“The limitations that are part of us being ‘not-God’ were intended to keep us close and in relationship with God. Our very limitations imply the need for relationship. To be a creature is to refuse to make ourselves but instead to joyfully accept our limitations. It is to know that our self-making would be our un-making.”
Julie Canlis, A Theology of the Ordinary, pg. 15
I have been reluctant to address this issue because it is so distasteful, but given that it has now become the ‘coin of the realm’, so to speak (meaning that it is not just available, but part of the normative content of our culture), I think it has become imperative to speak in order that we might share a common definition, reject all that tears down rather than builds up, and pursue the ideal that God established.
Here’s a bit of the history that led me to this commentary. Of all things, my 72-year-old mother sent me an article by Dr. Michael Brown addressing a hit song/video by Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion. Now I’m aware that Cardi B exists, but have ignored her as eminently distasteful. I’ve never heard of the other lady.
So I googled up the lyrics to see what all the fuss was about. I do not recommend this, and would caution anyone reading that these lyrics will provoke an emotional reaction similar to what Phinehas must have felt before he drove the spear through the couple cavorting in front of the Tabernacle (Numbers 25:1-9).
Incensed, depressed, and seeking to galvanize the faithful, I posted on my FB page:
“Let us be honest, forthright, and clear. There ought to be no fuzziness here. The hit song WAP by Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion is pornography.
The lyrics are pornographic; the video is pornographic. That this is not just tolerated in our society but trumpeted and celebrated, is simultaneously a terrible indictment of our culture’s present disease, and will be an inestimably destructive force on the mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being of our culture: men and women.”
And here’s where the real turn happens…
A dear friend of mine, a former roommate from Bible School, commented, “…It was definitely erotic with a lot of imagery. Canāt say it reaches the level of pornography….”
Yesterday I was depressed; now I am roused to battle.
So let’s talk pornography… what is it, how ought we to define it, and what is its opposite?
This song (WAP) is pornography by very definition. The first use of the word in English that we know of is traced to 1842, but it comes to us from the Ancient Greek, ĻĪæĻĪ½ĪæĪ³ĻĪ¬ĻĪæĻ (pornographos), where it referred to writings about prostitution. It’s a compound word comprised of ĻĻĻĪ½Ī· (pornÄ), “prostitute” and Ī³ĻĪ¬ĻĻ (graphÅ), “I write.”
This song begins, “There’s some whores in this house,” repeated four times. This is literally writing about prostitutes.
If we turn to the Scriptures we find that ĻĪæĻĪ½ĪµĪÆĪ± (porneia) referred first to prostitution: sex for sale, but quickly came to refer to any illicit sexuality: that is, sex used for purposes or in a manner twisted from God’s intent, marital intimacy and procreation. So, sex used as an exchange, used to procure desired ends, used to covenant with anyone other than a spouse, or in the service of a deity, was all abhorrent: pornographic. The song describes exclusively pornographic exercise of sexuality for anti-biblical, ungodly purposes, and in lurid, sensational, exchange-oriented, control-focused manner. (pornography: lurid or sensational material, often used in combination. The American HeritageĀ® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.)
The next evolution of the word, was in the Roman period where it came to describe “licentious painting or literature; especially, the painting anciently employed to decorate the walls of room devoted to bacchanalian orgies.” (Collaborative International Dictionary of English). Think, the walls of Pompeii, which I cannot even use here in exemplary manner. Here we find the genesis of pornography being associated with images.
Each of the three women highlighted in this video (Cardi B, Megan Thee Stallion, and Kylie Jenner) are dressed like prostitutes, and engaged in lurid, sensational, enticing, and obscene (āabhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically, designed to incite to lust or depravity) behavior. The fact that the visual aspect of this song/video doesn’t rise to the extremes of what we now commonly call pornography reveals the depths to which our society has descended, not an inaccuracy of definition. And that is precisely part of what moves me so profoundly to something bordering on despair. As a father, I am filled with slow burning, deep running rage at the devastating harm this pornographic putrescence wreaks upon our children.
We ought now to speak of the āpornographicā nature of non-sexual things. Violence is the other porn of our culture. Hereās the thing: porn is the lurid display of natural but unrestrained passions. Weāre all familiar with the term āblood-lust,ā but have you considered that in the devolution of mores, culture, of humanity, the perversion of sex comes first and is followed by an even deeper twisting where violence becomes entertainment. Christians, myself included, we have been taken unawares: caught by a more profound perversion while protesting the one that was first waved in our faces.
