New Testament and the Food Laws 2: A response to J.Piper.

Did Jesus declare all 'foods' clean?

Without knowing the whole story, we are bound to misinterpret things. There is a TV trope known as ‘Out of Context Eavesdropping’ where one person hears only one side of a conversation and jumps to the wrong conclusion. For example, on an episode of the Simpsons Lisa overhears her crush talking to someone names Clara and thinks she is his girlfriend. But it is his sister. Or in an episode of Diff’rent Strokes, Willis and Arnold overhear their adopted father say that black boys should be with black families, and end up thinking that he doesn’t want them. But it turns out that he was just repeating what a white social worker had said before she was thrown out. Without understanding other cultures, misunderstandings are bound to arise too. Consider how in Japan, the common American act of tipping is actually taken as an insult. Or how in the Middle East a thumbs-up is the equivalent of giving someone the bird. Similar things happen in Christianity too. Many onlookers since the beginning have questioned why we ‘eat the body of our god’ because they misunderstand Communion. So, as we can see, it is important that we understand cultural context and get all the information, lest we come up with a misguided interpretation of what others are about. And this is also true when we approach the scripture. It is easy to unintentionally misread a passage of scripture because we import modern ideas or we are missing a key piece of historical/cultural information. We saw in our last post that this was true of Matthew 5:17, and as we will see in the following posts, it is also true of Mark 7.

In my last post, I agreed with John Piper that we as followers of Jesus need to listen to what Christ said about the Old Testament Law. Having considered textual, idiomatic, and linguistic context of ‘fulfil’ from the first example that he provided of Matthew 5, we saw that Jesus was actually teaching the opposite of what Piper suggested it meant, namely, that in fulfilling the Law, He was faithfully teaching and upholding it. We also saw that there was nothing in the law or the prophets that demonstrate that God had intended for the faux category of ‘ceremonial law’ to be only temporary.

There is, however, another teaching from Jesus that Piper quoted which looks very much like He did do away with the food laws, and that is from Mark 7:15-19:

 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

And reading that does make it look like a ‘done deal’. 'See, Jesus declared all foods clean.' And for Piper, “[this] is the key text…” But is this verse saying what we think it says? Did Jesus in fact annul and abolish the food laws in this dispute with the Pharisees? Let’s look at the textual and cultural-historical context before examining its linguistic context.

In verses 1-5, we are provided with the situational context and we discover that the dispute was about the washing of hands according to ‘the traditions of the elders’. As the Pharisees asked Jesus “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” (v5). As Mark explains, the Pharisees had taught all the Jews that they must wash (baptise) their hands and cups and crockery before eating, especially after being in the marketplace. This is not because they are germaphobes, but because of their understanding of clean and unclean. They believed that everyday things considered ‘clean’ can be contaminated by something inherently unclean. In this case, they believed that by being in the marketplace among the Gentiles that their hands would become contaminated. And if they did not ceremonially wash their hands, their food would become inedible through its defilement. When something clean became defiled, the Pharisees called it ‘common’, or in the Greek koinen. For example, the disciples were eating with ‘koinais hands' (Mark 7:2,5). The category of ‘common’ is often equated with the category of ‘unclean’ from the Law. However, in the Septuagint, unclean (e.g Lev 11:18) is never translated as koinen, but rather akatharta, further demonstrating that they are different categories.

Based on repeated use of koinen and the phrase ‘tradition of the elders’ in this passage, we find that, “Mark is careful to point out that the disciples have not violated the Torah but [rather] the… ‘tradition of the elders’” (Rudolf, p 294). Note too how Moses or pigs never come into this conversation at all. Therefore, any apparent challenge made to clean/unclean distinction of food in this dispute needs to be understood through the lens of this context, i.e. the traditional Pharisaical category of ‘common.’

The first apparent challenge the food laws is found in verse 15:

“Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”

This statement is often taken to mean that eating bacon doesn’t make you unclean anymore. And there is truth to this, because there is a difference between the nature of ‘unclean’ food and nearly every other unclean thing in Leviticus. When someone became unclean through excessive menstruation, childbirth, touching a dead body etc… a ritual was provided to make them clean again. But when it came to eating pig or prawns, there is no cleansing ceremony. There were no restrictions on access to the Tabernacle for those who had eaten unclean food. The only way they did make one unclean, is by touching their carcass (Lev 11:24-28), but this was true of clean foods too (Lev 11:39-40), meaning there is a difference between a carcass and prepared food. It is also important to note that here Jesus is talking about things that make you ‘common’ (koinen), whereas in Leviticus 11 only eating “the swarming things that swarm on the ground” will make you ‘unclean’ (akathartoi [LXX]). Thus, we can say that eating unclean foods (with one exception) never made you unclean or common. Moreover, in Matthew’s account of this discussion, Jesus concludes by saying:

But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile [make koinen] anyone (Matt 15:18-20).

This further reinforces that this debate is about the traditions of the elders and not the Levitical food laws. Therefore, we can better understand Jesus as saying in verse 15 that the eating of clean food with common hands will not render that food, or you, common.

This is also true of verses 18 and 19 where we find Jesus explaining to the confused disciples:

Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

To clarify his teaching, Jesus gives his disciples a lesson in biology lesson to let them know that whatever impurities the food ‘may’ have, God designed the human body to use that which is good and to remove that which is impure. Moreover, all food enters the stomach and the digestive tract, and not the heart - the source of sin - and its impurities are expelled. And again, Jesus is talking about the category of polluted, or ‘common’ food, not inherently unclean meat. So, as we covered with verse 15, He is not (and cannot be) talking about a pig making us unclean.

Then comes, as it appears in most English translations (except for the KJV), a parenthetical commentary statement from Mark:

“In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean” (NIV).

