FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-26-2007, 06:15 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 888
Default Historical interpretations of Old Testament laws and the New Covenant

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?
Pseudo-Deity is offline  
Old 09-26-2007, 06:39 PM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

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.
Toto is offline  
Old 09-26-2007, 07:34 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 1,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pseudo-Deity View Post
What I want to know is when did the perception that the Old Testament laws no longer apply begin in Christianity?

See this thread.
John Kesler is offline  
Old 09-27-2007, 04:29 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
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.
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.
Pseudo-Deity is offline  
Old 09-27-2007, 11:21 AM   #5
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Akureyri, Iceland.
Posts: 104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
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.
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.
Gudjonsson is offline  
Old 09-27-2007, 01:42 PM   #6
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pseudo-Deity View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
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.
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.
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:

Quote:
"Mainstream Christianity has always recognised the authority of many of the ethical commands of the Old Testament".[1] For example Article 7 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England says that Christians are still bound by the moral commandments, although not the ceremonial, ritual or civil laws.
which is footnoted by a reference to this
Quote:
Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas explained that there is a threefold division in the Law: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. God's commands were "ordained for a double purpose; the worship of God, and the foreshadowing of Christ." Upon the advent of Christ, the purpose of all the ceremonial and judicial commands, which was to pre-figure Christ, was fulfilled, causing them to be "annulled" and "dead."[3] The moral commands remain for the worship of God, summed up in the Ten Commandments.
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.

Quote:
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) divides the Mosaic laws into three categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. In the view of the Westminster divines, only the moral laws of the Mosaic Law, which include the Ten Commandments and the commands repeated in the New Testament, directly apply to Christians today.

...

In a revival of ideas established in the Puritan period, starting in the 1970s and 1980s, a branch of Reformed theology known as Christian Reconstructionism argued that the civil laws as well as the moral laws should be applied in today's society (a position called Theonomy) as part of establishing a modern theonomic state.
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.
Toto is offline  
Old 09-27-2007, 02:23 PM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gudjonsson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
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.
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
.
Do you think the author of Matthew thought Jesus wanted gentiles to obey the Pharisees as well?
judge is offline  
Old 09-27-2007, 05:10 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pseudo-Deity View Post
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.
Where homosexuals persecuted during the Inquisition? I was not aware of that.
Granted, I know it isn't the most reliable source in the world, but Wikipedia says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
Inquisitorial repression of the sexual offences of homosexuality and bestiality, considered, according to Canon Law, crimes against nature, merits separate attention. Homosexuality, known at the time as sodomy, was punished by death by civil authorities. It fell under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition only in the territories of Aragon, when, in 1524, Clement VII, in a papal brief, granted jurisdiction over sodomy to the Inquisition of Aragon, whether or not it was related to heresy. In Castile, cases of sodomy were not adjudicated, unless related to heresy. The tribunal of Zaragoza distinguished itself for its severity in judging these offences: between 1571 and 1579 more than 100 men accused of sodomy were processed and at least 36 were executed; in total, between 1570 and 1630 there were 534 trials and 102 executions
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
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'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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
which is footnoted by a reference to this
Quote:
Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas explained that there is a threefold division in the Law: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. God's commands were "ordained for a double purpose; the worship of God, and the foreshadowing of Christ." Upon the advent of Christ, the purpose of all the ceremonial and judicial commands, which was to pre-figure Christ, was fulfilled, causing them to be "annulled" and "dead."[3] The moral commands remain for the worship of God, summed up in the Ten Commandments.
But all this only seems to justify the Ten Commandments, not other excepts from Leviticus.
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?
Pseudo-Deity is offline  
Old 09-27-2007, 05:54 PM   #9
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,918
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pseudo-Deity View Post
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?
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 is offline  
Old 09-27-2007, 05:57 PM   #10
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,918
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gudjonsson View Post
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
Jesus said that before his crucifixion.

Quote:
Matthew 5:17
Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.
And, he having fulfilled the law, justification is available by faith in that fulfilment.
Clouseau is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:59 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.