Is the Old Testament Relevant to Christians? Part 3 of 4

 

I encourage you to research the individual propositions within this entry yourself. In your research, please be aware of the bias of your source material (e.g. religious sites versus sceptic's sites versus material meant for pure scientific/philosophical knowledge).

And the questions continue.

If the civil laws were never meant to be applicable to Gentiles and the ceremonial laws became defunct with the coming of Jesus Christ, what civil laws and ceremonial laws are Christians meant to follow?

The Old Testament is very prescriptive when it comes to crimes and punishment and precisely how ceremonial offerings are to be done, and feasts and festivals celebrated. The New Testament – not so much. Now the New Testament mentions “the law” multiple times in reference to “the law” of the Old Testament, but it rarely explicitly states which Old Testament laws (or groups of laws) it is referring to. By no means does the New Testament explicitly lay down the law the way the Old Testament does – legislative style. It is interesting to note however, that despite the continuous references to “the law”, the way the New Testament treats with the law is different from the way it was expected to be followed in Old Testament times.

Paul's letter to the Romans (a genuine Pauline epistle) is probably the best way to show this difference, although I will be the first to declare that the letter is not particularly easy to understand. It's very nuanced (or confusing – depending on your philosophical leaning) and it took several re-readings of specific passages, checking back to my Study Bible, and researching the meaning of particular verses to make sense of the portions that relate to this entry. But I quite like it – in part because it speaks directly to the question of the applicability of “the law”. Here are a few verses that I would like to quote and then explain:

1. “For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not charged when there is no law.” - Roman 5: 13
2. “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? May it never be! However, I wouldn’t have known sin, except through the law. For I wouldn’t have known coveting, unless the law had said, “You shall not covet. But sin, finding occasion through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of coveting. For apart from the law, sin is dead.” - Romans 7: 7-8
3. “Because by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight. For through the law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the law, a righteousness of God has been revealed, being testified by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all those who believe. For there is no distinction, for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God set forth to be an atoning sacrifice, through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness through the passing over of prior sins, in God’s forbearance;” - Romans 3: 20-25
4. “For sin will not have dominion over you. For you are not under law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace? May it never be!” - Romans 6: 14-15
5. “But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter.” - Romans 7: 6

So translating item into simple English, item by item:

1. Sin always existed in the world, but the law had not been explicitly stated from the very beginning. Because of this people were sinning – doing wrong – but there were unaware of the laws they had broken and should have been made accountable for.
2. The law is not evil or defunct. In fact, it is useful because it helps us to identify what sin is – it helps us to tell the difference between right and wrong. However, because the law essentially tells us what is wrong, we find ourselves being tempted to do these wrongs, sinning at the very least in our thoughts.
3. Paul now differentiates between what the law can and can't do. The law can tell us what is wrong. The law can't reveal the righteousness of the Lord – apparently this can only be done apart from the law – through Jesus Christ. Because of the nature of people and the nature of the law, everyone will break the law at some point in their lives – and therefore will sin and fall short of the glory of God. And because the laws can't reveal the righteousness of the Lord, the laws in themselves are not enough. We also need Jesus.
4. Therefore it is no longer the law we need to focus on, but salvation through Jesus. But this does not mean we can break the law (i.e. commit the wrongs that the law helps us to identify).
5. Instead, we should serve the lord “in spirit and in truth” instead of by rigorously following laws to the letter.

This only make sense to me if it is meant to be a shift away from following God by rote and a move towards following God by principle. I say this because it seems to be consistent with Jesus' teachings elsewhere in the New Testament. Instead of giving a new set of the 613 commandments contained in the Old Testament (yes – there are 613, although frankly I thought there would have been more), he taught in parables – seeming to impart principles instead of rules. Also, when he did clarify rules, he seemed to imply that people were carrying out the law to the letter, abusing its loopholes and ignoring the spirit (or intention) of the law.

