What you wrote seems to explain an abolition of the Law in its entirely. I don’t see where that explanation allows for the continuation of the laws such as, oh say, adultery among two consenting couples. (I chose “couples” to highten the “victimless” aspect of it.)
and
My first question is adressed to Joe_Cool and Mean Girl: Is it your belief that gentile Christians do NOT constitute the “New Israel”, or do you have a way to reconcile what you wrote with this quote from Polycarp…
My second question is to Polycarp, and concerns the concept that the Law was “fulfilled” in Jesus. I don’t understand how a law can be fulfilled without actually observing and following it. I suspect that this concept refers to the belief that the need for those laws has been fulfilled, and that therefore there is no need to follow them any more. Am I close?
I also am a little curious as to what
means. It seems to me that, generally, Jews do a pretty good job. The religion is still here, after all, after 3000 years.
I’ll let Polycarp speak for himself when he gets here, but in the meantime, I’ll take a stab at this one.
Christian theology varies from one denomination to the next, but generally asserts the following:
-
That Christ, in being sacrificed on the cross, has paid the penalty for the sins of the world, for all that will accept it. So in that sense, Christ has fulfilled the Law: if the penalty for our past, present, and future lawbreaking has already been paid, then though the Law may still be there, our accounts with it are settled and done.
-
Jesus has superseded the Mosaic law with two fundamental laws that captures its essence, that won’t be any more or less applicable as times and cultural mores change. If you are loving the Lord God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and loving your neighbor as you would love yourself, then how can you possibly be doing wrong?
-
Jesus has taken up residence in the believer’s heart, to give the believer the strength to live for Christ, and to help him/her sort out what it means, in everyday life, to obey those two great Commandments. Thus a raft of laws on small matters are no longer needed.
**
That may be fine and well. But, if so, why is it OK to eat non-kosher food and say “Jesus paid for this with his death on the cross;” but not OK to commit murder, adultery, witchcraft, usury, etc. IOW (going back to the OP’s question and my old question), what is the reason that some laws still apply and others don’t.
**
But if he superseded Mosaic law, then why is witchcraft forbidden? Why is incest, homosexual activity, etc. forbidden?
What’s a “small matter?” Why is a prohibition on witchcraft any smaller than a prohibition on eating non-kosher food? Is giving charity a “small matter?” Are Christians still commanded to do it? How “small” is the commandment of putting a fence around your roof? (Duet. 22:8)
Zev Steinhardt
robinc308:
The “mildew” referred to in Leviticus is actually an odd condition called (in Hebrew) “tzaraas,” the details of which are a bit more complicated than can be gleaned from the simplified translation of the Leviticus verses themselves. In addition, “priest” in the (OT) biblical sense is not quite the same kind of function as served by the priest in a church. Suffice it to say that, like the sacrifices, it is not a law which has been abandoned (at least not by those who actually observe all OT laws) but rather, a law which the conditions for fulfillment do not really exist today.
And yes, it would be extremely impractical to move out all one’s furniture and stuff, but the command to do that is actually for the person’s benefit - if the furniture remained in the house and the house were declared impure, the furniture would very likely need to be replaced, because anything remaining in an impure house becomes impure itself (and while some kinds of vessels can be purified, some kinds cannot).
Because except for a few applications, the only practical difference between a person who is pure and one who is impure is whether or not he can enter the Temple or eat of Holy things, which mostly came from the Temple. In addition to the fact that there is no Holy Temple today, there is a Jewish law that pretty much (I’m oversimplifying here) says that all people in modern times have very likely been in contact with a dead body (a kind of impurity that cannot be purified without the ceremony of the red heifer) and would not be allowed to deal with holy things anyway, even if the other types of impurity (i.e., the skin disease Tzaraas or the bodily flows) were absent. Since these factors render purity vs impurity moot, no one is seen to be doing much related to these laws today.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Jesus was, according to the Gospels, asked several times to explain what the Law called man to do. His response was the same, and also one that Hillel had given some years before.
