CHAPTER 4

MT. SINAI: THE DISRUPTIVE TRUTH OF GOD’S ABSOLUTE, COMPREHENSIVE RULE OF LAW

     Previous chapters discussed the progressive intervention of God’s plan into the paganized Noahic civilization.  First, there was the call of Abraham through which we observe God’s election and justification working in a way totally opposed to pagan’s autonomy and self-justification.  Then we observed on a greater scale God’s political and physical judgment upon Egypt and deliverance of Israel.  Man’s proper response to these divine works had to be faith.  He could neither totally comprehend God’s plan nor work up enough good works to merit relationship with God.

     The next key event in this biblical framework is the giving of the law to Israel at Mt. Sinai.  Once Yahweh had called his nation to Himself out from Egypt, He began a new relationship with Israel.  As King over Israel what were His expectations for his subjects?  How did He define His reign over His kingdom? Here we arrive face to face with the matter of ethics, law, and our relationship to God.

     In this chapter I will review some of the details of the Mt. Sinai event and then move on to discuss its meaning for us in such matters as proper and improper concepts of law as well as the notion of “lordship”.  Finally, I will explain the vital truths of revelation, inspiration, and canon which distinguish biblical faith from its counterfeits today.

THE MT. SINAI EVENT

     Political relationships in the ancient world were conceived as analogies of family relationships.  Perhaps this custom arose because the family relationships (Divine Institution #3 given in Gen. 2) preceded civil authority (Divine Institution #4 given in Gen.9).  The father-son relation was more deeply experienced than the “add-on” structure of a nation’s civil structure.  Treaties, therefore, between nations were thought of as agreements between the stronger and weaker nation in terms of father-son relationships or lord-servant relationships readily found in society at that time.

The Relationship Revealed at Mt. Sinai.  God called Israel His son (Exod. 4:22-23; cf. Hos. 11:1).  To make the relationship between Himself and Israel very clear to Pharaoh, Yahweh announced that if Pharaoh did not let His son go, He would kill Pharaoh’s literal son (4:23).  Dr. Walter Kaiser explains this usage of “son” for Israel:

     “The whole community was pointedly designated by a singular noun, thereby allowing for the many to be represented in the One and the One to stand for the many in the same way the term Seed had already functioned and the parallel term Firstborn would come to function in both the OT and NT. Eventually, ‘My Son’ was connected with the coming scion of the house of David (2 Sam 7:14). . . .This designation, ‘My Son,’ became a technical term and an appellation that could be applied either collectively to the nation as the object of God’s love and election or specifically to that final representative person who was to come in Christ.”[1]

     Israel’s relationship, then, to Yahweh was as a son to a father.  That meant several things:  Israel did not become God’s son by keeping the law which came after the exodus event; Israel was the object of God’s protecting love that would last forever; and Israel would be trained as any literal son would be disciplined by his father.  This relationship explains the format of God’s law at Mt. Sinai.

The Format of God’s Law.  The Law given at Mt. Sinai through Moses was not like our usual idea of law--an impersonal code of mechanical rules such as the code of Hammurabi or more modern legislation.  While the Law shared with such pagan codes a “casuistic” format, e.g., “if one does this. . .then the punishment is this. . .” (Exodus 22:1-15; Deut. 17:2-7), the Law also contained much written as personal address by God to the nation.  It was filled with personal exhortation and general precept.  This personal element in the Mt. Sinai revelation should warn us not to think of it in the usual terms of modern law.  We shall return to this observation later.

     Just as previous biblical covenants had a specific format (the New World Covenant of Noah’s day and the Abrahamic Covenant), the Law given at Mt. Sinai constituted another covenant and had a similar format.  I will go through the four traditional parts of a biblical covenant but also note how certain new features appear with this covenant.

     1.   The Parties to the Sinai Covenant.  You can quickly compare this covenant with the previous ones by observing Figure 4.1.  Each contract God makes is successively with a smaller component of mankind.  First, He makes one with all mankind and air-breathing animals in Noah’s day.  Then He makes a contract with Abraham’s seed (left undefined), a subset of all humanity. Now at Mt. Sinai He makes a contract with the sons of Jacob separated out of Egypt, leaving out other Abrahamic sons (Ishmael and Esau).

     2.   The Signing of the Sinai Covenant.  Just as God signed his previous contracts with men by the rainbow and the oath of malediction, He also signed the Sinai Covenant but in a more subtle fashion.  Within the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:1-17, observe the middle section where Yahweh refers to Himself as the Creator (20:10-11).  His “signature” or unique marker of His character is said to be His finished creation work which is  commemorated by the Sabbath.  As Dr. Meredith Kline writes when he compares the Sinai covenant with ancient pagan international treaties:

     “It is tempting to see in the sabbath sign presented in the midst of the ten words the equivalent of the [ancient lord-king’s] dynastic seal found in the midst of the. . .international treaty documents.[2]

     Again we observe the contrast between the Creator-creature distinction in the Bible and the Continuity of Being idea in paganism.  Yahweh identifies Himself as the Creator Who entered into His rest when creation was finished.  Man could have enjoyed this rest with Him, but the Fall occurred and the rest was broken.  God’s plan is to bring His elect and justified ones eventually back into this rest (cf. Heb. 4:4).  His work at Sinai is one step toward that goal.