My favourite example of this is the seemingly contradictory principles of the Old Testament “eye for an eye” and the New Testament “turn the other cheek”. The Old Testament rule had been meant as a means to end feuds in a manner that was perceived as fair – the punishment should be equivalent to and not exceed the crime or the compensation should be equivalent to and not exceed the loss incurred. The New Testament rule was brought to bear because people were abusing the Old Testament rule – using it as a justification for vengeance instead of the final settlement of legal disputes.

Now, applying this new way of thinking to my previous entry where I had selected what I considered nonsensical verses, I can understand how the New Testament approach is far better than the Old. Instead of analysing the law in a pedantic manner to follow it religiously, you try to understand – what is the purpose of this law? What is the principle that God wants us to follow? What is God's intention?

If God's order to cut off a woman's hand if she grabs the “secrets” of another man while he is fighting her husband was intended only to prevent disruption to a male's ability to procreate, I can understand that. So perhaps it's not just about an woman grabbing the man's balls, but really about permanently damaging it, like I was thinking. If God's order to disallow eunuchs from going into leadership positions in the church was to demonstrate his preference for procreation, I can understand that. And I suppose God, being God, is entitled to his biases (I'll actually discuss that at a later entry). But the fact remains that these laws were extremely poorly written. Particularly the law on the testicle-grabbing, because, while it can cause a great deal of pain and even make a man throw up, a well-placed knee to the groin is unlikely to cause permanent damage to a man and cause him to become sterile. Why would God ever write a stupid law like this when, in the vast majority of instances, the man who got the knee to the groin will have no permanent harm come to him, while the woman who committed the “foul offense” will have a single hand for the rest of her life?

To reiterate my point – as much as I agree that understanding and applying a law in principle is far superior to following it to the letter, many Old Testament laws remain nonsensical because they appear to corrupt, misrepresent and misplace emphasis on the principle of the laws they are trying to shape. But there are other problems now that people are now encouraged to follow the principle of the law, guided by the “spirit”.

Suddenly things are open to interpretation. While I understand that people were abusing the possible “loopholes” in the prescriptive laws of the Old Testament – surely an easy task as 613 commandments could never hold a candle to the smallest country's voluminous criminal/civil codes – now the principle of the laws are susceptible to people's personal biases and cultural traditions. Think about it. Let's say the entire world followed a single authority for the source of their moral values, and that authority wakes up one day after having a dream, describes the dream to the world, and then says:

“Because of this dream, I now believe that >these are the laws we must follow<.”

Let's say people are confused and say they don't understand why these laws are necessary and how they must follow them. The single authority travels throughout the western hemisphere saying that the dream explains the importance and purpose of the laws, and these laws are so important they must be followed to the letter. Then the single authority travels throughout the eastern hemisphere saying that the dreams explain the importance and purpose of the laws, and these laws must be followed in spirit (in principle) and in truth (while being true to oneself and the purpose of the law). Imagine how different the western hemisphere will honour the laws from the eastern hemisphere. Not only that, the range of ways in which these laws are followed will be different within hemispheres, with the eastern hemisphere likely to have a wider range than the western, particularly with different cultures and social and economic brackets.

This is probably why there are so many denominations of Christianity (which, I believe, far outnumber the various Muslim, Jewish and Hindu sects). Whether this is what the God of the New Testament and Jesus wanted – a wide interpretation of the laws of God with each person firmly believing that they were following the laws as they should be followed – is an entry unto itself. It speaks to the question of whether there is any such thing as a personal truth. That is a wonderful entry that I had started and do intend to finish in the future.

I must admit though that I found understanding Paul's very nuanced letter to the Roman quite inspiring, especially when I linked it to the bits of research I had done on particular preachings of Jesus and found that it can be tied together. But like I described above, there are still problems. And I still haven't gotten into all of them.

Is the Old Testament Relevant to Christians? Part 2 of 4

 

I encourage you to research the individual propositions within this entry yourself. In your research, please be aware of the bias of your source material (e.g. religious sites versus sceptic's sites versus material meant for pure scientific/philosophical knowledge).