Revenge-story? Not for Christians. āVengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.ā John Wick-fan? Thatās pornography. Hereās a thought: in ancient Israel, when coming back from war the men had to remain outside the village in order that they not bring the impurity of violence and bloodshed into the home environment. What do we do? We pay for it to be streamed into our living room. Christians ought to abhor the pornographic display of any passion used in a restraint-exceeding manner.
That sounds so tame, so antiseptic, so non-threatening, but our reaction ought to be like that of St. James, āAnd the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hellā (James 3:1-12).
And if the tongue, how much more so the hand raised in violent intent or the genitals lifted in ungodly pursuit of wicked design? If the tongue is a forest fire, the raging hand is a conflagration, and the rebellious genitalia an inferno.
Theology is first the activity of thinking and talking about God,[1] and second the applicable product of that activity. We might say, then, that theology is musing about God that enables us to ascertain how He wants us to live in the time and place where we dwell. But this is somewhat puzzling because there is a vast disparity among communities of thoughtful believers in terms of how they walk out their understanding of Godās character.
Perhaps it would be helpful to note that there are multiple faithful communities of Christian understanding and practice who prioritize adherence to biblical instruction, while emphasizing differing aspects of scripture. All of these communities might be described as āfaithful,ā even though all are also to some degree āfaithless,ā again in a variety of ways. Recognizing that this reality has persisted across history, I propose that the Bible may serve faith and mission best when it generates a dialogue among faithful readers from varying perspectives.
What if interpretation were understood to function in light of relational fact: all who call upon Jesus as Savior/Messiah share a single identity and primary purpose, but reflect a different utility within the over-arching Body of Christ?[2] Thus conceived, interpretation would provoke a lively interchange among interpreters who speak from the particularities of their unique gifts and experiences, and we might begin to celebrate the contribution of each distinct community. None of whom might be said to faithfully reflect the infinite image of God on their own, but all of whom may highlight a particular facet of His image, which the world is certain to be in desperate need of observing and experiencing.
Old Testament scholar, Daniel Hawk, writes:
āAs in the musical work, so in interpretation. Strongly held convictions may be fervently expressed, not as a means of bending other voices to a single, agreed-upon melody, but rather as an expression of distinct voices in a complex conversation that becomes greater than the sum of its partsā¦.
Christian interpretation, in other words, is both determined and improvisational, not unlike jazz. Jazz integrates diverse melodies into a holistic musical experience that values the voice of each musician as a necessary component of the unified musical enterprise. Jazz requires that musicians listen carefully to the other musicians in the ensemble and follow the flow of the musical conversation. When this is done well, the result is a unified musical work, which nevertheless preserves the distinct voices in the ensembleā¦.ā[3]
Undoubtedly, this way of walking might be (and has been) abused and taken too far. However, it seems to me that this practice, if held in conjunction with the foundational conviction that the Word of God expressed in all of Scripture functions as the primary expression of Godās ultimate authority, continuing to instruct the redeemed of every generation, will yield abundant fruit in the lives of Godās people. After all, the best jazz musicians are those who know the laws of music so intimately they are enabled to bend them in a harmonious and melodic manner, consistent with the spirit of music, and in unified relationship with the efforts of the gathered community of musicians.
While the Bible points to Godās ideals, it also describes Christ-like accommodations to sinful brokenness.[4] And, indeed, as Elmer Martens has reminded us,[5] Christ empowered the Christian community to ābindā or ālooseā (Matt. 18:15-20), which means that any given Christian community may be more restrictive or more permissive than the exacting expression of Scripture itself. Given that the Holy Spirit has been given to the entire body of Christ, not all community decisions will be universally adopted by all other communities of faith.[6] May we be a people shaped by Godās Word, and committed to relational exegesis and application in concert with other communities of Godās people across both history and geography.
As we forge colonies of heaven in the midst of the surrounding cultures of despair, may Godās word guide us in the shaping of a biblical culture for our time and place. May the watching world say, āWhat kind of god is this, who gives these people in our midst such wisdom and joy?ā[7] And may they discover that it is not a god, but the God who inhabits us and is our Wisdom.
[1] J. I. Packer, Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993), pp. xi-xii.
[2] 1 Corinthians 12
[3] L. Daniel Hawk, The Violence of the Biblical God: Canonical Narrative and Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2019), 201-203.
[4] Exodus. 21:1-6; Deuteronomy 15:11-18; Mark 14:7
[5] Elmer A. Martens, āMoving from Scripture to Doctrine,ā Bulletin for Biblical Research 15.1 (2005): 77ā103.
[6] this is one reason why reason must precede tradition in the interpretational hierarchy of scripture, reason, and tradition
[7] Cf., Deuteronomy 4:5-8
I read the following words in Fountain of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition by Charles McCoy and J. Wayne Baker today, and I think it sparked a light bulb moment.
