Mere Fidelity
Mere Fidelity
Jesus and The Law of Moses with Paul T. Sloan
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Derek Rishmawy and Brad East engage with Paul T. Sloan, an expert in early Christianity, to discuss his book 'Jesus and the Law of Moses.' The conversation explores the relationship between Jesus, the law, and the restoration of Israel, challenging popular views on legalism and emphasizing the importance of understanding the law as a gift. They delve into the concept of nomism, the significance of Jesus' authority, and the implications of his death as a ransom for liberation. The discussion also touches on the role of faith, the misunderstandings of the Pharisees, and the enduring relevance of the law in the New Testament.
Chapters
Hey, this is Ian. I'm the producer for Mere Fidelity. Here at Mere Orthodoxy, our mission is to create thoughtful media for the renewal of the church and culture. That includes this podcast along with other podcasts, daily articles, a print journal, an online community, and more. Mere Orthodoxy and all of our projects are supported by readers and listeners just like you. 2026 is looking like it will be the most exciting year in Mere Orthodoxy's 20-year history. But we need your help to make it happen. If you enjoy this podcast, want to see it continue, and partner with us to create even more resources like this. You can make that happen by becoming a member. Go to Mereorthodoxy.com slash member to partner with us. That's Mere Orthodoxy.com slash member. Let's renew minds and restore hope for the good of the church and the culture. Go to Mereorthodoxy.com slash member today.
SPEAKER_01I'm also joined by one of our regular cra cast and crew, uh Brad East. Glad to see you.
SPEAKER_04Yeah, same. Glad to be back.
SPEAKER_01Uh and we are today joined by uh an illustrious guest, a very fancy professor. Uh sorry, Paul. Uh Paul T. Sloane. He is the associate professor of early Christianity at Houston Christian University. He's the author of uh Mark 13 and The Return of the Shepherd, most recently, and probably most well known for his recent book, Jesus and the Law of Moses: The Gospels and the Restoration of Israel within First Century Judaism. Uh all the New Testament cool kids have been have been bragging about their copies, been reading it books. I am just a humble theology guy who also decided to read about Jesus. I thought I thought I'd read about the Bible for once. And um I was really happy to get my hands on this volume. So, Paul, really happy to have you on the show to talk about your work. Um so that that's that's my that's my really weird uh positive intro about it. I do think it's a uh it's a great book, a lot of a lot to a lot to commend, uh lot to chew on, and and hopefully at the back end a lot to uh argue with. So uh but for now, what I want to do is just ask you to give me the big flyover thesis. Uh I'm hearing what I was reading, I saw basically the thesis was Jesus, Jesus broke the law for love. Was that was that it?
SPEAKER_02That's right. Out of compassion, uh he said this is cruel. No, yeah, thanks. First of all, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it. Thanks. I I'm I appreciate what you all do on this show and appreciate y'all as thinkers and readers and writers about the Bible and theology. I've learned a lot from y'all on systematic questions that I've I've not spent the same amount of time and energy on as you all have. Um yeah, so the big flyover thing would be kind of a two-part issue that one, the context of the gospels is uh narratively framed in by what I've described as restoration eschatology, the notion that um there's a preconceived and explicitly made uh described plight that um uh the people of God are facing, Israel is facing, um, and that that plight is occasioned by their prior transgression um and continued uh d disobedience um such that they remain under, you know, the Deuteronomy's and Leviticus's promised punitive discipline, and that the gospel is present Jesus as both the herald and executor of the restoration that was had been long promised. Um and so uh and that within that I then talk about how in the restoration a lot of a lot of expectations in Second Temple in biblical and late Second Temple Jewish texts um was that um obedience to God's will, which is of course codified in in uh in in Torah, um, would be finally done, uh that people would would be obedient uh to God. Um the the basic idea there is from Deuteronomy 30, verse 6 and other passages, um, where in the restoration God will circumcise the heart so that you'll love the Lord your God with your whole heart, etc. Um, and that a part of that, of course, is is um do doing God's will as as codified in Torah. And so um I I talk about how Jesus is presented as um providing the authoritative interpretation of Torah, um particularly for the age of the dawning restoration. Um then little sub subpoints within that are that he I I try to explain his his dialogue or or in his his the uh dialogue with his interlocutors, particularly the Pharisees, as intramural debate about proper law keeping and that sort of thing. Um so that when you get um debate about Torah, etc., it's not whether you should be keeping it, but but how, and he's and trying to sh kind of showcase sort of some at times the fine-tuned halakhic uh uh twists and turns that Jesus, you know, engages in. Um I think that's probably sufficient for for a 30,000-foot number.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. So to to to to re-summarize you, uh you've got a big picture, you've got a big picture story that Jesus' ministry fits within that often is obscured from view. People don't have this idea of Israel under judgment, in need of rescue as the main pictorial background. And then within that, uh when you see that um and you you start to have a more uh Jewish understanding of Jesus as a fulfiller of the narrative expectations, the promise expectations, um it also opens you up to understand his relation to the law uh more positively and and it reframes a whole bunch of the debates uh at the at the at the detail level. So that's just me summarizing you. Yeah, yeah. So that's right. Yeah. Brad, I think you want to jump right in with a question. Why don't you do that?
SPEAKER_04Yeah, Paul, what is the foil view? What is the what is the popular view in the pews, the pulpits, and even in the scholar study that you are trying to counteract?
SPEAKER_02That's a really good question. And that's why I spent the time early on that I did. Um engaging Borg and Wright and and and others. Um because the the popular view that's often supposed is that um the law is the impossible standard that you can't keep. And so Jesus exposited sort of the impossible standard so that then you realize your need for something else instead. So you've got sort of a law v. Grace um dichotomy, law versus grace dichotomy there. Um or uh people suppose that you know the the problem that Jesus had with his his Pharisees or his fellow Jews or whatever was their supposed legalism. Um and so that if they're trying to earn the law by you know meritoriously doing it to earn salvation or something like that, well that if if if that's what Jesus is criticizing, well then Jesus' interpretation must be, well, he's he's relaxing a bit. He's not as strict as they are, and he's teaching them that no, there's there's nothing that they they can earn, and instead it's all um you know something else. Um and so the basic point there is not that I'm actually, after all, prescribing leak legalism. My point more is that um how one describes what Jesus is criticizing will shape how you end up interpreting what Jesus himself is doing. So if the problem is legalism, well then Jesus's criticism of it will be laxity and non-legalism, right? If the the if the problem is nationalism, sort of in a in a Tom Wright reading, well then the hit Jesus' response to that will be, you know, anti-nationalism or or getting rid of distinctives or that sort of thing. Um and so oftentimes I'm not sure the degree to which sort of Borg's or rather, I'm not sure the degree to which you know Tom Wright's view of sort of Jewish nationalism is necessarily in the views, but certainly the legalism idea and the notion that the law was a burden and the law was um did it ca did it take into account things like intention or um or that it didn't take into account things like compassion or or human needs, that uh and that the law only regulated externals. Those are those are pretty common things that I come across. Um that the law only regulated externals, it never really made a demand upon your interior dispositions, and so that Jesus is showing up and sort of taking it farther or criticizing some some misuse or something like that. Where I'm trying to say, like, no, Jesus, the law itself, you know, makes demands on the intention and Jesus is bringing that out. Um, and that his criticisms of his interlocutors are not those other isms I mentioned, but um, in my in my view, um transgression, which which then helps paint what Jesus is doing um in terms of teaching people how to not be transgressive.
