As I mentioned in a previous post, I am always saddened when an orthodox Christian scholar plunges into apostasy. I am also grateful for scholars who still stand firm in the face of ever-increasing resistance. Here Martin Davie offers another excellent critique of the Hays’ new book. May God show them mercy and cause them to repent of their heresy.
For those with ears to hear, listen and understand.
In the rest of this review, I will work through the bullet points and conclusion in turn (they are the quotations in bold type) examining whether the argument set out in them, and in the book as a whole, is persuasive.
3. Bullet point 1 – the revision of biblical law.
‘Contrary to the common idea that biblical law was written once, in stone, and is unchangeable, the actual biblical story of God and humanity is one in which laws are under constant negotiation and revision. Often different law collections in the Torah say different things about the same topics. There are also stories of Moses rethinking laws when he was pressed by people with a good cause.’ (p.12)
With regard to this bullet point, the first thing to note is that there is precisely no evidence that the laws of God are a result of negotiation. Rather, God gives his laws sovereignly and unilaterally. As Psalm 1:2 puts it, it is ‘the law of the Lord’ given by God to Moses and by Moses to Israel.
Secondly, there is no evidence that God’s laws, having once been given, are then revised. They may be re-expressed in different language, as when Deuteronomy says things differently from the previous books of the Pentateuch, and they may be superseded by a new development in redemptive history as, for example, when the once for all offering of Christ supersedes the laws regarding sacrificial offerings (Hebrews 10:1-18). However, the laws themselves are never said to be revised. In the words of Psalm 119:89 ‘For ever, O Lord, thy word is fixed in the heavens.’
Thirdly, while it is correct to say that ‘different law collections in the Torah say different things about the same topics’ this does not mean that the laws in question contradict one another. Rather, they complement one another.