How To Know If A Bible Principle Applies Today

Perspective Digest Perspective Digest

Volume 13 Issue 4 Fall Article 1

2008

How To Know If A Bible Principle Applies Today How To Know If A Bible Principle Applies Today

Roy Gane Andrews University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd

Part of the Biblical Studies Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Gane, Roy (2008) "How To Know If A Bible Principle Applies Today," Perspective Digest: Vol. 13 : Iss. 4 , Article 1. Available at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss4/1

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Adventist Theological Society at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Perspective Digest by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected].

6

believers’ legal standing with Godremains despite the sins in theirlives. Another view credits Lutherwith saying that justification is aheavenly declaration of a simultane-ous spiritual transformation. Justifi-cation causes sanctification. Lutherinterpreted Paul as using imagery ofthe law courts and Jesus as using theimagery of the new birth; but theywere both teaching salvation. UntilAdventists come to unanimity onthe teachings of Paul and Luther,how can they see themselves as “thechildren of Luther,” inviting theChristian world to return to “thespirit of the Reformation”?Erwin R. GaneAngwin, California

On “I Rest My Case” (PD 2008:1)I am glad that Richard Davidson

comes out with confidence in Christas he faces the judgment of Daniel 7.

He says this was not always thecase. “While growing up in the Sev-enth-day Adventist Church, I used toshudder at the mention of the inves-tigative judgment.”

Davidson is not the only Ad -ventist who gives this testimony.Many others share his experience. I

raise the question as to the basic rea-son for this testimony. I suggest thatit comes from an early concentra-tion on the chapter, “The Investiga-tive Judgment” in The Great Contro-versy.

A failure to understand the grow-ing Ellen White with her fuller pres -entation of righteousness by faith isoften the root cause of our problem.As early as 1889, Ellen White comesout with gems in “Joshua and theAngel” in volume 5 of the Testi-monies. “He pleads their cause andvanquishes their accuser by themighty arguments of Calvary. . . . Wecannot answer the charges of Satanagainst us. . . . He is able to silencethe accuser with arguments foundednot upon our merits, but on hisown.”

If we accept Ellen White as alesser light, only a panoramic viewof her writings will spare us fromdespair.Eric WebsterCape Town, South Africa

*Roy Gane, Ph.D., is Professor of He-brew Bible and Ancient Near EasternLanguages, and Director of the Ph.D.in Religion and Th.D. Programs at theSeventh-day Adventist TheologicalSem i nary, Andrews University, Ber -rien Springs, Michigan.

What is a Christian to do about God’s very specific instructions that appear

throughout Scripture?

B Y R O Y G A N E *

HOW TO KNOWIF A BIBLE PRINCIPLE

APPLIES TODAY

with Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteron-omy, and chunks of Exodus verysimply: We keep the Ten Command-ments, and the rest of the Law andCommandments do not apply toChristians. One might ask how theysquared that with what Jesus himself

re Christians expected to keepany of the biblical laws, or arethere any from which wewould gain benefit by volun-tarily observing them? We are

not talking about a legalistic, works-oriented approach to salvation, butabout people who are already savedenjoying fuller “new covenant” lifeand service by following divine guid-ance and thereby revealing God’scharacter to others.

For many centuries, Christianshave followed a simplistic approach:“The early Church Fathers dealt

7

A

1

Gane: How To Know If A Bible Principle Applies Today

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2008

of timeless, universal moral law, theyare not the only moral laws in theBible. Exodus 23:9, for example, con-tains another one: “Do not oppress analien.”3 This works out part of theoverarching principle of love for fel-low human beings (compare Leviti-cus 19:18; John 15:12), on which thelast six of the Ten Commandmentsare also based (Matt. 22:39, 40; Rom.13:9). Another example is Leviticus19:11, where the comprehensive com-mandment against lying is found,rather than in Exodus 20:16. Ritual law regulates a ritual sys-

tem, by means of which human be-ings interact with entities that areordinarily inaccessible to the mate rialdomain, such as to God (e.g., by of-fering sacrifices) and ritual impurity(by removing it through purifica-tion). The Old Testament ritual lawsthat were required to be carried out atthe Israelite sanctuary/temple, wherethe Aaronic priests officiated (see e.g.,Leviticus 17:3-9), can no longer applybecause this institution is gone.

Laws having to do with regula-tion and treatment of ritual impuri-ties to keep them from contactingthe holy sphere of the earthly sanc-tuary with its resident divine Pres-ence are also obsolete for the samereason: The sanctuary no longer ex-ists. Since the death, resurrection,and ascension of Christ, Christianworship is focused toward God’stemple in heaven, where Christ hasbeen ministering (Heb. 7–10). Nev-

secular domains often appear to-gether. For example, the “religious”laws of Exodus 28a-30; 23:10-19aappear in contexts primarily relatingto secular life. The remarkably di-verse mixture of laws in Leviticus 19gives the impression that distinc-tions between religious and secularare largely irrelevant; what is impor-tant is that God’s people keep all Hiscom mandments.

In the ancient Near East, thiswholistic approach to life under Godis unique to Israel. Only in biblicallaw collections “are moral exhorta-tions and religious injunctions com-bined with legal prescriptions; else-where . . . these three distinct spheresare found in separate independentcollections.”2

Moral law expresses principlesthat modern people would regard ei-ther as religious, e.g., the first four ofthe Ten Commandments regardingresponsibilities primarily to God(Ex. 20:3-11), or secular, e.g., the lastsix of the Ten Commandments cov-ering responsibilities primarily tohuman beings (vss. 12-17).

Two points should be clarified re-garding moral law:

First, any command that God re-quires a given group of people toobey could be viewed as a moral lawfor them in the broad sense that it isrelevant to their divine-human rela-tionship.