SPEAKER_04Yeah. What it what is for for listeners, how would you describe the relationship between Israel and the law, the Torah, the law of Moses, that Jesus and his interlocutors alike presuppose? What is their fundamental common ground rooted in the Old Testament that you think Christians also, Gentile or not, ought to also presuppose as simply given in the Old and the New Testament?
SPEAKER_02Good. That the law is um gift. It's a it's a it's a gift and it's glorious and it reveals God's will and it's good. Um that it that it reveals God's righteous expectations for his people, and that within it uh that the law itself uh does not demand sort of sinless perfection in order to be considered, you know, in covenant good in fine covenantal standing, because we all know that the law itself provides the means for atonement. And I would say that it's widely shared among Jesus and his interlocutors that it that it is distinctively given to Israel. That's that's a widespread expectation that not everything in it is universally obligating. That was a widespread assumption, um I think in lots of texts.
SPEAKER_04Okay, so uh you you you take um from E.P. Sanders gnomism as sort of the the non-pejorative legal dash ism. So gnomism, the law governs the covenantal relationship between God and his elect people, um, and Jesus enters into this setting as a gnomistic interpreter, and he actually agrees with his interlocutors about the Torah's governance of Israel. The question is, how do you interpret one law in light of another and so on? Um, so this is a two-part question. Maybe say a little bit about gnomism and Jesus' role as a fellow interpreter of the law, but then how you modify that with what you call eschatological gnomism. So what Jesus is different in some sense, so then what what is the the difference that that initiates some controversies?
SPEAKER_02Good. Yeah, that's a really good question. Um so a couple a couple things. One, I distinguish between what I just call non-eschatological gnomism and what you mentioned is eschatological gnomism. What I mean by that is gnomism being sort of one's doing of the law or one's interpretation of the law or one's instruction about how to, you know, keep the law or whatever, um, that there are occasions in which Jesus just comes to a different conclusion about how the law ought to be interpreted or kept or practiced. And that at times um they that that difference of opinion simply results from his alternative reading of the same text, right? Um so um the a case in point might be um from Mark 7, where it seems to be that Jesus reads Leviticus 11 as indicating that ritual impurity is not ingested. Well and that a the body is not defiled by ingesting ritual impurity. Well, once he's got that supposition from his reading of Leviticus 11 or whatever reading of Leviticus 11 that he was you know enculturated with, that could help account for the difference between him and his Pharisaic interlocutors who think that no, it it is possible that ritual impurity could be ingested from and that they they think that from a you know a legitimate, but from Jesus' view, wrong reading of Leviticus 11. And um and so they're trying to protect against the ingestion of ritual impurity, which they do by hand washing. One one way in which they protect against the ingestion of ritual impurity is by hand washing. Um and so um that's a good example of looking, he thinks that Leviticus 11 doesn't require that, and it's not a possibility that you're gonna ingest ritual impurity and so be defiled by it. And so it means that he can dismiss with the tradition of hand washing um when it's for that purpose. Um the eschatological gnomism is a a gnomism, a doing or teaching or practicing of the law that uh is sometimes distinct for Jesus, but not because, actually importantly, not because he d necessarily interprets the law differently, but because of his understanding of his um authorization as this divinely authorized person here to herald uh herald the restoration. And because he views that as an a divinely commissioned duty that is B quite urgent, uh he thinks that there is a capacity for certain commandments to be s subordinated to his duty. And so there it's actually not a disagreement in the interpretation of a commandment, rather, it's a it's his supposition that certain commandments may be subordinated to his duty. And so there the difference of opinion is really on the eschatological part. The difference of opinion is he knows he's been divinely commissioned, right? He knows he's been sent by the Father to do these things, and people who don't accept that premise won't necessarily accept his conclusion that his legal practice is legitimate.
SPEAKER_01So just to clarify, you you distinguish some of what you're doing with what what might be called like a pattern of religion reading. So some scholars will say, like, okay, you've got the Pharisees who have one kind of religion. They have a they have a they have a certain kind of understanding, a legalistic understanding relating to God, so on and so forth. And that's why there's this fundamental distinction between what Jesus, how Jesus reads the law, or doesn't even care about the law potentially, uh, and the way they do. Whereas what you're saying is, oh, actually, uh there's a big bucket we could put a- we could put a whole bunch of things in the Jesus just has like a like a like an average um scholarly dispute uh distinction between his interlocutors that like he's playing by similar rules and just coming up with a better reading. And we defer to that because he's Jesus and he really knows the law well. Um and so there's so he has an authoritative correct interpretation that's still playing on some s shared assumptions. Right. So that's a whole bunch of those buckets that are really interesting that you go into the um the the Second Temple literature and the Halakhic disputes. And then the other bucket is hey, you've got the reading of the law right, but you don't know what time it is, right? Exactly. That's right. You don't know what time it is. Um actually it is the coming of the great Aschatological Sabbath, and we know that when that happens, different rules kick in and different, you know, logical priority kicks kicks in and so on and so forth, or urgency kicks in. And so your Sabbath dispute, like, hey, there's a woman in the well, but like that there's there's things that you have to do that violate the law um in one sense, but because you're supposed to do, you know, you're supposed to circumcise on the eighth day, is totally illicit to uh do that on the Sabbath, and so on and so forth. So you've got those two buckets and you've got two actually distinct chapters on it, right? Uh there's there's the um the conflict and controversy, and then the eschatolog eschatological gnomism chapter that seems to distinguish those. And then within that, I think you've you've the the the time question, and this is something else, is the person question, right? Who's doing who's doing the things? And so it's Christology. Who do you say that I am? And so that's eschatological like it's almost like Christological eschatological nominism. Yes. Who do you think is he the Christ or not? If he's not, then he can't do that. But if he is, he can.
unknownYes.
SPEAKER_01Uh- So I'm hearing that right.
