It seems to me like most Christian theologies take an awkward view of the Mosaic laws in the Old Testament: they’ll keep some of them because “the Bible says to,” but not keep others that, at least at first glance, the Bible also says to. For example, we’ll decry committing adultery because the Bible says not to do it (the seventh commandment, Exodus 20:14) but not observe the Sabbath (the fourth commandment, Exodus 20:8-11). Or some will say homosexual sex is a sin (Leviticus 18:22) but won’t think twice about eating pork, which in Mosaic law is considered unclean (Leviticus 11:7).
I’m not familiar with the particular practices of every or even most Christian churches, but I know that the church I belong to (Seventh-day Adventists), which tends to be pretty strict on stuff like this, does the same thing. Adventist doctrine observes a seventh-day sundown-to-sundown Sabbath (or the Jewish Sabbath) and forbids eating pork, shellfish (Leviticus 11:10), etc., but they don’t perform sacrifices or send women out of the “camp” when they menstruate (Leviticus 15:19).
So I’m wondering: why do we follow some laws and not others?
One of the main explanations I’ve been given is that these laws were done away with in Christ’s crucifixion. I can name a couple of problems with this, however: 1) in some passages Christ says that the law will not pass until heaven and Earth do; and 2) how do we know which laws, if any, are done away with?
These passages seem to support the first objection:
I suppose one could argue from that first quote that some aspects of the law may no longer be binding because Christ’s coming fulfilled them*, but then you’re left with the question of which ones. Christ encouraged fasting (Matthew 6:16-18), respected the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14) (some people suggest that the day in between Christ’s death and His resurrection was meant in respect to the Sabbath, but I’m not sure about the support for it), and considered adultery a sin (John 8:1-11).
He seems to have downplayed some other laws, like those about what you can and can’t eat (Matthew 14:10-20), yet made some, like the laws on divorce and giving oaths, stricter (Matthew 5:27-42). Paul downplays the importance of circumcision, eating, and days of worship in order to reconcile more people to the faith (Romans 4:8-13, 1 Corinthians 8:8, Colossians 2:16-17, respectively).
So it’s not clear, at least from my understanding, which, if any, laws (other than those specifically mentioned, as in some of the passages I cited) are or are not to be observed. Should I be making sure the meat I eat is kosher? Is it OK for me to work Saturday mornings? When, if ever, is a person “unclean?”
I know many of the Dopers have a better understanding of theology than me, so if you can I’d be glad to see your take on this. How do we know which laws of the OT (or NT) are binding on those who call themselves Christians? What is the significance of the crucifixion with respect to OT law? Are we doing things we shouldn’t be doing, or not doing things we could be?
*(Another passage about “Elias”/Elijah having come and fulfilled what was “listed” is in Mark 9:11-13.)
St. Paul explains in excruciating detail how the Law was supposed to be a nursemaid to lead one to God, but with the coming of Christ it has been superseded. We are free from the Law. (Note that this is not antinomian, but rather a call to individual holiness and ethical behavior based on the two great commandments, without reference to whether the behavior is in accord with an intricate code and its interpretations.)
The Law remains applicable, to Christianity as the New Israel just as much as to the Children of Israel. However, through the vision to Peter in Acts, God superseded the dietary laws, and through the atonement of Christ, all the complex provisions of the ritual law were fulfilled in Him. That leaves moral injunctions for the most part. (Although why Fiendly Finance can charge inordinate interest rates and that’s not evil, but any sexual relations not in accord with Mrs. Grundy’s standards are immoral, escapes me.)
The way I see/learned it is that Christ’s coming did fulfill some of the laws, but He also “updated” some of them. Kind of like the amendments to the Constitution. For instance, if the OT said, “Do M”, and Christ came along and said, “Do N instead,” most Christians go with “N.” If the OT said, “Do B,” and Christ either agreed or was silent, most Christians will do “B.” The easiest example I can think of along these lines is the difference between “and eye for an eye” and “turn the other cheek.” It’s not that most Christians believe the OT is/was wrong, it’s just that there’s been an update in the “rules.”