Second, though the Ten Com-mandments are towering expressions

3. Civil laws applicable onlyunder the Israelite theocratic gov-ernment.

4. Health laws that have ongoingvalue because human bodies func-tion the same today as they did inancient times.

While such categories have somevalidity and usefulness, the under-standing of them as just summa-rized needs major nuance and qual-ification. Careful examination leadsto a paradigm shift and opens up atreasure trove of practical guidancefor daily living.

To begin with, we should recog-nize that the Bible does not delineatecategories such as those outlinedabove. They are more recent analyti-cal constructs. Biblical law does noteven make the sharp distinction be-tween religious and secular categoriesto which we are so accustomed.

Since every aspect of life of thepeople of God came under His juris-diction, laws belonging to what wewould classify as the religious and

had to say about Torah, that he didnot come to change a single ‘jot ortittle’ of it; further, when asked whatwere the greatest of the command-ments, Jesus gives two, neither ofwhich comes from the ten. Rather,one is from Deuteronomy, and theother from Leviticus. Nevertheless,the Church Fathers deemed thoseextra 603 laws to be superfluous.There were those who thought theyshould be removed from the Chris -tian canon entirely, but fortunatelythey did not prevail.”1

For the purpose of determining ifor how various kinds of Old Testa-ment laws apply today, it is traditionalfor Christians to divide them into cat-egories, such as the following:

1. Moral laws, consisting of theTen Commandments, which expresstimeless and universal principlesgoverning relationships with Godand other human beings.

2. Ritual laws that served as“types” or “shadows” until they mettheir fulfillment at the Cross.

Laws having to do with regulation and treatment

of ritual impurities to keep them from contacting the holy

sphere of the earthly sanctuary with its resident divine

Presence are obsolete: The sanctuary no longer exists. Since

the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ,

Christian worship is focused toward God’s temple in heaven,

where Christ has been ministering (Heb. 7–10).

8 92

Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 1

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss4/1

of timeless, universal moral law, theyare not the only moral laws in theBible. Exodus 23:9, for example, con-tains another one: “Do not oppress analien.”3 This works out part of theoverarching principle of love for fel-low human beings (compare Leviti-cus 19:18; John 15:12), on which thelast six of the Ten Commandmentsare also based (Matt. 22:39, 40; Rom.13:9). Another example is Leviticus19:11, where the comprehensive com-mandment against lying is found,rather than in Exodus 20:16. Ritual law regulates a ritual sys-

tem, by means of which human be-ings interact with entities that areordinarily inaccessible to the mate rialdomain, such as to God (e.g., by of-fering sacrifices) and ritual impurity(by removing it through purifica-tion). The Old Testament ritual lawsthat were required to be carried out atthe Israelite sanctuary/temple, wherethe Aaronic priests officiated (see e.g.,Leviticus 17:3-9), can no longer applybecause this institution is gone.

Laws having to do with regula-tion and treatment of ritual impuri-ties to keep them from contactingthe holy sphere of the earthly sanc-tuary with its resident divine Pres-ence are also obsolete for the samereason: The sanctuary no longer ex-ists. Since the death, resurrection,and ascension of Christ, Christianworship is focused toward God’stemple in heaven, where Christ hasbeen ministering (Heb. 7–10). Nev-

secular domains often appear to-gether. For example, the “religious”laws of Exodus 28a-30; 23:10-19aappear in contexts primarily relatingto secular life. The remarkably di-verse mixture of laws in Leviticus 19gives the impression that distinc-tions between religious and secularare largely irrelevant; what is impor-tant is that God’s people keep all Hiscom mandments.

In the ancient Near East, thiswholistic approach to life under Godis unique to Israel. Only in biblicallaw collections “are moral exhorta-tions and religious injunctions com-bined with legal prescriptions; else-where . . . these three distinct spheresare found in separate independentcollections.”2

Moral law expresses principlesthat modern people would regard ei-ther as religious, e.g., the first four ofthe Ten Commandments regardingresponsibilities primarily to God(Ex. 20:3-11), or secular, e.g., the lastsix of the Ten Commandments cov-ering responsibilities primarily tohuman beings (vss. 12-17).

Two points should be clarified re-garding moral law:

First, any command that God re-quires a given group of people toobey could be viewed as a moral lawfor them in the broad sense that it isrelevant to their divine-human rela-tionship.

Second, though the Ten Com-mandments are towering expressions

3. Civil laws applicable onlyunder the Israelite theocratic gov-ernment.

4. Health laws that have ongoingvalue because human bodies func-tion the same today as they did inancient times.

While such categories have somevalidity and usefulness, the under-standing of them as just summa-rized needs major nuance and qual-ification. Careful examination leadsto a paradigm shift and opens up atreasure trove of practical guidancefor daily living.

To begin with, we should recog-nize that the Bible does not delineatecategories such as those outlinedabove. They are more recent analyti-cal constructs. Biblical law does noteven make the sharp distinction be-tween religious and secular categoriesto which we are so accustomed.

Since every aspect of life of thepeople of God came under His juris-diction, laws belonging to what wewould classify as the religious and

had to say about Torah, that he didnot come to change a single ‘jot ortittle’ of it; further, when asked whatwere the greatest of the command-ments, Jesus gives two, neither ofwhich comes from the ten. Rather,one is from Deuteronomy, and theother from Leviticus. Nevertheless,the Church Fathers deemed thoseextra 603 laws to be superfluous.There were those who thought theyshould be removed from the Chris -tian canon entirely, but fortunatelythey did not prevail.”1

For the purpose of determining ifor how various kinds of Old Testa-ment laws apply today, it is traditionalfor Christians to divide them into cat-egories, such as the following:

1. Moral laws, consisting of theTen Commandments, which expresstimeless and universal principlesgoverning relationships with Godand other human beings.

