What is the status of OT divine commandments in Christianity?

[Philo]

I will confess right off that I have only distant and faint recollections of the New Testament, and I don't think I ever even read the whole thing; so please pardon me if there is some easy answer to my question that I have missed through ignorance of Scripture.

The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy narrate the giving to the Israelites in the Sinai Desert of a code of law. This code is a covenant between God and Israel: there is no suggestion that it applies to any other peoples. Indeed, it is indicated pretty clearly that it is meant to distinguish Israel from other peoples (e.g., "You will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation": Exodus 19:6). This code includes such commandments as "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk" (Exodus, 23:19) and "Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together" (Deuteronomy 22:11; similarly Leviticus 19:19), which, I take it, Christians regard as null and void, or at least as not binding on non-Jews. The fact that the commandments set down in the Pentateuch are addressed specifically and exclusively to Israel, not to the rest of humankind, leads one to expect that Christians would regard those commandments as non-binding; and the fact that Christians have never, so far as I know, regarded the laws of diet, clothing, and many other matters as applying to themselves seems to confirm this expectation.

Why, then, do Christians cite the Ten Commandments as if they were God's laws for all of humankind? Or rather, how can they coherently do this, while regarding other commandments as having no such application? Further, by what right can a Christian cite some passages, such as the prohibition of sexual relations between men at Leviticus 20:13, as implying a divine condemnation of such relations in general, while regarding the condemnation of the eating of "unclean" animals a few verses later as inapplicable outside the community of ancient Israelites?

 

[Biblestudent_007]

I would reference the Epistle to the Hebrews because it explains the law and sacrifice very well .

 

[Philo]

Thanks, Biblestudent. I will have a look at that text, but a Scriptural reference doesn't necessarily answer my question. From the fact that some passage in the New Testament says X, one cannot infer that Christians believe X. Besides that, if I read the text, what I think it means may be nothing like what Christians think it means. I am certainly far apart from them in my understanding of what the OT says, if they are selectively reading passages of the Sinai narrative as giving law to all humankind.

 

[esmith]

Is not there three different sets of law in the Old Testament; moral law, ritual laws, and dietary laws? (at least that is how I classify them)

From what I understand from the New Testament is that Jesus was of the Jewish faith and taught his interpretations of the moral laws of the Old Testament. Now we are informed that he was teaching to both Jews, gentiles, and possibly pagans. Now one would have to assume that if this is so that he would make no reference to the dietary laws or ritual laws Now after his death, along comes Paul and changes the religion of Jesus to the religion about Jesus.

Now Paul wants to convert the pagans, gentiles, and if possible, Jews to the religion about Jesus. If he is to accomplish this among the pagans and gentiles he has to set aside the majority of the laws of the Old Testament. Would be somewhat difficulty to insist that to worship Jesus, who was a Jew, that they had to become a Jew..... circumcised and change their eating habits would be a major issue. Therefore Paul now says that keeping the Jewish Law would not bring salvation. There was only one way and that was through Jesus' death and resurrection. As time goes on the orthodox Christians interpret the Old Testament and New Testament to conform to their beliefs which accounts for the modification of the moral laws.

I am not sure if that helps and I will probably take some criticism from this, but that is the way I see it (in a very brief way).

 

[Philo]

Now Paul wants to convert the pagans, gentiles, and if possible, Jews to the religion about Jesus. If he is to accomplish this among the pagans and gentiles he has to set aside the majority of the laws of the Old Testament. Would be somewhat difficulty to insist that to worship Jesus, who was a Jew, that they had to become a Jew..... circumcised and change their eating habits would be a major issue. Therefore Paul now says that keeping the Jewish Law would not bring salvation. There was only one way and that was through Jesus' death and resurrection. As time goes on the orthodox Christians interpret the Old Testament and New Testament to conform to their beliefs which accounts for the modification of the moral laws.

I can't judge of the correctness of your account, but it sounds plausible and banishes much of the darkness that has covered this matter for me. In the case of the Ten Commandments, though, the first four are not moral laws but laws of worship.

 

[sojourner]

There's a problem in that, while all Christians are not Jews, they do (at least in Matthew's estimation) constitute the "true" Israel. also, there's the whole Jesus came to fulfill the Law thing.

Most Christians satisfy this by condensing the Law into 1) Love God, 2) Love neighbor, believing that all the Law depends upon these two. The keeping of every single one is unnecessary, so long as one keeps those two.

 

[Philo]

Note: In composing this message, I originally included links to the sources of the passages that I quote. Upon trying to post it, however, I discovered that, because I have fewer than 15 posts on this forum, I am not allowed to do that.

There's a problem in that, while all Christians are not Jews, they do (at least in Matthew's estimation) constitute the "true" Israel. also, there's the whole Jesus came to fulfill the Law thing.