He identified Deuteronomy 6:4-5 as the greatest commandment:
And in the second place, he specified Leviticus 19:18
His further comment was:
It’s the understanding of most of us liberal Christians that one is supposed to act in such a way as to make those two commandments the heart and soul of everything we do. Anything else is secondary to them.
Zev asks:
Okay, if you can define a way in which loving God with all that is in you and loving your neighbor as yourself can be made congruent with the commission of murder, adultery, witchcraft, usury, etc., then those things are not forbidden. But even the most extreme of casuists would find it extraordinarily difficult to make a case for most of them. (Regarding adultery, there’s a classic story from Joseph Fletcher of a couple sent to separate concentration camps during WWII, in circumstances where if they had had children they would not be locked up but were, in separate camps, because they did not; the woman intentionally got pregnant with the assistance of a compliant guard in order to get herself and her husband released, and they both had a special love for that child as the instrument of their release. This sounds not only apocryphal but positively Talmudic in its tone, but is supposed to have been a true story.)
I trust I’ve made the case regarding homosexuality as these commandments apply to it in dozens of other threads, and have little interest in seeing this one hijacked to that issue.
The giving of charity is normally considered to be a part of the second of those two great commandments, and yes, Christians are still obliged to do so.
I fail to understand the sense of the fence on the roof, and would welcome seeing the context in which you speak of it.
But something Chaim said some time ago regarding what an observant Jew is supposed to do when two commandments conflict, as in observance of the Sabbath and the saving of life, may give you the key to our understanding of the appropriate reading of the Law for Christians.
**
Granted, I was going a bit over the top with murder, adultery and usury. However, I’m not so convinced that witchcraft, for one, can necessarily be defined in terms of not loving God. One could view magic as a tool to do things, and nothing more. I’m not so sure that I see the use of magic as an act of not loving God, any more than using a Bic lighter.
The same thing could apply with lending with interest (not usurous). Some would view this as selfish (“the person needs the money and we should just lend it to him”). Others, however, could understand that the lending of money with interest is a cornerstone of modern economics and that much of the business world could not exist today without it. So, then, is lending money with interest an example of not loving your neighbor?
**
That I understand.
**
The point was that this is a commandment which Christians, in general, do not observe.
The same case can be made for the commandment of peah. Peah is a commendment to leave over a corner of your field uncut for the poor to come and take.
These are commandments that are not “ritual” in nature (as eating kosher is, for example), that would tend to fall under the category of “love your neighbor” (as charity does) and should apply to Christians today. Yet, it seems, they do not. My question is why?
There are actually very specific rules for what one is to do when two commandments “collide” (such as when a bris is scheduled to happen on Shabbos [when one is normally forbidden from causing a wound]).
In addition, keep in mind, that while saving a life does override most commandments, it does not override them all. There are still things that one is forbidden to do, even to save a life (whether his own or someone else’s).
Zev Steinhardt
zev - I see on preview that I’m now a bit behind the discussion, but I’ll toss this in anyway.
Christians do not claim that Jesus’ atoning death turned wrong into right. We’re not going to hell for our sins, but sin is still sin.
Also, some of your questions relate to differences in beliefs within Christianity. Why homosexual activity is still forbidden is a question best answered by those who believe it is. And I have questions of that same sort for them: why homosexuality, and not usury, for instance? Aside from dietary laws (and other laws specifically referred to in the New Testament), how is it decided which laws are still in the ‘thunder from the pulpit at their violators’ class, and which are in the ‘this is the sort of thing that doesn’t apply to redeemed Christians’ class? It makes no more sense to me than to you.