What is most interesting, is that this phrase isn’t in the Greek. Rather it merely says ‘purging all food’ (katharizon panta ta bromata). So how did modern translators get ‘Jesus declaring all foods clean’ out of ‘purging all foods’? Well, in most languages, verbs and nouns need to match grammatically. In English, we discern the relationship between words and ideas primarily through the use of word order, pronouns, and conjunctions. In languages like Greek, where word order is not as important syntactically, to know who is doing what and what word relates to what idea, one needs to match words through what is known as 'case endings.' The main word we are looking at in particular, purging: katharizon, is a singular masculine participle in the nominative case (the subject, or ‘main actor’ in the sentence). And because the closest matching singular masculine nominative is ‘Jesus’ all the way back in verse 18 (and He said), the translators concluded that Jesus must be the one doing the cleansing. There is, however, an exception to this rule:

“In Greek grammar… the nominative singular participle may sometimes refer to something within the previous context or to something implied in the context not explicitly mentioned, even though it may not be in the same grammatical case” (Hegg, 2)

This is what Daniel Wallace in his book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics calls a 'pendant nominative' which refers to a word that is independent of the grammatical arrangements of a sentence, but still related to the subject at hand. The Net Bible study notes explain that this construction occurs when "a description of something within the clause is placed in the nominative case and moved forward ahead of the clause for emphatic reasons." We see an example of this in Luke 24:47:

“that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

The verb ‘beginning’ is a nominative singular participle with no matching noun to act as its antecedent. However, we can tell that it is referring to the preaching of repentance. In the same way, the cleansing of foods is related to the previous clause of the body expelling what was eaten, but for the sake of emphasis - since the issue of purification was what drove the conversation - purify is changed to the nominative case. Therefore, we are not bound grammatically to attach ‘purging all foods’ to a noun 38 words prior. Instead, we can understand the phrase as the conclusion to Jesus’ biology lesson. 

But grammar is not everything. We need to consider context too. Earlier in in verses 6-8, Jesus’ response to the Pharisee’s question comes in the form of a reprimand and quotation of Isaiah, accusing the Pharisee’s of “rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish [their] tradition.” This is a rebuke against the Pharisee’s prioritisation of ritual impurity (as defined by their tradition) over ‘moral’ defilement (as defined by the commandments of God). By responding to the Pharisee’s challenge in this way, Jesus is reminding them that the commandments of God overrules their traditions, especially the ones that negate God’s Law. We see something similar in Matthew’s Gospel:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean. (Matt 23:25-26).   

Therefore, based on his rebuke, we see that Jesus’ argument “centres on a single point – the overarching priority of the Torah” (Rudolf, p 295), and his entire point in this encounter was to rebuke traditions that subtract from the word of God. Thus, when it comes to verse 15 and 19 it becomes extremely unlikely that after Jesus declared the sacredness of the Law, rebuked the Pharisees for hypocritically neglecting ‘the commandments of God’, He then goes and abolishes a significant part of the Law, the implications of which I discussed in my previous post. Some might argue that Jesus had the authority to modify the Law, but if He did, why was He later asking the Father if He could bypass the cross? That is one stipulation of the Law that I am sure Jesus would have wanted to change.

But let's say that Jesus was actually declaring all foods clean, I have two questions:

1. Why is there such a lack of reaction? Why was this never mentioned at Jesus’ trial? Changing a law like this would mean instant conviction. Instead, they needed people to lie to try and convict Him. Moreover, consider how in the mind of Jesus’ audience forbidden food was not simply unclean, but detestable. In fact, Many Jews in the Hasmonean period (140-116 BCE) “chose to die rather than be defiled by food…" (1Macc 1:62-63, 2 Macc 7). Although this is a kind of argument from silence, the silence is nonetheless worth noting. 

And 2. Why in Acts 9 was Peter - who was here and got the explanation - so adamant that they still unclean? I know that Peter had his slow moments, but this was post Pentecost. Granted he wrestled with the idea of the inclusion of Gentiles, but once explicitly explained to him, he got it. So for Peter to insist that unclean food still existed at the time of his vision makes no sense. (I will cover this more deeply in my next post.)

As we have examined Mark 7:1-19, we see that this conversation had nothing to do with Levitical food laws, but rather the traditions of the elders. This is the case for many of Jesus’ confrontations with the Pharisees. Therefore, based on the grammar and the context of this statement, we can conclude that Jesus was not doing away with the divine commandment to abstain from unclean food as proposed by John Piper and many others.

It appears that because the context and grammar of this encounter with the Pharisees were ignored and overlooked, the interpretation and translation of Jesus’ teaching is corrupted by ‘Out of Context Eavesdropping’, leading to the misunderstood conclusion that that the food laws were done away with.  Rather, Jesus was challenging the Pharisee’s preoccupation with ritual purity and man-made traditions over and against the commandments of God and the weightier matters of the Law.

Having considered the teachings of Christ as put forward by John Piper, we find that they are not actually saying what he claimed they were saying. I agree with Pastor John that we need to follow Christ’s teaching on how to relate to the Old Testament Law. But as we have seen, we have no record of Him teaching that the food laws are done away with. Although, that is not all the New Testament has to say on food laws. Maybe He did teach it and it wasn’t written down. Considering its significance that is surprising, but not impossible. I’m sure if John Piper had time in his podcast, he would have discussed Acts 10 and Romans 14 as well. These will be the focus of my next posts.

References

Blass, Debrunner, and Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Hegg, Tim. Mark 7:19b – A Short Technical Note. Retrieved:

       http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Mark7.19ShortNote.pdf

House, Colin. Defilement by Association: Some Insights from the Usage of KOINOS/KOINOU in Acts 10 and 11. Andrews University Seminary Studies. 2, 1983, p 143-153

Novation, On the Jewish Meats. Retrieved:

       http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.vi.iv.i.html

Reiscio, Mara & Walt, Luigi. “There is Nothing Unclean” Jesus and Paul against the Politics of Purity. ASE. 29, 2012, p 53-82.

Rudolph, David. Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7:19b. Evangelical Quarterly. 74, 2002, p 291-311

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OutOfContextEavesdropping
Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Zondervan, 1996. p51-53.

Zell, Paul. Exegetical Brief on Mark 7:19: “Who or what makes all foods clean?” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly. 109, 2012, p 209-212.

New Testament and the Food Laws 1: A response to J.Piper.