I’m a layperson, so I don’t have actual training on this, and I’m at work, so I can’t provide cites right now. But this is what I understand the general belief to be, at least in the church I was raised in and the one I attend now, and in the various churches my friends go to.
But I don’t think you’ll find any quotes in the NT where Jesus says it’s ok to eat leavened products on Passover, wear linen/wool mixtures, not blow the shofar on Rosh HaShannah, cohabit with a menstruating woman or not sit in a sukkah on Succos. Yet, all these commandments are not kept by Christians…
Following what Zev said, Jesus in fact usually called for a STRICTER interpretation that Jewish Law. Jewish law says don’t commit adultery; Jesus says don’t even THINK about committing adultery.
With Jesus, God and his covenant no longer dwell in the tabernacle, but in our hearts. If you are one with the peace Christ brings and the love He has for you and all people you will know what to do and what not to do. To hurt another, is to hurt God. To do a kindness for the most needy and undeserving person is to do a kindness for Christ himself. Got it?
Us liberal Christians out here thus find the fundamentalist fixation on the 10 Commandments very annoying, particularly when accomplished at the expense of the love of Christ for our enemies principle.
Remember Christ also said, the Devil may quote scripture, and there are those clergy who would use their position to steal the inheritance of widows. You will know Christians by their love, not their words.
Maybe, but that’s also a handy argument against anyone who uses scripture to argue a point with you. What it comes down to is, scripture is correct if it supports your authorities’ view, but “of the Devil” if it doesn’t. Very handy. Biblical arguments are only acceptable if the spin is what you were taught. Probably why these threads are usually like endless loops.
Just FYI, Jews don’t perform sacrifices today due to lack of a Holy Temple (Deuteronomy 12:8-14 says that once a permanent resting site for the altar, i.e., a Holy Temple, has been established, sacrifices can not be performed anywhere else), and the only “camp” which menstrually unclean women were to be sent out of was the “camp of the divine presence,” i.e., the Temple and its courtyard - a moot point given its almost-two-thousand-year absence.
Presumably the Seventh-Day Adventists’s failure to do anything noticeable about those biblical commandments is for the same or similar reasons. Not declaring those commandments to be defunct, but merely that the circumstances in which those commandments are to be performed do not currently exist.
I mostly have to agree with both of the stances Polycarp explained. We are, in fact, free from the Law, as in no longer under the guilt demonstrated by the Law. The Law shows us that we are sinners, in the same sense that you don’t know that your face is dirty unless you know what it looks like when it’s clean. We are no longer under condemnation from the Law.
I’m trying to be clear, but I have a lot to say and can only type so fast, so bear with me.
Sacrifice.
The sacrifices commanded by the Law served to cover up sin. It was always still there, but under the God’s Covenant, he agreed not to see it, as if it weren’t there. The sacrifices are also a forshadowing, or a type, of the actual purging of sin.
With the coming of Christ, this was fulfilled. Jesus was the perfect and final sin offering, made by God on our behalf. This sacrifice was once, for all, and no further atonement is necessary, only to become a signatory to the new Covenant. This is done by accepting the sacrifice, and being “washed in the blood”, so to speak.
Diet.
This was actually superseded prior to the vision to Peter that Polycarp mentioned.
So Christians are not bound by Jewish dietary law.
Morality.
The moral laws have never been changed or superseded, and as CMKeller pointed out, were in fact tightened, in a sense. I say “in a sense” because we are to be governed by the Spirit and by love (first for God, second for our fellow man) in our actions, not by a set of rules. The question is to be “would God be pleased with this?” or “Would my neighbor be pleased by this?” That way there is no legalism, no quibbling over details like whether you can have a cup of milk with your lambchop. When morality is codified, then it gets interpreted, gone over with a magnifying glass and a fine-tooth comb, and the spirit of the law is lost in pursuit of the letter. So sexual immorality, murder, thievery, lying, etc are still wrong. But we don’t need a commandment to tell us that.
The Sabbath.
This is a difficult point to argue. I believe this commandment was given strictly to the Jews, to set them apart from the rest of the world as his people (I believe the same for many of the dietary and other laws–the ones that were not given for health’s sake).