So, what does that leave me with? As a Christian, I believe that eating non-kosher food has nothing to do with whether I’m loving God or my fellow man. Committing murder or adultery, or lending at usurious rates - to me it’s pretty obvious that one can’t love one’s neighbor and do these things. (Yeah, I can see the smartass comments coming about adultery. :)) Witchcraft? I suppose it depends on what we mean by it. Most of what fell into the category of ‘witchcraft’ in the stories I grew up with was manipulative stuff, which runs into the same problem: if I get the local witch to cast a spell to make the girl of my dreams fall in love with me (assuming such things could work), that’s not about loving her, it’s about possessing her. And of course any sort of witchcraft that involves receiving aid from spirits other than the Lord God, violates the first great Commandment. And incest between adults and children may be an act of sex, but is clearly not an act of love.
The number of “small matters”, I suppose, is as infinite as human circumstance. I don’t need a written law to tell me that I’ve violated the law, as I believe it really is, when I speak harshly to my wife. Or when I hurt people’s feelings needlessly here on this board. Or when I fail to have sympathy for the needs of those who are impoverished through no fault of their own.
If I’ve got more than I need, and never give to those whose need is acute, how can I say I love my neighbor as myself? I would say, in that circumstance, that it’s obvious that I love my neighbor a good deal less than I love me.
That’s actually a very good question, especially when one reads the whole verse. Suffice it to say that a thorough reply to this query on my part would stand a good chance of completely hijacking the thread, so I’m gonna chicken out for now.
I’ll just say, for here, that as a Christian, I think a literal reading may not be necessary, but it demands that I act in a serious way to reduce the risks I ask others to take on my behalf - be it the worker on my roof, or the employees in my (hypothetical) factories or fields, or whatever. I would have to ask, “what would I think my employer should do to protect me, if I were the one out there?”
[hijack]
I know I’ve read that verse before - I’m familiar with several verses in that chapter of Deuteronomy - but I don’t think I’d ever really seen it before, if you know what I mean. Thanks, I guess, for opening my eyes.
[/hijack]
No, I don’t consider Christians to be the “New Israel”. Christians are the Church, which is mentioned distinctly and separately from Israel throughout the NT, even when discussing the same prophetic time frame. The fact that we have accepted the Messiah does not mean that we take the place of the Jews. The promises that God made to Israel are still in effect, and the Jews are still the chosen nation. That does not change. As far as I’m able to tell, the concept of the Church having replaced Israel in God’s eyes came from Catholic doctrine, in order (IMO) to justify their persecution and slaughter of the Jews over the centuries.
In Revelation there are 12,000 people sealed by the Holy Spirit from each of the 12 tribes of Israel. The Holy City of New Jerusalem has 12 foundations and on each was written the name of one of the 12 apostles, but there are 12 gates as well, and each gate has the name of one of the 12 tribes of Israel. Furthermore, I can’t find a reference, but I suspect that the 24 elders on thrones are the 12 Patriarchs and the 12 Apostles.
Israel has by no means lost her place. How do I reconcile that with Polycarp’s staement? Easy: I don’t agree with it.
DesertGeezer:
Unbelievers were referred to as dogs several times in the bible:
Psalm 22:16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.
Psalm 22:20 Deliver my life from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dogs.
Isaiah 56:10-11 Israel’s watchmen are blind, they all lack knowledge; they are all mute dogs, they cannot bark; they lie around and dream, they love to sleep. They are dogs with mighty appetites; they never have enough. They are shepherds who lack understanding; they all turn to their own way, each seeks his own gain.
Matthew 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
Matthew 15:22-28 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
Same story is retold in Mark 7
Philippians 3:2 Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh.
Revelation 22:14-15 "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
**
That was what I was trying to find out in my original thread on the subject. I never really got a good answer on that one.
**
Understood. Thank you for the clarification.
**
Thank you. That’s actually a very nice interpretation on that verse. However, you don’t often see occupational safety brought up from the pulpit.
You’re welcome.
That’s too good a question. And I have no good answer.