āSecond, federalism understand the relationships between God and the world and among humans as based on covenants among their members, some tacit and inherited from the past, others explicit and made or renewed in the presentā (p 12).
The idea of tacit vs.Ā explicit covenants sparked what seems to me the implications of the above quote, and which I have attempted to state succinctly as follows:
When eternal, inviolate beings have a tacit understanding of relationship, formed in virtue of their purposive unity and common character, that agreement forms what in human terms we call a covenant.
The term ācovenantā is required to lend the strength of Divine imitation to human relational compact(s). In other words, implicit agreement among the Godhead is, by virtue of their nature, a covenant in human terms, though human covenants must be explicit due to the depravity of human character.
This is why it is proper to speak of a āCovenant of Redemptionā among the Trinity, even though such a covenant, as such, is never named in Scripture.
The church’s one foundation
is Jesus Christ, her Lord;
she is his new creation
by water and the Word:
from heav’n he came and sought her
to be his holy bride;
with his own blood he bought her,
and for her life he died.
Elect from ev’ry nation,
yet one o’er all the earth,
her charter of salvation
one Lord, one faith, one birth;
one holy name she blesses,
partakes one holy food,
and to one hope she presses,
with ev’ry grace endued.
Though with a scornful wonder
men see her sore oppressed,
by schisms rent asunder,
by heresies distressed,
yet saints their watch are keeping,
their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
shall be the morn of song.
The church shall never perish!
Her dear Lord to defend,
to guide, sustain, and cherish,
is with her to the end;
though there be those that hate her,
and false sons in her pale,
against both foe and traitor
she ever shall prevail.
‘Mid toil and tribulation,
and tumult of her war,
she waits the consummation
of peace forevermore;
till with the vision glorious
her longing eyes are blest,
and the great church victorious
shall be the church at rest.
Yet she on earth hath union
with the God the Three in One,
and mystic sweet communion
with those whose rest is won:
O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we,
like them, the meek and lowly,
on high may dwell with thee.
Source: Trinity Psalter Hymnal #404
Samuel John Stone, a clergyman of the Church of England, the son of Rev. William Stone, was born at Whitmore, Staffordshire, April 25, 1839. He was educated at Pembroke College, Oxford, where he was graduated B.A. in 1862. Later he took orders and served various Churches. He succeeded his father at St. Paul’s, Haggerstown, in 1874. He was the author of many original hymns and translations, which were collected and published in 1886. His hymns are hopeful in spirit and skillfully constructed. He published several poetic volumes. He died November 19, 1900 –Hymn Writers of the Church, 1915 (Charles Nutter)
Dwight Pryor gave six essentials for a robust biblical theology:
Our great Creator gives his image bearers responsibility, resources, and relationships.ā ā Ron Herms
Too often these gifts for human flourishing are twisted so that responsibility becomes about power, resources become about wealth, and relationships become about sex and manipulation.
Iām enjoying Ron Hermās teaching series on what Revelation reveals about worship for all of life. There are three lectures titled:
They are provided by The Center for Judaic-Christian Studies, which continues to elevate its game, even after the death of its founder and primary teacher, Dwight Pryor. One might be tempted to presume this is yet another wonky Hebrew Roots organization, but one would be mistaken. The Center for Judaic-Christian Studies has set the bar for faithful exposition, engagement with the Church, and avoiding controversy since its inception.
I must state as clearly as possible that anyone who gets involved with yoga, and kundalini energy which is the aim of all yoga, is making a very, very big mistake. No matter how committed a Christian may be, pastor or lay person alike, when a believer chooses to involve himself or herself with the world of the occult, including any and all levels of yoga practice, for āexerciseā or otherwise, very powerful spontaneous demonic manifestations can and do oftentimes occur. Many ignorant people say that yoga exercises can be separated from yoga philosophy. This simply is not true. It is a well known fact that yoga postures/poses are the outworking of occult philosophy. Yoga is an occult practice. It is the basis of the Hinduism. Westernized as āBreath Religionā, āThe Science of Breathā, and āTranscendental Meditationā it leads individuals to believe the great lie of human āgodhoodā. Yoga is demonic in origin, it comes from the teachings of demons, and it stands vehemently opposed to the God of the Bible and to every Christiansā faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. Yoga, even done as merely an āexerciseā, has the power to produce occult phenomena dangerous enough to undo the human psyche. Sadly, countless people, including many undiscerning Christians, believe that yoga can be done as exercise or as an integrative worship practice – as part of a ātransformative processā of drawing ācloser to the Divineā. Nothing could be further from the truth.