As I said in the previous entry, while I now understand which parts of the Old Testament are applicable, I still have a lot of lingering questions. This is not to say that at least some of these questions don't have appropriate answers. They probably do, but require a level of research that I am perhaps not fully prepared to carry out – maybe because the answers are buried within inordinate amounts of information (as opposed to directed Internet essays which can then be referenced back to my Study Bible). I have a lot of questions, and fear that each may require its own entry. But let's just start with one:

Does the bible really have such a clear cut line between civil, ceremonial and moral law?

The short answer is “no”.

This consideration was actually discussed in several web pages. But I still view it as a concern for reasons I will now go into.

So let's say you're reading your bible like a good Christian girl, and you stumble across a rule or practice that is either condoned, preferred or explicitly commanded by God. How do you know which category the law falls into? After reading the different types of laws, you understand now that the category the law falls into is important because this determines whether you should still be following it or not. You're not always going to get the answer directly from the Bible itself because the bible was not written in such a sectionalised way. So how are you going to resolve this?

Well, distinguishing between civil law and ceremonial law may not be too difficult – most confusion here may stem from a lack of understanding of the definitions themselves. A little googling and flipping through the pages of your Study Bible might help fix that misunderstanding. But perhaps this is not the case for moral law and any other. A moral code, after all, is the fabric from which all other laws are weaved. So how can any other law – be it civil or ceremonial – be considered in isolation from it?

I think they can – to an extent anyway – for ceremonial laws in particular. Generally speaking, ceremonies (and therefore ceremonial laws – be they from a religious text or elsewhere) are symbolic – they have only as much meaning as is ascribed to them. This meaning is relevant only to the extent that it reminds its participants of some greater underlying tenet.

For example:

“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not crossbreed different kinds of animals. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; neither shall there come upon on you a garment made of two kinds of material.” - Leviticus 19: 19

The vest I'm wearing as we speak is 65% cotton and 35% polyester (it was also made in China). That God would be upset with my wearing such a vest is patently absurd. However, it appears that the “moral” basis of this ceremonial law is to be holy and separate oneself from ungodly mindsets. Not mixing fabric in clothing was therefore a symbolic representation of not mixing good with evil. So if God wanted Israel to partake in symbolism (clothing) in commemoration of his covenant, this is perfectly reasonable. And it would not be contradictory to then say that us Gentiles don't have to partake in such symbolism, but that we do still need to maintain the underlying principle upon which this symbolic Israeli law was based.

Now I want to make something strikingly clear – and this is a criticism for atheist/agnostic sites. Many non-believers pick up verses like these (including my younger self) and say – look at what bullshit God wants us to follow. But I am realising more and more that such verses need to be put into perspective. Absurd as these things seem to be, they were symbolic – important religious gestures (key word being “gestures” in this context) – not inherently good/evil acts. What's more, they are gestures which are no longer applicable.

The only point I would allow to agnostics/atheists in this matter is that some of these gestures, in addition to being a bit silly, seem counterintuitive. That God would ever (in ye ancient times or modern days) want anyone (his chosen people or Gentiles) to follow these laws seem extremely nonsensical. I'll get into a couple later, so in the mean time, let's move on to the distinction between civil law and moral law.

Now, whether we can make the distinction between the moral code and civil law is less obvious. Particularly for the criminal aspect of the civil code. Think about it. The civil code is really a two part consideration – the first being the crime or the unfavourable action requiring compensation and the second being the punishment or the compensation itself. It seems that Christians no longer consider the punishment/compensation relevant, but consider at least some of the crimes still relevant as it relates to the breaking of some aspect of the moral code. For example:

“If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” - Leviticus 20:13

So in the verse above, homosexuality is the crime and death is the punishment. A modern day gay guy then will no longer be put to death, but is still considered to be engaging in moral wrongs. Just as an aside, I have seen quite a few websites dedicated to explaining why homosexuality (which is not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament, believe it or not) is no longer wrong. I assume these persons are arguing that homosexuality is a ceremonial prohibition instead of a moral sin – so, much like eating pork was forbidden in ye olden days, but you can stuff your ass with ham at Christmas time, homosexuality was an abomination in the Old Testament days, but now you can stuff your ass with cock any day of the week.

It's an interesting argument, perhaps not entirely baseless, but still a losing one in the end. It's something I hope to research further and discuss in a much later entry and so don't intend to discuss at length here. But the mere fact that homosexuals who argue this point have a toe to stand on (and it's just a toe – maybe two toes, but certainly no more), demonstrates in part the difficulty in distinguishing between a strictly civil law and one that is also based on a moral law. The Old Testament specifies punishments for many things, including the contravention of ceremonial laws, and it is not always easy to determine whether the law being contravened was moral or ceremonial.

This is why some people consider the splitting of Old Testament law into the 3 laws as an arbitrary distinction. This certainly makes following Old Testament laws “the way a Christian should” problematic. It seems to me, in order to be in the clear, you need to have a pretty close relationship with your bible (and the Internet) and research the individual propositions, particularly within civil laws. The vast majority of people however do not do this. They rely instead on what the leaders in the branch of their religion tells them (the Pope, their pastor, etc) and, depending on their age, filter it with the current cultural mores.

There are a lot of extremely religious people I know, for instance, who freely engage in “fornication” let's say. Most (but certainly not all) are not fucking for the fun of it – they seem to restrict the fucking for dedicated boyfriends. But they certainly had premarital sex and it quite often was not with just one person. Is this okay? Without doing the specific research, I believe I can hazard a response, as when I bring up God after a lively discussion on what sexual adventures they conducted with their boyfriend, they tend to clam up. Of course, I have only conducted this experiment a very small number of times because even before broaching a religious topic at this juncture, I sense to do so may not be particularly welcoming. But what is the issue at hand here? Are people cherry-picking the bible to suit their own personal vices? Or are people abiding by cultural norms that have been justified (in some small part) through the bible itself?

Another interesting example is that God forbade cross-dressing (men wearing women's clothes or women wearing men's clothes) in Deuteronomy 22: 5. Is this a ceremonial law or a moral law? The way many people talk about transvestites (whether or not they're gay) you would think it is a moral law, but is it? Laws on clothing after all were generally characterised as ceremonial. But I thought – well it had to be a moral law because God called cross-dressing an abomination. But you know what he also called an abomination?

• Eating flesh of a peace offering on the third day, as opposed to the first or second day when it is allowed (Leviticus 7: 18).
• Offering an imperfect animal to God as a sacrifice (Deuteronomy 17: 1).
• Coming near to a menstruous woman (Ezekiel 18: 6)

The list of abominations is quite long. Take a gander of:

http://richardwaynegarganta.com/abomination.htm

So God calling something an abomination isn't the gold standard of sin. But what this demonstrates here is how blurry the lines are between the different laws and, also – quite significantly, how blurry the lines therefore are between deliberate cherry-picking, subconscious cherry-picking and whole-sale misinterpretation. How can people feel comfortable that what they're doing is really the right thing? I simply don't know. This question seems to be unanswerable (unless, like I said, they read the bible closely). I think my next entry may address this concern in the end, but we will see how even this answer is not conclusive.

In any case, it seems we can go no further. So let's end it here, and, as previously promised, here are a couple examples of ceremonial and civil laws I find nonsensical:

• “When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draws near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him who strikes him, and puts forth her hand, and takes him by the secrets; then you shall cut off her hand, your eye shall have no pity.” - Deuteronomy 25: 11-12

So if a wife intervenes in a fight between her husband and another man, and she grabs the genitals of the other man (I assume with the intention of debilitating), her hand must be cut off. The Christian sites I've seen dealing with this link it to the importance of the perpetuation of the family – the punishment of the woman is severe because she may be limiting the ability of the other man to have a family. But I simply cannot accept this explanation at face value. If perpetuation of the family was the important factor here, then the verse would talk about either man's genitals being damaged in the fight, not simply grabbed by a third party. Although I understand that the intention of the person doing the grabbing will factor in, it seems unbearably harsh to have the same punishment for the intention to temporarily deliver pain, as well as the successful committing of bodily harm, particularly when it is in defense of one's husband or even his life. Also the perpetrator of the damage should be irrelevant, yet it is oddly focused on the woman.

• “He who is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh.” - Deuteronomy 23: 1

While this verse is mostly directed to eunuchs, it also refers to those “wounded in the stones” emphasising how important fully functional male genitals are to God. And this, I think, gives more insight into the first example verse I gave. A eunuch, by the way, is a man who was castrated early in his childhood in order to influence hormonal changes and prepare him for a life of servitude. It may also refer to impotent men, celibate men, or men otherwise not inclined to “go forth and multiply”. Why God would ever want to deny certain persons rights to membership in the Assembly (which I believe is not the church itself but perhaps Church leadership) because of factors mostly outside of a person's control (castration at boyhood, medical impotence) is beyond me. Then again, God is no stranger to discrimination.

More questions to come.

Is the Old Testament Relevant to Christians? Part 1 of 4

 

I encourage you to research the individual propositions within this entry yourself. In your research, please be aware of the bias of your source material (e.g. religious sites versus sceptic's sites versus material meant for pure scientific/philosophical knowledge).

Within the Christian faith, the Old Testament and New Testament are undoubtedly related. They're like brothers. It's a bit more than that. They are related and they have authority – over a metaphorical "you". So they're probably like your uncles. One uncle is a pretty cool guy. Sure he can be pretty strict and make the few off-colour comments, but in many ways, he's kind, generous and forgiving. He says the most insightful things every now and then, and he ain't a complete buzz kill at parties. The other uncle is a dick. Most people don't like being around him. He's despotic, egomaniacal, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic. Plus he's got some pretty strange hygienic and dietary habits. He is also at times insightful and forgiving, but when compared to his other traits, these characteristics seem far less apparent.

Now, people go to church with both uncles. Both. To leave off the running metaphor here, Christians, when they refer to their "scripture", they refer to the bible, which is comprised of both a New and Old Testament. Both of them are there. They don't, upon the purchase of a new bible, rip it in half, and then proceed to church with that.

The reason I am making these points is because on more than one occasion, when bringing up the crazy shit I find in the bible with someone, he/she is quick to dismiss the said crazy shit on the point that it came from the Old Testament. I never fully understood this defense, because it seemed to me that they were disavowing half of their holy text far too easily. At the same time however, they may have a point. If the New Testament was simply a rehash of the Old Testament, with the single addition of a demi-god (Jesus), then Jews should be no different from Christians other than a belief in Jesus.

This is simply not the case. Christians and Jews dress differently, eat differently, worship differently; if one spent a week at the house of a strict Christian family and then another week a the house of a strict Jewish family, one would find several similarities, but also a couple of differences. So now that it seems that the question I have been leading up to is quite well worth asking, let me proceed to ask it:

Is the Old Testament relevant to (and therefore cannot be disavowed by) Christians?

Well, as is true of most theological questions, the answer is not definitive. There is a general consensus, but it is by no means absolute. The general consensus is around the response: “Yes”.

To give some time to the nay-sayers, the beliefs they hold seem to centre around Jesus' arrival and death fulfilling and then abrogating Old Testament Laws and replacing it with New Testament Laws. The nay-sayers do however generally admit that some of these New Testament laws are quite similar to Old Testament Laws. The denominations of Christians who hold this view include a couple branches of Protestants (e.g. Solo Christo) and as well of Baptists. But let's not dwell on these people – the yeas have it after all.

So now that we mostly agree that the Old Testament is relevant to Christians, the next question should logically follow:

Is the ENTIRE Old Testament relevant to (and therefore cannot be disavowed by) Christians?

Once again, the consensus is general and not absolute. The minority, this time, are the yeas. The Christians who fall under this minority banner are generally Jewish Christians. Admittedly though, a Jewish Christian is most likely to relate to a person of Jewish descent who had turned to Christ, usually back in the early days of Christianity (1^st, 2^nd or 3^rd centuries). So let's not pay much more attention to these people.

So we've established that at least part of the Old Testament is relevant to Christians. The next natural question is:

Which parts of the Old Testament is relevant to (and therefore cannot be disavowed by) Christians?

