Acts 10: "Do not call unclean that which God has made clean"

Below is the latest talk I've been asked to give from the book of Acts. It concerns the conversion of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert, in Acts 10. As usual, I'd love to receive any thoughts or feedback readers might have:

In his autobiography, Mahatma Gandhi wrote of how, during his time as a university student in London, he became interested in Christianity. He read through the Gospels, became fascinated by the person of Jesus and saw in him the answer to the caste system in India – the institutionalised system whereby a person’s treatment depends on the class into which they were born; a system that troubled Gandhi deeply. One Sunday morning, he decided to attend a service at a nearby church and to talk to the minister about becoming a Christian. But when Gandhi arrived, the usher on the door told him that he couldn't give him a seat, that he ought to go somewhere else and worship with his own kind. Gandhi left and never went back. Later he wrote, ‘If Christians have caste differences also, I might as well remain a Hindu.’ The sad truth is that a different attitude from that usher could have affected the whole of India and its history.

In Britain today, 80% of Christians live in the 20% most wealthy areas. In their book, Total Church, Tim Chester and Steve Timmis write that ‘class consciousness runs deep in British evangelicalism. Social class is British evangelicalism’s equivalent of racism in American evangelicalism.’ Tim Chester goes on to write, ‘I hope that this is mostly subconscious. [But] many of the divisions within evangelicalism are as much about social class as theological differences. In one direction, people are seen as vulgar; in the other direction, people are seen as snobbish.’

Why have I told you these things? Well, primarily it’s because they go fundamentally against what the Church, the people of God, is called to be. Because at its best, and at its deepest level, from earliest times the Church has learned that there are to be no barriers within it. It has learned that there is to be nothing to stop a person from hearing about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I emphasise 'learned' because that is precisely what the early church had to do. The early Church we’ve been reading about in the book of Acts was on a steep learning curve. We've seen something of that in previous weeks. Now in Chapter 10, the lesson the Church had to learn was that God’s gospel embraces those outside of Jewish ethnicity. It was an important lesson for the Church to learn – had it not, then we might not be here today, as a primarily non-Jewish group, meeting in Jesus’ name.

Chapter 10 is put together like a good movie. It starts by introducing us to two characters, as extraordinary things happen to them in their ordinary lives. Then at the end those two characters come together; there is an emotional meeting, a speech is made and history is changed. My points this evening are about what God does in and through these two men as, firstly, God prepares the way; and then, secondly, God breaks down the barrier.

Firstly, then, let’s notice how God prepares the way (verses 1-23).

The first character we meet is Cornelius. He’s described in verses 1-8. Verse 1 tells us that Cornelius is a centurion, an important Roman soldier. He was serving in Caesarea, the centre for the Roman government in Judea. Cornelius represents Roman occupation and authority, in their headquarters.

But we also read in verse 2 that Cornelius is a God-fearer. This means that he’d accepted that the Jewish God, the God of the Old Testament, was the one true God. He’d accepted the ethical standards of the Jews. We do not that he’d not become a full convert to Judaism, as we read later that he’s uncircumcised. This was a common position to be in. For understandable and for squeamish reasons, even worshippers sympathetic to the Jewish faith rarely fully embraced it and got circumcised. So, Cornelius would have been regarded by the Jews as a pagan, but he’s a sympathetic pagan.

Well, Cornelius has a vision (verses 3-6). It was very clear – there was no room for confusion: send for Peter. Yet, it must also have been somewhat bewildering. The angel says that Cornelius’ prayers have been answered. As the chapter unfolds, we’ll see that Cornelius’ prayers must have been that God would reveal to him how he could have been saved. Yet now the angel tells Cornelius to send for Simon Peter, someone he had probably never heard of. He was going to be asking a Jewish fisherman to meet him, a Roman centurion. Yet Cornelius does as he is told. In a response which reinforces what we are told about his faith in God, Cornelius arranges for Peter to be sent for. But I bet as the two servants and the soldier went off, Cornelius was left scratching his head.

The focus shifts to Peter in verses 9-21. He’s more familiar to us: one of Jesus' closest disciples, now he’s the leader of the early Church. He’s staying in Joppa, thirty miles from Caesarea. And Peter sees a vision as well. Peter’s vision was more mysterious than Cornelius’ clear instructions. Let’s read verses 11-14:

He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

Peter’s hungry. You know that feeling when you smell delicious aromas wafting in from the kitchen. In his hungry state, he falls into a trace. And, in the trance, as a range of different animals come down on the sheet, Peter hears a voice telling him to have them for dinner. Yet Peter’s response is vehement. ‘Surely not, Lord,’ he says – although this is a polite way of expressing it. What shocked Peter is the type of animals that were in the vision. He was a Jew. He lived by Jewish law. And so you ate what the people of Israel at the time of Moses had been told by God were clean animals. You can read about this in Leviticus 11. Animals that have split hooves and those that chew the cud are clean. Everything else is unclean. As it says in Leviticus 11:8, “You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.” Now Peter is told to eat all sorts of animals – both those he’s considered clean and those that are unclean. And so he’s shocked. Peter would have observed these food laws for the whole of his life. He wasn’t about to ditch this commitment to these laws now.

But the voice persists. In fact the whole thing happens twice more. And the refrain is this: “do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” You can imagine Peter trying to get his head around all this. I love verse 17: ‘While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision...’ What an understatement! Too right he was wondering! If Cornelius had been left scratching his head, Peter must have been tearing his hair out. It must have felt like everything he had been brought up with had just changed.