However, I do have support for not being bound by the Sabbath:
Jesus and his disciples picked grain from a field on the Sabbath, which is work and was technically forbidden by the Law.
After that, Jesus healed a man in the synagogue. Again he was accused of violating the Sabbath.
And finally, from Romans 14:
(the rest of this section of Romans also discusses dietary laws)
How certain things were determined.
Read Acts 15. There is a whole discourse explaining that the apostles held a meeting to determine what of the Mosaic Law Gentile believers were bound to follow:
One final thing I’d like to touch on:
Stargazer said this:
That particular point isn’t an update, and it isn’t a contradiction either, it’s a clarification. The eye for an eye statement is for restitution in criminal acts. Not for personal revenge. However, people were taking that as an approval to strike back and retaliate on a personal level. Jesus simply stated that that was not the intent of the law, and emphasizing the fact that vengeance belongs to God and criminal punishment belongs to the civil authority, not to the person at large. We are to repay evil with good, and to love our enemies, not to strike back at them.
Any comments on what I’ve written? (haha silly, question, eh? )
Actually, that was Antonio, in the Merchant of Venice.
It seems to me that deciding what rules to follow has a lot to do with how popular breaking the rule is. A lot of the early Gentile converts, for example, didn’t want to have to get circumcised or keep kosher, so those rules were gotten rid of. Likewise, the rules about usury were bent and finally gotten rid of as Italian merchants started making enough money lending at interest. (bringing us back to the Merchant of Venice, interestingly enough. If it took place in the real Venice of Shakespeare’s day, Antonio could have borrowed from some of the large Christian banking houses, like the Fuggers.) Other rules were either so fundimental to the running of society (don’t murder, don’t steal, etc), or would be broken by small enough groups of people that there really wasn’t much social cost to keeping them sins/wrong. (Don’t lie with a man as you would a woman, don’t commit witchcraft, etc.) That’s my take on the matter, anyway.
Popularity had nothing to do with it. Gentile believers are gentiles (duh). Gentiles do not follow Jewish Law because, by definition, they are not Jews. Rules set down in Jewish Law were a part of the Old Covenant (to which even the Jews were unable to remain faithful over the centuries). Christians are under a New Covenant, whose sign is Jesus’s blood poured out. The point is that they were not becoming Jews, they were becoming followers of Christ. The majority of early Christians happened to BE Jews, and felt that all believers should follow the rules they were raised with. The apostles (who were the authority in the early church) ruled, rightly, that there was no justification in forcing the Law, from which we are now free, on the new believers.
This reply would have been posted sooner, but I got called in to work as I was writing it. I was really surprised to read Joe_Cool’s post because a lot of it is pretty similar to what I had written (down to even using the same wording!). But I hope this provides what you will consider to be an adequate basis for asking the question in my OP…
Thanks for the link, zev. The discussion there is pretty good, but there’s still some points I think are worth discussing there, which I’ll get to in just a sec.
Given the explanations Polycarp posted, I’d opt for the second stance. My reasoning is that what Paul says about the law (particularly in Romans) is that the law was God’s way of spelling out right and wrong, and as such, made us responsible for our choices. Paul makes the point that there is no sin apart from the law, and as Christ told us, the wages of sin are death. In other words, we’re capable of sin (and therefore death) because we know what sin is and are able to choose it (which we couldn’t do previous to sin’s being defined by the law). Paul also mentions that not only are we capable of sin, we all have sinned (Romans 3:23) and therefore all deserve to die.
So I think Paul’s point is that the atonement of Christ saves us from the consequences of the law (which is pretty much Christ’s main message, besides “love one another”: you all deserved to die, but I’m here to die in your place, and if you choose to let me represent you with my death, you will never have to pay the eternal punishment you deserved under the law). So, I think it’s not that we’re no longer bound by the law—and besides, why give us a law at all if we were to be judged on our own sense of right and wrong?—but that Christ’s death frees those who choose to accept Him from the consequences of the law.
So we still get to have this debate.