āKundalini is the mainstay of all yoga practices.ā ā Hans Ulrich Reiker, The Yoga of Light: Hatha Yoga Pradipika, New York: Seabury Press, 1971, p. 101
Before moving on to anything further, letās establish the agreed upon background.
Second, letās establish that neither myself nor the quoted author are arguing that any movement is inherently evil. There is nothing inherently evil about raising the middle finger. Butā¦ what is it that makes that gesture evil?
Theoretically (and realistically) someone could not know the significance of that gesture and raise their middle finger with no malicious intent. But hereās the pointā¦ for some time folks who perceive the lack of comprehension will not respond to that gesture, but at some point someone is going to punch them.
The answer to my previous question is that there is contextual agreement upon the significance of a movement. I raise my palm up to you when youāre running toward me and you will know that I am indicating you should stop, though that same movement would have meant, āGreetings,ā if you met a Lakota Sioux in 1824. The yoga postures were designed and communicated by spirit entities and they, in agreement with previous and contemporary humans, have invested those movements with significance that the demonic entities treat very legalistically. This significance has persisted for millennia, and is not about to be let go of by those behind their revelation to humans (c.f., 1 Enoch 9:5-7).
A yoga pose, accidentally struck, is a non-thing, a triviality, an accident. But yoga poses regularly practiced are the waving of a flag in the spiritual realm. They will attract attention, whether you wave that flag with intent or not.
But there is more to it even than that. Just as few know much about Kinesiology and yet is has an effect, just as putting oneās shoulders back will enhance breathing compared to doubling over and hunching oneās shoulders, the yoga postures are designed with an awareness that humans rarely possess about the effects each pose has on receptivity to spiritual activity, and the enhancement or alignment of āenergiesā in the body that are often unperceived.
The entire thrust of Godās commandments suggest that His children are to be aware of the spiritual realm but permit God alone to mediate our interaction with it. The practice of sorcery, divination, necromancy, and pharmakeia for man-initiated connection/communication with the spirit realm is prohibited with prejudice. While we want to deny it, the adversaries know that this is precisely what yoga is for, and they are encouraging its growth among us at every opportunity.
Swami Sivasiva Plani wrote in 1991,
A small army of yoga missionaries ā hatha, raja, siddha and kundalini ā beautifully trained in the last 10 years, is about to set upon the western world. They may not call themselves Hindu, but Hindus know where yoga came from and where it goes. (āAn Open Letter to Evangelicals,ā in Hinduism Today, January 1991)
Sannyasin Arumugaswami asserts, āHinduism is the soul of Yogaā¦.A Christian trying to adapt these principles will likely disrupt their own Christian beliefs.ā
As I mentioned previously, the argument is not that any movement (or breathing pattern) is in and of itself inherently evil. No, everything God created is good, and every good and every perfect gift comes down from the Father of Lights who is above.
I think, however, that we too often forget what evil is: the twisting of what was created for good away from Godās intent. The variety of ways in which this truth works itself out in our lives is too seldom recognized, which is unfortunate because its contemplation is quite revelatory.
To establish the interplay at work here, letās take an extreme example, so clear and evident that it will illumine our perception when analyzing more murky examples. Marital intimacy and fornication are the same movement. God created this āmovementā and He clearly intended it for good, so what is it that makes marital intimacy one of the greatest goods we can experience and extra-marital relations wrongāwith a spectrum of wrong extending to some of the worst evils we can contemplate, and yet still the same movement?
Clearly intent is a major factor, but it is not just intent. For example, had we lived in 1st century Corinth, we would not have imagined that we could wander into the local temple with our spouse, and in the midst of the thousand courtesans the temple housed, engaged in marital intimacy with our spouse to the glory of God, while all around us worshipers of Aphrodite coupled to the glory of a rebellious spirit. And letās be honest, despite the best of imaginary intentions, if we made that our regular practice, how long do you think it would be before our perspective on what is permissible began to be impacted? Humans are hard-wired to accept what is familiar as acceptable.
Letās try the typical arguments in favor of yoga out in this contextā¦ So if a couple goes to the Temple Aphrodite with no intent to connect with or interact with demonic powers, does not pray to anyone but YHWH, and puts themselves in postures of intimacy only with their spouse, this would be somehow wrong? Well, perhaps not, strictly speaking. Can we agree that it would be at least unwise, and at best confusing? And when one considers that the spiritual powers are territorial in nature (cf. Deut 32:8-9, āWhen the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the Lordās portion is his people, Jacob his alloted heritage.ā) it becomes evident that place and context matter.
