|
Post by Josh on Feb 18, 2007 21:18:04 GMT -8
Which OT laws are still binding to the Christian, and how do we know?
Do Christians just arbitrarily pick the 'laws' they like from the OT and ignore the other ones as no longer applicable, or is there some kind of rationale to be applied?
Don't know if I quite have the time to tackle this all at once.
I'll start by saying that there are some very distinct, broad categories of 'law' in the Old Testament, and, as the early Christian interpreters pointed out, it's important to look at each separately for some good reasons.
Here are the 3 cateogries of OT law typically isolated by Christian interpreters:
1) Moral Law- these laws deal with behaviors/ actions that are said, or presumed, to be intrinsically wrong. An example would be do not steal, or do not commit adultery. Moral laws in the Mosaic Covenant apply both to Hebrews and foreigners- they are universal.
2) Civil Law- civil law is the law that explains what to do when a moral law has been breached.
It's important to distinguish between what is morally wrong according to the law, and what is legally to be done about it.
An example: in Exodus 20:13, there is a MORAL prohibition against murder (murder is declared to be morally wrong by the Mosaic Law). But murder is to be responsed to with a CIVIL Law (found, for example, in Numbers 35) stating that the offender is to be put to death if found to be guilty.
3) Ceremonial Law- This refers to the great body of specific law pertaining to two objectives of the Pentateuch:
a) setting up a distinct ancient Israelite system of worship, and
b) establishing the Hebrews as a distinct culture, radically separate from the cultures around them.
So, for example, Ceremonial law includes detailed laws about how the Tabernacle was to be set up and operated, as well as laws about what Jews were to eat and wear.
With that said, Christian interpreters, going right back to Paul himself, have held up the moral law of the Old Testament as continually binding.
The civil law of the Old Testament seemed to have been re-interpreted by Paul and others to fit the world in which he lived- a world where Romans were in control, not the Jews. For instance, where the Mosaic Law might dictate that a person be 'cut off from his people' (ie, capital punishment), Paul uses the phrase in regard to Church meaning rather to 'disfellowship' or 'excommunicate' someone. Likewise, later Judeo-Christian interpreters, including even some of the founders of this country, have sought to apply at least the general concepts found in OT civil law to more modern civil legal structures.
It is the ceremonial laws that Christian interpreters have generally found to not be legalistically binding on New Covenant believers. Jesus and Paul themselves seem to have started this ball rolling, with their insistence that ceremonial law is vastly inferior to moral law.
That's not to say that we might as well skip the ceremonial law when we're reading the OT. Far from it. It certainly served a purpose in God's grand story. Through them we can learn a lot about God's priorities (especially what they say about holiness). Also, there are great Christian interpretive traditions that help us see a wealth of symbolic importance in the OT ceremonial law as well-- stuff we'll delve into a lot around here. There are some AWESOME jewels to be found in OT ceremonial law. Most laws fit one of these categories pretty clearly. There are a few which are difficult to assign (those are the ones that Christians have sometimes argued over).
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 20, 2007 19:42:41 GMT -8
"The heritage of Israel is by no means being renounced by the Jesus movement, in Paul's view. Rather, it is being claimed and fulfilled by Jews and Gentiles united in Christ. The promises of God to Abraham are fulfilled in Christ. The continuity between the Christian assembly of God and the Old Testament people of God is thus theological, not ecclesiological. Both faith groups claim the same sacred scriptures...."
Ben Witherington III "What Have They Done with Jesus?" p. 233
Elsewhere Witherington points out the moral continuity between the OT and the NT as well. But it is the ecclesiology of the OT- the mode of worship and its particulars (such as ceremonial laws) that the NT authors see as largely obsolete.
For much more on this, I would highly recommend the above book. It really helped me understand in greater detail how the NT authors and the early Church grappled with this question in various ways- in some ways unanimously and in other ways with differing perspectives.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 20, 2009 1:21:34 GMT -8
well let me start with this. the reason why christian interpreters have has a hard time with this is because they interpret parashot mishpatim wrong (the section in scripture where it says to punish everyone by stoning them and chopping there heads off- eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth). well, know this: when deuteronomy speaks of these rulings it is not saying you HAVE to take someones eye out if they take your eye out. YHVH was not giving a MINIMUM amount of punishment for a crime, rather he was giving a MAXIMUM. he was limiting the amount of punishment you can put on a person.
however, Yeshua names what YHVH WAS giving at a minimum too. when you are to give a coat to a person who asks, this is a minimum. if you follow yeshua's teachings, you will do more than the minimum, less than the maximum. he never made clear whether sacrifices were a minimum or maximum, just for the record.