Now, you may say, what’s all the fuss about? It's only a different diet. So Peter can eat more than he thought. Well, surely that’s good news! It’s like Weight Watchers in reverse!

But for Peter, and for any devout Jew, food laws dominated the whole of your social life. The whole reason that God had given Moses the food laws centuries beforehand was to mark the Jewish nation out as distinct. Diet was an important way of doing so. For any Jew, their aim was to remain clean. That’s why, as well as avoiding unclean meat themselves, we read that the convention of the time was that Jews did not socialise with Gentiles, non-Jews. There was actually no law in the Old Testament saying a Jew couldn't spend time with a Gentile; rather, they deliberately avoided them for fear of becoming unclean. And so, in practice, by the 1st Century, Jews and Gentiles lived in two completely different social worlds.

So Peter is now being told that an important basis for division between Jews and Gentiles – the food laws – no longer applies. As verse 15 puts it, “Do not call impure [or better, unclean] anything that God has made clean.” And here’s the point: “Peter – you regard Gentiles as religiously unclean because of what they eat. You are no longer to think of these foods in that way – and so you are no longer to think of the Gentiles in that way either.”

Scripture elsewhere makes this idea even clearer. Ephesians 2:14-15 speak of how Christ ‘himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in the flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.’ In other words, with the coming of Jesus in the world, and with the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, all the qualitative differences of the Old Testament between Jew and Gentile are obliterated. Diet laws, circumcision and animal sacrifice were all ultimately Old Testament pictures that pointed forward to Jesus. They showed that Jews and Gentiles alike needed the cross. And now Christ has come, these ceremonial differences between Jew and Gentile are rendered obsolete.

So Peter has been told that the basis for the practical division between Jews and Gentiles, the food laws, are not to concern him. No wonder he was shocked. But here’s the beauty of the timing. At the very point that Peter is beginning to work through the implications of his vision, the three men arrive from Cornelius, a Gentile. And what’s Peter’s reaction? Well, he immediately agrees to see Cornelius and to be his guest. That wouldn't have happened before because of Peter’s cultural baggage and his understanding of the Old Testament. But now that’s changed. Already Peter is aware of the implications of his vision.

So, the scene is set: we have two men who are probably rather bemused but obedient to the visions they have had. They are two men on opposite sides of the religious divide, but God has spoken to them both. God, in his good plan, has prepared the way for a mighty work he is to do. God is about to break down the divide that separates them.

And that brings us to our second heading: God breaks down the barrier (verses 24-43).

So, Cornelius and Peter meet. It must have been quite a scene. We read in verse 24 that Cornelius had gathered quite a party together. When Peter arrived there would have been quite an atmosphere. And what a highly-charged meeting it was! Look at verse 25: ‘As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence.’ The word in Greek for ‘reverence’ means ‘worship’. He was bowing down to Peter as God's messenger. And I guess that this provided the opportunity for Peter, if he wanted, to reinforce the barriers that had up to that point existed in his mind. He could have exploited the situation and refused contact with the Gentile Cornelius. But he doesn't. He picks up Cornelius off the floor and says 'I am only a man myself'.

In verses 28-29, Peter says why he has come. He recognises that such meeting between Jew and Gentile is highly unusual – as we’ve seen, it’s not actually against the law, but a cultural taboo. But because of the vision he has had, Peter has had his mind changed about who is in and who is out. That is why he has come. Cornelius then tells his side of his story and then finishes in a moving way. Look at the second half of verse 33: ‘Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.’ The stage is set for the final speech to camera.

Peter’s speech – which we read in verses 34-43 – makes explicit what is already implicit by his very presence in the house of a Gentile. The speech sums up the scene that Peter and Cornelius find themselves in. It climaxes in Peter calling the Gentile Cornelius into God’s family through Christ. We don’t have time to look at it in detail but just notice two key aspects.

First, the universal aspect. Verse 34 kicks off with this theme: ‘I now realise how true it is that God does not show favouritism.’ But look also at verse 43: ‘Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.’ The message that Peter is preaching is that the invitation of God is for everybody, and not just for those who initially received it. In other words, it’s not just for the people of Israel, but for people of every nation. The barriers of who can receive God and who can't are down.

Second, notice Peter’s focus on Jesus. Peter doesn’t say, ‘God loves everyone – isn’t that lovely?!’ Rather, as Peter speaks about the invitation of God for all sorts of folks to be part of his people, Peter centres on the person and work of Jesus. This is what the core of the speech is about. Look down at verses 36-42 and you’ll see that they are shot through with Jesus: who he is and what God has done through him. Jesus is the subject of almost every clause – ‘he did this’, ‘he did that’. And so the promise of forgiveness of sins to everyone in verse 43 is for those who ‘believe in him’, those who ‘will receive it in his name’. The barriers of who can belong to God are down, says Peter, because of Jesus. His death on the cross and resurrection from the dead is sufficient for anyone that will trust in him. Anyone – including Cornelius and his family – who, as the final verses of the chapter tell us, trust Jesus and are brought into God’s people.

A wonderful chapter, then – but what are the applications to us?

Above all, we need to see that the cross is what defines a person as being part of God's people. As we’ve read through this story, you might have had a sense of déjà vu – the story is somewhat similar to that we read about in Chapter 8, when God demonstrated that the Samaritans are included on the same basis as the Jews. But – remember – whilst they had become ethnically and religiously impure, the Samaritans were still descendents of Abraham. Ethnically they were still very similar to the Jews. Where Chapter 10 takes things a step further is to show that the promises of being part of God’s nation does not hinge on whether a person is a descendent of Abraham, but whether they have been made acceptable to God through the cross. What Peter was learning is that the cross – and the cross alone – is the basis upon whether a person is acceptable to God. That’s good news for the vast majority of us here – as probably the vast majority of us are Gentiles. We’re not physical descendants of Abraham – yet the cross welcomes us into God’s people forever.