I had been planning for some time to write an article about the place of Old Testament food laws in the life of the Christian, but because I have just started some holidays I was putting it off for a little bit. That was until I saw an episode of ‘Ask Pastor John’ on the Desiring God website (here) that was a response to a question on the topic, and felt that it needed a response. Not so much as a direct response to him (the odds of him actually reading it are a million to one), but rather that his take is a summary of the common argument against the need for Christians to follow biblical food laws. And ones that I argued in unison for some time too. In fact, it is only since the beginning of this year that I had come to the position I have, which is just over a year since I began to recognise the relevance of Torah in the life of the Christian. And there is a good reason I put off looking into it: I was worried about what I might find. I was scared that I would have to abandon my arguments as to why I can disregard the food laws. And changing a diet can become difficult. I was worried about the social awkwardness of having to say ‘I don’t eat bacon.’ And my concerns were warranted. I found that the common arguments don’t hold much water once you dig a little deeper into their proof texts and telling people you’re not eating pig products can have people accuse you of being fussy, Jewish and even eating Halal. And saying goodbye to hotdogs, pepperoni, and 90% of a pizza menu can make mealtimes difficult. But, like celiacs, vegetarians, and diabetics, you learn to adapt. But in the end, it is more important to obey what you see scripture as teaching rather than what is popular, convenient, and delicious. And I don’t judge or condemn those who disagree with me. I make jokes with my wife about ‘eating the demon meat’, but it’s only in good fun.

Before I begin I want to say two things. The first is that I recognise and know from personal experience that if this is new to you, your inclination is going to resist much of what I am going to write, just as I did. But I ask, as I always have since I started writing these posts, that you lay aside your theological traditions and love of bacon, and consider what I have to say with prayer and humility, an open mind, and an even more open Bible. And I invite you to provide feedback in the comments section below. The second, is that my critique of John Piper’s answer should not be taken as disrespect or a rejection of him. I have much respect for his theological wisdom and experience and many of his teachings have been edifying and encouraging. And so it is with humility that I outline why I disagree with him on this issue.

I’m going to split this response over a few articles. In the first two, I am going to be responding to John Piper’s main points, which is primarily centred around his interpretation of Matthew 5:17-18, and Mark 7. In the following posts, I will be addressing Peter’s vision of the sheet in Acts 10, and Paul’s words in Romans 14 that ‘nothing is unclean’ and his words to Timothy ‘For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected.’ So if you get to the end of this and say ‘but what about…?’, they’re coming.  If you can think of any others, please comment below.

The episode of Ask Pastor John that I am responding to begins with a listener asking the question: 

"I would really like to know whether it is sinful for me to eat pork and bacon." 

In his response, Piper begins by saying:

The good impulse is the desire to obey God. There’s nothing wrong with that. That belongs to what it means to be a Christian. The bad impulse is the failure to obey Christ who teaches us how to obey God in regard to the Old Testament.

So for Piper, we need to listen to Christ and what he said about obeying the Old Testament. And to that I say "amen"! We need to keep the teachings of Christ supreme in our walk, so I know that John Piper is coming from a good heart and right motives. He then moves on to quote Matthew 5:17-18 to see what Jesus did say:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

Piper explains that in this passage, Jesus is explaining that through Him, the Old Testament Law was modified, which includes doing away with the food laws. As he explains:

in Jesus [is the fulfillment and accomplishment] of the Law and the Prophets that God always intended in the Old Testament as the consummation and the end of the ceremonial laws. So, the effort to hold on to the prohibition of eating pork is, in effect, a refusal to submit to God’s plan for the fulfillment of the Law in Jesus.

As I said earlier, I can see and agree with the heart of where John Piper’s interpretation of this passage is coming from. Like Stephen, Piper is telling people not to resist the Holy Spirit in its working out of God’s plan for humanity (Acts 7:51-53). I also agree that we should live in the freedom and liberty that the Gospel provides. Unfortunately, Piper’s exegesis and interpretation of Matthew 5 falls short in a few ways. I have discussed this at length here, however what follows is an abbreviated form of that.

Firstly, his interpretation of fulfil neglects the linguistic and historical/cultural context of the word. When interpreting Scripture, it is important that we allow the meaning of the word as used by the author to influence our exegesis, not what we think it means. Consider, for example, C.S. Lewis’ use of the word queer in the Narnia series. Surely we wouldn’t say the series is about a homosexual lion. So, what was meant by fulfil when Matthew wrote his Gospel? Well, the word used for fulfil in Matthew is the Greek word plerosai, which means to make complete and to fully teach. It’s like adding chocolate chips to cookie dough. In fulfilling the chocolate-chip cookie-dough, you’re not throwing away the dough; you’re making it complete by adding the chocolate chips. When it comes to fulfilling the Law, what Jesus was doing, was revealing the depth and significance of the commandments of God. Moreover, the use of ‘fulfil’ in the active voice rather than the passive voice (plerothe) means that it is different to the prophetic function of fulfillment (Matt 8:17, 13:35 etc…). This is further brought out when we consider the idiomatic meaning of the phrase, ‘fulfilling the law’. In Jesus’ day, to ‘fulfil the law’ was a Rabbinic term that meant to uphold and correctly teach. And to say a commandment was done away with and no longer relevant, is to ‘abolish’ that law (Mishnah, Pirke Avot, 4:14; Horayot 1:3); something Jesus said he didn’t come to do.

Secondly, note that Piper neglects to quote the very next verse:

Therefore [because I have come to correctly teach and uphold the Torah] whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments [including food laws] and teaches others to do the same [‘put some pork on your fork’] will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

By Jesus’ own words, if He has relaxed the prohibition on unclean meat, He has just made Himself least in the Kingdom (the next post will deal with Jesus' authority to change the Law).

The third is Piper’s claim that:

In the Old Testament, God always intended for the consummation and end of the ceremonial laws.

This point is difficult to uphold for two reasons.

Firstly, I don’t see that in scripture. I see nowhere that Leviticus 11 was only temporary. I see nothing in the prophets about them going to be removed (Amos 3:7). I do, however, see the opposite in the very words of Jesus John Piper quoted earlier, that not the smallest detail will pass from the Law, “until heaven and earth pass away.” Taken literally, that hasn’t happened yet. Taken metaphorically, it means it never will.

Here’s three further examples:

1. Through Malachi, the Lord declares that He does not change and that the people should return to His statutes (Mal 3:6-7). If eating pig was an abomination in His eyes in the days of Moses, that would not change. (Read more here)

2. In Isaiah, God says that after the Judgement:

Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating pig's flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the Lord (Isa 66:15-17).

Why, if pig is okay to eat, will God put an end to eating it?

