Christian adoption of Jewish laws

Factual Questions
1

I mean to ask this in a sincere and inoffensive spirit.

For what reason is it generally taught, in protestant Christian churches, that observation of the various Old Testament laws and prohibitions is incumbent upon all humankind, and not just the chosen People of the Covenant?

For example, one often hears Christians speaking of God’s pronouncements against homosexuality: and most citations are from the OT (eg, Leviticus–which seems quite specifically addressed to the hereditary priesthood). The debate then turns toward questions of interpreting the original meaning, whether “Jesus freed us from the Law,” and so forth. But–why is it assumed IN THE FIRST PLACE that the OT “laws” now apply, or EVER applied, to non-Jews?

In can understand how this might have developed historically. Jesus was a Jew (“on his mother’s side!”) and a travelling rabbi preaching to his own people; his teachings were universalized by Paul. And one might argue that the Savior was born when and where he was born, for a Divine reason. But it seems quite a stretch to go from that to maintaining that OT law is on par with Christ’s own teachings (for the Christian).

Not asking, as in a recent thread, why the OT in general has been “retained.” Only why one never hears of faithful Christians saying, in effect, “So? That law was not addressed to us.”

(NOTE: I’ve made at least a foray into earlier SDMB threads relevant to this topic, and have read a site on the “Noachide Laws,” which doesn’t make clear to me if those laws are just an elaboration of the “10 commandments,” NOR why God’s commandments, delivered to Moses, are to be taken as binding commandments upon humanity in general. I mean–maybe they really are more like the “10 suggestions”!)

2

I think you are perhaps unclear on a few points. I am a Protestant who is married to a Jew, and bringing up his family Jewish, so I can perhaps shed a little light on this.

Jews don’t use the term Old Testament, they use the term Tanach, which is a transliteration of a Hebrew acronym for “Torah, Wisdom and Prophets”.

My impression so far (and I’ve been going to synagogue for 6 years) is that Jews of the biblical era regarded God’s commandments (more accurately, mitzvot) are being applicable to all people, Jewish or not. The Jews assumed that the Gentiles were in a general state of ignorance and disobedience, and thus didn’t “get it”, but that the mitzvot still applied.

Jesus of course was a Jew, and nothing he taught (that I know of) was in conflict with the Tanach. So it’s not accurate to characterize his teachings as being apart from the teachings of the Tanach, but instead they were grounded in it. In effect, following Jesus requires understanding the teaching of the Tanach.

It was not Jesus, but Paul, who put forth the idea that God’s mitzvot was superceded by the law of grace, which again is a Pauline construct. Jesus, in contrast, put forth that obeying God’s mitzvot was not in the technicalities but in the intent born from a heart that was right with God. Some Jews refer to Jesus as the first Reformed Jew because of this.

On the basis of Paul’s teachings, a lot of Protestants seem to pick and choose which mitzvot they can ignore, and which ones they generally want to enforce on everybody else (when was the last time you saw a Protestant turn down shellfish because it isn’t kosher?). Generally, if it has to do with sexuality, some Protestants will sieze on that and get obnoxious about it. Hence there is a lot of time and energy spent in denouncing premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality, and lip service paid to feeding the poor and clothing the naked. And I’m convinced that a lot of the emotion in the pro-life camp is because they see abortion as fallout of an immoral lifestyle.

3

Actually JoltSucker, I believe you are incorrect. Non-Jews are not required to follow the 600+ commandments in the Torah. They are only required to follow the 7 Noahich Laws. If I could spell that correctly I would be able to do a search and find all the threads that mention them.

At least that’s what I’ve gleened from reading stuff here at the Dope.

4

One of the seven Noachide Laws is Gilui Arayot, the prohibition of immoral or forbidden sexual acts. Usually, I have seen them footnoted to mean adultery and incest. I do not know whether they also include prohibitions against homosexual acts, or not.