PART NEW WORLD ABRAHAMIC SINAI

PARTIES	All mankind  All animals	Abraham’s seed	12 tribes
SIGN	Rainbow	Oath of Malediction	Sabbath
TERMS	no global  flood again	seed, land, and world-wide blessing	blessings/ cursings
FOUNDING SACRIFICE	Gen.8:20-22	Gen. 15:9-11	Exod. 24:4-8

     FIGURE 4.1 Comparison of Three Biblical Covenants

     3.   The Founding Sacrifice of the Sinai Covenant.  A holy God and sinful man can establish a contract only if there is redemption, propitiation, and reconciliation through blood atonement as we learned in the last chapter.  This covenant is another example of this truth.  In Exodus 34 Moses and the elders of Israel prepare a sacrifice to accompany the public reading of the new contract Yahweh made with His nation.

     4.   The Terms of the Sinai Covenant.  Unlike previous covenants, the Sinai covenant stresses the mutual obligation between God and man, a quid pro quo.  It defines the quality of the father-son relationship between Yahweh and Israel.  Whereas the New World and Abrahamic covenants stressed the sovereign promises of God, the Sinai covenant stresses the righteous expectations of God for His people and what would happen if they did not live up to those expectations.

     When ancient Near Eastern research was in its infancy, scholars pointed to parallels between the Sinai Covenant and ancient law-codes like that of Hammurabi.  The problem with this analogy was that the Sinai Covenant contained features not found in these codes such as the personal address of God to the people and general precepts that are mentioned above.

     In the last several decades new discoveries have uncovered another ancient Near Eastern parallel to the Sinai Covenant:  the suzerainty-vassal treaty.  Suzerainty-vassal treaties were documents that established international political relationships between great kings (suzerains) and weak kings (vassals).  These treaties stimulate us to observe the Old Testament text more carefully.  Here are parallel features found between the Sinai Covenant (SC) and suzerainty-vassal treaties (SVT):

     1.   Preamble.  SVT first section identified the great king; SC identifies Yahweh (Exod. 20:1-2; Deut. 1:1-5).

     2.   Historical Prologue.  SVT cited past benefits given to the vassal king by the great king which obligates the vassal to serve in gratitude the suzerain.  SC rehearses Yahweh’s exodus- salvation work (Exod. 20:2-6; Deut. 1:6-4:49).

     3.   Stipulations.  SVT spelled out detailed obligations of the vassal to the suzerain.  SC details Yahweh’s commands to Israel (Exod. 20:3-17; Deut. 5:1-26:49).

     4.   Provision for Deposit of the Treaty Document(s).  In a SVT two copies of the treaty were made, one for each party’s temple where it would be safeguarded and periodically reviewed. The SC recounts two tablets, a deposit of both in the Tabernacle (shared by Yahweh and Israel), and a periodic public reading (Exod. 25:16,21; Deut. 10:2; 31:9-13, 24-26).

     5.   Invocation of Witnesses to the Treaty.  A SVT invoked the gods of the world to act as witnesses to the vassal’s obedience or disobedience to the suzerain.  In the SC a Song of Moses is composed that calls parts of the created universe to be witnesses of Israel’s prophesied failure (Deut. 31:16-32:47). Later prophets in the OT appear to act as prosecuting attorneys, calling these witnesses to support the accusations against Israel (cf. Isa. 1:2).[3]

     6.   A Cursing and Blessings Formula.  A SVT invoked cursings or blessings upon the vassal depending upon his disobedience or loyalty to the suzerain.  The SC contains a remarkably similar cursing and blessings formula (Lev. 26:3-33; Deut. 28).

     The Mt. Sinai “legislation”, therefore, is not in the format of what we would think of as a legal code; it is more of a treaty that defines the relationship between Yahweh and His “Son”.  It reveals the expected behavior of a father and son during the growing up period.

THE MEANING OF MT. SINAI

     If the meaning of the exodus event was a model of how God separates good from evil in human civilization, the truly successful counterpart to human revolutions, then the meaning of the Mt. Sinai event is also momentous.  Mt. Sinai reveals the true nature of values, ethics, and law.  It also shows the nature of “lordship” because biblically you can’t have one without the other.

     Values, Ethics, and Law.  No society can exist without a moral authority, a binding code of behavior, or a set of common values.  The problem here is what happens if an entire society’s moral authority is immoral such as a cannibalistic tribe, Nazi Germany, or the future kingdom of the Antichrist?  Obviously, we are not interested in any code or common value set.  If society were its own moral authority, then no room would exist for a reformer.  By definition, he or she would be immoral because they rebel against the traditional values.  Flagrant criminal actions could be justified by appeal to society’s code.