the ceremonial laws are binding on oth jew and gentile. The only time when you are allowed to disregard the ceremonial laws is when you are fulfilling a) a moral law that is interfering or b) a ceremonial law that is ranked higher than this.
yeshua speaks of this ranking when talking about circumcising on the sabbath, or such. this was a commmon theme of teaching for the rabbis of the time, and even now.
the ceremonial laws definately have a purpose, but i havent come up with a satisfactory answer yet (that is to say that YHVH has not revealed such to me). so to me it is what is called a chok- or a commandment with apparently no reason. there is a reason and this classification does not excuse us for finding out the motivation of this mitzvot. it is just that the chukkim have not been revealed to me or this generation. sacrifices were a chokim to many until yeshua came. Kashrut are still chok. they are not for seperation because shaul and kefa were given the revelation that you dont have to follow kashrut when eating with gentiles of secular jews.
so my theology is methodical and builds on top of itself. i will just have to write a paper on my theology and paste it here after i am done.
and as for the murder... there are certain governmental laws that excuse the moral ones. like the death penalty or war exuse the murder mitzvot. this is YHVHs setup for the human government that he established in genesis with the noachic cov't-- meaning that the governmental laws are even to be followed by gentiles. Noach was a gentile, for those who dont know. some rabbis even claimed that all gntiles had to do to be saved was follow the 12 noachide laws. this is false. even noach had torah, but he had a smaller revelation to come. he had sacrifices (we know this b/c cain and abel had sacrifices) and kosher foods regardig animals (take 7 of every CLEAN animal and 2 of every UNCLEAN animal).
things like this go missed by many christian theologians simply because they have a antinomotic (anti-torah) biassed whether it is concious or not.
more to come
shalom-john
|
|
|
Post by robin on Apr 20, 2009 14:59:15 GMT -8
Hi John, I'm glad that you're joining us here. Hopefully these discussions will be fruitful.
You wrote:
I don't think that theologians are missing anything in this passage, as you have stated. Perhaps nothing is being missed, but rather you are reading something into the passage that is not necessarily there. We do know, as you pointed out, that animal sacrifices were given to God from very early on (Cain & Abel). Now when we read in Genesis 7:2, " Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate" it is likely that clean, in this passage, is referring to acceptable sacrifices and not acceptable or Kosher foods. It was later (Leviticus 11) where God, through Moses tells the Hebrews that clean animals are also acceptable to eat. So part of your point I agree with, and that is that sacrifices were offered up prior to the Torah. However I don't agree that there were any diet restrictions given to Noah, or anyone else prior to the levitical law.
There is good reason to see it my way. It would seem likely that the reason God would want more clean animals to be put on the ark, and fewer unclean is because Noah and his family would be needing those clean animals in order to sacrifice them to God.
Genesis 8:20 20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
It also must be pointed out that the sacrifices themselves or keeping a Kosher diet are not what saves anyone, or as the rabbis may put it "following the 12 noachide laws:" but rather it is faith that saves us.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 20, 2009 15:54:16 GMT -8
yeshuafreak wrote: This is very interesting to me, and again, one of the values I see in having an understanding of extra-biblical Jewish sources- especially the older ones. If this is accurate, then it would explain a question that I have never been able to satisfactorily answer- why was King David not put to death for his adultery and murder? Ok, this confuses me a little, after doing some reading on your forum. I understood this to be your position on how messianic Jews should conduct themselves, but didn't you write elsewhere that Gentile Christians were only bound to the stipulations of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15)? I'm curious which ceremonial laws you think are "chok". That would be a good thread- discussing the purpose (or apparent lack of purpose) of ceremonial laws from the Torah. Anytime you want to get that started, I'd be right on board. Also, I have a feeling it would make conversation with a bunch of Gentiles easier if for a while when you use names like Shaul you perhaps put (Paul) in parenthesis, or Kefa (Peter). I say this only as a temporary measure. I think eventually, we Gentiles ought to be able to navigate between languages. I'm not sure I agree with your argument that the dietary laws aren't to separate the jews out as a people- simply because it may have served it's purpose in the Old Covenant to separate them out, but was no longer needed. It would now be "righteousness" that set God's people apart. This distinction is important. I've also written on this: Exodus 19 and 20: Misunderstood Commandments?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 21, 2009 12:16:16 GMT -8
well- death for murder is a minimum, not a maximum, but adultry is fornication- something the rabbis decided (but did not have to do) should alwayts be punished by death.
so if the ancients agreed with this than my answer would be that David was annointed and those not annnointed are not to cary out those penalties. David is higher in rank-not as a person, but in title he is higher. Do YHVH or a prophet would be the one to carry this action out.
but if not, than my answer would be what i posted- it is a minumum.
just thought i might add this so you knew that there is a different possibility.