2. Ritual laws that served as“types” or “shadows” until they mettheir fulfillment at the Cross.

Laws having to do with regulation and treatment

of ritual impurities to keep them from contacting the holy

sphere of the earthly sanctuary with its resident divine

Presence are obsolete: The sanctuary no longer exists. Since

the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ,

Christian worship is focused toward God’s temple in heaven,

where Christ has been ministering (Heb. 7–10).

8 9 3

Gane: How To Know If A Bible Principle Applies Today

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2008

gard to which the principle applies:We are liable for damage to theproperty of other people resultingfrom our carelessness or neglect.

Some civil laws no longer applysimply because we lack the social in-stitutions they were designed to reg-ulate, for instance, servitude (Ex.21:2-11, 20, 21, 26, 27) and ancestralland tenure (Lev. 25:8-55). By study-ing these laws in light of their cul-tural context, however, we can stilllearn valuable principles of justiceand mercy to protect those who aresocially and economically disadvan-taged. For example, even when yourworkers are completely dependentupon you and under your control,“Do not rule over them ruthlessly,but fear your God” (vs. 43).

Regarding health law, in connec-tion with Leviticus 11, we found thatPentateuchal laws for which we recog-nize health implications are consis-tently formulated with motivationsother than health. God was con-cerned for the health of His people,but He bestowed this benefit wholisti-cally as a blessing that would come

enforce the law in this way becausethe system no longer exists. So wehave found that the law containsboth ongoing and temporary ele-ments. If we simplistically dismiss itas a civil/Mosaic law and thereforeno longer applicable, we miss thetimeless moral element: You mustnot hit a person in such a way thathe or she dies. A modern court inany country would undoubtedlyagree that such striking is a crime,although it may or may not imposethe same penalty.

In civil laws, timeless principlescome to us in various layers of cul-tural garb. When we get below thespecifics to the underlying dynam-ics, we can find helpful guidelines toclothe in modern dress. For exam-ple: “If a man uncovers a pit or digsone and fails to cover it and an ox ora donkey falls into it, the owner ofthe pit must pay for the loss; he mustpay its owner, and the dead animalwill be his” (Ex. 21:33, 34). Althoughthis could literally apply today, mostof us do not have oxen or donkeys.We do have cars and trucks, with re-

differences between the two laws.First, the civil law is narrower inscope, limited to striking that resultsin death. But this is still a timelessprinciple. Second, the civil law at-taches a penalty, namely, capitalpunishment, that would be adminis-tered by the Israelite system of ju-risprudence within the theocraticcovenant community. We can nolonger count on this court system to

ertheless, the Old Testament rituallaws teach us much about the natureand character of God and human -kind, the dynamics of divine-humaninteraction, and God’s plan of salva-tion through Christ.

The ritual of circumcision origi-nated long before the Israelite sanc-tuary was constructed and was neverdependent upon its function (Gene-sis 17). However, this requirementwas removed for GentileChristians when the newcovenant was trans-formed from a covenantof Israelite election, asJeremiah originallyproph esied (31:31-34),to a universal covenantwithout ethnic bound-aries (Acts 15; Gal. 3:26-29). Civil law can embody

and exemplify timelessmoral/ethical principleswithin the ancient Is-raelite context. Consider,for example, the fol -lowing civil law from the“Cov enant Code” of Exo-dus 21–23: “Anyone whostrikes a man and killshim shall surely be put todeath” (21:12). This con-textualizes the sixth ofthe Ten Commandments,which reads: “You shallnot murder” (20:13).

There are two basic

10 11

“If a man uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover

it and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the owner of

the pit must pay for the loss; he must pay its owner, and the

dead animal will be his” (Ex. 21:33, 34). Although this

could literally apply today, most of us do not have oxen or

donkeys. We do have cars and trucks.

4

Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 1

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss4/1

gard to which the principle applies:We are liable for damage to theproperty of other people resultingfrom our carelessness or neglect.

Some civil laws no longer applysimply because we lack the social in-stitutions they were designed to reg-ulate, for instance, servitude (Ex.21:2-11, 20, 21, 26, 27) and ancestralland tenure (Lev. 25:8-55). By study-ing these laws in light of their cul-tural context, however, we can stilllearn valuable principles of justiceand mercy to protect those who aresocially and economically disadvan-taged. For example, even when yourworkers are completely dependentupon you and under your control,“Do not rule over them ruthlessly,but fear your God” (vs. 43).

Regarding health law, in connec-tion with Leviticus 11, we found thatPentateuchal laws for which we recog-nize health implications are consis-tently formulated with motivationsother than health. God was con-cerned for the health of His people,but He bestowed this benefit wholisti-cally as a blessing that would come

enforce the law in this way becausethe system no longer exists. So wehave found that the law containsboth ongoing and temporary ele-ments. If we simplistically dismiss itas a civil/Mosaic law and thereforeno longer applicable, we miss thetimeless moral element: You mustnot hit a person in such a way thathe or she dies. A modern court inany country would undoubtedlyagree that such striking is a crime,although it may or may not imposethe same penalty.