SPEAKER_02Yes. And and the the reason I did in fact I almost did use the phrase at times Christological nominism, and the reasons I didn't is because I didn't want people to think that I was making the kind of argument that it's simply a distinction in person, person or divine identity that gives him the right. Such that you might get this notion that, well, I'm God, so I just simply decide what the law is, right? And so and so some people might hear Christology in that classical sense and think, oh, Christological numism is he's the Christ, he's therefore identity. So he can do what he wants, right? So yeah, I I am nullifying the food laws, but I'm God, so I can do that, right? Um and I'm I'm saying that's not my point. And and you weren't saying that, Derek, I know. But that's the I'll just explain the reason why I didn't use the language of Christological ghismism. If by Christological, people understand effectively missiological, like that he's the Christ on the mission, that he's doing that mission now, um, that he's the authorized figure, then yes, that that would be the right the right the right way to put it. And I I I toyed with different phrases, missiological gnomism, urg urgency gnomism or something. Eschatological gnomism seemed to be the catchiest.
SPEAKER_01No, it's fine. I just think it brings out part of that, that part of the broad eschatology is the arrival of this one who was bringing about this next stage in Israel's history and can do that. And so like uh this is where you so many of your analogy, so many of your so we look at some of the disputes, so many of them have to do with analogies like as to the responsibilities or privileges of the priest. Yes, right? There's things that your average Israelite can't do that your priest and especially your high priest can do, and right here is it like is Jesus and must do, has to do, uh like he like he's on the hook for in ways that you are not. And so if he is that one, then who's coming at this time that got appointed by the prophets uh and told you it was happening, then a new set of rules kick in, um, not because the old ones were bad or intrinsically awful or whatever it is, but because okay, we're just we're we're you know, to to invoke NT right, we're in Act 4. All right.
SPEAKER_02Right, yeah. It's it's I would put it, I would say that a new set of requirements or duties kick in, which brings with it a certain diff distinction of priority. So for example, like healing, Jesus thinks that it's his mission, qua messiah, to heal because of all his the associations of healing with restoration. Well, if he's the agent of the restoration and the restoration brings healing, it's his duty and requirement to heal, which helps explain how well like with the woman bent double, he doesn't just say it was permissible to heal her, he says it was necessary to heal her on to on Sabbath. So I I think I think that's yeah, but but yes, you're right. You're you're bringing that out right, yeah.
SPEAKER_04Let me so let me add on that because you give some you give a couple really helpful um analogies or metaphors from our own from our own social and political context. So we all know that an ambulance with flashing lights that runs a red light is not breaking the law. It's it's not that it's it's that it's that we have a general law that applies usually, but not in every circumstance, because in that case we all know we we pulled aside and it goes through because there's something very urgent and important happening. And it's authorized within the very same law that can give you a ticket for running a red light. And the the the analogy that came to my mind, because what you say then is well, Jesus is like a normal car running through the red light. And the question is what whether he's authorized. And I thought of it as a kind of um like an undercover cop, right? Yes, right, right. An undercover cop may have different, he may be deputized or authorized, but you can't know just by looking at him. Yes, that's right. And so just by looking at Jesus, you don't know whether this is the right guy with the right authority. Uh and in the same way, even a non a different situation which applies less to Jesus would be I'm driving my nine months pregnant wife who is in labor and I run the red light, and you see after the fact that the urgency justifies what on its face looked like law breaking. And so to modify a slight thing, you modified slightly what Derek said about a new set of rules. It's not a kind of new law that that supersedes the old law, it's a new framework. So in fact, Jesus is never breaking the law, precisely because that's precisely one what like the within the Capital T Torah, one set of commands is taking priority over ordinary sets of commands, and he is showing by his authority the way that those interlock in a hierarchy. And so it would never be accurate to say that Jesus either does break the law, as in the law of Moses, or that he or that he gives permission to anyone else to break any commandment of God. Rather, he gives you the right order and framework under the a eschatological pressure of his authorized coming to live in accordance with God's will.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Ross Powell I think that's exactly right because the the capacity, the reason why it's not lawbreaking is because it's built into the system. It's it's built in that certain things will have to give way to others based on either temporal conflicts or official conflicts. So a tip like in Jesus' example, Matthew 12, he says, Have you not ever read that the priests in the temple on the Sabbath profane the Sabbath and are innocent? Now it's interesting, he doesn't say that, like he says they profane Sabbath, which is, you know, materially sort of at the latter level, like, well, that's guilt, you know, that's a transgression, you can't profane Sabbath, right? And yet he says they do it and are innocent. And so there is so subordination of other of other commandments, leaving certain commandments left unfulfilled, um, is uh not breaking the law sort of in italics. It's uh it's leaving certain things done when a higher duty requires it. And so and it's built in with that's why I say like with his argument with the Pharisees in Matthew 12, where he's making this argument about the permissibility of his disciples' Sabbath profanation because of their commission status, et cetera, that the Pharisees would agree with the legal logic. They could probably agree with every premise, they just wouldn't grant every premise. They wouldn't grant the assertive premise that he makes that something greater than the temple is here. Um that's just where they would say, well, really? So that which is then interesting because in the rest of the chapter, it's why the it shift the controversy controversy shifts to like show us a sign. So who are you? Can you verify that premise, right?
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell So this gets to like at a kind of more meta-theological level. The reason I'm broadly sympathetic to a lot of what you're doing, and especially just uh we're not getting into it, but but a lot of the clear, just exegetical moves in each little pericope and your reading of the Sermon on the Mount, the antithesis, this is this is not rejection, this is not of all that kind of thing. Just as a reform thinker, I have a high value on continuity between Old Covenant and New Covenant and the fact that Jesus truly is innocent and truly is righteous and is the obedient uh final Adam who actually fulfills all the law and not just the spirit of the law in a broad sense, right? So that is theologically, I'm very sympathetic to, uh, and it just makes sense of the letter of the text in a lot of ways. We see who who you actually accuses me of sin. Um I've actually got really good theological readings of all these texts. One question I have, though, is just thinking through uh Israel has a sin issue, right? One of the things we've been very cognizant of, you know, post-Holocaust, post-um 1970s, post-all that kind of thing in modern scholarship is and one of the things that E. P. Sanders and the new perspective, they were really concerned to do is to get away from kind of old uh, you know, Luth quasi-Lutheran readings of of Paul, Lutheran readings of and again, I know there's Lutherans who don't do this, but you're saying uh Lutheran readings of of the Gospels is you know, the Pharisees are a foil for the for the Roman Catholics, and Jesus and Paul are the foil for Lutheran and all that kind of stuff, which you know, um we really don't want to say, oh, it's bad legalism, oh, and recently it's bad nationalism, because that's uh we don't want to say all those sorts of things. All right. And nevertheless, if Jesus was right, he was right about something and they were wrong about something. And Jesus is mad about the hard-heartedness of their hearts in some of these disputes. Some of these disputes, it's like, no, you're just wrong. You're just wrong. That's okay. You just need to listen to me. And other ones, there is a hard heart. So I guess what I'm saying is the pattern of religion, let's strong man or steel man a little bit. What pattern of religion, what kind of why did the Pharisees continually, at least in the Gospels, the ones that Jesus happened to run into in the Gospels, not all of them, uh, why did they consistently pick fights with him and get it wrong when Jesus got it right? Why why is his interpretive? Obviously, he's Jesus, so that's why he's always right. But why are they always on why are they always wrong-footed in that way? Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02No, I I think I'm glad you asked this question because you know every time I say it's so funny to me. Every time I say his problem isn't, you know, compassionless exclusivism or legalism or nationalism. Uh again, not that you've done this, but people will sort of exasperate and be like, well then but he did think the Pharisees were wrong, so you you just think he didn't have anything wrong? I'm like, no. I just think that he he uh he is explicit about what he thinks they're wrong about, namely that they transgressed Torah. Like his issue isn't that they're too legalistic, they're too hyper hyper hyper hyper-keeping it or too meticulous about it. His criticism is that they're not keeping it. It's just deeply ironic to me because that we've we've come up with these isms that have kind of circumvented the actual explicit and repeated criticism on the page, which is his problem with them is that they don't keep the law. Now, they they could not keep it for a variety of reasons. They might have the wrong interpretation of it and so just have a tradition that's unnecessary, that'd be hand washing. Or they might just have a what Jesus just calls hypocrisy, a a right reading, but then a not then they don't do it, right? Or they could just have, you know, like wrong oath or vow formulas um that Paul that Jesus thinks is that which Jesus thinks are illicit and uh and and and mistaken. Uh but it basically, I mean, uh yeah, he does think the his can kin you know, his his fellow Jews, um predominantly of course he's often talking about and to the Pharisees, but yeah, he thinks they transgressed Torah, and that's the problem.
