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 (1st, 2nd or 3rd 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:
- Civil/Judicial Law
- Ceremonial Law
- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment