Nonconformist Chronicles

Why the Bible Was Written, Part 3

Having returned home from Babylonian Captivity, there was nevertheless a sense in which Israel remained in exile. The former glory of God’s presence had not returned to the temple as fully as before (Hag. 2:3-9). Israel remained under the domineering hand of oppressive nations that continued to limit their freedom. While most ancient writings were produced by the wealthy, the Bible is exceptional in that its authors were often among the oppressed and the poor. The major theme of this book is liberation—whether from sin, Satan, harsh task masters, affluent or violent oppressors, or alienation from God’s presence. Humans are in bondage and in need of deliverance.

The Israelites were hopeful that a deliverer would come. He would ascend to David’s throne and deliver his people from all that held them captive. His kingdom would be one of justice (Isa. 9:7). Among a people longing for justice, this chief virtue would be foremost among the truly godly (Micah 6:8). It was, in fact, injustice that landed Israel in captivity (Amos 2:6-9). This was mainly injustice of the affluent over the poor and of the strong over the weak (Isa. 10:1-2). But the coming king, the Messiah, would run his kingdom differently.

Jesus comes on the scene preaching the good news (gospel) of the kingdom (Mark 1:14-15). He is announcing the return of God’s just reign over his people. He has come proclaiming justice to the nations (Matt. 12:17-21; Isa. 42:1-4). He is the chosen one who has come to bind up the broken hearted, proclaim freedom for the captives, and to release the prisoners from darkness (Isa. 61:1; Luke 4:17-19). He is empowered for this work by the Spirit who is upon him.

The Spirit is not only present in the person of Christ, but the Spirit was active in the events surrounding his birth. God’s presence had especially returned, through his Spirit, to those godly people connected with the temple—people like Zachariah, Anna, and Simeon (Luke 1-2). But Jesus himself is the ultimate temple in whom the glory of God resides (John 1:14; 2:19-21). Jesus’ ministry demonstrated the in-breaking of God’s kingdom. In healing the sick, raising the dead, casting out demons, and restoring sight to the blind, Jesus shows how the power of God is reversing the curse upon creation (Luke 11:20). Jesus takes the brunt of that curse when he is crucified by the corrupt dominating powers. God’s vindication of Jesus, over and against those powers, is affirmed by his raising of Jesus from the dead. His resurrection serves as proclamation that Jesus is Lord (Acts 2:25-36).

The peaceable kingdom of Christ will fully supplant the dominating powers of the world. The kingdom doesn’t come by force or through use of the world’s weapons, for it is the meek who shall inherit the earth (2 Cor. 10:3-4; Matt. 5:5; 2 Pet. 3:13).

Why the Bible Was Written, Part 2

The major theme of Scripture is redemption, which is liberation from bondage to enslavement. As sinners enslaved to our own selfishness we put ourselves in the bondage of alienation from God. When we endeavor to choose our own path, God honors our request. This is illustrated by Adam and Eve’s eviction from the garden. To be evicted from the garden is to be alienated from God’s presence. To be alienated from God’s presence is to be alienated from the fulfilled lives he intends for us. Life apart from God is not really living. It is a living death.

Our alienation is self-chosen, but God in his love chose not to abandon his creation, especially the human creation made in his own image. In our selfish power-hunger, we’ve taken the rest of creation down with us so that all of creation is in bondage to decay and in need of liberation (Rom. 8:19-23).

Scripture records God’s unfolding plan of reconciling creation to himself and to liberate it from its collision course toward destruction. Those people redeemed by the Lord are to work toward the redemption of all creation.

God first chose a specific group of people as his partners in redemption (i.e., liberation. He called Abraham out of Ur promising to make a great nation of his descendants. It would be through this nation that all others could be blessed by being reconciled to God and redeemed from death (Gen. 12:1-3). Israel was to be a light to the nations—a beacon illuminating the way back to God by being a holy nation, a people set apart for him.

But Israel’s history is not without its ups and downs. It’s the story of an often oppressed people experiencing alternating cycles of bondage and liberation. Bondage to slavery in Egypt and subsequent liberation by the hand of God becomes the predominant image of God’s deliverance from the dominating powers-that-be.