3. In Ezekiel, it is prophesied that after the reconstruction of the Temple, the return of God’s glory, and the restoration of Israel (with whatever millennial framework you want to interpret that):

[The Priests] “shall teach my people the difference between the holy and the common, and show them how to distinguish between the unclean and the clean.” (Ez 44:23)

If clean and unclean is done away with, why are they teaching it?

But, if there is a verse that says that the food laws are temporary, I would love to read it. Piper seems to invoke how God’s people are now made up of more than the nation of Israel as justification for this position, since “the prohibition of certain foods as unclean was a temporary part of God’s way of making Israel distant or distinct from the nations of the world.” But I have dealt with the irrelevance of that claim in my previous posts of how we as Gentile-born followers of Christ are now a part of Israel. Also, we are encouraged in the New Testament to ‘be holy as God is holy’ (1Pet 1:16), and set apart from the world (Jn 17:14-15)) which is the same justification given for the food laws (Lev 11:44-45).

The second problem with this claim is that this division between ceremonial law and moral law is a false categorisation. As E.P Sanders (p.194) explains, “Modern scholars often try to divide the law into ‘ritual’ and ‘ethical’ categories, but this is an anachronistic and misleading division.” In reality, the scriptures only provide two related categories of Law: how we relate to God, and how we relate to others (e,g, Matt 22:36-40, Lev 19:18, 1Jn 4:20). But even if a case could be made for moral and ceremonial law categories, consider how the most repeated commandment in the New Testament, to abstain from idolatry, is ceremonial rather than moral in nature. Consider too that three of the four ‘minimum requirements’ from Acts 15, are ‘ceremonial’ and food related.

Piper also invokes Galatians 5:6, and substitutes pork eating for circumcision saying, “Neither pork eating nor non-pork eating counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” And in terms of justification, absolutely, which is what Galatians is about: people accepting formal conversion to Judaism as a means for salvation, as symbolised in the term ‘circumcision.’ The letter to the Galatians was never written to nullify ceremonial law, but rather challenging a salvation based on works and national identity, as in Acts 15. So, to substitute circumcision with eating-pork doesn’t work as circumcision was seen as the way of getting in and abstaining from pig was because they are in. And Piper is correct in saying that Paul in his letters does not send people back to “the Old Testament ceremonial laws of circumcision and food laws.” But this is most likely because Paul, in writing to Gentile-born converts, had to spend more time teaching them to obey the ‘second great commandment’, and commandments prohibiting sexual immorality and idolatry as religion and morality was a foreign concept to Roman Pagans. Honouring one's god through ceremony and ritual, however, was second nature. Nonetheless, Paul agreed with the Jerusalem council (and the Holy Spirit) that the Gentile-born believers would learn the Torah in the synagogue (Acts 15:19-21).

So as we have seen, Matthew 5 and Galatians are not good places to defend the ‘legalisation of pig meat’ as the typical interpretation, as espoused by Piper, seems to ignore their historical, idiomatic, and textual contexts. Because of the amount of words needed, I am leaving until the next part of this series to examine Piper’s use of Mark 7 and ask, did Jesus really declare all foods clean?

References

Sanders, E. P. Judaism : Practice and Belief, 63 BCE-66 CE. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992.

Babylonian Talmud: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/talmudtoc.html
Image:
http://njdivorceblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83453a2a469e2015391fa3388970b-pi

Christian Cultural Identity: The Church and Israel.

In the previous post, we began to look at how scripture defines and describes our Christian Cultural Identity If you have not read that, I recommend beginning there before reading here. We saw that both the Jew and Gentile are of equal status and united in Christ, and that the Gentile’s identity is very much tied into that of Israel. As I said previously, this is not the modern geopolitical state of Israel, but rather the ethnic people of group that was the nation of Israel (I will explain this in more depth in this post). In this post, we will begin to dig further into this topic to help better understand the Cultural Identity of a Christian. 

We find Paul expressing and describing this idea more deeply in his letter to the Ephesians, except this time he has exchanged an agricultural metaphor to more political language:

Therefore, remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility (Eph 2:11-19).

What we find in this passage is that those called ‘the uncircumcision’ (AKA Gentiles), have through Christ joined the Commonwealth of Israel. In fact, the phrase, ‘been brought near’, is taken from the Hebrew ‘kabbel’, which is the technical term for making a convert used in Jewish proselytism from the phrase: “to bring one near [kareb]... the wings of the Shekinah.” (JewishEncyclopedia). Thus, we have been proselytised into the Commonwealth of Israel. This is made possible by the blood of Jesus, and “abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” This here is often taken to mean that the Law of God was annulled to let Gentiles in. For Calvin, the obstacle was more specifically the Ceremonial Law (Inst. 2.7.17). Although 'commandments' (entolon) can refer to God’s commandments (Matt 15:3), that there is not one commandment within the entire Law that restricts access to God for the Gentile, nor instructs Israel to be in a state of hostility with Gentiles, excludes this interpretation. Rather, it refers to man-made edicts, such as is used when John reports that “the Pharisees had given orders…” (Jn 11:57). Thus, Paul is talking about the ordinances set down by the likes of Rabbi Shammai (as discussed last post) who established man made rules to keep Gentiles away. As Jesus rebuked the Pharisees: “…you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in” (Matt 23:13). And by being made one in Jesus, He has nullified this law sanctioned by the Sanhedrin, which became a deeply entrenched cultural rule and tradition, to get the Jews to realise that Gentiles are equal citizens of the Commonwealth.

What did Paul mean by Commonwealth? The word for Commonwealth, politeia, is used to denote a civil administration, constitution and way of life, and a group of citizens. This process of entering the politeia is very much like the naturalisation process of an immigrant gaining new citizenship. They are not ‘notional citizens’ like some people would see them, but are in the eyes of the rulers of that nation and in their mind, genuine Australians, Americans, Germans etc… In the same way, we are not ‘spiritual Israelites’ we are Israelites. As Paul wrote elsewhere:

“For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom 9:6)
“For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit.” (Rom 2:28-29)
“…it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.”  (Gal 3:7).

And this is consistent with the original use of politeia. The Greeks used politeia to define themselves in their Hellenistic diaspora. Being Greek was not necessarily those who lived in the region of Greece, or those who had Greek ancestry. Rather, being Greek was a matter of thought and education. Thus, in using this term, Paul is saying that by joining the politeia of Israel, they are becoming an Israelite in thought (faith in and devotion to God), education (the Torah), and practice (obedience to the commands of God).

