This means that, unfortunately for my non-Christian readers, many posts will often ask a question that is assuming the Bible is true, or at least relevant. However, I still encourage you to comment, whether that be pointing out flawed logic or temporarily assuming the Bible is true.
So here it is:
What is the purpose of the Old Testament Law? What was its purpose before Christ? What is its purpose now?
This forum for discussion has really come along at the right time for me. I'm trying to understand Christianity on its own terms rather than on the terms of secularism for once.
ReplyDeleteCould it be that Jesus, in saying that he did not seek to abolish the old laws, was taking a less-radical stance in order not to alienate his potential disciples? There are plenty of times when politicians have toned down a radical stance to avoid public alienation.
What's interesting is that Jesus's philosophy and rules seem to make more sense in modern times than do Old Testament rules. "Love thy neighbour as thyself" makes a whole lot more sense than "cut off your wife's hand if she punches your enemies in the balls" (paraphrased from Deut.25:11-12). So what if Jesus, rather than totally abolishing Old Testament laws, decided to take the more moderate stance of simple adding to them, for the sake of gaining a substantial following?
If you were Jesus, don't you think that would be smart politics? And if your goal is to teach and save as many people as possible, what's the point of taking a radical, outlandish stance? Change comes slowly and by degrees, and I think Jesus saw that and did the most sensible thing.
But, of course, this is all wild speculation, and not entirely relevant to the question. I'm anxious to hear what others say.
The primary purpose, I believe, of the Old Testament Law is to show us how far we fall short of God’s holy standard. Many people develop the misconception that man can be saved by doing enough “good things” or by following God’s commandments. The problem with this line of thinking is that we can never measure up to holiness. Romans 3:20 expressively states, “…because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His [God’s] sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” What Paul is saying is that the Law shows us that we are in need of a Savior. Without an understanding of our current state we cannot understand our need for Jesus.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I believe, that certain Laws were created in order to protect the people from sickness and disease. For example, they were not permitted to eat meat with blood still in it. This would be a very practical law for the time in which it was given because they did not possess the means to rid the blood of harmful bacteria. Another example would be concerning the laws pertaining to lepers. A leper had to go around proclaiming, “unclean!” so that others would not approach him. This would hinder the spread of the disease and thus protect the people from it.
And finally I believe that some of the Law was put into effect to protect the purity of the Israelites. This idea was founded on the principle of, “bad company corrupts good morals.”(1 Cor. 15:33) For example, if a parent had an unruly child he could take the child outside the city gates and stone him. Laws such as these protect the Israelites from corruption from the inside, and they also place huge impediments in the minds of those who might disobey them.
Now what is the purpose of the Law now? I believe that it shows us that we cannot be given access to Heaven by good works. If we try to match up God’s commands then we see how far we fall short of His holiness. The New Testament is very clear. We, as Christians, are no longer under the Law, but are now under grace. What this means is that we do not have to be justified through our works (Thank God!) but rather we are justified through Christ. That is to say we are judged based on His merit, not our own, because of His sacrifice. All we have to do is put our faith in Him…
Oh and PD I would by no means say that Jesus was less radical than the Old Testament Law. I would argue that He was more radical. Read Matthew 5:21-22 and 27:30. Jesus basically says that hating a brother is as bad as murder, and that lustful thoughts are akin to adultery. The reason being, they are both of the same heart issue, just one is acted upon and one is not. I would not say that He was seeking to become more moderate in order to accrue a following, but rather He was speaking the truth to very lost groups of people whether it made them uncomfortable or not.
*correction* the 2nd verse reference should read 5:27-30
ReplyDeleteOk Demosthenes, if we're no longer under the law, is it still an indicator of what right and wrong is? (ooh! Tying it in to the last post)
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand there were 3 types of laws in the Old Testament: laws that were in place to protect the Israelites and keep them healthy, as mentioned by Demosthenes, sacrificial laws, which are no longer needed because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, and moral laws, which are restated in the New Testament and ARE therefore an indicator of right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteSo that put the stoning of prostitutes in what category...?
ReplyDeleteWell I will admit, I find PD's point to be fascinating if not from a religious standpoint, then surely a sociological one. It is funny that he should mention his quest to view Christianity from a strictly secular view, as I am doing the opposite. Though I am a Christian, I am seeking to view my religion through a secular view at times, so that I can better understand my own faith. This does not mean I am rejecting it, and in fact I feel that it has strengthened my belief, but I feel that one's faith should be able to stand up to scrutiny on its own merits. In this regard Christianity has done splendidly. God is certainly big enough for questions (as he should be). I believe that while my faith is enough for me, I cannot ask one who is not a Christian to accept what the Bible says simply because it says it. The proof must be external, and that is where examining faith from a vantage point external to Christianity comes in handy.
