Do the laws of the Old Testament apply to Christians?

[Frank_apisa]

@CJJ

I dunno who you hang out with, but it’s a pretty common position in exegesis on this passage.

Well, I don’t know with whom you hang out either, but in the many Internet forums where I do hang out, I have NEVER ever had any Christian who advocated the position “Christians no longer are bound by the Law” trot out the passage from Matthew where Jesus says, “I am not here to change the Law”…as evidence that “Jesus was here to change the Law.”

And I think you are being disingenuous to suggest that is something that should happen.

I’m not sure how, in all your study of the Bible and religious texts, you missed these other possible alternatives, but I also get the feeling we’re talking past each other here.

Well, we may be talking past each other, but you are making arguments that sound hollow…like the one I just treated above. Why you think I have missed other possible alternatives is beyond me. As an agnostic, I am always considering “other possible alternatives”…and as you mentioned earlier, I try to arrive at a “seems best” or “seems most likely” solution.

I have two possible ways of looking at the comments Jesus made in Matthew 5. One, that when he said, "I have not come to change the Law…not one word, not one letter, not one part of a letter”…he meant that he did not come to change the Law. The other possible thing is that he actually meant, “I am here to change the Law.”

I am sorry you find it so strange that I choose the former…but what can I tell ya. I consider that to be a problem with you…not with me.

Again, I’m not at all interested in chainging your mind, nor do I claim that one position is right and the other wrong. But I recognize there are plausible arguments rooted in accepted scholarship for the opposite interpretation of this passage; I’ll take that over “in my opinion” and “I rather suspect” any day.

I agree there are several plausible arguments over almost every passage in the Bible…and I acknowledge it is almost impossible to detect which are “right” and which are “wrong.” In my opinion, however, “in my opinion” and “I suspect” are preferable to whatever the hell you said.

This is what I mean by “thin-skinned”–you clearly thought the term cherry-picking comment was an insult aimed at you (it was intended to clarify the process most competent exegetes take in interpreting Biblical passages). And an aversion to cherry-picking does NOT mean a reluctance to discuss a specific passage, it means a reluctance to discuss that passage without context or comparison with other sections.

I am not thin-skinned by any stretch of the imagination…and I accept that your use of the term “cherry-picking” was no more intended as an insult than my comment about dick sizes was meant as disrespect.

Incidentally, although I grew up Catholic, I’m no longer a believer in Christianity; I am interested in ancient languages and cultures, and the LXX and GNT are a big part of Greek study. That study, in fact, led me to de-mystify much of the Bible and see it for what it is.

Thank you for sharing that; allow me to reciprocate. I too grew up a Catholic…ardent enough so that in my early 20’s I served Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican…I attended a general audience with Pope Pius XXII…I served a cardinal as acolyte…and now consider religion (Christianity and others) as a net negative for society and would like to see as much of it removed from public life as possible. All this with the understanding that anyone who wants to “believe” in gods and worship them should be free to do so.

I really don’t understand this argument.

Not sure why you don’t! If mistakes can be made translating from Greek to English…why can you not consider that mistakes could have been made translating Aramaic or Hebrew into Greek. The stories were not told by Peter and the apostles in Greek…they were translated to the Greek from stories told in whatever language the original source spoke. Obviously errors could have been made there also.

By this standard, would translating thru two languages introduce twice as many possible mistakes, and so lay less claim to accuracy than the original? I’m not saying you need to read the entire Bible in Greek, but when you’re talking about the meaning of specific words in a particular passage, why wouldn’t you want to get as close to the source as possible?

I thank you for not saying I should read the entire Bible in Greek. That is a major relief for me.

Yeah, that dick comment just oozes respect (snigger).

I think I covered that!

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Frank_apisa

Are you telling me that “nearly all Christians” interpret that passage to say: I am here to change the Law???

No, I’m saying that Christians define “the Law,” as used in Jesus’ statement, differently from the way that you do. You are suggesting that Christ is referring to the Mosaic Law, but the settled Christian interpretation is that he was not. They believe that Jesus was referring to a transcendent Divine Law that does not include the OT rituals.

@Frank_apisa

Is your experience different? Are you saying when in discussion of whether or not the Law applies to Christians you or others cite this passage to substantiate that Christians are NOT?