In civil laws, timeless principlescome to us in various layers of cul-tural garb. When we get below thespecifics to the underlying dynam-ics, we can find helpful guidelines toclothe in modern dress. For exam-ple: “If a man uncovers a pit or digsone and fails to cover it and an ox ora donkey falls into it, the owner ofthe pit must pay for the loss; he mustpay its owner, and the dead animalwill be his” (Ex. 21:33, 34). Althoughthis could literally apply today, mostof us do not have oxen or donkeys.We do have cars and trucks, with re-

differences between the two laws.First, the civil law is narrower inscope, limited to striking that resultsin death. But this is still a timelessprinciple. Second, the civil law at-taches a penalty, namely, capitalpunishment, that would be adminis-tered by the Israelite system of ju-risprudence within the theocraticcovenant community. We can nolonger count on this court system to

ertheless, the Old Testament rituallaws teach us much about the natureand character of God and human -kind, the dynamics of divine-humaninteraction, and God’s plan of salva-tion through Christ.

The ritual of circumcision origi-nated long before the Israelite sanc-tuary was constructed and was neverdependent upon its function (Gene-sis 17). However, this requirementwas removed for GentileChristians when the newcovenant was trans-formed from a covenantof Israelite election, asJeremiah originallyproph esied (31:31-34),to a universal covenantwithout ethnic bound-aries (Acts 15; Gal. 3:26-29). Civil law can embody

and exemplify timelessmoral/ethical principleswithin the ancient Is-raelite context. Consider,for example, the fol -lowing civil law from the“Cov enant Code” of Exo-dus 21–23: “Anyone whostrikes a man and killshim shall surely be put todeath” (21:12). This con-textualizes the sixth ofthe Ten Commandments,which reads: “You shallnot murder” (20:13).

There are two basic

10 11

“If a man uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover

it and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the owner of

the pit must pay for the loss; he must pay its owner, and the

dead animal will be his” (Ex. 21:33, 34). Although this

could literally apply today, most of us do not have oxen or

donkeys. We do have cars and trucks.

5

Gane: How To Know If A Bible Principle Applies Today

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2008

less moral principle of respect forGod-given life that is expressed inthe sixth of the Ten Commandments(Ex. 20:13). So although the bloodprohibition in Leviticus 17:10-14has health and ritual implications, itis more fundamentally a moral law.This explains several pieces of bibli-cal data:

1. In Genesis 9, God gave the pro-hibition to Noah for the entirehuman race before the Israelite na-tion and its ritual worship systemexisted.

2. In Ezekiel 33:25 and 26, eatingmeat with blood is listed with moralfaults such as murder, idolatry, andadultery.

3. Although the early Christiancouncil in Jerusalem recognized thatthe ceremonial requirement ofcircum cision was nonbinding uponGen tile Christians, the prohibitionof eating meat with blood was in-cluded in the “bottom-line” lifestylerequirements that were laid uponGentile Chris tians among other testsof fellow ship (Acts 15:20, 29). Noticethat Acts 15 refers by implication tothe Old Testament, where the onlybiblical requirement for preventingingestion of blood along with meatis to drain it out at the time ofslaughter (Lev. 17:13; Deut. 12:24; 1Sam. 14:32-34).

Although it is impossible to re-move every bit of blood in this man-ner, just as draining the oil out of acar leaves a small amount of oil lin-

ing parts of the engine, basic drain -age fulfills the divine command. Ifthis is done, as is often the case inmodern butchering, it is not neces-sary for Christians to follow addi-tional traditional practices of saltingand roasting to get more blood out.

Can we boil the above discussioninto a single, simple rule of thumb todetermine whether the Bible intendsfor Christians to keep a given OldTestament law? Here is an attempt: Alaw should be kept to the extent thatits principle can be applied unless theNew Testament removes the reason forits application. G. Wenham con-cluded that “the principles underly-ing the OT are valid and authorita-tive for the Christian, but theparticular applications found in theOT may not be.”5

But if we overcome our neglect ofbiblical law, won’t this lead to legal-ism? Not if we understand the pur-pose of God’s law. It is a standard ofacting and thinking in harmonywith God’s character of love. It isnot, cannot be, and never was in-tended to be a means to salvation.Doing right can never redeem usfrom our mortality or past sins.Only God’s grace through Christ’ssacrifice, received by faith, can dothat. God’s commandments are forpeople who are already delivered, asdemonstrated by the fact that Hegave Noah covenant stipulationsafter bringing him through theFlood (Gen. 9:4-6), and He pro-

ritual system is gone?In Leviticus 17:11, the most basic

reason for the prohibition is that theblood represents life. This is why Godselected the blood of certain animalsfor the function of ransom. Evenwhere ransom through animal sacri-fice did not apply, as in the case of agame animal not appropriate to sacri-fice, the Israelites were forbidden toeat meat with blood because theblood of any animal represented itslife (vss. 13, 14). That this was thebasic reason is confirmed by Genesis9:3, 4, where the Lord first allowedhuman beings to eat meat just afterthe Flood (vs. 3), but withheld per-mission to eat meat with its life bloodstill in it (vs. 4). The next two versesread: “‘For your lifeblood I will surelydemand an accounting. I will demandan accounting from every animal.And from each man, too, I will de-mand an accounting for the life of hisfellow man. Whoever sheds the bloodof man, by man shall his blood beshed; for in the image of God has Godmade man’” (vss. 5, 6).

The prohibitions of blood and ofmurder are both based on the time-

from observing all of His commands.Now we are in a better position to

grapple with the question ofwhether the prohibition in Leviticus17:10-14 against eating meat withblood (compare 3:17; 7:26, 27) stillapplies. Is it a moral, ritual, civil, orhealth law? The fact that eating meatwith blood has to do with diet im-plies that health could be involved,and modern science confirms thatblood carries disease.