SPEAKER_01So I guess just to just to follow again, because Brad had a few. Every problem is the the the person who doesn't want to hyper-historicize things in the sense that um there everybody is uh a historically situated individual, so on and so forth, all that kind of set deep culture. And yet I do think the Bible presents the people as having fundamental human pop problems, fundamental human tendencies, fundamental human um ways that sin corrupts our relationship to things like law, um like the law. And so Israel as a representative humanity, as a representative nature, um one of the reasons I don't I've always been opposed to kind of like Israel's uniquely bad readings of things is because they're not.
SPEAKER_04Uh they are they're uniquely everybody.
SPEAKER_01I love the question is like oftentimes the preacher is, okay, what are they getting wrong that we would also probably get wrong in exactly the same situation that reveals the structure of of something of the human heart. And and I mean maybe that's maybe I'm being too anti-historicist, but this is a concern I could see someone having.
SPEAKER_02Trevor Burrus, Jr.: I think there's like so yeah. So so if I were to examine myself here, I'll put myself under the magnifying glass. Um I I think everyone can struggle with various things psychologically, right? Uh you we could all struggle at some level with various isms that I've described. The question is whether or not they're actually the object of Jesus' critique in the gospels. Yes. That's a different question than is that something that could that could theoretically be psychologically true of every reader. Now, the thing that I think is on the page that I also then identify with as well, is um what what I see on the page is that he will criticize looking at the spec when you've got a plank in your own eye. And which is again a criticism of transgression. That's not a criticism of that's a criticism of not seeing that you're transgressive with this massive plank in your eye, like and and and yet focusing on other people's transgressions. Because the spec also ought not be there. So let's let's let's allegorize these things as transgression. Well, there the issue is that you're transgressive, but you're focusing on the transgressions of others. Um and I think that could be actually, I think that's the the right reading of the of the parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee. Um the Pharisee says, right, that says that he told this parable about people who were persuaded concerning themselves that they were righteous. It's not that they were trusting in themselves, it's that they were per persuaded about themselves that they were righteous while despising the rest. And that point, he says, while despising the rest. And then in the parable, the Pharisee, it's you know, he he says, Thank God that I'm not all these things. And it's good that he's not those things, right? It's good that he's not an adulterer. Absolutely. What he's doing wrong is despising the other person. Um, and that is transgression of Leviticus 19, 17. Do not hate your brother in your heart, reprove him for sin, um, and love your neighbor as yourself in other words, he's he's transgressing a written law that instead of helping this guy, he's sitting there despising him. So again, yeah, I think there's a human tendency to over I mean, well, some people can put put their own transgression under a under a under a magnifying glass and never recognize their own human frailty, right? And and you know, and recognize God's grace. Some people, though, can put other people's magnif transgressions under a magnifying glass and never never examine themselves. Um so anyway.
SPEAKER_01That's really helpful. Thank you. Um and now for a quick word from one of our sponsors. Beeson Divinity School is an interdenominational evangelical seminary on the campus of Sanford University in Birmingham, Alabama. I've been there. It is actually a lovely campus led by world-renowned faculty. Beeson formed students in person in a kind of a community-oriented model of theological education, and they have top-ranked scholars who engage their students at kind of very small class sizes to a warm environment. And now, thanks to a generous gift, Beeson is actually offering uh new full tuition scholarships for the 2025-2026 incoming class for their flagship degree, the Master of Divinity. So this kind of makes the whole thing more affordable than it's ever been. Now, these scholarships cover the cost of tuition and fees for three years, which is the average time it takes to finish the MDiv. And I'll be honest and say I wish I had known about this or had an opportunity to look at this one when I was heading to seminary. So if you're interested, you can apply and learn more information at these endivinity.com.
SPEAKER_04A couple sort of f framing comments and questions. One is just to restate this again for you, because I find this to be both so helpful for me, but also I find that it is helpful for my students and in my local church. And you really can't do it enough, which is to say, when Jesus, you could phrase it positively or positively or negatively, when Jesus is correcting anyone in the gospels, he is not correcting them for obeying the law too much.
SPEAKER_02Right.
SPEAKER_04Because the law is the will and command of God, and you can't do that too hard.
SPEAKER_02I know, I know, I know.
SPEAKER_04That's so that's a that's one way to frame it. And and and a different way to put it is that he's never appealing to, and we can put a little asterisk there for the eschatological mission, but he's never appealing to something uh that contradicts or is outside quote quote unquote outside of Torah to say that Torah got it wrong. Therefore, oh, you missed the ball because God didn't want you to obey his word, he wanted you to obey something else that you lack.
SPEAKER_05Yes.
SPEAKER_04And that's often what what what ordinary folks reading and scholars reading Jesus are like, oh, he's using this other principle. But that would be just on its face deeply unfair for Jesus to say why didn't you obey the non-written invisible mysterious thing? I know. I know the great the the sort of like vulgar Protestant grace thing, because this invisible difficult to name command was always more important than what God Himself.
SPEAKER_02Totally. Yeah. And I resonate with the deeply unfair point. Like, why would he be criticizing his disciples and or his interlocutors for something that is literally just would have been been impossible for them to know that they needed to be doing?