No, I’m simply saying that Christians do not view Jesus’ statement in 5:17 as inconsistent with Paul’s statements in Galatians.

[Frank_apisa]

@Tom_Tildrum

No, I’m saying that Christians define “the Law,” as used in Jesus’ statement, differently from the way that you do. You are suggesting that Christ is referring to the Mosaic Law, but the settled Christian interpretation is that he was not. They believe that Jesus was referring to a transcendent Divine Law that does not include the OT rituals.

Insofar as they do…and I am far from convinced most do…they do it in abject hypocrisy because they want the statement to say something other than what it does to suit their purpose. Their purpose is twofold: One…so that they can at least partially divorce themselves from the god of the Old Testament (which they want to do because they realize this god is a barbaric monster)…and because they do not want to make Jesus seem like the kind of person who would say one thing (understandably, since he probably would have been stoned to death if the said the opposite)…and do another.

And I do not care about the rituals. I never have had a Christian say “the OT Laws do not apply to Christians” because I want to eat pork or shellfish or because they want to retain their foreskin. They are talking about the non-ritual aspects.

No, I’m simply saying that Christians do not view Jesus’ statement in 5:17 as inconsistent with Paul’s statements in Galatians.

I understand that. And some Christians also view the passage in Leviticus where the god says homosexual conduct is an abomination worthy of death…to mean it really doesn’t matter.

We are not debating the extent, depth, or motivation for Christian hypocrisy and rationalization here, Tom…we are discussing whether or not the Law applies to Christians.

[CJJ]

@Frank_apisa

Insofar as they do…and I am far from convinced most do…they do it in abject hypocrisy because they want the statement to say something other than what it does to suit their purpose.

This is the exact point where we disagree. Let me be clear about this, because so far it’s been difficult to get the point across.

We DO NOT disagree that the passage in Matthew implies the continuation of the law (I think I made this exact point in the first sentence of post #37:

@CJJ*

Jesus does say that not one iota or apex from the law (ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου) shall perish (παρέλθῃ) until all is accomplished (πάντα γένηται).

HOWEVER, that is not the complete passage. Perhaps it would be easier to understand your point if you answered the following questions about Matt 5:17:

1. What does Jesus mean when he says he has come to “fulfill” the law?

2. How does the verse imply that Jesus himself will preserve, defend, or enforce the law?

3. What does the change of wording from “law” in the earlier part of the verse to “commandment” in the later stage mean, if anything?

4. The end of the verse states that none of the law shall be done away with until all is accomplished (“until it all comes true”). What does this phrase mean?

I have given potential answers to these questions based on the text, and I believe they are rather standard answers in Christian exegesis. These answers are not based on “abject hypocrisy” given to “suit their purpose”, they are based on objective points about the text. Knowing Greek is helpful, but to a large extent the same answers apply to the English translation. It’s certainly true that these points can be argued, but the fact remains that the Christian interpretation is reasonable–even if you don’t agree with it.

Until you answer the questions above concerning the text, it’s impossible to tell if you’re seriously debating this point or just airing your personal prejudices. I happen to share your prejudice concerning religion being a net-negative, but I guess I’m more interested in hearing legitimate criticisms that uninformed rants.

[Frank_apisa]

CJJ…I think anybody looking at the passage at Matthew 5;17-20 in an effort to see what Jesus was trying to communicate…rather than in a way that will best fit a separate agenda…will see it as a straightforward denial that he was trying to change the Law.

In some of the other gospels, Jesus is actually accused of attempting to do so. (And as we can all see, in several instances, he DID significantly change the thrust of the Law.

Whether he was communicating this because he actually thought he was not trying to change the Law (kidding himself)…or because he was afraid of the consequences of stating he was actually doing so publicly…is beside the point.

He was definitely trying to communicate, whatever the motivation, that he was not here to change the Law.

The part about “until Heaven and Earth pass away” seems to me (just seems to me) to be a way of saying “never.” Since you seem to have knowledge of idiom in this area, perhaps you can enlighten us about whether it could mean that idiomatically.

The parts about “to fulfill them”; “until it is all accomplished”; “until it all comes true” seem to me to be the kinds of things that writers with an agenda would add. I do not have access to the Bible as interpreted by the Jesus Seminar…but my guess would be that those words would all be identified as “not spoken by Jesus” or “most likely not spoken by Jesus.”

