Why does Hebrew law not apply to Christians?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Golf_Nut
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Golf_Nut

Guest
Paul debates the question of whether or not circumcision is required and also discusses the Law. The Law of the Old Testament, followed by Jews, is not followed by Christians. Why? How did Paul and others theologically explain that followers of Christ were exempt from adherence to the Law?
 
Well, there is “the LAW” and there is “the law”.

The Jewish people had not just “the LAW”–the 10 commandments–but they had all sorts of other “little laws” regarding diets, for example, as well as circumcision, ritual cleansing for women, for people who were ‘unclean’, etc.

As you know, Paul made the case that circumcision was not necessary for male Gentiles because circumcision was a covenant with the Jews, NOT an essential part of “the Law”. And Peter, who received the vision from God, made the case that dietary restrictions which Jews practice are not necessary for Gentiles because God Himself ‘made all things clean’.

It wasn’t that the Jewish ‘little laws’ were necessarily bad things, either–they just were not ESSENTIAL to God’s law. Thus they are not essential to us.

We believe this because of the development and deeper understanding of what the “Law” is which the Holy Spirit continually leads us to.
 
Golf_Nut said:
The Law of the Old Testament, followed by Jews, is not followed by Christians.
Click to expand...
This is a false premise. The Old Testament Law contained in the ten commandments is still an essential part of Christian life.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Well, there is “the LAW” and there is “the law”.

The Jewish people had not just “the LAW”–the 10 commandments–but they had all sorts of other “little laws” regarding diets, for example, as well as circumcision, ritual cleansing for women, for people who were ‘unclean’, etc.

As you know, Paul made the case that circumcision was not necessary for male Gentiles because circumcision was a covenant with the Jews, NOT an essential part of “the Law”. And Peter, who received the vision from God, made the case that dietary restrictions which Jews practice are not necessary for Gentiles because God Himself ‘made all things clean’.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the insight. I just find it perplexing that the Law of the Old Testament which also sets out a great deal of rules with respect to diet, clothing and other stuff, which I presume is the will of God could be dispensed with by Peter’s vision that God made all things clean. If so, then God would appear to have changed His mind from the time of the Old Testament. God, certainly, can change his mind, but theologically I would presume that is not an acceptable explanation.

This becomes even more troubling to me when i come across a direct quote of Jesus that all the Law applies. I have lost the citation but it is in one of the Gospels.

Another possible explanation i have considered, is that prior to Christ, the law of Moses was part of the agreement or covenant between God and the Jews. But with the advent of Jesus, a new covenant was created that expanded to include Gentiles and the conditions of that covenant did not include adherence to the Law of Moses (as that applied to a prior agreement that had been replaced by the new one formed by Christ). Any thoughts?

again thanks for your comments
 
davidv said:
This is a false premise. The Old Testament Law contained in the ten commandments is still an essential part of Christian life.
Click to expand...
When i use the term “Law” I was not thinking exclusively the Ten Commandments but also the rules of diet and other subjects that you will find through out the Old Testament. These other Laws, are in the opinion of Church theologians no longer applicable to Christians. However, those theologians would take the position that the Ten Commandments apply, which opens up a logical inconsistency. Why do the Ten Commandments apply but not the rest of the Law? And I think the Ten apply because Jesus makes reference to them and says they still apply, hence they form part of the new covenant that he has formed with the Gentiles.
 
Golf_Nut said:
When i use the term “Law” I was not thinking exclusively the Ten Commandments but also the rules of diet and other subjects that you will find through out the Old Testament. These other Laws, are in the opinion of Church theologians no longer applicable to Christians. However, those theologians would take the position that the Ten Commandments apply, which opens up a logical inconsistency. Why do the Ten Commandments apply but not the rest of the Law? And I think the Ten apply because Jesus makes reference to them and says they still apply, hence they form part of the new covenant that he has formed with the Gentiles.
Click to expand...
You might find the discussion here helpful, G_N:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1502593#post1502593
 
Interesting subject. Wasn’t the purpose of Jewish law, in addition to sanctifying the Jews, also to prepare a people to bring forth the Messiah? If so that purpose has been fulfilled. While Christian still are bound to God’s moral law, they are not bound to Hebrew “ceremonial law” (for lack of a better term).

In addition to our own sanctification, I wonder if it would be accurate to say that Catholics in particular, who have the fullness of God’s guidance through His Church, are not also being prepared through Catholic “ceremonial law” for the return of the Messiah? That would be a very interesting additional parallel between OT and NT.
 
VociMike said:
Interesting subject. Wasn’t the purpose of Jewish law, in addition to sanctifying the Jews, also to prepare a people to bring forth the Messiah? If so that purpose has been fulfilled. While Christian still are bound to God’s moral law, they are not bound to Hebrew “ceremonial law” (for lack of a better term).

In addition to our own sanctification, I wonder if it would be accurate to say that Catholics in particular, who have the fullness of God’s guidance through His Church, are not also being prepared through Catholic “ceremonial law” for the return of the Messiah? That would be a very interesting additional parallel between OT and NT.
Click to expand...
I believe another purpose of the law was protection, Just like household rules are meant to protect our children. In terms of salvation history, the Israelites might be considered pre-adolescent and adolescent children of God and therefore would not have had the strength or maturity to withstand the dangers around them.
 
Golf_Nut said:
. . . Another possible explanation i have considered, is that prior to Christ, the law of Moses was part of the agreement or covenant between God and the Jews. But with the advent of Jesus, a new covenant was created that expanded to include Gentiles and the conditions of that covenant did not include adherence to the Law of Moses (as that applied to a prior agreement that had been replaced by the new one formed by Christ). Any thoughts?

again thanks for your comments
Click to expand...
BINGO!!!
 