SPEAKER_04Right, exactly. So there's uh there's this epistemic access thing as well as the sort of spirit of higher religion, evolved religion, like we're de we're back in the 19th century. And then I want to follow on Derek's comment about, and he's in in full agreement. Derek and I are so rarely in full agreement, but we we we we are we are here, which is to say that uh uh out of a proper renewed attention to the Jewish nature of the gospel and Jesus and Paul and so on, um, there is this anxiety, and it's a 100% justified anxiety on the part of Gentile interpreters um to get sin talk about Israel right in order to avoid anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic and supersessionist um interpretations. Um and so the question becomes how can we avoid the bad readings while still reading Jesus in his context? So I want to say two things and turn it to you. One is we've always got to be mindful of the audience and all versus some. So of course, Jesus is not criticizing quote unquote all Israel, he is in any given instance criticizing some subgroup of Israel, whether the literal people in front of him or a larger formal group that they are a part of. And then, second, uh and this is the part where I'm gonna toss it to you. It's not just that he thinks that Pharisees or some Pharisees or other folks in Israel fail to get the law right or to live the raw the law right. There is a second thing that they're getting wrong in his lifetime, and that is not responding to Jesus the right way. So there's that's the second thing. And again, he's attracting the crowds. So some of his fellow Israelites are responding and some are not. So maybe say a little about that second component that he is holding some of Israel as disobeying God because they are not responding with the right uh pistis, the right response of repentance and faith to God's Messiah.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, thank you. That's a really good question. And yeah, I I can't remember which chapter I bring it out in, maybe in the introduction, I can't remember, um, where I mentioned that there's there's he criticizes transgression at least on two grounds. One is just transgression of Torah, um, and one is um the criticism of their non-repentance, their non-acceptance of the fact that he has in fact been sent and that his message is authorized and that what he's saying is true, right? Which leads them actually then to transgress in other ways. Uh for in two ways. For example, if he really is if he r really does have the right interpretation of Torah, then by not listening to his interpretation, you might just thereby not keep Torah properly, right? But secondly, if you don't recognize that he's authorized, then you will break Torah in at least two ways. One is one is that, for example, in Matthew twelve, he says, Look, this the priests profane Sabbath and are innocent. And so they're not condemnable. And he says, if you would recognize this about me, you know, the larger argument that I'm making there is that he's authorized, you wouldn't have condemned the innocent. In other words, non-recognition of his authorized status leads them to conclude that the disciples are profaning the Sabbath guiltily, um, and that they're thereby condemning them. But in Jesus' argument, they're innocent. And so it's leading the Pharisees in their non-recognition of Jesus' authorized status to condemn the innocent, which is against Torah. There's another way it leads them to break Torah, which is that I think it appeals relies on Deuteronomy 18, where Moses says, you know, I'll raise up a prophet like you, and you shall listen to him. You get this notion in the transfiguration where there's this is my son, listen to him. I think it's and most scholars think it's an allusion to that, to that verse, and I think that's right. Which means that failure to listen to him is not just failure to listen to Jesus, that's not great. It's not also just a failure to listen to the one that God has appointed, that's obviously not great either. It's actually a transgression of the written commandment to listen to him. Um and so you're you're kind of transgressing in a few different ways there. And so, yes, by by failing to recognize that he's God's divinely appointed son, um, and and the one sent to to herald and execute this restoration, you're not only transgressing, you're you're transgressing Torah, at least in those ways I just mentioned, and it will lead you to further transgression, but you're also just you're missing out on um on the act of fidelity that God is bringing now. Um and you're you're rejecting it, right? You're rejecting God's salvific act, as it were. It'd be akin to I I'm coming up with this analogy on the fly, so forgive it um if it's messed up. But it would be it'd be it'd be akin to in the original ex Exodus, if God said, hey, put the blood on your doorposts, and you're just like, no. Um that's not a like at that stage, putting blood on the doorpost isn't a written commandment anywhere, but you'd be rejecting God's requirement and thereby be rejecting the thing that God is doing now to rescue you, you know. Um and so yeah, that's maybe that analogy. I'm sure that there are imperfections in that analogy.
SPEAKER_01No, that's really good. There there is, I mean, this goes all the way back to the Torah. There is an ini ineliminable personal element to obedience to the law, the w to hearing the word of the Lord. That's like the form of obedience is hearing the word of the Lord through his authorized agents or through he himself, through his own mouth. And so the the personal element of like who do you say I who do you say that I am? Like, am I the Christ or not? It it it really and this is just an apologetic and kind of Christological preaching point. Like, Jesus Jesus makes himself the issue because he is the issue. Uh he he he is the issue and he's made himself the issue. And I mean this is just as a broader whatever point. Um the the old trope in religion that you can um you can like Jesus's moral views, his law. This is you know, Lord Liar Lun Lunatic. I actually think this is actually goes straight up into the the fundamental structure of religion as it's as it is in Christianity, is that there is a fundamental issue of authority of who do you say that I am, is it coming from me? Uh are you going to obey or are you going to not? I mean, this is Adam and Eve in the garden transgression, you know, living by uh the word of God alone. And if you don't recognize Jesus as the appointed word of God or the the mouthpiece of God there, that itself is a condemnable violation, uh a personal rejection. It's it's it's it's not an abstract violation of law. It is a personal rejection of the lawgiver and his agent, so to speak. Um so that's really helpful. This brings me into a side point that I'm just gonna argue with you because um we I've texted to you about this, you know where this is going. Um, yeah, he's a priest, man. Okay, so we all um the the so in in in the in the triplus munex of Christ, the threefold office that everybody is, you know, for all of Christian history, most of Christian history history, prophet, priest, king, as part of his overall um view of Christ as Messiah and Redeemer, the office that I think you mostly slot him in in the Gospels, and again, we're talking about the literary presentation of Jesus in the Gospels. I know you've read Hebrews, I know you know that Jesus is a gospel. The synoptics. Yes, we'll get to that question in a minute. Um you see him mostly as in his prophetic mode. Um do you also kind of see him hinting at his kingly and waiting uh mode? And explain how you see his office or his role.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, really good question. I d I I do think he's a priest, Eric, as you know. Um I just think that that office gets assumed at his resurrection and enthronement. Um yeah, so um yeah, I think the Synoptic Gospels are featuring, probably the best word for it, featuring his prophetic mode. Um and uh with with both just this characterization, um, the fact that he's sent, uh, the fact that the narrator will describe him explicitly as such, like in Luke. Um it's not to the exclusion of other of other capacities, clearly, um, but I think that one's probably uh yeah, I'm comfortable with that word. That's featured or that's highlighted or centralized. Um but yeah, no, he's he's also um he's Israel's Messiah. He'll be uh he's the one who will uh as the son of man who's received authority, he's reigning. Um and and um and so I think these different aspects are are emphasized. And I do think that the Gospels, the synoptics even allude to his uh priestly work. I just think based on Mark 14's, and it's actually actually it's exactly not based on exclusively Hebrews, though I'm happy to take it there. But uh no, I think I think in the trial um you'll see the Son of Man um seated at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven, etc. Mark 14, 62 in parallels. Um I I think that is a reference to his uh that's enthronement and incension. And so that um and so that I think it locates his priestly activity um at his in at his enthronement. Now, again, if you were then to say To follow up and say, okay, but if he's the priest that is enthroned, then is it is there any foreshadowing? I'm like, okay, sure, yeah, maybe. But the the if the question is, is he, you know, is he a priest when he's doing you know purifying, I just think, I don't that that that of itself isn't a necessary conclusion for me because there are other figures who do prophets actually who do the thing that like Elijah and Elijah who do the sorts of things that he's doing um without activating sort of priest mode. Um so anyway, yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_01And I I totally hear that. I just think the proleptic stuff, I mean, there there's a level at which he's not the king until he's enthroned, but he's the king in waiting and he is doing some kingly things. And I think there's a level at which like the, you know, for that s for this reason I say again, it's not synoptics as John. I sanctify myself like throughout his throughout his life, he is keeping himself pure, sanctifying himself, setting himself apart, keeping himself pure for the priestly work he has to do and the office he has to assume. But there's a sense in which he is acting in priestly manners and with a priestly consciousness in the Gospels prior to his ascension and enthronement as the Mel Melchizedek and uh priest king and and that kind of thing. So um I guess part of my argument is just I mean, I was just all so many of your so many of your analogies in in his disputes were why he could do X, Y, and Z on the basis of the fact that the high priest could do X, Y, and Z and not violate. And so that was that's that's just me.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, but my analogy though is not because he's priest I mean, you know this, but just for the listener, my analogy there in comparison to the priest is to say that the the analogy that is is based on the identical urgency, not on the identical office. So it's not that I think Jesus is a high priest, but that his work is analogously urgent and analogously commissioned.