     A clear instance of this problem occurred in 1945 at the end of World War II.  Nazi authorities defended their atrocities by appeal to Third Reich official policies and orders.  At the Nazi war criminal trial at Nuremburg, the American jurist, Supreme Court judge Robert Jackson, put the matter well:  “These men should be tried on this basis, on a higher law, a higher law which rises above the provincial and the transient.”[4]  To counter the Nazi legal defense, the world community had to use an appeal to “a higher law” that stood over the lower law of Nazi policy.  In other words, to successfully prosecute Nazi authorities, the world had to acknowledge that laws of any society are “provincial” and “transient”.

     1.  The Biblical View.  Let’s look at this matter, first from the biblical viewpoint and then from the pagan perspective. On the biblical basis, man was created as a “theomorph”, a creature made in God’s image.[5]  An analogy exists between God’s absolute (Q)uality of holiness and man’s derivative (q)uality of conscience.  Man has a spiritual part which is like God in that it cannot be sensed empirically by taste, sight, sound, touch, or smell.  Nevertheless, this inward conscience tells man that God is Creator of all things and that He defines true values and righteousness for man (Rom. 1:20,32).

     After the fall this conscience alerts man that he comes short of God’s values and moral laws.  Man deep down in his heart knows he is not right with his Creator.  Everything he accomplishes in life, therefore, is contaminated by death, decay, and despair.  Only when God calls to him in grace can he turn back to face his Maker without fear and shame.  Only when God performs His miraculous heart surgery that the Bible calls “spiritual circumcision” can he produce righteous, lawful, and truly ethical life.

     On the biblical basis, then, ethics, values, and law come from above “the provincial and transient”.  Man is only an image of God; he isn’t God Himself and has no resources to generate ethics and law or authority to impose them.  Human legislation can only seek to incarnate some of God’s ethics into civilization; it can only “pass them on” from above; it cannot invent them.  Interestingly, Israel as constituted by Yahweh at Mt. Sinai had no legislative arm, only an executive and judicial one.  Surely this omission shows us something about the importance of ethics, values, and law:  they can only come from God, not finite, fallen man.  In short, on the biblical basis God has the right to tell us what we ought to believe, to think, to say, and to do; and we in turn, knowing what He has done for us, graciously accept and submit.

     2.   The Pagan View.  The pagan mind of flesh began when Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, when he tried to become his own moral authority.  Yet once the pagan mind has suppressed consciousness of its derivative, created nature and the inherent authority of God, it is left in complete vanity when it tries to build values, ethics, and law.  Man just cannot build absolute values on the basis of his limited experience and reason.  Even in innocence Adam needed God’s Word to interpret his environment properly and know which trees to eat and which not to.  How much more after he fell!  Moreover, the fallen flesh continuously rebels against righteousness and lacks power to submit properly to God’s laws (Rom. 7:15).

     Paganism, therefore, runs in one of two directions.  One way is to deny “traditional” values and redefine good and evil and to call evil good, publicly approving unethical behaviors (Rom. 1:32).  This tactic appears to relieve the pressure of the conscience and is the licentious option.  Typically, it is the choice of those who despise reason and tend toward depression. The result, however, is nearly always chaos and social breakdown.

     This failure leads to a second pagan attempt in the opposite direction.  Since paganism has no ultimate security, it cannot long tolerate chaos.  To attain security for itself, it reverts to imposing law upon surrounding society to keep some semblance of order.  Hypocritically, however, in its heart of hearts, the pagan mind doesn’t bow down to the law it imposes on others (Rom. 2:1-16).  This tactic offers another attempt to relieve the pressure of conscience and is the legalistic approach. Typically, it is the choice of those who elevate reason and tend toward optimism.  The result, however, is usually embarrassing failure and declining hope.

     Paganism can’t escape this see-saw dialectic between legalism and licentiousness, between power and so-called freedom. It tries to seek, as Aristotle did centuries ago, a middle-of- the-road “Golden Mean” and negotiated truce between tyranny and chaos.  Never can paganism answer the question, to whom are all men ultimately obligated, without mentioning the Name it is trying desperately to avoid.

     A vast difference, therefore, exists between the pagan and biblical approaches to values, ethics, and law.  Here is why if you compare Exodus 21-23 and Deuteronomy with ancient law codes such as Hammurabi’s, you will discover the startling difference between the personal exhortation in the Bible and the total lack thereof in pagan law codes.  On the pagan basis there is no personal authority--no object to whom all men are obligated-- above society to command submission.  Law-making becomes a political exercise to reconcile varying beliefs and self- proclaimed “rights”.[6]

     On the biblical basis God as infinite-personal Creator is that much needed personal authority.  So all-permeating is His character in the law given at Mt. Sinai that it is nearly impossible to separate private ethics of the heart from public codes of social behavior (observe Exodus 22:21-23:19).  Values, ethics, and law are completely interwoven in the Bible as God reveals Himself.