The cycles of bondage and liberation continue through the time of the Judges and Monarchs of Israel. The bondage of Babylonian Captivity is linked to Israel’s individual and national sins. This exile becomes the controlling narrative to speak of human bondage to sin outside the presence of God. As humans were exiled from Eden, Israel is exiled from their homeland. They are alienated from the temple and outside God’s immediate presence.

Even upon Israel’s restoration to its homeland things aren’t quite as they were in the days of former glory when God’s presence dwelt in the midst of the temple. Israel remains, in a sense, in exile—the subordinates to whatever dominating power controls the world at the time. The Persians, Greeks, Syrians, and finally the Romans will rule Israel. For hundreds of years the nation longs for liberation from their oppressors. They long for redemption from the bondage of exile.

Why the Bible Was Written, Part 1

Each book of the Bible should first be read in its own context so that each author can be heard on his own terms without outside interference. We can lose the author’s meaning by too quickly bringing in an outside author to modify or qualify what he has written.

At the same time, however, each book of the Bible is part of a larger whole. The collection of books consists of a larger narrative so that each book of the Bible is part of something bigger than itself.

The overall narrative of Scripture is the story of redemption, which means liberation from bondage. The good creation of God has been corrupted by the presence of sin which puts creation in bondage to chaos, death, and decay. Creation is cursed because of sin, but God has a plan to reverse the curse and redeem creation from its bondage to decay (Gen. 3:14-19; Rom. 8:19-23).

Even humans, the crescendo of God’s creation, are destined for decay and eventually death. But God’s plan for redeeming creation includes his intent to redeem our mortal bodies for life in the new creation in which grief, death, war, and want will be no more (Rom. 8:11; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1-4).

In the meantime, God’s image-bearing human creation is called to partner with him in the work of redemption. It’s through us that God’s redeeming work is carried out in this world, so that his will is done on earth as it is in heaven (Matt. 6:10).

Genesis begins with an account of God’s good creation followed by an account of how human beings botched things. We do this by failing to resist the temptation to be like God. Humans have tried to live independently of God’s rule. We have sought to make our own way and chart our own destiny. Continuing down this path is to miss out on the fulfilled life that our Creator intends for us (Gen. 3:5; Isa. 53:6).

The creation account affirms our place in the scheme of things. We are subordinate to God who differentiates between things that are not identical. Genesis records that God differentiates between light and darkness, land and sea, male and female (Gen. 1).

While humans are lower than God we are more like him than any other created beings. He has delegated to us dominion over the rest of creation. We are agents of God’s will on earth as we are called to responsibly manage his creation (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:15).

But in our disobedience to God, chaos has entered creation. Where harmony and peace once thrived there are now divisions and hatred. Animosity exists between humans and God, man and man, man and beast, and male and female.

Disobedience means that there has been a breach in our relationship with God. How can it be repaired and how might we participate in the redemption of creation, especially God’s human creation? That is the question answered by Scripture.  

Baptizing Bigfoot

Bigfoot is a bipedal hominid creature dwelling mainly in the dense forests of the Pacific Northwest.  Hominid is the term applied to one of the great apes such as a chimpanzee, gorilla, or orangutan. The term is sometimes used of prehistoric human relatives. 

As a bipedal creature, however, Bigfoot differs from the great apes in that the creature consistently walks upright on two legs, identifying more closely with prehistoric human relatives. This might suggest that the term "humanoid" is more appropriate than hominid. The creature could be closer to human than ape.

One theory is that Bigfoot creatures are surviving descendants of the Gigantopithecus population. Since the fossils of such creatures have only been found in Asia, it is likely that some of them crossed over the Bering land bridge into what is now North America. This could account for why the Yeti, perhaps Bigfoot's closest relative, exists in another part of the world.

While the Bigfoot phenomena did not take hold in the U. S. until 1958 when tracks were discovered in Washington state, the evidence goes back much farther. As early as 1840, missionary Elkanah Walker recorded stories of such creatures living among the Native Americans in what is now Washington state. Sightings were reported in the 20s and 40s in British Columbia. The phenomena grew with the Patterson-Gimlin film of 1967. Those who claim to have participated in hoaxes have as much to gain as the alleged eyewitnesses by telling their story to the media.