SPEAKER_01I just thought it was I just thought it was convenient that so many of those analogies came from the priestly office. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_04I want to I I was I want to I want to add to this, Paul, because it was a it was a question that I phrased to Derek before you hopped on, which was I I understand and can accept the aschisis of the biblical scholar you uh who asks certain questions, but not under not other kinds of questions under certain kinds of um premises. And you you specify in the in the intro that you are not doing historical Jesus, and I love you for that. But you are you are doing the synoptic Jesus or the textual, the textual synoptic Jesus, and I I can accept that, but then even just now there's ambiguity in your response to Derek. One is uh the literary rendering of the figure of Jesus in the synoptics does not highlight and perhaps only foreshadows versus like he isn't a priest uh walking around Galilee. Well, that's an ontological claim. It's about his office, right? He's he's anointed quite literally with the Holy Spirit. Is that anointing a prophetic, uh royal and priestly anointing? Is it do we have a threefold anointing? Sure. And yes, we could I I could grant with you, even apart from the synoptics, that that this is sort of activated, the priestly work is activated at his resurrection and ascension. But that wouldn't tell me that he's not a priest until then. Uh and we even get some pre-existent stuff in Hebrews.
SPEAKER_01Not a Levitical priest.
SPEAKER_04Of course not Levitical. Yes, agreed about that. But but if his Melchizedekian priesthood is eternal in some sense, uh right? I w I want to know how you want to cash that out, whether as a biblical scholar or as a Christian, uh, in terms of like the ontological claims.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Yeah, I'll do I don't uh not sure how to do it distinctively as a biblical scholar as a Christian. We think about how to answer that part. Um yeah, by saying you're right. I mean, by saying by he's not a priest to Derek was just a quip because I knew to to signal that I knew where his question was going. Yes, I know. Yeah, I I'm I'm I'm saying that I don't think the text commits you to it. Um now but then the question is, is he ontologically a priest before that? I don't I don't know, how would you know? Um like because if the text doesn't signal it, or at least I don't think the text requires, commits you to accepting that it signals it, then how would how would you know? Um so then I take other textual clues, again, now if I'm thinking of a canonical depiction, that, well, I mean, I don't think his pre-existence itself would characterize him as a Melchizedek. If I if if I'm thinking with Hebrews, it seems as he he he has that on the basis of his possession of an indestructible life, um, which happens at his resurrection. Um and so he became a high priest. I mean, so again, you could just then come up and say, well, he became one in this at this stage of the operation. Like, okay, sure, I I get that, but but then I'm then I'm just trying to then I would just ask what's the value of sort of the exegetical. So I mean, this is very helpful for the first time. I mean, mostly not me being right.
SPEAKER_04Paul, you don't think that you don't think that even the New Testament canonical portrait commits the Christian reader to identifying Jesus as priest or engaged in priestly activity or ordained as a priest or doing priestly work, however you want to describe it, until after the resurrection. Like you you you might accept it, but you don't think anything in the New Testament commits you to that in a strong way.
SPEAKER_02I this f so the first thing is to say is I'd have to think more about it. Sure, sure. Second is, but but the second answer is yeah, I think so. I think I'm comfortable with that. I think I'm comfortable with the fact that the R. That's helpful. That's helpful.
SPEAKER_04So that's actually stronger than I than what I took you to be saying in the book because I thought you were limiting yourself to s the synoptics, but even on a canonical reading.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, Hebrews I don't think commits you to it until but I I certainly could be wrong there. I'm not I I've I'm I've studied Hebrews quite a bit, but I just know specialists and I I K-N-O-W specialists. And so I just um I won't call myself a specialist because I know what a specialist really is.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah, yeah. No. Okay. That was just me um being mean and and and moving our text messages into a podcast because I I've harassed you about this. Um Let's talk about atonement, though. Priesthood. Uh in the synoptic presentation, one of the things that you one of the points you make is that the synoptics are not focused on Christ's death as a sacrifice as such, although you do know that in the New Testament his death is a sacrifice. You focus on it primarily as fill on the blank.