The Nature of “Lordship”.  We come now to the corollary of the biblical view of values, ethics, and law.  Since these are linked to the Creator as the infinite-personal authority, they reveal His lordship over the creature.  Ethics and law, biblically, are not arbitrary principles arising from society; they are manifestations of a created conscience that is designed to reflect its Creator.

     Here is why the Sinaitic Covenant has a structure more like that of a treaty between a Suzerain (Great King) and a Vassal (Lesser King) than that of a mere societal law code.  Here is why Jesus had to straighten out the Pharisaic perversion of the Law. By New Testament times Pharisees had depersonalized the Law into a mere social code.  What mattered in their view, was whether a murderer got caught (Matt. 5:21), whether the right divorce procedure was used (5:31), or whether religious practices impressed others (6:2).

     Pharisees did what the legal community has done in modern society:  they reduced law to arbitrary rules and regulations; they bureaucratized it.  Note their response to Jesus’ disciples’ “snacking” on grain on the sabbath in Mark 2:23-28. They had tried to express the Sinaitic Covenant law of the sabbath in terms of arbitrary rules and regulations independently of personal submission to Yahweh’s lordship.  The irony of this and other incidents in the Gospels is that these “lawyers” were trying to tell the Lawmaker how to interpret His own Law!

     Relationship that involves Lordship and proper use of values/ethics/law cannot be separated.  God told Israel when He gave the Law “circumcise your heart. . .for Yahweh your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords” (Deut. 10:16-17).  In the analogy between surgical intervention on the organ of physical life and spiritual intervention on the organ of spiritual life, we learn that the Law can be properly obeyed only when major repentance occurs in the heart.  Thus Paul insisted that the work of the law was intended by God to be primarily internal, deep, and personal (Rom. 2:14-15, 28-29).

     The one whose heart has been thus changed expresses a lordship relationship by the inner actions of his conscience and reason (Rom. 2:14-15).  It is not perfection, but a concern over one’s own submission to the Lord more than concern over other peoples’ submission.  Luther put the matter well when he wrote in his commentary on Romans:  “While the righteous make it a point to accuse themselves in thought, word, and deed; the unrighteous make it a point always to accuse and judge others.”[7] A lordship relation comes out of a heart concern for honor that comes from God, not from a concern for honor that comes from society (cf. John 5:44).

     Much controversy arises today in evangelical circles over the “free grace” versus “lordship salvation” debate.  The advocates of “free grace” correctly argue that the gospel invitation is to receive the justifying work of Christ and that unsaved flesh cannot bring to the table vain promises of good behavior.  On the other hand, “lordship salvation” advocates correctly insist that the gospel invitation is not a casual freebie that doesn’t alter the autonomous sinner’s heart.  The two events we have studied—the Exodus and Mt. Sinai—can help us put this matter in perspective.

     Mt. Sinai stresses the lordship relationship of saved people to the Lord Who saved them, but notice that it occurred after the Exodus—after salvation, not before it or during it. The message of Moses to Israel in Egypt was not centered upon ethics and law; it was centered upon deliverance from oppression. Then after Yahweh saved Israel, He appealed for obedience and submission on the basis of the grace He had shown them (Exod. 20:2).  Here is the key to the relationship of lordship to salvation:  willing entry into a lordship relationship depends upon gratitude for what the Savior has first accomplished. Lordship follows salvation.

     However, the salvation invitation is to trust God as Creator over all.  Israel had to trust that Yahweh was greater than all the gods of Egypt, than all of Pharaoh’s army, than death itself. Lordship is implicit in the salvation invitation.  It may only dimly be perceived, but it permeates the whole atmosphere and context of salvation.  Lordship is the presupposition of biblical faith--that He is the ultimate source of all life, all authority, and all truth.  Note how Paul stressed the Creatorhood of God in addressing pagan audiences in Acts 14 and 17.

     If one who claims to be saved, therefore, conceives of salvation as an “add-on” to his or her independent lifestyle and as in no way coming from his or her Creator and Judge, then this person has not understood the gospel or has not truly responded to the illumination of the heart.  Such a person has not believed!  Every Israelite who put blood on his door and walked out of the Egyptian version of the Kingdom of Man had to have been illuminated to the power of the God of his fathers. Otherwise, his or her behavior would not have been faith; it would have been a mere bowing to peer pressure.

     The Mt. Sinai event, therefore, has powerful meaning for us today.  It shows us the true nature of values, ethics, and law. These essential qualities can achieve an absolute status over mere social opinion (the “transient and provincial”) only if they derive from the infinite personal Creator as Lord.  Lordship and law are inseparable.  It also shows that obedience to specific areas of the will of God can only follow salvation because the motive for obedience in the Bible is gratitude.