I have three more practical applications.

Firstly, we need to be very aware of conscious and subconscious favouritism. The history of the Church is sadly full of examples of discrimination and favouritism. The story I opened with about Gandhi is just one case in point. As I alluded to, I wonder if this discrimination today across the Church in Britain is class-based. And the right response to this is not to criticise and to moan, but to look at our own hearts and to make the change in our lives. This chapter has pulled me up. And even CUs – which exist to tell God’s good news to others – can be places where people are categorised, excluded, judged by external appearances and written off by others who are different. What Acts 10 shows is that if we are following the missionary God, then we need to have our hearts changed as he includes the people we tend to exclude. Are there significant blind spots that need to be removed? What sort of person could you just not bare to see walk through the door of a CU meeting? Which people do we avoid evangelising? If you can think of a particular type of person, ask now that God would change your heart as he changed Peter’s.

Secondly, let’s share God’s heart in welcoming people as they are. Cornelius was accepted as he was. He didn’t have to change his diet, he didn’t have to get circumcised. He was accepted just as he was, through the cross of Jesus. We must not render unclean that which God has made clean. Let’s reflect that truth in the way that we greet people that we don’t know – at central CU meetings, at evangelistic meetings, at mission events, in international week. The loneliest place in the world is where you are somewhere on your own with people bustling around you, and you are not sure whether you belong. Let’s welcome people that are like us and people that are nothing like us. Consciously talk to people you don’t know. If you find this hard, then think about the cross of the Lord Jesus and what that says to us. Through our actions, let’s show every single person that we meet that people like them are welcome amongst God’s people.

Thirdly, expect to be challenged about where and how we can share God's love. Peter and Cornelius both received visions which took them to places they had not been before: one bowed down to a fisherman; the other entered a Gentile house. And as the truth that God accepts all in Christ, you may be called to some surprising places to share God’s love. I pray that there might be some here that share the gospel with prostitutes and down-and-outs; others that will commit themselves to being in local churches on rough estates. I pray that even as students God will move you to live and speak for him in places you can’t currently imagine, as you respond to God’s call as both Cornelius and Peter did.

Jesus and the Law (2)

On several occasions, Jesus seems to imply that the keeping of individual laws is unimportant. However, I think that a closer look at these texts actually suggests that Jesus is making a greater point: that the desire to keep the Law in obedient response to God’s goodness and grace is more important than legalistically keeping individual laws. See, for example:

• Matthew 7:12. As Jesus starts to close the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus ‘sums up’ the Law and the Prophets by saying, ‘do to others what you would have them do to you.’ This interpretation of the essence of the Law robs it of its legalism without completely belittling it.
• Matthew 9:13. In the context of responding to the charge that he ate with sinners, Jesus quotes Hosea 6:6 in telling the Pharisees: "Go and learn the meaning of this: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice'" (see also Matthew 12:7). He seems to be saying that the place sacrifice is itself pointless if it is not accompanied by a commitment to obediently keeping God’s Law. This will show itself in showing mercy to others.
• Matthew 23:23-24. In accordance with the Law, Pharisees tithed one tenth of their produce as the first tithe, which was to be given to the Levites, who then were to tithe to the priests (see Leviticus 27:30-31 and Numbers 18:21-32). In accordance with their understanding of the Law (I believe in accordance with the oral Torah), Pharisees separated a second tithe, intended for consumption in Jerusalem during the festivals (cf Deuteronomy 14:22-29). In Matthew 23, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for observing the tithing laws with such exactness that they tithe even garden herbs, but neglect "the more important matters of the Law – justice, mercy and faith." Note that Jesus does not counsel the Pharisees to give up tithing; however, but they must not to miss the ‘more important’ issues of the Law – those of loving their neighbours as themselves. They should not 'strain out the gnat but swallow the camel', presumably by which Jesus means to be so concerned with less important commandments that one neglects obedience to the whole thrust of the Law.
• Mark 12:28-34. In this episode, with Jesus is asked what the greatest commandments in the Law are. Jesus replies, quoting from Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18: “Love the Lord your God” and “love your neighbour as yourself.” Any Jew would probably agree up to this point. However, some would presumably have been surprised by the fact that Jesus then endorses the statement that obedience to these two commandments ‘are more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.’ Jesus’ implication is this: love for God and for other people will express itself in the commitment to sacrifice; not to treat sacrifice as an end in itself.

Jesus seems to make a distinction between legalistic Law-keeping and obedience to the Law as a whole. The whole Law is to be obeyed, but an attitude of commitment is more important than obedience of individual laws. Above all, Jesus stresses purity of heart, out of which naturally flows obedience to the individual laws. When the heart is pure, therefore, little else is necessary.

It is also worth noting that Jesus seems to object to any idea of what it means to obey the Law that might possibly lead to hypocrisy. In Matthew 23:5-7, for instance, Jesus objects to the Pharisees who appear to be righteous, but are not. Because they wear religious clothing (in the light of Numbers 15:38-39 and Deuteronomy 22:12), people assume wrongly that the Pharisees are obedient to God in every other respect. In fact, Jesus says the Pharisees obey the Law primarily in order to receive public acclaim. Jesus’ words on giving, prayer and fasting (Matthew 6:1-18) may also fit in here. These things in themselves are good disciplines – but not if they are done self-righteously.

