Here's Michael's words that started the latest part of the discussion:
The Old Testament ... doesn't apply to non-Jewish Christians. That comment is going to trip a lot of breakers, and almost all Christians would disagree with it, but it's true. Read Acts 10, then the first bit of Acts 11, then Acts 15. The latter issue has nothing to do with Circumcision, but the demand by the Pharisee Christians that the Goyim be Commanded To Keep The Law, ie become Jews after being Saved By Grace.
It was an issue then, and it's still an issue today when Non-Jewish Christians do NOT understand their Liberty in Christ.
It's 0dd that we got that bit so messed up.
It was an issue then, and it's still an issue today when Non-Jewish Christians do NOT understand their Liberty in Christ.
It's 0dd that we got that bit so messed up.
We're on our way out the door soon, so feel free to talk amongst yourselves till I get back.
Meg, you have this uncanny knack for posting questions I've been wrestling with... (in other words, God seems to have got into the habit of using your posts to help me think through stuff. for which I'm very grateful)
ReplyDeleteno, I don't have answers yet, just a whole load of jumbled things going round in my head in a constant process of "but on the other hand..." - whenever I think I've got it, another verse comes to mind that seems to contradict what I've just thought.
*sigh*
one thing that I do think is clear is that Gentile followers of Jesus do not have to take on the whole set of customs that go with being Jewish. (though I know people who disagree even with that)
but then, most Christians seem to agree that Thou Shalt Not Murder applies to all, not just to Jews. so clearly there is some stuff in the OT which Gentile Christians accept as relevant to them. how do you decide what bits do and what bits don't?
and then of course for me as a Jewish believer there's the whole extra question of where am I in this, should I be following all that stuff or not, and if not, again, how do I decide what to keep and what not to keep?
I've come across people who seem to think it's all very clear cut one way or the other. Somehow I don't think it is.
I read those sections of Acts that Michael recommended and I don't see how he can make such a blanket statement as he does. Those passages seem to indicate that it is no longer necessary to adhere to such laws as circumcision and dietary laws and blood scarifies. However, as Meirav points out, the ten commandments are a basic life teaching. The OT isn't just about a set of laws, that is only a segment of it, it is also full of incredible examples of how to live life. Yes, we have liberty in Christ. But to say none of the Old Testament applies to Christians because of a few passages in Acts is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Christ Himself said he came to fulfill the law not abolish it (Matthew 5:17).
ReplyDeleteand the whole "liberty in Christ" issue - isn't our liberty from sin, i.e. from our human tendency to break God's law and to keep doing it?
ReplyDeletewhy do we need God's grace, if it isn't because of our sinfulness? and what is sin, if it isn't the breaking of God's commandments? what do we need forgiveness from, if there is no law?
(just thought I'd throw some more cats around, whilst the pigeons are still pecking at those bread crumbs.)
Excellent point.
ReplyDeleteand of course an important principle to bear in mind when discussing these issues is from Romans 14 - we are not to judge one another for those customs some of us choose to observe, nor for those customs some of us choose not to observe. We are not to look down on those who observe customs that we ourselves feel free not to observe; nor are we to condemn those who do not observe customs that our conscience won't let us put aside. Let each person be fully convinced in his own mind.
ReplyDeleteAs they say here in the southern US; "That'll preach!"
ReplyDeleteYou need to regress back beyond the 10 commandments, as Jesus pointed out to the questioner in Mark 12:28-34.
ReplyDeleteAnd then you need to regress back a bit further than that to 1st John 4:19-21.
The crucial bit about Acts 10 is this. Cornelius and company were saved completely apart from the Law. They were not under the Law, they had not been Commanded to Keep the Law, they had not asked, "Hey, what do I have to do to become a Proselyte?"
The Holy Spirit descended on them, and Peter and company were at a complete loss as to how to deal with the situation, because they were seeing something NEW. So... from a Jewish perspective, how do you deal with people who were suddenly in the Kingdom of God who were under no restrictions what so ever as concerning the Law? Ultimately, "The Love Of Christ Constraineth Us", but they did codify some bare minimum necessities for the Gentiles to live in harmony with the Jewish Believers, and that's the end result of Acts 15:29.
