I find it odd that the books on Christ and culture (which may not be legion but are numerous) pay almost no attention to Old Testament Israel. If you wanted to find a case where God (in good sufficiency of Scripture fashion) specifies what a saved, holy, or transformed culture is supposed to look like, you can’t find a better example than what the Israelites received in the pages of the Pentateuch. Here is a sampling of OT laws governing the culture of the saved (borrowed from here):
Times and Seasons
That the new month shall be solemnly proclaimed as holy, and the months and years shall be calculated by the Supreme Court only (Ex. 12:2) (affirmative) (the authority to declare months is inferred from the use of the word “unto you”).
Not to travel on Shabbat outside the limits of one’s place of residence (Ex. 16:29) (CCN7). See Shabbat.
To sanctify Shabbat (Ex. 20:8) (CCA19). See Shabbat.
Not to do work on Shabbat (Ex. 20:10) (CCN6). See Shabbat.
To rest on Shabbat (Ex. 23:12; 34:21) (CCA20). See Shabbat.
To celebrate the festivals [Passover, Shavu’ot and Sukkot] (Ex. 23:14) (affirmative).
To rejoice on the festivals (Deut. 16:14) (CCA21).
To appear in the Sanctuary on the festivals (Deut. 16:16) (affirmative).
To remove chametz on the Eve of Passover (Ex. 12:15) (CCA22). See Passover.
To rest on the first day of Passover (Ex. 12:16; Lev. 23:7) (CCA25). See Passover.
Not to do work on the first day of Passover (Ex. 12:16; Lev. 23:6-7) (CCN147). See Passover.
To rest on the seventh day of Passover (Ex. 12:16; Lev. 23:8) (CCA27). See Passover.
Not to do work on the seventh day of Passover (Ex. 12:16; Lev. 23:8) (CCN148). See Passover.
To eat matzah on the first night of Passover (Ex. 12:18) (CCA23). See Passover.
That no chametz be in the Israelite’s possession during Passover (Ex. 12:19) (CCN3). See Passover.
Not to eat any food containing chametz on Passover (Ex. 12:20) (CCN5). See Passover.
Not to eat chametz on Passover (Ex. 13:3) (CCN4). See Passover.
That chametz shall not be seen in an Israelite’s home during Passover (Ex. 13:7) (CCN2). See Passover.
To discuss the departure from Egypt on the first night of Passover (Ex. 13:8) (CCA24). See The Passover Seder.
Not to eat chametz after mid-day on the fourteenth of Nissan (Deut. 16:3) (CCN104). See Passover.
To count forty-nine days from the time of the cutting of the Omer (first sheaves of the barley harvest) (Lev. 23:15) (CCA26). See The Counting of the Omer.
To rest on Shavu’ot (Lev. 23:21) (CCA28). See Shavu’ot.
Not to do work on the Shavu’ot (Lev. 23:21) (CCN149). See Shavu’ot.
To rest on Rosh Hashanah (Lev. 23:24) (CCA29). See Rosh Hashanah.
Not to do work on Rosh Hashanah (Lev. 23:25) (CCN150). See Rosh Hashanah.
To hear the sound of the shofar on Rosh Hashanah (Num. 29:1) (CCA30). See Rosh Hashanah.
To fast on Yom Kippur (Lev. 23:27) (CCA32). See Yom Kippur.
Not to eat or drink on Yom Kippur (Lev. 23:29) (CCN152). See Yom Kippur.
Not to do work on Yom Kippur (Lev. 23:31) (CCN151). See Yom Kippur.
To rest on the Yom Kippur (Lev. 23:32) (CCA31). See Yom Kippur.
To rest on the first day of Sukkot (Lev. 23:35) (CCA34). See Sukkot.
Not to do work on the first day of Sukkot (Lev. 23:35) (CCN153). See Sukkot.
To rest on the eighth day of Sukkot (Shemini Atzeret) (Lev. 23:36) (CCA37). See Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah.
Not to do work on the eighth day of Sukkot (Shemini Atzeret) (Lev. 23:36) (CCN154). See Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah.
To take during Sukkot a palm branch and the other three plants (Lev. 23:40) (CCA36). See Sukkot.
