Monday, May 14, 2007
Law Codes, Law Code Collections, Functions and OT
Most people when they pick up the Bible have a hard time bridging the gap between the OT and the NT. Not only does there seem to be some theological opposition but content and structure are very different too. One of the most puzzling pieces for scholars and lay people alike is the application of the OT law in light of the NT. It seems as if most if not all of the Mosaic law was subverted in the NT writings. We see Peter being told to eat unclean foods, we see Jesus working on the Sabbath. We no longer put to death those who dishonor their parents etc. The supreme theme of grace runs through the NT and seems to leave the strict legal obedience in the dust. Most of us when we think of the OT law we are trapped with thoughts of legalism, covenant fideism, cruel and unusual punishments, and boring Levitical chapter after boring Levitcal chaper. Well…just what is going on with the OT Law, is it something we can live without?
First I think we must restructure our thoughts on OT literature. Some have argued that there was a large difference between Law codes and Law code collections. The law code is the exhaustive explanation of the laws of the land/people/religion. The law code more or less is an ideal; usually in the biblical days, most people were not literate so the law code was passed on through oral traditions; and verbal proclamations etc. The Law code simply put is the law… The law code collections however are something quite different. The law code collections for the most part are samplings of the people’s laws. The law codes collections were found in very public places within the city. Since people were not believed to be able to read, why on earth were they there?
Lets look at the code of Hammurabi, one of the most famous and complete law collections ever found. The law collection itself may hint to the purpose of why it was written and on display. Hammurabi decrees to the gods that he was a just and righteous ruler, and he offers these laws as evidence to the gods that he was. The law code collection seems quite extensive (282 laws) but many say it is really incomplete and that a people could never live on these laws alone. The extensiveness of the collection is not to show the people what the laws in the city are but they stand as a testament to the gods that Hammurabi is ruling justly. There are examples of how justice was administered.
So how does this relate to the OT? Am I saying that the OT Law is incomplete? Well there are some major differences between the OT law and the other ANE laws, but also some shocking similarities. For example, in the ANE the source of the Law was from the gods, just like in
What I mean by that is this: The OT Law is not a section of Do’s and Don’ts; prescribing what should be done in each situation, but rather it is describing the holiness of God. Each law should then be taken under a process where by we could extract what is being revealed about God’s holiness.
Let me give you an example: In the OT it is stated that they are not to eat pigs (Lev. 11:7; Deut. 14:8). How does this reveal God’s holiness? Well, in biblical times it was rare to eat meat, it was very expensive and most people only ate meat at religious gatherings and sacrifices. Pigs were the most commonly used animal for sacrificing to demons. So in reality when God says don’t eat pigs, he may be saying don’t worship demons.
Even though the OT Law is descriptive it does not take away its obligatory force, in fact it strengthens it. All of the OT Law can be re-applied to any situation once the principles of God’s holiness are revealed.
Anyway, all that is just to say, I may need to tweak my theory a little depending on what you think. The big question is, "How exactly are we to find the meaning behind specific laws in the OT? Also, how exactly would those laws have played out in Israeli society if not as literal commands?" I am thinking specifically of Josiah. When he found the missing law, what would he have actually done to restore God's laws to the people of Judah?
This is an interesting post. If I was a theologian, I am sure I would have understood a little better.
The Law is commonly split into two categories. There is the "tradito" and the "traditium." The "tradito" is the black and white letters of the law, that is, what is actually written in the books of moses. The Traditium is the tradition that has been added onto the traditio to further clarify and understand it. Most people have heard the term Talmud, this is basically the traditium of pharisaic Judaism. In order to make complete sense of the tradito the people needed a traditium that would help them live their lives. This is not always a bad thing. The Israelites, who although must follow the letter of the tradito also needed the traditum to help them live holy lives as well because in some cases the tradito was not exhaustive and was more descriptive than prescriptive.
Enter Jesus: he abolishes not the tradito but the traditium of the time. He goes even further and adds his own traditium; i.e. Matt. ch. 5; further clarifying the holiness of God. And although Jesus' words ought to be followed and carried out literally, they too (I believe) are to some extant descriptive.
Ok so now to answer some of your questions. How are we to figure out the meaning of the OT laws? Well some of them have been clarified by Jesus and other writers of the OT; but in cases of obscurity i.e. goat in his mother's milk etc. One can only rely on the information we can glean from ANE studies. There is still lots to be learned. The fact of the matter is that God used examples of Holiness that related to the people at the time. I know this makes the law look relative, but it isn't when understood in light of the descriptive approach, in fact it makes perfect sense.
When Josiah found the law and read it back to the people, of course they were expected to follow the law, but the reading of the law I believe did just more than behavioral changes, it brought about a rememberance of the holiness of God or at least it should have.
My final question to you: You said the law is a blueprint for goodness and when we don't go by our intuition or the Spirit we should look to the law and follow it. Does that mean if I am confused about my morality I should start eating kosher? How does this work practically?