The point of this is, there are some "sects" of Christianity (and some would question if they are Christian at all, but) who feel that Christians are bound to Keep The Law. We're not. A sample would be, for instance, "We all agree that we should keep 9 of the 10 commandments..." You probably know what comes next, but the fallacy is not in how we do or do not keep the Sabbath, or whether at some non-existant point the Lord transferred the Sabbath to The Lord's Day, or that the Lord actually arose on the Saturday, not the Sunday, or it's all a plot by Constantine, but the whole "Keep The Law" foundational premise that is in error.
Understanding the Christian's relationship to the Law is not something I've heard too much preaching about. Certainly I've heard a LOT of preaching about how we should behave on certain topics because there's this quote or verse in the Old Testament that sets down a rule. But are we bound by that rule, or is it at best a guideline?
In conclusion, I would say it is at BEST a guideline, but that we need to focus our standards of behavior on the NEW Testament, and keep a clear understanding of things that are being said specifically to the Jews ("Not one jot or tittle") as opposed to the whole Kingdom of God ("Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.")
And to add to the mix... Acts 17:28-29. :) Peace.
Doesn't it come down to the greatest commandment?
ReplyDeleteThe whole law is summed up in "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself". Surely what matters isn't that we strain to fit the letter of the Law to our modern day lives but rather that we measure each of our actions against that commandment.
Personally I think if we are trying to do the latter then we have set ourselves a much harder task but also a much more rewarding one.
my brain is too fuzzy right now to get into all the details of what you say here, Michael W, but my intuitive reaction is:
ReplyDeleteyes, of course we are saved by faith and not through keeping any laws - this applies to you as it does to me, no difference between Jew and Gentile as far as salvation is concerned.
so if all you're saying is that that stuff in the OT is not relevant to Gentiles for their salvation, I have no quibble with that whatsoever, apart from adding: and neither is it relevant to Jews for their salvation.
But salvation is just the beginning of a lifelong journey of sanctification, right?
and as Michael L pointed out earlier, Jesus said he came not to abolish Torah but to fulfil it. (I really don't like how Torah got translated into "law", it really isn't a very good word for it. it's more like teaching, instruction.) (which I think kind of goes with what you said about it being guidelines)
but like I said, my brain is fuzzy right now.
@Roz, Jesus very quickly added, without being asked, the Second Great Commandment, and said that ALL the Law ("Torah") and the Prophets ("Nabi'im") could be hung off it, apparently of "instances" of each of the Two Great Commandments.
ReplyDeleteSo the one is not necessarily all we need to understand God's Will for our lives. We love God, we love God's Children. And since everything that breathes was created by Him ...
@Mel, think about it more (and post!) when the fuzzies stop attacking.
Aloha,
Michael.
do you mean meirav? the third letter is an i (eye) not an l (el). just thought i'd clarify. :-}
ReplyDeleteso here was my first response to what michael (uh... i guess i should say michael w.) said over on FB:
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'll take issue with that Michael. The civil laws for Israel as a nation certainly don't belong to Christians today since we're not a civil nation. And everything regarding blood sacrifices isn't applicable because Jesus finished up that whole system. And we've proven that we can't keep the law, which is why Jesus kept it for us, so we're not saved by that, though it's still a good guideline for us to mull over and try to follow. But to say it doesn't apply, to be honest, I'm not even sure what you mean by that. It's predominantly history and to the extent that I'm not a Jew and it's a history of the Jews then yeah, I can see where it doesn't apply that way. But to the extent that it shows us who God is, how he deals with his people, what he expects of his people, how he has been faithful to them for millennia, and so on, all of that applies.and a bit later i saidi totally get what you're saying michael. but to say that we are no longer commanded to keep the law is quite different than saying that the old testament doesn't apply.
it still applies in that it is still a history that makes sense of what comes later. it still applies in that every covenant in some way points to the new covenant. it still applies in that we can learn quite a bit from reading it. it still applies in that it teaches us about our God.i think the discussion might really boil down to what the word "applies" means. michael, when you say it doesn't apply to us, what do you mean by apply?
yeah, you know, i almost see this more as a political movement than a religious one. or rather, it's portrayed as a religious movement, and i think some people believe religiously that all people should be forced to obey the Old Testament laws, but from the folks that i've met who are into that, it's often talked about in political terms, which political agendas and political outcomes.