This could be reason enough toabstain from meat with blood. How-ever, in 17:11 the Lord’s reason forthe prohibition is: “For the life of theflesh is in the blood, and I have as-signed it to you on the altar to ran-som your lives; for it is the bloodthat ransoms by means of life.”4

Mention of the altar indicates a rit-ual element in the law. Indeed,because God assigned the blood ofcertain species of animals for appli-cation on His altar, the Israeliteswere not permitted either to offertheir sacrifices anywhere else or toeat the blood of well-being offer-ings. But does this mean that thelaw has no application now that the

12 13

A venerable Christian fallacy is the idea that the more

Christian we want to become, the less Jewish our religion

must be. This anti-Semitic notion, which has wreaked

havoc on Jewish-Christian relations for more than a millen-

nium and a half, is not supported by Scripture.

6

Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 1

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss4/1

less moral principle of respect forGod-given life that is expressed inthe sixth of the Ten Commandments(Ex. 20:13). So although the bloodprohibition in Leviticus 17:10-14has health and ritual implications, itis more fundamentally a moral law.This explains several pieces of bibli-cal data:

1. In Genesis 9, God gave the pro-hibition to Noah for the entirehuman race before the Israelite na-tion and its ritual worship systemexisted.

2. In Ezekiel 33:25 and 26, eatingmeat with blood is listed with moralfaults such as murder, idolatry, andadultery.

3. Although the early Christiancouncil in Jerusalem recognized thatthe ceremonial requirement ofcircum cision was nonbinding uponGen tile Christians, the prohibitionof eating meat with blood was in-cluded in the “bottom-line” lifestylerequirements that were laid uponGentile Chris tians among other testsof fellow ship (Acts 15:20, 29). Noticethat Acts 15 refers by implication tothe Old Testament, where the onlybiblical requirement for preventingingestion of blood along with meatis to drain it out at the time ofslaughter (Lev. 17:13; Deut. 12:24; 1Sam. 14:32-34).

Although it is impossible to re-move every bit of blood in this man-ner, just as draining the oil out of acar leaves a small amount of oil lin-

ing parts of the engine, basic drain -age fulfills the divine command. Ifthis is done, as is often the case inmodern butchering, it is not neces-sary for Christians to follow addi-tional traditional practices of saltingand roasting to get more blood out.

Can we boil the above discussioninto a single, simple rule of thumb todetermine whether the Bible intendsfor Christians to keep a given OldTestament law? Here is an attempt: Alaw should be kept to the extent thatits principle can be applied unless theNew Testament removes the reason forits application. G. Wenham con-cluded that “the principles underly-ing the OT are valid and authorita-tive for the Christian, but theparticular applications found in theOT may not be.”5

But if we overcome our neglect ofbiblical law, won’t this lead to legal-ism? Not if we understand the pur-pose of God’s law. It is a standard ofacting and thinking in harmonywith God’s character of love. It isnot, cannot be, and never was in-tended to be a means to salvation.Doing right can never redeem usfrom our mortality or past sins.Only God’s grace through Christ’ssacrifice, received by faith, can dothat. God’s commandments are forpeople who are already delivered, asdemonstrated by the fact that Hegave Noah covenant stipulationsafter bringing him through theFlood (Gen. 9:4-6), and He pro-

ritual system is gone?In Leviticus 17:11, the most basic

reason for the prohibition is that theblood represents life. This is why Godselected the blood of certain animalsfor the function of ransom. Evenwhere ransom through animal sacri-fice did not apply, as in the case of agame animal not appropriate to sacri-fice, the Israelites were forbidden toeat meat with blood because theblood of any animal represented itslife (vss. 13, 14). That this was thebasic reason is confirmed by Genesis9:3, 4, where the Lord first allowedhuman beings to eat meat just afterthe Flood (vs. 3), but withheld per-mission to eat meat with its life bloodstill in it (vs. 4). The next two versesread: “‘For your lifeblood I will surelydemand an accounting. I will demandan accounting from every animal.And from each man, too, I will de-mand an accounting for the life of hisfellow man. Whoever sheds the bloodof man, by man shall his blood beshed; for in the image of God has Godmade man’” (vss. 5, 6).

The prohibitions of blood and ofmurder are both based on the time-

from observing all of His commands.Now we are in a better position to

grapple with the question ofwhether the prohibition in Leviticus17:10-14 against eating meat withblood (compare 3:17; 7:26, 27) stillapplies. Is it a moral, ritual, civil, orhealth law? The fact that eating meatwith blood has to do with diet im-plies that health could be involved,and modern science confirms thatblood carries disease.

This could be reason enough toabstain from meat with blood. How-ever, in 17:11 the Lord’s reason forthe prohibition is: “For the life of theflesh is in the blood, and I have as-signed it to you on the altar to ran-som your lives; for it is the bloodthat ransoms by means of life.”4

Mention of the altar indicates a rit-ual element in the law. Indeed,because God assigned the blood ofcertain species of animals for appli-cation on His altar, the Israeliteswere not permitted either to offertheir sacrifices anywhere else or toeat the blood of well-being offer-ings. But does this mean that thelaw has no application now that the

12 13

A venerable Christian fallacy is the idea that the more

Christian we want to become, the less Jewish our religion

must be. This anti-Semitic notion, which has wreaked

havoc on Jewish-Christian relations for more than a millen-

nium and a half, is not supported by Scripture.

