Category Archives: Hermeneutics

Inconsistency?

Posted on by
Reply

In an article entitled “Old Testament Law and The Charge of Inconsistency,” Dr. Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterean Church in New York writes:

I find it frustrating when I read or hear columnists, pundits, or journalists dismiss Christians as inconsistent because “they pick and choose which of the rules in the Bible to obey.” What I hear most often is “Christians ignore lots of Old Testament texts—about not eating raw meat or pork or shellfish, not executing people for breaking the Sabbath, not wearing garments woven with two kinds of material and so on. Then they condemn homosexuality. Aren’t you just picking and choosing what they want to believe from the Bible?”

It is not that I expect everyone to have the capability of understanding that the whole Bible is about Jesus and God’s plan to redeem his people, but I vainly hope that one day someone will access their common sense (or at least talk to an informed theological advisor) before leveling the charge of inconsistency.

First of all, let’s be clear that it’s not only the Old Testament that has proscriptions about homosexuality. The New Testament has plenty to say about it, as well. Even Jesus says, in his discussion of divorce in Matthew 19:3-12 that the original design of God was for one man and one woman to be united as one flesh, and failing that, (v. 12) persons should abstain from marriage and from sex.

However, let’s get back to considering the larger issue of inconsistency regarding things mentioned in the OT that are no longer practiced by the New Testament people of God. Most Christians don’t know what to say when confronted about this. Here’s a short course on the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament:

The Old Testament devotes a good amount of space to describing the various sacrifices that were to be offered in the tabernacle (and later temple) to atone for sin so that worshippers could approach a holy God. As part of that sacrificial system there was also a complex set of rules for ceremonial purity and cleanness. You could only approach God in worship if you ate certain foods and not others, wore certain forms of dress, refrained from touching a variety of objects, and so on. This vividly conveyed, over and over, that human beings are spiritually unclean and can’t go into God’s presence without purification.

But even in the Old Testament, many writers hinted that the sacrifices and the temple worship regulations pointed forward to something beyond them. (cf. 1 Samuel 15:21-22; Psalm 50:12-15; 51:17; Hosea 6:6). When Christ appeared he declared all foods ‘clean’ (Mark 7:19) and he ignored the Old Testament clean laws in other ways, touching lepers and dead bodies.

But the reason is made clear. When he died on the cross the veil in the temple was ripped through, showing that the need for the entire sacrificial system with all its clean laws had been done away with. Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice for sin, and now Jesus makes us “clean.”

The entire book of Hebrews explains that the Old Testament ceremonial laws were not so much abolished as fulfilled by Christ. Whenever we pray ‘in Jesus name’, we ‘have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus’ (Hebrews 10:19). It would, therefore, be deeply inconsistent with the teaching of the Bible as a whole if we were to continue to follow the ceremonial laws.

The New Testament gives us further guidance about how to read the Old Testament. Paul makes it clear in places like Romans 13:8ff that the apostles understood the Old Testament moral law to still be binding on us. In short, the coming of Christ changed how we worship but not how we live. The moral law is an outline of God’s own character—his integrity, love, and faithfulness. And so all the Old Testament says about loving our neighbor, caring for the poor, generosity with our possessions, social relationships, and commitment to our family is still in force. The New Testament continues to forbid killing or committing adultery, and all the sex ethic of the Old Testament is re-stated throughout the New Testament (Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Corinthians 6:9-20; 1 Timothy 1:8-11.) If the New Testament has reaffirmed a commandment, then it is still in force for us today.

Further, the New Testament explains another change between the Testaments. Sins continue to be sins—but the penalties change. In the Old Testament things like adultery or incest were punishable with civil sanctions like execution. This is because at that time God’s people existed in the form of a nation-state and so all sins had civil penalties.

But in the New Testament the people of God are an assembly of churches all over the world, living under many different governments. The church is not a civil government, and so sins are dealt with by exhortation and, at worst, exclusion from membership. This is how a case of incest in the Corinthian church is dealt with by Paul (1 Corinthians 5:1ff. and 2 Corinthians 2:7-11.) Why this change? Under Christ, the gospel is not confined to a single nation—it has been released to go into all cultures and peoples.

Once you grant the main premise of the Bible—about the surpassing significance of Christ and his salvation—then all the various parts of the Bible make sense. Because of Christ, the ceremonial law is repealed. Because of Christ the church is no longer a nation-state imposing civil penalties. It all falls into place. However, if you reject the idea of Christ as Son of God and Savior, then, of course, the Bible is at best a mish-mash containing some inspiration and wisdom, but most of it would have to be rejected as foolish or erroneous.

So where does this leave us? There are only two possibilities. If Christ is God, then this way of reading the Bible makes sense and is perfectly consistent with its premise. The other possibility is that you reject Christianity’s basic thesis—you don’t believe Jesus was the resurrected Son of God—and then the Bible is no sure guide for you about much of anything. But the one thing you can’t really say in fairness is that Christians are being inconsistent with their beliefs to accept the moral statements in the Old Testament while not practicing other ones.