To dwell in booths seven days during Sukkot (Lev. 23:42) (CCA35). See Sukkot.Dietary Laws
To examine the marks in cattle (so as to distinguish the clean from the unclean) (Lev. 11:2) (affirmative). See Animals that may not be eaten.
Not to eat the flesh of unclean beasts (Lev. 11:4) (CCN93). See Animals that may not be eaten.
To examine the marks in fishes (so as to distinguish the clean from the unclean (Lev. 11:9) (affirmative). See Animals that may not be eaten.
Not to eat unclean fish (Lev. 11:11) (CCN95). See Animals that may not be eaten.
To examine the marks in fowl, so as to distinguish the clean from the unclean (Deut. 14:11) (affirmative). See Animals that may not be eaten.
Not to eat unclean fowl (Lev. 11:13) (CCN94). See Animals that may not be eaten.
To examine the marks in locusts, so as to distinguish the clean from the unclean (Lev. 11:21) (affirmative). See Animals that may not be eaten.
Not to eat a worm found in fruit (Lev. 11:41) (CCN98). See Animals that may not be eaten.
Not to eat of things that creep upon the earth (Lev. 11:41-42) (CCN97). See Animals that may not be eaten.
Not to eat any vermin of the earth (Lev. 11:44) (CCN100). See Animals that may not be eaten.
Not to eat things that swarm in the water (Lev. 11:43 and 46) (CCN99). See Animals that may not be eaten.
Not to eat of winged insects (Deut. 14:19) (CCN96). See Animals that may not be eaten.
Not to eat the flesh of a beast that is terefah (lit torn) (Ex. 22:30) (CCN87). See Kosher slaughtering.
Not to eat the flesh of a beast that died of itself (Deut. 14:21) (CCN86). See Kosher slaughtering.
To slay cattle, deer and fowl according to the laws of shechitah if their flesh is to be eaten (Deut. 12:21) (“as I have commanded” in this verse refers to the technique) (CCA48). See Kosher slaughtering.
Not to eat a limb removed from a living beast (Deut. 12:23) (CCN90). See Kosher slaughtering.
Not to slaughter an animal and its young on the same day (Lev. 22:28) (CCN108).
Not to take the mother-bird with the young (Deut. 22:6) (CCN189). See Treatment of Animals.
To set the mother-bird free when taking the nest (Deut. 22:6-7) (CCA74). See Treatment of Animals.
Not to eat the flesh of an ox that was condemned to be stoned (Ex. 21:28) (negative).
Not to boil meat with milk (Ex. 23:19) (CCN91). See Separation of Meat and Dairy.
Not to eat flesh with milk (Ex. 34:26) (according to the Talmud, this passage is a distinct prohibition from the one in Ex. 23:19) (CCN92). See Separation of Meat and Dairy.
Not to eat the of the thigh-vein which shrank (Gen. 32:33) (CCN1). See Forbidden Fats and Nerves.
Not to eat chelev (tallow-fat) (Lev. 7:23) (CCN88). See Forbidden Fats and Nerves.
Not to eat blood (Lev. 7:26) (CCN89). See Draining of Blood.
To cover the blood of undomesticated animals (deer, etc.) and of fowl that have been killed (Lev. 17:13) (CCA49).
Not to eat or drink like a glutton or a drunkard (not to rebel against father or mother) (Lev. 19:26; Deut. 21:20) (CCN106).Business Practices
Not to do wrong in buying or selling (Lev. 25:14) (CCN47).
Not to make a loan to an Israelite on interest (Lev. 25:37) (CCN54).
Not to borrow on interest (Deut. 23:20) (because this would cause the lender to sin) (CCN55).
Not to take part in any usurious transaction between borrower and lender, neither as a surety, nor as a witness, nor as a writer of the bond for them (Ex. 22:24) (CCN53).
To lend to a poor person (Ex. 22:24) (even though the passage says “if you lend” it is understood as obligatory) (CCA62).
Not to demand from a poor man repayment of his debt, when the creditor knows that he cannot pay, nor press him (Ex. 22:24) (CCN52).
Not to take in pledge utensils used in preparing food (Deut. 24:6) (CCN58).
Not to exact a pledge from a debtor by force (Deut. 24:10) (CCN59).