Because of this Deuteronomy 32 worldview, we can understand that location in the Bible has cosmic significance. Ground is either holy, meaning dedicated to Yahweh, or it is the domain of another god. This is why the terms used to refer to the rebellious spirits in Scripture are often those of geographic dominion: āthe prince of the kingdom of Persia,ā āprincipalities,ā ārulersā (Daniel 10:13; Eph 6:12).
This worldview is reflected in many places in the Bible. For instance, in the Old Testament the book of Daniel refers to foreign nations being ruled by divine āprincesā (Dan. 10:13, 20ā21). Another example: When David was running from King Saul, he was forced out of Israel into Philistine territory. In 1 Samuel 26:19, David cried, āThey have driven me out from the LORDās land to a country where I can only worship foreign godsā (GNT). David wasnāt switching gods. He also wasnāt denying that God was present everywhere. But Israel was holy ground, the place that belonged to the true God. David was stuck in the domain of another god. [Michael Heiser, Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches about the Unseen World And Why It Matters]
Old Testament era people knew this: think of Naaman taking Israeli ground back with him to Syria (2 Kings 5:17-18). This was clearly Paulās view as well, āNo, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. [or stretch the stretch of demons in the house of demons] You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy?ā No, rather, āflee from idolatryā! (1 Corinthians 10:14-22).
So, while we might call it a āyoga studio,ā the reality is that this is a pagan temple, and we are as proscribed from engaging in what God intended for good there as we are at the temple Paul refers to. Eating and drinking, moving and stretching, and sexual intimacy are all created by God for good, but location, intent, association, and community all matter.
But what about this question? āWhat happened to the redemption theology we discussed back in the day – Christians through the Holy Spirit and practice can redeem the intents of evil, turning for good what Satan intended for bad?ā
Indeed! We were redeemed in order to be redemptive. Nothing has happened to this imperative in my theological understanding. However, context, intent, location, association, community, and culture all make a difference. In the case of sexual intimacy, redemption means pulling it out of the public eye. In the case of eating and drinking, redemption means doing so in God-honoring settings, according to the rules He gave, and in accordance with needs and balanced desires. In the case of movement, it is theoretically possible to imitate yoga moves in your own home, independent of anyone elseās intention and practice, except…if you do some research you will discover not just that these movements themselves are flag signals in the spiritual realm, but that they are intentionally designed to open one up to influence and interaction. The details of this go beyond what I am comfortable discussing in a public forum, and frankly, if you decide to look into it, I would recommend doing so with another trusted brother or sister. This will take you some very uncomfortable places.
So, God created movement, envisioned stretching, and wanted us to glory in exercising the bodies He created and the wonder that they are: all to His praise and His glory. He also revealed some information and hid other information. It was rebellious spirit-realm-dwellers who began to reveal additional but only partial information that God had not revealed (cf. Gen 3:1-7; 6:1-5; 1 Enoch 6-10), and I think we are wise to remain within the boundaries of what God prescribed and proscribed.
That having been said, there is something called Praise Moves, which takes the idea of healthy movement and stretching and intentionally situates those movements within worship of the One True God. I have felt very ambivalent about this organization, even though the founder is a former yoga master, and is adamantly opposed to the yoga. But your challenge, Will, confirmed to me as I thought this through that it is possible to redeem the concept of healthy movement, so long as it is entirely disconnected from the practice of yoga, and situated within the context of Christian worship, rather than demonic obeisance. Itās still not my thing, but thatās neither here nor there.
In light of recent posts that have touched on the overarching structure of Scripture and how the OT and the NT properly interact, I’m curious…how do you all feel about the traditional division of the law (moral, ceremonial, civil), and how would you say it’s proper to determine that something from the OT does *not* carry over?
While there is significant preceding evidence that God entered into covenantal relationship with humans, at Sinai he specifically and exhaustively made clearāin a manner intended to be received by all who heard it, and to endure for all to comeāthat he intended to relate to mankind in a covenantal manner. He thus promised to be faithful to his chosen (elected) people, and they in turn were expected to obey his law or Torah. The law dictated the lifestyle of the people and reflected how a human was to relate to God, to others, to self and to material things (see McGonigle & Quigley, A History of the Christian Tradition from Its Jewish Origins to the Reformation, pg. 34).
To the degree that these laws directly reflected the nature of God in universal and timeless application these laws have never and will never be annulled. Laws of this nature have sometimes, helpfully, been called the moral law of God. Those laws appear in seemingly random places throughout Scripture and are variously summarized in multiple places and ways, including the 10 Commandments, the 2 Great Commandments, Micah 6:8, and elsewhere.