5

Well, to attempt to deal with the OP, which does not involve why Jews observe Jewish laws but rather why evangelical Christians tend to think them applicable not just to the Jews but to all mankind, the theory is this: (Note that this is my summary of their position, not a position I am personally willing to argue for)

The Jews were the Chosen People to whom God revealed Himself. They alone had the law as a means to salvation (not that anybody successfully kept it in its entirety, according to Paul). But through the mediation of Jesus’s Atonement, all human beings, Gentile and Jew alike, are now entitled to be recipients of God’s saving grace by accepting Jesus as their Savior. Hence as being adopted into God’s family through taking Jesus as Savior and Lord, they are to obey His Word as contained in the Holy Scriptures.

IMHO, there is a hole in this conceptualization, owing to Paul’s own rejection of the Law though He continued to insist on “moral behavior” – presumably as mediated by the behavioral as opposed to ritual or dietary aspects of the Law. But what do I know as against fundamentalist scholarship? :rolleyes:

6

Thanks, folks.

I’m clear that there is a point of view (which I have seen characterized as that of “ultra-orthodox Jews”) that maintains that there are 7 Noachide Laws that apply not just to Jews, but to everyone.

But what claim is being made by these Jews and the conservative Protestant community regarding these laws and their status? Are they considered inspired interpretations of the Ten Commandments (what I have seen presented as the 7 Noachide Laws certainly are not the purportedly literal words as recorded in Exodus)? As the Christians are generally fundamentalist evangelicals–what is the precise scriptural basis for the presumption of universality? --for when I turn to my Schocken Bible: Five Books of Moses, I see that God addresses his laws to those he brought out of Egypt and their descendents, who are to constitute “a kingdom of priests, a holy nation”, words openly addressed to the Kingdom of Israel. I can see how it could conceivably imply something like “all who would be in God’s favor”–but that surely seems a VERY strained interpretation in the absence of more pointed language.

And there’s still the question of how Levitical regulations, even more explicitly addressed to the Israelitic priesthood (and those observant Jews participating in its rituals), came to have any applicability at all elsewhere.

Jolt Sucker, Polycarp–anyone can play!–you and I have our impressions of how and why it is, but are you saying it’s really just a “tradition” with no explicit basis in either the Tanach or the New Testament? Because if so, I don’t “get” how it could be accepted as a doctrine by the Fundamentalists-as-Fundamentalists.

And I invite Fundamentalists to respond, if you have something to say about my specific questions. I am not asking about the truth of what you believe, only its scriptural basis within your church.

7

**

Well, speaking for the Jewish population, the seven Noahide commandments have nothing to do with the Ten Commandments. Indeed, the TC were given to the Jewish People together with the rest of the commandments at Mt. Sinai. This was an act that had no effect on the rest of the world’s population. Since the rest of the world did not accept the Torah, they are not bound by the TC.

By contrast, Jewish tradition maintains that six of the seven were given to Adam (and are binding on all his descendants) and that the seventh was given to Noah (and is binding on all his descendants).

And , JoltSucker if I may nitpick, the term Tanach is an acronym of Torah, Nevi’im (Prophets) and Kesuvim (Writings).

And, lastly, tomndebb the prohibition includes male homosexual acts, but not female.

Zev Steinhardt

8

zev_steinhardt, I stand corrected. Well, two out of three ain’t bad, especially for a non-Hebrew speaker.

So does this mean I don’t need to feel guilty for getting turned on by lesbian scenes? ;j

So what are the six Adamic (if that’s the term) commandments?

One of the things that I’ve noticed is that Jews (at least the Reformed Jews that I’ve dealt with) seem to have a lot less in the way of sexual hangups than my Protestant friends.

9

If I may add my two cents.

If you scan the books of law in the Pentateuch you can divide them pretty much into two categories. Laws that were designed to form the basis of a moral code and laws that were designed for the purposes of the general health and cleanliness of the Israelites. There are the laws gioverning the treatment of bodies after death, mildew, diseases, and the like and then the laws concerning the 10 Commandments which could b considered to be the most basic framework for what God considers “sin” If you were to look at things from this viewpoint you would see that the laws that Christians adopt from the Jewish tend to fall into the second category. Laws concerning murder, theft, deceit, sexual immorality and the many oher moral codes. The others, from my experience, are deemed mostly unnecessary as they were essentially “upkeep” laws for the physical health of the community.