That there is a change in ‘citizenship’ becomes evident when we examine Paul’s instruction to the believers in Ephesus in a later chapter: “you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do.” Why? Because being a Gentile was your ‘old self’ and ‘former manner of life’ (Eph 4:22-23). Paul describes the identity of the Gentile as one who is alienated by God and sinful by nature (Eph 4:18-19), and this does not fit the description of the identity of a Christian. In short, if you’re in Christ, you’re not a Gentile. Yes, we are still technically Australian, American, German etc... but we are no longer Gentiles; our true citizenship is in Israel.

So, based on Roman 11 and Ephesians 2, we can see that Gentiles do in fact adopt an Israelite identity when they become followers of Jesus. And although there are followers of Christ who are Gentile by birth, there is no such thing as a Gentile Christian. And as members of the body of Christ, we belong to the church, or ekklesia. Although a Greek, political term, the New Testament authors drew it from the Old Testament equivalent qahal. This word was translated into the Greek Old Testament (LXX) as ekklesia, and in our English translations as ‘congregation’ or ‘assembly.’ However, is it not interesting that despite being translated as ‘congregation’ in the Old Testament, that same this word is almost always translated as ‘church’ in the New Testament? And even when the NT makes reference to the ekklesia in the OT, it is translated as congregation (Acts 7:38), despite being ‘church’ in the 113 other non-political instances of the word. Why the inconsistency? Perhaps, for those wanting to promote a solid and definite division between Old and New, Israelite and Gentile, reading about ‘the church in the wilderness’ under Moses would be too challenging.

As members of the politea of Israel, Gentiles by birth can become full members of the ekklesia which originated in the Old Testament. And this is a principle, process, and practice that is not unique to the New Testament. Consider Ruth who declared to Naomi, “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16). Also, consider the prophetic words of Isaiah: “Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, ‘The Lord will surely separate me from his people [Israel]’” (Isa 14:1). Isaiah also prophesied that this would carry over into the New Covenant: “For the Lord will have compassion on Jacob and will again choose Israel, and will set them in their own land, and sojourners will join them and will attach themselves to the house of Jacob” (Isa 56:3). 

As Scripture has shown, there is a continuity of identity from the Old into the New: Gentiles who join themselves to the Lord become Israelites. Many want to claim that they are beneficiaries of ‘the covenants of promise’, having ‘hope and belonging to God’, but do not recognise that they also belong to the ‘Commonwealth of Israel’ (Eph 2:12). As God explained to Abraham, “…and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen 12:2). Not through: In. The way to inherit the covenants of promise is by being brought into his line of descendants. As Luther explains: "Through our faith in Christ Abraham gains paternity over us and over the nations of the earth according to the promise…" And by embracing this, we can find greater assurance that we will receive the benefits of this covenant promise; justification by faith to be adopted as the people of God and heirs to inherit His Kingdom (Gal 3:7-9, 29; 4:7). We can also find deeper meaning and significance when we realise that our spiritual lineage and heritage was not birthed at Pentecost in 30AD. Our roots go back to Abraham, and beyond. Not in an abstract, spiritualised, typological sense. But in a real and genuine way. 

Does this mean that we have to start speaking Hebrew, dress like Jews, eat challah bread, and live in Israel? No. There is room for cultural diversity within the commonwealth, provided it does not violate its constitution: The Scriptures. But what it does mean is that we cannot dismiss Old Testament laws and festivals as ‘Jewish’ and argue that ‘the Law was given to the Jews and not Gentiles, therefore it does not apply to us.’ This reasoning is faulty for two reasons. The first is that it is categorically incorrect because Jews are the tribe of Judah and the Law and festivals belong to God. They just happen to be given first to those people. Baptism, Communion, the Great Commission, and the Gospel were given first to the Jews, yet no one calls them Jewish. And secondly, it is irrelevant because even if they were only given to Israelites, by joining ourselves to God, we become Israelites too. Therefore, to say the Christian needs to keep the feasts etc… is not a cultural imposition as many would suggest. However, saying one must do so according to extra-biblical customs is cultural imposition. Now, there may be other grounds that these laws might be dismissed, but ‘cultural grounds’ cannot be one of them. What was given to Israel in the Old Testament is the culture of the Kingdom of God, and by joining ourselves to the King through Jesus the Messiah, we come under His constitution and enter His culture.

The church hasn’t replaced Israel. The church is Israel because there is no such thing as a Gentile Christian.

References

Calvin, John. (1581). Institutes of the Christian Religion. Kindle

Jewish Encyclopedia, Proselyte:

           http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12391-proselyte

Luther, (1535). Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, (trans. T. Graebner). Kindle

Christian Cultural Identity: Jew vs Gentile

As the ‘Like’ emojis on Facebook have recently revealed, Halloween has come and gone. In Australia, this annual event has never had a strong following. Growing up, our observance of the day involved little more than watching the latest Simpson's ‘Treehouse of Horror’ episode. I think we had trick-or-treaters once, but that’s about it. Recently it has developed a greater following here. Shops have begun selling Halloween merchandise and more people are celebrating it. But overall, Halloween is seen by most Australians as an irrelevant American celebration, at least the way it is observed today, and that it should be left over there. This country, despite its claims to multiculturalism, is really resistant to cultural imposition. And I’m sure that is true of many other countries too. And this comes back to the importance of Cultural Identity. Cultural Identity is what gives people meaning and understanding about their place in the world, it shapes and forms how they live, and it gives them a firm foundation upon which they can find dignity, value, and self-worth. And to impose another culture onto this is to challenge this foundation.

And we could say the same thing about our Christian identity and practices. It is important that we can discern between what is cultural and what is scriptural when it comes to the way we practice our faith or, live out our Christian Cultural Identity. It is important that scripture shapes and informs our Christian Cultural Identity and refuses the imposition of any cultural practice outside of scripture.

But what does the Bible say about the cultural identity of the Christian? How are we to understand who we are as followers of Christ? What does it mean and how does it look to live as a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven? Over the next three blog posts we are going to be exploring scripture to better understand this identity. Originally, I had planned for this to be only one post. But because of the size of the topic, it has turned into two. And this is just a warm up.