It is impossible to ignore the observable reality that within the Sinai legislation are laws peculiar to the situation of national Israel within the Land of Promise, ruled by judges and magistrates constrained by the Sinai legislation as their national law, and in the presence of a functioning Tabernacle/Temple system. Christian men have therefore sometimes quickly summarized those laws which endure with universal application as moral, those which apply specifically to the Temple system as ceremonial, and those which specifically direct the nation-state of Israel in the Land and governing themselves as civil. This shorthand description can function as a helpful categorization in aid to the complex process of deriving healthy, biblical application in diverse times and places.
To the degree that so-called ceremonial or civil laws reflect the character of God in a universally applicable manner, these laws remain binding in every age, though they do not, necessarily, direct all men in every place with specificity. So, all men everywhere are required to acknowledge God and no god before Him (Ex. 20:2-3), yet it is also true that all men everywhere are not mandated to redeem their firstborn son for the price of five shekels, to be given to the sons of Aaron (Num. 3:40-51).
There are several Reformation-era statements on these matters that are very helpful, especially when read as summary statements, reflecting extensive underlying exegetical work. Here are two that I especially like:
I. As the ceremonial law was concerned with God, the political was concerned with the neighbor.
II. In those matters on which it is in harmony with the moral law and with ordinary justice, it is binding upon us.
III. In those matters which were peculiar to that law and were prescribed for the promised land or the situation of the Jewish state, it has not more force for us than the laws of foreign commonwealths.
(Johannes Wollebius [1589-1629]), Compendium theologiae christianae)
VII. OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.ā
(39 Articles of Religion, 1562)
Iāve been giving this topic significant thought for several years now. In fact, I think I first mentioned it briefly in public at the 2013 New England Messianic Conference. Iāve been spending a lot of time on the topic recently because I think Iām finally making some progress in articulating something that will make sense to people. For a long time it was something I was intuiting, and I struggled to convey what I meant.
One thing I believe we should acknowledge is that the stereotypical response of pro-Torah people to this topic has not been well thought out, or sensitive to historical context. Among the Reformers and their early descendants (with some exceptions) references to the tripartite division of the Law were not meant to be rationale for how to escape the present applicability of Godās law, but used as a short-hand reference to figuring out how to apply Godās law. Unfortunately, being not well-informed on Reformation-era thought, too many have reacted against one sentence in the 19th chapter of the Westminster Confession (echoed in Chapter 19 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession), without being familiar with the broader context in which those statements were made.
I think we can all agree that figuring out how to apply Godās law to our contemporary situation is rarely easy. Just like ācircumcisionā had become shorthand for the proselyte conversion process in the 2nd Temple era, the division of the law into ceremonial, civil, and moral categories had become shorthand during the Reformation era and following for referring to the significant wrestling they had done to determine the manner in whichĀ Godās law should be applied in their time period.
But we read, āAll which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament,ā and we freak out. Forgetting how precise these folks were in their working out of these concise statements. See, for example, the two quotes above.
There are at least four items of background we need to be aware of when considering this topic:
It is time for us to stop reacting and to continue proactively articulating historically sensitive, theologically mature, biblically defensible, and eminently practical statements of our own. These will correct but not reject the overwhelmingly faithful line of reliable saints who have preceded us.
This post was originally written in 2016, but I was having considerable formatting issues with it that I couldn’t seem to resolve, so I decided to start over from scratch, and it is therefore now re-posted. I remain in complete agreement with what I wrote back then.
Abstract: Wearing culturally-developed tzitzit on oneās belt loops is a valid manner of honoring the command of Num. 15:38 and Deut. 22:12, but is not a literal fulfillment of the commandment. All things considered, for Gentile believers it is likely not the most well-advised manner of honoring this instruction. Additional reflection may yield a more advantageous and multiple-commandment-balancing approach.
āSpeak to the people of Israel, and tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a cord of blue on the tassel of each corner.ā Numbers 15:38
āYou shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourselfā Deuteronomy 22:12
The command regarding tassels ought to instruct all who believe, whether Jew or Gentile. The question of how it ought to instruct may depend upon on oneās ethnicity, time or place.
I would assert, for example, that a Jewish man (or woman, potentially) wearing a tallit kitan or using a tallit gadol with tzitzit attached is a valid keeping of this command, and that a Gentile doing so may be a valid keeping of this command.
I would also posit that a Gentile wearing culturally-developed tzitzit on oneās belt loops is a valid manner of honoring the command, but not a literal fulfillment (or keeping). All things considered, I would also suggest it is likely not the most well-advised manner of honoring this instruction due to reasons of potential misunderstanding, misapplication, and offense.