10

The six Adamic (as good a term as any, I guess) commandments are:

1)Don’t kill
2)Don’t commit idolatry
3)Don’t commit forbidden/immoral sex acts
4)Don’t steal
5)Don’t curse G-d
6)Set up a judicial system to enforce the above commandments

Noah and his family were the first people allowed to eat meat (Genesis 9:3), and got the additional commandment:

7)Don’t eat meat from a living animal

11

Meros, to that classification could be added the ritual laws governing the proper way to worship God; there’s some extensive instructions for the kohanim and Levites mixed in.

I’d be very interested in someone who believes in the applicability of the Jewish “moral law” to modern-day people explaining the rationale behind that in more depth than my rather once-over-lightly comment above.

12

Basically, when all is said and done, there is no true rationale behid it save for “Because God said so.” God basically said, “this is good, this is bad” and never gave too many reasons trusting to the Jews to trust Him. One could say they were put in place to ensure harmony between people, (and could make an arguement for the slow collapse of our society as we stray further from these tenants but that would be for another forum. ) Where facts are concerned, the basis for following them is because God said to. The reasons God had for giving them are something that He never mentioned.

Forgive me if this sounds tongue in cheek but I am actually trying to offer a serious reply to a rather dificult to answer question.

13

I’m getting a little mixed up, so bear with me.

Are we all in agreement that the Noachide 7 are “a Jewish tradition” and are NOT founded upon any words of the Tanach?

Therefore, am I correct that a contemporary Christian Fundamentalist could not, and would not, honestly use them as a source of authority in moral doctrine? (Where “authority” refers rather definitely to the will of God, not just a sort of inspired tradition that may or may not be binding.) Or am I incorrect in believing that Fundamentalism = basing all AUTHORITATIVE doctrine upon the “plain” words of the Bible?

GilaB:

Were the 7 first noted-down by some particular rabbi or commentator “way back when”?–ie, can we associate the idea, and their formulation, with so-and-so’s movement in Judaism?

Or is it more like an endless string of commentators commenting on one another, with no reference to an origin (other than from God via Adam and Noah)?

I have only seen the 7 listed as a general subject matter, or as a topic with some elaboration that seems fairly contemporary: is there such a thing as “the” Noachide 7 in the original formulation (to be then translated into English)?

AND IN GENERAL–

I grasp why conservative Jews believe in the universality of some elements of…well, not even specifically Jewish doctrine for the most part…just, that it is pleasing to God when one is honest, faithful, reverent, etc.

But when, and WHY (in a theological, not political, sense), did the Protestant Christians adopt the Noachide Laws, attach a degree of specificity not found there…

and then cease to mention them AS SUCH–as I’m fairly well read and have never heard of them in my life!!

14

**

The Talmud derives them from a verse in Genesis. But, no they are not explicitly stated (with the exception of murder).

**

You are correct. I find it highly doubtful that a modern-day Christian would open up the Talmud to enforce some perceived notion of canon law.

**

I’m not GilaB, but I can answer that one. The Talmud in Sanhedrin derives the seven commandments from a verse in Genesis, based on Talmudic rules. Please keep in mind however, that Jewish tradition teaches that the teachings in the Talmud did not originate there, but back at Mt. Sinai. And the tradition further holds (of course) that these seven commandments were given back in the times of Adam and Noah and have existed ever since.

Zev Steinhardt

Coding fixed. – CKDH

15

Can a mod please fix that for me? Thank you…

Zev Steinhardt

16

I suspect that there was an historical development, as well. In the earliest days, the Israelites viewed the laws as given to them by God, that they (and only they) must obey. As they came into contact with pagans, and as their view of God became more universalistic, it became clear that God must demand some moral standard from everyone, pagan and Jew alike. That is, it must be possible to be a good person, even if not Jewish. Hence, the reading of the seven Noahic laws into the text, as the standard of moral behavior everywhere.

Back to the Original Question, I think generally everyone has the story down pretty well. There are some Christian sects – definitely not mainstream – who think that Paul was incorrect in discarding the other Old Testament laws. These tend to be the fringe minorities, however.

17

Thanks for the fix, CK.

Zev Steinhardt

18

From what I have read in Elaine Pagels, the reason that Christians seem to have bigger hangups over sex than Jews (which I think is correct) is that Jesus himself thought that celibacy was a higher state of mankind.