What troubles me especially is that such commandments are largely unknown to us Christians, when at the very least we should be aware of them, and recognize them as a standard of what it is that God expects of us in loving one another. Few of us in America have cultivated fields, but that can hardly mean the demands of that commandment magically pass us by. Yet we rarely if ever speak of such things from the pulpit or in our Bible studies. Similarly the commandment about the roof rail.
The Law seems to say that a lot is being asked of us, Christian or Jew, under the rubric of “love one another”, and we Christians are slacking. It’s not just what we’re not doing - it’s that we’re not even looking to see what we might should be doing. We tend to dip into the commandments of the Torah only for a verse here and there to buttress a point that we’re making, and then we leave, having not actually read it to see what it’s trying to say to us.
I know how King Josiah must’ve felt (2 Kings 22, for those keeping score at home), but I lack his excuse.
Joe_Cool: Thanks, that was very clear.
At face value, that makes some sense, IF one can presume to understand why God set up those laws in the first place. And especially if that presumed reason is something which can get superceded by Jesus’ death, then it makes sense for for such a law to no longer apply. But sometimes these things can get awfully murky. Let me point to a clearer example:
Excellent cite, Polycarp. Let’s continue with the rest of that paragraph:
Each morning, I (;j) take these boxes (known as “Tefilin”) which contain those words on my arm and forehead. It is a simple act, but one which demonstrates my love for my Creator, when I take His words and tie them to my body as He told me to do.
This is just an example (an unusually clear example, but still just an example) of my perspective, which is that the ritual laws are not simply arbitrary rules to test our obedience and keep us in line. Rather, whatever God’s reasons were for telling me to do these things, my willingness to do them is an expression of my love for Him, just as a kind word to a poor man is an expression of my love for him, or my washing the dinner dishes is an expression of my love for my wife.
I cannot argue with the tefilim – but I got disconnected earlier before a post made it onto the board. The gist of what I was putting forth in that post was the idea that Judaism by and large sees God as the Ultimate Benevolent Despot – an absolute monarch who, fortunately, is kindly disposed towards those He has created and called to be His people. (I realize that this is a gross simplification, but would you allow me it as a very rough-cut summary of its view?) This is an OK metaphor for Him, but like any metaphor fails to describe Him completely.
On the other hand, Jesus, working from His rather unique Origin Story, tends to identify Him as Father – and the very familiar term for father, Abba, carrying the connotation “Daddy”, at that. This leads to a child:parent:
God analysis, and within that, Paul suggests the Law as the servant (paidogogos) whose duty it is to keep the child safe and directed on his way to and from school, with Christ having replaced that Law with the parent/child relationship and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Many conservative Christians, including I believe Joe Cool, tend to take an intermediate stance regarding the Law and its applicability to Christians. Because when Paul said, “You are free from the Law” he did not mean free to sin, but rather free from the strictures of the Mosaic Code, to act morally as God who saved and redeemed us teaches. (The difference, not immediately obvious, is that between a results-oriented and a rules-oriented regime. Whatever you do is right provided that it complies with the teachings of Christ and in particular those two commandments which He singled out as key and encapsulating the whole Law and Prophets.
It’s in that perspective, and the idea that one commandment among the 631 must give way when two conflict, and that generally the one taking precedence is the one which best expresses total and radical love of God and within that love of one’s fellow man, which guides liberal Christian ethics, and for the most part conservative Christian ethics as well. (Joe will likely find a number of nits to pick within this summary, but I think he’ll agree that it comes close to expressing what expositors on the Gospels and Paul have had to say about ethics.)
I’m wondering what specifically I said that gave you that POV – because I completely agree with you as regards Israel, and am wondering what statement I made that you disagree with and feel that you need not reconcile your statement with. Help me out here, Joe! 
Nope, no disagreement here. In fact, I think that’s a pretty good clarification of what I was trying to say.
As to your second question, I disagree with your characterization of Christians as the “New Israel”. Who knows, maybe I’m just getting it out of context. If so, I’m always open to correction.