THE TRUTHS OF REVELATION, INSPIRATION, AND CANONICITY

     The Sinaitic Covenant shows clearly three great truths of biblical faith:  revelation, inspiration, and canonicity.  Faith depends upon hearing God’s Word.  As the Bible, God’s Word in turn depends upon all three of these truths.  Without them, therefore, there can be no biblical faith.

The Doctrine of Revelation.  If God really makes Himself known to man, how does He do it?  This question has been the battleground of theology for the last three centuries.  Skeptics insist, based upon their paganized worldview, that ultimately “God” is a mere label for impersonal fate or chance.[8]  There is no one there so there can be no speech or word from God.

     Even those theologians, writers, and clergymen who do believe in a biblical-like God do not believe that language can be used to convey truths about Him.  Their problem arises from modern discoveries about language that we learned in Part II of this framework series.  Human language is afflicted with limitations that show up in semantic and logical paradoxes, problems with mathematical infinity, and multiple geometries each of which is logically consist but which contradicts all the others.  Philosophers and poets in this century have sought to “get beyond” language in ways very similar to anti-rational mysticisms of ancient pagan religions.[9]

     The picture these influential individuals have of revelation looks like this:

     non-verbal encounter

     GOD------------------------------------>>  MAN

     Infinite |||| Finite

     Thought  |||| Thought

Total Barrier

For example, one liberal theologian put the matter in these words:

     “There is no such thing as revealed truth.  There are truths of revelation, that is to say, propositions which express the results of correct thinking concerning revelation:  but they are not themselves directly revealed.”[10] Of course, he neglects to inform his readers how one can tell he is doing “correct thinking” without some verbal criteria!  And he obviously denies the historicity of the Mt. Sinai event where it is very clear that God directly revealed Himself.

     You as a Bible-believing Christian must understand your own faith well enough not to be deceived by modernist though and be able to contrast true biblical truth with it.  Let’s look at some characteristics of biblical revelation using the Mt. Sinai event.

     1.  Revelation is Verbal.  Inter-personal communication that conveys information requires both words and works.  At Mt. Sinai Israel heard God speaking in Hebrew (Deut. 4:36; 5:22) just as Paul centuries later heard God in the Aramaic language (Acts 26:14).  The Bible insists upon the verbal nature of God’s revelation such that if you had a tape recorder, you could have tape-recorded His voice.  The language was public; not a private “impression”.

     Such a claim shouldn’t surprise you if you took to heart the creation event and its truths.  There we learned that the Creator-creature distinction means there are two levels of reality, not one as in the pagan dogma of the Continuity of Being.  Therefore language exists on two planes also:  the lower human plane with its severe limitations; and the higher Creator plane as an absolute “meta-language” or “hyper-language”.[11]  All things were created by this hyper-language (John 1:1-3) when God spoke the universe into existence (Gen. 1; Ps 33:6,9).  Since the hyper-language is the background environment for human language, there is no problem for verbally-expressed thoughts God wishes to convey to pass from His mind into man’s mind.

     The Law of Moses forcibly reminds us that God spoke specific sentences of ten commandments plus hundreds of others to amplify and illustrate them.  Moreover, as Law His Word contains rules of evidence and tests of truth all dependent completely upon verbal revelation (cf. Deut. 13:1-5; 18:15-22).

     2.  Revelation is Personal.  You’ve already observed that the Law was filled with personal exhortation concerning matters of the heart.  I pointed out that true value, ethics, and law must have personal accountability behind them, and the only sufficient personal accountability is to God over all society.

     This personal nature to the Law arose because of the “father-son” relationship God had with Israel.  The Law was based upon it.  To obey the Law, therefore, was to “love” the Lord (cf. Deut. 6:5).  This meaning to the word “love” sounds strange to our 20th century ears.  In ancient treaties, however, it had this same meaning--obedience.  Note the language in the Amarna Letters where a lesser king, Rib-Addu, says to Pharaoh:  “to love Pharaoh is to serve him and to remain faithful to the status of vassal.”[12]  Notice this exact meaning of “love” in the teaching of Jesus in John 14:21.

     A major consequence of God’s Word being so personal is that there can be no neutrality in our response to it.  We cannot stand aside and be “objective” because to doubt it is to doubt the Author.  The Bible calls this “hardening our heart” (Ps.95:8- 11 cf. Hebrews).

     3.  Revelation is Historical.  Besides being verbal and personal, revelation is also historical.  It enters into human history only in certain generations such as Moses’, Elijah’s, and Jesus’ generations.  God then commands that it be remembered from generation to generation afterward (e.g., Exod. 12:14-28; Josh. 4; I Cor. 11:25-26).

