Pseudo-Deity

It is of my general understanding that most modern Christians (with the exception of a select few such as the Christian Reconstructionists) believe that all or at least many of the laws laid out in the Old Testament no longer apply due to the New Covenant. What I want to know is when did the perception that the Old Testament laws no longer apply begin in Christianity? Was it there since the early days or was it developed later by Christian theologians as a rationalization for the acceptance of modern Enlightenment values? Could someone familiar with the history of Christian theology illuminate me on the subject?

Toto

This was what separated the Christians from the Jews from the beginning. The Apostle Paul preached against circumcision and the law. In the Book of Acts, God sends a vision to Peter to tell him that all meats can be eaten, even the "unclean" ones.

John Kesler

See this thread.

Pseudo-Deity

How was this interpreted by the many Christian regimes we have had over the past two thousand years? It is of my understanding that a number of interpretations have the Old Testament laws separated into different classes and claim that some classes of laws listed in the Old Testament are still to be followed. Like the Christian Reconstructionists, who separate The Old Testament laws into classes of moral and ceremonial law. They say that Jesus only ended the ceremonial laws, but the moral laws still apply.

To give you an example of what I am looking for. I want to know, for instance how the persecution of homosexuals was theologically justified during the Spanish Inquisition? Was it justified under the Levitical laws? That would mean that it has historically been interpreted that the moral laws in the Old Testament still apply.

Gudjonsson

The author of Matthew did not see it that way:

Matthew 23:2-3
(Here Jesus is speaking) The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat: all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

Toto

Where homosexuals persecuted during the Inquisition? I was not aware of that. If they were, I don't think that the Inquisitors would need to rely on Leviticus, since the Emperor Justinian declared that homosexuality was known to cause earthquakes, floods, and famines. I don't think he would have needed to make that claim if he were relying on written law.

I know that modern apologists find a distinction between the moral laws of the Hebrew Scriptures and the ceremonial laws.

There is an old thread on this:

Homosexuality, Christianity, and "the Law"

and you can find many more if you search the archives for Homosexuality.

There is a claim in this wiki article The_Bible_and_homosexuality:

which is footnoted by a reference to this But all this only seems to justify the Ten Commandments, not other excepts from Leviticus.

Protestants take a similar stance, except for the Puritans and Reconstructionists.

Read more at those links.

It may be questioned if the prohibition of homosexuality is a ceremonial or a moral code. This appears to be the only part of the Mosaic law which raises this issue - Christians do not worry about eating pork, wearing mixed cotton and linen clothes, or planting two different plants in the same field.

judge

Do you think the author of Matthew thought Jesus wanted gentiles to obey the Pharisees as well?

Pseudo-Deity

Granted, I know it isn't the most reliable source in the world, but Wikipedia says:
I'd guess such views were a product of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah mixed with the perception that natural disasters are a product of Gods wrath. I don't think Justinian would believe homosexuality was causing these things if he didn't also believe Gods law on homosexuality is no longer applied.

I find this interesting considering that the Spanish Inquisition was the product of Roman Catholics. Was Thomas Aquinas's theological interpretation of the laws universally accepted during the Spanish Inquisition, or were there competing views within the Roman Catholic Church?

Clouseau

It must be remembered, and it almost always isn't, that Abraham was justified before Moses was born- Jesus could have atoned for sin 4000 years ago, without any need for commandments at all. But the commandments, which applied only to the Israelites anyway, became null and void, as commandments, at the moment that Jesus died, and the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. Now the disciples at Pentecost must have known that the Decalogue no longer applied as law, because the Law was necessarily ended by the new 'law' of faith, which they immediately began to preach. Faith displaces law; one cannot live by both.

'When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled 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.' Col 2:13-14 NIV

There are many, particularly in the USA, who much prefer to live under the Decalogue, because it is concessionary and supports mere respectability and the hypocrisy that is rife in the USA. But Jesus said that merely to hate is wrong, let alone murder, and much of American Christianity is actually lax Judaism without the Jewish ceremonies, etc. A fools' paradise.

Clouseau

Jesus said that before his crucifixion.

And, he having fulfilled the law, justification is available by faith in that fulfilment.