In the light of Polycarp’s post and the arguments made in zev’s linked thread, there are a few questions I’d consider settled:
1) Why no more sacrifices? Take your pick of reasons: for Christians, Christ’s death eliminated the need for them. For Jews, (as was first pointed out by tomndebb in the linked thread) sacrifices were only to be done in the Temple, and the Temple isn’t standing any longer. But presumably, they’re still obligated to do it (which means they need another Temple).
2) What can you eat? As far as what species of animal, the answer seems to be, “It’s no big deal.” Paul’s message seems to be that the big issues of Christianity—God’s sacrifice for human iniquity, loving one another—are the things Christians really need to focus on, and considerations like whether or not a person is circumcised, eats whatever kind of meat, or worships on Sabbath or not are not that important.
—Note, that isn’t to say that they were done away with, just that it’s not as big a deal as believing in Jesus and treating your neighbor with love. When Paul was writing this, Christianity was a fledgling religion and he was concerned with bringing believers to Christ, not worrying about whether or not they passed the Heavenly dress code. But that doesn’t mean that the dress code disappeared, or that Christians who knew better should be violating the law: in 1 Corinthians 13:11, Paul writes, “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” (Though this is in a bit different context, I think it applies.)
The people Paul was reaching out to were “children” in the sense of their religious development. He was reaching out to Gentiles who probably, if they knew the Jewish laws at all, never thought of them as their own. Paul was more concerned with bringing people to understand the necessity of Christ’s salvation than with whether or not they ate pork or worshiped on Sabbath—and he probably said not to worry about those things out of the concern that worrying about minutiae would drive away potential converts.
Also, I don’t think Peter’s dream is being interpreted correctly here. The dream appears in Acts 10:9-16, and read by itself it does seem to change the law about eating meat. But I think you must read the entire chapter to understand the context: it starts out with a man from Caesarea, who had a vision of an angel that told him to send people to meet Peter. The man’s name was Cornelius, and while I don’t think it specifically says that he was not a Jew, it seems likely that he was a Gentile.
So Cornelius sends some of his servants—presumably also Gentiles—to meet Peter. As they’re getting close to town, Peter goes up to pray on the roof of the place he’s staying, becomes hungry, falls asleep and has the vision. (Synopsis: A huge sheet comes down from the sky with every kind of beast upon it, and a voice says, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” (Acts 10:13) Peter refuses, saying that he has never eaten anything “common or unclean.” Then the voice replies, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” (Acts 10:15) This happens three times, then he wakes up.)
The next verses (17-22) are key. “Now while Peter *doubted in himself what this vision he had seen should mean. *behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate, (18) And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there. (19) While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. (20) Arise therefore, and get thee down; and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.”
In other words, the dream was a metaphor; rather than counseling Peter that it was okay to eat whatever, the meaning was that Peter was not to consider the Gentiles unclean, because God was sending him to them.
So, getting down to it, that’s why I don’t think the laws against eating certain things ever were repealed. Paul didn’t say the law was changed, he just instructed the Christian “newbies” that they had more important things to worry about.
3) What about holy days? Pretty much the same deal—there’s more important things to worry about. Christians haven’t got to worry about the Day of Atonement for the same reason that they don’t have to worry about ritual law: Christ was the sacrifice that all those other sacrifices were symbolic of, and once He died, the need for them had passed. (OK, I’m inserting some of my own theological upbringing here without support, but this is getting to be long enough as it is.) Passover might be included along with this.
Then again, it might not. There are lots of festivals and holy days that aren’t related to sacrifice at all—the Festival of Purim (from Esther) the weekly Sabbath, and the year of Jubilee to name a few. While I’m not sure if the Festival of Purim is a mandatory requirement, Sabbath and the Passover were. Since those two holidays celebrate something other than atonement for sin (the creation of the world in the former case, and God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt in the latter), I don’t think that abolishing sacrificial ritual would also include abolishing their observance. One might argue that Gentiles need not observe Passover, which is fine by me, but the creation of mankind certainly does include Gentiles.