     Only history at large contains true life in its entirety. Specialized knowledge--such as theology, philosophy, and science- -is an abstraction from historical experience.  Mysticism in its own way is separated from historical experience.  Those who distrust history are escapists who eventually must distrust their own memories and rely completely upon their very limited present and local experience.

     4.  Revelation is Comprehensive.  Whenever God speaks, He can speak authoritatively on any subject.  In the Sinaitic Covenant blessings and cursing sections, this aspect is especially evident.  As the One Who made the New World Covenant in Noah’s day, God controls climate (Lev. 26:4,19; Deut.28:12,23- 24) and the biosphere (Lev.26:4-6,20,22,26; Deut.28:4-6,8,11,28- 40).  He controls the physiological processes of the human body (Exod. 15:26; Lev.26:16; Deut.28:4,11,21-22,27-29,35,59) and social processes--both military (Lev.26:7-8,25,32-39; Deut.28:7,25-26,49-68) and economic (Deut.28:12,43-44).  The reign of King Yahweh over Israel covered areas wholly outside the control of the most powerful human king.

     A very good area of the Law to study with comprehensiveness in mind is the set of rules regarding health and social welfare. Not only moral law but dietary and sanitary law was given to Israel.  The nation was held responsible for physical impurity as well as spiritual impurity (e.g., Lev. 12).  God thereby impressed upon Israel that both physical and spiritual evil were due, ultimately, to rebellion against Him.  Immediate healing from some effects of the fall could be expected since atonement had first been made in the Exodus for Israel’s liberation, one which was intended to be a liberation from sin and all of its effects.   Although occasional miracles were known, the usual means of healing was by God’s honoring one’s submission to His will and His rules governing nature (e.g., II Kings 20:1-7).

     Professor Albright notes:

     “Thanks to the dietary and hygienic regulations of Mosaic law. . .subsequent history has been marked by a tremendous advantage in this respect held by Jews over all other comparable ethnic and religious groups.”[13] Had Europe, for example, in the Middle Ages read the Old Testament hygienic codes (washing of hands in running water and ultraviolet sterilization) there would have been far less disease and death.

     In the area of social justice the Mosaic law treated all men alike; there were no favored classes.  Manslaughter, for example, was handled in Israel by the cities of refuge which were for all men (Exod. 21:13-14; cf. Num.35:6-34; Deut.19:1-10).  In contrast the Code of Hammurabi dealt with manslaughter by class privilege:

     “If [the victim] had died because of his blow, he shall swear [that it was not deliberate injury], and if it was a member of the aristocracy, he shall pay one-half     mina of silver.  If it was a member of the commonality, he shall pay one-third mina of silver (207-208).[14]

     Judicial punishment in the Mosiac law was limited to fines, restitution, corporal punishment, and capital punishment (cutting off of the hand only in Deut. 25:11-12).  In pagan law codes, however, there was permanent servitude, substitute execution and/or rape of loved ones, bodily mutilation, and torture.

     Sabbath rest applied to man, woman, slave, and even to animals (Deut.5:14).  Debts were limited to a six-year payback schedule to conform to the sabbath year (Deut.15:1-2), could not be collateralized by items essential for living (Exod.22:26-27), and could not carry an interest rate if for charitable purposes (Exod.22:25).  Albright summarizes:

     “[Mosaic legislation] is the most humanitarian of all known bodies of law before recent times.  The laws about slavery, which envisage the liberation of Hebrew     slaves after seven years, are a good example.  But there are also laws protecting the poor:  interest (always high in the ancient East) was prohibited, and again there was a moratorium on payments after a term of years. . . .Even strangers, who normally had very little protection in antiquity. . .are exceptionally well cared for by Mosaic law.  Not only do we find numerous special provisions for the humane treatment of human beings, but even the well-being of animals receives attention. . .(Deut. 25:4).[14]

     In order to direct life in the Kingdom of God which lies within this created universe, God had to speak about details in every area of life:  His revelation was comprehensive.

     5.   Revelation is Prophetic.  Finally, true revelation is prophetic.  Prophecy speaks of that which lies beyond man’s mental limitations in space and time or, in biblical terms, that which lies “in heaven” and “across the sea” (Deut. 30:12-13; Prov. 30:4; cf. John 3:11-13).  Prophecy also speaks of that which lies beyond man’s willingness to admit as truth; it pierces to the depths of his heart (Heb. 4:12; cf. II Sam. 12).

     Since true revelation is prophetic, throughout the Bible God spoke through individuals of His own choice called prophets. Without God’s revelation these prophets were as other men; with God’s revelation, however, they were supreme over priest, king, and wise man (as I will point out in Chapter 6).  Even the false teacher Balaam, when given God’s revelation, had to speak the truth (Num. 22-24; cf. II Pet. 2:15; Jude 11; Rev. 2:14).