Jesus and the Law (1)

After a bit of a break, I'm going to start a series of blog entries continuing to think about the Law. The next few posts will all think about the relationship of Jesus to the Law.

An important text on Jesus' relationship is Mark 7:1-13, where it is often presumed that Jesus repeals the food laws. I blogged on this passage in the summer and I'd commend readers take a look here. I don't think the food laws are repealed in this passage.

On other occasions, Jesus seems to imply breaking the Law. All of these passages are related to the Sabbath:

• Matthew 12:5. Jesus’ point here is that there must be exceptions to not working on the Sabbath, because otherwise priests could not work in the Temple of the Sabbath, which work, of course, is required by the Law. It seems that Jesus is saying this: when the Sabbath leads to unnecessary hardship, then the minimum work in order to prevent that hardship should be allowed.
• Mark 2:23-27. Jesus' disciples pluck grain and eat it, but, according to the Pharisaic view, this is work (harvesting) and should not be done on the Sabbath. Jesus replies by citing the example of David's breaking the Law in time of need, in order to make the point that the intention of the Law is not to lead to hardship (see 1 Sam 21:1-9). Jesus would probably have argued that out of love for his hungry disciples, the Pharisees should allow them to pick what grain they need to satisfy their hunger. After all, the Sabbath was not intended to be a burden. If Jesus' accusers say that they would like to do this, but cannot, since the Law forbids it, they will find themselves holding the absurd position that they love human beings more than God does! Some commentators have suggested that the phrase, ‘The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath’ probably means that the Sabbath exists for the benefit of human beings [i.e. ‘sons of men’] and should not for that reason cause unnecessary suffering. In other words, the phrase ‘son of man’ may not refer to Jesus, but to humanity in general (See Mark 2:27.)
• Healing on the Sabbath. There are several examples of Jesus' healing people on the Sabbath in conscious opposition to the interpretation of the Sabbath law as prohibiting such activity. In each case, it is Jesus' compassion for the sick person that motivates his actions. Jesus is criticized as working on the Sabbath for healing people, even though he did not do any work according to the Law. To love one’s neighbour always takes precedent. Any interpretation of the Sabbath law that would prevent good from being done must be wrong. See Mark 3:1-6, Luke 13:10-17, Luke 14:1-6, John 5:1-15, John 7:16-24, John 9:1-34 and equivalent passages.

All of this goes to show, I think, that Jesus is not against keeping the Sabbath law per se, but against the harsh and rigid interpretation of Sabbath observance that the Pharisees had (which often included extra-biblical laws).

What is the place of the OT Law for believers today? (6)

This posting is the last of the role of the Law in the Old Testament, providing context for what we read about the Law in the New Testament.

What I have endeavoured to show is that I believe that the Law has a very realistic view of human nature. The very fact that the sacrificial element was included in the Law points to this reality. As Chris Wright writes, ‘Without lessening the great moral absolutes of God’s demand, [the Law takes] full account of man’s moral predicament, ranging from sheer fragility to outright obstinate rebellion. […] The starting point to [walking in the way of the law] was God’s objective provision of atonement and the subjective experience of forgiveness.’

Alongside this, we have also seen that Israel’s fundamental problem in the Old Testament was not just a failure to keep the Law, but also a lack of desire and willingness to keep the Law at all. Israel showed a lack of faith in God. This showed itself in, amongst other things, idolatry, self-righteousness, syncretism and complacency. And for this reason, Israel faced God’s anger.

As that anger played out in the form of judgement and exile, the prophets began to promise a new covenant that would fulfil all of the earlier promises made to God’s people in a new and wonderful way. This new covenant is prophetically described like this (emphasis mine in both passages):

24 "'For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. 25I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. 28You will live in the land I gave your forefathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God.” [Ezekiel 36:24-28]

31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34 No longer will a man teach his neighbour, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD.

"For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." [Jeremiah 31:31-34]

Note that the prophesied ‘new covenant’ will deal with the root of Israel’s failings. It will be unconditional (Jeremiah 31:34), with no possibility of being broken by God’s people; an indication that atonement will be made in full. Additionally, it will move the people to willing obedience to God's decrees, because God will put his Spirit in their hearts (Ezekiel 36:27 and Jeremiah 31:33): God will have an ‘internal’ relationship with his people.

What is the place of the OT Law for Christians today? (5)

So far in this series, I've sought to establish the place of the Law in the lives of the Old Testament believers, through looking at what is said about the Law in the Law itself. Now we look at Israel's failure to keep the Law.

Near to the end of his renewal of the covenant with the people in Deuteronomy, Moses pleads with the people of Israel to keep their side of the covenant with God, yet prophetically also seems to recognise their future failure. And so, in addressing the people of Israel, he says in Deuteronomy 29:18-28 (see also 31:16-22 and also Joshua 24:19-20):

18 Make sure there is no man or woman, clan or tribe among you today whose heart turns away from the LORD our God to go and worship the gods of those nations; make sure there is no root among you that produces such bitter poison.

19When such a person hears the words of this oath, he invokes a blessing on himself and therefore thinks, "I will be safe, even though I persist in going my own way." This will bring disaster on the watered land as well as the dry. 20The LORD will never be willing to forgive him; his wrath and zeal will burn against that man. All the curses written in this book will fall upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven. 21The LORD will single him out from all the tribes of Israel for disaster, according to all the curses of the covenant written in this Book of the Law.