Not to keep the pledge from its owner at the time when he needs it (Deut. 24:12) (CCN61).
To return a pledge to its owner (Deut. 24:13) (CCA63).
Not to take a pledge from a widow (Deut. 24:17) (CCN60).
Not to commit fraud in measuring (Lev. 19:35) (CCN83).
To ensure that scales and weights are correct (Lev. 19:36) (affirmative).
Not to possess inaccurate measures and weights (Deut. 25:13-14) (CCN84).Employees, Servants and Slaves
Not to delay payment of a hired man’s wages (Lev. 19:13) (CCN38).
That the hired laborer shall be permitted to eat of the produce he is reaping (Deut. 23:25-26) (CCA65).
That the hired laborer shall not take more than he can eat (Deut. 23:25) (CCN187).
That a hired laborer shall not eat produce that is not being harvested (Deut. 23:26) (CCN186).
To pay wages to the hired man at the due time (Deut. 24:15) (CCA66).
To deal judicially with the Hebrew bondman in accordance with the laws appertaining to him (Ex. 21:2-6) (affirmative).
Not to compel the Hebrew servant to do the work of a slave (Lev. 25:39) (negative).
Not to sell a Hebrew servant as a slave (Lev. 25:42) (negative).
Not to treat a Hebrew servant rigorously (Lev. 25:43) (negative).
Not to permit a gentile to treat harshly a Hebrew bondman sold to him (Lev. 25:53) (negative).
Not to send away a Hebrew bondman servant empty handed, when he is freed from service (Deut. 15:13) (negative).
To bestow liberal gifts upon the Hebrew bondsman (at the end of his term of service), and the same should be done to a Hebrew bondwoman (Deut. 15:14) (affirmative).
To redeem a Hebrew maid-servant (Ex. 21:8) (affirmative).
Not to sell a Hebrew maid-servant to another person (Ex. 21:8) (negative).
To espouse a Hebrew maid-servant (Ex. 21:8-9) (affirmative).
To keep the Canaanite slave forever (Lev. 25:46) (affirmative).
Not to surrender a slave, who has fled to the land of Israel, to his owner who lives outside Palestine (Deut. 23:16) (negative).
Not to wrong such a slave (Deut. 23:17) (negative).
Not to muzzle a beast, while it is working in produce which it can eat and enjoy (Deut. 25:4) (CCN188).Agriculture and Animal Husbandry
Not to cross-breed cattle of different species (Lev. 19:19) (according to the Talmud, this also applies to birds) (CCN142).
Not to sow different kinds of seed together in one field (Lev. 19:19) (CCN107).
Not to eat the fruit of a tree for three years from the time it was planted (Lev. 19:23) (CCN105). See Tu B’Shevat.
That the fruit of fruit-bearing trees in the fourth year of their planting shall be sacred like the second tithe and eaten in Jerusalem (Lev. 19:24) (affirmative) (CCI16). See Tu B’Shevat.
Not to sow grain or herbs in a vineyard (Deut. 22:9) (negative).
Not to eat the produce of diverse seeds sown in a vineyard (Deut. 22:9) (negative).
Not to work with beasts of different species, yoked together (Deut. 22:10) (CCN180).Clothing
That a man shall not wear women’s clothing (Deut. 22:5) (CCN179).
That a woman should not wear men’s clothing (Deut. 22:5) (CCN178).
Not to wear garments made of wool and linen mixed together (Deut. 22:11) (CCN181).
Of course, good reasons exist for not following the Old Testament in the creation of redeemed or holy culture (which I assume would be transformed). One is that little delicacy of theonomy. If we follow OT laws, are we not obligated to keep all of them, including the ones about monarchy and slavery? The way around this theological riddle is to distinguish among the ceremonial, judicial, and moral laws of the Israelites, with the moral law still in effect but the judicial and ceremonial nonbinding because of Christ’s fulfilling them. This is why the Confession of Faith says:
3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.
4. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require. (ch. 19)
The other way around using these laws as the model for redeeming culture is to go to Paul who says in Romans 14 that for Christians, for instance, no food is unclean. Again, the sufficiency of Scripture comes to the rescue and tells Christians that they don’t have to follow all the restrictions that determined a “Christian” or redeemed culture before Christ.