no- but jonotan believes this. i think that immeadiately after conversion gentiles are to follow the 3 noachide laws (not 7) but after they are to learn the moshehic cov't - the meat of the believer- and follow all 613 mitzvot (commmandments).
gentiles are to follow much more than the noachide laws- or it would be considered not a sin for gentiles to commit muder or to steal.
i can accept this as well. again, i think there is ONE cov't that is progressively being revealed throught the smaller cov'ts- the mosehic, noachic, adamic, meshiachic, etc. And we are to progressively start to follow the mitzvot (commandments) of these cov'ts as well.
no- sacrifices do nothing, but symbolize the greater sacrifice- we are still to follow them however- as a memorial, not looking forward to it. the only thing that saves is faith, but by the internal changing there comes external results. faith without works is not really faith at all. works can come without faith, but notfaith without works. after you are saved you will naturally not sin.
so i do agree with you.
okay- just know that all commandments (mitzvot) have a purpose- a thought from the creator... its just that either we have missed it, or he has not revealed it yet. but i will start that thread after a while-- i think you will be interested in a related discussion- kabbalah- on my thread. this thread mentions that with each mitzvot we are to figure out the thought of the creator in putting this command into effect. more on this will be on the thread (which is locked right now, but will be open as soon as i finish typing the basics of kabbalah- btw- no comments on kabbalah on this thread please- i will start another thread on this later- IT IS NOT THE KABBALH OF MADONNA OR HOLLYWOOD!!!red strings and sruff have nothing to do with kabbalah- that is a seperate jewish superstition related to the nonsense of the evil eye.)
i will do this.
i dont think that the meaning of the mitzvot (commandment) has ever changed, just that we have just realized it as a meaning. the ancient Yisraelites no doubt always ae with gentiles and this may have included non-kosher food. there are ancient texts that suggest this. later, this law was misunderstood and extremetized.
so we will have to agree to disagree on the meaning of this mizvot (i think after reading this you know what a miztvot is: commanment).
any more quetion? i am glad to help you understand my beliefs.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 21, 2009 15:20:47 GMT -8
So, to move forward with this conversation, I'm going to need to know what you consider to be the Noachide laws (3 or 7?).
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 22, 2009 14:57:28 GMT -8
in written law only 3 are recorded, but oral law reveals more. i think there is a reason for the other four to have been left out of the written text, but i dont know the excat reason yet. if you were to go by a purely written text, it would be 3 noachide laws. but i think that this part of oral law is not wrong per se. it is also beleived that certain commandment can be drawn out of the core 3. for example: abstain from blood can refer to both murder and the blood of animals. this 'root three' is common in the hebraic culture. in kabbalah, we are taught that the whole world was written by letters of Torah. there are 3 mother letters, shin mem and alef, 7 double and 7 single letters. in the word 'shem' all three letters are used so it is believed this is an actual name of YHVH although it simply means 'name.' also, abstaining from blood can mean many things personally. note: you will see that in m replys i will give the literal meaning of the verse, the hinted at meaning, the personal unwritten meaning, and the mystical meaning. this reflects the jewish exegetical process in the hermeneutical feild of theology- for more on the specifics see this website: barukhyeshua.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=generaltorah&action=display&thread=14&page=1shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 22, 2009 17:09:34 GMT -8
So you call the 3 stipulations of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 "noachide laws". Why is that? I'm guessing because both Jews and Gentiles trace their ancestry back to Noah?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 23, 2009 13:39:46 GMT -8
noach was a gentile- jews did not exist until yitsekh was born. and avrahma was related to yitzekh... every man on this earth is related to noach. and noach is related to adam, so every man on this earth is related to adam as well.
the stipulations of acts 15 corrospond with the cov't YHVH made with noach so common sense would tell us these are one and the same. the rabbinic jews believed the noachide laws were the only things gentiles (goyim) had to do to gain salvation. messianic jews think that those not raised under torah need to immeadiately follow the 3 noachide laws after conversion... and if they were truly converted they would want to anyway- NOTE it is not to say that the gentiles are saved by works. but if the new convert is a child of light they cannot live as a child of the darkness. so they would want to DO anyway. following the 'mitzvot' are something YHVH set in place for you to discern the righteous ones (tzaddik) from the children of darkness. the mitzvot (commandments ) were also set in place for the protection of the tzaddik, as well as just to make people attracted to the mesage we share.
shalom- yeshuafreak
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 23, 2009 15:11:21 GMT -8
How exactly do the stipulations of the Jerusalem council match what God told Noah? I mean, I see some very loose connections between the Flood story and the details of the Acts 15 decision, but not a direct similarity.
For those following along, here are the "requirements" the early apostles in Jerusalem decided should be binding on new Gentile converts:
Acts 15:19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
So, where did God tell Noah not to eat food polluted by idols?