Keeve wrote:
Don’t miss the point here. The point is that the Law was EXTERNAL to Israel. But God promised that He would write a NEW law on our hearts. And, didn’t He? We no longer have to look to the external law as a guide - we have the Holy Spirit in us driving us to bear fruit for Christ and act in accordance with our place as God’s redeemed.
Adultery is mentioned in the NT as forbidden. That’s part of my point. It’s not suddenly OK to murder now because we are Christians. 9 commandments find restatement in the New Testament.
and:
Yes. We don’t. They are forever separate and nowhere in scripture does it say that the Church has replaced Israel. Replacement Theology is very popular among covenantalists, but it does not find adequate scriptural backup in my opinion. Israel is defined scripturally as a physical nation, not a spiritual entity. They are the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Zev wrote:
It’s because the way to attain righteousness is NOT through the Law, but through the atoning sacrifice of Christ. The book of Hebrews talks a lot about this.
And Romans 3-4 tells us that an Israelite was NEVER considered righteous if he kept the Law - he was only considered righteous if he had faith. That’s how come Abraham could be counted as righteous even BEFORE the inception of the Mosaic Law.
The covenant of Law was designed to set apart God’s holy people. They were promised blessings for keeping it, yes. But, they were not counted RIGHTEOUS for keeping it. Even the Pharisees didn’t keep it well enough to get righteousness - in John 8, Jesus calls them sons of their father the devil.
The covenant of Grace, established through the gift of faith God gives to believers, is a continuation of the ABRAHAMIC promise, not of the Law. The Law was a shadow of the Grace to come.
that’s it.
mg
Well, Romans 3-4 is wrong, it seems to me. From Deut. 6
I don’t think you can seperate the two. If you have faith in G-d and love Him, you’re going to want to keep His laws. If you don’t, you won’t. It seems kind of backwards to say, “I have faith, so I don’t have to keep His laws.” Abraham was righteous because he kept the laws of G-d and did what G-d commanded him.
Captain,
Since we know Abraham predated the Exodus by 430 years, would you be so kind as to point out the place in Genesis where God gave Abraham a complete version of the Mosaic Law?
After all, if Abraham gained his faith by observing the Law, there ought to be a point where God told it to him.
Looking forward to your answer,
MG
Well, obviously, Abraham was ignorant of the law of Moses, because, as you said, Abraham lived before the law of Moses was given to mankind. Abraham did follow the Noachide commandments, however, and also other commandments and instructions G-d gave him.
Don’t misunderstand me. Abraham did have faith, and was righteous because of that, but that’s because his faith led him to be righteous…he had faith, so he obeyed G-d’s commandments. He could have said, “What? Are you crazy? No way am I going to worship some omnipotent being and head out to the wilderness. I’d rather stay in Ur and worship fertility gods”, and not paid any attention to what G-d told him to do.
I’m not saying you’re supposed to obey the law without having faith. One of the things I’ve noticed, (and please don’t be offended by this) is that a lot of Christians have some sort of caricature of Judaism. There seems to be this belief that Jews regard Mosaic law as some sort of magical formula…follow the rules and never think about them, or else that Judaism is some sort of hyper-rigid religion where there’s no room for mercy or love of G-d…that Jews are always perched on the edge of oblivion, worried that the smallest mistake will damn them eternally. I don’t know where this comes from. Maybe it’s Jesus, with his “Woe to you, oh scribes and pharasees” rant, or maybe Paul, with his “All those who are subject to the Law are condemned by the Law”, or maybe it’s just the idea in Christianity that Jesus had to die to forgive sins. I don’t know I just think this whole law/faith thing is a false dichotomy.
Of course, you understand, Jews have a different understanding of the above. But, as this is a thread on Christian beliefs, I will accept your answer. Thank you for elucidating the Christian position.
Zev Steinhardt