On the Sabbath topic, Gaudere mentioned something in zev’s linked thread that I thought I’d address. Gaudere wrote:
Did Jesus violate the Sabbath? He did seem to amend the law in such a way that it clashed with Jewish custom (which, I’m told, is pretty elaborate. However, the source I have is somewhat biased… if someone with a better knowledge of Jewish customary laws happens by and feels she or he can add something, I’d be much obliged. ;)). Specifically, he dramatized the point that doing good on Sabbath is not a violation of the law, even if it happened to fall under the strict Jewish interpretation of “work.” However, I don’t see this as an endorsement of working for pay, etc. on Sabbath. (For one thing, that would have been a pretty quick turnoff to the Jews He was preaching to.) After Jesus died, those who knew Him still rested on the Sabbath (Luke 23:54-56), and He wasn’t resurrected until the first day of the week. I don’t agree that it was ever Christ’s intention to eliminate the Sabbath law, but rather I think He meant to clarify for the Jews what it was OK to do. Christ does say elsewhere that the Jews have made their own laws to take the place of the law of God:
I think that here, as elsewhere, Christ is focusing on the meaning or “spirit” of the law, rather than the letter of it. Other examples would be when he relates that the greatest and second greatest commandments are to love God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself, and that “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:40). He says the same thing about the Golden Rule: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12) He isn’t saying that they are both literally the law and the prophets, but that they are the message of the law and the prophets. (Just like He doesn’t literally mean to forgive your enemy “seventy times seven,”–Matthew 18:22–but is saying that to emphasize the attitude of forgiveness He wants us to have.) In none of these cases—His preaching on the Golden Rule or the Sabbath—is He negating the law; rather, He’s simply clarifying (or as stargazer put it, “updating”) them.
Having said ALL that, we’re still left with a whole bunch of laws and no definitive answer about whether or not we should be doing them, or why. At the risk of running in “loops,” as DesertGeezer put it, I think it’s still worth asking which ones we should follow and which ones we shouldn’t, because: 1) There are a lot of laws; 2) Some laws are clarified in the New Testament, and some rituals nullified because of the fulfillment, but 3) Many of them seem to still be applicable and were respected by New Testament figures as well. It’s tempting to say we don’t have to follow them because following the simple “do unto others” rule is good enough, but I don’t think that’s necessarily implied; Christ I think was saying that the “do unto others” was the spirit that the laws were meant to embody.
Man, all that just to try and establish a basis for even having a debate!
So people have answered stuff about diet laws, moral laws and sabbath. What about some of the more practical laws? For example:
Leviticus 14:
Now, if I went down the the local church and told the priest that I have seen something that looks like mildew in my house, he’d look at me as if to say “and what do you want me to do about it” What’s more, I don’t devoid my house of furniture and move in with the neighbours for a week. Nor do I knock the house down if I can’t get rid of the mildew. Obviously, this is a law that has fallen by the wayside.
Now I think, but I’m not sure, and I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong here, but this is a law to do with cleanliness and uncleanliness - a topic that many of the OT laws dealt with. This set of laws seems to have been among those that are considered no longer necessary, but I’m not sure where that came from - I can see it with unclean food, but not with unclean bodily discharges (leviticus 15 - flowing and blocked dischages - very icky) and infectious skin diseases (leviticus 14). Why? The NT is silent on this set of laws…
I’m going for the big broad picture here. If you have followup questions, fire away.
Things to keep in mind:
The OT Law was a covenant that God made with the nation of Israel (the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). At no point in the history of Israel did God ever say ‘and believing Gentiles are now included.’ And, at no point after the inception of the New covenant in Christ did God say that believing Gentiles are now included in the Law.
It simply was not given to us.
Christ died as the inception of the New covenant, and in doing so He fulfilled every requirement of the Law that God had placed on Israel.
In other words, God used the New covenant of Grace to fulfill (and therefore nullify) the Old covenant of Law. This is outlined in Galatians 3 and Romans 7. In Romans 7 Paul says the purpose of the Law was so that sin might be shown to be sinful. Galatians 3 says that the Law was a schoolmaster put in charge to lead us to Christ.
Therefore, the purpose of the Law (as pertains to the Church comprised of believing Israel and believing Gentiles) is to show men their sin. After all, as Jesus said, well men don’t seek a physician.