22Your children who follow you in later generations and foreigners who come from distant lands will see the calamities that have fallen on the land and the diseases with which the LORD has afflicted it. 23The whole land will be a burning waste of salt and sulphur—nothing planted, nothing sprouting, no vegetation growing on it. It will be like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in fierce anger. 24All the nations will ask: "Why has the LORD done this to this land? Why this fierce, burning anger?" 25And the answer will be: "It is because this people abandoned the covenant of the LORD, the God of their fathers, the covenant he made with them when he brought them out of Egypt. 26They went off and worshiped other gods and bowed down to them, gods they did not know, gods he had not given them. 27Therefore the LORD's anger burned against this land, so that he brought on it all the curses written in this book. 28In furious anger and in great wrath the LORD uprooted them from their land and thrust them into another land, as it is now."

Note the emphasis on ‘persistence’ in verse 19: the ungodly man says, ‘I will be safe, even though I persist in going my own way.’ The sad story of the Old Testament is that corporate Israel persistently and unrepentantly rejected the covenant that God had made with them. It’s not that Israel failed to meet God’s standards – which, of course, they did – but additionally that they refused and abandoned any idea of living by these standards at all. Particularly, as the sweep of Israel’s history goes on, we see an increasingly complacent community: a nation who thought they were immune from judgement because they were God’s covenant people. They had forgotten that the blessings of the covenant were conditional on their own commitment to obedience.

And so, for instance, we read in Psalm 78:9-10:

9 The men of Ephraim, though armed with bows, turned back on the day of battle;
10 they did not keep God's covenant and refused to live by his law.

Israel also becomes an increasingly self-righteous group of people, even after the division of the nation, who legalistically sacrifice but have no intention of obeying the rest of the Law. Isaiah 1:11-17 uses strong language – God says he ‘hates’ the sacrifices brought to him (they have become ‘meaningless’) even though he instituted the sacrificial system, because they are not accompanied by obedience (see verses 16-17):

11 "The multitude of your sacrifices—what are they to me?" says the LORD.
"I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
12 When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts? 13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations — I cannot bear your evil assemblies.
14 Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even
if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; 16 wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight!
Stop doing wrong, 17 learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed.
Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.

Idolatry is also a regular feature of the life of the nation; for example, Jeremiah 2 has devastating words illustrating both the level of unfaithfulness to the LORD and a foolish complacency with it:

4 Hear the word of the LORD, O house of Jacob, all you clans of the house of Israel.
5 This is what the LORD says: "What fault did your fathers find in me, that they strayed so far from me? They followed worthless idols and became worthless themselves.
6 They did not ask, 'Where is the LORD, who brought us up out of Egypt and led us through the barren wilderness, through a land of deserts and rifts, a land of drought and darkness, a land where no one travels and no one lives?'
7 I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and made my inheritance detestable.
8 The priests did not ask, 'Where is the LORD?' Those who deal with the law did not know me; the leaders rebelled against me. The prophets prophesied by Baal, following worthless idols.
9 "Therefore I bring charges against you again," declares the LORD. "And I will bring charges against your children's children.
10 Cross over to the coasts of Kittim and look, send to Kedar and observe closely; see if there has ever been anything like this:
11 Has a nation ever changed its gods? (Yet they are not gods at all.) But my people have exchanged their Glory for worthless idols.
12 Be appalled at this, O heavens, and shudder with great horror," declares the LORD.
13 "My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water.

34 On your clothes men find the lifeblood of the innocent poor, though you did not catch them breaking in. Yet in spite of all this 35you say, 'I am innocent; he is not angry with me.' But I will pass judgment on you because you say, 'I have not sinned.'
36 Why do you go about so much, changing your ways? You will be disappointed by Egypt as you were by Assyria. 37 You will also leave that place with your hands on your head, for the LORD has rejected those you trust; you will not be helped by them.

Again, I'd want to emphasise that it was not that Israel failed to measure up to God’s standard in a legalistic sense (which, of course, they did not); rather, we see the nation completely forgetting the grace they had been shown in their redemption, and snubbing the God that had shown them such grace. This ultimately led to the exile, just as Moses had warned it would in Deuteronomy 29. There are high points in Israel’s history – such as the ‘rediscovery’ of the Law by Ezra and the exiles in Nehemiah 8 – but the over-riding sad story of the Old Testament is the rejection of the covenant by God’s people.

What is the place of the OT Law for Christians today? (4)

I've now finished the first section of my thoughts on the Law, looking at how the Pentateuch itself seems to render the Law. Thanks to Dave and all others that have read the posts and made comments thus far. This post will bring me up to where I think we've got so far and hopefully clarify some of my earlier points. As usual, I welcome comments and, given I'm at the end of a section, will try to make a special effort to give longer responses.

I think that one of the errors that some modern Bible-readers make is in understanding what it meant for Israel to keep their side of the covenant. Often, it is assumed that keeping the covenant was based on legalistic obedience to the Law. It's often assumed that this is how a person is made righteous. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that this is a false and rather short-sighted view. Both Old and New Testaments argue that a person is credited with righteousness by faith. Abram is the archetypal example in Genesis 15:4-6, in an episode that occurred hundreds of years before the issuing of the Law:

Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir." He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them."
Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

Rather, it appears to me that keeping the covenant meant trusting God and responding in loving obedience to what he had already done for his people, and relying on his ongoing grace. And I think that John Piper helpfully shows that God’s later judgement against Israel was not due to a failure in legalistic Law-keeping, but rather due to their hard-heartedness and unbelief, which led to abandonment of the covenant:

‘Again and again in the Old Testament the rebellion of Israel against the covenant is traced back to unbelief (Numbers 14:11; Deuteronomy 1:32; 9:23; 2 Kings 17:14; 2 Chronicles 20:20; Psalm 78:22, 32; 106:24). For example, Psalm 78:22 looks back and says that God's anger flamed against Israel in the wilderness "because they had no faith in God, and did not trust his saving power." And Hebrews 3:19 says that the reason the wilderness generation did not enter the Promised Land was unbelief. Or as Hebrews 4:2 says, "The message which they heard did not benefit them because it did not meet with faith in the hearers."