Most Christians satisfy this by condensing the Law into 1) Love God, 2) Love neighbor, believing that all the Law depends upon these two. The keeping of every single one is unnecessary, so long as one keeps those two.

That much makes sense to me. What baffles me is the business of selecting commandments addressed by God to the Israelites from the Old Testament as if they were moral laws for all mankind.

I found what seems to me a rare instance of coherent thought on this issue in an unexpected place: a piece on a site called Apologetics Press arguing against the removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the State Supreme Court building in Alabama (in 2003). I don't accept the legal or political arguments of the writer (Dave Miller), but in the following passage he strikes me as one of the few voices on his side of the question to take a stance that makes sense on points of Christian doctrine:

That is what the Ten Commandments monument in Alabama is all about. It’s not about that particular monument. It’s not really even about the Ten Commandments themselves. After all, the Bible teaches that God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses to govern the Israelites (Exodus 20:1-17). Christians have never been under the Ten Commandments per se (Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 9:15-17). They are under New Testament law brought by Christ and His apostles. Is there considerable overlap between the laws given by Moses (which included the Ten Commandments) and the laws given by Christ? Certainly. In fact, nine of the Ten Commandments (excluding the Sabbath) are repeated in one form or another in the New Testament as being a part of New Testament Christianity.

As for that "true Israel" business, it strikes me as just another part of the Christian defamation campaign against Jews and Judaism. Here is a sample of Christian thinking on that topic that I turned up (note: "Seeker" here is the alias of the poster to whom this one is replying):

We must remember, seeker, that Israel is not confined to only Judah. We must also remember that all the people who call themselves jews today are actually the lineal descendants of Israel or Judah of the scriptures.. most of them are impostors. That is why in the book of the Revelation, Jesus warned, beware of those who say they are jews, and are not.

The third sentence ("most of them are impostors") suggests that the writer intended to include the word "not" in the second sentence ("We must also remember that all the people who call themselves jews today are actually the lineal descendants of Israel or Judah of the scriptures"); but it is difficult to be sure what this guy means. After a discussion of several Scriptural passages, though, he says this, which is clear enough:

Gods people Israel, still exists in the world today as peoples and nations. Gods promise is sure and clear. The race of the book that God chose and gave the name Israel Is still among us.... They are the anglo saxon celtic peoples of the world. The people chosen by God to be a witness to the nations... And if you will look, it is those peoples who have taken the gospel to the far corners of the world.... It is those nations who are called Christian nations, and it is those nations who have most closely adopted the Law of God as the Law of their lands.

 

[Pegg]

Why, then, do Christians cite the Ten Commandments as if they were God's laws for all of humankind?

the 10 commandments are there as a guide as to Gods standards and morals. We should recognize them for what they are. Any person who wants to please God would live in accord with those laws because they set a good and acceptable foundation for our morals.

Or rather, how can they coherently do this, while regarding other commandments as having no such application? Further, by what right can a Christian cite some passages, such as the prohibition of sexual relations between men at Leviticus 20:13, as implying a divine condemnation of such relations in general, while regarding the condemnation of the eating of "unclean" animals a few verses later as inapplicable outside the community of ancient Israelites?

there were certain requirements of the law that the Apostles carried over to the christian congregations. these are found throughout the writings of the NT.

The fact is that God accepted gentiles, who had never practiced the mosaic law, into the christian congregation. He gave them holy spirit and power to perform miracles because they were putting faith in Jesus. It was for this reason that the Apostles came to the unanimous conclusion that God did not demand adherence to the mosaic law in order to be saved or chosen by him. God was choosing people based on 'faith' in Christs sacrifice.

So if God was choosing people who were not practicing the mosaic law, who is anyone to demand that the mosaic law is a requirement? According to God, its not.

 

[sojourner]

As for that "true Israel" business, it strikes me as just another part of the Christian defamation campaign against Jews and Judaism.

Well... it's not. Matthew is heavily invested in it, but we have to remember that Matthew was writing to a group of Jews living in Gentile territory. I think some folks have taken that concept to an extreme that's not warranted. I'm certainly not anti-Jewish, nor do I think Xy has "replaced" Judaism. Just speaking from a purely exegetical standpoint with regard to various problems with Xians being or not being under Judaic Law.

 

[Philo]

Thanks for the explanations, Pegg, but I have difficulty putting your statements together. I can understand this by itself:

the 10 commandments are there as a guide as to Gods standards and morals. We should recognize them for what they are. Any person who wants to please God would live in accord with those laws because they set a good and acceptable foundation for our morals.


there were certain requirements of the law that the Apostles carried over to the christian congregations. these are found throughout the writings of the NT.