ReplyDeleteTo PD: Your suggestion that I read Freud has been noted, and I have begun to pursue it. His ideas are fascinating, even when they do not abut my own. Also, it seems to me that you might have read at some point the book "The Year of Living Biblically" by AJ Jacobs. (I am assuming that that is where you learned about the hand chopping for testicle touching passage). Even if you have not, I suggest you read it. It is a fascinating read about one who takes what you seek to do in examing faith through a prism other than a secular one to an extreme.
To Demosthenes: I found your argument about the radical nature of Jesus' teachings to be quite compelling. If I may add on to your thoughts, I will append that Jesus' message was beyond radical, and even revolutionary in that by equating what many consider to be relatively minor sins with major ones, he did two different things. Firstly, he risked alienating his followers by preaching a potentially unpopular message. Secondly, and most dangerously, he was a man with a chisel chipping away at one of the most volatile power bases in history. His message threatened Rome because he was viewed as the messiah come to liberate the people (some zealots took this to mean from roman rule), he threatened the priestly class by saying that their doctrines and the power they derived from them, were flawed and lacking, and he threatened the tenuous rule of the puppet King Herod who was scheming ways to gain autonomy, and did not need a possible messiah come to topple his throne during his power grab.
Enough commenting, on to my own thoughts! In this post I will be writing from my religious view. Emily and Demosthenes summed up many of my views on the original purpose of the Law more eloquently than I could have myself, so I will leave that to them. The purpose now is to ensure that we live according to God's plan for us. This sometimes can lead us into conflict with Jesus' statement that he had not come to abolish the law, and his emphasis on mercy. Perhaps I walk a dangerous line here, but I feel that god endowed us with free will to make the decisions that he would want us to make. For example, again with the touching of the testicles passage PD mentioned, which is more consistant with the message of Jesus, that we cut off her hand and, as the Bible says "Let your eye show her no mercy", or do we do what Jesus preached repeatedly, forgive? This has been something that I grappeled with until I realized that the very reason that Jesus came to earth was to underscore what the most important themes in the Torah were and give us an example of how to follow them in the way God wants us to. Without using the rational God endowed us with, we are, to use a Hebrew phrase, Chasid Shote, religious idiots who obey the letter of the law without condsidering God's purpose and intent. This is why its important to know the whole Bible. Without the full scope, you have a very narrow view.
Please comment on my thoughts, and I hope I didn't bore you with the sheer tedium of this enormous post!
Anon above me:
ReplyDeleteNot Freud; Nietzsche. Friedrich Nietzsche. Way different.
Anon above: please elaborate on your phrase "god endowed us with free will to make the decisions that he would want us to make."
ReplyDeleteAnd I own "The Year of Living Biblically" if anyone I know would like to borrow it. Unfortunately I have not read any more then the introduction and first chapter. I intend to one day.
Pardon, I realize that I mistyped that after I posted it. I realize there is a marked difference, but at the moment I was fielding questions from a friend at the time, and my fingers were going faster than my brain. I appologize for any confusion that may have arisen.
ReplyDeleteTo Jake: As a sign of his love for us, God granted humankind the ability to make choices free from control (I anticipate someone will bring up predetirmination at some point, but at the moment, I will leave this aspect out of my answer). These choices can be either good or evil, for his will or against it. The reasons he endowed us with this ability are threefold.
1) God desires for us to love him of our own free will
2) Without the possibility of evil, the concept of good is meaningless
3) We need the ability to descern for a greater good
Take for instance the story in Matthew 12:1. Jesus and his disciples were walking through a grainfield on the Sabath, and were hungry. Though it was against the ten commandments to do so, the disciples broke the Sabath and gathered the gleanings from the field. Though to our modern eyes this smacks of theft, Jewish society at the time had one of the first welfare systems, where farmers were required by the Bible to not harvest a portion of the field so that the needy could gather it to be able to eat. When the Pharisees saw the disciples laboring on the Sabath they denounced them as breakers of the holy law. Jesus' reply was summed up when he said "I desire mercy not sacrifice." This I feel creates a standard. Sometimes when we read too literally and forget the spirit of what God intended we end up doing more wrong than right, thus the term Chasid Shote.
The spirit of God intended we end up doing more wrong than right?
ReplyDeleteThere was supposed to be a comma or a semi colon between "intended" and "we". All hail the power of puntuation! hahaha
ReplyDeleteHaha. Wow. That changes everything.
ReplyDelete