B. Christian Objections to the Structure of the Law
We have thus completed our summary of the structure of God’s Law, and the nation’s active role in bringing the Law to life. It is time we approached the Christian objections to the Law. Christianity is not uniform in its opposition to the Law. There are those who accept that the Law is relevant and applicable to the Jewish nation, but they make the artificial distinction between the “written law” – which they accept, and the “oral law” – which they reject. others accept the complete Law but reject the one detail of the Law which classifies the deification of a human as idolatry.
Yet others reject the entirety of the Law and argue that the Law of Moses is no longer incumbent upon the Jewish nation. Each of these groups presents its own set of arguments, and we aim to respond to the objections of each of these groups individually. Before we address those contentions that are unique to these specific Christian persuasions, we will focus on some general objections to the Law. These objections do not directly attack observance of the Law, instead these arguments challenge the Jewish emphasis on the Law, and the Jewish understanding of the structure of the Law.
We will begin by analyzing the Christian objections to the Jewish understanding of the structure of the Law. The differentiation between the role of the prophet and the role of the arbitrator of the Law is fundamental to the Jewish concept of the structure of the Law. Judaism sees the Law as a level of revelation that is superior to prophecy, thus prophecy falls under the purview of the Law and the revelation of prophecy cannot arbitrate in matters of Law. This axiom is firmly rooted in scripture. Scripture always refers our questions in matters of Law to the arbitrators of the Law, never to the prophets (Exodus 18:13-27, Leviticus 10:11, Deuteronomy 17:9, 33:10, Ezekiel 44:23, 1Chronicles 26:32, 2Chronicles 19:11). The prophet’s role as delineated by scripture is to guide the people with his vision of the future, in contradistinction to the necromancers and sorcerers who guided the gentile nations in this realm (Deuteronomy 18:14,15). We also find that in matters of national interest, or even in matters of personal interest the people were guided by new revelation. This revelation could be the spirit that came to rest on the elders (Numbers 11:17), the revelation could come through the Urim Ve’Tumim (Numbers 27:21), or through the office of prophecy (2Kings 8:1, Jeremiah 42:3). But matters of the Law were referred to the arbitrators of the Law.
The question arises when we seem to find exceptions to this rule. On five separate occasions we find that Moses himself took a question relating to the Law back to God (Leviticus 24:12, Numbers 9:8, 15:34, 27:5, 36:5). If the Law itself is the complete revelation as it relates to arbitration of the Law as Judaism contends, Moses should have came to a decision without resorting to new prophetic revelation.
This argument rests on a misunderstanding of the power and authority of the Law. The Law draws its authority from the fact that it is the teaching of Moses. The reason that the Law holds jurisdiction over prophecy is only because the prophecy of Moses is superior to the prophecy of all subsequent prophets. Moses is the only prophet who had his credibility established by God on a national level (Exodus 19:9, Deuteronomy 34:10-12). Unless a prophet presents credentials that put him in the category of Moses (which has not nor will not happen), we will measure him against the words of Moses. No prophet has a right to alter the words of Moses, because it is Moses and only Moses who God designated as the “faithful one of His house” (Numbers 12:7) authorized to deliver the Law (Deuteronomy 33:4). Until the death of Moses, the Law was not completely delivered to Israel. Moses could still go back to God and ask for legislation, because Moses was the one commissioned by God to deliver His Law. It is only after the superior level of Moses’ prophecy was no longer available, that we cannot seek Law in new revelation. This concept is not applicable to Moses himself.
There seem to be two more exceptions to the principle which circumscribes the office of prophecy in matters directly relating to the arbitration of Law. One of these exceptions is a specific occurrence in recorded in the book of Zechariah. The other is a more general exception where new revelation seems to regulate legislation related to the Temple. We will first turn our focus towards the episode mentioned in the book of Zechariah.
The people had been observing certain fast-days since the destruction of the First Temple (Esther 9:31). The Rabbinical institution of these fasts gave expression to the nation’s mourning and to her repentance in light of the calamities which befell the nation on those days. These observances had continued for 70 years. Now the Second Temple was being rebuilt. The people recognized that this was not the fullness of glory that they had been hoping for. The Second Temple’s beginnings were humble even when compared to the waning light of the First Temple in her last days (Haggai 2:2, Ezra 3:12). Most of the nation was still in Babylon, and the promised ingathering was yet to occur. And the nation was still in servitude to gentile kings (Ezra 8:9). The question came to the priests and to the prophets if the nation was still to observe these Rabbinic fasts in light of the progress made in the rebuilding of the Second Temple (Zechariah 7:3). The response to this legal question came through the agency of the prophecy of Zechariah. God encouraged the people, assuring them that despite the modest nature of the Second Temple it represented a turning point in God’s relationship with His beloved nation (Zechariah 8:11), thus it was no longer appropriate to observe the days of mourning (Zechariah 8:19).
