Rick,
It's certainly an issue I've put a lot of study in. I'll have to give you a little background, as there isn't one book I've read that deals specifically with what we are referring to. One book I am reading now, is "Freely by His Grace." Actually, this is written by a friend of Jacs' and some other dispensational Free Grace theologians. Oh I' sorry, crapologians.
Probably the biggest influence for me, now, is simply how I approach the text. We hear the words exegesis and hermanuetic a lot, but how often do we really set our minds on this when we approach the text. Not often I'm afraid. How many times are you having a discussion and someone randomly pulls out a verse and says, "See, the Bible says....." (I'll address more on this later.) The problem is not the verse, but prooftexting it in a way that is not consistent with the context. It is perfectly Ok to quote a scripture verse. But it isn't OK to do so, if your usage is not consistent with how the verse applies within its immediate context. For example, Gman would say, "The Law is good and Holy,...."(Romans 7:12) His implication being that Paul is advocating the Law as something we (the Gentile believer today) should keep. Is that consistent with the immediate context of Romans 7? No. Following that Eisegesis we can 'make' the bible say almost anything.
In my study, which I haven't discussed much on this forum, I have really examined the back ground of protestant Christianity over the past 1,000 years. Yes, I am aware that protestant reformation occured less than 1,000 years ago. But, systematic theology began as a practice around that time, and I would argue that this may be the single biggest influence on Christianity today. And that is not a good thing, IMO. Obviously, the Messianic movements are birthed out of Protestantism. In fact, they are strongly influenced from off shoots of dispensational theology. I think they shot off in the wrong direction, BTW. What you had was dispenstational escahtoloty, blended with charasmatic influence, which led to the Messianic movement. Dispentational eschatoloty puts influence on the distinctions in the nation of Israel and the Chruch, the Body of Christ. Most of us believe that God will restore the earthly Kindgom to Israel, but this is a seperate event to happen in the 'times to come.' And thus, today we are operating in a different dispensation. (I've mentioned this before regarding the minsitry of Paul.) So, when Jewish people began moving back to the land, you can see why this would begin to stir interest in these type of things. This led to various factions of Messianic movements, and of course many began to teach the need to start observing the Torah. It is obviously more nuanced than that, but you can probably Google some info if you like. As you can see, there are those who are more cultural proponents, such as Zaccheaus seems to be. And then you have Zealots like Gman.
So much for that. More on my journey. Up unitl maybe four years ago, I was a legalist and Lordship Salvation proponent. A modified Calvinists if you will. I was convinced, and even argued on this forum, that some elements of the Law were still applicable today, especially the big 10. Although I wasn't a Sabbatarian, I believed that we all should keep some modified version of the Sabbath. Of course I had absolutely no Biblical reason for this, and how, when and what was to be kept was completely arbirtrary. "Keeping" the Sabbath would have been going to a church service on Sunday morning. My arguments were simply the arguments of others I had adopted as my own. In fact I probably said a lot of the same things you hear others on this forum espousing. That would be advocating distinctions in the Hebrew moral, civil, and dietary laws, even though the law itself never does this. I was pro-tithing. Again, even though I had no Biblical reason to support this practive for the NT body of Christ believer. And quite frankly I looked down on people who didn't tithe. And even though I wouldn't admit it, I felt morally superior to those who didn't. Well, pride goeth before a fall. At that time I began to ask myself why I believed what I believed. Was it religious tradition and teaching, or was there a genuine biblical reason for what I believed and practiced? As you can imagine, this began to shake up several elements of my faith life. This also began to bring to the surface other issues. I would have argued with you till I was blue in the fact that there were no contraditions in the Bible. I knew every text book answer. But as I studied the Bible I could not reconcile the fact that there were verses that seemed to contradict. Don't misunderstand, those contradictions do have good explanations.