For the Christian, our identity is very much tied up with the person of Christ. Scripture tells us that in Him, we are holy and blameless new creations, free from condemnation, co-heirs and sons of God, belong to the body of Christ, citizens of God’s Kingdom, we have purpose, hope and eternal life and many others (Crossing Church). And because all who follow Jesus are united in Him, our global cultural identity has no advantage over another. As Paul wrote to the church in Rome: “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him” (Rom 10:12). In other words, because He is the God of both Jews and Gentiles, “he will show himself to be kind to all who will acknowledge and call on him as their God” (Calvin).

Much of the book of Romans is addressing the conflict between Jews and Gentiles.

 The Jews saw themselves as superior because they were God’s chosen people and the Gentiles were a bunch of ‘Johnny-come-latelys’ and therefore not real covenant members. This was an issue in many first-century communities of faith, and something that Paul addresses in the letter to the Ephesians. He explains that in Christ, both Jew and Gentile have been unified into “one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility” (Eph 2:15-16). The term new man most likely comes from the Latin phrase novus homo, which was a term to describe someone from the lower classes of society who was the first in their family to achieve senatorial status. But despite being recognised by the State as genuine senators, those who were senators by birth did not recognise them as such (Rosenquist, 2016). The same thing was happening with the Gentile believers as the Jewish believers were treating them as lower class citizens. This mindset comes from the edicts of Rabbi Shammai, who around 10AD founded a major Pharisaical school of thought that believed only descendants of Abraham were beloved by God and thought only extremely exceptional Gentiles should convert. This belief was articulated in what is known as the ‘18 Edicts’ that enforced the separation of Jews and Gentiles (Richardson, 2003). Within these edicts was a declaration that even though a Gentile may live out a life entirely faithful to the Torah, they were not really a Jew unless they underwent formal conversion (Rosenquist, 2016). This kind of thinking had flowed over into the New Covenant community and therefore required Paul to respond by declaring that the Gentiles did not have to undergo formal conversion to Judaism to be saved (which is the context for the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15), and that the Gentiles are of equal status.

And the Gentiles saw themselves as the new way and “scorned everything Jewish – and very likely with a number of intermediate positions” (Moo, 1996: 21). So, as well as dealing with Jewish feelings of superiority, Paul also had to deal with Gentile pride. This is why he reminded them that the Jews are the foundation from which the Gentiles have entered into covenant with God through Jesus (Rom 11), and that there was a time when they were not members of the covenant community of God (Eph 2:11-12). And so one of Paul’s major purposes in many of his letters is to say that neither Jews nor Greeks (Gentiles) are better than the because both are under sin (Rom 3:9), and that God is the creator, Lord, and saviour of both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 3:29-30). This is why, in Christ, there is no Jew or Gentile in God’s eyes because both are of equal status (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11).

And this is one of the many great truths of the Gospel; that people of all nationalities are welcomed to be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. People everywhere can experience salvation without becoming Jews. And this was a mental obstacle in Peter’s mind that needed to be overcome through the vision of the sheet and his encounter with Cornelius: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation, anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35). But it is interesting what the church has done with this idea.

There is a perception that because Gentiles do not have to adopt ‘Jewish cultural practices’ to be saved, that their identity remains radically distinct. Ironically, through the process of upholding their equality, they have maintained their separation.  And of course, many cultural distinctions would remain. Language, food, dress, extra-biblical practices, and extra-biblical values can remain distinct. This is very much like how no two people from the same culture become exactly the same when they become followers of Jesus, but are united in their faith. Scripture, however, seems to suggest that rather than maintaining their Gentile identity, followers of Jesus who are Gentile by birth actually take on a new identity. And this becomes evident when we examine Romans 11, Ephesians 2, and the origins of the word ‘church’.

In Romans 11, Paul is addressing the Gentiles about their spiritual heritage and explains:

…if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true…. if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.                          (Rom 11:13,17-20,24).

Here is an agricultural metaphor, explaining how Gentiles have been ‘grafted onto’ an olive tree, a symbol of Israel (Jer 11:16). I should explain that I am not describing the modern geopolitical state of Israel. But rather, the nation of people who were united in their covenant with God.  And with grafting branches, the new branch assumes and takes on the identity of the tree it has joined. It ceases to be a member of the old tree, and now becomes a part of the new tree. So, through this imagery Paul is saying is that Gentiles have joined Israel, thus becoming a part of them as if they were a natural member. And in doing so, he is getting the boastful Gentiles to remember the origins of their salvation and to realise “that they did not otherwise grow up as God’s people than as they were grafted in the stock of Abraham” (Calvin). There is no Gentile and Jewish tree, but one tree representing Israel as ‘members of the same body’ (Eph 3:6). Note too, the order this takes place. The Gentiles join Israel, it’s not the Jews who join the Gentiles. In the Gospel, an Israelite identity maintains priority. As I often heard in the Army, “you joined us, we didn’t join you.”

In part two, we are going to examine Ephesians 2 to examine more deeply what it means for a Gentile to be grafted into Israel. 

References

Calvin, John. Romans. Kindle

Crossing Church. Our Identity in Christ According to the Scriptures:

             http://crossinglouisville.com/sermon/our-identity-in-christ/

Moo, (1996). The Epistle to the Romans.

Richardson, (2003). Origins of Our Faith: The Hebrew Roots of Christianity.

Rosenquist, (2016). The Bridge: Crossing Over Into the Fullness of Covenant Life. Kindle

Jesus in the Feast of Tabernacles - Podcast

For something different, I have attached a link to a podcast page where I have uploaded a sermon I preached recently on the Feast of Tabernacles, or Sukkot. In this message I talk about how the Feast is a reminder of God's desire to dwell among His people and how Jesus is the means to the fulfilment of this. It also considers how Sukkot points us to the final days and how because of Jesus, we can dwell with God forever.
The content of this message is just an introduction to the topic and I encourage you to test what is said and research the topic further.

A special mention of thanks to Tyler for her help with the historical context in the message. I strongly recommend her blog page http://theancientbridge.com Lots of great insightful articles.

I hope to record more podcasts  in the future of my past and future posts and possibly even vodcasts.

http://www.podcastgarden.com/episode/that-i-may-dwell-among-them_90539

Amendment:
In the message when I talk about the meaning of atonement, I meant to say Akkadian rather than Semitic because, as has been pointed out to me, Arabic is a Semitic language.

