Re: ARE ALL FOODS CLEAN?
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:48 am
Hi Emmet,
Yes. They were instructed concerning a situation that might quite possibly arise. Yet, there is a good chance that such a contingency did not arise. I do nto see what would be problematic about saying both statements.
It is in the New Testament that this distinction becomes even more clear, as certain of the Mosaic laws are viewed as “prophetic” anticipations of Christ, encoded in ceremonies and rituals. According to the New Testament, these served a “shadows” of something more substantial and more permanent than themselves (Col.2:16f/ Heb.8:5; 10:1). There is no impropriety in the common designation of these as “ritual” or “ceremonial” laws.
There are other laws that spring from a more permanent and changeless root, which is God’s own goodness and character. They appear to be summarized in statements like Mic.6:8 and Matthew 23:23. Such commands define the framework of a timeless and unchanging “morality” because they reflect the character of the timeless and unchanging God, whom we are always to imitate (Lev.11:45/ Eph.5:1). Though He may modify his covenant and change the rituals a thousand times, His character does not ever change, and always defines what righteousness is.
It is true that obedience to God is always a moral issue. But this is not the same as saying that there was a moral (changeless) basis for every command God ever gave, nor that all commands are equally permanent. On one occasion, God told Isaac not to go down to Egypt (Gen.26:2). He later encouraged Jacob to go down to Egypt (Gen.46:3-4)—the very thing He had formerly commanded Isaac not to do! Going to Egypt, is not, in itself an intrinsically “moral” or “immoral” action. God’s commands with regard to it may differ with circumstances. Whatever God commands, whether of a moral or a ritual nature, becomes mandatory (a moral obligation) for man to obey, simply because it is God’s express will. Nevertheless, God sometimes changes His commands of a non-moral sort.
For another example, God commanded the generation of Israel that left Egypt to go into and conquer Canaan. Later, because of their rebellion, He forbade them to do that same thing. When they heard the alternative, they decided to obey the earlier command after all, but their belated obedience to the defunct command was now regarded as disobedience and presumption. Man is morally obligated to keep the current commands of God.
When a set of laws have come to their fulfillment, and have served their intended purpose, so that God Himself no longer requires them to be observed, they no longer describe a moral obligation for man.
James, in speaking of “the whole law” is referring to that which he had already described as “the law of liberty” (1:25) and “the royal law” (2:8). He identifies this law with the command to love one’s neighbor (a moral law). When he later speaks of the need to keep “the whole law,” and not only a part, the examples he chooses to illustrate his point are the commandments against murder and adultery (both moral laws). James headed up a church where there were very many brethren who were zealous for the law—and we have historical reasons to believe that this zeal reflected his own sympathies as well. Yet, when he wrote to Christians of their duty to keep the law, he limited it to “love your neighbor as yourself.” This is called the “law of liberty” because one who has such love will, freely and without compulsion, act justly, mercifully and faithfully toward his neighbor—thus fulfilling all of the moral commandments.
This is another way to distinguish between “moral law” and “ceremonial law.” The moral laws are the ones that a person would perform instinctively, if he loves another as he loves himself. Rituals are not instinctive, no matter how loving you are. You would not intuitively know to keep the seventh day holy, to offer lambs (but not dogs), or to circumcise on the eighth day. These must be spelled out as a seemingly-arbitrary code, or else even the best people would never think of doing them.
Thus, the New Testament identifies righteousness with observance of moral laws, not the rituals of the Sinaitic Covenant.
The difference that I (and many others) make between laws that are ritual” and those that are “moral” is speaking of the intrinsic rationale for the commandment. If it is ritual, it is symbolic. God is at liberty to decide when symbolic actions may be changed or scrapped. This is not so with moral issues, which, because they are determined more by what God is like, rather than what God arbitrarily commands, can never change.
The New Testament does not directly speak of the two categories of Old Testament laws, but when one examines those laws that are dismissed by the New Testament, they all happen to be ceremonial in nature (as I have defined that category above). Those laws of a moral nature (as I have defined that category above) are brought over into the New Testament morality unchanged. Thus the failure of the Old Testament writings to make this distinction does not render it inappropriate for New Testament believers to acknowledge these categories.
