After considering the idea of justice, Tim Keller moves to the topic of Justice and the Old Testament in his 2nd chapter of Generous Justice. This chapter is about how to interpret the Old Testament law with justice as the example. I think that best summarizes it. Keller does this to answer the question of whether or not the laws of the Old Testament are binding on Christians today.
This is a thorny issue, and your answer reflects your method of interpretation. Dispensationalists, Covenant, and New Covenant theology answer this question differently. Keller comes from a Covenant Theology perspective. He recognizes the differences between moral, ceremonial and case/civil law in the Old Testament. The New Testament is pretty clear that Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law in a way that means it is not binding on us any more. We are ceremonially clean in Christ, and He is our Sacrifice which brings pardon and fellowship.
“So the coming of Christ changes the way in which Christians exhibit their holiness and offer their sacrifices, yet the basic principles remain valid.”
Keller brings a concept from Craig Bloomberg into the mix. “Every command reflects principles at some level that are binding on Christians.” So, Christians need to be ceremonially clean, have a sacrifice for sin etc. The Christian looks to Christ for all this and more, however. The need still exists, but the reality is in Christ. Romans 12 teaches us that additionally we offer our whole lives in view of this great mercy. We offer the sacrifice of praise (Hebrews), not the blood of animals or food offerings.
But the main concern is the civil law- laws concerning social justice. As a theocracy, the moral law was applied in the civil law of Israel. Jesus does not rule over a kingdom-state or nation-state. Churches exercise spiritual authority, and this in a declarative fashion. The Church does not wield civil authority or the sword. The local churches transcend the nations in which they exist.
Interesting New Cover...
We want to avoid 2 extremes which are all too common. “They don’t apply anymore” is the most common extreme. Some people act as if the covenants are unrelated to one another, and more importantly, unrelated to the character of God himself. God didn’t command those things on a whim- they reflect His character, and reveal how He works unseen in the world through providence (Sproul’s Invisible Hand). The apostles also look back and use many of these laws to instruct the church about right living (demonstrating how 2 Tim. 3:16-17 works). Keller mentions Paul applying the gathering of manna in 2 Cor. 8:13-15.
The 2nd danger is to apply them without any recognition of the redemptive-historical changes that have taken place since. Some try to apply them to society at large (though society could learn much wisdom from them). Yet, justice is not just for believers. Daniel rebuked an unjust, unbelieving king (Dan. 4:27). Believers can recognize injustice and call for justice though we lack the civil power to enforce it.
God’s Just Society
Keller spends some time in Deuteronomy 15 working out details of what a just society looks like. At points it seems contradictory. “There should be no poor among you,” and yet there are listed many ways you are supposed to treat the poor among you. Some of the laws have to do with ways to prevent long-term poverty: the type of perpetual poverty seen in slums around the world. Other have to do with assisting those temporarily impoverished.
In the first case, land was not permanently sold. In the year of Jubilee it reverted back to the proper heirs. They only sell the right to use the land for a definite period of time. God was the true owner of the land, and he granted it to them for their use (to subdue and rule on his behalf). There was also a year of release from debt. Debt did not cripple generation after generation of Israelite. Even those who sold themselves into slavery experienced a release (unless they wanted to remain bound to that master), and were given resources to start again.
The gleaning laws illustrated farmers voluntarily limiting their profit. They didn’t harvest it all, and then give some away to people. God maintained the dignity of the poor- they harvested what the owner (and his workers) left behind for them. They worked! We also see that overgleaning was forbidden as well (Dt. 23:24-25).
“The gleaning laws enabled the poor to be self-sufficient, not through getting a handout, but through their own work in the field.”
The laws of tithing redistributed wealth to some of the poorest, most vulnerable members of society. Public storehouses gathered the grain every 3 years and it was distributed to the poor, widows and orphans (Dt. 14:29).
Keller then addresses our political categories. Recognizing these commands, the different political categories have very different ideas on how to apply them. Think for a moment about the gleaning laws. Keller argues that instead of getting every dime you can out of consumers, and paying as little as possible to workers, there is a different way. Businesses can limit profits by both charging less so more people can afford it, and paying workers more. It is a voluntary sharing of wealth. It is hard for publicly traded companies to think this way. It will get CEOs fired since shareholders often demand ever increasing returns. They want to be enriched (which is legitimate) but at the expense of others (not legitimate).
Good Ol' Gordon
This is still capitalism, but one not sold out to greed (sorry Ayn Rand and Gordan Gekko). We must recognize that the love of money is the source of all kinds of evil. Hoarding kills the soul! Political conservatives don’t recognize this enough. Political liberals want the wealth redistributed through the state, and not voluntarily. So, you can see the same principle of redistributing wealth, but seek to achieve that in very different ways (there are not just 2 ways). But not all methods are equal (yes, I’m a political conservative who sees the government as exceedingly inefficient).
“… a great deal of the Mosaic legislation was designed to keep the ordinary disparities between the wealthy and the poor from becoming aggravated and extreme.”
This also touches upon the causes of poverty. Various political persuasions fixate on 1 or 2 causes rather than recognize the many causes. The Bible is balanced in its understanding of poverty. Keller lays out causes that reflect those in When Helping Hurts. They include personal responsibility (what conservatives fixate on), systemic evil, lack of education/knowledge (the favorites of liberals), disaster and more. Particular people are often poor as a result of more than one factor.
So Keller, like a biblical prophet, challenges both sides of the political spectrum. He’s not gunning for one side here. As a result, this chapter shouldn’t polarize like the great Ron Sider/David Chilton “debate” in the 80’s. Keller wants to see the “deadlock” broken (which is essentially represented by Sider & Chilton).
“Taken in isolation no one factor- government programs, public policy, calls to personal responsibility, or private charity- is sufficient to address the problem.”
Keller uses the case study of the Sandtown ministries of Mark Gornik. His studies revealed a number of factors that resulted in the “perpetual poverty” of Sandtown. Among them were racism, departure of manufacturing jobs, new jobs being locate in place people could not afford to live, poor educational services which left people unable to meet the criteria for newer service economy jobs. Eventually people gave up (hey, sound familiar?). Poverty is complex, and so is the solution. The political parties don’t recognize this, but seem more interesting in appealing to various constituencies to maintain or build power (which unjust).
This chapter is difficult to read since it seeks to correct our many misconceptions. It is an important chapter. He not only exegetes the Old Testament, but modern society. What he lays out should be intriguing as well as convicting for most Christians.
Cavman Considers 
Leave a Reply