Review and implementation of "David A. Dorsey The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise " Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34, no. 3 (1991): 321-321."

 

According to the Anchor Bible Dictionary," exegesis is the process of careful, analytical study of biblical passages undertaken in order to produce useful interpretations of those passages.  Ideally, exegesis involves the analysis of the biblical text in the language of its original or earliest available form."

 

I believe that Dorsey, in his exegetical basis, tried to declare amazingly and represent different groups with representative positions, arranged sequentially according to their valuation of the law's applicability to the Christian, from lowest to highest. And he showed them through literal exegesis that understanding the verses of the Old and New Testament would lead us to be encumbered by inherent logical fallacies or face the apparent ambivalence of the New Testament on the issue of the law. Accordingly, he introduced his compromise view that in his opinion and mine as well, is more in keeping with the spirit of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. And his view is: legally, none of the 613 stipulations of the Sinaitic covenant are binding upon NT Christians, including the so-called moral laws, while in a revelatory and pedagogical sense, all 613 are binding upon us, including all the ceremonial and civic laws.

 

I liked his take on Kaiser when he said that he is certainly correct in emphasizing Jesus' distinction between the "weightier" and "lighter" matters of the law, but Jesus is speaking in this passage about weightier "matters" of the law (ta barytera tou nomou), not weightier "laws" (note the gender). And then he confirmed that Jesus, in agreement with the OT writers (cf. Deut. 10:12; 1 Sam 15:22-23; Isa 1:11 fr.; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21-24; Mic 6:6-8; etc.), is simply arguing that the overarching principles and purposes of the corpus as a whole, as well as the underlying principles and purposes of each individual law (of whatever category), are more important ("weightier") than the minor verbal details in the wording of specific regulations and the accompanying minutiae of oral traditions. I loved the exegetical base that he built his idea on; however, I wished he could go more exegetical at this point.

I agree with the overall exegesis base he has built his theocentric hermeneutical procedure for applying any of the OT laws, and I saw that he persuaded me with his point.

 

Let’s try to apply that to two passages in Exodus 23, which are verses 4 & 5: “If you meet your enemy's ox or his donkey going astray, you shall bring it back to him” and “If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him.”

 

First of all, I do not have a donkey, and I do not know anyone in Sweden, where I live, who has a donkey. So, this law is not my law. It was part of Israel's covenant with God. Second, as far as the point of the law is concerned, it forbids that I take or leave my enemy’s ox or donkey to go astray before my eyes, presumably to assist the person who lost his assistant animal by bringing the animal back to him even if he was my enemy. A second purpose is undoubtedly to encourage the individual Israelites to be merciful, doing good in their life, not because others are doing good to them but because this is who he is as God’s servant.

 

What theological insights come from this law? The Person who issued this law is obviously concerned about doing good by character, not as compensation for others’ favor to us, and to be willing to help the needy sacrificially. In light of what I, as a New Testament Christian, learn about God and his ways from these particular laws, many practical implications present themselves, including various specific ways in which I myself might help needy people that I know or know of. For example, if someone who considers me as an enemy of him lost his wallet, and I saw it, I should not leave him searching for it while I can bring it back to him. On a bigger scale, if I saw him giving his money to a fraud or a swindler, I should warn him because I am not doing that because he is doing good to me but because this is who I am. This is the God whom I present. Or I saw him with his car struggling to get it started; I should try to help him if I can. And if he refused, then that’s his choice; however, I should try.