My answer did not lack in substance. I had given the answer you were seeking in my previous answer (about the Elijah claimant). If I was not sufficiently clear, I will put it differently:
I believe that Moses and the prophets had instructed Israel to look for just such a Messiah as Jesus. If one complains that Jesus did not come as a political leader, I would suggest that there are many indications in the Old Testament that the Messiah’s arrival will bring about a change of this nature. According to interpretations that early Jewish Christians (including some Pharisees) found justified of certain Old Testament information, the Messiah…
1) …would be another like Moses (Deut.18:15, 18). Who needs another Moses, unless there is to be another covenant and another law given? It does not take a new Moses to enforce the laws that Moses passed down. That only requires a faithful scribe, like Ezra;
2) …would mediate a new covenant (Jer.31:31-34). As was argued by at least one Jewish Christian teacher, there is no need for a new covenant if the old one is definitive and final. Furthermore, according to Jeremiah, this new covenant would be spiritual (inscribed on the heart), not political or religious (like the covenant associated with Israel’s founding as a political and religious nation, which was inscribed on stones).
3) …would include Gentiles who would participate along with Israel, seemingly on terms different from those required of proselytes under the Old Covenant—i.e., without the ark of the covenant (Jer.3:15-18), and (according to rabbinic scholars like Saul/Paul), without circumcision.
I realize that the majority of rabbis would take exception to the interpretation given to these predictions by the Jewish believers in Jesus. But what of that? Rabbis were continually in disagreement with each other on many points. As a Jewish friend of mine likes to say, “Where there are three Jews, there are four opinions!”
The early Jewish believers also felt justified in their recognition of Jesus as their Messiah and in their interpretations of these predictions because of His resurrection from the dead.
I am not aware of how the difference in translation would favor one theological view against another. To speak of such a thing as a law “falling” is as obscure an expression as is speaking of a law “failing.” Both involve metaphors. The meaning of either term would seem equally to require interpretation. Since Jesus made a very similarly-worded statement in Matthew 5:17f, it would seem that the general meaning of both statements would have to do with the law prematurely slipping from its place, prior to its fulfillment. My comments would remain the same, regardless which verb is used.kaufmannphillips wrote:
Continuing your citation from Luke 16: "... and every one forces into it - but it is easier for the heaven and the earth to pass than for one serif of the law to fall."
steve wrote:
I do not believe that any part of the law failed. I also do not believe that Jesus destroyed the law. But I believe that He did fulfill it. That is, He inaugurated the new order that the ceremonies of the law anticipated, rendering them obsolete.
kaufmannphillips replied:
At the risk of being pedantic, the preferable rendering of the word is "fall," not "fail." Interesting that out of ninety occurrences of the Greek word, the KJV renders it as "fall" 88 times, and as "fail" only this once. Theological skew?
(a) So, then - Jesus' command "can mean little else than that they might, at times, be served foods that they, as Jews, would otherwise regard as unclean," but "since they were sent only among the Jews on this occasion, there is a very good chance that nothing unclean had been put before them by their hosts."
Yes. They were instructed concerning a situation that might quite possibly arise. Yet, there is a good chance that such a contingency did not arise. I do nto see what would be problematic about saying both statements.
And this was one occasion of the Holy Spirit leading him “into all truth,” as Jesus promised that the Spirit would do (John 16:13). That was the effect of the vision on the housetop, along with the verbal instructions from Jesus that followed. However, like any of us, prior to the Spirit giving a special revelation, Peter was limited to his normal mental powers…which were not always impressive. Even years later, he seemed to find some of Paul’s concepts “hard to understand" (2 Pet.3:15-16). Possessing the Holy Spirit does not change everything about a man’s native aptitudes.steve wrote:
As for Peter's having this objection after Jesus having given these instructions previously, such cluelessness is not uncharacteristic of the disciples.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
Then again, Peter - like the other disciples - is thought to have the holy spirit by this juncture.