One way to respond to the charge of inconsistency may be to ask a counter-question—“Are you asking me to deny the very heart of my Christian beliefs?” If you are asked, “Why do you say that?” you could respond, “If I believe Jesus is the the resurrected Son of God, I can’t follow all the ‘clean laws’ of diet and practice, and I can’t offer animal sacrifices. All that would be to deny the power of Christ’s death on the cross. And so those who really believe in Christ must follow some Old Testament texts and not others.”

A man of two questions

Posted on by
1

“Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.” – 2 Tim 2:7

MESSAGE TO SELF:

You may be armed with an inspiring quote, found a good phrase you might use as a punch line, you might have heard a great story that is sure to “wow” the people, you might have up to date facts and figures at your disposal that might possibly be shocking or even frightening, but certainly, enlightening; you might have a file of pithy quotes showing how the great thinkers of the church have seen the issue; yes, you may have all of this and a whole lot more, but remember this, when you step into your office to study the word of God, you enter what for you is sacred space.

Of course, it may not be seen that way to others, but it has to be this way for you. There should be no discussion or debate on this. This is the time when you pour out your heart to God, pleading with Him to open up the text of the Bible to you. This is where you declare your total dependence on the Holy Spirit, even though He might use your study habits as a means to opening up your understanding. This is the place where the man becomes the man of God. Alone with God, your gaze is heavenward in heart, while your eyes peer downward at the text of the Bible in front of you.

Remember too that all of hell trembles as you enter this place. Hell fears the proclamation of the word of God as no other thing in this world. You wrestle not with flesh and blood but against hostile unseen forces seeking to distract you from your calling. Hell has no fear of a joke; of a punch line; or an insightful quote, but hell trembles when a man of God proclaims the word of God. If the devil cannot stop you in public, he will seek to win the war in private, distracting you with a million other things and a million other affections.

So knowing that there is both heavenly and hellish interest in what you do in your study, settle it forever. This is a sacred place to you. Its a place where you are unreachable (and those close to you know it) unless there is an emergency. Your phone is off. There are no earthly distractions. Outside the study, you have all the time in the world for people, your family especially; but inside, you have entered, what is for you, the very holy of holies.

Your task is not complicated but amazingly simple – to please the audience of One.

How exactly do you do that?

You know the answer, but let me remind you once again. Your task is not first to think of how to communicate truth; how to say it with passion, how to communicate in such a way that people can identify with it.. no, no, no, a thousand times, no. That is important. God offers no rewards for the boring preacher. Yet communication is a secondary matter. That comes later.

Your first priority is to ask (and then answer) two simple questions:

(1) What does the Bible say?

(2) What does it mean by what it says?

Necessary v. Possible Inferences

Posted on by
1

From the new book, here’s an excerpt from the chapter entitled “A Word to the Reader”:

One amongst many sound principles of interpretation is that we should build all doctrine on necessary rather than possible inferences.

A necessary inference is something that is definitely taught by the text. The conclusion is unavoidable. It is necessary.

A possible inference is something that could or might be true, but not something actually stated by the text. Some refer to this as the distinction between the implicit and the explicit.

An implication may be drawn from the text of Scripture, but we then have to ask if the implicit interpretation is a NECESSARY ONE rather than a POSSIBLE one. We all have our theories, but a sound principle we should employ is to not believe or teach as doctrine something that is only a possible interpretation. We should build doctrine ONLY on necessary interpretation.

In practical terms, making these distinctions can sometimes be a difficult process because it means we have to take a step back and thoroughly analyze exactly why we think a verse or passage teaches something. In other words, it means testing our traditions and doing a lot of thinking. Yet this is something we should do constantly.

THINK OVER WHAT I SAY

Paul exhorted Timothy to “Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.” (2 Tim 2:7)

All of us should be prepared to hold up our preconceived notions to the light of Scripture to see if these assumptions are valid or not. The result of this process often involves the killing of some sacred cows; but that’s a good thing, if what we have held to be true cannot actually be supported by the biblical text. We all have our blind spots and traditions, but we are not always aware of them. Therefore, the serious Bible student asks questions of the text constantly in order to determine what the sacred text actually says and then builds all thinking and doctrine on that.

Here’s one text as an example: John 20:19 says, “On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’”

Many people read this passage and conclude that Jesus walked through the locked door in order to present Himself to His disciples.

But does the text actually say that? No, it does not. The text MIGHT be teaching that. It is certainly a possible inference drawn from the text, but by no means a necessary one. There are other possible explanations.

Concerning this verse the ESV Study Bible says (correctly in my opinion), Some interpreters understand the doors being locked to imply that Jesus miraculously passed through the door or the walls of the room, though the text does not explicitly say this. Since Jesus clearly had a real physical body with flesh and bones after he rose from the dead… one possibility is that the door was miraculously opened so that the physical body of Jesus could enter, which is consistent with the passage about Peter going through a locked door some time later (see Acts 12:10).

To state the principle again: we should build all doctrine on necessary rather than possible inferences, on the explicit and not the implicit. All else is speculation.