ReplyDeletei find it all very weird. ... and rather southern. ... and most mystifying of all, the people who are into it the most severely are also people who stringently defend and support stated doctrines such as the westminster confession and others, all of which are very anti-salvation by law and pro salvation by grace.
you know, i was talking about disconnects in that post i made yesterday on seed collecting. i think this is a disconnect that happens in the evangelical church.
:-)
ReplyDeleteI've found this to be true between myself and a friend of mine from college. Only, you and I are interacting back and forth on both of our posts, so it makes sense that we'd end up hitting on topics that have already kinda been prompted to think about. We seem to meander in similar directions sometimes. But with Kelly and myself, there are long spaces of time when we don't talk much (she's several states away from me and has 4 kids, all my kids' ages or younger, so she's pretty busy), or when we do talk it's about our families or something else. But then once in awhile we'll mention a book we've read or a thought we've had and I've been amazed at how closely God has carried us in our walks, even though we're separated by space and time and lack of regular connection. It's really neat.
I think it makes me realize that God doesn't teach his children random stuff. There's some important stuff that we all need to know. And he's teaching all of us.
... And we're all under the same teacher. If we were under different teachers we'd probably be getting different messages.
yes, and he uses our interactions with one another to teach us whatever it is that's on his agenda. he seems to set a different syllabus for each person, a different sequence of lessons.
ReplyDeleteer, uh, yeah... "@Mei". Oops.
ReplyDelete"Apply"... As in it's worth arguing about, or can be used as a club against someone, or can be a reason for 2 or more people to not have fellowship with each other because of X. As in, we should feel guilt because we offended in some little point.
ReplyDeleteOr as in, "Should I be giving 10% of my income to the Lord's work, and if I'm a penny short, I'm going to get hounded about it...", or since we're under grace now, we should be giving 20%! Heck Yeah!", which is typically ... used to line the pocketbooks of those doing that teaching. Ultimately, I think we're responsible for everything we receive, but my feeling is ... some of the things that some people call, "Good Stewardship", are insulting. God wants us to be free with our money, especially when it comes to helping out our family and friends, brothers and sisters in the church, and even co-workers and wotnot. And even random strangers.
I guess I'm less concerned with the, "Apply", than with what does NOT apply, and in particular, when someone has some point they want to teach about how we should be living our life, and the only examples they can find are in the Old Testament ... little alarm bells go off in my head.
so, how about if someone wants to teach that murder is wrong? or that God reckons it's a good idea for us to rest now and again instead of working 24/7? or that God hates injustice and wants us to look after the poor? or...
ReplyDeleteI could go on. but I'm sure you get my point. there is plenty of stuff in that part of the Bible normally referred to as the Old Testament which is valuable and applicable to us (whether Jew or Gentile) and just because some people misuse some of what's in there, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I speak as someone who believes that the whole of the Bible is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, correcting and training in righteousness. And I got that idea from that part of the Bible commonly referred to as the New Testament.
Apply"... As in it's worth arguing about, or can be used as a club against someone, or can be a reason for 2 or more people to not have fellowship with each other because of X. As in, we should feel guilt because we offended in some little point.lol! sounds like it's not that the old testament can't be applied to us today. it's more than the old testament shouldn't be misapplied to us today. yeah?
ReplyDeletei think michael's point is that if you can't also find something about it in the new testament, that's when his alarm bells go off.
ReplyDelete... i'm trying to think of something that's in the old testament and not the new. nothing's popping immediately to mind in terms of directives.
hey! you and i were thinking the same word at the same time! cool. heh.