SPEAKER_02Endurance of the punitive discipline. Um which is so yeah, I I so fill in punitive discipline a little bit more. Yeah, I'll I'll a few things. One I'd say that um I think I was careful in the book. If I wasn't as careful as I ought to have been, I I hope people see it. Um because I know I said it at least once, but sometimes you have to say things ten times for it to be counted as careful. Um yes, I'm I'm I'm aware that what I'm saying is in the synoptics and not just uh covering the whole New Testament. Um and there are even sacrificial I uh emphasizing that adjectival quality at the end there are sacrificial components to the degree that it's associated with Passover. My question more particularly is is the crucifixion um functioning metaphorically as a Levitical maintenance offering? Covenant main covenant maintaining sacrificial offering. And is it described as a sacrifice in the technical cultic sense of it? And my answer is no for various reasons, um, which we can get into. Instead, I'll just say what I'm describing it as positively is the endurance of Israel's um perduring uh covenant discipline, uh, the manifestation of which is subjection to the nations and death. Um and so the reason that I see that positively is because it's explicitly how Jesus describes his own. He's a they're gonna hand me over to the nations and they will put me to death, um, and that that's an endurance of the punitive discipline that still overhangs them because of their not in repentance, etc. Um but also um I I think that there's a significance, a literary and theological significance actually, to why the synoptic gospels might not choose to use sacrificial metaphors to describe the effects of his death. And that is because I think that um sacrificial offerings are l have have limited capacity. They cannot atone for everything. There are transgressions for which there's no sacrificial expiation. Um and so I I think that that could be one reason why a Jewish writer or reader would want to accentuate that his crucifixion is not functioning in a l in as a sacrifice because of because that would actually technically limit it. Um rather it's the endurance of the punitive discipline because that's taking on the full weight of the punitive discipline. And that's actually, in my, in my view, I'm trying to I and now if for for critics who who want to criticize it, my my point is actually to make more of his death. Um I think you can get there by unhitching some of that from sacrifice. Now, also the important thing is there are things that atone that aren't sacrifice. So things can be atoning without being sacrificial. So I still think of Jesus' death as atoning, and I even think of it as all these positive things that we want to say about it, unique and salific, etc., and liberative. Um my onus there is to distinguish that from the the metaphorical domain of sacrifice for various reasons.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell No, this is really helpful. And I wanted to give you space to flush that out because I'm not sure readers always catch that when somebody denies um sacrifice, uh they think, oh, you're denying atonement. No, no, no, actually. Um Paul's actually got a you know, if if you have an understanding that, say, sacrif the you know, Levitical sacrifices handle ritual impurity and um some moral impurity, but certain high-handed sins or certain kind of uh you know, like bloodshed, idolatry, et cetera, the kinds of things for which Israel was sent out cursed under exile, then you need something, if that's the view you take, that it doesn't handle those things, then what you're trying to do is say, hey, Jesus covers all the bases, even this stuff. Yeah, yeah. So it's it's it's it's an argument to secure the efficacy even for forgiveness for um high-handed sins or gross immorality or murder, bloodshed, those sorts of things, uh. Things that we really would love to have covered. Um So just uh fleshing that out is very helpful. Now, let me ask you about uh ransom. How does Jesus' death function as a ransom in the gospel? So Jesus says hands him hands himself over uh for the salvation of many uh as as a as a as a ransom. So talking about that for a minute.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. Thanks, Derek. That's a good question. Uh there I again I have to I would highlight the location of that saying within its narrative framework within which Jesus is heralding and exec executing the restoration. So that's kind of point one. But then it's important to recognize that Jewish texts characterize and c code, I think is sometimes the word I use, code the restoration as a national eschatological jubilee. And that jubilee is the time in which um slaves are liberated and people return back to their ancestral land just in the mundane regular jubilee. But then, because the plights Israel was experiencing in their covenant discipline, forfeiture of their ancestral land and captivity to for to foreigners, because those plights are identical, typologically identical, to the plights dealt with during the Jubilee, you can see why some texts would describe the restoration as a kind of jubilee, the time in which we're going to return to our ancestral land and be liberated. So Jesus is heralding this restoration qua jubilee, but his people aren't accepting it. And so, still stuck in that state of captivity, etc., what they need is the liberation out from those plights. But the only way to get that is actually a clue from the Jubilee legislation itself that says that the way to get someone out of captivity is to purchase them out. And the the word for that is to pay their ransom. Um it's actually precisely the Greek word that's used in Leviticus 25. It's the plural in Leviticus 25, lutra, but um their ransom price, to to you, in other words, you're paying paying off their remaining debt. Um, so that's where you get the debt notion. It's ransom quad debt payment. But once you get the notion that the captivity to the nations is also punitive, which is which it is in the profits, etc. The captivity to the nations is punitive.
SPEAKER_04You could almost say penal, you know?
SPEAKER_02Yes, it is. Uh she does. Yeah, I say it's a a punitive debt payment. It's a debt payment that satisfies the remainder of the penalty that is a debt. And that that debt is manifest in captivity to the nations. So that's why I describe it as penal and liberative, and that they ought not be played off against one another. Such that and it also helps make sense, in my view, of after his you know, resurrection, after his death, of course, but then his resurrection, what what they've gained, what his followers have gained is freedom. Freedom from the captors, Satan. Um and so um anyway, yeah, I could go on there.
SPEAKER_01But I think No, this is really helpful. And what I what I like is so obviously for me, you know, I've a lot of concerns around penal substitution, biblical theology, all those sorts of things. But what what I appreciate a lot about this element of your argument. The first uh um I've appreciated about this thread of your argument is oftentimes in systematic theology and biblical studies, there's this relationship where there's a there's a spiraling effect of sometimes you're you're tightening the argument you've had uh for a doctrine with uh, in a sense, greater biblical theological specificity around the way the covenants work and the way Jubilee works and the way that like I think the broad out, I mean you might say the broad outline of that argument, that the the theological reality of God's relationship to Israel and the world as king, judge, covenant lord, sanction, all those sorts of things was there, and I think that was assumed. But getting to even more granular specificity as to how that unfolds in Israel's history, in Jesus' death and resurrection, kind of the way it funnels down through a whole bunch of intricate more interesting and intricate textual chains is helpful in my, in my view, um for thinking through. I I think functionally it works the way a lot of people have thought ransom works. But but now we actually have uh a sh much stronger through line there, perhaps than some people have had in the past. So I appreciated that thread of your argument on that point.
SPEAKER_04Make a comment and you can you can um tug on the thread if you want, Paul. But if if not, I have for our final maybe uh ten minutes or so, I I have two sort of big, big questions for you. Okay. The the comment is there is something going on, it seems to be the case, um, that I don't think you'll disagree with, which is that um liberation from captors gets shifted from figures like you know, this worldly figures like Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, to oh wait, we've we've mistaken what our captivity is to, or rather to whom we are bound in captivity, namely spiritual powers, i.e., with a single word Satan, and that Satan and sin and death become the great, the what like the liberation comes from them, not per se the Romans. So that that's a kind of that's a kind of comment which you can pick up if you want. I uh was left wondering when I finished the book. You didn't you didn't leave anything unanswered, but uh what I wanted was more books. And the book we've addressed one, we've addressed one, and I have two more. One is what about Hebrews? You've already addressed that a bit. Then I thought, what about John? And then what about Paul?
SPEAKER_01You you go to the phone, we need a full biblical theology, the New Testament stat.