The Law and Love: They Work Both Ways

I have found a few responses on Facebook over the last week or so, mainly from The Gospel Coalition, to a recent sermon sample posted by Steven Furtick. It is taken from a message he preached mid last year called ‘It Works Both Ways’, and in this portion of his sermon he makes the claim: ‘God broke the law for love’. So I thought I would check it out for myself, and after watching the clip, I was a bit surprised and concerned. Because at face value, if true, this teaching has a number of significant implications that I will cover later. I have a lot of respect for Steven. I enjoy listening to his messages, I love his passion for the Gospel and mission, and I know he honours the Word. So after watching this, I thought I would check it out because I really don’t like judging someone because of a sound-bite. It is really easy to misunderstand what someone is trying to say if you don’t have the context in which they are saying it. Maybe he meant something slightly different, but he just didn't explain it very well. And so I went and watched the whole message (here) to get a better idea of what he was trying to say. After doing so, I could see what he was getting at, but it was still problematic. What I want to do is provide a summary of that context and evaluate the statement ‘God broke the law for love.’

Steven’s message was based on 1Jn 4:7-12:

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

Steven's message was about the importance of reciprocation in relationships, and how this is true of love in our relationship with God. Although, as John points out here, it is quite asymmetrical with God as He gives much more love than we do or could. Steven went on to talk about the importance of love in that relationship saying that while some might emphasise the instructions to ‘be holy, be better, be pure’, he suggests that John is putting the primary emphasis on the command ‘be loved’ (a play on the word beloved), because you cannot give what you have not got. In other words, unless we believe God loves us; we cannot love others. This is what Steven considered to be God’s leverage to move us to follow Him. He explained that God had all the leverage in the Law that ‘we couldn't keep’, but He walked away from that leverage when He sent Jesus into the world and instead used the leverage of love. Therefore, by giving grace instead of law, ‘God broke the law for love’. And because God loved us, we need to make that complete by loving others.

What I really appreciated about this message is how Steven explained that God seeks to primarily influence and motivate and move His people by His love rather than bullying them into obedience. But what he had to say beyond that reveals a misunderstanding about the nature of the Law and the Old Covenant, and the grace and love of God. You see, he seems to separate the former from the latter. He sees the Law and Old Covenant as being divorced from the grace and love of God.

Grace existed in the Old Covenant as it was according to His love, grace, and mercy that he redeemed the people out of Egypt. And it was this act of redemption that was to be the motivation of the people’s obedience to the Law, as we see in the prologue to the Ten Commandments. So, while the love of God demonstrated in the redeeming work of Jesus on the cross was unique in its degree, significance, and effect, what John wrote is not a radically new concept. Moreover, to give the Law is a demonstration of grace and love as it allowed a Holy God to dwell among His people. Moreover, if God is loving and gracious, and all that he does is an expression of that, and if the Law is a reflection of God's character, then how can we say the Law is contrary to love and grace? In fact, the whole Law hangs, as Jesus tells us, on the two commandments to love God, and love your neighbour (Matt 22:36-40). Every single commandment is an expression of either one of those. As John elsewhere writes, to obey God’s commandments is how we love Him (1Jn 5:2-3). 

And so, it is this belief that the law is opposed to grace that shaped Steven’s sermon, and I belief inherited to many protestant Christians. In his thinking, since the law is contrary to grace, then obviously God had to get rid of the law to give grace. But as we saw, the law is not contradictory to grace, nor was the Law the primary basis of covenant with His people in the Old Covenant either. It was a consequence and demonstration of that covenant. Also note that Jesus said he didn't come to do away with the Law, rather He came to make it fully known and anyone who teaches otherwise will be considered least in the Kingdom (Matt 5:17,19). If Jesus, and God, did away with the law and broke it in order to bring about grace, as Steven seems to imply, then we have a problem. Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, it says that no one is to add or subtract from the Law. If Jesus did this, then effectively He sinned and disqualified himself as our perfect sacrifice, and we are still dead in our sins. But we know that Jesus was without sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God (2Cor 5:21).

Paul tells us in Romans that rather than God turning a blind eye to sin and ignoring the law, which would be a corrupt injustice, He punished our disobedience to the Law in Jesus. It was at the cross that God “showed his righteousness… so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom 3:26). This is possible because the righteous requirement for dealing with our sin would be satisfied in Christ as the debt for our transgressions (Col 2:14) was paid in full by Jesus. So rather than God breaking the law for love, “He has broken antinomianism [lawlessness] for love” (Wilson). If God could simply take away or overlook the law, then not only is there no longer any sin to give grace for, but also Christ would have died for nothing.

I think that Steven’s sermon was an encouraging and empowering one as his listeners were told to embrace the love God has for them, and reflect it to others. And while getting caught up on six words from this message might sound like a distraction from a great message and petty, they were a pretty significant six words.  I hope that we have misunderstood Steven. I hope that he made a poor choice of words. Because to misrepresent what God has called perfect and holy is a pretty big deal. To effectively accuse Him of being a sinner is a pretty big deal. But I don't think Steven intentionally did that. Having listened to him preach a number of Sermons, I know he wouldn't believe that. I think that his low view of the Law has simply lead him to make a mistake. Nonetheless, this serves as a reminder to us who are recipients of the ministry of the Word to not simply swallow everything proclaimed from the pulpit on Sunday. Rather, as good Berean Baptists, we must test everything we hear, no matter how ‘cool’ they seem or how inspirational they sound.

Wilson, J. "God Broke Antinomianism for Love", thegospelcoalition.org. 

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/gospeldrivenchurch/2016/04/06/god-broke-antinonianism-for-love/

Image from:

http://dc95wa4w5yhv.cloudfront.net/image-cache/law-and-grace_1_724_480_80.jpg

A review of McKnight's 'The Blue Parakeet'

The concept of a Berean Baptist is more about promoting an attitude towards scripture than it is a specific movement or doctrine. And this attitude is pretty much summed up by 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (emphasis added). It means that the blank page between the Old and New Testament in your bible belongs in the bin, because ALL scripture is useful. This definitely has implications on how we read the Bible, often referred to as ‘hermeneutics’, which would then have implications on what one believes and practices, and why. So I thought that I should take some time to read about hermeneutics. On the recommendation of a review by The Gospel Coalition, I recently read The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible by Scot McKnight. And its premise and concept is quite unique and thoughtful.