Nevertheless, we see from the text that God considered it important for His people and we might observe that the principle behind this case law related to: remembrance, identity, and witness. Furthermore, that the keeping of the command assisted the Israelites in the practice of walking in godliness, and promoted a sense of belonging and community. Could anyone argue that todayās Gentile believers donāt also need this?! Additional reflection may yield a more advantageous and multiple-commandment-balancing approach to honoring this instruction.
I am, therefore, seeking an application of the command regarding tassels that is:
Historically speaking, it is of great interest to note that at the time when God gave this commandment, everyone in the Ancient Near East (ANE) wore tassels on their garmentsāIsraelite and non-Israelite. The fringe functioned as oneās signature (pressing the fringe into clay in the same manner as signet rings came to be used), as a sign of your prestige, and were a method of identification or sign of belonging (to a class, family, or tribe). The Israelitesā fringes were to be a distinctive application of a normative cultural expectation.
If one were to argue that wearing tassels on oneās belt loops is a direct fulfillment of the command and that this is necessary, I would ask, āWhere is the parapet around your roof?ā (Deuteronomy 22:8)
Similarly, wrapping teffilin is a valid method of honoring, or helpful symbolic application in the interest of keeping the commands of Deut. 6:8; 11:18, but it does notāin and of itselfāfulfill the commandment. How can we prove this? Because we are also told in the same language that the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the redemption of the first born āshall be to you as a sign on your hand and as a memorial between your eyesā (Ex 13:9, 16).
In my personal edition of the Morning Prayers I attempted to capture the heart of these commands in the following manner: āToday, Father, may your words be always in front of my eyes; may my hands be engaged in the practice of your commands.ā There is a wide variety of ways in which to keep this injunction; observing Unleavened Bread is among them, and the phrasing of the commandment to let this observance be a sign on your hand and memorial between your eyes speaks more to observing the festival with intention than with a physical practice of writing the date of Unleavened Bread on our hand or something similar.
So long as one recognizes that wrapping tefillin is not the actual keeping of the commandment, it remains a helpful spiritual discipline, but once one begins to think that in the practice of wrapping tefillin you have satisfied the intent of the commandment, problems develop.
Given that:
I think it is more than well-advised to practice the command in a manner that does not potentially lay a stumbling block in the path of my brother the Jew (saved or unsaved: one thinks of the reaction of UMJC folks to Gentiles wearing tzitzit in general and specifically to wearing them on the belt loops) or the misinformed Gentile Christian, who perceives it as coming back under the law.
For the last couple of years I have worn a blue and white bracelet as my manner of honoring the tzitzit (and tefillin) command. I am not entirely satisfied (theologically nor practically) with a tzitzit bracelet, but it was a healthy step in the right direction (in response to having become a stumbling block to my Synagogue President neighbor, even though wearing tzitzit āproperlyā on a tallit kitan).
I am entertaining ideas like embroidering 3 white and one blue line on the sleeves of my shirts, or attaching a fringe that is clearly different from the traditional Jewish tying of the tzitzit to the corners created by the vents of a camp-style shirt. I donāt always wear un-tucked, vented shirts, however, so I lean toward the embroidery idea, as this is non-offensive and within the bounds of normative cultural expectation (one thinks of logos on shirt sleeves) that is nevertheless distinctive.
Imagine if every man in our congregations wore shirts with the ātzitzit logoā on the edges/wings (canaphim, c.f. Malachi 4:2 & Numbers 15:38) of their sleeves! Think of the identity-lending power, and the community-belonging power of this! Invest that practice with the significance of fulfilling Deut. 6:8 and one is keeping the commandment in a way that is faithful to Godās intent while also conscious of the commands, āYou shall not curse a deaf man, nor place a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall revere your God; I am the LORDā (Lev 19:14), and āBuild up, build up, prepare the way, Remove every obstacle out of the way of My peopleā (Is 57:14).
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that this sleeve logo idea is probably the application most consistent with the spirit of the command regarding tzitzit. Think about it: our culture is familiar with all football jerseys being the same and yet having distinct identification markings, both in color and logo. Logos have become ubiquitous on a variety of culturally normative clothing styles. To put a distinct arrangement of white and blue threads on the sleeves of a shirt (sleeves being the closest thing to āwings/cornersā we have on contemporary clothing) references a familiarity with the most recently common observance of the command (rabbinically defined tzitzit), honors the commandment, offends no one, and yet retains the reminding, identifying, community-building power of the original command in its Bronze Age context.