Fitz- What do I mean by holiness? Well holiness means to be set apart; and I believe the law led the people to live lives that imitated a holy God. The Law was not just a moral guide, but also ritual, social economical; political etc. guide as well. So in terms of this prescriptive/descriptive language I see the law as giving examples of holiness. That does not meant that the law does not have to followed strictly, it indeed does the covenant agreement makes it obligatory.
Your second question about how God revealed his holiness before Sinai is difficult to answer; but because of this I think it strengthens my argument. God had no way of explicitly revealing his holiness to his people until the law, and maybe that is why Paul says the Law was a tutor.
And your speculation about the OT Law being a justification for YHWH's Justice will have to be argued on a different front. One would have to argue that the Law was intended primarily for justice and not Holiness and imitation after God. If we do argue that the law was for justice then you might have a point...but I really don't think that was the aim of it.
I understand the descriptive language is misleading at first it seems that the laws then just become some story or myth; but we must remember the laws are not describing everyday life, but rather the character of God, and this gives the law both its obligatory force and eternal value. However because the laws are descriptive it is nearly impossible to go from ancient text to modern day practice... a suggested approach would be something like: ancient law -> ANE cultural abstraction -> principle -> Revelation -> concept of God -> modern practice
1.ex. Don’t eat pigs
a.Israel ate meat only in sacrificial situations
b.Pigs were used to sacrifice to the underworld
c.God is not of the underworld
d.Do not Sacrifice pigs
e.Do not eat pigs
f.Thus God is above the other Gods.
Jesus I don't think put an end to the Law but perhaps gave us a new perspective to view it; by not only creating a new traditio but by showing a life that emulated the holiness of God. Now in terms of a covenant marker the law may have met its end, (especially when Jesus says I give you a new covenant...) but in terms of revealing the holiness of God and directing us to emulate Him the Law will always live on.
Also in terms of Jesus fulfilling the Law; it only makes sense in my paradigm because it is obvious that Jesus broke the law! But if the Law is, as I say, a description of God's Holiness; Jesus then was able to "re-interpret" (bad choice of wording but it is all thats coming to me) the application of the Law and thus truly fulfill it because he was actually emulating God's Holiness and not merely following moral rules.
The Law therefore, if we look at it as a paid off mortgage is then extra pages in our Bible that don't need to be there; might as well get the scissors! But if we approach the Law as means to revelation about God it will always have a place in scripture. The letter of the law may not be obligatory (as they once were) but the principles of how to emulate the holiness of God that one can infer from the law will remain obligatory forever.
Lastly to answer your question, "if the law is primarily a revelation of God's holiness, how does that explain the laws function in a covenant (primarily a covenant between Israel and God)?" It's very simple; the goal of the covenant was to create a people who emulated God; they were to be Holy and thus draw the nations to themselves and God. The covenant law then revealed the holiness of God and gave explicit examples of how the Holiness of God applied to their situation. The Law collection is this sampling...perhaps there were many more laws that were not recorded but passed down orally or as a triditio... nonetheless, The law code collection and the Law code was obligatory so that the community would be holy and thus emulate God.
The reason we needed the "Spirit of Holiness" is because in essence the Law was just a grocery list of holiness; in and of itself it had no power to transform a unholy human into equal terms with the Holiness of God.
One last question: In what ways does the Spirit of God work better than the Law? I know what the Spirit does spiritually and even judicially if want to go that route, but what I mean is how does it actually give us power to emulate in our daily lives the Holiness of God?
You asked me about the practicality of living by the Spirit and by the law of the OT. Actually, I have always assumed there was a heart vs. letter of the law. In other words, if we are not making a decision based on the Spirit's leading, we should look to the Bible to find the heart of the law. So, no you should not start eating kosher. In fact, your discussion here is critical to my understanding of the law. Usually I interpret specific laws as revealing something about what God meant for us in action (not necessarily exactly what they were commanded to do, but what these commands say about doing the right thing). If those commands also reveal something about the holiness of God, that is a new study to me.
Now, regarding the rest of this discussion, I have some thoughts. First, JV, I don't think you have to pit the Spirit against the Law to understand following one above the other. I personally don't know anyone who feels led by the Spirit in every ethical circumstance so that they never need to consult the Bible to make the right decision. The heart of the law and the Spirit may be exactly in line with each other, but that doesn't mean we always consult one source to inform our behavior.
Now, even though the Spirit does inform many of our decisions, this does not render the OT law useless. It is obsolete in what was perceived to be its function (reconciling people to their God), it is not to be ignored. If God's holiness is the same and if goodness is the same (though it may look different at different times) the OT law can still serve to help us understand the real purpose behind good behavior and the real heart of what God wants for his people.
I think the OT law could very well reveal the holiness of God. Does this mean it serves no other purpose today?
<< Home