No surprises this time – no absolute consensus. And this question is the most contested question of all. It would be quite difficult for me to cover the spectrum of opinions here, but I'm going to give it a shot, focusing on the opinion that seems to be the most popular, as well as what makes the most sense to me, while sparing a little time to where popular opinion strays. From my research, it appears that the laws of the Old Testament can be split into 3 basic groups:

1. Civil/Judicial Law
2. Ceremonial Law
3. Moral Law

Civil Law

What is it?

These laws are exactly what you think they are – biblical criminal laws and common laws. Much like our (usually) secular justice system covers punishment for murder, theft, perjury, etc, the bible has laws on these crimes and their deserving punishments (criminal law). Just as we have law which manages disputes between individuals or between organisations or between individuals and organisations, and awards compensation for damages incurred, the bible has the same (common law). The key difference between biblical civil law and (most) secular civil law is that these biblical laws also covers “moral” crimes such as adultery, homosexuality, etc. Of course that the punishments are generally different (often more severe) than secular laws also go without saying.

Is it relevant?

Hate to sound like a broken record here, but there is no absolute consensus. Most Christians seem to agree that it is not. These Christians (and practically all Jews) consider such laws relevant specifically to the nation of Israel, a covenant between God and his recently freed chosen people as a commemoration of their freedom from bondage and special relationship with God. They are therefore not applicable to us “Gentile” Christians. There are quite a few Christian sects however, mostly from Puritanical movements, which still consider it relevant and therefore that it can be implemented although it would not be absolutely necessary to do so.

What does this mean for (most) Christians then?

It means that if your son is stubborn, rebellious, disobedient, a glutton and a drunkard, you don't have to turn him over to the men of the city to be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21).

Ceremonial Law

What is it?

This relates to regulations on worship, cleanliness, festivals, food and specific laws for the priesthood.

Is it relevant?

Take a wild guess. There is even dispute within this category; while most Christian sects consider all ceremonial laws currently irrelevant, more than a few consider certain ceremonial laws, such as the food restrictions, still applicable. Like the civil law, those who consider it no longer applicable, believe this because these laws are specific to the nation of Israel. Some would go as far as saying that implementing such laws is a patent denial of the coming of Jesus Christ and is therefore some dire form of sin. At any rate, Christians generally make reference to verses like:

“For the law, having a shadow of the good to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near” - Hebrews 10: 1

“... then he has said, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He takes away the first, that he may establish the second, by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” - Hebrews 10: 9-10

In my King James Study Bible, they refer to Hebrews Chapter 10 verses 1 to 18 as “the failure of the old covenant” and go on to clarify these verses by explaining they were contrasting the repetitious nature of the service in the Mosaic system (where sacrifices had to be made annually as penance for sins) to the one-time sacrifice of the system under Jesus. To broaden the perspective, which is described in part here, Christians generally view the Ceremonial laws of the Old Testament (e.g. the Passover festival) as forward looking – “a shadow of the good to come” (the “good” being Jesus Christ's upcoming sacrifice). They therefore ceased to be relevant upon Jesus' coming. Current religious rites (e.g. Communion) are backward looking or reflective – i.e. looking back and celebrating Christ's death. All have the same meaning, but from a different perspective.

What does this mean for Christians when?

It means that you don't have to ask your female work colleagues whether they're on their period, or if they've had their period within the last week, before shaking their hands at the end of a business meeting, sitting on any chairs they sat on, or touching any reports they handed in, lest you be unclean until nightfall (Leviticus 15: 9-28).

Moral Law

What is it?

Most Christians agree – moral laws are the regulatory expression of God's unchanging character, summarised in the Old Testament (particularly in the Ten Commandments) and reiterated throughout the bible.

Is it relevant?

I fear I may have given away the answer when describing God's character as “unchanging”. Here, the answer is proposed to be yes. The following quote made by Jesus (according to the Bible) is often offered as the basis for this:

“Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven” - Matthew 5: 18-19

What does it mean for Christians then?

It means you need to stop saying the Lord's name in vain when you're fuckin.

Conclusion???

Conclude??? I can't conclude yet. Because even after doing all of this research, I still have some problems and a unresolved questions. These will be covered in the next entry. Stay posted.