Renowned anthropologist Jeffrey Meldrum of Idaho State University has given credibility to Bigfoot with his research. Meldrum specializes in "the emergence of bipedal locomotion in modern humans." In 2013, veterinarian Melba Ketchum published results of Bigfoot DNA research concluding that the creature is indeed closer to human than ape. The BFRO, Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, is the only scientific research group committed to exploring the mystery of Bigfoot. They organize expeditions to track the creature and they catalog sightings rating them according to plausibility.

If Bigfoot is a human relative, what does this mean? It means that Washington state is right to outlaw the hunting of such creatures and anyone who kills one just might be guilty of murder. It also means that Bigfoot might have the capacity for emotions or even language. So the next question is whether Bigfoots are human souls. If so, is it a stretch to imagine that Bigfoot needs Jesus? How many Bigfoots might have died lost because we have failed to reach them? While missionaries descend upon China, Africa, Europe, and Asia, who is reaching out to the Bigfoots? This is truly an ignored mission field.

Perhaps we could teach Bigfoot English using one of the Gospels as our text. Now we don't want to Americanize, but only evangelize. Just imagine a Bigfoot Church in the Wildwood. Dream of a day when Bigfoots will not be judged by the size of their footprints, but by the size of their hearts. Imagine Bigfoot children and human children hand-in-hand singing Kumbaya. Imagine Bigfoots repenting of their rock throwing and being cleansed of their rank and offensive odor.

Perhaps we need a non-profit ministry. My daughter, Erin, has helped me come up with some ideas for naming it:

 

• Big"Footprints"
• Saving Sasquatch
• Bibles for Bigfoot

We might even accept donations in increments of $1000 or more. Expeditions to the Pacific Northwest are not cheap.        

Women Usurping Authority

Some of the most self-willed, abrasive, and confrontational women I have ever known have ironically been the most adamantly opposed to women having leadership roles in the church. These self-willed women are actually guilty of what they claim to fear most---women usurping authority. They are quick to wag their fingers in the preacher's face, demand his resignation, send him nasty letters, speak to him in angry tones, or run informal gossip campaigns against the leadership.

While being the first to argue that women should be silent in the church, not possess authority over a man, and direct doctrinal queries to their husbands at home, these self-willed women do not practice what they "preach." Their understanding of authority is limited to designated public roles. While not holding such roles, the self-willed women are nevertheless usurping authority in a manner unbecoming of either men or women. They're resorting to unchristian tactics in order to get their way or express their dissatisfaction. While the irony is lost on them, these self-willed women are actually guilty of the infractions that led Paul to rebuke women who had become domineering busy-bodies (1 Timothy 2:11-12; 5:11-14; 1 Cor. 14:34-35).

When the self-willed woman takes issue with a doctrinal statement, she doesn't typically limit her grievance to conversation with her husband at home. The husbands of such women are not usually spiritual leaders. So the wife takes on the role of ensuring that the family is in church and that the doctrines and programs meet with her approval. She has the power to sabotage anything if she gripes often enough. The poor husband usually doesn't know the Bible well enough to articulate the plan of salvation. The last book he read was likely in high school. His wife may send him to church business meetings where he is largely silent except for relaying his wife's concerns and reporting back to her. Yet the couple described would be the first to insist on exclusively male spiritual leadership and a restrictive role for women in the church. The irony would be amusing if not so sad. 

Just to clarify, I am not anti-woman. I am, in fact, of the opinion that their roles have been too restricted in the church and that the proof-texts used to justify this have been grossly misinterpreted, ignoring issues of grammar, historical context, and even other Scriptures. 

I would not consider it usurping authority if a woman were appointed deacon, song-leader, Bible class teacher, or if she verbalized a public prayer. I simply find it ironic that the women most adamantly opposed to such practices are the very ones who, by their accusations and demands, are truly usurping authority. 

I wonder if any of this sounds familiar to any of you. 

A Revolution in Churches of Christ

A revolution has been occurring in churches of Christ. It's presence is strong in the pulpit, as evidenced by the blogs and facebook posts of my preaching colleagues. The revolution has trickled down into the pews (or chairs), but isn't nearly as widespread there. Or maybe it is, but fear of conflict and strained relationships keep many in the closet. So a host of frustrated preachers have waited many years for the rest of the church to catch up. 