If you do have access to the Jesus Seminar interpretations, I would appreciate your sharing what those scholars think of this passage. THIS, I THINK IS KEY. If you can get the Jesus Seminar’s take on this passage, I really would like to hear what is said by them. I will continue to search the Internet for something on this after posting this commentary.

The word “Law” as used here seems to me to mean the entire of Leviticus…all of the elements, ritual and moral. All of the Law…was commandments. Not sure why you think there is such a significant difference between the use of the word “Law” and the word “commands”, but I am sure you have your reasons.

And I will stick with “abject hypocrisy” where I used it.

[PBear42]

Frank, I’m puzzled. As an agnostic, I assume you understand the Gospels were written by ordinary men trying as best they could to relate the ministry of a man they believed to be the Son of God. (Not saying he was, as neither of us believe this.) In the scrum match that was early Christianity, there were many interpretations. One was the school that has come down to us as Matthew. Another was the Pauline-Luke branch. On the very point raised in your OP, these conflict. Who had the real goods?

Looking at it from a historical perspective (which, as an agnostic - or weak atheist, depending on how one defines terms - is the only one that appeals to me), I have to say “I don’t know.” If Matthew is accurate, Acts probably isn’t. If Acts is accurate, Matthew probably isn’t. Or, perhaps, as others have argued, the two can be reconciled by massaging the meaning of “the law.”

No matter. To say Christians must cleave to the OT God to be true believers exceeds your brief as an agnostic. Christians get to decide what they believe. Pick on what they believe as much as you like. Telling them what they’re allowed to believe is, well, all wrong.

[Zeriel]

@Frank_apisa

CJJ…I think anybody looking at the passage at Matthew 5;17-20 in an effort to see what Jesus was trying to communicate…rather than in a way that will best fit a separate agenda…will see it as a straightforward denial that he was trying to change the Law.

I’m going to point this out, and you can take it or leave it–but CJJ is not incorrect to say that the position among Biblical scholars is that it could mean what he says it could mean, both in the English and even more so in the Green.

Does it REALLY surprise you that the average Christian and in fact the average Christian minister might read it your way and yet that’s not the position among scholars? Do you also trust the average citizen over, say, aerospace engineers when describing how lift really works in an aircraft context?

Look, you are being very stubbornly obtuse here–the text, in the Greek, can very strongly imply (as explained above already) that Jesus came to modify or cause the law to reach an ending (one of the senses to “fulfill”). The fact that most modern Christians who are thoroughly divorced from Biblical scholarship don’t think that doesn’t say anything about what Jesus actually said, and I’d appreciate you not using it as an argument.

[Frank_apisa]

@PBear42

Frank, I’m puzzled. As an agnostic, I assume you understand the Gospels were written by ordinary men trying as best they could to relate the ministry of a man they believed to be the Son of God. (Not saying he was, as neither of us believe this.) In the scrum match that was early Christianity, there were many interpretations. One was the school that has come down to us as Matthew. Another was the Pauline-Luke branch. On the very point raised in your OP, these conflict. Who had the real goods?

Looking at it from a historical perspective (which, as an agnostic - or weak atheist, depending on how one defines terms - is the only one that appeals to me), I have to say “I don’t know.” If Matthew is accurate, Acts probably isn’t. If Acts is accurate, Matthew probably isn’t. Or, perhaps, as others have argued, the two can be reconciled by massaging the meaning of “the law.”

No matter. To say Christians must cleave to the OT God to be true believers exceeds your brief as an agnostic. Christians get to decide what they believe. Pick on what they believe as much as you like. Telling them what they’re allowed to believe is, well, all wrong.

Good question, Bear.

I am trying to treat the topic as a question…not necessarily as an advocate.

Of course I realize that I do not know if Jesus even existed as a single human being…I do not know what he said…I do not know if the people who wrote what he supposedly said actually did a good job of communicating what he wanted to communicate…nor any of those thing.

I do, almost by default, however, appear to be taking an advocacy position because the issue comes to us by dint of Christians denying that the Laws of the Old Testament apply to them.

