Out of Egypt:

the Reformed aren't the only people who believe in covenants, you know...

Fortuitously, I'm not the only one who's been thinking lately about covenant theology and the Jerusalem Council.

I don't believe the rise of Messianic Judaism in recent decades is an accident. While we Gentiles may fear that some of their formulations stray close to Judaizing, we can no longer ignore the question that they raise: What portions of the Law remain binding on Jews who come to faith in Christ? Is there a distinction between Jew and Gentile, not in the matter of how they are saved (for all are saved by faith in the Messiah), but in how they show this faith to the world?

I cannot believe that the Mosaic Law was given as a test or a trap, or as a hypothetical job description under a "Covenant of Works" which only the God-Man could fulfill. If it was such, then why was there provision made within the covenant for the forgiveness of sins? Of course, as the book of Hebrews states, that provision (through sacrifice) was proleptic, only effective because the Messiah would sacrifice Himself for His people - and for the whole world that would believe upon Him.

I find much to love in Martin Luther's thought - his insistence upon the merit of Christ alone as our righteousness, his firm distinction between the theology of glory and the theology of the Cross, his wonderful meditation on the "Freedom of a Christian." However, I recoil from his animosity toward the Mosaic Law, and toward the NT passages which seem to echo its spirit, like the book of James. It almost seems as if he plays God off against God - the unknown God of predestination vs. the God of the Gospel who is the justifier of all, the God of Mt. Sinai vs. the God of Calvary.

From the Jewish perspective, the Law is a gift, a sign of God's favor. It does not structure the lives of those who follow it simply in order to burden them, but to impart a kind of poetry to ordinary life. The attitude that all of life is worship was Jewish before it was Reformed.

Of course, the Law can become a burden, when it is abused. This is Paul's argument in Romans 10. That which is good, because it reveals the righteousness of God in the face of human sinfulness, can become evil when it is used to "establish one's own righteousness" (Romans 10:2). People created to be faithful servants believe themselves to be wage earners, and so lose their reward.

Paul never says the Mosaic Law is in itself sinful. On the contrary, he says it is righteous and good. In passages like that discussed above he shows the dynamic of human depravity by which one of God's good gifts (like the trees in the garden were one of His good gifts) can be used for evil, for exclusion and the furtherance of pride. And in other passages he, like the writer of Hebrews, shows that the Mosaic Law is incomplete. It serves a pedagogical function - it is, he says, "a tutor to lead us to Christ." And the typological manner in which it does so is clear.

We in the Reformed community believe that since the Mosaic Law serves a pedagogical function, it has ceased to be binding on us in the New Covenant. However, this becomes problematic the more we study the Mosaic Law, since close study of it shows that the moral, ceremonial, and civil are all interwoven together. We see this especially with regard to the Sabbath, and Christians throughout the ages have split churches over differences in observance of the fourth commandment.

To the Messianic Jews, the mitzvot (613 commands of the Torah, as explicated in the past 2000 years of Jewish tradition) are still binding, at least in part, on people who are Jewish by birth. I, as a Reformed person, react negatively to this contention as soon as I hear it. But now that I'm more aware of the distinction that Jewish tradition makes between Jew and Gentile, as with the concept of the Noahide laws, I am less certain of my stance. If they separated themselves from Gentiles on the grounds of ritual purity, then they would be guilty of Judaizing. But if they find the mitzvot to be helpful in their worship of God, a valuable part of "the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship" of which Paul speaks (Romans 9:4), then I want to be careful not to condemn them too quickly.

As more Jews come to a faith in Jesus as their Messiah, our thoughts must turn to Paul's outlining of redemptive history in Romans 10-11. "For if their rejection mean[t] the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?" (Rom. 11:15) I believe, as many have before me, that this age will end with the conversion of the Jews. If this is true, we need to make sure our covenant theology can handle the event.

I am waiting for the Day.

Paul was a Messianic Jew and I imagine that he would react rather negatively to the notion that the mitzot is still binding, even if only in part (who gets to determine which part and to what extent?), to those who are Jews by birth.

Posted by: Jared at September 8, 2007 9:39 AM

That is the sticking point isn't it? Who gets to determine what part? Messianic Jews do argue that Paul himself kept the Mosaic Law, pointing to such as passages as Acts 18:18, where reference is made to what appears to be a Nazirite vow. Of course, the vow is entirely voluntary, so to prove the binding nature of the Mosaic Law they would have to find other Scriptures besides that. I need to study their arguments further.

Posted by: Evan Donovan at September 8, 2007 11:31 AM

I think that Paul had a very high view of the Law, to be sure, but he was also very clear about its place in redemptive history and its place in our lives. Whatever argument Messianic Jews might put forth, the obstacle they must overcome is Paul's willingness to become all things to all people. This is something that even a shallow adherence to the Law would not allow. Paul would consider such individuals brothers, I believe, but he also would say that their faith is weak.

Posted by: Jared at September 8, 2007 12:32 PM

I would agree with you. Of course, there is a continuum of views within Messianic Judaism. I think it's mainly important for us to interact with their views to make sure that our covenant theology isn't turning into "replacement theology."

Posted by: Evan Donovan at September 8, 2007 3:42 PM