This revolution rejects the past legalism and sectarianism that sadly characterized our movement for many years and still does in some places. The revolution is critical of a hermeneutic that employs command, example, inference, and arguments from silence as the last word on establishing biblical authority. It refuses to read the New Testament as a legal text, pattern, blueprint, or checklist recognizing that the literature is far richer and more multi-nuanced than that. The revolution is not a rejection of biblical authority, but an approach to establishing it that respects the diversity of genres, cultural contexts, and the occasional nature of the New Testament documents.

I first heard warnings about the so-called "New Hermeneutic" back in the early 90s. While a gross misnomer, the term was a label given to "change agents" who employed a non-legalistic reading of the Scriptures. From the start of the controversy I felt that I had come into the Stone-Campbell Movement for such a time as this. I accepted the legalistic and sectarian approach in the earliest days of my Christian walk, but soon rejected the approach once I learned to think for myself. It has been a most liberating shift. 

Perhaps "Reformation" is a better word than "Revolution." Every movement, like a family who lives in the same house for decades, should periodically sift through accumulated clutter and discard excess baggage. In churches, this is called Reformation, the term most commonly used by the Campbells to describe their nascent movement. 

This blog began over seven years ago as yet another voice echoing the call to reform. Since then I have posted only sporadically about whatever topic struck my fancy at the moment. My blog traffic and reader interaction has gradually suffered. 

So I now return to the beginning as I chronicle the journey of a nonconformist. I not only promote nonconformity to secularism, but to traditionalism, legalism, and sectarianism. Some changes will include posts that are more autobiographical, shorter posts, more frequent posts, a more accessible prose, fewer protracted series, and hopefully more attention to spiritual formation. So join me as one more voice heralds the reforming of hermeneutics, vocational ministry, and our own lives.  

Confessing Jesus: More than just a Fourth "Step"

The Ethiopian eunuch expressed his desire to be baptized in Acts 8:36. Here is what follows in verse 37 of the King James Version: And Philip said, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

This verse does not appear in most translations, except maybe as a footnote, because it is absent from the oldest biblical manuscripts in existence. So the verse was probably not originally in Acts, but was later added by a scribe who copied scriptures by hand. The motive for adding the verse was obviously to uphold what had become the tradition of rendering a formal confession just prior to one’s baptism.

The verse has since served as a proof-text to insure that formal confession is uttered by candidates for immersion. Confession appears as a step in what is often called the five steps to salvation: hear, believe, repent, confess, and be baptized. While each of these actions play an essential role in conversion, the Bible never describes salvation in such regimented, step-by-step terms. To do so might leave the impression that salvation is about a mechanical response as opposed to heartfelt, spontaneous expressions of faith in Jesus.

While those who’ve not confessed Christ have no business being baptized, confession should not be reduced to a mere verbal acknowledgment just prior to baptism. Anyone can say words. Confession, however, is not just words, but a way of living. Our confession of belief in Jesus not only occurs in the moments before our baptism, but in how we live our life from day to day. Our whole life should confess belief in Jesus.

While the standard confession today is that “Jesus is the Son of God,” patterned on Acts 8:37, the earliest Christian confession was actually “Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10:9).

I won’t quibble about the terms since acknowledging Jesus as God’s Son should certainly imply that he is Lord. But lots of people believe that he is the Son of God in the divine sense, yet they have not submitted to him as Lord.

To say, “Jesus is Lord” expresses the intent to hand one’s life over to him. But even such a verbal acknowledgement as this can be mere words. Jesus addressed the inconsistency of calling him ‘Lord,’ while not doing what he says (Luke 6:46). Many who’ve called him Lord will be dismissed on the last day as those who were never known by him (Matt. 7:21-23).

A confession is only effective if you mean it. Confessing Christ before others is not a one-time formality, but an ongoing lifestyle. Nor is confession primarily about saying just the right words, in just the right way, at just the right time as if conversion were all about mechanics. What supersedes having all the mechanics right is making sure your heart is right.

The Legal Code: Clarification and Disclaimers

My previous post referred to our having exchanged the legal code of Moses for the person of Jesus Christ. While not claiming originality for that phrasing, to just what am I referring as a “legal code”? Is it the Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy), the entirety of the Hebrews Scriptures (a.k.a. the Old Testament), or something else altogether?