So there are at least three reasons to conclude that the basic condition required from Israel is faith.

1. First, because the covenant is renewed on the basis of grace and offers merciful forgiveness for sins (Exodus 34:6–7). Forgiveness can only be received by faith.
2. Second, God promises mercy to all who love him (Exodus 20:6). But loving God is just the opposite of trying to earn wages from a heavenly employer. Loving God must include delighting in his trustworthiness as one who "bore you on eagles' wings (out of Egypt) and brought you to himself" (Exodus 19:4).
3. Third, numerous Old Testament and New Testament passages say that the root of Israel's disobedience was her failure to trust God. Therefore, the obedience required in the Mosaic covenant is the obedience which comes from faith.

It's the same obedience required in the Abrahamic covenant when the Lord said to Abraham, "By your descendants shall all the nations of the earth be blessed because you have obeyed my voice" (Genesis 22:18). And it's the same obedience required in the new covenant under which we live. […] The Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, and the covenant that Jesus sealed with his own blood are all various expressions of one great covenant of grace.’

In coming posts, I'll move onto the Law in the life of Israel - and her disobedience. For the time being, let's read the words again of David, the law-lover, in the opening lines to Psalm 119:

Blessed are they whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the LORD.
Blessed are they who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart.
They do nothing wrong; they walk in his ways.
You have laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed.
Oh, that my ways were steadfast in obeying your decrees!
Then I would not be put to shame when I consider all your commands.
I will praise you with an upright heart as I learn your righteous laws.
I will obey your decrees; do not utterly forsake me.

What is the place of the OT Law for Christians today? (2)

This is the second in the series of what I expect to be occasional posts in considering the role of the OT Law for believers today. In part 1, I started to look at the giving of the Law in the place of redemptive history and the context of Genesis and Exodus. In this post, I briefly overview the books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. As is no doubt evident, these thoughts are in progress and I'd welcome comments. I'd also commend popping over to Dave Kirkman's 48 Files, where he is drawing together and analyising a large amount of helpful scholarship.

Leviticus and Numbers: the covenant expounded

In the previous post, I sought to demonstrate that the legal sections of the book of Exodus make sense when they are placed in context of the larger narrative. The same is also true for Leviticus, which also includes a section of Law before the action continues in the narrative in the book of Numbers. Again, I think context is crucial: as Leviticus is issued, Israel is camped at the foot of Mount Sinai. The context of the narrative Exodus and Numbers, which top and tail Leviticus, shows that here the people are being formed into God’s people. As one writer has put it, the book of Exodus is concerned with getting the people of Israel out of Egypt, and the book of Leviticus is concerned with getting Egypt out of Israel. God sets at work to make his people unique. And so in the book of Leviticus, we see God concerned with Israel’s ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ relationships – namely, their relationships with God and with each other.

Accordingly, the first set of Levitical laws prescribes how Israel should relate to God, who is now dwelling amongst his people in the tabernacle. Particularly, the commands here concern sacrificial offerings from the people (1:1-6:7), then instructions for the priesthood (6:8-9:24). A narrative describing the fate of Aaron’s sons, who thought they could relate to God on their own terms (10:1-7) then follows, plus further instruction for the priests (10:8-20). Chapters 11-15 deal with ritual cleanliness – with a view to avoiding what happened to Aaron’s sons. All of these laws are concerned that the people of Israel have a proper sense for what it means for God to be present amongst them. It is about getting their ‘vertical’ relationship in its correct perspective, and builds up towards the Day of Atonement set of rituals in Chapter 16. The Day of Atonement was to be a solemn day of forgiveness that ritually cleansed the people of their sin and purified the tabernacle as a place of worship. Chapters 17-25 inaugurate a new section of Law. The whole section is governed by the refrain from God, ‘Be holy, for I am holy’. In response to God, the people of Israel are to love their neighbours as themselves (19:18). ‘Horizontal’ relationships with others are different because of their relationship with God.

The covenantal aspect of the Law in Leviticus, based on what God has already done, is a vitally important feature. But now, God reveals more of his covenant. He promises on his part to bless Israel, in response that they maintain a holy awe and obedience towards him. This can be read about in Leviticus 26:3-12 (cf Exodus 23:22). On the flipside, disobedience and rejection of God’s covenant will now bring curse on his people (see Leviticus 26:14-45). This provides a formal conclusion to the covenant structure that began in Exodus 20.

The book of Numbers also includes some additional laws in chapters 5-6, 15, 18-19 and 28-30. Most of these are further clarification of the laws in the Levitical Code (Leviticus 1-16). Including the Ten Commandments, a total of 613 instructions are given to the people of Israel in the Pentateuch.

Deuteronomy: the fundamental values of the Law

The setting of the book of Deuteronomy is forty years after Exodus. With the first generation all having died out, Israel have reached the border of the Promised Land, Canaan, and are camped on the banks of the River Jordan, just across from Jericho. Now before Israel crosses over the river to take the land, and before his death, Moses undertakes a major renewal of the covenant between the people and God.