Even though my ministry was an amazing blessing of God, I also began to see that as something I was doing, and began to lord that over others I felt weren't doing enough in the church. When I first began to adopt this hermanuetic I was very resistent, even angry. I heard a Bible teacher say something regarding the book of Matthew that set me off. Essentially, that the book of Matthew was addressed to Jews, and dealt specifically with Jesus' earthly ministry to Israel regarding the fulfillment of the covenant promises to those people. The basic gist was saying that although everthing in Matthew is written for us, it doesn't mean it was written to us. And, that there maybe sound exegetical reasons not to apply everything written in what we call the NT to our own lives. In fact, even arguing whether the Gospels are actually "NT" books. (But instead are the last OT books) Now there is a shocker. Paul advised Timothy to be one who rightly DIVIDES the Word of truth. That is to cut or seperate. It doesn't mean 'handle.' It literally means to cut into. To be honest, when I first heard this teaching I was mad. I argued with those that held these views. Yet, it is interesting how this issue kept landing on my plate. I was being a good little Lordship Salvation proponent. I read Spurgeon and Edwards devotionals. I did all the latest bible studies. Blackaby, MacDonald, etc. Although I was trying my best to read Spurgeon, MacCarthur and all the other Lordship Salvation teachers, I kept being confronted with rightly dividing. It was not being taught in my church. It was not being taught in my Bible studies. I didn't have ANY friends who were following this method. Yet, I kept coming across it. So, instead of having animosity, I began to start seeking out answers and asking questions; even though it challenged nearly everything in my Christian worldview. Over the next few years God began to humble me, and begin to open my eyes to the error of my ways. He is still doing it.
For much of my Christian life the Bible was unapproachable. I was dependent of pre-packaged little Bible studies with a fill in the blank work book. Let me just warn anyone now to be careful of these topical methods of Bible study. I'm not condemning them with a broad brush stroke. Just be careful.
In addition, my Bible understanding was little more than sound bites. After all, that seems to be how most believers apporach it. How often do you hear people say, "that's my life verse." In reality, the verse in its context has NOTHING to do with them or their situation. Apologies to Tim Tebow and his eye black. And so, the Bible becomes little more than a me centered bunch of proof texts that we can put in a picture frame and hang on the wall. "As for me and my house...."
Now that isn't the same exegetical problem we have in regards to how some see the law and the OT, but it is still a problem. And quite frankly, I think it's a serious problem.
Example on this line of thinking: "But Jesus said, 'If you obey my commands...,." and Jesus is God, and God gave the 10 commands, therefore we need to follow the 10 Commands. The Sabbath is a command, therefore........" As you can see, there is no exegesis. It's a question begging eisegesis for handling the scripture. It starts with a premise and then reads that into the text what it wants to say.
Did Jesus say these words? Yes! Is it true? Yes! Did he say what the sabbatarian is proposing? NO!
What I discussed earlier regarding the 'practical' elements and the 'presciptive' elements is not anything I've personally seen anyone write on, although I'm sure they have. It gets back to that same objection:
"We are not under the Law."
-"Oh, so you are saying it's OK to fornicate, steal and murder?"
That has been Gman's basic response, and I can just about bet you that it will continue to be. It's tired. It's a straw man. And as anyone can see, it's a bad debate tactic.
The prescriptive and practical is an interesting subject. The practical is the natural, moral law that God, through His being, has woven into the fabric of existance. It is wrong to murder.
Take our own culture for example. We have laws against murder. Does the law make it wrong, or does the law reflect the truth that it is wrong? In this case, the law reflects the truth. Now, there are a lot of other laws. A county may set the speed limit on a road at 20 mph. Now, in reality it may be perfectly safe to travel at 40 mph on that road. But the law says it is 20 mph, and if we break the law, we are in transgression. Is this law a reflection of some universal moral truth?
I think this is where people go wrong with divine command morality. I don't think it is an either/or, but a both/and. The Hebrew Law has elements of divine command. Laws that were prescribed for Israel. To be in violation of these laws is contingent as to whether these laws apply to that person or group. Yes, there are laws in the Torah that are also based in univeral truth. That is they are universally true at all times and all places.
Here is an example. I think we can agree that it is universally wrong for a child to disrespect a parent. That is true in all times and places.
As a parent I may set a curfew for my teenager for 10:00 o'clock. If my neighbor's child comes home at 11:00 have they transgressed this rule? No. My rule does not apply to them. Even if their child has a a curfew of 10:00, they still have not transgressed my rule. They are not under my rule.
To advocate the Sabbath is to try and live under an authority that was not prescribed for you.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord
"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
Zacchaeus has actually grasped what G-d's word is trying to convey.. Our bodies are HOLY!!!! That is why we don't put stupid graffiti marks all over them like the pagans do. We are to be separate of the world 2 Corinthians 6:17.