19

Have ya ever read something, read it again, and even a third time, and somehow you just can’t absorb it–even though it’s written in perfectly fine English and seems to be making sense “bit by bit”?

Folks, I feel stupid and even kind of perverse, but somehow the very detailed answers to my OP, and a few further questions along the way, just aren’t clicking for me. That usually means I’ve got some sort of “hidden assumption” that I don’t know about, no one has noticed, and yet needs to be brought out and dealt with.

OK. You’ve got 7 Noachide Laws…not 6, not 8, but 7. Obviously they are very specific things; but it’s pretty clear that what was presented on the website I visited was just a sort of discussion/amplification of what each encompassed, and I take it that what GilaB has listed is the bald statement of the import of each law. And I do understand, Zev S, that no explicit and authoritative version of them is to be found in the Tanach.

But that’s not to say that there is no such thing as an explicit and authoritative statement thereof. Some actual person in the history of Jewish thought must have written down something like: “Here are the laws given by God to Adam, with one also for Noah, incumbent upon all mankind.” If what followed that statement was something as summary as “don’t kill, don’t commit idolatry”–“it’s that simple, folks!” as Ross Perot would say–after which we have a few millenia of scholarly elaboration that must be respectfully regarded–tell me. Or, if there was a “classical” version, the very language and phrasing of which had to be considered as such (after all, G-d said it)–tell me. (And what was that version–what were the words?)

(By the way, what IS that provocative verse in Genesis that keeps getting alluded to but is never cited?)

But…see…

I don’t view Protestant Fundamentalists as basing their asserted doctines on “tradition”. They have to see words, and the words have to be in the Holy Scriptures. In my experience, they will quote something from the 10 Commandments or Leviticus, etc, to justify a very SPECIFIC point of their moral code (re abortion, homosexuality, premarital sex, divorce, whatnot), and if the exchange is not just an assertion on their part but a discussion of its justification, they will get into the most “likely” interpretation of the actual words of that verse. The actual words of God are THERE and they REALLY MATTER.

So the thing I can’t figure out is-- if the only authoritative basis for judging the morality/propriety of an act is the actual extant words of the Bible, OT and NT [and NOT Jewish Talmudic tradition], how do they justify resort to the 10 Comms [seemingly addressed to the chosen people of Israel, not humanity in general]; and more arrestingly, to the Levitical laws [not even addressed to the Israelites per se, but to the priesthood]?

Sure, you might say “So what else could they do?,” and that’s obvious in a purely pragmatic sense. But it doesn’t seem to me that they are saying, in effect, “we have to have rules, and the rules God gave the Jews make good sense.” No, it seems to be the case that they regard obedience to the 10 Comms as incumbent upon all humans in the same way that Jews regard said obedience to be incumbent upon Jews.

And I’m trying to get someone to point to the BIBLICAL TEXT that is being used as the basis for that posture.

Or tell me that it just ain’t there, and that somebody in earlier Protestant days just plain declared that this was doctrine, with no explicit justification. (But who? When?)

Surely it is not just Christ’s “jot and tittle” remark, acceptance of which would seem to warrant adoption of the entirety of Jewish law (as found in the Tanach). Or is it?

Anyone want to take another stab at this?

20

As I read it, you’ve got two outstanding questions:

(1) Which Jewish thinker(s) decided that the Noahic laws pertain to all mankind?

  • I don’t know, I await Zev or cmkeller for elucidation.

(2) What biblical text do these Christian sects use to justify that they must also follow the Mosaic Laws?

  Here, I can venture two different guesses.
  (a) There is no text that forbids it. That is, the Mosaic Laws provide a route to holiness, and any group -- Jewish or not -- can follow those laws to achieve holiness. Just because they were originally given to the Jews does not preclude their application elsewhere.

   (b) Jesus provided a "new" covenant, where God's chosen people, the ancient tribes of the people Israel, are replaced by those who believe in Jesus. (As an aside, this tends to be an argument often used by anti-semites, that the Jews somehow fell out of favor with God and were replaced by Christians.) Thus, the Mosaic Laws would now be encumbent upon the true Christians (that is, the members of whatever sect we're talking about.)

However I hasten to add that these are my educated guesses. I do not know what text these groups use to justify their position. And it may be that different groups use different textual rationalizations.