Eternal Perspectives

There is an interesting conversation – whether developing or ending, I do not know – in a couple of the comments(1) sections(2) at PyroManiac. Jonathan began by writing,

The definition of “truth” is of course a major pomo question. Would you care to define “truth” and particularly “timeless truth”? Is truth static and timeless, or is it a dynamic concept vis-à-vis culture with Scripture as the “norming norm”? I think that it is good to think about these things because these are questions that we must be able to intelligently dialogue about with culture at large.

After being wrongly accused and maligned – there are a lot of aspiring Pr 26:7 men out there – he added,

For example, how would [one] interpret Exodus 21:28-32 (goring ox owner gets death for the death of a man, but the death of a slave is only worth 30 shekels) or Exodus 21:20-21 (death of servant only gets punishment, but if beaten servant lives for 1-2 days there will be no punishment because he is “property”). Since these are God’s commands, I assume we would say it was true for ancient Israel. But is it timeless truth? Would it be true for Americans today?

Not getting a response – Jonathan is relentless/persistent/tenacious if nothing else – he followed up the next day with a comment that finally evoked a response from Phil:

Phil, would you say God’s commands here were “passing fashions” or “fads”? I tend to think that they were true then, but not true today. Of course this would mean that not all truth is timeless. Oh boy . . .

To which Phil replied,

I hope you don’t think that just because the Old Covenant gave way to the New, the old ceased being true. Certain laws and ceremonies may no longer be applicable under a new covenant, but they are nonetheless true. I think you are failing to make a proper distinction, and it’s going to get you into serious trouble, if you start to think of truth itself as fluid and changeable.

Since I myself am an aspiring Pr 26:17 kinda guy, I will introject myself into their conversation and (if successful) hijack it for the purposes of pronouncing the wise path to follow and (hopefully) getting a whole lot of traffic from the PyroGuy (cf. Mk 7:28).

There are several issues to address: definitions of words, God’s priorities in history, and the purpose of the Law. I’ll touch upon each of these, some in a bit more depth than others.

Two key words require definition: truth and timeless. I am no philosopher – see Jeremy for more insightful comments regarding truth and time - but it appears to me that the word truth can have various applications; if not, then it would not require adjectives such as “timeless.”

When God provides laws to regulate society, as He did with Israel and does now with the Church, what He prescribes and proscribes is true in each setting; the underlying principle or truth upon which the command is founded, however, is certainly timeless since it reflects the character and person of God. The truth of a regulation may pass but the truth from which the command emerges remains. So truth is timeless even though the commands coming from it may not be.

Jonathan mentions the questionable justice regarding a slave and the apparent devaluing of a servant’s status. Equally troubling, perhaps, are passages such as Deu 22 that regulate justice with regard to women:

23 “If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her,
24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
25 “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die.
26 “But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.
27 “When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.
28 “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

Moses is providing case law for the Israelites, but it is disturbing to our 21st-century sensibilities to read of the consequences. In the first situation, both the man and the woman die because of their offense against the woman’s husband; in the second, the man dies because he has sinned against his male neighbor, and in the final case, the offended party is not the girl – who may have to marry the rapist – but the girl’s father. Upon what truth, it may be asked, do these laws rest?

There is no easy answer to this problem and most commentators – save those with particular axes to grind – fail to give the inherent problems much consideration. It is tempting – as well as valid – to fall back on the response given by Paul to those “objectors” who questioned the fairness and goodness of God: “On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it?” (Rom 9:20). But there is another, theological reply to the difficulty that I’ll attempt.

It is obvious throughout the Bible that God’s ultimate priorities are not always what we would have them to be. Whereas we might question the justice of such a practice, God is not chiefly concerned with social reform. This is not to suggest that social justice and equality are not priorities, only that they do not appear to be His highest priorities.

Whether fair or not, the reality of the situation was that a girl who had been raped was not a likely candidate for marriage. By requiring the man to make compensation and forcing him to marry her, God thereby provided for the victim for the rest of her life. There were no government programs to assist single mothers or women and there were few viable sources of income available to them. Given the status of women at the time, God provided more than many surrounding nations and cultures did for such women. The timeless truth? God provides and protects.

Third, it is important to understand the purpose of the Law as given to the Israelites. Ritually, it was to make it possible for a holy God to dwell with an unholy people; thus, various sacrifices were required to demonstrate both the holiness of God and the sinfulness of the people. The law was never intended to be approached as a means to salvation.

Legally and ethically, the law had vital purposes. A key passage is provided by Paul in Gal 3; I’ll make some comments as I go:

21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

As mentioned above, the purpose of the law was not to reveal a means of salvation. Salvation was by faith, as always, and key was the Abrahamic Covenant. The Law was complementary to the covenant, not in competition with it.

22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

There is some debate over what Paul means here. Was the purpose of the law to regulate sin, reveal sin, or both? Good scholars disagree but perhaps the context favors revelation rather than regulation. This seems to be the case since the next verse says:

23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.

As Scot McKnight points out in the NIV Application Commentary on Galatians, “faith” here is not referring to individual, salvific faith but rather to the era of faith that came with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

The word “tutor” here is misleading for, as McKnight says, the law actually serves as more of a guardian or even guard. Here are some additional voices:

“The slave assigned to this role would watch out for the student on his way to school and help him with his manners and schoolwork, but he was not the teacher himself.” – Keener

“The pedagogue here was not a ’schoolmaster’ (KJV) but a slave to whom a son was committed from age six or seven to puberty. These slaves were severe disciplinarians and were charged with guarding the children from the evils of society and giving them moral training . . . It is better then to understand that the Law did not lead us to Christ but that it was the disciplinarian until Christ came.” – Campbell

“The image here is not one of the Law gradually educating a child toward recognition of Christ, but of the Law forcing the child into patterns of behavior that were contrary to his nagture, and thus demonstrated again and again the reality of sin (4.1). What the Law does then is constantly remind the sinner that he is “a prisoner of sin.” – Richards

26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Since Christ has come and the era of faith has begun – or, as Paul says in Romans, since we have been transferred from the realm of sin and death to the realm of Spirit and life – we are no longer in need of a guard. We have cast off the cloak of childhood and donned the clothes of maturity (the Roman rite of passage may have been in Paul’s mind). We are not under the law but certainly the law, being an expression of God’s character, remains true and valuable for us as believers. Forensically the law is fulfilled in us by virtue of our union with Christ; practically, the law is being fulfilled in us as we are conformed to the image of Christ.

Now, you may be asking yourself, “What on earth does this have to do with Jonathan and Phil’s conversation?” I was wondering the same myself – oh, it’s this: Phil is right. The true statements and conditions of the law may not be applicable at every point, but the principle remains true – or, more accurately, the principle remains truth. Even the sabbath has applications – i.e., truth – for us, as even a cursory reading of the Book of Hebrews makes clear.

Phil is concerned about Jonathan’s possible slide down a slippery slope of Bible veracity and integrity. Given the culture in which we live, this is a valid concern and a loving response to Jonathan. As my long explanation above hopefully demonstrated, things can be reconciled and explained but it takes work to do so. Phil, I think, has done such work and he is hopeful that Jonathan will do the same.