Now look…if the passage in question actually said something the Christians wanted Jesus to have said…there would be no discussion about what the Greek “actually” meant…or what the Greek “could have” meant. The only time we come to these kinds of junctures is when the words mean something other than what many Christians want them to mean. (The passages about slavery and homosexuality are other examples)

Frankly, I have no idea of whether CJJ is correct or not. I’m here saying what I see the passage saying…and I have noted that if Jesus wanted to be saying the exact opposite…there certainly were better ways of doing it. For instance, he could simply have said: I AM HERE TO CHANGE THE LAW!

It is a discussion…and in the overall scheme of things, it will have about the same impact on the issue as a single drop of rain will have on the quantity of water in the Atlantic Ocean. (I’m an east coast guy!)

Allow me to say this quite openly: CJJ may be completely correct on this issue…and I may be full of shit.

I’m just having fun debating the issue. It is complex…it has flavor…and it keeps my old mind working.

[Frank_apisa]

@Zeriel

I’m going to point this out, and you can take it or leave it–but CJJ is not incorrect to say that the position among Biblical scholars is that it could mean what he says it could mean, both in the English and even more so in the Green.

I acknowledge that.

Does it REALLY surprise you that the average Christian and in fact the average Christian minister might read it your way and yet that’s not the position among scholars? Do you also trust the average citizen over, say, aerospace engineers when describing how lift really works in an aircraft context?

Not at all.

Look, you are being very stubbornly obtuse here–the text, in the Greek, can very strongly imply (as explained above already) that Jesus came to modify or cause the law to reach an ending (one of the senses to “fulfill”). The fact that most modern Christians who are thoroughly divorced from Biblical scholarship don’t think that doesn’t say anything about what Jesus actually said, and I’d appreciate you not using it as an argument.

I would appreciate you not telling me what to use and what not to use as an argument.

Sorry for being so “stubbornly obtuse” here. I thought I was having a reasonably polite and interesting discussion.

[Perciful]

Yesterday at mass after the Gospel was read, Luke 9:28-36, Father Mark went into a discussion of the Old and New Testaments. He said that Jesus was the new Moses and that Jesus, as commanded by God, was to be followed.

After Mass I went up to him and asked him about this discussion of the laws of Old Testament and how they apply to us and he cited Matthew 17.

[Razncain]

Do you see the connection of what Father Mark got out of OT law and how it applies today from reading Luke 9:28-36 and Matthew 17? If you do, you and him understand it better than me.

Even if one gets out of it that one is to follow Jesus, do you feel like that answers whether or not one is to follow OT law or not?

[Perciful]

@razncain

Do you see the connection of what Father Mark got out of OT law and how it applies today from reading Luke 9:28-36 and Matthew 17? If you do, you and him understand it better than me.

Even if one gets out of it that one is to follow Jesus, do you feel like that answers whether or not one is to follow OT law or not?

I think we should follow Jesus and for me that would be The New Testament laws. Jesus being the new Moses disregarded the Sabbath and other Jewish laws. He actually seemed more concerned with his mission on earth then old testament rules. He took a lot of flack over it but did what he needed to do.

[ISiddiqui]

I would tend to argue that the vast majority of modern Christians (just my experience, no cited evidence for it) would see Jesus as saying that Old Testament rules don’t have to be followed anymore, as evidenced by his examples of healing on the Sabbath, disregarding Kosher laws, etc. That indicated that there was a new law.

Of course, sometimes conservative Christians like to use things like Leviticus to justify denying gay rights (though they don’t seem to be upset over things like people getting tattoos, for instance), even though they believe Jesus brought an entirely new covenant.

[ISiddiqui]

@razncain

Do you see the connection of what Father Mark got out of OT law and how it applies today from reading Luke 9:28-36 and Matthew 17? If you do, you and him understand it better than me.

Even if one gets out of it that one is to follow Jesus, do you feel like that answers whether or not one is to follow OT law or not?

Matthew 17:3-5 (NKJV) says

3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.
4 Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us[a] make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”
5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!”

Seems to indicate that Peter was willing to make tabernacles for Jesus, Moses and Elijah, before he was cut off and was told (along with the others) that they should should only listen to the Son. Basically, forget the OT law of Moses and Elijah, listen to Jesus.