be followed, so let's not even try. The Apostles certainly had no understanding that we can't know. Even the Apostle Paul constantly cites OT Laws. The problem is trying to understand how the law is applied under the New Covenant framework. For that proper understanding, to the Apostles we must go.
From that point, we then can debate in a framework that makes much more sense.