And are you thinking that the story about Noah's nakedness (Genesis 9:20-23) equates to a prohibition about sexual immorality?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 24, 2009 11:06:23 GMT -8
i have realised that i have made a mistake. i was relating these laws with the noachide laws when they WERE a condensed form of the noachide laws (not directly, but the talmud records them all). i was remmbering the three comandments of the rabbis that declared should always be punished to the maximum extent, which corrosponded ecaxtly with the laws that the apostalic fathers laid down--- my B
you know what hang on... i will hvave to looik in my notebooks again.
ill respond after i find it.
sorry, shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by Nothing But the Blood on Apr 25, 2009 21:46:45 GMT -8
noach was a gentile- jews did not exist until yitsekh was born. and avrahma was related to yitzekh... every man on this earth is related to noach. and noach is related to adam, so every man on this earth is related to adam as well. the stipulations of acts 15 corrospond with the cov't YHVH made with noach so common sense would tell us these are one and the same. the rabbinic jews believed the noachide laws were the only things gentiles (goyim) had to do to gain salvation. messianic jews think that those not raised under torah need to immeadiately follow the 3 noachide laws after conversion... and if they were truly converted they would want to anyway- NOTE it is not to say that the gentiles are saved by works. but if the new convert is a child of light they cannot live as a child of the darkness. so they would want to DO anyway. following the 'mitzvot' are something YHVH set in place for you to discern the righteous ones (tzaddik) from the children of darkness. the mitzvot (commandments ) were also set in place for the protection of the tzaddik, as well as just to make people attracted to the mesage we share. shalom- yeshuafreak So are you saying that a person needs to follow laws in order to gain salvation? But then you say that people aren't saved by works. I'm confused about what you're saying. Also, on my Jewish Blood thread you made the following comment. What did you mean by this? (please take special note of the part I bolded. I'm specifically confused about your meaning of this part. I do believe that believers have responsibilities before God, but I'm not sure what you're meaning here. What I need to know from you is do you believe it is NECESSARY to follow laws in order to GAIN salvation? If so, this would be salvation by works, and people would be justified to God through following the law. This seems to leave Jesus completely out of the picture.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 26, 2009 13:30:27 GMT -8
it is NOT necessary to do laws to gain salvation- however, you will WANT to perform laws after you gain slavation. a child of the light CANNOT live like a child of a darkness, and one who calims to be in the light OUGHT TO LIVE LIKE [YESHUA] DID. (1 yochanon [john])
g2g- more later.
john
|
|
|
Post by Nothing But the Blood on Apr 26, 2009 13:47:01 GMT -8
it is NOT necessary to do laws to gain salvation- however, you will WANT to perform laws after you gain slavation. a child of the light CANNOT live like a child of a darkness, and one who calims to be in the light OUGHT TO LIVE LIKE [YESHUA] DID. (1 yochanon [john]) g2g- more later. john All right. Thank you for the clarification. I think everyone on this forum would agree with your statement -- but just exactly entails is going to vary across members of this proboard (I'm guessing).
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 26, 2009 18:41:50 GMT -8
So, perhaps to move this thread forward a bit, I'd like to hear from yeshuafreak on what scriptural basis he feels that all believers (Jew and Gentile) ought to follow the entirety (are you saying entire?) of the Mosaic Law.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 27, 2009 12:08:22 GMT -8
whosoever follows the whole law, but offends one point, is guilty of all (yaakov [james] 2).
we must follow the whole of the royal law (kingdom Torah- love thy neighbor as thyself and love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and mind and soul), or when we offend one law of it, we are automatically (for the time being) ceasing to be holy. so follow the WHOLE law, as Yeshua did.
Yochanon(john) points out that if we are believers we OUGHT to live like Yeshua didi- Yeshua didnt break not ONE law of Torah.
Yeshua himself said that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it (act it out). he said not one YOD or CROWN will pass away from the law until the earth enters the next age (passes away- changes).
unless you are to outrightly contradict Yeshua, than you wuould agree that the law has not changed, and we have to follow the whole of it. all Yeshua was doing was correcting the previous wrong interpretations of it by the rabbis, although he himself said that many of their interpretations were RIGHT either by action or words (ie, he wore the tallit, agreed that circumcision overruled the sabbath, etc.)
so, some verses out of context can be used to "prove" that the law is abolished, but single verses tear down this doctrine- a house built on sand- and in its place build up another house( doctrine) on a stronger fouindation.
plus, those verses when taken in context in the HISTORICAL- grammatical interpretation that most people agree with, will prove that the verses meant the opposite of the meaning applied to them.
i will gradually interpret these verses.
shalom- yeshuafreak
|
|