     For over fourteen centuries there was a line of prophets in Israel with complete doctrinal continuity from Moses to Christ due to the special work of the “Spirit of Christ” (I Pet. 1:11; cf. Deut. 18:15-22).  You ought to observe the uniqueness of this feature in the nation Israel.  Jewish historian Yehezkel Kaufmann writes:

     “What makes the history of Israelite prophecy sui generis is the succession of apostles of God that come  to the people through the ages.  Such a line of apostle-prophets is unknown in paganism. . . .[The pagan prophet] incorporated a unique, self-contained divine power; there his “mission” ended with him.[15]

     With the renewed appreciation for the treaty-like nature of the Sinaitic Covenant, we can put the Old Testament prophets into perspective.  Rather than being the radical “social reformers” that liberal theologians idealized over the past century of study, these prophets really were reactionaries against the paganization of Israel.  They went back to the ancient Mosaic law instead of forward to a “more evolved” view of society.  As I point out in Part IV of this series, the prophets acted as the Lord’s “prosecuting attorneys” against Israel’s transgressions, indicting the nation on the basis of the Law.

The Doctrine of Inspiration.  Closely related to one’s view of revelation is one’s view of the Bible or the doctrine of inspiration.  The word “inspiration” comes from II Tim. 3:16 where all of Scripture is described as “God-breathed” (Greek - theopneustos).  The relationship between inspiration and revelation can be pictured like this:

Much revelation has been lost in history (cf. John 20:30-31; 21:24-25), but the Bible is a preserved, sufficient part of God’s revelation and has, therefore, the same characteristics as revelation (viz., it is verbal, personal, historic, comprehensive, and prophetic).

     If you think about it, if real revelation is historical and doesn’t occur in every generation or even in most generations, then a written version would appear necessary to preserve it from generation to generation.  A covenant, we learned, establishes a measuring stick to monitor the behavior of all parties to it. Thus the Bible must be inerrant to fulfill this function.  God’s faithfulness even in the little details of history must be recorded.  A witness that lies or errs is not acceptable.

Inerrant inspiration, therefore, has generally been assumed throughout church history in spite of modern claims to the contrary.  Within Roman Catholicism Augustine said, “I believe most firmly that no one of those authors has erred in any respect in writing.” (Epistles, LXXXII.i.3)  Within Lutheranism Luther wrote, “The Scriptures have never erred.” (Works, 2nd ed., XV, 1481)  Within the Reformed tradition Calvin noted “the certain and unerring rule” of Scripture. (Psalms, V, 11)  Within Methodism Wesley insisted, “If there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may well be a thousand.  If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth.” (Journal, Wed., July 24, 1776).

     Even modern liberals like F. C. Grant freely admit that in the New Testament “it is everywhere taken for granted that Scripture. . .is inerrant.”[16]  Obviously, then, inerrancy of the Bible is not a recent fundamentalist invention.  Be aware, however, that since the 1970s some evangelicals have joined the liberal camp over against fundamentalism in allowing “some” errors in the Bible.  For example, Baptist theologian Dewey Beagle wrote:  “Rejection of the doctrine of inerrancy involves primarily a mental readjustment.  Nothing basic is lost.”{17](!!)

     Why has there been such opposition to the doctrine of inerrancy?  Apparent discrepancies in the text have long been observed throughout Church history and have been dealt with time and time again.  The modern anti-inerrancy movement is caused by the progressive paganization of the intellectual world, not the discovery of new evidence.  Evolution has triumphed over creation in every area from archeology to language studies.  From the pagan perspective inerrancy is irrational.  For professed Christians, however, to waver on this matter only points to their failure to erect a truly biblical worldview in their minds under the Lordship of Christ.

     The Mt. Sinai event underscores inerrancy by its provision for preservation of the treaty-like documents and the warnings against tampering with the text (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; cf. Rev. 22:18-19).  A definition of inerrant inspiration of the Bible is that God so superintended the writing of the Bible using the writers’ own vocabulary and experiences that His revelation was given to man inerrantly in the original writings (Matt. 22:43; Mk. 12:36; Acts 4:25-26; Rom. 3:2; I Cor. 2:13; II Tim. 3:16-17; Heb. 1:1-2; 4:7; II Pet. 1:20-21).[18]

The Doctrine of Canonicity.  After understanding the doctrines of revelation and inspiration, one may well ask, “How does one discern which books are inspired and therefore revelatory?”  Thus arises the matter of canonicity.  If revelation is historical and not continuous, then it must be preserved for future generations in a readily identifiable and accessible form.  Books which are merely “inspiring” in the everyday sense of the term must be distinguished from books which are inerrant revelation.  Two issues arise:  what is the source of canonicity and what are the boundaries of the canon?