How shall todayās believing Laplander apply this command? I donāt know, but they ought to be asking that question. And the eventual result will be a culturally diverse, yet commandment-honoring keeping of Godās law that testifies both to the āhouse of prayer for all nationsā reality of Godās people, but also to the coalescing power and identity-giving nature of being āimitators of God therefore like dearly beloved children.ā
P.S. It occurs to me that I have elsewhere expressed some of what undergirds the above in a very succinct manner:
If love emphasizes people and law emphasizes principle, without the dynamic interplay of both aspects of Godās character, we get an unhealthy (i.e., sinful) imbalance. Therefore, if it is lawful, āso far as it depends on you,ā to ālive peaceably with all,ā then it seems it would be loving to use language [or halacha] that puts, āno obstacle in anyoneās way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry.ā
________________________________________________________________
Background on fringes as normative ANE dress:
All beings have a spirit. Some beings are spirit; some beings are corporeal. All beings but one are created.
Human beings are corporeal, and naturally inhabit the physical realm. The beings described in scripture as personed but incorporeal are called elohim, and naturally inhabit the spiritual realm.
God is an elohim; or God is spirit. God is the Elohim; He alone natively holds all authority.
Uniquely among all beings, God is a single being of three persons. All other single beings are a single person. Single person/single beings are called individuals, because they are an indivisible, singular person. God is not an individual, but a triune being.
Similarly, God is the only uncreated being, and is uniquely infinite rather than finite.
The second person of the singular, triune being, God, inhabited a corporeal form at a specific point in history, and is now, again uniquely, both fully God and fully human. We call that person of the God-being, Jesus. He remains one being with the Father and the Spirit.
We capture all of this meaning (and more) when making the concise statement, āGod is holy.ā In other words, God is wholly other, completely righteous, entirely separate, and uniquely unique.
So now you know; God is Trinity: the only entirely righteous, uncreated, eternally existent, tri-personed, singular Being.
For a defense of this explanation see: the Bible.
For additional amplification see:
The New Covenant is the mechanism of delivery for the Gospel, which God preached beforehand to Abraham, “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen 12:3b; Gal 3:8).
Salvation is accorded to New Covenant participants who believe (Gen 15:6), and those individuals are described as the “sons of Abraham,” and comprise the many nations to whom Abraham is father.
The common features of God’s covenant/words/promise(s) to Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, and 17 are that God will bless, God will multiply, and God will give the land, also that this will all be done through Abraham and his offspring.
Circumcision is the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham and was the sign feature of Abraham and his descendants “keeping” their obligation in this covenant relationship. āThis is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcisedā (Gen 17:10). The problem, of course, is that Abraham’s descendants donāt keep their side of the bargain; they neither walk blamelessly before God nor circumcise every male on the eighth day.
So long as this covenant depends on the actions of the human participants it is the Old Covenant (“All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do.” Ex. 24:3 “All that the LORD has spoken we will do and we will hear/obey” Ex. 24:7 “circumcise your hearts” Dt 10:16) The key, however, is that God is going to keep the covenant, as is foretold in Deuteronomy, where before the book ends God has promised, “the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live” (Dt. 30:6).
As Jeremiah makes clear, the promise of the New Covenant is that God is going to circumcise their hearts, aka, “write [the law] on their hearts… for I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sins no more” (Jer. 31:31-34). These are obvious descriptions of the details of the Gospel promise(s).
So, while circumcision is the sign of the Old Covenant (āwhich you shall keepā), baptism becomes the sign of the circumcision of the heart. That signāas is fitting of a superior covenant (Heb. 7:19, 22)āis applied not just to the men, but to every participant in the family of those descended from Abraham by faith.
In the same way as circumcision was given to all who were a part of the Old Covenant family, but it did not impart salvation, so the New Covenant sign is applied to all born into the New Covenant family, though the sign does not impart salvation.
How, someone might ask, do we know that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant?
First, because it is a sign of a spiritual act: the circumcision of the heart, rather than a physical act executed upon the old man. Second, because Paul states that we have been “buried with [Christ] by baptism into death so that we too might walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-4). Third, because Peter writes that “baptism… now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21). Finally, because Paul tells us that “the circumcision of Jesus Christ is having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith,” which takes us right back to Abraham, who was credited righteousness because of faith, and whose descendants are those who believeāthose “of faith.”
The inescapable conclusion is that baptism is the sign of New Covenant identification, which like the Old Covenant sign, is given both to new converts and the offspring of covenant participants. Like the Old Covenant sign, the New Covenant sign does not itself save but signifies the saving work of God through Christ.
Long-ing For Life 