But if Scripture says that Christians no longer have rules governing business, agriculture, food, or slaves, why do some Christians want to establish rules independent of Scripture for transforming culture? If this question suggests that transformationalists are the contemporary equivalent of the Judaizers, then wear the shoe comfortably. For those on the 2k side of the aisle, transformationalism has always seemed to be essentially theonomic with a progressive facade.
Old Life 
Darryl:
May I cope and paste, whole and entire, this post? With attribution of course.
I’m doing some work in the Pentateuch more largely and this obtains and applies with relevance. I’d like to poke around on similarities and dissimilarities between the Mosaic cases law and any other ANE codes, e.g. Hammurabi’s.
Request advise.
Donald Philip Veitch
LikeLike
Viking, the, I just dabble in this stuff. I think you need to instruct us.
LikeLike
You might think you are preaching to the choir, but many Reformed folks so badly don’t want to be mistaken for “dispensationalists” that they tend to appeal to the OT canon but in a rather vague way. They make a distinction between the “moral law” and the “ceremonial aspect”, so that they can collapse covenants into one covenant but not attend to the details you point out. They also make a distinction between the law and the ‘equity of” the law.
I must say that I have more respect for hard-core theonomists (who do argue the details) than I do for folks like Oliver O Donovan who uses generalizations about OT Israel to insist on “Reformed continuity”
Oliver O’Donovan —” Christendom ‘is constituted not by the church’s seizing of alien power, but by alien power’s becoming attentive to the church. It was the missionary imperative that compelled the church to take the conversion of the empire seriously and to seize the opportunities it offered … for curbing the violence and cruelty of empire …The peril of the Christendom idea is precisely the same peril that attends upon the post-Christendom idea of the religiously neutral state – negative the pretense that there was now no further challenge to be issued to the rulers in the name of the ruling Christ’. Oliver O’Donovan, The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999),
LikeLike
Paul K. Jewett, The Lord’s Day : “It should always be remembered, however, that the distinctions Christians make between ‘moral’ and ‘ceremonial’ laws in the Old Testament, was hardly perspicuous to the Hebrew mind. In the Old Testament, cultic and ethical, moral and ceremonial, religious and civil enactment’s are all worked together, with no sense of impropriety, since they all express the will of Yahweh for his covenant people Israel”(p.118).
Herman Ridderbos, Paul – An Outline of His Theology : “in the epistles that have been preserved to us, nowhere is a distinction made explicitly between the moral and ceremonial, particularistic parts of the law” (P.284).
“If that first covenant had been faultless, then no place have been sought for the second” (Hebrews 8:7).
“In that he says, A new covenant, he has made the first old; now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews.8:13).
“He takes away the first, that he may establish the second” (Hebrews.10:9).
LikeLike
Viking,
A good source for your question regarding ANE parallels to OT Law – since there is a good deal of continuity would be an older work by John Walton:
Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context
It’s more of a reference work, scant on narrative, but it will cite direct ANE sources.
Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary on the Old Testament is a fantastic source as well. I’ll post some quotes from the former, as well as some of the other stuff on my shelf tonight.
LikeLike
McMark, thanks for these quotes. I’m seeing a pattern.
LikeLike
Which quotations? The ones from the baptist (Jewett) and the r-h hero (Ridderbos) or the ones from Hebrews? Also, what pattern? The pattern of me talking about covenantal discontinuity? The pattern of discontinuity (but I say unto you) folks taking sides with hard-core theonomists against the equivocating equity of the middle?
At any rate, here’s two more quotations suggesting that we should not cherry-pick (and then combine) from the biblical covenants (even though it’s a confessional thing to do). The so-called “ceremonial” laws of the Mosaic covenant were also a reflection of God’s unchanging moral character.
