Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary s1

LIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

A RESPONSE TO J. DANIEL HAYS’ ARTICLE ON THE OLD TESTAMENT LAW

SUBMITTED TO DR. ERIC MITCHELL

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COMPLETION OF

OLD TESTAMENT ORIENTATION I,

D. LEE KEMP

FORT MILL, SC

11/13/11 In his article, Applying the Old Testament Law Today, J. Daniel Hays seeks to answer questions surrounding the application and relevance of the Old Testament Law for today’s Christian believer. The

New Testament believer, through Jesus Christ, no longer is subject to the Old Testament Law, yet still can benefit from the revelation of God contained within these scriptures. With his article, Hays builds a case for Christians to search the Old Testament Law for principles they can use and apply to their daily lives. He recommends the principlism method of interpreting Old Testament Law, highlighting several strengths found when compared to traditional methods of interpretation.

Hays does state that a weakness of principlism involves its oversimplification of complex issues, while readily admitting that room for improvement does exist. 1 In light of these weaknesses, Hays still contends that principlism provides the best method for interpreting the Old Testament Law and encourages its use by Christians searching the scriptures for truth. 2 The strengths of Principlism address the weaknesses of the traditional method through its consistent treatment of scripture as God’s word, its objectivity, its reflection and consideration of literary, historical, and theological contexts, and its ability to effectively correspond with New Testament teaching.3 Hays’ article increased my understanding of the various ways to interpret Old Testament Law, and I agree with his assessment that the principlism method should be used rather than the traditional method.

Hays also discusses Jesus’ teaching of the eternal nature of the Law (Matthew 5:17) as well as

Paul’s teaching that the New Testament believer no longer is under the law (Romans 7:1-6; Galatians 3-

4). He demonstrates how these two teachings can coexist by providing three reasons. First, Hays points

1 J. Daniel Hays, “Applying the Old Testament Law Today,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158, no. 629 (2001), http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_law_hays.html (accessed November 10, 2011), 31.

2 Ibid., 35.

3 Ibid., 30. out that by using “the Law and Prophets,” Jesus referred to all of the Old Testament and not merely the

Mosaic Law.4 Hays also points out that Christ came to fulfill the righteous demands of the law rather than to observe them.5 Third, Hays writes that, “…Jesus was the final Interpreter of and Authority over the Law…”6 Paul’s teaching is reconciled to Christ’s teaching when, instead of dismissing the law, the law is interpreted in the context of the New Covenant. Principlism provides a way to interpret and apply the law in light of the New Covenant, thus bringing harmony to two apparently contradictory teachings.

In the example below, the principlism method has been used to interpret Exodus 22: 25-27 (in light of the New Covenant), focusing on discovering universal principles that can be readily applied today. Principlism involves five steps.7 Step one identifies what the particular law meant to the initial audience. In the Exodus passage, Israel stood before Mount Sinai while Moses received God’s Law. This law dealt with the lending of money and would have been an important principle for establishing commerce and trade within Israel. This law would hold relevance once Israel arrived in the land of

Canaan and began establishing cities with economies.

Second, the differences between the initial and current audiences must be determined. Israel operated under a Theocracy where God established the nation’s laws. Today’s audience operates under civil governments that determine economic rules. Also, while a cloak would have been a valuable item used for collateral in Old Testament times, today’s audience would most likely use a home or car as collateral when conducting a business deal.

4 Ibid., 29.

5 Ibid., 29.

6 Ibid., 29.

7 Ibid., 31-34. Third, universal principles are developed from the text. The text appears to highlight the need for compassionate lending and dependency upon God for success. God instructs the audience not to charge interest, or keep the cloak of someone who offered it as collateral. These requirements from

God point towards fair business practices that honor God and require the lender to have faith that God will make them prosperous (rather than prospering through charging interest or holding collateral).

Fourth, this universal principle should be connected with New Testament teaching. Christ models dependency upon the Father for success throughout his ministry, often looking for times to slip away and draw strength from prayer (Luke 5:16). Jesus also highlights compassionate lending in the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 25-37). These New Testament passages illustrate helping others and depending upon God for success.

The final step involves finding application for life today. One possible application for readers today would be lending money to fellow Christians in need while not charging interest or requiring collateral. This would demonstrate compassionate lending as well as faith that God would provide for any funds not paid back by the borrower. Through this application, the universal principles taught in

Exodus 22: 25-27 can be applied in reader’s lives today.

In closing, the Hays article presents a compelling method for Christians to apply the universal truths of the Old Testament Law to their lives. Through Christ, Christians no longer are subject to the law, yet from the Law can glean wisdom and better understanding of the character and nature of God.

Hays’ article successfully establishes principlism as an effective option for interpreting and applying Old

Testament Law in light of the New Covenant.