You are right that the Torah itself does not distinguish explicitly between categories that we might call “moral” and “ritual.” However these two terms do describe actual differences in the rationale behind God’s giving different laws. The prophets recognized a hierarchy vis-à-vis “sacrifices,” on one hand, and such things as contrition, humility, justice and mercy, on the other (e.g., Psalm 51:16-17; Micah 6:6-8; Hos.6:6). The offering of sacrifices is in the category of “ritual law,” and the others are “moral laws.” Though the Bible does not use this terminology, it provides serviceable labels for making a legitimate distinction.(a) The Torah covenant does not distinguish between ritual law and non-ritual law. The consequence for violating the shabbath - a mere ritual, one might say - was capital punishment. And the New Testament of most Christians argues that "whomever will keep the whole law, but will stumble in one [point of it] - he has become guilty of all [points of it]."
It is in the New Testament that this distinction becomes even more clear, as certain of the Mosaic laws are viewed as “prophetic” anticipations of Christ, encoded in ceremonies and rituals. According to the New Testament, these served a “shadows” of something more substantial and more permanent than themselves (Col.2:16f/ Heb.8:5; 10:1). There is no impropriety in the common designation of these as “ritual” or “ceremonial” laws.
There are other laws that spring from a more permanent and changeless root, which is God’s own goodness and character. They appear to be summarized in statements like Mic.6:8 and Matthew 23:23. Such commands define the framework of a timeless and unchanging “morality” because they reflect the character of the timeless and unchanging God, whom we are always to imitate (Lev.11:45/ Eph.5:1). Though He may modify his covenant and change the rituals a thousand times, His character does not ever change, and always defines what righteousness is.
It is true that obedience to God is always a moral issue. But this is not the same as saying that there was a moral (changeless) basis for every command God ever gave, nor that all commands are equally permanent. On one occasion, God told Isaac not to go down to Egypt (Gen.26:2). He later encouraged Jacob to go down to Egypt (Gen.46:3-4)—the very thing He had formerly commanded Isaac not to do! Going to Egypt, is not, in itself an intrinsically “moral” or “immoral” action. God’s commands with regard to it may differ with circumstances. Whatever God commands, whether of a moral or a ritual nature, becomes mandatory (a moral obligation) for man to obey, simply because it is God’s express will. Nevertheless, God sometimes changes His commands of a non-moral sort.
For another example, God commanded the generation of Israel that left Egypt to go into and conquer Canaan. Later, because of their rebellion, He forbade them to do that same thing. When they heard the alternative, they decided to obey the earlier command after all, but their belated obedience to the defunct command was now regarded as disobedience and presumption. Man is morally obligated to keep the current commands of God.
When a set of laws have come to their fulfillment, and have served their intended purpose, so that God Himself no longer requires them to be observed, they no longer describe a moral obligation for man.
James, in speaking of “the whole law” is referring to that which he had already described as “the law of liberty” (1:25) and “the royal law” (2:8). He identifies this law with the command to love one’s neighbor (a moral law). When he later speaks of the need to keep “the whole law,” and not only a part, the examples he chooses to illustrate his point are the commandments against murder and adultery (both moral laws). James headed up a church where there were very many brethren who were zealous for the law—and we have historical reasons to believe that this zeal reflected his own sympathies as well. Yet, when he wrote to Christians of their duty to keep the law, he limited it to “love your neighbor as yourself.” This is called the “law of liberty” because one who has such love will, freely and without compulsion, act justly, mercifully and faithfully toward his neighbor—thus fulfilling all of the moral commandments.
This is another way to distinguish between “moral law” and “ceremonial law.” The moral laws are the ones that a person would perform instinctively, if he loves another as he loves himself. Rituals are not instinctive, no matter how loving you are. You would not intuitively know to keep the seventh day holy, to offer lambs (but not dogs), or to circumcise on the eighth day. These must be spelled out as a seemingly-arbitrary code, or else even the best people would never think of doing them.
Thus, the New Testament identifies righteousness with observance of moral laws, not the rituals of the Sinaitic Covenant.
The difference that I (and many others) make between laws that are ritual” and those that are “moral” is speaking of the intrinsic rationale for the commandment. If it is ritual, it is symbolic. God is at liberty to decide when symbolic actions may be changed or scrapped. This is not so with moral issues, which, because they are determined more by what God is like, rather than what God arbitrarily commands, can never change.
The New Testament does not directly speak of the two categories of Old Testament laws, but when one examines those laws that are dismissed by the New Testament, they all happen to be ceremonial in nature (as I have defined that category above). Those laws of a moral nature (as I have defined that category above) are brought over into the New Testament morality unchanged. Thus the failure of the Old Testament writings to make this distinction does not render it inappropriate for New Testament believers to acknowledge these categories.