At first glance it seems that the office of prophecy served to arbitrate in a matter of (Rabbinic) Law, a violation of the principle of the primacy of Moses’ prophecy. But when we study the basic elements of this story we can see that there was no infringement of the supremacy of God’s word through Moses. The Law that Moses presented taught the nation which statute would be relevant to each particular situation. Where a confluence of factors complicated matters, the question would be presented to the arbitrators of the Law. The archetype of arbitration of the Law is presented in Leviticus 10:16-20. Aaron as arbitrator of the Law recognized that the death of his sons would render his family unfit for consumption of the sacrificial offerings. The facts on the ground were clear to everyone. The question was how to add up all of the elements of the situation, and how much weight to attribute to each factor.
The incident recorded in Zechariah presented the judges with a different type of question. They were not asked what is the Law in this given situation. The question presented was – what is the situation? The Law itself would have been plain – it was the circumstances which were unclear. The individuals presenting the question knew even before they asked that if the Second Temple represented a turning point in their relationship with God – that they would no longer be required to observe the days of national mourning. The question was – what does the building of the Second Temple represent? This type of question is well within the purview of prophecy as delineated by the Law of Moses. It is the prophet’s role to help the nation recognize where they stand in their relationship with God. And that was the question presented as recorded in the book of Zechariah.
The final exception to the principle of the supremacy of the Law of Moses, is found in the laws surrounding the building of the Temple. When Solomon built the First Temple he did not copy the Tabernacle that Moses had made in the wilderness. The dimensions of the Temple were different than the dimensions of the Tabernacle as were several other details. In the first book of Chronicles (28:12,19) we learn that the precise instructions for the construction of the Temple were written down by David as he had received in a spirit of prophecy. The book of Ezekiel (chapters 40 – 48) provides prophetic instruction concerning the building of the final Temple. It seems that the construction of the Temple violates the principle of the supremacy of the Law of Moses. We see the agency of prophecy setting forth commandments, a function beyond the range of prophetic authority.
This question is invalid. The instructions for the Tabernacle were relevant only for that generation. The Jewish people were not directed to rebuild the Tabernacle once they entered the Land of Israel. In fact the prophecy of Moses itself tells us that prophetic agency will be necessary in determining the location of the future Temple (Deuteronomy 12:5,11,14,18,21,26, 14:23,24,25, 15:20, 16:2,6,7,11, 17:8, 18:6, 26:2, 31:11). There is no other commandment in the Torah which leaves room for future prophecy to determine its parameters. It is clear that the construction of future Temples requires the agency of prophecy, and it is equally clear that this is the exception and not the rule.
Another way the Torah teaches us the unique role that prophecy plays in the construction of the Temple is the wording the Torah uses in relation to the building of the Tabernacle. When the scripture describes the building of the Tabernacle, one phrase is repeated five times. God keeps telling Moses that the Tabernacle should be built “according to all that I show you on the mountain” (Exodus 25:9, 40, 26:30, 27:8 Numbers 8:4). It is obvious that Moses was shown something on the mountain which he did not record.
What was this information that Moses learned on the mountain? Why did he not record it? And why is it important for us to know that he received it?
The answer to all of these questions is that every one of the sanctuaries within which God’s presence was manifest, required a precise set of instructions that are unique to that temple. Aside from the general framework to which every temple adhered, each temple had details that were not repeated in the other temples. These details are revealed through prophecy for each temple separately. These were the details Moses was shown on the mountain concerning the Tabernacle. There was no point in recording these details, because they were only relevant for that generation. And it is of supreme importance that we learn of this communication, because this teaches us the role that prophecy plays in the construction of each one of the future temples.
We can conclude that the general scriptural axiom of the supreme authority of Moses’ Law remains unchallenged. Indeed, even in the messianic era, when the spirit of prophecy will be readily available (Joel 3:1), the questions concerning the Law will be directed to the arbitrators of the Law (Ezekiel 44:23). God’s word through Malachi (3:22) – “Remember the teaching of Moses My servant which I commanded him in Horeb concerning all of Israel” – ring eternal. “All of Israel” is not limited to the Jews of one particular generation, or of one specific era. “All of Israel” includes the entire stature of God’s firstborn son – Eternal Israel.
Originally posted on: https://yourphariseefriend.wor...