Unfortunately, most of the ACOG's have simply chosen to ignore these questions. Most of them stick to generalizations and have NEVER offered ANY rationale for discerning which provisions of the Torah are still binding! Of course, it is completely understandable why these legalists wouldn't want to be pinned down about the mechanics of picking and choosing among these laws - it is virtually impossible to arrive at a rational formula for doing so! In other words, any such formula would be vulnerable to the kind of scrutiny which would almost certainly lead to attacks and criticisms from those who deny that Christians are obligated to observe these laws! In brief, the absence of a formula or rationale makes a smaller target for critics! To their credit, the Church of God International has made an attempt to do what most of their brethren in the other ACOGs have failed to do - they have provided a rationale of sorts for their approach to cherry-picking the Torah.
CGI's Systematic Theology Project has an extensive section devoted to Which OT Laws Apply? In that document, we read: "Some laws in the Old Testament clearly encompass broad principles while others are quite specific, minute regulations. The biblical text does not itself always clearly distinguish between the more important and the less important. That is why one finds many admonitions to meditate on the law (e.g. Ps. 119:97, 99). Thus, even though these were all laws originating with God, some are more permanent and spiritual in nature than are others. (For example, the whole sacrificial system of the tabernacle and temple were important—even vital—for a certain period of time, but the New Testament shows these regulations are not for all men at all times. They served a specific function for a certain time and in a particular place while always symbolically pointing to deeper spiritual truths.)" So, we see that they are claiming that some laws are 1) more important than others, and 2) more permanent and spiritual than others.
These "principles" lead them to divide Torah commandments into four general "categories" of law: 1) Those that address "broad spiritual principles," 2) those that involve "civil regulations" for Israel, 3) those that are concerned with "cleanliness and ritual purity," and 4) those which relate to the "sacrificial system." Of course, we must point out that these various "categories" of laws are NOT found in Scripture. Instead, they are how the scholars who wrote CGI's STP have chosen to characterize those laws! In other words, while these distinctions may make sense to some of us, they are entirely arbitrary in nature. For instance, the Twelfth Century Jewish scholar Maimonides believed that the Torah contained laws related to the welfare of the body and soul - a kind of purpose driven, physical and spiritual approach to characterizing the various laws of the Torah as a comprehensive whole (see The Jewish Virtual Library's article: The Written Law - Torah).
In a further attempt to justify and explain their approach to categorizing the laws of the Torah, CGI's STP goes on to state: "One can use the analogy of a modern free country to better understand the various levels of Old Testament law. All instructions were part of that law. None were to be slighted or ignored. The breaking of any law brought some sort of penalty on the violator, though the penalties varied in severity. The same is true with the laws within, for example, the United States. The Constitution says nothing about speed limits, property taxes, zoning, or sexual conduct. Rather, laws are broadly laid out and worded to serve as an overall guide for all generations. All other laws—whether national, regional or local—must conform to the principles laid down in the Constitution. These laws themselves vary in importance. Some cover only a certain state or region or city. They may need to be changed according to the time and circumstances. In addition, a certain body of common law has grown up through individual court decisions (cf. the 'judgments' of the Old Testament)." Even so, after dividing the law into "categories," we see that they went on to acknowledge the comprehensive nature of the law - that "none were to be slighted or ignored." Hence, it would appear that CGI is attempting to have it both ways: because, in the very same paragraph, they relate again that some laws "vary in importance" and "may need to be changed according to the time and circumstances."
Continuing in the STP, we read: "Category no. 1 might correspond to a national constitution—such as that of the United States—and cover all men at all times. Category no. 2 might be analogous to national laws passed by national legislators. That is, they may incorporate regulations which have permanent value for various human societies. On the other hand, some regulations, may be culturally bound and require modification or replacement to remain relevant in a changing society. For example, the laws of inheritance were very important for ancient Israel but are less useful today. The seventh-year land sabbath could be applied in a nation under God’s government but is difficult for all Christians everywhere to apply in today’s society. Another example is the law requiring that a fence or railing be put on roofs (Deut. 22:8). This makes sense in ancient Israel where the flat rooftop was part of the living space of the house, and there was a danger of children or adults falling off of the roof. Applying this 'rooftop fence' rule in the United States and Canada (where most homes have peaked roofs to allow the rain and snow to fall off) makes no sense today; however, a fence around a swimming pool, pond, or garden makes perfect sense. The scriptural principle is to watch out for the health and well-being of your family and neighbors. The principle of God’s law is intact, even when the circumstances (different geography, building practices, etc.) have changed. Thus, the specific law sometimes does not fit the changed situation brought about by the vicissitudes of time and circumstance." After equating their categories to various features of U.S. law, they imply that some laws may not have "permanent value" for a society and may "require modification or replacement" at some point. Next, they offer a few examples of Torah laws that were specific to ancient Israel and do NOT apply to our current circumstances. Hence, we see an admission on CGI's part that at least some of these laws cannot be applied to current circumstances or modern humans!
