Thanks for a very interesting introductory post for this series. I would like to follow up on one of the things in the “vision of Leviticus” that is mentioned as “things we no longer worry about” – the food laws.
In it’s context in Leviticus the focus of the food laws is on ritual purity, and we have learned from Jesus, Peter and Paul that this is not directly applicable to life in Christ. But if we now do as the post suggests and try to “discern and redeem them for today” we might find that many of the purity laws actually are good guiding posts for healthy living – many laws are i.e related to hygiene. What we then learn is that the God of Leviticus is concerned with the physical well-being of the people, including good hygiene and healthy diet. And this is certainly something that we can apply in our context. God does not want as to only focus on so-called “spiritual” things. He cares for our whole being, including the physical aspects of it. As followers of Christ we can see our diet and physical exercise as part of our spiritual life. The point is of course not on following all the specifics in the Mosaic text, but on applying the knowledge we have on physical well-being in our worship of our Creator and in stewardship of his creation.

I’m glad to know this volume is out. I enjoy reading Goldgingay and have been blessed by both his theology series and his commentaries on the Psalms.
I was struck by the line in your post: “How often does the “vision of Leviticus”inspire us…” Very good point. Reading the Torah as simply law (and no more) can give one the sense of occasionally blowing the dust off of an old book and reading it again but finding it terribly lacking instead finding a vision that inspires.

In regards to Leviticus and OT Torah and Law, I still think the Galatians 3,4 passage about understanding the Law as our guardian helps. Does not the law in either form as legal entity or instruction still prepare us for the freedom we have in Christ and his further teaching?

“Does Law vs. Gospel misread the Old Testament?” In a word, yes. This is the unfortunate legacy of the Protestant church’s reading of Luther’s reading of Galatians. Speaking as a Jewish follower of Jesus, it’s disheartening to watch this paradigm dominate the evangelical perspective on the Tanakh (i.e. Old Testament). Perhaps this is one area where the so-called mainline denominations are actually ahead of the curve, viz. by regarding the Noahidic, Abrahamic, and Mosaic covenants as what they actually were: covenants of grace.
Until the rest of us turn that corner, the evangelical wing of the Protestant church will tacitly provide theological and hermeneutical fuel to the flames that separate the Jewish and Christian communities. There is a reason the Messianic Jewish movement is currently out-pacing the growth of the evangelical church, by most accounts. Perhaps Dr. Goldingay’s latest work can help.

“He criticizes the attempt to find principles and rationales as hazardous. (We needed Goldingay’s contribution in the book we just finished about moving from Bible to theology.)”
Mr. Goldingray, Scot’s and Mr Heiss’ comments come close to giving me words for something I have long felt: I have long struggled toward how to see law differently than the “principles and rationales” that Goldingray cautions us against. There is something to holding loosely to them so that we don’t pervert them by holding too tightly and something of how they fit into a more narrative than propositional (but those words aren’t exactly right either) form.
Thank you all.
Peace,
Randy G.

Scot,
I like Goldingay’s approach, and your reading of him.
I have a friend who is impressed with J. Sailhamer’s interpretation. Do you know Sailhamer’s work?
Dana

Scot,
Could your observation from Goldingay be a mediating point between NT Wright and his critics?
“And the Torah, or First Testament, is not so much law as it is instruction. And he sees this understanding in Jesus: Jesus “was not laying down laws but laying out a vision or providing illustrations or offering teaching. He was following the nature of the Torah, which was also not simply laying down laws but offering an exposition of theological ethics in the form of law” (41). [I'm wondering if the Law vs. Gospel hermeneutic is a fundamental misunderstanding of OT laws?]“

Scot, you wondered: “I’m wondering if the Law vs. Gospel hermeneutic is a fundamental misunderstanding of OT laws?”
I’ve wondered this, too, especially because of my work in biblical reconciliation where Law is frequently used as the Right (principle) by one party to assert dominance over another.
This has niggled at me for years of studying Paul, too. ISTM your own Jesus Creed & Goldingay’s insights may confirm that niggling:
So, “what if” the battle being fought is about the Law which been co-opted as an exterior force (or weapon to condemn) rather than a description of how we already live. ISTM that each of us is already operating as little-books-of-laws, whether we acknowledge it or not. Which law is it to be, then? God’s Law written on our hearts, and formed into our lives by the power of the Holy Spirit as we seek to live out the Jesus Creed? OR, the law of reacting to all the pain, anger, joys, sadness, opportunities, closed doors, etc., as individuals passing through a journey once, missing past and future, but making life up on the fly? OR, perhaps, the law of some personal orderliness to control the chaos and lack of ultimate control we face: wake, shower, coffee, devotion, brush teeth, train ride to work, mid-day coffee, work, lunch…
Paul is nothing if not firm on our need for obedience, but has clearly had the transformation from believing he should impose the Law according to the Pharisees, to believing he should embody the Law of Love, through being crucified with Christ that he may be found “in Christ.” So, the bookends I see in his letter to the Romans are his call “to the obedience that comes from faith…”
Yet, I also see Jesus’ faith in the Father reflected in Psalm 73 for instance, where the Psalmist sees the corrupt rich and wonders if being righteous is all “in vain” before entering worship of God. (shades of 1 Cor. 15!) Isn’t the gospel the good news that in Christ and because of the Father’s love and grace, and the empowering of the Holy Spirit, we may conform to the Law of Love?