If this Elijah claimant could show that Jesus and the apostles had predicted his coming, that the Christian faith had always led people to look forward to his appearing, and that he had such striking personal credentials as to demonstrate that he was the very one predicted, then a Christian would have reason to be impressed with his claims. As things stand, there is no such person predicted by Jesus and looked for by Christians throughout their history. The modern expectation, held among some Christians, that Elijah will come in the future, simply ignores Jesus’ teaching that Elijah came already, as predicted.(b) Let us imagine that the Elijah-claimant attempts to reinstitute practice of Torah ritual, "turn[ing] ... the heart of the sons to the fathers." Or let us imagine that the claimant spiritualized observance of baptism and the Lord's Supper. We may imagine the sorts of response - and/or we may note historically the sorts of response enjoyed by the Armstrongites and the Quakers.
steve wrote:
Someone behaving like that would likely get himself crucified!
kaufmannphillips wrote:
Cute is a limited substitute for substance, my friend. Please do not sidestep the issue: in that scenario, how are we to respond?
My answer did not lack in substance. I had given the answer you were seeking in my previous answer (about the Elijah claimant). If I was not sufficiently clear, I will put it differently:
I believe that Moses and the prophets had instructed Israel to look for just such a Messiah as Jesus. If one complains that Jesus did not come as a political leader, I would suggest that there are many indications in the Old Testament that the Messiah’s arrival will bring about a change of this nature. According to interpretations that early Jewish Christians (including some Pharisees) found justified of certain Old Testament information, the Messiah…
1) …would be another like Moses (Deut.18:15, 18). Who needs another Moses, unless there is to be another covenant and another law given? It does not take a new Moses to enforce the laws that Moses passed down. That only requires a faithful scribe, like Ezra;
2) …would mediate a new covenant (Jer.31:31-34). As was argued by at least one Jewish Christian teacher, there is no need for a new covenant if the old one is definitive and final. Furthermore, according to Jeremiah, this new covenant would be spiritual (inscribed on the heart), not political or religious (like the covenant associated with Israel’s founding as a political and religious nation, which was inscribed on stones).
3) …would include Gentiles who would participate along with Israel, seemingly on terms different from those required of proselytes under the Old Covenant—i.e., without the ark of the covenant (Jer.3:15-18), and (according to rabbinic scholars like Saul/Paul), without circumcision.
I realize that the majority of rabbis would take exception to the interpretation given to these predictions by the Jewish believers in Jesus. But what of that? Rabbis were continually in disagreement with each other on many points. As a Jewish friend of mine likes to say, “Where there are three Jews, there are four opinions!”
The early Jewish believers also felt justified in their recognition of Jesus as their Messiah and in their interpretations of these predictions because of His resurrection from the dead.
That Yahweh would appear in a human form (e.g., Genesis 18:1ff—or, alternatively, in a pillar of cloud, or in a burning bush) was not a concept absent from the Tanakh. Nor did such theophanies contradict the fact that the heavens cannot fully contain God. God can be everywhere at once, and specially manifest in limited earthly venues. This is not contrary to, but a continuation of, Old Testament concepts.One fundamental liability of Christianity - at least, in its mainstream form - is its dissonance from the simple vectors of the faith that it imagines itself to fulfill. G-d spends centuries teaching his people to worship only him - a singular G-d whom Solomon says "the heavens and the heavens of the heavens do not contain" - and then he throws them a curve-ball by showing up in a human body, with a distinct personhood of its own?
As you know, any Jew would be defiled for various periods of time when touching a corpse (7 days), or a bleeding woman (until evening), or a leper. If Jesus was going about, indiscriminately touching such people (as He seemed to do), this would seem to interfere with His ability to conduct His public ministry without constant interruption. He would not be able to enter the temple, and (I assume) not the synagogue either. As I understand it, He would then defile anyone whom He touched while He was ritually unclean.kaufmannphillips wrote:
Where does the NT text indicate that Jesus "touch[ed] lepers and women with issues of blood, etc., without contracting ritual defilement"? …Where do the precepts of the covenant require quarantine for ritual defilement - that is, in such a way that we would find the lack of its observance noticeable in the gospel narratives?