Defining the Blue Bird

Scot was inspired to develop the metaphor of the Blue Parakeet by an incident in his backyard. One morning, an escaped blue parakeet had noisily come in and disrupted his predictable viewing of sparrows peacefully feeding. In this experience, he recognised that this is some people’s experience when they read the Bible. According to McKnight, the Blue Parakeets are those difficult verses in scripture that challenge our theology, but we’d rather keep caged up and controlled instead of letting them fly free and speak for themselves. These are the inconvenient verses ‘we would like to shoo away’ (25) And so the aim of McKnight’s book is to answer the question: what do we do with the Blue Parakeets? And what he proposes is a way to read the Bible ‘that does not treat difficult verses like unwelcome pests’ (Tallon).

The existence and handling of Blue Parakeets is a reality I engage with on my blog, as I seek to highlight and explain the ‘blue parakeets’ many have regarding their theology of Torah etc… And it wasn’t until I had someone point them out to me, that I discovered there were a number of passages that I had often overlooked or ignored. Initially I had attempted to ignore them. But like trying to block out a squawking parakeet (not the best analogy for the Word of God, but you get the idea), it proved fruitless. I then attempted to tame them and conform them to what I thought they should mean. But in the end, I had to submit to what they were saying. And this is what McKnight says in his book: “God did not give the Bible so we could master him or it; God gave the Bible so we could live it, so we could be mastered by it. The moment we think we’ve mastered it, we have failed to be readers of the Bible" (52).

Understanding the Blue Bird

So, excited by the premise of the introduction and keen to become a better handler of those Blue Parakeets, I read on. And what it came down to was that we as readers need to exercise discernment of those difficult passages with the hermeneutic of the Bible as a developing story as God interacted with humanity. Thus, when it comes to applying and living out Scripture we need to conclude either, ‘that was then, but this is now’, or ‘that was then, and also now.’ I found myself somewhat frustrated as McKnight never really explained

how we discern that. For example, he writes “Yes, I think the first Jewish Christians probably kept kosher. That’s not for today” (28). But he never really explains why. Now of course his book isn’t on the place of food laws for today, but McKnight could have at least explained how he came to that conclusion. But, I suppose that the reason he never really explained that is because of his hermeneutic. For him, if we read the Bible as a rule book then we’ve missed the point. Rather, our primary hermeneutic should be to read the bible as a story in which different people speak God’s story in their way for their day (64). And I agree with Scot here. This is a principle that is good and helpful because not all of scripture is prescriptive, and not all scripture applies equally to all. There are instructions in Leviticus that apply to only the Aaronic priesthood, so of course they’re not for us. There are instructions for sin offerings in Leviticus. Since Jesus is our final sacrifice for the atonement of sin, those aren't for us either. But this hermeneutic has a somewhat arbitrary nature to it. McKnight explains that discernment, and his book, “is about the grey and fuzzy areas” and not the clear teachings “with which most Christians agree” like murder and pre-marital sex (131). But what is grey is defined by ones hermeneutic. For those Scot defines as literalists, nothing in the bible is grey. Also, is majority agreement the best measure of black and white? Maybe we should ask Martin Luther.

In reading, I found that McKnight’s hermeneutic lacks clear definition of boundaries. He explains that “Any idea of imposing a foreign culture, age, or language on another… quenches the dynamic power of the gospel and the Bible” (28). And this is true, we need to distinguish between culture/tradition and Truth. But because of his hermeneutic, McKnight interprets most ‘expressions of the gospel’ in the bible as cultural. To use a couple of examples from above, because Scot considers eating kosher and keeping Sabbath are ‘Jewish’, they therefore don’t apply to us. But to categorise parts of the Old Testament Law, the divinely articulated manifestation of the righteousness of God and the values of the Kingdom as ‘culturally Jewish’, is flawed. Why is the Sabbath (part of the ten commandments) Jewish, but not murder? Perhaps it’s because they’re the main group who keep it. Is it Jewish because it was given to Israelites? So was the sermon on the mount, and the great commission. Had he read the bible wider, he would see the Blue Parakeets to his theology that prescribe the Law for both the native born and the stranger. Whether kosher and Sabbath are actually for today is a different conversation, but to write them off as merely cultural only ignores more Blue Parakeets than it tries to acknowledge.

The book finishes with a case study of the issue of women in ministry. To actually see him work through a Blue Parakeet issue was helpful. Firstly, he took the ‘silent women’ passages from Paul and considered them in their historical context. Then he looked at other biblical examples in both the New and Old Testament of women in ministry to conclude that God does in fact use women for ministry. But, this is where Scot becomes a bit inconsistent again. Why is he using examples from then, to make a case for doing something now? How do we know that women in ministry isn’t “from a bygone era… and a bygone form of expression… [with] precious little [significance] for most of us today” (28)? Now don’t get me wrong, I'm not saying it is. I'm not disagreeing with his conclusions; I’m questioning the inconsistency of his approach. Yes, his examples do challenge the banning women from ministry, but he does so using a method he criticised and doesn't develop well.

Conclusion

In the end, because his process was not explained very well, and was at times inconsistent, I found myself disappointed that the exciting promises McKnight made in his introductions to help us make sense of difficult passages fell short. But that’s not to say I got nothing from the book. He made many points and raised many good questions that challenged me and helped me to refine my own hermeneutic.

I think if I were to take anything from reading McKnight’s book, it is the way it teaches us and encourages us to be willing to challenge traditional interpretations of scripture. When building our theology, we need to considering the wider context of the Bible and we should be willing to allow the ‘Blue Bird’ passages to sing and reshape our theology. Not that we reject ‘traditional’ interpretations outright – that would be chronologically arrogant. Men and women who are smarter and wiser than us have gone before us – but we should be willing to reject those interpretations which are based more on the prejudices, opinions, agendas, and traditions of men rather than the Word of God.

References:

McKnight, Scot. The Blue Parakeet. Zondervan: Grand Rapids. 2008.

Tallon, Philip. “The Blue Parakeet Faces Inconvenient Verses”, christianitytoday.com. 27 Feb 2009.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/january/37.69.html