In the first three chapters, Moses recaps ‘the story so far’ – what has taken place between Israelite slavery in Egyptian to that point, emphasising the LORD’s faithfulness to Israel in spite of their failures. Fresh commitment to the covenant is demanded. However, Deuteronomy is particularly helpful because more attention is given to the motivation and incentive of keeping the Law on Israel’s part. For this reason, Deuteronomy has historically been (and remains) central within the Jewish faith (see also Matthew 4:1-11).

The primary commitment of the Law is given, following the restating of the Ten Commandments, in Deuteronomy 6:1-9:

These are the commands, decrees and laws the LORD your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess, so that you, your children and their children after them may fear the LORD your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life. Hear, O Israel, and be careful to obey so that it may go well with you and that you may increase greatly in a land flowing with milk and honey, just as the LORD, the God of your fathers, promised you.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

These verses show what drives the theological agenda of Deuteronomy – as Gordon Fee puts it, ‘an uncompromising monotheism coupled with an equally deep concern for Israel’s uncompromising loyalty to Yahweh, their God’. This is particular seen in verses 4-5. Known as the ‘Shema’ (Hebrew for ‘hear’), these verses describe God’s uniqueness and became the distinguishing mark of Judaism. The primary commandment of all is that Israel should love Yahweh their God totally. It is these verses that Jesus quoted when questioned regarding the ‘greatest commandment’ (Matthew 22:37). Deuteronomy 6 develops this theme, with a particular emphasis on Yahweh being the only true God, on his redeeming action to make Israel his people, and on his gracious gift of the land of Canaan.

Verses 5-6 show the synonymy of love for God with obedience to his commandments. In other words, and reiterating what we have already seen, Jewish obedience to the Law was never designed to be legalistic, or the basis of salvation, but rather a proof of a relationship with God, coming from the heart and will of the redeemed. The call for the covenant people is to ‘love God’ in response to what he has done for them, where ‘loving God’ encompassed will, careful intention, emotion and regular discipline from childhood. As Chris Wright writes, ‘without this, the rest of the Law is just miscellaneous instructions with no unifying principle. It is for this reason Jesus called this the first great commandment of the Law, from which all of the rest follows (Matthew 23:37-40).’ Or as Douglas Stuart says, ‘everything is predicated on Yahweh’s love and faithfulness and his actions that flow out of that love and faithfulness.’ This is the key idea that flows throughout the rest of the book of Deuteronomy and its key themes: how Israel are to act in the land of Canaan, that the places of Canaanite idolatrous worship should be destroyed, and the requirement that worship should take place at the tabernacle (and not the places where worship of idols previously took place).

More soon (eventually!)

What is the place of the OT Law for Christians today? (1)

The Mosaic Law is a hugely important topic in the Bible. In the Old Testament, the Law was a key part of the life of the nation of Israel. In the New Testament, many of the books are concerned with how the Law relates to the gospel. Over the next few weeks, I plan to try and draw together a Biblical synthesis of the Law, and then to think about how this impacts the way in which a Christian reads the Law, and lives and has a relationship with God today. Some of these thoughts are rather undeveloped, and so I'd value any comments.


What is the Law?

The Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, is what Chris Wright calls ‘the foundation block of the rest of the Bible.’ It sets the stage for the biblical worldview on which the rest of the unfolding drama of redemptive history takes place. Whilst the Pentateuch is sometimes referred to as simply ‘the Law’, this is somewhat misleading, as the Pentateuch contains nearly as much narrative action as laws. In fact, there are almost seventy chapters of activity before the Ten Commandments are issued by God to Israel. As we shall see, this historical element provided by the narrative is very important in giving the Bible reader proper perspective on the Mosaic Law (by which, I mean the body of commands given to Israel in the Pentateuch) itself. Above all, it is important to remember that the Law is not just an isolated, arbitrary statute book, but part of a much broader story of God and his dealings with his people in the midst of the nations of the earth.

Many contemporary studies of the Law do so from either a purely Old Testament or purely New Testament (primarily Pauline) perspective. This is an error. The Bible is a story with development and change, and is properly understood as being ‘salvation history’ or ‘progressive revelation’. Unfortunately, the importance of salvation history in seeing the nature of the Law can be sometimes missed. In this first post in the series, then, I will seek to form a biblical theology on the place of the Law, starting in the Pentateuch itself, in Genesis and Exodus.

Genesis: the context of Israel’s calling

The theological-history of Genesis 1-11 presents the story of creation, the fall, and the spread of sin, which climaxes in the story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1-9. There we find the human race scattered and divided because of their arrogant attempt to together build themselves up to heaven and make themselves ‘god’. The effects of sin are global in proportion. It is, at this point, that God launches his project to save the world, answering the problems set by Genesis 1-11. God makes his covenant with Abraham, recorded in Genesis 12:1-3:

The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.

"I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you;
I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

Here, as Vaughan Roberts puts it, “God declares his intention to bring back the scattered people of the world and to bless them once more.” In other words, we see that God’s purpose is still to redeem all mankind, just as sin had brought disaster and division on all mankind. In the Old Testament, Israel – the people made up of Abraham’s descendents – was the chosen vehicle of that missionary purpose. They were a particular people with specific promises, but through them God had a universal missionary intention.

