Why does Hebrew law not apply to Christians?

[Daniel_Marsh]

Col 2 tells us that the law was nailed to the cross.

 

[Golf_Nut]

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.

If you accept that the Hebrew law of the Old Testament like the Ten Commandments was given by God, I do not know how you could say it is irrelevant. God issued law to be followed. If you choose not to follow the law of God, then you in turn are ignoring the word of God. Accordingly, it is very relevant.

What I find interesting is that nearly all Christians accept that the Ten Commandments applies to them, but ignore the other laws found elsewhere in the Old Testament.

Paul, in the New Testament, debates the issue of whether gentiles, who follow Christ, must be circumcised. Circumcision is one of the most important laws of the Old Testament. He, I believe, concluded, that circumcision did not need to be followed by gentiles.

The early Church concluded that the laws of the Old Testament (often refered to as the law of Moses) did not have to be fully followed by Gentiles.

Anyway, I always find it fascinating how on the one hand we can accept that God set out law in the Old Testament, that was clearly to be followed, but it is not followed today. Where did God say, it is no longer necessary to follow those laws?

Jesus speaks of himself as the fulfilment of the Law, but that statement does not absolve us from following it. it is interesting to note that Jesus’ last supper I believe was for Passover. Jesus followed the Law and so, interestingly, did Paul, but modern day Christians do not.

As for American law, it is man made. I would be more focused on following the law of God, and when i do not follow it, I would ask myself, where is the authority to do so.

I struggle with this issue.

There are many sophisticated arguments why we do not need to follow the law of the Old Testament, but I fail to find a passage in the New Testament that releases Gentiles from follow it.

Jesus made a number of statements about the law. I believe he commented on the requirement of circumcision. I think he said also that it was not necessary. So, maybe he is saying that strict adherence to the law is not important, but rather embodying the law, that is being good. The law has a purpose i believe of making people good. The Pharisess, Saduccees practiced strict adherence to the law, and therefore their religous experience was very legalistic, and although they adhered to the law, they were not always good in their deeds. I believe Jesus was a reaction to that legalism, by saying rigid adherence to the Law is not in accordance with God, but rather living in the spirit of it is. I, think, just my theory, but as i said before, i struggle with this issue.

But, to say, Hebrew law is irrelevant, i think is a mistake. Even the term “Hebrew Law” is deceptive. it is really God’s law which happens to be followed by the Hebrews of the time of the Old Testament, and today by Orthodox Jews.

 

[chosen_people]

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? .

Interesting theory. Totally wrong from a Jewish point of view.

 

[Golf_Nut]

Interesting theory. Totally wrong from a Jewish point of view.

This is a Catholic discussion forum. Accordingly, i would not be writing from a Jewish point of view (not possible for me anyway, as i am not Jewish). With respect to the purpose of the Law from a Jewish perspective, you would be better served visiting Torah.org

 

[rwoehmke]

If you accept that the Hebrew law of the Old Testament like the Ten Commandments was given by God, I do not know how you could say it is irrelevant. God issued law to be followed. If you choose not to follow the law of God, then you in turn are ignoring the word of God. Accordingly, it is very relevant.

What I find interesting is that nearly all Christians accept that the Ten Commandments applies to them, but ignore the other laws found elsewhere in the Old Testament.

The early Church concluded that the laws of the Old Testament (often refered to as the law of Moses) did not have to be fully followed by Gentiles.

Anyway, I always find it fascinating how on the one hand we can accept that God set out law in the Old Testament, that was clearly to be followed, but it is not followed today. Where did God say, it is no longer necessary to follow those laws?

Paul advocated not applying the Mosiac Law to gentile converts because he realized that it is no longer “The Law” that saves, but rather the crucifixion and death of Our Lord on the cross. He brought the question nto the other Apostles at a meeting in Jerusalem. Before Christ’s death Jews strived to be saved by following “The Law” but that alone was not able to open the gates of heaven to them.

Jesus gave Peter and the Apostles the power to bind and to loose. In Acts at this Council of Jerusalem, Peter made the decision to loose converts to Christianity from the Mosaic Law. The Ten Commandments are still followed because they are a part of what is called the “Natural Law.” which applied and still applies to all of mankind not just Jews. Much of the rest of the Mosiac Law is not based on Natural Law and no longer applies to anyone but observant Jews…

 

[chosen_people]

This is a Catholic discussion forum. Accordingly, i would not be writing from a Jewish point of view (not possible for me anyway, as i am not Jewish). With respect to the purpose of the Law from a Jewish perspective, you would be better served visiting Torah.org

If you check the quote you will find that I was responding to another person whom I presume wished to examine the Jewish law from its original intended perspective. Those who wish such a perspective indeed may find enlightenment at torah.org.

 

[James_Miller]

Pope John Paul II issued an encyclical on St. Joseph. I have read no comments on it. But he says there that it was St. Joseph who circumcised the child Jesus. In a life time of reading I have never come across any identification of the person who circumcised Jesus. Is this to be considered a new doctrine?