Here's a question. How much of the Old Testament law do New Testament Christians need to obey? Now, before you leap to absolutes, one way or the other, let's examine a few known facts ... from Scripture. For a baseline, Jesus said, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished" (Matt 5:18). Scripture also says Jesus "declared all foods clean" (Mark 7:19). So on one hand we need to hold the Old Testament law in high regard while, on the other hand, understand that some of it is appended in the New Testament. Neither extreme -- "We need to follow it all" or "We don't have to follow any of it" -- is accurate. So where do we go from here?
As in all Scripture, it's important to remember content as well as context. When, for instance, God commanded Israel to go kill every man, woman, child, and goat of a particular group of Amalekites (1 Sam 15:2-3), it is a command to King Saul in response to what the Amalekites did to Israel in the desert and is not to be understood by any means a command for anyone else at any time to go kill anyone at all. Content and context. So, when Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system by dying for our sins (Heb 10:1-18), New Testament believers no longer have an obligation to sacrifice animals for sin. In Jesus's words, that law was "accomplished." When God made commands to the nation of Israel as a theocracy, we would do well to understand the principle without enforcing the penalties because we don't live in a theocracy and are not a nation of Christians, so civil penalties, for instance, in the Old Testament wouldn't be applicable to a people who are not a theocracy.
Understanding, then, that the "New Testament" is actually a "new covenant" and that some of the old categories are applicable only to those under the old covenant, we can begin to see that there might be some different specifics. I say "specifics" because the principles don't change; just the out-working. So "Come out from among them and be separate," for instance, is the principle that applies in both categories (Isa 52:11; 2 Cor 6:17), but while Israel wasn't allowed to marry outside of their Jewish race, we are required to not be "unequally yoked" (2 Cor 6:14). The ceremonial law -- that portion that deals with sacrifice and remedy for sin -- is fulfilled in Christ, so we aren't under those laws (Heb 10:1-18). The laws that have to do with civil issues such as what to eat (Lev 11) have been modified by Christ (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:15) and are not laid on us (Gal 5:18). Whatever is written in the Old Testament and repeated in the New Testament should likely be considered still in effect for New Testament believers. An example would be the problem of blurring the sexes. In the Old Testament the command was not to wear the clothes of the other gender (Deut 22:5) and in the New Testament the reference to the "effeminate" (1 Cor 6:9) carries the same principle. There are long lists of moral sins that were in effect before and remain now for us to avoid (e.g., Rom 1:29-32; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21).
Ultimately, of course, we are under two primary laws -- laws that Paul refers to as "the law of Christ" (1 Cor 9:21); Gal 6:2) Those are to love the Lord your God and love your neighbor (Matt 22:37-40). Jesus said, "On these rest all the Law and Prophets" (Matt 22:40). (Note: That last was modified by Christ from "Love your neighbor as yourself" to "Love your neighbor as I have loved you" (John 13:34).) We do have moral laws from Scripture to follow. We are not obligated to follow all the Old Testament laws. The aim is to obey God's commands (1 John 5:3), not figure out where we can fudge them. The aim is not to figure out what we might get away with and what we, oh, drat, have to obey. And it must never be our aim to correct God. Instead, "we make it our aim to please Him" (2 Cor 5:9).
24 comments:
You'll love this response. Essentially, it's "All of the Old Testament was written to someone else, so none of it applies to us." Carried to its logical conclusion, we would rationally conclude, "All of the Bible was written to someone else, so none of it applies to us." Followed, logically, with "So therefore you must follow Jesus's command to eliminate poverty and care for transgender folk" because that makes perfect sense. Except ... it doesn't.
I actually had someone -- a Christian -- tell me that in a conversation about the Great Commission. "That was a command to His disciples, not us. We don't have the same command." As if that makes sense to someone.
Obviously both of those positions are ludicrous. I tend to think that we'll be better if we choose to err on the side of following God's law more closely as opposed to less closely. Not that I'm advocating animal sacrifice or anything, but a general principle that we're less likely to find ourselves in difficult situations, the more we try to follow God's commands.
It's as if some Christ-followers think, "I don't want to be too obedient. If I did too much I might miss out on some fun."
What about the command to be fruitful and multiply. That one is given to specific individuals and isn't repeated in the New Testament.
There are those who believe that one is no longer required. "We already accomplished that." The command was given under the Adamic Covenant and repeated under the Noahic Covenant and not under the Mosaic Covenant. That would make it a command to those in Adam (with confirmation to continue under Noah). That would imply that it carries on to everyone who is in Adam. (It was given to specific individuals -- Adam and Noah. Would you accept an argument that only those two men were required to obey?)
I know some that would.
"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth..."