SPEAKER_04Well, no, and you you allude, you've you've already written and given presentations that are in that are in press or being revised right now. So I know that you have much to say about this, and you address Acts and Paul more directly, and I take those as promissory notes. I'll just for now ask Um, I am very interested about John in two respects. One is, to what extent do you think that John can be read as uh the Jesus of John can be read as engaging this a similar restoration eschatology? Or do you think the Jesus of John is presented as simply being uh up to other stuff that are complementary, but not primarily in that business? I mean, even just thinking about Deuteronomy 18, I was reminded of uh uh John 5.46, if you believed Moses, you would believe me before he wrote about me. Well, where? Turns out right, that's that's one, that's one of many options. And if and in particular, if you do think that John is up to other stuff and not really in the restoration game, what is Jesus up to there? Um, in connection to the kinds of claims you make in this book. I don't just mean in general a theology of John, but in connection to the kind of cla the kind of readings you're offering of the synoptic Jesus.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. Okay, good. The um the first one, the liberative stuff as sin and Satan, et cetera, and not as much. I do agree that that's accentuated, but not for me, not to the expense of the nations. I do think that it's more that the the liberation from the nations is just deferred um until Christ's returns. So I do and I and I wouldn't even say that it's a development. I think it's or sorry, okay, maybe it's a development. But the notion that captivity to the nations is bad because you are thereby captive to the gods of those nations is, in my view, built into Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. And so that it's I think the gospels are accentuating that, but not to the ex- The reason I the reason I make mention that is because I w I'd want to distinguish myself partially, I think, here from what I've heard Tom Wright and others say, which is that, you know, what what Paul came to discover was that the real enemy was sin, not Rome, or something like that. And I think, well, well, no, I think he still thinks Rome is wrong and is gonna get it, you know, um to the degree that they are still subject to. In fact, actually, I might I think I might be quoting you here. I've read you say this some the part of the gospel is to unhitch your fate from Satan's. I think you were quoting someone else, perhaps, but I think I've read that in a piece that you wrote. And I think that's a really helpful way of saying it, that for the the assumption in these texts is that these spiritual powers are going to be dealt with, and so that what the nations ought to do is also unhitch their fate from his or from theirs. And so that um the nations who've been, you know, persecuting or captivating, you know, Israel or God's people will will be dealt with as well if they don't, you know, get on board with Jesus as Messiah, given his now universal authority, because it is authority in heaven and on earth, which I accentuate in Matthew 28. Um but anyway, and that's not to say that you were saying that, it was just that that's part of the reason why I distinguish there. No, that's really cool. Uh and John, uh I've got to be short here just because um I I haven't gotten my my teeth around or my my my my I don't know my my my my brain around um really what what all is going on there. I I do think it's possible that there's some Jewish national restoration eschatology stuff um going on. Um and actually particularly with the notion of you know if you that he is the sent one, he's the one sent by the Father, um, and that he's sent by the Father to liberate and to um and that the Torah points to him, etc. And he even has some comparable legal reasoning, like in John 7, if you circumcise a man on the Sabbath in order to um uh not to break the law of Moses, you know, then why are you mad at me that I heal somebody? Um I would say though that John's pr perhaps again features or highlights the spiritual captivity. Again, not that the synoptics don't, they do too, um, but just that that's a bit more highlighted in John. But my I've got to keep it brief there just because I feel like I'm a bit out of my and that was part of the reason why I didn't do John, is because I literarily, whatever whether it's topically identical, literarily it's it's so distinct that I thought, okay, I'm just gonna recognize that I'm not a John specialist and I want to get this book written on its own terms. Um and so there wasn't really a necessarily a theological reason outside of of excluding John, outside of just recognition that I haven't spent the same time on John as I had elsewhere, and I wanted to, yeah. Um Paul. Did you ask another question on Hebrews, or is that just implied?
SPEAKER_04Yeah. I'll I'll let I'll let Derek take.
SPEAKER_02Well, I do would love to tell you what I think about Hebrews. Oh, tell tell us what you think about Hebrews. Um I so I have written an essay. Uh it will be out, who knows when. It's with Baylor University. Press, I I think, as far as I know, I I think it'll it'll be I I think it'll be be included and it will probably be that in the next couple years. Um there there I'm arguing that um the author is actually assuming the legitimacy of law um when it's making its uh presentation of Jesus um as the Kazedeckian priest. And so I make a lot of hay out of uh Hebrews 8.4. Um if he were on earth, he would be no priest at all, for there are those who make offerings according according to the law. And there it's like and there it's assumed that the law continues to function as a legitimate hindrance to his being a priest if he were on earth. Um in other words, that that sort of supposition is that, well, if he were on earth, he wouldn't be a priest because he's not a Levite. Well, that assumes the legitimacy of the law on earth. And so there I think, I mean again, I'm following here uh David Moffat and Matt Tyson, and I've had some helpful conversations with Madison Pierce about this. That you know, the the law regulates the mortal realm and that Jesus is has transcended that state. So it's not that he's transcended the law because it's invalid, it's that he's transcended the state that the law legislates, namely mortality. And so what has been sort of set aside, as it were, is not the law in principle in the mortal realm, rather what what the commandment and set of commandments that have been set aside are with respect to Jesus, now that he's in a state that is not legislated by Torah. Um so that I think the author of Hebrews thinks that the law is still legitimated authority in the earthly realm, um even as far as sacrificial offerings.
SPEAKER_01And this is where I I wish we hadn't hit this like 20 minutes ago, because this is actually where I have the most theological questions. Um we'll just gonna have to have you back for part two to have a good conversation about the enduring relevant to the law, because I guess as a meta comment, my my question is is the eschatology of eschatological gnomism in Acts and so on as fully eschatological as it needs to be in terms of of the transition of the ages and the way the law fits between the ages and so on and so forth. Um but we ran out of time, Paul. Uh so Paul, this has been a great conversation. I I do just want to say uh so much of this book was so helpful. I do think it's a game changer uh in the in the in the New Testament studies conversation, so far as I grasp it. Um so many helpful, just specific readings of key passages and texts. Um and also as a side note, I didn't mention this earlier. Paul, you have a you have a podcast with uh Logan Williams. G remind me of the title again. Jesus and Jewish Law. Yeah. Jesus and the Jewish Law. I've listened to almost every episode, super interesting stuff. You can get tidbits of what he get does in the book there, also with with um with fun little extras of Logan Williams scholarship as well, which is also excellent. So um I'm gonna commend that to you guys to check out. Uh but for now, Paul, thank you so much for joining Mere Fidelity for the up for for this episode.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, Brad and Derek, thanks so much. Really good questions and great to talk with you.
SPEAKER_01Uh and you guys can pick up again, once again, G is in the Law of Moses, uh, Baker Publishing. It's I think at great book selling uh websites everywhere. Right, yeah. So go ahead and uh uh check that out. But but for now, uh, if you've been listening, thank you so much for listening. Uh feel free to rate and review us on iTunes, on uh Spotify, things like that. Uh join the Patreon or or join Mere Orthodoxy as a member. Uh but for now, um, this has been Mirror Fidelity. Thanks for joining us.