# Pentecost and the Law



## chbrooking (Apr 11, 2010)

In second temple literature, the feast of weeks is strongly associated with the giving of the Law. The only time reference I can find in the biblical text is Exo. 19:1, which marks their arrival at Sinai on the third new moon after leaving Egypt. That makes it possible that the law was given on Pentecost. My questions are, 1) Is there anything else that leads toward the connection between Pentecost and the law? and 2) Should the definite second temple association between Sinai and Pentecost influence (or even inform) our reading of Acts 2?

I haven't worked out where this would go. I'm making a preliminary inquiry as to viability (of the connection) and procedure (for interpretation). 

Anyone have any insight?


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 12, 2010)

** bump **
I'll only bump it this one time.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 12, 2010)

I don't have an answer, but I'd be interested to know what it is if you find one.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 12, 2010)

If the connection can be rightly made it is highly suggestive and useful in combatting the less-restrained Pentecostalism, because the emphasis may be that Christ has gone up to God - as Moses went up the mountain to God - and is now, as well as baptising them by/with the Holy Spirit into Himself, commencing to give his disciples that infallible interpretation of His Person and Work, the revelation which He promised them while He was on Earth. E.g. John 16: 5-15. 

This would mean that the emphasis at Pentecost is the commencement of New Covenant prophetic revelation leading to the New Testament Scriptures we have, as well as fullness of spiritual power. Light as well as life.

Christ certainly became the bread of heaven in a new way by His Spirit and Word at Pentecost, as the early New Testament Church became the firstfruits and first loaf - leavened with the leaven not of Egypt (the World that lies in the Wicked One) but with the leaven of the Promised Land (This good created World, leading to the New Heavens and New Earth, which commenced in principle on the First Day of the Week when Christ was raised).


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 12, 2010)

Yes, should the connection be made, Jer. 31:31ff would certainly be a significant piece in the exegetical puzzle.


----------



## MW (Apr 12, 2010)

I don't think such a connection is exegetically viable unless it is made en route to the "ascension" theme, which is forcibly brought out in the Psalms. Even here, however, it is by way of contrast with Sinai that God is said to dwell in Zion, e.g., Ps. 68. A strong contrast between law and Spirit is made in 2 Corinthians 3, but without reference to anything pertaining to Pentecost. If any connection is to be made in the interests of highlighting this biblico-theological theme, it must seek to preserve the contrasting nature of it and the deepening spiritual movement in the progress of revelation. So while the unique conception of Christ lifted up and giving gifts to His church forms something of a parallel with the Sinai event, and might be seen as the antitypical fulfilment of it, it must be with the acknowledgment that He is lifted up to the highest heavens and has given the gift and gifts of the Spirit.

Emphasising the contrast will preserve two important evangelical facts. First, that believers are identified by their relationship with the risen Christ rather than with the community of Israel, and, second, they are bound to Christ by the ministration of the Spirit rather than the ministration of the law.


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 12, 2010)

Yes, I agree. That's what I was after by pointing to Jer. 31. You've given me a couple of new avenues to pursue as well. But I'm not sure there is an EXEGETICAL connection at all. Usually second temple readers didn't make this stuff up out of thin air. There was usually some textual clue -- however fancifully interpreted. I'm still trying to find WHY they associated the feast of weeks with Sinai. I'm also looking into WHEN that connection was made (insofar as this can be determined). If it was after Jamnia, it's certainly worthless. If before, probably worthless . But I've got some more research to do.


----------



## MW (Apr 12, 2010)

chbrooking said:


> If it was after Jamnia, it's certainly worthless. If before, probably worthless . But I've got some more research to do.


 
I agree there is no exegetical connection. From memory, the consensus is that the connection was forged after AD70, with a few French scholars dissenting. It would not be a meaningless connection to Jews because the destruction of the temple forces them to reinvent their traditions. But yes, it is meaningless to Christians who live under a more spiritual dispensation solely because of the heavenly ministration of Christ. He conquered the physical temple long before the Romans.


----------