ONLY for Adam and Noah. The earth has long been filled with people. People who don't want children or only want few children for various reasons (the culture is horrid, don't have the finances, etc) and not to be condemned as not obeying a command of God. They may be charged with sin for reasons they choose, but not for violating a command.
Yes, Glenn, I knew that was your view. I personally can't parse the reasoning of when that command is abrogated. Like, "It's in effect until we reach a population of ____" or something else. I can see how the covenant with Moses is not a covenant with Gentiles and, thus, the Gentiles are not under all the same rules of the covenant with Moses, but I can't see where else we can do that same line of thinking. For instance, Paul says the gospel has gone to all the world (Rom 10:18), has come to the whole world and is, in fact, bearing fruit (Col 1:5-6). So, wouldn't that mean we are no longer obligated to take the gospel to the whole world? I don't think so; neither do you. So I don't know where the "off switch" is for "Be fruitful and multiply."
Stan,
Spreading the Gospel over the world is not even close to multiplying children to subue the world. Illogical comparison.
I don't know which part of what I said that you didn't understand. I have no method of determining "I need to obey 'Thou shalt not murder' but not 'Be fruitful and multiply'" if it was only a command to Adam and Noah. You obviously agree that it was required of, say, Seth and Ham, Shem, and Japheth, for instance, but when did the command get terminated?
You can find the "Law" (10 Commandments), except for the Sabbath, as applicable to the Church throughout the N.T. No question that those commands are still in effect.
When you have only one couple (Gen. 1) or one family (Noah's) left on the earth, they have to be commanded to propagate. After a a few hundred or a couple thousand years normal propagation takes care of the issue. No one is needed to be commanded to have lots of children. And, by the way, ONE child would technically fulfill the command to "multiply" all the while to many Christians are chastised for having only 2 or 3 kids instead of at least 8 or 9!
Okay. As I understand it, you do see some sort of cutoff -- even if you don't have any precise numbers -- beyond simply Adam and Noah. Given the falling birthrates in the civilized world today (Some countries have dropped below replacement rate.), I'm not sure we can count on "normal propagation," but I'll leave it alone. And I'm not one of those "full quiver" types -- "Breed 'til you bleed!" Nor do I see it as a sin for Couple A to say, "In our case it would appear that God doesn't intend us to propagate the species." I just can't see my way clear to say, "It's perfectly okay -- no moral component -- if all Christians, seeking to glorify God, simply quit having children altogether." I can't see that command "be fruitful and multiply" being rescinded by God.
I believe every Christian couple (all couples, actually) -- married that is -- should have children (if possible), even if only one, because that is one of the two reasons for marriage, but not because there is a command but because that is a purpose of marriage.
That's funny. I thought it was a command because it is a purpose of marriage. :)
Only a command to start the world at the beginning and at the 'restart."
How is only 1 multiplying? If every married couple only had one there wouldn't be growth, there would in fact be a deficit.
One child multiplies your family from 2 to 3. Simple math.
Actually, Glenn, in the case of replacement value, one child is half of what is needed. For a couple, if they have one child and then die, that's one person to replace two. It's more of a division than a multiplication. But I don't think it's worth debating; I was just clarifying.
What about the argument that the Sabbath isn't instituted in the Mosaic Covenant but is part of the Creation. Even the 10 Commandments indicate its source is Creation.
I think I've established that I can't see the rationale for ending the command. I think Glenn has demonstrated that he doesn't see the argument about Creation as valid. You can probably let it go, David.
Christians to not keep the Sabbath. You can read my article about it.https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/05/are-christians-required-to-keep-sabbath.html
It seems that you are hung up on the word sabbath in your article. Sabbath means "rest", which is what God did on the 7th day. You are correct that all the ceremony that goes into Sabbath is directed at the Jews. But a time of rest seems to have been instituted by God in Genesis, thus His referencing it the Exodus version of the 10 Commandments. It strikes me as odd that a non-moral law would be thrown into the center of the moral law. I've also heard arguments that the day of rest is both moral and ceremonial. Thus the point of it being made for man, not us for it. It is good for us to rest 1 day in 7, if we are to believe Jesus. Otherwise, a week could be any length of time since a week is the only unnatural measurement of time. Should we keep the ceremonial portion of Sabbath? No. Should we observe a day of rest and focus on God, I'd say that would be a good thing.
Not hung up on anything. Just proving that the Sabbath was only for the Jews.
It has nothing to do with morality so it is not part of the moral law. It is there next to the laws about God because for Jews that is the connection.
Of course it is right and proper to have a day of rest, but it doesn't have to be Sunday. If people have to work on Sundays they can set aside another day of the week as I had to do during a large part of my employment history (3 1/2 years with Tues/Wed days off, then almost 10 years with Wed/Thur off and the rest of that 30 years was rotating days off so I saw Sunday off just twice a month!)
Post a Comment