ReplyDeleteoh, and all my examples are ones that get mentioned by Jesus? doesn't that kind of prove the point though, that the OT stuff is not irrelevant to us... it's just that, as you said, it can sometimes be misapplied - we need God's wisdom when we read the Bible to understand what it is he is telling us through it. of course people misapply bits of the Bible all the time - but they do it with bits of NT as well as bits of OT.
ReplyDeletei love these kinds of conversations!!
ReplyDeletesorry if it's already been said
ReplyDeletebut when someone says 'The Old Testament ... doesn't apply to non-Jewish Christians' I would have to say, which parts exactly?
it needs breaking down - it's too general a statement
Jesus used what 'we' call the 'old' testament'
it needs specifics to help fruitful conversation
small chunks, one at a time,* to get deeper - or we just continue surface assumptions
*that could be known as 'study' :)
the thing is, as I have learned
ReplyDeletethe expression 'The Law' does not fully convey the different kinds of laws in the O.T.
there is not one monolithic 'Law'
the context is important
Meirav may explain this better than I, but from what I have learned 'the Law' [as we use the term] can mean The Torah [but not always], and The Torah can mean 'the teachings' [not always] - as there is Levitical Law/priesthood etc [which is now fulfilled by the priesthood of Melchizedek [that all Christians are part of - see the letter to the Hebrews, and trace the O.T. refs]
and, yet, when David said [sang?] in the Psalm "oh how I love Your Law" the spirit of that is something else...and as I meditated on it I sensed he meant God's 'teachings,' the wisdom, the love in them, that reflected His character, that David loved
As purely a lurker on this conversation, I'd like to step up for one moment to point out something:
ReplyDeleteWhat we consider the Old Testament was not the set of works consider scripture during the 1st and 2nd century CE. And it was not what was used by Jews at the time. The OT is what was collected together by the Nicean counsel in the late 4th century. The Jews used the Tanakh, which was a subset of the OT.
So it's wise to be careful when saying what was accepted by someone as scripture since the list of those books wasn't compiled until after the quoted time. Specifically, saying Jesus referred to the OT is not entirely correct.
the Law & The Prophets then, if you want specifics [trying to be brief but it's hard, as it's a vast subject]
ReplyDeletebut He would have had other 'books' as part of His Jewish knowledge and he and the early Christians referred to them
no, of course the were not bound into one compilation, as today...but the different scrolls were certainly around and known by Him..
I said what I did because of knowing the Gospels and the times he quoted what we now term O.T.
huh? I'm Jewish, I grew up with the Tanakh and I have one in my possession - there is no difference between the Tanakh and what is referred to as the OT except in the order of the books within it.
ReplyDeleteThat's making an assumption, something I would advise against doing.
ReplyDeleteyes.
ReplyDeleteand also: "apply" in what sense? which we've kind of touched on in previous comments, I just want to reiterate that because I think it's crucial. I get the impression Michael W's comment was a reaction to some false teaching he'd come across, where people were suggesting that we are all bound to keep each and every rule and regulation contained within the OT - those people, to my mind, are misapplying this stuff.
The thing that bothers me in Michael's initial comment is the blanket statement about a whole chunk of the Bible - just because it's called "old" that doesn't mean it's ready for the scrapyard! it's part of God's written word, it's the stuff Jesus taught from, it is God-breathed and useful etc etc - we just have to approach it with wisdom, and ask God to help us see the whole picture. This applies to any verse in Scripture - whether it's in the OT or the NT - it's always dangerous to take one or two verses in isolation and build doctrine on them, we must look at what the whole of the Bible says. People are capable of twisting any verse anywhere, not just in the OT - I've had a guy who said he was a pastor tell me that the Bible says we must have at least one hour's "quiet time" every day, and when I pressed him as to where in the Bible he'd found that, it turned out he was basing this "command" on what Jesus said to his friends at Gethsemane who had fallen asleep whilst he was praying his heart out, and he said something like couldn't you have prayed for one hour...