Knowledgable people have informed me that the Jewish people themselves believe that part of their Law is binding on all people, while some parts are uniquely given to their race. Different Jewish authors are not entirely consistant on precisely which laws are universal and which are uniquely for themselves, but it is my understanding that this general principle is well established in Jewish thought.

This partly agrees with the Catholic understanding, in that it is generally held that there is more than one kind of Law, some of which is applicable to us. As far as I can tell the obvious difference between this belief and Catholic teaching would be the case of those who are both of the Jewish race and also believers in Christ - a group which was obviously a very large part of the early Church.
 
The covenant that God made with Abraham that included circumcision was fulfilled. The covenant was that Abraham would be the father of a great nation, that his decendants would be God’s people. With Jesus, this was fulfilled and expanded to include the Gentiles.

A covenant is more than a promise in that it covers the descendants of both parties. The Father’s descendant is Jesus as is Abrahams… the joining of God’s Family to Abrahams is the fulfilment. God dwelling among his people…is also a fulfilment of the covenant. Therefore Jesus being the representative of both families is free to extend the new covenant to all people…including the Gentiles. Gentiles were not subject to the old covenant, but the new covenant encompasses all people of the earth to be a part of the family of God… we are the adopted children of the Father and Christ is our brother. The new covenant is conditional on our acceptance of Christ as our Saviour, this is free will. We are invited to the family but we are not forced to enter into the covenant.
 
Golf_Nut said:
Paul debates the question of whether or not circumcision is required and also discusses the Law. The Law of the Old Testament, followed by Jews, is not followed by Christians. Why? How did Paul and others theologically explain that followers of Christ were exempt from adherence to the Law?
Click to expand...
Acts 10, 11-15.

In this Vision, Peter is told to set aside the Dietary laws. Note how he objects.
11
He saw heaven opened and something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered to the ground by its four corners.
12
In it were all the earth’s four-legged animals and reptiles and the birds of the sky.
13
A voice said to him, “Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.”
14
But Peter said, “Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean.”
15
The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.”
Click to expand...
Acts 10, 25-29
Notice how Peter acts on his vision – even extending its meaning to allow him to enter the home of a Gentile and sit at table with them.
25
When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and, falling at his feet, paid him homage.
26
Peter, however, raised him up, saying, “Get up. I myself am also a human being.”
27
While he conversed with him, he went in and found many people gathered together
28
and said to them, “You know that it is unlawful for a Jewish man to associate with, or visit, a Gentile, but God has shown me that I should not call any person profane or unclean.
29
And that is why I came without objection when sent for. May I ask, then, why you summoned me?”
Click to expand...
Next, we have the Council of Jerusalem: Acts 15, 1-20
Peter again reiterates that the old Law is put aside in things that are merely ritual and not spiritual. And Jame the Just, a Pharasee (who would be most strict in following the old Law) agrees with him.
1 Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” 2
2
Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.
3
They were sent on their journey by the church, and passed through Phoenicia and Samaria telling of the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.
4
When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, as well as by the apostles and the presbyters, and they reported what God had done with them.
5
But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.”
6
3 The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.
7
4 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8
And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9
He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10
Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11
On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.” 5
12
The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.
13
6 After they had fallen silent, James responded, "My brothers, listen to me.
14
Symeon 7 has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name.
15
The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written:
16
‘After this I shall return and rebuild the fallen hut of David; from its ruins I shall rebuild it and raise it up again,
17
so that the rest of humanity may seek out the Lord, even all the Gentiles on whom my name is invoked. Thus says the Lord who accomplishes these things,
18
known from of old.’
19
It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God,
20
but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.
Click to expand...
 
Also,

Colossians 2:14
having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
 
The reason is that the law was not inherent to the world, but was added later as the result of sin. St. Paul makes this point in Galatians: “What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions…” (3:19) Christians are bound to things that were true “in the beginning,” as Christ puts it when He says that we are bound to follow the original prohibition of divorce as opposed to the acceptance of it that the law would later offer.

You see, basic morality was always a matter simply inherent to creation. We see this in that God punished Cain for killing Abel even though there was no law given yet that prohibited murder. Things like murder, theft, and so on were always wrong because they are wrong by their very nature. Things like eating pork and touching dead bodies were not wrong by nature, they were wrong as a matter of disobedience.

For example, think in terms of a child. For a child, hitting another person is always wrong by its very nature. However, watching television is not wrong for a child to do. When the parents give the rule not to watch tv, then watching it becomes wrong as a matter of disobedience even though in its nature it is still fine. Now, if the child hits someone, the parents can tell the child not to watch tv as a punishment for hitting them, and then the parents can cancel that rule later at which point it would be ok for the child to watch tv again.

Murder, adultery, and so on were always wrong and all people from Adam to you and I have been bound to them. The law in the Old Testament was a law that was added for the Jews’ sins in worshipping the Golden calf, and God simply canceled those laws at the appropriate time.
 
Thank you Vern for taking the time to refer to the Bible on this important issue. I appreciate it a great deal.

Does anyone know of a book that addresses this issue?
 
davidv said:
This is a false premise. The Old Testament Law contained in the ten commandments is still an essential part of Christian life.
Click to expand...
well, if we are supposed to follow the part of the Law relating to the Ten Commandments, then why aren’t we supposed to follow all the dietary laws, etc?
 
Golf_Nut said:
Why does Hebrew law not apply to Christians?
Click to expand...
The question is irrelevant. The truth is that Hebrew law simply does not apply to me living today in the USA. Hebrew law has no practical effect on my life. No one is going to punish me for breaking Hebrew law.

The law that does have a practical effect on my life is American law. I will get punished for breaking American law. In many cases, American law resembles Hebrew law. I will get punished for stealing, so would a Hebrew.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top