Once again, it is glaringly apparent that CGI is trying to have it both ways. In order to claim that SOME of these laws apply to Christians, they are forced to admit that some of them CANNOT be made to apply to us! The cognitive dissonance implicit in their position is underscored by a later statement: "To say a law is of lesser value or more narrow in application than another is not to say it is of no concern or it can be ignored. The same applies to the detailed laws of the Old Testament." With this vacillating back and forth, they seem to understand the problems inherent with their attempt to formulate a rationale for discarding some components of the law while retaining others. Indeed, I would say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct a logical justification for cherry-picking among the various commandments of the Torah - and, also, completely UNNECESSARY!
Jesus Christ FULFILLED the Torah for us - in its entirety! He then went on to distill the Torah into two great principles for his followers: Love for God and love for each other. Moreover, he and his apostles went on to say that the very best way for us to demonstrate our love for God was to devote our energy to loving each other! Indeed, Christ said that this would be the very thing that would identify his TRUE followers to the rest of the world. Moreover, this NEW Covenant obligation for Christians to obey the Law of Love had NOTHING to do with whether or not they would receive salvation - that was something that Christ had already provided for them. Instead, obedience to this distillation of the Torah would demonstrate that the Christian had indeed accepted Christ as his/her Savior and had received the gift of God's Holy Spirit. In other words, it is completely contrary to the work and message of Jesus Christ to try to impose the provisions of the Old Covenant on those of us who are supposed to be part of the New Covenant through Jesus Christ! There is absolutely NO NEED to parse and cherry-pick the Torah - It is an exercise in FUTILITY!!!
By attempting to re-package the Law to make it applicable, they have demonstrated its inapplicability. The re-packaging process in this STP is similar to what the Jews had to do after the fall of the Temple in 70 AD. Yohanan ben Zakkai established the Academy at Jamnia to re-do Judaism to function in the Diaspora and without a Temple. This was an important step in developing later Rabbinic Judaism.
ReplyDeleteThe OC Law was an integrated piece of legislation that pertained to a certain group of people, with a certain agricultural economic base, with either a tabernacle or a temple, located on a certain piece of the earth and during a certain time. When it was implemented, it was not viewed as compartmentalized. Hence, James 2:10. Compartmentalization is a methodology that seeks to adapt the Law to modern times. But the OT provides within its pages no authority to do this.
The methodology put forth in this STP is a major departure from classical Armstrongism. Herman Hoeh wrote an article titled "What Old Testament Laws Should We Keep Today?" The article contains many inconsistencies and really needed to be re-worked. I have a feeling that re-working it would have raised many questions that nobody really wanted to answer. As far as I know, this statement continued to be foundational to Armstrongism throughout the history of the WCG.
Hoeh's belief is that the Law was none other than God's eternal, spiritual Law. And the OC was not the genesis of these laws but was really just a reminder. Hoeh wrote, "... God was merely revealing the laws which were already in force. The old covenant did not establish the spiritual laws." While one might wish to confine this statement to only the Ten Commandments, Hoeh expands its scope to include the "statutes and laws of God" without qualification in a later paragraph. This creates a problem for those who would advocate some kind of compartmentalization. How can some laws and statutes be demoted from their eternal spiritual status? By whose authority? This could go on but there is clear evidence that this STP statement is not classical Armstrongism.
Further, Rod Meredith in his article “Is Obedience to God Required for Salvation?” references 2 Corininthians 3:3 and states: "God's laws — His commandments, statutes and judgments — are to be in our hearts — we are to live them by the power of God's Spirit.” So what now, post-comparmentalization, should be written on the heart?
Both the idea that the Law is the eternal, spiritual law of God and the idea that every part of it is to be written on the heart militates against comparmentalization. These concepts are conditioned on a wholistic view of the Law.
The OC Law is an important topic and stands at the core of Armstrongist theology, in particular soteriology, and really needs to be re-thought. But I do not think the approach taken in this denominational STP is on the right track. It clashes with both classical Armstrongism and good exegesis.
Christ obviously had that wholistic view of the Law - this is evident in his claim that the Law pointed to him, that he intended to fulfill it, and his distillation of it into the two great commandments of the Law of Love. Excellent point about how the Jews were forced to reinterpret their faith after the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem and their exile from the Promised Land - I have referenced this same development in connection with what happened among the Christian community of the First Century. As you have noted before, the Torah and Old Covenant were very much tied to a geographic location - this FORCED the reinterpretation of the whole thing!