it's not a question of whether the OT applies to us or not, it's a question of how to apply each bit of Scripture we look at, whether it's in the OT or the NT. there definitely are parts that were given as rules to the Jewish people, and we read in Acts that the council of Jerusalem decided not to place on the Gentile Christians "a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear". so it seems clear to me that Gentile Christians are not bound to keep each and every rule and regulation in there (and for the moment I'm leaving aside the more complex issue of where that leaves Jewish Believers - you guys have enough problems of your own ;) ) but there has got to be something useful in there for Gentile Christians (all Scripture is God-breathed, useful, etc) so I think it's a question of looking for the principles behind the rules and regulations, looking at what we can learn from this stuff about God's heart, his preferences, his likes and dislikes, his expectations from human beings, that sort of thing. Not as a set of rules but as guidelines - and looking at these guidelines in the light of everything else in the Bible.
The Tanakh was not compiled until the 2nd century CE, again after the time period in question. During that time, what we call the OT and what the Jews used were not the same set of works. And at the time, a subset of the books were accepted across the board. And there was reverse influence on the collection; i.e., the messianic Jews influenced what the more centrist Jews considered scripture.
ReplyDeleteTo use an analogy, it would be like Woodrow Wilson saying he accepts the reports from the newspaper industry. But someone today saying, "The Weekly World News was a newspaper, therefore Woodrow Wilson believed in Batboy and space aliens". You can't logically apply past statements to collections not gathered until a later date.
good point!
ReplyDeletecan we at least agree that you can say someone, like jesus, referred to written texts, many if not all, of which have been collected together into what we commonly refer to today as the "Old Testament"? and can we heretofore refer to those texts, which may not have been organized or collected or accepted together as one "volume" during the time of Christ, as the "Old Testament" even though we are using an anachronism when we refer to them that way? it's just an easier means of referring to the texts.
ReplyDeleteit might not be technically logical, but to be precisely logical means we'll be referring to pretty much the same set of works only with a much more cumbersome set of words. let's abbreviate the verbiage into OT for ease of discussion, understanding that the OT wasn't called the OT at the time of Jesus, and focus on the discussion itself. what applies? what doesn't? why? if there's a particular text that is not currently in the OT as we think of it today, people are welcome to bring that into the discussion.
Oh, you guys can refer to anything you like. I just wanted to drop my .02USD to (hopefully) help clarify something. See my analogy about Wilson and newspapers for what I thought it would help avoid.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the Weekly World News and what does it have to do with batboy and space aliens? Or Woodrow Wilson for that matter? And, I suppose the more important question, did Jesus read the Weekly World News and, if so, did he use to support or deny standard Pharisaical argument?
ReplyDeleteRead it? He's been IN it! When He was 900 feet tall and knocking on the side of the United Nations building in NYC, some photographers got a photo of Himself!
ReplyDeleteIt's in print, so it must be true! :D
Darryl, I didn't realise you did time travel on top of everything else ;)
ReplyDeletebut back to that question of applying or misapplying the stuff - my culture is sadly full of that. take that verse about not cooking a kid in its mother's milk - it has been turned into an unbelievably intricate system of rules, with different rabbis giving different rulings about exactly how many hours must pass between the consumption of anything that has a meat element in it and the drinking of a latte. and all because of one little verse which - as far as I understand - was a reference to a specific custom which was part of idol worship in local culture at the time.
and again, as I've said before, the same thing can happen with stuff in the NT. there are things in there which some Christians see as relevant to that time and place and others disagree and say it applies to any time any place. Here's an example that I think we probably all agree about: the stuff about head covering. Are Christian women bound to cover their heads when praying? I know there are those who take this literally, but I think they are misapplying it.
Wow, I just got back to this conversation after being away for awhile. My head is spinning!
ReplyDeletedidn't realize Jesus did a stint with the UN, eh? ;-)
ReplyDeleteDidn't realize He was that tall!
ReplyDelete