And I can understand this by itself:

The fact is that God accepted gentiles, who had never practiced the mosaic law, into the christian congregation. He gave them holy spirit and power to perform miracles because they were putting faith in Jesus. It was for this reason that the Apostles came to the unanimous conclusion that God did not demand adherence to the mosaic law in order to be saved or chosen by him. God was choosing people based on 'faith' in Christs sacrifice.

So if God was choosing people who were not practicing the mosaic law, who is anyone to demand that the mosaic law is a requirement? According to God, its not.

But I don't know how to put the two groups of statements together. In the first quotation, you say that the Ten Commandments are "a guide to God's standards and morals," and that these commandments (or did you mean some others?) were "carried over" to Christian congregations by the Apostles. In the second quotation, you say, or seem to suggest by the rhetorical question at the end, that, according to the Apostles, the commandments of the Mosaic law are not a moral requirement. So you seem to be saying both that the commandments of the OT are divinely ordained moral requirements and that they are not divinely ordained moral requirements, which is obviously incoherent. If you meant something else, then I don't understand what it is.

 

[Pegg]

Thanks for the explanations, Pegg, but I have difficulty putting your statements together. I can understand this by itself:

And I can understand this by itself:

But I don't know how to put the two groups of statements together. In the first quotation, you say that the Ten Commandments are "a guide to God's standards and morals," and that these commandments (or did you mean some others?) were "carried over" to Christian congregations by the Apostles. In the second quotation, you say, or seem to suggest by the rhetorical question at the end, that, according to the Apostles, the commandments of the Mosaic law are not a moral requirement. So you seem to be saying both that the commandments of the OT are divinely ordained moral requirements and that they are not divinely ordained moral requirements, which is obviously incoherent. If you meant something else, then I don't understand what it is.

what I mean is that God does not look for people practicing mosaic laws in order to save them. He looks at peoples heart and when he finds a righteously inclined person, even though the person my be practicing sin, he draws close to them.

Anyone who accepts Christ are taught to live in harmony with Christs teachings and this would include living by Gods righteous standards (many of which are found in the mosiac laws)

For example, Abraham did not practice the mosaic law, yet he was Gods friend. So we cannot assume that practicing the mosaic law is what makes one approved by God. If people were able to be approved by God BEFORE the mosaic law was introduced, then how can it be said that the mosaic law is a way to approach God? We can't.

What made Abraham approved was that he was righteous because he lived by Gods laws from his heart...using his conscience as his guide...he didnt need a written law code to know what is right or wrong. That is how it should be with christians too. If they are living by the law of 'love', then that is all that God requires because love is the basis for all the mosaic laws. If we practice love, then we shouldnt need a written code.

 

[esmith]

Anyone who accepts Christ are taught to live in harmony with Christs teachings and this would include living by Gods righteous standards (many of which are found in the mosiac laws)

I have a question related to the above statement which seems to conflict with your following statement.

What made Abraham approved was that he was righteous because he lived by Gods laws from his heart...using his conscience as his guide...he didnt need a written law code to know what is right or wrong. That is how it should be with christians too. If they are living by the law of 'love', then that is all that God requires because love is the basis for all the mosaic laws. If we practice love, then we shouldnt need a written code.

According to the above statement you do not need to accept Jesus as your savior, you only need to attempt to live by God's Law's. This would seem to go against the general belief of most Christians, correct?

 

[Pegg]

I have a question related to the above statement which seems to conflict with your following statement.


According to the above statement you do not need to accept Jesus as your savior, you only need to attempt to live by God's Law's. This would seem to go against the general belief of most Christians, correct?

Abraham had faith in the Messiah before he arrived. Christians have faith in the Messiah after he arrived. In both cases they are putting their faith in God and his promises.

All who put faith in Gods promises and who strive to please God are acceptable to him. Thats why gentiles were acceptable into the jersualem congregation...God had shown he approved of them by giving them his holy spirit. They were not practices of mosaic law, they were people from the nations who came to put faith in Christ.

similarly, Abraham did not practice the mosaic law...he lived by faith in God and his promises.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Christianity today and during the first few years after Jesus death are almost uncomparable with each other.
Paul was one of the first to try to codify the new Christianity. It is almost certain that others were trying to do the same, but they did not document their efforts as Paul did.

The earlies known Christian writing is the Didache ( teaching of the twelve apostles)
It is more a apprenticeship for new Christians, and leans heavily on the Jewish Two ways.

It is very short so is easily read.

Didache: Complete Text

It lacks most of what is taught as Christian Dogma today. It is fairy obvious that it was still very much a Jewish sect on the cusp of becoming Christian.
The Trinity had not been established in its present meaning, though Baptism was done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit. The Eucharist was the prime service of remembrance.. though the concept of the real blood and body had not been established.

No one had started going through the old Testament to try to prove Christian links, as a Christian theology had not yet been established.

I find such early Christianity very interesting and far more believable than later versions.