Exodus: the giving of the Law

One of the defining moments of Old Testament history is the exodus. Throughout the Old Testament, Israel is repeatedly reminded that ‘the LORD brought you out of Egypt’ (see, for instance, Deuteronomy 7:8). The LORD's initiative is highlighted by the narrative in Exodus: firstly, God ‘adopts’ Israel as his firstborn, who will be set free ‘so that he may worship me’ (Exodus 4:22-23, see also 3:12). His miraculous intervention on Israel’s behalf over Pharaoh and all of the false gods that he represents are also emphasised by the narrative.

By the time we reach Exodus 19, following the Passover and exodus, the people have at last reached Sinai to worship the LORD, just as he had promised they would (Exodus 3:12). Here the people of Israel see a spectacular visible and visible manifestation of the God who saved them (Exodus 19:2), presenting something of what was lost by humans in Genesis 3. Then, before he does anything else, in Exodus 19:3-6, the LORD gives his people a very clear statement of their identity and purpose:

Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."

Only then is Israel issued with the Law. The thrust of this passage is clear: obedience to the LORD and to his Law is essential – not in order for Israel to be redeemed, as this had already happened (verse 4), but in order for them to be who the LORD wanted them to be amongst the nations. The people of Israel are to act in the way described in the promises with Abraham. They are called to ‘live out’ their identity, the reason for which they were redeemed. They are called to be a ‘priesthood’ – a theme that will be developed later – in other words, the people of Israel are to ‘interface’ between the LORD and other peoples. They are also to be a ‘holy nation’ – to be a community that is set apart and recognisably distinctive from the other nations around them. The LORD's heart for the nations transfers itself to the envisaged distinction for the people of Israel. It is the latest step in the fulfilment of the promises made to Abraham, the ‘father’ of Israel, whereby his descendents are ‘blessing the peoples.’

It is crucial that the Law is issued within this context. Israel has been set apart and blessed as ‘firstborn son’, ‘kingdom of priests’ and ‘holy nation’. The Law is given them to help them to fulfil this calling. And so the Ten Commandments are issued, in Exodus 20. This is followed by the Book of the Covenant (in chapters 21-24). Many commentators point out the order in which the instructions are issued: firstly, the people’s fundamental (‘vertical’) responsibilities to God are addressed (Exodus 20:3-11 and then 20:22-26); followed by the people’s ‘horizontal’ responsibilities to each other (20:12-17, and then chapters 21-24).

The Book of the Covenant (chapters 21-24) gives specific instructions, and is probably there to show what the Ten Commandments mean in practice. Each of the commandments is reflected in more detailed by the commands that follow. These instructions mainly cover various aspects of societal living – including the treatment of slaves (standing in stark contrast to how Israel was treated in Egypt), compensation and penalties for injuries, property, law, rape, fairness in dealings with others, and in worship. The Law reflects God’s priorities, which ran contrary to the values of the contemporary world around Israel at the time (illustrated by the narrative covering the period that Israel spent in Egypt).

The driving point of the book of Exodus is to narrate the matters that define Israel as a people in relationship to their God, the LORD. As well as God’s Presence continuing with the people (particularly highlighted by the long ‘tabernacle’ section in the second half of Exodus), Israel are defined by God as a redeemed people who live in the light of the revelation that they have received from him. The Law is prescribed as the way in which to do just this. Redemption (salvation) by works was never part of the Mosaic covenant. As Graeme Goldsworthy puts it, ‘When God gave his covenant stipulations at Sinai, he addressed Israel as his people. It is clear that this Law of Moses is not a program of works for salvation. Salvation is of grace, and the covenant of Sinai was given, not so that Israel might be saved, but because she was saved. The Law is thus a manifesto for the people of the kingdom.’

The later narrative in Exodus can also be placed within this framework. Within forty days, the people have already broken their covenant promise to God and made themselves a likeness of God – the golden calf (Exodus 32:8) – thus breaking the second commandment. Moses prays for the people and the LORD withholds his destruction (32:11–14). When Moses comes back down to the camp (32:19), he smashes the two tables of the covenant to show how the people have broken the covenant. The sons of Levi slaughter three thousand men (32:28) and the LORD sends a plague (32:35), but the nation as a whole is spared through Moses' prayer.

The covenant had been broken by Israel before it was even completed. If the covenant were based on works or on strict justice alone Israel would have already forfeited. But the covenant is based on grace. We see this as God renews his covenant to fallen Israel. So in Exodus 34:1, God tells Moses to make a new set of stone tables and to come up again. In 34:6–7, God reveals himself – and his character – as the basis of the renewed covenant with Israel:

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

And so, in Exodus 34:27–28 God concludes this last meeting on Mount Sinai like this:

Then the LORD said to Moses: "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.” The covenant has been made again.’

After this, work is allowed to begin on the tabernacle, the symbolic dwelling place of God’s Presence amongst his people. And so we see that, even in the Mosaic covenant, a major emphasis is on God’s promise to be merciful and gracious and to forgive iniquity and transgression and sin so that he can have relationship with his people. God will treat Israel with mercy and grace and will forgive her sins. Israel’s required response is to keep the covenant. Israel will receive and experience blessing from God, including forgiveness of sin, as Exodus 19:5 says, "if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant."

The narrative in Exodus shows that the condition of blessing is not sinless perfection or legalistic law keeping. The Mosaic covenant does not teach that if you commit a sin, that covenant blessings are forfeited. When Exodus 19:5 says that Israel must "obey God's voice and keep God's covenant," it does not mean earning blessing by works. Rather, Israel is called to ‘obey God’s voice’ – to keep themselves in an attitude of obedience, where they seek to keep his covenant, aware of their need for the LORD's ongoing grace and mercy and forgiveness.

More to follow soon.