7

Gane: How To Know If A Bible Principle Applies Today

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2008

other ancient Near Eastern laws hasled J. H. Walton to the conclusionthat the laws given to Israel were not,for the most part, presented as a newmode of conduct: “Israel had lawsbefore to insure the smooth func-tioning of society, and it is logical tobelieve that they would have beenheavily dependent on other culturesof their day for those guidelines. Therevelation, though, had to do withproviding a foundation for thosenorms (the covenant) and establish-ing YHWH as the source of thosenorms. One does not refrain fromadultery merely because adulterydisrupts society. Rather, adultery isprohibited because it goes against anabsolute standard of morality bywhich YHWH himself is character-ized.”9

We need absolute standards. Canyou imagine listening to an orches-tra in which the players have notagreed that A = 440 vibrations persecond? What about transformingplans into a building if the construc-tion workers interpret the basic

and right to which individuals andgroups should conform and whichjudicial authority should enforce.Rules will necessarily play some rolein this order, but there also will beprinciples and values which form aconsistent system, cover all possiblesituations, and belong to the collec-tive conscience of the community.By this definition, explicit rules—laws—are only the tip of the icebergof the phenomenon of Law.”8

Patrick does not deal with thereasons for justice, right, and order,but the possible situations coveredby law are involved in relationships.Relationships can be harmoniousonly if the respective parties showproper respect for one another’swell-being. Thus the orderly, just,right principles of law are based onthe foundational principle of love(compare Matthew 22:36-40), whichis also the basis of God’s grace (seeJohn 3:16). Without love, externallaw-keeping is meaningless (com-pare 1 Corinthians 13).

Comparison between biblical and

claimed the Ten Commandments tothe Israelites after delivering themfrom bondage in Egypt (Ex. 20).

A venerable Christian fallacy isthe idea that the more Christian wewant to become, the less Jewish ourreligion must be. This anti-Semiticnotion, which has wreaked havoc onJewish-Christian relations for morethan a millennium and a half, is notsupported by Scripture. Rather, themore Jews and Christians absorband live up to the essential ideals ofour respective biblical holy books,the more common ground we willdiscover.

God’s law is a precious gift toprotect human beings for our owngood. Moses explicitly stated this:“Now, O Israel, what does the Lordyour God ask of you but to fear theLord your God, to walk in all hisways, to love him, to serve the Lordyour God with all your heart andwith all your soul, and to observe theLord’s commands and decrees that Iam giving you today for your owngood?” (Deut. 10:12-13; italics sup-plied; compare 32:46, 47).

Jesus agreed, saying of the Sab-bath: “‘The sabbath was made forhumankind, and not humankind forthe sabbath’” (Mark 2:27, NRSV).

In teaching his barber how topray through the Ten Command-ments, Martin Luther emphasizedtheir positive protective function.For example, on “You shall not bearfalse witness,” he commented, “Thus

a wall has been built around ourgood reputation and integrity toprotect it against malicious gossipand deceitful tongues.”6

In their profound and practicalbook Experiencing God: How to Livethe Full Adventure of Knowing andDoing the Will of God, H. T. Blackabyand C. V. King speak of the gift ofGod’s law: “God loves you deeply andprofoundly. Because He loves you, Hehas given you guidelines for living lestyou miss the full dimensions of thelove relationship. Life also has some‘land mines’ that can destroy you orwreck your life. God does not want tosee you miss out on His best, and Hedoes not want to see your lifewrecked. Suppose you had to cross afield full of land mines. A person whoknew exactly where every one of themwas buried offered to take youthrough it. Would you say to him, ‘Idon’t want you to tell me what to do.I don’t want you to impose your wayson me’?”7

Properly viewed within a cov -enant framework of love and grace,God’s law is not legalistic, and obe-dience to it is not legalism. Peopleare legalistic when they put His lawin place of His grace as a means ofsalvation, as in Jesus’ story of a Phar-isee who despised a tax collector(Luke 18:9-14). He failed to discernGod’s free grace.

Dale Patrick points out that law ismuch bigger than the external bot-tom line: “Law is the order of justice

Properly viewed within a covenant framework of

love and grace, God’s law is not legalistic, and obedience to it

is not legalism. People are legalistic when they put His law

in place of His grace as a means of salvation, as in Jesus’ story

of a Pharisee who despised a tax collector (Luke 18:9-14).

He failed to discern God’s free grace.

14 158

Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 1

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss4/1

other ancient Near Eastern laws hasled J. H. Walton to the conclusionthat the laws given to Israel were not,for the most part, presented as a newmode of conduct: “Israel had lawsbefore to insure the smooth func-tioning of society, and it is logical tobelieve that they would have beenheavily dependent on other culturesof their day for those guidelines. Therevelation, though, had to do withproviding a foundation for thosenorms (the covenant) and establish-ing YHWH as the source of thosenorms. One does not refrain fromadultery merely because adulterydisrupts society. Rather, adultery isprohibited because it goes against anabsolute standard of morality bywhich YHWH himself is character-ized.”9

We need absolute standards. Canyou imagine listening to an orches-tra in which the players have notagreed that A = 440 vibrations persecond? What about transformingplans into a building if the construc-tion workers interpret the basic

and right to which individuals andgroups should conform and whichjudicial authority should enforce.Rules will necessarily play some rolein this order, but there also will beprinciples and values which form aconsistent system, cover all possiblesituations, and belong to the collec-tive conscience of the community.By this definition, explicit rules—laws—are only the tip of the icebergof the phenomenon of Law.”8

Patrick does not deal with thereasons for justice, right, and order,but the possible situations coveredby law are involved in relationships.Relationships can be harmoniousonly if the respective parties showproper respect for one another’swell-being. Thus the orderly, just,right principles of law are based onthe foundational principle of love(compare Matthew 22:36-40), whichis also the basis of God’s grace (seeJohn 3:16). Without love, externallaw-keeping is meaningless (com-pare 1 Corinthians 13).

Comparison between biblical and

claimed the Ten Commandments tothe Israelites after delivering themfrom bondage in Egypt (Ex. 20).

A venerable Christian fallacy isthe idea that the more Christian wewant to become, the less Jewish ourreligion must be. This anti-Semiticnotion, which has wreaked havoc onJewish-Christian relations for morethan a millennium and a half, is notsupported by Scripture. Rather, themore Jews and Christians absorband live up to the essential ideals ofour respective biblical holy books,the more common ground we willdiscover.

God’s law is a precious gift toprotect human beings for our owngood. Moses explicitly stated this:“Now, O Israel, what does the Lordyour God ask of you but to fear theLord your God, to walk in all hisways, to love him, to serve the Lordyour God with all your heart andwith all your soul, and to observe theLord’s commands and decrees that Iam giving you today for your owngood?” (Deut. 10:12-13; italics sup-plied; compare 32:46, 47).

Jesus agreed, saying of the Sab-bath: “‘The sabbath was made forhumankind, and not humankind forthe sabbath’” (Mark 2:27, NRSV).

In teaching his barber how topray through the Ten Command-ments, Martin Luther emphasizedtheir positive protective function.For example, on “You shall not bearfalse witness,” he commented, “Thus

a wall has been built around ourgood reputation and integrity toprotect it against malicious gossipand deceitful tongues.”6

In their profound and practicalbook Experiencing God: How to Livethe Full Adventure of Knowing andDoing the Will of God, H. T. Blackabyand C. V. King speak of the gift ofGod’s law: “God loves you deeply andprofoundly. Because He loves you, Hehas given you guidelines for living lestyou miss the full dimensions of thelove relationship. Life also has some‘land mines’ that can destroy you orwreck your life. God does not want tosee you miss out on His best, and Hedoes not want to see your lifewrecked. Suppose you had to cross afield full of land mines. A person whoknew exactly where every one of themwas buried offered to take youthrough it. Would you say to him, ‘Idon’t want you to tell me what to do.I don’t want you to impose your wayson me’?”7

Properly viewed within a cov -enant framework of love and grace,God’s law is not legalistic, and obe-dience to it is not legalism. Peopleare legalistic when they put His lawin place of His grace as a means ofsalvation, as in Jesus’ story of a Phar-isee who despised a tax collector(Luke 18:9-14). He failed to discernGod’s free grace.

Dale Patrick points out that law ismuch bigger than the external bot-tom line: “Law is the order of justice

Properly viewed within a covenant framework of

love and grace, God’s law is not legalistic, and obedience to it

is not legalism. People are legalistic when they put His law

in place of His grace as a means of salvation, as in Jesus’ story

of a Pharisee who despised a tax collector (Luke 18:9-14).

He failed to discern God’s free grace.

14 15 9

Gane: How To Know If A Bible Principle Applies Today

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2008

sion: “If each of us creates his ownmeaning, we also create our ownmorality. I cannot believe this. For ifso, what the Nazis did was not im-moral because German society hadaccepted it. Likewise, the subjectivemorality of every majority culturethroughout the world could validatetheir heinous behavior. It comesdown to a very simple matter: With-out God there is no objective mean-ing to life, nor is there an objectivemorality. I do not want to live in aworld where right and wrong aresubjective.”10

Postmodernism refuses to recog-nize the possibility that a person sin-cerely following his or her religiousor cultural norms, whatever theymay be, could perpetrate somethingthat should be characterized as evil.So what was it that stared us in theface on September 11, 2001, throughthe eyes of Mohammed Atta?

tates of a human voice that they mis-take for the voice of God.

If we disregard the Bible, ourmoral compass may appear logicaland self-consistent, but it lacks anexternal reference point. It would belike the woman who was traveling byplane over a large body of water atnight. To calm her apprehension, sheasked the pilot how he could navi-gate in the dark. “You see that greenlight on that wingtip?” he replied.Yes, she saw it. “You see that red lighton the other wingtip?” he continued.“Yes,” again. “I just steer the planestraight between them,” he assuredher.

Absolute moral standards are outof vogue in our postmodern world.We are supposed to listen to what-ever voices we feel comfortable with,as long as they do not claim to be ab-solute. Respect for others demandsthat we recognize anyone else’ssource of moral guidance (or lackthereof) as equal to our own. Valuejudgments are strictly forbidden.

Respect for others is crucial. Butmust we purchase it by relinquishingour right to absolute moral stan-dards and assenting to a polytheisticmoral culture that puts anythingclaiming divine authority (includinghuman beings) in place of God?Mas querading as enlightenment,moral subjectivity is not only incon-venient and irritating; it is also terri-bly dangerous, as Rabbi StewartVogel points out with startling pas-

units of measure differently? So whyshouldn’t we enjoy the security ofabsolute moral standards, whichhelp us to get along with one an-other smoothly rather than havingour harmony disintegrate into a ca-cophony of chaos?

If standards were continuouslyleft up to agreement between people,they would suffer from variabilityand circularity, as when a man whoblew the noon whistle at a factoryregularly set his watch to a clock inthe window of a shop, only to learnthat the shopkeeper set his clockevery day by that whistle. This is whywe have Greenwich Mean Time anda Bureau of Standards. It is also whywe have the Bible. Only God is big,wise, and good enough to set ourmoral standards.

In addition to the attempt tomake God’s law into a means of sal-vation, another misuse is to employit as a political tool by making artifi-cial human interpretations into thestandards to which others must ad-here. There is no question that set-ting standards can generate powerand/or wealth (e.g., Bill Gates andMicrosoft computer operating sys-tems). But putting subjective humanauthority in place of God’s absoluteauthority is nothing short of blas-phemy (compare John 10:33), and itis even worse to do this for gain bypreying on people’s legalistic fearsthat they will be eternally damnedunless they measure up to the dic-

16 17

�

REFERENCES1 Minnie Warburton, “Letting the Voice

of Leviticus Speak,” Sewanee Theological Re-view 37 (1994), p. 164.

2 S. Paul, Studies in the Book of theCovenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Bibli-cal Law (Vetus Testamentum, Supplements18; Leiden: Brill, 1970), p. 43.

3 Unless otherwise noted, all Bible refer-ences in this article are drawn from the NewInternational Version.

4 Translated by J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22 (Anchor Bible 3A; New York: Doubleday,2000), p. 1295.

5 G. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NewInternational Commentary on the Old Testa-ment; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 35.

6 Martin Luther, A Simple Way to Pray(London: Westminster John Knox, 2000), p.54.

7 H. T. Blackaby, and C. V. King, Experi-encing God: How to Live the Full Adventure ofKnowing and Doing the Will of God(Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), p.13.

8 D. Patrick, Old Testament Law (Atlanta:John Knox, 1985), p. 4.

9 J. H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literaturein Its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids, Mich.:Library of Biblical Interpretation, Zonder-van, 1989), p. 90, italics supplied.

10 L. Schlessinger, and S. Vogel, The TenCommandments: The Significance of God’sLaws in Everyday Life (New York: Cliff StreetBooks, 1998), p. xxix.

This article is adapted by permission from RoyGane, Leviticus, Numbers, NIV ApplicationCommentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zonder-van, 2004), pp. 305-314.

10

Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 1

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss4/1

sion: “If each of us creates his ownmeaning, we also create our ownmorality. I cannot believe this. For ifso, what the Nazis did was not im-moral because German society hadaccepted it. Likewise, the subjectivemorality of every majority culturethroughout the world could validatetheir heinous behavior. It comesdown to a very simple matter: With-out God there is no objective mean-ing to life, nor is there an objectivemorality. I do not want to live in aworld where right and wrong aresubjective.”10

Postmodernism refuses to recog-nize the possibility that a person sin-cerely following his or her religiousor cultural norms, whatever theymay be, could perpetrate somethingthat should be characterized as evil.So what was it that stared us in theface on September 11, 2001, throughthe eyes of Mohammed Atta?

tates of a human voice that they mis-take for the voice of God.

If we disregard the Bible, ourmoral compass may appear logicaland self-consistent, but it lacks anexternal reference point. It would belike the woman who was traveling byplane over a large body of water atnight. To calm her apprehension, sheasked the pilot how he could navi-gate in the dark. “You see that greenlight on that wingtip?” he replied.Yes, she saw it. “You see that red lighton the other wingtip?” he continued.“Yes,” again. “I just steer the planestraight between them,” he assuredher.

Absolute moral standards are outof vogue in our postmodern world.We are supposed to listen to what-ever voices we feel comfortable with,as long as they do not claim to be ab-solute. Respect for others demandsthat we recognize anyone else’ssource of moral guidance (or lackthereof) as equal to our own. Valuejudgments are strictly forbidden.

Respect for others is crucial. Butmust we purchase it by relinquishingour right to absolute moral stan-dards and assenting to a polytheisticmoral culture that puts anythingclaiming divine authority (includinghuman beings) in place of God?Mas querading as enlightenment,moral subjectivity is not only incon-venient and irritating; it is also terri-bly dangerous, as Rabbi StewartVogel points out with startling pas-

units of measure differently? So whyshouldn’t we enjoy the security ofabsolute moral standards, whichhelp us to get along with one an-other smoothly rather than havingour harmony disintegrate into a ca-cophony of chaos?

If standards were continuouslyleft up to agreement between people,they would suffer from variabilityand circularity, as when a man whoblew the noon whistle at a factoryregularly set his watch to a clock inthe window of a shop, only to learnthat the shopkeeper set his clockevery day by that whistle. This is whywe have Greenwich Mean Time anda Bureau of Standards. It is also whywe have the Bible. Only God is big,wise, and good enough to set ourmoral standards.

In addition to the attempt tomake God’s law into a means of sal-vation, another misuse is to employit as a political tool by making artifi-cial human interpretations into thestandards to which others must ad-here. There is no question that set-ting standards can generate powerand/or wealth (e.g., Bill Gates andMicrosoft computer operating sys-tems). But putting subjective humanauthority in place of God’s absoluteauthority is nothing short of blas-phemy (compare John 10:33), and itis even worse to do this for gain bypreying on people’s legalistic fearsthat they will be eternally damnedunless they measure up to the dic-

16 17

�

REFERENCES1 Minnie Warburton, “Letting the Voice

of Leviticus Speak,” Sewanee Theological Re-view 37 (1994), p. 164.

2 S. Paul, Studies in the Book of theCovenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Bibli-cal Law (Vetus Testamentum, Supplements18; Leiden: Brill, 1970), p. 43.

3 Unless otherwise noted, all Bible refer-ences in this article are drawn from the NewInternational Version.

4 Translated by J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22 (Anchor Bible 3A; New York: Doubleday,2000), p. 1295.

5 G. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NewInternational Commentary on the Old Testa-ment; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 35.

6 Martin Luther, A Simple Way to Pray(London: Westminster John Knox, 2000), p.54.

7 H. T. Blackaby, and C. V. King, Experi-encing God: How to Live the Full Adventure ofKnowing and Doing the Will of God(Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), p.13.

8 D. Patrick, Old Testament Law (Atlanta:John Knox, 1985), p. 4.

9 J. H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literaturein Its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids, Mich.:Library of Biblical Interpretation, Zonder-van, 1989), p. 90, italics supplied.

10 L. Schlessinger, and S. Vogel, The TenCommandments: The Significance of God’sLaws in Everyday Life (New York: Cliff StreetBooks, 1998), p. xxix.

This article is adapted by permission from RoyGane, Leviticus, Numbers, NIV ApplicationCommentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zonder-van, 2004), pp. 305-314.

11

Gane: How To Know If A Bible Principle Applies Today

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2008