(The site gives various annotations to the text, that more recent research would suggest are inappropriate , because the Didache predates the citations.)

 

[james2ko]

Why, then, do Christians cite the Ten Commandments as if they were God's laws for all of humankind? Or rather, how can they coherently do this, while regarding other commandments as having no such application? Further, by what right can a Christian cite some passages, such as the prohibition of sexual relations between men at Leviticus 20:13, as implying a divine condemnation of such relations in general, while regarding the condemnation of the eating of "unclean" animals a few verses later as inapplicable outside the community of ancient Israelites?

Not all Christians regard God's laws (Ten Commandments) as well as other eternal laws as null and void. I believe most Christians mean well and are sincere in their obedience to God. But they fail to recognize that God established a difference between the Law of Moses (Mosaic Law) given at Sinai which was comprised of civil statutes; the sacrificial laws which were given much later as a result of Israel's transgressions at Sinai; and God's holy, moral, eternal law (The ten commandments) which have existed since creation. They tend to "package" these three distinct sets of laws and label it the "Mosaic Law",when in reality, scriptural evidence reveals all three groups are separate and distinct and should be treated as such.

 

[esmith]

Abraham had faith in the Messiah before he arrived. Christians have faith in the Messiah after he arrived. In both cases they are putting their faith in God and his promises.

Would you please reference a scripture that references Abraham's and a messiah.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I will confess right off that I have only distant and faint recollections of the New Testament, and I don't think I ever even read the whole thing; so please pardon me if there is some easy answer to my question that I have missed through ignorance of Scripture.

The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy narrate the giving to the Israelites in the Sinai Desert of a code of law. This code is a covenant between God and Israel: there is no suggestion that it applies to any other peoples. Indeed, it is indicated pretty clearly that it is meant to distinguish Israel from other peoples (e.g., "You will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation": Exodus 19:6). This code includes such commandments as "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk" (Exodus, 23:19) and "Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together" (Deuteronomy 22:11; similarly Leviticus 19:19), which, I take it, Christians regard as null and void, or at least as not binding on non-Jews. The fact that the commandments set down in the Pentateuch are addressed specifically and exclusively to Israel, not to the rest of humankind, leads one to expect that Christians would regard those commandments as non-binding; and the fact that Christians have never, so far as I know, regarded the laws of diet, clothing, and many other matters as applying to themselves seems to confirm this expectation.

Why, then, do Christians cite the Ten Commandments as if they were God's laws for all of humankind? Or rather, how can they coherently do this, while regarding other commandments as having no such application? Further, by what right can a Christian cite some passages, such as the prohibition of sexual relations between men at Leviticus 20:13, as implying a divine condemnation of such relations in general, while regarding the condemnation of the eating of "unclean" animals a few verses later as inapplicable outside the community of ancient Israelites?

Maybe this explanation will help.
In the OT, there are numerous commands, laws, and rituals the Israelites had to follow. Some of which are symbolic, for example shedding the blood of animals, was a symbolic tradition that for those that understand, there would be a day in which a better sacrifice would come, a sacrifice that would eliminate the need for such sacrifices. This of course was Jesus.
As to the 10 commandments, there are aspects to these commandment, that speak to the nature of God and are unchanging. Example, Loving God, could never change.

Spilling animal blood could change, which is not the same kind of Law as loving God.

Now, if you have questions about any specific law in the OT, that the Christians have done away with, please ask, so we can discuss further details.

 

[Pegg]

Would you please reference a scripture that references Abraham's and a messiah.

from the time that Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden, God had promised to send a deliverer to redeem the children of Adam and Eve from sin and death. That promise has always been known by Gods faithful followers. Abraham was one of these men...he was actually the very first man to be named as a prophet of God Almighty. Abraham knew of the promise made in Eden.
After pronouncing punishment on Adam and Eve, God turns his attention to the Serpent and states:
Gen 3:15 14 And Jehovah God proceeded to say to the serpent: “Because you have done this thing, you are the cursed one ...15 And I shall put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel.”
The serpent was to receive a head wound by one called the 'seed'...seed means an offspring

2,000 years later an angel revealed to Abraham:

Gen 22:15 And Jehovah’s angel proceeded to call to Abraham the second time out of the heavens 16 and to say: “‘By myself I do swear,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘that by reason of the fact that you have done this thing and you have not withheld your son, your only one, 17 I shall surely bless you and I shall surely multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens and like the grains of sand that are on the seashore; and your seed will take possession of the gate of his enemies. 18 And by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves due to the fact that you have listened to my voice.’”
This was the indication to Abraham that the promised 'seed' would be born through his offspring. He had faith in that promise and showed his faith by leaving the city of his birth to travel to a foreign country, away from his family and the comforts of the city of ur. He entered an everlasting covenant with God and it was because of Abrahams faith in Gods promise to send a deliverer.