     Did the canon arise because the Church (or Israel) made the Scripture into something it would not otherwise have been?  In the Roman Catholic/Protestant controversy this issue takes the form of which is prior in authority--the Church or the Bible? Rome insists that the Church is prior and therefore traditionally has never been as concerned as Bible-believing Protestants have been over the early chapters of Genesis and the evolution controversy.  As the custodian of revelation the Church, according to Rome, defines the “proper” interpretation of the Bible.  Protestants, of course, believe the Church must submit to the Bible, or it is not lawful.

     Liberal theology has another variation on this matter. According to this compromised version of Christian theology, the individual pieces of the Bible were produced solely by human speculation.  Later evolving community opinion made certain books canonical so that canonicity is an acquired characteristic, not an intrinsic one.  (The idea of a slowly evolving Bible is utterly without evidence archeologically and, in fact, is directly refuted by the treaty-like nature of the Sinaitic Covenant.  Treaties were produced whole for a particular occasion; they didn’t grow by accretion.)  In this liberal view, like that of Rome, the Bible cannot have ultimate authority.

     Reflection on the Mt. Sinai event resolves this issue.  Did the Law make Israel, or did Israel make the Law?  The correct answer is that God made both.  God first brought Israel into existence from Abraham to the Exodus; then He gave the Law by speaking it to Israel.  Chronologically, Israel preceded the Law just as the Church preceded the New Testament. Nevertheless, once Yahweh spoke His Law at Sinai, Israel forever afterward was under the Law.  Authoritatively, therefore, the Law outranks Israel.  That the Bible outranks the Church is seen clearly in passages like Gal. 1:8 and Rev. 22:18-19.  In I John 1:3 we have fellowship with God only through the apostles’ teachings which are the New Testament.

     Another dispute concerning the canon concerns the boundaries of it.  What ancient books ought to be included in the Bible and which ones excluded?  Again Roman Catholicism and Protestantism differ.  Rome insists upon including a set of extra books called the Apocrypha; the Protestants exclude them.

     Canonical books are those written by bona fide prophets during eras when historical revelation was occurring.  In such eras prophets recorded part of the revelation for future generations (e.g., I Chron. 29:29; II Chron. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22; 20:34; 32:32; 33:19). The prophets acted as custodians of Scripture--updating archaic terms and passages (e.g., notices in Jud. 18:30b; I Sam 9:9; 18:18b), re-editing their own works (e.g, Jer. 36). compiling previous works into collections (e.g., Prov. 25:1), and issuing new authoritative translations (e.g., Neh. 8; esp. 8:8).  When the era of historic revelation closed and the prophets ceased, the writings were fixed in some way not clear to modern students into a “closed” canon which was zealously preserved thereafter.

     The Sinaitic Covenant stipulated that subsequent prophetic teaching (and hence the canonical books) must be theologically consistent (Deut. 13:1-5) and empirically valid (18:20-22).  Non- canonical books, such as the Apocrypha and the more recent Book of Mormon, not only fail to meet these tests, but they also were not authored by prophets or their close associates during an era of active revelation.

     The Mt. Sinai event, therefore, revealed God’s disruptive intrusion of His Law into world history over against every attempt by man to invent values, ethics, and law on his own.  Not only did His Kingdom now have physical existence, but it had political life.  Moses summed up the matter well:

This is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, that shall hear all these statutes and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.  For what nation is there so great, that hath a god no nigh unto them, as Jehovah our God is. . . ? What great nation. . .hath statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? (Deut. 4:6-8).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

END NOTES FOR CHAPTER 4

1.   Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago:  Moody Press, 1985), p. 49.

2.   Meredith G. Kline, The Treaty of the Great King (Grand Rapids, MI:  Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1963). p. 18.

3.   I develop this point in Part IV of this series.

4.   Cited in The Warren-Flew Debate (Jonesboro AR:  National Christian Press, 1977), p. 17.

5.   See discussion in Part II of this series on the creation of man.

6.   Since paganism denies the existence of a Personal-Infinite Creator, it cannot locate an absolute personal source of ethics.

7.   Martin Luther, Commentary on Romans, trans. J. Theodore Mueller (Grand Rapids, MI:  Kregel Publishing Co. reprint, 1976), p. 52.

8.   Note comments in end notes 5,6.

9.   See the works by Francis Schaeffer such as The God Who Is There.

10.  William Temple, Nature, Man and God (London:  Macmillan, 1949), p. 317.

11.  See discussion on creation of man in Part II of this series.

12.  Cited in W. L. Moran, “The ANE Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, XXV (1963), 81. Rib-Addu, incidentally, if Velikovsky’s radical reconstruction of history is correct, is none other than the infidel of Samaria, King Ahab (see Appendix A).

13.  William F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Garden City, NY:  Doubleday and Co., 1968), pp 180ff.

14.  Ibid., p. 181.

15.  Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, trans. and abridged by Moshe Greenberg (paperback ed., New York:  Schoken Books, 1972 {1960]), p. 212. 

16.  F. C. Grant, Introduction to New Testament Thought (Nashville, TN:  Abingdon, 1950), p. 75.