DeleteThe question resounds, “In other words, how do they justify cherry-picking amongst the various laws outlined in the Torah?” I have a theory. I believe that Rupertist-Armstrongists have no authoritative statement that explains the hermeneutic that they use to remodel the OC. And nobody has ever asked them for one. The remodeling sailed on the force of HWA’s charismatic presentation skills. What gives them the authority to be selective? Why is it that in remodeling Yom Kippur they can drop the Temple-related priestly ceremonies yet retain the fasting, the assembling (at a place where God has not placed his name) and convert the sacrifices to a monetary offering? There is instead unsupported teleological rhetoric aimed at validating a kind of modernist Sabbath observance.
ReplyDeleteWithout the formative theological, exegetical homework, an STP can be easily assailed. So, let me develop a counterpoint as an example. I have not looked at the text of this STP beyond reading the text that Miller has cited, I should add. Here goes: If Armstrongists are going to retain the Law of Moses as required for Christians, they should be using the model of Rabbinical Judaism for their Law observance and not the innovations of HWA, Hoeh, et al. There is justification for the former but not the latter. Central to this idea is Jesus’ statement:
“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, the scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’s seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it …” (Matthew 23:1)
Note that he said this not only to the crowd but also to his disciples. According to Ernest L. Martin, writing in the Good News Magazine (Feb. 1962), “Moses’s seat” is a reference to the Great Beth Din or the judicial body in Judaism that is responsible for determinations and applications of religious law. Martin writes, “What was commanded from the Great Beth Din was, in the Old Testament congregation, of the same authority as Moses.” He writes further, remarkably, “As long as Jewish Christians attended sabbath services in synagogues and were thus part of the religious Jewish community they had to obey the Great House of Judgment — the Beth Din.” And when Yohanan ben Zakkai assembled Jewish scholars to repackage Judaism, his academy was a re-establishment of the Sanhedrin which is a function of the Great Beth Din (Wikipedia article). For this reason, Rupertist-Armstrongists, rather than originating their own interpretation of the law, should have honored and adopted the Rabbinical Judaism derived from the scholastic work of the Sanhedrin whose authority was recognized by Jesus.
Oh, well. For Christians the issue is straightforward. The Law of Moses and the Old Covenant are obsolete just like it says in Hebrews. No need to pick cherries. Jesus spoke briefly to Jews about Moses’ Seat knowing that he need not have expounded on the Christian engagement with this Judaic judicial system because it would soon be irrelevant. But the Sanhedrin and traditions derived from the Sanhedrin are highly relevant if you are going to believe that the legislation of the OC is still in force, magnified and written on your heart. You had better find out what the chain of authority is for the modern implementation of this legislation because it bears critically on soteriology.
Note: Ernest L. Martin was an Armstrongist in good standing when he wrote about the Great Beth Din. I don’t know of any revocation of his views on this topic.
Neo,
DeleteAs usual, your comments are insightful and prompt all of us to be more analytical and discerning in our evaluation of CGI's STP. For me, there is NO authority for either Jews or Christians to remodel the Torah! While I agree with you that it would have made more sense to associate themselves with the modifications which Jewish leaders instituted after the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple, the fact remains that the Judaism which emerged from those circumstances was very different from what is outlined in the Torah.
As I have noted in the past, I believe the events of 70 A.D. were both earth-shattering and final. The simple and plain fact of the matter is that, after the events of that year, it was IMPOSSIBLE for either Jews or Christians to meet the requirements/standards outlined in the Torah. Moreover, I do not believe that this was an accident! Jesus Christ's work made the Old Covenant OBSOLETE. The events of 70 A.D. underscored the fact that that dispensation was OVER.
I like the way that Paul explained this to the saints of Galatia. He wrote that "the Scriptures looked forward to this time when God would make the Gentiles right in his sight because of their faith. God proclaimed this good news to Abraham long ago when he said, “All nations will be blessed through you.” So all who put their faith in Christ share the same blessing Abraham received because of his faith. But those who depend on the law to make them right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in God’s Book of the Law.” So, it is clear that no one can be made right with God by trying to keep the law. For the Scriptures say, “It is through faith that a righteous person has life.” This way of faith is very different from the way of law, which says, “It is through obeying the law that a person has life.” Galatians 3:8-12 Hence, whatever justifications one employs in defending the changes made to various commandments/stipulations of the Torah, they cannot escape the fact that their practices deviate from what appears there in black and white! And don't ALL of the ACOGs LOVE to quote that passage about adding and subtracting, or substituting your own traditions?