In every possible way that the Law demanded our obedience and proved us to be unrighteous (I am speaking generally of the Church as Romans 2-3 says that even Gentiles have a Law unto themselves), Christ fulfilled the Law on our behalf and imputed His own righteousness to us, so that in every way it is possible to be righteous, we are before God - thanks to God’s own grace and mercy.
This is not because of our righteous actions. Our actions were only sinful. This is because of Christ’s righteous actions. We benefit from His righteousness.
Nine of the ten commandments are restated in scripture. The only one that is missing is the Sabbath. Bet you can’t guess why (see Hebrews 4 and Romans 12). I’ll bet every Christian preacher you know breaks the Sabbath (and every Christian too!).
Paul never taught tithing - an essential part of the OT Law - to the Church. He taught what christians call Grace Giving. More proof the Law had passed.
In Acts 10, Peter sees a vision that tells him that dietary and social laws imposed on him as a Jew no longer apply.
The conclusion is; the Law was not given to us, and we are graciously included in a covenant that wasn’t ours to begin with. The rest of the ‘separation’ laws - dealing with food, tattoos, mixing of fabrics, the tithe that went to celebrate the feasts of God - those are all gone.
If they still apply, Paul did his church a great disservice by not telling us about the Law he knew so well. But Paul knew we are freed from the regulation of the Law through Christ, and he fought for it tenaciously (see all of Galatians).
Anyway, the simplest thing to remember is that in Christ we are not under law but under grace. To try to obey the law is to say that Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t good enough to make us righteous and we have to somehow add to it by doing the outward appearance of good things. But, Jesus said that if we were trying to reach heaven on our own merit, unless our righteousness exceeded that of the scribes and the Pharisees we would in no way see the kingdom of heaven.
Rest in grace. Christ died, we live. That is the essence of the gospel. Where the Law brought death, His sacrifice brings life. You are holy not because of your actions, but because He lives in you.
PS - although Jesus walked and talked in the New Testament - that is a literary division.
The New Covenant didn’t begin until His death.
Therefore, He was perfectly right to talk to the Pharisees about the Law and even mention parts of it to them as if they should keep it. They were in fact under that particular covenant.
But, He was not speaking to Gentile dogs. He was speaking to Israel - remember, Israel is under the Law, and you, as a Gentile, are not.
And of course, believing Israel is freed from the Law in Christ.
Well, yeah, but why did this happen? If you look at the book of the Acts of the Apostles, you see two communities starting to develop. You have the main group, headed in Jerusalem, led by Peter and James the brother of Jesus, which says “To be Christian, you need to be Jewish, and follow Jewish law”, and then you have Paul, who’s mainly focusing his evangilization efforts toward Gentile communities, the people of which, don’t want to be Jews, don’t want to be circumcised, keep kosher, etc. At first, the Jerusalem group is winning, because they have the authority…that’s the original followers of Jesus, and the Jewish Christians have most of the power in Christianity. So, Paul circumcises Timothy. for example, and Gentile Christians complain about uneven distribution.
But then, something happens. Peter, according to Acts, has a vision from G-d, and comes over to the view that Christians don’t have to be be Jews. Meanwhile, Jewish conversions really aren’t happening, but Gentile ones are…Christianity becomes a lot more popular with non-Jews than with Jews. As this demographic shift happens, Paul’s arguments about the universality of Christianity become more popular. Paul basically wins that argument, which is why he has a central place in Christianity, and why so many of the epistles of the Christian New Testament are Pauline.
My apologies DesertGeezer, I was thinking of thinking of Luke 4:12, do not put the Lord thy God to the test. However, in Chapter 4, the devil does quote a lot of scripture.
The point being that someone who quotes scripture to get you to do something may be the devil, and not a messenger of God.
Are you saying that you think Gentiles are dogs? And if not, cite where Jesus said they were. If I misunderstood you, please explain what you did mean. I’m not a Christian, but since I’m not a Jew either that would make me a Gentile. And I’m certainly not a dog!:mad: Please explain yourself.
I just looked again at my two posts to this thread. I must really be in a snit today! Pardon me while I go watch Leno and chill out.
“Hello, I must be going.” --Groucho Marx
)