The first quotation is from one of my favorite Presbyterians, the late Robert Reymond: “The church is built on the NT apostles as organs of revelation ( Ephesians.3:5) and hence as authoritative teachers of revealed doctrine …. The church of subsequent ages is commanded to discover its foundation in those NT apostles and prophets. John knew he was the last of the apostles. By the last decade of the first century the several literary parts of our New Testament were already regarded as God’s word to his church and were being gathered together in codex form [What About Continuing Miracles and Revelations in the Presbyterian Church Today? (P and R, 1977),
Meredith Kline–“The words of the New Testament which the enthroned Christ has spoken through his inspired ministers of the New Covenant are his architectural directives for the holy task of constructing this new covenant home … The Old and New Testaments are two separate and distinct architectural models for the house of God in two quite separate and distinct stages in history …. The Old testament is not the canon of the Christian church …. The form of government appointed in the old covenant is not community polity for the church of the new covenant ….The Old Testament, though possessing the general authority of all the Scriptures, does not possess for the church the more specific authority of canonicity. [The Structure of Biblical Authority (1972)
LikeLike
Darryl,
I owe you an apology. I have in the past disparaged your postion regarding a secular faith based on your comments on this blog and my reading of DVD’s LGTK. I just completed reading your book, A Secular Faith, and was impressed by the lucidity of your arguments and your recommendation to “Dare to be a Daniel.” I found myself in essential agreement with your position as reflected in your book.
I further discovered that A Secular Faith is not intrinsically related to the modern 2k position espoused by DVD and others. In other words, I believe your position accords (more?) suitably to the classic two kingdoms as referring to the temporal and eternal with the visible church existing in (and for?) the temporal realm. Isn’t this what is meant by being in the world but not of the world. The visible church has its own culture, which may and often borrows from, but sanctifies for its own use, much like you argue in With Reverence and Awe.
LikeLike
McMark, Ridderbos and Jewett and expansive views of kingdom or law outside confessional boundaries.
LikeLike
Thanks, Don.
But I’m not sure the church is “for” the temporal realm. It is FOR people in the temporal realm. But the keys of the kingdom admit to a different kingdom than the ones ruled by temporal rulers.
LikeLike
Yes, that is what I actually meant.
LikeLike
To add to your second statement, “temporal rulers” do not include leaders of the institutional church as they are but serving a declarative and ministerial role.
LikeLike
Yes, Ridderbos had “expansive views of kingdom”, and I don’t know about Paul Jewett, but I don’t see how that’s inherent in their distinction between the old and new covenants, or even in them saying that a covenant cannot be divided into parts (some of which we keep).
If all you are saying is that you don’t trust Ridderbos and Jewett, fine, I agree with you—too much law/gospel confusion. But I don’t see an inherent relationship between “covenantal discontinuity” and one’s position on the question of “natural law” (or “common grace”) as distinct from new covenantal law.
But what then should we say about Kline? is he also guilty of “expansive views of kingdom and/or law “? Maybe so, I don’t know. Despite his fine statement on NT canon for NT church, Kline did talk about “intrusions of new covenantal curse”. To me, that looks like he ended up in the same place as many other Reformed writers, a place which fails to glory in the unilateral nature of the new covenant.
I will think some more on it. Surely would welcome comment from others, not only on KIine, but on the logical relationship (if any) to saying that a covenant is a covenant in all its parts and “expansive views of kingdom”.
LikeLike
Spykman defending the “covenant of works” against John Murray (and Herman Hoeksema:
“Denying a covenant in Genesis 1-3 disrupts the close biblical connection between creation and redemption by reducing the idea of covenant to an exclusively salvific reality. One then is hard pressed to avoid a dualist world view, structured along nature-creation/grace covenant lines…Scripture still warrants the conclusion that God’s new beginnings with Noah, Abraham, Moses and David represents successive renewals of the single covenant given originally and once for all time with creation.”
Reformational Theology, p 261
Of course I don’t agree that all covenants are renewals of one covenant. But then again, I would think that confessional folks who affirm two a-historical covenants (one of works, the other of grace), would not be entirely satisfied with this reduction of all covenants to one covenant. If indeed the Genesis 1-3 covenant was a “covenant of works”, and all covenants are renewals of that, then all covenants are covenants of work, and not simply for the Mediator but for also for those who want to keep their place in “the covenant”.
But my main reason for giving this quotation now is his Kuyperian jump to the “dualist” label. He would call 2k folks dualists, and you would call his view “expansive”. But you both teach “covenant of works” in Genesis 1-3. So we cannot infer from one’s position on covenantal discontinuity all that we might think about their position on the nature of the kingdom (or church).