I am certainly not thinking of the entirety of the Torah or of the Hebrew Scriptures. These diverse bodies of literature consist of far more than just legal texts. So by “legal code,” I am thinking more in terms of legal sections within the Torah including especially the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20:22-23:9), the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26), and the Law Code in Deuteronomy 12-26. We might also include the laws regarding priesthood and tabernacle (Exodus 25-31and 35:4-40:33) and perhaps the entire book of Leviticus.  By “legal code” I am thinking of covenant stipulations under Moses, perhaps especially in regard to civil law, worship regulations, special days, and “cultic” observance.

This was the law that was engraved in letters on stone (2 Cor. 3:7). It was deficient to save, not because of a defect in the law itself (Rom. 7:12), but due to the weakness of human flesh (Rom. 8:3).

But now, through a transforming encounter with the risen Messiah, the law once engraved on tablets of stone has been written on our hearts. We are now free, even empowered, to live holy and moral lives without reliance upon the legal stipulations that served as elaborations upon the Ten Commandments, which is the foundational summary of God’s timeless law, with perpetually abiding validity. In exchange for the legal stipulations of old, which revealed the heart of God and his desires for humanity, we now have Jesus whose ministry and teaching provide an even greater clarity into God’s heart and will.

I do not support the abrogation of God’s law, or of the Hebrew Scriptures, which Jesus had not come to abolish (Matt. 5:17). He fulfills them in terms of completing and perfecting the job they were assigned. His coming, however, does not render this body of literature obsolete. It remains useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). It remains a window into the heart of God which is now less opaque due to the New Testament authors’ Christocentric reading of these texts.

But here is what has changed. The legal texts of Moses were in some cases highly detailed and prescriptive. Some would read the New Testament literature as if it were the same genre as the Book of the Covenant or the Holiness Code. This amounts to viewing the New Testament books, not as occasional literature written to aid disciples in a Christocentric reading of the Hebrew Scriptures, but as a flat law code of new legal stipulations for Christians.

Where the old law / new law dichotomy really misses the point is its misunderstanding of law in Scripture. Those seeking to understand the New Testament writings as a legal code are making a similar mistake to the Judaizers of old. The law is imagined to be in a position it was never intended to hold. The law has never been a means of salvation. No one has ever been saved by law-keeping, under any covenant. Salvation has always been by grace through faith.

When law is held to be in the dubious position of Savior, there is urgency toward perfection in understanding or observance since one’s salvation is thought to depend upon it. So the apostolic literature is scoured for “rules” that will prescribe and regulate in as great detail as the legal texts of Moses. Salvation is misunderstood as a matter of keeping the code which one has to get right in order to keep it. So we find ourselves diligently searching the Scriptures, believing that in them we have eternal life, while failing to trust in Jesus as the Savior to whom the Scriptures point (John 5:39-40). This is bibliolatry, as trust in Jesus is exchanged for trust in our own adequacy to rightly interpret and keep the Word.

This approach not only misreads the New Testament literature, but likewise misreads the laws in Moses, which were never intended to be comprehensive, but paradigmatic. Obedience of God toward the poor, for example, is not limited to laws such as not harvesting to the edge of one’s field (Lev. 19:9-10). Such laws are not intended to be exhaustive in regard to how one might help the poor, but they reveal God’s heart for the poor. One is then free to serve the poor in innovative and creative ways that are not specifically “prescribed” by the law.

To read the New Testament as a highly prescriptive and regulative legal code not only transfers trust from Christ to us, but it also stifles creativity and innovation in the church. Moreover, this “legal” approach will demand conformity and result in strife and division since the “letter of the law” allows no diversity of practice or opinion. 

Not Abolished, But Fulfilled

While the legal code of Moses has been exchanged for the person of Jesus Christ, the law of God itself has never been utterly repealed. It has rather been placed into a new framework so that there has been “a change in the law” (Heb. 7:12, ESV). The law has come under new administration. So it’s fair to say that while we haven’t been given a new law, we have been given a new covenant.

