broken words

I think Jameson's latest on his reading through the Old Testament gets a lot of things exactly right, and once again I don't think the interaction I'd like to do with it would fit in a comment, so I'll pull some quotes over here and try to share some thoughts and (I hope) fruitful ways to deal with some of the questions he raises.

(What kind of insight might we gain if we listened to a professional actor read the whole of Deuteronomy as a dramatic monologue?)

I can only heartily second this sentiment - especially in light of, say, Nehemiah 8, in which the command of Dt. 31:9-10 (quoted in Jameson's post) is fulfilled once again after the years of exile. These words were meant to be heard.

Fun little factoid: "These Are the Words" is in fact the title of Deuteronomy in the Hebrew Bible - since the Pentateuch in particular is essentially a single five-volume (i.e. five-scroll) work, the different scrolls were identified simply by their first words, so that the Hebrew title of Genesis is "In the Beginning," that of Exodus is "These Are the Names," Leviticus is "And He Called," and Numbers is "In the Wilderness." Jameson's reflections on the significance of the titular words are spot-on: the words themselves are life or death, and Israel is exhorted to choose life.

It's especially worth noting the connection between the words of life and death and the idea of testimony, the establishment of a figurative courtroom setting in which heaven and earth (31:19), the Israelites, and God Himself are to bring their respective cases in the inevitable event of a breach of covenant. This is absolutely vital, I think, especially to John but really to all four Gospels (on which a bit more later).

The theme of land and the purity thereof is also very well read - and I think this context helps the hard-to-swallow harshness of God's commands for the coming war of conquest at least make sense. Note the emphasis on destroying the cultic existence of the current inhabitants - it's more explicit in some places than the emphasis on killing the people themselves. The point is to destroy the enemies of God as enemies of God, not to subjugate them and create an empire that simply absorbs the pollution they have worked in the land. Not once, so far as I know, is the wholesale destruction of the Canaanites commanded without reference to idolatry

And though I know it seems like making excuses, I do want to invoke the case of Rahab at Jericho here - the response of faith in Yahweh and cooperation with Israel saves her and her family from the utter destruction of her city, and there's not the slightest indication, so far as I can tell, that this mercy toward these few who responded in this way was seen as contrary to the general command to wipe out the Canaanites. There's an evangelism in this, as repugnant as the general practice comes across to our sensibilities.

Jameson's final section is most pertinent to our ongoing discussion; there are some things that are very clearly expressed in the text that can make a lot of evangelicals (at least the Reformed type) shuffle uncomfortably while reading.

He starts with an honest assessment of how the Law is presented in its original context:

First, the law, as taught by Moses, was seriously meant to be followed. It is simply not a lens through which we are meant primarily to see our absolute sinfulness. It never says that it is, and in fact it tries to indicate just the opposite.

Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?" Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?" No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe. (30:11-14)

There it is, plain as day. This book was meant to be followed. Not that Moses actually expected the Israelites to follow it: "For I know that after my death you will surely act corruptly, turning aside from the way that I have commanded you. In time to come trouble will befall you, because you will do what is evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger through the work of your hands."

This is crucial, and I think it's absolutely right. While many of us in the Reformed world would love it if the text said, "Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, because Jesus Christ will follow it perfectly on your behalf," but it just doesn't. As Jameson points out:

There is nothing in the law that requires absolutely perfect obedience--hence the whole sacrificial system, which is meant to atone for even unintentional sins.

This is unavoidably clear in context, and as others are fond of pointing out, it's typical of the whole Pentateuch and, really, the whole Bible. If we're going to be honest in claiming to acknowledge the Bible's authority and unity, we'd better get used to this fact.

The problem, of course, is that the Israelites would not follow the clear and reasonable commands of God to them, as Jameson also points out:

Not that Moses actually expected the Israelites to follow it: "For I know that after my death you will surely act corruptly, turning aside from the way that I have commanded you. In time to come trouble will befall you, because you will do what is evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger through the work of your hands." (31:29) Why was Moses so pessimistic about Israel's faithfulness? Was it original sin? Was it total depravity? Moses never appeals to theological categories; his evidence is simply his first-hand experience of his people: "If you already have been so rebellious toward the Lord while I am still alive among you, how much more after my death!" (31:27) ... What Moses was saying about Israel was that they were prone to completely disregard even the basics.

I think this is the key point that helps us know what to do with Jameson's second point:

Second, the law, as taught by Moses, was meant to be followed forever. "You shall love the Lord your God, therefore, and keep his charge, his decrees, his ordinances, and his commandments always." (11:1) Over and over again, Moses repeats that the Israelites should keep the entire law, saying, "You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take away anything from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God with which I am charging you." (4:2) Now, I simply do not know how to deal with this as a Christian. Jesus rescinded some commandments (e.g. food laws) and added others (e.g. no divorce). If we truly respect this text as it stands, we cannot pretend there is perfect continuity. Does Jesus have the authority to reinterpret the law, or not? If he does, fine! There is no reason why Moses should stand if "something greater than Moses is here." But that means Moses was wrong, and if Moses was not wrong, Jesus was wrong. Not completely wrong, not utterly wrong, just wrong, as in, not right, at least not totally right. As in, I don't see what it would mean to take every single word of this as "authoritative," unless you mean something quite different from the classical orthodox Protestant meaning of "authoritative."

I think the difficulty here must be resolved precisely in terms of what's come earlier: the Israelites simply wouldn't do it! There's no real obstacle to affirming wholeheartedly (not that Protestants have necessarily done so consistently!) that the Law was meant to be kept entirely and eternally; the only problem is that, by the time Jesus shows up, it's not happening and never will be.

This is where the notion of the "courtroom" comes in: for all the Gospel writers, especially John, Jesus is Yahweh come to make His case against apostate Israel, and when he is rejected, the crucifixion and resurrection are simultaneously Jesus' vindication in court and Israel's condemnation. The Mosaic Covenant is broken, not solely because God decided to do something different (though I think we can affirm this from the perspective of God's eternal purpose), but because Israel has broken it again and again, and finally they have ceased to be Israel.

So Jesus isn't coming in to tweak the marching orders the Jews were following; he's coming to give Law that will be in effect in the finally-coming Kingdom of God, and while there's a radical continuity in some ways with the broken-for-good Torah, it's ultimately the Law of a new community that finally fulfills promises older than Moses. There would be a legitimate question of whether Jesus and Moses are in conflict if Moses were still really in play by Jesus' time; as it happened, this just wasn't the case. The Jews chose death, but Jesus came once again to set before them life and death, and not just before them, but before the whole world.