I am only here to problematise the questions—the answers are up to the rest of you!
LikeLike
Viking,
As promised, here’s a couple of excerpts from Walton’s Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context.
But before I dive in, what is extraordinarily fascinating is how arguments for the spirituality of the church in contemporary debates correlate to the unique function of the Law for Israel, in spite of structural similarities of the legal codes (e.g. Hammurabi) of her ANE cultural counterparts. In a very real sense Israel’s legal code was distinguished from other ANE legal codes because of it’s fundamental spiritual/religious thrust within it’s covenantal context with Yahweh. In a sense the correlative of the NT doctrine of the spirituality of the church is the OT spirituality of the Law.
* Note – causistic law = case law (e.g. how a law is to be applied in a specific instance); apodictic law = universal laws applicable in a broad set of scenarios (e.g. Thou shalt not kill).
pp. 89-90
Hope that helps.
LikeLike
Darryl, when you write:
…are you assuming, then, that there are no rules for culture? I thought you accepted the idea of God-given natural law. Isn’t there natural law? Isn’t natural law “independent of Scripture” ?
LikeLike
Baus, I do think natural law is one way of talking about culture. But that would not yield a Christian culture, nor would it allow for the sort of personal-sanctification-leads-to-cultural-transformation position. NL would hardly justify Christian labor unions.
LikeLike
@Don
One can certainly be an advocate of the two-kingdom (2K) position without necessarily adopting the particular strand of it proffered in DVD’s book. After, most at Old Princeton held to a 2K view, but did not necessarily share DVD’s take on covenant theology. Further, Lutherans generally hold to a 2K position as well, and certainly don’t hold to any form of Reformed covenantalism.
LikeLike
Bobby,
Just noticed your response. I understand your point. My mistake was in assuming Darryl’s acquiesence (as expressed in this blog) to DVD’s strand, that his book “A Secular Faith” was also assuming that strand. Now I realize that it does not.
LikeLike
“The truth is there can be no real progress unless there is something that is fixed. Archimedes said, “Give me a place to stand, and I will move the world.” Well, Christian doctrine provides that place to stand. Unless there be such a place to stand, all progress is an illusion. The very idea of progress implies something fixed. There is no progress in a kaleidoscope
That is the trouble with the boasted progress of our modern age. The Bible at the start was given up. Nothing was to be regarded as fixed. All truth was regarded as relative. What has been the result? I will tell you. An unparalleled decadence—liberty prostrate, slavery stalking almost unchecked through the earth, the achievements of centuries crumbling in the dust, sweetness and decency despised, all meaning regarded as having been taken away from human life. What is the remedy? I will tell you that too. A return to God’s Word! We had science for the sake of science, and got the World War; we had art for art’s sake, and got ugliness gone mad; we had man for the sake of man and got a world of robots—men made into machines. Is it not time for us to come to ourselves, like the prodigal in a far country? Is it not time for us to seek real progress by a return to the living God?
J. Gresham Machen
The Creeds and Doctrinal Advance
LikeLike
‘If you wanted to find a case where God (in good sufficiency of Scripture fashion) specifies what a saved, holy, or transformed culture is supposed to look like, you can’t find a better example than what the Israelites received in the pages of the Pentateuch.’.
Leaving aside questions regarding discontinuity (for OT Law is certainly not what a saved, holy or transformed culture this side of the cross or in the coming consummation is supposed to or will look like) the whole epoch of law shows just how redundant any full-bloodied transformationalist agenda is. OT Israel is a paradigm for seeking to renew a culture through legislation – the result is clear; Israel was an apostate nation, she rebelled against any transformationalist agenda, human culture cannot be redeemed apart from a transforming work of grace in the heart. The Law is always an administration of death; it lacks power to effect any change and must inevitably fail as indeed must every attempt to ‘redeem’ culture by rules. Indeed ‘redeem’ and ‘rule- keeping reformation’ biblically speaking are opposites (gospel and law).
LikeLike
You would think that if God intended for us to have a New Testament picture of what a “saved, holy, or transformed culture is supposed to look like” he would have given us one. Instead he gave us the Corinthians (who look a lot like us).
LikeLike