While the Old Covenant presented God’s law on tablets of stone, under the New Covenant, God’s law is written on our hearts (2 Cor. 3:7; Heb. 8:10). So we now serve God in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code (Rom. 7:6). While the old way brings condemnation, the new way brings righteousness (2 Cor. 3:9).

While we are not under a condemning legal code, we are still accountable to God’s law. So Christ could say, in Matthew 5:17, that he had not come to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them. There is a huge difference between abolishing something and fulfilling it. Christ fulfills the law and prophets, not by abolishing them, but by granting a clearer vision into the heart of God than what they could provide.

Both the Mosaic legislation and the pattern of Christ’s life and teaching had some common goals—most notably to reveal the desires of God’s heart. While Mosaic legislation had offered an incomplete picture, Christ gives a clear window into the heart of God. The difference between Mosaic revelation and that of Christ is like the difference between analogue TV and HD. Both provide a view, but one is much sharper than the other.

So why do we still need the Hebrew Scriptures, commonly referred to as the Old Testament? If we’re not under the Law of Moses, why should we study it? Well, how can we understand Jesus, who fulfills the law and the prophets, unless we know what he fulfills? While our aim is not obedience to all the specifics of Moses’ legal code, we need to know what the details of that code reveal about the heart of God. Why did he tell farmers to leave the edges of their fields to be gleaned by the poor? Why did he command the brother of a deceased, childless man, to marry the man’s widow? Could these laws have something to do with care for one’s neighbor?

The Hebrew Scriptures are vitally important to our spiritual well-being. They were the Bible of the early church, the Scriptures Timothy had known since childhood, which could make him wise for salvation (2 Tim. 3:15). We understand more about God’s character and his desire for us by immersing ourselves in this literature. 

Further Reading:

I would recommend Jay Guin's two blog posts on "God's Plan: Why God Gave the Law of Moses," Part One and Part Two, installments of Guin's multi-part review of John Walton's book Covenant: God's Purpose, God's Plan. The concepts from this book helped me to better articulate how Jesus fulfills the Law of Moses by being God's fuller revelation of himself.  

What is the law of Christ?

The New Testament writers are adamant that we are not under law (Rom. 6:14). We cannot be justified by works of law (Rom. 3:20). The Law came through Moses, while grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17). If a law could bring life it would have come through the Law of Moses—implication being that no law can bring life (Gal. 3:21). 

We are free from the Law’s legal demands, its condemning evidence that accuses us as lawbreakers, and its enslavement to the weakness of the flesh. But does this mean that there is no longer any law? Does God no longer have rules? Are we free to do whatever the flesh dictates?

While we are not under law in the sense of being under a prescriptive legal code or a condemning legislative system, the New Testament sometimes speaks of law in a positive sense. To bear one another’s burdens is to fulfill the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8-10). We are going to be judged by the “law of liberty” (James 2:12). Since sin is lawlessness, there must be a law that sinners violate (1 John 3:4).

So there is still a law. But we’re not “under law” in the sense of a legal code that condemns us for our transgressions. The law of Christ is not a new system of prescriptive legal texts replacing those of Moses. The law of Christ does not bind us to the slavish imitation of a pattern as with the building of the tabernacle under Moses. Christ is now our pattern. The New Testament has no detailed description of a worship assembly, nor any regimented list of steps to salvation. Our faith in Christ is not so much about rules as it is about the relationship. The legal code has been exchanged for a person. God’s law is written on our hearts as we are won to Christ.  

God’s law is principally much the same now as it was in the past. Love for God and neighbor, embodied in the Ten Commandments, are valid for all time. Though granted, the Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ as we’ve exchanged the yoke of Moses for the gentler yoke of Christ in whom we find rest.

What has changed about the law of God is that it’s now to be understood through a Christ-centered lens instead of a legal system. The Jewish cultural observances of Moses’ law have been fulfilled in Christ and are not binding upon Christians in regard to their specifics.

The law of God has always operated on principle as opposed to being comprehensively prescriptive. The law never covered every conceivable circumstance, but provided exemplary legislation to modify human behavior. Through the lens of Moses’ legislation, people could glimpse the heart of God and his desire for human kind. While we can still learn a lot about God by studying the Law of Moses, we now have a clearer and more complete picture of God’s heart as we look through the lens of Jesus’ life and teachings.